The ARA General Belgrano isn't sunk

Following the sinking of the General Belgrano, the Armada of the Republic of Argentina excluding a submarine which was able to cause a considerable amount of havock without sinking anything, stayed in port. Suppose that the Captain of HMS Conqueror had not been authorised to attack the Belgrano, would the outcome have been different? Would there have been a chance of a compromise settlement i.e restoration of British administration on a leaseback agreement and the return of South Georgia to the UK

However it should be remembered that the Belgrano wasn't on a goodwill cruise and may have been manouvering for an attack at a later date. We may well have cracked their codes but didn't wan't to reveal it for obvious reasons. An air attack on Port Stanley a few days before resulted in heavy casualties and may have precluded any settlement irrespective of the sinking of the Belgrano. Had the Argentinians been in a position to sink a major Royal Navy ship they would probably have done the same irrespective of exclusion zones

If the Belgrano had gone on to sink a Royal Navy warship, would all the questions be about why wasn't she sunk when we had the chance?
Within 10 years the ARA was working alongsidse the Royal Navy in the Armilla Patrol. At least this one was over fairly quickly unlike Iraq, Afganistan or Northern Ireland

However assuming that the Begrano wasn't sunk would the outcome have been greatly different?
 
I doubt it would have been a critical threat unless they were able to conduct the anticipated pincer attack with the Skyhawks aboard the 25 May, with simulataneous air and surface attacks. Even then, I can't see more than a few of the outer escorts getting hit - the small number of Skyhawks would have been relatively easy to see-off, since the shipboard weapons and sensors would be far better in open water, coupled with Sea Harriers.

The Belgrano was an old tug, but more heavily armoured and had bigger guns than anything in the RN, not counting Exocet - it would have been difficult to disable it using Sea Harriers' and helicopters' ordnance - short of dropping a nuclear depth charge near her - but not impossible. And one cannot discount a submarine sinking her nearer the task force.

So it could've caused considerable damage, but probably resulting in the loss by SSN of 25 May in addition to Belgrano (the carrier would have given away it's approximate location, and I can't see Thatcher wishing to see either of these two ships making it back home if they'd inflicted sustantial losses).
 
I don't think the Belgrano could pose any serious threat to the RN. True, she had bigger, longer range guns than everything in the RN. But while she gets in range the RN can throw her a huge number of missiles. Keeping her in the theatre of operations only delays the day of her sinking, IMHO
Regarding the POD, the Argentinian Navy claims that the fleet was going back to port before the Belgrano was sunk. If that's true (ARA Belgrano was heading south) and not cheap propaganda then the differences are only political as the ARA's surface fleet wouldn't be taking part in the war anyway. If it's not, the ARA 25 de Mayo might a better opportunity to strike the HMS Invincible (or the other way around of course). Such an attack would be difficult and with large casualties for the reasons you outlined and, whatever the outcome, the surviving RN forces will hunt the 25 de Mayo until she reaches port. A way to support such an attack (if it happens in anycase) would be with diversionary fligths by Air Force Mirages and Lear Jets at high altitude while the carrier base Skyhawks approach flying low over the waves. But I don't think such a tactic could be implemented because of the lack of coordination and even rivarly between the AF/Navy (and army btw) in the Argentinian Armed Forces at that time.
Of course if it's the other way around: The ARA wasn't retreating and it's the RN carriers the ones that launch an air attack against the 25 de Mayo the ARA's skyhawks won't probably be able to stop the attack and the Harriers will enough missiles to, at least, incapacitate her or leave her damaged enough that a second strike will see to that. WWII era warship aren't very effective 40 years after they were buildt.
 

burmafrd

Banned
The relatively small torpedo warheads that hit the belgrano should not have sunk her (the Helena took 3 Long Lances-a much nastier torpedo-to sink her quickly) very poor damage control and possible problems with maintenance that compromised water tight integrity were probably bigger factors. She was armed with 15 6" guns and they would have been absolute hell on any ship she got in range of. Of course that depends on how good her fire control was- these ships shot very well in WW2.
 
I suspect that long before she was close enough to engage any RN vessels, subs would have been ordered to engage her. I seem to recall we had a number of subs down there so even if the C didn't get her another would.

A later sinking (but still before she could engage any RN vessels) would at least have stopped the moans afterwards by idiots who seem to forget we were fighting a war and in such situations sinking each others shipping is sort-of allowed.
 
The relatively small torpedo warheads that hit the belgrano should not have sunk her (the Helena took 3 Long Lances-a much nastier torpedo-to sink her quickly) very poor damage control and possible problems with maintenance that compromised water tight integrity were probably bigger factors.

You mean the Mark 8s? They were much more effective than the Long Lances for one simple reason - they had magnetic exploders and the hits were non-contact under-the-keel shots. They gutted her - her back was broken in two places and her hull structure was shattered. Long Lances were much less damaging contact explosions.

Very few ships can take even a single under-the-keel hit and the old, heavily armored ships are more vulnerable than most. Their armor holds the hull rigid so the violent up-and-down motions (forgetting the shaped charge effect caused by the under-keel gas bubble) rip the insides apart. Modern ships are slightly less vulnerable because they tend to flex with the blast and absorb some of the energy that way.

A single Mark 8 would have done for Belgrano, two was just for insurance.
 
if i am thinking of the same thing here, Argentina had a warship armed with sea to sea misiles that the British were actually afraid of and put a lot of importance in taking thatparticular ship out

it not being sunk should change something, at least in strategy
 
Not missiles (IIRC the destroyers escorting her had exocet missiles but with shorter range that their RN counterparts), but WWII guns. BIG guns.
 
Top