I'm not talking about Britain simply deciding not to engage in the first place, I mean once the actual "shooting war" had begun.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
With a few lucky missile hits, probably yes... The British didn't have any backup forces so if the exocets had scored a few more hits, sinking the British main units before they began the landing operations, that would have been the end.
I agree. Sinking the carriers HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes would have removed most British air cover for their other naval forces. It would have been extremely risky to land troops without air cover.
Yes. Britain had long supply lines and transporting troops was a nightmare. Had Argentinien had proper defences on Falklands and not neglected them British troops would have been in serious difficult position to rout whole Argentinian army as happened.
Problem was Argentinian commander completely neglected defences because he thought British would never march trough island as happened, so his superior numbers were unprepared, unsupplied and ambushed. Had there been a proper battle British would not only had to attack against superior numbers on difficult terrain but also take care of their supplies and woundeds. Longer the battle betterchanges Argentinians would have had to rout British troops and force a peace deal.
Problem was Argentinian commander completely neglected defences because he thought British would never march trough island as happened, so his superior numbers were unprepared, unsupplied and ambushed. Had there been a proper battle British would not only had to attack against superior numbers on difficult terrain but also take care of their supplies and woundeds. Longer the battle betterchanges Argentinians would have had to rout British troops and force a peace deal.
What the others have said. If an Exocet had knocked out HMS Invincible it would have been game over.
Also, NOT using draft soldiers for the Falkland garrison, but professional (mountain) forces.
Which apparently, were used in the Chilean-Argentinan frontier, fearing a Chilean involvement. Put your draft soldiers there because they'll have the morale bonus of defending the homeland instead of some cold, windy islands you never heard of it, far from everywhere.
Argentine battle plan was a botched one and the British were quite lucky nobody though of attacking the main ships but some cruisers.
Which apparently, were used in the Chilean-Argentinan frontier, fearing a Chilean involvement. Put your draft soldiers there because they'll have the morale bonus of defending the homeland instead of some cold, windy islands you never heard of it, far from everywhere.
Argentine battle plan was a botched one and the British were quite lucky nobody though of attacking the main ships but some cruisers.
To take the question further since everyone agrees on the basic premise, what would have been the geopolitical implications of a British disaster ? Would it make any difference if the campaign was decided at sea by Exocet missiles or on land by competent defense?
Good guy Pinochet, threatens Argentinians, lets friends use his radar, hosts SAS raiding parties!
Actually, there is a good analysis by Military History Visualized:
In short - Argentina really screwed it up.
In short - Argentina really screwed it up.
It's also worth noting that the US was apparently prepared to transfer the USS Iwo Jima, an amphibious assault ship capable of operating the VTOL Sea Harriers used on the Invincible and Hermes, to British control on a temporary basis in the event that either of the British carriers were lost to enemy action. That said, I do not know if there were any plans to literally prop up the British if they lost both carriers in an engagement, or if some course of events such as a failure at the Battle of Goose Green had led to the loss of more of the landing ships or support ships.
Its true that the Americans would have helped out the British, but you have to wonder what the impact of losing their aircraft carrier(s) to argentine missiles would have been. The RN task force would have needed weeks to limp back to Britain, and then taken more weeks to put together a second effort including that American ship. Weeks and months during which the British would have brooded over their earlier defeat. A defeat which would have had to be very lucky from our view but from their view would have been a terrible setback sinking the British morale deep into the toilet and leaving them wondering about the odds of a second attempt against the same seemingly superior missiles. Iwo Jima was an older ship than the British carriers so you have to wonder how the RN would consider its odds.
Yeah, it's always good having a bloddythirsty dictator on your side.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident#Incident
It doesn't have to sink it though - just force it out of action for repairs and/or prevent it from carrying on flight operations. One good hit would probably be enough to do that. Also, don't forget only one of the Exocet's that hit the Stark blew up - the other one was a dud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_San_Luis_(S-32)
A German U209 u-boat with the Argentinians.
During the war its torpedo armament was disfunctional (whether due to British sabotage or bad maintenance is anybody's guess) but if it had been functional it made have done quite some damage.
A German U209 u-boat with the Argentinians.
During the war its torpedo armament was disfunctional (whether due to British sabotage or bad maintenance is anybody's guess) but if it had been functional it made have done quite some damage.
The complete history of Argentina in a single sentence.
Victory in the Falklands would surely reinforce the legitimacy of the junta government domestically. However I would assume the relations between the junta and the US would deteriorate, which would have the junta access to less support to combat the leftist resistance.
I doubt that.
The Junta was basically America's muscle to keep done domestic leftists. Support for that would have been the last thing they'd lose.