Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc!iuvax!rutgers!att!cbnews!rupp@cod.nosc.mil
From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: USS Iowa explosion
Message-ID: <5932@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 26 Apr 89 04:09:54 GMT
References: <5788@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5853@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5889@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Computer Sciences Corp., San Diego
Lines: 59
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp)


---
>The Argentines had a close approximate in Gen Belgrano. It didn't even make it
>to within 200 miles of RN Task Force. The Brits accomplished the air support
>mission using aircraft which are a lot more accurate. There never was a desire
>or need to blast any major Arg naval concentrations. Assuming the Args had a
>ship like the Iowa class making it to the British fleet would be the hazardous
>part. While Exocets are sea skimmers missiles like the Harpoon have a 
>terminal dive phase and I think so does the Sea Eagle. In this phase the missile

I have no doubt that the Brits would have thrown everything they had at
a hypothetical Argie BB.  They might very well have sunk or disabled the
BB and therefore eliminated it as an Argie (by the way, is that
considered a derogatory term?) naval asset.   Then again, maybe not.

My point was that in that particular war, a battleship would have
represented a very major asset of potentially decisive proportions.
Remember that the balance of forces was reasonably close; certainly a
lot closer than the Allies vs. Germany in June, 1944.  My scenario also
assumed, though perhaps I did not make this clear, that the Argie BB
was already patrolling Falkland waters.

Argentina did very poorly in the war, but nowhere more poorly than in
their strategic planning.  Obviously, they did not think they were going
to have to fight a full scale British invasion.   But if they had
planned well, and immediately stationed jet aircraft at Stanley, *and*
had a battleship, or perhaps even the Belgrano, as a shield, things
might have turned out differently.  For that matter, can we say for sure
that the Belgrano was used energetically, or was she just idling around
waiting for an RN torpedo?   The Veinticinco de Mayo apparently stayed
out of harms way.  If that carrier and the Belgrano had sortied in a
do-or-die manner, they might have succeeded.  Clearly, if you are
intimidated so that you do not even *try* to use the assets you have,
your assets are going to appear to some observers to be pretty weak.

In close fights, decisive weapons can be, well, decisive.  ONE SINGLE
16" HIT ON THE INVICIBLE, IF DELIVERED EARLY ENOUGH (i.e., before the
invasion) COULD WELL HAVE FORCED THE BRITISH TO BACK DOWN.  Politically,
it might have been untenable to continue after losing such a naval
asset, especailly if the ship were actually sunk, with high casualties.
Remember what a field day the media had (still?) with the Tet Offensive,
which we *defeated*!  (I shudder to think what a Walter Cronkite would 
have said about Bataan or the Battle of the Bulge if they had been
covered by T.V. as was Viet Nam.  "Today more American boys lost their
lives in this senseless defense of a far away island, etc., etc.")

I maintain that there may be situations in which a big-gun ship,
a Belgrano or an Iowa, might be the deciding factor.  To say that such
and such a weapon can counter a surface ship is not the same as saying
that the surface ship is valueless.

Bill
------------------------
Three more days to go
------------------------