Posted on 11/27/2017 3:57:29 AM PST by Lower Deck
putnik has claimed that the sinking of Argentine submarine ARA San Juan was caused by a British deep-sea mine deployed during the Falklands War. The problem? Britain didn’t lay any mines.
Sputnik News is a successor to Russian state-owned RIA Novosti’s international branch which became defunct in 2013. The agency is wholly owned and operated by the Russian Government.
The article, which can be found here, suggests that the explosive event registered in the area of operations of the Argentine submarine ARA San Juan was caused by a deep-sea mine “installed at the time of the Falklands War in 1982.”
Quoting Russian naval captain Vasili Dandikin on the fate of the ARA San Juan:
“In 1982, the British submarines could have placed maritime mines near the Argentine coasts, the mine could remain in the bottom for 35 years, and once a storm disconnected it from the rope, it could have hit the San Juan.”
The thing is, the UK didn’t use any naval mines during the Falklands War.
(Excerpt) Read more at ukdefencejournal.org.uk ...
TWINS?
“Never let it be said that the Russians ever let the truth stand in the way of good propaganda.”
“Never let it be said that the MSM ever let the truth stand in the way of good propaganda.”
“......the British submarines could have placed maritime mines....”.....
The key word in that statement is “COULD”, he did not say the DID.
Typical media with a misleading “headline”. The Russians could have torpedoed that same sub but then, the media didn’t say that. It’s the “power of suggestion” that the demodummies (the Clinton’s in particular) use all the time.
So if anyone laid mines at sea (and I don't know they did), it would be Argentina.
The Russian naval officer did not definitively say a British mine caused the submarine sinking. He used the word “could”.
Peter Hitchens asked Number 10 the other week if they could confirm the words of Prime Minister Theresa May with specific cases.
She said the other week that Russian aircraft had “repeatedly” violated the airspace of several European countries. Hitchens was told the details were a “secret” but they admitted no Russian violations of UK airspace.
Since there were reports of a sharp explosion in the area where the sub was believed to have sent radio bursts, the underwater mine theory is not, by itself, 100% ludicrous. But didn’t the “explosion” occur about a week after the sub disappeared? (The stories were so poorly written it was hard to pin down the relative timing). Sunk, then hit a mine a week later doesn’t work.
Suggesting something insanely stupid and appending a "could" to it doesn't make it credible. The Russians also said the U.S. or Great Britain "could" have been responsible for the loss of the Kursk due to undersea collision with one of their submarines. That, too, stretched the limits of credulity and was easily disproved.
Yeah it is. In theory the Royal Navy uses two types of mines, Mark 5 and Mark 12. Only one, the Mark 5, can be launched from a submarine. None have been manufactured since the 1950's and when the Brits went to modernize their stock back in the 1980's it was found that all of the Mark 5's were too unstable to work with. A limited number of Mark 12's were upgraded but those are only deployed by air.
So sorry but the whole story is, in fact, 100% ludicrous.
These are torpedoes, while the story is about naval mines.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Royal Navy's minelaying capability is; and what types of mine are in service. [78661]
Mr. Ingram: The Royal Navy has no specialist minelaying vessels although most vessels in the fleet, including submarines, could be adapted to lay mines if deemed necessary. The Royal Navy does not have any
4 Nov 2002 : Column 65W
mine stocks and has not had since 1992.
Since the Falklands War was before 1992, then the Royal Navy could have layed mines then.
Mark 5 and Mark 12 are, or were, Royal Navy mines. Torpedoes of the period would have been the Mark 22 Tigerfish or, more possibly, the Spearfish. The Tigerfish is what was used to sink the Belgrano.
Again, the only one in use at the time was the Mk 12 and that was deployed by aircraft.
...a British deep-sea mine deployed during the Falklands War. The problem? Britain didn’t lay any mines.And before you ask, Argentina, there wouldn't have been a Falklands War had you and your nitwit regime not started one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.