Was the sinking of the Belgrano necessary?

F1 Miragea

Iraq also used there Mirage F1 to mount poison gas attacks. From what I've read Iraq's AF liked their Mirage F1's, they had good up times.

I don't know a lot about the Super Etendard I know that it serve a good many years. Not even sure Argentina has any left flying it's a pretty old platform.

I don't know the state of Argentina's Nesher's or the three Mirage III Peru sent them. I can only assume since the A-4 were upgraded that they may be retired and in storage.

After the first RN ships were sunk I was surprise England didn't start hitting mainland targets (using subs) that would have bought the fighting to the Argentinean public's attention fast.
 
mmarsh said:
The Mirage F1 can, USS Stark was hit by a Exocet fired by a Iraqi Mirage F1.
In the Falklands However, Exocets were fired from Super Etendard bombers.
Click to expand...

I'd forgotten that the Super Etendard was used, but I was sure that the Mirages had tried to use them on the piquest ships, as the Etendards weren't up to the close air combat of the Falklands Sound.
 
with the way the argentines used their airfoce, neither were the Nesehrs and Miarges. Had the Brits been fighting an airforce of higher grade they would have been hard pressed. Both the Mirage III and the Nesher are IMHO, far better at air to air than the Harrier...
 
SHERMAN said:
with the way the argentines used their airfoce, neither were the Nesehrs and Miarges. Had the Brits been fighting an airforce of higher grade they would have been hard pressed. Both the Mirage III and the Nesher are IMHO, far better at air to air than the Harrier...
Click to expand...

True, but you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. GB was well aware of the Argentinian Air Force and its capabilities (more or less). So it was a gamble, that's why the AA was one of the main priorities to be established on landing.

Also as a soldier, sailor or airman you have to make do with what you've got. Soemthing I think that the British Amred Forces are very good at! It also revealed to the powers that be, in order to truly project British power we need sonething meatier than the Harrier. But in our innimitable fashion we moved as rapidly as politics would dictate and will not see a true aircraft carrier until the Queen Elizabeth is commissioned in 2016 (later I'm thinking).

Coming back to the original point of the thread - YES, the sinking of the Belgrano was necessary, due the strengths & weaknesses of British Armed Forces at the time, as well as strategic necessity.
 
Well, I dont feel confortable talking on this topic, as I dont have much military knowledge.
But I think that it's a legitimate target. It's not a nanny ship or something of this kind... If I know that there is a ship full or people and weapons trying to find a way to get me. I would jump on the first solution to destroy them safely.

Of course, if they "promised" to not attack anyone outside their killzone of 60miles. THey didnt respect their own plan.

But I dont think that they give such "promise". It's just that they had a key area to defend at all cost. Some sort of "green zone" to operate. It doesnt mean that they will ignore a military target outside this zone.

Of course, they dont have to shovel feed us stories... They sunk an enemy ship. Who cares?

But we have to admit that it was a potential threat. I dont know if an Iraqui peasant with an RPG can be a major threat to a column of armed armored humvees... But he might get lucky and do some major damage.

I think that my real problem is political. The brits had nothing to do in the Falklands. Do you need a map to see how far is the UK from the area? What a joke. The colonial Era is finished, get back to your island.

And let the Argentinians take care of the Island right next to them.

But it's my opinion. I would let Saddam take Kuweit too. For me, it's an Iraqui province. It's so small and so rich in oil that it shouldnt be a country...
 
LeMask said:
I think that my real problem is political. The brits had nothing to do in the Falklands. Do you need a map to see how far is the UK from the area? What a joke. The colonial Era is finished, get back to your island.

And let the Argentinians take care of the Island right next to them.
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that the Falkland Islanders dont want to be part of Argentina?

By aiding British forces against the Argentine invaders, the Falklanders actions alone said they want to stay part of Britain.
 
SHERMAN said:
lols there arnt any argentinians on the islands, only brits...why should argentine have them?
Click to expand...

You know the Falklands is abit like the Northern Ireland situation. The Crown really has no real interest in the Falklands except for a very few and very loud percentage of the population that live there. If it werent for this they would probably let the Argentinians have the Islands.
 
Excuse me mmarsh but as I said there are no Argentinians living there. Niethere have I read any islander say he wants to be Argentinian. Do you have a link to a source for the claim that its a small precentage of the population?
 
SHERMAN said:
Excuse me mmarsh but as I said there are no Argentinians living there. Niethere have I read any islander say he wants to be Argentinian. Do you have a link to a source for the claim that its a small precentage of the population?
Click to expand...

You misunderstood. I was refering to the UK population as a whole, of which the people living in the Falklands are a very small minority supported by some very hawkish MP's in Parliament. The rest of the UK isn't that interested in the Falklands. There was even some low level discussions back in the 60s about reliqushing control and either allow the Falklands to return to Argentina or become idependent, but a vote on sovereignty in 1987 made it clear that the Islanders want to stay British.

There are only 3000 people on the Falklands, out of a nation of 70 Million that's a pretty small percentage.
 
Last edited:
Would be very unkind of the British government to tell its citizens to bugger off. Its not like the islands are full of gurrila fighters trying to drive the british out.
 
Most of this is about the will of the people, where people have wanted to get their Independence they have got it, but there are a number of places in the world were some small islands have requested to stay under the protection of the UK umbrella. Now just because another country can see a fortune in mineral and fishing rights in that location should we then ignore the will of people and hand them over to a country that is not interested in them or should we support them in their wishes.
 
France maintains a number of colonial outposts around the world- including New Caledonia where its citizens are regarded as belonging to Metropolitan France; there is also a significant but minority independence movement there.
the Falklands were seized by the British from the Spanish prior to Argentine independence- technically speaking Argentina therefore has no claim to the islands, its main argument being that prior to British seizure of the islands they were Spanish territory through the Papal Treaty that divided the New World between Spain and Portugal; a treaty that has never been recognised outside of Spain and Portugal. In this context it would be a bit like Slovakia seizing Polish territory based on territorial compacts drawn up by Hitler and Stalin in the Molotov- Ribbentrop pact.
Christmas Island is an Australian Indian Ocean Territory; if Indonesia or India made a claim to it should we let you go simply because it is a drain on our resources so far from the homeland?
There's no doubting that the Brits were lucky in their campaign; but sometimes we make our own luck. By sinking the Belgrano it put the Argentine Navy on notice that the British were serious about the campaign- a lesson the rest of the armed forces either ignored or did not worry about. the subsequent dissappearance of the Argentine Navy from the conflict (except for its air arm) became one of the main factors leading to Britain's victory: could the British have fought a general action along its lines of communications whilst trying to land ground forces?
 
The first people to settle there were the French. The French settled on one Island then the British settled on the other which caused a bit of bother. In 1811 while at war Britain was at war with Spain it withdrew from the Islands and they were administered from Argentina. After the war with Spain Britain moved back into the islands and has been there ever since.
 
i remember a reporter on NBC's Today show saying to a British spokesman "They were out side the circle". The reply was We said anything inside the circle would be considered Argentine, we didn't say they would go unmolested outside the circle. Or something close to that. The spokesman seemed to imply, rightly so, that anyone thinking Argentine Navy ships would go unharmed would have to be a bit daft.
 
the question should be, should the argies have invaded the falklands? although it is sad that a lot of young argie people lost their lives, I am afraid that is war, the real agresser was the junta, he sent many young argies to fight a cruel potent army. glad I was not maning an argie gun post with the para shoot regiment running at me with a bayonete fixed.
 
gordonbrown said:
the question should be, should the argies have invaded the falklands? although it is sad that a lot of young argie people lost their lives, I am afraid that is war, the real agresser was the junta, he sent many young argies to fight a cruel potent army. glad I was not maning an argie gun post with the para shoot regiment running at me with a bayonete fixed.
Click to expand...
The junta was in trouble domesticly on many subjects. Having seen the British give up most of the world, & thier downsizing of the military, they expected to "Liberate" the Islands with no military responce, & become Heros to the people, thus extending thier stay in Office. Might have worked with a different PM.
 
Let's me see....an enemy warship in an enemy warzone? The sinking wasn't the problem--it was the use of a submarine as opposed to a...what an anti-ship missile? Would the ship sunk faster? Slower? Would the Argentine sailors been deader? Again, arguing against the use of a weapon in a war where weapons are supposed to be used. It probably wouldn't have been fairer if the UK sub surfaced and took it out on riding on the surface.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top