All my life I've felt worthless and unvalued. Then I found grim reaper and I've never been more valued in my life. I make him a solid 5 cent everytime I click his videos. Feels good to be valued.
It's a bit sad that we (Aussies) lost out on getting Invincible. She was to replace Melbourne as HMAS Australia, but after the Falklands she stayed with the RN. Melbourne (originally HMS Magestic) was out last carrier. The closest thing we have now is a pair of LHDs.
It's sad you didn't get her back then. But you're soon to get a fleet of nuclear subs that will make your Navy a serious player in your neck of the woods!
@@TheGrannyBangerz from my research I am not seeing any F-35Bs going to Australia. They are currently in the process of procuring their F-35A Lightnings for the RAAF. They are up to 50 I think now and are getting another 22. I have not seen any reporting that they are buying any B models or getting helicopter carriers.
@@sedatedape315 I don't think it would have been that good to be honest. The Invincible, although more modern than the Hermes, had a lot of problems with her design. It is the reason the Hermes was the flagship, it was bigger and could carry more aircraft. It had a better designed hangar deck as well.
Well that was a fun watch! Also interesting how a (relatively) low tech battle reveals Violet to be a stone cold, up close killer. Any truth to the rumour that after she ran out of ammo, her pilot was ordered to pop the canopy and start chucking rocks?
Cap! I thoroughly enjoyed watching that battle. I was concerned when the Harriers didn't have the radars, but hey! You have to do what DCS allows you to do right? Watching proper dogfights happen where missiles actually have a higher chance of missing than once in a blue moon chance like they do now. I think that was the most even contest that you have run in a while. And yes everyone I will be doing After Action reviews on these wargames on my channel. I am first doing them as a livestream on twitch and then porting them over. Cap did ask me to wait a few days before doing the AAR so more people get to watch these first and well, I won't piss off Cap because I love doing the research on GR wargames.
You're incorrect with regarding the Harriers. GR stands for Ground Attack and Reconnaissance. Not Ground Roll. Also the Sea Harrier Frs1 was fitted with a Bluefox Radar. It was the latter variant that was fitted with the much improved Blue Vixen radar. Fa2 Sea Harrier.
Thank you for that comment. Everything I had read on the Sea Harriers showed the Blue Vixen. I have now researched your claim on this and indeed you are very much correct. The Blue Fox was out there, the British thought it sucked and didn't work properly. However it did account for 4 air to air kills and a Sea Harrier equipped with the Blue Fox did detect the Veinticinco De Mayo as it approached the British Task Force. Blue Fox worked according to design there. It was designed for surface search originally.
These smaller nations wargames are in many ways more intriguing than the USA vs "near peer adversary". Plus the airframes and missiles are old and well known enough that you're getting realistic capabilities. Something I'm not sure is the case with some of the newer tech weapons platforms. Some of China and Russia's systems just seem a bit OP.
Yeah, i agree. There's a reason why they seem so op: China and Russia want a share of the export market for weaponry, so they tend to oversell the capabilities of their weapons to get more potential buyers Meanwhile the US, like any other great brand name known for quality fully KNOW that their products will be bought despite what they will do, so they will actually UNDERSELL their gear to keep an element of surprise (Such as the F-35) or not sell it at all, and make it's true capabilities top secret (Such as the F-22 and part of the F-35 systems)
She never used the carrier because the wind wasn't right. And the exclusion zone was for civilians and other naval powers, not Argentina. Argentina was fair game no matter where they were. Hence why even the captain of the Belgrano stated the strike was justified.
The exclusion zone was for all ships not just Argentinian, as we were at war with Argentina we could actually attack its ships anywhere in the world, this is where many people get confused and think the Belgrano was sunk illegally. Argentinian Naval officers have confirmed that they fully understood this and it is why they never complained about the sinking.
can you explain a little bit better? here in Argentina, as far as I know, we use the argument of the exclusion zone to argue that it was a illegal sinking (more or less that's the narrative), and also I never heard why the war started in the first place, like there is a lot of things historians, the state, or whatever don't want us to know
Even the surviving captain of the Belgrano has gone on record as saying obviously he wasn't happy about it but it was a legal attack. The British Admiralty stated that though the Conqueror torpedoed the Belgrano outside of the naval exclusion zone she was 1) perfectly within the law to attack a declared enemy ship flying the colours of a hostile nation under a formal declaration of war, and 2) she 100% knew the Belgrano could alter course and enter the exclusion zone at any time. It was a tragedy and it was terrible people died, but the same could be said of the HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Atlantic Conveyor, HMS Sir Galahad, HMS Sir Tristrum etc etc. All were legal acts of war under maritime law. To this day HMS Conqueror is the only nuclear attack submarine to have torpedoed and sunk an enemy ship in anger. That we know of, anyway........
@@MartinRichardi The war started because the junta seized the islands in an attempt to distract the Argentine people from the worsening economic situation. It was believed (not just by Argentina, but by the world in general) that Britain would protest to the UN, but refuse to escalate the situation beyond that, and that if it did, it would fail because the islands are halfway around the world, and Argentina is only a few hundred kilometres away. As for the Belgrano: the ship was manoeuvring as part of a plan to catch the British fleet in a pincer move (if memory serves, the 25 de Mayo formed the offensive punch of the other arm). When she was sunk, she was heading away from the EZ, but only because she was zig-zagging to make herself harder to hit. Her presence worried the British because while she was an old ship, she still had 16 150mm guns, which would could do serious damage if given the chance. When HMS Conqueror reported that she had the Belgrano in her sights, the order was given to sink it. With the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to forget how precarious the British task force's position was, and no responsible commander would allow the enemy to retain the ability to pose such a threat. The sinking was completely legal. After all, what argument can be applied to the sinking of the Belgrano that can't also be applied to the Sheffield or the Coventry? Needless to say, every one of the 904 deaths related to the conflict is a tragedy, but let's not forget who picked the fight.
WOW!!! :D that was one of the best battles and best matched! no supersonic, no plane radars, only old sidewinders, dumb bombs, ... it was top mounted wings versus low slung wings! :) The surprise sea darts were amazing! And the final carrier landing was just the perfect finale!
"Argentina was prohibited from entering the exclusion zone". Actually, the exclusion zone was declared as an area where any vessel or aircraft could be attacked without warning. EVERYONE was prohibited, not just Argentina.
Yeah, Argentinian ships were targets anywhere (hence the General Belgrano being a legitimate target), the exclusion zone was a "Don't enter here or you risk being attacked without us bothering to positively identify you as Argentinian" thing
Dang good video!! I really expected it to be much closer. Mainly because I thought that the A-4 had a much bigger advantage with maneuverability. As usual, great GR content!!!!!!
A country who has never gone to war with a major power vs the (then) 4th largest military in the world with centuries of major combat experience - not too bright - or balanced.
The FRS1 during the Falklands Conflict used the Blue Fox Radar, the Blue Vixen came later and was a remarkable piece of equipment. 801 Sqn on Invincible used the Blue Fox to good effect whereas 800 Sqn on Hermes didn't trust it.
I remember the British Harrier pilots at the time used "vectoring in flight" or "VIFFING" - rotating the jet nozzles and engendering considerably more manoeuvrability than a conventional aircraft like the A4. Also the Argentines made full use if their land based Super Etendards for ship attacks. Another great video. Thanks!
That's a myth. In reality they didn't even get into many manoeuvring fights, they were chasing argie jets at the absolute limit of their range without the fuel to dogfight. Besides which, nobody in their right mind would try to viff, lose that much speed and you are stone cold dead, even if it works and you bag your bandit one of his mates will take the free kill with glee.
@@mstevens113 As a true brit of the falkland repute mate, I can say I VIFFED the entire time. Barely made it 20nm off the ship and then spun in place like a top.
Except that this particular vessel carried 4 Tracker Grumman for anti submarine warfare commanded by at the time Cpt. Membrana i believe. It is my understanding that HMS Splendid did not pursue because it was spotted by the anti submarine warfare element. Belgrano was sunk because the cruiser and the two destroyers unlike the carrier, possessed no anti submarine elements.
@@manuelsegovia7915they never actually found the Argentine aircraft carrier. There's a book that explains that they spent a long time looking before intelligence confirmed it had returned to port. They never found the Argentine submarine either.
@@manuelsegovia7915 Splendid wasn't spotted the carrier returned to port before it was found. If splendid had been spotted there would have been a concerted effort to sink her.
I believe that in a situation like this RN could outperform the Armada, but the first minutes was kind of a unusual situation of a pack of Harriers against individual F4s. Probably the already launched F4s would wait for theirs wingman's. This would be different like the first wave of 4 AI F4 showed.
"Had aircraft carrier ... Never used it" Define "used". It put to sea, and they loaded the A4 skyhawks for a co-ordinated attack, but failed to get aircraft off the desk. Not sure if it was catapult or weather issues. When the Belgrano was sunk, they put to port again. The planned attack would have been A4s and Exocets from the NW, and the Belgrano leading the SAG to launch Exocets from the SW. Only the Harriers on Hermes has the AIM-9L, which had been obtained for the war, they weren't part of the standard inventory then. So, the 801 was carrying whatever was the standard sidewinder at the time for the UK. 801 loved and used the radar, but an order came down from Flag it wasn't to be used (can't remember the date that happened). 800 hated the radar (and nav system), didn't trust them and rated them as useless. 800 was on the Hermes with Flag, and provided AW advice.
The real question is "What if Argentina sent the professional army to the Falklands and also stuck most of it's fleet on the island in an all-out defence of the island?"
You're correct with your opening statement, however the Argentine Forces would have suffered a heavier defeat than they did if they had put their carrier out to and lost eight more aircraft which were used against us later. Another thing you have to consider is that we had 200 F4 Phantoms, 200 Buccaneers, 165 Jaguars (a/c with the longest range) back home had these got to the Chilean Islands that the Nimrods were using, it would have been a very one sided fight. Plus if every one of us servicemen had our own way (all 330,000 of us) we would have been down there such was our resolve. Finally one point that you have to remember is New Zealand offered resources to the U.K and were politely declined. We specifically contained the fight to the Falkland Islands and not to the Argentine mainland and quietly the Argentinians should be grateful we fought the Falkland campaign with much restraint and also from a diplomatic perspective as this minimized casualties on both sides. Also don't forget Argentina were also after Chilean territory in the Terra Del Fuego area!
"the Argentines should be grateful we fought the Falkland campaign with much restraint" I'm remembering the sinking of the Belgrano differently than you. As I recall, it was sunk outside of the exclusion zone, to the loss of 321 lives. You also did your darndest to get every aircraft available involved, launching air attacks all the way from Ascension Island. AND British special ops even crossed into the Argentine mainland from Chile near Punto Arenas. I think the British pursued that war with EVERY means available and no restraint. The main reason there weren't 330,000 servicemen down there was that British logistics were incapable of supporting such a large army so far from home (and so close to the enemy's home). As for diplomatic restraint, to this day the UK refuses to comply with UN requests to negotiate and it continues to pursue its arms embargo of Argentina. What a grudge match.
@@PeacePetal Argentina was after every bit of territory including South Georgia which she had no historical claim, Chilean territory in the Terra del Fuego and the Junta was also murdering their own people! Even the Argentine Naval commanders admitted that the strike on the Belgrano was legitimate which is on RUclips! Finally when the Bootnecks surrendered on South Georgia they advised the Argentine senior officers upon their surrender, of the booby traps left in Gritviken. Plus the Argentinians commanders abused their very own conscript troops and never ever fed them properly whilst they were having banquets and we treated better by us as POWs. So no it was not a grudge match!
@@PeacePetal Not sure there's much to negotiate about. Argentina's government has repeatedly said it wants the islands, which aren't theirs. The British government isn't going to pass sovereignty of them over to the Argentines. There is no middle ground.
we are greatful of our warriors.We presented battle with far inferiority and we fought with honor. The 8 british ships sunked in the sea can speak about how greatful we are.
not watch all of the video yet BUT at 40:19 4 more Argentinean anti-ship planes spored, AFTER the carrier was killed so IF they hit the UK ships I feel that dose not count
Now that was one HELL of a good scrap! I thought the Brits would win, but not giving the Argies an absolute curb-stomping like this though. This was an extremely absorbing and exciting battle to watch between semi-modern aircraft and missiles and I really hope you do more battles with 70's-80's era conflicts like the several African civil wars and of course Falklands. Thanks for a great video!
Cap - You do realise that the 25 de Mayo did get into range to launch her aircraft of HMS Invincible before the ARA Belgrano was sunk. She didn't launch her aircraft because the Skyhawks needed wind over the deck to launch. The plan had been to extend the deck so that she could launch the Super Entendards carrying the exocets but that deck extension hadn't been completed. She was detected by a Sea Harrier and then fled to Port after the Belgrano was sunk and as you say was being chased by Splendid.
A surprise attack by A4s against the carrier group probably would have been defeated but it would have been the first Carrier versus carrier battle since world war 2 and as shown in that conflict anything can happen when carriers engage each other.
@@grimreapers On the day that General Belgrano was sunk, Veinticinco de Mayo and her task group were north of the Falkland Islands and, as I recollect, somewhere to the northwest of the British task force. Her S-2 Trackers had located the British fleet late in the day on May 1, and all her A-4Q Skyhawks were prepared for an attack to be launched at daybreak on May 2. Again, as I recall, the Argentines envisioned a pincer movement against the British task force, with Veinticinco de Mayo attacking from the northwest while General Belgrano and her group struck from the southwest. But the attack didn’t come off. Veinticinco de Mayo was not able to get her planes into the air the morning of May 2 due to a dead calm and windless conditions in the area. Then came news that General Belgrano had been sunk. As you know, the Argentine Navy retreated to port after that.
@@grimreapers It should be noted, too, that Veinticinco de Mayo supported the initial Argentine landings on the Falklands. Her aircraft were not used, but she transported 1,500 Argentine army troops to the islands.
Just want to say this was a Great battle! Kept me right on the edge of my seat watching the air duels going on. I want to Commend Violet for her flying skill and aggressive battle tactics. I'd sure be happy to have her in a fighter on my wing in a furball. Everyone did a fine job. Cap, you put this together quite well and I do hope you get to feeling better. I'll be watching for the next video!
The Argentinians did, deploy their carrier, 25 Mayo, leading one battlegroup of The 25 Mayo, The Drummond, and the submarine San Luis , while the General Belgrano was with the Piedra Buena and Hipólito Bouchard . Both were to encircle the taskforce with a pincer movement with the Belgrano approaching from the south And the 25 Mayo, approaching from the North. And in addition hit them with shore based aircraft from Stanley.
@@grimreapers both the A4 and Super Etendard ended up operating from land due to the risk of submarines and the operational limitations from its catapult. The few opportunities the carrier had to attack the British fleet were cancelled due to lack of wind to support catapult launches with sufficient ordinance. However, you mentioned you wanted something interesting, the addition of super etendard with exocet and type 42 destroyers on defense would certainly make it interesting! :)
CAP, great video again! What if the Argentina carrier was used to lure the brit carriers closer to the mainland and away from some of the defense fleet. Then the land forces coordinate with the carrier on an attack on the reduced british fleet in the open ocean. Argentina with the Etendards, A4s, etc against the brit fleet and the aircraft carried on the carriers. I think this would be a much more likely scenario than a single carrier sailing to its death.
@@mikeycraig8970 No, we would not. They were what we call "MEU". Mission Essential Unit. They do not get put in harms way. That's the job of the Destroyers and Frigates. We'd look at their ruse and say "Aww, isn't that cute". Then dispatch an S or T boat to finish them off. With British SSN's in play, this scenario doesn't play out at all.
Fun fact. One of the first sea harriers shot down during the conflict had been modified for trials with the Sea Eagle missile. In order to install the kit associated with the Sea Eagle it had been necessary to remove the RWR from this aircraft, and indeed this may have led to it being shot down by radar laid anti-aircraft guns. In any case, the Argentinians found the Sea Eagle cockpit control panel in the wreckage. It's considered to be another possible contributing factor to the Argentinian navy staying in port and not coming out to confront the Royal Navy.
Also the Sea Harriers didn't have flares in the Falklands. They did had chaff, but it was one-shot jury rigged arrangement where it was more or less gaffa-taped to the back of the airbrake.
@@Thumblegudget The flares turned up right at the end of the conflict along with the proper chaff arrangement - too late by then though! Don't think any of the deployment panels made it onto the aircraft before the Argentinians surrendered.
great fight but HMS Conqueror would have done the carrier , as that was what it was tasked to do, hence they never put the AC to sea after the Belgrano sank
The Exclusion Zone applied to merchant shipping and was intended to keep neutrals out of the way. Warships were fair game anywhere and the Argentinians knew this. The British aricraft carriers would not have gone near either the Argentinian mainland or an Argentinian task force. Several SSNs were available to R-Adm Woodward and HMS SPLENDID was specifically tasked with sinking their carrier. SSNs offer a much lower risk of loss and probably a higher chance of success.
ERR... Well, one of Her Majesty's Submarines, (there were three of them on station), would have sent it to join the fishes with it's sister ship Admiral Belgrano........ Sending Belgrano to the watery depths ensured that the rest of the Argeninian Navy stayed tied-up in port. Predicating the likely use ....and possible effectiveness of the Argentine Carrier cannot be considered in isolation from the British Submarines. The presence of these was arguably the most potent weapon in theatre, although, for obvious reasons we heard little about them... James Hennighan Yorkshire, England
TLDW: An RN nuclear sub would have torpedoed it, and that would have been that. 25 de Mayo was followed for a while. The Total Exclusion Zone 'TEZ' was not for Argentine ships, it was for ALL ships, the UK said they maintained the right to attack any ship in the TEZ without notice, all Argentine ships anywhere were targets. So the entire premise of this video is flawed.
Really interesting scenario-- it's essentially weapon systems from 1982 fighting a type of engagement we haven't seen since 1942. Well done GR-- thanks to you all.
I really do love these battles with the older aircraft. It's just more entertaining and more fun because it takes a little bit longer to complete. I would love to see something with the P51 Mustang and the P38 lightning
It almost feels like an entirely different type of battle. Really brings home how far the tech has come when they're launching so close and still missing, compared to watching hard to dodge PL15s and Meteors being lobbed from nearly an entire countries(small countries admittedly) width away.
@@chrisinstasis7986 absolutely! Watching flares still be effective counter measures? Seeing pilots really have to be pilots in these things? I mean some of these new generation missiles? Even with stealth and thrust vectoring out there, some of these missiles make all of that useless.
Fun fact. The Argentines were going to use their carrier, along with the Belgrano to perform a pincer attack on the British fleet. But bad weather and then the sinking of the Belgrano prevented that. Spooked by Britain's nuclear subs the Argentines never sent their navy out of port in any significant way again.
Great video, i dont know how you keep coming up with these battle scenarios. I think youre missing your calling and should attend the Royal Military college Sandhurst asap! To answer your title, its my guess that it would of been torpedoed by one of the many British subs circling the falklands and beyond.
The Argentines DID use their carrier, there was not enough wind over her deck to launch on their planned attack upon the task force and intended to attempt again the following day.The Royal Navy destroyed the Belgrano and would have also sunk the carrier Vienticinco de mayo if we knew exactly where she was. You also forget that the Royal Navy itself was carrying ship launched Exocet missiles... The Argentine Navy had only one strategic choice and they took it, turned and ran for port.
Assuming Ark Royal is working as intended? I'd imagine the Phantoms supported by Gannet AEW are enough of a threat to neuter the Argentine AF, short of the captain downing a dozen mugs of lead tea and ordering full steam to the coast, F-4s have all the advantages over the islands.
Harrier has a relatively small IR signature from behind and a tiny one from above. 1980s era IR weapons would struggle to get a lock unless you fire from under the plane.
The British definitely had Sidewinder M’s. They were given by the USA and sent to Ascension. Both Sharkey Ward speaks about it in his book, as does Rowly White in 809 Sqn.
@@grimreapers two really good books if you want have time to read them. The Sharkey Ward book - I listened to the audio book (did with both of them actually), and he did it DIY. Production values are low, but if you can get over that, there’s some really interesting insights into the war from one of the key players that fought it. The 809 book is a lot more accessible, probably a better place to start with. My fave all time Falklands fact is that the Shar had 23 Ariel victories to zero losses in Air-Air combat (some lost to ground fire and accidents). One of the best all time kill ratios.
These videos are always fun to watch. Though there was a little issue that many people forget about that war: The British uses freighters during their initial attack. It was a brilliant tactic. The British took cargo container ships, made hollow sections to carry and launch Harrier jump jets.
If the Skyhawks served as bait like in this video, the English fleet would have taken a lot more damage than they did if the Mirages and Super etendards took off from the ground. greetings from Mar del Plata, Argentina!
Perhaps. But if Woodward had suggested taking the entire TF to accept battle with the Argentine Navy between the islands and Argentina, he'd have been relieved of command and flown back to Britain. Such a move would play 100% to Argentina's benefit so as the RN commanders were capable of thinking and breathing simultaneously, it'd never happen.
Violet Moon has become quite an arial demon! If she isn't the top killer on the board she is very close to the top. Almost think she could change her user name to "Violent Moon" 😁
Fun fact. To get approval from HM Government for it's build, I was reliably informed many years ago, Invincible wasn't an aircraft carrier, rather it was a through deck cruiser.
Imagine if the Junta waited a few months more the british would have scrapped a carrier or two and the Argentineans would have a full squadron of Exocet equipped Etendards. That could be complete game changing
@@grimreapers You might not want to keep it on your bookshelf in case somebody pours scorns on you. But 'Sea Harrier over the Falklands' is the definite work on the topic.
Lol -It would have been sunk immediately, there was a British SSN shadowing it, as soon as the Belgrano was sunk, the carrier legged it for its home port. The SSN asked for permission to sink it, but London said no.
The Argentinians located the British fleet first (on May 1st) and were only a puff of wind away from launching an assault on the British fleet. The extraordinarily calm conditions that day saved the Brits - who found the Argentinians later that day (after the attack should have happened) and sunk the Belgrano the next day.
No. Its not correct to spawn in 4 Argentinian planes every 6 minutes. After 6 mininutes, the LAST of 4 planes is launched, but 3 of them are launced earlier.
Here's a thing. If the British lost half their planes in this engagement, would they have enough left to defend the fleet against attacks by the Argentinian land-based air when they tried to land troops? I think not. Then the Argentinians would retain control of the Falklands. Would that be worth losing all their navy?
The problem is, the real result of Argentina attempting to commit that aircraft carrier and any other ships from her fleet is that aircraft carrier and all other ships get sunk by British attack submarines before they have a chance to do anything - HMS Splendid was already lining up on the Argentine carrier when the General Belgrano was sunk and would have sunk her had she done anything other than turn around and run for home port. Argentina loses her fleet for nothing. They made the correct choice (one of the few times in this conflict that they did) when they pulled their carrier back. This "battle" isn't a realistic depiction - it's a bit of fun "what if the carrier somehow eluded the submarines and got their aircraft launched?"
Well you're wrong - de Mayo was ready to launch an attack on May 1st there were 6 Skyhawks armed and ready to go - only a lack of wind saved the British from an air assault. Boiler faults limited de Mayo to about 12 knots so the fully-armed Skyhawks needed wind-assistance to get off the deck. Not usually a problem in those waters but on this day - nothing - calm as a duck pond! Luck plays a big part in war - and this piece of luck possibly determined the outcome of the conflict.
It was in range to attack the British fleet on May 1st before they found de Mayo but lack of wind thwarted the attack. The Brits were a puff of wind away from the possible loss of a carrier. de Mayo was tracked by sub all the way back to port with several opportunities to engage her but by the time the decision was made to sink her - it was too late - thankfully - no needless loss of life as she took no further part in the war.
The navy is smaller in terms of hulls but the modern navy of me is is in almost every way an improvement and an answer to deficiencies in the falklands. 2 full on fleet carriers capable of deploying top of the line fast jets rather than the slower harrier. I would rather armed forces were a bit larger but to me they are not what they used to be they are far better
Someday soon it’ll be bigger thanks to Russia being proven a reasonable threat. Hopefully they make that new 3% more of a minimum and continue to increase as needed when it can
@@lukesmith5531 tbh crimea should’ve been a red flag back a few years ago, but oh well. Still I have no idea how much money the extra 0.8 will add to make it 3% on defence, apparently our defence is around 59 billion? and my math is not what it used to be but increasing by roughly a third of what it is may help us if we split it between increasing numbers so losing something(s) won’t hurt as much and enough to keep the tech and training levels the same.
@@andyf4292 It's a national anthem i don't really think it's suppose to be good fella, i would of loved, I vow to thee thy country from the royal marines, now that inspires patriotism 🙂
quit fighting harrier like a normal jet, they turn on a dimei f you use the variable exhaust to shorten the turn radius, thats why harriers were so nasty to fight in the Falkland war.
Even without using viffing techniques Sea Harrier FSR1 turned on a dime - the acceleration to 500 knots was remarkable too as the engine was totally optimised for low altitude flight - she could bleed off speed and then recommit easily against other subsonic aircraft. In a quick drag at low altitude there's not much that will beat the original Sea Harrier.
Nice......I was just about to ask it Invincible had working Seadarts and she fired....incidentally one of the Type42s engaged (and shot down)a Silkworm fired at USS Missouri BB63 during First Gulf War
True, but the sea dart of 91 was a totally different beast than 82, it had twice the range, a data link so it could be illuminated after launch and it hit low flying targets. The original version was vastly more limited. I believe HMS Gloucester launched sea dart while the silkworm was behind the ship, over the shoulder. 1982 sea dart systems wouldn't have even been able to engage it as the ship blocked radar line of sight to the launcher preventing lock, sea dart started life like the US SM-1 but ended up similar to SM-2 in capability.
Never rely on Wikipedia for technical info. The mythical Mod 2 Seadart with 80 mile range never existed. All variants of ‘Dart had a maximum range of approximately 40-45 miles. None could be re-programmed in flight. Maximum missiles a ship could fire at at time was two missiles at two targets i.e. 4 missiles in the air against two targets.
Great battle, as always! Small point, but the Harriers operated Blue Fox radar at this time, Blue Vixen was the next generation and was available a few years after this conflict. I worked at Ferranti on the Blue Fox radar in the late 70s. You mention the Harriers would be VIFFing (Vector in Forward Flight) to get missile lock on the enemy jets if it were real RN pilots. This would not be a true reflection of that conflict. I believe the Harrier was the first jet to use vectored flight in this way, but it was not until the US marines got their hands on them that it was used as a tactic!
The whole “viffing” thing was a media invention of the time. I served on Lusty as a rating some years after the conflict and obviously the Falklands was talked about endlessly. What the Harrier could do was turn very, very tightly and manoeuvre at low speeds. Viffing was possible but never used. Sharkey Ward was a big exponent of Blue Fox and had considerable faith in it’s ability. All of the pilots who had served in the Falklands by then in Command roles all spoke highly of the bravery and courage of the Argentinian pilots. They also mentioned that the white painted Canberra was never targeted in San Carlos as it looked like a Hospital ship. Actually it was a troopship but due to the rapid mobilisation of the fleet there had been no time to repaint it. The impression was that the Argentinian pilots were honourable men doing their jobs in wartime rather than butchers or sadists.
You could do the two British carriers in a pincer movement between the Argentine carrier and the Belgrano cruiser with it's 6 inch guns. This was a potential scenario that the British commander was worried about. Maybe even use the land based Mirages.
The (then) state of the art Sea Harrier wasn't exactly low tech! Nor was Sea Dart or Sea Wolf. The British detected practically every launch against them - mistakes and equipment failure blunted some of the responses. Don't forget the mighty US failed to see two Exocets hurtling towards USS Stark three years after the Falklands conflict.
Think you mean Blue Fox radar Cap. Blue Vixen wasn't introduced until the 90s when the FA2 entered service and gave the sea harrier a true look down / shoot down capability. Blue Fox was a lot less capable
Didn't the csg of argie come in from north west(outside of the exlusion zone)? If so, it would implicate totally different terrain with possible constraints for seabased radar. And wasn't the british csg not just to the west of the island (which would affect the harriers range perhaps)? Just asking,still a lovely video as always! Liebe Grüße from germany❤
Great battle, I knew the British would ultimately win. The next battle I want to see is American stealth aircraft defending Alaska from a Russian air attack.
They found that It could be lunched but it could not land safely and as they did not have many super etendars they did not want to risk the planes they had.
Excellent battle. Really makes things better when we don't have 120 mile missiles. If they ever get round to finishing the Phantom, have to do the threatened 1970's invasion of the islands that Argentina backed down from.
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
I only click so I can be called valued
I took it a little further...
Valued Viewers Are Us..
Lol
All my life I've felt worthless and unvalued. Then I found grim reaper and I've never been more valued in my life. I make him a solid 5 cent everytime I click his videos. Feels good to be valued.
If he never called us valued viewers idk where I'd be rn
It's nice to be recognised as a valued viewer. What would the Grim Reapers version of "Without fans, football is nothing" be?
i'm Argentinean and i lived this fight like it was a football match XD, good video, i think this map will be lot of fun when finished.
It's a bit sad that we (Aussies) lost out on getting Invincible. She was to replace Melbourne as HMAS Australia, but after the Falklands she stayed with the RN. Melbourne (originally HMS Magestic) was out last carrier. The closest thing we have now is a pair of LHDs.
Yeah and the Hermes then later got sold to India and was their Carrier for many years after.
Buy an older 1 from 🇺🇸? Or join Japan's helicopter carrier builds idk if the Ausssies are getting F35Bs.
It's sad you didn't get her back then. But you're soon to get a fleet of nuclear subs that will make your Navy a serious player in your neck of the woods!
@@TheGrannyBangerz from my research I am not seeing any F-35Bs going to Australia. They are currently in the process of procuring their F-35A Lightnings for the RAAF. They are up to 50 I think now and are getting another 22. I have not seen any reporting that they are buying any B models or getting helicopter carriers.
@@sedatedape315 I don't think it would have been that good to be honest. The Invincible, although more modern than the Hermes, had a lot of problems with her design. It is the reason the Hermes was the flagship, it was bigger and could carry more aircraft. It had a better designed hangar deck as well.
I love seeing the Av-8 fighting. Worked on this airframe in the Marines, and loved it's uniqueness. Such cool tech from the 60s
I always wanted to see the harrier do scissors in combat
Well that was a fun watch! Also interesting how a (relatively) low tech battle reveals Violet to be a stone cold, up close killer. Any truth to the rumour that after she ran out of ammo, her pilot was ordered to pop the canopy and start chucking rocks?
favorite comment so far XD
I heard she used radar guided harsh language too?
I assumed she pulled out the Webley and started making revolver kills.
@@violetmoon5702 What a pilot 👍
Cap! I thoroughly enjoyed watching that battle. I was concerned when the Harriers didn't have the radars, but hey! You have to do what DCS allows you to do right? Watching proper dogfights happen where missiles actually have a higher chance of missing than once in a blue moon chance like they do now. I think that was the most even contest that you have run in a while. And yes everyone I will be doing After Action reviews on these wargames on my channel. I am first doing them as a livestream on twitch and then porting them over. Cap did ask me to wait a few days before doing the AAR so more people get to watch these first and well, I won't piss off Cap because I love doing the research on GR wargames.
Thanks Raven great work as ever :)
Violet is impressive again, is she a fighter pilot?
@@ayethein7681 Violet just doesn't, for lack of a better term "cock about" in these war games.
@@CombatIneffective Certainly does not, and rather effectively.
You're incorrect with regarding the Harriers. GR stands for Ground Attack and Reconnaissance. Not Ground Roll. Also the Sea Harrier Frs1 was fitted with a Bluefox Radar. It was the latter variant that was fitted with the much improved Blue Vixen radar. Fa2 Sea Harrier.
Thank you for that comment. Everything I had read on the Sea Harriers showed the Blue Vixen. I have now researched your claim on this and indeed you are very much correct. The Blue Fox was out there, the British thought it sucked and didn't work properly. However it did account for 4 air to air kills and a Sea Harrier equipped with the Blue Fox did detect the Veinticinco De Mayo as it approached the British Task Force. Blue Fox worked according to design there. It was designed for surface search originally.
These smaller nations wargames are in many ways more intriguing than the USA vs "near peer adversary". Plus the airframes and missiles are old and well known enough that you're getting realistic capabilities. Something I'm not sure is the case with some of the newer tech weapons platforms. Some of China and Russia's systems just seem a bit OP.
Yeah, i agree. There's a reason why they seem so op:
China and Russia want a share of the export market for weaponry, so they tend to oversell the capabilities of their weapons to get more potential buyers
Meanwhile the US, like any other great brand name known for quality fully KNOW that their products will be bought despite what they will do, so they will actually UNDERSELL their gear to keep an element of surprise (Such as the F-35) or not sell it at all, and make it's true capabilities top secret (Such as the F-22 and part of the F-35 systems)
She never used the carrier because the wind wasn't right. And the exclusion zone was for civilians and other naval powers, not Argentina. Argentina was fair game no matter where they were. Hence why even the captain of the Belgrano stated the strike was justified.
thx
The exclusion zone was for all ships not just Argentinian, as we were at war with Argentina we could actually attack its ships anywhere in the world, this is where many people get confused and think the Belgrano was sunk illegally. Argentinian Naval officers have confirmed that they fully understood this and it is why they never complained about the sinking.
thx
can you explain a little bit better? here in Argentina, as far as I know, we use the argument of the exclusion zone to argue that it was a illegal sinking (more or less that's the narrative), and also I never heard why the war started in the first place, like there is a lot of things historians, the state, or whatever don't want us to know
Even the surviving captain of the Belgrano has gone on record as saying obviously he wasn't happy about it but it was a legal attack. The British Admiralty stated that though the Conqueror torpedoed the Belgrano outside of the naval exclusion zone she was 1) perfectly within the law to attack a declared enemy ship flying the colours of a hostile nation under a formal declaration of war, and 2) she 100% knew the Belgrano could alter course and enter the exclusion zone at any time. It was a tragedy and it was terrible people died, but the same could be said of the HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Atlantic Conveyor, HMS Sir Galahad, HMS Sir Tristrum etc etc. All were legal acts of war under maritime law.
To this day HMS Conqueror is the only nuclear attack submarine to have torpedoed and sunk an enemy ship in anger. That we know of, anyway........
@@MartinRichardi The war started because the junta seized the islands in an attempt to distract the Argentine people from the worsening economic situation. It was believed (not just by Argentina, but by the world in general) that Britain would protest to the UN, but refuse to escalate the situation beyond that, and that if it did, it would fail because the islands are halfway around the world, and Argentina is only a few hundred kilometres away.
As for the Belgrano: the ship was manoeuvring as part of a plan to catch the British fleet in a pincer move (if memory serves, the 25 de Mayo formed the offensive punch of the other arm). When she was sunk, she was heading away from the EZ, but only because she was zig-zagging to make herself harder to hit. Her presence worried the British because while she was an old ship, she still had 16 150mm guns, which would could do serious damage if given the chance.
When HMS Conqueror reported that she had the Belgrano in her sights, the order was given to sink it. With the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to forget how precarious the British task force's position was, and no responsible commander would allow the enemy to retain the ability to pose such a threat.
The sinking was completely legal. After all, what argument can be applied to the sinking of the Belgrano that can't also be applied to the Sheffield or the Coventry?
Needless to say, every one of the 904 deaths related to the conflict is a tragedy, but let's not forget who picked the fight.
@@SingularNinjular thanks for the info, your perspective is not heard here at all
WOW!!! :D that was one of the best battles and best matched! no supersonic, no plane radars, only old sidewinders, dumb bombs, ... it was top mounted wings versus low slung wings! :) The surprise sea darts were amazing! And the final carrier landing was just the perfect finale!
"Argentina was prohibited from entering the exclusion zone". Actually, the exclusion zone was declared as an area where any vessel or aircraft could be attacked without warning. EVERYONE was prohibited, not just Argentina.
thx
Yeah, Argentinian ships were targets anywhere (hence the General Belgrano being a legitimate target), the exclusion zone was a "Don't enter here or you risk being attacked without us bothering to positively identify you as Argentinian" thing
@@audigex Crucial point that destroys the victimhood posturing of the Argentines
My dad served on Hermes during the conflict as a CPO AEM for the Sea Kings in the Fleet Air Arm
Dang good video!! I really expected it to be much closer. Mainly because I thought that the A-4 had a much bigger advantage with maneuverability. As usual, great GR content!!!!!!
Both sides have relatively symetrical capabilities. An odd period in naval combat history. Great match.
Incorrect. One side had the Royal Navy
A country who has never gone to war with a major power vs the (then) 4th largest military in the world with centuries of major combat experience - not too bright - or balanced.
@@LondonSteveLee the British invaded them two times and lost. What you mean?
@@biohita Three times*, the third time siding with the French. They still lost.
The FRS1 during the Falklands Conflict used the Blue Fox Radar, the Blue Vixen came later and was a remarkable piece of equipment. 801 Sqn on Invincible used the Blue Fox to good effect whereas 800 Sqn on Hermes didn't trust it.
thx
@@grimreapers please don't take my comment as criticism, your channel is quite fantastic and I thoroughly enjoy these 'what if' scenarios.
Did you also read Sharkey Ward's, Sea Harrier Over The Falklands?
@@stab74 among many, many others!
Never gamble against the British Navy!
...or Violet Moon!
*Royal Navy!
I remember the British Harrier pilots at the time used "vectoring in flight" or "VIFFING" - rotating the jet nozzles and engendering considerably more manoeuvrability than a conventional aircraft like the A4. Also the Argentines made full use if their land based Super Etendards for ship attacks. Another great video. Thanks!
That's a myth. In reality they didn't even get into many manoeuvring fights, they were chasing argie jets at the absolute limit of their range without the fuel to dogfight. Besides which, nobody in their right mind would try to viff, lose that much speed and you are stone cold dead, even if it works and you bag your bandit one of his mates will take the free kill with glee.
@@mstevens113 As a true brit of the falkland repute mate, I can say I VIFFED the entire time. Barely made it 20nm off the ship and then spun in place like a top.
It’d have been sunk by a British sub 😉😉
Since Argentina had almost no anti-sub capability I have no doubt it would have been sunk just like the Belgrano was. This is why it never left port.
Except that this particular vessel carried 4 Tracker Grumman for anti submarine warfare commanded by at the time Cpt. Membrana i believe. It is my understanding that HMS Splendid did not pursue because it was spotted by the anti submarine warfare element. Belgrano was sunk because the cruiser and the two destroyers unlike the carrier, possessed no anti submarine elements.
@@manuelsegovia7915they never actually found the Argentine aircraft carrier. There's a book that explains that they spent a long time looking before intelligence confirmed it had returned to port. They never found the Argentine submarine either.
She had S-2 Trackers and SH-3 Seakings
@@manuelsegovia7915 Splendid wasn't spotted the carrier returned to port before it was found. If splendid had been spotted there would have been a concerted effort to sink her.
I believe that in a situation like this RN could outperform the Armada, but the first minutes was kind of a unusual situation of a pack of Harriers against individual F4s. Probably the already launched F4s would wait for theirs wingman's. This would be different like the first wave of 4 AI F4 showed.
"Had aircraft carrier ... Never used it"
Define "used". It put to sea, and they loaded the A4 skyhawks for a co-ordinated attack, but failed to get aircraft off the desk. Not sure if it was catapult or weather issues. When the Belgrano was sunk, they put to port again. The planned attack would have been A4s and Exocets from the NW, and the Belgrano leading the SAG to launch Exocets from the SW.
Only the Harriers on Hermes has the AIM-9L, which had been obtained for the war, they weren't part of the standard inventory then. So, the 801 was carrying whatever was the standard sidewinder at the time for the UK.
801 loved and used the radar, but an order came down from Flag it wasn't to be used (can't remember the date that happened). 800 hated the radar (and nav system), didn't trust them and rated them as useless. 800 was on the Hermes with Flag, and provided AW advice.
The real question is "What if Argentina sent the professional army to the Falklands and also stuck most of it's fleet on the island in an all-out defence of the island?"
And also had her Submarines well maintained...
"army to the Falklands" then the Chileans may have invaded
"most of it's fleet on the island" then the mainland would have been undefended.
You're correct with your opening statement, however the Argentine Forces would have suffered a heavier defeat than they did if they had put their carrier out to and lost eight more aircraft which were used against us later. Another thing you have to consider is that we had 200 F4 Phantoms, 200 Buccaneers, 165 Jaguars (a/c with the longest range) back home had these got to the Chilean Islands that the Nimrods were using, it would have been a very one sided fight. Plus if every one of us servicemen had our own way (all 330,000 of us) we would have been down there such was our resolve. Finally one point that you have to remember is New Zealand offered resources to the U.K and were politely declined. We specifically contained the fight to the Falkland Islands and not to the Argentine mainland and quietly the Argentinians should be grateful we fought the Falkland campaign with much restraint and also from a diplomatic perspective as this minimized casualties on both sides. Also don't forget Argentina were also after Chilean territory in the Terra Del Fuego area!
"the Argentines should be grateful we fought the Falkland campaign with much restraint"
I'm remembering the sinking of the Belgrano differently than you. As I recall, it was sunk outside of the exclusion zone, to the loss of 321 lives. You also did your darndest to get every aircraft available involved, launching air attacks all the way from Ascension Island. AND British special ops even crossed into the Argentine mainland from Chile near Punto Arenas. I think the British pursued that war with EVERY means available and no restraint. The main reason there weren't 330,000 servicemen down there was that British logistics were incapable of supporting such a large army so far from home (and so close to the enemy's home). As for diplomatic restraint, to this day the UK refuses to comply with UN requests to negotiate and it continues to pursue its arms embargo of Argentina. What a grudge match.
@@PeacePetal Argentina was after every bit of territory including South Georgia which she had no historical claim, Chilean territory in the Terra del Fuego and the Junta was also murdering their own people! Even the Argentine Naval commanders admitted that the strike on the Belgrano was legitimate which is on RUclips! Finally when the Bootnecks surrendered on South Georgia they advised the Argentine senior officers upon their surrender, of the booby traps left in Gritviken. Plus the Argentinians commanders abused their very own conscript troops and never ever fed them properly whilst they were having banquets and we treated better by us as POWs. So no it was not a grudge match!
@@PeacePetal Not sure there's much to negotiate about. Argentina's government has repeatedly said it wants the islands, which aren't theirs. The British government isn't going to pass sovereignty of them over to the Argentines. There is no middle ground.
@@EternallyDisappointed UN says otherwise.
we are greatful of our warriors.We presented battle with far inferiority and we fought with honor. The 8 british ships sunked in the sea can speak about how greatful we are.
not watch all of the video yet BUT at 40:19 4 more Argentinean anti-ship planes spored, AFTER the carrier was killed so IF they hit the UK ships I feel that dose not count
Now that was one HELL of a good scrap! I thought the Brits would win, but not giving the Argies an absolute curb-stomping like this though. This was an extremely absorbing and exciting battle to watch between semi-modern aircraft and missiles and I really hope you do more battles with 70's-80's era conflicts like the several African civil wars and of course Falklands. Thanks for a great video!
is it a fight if your airforce are told not to engage te enemu airforce?
@@fillipfairfile801 (psst....we're talking about a video game here.)
@@fillipfairfile801cry much 😂😂😂
@@britishpatriot7386he's British he just doesn't know it
Cap - You do realise that the 25 de Mayo did get into range to launch her aircraft of HMS Invincible before the ARA Belgrano was sunk. She didn't launch her aircraft because the Skyhawks needed wind over the deck to launch. The plan had been to extend the deck so that she could launch the Super Entendards carrying the exocets but that deck extension hadn't been completed. She was detected by a Sea Harrier and then fled to Port after the Belgrano was sunk and as you say was being chased by Splendid.
A surprise attack by A4s against the carrier group probably would have been defeated but it would have been the first Carrier versus carrier battle since world war 2 and as shown in that conflict anything can happen when carriers engage each other.
No A4s were actually launched against Invincible, no attack on Invincible or Hermes occured during the war.
I was not aware of this!
@@grimreapers On the day that General Belgrano was sunk, Veinticinco de Mayo and her task group were north of the Falkland Islands and, as I recollect, somewhere to the northwest of the British task force. Her S-2 Trackers had located the British fleet late in the day on May 1, and all her A-4Q Skyhawks were prepared for an attack to be launched at daybreak on May 2. Again, as I recall, the Argentines envisioned a pincer movement against the British task force, with Veinticinco de Mayo attacking from the northwest while General Belgrano and her group struck from the southwest. But the attack didn’t come off. Veinticinco de Mayo was not able to get her planes into the air the morning of May 2 due to a dead calm and windless conditions in the area. Then came news that General Belgrano had been sunk. As you know, the Argentine Navy retreated to port after that.
@@grimreapers It should be noted, too, that Veinticinco de Mayo supported the initial Argentine landings on the Falklands. Her aircraft were not used, but she transported 1,500 Argentine army troops to the islands.
Just want to say this was a Great battle! Kept me right on the edge of my seat watching the air duels going on. I want to Commend Violet for her flying skill and aggressive battle tactics. I'd sure be happy to have her in a fighter on my wing in a furball. Everyone did a fine job. Cap, you put this together quite well and I do hope you get to feeling better. I'll be watching for the next video!
100% It was a bloody good fight
I love these historical type of battles, I learn about pieces of wars that I have never heard of before. Bravo GR's!
The Argentinians did, deploy their carrier, 25 Mayo, leading one battlegroup of The 25 Mayo, The Drummond, and the submarine San Luis , while the General Belgrano was with the Piedra Buena and Hipólito Bouchard . Both were to encircle the taskforce with a pincer movement with the Belgrano approaching from the south And the 25 Mayo, approaching from the North. And in addition hit them with shore based aircraft from Stanley.
The guy volunteers at a church I have to like the video now
Argentina also had the super etendard with exocet and 2 x type 42 destroyers.
Agree but they were operating from land?
@@grimreapers both the A4 and Super Etendard ended up operating from land due to the risk of submarines and the operational limitations from its catapult. The few opportunities the carrier had to attack the British fleet were cancelled due to lack of wind to support catapult launches with sufficient ordinance.
However, you mentioned you wanted something interesting, the addition of super etendard with exocet and type 42 destroyers on defense would certainly make it interesting! :)
CAP, great video again! What if the Argentina carrier was used to lure the brit carriers closer to the mainland and away from some of the defense fleet. Then the land forces coordinate with the carrier on an attack on the reduced british fleet in the open ocean. Argentina with the Etendards, A4s, etc against the brit fleet and the aircraft carried on the carriers. I think this would be a much more likely scenario than a single carrier sailing to its death.
Don't think the real life brits would abandon their screening ships in real life though, do you?
@@mikeycraig8970 No, we would not. They were what we call "MEU". Mission Essential Unit. They do not get put in harms way. That's the job of the Destroyers and Frigates. We'd look at their ruse and say "Aww, isn't that cute". Then dispatch an S or T boat to finish them off. With British SSN's in play, this scenario doesn't play out at all.
Violet moon goes Winchester and starts lobbing rocks at the A4s😆🥰
Could you imagine the conflict if the British had a modern aircraft carrier with F-35’s 😮😮😮😮
Fun fact. One of the first sea harriers shot down during the conflict had been modified for trials with the Sea Eagle missile. In order to install the kit associated with the Sea Eagle it had been necessary to remove the RWR from this aircraft, and indeed this may have led to it being shot down by radar laid anti-aircraft guns. In any case, the Argentinians found the Sea Eagle cockpit control panel in the wreckage. It's considered to be another possible contributing factor to the Argentinian navy staying in port and not coming out to confront the Royal Navy.
Also the Sea Harriers didn't have flares in the Falklands. They did had chaff, but it was one-shot jury rigged arrangement where it was more or less gaffa-taped to the back of the airbrake.
Amazing thanks!
@@grimreapers This was really fun to watch Cap. Thanks for creating.
@@Thumblegudget The flares turned up right at the end of the conflict along with the proper chaff arrangement - too late by then though! Don't think any of the deployment panels made it onto the aircraft before the Argentinians surrendered.
@@LondonSteveLee And an EW pod that had been fitted in a 30mm gun pod.
Violet was on fire. Mvp of the match
Very interesting indeed. Looking forward to what this game will look like in 5 years. It’s already very very impressive today.
great fight but HMS Conqueror would have done the carrier , as that was what it was tasked to do, hence they never put the AC to sea after the Belgrano sank
Fantastic video!
Violet, please excuse any sexual jokes, 'cause you're awesome if I hadn't said so previously 🙂
The jokes don't bother me 😸, otherwise I would've stopped flying with them months ago lol
There were so many red on reds around the 28 minute or so mark lol
The Exclusion Zone applied to merchant shipping and was intended to keep neutrals out of the way. Warships were fair game anywhere and the Argentinians knew this. The British aricraft carriers would not have gone near either the Argentinian mainland or an Argentinian task force. Several SSNs were available to R-Adm Woodward and HMS SPLENDID was specifically tasked with sinking their carrier. SSNs offer a much lower risk of loss and probably a higher chance of success.
ERR...
Well, one of Her Majesty's Submarines, (there were three of them on station), would have sent it to join the fishes with it's sister ship Admiral Belgrano........
Sending Belgrano to the watery depths ensured that the rest of the Argeninian Navy stayed tied-up in port.
Predicating the likely use ....and possible effectiveness of the Argentine Carrier cannot be considered in isolation from the British Submarines. The presence of these was arguably the most potent weapon in theatre, although, for obvious reasons we heard little about them...
James Hennighan
Yorkshire, England
TLDW: An RN nuclear sub would have torpedoed it, and that would have been that. 25 de Mayo was followed for a while. The Total Exclusion Zone 'TEZ' was not for Argentine ships, it was for ALL ships, the UK said they maintained the right to attack any ship in the TEZ without notice, all Argentine ships anywhere were targets. So the entire premise of this video is flawed.
Really interesting scenario-- it's essentially weapon systems from 1982 fighting a type of engagement we haven't seen since 1942.
Well done GR-- thanks to you all.
I really do love these battles with the older aircraft. It's just more entertaining and more fun because it takes a little bit longer to complete.
I would love to see something with the P51 Mustang and the P38 lightning
Oh it was great watching those Sea Harriers trying to pull lead on the A-4s!
It almost feels like an entirely different type of battle. Really brings home how far the tech has come when they're launching so close and still missing, compared to watching hard to dodge PL15s and Meteors being lobbed from nearly an entire countries(small countries admittedly) width away.
@@chrisinstasis7986 absolutely! Watching flares still be effective counter measures? Seeing pilots really have to be pilots in these things? I mean some of these new generation missiles? Even with stealth and thrust vectoring out there, some of these missiles make all of that useless.
Fun fact. The Argentines were going to use their carrier, along with the Belgrano to perform a pincer attack on the British fleet. But bad weather and then the sinking of the Belgrano prevented that. Spooked by Britain's nuclear subs the Argentines never sent their navy out of port in any significant way again.
Great video, i dont know how you keep coming up with these battle scenarios. I think youre missing your calling and should attend the Royal Military college Sandhurst asap! To answer your title, its my guess that it would of been torpedoed by one of the many British subs circling the falklands and beyond.
In fairness these suggestions come from you guys.
The Argentines DID use their carrier, there was not enough wind over her deck to launch on their planned attack upon the task force and intended to attempt again the following day.The Royal Navy destroyed the Belgrano and would have also sunk the carrier Vienticinco de mayo if we knew exactly where she was. You also forget that the Royal Navy itself was carrying ship launched Exocet missiles... The Argentine Navy had only one strategic choice and they took it, turned and ran for port.
Violet moon is rapidly taking over Kortana’s place as “hard target.”
Good work, VM!
I can't say that I'm anywhere near Kortana rn, as I've only been flying in dcs and with GR for 4 months, but thank you 😸
@@violetmoon5702 As a longtime Kortana fan, I must say the humility is endearing.
You mentioned “viffing”. No RN pilots employed viffing during the Falklands war and it has Never been used in air combat.
The argentinian carrier was called the ARA 25 de mayo.
What if - Britain still had Ark Royal with F-4's and Argentina had land based air support?
Wilco when we get it in game.
They would have struggled because of the weather! CATOBAR carrier launch system isn’t as easy as STOVL during heavy rainfall
Assuming Ark Royal is working as intended? I'd imagine the Phantoms supported by Gannet AEW are enough of a threat to neuter the Argentine AF, short of the captain downing a dozen mugs of lead tea and ordering full steam to the coast, F-4s have all the advantages over the islands.
I'm a huge fan of 50s-80s stuff in DCS. It's just my opinion but I'm really not into the more modern stuff
Argentina used Super Etendard fighter carring Exocet anti ship missile in Falklands beginning new era of naval war.
So does the diffuse four exhaust system of the Harrier make a difference to IR Tracking? And, is it modelled in game?
Kind of. IR sig in game is just a simple single coeffictient value. Harrier's is set fairly low. Hard to get a lock on.
Harrier has a relatively small IR signature from behind and a tiny one from above. 1980s era IR weapons would struggle to get a lock unless you fire from under the plane.
So Belgrano got sunk when it made aggressive postures, im sure the carrier would have had the same outcome.
it would have looked sunk, by nuclear submarine, when it's jets were in the air so they'd be lost too.
The British definitely had Sidewinder M’s. They were given by the USA and sent to Ascension. Both Sharkey Ward speaks about it in his book, as does Rowly White in 809 Sqn.
Thanks! You guys know so much.
@@grimreapers two really good books if you want have time to read them. The Sharkey Ward book - I listened to the audio book (did with both of them actually), and he did it DIY. Production values are low, but if you can get over that, there’s some really interesting insights into the war from one of the key players that fought it. The 809 book is a lot more accessible, probably a better place to start with. My fave all time Falklands fact is that the Shar had 23 Ariel victories to zero losses in Air-Air combat (some lost to ground fire and accidents). One of the best all time kill ratios.
@@mrjonnylowes No they didn't - they had AIM-9Ls replacing their AIM-9Gs.
@@LondonSteveLee And some of the 9L's were from UK stocks. A batch had already arrived for the Phantom force at Wattisham.
@@dogsnads5634 That rings a bell - thanks.
I believe an Argentine aircrafts carrier would have been sunk by a royal navy sub before it ever got in range of a royal navy carrier.
Well, that statement switched my lights off!
and good to hear the crew actually 'hello guys-ing' as they were horderved to do
Yay finally mention the veinticinco de mayo in your video’s yay!!! grim reapers
These videos are always fun to watch. Though there was a little issue that many people forget about that war: The British uses freighters during their initial attack. It was a brilliant tactic. The British took cargo container ships, made hollow sections to carry and launch Harrier jump jets.
If the Skyhawks served as bait like in this video, the English fleet would have taken a lot more damage than they did if the Mirages and Super etendards took off from the ground. greetings from Mar del Plata, Argentina!
Depends - Sharkey's mob did pretty darn well against F-14 and F-15 in NATO exercises.
Perhaps. But if Woodward had suggested taking the entire TF to accept battle with the Argentine Navy between the islands and Argentina, he'd have been relieved of command and flown back to Britain. Such a move would play 100% to Argentina's benefit so as the RN commanders were capable of thinking and breathing simultaneously, it'd never happen.
"But, you guys want to see a fight"
Oh Grim, you know us so well.
Violet Moon was the star of that show. Also great to see the Sea Dart in action.
Violet Moon has become quite an arial demon! If she isn't the top killer on the board she is very close to the top. Almost think she could change her user name to "Violent Moon" 😁
Violent Moon!! Good show!
This goes to show you how much of a difference the Argentine pilots made in the real conflict
Fun fact. To get approval from HM Government for it's build, I was reliably informed many years ago, Invincible wasn't an aircraft carrier, rather it was a through deck cruiser.
nice
Imagine if the Junta waited a few months more the british would have scrapped a carrier or two and the Argentineans would have a full squadron of Exocet equipped Etendards. That could be complete game changing
It would have been sunk by the Brits!
It got to within 140 miles of the British fleet undetected and only failed to launch an attack due to the lack of wind.
2 aden guns on the harrier?,,, similar to the gun on the apache i heard
Fox not Vixen, the latter came later.
thx
@@grimreapers You might not want to keep it on your bookshelf in case somebody pours scorns on you. But 'Sea Harrier over the Falklands' is the definite work on the topic.
25 de Mayo would have suffered the same fate as the Belgrano
Lol -It would have been sunk immediately, there was a British SSN shadowing it, as soon as the Belgrano was sunk, the carrier legged it for its home port. The SSN asked for permission to sink it, but London said no.
The Argentinians located the British fleet first (on May 1st) and were only a puff of wind away from launching an assault on the British fleet. The extraordinarily calm conditions that day saved the Brits - who found the Argentinians later that day (after the attack should have happened) and sunk the Belgrano the next day.
No. Its not correct to spawn in 4 Argentinian planes every 6 minutes. After 6 mininutes, the LAST of 4 planes is launched, but 3 of them are launced earlier.
Agreed, I figured it would actually help if they waited to spawn in fours, but maybe I was wrong.
Here's a thing. If the British lost half their planes in this engagement, would they have enough left to defend the fleet against attacks by the Argentinian land-based air when they tried to land troops? I think not. Then the Argentinians would retain control of the Falklands. Would that be worth losing all their navy?
The problem is, the real result of Argentina attempting to commit that aircraft carrier and any other ships from her fleet is that aircraft carrier and all other ships get sunk by British attack submarines before they have a chance to do anything - HMS Splendid was already lining up on the Argentine carrier when the General Belgrano was sunk and would have sunk her had she done anything other than turn around and run for home port. Argentina loses her fleet for nothing. They made the correct choice (one of the few times in this conflict that they did) when they pulled their carrier back.
This "battle" isn't a realistic depiction - it's a bit of fun "what if the carrier somehow eluded the submarines and got their aircraft launched?"
HMS Conqueror would have sank that as well!
I happen to agree. A Royal Navy nuke sub would have sunk 25 de May. She would have been lucky to launch her aircraft.
Well you're wrong - de Mayo was ready to launch an attack on May 1st there were 6 Skyhawks armed and ready to go - only a lack of wind saved the British from an air assault. Boiler faults limited de Mayo to about 12 knots so the fully-armed Skyhawks needed wind-assistance to get off the deck. Not usually a problem in those waters but on this day - nothing - calm as a duck pond! Luck plays a big part in war - and this piece of luck possibly determined the outcome of the conflict.
I think in reality the carrier would be sunk by Royal Navy submarines just like ARA General Belgrano.
It was in range to attack the British fleet on May 1st before they found de Mayo but lack of wind thwarted the attack. The Brits were a puff of wind away from the possible loss of a carrier. de Mayo was tracked by sub all the way back to port with several opportunities to engage her but by the time the decision was made to sink her - it was too late - thankfully - no needless loss of life as she took no further part in the war.
The British military is not what it use to be
so sad
The navy is smaller in terms of hulls but the modern navy of me is is in almost every way an improvement and an answer to deficiencies in the falklands. 2 full on fleet carriers capable of deploying top of the line fast jets rather than the slower harrier. I would rather armed forces were a bit larger but to me they are not what they used to be they are far better
Someday soon it’ll be bigger thanks to Russia being proven a reasonable threat. Hopefully they make that new 3% more of a minimum and continue to increase as needed when it can
@@splatoonistproductions5345 Agreed, whilst war is generally a bad thing, it does make people more cautious, a warning of what can happen.
@@lukesmith5531 tbh crimea should’ve been a red flag back a few years ago, but oh well. Still I have no idea how much money the extra 0.8 will add to make it 3% on defence, apparently our defence is around 59 billion? and my math is not what it used to be but increasing by roughly a third of what it is may help us if we split it between increasing numbers so losing something(s) won’t hurt as much and enough to keep the tech and training levels the same.
What would of most likely happen is HMS Conqueror would have another target for it's torpedoes, then *Rule Britannia Intensifies*
that should be our anthem,,, not the current dirge
@@andyf4292 Jerusalem would be good or Land of Hope and Glory
@@andyf4292 I always thought that god save the king was our national anthem...i could be wrong
@@ryanthompson5761 wasant always,,, but its still a dirge
!
@@andyf4292 It's a national anthem i don't really think it's suppose to be good fella, i would of loved, I vow to thee thy country from the royal marines, now that inspires patriotism 🙂
quit fighting harrier like a normal jet, they turn on a dimei f you use the variable exhaust to shorten the turn radius, thats why harriers were so nasty to fight in the Falkland war.
Even without using viffing techniques Sea Harrier FSR1 turned on a dime - the acceleration to 500 knots was remarkable too as the engine was totally optimised for low altitude flight - she could bleed off speed and then recommit easily against other subsonic aircraft. In a quick drag at low altitude there's not much that will beat the original Sea Harrier.
Nice......I was just about to ask it Invincible had working Seadarts and she fired....incidentally one of the Type42s engaged (and shot down)a Silkworm fired at USS Missouri BB63 during First Gulf War
True, but the sea dart of 91 was a totally different beast than 82, it had twice the range, a data link so it could be illuminated after launch and it hit low flying targets. The original version was vastly more limited.
I believe HMS Gloucester launched sea dart while the silkworm was behind the ship, over the shoulder. 1982 sea dart systems wouldn't have even been able to engage it as the ship blocked radar line of sight to the launcher preventing lock, sea dart started life like the US SM-1 but ended up similar to SM-2 in capability.
Never rely on Wikipedia for technical info. The mythical Mod 2 Seadart with 80 mile range never existed. All variants of ‘Dart had a maximum range of approximately 40-45 miles. None could be re-programmed in flight. Maximum missiles a ship could fire at at time was two missiles at two targets i.e. 4 missiles in the air against two targets.
Really enjoyed the extended length dog fights - very fun 🤩
Great battle, as always!
Small point, but the Harriers operated Blue Fox radar at this time, Blue Vixen was the next generation and was available a few years after this conflict.
I worked at Ferranti on the Blue Fox radar in the late 70s.
You mention the Harriers would be VIFFing (Vector in Forward Flight) to get missile lock on the enemy jets if it were real RN pilots. This would not be a true reflection of that conflict. I believe the Harrier was the first jet to use vectored flight in this way, but it was not until the US marines got their hands on them that it was used as a tactic!
The whole “viffing” thing was a media invention of the time. I served on Lusty as a rating some years after the conflict and obviously the Falklands was talked about endlessly.
What the Harrier could do was turn very, very tightly and manoeuvre at low speeds. Viffing was possible but never used.
Sharkey Ward was a big exponent of Blue Fox and had considerable faith in it’s ability. All of the pilots who had served in the Falklands by then in Command roles all spoke highly of the bravery and courage of the Argentinian pilots.
They also mentioned that the white painted Canberra was never targeted in San Carlos as it looked like a Hospital ship.
Actually it was a troopship but due to the rapid mobilisation of the fleet there had been no time to repaint it.
The impression was that the Argentinian pilots were honourable men doing their jobs in wartime rather than butchers or sadists.
I prefer to leave my gear down.
I like to leave the wings on the bog folded while flying as well 😸😹
I don't think Argentina has sidewinders in the Falklands- but I stand to be corrected.
They mainly had Magic R550s.
You could do the two British carriers in a pincer movement between the Argentine carrier and the Belgrano cruiser with it's 6 inch guns. This was a potential scenario that the British commander was worried about. Maybe even use the land based Mirages.
As soon as the carrier was destroyed the A4s would have bogged out and turner for home...
yup
Very close low tech fight
The (then) state of the art Sea Harrier wasn't exactly low tech! Nor was Sea Dart or Sea Wolf. The British detected practically every launch against them - mistakes and equipment failure blunted some of the responses. Don't forget the mighty US failed to see two Exocets hurtling towards USS Stark three years after the Falklands conflict.
Everybody was prevented from entering the exclusion zone.
thx
Fair play great channel. These what ifs regarding real events are a highlight.
Think you mean Blue Fox radar Cap. Blue Vixen wasn't introduced until the 90s when the FA2 entered service and gave the sea harrier a true look down / shoot down capability. Blue Fox was a lot less capable
Didn't the csg of argie come in from north west(outside of the exlusion zone)? If so, it would implicate totally different terrain with possible constraints for seabased radar.
And wasn't the british csg not just to the west of the island (which would affect the harriers range perhaps)?
Just asking,still a lovely video as always! Liebe Grüße from germany❤
Yes. They tried to use their carrier but failed.
Great battle, I knew the British would ultimately win.
The next battle I want to see is American stealth aircraft defending Alaska from a Russian air attack.
In real life, the Harriers tore the skyHawks apart.
Not one Harrier was lost in the whole war!
Not lost to enemy action, that is.
@@eddiebruv yes youre correct
I wonder if that was due to the Air to Air radar?
@@grimreapers Possibly.
But the SkyHawks did manage to destroy many British ships. They were very good pilots.
Isnt the super etendar built for carriers? Why they didnt use those in their carrier?
They found that It could be lunched but it could not land safely and as they did not have many super etendars they did not want to risk the planes they had.
Excellent battle. Really makes things better when we don't have 120 mile missiles. If they ever get round to finishing the Phantom, have to do the threatened 1970's invasion of the islands that Argentina backed down from.