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

[lordroel]

Sept 8, 2019 13:20:39 GMT stevep said:

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

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.

Reading Falklands war in real-time thread, I can say that the regime toughed they could win until Port Stanley was captured by the British.

[stevep]

Sept 8, 2019 13:23:30 GMT lordroel said:

Sept 8, 2019 13:20:39 GMT stevep said:

  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.

Reading Falklands war in real-time thread, I can say that the regime toughed they could win until Port Stanley was captured by the British.

  That could have been their propaganda stance but the basic thing was that once they had committed to the invasion they couldn't politically admit any failure.  After the surrender of the invading forces the regime was very quickly removed.  As such I can't see them withdrawing even once they realise things are going pear shaped as they realise that would be fatal for their power and possibly even themselves personally.

[James G]

Sept 8, 2019 22:57:40 GMT stevep said:

Sept 8, 2019 13:23:30 GMT lordroel said:

Reading Falklands war in real-time thread, I can say that the regime toughed they could win until Port Stanley was captured by the British.

  That could have been their propaganda stance but the basic thing was that once they had committed to the invasion they couldn't politically admit any failure.  After the surrender of the invading forces the regime was very quickly removed.  As such I can't see them withdrawing even once they realise things are going pear shaped as they realise that would be fatal for their power and possibly even themselves personally.

The Junta really did put themselves in a bind over the Falklands.

[stevep]

Sept 11, 2019 15:56:07 GMT James G said:

Sept 8, 2019 22:57:40 GMT stevep said:

  That could have been their propaganda stance but the basic thing was that once they had committed to the invasion they couldn't politically admit any failure.  After the surrender of the invading forces the regime was very quickly removed.  As such I can't see them withdrawing even once they realise things are going pear shaped as they realise that would be fatal for their power and possibly even themselves personally.

The Junta really did put themselves in a bind over the Falklands.

  The opinion at the time was that they did it, partly because Thatcher gave them the opportunity with the naval cuts being announced but mainly because of the growing opposition to the regime.  Because assorted Argentinian governments have spent nearly 200 years lying about the islands and their claim to them it moblised public opinion behind them but of course only until the wheels came off.  Either they were desperate or impatient as if they had been able/willing to wait a year, or simply 6 months it would have been very much more difficult if not impossible for Britain to retake the island.

[lordroel]

Sept 11, 2019 16:22:31 GMT stevep said:

Sept 11, 2019 15:56:07 GMT James G said:

The Junta really did put themselves in a bind over the Falklands.

  The opinion at the time was that they did it, partly because Thatcher gave them the opportunity with the naval cuts being announced but mainly because of the growing opposition to the regime.  Because assorted Argentinian governments have spent nearly 200 years lying about the islands and their claim to them it moblised public opinion behind them but of course only until the wheels came off.  Either they were desperate or impatient as if they had been able/willing to wait a year, or simply 6 months it would have been very much more difficult if not impossible for Britain to retake the island.

Would the Regime be able to keep it a secret that they lost a carrier and a couple of hundred men.

[stevep]

Sept 11, 2019 16:25:00 GMT lordroel said:

Sept 11, 2019 16:22:31 GMT stevep said:

  The opinion at the time was that they did it, partly because Thatcher gave them the opportunity with the naval cuts being announced but mainly because of the growing opposition to the regime.  Because assorted Argentinian governments have spent nearly 200 years lying about the islands and their claim to them it moblised public opinion behind them but of course only until the wheels came off.  Either they were desperate or impatient as if they had been able/willing to wait a year, or simply 6 months it would have been very much more difficult if not impossible for Britain to retake the island.

Would the Regime be able to keep it a secret that they lost a carrier and a couple of hundred men.

  Probably not.  Also like with the Belgrano they will probably broadcast the news, claiming that the British determination to defend themselves was some sort of attocitiy against the 'peaceful' thuggish dictatorship that had invaded the Falklands.

[dayton3]

Not much change. The Argentines had already lost the war for public opinion and were well on their way to losing the war at sea, air, and land.