Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

i've read (some years ago, and who knows how the story has changed since then) that the Brits were actually shooting the the aircraft carrier... and that the General Belgrano got in the way...

Seperate subs mate. I believe that it was HMS Spartan which was stalking the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, but the weather prevented an attack. Splendid had been stalking the carrier for some time but had not got into an attack position, by the time she had moved into a position to confirm the target heavy fog had come down. IIRC the carrier was (just about) inside Argentinian waters, but Conqueror was outside the limits so her captain felt that an attack would be viable. ARA Veinticinco de Mayo and ARA General Belgrano were in seperate task forces that were part of a pincer movement.

This is what I remember from Vulcan 607, which has a broad overview of the naval war up to Black Buck 1 so it may be incorrect in places.

EDIT: Belgrano was being escorted by two Type 42 Frigates, IIRC 25 Mayo was escorted by US built destroyers (Sumner CLass?) or the '42s were with the carrier and the Sumners with Belgrano.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

HI all,

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this?

That is correct.

The nuclear powered submarine must always run the pumps to cool the reactor(s).

The diesel powered submarine under water is very quiet because it runs only on battery...


Leo "Apollo11"

Yeah, but a nuclear boat under water is a lot faster than a diesel boat. Granted doesn't help as mnuch against a helo or a P-3 or the upcoming P-8. Speed does help.[:)]

You remember correctly. 25 de Mayo was in TF 79.1, appoachimg the Falklands from the north, while Belgrano, escorted by ex-Sumners Bouchard and Piedrabuena (TF79.4) were east of Staten Island. These ships all carried EXOCET ASMs. The fear was that the Belgrano group might have changed course and run in towards the RN task force, across the shallow waters of the Burdwood Bank, where HMS Conqueror would have found it hard to follow (the Argentine ships could have outrun her in any case), and could have reached the Task Force at about dawn, ready to fire their missiles. If you remember what has been said in this forum about the gun fire of the Brooklyns, and considering that by WWII standards, the RN Task Force consisted essentially of two large CVEs, escorted by some DEs, an ably led and properly operated Belgrano might have shredded the Task Force with her guns alone. Fortunately for the RN, the Argentine Navy seems to have had inept officers throughout.

It was always funny for me, that the Argenitians complaied the Belgrano was sunk outside the 200 miles zone.
If you start a war, you shouldn't complain getting your ships sunk...

ORIGINAL: mikemike

You remember correctly. 25 de Mayo was in TF 79.1, appoachimg the Falklands from the north, while Belgrano, escorted by ex-Sumners Bouchard and Piedrabuena (TF79.4) were east of Staten Island. These ships all carried EXOCET ASMs. The fear was that the Belgrano group might have changed course and run in towards the RN task force, across the shallow waters of the Burdwood Bank, where HMS Conqueror would have found it hard to follow (the Argentine ships could have outrun her in any case), and could have reached the Task Force at about dawn, ready to fire their missiles. If you remember what has been said in this forum about the gun fire of the Brooklyns, and considering that by WWII standards, the RN Task Force consisted essentially of two large CVEs, escorted by some DEs, an ably led and properly operated Belgrano might have shredded the Task Force with her guns alone. Fortunately for the RN, the Argentine Navy seems to have had inept officers throughout.

As a side note, who knows which name the General Belgrano held while in service of the US Navy? (just a little trivia test here)

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Hi all,

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Reading more on this matter: ARA Santa Fe was damaged by ASW helicopters using depth charges, as well as being attacked by Mk 46 torpedo... not sure from the brief report where she was (surface or submerged) when originally attacked with the DCs, although she was on definitely on the surface and attacked by helicopters with machine guns and AS-12 missiles. i suspect Dixie is correct: that she was probably on the surface the entire time.

She was badly damaged and surrendered to the Brits, who scuttled her after the fighting.

EDIT: From trying to read the Spanish Language Wiki: apparently ARA Santa Fe had just finished landing supplies and troops on a Sub Transport Mission!! [:D] [8D]

The caught on surface and destroyed ARA Santa Fe was on "Submarine Transport" missions - it was old USA WWII boat IIRC.

The new German build ARA San Luis was something else... this was the submarine British feared...


Leo "Apollo11"

ARA Santa Fe, a Balao classs GUPPY IA, had run troops into Grytviken, South Georgia. The British South Georgia task group knew she was in the area and set about hunting her down with helicopters. A Wessex from HMS Antrim found her running on the surface and attacked with two Mark XI depth charges set for shallow explosion. These did no serious damage, and the boat could still have dived, but its commander didn't dare do so because he was afraid the helicopter might use homing torpedos, and turned back towards Grytviken. Wasps from HMS Endurance fired two AS-12 wire-guided missiles; one bounced off the pressure hull and the other passed through the sail, doing little damage but taking the legs off a machine gunner. The sub was still not seriously damaged, but fear of homing torpedos kept it on the surface, the captain conning it into Grytviken by periscope from the control room. The sub tied up at the pier in Grytviken and was quickly evacuated by the crew, more a victim of inept handling (the hallmark of the ARA in this conflict) than enemy action.

The Type 209/1 subs San Luis and Salta were dismissed by the RN as "small, hardly ocean-going, best suited to inshore, fairly static operations", at least as Adm. Woodward (a former submariner) recalls. This might have been a dangerous underestimation had the subs been properly fought and had their wire-guided torps been more reliable. Echoes of WWII, indeed - HMS Conqueror didn't trust its Tigershark wire-guided torps, either, so used Mark VIII**, essentially WWII torpedos. The Argentine boats, with their swim-out tubes, couldn't easily fall back on steam torpedos; they might have had US Mk 37 torpedos which also weren't battle-proven.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

As a side note, who knows which name the General Belgrano held while in service of the US Navy? (just a little trivia test here)

General Belgrano was originally USS Phoenix, present in Pearl Harbor during the attack. Later flagship of Adm. Kinkaid, the commander of MacArthur's navy. Gen. MacArthur was on board for extended periods.

Well, I guess I know whom to ask if I need some informations about subs... [&o]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: Shark7

As a side note, who knows which name the General Belgrano held while in service of the US Navy? (just a little trivia test here)

General Belgrano was originally USS Phoenix, present in Pearl Harbor during the attack. Later flagship of Adm. Kinkaid, the commander of MacArthur's navy. Gen. MacArthur was on board for extended periods.

Right, you guys are fast. LOL [:)]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


OK - so it was 100% diesel to the generators...
BTW - if you are running your diesels - you are no longer "silent running"...

But if you don't run the diesels, you certainly are (which was the intention). The Type XXI's may have been the first class of submarines deliberately optimized for silent running, with their auxiliary motors and large, slow-turning props, whose blades were deliberately shaped to minimize flow noise and cavitation (absolutely no cavitation below 130 rpm = maximum speed for the silent-running motors). They would have been immune to the MK 24 homing torpedo, whose seeker head was too insensitive.

ORIGINAL: mikemike

You remember correctly. 25 de Mayo was in TF 79.1, appoachimg the Falklands from the north, while Belgrano, escorted by ex-Sumners Bouchard and Piedrabuena (TF79.4) were east of Staten Island. These ships all carried EXOCET ASMs. The fear was that the Belgrano group might have changed course and run in towards the RN task force, across the shallow waters of the Burdwood Bank, where HMS Conqueror would have found it hard to follow (the Argentine ships could have outrun her in any case), and could have reached the Task Force at about dawn, ready to fire their missiles. If you remember what has been said in this forum about the gun fire of the Brooklyns, and considering that by WWII standards, the RN Task Force consisted essentially of two large CVEs, escorted by some DEs, an ably led and properly operated Belgrano might have shredded the Task Force with her guns alone. Fortunately for the RN, the Argentine Navy seems to have had inept officers throughout.

Fortune favours the brave I guess. [:D] Nuclear powered hunter-killer subs were a major fear of the Argentiina Navy. The original plans called for civilian transports to unload the invasion forces to lessen the image of a forecful takeover. When South Georgia was seized the Argentinians felt that they had to complete the main Falkland invasion before the RN could deploy any subs to the South Atlantic. Once they believed that the RN were there then they had to fly reinforcements in. (The first sub they detected was actually a Soviet one [:D])


Sort of back on topic...
It's sort of interesting that much of the Argentine navy was made up of WW2 era vessels. It could be argued that their longevity made them a successful design... [;)]

1 British CVL
ARA 25 de Mayo (HMS Venerable)

1 US CL
ARA General Belgrano (USS Pheonix)

7(?) US DD
ARA Seguì, Allen M. Sumner Class (USS Hank, DD-702)
ARA Comodoro Py, Gearing Class (USS PErkins, DD-877)
ARA Piedra Buena, Allen M. Sumner Class (USS Collett, DD-730)
ARA Hipolito Bouchard, Allen M. Sumner Class (USS Borie, DD-704)
ARA Rosales, Fletcher Class (USS Stembel, DD-644)
ARA Almirante Storni, Fletcher Class (USS Cowell DD-547)
ARA Almirante Domecq Garcia, Fletcher Class (USS Braine, DD-360)

2 US SS
ARA Santiago del Estero, Balao Class (USS Chivo, SS-341)
ARA Santa Fe, Balao Class (USS Catfish, SS-339)


HMS Hermes was also a WW2 era design, laid down in 1944 construction was halted until 1952 [X(]

A few others that made it well into the 90s and beyond:

India:

INS Vikraant: Originally HMS Hercules, Majestic class, launched 22 September 1945. Decommissioned 31 January 1997. This one would have been involved in the war if it had not ended before her launch.

Phillipines:

Rajah Humabon. USS Atherton DE-169 (Cannon Class) commissioned 1943. Still in service.
Quezon. USS Vigilance AM-324 (Auk Class)Launched on 5 April 1943. Still in service.
BRP Rizal (PS-74) (ex-USN USS Murrelet AM-372) (Auk Class). Commissioned 1945, still in service.

Miguel Malvar Class (USN Admirable / PCE Class) All still in service:

BRP Miguel Malvar (PS-19) (ex-USN USS PCE(R) 852 / USS Brattleboro E-PCE(R)-852)
BRP Magat Salamat (PS-20) (ex-USN USS Geyety AM-239)
BRP Sultan Kudarat (PS-22) (ex-USN USS PCE-895 / USS Crestview E-PCE-895) 1975
BRP Datu Marikudo (PS-23) (ex-USN USS PCE(R)-853)
BRP Cebu (PS-28) (ex-USN USS PCE-881)
BRP Negros Occidental (PS-29) (ex-USN USS PCE-884)
BRP Pangasinan (PS-31) (ex-USN USS PCE-891) 1948
BRP Iloilo (PS-32) (ex-USN USS PCE-897) 1948

ORIGINAL: Shark7

A few others that made it well into the 90s and beyond:

India:

INS Vikraant: Originally HMS Hercules, Majestic class, launched 22 September 1945. Decommissioned 31 January 1997. This one would have been involved in the war if it had not ended before her launch.

Phillipines:

Rajah Humabon. USS Atherton DE-169 (Cannon Class) commissioned 1943. Still in service.
Quezon. USS Vigilance AM-324 (Auk Class)Launched on 5 April 1943. Still in service.
BRP Rizal (PS-74) (ex-USN USS Murrelet AM-372) (Auk Class). Commissioned 1945, still in service.

Miguel Malvar Class (USN Admirable / PCE Class) All still in service:

BRP Miguel Malvar (PS-19) (ex-USN USS PCE(R) 852 / USS Brattleboro E-PCE(R)-852)
BRP Magat Salamat (PS-20) (ex-USN USS Geyety AM-239)
BRP Sultan Kudarat (PS-22) (ex-USN USS PCE-895 / USS Crestview E-PCE-895) 1975
BRP Datu Marikudo (PS-23) (ex-USN USS PCE(R)-853)
BRP Cebu (PS-28) (ex-USN USS PCE-881)
BRP Negros Occidental (PS-29) (ex-USN USS PCE-884)
BRP Pangasinan (PS-31) (ex-USN USS PCE-891) 1948
BRP Iloilo (PS-32) (ex-USN USS PCE-897) 1948

Also:
NAeL Minas Gerais (HMS Vengeance), decommisioned 16th October 2001

Does Taiwan still operate her two Tench Class subs? How about the WW2-era oilers from the USN reserve fleets? I know a few were sent here for scrapping, how about the rest of them?

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Shark7

A few others that made it well into the 90s and beyond:

India:

INS Vikraant: Originally HMS Hercules, Majestic class, launched 22 September 1945. Decommissioned 31 January 1997. This one would have been involved in the war if it had not ended before her launch.

Phillipines:

Rajah Humabon. USS Atherton DE-169 (Cannon Class) commissioned 1943. Still in service.
Quezon. USS Vigilance AM-324 (Auk Class)Launched on 5 April 1943. Still in service.
BRP Rizal (PS-74) (ex-USN USS Murrelet AM-372) (Auk Class). Commissioned 1945, still in service.

Miguel Malvar Class (USN Admirable / PCE Class) All still in service:

BRP Miguel Malvar (PS-19) (ex-USN USS PCE(R) 852 / USS Brattleboro E-PCE(R)-852)
BRP Magat Salamat (PS-20) (ex-USN USS Geyety AM-239)
BRP Sultan Kudarat (PS-22) (ex-USN USS PCE-895 / USS Crestview E-PCE-895) 1975
BRP Datu Marikudo (PS-23) (ex-USN USS PCE(R)-853)
BRP Cebu (PS-28) (ex-USN USS PCE-881)
BRP Negros Occidental (PS-29) (ex-USN USS PCE-884)
BRP Pangasinan (PS-31) (ex-USN USS PCE-891) 1948
BRP Iloilo (PS-32) (ex-USN USS PCE-897) 1948

Also:
NAeL Minas Gerais (HMS Vengeance), decommisioned 16th October 2001

Does Taiwan still operate her two Tench Class subs? How about the WW2-era oilers from the USN reserve fleets? I know a few were sent here for scrapping, how about the rest of them?

I'd have to look. I do know Pakistan was operating an old T-2 until recently. Also, Taiwan was operating a few FRAM DDs into the 90s. Gearings and Sumners IIRC.

There are lots of old LST 1/LST 542 class in service through-out the world.

Taiwan still has 5 Cherokee class tugs, 2 Guppy class subs.

http://www.hazegray.org/ It's not completely up to date, but did have the active ships of most navies right at the turn of the century.

Here is the ship that drive Italians off Croatian shore[;)]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Dixie




Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this?

i've also read that - IF THEY ARE NOT SNORKELING they are extremely hard to find...

i don't have any idea of whether the San Luis was snorkeling anywhere near the Brits, or for that matter if she snorkeled at all during the operation... she could have recharged on the surface for all i know.

I can confirm it. If the diesel is staying put , say in a choke point, they can be very,very difficult to detect. In shallow waters a diesel boat can bottom , something few nuke boats can do. The most difficult boats I ever prosecuted were Brisith "Upholder class", and before that the Porpise/Oberon class, in shallow coastal waters.

As one of my instructors once said , "which would you rather listen for, a steam kettle or a flashlight battery?"

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Dixie




Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this?

i've also read that - IF THEY ARE NOT SNORKELING they are extremely hard to find...

i don't have any idea of whether the San Luis was snorkeling anywhere near the Brits, or for that matter if she snorkeled at all during the operation... she could have recharged on the surface for all i know.

I can confirm it. If the diesel is staying put , say in a choke point, they can be very,very difficult to detect. In shallow waters a diesel boat can bottom , something few nuke boats can do. The most difficult boats I ever prosecuted were Brisith "Upholder class", and before that the Porpise/Oberon class, in shallow coastal waters.

As one of my instructors once said , "which would you rather listen for, a steam kettle or a flashlight battery?"

My question: how difficult is it to track them if they are snorkeling?

ORIGINAL: mikemike

You remember correctly. 25 de Mayo was in TF 79.1, appoachimg the Falklands from the north, while Belgrano, escorted by ex-Sumners Bouchard and Piedrabuena (TF79.4) were east of Staten Island. These ships all carried EXOCET ASMs. The fear was that the Belgrano group might have changed course and run in towards the RN task force, across the shallow waters of the Burdwood Bank, where HMS Conqueror would have found it hard to follow (the Argentine ships could have outrun her in any case), and could have reached the Task Force at about dawn, ready to fire their missiles. If you remember what has been said in this forum about the gun fire of the Brooklyns, and considering that by WWII standards, the RN Task Force consisted essentially of two large CVEs, escorted by some DEs, an ably led and properly operated Belgrano might have shredded the Task Force with her guns alone. Fortunately for the RN, the Argentine Navy seems to have had inept officers throughout.

[:D]This is the third (or was it fourth) completely different account i've read of the attack... the other ones were either during the war, or shortly after however.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso




i've also read that - IF THEY ARE NOT SNORKELING they are extremely hard to find...

i don't have any idea of whether the San Luis was snorkeling anywhere near the Brits, or for that matter if she snorkeled at all during the operation... she could have recharged on the surface for all i know.

I can confirm it. If the diesel is staying put , say in a choke point, they can be very,very difficult to detect. In shallow waters a diesel boat can bottom , something few nuke boats can do. The most difficult boats I ever prosecuted were Brisith "Upholder class", and before that the Porpise/Oberon class, in shallow coastal waters.

As one of my instructors once said , "which would you rather listen for, a steam kettle or a flashlight battery?"

My question: how difficult is it to track them if they are snorkeling?

A lot easier. Now you listen for a diesel engine. Stand next to a truck that's idling some time. And water is a much better conductor of sound then air. Newer boats have lots of shock mounts. I've tracked ww2 former US boats that were given to third world Navies. To say that they sounded like freight trains is an insult to frieght trains (although they have the same dieselmotors as them. ).

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

As for the Argentine subs: AFAIK - they were trying to avoid the Brits, not attack them... did they make any attempts to attack the British fleet? AFAIK - no (although i am not sure the British were aware of this.)

Trying to search out subs over 1000's of square miles of ocean when they are trying not to be found is a different proposition than finding a sub that is coming after you.

If the Argentine subs had gone after the British fleet, it might have been different story. The German Navy in WW2 could not just build subs and then make them hide to try to prosecute the war.

In books (and other meterial I found) I read that ARA San Luis did indeed tried to attack the British fleet on several occassions and that it did even fire torpedo(es) but they missed or were malfunctioning...


Leo "Apollo11"

My understanding was that she had a faulty fire contro system.