WI Blegrano not sunk in 1982

Peter Cowan

Recently C4 (UK) showed a documentary in the "Secret History" series about the build up to the sinking of the Argentinian cruiser 'General Belgrano' in the Falklands War.

One of the big controversies about this was that it was sailing West (away from the UK Task Force) and outside the 'Maritime Exclusion Zone' As such, many people thought that the UK sank a 'harmless' vessel - some of you may remember the skewering Maggie received on Nationwide in the 1983 election when a West Country 'housewife' brought this up.

In fact, the Argentine Naval Commander on the Belgrano, admitted in the documentary that his move west was temporary and that he fully intended to sink any RN ship he encountered.

In OTL, the loss of the Belgrano resulted in the remainder of the Argentine Navy returning to base.

What if it had not been sunk - lawyers in London suggesting that outside the exclusion zone meant that an attack would breach 'International Law' ? How could this have affected the war?

For what it is worth I have a theory - wholly uncorroborated I might add. Why was a nuclear attack sub in that precise area? Was it guarding something ? What if elements of the Task Force were South of the Falklands (it was believed the carriers were to the east - was this true?). Could Belgrano have been close to discovering this? Is that why it was sunk ?
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
BELGRANO

The poor bloke (whoevere he was) must be real pissed off that people ALWAYS smell his name wong

Grey Wolf
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
Just AFAIR wasn't the sub nuclear-POWERED but not nuclear-ARMED ? I thought it was a hunter killer ?

Grey Wolf
 

Peter Cowan

It was Nuclear powered, yes. It may have nuclear weapons (torpedos not missiles) but the MOD refuses to comment on that.

Oddly though, it used what were essentially WW2 vintage torpedos to sink the cruiser rather than the hi-tech wire guided ones.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
I think the submarine was HMS Conqueror and it is a nuclear powered attack submarine. I have kept the front page of the New York Times that shows the periscope shot of the sinking Belgrano - what a picture!

On the whole I think the course or outcome of the war wouldn't be changed. The major difference would be the Belgrano being sold for scrap rather than being turned into a habit for fish - tho these days they sink decommissioned warships to be fish habits as artificial reefs.
 

Landshark

Peter Cowan said:
Oddly though, it used what were essentially WW2 vintage torpedos to sink the cruiser rather than the hi-tech wire guided ones.
Click to expand...

That's because the hi-tech wire ones didn't bloody work. There was even a joke on Yes Primeminister about them not working.
 

Landshark

David S Poepoe said:
The major difference would be the Belgrano being sold for scrap rather than being turned into a habit for fish - tho these days they sink decommissioned warships to be fish habits as artificial reefs.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, she did used to be the USS Phoenix, a survivor of Pearl Habour, so she might have returned to the US as a museum ship.
 

Landshark

DuQuense said:
?Is that series still on in Britian? they took it off PBS over here. :(
Click to expand...

The BBC is on repeating it at the moment. They've just started showing the second series of Yes Minister so they might be showing the whole thing from start to finish.
 

Proctol

Banned
It would have been interesting to have witnessed a guns-only clash between the Belgrano (ex USS Phoenix Brooklyn class cruiser) with its 15 manually loaded 6" guns vs a British type 42 destroyer. Just one 6" Argentinian round would have opened up the unarmoured Aluminum skinned Red Coat like a tin can (witness how HMS Sheffield was deep-sixed by a single Exocet misssie, even though its warhead didn't go off!).

On the other hand the Type 42's single 4.5" auto-loaded cannon could fire at 60 rpm all day, and could quickly turn the Phoenix's bridge & upper works to pounded Bethlehem scrap.
 

robertp6165

Grey Wolf said:
BELGRANO

The poor bloke (whoevere he was) must be real pissed off that people ALWAYS smell his name wong

Grey Wolf
Click to expand...

Is there a proper way to smell a name? I didn't know they had an odor. :D
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Proctol said:
It would have been interesting to have witnessed a guns-only clash between the Belgrano (ex USS Phoenix Brooklyn class cruiser) with its 15 manually loaded 6" guns vs a British type 42 destroyer. Just one 6" Argentinian round would have opened up the unarmoured Aluminum skinned Red Coat like a tin can (witness how HMS Sheffield was deep-sixed by a single Exocet misssie, even though its warhead didn't go off!).

On the other hand the Type 42's single 4.5" auto-loaded cannon could fire at 60 rpm all day, and could quickly turn the Phoenix's bridge & upper works to pounded Bethlehem scrap.
Click to expand...

Only an incompetant commander would allow a guns only clash between a modern warship and one of pre-1945 vintage.
 

DMA

Landshark said:
The BBC is on repeating it at the moment. They've just started showing the second series of Yes Minister so they might be showing the whole thing from start to finish.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's why that torpedo landed on Sandwich Golf Course...
 

DMA

Proctol said:
It would have been interesting to have witnessed a guns-only clash between the Belgrano (ex USS Phoenix Brooklyn class cruiser) with its 15 manually loaded 6" guns vs a British type 42 destroyer. Just one 6" Argentinian round would have opened up the unarmoured Aluminum skinned Red Coat like a tin can (witness how HMS Sheffield was deep-sixed by a single Exocet misssie, even though its warhead didn't go off!).

On the other hand the Type 42's single 4.5" auto-loaded cannon could fire at 60 rpm all day, and could quickly turn the Phoenix's bridge & upper works to pounded Bethlehem scrap.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting, though, that a number of RN ships deployed the Exocet missile. Now if the Argintines were able to sink a couple of RN ships with the Exocet, how long do you think the Belgrano would last especially considering the ship had no SAM system whatsoever? And that's besides the fact that the RN's Harrier jets would be all over it too.
 

aktarian

From what I understand Argentinians planned a two pronged attack with Belgrano coming from the south and Vicencentio de Mayo (OK, I probably butchered that name....) carrier coming from the north. when Belgrano was sunk carrier returned to port and stayed there whole war. Had Belgrano not be sunk attack might go on. AFAIK carrier had A-4s only (no Mirages). Though combined A-4 and Mirage attack might overwhelm RN (there never was that much Harirer to begin with) and inflict heavy casualties.
 

Proctol

Banned
The 10000 ton Brooklyn class cruisers were designed to mix it with Japanese cruisers of the same class, and were much more heavily armoured than today's ships, being able to withstand multiple 6" and 8" hits. In a gun only battle, the first British 4.5" hits would be shrugged off, but at 1 round per second, although the Belgrano's armoured belt would remain intact, fire control etc would soon be disabled, unless the Argies stick to their guns, HMS Sydney-style.

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/ships/cruisers/brooklyn.htm

brooklyn.jpe
 
Last edited:

Derek Jackson

The other effect of the sinking of the Belgrano was to make Peace impossible.

NB The UK had NOT declared War. It had declared an "eXCLUSION zONE". The Belgrano was indeed steaming away from that zone.

I accept that had the Belgrano got in gun range of British ships the consequences would be serious. However we do NOT know how many UK submarines might have been available
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top