Was the sinking of the Belgrano necessary?

[BritinBritain]

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.”

 

[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

 

[Chukpike]

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".

 

[rock45]

War

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.

 

[senojekips]

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.

 

[BritinBritain]

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.

 

[MontyB]

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.

 

[BritinBritain]

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/oct/18/argentina.falklands

 

[rock45]

anti torpedo weapons

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.

 

[BritinBritain]

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.

 

[Mikeyband]

Belgrano Sinking

It was brutal, but very neccessary when HMS Conqueror put torpedoes to Belgrano. It sent a strong message that the Royal Navy's SSNs were there, active, and determined to attack any Argentine naval units thinking about doing mischief to the RN's Falklands task force. Conqueror's action sent La Armada Argentina speeding back to port, not to emerge again during the conflict for fear of meeting Belgrano's fate. By quickly sinking their largest and most prestigious combatant the Brits sent them a crystal-clear message that worked smashingly well, and freed their task force from having to deal with Argentine surface units, some of which were rather formidable, and which did, after all, include an aircraft carrier, too. It was typical Royal Navy...find the enemy, attack, and destroy.
:type:

 

[Mark Conley]

Well..it was nessesary IMHO.

The one thing about it is it makes me sad to realize that the cruiser was a survivor of pearl harbor, when she was known as the USS Phoenix.

Then again, maybee she wanted to go. 40 years is a long time for a ship. of course, i dont believe the crew wanted to go but...

 

[03USMC]

Belgrano was a viable target, with the ability to threaten the fleet. IMO had she not been sunk and then inflicted damage to the fleet, then that would be the greatest of unnecessary gambles.

 

[mmarsh]

Here is the controversy:

The British set up an exclusion zone around the Falklands (roughly 60 wide miles, I believe) in the South Atlantic that forbade any Argentinian aircraft or ship inside that zone. If they did enter, they risked attack. The Belgrano was sunk OUTSIDE the zone, steaming away (seemingly retreating) from the combat zone. So technically this was a violation of the RN own decree. Thats was the facts as known to the public for several years after the war.

However, it was discovered later that BELGRANO had exited the combat zone to meet a refueling ship when she was attacked. Had she not been attacked her orders were to return to patrolling the Falklands once her refueling was complete.

So despite the fact the British violated their own rules by sinking her, they infact did the right thing...although they didnt not know this until years later.

 

[SHERMAN]

the British were at war with argentine, the ship was a combat vessel, i never did get the big problem. This notion that the british should hvae went easy on the Argininians is kind of funny, seeing as Argentine sunk quite a few british ships and was the agressor in the war to beguin with.

 

[mmarsh]

the British were at war with argentine, the ship was a combat vessel, i never did get the big problem. This notion that the british should hvae went easy on the Argininians is kind of funny, seeing as Argentine sunk quite a few british ships and was the agressor in the war to beguin with.

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.

 

[LeEnfield]

The world is full IFs but if the Belgrano had turned around she could have quickly become in range of many British ships. Okay the guns were old but they still worked and could have caused chaos. I rather that we sunk this cruiser than be sitting here arguing why Britain did not take it out before when it was on the edge of the exclusion zone

 

[mmarsh]

The world is full IFs but if the Belgrano had turned around she could have quickly become in range of many British ships. Okay the guns were old but they still worked and could have caused chaos. I rather that we sunk this cruiser than be sitting here arguing why Britain did not take it out before when it was on the edge of the exclusion zone

I do think she was a minimal threat. Remember she is a pre-WWII Light Cruiser, she only had 6" guns. I think she would have been sunk anyway by anti-ship missiles long before she got in gun range.

 

[Partisan]

I do think she was a minimal threat. Remember she is a pre-WWII Light Cruiser, she only had 6" guns. I think she would have been sunk anyway by anti-ship missiles long before she got in gun range.

The Belgrano was not a minimal threat, she was the southern hook of a pincer attack on the British relief forces. The danger came from those guns as well as the helicoptors she carried (recce).

Remember that the British Armada was a long way from home, on a very tight supply line - the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor forced the troops to march across the FI, rather than get lifted.

As a final note, I lifted this from Wikipedia (my memory couldn't quite pull all the facts together.

"The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands. However, exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate (as did the Argentine government in 1994)."

I think that says it all really.

 

[BritinBritain]

The Belgrano was not a minimal threat, she was the southern hook of a pincer attack on the British relief forces. The danger came from those guns as well as the helicoptors she carried (recce).

Remember that the British Armada was a long way from home, on a very tight supply line - the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor forced the troops to march across the FI, rather than get lifted.

As a final note, I lifted this from Wikipedia (my memory couldn't quite pull all the facts together.

"The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands. However, exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate (as did the Argentine government in 1994)."

I think that says it all really.

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.