"That is impossible. The Argentine submarine ARA “Salta” was patroulling all the south Argentine coasts since april to june 1982. "
Eagle.
You really have NO IDEA of capabilities of UK SSN’s.
If the Russkies couldn’t find them, then why should WWII technology Argentine submarine be able to?
Ascension Island base is LEASED to the US, with a proviso that UK can use facilities when required - we aren’t naive :roll:
1000ydstare
… The bombing aircraft then pursued the Exocet, surely there could be error, and the Invincible wasn’t actually attacked? Which we, the British on the site, know never happened.
Remembering that the attack was on your countries national day, so soon after Belgrano was sunk
I am sorry but you are wrong. The atack to the Invincible was on May, the 30th. This isn’t a national day. The most important Argentine national days are July the 9th (Independence day), and May 25th (May revolution day).
When did Argentina become a country in it’s own right, as in not part of the Spanish Empire?
The May revolution, the May 25th 1810 was the first government from creoles, but respecting the spanish flag. Argentina (with the name of United Provinces of the River Plate) start the Independence war in 1813, and win the war in 1816. The Independence declaration came the July 9th of 1816, and the “Argentine” military forces moved to Chile and Peru in order to liberate them from the spanish. The first country recognized Argentina es state was in 1818. The United Kingdom recognized the Argentine independence in 1825 (recognizing all the territories which Argentina claims as Argentine, included the Malvinas, Georgias and Sandwich islands).
Sorry, I still have serious doubts that that many aircraft could be moved down there and operated from the three decks.
The number I told you is the right number. If you want, I could show to you the matricules and what each aircraft did in the conflict.
Also on the subject of Napalm. It was, as far as I am aware, never used. BUT it was found at Goose Green, so they must have thought about using it.
The Pucarás did a lot of CAS missions from the Goose Green airfield, but never used this offensive weapon. Always changed the Napalm for silly bombs or Cluster bombs. Although the weapon was there, the officers never wanted to use it.
MAN OF STOAT
Please provide some EVIDENCE that the right to self-determination does not apply in this case and does apply in the case of Argentina, from someone like the UN.
There is not a specified norm about the self-determination from UN. I concluded by these terms
*In 1978, Argentina and Chile were on the edge of a war by some islands. The self-determination right was allowed by UN here because the inhabitants of the islands were Chilean, and they were the first persons with a state declared who lived in the islands and keep living. Argentina accepted the norm.
*Now, UN always condemn to israeli civilian who lived in Palestine territories as israelis. The israelis invaded territories, and UN condemn that, similar that what happened in 1833 in the Malvinas, don’t you think?
my earlier commet regarding not putting your hands in the air and fighting harder was tongue in cheek.
It is logical to assume that those that dont surrender and / or win, will not become prisoners, however I do accept that once you are prisoners you have rights.
Im sorry for any confusion caused.
Eagle, with reference to Invincible being bombed on May 30th, I’ve posted proof on here before that her aircraft were still flying on June 1st (one of the was shot down by an Argentinian AA gun). That wouldn’t be possible if she had been badly damaged by a bombing attack.
Given the state of Argentine ASW capacity (the escorts didn’t even notice that the Belgrano had been torpedoed for some time after the attack!) I really don’t think that a single type-209 SSK is capable of keeping out a pair of what at that time were about the best SSNs in the world. Remeber you have about half the Argentine coast to cover, out to a distance of 10-20 miles or so… That’s a lot of water for a single (slow) SSK.
Given the state of Argentine ASW capacity (the escorts didn’t even notice that the Belgrano had been torpedoed for some time after the attack!) I really don’t think that a single type-209 SSK is capable of keeping out a pair of what at that time were about the best SSNs in the world. Remeber you have about half the Argentine coast to cover, out to a distance of 10-20 miles or so… That’s a lot of water for a single (slow) SSK.[/quote]
A single slow SSk that makes more noise than a freight train. While the Brit SSn would in all probablility have been undetectable at 1000 yards, maybe less.
And would have had to surface or snort regularly, on diesals, to recharge the batteries.
They may as well have had a disco on board.
Well at least that’d have been good for morale… they’d love a bit of Village People.
UP “PERISCOPE”!!!
“Stern tubes ready.”
“SILENT ROUTINE !”
(All hands don ball-gag.)
I wasn’t talking about that.
Of course the Salta couldn’t atack to the british submarines, but as we saw on May 2nd, if the submarines were near from a threat, they could launch their torpedos and destroy to the enemy. If the submarines were there, the Salta, now would be in the bottom of the sea, and all the world would now british submarines were in the Argentine coasts in 1982.
Why didn’t the Argentine submarine attack the UK SSN’s?
Surely its sole raison d’etre was to destroy our capability to operate in your waters.
One would have thought that removing the Early Warning resources deployed by us would be paramount, or were your leaders incompetent?
The potential loss of one SSK, against the loss of our EW must have been a worthwhile gamble.
The Argentine Navy didn’t attack our submarines because they couldn’t.
Why didn’t the Argentine submarine attack the UK SSN’s?
Surely its sole raison d’etre was to destroy our capability to operate in your waters.
One would have thought that removing the Early Warning resources deployed by us would be paramount, or were your leaders incompetent?
The potential loss of one SSK, against the loss of our EW must have been a worthwhile gamble.
The Argentine Navy didn’t attack our submarines because they couldn’t.[/quote]
Tell me… do you know reading?
Why don’t you read what is saying the bold???
I repeat. Although the SALTA submarine couldn’t attack the british submarines, if they tracked to the Salta they could attack it, because is a real threat to their operation, do you understand what I am saying, don’t you?
The Salta was patroulling since April to July all the southern coast of the Argentine sea. If the british submarines were there, of course they would attacked it, because couldn’t be posible don’t meeting each other in that situation.
Why didn’t the Argentine submarine attack the UK SSN’s?
Surely its sole raison d’etre was to destroy our capability to operate in your waters.
One would have thought that removing the Early Warning resources deployed by us would be paramount, or were your leaders incompetent?
The potential loss of one SSK, against the loss of our EW must have been a worthwhile gamble.
The Argentine Navy didn’t attack our submarines because they couldn’t.[/quote]
Tell me… do you know reading?
Why don’t you read what is saying the bold???
I repeat. Although the SALTA submarine couldn’t attack the british submarines, if they tracked to the Salta they could attack it, because is a real threat to their operation, do you understand what I am saying, don’t you?
The Salta was patroulling since April to July all the southern coast of the Argentine sea. If the british submarines were there, of course they would attacked it, because couldn’t be posible don’t meeting each other in that situation.[/quote]
Please answer the question - WHY couldn’t, or didn’t the SALTA attack the SSNs?
If it was tracking them & did nothing, then all it was doing was wasting resources that could have been better used elsewhere.
Why didn’t the Argentine submarine attack the UK SSN’s?
Surely its sole raison d’etre was to destroy our capability to operate in your waters.
One would have thought that removing the Early Warning resources deployed by us would be paramount, or were your leaders incompetent?
The potential loss of one SSK, against the loss of our EW must have been a worthwhile gamble.
The Argentine Navy didn’t attack our submarines because they couldn’t.[/quote]
Tell me… do you know reading?
Why don’t you read what is saying the bold???
I repeat. Although the SALTA submarine couldn’t attack the british submarines, if they tracked to the Salta they could attack it, because is a real threat to their operation, do you understand what I am saying, don’t you?
The Salta was patroulling since April to July all the southern coast of the Argentine sea. If the british submarines were there, of course they would attacked it, because couldn’t be posible don’t meeting each other in that situation.[/quote]
Please answer the question - WHY couldn’t, or didn’t the SALTA attack the SSNs?
If it was tracking them & did nothing, then all it was doing was wasting resources that could have been better used elsewhere.[/quote]
I think he has, because it couldnt find the UK Subs.
I think his arguament is that had there been UK SSNs in those waters, they would have detected, tracked and sunk the Salta. Since it wasn’t sunk, he is inferring that there were no UK SSNs in the region.
I’m not convinced by that logic personally - an SSN can easily outrun any SSK, and stay outside tracking range at will. If their mission is reconnaisance, they may elect to hide rather than sink the target. After all, providing raid warning to the carriers would be rather hard if they had ASW aircraft hunting them.
Of course a diesel boat while using its electric engines is usually much much quieter than the Nuke one. Howver the very age os the Sata would probably mean she would be noisier.
Also Deisel boats are much better off in Continental Shelf areas than Nuc ones.
Think you may be mistaking it for the Guppies here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Argentine_Navy
Oops I stand corrected. Then she may well have been much quieter than the Nuc boats then. When under eectric power.