Was the sinking of the Belgrano necessary?

Actually the UK wasn't at War, as neither side officially declared war. Britain created an exclusion zone and warned the Argentinians not to enter it. The BELGRANO was sunk OUTSIDE this exclusion zone having been in violation a fews days before. The British claim that she was sunk because she posed to great a threat to the invasion fleet, I am dubious of this claim as BELGRANO was a pre-WWII light cruiser and was a limited threat. More likely was that Downing Street wanted to send a message to Buenos Aires to demostrate that the official RN song "Britannia rules the Waves" is titled that for a reason.
Click to expand...

Oh common...
The fact that an enemy force is not well armed hardly means its immoral to attack it. Your trying to make war into a code of honor type thing. This isent the middle ages (and no one in the middle ages fought with a code of honor either). An armed ship is a legitimet target. War was not declared but invading another country is as good as a decleration of war.
 
Belgrano not a threat?

As for the Belgrano not being a threat, a Royal Marine almost sank an Argentine ship using a Charlie G 84 anti tank.

Marine David Combes, who was normally the ships steward on Endurance now placed his name in naval history books by firing his Carl Gustav 84 mm anti tank weapon at the Guerrico. The Royal Marines watched as the 10lb projectile staggered across the waves and then, on its last legs, smashed into Guerrico's hull just above the waterline, sending up a column of white water. They then heard a loud rumble come from inside the ship. Below decks Argentine damage control parties struggled to stop the flow of water that was now coming though the hole.

The explosion killed one Argentine sailor and wounded several others. It also destroyed many electrical cables, including the ones used to power the 100 mm gun's traverse mechanism making the gun useless at this close range. The aft 40 mm was still working until Marines Parsons and Chubb cut down the Argentine gun crew with their LMG. Alfonso was having a hard time trying to manoeuvre the big ship quickly inside the small bay. He knew he had to get out of the bay quickly. As the ship came about, Sergeant Major Leach lying on a table up stairs in Shackleton House, took his time and fired 15 shots into the bridge with his sniper rifle. This caused panic and confusion as officers and sailors trying to steer the ship had to take cover. With the ship turned, Alfonso steered the ship out of the bay, but she had to run the gauntlet of fire from the Royal Marines again before getting out of range. Marine Combes let go another 84 mm at the frigate that smashed into the hull below the Exocets. The Marines also managed to hit Guerrico at least twice with 66 mm rockets. Corporal Peters was severely wounded in the arm while standing to fire his 66 mm. The rifle shot had come from one of the Argentine Marines in the buildings near Shackleton House.

Guerrico finally made her way out of range. Later an Argentine officer counted over 1,000 hits to her structure. The Royal Marines had taken on a warship, and won the fight. While the ship to shore battle had been taking place, Bussan’s Alouette helicopter had been ferrying more Argentine Marines ashore, out of range of the British. These Marines soon advanced and joined the others in Grytviken. Guerrico now out of British range managed to fire off a salvo that bracketed Mills positions. Mills knew he had proved a point and informed his men he intended to surrender. This decision did not go down well with the veteran Sergeant Major Leach, but he obeyed his officer and passed the word to all the Marines to cease-fire.

Mills left his position and holding a white coat to signify a flag of truce, walked towards the Argentine positions. An Argentine Marine left cover and met Mills halfway. Mills explained to the Argentine Marine that he wished to speak to the Commander of the Argentinean forces saying he was prepared to surrender his party of Royal Marines to prevent further blood shed. Mills's message was passed to Astiz, who immediately came ashore and accepted Mills's surrender. When the Royal Marines left their positions and marched into captivity, the Argentines were shocked to find out that it had only been a force of 22 Royal Marines that had almost destroyed their invasion plans and damaged their frigate. Because of this the Royal Marines were treated with great respect by their captors. Mills advised Astiz that his men had heavily booby-trapped the jetty. Astiz asked that Marine Daniels ( who had placed the booby traps ) would care to remove his unpleasant surprises. Daniels obliged although it was contrary to the Geneva Convention. The only British casualty, Corporal Peters, was taken aboard the Bahia Paraiso and received expert treatment from an Argentine doctor on board.

So imagine what 6 inch shells could do have done to the British Fleet.
 
SHERMAN said:
Oh common...
The fact that an enemy force is not well armed hardly means its immoral to attack it. Your trying to make war into a code of honor type thing. This isent the middle ages (and no one in the middle ages fought with a code of honor either). An armed ship is a legitimet target. War was not declared but invading another country is as good as a decleration of war.
Click to expand...

You missed my point entirely, I wasn't saying that the UK wasn't justified to sinking the BELGRANO, only that the BELGRANO was not the BISMARK that had to be sunk at all costs as the MOD and the UK press played her out to be.

I read a transcript of Maggie Thatcher explaination of "WHY" on the BBC when she ordered HMS Conqueror to sink BELGRANO, claiming that it was a immediate threat to the RN... it was pathetic excuse. Sea Turtles could have been considered a threat as well by that explaination.

The real reason BELGRANO was sunk was to send a message to the Argentianan Leadership about the British seriousness in the Falklands conflict. Which in war is perfectly justified, the job of the navy is to sink enemy ships afterall. But to claim that BELGRANO was a threat in order to silence the UK peaceniks as Thatcher did...is just lame.

What she should have said was "We are at war, an enemy ship was sunk... end of discussion".

All I am doing is dispelling this myth the BELGRANO was some grave threat...She wasn't

BritinAfrica

Come on, I think WWII proved that the age of naval gun engagement gone the way of the dodo, and this was in 1981, Frankly Argentina aircraft and land based Exocet missiles were a far more serious threat.

BELGRANO would have ONLY been a threat if the British had let her get in range of her guns. Her maximum gun range was about a mile. Outside that range she was no threat. She had no aircraft (aside from S+R helicopters) no Anti-Ship Missiles on board. How likely do you think she could have got that close, remember this is the South Atlantic...not the English Channel. The RN would have have had to been deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid all at once.

The British on the other had had the Sea Skua Anti-ship Missile which could have easily destroyed any naval target within 25 miles. Not to mention the two Aircraft Carriers. There is no question that had BELGRANO been foolish enough to try and intercept the British fleet she would have been blown out of the water before she got even close.

The sinking of the BELGRANO was akin to the sinking of the HMS ROYAL OAK in 1939. It was a enormous political blow but only a minor military asset that was destroyed. If HMS Conqueror had sunk the ARA VEINCINCO DE MEYO would have been a major larger loss.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
You missed my point entirely, I wasn't saying that the UK wasn't justified to sinking the BELGRANO, only that the BELGRANO was not the BISMARK that had to be sunk at all costs as the MOD and the UK press played her out to be.

I read a transcript of Maggie Thatcher explaination of "WHY" on the BBC when she ordered HMS Conqueror to sink BELGRANO, claiming that it was a immediate threat to the RN... it was pathetic excuse. Sea Turtles could have been considered a threat as well by that explaination.

The real reason BELGRANO was sunk was to send a message to the Argentianan Leadership about the British seriousness in the Falklands conflict. Which in war is perfectly justified, the job of the navy is to sink enemy ships afterall. But to claim that BELGRANO was a threat in order to silence the UK peaceniks as Thatcher did...is just lame.

What she should have said was "We are at war, an enemy ship was sunk... end of discussion".

All I am doing is dispelling this myth the BELGRANO was some grave threat...She wasn't

BritinAfrica

Come on, I think WWII proved that the age of naval gun engagement gone the way of the dodo, and this was in 1981, Frankly Argentina aircraft and land based Exocet missiles were a far more serious threat.

BELGRANO would have ONLY been a threat if the British had let her get in range of her guns. Her maximum gun range was about a mile. Outside that range she was no threat. She had no aircraft (aside from S+R helicopters) no Anti-Ship Missiles on board. How likely do you think she could have got that close, remember this is the South Atlantic...not the English Channel. The RN would have have had to been deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid all at once.

The British on the other had had the Sea Skua Anti-ship Missile which could have easily destroyed any naval target within 25 miles. Not to mention the two Aircraft Carriers. There is no question that had BELGRANO been foolish enough to try and intercept the British fleet she would have been blown out of the water before she got even close.

The sinking of the BELGRANO was akin to the sinking of the HMS ROYAL OAK in 1939. It was a enormous political blow but only a minor military asset that was destroyed. If HMS Conqueror had sunk the ARA VEINCINCO DE MEYO would have been a major larger loss.
Click to expand...

I don't agree at all with your statement whatsoever.

Belgrano made up the southern part of a two pronged attack, if she wasn't a threat to the task force why was she deployed by the Argentine Navy in the first place? She wasn't there so that the Royal Navy submarines could have some target practice with their torpedo's, she was there to do damage.

Come to that, why did the Argentine Navy put to sea if their Mirages and exocets could do the job?
According to Admiral Sandy Woodward, the British task force commander, the danger the Belgrano still represented was to the British aircraft carriers in the task force. 'The carriers were mission critical,' he said. 'If you lose them, you lose your air force, and if you lose that, you're done - it's all over.'

Any Commander of note is not going to take the chance to risk his carriers.

Belgrano's gun had the range of about a mile? Absolute nonsense. A 9mm Parabellum pistol round can travel over a mile. Some sources have stated her 6 inch guns had a range of up to 18 miles.

As I was never in the Navy I cannot confirm the range of 18 miles, perhaps a serving or ex navy type can either confirm or refute her 18 mile gun range.

The danger of the Belgrano was not a myth, she was a very real danger to the British fleet and most of all the carriers. Perhaps she would have been blown out of the water, but how much damage could her 15x 6inch guns have done before she was sunk?

But one thing I do agree with you, sinking the Belgrano sent a clear message to the Argentines.
 
Last edited:
Sherman and Britinafrica

Sorry Guys made a mistake on the range, checked another source if fact the range was about 25000 yards which converts to about 14 Miles. So I'll cede that point, but it changes little in the overall scheme, 14 miles is still a tiny speck of ocean. And remember the RN was tracking her the entire time. I still maintain that the RN could have sunk her way before she got into range, and remember BELGRANO was sailing away from the Falklands towards Argentina when she was sunk. -But again I am not desputing the decision of her sinking, only the excuses given. The Argentians certain had no qualms about sinking British ships and they sunk 5 of them.

Why was BELGRANO used if she was so obsolete?

Because Argentina had nothing else, its entire navy was old. They only had 2 destroyers (British Type 42), 3 corvettes (French Estienne d'Orves class) and a single submarine (German Type 209) that could be considered modern. Everything else was WWII. Argentina in 1981 was a 3rd class military power, not a superpower. From a technological standpoint the UK was much more advanced.

Why did BELGRANO put to sea? Because the British Fleet was out of range of Land based Missile and actually only had 5 air lauched Exocets in its inventory. 2 of which had been used to sink the HMS Sheffield. And secondly as I mentioned above the Argentianians had nothing else.
 
First of all, as I recall(and i admit I only read one book on that war) it was going to be refuled for further operations, not returning to Argentina.

Second, if you can sink it out of range, evnen better. Legitimet kill. Amred vessel, carrying a legitimate weapons system(although i agree an old one), and flying the flag of a hostile country. Could it be dealt with in closer range? Yes. Could it have gotten in range of some biritish troop carrier and done it in before the escorts got to it, also yes.
 
M MARSH.....Where did you work out that the guns on the Belgrano only had a range of a mile, surely it would have been better if the Argentines had equipped her with some 18th Century cannons as they would have had a longer range
 
LeEnfield said:
M MARSH.....Where did you work out that the guns on the Belgrano only had a range of a mile, surely it would have been better if the Argentines had equipped her with some 18th Century cannons as they would have had a longer range
Click to expand...

As I said: I made a mistake, two of them actually. The source I used stated 25000 yards when I double-checked I realized I made two errors when I converted it to miles. I would have been better just leaving it in yards. Actually the 25000 is slightly off as well as I got that info from a 5" gun not a 6" (as I couldn't find a source, so I did the best I could). So you could probably add another mile or two for the slightly larger gun. But that isn't the point, the range is tiny compared to those the British had at their disposal. Regardless, I regret the error.

And remember, BELGRANO was sunk by two Type 8 mod 4 Torpedoes. Thats a non-guided fish that originated in 1925. In other words, a bloody antique that still got the job done. I think that demostrates at how much the Argentianas were at a technological disadvantage.

Sherman

Yes that's true, however the British didn't know that at the time, all they saw was BELGRANO moving away. For all they knew she could have been on her way back home. That information was learnt after the sinking. The Argentinians acknowledged in 1994 that BELGRANO was a legitamate military target. Again I am not desputing the decision only the "feel-good" reasons given to the Public by the MOD.

The peaceniks in London were outraged at the vast loss of life when BELGRANO sank, the PM had to feed them a story to justify it. Had she given the real response it would have strengthened the doves in London calling for a ceasefire. So she gave a cleansed version to those not familiar to Belgranos limited capabilities. Its not the first nor last time a governemnt has exaggereted a threat to justify a military action (cough...Iraq...cough).

I disagree with the last statement about could the BELGRANO getting into range. I just dont see how that was possible with the British controlling the Air, the fact that BELGRANO's movements were tracked for days by a Submarine, and that the British warships with anti-ship missiles had greater range than BELGRANOS Guns (or SAMs). These missiles which carried by both the escorts themselves and the Lynx helicopters on board.

Thats a choice of being sunk by airstrike (Belgrano has very limited air defence), Torpedoes from a sub, or missiles from the surface fleet. If BELGRANO had made a run at the British Fleet it would have been a suicide run.
 
MMarsh - sorry I haven't quite figured how to attribute text, but I'll answer a couple of your points.

1. The Belgrano being sunk by type 8 torpdoes - true these were 1825 tech, but the other torps weren't working - how's that for modern tech. They did their job, I'm quite happy using a stone to hit a tree as well as a bullet.

2. The Belgrano was moving away - so what. Historical precedent shows you cannot allow the enemy to keep his big guns just because they're not quite in the firing line. As I was taught as an officer, strike hard, stirke fast and strike at the limit of your range, because when they're too close you're trading lives for time rather than space for time.

3. The GB force did not have air superiority - Sheffield, Ardent and Sir Galahad to name a few.

4. The Belgrano had limited air defence - check again, she had a plethora of AA guns and Sea Cat missiles on deck, also a couple of destroyer escorts to add to the party.

5. Belgrano attacking the British fleet would 've been a suicide run. Yes, but as part of a co-ordinated pincer attack it could've been devastating, remember that the British expeditionary force was the 1 shot - break it or the supply line and the Argentinians win. This was not an option for Great Britain, so as Sandy Woodward said - "she had to go"!

War is an horrible experience, it brings out the best and worst in people, it requires hard decisions that never appear reasonable or civilised, when reviewed after the fact, but that is the by product of war - it allows us all to pontificate on the rights and wrongs of decisions made in milliseconds in the heat of battle - I know 'cos I'm the best armchair general - EVER.
 
BritinAfrica said:
Partisan is 100% correct on this one.

Hector Bonzo as Partisan stated did in fact admit that his ship the Belgrano was a legitimate target AND part of a southern pincer movement.

She would have caused havoc among the British fleet. It was perfectly correct to order her sunk, even if she was out of the exclusion zone. It wouldnt have taken her long to do a 180 to attack the British fleet.

While its sad such a lovely old ship was sunk, she posed to big a threat to British lives and the British fleet. As Admiral Woodward stated during an interview after the war, "She had to go."

Another thing to consider, Argentine Navy aircraft ignored the exclusion zone and made many sorties against the British fleet, so what would make the Belgrano any different.

While war was never declared by either side, the Argentines carried out an act of war.
Click to expand...

Well said
 
Partisan said:
MMarsh - sorry I haven't quite figured how to attribute text, but I'll answer a couple of your points.

1. The Belgrano being sunk by type 8 torpdoes - true these were 1825 tech, but the other torps weren't working - how's that for modern tech. They did their job, I'm quite happy using a stone to hit a tree as well as a bullet.

2. The Belgrano was moving away - so what. Historical precedent shows you cannot allow the enemy to keep his big guns just because they're not quite in the firing line. As I was taught as an officer, strike hard, stirke fast and strike at the limit of your range, because when they're too close you're trading lives for time rather than space for time.

3. The GB force did not have air superiority - Sheffield, Ardent and Sir Galahad to name a few.

4. The Belgrano had limited air defence - check again, she had a plethora of AA guns and Sea Cat missiles on deck, also a couple of destroyer escorts to add to the party.

5. Belgrano attacking the British fleet would 've been a suicide run. Yes, but as part of a co-ordinated pincer attack it could've been devastating, remember that the British expeditionary force was the 1 shot - break it or the supply line and the Argentinians win. This was not an option for Great Britain, so as Sandy Woodward said - "she had to go"!

War is an horrible experience, it brings out the best and worst in people, it requires hard decisions that never appear reasonable or civilised, when reviewed after the fact, but that is the by product of war - it allows us all to pontificate on the rights and wrongs of decisions made in milliseconds in the heat of battle - I know 'cos I'm the best armchair general - EVER.
Click to expand...

1. You are talking about the Tigerfish Torpedo, it wasnt that it wasn't working, they were concerned that it MIGHT not work as it was new and untested. Therefore they decided to use the tested Mark 8.

2. No disagreement, again I am not disagreeing with the decision to sink the BELGRANO only the reasons the MOD cited to do so. (Come on guys, I have said this 3 times now). For the last time, I agree that the MOD was right to sink BELGRANO, just not for the reasons they stated.

3. They did not have complete superiority true, but they controlled the skies. The Argentinians developed pop-up tactics to screen themselves by hiding under the hills of the falklands and hug sea level which then rapidly climb as they began their attacks. Terrain masking was how they were able to attack those ships. The reason they did so was to avoid the air search rader on the ships and the Harriers above them. Remember the Argentians lost about 80 aircraft, for perhaps 8 harriers (a few of which were accidents).

4. I stand by what I said on this. First of all I was only talking about BELGRANO herself not her escort**. Her Sea Cat system was a short range SAM which had a max range of 3 miles. The rest of her Air Defence was WWII weapons 40mm Befors, 20mm Orlikions. These weapons were useful against WWII piston aircraft, but not against jets who were simply to fast for the gunners to track. The British had exactly the same problem when defending against Argentian air raids. One of the biggest things learned the UK learned from the Falklands War was that her naval air defense was totally insufficient against low level attacks, which lead to the devolpement of newer systems. Had the RN been armed with rader-controlled CIWS like the US Phalanx system, I think they'd have suffered far fewer losses. The Argentianians were able to shoot down 2 Harriers using a landbased Orlikon 35mm system which is rader controlled. But thats how armies get better, by learning from past mistakes.

**I just check the escorts, they were two ex-USN Sumner class DDs. I could find no evidence of them being fitted with SAMS which would mean they had the same gun self defense as BELGRANO did namely 40mm and 20mm.

Its 4am will carry on tommorow...
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
1. You are talking about the Tigerfish Torpedo, it wasnt that it wasn't working, they were concerned that it MIGHT not work as it was new and untested. Therefore they decided to use the tested Mark 8.

2. No disagreement, again I am not disagreeing with the decision to sink the BELGRANO only the reasons the MOD cited to do so. (Come on guys, I have said this 3 times now). For the last time, I agree that the MOD was right to sink BELGRANO, just not for the reasons they stated.

3. They did not have complete superiority true, but they controlled the skies. The Argentinians developed pop-up tactics to screen themselves by hiding under the hills of the falklands and hug sea level which then rapidly climb as they began their attacks. Terrain masking was how they were able to attack those ships. The reason they did so was to avoid the air search rader on the ships and the Harriers above them. Remember the Argentians lost about 80 aircraft, for perhaps 8 harriers (a few of which were accidents).

4. I stand by what I said on this. First of all I was only talking about BELGRANO herself not her escort**. Her Sea Cat system was a short range SAM which had a max range of 3 miles. The rest of her Air Defence was WWII weapons 40mm Befors, 20mm Orlikions. These weapons were useful against WWII piston aircraft, but not against jets who were simply to fast for the gunners to track. The British had exactly the same problem when defending against Argentian air raids. One of the biggest things learned the UK learned from the Falklands War was that her naval air defense was totally insufficient against low level attacks, which lead to the devolpement of newer systems. Had the RN been armed with rader-controlled CIWS like the US Phalanx system, I think they'd have suffered far fewer losses. The Argentianians were able to shoot down 2 Harriers using a landbased Orlikon 35mm system which is rader controlled. But thats how armies get better, by learning from past mistakes.

**I just check the escorts, they were two ex-USN Sumner class DDs. I could find no evidence of them being fitted with SAMS which would mean they had the same gun self defense as BELGRANO did namely 40mm and 20mm.

Its 4am will carry on tommorow...
Click to expand...

OK MM, get some sleep this will rumble on anyway.

1. I couldn't remember which torpedo type, all I recall is that they couldn't get a "bang" out of it - whatever that means.

2. I thought that the MOD reason for sinking the Belgrano was because it was a threat to the Task Force.

3. The Argentinians did not develop pop up tactics, they had to use them. This was due to the way that they had their bomg launch system, so they had to lob the bombs rather than drop them - for which the RN & GB will be forever grateful.

4. The Belgrano was still tooled up for AA, the age of the weapons doesn't matter, only the speed of reload and accuracy, the Task Force were also using GPMG's as AA in the Falkland Sound, that was as high tech as was available at the time. A moot point anyway as she was sunk by torpedoes, better that than losing 3 or 4 Harriers to AA, or AAA as it's called nowadays.

In short this was a simple Mission Analysis problem:

- Do nothing, risk fleet interdiction, ship loss, ground troop and supply loss, therefore lose the War.

- Sink the Belgrano, thus no threat to Invasion or Naval assets, enabling ground troops to win the War, downside - the Argentinians will be unhappy. I can see how that rolled out!

The Junta chose to invade and didn't like the fact that they didn't get their way. They tried to argue the point further and were given a bloody nose. Again a shame as so many people had to die, but it certainly helped to move the Junta into retirement, so it wasn't all bad.
 
Partisan said:
OK MM, get some sleep this will rumble on anyway.

3. The Argentinians did not develop pop up tactics, they had to use them. This was due to the way that they had their bomg launch system, so they had to lob the bombs rather than drop them - for which the RN & GB will be forever grateful.


.
Click to expand...

A4 Skyhawks always lobbed their bombs. Argentina was Skyhawk heavy during the Falklands.
 
Someone mentioned that Belgrano was fitted with Bofors.

The RAF Regiment was equipped with radar controlled Bofors in the Far East during my time there in the late 1960's, they considered it (as far as I am aware) as a damn good gun and very effective. If Harriers had attacked the Belgrano a number could have been shoot down, resulting in the loss of good pilots and aircraft, losses Britain could not afford.

If I'm not mistaken some RN ships today are equipped with Bofors, still a good and effective gun after all these years in service, unless of course a serving sailor calls me a plonker and states they are no longer in service.

Partisan, the torpedo you were referring to that didnt go "bang" was the Mk24 Tigerfish.
 
Last edited:
The Mirage F1 can, USS Stark was hit by a Exocet fired by a Iraqi Mirage F1.
Click to expand...

Yes, thats true, I was referring to the Mirag III and Mirage V/Nesher.


In the Falklands However, Exocets were fired from Super Etendard bombers.
Click to expand...

Yep, thats how I have it 2.
 
BritinAfrica said:
Someone mentioned that Belgrano was fitted with Bofors.

The RAF Regiment was equipped with radar controlled Bofors in the Far East during my time there in the late 1960's, they considered it (as far as I am aware) as a damn good gun and very effective. If Harriers had attacked the Belgrano a number could have been shoot down, resulting in the loss of good pilots and aircraft, losses Britain could not afford.

If I'm not mistaken some RN ships today are equipped with Bofors, still a good and effective gun after all these years in service, unless of course a serving sailor calls me a plonker and states they are no longer in service.

Partisan, the torpedo you were referring to that didnt go "bang" was the Mk24 Tigerfish.
Click to expand...

That was me, but (from what I can tell) BELGRANO was still using the original 40mm BEFORS (L60 and earlier) Gun from WWII, not the modern radar tracking 35mm version. I couldnt find any referance that her AAA defense had been upgraded except for the installation of the SEACAT SAM system. Of course if someone can provide a link to the contrary I love to read it.

However, the Argentians did have such systems on the Island itself and accounted for at least 2 Harrier shot down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top