What if Argentina had invaded the Falklands Islands during WW2?
Argentina has two battleships--old ones, but two dreadnoughts are still enough to mean that cruisers are not enough. The ships are old, and with crews that probably aren't great, but 12" shells ruin a cruiser's day. A naval response requires big guns--perhaps one or two of the Royal Sovereigns, from Britain, or 2-4 old battleships from the USA.
As was being proven in the Pacific at that same time, all that would be needed for the US and or the British is "one" aircraft Carrier Group supported by land based bombers provided by bases in Brazil or Uruguay and the Battleships of Argentina would be neutralized. These same land based or carrier based planes also would be able to attack Argentine air bases on land. I may be wrong, but even with the emphasis of the US and Britain on Germany first in Europe and Japan second in the Pacific war, both had enough fire power along with potential allies in South America to take back and punish Argentina for what the Allies might deem as being stabbed in the back by Argentina taking the Falklands and possibly giving the Axis a foothold in the Western Hemisphere.
Range is only 24,000 yards though, and given the age of the ships the fire control equipment is probably rather dated (updated in the USA in 1924). Deck armour thickness is only 2.5", and a County class firing at 25,000 yards will be descending at 43° and 355 m/sec - from the Navweaps tables that's enough to penetrate the deck armour fully with the shell then exploding inside it. That's the thing - a pre-Jutland Dreadnought really isn't the same as a post-Jutland one, and in this case they're clearly vulnerable to 8" shell fire (hell, going by the Navweaps tables they're marginally vulnerable to 6" shell fire penetrating the decks at the same range). They're a big target so it's a bit like being nibbled to death by ducks, but the point is that they're in much the same position as Canopus was at Coronel - if she'd attempted to engage she would have been shot to pieces from beyond the extreme range of her own ordnance.
I believe the combined Naval and Air Power of the British and or US, along with opposing neighbors of Argentina, (possibly Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile) who would threaten with their own land and air forces in conjunction with air support from US/British Navy and Army/RAF air power would suffice. I don't see other than support anything other than a very limited use of US land forces in this scenario. The US was committed to using their land forces in Europe first and the Pacific second. Argentina would not be a training ground or be used as a "practice" field prior to opening a second front in Europe against Hitler.
The only way I would see possible use of expanded use of US land forces is if the Axis, (Germany/Italy) sent large land forces to Argentina to support them. But even prior to US entry, neither had the Naval and transport possibilities to do so. So I stand by my previous statement of minimal US land forces being used against Argentina.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
The US wasn't too keen on restoring Britain's colonial empire in the Far East. Would they be happy to help the Brits back into the South Atlantic?
While I agree the US (& probably Brazil too as you say) would almost certainly help out, is there any money on either of the following occurring: -
- The US liberates the Falklands before the RN can get down there. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and there is the Monroe Doctrine...
- The UN forces blockade Argentina, enforce a quarantine zone, but the US has no desire to be seen by the Latin Americans as directly aiding the old colonial power back in, so the RN does it alone (which ethey would be more than capable of managing).
Actually, this might be a perfect combat opportunity for USS Ranger. Toss in, maybe, USS Texas and a cruiser/destroyer group, along with a RN component, and we are looking at an absolute curbstomp.
We had a fun DBWI on this a few years ago - https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...a-hadnt-invaded-the-falklands-in-wwii.298210/
The Falklands are a different story, in part because they're overwhelmingly British in population and there aren't the same colonial problems with the Falklands as there were with East Asia or Africa. The Monroe doctrine wouldn't apply since the British already held the territory and the US (even for all its power plays towards the UK) would not pick such a fight. It'd be a bad day for Argentina, that's for sure.
The Monroe Doctrine does not apply to any territories still under the control of the European powers. In 1941/42, that would include then colonies such as British Honduras, or British and French Guyana, British Jamaica, Dutch Surinam, etc., and thus the Falklands. But also remember, it's 1941/1942. The US has a stake in helping maintaining British power as we have invested in an alliance to defeat the Axis with them that has it's roots in the pre-US war entry Atlantic Charter.
US common ties with Britain and their common wartime international goals would take precedence over any anti-colonial preferences. As for Latin America, most see an economic advantage to supporting and trading exclusively with the US and their wartime allies. As the preference of most Latin American Nations don't seem to favor the Axis leaning Argentines, few would make more than a symbolic snarl, at least not during the duration of the war.
I would assume that Patagonia and the islands around Cape Horn would be the prize Chile would be looking for, perhaps some strategic areas in the Andes. (I admit that is only a guess on my part.) With that, I think I will defer to any "Brazilian" experts as what they would hope to gain territorially from a defeated Argentina.
Wouldn't that distinction still go to whoever dropped the bombs which sunk the Izumo and Iwate at Kure Bay?
This is assuming that the engagement is at range. Bad weather can come in, and 12" guns are ruinous when they hit anything less than a battleship. Yes, cruisers could win--but perhaps not, as well. ONE 12" shell has the potential to make a cruiser go BOOM! Unlikely, but something to be aware of--the battleship only need get lucky once.
I must say that "The Fireflies of Port Stanley" is my favorite Falklands tale yet. For those who weren't around the board then, here's the link to an amazing tale:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-fireflies-of-port-stanley.262286/
Probably. Depends on when the engagements take place.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Potentially the invasion of the Falklands in Oct/Nov 1941 is a godsend for the British. Force Z is just being formed up so expect PoW, Repulse and Indomitable to go on a work up cruise to the South Atlantic. After the Argentinian have "witnessed the force of the fully operational RN task force" then Force Z gets to approach the Far East via the Pacific - so the Americans get an extra carrier and two fast battleships / battlecruisers just when they need it most after Pearl.