If Britain loses the Falklands War, what happens to Thatcher?

[GarethC]

I knew the Military intelligence knew that. I was just looking for the view of the man on the ground.

For the RN, anecdotally:

The submariners were confident that the ANA ASW was going to be ineffective before the conflict, and did not change that view during it.

The Harrier pilots, if Ward is accurate, had very recently had an asymmetric ACM exercise against an F-15 squadron out of Bitburg, whom the RN regarded as the USAF's tip of the air superiority spear, and come out clear victors. Their opinion of the Argentine air force was not high, as the Argentine pilots would be on the edge of their fuel range, with generation-old French SARH missiles rather less capable than the Sparrows that the USAF had not been judged able to use successfully, and rear-aspect-only IR seekers compared to the all-aspect AIM-9Ls whose delivery Reagan and Weinberger expedited for the (British) FAA's edification, and doctrine from Galland in the 50s. The ANA carrier was flying Skyhawks which one of the RNZAF secondees had flown, and were regarded as not a threat in air combat, further, 25 de Mayo had a suspect plant which would limit the loadout of any strike anyway.

On the other hand, the surface fleet knew that the number of Exocets > 0; it was a seaskimmer that Sea Dart/Cat/Slug was not intended to deal with; and the Sea Wolf frigates were relatively few in number, had limited ready rounds for their launchers, and would likely be used to protect the carriers leaving the poor sodding matelots on the rest of the ships woefully exposed. Later on, they determined that the Argentine pilots had both piloting skills and also balls of steel, to come in at modern air defences so low that their bombs sometimes wouldn't arm... but sometimes they would..

Looking back it's easy to say Argentina was doomed but all the sources at the time and people who lived through it dont seem to treat it as if it should have been an easy war. So I was wondering what the men in the field knew about these kind of things.

Obviously David has a better understanding than I, but both from memory and chatting with some people with more than my casual knowedge, at the time, there was not a clear sense in Westminster, Whitehall, or on the Clapham omnibus that "Argentina was doomed." There was a clearer sense that "the Argentine Navy and Air Force will be unable to stop the RN getting the British Army ashore," yes, in no small part because the islands are just a long way away from the mainland but lack a runway big enough for fast jets. It was clear before the Corporate task force reached Ascension that the British ground forces were going to be outnumbered and not enjoying the armour or artillery dominance that they would like, even before Atlantic Conveyor was lost with the majority of the heavy airlift capability still on board.

 

[David Flin]

Obviously David has a better understanding than I, but both from memory and chatting with some people with more than my casual knowedge, at the time, there was not a clear sense in Westminster, Whitehall, or on the Clapham omnibus that "Argentina was doomed."

Actually, David probably has less understanding of this than most around at the time. He wasn't there, and he had other things on his mind.

From what I have heard, the general public wasn't entirely sure why Argentina had invaded a bunch of islands off the coast of Scotland (Orkneys, Shetlands, Falklands, all the same, aren't they?)

Thatcher, writing after the event (so all caveats in place) said that she was always confident it would be a victory, but she was worried what the cost would be.

 

[Tibi088]

Im more interested in what happens with the rest of Brittains remaining holdings? Would for example Spain emboldened by british defeat try militarily for Gibraltar? Any other that would try to take something?

 

[WILDGEESE]

Im more interested in what happens with the rest of Brittains remaining holdings? Would for example Spain emboldened by british defeat try militarily for Gibraltar? Any other that would try to take something?

The Spanish were indeed having a good look at what was going on with interest.

In his book "Hostile Skies" SHAR pilot David Morgan, (he's the one smiling for the camera in his cockpit after the attack on Stanley) explains that on the way down south to Gibraltar then after resupplying moving back out into the Atlantic, Spanish Navy patrol aircraft continually buzzed the fleet.

There was open discussion on the Hermes if they should threaten to shoot down one of them on account it never correctly told the fleet of its intentions and or either giving away the fleets position to the Argies.

He also said that if they ballsed it up down south, they were sure Gibraltar would be next.

Regards filers.

 

[Archibald]

More bombs explodes, sinking more British ships. Basically Argentina fighter bombers flew too low and fast for their bombs to arm in time.

Thatcher gets humiliated, which is a good thing, she just swallow her arrogance once and for all. In your face, Margaret.

 

[Politibrit]

Im more interested in what happens with the rest of Brittains remaining holdings? Would for example Spain emboldened by british defeat try militarily for Gibraltar? Any other that would try to take something?

Not military, no. Bear in mind that Spain at this time is just coming out of a military dictatorship, and is trying to take its place as part of western institutions. Following the lead of a regime like Argentina by opportunistically attacking a western European power would be a totally unnecessary setback in that goal for little appreciable gain.

 

[David Flin]

More bombs explodes, sinking more British ships. Basically Argentina fighter bombers flew too low and fast for their bombs to arm in time.

Thatcher gets humiliated, which is a good thing, she just swallow her arrogance once and for all. In your face, Margaret.

I get killed as well.

You may not consider that a problem.

 

[overoceans]

Not military, no. Bear in mind that Spain at this time is just coming out of a military dictatorship, and is trying to take its place as part of western institutions. Following the lead of a regime like Argentina by opportunistically attacking a western European power would be a totally unnecessary setback in that goal for little appreciable gain.

Also, Spain formally joined NATO in the middle of the Falklands War, and had obviously been planning that for some time beforehand. Grabbing the territory of a NATO country would have been a surefire way to get themselves barred from the Alliance forever.

 

[David Flin]

Also, Spain formally joined NATO in the middle of the Falklands War, and had obviously been planning that for some time beforehand. Grabbing the territory of a NATO country would have been a surefire way to get themselves barred from the Alliance forever.

Even more significantly, it would be an attack on a NATO member in theatre. That triggers Article 5. Lean on Britain for concessions, sure. Take military action and put the USA in a position where it has to be seen to support a NATO member against an attack, maybe not.

 

[Tibi088]

Im not too well versed in modern history but wasnt Portugal a NATO member when India grabbed Goa? And the USA didnt care because it was a colony/enclave and it wasnt worth it. Gibraltar's position can be seen as not that different. And if Brittain is beaten by Argentina and than Spain it not necesserily proved itself as an ally worth having.

 

[The Karavoka Man]

Im not too well versed in modern history but wasnt Portugal a NATO member when India grabbed Goa? And the USA didnt care because it was a colony/enclave and it wasnt worth it. Gibraltar's position can be seen as not that different. And if Brittain is beaten by Argentina and than Spain it not necesserily proved itself as an ally worth having.

NATO's mandate is limited to Europe, Goa is outside Europe, and therefore even if Portugal was a member, couldn't invoke NATO to come to their aid. Gibraltar is very much inside Europe.

 

[naraic]

Im not too well versed in modern history but wasnt Portugal a NATO member when India grabbed Goa? And the USA didnt care because it was a colony/enclave and it wasnt worth it. Gibraltar's position can be seen as not that different. And if Brittain is beaten by Argentina and than Spain it not necesserily proved itself as an ally worth having.

That's why David explicitly said it's an attack on a NATO member in theater

Article 5 commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in Europe or North America, to be an armed attack against them all.

This explicitly excludes attacks on NATO members on the Indian sub continent or in South America from being covered by the treaty. Actually if for some reason the Japanese military attack an American carrier group in port (a Japanese port most likely) NATO would not apply as they weren't attacked in Europe or North America.

 

[TonyA]

That's why David explicitly said it's an attack on a NATO member in theater

Article 5 commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in Europe or North America, to be an armed attack against them all.

This explicitly excludes attacks on NATO members on the Indian sub continent or in South America from being covered by the treaty. Actually if for some reason the Japanese military attack an American carrier group in port (a Japanese port most likely) NATO would not apply as they weren't attacked in Europe or North America.

What in the world could ever provoke a Japanese attack on an American fleet in port somewhere...sounds ASB to me and Isoroku...

 

[naraic]

What in the world could ever provoke a Japanese attack on an American fleet in port somewhere...sounds ASB to me and Isoroku...

Trying to explain the difference between an attack in north America and Europe and an attack in asia. I suppose I could say that Brazil attacking French Guyanne wouldn't trigger NATO.

To be honest there is not a lot of non asb wars that could happen today where a NATO country is attacked never mind where a NATO country is attacked outside north America and Europe.

But that's the rule. Outside north America and Europe Article 5 can't be invoked.

 

[TonyA]

"...me and Isoroku...", Japan attacking a US fleet at anchor..., it was a joke

 

[wikipipes]

Thatcher would be gone. The ensuing leadership election would be akin to a funeral.

 

[hugh lupus]

Unlike David who was at the sharp end fighting on my behalf I was in the UK at the time.
I remember the mood well
Disbelief first...a few scrap merchants tresspassing well ok nothing to get too upset about
But the kicker was the sight of the garrison surrendering .
The mood changed abruptly
Now in this scenario there would be other grimmer images to contend with.
With Thatcher gone who ever succeeds here is going to have to try again.
No government who agreed to a "diplomatic solution" would survive

 

[Mumbles]

The ANA carrier was flying Skyhawks which one of the RNZAF secondees had flown, and were regarded as not a threat in air combat,

The same guy had also flown against (RAAF) Mirage III's while with the RNZAF. He wasn't a secondee as much as an RN pilot who had done an exchange tour with the RNZAF.

Obviously David has a better understanding than I, but both from memory and chatting with some people with more than my casual knowedge, at the time, there was not a clear sense in Westminster, Whitehall, or on the Clapham omnibus that "Argentina was doomed." There was a clearer sense that "the Argentine Navy and Air Force will be unable to stop the RN getting the British Army ashore," yes, in no small part because the islands are just a long way away from the mainland but lack a runway big enough for fast jets. It was clear before the Corporate task force reached Ascension that the British ground forces were going to be outnumbered and not enjoying the armour or artillery dominance that they would like, even before Atlantic Conveyor was lost with the majority of the heavy airlift capability still on board.

The Task Force commander (Adm Woodward) agreed. He was acutely aware of his vulnerabilities, and in his words could have lost the war "in an afternoon" if things had gone more badly. There is also the aspect of the war finishing just in time from a weather and fleet being at sea for an extended period with increasing breakdowns viewpoint (again, source Woodward). In hindsight it definitely appears to have been more of a close run thing than is widely appreciated.