Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

ARA General Belgrano
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2563		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  Colosseum [ February 3rd, 2012, 2:32 am ]
Post subject:  ARA General Belgrano
Long time coming, I'm surprised it's taken us this long to get General Belgrano drawn for Shipbucket. This was a surprisingly difficult drawing, since I've become an insane perfectionist and there was fairly little info on the radar fit, gun layout, etc. The thing that caused the most trouble was the bridge and forward superstructure... I couldn't find any decent photos taken from the side, so had to work from a few scale model photos and whatnot. I hope the result is satisfying.

[ img ]

This is Belgrano as lost in 1982.
Author:  SrGopher [ February 3rd, 2012, 2:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ARA General Belgrano
Thats a pretty good drawing for eyeballing parts of it. Great work!
Author:  Colosseum [ February 3rd, 2012, 2:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ARA General Belgrano
Well I wouldn't say 'eyeballing' as I had some plans to work from, but all of them were frustratingly wrong in different places. This is why I'm always skeptical of ship plans unless it's from Friedman's or similar. It was the details that I had to do a lot of legwork to figure out!
Author:  erik_t [ February 3rd, 2012, 4:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ARA General Belgrano
I had no idea that Belgrano had Seacat. Interesting to know.
Author:  Clonecommander6454 [ February 3rd, 2012, 4:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ARA General Belgrano
Nice. I thought General Belgrano is a gun cruiser until it sank.
Author:  Colosseum [ February 3rd, 2012, 5:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ARA General Belgrano
Yep, SeaCat was fitted in 1967.

When it was sunk, the British thought it had been further upgraded with Exocet missiles.

I plan to draw the Belgrano's sister ship ARA Nueve de Julio (ex USS Boise) later, but for now I'm taking a break from the Brooklyns to focus on other ships.
Author:  Clonecommander6454 [ February 3rd, 2012, 5:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ARA General Belgrano
Ahh Exocet... It'll sink anyways with or without Exocet.
Author:  Colosseum [ February 3rd, 2012, 5:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ARA General Belgrano
I'm kind of curious why everyone likes to poke fun at the Belgrano...

From what I've read the Argentinians were more than competent. The ship got sunk by a British nuclear submarine designed 30 years after Belgrano was laid down. I think in fairness these ships did pretty well.

It's also a bit disrespectful towards the men who gave their lives while doing their duty aboard Belgrano.
Author:  Cplnew83 [ February 3rd, 2012, 7:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ARA General Belgrano
Colosseum wrote:
It's also a bit disrespectful towards the men who gave their lives while doing their duty aboard Belgrano.
Agree with you, but what do you expect from someone (Clonecommander6454 :roll: ) which lives in a childish Alternate Universe ?

BTW : Smart work on the Brooklyn class, thank you.
Author:  Ultimo Tiger [ February 3rd, 2012, 8:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ARA General Belgrano
Rather apt timing if I say so myself.

According to one article I read, they put on fake Exocet launchers to make the ship look like it was armed with it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/oc ... .falklands
Quote:
I asked Barcena if his ship had carried Exocet missiles, and he confirmed that it had, but when I asked Coco the same question, whether the Belgrano had carried Exocets, he laughed and told me that the Belgrano's carpenters had fabricated Exocet launchers out of wood, to make it look as if the cruiser carried the missiles. He added that the Belgrano was not even fitted with sonar.
Although HMS Conqueror was designed long after the Belgrano was, the ship itself was sunk with torpedoes dating from the 1920s (instead of the more modern Tigerfish ones). A vindication of tried and tested technology above something new?
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/