ARmy Rumour SErvice

**Schaden** · 03-05-2012, 11:14

Originally Posted by PrinceAlbert

They had prozzies with them?!?!

Are you a member of the Secret Service?

**BONNACON** · 03-05-2012, 11:15

I'm sure el arrseo The Argentinian version of ARRSE will be mulling over the sinking of Sheffield, Galahad and Tristram with magnanimity. Not.

**sunnoficarus** · 03-05-2012, 11:22

They started it…

We finished it…

Don't pick a fight with the big boy and cry when he kicks your arse...

Message ends.

**bokkatankie** · 03-05-2012, 11:26

Originally Posted by Jerrycan2793

Just to put it into perspective, would we be happy if the Germans celebrated Glug Glug Hood Day?
.

Given that more Germans were lost when Bismark was sunk 2 days later it would be a rather silly celebration.

I reserve August 6th. as a special day of celebration, instant sunshine day.

**velcrostripes** · 03-05-2012, 11:36

Originally Posted by vortexringpiece

......A bit ill informed there matey, you imply that because the Belgrano was heading away from the TEZ and and outside it, that it wasn't a valid target, truth is, under the articles of war and the declared intention by the UK government, which the Argies were well aware of, the TEZ only applied to neutral vessels and ANY Argentine vessel, anywhere, that could have been considered a threat was fair game.

I sympathise with the loss of life, but they did start it.

And this is the NAAFI so tough shit greasy dago cunts.

The TEZ never applied to warships Argie , Russian , Persian or Peruvian , so the BBC , Tam Dyell and the Argies were being a tad silly about that and allowed to by the MOD who did not rebutt that nonsense from the off .
Shame they couldn't sink the f*cking thing in port , would have meant less loss of life and a disabled harbour BUT a complete two fingers to the TEZ apologists and a warning to the regime that they were not safe anywhere .

**Yokel** · 03-05-2012, 13:25

I think that the Argentines celebrate the attack against HMS Sheffield as "naval aviation day" or somesuch.

**sunnoficarus** · 03-05-2012, 13:38

Originally Posted by Schaden

Poor form on the Navy - should have sunk the escorts as well.

Tried, Hipolito Buchard stopped a MkVIII, but it didn't go off.

**seaweed** · 03-05-2012, 13:53

Not the NAVY but politics - I believe Conx was given permission only to sink the cruiser. The escorts were armed with Exocets so it is indeed a pity they were not taken out as well.

Re the carrier, my understanding is that she moved out of one of the S-boat's boxes into the other but the second boat was too far away to get at 25 de Majo. That might have been avoided had command of the submarines been vested with Woodward but it was reserved to FOSM under CINCFLEET (both submariners) who were working to the 'old' North Atlantic practices. Although the Belgrano lesson was well taken and the carrier was no more seen, sinking her would also have taken out her air group which would have been an enormous help. This from reading books, I have no private information.

**DeltaDog** · 03-05-2012, 14:24

Conscripts or not, they're the fucking enemy. Who cares?

**tiny_lewis** · 03-05-2012, 14:32

Originally Posted by seaweed

Re the carrier, my understanding is that she moved out of one of the S-boat's boxes into the other but the second boat was too far away to get at 25 de Majo. That might have been avoided had command of the submarines been vested with Woodward but it was reserved to FOSM under CINCFLEET (both submariners) who were working to the 'old' North Atlantic practices. Although the Belgrano lesson was well taken and the carrier was no more seen, sinking her would also have taken out her air group which would have been an enormous help. This from reading books, I have no private information.

One of the funniest images from the definitive work on the conflict - "Don't Cry For Me, Sgt Major", was that of squaddies running around giving it ""25th of May, glug, glug, glug"