HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by flasheart, Jul 14, 2018.

Loading...
  1. Zheng He Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    haider najib likes this.
  2. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    @flasheart could we get an view of the Argentina military brass talking to each other after these losses as didn't the different departments not like each other and it was the navy who pushed for the conflict.
     
    Hammerbolt likes this.
  3. Hammerbolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Location:
    Lusitania
    A lot of cursing at and blaming the other guy, with a lot "how do we get out of this" in the mix...

    Another point, from the Argentine side: to what extent does the "man on the street" knows of the current situation? The people will get angry fast, if this disaster becomes public...
     
    SsgtC and haider najib like this.
  4. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    This is a question for everyone how much is the Argentina junta willing to throw away to get some points? After Belgrano they tried attacking the fleet with some success. Even though the brits are much stronger here to keep the population under control they might have to attack anyway.

    Sorry if it doesn't make sense what im asking would the junta commit to high risk guaranteed heavy casualty battles like doing the what the Soviets do and use numbers and broad strength. Will they order alot of the airforce to just attack a and hope some get through the british defence mass air battles just sending entire groups waves of planes to take on the British planes. Straight up order the navy to attak even if they most likely would are at a disadvantage, to try and get some victories.

    If someone understands what im asking can you word better what im asking or ask the question better as i cant think of the correct words.
     
    Finbarr the Fair likes this.
  5. RodentRevolution Chewer of Wires

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2015
    OTL the limit on the size of air attacks was the fact the Argentine Air Force only had two tanker aircraft. Here the Argentines look to have been making more serious preparations to increase the capacity of the Stanley strip to better support fast jets but conversely the RN has greater striking power to suppress that potential.
     
  6. SsgtC Ready to Call it a Day

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Not to mention, the Stanley airstrip just got turned into a plowed field...
     
  7. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    Apparently Stanley airfild wss built on a solid bedrock base, so bombs dropped from high altitude would only scab a bit off the top rather than penetrate and cause 'heave' and lower level bombs landed at oblique angles and tended to skip before exploding. It was a difficult runway to knock out.
     
    SsgtC likes this.
  8. Schlock New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2018
    Does it really matter if the Runway is easily fixable if the radars and support facilities have been shot to pieces?
     
    Mr Carrot, MancFrank and SsgtC like this.
  9. SsgtC Ready to Call it a Day

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    While that may very well be true, if your repair equipment and materials were also hit, that's still gonna hurt. Hell, or if your men just aren't that competent.
     
    MancFrank likes this.
  10. MancFrank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    On the contrary, the 1,000 lbers dropped from height cratered nicely - indeed, the crater from Black Buck I was found to be back filled with rubble and a good many oil drums when 59 Commando Squadron Royal Engineers began repairs. The other four craters, resulting from low level retarded attack, were less deep, although craters nonetheless, & additionally, there were over a thousand 'scabs' of the type to which you refer, caused mainly by submunitions & naval gunfire.

    But, as Schlock & SsgtC say, all of this matters not one jot if your ability to store fuel, weapons and any number of other services and facilities essential for fast jet operations no longer exists.

    And I don't fancy the chances of OTL's resupply flights by C-130 & F28 much in this TL, either.

    *EDIT*

    This is work beginning on an area of 'scabbing'. It might not be a crater in the true sense, but I wouldn't much fancy rolling over it in my Mirage III or Dagger at 150 knots..

    [​IMG]Crater-Repair-RAF-Stanley-1 (1) by Frank Judge, on Flickr
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2018
  11. Ming777 ATL Aviator Donor Monthly Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    Plus, with the British using Phantom IIs, those Tanker aircraft are more at risk of being shot down.
     
    SsgtC, Pseudo and Zheng He like this.
  12. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    Ok, maybe it was the toss bombing that skipped and the problem with high altitude was accuracy.

    IIUC the aim of the durndal and other anti runway weapons is to punch through the concrete and explode, not only making a deep hole but to make a big upwards heaved cracking area that has to be underpinned or removed and replaced. IIUC the Stanley airfield wasn't cratered like this, and the nature of its construction meant it couldn't be, which is why it wasn't closed despite constant attacks.
     
    Hammerbolt and A. Morgan like this.
  13. butch4343 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    @flasheart

    Please please keep up the good work on this, I cant wait to the next installment, to see the Argentine response.

    I have been trying to game out the thread as its unfolded on Command Naval Air Ops.


    Its been a long time since I enjoyed a thread as much as this.


    Regards


    Butch
     
    Zheng He, HesitatedEye and MKD like this.
  14. Jack1971 Kicked

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2018
    If the Argies still go ahead with the invasion knowing Eagle and Phantoms are at all a possibility, I'd say they include Stanley airfield defence and upgrades in their immediate plans. Stanley needs SAMs, radar and Mirage CAP. The problem is, so does the mainland.
     
  15. Alanith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2013
    Well... by all accounts it had two of the three...
     
    Hammerbolt likes this.
  16. Hammerbolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Location:
    Lusitania
    Argentina had Roland SAMs, Orelikon 35mm radar-guided AAA and other 20mm and 30mm AAA guns around the airfields. Fixed defences are well and good, but against a modern enemy, (in this case, 1982 version firing anti-radar missiles) only as backup for proper air cover...
     
  17. Jack1971 Kicked

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2018
    Makes me wonder if Arg. would have done better as a Soviet client state. They'd have all the good Soviet kit. Of course Reagan would be fully on board with taking the leadership out as a regime change.
     
  18. Hammerbolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Location:
    Lusitania
    With a hostile Chile to the west and a not-very-friendly Brasil to the North, both right-wing military ditatorships... not a happy country...
     
    SsgtC likes this.
  19. Alanith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2013
    No, they'd have a bunch of monkey model export quality gear, and everyone would be laughing at how horrible Soviet weapons are 10 years early. Plus you'd have the Americans all but openly declared co-belligerents, frothing at the mouth in eagerness to get a communist puppet out of South America.

    "Hello there Mrs. Thatcher, I'm calling today to ask if you Brits need anything, and I mean anything, in your war against Argentina? Satellite recon? Funding? Eyes on the ground? A surface action group or a Forrestal that fell off the back of a truck?"
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2018 at 11:15 AM
  20. Hammerbolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Location:
    Lusitania
    Which reminds me: no Exocet threat!
     
Loading...