OT: All-Out in the Falklands

[Webstral]

I read a piece about the Falklands War recently. I started thinking. What if the Argentines had gone all-in in 1982? After the initial naval encounter in which HMS Conqueror (I think) sank an Argentine destroyer, the Argentines backed off and let the Royal Navy control the waters around the Falklands, albeit under air attack. What if the Argentines had gone all-in and had initiated a winner-take-all naval battle for control over the sea around the Falkland Islands? I don’t a very good read on this, not being a naval man. Opinions? Preferably with some substance?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I read a piece about the Falklands War recently. I started thinking. What if the Argentines had gone all-in in 1982? After the initial naval encounter in which HMS Conqueror (I think) sank an Argentine destroyer, the Argentines backed off and let the Royal Navy control the waters around the Falklands, albeit under air attack. What if the Argentines had gone all-in and had initiated a winner-take-all naval battle for control over the sea around the Falkland Islands? I don’t a very good read on this, not being a naval man. Opinions? Preferably with some substance?

The British would have probably lost about 30% of their force, the Argentinians something on the order of 50% to 70%. The British would have had to have split their forces, and pulled what little naval power they'd left in the North Atlantic south; while these reinforcements were on the way Argentinian sorties would have further atritted British naval power, sinking more cargo ships and outer cruisers, eventually hitting the Invincible (this is incumbent on how many Exocet missiles the Argentinian navy or air-force had left in stock, but I can see them going all in to bag that carrier). Invincible is what the Argentinians thought they'd bagged when they hit Atlantic Conveyer.

[Raellus]

IIRC, the General Belgrano was a cruiser. After losing it, the Argies decided not to risk their carrier and the rest of their surface combatants and most of them spent the balance of the war safely in port.

An all-out naval battle would most likely have favored the Brits. Considering how much damage just one British SSN did to Argentine naval pride/confidence, the Argentines probably would have lost most of their naval force had they chosen to sortie in force. On average, British ships had more effective sensor suites and weapons systems. As a result, they would likely have detected the Argentines first, and would have been able to seize the initiative. They could have then chosen the ground (or water) on which to engage the Argentines and, with their superior training and weapons platforms, the British could have beaten them quite handily.

All of the damage done to British ships during the actual war was caused by land-based air. In a full-scale naval engagement scenario, if the Argentines could have supplement their naval air with land-based air cover/strike packages, they might have been able to deal the Brits a serious blow. But, the Brits would have wisely avoided an engagement in an area where the Argies could do that (see seizing the initiative above). On the other hand, if the Argentines had been able to base some of their Mirages, Skyhawks, and Super Etendards on the islands prior to the arrival of the British TF, the war could have turned out very differently.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I'd forgotten the Argentinians had a carrier. That definitely changes things; I do agree they'd have gotten the worse of a naval battle but as history shows they didn't just roll over and die. They had competent pilots and sailors, and but for luck the British didn't lose a couple of the ships the Argentine AF hit with iron bombs.

If the British had taken a severe beating (loss of a carrier, loss of another surface combatant, loss of more shipping) I wonder if the US would have been pulled in.

[Rainbow Six]

I'm no Naval expert, but I think Raellus' summary seems like a pretty reasonable estimation of how things might have turned out.

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

If the British had taken a severe beating (loss of a carrier, loss of another surface combatant, loss of more shipping) I wonder if the US would have been pulled in.

I doubt that very, very, very much. if the Task Force has failed Thatcher's Government would almost certainly have fallen (it wasn't that popular before the War) and there's no doubt the UK today would be a completely different country from the one I currently live in, but from what I understand of the situation I don't think there's any scenario that would have prompted US involvement (I am assuming you mean as an active participant, presumably on the side of the UK?).

What is perhaps more likely is that the US would have attempted to broker some sort of a cease fire that would have allowed both sides to extracate themselves with honour as it wasn't in US interests to see either Government totally humiliated (Reagan did actually call Thatcher a few days before the Argentines surrendered urging the British to accept a negotiated cease fire to avoid humiliating the Argentines - http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110526).

[Adm.Lee]

Actually, they did try to go all-in. I've read a lot on the Falklands, just none of it recently. I definitely remember some of this from Adm. Woodward's memoir.

The Belgrano and 2 DDs (IIRC), some with Exocet, were approaching the British TF from the south, while the CV and escorts came from the north. HMS Conqueror sank the CL, while the carrier was something of a bluff-- I think her catapults weren't working?

I'll look further into this, but the short form is that the Navy tried and the British broke it up.

[micromachine]

I recall from somewhere that the Argentine Forces had 7-9 Exocet missiles. Had they been able to get more, the outcome would have been very different. As well. the two goalkeepers on the Argentine side would have been the Hercules and the Santissima Trinidad, both Type 42 pattern destroyers using the Sea Dart. Reloads would be forthcoming for these to say the least.
I agree with the other post regarding the runway on the Falklands. Were this usable, and a CAP could be run around the clock, the Pucaras may very well have been able to administer the coup de grace once the escorts and Harriers were dealt with.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by micromachine

I recall from somewhere that the Argentine Forces had 7-9 Exocet missiles. Had they been able to get more, the outcome would have been very different.

In the thread Falkland Islands, RN7 posted a link to an interesting article on Britain's attempts to prevent the Argentines getting more Exocets during the Falklands War: http://www.eliteukforces.info/articl...us-exocets.php .