MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina recalls the sinking of ARA Belgrano and honors its crew, families and survivors
The Argentine Ministry of Defense and the Navy paid tribute to the courage and glory of the 323 sailors who died during the sinking of the cruiser ARA Belgrano, on 2 May 1982, at the beginning of hostilities with UK during the South Atlantic conflict. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesRecuperar e invadido jajajajajaj bien penguipress periodismo de vanguardia y sin ideologia sigan asi y se van a ganar un premio .....jajajajaj anda a saber cual
May 03rd, 2020 - 04:40 am - Link - Report abuse -3At least he’s not trying to suggest she was sunk illegally like so many clowns do. As he says above, she was ‘headed to meet the UK task force.’ That action was Game Over for the Argentine Navy.
May 03rd, 2020 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse +4Gullible, still making a fool of himself.
May 03rd, 2020 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +4At least he’s not trying to suggest she was sunk illegally like so many clowns do. As he says above, she was ‘headed to meet the UK task force.’ That action was Game Over for the Argentine Navy.
May 03rd, 2020 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“Malvinas War has two words that identify the conflict: sovereignty and courage”.
May 03rd, 2020 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Where Argentina had none of the first and little of the second.
They do seem to have realised that their sailors died on a warship, in a war zone combatants in that war.
Not try and pretend they were not really part of the war, just sailing around the S. Atlantic not bothering anybody when out of the blue they were attacked.
Hence Thatcher started the Falklands war, not an Argentine invasion, oh no that was just a negotiating position.
“Two Argentine escort vessels actually fled the scene”.
I seem to recall seeing an interview with the First Officer on the Conqueror at the time, where he said one of the escorts did try and follow them, for some while.
Unless they didn’t realise they were on the same heading as the Sub.
Recuperar e invadido jajajajajaj bien penguipress periodismo de vanguardia y sin ideologia sigan asi y se van a ganar un premio .....jajajajaj anda a saber cual
May 04th, 2020 - 02:15 am - Link - Report abuse -4Sigo opinando lo mismo
Must have been a true display of Argentine “courage” when the two destroyers accompanying the Belgrano fled the scene without consideration for picking up survivors, and didn't return to the area until nearly 24 hours later, after having been ordered back.
May 04th, 2020 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Some “courage.”
How very Argentine.
During WW 2 when Atlantic convoys were attacked by U Boats, ships didn’t stop to pick up survivors. Fastest way to get torpedoed yourself.
May 04th, 2020 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +4If possible an escort may have been sent back later, or another convoy may have come along.
After the attack Conqueror left the area at high speed, however the escort ships did not know that, obviously they had no effective way of detecting a submarine.
If they had stopped to pick up survivors Conqueror could easily have sunk them too.
Really depends on what their orders were for that situation, assuming they had any.
@ Pujol -
May 04th, 2020 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Those destroyers did indeed have the means to detect submarines.
The Argentine ships' officers were well aware that the British do not attack vessels that conform to international rescue protocols. All modern navies are aware of this. But the captains of those destroyers chose the least courageous path and that was to abandon their sinking cruiser, and their comrades.
Just as the rest of the surface fleet fled and hid behind its shallow water skirts.
Some “courage.”
So very Argentine.
Come on Marti, even now most Argentine warships cannot tell which end is the bow and which the stern let alone the proximity of submarines. Conqueror would need to surface and send up rockets for half an hour before it would be spotted.
May 04th, 2020 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1ML
May 05th, 2020 - 03:24 am - Link - Report abuse -3JAJAJAJA supongo que estuviste en alguna guerra?
O sos el tipico mediocre rambo de internet?
ya se la respuesta :)
@Guillote
May 05th, 2020 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +1En dos guerras, pibito. Servicio militar por más de 25 años. Y vos, nada.
Marti Llazo
May 05th, 2020 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +3True the British would not have attacked them while carrying out rescue operations.
Indeed they would not have posed a threat to Conqueror (or any other British sub which may have been nearby) while carrying out rescue.
However they clearly didn’t have any effective way of detecting a British submarine, they didn’t know Conqueror was there until it sank the Belgrano.
There was another British Sub lying in wait on the bottom of the mouth of the river Plate, in case the aircraft carrier docked in BA harbour tried to join the war.
Was there ever any inquire into the escort captains actions?
Marti Llazo pibita
May 07th, 2020 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -2serias cocinero porque de tema navales parece que no conoces nada.
los escoltas eran blancos muy diferente un barco que se aproxime a un rescate.
Guillotito
May 08th, 2020 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse +2You are clearly unfamiliar with the international rules for treatment and safe passage of vessels engaged in rescue, to which Britain and the other civilised nations adhere. Pugol previously noted this.
if the attack on the belgrano was valid, it was valid to attack the escort ships
May 08th, 2020 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse -2it would not be valid to attack the
irizar that was in rescue,
I do not know if you understand my point that has to do with what the captains of the other ships did and I do not think you are a military officer because you would know that they had their orders
So what were those orders?????
May 08th, 2020 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +1According to Wrongapedia:
“The explosion also damaged General Belgrano's electrical power system, preventing her from putting out a radio distress call”
“The two escort ships were unaware of what was happening to General Belgrano, as they were out of touch with her in the gloom and had not seen the distress rockets or lamp signals. Adding to the confusion, the crew of Bouchard felt an impact that was possibly the third torpedo striking at the end of its run (an examination of the ship later showed an impact mark consistent with a torpedo). The two ships continued on their course westward and began dropping depth charges. By the time the ships realised that something had happened to General Belgrano, it was already dark and the weather had worsened, scattering the life rafts.”
@Pugol
May 08th, 2020 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +2You are correct the wikipedia is wrong, parroting the exculpatory Argentine propaganda on the matter. One cannot expect the Argentine navy to reveal their cowardice and incompetence in these matters.
The crews of the destroyers heard the explosions and were quite aware that the Belgrano had been hit. Combine the knowledge of explosions heard and the destroyers dropping depth charges makes it pretty easy to understand what the Argentine officers knew: that their cruiser was buggered. One of the torpedo explosions caused a huge fireball that was visible for many miles even through the haze.
There is no evidence of any “orders” for the destroyers to abandon the ship they were escorting and inherently protecting. Such a notion is completely contrary to naval operations.
The ARA Belgrano was poorly operated and poorly equipped. The failure of a single electrical circuit is no excuse for total loss of communications. The ship even lacked emergency backup lighting, something that had long been a standard during refitting of older ships. This was further evidence of simple incompetence on the part of the Argentine navy.
Most of the lower ranking seamen had not received useful training in use of the life rafts, although the Argentine navy propaganda attempted to contradict this. Some of the bodies found in the raft showed evidence of dying from the cold, this in part from the delays in the destroyers abandoning the scene as well as the occupants of the life rafts failing to operate them properly.
After-action investigation indicated that the armada had failed to provide adequate clothing for crew. Likewise the design and performance of the rafts was found to be deficient for the area and conditions of operations. Argentine navy ships that later (too late) participated in rescue operations were found to be deficient in both training and equipment needed for extracting survivors from the rafts encountered.
Wikipedia misses a great deal.
I was referring to orders previously received if they were attacked by one or more submarines that they couldn't detect, considering that all ships were possible targets
May 09th, 2020 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse -2Marti Llazo
May 09th, 2020 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Yes, I think you are right on this.
Inconceivable the radio didn’t have a backup power supply, more likely it did but it just wasn’t working.
As you say, if the Escorts were dropping depth charges they knew there was a sub, which as they couldn’t detect it they could only have known from realising the Belgrano had been torpedoed.
Not to mention if they were carrying out anti-submarine actions, nobody thought to check that the ship they were supposed to be protecting was still afloat never mind with them.
Guillote
So are you saying that the escorts were under orders if attacked by submarines they were to run as fast as possible?
And there is me thinking the escorts were there to protect the Belgrano.
But then I don’t claim to be a military man.
There's an Argentine news site with an interview with one of the operations personnel aboard the Belgrano who confirms what we all know about their destroyers abandoning the cruiser. Helps to read the language of the realm, but the crew member indicates that there was no ops order to abandon the larger ship. And that if the British submarine had wished to do away with the fleeing destroyers it could have done so handily since the destroyers were much slower and thus “they had nowhere to escape” if the submarine had chosen to engage them. He also indicates the measures to be taken by rescuing ships so as to be identified as performing rescue and out of combat status.
May 09th, 2020 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1”Y el interrogante surge solo; ¿Por qué el Bouchard y el Piedrabuena no se quedaron a rescatar inmediatamente a los náufragos?, ¿A dónde se fueron?, ¿escaparon para no ser torpedeados también?.
Para Juan Vera no solo ocurrió que los barcos los “abandonaron”, sino que califica al alejamiento, como “un acto de cobardía, porque no había orden de operaciones para que se fueran. De cobardía y falta de solidaridad con los náufragos. Porque sabían que si el submarino nuclear quería, no tenían donde escapar. Ese tipo de submarino alcanza una velocidad de 40 nudos y dispara torpedos que se desplazan a 45, contra los 25 nudos de los destructores. Así que escapar no tenía mucho sentido. Lo que debían haber hecho, es lo que se estableció a través de la Convención de Ginebra después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, que es parar las máquinas, encender las luces, izar bandera de rescate y avisar por las frecuencias internacionales que desde ese momento se convertían como parte de la Cruz Roja, e iban rescatar a sus náufragos”.
Thanks for the info, what I can’t read I can get translated properly no problem.
May 09th, 2020 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Washington Bárcena, who commanded the destroyer ARA ”Bouchard,” has made public statements in Argentina that they were aware of the probable presence of the British submarine after the Belgrano had been attacked. The captain indicated that the destroyer was struck by what they believed to be a torpedo. However, the captain falsely claimed that the torpedo had exploded. The British submarine records do not support the explosion of the torpedo that did not strike the Belgrano. If the torpedo had functioned (exploded) then his little destroyer would have been decisively destroyed. Instead, there were later found to be dents but it is inconclusive whether these were from the nonfunctioning torpedo. The public statements of this officer also show that they did not effect rescue until 22 hours after the attack on the Belgrano, after the two destroyers had been ordered to return to the area. Now, if there had been an order to abandon the cruiser due to fear of having the destroyers also attacked (there was no such order), how does it seem logical to subsequently send several warships to the presumed last known location of the submarine which, in the Argentine view, was supposed to sink everything Argentine in sight?
May 09th, 2020 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The destroyer captain also confirmed that they employed four means for detecting submarines, including two sonar modes.
The destroyers simply abandoned the sinking cruiser. The set of excuses, including the Argentine navy explanation, simply doesn't hold water.
the captain of the submarine was able to sink all three ships no doubt because none of the three ships could detect them. What the British naval think about what happened and what they would have done.
May 10th, 2020 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse -3clearly you two are not naval.
ask naval officers not army cooks.
Are you an Army cook, Gullible?
May 10th, 2020 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse +3I believe that Gullible made it to Lavaplatos Segundo.
May 10th, 2020 - 01:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Guillote
May 10th, 2020 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Even if the escort ships could have detected the Submarine, Conqueror could still have easily sunk all three ships in a few minutes, it was almost twice as fast and equipped with torpedoes some of which had a range of up to 7,000 yards, others up 42,500 yards and guided.
The British expected the escorts to pick up survivors, which why they were not attacked.
If the British had wanted the escorts sunk they would have been hit by torpedoes within minutes of the Belgrano being hit.
The fact they were still afloat 5 minutes after the Belgrano was hit, should have told the escort captains they were not targets, for the moment at least.
The British would not have attacked ships carrying out rescue operation, identified as such.
ML is right “the Argentine navy explanation, simply doesn't hold water.”
The more you look at it, the less credible it becomes.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!