A look at life: General Belgrano Article

[Kapitan]

In this article I take a look at the life of the Brooklyn class light cruiser USS Phoenix.

More famously you will likely know her as ARA General Belgrano, but I start off from the keel up taking a look back at the ship and its life and ultimate demise.

On May 2 1982 the ARA General Belgrano would be sunk by the nuclear powered hunter killer submarine HMS Conqueror in an event that would cause controversy to this day.

After nearly 3 months of research and piecing together some facts from various sources including Argentine for me at least it was an open and shut case and I can only find that General Belgrano was sunk as a legitimate act of war.

Read about the life of the ship and the subsequent actions here:

https://www.navygeneralboard.com/a-l...eral-belgrano/

[Jimbuna]

If you haven't read them yet, here are two books from my library that imho are well worth a read.

Sink the Belgrano By Mike Rossiter

Secrets of the Conqueror: The Untold Story of Britain's Most Famous Submarine by Stuart Prebble

[Bilge_Rat]

Interesting article and timely since the 40 year anniversary is coming up.

Now on the subject, I don't think anyone ever seriously argued this was a war crime. UK and Argentina were in a state of war, even if undeclared, and the "General Belgrano" was a legitimate military target.

The controversy was more whether the decision to sink it was politically motivated rather than strictly military.

If you look at the Rules of Engagement the UK had set, there was:

1) a 200 mile zone around the islands where enemy ships could be sunk on sight; and

2) outside the 200 mile limit, enemy ships could be sunk if they posed a threat to UK forces.

Now the sinking did not fall into any of those categories:

1) the "General Belgrano" was outside the 200 mile limit;

2) at the time of the attack, the ship was steaming on a westerly course away from the zone and the RN Task Forces; and

3) a 40+ year old WW2 era light cruiser was not a viable or imminent threat. Even if the ship was heading for the RN TFs, it would have been sunk by air/sea forces before it ever got within 6" gun range.

If the Royal Navy was worried that the ship could be a potential threat, it could have sent word that the ship would be engaged if it did not move away in the next 12-24 hours. As you noted, the RN could also have sunk the carrier "Veinticinco de Mayo" but decided against it even though it was more of a potential threat.

What was suspected at the time was that the order to sink the "General Belgrano" was politically motivated. PM Thatcher wanted to show that the UK was not a shadow of its former self, but was still a relevant power on the world stage. Sinking the "General Belgrano" was a messsage sent to the USA, Russia and China that the Royal Navy was still a power to be reckoned with.

p.s. - amazing how quickly time flies, I remember following the war in real time way back in 1982. Prince Andrew was a hero back then...

[Jimbuna]

The vessel in question was named after a general and not an admiral

“It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal.”
The above was said by the Belgrano’s captain, Hector Bonzo, in an interview two years before his death in 2009.

In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Héctor Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate (as did the Argentine government in 1994).

Though the ship was outside the 200-mile exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action — on 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government.

Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of, said “After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano“.

Admiral Enrique Molina Pico, head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s, wrote in a letter to La Nación, published in the 2 May 2005 edition, that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, that it was holding off for tactical reasons, and that being outside of the exclusion zone was unimportant as it was a warship on tactical mission. This is the official position of the Argentine Navy.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brit...-the-belgrano/

[Randomizer]

The vessel in question was named after a general and not an admiral

True. General Manuel Belgrano was a hero of the Argentine war of independence and is considered a founding father of Argentina. He was a victor of the Battle of Salta against Spain, commemorated in ARA Salta S-31, a Type 209 SSk commissioned in 1973.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

The vessel in question was named after a general and not an admiral

Did I put that in my article or was it the UKDJ article (my question mark key doesn't work)

I hadn't actually read the UKDJ article until just now I am surprised George would make a minor mistake like that.
I do note George doesn't post sources when he writes but you wouldn't expect that in a news outlet I guess I try and keep mine to a pseudo academic format so people have the ability to see the source and also challenge it.

Bilge rat: yes Belgrano was outside the exclusion zone however as noted it mattered not seeing as the ROE changed on the 23rd April and the argentines knew it.


There's still a lot of this is a war crime she should have been sunk stuff that flies around from many sides so I wanted to lay it out with evidence from both sides that proves it wasn't.

I am of the opinion that your also correct it was the UK sending a message to the world that don't think were a push over.

But as I also noted I think there was also more to play here, I agree the carrier was more a threat overall, but as mentioned if the UK sank the carrier it would undermine the USA defense policy which is carrier based strategy and subsequently reinforce the soviet doctrine which was to counter the carriers with submarines.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Did I put that in my article or was it the UKDJ article (my question mark key doesn't work)

I was replying to Bilge Rat in a tongue-in-cheek way Blair. In his post he repeatedly referred to the vessel as 'Admiral Belgrano'

He has since edited the errors but I can't remember if members can see the edit notification the way a moderator can.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I was replying to Bilge Rat in a tongue-in-cheek way Blair. In his post he repeatedly referred to the vessel as 'Admiral Belgrano'

He has since edited the errors but I can't remember if members can see the edit notification the way a moderator can.

Ahhh right sorry I thought you was meaning the one I wrote lol! and yes it comes up at the bottom edited with a time and date stamp.

[Bilge_Rat]

yes, I must be getting old. For some reason I always thought the name was the "Admiral Belgrano" and did not bother to check....

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

I am of the opinion that your also correct it was the UK sending a message to the world that don't think were a push over.

But as I also noted I think there was also more to play here, I agree the carrier was more a threat overall, but as mentioned if the UK sank the carrier it would undermine the USA defense policy which is carrier based strategy and subsequently reinforce the soviet doctrine which was to counter the carriers with submarines.

Well the other issue in all this is that the U.S. was trying to please both sides. The Reagan administration had developped close contacts with the military governments in Chile and Argentina since they were anti-communists. When the war started Argentina thought the U.S. would side with them. Reagan finally decided to back the UK, but he was trying to maintain a good relationship with Latin American countries. There was probably pressure from the Reagan admin not to be too tough on the Argentines.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Well the other issue in all this is that the U.S. was trying to please both sides. The Reagan administration had developped close contacts with the military governments in Chile and Argentina since they were anti-communists. When the war started Argentina thought the U.S. would side with them. Reagan finally decided to back the UK, but he was trying to maintain a good relationship with Latin American countries. There was probably pressure from the Reagan admin not to be too tough on the Argentines.

Id agree with that, Had we sunk the carrier and Belgrano plus the escorts maybe even done a black buck raid into Argentina itself then not only would it have utterly humiliated the Argentines but would have opened up the war substantially.

By sinking the Belgrano I do think this showed the UK could freely sink ships at will and it sent a powerful message to Argentina while at the same time showing restraint by using only the minimum force needed.

While I am no advocate of the current PM he is just the best of a bad bunch I have a feeling that should this happen again today he would take the gloves right off with Tomahawk strikes into the air bases and also order sink anything on sight regardless of position.

With the way Argentina is right now they couldn't hope to economically let alone militarily mount a campaign

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Ahhh right sorry I thought you was meaning the one I wrote lol! and yes it comes up at the bottom edited with a time and date stamp.

Yep, not long after I posted a thought hit me like a runaway train.....log out and have a look at the thread