What if the Belgrano had survived?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Thomas RE:What if the Belgrano had survived? 5/21/2004 3:10:35 AM

The Almirante Belgrano would have made an invasion impossible. The effect on the invasion beach of its large guns would have been devastating.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner RE:What if the Belgrano had survived? 5/21/2004 11:14:27 AM

I tend to think that it and its escorts would have been sunk or badly damaged, in an encounter with Exocet and Sea Dart armed RN Frigates and Destroyers. However, the Argentine ships were also Exocet armed, so would have extracted a heavy price in such a battle. More importantly however, they would have forced a number of British escorts to leave the task force. This would have made air-strikes from the 25 de Mayo more likely to hit the carriers or transports, which would have severely impacted on the outcome of the war.

Quote Reply

TDHM RE:What if the Belgrano had survived? 5/21/2004 2:42:43 PM

If Belgrano hadn't have been sunk and the Weather clement enough for 25 de Mayo to launch an Airstrike, you would still have alot of ground to speculate over. However given that the sinking of the Belgrano confined the Argentine Navy to port, not sinking it at that time, merely would have meant that more of the Argentine Navy would have been sunk, since the Royal Navy's SSN's were largely invulnerable to anything the Argentines had. It would have meant a sizeable increase of dead Argentines, which might have lead the Junta sueing for Peace without the need for Invasion.

Quote Reply

glenponder RE:What if the Belgrano had survived? 5/21/2004 3:38:13 PM

I think the Royal Navy wound have taken larger losses but the SSNs would have eventually sunk more of the argentine Navy. remembering that most of the argentine armed forces were conscripts and didnt want to be there in the first place and the British were looking for a fight.

Quote Reply

Mark F RE:What if the Belgrano had survived? 5/21/2004 8:23:09 PM

One wonders what Argentina really intended to do with General Belgrano. She may well have been where she was primarily to provide aircraft direction for the Argentine Air Force, or they might have tried to use her in a pincer movement against the Task Force. She wasn't a threat to the amphibious assault at any rate since the landing's hadn't occurred yet on 1 May. There is some question of the RN's ability to stop the Argentine surface group. It would almost assuredly have been suicide for the Belgrano group to take on the Task Force, but then the Sea Harrier at that time was poorly equipped to deal with a target like Belgrano and there weren't that many Exocet equipped escorts. How much impact a few Exocet's would have on Belgrano is open to quesition anyway, though the two escorting destroyers would certainly have suffered greatly with just one or two hits. Still, one sees little chance of the Belgrano group surviving any such surface engagement. The carrier group might have had some success against the main RN Task Force if the A-4's could have avoided detection long enough, but it seems unlikely they would have sunk any of the carriers.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:What if the Belgrano had survived? 5/21/2004 11:20:13 PM

The UK had 3 "standout" naval priorities. The Belgrano, the Carrier and the 2 conventional Subs I would have thought that irrespective of the Canberras detection, they would have spent considerable time in setting up a tail to find the Belgrano and the Carrier (assuming that it had sallied out) On that basis, the issue becomes the calibre of the argie ASW assets, as I can't see the RN wanting to close in on a task force or e belgrana action group without denting them with subs first. As it was, they spent ages looking for the second conventional due to its risk against their own surface assets. If the belgrano had not been tailed early, I would have thought that more subs would have been thrown into the mix. Does anyone know if other UK subs were in transit prior to the Belgranos loss?

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust Other UK subs 5/25/2004 2:22:59 AM

Answering my own question here. ;) It turns out that the UK had a few nukes in theatre. One for the belgrano, one for the de Mayo, and at least one other in the region to enforce the exclusion zone. (presumably also to HK the conventionals)

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:If Belgrano survived, 5deMayo would be sunk 5/25/2004 1:49:28 PM

Hate these half-baked "hypothetical" theories. 1. Three UK SSN's were in three assigned "kill boxes"; two were nor-north-west adjacent to Argentine coast (Sovereign) and north-west adjacent to West Falkland (Sceptre); one was south-west of East Falkland (Conqueror). There was a UK SSK (Oberon class) delivering 6 SBS into Falkland Sound. Other SSN's (the UK had 16 at this time) remain undisclosed, but all were under Flag Officer Submarines, NOT under Woodward; their tasking was to enforce the Total Exclusion Zone. 2. Task Force knew of Belgrano group from port departure and it had been acquired (not a difficult sonar target!) well to the southwest of East Falkland, "skirting" the TEZ, heading easterly but close to the extensive Burwood Bank, a sea rise shallowing at 300', across which Belgrano could sprint to attack the Task Force with little chance of Conqueror following without leaving a surface wake; i.e. the decision had to be immediate or Conqueror could lose contact. 3. Sea Harrier from Invincible on night surface patrol radar-scanned "multiple surface targets" north of West Falkland and got a Sea Dart alert from the Argentine T42's. 4. Realizing the possible "pincer", Woodward signalled Conqueror "attack Belgrano group"; which was pulled from the satellite before Conqueror received it, approved by P.M. Thatcher within 3 hours (since it was outside the TEZ) and re-sent to all SSN's as "attack Belgrano and 5deMayo groups". 5deMayo steams east, crossing from Sovereign's kill box and into Sceptre's kill box before Sovereign had time to complete a firing solution. ROE state a UK SSN (all NATO SSN's) must not enter another SSN's kill box unless they have a firing solution or are actively engaged. Sceptre now has to acquire. 5. 5de Mayo tried to launch A-4's but the air was too still; there is little to suppose these aircraft would have faired better against the UK Task Force over open water than their counterparts over the Falklands. Belgrano had still not commenced its run - it may be that Belgrano was a distraction or intended to "clean up" after the air attacks - her 4 Exocet arguably made her more of a threat than all the dumb bombs of the 5deMayo. 6. Belgrano sunk by Conqueror; 5de Mayo immediately turns for port some "minutes" before Sceptre had final firing solution and set-up for whole group. i.e. Sceptre had acquired 5deMayo and her escorts and was working into a firing position ahead of the WHOLE GROUP when her targets suddenly ran for home. Sceptre's crew have reported they were very close to multiple kills. Conclusion: (a) Belgrano was a greater threat than 5deMayo air attack which was of doubtful efficacy even if it had got airborne - but why take chances? (b) After the authority to SSNs to strike outside the TEZ, it was debatable whether Belgrano or 5deMayo would be sunk first. (c) Conquerors attack was urgent - the Burwood Bank provided nearby shallows to protect Belgrano. (d) Sceptre (a newere submarine and a "Special Fit" in RN-speak) had more sophisticated equipment than Conqueror; without the sinking of Belgrano, the whole 5deMayo group would have been at risk. Addendum: Interesting to note that Sceptre is something of a test-bed; aside from the best elint "special fit" for working against the Soviet coastline, it was also the first to receive Tigerfish Mod2 (1981), the first non-Trafalgar to get Spearfish, and the first submarine to be fitted for Tomahawk.

Quote Reply

Thomas Worcester 5/26/2004 5:24:48 AM

Good post - very enlightning.

Quote Reply

ilpars RE:If Belgrano survived, 5deMayo would be sunk - Worcester 5/26/2004 6:19:49 AM

I did not know that UK had 16 SSN's at the time. I thought Naval streghts were more close. Then why Argentine Navy risked their ships. And for that issue why risk a prodominantly naval war if your enemy has such a superiority at sea.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 NEXT