What If Argentina Used Her Aircraft Carrier During The Falklands War? (Naval Battle 73) | DCS

[@Boxmediaphile]

I only click so I can be called valued

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

I took it a little further...

[@muick979]

Valued Viewers Are Us.. Lol

[@descentmvm]

All my life I've felt worthless and unvalued. Then I found grim reaper and I've never been more valued in my life. I make him a solid 5 cent everytime I click his videos. Feels good to be valued.

[@descentmvm]

If he never called us valued viewers idk where I'd be rn

[@chrisinstasis7986]

It's nice to be recognised as a valued viewer. What would the Grim Reapers version of "Without fans, football is nothing" be?

[@Tomi-wp6ju]

i'm Argentinean and i lived this fight like it was a football match XD, good video, i think this map will be lot of fun when finished.

[@XxusmcsamurixX]

I love seeing the Av-8 fighting. Worked on this airframe in the Marines, and loved it's uniqueness. Such cool tech from the 60s

[@robertschultz6922]

I always wanted to see the harrier do scissors in combat

[@TheCaptainbeefylog]

It's a bit sad that we (Aussies) lost out on getting Invincible. She was to replace Melbourne as HMAS Australia, but after the Falklands she stayed with the RN. Melbourne (originally HMS Magestic) was out last carrier. The closest thing we have now is a pair of LHDs.

[@CombatIneffective]

Yeah and the Hermes then later got sold to India and was their Carrier for many years after.

[@TheGrannyBangerz]

Buy an older 1 from 🇺🇸? Or join Japan's helicopter carrier builds idk if the Ausssies are getting F35Bs.

[@sedatedape315]

It's sad you didn't get her back then. But you're soon to get a fleet of nuclear subs that will make your Navy a serious player in your neck of the woods!

[@CombatIneffective]

@@TheGrannyBangerz from my research I am not seeing any F-35Bs going to Australia. They are currently in the process of procuring their F-35A Lightnings for the RAAF. They are up to 50 I think now and are getting another 22. I have not seen any reporting that they are buying any B models or getting helicopter carriers.

[@CombatIneffective]

@@sedatedape315 I don't think it would have been that good to be honest. The Invincible, although more modern than the Hermes, had a lot of problems with her design. It is the reason the Hermes was the flagship, it was bigger and could carry more aircraft. It had a better designed hangar deck as well.

[@chrisinstasis7986]

Well that was a fun watch! Also interesting how a (relatively) low tech battle reveals Violet to be a stone cold, up close killer. Any truth to the rumour that after she ran out of ammo, her pilot was ordered to pop the canopy and start chucking rocks?

[@Ultra-VioletDCS]

favorite comment so far XD

[@GrumpyMunkyGameDesign]

I heard she used radar guided harsh language too?

[@benrichey2593]

I assumed she pulled out the Webley and started making revolver kills.

[@PeterMaddison2483]

@@Ultra-VioletDCS What a pilot 👍

[@angelarch5352]

WOW!!! :D that was one of the best battles and best matched! no supersonic, no plane radars, only old sidewinders, dumb bombs, ... it was top mounted wings versus low slung wings! :) The surprise sea darts were amazing! And the final carrier landing was just the perfect finale!

[@MyJames67]

I remember the British Harrier pilots at the time used "vectoring in flight" or "VIFFING" - rotating the jet nozzles and engendering considerably more manoeuvrability than a conventional aircraft like the A4. Also the Argentines made full use if their land based Super Etendards for ship attacks. Another great video. Thanks!

[@mstevens113]

That's a myth. In reality they didn't even get into many manoeuvring fights, they were chasing argie jets at the absolute limit of their range without the fuel to dogfight. Besides which, nobody in their right mind would try to viff, lose that much speed and you are stone cold dead, even if it works and you bag your bandit one of his mates will take the free kill with glee.

[@zonibone]

@@mstevens113 As a true brit of the falkland repute mate, I can say I VIFFED the entire time. Barely made it 20nm off the ship and then spun in place like a top.

[@adrianp9883]

You're incorrect with regarding the Harriers. GR stands for Ground Attack and Reconnaissance. Not Ground Roll. Also the Sea Harrier Frs1 was fitted with a Bluefox Radar. It was the latter variant that was fitted with the much improved Blue Vixen radar. Fa2 Sea Harrier.

[@CombatIneffective]

Thank you for that comment. Everything I had read on the Sea Harriers showed the Blue Vixen. I have now researched your claim on this and indeed you are very much correct. The Blue Fox was out there, the British thought it sucked and didn't work properly. However it did account for 4 air to air kills and a Sea Harrier equipped with the Blue Fox did detect the Veinticinco De Mayo as it approached the British Task Force. Blue Fox worked according to design there. It was designed for surface search originally.

[@28boudreaux]

Dang good video!! I really expected it to be much closer. Mainly because I thought that the A-4 had a much bigger advantage with maneuverability. As usual, great GR content!!!!!!

[@jamesa.7604]

Just want to say this was a Great battle! Kept me right on the edge of my seat watching the air duels going on. I want to Commend Violet for her flying skill and aggressive battle tactics. I'd sure be happy to have her in a fighter on my wing in a furball. Everyone did a fine job. Cap, you put this together quite well and I do hope you get to feeling better. I'll be watching for the next video!

[@patrickelliott-brennan8960]

100% It was a bloody good fight

[@Doc_Roe]

I love these historical type of battles, I learn about pieces of wars that I have never heard of before. Bravo GR's!

[@retiredstillriding843]

The exclusion zone was for all ships not just Argentinian, as we were at war with Argentina we could actually attack its ships anywhere in the world, this is where many people get confused and think the Belgrano was sunk illegally. Argentinian Naval officers have confirmed that they fully understood this and it is why they never complained about the sinking.

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@MartinRichardi]

can you explain a little bit better? here in Argentina, as far as I know, we use the argument of the exclusion zone to argue that it was a illegal sinking (more or less that's the narrative), and also I never heard why the war started in the first place, like there is a lot of things historians, the state, or whatever don't want us to know

[@trevorday7923]

Even the surviving captain of the Belgrano has gone on record as saying obviously he wasn't happy about it but it was a legal attack. The British Admiralty stated that though the Conqueror torpedoed the Belgrano outside of the naval exclusion zone she was 1) perfectly within the law to attack a declared enemy ship flying the colours of a hostile nation under a formal declaration of war, and 2) she 100% knew the Belgrano could alter course and enter the exclusion zone at any time. It was a tragedy and it was terrible people died, but the same could be said of the HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Atlantic Conveyor, HMS Sir Galahad, HMS Sir Tristrum etc etc. All were legal acts of war under maritime law. To this day HMS Conqueror is the only nuclear attack submarine to have torpedoed and sunk an enemy ship in anger. That we know of, anyway........

[@SingularNinjular]

@@MartinRichardi The war started because the junta seized the islands in an attempt to distract the Argentine people from the worsening economic situation. It was believed (not just by Argentina, but by the world in general) that Britain would protest to the UN, but refuse to escalate the situation beyond that, and that if it did, it would fail because the islands are halfway around the world, and Argentina is only a few hundred kilometres away. As for the Belgrano: the ship was manoeuvring as part of a plan to catch the British fleet in a pincer move (if memory serves, the 25 de Mayo formed the offensive punch of the other arm). When she was sunk, she was heading away from the EZ, but only because she was zig-zagging to make herself harder to hit. Her presence worried the British because while she was an old ship, she still had 16 150mm guns, which would could do serious damage if given the chance. When HMS Conqueror reported that she had the Belgrano in her sights, the order was given to sink it. With the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to forget how precarious the British task force's position was, and no responsible commander would allow the enemy to retain the ability to pose such a threat. The sinking was completely legal. After all, what argument can be applied to the sinking of the Belgrano that can't also be applied to the Sheffield or the Coventry? Needless to say, every one of the 904 deaths related to the conflict is a tragedy, but let's not forget who picked the fight.

[@MartinRichardi]

@@SingularNinjular thanks for the info, your perspective is not heard here at all

[@CombatIneffective]

Cap! I thoroughly enjoyed watching that battle. I was concerned when the Harriers didn't have the radars, but hey! You have to do what DCS allows you to do right? Watching proper dogfights happen where missiles actually have a higher chance of missing than once in a blue moon chance like they do now. I think that was the most even contest that you have run in a while. And yes everyone I will be doing After Action reviews on these wargames on my channel. I am first doing them as a livestream on twitch and then porting them over. Cap did ask me to wait a few days before doing the AAR so more people get to watch these first and well, I won't piss off Cap because I love doing the research on GR wargames.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks Raven great work as ever :)

[@ayethein7681]

Violet is impressive again, is she a fighter pilot?

[@CombatIneffective]

@@ayethein7681 Violet just doesn't, for lack of a better term "cock about" in these war games.

[@ayethein7681]

@@CombatIneffective Certainly does not, and rather effectively.

[@no1mafiaman]

My dad served on Hermes during the conflict as a CPO AEM for the Sea Kings in the Fleet Air Arm

[@ericobrien1977]

These videos are always fun to watch. Though there was a little issue that many people forget about that war: The British uses freighters during their initial attack. It was a brilliant tactic. The British took cargo container ships, made hollow sections to carry and launch Harrier jump jets.

[@boccelounge]

Really interesting scenario-- it's essentially weapon systems from 1982 fighting a type of engagement we haven't seen since 1942. Well done GR-- thanks to you all.

[@chrisinstasis7986]

These smaller nations wargames are in many ways more intriguing than the USA vs "near peer adversary". Plus the airframes and missiles are old and well known enough that you're getting realistic capabilities. Something I'm not sure is the case with some of the newer tech weapons platforms. Some of China and Russia's systems just seem a bit OP.

[@RazorsharpLT]

Yeah, i agree. There's a reason why they seem so op: China and Russia want a share of the export market for weaponry, so they tend to oversell the capabilities of their weapons to get more potential buyers Meanwhile the US, like any other great brand name known for quality fully KNOW that their products will be bought despite what they will do, so they will actually UNDERSELL their gear to keep an element of surprise (Such as the F-35) or not sell it at all, and make it's true capabilities top secret (Such as the F-22 and part of the F-35 systems)

[@jameshennighan8193]

ERR... Well, one of Her Majesty's Submarines, (there were three of them on station), would have sent it to join the fishes with it's sister ship Admiral Belgrano........ Sending Belgrano to the watery depths ensured that the rest of the Argeninian Navy stayed tied-up in port. Predicating the likely use ....and possible effectiveness of the Argentine Carrier cannot be considered in isolation from the British Submarines. The presence of these was arguably the most potent weapon in theatre, although, for obvious reasons we heard little about them... James Hennighan Yorkshire, England

[@jinenjuce]

"But, you guys want to see a fight" Oh Grim, you know us so well.

[@coolcreeper9874]

CAP, great video again! What if the Argentina carrier was used to lure the brit carriers closer to the mainland and away from some of the defense fleet. Then the land forces coordinate with the carrier on an attack on the reduced british fleet in the open ocean. Argentina with the Etendards, A4s, etc against the brit fleet and the aircraft carried on the carriers. I think this would be a much more likely scenario than a single carrier sailing to its death.

[@mikeycraig8970]

Don't think the real life brits would abandon their screening ships in real life though, do you?

[@mgytitanic1912]

@@mikeycraig8970 No, we would not. They were what we call "MEU". Mission Essential Unit. They do not get put in harms way. That's the job of the Destroyers and Frigates. We'd look at their ruse and say "Aww, isn't that cute". Then dispatch an S or T boat to finish them off. With British SSN's in play, this scenario doesn't play out at all.

[@efnissien]

The Argentinians did, deploy their carrier, 25 Mayo, leading one battlegroup of The 25 Mayo, The Drummond, and the submarine San Luis , while the General Belgrano was with the Piedra Buena and Hipólito Bouchard . Both were to encircle the taskforce with a pincer movement with the Belgrano approaching from the south And the 25 Mayo, approaching from the North. And in addition hit them with shore based aircraft from Stanley.

[@jameswatt1892]

The FRS1 during the Falklands Conflict used the Blue Fox Radar, the Blue Vixen came later and was a remarkable piece of equipment. 801 Sqn on Invincible used the Blue Fox to good effect whereas 800 Sqn on Hermes didn't trust it.

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@jameswatt1892]

@@grimreapers please don't take my comment as criticism, your channel is quite fantastic and I thoroughly enjoy these 'what if' scenarios.

[@stab74]

Did you also read Sharkey Ward's, Sea Harrier Over The Falklands?

[@jameswatt1892]

@@stab74 among many, many others!

[@Thumblegudget]

Fun fact. One of the first sea harriers shot down during the conflict had been modified for trials with the Sea Eagle missile. In order to install the kit associated with the Sea Eagle it had been necessary to remove the RWR from this aircraft, and indeed this may have led to it being shot down by radar laid anti-aircraft guns. In any case, the Argentinians found the Sea Eagle cockpit control panel in the wreckage. It's considered to be another possible contributing factor to the Argentinian navy staying in port and not coming out to confront the Royal Navy.

[@Thumblegudget]

Also the Sea Harriers didn't have flares in the Falklands. They did had chaff, but it was one-shot jury rigged arrangement where it was more or less gaffa-taped to the back of the airbrake.

[@grimreapers]

Amazing thanks!

[@Thumblegudget]

@@grimreapers This was really fun to watch Cap. Thanks for creating.

[@LondonSteveLee]

@@Thumblegudget The flares turned up right at the end of the conflict along with the proper chaff arrangement - too late by then though! Don't think any of the deployment panels made it onto the aircraft before the Argentinians surrendered.

[@dogsnads5634]

@@LondonSteveLee And an EW pod that had been fitted in a 30mm gun pod.

[@crispyhoover8880]

Fair play great channel. These what ifs regarding real events are a highlight.

[@recce8619]

"Had aircraft carrier ... Never used it" Define "used". It put to sea, and they loaded the A4 skyhawks for a co-ordinated attack, but failed to get aircraft off the desk. Not sure if it was catapult or weather issues. When the Belgrano was sunk, they put to port again. The planned attack would have been A4s and Exocets from the NW, and the Belgrano leading the SAG to launch Exocets from the SW. Only the Harriers on Hermes has the AIM-9L, which had been obtained for the war, they weren't part of the standard inventory then. So, the 801 was carrying whatever was the standard sidewinder at the time for the UK. 801 loved and used the radar, but an order came down from Flag it wasn't to be used (can't remember the date that happened). 800 hated the radar (and nav system), didn't trust them and rated them as useless. 800 was on the Hermes with Flag, and provided AW advice.

[@IRONIC1688]

Both sides have relatively symetrical capabilities. An odd period in naval combat history. Great match.

[@cowansimstudio]

Incorrect. One side had the Royal Navy

[@LondonSteveLee]

A country who has never gone to war with a major power vs the (then) 4th largest military in the world with centuries of major combat experience - not too bright - or balanced.

[@biohita]

@@LondonSteveLee the British invaded them two times and lost. What you mean?

[@zddxddyddw]

@@biohita Three times*, the third time siding with the French. They still lost.

[@exidy-yt]

Now that was one HELL of a good scrap! I thought the Brits would win, but not giving the Argies an absolute curb-stomping like this though. This was an extremely absorbing and exciting battle to watch between semi-modern aircraft and missiles and I really hope you do more battles with 70's-80's era conflicts like the several African civil wars and of course Falklands. Thanks for a great video!

[@fillipfairfile801]

is it a fight if your airforce are told not to engage te enemu airforce?

[@exidy-yt]

@@fillipfairfile801 (psst....we're talking about a video game here.)

[@britishpatriot7386]

​@@fillipfairfile801cry much 😂😂😂

[@devinthierault]

​@@britishpatriot7386he's British he just doesn't know it

[@tomriley5790]

Cap - You do realise that the 25 de Mayo did get into range to launch her aircraft of HMS Invincible before the ARA Belgrano was sunk. She didn't launch her aircraft because the Skyhawks needed wind over the deck to launch. The plan had been to extend the deck so that she could launch the Super Entendards carrying the exocets but that deck extension hadn't been completed. She was detected by a Sea Harrier and then fled to Port after the Belgrano was sunk and as you say was being chased by Splendid.

[@tomriley5790]

A surprise attack by A4s against the carrier group probably would have been defeated but it would have been the first Carrier versus carrier battle since world war 2 and as shown in that conflict anything can happen when carriers engage each other.

[@tomriley5790]

No A4s were actually launched against Invincible, no attack on Invincible or Hermes occured during the war.

[@grimreapers]

I was not aware of this!

[@ericmkendall1]

@@grimreapers On the day that General Belgrano was sunk, Veinticinco de Mayo and her task group were north of the Falkland Islands and, as I recollect, somewhere to the northwest of the British task force. Her S-2 Trackers had located the British fleet late in the day on May 1, and all her A-4Q Skyhawks were prepared for an attack to be launched at daybreak on May 2. Again, as I recall, the Argentines envisioned a pincer movement against the British task force, with Veinticinco de Mayo attacking from the northwest while General Belgrano and her group struck from the southwest. But the attack didn’t come off. Veinticinco de Mayo was not able to get her planes into the air the morning of May 2 due to a dead calm and windless conditions in the area. Then came news that General Belgrano had been sunk. As you know, the Argentine Navy retreated to port after that.

[@ericmkendall1]

@@grimreapers It should be noted, too, that Veinticinco de Mayo supported the initial Argentine landings on the Falklands. Her aircraft were not used, but she transported 1,500 Argentine army troops to the islands.

[@ItsAVolcano]

A single good weather day may have been the difference for a version of this battle happening. There's some accounts I recall that mention how the Veinticinco de Mayo was supposed to launch a Skyhawk squadron as part of a joint strike that would have included Super Entanards with the last 2 working exocet missiles and the General Belgrano going in gunboat style. The carrier needed high winds to launch the A-4's fully loaded, normally a non-issue off of Argentina where 20-30mph winds were the norm, only for the day of the supposed operation seeinh calm winds all morning. Two days later the General Belgrano was sunk and the Argentinian fleet would retreat.

[@billmmckelvie5188]

You're correct with your opening statement, however the Argentine Forces would have suffered a heavier defeat than they did if they had put their carrier out to and lost eight more aircraft which were used against us later. Another thing you have to consider is that we had 200 F4 Phantoms, 200 Buccaneers, 165 Jaguars (a/c with the longest range) back home had these got to the Chilean Islands that the Nimrods were using, it would have been a very one sided fight. Plus if every one of us servicemen had our own way (all 330,000 of us) we would have been down there such was our resolve. Finally one point that you have to remember is New Zealand offered resources to the U.K and were politely declined. We specifically contained the fight to the Falkland Islands and not to the Argentine mainland and quietly the Argentinians should be grateful we fought the Falkland campaign with much restraint and also from a diplomatic perspective as this minimized casualties on both sides. Also don't forget Argentina were also after Chilean territory in the Terra Del Fuego area!

[@PeacePetal]

"the Argentines should be grateful we fought the Falkland campaign with much restraint" I'm remembering the sinking of the Belgrano differently than you. As I recall, it was sunk outside of the exclusion zone, to the loss of 321 lives. You also did your darndest to get every aircraft available involved, launching air attacks all the way from Ascension Island. AND British special ops even crossed into the Argentine mainland from Chile near Punto Arenas. I think the British pursued that war with EVERY means available and no restraint. The main reason there weren't 330,000 servicemen down there was that British logistics were incapable of supporting such a large army so far from home (and so close to the enemy's home). As for diplomatic restraint, to this day the UK refuses to comply with UN requests to negotiate and it continues to pursue its arms embargo of Argentina. What a grudge match.

[@billmmckelvie5188]

@@PeacePetal Argentina was after every bit of territory including South Georgia which she had no historical claim, Chilean territory in the Terra del Fuego and the Junta was also murdering their own people! Even the Argentine Naval commanders admitted that the strike on the Belgrano was legitimate which is on KZbin! Finally when the Bootnecks surrendered on South Georgia they advised the Argentine senior officers upon their surrender, of the booby traps left in Gritviken. Plus the Argentinians commanders abused their very own conscript troops and never ever fed them properly whilst they were having banquets and we treated better by us as POWs. So no it was not a grudge match!

[@EternallyDisappointed]

@@PeacePetal Not sure there's much to negotiate about. Argentina's government has repeatedly said it wants the islands, which aren't theirs. The British government isn't going to pass sovereignty of them over to the Argentines. There is no middle ground.

[@PeacePetal]

@@EternallyDisappointed UN says otherwise.

[@gorchop9228]

we are greatful of our warriors.We presented battle with far inferiority and we fought with honor. The 8 british ships sunked in the sea can speak about how greatful we are.

[@No1sonuk]

"Argentina was prohibited from entering the exclusion zone". Actually, the exclusion zone was declared as an area where any vessel or aircraft could be attacked without warning. EVERYONE was prohibited, not just Argentina.

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@audigex]

Yeah, Argentinian ships were targets anywhere (hence the General Belgrano being a legitimate target), the exclusion zone was a "Don't enter here or you risk being attacked without us bothering to positively identify you as Argentinian" thing

[@IrishCarney]

@@audigex Crucial point that destroys the victimhood posturing of the Argentines

[@vilmarmoccelin]

I believe that in a situation like this RN could outperform the Armada, but the first minutes was kind of a unusual situation of a pack of Harriers against individual F4s. Probably the already launched F4s would wait for theirs wingman's. This would be different like the first wave of 4 AI F4 showed.

[@Mountain-Man-3000]

The number of videos you produce is simply sounding. Kudos!

[@alejandrogrossi9424]

Hi cap. Two thing.: 1.- the escort for the ARA 25 de mayo was two the type 42 (ARA Hercules and Santisima Trinidad) and an old Gearing class DD (ARA Py) and and oiler. 2. For the aborted attack ( 1st may) to the british fleet the load of A-4Q woud be 6 snake eye + 2 tanks. Our a-4q only have 3 hardpoint (1 per wing - most near to the fuselage- and 1 on fuselage).Because the lack of wind and the max speed of the Cv (20 knots), eventualy it came impossible to do the attack. Add to that, that fleet was detected by a Sea Harrier, until he retreat when her RWR detected the emision of 909 radar (Sea Dart radar) of the Type 42. the last when the A-4Q sunk the HMS Ardent, they were operated from the mainland. I dont remeber if was from Rio Gallegos o Rio Grande base.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks mr Grossi!

[@alejandrogrossi9424]

@@grimreapers no need of Mr Grossi, just Alejandro, Cap.

[@warbuzzard7167]

Violet moon is rapidly taking over Kortana’s place as “hard target.” Good work, VM!

[@Ultra-VioletDCS]

I can't say that I'm anywhere near Kortana rn, as I've only been flying in dcs and with GR for 4 months, but thank you 😸

[@emfournet]

@@Ultra-VioletDCS As a longtime Kortana fan, I must say the humility is endearing.

[@bretriverboat9926]

God damn you with the username Alexa! Quite happily watching on my TV when it switched off by YOUR FULL PILOT NAME! Great vid as always

[@Pax.Britannica]

She never used the carrier because the wind wasn't right. And the exclusion zone was for civilians and other naval powers, not Argentina. Argentina was fair game no matter where they were. Hence why even the captain of the Belgrano stated the strike was justified.

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@jsublett8871]

I really do love these battles with the older aircraft. It's just more entertaining and more fun because it takes a little bit longer to complete. I would love to see something with the P51 Mustang and the P38 lightning

[@CombatIneffective]

Oh it was great watching those Sea Harriers trying to pull lead on the A-4s!

[@chrisinstasis7986]

It almost feels like an entirely different type of battle. Really brings home how far the tech has come when they're launching so close and still missing, compared to watching hard to dodge PL15s and Meteors being lobbed from nearly an entire countries(small countries admittedly) width away.

[@CombatIneffective]

@@chrisinstasis7986 absolutely! Watching flares still be effective counter measures? Seeing pilots really have to be pilots in these things? I mean some of these new generation missiles? Even with stealth and thrust vectoring out there, some of these missiles make all of that useless.

[@krismurphy7711]

Excellent job on the play-by-play and video editing. Kudos to your improving or improved editing skills. You’re you’re catching things as they’re happening spot on

[@andyf4292]

and good to hear the crew actually 'hello guys-ing' as they were horderved to do

[@warrenmiconi8141]

That intro was awesome. Completely relaxed now, closing eyes.

[@aurigaastronomy-sciencemad5779]

great fight but HMS Conqueror would have done the carrier , as that was what it was tasked to do, hence they never put the AC to sea after the Belgrano sank

[@adrianpaz472]

Argentina also had the super etendard with exocet and 2 x type 42 destroyers.

[@grimreapers]

Agree but they were operating from land?

[@adrianpaz472]

@@grimreapers both the A4 and Super Etendard ended up operating from land due to the risk of submarines and the operational limitations from its catapult. The few opportunities the carrier had to attack the British fleet were cancelled due to lack of wind to support catapult launches with sufficient ordinance. However, you mentioned you wanted something interesting, the addition of super etendard with exocet and type 42 destroyers on defense would certainly make it interesting! :)

[@dexlab7539]

Really enjoyed the extended length dog fights - very fun 🤩

[@edwarddelderfield]

Can’t believe I’ve only just discovered this channel a few weeks ago. I bloody love these war games.

[@killman369547]

Fun fact. The Argentines were going to use their carrier, along with the Belgrano to perform a pincer attack on the British fleet. But bad weather and then the sinking of the Belgrano prevented that. Spooked by Britain's nuclear subs the Argentines never sent their navy out of port in any significant way again.

[@Pedro-hq5pt]

Belgrano's sink was outside de exclution zone, and there was an attempt the 2nd of may of attaking the uk fleet from the carrier "25 de mayo" but culdn't do it becouse of the wind that day

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@LondonSteveLee]

The attempt to attack the British fleet was on the 1st of May - thwarted by a lack of wind. Later that day, after the failed attempt to attack the British fleet, 801 squadron's Morts in his Sea Harrier stumbled across the fleet counting the ships (mingled in with a Polish fishing fleet) with a single sweep of his RADAR. This ping was detected by the Argentinians who turned the fleet and fled. The spotting of the fleet probably informed the decision to sink Belgrano (who was sunk the very next day) as it's clear they were setting up a pincer movement. Upon the sinking of the Belgrano, de Mayo was recalled to port - which was tracked all the way home by a British sub which wasn't given permission to engage until it was too late.

[@specialkgb1980]

Very interesting indeed. Looking forward to what this game will look like in 5 years. It’s already very very impressive today.

[@semajniomet981]

`3:20 The Canadian Navy still uses the Sea King helicopters. They're generally Sea-King the ground right now.

[@craighayes3316]

Great video, i dont know how you keep coming up with these battle scenarios. I think youre missing your calling and should attend the Royal Military college Sandhurst asap! To answer your title, its my guess that it would of been torpedoed by one of the many British subs circling the falklands and beyond.

[@grimreapers]

In fairness these suggestions come from you guys.

[@davidmccann9811]

You could do the two British carriers in a pincer movement between the Argentine carrier and the Belgrano cruiser with it's 6 inch guns. This was a potential scenario that the British commander was worried about. Maybe even use the land based Mirages.

[@hexxor2000]

Argentina used Super Etendard fighter carring Exocet anti ship missile in Falklands beginning new era of naval war.

[@Grim_Prospects]

There were so many red on reds around the 28 minute or so mark lol

[@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming]

Superb guys. I enjoyed that immensely.

[@mrjonnylowes]

The British definitely had Sidewinder M’s. They were given by the USA and sent to Ascension. Both Sharkey Ward speaks about it in his book, as does Rowly White in 809 Sqn.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks! You guys know so much.

[@mrjonnylowes]

@@grimreapers two really good books if you want have time to read them. The Sharkey Ward book - I listened to the audio book (did with both of them actually), and he did it DIY. Production values are low, but if you can get over that, there’s some really interesting insights into the war from one of the key players that fought it. The 809 book is a lot more accessible, probably a better place to start with. My fave all time Falklands fact is that the Shar had 23 Ariel victories to zero losses in Air-Air combat (some lost to ground fire and accidents). One of the best all time kill ratios.

[@LondonSteveLee]

@@mrjonnylowes No they didn't - they had AIM-9Ls replacing their AIM-9Gs.

[@dogsnads5634]

@@LondonSteveLee And some of the 9L's were from UK stocks. A batch had already arrived for the Phantom force at Wattisham.

[@LondonSteveLee]

@@dogsnads5634 That rings a bell - thanks.

[@jamesgunn5103]

The Exclusion Zone applied to merchant shipping and was intended to keep neutrals out of the way. Warships were fair game anywhere and the Argentinians knew this. The British aricraft carriers would not have gone near either the Argentinian mainland or an Argentinian task force. Several SSNs were available to R-Adm Woodward and HMS SPLENDID was specifically tasked with sinking their carrier. SSNs offer a much lower risk of loss and probably a higher chance of success.

[@douglasarthur2673]

Violet Moon was the star of that show. Also great to see the Sea Dart in action.

[@sedatedape315]

Violet Moon has become quite an arial demon! If she isn't the top killer on the board she is very close to the top. Almost think she could change her user name to "Violent Moon" 😁

[@Bradygoat6390]

Cap , boys and Alexa , great job. The Grim Reapers always have great content and I truly thank you all for putting in the hard work to give us great videos!

[@grimreapers]

thxx

[@Bradygoat6390]

@@grimreapers Anytime Cap , been a fan for awhile now . People don't forget about Grim Reapers 2 channel either

[@GeorgeBTV09]

Violent Moon!! Good show!

[@oliverstianhugaas7493]

The real question is "What if Argentina sent the professional army to the Falklands and also stuck most of it's fleet on the island in an all-out defence of the island?"

[@lautaroandez4807]

And also had her Submarines well maintained...

[@kitmoore9969]

"army to the Falklands" then the Chileans may have invaded "most of it's fleet on the island" then the mainland would have been undefended.

[@Wolfe351]

Nice......I was just about to ask it Invincible had working Seadarts and she fired....incidentally one of the Type42s engaged (and shot down)a Silkworm fired at USS Missouri BB63 during First Gulf War

[@gazzmilsom]

True, but the sea dart of 91 was a totally different beast than 82, it had twice the range, a data link so it could be illuminated after launch and it hit low flying targets. The original version was vastly more limited. I believe HMS Gloucester launched sea dart while the silkworm was behind the ship, over the shoulder. 1982 sea dart systems wouldn't have even been able to engage it as the ship blocked radar line of sight to the launcher preventing lock, sea dart started life like the US SM-1 but ended up similar to SM-2 in capability.

[@markedwards2310]

Never rely on Wikipedia for technical info. The mythical Mod 2 Seadart with 80 mile range never existed. All variants of ‘Dart had a maximum range of approximately 40-45 miles. None could be re-programmed in flight. Maximum missiles a ship could fire at at time was two missiles at two targets i.e. 4 missiles in the air against two targets.

[@Baddad36]

Fun fact. To get approval from HM Government for it's build, I was reliably informed many years ago, Invincible wasn't an aircraft carrier, rather it was a through deck cruiser.

[@grimreapers]

nice

[@134StormShadow]

Violet moon goes Winchester and starts lobbing rocks at the A4s😆🥰

[@stevemorris3924]

Well, that statement switched my lights off!

[@bautistamercader4737]

The argentinian carrier was called the ARA 25 de mayo.

[@jackroutledge352]

I think it would have been pretty close in practice. The British struggled to maintain a CAP of two harriers at all times during the conflict, and had no airborne early warning. The first sign of a strike would have been when the Argentines would have been picked up by the T22/42 ships a few miles out from the carrier. This wouldn't have been enough warning to prepare and launch additional harriers to meet the threat. As such, those 8 Skyhawks would have been met by only two harriers, carrying only 2 sidewinders each. One or two may have been picked off by the escorts. But even in a best case scenario, a couple of Skyhawks would have gotten through, and may have had enough punch to disable one of the carriers.

[@formerlydistantorigins6972]

That was actually more one-sided than I expected. It did seemingly come down to launch rate, and better weapons, particularly for fleet defence

[@ricardobornman1698]

CannonBall giving it horns. Some good flying there.

[@tomriley5790]

HMS Hermes as INS Vikrat was the last operational ship from the Falklands conflict, the last Sea Harrier flights were also carried out by the Indian Navy.

[@dogsnads5634]

Last operational British warship...the Argentinian Navy still has a number of vessels that participated in the conflict.

[@MrMrmoore2013]

The guy volunteers at a church I have to like the video now

[@joelbilly1355]

I believe an Argentine aircrafts carrier would have been sunk by a royal navy sub before it ever got in range of a royal navy carrier.

[@roytelling6540]

not watch all of the video yet BUT at 40:19 4 more Argentinean anti-ship planes spored, AFTER the carrier was killed so IF they hit the UK ships I feel that dose not count

[@whiskeygordon2452]

Very entertaining content. Glad I happened across this channel.

[@ctunnah]

Great battle, as always! Small point, but the Harriers operated Blue Fox radar at this time, Blue Vixen was the next generation and was available a few years after this conflict. I worked at Ferranti on the Blue Fox radar in the late 70s. You mention the Harriers would be VIFFing (Vector in Forward Flight) to get missile lock on the enemy jets if it were real RN pilots. This would not be a true reflection of that conflict. I believe the Harrier was the first jet to use vectored flight in this way, but it was not until the US marines got their hands on them that it was used as a tactic!

[@neilhayz1555]

The whole “viffing” thing was a media invention of the time. I served on Lusty as a rating some years after the conflict and obviously the Falklands was talked about endlessly. What the Harrier could do was turn very, very tightly and manoeuvre at low speeds. Viffing was possible but never used. Sharkey Ward was a big exponent of Blue Fox and had considerable faith in it’s ability. All of the pilots who had served in the Falklands by then in Command roles all spoke highly of the bravery and courage of the Argentinian pilots. They also mentioned that the white painted Canberra was never targeted in San Carlos as it looked like a Hospital ship. Actually it was a troopship but due to the rapid mobilisation of the fleet there had been no time to repaint it. The impression was that the Argentinian pilots were honourable men doing their jobs in wartime rather than butchers or sadists.

[@glenproctor1999]

Excellent battle. Really makes things better when we don't have 120 mile missiles. If they ever get round to finishing the Phantom, have to do the threatened 1970's invasion of the islands that Argentina backed down from.

[@patrickelliott-brennan8960]

Fan-bloody-tastic! The see-saw action, the P v P and even the AI v P and AI v AI combat was great. Was very difficult to know what the hell the outcome was going to be. Personally I thought the British would win but at one point that was not the way it seemed to be going. Nice one everyone. Really, really enjoyed this one.

[@Davros-vi4qg]

So does the diffuse four exhaust system of the Harrier make a difference to IR Tracking? And, is it modelled in game?

[@grimreapers]

Kind of. IR sig in game is just a simple single coeffictient value. Harrier's is set fairly low. Hard to get a lock on.

[@LondonSteveLee]

Harrier has a relatively small IR signature from behind and a tiny one from above. 1980s era IR weapons would struggle to get a lock unless you fire from under the plane.

[@mglenn7092]

Interesting fight, but -. The real answer is, as stated at the beginning of the video, the Argentine carrier gets sunk by British attack submarines if it had done anything other than run for home port when it did. HMS Splendid was already stalking it and HMS Conqueror was waiting... and IMO, once they started the attack - they're not letting their prey get away with battle damage - it's going down.

[@anthonykearney608]

Violet was on fire. Mvp of the match

[@johnpirie4804]

25 de Mayo would have suffered the same fate as the Belgrano

[@noemicubol41]

Yay finally mention the veinticinco de mayo in your video’s yay!!! grim reapers

[@HiringHamblin]

44:50 I'm certain that Argentinian aircraft didn't actually get missiles away at HMS Invincible. I've only seen this claim from Argentinians, and their source appears to be, "I made if the f**k up!". This is likely mistaken with an incident where ARA Super Étendards and Skyhawks set out to attack Invincible but instead targeted a seperate group of escorts. The carrier was not present.

[@littleshep5502]

Thats basically it. Argentina likes to claim it attacked and damaged HMS Invincible. Their evidece is the testimonies of two pilots who vanished before reappearing with the highest honour they could achieve (Read: Bribed). In 40 years they are yet to present any evidence, other than "the crew of HMS Invincible havent spoken out about it therefore the pilots must be saying the truth"

[@lemecdewigan]

Lol -It would have been sunk immediately, there was a British SSN shadowing it, as soon as the Belgrano was sunk, the carrier legged it for its home port. The SSN asked for permission to sink it, but London said no.

[@LondonSteveLee]

The Argentinians located the British fleet first (on May 1st) and were only a puff of wind away from launching an assault on the British fleet. The extraordinarily calm conditions that day saved the Brits - who found the Argentinians later that day (after the attack should have happened) and sunk the Belgrano the next day.

[@Archer89201]

Imagine if the Junta waited a few months more the british would have scrapped a carrier or two and the Argentineans would have a full squadron of Exocet equipped Etendards. That could be complete game changing

[@formerlydistantorigins6972]

2 more ideas guys, which I can't believe I didn't think of before. The first one comes from what is probably a conspiracy theory, as I've never found evidence for it. But apparently the Royal Navy dreamed up a plan for a UK/French fleet to destroy the US naval forces in the Atlantic, as well as their ports on the US coast, in the late 1920s. The other is, what if Bismarck survived, and emerged with the scharnhorst and gneisenau and their escorts? Could the Home Fleet have beaten them? Great videos btw guys. Being binge watching over the last 3 days

[@grimreapers]

Thanks!

[@deaddropholiday]

Those two grainy photos of the Belgrano going down are haunting. Can you imagine the terror of those poor kids as the ship broke apart and sank beneath them in waters so cold you are dead within twenty minutes without a survival suit or a lifeboat?

[@Yanasubmits]

What if - Britain still had Ark Royal with F-4's and Argentina had land based air support?

[@grimreapers]

Wilco when we get it in game.

[@Then.72]

They would have struggled because of the weather! CATOBAR carrier launch system isn’t as easy as STOVL during heavy rainfall

[@ryanbrewis6990]

Assuming Ark Royal is working as intended? I'd imagine the Phantoms supported by Gannet AEW are enough of a threat to neuter the Argentine AF, short of the captain downing a dozen mugs of lead tea and ordering full steam to the coast, F-4s have all the advantages over the islands.

[@richardwolf8024]

I happen to agree. A Royal Navy nuke sub would have sunk 25 de May. She would have been lucky to launch her aircraft.

[@LondonSteveLee]

Well you're wrong - de Mayo was ready to launch an attack on May 1st there were 6 Skyhawks armed and ready to go - only a lack of wind saved the British from an air assault. Boiler faults limited de Mayo to about 12 knots so the fully-armed Skyhawks needed wind-assistance to get off the deck. Not usually a problem in those waters but on this day - nothing - calm as a duck pond! Luck plays a big part in war - and this piece of luck possibly determined the outcome of the conflict.

[@Gman-109]

HMS Invincible had more than 8 SHAR deployed on board during the Falklands conflict. I realize that is what Wikipedia says, but if you read any of the books by Harrier pilots about the war, you'll find that more Harriers were aboard Invincible. Great vid as always Cap, you dodgy buggah.

[@grimreapers]

Roger, we rely on wiki etc. You guys are much more knowledgable than us.

[@Gman-109]

@@grimreapers No worries mate - these videos are fantastic, I realize the amount of work that goes into producing them. With the recent anniversary of the Falklands war, plus my boss at a company I did some work with (Alan Bell @ Globe Risk) was in the SAS and operated a lot down in the Falklands AO during the war - I ended up reading 6 different books about the war, 5 of them being Harrier pilot specific. SO many great accounts. Anyhow, HMS Invicible ended up having several more Harriers squashed in and on her during the course of the war. The Fleet Air Arm and RAF guys did a splendid job down there, the results of this video are not far off what an actual massive air battle would have been like IMO.

[@LondonSteveLee]

Nope at the beginning of the conflict 801 only had 6 SHARS but got another 2 before they seat sail. Hermes had 12. A few more turned up later but that's what they sailed with.

[@Gman-109]

@@LondonSteveLee I never said it didn't, I was referring specifically - and said so - to the conflict zone. That's what 801 sailed with TO ASCENSION, correct, but not the conflict zone. This video wasn't a vid of Invincible/etc sailing out of harbor, it was of the Carrier group in a fight vs the Argie Carrier group, obviously far, far from port or even Ascension. My specific comment was this : "HMS Invincible had more than 8 SHAR deployed on board during the Falklands conflict. " I suppose this could be taken rather broadly, but I was referring to the CONFLICT part (obviously I thought), since again, this video is about a conflict between CBGs during the Falklands war and all. 11 total was what 801 had according to Sharky Ward's book "SHAR over the Falklands" during the conflict at its max. (This next bit isn't a comment towards you Rodent, you seem in the know) - I realize that only a mere "three" extra Sea Harriers seems like minutia, but that's increasing the squadron size dramatically, by 38%, giving the sqdrn an extra pair as well as a spare. Hermes total air group at its maximum in Falklands waters was 15 Sea Harriers and at least another 6 RAF GR3 Harriers. Plus ten helicopters of various types. So, the UK could theoretically in an all out Alpha strike put up 30+ Harriers (unlikely to impossible in real world conditions, yes, I realize, but 32 Jump Jets were there between both decks).

[@LondonSteveLee]

@@Gman-109 There was no reinforcement at Ascension - that came later. 801 went into battle with eight Harriers and eleven pilots. Sadly that was soon dropped to six Harriers and nine pilots after E J and Alan Curtis collided mid-air on May the 6th.

[@Gunjob-Gaming]

FRS.1 didn't have the Blue Vixen that was an upgrade that came with the FA.2, the FRS.1 had the Blue Fox which lacked look-down capability as it was just a stand pulse radar.

[@beefsuprem0241]

Still better than the mark 1 eye ball the Skyhawk pilots had 😳

[@mstevens113]

The sea harrier did not have flares in 1982. Improvised chaff was used but not flares.

[@jotabe1984]

well a lot of imput here: 1) Historically wise, ARA 25 de Mayo had a pretty even chance against both RN CVs, the fact that UK carried more planes does not equally means they were auto-delete capable of Argentine Aircraft. ARA 25 de Mayo tried a surprise strike on UK TF, aiming to disable a CV during may 1st 1982, lack of wind prevented A4 to take off with propper load so mission was aborted. But a 8xA4Q strike that might had caught the RN by surprise might have resulted in 3/4 bomb hits on one carrier, render it unusable for the rest of the conflict and badly hampering the air cover for the amphibious operation. Even if all 8 A4 would have gotten shutted down, and even if no CV were sunk, the strategic victory would still had been enormeous. Remember that Argentina had the continent and the Islands on it's favor, UK on the other hand relied heavily on the CVs. 2) a Major point in the conversation is the CAP on the 3 carriers. If i remember correctly, both UK carriers had a 2xHarrier cap in the air at least during daytime, Argentine Navy used to have 1xA4 CAP. But against a quick strike of 8 jets (Arg) or up to 15 planes (Uk) those cap wouldn't had been enough. Moreon since every cap would be close to their own carrier and maybe circling. Combat Readyness would be some inner matter to debate, since rearm and refuel takes time IRL. 3) Both Argentine and British CVs were escorted by Type 42 destroyers with Sea Dart, a superb platform against high altitude flying assets. UK wouldn't had been able to perform Air to Surface missile strikes since they didn't had on stock, and the fact that Argentine CV had a very good AWACS platform in the S2E (a big problem on UK task force was the lack of early warning due to lack of propper AEW/C media) i'd say that it would had been harder for the British to sink the 25 de Mayo than for the Argies to sink one UK CV. 4) ARA 25 de Mayo had a top speed of around 25knots but more realistic were 20 to 22knots. While it could cruise 18knt with no problem. It had only 3 escorts, 2x Type 42 (mostly AAW with some ASW capabilitys) and 1x Gearing FRAM II (mostly ASW but partially obsolete). Along with that were 6 S2E Trackers (pretty decent ASW platforms, but not enough numbers for a complete 360° 24/7 screen, maybe only frontal 180° degrees which as enough against proximity courses from conventional submarines) and 3xSea King, 2 of which carried ASW equipment, that were mainly used as vectorized platforms to investigate and attack contacts. This by 1982 standars was a pretty good, i dare to say the best battle group in the southern hemisphere and among the top 10 navys in the world (let alone the other ships in Argentine navy stock. 5) Uk on the other hand had the strategic weapon that was definitive against Argentinean Navy, that were the SSN. SSN had a 2x speed of the 25 de Mayo, and had long range (unreliable) tigerfish torps, they could hunt and sink Arg CV, and UK Intel pointed the relative location once in a while. So... ARA 25 de Mayo had to return port after the strike, it didn't matter if Belgrano was sunk or not, the strategic picture was that Argentine carrier only had one chance to launch a strike before getting hunted by SSN. In fact both navys knew this and therefore HMS Splendid (the newest SSN) was after the 25 de Mayo. It was somehow close to sink it? well maybe, it was as close as 19nm behind the 25 de Mayo on May 3rd 1982, but the Argentine navy did a pretty reasonable retreat route, it went for shallow waters, in which SSN can't deploy their max speed for safety reasons, and while sailing north the continent "blocked" all the left flank, and S2E trackers were used to screen the right flank. That was a pretty clever strategy that paid off since splendid COULDN'T Sink the Arg. CV because it was hunted down by the ASW patrols Sumarizing: Royal Navy had 1 extra carrier and more planes, but that does not equal air superiority if you don't have the intel on your enemy's whereabouts (remember Midway everybody?). Also your strikes are as good as what your enemy has to defend itself. S2E Tracker represented an advantage in enemy fleet detection and waring against incoming strikes, while surface escort were somehow leveled. Maybe the 1st of May strike would had been a huge failure, all 8 A4 destroyed even before dropping bombs.

[@jotabe1984]

*A true "what if" should involve;* - 2xType 42 FFG + 2 x Type 22 FFG + 1 CV + 2x SeaHarrier CAP for the UK to withstand a 8 x A4E (with radar off and no bomb computer to assist the drop in order to emulate Argentine A4Q) that are striking at low altitude. No warning before 3D radar of the Type 42 detects the bandits (at around 20 miles). *and a realistic retaliation strike "what if" should involve* - 2 x type 42 FFG + 1 x Type Gearing DDG + CV + 1x A4E (loaded with AIM-9B to emulate realistic A4Q loadout, and also emulating being the only survivor in condition flights from the strike before) against 8 x Harriers (emulating that the SSN are far away, HMS Hermes was the CV hit, and Invincible is the one tasked with taking 25 de Mayo ASAP since wrong Intel estimates Argentine Air Force will give 10 A4B/C to the Navy, and these planes will be flown by certificated navy pilots in reserve, cover for CV's losses the next day, making it combat ready again in just 24 more hours). Argies would have a S2E in the air that will provide warning for the Type 42 to be ready for the strike (detected at around 50 miles) That's as close and realistic as you will get. Really Hope you do it this way

[@tedferkin]

Also a hint to the Harrier pilots. it's caled VIFF (spoken viffing iirc), which is vectoring in normal flight to literally stop in mid air. They don't actually stop, but compared to other conventional aircraft, they seem to stop dead, they A4s would over shoot and instantly the Harriers can get a solution. Also pilots would not stay out so far alone. Sad to say your tactics are not good.

[@GB-vn1tf]

it would have looked sunk, by nuclear submarine, when it's jets were in the air so they'd be lost too.

[@andyf4292]

i watched a really cool WW2 training film about jinking.... its made me utterly lethal against ships in warthunder!

[@grimreapers]

Cool

[@GrumpyMunkyGameDesign]

Thats the key fact you state at the end, 'most of the sea harriers were shot down' If events had played out the way you showed, the UK forces wouldnt have been able to recover. Losing that many aircraft is akin to losing the carrier itself. It was a thoroughly fantastic watch but also goes to show winning one battle doesnt win the entire war

[@Stinger522]

Great battle, I knew the British would ultimately win. The next battle I want to see is American stealth aircraft defending Alaska from a Russian air attack.

[@paulmarchant9231]

The Argentines DID use their carrier, there was not enough wind over her deck to launch on their planned attack upon the task force and intended to attempt again the following day.The Royal Navy destroyed the Belgrano and would have also sunk the carrier Vienticinco de mayo if we knew exactly where she was. You also forget that the Royal Navy itself was carrying ship launched Exocet missiles... The Argentine Navy had only one strategic choice and they took it, turned and ran for port.

[@SmithandWesson22A]

I though...FRS AND GR ( Sea Harrier and Harrier) stood for Fighter, Reconnaissance, Strike And Ground Attack, Reconnaissance Respectively. But...could be incorrect. Good video

[@grimreapers]

Yup I am wrong. Thanks

[@DaMarakuHD]

Perhaps a better scenario would had been what if the Argies launched aircraft and surprised the brits. At the beginning of the war, the Argentinian navy actually spotted the British fleet first north west of the falklands. The Argentinian carrier prepped to launch aircraft’s but a lack of wind preventer the argues from launching. Then the cruiser was sank on its way to pincer the British fleet heading from east to west, while the carrier fleet moved from west to east against the brits. With the sinking of the argie cruiser and the carrier being unable to launch its aircraft, naval HQ ordered all ships to port to prevent a British counter strike on their flagship.