Margaret Thatcher

[joe-90]

The ship was steaming away. She could have been simply tailed and escorted from the scene. It was murder. Plain simple murder. Thatcher should have been charged with war crimes.



joe

 

[empip]

the belgranos capabilities have already been listed, she could have turned at any time. the entire operation was sea based and therefore she was a huge threat. The old flat top carrier you mention was more than capable of being an effective weapon in delivering its anti shipping aircraft an was a highly mobile threat. The fact that she went to port after the belgrano was sunk showed how effective a message its sinking was. unfortunatly in war decisions have to be made and disectted in the cold light of day. i wonder what people would be saying now if she had been let to run and the british fleet had been even more badly mauled then it was?

Just a cruiser .. out of date against our nato sub. Not an earthly chance of survival. .. Because if she, from a tin top regime had more than that ..then what hope would we have had against the Ruski's?
Someone had to make the 'battle' seem fair, even tilted against us...
Could have 'harpooned' their ships to bu##ery and the old flat top too.
I bet Conqueror was not alone.. doesn't make sense. Capital boat exposed in any way...... And if she was alone then the Argy threat to her was seen no threat.
The story I heard was, if Belgrano knew about the sub(s) she'd have gone for harbour or shallow water .. effectively out of torp. reach and out of the game... The harpoon missiles could still have blitzed her from 130km .. Just too expensive for the threat posed.

 

[Richardp]

The ship was steaming away. She could have been simply tailed and escorted from the scene. It was murder. Plain simple murder. Thatcher should have been charged with war crimes.



joe

Joe! do you realize where you are? these are maggies boys, your in her lair, its refreshing to hear anothers point of view but hell! your in for a mauling

 

[kendor]

Have to agree with joe on this, Questioning Maggie's stance can have severe repurcussions though as was found by Thames Television when they ran the Rock of Gibralter programme against the governments wishes, and strangely found that they'd lost their franchise which they'd held for so many years previously!

 

[Freddie]

The ship was steaming away. She could have been simply tailed and escorted from the scene. It was murder. Plain simple murder. Thatcher should have been charged with war crimes.



joe

Joe! do you realize where you are? these are maggies boys, your in her lair, its refreshing to hear anothers point of view but hell! your in for a mauling

The point of sinking the Belgrano i cant see that someone would want to sink it for the sake ot it.

It was a warship it could have destroyed much of our forces just because it was old it doesnt mean that it couldnt have been effective.

Was it sailing away? does it matter it could have turned at any moment, many times in battles a bluff manuver is to give the enemy the impression you arent going to attack or going elswhere.

We were in a state of war therfore any military target anywhere of the enemies and their allies is a legitimate target and not to take advantage of eliminating them would be a mistake and could be terminal, and the same applies to civilian targets if the war progresses that way.

Would any other Primeminister done any different? but just imagine that the decision was taken to leave it alone and a few weeks later the Belgrano came back and sunk our ships or killed our troops on the landing beaches what would you all be saying then.

 

[kendor]

The point of sinking the Belgrano i cant see that someone would want to sink it for the sake ot it.

It was a warship it could have destroyed much of our forces just because it was old it doesnt mean that it couldnt have been effective.

Was it sailing away? does it matter it could have turned at any moment, many times in battles a bluff manuver is to give the enemy the impression you arent going to attack or going elswhere.

We were in a state of war therfore any military target anywhere of the enemies and their allies is a legitimate target and not to take advantage of eliminating them would be a mistake and could be terminal, and the same applies to civilian targets if the war progresses that way.

Would any other Primeminister done any different? but just imagine that the decision was taken to leave it alone and a few weeks later the Belgrano came back and sunk our ships or killed our troops on the landing beaches what would you all be saying then.

But what was funny was that our government insisted that it wasn't a war but a conflict, therefore was there legality to fire upon them?

 

[Freddie]

Dunno Kendor i dont understand what difference there could be in a conflict or a war

 

[empip]

I am not saying twas right or wrong ... Just that the sub could have waited, but then it would perhaps have required a more expensive solution .. the old Harpoon missile would not have been cheap.
Just remember .. 130 km range some 80 miles. 2.5 hrs at 28 knots for a vessel in very favourable conditions.
Crikey the Conqueror was rigged for spying besides hunter killing ... How could the B have escaped its wrath?
Like a Bren versus a shotgun.... from 500 yds

 

[Big_Spark]

empip..your correct about Belgrano's armaments...it is likely that when the war occured it was either miprinted in the press or I misread it...

Regarding the Brooklyn class, I have found some interesting information though, that does cast a different light on things.


The Following is taken from the US Navy Website..Hostorical pages..for some reason I cannot link to it..

Displacement (std) 9,700 tons (Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Honolulu)
9,475 tons (others)
Displacement (full) 12,300 tons
Length 608.3' (185.4m)
Beam 61.5' (18.7m)
Draft 22.5' (6.85m)
Powerplant 8 Babcock & Wilcox Express Type Boilers 4 Westinghouse geared steam turbines
Horsepower 100,000
Screws 4
Speed 32.5 knts
Endurance 14,500 NM @ 15 kts
Armor Main Side Belt 1.5"-4" (38-102mm)
Deck Armour 2"-3" (51-76mm)
Turrets 1.25"-5.6" (32-142mm)
Conning Tower 2.25"-5" (57-127mm)
Armament 15 x 6" (152mm)/47 cal Mk16 (5x3) 3 forward 2 aft (All in class upgraded in 1943 to 15 x 10" (255mm)/54 cal Mk 21 (5x3) and retained 3 forward and 2 aft configuration)
8 x 5" (127mm)/25 cal Mk10 (8x1)
8 x 5" (127mm)/38 cal Mk12 (8x1) (Honolulu, Savannah)
up to 16 x 40mm/56 cal Bofors
up to 24 x 20mm/70 cal Oerlikons

Aircraft room for 6 aircraft in hangar w/ 2 catapults
Complement 950-1,200

The design of the Brooklyn-class light cruisers was validated through wargaming. The result was very sturdy ships that survived many kamikaze attacks during WWII. All of these ships except Savannah and Honolulu found their way into foreign navies after the end of the War. The only ship of this class lost in combat was the Phoenix during the Falklands Conflict in 1982, she had been sold to Argentina in 1951, renamed the 17 October and in 1956 renamed AVA General Belgrano.

This is an extract from a Book written by the Former Chief of Naval Operations for the US Navy, Admiral Jay L. Johnson.

The sinking of AVA General Belgrano by the British Royal Navy's Nuclear Attack Submarine HMS Conqueror has been controversial ever since it took place. The vessel was outside of the 200 miles exclusion zone imposed by the British following the Argentinian invasion of the Islands in April 1982. Appearing to steam away from the British surface warships and some 235 miles from Port Stanley, many believed the ship to be safe, but HMS Conqueror, Hunter-Killer class Nuclear Attack Submarine, was ordered to sink the ship as it "posed a significant and real threat to Royal Naval surface and landing operations".

Firing two Mk21 unguided torpedoes the Conqueror became the only Nuclear Submarine to score a kill in wartime. The first torpedo struck Belgrano amidships, the second tore a massive hole in her stern, probably ripping off the propellers and sterring gear. At the time of the attack Belgrano had a compliment of 1006 souls, mostly constripts between the ages of 17 and 21. Belgrano sank below the fridgid south Atlantic waters in only 27 minutes. Of the crew, most had escaped to liferafts, but 336 were claimed by the Ocean. It is not known how many died in the attack, how many became trapped in the twisted wreckage and sank with the ship and how many froze to death in the winter squall that blew for the following 36 hours in the area of the sinking.

Following the fall of the Argentinian Military Junta and the appointment of civilian leaders, it was established that the General Belgrano was not retreating back to port, as many claim, however AVA records show she was under orders to steam at full speed to the north of the islands and engage British surface vessels, who had no protection against the 255mm radar guided main armament of the ship. This was designed to clear the way for the Veinticinco De Mayo, The main Argentinian Aircraft Carrier ((HMS Colossus class) light strike/ASW aircraft carrier) to attack the British fleet from the North. The hope was to disable or destroy the Bristich Aircraft Carriers, as without these, the AVA commanders correctly concluded that the British would be unable to retake the Islands without air cover.

Documents released by the British Government in the late 1990's showed that, with the help of the United States, the British were fully aware of the Argentinian plans for attacking the British fleet. This had been achieved by the tapping of phone lines in Buenos Aires, the US global listening posts and satellite imagery showing Argentinian Naval movements. Further, the US Department of Defence gave the British Government secret documents that were the plans for the invasion of the Islands by the Argentinians, and also plans fro repulsing the British. It was never established how the DoD came into possession of the documents, but it is clear that they played a significant role in the decision to sink the AVA General Belgrano

I think this shows clearly..

1: Some of what I have long thought about Belgrano was inaccurate and I apologise for anything I posted that was misleading. I don't know where the original source of my first thoughts came from, but it was long held..and incorrect...

2: Some of the Information posted on some websites about the Belgrano is equally inaccurate, possibly through missing information rather than any malicious desires.

3: The Royal Navy and thus the Government were correct in their assessment of the risk posed by the Belgrano and the decision was the correct one. It is a shame that young men had to die for that threat to be removed, but war is not a nice business at anytime, and if you sow the wind, you must reap the whirlwind.

 

[Freddie]

Well there you are then Hail Maggie and the Royal Navy, one side has to win and another to lose, i think if Britain had lost that conflict Britain would be a dire place now as i think it would have decended into an unstoppable pit. If you were around in the late 70's and at that time you will understand cause the country was just a joke everywhere and i think that regaining the Falklands actually lifted the place cause it was the good thing to happen for many years.

 

[Big_Spark]

Not sure about hailing Maggie, but I do agree with the general sentiment of Freddie's comments...it is a classic example of how our young men, and now woman, must die as a result of the failings of politicians...

Yes we benefited nationally from it, and to a degree so did the Argentinians, but was the price really worth it...655 Argentine deaths and 255 British.....

 

[Freddie]

No there was no need for it to happen

 

[empip]

There is good authority on the fact that much info was coming from a compromised Russian spy satellite via Norway...

.... In later years it has been revealed that the information on the position of the ARA General Belgrano came from a Soviet spy satellite which was tapped by the Norwegian intelligence service station at Fauske in Norway, and then handed over to the British....

Cdr Wreford-Brown sent a signal to London four hours before firing his torpedoes, saying that the cruiser had changed course, away from the islands. The signal was received by Vice-Admiral Peter Herbert, flag officer submarines, but it was not passed on to the MoD or to Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward, commander of the Falklands taskforce. Sir Lawrence Freedman, who has written an official history of the conflict, says Admiral Herbert believed the task force "had to take its chances when it could".

Crikey, what about this

Two of the ships, Hermes and Invincible, carried 75% of the navy's entire stockpile of nuclear depth charges

Carried all the way, because there was deemed not enough time to unload ... Now if that little lot had fallen into the hands of the gaucho NATO would surely have to intervene .. believe it... So was it a mistake or a calculated backstop?

SSN's Spartan, Splendid and Conqueror with Courageous and Valiant arriving later... more than enough all there and capable of demolishing the entire Argy navy between them ... hence no show.

 

[Freddie]

The Argies didnt know that the submarines were going to be there, as regards nucleur depth charges i believe the Sheffield was also carrying them thats why she had to be scuttled, also these weapons are legit weapons and are not weapons of mass destruction and can be used as they are a military defencable weapon only ( why mess about with a few pounds of tnt when the big bang will get your sub ).

There airforce was a bag of s hite, with old planes but they soon showed to be very effective and one prize was the Atlantic Conveyor which was carrying armaments helicopters harriers and scorpion fast tanks---so they werent ready to be written off.

 

[sidecar_jon]

I hate Thatcher with a passion..... but i've always thought the sinking of the Belgrano a valid action of war... and i don't belive a recent book (written by the French Priminesters shrink) that Maggie threateend to nuke the Argentine capitol city if they didnt release the "codes " for jambing Exorcet missiles.... i have real other reasons for hateing her i don't have to make stuff up.