More Ships sunk by Nuclear Submarines

[Agentdark]

Yep, thats the challenge. The only ship ever sunk by a Nuclear Submarine was the General Belgrano. But lets change that, get some other powers to be involved in Wars where Nuclear Submarines are used.

Only 2 Limitations

1-This all has to occur with a POD no earlier then 1945
2-It cannot involve a Soviet-NATO War. Chinese America or Chinese Soviet Wars are fine, though frowned upon.

[Riain]

Did Nth Vietnam have any navy ships bigger than TB size? If so, have a nuke sub sink one during the Vietnam War, or perhaps a NthV merchie up to no good could cop a torp. One of those 2 Iranian Navy Corvettes that were attacked in 1988 and 89 by USN carrier aircraft could instead fall to a sub torp. I think Iraq had a Lupo frigate or 2 in 1991, perhaps one of those could sortie and be sunk by a nuke sub. Have the HMS Dreadnaught sink an Indonesian ship during the Konfrontasi. And of course the 25 De Mayo could have been sunk in 1982.

[Agentdark]

Ah, all good options

[Shimbo]

IIRC the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was stalked by HMS Spartan during the Falklands war. A bit of luck and that could easily have lead to another sinking.

[Fellatio Nelson]

Originally Posted by Shimbo

IIRC the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was stalked by HMS Spartan during the Falklands war. A bit of luck and that could easily have lead to another sinking.

She was; she could've been sunk, but it occurred during April and it might've looked bad for the British so she could not attack.

(And didn't Dreadnought sink a crippled oil tanker during the late 1960s? Or was it finished off by the RAF?)

[Agentdark]

Is there a way the Mayo could have been sunk by the Spartan?

[kojak]

Originally Posted by Agentdark

Is there a way the Mayo could have been sunk by the Spartan?

If the war dragged on longer, possibly. IIRC, the only reason that the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo wasn't sunk is that it'd reflect badly on the British politically, who were already getting flak for the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano. Apparently, it's wrong to sink ships in a time of war.

[Agentdark]

Who was giving them flak about it? Perhaps Argentine Conduct of the war is a little more vicious, or the British lose another ship or 2?

[kojak]

Originally Posted by Agentdark

Who was giving them flak about it?

I think the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano was seen as a little excessive, unwarranted or unnecessary by some at home and abroad, especially when the reports of the loss of life started being realised and reported on by the media.

[Agentdark]

Huh, and nobody bothered to comment on the loss of 2 or 3 British Destroyers?

Did Britain even sink anything besides the General Belgrano in the war?

[Fellatio Nelson]

Originally Posted by Agentdark

Who was giving them flak about it? Perhaps Argentine Conduct of the war is a little more vicious, or the British lose another ship or 2?

It was before the Task Force reached the TEZ and before the proper fighting had started.

Had they been able to relocate 25 May at the same time as the Belgrano, chances are both would've been sunk; as it was, the carrier ran back to port.

The Argies are always bitching about the Belgrano sinking. Sour grapes: not our fault if it was loaded with conscripts; it was at sea despite warnings and its exact location and intent at time of sinking was unimportant.

[Fellatio Nelson]

Originally Posted by Agentdark

Did Britain even sink anything besides the General Belgrano in the war?

1-2 large patrol craft/transports - 1 sunk by frigate gunfire and another by a Sea Skua; 1 submarine was damaged by missiles and captured at St Georgia.

About half the entire Arge air force was shot down - or destroyed on the ground by gunfire/bombing/SAS etc. - almost all of which was done by the RN/FAA.

(The RN lost 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, 1 RFA (Sir Galahad) and a large MN ship (Atlantic Conveyor), with a lot of other ships damaged by exocet, bombs/strafed.)

[Bill Garvin]

Originally Posted by Fellatio Nelson

She was; she could've been sunk, but it occurred during April and it might've looked bad for the British so she could not attack.

That wasn't a consideration. The only reason why the VdM wasn't sunk was that she was being tracked by a submarine using a towed array. She ran across shallow water and the submarine couldn't maintain contact without foulding its array and thus losing surveillance capability. By the time the submarine had regained contact, VdM was a long way away and heading for home; maintaining surveillance was considered more important than chasing after her.

If VdM hadn't run across those shoals, she would have been sunk.

[Fellatio Nelson]

Originally Posted by Bill Garvin

That wasn't a consideration. The only reason why the VdM wasn't sunk was that she was being tracked by a submarine using a towed array. She ran across shallow water and the submarine couldn't maintain contact without foulding its array and thus losing surveillance capability. By the time the submarine had regained contact, VdM was a long way away and heading for home; maintaining surveillance was considered more important than chasing after her.

If VdM hadn't run across those shoals, she would have been sunk.

She was at one point within easy range of an S-boat's sub-harpoon during the April of the campaign, but the decision was made not to proceed.

[Bill Garvin]

Originally Posted by Fellatio Nelson

She was at one point within easy range of an S-boat's sub-harpoon during the April of the campaign, but the decision was made not to proceed.

Except the Royal Navy didn't have Sub-Harpoon in April 1982. According to Norman Friedman's book World Naval Weapons, the first sub-Harpoons weren't delivered until June 1982 (it may well have been this incident that made the RN procure them)

[Riain]

Bill, wasn't the shoaling of the Burwood bank the reason why Belgrano sunk rather than the VdM? The Arg bitching was that she was sunk outside the British proclaimed TEZ, and thus it's engagement was not kosher. However the tactical considerations, where the Belgrano could break contact by heading north over the Burwood back (which is an acoustic nightmare as well as shallow) and be amongst the RN ships before the Conqueror could reaquire, overruled this ROE. Also the Belgrano would be hard to sink with the weapons the RN had in 1982, which were not well equipped to sink a ships with long range guns and armour. So the TEZ ROE were overruled in this instance and the Belgrano was engaged and sunk.

As far as the Spartan was tracking the VdM I don't think it was judged as presenting as much of a threat to warrant it's engagement outside the TEZ.

[Agentdark]

Well, I suppose this could turn into an Alternate Falklands war thread, but whatever.

Hmm, so its rather easy for the VDM to be sunk then?

[Fellatio Nelson]

Originally Posted by Bill Garvin

Except the Royal Navy didn't have Sub-Harpoon in April 1982. According to Norman Friedman's book World Naval Weapons, the first sub-Harpoons weren't delivered until June 1982 (it may well have been this incident that made the RN procure them)

The RN did have sub-harpoon before then aboard some of its subs. I wouldn't trust such a clear-cut date. I'd rather take the word of someone who was aboard her at the time and knew what the sub carried as its warload.

[Bill Garvin]

Originally Posted by Riain

Bill, wasn't the shoaling of the Burwood bank the reason why Belgrano sunk rather than the VdM? The Arg bitching was that she was sunk outside the British proclaimed TEZ, and thus it's engagement was not kosher. However the tactical considerations, where the Belgrano could break contact by heading north over the Burwood back (which is an acoustic nightmare as well as shallow) and be amongst the RN ships before the Conqueror could reaquire, overruled this ROE. Also the Belgrano would be hard to sink with the weapons the RN had in 1982, which were not well equipped to sink a ships with long range guns and armour. So the TEZ ROE were overruled in this instance and the Belgrano was engaged and sunk.

I believe that is absolutely correct; it may well be that losing VdM was the factor that made the Belgrano kill inevitable; losing one target would be unfortunate; losing both would smack of carelessness.

As far as the Spartan was tracking the VdM I don't think it was judged as presenting as much of a threat to warrant it's engagement outside the TEZ.

That's arguable; given the poor air cover over the task force, an alpha strike could have been very damaging. Having said that, the final thing about the strike (and the reason VdM turned for home) was there was insufficient wind-across-deck for the loaded Skyhawks to launch. That's the really ironic thing about the whole business,

The RN did have sub-harpoon before then aboard some of its subs. I wouldn't trust such a clear-cut date. I'd rather take the word of someone who was aboard her at the time and knew what the sub carried as its warload.

No, they didn't. The U.S. Navy deployed UGM-84A missiles on a nuclear attack submarine in September 1981. These missiles were not supplied to the Royal Navy which ordered a different version, the UGM-84B. The missiles weren't delivered (to either the Royal Navy or the U.S. Navy) until June 1982. Dates of weapons shipments are very clear-cut, there's no room for any error in them. There's a way to confirm this; equipping submarines to fire sub-Harpoon is not a matter of just saying "here they are" and adding them to the torpedo room. There are specific changes needed to the combat system on the submarine which require a refit. I'm trying to find the dates of Spartan's refits now but so far I've found she hadn't had that refit before 1985. She may have had it in 1986 but I can't conifrm that yet. On the other hand, memories, especially those a quarter of a century old are hopelessly unreliable. I wouldn't take a person's work for a specific load-out on a specific date as anything more than an unsubstantiated opinion.

[Riain]

The reason this thread could well turn into an ATL Falklands thead is because it was about the only high intensity war fought in open seas since WW2, and had some semblance of balance between the protagonists. There are a lot worse things a thread could turn into.:-)