Could Argentina have won the Falklands War?

[D Inqu]

I don´t think one Exocet could be able to sink any carrier unless it detonated explosives on board or created a major fire. However, if it would cause enough damage to force the carrier to end her mission (mission kill damage) and to return to the base to repaired then that would be enough.

US Navy frigate USS Stark was hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles in 1987 and she was much smaller than any carrier. USS Stark was later repaired and finally scrapped in 2006.

I remember reading an artricle a few years back, basically comarring Stark to Sheffield and the reason the Strark got did not get sunk was because of the various lessons they learned from the UK losses.

One should also remember that carriers are quite vulnerable, since they have a lot more bits an pieces which can catch fire and explode (all the aircraft, their fuel, any ammunition being loaded on these aircraft etc.

 

[Easy-Kill]

It was highly unlikely that the Argentineans would have been able to get close enough to the carrier's to launch an effective attack. Strangely enough, the British admiralty knew what it was doing and stationed the carrier task force in a position that would maximise interception range but minimise the attack window. Without a doubt, the Argentinean air force was it's most professional and effective force and still it proved ineffective against an exposed naval landing that most expected to fail.

Yes the sinking of the carrier would have effectively finished the invasion. However, it was highly unlikely that the invasion would have not succeeded.

So many things went wrong that could go wrong for the British, yet still they were only minor set backs.

Incidentally, my former boss was on HMS Sheffield when it was sunk, and had the chance to have tea with Col. Jones's Son

 

[DoomBunny]

Yeah, it's always good having a bloddythirsty dictator on your side.

Well, that's ironic, given that the Argentine Junta killed more, invaded more, and did less for the country.

 

[bz249]

Yes the sinking of the carrier would have effectively finished the invasion. However, it was highly unlikely that the invasion would have not succeeded.

So many things went wrong that could go wrong for the British, yet still they were only minor set backs.

As usual, the better trained and supplied force is more resilient to those opportunities of failure.

 

[diegosimeone]

Would the British government really accept a loss here?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Would the British government really accept a loss here?

Bingo.

 

[Easy-Kill]

As usual, the better trained and supplied force is more resilient to those opportunities of failure.

There is a general perception that the Argentinian defenders were all poorly equipped conscripts and this is not necessarily true. The Argentine soldiers generally had similar equipment to their British counterparts, with each nation excelling in their own areas. For example, the Argentinean had better night vision sights than the British. The argentinean forces included a company of special forces, a marine battalion and two infantry regiments that were considered two of Argentina's best (25th and 7th, albeit the 7th did have a substantial reservist component). The Argentinean soldiers were well trained and fought hard.

However, the British were by far better led and probably better trained. While the Argentineans remained relatively static, they were out manoeuvred and hit with speed and surprise.

Would the British government really accept a loss here?

The loss of one of the carriers would have been exactly that ... a loss. Even if they had retaken the island after the loss, it would still have been a loss.

 

[bz249]

There is a general perception that the Argentinian defenders were all poorly equipped conscripts and this is not necessarily true. The Argentine soldiers generally had similar equipment to their British counterparts, with each nation excelling in their own areas. For example, the Argentinean had better night vision sights than the British. The argentinean forces included a company of special forces, a marine battalion and two infantry regiments that were considered two of Argentina's best (25th and 7th, albeit the 7th did have a substantial reservist component). The Argentinean soldiers were well trained and fought hard.

Having the gear is one thing, how many munitions you can waste is another. Look at those famed Exocet missiles, the Argies had 4 or 5 of them. This means they can't just eat up the destroyer screen because they run out missiles earlier than the British run out of destroyers. 1 missile for 1 destroyer is unsustainable, that kinda reduces your options.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Having the gear is one thing, how many munitions you can waste is another. Look at those famed Exocet missiles, the Argies had 4 or 5 of them. This means they can't just eat up the destroyer screen because they run out missiles earlier than the British run out of destroyers. 1 missile for 1 destroyer is unsustainable, that kinda reduces your options.

And the British lost all of their Chinhooks to just 1 of those exocets. They adapted and overcame. Changing just one thing will not change the mind set that led to the Argentine defeat, you need to completely change the Argentine expectations and perception of how to fight.

 

[bz249]

And the British lost all of their Chinhooks to just 1 of those exocets. They adapted and overcame. Changing just one thing will not change the mind set that led to the Argentine defeat, you need to completely change the Argentine expectations and perception of how to fight.

This is where the how well you are equipped and trained comes into play. The British were able to adapt and overcame, because they were, better equipped and trained, so they had Plan B. The Argentines did not have Plan B, when the wind was not strong enough they have to abort carrier operations completely. They had just one shot.

 

[Kgw]

Well, that's ironic, given that the Argentine Junta killed more, invaded more, and did less for the country.

Actually the irony is calling on the Junta dictatorship and then side with Pinochet.

 

[Easy-Kill]

This is where the how well you are equipped and trained comes into play. The British were able to adapt and overcame, because they were, better equipped and trained, so they had Plan B. The Argentines did not have Plan B, when the wind was not strong enough they have to abort carrier operations completely. They had just one shot.

You realise the British solution to losing the helicopters was to walk? I think you are doing the Argentinean's a disservice here. They were well equipped, well trained and faught well,

 

[DoomBunny]

Actually the irony is calling on the Junta dictatorship and then side with Pinochet.

You called Pinochet a dictator, that was what my comment was in response to.

 

[Kgw]

So what? Was he less of a dictator because of that? His crimes against his own people are forgotten because he helped the UK war effort?
In any case, I was calling out the "The pot calling the kettle black" of official British history about Pinochet and the Falklands War.

 

[DoomBunny]

So what? Was he less of a dictator because of that? His crimes against his own people are forgotten because he helped the UK war effort?
In any case, I was calling out the "The pot calling the kettle black" of official British history about Pinochet and the Falklands War.

What's the issue? Pinochet was certainly a dictator, he also helped the UK a lot during the war. I don't think you'll find many people genuinely calling him a good guy, though personally I find him to be one of the better dictators out there, but that in itself isn't saying much.

 

[Yakman]

Would the British government really accept a loss here?

it's hard to see what options they would have had if the invasion had failed catastrophically or the Invincible been sunk.

go back to the Isles, build another fleet, come back in 3-5 years? what other options did they have? go to Paris and beg them for the Foch & the Clemenceau? After their own aircraft carrier had been destroyed? I would have loved to have sold Thatcher the insurance policy...

 

[Easy-Kill]

What's the issue? Pinochet was certainly a dictator, he also helped the UK a lot during the war. I don't think you'll find many people genuinely calling him a good guy, though personally I find him to be one of the better dictators out there, but that in itself isn't saying much.

It's just another hater doing the hating thing.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

it's hard to see what options they would have had if the invasion had failed catastrophically or the Invincible been sunk.

go back to the Isles, build another fleet, come back in 3-5 years? what other options did they have? go to Paris and beg them for the Foch & the Clemenceau? After their own aircraft carrier had been destroyed? I would have loved to have sold Thatcher the insurance policy...

HMS Illustrious was completing fitting out when the Falklands War started and IRL she arrived in the islands in late August. If either Hermes or Invincible had been knocked out (sunk or unable to operate aircraft) prior to the landings at San Carlos, then I think the Royal Navy would have pulled back the surface fleet, left the Argentine troops to shiver over the winter (with subs making resupply difficult), and then returned with Illustrious and the surviving aircraft carrier in the spring.

If a carrier had been lost after the landing, then isn't it plausible that the British would just have carried on pretty much as in real life? A primitive VTOL airstrip (good enough for Harriers) was built at San Carlos within a few days of the landing, so they would still have had two operating bases. It really depends how many Harriers were left.

If both carriers had been lost, it would thave been possible to wait until Illustrious and Ark Royal were ready; even with an emergency crash fitting out this would have been difficult to complete before the (Southern Hemisphere) winter of 1983, more realistically the autumn of 1984 (two years after the invasion). Unless the Argentine aviators had been incredibly, incredibly lucky, this would presumably have meant that a large number of destroyers and frigates had been hit as well. The Royal Navy sent just under half its escorts in the CORPORATE Task Force. If there had been more losses, it would certainly have been possible to abandon all their NATO commitments, pull ships out of refit, and replace the losses for another task force in 1983 or 1984. The most difficult part would have been aircraft losses, but the Sea Harrier production line was in full swing. IRL the average output was about 6 planes a year, but maybe they would have been able to get a basic carrier squadron (12) ready in 18 months or so.

But the real problem would have been political. Would there still have been support for recapturing the islands after taking such devastating losses (e.g. 2 carriers + 4 destroyers + 4 frigates + a troopship... that's an awful lot of corpses)? A returning Task Force would have faced even higher odds, because Argentina would surely have built a fast jet airfield on the Falklands, given enough time. TBH, I think the answer is: yes. Thatcher would have had to resign, but the 1940 myth ('Britain fights alone') is so foundational to late 20th century British identity that I think the political will would have been there to try again.

If four carriers had been sunk, then I agree that it would have been game over!

 

[Eusebio]

HMS Illustrious was completing fitting out when the Falklands War started and IRL she arrived in the islands in late August. If either Hermes or Invincible had been knocked out (sunk or unable to operate aircraft) prior to the landings at San Carlos, then I think the Royal Navy would have pulled back the surface fleet, left the Argentine troops to shiver over the winter (with subs making resupply difficult), and then returned with Illustrious and the surviving aircraft carrier in the spring.

By that time international pressure would likely have forced a cease-fire. The UK government didn't have the luxury of waiting around for several months before liberating the islands as it would have given Argentina what looked like a fait accompli in the eyes of the world.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Ok, I don't know what is wrong with you guys, but there is near zero likelihood that Argentina will sink any of the Carrier's. The ability/range of the Argentinean jets was well know and the task force stationed the carrier's at a point which maximised the range at which the Argentinean jets could launch a strike.