Confusion over whether an active gunman was at the scene of the Manchester Arena bombing meant the first fire engine arrived more than two hours after the blast, an inquiry was told.
Paul Greaney QC said the inquiry will need to consider “whether a better response by the emergency services would have saved more lives”.
Twenty-two people were killed when Salman Abedi detonated a suicide bomb as 14,000 fans left the arena in 2017.
Hundreds more were also injured.
The public inquiry, which comes more than three years after the attack, will look at a number of factors including the emergency response to the bombing.
The hearing was told how problems with communication and incorrect reports of an “active shooter” meant fire engines carrying specialist equipment and stretchers did not arrive for another two hours and six minutes after the blast at 22:31 BST on 22 May 2017.
Mr Greaney said the inquiry will have to consider “whether that absence contributed or may have contributed to the loss of life that occurred”.
“There can be no doubt there was a need for such joint working on the night of 22 May 2017 in Manchester,” he said during the third day of the inquiry.
The hearing was told North West Fire Control was first notified at 22:34 BST that there had been an explosion and mass casualties, and police were looking for a second device.
They also received reports, wrongly, of an “active shooter” and some casualties with gunshot wounds.
But there appeared to be confusion about whether Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (GMFRS) should follow procedures based on the incident being an explosion or a terror bombing.
Station manager Simon Berry, of GMFRS, was told a rendezvous point was arranged with police at Manchester Cathedral nearby, but this was rejected in favour of a different “muster point” three miles away from the arena.
This decision would be “critical” to the understanding of how the fire service was delayed so long in deploying to the arena, Mr Greaney said.
An expert report on GMFRS’s response to the attack found it “inadequate and ineffective” and said there was a lack of effective leadership, though “no single individual” was responsible for the failings.