RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

RE: 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

JohnDillworth -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/20/2011 1:48:27 PM)
(and now Mr Dillworth will try and steer the thread to something more board appropriate) Still, the finest light cruisers ever made (if we are just considering gun cruisers). I read recently that the weight of their broadside was about 40% higher than the typical 8" cruisers of the day. Plus superior radar in 1942 not to mention the sustained rate of fire. The Japanese called the Helena and Boise (all rise) those "machine gun" cruisers during the battle of Cape Esperance where they contributed to the sinking of one Japanese CA and beat the tar out of the Aoba.

dr.hal -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/20/2011 4:51:55 PM)
A historical note might be of interest, if Argentina had waited a few months, both Fearless class landing ships were slated for decommissioning as was one of the Brit carries. To get them up to scratch and into the South Atlantic would have been FAR more difficult, giving Argentina far more time to consolidate and exploit public opinion against the "Imperial" British. Of further interest, the two WWII Fram destroyers escorting the CL were more dangerous than the CL, as the two DDs were armed with Exocet missiles. The Belgrano only had 6 inch guns as all of us know, and despite reports at the time that these guns were effective out to TWENTY miles, the truth is, for those guns to hit anything it would have to be well within half that range. The MEZ was declared first and yes it was up graded to a TEZ on the pretext that it was for the protection of neutral shipping, BUT the Conqueror was shadowing the Belgrano for many days and the CL would not go into the MEZ so the Brits simply expanded the MEZ so as to allow "legally" the SSN to take out the Belgrano. But the reason I write this is that I think (IMHO) in purely military terms the DDs were more of a threat and it would have been far cheaper in terms of lives lost, if one of those had been targeted. But that's wishful thinking. And I agree with the comment that one of our members made, that the relatives who lost loved ones that day on that ship were the real losers of this whole enterprise.

Chris21wen -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/20/2011 5:15:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reg 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. The thing that annoys me about the' controversy' is it that takes less the 5 min to turn a ship that size around. I can imagine Midway. Oh look there not steaming towards Midway, let not attack.

warspite1 -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/20/2011 7:23:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal The MEZ was declared first and yes it was up graded to a TEZ on the pretext that it was for the protection of neutral shipping, BUT the Conqueror was shadowing the Belgrano for many days and the CL would not go into the MEZ so the Brits simply expanded the MEZ so as to allow "legally" the SSN to take out the Belgrano. Warspite1 dr.hal - That is simply not true. Firstly the British government warned their Argentine counterparts that all ARA ships were to be considered hostile wherever they were - exclusion zone or not - if it was felt they presented a threat to the Task Force. Secondly, the British were - with a UN mandate - at war with Argentina thanks to the latters invasion of sovereign territory. The idea that it was wrong to fire on a ship because she was heading away from the task force is faintly ridiculous. Your thinking suggests: - Conqueror could not have lost contact in the appalling weather - Belgrano could not have turned around - Conqueror could not have broken down - Conqueror's fish could not have malfunctioned General Belgrano was a legitimate target. There was nothing controversial, there was nothing illegal about her sinking. End of. The only point I agree with is that the loss of life - on both sides - was very sad, but in time of war i would rather the loss be Argentinian than men from one of our carriers....

witpqs -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/20/2011 7:59:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal The MEZ was declared first and yes it was up graded to a TEZ on the pretext that it was for the protection of neutral shipping, BUT the Conqueror was shadowing the Belgrano for many days and the CL would not go into the MEZ so the Brits simply expanded the MEZ so as to allow "legally" the SSN to take out the Belgrano. Warspite1 dr.hal - That is simply not true. Firstly the British government warned their Argentine counterparts that all ARA ships were to be considered hostile wherever they were - exclusion zone or not - if it was felt they presented a threat to the Task Force. Secondly, the British were - with a UN mandate - at war with Argentina thanks to the latters invasion of sovereign territory. The idea that it was wrong to fire on a ship because she was heading away from the task force is faintly ridiculous. Your thinking suggests: - Conqueror could not have lost contact in the appalling weather - Belgrano could not have turned around - Conqueror could not have broken down - Conqueror's fish could not have malfunctioned General Belgrano was a legitimate target. There was nothing controversial, there was nothing illegal about her sinking. End of. The only point I agree with is that the loss of life - on both sides - was very sad, but in time of war i would rather the loss be Argentinian than men from one of our carriers.... Agreed. It's amazing the lengths to which arguments will go to restrict one's defense of oneself and one's own.

Shark7 -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/20/2011 9:54:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal The MEZ was declared first and yes it was up graded to a TEZ on the pretext that it was for the protection of neutral shipping, BUT the Conqueror was shadowing the Belgrano for many days and the CL would not go into the MEZ so the Brits simply expanded the MEZ so as to allow "legally" the SSN to take out the Belgrano. Warspite1 dr.hal - That is simply not true. Firstly the British government warned their Argentine counterparts that all ARA ships were to be considered hostile wherever they were - exclusion zone or not - if it was felt they presented a threat to the Task Force. Secondly, the British were - with a UN mandate - at war with Argentina thanks to the latters invasion of sovereign territory. The idea that it was wrong to fire on a ship because she was heading away from the task force is faintly ridiculous. Your thinking suggests: - Conqueror could not have lost contact in the appalling weather - Belgrano could not have turned around - Conqueror could not have broken down - Conqueror's fish could not have malfunctioned General Belgrano was a legitimate target. There was nothing controversial, there was nothing illegal about her sinking. End of. The only point I agree with is that the loss of life - on both sides - was very sad, but in time of war i would rather the loss be Argentinian than men from one of our carriers.... Agreed. It's amazing the lengths to which arguments will go to restrict one's defense of oneself and one's own. Besides, doesn't law all but fly out the window once the shooting starts? War by its very nature is opposite of law and order.

oldman45 -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 12:22:37 AM)
I think there is a saying that's appropriate right now. "All's fair in love and war"

Alfred -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 4:29:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal The MEZ was declared first and yes it was up graded to a TEZ on the pretext that it was for the protection of neutral shipping, BUT the Conqueror was shadowing the Belgrano for many days and the CL would not go into the MEZ so the Brits simply expanded the MEZ so as to allow "legally" the SSN to take out the Belgrano. Warspite1 dr.hal - That is simply not true. Firstly the British government warned their Argentine counterparts that all ARA ships were to be considered hostile wherever they were - exclusion zone or not - if it was felt they presented a threat to the Task Force. Secondly, the British were - with a UN mandate - at war with Argentina thanks to the latters invasion of sovereign territory. The idea that it was wrong to fire on a ship because she was heading away from the task force is faintly ridiculous. Your thinking suggests: - Conqueror could not have lost contact in the appalling weather - Belgrano could not have turned around - Conqueror could not have broken down - Conqueror's fish could not have malfunctioned General Belgrano was a legitimate target. There was nothing controversial, there was nothing illegal about her sinking. End of. The only point I agree with is that the loss of life - on both sides - was very sad, but in time of war i would rather the loss be Argentinian than men from one of our carriers.... Agreed. It's amazing the lengths to which arguments will go to restrict one's defense of oneself and one's own. Besides, doesn't law all but fly out the window once the shooting starts? War by its very nature is opposite of law and order. Quite the contrary, even in the American military. Nowadays for every "planning" officer back at unit HQ, a military lawyer is required. No military target is selected without a lawyer giving the OK. This legal oversight is more intrusive in some militaries than in others, affected as it is by (a) whether a country has agreed to be bound to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, (b) the individual national rules of engagement, with the consequence that two allied forces may be standing side by side but one is precluded from firing its weapons at a particular target and the other isn't. Alfred

Kull -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 4:45:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Quite the contrary, especially in the American military. Fixed it for ya. [;)]

Alfred -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 5:17:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Quite the contrary, especially in the American military. Fixed it for ya. [;)] Ah, you Americans...you are so competitive.[:)] Alfred

Shark7 -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 7:14:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal The MEZ was declared first and yes it was up graded to a TEZ on the pretext that it was for the protection of neutral shipping, BUT the Conqueror was shadowing the Belgrano for many days and the CL would not go into the MEZ so the Brits simply expanded the MEZ so as to allow "legally" the SSN to take out the Belgrano. Warspite1 dr.hal - That is simply not true. Firstly the British government warned their Argentine counterparts that all ARA ships were to be considered hostile wherever they were - exclusion zone or not - if it was felt they presented a threat to the Task Force. Secondly, the British were - with a UN mandate - at war with Argentina thanks to the latters invasion of sovereign territory. The idea that it was wrong to fire on a ship because she was heading away from the task force is faintly ridiculous. Your thinking suggests: - Conqueror could not have lost contact in the appalling weather - Belgrano could not have turned around - Conqueror could not have broken down - Conqueror's fish could not have malfunctioned General Belgrano was a legitimate target. There was nothing controversial, there was nothing illegal about her sinking. End of. The only point I agree with is that the loss of life - on both sides - was very sad, but in time of war i would rather the loss be Argentinian than men from one of our carriers.... Agreed. It's amazing the lengths to which arguments will go to restrict one's defense of oneself and one's own. Besides, doesn't law all but fly out the window once the shooting starts? War by its very nature is opposite of law and order. Quite the contrary, even in the American military. Nowadays for every "planning" officer back at unit HQ, a military lawyer is required. No military target is selected without a lawyer giving the OK. This legal oversight is more intrusive in some militaries than in others, affected as it is by (a) whether a country has agreed to be bound to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, (b) the individual national rules of engagement, with the consequence that two allied forces may be standing side by side but one is precluded from firing its weapons at a particular target and the other isn't. Alfred Honestly, seems to me that such actions are an attempt to make civilized what is by its very nature a barbaric act. So understand I am neither condemning or condoning what is done...its just that it seems counter-intuitive to me.

fbs -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 4:20:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Honestly, seems to me that such actions are an attempt to make civilized what is by its very nature a barbaric act. So understand I am neither condemning or condoning what is done.. +1

Cap Mandrake -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 6:39:27 PM)
The best thing about the Falklands war was a band playing "Don't cry for me Argentina" when ground troops were boarding in England. [:)] At that point it was clear who was going to win. Still those Argie A-4 pilots were tough bastards.

ilovestrategy -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 7:44:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Quite the contrary, especially in the American military. Fixed it for ya. [;)] +1

JWE -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 8:19:41 PM)
War for it's own sake is indeed barbaric. But war, as an extension of national policy, is a valid tool and needs to be judged in the contemporary context. Clausewitz wrote that (synopsized) one must have a specific political objective in mind before one deploys the first trooper, and be willing to go the wall to make it happen. Maggie Thatcher took Clausewitz to heart and did what was necessary to achieve her political objective. Fortunately, she had the resources at hand to make it happen.

dr.hal -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 10:11:24 PM)
I never cease to be amazed at how folks will read into things what they want to read. Warspite 1 at no time was I suggesting the act to be "illegal". No where in my post do I use that word. It was legal, however what I AM suggesting is that the Brits did feel obliged to strengthen their case for the attack (which they KNEW was going to be highly controversial) by making sure the target was within a declared zone. The problem with declaring a "zone" is that it hamstrings the declarer as much as it does the enemy; in that it becomes morally more of a challenge (notice I didn't use the work "legally") to justify an action OUTSIDE the zone (witness the Cuban Missile Crisis of October '61 or the Imperial German Navy's U-Boat stance in the first world war). The expansion was done to ensure that the UK retained the support of the international community as well as for military means. In relation to the statement that during a war law is thrown out, is simply not true. Quite the contrary, it seems to be more applicable. States try desperately to get the "law" on their side now more than ever. To cloak their actions within the bounds of International Law this increasing their "legitimacy". The body of law around war and conflict is rich and expanding every day (but that does NOT mean it is less barbaric). I was living in London during the entire conflict and although news was hard to come by during the conflict, UK attempts to ensure international support and legitimacy were extensive to say the least.

witpqs -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 10:59:19 PM)
That's not what I read about it. I read forthright answers about the Belgrano being just outside the zone and why she was attacked anyway. No redefinition of the zone that I read of.

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 11:07:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: khyberbill 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. Post deleted upon request.[:(]

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 11:10:17 PM)
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... Post deleted upon request.

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 11:11:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kitakami May I humbly suggest that this thread is locked. It has nothing to do with the game. Post deleted upon request.

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 11:12:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reg 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. Post deleted upon request.

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 11:20:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal The MEZ was declared first and yes it was up graded to a TEZ on the pretext that it was for the protection of neutral shipping, BUT the Conqueror was shadowing the Belgrano for many days and the CL would not go into the MEZ so the Brits simply expanded the MEZ so as to allow "legally" the SSN to take out the Belgrano. Warspite1 dr.hal - That is simply not true. Firstly the British government warned their Argentine counterparts that all ARA ships were to be considered hostile wherever they were - exclusion zone or not - if it was felt they presented a threat to the Task Force. Secondly, the British were - with a UN mandate - at war with Argentina thanks to the latters invasion of sovereign territory. The idea that it was wrong to fire on a ship because she was heading away from the task force is faintly ridiculous. Your thinking suggests: - Conqueror could not have lost contact in the appalling weather - Belgrano could not have turned around - Conqueror could not have broken down - Conqueror's fish could not have malfunctioned General Belgrano was a legitimate target. There was nothing controversial, there was nothing illegal about her sinking. End of. The only point I agree with is that the loss of life - on both sides - was very sad, but in time of war i would rather the loss be Argentinian than men from one of our carriers.... Agreed. It's amazing the lengths to which arguments will go to restrict one's defense of oneself and one's own. Besides, doesn't law all but fly out the window once the shooting starts? War by its very nature is opposite of law and order. Post deleted upon request.

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 11:24:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal The MEZ was declared first and yes it was up graded to a TEZ on the pretext that it was for the protection of neutral shipping, BUT the Conqueror was shadowing the Belgrano for many days and the CL would not go into the MEZ so the Brits simply expanded the MEZ so as to allow "legally" the SSN to take out the Belgrano. Warspite1 dr.hal - That is simply not true. Firstly the British government warned their Argentine counterparts that all ARA ships were to be considered hostile wherever they were - exclusion zone or not - if it was felt they presented a threat to the Task Force. Secondly, the British were - with a UN mandate - at war with Argentina thanks to the latters invasion of sovereign territory. The idea that it was wrong to fire on a ship because she was heading away from the task force is faintly ridiculous. Your thinking suggests: - Conqueror could not have lost contact in the appalling weather - Belgrano could not have turned around - Conqueror could not have broken down - Conqueror's fish could not have malfunctioned General Belgrano was a legitimate target. There was nothing controversial, there was nothing illegal about her sinking. End of. The only point I agree with is that the loss of life - on both sides - was very sad, but in time of war i would rather the loss be Argentinian than men from one of our carriers.... Agreed. It's amazing the lengths to which arguments will go to restrict one's defense of oneself and one's own. Besides, doesn't law all but fly out the window once the shooting starts? War by its very nature is opposite of law and order. Quite the contrary, even in the American military. Nowadays for every "planning" officer back at unit HQ, a military lawyer is required. No military target is selected without a lawyer giving the OK. This legal oversight is more intrusive in some militaries than in others, affected as it is by (a) whether a country has agreed to be bound to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, (b) the individual national rules of engagement, with the consequence that two allied forces may be standing side by side but one is precluded from firing its weapons at a particular target and the other isn't. Alfred Post deleted upon request.

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 11:26:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal The MEZ was declared first and yes it was up graded to a TEZ on the pretext that it was for the protection of neutral shipping, BUT the Conqueror was shadowing the Belgrano for many days and the CL would not go into the MEZ so the Brits simply expanded the MEZ so as to allow "legally" the SSN to take out the Belgrano. Warspite1 dr.hal - That is simply not true. Firstly the British government warned their Argentine counterparts that all ARA ships were to be considered hostile wherever they were - exclusion zone or not - if it was felt they presented a threat to the Task Force. Secondly, the British were - with a UN mandate - at war with Argentina thanks to the latters invasion of sovereign territory. The idea that it was wrong to fire on a ship because she was heading away from the task force is faintly ridiculous. Your thinking suggests: - Conqueror could not have lost contact in the appalling weather - Belgrano could not have turned around - Conqueror could not have broken down - Conqueror's fish could not have malfunctioned General Belgrano was a legitimate target. There was nothing controversial, there was nothing illegal about her sinking. End of. The only point I agree with is that the loss of life - on both sides - was very sad, but in time of war i would rather the loss be Argentinian than men from one of our carriers.... Agreed. It's amazing the lengths to which arguments will go to restrict one's defense of oneself and one's own. Besides, doesn't law all but fly out the window once the shooting starts? War by its very nature is opposite of law and order. Quite the contrary, even in the American military. Nowadays for every "planning" officer back at unit HQ, a military lawyer is required. No military target is selected without a lawyer giving the OK. This legal oversight is more intrusive in some militaries than in others, affected as it is by (a) whether a country has agreed to be bound to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, (b) the individual national rules of engagement, with the consequence that two allied forces may be standing side by side but one is precluded from firing its weapons at a particular target and the other isn't. Alfred Honestly, seems to me that such actions are an attempt to make civilized what is by its very nature a barbaric act. So understand I am neither condemning or condoning what is done...its just that it seems counter-intuitive to me. Post deleted by request.

AW1Steve -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/21/2011 11:27:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake The best thing about the Falklands war was a band playing "Don't cry for me Argentina" when ground troops were boarding in England. [:)] At that point it was clear who was going to win. Still those Argie A-4 pilots were tough bastards. Post deleted upon request.

redcoat -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/22/2011 1:09:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs That's not what I read about it. I read forthright answers about the Belgrano being just outside the zone and why she was attacked anyway. No redefinition of the zone that I read of. A Simples Timeline of Exclusion Zones etc 12 April - Britain declared a Maritime Exclusion Zone (MEZ) 200 nautical miles around Falklands. Any Argentine warship or naval auxiliary entering the MEZ would have been attacked. 23 April - Britain sent a message to Argentina to warn them that any warship or aircraft representing a threat to our Task Force would be �dealt with accordingly�: In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly. The civilian aircraft alludes particularly, but not only, to the Boeing 707 of the Argentine Air Force which until then had been shadowing the Task Force on its journey south and had been escorted away on several occasions by Sea Harriers. 25 April � South Georgia is recaptured by British forces. The Argentine sub Santa Fe is damaged and captured. 30 April � Britain declared a Total Exclusion Zone (TEZ) 200 nautical miles around the Falklands. Any sea vessel or aircraft from any nation may have been fired upon without warning. The TEZ was imposed to keep neutral shipping away from the war zone - and to scare off the Russians who were supplying the Argies with intelligence (with spy trawlers etc). 1 May � The British Task Force entered the TEZ and both sides launched attacks. HMS Glamorgan and Alacrity were bombed and strafed by three Mirage. 2 May � The ARA Belgrano was sunk because she and her escorts posed a threat to the Task Force. IIRC we knew about the missiles on her escorts. 7 May � The British Government warned Argentina that any warships, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft more than 12 nautical miles from the Argentine coast would be liable to attack. A few quotes from Argentine commanders regarding the Belgrano Captain Hector Bonzo of ARA Belgrano: "Our mission in the south wasn�t just to cruise around but to attack." "We knew we had to be ready to attack or be attacked ourselves." "We were heading towards the mainland but not going to the mainland; we were going to a position to await further orders" Rear-Admiral Allara: "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano"

witpqs -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/22/2011 1:23:46 AM)
quote: 2 May � The ARA Belgrano was sunk because she and her escorts posed a threat to the Task Force. Precisely.

Chris21wen -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/22/2011 4:26:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs That's not what I read about it. I read forthright answers about the Belgrano being just outside the zone and why she was attacked anyway. No redefinition of the zone that I read of. She was Argentinan, armed and dangerous is why she was attacked. If Argentinan goverernment didn't want her to be attacked they should not have sent her to sea, unless it was toward Hawaii. If you want controvesy, why did they invade, why was the Sheffield sunk, why, why etc.

Nikademus -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/22/2011 5:11:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs That's not what I read about it. I read forthright answers about the Belgrano being just outside the zone and why she was attacked anyway. No redefinition of the zone that I read of. That was the impression i got as well, at least from Hastings' account. Mind you.......i'm not saying the UK was wrong. What nation hasn't fudged the rules at times when needs presented themselves? Belgrano was a high profile target and a potential threat.....one that the UK, which at the time bereft of the comfort of hindsight that we post-war analysers so enjoy [;)] , would like to have not had to worry about anymore given the host of other concerns on her plate. If one wants to be cruel, and i think it was already pointed out, if the Argentinians wanted to save lives and preserve their old relic of a warship, they should have kept her safely in port. Point being....i doubt a USN TF would have acted all that differently with the exception of a full scale Cold War confrontation of which we've all seen movies and read books on the 'scale of escalation'

witpqs -> RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror (6/22/2011 6:22:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: 2 May � The ARA Belgrano was sunk because she and her escorts posed a threat to the Task Force. Precisely. I think redcoat (whom I quoted above) put it very well. If there is anything to add, I suppose it would be something along the lines of "They deliberately started a war. Big Boy Rules apply."

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.140625