what if the Argies had fixed their bomb fuzes

[Angrybk]

Have we done this one recently?

[Stuart Galbraith]

What if we fixed our missiles?

 

[RETAC21]

5 hours ago, Angrybk said:

Have we done this one recently?

It wouldn't have made a difference in the end. The Argentinians targeted warships mostly and only flew a couple of CAS missions and one that targeted transports (when they hit the LSLs), so the RN would have lost 2-3 more frigates which would have been replaced with older ships from home.

The problem the Argentinians had wasn't just the fuzes, but the lack of a combined strategy that would allow them to hold the islands or cause enough casualties to cause the UK to quit.

And they topped that up with a shortage of materiel needed to fight the war: only 1 SSK half operational, just 5 exocets, no way to defend against SSNs, no anti-missile defences (they were even less prepared to defeat Exocets). The Air Force was too far to properly escort their flights, they didn't have ECM, no AAMs, no missiles. The Army sent forces without rhyme or reason, untrained to fight in the environment, and lacking air defences.

Galtieri was an incompetent that managed to advance in his career through connections until the coup, when he promoted rapidly by his willingness to brown nose his bosses and do whatever they ordered. A coup attempt within the Junta removed his competitors in 1979 and when Viola retired in 1979 he inherited the Junta. The Air Force representative was a Brigadier so the Junta was managed by the head of the Navy, Jorge Anaya, who, for some time, wanted to invade the islands and planned and executed the invasion without telling the other members. When the war came he did little to nothing, leaving the Army high and dry in the islands.

The incompetence was so staggering that when the Junta ordered an investigation, the conclusions, by retired general Rattenbach, were so damming that it was promptly classified and hidden until the Peronistas published it in 2000s.

[Darth Stalin]

Is there any link to that report, especially in English?

[RETAC21]

7 minutes ago, Darth Stalin said:

Is there any link to that report, especially in English?

I never found it in English, here's a pdf in Spanish that conceivable can be machine translated: https://www.iri.edu.ar/publicaciones_iri/anuario/CD Anuario 2007/Historia/05- Rattenbach.pdf

It didn't mince its words, from the conclusions: "SINCE THERE WAS NO REAL REMEDY FOR JOINT ACTION, our Armed Forces faced a war against Great Britain with IGNORANCE OF JOINT DOCTRINE, an action that negatively influenced the conduct of all levels involved. Operational commands were assigned more for reasons of inter-force policy than for functional needs, and specific and joint commands were created that did not respond to the real operational needs of the problem to be solved."

It's small enough that it can be uploaded in chat gpt:

The Rattenbach Report identifies several key causes of Argentina's defeat in the South Atlantic conflict (Falklands/Malvinas War). Here’s a detailed breakdown based on the document:

Causes of Defeat

1. Political Failures:
Inadequate Political Leadership: The political leadership lacked the experience, preparation, and coherence necessary to manage the conflict effectively.
Misjudgment of International Reactions: The Argentine government failed to anticipate the strong international response, particularly from the UK and its allies, including the United States.
Diplomatic Isolation: Despite historical claims and efforts in international forums, Argentina entered the conflict with limited international support, leaving it isolated.

2. Failures in Planning:
Lack of Strategic Vision: The military leadership underestimated the complexity of a protracted conflict and overestimated their capabilities relative to British forces.
Poor Coordination: There was a lack of coordination between the branches of the armed forces (Army, Navy, and Air Force), leading to inefficiencies in operations.
Improper Assessment of UK’s Response: Argentina underestimated the UK's political resolve and military capability to retake the islands.

3. Failures in Military Execution:
Operational Shortcomings: The Argentine forces were poorly prepared and lacked sufficient training, especially for a conflict in harsh and unfamiliar terrain.
Logistical Weaknesses: The supply chains were inadequate, leaving troops undersupplied and affecting morale.
Intelligence Gaps: The military had insufficient intelligence on British capabilities and movements, leading to tactical disadvantages.

4. Timing and Opportunity:
Poorly Timed Action: The decision to invade in April 1982 ignored the political and strategic consequences of such timing, especially the UK’s capacity to respond decisively.
Lack of Long-Term Strategy: The operation focused on short-term gains (occupying the islands) without considering the long-term implications of sustaining a conflict.

5. Human and Organizational Issues:
Low Morale Among Troops: Many soldiers were young conscripts with minimal training and inadequate equipment.
Incompetent Leadership: Some senior officers showed negligence or incompetence in command decisions during critical moments of the conflict.

6. Overreliance on National Sentiment:
Overconfidence in Popular Support: The junta banked on nationalistic fervor to sustain the operation, ignoring the need for realistic military and diplomatic strategies.
Conclusions
The report emphasizes that the defeat was not due to a lack of courage or effort by individual soldiers but stemmed from systemic political and military failures at the highest levels of government and armed forces. These shortcomings directly contributed to Argentina’s inability to sustain its claim over the islands during the conflict.

[Yama]

Well, you can tell the summary is by ChatGPT, any possibly interesting nuances have been duly filtered out. Ugh.

As noted, few bomb fuzes working would not have meaningfully turned the tide. Biggest problem was inability to create enough sorties. But if Argentinians had managed to cripple one of the carriers, that might have achieved something. They had two opportunies for that:

-aborted attempt by Skyhawks of 25 de Mayo to strike British fleet on May 1

-use of the last air-launched Exocet by Super Etendard against Invincible on May 30

...however it must be noted that odds of success on both these attempts was very low.

Edited April 9 by Yama

[TrustMe]

11 hours ago, Yama said:

...use of the last air-launched Exocet by Super Etendard against Invincible on May 30

...however it must be noted that odds of success on both these attempts was very low.

To this day the Argies claim to have sunk one of our aircraft carriers  

[RETAC21]

42 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

To this day the Argies claim to have sunk one of our aircraft carriers  

Some Argentinians claim that it was damaged, not sunk.

One of the great mysteries of humanity is what happened to that Exocet, was it shot down by Exeter? did it fail? only known fact is that it missed.

[Yama]

I don't know if they ever claimed to have sunk Invincible even during the war, IIRC they did claim to have sunk Fearless though.

[TrustMe]

On the Super Eetenards which fired the Exocet is a kill marker of a British aircraft carrier   

What's of interest in the Falklands war that would make a great war game is if the Argies had 50 Exocets rather than 5. The outcome would be completely different.

Edited April 10 by TrustMe

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 hours ago, Yama said:

I don't know if they ever claimed to have sunk Invincible even during the war, IIRC they did claim to have sunk Fearless though.

I don't know if they did it at the time, but they do it today. Somehow we built a 22000 ton carrier to replace the Invincible we lost. Kinda makes faking the moon landing look plausible.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, TrustMe said:

On the Super Eetenards which fired the Exocet is a kill marker of a British aircraft carrier   

What's of interest in the Falklands war that would make a great war game is if the Argies had 50 Exocets rather than 5. The outcome would be completely different.

I'm not so sure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado

For that matter we could have used Vulcan on the argentine mainland, particularly if we were willing to throw the aircraft away.

[RETAC21]

25 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I'm not so sure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado

For that matter we could have used Vulcan on the argentine mainland, particularly if we were willing to throw the aircraft away.

It must be true if there's a Youtube channel devoted to it 😛

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvS7fo3UCZzYOkH2dszQp6Q/videos

[Stuart Galbraith]

Pity we didn't sell her to Argentina, that would have caused heads to explode..

[Yama]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I'm not so sure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado

That operation was just as, if not more, shall we say "long shot" than the aforementioned Argentine attacks 

Though, if we are to hand the Argentines more toys, then same should be obviously done to Brits.

[mandeb48]

No one seriously claimed its sinking, beyond wartime propaganda, no one expected the Exocet, with its 165-kilogram warhead, to sink an aircraft carrier. The most argentine could have hoped for was that it would damage it enough to facilitate the work of the A4s sent to bomb it simultaneously.

Edited April 10 by mandeb48

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, Yama said:

That operation was just as, if not more, shall we say "long shot" than the aforementioned Argentine attacks 

Though, if we are to hand the Argentines more toys, then same should be obviously done to Brits.

'Whatever happens, we have got,

the hydrogen bomb, and they have not!'

(Apologies to Kipling)

It ultimately comes down to how far up the escalation tree we would want to go. There is at least one source that claims Mitterand believed we woudl use the bomb, and that there was a Resolution class submarine south of the equator.

I dont THINK Thatcher was that crazy, but if there was a choice between losing and using one... im not sure anyone really can say for sure.