military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (04/19/89)
From: texbell!hal6000!lee (Lee Cochenour)
I need some help in settling an argument. When was the last time a
ship was sunk by a submarine attack? Does it go all the way back to
World War II?
Lee Cochenour
lee@hal6000.tandy.com.UUCPteener@apple.com (Michael Teener) (04/21/89)
From: goofy!apple.com!teener@apple.com (Michael Teener) In article <5736@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: > From: texbell!hal6000!lee (Lee Cochenour) > I need some help in settling an argument. When was the last time a > ship was sunk by a submarine attack? Does it go all the way back to > World War II? The "General Belgrano(?)", an Argentine cruiser of WWII USN vintage was torpedoed and sunk during the Falklands (Malvinas) War. Lots of people died, and the Argentine Navy never got near the Falklands for the rest of the war. Note that the Argentines claimed that the Belgrano was never in the war zone, but the British (obviously) disagreed. Does anyone know what was really going on? ==== I am responsible for my opinions, Apple is responsible for my paycheck ==== Mike Teener, Cheetah N9900U
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/22/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) In article <5790@cbnews.ATT.COM> goofy!apple.com!teener@apple.com (Michael Teener) writes: >... Note that the Argentines claimed that the Belgrano was never in >the war zone, but the British (obviously) disagreed. Does anyone know >what was really going on? The Belgrano was definitely outside the Total Exclusion Zone (if I remember the term correctly) around the Falklands. However, it was not outside the "war zone" because (a) this was not officially a war, and (b) there was no official "war zone". If one stipulates that it was proper for British forces to attack Argentine forces at all, without a formal declaration of war, then there was nothing improper about the attack on the Belgrano. It simply happened to occur in an area where the British hadn't advertised their intentions quite as clearly. I believe it has been definitely established that the Belgrano was outside the TEZ and also headed away at the time that it was sunk. However, it is difficult to attach much significance to those facts. The Belgrano was unquestionably charged with attacking the British fleet when possible, and was definitely considered a serious threat. The only greater threat was the Argentine carrier (whose name translates to "25th of May" but which I can't reproduce in the original without looking it up), which stayed in port after the Belgrano was sunk. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
jallred@bbn.com (John Allred) (04/22/89)
From: jallred@bbn.com (John Allred) In article <5790@cbnews.ATT.COM> goofy!apple.com!teener@apple.com (Michael Teener) writes: >The "General Belgrano(?)", an Argentine cruiser of WWII USN vintage was >torpedoed and sunk during the Falklands (Malvinas) War. Lots of people >died, and the Argentine Navy never got near the Falklands for the rest of >the war. Note that the Argentines claimed that the Belgrano was never in >the war zone, but the British (obviously) disagreed. Does anyone know >what was really going on? I remember seeing a video ("Battle for the Falklands") done by the independent British TV company. In it, they interviewed the skipper of HMS Conquerer, who stated something like "they (Belgrano and her two escorts) were a threat to the task force, ..., and under direct orders I went in and attacked." The video also stated that the Belgrano was just outside the 200 mile exclusion zone when she was hit. The graphics suggested that she was on a heading that would have taken her into the zone. Sorry for the lack of detail, but it has been three years since I've seen the video. ____ John Allred BBN Systems and Technologies Corp. (jallred@bbn.com) "Send lawyers, guns, and money ..."