Could Argentina have won the Falklands War?

[Andre Bolkonsky]

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.

Yes, the Royal Navy is competent. They know how to deploy radar pickets around their CVs, maintain a hard CAP, and screen enemy movement using the elaborate sonar arrays on their attack subs. Even with all this, things happen in war. There was a possibility that the British could lose a carrier during the engagement, and every eventuality was taken to prevent its loss. If one went down, Thatcher knew Reagan had already begun preparing the 'USS Iwo Jima' for British use and would hand it over to a British crew upon request. Reagan wanted strong friends. For Britain, this war is all about national pride, and who gives a damn if Evita is going to cry for Argentina.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

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.

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.

Yes, the Royal Navy is competent. They know how to deploy radar pickets around their CVs, maintain a hard CAP, and screen enemy movement using the elaborate sonar arrays on their attack subs. Even with all this, things happen in war. There was a possibility that the British could lose a carrier during the engagement, and every eventuality was taken to prevent its loss. If one went down, Thatcher knew Reagan had already begun preparing the 'USS Iwo Jima' for British use and would hand it over to a British crew upon request. That, and any other intelligence or military asset the US could offer. Reagan wanted strong friends. For Britain, this war is all about national pride, and the United States did not give a damn if Evita was going to cry for Argentina.

 

[Klausewitz]

Yes, the Royal Navy is competent.

And even granted that the Royal Navy had last conducted combat operations, when?
I think World War 2 was actually their last combat operation.
They had trained, and trained well, but training is one thing, combat another.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

And even granted that the Royal Navy had last conducted combat operations, when?
I think World War 2 was actually their last combat operation.
They had trained, and trained well, but training is one thing, combat another.

Assuming you read the entire post rather than stopping after the first six words, I don't understand your point.

 

[Klausewitz]

Assuming you read the entire post rather than stopping after the first six words, I don't understand your point.

Oh, problem of how comments work.
I meant to add to your statement, not critize it.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Yes, the Royal Navy is competent. They know how to deploy radar pickets around their CVs, maintain a hard CAP, and screen enemy movement using the elaborate sonar arrays on their attack subs. Even with all this, things happen in war. There was a possibility that the British could lose a carrier during the engagement, and every eventuality was taken to prevent its loss. If one went down, Thatcher knew Reagan had already begun preparing the 'USS Iwo Jima' for British use and would hand it over to a British crew upon request. Reagan wanted strong friends. For Britain, this war is all about national pride, and who gives a damn if Evita is going to cry for Argentina.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a risk/possibility, I am saying is that there wasn't the likelihood to realise that risk. It's not about competence, but one of stacking the ships position against the effective range of the etendards, against the likely intercept patterns etc. The only way Argentina sinks a carrier is for the RN to change its operational deployment to some major pants on head retarded scheme.

 

[Easy-Kill]

And even granted that the Royal Navy had last conducted combat operations, when?
I think World War 2 was actually their last combat operation.
They had trained, and trained well, but training is one thing, combat another.

You mean like The Korean War? Or maybe the Suez crisis, or perhaps the Malayan crisis.

Unless you mean. Peer-to-peer operations, in which case pretty much no nation had such experience.

 

[Easy-Kill]

de Mayo was within range 2 May though, and they had a fairly good idea about where the British carriers were since they had been spotted by a S-2E the day before. Unfortunately/fortunately the weather conditions on the morning 2 May made it impossible to launch the Skyhawks. The arrival of a Sea Harrier and news that the carriers might have moved, attacks from the carriers had ceased after the S-2E had spotted them, convinced Allara that it would be prudent to abandon the attack as he according to weather reports would have to wait at least another 5 hours berfore the Skyhawks could be launched. It is easy to see that play out differently. It is not a given that a handful of Skyhawks could have managed to damage/sink one of the carriers, but it is not impossible. de Mayo remained a threath until it was withdrawn and Royal Navy reports at the time made that perfectly clear.

So the entire chance of striking one of the British Carrier's rests on the possibility that that a poorly trained, ineffectively equipped ship and outdated ship launches an attack within a very specific window and relays on everything working for them. In order to strike, the Argentinean aircraft carrier has to evade a submarine, escort and CAP picket that proved itself to be rather effective.

Like I said, minimal likelihood.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

It's not about competence, but one of stacking the ships position against the effective range of the etendards, against the likely intercept patterns etc.

"com·pe·tence
ˈkämpədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the ability to do something successfully or efficiently."

Competence would suggest the British are fully aware of the air ranges involved to all known strips, the location of all known enemy vessels, and have a fully integrated air defense network operational at all times. No?

I was actually agreeing with your point that the fleet would be positioned to guard the carrier. That is operational theory 101. The point is that British Naval Command saw the possibility that a carrier could be lost, and contingencies were in place 'just in case'.

Oh, problem of how comments work.
I meant to add to your statement, not critize it.

Ah. Well. Carry on, then.

 

[DoomBunny]

Ok, I don't know what is wrong with you guys

Borderline alcoholism, intense narcissism, and a worryingly intense interest in ducks.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

And even granted that the Royal Navy had last conducted combat operations, when?
I think World War 2 was actually their last combat operation.
They had trained, and trained well, but training is one thing, combat another.

No one had experience with modern carrier operations under warlike conditions.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Borderline alcoholism, intense narcissism, and a worryingly intense interest in ducks.

We need to go for a drink sometime!

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

We need to go for a drink sometime!

Kinda ironic, isnt it ?

 

[pithorr]

No one had experience with modern carrier operations under warlike conditions.

Especially the Argies I suppose. Of course the armchair admirals here will be proving that their WW2 era carrier would have been a threat for the modern RN task force

 

[Klausewitz]

No one had experience with modern carrier operations under warlike conditions.

If nobody else knows either that still does not help the British, right?

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

If nobody else knows either that still does not help the British, right?

No, the British had to learn on the fly and did a decent job.

Still, a few less duds for the Argentines and it would have turned out differently.

 

[Denkt]

Did not royal navy during the war use ww2 weapons like the old ww2 bofors 40 mm so it may not been in all that good shape. Maybe it did not need to be better.

However I think they did actually manage to shoot down a jet aircraft with ww2 bofors 40 mm guns so maybe it was good enough given that jet fighters are much more expensive than the ww2 aircrafts. Probably the fire controls was much better as well than they had during ww2.

 

[Klausewitz]

The 40 mm Bofor, like the Soviet 37 mm, both have very long service lifes.
The Bofor, like th 37 mm, throws lead at the enemy. There is little need for improvement in that. Most of the improvement in AA since world war 2 arguably went into the AA shells themselves.

 

[Denkt]

The 40 mm Bofor, like the Soviet 37 mm, both have very long service lifes.
The Bofor, like th 37 mm, throws lead at the enemy. There is little need for improvement in that. Most of the improvement in AA since world war 2 arguably went into the AA shells themselves.

There are the post ww2 version which have much higher fire rate and more effective range which I think have replaced the ww2 version.

I think the british falkand version was the old ww2 version not the modern one.

 

[Easy-Kill]

No one had experience with modern carrier operations under warlike conditions.

Now, I felt like saying the same, but there are a few examples (though mainly in the 50s). If we are defining modern carrier operations to be jet based, then the US had strike experience in Vietnam (and Lybia?)