Rum Ration
the Navy Network

Vice Admiral Sir Tim McClement KCB OBE, who was second in command on HMS Conqueror, spoke about this on the Today programme this morning.

To hear what he had to say, move the cursor to 2:22.

BBC iPlayer - Today: 02/05/2012

From the Argentinian point of view;

"It was absolutely not a war crime,’ said the Belgrano’s captain, Hector Bonzo, in an interview two years before his death in 2009.

‘It was an act of war, lamentably legal.’

Meanwhile, the Argentine admiral Enrique Molina Pico later admitted the location of the Belgrano outside the Exclusion Zone ‘did not mean it was withdrawn from the war’.

‘The integrated naval force had been deployed to carry out an attack on the British fleet in a co-ordinated operation with other naval groups,’ he wrote.

‘The heading away from the enemy fleet was only momentary, as the commander saw fit to wait for a more convenient time (to attack).

'The Belgrano and the other ships were a threat and a danger to the British.’

These admissions tally with the signals intercepts revealed by Major Thorp, which show that the Argentinian vessels had been ordered to engage in a pincer attack.



Read more: Belgrano: Britain WAS right to sink the ship before it attacked our Task Force | Mail Online

Strange how some non-military Argentines and home grown left-wingers trying to prove a point are the only ones who keep banging on about this.........but then again.

BBC News - Falklands War: HMS Conqueror remembers Belgrano sinking

Seems to me that it was wartime, the Falklands were invaded by Argentina and they refused to budge. So, if you are foolish enough to sortie your ships into an area that you have even the slightest suspicion that might have a Brit nuke prowling around, then you have to accept the fact you might indeed get shot at. I think that the Royal Navy underestimated the ability of the Argentine capability to mount a credible air campaign and it cost them dearly. I cannot for the life of me understand why the RN didn't blockade the Falklands and it would have ended with a lot less bloodshed. Of course, we have the luxury of hindsight and history has already been written. The Falklands War was a statement of the fighting spirit and tradition of the Royal Navy, but some of the strategy was flawed considering the limitations placed upon the fleet commander not having any AEW capability. I was shocked when the news reports came in that the Sheffield was left abandoned and gutted from the Exocet attack, but once again, it was an underestimation of the Argentine Navy Super Entendards to conduct that attack. I don't think that Admiral Woodward was prepared for that kind of tactic being used by the Argentines...

The difference in 1982 was a Argentinean force made up with poorly motivated conscripts VS A British task force of highly motivated volunteers. On paper the Argentines should have had the upper hand. Close to the threat, whereas we were beyond the limit of reasonable support.

If you pick a fight you cannot then say one of your combatants wasn't a threat irrespective of it's geographical locality.

As I said previously it was a valid target in a war. Good shooting on behalf of the Conqueror. War is a shit - proffessional servicemen and woman know the risks.

BBC News - Hampshire Vice Admiral defends sinking the Belgrano

Slight thread-drift, but is it just me, or does Sir Tim look a bit like Clive Anderson?