A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
- tameraire01
- Member
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 11:56 pm
A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 954
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
Torpedoes, but their submarines weren't effective in the actual event.
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
A KGV would have been very useful for bombarding enemy positions!
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
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.
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.
- tameraire01
- Member
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 11:56 pm
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
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
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
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.
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.
- tameraire01
- Member
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 11:56 pm
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
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
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
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.....
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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 954
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
You are suggesting the British would have used KGV as an ice patrol ship?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.....
- tameraire01
- Member
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 11:56 pm
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
I mean a Carrier battle group consisting Belgrano and there only aircraft carrier along with there destroyers?RF wrote:KGV versus Belgrano is a no contest - battleship versus cruiser!
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. Joseph Stalin
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
No.Steve Crandell wrote: You are suggesting the British would have used KGV as an ice patrol ship?
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.
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
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.....tameraire01 wrote:
I mean a Carrier battle group consisting Belgrano and there only aircraft carrier along with there destroyers?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
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.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.....
Re: A KGV in the south atlantic 1982 ?
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.
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.