WI: The Royal Navy sinks the Argentinian's carrier too?

[James G]

During the Falklands War, the Royal Navy torpedoed & sunk the cruiser Belgrano. This was a legal act of war, military justifiable too, but caused a stink in the court of public opinion.
There were orders for the Veinticinco de Mayo to be sunk as well should it have been deemed in a position to threaten the Royal Navy as the Belgrano was. Let us say it comes forward, the decision is made to torpedo it and the ship is sunk in addition too the cruiser hit beforehand.
What kind of effect does this have beyond the short-term military impact?
Will critics of the war argue it was unnecessary too? Does world opinion at the time turn against Britain for all of the deaths which would certainly come from sinking that ship?

[lordroel]

Sept 6, 2019 19:28:45 GMT James G said:

During the Falklands War, the Royal Navy torpedoed & sunk the cruiser Belgrano. This was a legal act of war, military justifiable too, but caused a stink in the court of public opinion.
There were orders for the Veinticinco de Mayo to be sunk as well should it have been deemed in a position to threaten the Royal Navy as the Belgrano was. Let us say it comes forward, the decision is made to torpedo it and the ship is sunk in addition too the cruiser hit beforehand.
What kind of effect does this have beyond the short-term military impact?
Will critics of the war argue it was unnecessary too? Does world opinion at the time turn against Britain for all of the deaths which would certainly come from sinking that ship?

Would you prefer a boring submarine attack ore a epic aerial dogfight that resultin the sinking of the Argentine carrier.

[James G]

Sept 6, 2019 19:36:56 GMT lordroel said:

Sept 6, 2019 19:28:45 GMT James G said:

During the Falklands War, the Royal Navy torpedoed & sunk the cruiser Belgrano. This was a legal act of war, military justifiable too, but caused a stink in the court of public opinion.
There were orders for the Veinticinco de Mayo to be sunk as well should it have been deemed in a position to threaten the Royal Navy as the Belgrano was. Let us say it comes forward, the decision is made to torpedo it and the ship is sunk in addition too the cruiser hit beforehand.
What kind of effect does this have beyond the short-term military impact?
Will critics of the war argue it was unnecessary too? Does world opinion at the time turn against Britain for all of the deaths which would certainly come from sinking that ship?

Would you prefer a boring submarine attack ore a epic aerial dogfight that resultin the sinking of the Argentine carrier.

It would have been a sub attack. HMS Spartan and HMS Splendid, both Swiftsure-class boat designed to go after the Soviet Navy, were assigned operational areas where the carrier cruised through.
I actually don't think the Royal Navy could have sunk the Veinticinco de Mayo with air power at the time. If the Sea Harriers got through, along with the RAF Harriers aboard the RN carriers as well, they could have put bombs into her: maybe missiles too. But I think they'd set her alight rather than put holes in her.

[lordroel]

Sept 6, 2019 19:47:35 GMT James G said:

Sept 6, 2019 19:36:56 GMT lordroel said:

Would you prefer a boring submarine attack ore a epic aerial dogfight that resultin the sinking of the Argentine carrier.

It would have been a sub attack. HMS Spartan and HMS Splendid, both Swiftsure-class boat designed to go after the Soviet Navy, were assigned operational areas where the carrier cruised through.
I actually don't think the Royal Navy could have sunk the Veinticinco de Mayo with air power at the time. If the Sea Harriers got through, along with the RAF Harriers aboard the RN carriers as well, they could have put bombs into her: maybe missiles too. But I think they'd set her alight rather than put holes in her.

So two British subs sink two major ships, the surface fleet might get jealous of the silent fleet.

[forcon]

I think the political stink will be be somewhat magnified, but not by much. Those who were outraged at the sinking of the Belgrano aren't going to be any more outraged, and those who weren't outraged aren't going to have their opinions changed. At the end of the day, it's war and both the carrier and the Belgrano were legitimate military targets. So too were the British ships in the task group for the Aregtine AF.

What could have caused the RN to sink her? We could have an attempted air attack by Argentine carrier-based aircraft getting fended off by the Harriers and Type-42s with some losses on either side, and the RN deciding to take her out before she can launch a second strike.

[James G]

Sept 6, 2019 21:39:28 GMT forcon said:

I think the political stink will be be somewhat magnified, but not by much. Those who were outraged at the sinking of the Belgrano aren't going to be any more outraged, and those who weren't outraged aren't going to have their opinions changed. At the end of the day, it's war and both the carrier and the Belgrano were legitimate military targets. So too were the British ships in the task group for the Aregtine AF.

What could have caused the RN to sink her? We could have an attempted air attack by Argentine carrier-based aircraft getting fended off by the Harriers and Type-42s with some losses on either side, and the RN deciding to take her out before she can launch a second strike.

There had been an attempt for the carrier's air wing to go after the Task Force. I saw a picture of the flightdeck with bombs in front of the A-4s with the names of RN warships written on them! The day they tried, they couldn't get any wind over the deck to allow for takeoff. So they weren't gonna try again.
There were three RN subs: the two Swiftsures and the older Conqueror. Each had to come near to the surface every four hours and broadcast a sitrep. Conqueror did so before hitting the Belgrano and was ordered to sink her. The other two had to do so while looking for the carrier and the Argentinians had ASW aircraft out, limiting their hunt.
On the day the Belgrano was hit, it was the southern pincer of a strike. The carrier was coming in from the north but there was no wind. The RN was out to sink her and one of the Swiftsures chased her group home but couldn't get a shot in due to the four-hour thing and ASW aircraft.

[stevep]

Sept 6, 2019 21:39:28 GMT forcon said:

I think the political stink will be be somewhat magnified, but not by much. Those who were outraged at the sinking of the Belgrano aren't going to be any more outraged, and those who weren't outraged aren't going to have their opinions changed. At the end of the day, it's war and both the carrier and the Belgrano were legitimate military targets. So too were the British ships in the task group for the Aregtine AF.

What could have caused the RN to sink her? We could have an attempted air attack by Argentine carrier-based aircraft getting fended off by the Harriers and Type-42s with some losses on either side, and the RN deciding to take her out before she can launch a second strike.

  I think that sums it up neatly.  The people who were opposed to Britons being defended would be further upset but most people would support the fleet and the removal of threats to our people,  both the military units sent down there and the civilians they were seeking to liberate.

  Possibly if the wind had been different and the enemy carrier had got a strike off, but it had been largely unsuccessful - as a successful one could cripple the entire operation.  Then London no longer waffles and the orders go out to sink here, without needing to report back to London.  Possibly if this occurs before the Belgrano is attacked then there is open season on both?

[forcon]

How succesful could a strike from the Venticinco de Mayo been? IIRC she flew Skyhawks, maybe Etendards as well? With the Exocets still on the Argentine mainland, what weapons could those carrier-based aircraft used? Gravity bombs, or did they have different munitions?

[stevep]

Sept 7, 2019 10:01:08 GMT forcon said:

How succesful could a strike from the Venticinco de Mayo been? IIRC she flew Skyhawks, maybe Etendards as well? With the Exocets still on the Argentine mainland, what weapons could those carrier-based aircraft used? Gravity bombs, or did they have different munitions?

  Afraid my answer is a resounding don't know.  Carrier strikes are always chancy as to how effective they can be.  So many things can affect it but if they crippled one of the two British carriers, let alone sunk it that makes the entire operation a hell of a lot more risky.  Also ironically if that happened and it came out that a sub had had a clear shot and hadn't taken it because they were awaiting confirmation from London there would be hell to pay.

  I suppose that another option, if a sub got close enough and saw the carrier was preparing/launching a strike the commander might act off his own bat and order an attack?

[forcon]

Sept 7, 2019 11:42:46 GMT stevep said:

Sept 7, 2019 10:01:08 GMT forcon said:

How succesful could a strike from the Venticinco de Mayo been? IIRC she flew Skyhawks, maybe Etendards as well? With the Exocets still on the Argentine mainland, what weapons could those carrier-based aircraft used? Gravity bombs, or did they have different munitions?

  Afraid my answer is a resounding don't know.  Carrier strikes are always chancy as to how effective they can be.  So many things can affect it but if they crippled one of the two British carriers, let alone sunk it that makes the entire operation a hell of a lot more risky.  Also ironically if that happened and it came out that a sub had had a clear shot and hadn't taken it because they were awaiting confirmation from London there would be hell to pay.

  I suppose that another option, if a sub got close enough and saw the carrier was preparing/launching a strike the commander might act off his own bat and order an attack?

I'm sure that would be lawful, the skipper attacking of his own volition of it looked as though the carrier was going to mount a strike. What about a scenario where the carrier is sunk while her air wing is busy attacking the RN? Presumably you'd see the aircraft running out of fuel long before reaching the mainland.

[James G]

Sept 7, 2019 18:09:41 GMT forcon said:

Sept 7, 2019 11:42:46 GMT stevep said:

  Afraid my answer is a resounding don't know.  Carrier strikes are always chancy as to how effective they can be.  So many things can affect it but if they crippled one of the two British carriers, let alone sunk it that makes the entire operation a hell of a lot more risky.  Also ironically if that happened and it came out that a sub had had a clear shot and hadn't taken it because they were awaiting confirmation from London there would be hell to pay.

  I suppose that another option, if a sub got close enough and saw the carrier was preparing/launching a strike the commander might act off his own bat and order an attack?

I'm sure that would be lawful, the skipper attacking of his own volition of it looked as though the carrier was going to mount a strike. What about a scenario where the carrier is sunk while her air wing is busy attacking the RN? Presumably you'd see the aircraft running out of fuel long before reaching the mainland.

That would be quite possible in the right circumstances. those jets aren't getting home, neither to the Falklands. It would thus be a long swim for the aircrews.

[stevep]

Sept 7, 2019 22:13:33 GMT James G said:

Sept 7, 2019 18:09:41 GMT forcon said:

I'm sure that would be lawful, the skipper attacking of his own volition of it looked as though the carrier was going to mount a strike. What about a scenario where the carrier is sunk while her air wing is busy attacking the RN? Presumably you'd see the aircraft running out of fuel long before reaching the mainland.

That would be quite possible in the right circumstances. those jets aren't getting home, neither to the Falklands. It would thus be a long swim for the aircrews.

  Well, once they knew their ship was down, wouldn't they be able to reach the Falklands, depending on fuel and their location once they heard the news of course?  It might be more of a crash landing as think the airfields were quite short in terms of take off distance and without supplies and spares any that did land would be of limited use.

[stevep]

Sept 7, 2019 18:09:41 GMT forcon said:

Sept 7, 2019 11:42:46 GMT stevep said:

  Afraid my answer is a resounding don't know.  Carrier strikes are always chancy as to how effective they can be.  So many things can affect it but if they crippled one of the two British carriers, let alone sunk it that makes the entire operation a hell of a lot more risky.  Also ironically if that happened and it came out that a sub had had a clear shot and hadn't taken it because they were awaiting confirmation from London there would be hell to pay.

  I suppose that another option, if a sub got close enough and saw the carrier was preparing/launching a strike the commander might act off his own bat and order an attack?

I'm sure that would be lawful, the skipper attacking of his own volition of it looked as though the carrier was going to mount a strike. What about a scenario where the carrier is sunk while her air wing is busy attacking the RN? Presumably you'd see the aircraft running out of fuel long before reaching the mainland.

  Fully lawful and almost certainly very popular in Britain if it stopped or reduced an attack on the fleet but I can see certain groups as well as Argentina complaining. 

[lordroel]

Sept 8, 2019 10:38:12 GMT stevep said:

Sept 7, 2019 18:09:41 GMT forcon said:

I'm sure that would be lawful, the skipper attacking of his own volition of it looked as though the carrier was going to mount a strike. What about a scenario where the carrier is sunk while her air wing is busy attacking the RN? Presumably you'd see the aircraft running out of fuel long before reaching the mainland.

  Fully lawful and almost certainly very popular in Britain if it stopped or reduced an attack on the fleet but I can see certain groups as well as Argentina complaining. 

And the death toll on Argentina side surpassing most likely the thousand mark in the end of the conflict.

[stevep]

Sept 8, 2019 10:40:18 GMT lordroel said:

Sept 8, 2019 10:38:12 GMT stevep said:

  Fully lawful and almost certainly very popular in Britain if it stopped or reduced an attack on the fleet but I can see certain groups as well as Argentina complaining. 

And the death toll on Argentina side surpassing most likely the thousand mark in the end of the conflict.

  Well there's always a chance that the regime might accept the clear evidence that Britain has both the determination and power to liberate the islands and accept an early cease fire and withdrawal.  However considering their fighting primarily for the prestige of a faltering military junta that would be pretty unlikely.