General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: why - why not - belgrano / etc
Posted by:
John Griffiths
()
Date: February 14, 2001 07:01PM
<HTML>Sheesh - sound of a steam valve lifting!
Belgrano. This was a serious contender! However, look at what the Argies did. They committed a vintage vessel into a theatre of modern weaponry against a well trained and determined Navy. This, in itself, shows how the Argies did not think forward in terms of the UK\'s ability / willingness to fight back.
Argentina was, at that time, the premier navy in South America. The needless loss of the Belgrano was something that could have been prevented. If the Argies had sailed her in their invasion fleet, she could have sat in Port Stanley and wreaked havoc on the task force. She had 5 x 3 sets of 15 inch guns and 4 x 2 sets of 5 inchers too. 15\" guns are something else - one of them striking an LSL , for eg, would have been absolutely bang out of the game status. Not a shadow of doubt. Against the smaller ships....? Absolute carnage with good laying and accurate sighting. Against landing craft and stuff....? As for British response if she would have fired, by the time a carrier air wing had got airborne, she\'d have done her stuff and have been running for home - with an air escort.
The comment that she was outside the TEZ is very true. However, let\'s face facts. This was a capital ship with enough firepower to have inflicted terrible losses; Argentina invaded and refused to talk - therefore agreeing for their forces to be put at risk. The TEZ was \'officially\' in place on 12th April - Belgrano\'s guns could reach the islands outside of that. Ergo sum, \'legitimate\' target.
Belgrano\'s group comprised: Hipolito Bouchard and Piedra Buena - old ships ( the latter two Allen M. Sumner class built in \'44 ) - and 36 miles outside the TEZ. What sort of surface force was that? Surely someone realised...or did they not think? Wartime standard ships with aged hulls against modern weapons...Hmm...
She was struck by two torpedoes - 21 inch Mk8 torpedoes with magnetic pistols, compressed air propulsion and a range of only 4500 metres. Wartime standard fish.vOne blew her bows off, the other hit her in the engine room. She sank two hours later with 321 men out of a crew of 1042 killed or MIA.
Yes, she was sunk in International waters, without an official war declaration having been announced and yes, it was a political cock up. However, the UK had laid down the TEZ and had hinted that Hunter-Killer subs were \'operating\'. Isn\'t that a warning? It was - and Argentina chose to ignore it to posture and strut knowing the eyes of the world were upon the whole scene. That. I believe, was propoganda - and planned. Calculated.
Yet, in terms of strategic thinking: From the UK\'s point of view, she presented a significant threat - long range guns of large calibre and relatively modern fire control systems. She presented a threat to the fleet and a hinderance to the invasion. On a tactical basis, she was thrown away by the Argentine Navy because any commander worth his salt would have used that asset in a position where she could inflict major tactical damage - like Stanley harbour. The Argentine navy had a month to do that. They chose, instead, to steam her \'provocatively\' outside the TEZ.
The history of the UK, when faced with this sort of situation, is nearly always the same. Strike first, strike hard and ask questions later.
Whatever fence you sit on, I - for one - was glad that this particular nightmare was taken out early. It was enough coping with aircraft - never mind knowing that there could have been a 15 inch shell fall as well. Now, years on, I believe I feel something for those unknown sailors - but I also know it for what it was. War. Victims both sides.
It was war - whatever you think, it was war. Both sides bear a guilt in the events. Argentina for failing to take into account the islands would be re-taken - and with as much force as was needed and the UK for sinking her without an official war being declared.
As for Maggie Thatcher - oh she\'s no friend of mine! Never was, never will be.
C\'est la guerre.
Griffo</HTML>
Belgrano. This was a serious contender! However, look at what the Argies did. They committed a vintage vessel into a theatre of modern weaponry against a well trained and determined Navy. This, in itself, shows how the Argies did not think forward in terms of the UK\'s ability / willingness to fight back.
Argentina was, at that time, the premier navy in South America. The needless loss of the Belgrano was something that could have been prevented. If the Argies had sailed her in their invasion fleet, she could have sat in Port Stanley and wreaked havoc on the task force. She had 5 x 3 sets of 15 inch guns and 4 x 2 sets of 5 inchers too. 15\" guns are something else - one of them striking an LSL , for eg, would have been absolutely bang out of the game status. Not a shadow of doubt. Against the smaller ships....? Absolute carnage with good laying and accurate sighting. Against landing craft and stuff....? As for British response if she would have fired, by the time a carrier air wing had got airborne, she\'d have done her stuff and have been running for home - with an air escort.
The comment that she was outside the TEZ is very true. However, let\'s face facts. This was a capital ship with enough firepower to have inflicted terrible losses; Argentina invaded and refused to talk - therefore agreeing for their forces to be put at risk. The TEZ was \'officially\' in place on 12th April - Belgrano\'s guns could reach the islands outside of that. Ergo sum, \'legitimate\' target.
Belgrano\'s group comprised: Hipolito Bouchard and Piedra Buena - old ships ( the latter two Allen M. Sumner class built in \'44 ) - and 36 miles outside the TEZ. What sort of surface force was that? Surely someone realised...or did they not think? Wartime standard ships with aged hulls against modern weapons...Hmm...
She was struck by two torpedoes - 21 inch Mk8 torpedoes with magnetic pistols, compressed air propulsion and a range of only 4500 metres. Wartime standard fish.vOne blew her bows off, the other hit her in the engine room. She sank two hours later with 321 men out of a crew of 1042 killed or MIA.
Yes, she was sunk in International waters, without an official war declaration having been announced and yes, it was a political cock up. However, the UK had laid down the TEZ and had hinted that Hunter-Killer subs were \'operating\'. Isn\'t that a warning? It was - and Argentina chose to ignore it to posture and strut knowing the eyes of the world were upon the whole scene. That. I believe, was propoganda - and planned. Calculated.
Yet, in terms of strategic thinking: From the UK\'s point of view, she presented a significant threat - long range guns of large calibre and relatively modern fire control systems. She presented a threat to the fleet and a hinderance to the invasion. On a tactical basis, she was thrown away by the Argentine Navy because any commander worth his salt would have used that asset in a position where she could inflict major tactical damage - like Stanley harbour. The Argentine navy had a month to do that. They chose, instead, to steam her \'provocatively\' outside the TEZ.
The history of the UK, when faced with this sort of situation, is nearly always the same. Strike first, strike hard and ask questions later.
Whatever fence you sit on, I - for one - was glad that this particular nightmare was taken out early. It was enough coping with aircraft - never mind knowing that there could have been a 15 inch shell fall as well. Now, years on, I believe I feel something for those unknown sailors - but I also know it for what it was. War. Victims both sides.
It was war - whatever you think, it was war. Both sides bear a guilt in the events. Argentina for failing to take into account the islands would be re-taken - and with as much force as was needed and the UK for sinking her without an official war being declared.
As for Maggie Thatcher - oh she\'s no friend of mine! Never was, never will be.
C\'est la guerre.
Griffo</HTML>
