We all know it was in imperialist war of aggression against the peaceful people of the Malvinas. The Argentine troops were there at the invitation of the islanders to do general home repairs and conduct a census. War criminal Thatcher could only defeat the brave Argentineans by bringing blood thirsty mercenaries and the Americans to do her bidding.
What a peculiar re-writing of history!
Nevertheless, just like every other member, you’re entitled to express your opinion whether the rest of us agree with it or not.
Did I get that right? 😎
Now, there’s a broom over there. If you wouldn’t mind clearing up all that straw you left behind…..? :p
Moderator Message
I think this thread has completed its useful service life now.
Perhaps the OP will return at some point in the future when he has something new – perhaps even something original – to show us.
Until then……
Thanks
GA
Moderator Message
I think this thread has completed its useful service life now.
Perhaps the OP will return at some point in the future when he has something new – perhaps even something original – to show us.
Until then……
Thanks
GA
Not being a ship-ologist, can I just ask what (if any) specialised anti-sub weaponry the Belgrano was fitted with?
None, as Creaking Door rightly says. However, she was accompanied by the destroyers Piedra Buena and Bouchard both of which had specialised offensive and defensive ASW equipment on board.
An armour pearcing round would easily make a mess of a surfaced sub.
A nuclear submarine would only surface within sight of hostile surface vessels in a dire emergency.
Isn’t it possible that all of the Belgrano’s turrets were pointed outwards so as not to impede the evacuation of the stricken ship?
That seems a rather more realistic suggestion than a secret surfaced second submarine that no-one present – on either side – saw fit to mention at the time or since.
Kev, by the way, is talking eminently good sense as usual.
Not being a ship-ologist, can I just ask what (if any) specialised anti-sub weaponry the Belgrano was fitted with?
None, as Creaking Door rightly says. However, she was accompanied by the destroyers Piedra Buena and Bouchard both of which had specialised offensive and defensive ASW equipment on board.
An armour pearcing round would easily make a mess of a surfaced sub.
A nuclear submarine would only surface within sight of hostile surface vessels in a dire emergency.
Isn’t it possible that all of the Belgrano’s turrets were pointed outwards so as not to impede the evacuation of the stricken ship?
That seems a rather more realistic suggestion than a secret surfaced second submarine that no-one present – on either side – saw fit to mention at the time or since.
Kev, by the way, is talking eminently good sense as usual.
Fair play to them.
They’ve got a living to make, after all.
Fair play to them.
They’ve got a living to make, after all.
The entire salt cellar, if you ask me! 🙂
Have a look around the site, and you’ll see what I mean.
Domestic and feral cats take lots of chickens, Moggy. (no pun intended!)
Do you think they should be chased across the countryside by a pack of dogs and torn apart while still conscious?
Nuisance animals can be, and should be, shot. That’s why farmers keep shotguns, after all.
Domestic and feral cats take lots of chickens, Moggy. (no pun intended!)
Do you think they should be chased across the countryside by a pack of dogs and torn apart while still conscious?
Nuisance animals can be, and should be, shot. That’s why farmers keep shotguns, after all.
not necessary
True, but best ignored.
That’s a very long way from being an objective news source, 27vet.
….. err, foxes? 😎
….. err, foxes? 😎