Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 2  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 »
Author Message
Charybdis
Post subject: Type 42 sinkingPosted: January 31st, 2013, 4:04 am
Offline
Posts: 1003
Joined: November 8th, 2011, 4:29 am
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Contact: Website
this happened a couple of days ago... I had no idea.

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/01/22/can ... o-belgrano


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Type 42 sinkingPosted: January 31st, 2013, 8:41 am
Offline
Posts: 10696
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Sad ending to the ship.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charybdis
Post subject: Re: Type 42 sinkingPosted: January 31st, 2013, 11:54 am
Offline
Posts: 1003
Joined: November 8th, 2011, 4:29 am
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Contact: Website
Apparently, she's lying on her beam ends.

I think the Type 42 has to be my favorite ship. Very sad.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Type 42 sinkingPosted: January 31st, 2013, 1:52 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Commisoned in 1982; that makes this a very old hull, so what do we expect, especially after being used for spares and rusting at the dockside?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Type 42 sinkingPosted: January 31st, 2013, 2:15 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
If you cannibalize a ship for long enough you'll eventually pull out something vital.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charybdis
Post subject: Re: Type 42 sinkingPosted: January 31st, 2013, 2:20 pm
Offline
Posts: 1003
Joined: November 8th, 2011, 4:29 am
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Contact: Website
You're right. A touch of nostalgia. Seems like an end of an era for me. Especially when I see the 42's rusting away at Priddy's Hard in Portsmouth. I remember visiting HMS Sheffield at Navy Days before the war. For me, as a kid, they were easily identifiable because of their domes.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
rickdog
Post subject: Re: Type 42 sinkingPosted: January 31st, 2013, 6:35 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 49
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 6:23 am
Location: Chile
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
Commisoned in 1982; that makes this a very old hull, so what do we expect, especially after being used for spares and rusting at the dockside?
Actually she was commisioned the year before, in 1981, but her launching dates from 1974.

If she wouldn`t have suffered the attack by a guerillla group (Montoneros) in 1976, who put under water mines on the dock to which she was tied to, and caused important damage, mainly to her shaft and whole propulssion systems, she probably would have been commisioned by 1978, two years after the one of her twin (Ara Hercules), which wisely was built in the UK instead, and not in Argentina, as her. (she was the only type 42 not built in the UK).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Type 42 sinkingPosted: January 31st, 2013, 7:00 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
[ img ]

Yeah, that's a bit of a list.

The article mentions that the ship was the flagship of the initial invasion. I believe the governor of the Falklands signed the surrender papers onboard too.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Karle94
Post subject: Re: Type 42 sinkingPosted: January 31st, 2013, 9:23 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2129
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
In the comments section someone mentioned the fact that the Hercules, the British built is still floating, while the Trinidad, which is Argentine built is sinking. Could there be a connection between the British built still floats, and the Argentine built sinks?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
rickdog
Post subject: Re: Type 42 sinkingPosted: January 31st, 2013, 10:44 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 49
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 6:23 am
Location: Chile
I think that the only connection here, is that the brittish built one, wasn`t subject to all the stirrups and anti-gobernment campaigns that existed in Argentina (against the military coup) at the time of its construction, and as he (Hercules) was being built, he didn`t have to suffer nor go through any sabbotage as his Argentine sister did, during it. So Hercules, was built perfectly and in time, while his sister couldn`t benefit of the same instance. (The anti-government or subversive group known in Argentina as "The Montoneros", specially during 1976, had for temselves, a very big list of anti-government bombings (including among them the one that affected the ST), that had their government at the time very bussy).

Besides, afterwards came the international embargo that affected many nations in South America (for the same reasons = military coups in them), so for Argentina, each time it was harder to get any spares for her (ST) and for her brother (H), so naturally she became the source of spares for Hercules and each time as time passed by, together with what happened in 1982, she really had little hope to ever be the ship that she was meant to be.
(Good for us, :twisted: )

In her comissioned days (including those of the Falkland war), she never worked as a destroyer, for our Argentine brothers, but merely as a fast troop transport and nothing more.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 2  [ 19 posts ]  Return to “Off Topic” | Go to page 1 2 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]