Re: the falklands

In message <lhdqj194ce0imi5ntr37ek4u8n9gu1l4gl@xxxxxxx>
Peter Skelton <skeltonp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:42:44 +0100, Graeme Wall
> <rail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >In message <dhjaiv$o3i$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > "William Black" <william.black@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> <kenney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:bNOdneiJ_OwXlqDenZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > In article <1128026142.947663.102210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >> > micoma@xxxxxxx (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Why is any of this even being suggested in the first place? All
> >> > > this based on a very unconvincing initial post, w/ no follow up
> >> > > whatsoever by that poster?
> >> >
> >> > Come to that why put a SSBN that close to Argentine weapons anyway?
> >>
> >> It's a useful torpedo platform as well...
> >>
> >
> >They definitely had three and probably 4 hunter-killers down there, with a
> >shortage of targets after the sinking of the Belgrano and the retreat of
> >Vienticinquo de Mayo back to Bahia Blanca, I doubt they needed the torpedo
> >capability of a boomer as well with the comsequent upsetting of the normal
> >boomer schedule.
>
> Unless, of course, she was able to get there first and came back
> when the others arrived.

Possible but I would have thought unlikely, not a lot of point in her sitting
250 miles east of the Falklands, no worthwhile targets out there and they
would not have risked a boomer too close inshore.


Spartan and Swiftsure were the two S-boats known to be down there, rumour had
it that Superb was down there at the beginning, or even before but her
presence was denied by the powers that be. Lots of rumours at the time of an
S-boat shadowing a Russsian hunter-killer that was, in her turn, shadowing
the task-force. For obvious reasons never confirmed or denied by either
side.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
.