Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Venticimo de Mayo

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 3rd March 2008

  What do the contributers think the effects would have been if the British had sunk the argentine carrier instead of the Belgrano on the Falklands conflict?
  
  Would it have made any difference? Or would they have carried on in the way that has became history?
  
  Vf

  Link to this forum: Venticimo de Mayo

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Monday, 3rd March 2008

  Evening VF,
  
  A quick thought on this.
  
  Viencento de Mayo's A-4s were flown off and operated from land bases during the war. From here they sank HMS Ardent. So eliminating the carrier and her air group would or should result in Ardent surviving.
  
  Trike.

  Link to this forum: Venticimo de Mayo

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Monday, 3rd March 2008

  That ship was lucky, off the Argentine coast it was stalked by another RN nuclear sub, whilst 2 others also operated - one would soon sink the Belgrano.
  
  However, when the periscope was raised after a period down, thick fog had come down and 25th May was not there..
  It was heading to attack the Task Force, the Northern part of a pincer movement with the Belgrano group to the south.
  
  It seems the contact with the carrier was not re-established by the time it tried to launch it's A-4's to attack the RN on 2nd May (brought forward by the Junta after the Vulcan raid on Port Stanley airfield the previous day).
  
  But on 2th May 1982, there was not enough wind over deck for catapult launching bombed up A-4's.
  When the Belgrano was sunk, the Argentine fleet-whose commander had been the most keen on the whole invasion of the Falklands, as we know, was out of the war.
  
  Had contact been re-established and the carrier attacked, at the very least losing the Navy A-4's, which unlike the air force counterparts, were trained in anti shipping and had bombs optimised for low level attack which would explode, would have greatly reduced the effectiveness of the subsequent Argentine attacks.
  
  Since the Navy A-4's operated from land when the carrier fled.
  But unlike from a carrier launch at sea, they would, like the rest, have serious limits in range, time over target, direction of attack.
  
  With the Argentine Navy out of the war anyway, post Belgrano, it's reasonable to speculate that aside from the blow to national morale, the loss of the carrier probably would not have knocked Argentina out of the fight.
  In the end, boots on the ground had to re-take the Islands.

  Link to this forum: Venticimo de Mayo

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 4th March 2008

  As pointed out above, sinking ARA 'Veinticinco de Mayo' would have had no military effect for the Argentines. However, it could well have had political fallout in Buenos Aires from the Navy losing face along with their crown jewel.

  Link to this forum: Venticimo de Mayo

  Report message4

Back to top