Small things that could’ve made the uk lose the Falkland war

[Tsarytsya]

It’s must be a very common question but what could’ve led to the UK losing the falklands war? Either a total victory or, preferably for my purposes, stalemated it to force negotiations.

I’m particularly interested in very small divergences that could’ve lead to this. Some examples being Exocet‘s pod -a single Exocet missile damaging a single ship and killing prince Andrew-, Reagan not coming out in support. Another might be what my dad -17 at the time- spitballed as we watched an anniversary documentary: that, had the Secret Service attacks on the mainland Argentinean airforce not been successful, the invasion could’ve failed or at least been gruelling with more casualties.

 

[David Flin]

Uh huh.

In order:

The Exocet hit on a flattop would have been severely damaging had it taken place before May 25th. After that date, the boots were ashore, and all that was left were the details and the butcher's bill. Prior to that, could have stopped things cold. Had Prince Andrew been killed, there would have been much rejoicing in the Andrew. He was not a popular officer.

Of course, Sandy Woodward knew all about the Exocet threat, hence he kept the flattops well to the east (closer to Simonstown than Stanley, as someone not a million miles away from this computer once remarked) and out of range of the Exocets, at the cost of reducing time on station of the Harriers.

2.
Reagan not coming out in support. That reduces the real time satellite reports. Which complicates things.

Quite what the political fallout would be is another matter. It could easily lead to a break-up of NATO. To be frank, this is such a low probability event that we can pretty much discount it.

3.
Secret Service attacks on the Argentine mainland.

Oh dear.

A. They weren't secret service, they were special forces. There's a difference.
B. They were the SAS. If they attacked the Argentine mainland, they'd have been blowing things up in Valpariso.
C. The attempts, such as they were, failed.
D. The attempts, such as they were, took place after May 25th, and would therefore have been of modest value even had they been successful.
E. The only reason they were attempted was to keep the SAS out of the way, because they were fucking useless.

In short, they made fuck all difference.

 

[David Flin]

If you want to circumvent a decisive war and lead to a stalemate, then your best option is to make a change that stops the Task Force from setting out in the first place.

That's not going to be easy with the political situation that was in place in the UK at the time; Thatcher was unlikely to shy away and Foot had gained a flashback to Guilty Men and was supporting her.

About the only figure of any significance (and I use the term very loosely) who supported leaving the Islanders to their fate at the hands of a far right dictatorship was Benn. Oh, he wrapped it up in waffle about leaving it to the UN, but that was tantamount to leaving them to their fate.

Somehow (good luck), you need to get Benn or a Benn lookalike into a position where they have actual political power rather than the freedom to pontificate without consequence.

The matter gets put before the UN, who are probably still debating what to do, and the Humphrey Appleby's of Westminster shrug and say: "Too late now."

 

[History Learner]

It’s must be a very common question but what could’ve led to the UK losing the falklands war? Either a total victory or, preferably for my purposes, stalemated it to force negotiations.

I’m particularly interested in very small divergences that could’ve lead to this. Some examples being Exocet‘s pod -a single Exocet missile damaging a single ship and killing prince Andrew-, Reagan not coming out in support. Another might be what my dad -17 at the time- spitballed as we watched an anniversary documentary: that, had the Secret Service attacks on the mainland Argentinean airforce not been successful, the invasion could’ve failed or at least been gruelling with more casualties.

Easiest PoD: HMS Invincible is sunk by an Argentinian submarine

One of the few times the Type 209 was used in anger was during the Falklands War, when an Argentinian Type 209 fired at a British aircraft carrier. Amazingly the Argentinian submarine got to within 7,000 meters of the British surface fleet without being detected and fired three torpedoes. However, due to faulty gyroscopes and improperly installed guidance wires, the torpedoes veered wildly off course, missing their target. Had they not missed, the course of the Falklands War could potentially have been much different.​

 

[Warthog]

The Exocet hit on a flattop would have been severely damaging had it taken place before May 25th. After that date, the boots were ashore, and all that was left were the details and the butcher's bill. Prior to that, could have stopped things cold.

I believe @iainbhx used this as the start for an election timeline - but since it was an election night thing, the plausibility of the military aspect wasn't the point?

 

[David Flin]

I believe @iainbhx used this as the start for an election timeline - but since it was an election night thing, the plausibility of the military aspect wasn't the point?

Could be. Political ramifications are outside my area of expertise.

Had the trip Down South gone badly, then the political fallout could well have been - interesting. However, once the decision to go Down South had been made and was committed to, then PODs to get a military outcome that is different in result (the details will vary, and the butcher's bill may very well be different) are surprisingly difficult to pin down.

It pretty much has to be before the landings; once the boots and equipment are ashore, all that remains are the details. Which isn't to say it was an easy campaign (not for nothing is Thompson's book on the subject called: "No Picnic"), but the quality difference between the troops on the ground is stark (with the exception of the Welsh Guards, who really shouldn't have been allowed to go more than a couple of miles from Pall Mall. F..ing useless noddies).

 

[iainbhx]

I believe @iainbhx used this as the start for an election timeline - but since it was an election night thing, the plausibility of the military aspect wasn't the point?

I sort of did back in the Old Country but I was very deliberately vague about what happened apart from more of the Task Force being sunk, I wanted it to be an election time line.

 

[Tsarytsya]

These are certainly some neat and useful suggestions, bar the Benn one, and its funny to know that my dad must’ve picked up some myth or rumour over the years. I’m not military minded, just looking to make a political TL, hence my asking here. I think I’ll go for the submarine suggestion given the ships were out of the way of the Exocet

 

[David Flin]

These are certainly some neat and useful suggestions, bar the Benn one, and its funny to know that my dad must’ve picked up some myth or rumour over the years. I’m not military minded, just looking to make a political TL, hence my asking here. I think I’ll go for the submarine suggestion given the ships were out of the way of the Exocet

Submarine one?

I said nowt about a submarine.

There were a few wild claims about an Argentine submarine being in position, but examination of ships logs after the event indicate that the claims were just fantasy.

You still find the suggestion from time to time, but a look at a map and the times tells one that an interception was astonishingly unlikely.

If you're going for a political tl, your best bet is to declare the military result you want at the outset, and not worry how it arose.

 

[Tsarytsya]

Submarine one?

I said nowt about a submarine.

There were a few wild claims about an Argentine submarine being in position, but examination of ships logs after the event indicate that the claims were just fantasy.

You still find the suggestion from time to time, but a look at a map and the times tells one that an interception was astonishingly unlikely.

If you're going for a political tl, your best bet is to declare the military result you want at the outset, and not worry how it arose.

Yes, while you did not personally suggest it other people have replied to the thread. I have already declared the military result and I am looking for a justification -there’s no reason why I shouldn’t

 

[David Flin]

Yes, while you did not personally suggest it other people have replied to the thread. I have already declared the military result and I am looking for a justification -there’s no reason why I shouldn’t

Oh, probably someone from my ignore list, then.

If you feel you need a justification for a pre determined military result, that's fine.

My experience is that trying such can lead one into more difficulties than it's worth, and generally doesn't impact the point of the story.

 

[Tsarytsya]

Oh, probably someone from my ignore list, then.

If you feel you need a justification for a pre determined military result, that's fine.

My experience is that trying such can lead one into more difficulties than it's worth, and generally doesn't impact the point of the story.

Ok, appreciate the advice

 

[David Flin]

Ok, appreciate the advice

No worries. If you ever need advice on the ground stuff during the war, I have a little knowledge.

 

[Charles EP M.]

The submarine claim led to this article on the general state of Argentina's submarine fleet, i.e. "shit" but one submarine still managed to evade dedicated sub-hunting ships while failing to do anything itself, so maybe them being less shit could have done some damage. (I dunno how likely this is since the junta planned an invasion without going "is our sub fleet useable in case there's a full-on war with guys who'll need to use ships" but might be enough for a story)

 

[Death's Companion]

I'm starting to get the idea that starting wars on the basis that the other side won't fight back at all is not sound practice given the amount of times it seems to have gone badly.

 

[History Learner]

The submarine claim led to this article on the general state of Argentina's submarine fleet, i.e. "shit" but one submarine still managed to evade dedicated sub-hunting ships while failing to do anything itself, so maybe them being less shit could have done some damage. (I dunno how likely this is since the junta planned an invasion without going "is our sub fleet useable in case there's a full-on war with guys who'll need to use ships" but might be enough for a story)

The submarines and their crews worked well, the issue was probably mechanical in the torpedoes themselves.

An Argentine submarine scored four direct hits with torpedoes on a British aircraft carrier during last year's Falklands war but the warship escaped unharmed because the weapons never exploded, the Sunday Times reported.​

​

The carrier was believed to be HMS Invincible, which carried 1,100 crewmen, eight Sea Harrier jets and eight Sea King helicopters, the newspaper said.​

​

British defense officials already have said the loss of an aircraft carrier during last year's 74-day war in the South Atlantic would have devastated attempts to recapture the islands from the Argentine invasion force.​

​

The report of the 20,000-ton carrier's escape was revealed in a secret Argentine naval inquiry being held in Buenos Aires, the Sunday Times said.​

​

The inquiry also has been told of two other submarine-launched torpedo attacks -- against a Royal Navy submarine and a task force auxiliary ship -- but those torpedoes were said to have missed, the newspaper said.​

​

Defense sources in Britain tend to believe the reports, even though they have no direct evidence. Experts said even traveling at 30 mph, the torpedoes would have left little more than scratches and minor dents on the Invincible's hull.​

​

But the reports were indirectly confirmed by separate defense sources who say Argentina alerted other South American countries that use the same German-built SST4 torpedoes that the devices had failed to explode on contact.​

​

Argentine Capt. Fernando Azcueta, who the Sunday Times said was widely described as a brilliant officer, told the inquiry the four torpedoes were fired from his Type 209 submarine, the San Luis.​

​

He said he had shadowed the aircraft carrier for six days before launching the torpedoes and that all four hit the ship below the waterline.​

​

Azcueta is the main subject of the inquiry, which is trying to determine whether human error or mechanical malfunction was responsible for the torpedoes' failure to detonate, the newspaper said.​

​

The inquiry believes the torpedoes failed to explode because of inadequate adjustments to their detonation and directional homing devices. Azcueta has said his crew was not to blame for the inadequate adjustments, the newspaper said.​

 

[Charles EP M.]

The submarines and their crews worked well, the issue was probably mechanical in the torpedoes themselves.

An Argentine submarine scored four direct hits with torpedoes on a British aircraft carrier during last year's Falklands war but the warship escaped unharmed because the weapons never exploded, the Sunday Times reported.​

​

Don't think this is correct. A UPI article from a day later than that one says "Defense officials expressed skepticism about a report that a British aircraft carrier was hit by Argentine torpedoes in last year's Falklands war but escaped unharmed because they failed to explode", with the argument focusing on lack of sign of dents from impact and nobody on the boat noticing four hits. General search brings up that it's claimed San Luis fired on Invincible but not much 'yes it definitely did' sourcing, while we know San Luis definitely did fire unsuccessfully on other vessels (this is covered in the article you're replying to).

If Azcueta did say he fired on an aircraft carrier in 1983, he's not saying it in an interview in 1984, while in 2002 an interviewer asked him and it's unclear to me if he's saying he did fire or the interviewer misinterpreted a general comment on the torpedos being shit. We'd need a translation of that '83 report.

(for the original POD question, Azcueta does claim he was meant to help attack a carrier group in 2002 but things cocked up:

We had located a British task group, including one of the carriers, north of the Islands. The plan was to attack in a pincer movement. Our planes would bomb the task force, and Belgrano, which was an old thing but had good guns, would provide artillery support. It wasn’t so simple, though. Our Skyhawks had to carry a full load of fuel and bombs, and in that case the planes can’t take off unless they are helped by wind of at least 25 knots. At that time of the year, much stronger winds are common in the south Atlantic, but that day the weather was as calm as a summer day. If our carrier had been more modern, it would have been possible to set it at full speed to create its own wind, but the engines were not powerful enough. We waited for the weather to change. After many hours, it became obvious that it wouldn’t, and the attack was cancelled. By then, Belgrano had been spotted by HMS Conqueror.

(so winds being different could be a good-enough-for-purpose POD)

 

[Charles EP M.]

(When looking for anything else on the '83 inquiry, I found a 1996 US Naval Institute article saying German & Dutch engineers found two reasons the San Luis had its issues: first was a defect causing "incorrect bearing information was transmitted from the periscope to the fire-control console" and one, so they claimed, was that during maintenance a submariner had accidentally "reconnected that twin lead DC power wire with its leads reversed". Though for all I know that was later debunked as engineers going 'not us guv, must be human error'. Article also quotes Azcueta claiming our anti-submarine counters were crap so, if true, we got lucky the Argentinian submarine fleet was in such appalling condition)