Changing in the Falklands War

Shamrock Holmes

While reading this thread:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ahc-make-the-uk-lose-the-falklands-conflict.464366/

I was wondering what the likely outcome on the war would have been if the RN had followed the US's example and kept a "big gun" ship or two in reserve* that could have been pulled out to add to the fleet's firepower, as while the RN had a numerical (and airpower?) advantage, the firepower of the surface warships were on-par, in fact Type-42 destroyers were the newest "big ships" in both fleets.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_(23) seems like the best option.
 
juanml82

juanml82

Well, what does the RN doesn't have in order to keep HMS Vanguard operative for 30 more years, including mid-life repairs? Or are we assuming the RN gets a budget boost for those three decades?

Assuming the ship is active (would a mothballed ship be able to be put in action in such short notice?), it would be used to pound Stanley and later Goose Garden with its guns. It's also a big, very visible target for air attacks, if she's employed during the day. She also has far more AAA batteries than any other ship, but if hit, wouldn't the armor increase the chances for bombs to blow?

But we fall back to the budget issues. Maybe the RN cuts on the Harriers to save funds for HMS Vanguard, or into other surface combatants. So the Task Force sails south with a battleship, but no Type 42 destroyers because they are still under development. Or they have just one carrier.
 

Gunnarnz

juanml82 said:
... if hit, wouldn't the armor increase the chances for bombs to blow?
Click to expand...

The way I understand it, the relatively high proportion of unexploded bombs was because they were being dropped from such low altitudes that they didn't have time to arm. It had nothing to do with a frigate not being solid enough to detonate them.
 

Nick P

Donor
eltf177 said:
It's a pity Lion wasn't around, her four rapid-fire 6-inch guns would have been quite useful...
Click to expand...

If HMS Blake and Tiger were not mothballed and the large crews had been available, then we could have had some large gun cruisers down south. There were also doubts about their AA defences.
Give them a half decent AA capability in the mid-70s and keep them running into the early 80s, maybe as a cadet training ship, and then you might see them down south.

The other one that springs to mind is HMS Belfast.... :D:openedeyewink:
 

Riain

Banned
The last big gun ships in the RN were Tiger and Blake, with their twin 6" turrets with a high rate of fire. By themselves they won't do much, however if kept in service as part of a generally bigger RN with conventional aircraft carriers then the combination of powerful fixed wing aircraft and powerful surface gunnery capability opens the possibility for a landing close to Stanley directly into the teeth of the defending units.
 
juanml82

juanml82

Gunnarnz said:
The way I understand it, the relatively high proportion of unexploded bombs was because they were being dropped from such low altitudes that they didn't have time to arm. It had nothing to do with a frigate not being solid enough to detonate them.
Click to expand...
You're right, but such a heavy armor might cause the bombs to get stuck and either end up detonating or exploding while bomb squads try to disarm them
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the RN had the funding available to keep a heavy surface combatant in service or even in 30 day ready reserve status, which is the most it could have been if it was going to take part in the action, it would have been vastly better off keeping the Ark Royal in service. If the RN had a CATOBAR carrier in the inventory the whole Falklands War would likely never have happened. The Sea Harrier was an entirely unproven design, while the F4 Phantom and Buccaneer were well respected designs.
 

Marquis

Keep Renown around for lolz. WW1 battlecruiser doing its job in the 1980s - running down and dispatching large cruisers. She was in good nick post-war.
 

Gunnarnz

CalBear said:
If the RN had a CATOBAR carrier in the inventory the whole Falklands War would likely never have happened.
Click to expand...

This keeps coming up, but I'm not persuaded. To me, it seems most likely that the Argentines took the Falklands because they didn't think the UK would fight, it had nothing to do with whether they could. That might have made the operation easier to sell in Buenos Aires - "Even if they wanted to, they couldn't stop us!" - but if they thought the UK would actually accept the challenge then there's a lot of things they could have differently. In that respect, it doesn't matter whether the UK has a CATOBAR carrier, SSBNs, or Benny Hill with a saxophone: none of it will be used, so who cares?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Gunnarnz said:
This keeps coming up, but I'm not persuaded. To me, it seems most likely that the Argentines took the Falklands because they didn't think the UK would fight, it had nothing to do with whether they could. That might have made the operation easier to sell in Buenos Aires - "Even if they wanted to, they couldn't stop us!" - but if they thought the UK would actually accept the challenge then there's a lot of things they could have differently. In that respect, it doesn't matter whether the UK has a CATOBAR carrier, SSBNs, or Benny Hill with a saxophone: none of it will be used, so who cares?
Click to expand...
To a degree I would agree with your position. That is the other impact of maintaining a CATOBAR capability. The decision to maintain a carrier battle group would help to indicate the ongoing willingness to commit to serious military operations. One of the messages the hollowing out of the RN unintentionally sent was that the UK was "giving up", that the British no longer were willing to maintain the cost of world-wide military presence.

While it veers away from the OP's question, it could be strongly argued that even the continuous presence of a squadron of Jaguars or Buccaneers in the Islands would have been more than enough to convince the Junta that the British were very much still paying attention and still "cared" about the Islands.
 

Pseudo

CalBear said:
To a degree I would agree with your position. That is the other impact of maintaining a CATOBAR capability. The decision to maintain a carrier battle group would help to indicate the ongoing willingness to commit to serious military operations. One of the messages the hollowing out of the RN unintentionally sent was that the UK was "giving up", that the British no longer were willing to maintain the cost of world-wide military presence.

While it veers away from the OP's question, it could be strongly argued that even the continuous presence of a squadron of Jaguars or Buccaneers in the Islands would have been more than enough to convince the Junta that the British were very much still paying attention and still "cared" about the Islands.
Click to expand...
I'm under the impression that the main motivation behind the invasion was to quiet the domestic dissent that threatened the Junta. They're still going to need to do that and if it's a choice between seizing Picton, Lennox and Nueva which Chile will definitely resist and could ignite a long-lasting and costly conflict, or invading The Falklands which the UK might not resist and even if they do might struggle to do much about even with a CATOBAR carrier given the logistical difficulties of supporting a task force eight thousand miles away from its home base, then I think that the balance of risks likely favours invading The Falklands.
 

yulzari

Of the two options before the PM, one was to go now with what could be scratched together and the other was to wait for the summer and go mob handed including Tiger and Blake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top