Falkland War Question/POD

So we all know how OTL War went, but what if the UK had sent more submarines to Argentine coast and carried out more attacks against their warships?

Did the UK have any missile capable subs that might have been able to attack Argentine air bases?

I just have wiki as a resource, so there may be answers to my questions and POD's already.

Thanks for your time and answers. :)
 
Last edited:
Why would that be the best use of such forces? A basic principal of military operations is to concentrate your forces to the maximum possible extent. They needed everything to fight the actual war in the Falklands. Going off joyriding to look for for merchant ships would have escalated the conflict and achieved little of strategic value.

Only way this happens is if the initial landing force is somehow repulsed (very hard to imagine this happening) and it turns into a prolonged war of attrition.
 
Ok, ignore the comment about merchant ships. What of the question of having more subs going after more Argentine warships? Did any UK subs have missiles that might be able to target Argentine airbases?
 
Ok, ignore the comment about merchant ships. What of the question of having more subs going after more Argentine warships? Did any UK subs have missiles that might be able to target Argentine airbases?

Given how much effect Argentine warships had on the war, it doesn't really make a ha'porth of difference how many subs are busy building up decorations for their Jolly Roger.

I'm fairly sure the RN subs didn't have cruise missiles at the time, although I stand to be corrected on that. It's immaterial. Politically, doing anything outside of the TEZ would have been problematic. Look at the fuss that arose over the Belgrano, which was stooging around on the fringe. A direct, open attack on the Argentine mainland would have led to a shit storm, and given how useful having the US selling top-of-the-line Sidewinders was, it would have been more risk than it was worth.

When you make the whole point of the war about the Falklands, and set very careful limits on the zone of conflict, you need a really good reason to expand the war.
 
A few things have already been touched on, but I'll say my bit. Firstly a merchant ship war would be way over the top for such a limited war, although the RN subs would have kicked serious arse if given the chance. In particular the declaration of the TEZ which was later expanded to 12 miles from the Argentine coast emptied the seas of everything; Argentina simply had to wait for a couple of months for the war to end to resume shipping, no great damage was done to the economy over and above what the war itself caused.

As for land attack, IIUC the first land attack capability for western subs came with the LA class flight II boats which introduced TLAMs, the RN didn't get TLAMs until much later. Indeed in 1982 I don't think the RN had missile capability for submarines.
 
More submarines were not required! Three SSN's were on station very early in the conflict and later this rose to five. The capabilities of RN SSN's compared to the Argentine Navy anti sub capabilities meant that it should have been a slaughter. Unfortunately due to Northwood insisting on direct control of the Submarine assets rather than ceding control to Admiral Sandy Woodward and his staff meant that the northern patrols were nether in the right place. Also you would need to change the ROE, so any Argentine ship could be sunk irrespective of it's course or location.
 
For what it's worth, no - the Royal Navy did not deploy Tomahawks until the mid-to late 90s, and did not use Harpoons until at least the late 80s. At the time of the Falklands conflict, their submarine fleet was pretty much torpedoes only. They could only threaten Argentinian shipping from relatively close range. 10 years later, yes - they could have been much more of a strategic threat, but at that time their submarine fleet was quite limited by current standards. They probably could not have done much more than what they did do, without changing the rules of engagement.
 
Thank you all for your answers. It seems my POD is not feasible without more expansion of the War and more headaches than it might be worth.

With just torpedoes and very limited ROE the subs were used as best the could.
 

Archibald

Banned
The Royal Navy had Exocets (oh the irony...) while an antiship missile it had some limited land-target capability.
 
Top