British Invasion of Argentina, AD 1982

[World Mapping]

Today, I learned this:

"Although it wasn't public knowledge until 2012, Chile played a large, covert role in the Falklands Conflict. Without the early warnings provided to the British by the Chilean air force's radar network and the use of coastal air bases for refueling, the smaller British RAF would be far outmatched by the outdated but much larger Argentinian air force. It was estimated by the RAF that if they lost even a single carrier in the conflict, they would have lost the islands unless they were willing to land an invasion on the mainland which would have escalated the conflict into a full-blown war and severely damaged international relations."

Let's say that Chile doesn't cooperate, and Argentina successfully captures the Islas Malvinas, resulting in an escalation of the conflict. What happens next?

 

[juanml82]

If they loose a carrier, how are they providing air support for a full blown invasion of the mainland?

It's possible that the author is actually talking about the attempted commando raid on the Rio Grande Naval Base, which housed the Navy Super Etandard fighters. It was attempted but the weather crashed the helicopters. The commander of the base was preparing for that and had turned the base into a fortress. He claimed it would have been suicide for the British to try.

The British could only reach Argentina's mainland with sporadic Black Buck missions from Ascension and Harrier jump jets. The problem with the Harriers was that they lacked range and could only carry a single bomb (I don't recall if 500 or 1000 pounds, I think the later). So the Royal Navy would have had to put the carriers relatively close to the mainland, and risk land based attacks on them, while the Harriers would have provided limited air support. To make matter worse, rather than facing isolated, immobile troops sitting in marsh, they would have been taking into the best units of the Argentine army (because someone had the amazing idea of keeping the best units out of the fighting), which a far better logistical support line. And while individually British units would have been superior to the Argentine ones, air support and logistics would have defined that invasion. But I don't see the British trying with just Harriers for air support.

 

[Evil Crusader]

If Chile doesn't cooperate, that changes the whole situation and the British plans. They likely didn't sail across the globe only to find out that Chile wouldn't, in the end, provide help. And Chile had a lot of reasons to help out the UK.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

It could be quite abig deal.
For a start, Thatcher's Falklands war election win is compromised, though most likely a win (probably after a full term) with reduced majority rather than defeat. This could lead to an early leadership change (likely for someone seen as a bit more moderate like Heseltine or Ken Clarke).
This has big impacts on Britain (loss of international prestige and some of the more controversial policies forestalled - so no poll tax [1]). The absence of Thatcher working with Reagan may stall or slow the rise of Reaganomics, which could have major worldwide economic implications.
[1] poll tax was a big deal at the time. Big enough to easily derail this thread, so I'll stop there.

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The British could only reach Argentina's mainland with sporadic Black Buck missions from Ascension

You mean those same "Black Bucks" that flew past the Argie mainland to get to the Falklands?

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Without the early warnings provided to the British by the Chilean air force's radar network and the use of coastal air bases for refueling, the smaller British RAF would be far outmatched by the outdated but much larger Argentinian air force.

Those 'early warnings' that you cite only gave a warning of an air attack . . . not the direction or route onto the Falklands.

If they'd did, the SHAR's would've been able to intercept them better.

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

If Chile doesn't cooperate, that changes the whole situation and English plans. They likely didn't sail across the globe only to find out that Chile wouldn't, in the end, provide help. And Chile had a lot of reasons to help out the English.

Chile's help was bonus . . . not a be all and end all for the sailing of the Task Force and landings.

 

[yulzari1]

If Chile doesn't cooperate, that changes the whole situation and English plans. They likely didn't sail across the globe only to find out that Chile wouldn't, in the end, provide help. And Chile had a lot of reasons to help out the English.

Minor pedantry but England is just a part of the country. British if you please.

 

[Simreeve]

It could be quite abig deal.
For a start, Thatcher's Falklands war election win is compromised, though most likely a win (probably after a full term) with reduced majority rather than defeat. This could lead to an early leadership change (likely for someone seen as a bit more moderate like Heseltine or Ken Clarke).
This has big impacts on Britain (loss of international prestige and some of the more controversial policies forestalled - so no poll tax [1]). The absence of Thatcher working with Reagan may stall or slow the rise of Reaganomics, which could have major worldwide economic implications.
[1] poll tax was a big deal at the time. Big enough to easily derail this thread, so I'll stop there.

There was enough fuss being made by various people (not all of them Conservatives) about needing a fairer system to replace the rates, so I wouldn't rule out the Community Charge (which, FYI, was that tax's actual name) or something similar anyway.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Minor pedantry but England is just a part of the country. British if you please.

Edited.

 

[juanml82]

You mean those same "Black Bucks" that flew past the Argie mainland to get to the Falklands?

The didn't flew past, as the mainland wasn't in the way, but they had the range to bomb the coast of the province of Buenos Aires, and maybe a bit south than that. But you still can't rely on that to provide air support to a major land invasion

 

[CaptainCalvert]

There was enough fuss being made by various people (not all of them Conservatives) about needing a fairer system to replace the rates, so I wouldn't rule out the Community Charge (which, FYI, was that tax's actual name) or something similar anyway.

Replacing a poor system with a worse one is rarely a good idea, especially when strongly warned that the replacement system is flawed and unpopular. The poll tax and associated riots [1] cost Thatcher her premiership and if it hadn't been quicklyreplaced by the Council tax after her replacement, would probably have resulted in loss of the 1992 election.
[1] Everybody, called it the Poll Tax, and even the Department of the Environment acknowledged it was known as the Poll Tax, and thats how it's known still. Certainly the Poll Tax riots were known by that name from day 1. The Wikipedia article on the Poll Tax is actuallly quite good (bound to have a few good articles slip through).

 

[David Flin]

Without the early warnings provided to the British by the Chilean air force's radar network and the use of coastal air bases for refueling, the smaller British RAF would be far outmatched by the outdated but much larger Argentinian air force. It was estimated by the RAF that if they lost even a single carrier in the conflict, they would have lost the islands unless they were willing to land an invasion on the mainland which would have escalated the conflict into a full-blown war and severely damaged international relations."

As a point of pedantry, the planes intercepting the Argentine air force and doing the aerial combat stuff were Fleet Air Arm, not RAF.

The RAF was really unconvinced by Operation Corporate, and their estimates of consequences need to be taken with the awareness that they were seriously unhappy with the fact that the FAA was demonstrating their initial estimates as being, to use technical jargon, "complete crap". The views of the Crabfats need to be viewed with the awareness that their reports were more interested in internal service politics than in actual examination of the war.

Once the Marines and Paras were safely landed with their equipment, the entire Grey Funnel War Canoes could have sank without trace, and the islands still get taken. Any change to outcome requires a POD before May 21. Post May 21, all one is playing about with are the details.

The early raid warnings were of very modest value. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to by "the use of coastal air bases for refuelling", as the British planes didn't get anywhere near the mainland. The air bases they used (apart from the rather pointless Black Buck raids) were the movable ones carried by Hermes and Invincible. Fairly obviously, as CAP needed to be able to interdict flights over the area of interest, not at ranges beyond extreme range for the Harriers.

Landing an invasion on the mainland. Scoffs. Anyone who suggests that as a viable military option is an imbecile. I'll ignore the political, logistical, economic, and resource impossibilities of the idea. Simply the idea that Britain could land troops onto Argentina successfully is ludicrous. That's an area I know a little bit about.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Today, I learned this:

"Although it wasn't public knowledge until 2012, Chile played a large, covert role in the Falklands Conflict. Without the early warnings provided to the British by the Chilean air force's radar network and the use of coastal air bases for refueling, the smaller British RAF would be far outmatched by the outdated but much larger Argentinian air force. It was estimated by the RAF that if they lost even a single carrier in the conflict, they would have lost the islands unless they were willing to land an invasion on the mainland which would have escalated the conflict into a full-blown war and severely damaged international relations."

Let's say that Chile doesn't cooperate, and Argentina successfully captures the Islas Malvinas, resulting in an escalation of the conflict. What happens next?

There is no way Britain could or would instigate an invasion of the mainland.

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The didn't flew past, as the mainland wasn't in the way, but they had the range to bomb the coast of the province of Buenos Aires, and maybe a bit south than that. But you still can't rely on that to provide air support to a major land invasion

Depends what your interpretation of the phrase "flew past" is then I suppose.