Telegraph: "Belgrano Was Heading To The Falklands, Secret Papers Reveal"

#2
I wonder if Tam Dalyell will now wind his neck in and apologise ... Takes a man to hold is hand up and apologise but a snake to crawl away (guess who is watching his son watching Jungle book on TV ...)
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#5
If true, it certainly adds a new dimension to this (rather heated) thread which questioned the ethics of the sinking of the Belgrano, four and a half years ago:

Read your account on the Belgrano sinking. The 'Pincer Movement' was a fallacy. Ventcinco de Mayo was struggling with a propulsion problem at the time and was in no real state to partake in the conflict being reduced in speed enough to make flightdeck work perilous. Plus the fact, they were well aware we had hunter-killers loitering off their coasts. The bald fact that John Nott goes public stating that any Argentine forces found within the 200 mile exclusion zone will be dealt with and then we send one of their ships to the seabed outside the TEZ (whilst it is knowingly returning to Ushuaia) is one such story I suppose we will never get to the bottom of. Were the Belgrano Group closing in on the Carrier Group and readying for engagement, I doubt there is anyone (including me) who would counter what Conquorer did. For me, all it did was tip the balance in favour of armed conflict; a blatant act of aggression.

Levers
http://www.navy-net.co.uk/current-affairs/35883-falklands-25-supplement-2.html
 

pg55555

Lantern Swinger
#6
.

PLEASE will people stop getting sidetracked.

The TEZ is a red-herring. The government had already announced that ANY Argentinian warship ANYWHERE was a target (*). By trying to ignore this and concentrating on lesser announcements Tam Dyal (and others) made a mountain out of a non-existent molehill which others (particularly lazy journalists) have continued to climb making false and misleading claims,

Just remember there WAS a war and the Belgrano was a declared target - do not go off at false tangents.


====================

Extract from wikipedia article (MY BOLDING) :-

"............... Though the ship was outside the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action—on 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read:
In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.[18]
Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, The Fight For The Malvinas, indicated that Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked. Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of, said "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano".[18]
The modified rules of engagement permitted the engagement of Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking.[19] ............. "

.






.
 

wet_blobby

War Hero
Moderator
#7
Hindsights a wonderful thing eh?

Exclusion zones are for civvies, I.E "dont bother coming in here mate you might be mistaken for a bad guy and sunk/shot down"

Naval warships cutting about at sea in time of war are legitimate targets, be that the Argentinians sinking the RFA's off the bay of Biscay or Jack sinking a warship somewhere near the Falklands. Shit happens. Bloody good call by Maggie if you ask me, she showed even bigger balls after the event by keeping the INT secret and taking it on the chin.
 
#8
Hindsights a wonderful thing eh?

Exclusion zones are for civvies, I.E "dont bother coming in here mate you might be mistaken for a bad guy and sunk/shot down"

Naval warships cutting about at sea in time of war are legitimate targets, be that the Argentinians sinking the RFA's off the bay of Biscay or Jack sinking a warship somewhere near the Falklands. Shit happens. Bloody good call by Maggie if you ask me, she showed even bigger balls after the event by keeping the INT secret and taking it on the chin.
It must have been rather frustrating for her in the face of all the un-informed criticism. I would have cracked and told that bint on that Newsnight interview where to shove it, but hey I wasn't and am not and, unless I have plastic surgery to change the direction of my arse, 'cos whilst it still points down, I'll never be a politician.
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#9
Bloody good call by Maggie if you ask me, she showed even bigger balls after the event by keeping the INT secret and taking it on the chin.
You raise an interesting point with regard wrongly alleged "war crimes" Blobbs.

Wonder if the 30 year 'rule' with regard secrecy will finally lay this ghost to rest by publishing the findings? Falklands 'war crimes' claim: MoD investigates allegations that Paras shot Argentine prisoners - News - The Independent

.PLEASE will people stop getting sidetracked.
Whoops.
 

wet_blobby

War Hero
Moderator
#10
Didn't the Paras eat unborn collabarators babies and bring their own bailey bridge down south so they could snuggle down next to it in their harbour area and relive past glories before single handledly rounding up every tv crew in theatre to film them doing soldier type stuff?
 

Blackrat

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#11
Didn't the Paras eat unborn collabarators babies and bring their own bailey bridge down south so they could snuggle down next to it in their harbour area and relive past glories before single handledly rounding up every tv crew in theatre to film them doing soldier type stuff?
No. That was the Gurkhas.

Just out of interest, does anyone know how far Atlantic Conveyor was from the Islands when she was sunk?
 
#12
No. That was the Gurkhas.

Just out of interest, does anyone know how far Atlantic Conveyor was from the Islands when she was sunk?
c. 90 miles NE of Port Stanley. She came under attack on May 25th 1982 but didn't actually sink. Midships and stern section (bow section missing) sank while being towed on May 28th 1982.
 

Blackrat

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#13
c. 90 miles NE of Port Stanley. She came under attack on May 25th 1982 but didn't actually sink. Midships and stern section (bow section missing) sank while being towed on May 28th 1982.
Cheers Sol. From memory, i believe the Argies thought they had sunk a carrier (initially anyway). I stand by to be corrected.
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#14
Arguably the Argentines saw it as another propaganda coup - they were certainly the victors with regard 'spin', causing much anguish in UK.

The British propaganda, by contrast, was non existant.

As it's difficult to research online with a mobile- anyone know what the findings were with regard the allegations that mercenaries from the US fought alongside the Argentinians?

Certainly it was rumoured during the actual conflict.
 
#15
Lets be honest with one another!!!! it was of no interest where the Ex USS Phoenix, was going....... She was of no danger to the task force. IMHO
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#16
Lets be honest with one another!!!! it was of no interest where the Ex USS Phoenix, was going....... She was of no danger to the task force. IMHO
I'd have to entirely disagree.

It will be interesting to see the release of documents released under the "30 year rule" this next year.

The only thing I found with regard US Mercenaries in the Falklands was this thread on ARRSE, from 2005, which seems to debunk the report: Did any US Forces Serve In The Falklands? It's a shame that the MOD & civilian police inquiry findings do not appear in the public domain in support of the denial to lay this ghost to rest. Sadly the rest of the thread goes off on a tangent taking the piss out of the hugely expensive and largely unsuccessful RAF "Black Buck" long range bombing missions. Ha, well at least that folly won't be repeated. eh? (Libya aside).

What was interesting was Magic Mushrooms comment about RAF Canberra flying on recce from Chile:

US forces provided no AAR or direct strat recce during the conflict. In the case of the former, at the time we had no boom reciever types and the attachment to allow our fast jets to take fuel off the boom is/was universally hated. As far as strat recce goes, the US did provide SIGINT information and there are persistent rumours that Chile allowed RAF Canberra PR9s (and other assets) to operate from their territory. ;)

As far as I'm aware, USAF/USMC/USN exchange aircrew on RAF and RN aircraft were also excluded (certainly non flew Harriers or SHARS in the conflict).

Regards,
MM
However this coment from here: Chile seems at odds:

spyflight.co.uk said:
Eventually three Canberra PR9s were delivered to Chile on 15 Oct 82 – long after the war had finished


Interestingly, during the conflict 'we', the Navy, were only at actions station during daylight hours as there was initially doubt with regard the Argentine capability to strike at night. It later transpired there was sporadic high level inaccurate bombing from Canberra aircraft around our anchorages and deployed UK troops of a night time. Perhaps the RAF were operating from Chile after all? :-D




 

fishface

MIA
Book Reviewer
#18
Standing by for a verbal slap:

Isn't time to start putting this issue to bed. The BG was a arg warship, we were at war with the arg, we sunk it. End of?
 
#19
Standing by for a verbal slap:

Isn't time to start putting this issue to bed. The BG was a arg warship, we were at war with the arg, we sunk it. End of?
And as we are all men and women of the sea, we should take no joy in that fact. I remember that there was no rejoicing in my messdeck when the news broke, it was not a thing to celebrate, but the opening of a larger conflict that claimed so many lives. Too many of us spent time swimming in those waters, whether we were British or Argentine.
 

Rocket_Ron

Lantern Swinger
#20
Lets be honest with one another!!!! it was of no interest where the Ex USS Phoenix, was going....... She was of no danger to the task force. IMHO
Whoa fella.
The age of the battleship had died 50 years previously, but that doesn`t mean that letting something that can fire a ton of shell 20 miles away, run loose is a good idea. If it had got among the lightweight carriers, escorts, or god forbid the merchants, then it would have been a war changer. No commander, whether strategic or tactical, should allow an asset like that free range. But as T42Stoker alludes, there`s no joy in the loss of a fine ship and its crew.
 

Similar threads