General Belgrano sinking.

Other Wars Falklands/Malvinas War
#41

The ship was lost due to poor drills in the run up (ie she was not rigged for battle, water tight doors were left open and many crew were off duty) and what can only be ineffective damage control afterwards. There are accounts that damage control in the boiler rooms (the two largest compartments of the ship) were practically non existant after the boilers began to cook off.

Nonsense. The damage control crew was killed by the torpedo wich hits in the machine room, actually that caused 250 deads of the total 323, you cannot accuse dead people of “poor drills”. Not to mention the torp wich hit ahead the the first turret wich sawed off the bow.

#42

The damaged control party were not ALL killed in the first explosion.

The ship was not rigged for any sort of alert, to that end damage control parties were NOT yet formed.

The ship would have gone to their alert state, such as General Quarters. The men assigned to the various duties would man their posts, the surplus would provide the Damage Control Parties. In the event of the whole boiler room personnel being killed it is highly likely the gunners (having nothing to do may have been sent down).

These Damage Control Parties do not include the personnel who would have immediatly attempted to bring the damaged to repair.

A ship such as Belgrano should not sink with only, what, 4 - 5 compartments vented.

She is a Cruiser, designed to take a punishing.

#43

No one can predict how a ship reacts when hit. The Titanic was unsinkable after all. Torpodoes dont just hurt where they hit, whole decks away can be affected by the shock where a deck 2 feet away might not. In my limited experience of the Navy, damage control parties dont all sit in the same place, that would be as stupid as parking all your aircraft on a Hawian air strip.

#44

It’s worth noting that USN ships of the era the Belgrano was built in could take a hell of a lot of punishment. It’s been said that USN Destroyers of the time could take more damage than light cruisers of other nations and still make it back to port.

#45

The damaged control party were not ALL killed in the first explosion.

The ship was not rigged for any sort of alert, to that end damage control parties were NOT yet formed.

The ship would have gone to their alert state, such as General Quarters. The men assigned to the various duties would man their posts, the surplus would provide the Damage Control Parties. In the event of the whole boiler room personnel being killed it is highly likely the gunners (having nothing to do may have been sent down).

These Damage Control Parties do not include the personnel who would have immediatly attempted to bring the damaged to repair.

A ship such as Belgrano should not sink with only, what, 4 - 5 compartments vented.

She is a Cruiser, designed to take a punishing.

And what is your source for the thing above ?

How many torpedos take ( in your all wise opinion) to sink a cruiser?

#46

The damaged control party were not ALL killed in the first explosion.

I was looking for more info and you are right in some part at list.

http://www.fuerzasnavales.com/mag18_2.htm

Use Babelfish in case that non-spanish speaker, is 90 % accurate.

#47

The end of the day, in this case two torpedos were enough to kill the Belgrano. I personally believe that one could also have done it, in this case.

I also believe however that she could have been kept up for a dam sight longer had she been rigged for combat, better maintained and her crew better trained.

WRT Titanic, no one in the know ever referred to her as unsinkable. That was used on a piece of advertising and placed their by a non technical type who didn’t know any better.

In the run up to the Titanic, the Trans-Atlantic vessals actually became more sinkable, as bulkheads and compartments became larger and more open. The Great Eastern (i think) was older, but more safe in terms of bulkheads.

It is true wrt different ships and different effects. Titanic sank in hours, after caterstrophic damage which vented 5 - 7 compartments to the sea. She was only designed to have 4 flooded. As is common knowledge, water merely flowed over the top and filled each one in turn.

When the iceberg struck, her water tight doors were ALL shut. Sealling the compartments.

Her sistership Britannic was launched after Titanic. She had much improved protection, double hulls and water tight compartments extending far above the waterline for example. She sank in less than an hour after a mine strike.

The problem? Her watertight doors were open, the minstrike hit between compartments 2 and 3 but damaged the door in compartment 1. Worse other doors could not be shut. To really hammer it in, most of her port holes were open, when they reached the waterline, they allowed more water in to the ship.

48 mins from mine strike to the Capt leaving hte ship, and walking in to the water from the bridge.

My point here is that the survival of the ship is as much about the crews actions before and after, as it is about the actual design and strength of the ship.

#48

The end of the day, in this case two torpedos were enough to kill the Belgrano

I hope that this kind of brainy conclusion dont exausted you too much.

#49

Now, now Panzerknacker. Let’s keep it adult shall we?

Read the post about Titanic and Brittanic. Why did one sink faster than the other? Bearing in mind Brittanic should have been less sinkable than Titanic.

Now compare to Belgrano. Other cruisers of the vintage, lasted longer. Even the torpedos were WW2 vintage.

#50

Read the post about Titanic and Brittanic. Why did one sink faster than the other? Bearing in mind Brittanic should have been less sinkable than Titanic.

NO… I dont going to waste my time reading that, this topic is about the Cruiser ARA General Belgrano and nothing more, I know that you always like to derail a bit but dont count me for that.

#51

Just because it says ARA General Belgrano at the top doesn’t mean you can’t expand out a little bit.

The question that was coming up was… why did she sink so fast, after all the damage to her was severe and in most cases uncalled for. ie the power completely going down.

We know that ships of her size carry diesal auxileries for power, and batteries. It is simple, when main power drops the batteries take over and the diesals are started. Why was there no power for the radios?

Why were the sailers (some of them) sleeping out of kit? They were issued immersion suits because they were half naked. Why were so many sailers of duty? Why was the ship not rigged for any threat and just sailing like a pleasue yahth?

What were the damage control systems like? or the crews?

These are all pertinent questions, to which I have put up a very fine example of two almost identical ships (of the same class no less). Which should give an example of the differences in ships.

Or you can just ignore this, and go back to your rhetoric as per usual.

As soon as I find some examples of similar (hopefully sister) ships to the USS Pheonix being sunk and how I will come back. But most ships of hte day could stand some awesome damage and still be functioning.

Then we can move on to why the Destroyers never stopped for survivors.

#52

Mister Margaret Tatcher talking about the sinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aZdAyHVjzQ

#53

That is the sort of leader a country SHOULD have.

For those who do not know, she is on a morning TV programme, called TVAM, being interviewed by David Frost. This would be broadcast to the whole country.

I beleive the early part of the interview was in relation to the incorrect information given to the House of Commons (where our PM lives) in that the Cruiser was believed to be heading IN to the TEZ.

Once it was known by Mrs T that the Cruiser was actually heading AWAY she immediatly had it announced with all details known.

As she says. The Cruiser (as part of the 3rd Argentine Task Force) was a threat to “our boys”. The three task forces were lurking around the Falklands in order to stop the British Task Force from landing.

I hardly think that they would have done this with coloured smoke and foul language.

That conditions did not pan out for them to engage the British (esp the 25 of Mays air attack that was planned for around the same time as the sinking, put off due to bad weather) is unlucky for the Argentines, lucky for us.

Although the Torpedoes were easily up to the task (as demonstrated) of sinking the Belgrano, it is highly likely that NOTHING else the British had could have done so.

Exocets carry small, shaped charges. Which would not have had much impact on the armoured superstructure of the cruiser, designed to absorb numourous shells.

The Harriers do not carry big enough bombs.

Nothing in the gun inventory could touch the Belgrano (4.5 inch is hardly a bee sting to a WW2 era Cruiser).

Ergo she is a THREAT to “our boys”, with or without the Exocets she may have been carrying (as believed at the time).

Threat meets HMS Conqueror, Threat goes down.

That simple.

And I do believe that if any further targets had been found they too would have been sunk. Had the Argentine Navy ever left port again after the sinking it is highly likely that the one and only carrier in the Argentine fleet would also have been targetted.

You don’t leave the heavyweights out there if you can take them off the map.

#54

Its simple… Falklands/England 1 Argentina 0

#55

It was a warship belonging to a navy in the middle of a war - I can’t believe that anyone could be stupid enough to think it shouldn’t be sunk?

#56

But BDL you forget, the British were supposed to just hand the islands over and stay in the North. Or pussy foot around until the South Atlantic Winter hit, thus preventing them from retaking them.

By coming down so fast, and with the means and werewithal to fight, they broke the rules.

#57

Mister Margaret Tatcher talking about the sinking.

My apologies, I should said Madam tatcher, I forgot she was a women for a while.

Its simple… Falklands/England 1 Argentina 0

Man…as if we havent enough brainy thinkers in this forum.

#58

[quote]Mister Margaret Tatcher talking about the sinking.

My apologies, I should said Madam tatcher, I forgot she was a women for a while.[/quote]

Easy mistake to make, she did have more balls than your Junta put together!!! :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Seriously though. What is the big deal about the sinking of ARA General Belgrano? I don’t seem to see people in Britain whinging about the ships taht were sunk in the Royal Navy, nor do I see people whinging about the submarine Santa Fe.

She has been painted out to be this doddering, old and ineffective ship. SHe was a cruiser, heavily armoured and armed and spoiling for a rumble. Why else would she be there.

That she sailed in harms way, and came to grieve is unfortunate. But she is ship of war, and her crew must have known the consequences of going to war… if not, well, I can’t really comment.

Claims that she was in Argentine waters (which have come up) are rubbish too. She was a good 170 miles into International waters.

#59

No brains required :smiley: , the Belgrano was an enemy ship and it got sunk. It matters not one jot where it was, where it was pointing or who it was pointing at. Argentina can’t wage war AND expect to choose which of their forces isn’t playing.

#60

Oh, Dear!

This is the simplistic clarity of thought which results in one side attacking the forces of the other side, wherever they find them.

What an odd way to fight a war.

Still, I suppose it’s that odd British way of seeking out the enemy and destroying him where found that makes the British so much more original in warfare than any other nation.

No doubt Argentina was busily playing cricket and bowls, to display its contempt for such vicious attitudes to war, while the nasty British were sneaking up on their cricket grounds and bowling greens to attack the unsuspecting Argies.

FFS!