One for Des

spouted the following in

See. Annoying isn't it.

go on then, lets have a look.

One of several strands of my thought.

Right. That was one of the other strands of my thought.

Maybe your little French Friend can come and tell me off for daring to
suggest what I think was on your mind?

<shrug>
Nowt to do with me.

So what did that amount to. Two assertions and a conjecture. I can't
understand what you're getting aerated about.

Take it easy, have a nightcap.

 

Not in the slightest.

And the one that triggered the next bit.

OK, so right again.

It was a little dig at someone else really; although I do question your
'taste' in people if you've time for Des.

Both assertions being correct and I wasn't getting irritated at all;
it's very rare that I do with ukrm.

 

I can find no referencew for this, and the thought of a cruiser carrying
600 troops in addition to its own ship's company is, to say the least,
odd. In fact, typing Belgrano+troops+carrying or Belgrano+troop carrier
into google produces nowt.

I think you're wrong here.

And you

 

True. And plenty who would reckon that Britain was finished, and what
was the point? The Vichy French were a nasty, deluded, duplicitous
racist lot - not unlike the modern Frogs....

Absolutely. Although as they were in harbour they wouldn't have had much
room to manoeuvre

Somerville, and yes. One of the most appalling decisions ever to have
had to face in wartime. And he did the right thing.

 

Happy New Year to you too.

I wasn't joking.

 

spouted the following in

Result.

 

Succinct and correct.

And let's not forget that the Argies had (still have?) a proper,
old-fashioned, catapults-and-all aircraft carrier, which we haven't had
since they scrapped the old Ark Royal. If that had got out, all hell
would have been let loose.

After the Belgrano went glug, it stayed in port.

 

They still have, ISTR - it's an old British Colossus class WWII carrier,
but upgraded with a steam catapult and angled flight deck.

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/barracks/3380/v2.jpg

If you only had one carrier in service, I don't think you'd be too
tempted to risk it, would you?

 

Not much point in having one if you never intend to use one, IMHO.

 

The Older Gentleman said...

Exactly what I was thinking. Every time it leaves port it's at risk.

--
Lozzo : The anti-Timo
ZZR1100D, GPZ500S, CB250RS x3, Muzzy ZX-10Ri
BOTAFOT#57/70a, BOTAFOF#57, two#49(suspended), MIB#22, TCP#7,
ANORAK#9, DIAABTCOD#14, UKRMT5BB, IBW#013, MIRTTH#15a/16,
BotToS#8, GP#2, SBS#10, SH#3, DFV#14, BONY#9.
Url for ukrm newbies : http://www.ukrm.net/faq/ukrmscbt.html
http://www.glfuk.com/ for MJK Leathers in the UK.

 

I can see why they wouldn't, though.

They weren't expecting much of a fight from the UK at the time, having
realised we were pretty much committed to throwing everything we had at
the situation, I think they were probably resigned to losing this one.

In which case, there's not much point in risking your only carrier -
especially when it's unlikely you'd be able to replace it for several
years afterwards. (Weapons embargos etc).

 

Well they might have launched it against Equador or similar. Fascist regime
= bully.
Shame it didn't put to sea ;o)

 

Well since you've snipped the context (as always since it's the only way
you can "claim" to win any 'arguments') then you've removed the example
of you doing this yet again. You'd suggested "why didn't they just drop
a nuke on them" in case your drug-addled brain has a problem with short
term memory as well.

 

What's "Too fuckin' easy"? Getting me to post in response to you? Well
I'll continue to do this since it amuses me. Especially when a self
confessed "language expert" has such a problem with his pride that he
takes issue with respected dictionaries.

 

Simian <Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> spouted the following in

"We've lost the ships log your honour."

It *will* improve our poll ratings Ma'am

218 miles was a *bit* beyond the range of it's armaments.

Wouldn't have prevented the sub following the ship even if it had turned
towards the Islands. It's cover was prolly blown by the signals it had
sent anyway.

You're a Times on Sunday Supplement Extra Reader of the first colour.

Probably because it had become aware of the subs prescence when it
reported, the group of ships had turned tail and were heading *away*
from the Total Exclusion Zone. If the British intended to sink vessels
in international waters beyond this unilaterally declared TEZ they
should have given due warning of the change in policy.

The order to sink them was made more for political than military
reasons. It caused a large and unnecessary loss of life which incensed
public opinion in Argentina, and this led to an escalation of the
conflict which in turn led to a larger loss of British task force
personnel than would otherwise have taken place.

You may argue this point as much as you like but it's obvious to me that
the Argies wouldn't have left their shipping exposed once our harriers
were in range so all this shit about "they would have brought out their
equally ancient aircraft carrier if we hadn't sunk the Belgrano" is just
so much ToSS.

All that loss of life so that the Tory leadership could improve the
chances of having their deeply unpopular government re-elected and
Margaret could look good with her billowing blue scarf atop a tank
cruising across Salisbury plain.

One of the bits I do remember from the media coverage was the opinion of
the father of one of the Navy lads who burned to death on the HMS
Sheffield. It wasnt the sort of thing the Tories would have included in
their pre-election broadcasts believe me.

Now **** off and bury your head in whatever reactionary drivel you
prefer to read.

 

So?

 

What was the range of the guided missiles on the two destroyers, then?

Ah, an expert on submarine comms now, are we? Ever been on ASW course?
Got the faintest clue what you're on about?

I make you nought for three on that score.

If I was captaining a cruiser, attempting to evade a submerged
submarine, I'd be making more than 10kts, I can assure you of that.

From the Independent:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=476472

"Earlier this year the ship's captain, Hector Bonzo, admitted that the
Belgrano's decision to sail away from the Task Force on the morning of
2 May was only a temporary manoeuvre.

"Our mission ... wasn't just to cruise around on patrol but to
attack,'' Captain Bonzo said in a television interview in May. "When
they gave us the authorisation to use our weapons, if necessary, we
had to be prepared to attack. Our people were completely trained. I
would say we were anxious to pull the trigger.''

In 1994 the Argentine government dropped its claim that the sinking of
the Belgrano was a war crime, its defence ministry conceding that it
was "a legal act of war''."

Range of a Harrier? Carrier-borne?

 

ITYF that the middle of the Atlantic is further than 200 miles from
land...
What makes you think there aren't shallow waters in the Atlantic?

 

Nor was the Hood, the Bismarck, etc etc.

His knowledge of history is abominable.

 

Ships turn all the time.

Ever heard of zig-zagging?

"OK, they're heading for the islands..."

"No they're not, yes they are, no they're not, yes they are..." ad
nauseam.