General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

elxaime -> General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 12:27:47 AM)
In checking out WW2 naval histories, I was amazed by the story of the cruiser USS Phoenix. She was there in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and participated in a number of Pacific battles, including the Battle of Leyte Gulf and the kamikaze attacks. Post-war, the Argentine Government purchased her and she became the ARA General Belgrano and was sunk by the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror during the 1982 Falklands War. I am wondering how many other WW2 veterans are still in service in the world's navies? And did any others have such a unique career as the Phoenix/Belgrano? I have to think she is the only ship ever to have been attacked by both Kamikazes and nuclear submarines during her career. It makes me think how complete a mismatch it must have been in 1982. What possessed the Argentines to send WW2 era ships out against modern nuclear vessels? According to records, ARA Belgrano had two Alouette III helos (which I assume had some ASW capability?) and therefore depended for protection on her escort, which were the ARA Piedra Buena and ARA Bouchard. Both these Sumner-class DDs were also former WW2 USN ships. Piedra Buena was the former USS Collett (DD-730) and the Bouchard was the former USS Borie (DD-704). Not sure to what extent they had been modified in terms of ASW capabilities, but from what I can tell they had only depth charges. Did that Argentine task force have any chance? Sounds like the naval equivalent of a knight on horseback charging a machine gun.

Pascal_slith -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 1:10:17 AM)
These were the desperate acts of a ridiculous dicatatorship in Argentina. There are also rumors that a US CVN Battle Group was standing off in case anything went wrong for the Brits... If that was the case there were certainly also US nuke boats around too.

khyberbill -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 1:10:47 AM)
quote: Did that Argentine task force have any chance? Sounds like the naval equivalent of a knight on horseback charging a machine gun. No surface ship should have a chance against a competent nuclear sub captain and crew. The term sitting duck comes to mind.

warspite1 -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 1:13:37 AM)
Ship for ship the Argentines were at a disadvantage in both numbers and quality. However, after the loss of Belgrano their navy was never a factor. But this was only half the story. The land based Argentine air force was the key weapon for the South Americans. For the British, fighting 8,000(?) miles from home, with just two "aircraft carriers" to provide air cover for the entire fleet and the invasion forces, it was a close run thing. The attack on the islands relied upon surprise to succeed initially - there was no RN presence to impede the invasion fleet - and then assumed that the British would not have the stomach for a fight once the islands were occupied by Argentine troops. Not for the first time in history, a dictator mis-read the British.......

warspite1 -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 1:26:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pascal These were the desperate acts of a ridiculous dicatatorship in Argentina. There are also rumors that a US CVN Battle Group was standing off in case anything went wrong for the Brits... If that was the case there were certainly also US nuke boats around too. Warspite1 I heard Ronald Reagan offered the services of a proper carrier, but Lady Thatcher respectfully declined; these were our islands, and we were going to get them back. Don't know whether that story is true.

felix83 -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 1:40:11 AM)
Hi all, interesting subject. As we had recently in university the Falkland war: in informal Talks with Henry Brandon, the Sunday Times Correspondent in Washington, the U.S. Defence Minister Weinberger answered to the question what happens if the Brits loose their carriers: We will will borrow one of ours. Of Course it was his personal statement, esp. against Haig, but it shows that if it all got worng there would be at least a strong Pro-Brit position inside the US Gouvernment. Source: Henry Brendon; Special Relations, pp390-391.

Chickenboy -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 1:43:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Pascal These were the desperate acts of a ridiculous dicatatorship in Argentina. There are also rumors that a US CVN Battle Group was standing off in case anything went wrong for the Brits... If that was the case there were certainly also US nuke boats around too. Warspite1 I heard Ronald Reagan offered the services of a proper carrier, but Lady Thatcher respectfully declined; these were our islands, and we were going to get them back. Don't know whether that story is true. Dunno about the USN CVNTF access, but I do seem to recall an emergency shipment of AIM9s for the Brits' Harriers, courtesy of Uncle Sam. Seems that when the issue was most in doubt, we showed our hand and stepped away from nominal "neutrality". Then again, we've done that bit before too...

pat.casey -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 2:05:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Pascal These were the desperate acts of a ridiculous dicatatorship in Argentina. There are also rumors that a US CVN Battle Group was standing off in case anything went wrong for the Brits... If that was the case there were certainly also US nuke boats around too. Warspite1 I heard Ronald Reagan offered the services of a proper carrier, but Lady Thatcher respectfully declined; these were our islands, and we were going to get them back. Don't know whether that story is true. Dunno about the USN CVNTF access, but I do seem to recall an emergency shipment of AIM9s for the Brits' Harriers, courtesy of Uncle Sam. Seems that when the issue was most in doubt, we showed our hand and stepped away from nominal "neutrality". Then again, we've done that bit before too... <edited out, probably would have started a pointless flamefest>

Terminus -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 2:24:30 AM)
Oh goody... I'm sure this won't spiral out of control...[8\|]

Kitakami -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 2:42:42 AM)
May I humbly suggest that this thread is locked. It has nothing to do with the game.

Reg -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 2:53:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elxaime It makes me think how complete a mismatch it must have been in 1982. What possessed the Argentines to send WW2 era ships out against modern nuclear vessels? According to records, ARA Belgrano had two Alouette III helos (which I assume had some ASW capability?) and therefore depended for protection on her escort, which were the ARA Piedra Buena and ARA Bouchard. Both these Sumner-class DDs were also former WW2 USN ships. Piedra Buena was the former USS Collett (DD-730) and the Bouchard was the former USS Borie (DD-704). Not sure to what extent they had been modified in terms of ASW capabilities, but from what I can tell they had only depth charges. Did that Argentine task force have any chance? Sounds like the naval equivalent of a knight on horseback charging a machine gun. A knight on horseback charging a machine gun would be brutally effective if it catches that machine gun unloaded....... The ARA Belgrano was still armed with its 15 x 6" rapid fire main battery. The effect of this firepower on a thin-skinned modern frigate can only be imagined. The big unknown was how they were going to bring this firepower to bear in this day of satellite surveillance and AWACS. However, the Argentine Navy were maneuvering to do just that and were executing a two pronged sweep to catch the RN fleet between them. The British command/politicians considered this a serious enough threat that they felt obliged to 'pull the trigger'. This was certainly a gamble on the part of the Argentine Navy but this plan aided by some luck (such as the loss of contact by the shadowing RN submarines) was the only realistic hope they had of influencing events. Unfortunately it was not to be. There is evidence they knew the game was up and were withdrawing before the torpedo attack which has made the whole episode rather controversial. However the fact remains they were on an offensive tactical mission against the British fleet and even the Argentinians themselves have admitted it was a legitimate attack.

Rainer -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 3:22:51 AM)
quote: May I humbly suggest that this thread is locked. It has nothing to do with the game. +1

SargeantTex -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 3:34:46 AM)
At least she met an honourable end and wasnt cut up by the salvage yards!! Makes me think about the greatest travesty in american naval history where the Enterprise was sent to the breakers of course she was sold during Eisenhowers administration and he had no sense of honor when it came to the Navy!! They should have at least had the decency to tow her out to sea and sink her!!!!

Pascal_slith -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 4:13:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rainer quote: May I humbly suggest that this thread is locked. It has nothing to do with the game. +1 There are tons of Off Topic (OT) threads. There is nothing bizarre or offensive about them. There is absolutely no reason to lock them as long as they stay civil and within the forum rules.

whippleofd -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 5:02:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SargeantTex At least she met an honourable end and wasnt cut up by the salvage yards!! Makes me think about the greatest travesty in american naval history where the Enterprise was sent to the breakers of course she was sold during Eisenhowers administration and he had no sense of honor when it came to the Navy!! They should have at least had the decency to tow her out to sea and sink her!!!! Tell that to the families of the crew members who "met an honorable end". Whipple

warspite1 -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 9:25:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pascal quote: ORIGINAL: Rainer quote: May I humbly suggest that this thread is locked. It has nothing to do with the game. +1 There are tons of Off Topic (OT) threads. There is nothing bizarre or offensive about them. There is absolutely no reason to lock them as long as they stay civil and within the forum rules. Warspite1 +1 there have been loads of these recently and none have gone off the rails - everyone has been respectful of the forum rules and there have been some interesting debates. Every thread is capable of going pear shaped if some moron decides they can't behave themselves or simply wants to cause trouble, why let them spoil it for the rest of us?

sprior -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 11:32:09 AM)
quote: I have to think she is the only ship ever to have been attacked by both Kamikazes and nuclear submarines during her career. She's the only ship to ever be sunk (deliberately) by a nuclear submarine.

Miller -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 11:59:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sprior quote: I have to think she is the only ship ever to have been attacked by both Kamikazes and nuclear submarines during her career. She's the only ship to ever be sunk (deliberately) by a nuclear submarine. Albeit using WWII design era torpedoes.......

Joe D. -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 1:29:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reg The ARA Belgrano was still armed with its 15 x 6" rapid fire main battery. The effect of this firepower on a thin-skinned modern frigate can only be imagined. The big unknown was how they were going to bring this firepower to bear in this day of satellite surveillance and AWACS ... I understand that US satellites discovered the Belgrano and then tipped-off the British to its location. I also recall that the Brit sub only used two torps; in wartime, it was authorized to use four fish to sink an enemy ship.

Local Yokel -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 3:04:48 PM)
I believe Conqueror actually fired three Mark 8 Mod 4 torpedoes, of which two hit. I have recently seen it suggested that these weapons were selected in preference to those fancy Tigerfish thingummies because the bigger warhead was thought more appropriate, given the size of the target.

dr.hal -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 4:16:16 PM)
I think one of the biggest controversies was not using the SSN to attack but where the SSN made the attack. I think the latest info was that it attacked outside the exclusion zone.

oldman45 -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 8:26:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal I think one of the biggest controversies was not using the SSN to attack but where the SSN made the attack. I think the latest info was that it attacked outside the exclusion zone. I remember reading that too, but I thought the reasoning behind doing it was sound at the time.

ilovestrategy -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 9:20:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal I think one of the biggest controversies was not using the SSN to attack but where the SSN made the attack. I think the latest info was that it attacked outside the exclusion zone. What is an exclusion zone and why is it important here?

Dixie -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 9:28:44 PM)
An exclusion zone was set up around the Falkland Islands early on in the conflict.� In simple terms it was an area where the UK stated that any non-British ship was putting herself at risk of being fired at without further warning.� This is from memory and a few guys on the forums might have to correct me.� There were two stages iirc, the first was a maritime exclusion zone of 200 miles around the Falklands where Argentine shipping was deemed a valid target.� Later it was changed to a total exclusion zone (TEZ) putting it out of bounds to everyone, the Argentinian government was also told that any Argentine navy ships would be considered valid targets anywhere in the South Atlantic.� P.S. By making it a total exclusion zone it meant that neutral ships should be safe as they would steer clear. It would also have potentially had a deterrent effect on the Soviet Union trying to spy on British forces.

warspite1 -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/19/2011 9:38:05 PM)
The Argentine Government was warned that any ARA vessel was a target wherever it was, not just within the Exclusion Zone. There was no controversy in her sinking. Had Belgrano had the chance to attack HM warships she would have done so. She represented a threat to the task force and was dealt with accordingly - fortunately before she had an opportunity to launch an attack.

ilovestrategy -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/20/2011 10:49:09 AM)
Thanks for the answer! [:)]

1275psi -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/20/2011 11:58:42 AM)
You know what the saddest thing is about all this. Politicians swearing after the event "that we will never, ever, allow our forces to become so weak again' The state of the british navy now? - it would -respectfully -be impossible to repeat the exercise........ (a ps note) -the Auistralian navy is being flooded with 'refugee sailors" from the brits - i should know, i train em..... even sadder -with out them coming here -no way are we going to be able to function shortly as a navy.............. hint -just ask anyone who knows, what the state of our electrical maintainers branch is at the moment - especially in the light of the new ships coming.

Dixie -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/20/2011 12:10:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1275psi You know what the saddest thing is about all this. Politicians swearing after the event "that we will never, ever, allow our forces to become so weak again' The state of the british navy now? - it would -respectfully -be impossible to repeat the exercise........ (a ps note) -the Auistralian navy is being flooded with 'refugee sailors" from the brits - i should know, i train em..... even sadder -with out them coming here -no way are we going to be able to function shortly as a navy.............. hint -just ask anyone who knows, what the state of our electrical maintainers branch is at the moment - especially in the light of the new ships coming. Have a word with your air force as well would you? I know a few aircraft techies who'll be looking for work soon [;)]

sprior -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/20/2011 12:58:54 PM)
quote: hint -just ask anyone who knows, what the state of our electrical maintainers branch is at the moment - especially in the light of the new ships coming. Nearly as bad in the RN now, the artificer branch was completely scrapped. Wouldn't want well-trained engineers and technichians looking after weapons systems now, would we? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/7219075/Royal-Navy-consigns-141-year-old-ranking-to-history.html And yes, it's personal.

redcoat -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/20/2011 1:05:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie quote: ORIGINAL: 1275psi You know what the saddest thing is about all this. Politicians swearing after the event "that we will never, ever, allow our forces to become so weak again' The state of the british navy now? - it would -respectfully -be impossible to repeat the exercise........ (a ps note) -the Auistralian navy is being flooded with 'refugee sailors" from the brits - i should know, i train em..... even sadder -with out them coming here -no way are we going to be able to function shortly as a navy.............. hint -just ask anyone who knows, what the state of our electrical maintainers branch is at the moment - especially in the light of the new ships coming. Have a word with your air force as well would you? I know a few aircraft techies who'll be looking for work soon [;)] Dixie, have you seen this website before? http://www.securityclearedjobs.com/ I don�t know whether it would be of interest to you.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.063477