General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

[dr.hal]

I think one of the biggest controversies was not using the SSN to attack but where the SSN made the attack. I think the latest info was that it attacked outside the exclusion zone.

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I think one of the biggest controversies was not using the SSN to attack but where the SSN made the attack. I think the latest info was that it attacked outside the exclusion zone.

I remember reading that too, but I thought the reasoning behind doing it was sound at the time.

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I think one of the biggest controversies was not using the SSN to attack but where the SSN made the attack. I think the latest info was that it attacked outside the exclusion zone.

What is an exclusion zone and why is it important here?

[Dixie]

An exclusion zone was set up around the Falkland Islands early on in the conflict.  In simple terms it was an area where the UK stated that any non-British ship was putting herself at risk of being fired at without further warning. 

This is from memory and a few guys on the forums might have to correct me.  There were two stages iirc, the first was a maritime exclusion zone of 200 miles around the Falklands where Argentine shipping was deemed a valid target.  Later it was changed to a total exclusion zone (TEZ) putting it out of bounds to everyone, the Argentinian government was also told that any Argentine navy ships would be considered valid targets anywhere in the South Atlantic. 

P.S. By making it a total exclusion zone it meant that neutral ships should be safe as they would steer clear. It would also have potentially had a deterrent effect on the Soviet Union trying to spy on British forces.

[warspite1]

The Argentine Government was warned that any ARA vessel was a target wherever it was, not just within the Exclusion Zone. There was no controversy in her sinking.

Had Belgrano had the chance to attack HM warships she would have done so. She represented a threat to the task force and was dealt with accordingly - fortunately before she had an opportunity to launch an attack.

[ilovestrategy]

Thanks for the answer! [:)]

[1275psi]

You know what the saddest thing is about all this.

Politicians swearing after the event "that we will never, ever, allow our forces to become so weak again'

The state of the british navy now? - it would -respectfully -be impossible to repeat the exercise........


(a ps note) -the Auistralian navy is being flooded with 'refugee sailors" from the brits - i should know, i train em.....
even sadder -with out them coming here -no way are we going to be able to function shortly as a navy..............
hint -just ask anyone who knows, what the state of our electrical maintainers branch is at the moment - especially in the light of the new ships coming.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

You know what the saddest thing is about all this.

Politicians swearing after the event "that we will never, ever, allow our forces to become so weak again'

The state of the british navy now? - it would -respectfully -be impossible to repeat the exercise........


(a ps note) -the Auistralian navy is being flooded with 'refugee sailors" from the brits - i should know, i train em.....
even sadder -with out them coming here -no way are we going to be able to function shortly as a navy..............
hint -just ask anyone who knows, what the state of our electrical maintainers branch is at the moment - especially in the light of the new ships coming.

Have a word with your air force as well would you? I know a few aircraft techies who'll be looking for work soon [;)]

[sprior]

hint -just ask anyone who knows, what the state of our electrical maintainers branch is at the moment - especially in the light of the new ships coming.

Nearly as bad in the RN now, the artificer branch was completely scrapped. Wouldn't want well-trained engineers and technichians looking after weapons systems now, would we?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... story.html

And yes, it's personal.

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

You know what the saddest thing is about all this.

Politicians swearing after the event "that we will never, ever, allow our forces to become so weak again'

The state of the british navy now? - it would -respectfully -be impossible to repeat the exercise........


(a ps note) -the Auistralian navy is being flooded with 'refugee sailors" from the brits - i should know, i train em.....
even sadder -with out them coming here -no way are we going to be able to function shortly as a navy..............
hint -just ask anyone who knows, what the state of our electrical maintainers branch is at the moment - especially in the light of the new ships coming.

Have a word with your air force as well would you? I know a few aircraft techies who'll be looking for work soon [;)]

Dixie,

have you seen this website before?

http://www.securityclearedjobs.com/

I don’t know whether it would be of interest to you.

[JohnDillworth]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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]

I think there is a saying that's appropriate right now.

"All's fair in love and war"

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Quite the contrary, especially in the American military.

Fixed it for ya. [;)]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Quite the contrary, especially in the American military.

Fixed it for ya. [;)]

Ah, you Americans...you are so competitive.[:)]

Alfred