General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: belgrano - Werner
Posted by:
John Griffiths
()
Date: May 18, 2001 06:24PM
<HTML>Werner,
Deserves a reply.
The political purpose of having modern subs during that conflict was a brilliant piece of strategic submarine warfare. The fact that the UK had subs in the area forced the Argentine Navy into staying close to their home ports - thus negating any maritime threat to the task force.
In fact, four subs have been \'credited\' with being involved. They are HMS \'Conqueror\', HMS\' Spartan\', HMS \'Splendid\' and HMS \'Onyx\'.
HMS \'Conqueror\' - apart from sinking the General Belgrano, also operated UK Special Forces on clandestine missions.
In fact, HMS \'Splendid\' was on North Atlantic patrol whilst \' Spartan\' was on route to her home base at Faslane although she did later sail for the Falklands - but after Belgrano was sunk.
HMS \'Onyx\' landed Special Boat / Special Air Service squadrons ashore on the night of 20 / 21st April. These men had been para-dropped at sea by an RAF Hercules, in scuba gear, and they transitted to the sub whilst she remained submerged. The mission they carried out was two fold - to report on troop movements and bases and to attack the airfield at Rio Gallegos.
However, back to submarines. The absence of the Argentine Navy is due to the fact that UK subs were \'up threat\' in area. Knowing they were there disuaded the Argentine Navy from taking an active part. In fact, the only true professionals the Argentines had were their Navy and Air Force pilots: 75% of the damage done to the task force was done by aircraft. Their troops proved to be poorly motivated and led and their Navy did not fulfil the purpose for which it was trained.
You might also want to know that Soviet subs were detected and \'scrammed\' by UK surface and ASW helo\'s during the conflict. No doubt they were operating as \'observers\'.
Aye,
John</HTML>
Deserves a reply.
The political purpose of having modern subs during that conflict was a brilliant piece of strategic submarine warfare. The fact that the UK had subs in the area forced the Argentine Navy into staying close to their home ports - thus negating any maritime threat to the task force.
In fact, four subs have been \'credited\' with being involved. They are HMS \'Conqueror\', HMS\' Spartan\', HMS \'Splendid\' and HMS \'Onyx\'.
HMS \'Conqueror\' - apart from sinking the General Belgrano, also operated UK Special Forces on clandestine missions.
In fact, HMS \'Splendid\' was on North Atlantic patrol whilst \' Spartan\' was on route to her home base at Faslane although she did later sail for the Falklands - but after Belgrano was sunk.
HMS \'Onyx\' landed Special Boat / Special Air Service squadrons ashore on the night of 20 / 21st April. These men had been para-dropped at sea by an RAF Hercules, in scuba gear, and they transitted to the sub whilst she remained submerged. The mission they carried out was two fold - to report on troop movements and bases and to attack the airfield at Rio Gallegos.
However, back to submarines. The absence of the Argentine Navy is due to the fact that UK subs were \'up threat\' in area. Knowing they were there disuaded the Argentine Navy from taking an active part. In fact, the only true professionals the Argentines had were their Navy and Air Force pilots: 75% of the damage done to the task force was done by aircraft. Their troops proved to be poorly motivated and led and their Navy did not fulfil the purpose for which it was trained.
You might also want to know that Soviet subs were detected and \'scrammed\' by UK surface and ASW helo\'s during the conflict. No doubt they were operating as \'observers\'.
Aye,
John</HTML>
