WI: Britain Loses the Falkland War?

Also the RN had about 60 surface warships in commission in 1982 and used about 1/3 of those in the Falklands, with some only arriving very late. They also had about 16 diesel subs but only sent 1 and used 3-4 of their 12 SSNs, it was only in carriers and amphibious ships that number were tight.
That's really a big point... If (and that's a rather big if) the British government holds together and third-party diplomatic action doesn't bring 'em to the table they have the potential to be back the next year almost as strong. Argentina? Certainly not receiving arms from the UK, probably not from France (not more Exocets) or the US... Odds are they're unable to really replace losses...

If the carriers were damaged enough to be withdrawn nukes would not be used, the Illustrious would be commissioned, the Hermes and/or Invincible repaired and restocked with Sea Harriers and GR3s, AEW Sea Kings and Phalanx CIWS and sent south for a second go in the southern spring. This isn't an option for Argentina, they would not be able to replace their battle losses in their first campaign and would be naked against a second attack.
Bulwark pulled out of reserve. A couple of more thorough container-ship to MAC-ship/CVE conversions. Possible lease/loan of Iwo Jima-class LPHs (certainly offered in OTL), or borrowing Melbourne (for a suitable CVS built as replacement?).
 
Considering how badly prepared the Argentine were, they did pretty well. The only key area they failed to utilize was focusing their vicious air attacks on the landing craft. Now as Admiral Lewin I think said "Our word would mean little" I think he was right, it was a huge boost to British morale considering the riots of the previous year had been some of the most violent in British history, the economy was still in severe recession because of Thatcher's economic medicine, and before threatened to cut the Royal Navy's fleet size between 20% - 30%, so we can only assume the only way a plausible POD is possible if they sold HMS Invincible to Australia and axe HMS Hermes before hand.

John Major or a new Labor Government?

No, John Major wasn't even a cabinet minister until 1989, even then he was forced into that position because Thatcher was the one who groomed him.
 
That's really a big point... If (and that's a rather big if) the British government holds together and third-party diplomatic action doesn't bring 'em to the table they have the potential to be back the next year almost as strong. Argentina? Certainly not receiving arms from the UK, probably not from France (not more Exocets) or the US... Odds are they're unable to really replace losses...

A lot will depend on how the loss arose. If there have been major casualties among the Paras and the Marines, I have doubts about the capabilities of other British infantry units to operate in the conditions.
 
That's really a big point... If (and that's a rather big if) the British government holds together and third-party diplomatic action doesn't bring 'em to the table they have the potential to be back the next year almost as strong. Argentina? Certainly not receiving arms from the UK, probably not from France (not more Exocets) or the US... Odds are they're unable to really replace losses...

Presents from Russia maybe? 2 of their enemies shooting at each other is a win for the Soviets, might as well increase the winning.
 
Rather more than 20 ships served in the South Atlantic:

Hermes, Invincible, Fearless, Intrepid, Bristol, Sheffield, Coventry, Glasgow, Cardiff, Exeter, Glamorgan, Antrim, Brilliant, Broadsword, Active, Alacrity, Ardent, Antelope, Arrow, Avenger, Ambuscade, Andromeda, Penelope, Minerva, Argonaut, Yarmouth, Plymouth

Plus: Leeds Castle, Dumbarton Castle, Endurance, Hecla, Herald, Hydra

Plus subs: Conqueror, Courageous, Oynx, Valiant, Spartan, Splendid

Plus 22 RFA landing / support ships

Aside from a dozen or so Leander Class ASW frigates and a handful of aged Country Class Destroyers, I don't think there was an awful lot left in the tank, really - especially given NATO (and other) commitments and when Sir Sandy Woodward's memoirs suggest that the only real effective surface combatants he had were the Type 22s and 42s.
 
Last edited:
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 has been noted, 1982 is too early for a Major government. In the short term at least, Thatcher would go, and be replaced by William Whitelaw, who would be the unity figure that Major was in 1990. Given the economy was just starting to perk up a bit then, though unemployment was still high, it would be interesting to see how far he goes in departing from Thatchers economic policy.

The Tories would still likely plunge in the polls, but at that point Labour was in such a mess they weren't well positioned to take advantage. The more likely outcome is a second surge for the Alliance. I have my doubts whether they could sustain that for another two years when the next election was due to the point that they could win enough seats to lead a government, but they would likely do better than in OTL. Its entirely plausible that because of the way votes are distributed across the country that Labour emerges as the largest party in a hung parliament, even if they come third in the popular vote,but even if that were the case the Alliance would always work with a wet like Whitelaw over Foot. So in the long term, a Tory government, albeit one headed by wets is most likely, with a slim possibility of an Alliance led government.

The more centrist position of the government, plus the pyschological blow losing to Argentina would have dealt the UK might also result in Britain being more immersed in Europe. Of course, it wouldn't get rid of Euroscepticism in the UK altogether, but it might reduce it somewhat over the coming decades.
 
That's really a big point... If (and that's a rather big if) the British government holds together and third-party diplomatic action doesn't bring 'em to the table they have the potential to be back the next year almost as strong. Argentina? Certainly not receiving arms from the UK, probably not from France (not more Exocets) or the US... Odds are they're unable to really replace losses...

Bulwark pulled out of reserve. A couple of more thorough container-ship to MAC-ship/CVE conversions. Possible lease/loan of Iwo Jima-class LPHs (certainly offered in OTL), or borrowing Melbourne (for a suitable CVS built as replacement?).

Britain has to be credible to deter the Soviets which regardless of other stuff will be a big background push for a second crack, but probably with attacks on the mainland on the table.
 
Rather more than 20 ships served in the South Atlantic:

Bristol, Sheffield, Coventry, Glasgow, Cardiff, Exeter, Glamorgan, Antrim, Brilliant, Broadsword, Active, Alacrity, Ardent, Antelope, Arrow, Avenger, Ambuscade, Andromeda, Penelope, Minerva, Argonaut, Yarmouth, Plymouth.

These are what I was talking about, ~1/3 of the ~60 surface ships in the RN served in the Falklands.

Aside from a dozen or so Leander Class ASW frigates and a handful of aged Country Class Destroyers, I don't think there was an awful lot left in the tank, really - especially given NATO (and other) commitments and when Sir Sandy Woodward's memoirs suggest that the only real effective surface combatants he had were the Type 22s and 42s.

Firstly, I don't rate Woodward, VADML Derek Reffell FOF3 at the time would have been a better choice and done a better job. Secondly despite the glamour of the type 64 combo you can't send those ships up and down Falkland sound hoping or not hoping to hit a mine due to their value and a type 22 can't shell land targets in support of Marines or Paras. There are a lot of jobs for older ships in wars.
 
That's really a big point... If (and that's a rather big if) the British government holds together and third-party diplomatic action doesn't bring 'em to the table they have the potential to be back the next year almost as strong. Argentina? Certainly not receiving arms from the UK, probably not from France (not more Exocets) or the US... Odds are they're unable to really replace losses...
The real question is, as you've alluded to, is will the UK government try again. Certainly the Thatcher government is finished, but the question is what happens next? A reshuffled Conservative government? An immediate election? Who'd win such an election? Is there a hung parliament, a small Labour majority under Foot or a small Conservative majority? Does the Lib/SDP block win many seats?
 
Closer to half the surface fleet, including all the carriers, amphibious ships and the latest 22s / 42s... I still don't see that there was much left in the tank.
 
UK becomes laughing stock. Short and simple. The whole idea "From Empire to small country" would get instant shot in arm.
Expect more multicultural UK, with more immigrants, stronger new Labour party and forget about leaving EU.
I would expect in every debate in "should UK have referendum for leaving EU" the point " We lost Falkland war we must be in EU since we are weak".
There would be no EU referendum. More colonies would be lost. Whole handling of Honk Kong would be more pro Chinese think.

T.L.D.R: UK would more multicultural and leftist.
 
All in all though I can't see Britain losing the Falklands. The Argies don't have the right kit, otherwise they would have taken the islands IOTL, or at least have come close.

What POD are we suggesting that eliminates the British advantages and dramatically improves the Argentinian position?

We have to remember these are British citizens suffering invasion.
 
Last edited:
The UK losing the Falklands War is like the US losing the Pacific War against Japan. It would be totally reliant on extreme and unlikely circumstances to cause the UK to give up militarily and politically before it becomes ASB. Argentina, like Japan, might be able to perform better than IOTL, but it simply isn't strong enough to win decisively.
 
T.L.D.R: UK would more multicultural and leftist.

Not sure we would be more leftist, at least not in the short term - coming round to the arguments that the UK would get more militaristic and dick-waving to compensate. We'd want people to know they definitely shouldn't mess with us, we're still a big deal, look at our stuff etc etc. SDP-Liberals might win the election but they'd do it still promising 'strength', Labour will be left in the cold until they do the same.

(This is not going to be fun for Northern Ireland)
 
All in all though I can't see Britain losing the Falklands. The Argies don't have the right kit, otherwise they would have taken the islands IOTL, or at least have come close.

What POD are we suggesting that eliminates the British advantages and dramatically improves the Argentinian position?

We have to remember these are British citizens suffering invasion.
Argentine fighters attack the RN with rockets instead of bombs. The ships don't think, but the rockets destroy their radars, antennas, missile launchers and all the other exposed bits, mission-killing the escorts. And rockets, being rockets, won't have any issue with fuses, so most of them would explode.
With a large part of the surface combatants out of the fight, the RN can't protect the landing ships and, therefore, the paras can't land.
 
Argentine fighters attack the RN with rockets instead of bombs. The ships don't think, but the rockets destroy their radars, antennas, missile launchers and all the other exposed bits, mission-killing the escorts. And rockets, being rockets, won't have any issue with fuses, so most of them would explode.
With a large part of the surface combatants out of the fight, the RN can't protect the landing ships and, therefore, the paras can't land.

The only slight problem with this is that by the time the Argentine air force (assuming they've trained with rockets) have managed to do this, the Royal Marines (remember them?) and the Paras are already long since ashore.

I should know. I was one of those Marines. We were all ashore within 24 hours. Something to do with being safer on land than on a ship.
 
The only slight problem with this is that by the time the Argentine air force (assuming they've trained with rockets) have managed to do this, the Royal Marines (remember them?) and the Paras are already long since ashore.
Indeed, I've never understood the Argentine obsession with hitting the British landing and escort ships AFTER the amphibious assault had taken place. And it wasn't even a contested beach landing. Once the RMs and Paras are ashore in numbers the game's up.
 
Indeed, I've never understood the Argentine obsession with hitting the British landing and escort ships AFTER the amphibious assault had taken place. And it wasn't even a contested beach landing. Once the RMs and Paras are ashore in numbers the game's up.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the game is up. Despite what some people say, it wasn't the easiest campaign in the world. If supplies are interrupted, it becomes harder. But taking out the Grey Funnel Line once the berets are ashore is, well, the phrase about stable doors and bolting horses springs to mind.
 
Top