Falklands 1982: Challenges in Expeditionary Warfare by MG (Ret) Kenneth Privratsky

[@exiledscouser919]

Respect for the speaker, he was engaging, generous with his praise and full of knowledge. Always good to hear about a conflict from a 3rd party country.

[@alganhar1]

He got one thing very wrong though, the Guards are not *just* Palace Guards, it is *one* of their tasks. They are also highly trained conventional Mechanised Infantry. At the time of the Falklands the Guards Regiments were seperate, but one thing is still the same, only a small proportion of the Regiments were on Palace Duty, the rest, were training for thair wartime role. The Guards are well trained conventional mechanised infantry, they are not just 'Palace' Guards. Something that is well known in the British Military, but perhaps not outside it. Yes, they do have a Ceremonial role, but that Ceremonial role is actually SECONDARY to their primary role.... The Guards Cavalry are the same by the way...

[@johnkemp8904]

@@alganhar1 That was the one thing that rankled with me! It could only give fuel to those visitors to the UK who think that the Guards are some sort of Disneyfied actors prompting questions on social media about whether they are trained, etc.and the notorious one about what happens if they ‘break character’. Perhaps the major-general might be forgiven in one sense, in that he used his term whilst showing a picture of them in ceremonial uniform for public duties. There is a famous war film of the 1950s, not containing a single American(!), in which a British private praises the Guards and when his colleague points out that he ridicules them all the time, he replies ‘Well, all that spit and polish and the honour of the dear old regiment - but they win wars for you’.

[@keithdurose7057]

Thank you for a very interesting presentation. I was on the LSL Sir Belivere. We were 11 Field Squadron Royal Engineers. Also on board was 1 Raiding Squuadron Royal Marines. We made stands for our LMG's. (Recalibered BREN light machine guns of WW2 vintage) Mounted in pairs outside of the galley doors and on the flight deck. I was on the port sidel gun mount as the gunner. Two Skyhawks came in at around 400 knots. Below the level of the flight deck. We opened fire on them, they climbed slightly and one released his 100lb " return to sender" bomb. It hit the ariels above the superstructure,the reeves of a crane and then left a dent in the port bow before dropping into the water. I use the term return to blender because they were sold to Argentina along with the Canberra bombers to drop them by the British some years earlier. After going ashore 11 Squadron built Sids Strip to refuel the CAP Harriers. Among very varied the Sqn did mine clearance, ship to shore refuelling and runway repairs and maintenance. I think that the Sqn was all back in Blighty, (England) by the end of July 1982. In 1981 we where in Belize from July to January 1982. During the Belizian Independance on the 21 September 1981. It was a close run thing with Guatamala. They threatened war if Belize got independence. So a jungle war was narrowly averted to end up in an arctic one! Six months later. Sadly 11 Fd Sqn has been disbanded. Something that the Corps of Royal Engineers should put right.

[@nickmiller21]

@@alganhar1 Guards cavalry ie. household cavalry were deployed, Blues and Royals and Lifeguards were there with Scimitar and Scorpion CVRT

[@thadtuiol1717]

Interesting to hear an educated American military guy's analysis of this war. Thanks for uploading!

[@joecook5689]

Way interesting. He nailed his lecture.

[@tbrowniscool]

Joe Cook I really don't think he did, I enjoyed this presentation but he knows little of the Welsh and Scots guard. Anyway I'm not complaining just,y opinion.

[@doug6500]

He's quite complimentary and this won't sit well with Americans who view themselves as superior to us.

[@busterruff9369]

@@doug6500 I have travelled all over the USA ,and I can honestly say the Americans are the most kind and friendly people I have ever met,they no way made me feel like they were superior to me ,

[@Anglo_Saxon1]

@@busterruff9369 good to hear that mate

[@timmo491]

Conqueror flying the Jolly Roger on return is a tradition. It went down very well in the UK we didnt care much about what anyone else thought.

[@johnbull1568]

Butt-sore Argentinians still call us 'pirates' to this day, like it's some kind of insult to us. You try to explain to them that if anything, we take it as a compliment, and they still carry on lol.

[@timmo491]

@@johnbull1568 amusingly all the spanish speaking nations do the same. Its as much to do with Britain globally enforcing the abolition of the slave trade via the Royal Navy at a time when, you guessed it, the Spanish and Portugese were having trouble letting go of the habit.

[@stevefoster5138]

It would be great if we returned to not caring about what anyone else thinks, the country would be a lot safer for ppl, especially the white young girls of this country

[@timmo491]

@@SimSim-zf9if yep they pushed on with slavery for 80-odd years after we abolished it and took us and a civil war to put that to bed.

[@georginagedroge4405]

Is it also the official flag of the submarine service? Therefore they were just flying their flag rather than it being a provocative display?

[@k2apache60]

What the British did, 8,000 miles away from their homes, with just a few harriers for CAP , and what ended up being one heavy lift helicopter, against an enemy just 400 hundred miles from home, with weeks to prepare and augment their forces is a miraculous acheivement by any standard.

[@myview5840]

That Chinook has had a glorious life, its marking is Bravo November, Falklands War, Iraq War, and Afghanistan. It has true spirit.

[@MongooseTacticool]

It's a shame they didn't have the Ark Royal and the F4 Phantoms equipped with the AIM7's down there also. Would've beem interesting too see what difference that would've made.

[@alexwilliamson1486]

Mongoose556 strange I’ve just said the same comment?! Should never scrapped the aircraft carriers, the F 4s would’ve shortened the war without a doubt, and we would’ve probably lost less ships with radar equipped aircraft in CAP.

[@DraigBlackCat]

@@alexwilliamson1486we did have Radar Equipped Aircraft in CAP - Sea Harriers, In Sharky Ward's book 'Sea Harriers Over The Falklands' says quite a lot about this, the real issues were the lack of AWACs due to the scrapping of Ark Royal and the failure of the Nimrod AEW3 programme which should have just been coming into squadron service in 1981/82. The MOD did try stuffing radar from Ark's Gannet aircraft into the Nimrod airframe as an emergency measure for the Falklands Campaign but it didn't work out.

[@sichere]

@@DraigBlackCat They flew Canberras from Chile and Nimrods from Ascension - the problem was too much information coming in from so many sources. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nISnoYKdjamsmdE

[@sichere]

The Jolly Roger is a symbol that has been used by submarines, primarily those of the Royal Navy Submarine Service and its predecessors. The practice came about during World War I

[@sichere]

@Ziva David And Cpt Pugwash !

[@tonyaqu]

In The early days of submarine warfare they was considered like pirates, that’s why they used the Jolly Roger.

[@closethedoornow7538]

Is it true that they fly it after a kill?

[@sichere]

@@closethedoornow7538 Indeed

[@closethedoornow7538]

@@sichere can you tell me any more?

[@glenmiller272]

As Gorbachev once said 'never underestimate the British'...

[@keithdurose7057]

The Rusdian observation was that in peacetime. All runs smoothly. The British operate in a constant state of confusion that trancendes into wartime activities seemlessly. They are more correct than they ever imagined!

[@stuross8190]

To hear this guy describe The British deed as a unique action is true. It was not without error but imagine the outright determination. I accept that outside the UK, The Falklands conflict will look very trivial ..... but it was brutal.

[@dynamo1796]

The tale of the Falklands is very much about quality over quantity. The British never outnumbered the Argentinians on aircraft or ground troops, though they did of course send the Argentine Navy packing quite early on, the enemy fleet was also larger than the British force at the time. The fact is that the Paras and the Commandos are trained for exactly this expeditionary kind of mission. The Argentinian forces were mainly conscripts or regular army that is to say, guys who need a lot of infrastructure behind them to operate. Now the Argentinian forces took the Falklands with little opposition because the British didn't have many troops based there. However, there was also very little military infrastructure and what there was just wasn't set up to support the 10,000 or so sized Argentinian division that controlled the islands. So you got these regular army guys shitting all over the place, they haven't got any barracks, they're living out of field kitchens and hospitals and tents. There wasn't nearly enough houses to billet all the troops so they were just out in the cold. No army is setup to operate effectively under those conditions, but commando and expeditionary forces are. Expeditionary troops are trained to be dropped into unfavourable conditions - larger enemy force, prepared defences, baked in logistics and heavier firepower. But they expect that, train to counter that and train to operate in a manner that counters and exploits regular army doctrine. The Argentine invasion was the equivalent of swinging a big, dumb, slow mallet. The British went in with throwing knives - smaller, highly trained and capable troops and assets backed up by the fist of the Royal Navy. One knife is the small but highly effective Harrier air group. Another knife is the SAS squadrons, inserted to punch holes in the enemy assets and gather SIGNIT. A further knife is are the nuclear submarines, silent death for any enemy surface ships. A knives are the specialist anti-air defences, the logistical specialists, the heavy lift helos and of course the Commandos and Paras. With these knives, the British decimated their adversary. If the Argentine forces and British forces had met man to man in full on the field of battle, the sheer size of the Argentine hammer probably would have done the job. But the Argentine commanders didn't know what they were doing and allowed themselves to be defeated piecemeal and in detail.

[@MrAckers75]

Staff was on an staff exercise in Denmark. I will translate for non army people “Great piss up in Denmark”

[@ReneBorgesen]

they were planning for a NATO exercise.

[@thomaslinton1001]

You need to actually understand the lingo in order to translate.

[@thehandoftheking3314]

@@ReneBorgesen sorry "great international piss up in Denmark "

[@Calidore1]

Haha, lots of British strategic interests in Denmark.

[@uschurch]

@@Calidore1 Yes. At the time the British leadership had an understanding of greater strategic challenges and was willing to address it together with its European allies.

[@gerwulfthered154]

My father fought in the Falklands; Royal Marine. Great lecture.

[@chriswilde7246]

As did my identical twin brother, 45 Commando.. It was a great lecture..

[@andrewlusty5584]

Tell him to crack on and thank him for his service.

[@joecook5689]

Your father was a badass. From America. Born in Lancashire.

[@vinm300]

Thanks for saying that. I was hoping some credible British chap would applaud the lecture.

[@neilgreene91]

Your father is a hero to his country and I hope he's keeping well with the gratitude of Britain.

[@Valkyrie612]

I used to help train British SH-3H Sea King pilots and crew at NAS Jacksonville, Florida, in the late 1980's. This educational briefing has special meaning to me.

[@KeithWilliamMacHendry]

I went to school in Scotland with four lads who fought in the conflict, braw lads. One of them Marine Gordon Cameron MacPherson of 45 commando Arbroath fell on the successful assault on Two Sisters mountains, I think of that laddie often. Respect & love to the fallen on both sides, you are loved. ♥🙏🏻

[@truckerfromreno]

What an amazing achievement. On the other hand, what a crazy thing to attempt at those odds. The British did the unthinkable.

[@petezero4840]

"Those who dare, win!"

[@mariacornwallis1602]

@@CatonaWall175 And that is probably why you speak English, along with most of the rest of the world

[@mariacornwallis1602]

@@CatonaWall175 AW thanks Catty, where are you?

[@mariacornwallis1602]

@@CatonaWall175 LOL No, I failed my 'O' levels

[@mariacornwallis1602]

@@CatonaWall175 What subjects are you good at?

[@jackydefo]

the guards regiments are first and foremost infantrymen not just palace guards...

[@smooth_sundaes5172]

Absolutely! The Guards are FIGHTING soldiers and THE model for the rest of the army. They have been a spearhead in most of the major wars the British have been in with an esprit de corps second to none. They are not or ever have been JUST palace guards. Ignorant dick!

[@steved3418]

Of Course the Guards are first...... After the Light Infantry.........lol. 3LI (C Coy) were packed ready to go down south as Battle casualties for 3 Para, but the War Ended and we went on our scheduled tour to NI, took over 1 Para - they were upset they missed the party. I was 17, just turned 18 when we got to Ireland Great Talk - good to see it from an international perspective - Remember its about Logistics and not the fighting

[@chrissheppard5068]

They were crap........

[@im9282]

Airborne Light Infantry ;)

[@chrissheppard5068]

They were rubbish.

[@richardwest8753]

Scots and Welsh guards are not secondary infantry they are trained to be soldiers first, the ceremonial side of there duty runs hand in hand with them being first class infantry soldiers

[@nobbytang]

richard west ....yep and as guardsmen they are classed as heavy infantry elite ...

[@jaegerbomb4142]

nobby roberts Garuda aren’t elite fella, at least not compared to other Brit regs

[@felixthecat265]

In this case, the Scots guards were up to scratch, and performed extremely well. Their attack on Tumbledown was nothing less than magnificent. The Welsh Guards however came straight off public duties ( some say on the direction of the Queen Mother..) and were poorly prepared and poorly led. The Bluff Cove disaster was mostly down to the WG Commanding Officer not disembarking when told to do so. You do not hang around a beach head in a landing ship with no air superiority..!

[@jaegerbomb4142]

Felix The Cat never knew that! I’d always assumed they where just casualties of war. Who let the queen mother into the ops room, probably that traitor knott

[@felixthecat265]

@@jaegerbomb4142 The Queen Mother was the Honorary Royal Colonel of the Irish Guards, and held a surprising amount of influence around Whitehall! An old friend of mine was her ADC for a while, and said she was not one to cross lightly!

[@mariacornwallis1602]

Quote from the head of the Hudson Military Institute in a recent lecture on the Falklands Conflict " Head of the US army said "Impossible". ... Head of the US marine corp said "Impossible",..... Head of the US navy said "Impossible". Ronald Reagan said to Maggie "Impossible""

[@philsinfield4665]

yes but we brits do not know that word impossible.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@@philsinfield4665 We are also daring as hell, as St Nazaire and Operation Market Garden showed lol

[@dynamo1796]

What the American's seem to have forgotten is that the British wrote the damn book on expeditionary and commando warfare. We invented it lol

[@tonyjames5444]

Always amazed me how stupid the Argentinians were in their timing of this. I was a RM in 40 CDO and in 1981 embarked on HMS Invincible for amphibious trials, it was common knowledge then that she was going to be sold probably to the Australians and we were wasting our time, our only other carrier HMS Hermes was a rust bucket and due to be scrapped in 82 or 83 at the latest and finally HMS Endurance our only presence in the South Atlantic was to be decommissioned. If the Argies had waited until 1983 or 84 we simply wouldn't have been able to take the Islands back, even if we still had the Invincible the Hermes would have been gone and there's no way we'd have gone South with one carrier, (if she hadn't been sold).

[@kailashpatel1706]

A question intrigues me..would the Argentine's using their 3 Andes brigades of Mountain and Cold weather trained units have made a difference to the land element of the fighting?...Argentina was not a democracy..in democracies you discuss things properly...that possibly explains poor decision making..

[@tonyjames5444]

@@kailashpatel1706 I don't believe so although they would have performed much better than the the many conscripts who were deployed. I say this based on the Argentine Marines who defended Tumbledown Mountain, they were a good well equipped regiment who were based in Tierra del Fuego so were used to harsh weather conditions. All that aside the Scots Guards took the position and I feel if the other objectives had been defended by these alpine troops the British Marines and Paras would still have taken them, (but probably with more casualties). Footnote: apparently these units were deployed on the Argentine/Chilean border where there was a real fear the Chileans could launch an attack off the back of an on going territorial issue.

[@kailashpatel1706]

@@tonyjames5444 Yep, i have no idea about their fighting capabilities but i also imagine it would come down to how well they knew how to lay defensive preparations on the approach to Stanley, we have no idea how skilled they infantry skills were though..also the logistical supplies...they would also need this in place to make any defence feasible..

[@Status1985Quo]

They just couldn't wait any longer. The Argentine junta was massively unpopular, the Argentine economy was tanking and there is always the possibility of another coup. Their situation was even worse than that of the British.

[@krashd]

@@kailashpatel1706 Whether you are in a democracy or a dictatorship wars are only discussed by a handful of people at the very top and it's very rare for an actual dictator to make all the decisions them self.

[@englishkernigit8294]

Have done 3 tours of the Falklands whilst in the RAF. The weather has to be seen to be believed. 4 seasons in 1 hour is typical... every single day!

[@MrAckers75]

Knighty Knight yeah that place has its own little micro climate

[@alganhar1]

I can imagine, I did several overwinters with the British Antarctic Survey at Rothera Research Station.... cold and windy, the wind has to be heard to be believed, or rather, felt, when that Katabatic wind comes out of the interior its like nothing else on Earth.

[@FHIPrincePeter]

Was on Mount Alice for a few months! Cold and Windy but no Bennies.

[@hanoitripper1809]

Kinda like.. melbourne?

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@alganhar1 I dunno. Ever visited Greenland? Actually the Faeroes and Iceland are probably more like the Falklands. In Greenland, it is just damn cold, and when a Greenlander says it is a bit windy, it is a hurricane.

[@tombob671]

I knew as soon as this started the Brits would prevail. I was challenged on this opinion by a coworker. I told him that in 1966 while in the USMC I encountered some Royal Marines. They were first rate operators, and as tough as the back wall of a shooting gallery.

[@PsilocybinCocktail]

I have never heard this example before, but I have bookmarked it and will be coming back here, O yes.

[@tombob671]

@jason poole the British forces are tough, competent and skilled warriors no matter who they face.

[@DaChaGee]

@jason poole Well the Americans couldn't beat 3rd world troops

[@DirtyMikeandTheBoys69]

​@@DaChaGeewhich 3rd world troops would that be? I don't remember Saddam's Republican Guard faring too well against the US Military, and I would argue they were better equipped, more numerous, and had home field advantage compared to the Argentinians. 🤨

[@justinreeves796]

I'm so proud of you boys what you did in the Falklands,very brave men and it makes the hairs on the back off my neck stand on end listening to what you did,I was ten years old and remember watching it on the news and you will always be remembered for your bravery

[@Chrispy1976]

If you ever want to know what the difference between the British and the argentinians, my father, formerly of a fleet air arm SAR helicopter squadron puts it like this... "We, respected the penguin colonies, as it had long been established, that when a helo takes a low vector over them, they look upwards, and many fall over backwards, this is obviously disadvantageous to the penguins involved, and thusly, flight etiquette encourages pilots to make alternative vectors in areas populated by penguins ... The argies, either didn't know this, or didn't care, either way, that's why we are better than argentinians and that's why the Falkland Islanders prefer British rule, because we both know, and care.

[@historex54tamiya]

As a former Royal Marine of 24 years, I joined 1988. I now have lived in Exmouth for 21 years. I have good RM colleagues who were there at the invasion and also Task Force. Thanks for such a great presentation from the other side of the pond.

[@hudson7354]

Oh well at least we have our country back.

[@historex54tamiya]

@@hudson7354 did I say other? Or did you think you were speaking Spainish?

[@keithmitchell6548]

@@hudson7354 get a grip

[@rivco5008]

The sailing of the task force within, I believe, 72 hours of the invasion, was itself one of Britain's critical achievements of that war...

[@danielw5850]

Quite right! Within hours of the invasion, the civilian dock workers were welding helipads to civilian vessels and repairing everything that required; all this, whilst many of them had their P45s (redundancy notices) in their back pockets - true patriots!

[@efeunoalot]

What invasion??

[@stevefoster5138]

MILLONARIO 501 not the invasion happening now on our own front door, they are talking about an invasion down south 1000s of miles away

[@joecook5689]

Oh yeah. Good point. I love the movie Iron Lady when Margaret Thatcher (Meryl Streep nailed it) said 'They will rue the day they underestimate me'. And later, "sink it". A strong leader from 8,000 miles away ordering a destroyer to be sank. Woman or not. From america.

[@joecook5689]

@@efeunoalot the invasion of the island, I think he meant. Didnt the argies capture Stanley or something?

[@lorddaver1935]

The preamble to this video says - "a lone admiral urged Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to deploy a military task". A lone admiral? Makes a difference when you know that, far from being some obscure lone admiral talking out against colleagues, which is what this statement appears to suggest. He was actually the Chief of the Naval Staff and First Sea Lord. In other words, the HEAD of the Royal Navy.

[@rows10]

Sir Henry Leach joined the Royal Navy in 1940. His father was captain of HMS Repulse 1 of 2 battleships sunk by Japanese aircraft in 1941. He was one of the most combat experienced commanders in the Royal Navy. The last large scale battles at sea had been fought during WW2 and he had been involved in many of these. He was aware of the challenge facing the Royal Navy in 1982, He had had to carry out the decimation of the fleet on the orders of the defence minister Sir John Nott. If the Argentines had waited another 2 years the Royal Navy would have lost the capability to recapture the Falkland islands. No Aircraft Carriers (HMS Hermes due to be sold to India and HMS Invincible due to be sold to Australia) The amphibious warfare ships due to be scrapped. The Falklands war showed the government the weakness of the Royal Navy and some of its ships and reversed the defence cuts and sacked John Nott.

[@simongleaden2864]

Just a couple of points about Captain John Leach. He was captain of HMS Prince of Wales, not Repulse. The latter ship was a battlecruiser rather than a battleship. The PoW had been involved in the battle to sink the Bismarck in May 1941 and I think achieved the hit that caused the Bismarck's fuel oil leak that contributed to slowing her down, allowing the British fleet eventually sink the German battleship.

[@ChimpingBulldog]

He said that.

[@sichere]

God's 2 IC

[@christianhaupt2637]

He stated he was the First Sea Lord he was more making the statement he was the only person in the entire British Government/Armed Forces that had the balls to step out and raise his hand when everyone no matter what their rank or status said nothing. I don’t think it was intended in any negative way.

[@LiamOFarrell]

Interesting that he mentions that no one thought it would come to an actual fight. Well, I grew up in Portsmouth at the time of the Falklands war and that was not what the dockers were saying. Many of the older dock workers had been there since WW2 and they said that the last time the docks were that frenetic was on the run up to D-Day, and all felt it would come to blows. They did a cracking job, especially as many of them had redundancy notices in their back pockets too with no sign of any other work on the horizon.

[@danpearce4547]

Apparently my dad was in the dockyard at Portland on the day that the task force was announced, and even though he was a Portlander from birth, was stunned at what he saw coming out from under the Verne, he never had any idea the tunnels had the capacity for all the stores coming out.

[@dogsnads5634]

The Dockyard workers were also working knowing that they were going to be made redundant shortly. But they still worked around the clock to get ships ready, and for some time afterwards as ships were dispatched onwards.

[@davidwright7193]

The US didn’t think that it would come to fighting as they didn’t want a war between two allies. The Argentinians were prepared to accept a deal which legitimised their take over relatively quickly. The UK was only interested in a deal which involved Argentina withdrawing and recognising UK sovereignty. Everyone in the UK expected it to come to fighting. Maybe the Navy thought that Argentina would surrender before we landed troops in numbers but everyone expected there to be some fighting.

[@johndillon5290]

I was there when it happened. I was in the second wave assault force on the Ardent. None of us thought it would end up in a full scale conflict. We were sure that it would be over by the time we arrived. It was only when the Belgrano and Sheffield were sunk that we accepted that we had a fight on our hands. By that time we were ready for it.

[@rolandhawken6628]

It was obvious it would be a shooting war if you follow politics ,if Britain had lost the Government would fall as the government did in the Argentine . That is what counts political will.

[@mac22011964]

As ex FAA I can tell you no Harrier was lost to Argentinian aircraft. Memory is fading now but I believe 10 lost in total to ground fire, accidents and malfunctions. The Argentinian pilots were extremely brave and skilled in their attacks on San Carlos. A pointless war killing good men on both side to prop up a corrupt and vicious regime.

[@stephaniewilson3955]

Flying the Jolly Roger after sinking an enemy vessel is a Royal Navy tradition.

[@dynamo1796]

Minor correction, its a submarine tradition.

[@CatonaWall175]

The Argentinians called the British pirates so I think the British were mocking the Argies when they hoisted the 'Jolly Roger'.

[@dynamo1796]

@@CatonaWall175 It actually dates back to the first world war and the very first submarines in the Royal Navy. At the time the Admiralty was very against submarines because they thought they "weren't sporting" or honourable like battleships and so on and they were called pirates by the navy. The Royal Navy submariners lent into this however and instead of flying the White Ensign, submarines often flew the Jolly Roger to display their "pirate status". Even to this day, submariners in the Royal Navy preserve this tradition.

[@Werrf1]

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but I don't see it in the first page of comments so - the one glaring mistake in this presentation is the description of the Welsh and Scots Guards as having a "secondary role" as combat units. That's incorrect. They're primarily mechanised infantry regiments, with a secondary role as ceremonial guards. In the Falklands, the Scots Guards launched a bayonet charge against dug-in Argentine defences on Mount Tumbledown, wearing berets instead of helmets so they could tell their own people apart. These guys were absolutely serious soldiers - less elite than the Marines or Paras, perhaps, but certainly not "primarily ceremonial"

[@dynamo1796]

Absolutely correct - I was surprised the presenter got this detail wrong, he clearly didn't research the Guards regiments at all. I mean, the Grenadier Guards pallbearers for the late Queen's coffin had to be recalled from their tour in Iraq to form the bearer party. These guys are the real deal and their ceremonial duties are only part of their operational capability. It is fair to say however that the Guards are a senior regular Army infantry unit - they aren't structured, trained or operate in the same fashion as the Paras or the Commandos so there is a distinction to be made there.

[@johnburns4017]

The swift response to the send such a fleet within hours of the invasion, made the Warsaw Pact reassess NATO. They were shocked at such rapidity and the way they retook the islands.

[@PsilocybinCocktail]

I find this interesting. Do you have any sources or quotes on this WP response? as my field of expertise is WW1 on the Western Front.

[@johnburns4017]

@@PsilocybinCocktail Rear Admiral Chris Parry on KZbin. US said the British cannot take the islands back. They also said the US could not either if they were tasked to take them.

[@oskardudley3408]

British daring-do. They've never had the largest military but their professionalism and ability to improvise sees them through time and time again.

[@hanoitripper1809]

They did for about 300 years

[@EvenWaysMusic]

Except for the Navy! Army was always smaller compared to counterparts (except for WWI & II). But totally agree!

[@mariacornwallis1602]

@@EvenWaysMusic And that is why we are all speaking English in this pleasant little chat

[@thepurplesband]

Derring-do

[@currentcomentor1026]

I fear the ability to improvise has been lost.

[@icolky5272]

Kenneth- overall a really interesting talk and great to hear stories I’ve heard for years but from a fresh (US) perspective. On anti air/missile defence failures though, whilst rapier was very new at the time and not properly ready for combat deployment, it wasn’t a bad system. Indeed, once the kinks were ironed out it became a very capable system indeed, UK rapier operators would enjoy tracking F117 stealth fighters during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, something the night hawk’s astounding success implies very few other systems could do. The main problem was lack of airborne early warning as idiot politicians had got rid of our conventional carriers and not provided any sort of aerial early warning. This meant that we were blind to anything approaching until it crossed the horizon. the extreme low level flying the very capable argentine pilots did and the terrain around Falklands - possibly the absolute ideal for non stealthy aircraft wanting to mask their approach - were what was responsible for our heavy naval losses. Had the RN had proper organic AEW on the carriers the argentine airforce would have had a far tougher time if it. None of this is meant to in any way take away fr9m the bravery and skill of the amazing argentine airforce whom I’ve heard nothing but respect for from their British counterparts.

[@alexwilliamson1486]

I Colky speaking to gunners who had gone with Task force at Woolwich in 1989, one (my instructor) said the damp combined with salt interfered with the guidance systems, salt water had got into the crates by accident on board ship. It WAS a good system, no doubt.

[@felixthecat265]

A lot of the missile systems, and importantly the repair facilities, had been very badly stowed both on the trip down to Acencion and subsequently on down to the Falklands. I believe the launchers were stowed as deck cargo and the maintenance kit in deep storage despite protests. As a result neither were usable when they got there. I suspect that deploying land based AA was a bit alien to both the Army and the Navy staff at the time, and many lessons were learned. Rapier should have been able to make a serious contribution to the land/air battle but was not well handled. There is always a suspicion that the air component is always nervous about deploying AA assets as they pose a significant threat to own forces air assets! A scared soldier in a trench with a shoulder launched missile can be a very scary thing...!

[@zathrasdotorg]

@@felixthecat265 Indeed the launcher covering the ships at bluff cove was U/S from the time it was installed in the morning until 5 minutes after the attack.

[@DirtyMikeandTheBoys69]

"Tracking F-117s in Yugoslavia" yes, seeing as how the F-117s flew the same corridor each sortie, and NATO air defense crews were privy to these flight plans as to not shoot them down, I'm sure Rapier crews had little use tracking them. Stealth doesn't mean invisible. Stealth makes it difficult for an air defense crew to both track and accurately target the aircraft. Anyone can track an F-117. Targeting it and keeping lock for a missile is another ordeal entirely.

[@keithdurose7057]

History repeats itself. During WW2. When the battleship HMS Prince of Wales fought with the battle cruiser HMS Hood against the KMS Bismark. Gun technicians from Vickers where still on board. Marconi technicians where on board destroyers in the fleet trying to get the Sea Wolf missile system to work! Also during the Blitz bombing of British cities. British made and exported to Germany incendiary bombs where used!

[@fredbeach2085]

One small correction Sir if I may, Napoleon was never incarcerated on Ascension island but on St Helena which is about 2,000 miles South East of Ascension, but a great lecture about the Falkland`s anyway. Kind regards from Blighty.

[@nickmiller21]

he said near St. Helena.

[@copiousfool]

Fantastic talk, I've never loked at it from the logistical side, i know loosing the Atlantic Conveyor was a large stumbling block. Really enjoyed it.

[@ianharvey8025]

The US navy said it was a military impossibility to retake the Falklands. The British said hold my tea

[@hanoitripper1809]

Did the US say that

[@alexm7743]

And the Americans said: we will help you.

[@mariacornwallis1602]

@@alexm7743 eventually, late as usual

[@mwduck]

@Justin Time and providing INTELL.

[@mwduck]

@@mariacornwallis1602 Not an American -- or NATO -- war.

[@nockerparry256]

What a fantastic insight into an area I'm almost unaware of. Being in 2 Para at the time I was just worried about food and rounds! Never wondered how they got to us, the supply of both was always better in 3 Cdo though!

[@Buggsy61]

Great lecture. It was a real lesson for us as it was not a war we expected to, or were expected to fight. Great professionalism from the guys concerned. Will always have a soft spot for Reagan - he came full behind Thatcher and even offered a carrier (IWO Jima) if we needed it

[@69Phuket]

Text book Royal Marines. Parachute Regiment. RAF. All the dudes including the cooks and cleaners. RIP The Souls.

[@johnalmason]

An interesting and well-researched talk from an American perspective. I'm sure the book will be a valuable addition to the library of anyone who has an interest in the Falklands conflict. A couple of small points regarding the slides used during the presentation. Just observations really - they don't detract from what was otherwise a good briefing: 1. The Aircraft Carrier shown on the slide at 29:23 isn't HMS Invincible, as stated. It's HMS Hermes. 2. The picture of the ship exploding at 42:06 isn't HMS Sheffield. It's HMS Antelope, a Type 21 Frigate (Sheffield was a Type 42 Destroyer). HMS Antelope wasn't attacked by Etendards firing Exocet. It was attacked by A-4 Skyhawks using conventional bombs. Two of which went into her without detonating. One of these unexploded bombs went off when EOD Technicians were trying to defuse it. This blast destroyed the ship as shown in picture above, which is a close-up from video footage shot from one of the Royal Navy Helicopters which was nearby at the time of the explosion. All the same, a well researched and well presented talk from the logistical point of view.

[@1Maklak]

The thing that gets me most is that an admiral said "we can launch an invasion in two days". That's insane, even by modern fast response forces standards, let alone when you have to recall a bunch of ships, weld some things to them, load them with supplies, mobilize a few battalions of paratroopers and marines, move airplanes to a remote island, etc.

[@campbellbrand8038]

Excellent analysis. Everything we had left had been moved up for the final couple of days battles in the mountains around Stanley. The guys were now down to 1 X 24 ration pack having to last 48 hours and had been on reduced rations for some time despite using up huge amount of calories carrying everything and combatting the cold. Every last round had been issued. It was very much an "all in" play as the say in poker. There would be no second chance. Each 105mm artillery piece we had started with a pallet of 360 rounds, by the time of the surrender on the 14th the average left was 6.

[@kevinevans6980]

The first carrier slide shows HMS Hermes, Not HMS Invincible.

[@alexm7743]

HMS Invincible was hit the 30 of may 1982.

[@kdum8]

@@alexm7743 in your wet dreams it was

[@mbak7801]

Britain was reading Argentinean naval encrypted messages and knew the intentions of the Belgrano. It was sunk when it was skirting the exclusion zone and lining up to attack the task force . A target of opportunity. At the time and for years afterwards the breaking of Argentinean codes was kept secret.

[@myview5840]

The Capt has said we were in the right to sink his ship as he was attempting to enter the exclusion zone.

[@guyfromthe80s92]

So typical British, they did the same thing in WW1 and WW2, they read encrypted messages from the Germans.

[@danielw5850]

The British ability to monitor Naval Comms was betrayed on 3rd April 1982, by a British Labour Politician - Ted Rowlands MP, who divulged it in a public meeting, in parliament. Argentina switched codes within 24 hours; ARA General Belgrano was sunk on 2nd May 1982 - 1 MONTH LATER! PS. Tony Blair rewarded the traitor, in June 2004 by making him a Lord, he remains in the UK parliament :(

[@Teasehirt]

I have seen Argentines reports on the conflict saying that we knew everything ... don't know how accurate that is.

[@danielw5850]

@@Teasehirt That is the narrative that would like to be spun, just like the fiction that British "elite" forces walked all over poor 18 year-old conscripts, both claims are not true.

[@decconnell4028]

Thanks for the sidewinders America not complete prats after all 😂👍

[@mariacornwallis1602]

@J. Richards unlike the french

[@fossy4321]

@J. Richards Correct we had the latest sidewinders on order but we were allowed to swap our sidewinders for the NATO latest issue sidewinders due to the slow delivery problems, with the proviso that we replaced them after the conflict. And that was it apart from intell and fuel from ascension isles

[@garwhittaker3743]

@Brian Coley I thought they were a batch that was going to be going to Israel.

[@garwhittaker3743]

@Brian Coley It does now but it didn't back then ...I no all about Israel's dirty dealings .

[@anonymous2513456]

I would love to meet Kenneth L. Privratsky because he has got some key details wrong, so many that I cant list them all. Needless to say, the Guards regiments are not ¨Palace Guards first, infantry second¨. This is absurd. Palace guard duties come last.

[@terrortorn]

you said it.

[@timmo491]

If you write I bet he'd reply.

[@paulh4223]

@@timmo491 That was the Hermes too - not the Invincible!

[@aliwhitwell]

This was a very good lecture. I had the pleasure of chatting one night a few years after the Falklands campaign to Chris Keeble who assumed command after H Jones was killed at Goose Green. His description of what happened at Goose Green was truly incredible. Heavily outnumbered and out-gunned he had the audacity to demand the Argentinians surrender which they duly did. Was a gamble that luckily paid off and probably spared many lives on both sides.

[@javiermartinmehdi1914]

Chris keeble ( o como se llame...) es un gran y absoluto MENTIROSO de NINGUNA MANERA Argentina tenia ni mejor armamento ni muchisimo menos entrenamiento ( eran solo reclutas) los cuales tenian poco o nulo entrenamiento militar y hasta el aramaento les fallaba en algunos casos

[@Crusty_Camper]

As a Brit, I would like to say how accurate and fair this presentation is. Excellent, sir.

[@alexm7743]

Como británico debería darle verguenza lo que hicieron

[@Crusty_Camper]

@@alexm7743 Cada muerte y herida fue una tragedia.

[@alexm7743]

@@Crusty_Camper Cada argentino muerto dio su vida por la Patria y su territorio. Los ingleses no saben por que murieron.

[@Crusty_Camper]

@@alexm7743 Respeto su punto de vista, pero nunca estaremos de acuerdo con esto.

[@Nomadicmillennial92]

Except what he said about the Foot Guards.

[@johnwalsh3635]

When the Brits decide to take action, get out of the way, fast!

[@efeunoalot]

Britsh were not alone... remember the USA help. You're nothing by yourself.

[@H4CK61]

@@efeunoalot HELP a couple of sidewinders and you call it HELP...fucking idiot.

[@vanmanwales1590]

@@efeunoalot Keyboard warrior.

[@efeunoalot]

@@vanmanwales1590 Nop. Keyboard historian.

[@efeunoalot]

@@H4CK61 What an idiot you are!! A couple of sidewinders??... jajajaja... you're such a mughal.

[@afriedli]

The decision to sink the Belgrano was a very simple one. It had been skirting the exclusion zone, although it was sailing away when targeted and almost certainly outside when hit. Thatcher was informed of the situation and asked for instructions. She asked "Is it a threat?' and when when told "Yes" replied "Then sink it!" The captain of the Belgrano was honest enough to say after the war that he would have made exactly the same decision if the roles had been reversed.

[@Teasehirt]

Yes, but I know and I believe everyone else knew the Gloves were off on both sides ... but then the Argentines Navy goes back to port its hards to figure. I guess the Navy Brass wasn't going to lose any more of their men ... meaning the burden was on the rest of the Argentines.

[@afriedli]

@@Teasehirt You make an interesting point. It's not unusual under military Juntas for the different service chiefs, who are also effectively also members of the governing coalition, to assert their independence, especially if they sense that change is in the air.

[@Teasehirt]

@@afriedli Saving his own arse, I wonder how that was perceived.

[@parsifal9251]

The fleet the Brits took down there couldn't rob a hen coop, suited as it was to ASW ops in the North Atlantic with the rest of NATO, rather than solo force projection at the end of an 8,000 mile supply chain. They shouldn't have been able to take back so much as a stolen bicycle, and the Argentines should have kicked the hell out of them, but the RN and Army managed to cheese it out anyway. Mad respect.

[@flagstafup5857]

I sailed down on the Canberra. Billeted on the water line, I was saddened to learn of the Belgrano going down. I had no problem in believing that it had to be sunk and anyone arguing that it was unjustified should spend a month in my cabin wondering if you would be getting out when the attack came.

[@Dave_Sisson]

An informative talk, but he got Operation Black Buck totally wrong. Jet Victor tankers refuelled jet Vulcan bombers, there were no turbo props involved.

[@hoghogwild]

He never actually said that they were. It was the pic of the turbojet fueling the turbo prop and the diagram of the "Black Buck" on the same slide gave that impression though.

[@dogsnads5634]

He was talking about the Hercules re-supply missions to the fleet when it sailed from Ascension (Vulcan tankers weren't available until after the war though and they were only used for 2 years).

[@paulhawick9449]

@@dogsnads5634 cc

[@66numero]

I think that we can say, that this war seemed feasible to the British, thanks to their centuries long experience in colonial warfare. Fighting the Argentinian in 1982 was a great accomplishment. But fighting the French in both India and America in 1760, was for the time also a daring task. I think this set the piece for 200 years of overseas operations. Falkland war is using the legacy of this long experience.

[@DashDriver-z1r]

UK is a small island in Europe yet we have fought wars all over the world out manned! There is a reason we colonised a large part of the world, the argies were lucky they surrendered when they did!

[@kevinpierce3458]

If the fight was on Mars the Brits would send an expeditionary force!

[@philsinfield4665]

@@DashDriver-z1r sorry OFF Europe , please

[@geoffgarner4614]

Bit harsh on the guards , otherwise good

[@paulmcdonough1093]

Only the BRITISH could have pulled this of remember that, 8,000 miles from the U.K no proper air cover against a larger land force over in 75 days when the Belgrano was sunk the argie navy went back to port understand this if a nation comes 8000 miles to fight a war they mean business the BRITISH did.

[@akgeronimo501]

Do you really believe the US could not have done that? For the record the US could have taken Argentina proper.

[@akgeronimo501]

Andrew Parker- In every military way the war in Vietnam was success. We could have killed every man woman and child and there would have been nothing the Vietnamese could have done to stop it. We never lost a platoon size element. Let that sit in for a minute, fighting for ten years against an Army that was both regular and irregular supported daily by a world power, that fought in division strength at times. Never lost a platoon size element. The war was fought on their ground seven thousand miles from the mainland US. Context is important in historical discussions. The Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Afghans no one since the Germans have ever been able to stop us from doing whatever we wanted whenever we wanted or going wherever we wished. You are not a military person, they never make stupid general statements like the one you made.

[@akgeronimo501]

@Andrew Parker Afghanistan is a tougher logistic nut to crack. The point of my comment was that we could have not only done the Falklands we could have dominated the airspace, something the Royal Navy could not. Keep in mind, even as we speak we have a larger Marine force than 3 Commando Brigade every day. Actual carriers, not amphibious assault ships, that is what Hermes and Invincible were. It was a splendid military campaign worthy of much praise, but to say only the British could have done it is simply an incorrect statement.

[@akgeronimo501]

@Andrew Parker In that context it makes sense. Your boy Paul is a typical limey that thinks only the British could have done it. The US already once put the Falklands and the Argies in their place, with one gunboat. Granted that was a century and a half ago, but there it is. I tire of the British attitude of we can do anything you can do, and better, and the we always did everything ourselves. Even the Falklands would not have been possible without a ton of fuel delivered to Ascension Island.

[@akgeronimo501]

@Andrew Parker The fact of the matter is that the US as we have always done provided the British with assistance. In the case of the Falklands fuel, and weapons were significant. Fuel being decisive. Remember the Ascensions, while British territory, were manned and sustained by the US, the sustainment continued during the crisis. The thing that bothers me is the sense that somehow the British won, especially WWII, in spite of the US. Like they were the brains behind the operation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[@kirishima638]

This was really good. I'm familiar with the Falklands wars but not the logistics effort behind it. I don't understand why we don't celebrate our success in this war today in Britain; we don't even have a public holiday for it and most people are completely unaware that it happened. Is it to avoid offending Argentina? To hell with them - that fascist regime invaded those islands for political reasons and thought it could get away with it. It was one of the few wars since WW2 where a defensive action was thought against an dictatorial aggressor, in a sparsely populated, remote part of the world without all of the messy ethnic and religious complications of the deeply controversial conflicts that we saw in the Balkans or the Middle East. It was multi service war with actions thought on the sees, on land and in the air. Britains (and perhaps the free world) should be proud of that victory - I know the Falkland Islanders are.

[@lekesssak]

+Kiyoshi Kirishima taking nothing away from the men who fought this war but i think it has got allot to do with politics thatcher launched this for political reason more than any strategic reasons but i am no expert just my 2 pennies

[@MrOllievirus]

I think it may be more of a cultural thing as well, as a general rule the commonwealth nations dont seem to make a big deal out of military victories. Its more of a professional "job done" approach. It could also potentially be due to the horrors of WW1. The Somme and Paschendale left serious scars on the British mindset.

[@eyesofisabelofficial]

Whilst Thatcher did make political gain from it in the following 1983 election she had no idea where the islands actually where (she thought the task force could reach them in 3 days) Britain was very polarized at the time with a right wing government and a left wing media bias, so any triumphalism was out of the question, indeed there are no feature films about the crisis and any television dramas ("The Falklands Movie" is a television adaptation of a radio play) are still controversial all these years later.

[@richardvernon317]

The Falklands did win her the election, though the Labour party didn't do themselves any favours with a set of policies that made them totally unelectable. The war could have (and should have) been avoided by not removing the Ice patrol ship based down there, plus other major cuts to the navy, based around the logistics and carrier elements (and everybody down there at the time said the Argentinians will invade if the navy presence down there was removed). Fortunately the South Georgia scrap metal incident forced the Argentinians to bring their invasion plans forward by six months which meant that none of the naval cuts had actually taken place.

[@jandriize]

Just luck dude..we could get them back soon with russian or China support .. Malvinas Argentinas!!!

[@pdaviesmecom]

Interesting talk on logistics as this is largely ignored in many commentaries. However to refer to Guards Regiments as just palace guards is unbelievably ignorant. They are among the top regiments in the British Army.

[@andrewrobertson3894]

Yeah, well. It pays to avoid having bumbling, second rate soldiers guarding a certain monarch. He just doesn't understand the connotations of the role.

[@gnypp45]

Being undercut time and again by sensitive information being published in your own nation's massmedia outlets must have been frustrating for the British forces. How could the BBC be so naive?

[@GunBreaux]

This is one of my favorite lectures on youtube. I desperately wish I could find more that delve into the logistical side of warfare. It's criminally unrepresented!

[@meirionowen5979]

As a brit, I can tell you that the BBC made an amazing series called 'Boots, Bullets and Bandages.' Maybe you can find it somewhere on the internet. I might have the words in the wrong order, by the way. But it's about the history of logistics in the hundreds of years of history of the British military.

[@FHIPrincePeter]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fpubeZ6Yl5VgZrM

[@GunBreaux]

@@meirionowen5979 You have my belated thanks!

[@legalvampire8136]

It is said that amateurs study tactics, professional commanders study logistics.

[@pdunderhill]

August 2021 all minefields now cleared.

[@RAHULVERMA-ul4pp]

An elaborate and wonderfully analysed lecture. My regards to the General for the lucid way of representing his thoughts.

[@captrodgers4273]

41:11 I really just dont understand how a warship getting torpedoed and sunk in a war is controversial in any way...........you know it war!

[@abarratt8869]

Another logistics tidbit I heard was that the USN kindly and quietly laid on a large amount of aviation fuel to Ascension Island. The chap who was given the job asked the RAF how much fuel they wanted, and the answer amounted to a whole ship tanker load or two. Apparently he asked the RAF what on earth they were going to do with all that fuel, and this was their answer: "Burn it. We're going to burn it all".

[@simonlaws6863]

Wow this is the best analysis ever on the Falklands war .this guy knowledge and the way he delivers his seminar on the conflict is unparalleled.

[@johndillon5290]

Great speech, very informative. I was in the Falklands, on HMS Ardent, which was later sunk. I remember all the training and excercises we had to go through on the way down there, it was relentless but necessary. It was so good that while we were being bombed by Argentinian jets, it felt like a training exercise.

[@JG-ib7xk]

Hope you're ok mate

[@amateurknight235]

My best mate was on the Broadsword, what he told me about Ardents role in the conflict is an incredible story , my deepest respect to you Sir best wishes

[@rossselvidge4553]

I have read a lot of books on the conflict as well as following it as it unfolded. The lecture was extremely disappointing! Seemed to be nothing but a hodge podge partial recitation on events jumping around a timeline. Only anecdotal references to logistics! He completely lost track of the objective. Al it amounted to was "it was challenging. " MANY errors or muddled "facts." In 1984 as USNR, Commander, Civil Engr Corps (Seabees) I visited Royal Engr HQ at Chatham to get information on how the RE dealt with all the problems they encountered. They are a smart, innovative , highly skilled professional organization! We learned a lot. I would have complete confidence going to war with them any time. The Arg aircraft carrier was the former World War II HMS Venerable (L. 1943). It was sold to the Dutch who sold it to the Arg. The Gen Belgrano was the former World War II USS Phoenix (L. 1935) sold to Arg in 1951. P.S. The table on which the F.I. surrender was signed in Port Stanley is in the Officers' Mess at Chatham. Soon after the surrender, some RE men went to government house to "pick up the table and take it for repairs." The RE are still working on those repairs.

[@timrobinson513]

When we sunk the battleship, the Argentine Navy did actually have orders to attack the Royal Navy. Thatcher couldn’t release this information because it would expose our intelligence alliance with Chile. She ordered the sinking for the right reasons, must have been so frustrating not being able to speak. “Lindybeige” has done a great video on this. His channel is great if you haven’t seen it. His videos can last for an hour in one take.

[@rossselvidge4553]

@@timrobinson513 Thanks. I will check that out.

[@johnburns4017]

@@timrobinson513 kzbin.info/www/bejne/bXW5qmZ6Z8qaoqc

[@wayneronnie7402]

Sea Dart works best in the open sea.. it was difficult to get a lock on the fast jets because they flew low over land amongst the mountains.

[@mgytitanic1912]

That's why the T42's were paired with a T22 fitted with Sea Wolf which operated better close in land. Unfortunately it was less reliable at the time which resulted in the loss of the Coventry

[@dogsnads5634]

That was primarily due to the older radars used on the early T42's (like Sheffield and Glasgow). Exeter went south with the latest radar and was noticeably more effective than other vessels.

[@alganhar1]

Its a common misconception that the Guards Regiments are Guards first and Infantry/Tank Troops second. That is incorrect, they are Infantry/Tank Troops first, Ceremonial Troops second. The Foot Guards for example serve in their Ceremonial role in rotation, the rest of the Guards Brigade will be out doing the standard training or deployments, depending of course on what they are, foot Guards (Mechanised Infantry) or the Horse Guards (Armour). Its the very reason the Guards Brigade is larger than most British Infantry Brigades, to take into account that Ceremonial rotation and STILL leave the Brigade a full brigades worth of combat power. I have seen the underground Vehicle parks of the Guards Brigade... you would be surprised at how many armoured vehicles are under the streets of London! Am I biased? Slightly, my uncle was a Welsh Guardsman on board the Galahad, fortunately he got off safely, but he was a might annoyed about the fact that all his kit was at the bottom of the sea and that was the end of, in his wards, 'his f*****g war'. My father also fought in the Falklands, though he did not join the Welsh Guards. Still, other than that, a fascinating lecture.

[@Damo2690]

The Musicians are medics and the pipe bands is a HMG/Mortar platoon

[@hannecatton2179]

Men against boys. Don´t ever prod the sleeping British Lion. It WILL turn around and bite , very , very hard.

[@oscarbosio9881]

No te equivoques, no fue un paseo. Los británicos sufrieron enormes pérdidas a pesar de ganar la batalla y el coraje de las tropas argentinas lo mencionan los propios ex combatientes británicos. Si eran niños habla muy mal de los que llamás hombres, le dieron un trabajo bárbaro. Un poco mas de respeto.

[@joecook5689]

@@oscarbosio9881 really?

[@vinicius6170]

@@joecook5689 Os Argentinos lutaram bem com o que tinham...

[@duggiebader1798]

Unless it's the Afghans. They've stopped us twice. But we prodded them. So... 🤷‍♂️

[@davegray3746]

Outstanding lecture! Very good stuff! :-)

[@marcuswardle3180]

He got one fact wrong. The force consisted of all those men and one woman. She was the official war artist. She also yomped along with the men. Her pictures drawn on the ships going down and of the battlefields are amazing!

[@Davey-Boyd]

There was a civilian woman crew member on the MV Norland also. Another thing, when the RM garrison surrendered on South Georgia there were two British women who were nature photographers that got stranded. They hid out in a remote cabin with a radio and a Browning Hi Power pistol until the island was retaken!

[@johnellerman1]

The photo of the "Scots Guards" is actually of Grenadier Guards, judging by the buttons.

[@Payne2view]

42:41 I was reminded recently by another KZbin video that HMS Sheffield was not sunk by the Argentine missile, which only damaged the ship above the water line. After salvaging some items, the Royal Navy decided to scuttle her themselves. It did NOT "sink like a rock" due to what the Argentinians did.

[@normanboyes4983]

You are correct.

[@rrwholloway]

Those 'palace guards' are full time soldiers first, ceremonial second.

[@jbcf4490]

The British were quite outnumbered most of the time

[@mariacornwallis1602]

If it had been the USA and not the UK Hollywood would be on the third sequel by now starring Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson....... with Meryl Streep as Mrs Thatcher.......... And a remake of the Dambusters with William Shatner as Barnes Wallis and DeForest Kelly as Guy Gibson .................. lol

[@Therealbkbk2019]

Moron.

[@mariacornwallis1602]

@@Therealbkbk2019 A moron with a sense of humour

[@Teasehirt]

Soo True

[@brianjones1151]

Lost only One (1) Harrier and that was from ground fire.

[@WilliamEvans-py4gq]

Many respects from 🇬🇧

[@benwilson6145]

The defense of South Georgia is a worth while read,

[@chrissheppard5068]

I served in 42 Cdo RM and NP8901 78 79.....good lecture.

[@matthewmorgan6814]

My father manned a light machine gun at Goose Green, thank you for this excellent summary

[@wiretom]

7.62 Bren

[@iangrantham8300]

This guy should have mentioned that MOST of the Argentine combat aircraft were MODERN AMERICAN Sky Hawk aircraft...good fighter planes...as to the conscripts being badly trained e t c., this is a bit fictictious as well as conscription in Argentina had been going on for years with good infrastructure and t raining......as to conscripts fighting well, in the Vietnam war 105 Australian and 3 New Zealand troops, mainly all conscripts, were amb ushed by about 2,500 battle hardened North Viet and V.C. soldiers and the ANZAC troops that were ambushed competely anihilated the Vietnamese at a place called Long Tan....so dont knock conscripts, the British Troops were just hard, professionals who were too good for the Argentine forces.

[@alexwilliamson1486]

Good talk, as an ex member of the British Army, the main challenge was the scrapping of the aircraft carriers, Ark Royal, if we’d gone “Down South” with squadrons of your US made F4 Phantoms the war would’ve been finished quicker, and we probably would not have lost as much ships as we did? We lost a LOT of ships. Going as far as we did with the little we had was truly amazing. I’ve friends who fought at Tumbledown and Seven Sisters.

[@johnburns4017]

Approx 100 ships went down there in all. The loss was not great for such an undertaking.

[@alexwilliamson1486]

John Burns Not great? We hadn’t lost that many ships since World War 2!!! We came very close to withdrawing if any more ships did go down, it was a huge gamble, and just about paid off.Jeremy Moore even was quoted saying it was a close run thing.

[@johnburns4017]

@@alexwilliamson1486 They never came close to withdrawing at all. The only scare would have been a carrier taken out of commission.

[@eskimoglenn]

A brilliant analogy of how we won.Others should learn from this.Thank you......

[@philjamieson5572]

This is such an amazingly detailed, in my view, well-balanced presentation. I'm going to buy the book.

[@MasterChief-sl9ro]

Falklands was a great lesson in logistics. Using old equipment. When an enemy has all the advantages.

[@mwduck]

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” - Alexander the Great. Yes, it's all about getting the bubbas/bubbettes, beans, bullets, and bandages to the right place at the right time.

[@keithdurose7057]

Old equipment but tried and tested. Apparently the then newly adopted SA80 didn't fare so well in Gulf War One. The newer equipment like the seawall missile system was a bit patchy in its capabilities. Strangely enough the SAS were the first to shoot down an enemy aircraft with a stinger missile! Acquired from the US they tried it out I think during their raid on Goose Green. Before 2 Para were tasked to take it. The victim was a Pucara. The pilot survived but the navigator died. The SAS patrol leader later became the man in charge in the Balkans. His liaison officer was the pilot of the Pucara!

[@audience2]

I was 10 years old and watched the war from start to finish with great interest and patriotic fervour.

[@PeterJPickles]

I was 12 and the year after I joined the army cadets :)

[@stevefoster5138]

I still have the RSMs battle map from when I was down there a year or so after the surrender.

[@victormuckleston]

my answer is, "they started it". it was a huge boost for our moral at a time when things were bad every where in th world. I also disagree with invading iraq for the same reason, its not the the british way. proud of winning the falklands " conflict" not the iraq war. all political, started by someone elses polatics.

[@mariacornwallis1602]

The Bismarck and the Tirpitz were not threatening anything when they were sunk (Argentine Logic )

[@geriatricmotorcars9516]

also the enemy and at war ' you point exactly ' take them out before they' do you '

[@frymate1261]

Bismarck was threatening, it was going to the North Atlantic to sink a lot of convoys.

[@mariacornwallis1602]

@@frymate1261 No, no. no. It wasn't, it was crippled and limping to a friendly port for repairs.... Nobody complained when we sank it then, but they whinged when we sank the Belgrano which was a threat.............. IDIOTS...... Likewise with Tirpitz, it was tied up in a Norwegian fjord, and we sank it there

[@frymate1261]

maria cornwallis It was crippled by The HMS Hood sadly it was sunk by the Bismarck but One of hoods hits contaminated a good portion of the ship's fuel supply and subsequently caused her to steer for safety later on a British swordfish biplane hit its port rudder so it jammed, a lot of big British ships came and sunk it, And because of the sinking of the Bismarck they did not want to send the Tirpitz out because they thought it would happen again. If the British not sink the Bismarck, both Bismarck and tirpitz were going to the North Atlantic to sink lot of convoys.

[@mariacornwallis1602]

@@frymate1261 I agree with every word you say, but Argentine logic states that as the Bismarck was no longer a threat it should not have been sunk... Just like the Belgrano as it was outside the exclusion zone and was no threat, AT THAT TIME.... I'm not arguing with you, I am just pointing out what the tree hugging, coloured wooley jumper wearing, wishy washy liberals, are saying, and of course the Argentine ministry of propaganda...

[@David-vg9nt]

I was 13 when the Falklands war happened and didn't watch or read the news back then but I would say after watching this the bloody BBC news reporters helped the Argies a lot.

[@pjmoseley243]

David you are spot on, the BBC were the eyes and ears for the Argentine military junta. In world war 2 we had a great number od short sayings to help us not give away any sectrets to Fascist Germany. and one such saying was " LOOSE LIPS SINKS SHIPS" and the BBC were certainly the loose lips in this war, alongside a LABOUR MP named TAM DYALL who was constantly asking Margaret Thatcher to reveal the positions of Roya Navy ships, and he openly critisized the sinking of the BELGRANO and Argentine loss of life when it was sunk. Argentina certainly had its group of not spys but good as over here.

[@dicko7059]

Totally right David Mike Melbourne 🦘🇦🇺

[@davewalker9899]

Very interesting listening to this as an Englishman

[@petermitchell6348]

The probes needed to complete the air to air refueling were NOT found on C130's, they were found and removed by the British from Vulcan aircraft that were museumed on the island. The RAF NEVER used C130's for air to air refueling operations. Victor tanker aircraft were the only aircraft designed and tasked to do this.

[@alganhar1]

He stated that the Vickers were the tankers the C130's were the aircraft being REFUELED! Does the sentance 'these C130s were fueled in a dive' not make that obvious to you?

[@petermitchell6348]

What have C130's to do with the attack on the airfields? The RAF used the Vulcan bomber for this attack.

[@alganhar1]

I know that, but he was not really talking about Black Buck at that point, probably one of the more dissapointing parts of this particular lecture, he lost sight of what he was talking about. Not hard to do I might add. I have done it myself (lectured Marine Ecology for many years!). C130's were however refuled by Victor Tankers as the C130s were used for the logistics effort at the Falklands. He started off talking about Black Buck, then moved on to refueling of C130's by Victors... was it confusing, damned straight. So definately a black mark against what was otherwise a pretty good lecture. I would note there was another possible point of confusion where he talks about the landing of 5th Brigade, mentions the fact that they were unloading Scots Guards, and then did not mention that the ships hit (Galahad and Tristram) were carrying Welsh Guards, and only Galahad was seriously hit (48 men, mostly Welsh Guards dead, my uncle was one of the survivors). The most amazing thing about the Black Buck Operations is the fact that the damned TANKERS needed refueling! Its mind boggling, the Vulcan was a Medium Range Bomber, not long range.... Victors were originally designed as part of the V Force, so again were medium range... Thats a hell of an acheivment.

[@paulgrahamedwardspencer5161]

Hercules had probes for refuelling and was used

[@dogsnads5634]

"The RAF NEVER used C130's for air to air refueling operations." Actually they did after the war. 2 Hercules C.1's were converted with a HDU on the rear of the cargo bay to become Hercules KC.1's. They were used for AAR in the Falklands with the Phantom's that were deployed as RAF Stanley could not take Victor's. Once RAF Mount Pleasent was built, VC-10 and Tristar could be deployed. Details below: books.google.co.uk/books?id=GM1FDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=hercules+kc.1&source=bl&ots=ocDL8jOPt2&sig=ACfU3U1fBVHWOpJTVXawXV60YVAJNTVBZg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvz6WBq77pAhUVURUIHYDPB9c4ChDoATASegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=hercules%20kc.1&f=false

[@56Spookdog]

My mom’s cousin Dennis Scott Mason was the captain of the Canberra at that time, on one of the occasions when he brought the ship into San Francisco we got the grand tour and had some appetizers in his spacious captain’s quarters.

[@jimmyrichardson67]

Henry leach father was captain of Prince of Whales which was sunk by the Japanese

[@dinerouk]

Whales? Not Wales?

[@henryvagincourt]

@@dinerouk + That made me smile.

[@copferthat]

Along with HMS Repulse

[@EdMcF1]

A very good lecture, I shall look for the book. In answer to a question at the end 1 05' 32" about an Argentine torpedo attack on the carriers, there was afaik, no such incident, but there was a torpedo attack from a modern (German-built) Argentine submarine ARA San Luís on 1st May (before the Belgrano was attacked) on a couple of British destroyers who were probing the Islands long before the landing, (after the WW2 sub was scuttled at South Georgia) and a torpedo was fired but went awry due to reversed polarity.

[@richardvernon317]

There was also an attempted attack by the same sub on two British frigates north of Falkland around the 10/11th May.In both cases (may 1 and 10/11) two of the torpedoes failed due to maintenance errors on the power supplies to the gyros, while the other one was decoyed.

[@SNP-1999]

The Falkland Islands problem was regretably not solved by Argentina's defeat - even today, 37 years after the conflict, Argentina upholds her claim over the islands and the whole region. The trouble is that the Argentinians are irrational, hotheaded fanatics pertaining to the subject and one cannot reason with fanatics. Regardless which logical arguments and reasons stand against their claim, come hell or high water, they will continue to claim sovereignty over the Faklands. What they have never understood however, is that when the United Kingdom is provoked into going to war, she will never let up until her armed forces are victorious. It was true in 1982 and it would be again today, should Argentina be so stupid as to attempt a second Invasion. It is a fact of history that the British lion takes long in waking, but when the lion is rudely woken.....woe betide its enemy, as in 1982.

[@garwhittaker3743]

It don't help they ram it down there school children's necks that the Falklands are there's .

[@GH-oi2jf]

SNP1999 - The UK is better prepared to defend the Falklands today, and they ought to remain so.

[@charlestaylor3027]

There were 2 frigates armed with Sea Wolf. On one occasion Sea Wolf detected a Sea Dart but hadn't been updated by the AIO system and destroyed the Sea Dart and the two incoming aircraft.

[@henryvagincourt]

Charles Taylor + 3 mucker, Brilliant, Broadsword and Andromeda.

[@lostinpa-dadenduro7555]

Rule #1: Bring enough ships. Rule #2: Have aircraft carriers. Big ones. It was a near run thing but thankfully the UK prevailed.

[@neil03152]

A very proud moment for our Country. Thatcher led from the front and our wonderful armed forces all did their work brilliantly. I never realised how great the Logistic contribution was until now, as all their difficulties that they had to overcome and fight through would have stopped virtually any other Forces in the World stone dead.

[@campbellbrand8038]

Shipping capacity was everything. Yes we would have loved to have had more battalions on the ground however there was not the shipping capacity to supply anymore than what went. Even then the supplies were very close to running out in mid June as 70% of the supplies that came down with 5 Bde was not off loaded but returned to the UK on the QE2 after cross decking the troops at South Georgia onto the Canberra and Norland.

[@darrenwood2232]

The submarine that took a shot at a british ships apparently wasn't an argentine submarine as all the argentine subs were in a different location. The sub was tracked and attacked but disappeared. They suspect it was a Russian sub.