Could UK Have Sunk Argentina's Aircraft Carrier During Falklands Conflict? (WarGames 155) | DCS

[@Dragonman1OOO]

Cap now do this the other way around! "Could the Argentinian carrier launching its own airstrike on the British fleet and sink at least one of the carriers?" It almost happened in real life according to Dr. Mark Felton! kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6fZfat5ZtepqLM I really want to see that! 😊

[@grimreapers]

This is the closest we have: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lXzWdnhvfd52oLc

[@ElValuador]

I doubt it. The Argentine pilots were so badly trained they didn’t even know they should turn in dogfights.

[@Dragonman1OOO]

@@ElValuador Sorry bro but I don't buy this bullshit! That is part of basic training in every nation since the beginning of aerial warfare! And I didn't said anything about dogfights only bombing the carriers! Fast hit and run tactics!

[@ElValuador]

@@Dragonman1OOO That’s testimony from the British pilots who fought them. Thirty harriers, not known for dogfighting, destroyed 30% of the Argentine Air Force.

[@Dragonman1OOO]

​@@ElValuador If the Argentinian really didn't used turning maneuvers in dogfight it wouldn't be the cause of bad training but the cause of lack of fuel. That is the only reason I see why they didn't did it! The Argentine pilots only had fuel to reach the British and do one or two hit and run attacks then they had to go back or they go down! And dogfighting consume a lot of fuel! So probably they didn't wanted do go into maneuvering to much in the first place! And maybe they were not as good in dogfighting as the British was, but stating that they didn't know that they must turn in a dogfight is beyond believable! It like saying that the a soldier didn't use a grenade because the soldier didn't know you must throw that thing to the enemy! Sorry but this still sounds like exaggerate propaganda!

[@ianh755]

British Aircrew were highly trained in Night Ops whereas Argentine aircrew were not and so a night attack would've been more realistic choice as it would have made the Argentine pilots life hell, trying to figure friend from foe at night in crowded airspace.

[@dan.vitale]

Tigercats were also wire guided and required manual visual aiming so a night attack would have rendered these useless.

[@rednaughtstudios]

@@Valorius Not sure about radar bombing but I've certainly read about SHARs operating at night and using flares to light the target. Sharkey Ward's book has a very good account of the training 801 Squadron did on the way down which included dropping flares at night and dropping bombs. Sharkey also describes how 4 Harriers could have done the Vulcan raid for a fraction of the fuel used and presumably this would mean they could put bombs on target at night.

[@rednaughtstudios]

@@maxich9325 That's a load of tosh. There are multiple accounts of FAA SHARs operating at night, conducting intercepts, recon and ground attack/bombing. You can start here if you like. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharkey_Ward

[@mikeycraig8970]

​@@maxich9325You are wrong. RAF Vulcans attacked at night.

[@MrWhiteladder61]

​@maxich9325 Sorry but that is flat wrong. Dave Morgan in his book Hostile Sky on page 200 details a loft bombing attack by Sea Harriers against Stanley airport at night. In Sea Harrier over the Falklands by Sharky Ward, he talks about dropping Lepus flares over Goose Green, Fox Bay and Port Stanley at night to harass the enemy. He also details 1000lb vt fused bomb attacks against Stanley at night using radar offset bombing. Numerous night attacks were made by 800 and 801 squadrons.

[@AlexVonT]

The real sneak attack was sending in Top Gear with a fully armed and operational license plate.

[@RazgrizRed9]

I used to volunteer at an aviation museum with a guy who served on HMS Invincible during the Falklands war. He was an aircraft controller - who described his job as "launching harriers". Absolutely lovely guy - some incredible stories.

[@falcon3268]

interesting this that most people don't realize that the Argentina's General Belgrano used to be the Untied States ship USS Phoenix that survived Pearl Harbor and WW 2.

[@artonline01]

I love how Cap just ignored the "Aim for the bushes quote" from "the other guys: lmao

[@dampsok]

It turned out to be rather prophetic... leaping soul-first off the deck of the carrier and slamming into the wall of Argentinian CAP.

[@alanholck7995]

Brave, Brave Cinco de Mayo, bravely ran away!

[@jeffwiltshire]

One of the RN conventional Subs (O Class) returned to Portsmouth from the South Atlantic with damaged bow torp doors with a live torp stuck in the tube. This was the result of collision/grounding having infiltrated the harbour which the Argie Carrier was moored. They asked several times for authority to sink it and it was declined. At least that is what I was told at the time.

[@revisionreader1922]

have heard similar

[@99IronDuke]

@Grim Reapers In general terms in the Falklands War HMS Hermes did most of the ground attack missions and HMS Invincible did most of the CAP missions. HMS Hermes gives you almost twice as many airicraft. Also the Sea Harrier had the best air to air radar of any fighter in the conflict.

[@jonosmith4919]

Followed this channel for ages OUTSTANDING I was 15 in 1982 remember the Falkland war like yesterday Cap much respect from Derbyshire I've been watching you're videos all day , day off today lol chocks away chap's 👍👍

[@localracer]

A-4 Skyhawk? That’s all you had to say. Harrier FRS? Bonus! Amazing aircraft!

[@peteturner3928]

I think the plan was for one of the Royal Navies subs in the area to put her on the bottom, but their navy sailed home as soon as Belgrano was taken out.

[@dr.ryttmastarecctm6595]

A sneak attack? Nah, this was the Harrier equivalent to the _Charge of the Light Brigade!_

[@timonsolus]

Agreed. Especially since the attack was in broad daylight.

[@SPiderman-rh2zk]

About the Sea Harriers' payload; I'm pretty sure the FRS1 only had four underwing pylons, so with fuel tanks fitted it could only carry two Sidewinders, and a single thousand-pounder on the centreline. At some point (I believe later than 82) the FRS1 could be fitted with dual rails for the Sidewinders on the outboard pylons, but I don't think they could take bombs. Apologies if you're aware of this already.

[@ianlower3128]

You do have your facts correct

[@grimreapers]

Roger, we can't take bombs on the centre-line of the AV-8B(I don't think so anyway), so had to use a bit of creative license.

[@fhlostonparaphrase]

A real shame that the task force didn't sail with the dual rails.

[@SPiderman-rh2zk]

@@fhlostonparaphrase Well, seems that the modification was developed during the Falklands conflict, and began appearing on the fleet in August 1982.

[@fhlostonparaphrase]

@@SPiderman-rh2zk Yes, I've read that they "became available" as the war nearing its end. Double the firepower could made a difference.

[@papayne]

Aegis ships have either 2 or 4 fire control directors (DDG & CG). This means they can only schedule threats when they are not illuminating a target when the SM asks for it via datalink. So all Aegis ships in a datalink will prioritize and schedule their fire in a coordinated way to avoid multiple SM’s per target. When I served the firing policy on a target was Shoot, Look, Shoot, Shoot. Many radars today, like the E-2D, Provide fire control quality tracking for targeting allowing the SM’s to be guided by them and AWACS- which lessens the loads on the ships fire control to schedule faster threat engagements. That’s a little piece of history for you! The ships and aircraft in the data link (Aegis or NTDS ships) coordinate and schedule their fire, with a Force Anti-Air Warfare Coordinator (FAAWC) and Force Track Coordinator (FTC). I served as both during the Gulf War. This way, other than last minute self-preservation shots, Aegis will have birds in the air on as many targets as it can fit into delta of the number of fire control illuminators available… During my time as FTC, I reported SPY-1 SCUD detections over datalink and verbally called on a Patriot battery in Saudi Arabia in the link with A heads up. They confirmed and engaged both Spy-1 tracks. That was the beginning of the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense and Aegis Ashore programs. Admiral March, in his after-action report, says that Mobile Bay and Bunker Hill while serving as FAAWC and FTC at their respective times detected, tracked, identified and reported over 65,000 air contacts with no Blue-on-Blue engagements- during the 100 hour period.

[@hotdogdcs2761]

Actually really interesting, recently been reading about the gulf war.

[@maxpower7466]

hello Cap, greetings from Argentina, a tip for pronunciation of rio Gallegos, say the LL of gallegos like the "SH" from the word "shop" ..... LL=SH

[@metalikmike1]

The Harrier pilots all said that they would only ever engage the Argentinian aircraft at low level where they had the advantage.

[@FLMKane]

Ah that makes sense. The fight would have stayed subsonic and harriers accelerate like crazy at low altitude

[@Niek1001]

**Poosh gets hit by sidewinder** "It's just paint damage!" 😂

[@jimmyday3984]

Sock: "Aim for the bushes" Cap : "Anyone else ..." LMAO

[@dougroberts3840]

Awesome video guys, thanks for the entertainment, wish I could fly with you

[@grimreapers]

Doors are always open.

[@ktwei]

They could have if the carrier went into the designated warzone around the island & a UK submarine had found her.

[@vapormissile]

"pingggggg...."

[@EfftupSmith]

Or if it hadn't been foggy on one particular night when HMS Splendid was sitting just outside international waters at periscope depth and ARA VDM was sitting just inside then. As far as the Captain understood the rules of engagement, if he could get a visual verifiaction, he could sink her. He couldn't see clearly enough.

[@admiralmallard7500]

Actually they could've sunk her anywhere but Argentine territorial waters. The exclusion zone mainly applied to 3rd party interference

[@petec1050]

Fun video but no way Sandy Woodward would of risked his limited numbers of Shars / GR3s in an attack like this. I highly recommend his book “one hundred days” really great insight into the mind of a naval commander at war and helped make the events of the war as I knew them far more real and meaningful

[@krismurphy7711]

Read it. Agree.

[@rednaughtstudios]

Not to mention HMS Invincible.

[@davidlockwood9192]

100 Days is a great book, also worth reading “Sharkey Wards” book as the CO of the Harriers on HMS Invincible

[@krismurphy7711]

VS....The Argentines who should have waited to have a "confirmed" location on the Brit Carriers and then SENT 100% of their airplanes in a one way raid. (Argies knew if the Brits lost just one carrier it was over???)

[@LIrwin74]

Very exciting video. Keep up the great work reapers!

[@JonahDyer]

Those British AV8B liveries are just stunning. I wonder if it's a maritime camouflage or just for looks lol

[@mstevens113]

They didn't even use that paint work, it was painted over all grey on the trip down to the Falklands never to be seen again.

[@jmtpolitico80]

Great video CAP!

[@jokiejoker2011]

Very good job squirrel as GCI. Good vid as always. Thanks

[@BWIENS789]

That Seacat missile that hit that house though...

[@DavidWilliams-ig5ec]

Exceptional mission. Kudos, boys!

[@sichere]

HMS Splendid had the Aircraft carrier in her sights and had orders to sink it if she launched her aircraft. The Argentine Aircraft carrier fled the scene after Her destroyers spotted a Sea Harrier approaching and before Belgrano was sunk.

[@stevenmiller184]

Great mission. Given the limited number of Harriers available to the British fleet, I doubt they would have expended them all in this way.

[@dexlab7539]

Great Fun - Thanks Cap!

[@dan.vitale]

HMS Splendid did track VCDM before Blackbuck happened in the Falklands conflict and it was only down to foggy conditions that they didnt fire upon her.

[@azoriusmage]

Great work super intense

[@cryhavoc999]

That wasn't how the exclusion zone worked - its intention was to warn Neutrals to stay away from what was becoming a war zone. Argentina had been warned in Mid April that its forces would be attacked basically on sight anywhere.

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

not really, it was for Argentina as well

[@cryhavoc999]

@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman From the 12th to the 22nd April with regards to the "Maritime exclusion zone" yes but from the 23rd April the Argentines had been advised in no uncertain terms "in a message that was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, the British Government clarified that any Argentine ship or aircraft that was considered to pose a threat to British forces anywhere in the South Atlantic would be attacked:" And so it proved with ARA Santa Fe being attacked on the 24th April and badly damaged at South Georgia (well outside of the exclusion zone) and the ARA General Belgrano Sunk on the 2nd May (also outside of the exclusion zone which is where a lot of people seem to get offended by the sinking). A new Zone "Total Exclusion zone" was communicated on the 30th April warning all Neutrals that the area was effectively a war zone and to stay out. This was to prevent things such as 'Russian Trawlers with lots of Aerials' and Civilian airliners overflying the task force and giving away its position (I understand that a Brazilian Airliner was very nearly engaged with a Sea Dart at one point) and not intended for the Argentines. Obviously this scenario takes place after the Argentine Carrier returned home in early May so the 23rd April RoE are in effect. Just to be clear while it was fun to watch the Scenario is unlikely to have happened for a variety of reasons.

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

@@cryhavoc999 I agree with the scenario being unlikely.

[@regarded9702]

The exclusion zone was for commercial and 3rd party vessels as I understand. Nowhere did we say we wouldn't attack the argentine navy as long as it stayed outside the circle.

[@krismurphy7711]

During War, every military facility, ship, airfield, truck is a target.

[@paladamashkin8981]

There is one major difference between the av8 and the British harrier. The British plane could actually exceed mach1 the American plane cannot because of the bigger air intakes

[@axilleas]

Slight correction re the TEZ: Argentinian vessels were a target no matter where they were found. The TEZ meant that ANY country's vessels encountered in it could, also, be attacked as fair targets.

[@henricomonterosa4534]

Thanks for the response, however I have a question: Would Argentinian merchants have been targeted, even if US or USSR ships (as an example) would be potentially harmed as well? Because that's how I understand your post, it seems just extremely dangerous.

[@axilleas]

@@henricomonterosa4534 I am not sure they would but they certainly could, that was the point of the TEZ, the fact that legally, with regards to international law and conventions, they had a justification to attack any vessel violating the exclusion zone.

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

The TEZ looks like that on paper however in actuality it was not seen like that to either side. (except the admirals) take the sinking of the Belgrano for instance, it was outside the TEZ, yet it caused a massive political disaster, but the argentine captain came out and said that it was fair game.

[@exAirMover]

The Harriers look awesome in the RN colour scheme 👍🇬🇧

[@mstevens113]

Which was painted over with a lower vis scheme before they arrived at the Falklands...

[@bigmull]

The answer is yes.The SBS had an attack planned but it never took place,it was said that the US kind of vetoed it.

[@Gunfreak19]

Argentinian A4s should only have rear aspect sidewinders.

[@Wolfe351]

haven seen all the mission yet but love it already............

[@tonygedalovitch8958]

The BAE Sea Eagle started production in 1982, I am not sure if it would have been available to the Sea Harriers, 110 miles range, speed mach.85 .

[@LondonSteveLee]

Indeed - it wasn't available.

[@viking1236]

One of the Harriers shot down was fitted for Sea Eagle as it was a test aircraft. When the Argentines inspected the wreckage and found it they assumed Sea Eagle was available even though it wasn’t.

[@garrettobrien5197]

Not sure if they had CCRP at the time but since you knew where the carrier is you could try toss bombing. This would allow you to stay away from the AAA and give the bombs the KE needed to penetrate the upper decks of the carrier. Another thing is attacking at night would allow you to sneak by as. Historically. The argentines weren’t very well trained in night battles. Also without great radars you guys could’ve hugged the ground to confuse the radar of the mirage/a4s.

[@dogsnads5634]

Toss bombing was used in the Falklands along with 1,000lbers set for airburst to suppress Argentine defences at Stanley Airport. More of an area effect though.

[@5Andysalive]

Argentina went on quite the strategic shopping trip before they kicked this off, didn't they?

[@grimreapers]

Yup, but the list was not quite long enough?

[@emmata98]

why didn't you go low/at night to avoid detection for the longest?

[@gdutfulkbhh7537]

Very well played.

[@Gunjob-Gaming]

FRS.1 would've had access to the 1000lb with the RET tail, which was our snakeye equivalent. Also with bags the FRS.1 could've only carried a single 1000lb'er between the ADEN gun pods. Just to expand on this a little; Weapons 2 x 30mm ADEN (130 rounds per gun) 2x AIM-9G/L 4x AIM-9L (later block with the twin rail) 4 x RN 2" rocket pods (144 rockets) 2 x Sea Eagle ASM 5 x 1000lb Bombs (RET/FF/MFBF) 5 x BL-755 Cluster bombs Countermeasures 2 x AN/ALE-40 (60 flares/Chaff) Sensors Ferranti Blue Fox radar (ARI 5982) RWR (ARI 18223)

[@grimreapers]

Thanks, I still think 1000lbs slick was the best bet. To avoid the AAA.

[@dogsnads5634]

Sea Eagle wasn't available until long after the war I'm afraid. Dedicated chaff/flare launchers were also not fitted. Chaff was stuffed in the ventral airbrake and deployed by 'blipping' the airbrake momentarily for one 'shot'.

[@Gunjob-Gaming]

@@dogsnads5634 Not all FRS.1 and GR.3 had AN/ALE-40's sure but some did. There was quite alot of retro fitting that happened. From the planned Shrike AGM-45 for the GR.3 that got lost out of Ascension Island and ended up in Uruguay, to C-130's being armed (and I'm not kidding) hand held radar guns for RWR and the procedure for decoying an IR missile was to fire a flare gun out the side.

[@dogsnads5634]

@@Gunjob-Gaming The Shrike was on Vulcan, and ended up in Brazil after refusing to drop from the rail prior to entering Brazilian airspace.

[@dogsnads5634]

@@Gunjob-Gaming AN/ALE-40 was also all post war....none on aircraft down south.

[@massimocolciago3172]

in the harrier there is a magior nose wheel steering, you have to remove the skid and clock the nws/undesegnete

[@onefan1249]

Slightly scary that 5 aircraft and GCI support could get hits on target 200 miles inside radar cover back then.

[@grimreapers]

Yup, BUT it's a suicide mission.

[@timonsolus]

@@Valorius : But wouldn't a standing CAP of Mirage III's be like, 2 planes on station at any 1 time? Not sure 2 Mirages can stop 4+ Harriers.

[@glenproctor1999]

The US offered the use of a carrier when negotiations failed. Thatcher turned them down but would make an interesting 'what if?' I seem to remember someone did an Intruder mod?

[@fhlostonparaphrase]

@@Valorius A pity there weren't any more Harriers available than what was sent then...

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

the offer was if the RN lost one of its carriers. Thats why it was denied. The british wasted to win the conflict their way. not by borrowing expensive equipment.

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

@@Valorius haha thanks, I do like your flag but more of a navy guy xD

[@krismurphy7711]

US could have stopped the War before it started....by just saying we Ally with the UK and will join them militarily. There are times to be "The World's Policeman."

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

@@krismurphy7711 that would of escalated things way too much. This wasnt a normal war/conflict it was a debate more than anything and it was over territory which if the US had gotten involved could of caused a large scale proper war.

[@shanemcdowall]

Argentina had intended to buy 15 Dassault Super-Etendards. They only had five and one of those was used for spare parts. They had five air-launchable Exocets. I understand the Etendard was not compatible with VCDM.

[@Pablo668]

Good mission, very entertaining. I thought you were going to try and take it out while it was at sea and couldn't launch any fighters.

[@krismurphy7711]

I don't know if the Brit Subs carried missiles back then....but if they did, obvious in such an attack, subs would run in to the coast and fire missiles at radar and AAA sites.

[@aztec0112]

Attacking the Argentine mainland would have instantly escalated it to, at a minimum, a regional conflict, much like a French sub firing missiles on London over fishing rights. 1983 was a fused bomb waiting to go off.

[@krismurphy7711]

AND what would Argentina do in response??? They did everything they could later on...sent all the ground forces they could to the Islands. Their subs were diesel-electric...Brits had three (or more) nuke nuke subs down there. Argentina could not have done anything in response that they didn't do later...and if they had been able to, their ships would have been sunk... any additional planes would have been shot down. The ONLY chance the Argentinian Forces had was to have launched an INITIAL, ALL OUT, ONE TIME, COMBINED ARMS STRIKE, once the Two British Carriers had arrived. If they had launched ALL THEIR PLANES...in one mass sweep, they probably could have hit one of both of the carriers. Damaging/Sinking one would have caused the Brits to turn tail. @@aztec0112

[@mstevens113]

This was long before uk subs carried missiles.

[@richardsuggs8108]

That should buff right out with a bit of polish.

[@trevorday7923]

I believe that to this day HMS Conqueror is still the only SSN to have sunk an enemy ship in anger. That we know of, anyway....

[@davebartos7743]

A Pakistani Sub 'Hangor' sank the Indian warship INS Khurkri in 1971. i think that was the first since the WW2.

[@Cartoonman154]

@@davebartos7743 Not nuclear powered.

[@davebartos7743]

@@Valorius Indeed he did - my bad - Apologies.

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

You are correct. Lets hope it stays that way.

[@tonypardoe1858]

To fit the tactical approach used at that time could you re-run it with the SBS taking down the search radar before the raid and the SAS hitting the local airfield?

[@aztec0112]

Why that's almost as silly as throwing the bulk of your very limited airpower on a suicide mission to damage a carrier that had already disembarked its combat wing, and was just sitting out the war in its cage (mooring)

[@rednaughtstudios]

@tonypardoe1858 You should read about Operation Mikado or, as those involved in planning nicknamed it, "Operation Certain Death" which was a plan to land a bunch of C-130s carrying SAS troops on Argentine airbases and basically shoot/blow up everything. Wiser heads prevailed and it was called off. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

@@Valorius Historically the SAS and SBS did do missions such as these. Its as crazy as some of the other not so well know stuff that happened.

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

@Valorius on the contrary. The SAS did carry out some missions in Argentina and Chile I believe. They had egress as well I do believe.

[@gavin1506]

@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman yes. They did a mission in the mountains, their egress was helicopter. Other missions they "walked" out. Local vehicles were taken for that job. They are quite well documented as you say.

[@peternicholson83]

The British pilots have already stated that they would not fly at high attitude because the harrier has low speed when compared to the super.

[@streetcop157]

Yeah you kinda knew that was a one way trip

[@iceberg54321]

The Reapers will never get over Rio Grande.

[@TechGaming45]

The Exclusion Zone was for any Shipping.

[@clangerbasher]

Shot down by Sea Mouse?

[@brentmckenzie2150]

“Aim for the bushes” laughed so hard I woke up the wife…. She did not find it as funny haha

[@pike100]

Brent, I don't get it. Aim for the bushes?

[@aztec0112]

1983: "Argentina re-establishes permanent control over the Malvinas" "A massive British air strike to damage the carrier ARA Twenty-Fifth of May was repulsed with devastating enemy losses while inflicting only minor damage to the carrier while in port. The resultant loss of virtually the entire complement of enemy fighter aircraft left the Royal Navy with little ability to achieve local air superiority. The Royal Navy having lost the initiative was forced to sail to safety outside the reach of land based attack aircraft. Argentine land forces continue to reinforce Malvinas unhindered. In other news: Emergency summit between Great Britain and the US scheduled...Soviet Union announces support for Argentina against British imperialism."

[@deadmeat8754]

The idea of using Vulcan bombers to strike the Argentine Carrier in port during the Falklands War would have been a non-starter (even for the RAF that was desperate to be involved in the conflict to avoid future budget cuts). The RAF's Operation Black Buck Vulcan bombing missions against the occupied Falklands Islands airfield clearly demonstrated that the budget constrained RAF were incapable of carrying out a long-range mission with any meaningful measure of success. What's more, the Black Buck Vulcan missions were carried out against the minimally defended Port Stanley airfield. It is unlikely the UK Vulcan's (and their nightmarish aerial logistics convoy) could have successfully penetrated and returned from a better defended Argentinian naval port on the mainland. The UK had no fighter aircraft or pilots trained and capable of escorting its small Vulcan sorties on such 14 to 16 hour missions. This scenario was fun, but the British fleet was terrified of both the ancient Argentinean submarine and the obsolescent A4 Skyhawks (let alone the Mirages). There is simply no way the RN would have risked such an aggressive action against Argentina simply because the RN were terrified at the possibility of losing naval assets (and only tangentially United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 considerations). The British reluctance to aggressively prosecute the conflict was far less about diplomatic concerns and far more about actual capability and attritable assets. Fortunately, the Argentine junta was equally averse and incapable of prosecuting a larger conflict, having used the best bits of it's surplus third-world military equipment in the initial seizure of the Falklands islands. Finally, the bot opponents are a joke for GR to handle. You lot have consistently demonstrated your skills at running the tables on DCS bots. You should have designated, at least, one flight of Human pilots for the Argentinian defense. I suspect we all know this would have greatly effected the results.

[@Pukin-Dog]

The UK almost did sink their carrier. The UK subs went looking for it and by the time HSM Splendid got into torpedo range the Carrier had entered Argentine waters. Splendid "could" have attacked but it would have been a potential political disaster sinking a ship in it's own waters when the UK wanted to be seen as playing a defensitve war.

[@andrewsmall6834]

I have to get up for work in 5hrs Cap, it isn't fair of you to do this to me, but I'm damn well gonna watch this video right now though.

[@grimreapers]

I can only apologize....

[@fhlostonparaphrase]

Would never have happened, as what few SHARs were in the task force were needed for CAP, and why risk them on bombing a carrier cowering in port, essentially making it useless? If it came out to fight...then sure, attack it, but that's a job for the subs. But fun experiment in-game I suppose.

[@tevalove]

Wasn’t the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile available then?

[@LondonSteveLee]

Nope - still in development - the only anti ship missiles available to the British were the unguided Martel (which Sea Eagle was based on) or Sea Skua which was a lightweight missile designed for patrol boat sized craft. Sea Dart had an anti ship mode it would have been risky getting a ship close enough to use it in that way - and it was largely untested in that role. The later solid state versions of Sea Dart had pretty good anti-ship and land-attack modes.

[@cynric5437]

Vectoring in Forward Flight - could that known technique have helped? For the young ones the Harrier had 4 moving thrusters enabling the Harrier to go vertical. So in the Falklands, the UK pilots could come to standstill mid-air while the star fighter had to zoom past. At which point the Harrier shot its missiles…

[@aztec0112]

My understanding was the US Marines tested VIFF extensively, and while it appeared plausible on the white board, it didn't translate into practice. IIRC VIFF could be used sparing to provide defensive movement along the lift vector and disrupt a guns solution or to help cut a corner (figuratively) in pursuit. However the energy tradeoff was substantial. As a result, the USMC generally discouraged its usage in combat.

[@kevincasey5035]

@@aztec0112 Being in the RAF at that time we heard "stories" that the Americans suffered a higher accident rate with the American version AV8-B(?) i.e. the American pilots found the Harrier very difficult to fly. Perhaps we could see what Simba could manage in the DCS.

[@aztec0112]

@@kevincasey5035 The USMC used both the AV-8A and B. They did have issues. Interesting, I never have heard what the RN experience was with them. If you got info, I'd love to hear!

[@bigmull]

Is the Harriers VIFF modeled in the sim?

[@LondonSteveLee]

Yes, but it wasn't used in the Falklands. Ditching all your airspeed would be suicide in a real combat unless it was a last-gasp action.

[@jeffreyharris3440]

The Argentines would pronounce the ship "BAIN-tay SINK-oh day MY-zhow" And I'm not trying to make fun of them by saying "Sink-oh"

[@grimreapers]

Oh man that's a real tongue-twister...

[@exoterric]

Love thes alt-histories. Yall grow up on harry turtledove too?

[@F4GRAPHICS]

Gamer Alan Partridge

[@jeremywilson2022]

At the beginning of the war a British sub tracked the Argentine carrier and was given permission to sink it if they got visual confirmation of the target. Theis carrier was saved by fog.

[@Lerone6886]

Great video, love seeing you guys using the Harrier. How about a 2025 version of this mission?

[@rodrigonunez9451]

lol we don't have carriers anymore. Not even 1 real fighter, just 6 A-4 AR with 2 AIM-L/M, RBS-70 and some destroyers with Aspide

[@ElValuador]

Probably. The Argentine pilots were so badly trained they didn’t even know to turn in dogfights.

[@LondonSteveLee]

Argentinian pilots were skilled and brave - for the most part 95% of the Argentinian aircraft used in the conflict were configured for ground attack so all they could do against Sea Harrier was try and run.

[@ElValuador]

@@LondonSteveLee Bombing/attack runs and dogfighting are completely different skill sets. The kill rate tells the tale.

[@LondonSteveLee]

@@ElValuador They were not fighter pilots or aircraft - worried about leaving Argentina undefended against hostile neighbours (at the time) the use of Mirage III was limited and most of the Daggers that were used were configured for ground attack.

[@ElValuador]

@@LondonSteveLee Four mirages attacked two harriers and three were shot down due to the superior British pilots using the hook maneuver successfully. After that the Argentines didn’t try to engage the British in air to air combat again.

[@LondonSteveLee]

@@ElValuador Indeed, which is why I used the word "limited" - I would expect any air force in the world to struggle against British pilots in roughly comparable aircraft. It's one of the few things we still do well - train pilots to a very high standard.

[@LondonSteveLee]

How long would an F-35B last in South Atlantic gale force sea spray? Could you even get one off the deck in those conditions? How long would it be serviceable? This is the thing people fail to recognise about this conflict, a practically brand new aircraft type flew relentless sorties (hundreds of sorties) in the most harsh conditions imaginable - and the aircraft were pretty much 100% available. Mind-boggling reliability and durability. I'm absolutely convinced that 20 F-35Bs going to war in the same conditions would be unavailable for combat within a week.

[@timonsolus]

Regarding the Total Exclusion Zone: On 23 April 1982, in a message that was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, the British Government clarified that any Argentine ship or aircraft that was considered to pose a threat to British forces "anywhere in the South Atlantic" would be attacked: In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly. (The term civilian aircraft alludes particularly, but not only, to the Boeing 707 of the Argentine Air Force that until then had shadowed the British Task Force on its journey south and had been escorted away on several occasions by Sea Harriers.)

[@peetky8645]

EA6B prowler video?

[@drrocketman7794]

You guys should re-enact Tornado Down! in gulf war 1, John Nichols and John Peters

[@rodrigonunez9451]

Argie Here. The 25 de mayo task force has 2 type 42 destroyers with Sea Darts. The ARA Hércules and the ARA Santisima Trinidad.

[@rodrigonunez9451]

Also we have some Roland missile system in mainland

[@rodrigonunez9451]

I Almost forget the Sa-7 from Gadafi lol

[@LondonSteveLee]

Only one of the Argentinian 42s was actually capable of aiming and firing her Sea Dart (active mode) due to previous British sanctions limiting spares.

[@LondonSteveLee]

It was only poor maintenance of the De Mayo's boilers and lack of wind that stopped the Argentinians unleashing a world of pain on the British carriers.

[@aztec0112]

You forgot the very real threat of torpedos

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

No, they were scared of the submarines. The Argie carrier while a threat would not of got near the UK carriers if the submarines were doing their job.. which they were.

[@LondonSteveLee]

@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman They were well within strike distance - Morty stumbled across the fleet the night of the day the attack was supposed to happen and got a blast of Sea Dart fire control RADAR and legged it. If Sea Harrier without extra fuel could get there you can be sure it's well within range of Skyhawk! It's only because the incompetent fools on board Hermes that still wouldn't acknowledged any data 801 obtained by Sea Harrier RADAR that they ignored the contact as clutter or a fishing fleet - because 800 couldn't use or tune Sea Harrier's RADAR, they considered it to be useless dead weight (the arrogance of incompetent fighting men!) This incompetence cost the British HMS Ardent, HMS Coventry (RADARLESS CAPs) and HMS Sheffied (CAP sent on ridiculous mk1 eyeball scouting mission) leaving ships unprotected when a single sweep of Sea Harrier's RADAR could sanitise 100+ miles of airspace quickly. And to REALLY rub salt into the wounds we found out from the Argentinians after the war, that the presence of Sea Harrier RADAR contacts caused them to abort missions. So 801's CAPs were proactively avoiding attacks on the British fleet while 800 were encouraging them with their RADAR silence and Mk1 eyeball wild goose chases leaving holes in the CAP!

[@LondonSteveLee]

The British submarines were stupidly operating in cells which massively compromised their effectiveness. It didn't help that they didn't trust the new Tigerfish torpedoes and relied on the WWII jobbies which made interception much more difficult.

[@custossecretus5737]

Great what if scenario, I was expecting the carrier to be attacked at sea, did or could the argentines of threatened the U.K. carriers?

[@GjVj]

In short: yes. The Argentines were a very serious threat to the UK carriers, and the British knew it.

[@mstevens113]

They did threaten the carriers, the Atlantic Conveyor which they sank was mistakenly identified as a carrier. Finding the carriers was the biggest problem the argies had.

[@studavies1967]

They nearly lost the carrier hms splendid had been stalking the argentine aircraft carrier, but was stopped in its hunt when the carrier entered argentine waters

[@Aesesssess]

If that had happened it would have been an opportune situation for the Argentines to sortie their Etendards with Exocets and catch the British fleet on their doorstep. The invisible would have been more vulnerable than ever before.

[@alanmike6883]

What do you think cap?

[@grimreapers]

As long as we were willing to accept losses then yes def.

[@alanmike6883]

@@grimreapers It's a shame of the state of the navy today. We wouldn't be able to fight again

[@admiralmallard7500]

​@alanmike6883 I mean our navy is marginally smaller but far more advanced than back then. And the Argentine navy is non existent

[@andyclayton5401]

thank you all for being there... could a ww2 group of fighters that succeeded in battle of britain sorted out the japanese at Pearl Harbour

[@timonsolus]

Nearly all the US fighters were destroyed on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Same would have happened to British fighters if the Japanese had decided to attack Singapore instead of Pearl Harbor. Surprise attack.

[@osher87]

Hello GR, great video as always! The Falklands War was a war in which both the British and the Argentina suffered casualties. After watching a documentary on KZbin, I noticed that the Argentinians attacked mainly with fighter planes attacked ships with French "Exocet" missiles and managed to hit at least 2 destroyers and 2 corvettes (Argentina only had 4 such missiles) the rest of the attacks were by bombs. The sinking of "General Belgrano" destroyer caused the Argentinians astonishment and shock, so that many attacks on the British battleships were successful, but the aircraft carriers remained unscathed thanks to the defensive arrangement the British employed. So, in my opinion the British could have lost the battle if Argentina had more modern anti-ship missiles

[@dan.vitale]

Exocets were pretty modern at the time. they were in their 7th year of service in 1982

[@mikeycraig8970]

1) Belgrano was a cruiser not a destroyer. 2) We WOULDN'T of lost.. Anyway you slice it.... because Margaret Thatcher had nuclear armed subs poised to take Buenos Aires if we did. Argentina COULDN'T win lol.

[@osher87]

@@mikeycraig8970 You're right, it's a cruiser. I was translating my comment from Hebrew, the Heb word for cruiser and destroyer is the same word, משחתת. there is another word: סיירת. that one means only a cruiser. Thanks

[@osher87]

@@mikeycraig8970 Your No' 2 in comment is not realistic, sorry.

[@mikeycraig8970]

@@osher87 Sorry, but it's documented fact and she went on record to say as much after the war was won. She had nuclear subs ready for that order.

[@goolashnz6426]

Dear GR ... while watching i had a bit of a giggle and thought .. after watching you drop "bags" .... i wondered . Has there ever been a case where a set have dropped bags have gotten a "bomb kill" per say . Would they act like an AirFuel bomb ? or would they do anything ?

[@benhart1512]

If we had the Buccaneer they could have gone in fast and low before anyone knew ..

[@nonsequitor]

Confused why you keep talking about the brothers behind 90's hit band Oasis maybe a cousin @ River Gallagher ?? 🤷‍♂️😂

[@MTBScotland]

That was a good un.

[@Gman-109]

I don't think the Arggies would have sortied their entire flightline of fighters in a situation like this scenario, maybe a four ship from each base, at most probably 2 four ships.

[@krismurphy7711]

Maybe they would have if they assumed the Carrier was the target.

[@WilfChadwick]

Someone didn't drop tanks.

[@grimreapers]

Silly boys.

[@brianwright9514]

Did the British not have anti-radiation missiles back then?

[@grimreapers]

We had Shrike but they were pretty terrible and needed HUGE strategic Vulcan bombers to carry them.

[@brianwright9514]

@@grimreapers really? Sea Harrier couldn't carry one? They makes be extra sad that the STOL version of the Intruder wasn't a thing

[@LondonSteveLee]

@@brianwright9514 I doubt if they would have taken the risk of adapting vital Harriers during the conflict - carrying the Shrike would be no problem for Harrier weight wise but was quite bulky. The RAF borrowing Shrike off the Americans was a desperate bid to be relevant in the conflict.

[@OG_Deltaprimus]

And now we know why we didnt run that mission haha!

[@OG_Deltaprimus]

6 from what I just read.

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

@@Valorius considering how many we had (around 20 total). It is a very big price considering they were outnumbered so horribly already.

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

@Valorius I agree to a point. However at this point the carrier was a political thing. Not operational as its skyhawks were operational from ground based air bases, and sacrificing 1/4 of your total amount of fighters while you have 2 flat tops to defend is madness. The political fallout towards the UK as well regarding it being in port.

[@OG_Deltaprimus]

@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman I mean sure but: 1. those planes weren't onboard they'd already moved to the island. 2. The loss of those planes would mean that the carrier group would have lost air superiority over the island and goose green would never have happened. 3. The carrier was docked and not contributing to the defense of the island. 4. You'd also be losing 5 souls for no tactical gain but by attacking mainland Argentina you may have just brought the allies in and received a ton of political pressure on our war effort. 5. 5 men worth 100s of thousands of GBP each would be dead for no gain and hundreds of man hours in training. That's would take alot to replace.

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

@@OG_Deltaprimus replied to the wrong person mate.

[@matthewgordon-clark2392]

Cap, - or another variation. Again - the RN is missing carriers and Vulcans but has managed to persuade/bully/blackmail Australia into lending them HMAS Melbourne. Please model? Matthew

[@robertlight2370]

Australian A-4s vs Argentinean A-4s!

[@Mrtrc33]

Well the sas was on the mainland . I'm sure they blew up some planes at an air base ?

[@charlestaylor3027]

The exclusion zone had nothing to do with Argentinian ships. Argentinian ships could be targetted anywhere. An exclusion zone simply tells other countries where their ships could be in danger.