MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ Battle century commemoration includes an invitation to the German Navy
A committee has been formed to organize the commemoration of the Battles of Coronel and the Falklands in 1914, two decisive events of the First World War which although occurred in the Southern hemisphere had a full impact in the European conflict.Last week some twenty people met in the Parish Hall of the Falkalnds' capital, Stanley to address the issue under the chairmanship of Phyl Rendell. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesYes, I am sure the Germans will turn up with maps of Poland, Ukraine, Belgium and Luxembourg coloured in the old German Empire flag...calling for restoration of the Reich stolen from them.
Jan 28th, 2013 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Surely no country would behave in such a ludicrous, pathetic and disrespectful fashion...
Well the Germans (a grown up democracy) won't....
What an excellent suggestion. Please remember, it is Coronel, not Colonel.
Jan 28th, 2013 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's over forty years since I was in Stanley. Terry Peck was a good friend. I sometimes wonder why his contribution during the Falklands War was not recognised in the 30 years commemoration.
These links may be useful to them.
Jan 28th, 2013 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0World War I: Battle Of Falkland Islands 1/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqSZcGRZ3CI
World War I: Battle Of Falkland Islands 2/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqSZcGRZ3CI
World War I: Battle Of Falkland Islands 3/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqSZcGRZ3CI
An interesting scenario. The First World War saw horrible events such as the use of chemical agents and unrestricted submarine warfare. But it was still “human” and even “gentlemanly”. Thus the Christmas Truce. It took a total of 10 years to persuade the Germans that they were on the wrong track. Are they trying again, under the guise of the EU? Who knows? But compare them to argies. What lands did the Germans continue to claim even though they had been beaten? What provable lies did they continue to tell? Even some nazis had sufficient honour to act properly. And what about argies? They continue to claim territory that both history and international law, for 200 years, say they have no claim on. Argies continue to tell dozens of provable lies. No honesty and no honour. Not human. They should be treated as they deserve. There are apes and monkeys that display more honesty and honour! Are they actually “humans”? Or just retarded, hairless apes?
Jan 28th, 2013 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder if Germans will attend with the proper attitude? We had a disagreement. A disagreement that could only be resolved, at German instigation, by war. A war that was fought hard. But both sides remembered humanity and honour. That is what we could come together to remember.
Argies shouldn't expect such treatment for the next thousand years! And the Falkland Islands will STILL be FREE!
Monkey: I think your comment is a bit cheap. A lot of fine men both German and British died in the two battles. Conks: there is no need to bring Argentina into this thread. Theyhad eff all to do with the battles and no need to use this commemoration as an excuse for Argie bashing
Jan 28th, 2013 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maximilian Graf von Spee was lost with both his sons who were contemporaries of Hans Langsdorf at the naval acedemy at Kiel and he is a man I much admire for his humanity in the midst of war
No ships in the German navy bear the names of the ships sunk in 1914 but there is one, the Emden which was part of von Spees squadron and her modern equivalent is due to be scrapped. Nice gesture if she could give her swan song as part of the commemorations in Stanley
@4, in 1919 it was the sudetenland, east prussia and danzig. The difference in 1945 was the scale of defeat didn't leave them room to spin bullshit propaganda and the victorious powers told them in no uncertain terms that their expansionist dreams were OVER.
Jan 28th, 2013 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But even under the nazis, Naval warfare was always more gentlemanly than the brutal nature of land warfare. That's why the surviving ships of naval engagements leaving without picking up the survivors bobbing about in the sea carries such a negative connotation. Rescuing stranded sailors is just the *done* thing.
As for the german attitude postwar, it's always been pretty good. Surviving veterans of the Afrika Korps and the Desert rats meet up and drink together these days.
(2) Stonnersman
Jan 28th, 2013 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“I sometimes wonder why......”
I say...:
Because good men are a pain in the ass for hypocrites and philistines.......
Redpoll
Jan 28th, 2013 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A lot of fine men died much more recently in the Falklands, and it is Argentina that cheapens their death with their ongoing propoganda.
@8 Agreed Monkey but unfortunately us humans have a tendency to go to war. I knew one or two of the Falklands veterans on both sides. I agree this propaganda is a disgrace to thier memory
Jan 28th, 2013 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think What the hell are you on about? No connection at all to this thread. You been on the slivovitz again? Philistines? Grow a wig and you might bring down thier temple like Samson
I served with and under a German Oberhauptfeldwebel at a Nato HeadQuarters. They were fine people and I was proud to call them my friends.
Jan 28th, 2013 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's a pity that some people do not learn from the lessons of the past.
I think it's a superb idea to commemorate the battles. Not only to honour the dead on both sides, but to learn from the battles.
Jan 28th, 2013 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As a former naval officer, having studied the battles of 1914 and the Battle of the River Plate, I came to some startling conclusions and noticed some similarities between them. That similarity extended right up to 1982 as well. The Argentines made exactly the same mistakes as the Germans. It goes to show, that if you fail to study history, you are doomed to repeat it.
Sad that some bring a lot of irrelvant drivel onto here. This event is about 2 nations and a little territiory who have been friends and allies now for half a century - remembering and honouring their dead on both sides in 2 battles fought long ago- Von Spee and Craddock knew and respected each other, Sturdee as well possibly.
Jan 28th, 2013 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nigel,
Jan 28th, 2013 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I too have studied both battles extensively and the Graf Spee battle also. Its an old fashioned word honour. So I cant see how you can connect the 1982 Argentine actions with that word though the Argentine Navy pilots were pretty good.The Belgrano was sunk. Did her accompanying escorting destroyers try to pick up the survivors?? No they did not and scuttled off leaving the crew to thier icy fate. Nothing honourable about that
>redpoll
Jan 28th, 2013 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some members of the Argentine forces acted honourably in 1982, but sadly not all of them. Some not only mistreated the Falkland Islanders, but also their own soldiers. Some were certainly war criminals & some should have been extradited to other countries for crimes committed before 1982.
What I am referring to is the behaviour in battle. Graf Spee certainly exhibited fear at Coronel. He never expected to see Cradock & his reaction was similar to Langsdorff in '39.
Graf Spee repeated the mistake at the Falklands. He could have pressed home the attack & crippled the British fleet whilst they were not ready, but a skilful shot from Canopus (there was no 'luck' involved because this was Naval Gunfire Support at its best) made him fearful that the British Fleet consisted of battleships which were ready for action. He turned & ran & his fate was sealed.
The reputation of the Royal Navy, achieved at Trafalgar, made the enemy commander fearful & this fear lead to a fatal mistake which doomed his fleet.
In 1939, Langsdorf thought he was engaging destroyers acting for larger ships. Intelligence from High Command told him that a Task Force was hunting him. He didn't have clear information on the size of the force (the same as Graf Spee in 1914) & when he committed to battle with Harwood's cruisers, it was too late to back down & run. Langsdorff should have fought the battle until all the British ships were sunk. Unlike Graf Spee in 1914, he could restock his ammo, but the fuel conditioning pump had been destroyed by Exeter & Langsdorff knew that if he did not make it to port & quick, he would become a stationary floating target at sea. Langsdorff's fear of a stronger Royal Navy force made him run rather than fight & as a consequence he lost the end game.
In 1982 the Argentine Navy was preparing to attack our Task Force, but prevented by light winds. HMS Conqueror, renewed their fear of what the Royal Navy could do & they ran for home, giving us victory.
“The Belgrano was sunk. Did her accompanying escorting destroyers try to pick up the survivors?? No they did not and scuttled off leaving the crew to thier icy fate. Nothing honourable about that”
Jan 29th, 2013 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even as a British person i believe this this to be totally wrong.
Put yourself in the commander of that forces shoes. His largest ship is just sunk killing hundreds of people. He can not see his attacker or in any way defend himself or his crew. Killing several hundred more sailors by sitting there would not also be the honorable thing to do.
Saving his three hundred or more sailors he had was the honorable thing to do. He had no reason to believe or trust that we wouldn't rip open the other two ships.
Not even a RN commander today would put several hundred lives, two destroyers and possibly the entire outcome of the war at such a risk if they were in the exact same position.
Nigel
Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even though you are a Former Naval Person and myself a mere landsman I must take issue with you on various aspects
Max von Spee wasnt frightened off the Brits though he was fatalistic as his signals back to the Admiralstab clearly show. German gun discipline was much better than the British not only in these two battles but at Jutland also. Poor old Kit Cradock knew what he was up against but after the Goeben incident and subsequent court martial he wasnt going to flinch from action. Crackock had two old ships the Good Hope and the Monmouth manned by untrained reservists which had not even had a practice shoot on thier way south. Monmouths midship guns could not be manned in a heavy swell as at Coronel. If the Canopus had been in the line things might have turned out different but she wasnt mainly due to Captain Grant relying on the reports of his engineer officer saying that Canopus engines were knackered which they were not
Yes Canopus turned the tide at the Falklands. She only fired one shot as she was anchored at Stanley as a shore battery. I am sure as an FNP you know the story about that
As for Langsdorf he certainly knew von Muller of the SMS Emden and modelled himself on him and on the philosophy of von Spee also, The familes were close friends. Yes he could have and should have blown the Exeter, Achilles and the Ajax out of the water. A defect in his character? Perhaps but I dont think he really believed in the Nazi philosophy. Its said when he shot himself in a Buenos Aires hotel he wrapped himself in the old Imperial navy ensign. A fine man
>Zethee
Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe you are not aware of the facts. I happen to have read the official reports.
Conqueror fired 3 Mark 8 torpedoes at Belgrano. The first one missed the Belgrano. The second blew the bow off the ship. The third hit near the engine room, but the majority of the deaths (275) were in the crews mess directly above.
The first torpedo carried on running and struck the one of the escort destroyers (ARA Hipolito Bouchard) with a glancing blow, insufficient to detonate the torpedo, but loud enough to let everyone on that Destroyer know that a submarine had hit them.
ARA Hipolito Bouchard & ARA Piendrabuena were 3,200 ton destroyers. They did not stick around to let Conqueror put another torpedo into them. They ran as fast as they could dropping depth charges as they went. They later claimed that they were unaware of the Belgrano's fate. They did not return to look for her.
Instead, the Argentine Navy sent unarmed auxillary ships out to look for the survivors. 50 Argentine sailors died due to exposure. If the destroyers had returned these men would have lived.
There were over 1,600 personnel on the Argentine warships compared to the 103 on Conqueror, economy of force, but just one vessel led to the Argentine Navy staying within their 12 mile limit. One nuclear submarine controlled pretty much the entire Argentine Navy.
The Argentine destroyers could have returned to the scene to pick up survivors. They did have anti-submarine weapons, albeit antiquated forward firing Hedgehogs and Mk32 torpedoes, but if they had stopped to pick up survivors, Conqueror would not have engaged them, because they were not a threat to the Task Force on their own. Sure they had Exocet & 6 x 5” inch guns each, but a single Type 21 could repel both.
Nigel Didnt that first torpedo knock out the antisub defences on the Bouchard? Just asking
Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0@18
Jan 29th, 2013 - 04:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, the torpedo struck the side of the ARA Hipolito Bouchard & made a dent and mark consistent with a glancing impact. The torpedo never went off. If it had, the Bouchard would not have survived.
Conqueror was not aiming for the destroyers anyway. Their primary target was the Belgrano. After striking, Conqueror quietly slipped away.
Conqueror could hear the depth charges being dropped by the destroyers as they ran & it appeared that they were the target, but sound is amplified underwater, so explosions some distance off would still sound as if they were aimed, even though they were just killing fish.
The destroyers claimed that they did not see any flares or signals of distress from Belgrano, but it would be pretty hard to miss the massive explosions from those Mk8s, let alone the 'CLANG' reverberating throughout the Bouchard after they were struck.
@16
Maybe von Spee did not show fear at Coronel, but he was fatalistic as you said. He was a 'Dead Man Walking' and admitted it. He honestly believed that he did not have long to live and he was right.
My impression is that with half his ammo gone, he probably knew that he would never survive another full-scale battle. He also knew that the Royal Navy would have to do their utmost to rectify the defeat. Same thing happened again with the Bismark in 1941. After Hood went down, we sent everything to ensure victory.
As for Langsdorff, he was old German Navy. As you said, he wrapped himself in the flag. My feeling is that he realised his mistake & the embarrassment to Germany in choosing Montevideo rather than Mar Del Plata. I believe Langsdorff did fear Harwood's cruisers. Despite numerous hits, even when he turned to attack & sink Exeter, Ajax & Achilles still came at him like mad dogs. Langsdorff did not know the extent of the damage he'd inflicted on them & they continued to harass him. The reputation of the Royal Navy & the fear that his hull would be captured prevented a breakout.
@16 redpoll,
Jan 29th, 2013 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Poor old Chris Craddock, a good Yorkshireman, too, btw.
He had an inferior Squadron.
As you pointed out, 2 old Cruisers, manned by reservists.
An old slow battleship that lagged behind.
one modern Cruiser, the Glasgow & one Armed Merchant ship,
against 5 modern German Cruisers.
Not his fault that he was defeated & certainly not the Germans fault either.
The blame can be squarely laid at the Admiralty's door for equipping & manning a force with old ships & improperly trained crew.
What did they expect?
That the Germans would not give battle & let our ships go because they were not “fairly” matched?
We had the money, our empire was bigger than the Germans.
lf they could afford 5 modern Cruisers then we could afford 10.
Parsimonious governments caused the death of all those good men.
>20
Jan 29th, 2013 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with what you say. It's not a case of the Germans not giving battle because they were 'unfairly matched', because Cradock did not give von Spee much choice. It's that von Spee should have weighed the situation better.
If he had thought it through, he could have inflicted serious damage on Cradock and steamed away. Instead he wasted precious ammo.
After obtaining all the coal they needed, von Spee could have made for home without stopping off at Stanley. For the second time, he engaged in a battle he did not need to fight and this time it cost him his life.
The saddest thing of all (for him) is that he could have won that battle if only he did not fear the size and readiness of the force facing him. The reputation of the Royal Navy won the day yet again.
You have to wonder why Langsdorff did not study Coronel and the Battle of the Falkland Islands better and realise von Spee's mistake? He was in a ship named after the Admiral after all!
“the Argentine Navy sent unarmed auxillary ships out to look for the survivors. 50 Argentine sailors died due to exposure. If the destroyers had returned these men would have lived.”
Jan 29th, 2013 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is indeed dishonorable in all ways.
I still stick with my original statement, that the other two ships saving there men was the best course of action.
“but if they had stopped to pick up survivors, Conqueror would not have engaged them” - This is never a fact in any war you risk hundreds of lives on. I agree that they wouldn't be sunk, but it would have been foolish for any naval commander to believe so.
“did have anti-submarine weapons, albeit antiquated”
Useless defenses is just as bad as no defense at all, especially in submarine warfare.
In war there is rarely a case of black and white, in this case it came down to saving hundreds of lives VS putting over a thousand lives at risk. Difficult choices have to me made, these guys had no way to defend themselves and made the right choice.
Thanks Nigel and Isolde. This is getting interesting! Some of my comments I may have made on a previous thread for which my apologies
Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cradock and von Spee were friends having fought together in the international naval brigade in China for which action Cradock received a medal from the Kaiser. Isolde you are right Cradock couldnt make head or tail of the Admiralty signals. Not Jackie Fishers fault, rather meddling by one Winston Spencer Churchill ,sad to say. As you state a grand Yorkshireman who prophesied he would either die in battle or break his neck on the hunting field
I am not sure that either side envisaged a full scale battle at Coronel as initially it was a fight between HMS Glasgow and SMS Liepzig
Niether von Spee nor Langsdorf were typical German naval stereotypes although the carreers of these two men are inextricably interwoven. It can be argued that von Spee wasnot even German as he was born in Copenhagen where his grandfather Sebaldi was an Italian opera singer at the Royal Opera House in that city
Langsdorf was not from a naval family as his father was a Protestant pastor on the island of Rugen until they moved to Dusseldorf(?) where the two families became intimate friends. I think it was partly due to Max von Spee pulling a few strings that Hans Langsdorf was accepted at the prestiguous naval academy at Kiel to study alongside his contemporaries, von Spees two sons , both killed at the 1914 Falklands battle
Doeton Sturdee was pretty lackadaisical commander. Jackie Fisher couldnt stand him and to quote “I wont stand that bugger a single day more at the Admiralty” Even after the 1914 victory he sent Sturdee some pretty vituperative signals for allowing SMS Dresden to escape
Nigel I think you are right. The reputation of the RN was worth another two battle cruisers. But they had been resting on thier laurels for a century. In the Nelsonic navy the Brits fired three times faster than thier enemies. Oh dear run out of space!
Carry on.
Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please say more. Very interesting.
Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Arf a mo and I will!
Jan 29th, 2013 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@5 redpos. And an argie running up and down the BRITISH World War 1 war memorial? And using it as a political advertisement? How far is the cesspit from the Falkland Islands? Who is currently conducting a war against the Falkland Islands? Perhaps you'll be able to understand realpolitik a bit better when you leave school.
Jan 29th, 2013 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7 Quite true. Isn't it about time you stopped being a hypocrite and philistine?
@15 Really? You should read up on naval actions during WW2. Royal Navy vessels regularly stopped to pick up survivors. Even from enemy vessels. And those survivors frequently came from torpedoed vessels. The honour and courage of the Royal Navy. There WAS even an instance in WW2 of a German submarine stopping, picking up survivors and towing lifeboats from a vessel it had sunk. Spoiled by the gung-ho USAAF.
@22 Wrong! HMS Conqueror sank ONE ship. And for THAT the entire Argentine navy ran for home and never stirred out of port again? Did British vessels have a “home” to run to? During WW2, British vessels were at risk, not only as soon as they left port, but even in it! Remember the submarine attack on Scapa Flow? Didn't stop the Brits going out to fight. On 14 October 1939, U-47 sank HMS Royal Oak. 833 men were lost. Comment?
Ok Conks. I left school more years ago than I care to remember. Yes agree the denigration of the Falklands memorial was in extremely bad taste and typical of the present RG govt.With the sinking of the Royal Oak at Scapa you are way off thread but in spite of the lamentable deaths of the British matelots it was a very successful and daring raid by the U39 and the Brits would have done exactly the same in the circumstances. Yes there were decent german U boat commanders who rescued survivors but that went out very early in both wars. Suggest you bone up on the role of Q ships in WW1
Jan 29th, 2013 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A question for Nigel. If the Bouchard was hit by a dud torp she must have either masked the Belgrano or at least been in close escort. So why didnt she and the Piedrabuena pick up survivors? They must have seen the distress flares. As far as I remember Wreford Brown fired his torps from a distance of 1,500 yards. Perhaps the Argentines had read thier history when the Aboukir, the Cressy and the Hogue were all sunk by U9 as they attempted to pick up survivors. Whats your slant on that Nigel?
Isolde. I dont think von Spee had any intelligence that a British fleet was at Stanley. He thought that the sanoke from the battleships was the governor setting fire to the coal stocks so that they wouldnt fall into German hands. Von Spee had Sturdee cold turkey. There was no guard ship on duty as the Macedonian had recently returned to port. The rest of the fleet was coaling. HMS Bristol had an engine open for repairs. The only ship in steam was the Kent which sallied forth and was no match for Spees squadron on her own. If it hadnt been for the lucky shot from the Canopus which made the Scharnhorst turn away von Spee could have dealt with the entire Sturdee squadron as they raised steam and came round the corner on fixed bearings from Stanley. The German gunnery was much more accurate than the British
As to the Kent if it had not been for the quick action of marine sergeant Mayes Out of space again
>28
Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bouchard was not hit by a dud. The Mk8 fuse simply did not go off, a common fault during WW2.
I had a look at the report again this morning and you were right, the torpedo did hit Bouchard's sonar & caused a little flooding. I also had the order of striking wrong. Belgrano's stern first, then the bow, then the Bouchard.
These torpedoes were notorious for either having problems keeping their depth, or failing to go off on impact. When they struck at 90 degrees, there was sufficient inertia to fire the pistol fuse (in the side of the warhead), but if the impact a glancing blow at say 30 degrees or less, it might not have been enough to set it off & the torpedo would continue until the fuel was expended.
The Mk8 Mod4 has a range of 5,000 yards at 45 knots. So a surprise attack at 1,000 yards is ideal & gives the submarine plenty of distance to avoid detection, whilst minimising the time to target.
ARA Hipolito Bouchard & ARA Piendrabuena were positioned 2,500 yards fore and aft on the cruiser’s starboard side. As Conqueror was following them on the starboard side, Wreford-Brown went deep to 380 feet & manoeuvred to a firing position on Belgrano’s port side. The Argentine ships remained completely unaware of Conqueror's approach.
Conqueror fired at 16:00 & at 16:02 saw the explosions on the scope. Wreford-Brown took immediate evasive action & took Conqueror down to 500 feet & moved away from the cruiser at 22 knots. They soon heard the destroyers’ depth charges exploding near the attack area. In fact, both destroyers (American WW2 relics) were racing away dropping old style depth charges in their wake as they ran.
Conqueror circled the task force to a position 11 miles north of the sinking Belgrano to observe. At 16:40 Wreford-Brown saw the Belgrano’s crew abandon ship to life rafts.
There is absolutely no way that Bouchard did not see what happened to Belgrano & in spite of third torpedo, they should have stayed to pick up survivors.
Thanks Nigel.
Jan 29th, 2013 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Clears up a few points, You say both the escorting destroyers the Bouchard and the Piedrabuena were second hand US ships. Will have to look up my notes on thier previous service. As you know the Belgrano was the former USS Phoenix, one of the few US ships to survive the attack on Pearl Harbour and the Argentine carrier was ex Warrior, ex Karel Dorman .... But the behavior of the Bouchard and the Piedrabuena reflects no honour on the Argentine navy
To get back on topic, HMS Kent had a lucky escape at the 1914 battle. The design of the ammunition hoists to the gun houses was defective. If it hadnt been for marine srgeant Mayes quick thinking in flooding the magazine of the Kent she would have blown up. The lesson was not learnt and resulted in the loss of the Queen Mary and I think the Invincible at Jutland or to quote Admiral Bavid Beatty 'There is something the matter with our bloody ships today”
Way off thread you talk about the Hood. Basic design fault again methinks
BTw and completetly off thread do you know anything about the Scheers battle with Soviet forces off northern Russia? I cant find anything
In 1987 I was stationed at HQ AFCENT in the Netherlands. The had a fantastic military history club. You can imagine with all those senior officers, there were some fantastic presentations given.
Jan 29th, 2013 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On one occasion, I went to a talk given by the surviving gunnery officer of the BISMARK Graff Von something or another, can not remember his name, but the talk was truly fascinating.
Yep reality them funny titles can confuse people, paticulatly yanks. Remember a phrase from “the Cruel Sea” when the convoy was handed over to a Captain Earl of Banff. Yanks mystified. Who is this captain Earl and where the hell is Banff?
Jan 29th, 2013 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Belgrano's stern first, then the bow, then the Bouchard.”
Jan 29th, 2013 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So the Belgrano is hit, then one of your other ships is hit and this commander is supposed to sit there, still while his ships are blown to bits by an hostile submarine? That's not Honorable, It's stupid.
“There is absolutely no way that Bouchard did not see what happened to Belgrano ”
This is an obvious lie to save his life from his insane government who were fond of throwing unfriendly people into the ocean.
“ in spite of third torpedo, they should have stayed to pick up survivors.”
Because getting the other crews as well as the survivors dead is always the smart thing to do. There's a difference between courage and stupidity.
It's easy to armchair general with all the powers of fact and hindsight. In the shoes or that commander on that day, he had no way to defend himself, NO, and i repeat no reason whatsoever to believe that our sub would not end the rest of his crews lives.
The only thing he could have done is get out of there.
>33
Jan 30th, 2013 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0It may seem simple to you, but it's not.
You have to remember the tactical capability of the ships involved. If Conqueror truly intended to sink ARA Hipolito Bouchard & ARA Piendrabuena, then there was little they could do to escape. It's the same situation as the Battle of The Falkland Islands.
The destroyers were identical. During WW2 they could make 34 knots. However, after 38 years of use, they were slower. Conqueror on the other hand was much faster (I'm not at liberty to say how much faster) and carried torpedoes capable of over 50 knots. Suffice to say, that if Conqueror had truly intended to sink the escorts, they would not have survived.
Even though Bouchard was hit by the third torpedo, they were still capable of circling back to pick up survivors giving the SSN time to leave. One could have stopped, whilst the other searched aggressively to deter an attack.
Conqueror also did a circuit of the battle group to observe Belgrano from a different direction, to ensure that they did not get discovered by the destroyers, or located by a P2 Neptune.
There's something else that readers might find amusing. It comes from the namesake of the ARA Hipolito Bouchard. You see, Argentina claims sovereignty of the Falklands, because they say that David Jewett raised a flag on the Islands in 1820.
It just so happens that Hippolyte de Bouchard did the same thing in California in 1818.
It appears that a lot of Argentine corsairs were travelling around the Americas, plundering any Spanish ships or cargo that they came across, seizing ships, robbing ports, destroying Spanish ranches, taking the cattle and killing the horses.
de Bouchard turned out to be a pirate just like David Jewett and like Jewett he traded his loyalty when it suited him. Jewett ended up working for the Brazilians against Argentina, whilst de Bouchard switched loyalty to the Chileans fighting Peru.
I wonder why Argentina never mentions de Bouchard planting his flag in California?!
Sorry Zethee but even to Landsman like me your arguments are fallacious. The duty of the escorts to the Belgrano, the Bouchard and the Piedrabuena was to protect the old cruiser from submarine attack. Even with WW2 sonar technology they should have been able to pick up Conqueror on thier sets as it was quite close. Why they did not I dont know but they were supposed to be the bloody antisub escorts. Sounds to me like a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the two captains concerned. As for rescuing the survivors there were radio frequencies open between the RN and the Argentine navy. I think a simple signal on those channels by either ship to the Brits saying they were going in to save lives would have been respected
Jan 30th, 2013 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Morning Redol. The chaps name was Con Mullenheim. The reason I mention the talk is because it covered the rescue of the Bismarks survivors. Following naval tradition the British ordered a cruiser to stop and rescue the surviving Bismarck crew.
Jan 30th, 2013 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0During the operation a U boat alarm was raised, it was known, probably by Ultra that U boats had been despatched to assist the Bismarck. The cruiser was forced to abandon more than 300 Germans in the water.
Von Mullenheim was fatalistic about this, saying it was war, no one asked whether, if there had been a U boat, would it have attacked the cruiser. I rather got the impression that he accepted that it would, even if it meant the death of their own men.
A truly fascinating presentation, his reaction at the sinking of the Hood and the account of the final night of the Bismarks, all guns out of action, unable to steer and waiting for dawn and the inevitable end, rather moving.
@ redpoll,
Jan 30th, 2013 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0lts my understanding that von Spee intended to land on the Falklands to destroy the radio base & plunder whatever they needed, like coal for instance.
He never expected to find a vengeful British Squadron there.
Most of my Dad's family were Navy people, except Grandad who was in the RAF.
Grandad's brothers & sisters were all in the RN or RAN.
One brother, my great-uncle was in both.
So, l'm always an avid listener for a sea-yarn!
You may think that l'm unecessarily bloodthirsty, but.
Why didn't the sub Conqueror attempt to sink the two escorts as well?
War is war & they were enemy ships, full of enemy servicemen, that meant us harm.
l'll lay money on it, they would sink ours if the rôles were reversed.
l, personally would have done it.
C'est la Guerre.
Isolde
Jan 30th, 2013 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0In a word politics! The repurcutions of sinking three ships, causing close to a thousand enemy casualties would have been enormous.
“Even with WW2 sonar technology they should have been able to pick up Conqueror ”
Jan 30th, 2013 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conqueror was state of the art back then, just being about 10 years old. There's no way they was going to catch it on WW2 equipment.
“I think a simple signal on those channels by either ship to the Brits saying they were going in to save lives would have been respected”
As far as i am aware: There were none. And he had received a shot at another one of his ships. There was absolutely no reason to think that the Conqueror would not sink him given the chance.
nigelpwsmith:
Here's where your two points collide:
“If Conqueror truly intended to sink ARA Hipolito Bouchard & ARA Piendrabuena, then there was little they could do to escape.”
“One could have stopped, whilst the other searched aggressively to deter an attack. ”
Now as i said it's very easy to review the facts from your computer char thirty or so years on from the fight, but try and put yourself in the shoes of that commander on that day. You don't have any facts and you don't know whats going to happen. All you know is what is put before you:
- Your main ship is sunk
- An escort is hit
- You have no idea where the submarine is
- You have no way of catching the submarine due to antiquated sonar and a state of the art submarine
- You have no reason to believe that the submarine will leave your other ships due to it already attacking another one of your ships
Those were his facts at the time.
- “Conqueror on the other hand was much faster”
As far as i am aware the Churchill class no longer has any classified information and official statements state that it's maximum submerged speed was 28 knots while the escorts were capable of 34 knots, even at a slower rate as you mentioned it's hardly “much” faster.
>37 & 38
Jan 30th, 2013 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Absolutely correct.
No.10 (Cobra) & Northwood both agreed that sinking the entire task force TF 79.3 would be bad for Britain at the UN. As it was, the Belgrano alone did cause problems & it meant that Britain had to show they were serious about the peace negotiations, but when Sheffield was hit, that changed.
Wreford-Brown was given orders to sink Belgrano. As SSN CO, he had the usual discretion to defend himself against the escorts if attacked, but he did not set out to sink the escorts and Bouchard was only hit because it happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but thankfully (for the Argentines) it was at the wrong angle to detonate.
The standard attack pattern for Mk8 torpedoes was a 3 shot spread with half the target's length spacing the shots. The spread was set so the first torpedo had the greatest chance of impact, the second torpedo next best and the third only if the ship changed speed/course. Conqueror's crew was right on the money. Their fire solution was perfect.
Nigel Zethee : I wont argue. You are the experts! I seems to recall there was some rado communication early in the war between the Endurance and the Bahia Paraiso
Jan 30th, 2013 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Isolde, if you want to read some high naval comedy which actually happened, Look up HMS Mimi, Hms Toutou and Hms Fifi
Perhaps we should also remember another battle which occured in the South Atlantic on 14th Sept 1914 between HMS Carmenia and SMS Cap Trafalgar. These were two crack liners converted to AMCs. They duked it out at the battle of Trindade and until the last minute it was a question of who would sink who. In the end it was the Trafalgar that went down first, but Grants ship was so badly damaged that she was pretty much a wreck and would have been easy prey to the Kronprinz Wilhelm which did not attack the Carmenia for some reason
@redpoll,
Jan 30th, 2013 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0l have read the true version of the battles on Africa's great lakes in WWI.
There is also a novel out about the same actions which is no-where near as readable.
Have you read “The Bells of Sunda Straights”.?
The action fought off Java, in lndonesia by HMAS Perth & USS Houston against an overwhelming Japanese lnvasion force in 1942.
Both were sunk only when their magazines were empty & they sank so many enemy ships that the Japanese were convinced that they had a battleship with them, that subsequently escaped.
The Houston's rear turret was out of action before the engagement & neither Allied ships had radar.
One of the ironies was that HMS Exeter was supposed to be with them but it had had engine trouble and was delayed.
A Dutch destroyer also had engine trouble & was left behind.
The Exeter had radar & could have lead the Allied Squadron out of trouble.
There are a number of books on the battle, not just the one l mentioned.
Both Exeter & the Dutch destroyer were sunk not long afterwards.
They've recently discovered Exeter & her main guns are depressed to the lowest angle possible, showing that her last action was very close to the enemy.
RIP All those brave Sailors.
Yep poor old Exeter. A gallant but unlucky ship
Jan 31st, 2013 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To return to 1914 HMS Kent was lucky. To continue my post @28, to quote Beatty at Jutland when the Queen Mary and the Invicible blew up “There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today” Yes there certainly was; a basic design fualt in the ammunition hoists from the magazines to the gun houses. This should have been picked up by Kents lucky escape at the Falklands based on the quick thinking of the marine colour sergeant flooding the ships magazine.But it was not
One could say that a similar mistake is being made today.
Jan 31st, 2013 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1982, the Task Force sailed south with a considerable number of warships. Not all of them were state of the art, indeed some were considered ancient & were built in the 50s, but there was enough hulls to do the job.
Today, the Navy is building 'all-singing, all-dancing' £1 billion warships. The Type 45 looks very pretty, is the size of a WW2 cruiser & can engage multiple targets simultaneously using a variety of weapons systems.
The only problem is, is that it's not foolproof.
As we learned in '82, a skimmer may look fine, may have some pretty accurate weapons, maybe capable of dealing with multiple targets, may have missiles capable of accelerating to Mach 2 in a second or shooting down a flight of enemy aircraft one after the other in seconds, but all it takes is one glitch, or one aircraft that was not seen and £1 billion sinks to the bottom with an expensive thud.
I have long been a fan of SSNs. They are a tremendous piece of kit, capable of stealthy approach, surprise attack & virtually impossible to detect, unless you have sufficient ASW assets. But even they can be phenomenally expensive & cannot be in two places at once.
The Royal Navy used to rule the waves by sheer numbers. We still had enough assets in 1982, but barely enough. After the defence cuts, we been paired down to the absolute minimum & some (like me) believe they've cut far too much. The announcement tonight that they are spending £17 billion on the Navy is all well and good, but when you realise that a sizeable chunk of that goes on Type 45 and Astute completion, then there is precious little left for new hulls of Type 26, Patrol boats for fishery/oil protection, or minehunters.
Then there is the critical (criminal) loss of irreplaceable manpower assets. If they do not build enough single role hulls, simple ships, but lots of them, then the enemy will take advantage of our lapses.
@43 redpoll,
Jan 31st, 2013 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0l'm sure that l read somewhere that one of the British Captains had a cousin who was an officer on one of the German ships.
What a stupid futile war. No-one won WWI.
Nigel I am not sufficiently au fait with the modern RN to make any but a general comment All that expensive international naval hardware doesnt seem to have been very effective in the face of Somali pirates capturing merchant ships and holding them for ransom
Jan 31st, 2013 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Isolde all wars are futile but when some power mad meglomaniac takes it into his head to start one the other side has no other response and an awful lot of people get killed as a result
Once the dogs of war are unleashed its not easy to get them back into thier kennels
Lets take a timeline
28th June 1914 Archduke Ferdinand of Austria is assasinated in Serbia by a Bosnian nationalist
14th December 1914. Major naval battle between Uk and Germany off the Falkland Islands
Crazy isnt it?
If you have a link on the cousins fighting on opposite sides can you please send it to me
Yes there were strong links way up to the top. Battenberg had to change his name to Mountbatten for one
>46
Feb 01st, 2013 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's not that the navies have not been effective with the pirates. They have deterred numerous attempts to seize vessels. It's that the navies are handicapped by their due regard for the Human Rights Act (specifically the right to life) which prevents these navies sinking any pirate fast boat or mother-ship when they are caught.
All the pirates have to do when captured is hold their hands up. We cannot fire on them if they surrender. In olden days, they would hang the pirates immediately. Today, they lock them up and ask the country that was victim of the attack if they want to press charges.
If they do (which is rare) then the victim's country has to try them, in their own state at great expense. IF they are found guilty (and that's a big IF), then they are locked up for a few years at great expense to the victim's country.
Most countries decline to prosecute. The captured pirates are released in Mogadishu, travel back to their masters, pick up fresh AK47s & RPGs and then go out to try and seize another ship.
What we need are fast patrol craft, able to catch the pirates in the act and then blow them out of the water with one of these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrWZ0DhXVHU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrWZ0DhXVHU
Single mission patrol ships with a cannon capable of accurate fire, combined with short range surface to air missiles can prevent pirates ever getting close to the merchant ships. If they do appear, they would be shredded.
This sort of ship would be ideal for dealing with the numerous fast boats used by pirates in the Gulf, as well as the Iranian Navy in the Straits of Hormuz.
Nigel
Feb 01st, 2013 - 03:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0There used to be something called a convoy system which worked pretty well over the years though most merchantmen dont like it and never have
As to pirates, Ok cant string em up at the yard arm anymore. But blow a few of em out of the water and they will realize the game aint worth the candle
Who is going to squawk about that/ The Somali/ Somaliland government?
Is there a Somali govt? Dont think so, so stuff em
@46 redpoll,
Feb 01st, 2013 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Re the cousins on opposite sides.
lt was in a book that l read a few years ago, not on the net.
Can't remember what the book was called, but now you're piqued my interest, so l'll try to find it & let you know.
>48
Feb 01st, 2013 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0redpoll
They do use a convoy system in the Arabian Sea. Warships from a variety of navies, including the Russians and Chinese sometimes. escort a convoy through the high threat area.
Quite a few ships do try to run the Gauntlet and speed through outside the convoys. Many now have security teams on board, armed with enough weaponry to deter even the most determined pirates. Some even have hi-tech weapons such as LRAD to blast the pirates with intense sound waves. The problem is that an RPG can do an awful lot of damage to a ship and instead of engaging the enemy in battle, ships crews would rather deploy fire hoses to spray down on approaching fast boats, whilst the rest of the crew hides in a citadel and calls the nearest warship for help.
I agree that the best course of action is to sink the enemy before he gets a chance to surrender. If they do surrender, the boats should be sunk, the pirates detained and sent to a prison in Antarctica for life.
We do have SSNs in the Arabian Sea and they are watching for the pirate mother ships. If they detect a pirate mother ship launching fast boats to attack shipping, they need to sink the mother ship without warning by torpedo. The pirate masters would not be too bothered about losing fast boats, because they are cheap and easy to build. But mother ships are another matter. The Somalis use ships of about 100 - 1,000 tonnes as the mother ships. Slightly larger than trawler size, but smaller than the ships they attack. Big enough to carry small fast boats and low enough so they can launch these over the side without difficulty. Sink these mother ships and the pirates would be limited to actions close to the Somali coast. If they did venture too far out, they would be vulnerable if a warship responds and opens fire. There are a lot of sharks in the Arabian Sea. I've seen them!
Nigel agree with most of that
Feb 01st, 2013 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Way off topic.We dont hear much about piracy in the Straits near Singapore and as you know that country has an Argentine type dispute with Indonesia. The Singapore Navy is quite small but they would have appeared to have sorted the problem and the pirates dont mix it with that lot
@pliniolarocca @David_V_Smith
Feb 05th, 2013 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is the excerpt from Lt Cdr Sharkey Ward's book, Sea Harrier Over The Falklands. Page 234.
”On the 30th the enemy had launched what was to prove their last Exocet-armed Etendard raid, and they had obviously planned their attack against a position that related to the climb-out point for the Sea Harriers. The simple subterfuge of flying low-level to some distance from the carriers before climbing out had worked. By coincidence and at the time of the raid, Her Majesty's warships Exeter and Avenger were proceeding inshore from the Task Group and were passing through the SHAR climb-out point.
The engagement was a text book demonstration by the two ships of how to deal with the attack. They launched chaff rockets early, on first detection of the attackers' radars. Exeter successfully engaged two aircraft with Sea Dart, knocking down two A-4 Sky Hawks (it had been a composite raid of Sky Hawks and the Etendard), and Avenger, having acquired the Exocet on its inbound track, opened up with her 4.5-inch gun. The missile was destroyed and the ships escaped unscathed from a bombing attack by the two surviving A-4 attackers. These pilots returned to their base and were convinced that they had attacked Invincible successfully, though their ship-recognition training must have been pretty poor. Invincible and the Task Group were many miles away to the north-east.”
The book also contains photographs of Invincible taken before, during and after the conflict. There is no sign of any attack damage at all.
Yes I must look up the back numbers of “Gente” that I have at that time. I think they said they had got the Hermes as well! Pity about the Atlantic Conveyor and its load of stores and helicopters..It only it had been equipped with chaff rockets
Feb 05th, 2013 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0>redpoll
Feb 05th, 2013 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One of the Argentine posters on twitter, who is normally sympathetic to the Falkland Islanders and critical of the Argentine Government, posted a claim that various ships were attacked in 1982.
Three of the ships mentioned were most definitely not attacked. They were HMS Hermes, HMS Invincible & HMS Fearless.
Fearless was actually in Bomb Alley (Death Valley to the Argentine pilots!) at San Carlos, but was never touched. This could have something to do with the fact that Fearless had a very active Sea Cat missile battery, along with two 20 mm cannons and a lot of very angry Royal Marines with GPMGs! One of the 20 mm mounts was credited with shooting down an A-4B Sky Hawk.
I had the opportunity to fire the 20 mm on HMS Intrepid. I wouldn't want to be in a fast jet when someone's blasting those shells at you.
What upset me most was that he claimed that the last Exocet attack on 30 May 1982 was successful. This was a propaganda claim made by the Argentines after they lost 2 Sky Hawks during the attack. The truth is that the Argentines on East Falklands plotted the appearances of the Sea Harriers (SHARS) on their radar and assumed that the Carriers must be in a particular place. The SHARS had been deliberately spoofing the radar. They knew that they were being tracked, so they deliberately stayed at low level for some distance and then popped up, climbed to altitude for transit to their CAP posts. This way the Argies could never be sure where the carriers were.
The Argies attacked the spot, but all they found was HMS Avenger. Exeter was close by & she used her Sea Dart to shoot down 2 Sky Hawks. The Exocet was engaged & destroyed by Avenger's 4.5 inch gun. That may seem unusual, but believe me, when the 4.5 is tracking an airborne target in range, it can deliver a shell very accurately under computer control, especially when that target is heading directly for you. Avenger laid a smoke screen & the Argies must have been fooled by this & the chaff.
Thanks Nigel. Cant argue. You were there. But I will look up my old copies of Argentine mags of the time if only for alaugh
Feb 05th, 2013 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine poster claims that Invincible was hit by the Exocet and the bombs. He actually believes the Argentine Air Force (FAA) propaganda.
Feb 05th, 2013 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.elarcadeple.com/Invincible%202.htm
The problem is that Invincible was never hit. The pilots identified the wrong ship.
Throughout the war, the Argentine press repeatedly claimed that either HMS Hermes, HMS Invincible, or both, were hit, blown up, on fire, or sunk. In fact, it became a bit of a joke because they reported it so many times.
Their claims lacked credibility, not only because they used Royal Navy publicity photos & then doctored them to add damage, smoke & flames to back up their claims, but because they forgot that the British press were also on those warships.
It is this particular point that is very relevant. You see Prince Andrew (known to everyone as 'H', as in 'HRH') was a helicopter pilot on Invincible. The press were following his activity, because he was second in line to the throne. Just as today, they are following Prince Harry, third in line to the throne. If there had been any damage to Invincible, any attack that endangered Prince Andrew, the press would have reported it. It would have been major worldwide news.
The Argentines claim that Invincible was set on fire, yet Sharkey's book contains photos & none of them show any damage. The Argie also claims that after the war, Invincible sailed to Australia for repairs. He forgets that the Australian press would also report it if the ship had arrived.
There was no time to go to Australia anyway. The war ended 14th June. It was decided that Hermes would go home immediately, as she had the most personnel & aircraft & was as an old ship was in desperate need of a repairs. Invincible stayed near the Falklands as the sole carrier until it was relieved in September by HMS Illustrious. It then went straight home with press and H still aboard. When it arrived there were the usual celebrations as well as a visit from the Queen & DOE.
Nigel. Didnt the Aussies offer thier carrier to the Brits? Seem to remember reading that somewhere
Feb 06th, 2013 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not quite. Invincible had already been sold to Australia, but as we needed her for continued service, they cancelled the sale instead.
Feb 06th, 2013 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hermes was near the end of her service anyway it was originally intended that we would continue with just Illustrious & Ark Royal, the newer platforms.
What was little known though, was that the United States did make an offer to loan a Nimitz class carrier, if one of ours was lost.
Surprisingly (given his close working relationship with Margaret Thatcher), it was not President Reagan that made this offer. It was Cap Weinberger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_Weinberger
Cap was an Anglophile and very helpful to the UK. It was his suggestion that the US released their NATO armament stockpiles. It meant that the Sea Harriers were armed with AIM9L Sidewinders, the all-aspect infrared missile capable of shooting down so many Argentine aircraft. The AIM9L was far superior to anything the Argies had. Even so, it was the better training of our pilots which enabled us to shoot down so many Argentine aircraft with no air to air losses.
Cap was invested with the Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire in 1988, awarded in recognition for an “outstanding and invaluable” contribution to military cooperation between the UK and the US, particularly during the Falklands War of 1982.
President Reagan remained neutral, but I'm told he was mildly sympathetic to the Argentines. Even so, there was the NATO obligation.
The Argentine also posted this link to an Argentine Commodore who gave a lecture on the attack. I wonder how he manages to keep his 'honour' knowing as he does that it is all a lie and he's deceiving these people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_Weinberger
Someone suggested in another Mercopress article that Argentines are habitual liars from birth - which explains “The Hand of God”
Please support this page - Falklands Forever British - dedicated to Falkland Islands current affairs, keeping the islands free and poking fun at the lunacy of the Argentine government and their various claims and winding up their Internet trolls - https://www.facebook.com/truthfk
Feb 06th, 2013 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!