General Belgrano sinking.

Other Wars Falklands/Malvinas War
#1

I know it is 6 years late but you couldn’t make it up.

This has got to be ambulance chasing really reaching now!!!

Any way what are your thoughts on the sinking of the General Belgrano. Was it a war crime or a legitimate attack?

In case you may not have figured my opinion out, it is brutally simplistic.

Argentina and Britain were at war, she was a warship, she was a target whether in the exclusion zone, in the south atlantic, tied up in home port or even in another nations waters. As were, obviously, any British warships at the time. Likewise any Argentine ship in the exclusion zone was at risk. This was why it was set up.

It wasn’t a ring or a “fighting zone” it was an area the British set up to ensure no forign vessels were caught up inthe scrap, and any Argentine ship in it would be classed as hostile and could be engaged.

The families and their (probably handsomely paid lawyer) are, I believe, under a misconception that the exclusion zone was indeed a ring. Where ships would not be engaged if they were outside of it. I also believe the families were manipulated by people in Argentina who were trying to force the then government into taking action on the matter, as the then government had announced that they basically agreed that the engagement was a legimate action.

A bit bonk, but think of it as a boxing fight, the Argies think they are bound by boxing rules the Brits use WWF rules!!!

A warship in a war, is a target whereever it is.

Found this little doozy too.

The Malvinas islands, located off the coast of Argentina, had been occupied by Britain since 1833. At the beginning of 1982 the military junta tried to restore dwindling popular support by issuing statements reasserting Argentina’s historical right to the islands. By April, as Argentine troops arrived on the island, intense negotiations between Britain and Argentina were under way, led by President Belaunde Terry of Peru, when Thatcher ordered the attack on the Belgrano and effectively launched her cowardly war against a small oppressed nation.

Ok maybe oppressed, but small?

#2

Wow, that’s perhaps the craziest revisionist claptrap I’ve ever read! :shock:

#3

It wasn’t a ring or a “fighting zone” it was an area the British set up to ensure no forign vessels were caught up inthe scrap, and any Argentine ship in it would be classed as hostile and could be engaged.

1000ydstare, I do not and cannot agree with you.

The United Kingdom NEVER called to the Exclusion zone as you are explaining. That could be your view or a british writer, journalist or political, adopting the most appropiate position to Great Britain.
On April the 12nd, the Thatcher’s government offialized made official the creation of an maritime exclusion zone, which was hardened as total exclusion zone on April the 28th…

“Her Majesty’s Government declare that since April the 30th, will be stablished a Total Exclusion Zone, with a range of 200 miles. That Exclusion zone will be applied not only to the Argentine aircrafts and ships; Any millitary or civilian aircraft or ship that support the illegal occupation inside that zone will be considered as hostile and would be exposed to be attacked”.

So, that declaration explain very well the Exclusion Zone. Does it says in some place that is “a declaration to defend another flag’s ships”? I must answer a huge NO.
Besides, before April the 28th Argentina and the United Kingdom stayed in a extremely tension state, but not at war. If they were at war, the Royal Marines captured on April the 2nd had been released, as well as the Argentine Marines in the Georgias islands.
As Argentina and the United Kingdom weren’t at a real war, the most logical posture would be that the United Kingdom was warning to Argentina to not transport any provisions from the Continent to the archipelago.
But never, I repeat, NEVER from April the 2nd to May the 2nd, the British government talked about the waters from the outside of that Exclusion Zone. As the United Kingdom wasn’t interested in that zones.
As the United Kingdom only talked about the Exclusion Zone, and never said a word from the outsides of it, the most logical, I repeat, is that Any Argentine ship, millitary or civilian, could stay on that waters.

The cruiser was the leader of the “Task Force 79” from the <Sea Fleet>, which was formed by the cruiser, two destroyers and a tanker ship.
Where the “General Belgrano” was? That May the 2nd, the “General Belgrano” wasn’t advancing. It was out from the Exclusion Zone, at 380 km or 236 miles from the archipelago, 36 miles out the Exclusion Zone. That is not a little or/and confusing distance.
Not only it wasn’t advancing, it was “showing pope” to the Exclusion Zone, as a signal that the cruiser was not advancing to it, and was not interested in advancing to it.


position where the cruiser was attacked

However, the nuclear submarine HMS “Conqueror” launched three torpedoes MK.8 agaisnt the cruiser. Two of them reached their objective, and another crashed itself against one of the destroyers, but didn’t exploded. In the attack, more than 270 sailors, including two civilians, died immediately. Another 50 died as shipwrecked sailors, on their saving rafts.
The submarine of the Royal Navy had been chasing the cruiser and his* Task Force by weeks, since they left the Ushuaia port.


The sinking of the cruiser General Belgrano


Nuclear submarine HMS “Conqueror”

The United Kingdom’ Government said that the Belgrano was attacked for being a serious threat to the Royal Navy. Let’s see…
When the Belgrano was attacked, was at 200 miles from the nearest british ship (taking as Argentina hadn’t the possibility of know that a nuclear submarine was at two miles from the cruiser). The cruiser hadn’t got a real ASW (Anti-Submarine War) systems, and It hadn’t got an appropiate ASW weapon, as an helicopter or torpedoes.
The Belgrano’s most powerful weapons were tweenty three cannons from different calibres, without a guide system. Six of those cannons had the maximum range, from 12 miles.
The only smart weapons that the cruiser had were the SAM (Surface-Air Missile) system Sea Cat, a not so great system, with a range of 3 miles. It hadn’t any surface-surface missile, as the MM-38 Exocet
Besides, the Belgrano was an ancient ship, with several problems in his systems and power plants.
Could be an ancient ship with that kind of weapons, with that kind of systems, a “real serious thread” to the Royal Navy? Certainly NO.

If the Belgrano had been at 40 miles from the heart of the British Task Force, advancing to it, I could understand the sinking, but… Was a really necessity the fact of attack and sink a ship which was too far from the Task Force, static, by the time “repelling” the possibility of enter in action, without a real capability of make harms to the Royal Navy?


Argentine Cruiser ARA “General Belgrano”

Although it was a really huge vessel, with the aircraft carrier 25 de Mayo the symbols of the Argentine Navy, it wasn’t an important strategic objective.

The murmurs about that the objective of the british attack was in order to lock the negociations of an offer made by the Peruvian President (an offer that could benefit a lot to Argentina) is true. If Argentina would accepted it, the United Kingdom could had been in real problems. So the United Kingdom needed to do something to make enrage to the Argentine government and people. So, Argentina wouldn’t want to negociate. How the United Kingdom could do that? killing their proud vessel, their “loved elderly people”, their “grandfather”. And they got it. As a lot of people say: Was easier to Britain stay in the archipelago by war than by a talk.
That murmur is really heavy here in Argentina, and I consider it a lot when I have to talk about the Belgrano’s sinking.

If the murmur is false, and the United Kingdom wanted to attack a real, serious thread to their Royal Navy, the United Kingdom should attacked to the three A-69 Corvettes (“Drummond”,“Grandville”,“Guerrico”), that were fast ships, with a really low radar signal, armed with smart weapons, as SAMs and the, by the time, deadly Exocet missiles. The Royal Navy should attack them if they wanted to sink the real thread to them.


A-69 class corvette, ARA “”

                                      [img]http://www.telpin.com.ar/InternetEducativa/EscuelasPolimodal/Tecnica/n63.jpg[/img]

OUR CRUISER, FOREVER WITH US…

PD:

*: I said HIS because in spanish the ships are “male or female”, depending what kind of ship is, examples M for male, F for female:

-Aircraft Carrier - M
-Cruiser - M
-Battleship - M
-Destroyer - M
-Tanker - M
-Submarine - M

-Frigate - F
-Corvette - F
-Patrol Boat - F

PD bis: 1000 What is your name? Calling you by a number sounds a little strange and uncomfortable! :slight_smile: … my name is Giuliano, but Eagle is ok, name me as you want it. Another forist who want to say his/her name is accepted!

#4

There was no formal declaration of war, so what? If this is such a huge issue, then what the hell were Argentine troops doing attacking the Falklands without one? You can’t complain that we sunk your ship without a declaration of war when you attacked our people without one. Sheer hypocrisy! Frankly, as has been said before, it would have been perfectly okay for us to sail a submarine into one of your harbours and sink all the military ships there.

Sorry, but this is just more examples of constructive interpretation to complain that the fact you lost was somehow “unfair”.

#5

If there was no declaration of war, surely the UK should be sueing Argentina for Sheffield, Coventry and Antelope.

Was the General Belgrano a threat to the Task force around the islands? No, not directly at that time. But bear in mind the the sealanes had to be kept open to allow the British to supply their task force, you don’t want a crusier cutting about ready to spring an attack on to them as they sail. The guns would have ripped modern ships apart so there was a credible threat potental.

Why was he in the area though? I don’t think the Argentine navy sent out a cruiser to mince about around the exclusion zone for no reason. Or maybe they did, the whole thing could have been a flag waving operation for the navy which went horribly wrong.

I am looking in to the declaration of war/paperwork thing, but what was definitly sent was a letter telling the Argentines that the Taskforce was on its way and any hinderence to this fleet would be met with suitable countermeasures. Less than a week later the Belgrano was torpedoed. This was a completley different bit of paper to the exclusion zone warning.

With regards to the descison, if you have a firing solution on an enemy warship why not? true, Conqueror had stalked the belgrano for two days, and could maybe have stalked him till he was inside the exclusion zone and then put one in him anyway. That ties up a sub though, and the Belgrano could have eluded them at some point, or even found the conq. Much safer to sink him, especially with the Carrrier group just entering the TEZ to the north.

As the Carrier Battle Group approached the eastern edge of the TEZ, frigates “Brilliant” and “Plymouth” joined up on Thursday from South Georgia carrying No.2 SBS and D Sqdn SAS. Next day the TEZ came into force, and on Saturday 1st May, the Royal Navy sailed in to start the softening-up attacks designed to establish air and sea superiority. Earlier in the week, Argentine trawler “Narwhal” was warned to keep clear of the Task Force and on Sunday, off to the south west, cruiser “General Belgrano” was torpedoed and sunk by the “Conqueror”. That same Sunday, “Tidespring” and “Antrim” departed South Georgia for Ascension carrying the Argentine POW’s.

Good read this by the wayhttp://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2000/Vol26_1/4.htm

Does anyone know if they found him? From Feb 2003.

A scientific expedition will set sail on Saturday to try to locate the wreck of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano, almost 21 years after she was sunk by a British submarine in the South Atlantic.

An Argentine naval vessel will accompany the mission, carrying another 20 survivors and relatives of those who died. Many of these bitterly opposed the NGS inviting two former crewmembers from HMS Conqueror, the nuclear submarine that sank the General Belgrano.

Interesting thing on the naming of ships Eagle, I know the Russians always call theres “He”, possibly because Russia is the motherland?

Call me Ted, Giuliano.

#6

The UK would have been well within it’s rights to regard a state of war as being in place. Invading something regarded to be part of another country by that other country has been casus belli since the beginning of recorded history…

Apparently the 25e de Mayo (?) was to the north of the islands trying to get in position to launch a strike by Seahawks at the British fleet at the same time. The RN knew it was out there but the shadowing SSNs had lost contact. As such, they believed the only way to remove the threat was do sink the Belgrano and in turn scare the ARA back into port. It appears to have worked.

Ummm… why would it not be? The RN had no other ships down there that could fight it out with the Belgrano (AIUI the Harriers had no suitable weapons, which just leaves a handful of Exocet armed destroyers and the 4.5" deck guns). IMHO if the Belgrano got within gunfire range of the British fleet it would probably win any engagement.

Does it not take two sides to negotiate? If so, why would the British sink a warship to get the Argentinians to stay away rather than just refusing to negotiate themselves. Certainly they would lose diplomatically by staying away, but less so than they did by sinking the Belgrano. This doesn’t make logical sense.

#7

The decision to sink the Belgrano was Tactical, rather than Political & was made by Adm. Sandy Woodward, task force commander.

See his book “One Hundred Days” for a full account of why he felt it to be necessary.

#8

MAN OF STOAT

There was no formal declaration of war, so what? If this is such a huge issue, then what the hell were Argentine troops doing attacking the Falklands without one?

The Argentine Navy troops didn’t attack to any British soldier in the Malvinas until May. They only recovered them by the same actions that the British forces did without any real right, 149 years before.-

You can’t complain that we sunk your ship without a declaration of war when you attacked our people without one. Sheer hypocrisy!

I repeat, the Argentine forces didn’t attacked to British people. They only attacked the British forces on May the 1st. Before that the British forces attacked to the Argentine forces in Argentine Port, Grytviken Port and Darwin Port.

Frankly, as has been said before, it would have been perfectly okay for us to sail a submarine into one of your harbours and sink all the military ships there.

Of course, if that is your humanism thoughts and ethics you have. And I really doubt it. Our S-2 Trackers, SH-3 Sea Kings and corvettes were well-prepared to repel any submarine thread, specially in local waters. I remember at least two cases when sonar echos were disappeared by the Argentine forces, one on May the 5th by an S-2 Tracker and a SH-3 Sea King, and another case on May the 15th, attacked by an argentine destroyer, both near the Argentine costs.

Sorry, but this is just more examples of constructive interpretation to complain that the fact you lost was somehow “unfair”.

No it isn’t I didn’t complain anything about the Harrier attacks over Argentine Port and the Argentine deaths there, or the Sinking of the Argentine ship Formosa, attacked into the Exclusion Zone. If the United Kingdom would attacked the Belgrano into the Exclusion Zone, or outside of it, but incredibly close to the Task Force, I could understand it.

You still showing a position of hostility, like a thought of superiority against the Argentine members. I noted it a long time ago… Am I Wrong? If I am, I am sorry, but you never sounded as Firefly, Cuts or Ted. I prefer (And I think all of us prefer) a respectable and partnership treaty here… could you use it please?

#9

Ted

If there was no declaration of war, surely the UK should be sueing Argentina for Sheffield, Coventry and Antelope.

I’m not so sure… The Belgrano was in Argentine waters, near the Argentine cost, on the outsides of the Exclusion zone, unilaterally declared by the United Kingdom, and in a time when the war could had been possibly avoided. The Sheffield, the Coventry and the Antelope were in the middle of the battles, in the Exclusion Zone, thousands of miles from his nearest military bases.
Argentina didn’t complain the attack to the “Formosa”, the “Río Carcarañá” or the “Santa Fe” ships, that were into the Exclusion Zone, or in a really compromising position.

Was the General Belgrano a threat to the Task force around the islands? No, not directly at that time. But bear in mind the the sealanes had to be kept open to allow the British to supply their task force, you don’t want a crusier cutting about ready to spring an attack on to them as they sail. The guns would have ripped modern ships apart so there was a credible threat potental.

Ted, the HMS Conqueror had had been following the cruiser by more than a week. The crew and all the British government knew that it wasn’t a real thread on May the 2. If the cruiser would have returned itself a thread, advancing to the British fleet, the submarine could attack it whenever it wanted, so, the Belgrano could be attacked when it was a real thread, but don’t tell me about it was a serious thread, it wasn’t. His guns? Yeah, he had a good range, but the most of the British ships had installed Sea-Sea missiles MM-38, with a range of more than 20 miles, that is twice the range of the largest range cannon of the Argentine Cruiser. It could be repelled easily by a frigate or a destroyer if the Belgrano would become a real thread.

Why was he in the area though? I don’t think the Argentine navy sent out a cruiser to mince about around the exclusion zone for no reason.

It was on the Argentine waters, near a naval base. It wasn’t on the other side, on the east of the Exclusion Zone, so you cannot say that it was mincing about around the Exclusion Zone.

I am looking in to the declaration of war/paperwork thing, but what was definitly sent was a letter telling the Argentines that the Taskforce was on its way and any hinderence to this fleet would be met with suitable countermeasures. Less than a week later the Belgrano was torpedoed. This was a completley different bit of paper to the exclusion zone warning.

But the cruiser was not a hindrance or an obstacle to the Task Force mate. The Belgrano wasn’t between Ascension island and the Malvinas archipelago. The Belgrano wasn’t at east of the Malvinas. Trying to stop the Royal Navy’s attack.

With regards to the descison, if you have a firing solution on an enemy warship why not? true, Conqueror had stalked the belgrano for two days, and could maybe have stalked him till he was inside the exclusion zone and then put one in him anyway. That ties up a sub though, and the Belgrano could have eluded them at some point, or even found the conq. Much safer to sink him, especially with the Carrrier group just entering the TEZ to the north.

Oh, Come on ted! The Belgrano was not a modern ship with all the newest systems and radars. His ASW systems were from the WWII, absolutely nulls to 1982 so he had no possibility of “catching” with his sonar a modern submarine. If the Belgrano hadn’t detected the Conqueror when it was at two miles with a relatively good sea, it would never do it! And of course the Belgrano couldn’t have eluded the submarine, his power plants were ancient and his top speed was really slow.
And when the Belgrano was sunk, the Aircraft Carrier ARA 25 de Mayo and its escorts were out from the Exclusion Zone.

Good read this by the wayhttp://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2000/Vol26_1/4.htm

Really interesting, specially this:
“Peru’s initiative on 2 May seemed a last chance for peace but as it was being considered, the British submarine, HMS Conqueror, torpedoed and sank the Argentinian cruiser, ARA General Belgrano. Argentina dropped all further consideration of the Peruvian mediation. Whether the motive for her sinking was purely military can be debated. This event and other escalatory activities throughout the mediation process seemed to suggest a lack of emphasis by Britain to achieving a peaceful negotiated settlement.”
That quote is just what I was talking about in my post of three days ago.
The text has some mistakes, as the number of death people in the attack. It says 360, when were 323 exactly.

Does anyone know if they found him? From Feb 2003.
A scientific expedition will set sail on Saturday to try to locate the wreck of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano, almost 21 years after she was sunk by a British submarine in the South Atlantic.
An Argentine naval vessel will accompany the mission, carrying another 20 survivors and relatives of those who died. Many of these bitterly opposed the NGS inviting two former crewmembers from HMS Conqueror, the nuclear submarine that sank the General Belgrano.

No, the expedition failed a long time ago.

[quote]Interesting thing on the naming of ships Eagle, I know the Russians always call theres “He”, possibly because Russia is the motherland? [quote]

That could be true! But in the Spanish language, the problem is that a lot of words that you use as only one, here are different by the “sex”. For instance, DOG. In Spanish, Perro. But if the dog is female, is not Perro, is “Perra”. The same with cat… Gato (male) or Gata (female). When you use “A” (there’s A cat) in Spanish it changes depending the sex too… for instance, if you say there’s a cat (male)… hay UN Gato. But if you say a female, “hay unA Gata”…

And with the ships is the same… there are some ships that were named all the time as UN and others, as UNA.

UN Destructor (destroyer)
UN Portaaviones (aircraft carrier)
UN Submarino (submarine)

UNA Fragata (frigate)
UNA Corbeta (corvette)

No problem if you cannot understand it, I am not an accelerated Spanish language teacher!

Greetings mate!

#10

pdf

Apparently the 25 de Mayo (?) was to the north of the islands trying to get in position to launch a strike by Seahawks at the British fleet at the same time. The RN knew it was out there but the shadowing SSNs had lost contact. As such, they believed the only way to remove the threat was do sink the Belgrano and in turn scare the ARA back into port. It appears to have worked.

*Yes, the Aircraft Carrier “25 de Mayo” (I don’t know why the question symbol) was to the North of the Malvinas, preparing itself to launch an attack.
*The Aircraft Carrier “25 de Mayo” hadn’t any Sea Hawk. Moreover, the Argentine Navy never had any SH-60. His air fleet was formed by 8 combat aircrafts A-4B+ Skyhawk, 3 ASW helicopters SH-3 Sea King, 3 ASW aircraft S-2 Trackers and 3 assault helicopters SA-316 Allouette.
*Although the Aircraft Carrier was planning an attack with his A-4s, S-2s and SH-3s, the Royal Navy didn’t noticed that until the end of the war. It wasn’t the point of why the Belgrano was sunk.

Ummm… why would it not be? The RN had no other ships down there that could fight it out with the Belgrano (AIUI the Harriers had no suitable weapons, which just leaves a handful of Exocet armed destroyers and the 4.5" deck guns). IMHO if the Belgrano got within gunfire range of the British fleet it would probably win any engagement.

The Belgrano hadn’t the possibility of take to the Royal Navy on his gunfire range at all. And there was different picket groups from all around the islands, on south too. If the Belgrano would had been detected advancing to the heart of the Royal Navy, different group of ships could intercept him easily, and the Sea-Sea Missiles would have done all the job. Three Exocets would have destroyed the cruiser at 20 miles from the launching platform, too far to use the weapons of the Belgrano.

#11

Topor, when a big part of the British official story of the Malvinas War was opened the last year, it said that the order was directly sent from London, in a communication with the Submarine’s captain, minutes before the attack.

Well, I think that this topic is one of that where we will never find a point of agreement, the British will keep their thoughts that the cruiser was sunk by loyal mediums, and the Argentines (or only me) will keep their posture about the illegality of the sinking. So I think it is not really debatable… what do you think?

#12

I believe that Argentina thought the exclusion zone was a warfighting zone. I’m not sure they were led to believe otherwise.

While not an illegal act the sinking of the Belgrano may have been done in haste, for very valid reasons from the UK point of view.

Exactly the same thing would have happened I also believe if the situation was reversed and an Argentine submarine had the opportunity to sink a major UK warship outside of this zone, they would have taken it.

War isnt about being fair and giving your enemy a chance, its about achieving your aims as quickly as possible and at minimum loss to your own side and not the enemies.

#13

It could be argued that all the British ships were also sunk in territorial waters.

Although it may appear to be a cyncal ploy to scupper negotians, which I doubt, Maggie would have got a victory even had the Argentines just packed up and left with no bloodshed.

I doubt she actually wanted to go to war, many in the world didn’t believe that the war could be won by Britian!!! She wouldn’t want an expensive failure.

If the Brits are guilty of anything it would be not fully thinking through the repercusions of the attack. Belgrano was a ship of war of a country’s navy that was at war or at least situations of high tension and potential conflict. That he found himself in the target picture of a enemy submarine is unfortunate, the fact that the crew had not secured water tight hatches and rigged the ship for battle is tradgic.

The location of ship is completely irrelevant in this. The TEZ was purely in place to protect Argentine, and British, shipping that was not part of the war and neutral shipping. All warships were at risk however. I have also heard that the Argentines threw their own TEZ around the islands that were even bigger than the British one!!! But can’t find much on it, is it a myth?

The arguement that the Argentines hadn’t attacked Britian is flawed. The Argentine flag was flying on the Falklands and Georgia in lieu of the Union Flag. White phos had been used in room clearence at Moody Brook, not to mention machine gun cut off groups on the doors and mortars. A fierce firefight had ensued around government house and on Georgia resulting in death and injury to Argentine troops and British troops alike. That is what I would call an attack.

#14

I thought all the AIDES-esqueness had ended. Oh well!

To try to say that Argentine forces did not attack British forces on the Falklands thus instigating the conflict is palpable nonsense, and trying to say that the British defence was in fact an “attack” is just ridiculous, like when the North Koreans claim that America started the Korean War.

If the Belgrano was in Argentine waters, what were scientists doing looking for it 180 km from the Argentine coast? Surely that’s 158 km too far out if it was in Argentine waters?

#15

Actually Eagle I think it is debateable.
I pride myself that I am willing to change my point of view on any subject if I am presented with reasonable and convincing information to prove that my ideas are flawed.

To try to claim that the invasion of the Falklands by the Argentine armed forces was not an attack is disingenuous at best, the fact that the rds & WP at Moody Brook injured no-one is only due to the fact that Royal was out of bed before 601.

Anyway, do we have to redo all the discussion of sovereignty & dates again ?
I’d hate to have to bring up the ownership of the Argentine mainland by the indigenous population. That they may not have used the word ‘state’ for their land makes not one jot of difference.

The General Belgrano was an older warhip admittedly, but the available int on her was also dated - the Argentine fitters could easily have fitted or jury rigged Exocet launchers on board prior to departure.
Let’s face it the government of the time weren’t big on freedom of information and would have liked nothing better than to announce to the populace that one of their ships had sunk a Brit one.

As has been mentioned earlier the TEZ was not a ‘games ring,’ the players couldn’t just reach out and touch the edge and call “Home !” as if in a playground.
Warships in a war are fair game regardless where they happen to be, neutral ports excepted.
I’m impressed at the restraint shown by all the cmdrs in the Royal Navy chain of command at the time, but then I’ve not yet reached the level where one’s rank can be affected by politics - I’m more interested that my blokes get home intact.

The Junta started the dust up for political reasons, and wrongly - very wrongly - assumed that they could present fait d’accompli to the world.
It doesn’t work like that.

#16

Question mark was simply because I wasn’t sure of the name and was too lazy to look it up :wink:

The Seahawk was also an obselete British 1950s carrier jet fighter later sold to India. I mixed the two up - my bad.

That’s unclear. Rather an interesting book is “We Come Unseen” by Jim Ring (ISBN 0-7195-5694-5) which is about the only one I’ve found to date which covers RN cold war submarine ops in any detail. Even then most of it is anecdotal, but it has a reasonable section on Falklands ops. It states the following:

  • Immediately before the Belgrano was sunk, Spartan and Splendid were patrolling to the north of the Falklands looking for the 25 de Mayo. It further states that they were directed by “satellite intelligence” (implication being US photo-recon satellites, but not directly stated). They failed to gain contact.
  • At 0330 on the 2nd of May, Admiral Woodward (task force commander) was informed that a Sea Harrier had located the 25 de Mayo 200 miles NW of his carrier group. From this he concluded that the carrier would launch a dawn attack, and that the Belgrano would attempt some form of attack at the same time.
  • As neither Splendid nor Spartan were in contact with the carrier, sinking it was not an option. Therefore it was decided to sink the Belgrano to at least reduce the danger.
  • The book also states that Woodward considered the main danger from the Belgrano group to be Exocets. Quite why this ties in with the decision to sink the Belgrano and not the escorts I’m unsure. It may be related to the fact that the only reliable torpedoes the RN SSNs had were a WW2 vintage design that may not have been suitable to attack fast, manouverable targets.

Assuming it was detected. Carriers retained guns for a surprisingly long time because of this very threat.

#17

The Cruiser ARA General Belgrano:

Built 1935-38 at New York Shipbuilding, USS Phoenix was one of nine Brooklyn Class light cruisers built for the US Navy. She was present at the attack on Pearl Harbor, where she escaped damage and first developed a reputation for being a 'lucky ship." .

USS Phoenix

The cruiser saw extensive action in the Pacific during WWII, earning 9 battlestars

In 1946 was decomissioned by the U.S Navy. In 1951 was adquird with his sistership cruiser USS Boise by the Argentine Navy.

The USS Boise was named ARA 9 de julio and the USS Phoenix ARA 17 de Octubre, (october 17th was an important date in the peronist calendar) in 1955 after the downfall of Peron the cruiser was renamed ARA General Belgrano.

#18

Excuse me but…who was Belgrano after all ?

The ship is named after Argentine political figure and revolutionary general Manuel Belgrano (1770-1820)
is considered one of the founders of the Argentine Republic. Although he was not always victorious, his efforts saved the patriot cause at several crucial times.

Manuel Belgrano was born in Buenos Aires on June 3, 1770, into a wealthy and prominent criollo (Creole) family. He studied in Spain at the University of Salamanca in 1786 and at Valladolid, where he graduated with a degree in law in 1793. During his residence in Spain he studied languages and economics and acquainted himself with the ideas of enlightened French and Spanish authors.

When Charles IV named Belgrano secretary of the newly organized Consulado of Buenos Aires, he enthusiastically accepted.

While on the Consulado he petitioned for certain reforms: he urged opening new educational institutes and called for legislation to foster development of agriculture, commerce, trade, and communications. Most of his proposals were considered too costly or were thought to threaten privileges held by Spaniards and were vetoed. Disillusioned with the Spaniards, he was convinced that no progressive reforms could ever be expected from them.

When the English invaded Buenos Aires in 1806, Belgrano, an honorary captain, found himself commanding troops despite the fact that he had no military experience. But he was instrumental in organizing forces which later expelled the invaders. Belgrano and other criollos consequently acquired a sense of their own importance and power.

After 1807 Belgrano became increasingly critical of the Spanish system and found others who agreed with him. A secret society of revolutionists was organized with Belgrano reportedly a member. His caustic comments on Spanish regulations were disseminated through the Correo de comercio, a newspaper he helped found in March 1810. In April he resigned from the Consulado, pleading illness. But in May, when news reached Buenos Aires that the Spanish junta established in 1808 had been disbanded, Belgrano and his compatriots quickly advocated the creation of a local junta. On May 25, 1810, when the junta was organized, Belgrano was elected a member.

War of Independence

The initial concern of the junta was defending Buenos Aires while securing the support of the surrounding provincial cities. Because of Belgrano’s military record and the fact that other criollos had even less experience, he was named a general and ordered to assemble an army. In September 1810 the ill-equipped and poorly trained force made an unsuccessful foray into Paraguay. Belgrano was blamed for the disaster, but after an investigation he was cleared in August 1811.

He was subsequently appointed commander of an army defending the northwestern district from a Spanish invasion from Upper Peru (modern Bolivia). As a standard for the troops, he designed a banner which later became the national flag. With the outbreak of hostilities Belgrano was forced to retreat, but at the battle of Tucumán, on Sept. 24, 1812, he disobeyed orders, stood, fought, and checked further Spanish advances.

Battle of Tucuman:

Buenos Aires was spared, and his disobedience overlooked. Belgrano followed up the victory with an advance into the northwest. At Salta, on Feb. 20, 1813, he gained another stunning victory over the royalists, and the way was open for an invasion of Upper Peru. However, his armies were forced to withdraw after suffering a series of setbacks.

Battle of Salta:

Belgrano, again in disfavor, was sent on a diplomatic mission to Europe to secure British recognition for the Buenos Aires government and to search for a monarch. He returned in February 1816, unsuccessful in obtaining either. Back in favor, he resumed his military career. At the Congress of Tucumán, Belgrano was an outspoken advocate for a declaration of independence and the establishment of a monarchy with a descendant of the Inca on the throne. Reappointed to his old command as chief of the army of the North, for the next 3 years he fought not only Spanish regulars but armies of provincial caudillos as well. The constant traveling and campaigning exhausted him. He returned to Buenos Aires in March 1820 and died on June 20.

#19

Armament:

15.2 cm Mark 16

These guns were used to arm the Brooklyn and Cleveland class light cruisers, the latter being the most numerous class of cruisers ever built. Developed from experiments with old 6"/50 (15.2 cm) Mark 8 guns with various modifications to test new ideas, this weapon was to a new design and was capable of using the “super heavy” AP projectile. These new projectiles had almost double the penetration performance when compared against the previous 6"/53 (15.2 cm) gun used on the Omaha class (CL-4) light cruisers. Constructed of monobloc autofretted barrel secured to the housing by a bayonet joint. Later mods included chrome plating and a tapered liner. All used a semi-automatic vertical sliding breech block.

Gun Characteristics.

In Service 1937 Gun Weight 6.5 tons (6.6 mt)
Gun Length 300 in (7.620 m)
Barrel and Bore Length 282.3 in (7.169 m)
Rifling Length 238.3 in (6.053 m)
Twist Uniform `
RH 1 in 25
Chamber Volume 1,470 in3 (24.1 dm3)
Rate Of Fire 8 - 10 rounds per minute.

Ammunition.

Type Separate Projectile
Types and Weights
AP Mark 35 (super heavy) - 130 lbs. (59 kg)
AP - 105 lbs. (47.6 kg)
HC Mark 34 - 105 lbs. (47.6 kg)
HE Common - 105 lbs. (47.6 kg)
AA Common - 105 lbs. (47.6 kg)
Bursting Charge AP Mark 35 - 2 lbs. (0.9 kg)
HC - 13.65 lbs. (6.2 kg)
HE Common - 2.52 lbs (1.1 kg)
AA Common - 13.65 lbs. (6.2 kg)
Projectile Length AP Mark 35 - 27 in (68.6 cm)

Others: 24 in (61 cm)
Propellant Charge 32 lbs. (14.5 kg) NC
Charge case weighed 28.2 lbs. (12.8 kg)
Muzzle Velocity AP (super heavy) - 2,500 fps (762 mps)
HC - 2,800 fps (853 mps)
HE Common - 2,800 fps (853 mps)Working Pressure18.5 tons/in2 (2,910 kg/cm2)
Approximate Barrel Life 750 - 1,050 rounds
Ammunition stowage per gun 200 rounds

#20

Strange the deck is awash with the charges like that. I thought cloth bags were used for guns of this size, rather than brass cartridges.