Assume that there's enough preparation from Argentina for them to push back the British forces and prevent them from reclaiming the Falkland Islands? How is Britain perceived after failing in this mission?
The British would be perceived as weak during a vital time when NATO and Warsaw Pact tensions still existed. The British were a vital ally as they still are to the US led NATO pact. Of course I can see the downfall of the Thatcher government, but would it necessarily be replaced by a Conservative government under John Major or a new Labor Government?
As for Argentina, would a victory bolster the Military Government in an outburst of Argentine National Patriotism? Would it delay the return of civilian government to the people of Argentina? How long now would have been the eventual answering by many in the military to the "Dirty War" they enacted during their regime?
John Major isn't forming a government in 1982. He was a nobody until 89/90. There were far more capable, experienced Conservative ministers at the time.
That's the one that came to mind. Would Thatcher have been replaced by one of the more capable individuals?John Major isn't forming a government in 1982. He was a nobody until 89/90. There were far more capable, experienced Conservative ministers at the time.
That's the one that came to mind. Would Thatcher have been replaced by one of the more capable individuals?
Well this one is pretty simple to envision. Argentines set their fuses correctly at the battle of san carlos and as a result the entire escort fleet stationed at the bay is sunk (11 bombs hit british ships without detonating OTL). 2 destroyers and 7 frigates in total, this means that half the british task force has been sunk and the landing craft are unprotected against air attack, loosing the war as a result.
The biggest issue I have with the concept of Argentina winning the Falklands War is that America just sits there and takes it. As it happened, we didn't need America's help at all, but if we did they surely wouldn't have let Argentina get away with taking one of their biggest allies' territory in the '80s cold war climate, especially given that part of what makes us such important allies is that we have these bases all around the world. If these bases were made to look weak, the US bases in the BIOT for example may become a target.
The Argentine Armed Forces knew the bombs weren't detonating because they were fused not to detonate for safety. The Navy had properly fused bombs, but they weren't sharing them with the Air Force because they felt interservice rivalry was more important than winning a war they started. The Air Force eventually begun to modify bombs, using fuses from British purchased bombs, and those did detonate.1. An exploding bomb doesn't necessarily take out a ship.
2. The reason the bombs didn't explode was because they were dropped from too low a height. The reason they were dropped from too low a height was because if they were dropped from higher, the planes would be in the missile envelopes, and would have taken much heavier casualties.
3. There was a technical fix for this, but for some strange reason, the British weren't telling the Argentine forces that they might need to install the fix. The planes weren't really noting the effect the bombs had, being rather too busy trying not to get shot down as they made their way home.
Wasn't this asked a month ago?There should prrobably be a sticky thread for this topic. It seems to get asked about once a week.
I don't think it is in anyway unreasonable to suggest that Argentina might have won - if they had managed to get hold of a few more Exocets, all might have been different, for example. The feat performed by the Royal Navy (especially) was truly remarkable, but there was a good deal of luck too. The Task Force represented pretty much the entire Royal Navy so there wasn't much left in reserve.
Additionally, and on reading the memoirs of some of the senior British officers in the campaign, one of their greatest concerns was that the UN might intervene and press for a cease fire before the islands had been fully re-captured. This would potentially have led the islands being 'divided' by the UN - West Falkland being Argentinian and East Falkland being British. If the senior commanders were fearful of this occurring, it must have been a possibility.
Had the Argentines managed to sink / cripple one of the two RN carriers, it would have been all over. Would the Iron Lady have been tempted to reach for the nuclear option, and threaten a Polaris strike against (eg) Tierra del Fuego unless the invaders withdrew immediately? Seems highly unlikely, but with British prestige at stake and the RN humiliated... not entirely impossible, perhaps.