Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
BullHalsey

General Belgrano

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

158
[OBS]
Members
1,243 posts
8,997 battles

Lots of S American players, perhaps it is time they had a ship.  General Belgrano (USS Phoenix) should be pretty fierce at T8 I think.  Make it a good one, it served until the Falklands.  Why not.

Sure the British sank it by sub with a WWII era torp while it was sailing a straight line at 13 knots, with two destroyer escorts that were not actively protecting it from submarines.  Still I think those guys would appreciate a Belgrano in the game.

Edited by BullHalsey
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487
[-1]
Beta Testers
1,799 posts
18,743 battles

Back in 1971 my Destroyer was Moored right behind the General Belgrano (USS Phoenix) when we stopped off in Argentina . I remember getting off my ship and having to walk pass her on that long pier to head to town thinking to myself those are some big guns on that ship. Little did I know that's years later 750 men would drown when a British sub would sink her during the Falkland war and the united states helped in the sinking by giving the British her position...……..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
170 posts
9,785 battles


Sounds good to me.  Argentina and several other South American countries have or had ships of WWII vintage.  The Brazilians even have a Foche class CV they acquired from France.  I believe its short sighted to ignore the potential captains from South America ships they can associate directly with.  Since we are examining the possibility of including South American flagged ships then how about Africa?  Egypt is bound to have a navy and I'm embarrassed to admit I am ignorant of its size and composition along with that of any other African states navy.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[OBS]
Members
1,243 posts
8,997 battles
1 minute ago, KURT_WOLFF said:

Back in 1971 my Destroyer was Moored right behind the General Belgrano (USS Phoenix) when we stopped off in Argentina . I remember getting off my ship and having to walk pass her on that long pier to head to town thinking to myself those are some big guns on that ship. Little did I know that's years later 750 men would drown when a British sub would sink her during the Falkland war and the united states helped in the sinking by giving the British her position...……..

Sailing in a straight line at 13kts, two destroyer escorts not looking for anything, watertight doors all open.  While a war was on, yes.  Position given away or not, I assume because the British weren't able to do so themselves at the time, you can't quite excuse it.  Nonetheless the loss of life is nothing anyone wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,782 posts
14,856 battles
1 hour ago, Okie_navy_prime said:

The Brazilians even have a Foche class CV they acquired from France.

There is a premium ship waiting to happen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[ARGEN]
Members
13 posts
5,759 battles
On 19/6/2018 at 10:39 PM, BullHalsey said:

Sailing in a straight line at 13kts, two destroyer escorts not looking for anything, watertight doors all open.  While a war was on, yes.  Position given away or not, I assume because the British weren't able to do so themselves at the time, you can't quite excuse it.  Nonetheless the loss of life is nothing anyone wants.

Outside the Exclusion Area and sailing away from that 

If the BELGRANO sunk by example a British Ship, we now all we hearing of the treacherous Argentinians that broke the rules...... But that don´t happend 

Also you have right WAR and RULES don´t mix  as WWII cruisers and Nuclear SUBS

Also was a perfect operation make the Argentinian Navy go Back for his mooring because we don´t have the ASW capability to find and kill a Nuclear sub

 

BTW

The sister ship "9 De Julio" (Former USS Boise) will be in the Game

 https://thedailybounce.net/2018/03/28/world-of-warships-0-7-4-supertest-argentinian-cruiser-nueve-de-julio/

CRUCERO+BELGRANO+EJERCITONACIONAL.jpg

Edited by JGA012
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[OBS]
Members
1,243 posts
8,997 battles
4 hours ago, JGA012 said:

Outside the Exclusion Area and sailing away from that 

If the BELGRANO sunk by example a British Ship, we now all we hearing of the treacherous Argentinians that broke the rules...... But that don´t happend 

Also you have right WAR and RULES don´t mix  as WWII cruisers and Nuclear SUBS

Also was a perfect operation make the Argentinian Navy go Back for his mooring because we don´t have the ASW capability to find and kill a Nuclear sub

 

BTW

The sister ship "9 De Julio" (Former USS Boise) will be in the Game

 https://thedailybounce.net/2018/03/28/world-of-warships-0-7-4-supertest-argentinian-cruiser-nueve-de-julio/

CRUCERO+BELGRANO+EJERCITONACIONAL.jpg

Yes I am familiar with the Argentinian argument regarding the Belgrano incident; their position is that Belgrano should not have been in danger of attack where it was.  However, that war was a fairly close run thing.  It took practically everything the British could field to defeat Argentina, and they took significant losses as well.  For them to have passed an opportunity to sink the Belgrano, to let it go in safety while there was a close run war going on, would have been a tactical error on their part.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the Argentinian Navy should not have assumed such a large and still powerful ship was safe anywhere.

Also, having read the account of the commander of the British submarine, he would not have been able to attack Belgrano if it had been sailing at a proper speed, say 20 knots.  And it was a nuclear sub, yes, but it was sunk with a straight running WWII era torpedo.  Most people probably do not know that.

Reagan also called Thatcher and all but ordered her not to attack Argentina.  Monroe Doctrine and all that.  He used the strongest language possible and she still insisted, as was her right to do.

Edited by BullHalsey
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,120 posts
4,735 battles

I would still like to see Boise as Boise but I wouldn't mind Nuevo de Julio. Eh.

 

Their team narrowly missed being knocked out yesterday but they made it after all thanks to Messi and Rojo.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[ARGEN]
Members
13 posts
5,759 battles

yea 

we get to france the next saturday

but  Germany out ..... (ok was in rusia and was in summer but lost again)

Sorry But in do´t buy the Reagan call

Gb get the AIM9L sidewinder, (a decisive adventage in air combat and restricted to the USAF utill that moment )  the use if several islands for refueling also get all the Sat coverage and may other things

Also i say that the invasion was poorly planned becuse never think that Gb going to move trhe fleet. A deseperade gambit of a Military Dictadure ( i know i was 11 when the war happend)

If Argentina wait 1 year One of the carrier (the Hermes) and several of the fleet ships are schedull to retire/scrap and we will have at least 1 sq of Super Etendard armed with exocet ( 5 missiles 3 mission 2 confimed Sunk and a carrier that get to the port with a new paint job on the side) .

Aerospatile shuold pay to the Argentinian Navy Royalties for all the free publicity and the Label "COMBAT TEST" , sold more misssiles after the Malvinas War thst before

Regards

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,120 posts
4,735 battles
Just now, JGA012 said:

yea 

we get to france the next saturday

but  Germany out ..... (ok was in rusia and was in summer but lost again)

Sorry But in do´t buy the Reagan call

Gb get the AIM9L sidewinder, (a decisive adventage in air combat and restricted to the USAF utill that moment )  the use if several islands for refueling also get all the Sat coverage and may other things

Also i say that the invasion was poorly planned becuse never think that Gb going to move trhe fleet. A deseperade gambit of a Military Dictadure ( i know i was 11 when the war happend)

If Argentina wait 1 year One of the carrier (the Hermes) and several of the fleet ships are schedull to retire/scrap and we will have at least 1 sq of Super Etendard armed with exocet ( 5 missiles 3 mission 2 confimed Sunk and a carrier that get to the port with a new paint job on the side) .

Aerospatile shuold pay to the Argentinian Navy Royalties for all the free publicity and the Label "COMBAT TEST" , sold more misssiles after the Malvinas War thst before

Regards

 

 

 

 

 

France versus your country should be an interesting match up. I'll be watching. Yesterday Nigeria almost got another goal more than 90 minutes into the match, but thanks to your goalkeeper (was it still Caballero?) fate was avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[ARGEN]
Members
13 posts
5,759 battles

Thanks to good , buda,shiva, mahoma, big bird in the sky, aliens NO is not caballero

 

Edited by JGA012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
3,130 battles
On 27/6/2018 at 1:02 PM, BullHalsey said:

Yes I am familiar with the Argentinian argument regarding the Belgrano incident; their position is that Belgrano should not have been in danger of attack where it was.  However, that war was a fairly close run thing.  It took practically everything the British could field to defeat Argentina, and they took significant losses as well.  For them to have passed an opportunity to sink the Belgrano, to let it go in safety while there was a close run war going on, would have been a tactical error on their part.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the Argentinian Navy should not have assumed such a large and still powerful ship was safe anywhere.

Also, having read the account of the commander of the British submarine, he would not have been able to attack Belgrano if it had been sailing at a proper speed, say 20 knots.  And it was a nuclear sub, yes, but it was sunk with a straight running WWII era torpedo.  Most people probably do not know that.

Reagan also called Thatcher and all but ordered her not to attack Argentina.  Monroe Doctrine and all that.  He used the strongest language possible and she still insisted, as was her right to do.

Well... I think kill 700+ people in no war zone is murder... and for you its "okay",amazing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[BIER]
Members
58 posts
1,287 battles
3 hours ago, moretti6 said:

Well... I think kill 700+ people in no war zone is murder... and for you its "okay",amazing...

Well, considering there was a, you know, WAR going on, military targets wherever they might be are valid. Just because the Belgrano wasn't in the EZ doesn't mean it wasn't a very valid (and valuable) target.  

The "exclusion zone" really was more of a "don't go here if you're a civilian" zone, and mostly aimed at 3rd party countries (i.e. everyone else but Argentina) to let them know that they could be shot on (accidentally) if they got in a place where combat between the belligerents would be likely. It's also not some sort of actual legal limit - that is, nothing in international law (custom or treaty) says that only in declared zones can combat occur when two sides fight.

When two countries are at war, there are no "no war zone" areas for the military assets of either side. It's really that simple, and that obvious. 

And don't give me that "but no one declared war" crap, either. Governments generally don't bother to declare war since, well, the 1950s. Armed conflict is armed conflict, and the rules of war apply whether or not a formal declaration of war has been made (by either side). De facto war is the same as de jure war, legally, morally, and practically.  You get just as dead either way.

And the rules of war clearly state that the Belgrano was a military vessel of one of two belligerent forces.

 

This applies elsewhere, to things like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US vessels were clearly *militarily* aiding one belligerent in a war, and thus were completely valid targets for North Vietnam to attack.

Edited by LAnybody
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,227 posts
6,194 battles
3 hours ago, moretti6 said:

Well... I think kill 700+ people in no war zone is murder... and for you its "okay",amazing...

 

16 minutes ago, LAnybody said:

Well, considering there was a, you know, WAR going on, military targets wherever they might be are valid. Just because the Belgrano wasn't in the EZ doesn't mean it wasn't a very valid (and valuable) target.  

The "exclusion zone" really was more of a "don't go here if you're a civilian" zone, and mostly aimed at 3rd party countries (i.e. everyone else but Argentina) to let them know that they could be shot on (accidentally) if they got in a place where combat between the belligerents would be likely. It's also not some sort of actual legal limit - that is, nothing in international law (custom or treaty) says that only in declared zones can combat occur when two sides fight.

When two countries are at war, there are no "no war zone" areas for the military assets of either side. It's really that simple, and that obvious. 

And don't give me that "but no one declared war" crap, either. Governments generally don't bother to declare war since, well, the 1950s. Armed conflict is armed conflict, and the rules of war apply whether or not a formal declaration of war has been made (by either side). De facto war is the same as de jure war, legally, morally, and practically.  You get just as dead either way.

And the rules of war clearly state that the Belgrano was a military vessel of one of two belligerent forces.

 

This applies elsewhere, to things like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US vessels were clearly *militarily* aiding one belligerent in a war, and thus were completely valid targets for North Vietnam to attack.

gf6RcFi.png

Tl;DR.... the Argentine Navy and Belgrano's own Captain said it was a legal act of war and the Courts agree with them. and even if it was Murder.... the Argentine Junta is responsible for it all due to its illegal act of war by invading the sovereign British territory of the Falklands to begin with.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,423 posts
3,367 battles

...And this is why they went with ARA Nueve de Julio instead.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
3,130 battles

British territory... on south america... on Argentina lands.... or that islands os close to gk ? , is not...

 

1 hour ago, Landsraad said:

...And this is why they went with ARA Nueve de Julio instead.

Its a ship, like the rest in game,we only interchange some opinions relax.

 

I think that ship can be a hot sale ship in our country, like the Roma for italians for example.

Edited by moretti6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[OBS]
Members
1,243 posts
8,997 battles
On 7/10/2018 at 4:07 AM, Landsraad said:

...And this is why they went with ARA Nueve de Julio instead.

Lol, you may be right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[OBS]
Members
1,243 posts
8,997 battles
On 7/10/2018 at 3:13 AM, 212thAttackBattalion said:

 

gf6RcFi.png

Tl;DR.... the Argentine Navy and Belgrano's own Captain said it was a legal act of war and the Courts agree with them. and even if it was Murder.... the Argentine Junta is responsible for it all due to its illegal act of war by invading the sovereign British territory of the Falklands to begin with.

I'm trying to recall any other occasion in history when a fully operational naval combatant vessel was sunk by naval forces belonging to a nation it was currently in open war with, that was later described as murder.  The Falklands Was an all out actual war, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,227 posts
6,194 battles
1 hour ago, BullHalsey said:

I'm trying to recall any other occasion in history when a fully operational naval combatant vessel was sunk by naval forces belonging to a nation it was currently in open war with, that was later described as murder.  The Falklands Was an all out actual war, right?

Some people try to claim it is murder through some very stretched legal gymnastics mainly for propaganda reasons.... of course no one with half a brain and/or some knowledge of the Laws of Armed Conflict calls it murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[OBS]
Members
1,243 posts
8,997 battles
5 minutes ago, 212thAttackBattalion said:

Some people try to claim it is murder through some very stretched legal gymnastics mainly for propaganda reasons.... of course no one with half a brain and/or some knowledge of the Laws of Armed Conflict calls it murder.

I have to chalk it up to the Argentine vs Great Britain aspect.  If the Argentinians had managed to sink the UKs flat top while en route and outside of the "exclusion zone" or whatever, do you imagine it having been called murder?

I'd instead say that the Argentinians gave the Brits a genuine run for their money.  They perhaps gambled that there wouldn't be a military response to their actions, and without Thatcher, there very well may not have been.  It IS true that Reagan called Thatcher and all but ordered her not to attack.  The entire affair was executed on the thin edge.

You can't poke the proverbial bear, even one that had to send its full capability just to deal with a South American country, then claim exclusion zones and murder when things don't go your way.

The Argentinians gave a good showing of themselves in the war, they fought the Brits hard.  And lost.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
3,130 battles

We only want a historical ship on the game, if you guys have problems with the history is another thing.

 

Remember: WE ONLY WHANT A SHIP IN THE GAME.

 

1 hour ago, BullHalsey said:

I have to chalk it up to the Argentine vs Great Britain aspect.  If the Argentinians had managed to sink the UKs flat top while en route and outside of the "exclusion zone" or whatever, do you imagine it having been called murder?

I'd instead say that the Argentinians gave the Brits a genuine run for their money.  They perhaps gambled that there wouldn't be a military response to their actions, and without Thatcher, there very well may not have been.  It IS true that Reagan called Thatcher and all but ordered her not to attack.  The entire affair was executed on the thin edge.

You can't poke the proverbial bear, even one that had to send its full capability just to deal with a South American country, then claim exclusion zones and murder when things don't go your way.

The Argentinians gave a good showing of themselves in the war, they fought the Brits hard.  And lost.

You are right, i whould have preferred a diplomatic solution... but we have a militar and no legitimal government :C , i dont live that age, i born on the 1994 and the war whas on 1982.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[OBS]
Members
1,243 posts
8,997 battles
19 minutes ago, moretti6 said:

We only want a historical ship on the game, if you guys have problems with the history is another thing.

 

Remember: WE ONLY WHANT A SHIP IN THE GAME.

 

You are right, i whould have preferred a diplomatic solution... but we have a militar and no legitimal government :C , i dont live that age, i born on the 1994 and the war whas on 1982.

Eres un hombre inteligente.

Stupid [edited]auto correct

South America has always been a fun place when it comes to military governments, hasn't it?  I dated a French girl who used to play with Pinochet's children as a girl.  Small world my friend.  Chile of course but similar theme.

Edited by BullHalsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[LRM]
Supertester
550 posts
5,054 battles
On 7/11/2018 at 7:39 PM, BullHalsey said:

Eres un hombre inteligente.

Stupid [edited]auto correct

South America has always been a fun place when it comes to military governments, hasn't it?  I dated a French girl who used to play with Pinochet's children as a girl.  Small world my friend.  Chile of course but similar theme.

Chile, Argentina, Venezuela... take your pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[OBS]
Members
1,243 posts
8,997 battles
10 minutes ago, DonKarnage2 said:

Chile, Argentina, Venezuela... take your pick.

The whole of S America has always been a hot pot of revolutions and oppression.  I'm going to say Brazil has emerged strongest, and that is almost certainly due to German influence.

I spent several weeks in Ecuador in 1990; only time I've been driven around in a '58 De Soto with no tire at all on the left rear.  Yeah that's right, the cabbie was driving a 30+ year old cab on a bare wheel rim, in the capital city.

At 11 years old I got out and looked for the source of our weird rough ride and that's what I saw.  No tire at all.

Edited by BullHalsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[LRM]
Supertester
550 posts
5,054 battles
5 minutes ago, BullHalsey said:

The whole of S America has always been a hot pot of revolutions and oppression.  I'm going to say Brazil has emerged strongest, and that is almost certainly due to German influence.

I spent several weeks in Ecuador in 1990; only time I've been driven around in a '58 De Soto with no tire at all on the left rear.  Yeah that's right, the cabbie was driving a 30+ year old cab on a bare wheel rim, in the capital city.

At 11 years old I got out and looked for the source of our weird rough ride and that's what I saw.  No tire at all.

Haven't made it to South America. Have visited Mexico, Honduras, and Belize several times though. Nice places, overall. Not the same as the U.S. but not bad at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×