Gotcha !!!

[pie sandwich]

It was 26 years ago today, which saw the sinking of the General Belgrano by HMS Conqueror. I thought I would post a link to the BBC which has a write up on the sinking with some video footage.

HERE

Must say I don't remember it myself being only 3 at the time.

 

[Ex-Bay]

It was 26 years ago today, which saw the sinking of the General Belgrano by HMS Conqueror. I thought I would post a link to the BBC which has a write up on the sinking with some video footage.

HERE

Must say I don't remember it myself being only 3 at the time.

I do.
There was a lot of very hot air about the Belgrano being 'on its way out' of the exclusion zone. It was reckoned to be a feint, so that other ships could nip in smarlty and do more damage.

Conqueror was in the right place and received instruction to attack. (I'm not sure about use of Tigerfish topredoes, though. I heard they used the older version (Mk 8?)). One of the Officers on board was brother to my agent and she told me a bit more about it. The sound track of the attack has been on the 'net.

xb

 

[MontyPlumbs]

I do.
There was a lot of very hot air about the Belgrano being 'on its way out' of the exclusion zone. It was reckoned to be a feint, so that other ships could nip in smarlty and do more damage.

Conqueror was in the right place and received instruction to attack. (I'm not sure about use of Tigerfish topredoes, though. I heard they used the older version (Mk 8?)). One of the Officers on board was brother to my agent and she told me a bit more about it. The sound track of the attack has been on the 'net.

xb

I concur, I'm sure they used the older Torpedos, something wasn't working properly with the new ones. I'm sure MJ will be along shortly to correct us all! DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[MrMasher]

I seem to remember that they bought some stuff off the yanks......
Dont recall whether it was torpedoes or not.

 

[PingDit]

Yep, they used the older torpedoes. I was there at the time, although above in a Nimrod. I later worked with the Chief Ops (Sonar) who was on Conkers at the time. Interesting story, especially the political side of things - but we won't go into that!

 

[pueblos]

It was war, they started it, we finished. The whole of the southern ocean should have been an exclusion zone for the Argie battle boats… Then we (the Brits) could have sunk their carrier too…

Well done Navy, lets not forget the HM’s that were lost too…

 

[MAINJAFAD]

I concur, I'm sure they used the older Torpedos, something wasn't working properly with the new ones. I'm sure MJ will be along shortly to correct us all! DT_Xtremez_30:

Just got the new book on it, 'Sink the Belgrano' by Mike Rossiter. Its almost as good a read as Vulcan 607. Conqueror was due refit at the start of the war and the boat did most of its time down south carrying some major defects. It did indeed use 1930's vintage Mark 8 Torpedos to sink the Belgrano, as the early Mark 21 Tigerfish Torpedos were unreliable and Conqueror at the time had never successfully fired one. Hence the command staff on the sub went for the older weapon, which was known to work. The infamous Sun headline actually said 'Gotcha, Our lads sink gunboat and hole cruiser' and had two photos on the front page of the paper of the Argentine patrol boat 'Sobral' and the Belgrano. The truth was in fact, that the Sobral was hit by Sea Suka missiles fired by Lynx's from HMS Covnenty and HMS Glasgow and was badly damaged, but got back to port, while the Belgrano went to the bottom with a big hole in the bottom and its bows chopped off by the two Torpedos that hit her out of the three fired.

 

[Harry B'Stard]

WW2 vintage.

WW2 vintage.

I don't suppose it makes much difference that they fired three WW2 vintage torpedoes at the Belgrano.

Mainly because the Belgrano used to be owned by the US Navy and was built during WW2. I believe it was the USS Arizona... but my feeble mind may be wrong, it often is!

HTB

 

[Bitburger]

I don't suppose it makes much difference that they fired three WW2 vintage torpedoes at the Belgrano.

Mainly because the Belgrano used to be owned by the US Navy and was built during WW2. I believe it was the USS Arizona... but my feeble mind may be wrong, it often is!

HTB

Not the Arizona, that went down at Pearl Harbour it was the USS Pheonix

 

[Harry B'Stard]

Told you!

Told you!

Told you I was often wrong!DT_Xtremez_28:

I seem to remember it being a sister ship to the pheonix or something along those lines.DT_Xtremez_35:

Well all that matters is that we won.... they lost!::

HTB

 

[MAINJAFAD]

Not the Arizona, that went down at Pearl Harbour it was the USS Pheonix

Indeed, the Belgrano was the former USS Pheonix, which survived the attack on Pearl Harbour in Dec 41.

 

[Shugster]

There are arguments both for and against the sinking.

It was sailing away, it was well outside the exclusion zone...

But it was a warship in a war, and the sub was tied up following it.

It saddens me that so many were killed on the Belgrano, but the Argies got their own back on HMS Sheffield, (thanks to the fcuking frogs and the exocet missile).

We had a 50/50 chance of success, luckily we pulled it off.

Hopefully it's still fresh in the minds of the older generations of Argentina, and they won't try anything on again for a long time.

 

[rest have risen above me]

The video clip is classic Mrs T. You can imagine what she's thinking whilst arguing with the old biddy..."

 

[MAINJAFAD]

There are arguments both for and against the sinking.

It was sailing away, it was well outside the exclusion zone...

But it was a warship in a war, and the sub was tied up following it.

It saddens me that so many were killed on the Belgrano, but the Argies got their own back on HMS Sheffield, (thanks to the fcuking frogs and the exocet missile).

We had a 50/50 chance of success, luckily we pulled it off.

Hopefully it's still fresh in the minds of the older generations of Argentina, and they won't try anything on again for a long time.

Argies were trying to pull a naval pincer movement on the task force at the time with their carrier and escorts coming around the islands from the north, and the Belgrano and Exocet armed escorts coming in from the south. The plan was for the carrier to hit the British carrier battle group with an attack by A-4 Skyhawks, then the Belgrano's group would close and engage with exocet, and then the Belgrano would close in and use its 6 inch guns, which out ranged the 4.5 inch weapon on the British warships. To add to this, a Super Etandard exocet attack was planned. The big problem was the Argies didn't know where the British Carrier were until the early morning of the 2nd, and then their plan fell apart, the Carrier launched strike had to be aborted, as there was not enough wind to launch a fully laden Skyhawk from the deck of the Argie carrier and the Super Etandard’s had to abort their attack when the AAR system on their tanker failed. At that point, the Argies, pulled back until they could get another chance to get a surprise strike in (A Sea Harrier having found the Argie Carrier Group). Needless to say the whole plan, shipwise fell apart when the Belgrano was sunk and the Argies pulled back to their 12 mile limit. The TEZ was a bit of a myth, as the ROE allowed the Argie Carrier and Subs to be sunk anywhere outside their 12 mile limit by the time the fighting kicked off on 1st May. Of course, the Argies had already attacked British ships on the 1st May, when IAI Daggers (Israeli built Mirages) had attacked, not very successfully, three British warships off Port Stanley (though a sailor on HMS Arrow was injured by 30mm cannon fire when one of the Dagger strafed the ship on its bomb run).

 

[stingray888]

I remember the labour MP Tam Dalziel (or summit) blatting on for years about how the attack was illegal, murder etc etc. He said nothing else after the captain of the Belgrano admitted the sole purpose of them being where they were was to carry out an attack on the carriers.

 

[MAINJAFAD]

I remember the labour MP Tam Dalziel (or summit) blatting on for years about how the attack was illegal, murder etc etc. He said nothing else after the captain of the Belgrano admitted the sole purpose of them being where they were was to carry out an attack on the carriers.

Indeed he did, In fact, Woodward was the man pushing for the Belgrano to be attacked, and he ordered Conqueror to do it when he didn't have authority (The three British subs were macromanaged directly by Flag Officer Submarines at Northwood, which was outside of Woodward's chain of command). It was only by Woodwards nagging, that the permission to engage the Belgrano was given. The Conqueror had extreme problems with her communications systems, caused by ice damage to her Satcom and VLF antennas while the boat was operating around South Georgia while covering the British operations around the Island in the two weeks before. Also the Satcom coverage as far as Skynet was concerned down south was sh!te at the time, the system being configured for the North Atlantic . There was a long delay between the orders to sink the Belgrano to the Conqueror being received by the sub and the time she actually fired her torpedoes due to these communications problems, had the orders been reveiced on first Transmission, the Belgrano would have most likey been quite close to the edge of TEZ when she was sunk.