What if the Belgrano had survived?

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

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4

Worcester RE:Planned Exocet attack 5/28/2004 4:56:37 PM

Lucky indeed. But then the RAF had a pressurization problem with the first Black Buck Vulcan, but just happened to have a back-up, fully briefed airborne; and a refuelling problem with a Victor, but just happened to have a psare tanker airborne. Is it luck or is it the quality of planning and depth of resources that mean an entire multi-aircraft mission isn't scrubbed because one (or two) aircraft go down? Difference between 1st league and the 3rd league air forces.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner RE:If Belgrano survived, 5deMayo would be sunk -Aussie Gunner 5/29/2004 3:30:56 AM

Firstly, I had a look back over the "Britains Small Wars" website and found that the PR-9 information came from there. I know that you are going to question the accuracy of it, but if you check out the work that has gone into it and the number of awards it has won, I don't see that the authors could be too far off the mark. In any case, there is no way that we can confirm that particular view, so you believe what you want to and I'll keep an open mind as to how it really happenned. In response to your last post, a great deal of what you are saying here contradicts everything that I have read, from multiple published sources, on this conflict. For instance, you are the first person that I have ever heard suggest that the Argentine Air force (not navy) used retarded rather than slick bombs. I have also read in a number of sources that the Blue Fox had a very poor look down capability. Hence the visual ID?s of bombers approaching San Carlos. Furthermore, you continually trip over your own arguments. You claimed that the British strategy was to bomb the Mayo with SHAR?s ASAP. Then you tell us that the British knew the Mayo?s location. We know from the fact that the Skyhawks tried to launch, that it was in range, so if the British knew the ships location, why didn?t they bomb it? Your analysis also ignores certain facts. For example, when the Airforce Skyhawks tried to bomb Altricty in open ocean, they met neither Type 22?s or SHAR?s. Why do you think that navy Skyhawks would definitely do so? Also, being navy pilots I would rate their chances of success in the mission once over the target as being much higher than the airforce pilots achieved. What you have said about the Sea Wolf equipped vessels guarding the carriers was true, after the first Exocet attack, but the Skyhawks were due to attack before that, so there is no guarantee of them meeting the Type 22?s. Re the Belgrano group threat, I cannot see how those ships could have come close enough to hit the transports or carriers. They would have had up to 10 Exocet armed RN Frigates and Destroyers (not to mention the SSN?s that would move in quickly, once the group?s location was known), to wade through first. Given that the Argentine navy was less professional than the RN, I think they might have only got a couple of missiles off before being sunk themselves. That would do a lot of damage, but were no risk to the vital carriers and transports, as the Skyhawks potentially were on a lucky day. As for your assessment that 4 frigates/destroyers is a good trade for 9 Skyhawks, well, you?d have to ask the families of the hundreds of sailors that would die about that one. Those losses, on one day, would have been trumpeted (rightly), as a catastrophe by the British press and would have had a significant psychological impact on both sides. Operationally, loosing 1/5th of the RN?s escort force, prior to entering San Carlos, would have stretched anti-air, anti-submarine and shore bombardment capabilities considerably. As for critising other peoples accounts of the conflicts (ie, Max Hastings, various websites), your mistakes in relation to the submarines that were operating in the conflict, and indeed in the British fleet(amongst other errors), show that you are not entirely infallible on the accuracy count yourself. I actually quite admire the amount of reading that you have obviously done on this topic, putting you on about the same par(knowledge wise, if not in terms of publishing effort), as the writers of the ?Britains Small Wars? website, that being of about the ?well read amateur enthusiest? level. Nothing to be ashamed of, by any means. I generally take such opinions at face value, until other information comes to light that contradicts them or unless they make no sense. However, I find your propensity to write off other peoples opinions and defend illogical arguments to the death a touch arrogant and compulsive. Can you give me a good reason why you are any less prone to memory lapses and misunderstandings, than say Max Hastings or other writers are? I don?t think so, so try a bit of humility and you might learn a bit more about your favourite war;-). Anyway, this is my last post on this topic, because I sense that we are going to start going around in circles very soon.

Quote Reply

Heavycamper Worcester 5/29/2004 12:01:48 PM

Hurrah for this very enlightning post. Keep up the good work. regards Heavycamper

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4