Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Veinticinco de Mayo was actually a former British aircraft carrier, HMS Venerable. She also served in the Dutch Navy before being acquired by Argentina. During the Falklands War she was used in support of the Argentine landings. When Belgrano was sunk, she was at sea as part of a pincer movement against the RN task force but quickly returned to port to avoid the same fate.
She was lucky. HMS Conqueror was assigned to Belgrano. HMS Spartan was assigned to find and sink Veinticinco de Mayo. She would not have hesitated to fire torpedoes had she been able to find her.
Belgrano was the ex USS Phoenix, a Brooklyn class cruiser. The Argentinians acquired her in 1951. The Argentinians also had two British made Type 42 destroyers. The British type 42s painted a black line down the funnel and hull to distinguish them. At the time of the Argentinian invasion Argentinian naval officers were being trained in Portsmouth by the RN. They used a Short blowpipe missiles to bring down a British planer and used Bedford trucks and Land Rovers and other British supplied equipment. Argentina was a defacto member of the British empire.
The ships they sunk were: Atlantic Conveyor container ship, HMS Coventry (type 42), HMS Alacrity, HMS Antelope (unexploded bomb went off when ship evacuated), HMS Ardent. All small type 21 frigates sunk in Falklands Sound.
HMS Glamorgan was hit by a shore launched Exocet missile, but remained operational. HMS Sheffield was set on fire by an Exocet missile and later scuttled (the design of the Type 42 ship was more to blame as lessons from WW2 were not learned). Over 100 ships sailed to the Falklands.
At the time of the conflict two decommissioned carriers were in the UK. The RAF had the ability to attack Argentine bases by Vulcan bombers and disabled the runway at Port Stanley.
They were not cruisers but Destroyers. HMS Sheffield was the only British warship sunk by an Exocet. HMS Glamorgan was hit by a land based Exocet but not sunk or even put out of action for very long. Atlantic Conveyor was British merchant ship which was sunk by an Exocet..
The other British ships that were lost were all hit by bombs, not missiles.
Sheffield was not sunk but scuttled. It could have been towed back to the UK and repaired. It was disabled so they sunk it so it would not be in the way.
Sheffield was not sunk but scuttled. It could have been towed back to the UK and repaired. It was disabled so they sunk it so it would not be in the way.
Belgrano was the ex USS Phoenix, a Brooklyn class cruiser. The Argentinians acquired her in 1951. The Argentinians also had two British made Type 42 destroyers. The British type 42s painted a black line down the funnel and hull to distinguish them. At the time of the Argentinian invasion Argentinian naval officers were being trained in Portsmouth by the RN. They used a Short blowpipe missiles to bring down a British planer and used Bedford trucks and Land Rovers and other British supplied equipment. Argentina was a defacto member of the British empire.
The ships they sunk were: Atlantic Conveyor container ship, HMS Coventry (type 42), HMS Alacrity, HMS Antelope (unexploded bomb went off when ship evacuated), HMS Ardent. All small type 21 frigates sunk in Falklands Sound.
HMS Glamorgan was hit by a shore launched Exocet missile, but remained operational. HMS Sheffield was set on fire by an Exocet missile and later scuttled (the design of the Type 42 ship was more to blame as lessons from WW2 were not learned). Over 100 ships sailed to the Falklands.
At the time of the conflict two decommissioned carriers were in the UK. The RAF had the ability to attack Argentine bases by Vulcan bombers and disabled the runways at Port Stanley.
The Vulcan bomber raid (there was just one) was an incredible feat of flying and endurance. But it took a ridiculous number of air-to-air refueling tankers to get just one bomber from Ascension to the Falklands. The raid was militarily ineffectual and the airport was never closed to Argentine traffic. As a practical matter, bombing Argentine bases was simply not a realistic military proposition.
The Vulcan bomber raid (there was just one) was an incredible feat of flying and endurance. But it took a ridiculous number of air-to-air refueling tankers to get just one bomber from Ascension to the Falklands. The raid was militarily ineffectual and the airport was never closed to Argentine traffic. As a practical matter, bombing Argentine bases was simply not a realistic military proposition.
The runway at Port Stanley was made unavailable to Argentine fighters. One raid on one base would have kept many fighters away from the Falklands as they would need to protect the bases far more. The thought of a plane attacking them, capable of delivering nuclear weapon to the USSR frightened them.
The runway at Port Stanley was made unavailable to Argentine fighters. One raid on one base would have kept many fighters away from the Falklands as they would need to protect the bases far more.
Nevertheless, the airport remained open to Argentine transports right up to the surrender. The UK never attacked any of the bases on the mainland because it was not realistic. The UK did land SAS units on the mainland who monitored and reported back on movements from Argentine air bases.
Re: '..people of Britain...a trading people...rather than military...'
Is that say today? From a historical perspective, I'd note the island population showed both. And they did the activities very well indeed. Have to say there has to be something in the national character (maybe laid down from old Alfred) that they rise to the occasion. If anything the challenges are already here in our furious modern world for Britain and other democracies to confront.
I would say, yes, the British still have the mettle to fight a great conflict in defense of their homeland. They are an incredible people, intelligent and cultured and highly creative, yet somewhere underneath that polished, peaceful exterior remains some traits of their savage Anglo-Saxon ancestors that still come to the foreground at certain times.
In recent conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, the British forces have deported themselves well. Colonel Tim Collins, deployed to Iraq, made a speech to his troops that will go down as one of the most inspiring speeches in military history.
Britain in the 1930s was not seen by the Germans as a credible deterrent to conquest of the continent. Neville Chamberlain was a weak leader, too willing to achieve peace at any cost. Yet a few years later, Britain under Churchill had its "finest moment".
The Americans, too, are deceptively soft until pushed to a certain limit. Brasher and less classy than the British, but there is a certain steel and resolve under the surface that is common to both peoples.
I disagree with the fellow who complains of the Muslims in England. For the most part, they seem to be well integrated. The main problems there are with current immigrants from backward villages in Pakistan and so forth, who do not share the Western values of their hosts. But over time, their children will also integrate. British culture is too compelling to resist.
Yeah, I'm a bit of an Anglophile
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
