Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Stirling, Nov 20, 2011.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Bloody missiles.
    The problem with them is they cost so much, the companies and government can`t afford to fire off enough to do a proper thorough test. Doing computer simulations is not the answer, the data out is only an extrapolation of the data in.

    I do believe the Belgrano was sunk with a WWII design torpedo, as opposed to one of the new-fangled designs also being carried, due to the fact that the early design had a proven combat record.

    Is there a real need to blast something 3,500miles away in a 30 minute window ? Wouldn`t it be better to use the vast amount of money this must be costing to have a visible presence to remind the potential targets of their vulnerability. A bit of `gunboat diplomacy`, surely the best deterrent.

    And is it really as accurate as they`re professing ? I very much doubt it. Remember the SS-20`s, so feared they got the world around the negotiating table for one of the SALT conferences. One of their derivatives was used in combat, the Scud, and that was so accurate it couldn`t even be guarenteed to hit the right country.
  2. Maybe the septics want to hit China to wipe out their trillions of debt.
  3. If the cyber crimes unit are correct theres more chance of the Chinese hacking into the Yanks system and getting them to use it on themselves.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. 1. I thought it was because the Tigerfish was known to be shite.

    2. Do I know you?
  5. I thought MK8's were used because Tigerfish was configured for anti-submarine use (at the time of the incident).
  6. In his book 100 days Sandy Woodward the task force commander stated that the MK8s were the weapon of choice because the Tigerfish was considered unreliable at the time, and as the Belgrano was heading into shallow water there would'nt have been time for a second attack on her.
  7. The Russians have a mean beast in their arsenal, SSN 22 that a flies at Mach fcuking fast and on a T42 996 radar you get about 5 paints on the screen before it hits you. Glad I'm a civvie now
  8. ISTR Jonty Powis describing on film the decision-making process which led to the choice to use Mk8 over Mk24. If my memory is correct, it'll be on u-choob somewhere.
  9. If not at Youtube its definitely in Print. Ref: the book “Sink the Belgrano”*

    Quote at Page 239:

    <<… there was a meeting at the Wardroom with the captain, the weapons engineer and the navigator, Jonty Powis:

    ‘…What weapon to use? And we all sat around the table, and we thought we’ve got a ship that was built in 1946 and a torpedo that was used in 1943 that we know works and we’ve got weapons that we are a bit worried about. Let’s used the old ones.”

    That meeting had apparently fully discussed the comparisons between the MK8s and Tigerfish.

    Quote at Page 240:

    <<…the Tigerfish had proved to be very unreliable once it had been introduced into service, and Conqueror had never been able to fire one successfully…

    …the detail that clinched the matter was that the Belgrano had a belt of 6-inch armour plating along the waterline, and the Mark 8 Torpedo had a much bigger warhead than the Tigerfish.>>

    So three Mk 8 Mod 4s were fired, from Tubes 6, 1 and 2, at approx 1857 GMT on Sunday 2nd May 1982. Two struck their target.

    *Sink the Belgrano - Mike Rossiter - Bantam Press - 1st. Edition edition (4 Jun 2007) - ISBN-13: 978-0593058428

    For the Kindle version (£4.49) see: at Sink the Belgrano eBook: Mike Rossiter: Kindle Store

  10. 800 lbs of Torpex as opposed to 360 lbs? if theres armour plating involved which would you use?
  11. Sorry Topstop, 810 lbs and 270 lbs respectively. I also seem to remember that 2 x Mk 24 Tigerfish were fired and failed, not surprisingly, leaving no option but to use the Mk 8 which were in the other tubes. The bit about the 6" armour plate is bollocks also as the Mk 24 was designed to explode under the target by magnetic proximity fuse.

    Obviously this was not allowed in the press at the time but hardly OPSEC now. The Cold War was still ongoing so nothing was told to the press about what a shit Primary Weapon the Tigerfish was hence the fast-track development of Spearfish.
  12. Remember from where/whom?
    What you imply is at total variance with the accepted official version of events (and recounted by the team, quoted in my post #10, where it is also admitted that CONQs had never previously made a successful Tigerfish firing.)

    Hardly likely that they'd tried Tigerfish first but failed then all concerned have been able to have kept that quiet ever since, is it now?

    800 vs 810lbs? Apparently the Mk8's 365Kg of Torpex = 804 lb and 10.99 oz but who's weighing?

    BTW At the time there was also a 'true dit' circulating that the third Mk 8, which missed the BELGRANO, was later discovered unexploded wedged deep in one of the escort's bows when they docked down. Apparently there were photographs around to prove it, has anyone seen them?

  13. There is conflicting reports but it seems that ARA Bouchard was struck by the 3rd torpedo. Some sites say it damaged the sonar and caused flooding but some say it was a glancing blow and only light damage was reported.

    CDG 38 – Submarine Attack: HMS Conqueror vs. AGA Belgrano, 1982 » Armchair General
    At 4 p.m. Conqueror’s outer torpedo doors were opened, and soon the three “fish” were in the water on a course to intercept Belgrano. Shortly after 4:02 p.m., as Wreford-Brown raised the periscope to observe the cruiser, a massive explosion erupted amidships on the Belgrano. The violent blast ripped through four of the cruiser’s decks, killing 272 Argentine crewmen outright and wounding scores of others. Seconds later, another Mark 8 torpedo struck Belgrano’s bow area. The two torpedoes were fatal to the Argentine cruiser, which began to list dangerously. A third torpedo missed Belgrano but struck the destroyer Bouchard’s keel. Although that torpedo failed to explode, the impact damaged Bouchard’s sonar and caused flooding.

    Then here it says light damage (I think this is the Argentinian version or RR/ARRSE) it's a bit difficult to read as it's translated by Google but you can catch most of it:

    Google Translate
    According to Bouchard's crew, a torpedo struck the ship, but failed to detonate.

    I recommend the page for details. The webmaster "Beto" Alvarez was the ship's crew, and is very accessible.

    Objectively, the position of the three vessels (Belgrano, Bouchard, Piedrabuena) Wreford-Brown reported that (the CO of the Conqueror) when launched, would be feasible for the third torpedo hit the CrBE not have continued to run straight and stuck against Bouchard (shot at 1400 yards and has a range Mk8 tenfold)

    It also is not as "miracle" that has not detonated. The torpedo was selected contact and fuse, according to recently declassified information, the ideal shot should be done with that fuse into one of the sides of the ship, with an angle to the bow of the launcher 90. The ideal was that the torpedo had the gyro set at zero, ie the course of the launcher was the same as that adopted the torpedo.

    If all this did not happen, there (more) chances that no contact fuze detonated.

    Beyond all this, I add that indeed the debut had to be "patched" to keep browsing, as presented in one of his bands condicentes damage with a torpedo hit but failed to detonate. Other languages ​​are spoken that such damage was caused by the concussion of the torpedo exploded on if CrBE.
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2011
  14. =============================================================



    Many thanks for that bit of research. It goes to illustrate how that 'true dit' had some element of truth but was expanded in myth to provide a far juicier mental image.

    Perhaps, when Ballard's descendants get around to finding & surveying the BELGRANO, they might even find some paint scratches to verify Diesel's story that 'the previously fired Tigger Fishes' bounced off. Meanwhile, may the poor souls of that ill-fated crew rest in peace.

  15. Whilst we're on the subject - was there not plans or ideas set in motion for a boat
    to have a go at zapping the *Torrey Canyon* (back in 1967 if memory serves?), when
    she ran aground ?

    I remember it gone the crap bombed out of it eventually, but I seem to remember
    that the RN was going to be tasked to get rid of her. Happened way before I joined
    up, so if any crusty sun-dodgers could shed any light on this I'd appreciate it.

    Cheers mateys,

    Last edited: Nov 26, 2011
  16. Billy,

    In short the T-C was the 'super tanker' of the day and became wrecked for the stupidest of reasons; see PS.

    A MOD salvage expert worked closely with the Dutch salvage Co. from day one when it was hoped that it could have pulled off the rocks intact but leaking badly.

    After a few days it broke up and had leaked approx 100k tons of its cargo before being set upon by the bombers to fire off the dregs of the rest.

    *Crusty? Moi? :blush: I have vague memories of the red top press clamouring for one of our boats (DREADNOUGHT even (?) - 'It's a Target, innit?') to torpedo/fire the tanker when it was beyond salvage, it may have seemed a good idea at the time but similar tanker fires in the Middle East had burned for many a long month afterwards.

    But, having googled, there is no mention of that 'Fleet Street/Naval Spokesman's scheme' nor does this Hansard debate mention such a cunning plan.
    "TORREY CANYON" (Hansard, 10 April 1967)
    "TORREY CANYON" (Hansard, 10 April 1967)


    PS - ie One of many accounts <<... only had small-scale charts; she used LORAN, but not the more accurate Decca Navigator. When the risk of collision with a fishing fleet became obvious, there was some confusion between the Master and the helmsman (who was actually the cook and had little experience) as to whether she was in manual or automatic steering mode; by the time this was resolved, it was too late...>> Torrey Canyon oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    PPS For what it's worth this incident kept quite a few Skimmers (when we still had some) quite busy too; and over a Bank Holiday:slow: <<...HMS Daring, Barrosa, Delight, Aurora, Eskimo, Carysfort, Blackwood, Clarveston, Wotton and Nurton. Another task force for the Channel Islands operations consisted of Pellew, Laleston, Belton, Highburton and Soberton....>

    Sinking of the Torrey Canyon

    PPS That last Link even has the DARING Skimmers mocking the FAA for missing with 25% of their bomb drops:-|...
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2011
  17. I know an OERA who was one of those put on the Torrey Canyon. I think he got a medal for it.
  18. Lead Pilot on the TC mission was one JJR Todd ... who apparently was the only jockey to Miss! He was my XO on Dev back in the 70's
  19. Blaster Bates tells a good tale of the Navy`s involvement with the Torrey Canyon, on his album Lift off, (volume 5).

Share This Page