The sinking was very controversial at the time, the loss of so many sailors and the loss of a magnificent vessel. I have to agree with Rear Admiral Woodwards assessment that she was a threat to the British task force, as he said, “She had to go.”




Years later during a TV documentary on the sinking, a sailor who served on HMS Conqueror stated, “A certain Government Minister called me a murderer, he was the one who sent me there!”


In 1994, the Argentine Government agreed that it was “A legal act of war.”

War is full of ifs and buts. Now the Belgrano was not that far away from the many British ships. Now had she got in amongst the British fleet and had done a lot of damage then we would be asking why she the Belgrano allowed to get to the British fleet.. Also we should look at what happened after the Belgrano was was sunk, well the whole of the Argentinian fleet went back to port and stayed there until after the war. It should be remembered that this was a shooting war and had the Belgrano had the chance to sink a few British ships even if they were transport ships, do you think that the Belgrano would not have sunk them given the chance

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

War is full of ifs and buts. Now the Belgrano was not that far away from the many British ships. Now had she got in amongst the British fleet and had done a lot of damage then we would be asking why she the Belgrano allowed to get to the British fleet.. Also we should look at what happened after the Belgrano was was sunk, well the whole of the Argentinian fleet went back to port and stayed there until after the war. It should be remembered that this was a shooting war and had the Belgrano had the chance to sink a few British ships even if they were transport ships, do you think that the Belgrano would not have sunk them given the chance

Should be aware that in Naval Warfare the transports are the main target. Combat ships or only as effective as the protection they can supply.

As an example in antisubmarine warfare a destroyer would be required, if possible, to maneuver to intercept a torpedo from a submarine keeping a transport safe. (Take the hit). The value of a transport's cargo being considerably more valuable to the war effort than a "tin can".

I always wondered why England didn't sink more or hit targets on Argentina's mainland war is war. Always heard good things about British sub crews and Boats themselves first rate operations from top to bottom including equipment. Can only assume UK didn't want to expand the war any further thus the reason for more targets not being hit.

Subs are just plain nasty almost unfair to surface shipping little can really stop them if let lose. Nothing intercepts a torpedo in the water once fired like anti-ship missiles or something, just plain nasty. No anti-torpedo weapons was ever produced why I don't know. To me it makes a sound when it pings couldn't another special torpedo be design to hunt down the pinging?

If somebody knows I'm willing to learn.

I'm very much of the opinion above. In war many terrible things need to be done and we only come to regret the loss of life later.

I also agree that I thought the Brits were very sensible in not trying to escalate the war or make it significantly worse than it needed to be, to achieve their aim.

In short, I think the sinking of the Belgrano demonstrated the point that should the Argies "push", it could get very nasty. In this respect the sinking did it's job. Even though it was well within the rules, I don't think anyone was proud of the way the point was made.

I was never a sailor, but even so, I fully concur with Rear Admiral Woodward assessment that the Belgrano was a major threat.

If I remember correctly there was an Argentine carrier group to the north, and the Belgrano group to the south. The Belgrano was sailing away from the Falklands, but was fully expected to do a 180, then with the carrier group catch the British fleet in a pincer movement. A dangerous position to be in. As a result of the Belgrano sinking, the rest of the fleet sailed for their home port, removing a serious threat from the Task Force.

When HMS Conquerer sailed into her home port with the Jolly Roger flying, some tabloids had a field day who with a certain government minister called the crew murderers. Those who cried foul simply do not understand the complexes of war, it wasn't a computer game where if you get killed you hit the restart button and have another go. To my mind, they were hero's, even single one of them. The crew did what they had to do.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

I was never a sailor, but even so, I fully concur with Rear Admiral Woodward assessment that the Belgrano was a major threat.

If I remember correctly there was an Argentine carrier group to the north, and the Belgrano group to the south. The Belgrano was sailing away from the Falklands, but was fully expected to do a 180, then with the carrier group catch the British fleet in a pincer movement. A dangerous position to be in. As a result of the Belgrano sinking, the rest of the fleet sailed for their home port, removing a serious threat from the Task Force.

When HMS Conquerer sailed into her home port with the Jolly Roger flying, some tabloids had a field day who with a certain government minister called the crew murderers. Those who cried foul simply do not understand the complexes of war, it wasn't a computer game where if you get killed you hit the restart button and have another go. To my mind, they were hero's, even single one of them. The crew did what they had to do.

I agree, whether you agree or disagree with the war and its justifications the Belgrano was a military asset that posed a threat to the British fleet and therefore was a fair target.

Originally Posted by rock45

Subs are just plain nasty almost unfair to surface shipping little can really stop them if let lose. Nothing intercepts a torpedo in the water once fired like anti-ship missiles or something, just plain nasty. No anti-torpedo weapons was ever produced why I don't know. To me it makes a sound when it pings couldn't another special torpedo be design to hunt down the pinging?

If somebody knows I'm willing to learn.

I don't know anything about any anti torpedo weapons, but I believe there is an anti ship missile weapon system. As far as I am aware its a 7.62 calibre "gattling" type weapon and radar operated/guided, once an anti ship missile such as the French Exocet is detected, the system basically sends up a wall of lead.

I am sure there are serving sailors here who can either qualify my post, make a correction or call me a plonker. lol

Interestingly, the Belgrano was sunk by two Mark 8 torpedo's that served the Royal Navy from 1925, all through WW2 and into the 80's. The Mark 8 was considered more reliable then the Mark 24 Tigerfish which Conquerer was also equipped. One sailor stated, every Mark 24 Tigerfish that he had fired, he didn't have one that was a “banger”.

A WW2 ship sunk using WW2 torpedo's.

There is an interesting story relating to a Conquerer crewman and Belgrano crewmen including Captain of the Belgrano Hector Bonzo who met in Argentina. An interesting read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000...tina.falklands

Hi BritinAfrica
I know there are anti-missile weapons I was getting at that in 2008 there still isn't a pure anti-torpedo weapon produced. The comment you made about the Mark 8 was considered more reliable then the Mark 24 Tigerfish serves is interesting and in a way serves my point. Even a WW-II era weapons is still effective because there isn't a effective anti-torpedo weapon produced. I find it odd that a weapon has never been design to kill torpedo's. One must assume there motor produces sound/noise right? Why couldn't the noise be tracked and a weapon aimed at it? Aren't some torpedo shot made ranges 10,000 yards and 15,000 yards? To me that's some distance if fact they can be be launched further out then that too but my point isnt that enough time to track them? I would think surface ship commanders would want such a weapon.

Originally Posted by rock45

Hi BritinAfrica
I know there are anti-missile weapons I was getting at that in 2008 there still isn't a pure anti-torpedo weapon produced. The comment you made about the Mark 8 was considered more reliable then the Mark 24 Tigerfish serves is interesting and in a way serves my point. Even a WW-II era weapons is still effective because there isn't a effective anti-torpedo weapon produced. I find it odd that a weapon has never been design to kill torpedo's. One must assume there motor produces sound/noise right? Why couldn't the noise be tracked and a weapon aimed at it? Aren't some torpedo shot made ranges 10,000 yards and 15,000 yards? To me that's some distance if fact they can be be launched further out then that too but my point isnt that enough time to track them? I would think surface ship commanders would want such a weapon.

My apologies I miss read your post.


Would the development costs be worth the end result of such a system? Yes it could save lives and ships, but as you know, many governments only concern is, which is the cheapest, mens lives and surface ships or developing a system that may never be used. For all I know there could be such a system on someones secret list and actually built or perhaps on the drawing board.