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 - Steve Cooper
Posted by:
John Griffiths
()
Date: May 21, 2001 03:27PM
<HTML>Steve,
A response to both your posts on this thread. Re. The Santiago del Estero. It was rumoured she fired the spread at Sheffield - not confirmed. On that same note, it is also rumoured but not confirmed that one the Type 209\'s was sunk that day by a Stingray fired from an RN Sea King.
However, it\'s classified info - and before me laddo the lurker starts on about classified info, it\'s public knowledge that an event happened - just not what was hit. I guess looking through the ARA Navy lists may shed some light on that! They had 2 Type 209\'s at the start - did they have one left over when it was ended?
>>The Hedgehog is totally worthless against a nuke attack boat. There is absolutly no way a sub skipper is going to let a DD get in range to use Hedgehogs or DCs so long as he has power to the screw and torpedos in the tubes. A homing torpedo launched by the DD would most likely be out-run. You have to have helo dropped or missle launched homing torps. The ARA was not performing ASW to even WWII standards. They were just steaming around in a war zone, deaf, blind, and stupid.<<
Which is what I was saying but not as succintly! I believe they were arrogant, thinking the UK boats wouldn\'t operate that far out. Your next point was a good one.
>>Had the Royal Navy degraded to the point that they would let an enemy warship get in range of 6\" guns? Were they too poor to carry any Harpoons? <<
The RN only had 4.5\" guns, so that point is mute - unless you meant that the RN would consider fighting an enemy ship fitted with 6\" guns? The answer to that one is no - better to take out using subs than risk getting close enough to risk men and ships needed for the shore landings and invasion.
>>The Belgrano did not present a credidable threat to the British fleet. It was the classic case of bringing a knife to a gun fight. It\'s only possible mission would have been shore bombardment. <<
No, it wasn\'t! Her mission would have been to go for the lightly equipped logistics vessels and troop carriers. Had she have got into Stanley, or close to the islands, she\'d have been a major threat in terms of providing bombardment. Therefore, she was a risk. Better to take her out early rather than risk the lives of those going ashore.
>>I don\'t blaim the Brits for sinking the Belgrano. Flying the wrong flag in time of war is the only reason needed to sink a ship. Just don\'t try to puff up that poor museum piece into something she wasn\'t.<<
That dubious honour goes to the Argentinians for having the lack of foresight to put an aged ship up against modern aircraft and ships. Not the Brits for taking her out!
As for Harpoon - No. Exocets - yes.
Thanks for the post, Steve.
Yours aye,
John
</HTML>
A response to both your posts on this thread. Re. The Santiago del Estero. It was rumoured she fired the spread at Sheffield - not confirmed. On that same note, it is also rumoured but not confirmed that one the Type 209\'s was sunk that day by a Stingray fired from an RN Sea King.
However, it\'s classified info - and before me laddo the lurker starts on about classified info, it\'s public knowledge that an event happened - just not what was hit. I guess looking through the ARA Navy lists may shed some light on that! They had 2 Type 209\'s at the start - did they have one left over when it was ended?
>>The Hedgehog is totally worthless against a nuke attack boat. There is absolutly no way a sub skipper is going to let a DD get in range to use Hedgehogs or DCs so long as he has power to the screw and torpedos in the tubes. A homing torpedo launched by the DD would most likely be out-run. You have to have helo dropped or missle launched homing torps. The ARA was not performing ASW to even WWII standards. They were just steaming around in a war zone, deaf, blind, and stupid.<<
Which is what I was saying but not as succintly! I believe they were arrogant, thinking the UK boats wouldn\'t operate that far out. Your next point was a good one.
>>Had the Royal Navy degraded to the point that they would let an enemy warship get in range of 6\" guns? Were they too poor to carry any Harpoons? <<
The RN only had 4.5\" guns, so that point is mute - unless you meant that the RN would consider fighting an enemy ship fitted with 6\" guns? The answer to that one is no - better to take out using subs than risk getting close enough to risk men and ships needed for the shore landings and invasion.
>>The Belgrano did not present a credidable threat to the British fleet. It was the classic case of bringing a knife to a gun fight. It\'s only possible mission would have been shore bombardment. <<
No, it wasn\'t! Her mission would have been to go for the lightly equipped logistics vessels and troop carriers. Had she have got into Stanley, or close to the islands, she\'d have been a major threat in terms of providing bombardment. Therefore, she was a risk. Better to take her out early rather than risk the lives of those going ashore.
>>I don\'t blaim the Brits for sinking the Belgrano. Flying the wrong flag in time of war is the only reason needed to sink a ship. Just don\'t try to puff up that poor museum piece into something she wasn\'t.<<
That dubious honour goes to the Argentinians for having the lack of foresight to put an aged ship up against modern aircraft and ships. Not the Brits for taking her out!
As for Harpoon - No. Exocets - yes.
Thanks for the post, Steve.
Yours aye,
John
</HTML>
