Belgrano

[onyx39]

Just been reading on pprune that intelligence has been made public that indicates that the sinking was the right course of action, apparently she WAS heading toward the exclusion zone, and under orders to do so!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/896...

[jmorgan]

Thought its captain admitted so years ago. Either way threat to carriers removed, air cover assured.

Edit, that should be ship and ship launched plane threat of course.

Edited by jmorgan on Wednesday 28th December 07:02

[The Black Flash]

Never saw the big fuss meself.
We were fighting a war against an aggressive enemy, we destroyed a mobilised military force that was a potential threat. It's not like we were bombing cities.

[Tango13]

The MOD had previously issued a statement stating that any ship posing a threat to the task force could be attacked outside the TEZ. So the Belgrano was a fair target the moment she left Argentine Territorial waters, something certain elements of the media ommited when they went on their witch hunt after the war.

[Simpo Two]

The Black Flash said:

Never saw the big fuss meself. We were fighting a war against an aggressive enemy, we destroyed a mobilised military force that was a potential threat. It's not like we were bombing cities.

Precisely.

We never thought 'Ooh, the Bismarck is in the wrong piece of sea, let's stop chasing it'. If you're at war you can expect to be sunk.

[anonymous-user]

It's a popular topic for wooly liberal peaceniks but i've never seen the issue myself. It was a warship in a war zone, even her captain has admitted that they were a threat to the British forces. If the Belgrano and their carrier had been able to carry out a possible pincer attack on the British forces it could have cost of many lives and possibly the war if they'd hit one of our carriers.

Having said that I do have great sympathy for the many troops that died on both sides, but particularly for the poor Argentine conscripts.

[C3BER]

War is nasty, sticky, smelly and tearful but what needs to be done has to be done. The press has a lot to answer for trying to paint an incorrect picture of many things done in the name of peace or war. I would come home and read things in the press and hear comments and re-read things on ph that I knew to be untrue.

I'm sure it took big balls to sink a ship and to kill many sailors but it took bigger balls to face a distructive press who had the intention of selling papers no matter the truth. A press and it's barons who we now see jump off boats and lie to cover their tracks.

[TheHeretic]

Never saw the issue, myself. They were the enemy, therefore they get their ship blown out of the water.

[KelWedge]

I cant think of any other country that has sunk an American Built Battleship When it was at sea!
Had to be done, not an issue.

[jmorgan]

KelWedge said:

I cant think of any other country that has sunk an American Built Battleship When it was at sea!
Had to be done, not an issue.

It was a light cruiser.

[perdu]

jmorgan said:

It was a light cruiser.

WAS

I like was


She needed dealing with

dealing dealt!

[RobDickinson]

Likewise I have never understood the fuss.

They invaded our territory, we went to war.

They bombed our ships, we torpedoed theirs.

OK we had an exclusion zone but so what?

[Tango13]

jmorgan said:

KelWedge said:

I cant think of any other country that has sunk an American Built Battleship When it was at sea!
Had to be done, not an issue.

It was a light cruiser.

Another American cruiser that was sunk at sea was the USS Indianapolis.

[jmorgan]

Tango13 said:

jmorgan said:

KelWedge said:

I cant think of any other country that has sunk an American Built Battleship When it was at sea!
Had to be done, not an issue.

It was a light cruiser.

Another American cruiser that was sunk at sea was the USS Indianapolis.

Aye but in true PH fashion he said battleship.... may be right there but Belgrano was ex USS Phoenix, light cruiser. Wonder how many it would take for a battleship, cannot see the US giving them away? They seem to have taken a lot to sink them in WWII.

[Dr Jekyll]

Tango13 said:

Another American cruiser that was sunk at sea was the USS Indianapolis.

It wasn't even the first time the Belgrano had been sunk. Though it wasn't at sea before and possibly not exactly sunk as such.

[Simpo Two]

Well there's a thing. I thought it was an Iowa-class battleship (but am getting confused with the Seagal film)

After much Googling and Wikipedia-ing it would seem no US battleship has ever been sunk.

[Shar2]

Simpo Two said:

Well there's a thing. I thought it was an Iowa-class battleship (but am getting confused with the Seagal film)

After much Googling and Wikipedia-ing it would seem no US battleship has ever been sunk.

Well, apart from all those sunk at Pearl Harbour, or do you mean post WW2?

[aeropilot]

We just finished what the Japanese had tried and failed to do 40 years earlier at Pearl......

[Tango13]

aeropilot said:

We just finished what the Japanese had tried and failed to do 40 years earlier at Pearl......

And we used WW2 vintage torpedos too.

If you want to read a well researched, fair and honest book on the subject read this (sorry for the rubbish quality blackberry photos)



If you want your piss to hit several million deg C in a matter of seconds read this biased, anglophobic, poorly written piece of 'Journalism'

[Simpo Two]

Shar2 said:

Well, apart from all those sunk at Pearl Harbour, or do you mean post WW2?

The original line had 'whilst at sea'.

Tango13 said:

And we used WW2 vintage torpedos too.

I thought the torpedo that sank the Belgrano was some new type that cost more than the Belgrano was worth?