How could the sinking of the Belgrano be a legitimate act of war, when there was no war in the first place? IIRC, neither side issued a declaration of war.
Drachinifel, what if the airborne aircraft carriers USS Akron and Macon survived the weather conditions that downed them? What would the impact on naval aviation be?
Do you know how much of a problem overpenetrations were in real life? At the Battle of Samar, Japanese Battleships fired on destroyers and escord carriers and overpenned them. I guess this was a combination of multiple factors: the japanese thinking they were fireing at larger targets and having the diving shell system, which in itself makes a longer fuse delay nessassary. Now my question is how much of a problem were overpens in an "equal" combat situation, so a battleship vs battleship or cruiser vs cruiser engagement? Would a hit in the thinner areas of a ship (for example superstructure and bows - especially cruiser bows) always result in an overpen? How did different nations handle the problem? The fact that in the Battle of the Denmark Straight Prince of Wales was hit below the armor belt by a diving shell (that would have exploded before hitting the ship if it had not been a dud) seems to indicate that the Kriegsmarine had a shorter fuse delay, how did other navys handle this? And is it known how many hits were actual overpens (so is it more like 40% or more like 20%)?
@Aggressive Tubesock would that be refreshing though? I'm sick to death of politics seeping it's way in to everything I enjoy. Screw the left. Screw the right. Screw Trump and screw Sanders. Let me enjoy my damn documentary about a warship
He sure does make a political statement from time to time... When he complains about Congress and Politicians being the way they are when it comes to building new ships. Refer to, for example, his latest video on the Great White Fleet. Now dont get me wrong... I am fine with that, politics are everywhere, whether you like it or not.
Gotta hand it to the professionalism of the Argentinian naval officers for not letting the politicos muddy the waters. That there gains more respect than a dozen conquests.
Of course those "professional naval officers" have their own agenda. They wouldn't want to admit that they tried to keep a major naval asset outside the exclusion zone, and well out of harms way, while the army and airforce were fighting the war. Of course they would claim that Belgrano was a threat to the British fleet to save face.
@@passantNL The Navy was ordered back after the sinking of the Belgrano. So yes they have to say that they wanted to fight. So they are honest and that the Belgrano was outside the Zone was simple: The Argentines knew that the Royal Navy was patrolling the Exclusion zone, so by staying away they tried to avoid detection and then move in in a combined attack by Airforce and Navy to overload the British defense screen.
@@passantNL Assuming her boilers were still in decent shape (a big if...) she theoretically could have executed an overnight sprint and made it into gun range of the British Taskforce by dawn. That being said, she would not have lasted long once detected probably eating multiple surface to surface missiles.
As an argentinian, I truly apreciate your investigation about the sinking of ARA Gral. Belgrano. Being from the country that lost the war usually puts a mat of hatred feelings over the actual facts when presented on the news, so I find this video a great contribution to the true events an legal opinions that actually matter. Great content as always!
The legal matter of the case is rather simple and only muddied by politics which are about mudslinging. Argentina and UK were are war, which means that ships not in neutral waters (IE in the territorial waters of another nation) could be attacked. The total exclusion zone had nothing to do with argentinian ships but was a statement that all non-british ships in that zone would be treated as if they were hostile ships. IE intended to keep out possible argentinian ships (or aircrafts) that were flying a neutral flag.
@@nehcrum It has been revealed now that Margret Thatcher had I formation that they were under orders to attack the British, this was obtained by Chile intelligence but they couldn't ever risk Argentina or anybody else knowing that Chile was working with Britain
@@Andrew-yl7lm So you are saying Chile intelligence agencies told the British that the enemy that the British were fighting had orders to fight them back? Like if they were in an open state of war or something? And for some reason they needed to keep this amazingly obvious fact a secret?
@@Andrew-yl7lm WHAT??? Chile's "passive" assistance was greatly appreciated: Chilean manoeuvres, near the Argentine border and their "correct" conduct when handling combatants (the crew of a crashed Sea King) did indeed cause Argentina to (wrongly) focus some of their effort towards Chile. However, the threat to the military junta of Argentina was a Royal Navy Task Force and an invasion force. Thanks for that help and thanks to the USA for their input (materiel, like that of WW2 - paid for!)
inside the exclusion zone outside the exclusion zone The exclusion zone applied only to ships that were NOT Argentine. If the RN caught an Argentine ship in the Indian Ocean, that Argentine ship was fair game. c’est le guerre
@@sillypuppy5940 The Argentines were told about 10 days before the sinking via the Swiss embassy in Buenos Aires that the 200-mile exclusion zone was not the limit of any action
And even if the Brits DID say it applied to Argentina. And that that any Argentine ship outside it was safe (they did not say that), who cares? They. Were. At. War. A war that Argentina started no less. It is not wise to always be honest with your enemy. Imagine the Normandy landings if the Allies had been up front with Jerry...
The Total Exclusion Zone - something the Iranians should have put in place before firing off their missiles - was to prevent such things as civilian aircraft being shot down by mistake or an ocean-going cruise liner being sunk accidently
The new torpedoes unreliable...where did I hear that...oh Yes, Prime Minister! "So, the torpedoes don't work?" "Oh no, just the new ones. The old ones are fine." "Which old ones?" "The ones from the second world war." (quoting from memory, please excuse the mistakes)
and don't forget that the most reliable torpedoes during at least the early stages of WW2 were those that had been in stock since the end of WW1... Those torpedoes that were new models when WW2 started were horribly unreliable, especially the American ones.
That's why I hate Halsey. Not considering that exactly this could happen and then ignoring the pilots, who were telling him, that this was actually happening.
Meh, taking risks had paid off for him before; by contrast, they dragged Spruance over the coals for being too cautious. Halsey's real mistake was thinking the remaining IJN carriers were a threat and not an obvious paper tiger.
As an American who was a child at the time, I never understood the controversy. There was a war, two navies went at it, and one sank the other's cruiser. Seemed pretty simple to me back then. In fact, I never understood why the Brits didn't attack the Argentine naval bases and airfields on the mainland, the US Navy would certainly have done so.
@@JohnoO_O_ They were _planning_ a raid on the mainland (look up "Operation Mikado"), but it was never actually launched (and fortunately so, as pretty much everyone on both sides agrees nowadays that it'd've been a suicide mission).
@@geonerd The wars might have been stupid and they were prosecuted in a stupid manner but they were not about oil. If it was about oil Iraq would have been divided separating the oil bearing Kurdish territory from the muslim wastelands to the south. Which we should have done as well as separating the sunni from the shiite. Given that I am feeling generous to my enemies today having about half the oil profits distributed on a somewhat equitably between the muslims as long as they behave themselves.
Excellent as usual, and good effort in trying to be impartial. The Sailors on the ships on both sides knew the risks and knew the rules. To try and claim otherwise is an insult to their memories on both sides.
They also invaded South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, South Georgia was cleared first with the Antrim and Plymouth doing most of the work, the latter after the Falklands, peacefully.
Yes. As that line passed into the "... claimed but did not actually control...." part, I expected Drach might do a subtle ", " before rolling into his next sentence.
@@eric24567 That was actually a news headline from the time about the conflict, quite a few actually, usually in some slight variation such as "The British Empire Strikes Back"
weldonwin - This is true. For one thing, this was the headline used in one of the newspapers in the Philippines at the time of the Belgrano’s sinking. It said “THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK” in huge font at the top of the front page, and immediately below it was an equally large photo of a British aircraft carrier sailing menacingly towards the camera. The rest of the front page were numerous articles covering the conflict itself.
To this day I find impossible accept that an armed warship can somehow be "peaceful", as if the Belgrano was themed cruise ship or something. I also think the whole controversy is to duck the question of what kind of jerk sends a relic into war against a modern navy?
Te olvidas de una cosa, ya que veo que no lo decis. Que esté armado es una cosa, pero estaba fuera de la zona de exclusión fijada por el mismo gobierno británico y esto duró únicamente 72hs. El buque estaba navegando rumbo al continente, no representaba peligro alguno y en ese ataque cobarde, artero, murieron 326 marineros o solados o tripulantes argentinos, como los quieran llamar, la mitad de los fallecidos en toda la guerra. No pudieron defenderse ni luchar. Par la gran mayoría fue un crimen de guerra, pero para unos pocos, como Gran Bretaña y si aliados de siempre no. ° casualidad que se dio justo en el momento que la propuesta de paz del presidente peruano B. Muy estaba prosperando, algo que puso muy nerviosos a la Reina y sus ministros y ordenaron en forma urgente ese ataque. Como será que recientemente se han desclasificado 3500 documentos de la guerra y en ningunos aparece este episodio y los próximos se darán a conocer en el 2072, o sea 90 años después. No te confundas, no todo vale en una guerra, y tampoco te creas que los buenos están de un lado y los malos, el imperio del mal como dicen, del otro, para nada, miserias hay en todos los lados y si sos inteligente lo debes saber.
@@oscarbosio9881 According to Google Translate, everything you said is irrelevant. "You forget one thing, since I see that you do not decide. That it is armed is one thing, but it was outside the exclusion zone set by the British government itself and this lasted only 72 hours. The ship was sailing towards the continent, it did not represent any danger and in that cowardly attack, artero, 326 sailors or soldiers or Argentine crewmen died, as they want to call them, half of those killed in the whole war. They could not defend or fight. For the vast majority it was a war crime, but for a few, like Britain and if not always allies. ° coincidence that occurred just at the time that the proposal of peace of the Peruvian president B. He was very prosperous, something that made the Queen and her ministers very nervous and urgently ordered that attack. As it will be that recently 3,500 war documents have been declassified and in none of them does this episode appear and the next ones will be announced in 2072, that is 90 years later. Do not be confused, not everything goes in a war, and do not believe that the good are on one side and the bad, the empire of evil as they say, on the other, not at all, misery is everywhere and if you are intelligent what you must know." Being outside the TEZ doesn't mean a thing.
The sinking of the Belgrano not only removed a serious threat to the British Task Force, it ensured most of the Argentine Navy spent most of the rest of the war in port, saving perhaps British and certainly Argentine lives.
99IronDuke While I do think the sinking was acceptable (since Argentina was the aggressor), was a light cruiser (with far more limited range) really any threat to a carrier force that could stay out of gun range indefinitely?
@@bkjeong4302 The problem was that no modern warship would have survived long within Balgrano's gun range, and it was pretty fast. By the time the British got there, the Argentinians were in a defensive position and the British had to attack, so even if they could have stayed outside of Balgrano's gun range, doing so would significantly limit their options. It's a bit like bringing a gun to sword fight with Connan the Barbarian. You have a huge advantage, but only if you shoot first.
@@7thsealord888 Even so the British would still have a major range advantage and be able to sink the Belgranio long before it got into gun range (as long as the weather held up)
@@TonboIV "It's a bit like bringing a gun to sword fight with Connan the Barbarian. You have a huge advantage, but only if you shoot first." Or if you simply stay away from the sword, which the British carriers could, and even with the slower vessels it would take quite a while for Belgrano to get close enough to open fire.
@@fidelismiles7439 It was respected entirely. No neutral shipping sailed into the zone or were attacked. The EXCLUSION zone worked exactly as intended. Under UNSC Resolution 502 the UK then sank a threat to them upholding the resolution. There isn't really any issues here. Outside of Argentina committing an act of war by invading the islands without a declaration of war or UNSC approval.
@@fidelismiles7439 get over with this bullshit. Argentine shouldn't have invaded the Islands so that there would be no further whining from your side. The junta belived that they can quickly grab foreign lands with a population even not speaking Spanish, claim it your own and expected there will be no reprecaussions. The Russians do the same now
In answer to Argentina’s claims of “unfairness,” in the sinking of the Belgrano, the best short summary reply to them is: “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”
Ukraine got them good. The drones distracting the ship helped guide the missiles in. Rough seas made it even more difficult for the Russian ship to detect
HMS Conqueror had to attack the Belgrano where it did because of an under sea ridge which Belgrano was about to pass over. The ridge would have made pursuit by the submarine much more difficult and an attack more difficult to carry out when it may well have become more urgent to do so if Belgrano attempted to engage the task force. Also the sinking of Belgrano was early on in the conflict and it served as a message of British resolve that they would take any and all necessary action against a hostile vessel. Or in layman's terms "You wanted a war? Here's a war..."
Let me get this straight. Early WW2, Norway sunk the Blucher with Croatian torpedoes from the 1880's, thus about 60 years old at the time. Falklands War, the UK sinks the General Belgrano with 40 year old WW2 era torpedoes. The age of a torpedo is irrelevant.
UK: (after taking Georgias) Hahaha this will be a picnic! Argentina: *Sinks SS Atlantic Conveyor, sinks several of the most modern ships with planes from the 50's and bombs from WW2 also sinks/damages SS Sir Tristam and Sir Galahad delaying the war for one more week. UK: *Surprised Pikachu face* Russia: *Laughing in the background*
@@fidelismiles7439 France : Sold Argentina Exocet anti ship missiles which were certainly not WW2 era bombs and could be fired from jet aircraft like the American A4 Skyhawk, also available to the Argentine forces. Aregentina : Surrender and lose the Falklands conflict that they started. Strigon Wolf : Makes a truly pathetic attempt to belittle brave men who sacrificed their lives, which only results in his own humiliation and the exposure of his ignorance to the world at large.
'Honest Broker' Peru were so committed to peace that they lent the Argies 10 Mirages later on in the War. They wanted to pile in on Chile later. General Matthei of the Chilean Air Force said that the Chileans understood that Argentina was going to go for them after the Falklands War (had they won) as Galtieri had openly said that they would go for other areas, i.e. The Beagle Channel after the abortive invasion of 1978. No mention of any RAF Canberras...
I was working at Port Everglades in Florida when several ships from the British task force stopped on the way back to the UK. There was some serious damage to some of the vessels including a carrier. Sorry, I don't remember which one. The sailors & marines were exhausted but jubilant. A very long voyage followed by a difficult campaign with an uncertain outcome around a cold & desolate rock in the middle of nowhere. But it could have been worse as one sailor pointed out. We all had enormous respect for the lot.
Thanks for posting this information regards the General Belgrano. I'm ex RAN, I was serving as an MTH stoker onboard HMAS Swan a Modified Leander class frigate heading for a RIMPAC exercise in Hawaii at the outbreak if the Falklands war rumours abounded about our ship being redeployed to assist the RN task force of course this never occurred but as a young ignorant guy I was very excited and keen to take part in the war, my dad having been a "Harry Tates" PO stoker on converted trawler minesweepers in ww2 and his brother my uncle ( of course) being a stoker on HMS Warspite during the Narvic campaign and when it was struck by the two wire guided bombs. They survived the war. Their home was in East Tilbury was hit by a UXB My grandparents and my aunty being inside at the time they also survived the war. I wanted to be able to tell of my experiences of being at war also I guess my right of passage if you like.
That Falklands War. The general feeling in the US was, "What the hell does Argentina think they are doing? The Brits are going to kick their asses," but at the same time "Why the hell are people fighting over sheep?"
I was a Midshipman at the Royal Australian Naval College in 1982. You can imagine how closely we followed the conflict. And yes, we had the same view... "going to be an arse kicking". The Argies did about as well as could be expected one has to say... their pilots had balls!!!
@@BlackHearthguard the Vulcans wouldn't have been very useful to bomb the Argentine mainland, no aircraft had the range to escort so they would be easy prey for the Argentine Mirage's, if the fighting continued into the Mainland other South american countries would have intervened like Brazil and Peru.
Argentina declared war on GB by attacking the Falklands, South Georgia. The Belgrano was a legitimate target regardless of where it was found and sunk.
a war they started, in light of that their continuing claims to the islands are silly; they are the ones who decided the decision of ownership would be made through armed conflict so they should respect who owns the islands now
@@sheeplebarn333 Their claims are not silly. The Spanish claimed the area first, then the french settled there. The Spanish asked them to leave and they did. The brittish where not even allowed to sail to the south, but they sent a secret survey ship. That survey ship went rogue and established an illegal outpost. The spanish found out and demanded that they leave. The Brittish king ordered them to leave and renounced any xlaim to the islands. So the spanish owned them for a long time, then they became Argentines. The Argentines continued to rule the islands, but as a new free people. They sent a new governor who ruled for over a decade before the brittish invaded for the third time that century, but not the last. In 1833 they took the islands and Argentina has wanted to recover them since then. The Argentine claim is inheritance from Spain, a claim which spain also recognizes, but also having ruled the islands. The brittish claim is usurpation and long term occupation. The war happend because the brittish where besting around the bush, they had been negotiating in the 60s to return the islands. But negotiations stopped when the Junta overthrew the Argentine goverment. The brittish where exploiting rescources on the islands, breaking international decisions to maintain the islands as they where, until negotiations ended. The Junta also needed public support, so it was an unfortunate deries of events for everyone involved
@@BlackHearthguard The Brittish had nothing to do in the South and the Area waa claimed by spain long before Brittain even sailed there. The Spanish land then became Argentine. The Brittish renounced their claim to the island and then recognized Argentina as a nation. So twice they recognized their claim. There are documents of Brittish ships asking Argentina and the Governor of the islands for permission to hunt sea lions. The only brittish claim is long term occupation since 1833
I was working on a small (1400 ton) drillship doing oilfield survey work off the coast of Argentina in Dec 79 - Jan 80. Anchored on location (6-point spread) I watched a ship approach, thought 'It's a WW2-surplus Cruiser'. She stopped sideways on to us and the turrets pointed our way. The mate, from Oz, had the watch. Over Channel 16 the ship messaged, in Spanish 'What ship are you, what are you doing and why are you here. Answer me or I open fire?*' The mate felt his spoken Spanish was not adequate, called the Spanish Bosun to answer. The ship accepted the reply and moved away. I'd taken a photo, checked subsequently. Yes, we were threatened by The Gen B. It is an area of strong tides and a longshore current. While stopped the GB drifted off, about 30 degrees, in a display of poor ship handling. Should have maintained steerage way. *For the avoidance of doubt, this is not normal Channel 16 protocol. Actual words were about as written if not exactly so.
For clarity, this was off the coast of southern Argentina, near to the ports Rio Gallegas and Commodoro Something. ISTR we were looking at gas fields*, but Long Time Ago. That the hydrocarbon reserves may have extended further to the West was probably one reason for the invasion attempt. One further comment - we resupplied in Rio G. This was the only time in my career that I was very aware of being followed by secret police as we walked around shopping and looking to eat. They drove brand-new US Fords: the locals in the poor fishing port / farming town drove beat-up pickups and old Euro or Japanese saloons. *See also Tierra del Fuego - burning gas seepages?
I am a (German) leftie but it always dismays me, when my political side gets into that almost automatic "THAT IS A WAR CRIME" yell, once there is a serious action happening in any war without even bothering to check the facts. The Brits giving the Argies hell about the Falklands was absolutely leigitimate. Hell, in my view it was the only morally, legally and strategically completely legitimate act of war since 1945 done by any nation.
I never understood how this sinking was controversial. Argentina started the war, so they don't get to bitch about what happens during the war. It is just like Japan bitching about the use of nuclear weapons in 1945. It is just absurd.
I think it’s incredibly dumb how the destruction of the Belgrano was even questioned. Argentina declared war on Britain and Britain sunk one of their warships. That’s literally what happens in war, doesn’t matter what the intention of the ship is. I imagine that if “running away = do not fire” was actually a thing, they could just get as close as possible until it is known they are detected, do a 180 and claim they are running away and apparently be immune to getting shot at. Stupid
It's worth adding that at the time of the sinking the Belgrano task force was only a few hours from a position from which the 3 Drummond class corvettes would have been within Exocet range of RN ships. Given the appalling weather in the area at the time any submarine captain worth his dolphins would have prosecuted their targets as soon as they were so authorised.
The Argentines were lucky not to loose their carrier too, as they were also being stalked by a British nuclear submarine which had almost caught it by the time the Venticinco de Mayo reached home waters.
"The Art of War" begins with these lines: 1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State. 2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected. It seems like just some introductory fluff, but these are probably the most important words in the book.
@ _"And how many Americans who signed up for the National Guard or such to get acces to education without the benefit of a rich daddy, ended up losing limbs or their life in Iraq, while the Bush clan sat at home enjoying wealth and playing politics."_ A. Bush the younger was in the national guard. The Texas Air National Guard, if I remember right, and wanted to fight in Vietnam but was denied by his commander (admittedly as a pilot, which is a lot more "fun" than if you're a rifleman). B. Bush the older was a pilot in WWII, fought against the japanese, was shot down into the sea and was very close to being captured by japanese forces where the officers enganged in cannibalism of american pilots..... As for Thatcher and british soldiers, the latter very much liked the former.
@ A. I'm not a republican nor am I even an American. B. I served in my nations military. (Armored regiment) C. The first draft lottery took place 1969 while Bush joined the Air National Guard in 1968. D. If he wished to dodge the draft, he could have easily done so by getting a deferment as a college student. E. The most important part. Pilots are nowhere near the same kind of danger or have to face the sorts of conditions that grunts in the field are forced to endure. Being a US pilot in the Vietnam War was mostly "fun" with relatively little risk and with very good conditions flying back to base and civilization at the end of every mission.
@@nehcrum The death rate for aircrew is significantly higher than the average infantry man. There are just a lot more infantry than aircrew and the aircrew get better food on average.
As an Argentine I always thought that the attack was legitimate. The murderous military junta of the time tried to stir things up making it look like an act of piracy, a point of View that has unfortunately stuck.
@@7thsealord888 The people of the Falklands, who still have a vast majority wishing to remain British citizens, definitely benefited from not being ruled by a military dictatorship.
@@horationelson2440 I do not dispute that, or that Argentina's attempted seizure was anything but an illegal and desperate bid by a corrupt dictatorship for a "Short Victorious War". Regarding any claim on the Falkland Islands, the truth is that Argentina is very much at the back of the line. Historically, not only the UK but also France, Spain and possibly even Portugal can all make some sort of case. To say nothing of the wishes of the islanders themselves.
"Almighty Father, strong to save, Whose arm hath bound the restless wave, Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep Its own appointed limits keep: O hear us when we cry to thee For those in peril on the sea."
Didn’t the captain of the Belgrano at one point say something along the lines of “had the Conquer surfaced alongside my ship I would have ordered my crew to fire on it even if we had not been fired upon.” I do not recall where I heard that, but it came to mind watching the video.
Yep, politicians are like poop filled diapers...they should be changed regularly and quite often... :) T U for this video....for some reason I had always thought the Belgrano was an old U S Heavy Cruiser...had a British friend here in the U S at the time and we followed the Falklands War very closely...I`m sorry if this seems unkind to some, but 3 big Huzzahs to the Brits for standing up to the aggressor.
She was basically a heavy cruiser with her displacement and armor, but the 6" guns put her in the light cruiser zone. I would rather have the Phoenix than a treaty heavy cruiser in an action off Guadalcanal!
Thanks Drach for handling such a delicate topic carefully. I never had a problem with the sinking of the Belgrano. The situation can be boiled down to this. Argentina attacked and invaded British territory, causing a war. The Belgrano is an enemy combatant in a time of war and is therefore a legitimate target in any circumstance. Going by the argument that the ship was sailing away you could say the attack and sinking of HMS Ark Royal in WW2 was illegal as it was heading to port.
Beigranos original name was uss Phoenix a Brooklyn class light cruiser. She was present at Pearl Harbor on 12-7-41. She served with distinction through out Ww2. Transporting General MacArthur several times.
I lowkey like watching Falklands war videos so I can see people try and make the absolutely idiotic claim that the sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime
Congratulations on another well-made and well researched video. I’ve got a couple of thoughts about your comments on the UK politics, as you briefly touched upon the subject Just prior to the Falklands war although the Conservative government was very unpopular the party which was riding high in the opinion polls wasn’t the Labour Party but the Liberal/SDP Alliance. If an election had been called then it’s very unlikely that the Labour Party would have won, or even come second. I think you may be mixing up the Labour party in general with Tam Dalyell in particular. He was a maverick whose Wikipedia page records that in 1978-79 voted against the Labour government over a hundred times. The sinking of the General Belgrano was one the causes he grabbed hold of as an individual and wouldn’t let go of. He was helped in keeping this alive as an issue by the actions of the British government, which instead of calmly stating facts as you did attempted to conceal key details which were then leaked to Tam Dalyell by a senior Civil Servant called Clive Ponting. The failure of the subsequent prosecution of Ponting gave the controversy even more life.
The Belgrano has the distinction of being the only ship ever sunk in wartime by a nuclear submarine. As the Phoenix, she was used mostly for shore bombardment and escort duty due to being obsolete. Didn't have 8 inch guns. Was a Washington Treaty ship design. So they took a ship that was obsolete by around 1944 and put that in the water against a thoroughly modern navy. I thought back then after hearing about her sinking that it was negligent to get that out and parade around with it - because that's about all that ship could accomplish at that time.
I think her WWII use was more a function of how the war was fought than her obsolescense. The Brooklyns saw upgrades and they were relevant,capable frontline ships throughout the war. She had 6" guns because she was a light cruiser, and there were many 8" gunned heavies that were older and saw significant use. That said, putting her to use against a modern navy was optimistic and fairly foolish. But ya use whatcha got i guess....
As a kid, and as a warships fan, I was always saddened by the sinking of the General Belgrano, because it had been the USS Phoenix and it was sunk by the British Royal Navy, an ally of the United States. Sure, had it not been purchased by the Argentinians, it would just have been scrapped at the breaking docks, but it's just the whole concept. RIP to all those who died in this ill-advised conflict
Yeah, it was a sad fate. The Phoenix was a Pearl Harbor survivor and was part of the fleet that took MacArthur back to the Philippines- one island at a time. Her sister, the Boise, survived both the ill fated campaign for the East Indies and the nightmare of Guadalcanal. That noble ship deserved better.
What intrigues me is the "what if" scenario. Hadn't the Belgrano been intercepted by the Conqueror, what would have happened? But let's assume more. The Belgrano heads full speed at 30+ knots towards the British task force, what were the chances to stop her? Would she have been a realistic threat with her 15 x 6 inch guns? I reckon she would have needed to be in a 15km range to fire on target.
here is one thing to take into account in these early days of the war, if things had gone badly for the british, how could the belgrano have capitalized on the event ? say the british lost one or both carriers or some other event where the fleet had to flee out of range of protecting troops on the island - think of what those guns on the ship would have been capable of if they got within range of those troops - the belgrano by this time btw was only capable of maybe 21 knots and rarely traveled above 18 knots. Those boilers were ancient.
Great video - thank you! I like how how you have separated the tactical decisions from the political hysteria that surrounded the sinking of the General Belgrano, and especially how you referred to the comments of the Argentine armed forces and in particular the CO of the ship in question - if they accept the sinking of General Belgrano as a legitimate act, there can be no doubt that it was, no matter what political demagogues of any flavour might try to argue.
Glad you cleared that "controversy" out, again. I still can´t believe it is being argued. But then again, there are many arseholes and idiots out there.
@@thehandoftheking3314 It is, but using it politically like for example labour has done is very, very cynical and unethical. That is why I used hard words.
When people have had the last 40 years having propaganda being forced down their throats, they aren't going to be able to understand anything different.
since there's no pinned post yet, here's my question. How does mine sweeping work on the ocean? I saw a video that was probably made during WWII and it wasn't very informative. Like how are mines detected and how were did mine sweepers deal with them once found?
To not get too technical, it has a lot to do with magnets. Metal detectors can find them, but some mines are designed to detonate if hit with a strong magnetic force. You have to find the mines at a reasonable range, ascertain what model it is, take an educated guess as to how it is armed, and then cross your fingers while you take it up and disable it without detonating it.
@@knutdergroe9757 Yeah, it's pretty fucked up how the president inexplicably started to claim that North Korean nukes are suddenly no longer a threat and then professed how he "fell in love" with Kim Jong-Un because of the "beautiful letters" he sends him in between balistic missile tests. That and publicly absolving him of any responsibility for torturing that American student to death is perhaps the most pitiful display of obsequiousness any president has ever shown towards a murderous dicator like that. Oh, you were talking about Democrats. Now that's weired.
To my knowledge Michael Foot made no comment over the Belgrano and it was only a few vocal backbenchers like Tam Dalyell who was vehemently anti-war. I'd be interested to see what sources Drac was using in this regard.
I never understood the debate about the sinking. The Belgrano may be have been an old ship but it’s main armament was powerful and it was therefore a threat to be taken seriously wherever it was. Sinking it was an entirely proper response. A good job for UK forces that the PM of the day had balls.
Always a risk when you sell a vessel to another nation. What did he think the British should have done, refused to sink an enemy combatant for old times sake?
The RN was also happy to torpedo argie ships that were once ours, and did destroy a french sub too, so sinking the belgrano was not an intended jibe at anybody in the USA. (after all the latter sold us Sidewinder AAM's, and debated offering us a spare Carrier for a while) I'm sure a USN Sub' would've done the same to the Belgrano, had they been ordered to.
Tam Dalyell became a real bore over this sinking in Parliament, apparently stupid enough to think a warship is unable to reverse course by the turn of a wheel.
@@Willys-Wagon I can't find it either ! But it's in my comment history, maybe I should repeat it here, but I'm having a chat with Drach presently and I do not want to fill his comments unnecessarily. Just a very brief summation, I worked on every element of Tigerfish in manufacture/test/set-up to whole weapon assembly. It's an anti-submarine weapon, nuclear boats go (very) deep, Tigerfish cannot get anywhere near shallow enough to hit a ship, so an inappropriate weapon in this case and any other assumptions about reliability or effectiveness are inapplicable really. If you can see my email on my about page then ping me a mail, or have Drach forward one.
This was as close as you get to a war without hate. Both sides respected each other and there are numerous videos of veterans of both sides meeting up and becoming comrades.
Wait, let me get this straight: we can't fight Chile because they can kick our butts, so instead we fight England, one of the two countries (along with America) that has repeatedly sold their old decommissioned warships to Chile and Argentina and Brazil, because their cast-offs are good enough to be our flagships. Surely, if we fight them, we will win easily. Have I got that right?
The Argentine Military attache in London told their leaders that the British wouldn't fight for the islands. It's easy to win if the other side will give up without fighting. Imagine the crestfallen faces when the task force sailed, and it was understood that they were going to have to fight after all. Further imagine those faces when the Tin Triangle arrived over the main airfield and catered the runway.
Afaik the planned aggression against Chile was condemned by the Pope. When your reason for the war was getting the largely catholic Argentinian public on your side, then going directly against the Pope's wishes kinda sorta defeats the purpose.
The Admiral Belgrano (not General Belgrano) showed intent to head back into the "exclusion zone" and was later confirmed by its surviving crew, so therefore it was a "legal" sinking
Naw, it's fairly clearly *General* Belgrano. That's what the Argentinian's named it, after *General* Manuel Belgrano. I can literally find Nothing in terms of sources that refer to the man as an Admiral.
After the occupation, but before the RN sailed, an American public news program hosted a retired RN vice admiral who had flown in the area. When asked about possible outcomes, he replied that he was “quietly optimistic.” There will ALWAYS be an England.
Pinned post for Q&A :)
How could the sinking of the Belgrano be a legitimate act of war, when there was no war in the first place? IIRC, neither side issued a declaration of war.
Drachinifel, what if the airborne aircraft carriers USS Akron and Macon survived the weather conditions that downed them? What would the impact on naval aviation be?
Do you know how much of a problem overpenetrations were in real life? At the Battle of Samar, Japanese Battleships fired on destroyers and escord carriers and overpenned them. I guess this was a combination of multiple factors: the japanese thinking they were fireing at larger targets and having the diving shell system, which in itself makes a longer fuse delay nessassary. Now my question is how much of a problem were overpens in an "equal" combat situation, so a battleship vs battleship or cruiser vs cruiser engagement? Would a hit in the thinner areas of a ship (for example superstructure and bows - especially cruiser bows) always result in an overpen? How did different nations handle the problem? The fact that in the Battle of the Denmark Straight Prince of Wales was hit below the armor belt by a diving shell (that would have exploded before hitting the ship if it had not been a dud) seems to indicate that the Kriegsmarine had a shorter fuse delay, how did other navys handle this? And is it known how many hits were actual overpens (so is it more like 40% or more like 20%)?
Sounds like we might get something a little like a real life version of the game "Leviathans". sm
@@olivermacke838 lawyer's quibbles. If you go by that logic no action taken by either side in the entire conflict was legal
Easy way to sum up the last bit...
Q. Was the sinking of Belgrano legal?
A. She was an enemy vessel running under colours
DING DING DING
"...and that's why this channel is about warships, and not politics."
And I thank you a lot for this.
Its the same as if you say: ...and that's why this channel is about obese people and not food.
@Aggressive Tubesock would that be refreshing though? I'm sick to death of politics seeping it's way in to everything I enjoy.
Screw the left. Screw the right. Screw Trump and screw Sanders. Let me enjoy my damn documentary about a warship
@Aggressive Tubesock why on earth would that be 'refreshing'?
You just want people to support your fringe views to make you feel better
He sure does make a political statement from time to time... When he complains about Congress and Politicians being the way they are when it comes to building new ships. Refer to, for example, his latest video on the Great White Fleet.
Now dont get me wrong... I am fine with that, politics are everywhere, whether you like it or not.
@Aggressive Tubesock whatever you say, mate 🥱
Gotta hand it to the professionalism of the Argentinian naval officers for not letting the politicos muddy the waters. That there gains more respect than a dozen conquests.
TRUTH !!
Standing Tall,
Being Responsible,
And PROFESSIONAL,
Has earned more respect then all the medals in the world....
LEADERSHIP by example.
True
Of course those "professional naval officers" have their own agenda. They wouldn't want to admit that they tried to keep a major naval asset outside the exclusion zone, and well out of harms way, while the army and airforce were fighting the war. Of course they would claim that Belgrano was a threat to the British fleet to save face.
@@passantNL The Navy was ordered back after the sinking of the Belgrano. So yes they have to say that they wanted to fight. So they are honest and that the Belgrano was outside the Zone was simple: The Argentines knew that the Royal Navy was patrolling the Exclusion zone, so by staying away they tried to avoid detection and then move in in a combined attack by Airforce and Navy to overload the British defense screen.
@@passantNL Assuming her boilers were still in decent shape (a big if...) she theoretically could have executed an overnight sprint and made it into gun range of the British Taskforce by dawn. That being said, she would not have lasted long once detected probably eating multiple surface to surface missiles.
As an argentinian, I truly apreciate your investigation about the sinking of ARA Gral. Belgrano. Being from the country that lost the war usually puts a mat of hatred feelings over the actual facts when presented on the news, so I find this video a great contribution to the true events an legal opinions that actually matter.
Great content as always!
The legal matter of the case is rather simple and only muddied by politics which are about mudslinging.
Argentina and UK were are war, which means that ships not in neutral waters (IE in the territorial waters of another nation) could be attacked. The total exclusion zone had nothing to do with argentinian ships but was a statement that all non-british ships in that zone would be treated as if they were hostile ships. IE intended to keep out possible argentinian ships (or aircrafts) that were flying a neutral flag.
@@nehcrum It has been revealed now that Margret Thatcher had I formation that they were under orders to attack the British, this was obtained by Chile intelligence but they couldn't ever risk Argentina or anybody else knowing that Chile was working with Britain
@@Andrew-yl7lm So you are saying Chile intelligence agencies told the British that the enemy that the British were fighting had orders to fight them back? Like if they were in an open state of war or something? And for some reason they needed to keep this amazingly obvious fact a secret?
@@nehcrum The fact the Chile was working with Britain was the secret. A huge secret and Britain probably wouldn't have won without their help.
@@Andrew-yl7lm WHAT???
Chile's "passive" assistance was greatly appreciated: Chilean manoeuvres, near the Argentine border and their "correct" conduct when handling combatants (the crew of a crashed Sea King) did indeed cause Argentina to (wrongly) focus some of their effort towards Chile. However, the threat to the military junta of Argentina was a Royal Navy Task Force and an invasion force. Thanks for that help and thanks to the USA for their input (materiel, like that of WW2 - paid for!)
inside the exclusion zone
outside the exclusion zone
The exclusion zone applied only to ships that were NOT Argentine.
If the RN caught an Argentine ship in the Indian Ocean, that Argentine ship was fair game. c’est le guerre
Then again, 200 miles is an arbitrary number. What if it was 300 miles?
@@sillypuppy5940 The Argentines were told about 10 days before the sinking via the Swiss embassy in Buenos Aires that the 200-mile exclusion zone was not the limit of any action
And even if the Brits DID say it applied to Argentina. And that that any Argentine ship outside it was safe (they did not say that), who cares? They. Were. At. War. A war that Argentina started no less.
It is not wise to always be honest with your enemy. Imagine the Normandy landings if the Allies had been up front with Jerry...
The Total Exclusion Zone - something the Iranians should have put in place before firing off their missiles - was to prevent such things as civilian aircraft being shot down by mistake or an ocean-going cruise liner being sunk accidently
@@arthurfisher1857 AND let's not forget the Belgrano wasn't out on a pleasure cruise
Congratulations to the VMF Moskva for unseating the ARA General Belgrano as the largest warship sunk in combat since the Second World War.
The new torpedoes unreliable...where did I hear that...oh Yes, Prime Minister!
"So, the torpedoes don't work?"
"Oh no, just the new ones. The old ones are fine."
"Which old ones?"
"The ones from the second world war."
(quoting from memory, please excuse the mistakes)
Oh of course from Yes Minister! Great stuff
and don't forget that the most reliable torpedoes during at least the early stages of WW2 were those that had been in stock since the end of WW1...
Those torpedoes that were new models when WW2 started were horribly unreliable, especially the American ones.
@@jwenting "Well of course, they had a lot of testing. We can't afford that in peace!"
@@jwenting Torpedoes are like fine wine. Need to mature awhile before using them.
I love Yes Minister/prime Minister. Probably my second favourite British comedy series after Blackadder!
"ships can change direction and speed.." Halsey did not seem to realize this with regards to Center Force.
He'd not read the memo
@@bigblue6917 "Next time Jack, write a goddamn memo!"
Couldn't help it. :D
That's why I hate Halsey. Not considering that exactly this could happen and then ignoring the pilots, who were telling him, that this was actually happening.
@@timc9641 and I , therefore, you!
Wait..what am I hating and why?
Meh, taking risks had paid off for him before; by contrast, they dragged Spruance over the coals for being too cautious.
Halsey's real mistake was thinking the remaining IJN carriers were a threat and not an obvious paper tiger.
As an American who was a child at the time, I never understood the controversy. There was a war, two navies went at it, and one sank the other's cruiser. Seemed pretty simple to me back then. In fact, I never understood why the Brits didn't attack the Argentine naval bases and airfields on the mainland, the US Navy would certainly have done so.
Helium Road SAS conducted a raid against the Argentinian mainland but it failed
@@JohnoO_O_ I’d imagine he’s talking about carrier based aircraft to bomb the airfields
@@JohnoO_O_ They were _planning_ a raid on the mainland (look up "Operation Mikado"), but it was never actually launched (and fortunately so, as pretty much everyone on both sides agrees nowadays that it'd've been a suicide mission).
RIP the sailors who lost their lives
And may the Argentine government stop abusing them.
@@calvingreene90 As opposed to the US government that sends untold thousands to fight and die in endless oil wars.
@@geonerd
The wars might have been stupid and they were prosecuted in a stupid manner but they were not about oil. If it was about oil Iraq would have been divided separating the oil bearing Kurdish territory from the muslim wastelands to the south. Which we should have done as well as separating the sunni from the shiite. Given that I am feeling generous to my enemies today having about half the oil profits distributed on a somewhat equitably between the muslims as long as they behave themselves.
@@geonerd this channel is about warships, not politics.
"they were not about oil" ... points and laughs at you ignorance
Excellent as usual, and good effort in trying to be impartial.
The Sailors on the ships on both sides knew the risks and knew the rules. To try and claim otherwise is an insult to their memories on both sides.
"...patrols of various territories that Argentina actually owned..."
Some serious Falklands shade there :P.
He's a savage
Comes under claimed but did not actually control. And still doesn't
They also invaded South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, South Georgia was cleared first with the Antrim and Plymouth doing most of the work, the latter after the Falklands, peacefully.
Ah, yes. Our first Drachism of the day.
Yes. As that line passed into the "... claimed but did not actually control...." part, I expected Drach might do a subtle ", " before rolling into his next sentence.
The Empire strikes back
oh the puns
@@eric24567 That was actually a news headline from the time about the conflict, quite a few actually, usually in some slight variation such as "The British Empire Strikes Back"
weldonwin - This is true. For one thing, this was the headline used in one of the newspapers in the Philippines at the time of the Belgrano’s sinking. It said “THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK” in huge font at the top of the front page, and immediately below it was an equally large photo of a British aircraft carrier sailing menacingly towards the camera. The rest of the front page were numerous articles covering the conflict itself.
@@PaperclipClips i have a pic on my phone but I can't find it
the more you know.
also this means i'll have imperial march playing in my head next time Drach reviews a royal navy ship
Y'know.....when the captain of the Belgrano says the sinking was a legitimate act of war, that should be the end of it.""
RIP, Captain Bonzo.
Before anyone asks, yes, that was his actual name.
To this day I find impossible accept that an armed warship can somehow be "peaceful", as if the Belgrano was themed cruise ship or something. I also think the whole controversy is to duck the question of what kind of jerk sends a relic into war against a modern navy?
Te olvidas de una cosa, ya que veo que no lo decis. Que esté armado es una cosa, pero estaba fuera de la zona de exclusión fijada por el mismo gobierno británico y esto duró únicamente 72hs. El buque estaba navegando rumbo al continente, no representaba peligro alguno y en ese ataque cobarde, artero, murieron 326 marineros o solados o tripulantes argentinos, como los quieran llamar, la mitad de los fallecidos en toda la guerra. No pudieron defenderse ni luchar. Par la gran mayoría fue un crimen de guerra, pero para unos pocos, como Gran Bretaña y si aliados de siempre no. ° casualidad que se dio justo en el momento que la propuesta de paz del presidente peruano B. Muy estaba prosperando, algo que puso muy nerviosos a la Reina y sus ministros y ordenaron en forma urgente ese ataque. Como será que recientemente se han desclasificado 3500 documentos de la guerra y en ningunos aparece este episodio y los próximos se darán a conocer en el 2072, o sea 90 años después. No te confundas, no todo vale en una guerra, y tampoco te creas que los buenos están de un lado y los malos, el imperio del mal como dicen, del otro, para nada, miserias hay en todos los lados y si sos inteligente lo debes saber.
Good point. HMS Conqueror probably heard that old ship coming from a hundred miles away...
@@oscarbosio9881 According to Google Translate, everything you said is irrelevant.
"You forget one thing, since I see that you do not decide. That it is armed is one thing, but it was outside the exclusion zone set by the British government itself and this lasted only 72 hours. The ship was sailing towards the continent, it did not represent any danger and in that cowardly attack, artero, 326 sailors or soldiers or Argentine crewmen died, as they want to call them, half of those killed in the whole war. They could not defend or fight. For the vast majority it was a war crime, but for a few, like Britain and if not always allies. ° coincidence that occurred just at the time that the proposal of peace of the Peruvian president B. He was very prosperous, something that made the Queen and her ministers very nervous and urgently ordered that attack. As it will be that recently 3,500 war documents have been declassified and in none of them does this episode appear and the next ones will be announced in 2072, that is 90 years later. Do not be confused, not everything goes in a war, and do not believe that the good are on one side and the bad, the empire of evil as they say, on the other, not at all, misery is everywhere and if you are intelligent what you must know."
Being outside the TEZ doesn't mean a thing.
@@sheriff0017 Google Translate? Irrelevante? Esperá 90 años y vas a saber la verdad de todo lo que pasó.
@@oscarbosio9881 sorry old boy, I only speak the same language spoken on the Falklands...
“... that’s why this channel is about warships and not politics”
HEAR HIM! HEAR HIM!
Yet still he throws in the odd political statement ...
The sinking of the Belgrano not only removed a serious threat to the British Task Force, it ensured most of the Argentine Navy spent most of the rest of the war in port, saving perhaps British and certainly Argentine lives.
99IronDuke
While I do think the sinking was acceptable (since Argentina was the aggressor), was a light cruiser (with far more limited range) really any threat to a carrier force that could stay out of gun range indefinitely?
@@bkjeong4302 The problem was that no modern warship would have survived long within Balgrano's gun range, and it was pretty fast. By the time the British got there, the Argentinians were in a defensive position and the British had to attack, so even if they could have stayed outside of Balgrano's gun range, doing so would significantly limit their options.
It's a bit like bringing a gun to sword fight with Connan the Barbarian. You have a huge advantage, but only if you shoot first.
@@bkjeong4302 Maybe the warships could've matched Belgrano's speed, but there were a lot of ships in the British fleet that were NOT that fast.
@@7thsealord888 Even so the British would still have a major range advantage and be able to sink the Belgranio long before it got into gun range (as long as the weather held up)
@@TonboIV "It's a bit like bringing a gun to sword fight with Connan the Barbarian. You have a huge advantage, but only if you shoot first."
Or if you simply stay away from the sword, which the British carriers could, and even with the slower vessels it would take quite a while for Belgrano to get close enough to open fire.
There was a war. Belgrano was a warship. A legitimate target.
There was a war.An exclusion zone was agreed by both parties. Not respected. Why bother?
@@fidelismiles7439 It was respected entirely. No neutral shipping sailed into the zone or were attacked. The EXCLUSION zone worked exactly as intended. Under UNSC Resolution 502 the UK then sank a threat to them upholding the resolution. There isn't really any issues here. Outside of Argentina committing an act of war by invading the islands without a declaration of war or UNSC approval.
@@fidelismiles7439 it was not agreed it was imposed by the UK as a warning to shipping of other Nations
@@fidelismiles7439 that was for neutral warships
@@fidelismiles7439 get over with this bullshit. Argentine shouldn't have invaded the Islands so that there would be no further whining from your side.
The junta belived that they can quickly grab foreign lands with a population even not speaking Spanish, claim it your own and expected there will be no reprecaussions. The Russians do the same now
In answer to Argentina’s claims of “unfairness,” in the sinking of the Belgrano, the best short summary reply to them is:
“Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”
Moskva has now surpassed ARA General Belgrano as the largest warship sunk in combat during WWII
Ukraine got them good. The drones distracting the ship helped guide the missiles in. Rough seas made it even more difficult for the Russian ship to detect
during wwII?
@@BlackHearthguard I'm sure it was sunk in the Falkland war
@@jamesharris4695 yeah, the OP said during WWII... Belgrano was during the Falklands, and Moskva was a couple of weeks ago...
You mean post WW2
Nearly choked on my martini with the comment about the ex-French Corvettes ;-))
HMS Conqueror had to attack the Belgrano where it did because of an under sea ridge which Belgrano was about to pass over. The ridge would have made pursuit by the submarine much more difficult and an attack more difficult to carry out when it may well have become more urgent to do so if Belgrano attempted to engage the task force.
Also the sinking of Belgrano was early on in the conflict and it served as a message of British resolve that they would take any and all necessary action against a hostile vessel. Or in layman's terms "You wanted a war? Here's a war..."
Don Felipe you are so right
Let me get this straight. Early WW2, Norway sunk the Blucher with Croatian torpedoes from the 1880's, thus about 60 years old at the time. Falklands War, the UK sinks the General Belgrano with 40 year old WW2 era torpedoes. The age of a torpedo is irrelevant.
Lol in fairness the ship sunk was older than the torpedoes, probably perfect torps to use to be honest due the ships thick armour.
7:28 "For fairness, and because nobody trusts politicians."
12:18 "But that's why this channel is about warships, and not politics." (Hear Hear)
Falklands war in a nutshell:
Argentina: yoink
UK: fights back
Argentina: *surprised pikachu*
UK: (after taking Georgias) Hahaha this will be a picnic!
Argentina: *Sinks SS Atlantic Conveyor, sinks several of the most modern ships with planes from the 50's and bombs from WW2 also sinks/damages SS Sir Tristam and Sir Galahad delaying the war for one more week.
UK: *Surprised Pikachu face*
Russia: *Laughing in the background*
@@fidelismiles7439 Russia in 1982 -I'm sorry there's no food for sale, just vodka
LOL
@@brucemcpherson8832 and 1990s lol
@@fidelismiles7439
France : Sold Argentina Exocet anti ship missiles which were certainly not WW2 era bombs and could be fired from jet aircraft like the American A4 Skyhawk, also available to the Argentine forces.
Aregentina : Surrender and lose the Falklands conflict that they started.
Strigon Wolf : Makes a truly pathetic attempt to belittle brave men who sacrificed their lives, which only results in his own humiliation and the exposure of his ignorance to the world at large.
Sabaton's Back in Control loudly playing in the distance
_Looked up on YT_
Thanks!
WE ARE BACK IN CONTROL!
FORCE THEM TO SURRENDER!
TAKE WHAT IS OURS!
RESTORE LAW AND ORDER!
In an interview later the Captain of the Belgrano said himself that their battlegroup was manuvering to engage, therefore fair game.
'Honest Broker' Peru were so committed to peace that they lent the Argies 10 Mirages later on in the War. They wanted to pile in on Chile later. General Matthei of the Chilean Air Force said that the Chileans understood that Argentina was going to go for them after the Falklands War (had they won) as Galtieri had openly said that they would go for other areas, i.e. The Beagle Channel after the abortive invasion of 1978. No mention of any RAF Canberras...
Your take on the sinking of the Belgrano was something I was interested in since your original vids on the Brooklyn class, honestly.
I was working at Port Everglades in Florida when several ships from the British task force stopped on the way back to the UK. There was some serious damage to some of the vessels including a carrier. Sorry, I don't remember which one. The sailors & marines were exhausted but jubilant. A very long voyage followed by a difficult campaign with an uncertain outcome around a cold & desolate rock in the middle of nowhere. But it could have been worse as one sailor pointed out. We all had enormous respect for the lot.
Thanks for posting this information regards the General Belgrano.
I'm ex RAN, I was serving as an MTH stoker onboard HMAS Swan a Modified Leander class frigate heading for a RIMPAC exercise in Hawaii at the outbreak if the Falklands war rumours abounded about our ship being redeployed to assist the RN task force of course this never occurred but as a young ignorant guy I was very excited and keen to take part in the war, my dad having been a "Harry Tates" PO stoker on converted trawler minesweepers in ww2 and his brother my uncle ( of course) being a stoker on HMS Warspite during the Narvic campaign and when it was struck by the two wire guided bombs.
They survived the war.
Their home was in East Tilbury was hit by a UXB
My grandparents and my aunty being inside at the time they also survived the war.
I wanted to be able to tell of my experiences of being at war also I guess my right of passage if you like.
The Belgrano was a Pearl Harbor survivor, as the USS Pheonix.
That Falklands War. The general feeling in the US was, "What the hell does Argentina think they are doing? The Brits are going to kick their asses," but at the same time "Why the hell are people fighting over sheep?"
I was a Midshipman at the Royal Australian Naval College in 1982. You can imagine how closely we followed the conflict. And yes, we had the same view... "going to be an arse kicking". The Argies did about as well as could be expected one has to say... their pilots had balls!!!
Oil has now been discovered around the Falklands.
@@halojump123 lol you give Argentina way too much credit to know that.
They were very good looking sheep.
It wouldn't have bothered me a jot if the Belgrano was in dry dock at the time and destroyed. We were at war.
The Argies were just lucky the fighting was contained to the islands, imagine what that vulcan could have done to their cities.
@@BlackHearthguard the Vulcans wouldn't have been very useful to bomb the Argentine mainland, no aircraft had the range to escort so they would be easy prey for the Argentine Mirage's, if the fighting continued into the Mainland other South american countries would have intervened like Brazil and Peru.
The audio of the sinking was broadcast on tv a few years ago, with an ex-RN chappie wincing at what he explained was the boilers going.
"But this message was intercepted by the British". Yes, of course it was, that is what the British do! And they do it so well!
Argentina declared war on GB by attacking the Falklands, South Georgia. The Belgrano was a legitimate target regardless of where it was found and sunk.
There lucky that beuenos Aries didn't eat a Polaris round..... Or a we177. Which as they attacked the territory of a nuclear power was a potential.
If you are at war you are liable to be attacked. So tough luck Argentina. That said my condolences to the families of the lost sailors.
a war they started, in light of that their continuing claims to the islands are silly; they are the ones who decided the decision of ownership would be made through armed conflict so they should respect who owns the islands now
@@sheeplebarn333 Their claims are not silly. The Spanish claimed the area first, then the french settled there. The Spanish asked them to leave and they did. The brittish where not even allowed to sail to the south, but they sent a secret survey ship. That survey ship went rogue and established an illegal outpost. The spanish found out and demanded that they leave. The Brittish king ordered them to leave and renounced any xlaim to the islands. So the spanish owned them for a long time, then they became Argentines. The Argentines continued to rule the islands, but as a new free people. They sent a new governor who ruled for over a decade before the brittish invaded for the third time that century, but not the last. In 1833 they took the islands and Argentina has wanted to recover them since then. The Argentine claim is inheritance from Spain, a claim which spain also recognizes, but also having ruled the islands. The brittish claim is usurpation and long term occupation.
The war happend because the brittish where besting around the bush, they had been negotiating in the 60s to return the islands. But negotiations stopped when the Junta overthrew the Argentine goverment. The brittish where exploiting rescources on the islands, breaking international decisions to maintain the islands as they where, until negotiations ended. The Junta also needed public support, so it was an unfortunate deries of events for everyone involved
@@tuff9486 The English claimed the area in 1690, long before Argentina even existed.
@@BlackHearthguard The Brittish had nothing to do in the South and the Area waa claimed by spain long before Brittain even sailed there. The Spanish land then became Argentine. The Brittish renounced their claim to the island and then recognized Argentina as a nation. So twice they recognized their claim. There are documents of Brittish ships asking Argentina and the Governor of the islands for permission to hunt sea lions. The only brittish claim is long term occupation since 1833
I was working on a small (1400 ton) drillship doing oilfield survey work off the coast of Argentina in Dec 79 - Jan 80. Anchored on location (6-point spread) I watched a ship approach, thought 'It's a WW2-surplus Cruiser'. She stopped sideways on to us and the turrets pointed our way. The mate, from Oz, had the watch. Over Channel 16 the ship messaged, in Spanish 'What ship are you, what are you doing and why are you here. Answer me or I open fire?*' The mate felt his spoken Spanish was not adequate, called the Spanish Bosun to answer. The ship accepted the reply and moved away.
I'd taken a photo, checked subsequently. Yes, we were threatened by The Gen B.
It is an area of strong tides and a longshore current. While stopped the GB drifted off, about 30 degrees, in a display of poor ship handling. Should have maintained steerage way.
*For the avoidance of doubt, this is not normal Channel 16 protocol. Actual words were about as written if not exactly so.
For clarity, this was off the coast of southern Argentina, near to the ports Rio Gallegas and Commodoro Something. ISTR we were looking at gas fields*, but Long Time Ago. That the hydrocarbon reserves may have extended further to the West was probably one reason for the invasion attempt.
One further comment - we resupplied in Rio G. This was the only time in my career that I was very aware of being followed by secret police as we walked around shopping and looking to eat. They drove brand-new US Fords: the locals in the poor fishing port / farming town drove beat-up pickups and old Euro or Japanese saloons.
*See also Tierra del Fuego - burning gas seepages?
The moment this popped up on my notifications, I knew it would be one heck of a spicy meatball.
But nonetheless fine work as always Drach.
I love the warships content, but the real reason I come here are for the low key French jabs.
I am a (German) leftie but it always dismays me, when my political side gets into that almost automatic "THAT IS A WAR CRIME" yell, once there is a serious action happening in any war without even bothering to check the facts.
The Brits giving the Argies hell about the Falklands was absolutely leigitimate. Hell, in my view it was the only morally, legally and strategically completely legitimate act of war since 1945 done by any nation.
The far left here are insane and I am a liberal saying that. Lol
American Leftie here- as much as I hated Thatcher, I thought the Brits were in the right, too.
The Argies were lucky they only lost one ship and that England didn't clear the sea in the area. It could have gone much worse for them.
Argentina brought it on themselves
I never understood how this sinking was controversial. Argentina started the war, so they don't get to bitch about what happens during the war. It is just like Japan bitching about the use of nuclear weapons in 1945. It is just absurd.
The equivalent of starting your neighbors house on fire, then complaining when yours catches fire and burns down as a consequence!
@@JG-mp5nb Except the UK didn't start the fight. That is purely on the argentinians.
Perfectly presented. Concise and to the point. Thanks, Drach.
I think it’s incredibly dumb how the destruction of the Belgrano was even questioned. Argentina declared war on Britain and Britain sunk one of their warships. That’s literally what happens in war, doesn’t matter what the intention of the ship is. I imagine that if “running away = do not fire” was actually a thing, they could just get as close as possible until it is known they are detected, do a 180 and claim they are running away and apparently be immune to getting shot at. Stupid
There was no declaration of war, or formal state of war, but yes, justified 100%
Skyace 95 you are so right
- Ruttley I would count an invasion of Britain a definite declaration of war
@@Alucard-gt1zf Brittain invaded first in 1806, then in 1807, then they took the islands in 1833, then invaded again in 1845.
@@tuff9486 No, it was a British colony, then the Argies invaded it, then we took it back. Simple.
It's worth adding that at the time of the sinking the Belgrano task force was only a few hours from a position from which the 3 Drummond class corvettes would have been within Exocet range of RN ships. Given the appalling weather in the area at the time any submarine captain worth his dolphins would have prosecuted their targets as soon as they were so authorised.
The Argentines were lucky not to loose their carrier too, as they were also being stalked by a British nuclear submarine which had almost caught it by the time the Venticinco de Mayo reached home waters.
The rule of war is don't start one. Planes, ships, vehicles and most importantly people die. To complain after the fact are the tantrums of a child.
Well put
"The Art of War" begins with these lines:
1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.
2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.
It seems like just some introductory fluff, but these are probably the most important words in the book.
@ _"And how many Americans who signed up for the National Guard or such to get acces to education without the benefit of a rich daddy, ended up losing limbs or their life in Iraq, while the Bush clan sat at home enjoying wealth and playing politics."_
A. Bush the younger was in the national guard. The Texas Air National Guard, if I remember right, and wanted to fight in Vietnam but was denied by his commander (admittedly as a pilot, which is a lot more "fun" than if you're a rifleman).
B. Bush the older was a pilot in WWII, fought against the japanese, was shot down into the sea and was very close to being captured by japanese forces where the officers enganged in cannibalism of american pilots.....
As for Thatcher and british soldiers, the latter very much liked the former.
@
A. I'm not a republican nor am I even an American.
B. I served in my nations military. (Armored regiment)
C. The first draft lottery took place 1969 while Bush joined the Air National Guard in 1968.
D. If he wished to dodge the draft, he could have easily done so by getting a deferment as a college student.
E. The most important part. Pilots are nowhere near the same kind of danger or have to face the sorts of conditions that grunts in the field are forced to endure. Being a US pilot in the Vietnam War was mostly "fun" with relatively little risk and with very good conditions flying back to base and civilization at the end of every mission.
@@nehcrum The death rate for aircrew is significantly higher than the average infantry man. There are just a lot more infantry than aircrew and the aircrew get better food on average.
As an Argentine I always thought that the attack was legitimate. The murderous military junta of the time tried to stir things up making it look like an act of piracy, a point of View that has unfortunately stuck.
Nobody benefitted from that conflict, least of all Argentina.
Still our thoughts go out to those who lost loved ones in the sinking.
@@7thsealord888 The people of the Falklands, who still have a vast majority wishing to remain British citizens, definitely benefited from not being ruled by a military dictatorship.
@@horationelson2440 I do not dispute that, or that Argentina's attempted seizure was anything but an illegal and desperate bid by a corrupt dictatorship for a "Short Victorious War".
Regarding any claim on the Falkland Islands, the truth is that Argentina is very much at the back of the line. Historically, not only the UK but also France, Spain and possibly even Portugal can all make some sort of case. To say nothing of the wishes of the islanders themselves.
@@7thsealord888 The Argentinians benefitted by getting rid of the junta.
"Almighty Father, strong to save,
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep:
O hear us when we cry to thee
For those in peril on the sea."
Very interesting video. The whole war interests me especially this ship. Thank you for your time in making this video.
The older torpedoes were used because they were designed to be effective against ARMORED warships like the Belgrano....
Didn’t the captain of the Belgrano at one point say something along the lines of “had the Conquer surfaced alongside my ship I would have ordered my crew to fire on it even if we had not been fired upon.” I do not recall where I heard that, but it came to mind watching the video.
General Galtieri is to blame for the loss of lives on the Belgrano. No one else.
Yep, politicians are like poop filled diapers...they should be changed regularly and quite often... :) T U for this video....for some reason I had always thought the Belgrano was an old U S Heavy Cruiser...had a British friend here in the U S at the time and we followed the Falklands War very closely...I`m sorry if this seems unkind to some, but 3 big Huzzahs to the Brits for standing up to the aggressor.
I know it as "Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often, and for the same reason."
She was basically a heavy cruiser with her displacement and armor, but the 6" guns put her in the light cruiser zone. I would rather have the Phoenix than a treaty heavy cruiser in an action off Guadalcanal!
Thanks Drach for handling such a delicate topic carefully.
I never had a problem with the sinking of the Belgrano. The situation can be boiled down to this.
Argentina attacked and invaded British territory, causing a war.
The Belgrano is an enemy combatant in a time of war and is therefore a legitimate target in any circumstance.
Going by the argument that the ship was sailing away you could say the attack and sinking of HMS Ark Royal in WW2 was illegal as it was heading to port.
Those are such excellent points to refute the direction and location argument about the Bismarck and so on.
The complete disregard for politics in this video is delicious.
The British SSN's were a huge asset for the UK in that war.
They almost got the Argentine carrier as well.
HMS Splendid had a shot on the carrier, but it was earlier in the war when there was still mostly negotiations.
"A Legal Act Of War" Guess what Argentina, Invading someones land is also an act of war
Beigranos original name was uss Phoenix a Brooklyn class light cruiser. She was present at Pearl Harbor on 12-7-41. She served with distinction through out Ww2. Transporting General MacArthur several times.
I lowkey like watching Falklands war videos so I can see people try and make the absolutely idiotic claim that the sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime
Congratulations on another well-made and well researched video. I’ve got a couple of thoughts about your comments on the UK politics, as you briefly touched upon the subject
Just prior to the Falklands war although the Conservative government was very unpopular the party which was riding high in the opinion polls wasn’t the Labour Party but the Liberal/SDP Alliance. If an election had been called then it’s very unlikely that the Labour Party would have won, or even come second.
I think you may be mixing up the Labour party in general with Tam Dalyell in particular. He was a maverick whose Wikipedia page records that in 1978-79 voted against the Labour government over a hundred times. The sinking of the General Belgrano was one the causes he grabbed hold of as an individual and wouldn’t let go of. He was helped in keeping this alive as an issue by the actions of the British government, which instead of calmly stating facts as you did attempted to conceal key details which were then leaked to Tam Dalyell by a senior Civil Servant called Clive Ponting. The failure of the subsequent prosecution of Ponting gave the controversy even more life.
Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight
The Belgrano has the distinction of being the only ship ever sunk in wartime by a nuclear submarine.
As the Phoenix, she was used mostly for shore bombardment and escort duty due to being obsolete. Didn't have 8 inch guns. Was a Washington Treaty ship design.
So they took a ship that was obsolete by around 1944 and put that in the water against a thoroughly modern navy. I thought back then after hearing about her sinking that it was negligent to get that out and parade around with it - because that's about all that ship could accomplish at that time.
I think her WWII use was more a function of how the war was fought than her obsolescense. The Brooklyns saw upgrades and they were relevant,capable frontline ships throughout the war. She had 6" guns because she was a light cruiser, and there were many 8" gunned heavies that were older and saw significant use. That said, putting her to use against a modern navy was optimistic and fairly foolish. But ya use whatcha got i guess....
As a kid, and as a warships fan, I was always saddened by the sinking of the General Belgrano, because it had been the USS Phoenix and it was sunk by the British Royal Navy, an ally of the United States. Sure, had it not been purchased by the Argentinians, it would just have been scrapped at the breaking docks, but it's just the whole concept. RIP to all those who died in this ill-advised conflict
Yeah, it was a sad fate. The Phoenix was a Pearl Harbor survivor and was part of the fleet that took MacArthur back to the Philippines- one island at a time. Her sister, the Boise, survived both the ill fated campaign for the East Indies and the nightmare of Guadalcanal. That noble ship deserved better.
2:36
[METAPHORICAL] SHOTS FIRED!
ARA General Belgrano was an enemy warship on the high seas in time of war. That's all the justification needed to sink it.
1:02 its actually the "peronist" loyalty day
What intrigues me is the "what if" scenario. Hadn't the Belgrano been intercepted by the Conqueror, what would have happened? But let's assume more. The Belgrano heads full speed at 30+ knots towards the British task force, what were the chances to stop her? Would she have been a realistic threat with her 15 x 6 inch guns? I reckon she would have needed to be in a 15km range to fire on target.
here is one thing to take into account in these early days of the war, if things had gone badly for the british, how could the belgrano have capitalized on the event ? say the british lost one or both carriers or some other event where the fleet had to flee out of range of protecting troops on the island - think of what those guns on the ship would have been capable of if they got within range of those troops - the belgrano by this time btw was only capable of maybe 21 knots and rarely traveled above 18 knots. Those boilers were ancient.
Great video - thank you! I like how how you have separated the tactical decisions from the political hysteria that surrounded the sinking of the General Belgrano, and especially how you referred to the comments of the Argentine armed forces and in particular the CO of the ship in question - if they accept the sinking of General Belgrano as a legitimate act, there can be no doubt that it was, no matter what political demagogues of any flavour might try to argue.
Glad you cleared that "controversy" out, again. I still can´t believe it is being argued. But then again, there are many arseholes and idiots out there.
Emotional irrationality is pretty common.
@@thehandoftheking3314 It is, but using it politically like for example labour has done is very, very cynical and unethical. That is why I used hard words.
When people have had the last 40 years having propaganda being forced down their throats, they aren't going to be able to understand anything different.
@@1993Crag Tell me about it...
I'm pleased the Argentine Navy told the truth rather than lie for political reasons. They kept there self respect and dignity intact.
since there's no pinned post yet, here's my question. How does mine sweeping work on the ocean? I saw a video that was probably made during WWII and it wasn't very informative. Like how are mines detected and how were did mine sweepers deal with them once found?
Pinned post exists now
To not get too technical, it has a lot to do with magnets. Metal detectors can find them, but some mines are designed to detonate if hit with a strong magnetic force. You have to find the mines at a reasonable range, ascertain what model it is, take an educated guess as to how it is armed, and then cross your fingers while you take it up and disable it without detonating it.
Beautifully appropriate ending to this video.
The labour party arguing in support of Britain's enemies? Imagine my shock.
Like the Democrats in the states.....
IKR?
Knut Der Große you're thinking of the Republicans working with Russia. Easy mistake to make.
@@knutdergroe9757 Yeah, it's pretty fucked up how the president inexplicably started to claim that North Korean nukes are suddenly no longer a threat and then professed how he "fell in love" with Kim Jong-Un because of the "beautiful letters" he sends him in between balistic missile tests. That and publicly absolving him of any responsibility for torturing that American student to death is perhaps the most pitiful display of obsequiousness any president has ever shown towards a murderous dicator like that.
Oh, you were talking about Democrats. Now that's weired.
To my knowledge Michael Foot made no comment over the Belgrano and it was only a few vocal backbenchers like Tam Dalyell who was vehemently anti-war. I'd be interested to see what sources Drac was using in this regard.
Well said.
I never understood the debate about the sinking. The Belgrano may be have been an old ship but it’s main armament was powerful and it was therefore a threat to be taken seriously wherever it was. Sinking it was an entirely proper response. A good job for UK forces that the PM of the day had balls.
I absolutely love your videos; especially your narration! Great work!
2 Argentine politicians disliked this video
Excellent commentary on the attack on and sinking of the Belgrano.
Any chance of a video on the loss of the Cressy, Aboukir & Hogue in 1914?
,a sad ending to the Phoniex. To bad she couldn't have gone down in a blaze of glory
Well done sir! Thank you.
My Dad served on the USS Phoenix in WW2. He was mad as hell that the Brits sank her.
Tough shit. Blame Argentina for invading.
Would he have been as mad if the Argentinians had used it to invade a US sovereign territory?
Always a risk when you sell a vessel to another nation. What did he think the British should have done, refused to sink an enemy combatant for old times sake?
The RN was also happy to torpedo argie ships that were once ours, and did destroy a french sub too, so sinking the belgrano was not an intended jibe at anybody in the USA.
(after all the latter sold us Sidewinder AAM's, and debated offering us a spare Carrier for a while)
I'm sure a USN Sub' would've done the same to the Belgrano, had they been ordered to.
Awwww......too bad.
Tam Dalyell became a real bore over this sinking in Parliament, apparently stupid enough to think a warship is unable to reverse course by the turn of a wheel.
wheels are the handiwork of the devil
The tiger fish was about as effective as cat flap in a elephant house.
Not strictly true, and in this instance an inappropriate weapon, see my response lower down.
@@572Btriode TH-cam seems to have disable the feature that let's me see your other posts in this video. Any chance you could li k your comments?
@@Willys-Wagon I can't find it either ! But it's in my comment history, maybe I should repeat it here, but I'm having a chat with Drach presently and I do not want to fill his comments unnecessarily. Just a very brief summation, I worked on every element of Tigerfish in manufacture/test/set-up to whole weapon assembly. It's an anti-submarine weapon, nuclear boats go (very) deep, Tigerfish cannot get anywhere near shallow enough to hit a ship, so an inappropriate weapon in this case and any other assumptions about reliability or effectiveness are inapplicable really.
If you can see my email on my about page then ping me a mail, or have Drach forward one.
Profesionally made video. Thank you!
GOTCHA
This was as close as you get to a war without hate. Both sides respected each other and there are numerous videos of veterans of both sides meeting up and becoming comrades.
Wait, let me get this straight: we can't fight Chile because they can kick our butts, so instead we fight England, one of the two countries (along with America) that has repeatedly sold their old decommissioned warships to Chile and Argentina and Brazil, because their cast-offs are good enough to be our flagships. Surely, if we fight them, we will win easily. Have I got that right?
Kinda...they thought th Brute were too far away n broke to do much about it.
The Argentine Military attache in London told their leaders that the British wouldn't fight for the islands. It's easy to win if the other side will give up without fighting.
Imagine the crestfallen faces when the task force sailed, and it was understood that they were going to have to fight after all. Further imagine those faces when the Tin Triangle arrived over the main airfield and catered the runway.
Afaik the planned aggression against Chile was condemned by the Pope. When your reason for the war was getting the largely catholic Argentinian public on your side, then going directly against the Pope's wishes kinda sorta defeats the purpose.
The utter contempt for politicians shown in the latter half of this video was beautiful.
OK ok! We're convinced you're human, jeez!
This was originally released with a text - to - speech (robo) voice over
@@sadams12345678 I believe they were making a joke lol
I'm still not quite convinced
Well said!
The Admiral Belgrano (not General Belgrano) showed intent to head back into the "exclusion zone" and was later confirmed by its surviving crew, so therefore it was a "legal" sinking
Naw, it's fairly clearly *General* Belgrano. That's what the Argentinian's named it, after *General* Manuel Belgrano. I can literally find Nothing in terms of sources that refer to the man as an Admiral.
Great stuff as usual and the inherent political and legal ramifications deftly handled.
I know how this one ends....
After the occupation, but before the RN sailed, an American public news program hosted a retired RN vice admiral who had flown in the area. When asked about possible outcomes, he replied that he was “quietly optimistic.” There will ALWAYS be an England.