18 JUNE 1983, Page 17

The Belgrano incident

Sir: Simon Jenkins's article on the Belgrano affair (11 June) is a curious mixture of mistakes, omissions and failure to ask rele- v, ant questions. The Belgrano was not an Exocet-armed battle cruiser' but a pre- second world war cruiser not armed with Exocet. It was not accompanied by modern Type-42 destroyers but by two ex-US 'Allen M. Sumner' destroyers completed in 1944.

Mr Jenkins reports that, by the end of

May, 'all five of Woodward's most sophisticated Sea Dart-Sea Wolf air defence ships (Coventry, Sheffield, Glasgow, Brilliant, Broadsword) were sunk or out of action'. In fact no one ship in the task force had the Sea Dart-Sea Wolf combination. Apart from Coventry, Sheffield and Glasgow, there were three other Sea Dart destroyers. Neither Brilliant nor Broadsword was put out of action for more than two days and there was another Sea Wolf ship in the task force, Andromeda.

These surprising mistakes apart, why does not Mr Jenkins make any mention of the nature of the extensive attacks by the task force on Stanley military facilities on 1 May, which preceded Argentine air at- tacks on the task force and caused heavy casualties?

Finally, he fails to ask two crucial ques- tions. Why did Conqueror shadow Belgrano for over 30 hours without attack- ing it, and only make its attack when Belgrano was on a 280° course towards Ushaia? More important still, why did the war cabinet decide to escalate the conflict by sinking the Belgrano without consulting Mr Pym who was at that time engaged in the negotiations in the United States? This astonishing lack of consultation was admit- ted by Mr Pym himself on 3 June this year on Newsnight.

Paul Rogers Deanfield, Paul Rogers Deanfield, Haas Road, Kirkburton, West Yorkshire