General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: witpqs



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

Honestly, seems to me that such actions are an attempt to make civilized what is by its very nature a barbaric act. So understand I am neither condemning or condoning what is done...its just that it seems counter-intuitive to me.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
fbs
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:52 am

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by fbs »

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Honestly, seems to me that such actions are an attempt to make civilized what is by its very nature a barbaric act. So understand I am neither condemning or condoning what is done..

+1
User avatar
Cap Mandrake
Posts: 20737
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 8:37 am
Location: Southern California

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by Cap Mandrake »

The best thing about the Falklands war was a band playing "Don't cry for me Argentina" when ground troops were boarding in England. [:)]

At that point it was clear who was going to win.

Still those Argie A-4 pilots were tough bastards.
Image
User avatar
ilovestrategy
Posts: 3614
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:41 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by ilovestrategy »

ORIGINAL: Kull
ORIGINAL: Alfred

Quite the contrary, especially in the American military.

Fixed it for ya. [;)]

+1
After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!
Image
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by JWE »

War for it's own sake is indeed barbaric. But war, as an extension of national policy, is a valid tool and needs to be judged in the contemporary context.

Clausewitz wrote that (synopsized) one must have a specific political objective in mind before one deploys the first trooper, and be willing to go the wall to make it happen.

Maggie Thatcher took Clausewitz to heart and did what was necessary to achieve her political objective. Fortunately, she had the resources at hand to make it happen.
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3580
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by dr.hal »

I never cease to be amazed at how folks will read into things what they want to read.

Warspite 1 at no time was I suggesting the act to be "illegal". No where in my post do I use that word. It was legal, however what I AM suggesting is that the Brits did feel obliged to strengthen their case for the attack (which they KNEW was going to be highly controversial) by making sure the target was within a declared zone. The problem with declaring a "zone" is that it hamstrings the declarer as much as it does the enemy; in that it becomes morally more of a challenge (notice I didn't use the work "legally") to justify an action OUTSIDE the zone (witness the Cuban Missile Crisis of October '61 or the Imperial German Navy's U-Boat stance in the first world war). The expansion was done to ensure that the UK retained the support of the international community as well as for military means.

In relation to the statement that during a war law is thrown out, is simply not true. Quite the contrary, it seems to be more applicable. States try desperately to get the "law" on their side now more than ever. To cloak their actions within the bounds of International Law this increasing their "legitimacy". The body of law around war and conflict is rich and expanding every day (but that does NOT mean it is less barbaric).

I was living in London during the entire conflict and although news was hard to come by during the conflict, UK attempts to ensure international support and legitimacy were extensive to say the least.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by witpqs »

That's not what I read about it. I read forthright answers about the Belgrano being just outside the zone and why she was attacked anyway. No redefinition of the zone that I read of.
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14527
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor aka Illlinois

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: khyberbill
Did that Argentine task force have any chance? Sounds like the naval equivalent of a knight on horseback charging a machine gun.
No surface ship should have a chance against a competent nuclear sub captain and crew. The term sitting duck comes to mind.

Post deleted upon request.[:(]
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14527
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor aka Illlinois

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Pascal

These were the desperate acts of a ridiculous dicatatorship in Argentina.

There are also rumors that a US CVN Battle Group was standing off in case anything went wrong for the Brits... If that was the case there were certainly also US nuke boats around too.
Warspite1

I heard Ronald Reagan offered the services of a proper carrier, but Lady Thatcher respectfully declined; these were our islands, and we were going to get them back. Don't know whether that story is true.

Dunno about the USN CVNTF access, but I do seem to recall an emergency shipment of AIM9s for the Brits' Harriers, courtesy of Uncle Sam. Seems that when the issue was most in doubt, we showed our hand and stepped away from nominal "neutrality". Then again, we've done that bit before too...

Post deleted upon request.
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14527
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor aka Illlinois

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

May I humbly suggest that this thread is locked. It has nothing to do with the game.

Post deleted upon request.
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14527
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor aka Illlinois

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: Reg
ORIGINAL: elxaime

It makes me think how complete a mismatch it must have been in 1982. What possessed the Argentines to send WW2 era ships out against modern nuclear vessels? According to records, ARA Belgrano had two Alouette III helos (which I assume had some ASW capability?) and therefore depended for protection on her escort, which were the ARA Piedra Buena and ARA Bouchard. Both these Sumner-class DDs were also former WW2 USN ships. Piedra Buena was the former USS Collett (DD-730) and the Bouchard was the former USS Borie (DD-704). Not sure to what extent they had been modified in terms of ASW capabilities, but from what I can tell they had only depth charges.

Did that Argentine task force have any chance? Sounds like the naval equivalent of a knight on horseback charging a machine gun.

A knight on horseback charging a machine gun would be brutally effective if it catches that machine gun unloaded.......

The ARA Belgrano was still armed with its 15 x 6" rapid fire main battery. The effect of this firepower on a thin-skinned modern frigate can only be imagined. The big unknown was how they were going to bring this firepower to bear in this day of satellite surveillance and AWACS. However, the Argentine Navy were maneuvering to do just that and were executing a two pronged sweep to catch the RN fleet between them. The British command/politicians considered this a serious enough threat that they felt obliged to 'pull the trigger'.

This was certainly a gamble on the part of the Argentine Navy but this plan aided by some luck (such as the loss of contact by the shadowing RN submarines) was the only realistic hope they had of influencing events. Unfortunately it was not to be.

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.


Post deleted upon request.
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14527
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor aka Illlinois

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by AW1Steve »

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.


Post deleted upon request.
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14527
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor aka Illlinois

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: witpqs



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

Post deleted upon request.
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14527
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor aka Illlinois

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Shark7




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

Honestly, seems to me that such actions are an attempt to make civilized what is by its very nature a barbaric act. So understand I am neither condemning or condoning what is done...its just that it seems counter-intuitive to me.

Post deleted by request.
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14527
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor aka Illlinois

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

The best thing about the Falklands war was a band playing "Don't cry for me Argentina" when ground troops were boarding in England. [:)]

At that point it was clear who was going to win.

Still those Argie A-4 pilots were tough bastards.

Post deleted upon request.
User avatar
redcoat
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:48 am
Location: UK

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by redcoat »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

That's not what I read about it. I read forthright answers about the Belgrano being just outside the zone and why she was attacked anyway. No redefinition of the zone that I read of.

A Simples Timeline of Exclusion Zones etc

12 April - Britain declared a Maritime Exclusion Zone (MEZ) 200 nautical miles around Falklands. Any Argentine warship or naval auxiliary entering the MEZ would have been attacked.

23 April - Britain sent a message to Argentina to warn them that any warship or aircraft representing a threat to our Task Force would be ‘dealt with accordingly’:

In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.

The civilian aircraft alludes particularly, but not only, to the Boeing 707 of the Argentine Air Force which until then had been shadowing the Task Force on its journey south and had been escorted away on several occasions by Sea Harriers.

25 April – South Georgia is recaptured by British forces. The Argentine sub Santa Fe is damaged and captured.

30 April – Britain declared a Total Exclusion Zone (TEZ) 200 nautical miles around the Falklands. Any sea vessel or aircraft from any nation may have been fired upon without warning.

The TEZ was imposed to keep neutral shipping away from the war zone - and to scare off the Russians who were supplying the Argies with intelligence (with spy trawlers etc).

1 May – The British Task Force entered the TEZ and both sides launched attacks. HMS Glamorgan and Alacrity were bombed and strafed by three Mirage.

2 May – The ARA Belgrano was sunk because she and her escorts posed a threat to the Task Force. IIRC we knew about the missiles on her escorts.

7 May – The British Government warned Argentina that any warships, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft more than 12 nautical miles from the Argentine coast would be liable to attack.


A few quotes from Argentine commanders regarding the Belgrano

Captain Hector Bonzo of ARA Belgrano:

"Our mission in the south wasn’t just to cruise around but to attack."

"We knew we had to be ready to attack or be attacked ourselves."

"We were heading towards the mainland but not going to the mainland; we were going to a position to await further orders"

Rear-Admiral Allara:

"After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano"

“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

George Orwell, 1984
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by witpqs »

2 May – The ARA Belgrano was sunk because she and her escorts posed a threat to the Task Force.

Precisely.
Chris21wen
Posts: 7737
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by Chris21wen »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

That's not what I read about it. I read forthright answers about the Belgrano being just outside the zone and why she was attacked anyway. No redefinition of the zone that I read of.


She was Argentinan, armed and dangerous is why she was attacked. If Argentinan goverernment didn't want her to be attacked they should not have sent her to sea, unless it was toward Hawaii.

If you want controvesy, why did they invade, why was the Sheffield sunk, why, why etc.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

That's not what I read about it. I read forthright answers about the Belgrano being just outside the zone and why she was attacked anyway. No redefinition of the zone that I read of.

That was the impression i got as well, at least from Hastings' account. Mind you.......i'm not saying the UK was wrong. What nation hasn't fudged the rules at times when needs presented themselves? Belgrano was a high profile target and a potential threat.....one that the UK, which at the time bereft of the comfort of hindsight that we post-war analysers so enjoy [;)] , would like to have not had to worry about anymore given the host of other concerns on her plate.

If one wants to be cruel, and i think it was already pointed out, if the Argentinians wanted to save lives and preserve their old relic of a warship, they should have kept her safely in port. Point being....i doubt a USN TF would have acted all that differently with the exception of a full scale Cold War confrontation of which we've all seen movies and read books on the 'scale of escalation'


User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: General Belgrano and HMS Conqueror

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
2 May – The ARA Belgrano was sunk because she and her escorts posed a threat to the Task Force.

Precisely.

I think redcoat (whom I quoted above) put it very well. If there is anything to add, I suppose it would be something along the lines of "They deliberately started a war. Big Boy Rules apply."
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”