Argentina's General Belgrano

[Tanz]

The General Belgrano, an Argentine cruiser, was sunk during the Falklands War on May 2nd 1982. The Belgrano was sunk by the British submarine HMS Conqueror with considerable loss of life.

 

The Belgrano was launched in 1938 as an American light cruiser – then named the USS Phoenix. The Phoenix was based at Pearl Harbour when the naval base was attacked by the Japanese in December 1941, thus bringing America into World War Two. The Phoenix was decommissioned in 1946 and sold to the Argentine Navy in 1951. In 1956, the ship was re-christened ‘General Belgrano’ after General Manuel Belgrano, a leading military figure in Argentina’s fight for independence.

 

On April 29th, 1982, the Belgrano and two destroyers were patrolling to the south of the Falkland Islands. All three ships were detected by HMS Conqueror and on April 30th, the Conqueror started her approach to them. The Belgrano was outside of the Total Exclusion Zone established by the British government around the Falkland Islands. However, at 12,000 tons fully loaded and with a decent array of weapons (including British Sea Cat missiles), the Belgrano was considered to be a threat to the Task Force even if she was outside of the Exclusion Zone. The commander of Conqueror, Chris Wreford-Brown was given the go-ahead to attack.

 

On May 2nd, the Conqueror fired three conventional torpedoes at the Belgrano. The first one hit the bow but internal bulkheads held and the damage done at this end of the Belgrano, though substantial, was not critical and there were no deaths or injuries from this torpedo.

 

The second torpedo hit the Belgrano towards the stern. Here, the explosion from the hit resulted in massive damage and caused an estimated 275 deaths from this single torpedo. The explosion caused a 20-metre gash in the Belgrano’s deck and so damaged the ship’s electrical system that the captain did not have sufficient power to put out a distress call to the nearby destroyers. The lack of power also meant that the ship’s pumps could not work and the hull quickly filled with water and smoke.

 

Twenty minutes after the first torpedo hit the Belgrano, Captain Hector Bonzo ordered the evacuation of the cruiser. Bad weather caused the scattering of lifeboats. Many of the crew were picked up and over the next two days 770 men were rescued. In total, 323 men were killed – by far the largest number in any single event during the Falklands War.

 

Questions were asked about the legitimacy of the attack especially as the Belgrano was outside of the Exclusion Zone. The British government maintained that the Belgrano still represented a threat to the Task Force and in this they were, to an extent, supported by the Belgrano’s captain. Hector Bonzo later made the point that though the Belgrano was sailing away from the Exclusion Zone, it was not sailing to its port in Ushuaia in Tierra del Fuego, It was simply moving to another unspecified position to await further orders – that could have included attacking the Task Force. The naval commander of the Task Force, Admiral Sandy Woodward, made the point that the Belgrano and its escorts were more than capable of turning about at speed and thus returning to a course towards the Task Force.

 

Also on April 23rd, the Argentine government was handed a message from the British government (via the Swiss Embassy) that it held the right to take whatever action was required to defend itself if any Argentine “warship, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft” seemed to threaten the naval Task Force. Clearly as the Belgrano was considered to be a threat, it was attacked and sunk. After the war, Argentinean Rear- Admiral Allara admitted that the whole of the South Atlantic became an operational theatre during the conflict and that the Belgrano was a casualty of war.  

 

The sinking of the ‘General Belgrano’ sent a salient message to the military junta that ruled Argentina. The Argentinean Navy after the sinking was effectively confined to port, especially their aircraft carrier, ‘Veinticinco de Mayo’. That meant their only means of attacking the Task Force was via its air force which, though it had its successes during the war, had to face an array of weaponry both at sea, and after the landings at San Carlos Bay, on land.

 

She is the only ship ever to have been sunk in anger by a nuclear-powered submarine.

 

 

 

 

HMS Conqueror

 

Specification for the General Belgrano

 

Class: Brooklyn-class light cruiser

 

Displacement:

9,575 tons (empty)

12,242 (full load)

Length: 608.3 ft (185.4 m)

Beam: 61.8 ft (18.8 m)

Draft: 19.5 ft (5.9 m)

Speed: 32.5 knots (60 km/h)

 

Complement: 1,138 officers and men

 

Armament:

15× 6"/47 cal (152 mm)

8 × 5"/25 cal (127 mm) AA

40 mm and 20 mm anti-aircraft guns

2 British Sea Cat missile AA systems (added 1968)

 

Armor:

Main Belt: 5.5 in (140 mm)

Deck: 2 in (50 mm)

Barbettes: 6 in (152 mm)

Turret Roofs: 2 in (50 mm)

Turret Sides: 6.5 in (170 mm)

Conning Tower: 5 in (127 mm)

 

Aircraft carried: 2 helicopters (One Aérospatiale Alouette III was on board when sunk)

[Crag_r]

No matter which side of the conflict you thought was in the right, rest in peace to the 323 men killed that day.

[Jumarka]

Good article.

Even today the Belgrano's loss is a harsh pill for us argentinians.

But we cant blame the UK for the loss of the ship, in a middle of a war we started.

To bad we didnt hang our admirals by the nuts after the war.

[Tanz]

Crag_r, on 20 September 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

No matter which side of the conflict you thought was in the right, rest in peace to the 323 men killed that day.

Amen to that Crag

Jumarka, on 20 September 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

Good article.
Even today the Belgrano's loss is a harsh pill for us argentinians.
But we cant blame the UK for the loss of the ship, in a middle of a war we started.
To bad we didnt hang our admirals by the nuts after the war.

I really wasn't sure if I should have even made a topic on this, due to the nature of the sinking & strong feelings about it on both sides.
Many people have probably never even heard of the General Belgrano until now but those two ship, the Belgrano & Conqueror are now and will always be an important part in the history of Naval combat.

[Zeramas]

Tanz, on 20 September 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

(...)
Twenty minutes after the first torpedo hit the Belgrano, Captain Hector Bonzo ordered the evacuation of the cruiser. Bad weather caused the scattering of lifeboats. Many of the crew were picked up and over the next two days 770 men were rescued. In total, 323 men were killed – by far the largest number in any single event during the Falklands War.

Questions were asked about the legitimacy of the attack especially as the Belgrano was outside of the Exclusion Zone. The British government maintained that the Belgrano still represented a threat to the Task Force and in this they were, to an extent, supported by the Belgrano’s captain. Hector Bonzo later made the point that though the Belgrano was sailing away from the Exclusion Zone, it was not sailing to its port in Ushuaia in Tierra del Fuego, It was simply moving to another unspecified position to await further orders – that could have included attacking the Task Force. The naval commander of the Task Force, Admiral Sandy Woodward, made the point that the Belgrano and its escorts were more than capable of turning about at speed and thus returning to a course towards the Task Force.

Also on April 23rd, the Argentine government was handed a message from the British government (via the Swiss Embassy) that it held the right to take whatever action was required to defend itself if any Argentine “warship, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft” seemed to threaten the naval Task Force. Clearly as the Belgrano was considered to be a threat, it was attacked and sunk. After the war, Argentinean Rear- Admiral Allara admitted that the whole of the South Atlantic became an operational theatre during the conflict and that the Belgrano was a casualty of war.  

The sinking of the ‘General Belgrano’ sent a salient message to the military junta that ruled Argentina. The Argentinean Navy after the sinking was effectively confined to port, especially their aircraft carrier, ‘Veinticinco de Mayo’. That meant their only means of attacking the Task Force was via its air force which, though it had its successes during the war, had to face an array of weaponry both at sea, and after the landings at San Carlos Bay, on land.

(...)

Nice reading. However I disagree in several key points.

You are trying to be impartial, and that's commendable, however you fail at the precise moment that you only provide the British name of the islands (Falklands). It would have been much more polite and respectful to add both names, since it's a zone still in conflict: Falklands/Malvinas. At least, to show respect to the deads, and to the Argentinian people. But that's the smallest mistake.

Then, your following arguments are, at least, controversial and not yet verified by both sides of the conflict, or reliable and neutral external sources; but in this post, they are still presented to us as the Truth. You only provide information from the British point of view. How is that fair? You could have mentioned the Argentinian point of view too, for the sake of fairness (and not only "Questions were asked about the legitimacy of the attack...." and then, the whole British arguments).

Read this, perhaps it will help you understand the conflict (and that precise battle action) better:

http://tiempo.infone...el-belgrano.php

Or, Google Translate version (a bit innacurate, but, if you can't read spanish...):
http://translate.goo...el-belgrano.php

It is a zone still in dispute, you cannot avoid controversy... at least not if you are clearly supporting one side's point of view on that conflict.
Neutrality means to show both points of view, both claims, and conclude nothing.

Or, you can always start the post by saying "Ok, I'm with the British in this..." And that would be clear enough.


My point of view? It was a stupid war, not wanted by the immense majorty of the Argentinian people. It was started by war criminals: a de facto military government, never chosen by the Argentinian people (who in fact, paid with many thousand lives just for thinking different, mostly left wing and moderated thinkers, tortured and killed by common criminals in uniforms, not to mention people who were tortured and survived, or people who had to flee to other countries). British reaction was absolutely expected, you cannot just attack a military power and expect to win, much less flawless.
The Argentinian people, and soldiers from both sides, paid for this criminal belligerent act.
And yet, with all that Argentinian military government's fault, the Belgrano sinking was one of those criminal acts of the war.


I don't want to feed the controversy, but I considered necessary to bring to light the always conveniently ignored Argentinian point of view. So, this will be my first and last post in this thread. Feel free to comment, investigate, disagree, troll, -1, or why not: learn... or whatever you want.

Have a nice day.

[Tanz]

ohsi, on 20 September 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

Nice reading. However I disagree in several key points.

You are trying to be impartial, and that's commendable, however you fail at the precise moment that you only provide the British name of the islands (Falklands). It would have been much more polite and respectful to add both names, since it's a zone still in conflict: Falklands/Malvinas. At least, to show respect to the deads, and to the Argentinian people. But that's the smallest mistake.

Then, your following arguments are, at least, controversial and not yet verified by both sides of the conflict, or reliable and neutral external sources; but in this post, they are still presented to us as the Truth. You only provide information from the British point of view. How is that fair? You could have mentioned the Argentinian point of view too, for the sake of fairness (and not only "Questions were asked about the legitimacy of the attack...." and then, the whole British arguments).

Read this, perhaps it will help you understand the conflict (and that precise battle action) better:

http://tiempo.infone...el-belgrano.php

Or, Google Translate version (a bit innacurate, but, if you can't read spanish...):
http://translate.goo...el-belgrano.php

It is a zone still in dispute, you cannot avoid controversy... at least not if you are clearly supporting one side's point of view on that conflict.
Neutrality means to show both points of view, both claims, and conclude nothing.

Or, you can always start the post by saying "Ok, I'm with the British in this..." And that would be clear enough.


My point of view? It was a stupid war, not wanted by the immense majorty of the Argentinian people. It was started by war criminals: a de facto military government, never chosen by the Argentinian people (who in fact, paid with many thousand lives just for thinking different, mostly left wing and moderated thinkers, tortured and killed by common criminals in uniforms, not to mention people who were tortured and survived, or people who had to flee to other countries). British reaction was absolutely expected, you cannot just attack a military power and expect to win, much less flawless.
The Argentinian people, and soldiers from both sides, paid for this criminal belligerent act.
And yet, with all that Argentinian military government's fault, the Belgrano sinking was one of those criminal acts of the war.


I don't want to feed the controversy, but I considered necessary to bring to light the always conveniently ignored Argentinian point of view. So, this will be my first and last post in this thread. Feel free to comment, investigate, disagree, troll, -1, or why not: learn... or whatever you want.

Have a nice day.

Hey, Ohsi...all good. This is what this forum is for to discuss things and learn. You post away man :Smile_great: . Also no worries about -1, or things like that from me...I'm not one of those people.

[Ariecho]

ohsi, on 20 September 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

Nice reading. However I disagree in several key points.

You are trying to be impartial, and that's commendable, however you fail at the precise moment that you only provide the British name of the islands (Falklands). It would have been much more polite and respectful to add both names, since it's a zone still in conflict: Falklands/Malvinas. At least, to show respect to the deads, and to the Argentinian people. But that's the smallest mistake.

Then, your following arguments are, at least, controversial and not yet verified by both sides of the conflict, or reliable and neutral external sources; but in this post, they are still presented to us as the Truth. You only provide information from the British point of view. How is that fair? You could have mentioned the Argentinian point of view too, for the sake of fairness (and not only "Questions were asked about the legitimacy of the attack...." and then, the whole British arguments).

Read this, perhaps it will help you understand the conflict (and that precise battle action) better:

http://tiempo.infone...el-belgrano.php

Or, Google Translate version (a bit innacurate, but, if you can't read spanish...):
http://translate.goo...el-belgrano.php

It is a zone still in dispute, you cannot avoid controversy... at least not if you are clearly supporting one side's point of view on that conflict.
Neutrality means to show both points of view, both claims, and conclude nothing.

Or, you can always start the post by saying "Ok, I'm with the British in this..." And that would be clear enough.


My point of view? It was a stupid war, not wanted by the immense majorty of the Argentinian people. It was started by war criminals: a de facto military government, never chosen by the Argentinian people (who in fact, paid with many thousand lives just for thinking different, mostly left wing and moderated thinkers, tortured and killed by common criminals in uniforms, not to mention people who were tortured and survived, or people who had to flee to other countries). British reaction was absolutely expected, you cannot just attack a military power and expect to win, much less flawless.
The Argentinian people, and soldiers from both sides, paid for this criminal belligerent act.
And yet, with all that Argentinian military government's fault, the Belgrano sinking was one of those criminal acts of the war.


I don't want to feed the controversy, but I considered necessary to bring to light the always conveniently ignored Argentinian point of view. So, this will be my first and last post in this thread. Feel free to comment, investigate, disagree, troll, -1, or why not: learn... or whatever you want.

Have a nice day.

Nice and polite way to display a different point of view (+1).

[ElvenLord]

ohsi, on 20 September 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

And yet, with all that Argentinian military government's fault, the Belgrano sinking was one of those criminal acts of the war.

Nice post, and I agree with you that being entirely neutral is difficult, in fact the Vatican found this out during WW2.... But I digress.


I would like to agree a  small point of your above post. I do not see how the sinking of the Belgrano was criminal because communications with Subs are extremely difficult. The sub had orders to sink the Belgrano, due to her aggressive posturing. By the time of the sinking, the Belgrano was no longer in an aggressive posture relative to the British forces, but by that time there was nothing the British Admiralty could do because they had to wait until the Sub surfaced in order to pass along new orders. This is one reason why Subs are not involved in Fleet actions, despite the current argument on this forum, and why Subs rarely work in concert in the same operational area. I do believe that it was a tragedy, but I will not and  cannot place the blame on the British Government, but rather on the De Facto Government of Argentina at the time because without their actions this would not have happened.

[Crag_r]

ohsi, on 20 September 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

And yet, with all that Argentinian military government's fault, the Belgrano sinking was one of those criminal acts of the war.

Look im going to have to stop you there, In 1994, the Argentine government conceded that the sinking of the Belgrano was "a legal act of war". So im not too sure how you can state otherwise?

Then again wasn't the Argentine invasion of the Falklands an illegal act of war in the first place?

[ElvenLord]

ohsi, on 20 September 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

It would have been much more polite and respectful to add both names, since it's a zone still in conflict: Falklands/Malvinas. At least, to show respect to the deads, and to the Argentinian people. But that's the smallest mistake.

In all reality that because the Argentinian theft failed, the only true name for the Islands in question is Falklands. There is no other name because Argentina failed to force the desired annexation of the said Islands. Using the proper name does not take from the dead, nor does it dishonor them. You claim that using the name Falklands dishonors the Argentinian Dead, if that is the case calling the Islands improperly by the false name Malvinas dishonors the British dead, and yes there are some. Until the International World and the citizens of the Falklands recognizes the Argentinian rule, then there is no question as to the name.

Also, Given that the official website of Her Majesty's Government of the Falkland Islands states this:

Quote

The Falkland Islands are a United Kingdom Overseas Territory by choice. Supreme authority is vested in Her Majesty The Queen and exercised by a Governor on her behalf, with the advice and assistance of the Executive Council and Legislative Assembly.

Link: http://www.falklands...Government.html


I do not believe that there is any question as to either where the loyalties of the Islands lie, or whom they recognize as their legitimate rulers.

[Ariecho]

And I think it's time to move back to ships, no matter who's right or wrong!

[ElvenLord]

Ariecho, on 22 September 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

And I think it's time to move back to ships, no matter who's right or wrong!

But...But....But... I don't wanna..... :Smile_sad:









that's how I roll :Smile_trollface:  (I always wanted to use this!!!)

[Crag_r]

Interesting enough it is the so far the last (and second) ship to be sunk in anger since the second world war by a submarine. Also HMS conqueror was using the old Mk VII torpedoes which that type of torpedo originally entered service in 1927, which at the time made the torpedo design 55 years old when used against the ARA General Belgrano.

 

Also little known fact about British intelligence over the sinking;

In late 2011, David Thorp, a former military intelligence officer who led the signals intercept team aboard HMS Intrepid, released the book The Silent Listener detailing the role of intelligence in the Falklands War. The book revealed that despite the fact that the Belgrano was observed by the Conqueror sailing away from the Falklands at the time of the attack, it had actually been ordered to proceed to a rendezvous point within the Exclusion Zone, to engage in a pincer attack. A report prepared by Thorp for Thatcher several months after the incident stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated; the report was not released because the Prime Minister did not want to compromise British signals intelligence capabilities.

[Major_Rampage]

Okay folks let's keep this thread about the ships and subs and not about the politics please.

 

Thanks,

 

Major_Rampage

[sheep21]

Nice read, thanks for posting. Regardless of the questions over the sinking its a good example of the power of the modern SSN.

 

Now lets hope this doest devolve into the same situation a certain chieftan's hatch article ended up in.

[Asesinante]

Very good information, photos, greeting you from the country if they're in another part of the world. Just let me tell you that by the time he fought that boat was already a little outdated, but hey Latin America is a peaceful but time will prove us right friend.

[sheep21]

Crag_r, on 22 September 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

Interesting enough it is the so far the last (and second) ship to be sunk in anger since the second world war by a submarine. Also HMS conqueror was using the old Mk VII torpedoes which that type of torpedo originally entered service in 1927, which at the time made the torpedo design 55 years old when used against the ARA General Belgrano.

Also little known fact about British intelligence over the sinking;
In late 2011, David Thorp, a former military intelligence officer who led the signals intercept team aboard HMS Intrepid, released the book The Silent Listener detailing the role of intelligence in the Falklands War. The book revealed that despite the fact that the Belgrano was observed by the Conqueror sailing away from the Falklands at the time of the attack, it had actually been ordered to proceed to a rendezvous point within the Exclusion Zone, to engage in a pincer attack. A report prepared by Thorp for Thatcher several months after the incident stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated; the report was not released because the Prime Minister did not want to compromise British signals intelligence capabilities.

Wasnt the plan for her to swing south then north to attach the task force while the argentine carrier formed the northern pincer? I think it went awry aswell because the Carrier couldnt get enough wind over her bows to launch her planes, a calm day in the South Atlantic, who woulda thought it!

[Syned]

sheep21, on 28 September 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

Wasnt the plan for her to swing south then north to attach the task force while the argentine carrier formed the northern pincer? I think it went awry aswell because the Carrier couldnt get enough wind over her bows to launch her planes, a calm day in the South Atlantic, who woulda thought it!

Interesting part is that all they had to do was sink ONE RN carrier and Admiral Woodward (as stated in his memoir of the war) would have called off the whole re-occupation.

[sheep21]

Syned, on 28 September 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Interesting part is that all they had to do was sink ONE RN carrier and Admiral Woodward (as stated in his memoir of the war) would have called off the whole re-occupation.

Yep, resources were that tight, no room for error. If he lost Hermes he would lose over half of his fixed wing aircraft... still luckily the Belgrano was sunk and the Argentine Navy wisely retired back to their ports for the rest of the war for the most part.

[Crag_r]

Anyway, for a bit more information for anyone that does not know too much about the Falklands war;

 

 

I apologize though if this seems a little too much in the British favor, but it is a British doco and some of my favorite presenters, and i might myself my slightly biased due to even the "Royal" part in my current sig

[thegreenbaron]

Crag_r, on 22 September 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

Also HMS conqueror was using the old Mk VII torpedoes which that type of torpedo originally entered service in 1927, which at the time made the torpedo design 55 years old when used against the ARA General Belgrano.

This is a common misconception.  The Mark 8's (Not 7's) that HMS Conqueror fired were mod 3's (iirC) menaing they had an 800 odd pound torpex warhead as opposed to the 750 pound tnt warhead of the original mark 8 as well as longer range than the older Mark 8s.  While the same overall design, they were significantly more lethal with the upgrades.

[Crag_r]

thegreenbaron, on 10 October 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

This is a common misconception.  The Mark 8's (Not 7's) that HMS Conqueror fired were mod 3's (iirC) menaing they had an 800 odd pound torpex warhead as opposed to the 750 pound tnt warhead of the original mark 8 as well as longer range than the older Mark 8s.  While the same overall design, they were significantly more lethal with the upgrades.

Hence why i said the torpedo type design...

[Syned]

thegreenbaron, on 10 October 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

This is a common misconception.  The Mark 8's (Not 7's) that HMS Conqueror fired were mod 3's (iirC) menaing they had an 800 odd pound torpex warhead as opposed to the 750 pound tnt warhead of the original mark 8 as well as longer range than the older Mark 8s.  While the same overall design, they were significantly more lethal with the upgrades.

They were still the conventional "point and shoot" that had been used since WWII basically. I dont care who you are, you do not want a torp of ANY variant hitting your ship ;)

[xthetenth]

The British had some pretty good cause to be scared of the Belgrano. If it got in close enough, it was the only ship with armor and had very heavy guns compared to anything else. Harriers aren't the best strike birds around either. The British were very hard pressed to mount a carrier task force and it showed. They got some good luck there.

[Crag_r]

xthetenth, on 05 November 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

The British had some pretty good cause to be scared of the Belgrano. If it got in close enough, it was the only ship with armor and had very heavy guns compared to anything else. Harriers aren't the best strike birds around either. The British were very hard pressed to mount a carrier task force and it showed. They got some good luck there.

Look im not doubting Royal Navy tactics at all during the war as shown from posts before, but in order to pull off an operation of this scale on Argentina's door step, and if you look at some of the battles, Luck was actually a huge factor at times.