Falklands Conflict in the Air | How British Harriers beat the odds

[@ImperialWarMuseums]

Thanks for watching! Please remember to be polite in the comments. Any comments that we consider to be offensive or aggressive will be removed.

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

Been looking forward to this since the last video; now I know what I'll watch on my lunch break!

[@largain]

I have seen the footage at 11:20 before, described as a missile from a harrier. Is it actually a SAM from a ship?

[@tubelitrax]

Formidable reports!

[@originalkk882]

@@largain At 11:20 I believe the view is from a Sea Cat launcher. Though whether that is what fired the missile is another question. They also cut to a Sea Wolf launcher, but none of the Type 22 frigates so equipped would have been in San Carlos at the time.

[@zaeedaziz2213]

there is no such thing as fukland. its malvinas.

[@systemdaemon2185]

As an Argentine I would love to be able to visit your museum sometime, and the perspective you offer was also very valuable to me. I was two years old at the time. I am sorry for the British and Argentine losses, needless bloodshed.

[@timstoker]

Well said sir. it was a pointless war and as usual too many young lives were sadly lost, on both sides.

[@Ziporis]

Just power hungry people wanting more power using the common man and woman as cannon fodder, us Brits aren't your enemy and vice versa, only the "leaders", may the fallen Argentine soldiers rest in peace and our boys or course

[@garethonthetube]

It's an excellent museum, and if you visit during spring/summer you may well see some vintage aircraft flying too. Allow a full day, it's huge!

[@Saxondog]

Spot on comment my friend .. Governments are responsible for wars not the ordinary people. The average Russian doesn't want this war in Ukraine..like most of us. Stay safe my friend.

[@Ziporis]

@@ellepant Russia are committing war crimes and it's vile and has to be stopped at all costs

[@Xyzabc998]

Blackbuck was such a British operation. Cobbled together against the odds and far beyond what was expected to be possible. The bravery of the Argentinian pilots was never in doubt but outclassed.

[@trident6547]

And still they managed to sink 6 british ships and damage about 14 more of the task force sent to the islands.

[@heybabycometobutthead]

@@trident6547 let the Argentine air force try and capture the isle of wight, then we'll compare tactics.

[@Foxtrop13]

the blackbuck operation only hit one bomb on the runaway, and destroyed 1 short range radar, the airfield was repaired and the radar replaced, the harriers did more damages days prior to the operation, hitting the runaway with cluster bombs

[@paulmcdonough1093]

if argies had same amount of planes the argentine would have not had the guts fact

[@JK-wz7uj]

@@Foxtrop13 It wasn't about the number of bombs, it was about sending a message.

[@davidmills3569]

My good friend of many years sadly departed last week. Commander Sharkey McCartan Ward, hero of this conflict, and I were business partners and neighbours in Grenada West Indies. He always played down his part in the conflict but confided when asked. We were invariably invited to various functions at the Governors Residence or on board visiting Royal Naval ships. He was revered by all who knew him. For a joke, he would introduce me as Captain (I was a captain but in the Army) which outranked him in Naval terms. Our social life was great. His lovely second wife shared in our business affairs which only enhanced our friendship. A truly lovely man, sadly missed.

[@marmadukegrimwig]

Sharkey Ward has gone…?????

[@Gary-sz5mi]

@@davidmills3569 very sad to hear what a life he lived god bless

[@stephenhargreaves9324]

Thanks for posting David :)

[@melliemooschannel3002]

A really good short documentary. I was 12 at the time of the conflict and this absolutely had a bearing on my life. I joined the R.A.F. at the age of 20 and at 23 was on detachment on the HMS Ark Royal during the Yugoslavia conflict. To stand on the top decks and watch the Harriers on their sorties was a childhood dream, we can't all realise these can we. Respect to all of the casualties of that war, something you don't think about so much aged 12 and watching your Country go to war 8000 miles from home, in that I include all of the surviving troops who made it home on both sides.

[@lucimaria-x3b]

14.000 millas.

[@andyrowe8652]

@@lucimaria-x3b 8064 UK to Falklands to be a little more precise

[@SeaHusker54]

As an American I have always been fascinated by the Falklands War. This series has been one of the most in depth analysis covering the war. Thank you for making such a brilliant series yet again!

[@djdvhzjbsn]

What is wrong in this video is that it says that the Argentines had the air advantage. when it is the opposite since Argentina had many worse planes

[@williammorley2401]

@@djdvhzjbsn , Argentina had air advantage when you consider that they had almost 200 aircraft, compared to the UK's 40. Those Super Etendard, Skyhawks, and dagger aircraft were pretty good, when you consider that they were flying with exocet missiles!.

[@COMPASS_MDP]

​@@williammorley2401 First of all; the real argentine fighters were a dozen of Mirage III's with outdated Magic-I; the rest were bombers and ground attack airplanes; none of them could be considered as a threat for the british fighters, so you cannot use the global number as a parameter to compare the real airpower to dispute the air superiority over the islands. And the Super Etendard were not fighters but naval attack airplanes; you cannot shot down a Harrier with an Exocet missile neither. Stop oversizing the argentine capabilities and numbers just to make them look overwhelming and frightening. Britain had american satellite information, chilean radar's early warning, better AA missiles, anti-radar missiles and everything they could ask for from their NATO allies. Ignoring that is very convenient when you try to depict an epic like the medieval times ones; the mighty and numerous enemies threatening the few but brave heroes of our story... yeah... right.

[@trentweston8306]

Hey mate I've got a link for you to the most in depth and first hand documentary on the Falklands. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZmtfaiaZd6taM0

[@trentweston8306]

It's a fascinating bit of modern history. kzbin.info/aero/PLx2GRxi-rDiFhLTCxG66qNcrGlVc0XGQc

[@joegordon5117]

Still remember BBC's Brian Hanrahan reporting from one of the carriers on the Harriers going on a raid, "I'm not allowed to say how many planes joined the raid, but I counted them all out, and I counted them all back." Quite a few still doubted the Harriers, thinking them more of an airshow novelty, their performance in the Falklands proved the worthiness of the aircraft and pilots beyond any doubt, all the more remarkable considering this was not the sort of deployment any of them had ever been designed for, but they did it anyway, in the best traditions of the Senior Service.

[@vinnyganzano1930]

Put it this way. The USMC used the Harrier for years, the US military don't buy inferior aircraft.

[@deeacosta2734]

Everyone loves BBC

[@relwaretep]

Hanrahan's correspondence was quite the turning point of long distance, remote, near real-time journalism. Further, the reporting itself was of excellent quality - modest, unassuming, and also deeply informative.

[@jamesyeh364]

@@vinnyganzano1930 Heck, the USMC bought up all of the UK's Harriers when they were retired.

[@tobytaylor2154]

That line and "bloody marvellous" are the two that stand out for me.

[@ronaldmelia1172]

I was a Radar operator on board HMS Bristol. We took up the position vacated by HMS Sheffield. I can remember the punishing flight schedule of the Harriers, particular the CAP . Whilst there is no denying that the Harrier did well, however, if I had to be the flagship officer in command then I would have preferred the Phantom F4 fighters and a squadron of jags. Not having a proper aircraft carrier was a sin.

[@KB4QAA]

RM: The Harrier 'Rose to the occasion" in a role it should never have been placed. A carrier with AEW would have saved ships and lives. Such a shame.

[@jaybee9269]

There was no AEW…and no CIWS, either. It was sad and a bit tragic. The Sea Harrier is still one of my favorite planes, though!

[@silvesby]

One of my family members met an aussie who served on Bristol. I'm not sure where they met, it was long ago, but he gifted a sailor's cap with the ship's name that we still have somewhere around. Interesting to see a view from someone who served on her

[@will2000ism]

That affected Britain then and when they had the chance to do a full sized carrier with the 2 latest ones didn't.

[@raypurchase801]

Thanks, Ron. There's a few lines in Shakespeare's "Henry V" about how gentlemen now abed in England will hold their manhood cheap, because they weren't at the battle. That's me. I was the right age but not in the forces. I wish I'd been there. The risks of death, amputation, burning or drowning would be a throw of the dice. You did good work, sir, and I'm jealous.

[@stevethwaites3497]

The Harrier was the spitfire of the 80s, fantastic aircraft. 👏

[@chrisgs8727]

The most experienced brtish pilot of all times, said that if uk fought with phantoms and bucaneers they could be much more successful.

[@richardeames808]

@@chrisgs8727 True. Eric "Winkle" Brown was instrumental in the Fleet Air Arm getting Phantoms when he was Deputy Director of Air Warfare at the Admiralty. HMS Ark Royal was decommissioned before the Falklands war, so no Phantoms,. He said that Phantoms could have intercepted Argentinian aircraft on their outbound journey before they got in range of the Falklands

[@kennethscott4190]

The Harrier was rubbish. Limited range and payload. Cost lives and ships because it could not gain air superiority. Galahad, Tristram, Antelope,Sheffield, Atlantic conveyor,F4 just a few if the ships lost because it could not do the job.

[@mikeycraig8970]

It's technically more the Hurricane of 80s, it was even in part developed by Hawker aircraft.

[@chrisgs8727]

@@kennethscott4190 the main problem was the poor performance of the radars of their time to detect ultra-low flights on land or even in water... that is why the harriers mostly find the Argentine a4 planes when they have just dropped their bombs... But then brits analyze and find the passages through which the M5 entered and that causes the harriers to shoot down 8 of them before they launch their bombs. I agree that the Harrier was rubbish... On May 1 our carrier was ready to attack the invincible and we had the advantage... the A4 had more than twice the range of the Harrier and was loaded with three times as many bombs Furthermore, unlike England, Argentina had the Grumman S2E for radar and electronic reconnaissance and ASW combat tasks. Unfortunately, the military junta refuses to attack because they want a ceasefire /Peruvian and American proposal/... Thatcher did not want any peace and the next day he sank the Belgrano. Returning to the topic, I think that if instead of harriers they had had their old phantoms and especially buccaneers would have torn us apart quickly and the war would end in two weeks or sooner...

[@M0rmagil]

The efforts made to get the 2 Vulcans to reach Port Stanley were damn near Herculean. Difficult to overstate how impressive that mission was.

[@biko331966]

But unfortunately ofr UK didnt make any difference as the airfield was operative the entire actions.

[@bigtony4829]

@@biko331966 I think it intended purpose was to send a message to the argies we can drop a nuke anywhere in the world if we wish ..you might want to think about a surrender

[@markg4459]

As I understand it the Brits had begun to retire the Vulcan bomber & had no replacement bomber for the Falkland conflict. They had to scramble to ensure combat ready (& refillable) aircraft were available.

[@tbrowniscool]

@@bigtony4829 Yeah that was the point of it. No way the Argentinian commanders thought they would be bombed, and when they were I bet it completely changed the way they planned. Either way it worked

[@Raj-nh3fc]

Impressive yes but useful? No! Totally worthless exercise.

[@johndastoli8572]

As a 9 year old boy in the US, this was the first war I remember following. Eleven years later and was a US Marine Lance Corporal training with the RM Commandos. By that time many of the RM corporals, sergeants, and color sergeants that trained me were veterans of the "yomp" to Port Stanley. I learned a good deal from them. The more I study the Falklands conflict the more I become impressed with what an impressive feat of arms and daring this operation was. It remains an important case study for those of us who are looking at the future of naval campaigns in the littoral operating environment. It is extremely relevant to current US concepts of expeditionary advanced base operations. (EABO). If the Argentines had the engineering capability to repair the Port Stanley Airfield, that could have been a game changer. That airfield was single point of failure for Argentine airpower. They failed to protect it and that probably lost them the war.

[@colderwar]

The Port Stanley runway was too short for fast jets, the Argentines were trying to extend it when the Black Buck raid stuffed that idea up for them. Even if Black Buck had failed it's a matter of debate as to whether they could have gotten the runway operational, and also transferred their jets and support equipment over to it safely before the matter was decided. There were some Argentine air force jet trainers available initially, with a very basic combat fit - but there wasn't the infrastructure needed to keep them operational, I think they only flew one sortie and then sat the rest of the war out.

[@johndastoli8572]

@@colderwar do you know if the Argentines attempted any battle damage repair of the airfield after the airstrikes?

[@Foxtrop13]

@@colderwar thats BS there was never the intention to put jets on Stanley, the logistic for the mirage and skyhawks were too big, if someone should take the credit were the submarine fleet of the royal navy, the airfield operated c130 until the last day of the war

[@jetpigeon8758]

Although the Royal Navy did indeed suffer some loses, many years later information was released from the Ministry of Defence, that should it look likely that the British forces would lose the war in the Falklands, there was a signed document with plans to attack Buenos Aires with a nuclear device. Fortunately this was not required. In Britain government documents are not allowed to be released to the public/press until a certain number of years have passed, I think it is 25 or 30 years, and this information was brought to light.

[@colderwar]

@@johndastoli8572 They definitely filled the crater in, but I don't know if you could call it a real repair. It had to be fixed properly by the Royal Engineers shortly after the war ended. It wasn't enough to completely stop the Argentine C-130 logistics flights, but it made them a lot more dangerous. The Harriers were also toss bombing the airfield from a point outside the range of the defensive AA, it wasn't all that accurate, but it would have served to make any repairs more awkward.

[@florescentadolescent8534]

I can remember 2 harriers flying over our school in bradford on their way to the deployment to the Falklands conflict. I was 11 i think, i couldnt believe how loud they were but as typical boys we were thrilled at the sight of them. What machines!! Nothing but respect for pilots of both sides of this carry on.

[@allgood6760]

Thanks... A4 Skyhawks operated with our RNZAF... HMS Invincible visited NZ in the 80's and I thought the Sea Harrier was amazing.! .a mate of mine was Tactical Radar Operator on HMS Invincible during the Falklands War and he didn't know if he was going to live or die! and also there is a GR3 Harrier in a museum here in NZ.. thanks from down under 👍✈️🇳🇿

[@noworriesnoproblems6382]

me and my pals watched when the Sheffield was struck. I ll never forget the sick feeling in my stomach as she was nearly broken in half. It brings tears to my eyea even now.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

We learnt so much from the Falklands, as always written in blood. Everybody knows 'CIWS' but that's just a fallback, you don't rely on it. The big lesson was Radar Is Life. Those crappy old Type 965/6 radars are what got Sheffield, Coventry killed and Glasgow put out the war. Secondary was the mechanical and electronic unreliability but today didn't matter of you can't see the enemy. Once the two batch 2 or 3 T42s turned up with, Dr, 1022 was it? Or 966. I forget. Then sea Dart was swatting stuff good. And but the time we got to the gulf war sea Dart, based on 1950s technology, shot down missiles. Something it was neither designed or supposed to be able to do. And all because Gloucester had advanced 3D radar with MTI. And multiple redundant fire mains And multiple redundant electric distribution systems.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

My dad left Coventry weeks before this for his shore stint. He lost some friends. I just barely remember Coventry and it being on TV, I was 4 or 5 or something.

[@hantykje3005]

@@MostlyPennyCat Awacs was missing in the war too.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

@@hantykje3005 It seems to be lack of procedure as well? Like, who's in charge. The system seems to faildeadly instead of failsafe. In this case, the incoming attackers were detected and then promptly ignored and forgotten about. This is faildeadly. The entire fleet should have been kicked into high gear, launch ready fighters if they were available, recon by fire to get them to blink. Turn toward, launch chaff etc. That's failsafe. Yeah they might still get you but for god's sake don't fall asleep at the wheel like they did

[@MichaelKng-fk5jk]

@@hantykje3005 UK used what it had, the Nimrod, the largest ever fighter as it was armed with sidewinders. Nimrod performed well, though flying from Ascension. US refused to give UK AWACs

[@reggierico]

I've just recently returned from holiday in Argentina and I was stationed, temporarily, in the UK during the 90's. Both countries are great, with wonderful citizens and beautiful countryside. It's sad that this conflict took place. War is horrible and it is the politicians that bear the most responsibility for things like this happening. But, while I was in Buenos Aires, I met a young British man. He also had nothing but good to say about the friendly nature and wonderful country of Argentina. Cheers!

It was indeed, a desperate move from the military dictatorship Argentina had been suffering for over a decade by the time. They tried to refuel their trust with a needless war. For over a century, British-Argentininan realationship had been nothing but great. The UK built half the country (trains, railroads, ports, factories, etc) and back in the WWs they traded with Argentina for supplies. There were far better ways to deal with the Falkland/Malvinas issue, and not a single citizen ever crossed it's mind the idea of going to war with the UK until that point. A sincere and historical good relationship between two countries trashed by a few already hated people.

[@TheSniperGTO]

Did you see the episode of Top Gear where they went to Argentina. I’m not sure I’d say they are all friendly, level headed people.

[@thisismagacountry1318]

Did you share any tea with the retired Nazis?

[@reggierico]

@@thisismagacountry1318 No, I did not. I would imagine most of those guys are long since passed away. It's been nearly 80 years?

[@RodFleming-World]

We had an Argie sub in our newsroom in the later 80s. Had one of the driest senses of humour. He actually wrote and produced a staff newsletter. Its name? The Exocet.

[@davidanderson4091]

The A4 Skyhawk was one of the most seriously underestimated ground attack fast jets in the history of air combat.

[@jamesjross]

I love how we can praise the aircraft and the men who flew them despite being an adversary.

[@johnkidd1226]

The skyhawk was the favorite of the small units penetrating NVA areas in Vietnam for cover as well. Slow speed but big bomb load and most time over target capability.

[@iamasmurf1122]

skyhawk was one of the only jets of its size capable of carrying nuclear bombs

[@RodFleming-World]

The A4 Skyhawk was brilliantly featured in 'Top Gun'.

[@19580822]

Yes it was designed as a light ground-attack aircraft, but it was as fast and maneuverable as the British Sea Harriers. If configured as a fighter, it would have made a dangerous opponent. As it happened however, they were laden with bombs and flown to the very edge of their range. They had no A-A missiles or radar, and as a result they were savaged by the Sea Harriers.

[@ralphrepo]

The long range bombing of the Stanley airfield was the equivalent of Doolittle's B25 Tokyo raid; tactically insignificant but politically and emotionally a huge blow for Argentina and a morale boost for Britain.

[@mh53j]

Led to many Mirages being reassigned to Buenos Aires for air defense; junta realized the city could be hit by Vulcan raids, though I don't think that was seriously considered by the British.

[@nigelpilgrim4232]

The bombing raid although did slightly damage the airport runway it was enough for the Argentine to move their aircraft back the mainland & base them there not in the Falklands islands airport of Port-stanley !! With just the one Vulcan - bomber as the 2nd had to turn back after take off as it had problems.!! The mission was a success militarily & physiological reasons as it gave the Argentine the thought that the British could bomb the main land .. 👌

[@Jeremiah59]

The Ukraine war is also showing the importance of psychological warfare and morale. The loss of the leopards has been a significant boost to the Russians it's probably why they are witholding the challengers.

[@johnbull1568]

@@Jeremiah59 Different story in Ukraine. Russian will never lose that war because they can't afford to. The West can thrown in all the tanks they have, but Russia will either repel them or resort to nukes.

[@LordErnesto2008]

@@nigelpilgrim4232 The runway at that airport did not have the necessary length for A4 or Mirage to operate there, only the Pucará.

[@tonyyates2012]

Excellent training, focused and courageous pilots and a thorough understanding of the Harriers limitations and how to work around them.

[@AnonNomad]

Entire story of the FAA, though the Harrier is a slight jump in performance from Swordfish I suppose.

[@bigblue6917]

@@AnonNomad Just a tad.

[@bigblue6917]

The Argentinian pilots get 10/10 for courage but were never a match for their British counterparts.

[@randomotter6346]

The harriers limitations were only a consequence of their advantages and design.

[@madhukarjonathanminj2772]

@@bigblue6917 their aircraft and equipment were also terrible, not to mention the lack of fuel.

[@christopherbishop5014]

Respect to the pilots of the Argentinian airforce even our forces said the fought bravely . Lest we forget all those who died bravely in that conflict .

[@albertomanfredi3675]

@@Al-iv3mb Los argentinos de lo único que están pendientes es del fútbol.

[@anubis20049999]

Is it weird to love old wars. Like not for the death but the storyline and details of every move made on each side, and the events that prevent new wars from starting and peace talks.

[@TripDownBritishTown]

Not weird. Just love for history

[@psy-op]

Nothing stops new wars from starting, least of all old wars, lest we forget ? Forget what ?

[@Windows98R]

To be fair, a well executed war regardless of sides is art. Just look at the poster child of perfectly executed wars. Desert storm’s air campaign.

[@lavaljeantet]

Crystal clear explanations ! Very well structured and documented storytelling which is deeply captivating attention of the viewer....BRAVO !!!!

[@Gorbyrev]

Good episode. It is also worthy of note that the Harrier's vectored thrust allowed them to decelerate much faster turning the tables on any aircraft attacking from the rear, turning prey into hunter. It was one of those circumstances where the pilot's skill and confidence in their airframe and their understanding of its unique capabilities made it lethal to aircraft that at an initial glance seemed to be superior.

[@robertjennings745]

Cmdr Sharkey Ward's book illustrates this so well. Forward roll in a jet anyone?

[@keithwand1125]

RAF Called it viffing!

[@prepperjonpnw6482]

That reminds me of something I saw a russian jet do recently. It was zipping along at a pretty good clip when suddenly it pointed it’s nose straight up but the plane continued in it’s original flight path. This only took a couple of seconds with the result being the russian jet slowed down incredibly fast then pointed its nose forward or level again. The jet that had been on its tail was suddenly way past and was now the prey. It happened so quick that I had to replay the video several times to make sure it wasn’t a trick of editing. Lol

[@TheAngmarwitch]

@@keithwand1125 Vectoring In Forward Flight?

[@TheAngmarwitch]

@@prepperjonpnw6482 Its a move known as the Cobra I think ..kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJKWpKVqfdZ5aac

[@stanielsoncoochiesmellehsm6114]

We will always have a special place in our hearts for the people of Chile 🇨🇱 ♥️ 🇬🇧

[@EG-cs1wl]

Chileans feel the same way about the british ;) Greetings from Chile

[@elfraca_06897]

And then chilean people ask why they are the most hated latin-american country.......

[@EG-cs1wl]

@@elfraca_06897 nope, nobody really cares what argentinians think about us in here. Latin American? Since when did argentinians stared paying attention to the region? If I remember correctly you guys always though of yourselves as europeans and not part of this continent or it's peoples... Is funny how your nation only cares about latin America when the Falklands becomes an issue in a topic .

[@elfraca_06897]

@@EG-cs1wl its not argentina, peru, bolivia, brasil, literally most of south america hates chile because they think they are the most european country..... the only part of argentina that starts saying that europe is superior is porteños (people who live in C.A.B.A) and..... ¿¿¿We dont care about other regions??? BRO WE LITERALLY MADE A REVOLUTION TO MAKE YOU INDEPENDENT, YOU SHOULD BE PART OF SPAIN IF IT WASNT BECAUSE US, And not only chile, Peru too, remember that YOUR country started a war against peru and bolivia, and the way you guys made for us is: Nothing

[@littleshep5502]

@@EG-cs1wl you definitely have a point there. It's always something I find mildly amusing. They deny the Falkland islanders human rights based upon them not being "original inhabitants", yet 98.5% of Argentina is made up of people from Europe or Africa

[@22carmoon]

This content is so good in quality. Love this Falklands series, one of the best channels on YT.

[@kevanskelton9982]

I would recommend the book by Nigel ‘Sharky’ Ward - Sea Harrier over the Falklands. Detailed account from one of the Sea Harrier commanding officers.

[@profesercreeper]

just love how much respect the veterans have for each other. The British talking about how brave the Argentinean pilots were. For me this is a stark contrast with the Argentinean naval and ground forces who seem very unprofessional.

[@ramonandrajo6348]

The dictatorship in Argentina ordered the attack on the Malvinas Islands, knowing that it was not a good tactic.

[@carlchallinor4933]

The Navy was screwed from day one. The most unprofessional thing they did was not withdraw once the exclusion zone was set. The Belgrano was very predictable and extremely avoidable. The Army wasnt so bad. 40% conscripts was always going to cause moral issues. Especially given a lot had been recalled having already served, and the rest were barely out of training. But overall their land forces had trained to fight Chile. Now they were trapped on an island with a bunch of angry paras; some of the best ground forces in the world with proper support. And they had to watch their navy and airforce withdraw leaving them to fend for themselves with what they had. Its the Airforce who actually have all the what ifs...and whilst they did well, they are the only force who you can realistically could have done better. That is NOT to call into question their bravery, but their doctrine and training. i.e. if you want to invade a bunch of islands, and you know the response can come in the form of extremely vulnerable task force of ships - you make sure you are able to meet that threat. That is the failure that cost Argentina the war. They met the threat on the fly and suffered the consequences. As things stand the plaudits given to the airforce are justified but in the same vein, you kinda dont want to be in the RAF situation of applauding training and professionalism. Rather than the Argentinian airforce situation of applauding improvisation and bravery because those arent things you want modern jets to be doing.

[@mookie2637]

I' m not sure that's fair in terms of the Argentinian ground forces. They had been on Longdon, Harriet, etc for months -and even then then many of them stubbornly held out.

[@danielw5850]

A good point. Their ORBAT placed formations with conscripts on all the high ground, supported by direct & indirect fire, which had weeks to zero-in. Also, their positions were behind mine fields and were flanked by regulars and (so called) Special Forces. At Darwin/Goose Green, 20mm and 30mm anti-aircraft guns were depressed, to fire over “open sights”; all the aforementioned is regularly forgotten by people pushing the, “conscripts- Lambs to the slaughter “ narrative.

[@joeblogger5687]

Unfair. A lot of the Argentine soldiers were conscripts who really didn't want to be there, who were badly supplied and ill equipped. By the time the land battles happened, you had poorly trained, cold, wet and hungry conscripts against motivated, well fed professionals. On the few occasions that we (The British) came face to face with Argentine Regulars, they proved themselves to be damn good soldiers and were treated with respect!

[@stue2298]

No mention of how Chile helped the UK with the setting up of a secret early warning radar station on Chilian soil, which was able to detect Argentinian aircraft taking off to attack the British shipping. The continual use of this radar eventually caused it to break down for repairs, which directly lead to the loss a of British Frigate. This early warning radar allowed the 20 Sea Harriers to be used more effectively, since they where warned of attacks by Argentinian aircraft taking off from the mainland.

[@luisandresvelosogutierrez2123]

Correcto se te olvido mencionar que pilotos chilenos tripularon algunas naves inglesas durante los ataques

[@jorgemayorga6934]

@@luisandresvelosogutierrez2123 Vamos con el verso acostumbrado; pero........!

[@javier8341]

exctly actualy that was the most important thing in the air battle, not the harriers, not the missiles, the fact of knowing when the argentines were taking off, making the perfect timing for the harriers take off and intercept the argys aircraft was the most important thing in the war and Chilean radars gave that.

[@bobhoward4686]

@@luisandresvelosogutierrez2123 No Chileans on Royal Navy Warships during the Falklands War !!

[@adandiaz9180]

@@bobhoward4686 he must refer to the secret operation of british awacs painted as chilean air force planes operating from chilean soil

[@duartesimoes508]

Being Portuguese and pro British during that war, I nevertheless feel sorry and have the greatest respect for the Argentine Air Force and C.A.N.A. pilots. They were absolutely fearless, took terrible losses, were immensely Patriotic and fought the whole war alone, without the support of the Argentinian Navy who for some unfathomable reason was allowed not to fight anymore after losing one ship. (just imagine the Royal Navy doing the same after losing the Sheffield!) The Argentinian Air Force, on the other hand, was forced to make sortie after sortie and suffer accordingly, operating in the limit of their combat radius and using free fall bombs that they strove to drop at point blank. They appeared not to be properly trained in Air Combat maneuvers too. Pierre Clostermann, a French former RAF Wing Commander in the Fighter Command who also praised their courage, was then criticized by some British newspaper on the grounds that being a former RAF pilot he should not praise the enemy publicly. Frankly, the world is awash with stupid people!

[@peterp7541]

Argentina lost just one ship with the Belgrano sinking but 355 people lost their lives with it, more than all the British casualties in the whole conflict, and more than all other casualties Argentina experienced in the rest of the conflict, so it was just one ship but with terrible human losses, so I think for this reason they decided to employ the air force only to engage in the attacks.

[@duartesimoes508]

@@peterp7541 Certainly; the loss of life with the sinking of the Belgrano was huge, I myself was very shaken when I saw the newspapers. But the Argentinians should have understood that they could not afford not to engage their Navy if they intended to keep the Falklands. Possibly, had the Argentinian Navy been engaged the Royal Navy losses could have become unacceptable. More recently we had the sinking of the Cruiser Moskva, which of course did not preclude the Russian Navy to remain in the area. I actually visited this Cruiser in Lisbon harbor in 2008 and cannot help feeling sorry for that beautiful ship and its garrison; at least those I met then were terrific people. But they're Russians, so I'm glad they went to the bottom.

[@peterp7541]

@@duartesimoes508 The Argentinian government at the time, an unelected group of military generals, had a very flawed strategy about the whole thing and did not expect that the UK would engage in a full war over those tiny islands that at the time they had come close to discuss sovereignty over, so the whole plan went the wrong way as soon as the UK decided to send their entire military to take the islands back. I do agree that Argentina kept a lot of its main fire power in Argentina and this helped the British win the war clearly, and that things would have gone a different way if like you are saying the navy had got engaged as well, etc., but the reality is this would have just increased the human cost terribly for both countries and I think sooner or later the UK would have won it anyway because the US was on their side, as well as most of the western powers, so they would have both supplied the UK with everything they needed to win while at the same time kept the arms embargo on Argentina that had been put in place already which was going to make it hard for Argentina to resupply the army (e.g.: they were already struggling to buy the exocet missiles from France..) If you look at the big picture, the interesting fact is that the war was the nail on the coffin of the military junta in Argentina, there was never another military coup in Argentina since then and I am pretty sure there will never be another one, and the war increased Tatcher's popularity in the UK which helped her get a second term which otherwise would have likely not happened, and her transformation / modernization of the UK economy would have not happened ( I know some people in the UK don't agree with her legacy been positive but I think it was overall...) so if you think of that, it was a win-win for both countries, of course despite the human cost that was paid regrettably.

[@ohgosh5892]

The right-wing tabloid newspapers exist by fomenting hatred and bigotry. The idea that Johnny Foreigner might not be a craven coward does not fit the right-wing tabloid playbook in any way.

[@Gamer-do7qv]

@ peterp7541 oh look an American trying to make take the claim for British 7,000 miles away from home victory. By the way the British did not send their entire military to the falklands , they sent 2,500 and the military had over 300 thousand at the time so stop talking gibberish

[@mothmagic1]

I think there may well have been a certain amount of complacency on the part of Argentina. They probably couldn't believe we seriously intended to take them on with Harriers.

[@ElParteDiscotecas]

Hello! Just trying to give some insight from the Argentine side. Basically we were taught that yes, as the 80s were a time of great turmoil (the whole US vs URSS, the problems that Thatcher faced, etc.) the ruling dictatorship in Argentina didn't really believe that the British forces would make the effort to try and recover the Falklands. That would have meant a huge boost in popularity for the dictators (supposedly) but as we know, that wasn't the case. There also was some distrust between the 3 branches of the forces and it is said that the Argentine Air Force was the last one to be noticed of the effort to retake the Falklands so it makes it all the more impressive the things they were able to accomplish. Hope this helps!

[@mothmagic1]

@@ElParteDiscotecas It does indeed. OK they didn't succeed but they certainly didn't fail due to lack of effort.

[@theharper1]

I thoroughly recommend the book Vulcan 607 which describes the Vulcan attack in detail. The mission was incredibly complex and they were extremely lucky to get there and back. I mentioned the book to a colleague who was ex-navy, and it turned out that he was mentioned in the book. He flew a helicopter during the conflict.

[@chrisgs8727]

Useless, a gr3 with a laser bomb could do much better... 40 bombs and only ONE hit on the side... C130 hercules and the other planes operated without problems until the last day of the war

[@raymondcollier3140]

O

[@501sqn3]

....Lucky!!!... Extremely Lucky!!. Bloody cheek 😒

[@Buster_Piles]

Black Buck is one of the proudest moments of British military aviation history. The odds against success were huge & success was down to sheer grit, bravery & professionalism on the part of the RAF personnel taking part, they are heroes.

[@geoffbentley8774]

I've got the book.

[@AnalogueInTheUK]

Let's not forget the live intelligence sent by Chile (obs and long range radar), letting the task force know that the AAF was on its way, and allowing the Harrier to get airborne without wasting too much fuel.

[@sirbob562]

And don't forget the Satellite intelligence that was given to Argentina by the USSR, The French technicians who still worked on the Exocets and the Peruvian fighter aircraft flown to Argentina painted as Argentinian planes and given to replace losses sustained....

[@samuelortiz3641]

Chile temía de una invasión Argentina!! no se concretó por la aventura de los generales Argentinos de nada menos desafiar a una potencia militar como Gran Bretaña!!!

[@chrislye8912]

@@sirbob562 so it’s a contractual issue with the Exocets; they had sold a weapon system and had fsrs on site; they did their job…

[@Vrey662]

@@sirbob562 theres no proof of any of that

[@sirbob562]

@rolandgarroz Look it up if you don't believe me.. Just saying no doesn't mean it's not so !!

[@54mgtf22]

Great series. Thank you. Love your work 👍

[@ImperialWarMuseums]

Thanks for watching!

[@sirfer6969]

Some of the footage early in this piece showing the low flying Argentinian forces is just mind blowing. I was 12 when this war broke out and will never forget the scenes of carnage on the nightly news in NZ

[@josephstevens9888]

The Falklands campaign demonstrated the superb abilities of the Raytheon AIM-9L Sidewinder, which was a vast improvement over earlier versions of the Sidewinder. The AIM-9L's reputation was further cemented when in June 1982, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, 80 Syrian aircraft were downed by the IAF, mostly utilizing AIM-9L' s. It was been proven before that given the better trained pilot and superior technology, a smaller force can defeat a much larger one. I hope Mr. Putin heeds this lesson of history if he tries to mess with NATO, whose members militaries are some of the best-trained in the world.

[@defcon1africa676]

Supplied by the Americans. The country you love to loath.

[@josephstevens9888]

@@defcon1africa676 I do not loath America. I have been in service to the United States for 33 years.

[@rightiswrongrightiswrong806]

@@josephstevens9888 You do realise the Nazis in Kiev have lost their airforce?

[@TheChrissy1977]

Argentina had an ex carrier from the Royal Navy and dropped British bombs luckily lower than they arm. Not to say the Argentinian pilots were at all slack. The French denied training with the dausard, excuse spelling. Harrier was amazing but would not able to take 200 plus.

[@Xyzabc998]

yes, yes, not all about Merica. Many Mericans think the Harrier is also Merican.....Good combination, the Harrier and Sidewinder.

[@davidmoore1477]

I was there as a cadet for the launching of HMS Invincible A Harrier stopped in front of the queen, bowed , stood on it's tail and then went vertical So cool!

[@davidmoore1477]

@Will interesting side story, when I joined the Army at 16, we went on a canoeing expedition. Ark Royal had been scrapped and was awaiting the guys to come and cut her up I went up close and touched the hull, a bow wave off anothership caught me and I head butted the Ark Royal! Not many people can say that, I bet! 😆😆

[@emilianoruizbmw]

we never stood a chance against those sea harriers , those planes are one of the best in human history ever made .plus they look so handsome

[@veritasvincit2745]

I was a school child when this happened and avidly followed events. In over four decades I've yet to read derogatory comments from those who were there about the Argentine pilots. A guy I once worked with was there and witnessed much first hand. The Argentinian pilots pressed home their attacks with success under heavy fire without flinching. They were also savvy enough to clear off when Sea Harriers were around. Appalling loss of life for my nation and their's.

[@vinnyganzano1930]

British professionalism was always going to tell against the Argentine military.

[@RoderickMacdonald]

The Harrier Forward Operating Base (FOB) was constructed at Port San Carlos, not San Carlos as stated in this video. It based four Harriers, two Sea Harriers and two GR3s each day and was pumping 40,000 gallons of AVCAT into Harriers and helicopters each day. Argentine aircraft were focused on the ships in San Carlos and missed the construction of the airstrip and refueling installation at Port San Carlos which was impossible to camouflage. I was the engineer commander within 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, responsible for choosing the location and overseeing the construction of this FOB by 59 Independent Commando Squadron Royal Engineers who built the fuel supply system and 11 Field Squadron Royal Engineers who build the strip and then operated the facility. The Royal Navy named this location, HMS Sheathbill Royal Naval Air Station Port San Carlos. Once Argentine commanders realized Harriers were ashore it was too late for them to do anything about it. From talking to Argentine commanders post conflict, they informed me that once the British had Harriers flying and refueling from a base on shore they realized they could not win.

[@johndastoli8572]

Fascinating story and very relevant how we would fight in the littorals today. Building and being able to repair/maintain expeditionary airfields are essential to holding key maritime terrain against air and naval attacks. I think the Falklands and Guadalcanal are two of the best examples of this.

[@RoderickMacdonald]

@@johndastoli8572 You are right. This is one of the reasons the USMC is so interested in the Falklands Conflict and why I lecture on the Advanced Expeditionary Logistics Operations Course at the Marine Air Ground Force Training Command Twenty-Nine Palms

[@johndastoli8572]

@@RoderickMacdonald I used to work at MCTOG we should chat!

[@av8bvma513]

Well done, that man!

[@richardvernon317]

Argentines stopped low level attacks on San Carlos around the 29th May 1982 as the place had become a Hornets nest. Pretty much every aircraft that entered the AOA from 23rd May 82 onwards landed back in Argentina with more holes in it than it had in it when it took off. (mostly 7.62mm in diameter or bigger (one Skyhawk landed with an unexploded 20 or 40mm cannon shell embedded in its wing). That was if they got home at all.

[@amphilbey]

Great series, always remember a friend in middle school who’s dad was in the conflict bringing back pictures of downed Argentinian aircraft, very brave pilots on both sides. Worth including the famous ITV news broadcast from Brian Hanrahan

[@Mayaman67]

Harriers are a thing of beauty. The Americans continued using them long after we stopped using them. I was working on Battle of Britain day in RAF Belize. As the CO saluted the Union Flag at sunset with a jungle backdrop, three Harriers flew in hovered and dipped their nose in unison.

[@guglielmotranchina249]

I don't think I have ever clicked on a video this fast. This mini series is one of the best I have seen on the topic, especially as a naturalized Brit who would like to learn more and more about our country. I look forward to the episode about the ground combat operations. Keep up the good work IMW!

[@hadleyscott1160]

Harriers are an awesome fighter plane. I worked with them in 1975. On my ship they landed like a helicopter but mostly took off down the deck. The thrust being so powerful it would rip the surface off of it.It was like a hurricane at the beach. Tiny pieces hitting you everywhere. You had to watch if a pilot moved the nozzles while taxing around. The thrust would blister your skin quickly and I mean blister painfully. I saw many deckhands drop their equipment and run. After the cruise was done they showed us the maneuverability of the aircraft. Forward/ Backwards and Sideways as well as standing still alongside the ship.

[@iamasmurf1122]

so awesome that half ever made dropped out of the SKY , they were notorious pieces of garbage , you fool no one

[@hadleyscott1160]

They went from 0-50,000 feet faster than the F-4 phantom and they didn’t have after-burners. The Ace of Spades squadron. But then again it was 1975. We spent most of winter at Guantanamo Cuba putting a new deck coat on and within a day the deck got blasted apart. Harriers were powerful.

[@hithere7382]

If you think the Harrier hurts on deck you should go try out a F-35B or C on the deck heh.

[@enforcer-e1s]

The UK government made a big mistake in retiring their Harriers. (So what's new with them?!) Not only was the aircraft unique there was still nothing to match its VSTOL capabilities. Thank goodness our American allies had the good sense to see just how important the Harriers are and snapped a few up for themselves. The British are clever, there's no doubt about it and via competition between various aircraft companies came amazing aircraft. Then along came the politicians who know nothing worth knowing about industry and technology, who decided to stick all their eggs in one basket that led to the winding up of independent aircraft manufactures. No competition, means much less innovation. If I didn't know better (and I don't?) the present government and those of the past three decades have been anti-British industry. This has led to the collapse of UK industry and the world has suffered by this due to more lack of competition and inventiveness. Lets face it, what inventions that are really advanced have been introduced lately? Some countries may have super fast trains, but they're still trains. The jet engine was a massive breakthrough by the British, along with the jump jet. These days, there appears to be nothing really new under the sun, just offspring's of tech that we already know. Inventiveness ona world shattering scale appears to be no more..

[@infantryattacks]

We had an Argentine Navy pilot on our staff at LANTFLT a few decades ago. He flew A4s during the Falklands War. He explained that his aircraft carried enough bombs and fuel to hit the target and return to base but only if he took no evasive action. According to him, the FAA and RAF Harriers mostly conducted stern chases against nonmaneuvering targets. This tactic was effective, he admitted, but it took little skill and was more akin to clubbing baby seals than fighter combat. He also admitted that the Argentine Navy Air arm went to war with little experience wrt setting bomb fuzes for low altitude delivery. According to him, about half of the Argentine bombs that struck RN ships failed to detonate. If they had detonated, the RN would have lost many more ships and this might have tilted the war in Argentina's favor. He wasn't bitter and could be seen drinking beer with RN officers at official functions. Just another pilot thrust into a politician's war.

[@richardvernon317]

Argentinian navy A-4 Skyhawk fleet was Fooked before the war even started. I think they had around 12 still on inventory. 3 airframes were in a fully serviceable condition, the rest had fatigue cracks in the airframe which on survey lead to 4 of the aircraft being declared totally unflyable. Thus they only had 8 flyable aircraft and none of them had a fully reliable ejection seat as all of the explosive cartridges in them were life expired due to a US Arms embargo. They lost 3 Aircraft to Sea Harriers on 21st May and an Aircraft crashed on landing on 23rd May. They were pretty much out of the fight after that. As for the Bomb Fuzing, there was nothing wrong with the settings of them. The Argentine ground crew set them to the minimum arming times that the bomb fuzes would allow. The problem was the pilots dropped them from too low and too close to the target for the weapons to arm even at minimum arming settings .

[@infantryattacks]

@@richardvernon317 Good to know. Thank you.

[@PayYourTick]

Cope

[@christopherbishop5014]

Respect to the argentine pilots . A lot of them knew and were prepared to fly impossible maneuvers that most were not even trained for . True bravery

[@ivangruer5326]

@@richardvernon317 France sell to Argentinsa 14 Super Ettendard with 14 exocet, only five was to Malvinas war

[@colinstewart1432]

Love the Harrier. Made loads of Airfix models of these as a kid. My dad was born in the Falklands. 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

[@brando6BL]

My late father-in-law worked for BAe and was the pattern-maker for the jet 'nozzles' to be cast around. He was a time-served carpenter/joiner and worked the patterns up in lignum vitae. Patterns are usually formed in pieces so that the pattern can be dismantled and removed from the casting and re-used. Interestingly, he had worked building Mosquitoes during WW2.

[@RobCraig-wf3yi]

Wow, interesting allright. Those mosquitoes could take some punishment.

[@philipcrabtree1679]

I was part of 801 Sqdn throughout the Falklands War. Some of the facts quoted during the video I believe are not correct. The harrier GR3 was never fitted with RADAR. The GR3 was approved for the fitment of RWR, which is not a RADAR. It’s a means of detecting when a RADAR is scanning the aircraft. My second point is that I am not sure how your SHAR CO from 809 can comment on the 1st May raid on port Stanley, when he didn’t arrive in the theatre until 18th May on SS Atlantic Conveyor. The SHAR aircraft on Atlantic Conveyor were used as attrition spares for 800 / 801, therefore 809 did not exist or take part in combat operations during the Falklands War.

[@draigygoch]

There were a few mistakes in this video

[@14rnr]

First, thank you for your service to our Country and territories. Second, thank you for my freedom. Third, thank you for sharing your knowledge of events.

[@leggett2287]

809 absolutely took part in the Falklands War, they arrived before the start of Operation Sutton. Also, why couldn't the CO of 809 comment on the Port Stanley Raid? You don't have to be directly in theatre to comment on an operation. The fact that not 1 single bomb from the May 1st Harrier raid is a big indicator.

[@richardvernon317]

The RAF harriers did get fitted with an I band transponder under their LRMTS housing for Op Corporate. Definitely a piece of radar equipment not fitted to the aircraft at the time. The RWR system had been there from the GR 3 upgrade.

[@philipcrabtree1679]

@@leggett2287 You are correct to say that 809 did arrive on Atlantic Conveyor before Operation Sutton on the 18th May, but on the 18/19 May four SHAR went to Hermes to be part of 800 NAS and four SHAR went to Invincible to be part of 801 NAS. I was there so I know what happened. There was an attempt by the CO of 809 to keep 809 going on Invincible but the CO of 801 & the Captain JJ Black dismissed this idea, so the aircraft became part of 801 and had 801 markings put on the aircraft. If your information is from the 809 book. I can tell you it’s wrong and Sharkey Ward has told the author.

[@_Raven_]

The Harrier truly is a beautiful machine. There's just something about seeing it landing in VTOL mode that never fails to take my breath away.

[@britishpatriot7386]

Stand closer it'll certainly take your breath away 😂

[@davec8730]

the widowmaker.

[@DreamyReme]

I've seen one of those 20 Sea Harriers at the Boscombe Down Aviation Collection, the story is quite impressive.

[@yourdrummer2034]

Nice job and getting the video out at the 40th anniversary of the daring mission! I loved it!

[@RobBCactive]

The latest missile variant was an enormous help (thanks USA), I hope that gets a mention. Diplomacy and skullduggery was another front in the conflict. It did and Sharkey gets a line too, his book on the Sea Harrier combat air patrols is excellent.

[@a41166]

Cierto, la entrega de los Sidewinders de última generación fue una ayuda enorme en la guerra de las Malvinas contra aviones que no tenían ni radio altímetro... Me pregunto qué habría pasado con los Harriers si los primos americanos no hubieran regalado los AIM-9L y además qué habría pasado en la 1ª y 2ª Guerra Mundial si no hubiera habido ayuda de los yankis...¿Eh? Recuerdos de Blas de Lezo para el "invencido" almirante Vernon...Los habitantes de las Islas Canarias y los de la ciudad de La Coruña también envían saludos y recuerdos al almirane Nelson...

[@RobBCactive]

@@a41166 esta pregunta no vale nada

[@MostlyPennyCat]

@@RobBCactive What question?

[@SNOWDONTRYFAN]

He didn't see eye to eye with the carrier group admiral , who under estimated the aircrafts true potential as an air sentry

[@RobBCactive]

@@MostlyPennyCatLooks like YT got rid of the very long off topic passive aggressive questions in Spanish. I guessed an Argie with some beef 😉😉 I speak Spanish but didn't want to waste any time

[@Kysushanz]

Fascinating war - as a young Infantry Major RNZIR, I did a presentation to 1 Task Force RNZA on the Falklands Campaign, it was of course more infantry based but did deal somewhat briefly with the air and sea component. I believe I still have the actual presentation! Enjoyed the video you produced.

[@pajodato5339]

Argentina did have 100 OLD aircrafts (5 of them modern), and only two air refuelling C130, Only 12 could fly at the same time. Under the best conditions that's very little airpower considering they have to strike a 100 ship fleet (2 of them aircraft carriers with 12 modern planes each) + a strategic bomber squadron. Regarding the Black Buck raids, those were an utter failure, it did negligible damage to the runway itself or military support units. The 1200m airstrip was a small civilian airport unable to support high performance combat airplanes in Argentina inventory. It was useful to medium cargo planes. My uncle fought in Darwin and he was present and almost killed at the shoot down of a Harrier on may 4 during a extremely low level attack, at the morning hours. He was in his trench and the Harrier sudden attack was met with antiaircraft fire and very little small arms fire from some of the troops who were able to react. The british pilot ejection seat catapulted him in the same exact moment the plane hit the ground while desintegrating in a rolling fireball. The fireball rolled 400 meters in the fields neaw Darwin and the pieces showered his trench and many fighting positions called fox holes. He was unharmed, but the british pilot (a very tall man) was tangled in a wirefence and killed in his airplane seat, still with smoke and fumes from the rocket. As the burial was given with military honors, my uncle Hugo was in the guard and he can be seen in the video of the burial of the british pilot. The pilot name was Lt. Nicholas Taylor. watch?v=MyZ5ipzXgEo

[@Soulflytribe04]

Was Hugo British or Argentine? It's unclear.

[@pajodato5339]

@@Soulflytribe04 Argentine 1963 conscript soldier (mandatory military service).

[@stijnvandamme76]

you are right the Black Buck raids were just a desperate attempt by the RAF to be part of the action. Their major achievement is turning HUGE quantities of Jetfuel into exhaust gasses.

[@21142317]

The Argentinians had lots of aircraft with superior performance to the Harrier, age is irrelevant. Harrier whilst new was compromised by the need to hover.

[@bearchow1929]

It was simple. The British figured out that the Harriers were superior below 15000 feet. The Mirages were superior at higher altitudes. So the British eventually quit flying over 15000 feet. The Argentineans meanwhile continued to go below 15000. The rest is history.

[@bo0tsy1]

It's the knowledge of the pilots and optimum performance of the aircraft. Training matters. This affair was very impressive. God save the Queen.

[@arthurpewtey]

@Roger Shhhhh! I know you're right (from what I've read previously) but in these Brexit, anti-EU times, it's just not cricket to suggest France might have helped the UK. Nigel, Boris and Jacob, not to mention Frosty The Knows Nothing Man will be most unimpressed with you.

[@pooooornopigeon]

@@arthurpewtey Actually we bumped off an arm`s dealer in Argentina who was trying to supply more Exocets to the Argies.

[@martinwarne7183]

I cant think of any aircraft that flies at 6 or 700 knots and stops on a sixpence. The Harrier. Oh and can back up. Yeah baby I am THE HARRIER.

[@carlo_infar7034]

Plus which is most important harriers had all aspect sidewinders instead of rear aspect ones posessed by argentine...

[@hlynnkeith9334]

5:24 "One bomb cratered the runway [at Port Stanley]." Satellite reconnaissance provided the BDA for that bombing mission. Our post-war briefing reported that the sat-recce got it wrong. The Argentines painted the runway to look like it had been hit. In fact, the Argentine Air Force flew sorties to and from that airstrip until the end of the war. We had to improve our sat-recce to find ways to overcome phony images.

[@hippopotamus86]

Can't find a single reliable source for this. Can you share a source?

[@hlynnkeith9334]

@@hippopotamus86 Sorry, I cannot share my source for the BDA or the post-war brief. IIRC International Defense Review Magazine published a short piece on this in an issue in 1983. A quick search revealed that IDR ceased publishing in 1995. That the Argies continued to use the runway did not mean so much. The runway was too short to support Argentine Air Force jets. All the runway traffic was transport; that is, no combat aircraft. ETA: Royal Navy Task Force 317 -- the Falklands task force -- pulled ships from NATO duties. President Reagan ordered the US Navy to fill in for the Brits and fulfill their NATO commitments. Why do you think the Queen knighted Sir Ronnie? You may find it hard to discover public sources for this, too, but it is still true.

[@rorigomazzuchini2324]

@@hippopotamus86 El último HÉRCULES C130 argentino abandonó las islas el 14 de Junio de 1982 a las 00:00 horas llevando heridos y periodistas.

[@Richie_]

When I was a kid in school in the late 70's I used to bunk off school and go the War Museum in London. Went to the others too in Kensington.

[@MondoBeno]

The Black Buck raid was meant as a deterrent. It was public knowledge that the Avro Vulcan was meant to drop bombs on the USSR, so by sending the bombers all the way to the Falklands, it might scare the Argentines.

[@leealanjohnson1975]

Plus the RAF felt left out and were fearful of the upcoming defence review/cuts

[@driver2212]

And it did!! I would love to know whether "Blackbuck" was intended to scare Argentine aircraft into stay at home, or whether it was an unexpected Xmas present!😮

[@terryaherne6186]

Actually, as a british military analyst in the aftermath of these events pointed out, the crucial factor was geography. If the falklands Islands had been just 35 miles further from mainland Argentina, their warplanes had not the range to return to base. 35 miles closer, and their attacks would have benefited from dummy runs to survey their targets with lethal consequences

[@ramonandrajo6348]

Malvinas Islands, correction.

[@fitz.g3240]

@@ramonandrajo6348 Falklands (correction) you have to take territory to earn the right to name it!

[@ramonandrajo6348]

@@fitz.g3240 Whatever, dude. XD

[@carlchallinor4933]

Call them what you like, they dont belong to the UK, they dont belong to Argentina, they get to self determine, and they want to be part of the British overseas territories. Maybe one day they will want to come to Argentina, and the UK wont stop them. Thats what you should understand, Argentina wants to override their will and take away their right to self determination. And as for why they dont like you...well randomly invading them and screwing up their lives because your dictator wanted to make himself look tough really did not do Argentina any favours with Falkland public opinion.

[@richardvernon317]

Daggers and Mirages would have been Screwed. SUper E's and Skyhawks had IFR. Limiting factor was only 2 C-130 Tankers.

[@jonathanbaum3499]

It's a little like the Doolittle Raid; the effect on the enemy's morale was more important than the physical damage inflicted.

[@albertomanfredi3675]

Con la diferencia que Puerto Stanley no es Tokyo, las Malvinas no son Japón, y las fuerzas argentinas ni arrimaban al ejército imperial japonés. No exageremos, amigo.

[@JH-ck1nr]

May the fallen on both sides rest in peace.

[@michaelbee2165]

I was in college at this time. Many of my friends put their bets on Argentina. I told them the British would destroy Argentina's foolish adventure. The British proved me correct.

[@gionncaomhinmorpheagh4791]

I can understand that. I, as a former 12-year Medic (1966 - 1978) in the British Army, was "warned for emergency movement" a coupla days before the UK Task Force set off, since I was still (officially) part of the British Army Reserve. It was that, more than anything else, that triggered my initial interest in the conflict (me being an Irishman and all). But I'm really very glad the Brits prevailed. Some of them were my former mates. MsG

[@mauriciodupuy408]

DUH! , of course England was going to win, the argentinian soldiers had no training whatsoever, England had USA on her side, and also Chile help England....! that was something really stupid the military government in Argentina did at that time. Still those islands are argentinian territory , the whole world knows it, even England.

[@alexm7743]

With United States help... of course

[@alexm7743]

With United States help... of course

[@gionncaomhinmorpheagh4791]

@@alexm7743 The US helped with sigint, true. They also diverted a tanker to fill up the tanks on Ascension for the Andrew. Then they donated a number of missiles. What no British Army squaddie wanted was for the Septics to supply troops. They (the Septics) have a well-deserved reputation for being the world champions in blue-on-blue incidents. Quite apart from the fact that they'd have immediately made a Hollywood filum about it depicting themselves as the "winners" of the Falklands War - just like they single-handedly won WWII. And let's not forget the invasion of Grenada in 1983, eh? One of the very few wars that the Septics actually managed to "win" on their jacks. Whereby they also achieved the dubious distinction of causing ALL of the deaths and injuries to BOTH sides in the conflict. Way to go! MsG

[@Evergleam]

The Argentines didn't "just" surrender. They killed and were killed. This misses the biggest parts of the bloodiest of the battles. God rest all of the souls left died there in that soil

[@guyavni3206]

Thank you so much for this Falkland video series. I have heard many times about this war but in fact, knew very little about it.

[@madzen112]

Just 20 Harriers standing between success and failure in this war

[@timcolder8782]

No question that the Harrier's unique abilities gave it a great advantage in such a small war zone with limited landing space/run ways, whether it lacked the speed of the Argentine jets or not. If it happened today we would certainly miss it. The Vulcan missions an amazing feat considering the distances involved. My stepfather was in the RN on nuclear subs. at the time and one of his mates was on HMS Conqueror that sank the Belgrano. Not exactly a fan of Thatcher but at least she had the guts not to back down like our current PM would.

[@nieljosephpalca7849]

The British Task Forces were superior in the air and in the sea but the threat of Argentinian submarines are undeniable. Simply the British were lucky enough that Argentinian submarine forces were full of malfunction weaponry. But what if the Argentinian Navy poses an effective torpedoes, and mix of few standard diesel submarines and dozen midget/small submarines. For sure, it would be difficult to conduct amphibious operations.

[@UKSCIENCEORG]

10:45 The BBC told the Argentines about the bomb fuse mistake when they publicly reported it - which meant they fixed the problem putting our personnel at huge risk.

[@cristianfuentes2597]

Media=idiots

[@shanemcdowall]

My understanding is the Argentinians heard the BBC, but they thought the information was a plant.

[@azarelpillay8538]

Around 10:00 it's amazing to hear the admiration and respect that "enemies" have for each other.

[@johnrussell3961]

It’s only the civilians who never went to war who have an issue. It’s the same with Vietnam and WW2.

[@brucebrand3068]

That's because they were never true enemies.

[@mpersad]

A really excellent series in commemoration of the Falklands War. Well done to all concerned.

[@jessehamm3573]

I'd say the Argentine Air Force also beat the odds by employing unguided ordinance with such impeccable accuracy, which would have otherwise inflicted much graver losses on the Royal Navy, if only so many of their bombs hadn't failed to explode. Very few actual dogfights occurred during the course of the actual campaign, as, once the AAF aircraft had completed their attacks, they were compelled to speed back to the mainland on their remaining fuel, completely vulnerable and with no time to engage in a turning duel.

[@oscarbosio9881]

El Comandante de la Royal Navy dijo que de haber explotado las bombas en seis de sus barcos, la campaña de Malvinas se hacía insostenible, rercordando que solo le quedaba el 45% de su flota utilizable y no al 100%. La aviación argentina les hundió 8 naves y le tocó el 70% de la flota de superficie y con muy pocos recursos por el bloqueo de armas que sufría, especialmente los exocet.

[@Fiasco3]

There was a reason, the bombs they had were screw/fin armament and they were dropping them too low to arm.

[@mh53j]

@@oscarbosio9881 8 ships? Check your math: Ardent, Antelope, Atlantic Conveyor, Sheffield, Coventry. Think that's 5.... Edit: I made a mistake too... Should be 6 including Sir Galahad, even though she was sunk by the British due to irreparable damage and as a war grave.

[@oscarbosio9881]

@@mh53j Buques perdidos (Hundidos o destruidos) 8. HNS Sheffield. HMS Coventry. HMS Ardent. HMS Antelope. RFA Sir Galahad. RFA Sir Tristam. Portacontenedor de Gran Porte Atlantic Conveyor. Lancha de desembarco Foxtrot. cero que son 8. Aparte quedaron fuera de combate o inactivas las siguientes naves: HMS Onyx. HMS Alacrity. HMS Avenger. HMS Arrow. HMS Argonaut. HMS Antrim. HMS Glasmorgan. HMS Glasgw. eL total de buques perjudicados fue 31 (tengo la lista completa y con los días en los que fueron tocados). El 40% de los buques de guerra de superficie quedaron fuera e combate, y un 70% tocado por la aviación argentina. Cuatro de las seis unidades de apoyo logístico fueron dañadas, dos destruidas y dos dañadas. El 13 de Junio solo le quedaba a Gran Bretaña 3 buques de guerra en perfectas condiciones, según expresó el Almirante Woodward Comandante de la Flota Real. (Períodico "el malvinense". Libros de Historia Naval británica, informes desclasificados , libros oficiales de la FA Argentina, Veteranos de Guerra de ambos bandos, etc). No fueron solo 5. Saludos.

[@andypeterson3070]

@@mh53j And the Sir Galahad in Bluff Cove. Still not 8 though.

[@GrahamWalters]

We never had air superiority over the Falklands, losing those ships proves that fact. The carriers were never close enough and we never had enough aircraft to that

[@edtrine8692]

What they needed was an AEW aircraft like the E-2 but their carriers could handle it?

[@charlesbarbour2331]

@@edtrine8692 absolutely right and they belated came up with the solution: an AEW Sea king (Harrier 809 by Rowland White:pg 251) shame that they hadn’t thought of it before the Falklands

[@edtrine8692]

@@charlesbarbour2331 Not sure if it's just in the video game Harpoon but I saw something about a later version of the Harrier that could carry the AIM-120 know as the US Slammer? That would have come in handy?

[@DuraLexSedLex]

@@edtrine8692 The AMRAAM was not yet in service during the Falklands War. The FA2 version of Sea Harrier, which could carry AMRAAM came in '88, while AMRAAM itself came in late '91. While such weapons could have indeed given the British an immense and decisive advantage, they did not yet exist.

[@edtrine8692]

Not even sure if the Harrier used in the Falklands had airborne radar to support even the Sparrow?

[@petertyson4022]

I forgot about the V-bomber in that war. I was going to join the army , but told I was to old. 3 years later . The Falkland wars started. Few of my friends left the army a few years before as well. Watched it on the news. Listened and Showed what was happening with bad news from both sides. It's only from dominated TV shows that you saw the real horrors of that war. Hoped that Britain would never be in a war again. But I was wrong. . Good show. 😊

[@AngelGonzalez-yb6gu]

A few reasons why the Argentine Air Forces (including the Naval Aviation) should be applauded, let's start with the fighters Argentina had available: - A4 Skyhawk: it was the main fighter of Argentina, BUT since the USA had imposed an arms embargo since 1979 to the Argentine Military Junta due to human rights violations, the A4s were flying without radars and many other technological components (including flares to distract incoming missiles or ejection seats) and therefore couldn't shoot missiles in the dogfights. So, this duels between Harriers and A4s were extremely uneven, like someone with a knife fighting someone with a gun. - Mirages & IAI Daggers: Argentina had significant them in significant numbers but they couldn't do air refuel and hence could only fly over the Falklands air space proper for around 3 minutes and then head back to the continent or could just run out of fuel before reaching their base. Also, the French "Magic" air-to-air missiles had a rather disappointing performance, in contrast to the Sidewinder, that was outstanding. Still, due to their range limitation, the Mirages and Daggers only got involved in a handful of dogfights with the British fighters. - Super Etendards: By 1982 Argentina had only received 4 of these fighters from France and they didn't have air-to-air missiles and thus only focused in anti-ship missions using Exocet missiles and they were very effective in these missions. So, even though at first the numbers seemed to favor Argentina in reality these numbers were very even and the British had an overwhelming technological superiority since the Americans also decided to give them some of their newest weapons (like the Sidewinders or Stinger missiles). All these logistical and preparation "shortcomings" were because the Argentine Air Forces had been preparing for a war with neighboring Chile, an event that didn't require air refueling since distances were shorter and didn't require cutting edge technology because back then Chile was a poorer country than Argentina with poorer military forces. Finally, it must be pointed out that the Argentine Air Force had no word in the planning of the invasion, this idea was mostly planned and pushed by the Argentine Navy (that had an extremely poor performance in the conflict, btw) to the point that they nearly threaten to overthrow the Junta if they didn't get their way. Nonetheless, the Navy basically decided to withdraw from the war after the sinking of the battlecruiser Belgrano and then it was the Air Force the one who had to step in to help the hopeless Argentine draftees on the ground and stop the British task force in despite of it's many material limitations.

[@louisavondart9178]

All good points but the British troops used Blowpipe AA missiles, not Stingers.

[@TheKeithvidz]

A perfect storm of failure - the naval commanders should have been cashiered. Had they been as determined as the British, Belgrano shouldn't have dissuaded but _encourage_ a sea battle, the Argies had the numbers, do enough damage to the Royal Navy, compromise the possibility of a ground landing, COMBINED with air strikes I dare say the islands would fly the Argentine flag.

[@82Pucara11]

@@louisavondart9178 Equivocado, los ingleses si usaron stinger.

[@AngelGonzalez-yb6gu]

@@TheKeithvidz I totally agree with you. Let's just contrast that way the British gambled everything and sent their 2 aircraft carrier groups all the way to the South Atlantic (some 12.000 kms) to win the war, whereas the Argentine Navy decided to hide their carrier in the in coast after the Belgrano was sunk. I mean, why spending so many billions buying and maintaining a piece of hardware if you are not willing to use it when you are suppose to use it?? It was outright stupid. I mean, it is true that the Argentine Navy had some problems of her own, like one submarine managed to reach the British fleet but the computer failed, something that caused the torpedoes to be unable to lock the targets and hence and the torpedoes missed. But still, the point is that the Argentine Navy admiralty pushed for the take over of the Falklands but once they got a bloody nose they just fled the battlefield. They should have thrown their fleet to face the British task force and stop it from reaching the Falklands.

[@mattmatt7305]

The psychological impact on the Argentinian Air Force of the Black Buck raids was priceless. It said “We can get at you on the ground, and we will.”

[@HorsleyLandy88]

I was at Portsmouth Poly at the time and we had the Harriers fly round the tower block on their way to the carriers, made it a bit more real.

[@smilerhappy]

Great video, great series. Shame there is no mention of the SAS and Chilean radar station and the use Nimrods on "Punta Arenas" as they were early warning, that allowed the Harriers to be used for defensive measures.

[@stue2298]

Yes i posted a similar comment, this was a big reason why the 20 Sea Harriers where so effective. It a shame the Imperial War Museum didn't say anything about this.

[@oscarbosio9881]

Un pais que ante la mirada del mundo se consideraba neutral, donde sus diplomáticos declaraban en todos los foros internacionales que estaban buscando una solución pacífica al conflicto mientras su Gobierno ayudaba a los británicos por la espalda a escondidas. Esto habla de la hipocresía de las guerras, la ex Primera Ministra Británica declaró ante el Parlamento que su Gobierno jamas negociaría con Dictadores, que solo lo hacía con Gobiernos democráticos,sin embargo su principal aliado en Sudamérica era uno de los Dictadores mas sanguinarios de esta parte del Continente, el General Pinochet, a quien no dudó en salvarlo cuando fue detenido en Londres por crímenes de lesa humanidad.

[@luisandresvelosogutierrez2123]

@@oscarbosio9881 eres lo mas resentido y cuando hables de pinochet limpiate la boca por que fue uno de los primeros que se atrevio a expulsar la lacra comunista de Chile y eso nunca lo pudieron olvidar respecto a la ayuda que se le presto a la fuerza de tarea inglesa fue solo una gentileza gracias a las diferentes traiciones que han cometido los argentinos partiendo de la invasion a la patagonia siguiendo despues con la guerra del bigle y la estupida idea de la plataforma escondida submarina extendida que no es mas que una triquiñuela para tratar de proyectarse hacia la antartica los enemigos de mis enemigos son mis amigos

[@jorgemayorga6934]

@@oscarbosio9881 Loyalty !

[@oscarbosio9881]

@@jorgemayorga6934 Hipocresía.

[@1066andallthat]

Britain also had superior intelligence: US satellite info; British Nimrods were givien permission to fly up and down Chile, and most important of all Chilean radars gave advance warning of air attacks. It is no coincidence that the Fitzroy attack happened when the Chilean radar at Punta Arenas went briefly out of service.

[@richardvernon317]

Fitzroy attack happened for a number of reasons. As regards Air Defence, main issued was the Forward Operating Airfield at Post San Carlos was non operational due to a Harrier GR 3 crashing on it while landing that morning. Therefore there was reduced SHAR CAP over the Islands.

[@1066andallthat]

@@richardvernon317 I didnt know about the crash. Usually things are complex and have more than one cause. Because of the short supply of Harriers, to maximize CAP effectivity, they were launched when the Chilean radar at Punta Arenas detected Argentinian strike aircraft taking off.

[@biko331966]

sidewinders, etc . Argentine fought to NATO and Chile.

[@williammorley2401]

Alex, the Argentine's received weapons from Israel, most of South America, and from the USSR (Russia), they received both weapons and satellite intelligence!

[@1066andallthat]

@@williammorley2401 From Peru they recieved Mirages I recall. What did they get from Israel and the USSR?

[@shaider1982]

The Reformers like Sprey and Boyd seems to have discounted Harriers downing their opponents using missiles as an example of mature tech being beneficial to fighter aircraft.

[@robertsansone1680]

Very excellent as always. Thank You

[@tonyjames5444]

The MI6 operation to monitor outgoing Argentine aircraft from the mainland was key to the UK's air superiority.

[@biko331966]

Chile's help was the key!!! every flight was informed to the fleet. UK provided a big radar and had personnel on site. Remember Maggie thanking to Pinochet in person!

[@dogsnads5634]

@@biko331966 The radar provided some coverage... But most air raid warning was from the patrol line of 5 SSN's doing signals intercept off the Argentinian coast. They piced up radio chatter from airfields and from Air to Air refueling operations.

[@KrisRamJ]

16:52 - The Harrier GR.3 was never fitted with a radar - the nose contains a laser tracker which has a two piece "eyelid" that opens to expose the glass element - the Sea Harrier was the only radar equipped Harrier variant used in the Falklands

[@MillWheelDad]

I believe a Radar Warnings Receiver ( Sky Guardian 100 ? ) was urgently modified to fit inside an Aden gun pod. This could have been confused with a radar. I was later told by one of the engineers that working late into the night they ran out of the correct expensive MIL standard fully traceable sheet metal to make the needed brackets. With classic practicality someone grabbed the nearby metal waste paper bin cut the base off it and by morning the first ever Radar Warning System for a Harrier was shipped off to the Falklands complete with top secret bin brackets.

[@AA-xo9uw]

@@MillWheelDad Incorrect. The GR.3 was equipped from the factory with the Marconi ARI-18223 RWR with the forward antenna mounted on the leading edge of the vertical stab and the rear antenna mounted in the tailcone.

[@MillWheelDad]

@@AA-xo9uw Reading up it seems you are right and the GR.3 had ARI-18223, the sky guardian 100 was a drop in digital replacement, so would not have needed an external pod. What I am sure of is something in a defense aid suit was urgently put into a gun pod for the conflict because it gave the Harriers extra capability ( radar jamming ?? ) that was expected to be provided by other aircraft types in Nato conflicts. Just found this that supports the jamming idea. "Further modifications, which were later incorporated to increase the aircraft’s capability, included the installation of a flare and chaff dispenser for self-protection, an active electronic jammer to counter enemy radars, and the ability to carry and fire American anti-radar missiles." Using the waste bins as a workaround was legend on the development site. I was lucky enough to be part of a later urgent development to enhance Tornado capability for the Bosnian crisis, which had some wild moments, but we managed to source all the components without cutting up the furniture.

[@st1nk1n]

Although the British had the newer all aspect sidewinder, all missile kills were from the rear, meaning they did not actually make use of that feature. Some say the missile won the air war, but really the pilots and the sea harriers did all the hard work.

[@llynellyn]

The all aspect feature was cool but them more important thing was the improved seeker, by comparison the AIM-9L used by the harriers was more than four times as likely to connect with the target as the AA missiles the Argentinians had (80% vs 10-15%).

[@stijnvandamme76]

you miss an important aspect AS 801 knew its job The flew low, at picket, had good radar, and intercepted argies on ingress. On incertept the argies had to drop their payload and RTB. Mission accomplished by NAS 801 NAS 800 did not have a good Radar, and they flew HIGH which made their radars even less effective. They failed their mission most of the time since the Argies DID get through ; DID bomb and 800 had to disingage the late intercept on ingress due to SAM envelopped of teh Ships And then 800 shot the argies the ass AFTER they accomplished their mission. 800 had more AA kills , shooting argies in the ass but Failed at their mission. 801 had less kills because the Argies turned and ran home before they got shot in the face.. Which is a mission success to 801 The Lima Sidewinder is still MUCH better seeker even at rear aspect then the old Sidewinders that the Argies had. And the argies knew it so they dumped and ran home before getting it in the face.. so the Lima DID make a difference

[@SIXITHS]

There is interview footage with Sharkey where he describes hitting an Argentinian jet with a sidewinder from 90 degrees.

[@Simon-bg3st]

@@stijnvandamme76 That's not quite how I understand it - 800 Sqn didn't have the same confidence in the Blue Fox radar as 801 Sqn, and so couldn't use it effectively. That's what I heard.

[@StewartWalker-hy1eo]

If it was down to a missile then all you would need is a helicopter or a drone today

[@restaurantattheendofthegalaxy]

Wow fantastic video, I hadn't any visibility of the Harriers exploits, it sure seems like that being that outnumbered there would have been significant losses in air-to-air combat. However, it seems that the carrier borne machines achieved a high sortie rate and were able to make a big impact. Great show! 😎

[@Techiejt]

Never ceases to amaze me when I see footage of Harriers vertical landing.

[@weasel4060]

Our lads did a brilliant job! Rule Britannia!

[@weasel4060]

we win we win!!

[@chrisburn7178]

I read "Vulcan 607" a few years ago and it makes a great tale of triumph against the odds. However, I followed it with 'Sharkey' Ward's book about the conflict. He was incredibly disparaging about the whole shenanigans, maintaining that Sea Harrier crews were trained and ready to lob 1000lb bombs on the runway by releasing them from low altitude (under Argentine radar) in a parabolic arc, with decent accuracy. Moreover, they could have done this over and over with minimal risk. But the preference always went to RAF over Fleet Air Arm and presumably the extra headline space that the risky and daredevil Vulcan mission would garner.

[@tonyyates2012]

The thinking at the time favoured the psychological effect it had on the Argentinians, I've no doubt the Harriers could have performed the task as well, but they really had their hands full covering the fleet and subsequent landings.

[@farmerned6]

Black Buck (i think) was 7 missions , they only hit the runway with one bomb, never stopped it being used by C-130's I'm going with Sharky was right

[@davidpnewton]

Ward is operating with blinkers on. As mentioned in the video it wasn't just the direct military effects which made Black Buck important. It was the indirect, virtual attrition results which were incredibly important. Black Buck meant that Argentine aircraft were deployed to defend Buenos Aires. That reduced the pressure on the RN fleet considerably. He also ignores the fact that the Black Buck raids were NOT an either/or situation but an and situation. Black Buck diverted essentially zero resources away from the taskforce itself. What were basically the only resources that the Black Buck raids competed with the Harriers for? Bombs and jet fuel. Did the task force ever suffer a shortage of jet fuel? Nope. Did the task force ever suffer a shortage of bombs? Nope. The RAF bombers couldn't operate from carriers. The RAF tankers couldn't operate from carriers. There no competition for pilots between Harriers, Vulcans and Victors.

[@chrisburn7178]

@@davidpnewton Yes the argument for the head game the mission must have played with Argentina's command is a very good one indeed, and I'm also sure that Ward isn't a military strategist. But his arguments from the point of view of cost, risk and also simple honour can't be ignored. The operation was paper-thin in terms of feasibility - one missed refuel (especially after the withdrawal of the lead bomber in such inauspicious circumstances) could have resulted in a bunch of men and machines in the ocean and major embarrassment. And the fact that he knew his men could do the same job better from a few tens of miles away - who's to say that wouldn't have resulted in a similar pull back by spooked Argentine forces once they saw holes appear in their runways from aircraft they'd never seen on radar? With no forward base they were on a tough wicket anyway. Total conjecture of course and heck it's a good yarn so who am I to criticise?

[@davidpnewton]

@@chrisburn7178 you forget that later in the war one of the missions did go totally wrong. It resulted in the Vulcan concerned being interned in Brazil for the duration of the war.

[@Alan-lv9rw]

I remember the war. I was 20 and in college in Illinois. IIRC, the British were mocked for the delayed response. But when they showed up, they kicked butt.

[@paulc9588]

The combination of the extremely capable Ferranti Blue Fox pulse doppler radar and the excellent AIM-9L Sidewinder was critical to the success of the Sea Harriers. You need an effective radar as well as an effective missile! Surprised there is no mention of this here.

[@patopato9668]

The blue fox got several problems, and didnt get a good lock down capability, the SH were guided by ships radars to intercept. After the war the radar was change to blue vixen.

[@paulc9588]

@@patopato9668 Blue Fox was actually a very decent system. Yes there were some issues as it was still not fully developed in 1982. When you go to war with something the strengths and weaknesses are clearly revealed! The much improved Blue Fox 2 arrived in 1985 and was later used as the basis for Blue Vixen. Blue Vixen itself did not enter service until 1992/3 with the Sea Harrier FA2 so the Blue Fox system in both variants was in use for ~15 years.

[@davec8730]

the only mentions are on written replies not the jingoistic video.

[@johnkendall6962]

The harrier pilots regularly trained against NATO pilots flying high performance fighters like the F-16 or the tornado. One pilot said they were a nightmare in a dogfight because of VIF. Dog fights are always subsonic and the Harriers had the unique ability to move in ways a conventional jet couldn't follow.

[@AA-xo9uw]

VIFFing - a technique developed by then Marine Corps Captain Harry Blot in 1970 - was never an operational tactic with the Brits. VIFFing is little more than a gimmick.

[@spawnof200]

the harrier was also a hot rod at low altitudes, it was aerodynamics that prevented it from going supersonic - not a lack of thrust.

[@gbickell]

That war also brought down the fascist military dictatorship of the Argentine Junta. A good result.

[@TheBioniXman]

I was stationed at RAF Gutersloh in Germany on Harriers at that time. I remember the hours that we put in to prepare and modify our GR3s to operate from carriers. Never drilled any holes in the aircraft to let sea water out though.

[@DragónVZLA55]

Soy venezolano, la guerra Malvinas/Malvinas es uno de los conflictos más interesantes. Según todos los informes, y puedo decir con seguridad una cosa: ninguna de las partes tenía una ventaja absoluta sobre la otra. Los argentinos por un lado. Poseía una enorme flota de combate de más de cien aviones de combate. Su ala de combate consistía en cazas Mirage IIIEA e IAI Mirage-V Dagger, armados con misiles Magic-I y Shafir II respectivamente. Su ala de combate consistía en aviones de ataque A-4B / C / Q Shykawk, bombarderos Canberra y aviones de ataque IA-58 Pucara. Pero hubo dos problemas que afectaron mucho a su flota. 1. Su ámbito de aplicación; la flota argentina estaba desprovista de pistas de despegue y aterrizaje en la zona. Dependiendo del 95% de las pistas del continente, los cazas Mirage III y Dagger no tenían reabastecimiento aéreo, por lo tanto, sus patrullas aéreas solo podían durar 5 o 7 minutos. Los A-4 eran los únicos con capacidad de reabastecimiento, pero sin la escolta de los Deltas argentinos tenían que volar al nivel del agua y totalmente indefensos contra los PACs británicos. Sumado al hecho de que el ala de ataque a tierra IA-58 fue destruida por el SAS en una operación magistral, dejó el apoyo terrestre en nada. Los británicos por otro, su ala de cazas navales Sea Harries para el combate aéreo con misiles AIM-9L Sidewinder. Con su ala de ataque de cazas Harriers Gr.3, bombarderos Avro Vulcan y varios helicópteros de ataque (que no mencionaré porque hay muchos). Aunque los británicos tenían una enorme superioridad tecnológica, sufrían de un número muy limitado de aviones para el teatro donde se llevaban a cabo los combates. Las parejas de Sea Harrier tuvieron que cubrir un área de patrulla que era dos veces más grande de lo que su alcance y tiempo de vuelo permitían, con aproximadamente el 69% de los PAC Harrier logrando interceptar a los grupos de ataque argentinos. Por otro lado, la mala comunicación entre los PAC fue otra contribución a este problema, además, el radar del Sea Harrier, Ferranti Blue Fox, demostró ser incapaz de atacar a los cazas argentinos en barrido bajo. Solo cuando las rutas de ataque pudieran descifrarse en medio del conflicto se podría usar la ventaja de los Harriers y Sidewinders. Los ataques terrestres se realizaron de manera extraña. Por un lado, los Harriers Gr.3 lograron destruir algunas posiciones en tierra, nunca lograron eliminar un activo importante, el radar Puerto Argentino/Stanley operó durante toda la guerra, mientras que las posiciones de artillería y búnkeres no fueron muy relevantes. en su uso. Como resumen, la guerra fue interesante, ambas fuerzas aéreas utilizaron el ingenio a mano para llevar a cabo sus tareas, hubo combates aéreos interesantes, como el 1 de mayo entre el Mirage III y Daggers contra los Sea Harriers, los ataques contra el Conventry y Shefield, la lucha en San Carlos como la primera batalla aérea naval moderna. Entre otros, pero si hay algo que decir, es que este conflicto abrió un nuevo paradigma para las estrategias aéreas que se tomarían pronto, ambas partes aprendieron de sus debilidades. Saludos desde Venezuela.

[@littleshep5502]

Just a quick point, Puerto Argentino doesn't exist, it never has, it was a name Argentina tried to apply during their invasion, but they failed

[@fernandog.dabramo9664]

Muy bueno y detallado su informe, con datos técnicos sobre ambas fuerzas. Sin duda la diferencia tecnológica del armamento jugó a favor de los británicos, y de nuestro lado debió compensarse con ingenio y coraje. Un dato es que las tropas argentinas no quisieron tomar acciones represivas sobre la población civil de las islas, a la cual por haber nacido en suelo que consideramos argentino, eran compatriotas argentinos por el ius soli, y porque se debía respetar a la población civil según los códigos de la guerra. Claro que fué ingenuo ya que colaboraron abiertamente con los británicos. Esto según lo que se escribió en medios según relatos de los oficiales y soldados. Cordial saludo.

[@cheesenoodles8316]

My Dad, an Aeronotical Engineer from the States visited this Museum after the conflict....he was of the opinion the British were spot on.

[@willsabri4815]

It's actually a common misconception that the Lema made all the difference when fighting the Argentinian jets, but in reality all missile shots were taken from positions in which an AIM-9G would have also got the kill, so the emphasis is actually a little misplaced on the supremacy of the 9L, not that it was a bad missile at all, just didn't make or brake the campaign.

[@kurtbjorn3841]

Sorry, the Lima variant was well beyond any previous AIM-9 missile in sensitivity, lethality, and maneverability. All aspect isn't just forward, it's from the side as well. If there's heat, the Lima will seek, and the probability of a kill was upper 90% if launched in parameters. IIRC there were 24 shots taken, 22 kills, and the 2 misses were kinematic... out of range.

[@dogsnads5634]

@@kurtbjorn3841 All of the Sidewinder kills were well within 9B and 9G parameters. It was as close to a perfect environment for IR missiles as there has ever been. UK 9B's and G's had also received some upgrades to the seekers, 2 of which are still classified to this day for an odd reason (to d with flare rejection). The only real advantage of 9L was that the Argentinian's knew that the UK had it after the Argentinian Air Force 707 was intercepted by a SHAR carrying 9L before the shooting started, it was bound to make them more cautious as a result.

[@stijnvandamme76]

you miss an important aspect AS 801 knew its job The flew low, at picket, had good radar, and intercepted argies on ingress. On incertept the argies had to drop their payload and RTB. Mission accomplished by NAS 801 NAS 800 did not have a good Radar, and they flew HIGH which made their radars even less effective. They failed their mission most of the time since the Argies DID get through ; DID bomb and 800 had to disingage the late intercept on ingress due to SAM envelopped of teh Ships And then 800 shot the argies the ass AFTER they accomplished their mission. 800 had more AA kills , shooting argies in the ass but Failed at their mission. 801 had less kills because the Argies turned and ran home before they got shot in the face.. Which is a mission success to 801 The Lima Sidewinder is still MUCH better seeker even at rear aspect then the old Sidewinders that the Argies had. And the argies knew it so they dumped and ran home before getting it in the face.. so the Lima DID make a difference

[@Coyote27981]

The only reason no harriers were lost to argentine fighters, is that aregntinian planes had inferior missiles (i think they were aim-9b). Many times they fired on harriers and none hit. You can bet that if those were aim-9L that would be a different story.

[@dogsnads5634]

@@Coyote27981 No Argentinian AAM's were fired. Thats been confirmed by both the Argentinian and British miitaries. I've no idea where you've got that idea from... No Argentinian fighter bombers carried AAM's on sorties over the island... Mirage III did on their initial sorties, but none were fired. They were then mainly withdrawn due to lack of range. A-4Q could carry AIM-4B, but if it did it could not carry a bomb...which was the entire point...so it never did.

[@AndyAshworth-h6w]

The sea harriers were able to intercept the argentinian air force as we were using the chilean radar stations, (sea book called my falklands war), there was even a british radar station operating in chile and a nimrod operated from chilean bases. No1 squadron using harriers actually did the first naval flying trials from hms eagle and were the ones who realised they could operate in worse weather than standard carrier aircraft. (809 squadron Roland White)

[@MadMatt13]

Incredible to hear the respect our veterans have for their old enemies.

[@jordanbeech12]

Once again out numbered but won. History doesn't lie. Never under estimate us Brits

[@maxostermeier4416]

Remember only USA keeps you running.

[@М62]

It's interesting to see the opinions and the different points of view that the British have about the Falklands War. I hope we can resolve this dispute over the Islands quickly and we can restore diplomatic relations between the UK and Argentina to what they used to be between the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (Sorry for my bad English) Greetings from Argentina.

[@vurtigoneiii275]

It's simple. Respect the rights of the islanders, the indigenous inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, to decide their own destiny. Whatever original claim you think Argentina inherited from Spain, and even if you wish to ignore Britain's claim that came before the Spanish claim, you should at least respect the rights of the people who live there and their democratic decision to remain a Crown Dependency. Argentina simply has no need of the Islands. There is no displaced or oppressed population to avenger or to liberate. The Islands have never been used as base to stage attacks on Argentina. The current ownership of the Islands doesn't affect Argentina in the slightest. The world has moved on and fighting over a piece of land only out of pride, greed and an age old sense of entitlement and then ignoring the will of the people who live there should be relegated to history. There's really nothing left to say on the matter. I don't mean this with any hostility. I am sad this conflict had to happen at all and I bare absolutely no ill will against the Argentinian people. But the political establishment of Argentina needs to drop it and stop using the poor islanders in a pawn to distract their own people from the failures of government. Respect democracy. That's all I ask.

[@random6809]

@El Mazorquero The only opinion that matters is that of the people who live on the Falklands. Once Argentina stop using the dispute as a political ploy for the whipping up nationalism in Argentina, then maybe your country can move on?

[@М62]

@@random6809 Unfortunately not because the problems that my country is going through have nothing to do with the Islands, the problem is the incompetent socialist politicians who are in power and who do not care about the people, in fact the Malvinas war was a form of "distract" the population to show them that the military was doing a good job and so they could stay in power for a few more years. My country was under a dictatorship from 1976 to the end of 1982 and although we are no longer under a dictatorship personally I do NOT think we returned to democracy in 1983 to this day. Things have not changed much because politicians continue to blame others, for example, they blame the Russian-Ukrainian war for the economic problems we are experiencing or they blame the previous government. (Since 2018 we have been in crisis )

[@random6809]

@@М62 Whatever system of government is in place in whatever country, the one thing I am sure we can agree on is that they don't care about the people and will invent a crisis to divert attention from their failings. The UK is no different. The Falklands conflict resulted in an unpopular Prime Minister being re-elected.

[@jbx-]

Don Juan Manuel de Rosas Argentina’s only claim to the islands are it’s geographical location, that somehow if it’s closely located therefore it must be yours.. that in itself is a deeply flawed position. The reality is Argentina was indeed ran by crazy people at the time, but the sentiment among the argentine public is a negative one towards the British. Britain showed no aggression to Argentina whatsoever and had an overseas territory attacked for no reason, in your schools your youth are told they’re argentine, therefore extending anti british sentiment and creating another generation who may become adventurous, again. Although the U.K. armed forces are not as big as they once wore, the actual capabilities are much greater modern day and are only going to improve. British experience world wide and ingenuity/engineering of modern armaments are extremely good. Argentina would be crazy to attempt something similar in the future, even if it had Russian or Chinese help. I believe france landed there first, didn’t claim them and stayed for a short period of time. The British then landed there, claimed them and stayed for a while. Then given the British had many foes at the time, left and France returned and try to claim them. The British informed them that they’d been claimed already. France accepted this decision and the British inhabited them once again. A short while later France tried to get Spain (which colonised Argentina at that time), to join them in combining to defeat the Royal Navy. France promised Spain the islands. Spain then ceded independence to Argentina and have Argentina the falklands, thus Argentinians think they own them and that due to proximity that’s true. However, the islands were never Spain’s to give and as previously mentioned, geography makes no difference. Many nations claim arctic and Antarctic territory including Argentina! But are many thousands of miles away. Spain itself owns land in Africa, France in South America and so forth. To finish, I hope every Argentinian government moving forward dosent try to pin financial woes at home to some Fake motive to get the islands back, it won’t end well for Argentina. Argentina, if it accepted British sovereignty and the islanders wish to live there could gain so much more from a positive W relationship with the U.K. There could be joint oil and gas exploration, mutual trade and given the U.K. has a substantially bigger economy it would be a good market for argentine agricultural goods. Why not pursue that? Why educate the youth and Lure them into a false sense of belief and potentially put them and future generations at risk of another deader to the British military but the next time it would be much more one sided 🤷‍♂️

[@ajam60]

Superior training and tactics allowed the man behind the machine to overcome a numerical advantage. Amazing!

[@LordKingPotato]

Sea Harrier was a legendary, multi role aircraft that showed who was boss.💪🇬🇧

[@tims2501]

Without US supplying sidewinders it would have been useless. Put the Harrier up against F-4 or F-14 with USN pilots.

[@iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii7738]

@@tims2501 Bro who tf asked literally out here replying to every comment like ‘uGh AcTcHuAlLy tHe SiDeWiNdEr’ literally nobody cares you can keep telling yourself it was the Americans who saved us poor defenceless Brits all you want but at least shut up abt it

[@urmum3773]

​@@tims2501 At least you tried, yank. The F-4 and F-14 serve different purposes to the harrier, and the sidewinders were used just as conventional air to air missiles are used (straight from behind not from the side). British military training and tactics is indisputably (except for by insecure Anglophobes) more advanced than the American military, you train with us, not the other way round.

[@stephenphillip5656]

If ever you needed proof of the saying "It's not the size of the dog in the fight which counts, it's the size of the fight in the dog" this is it. The air battle was hard won (& I pay due respect to the Argentine air force here) but not for the first time in our history, British land, sea & air forces proved that adaptability, training & dedication count for more than sheer numbers. The Harrier won its spurs as well. Britain received much help from America, Chile and France (who I understand prevented Argentina from replacing missiles & spares for aircraft) & other friendly nations but a British victory still wasn't a "done deal".

[@jetpigeon8758]

Although the Royal Navy did indeed suffer some loses, many years later information was released from the Ministry of Defence, that should it look likely that the British forces would lose the war in the Falklands, there was a signed document with plans to attack Buenos Aires with a nuclear device. Fortunately this was not required. In Britain government documents are not allowed to be released to the public/press until a certain number of years have passed, I think it is 25 or 30 years, and this information was brought to light.

[@el_Contra]

@@jetpigeon8758 that is such a ridiculous statement, the city (and in the rest of Argentina) at that time had a huge english population, many economic interests owned by them... a lot of property owned by even english royals...