A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Naval discussions covering the latter half of the 20th Century.
User avatar
tameraire01
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 11:56 pm

A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby tameraire01 » Thu May 15, 2014 3:56 pm

Would any modern weaponry the Argentinians have sink a British WW2 Battleship, if KGV, Anson, Howe was in mothballs?
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. Joseph Stalin

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby Steve Crandell » Sun May 18, 2014 2:25 pm

Torpedoes, but their submarines weren't effective in the actual event.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7496
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby RF » Sun May 18, 2014 5:09 pm

I can't see it happening. The exocets didn't have a warhead powerful enough to cause real damage to a heavily armoured battleship. Further such ships would have powerful exocet defence, including radar guided 5.25 inch guns.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby paul.mercer » Wed May 21, 2014 8:27 pm

A KGV would have been very useful for bombarding enemy positions!

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7496
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby RF » Thu May 22, 2014 8:19 am

Tes, but pinpoint accuracy would be required.

Only one civilian was killed under the Argentine occupation. Saturation shelling in and around Stanley could have caused that figure to be much greater.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
tameraire01
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 11:56 pm

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby tameraire01 » Tue May 27, 2014 7:59 pm

would we see the last surface to surface battle?
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. Joseph Stalin

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7496
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby RF » Wed May 28, 2014 8:06 am

That depends on future conflicts.

Logically I can't see why surface ship battles won't continue in the future. The advent of the aircraft carrier didn't eliminate surface ship gunnery battles and I wouldn't expect long range missiles to do it either.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
tameraire01
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 11:56 pm

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby tameraire01 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 1:16 pm

I mean would we see KGV vs Belgrano instead of conqueror torpedoing it?
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. Joseph Stalin

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7496
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby RF » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:15 pm

KGV versus Belgrano is a no contest - battleship versus cruiser!

More interesting would be whether the Argentines would have invaded at all if KGV was in the South Atlantic in place of the ice patrol ship Endurance.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby Steve Crandell » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:17 pm

RF wrote:KGV versus Belgrano is a no contest - battleship versus cruiser!

More interesting would be whether the Argentines would have invaded at all if KGV was in the South Atlantic in place of the ice patrol ship Endurance.....


You are suggesting the British would have used KGV as an ice patrol ship?

User avatar
tameraire01
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 11:56 pm

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby tameraire01 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:59 pm

RF wrote:KGV versus Belgrano is a no contest - battleship versus cruiser!


I mean a Carrier battle group consisting Belgrano and there only aircraft carrier along with there destroyers?
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. Joseph Stalin

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7496
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby RF » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:04 am

Steve Crandell wrote:You are suggesting the British would have used KGV as an ice patrol ship?


No.

More like the role of Sturdee than watching ice floes.

The Foreign Office had plenty of warning of what was afoot, only they didn't believe that the Argentines would actually invade....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7496
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby RF » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:09 am

tameraire01 wrote:

I mean a Carrier battle group consisting Belgrano and there only aircraft carrier along with there destroyers?


The Argentine carrier was not in a full battleworthy condition, the main reason it was kept in port. Such a confrontation would have resulted in complete destruction of the Argentine surface fleet without the RN needing a KGV. That is why the Argentine surface fleet kept out of the British exclusion zone, except for the Belgrano incursion.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Francis Marliere
Member
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby Francis Marliere » Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:36 am

RF wrote:The Argentine carrier was not in a full battleworthy condition, the main reason it was kept in port. Such a confrontation would have resulted in complete destruction of the Argentine surface fleet without the RN needing a KGV. That is why the Argentine surface fleet kept out of the British exclusion zone, except for the Belgrano incursion.....


As far as I know, the Belgrano was sunk outside the British exclusion zone (to be exact before the Belgrano battle group entered the BEE). It is the reason why there was so much protestation after.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7496
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?

Postby RF » Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:58 pm

There was endless debate about whether Belgrano was in or out of the original exclusion zone when it was sunk, also there were arguments about it sailing away from the Falklands at the time.

So far as the Vienciento de Mayo was concerned, anywhere outside the 12 mile limit offshore from Argentina would have marked that ship down for attack.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.


Return to “Naval History Post-1945”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest