This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Shipwrecks This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: To Do Lady Elizabeth (1879) Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed! Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Still adding more information Discuss desired additions -None Military history: Maritime / British / European B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips South America: Falklands This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group.

It is said there were two nuclear warhead on-board when it sank. The Exocet missile that sunk the HMS Sheffield actually belonged to Venezuela´s arsenal. Venezuela gave the exocets to Argentina just few weeks before one of them managed to sink the Sheffield.

Said by whom? also, France has sold exactly five Exocets to Argentina at that point, which is (plus the ship-to-ship Exocet dismounted from one of their destroyers) the number used. Peru (not Venezuela), during the conflict, requested early shipment of the Exocets they were buying, with the obvious goal of giving them to Argentina; the French didn't fufill the shipment. Toby Douglass 13:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh, so if there were two nuclear warheads on board, where's the cleanup crew? Beyond which, why would anyone put nuclear weapons on an Air Warfare Destroyer? The ship was designed to shoot down incoming planes, not to carry out nuclear attacks. About the exocets: Argentina was believed to have five exocets before the war, and fired four. So if the one that hit Sheffield was Venezuelan, what did they do with the unaccounted for missiles? Biscuit Knight 11:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that one might have been there is that the WE177 nuclear weapon was deployed on RN escorts as a nuclear depth bomb for helicopters. Apparently (WE177#Falklands_War) Broadsword, Brilliant, Coventry and Sheffield were carrying them when they sailed south but later had them removed. Emoscopes ^Talk 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, British destroyers in general carried a nuclear depth charge. I don't know if they really went down to the Falklands or not though; the general idea was to unload them at Ascension Island. Toby Douglass 13:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All RN ships of the period would have had the WE177 depth bomb. However, in the case of the Falklands War, these were removed and returned to the UK aboard a RFA before the ships left Ascension Island. Justin talk 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By April 1982 the Argentine Navy had received directly from France 5 of their 14 AM39 Exocets (plus 5 Super Etendards) bought in 1980. After the war broke out and due the temporal embargo settled by the French against Argentina, Peru urged France to deliver their already bought AM39 but the French refused too. For the Argentine version of the facts see [1]. However, its true that the FAV (like the FAP) supplied the FAA with spare parts for their Mirage fleet and particulary long range fuel tanks to allowed the deltas operate over the islands Jor70 14:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing in that the warhead exploded. The crew and members of the Task Force believe the warhead exploded, I believe the Navy's official stance is that the exocet didn't explode, but there you are. If it didn't explode on impact, why didn't it explode due to extreme heat of the fire? Biscuit Knight 11:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because modern explosives don't detonate when subjected to heat - they just burn. If you want a missile to detonate you have to use a detonator – real world explosives don't function quite like those depicted in cartoons which detonate when struck with a comedy mallet.

I don't think the issue is quite as closed as the article would try to make out. The Navy's official stance after experts have reviewed all of the available facts is certainly worthy of note; especially when the only evidence to the contrary that is discussed in the article is the personal belief of some of the servicemen present at the time.

Somehow I don’t think justice is done to the respective weight of each of those pieces of evidence. --62.173.76.218 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warheads of that era were not Insensitive Munitions. Subjected to an intense fire, the warhead would have exploded. Even if it initially deflagrated, it would soon transition to detonation. Justin talk 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard conflicting reports about the hull of the Sheffield, and I am curious as to what weight the citation (reference number 3) carries. What is the evidence that the superstructure was steel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.78.204 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Type 42 was all steel construction, the Type 21 was the only RN ship to have an Aluminium superstructure. Justin talk 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British version suggests a single missile launched at 6 miles. The Argentine version here suggests mutliple missiles launched at a far greater distance. Emoscopes ^Talk 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the article do not contradict itself due both claims are in different sections and reflect the differents points of view Jor70 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the article needs to be redrafted accordingly if these are both the official accounts. Emoscopes ^Talk 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any suggestion ? Jor70 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the British version indicates a single launch. Two were launched, one was seduced by chaff, the other hit Sheffield. This is all well known. Justin talk 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so, the official British report describes a second missile splashing into the sea 1/2 mile in front of Sheffield.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FFD53355-BDCD-437F-BD58-6681867E44BA/0/phase2_part2_analysis_of_attach_and_response.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin A Kuntz (talk • contribs) 10:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this subject, I can recommend Martin Middlebrook's account, initially published as Operation Corporate and then in a revised edition as Task Force. The author used both British and Argentinian sources and it seems a well-balanced, well-researched account.

According to Middlebrook, two Argentine aircaft each released a single Exocet at 11.04 local time. The first Task Force awareness of the danger began when Able Seaman Rose, radar operator on Glasgow, identified Super Etendard emissions. Glasgow had a fleeting radar identification on the aircraft. Sheffield did not detect the attack because it coincided with some routine SCOT transmissions. The flight time of the Exocets was less than two minutes, and the missile heading for Sheffield was, in any case, too low to be picked up on radar. There was not even enough time for a warning to be broadcast.

As Middlebrook puts it, "the exact path taken by the second Exocet is not known but two ships protecting the main group, Yarmouth and Glamorgan, reported that they had seen or detected a missile". It would appear, then, that two missiles were launched, and that, as Middlebrook puts it, "it can be assumed that the second Exocet ran out of fuel and fell harmlessly into the sea, but it had probably approached the western edge of the main group of ships. If this is true, then the Argentine pilots had not pressed home their attacks hard enough".

As a footnote, here's a quotation from Yarmouth's daily orders the following day:

"The Argentinian missile that passed Yarmouth was on a training mission and has returned safely to base" --Vvmodel (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will be nice to hear (read) opinions on why the British reported her sunk so quickly on May 4 when its actually sank on May 10. Also the Argentines have no other way to know of the effectiveness of the super etendard/exocet strikes. The system was still being studied (5 of the 14 planes were arrived) without the french technicians help and its not success could led to the airplanes being grounded. --Jor70 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many ways the British didn't control the media and information well. Announcing every scratch provided instant Battle Damage Assessment to the Argentine military, also some things were just plain stupid like telling the Argentine Air Force they were hitting the ships but the bombs weren't going off due to incorrect fuze settings (and the correct tactics to use). Why did they report it so quickly? Well there was 20 next of kin to inform and that story wasn't going to stay buried for long, in the long run honest reporting worked in the British favour. The British media's neutral reporting came to be readily believed, whilst the fanciful stories appearing in the Argentine media destroyed any credibility. An example of this is the continued claim to have hit or even sunk HMS Invincible. It never happened, yet the Argentine Navy to this day claims that it did. Just my opinion. Justin talk 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Argentinian submarine claimed to have hit Invincible with a torpedo which failed to explode and according to a British newspaper at the time the Argentinians carried out an enquiry. I don't believe this was denied by the British though as prime target, Invincible was well defended.

This is quite different from bombs not exploding. Bombs were dropped at very low height so the aircraft could fly under the Type 42's Sea Dart defence and are designed NOT to explode near the aircraft. The Type 42 was an anti aircraft ship intended to provide an area defence for the fleet against long range relatively large air or sea targets. Sea Wolf, which it didn't carry, was a close range point defence system designed to deal automatically with nearby missiles or aircraft attacking own ship. Of course, an anti aircraft ship needs both types of defence. Whilst dud bombs helped morale, the British would have been delighted if Argentinian aircraft subsequently flew a little higher!

JRPG 10:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dud bombs were caused by the aircraft flying too low and the armourers incorrectly setting the fuze. The BBC actually broadcast the error in Argentine Air Force tactics and subsequently they became more effective. The difference in altitude wouldn't have made a Sea Dart engagement possible, 1. the aircraft is within minimum range and 2. Still way too low. However, I'm sure that the British would have been delighted if the FAA had assumed it was just propaganda and carried on the same way but they didn't.

ARA San Luis did carry out a patrol near the task force and did attempt to launch torpedoes twice. All malfunctioned. There is no recorded attack on the Invincible and no sign of damage from a dud torpedo either but the attempted attacks on two warships tie with British records. The British admitted to every scratch received, sorry but there was no attempt to torpedo the Invincible just more propaganda. Justin talk 10:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not entirely British media fault telling the FAA about the wrong fuses. The same pilots realized about this ( planes attacked in groups so they saw each other ) and the FAA did great efforts to replace them something they achieved late may/june via Spain and yes the military gov manipulated the media and really misinform during the war (pucaras bombing hermes,etc) unfortunately leading to judge beforehand Argentine post war publications. --Jor70 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Argentine "torpedoing" of Invincible, a clearly-fabricated photograph was published showing the ship in flames. This has been widely used in the Royal Navy as a damage control poster, with the caption "Damage control saved Invincible" --Vvmodel (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? that looks suspiciously identical to the MoD images, which are crown copyright... (see here) Emoscopes ^Talk 20:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression the Sheffield did NOT detect the Exocet because she was using her satellite comms gear at the time; a design flaw meant she couldn't use satellite comms and radar concurrently.

Toby Douglass 12:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed correct. Justin talk 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Horizon(?) documentary on the Sheffield also said she couldn't use both satellite and 965 but didn't say why. However a sea skimming missile is too small and fast to be seen by a 965 in sea clutter though one would hope to see the Super Etendards -or detect via ESM any radar switched on post launch when missiles look for their target. The Navy expected to operate against Warsaw pact forces and it is possible that anti-missile counter measures available to the task force in the very early days didn't respond to a 'friendly' weapon system! JRPG 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partially correct. The Type 965 should have been able to pick out a sea skimmer as it came over the radar horizon but its weapon system was not capable of engaging it. The only system capable of doing so was the Sea Wolf, which was designed to engage such targets. Also part of the problem was that RN doctrine was prejudiced against automatic systems and the only chance Sheffield really had was to launch Chaff promptly to seduce the missile away. An automatic system could have done this but the system on Sheffield required manual intervention to launch Chaff rockets. With seconds to react there is little chance it would have worked.

All academic anyway because the Satcom and Type 965 had EMC problems and couldn't be used together. At the time of the attack Sheffield was using Satcom and the radar was switched off in stand by mode. Sheffield never saw it coming.

Anyways there is also the question if the Chaff could've helped anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllStarZ (talk • contribs) 03:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, what the hell are you talking about? When using SATCOM on a 42 back in 1982 it did not affect radar one bit! What it did do is mask the signals on the UAA1 display (Electronic Warfare ESM). It made Sheffield 'deaf' not blind. Again, when using SATCOM the radars on the Type 42 were NOT affected. UAA1 would have alerted the lads that (i) Someone in a SuE has popped up and is looking at you...down that bearing. (ii) An Exocet radar is radiating down that bearing. 'Heads up guys, turn towards, launch chaff'...and prey.Griffiths911 (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me why there is two versions, as the facts are essentially in agreement?

As noted above, why are there "two" versions, the facts are essentially in agreement. Justin talk 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I think we should just merge them, the only disputed thing in the sinking of HMS Sheffield, was did the Exocet explode? Which is kind of irrelevant as, an anti-ship missle hit a ship and it sunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article says; After the ship was struck, her crew, waiting to be rescued, sang "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" from Monty Python's Life of Brian.^[1]

However it's source actually says; This song was sung at Graham Chapman's funeral and by British sailors forming a bucket chain on the HMS Sheffield.

I thought it was Coventry's crew who sang this in the lifeboats? LOL not that it's an exclusive tune of course, and the Type 42 community is pretty tight, so word of this event could've definitely made it to Coventry. Basically I wanna change the text in this article to reflect the source accurately, however I reckon the source is probably mistaken. I guess for a non-military site it's an easy mistake to make, both are type 42's, doing the same job, in the same war, together. Anyone know of any other sources to back this one up? Ryan4314 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this song was actually sung by survivors from HMS Antelope. See Task Force by Martin Middlebrook, in which a witness is cited on this. p234-235. --Vvmodel (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that on several occasions during the war British forces sang this song. Justin talk 14:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since I posted this question, I have done some looking into it. I believe lots of the British forces sung the song. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official MoD report at page 2 indicates that the Super Etendards turned approximately 15 miles from Sheffield. Typically you'd only turn after missile launch, so the point blank comment appears to be BS. At least 15-20 miles seems more appropriate. Justin talk 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my names Paul Foster, I was the "992" operator on board the Sheffield on the day of the attack. All of this talk about Sheffield not detecting the attack is wrong. Yes the main RADAR was down but"992" was still operating, Myself and my fellow Air defence operator picked up two contacts at about twenty miles. We had time to generate a track label and raise the contact with the CPRI of the ops room. He came over looked and then went away, soon after generating the track labels one of the contacts turned away and the second continued towards us. We still had time to hand over the track to the gun control team who took over the management of the track up until impact,so to say we only had a minute between visual identification and impact is a lie. As to total loss of power this is also inaccurate as the ship continued to make way through the water for some time, if you look at the photos available you can see the ships Gemini(rubber boat) under power with a crew trying to firefight into the gash from the sea. Although firemain was lost almost immediately power remained on in some sections of the ship for some time as whilst I was gathering up fire extinguishers from my mess deck the lights were still on and this was some two hours after the initial impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.210.156 (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]