Harrier vs Mirage: The Falklands Air War

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Go to buyraycon.com/rwf to get up to 25% off sitewide on Raycon products! Brought to you by Raycon.

[@philswift791]

Thank you for this. I lived through this in the states, I didn't recall all of the ships that were lost. I relearned a great deal.

[@steveperreira5850]

Very well done. I watch a lot of military documentaries. You laid it out pretty straight and even here. Lucky for the British that the Argentine Air Force was relatively weak, otherwise their entire flotilla would have been sunk, and they would’ve lost the war. Even a dozen more Exocet, Game over. Not taking away from either side but luck is a big deal.

[@captainmatthew661]

did you say reconquest at 1:25? they never owned this island or conquered it before so its more accurate to say conquest. apart from that minor mistake great video.

[@peterbrackenbury192]

​@steveperreira5850 or the British never bombed the mainland, which as they bombed the island, could have had an affect on the war too.

[@alexbramley6346]

@@philswift791 you relearned?

[@PvtChuff]

'the harriers and the carriers required barriers' .. i feel a song coming.. love it

[@JohnnySmith.]

Ha!ha!ha! "Altogether now...

[@colonelfustercluck486]

precisely...... I could feel one coming on too. If only they required farriers.....

[@johnmoran7954]

I liked that one too.

[@MrHws5mp]

Pretty good video, but I did notice some errors. Corrections: 1. The Mirage IIIE did NOT have extra fuel in the fuselage stretch behind the cockpit, rather it had a nav/attack system there to make it a multi-purpose fighter-bomber (nuclear-armed in French service). The Mirage 5 moved the nav/attack system into the nose, displacing the radar, in order to use the fuselage stretch for fuel, as per the Israeli request. 2. The Sea Harrier radar was called Blue Fox, not Seaspray. Seaspray was the radar in the RN version of the Lynx helicopter. Blue Fox used some components from Seaspray, but was by no means the same. 3. CAP stands for Combat Air Patrol, not Close Air Patrol. 4. At 22:29, HMS Brilliant couldn't have fired a Sea Dart at the Canberra because she didn't carry them. Brilliant was a Type 22 frigate, armed with the short range Sea Wolf. I don't know what engagement you're referring to here, since the first use of Sea Dart was by HMS Coventry on 09may82 against a pair of Learjets.

[@hazchemel]

Excellent, thanks for the notes.

[@MasterCheeks-2552]

HMS Cardiff shot down an Argentinian Canberra with its Sea Dart missiles

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thanks for these corrections - I must’ve been mixing up my reading on the Mirage Vs and the Mirage III.

[@MrHws5mp]

@@MasterCheeks-2552 She did, but that wasn't until the 13th of June. Cardiff wasn't even in theatre on 01may82: she came down with the "HMS Bristol group" on 26may82.

[@mitchcompton5929]

how did you just know this info that’s crazy

[@anthonyhayes1267]

Whoever named it the sea slug missile had to know that wouldn't inspire confidence

[@richardvernon317]

Sea Slug was a code name that dated from 1944!!

[@matthewblake1884]

Slug is another word for bullet. Usually used in the context of large, single piece shotgun munitions

[@WanderlustZero]

On the other hand, as a Metal Slug fan I love it

[@laurencedawson7754]

Sea slug!! It's brilliant, it was a huge missile too, I think a few were fired during the war......with no success!!!

[@MardukTheSunGodInsideMe]

"I slugged that guy and knocked him out" is another way of looking at "slug". But it's also another word for a projectile.

[@Wien1938]

I can't remember which presentation/lecture it was but I remember the speaker pointed out that the Royal Navy of 1982 was not designed to operate independently. The ship build design was to operate within a NATO (USN) context, where the carrier/Sea Harrier combination was intended to (as you point out) deal with long range four-engine recon. Same with Sea Dart - not good at low level and excellent at medium to high level engagements. Sea Wolf was intended for point defence. The RN got VERY lucky in 1982 and was not always well led. If the CVA-01 project had not fallen in under the (dreadful) 1960s governments, the RN would have had HMS QE would have fielded 18 Phantom FG.1s, 18 Buccaner SR.2s as well as helicopters. Long ranged, supersonic Phantoms operating with Sky Flash and AIM-9L with a good radar would have made a huge difference.

[@GarethFairclough]

Ngl, they could have kept eagle or ark royal and operated phantoms that way, too. Such a massive mistake to keep ark royal over Eagle, imo. AK was always in a far worse material condition and was never going to last as long as Eagle might have, if she had been allowed to.

[@Wien1938]

@GarethFairclough Budget cutting, cutting, cutting. Everything is too expensive and must be pared down. A familiar tale from the Treasury.

[@Wien1938]

@GarethFairclough The story goes that Ark Royal's captain pulled favours to have his ship modernised over Eagle, even though Ark Royal was in much worse condition.

[@brucemcpherson8832]

The weather was so bad most of the time that the buccaneers and phantoms would not have been able to operate. Because it could stop and then land rather than land and then stop the Harrier was the only aircraft that could operate without weather limitations

[@xXBisquitsXx]

I wonder how much equipment and lives would have been saved had they not cut the navy so harshly. Would be interesting to know what they saved compared to how much replacing the lost ships and equipment cost, not to mention the lives that could have been saved on both sides considering one of the major reason Argentina started the war was because of said budget cuts and the seeming weakness of the UK.

[@richardsimpson3792]

What do you mean 'reconquest'? Historic fact. Argentina never ruled the Falklands until the unprovoked invasion of 1982. Britain claimed the Falklands in 1690. Argentina only became a nation in 1816. Argentina's claim is based upon the misconception that they somehow inherited the islands from Spain.

[@alex-E7WHU]

Argentinians talking Spanish whilst calling Britain the colonialists 😂😂😂

[@Garcheezy]

britain claimed or invaded literally 1/2 of the world, so that doesnt mean anything. Britain is literally the biggest and worst colonialist of them all (together with france).

[@oneenglishbastard87]

He sounds Irish, so he's probably still bitter about us slapping them around for 800 years and has sympathy for a fellow receiver of the English palm

[@Bartoi]

You cant reconquest an Island you never conquererd.

[@MardukTheSunGodInsideMe]

This is very similar to China and it's claims of the 9 dash line or their borders with India.

[@Resardiv]

We're eating well today.

[@kayezero703]

Am eating rn lol

[@vvulcan21]

@@kayezero703 same lol

[@ohoh7570]

real

[@MonkPetite]

A nice Argentina steak 🥩. Perfectly imported by a massive container ship.

[@lutking2544]

can't eat without youtube

[@PitFriend1]

It really would have gone worse for the Royal Navy if the Argentinians put proper fuses in their bombs. They scored a surprising number of direct hits that just didn’t explode due to the altitude they dropped them from. It’s ironic that the pilots were too good in their attack runs to succeed.

[@hazchemel]

Totally, and lots of RN casualties. The pilots of both sides were really very good, credits to their respective forces.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

They were not the wrong fuse. The reason the bombs did not explode was that aircraft were forced to fly lower under the flak rendering the fuse settings useless. The bombs knocked holes in ships but did not explode.

[@slacko1971]

They soon corrected this when the British media reported this fact.

[@richardvernon317]

@@slacko1971 No they didn't!!! The Argentinians never changed anything on their bomb fuzes as they were set to the minimum to start with!!

[@winningjubbly9712]

The Argentinian pilots were by far the most dangerous part of their military. They were excellent and very brave. Unfortunately for Argentina their troops were no match for Britain's land forces. Many of the Argentinian troops were conscripts, whereas Britain sent her elite troops -- The Parachute Regiment, Royal Marines, Scots Guards, Welsh Guards, to name a few -- and UK special forces, 22 SAS and SBS, were in-theatre causing havoc. UK forces were losing a ship per day, which very nearly ended the war, but the truth was from the moment the UK landed her ground troops the end was no longer in doubt. Argentinian troops were starving -- local farmers reported losing sheep that were killed and bones picked clean by desperate Argentinian soldiers. It should be noted that the Argentinian Officer class were given rations of a far higher quality, including small bottles of liquor! The Argentinian ground forces did have professional outfits on the islands, like Marine forces which were highly trained and motivated, and it was these forces that defended Mount Tumbledown. They were well equipped and even had night scope technology that far exceeded anything used by UK forces. The Scots Guards were the ones tasked to take Tumbledown, which they did with their typical professionalism, even though they lost some men during the fighting. Many things went against the British during the war, but the one thing that proved the most telling in the end was the quality of the British troops the Argentinians faced. In the end they were just far too good. Argentinian Marine troops were very good, but they weren't present in anything like the numbers needed to trouble the British for too long. And when the conscripts went up against elite British troops it was only going to end one way. Argentinian special forces were active on the islands, but the few clashes with British SF, like when an SBS team discovered an Argentinian SF hideout at Top Malo House, the clash was as violent as it was brief.

[@Argentvs]

The Air Force was trained towards a continental two front war against Brazil and Chile. Their bombs were for ground attack. They had to crash course on naval warfare 2 weeks using the Navy's D-42 destroyers. They used WWII fuses that required a propeller driven screw to spin to arm. They had a 3 second delay in order to allow the fighter to escape the blast zone. The Air Force didn't know the bombs were failing to explode until after the BBC itself reported it. Then they switched to double fuses with a safe electronic KAPPA III fuse that would detonate the bombs after a time set upon release. They also changed some bombs to national industry FAS series. But it was all too late. They chose 500 and 1000 lbs bombs that came after WWII as they seemed the right choice to sink ships like they did back then. As the Air Force was geared towards land war they didn't have bombs with air brakes like the navy had on the A-4Q. This the success rate of the snake eye air drag bombs was higher but the A-4Q fleet was small. Also the Navy sabotaged the combat effort by withholding information and resources against the other forces. The naval top command saw it as an opportunity to damage the power of the Air Force and Army. The Air Force had to use 707, C-130, Learjets for exploration and decoy missions while the Navy didn't share efforts using the Trackers, Sea Kings, Neptune's. Imagine they lied at the beginning assuring their intelligence said UK wouldn't respond. The Air Force was the only force that saw they would and started to prepare to improvise a conflict plan and training.

[@shaunmcclory8117]

Your comment reminded me that Adolph Galland had a huge influence on Argentinas air force, probably not so much by 1982 though!

[@Argentvs]

@shaunmcclory8117 yes. He reformed the FAA fighter groups applying his experience. Funny thing is he trained our pilots using the Meteors.

[@steveperreira5850]

Pretty shocking revelations, But since nothing is stupider than the government, the government anywhere, it really doesn’t surprise me that much. Government people are the dumbest motherfuckers in the world! That includes the military

[@shaunmcclory8117]

@@Argentvs yes the pilot survived and became a bit of a legend to the Harrier pilots,after his aircraft was raked with 30mm canon fire from a harrier Major Juan Tomba carried on flying managing to stay with his severely damaged pucara until he was able to get down safely, he was later taken prisoner at Goose green and eventually became an interpreter helping both sides😎

[@Blayda1]

@@shaunmcclory8117 The Pucara pilots were known as "Great stick and rudder pilots" .. they had the admiration of our airforce for doing what they did . The Pucara went through trials in the UK after some were brought back but werent suitable for what we were expecting IE attacks into Europe by the then CCCP.

[@firstnamesurname6130]

1:20 there was never an Argentine "reconquest" of the Falklands. Argentina had never occupied the Falklands before that point.

[@Coyote27981]

Funny cause your ships took Argentineans of the islands in 1833. And the US Navy attacked the Argentinean settlement in 1831. For not being there, we were there a lot.

[@2ndcomingofFritz]

@@Coyote27981 Weren’t there first though. In fact Argentina was like the 4th country to control the falklands. Britain being before them. Try again argie.

[@APFS-DS]

@@2ndcomingofFritz argentina controlled the falklands since the cambrian explosion! at least according some argie

[@georgebarnes8163]

@@Coyote27981 Argentina never even existed as a country until 1861, read a history book before commenting.

[@Foxtrop13]

"utis possidetis juris" dont you know nothing about international right?

[@bohicajohnson7203]

It was not a reqonquest. The Argentines never held sovereignty over the Falklands

[@tuff9486]

literally not true.

[@Mediamarked]

@@tuff9486 provide literal facts?

[@tuff9486]

@Mediamarked already wrote it further down the comment section. The brittish claim starts in 1833 with the illegal occupation of the islands from Argentina. So Argentina not owning the islands is just a blatant lie.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

@@tuff9486 why not roll back to 1816 lines? That does mean giving a lot of land to Chile though. General Roca massively extended Argentine borders not to mention the north too. After independence in 1816 there was a rapid expansion of the borders culminating by 1900 with Argentina being the richest per capita in the world. There used to be a saying "... as rich as an Argentine". There is a reason the phone boxes in Buenos Aires looks like the ones in london as do the public post boxes. The uk was the most significant trading partner before the USA took over. The irony is that In the 1940s and 1950s, the British government offered to submit the sovereignty dispute to international arbitration, but Argentina declined.

[@tuff9486]

@@mrrolandlawrence Brittain built the massive railways and aided much in infrastructure, the french built the buildings together with the italians, the germans, italians and french contributed to the food. There was a lot of culture diverging in Argentina. The Brittish where one of the best investors. But it doesn´t mean that the UK didn´t fuck over Argentina. IN 1845 they tried to sail up the La Plata River against Argentina´s will. They are the reason why Uruguay is not part of Argentina, and why Paraguay is not another province of Argentina. Argentina did not decline, because the islands where never offered. between 1950-80s they where however about to hand over the islands, and there was a lot of negotiations. The Brittish where stubborn however and broke international law by trying to explout resources there. But the Argentine junta tried to take them by force in the 80s, and here we are today. It is inevitable that they will return to Argentina. I hope it is never by force though. the UK spends 60 million pounds on them yearly, with an increasing cost of 1 million pounds every year. The only thing Argentina has to do is smirk, and the UK wastes money it doesn´t have, on something it should have or has any need of. 1 in 4 children live in poverty in the UK, and many can´t afford to eat 3 times a day. Argentina is now recovering economically, and Militarily, which means that the UK will have to spend even more on this last vestige of colonialism. For the sake of honor? pride of a long gone Empire? Is it worth it?

[@tallshort1849]

Interesting observations. Yes the Harrier performed well when it was actually in combat but getting it into combat to protect the ships wasn't easy at all. If the Royal Navy lost that many ships in a conflict today it would completely finish it.

[@mosesracal6758]

Its totally ridiculous. The Royal Navy lost 6 modern warships and it still had more in reserves but those mustve been expensive losses compared to the jets that the Argentinians lost and even more expensive to replace. If it had happened today, 6 ships wouldve been absolutely devastating to any naval power.

[@MasterCheeks-2552]

@@mosesracal6758 The Royal Navy lost 4 warships. Two of those were cheap Type 21 frigates designed for international export.

[@st1nk1n]

And likewise, in WWII the RN had many more escorts. Older ships are far less capable than today. What would you pick for your fleet now... 20 WWII escorts, 8 Falklands era ships or 2 Type 45 destroyers? Modern war ships can fill the boots of many more older units. Many of the RN escorts taking part in the Faslklands conflict were old for the day and next to useless for air defence in that scenario. Compared to today, 1 or 2 type 45s would down the entire AAF, they would not need as many units.

[@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming]

Different navy today. The firepower and capability of one T45’s alone would be a platform that could close the Falklands off from the South American mainland.,

[@MardukTheSunGodInsideMe]

​@@st1nk1n I don't think a new type 45 could pick up and intercept any low RCS jet with a long range standoff attack munition. In the blink of an eye a 4 billion dollar destroyer can become obsolete.

[@Will_CH1]

"Reconquest" Argentine troops never "Reconquered" the Falklands. These islands were British territory before Argentina was a country.

[@dmctztv3842]

i guess the moon belongs to the us then

[@Will_CH1]

@@dmctztv3842 The last time I checked, there were a couple of US flags planted on it. That infers it was claimed by the US. As for Falklands, the inhabitants are British, not Argentinian.

[@dmctztv3842]

@@Will_CH1 the inhabitants arrived more than a cetury after argentina was founded, i just corrected you comment. dont get mad at facts.

[@Will_CH1]

@@dmctztv3842 i am not mad at anything. Port Stanley was settled by the Scottish Pastoralists and became a crown colony in 1840. Argentina gained independence in 1816 but never held dominion over the Falklands.

[@georgebarnes8163]

@@Will_CH1 1861

[@GregStonham]

Good to hear your analysis beyond the kill ratio, I hadn't thought of it in those terms before. Subscribed. Thanks.

[@atinofspam3433]

6:42 “Oi lads where did we put the carrier?”

[@theMooly]

😂

[@martinhulin]

clicked faster then my father could loosen screws with his red wrench

[@cammrlw]

Another argie chiming in to commend the fantastic production quality as always, and as others pointed out, the emphasis on a balanced perspective on the goals and the resources, such as aircraft and naval assets, available to both sides. I love this channel, thank you so much for this!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Much appreciated!

[@running2standstill685]

Great work on the video. Saw the picture of HMS Antelope exploding at night in either time or newsweek back then. This video showed a different angle to the airwar in falklands. Shocking that the british lost 6 ships and more were damaged, but these losses were unavoidable as she had no choice but to defend/retake her territory and thats none negotiable.

[@dalebesaw9699]

That was a very good video. Even though I was an adult at the time, I wasn't able to monitor the actual progress of the British victory in the Falklands. Thank you for your documentary.

[@Nickrioblanco1]

Your "WHAT IS THAT ..." earned you an immediate like and subscribe.

[@Otokichi786]

10:40 CAP = Combat Air Patrol (A World War II acronym.) 14:07 Air combat begins.

[@muwuny]

1:21 Not a "reconquest", they never owned it

[@skintiket9681]

@muwuny read this: first recorded landing was in the 1540s by Spanish sailors who mapped the islands and called them Soledad. It's a repeated British lie that they discovered in 1690. The Spanish made maps about them a century earlier. Buenos Aires controlled the islands in 1770 when they evicted the English post. Spain was us, it didn't magically control territory from Europe. It was the autonomous viceroyalties who did. The islands were abandoned during the Napoleonic Wars and then revisited by Buenos Aires in the 1820s after the independence, claiming sovereignty over all territories and claims under the Viceroyalty. The English came in 1833 guns blazing and invaded them. Duke of Wellington himself, before 33, said in the parliament that he wasn't sure they ever had any legitimate claim on the islands so far south after Buenos Aires settled a ranching colony in 1829

[@HarryFlashmanVC]

​@skintiket9681 yawn... possession is 9/10 ths of the law. Suck it up Besides in the 21st C sovereignty is a matter for those who live there. If and when the population of the Falklands decides it no longer wishes to be British subjects they are happy to leave and become whatever. And as there was no indigenous population on Falkland then there's no argument along those lines either. #cope

[@alex-E7WHU]

​@@skintiket9681 so according to you, Spain has a claim on the islands. Maybe the problem goes deeper than just the islands, maybe you should get out of Argentina as you are obviously the colonial usurpers.

[@alexbramley6346]

@@skintiket9681 why do I think you have never read that?

[@alexbramley6346]

I think you suck it up like juice, not reading

[@SP3NTT]

I've watched plenty of content on the Falklands, but this is one of the better videos on there on the air war. Thanks for the solid content!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@shingshongshamalama]

The death of the British aerospace industry is almost as infuriating and almost as tragic as the death of the British shipbuilding industry.

[@extragoogleaccount6061]

The English not building ships is …… weird.

[@MardukTheSunGodInsideMe]

British human building industry is also in a lot of trouble.

[@Jts-s8k]

Didn't Britain just build two state of the art aircraft carriers?

[@Tojeaux_]

@@Jts-s8k It pales in comparison to their output in the 20th century though. The UK used to be a technological leader in Shipbuilding and Aviation only for a certain lady's government to deregulate and consolidate both industries to pay off capitalist friends. British (and on a similar point American) industry are a shadow of their former selves because of capitalists shipping jobs off to foreign countries.

[@bigp9172]

Tyne built ships is what the navy is missing 😅

[@Pucaramodels]

Great video, I really liked it seemed rather neutral which is sadly hard to find. The dagger is one of my favourite aircraft, it just looks really elegant. Although we lost, I think we did fairly well for a badly planned war (not the fault of the pilots) and we showed the world the bravery of south american pilots. I talked to Luis Alberto Puga (dagger pilot) for a bit and he seems to be a really respectful and calm person. NHQP!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@Pucaramodels I’m glad you found it neutral! Unfortunately a lot of English language documentaries about the conflict are (somewhat understandably) a bit biased, and I was trying my best to avoid that.

[@Pucaramodels]

You did great. Argentinean documentaries are also really biased.

[@FvnnThr]

@@RedWrenchFilms Calling it a reconquest already shows you're being biased against the British, no reason to watch further tbh.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@FvnnThr See you later!

[@Nicolas-zw5ex]

​@@FvnnThr The british are already biased saying it belonged to them while trying to avoid any type of negotiation

[@niyanlan8928]

You might know them ‘correctly’ as the Falklands.

[@kartoffel4870]

1:21 reconquest? Argentina never owned the falklands, Spain never owned them. They were uninhabited prior to British settlement.

[@gabrielmalaguti5512]

I heard that as him starting from the Argentine perspective and the justification used for this ridiculousness

[@Tanquismo207]

Yes, i might be an argentinian taught by my own school that you're supposedly wrong. But: -This video isn't about political discussion -perhaps, how can we prove eachother wrong?

[@rubiconnn]

Man the British get real butt mad if you question their colonizer motivations

[@E.hexzor]

Spain technically owned the Falklands for a short period, but they didn't contest the British claim, so it's a non-factor

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@kartoffel4870 Depends who you ask. The United Provinces (precursor to Argentina) had de facto control for a number of years.

[@Sandhoeflyerhome]

You have a basic error at 10:45.. You say - CAP stands for = Close Air Patrol. It actually stands for ... = COMBAT AIR PATROL. Which could be a few hundred miles form the carrier so not close at all.

[@theymusthatetesla3186]

At first, I thought "I'm not sitting through 38 minutes of this!" ......but i DID! Fascinating stuff, well done!

[@schwerenevonyildi1315]

9:53 I know you had fun writing that line

[@DTXShadows]

bars frfr

[@Marpaparp]

R Lee Eremy soundbite just reminded me that the US Marines also used the harrier

[@Daveyboy1066]

It wasn't a re-conquest since Argentina had never before conquered them, only Spain had!

[@Foxtrop13]

utis possidetis juris

[@kelvinluk9121]

@@Foxtrop13 Then falklands shouldn't be a part of Argentina under "utis possidetis juris" right? As it was not a part of Argentina under Spain's colonial rule

[@Foxtrop13]

@@kelvinluk9121 it was during may revolt, and the island were supplied by buenos aires ships during that time

[@tuff9486]

@@kelvinluk9121 The Islands where directly controlled by Buenos Aires for a hundred years, then for over a decade as independent. Before the brittish came for slaugther, like they always do. The brittish claim is illegal and is only long term usurpation from 1833 onwards.

[@steverobbins4274]

Re conquest of the islands? "The English captain John Strong made the first recorded landing in the Falklands, in 1690, and named the sound between the two main islands after Viscount Falkland, a British naval official. The name was later applied to the whole island group." The Argentine claim is that the Spanish once claimed them. The Argentinians have never been in control of the Falklands so they could never perform a reconquest.

[@andresbastanchuri3666]

For a very very short period in the 1830 or 40s I think argentina was

[@Argentvs]

@@steverobbins4274 first recorded landing was in the 1540s by Spanish sailors who mapped the islands and called them Soledad. It's a repeated British lie that they discovered in 1690. The Spanish made maps about them a century earlier. Buenos Aires controlled the islands in 1770 when they evicted the English post. Spain was us, it didn't magically control territory from Europe. It was the autonomous viceroyalties who did. The islands were abandoned during the Napoleonic Wars and then revisited by Buenos Aires in the 1820s after the independence, claiming sovereignty over all territories and claims under the Viceroyalty. The English came in 1833 guns blazing and invaded them. Duke of Wellington himself, before 33, said in the parliament that he wasn't sure they ever had any legitimate claim on the islands so far south after Buenos Aires settled a ranching colony in 1829.

[@gr_egg]

​@@Argentvs bongs lied about something? Stop it...

[@Argentvs]

@@gr_egg yes, the English, lied as always. The Perfidious of Albion always, never believe a politician or an Englishman.

[@JohnCooper-gm6mn]

First undisputed recording of the islands' discovery was by the British in 1690, there is no evidence to back up a claim that they were discovered in 1540's. And the spurious connections because of previous national status are laughable. Because Canada was once part of the British Empire, does it have a claim to Bermuda? How about Egypt claiming the Canary Islands because both Egypt and Spain were once part of the Roman Empire? Mind you, given the Argentinian approach to claiming territory, I'm surprised they haven't tried taking the Canary Islands for themselves too. "If it was Spanish then it's now ours because we were Spain." No, you weren't Spain, you were a Spanish territory, a collection of colonies. You did not exist as a sovereign nation until 1852. Grown up, quit your whinging and get over yourselves. 😂

[@IntrospectorGeneral]

Two months before the Falklands war commenced the sale of Invincible to Australia for £175,000,000 was announced. At that time Invincible had only been accepted into Royal Navy service 18 months previously. The design was less than 10 years old. UK defense policy was shambolic.

[@richardsimpson3792]

and it was Mrs Thatchers fault...but somehow she was allowed to claim credit for this 'victory'

[@tomfreeman650]

Yes Thatchers fault cut the military to the bone

[@laurencedawson7754]

Apparently when it started she asked about using arc royal with her phantoms and buccaneers.....and had to be reminded that it had been scraped under their defence cuts...

[@Baud2Bits]

Invincible had been sold. I was booked to travel on Brilliant to Aus in 82. 10 Weeks commonwealth games and then handover of Invincible. Was very much looking foward to the trip. I got Broadsword and bombed instead. Had the junta waited a couple of months, Invincible would have been gone and half the fleet moth-balled. Instead they chose to invade at the time the UK had just completed its largest deployment in years [Operation Springtrain] with a sizeable fleet sat at Gibraltar.

[@SimonAmazingClarke]

Our small Naval force took on the entire Argentine Air Force. Due to its limitations it couldn't protect everyone all of the time. The Harrier wasn't designed to be the only aircraft in a war zone, it was usually covered by Phantoms and Jaguars. Yes, I'm bias, but I think the Harrier did excellent considering it's limitations

[@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming]

The Jag wasn't designed as an air superiority fighter. Its primary role was ground attack. The Tornado ASF was the first aircraft stationed in the Falklands after the Argentines had surrendered.

[@kevinlindstrom6752]

The Full Metal Jacket reference got me.

[@OwDo]

well balanced and presentad video. Lots of good people on both sides fought. Good that you highlighted the successes and losses on both sides.

[@winningjubbly9712]

Argentina have got their work cut out for them trying to make their argument for the islands belonging to them when you consider the fact that the Falklands belonged to the UK from even before Argentina existed as a country.

[@schwarzok]

Explain yourself

[@winningjubbly9712]

@schwarzok -- Explain myself? What's that mean? My comment is a demonstrable fact, a fact anyone who looked into the Falkland Islands' history would discover themselves. The UK had its flag in the islands' mud even before Argentina itself existed as a nation. That's not even contentious. It's just happens to be true.

[@dmctztv3842]

@@winningjubbly9712 putting a flag on a deserted island 1500 miles ago and leaving doesnt make it yours. it became part of the UK in the 20 century when the first brits started settling, so no you are wrong.

[@nzgunnie]

@@dmctztv3842 First British settlement in 1765.

[@jontalbot1]

@@dmctztv3842 If you believe in a peoples’ right to self determination then the views of the islanders are perfectly clear. They regard themselves as British. You are wrong in fact and principle.

[@Thekakarote96]

I love this series of "Dogfight", please do continue !! I would propose maybe the battle of britain as a classic prop duel ? I don't quite know the jet battles sadly

[@martinhogg5337]

Can’t be a “reconquest” as Argentina never had sovereignty over the Falklands. The islands were never part of Argentina historically.

[@ZephirumNick]

Impressive video, regardless of some hate comments, i'm from Argentina and i'm in a DCS (Digital Combat Simulator) squad, the guy who makes those virtual missions had interviewed some pilots from the south atlantic conflict and we recreate those fights in the simulator, it's an amazing oportunity to virtually kinda feel what they felt, argentine pilots didn't have any countermessures, neither Radar Warning Receivers telling they've been spotted by radar, nor air to air radars on board, their navigation was dead reckoning aside from few planes which had the Omega navigation system usually the leader of the formation and guidance from (during the ocupation) Puerto Argentino's radar, so it was a huge challenge from both sides both logistacally from the british too where just happend to much so this video really helps to understand that regardless the raw numbers, every little details matters to understand this conflict

[@99IronDuke]

The most important issue for the Royal Navy was the lack of Airborne Early Warning. A AEW equipped Sea King was developed just too late for the war. These days the RN uses a AEW version of the Merlin.

[@HankD13]

Argentina decided to "reconquer" the Islands... Er, nope. The first claim to the Falklands was made by Britain in 1690 by a British captain and established a garrison. Spain made a claim in 1713, The British temporarily left the Islands due to American war of Independence - but left a marker stating their continued claim. Spain made a claim - often at war with Britain. Argentina came into existence in 1816 - and decided to adopt the Spanish claim. Hardly a "reconquest" of something they never had.

[@Coyote27981]

You do know those islands were claimed and inhabited since 1530, right? Even the UK accepted ownership of the islands by the Spanish, who in turn allowed a british settlement of whalers. And the Spanish werent even the first who settled there, but the French. Dont try to white wash history, just accept they were taken by force in 1833. Just like you did in Gibraltar.

[@HankD13]

@@Coyote27981 First recorded discovery was by a British captain 1592. There are other claims, with any actual record - Portuguese seem to have the first. An "unknown" Spanish ship, record is also cited as a discoverer. The French established a colony in 1764. In 1765 the British established a colony. The French agreed to leave to Spain who claimed everything under that Papal decree - and tried to force the British off, and failed. Due to the American War of Independence the British chose to leave, 1774 but maintained their claim, British whalers being the only visitors until Spain turned up in 1780 and forced them out. Spain withdrew in 1811, leaving a claim plaque as the British had done. The British returned in 1833, and without any fight or force, despite and Irishman looking for one, reasserted their claim from 1690 and have been there ever since. Gibraltar? Yep - war does that kind of thing. If the Spanish Armada had succeeded who knows! The people have lived there for the last 200 years, and for some reason are quite united in the desire to remain a part of the UK. (like Gibraltar)

[@johnthegingerbloke]

What’s with saying the argentines were trying to reconquest the falklands? When had the argentines controlled the Falkland Islands?

[@georgebarnes8163]

never

[@Garcheezy]

first recorded landing was in the 1540s by Spanish sailors who mapped the islands and called them Soledad. It's a repeated British lie that they discovered in 1690. The Spanish made maps about them a century earlier. Buenos Aires controlled the islands in 1770 when they evicted the English post. Spain was us, it didn't magically control territory from Europe. It was the autonomous viceroyalties who did. The islands were abandoned during the Napoleonic Wars and then revisited by Buenos Aires in the 1820s after the independence, claiming sovereignty over all territories and claims under the Viceroyalty. The English came in 1833 guns blazing and invaded them. Duke of Wellington himself, before 33, said in the parliament that he wasn't sure they ever had any legitimate claim on the islands so far south after Buenos Aires settled a ranching colony in 1829

[@colonelfustercluck486]

THey did at one stage..... it's on the Google search engine

[@georgebarnes8163]

@@colonelfustercluck486 when did this happen?

[@colonelfustercluck486]

@@georgebarnes8163 GOOGLE

[@royalcityjazz]

Excellent work, what a great resource for understanding the Falklands air war.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

I do know the Islands as the Falklands since that is their name, Las Malvinas is in Chile. Then we have a real problem, After decades of negotiation, no Argentina refused to negotiate, there was no reconquest, Argentina never had any right to the islands. The Sea Harrier had shown that it could take on the F 15.

[@shrimpflea]

When did a Sea Harrier take on an F-15?

[@jorkusmalorkus]

nobody cares about your imperialist talking points lmao

[@lorenmax2.013]

Argie here (yes, the argie number 140.000 to say so), and this video was so much better than anything I've seen in terms of backstory... For some reason most folks try to hide the origins of Argentina's French-by blood airframes. Oh boy, I wish I could have seen the airforce before the assholes that killed my step mom's father took power and proceeded to destroy it. But hey! We won a football championship! That's gotta mean something right?? At least that's what your average josé would tell you.

[@lorenmax2.013]

One story about the airforce was the use of a civilian squadron called Phoenix squadron which was used for distraction maneuvers. Using private learjets to pop in and out of radars to make it seem like a considerable attack from a vector, just to have the main attack come from another way. If i'm not wrong it lost just one plane, one of the debris taken to a small town near my gramp's house in honor to those men. At least someone will remember their brave action, I wouldn't take a learjet to an active war zone

[@CommodoreRayne.IMP.C-1824]

Another great episode. Love the Harriers 🇬🇧❤

[@kencone6175]

Very well done video. Interesting to see how just a few technological issues made all the difference -- the newly arrived 9L sidewinder, the limited supply of Argentine Exocets, the lack of short range fuses on Argentine bombs. Things could have gone very differently had any of these advantages not been there for the British -- in which case the excellent British infantry might never have gotten into the fight.

[@daddust]

The Harrier wasn’t the most capable UK fighter aircraft. It was the most carrier operable fighter - the RN lacked the carriers to operate the Phantom. The Jaguar would eat the Harrier’s lunch in the hands of equal pilots. Same the Phantom.

[@ethansutherland3786]

The thing with the harrier is that with a good pilot at the stick, it could use its ability to hover to force the f4s to slow down or overshoot then launch missiles or guns. The harriers did a series of combat trials against the f15s and were able to fairly consistently hold its own.

[@GarWhittaker]

The harrier was beating the F-15 in air to air combat just before the war.

[@colin-b3h]

Harriers could and did take off in zero visibility conditions do the mission and then find the ships and land on in zero visibility no other aircraft could have done that

[@georgemorley1029]

@@GarWhittakerThat was because the Blue Vixen and AMRAAM combination was too much for the F15.

[@reluctantheist5224]

The Phantoms were better but not in this situation. The Sea Harriers were the best jet the country could offer.

[@Aeronaut1975]

Fun fact: The SHARs (Sea-Harriers) at the time did not have flare or chaff dispensers, so the ground crew would stuff bundles of chaff behind the airbrakes for emergency use.

[@jacksonteller1337]

The 9L is the first upgrade using the IR-sensor developed for the Stinger.

[@MrHws5mp]

My understanding is that the AIM-9L used the seeker originally developed for a cancelled German AAM called the BGT Viper. It's possible that BGT Viper tech also found it's way into the Stinger, of course. EDIT: got that slightly wrong, as pointed out below. An AIM-9L with a BGT Viper seeker WAS built, but it was only a fallback programme in case AIM-9L failed. BGT went on to produce AIM-9Ls as part of a European consortium.

[@FishFlys]

As far as I can tell from the internet, the AIM9L was an all American design. The body was based on the H and J variants of the sidewinder, with tracking being upgraded massively with a new argon cooled seeker, a new laser fuse target detector, and a new guidance system.

[@FishFlys]

@@MrHws5mpthe BGT Viper was an earlier program than LIMA, and it was cancelled when LIMA matured. The seeker is not comparable to LIMA, rather being generally considered slightly less capable. The missile is not outright worse to LIMA, more of a side-grade like choosing Magic 2 over R73

[@MrHws5mp]

@@FishFlys Yes, you're right: my memory was faulty. An AIM-9L with a BGT Viper seeker WAS built, and christened "Alasca" (ALl ASpect CApability), but it was only a fallback programme in case AIM-9L failed. When it didn't, Viper and Alasca were cancelled, and BGT went on to produce AIM-9Ls as part of a European consortium.

[@ps1_hagrid_gaming517]

So the dogfighting winners were the friends we made along the way? Another great red wrench video❤

[@nandanvalavaikar5443]

Hat's off to Argentine pilots for fighting off a more formidable force. Hat's off to British sailors for salvaging their men in this situation.

[@locktab3815]

I’m LT Paul Barton’s grandson, thanks for making this video it’s really interesting 😃

[@DonWan47]

Both sides had pilots of great courage and skill. The U.K. won but the Argentine pilots kept their honour.

[@cwaship1]

Really?? Whipped is Whipped...

[@mikekopack6441]

PERFECT introductory commentary for the Harrier! LOL

[@ajr2059]

A cactus air force video would be a great addition to this series

[@adamtruong1759]

That's not a bad idea, I've always been interested in the struggle of the pilots at Henderson Field during the Guadalcanal Campaign. They're mostly overshadowed by the spectacular and brutal naval battles.

[@jtp0321]

Outstanding documentary. Very well researched and entertaining.

[@aregularperson7573]

Fun fact HMS Antrim was solo to Chile in 1984 and served until the early 2000’s

[@Baud2Bits]

Funner fact: Chile renamed her after Admiral Thomas Cochrane - read about him if you want some real naval history.

[@dannyzero692]

Just finished making dinner and then Red Wrench dropped a banger, life is good.

[@SeannoG1]

"it took them two months to get there so that gives me time" that's a genius line

[@winningjubbly9712]

The Argentinian pilots were by far the most dangerous part of their military. They were excellent and very brave. One noteworthy detail of the war was that Falkland Sound earned the name Bomb Alley to the British forces, but to the Argentinian pilots they knew it as something very different -- Death Valley. Unfortunately for Argentina their troops were no match for Britain's land forces. Many of the Argentinian troops were conscripts, whereas Britain sent her elite troops -- The Parachute Regiment, Royal Marines, Scots Guards, Welsh Guards, to name a few -- and UK special forces, 22 SAS and SBS, were in-theatre causing havoc. UK forces were losing a ship per day, which very nearly ended the war, but the truth was from the moment the UK landed her ground troops the end was no longer in doubt. Argentinian troops were starving -- local farmers reported losing sheep that were killed and bones picked clean by desperate Argentinian soldiers. It should be noted that the Argentinian Officer class were given rations of a far higher quality, including small bottles of liquor! The Argentinian ground forces did have professional outfits on the islands, like Marine forces which were highly trained and motivated, and it was these forces that defended Mount Tumbledown. They were well equipped and even had night scope technology that far exceeded anything used by UK forces. The Scots Guards were the ones tasked to take Tumbledown, which they did with their typical professionalism, even though they lost some men during the fighting. Many things went against the British during the war, but the one thing that proved the most telling in the end was the quality of the British troops the Argentinians faced. In the end they were just far too good. Argentinian Marine troops were very good, but they weren't present in anything like the numbers needed to trouble the British for too long. And when the conscripts went up against elite British troops it was only going to end one way. Argentinian special forces were active on the islands, but the few clashes with British SF, like when an SBS team discovered an Argentinian SF hideout at Top Malo House, the clash was as violent as it was brief.

[@cerperalpurpose]

This seems like an illogical conclusion. The Harriers were there to defend the ships, yes, but the overall reason for that was to successfully recapture the islands. That much was done - with neither carriers threatened. The combat comparison speaks for itself from the ratio. Also - SHARs were retired in 2006, the mud movers left service in 2010

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Good spot about the retirement dates - my mistake. But I don’t agree - if the Argentines had any more Exocets, had managed to hit Hermes instead of Atlantic Conveyor, or had even 2/3 of their bomb hits go off instead of 1/3, the entire Task Force and the tide of the war could’ve changed drastically. The British got incredibly lucky that none of those things happened, or we would look at the war very differently.

[@HeyRay07]

I agree with Red Wrench here. Although the harriers collected an impressive Kill/Death ratio, plenty of Royal Navy sailors and soldiers lost their lives due to the Argentinian air force. While the Harrier was very good at what it was designed to do, it simply was pushed into a role that it was not designed or optimized for. Had the Royal Navy been able to operate a larger carrier and deploy more powerful supersonic jets with a more powerful radar, like the F-4 Phantom, for example, intercept of the Argentinian jets would have been much more successful. It's only through luck and other factors outside of the control of the Royal Navy that the Falklands war is deemed as a success today

[@tallshort1849]

​@@RedWrenchFilms Have a look into M16s mission to deny Argentina any more Exocets. It wasn't luck they meant Argentina had only 5 missiles, it was down to come pretty impressive espionage.

[@seamuskavanagh2566]

@RedWrenchFilms First of all, thanks for the video. The dogfight facts were great, and I've always struggled to get figures for Argentine air losses, but I have to disagree with your "British got incredibly lucky" comment. I am British, just for full disclosure. You never mentioned why the Argentines never got all their Super Etendard and Exocet missiles. The reason they never got them was because they recklessly invaded South Georgia Island alongside scrap metal workers sent to disassemble the old whaling station there, and then they raised the Argentine flag. When the British government heard about this, they demanded they remove the flag, the soldiers leave, and that the scrap metal workers had to have their passports stamped. The scrap metal had the right to scrap the station but hadn't gotten permission to land and start working by the British Government. There were also gunshots heard, and dead wildlife was found, and hunting was against the terms of the contract between the scrapping company and the British Government. The Argentines lowered the flag, but the scrap metal workers still didn't get their passports stamped and the soldiers didn't leave so British Government sent the a small detachment of Royal Marines from Port Stanley to evict them (forcibly if needed) as invaders. The Argentine Junta couldn't allow this to happen since it claimed the islands as Argentina's, and having their soldiers and citizens forcibly removed by a foreign power would be a massive blow to their prestige and tough-man image. This led to the invasion of the Falklands happening on short notice and months ahead of schedule, which led to all sorts of problems, the largest of which was France suspended shipment of the Super Etendards and Exocets. France did this, in large part, because some of the electrics in the Exocets (I'm not sure about the Etendards) were produced in Britain, and meant Britain could halt production of the Exocets for months or years until France could find or produce replacement parts. For France, this meant they had a choice. Stop selling to Argentina or stop selling everything they produced with British parts in it (which was quite a bit of their homemade weapons) until they could find alternative parts. To summarise, to describe Argentina's lack of Super Etendards and Exocts as “good luck” for the British is misleading at best to outright false. Argentina needlessly provoked a fight they were not yet ready to fight. Secondly, regarding the bombs not exploding. That's because they weren't time-delay or impact fuses. They were altitude screw fuses (I think that's what they were called). They were purposely designed NOT to be dropped below a certain height. The reason for this was so they did not explode prematurely, so the plane dropping it would not be caught in the blast. The Argentines knew this and continually failed to drop the bombs from the required height. I'm not disputing the talent or bravery of the Argentine pilots, but they still failed in their objective to destroy the British task force accurately and effectively. The keyword in that sentence is "effectively," and whilst the bombs were dropped fairly accurately - how much would their accuracy have suffered had they dropped them from high enough for their fuses to activate. Could the Argentine pilots have done better? Maybe? Could pilots from another nation have done it better? Having never been to San Carlos or the Falkland Sound myself, I don't want to cast judgement, especially considering I am not a fighter pilot, let alone a fighter pilot that flew those planes in those conditions and circumstances. The point is that the Argentine pilots weren't good enough to make the most of their equipment. The British pilots arguably were with the equipment they had. Could the Argentines have done more had they had better suited fuses for the missions? I have no doubt they absolutely could have done, but poor military procurement by the Argentine Government for their pilots was, again, an Argentine blunder, not British luck. We've seen other South American nations who had not yet fought wars in the era of air superiority make similar mistakes. Prioritising their army's and navies rather than ensuring their air force had the proper equipment to maximse their potential. A good example of this would be Honduras and El Salvador during the "Football War", neither nation had jet power in the early 1970s, neither side was able to gain air superiority for long and that was why the war quickly became a stalemate on the ground. Argentina made a similar mistake, but not to the same extent, not providing proper munitions and fuses to their pilots. Thirdly, I think you have underestimated how much Britain compromised Argentina's ability to fight. People (even British pilots) like to critise the Vulcan attacks as being inefficient and ineffective, but I disagree. They were unsuccessful at stopping the C-130s from landing and taking off, but the damage to the runway and the surrounding area was too great for Argentina to lengthen the runway to accommodate their fast jets landing or taking off there. That was one of Argentina's biggest mistakes after invading, not extending the runway, and Britain made sure they never rectified it with their Vulcan and Harrier strikes. I'm not saying Argentina should have had their jets stationed in Stanley Airport permanently because that would have made them an easy target, but if they had extended it then their pilots could have landed for a quick "splash-and-dash" refuel and quickly taken off again, allowing the Argentine air force to take more time to pick their targets before attacking thus being more effective. It should also be said that whilst the British radars were questionable, they were good enough at height to force the Argentine pilots to basically skim the sea as they approached the war zone to avoid detection. The Harrier's also had a formidable enough reputation to force the Argentines to stay low. Flying at those speeds, over those distances and over those periods of time over the sea eventually corroded the Argentine jets' engines, further limiting the Argentine Air Force's combat effectiveness and overall capability. Argentina didn't strike any of the British carriers (despite what Argentine propaganda says) or shoot down any Harriers so, therefore, didn't degrade Britain's air power whatsoever over the conflict, just for comparison.

[@seamuskavanagh2566]

@@RedWrenchFilms Fourthly, you say it was luck that Argentina didn't strike an aircraft carrier, but I again disagree. The Exocet never struck a British ship that successfully and properly deployed its countermeasures. I'm not including HMS Sheffield since that ship deployed its countermeasures far too late because there was no one at the radio to listen to HMS Glasgow's warning because of criminal negligence by Sheffield's radio operators who were both illegally absent. After the Sheffield farce, British crews were much more vigilant, not perfect, but both they and their equipment were good enough to avoid being struck. The only slight exception to this was the Atlantic Conveyor, which didn't have countermeasures since it wasn't a navy ship, but a civilian cargo ship requisitioned by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to assist the British task force logistically. I'm not taking anything away from the Argentine pilots who struck it, but it was intended for HMS Hermes, but locked onto HMS Ambuscade which deployed its counter-measures, guiding the Exocet towards HMS Hermes which also deployed its counter-measures before the missile locked onto and struck the Atlantic Conveyor. I'm not saying it was luck that the Argentines hit Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor. It was the fault of poor professionalism and foresight by the British and the Argentine's made the most of it. But this proves that the Exocet was not a super-weapon, one of the Exocets aimed for Sheffield missed despite deploying its countermeasure late. And, I'm also not convinced the second one that allegedly hit the Atlantic Conveyor actually struck, since a civilian ship like that is not designed to withstand such a weapon strike, let alone two. The poor professionalism of Sheffield and the horrendous decision to bring the Atlantic Conveyor within range of the Argentine Air Force made the Exocet look better than it actually was. Many Royal Navy veterans acknowledge that they were too cautious around the Exocet. So long as they deployed their countermeasures in time, they were relatively safe. Finally, why should the British be considered lucky for having not faced a properly equipped and provisioned Argentine Air Force, yet the Argentines aren't considered lucky not to have faced a properly provisioned and equipped Royal Navy? Whilst the Argentine Junta were pumping money into all branches of their military, the British were slashing and cutting their military budget pretty much every year since the end of the Second World War. The Royal Navy had to scrap its proper aircraft carriers, HMS Ark Royal and HMS Eagle because of budget cuts and were replaced by Hermes and Invincible which were designed as anti-submarine helicopter carriers. Had Ark Royal and/or Eagle, or the much larger class of aircraft carrier that was supposed to have succeeded them, been sent to Falklands with or instead of the Invincible-class carriers that were sent, the British could have deployed Phantoms or Buccaneers which were much more suited to the roles required of the Harrier. These are of course, hypothetical situations, but you're using hypothetical situations like "What if the Argentine Air Force had more Etendards and Exocets" or "What if more bombs exploded", as evidence of luck for the British, but are not using similar hypothetical situations against Argentina. "What if Buccaneers and Phantoms were able to be used", "What if early air warning radar was available to the British" or "What if outdated British ship air defences worked properly". You've not pointed any of that out which suggests just a bit of bias or lack of proper consideration. The Argentines had been planning for the invasion for months, and the British hadn’t. If both nations were nearer to their true capacity which side would have benefitted more? I’m choosing Britain. It isn’t lucky that Argentina faced a weakened Britain either. Years of recession and Britain’s declining stature in the world post-empire was behind its military decline, and particularly its naval decline. But please don’t call Britain “lucky” because it faced an enemy with the incorrect fuses for the task at hand, in large part because it was embargoed for widespread human rights violations. To conclude, I get that it's not fair to compare the two airforces and navy airwings like-for-like due to them both using different equipment, in different circumstances and they had different objectives. However, one thing is clear. The British pilots and their Harriers were not perfect, but they were good enough to facilitate a British victory, the Argentine pilots and their equipment were not, despite them having a good chance. This to me is clear evidence that the Falklands War was a British air victory, not an inconclusive result. Luck is only a factor, if neither side has control over the circumstance in question. And I hope I have illustrated that most of the Argentine Air Force's limitations were either the product Argentine mistakes and mismanagement, or a product of Britain's air victories or good strategic planning.

[@Skorpyy406]

Awesome stuff as always, please keep making these! Keep up the great Work!

[@Harmon1ca]

You have to give credit to the Argentine pilots here. The skill required to find, attack, and hit those ships is tremendous.

[@heinrichzerbe]

True, I'm shocked to have heard how many bombs were duds. I wonder what the outcome would've been if all the bombs worked as intended. I'm also curious as to why these bombs were defective.

[@HeyRay07]

​@@heinrichzerbeHe mentioned it towards the end of the video, but it's likely that since the Argentinian jets were operating at low altitude and high speed, the bombs did not have enough time in the air to arm before hitting the British ships. Had the arming mechanism been set to be shorter and had the bombs detonated reliably, we may have a very different perspective on the Falklands war today

[@Argentvs]

​@@heinrichzerbethe Air Force was trained towards a continental two front war against Brazil and Chile. Their bombs were for ground attack. They had to crash course on naval warfare 2 weeks using the Navy's D-42 destroyers. They used WWII fuses that required a propeller driven screw to spin to arm. They had a 3 second delay in order to allow the fighter to escape the blast zone. The Air Force didn't know the bombs were failing to explode until after the BBC itself reported it. Then they switched to double fuses with a safe electronic KAPPA III fuse that would detonate the bombs after a time set upon release. They also changed some bombs to national industry FAS series. But it was all too late. They chose 500 and 1000 lbs bombs that came after WWII as they seemed the right choice to sink ships like they did back then. As the Air Force was geared towards land war they didn't have bombs with air brakes like the navy had on the A-4Q. This the success rate of the snake eye air drag bombs was higher but the A-4Q fleet was small. Also the Navy sabotaged the combat effort but withholding information and resources against the other forces. The naval too command saw it as an opportunity to damage the power of the Air Force and Army. The Air Force had to US 707, C-130, Learjets for exploration and decoy missions while the Navy didn't share efforts using the Trackers, Sea Kings, Neptune's. Imagine they lied st the beginning assuring their intelligence said UK wouldn't respond. The Air Force was the only force that saw they would and started to prepare to improvise a conflict plan and training.

[@Coyote27981]

​@@heinrichzerbeyou go to war with the weapons you have, not the ones you want. Bombs were meant to be used at medium or high altitude, so fuses had no time to arm.

[@fryertuck6496]

What are you talking about? How was it difficult to find the ships? They were in the bays of the Falklands offloading troops and equipment, the destroyers were protecting the ships and the Argentines had a Boeing radar plane guiding them to target. They couldn't help but fly straight to the target!

[@Willoz269]

The description of the dogfight dpes not match Barton, Thomas or Perona's description.Garcia Cuerva was the lead, not Perona. Perona tried to eject his fuel tanks but the one on the right hand side did not come off, which caused massive problems, they were NOT in a close formation, as Perona stated they were spread out and did not see each other since before the merge but were in radio contact

[@dflitton02]

The Black Buck missions were not "infamous" more famous, please correct your English

[@slacko1971]

Interesting to me that I didn't know the correct meaning of the word "infamous" (I had to look it up after reading your comment) thankyou for bringing it to my attention, that's my word for the day learnt.

[@FearAndDeadMen]

First video have seen of yours and really enjoyed it.. well worth the subscription, keep it up 👍🏼

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Three Days. Just three _DAYS_ That was how quickly the Royal Navy task force took to assemble a fleet, point it at the Falklands and pull the trigger😮 That's how little time Galtieri had to congratulate himself before HMS Find Out set sail. "Hurray! We won! Bloodless victoryyyyyyyyoh Spanish-for-bugger, they're coming to kill us, aren't they?"

[@Baud2Bits]

This was only because the RN had just completed Exercise Springtrain. If the Junta had waited a couple of months Australia would have posessed Invincible, Hermes would have been mothballed, along with half the fleet as the government tried to save costs.

[@MrDeancoote]

Really enjoyed this thank you.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thanks very much!

[@irongron]

Great run down, I have one question, do you know if Harrier pilot & retired Air-Vice Marshal Sean Bell was one of the RAF GR.3 pilots stationed on the Hermes ? I also love the way the engineers just made the Aim-9L's fit on the Harrier rails, get out the file and make it fit, that's metalwork 101! Great stuff! 🧠😉

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@irongron I don’t think so - I think his service was a bit more recent. Did a couple of tours in the Balkans though AFAIK.

[@irongron]

@@RedWrenchFilms oh yes now you mention it, I do vaguely recollect he states that on past podcasts or sky news every now and then. My ancestry is the former Yugoslavia, so I have should have remembered that. For some reason I thought he was a Falklands veteran too. Thanks for the clarification.

[@haiquanto8914]

love your vids man, congrats on another banger video

[@theamateuriconoclast]

The difference between best option and best available option. I'm doubtful the Argentines would have been as successful if Ark Royal and her Phantoms, Buccaneers and Gannets were available to the British.

[@davedixon2068]

PROBABLY WOULDNT HAVE STARTED CAUSING PROBLEMS IN THE FIRST PLACE

[@scottessery100]

Never realised it was such a close run thing

[@dazzerd.9921]

It wasn’t the harriers decimated the Argentine air force

[@TurboMeatWagon]

My dad was a marine engineer on HMS Fearless, I believe the fearless shot down at least one a-4 skyhawk with her bofors guns

[@Anubis-zu7wt]

Gran video guy , con un análisis excelente.. I take my hat off to you "

[@johngamba4823]

Jose Ardilles was the cousin of Tottenham Hotspurs player Ossie Ardilles

[@bremnersghost948]

Highly recommend the Book, Harrier 809, IMO the best book on The Air War in Falklands.

[@lawrenceabbott5292]

Better off reading Sea Harrier Over the Falklands. Or going to Aviation Xtended: Episode 71 Falklands Air War Part 2 to hear Sharkey. Episode 70 is Tim Gedge which Harrier 809 is based upon the build up to the extra harriers on Atlantic Conveyor. Unfortunately Sharkey passed away this year.

[@bremnersghost948]

@@lawrenceabbott5292 will do, cheers :) RIP Sharkey o7

[@George_M_]

A pyrrhic victory in the air war, I'd call it. The campaign was a success but the fleet's losses were pretty severe considering the scale of the conflict.

[@MasterCheeks-2552]

The RN lost 4 warships but were replaced by reinforcements

[@colonelfustercluck486]

that was only the war in the air. The Naval and Army and Marines and other special forces stuff was not in this video. The overall result was overwhelming. This video doesn't show that. The sinking of the Argentinian light cruiser "General Belgrano", apart from sinking a large ship, killed over 324 crew. And under 1/2 of the total Argentinian deaths for the entire conflict. (General Belgrano was previously the (US Navy) USS Phoenix, sold to Argentina just before this conflict)

[@bradleymacdonald6036]

The harriers on the carriers needed barriers..lol. i subscribed immediately

[@cascadianrangers728]

What's really important is the fact that all of the harriers were armed with brand new american-made Sidewinders, it made it a completely unfair battle, the Mirages would have engaged the harriers at altitude and swept them from the sky. Every single air to air kill was from a Sidewinder shot, the Mirages were practically unarmed in comparison.

[@JG-ib7xk]

That's the Argentinians fault though isn't it, for going to war against an opponent with more advanced weapons

[@MasterCheeks-2552]

"Every single air to air kill was from a Sidewinder shot" Yes like most air to air kills after Korea

[@Giuliana-w1f]

​@@JG-ib7xki mean, what did you expect from a military dictatorship looking for propaganda? They sent untrained teenagers to die just to tell us how "we are winning"

[@Argentvs]

​@@JG-ib7xkfirst, the logic was there wouldn't be war since UK wouldn't respond and was unable to amidst the fleet scrapping. And the junta accounted the US wouldn't let them fight, since the USA was the main culprit of the dismantling of the empire. Remember in 1956 they forced UK to behave during the Suez Crisis. Also the UK didn't have Limas. Reagan ignored its advisors against helping the UK because he was friends with Thatcher. The US Navy transferred the 9L in Ascension Island. UK didn't have them in service.

[@אלכסנדרהברעקוסטי]

@AverageWagie-2025 No? AIM-7 Sparrow was used to great effect as well since its advent, and Pact/Pact aligned aircraft used R-60, R-40 and R-23/24 in their various wars across the world and scored many air to air kills. Sidewinder and Sidewinder derivatives were the source of many kills for both Eastern and Western forces, but they were by no means the only or best weapons available.

[@victorfinberg8595]

far more comprehensive and nuanced than anything i have yet seen on this matter.. a great victory for the british, but BOTH sides took horrific casualties

[@Skeltvn]

Glad to see that other people are questioning the use of the term reconquest, poor choice of words for someone who doesn’t sound Argentinian? Great video though 👍🏻

[@kevinlindstrom6752]

Very interesting and quality analysis.

[@dflitton02]

This was not a "re"-conquest of the Malvinas, this was a straight conquest.

[@obi-ron]

@dflitton02 • it wasn't even a conquest as much as it was a short lived incursion by an enemy force that was captured and/or repulsed by a force that was smaller in number and at a severe disadvantage regarding its lines of supply.

[@andirutherford2615]

I helped refurbish those Canberra aircraft before they went to Argentina, I worked for British Aerospace who knew theyd be used against us

[@grahamkylevulcan4340]

Really? I heard that the Argentine Air Force was very close of getting your Vulcan B.2s as well? Cheers.

[@Holland41]

A reasonable assessment I suppose, but I sense a little too much sympathy for the Argentine side in this. The Argentine government was a ruthless, murderous military junta, focussed mainly on torturing and killing many thousands of its own citizens and stealing from them. The whole Falklands war was dreamed up by that military machine to deflect the Argentine population's attention from the dire economic situation and cruel repressions that generations of corrupt rule had created, and the hysterical chanting crowds fell for it for a while. The dictatorship thought the British would give it up easily, but they hadn't factored in a British PM who was just as ruthless and uncaring about her constituents, and desperately eager for a political deflection strategy to save her regime. A bad miscalculation. And those "heroic" Argentine forces were much more adept at terrorising their own population than they were at fronting up to real military opposition. The whole thing was a tragedy.

[@jontalbot1]

I am no supporter of Margaret Thatcher but she only did what any British PM would do- provided it was thought the means existed to win. Granted she milked it. And it is not right to castigate the Argentine soldiers who were mostly conscripts. One of the positives to come out of this was the respect shown to the combatants from both sides- as is evident in the video.

[@pauldonnelly7949]

Great vid, really informative, thanks for putting it out.

[@tplays6688]

2mins ago is criminal.

[@kyle_mk17]

35

[@chrisbullard5901]

Awesome presentation! Been listening to the audiobooks “Harrier Boys”, Parts 1 and 2, which are from the perspective of the British and US Marine Harrier community. It adds a lot of context to what you’re mentioning in this video. I’d love to see a video on General Creech vs Colonel Boyd’s differing views on aircraft development. Boyd’s acolytes and Pierre Sprey preached for cheap, mass produced fighters (hence, the YF-16), while Creech pushed alongside the military-industrial complex for more complex, more expensive multi-role aircraft, which led to adapting the F-15D trainer into the F-15E Strike Eagle. It’s important to note in such an analysis that it was Boyd who led the FX project that produced the Eagle in the first place.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@chrisbullard5901 The “Fighter Mafia” could make a great video! Or a book…

[@3_character_minimum]

It also cant be unserstated the failure in Argentinian strategy, in focusing on the Ships first rather than the Harriers.

[@Coyote27981]

Harriers were not isolated dude... They had ships with SAMs meant to engage high flying targets. You dont win that fight by feeding those ships their ideal targets. And ships were the real target, a direct hit on a few critical targets would end the campaign.

[@Canthus13]

Huh. You solved a 42 year old mystery for me. The term 'atlantic conveyor' always confused me. I'd heard it on TV, but as an 8 year old I was mostly annoyed that cartoons weren't on. Every once in a while it would wander through my head again for decades.

[@Baud2Bits]

She had a sister ship, the Atlantic Causway, which I visited when our bomb damaged Lynx was transported over for transport back to the UK. Difficult to envision the size of those ships until you have been on one.

[@guilledione1848]

22:10 Capt José Ardiles was cousin of 1978 world cup champion Osvaldo Ardiles. Osvaldo was already at Tottenham at the time when war brokeout. He left the spurs that year, and returned the following season. He was was and is beloved at Tottenham.

[@amhuman5138]

Isn't much of a reconquest if they never owned it.

[@samsniper2000]

Idk how people get so stuck on this, it's blatantly a point from the Argentine point of view which saw the islands as previously being there's via the Spanish empire, and Argentine confederation.

[@jon9021]

Yep…

[@thelandofnod123]

Years ago I saw footage, I guess from Broadsword, of Coventry drifting past as she tried to use her Seawolf, just before the impact on Coventry. I just can’t seem to find it again.

[@laurencedawson7754]

I think "seconds from disaster" has good footage of it...

[@Baud2Bits]

I was there - as they say. The issue was that the Seawolf could not discrimate the targets as they flew so low and disengaged. That's when we had a UXB rip through us. For the second wave the Seawolf crew reverted to manual aiming. I remember clearly hearing them "wait, wait, wait" they wanted the aircraft nice and close. Suddenly Coventry's radome appears on screen as she drifts across in front up us. Twenty minutes later she had turned turtle...

[@laurencedawson7754]

@@Baud2Bits thanks for the account my friend, I can only imagine.......

[@jmcsms]

No Sea Harrier kills were in an engagement zone that the 9G couldn't have been used in, there were no modifications needed to fit a 9L onto a Sea Harrier. Modifications were carried out to fit the Lau 7A launchers needed to carry Sidewinder to the GR3 - which resulted in a death and a serious injury post conflict

[@fabovondestory]

I think he was drunk making the chapters

[@RandomGuy-hr8sb]

Sometimes KZbin auto-generates them

[@fabovondestory]

@@RandomGuy-hr8sb Noticed that they are from the last dogfight video

[@Kevin-wf6zu]

Finally the thumbnail has changed, the video is ready to watch😃

[@davidwhite9159]

The first massive mistake was the statement that the Argentinians “…started the re conquest of the Falkland Islands”. That implies that either they had been in possession of it previously and the British had kicked them out. That isn’t true and thus “they started the invasion of the Falkland Islands”.