Something I actually sat and watched, with great interest, last night:
Belgrano Was Fair Game
Secret History: Sink The Belgrano (C4)
An extraordinarily balanced documentary last night revived the controversy around the sinking of the Argentine cruiser, the General Belgrano, during the Falklands war 22 years ago.
A frank admission by a British commander, and a secret revealed by the captain of the Belgrano in the course of this gripping documentary – will probably stand as the final, decisive words spoken about a conflict described disparagingly at the time by one observer as: ‘Two bald men fighting over a comb.’ Despite heavy British losses at sea and on land, the debate over our recovery by force of the Falklands after they had been invaded by Argentina – pursuing its longstanding claim to the ‘Malvinas’ – always swirled around the sinking of the Belgrano.
Did she represent a real and present danger to the British task force, or was the Belgrano sailing away from any possibility that she might sink any British ships? And was it somehow unsporting of the Royal Navy to sink her while she was outside the 200-mile exclusion zone imposed around the islands by the British government?
This was the first question answered by producer Amy Doyle’s Secret History, made by the National Geographic magazine’s film division.
The purpose of the zone was to prevent the Argentinian forces already occupying the Falklands from receiving supplies and reinforcements. But that did not rule out any action against the Argentine navy outside the zone.
According to an historian of the conflict, the Argentine military junta was advised by the British, via a message conveyed through the Swiss embassy in Buenos Aires, that any ‘approaching’ military vessels posing a threat to British forces were likely to be attacked.
The Belgrano, as it happened, was 35 miles outside the 200-mile limit when she was sunk by the nuclear submarine, HMS Conqueror, on May 2, 1982.
However, critics have made much of the Argentine cruiser’s manoeuvres shortly before she was torpedoed by Conqueror.
She was certainly sailing west, away from the Falklands, along with her two destroyer escorts, but only so that she could return the following day, said Argentine sources.
But, according to Admiral Sandy Woodward, the British task force commander, the danger the Belgrano still represented was to the British aircraft carriers in the task force.
‘The carriers were mission critical,’ he said. ‘If you lose them, you lose your air force, and if you lose that, you’re done – it’s all over.’
STRANGELY, Conqueror and two other submarines sent to the South Atlantic, were not under Woodward’s command, but London’s. Nevertheless, it was he who ordered the attack on the Belgrano, an order that had to be relayed by London.
‘We were all of one mind,’ said Woodward, ‘that the Belgrano must go.’ The importance of the testimony given by Captain Hector Bonzo, in command of the Belgrano, was his frank admission that the Argentine navy and air force had ‘aggressive’ rules of engagement.
‘I already had orders to fire on any British warships that came within range,’ he said. ‘We were not just to cruise around on patrol. Our mission was to attack. Our people were highly trained – we were keen to pull the trigger.’ The Belgrano was an old ship, launched in 1938 for the American navy, which called her Phoenix. She was armed with 15 six-inch guns and eight four-inch, and antiaircraft batteries all round the ship.
But like any surface vessel, she was susceptible to attack by submarine.
For some unexplained reason, her escorts’ sonar system, which could detect submarines, were switched off when Conqueror attacked just before 4pm. The Belgrano’s crew were changing shifts and were not at action stations. Nor were her watertight doors closed.
The most harrowing section of the programme was the description of the chaos and destruction aboard when the torpedoes struck, first amidships and then in the bow.
A total of 323 sailors were killed, some during the attack and others on escape rafts where they froze to death, died of wounds, or were simply swept away and lost.
No doubt the programme will be shown in Argentina, where Admiral Woodward’s final words will be noted, perhaps with bitterness, possibly with pride at the efforts of their own forces.
‘If the Argentinians hadn’t given in on June 14, we would probably have failed on about June 21. We were wearing out, but they wore out first – just as well.’
Source: The Daily Mail (6th July, 2004)
—
Steve ~ Touchdown-News
By: GoldenDragon - 10th July 2004 at 23:01
Well, nobody would have complained if it wasn’t outside the fire zone that the British themselves declared. Also thinking they’re in a “safe” area might possibly have been the reason for the Belgrano’s escorts to leave their sonars off (still an incredible thing to do in light of a war.)
By: Mike Echo - 10th July 2004 at 22:07
I don’t give a penny for the argument that since the cruiser was heading West, she should be left alone. Given the mobility of a ship, she could be going East at 30 knots 5 minutes later…. 🙁
I always thought Belgrano had Exocet’s of her own, so it was quite interesting to hear otherwise. Still, with those 6 inch and the armour she could possibly made short work of the British fleet down there.
Anybody know the armour piercing qualities of an Exocet?
I guess the Belgrano was designed to withstand at least 5 inch, possibly 6 inch shells, but don’t have a clue as to compare a shell with a missile 🙂
By: google - 9th July 2004 at 16:27
She still retained her bofors quad mounts from WWII?
By: Camaro - 9th July 2004 at 15:20
ok guys, the link on my previous posting is working now. 😉
Camaro.
By: Jonesy - 9th July 2004 at 15:00
Ja,
What I want to know is, why was the Belgrano a higher target than that of the Carrier 25 de Mayo?
Simple answer – it wasn’t a higher prority target!. It was just the first priority target to be located and tracked. The carrier managed, much to Sandy Woodwards consternation, to keep clear of the SSN that was searching for her and, while we had RAF Nimrod aircraft ‘assisting’ the RN with radar recce sweeps, they kept sending us after spurious ‘large surface’ contacts so we never actually fixed her until she’d turned back to home port. At that time, Woodward said, with the carrier nearing base, and with the sinking of Belgrano, the decision was taken that no attack on it would be allowed.
By: Ja Worsley - 8th July 2004 at 12:27
What I want to know is, why was the Belgrano a higher target than that of the Carrier 25 de Mayo? Yes the Carrier returned to port after the Belgrano sunk and took no further part in the war (mainly because I’ve heard that she had major engine troubles and the catapult had done it self in). but Wouldn’t the Belgarno have tucked tail had the carrier been sunk?
By: Phil Foster - 8th July 2004 at 12:16
“Cynical mode on”
I’m sure that if the RN had not sunk the Belgrano and they had lost the carriers or any ship to her for that matter, the media would be attacking the British for being gullible, naive, arrogantly over confident and downright stupid for NOT sinking her.
It was a dirty job that had to be done but as is usually the case (or so it seems) we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
“Cynical mode off”
I’m glad somebody is looking at this incident with an objective view at long last.
By: Jonesy - 7th July 2004 at 23:59
Yeah same here.
By: google - 7th July 2004 at 23:58
Thanks for the website Camaro, but I’m having trouble loading it…?
By: Camaro - 7th July 2004 at 22:23
http://www.malvinasmdp.org.ar/Fotos%20ARA%20General%20Belgrano.htm
the link above has many pics about Belgrano, including its final moments and a pic of conqueror.
Camaro
By: Jonesy - 7th July 2004 at 20:46
Always amuses me how Sandy Woodward developed a flair for the dramatic after ‘100 days’ was published!.
The line about it being ‘a good job the Argentines packed in on 14 June’ always puts me into hysterics!. Woodward had plans in hand, before the Task Force even arrived at the Falklands, for a prolonged conflict extending through the South Atlantic winter. Fought in the manner that the war was prosecuted put us on a higher optempo footing that necessitated a quicker victory – which was why the timetable was set for an assault on Stanley, thusly a conclusion to the conflict, before the last week in June.
For Woodward to make the intimation that, had the Argentines held-on for one more week, the eventual outcome could have been vastly different is being selective with the facts to say the very least!.
That was actually pointed out during the documentary, but not in the review I posted. The Belgrano itself was never really a direct threat to either of the RN carriers…but the two destroyers that were sailing in the Belgrano “battle group” both carried Exocet missiles.
In that case the documentary was also a little selective with the facts!. The Belgrano may have been almost a relic when compared to the modern bells&whistles destroyers and frigates it was facing BUT it was a relic protected by several thousand tons of armour plate packing a serious shell throw-weight!. Woodward himself realised, and noted, that he had only two weapons systems available to him that would be able to seriously hurt Belgrano. Those being 1000lb’ers from the seriously overstretched SHAR fleet and the 21″ Mk8 torpedoes carried by the subs. Had Belgrano, evaded the SSN’s (as the carrier managed to do) and managed to get inside of guns range to the fleet it could very conceivably wreaked absolute havoc on our ships. It was very definitely a threat that could not be ignored!.
The course issue is also a bit of a fallacy as well. The important thing was the ships position more than its course. As I remember the charts it was just to the west of the Burdowood Bank, west of the TF’s position, an area of shallow water decidedly unfriendly to submerged SSN’s attempting to remain covert. The scare was that, had the Belgrano group turned back east and plugged in a speed run, that Conks wouldnt have been able to keep track on the group through the shallows. Losing touch with the group was not something that could be risked so the firing order to Conqueror was a necessity…simple as that unfortunately.
By: Steve Touchdown - 7th July 2004 at 16:06
Exocets were never fitted.
For a complete history of the ship itself:The Strange History of the Phoenix
That’s correct, Glenn.
That was actually pointed out during the documentary, but not in the review I posted. The Belgrano itself was never really a direct threat to either of the RN carriers…but the two destroyers that were sailing in the Belgrano “battle group” both carried Exocet missiles.
The only thing that I didn’t find answered in the documentary was why many of the sailors had to jump directly into the Atlantic (rather than into lifeboats/rafts) which was only just above freezing. There were around 20-23 minutes between the torpedo strikes and the order to abandon ship, so was she simply not carrying enough equipment to cope with the survivors?
Something else I didn’t know was that the Belgrano was unable to contact the other ships in her group (radio knocked out by the torps) that were sailing several miles to the North, so neither were aware she’d even taken a hit.
Steve ~ Touchdown-News
By: google - 7th July 2004 at 15:38
Anyone have a pic of the Belgrano after the modest refit?
Thanks
By: GDL - 7th July 2004 at 14:52
Yes, it was the ex-USS Pheonix, of the Brooklyn class.
In the 70s she went through a refit, recieving british Seacat missiles and new radars. I don´t know if the Exocet missiles were ever installed.
Regards
Exocets were never fitted.
For a complete history of the ship itself:The Strange History of the Phoenix
By: Spectral - 7th July 2004 at 14:47
Yes, it was the ex-USS Pheonix, of the Brooklyn class.
In the 70s she went through a refit, recieving british Seacat missiles and new radars. I don´t know if the Exocet missiles were ever installed.
Regards
By: google - 7th July 2004 at 14:37
CL.
Light Cruiser ( armed with six-inch guns)
If it were a heavy cruiser ( CA) it woull have eight-inch guns.Regards
Brooklyn class, with 5x triple-gun turrets? Pretty old ship to have served until the 80s… Did the Argentines upgrade her?
By: Spectral - 7th July 2004 at 14:35
CL.
Light Cruiser ( armed with six-inch guns)
If it were a heavy cruiser ( CA) it woull have eight-inch guns.
Regards
By: google - 7th July 2004 at 13:55
The Belgrano was the ex-USS Phoenix, Pearl Harbor veteran, right? Was that a CL or CA?
Sign In
July 7, 2004 at 12:16 am