Exactly, personally I wonder whether we would have done the same if the Belgrano were any other ship but that's a moot point.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Exactly, personally I wonder whether we would have done the same if the Belgrano were any other ship but that's a moot point.
I couldn't actually tell you the reason for the exclusion zone but my guess is that the UK didn't want a wider conflict, we wanted hostilities localised in the Falklands were we were fighting a war of liberation, not the whole South Atlantic or Argentina as a whole. So while that's technically true, for proactical purposes the exclusion zone existed.
Incidentally did we actually declare war on Argentina, I can't remember it being mentioned when I read something about it. Although it did mention civil servants having to go back to WW2 records to see how a nation actually went about declaring war[/B]
Sinking the belgrano acctually reduced the chance of the conflict widening, If the argentinian navy had felt capable of heading out to meet the british there could have been major ship to ship engagments instead they stayed in ahrbour in fear of british nuclear subs. Tha fact that it was the belgrano just reinforced the point.
And no we din't actually declare war as far as i know, but then very few nations have declared war since after WW2.
The rest of the Argentinian navy ? That would have been weird, basicly the Brits would just sit back and bomb the crap out of them with Harriers and missiles.
A Norwegian TV documentary speculated that it was Norwegian military intelligence that provided the British with the position of the Belgrano. Anyone else heard about this from a more reliable source?
What is probably true is that the Soviets were very interested in studying one of their potential enemies in action, so they had spy satelites covering the region. Norwegian military intelligende routinely listened to all trasmissions from the satelites, so they most likely knew the position of the cruiser, our intelligence cooperation policy vs. British was full disclosure.
What is probably true is that the Soviets were very interested in studying one of their potential enemies in action, so they had spy satelites covering the region. Norwegian military intelligende routinely listened to all trasmissions from the satelites, so they most likely knew the position of the cruiser, our intelligence cooperation policy vs. British was full disclosure.
They weren't that backward. the argentinian navy had ships with exocets and obvioulsy anti air defences. plus if the harriers were attacking the rgentinain navy who would be fighting withthe airforce? too few harriers to do both jobs
AFAIK Maggie made no request for US military assistance. If you have information to the contrary, I would appreciate seeing it.
The french missiles for Argentine was part of a whole buy of 15 aircraft. The Argentine only get 5 of them with 5 exocet anti-ship missile. France stop several ammunition load at the beginning of the war.
Argentina fired the 5 missiles they get and made a 3/5 touch if i remember. Not too bad given the fact they were'nt fully trained for that aircraft and weapon.
I didn't think she asked about. Only some space photo were asked and provided if i remember. They may also get a communication channel throught US Satellite.
The british gvt was the main factor for victory. He firmly refuse to go on the weak diplomatic point and deal with the matter with great determination: Risk fleet and expeditionnary force such a long way from support port!
The Hermes (was it his name) was refitted just for the war right?
But the number of Harrier wasn't very high and seaHarrier had a much better anti ship capacity than the RAF one.
The Belgrano had too be sunk. I'm not sure the Argentina Navy would have dare to defend the island if it wasn't but better to avoid that risk. War isn't to be a gentlemen affair.
As a note: This thread is about the war; it isn't an excuse to complain about the actions of other governments. All future posts hopefully will keep this in mind. Topics this recent are normally discussed in OT rather than here, but I would like to think that the posters here are capable of having a discussion about the military aspects of the Falklands War without it being hijacked into topics that properly belong in the OT forum.
Last edited:
i can't remeber which, but yeah one carrier was to be decommisioned but was recalled into service for the war. And the Argentinian navy, moving out to meet the british, supporrted by an air attack would have over whelmed the british defenses. trying to shoot down ship launched exocets, and dealing with an air attack, by skilled and very couragous argentinian pilots was beyond the capabilities of the british ships. Sinking the belgrano reduced the chances of them facing that as the argentinian navy had to consider the nuclear subs, who were very dangerous to it.
Of course the british had some good luck to, the exocet that sunk the Atlantic Conveyer was aimed at one of the carriers, but as the atlantic conveyer was bigger it changed course and hit her instaed.
The Belgrano was a WWII surplus heavy cruiser, with no modern ship to ship weapons systems. I don't see how it presented any threat whatsoever to the British.
The Belgrano was the Argentina Navy pride.
By sunking it you send the warning that no ship would be secured in the high water cause of the english sub risk.
I'm not sure they would have risk their navy to defend the Falkland but after the Belgrano was sunk the Argentina Navy stand at port for sure.
Plus, the Belgrano get "old artillery" but it was efficient one. Given the fact he was may be strong enought to stand light anti-ship missil and can fire 152mm shell at 10 nautic miles at least it wasn't really a merchantman!
He also could threathen eventual withdrawing of the fleet if the operation failed or threaten british light ship in the south atlantic.
The belgrano and her 2 escorts all carried exocets and the Belgrano had british sea cat SAMS. and there were other argentinian warships at see at the time, including their one aircraft carrier in one group and a group of other surface vessals. also just before she was sunk she was heading into an area of shallow water where the Conquerour who was the sub following her would find it difficult to operate and would risk detection. It was decied that the risk of her turning back towards the task force later when nio sub was in postion to deal with her was to great a risk, therefore she was sunk.
The biggest Irony is she was a former US cruiser that survived the attack on pearl harbour, an event which greatly aided britain, only to be sunk by us.
The biggest Irony is she was a former US cruiser that survived the attack on pearl harbour, an event which greatly aided britain, only to be sunk by us.
That is definitely news to me. Do you have a link for the Exocets on the Belgrano and the other ships?
I know very little about "modern warfare". All I know is that the Xavantes could drop air-sea missiles.
I tried to find the OBB for the Argentinian Navy but couldnt find specifics.
But what they had is a light CV, the Belgrano, 4 coastal subs and 6 Frigats/destroyers.
Only the later ships had Exotecs.
But what they had is a light CV, the Belgrano, 4 coastal subs and 6 Frigats/destroyers.
Only the later ships had Exotecs.