They’re only a small fish somewhere in size between a sardine and a pilchard

Is it possible you could give us a more internationally recognised measurement…

…such as how many of these fish, end-to-end, would be the same length as a football pitch…

…or how many fish would weigh the same as a double-decker bus? :confused:

None.

I do. You see to be under the misapprehension that the direction her guns were facing are part of an argument about the justification for sinking the Belgrano.

Belgrano had five turrets, three at to bow and two at the stern; I’ve described them in the conventional way from the bow as A, B, C and (in the Royal Navy system) the rear turrets would be X and Y.

Sorry the photo is so grainy but it is the best I can find…..and was taken under ‘trying’ circumstances!

Here is a photograph of Belgrano (as the USS Phoenix) with the smoke of Pearl Harbor behind:

Nuisance animals can be, and should be, shot.

I worked with a former gamekeeper (and former poacher) once, he used to work on a pheasant farm…

…one year they shot over two-hundred foxes that were making a nuisance of themselves.

Kind of makes a mockery of the anti-hunting lobby ‘saving’ foxes.

They shot feral cats too.

Here is a different picture of the Belgrano that at least shows that C turret wasn’t trained to starboard when she capsized.

…I was told in an Officers mess by a gentleman with too much scrambled egg and fruit salad to be called a liar.

I don’t suppose he could have been pulling your leg?

This is the classic photograph of Belgrano sinking with her bow blown off, showing A turret trained forward, B turret trained to starboard and although it is difficult to see, C turret trained aft.

I don’t really see why firing any gun, even the 16-inch guns of the Iowa class, while trained forward would cause whiplash to the crew (that would not occur if the guns were trained on the beam) although I am aware of instances of battleships sustaining damage due to firing their own guns.

As for the beheading of American mercenaries by Ghurka troops, that sounds like a lot of other stories told about the Falklands. Some Argentines are convinced that British casualties were ‘hushed-up’ and when presented with the names of those killed claim that those figures don’t include many mercenaries that were killed, often suggesting photographs of black (or Ghurka) troops are evidence of mercenaries (being ignorant of the multicultural make-up of the British population).

I do appreciate that Britain received much assistance from America during the conflict and I also appreciate that some of this assistance is and will remain secret but that assistance was limited and probably wouldn’t have affected the eventual outcome of the war (although I have heard an Argentine claim that the only reason they lost was that they were fighting Britain and the American superpower!)

Like all good conspiracy theories, lack of actual evidence does not seem to be any hindrance, because everybody’s in on it and it’s all been covered-up and classified secret under the 100 year rule! 🙂

Even if you look at the pictures from the papers, her Guns were at anger. A ship does not sail with her Guns at anger. They only move them Port or Stbd when about to fire. A Battleship (And this was a real Battleship) will not fire with her guns in-line as the shock wave will rattle the Captains curtains. They fire abeam so the ship can roll a bit.
She was about to fire upon a sub, the RN wouldn’t comment on whether it was a Nukey or a Dervy. It could even have been a yankee sub…

Oh lordy, where do I start? :rolleyes:

Firstly, battleships and cruisers can and do fire their main armament with the guns pointing in any direction that they are able. Obviously it is desirable to be able to bring all your main armament to bear on the target and for most battleships and cruisers that means a ‘broadside’ and especially in the case of the Belgrano whose C turret normally points towards the stern and cannot bear fully forward.

Secondly, I can’t think of any good reason why the Belgrano shouldn’t have had her guns pointing any way they wanted when she wasn’t at action stations; many RN frigates and destroyers spent most of the war with their guns pointing at the bridge but that was apparently the best position to keep the South Atlantic out of the turrets…..rather than indicating mutiny! 😀

All the photographs of Belgrano sinking that I have seen show the B turret trained to starboard. Was it only this turret that was supposedly engaging a surfaced submarine?

Every account I’ve ever read about the sinking state that the attack by HMS Conqueror came as a total surprise to the Belgrano. In fact most of those killed on Belgrano were senior Petty Officers who were in a canteen area known as the ‘Soda Fountain’ when one of the torpedoes struck the ship immediately beneath them. Is it likely that these men would have been there if the ship had been at action stations and engaging a submarine?

Why has this crucial piece of evidence about the activities of the Belgrano never been used in any of the controversy that has existed about sinking of her? Surely a government under pressure would have released the name and position of any such submarine and yet I’ve never heard such a claim nor have I read such a claim in any of the many books I’ve read on the subject. Where exactly do you come by this information; can you quote any source?

You’ll have to excuse my disbelief but it seems strange to me that a mystery submarine conveniently surfaces, is detected by the Belgrano, who is about to (but doesn’t actually) fire on it with one turret of its main armament, when she is struck by torpedoes from a second submarine, HMS Conqueror, while the other mystery submarine presumably dives and continues with whatever ‘secret’ activities it was conducting when it was forced to surface in the first place.