Offensive? How do you arbitrate that? "Offensive" is a pretty subjective term. Someone might be offended by the statement "evolution is fact and God isn't real". Will you remove that?
As an argentine I like this outside view of the conflict, without so much propaganda. War is war, you can't just invade the territory of a great power and not expect retaliation. I hate how people in Argentina see the british as the bad guys, it makes absolutely no sense, especially because the invasion was comanded not by a elected body but by a bloody and cruel dictatorship, the worst in our history. Boggles my mind
Yep, behind all the nonsense the only opinion that matters is the people who live there, if Argentina wants the islands make Argentina a country they’d want to be a part of.
Fair analysis, if you're telling the truth. The UK were slowly going to cede the islands, was just taking a long time. If these guys didn't invade you probably would have the Falkland Islands til this day.
The Argentine junta seizure of the Falklands/Malvinas was done to gain some popularity. Not as a military operation. The junta was hadn’t expected to fight for the islands.
In such a succinct video there probably wasn't time to cover the 'Red Cross box'; but that was a neutral area where both UK and Argentine hospital ships were moored. All the medical personal treated all casualties with equal care. Leading to one UK surgeon receiving decorations from both the British and Argentine militaries..
The JUNTA called for the invasion to redirect issue's faced in Argentina at that time. They never expected the UK to respond let alone to go to war over the Falklands.
Those are U.K. citizens. Of course they went to war. Unlike a dictatorship or military rule or whatever other sort of stupid set up Argentina had at the time democracies care about their citizens. How Argentina didn’t see this coming is beyond me.
Anyone who "doubts" the sinking of ARA General Belgrano is almost certainly being disingenuous. It was an enemy warship on the high seas in time of war. An Argentine warship was a legitimate target for the Royal Navy ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD except for inside territorial waters of a neutral power. Similarly Royal Navy warships were legitimate targets for the Argentines anywhere in the world except for inside the territorial waters of a neutral power.
Indeed, and any naval officer understands that, including her Captain! "In 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone. Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror's actions were a "betrayal" was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war. In an interview two years before his death in 2009, he further stated that: "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal." "
The captain of the ship survived. He said on record that his ship was a legitimate target. He doesnt blame the British or think it was controversial. It's just the grim reality of the sudden massive loss of life that can happen in naval actions. The sea takes no prisoners. It is a force that both sides have to reckon with.
Neither Briton nor Argentinian here: If a British carrier had been sunk outside of the zone, allegedly on it's way home, the Sun would not have written: Oi, we have to suck it up! ;) In the fog of war, the rest of the world does not give anything on the legal wishes and technicalities of the wars of all you great powers, we just figure what you would say if the other side did something to you. Great if such tragedies can be legally reviewed later on, but honestly, it does not make that right or better, it's just if you should throw the people in charge in prison or not, they gave the order anyway.
@@TheWoblinGoblin there was no fog of war, the exclusion zone was for foreign and civilian vessels only, it was stated in the telegram sent to Argentina via the Swiss embassy. It specifically stated any argentine ship anywhere in the Atlantic that posed a threat to British operations was a target
Thank heavens Admiral Leach was 1SL at the time. Never hesitated for a moment when asked for his advice by the PM. No hedging, no prevarication. Just a straight, honest answer. That kind of decisiveness when faced with unexpected and difficult circumstances is what marks out the very best.
Straight, honest, unarguable facts and information would frighten any career politician down to their shrivelled souls. - and did. So completely out of their experience, such things are like a cockroach attempting to stay out in the light when it's turned on them. Yet they still interfered with arse-covering political fictions such as the total exclusion zone.
Is it worth you properly explaining what the exclusion zone was about ? Too many people still think this was the only area where we would attack Argentinean ships where as in reality it was an area where any unidentified ships would be considered unfriendly and be at risk of attack. Even future Argentine Admiral Molina Pico declared that the General Belgrano was a legitimate target despite being outside the zone and sailing away.
True. And people who use the "sailing away" argument have absolutely no knowledge of military history and zero imagination. A warship always has to be considered as repositioning for a later attack. Geez, a person only has to read a Wikipedia article on almost *any* naval battle of WW2.
@@donjones4719 Indeed. If they thought there was even a possibility of an enemy submarine being in the area they would constantly be changing heading and trying to hide their course.
From her Captain himself: In 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone. Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror's actions were a "betrayal" was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war. In an interview two years before his death in 2009, he further stated that: "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal."
Its absolutely pathetic that people question whether the sinking of the Belgrano was legitimate. What were we meant to do, allow the aggressor invading force to keep their flagship so we didn't hurt their feelings? Actions have consequences. Tough look, Argentina.
The existence of the exclusion zone did not prohibit the use of force against Argentine units outside it. It was more of a warning to EVERYBODY to stay away, and that we meant business.
@Ste Srad as others have said, the exclusion zone did not mean anyone outside it was safe. Regardless, the orders the belgrano had were to turn north and head towards the British fleet. Not sinking her at the time could have been disastrous for the British fleet.
@@eddiebruv Exactly. The exclusion zone was intended to make sure merchant ships and naval ships from other nations didn’t accidentally get attacked. The Argentine Navy was fair game whether it was 10 miles off the Falklands or just sitting in port. That’s kinda how war works.
Also from Sandy Woodward’s memoir - the heading of an enemy ship is immaterial, that can change in seconds. What matters are: firstly what is the enemy’s position? Secondly, what are the enemy’s intentions? Thirdly what are the enemy’s capabilities? Based on those three questions the Belgrano group was a clear threat to the Royal Navy task force. We learned later that Belgrano and the destroyer escorts had indeed been tasked to dash up from the south and attack the task force in co-ordination with the air attack by Veinticinco de Mayo’s A4 Skyhawks. Allowing the Belgrano group to hover on the edge of the TEZ within striking range would have been inviting attack.
I agree. The TEZ itself seems pretty irrelevant - its not declaring to the Argentinians "your military is safe as long as you stay out of this zone", its letting everyone else know "inside this circle there is a war going on, you're in danger if you go inside"
The Belgrano group was 12 miles outside TEZ. Deemed a threat to a carrier. The loss of either ended the conflict. Britain loses. The decision was political, made by Margaret Thatcher. Conqueror was dispatched to shadow the group 3 days earlier. It came under repeated attack by Argentine forces. The Belgrano group moved 22 miles away to take advantage of shallower waters. Conqueror engaged about 12.30 PM, Belgrano was hit less than 90 minutes later with a Mark8 torpedo. Messages were then sent out on open frequencies in Spanish and English advising escorts they would not be fired on while retrieving survivors. There were 2 escort vessels. Both left the area at speed leaving the survivors in the water. I was in the mess hall, HMS Hermes, when the crew was informed. My job? Special intelligence support ops FOF3. I worked 10ft from Sandy Woodward. Political or not, it was the right tactical decision. Morally? There are no rules in war. It was them or us. The captains of two support ships had to live with that decision too. Like everyone else who served, we did what we had to do: get the island back.
@@voiceofreason162 if you worked 10ft from the Admiral then you would know that he ordered Conqueror to attack Belgrano, while knowing full well that exceeded his authority and that Admiral Fieldhouse in Northwood would countermand the order before it got to Conqueror. Sinking a major enemy warship was explained to the PM as a military necessity. It went up to the War Cabinet because it was a major escalation in the conflict. It has been dressed up since by many as Thatcher going gung-ho and closing the door on a negotiated deal. That misreads her mood entirely. Once that Task group sailed, there was no way Thatcher was going to accept anything less than a complete Argentine withdrawal and return of the islands to British control. The junta couldn’t accept those terms so the conflict was essentially baked in from very early on. All wars have a political angle, a diplomatic angle and a military angle. To try and portray the Belgrano sinking as purely a political choice is massively disingeuous. Thatcher knew she would have to manage the political and diplomatic implications from it, but when your commander on the spot tells you that a major enemy attack is brewing which could cripple your chances of achieving the objectives the government had set out, it’s simply a logical choice. An attack by SSN is relatively low risk with a good chance of success. Anybody who tells you she was thinking about her opinion polls or winning the next general election is talking twaddle.
As a PS to this another SSN, HMS Splendid, was shadowing the Argentine carrier Veinticinco de Mayo. Imagine for a moment that Conqueror had lost contact with Belgrano on the Burdwood Bank but Splendid had not, and the Argentine carrier had been hit and sunk. Would we be having the same debate?
Totally agree about enemy intentions, which can change in SECONDS ... the only reply to any queries on the Falklands War should be “...if they didn’t invade in the 1st place, would it have been sunk“
The Argentines need to bring these claims to a close - the Falklands are a democracy, like the UK and they voted 99% to remain under British control.Argentina did not exist as a country at the time of British rule started, and like them the islands were under a Spanish garrison not an Argentinian force.
Wouldn't say so. British and Spanish controlled the islands by around the 1770s, then the Treaty of Nootka of 1790 guaranteed Spain's dominion over the islands, kicked the British away, and governed until 1811, when they left because Napoleon's invasion. Then, the newly formed Argentina claimed them in 1820 and controlled them until 1833, when they were kicked away by the US. Then they tried to return but then British appeared again, which essentially violated the 1790's Treaty of Nootka. Besides, the UN laws dictate that, for self-determination, the population must be native to the colonized territory and have been there before the colonizing country arrived, and the current Falklanders are a transplanted British population (no one was there before). In the other hand, Argentina's claim as an offshoot of Spain Empire is also invalid, because Spain left them in 1811 and Argentina wouldn't appear until 1816. And the geographical location is also a very weak argument, to be honest.
@@genarovargas5661 "Besides, the UN laws dictate that, for self-determination, the population must be native to the colonized territory and have been there before the colonizing country arrived, and the current Falklanders are a transplanted British population (no one was there before)." International law does not apply retroactively.
So the Argentinan population, which states they are transplanted Spanish, to Claim the inherited rights of Spain. So you are not indigenous to Argentina then. So you have no rights over your country, which we shall call West Falklands from now on.
I would like to point that those documents mentioned confirmed that the ship was not returning to port and was in fact repositioning for an attack. "In 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone. Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror's actions were a "betrayal" was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war. In an interview two years before his death in 2009, he further stated that: "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal." "
they made 3 attempts to out flank the British carrier fleets on both flanks the brits was cool they see every attack but argies new they was spotted and turn back but on the 3rd attempt the brits had to do something or be sunk been to cautious
Eso lo dijo en el 2003, en pleno age del proceso e "desmalvinización" que se instaló post Malvinas en Argentina. Terminada la guerra el y sus Comandantes manifestaron que fue un crimen de guerra. También nunca se mencionan los argumentos d e lps Aabogados, muy prestigiosos, que llevan adelante el reclamo de los familiares de las victimas del Belgrano, ya que a eso lo tiene que hacer solos, ya que por los acuerdos de Madrid se firmó que un Estado no puede litigar contra otro y esto sospechosamente se hizo en momentos de que en Argentina habia un gran movimiento para reclamar a que el Estado lo haga y no sus familiares. Otra cosa, si el motivo era dejarlo fuera de combate, porque tres torpedos para hundirlo y provocar la peor tragedia de ese guerra, porque no dieron aviso previo, porque el submarino se alejó rápidamente y no dio información para el rescate de las victimas. Si era tan legal, porque el Comandante del submarino se hizo repetir la orden tres veces, porque esta vino directamente desde Londres ? Todavía hay muchas dudas, pero recién se va a conocer todo cuando descalifiquen documentos los británicos en el 2072.
@@oscarbosio9881 No fue ningun crimen de guerra, eso lo habrá dicho en caliente. Es mucho más sincera la respuesta que dió despues. La demora en el ataque se debió a las implicancias politicas de hundir un crucero, que como explicaron más arriba, iba a significar una escalada mayor en el conflicto. Por eso la orden tuvo que ser autorizada desde el Reino Unido. Después lo que decís espero que no lo estés pensando en serio, ¿dar aviso de que vas a atacar a un enemigo? ¿en qué guerra pasó eso?
Saw the first one in the recommendations and assumed I'll be able to watch the entire series in one go : / Great narration and editing, looking forward to the remaining videos.
So interesting and quite unbiased, I subscribed after the first episode and I'm so glad I did. My first memories, even as a Peruvian myself, are of the Falklands War / Guerra de las Malvinas.
@@largain I understand there were some people saying that it was an absurd war, but in general the sentiment, for historical reasons, was in favour of Argentina. Most cars had a sticker on their windows with the Argentinian flag and the phrase "Las Malvinas Son Argentinas". Many yeard later I read the Peruvian government tried to find a peaceful solution to the conflict... Now, it may not be appropriate for me to state the following but maybe the job of this very series: when the peace talks proved impossible, it is said that Peru decided to give military support to Argentina in the form of exocets, Mirage planes, and other supplies.
While I seriously doubt Woodard is in same league as Drake, Rodney, Nelson, and the rest of the Great Admirals in terms of skills but he certainly had the same EXACT attitude as them...going for victory rather than simply avoiding defeat....Woodard lived up the traditions of the Royal Navy
The Falkland Islands were British at least 70 years before Argentine came into existence. The lands which eventually became Argentina were parts of the Spanish empire. 1690 The British John Strong landed on some remote Atlantic islands, and named them after Viscount Falkland, treasurer of the British navy 1765 The British, were the first to settle West Falkland. 1770 The Spanish, pushed out the British after buying out a French settlement 1771 The British regained the outpost on West Falkland wafter threat of war with Spain 1774 The British withdrew for reasons of cost but retained their claim to the Falklands. Spain maintained a settlement on East Falkland (which it called Soledad Island) until 1811. But the land remained a British possession. 1825 UK officially recognised Argentine independence. The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation was signed. 1833 Less than a decade later, the British ejected Argentinian invaders from the Falklands. The islands were quickly settled with British farmers. 1892 The Falkland Islands became a British colony. The inhabitants were now officially British subjects with British passports, etc.
did you really want to write"so meny"?(sic) never mind the clue lies in the abuse of those asinine and infantile little yellow things hic only witless children abuse.
Very informative video. The sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor is a bit oversimplified though. HMS Ambascade was the actual target but she launched chaff in self defence, in turn accidentally sending the missiles into the Conveyor.
Some would argue that the years prior to Thatcher becoming PM were more damaging to Britain's defences. When Labour left office, there were 76 combat-worthy aircraft that could defend Britain's airspace if they were attacked. Yes, I said 76. So what that brainless prat Nott did was to try rob Peter to pay Paul to shore-up the areas of the military that were lacking. I'm not defending him. He was an idiot. Under-qualified for the job and overwhelmed by the task, he was proof that political appointees should never be allowed near any important decisions.
In a word . Everything ! Amateurs against professionals with 300 years of experience and knowledge of Naval combat . The Argentinians never stood a chance against the British. It was a foolish decision to invade the Falklands . I was in the US Navy at the time and followed the conflict closely . Later I had the pleasure and privilege to fight and party with the returning British Marines who had survived through it all when they made a port of call in Key West Fla on their return home . First class guys who'd fight ya , then have a drink and be freinds afterwards . I have fond memories of those fine young men and the time I had enjoying their company. 😊
The story of the role the aging Vulcan bombers is the most amazing to me. It shocked the Junta that Britain could launch a bombing raid from that far away. It shocked Britain too. It was an amazing story of ingenuity. And duct tape.
I would never happen if the United States did not provide refueling capabilities to the RAF. Brit Government requested Brazil for landing and refueling facilities, but Brazil responded that they were and would remain neutral in this conflict, therefore refusing to aid either side.
If you mean use of the facilities at Ascension Island then no permission was required as Ascension Island is a British Territory which the UK permits the USA to use
This is good, but I didn't need a 16 minute docco to answer the question asked: "What went wrong for the Argentine Navy?" .... What went wrong is that they mistakenly thought that the woman in charge of Britain was a shrinking violet and that the Royal Navy was a paper tiger. Britain and Argentina both paid a high price for those mistakes.
What went wrong for the Argentine Navy? Simple, the British had nuclear powered attack submarines that they could do basically nothing about, scaring Argentina all the way back to port. These subs could just linger there for months with no support picking off Argentine ships one by one.
@Tom Foster After HMS Conqueror sank Belgrano, Argentine forces by their own reports attempted to hunt it, but after two miles of chase they had lost track of it completely. You need either a bunch of modern attack subs (the ocean is big!) or aircraft with strong anti submarine capability to track and destroy a state of the art nuclear attack sub, which Conqueror certainly was in 1982. Argentina had neither effective countermeasures. Nuclear attack submarines are devastating to ships especially in that area of the world since the seas are so often terribly rough. That means reduced speed and reduced visibility and difficulty in surface vessels manoeuvring. Difficulty in air ops. A nuclear sub can just hit 30 knots, doesn't care if there is a storm 200 metres above, able to engage and disengage at will. They can see surface ships easily due to heavy waves breaking against hulls making them light up like beacons. Argentina had absolutely no answer to this weapon and would for sure have been losing ship after ship if they had not returned to port and stayed there. Any poor weather which is basically most of the time in the South Atlantic magnifies the fearsome advantages that type of sub already has.
@@josedro No it did not mate. All this talk of the USA giving Sidewinders to the UK nonsense. Just as in WWII, the Brits paid for everything. The Sidewinders were already on order and delivered early. The most significant help was from Chile. It allowed the Brits access to its radar surveillance station, to monitor Argie military aircraft movements.
@@archiebald4717 I suggest you read history with your head rather than your heart sir. US provided all weapons and support to the UK while Argentina was embargoed and blocked any access to any US weaponry. Argentina paid 14 Exocet to France delivered 5 before the war and withheld the remaining during the war. Check this info on all internet to check is true
Interesting point made by an Argentine about the sinking of the Belgrano cruiser, it is the Belgrano captain who defends the actions of the captain of HMS Conqueror, the nuclear submarine to sink Belgrano. The Belgrano captain publicly stated, "I would have done the same".
Galtieri’s big mistake was with the release of the famous photos of the Royal Marines being led at gun point after surrendering. It made what had happened personal for the British public and meant it was politically easy for Thatcher to launch a bid to retake the islands. Galtieri had ordered his invasion force to avoid killing any British personnel, knowing that British dead would make an attempt to retake the islands much more likely…how realistic this request was is debatable but whether by luck or judgment they achieved it, and then they fkkked it all up by doing something guaranteed to inflame patriotism in any nation…showing the Marines surrendering and held at gunpoint.
Actually Galtieri's first of three basic mistakes was similar to the one that Hitler made vis- a- vis Russia: Timing. Just like Hitler, Galtieri did not listen to his generals who wanted to delay the invasion by +/- a year, by which time the naval cuts would have made it damn near impossible for Britain to have assembled an armada. His second mistake was thinking that Britain would do nothing. His third basic error was using conscripts, whilst retaining his experienced troops on the border with Chile where tensions were heating up. These are the three fundamental errors made by Galtieri with the key one being bad timing.
@@RobRoyBoaz His forth error was to think that the US would do nothing, since as a stauch anticommunist and so was in the Reagan Administrations Good Book. He found out the hard way that suppressing local communist guerillas and attacking a NATO ally are two very different things.
I was 8 years old when the British fleet set sail to retake the islands but I remember watching it on the news very well . it was my 1st time slightly understanding that people would die . my uncle was in the merchant navy and brought me a Argentine soldiers helmet back from the islands
I have never understood the frequently quoted remark that the sinking of Belgrano is conversational. This was a war, if the enemy is discovered you kill them. It is instructive that Captain Hector Bonzo never had any criticism until the end of his life. He said that if he had a crippled British ship in striking range he would continue firing his 6" guns until the target was destroyed.
The reason people say it is the large amount of false Argentinian reports about the war in general. Every engagement was an Argentine victory, every British attack, a war crime
@@littleshep5502 I don't think it was Argentine reports that made this into a controversy. Much was made of the Belgrano being outside the exclusion zone and not headed for the Royal Navy carriers in the British media. I have thought for forty years that this was a lame argument. I well remember Thatcher floundering around against a caller to the Nationwide news programme and MP Tam Dalyell making much of this. The fact is, which was acknowledged by Captain Hector Bono, the Belgrano was a major threat to any British warship that had been crippled by the planned aerial attack from the Argentine carrier. In the event this was cancelled as there was not enough wind to launch aircraft. The British did not know this and destroyed the threat to the fleet. It was a standard naval engagement and is not controversial.
11:53 quotes the sinking of HM Ships Antelope and Coventry slightly out of context. Antelope wasn't sunk on the 21st May. It sank on the 23rd May - and only because an unexploded bomb which hit her in her starboard side detonated whilst bomb disposal engineers were trying to defuse it. Coventry was sunk on the 25th May during a concentrated Argentine air attack on the Type 22/42 missile trap she was part of with HMS Broadsword. That didn't happen in Bomb Alley either - Coventry was sunk north west of Falkland Sound.
I think the sinking of HMS Sheffield was found to be largely due to negligence according to a navy inquiry. At least two officers came close to a court-marshal.
@@afrocentricalbion When Sam Salt reported to Woodward it is said first thing Woodward frankly said to him was "I hear someone was bloody careless" not really tactful but that was a brief and on-point summary of all subsequent inquiries.
I have a family member who is retired Navy and an ex pentagon official. What went wrong for the Argentine Navy was using old torpedos from our WW2 stockpile we sold them that failed to explode on impact. Two other major ships of the British task force would have been sunk, or damaged, and the entire operation would have swung in the Argentinians favor if it wasn't for those faulty torpedos.
I was a young greenie on Hermes,we had just ended an Action Stations & I went up to the hanger deck to grab some fresh air, I & another sailor could see smoke rising a few miles away, the Sheffield. Action Stations sounded again & I was involved with loading fire fighting gear on to returning rescue helicopters that were off loading the mainly badly burnt sailors. Atlantic conveyor was used as a decoy for Hermes ie big blip on a radar, it worked thank God. We watched it burn in the fading light.
I actually met a guy once that was on board the ship bombed in half when it was struck. It was heart breaking to see how much the incident troubled him even today
@@Foxtrop13 and your point? Argentina lost. Young men on both sides lost their lives. Ultimately the Argentine junta used the war to distract from their own crimes...not unlike Pootin atm in the Ukraine. Great video.
Amazing thing about the Brits is that they are practical, resolute, self critical and competent, they don't lie to themselves or pretend to have capabilities they don't possess but can quickly adapt to real world scenarios. This makes them agile, responsive and very dangerous to anyone who underestimates them even when clearly outgunned and outmatched. I believe that they can stand up Russia or even the USA when pushed far enough.
@Great White Try telling that to Ukraine! Ukraine doesn't even have a Navy and was able to sink Russia's flagship! It seems in war it's easier to defend than to invade.
@Great White Don't be too sure. It's not what you have, it's about how you use it. That was proven in the Falklands conflict and also when the RAF managed to evade the USA air defences during two exercises, one year apart, to 'drop nuclear' bombs on US territory.
@Great White during training exercises British submarines have consistently countered and penetrated American screening tactics, including at one point, surfacing next to one of the carrier's to signal the defeat
@@archiebald4717 Yep, Operation Skysheild was a total disaster for the USA to the point that they hide the results of their failures away for many years.
Admiral Sir Henry Leach was a Midshipman posted to HMS MAURITIUS (but serving ashore as she was in refit) in Singapore when HMS PRINCE OF WALES was sunk...the Commanding Officer, his father, being killed in that action.. A classic example of a Navy family.
@9:39 That Officer's words are incredible. I can picture what he was seeing. It was stationary and smoking. (I'm paraphrasing) Then it did have a wobble and right before impact he knew..... It's almost like I was there! Glad he survived.
I remember when we got our daily brief on the Canberra and informed by our Coy Cdr that the Belgrano had been sunk. We all cheered. It is not a video game but war. This sinking ensured a major threat was taken out.
They WW2 Cruisers were absolute beasts. The Japanese and Americans really ramped up the armaments on they things in the Pacific whilst Europe sat using their older fleets with some refits. Remove the threats of modern submarines and they'd still be a big damn threat. They eat up bombs, dish out large shells and have decent AA despite being outdated beyond belief these days. If it had gone undetected and flanked the task group it could easily have taken it out alone.
I remember in the UK at the time, when the Task Force sailed, everyone cheering and apparently thinking it would be easy. Having studied the declining RN anti-air capabilities over the years, it was always apparent that they would lose ships, and that it would be very close. The lack of airborne early warning radar, limited number and range of the Sea Harriers, and the under-armed nature of the RN's destroyers and frigates (which continues to this day), most ships lacking effective modern close range anti-air weapons (Sea Cat and a few GMPGs didn't cut it), and the known limitations of Sea Dart and the ships' radars against low flying targets especially over land, always made the loss of ships to air attack, almost certain. Fortunately Argentina could never launch co-ordinated mass air attacks to overwhelm the RN defences.
In a world with no shortage of hostile militaries, both big and small, it boggles the mind that people still think that disarming is an option. The Falkland War was not a moment of glory for Britain, it was a shameful display of how weak Britain had become. Yes, Britain won, but they were fighting a third-rate power that managed to inflict more materiel damage on the Royal Navy than they received. The problem still persists today. The Royal Navy cheaped out on the Queen Elizabeth class, foregoing catapults, meaning that land-based fighters and bombers can easily reach them with standoff weapons while the British carriers can't get their F35Bs close enough to prevent it. The Royal Navy can barely muster one task force. Sure, NATO can support, but the other naval powers aside from the US are similarly weak and will be busy protecting their assets. If US assets aren't nearby, the RN can defend the homeland on only one side. The Royal Navy intends to keep only four attack submarines, so they can't be used to defend in multiple directions either while still defending the nuclear deterrent SSBNs. Europe is starting to wake up, but they still haven't learned that they need to value their defense as much as they value TikTok videos or what some reality TV show star is wearing. The US almost as bad, but at least maintains a credible force.
@@NozomuYume What nonsense. UK Weapons are blasting Russian heli & jet out of the sky as we speak. Two British F35s went unchallenged by Russia. I guess they couldn’t see them. Haha
@@mercury6765 Not a Russian. Not a bot. Just worried about the state of western defenses. We are lucky that the Russian armed forces turned out to be in such poor shape -- it turns out corruption was worse than the Kremlin realized. But a dictatorship can fix this, and we could wind up facing their forces fixed and working. The problem is that there are no armed forces in Europe ready to defend on the seas. No appreciable fleet. Few coastal anti-ship defenses. No comprehensive SAM network. Good quality air power but not enough numbers. The only member of NATO with an appreciable navy is the US, and most of their ships are cold war relics. Attempts at modernization have failed due to the cost-plus nature of contracts. The LCS is great on paper but a joke due to its crap armament. (Though buying the FREMM will help a lot, that is going to take a while). The French navy is especially screwed. They have some excellent ships but not enough of them to defend their nation spread across multiple seas and continents.
Aged 19, my memories are of a very strange experience. I would watch Newsnight at 10.30 pm and then go to bed deeply worried about our boys at the other end of the world. I think I may even have prayed for them. The UK armed forces were a lot bigger then, so I guess every young lad in the country, like me, knew someone out there. I knew a few. It was a period of about 6 weeks of quite serious angst. There really were times when we feared we were going to lose everyone.
Your DDs' performance around there was a large factor in USN developing AEGIS and further Baselines of it ever since, plus the full spectrum of Standard missiles. See also all the LCACs we built.
Good video.Over the years I have watched alot of video footage regarding Falkland Island conflict. This showed me new information I had not seen/heard before. Good stuff. Thank you.
I remember this war, what went wrong was that although the British navy was not at it's best, it still had the most determined personnel. the Argentines were fighting for the Junta. Free men fight better
Starting a naval war with the UK was disingenuous but the Argentine air force gave a decent account of themselves considering what they were working with.
Yes; the tango became a big fad in the 1920's in Europe; still quite popular. Believe it or not, there was once an expression". "rich as an Argentine."
Actually I do not wish to use the word cheap but it could have been far far worse. I certainly expected it so and many of us said buckle up its a one way trip.
and the UK fighting 8000 miles from home, give me a break.Argentina fighting on there own doorstep.Name another country that could have achieved what the British did in this war.??????????
@@derekrichardson6515 Argentina was having a serious problem with its neighbour on the West, Chile. Thus, some of the best Argentine gear and troops were stationed across a 4.000km +/- border, with planes and serious stuff kept there, in reserve. Moreover, those Argentine planes fighting the UK had to make their sorties from the mainland (200km?) with air refueling included, after the airfields in the islands became compromised (which didn't take long). The big problem was that military government/s were dropping on popularity in a brutal fashion, and taking over the islands was, as the video stated, a popularity boost, and also, it's true that the junta wasn't really expecting Britain to retaliate with the Cold War not being precisely that "cold" at that moment. Cheers.
The captain of the Belgrano himself said that he wasn't returning sailing away and that the British submarine had acted according to the rules of war. He said in another interview that it absolutely was not a war crime.
@@littleshep5502 Tommy Byers admitted the crew of Bismarck had surrendered before they scuttled their ship. The Royal Navy refused to accept their surrender, and continued firing.
Normalcy bias blinds even those paid not to be blinded by normalcy bias. Planners keep getting caught with their pants down. They missed WW2, the Balkan war, Putin's invasion of Ukraine and many others.
When the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk, 3 of the 4 CH-47 Chinook helicopters of 18 Squadron went down with the ship. Only one Chinook had been assembled and flown to the island. That Chinook known as Bravo November (ZA718).
HMS Sheffield had plenty of warnings about the attack, the Captain from HMS Glasgow had radio the radar contact on numerous occasions to Sheffield but the gave the wrong bearing to the contact
Who told you that "HMS Sheffield had plenty of warnings about the attack" and why do you believe them? To what -if anything is it relevant; where and what is your syllogism?
why is the sinking of the Belgrano controversial? just me looking in from the outside it seems war was going on and just because every ship will be fired apon in the circle doesn't mean an enemy military target on the edge and in range is perfectly safe, its still a war going on. is there something I'm missing?
You have it basically spot on. Argentina had been warned warships were valid targets even if outside the zone, it had accepted that. Britian had also intercepted the orders it was under, and knew what it was planning to do (skirt the exclusion zone, and attack the taskforce from the side), therefore it was sunk. It being a war crime is one of the many things the juntra tried to pin on Britain, unfortunately, it's also one of the lies that stuck (another one being HMS invincible being damaged in an attack)
@@littleshep5502 Problem is the reality has long been overtaken by the spin. I once overheard a young Argentine woman sat in front of me on a coach in Cuba explain to her non Argentine friend that the sinking was a war crime as the Belgrano was a hospital ship.
That puzzling circle some politicians invented, drew in their minds and told newspapermen about changed nothing in the way wars are fought at sea. The Argentine carrier 25th of May (ex Karel Doorman of the Netherlands navy, ex HMS Colossus of the Royal Navy) would have been and should have been sunk on the same day, but for politically-motivated cowardice in their rules of engagement and delayed decisions at the Admiralty for the same politically-motivated cowardly reasons: political creatures exist to avoid blame and take money. It's as old as Sun Tzu; once engaged in a war, or once a military leader is appointed to command a war, the sovereign (leader of a country) has no command privileges, that's not even the role of the civilian appointed to negotiate peace with the enemy.
What an absolutely brilliant series. I was born a year after the Falklands, and know little about it. The videos on this channel are well made, informative and engaging to watch. Well done!
I tell you what went wrong in a few lines if you know the true story behind the Malvinas, as an Argentine I tell you that no one wanted this war, Galtieri was an "anti-democratic" president, our forces were not prepared or trained, however I must clarify that the Argentine Air Force acted in a very professional and heroic manner. The attempted occupation by the Military Government was a stupid and desperate measure. If none of this had happened, today the Malvinas would be a neutral territory with normal commercial relations and a lot of tourism.
The Galtieri regime in Argentina and the Thatcher Government in the UK were both happy to have an 'offshore' war going on (both assumed they would win) to attract attention away from dismal economic and political situations at home. Thatcher would not have won the next election (which she called early) without the 'victory' in the Atlantic. As regards the Malvinas, it was and remains British, as its occupants did, and still do wish. I understand it does have a tourist trade based mainly on its wildlife ... some of its penguin colonies remain protected by Argentian mines.
@electricdroid I think you have summarized it very well. A lot of disputed war-torn areas could make a hell of a lot of money from turism and trade, like Ethiopia or Kosovo in Europe and the Falklands/Malvinas too. Well said.
No one in Argentina wanted this war ?? Say that to the hundreds of thousands of people in that square when galtiair gave his speech they worth in jubilant celebration and baying for British blood
Also, the American submarine USS Catfish which was sold to Argentina and renamed the Santa Fe, was destroyed while in port. It was scuttled by the British af ter the war as it was too damaged to salvage.
The Santa Fe was hit close to South Georgia's harbour at Grytviken by SS-11 missiles fired from Wasp helicopters. The damage prevented them from submerging safely, so they made port in Grytviken, where they were captured by the Royal Marines. One sailor on the Santa Fe was shot in error, as the marine believed he was trying to scuttle the submarine in port.
Great video I've seen from the channel. Actually this is my second one I've seen, the first one is about the Vulcan and Operation Black Buck. Hopefully one day you can talk about the intervention in Sierra Leone back in 2000. Such an under-discussed topic that was one of the few success stories in military intervention. I think it's best to talk about it while covering the history of Chinook helicopters in British service, seeing how critical they were during the intervention in Sierra Leone. And also since the 20th anniversary of the event fell during the pandemic.
Sierra Leone and the events there can be found in the Osprey series of books; Operation Certain Death. The politics and gangsterism behind the events are explained quite well. - also the rescue of British Soldiers by special forces, clearing up some, let's call them 'mistakes', in the news coverage at the time.
An autocrat decides a "short victorious war" will cover them in glory and distract the people from the truly horrible job they are doing.....sound familiar?
The idiocy of that is the same reasoning also obviously works for Thatcher. If she had done nothing, it would be defeat in the last election. _Shouldn't have a woman as PM. If the PM had been a man, this wouldn't have happened_ . Autocrats or democracies, winning wars boosts popularity. The islands were very far from the UK. But also far enough from Argentina that they couldn't defend it easily.
The Argentinean Navy wasn’t ready to prevail against the Chilean Navy, and still, after the shock of the British actually responding to the invasion, they found themselves facing probably one of the only two Tier 1 navies in the World.
I watched this on the news when I was 17, it was a war caused by Argentina and the British had no choice but to retake it. I remember the harriers and the royal marines being the heroes of this conflict, and how Argentina ended up in financial despair after the events. I also remember that the US fueled the British bombers after their bombing run so that they could return to England.
As a UK citizen, I remember to this day how angry I was at the "Gotcha" headline and others. I argued with others about the fact that war isn't a football match and that some of our ships will be sunk and lives lost. Fortunately, the casualties on both sides were not as high as they could have been. To all that lost family or friends in the conflict my heart goes out to you.
@@SwitchTF2 The willingness and ability to criticize and disparage our own armed forces is what helps prevent tyranny. We're not a military dictatorship, and I don't want to become part of one.
The three naval elements were Task Groups, not Task Forces. Woodward was not in command of the Task Force, Adm John Fieldhouse at Northwood was the overall commander.
@@richardvernon317 with buyback? - Don't be daft none at all those big yellow stripes don't just go away by themselves. The nearest I went or came to the army was the officer training corps at school and I thought that was a stupid waste of time - because it was
The overriding issue for the RN in 1982 was that successive governments had convinced themselves that the Cold War anti-submarine role in the North Atlantic took precedence and the need for a credible expeditionary capability had passed. It went way beyond the Nott review, which was never actually implemented. All very convenient when defence spending was being subjected to continuous real-terms cuts. The 1966 Healey review cancelled the CVA-01 large aircraft carrier project and all but one of the T82 destroyers. The T42 destroyers and T21 frigates that emerged from the review were cheap austerity ships and not equipped as they should have been. The Invincibles were basically small anti-submarine helicopter carriers that could also embark a handful of Harriers. They were not designed as true light fleet carriers. More cuts to the surface fleet with the 1975 Mason review and then the planned Nott cuts in 1981. Invincible and the more capable but elderly Hermes, with their small air groups and no airborne early warning, were never intended to provide air cover/strike for a large task force operating 8,000 miles away from home against a quite capable land-based air force. Obvious really but the result of 20+ years of complacency. Unfortunately the same mindset is still there 40 years on.
Slight error in the commentary, Coventry was not lost in ‘Bomb Alley’, she was hit later when on long-range air detection patrol out to the West of the islands with HMS Broadsword.
I remember the amazing speed the task for was put together. The jingoism of the gutter press was revolting, but in times of war they have their place. Although not a Thatcher fan, I saw that there was no alternative, and I admired her guts. The yanks gleefully predicted our defeat but they were basing their predictions on their level of competence. They had forgotten that for the British fighting forces, courage is unlimited.
Something that I have never understood is how it was possible that in 150 years the Argentines had not devised a defense plan for when they recovered the islands, and that they only began to wonder what to do when the British fleet was on its way.
because the Americans told them the brits will have a moan and walk away do nothing and they also thought it would be impossible for them to fight a war 8000 miles away and allot of it at sea in the worse conditions imaginable , very true fact. the uk been a sea faring nation for century's it does not frighten them in them condition's
QE2 isn't "Queen Elizabeth the 2nd", it's "Queen Elizabeth 2". It's the second ship named after the first Queen Elizabeth rather than the first ship named after the second Queen Elizabeth.
There is some confusion over the name. Cunard did intend to name her after the reigning monarch, but the queen herself vetoed that. So she's the second ship named Elizabeth. And the first one had been named for Elizabeth Bowes Lyon (the queen mum). So she's arguably the person the ship is named for. Although there was a bust of the current queen on the ship herself.
@@SwitchTF2 what i meant to say is the royal navy doesnt add numerals to indicate that a ship is the second of taht name, the example i gave was a battleship from ww1 King George V, during WW2 a second ship of that name was built but they didnt add a numeral to indicate that. and i just realized that QE II is a cruise liner so nvm what i said
Ref the sinking of HMS Sheffield, some additional information. HMS Glasgow briefly spotted on her Type 965 radar the attacking Super Etendard aircraft, when they popped up prior to launching the exocets. Glasgow started firing off chaff and sent out a warning to the task group. HMS Invincible fitted with the then new Type 1022 radar could not verify the contact, dismissing it as spurious. If the report had been acted upon the outcome for Sheff may have been different.
@Tom Foster Stop talking mince. Coventry turned to stbd to try and present a smaller profile to incoming aircraft after her seadart failed to get a lock. Unfortunately as they did so they blocked the Seawolf arc of the Broadsword. Ajax had nothing to do with it..
The Belgrano was a retired USN Second World War veteran, the USS Phoenix. She had 11 battle stars, and a Presidential Unit Citation from the government of the Philippines. Sad this was her fate.
Many years ago I was at a screen launch event in central London. Met a bloke called Del Moon who'd served on Sheffield. Think he was in the communications part. Told me about the nightmares he had, and would probably continue to have for the rest of his life. I'm terrible at remembering names. Odd how I've remembered that name after all these years. Was but a five minute chat whilst waiting for drinks.
Thank you so much for mentioning the exploits of the Mine Clearance Team,the unsung hero,s of the conflict.As always in war it,s the people you don.t hear about who make the difference between victory and defeat.
If the governments at the times didn't scrap ark royal or eagle, Argentina would had second thoughts of invading the Falklands because they knew those ships could have launched attacks on the mainland.
@@rayjames6096 The americans didnt help at all. They didnt send any men or anything. The only thing they did was completely stay out of the conflict. The Americans didnt help at all.
@@freneticness6927 The US provided 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel, hundreds of Sidewinder missiles, thousands of rounds of mortar shells, aircraft matting, shrike missiles and other equipment plus moved a spy satellite from the northern hemisphere to the south Atlantic and other intelligence that was key to the UK victory. Look it up.
@@freneticness6927 You got it now...the only thing The Economist was wrong on was the helicopter carrier the US was going to loan to the UK if needed wasn't the USS Guam but was the USS Iwo Jima.
Hello, do you have any worksheets to go along with this series of five videos, please? I really like the videos and I'd like to use them in a lesson but at 16 minutes long, I need some sort of question/study paper to keep pupils' minds focused on the content.
![[SFM] Risky Recital](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RzNkY1_Nk3o/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching! Please remember to be polite in the comments. Any comments that we consider to be offensive or aggressive will be removed.
Jolly well, old bean.
Offensive? How do you arbitrate that? "Offensive" is a pretty subjective term. Someone might be offended by the statement "evolution is fact and God isn't real". Will you remove that?
Great article. Can you please link the next video in the pinned comment.
The next episode will be released later this month - subscribe for the notification!
FASCIST
As an argentine I like this outside view of the conflict, without so much propaganda. War is war, you can't just invade the territory of a great power and not expect retaliation. I hate how people in Argentina see the british as the bad guys, it makes absolutely no sense, especially because the invasion was comanded not by a elected body but by a bloody and cruel dictatorship, the worst in our history. Boggles my mind
Should Argentina seek control of the island? Of course, its the first thing a strong Argentina would take if it could, sadly it can't
Yep, behind all the nonsense the only opinion that matters is the people who live there,
if Argentina wants the islands make Argentina a country they’d want to be a part of.
Fair analysis, if you're telling the truth. The UK were slowly going to cede the islands, was just taking a long time. If these guys didn't invade you probably would have the Falkland Islands til this day.
@@Aron-ru5zk Very well said.
The Argentine junta seizure of the Falklands/Malvinas was done to gain some popularity. Not as a military operation. The junta was hadn’t expected to fight for the islands.
In such a succinct video there probably wasn't time to cover the 'Red Cross box'; but that was a neutral area where both UK and Argentine hospital ships were moored. All the medical personal treated all casualties with equal care. Leading to one UK surgeon receiving decorations from both the British and Argentine militaries..
Surgeon commander Rick Jolly, RN. Passed about a decade ago.
Ah Doc jolly, sadly passed now
Had not heard that story
@@SwitchTF2 Past only in 2018
@@danielmichaels1505 my mistake, mixed up the dates
The JUNTA called for the invasion to redirect issue's faced in Argentina at that time. They never expected the UK to respond let alone to go to war over the Falklands.
Someone watched the last video😂
Those are U.K. citizens. Of course they went to war. Unlike a dictatorship or military rule or whatever other sort of stupid set up Argentina had at the time democracies care about their citizens. How Argentina didn’t see this coming is beyond me.
Anyone who "doubts" the sinking of ARA General Belgrano is almost certainly being disingenuous.
It was an enemy warship on the high seas in time of war. An Argentine warship was a legitimate target for the Royal Navy ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD except for inside territorial waters of a neutral power. Similarly Royal Navy warships were legitimate targets for the Argentines anywhere in the world except for inside the territorial waters of a neutral power.
Indeed, and any naval officer understands that, including her Captain!
"In 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone. Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror's actions were a "betrayal" was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war. In an interview two years before his death in 2009, he further stated that: "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal." "
The captain of the ship survived. He said on record that his ship was a legitimate target. He doesnt blame the British or think it was controversial. It's just the grim reality of the sudden massive loss of life that can happen in naval actions. The sea takes no prisoners. It is a force that both sides have to reckon with.
Neither Briton nor Argentinian here: If a British carrier had been sunk outside of the zone, allegedly on it's way home, the Sun would not have written: Oi, we have to suck it up!
;) In the fog of war, the rest of the world does not give anything on the legal wishes and technicalities of the wars of all you great powers, we just figure what you would say if the other side did something to you. Great if such tragedies can be legally reviewed later on, but honestly, it does not make that right or better, it's just if you should throw the people in charge in prison or not, they gave the order anyway.
@@TheWoblinGoblin there was no fog of war, the exclusion zone was for foreign and civilian vessels only, it was stated in the telegram sent to Argentina via the Swiss embassy. It specifically stated any argentine ship anywhere in the Atlantic that posed a threat to British operations was a target
In the words of a Submariner mate of mind:
"There are two kinds of vessels on the high seas. The first is submarines, the second are targets..."
Thank heavens Admiral Leach was 1SL at the time. Never hesitated for a moment when asked for his advice by the PM. No hedging, no prevarication. Just a straight, honest answer. That kind of decisiveness when faced with unexpected and difficult circumstances is what marks out the very best.
Straight, honest, unarguable facts and information would frighten any career politician down to their shrivelled souls. - and did.
So completely out of their experience, such things are like a cockroach attempting to stay out in the light when it's turned on them.
Yet they still interfered with arse-covering political fictions such as the total exclusion zone.
You got a point. Leach had saltwater in his veins. a true sailor and a no nonsense lad, sharp and to the point.
Is it worth you properly explaining what the exclusion zone was about ? Too many people still think this was the only area where we would attack Argentinean ships where as in reality it was an area where any unidentified ships would be considered unfriendly and be at risk of attack. Even future Argentine Admiral Molina Pico declared that the General Belgrano was a legitimate target despite being outside the zone and sailing away.
It became a valid target as soon as it entered International Waters as an armed combatant in time of war.
True. And people who use the "sailing away" argument have absolutely no knowledge of military history and zero imagination. A warship always has to be considered as repositioning for a later attack. Geez, a person only has to read a Wikipedia article on almost *any* naval battle of WW2.
@@donjones4719 Indeed. If they thought there was even a possibility of an enemy submarine being in the area they would constantly be changing heading and trying to hide their course.
@@IanMadBrit Indeed. We were already at war. The Falklands had already been invaded and shots had been fired with intent.
From her Captain himself:
In 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone. Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror's actions were a "betrayal" was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war. In an interview two years before his death in 2009, he further stated that: "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal."
Its absolutely pathetic that people question whether the sinking of the Belgrano was legitimate. What were we meant to do, allow the aggressor invading force to keep their flagship so we didn't hurt their feelings? Actions have consequences. Tough look, Argentina.
The existence of the exclusion zone did not prohibit the use of force against Argentine units outside it. It was more of a warning to EVERYBODY to stay away, and that we meant business.
The Argentine Captain thought it was entirely fair. Watched the interview with him recently.
@Ste Srad as others have said, the exclusion zone did not mean anyone outside it was safe.
Regardless, the orders the belgrano had were to turn north and head towards the British fleet. Not sinking her at the time could have been disastrous for the British fleet.
@@eddiebruv Exactly. The exclusion zone was intended to make sure merchant ships and naval ships from other nations didn’t accidentally get attacked. The Argentine Navy was fair game whether it was 10 miles off the Falklands or just sitting in port. That’s kinda how war works.
Exclusion zone? ... The Argentinian Air Force launched their attacks on the Royal Navy from outside the exclusion zone.
Also from Sandy Woodward’s memoir - the heading of an enemy ship is immaterial, that can change in seconds. What matters are: firstly what is the enemy’s position? Secondly, what are the enemy’s intentions? Thirdly what are the enemy’s capabilities? Based on those three questions the Belgrano group was a clear threat to the Royal Navy task force. We learned later that Belgrano and the destroyer escorts had indeed been tasked to dash up from the south and attack the task force in co-ordination with the air attack by Veinticinco de Mayo’s A4 Skyhawks. Allowing the Belgrano group to hover on the edge of the TEZ within striking range would have been inviting attack.
I agree. The TEZ itself seems pretty irrelevant - its not declaring to the Argentinians "your military is safe as long as you stay out of this zone", its letting everyone else know "inside this circle there is a war going on, you're in danger if you go inside"
The Belgrano group was 12 miles outside TEZ. Deemed a threat to a carrier. The loss of either ended the conflict. Britain loses. The decision was political, made by Margaret Thatcher. Conqueror was dispatched to shadow the group 3 days earlier. It came under repeated attack by Argentine forces. The Belgrano group moved 22 miles away to take advantage of shallower waters. Conqueror engaged about 12.30 PM, Belgrano was hit less than 90 minutes later with a Mark8 torpedo. Messages were then sent out on open frequencies in Spanish and English advising escorts they would not be fired on while retrieving survivors. There were 2 escort vessels. Both left the area at speed leaving the survivors in the water. I was in the mess hall, HMS Hermes, when the crew was informed. My job? Special intelligence support ops FOF3. I worked 10ft from Sandy Woodward. Political or not, it was the right tactical decision. Morally? There are no rules in war. It was them or us. The captains of two support ships had to live with that decision too. Like everyone else who served, we did what we had to do: get the island back.
@@voiceofreason162 if you worked 10ft from the Admiral then you would know that he ordered Conqueror to attack Belgrano, while knowing full well that exceeded his authority and that Admiral Fieldhouse in Northwood would countermand the order before it got to Conqueror. Sinking a major enemy warship was explained to the PM as a military necessity. It went up to the War Cabinet because it was a major escalation in the conflict. It has been dressed up since by many as Thatcher going gung-ho and closing the door on a negotiated deal. That misreads her mood entirely. Once that Task group sailed, there was no way Thatcher was going to accept anything less than a complete Argentine withdrawal and return of the islands to British control. The junta couldn’t accept those terms so the conflict was essentially baked in from very early on. All wars have a political angle, a diplomatic angle and a military angle. To try and portray the Belgrano sinking as purely a political choice is massively disingeuous. Thatcher knew she would have to manage the political and diplomatic implications from it, but when your commander on the spot tells you that a major enemy attack is brewing which could cripple your chances of achieving the objectives the government had set out, it’s simply a logical choice. An attack by SSN is relatively low risk with a good chance of success. Anybody who tells you she was thinking about her opinion polls or winning the next general election is talking twaddle.
As a PS to this another SSN, HMS Splendid, was shadowing the Argentine carrier Veinticinco de Mayo. Imagine for a moment that Conqueror had lost contact with Belgrano on the Burdwood Bank but Splendid had not, and the Argentine carrier had been hit and sunk. Would we be having the same debate?
Totally agree about enemy intentions, which can change in SECONDS ... the only reply to any queries on the Falklands War should be “...if they didn’t invade in the 1st place, would it have been sunk“
The Argentines need to bring these claims to a close - the Falklands are a democracy, like the UK and they voted 99% to remain under British control.Argentina did not exist as a country at the time of British rule started, and like them the islands were under a Spanish garrison not an Argentinian force.
Wouldn't say so. British and Spanish controlled the islands by around the 1770s, then the Treaty of Nootka of 1790 guaranteed Spain's dominion over the islands, kicked the British away, and governed until 1811, when they left because Napoleon's invasion. Then, the newly formed Argentina claimed them in 1820 and controlled them until 1833, when they were kicked away by the US. Then they tried to return but then British appeared again, which essentially violated the 1790's Treaty of Nootka.
Besides, the UN laws dictate that, for self-determination, the population must be native to the colonized territory and have been there before the colonizing country arrived, and the current Falklanders are a transplanted British population (no one was there before).
In the other hand, Argentina's claim as an offshoot of Spain Empire is also invalid, because Spain left them in 1811 and Argentina wouldn't appear until 1816. And the geographical location is also a very weak argument, to be honest.
@@genarovargas5661 "Besides, the UN laws dictate that, for self-determination, the population must be native to the colonized territory and have been there before the colonizing country arrived, and the current Falklanders are a transplanted British population (no one was there before)."
International law does not apply retroactively.
@@genarovargas5661 Hey uh define native
Because every population wasn't there at some point
The 1% that voted against were argentine pidgeons… true story 😬
So the Argentinan population, which states they are transplanted Spanish, to Claim the inherited rights of Spain. So you are not indigenous to Argentina then. So you have no rights over your country, which we shall call West Falklands from now on.
a friend of mine in he's a bus driver in sheffield, he was on hms sheffield when it sank..... never would you meet a man with more humility
I would like to point that those documents mentioned confirmed that the ship was not returning to port and was in fact repositioning for an attack.
"In 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone. Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror's actions were a "betrayal" was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war. In an interview two years before his death in 2009, he further stated that: "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal." "
they made 3 attempts to out flank the British carrier fleets on both flanks the brits was cool they see every attack but argies new they was spotted and turn back but on the 3rd attempt the brits had to do something or be sunk been to cautious
I admit is true what Captain Bonzo stated in a video I have seen a long time ago
I don't think it matters where it was going.
Eso lo dijo en el 2003, en pleno age del proceso e "desmalvinización" que se instaló post Malvinas en Argentina. Terminada la guerra el y sus Comandantes manifestaron que fue un crimen de guerra. También nunca se mencionan los argumentos d e lps Aabogados, muy prestigiosos, que llevan adelante el reclamo de los familiares de las victimas del Belgrano, ya que a eso lo tiene que hacer solos, ya que por los acuerdos de Madrid se firmó que un Estado no puede litigar contra otro y esto sospechosamente se hizo en momentos de que en Argentina habia un gran movimiento para reclamar a que el Estado lo haga y no sus familiares. Otra cosa, si el motivo era dejarlo fuera de combate, porque tres torpedos para hundirlo y provocar la peor tragedia de ese guerra, porque no dieron aviso previo, porque el submarino se alejó rápidamente y no dio información para el rescate de las victimas. Si era tan legal, porque el Comandante del submarino se hizo repetir la orden tres veces, porque esta vino directamente desde Londres ? Todavía hay muchas dudas, pero recién se va a conocer todo cuando descalifiquen documentos los británicos en el 2072.
@@oscarbosio9881 No fue ningun crimen de guerra, eso lo habrá dicho en caliente. Es mucho más sincera la respuesta que dió despues. La demora en el ataque se debió a las implicancias politicas de hundir un crucero, que como explicaron más arriba, iba a significar una escalada mayor en el conflicto. Por eso la orden tuvo que ser autorizada desde el Reino Unido. Después lo que decís espero que no lo estés pensando en serio, ¿dar aviso de que vas a atacar a un enemigo? ¿en qué guerra pasó eso?
Saw the first one in the recommendations and assumed I'll be able to watch the entire series in one go : /
Great narration and editing, looking forward to the remaining videos.
So interesting and quite unbiased, I subscribed after the first episode and I'm so glad I did. My first memories, even as a Peruvian myself, are of the Falklands War / Guerra de las Malvinas.
I also subscribed after the last one!
What was the opinion in Peru on the war at the time?
@@largain I understand there were some people saying that it was an absurd war, but in general the sentiment, for historical reasons, was in favour of Argentina. Most cars had a sticker on their windows with the Argentinian flag and the phrase "Las Malvinas Son Argentinas".
Many yeard later I read the Peruvian government tried to find a peaceful solution to the conflict... Now, it may not be appropriate for me to state the following but maybe the job of this very series: when the peace talks proved impossible, it is said that Peru decided to give military support to Argentina in the form of exocets, Mirage planes, and other supplies.
@@arielhernandez1660 It’s okay, the support didn’t help them much.
What do you think is unbiased about this?
Woodward was a truly great Admiral, in the tradition of Cunningham, Jellicoe, Nelson, Collingwood, Rodney, and Anson.
While I seriously doubt Woodard is in same league as Drake, Rodney, Nelson, and the rest of the Great Admirals in terms of skills but he certainly had the same EXACT attitude as them...going for victory rather than simply avoiding defeat....Woodard lived up the traditions of the Royal Navy
Then why didn’t he mandate a combat air patrol at all times? They lost a ship because of that.
The Falkland Islands were British at least 70 years before Argentine came into existence. The lands which eventually became Argentina were parts of the Spanish empire.
1690 The British John Strong landed on some remote Atlantic islands, and named them after Viscount Falkland, treasurer of the British navy
1765 The British, were the first to settle West Falkland.
1770 The Spanish, pushed out the British after buying out a French settlement
1771 The British regained the outpost on West Falkland wafter threat of war with Spain
1774 The British withdrew for reasons of cost but retained their claim to the Falklands. Spain maintained a settlement on East Falkland (which it called Soledad Island) until 1811. But the land remained a British possession.
1825 UK officially recognised Argentine independence. The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation was signed.
1833 Less than a decade later, the British ejected Argentinian invaders from the Falklands. The islands were quickly settled with British farmers.
1892 The Falkland Islands became a British colony. The inhabitants were now officially British subjects with British passports, etc.
correct. The international treaty giving Britain the islands was before the nation of Argentina was formed.
The Treaty of Arana in 1850 also settled it. Again.
Greetings from Ukraine! Thanks for NLAW and Starstreak!
Make good use of them and Give ‘em hell!
Anytime
Hopefully we send more… much more. We are sending anti-ship missiles to keep the Russians out of the Black Sea but more is still needed!
Wish western Europe had the balls to give you f16s which are literally getting scrapped becuase their is no need for them and legacy soviet jets
Keep firing them...we will keep sending them.
A massive well done to all that took part in this and I and so meny in the UK are so grateful to you all 👏👏👏👏
did you really want to write"so meny"?(sic) never mind the clue lies in the abuse of those asinine and infantile little yellow things hic only witless children abuse.
Very informative video. The sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor is a bit oversimplified though. HMS Ambascade was the actual target but she launched chaff in self defence, in turn accidentally sending the missiles into the Conveyor.
The Nott defence review was probably the most flawed in British history combined with the intelligence failures.
Accurate name though
@@MostlyPennyCat Very true lol, a shame 255 men died because of it!
Some would argue that the years prior to Thatcher becoming PM were more damaging to Britain's defences. When Labour left office, there were 76 combat-worthy aircraft that could defend Britain's airspace if they were attacked. Yes, I said 76. So what that brainless prat Nott did was to try rob Peter to pay Paul to shore-up the areas of the military that were lacking. I'm not defending him. He was an idiot. Under-qualified for the job and overwhelmed by the task, he was proof that political appointees should never be allowed near any important decisions.
Never put a politician in charge of anything important, because they will make a total mess of everything, as now over the years has proved this.
@@davidbrown2571 Who was it said "Never vote for anyone who wants to be a politician" lol
In a word . Everything ! Amateurs against professionals with 300 years of experience and knowledge of Naval combat . The Argentinians never stood a chance against the British. It was a foolish decision to invade the Falklands . I was in the US Navy at the time and followed the conflict closely . Later I had the pleasure and privilege to fight and party with the returning British Marines who had survived through it all when they made a port of call in Key West Fla on their return home . First class guys who'd fight ya , then have a drink and be freinds afterwards . I have fond memories of those fine young men and the time I had enjoying their company. 😊
Thank you for sharing a very fair description of Falklands war.
The story of the role the aging Vulcan bombers is the most amazing to me. It shocked the Junta that Britain could launch a bombing raid from that far away. It shocked Britain too. It was an amazing story of ingenuity. And duct tape.
I would never happen if the United States did not provide refueling capabilities to the RAF. Brit Government requested Brazil for landing and refueling facilities, but Brazil responded that they were and would remain neutral in this conflict, therefore refusing to aid either side.
It was done to show Britian could if wanted to Fly to Argentina and drop a Bomb, (Nuclear).
If you mean use of the facilities at Ascension Island then no permission was required as Ascension Island is a British Territory which the UK permits the USA to use
@@ronpinto9588 🤡
@@ronpinto9588 Here we go again an American claiming credit
This is good, but I didn't need a 16 minute docco to answer the question asked: "What went wrong for the Argentine Navy?" .... What went wrong is that they mistakenly thought that the woman in charge of Britain was a shrinking violet and that the Royal Navy was a paper tiger. Britain and Argentina both paid a high price for those mistakes.
What went wrong for the Argentine Navy? Simple, the British had nuclear powered attack submarines that they could do basically nothing about, scaring Argentina all the way back to port. These subs could just linger there for months with no support picking off Argentine ships one by one.
@Tom Foster After HMS Conqueror sank Belgrano, Argentine forces by their own reports attempted to hunt it, but after two miles of chase they had lost track of it completely. You need either a bunch of modern attack subs (the ocean is big!) or aircraft with strong anti submarine capability to track and destroy a state of the art nuclear attack sub, which Conqueror certainly was in 1982. Argentina had neither effective countermeasures. Nuclear attack submarines are devastating to ships especially in that area of the world since the seas are so often terribly rough. That means reduced speed and reduced visibility and difficulty in surface vessels manoeuvring. Difficulty in air ops. A nuclear sub can just hit 30 knots, doesn't care if there is a storm 200 metres above, able to engage and disengage at will. They can see surface ships easily due to heavy waves breaking against hulls making them light up like beacons. Argentina had absolutely no answer to this weapon and would for sure have been losing ship after ship if they had not returned to port and stayed there. Any poor weather which is basically most of the time in the South Atlantic magnifies the fearsome advantages that type of sub already has.
A fantastic military effort by the British.
Incredible the task force was ready and could put to sea from Southampton just 3 days after Port Stanley had been captured.
Not British only. US helped the UK a lot!
@@josedro lol no
@@josedro No it did not mate. All this talk of the USA giving Sidewinders to the UK nonsense. Just as in WWII, the Brits paid for everything. The Sidewinders were already on order and delivered early. The most significant help was from Chile. It allowed the Brits access to its radar surveillance station, to monitor Argie military aircraft movements.
@@archiebald4717 I suggest you read history with your head rather than your heart sir. US provided all weapons and support to the UK while Argentina was embargoed and blocked any access to any US weaponry. Argentina paid 14 Exocet to France delivered 5 before the war and withheld the remaining during the war. Check this info on all internet to check is true
Interesting point made by an Argentine about the sinking of the Belgrano cruiser, it is the Belgrano captain who defends the actions of the captain of HMS Conqueror, the nuclear submarine to sink Belgrano. The Belgrano captain publicly stated, "I would have done the same".
Galtieri’s big mistake was with the release of the famous photos of the Royal Marines being led at gun point after surrendering. It made what had happened personal for the British public and meant it was politically easy for Thatcher to launch a bid to retake the islands.
Galtieri had ordered his invasion force to avoid killing any British personnel, knowing that British dead would make an attempt to retake the islands much more likely…how realistic this request was is debatable but whether by luck or judgment they achieved it, and then they fkkked it all up by doing something guaranteed to inflame patriotism in any nation…showing the Marines surrendering and held at gunpoint.
Actually Galtieri's first of three basic mistakes was similar to the one that Hitler made vis- a- vis Russia: Timing. Just like Hitler, Galtieri did not listen to his generals who wanted to delay the invasion by +/- a year, by which time the naval cuts would have made it damn near impossible for Britain to have assembled an armada. His second mistake was thinking that Britain would do nothing. His third basic error was using conscripts, whilst retaining his experienced troops on the border with Chile where tensions were heating up. These are the three fundamental errors made by Galtieri with the key one being bad timing.
@@RobRoyBoaz His forth error was to think that the US would do nothing, since as a stauch anticommunist and so was in the Reagan Administrations Good Book. He found out the hard way that suppressing local communist guerillas and attacking a NATO ally are two very different things.
I was 8 years old when the British fleet set sail to retake the islands but I remember watching it on the news very well . it was my 1st time slightly understanding that people would die . my uncle was in the merchant navy and brought me a Argentine soldiers helmet back from the islands
Great video, as always from IWM!
This is an excellent documentary! Thank you for taking the time and money to make it.
I have never understood the frequently quoted remark that the sinking of Belgrano is conversational. This was a war, if the enemy is discovered you kill them. It is instructive that Captain Hector Bonzo never had any criticism until the end of his life. He said that if he had a crippled British ship in striking range he would continue firing his 6" guns until the target was destroyed.
The reason people say it is the large amount of false Argentinian reports about the war in general. Every engagement was an Argentine victory, every British attack, a war crime
@@littleshep5502 I don't think it was Argentine reports that made this into a controversy. Much was made of the Belgrano being outside the exclusion zone and not headed for the Royal Navy carriers in the British media.
I have thought for forty years that this was a lame argument. I well remember Thatcher floundering around against a caller to the Nationwide news programme and MP Tam Dalyell making much of this.
The fact is, which was acknowledged by Captain Hector Bono, the Belgrano was a major threat to any British warship that had been crippled by the planned aerial attack from the Argentine carrier. In the event this was cancelled as there was not enough wind to launch aircraft. The British did not know this and destroyed the threat to the fleet. It was a standard naval engagement and is not controversial.
11:53 quotes the sinking of HM Ships Antelope and Coventry slightly out of context. Antelope wasn't sunk on the 21st May. It sank on the 23rd May - and only because an unexploded bomb which hit her in her starboard side detonated whilst bomb disposal engineers were trying to defuse it. Coventry was sunk on the 25th May during a concentrated Argentine air attack on the Type 22/42 missile trap she was part of with HMS Broadsword. That didn't happen in Bomb Alley either - Coventry was sunk north west of Falkland Sound.
I think the sinking of HMS Sheffield was found to be largely due to negligence according to a navy inquiry. At least two officers came close to a court-marshal.
@@afrocentricalbion When Sam Salt reported to Woodward it is said first thing Woodward frankly said to him was "I hear someone was bloody careless" not really tactful but that was a brief and on-point summary of all subsequent inquiries.
I have a family member who is retired Navy and an ex pentagon official. What went wrong for the Argentine Navy was using old torpedos from our WW2 stockpile we sold them that failed to explode on impact. Two other major ships of the British task force would have been sunk, or damaged, and the entire operation would have swung in the Argentinians favor if it wasn't for those faulty torpedos.
@@richardjohnson4696 just because two more ships were lost
I was a young greenie on Hermes,we had just ended an Action Stations & I went up to the hanger deck to grab some fresh air, I & another sailor could see smoke rising a few miles away, the Sheffield. Action Stations sounded again & I was involved with loading fire fighting gear on to returning rescue helicopters that were off loading the mainly badly burnt sailors. Atlantic conveyor was used as a decoy for Hermes ie big blip on a radar, it worked thank God. We watched it burn in the fading light.
I actually met a guy once that was on board the ship bombed in half when it was struck. It was heart breaking to see how much the incident troubled him even today
They met the Royal Navy
3 years to build a ship
200 years to build a reputation
God bless the senior service
there are more british warship on the seafloor than argentine ones, they met the argentine airforce
@@Foxtrop13 and your point?
Argentina lost.
Young men on both sides lost their lives.
Ultimately the Argentine junta used the war to distract from their own crimes...not unlike Pootin atm in the Ukraine.
Great video.
@@Foxtrop13 and if Argentina sent their entire Navy to the UK it would be on the sea floor even faster.
@@JoeMaranophotography well that would not have happend, because argentinians are not dirty pirates
@@jotten8587 Well Pirates they may not be but the first thing....
Amazing thing about the Brits is that they are practical, resolute, self critical and competent, they don't lie to themselves or pretend to have capabilities they don't possess but can quickly adapt to real world scenarios. This makes them agile, responsive and very dangerous to anyone who underestimates them even when clearly outgunned and outmatched. I believe that they can stand up Russia or even the USA when pushed far enough.
@Great White Try telling that to Ukraine! Ukraine doesn't even have a Navy and was able to sink Russia's flagship! It seems in war it's easier to defend than to invade.
@Great White Don't be too sure. It's not what you have, it's about how you use it. That was proven in the Falklands conflict and also when the RAF managed to evade the USA air defences during two exercises, one year apart, to 'drop nuclear' bombs on US territory.
@Great White during training exercises British submarines have consistently countered and penetrated American screening tactics, including at one point, surfacing next to one of the carrier's to signal the defeat
@@archiebald4717 Yep, Operation Skysheild was a total disaster for the USA to the point that they hide the results of their failures away for many years.
YES AND NO.
NO we would lose a war to them however Britain has Nukes and can win any war against anyone so also YES.
Its wild to me when I see argentines mad about this conflict. They couldnt be more of a villain in the situation.
Admiral Sir Henry Leach was a Midshipman posted to HMS MAURITIUS (but serving ashore as she was in refit) in Singapore when HMS PRINCE OF WALES was sunk...the Commanding Officer, his father, being killed in that action.. A classic example of a Navy family.
@9:39 That Officer's words are incredible. I can picture what he was seeing. It was stationary and smoking. (I'm paraphrasing) Then it did have a wobble and right before impact he knew..... It's almost like I was there! Glad he survived.
I remember when we got our daily brief on the Canberra and informed by our Coy Cdr that the Belgrano had been sunk. We all cheered. It is not a video game but war. This sinking ensured a major threat was taken out.
They WW2 Cruisers were absolute beasts. The Japanese and Americans really ramped up the armaments on they things in the Pacific whilst Europe sat using their older fleets with some refits. Remove the threats of modern submarines and they'd still be a big damn threat. They eat up bombs, dish out large shells and have decent AA despite being outdated beyond belief these days. If it had gone undetected and flanked the task group it could easily have taken it out alone.
@@OnlyGrafting IIRC, another vessel of the same class as Phoenix/Belgrano was hit by 3 torpedoes in WW2, but didn't sink. 2 of Conqueror's hit...
I remember in the UK at the time, when the Task Force sailed, everyone cheering and apparently thinking it would be easy. Having studied the declining RN anti-air capabilities over the years, it was always apparent that they would lose ships, and that it would be very close.
The lack of airborne early warning radar, limited number and range of the Sea Harriers, and the under-armed nature of the RN's destroyers and frigates (which continues to this day), most ships lacking effective modern close range anti-air weapons (Sea Cat and a few GMPGs didn't cut it), and the known limitations of Sea Dart and the ships' radars against low flying targets especially over land, always made the loss of ships to air attack, almost certain. Fortunately Argentina could never launch co-ordinated mass air attacks to overwhelm the RN defences.
In a world with no shortage of hostile militaries, both big and small, it boggles the mind that people still think that disarming is an option. The Falkland War was not a moment of glory for Britain, it was a shameful display of how weak Britain had become. Yes, Britain won, but they were fighting a third-rate power that managed to inflict more materiel damage on the Royal Navy than they received.
The problem still persists today. The Royal Navy cheaped out on the Queen Elizabeth class, foregoing catapults, meaning that land-based fighters and bombers can easily reach them with standoff weapons while the British carriers can't get their F35Bs close enough to prevent it.
The Royal Navy can barely muster one task force. Sure, NATO can support, but the other naval powers aside from the US are similarly weak and will be busy protecting their assets. If US assets aren't nearby, the RN can defend the homeland on only one side. The Royal Navy intends to keep only four attack submarines, so they can't be used to defend in multiple directions either while still defending the nuclear deterrent SSBNs.
Europe is starting to wake up, but they still haven't learned that they need to value their defense as much as they value TikTok videos or what some reality TV show star is wearing.
The US almost as bad, but at least maintains a credible force.
@@NozomuYume What nonsense. UK Weapons are blasting Russian heli & jet out of the sky as we speak.
Two British F35s went unchallenged by Russia. I guess they couldn’t see them. Haha
@@NozomuYume spot the Russian bot
@@mercury6765 he is correct, the RN is a joke nowadays, one operation destroyer and two carriers with no aircraft to put on them does not make a navy
@@mercury6765 Not a Russian. Not a bot. Just worried about the state of western defenses. We are lucky that the Russian armed forces turned out to be in such poor shape -- it turns out corruption was worse than the Kremlin realized. But a dictatorship can fix this, and we could wind up facing their forces fixed and working.
The problem is that there are no armed forces in Europe ready to defend on the seas. No appreciable fleet. Few coastal anti-ship defenses. No comprehensive SAM network. Good quality air power but not enough numbers.
The only member of NATO with an appreciable navy is the US, and most of their ships are cold war relics. Attempts at modernization have failed due to the cost-plus nature of contracts. The LCS is great on paper but a joke due to its crap armament. (Though buying the FREMM will help a lot, that is going to take a while).
The French navy is especially screwed. They have some excellent ships but not enough of them to defend their nation spread across multiple seas and continents.
Aged 19, my memories are of a very strange experience. I would watch Newsnight at 10.30 pm and then go to bed deeply worried about our boys at the other end of the world. I think I may even have prayed for them. The UK armed forces were a lot bigger then, so I guess every young lad in the country, like me, knew someone out there. I knew a few. It was a period of about 6 weeks of quite serious angst. There really were times when we feared we were going to lose everyone.
I was a year younger, just about to do my A Levels. I was equally horrified at what was happening.
Fantastic timing to release this 😎🇬🇧
The captain of the Belgrano started its sinking was justified. End of story.
“What went wrong for the Argentine Navy?” The Royal Navy…
Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves! Argies never never never shall be safe!
Go on lads🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
This sort of history is fascinating. Brilliant video series and really well explained.
Your DDs' performance around there was a large factor in USN developing AEGIS and further Baselines of it ever since, plus the full spectrum of Standard missiles. See also all the LCACs we built.
Good video.Over the years I have watched alot of video footage regarding Falkland Island conflict.
This showed me new information I had not seen/heard before.
Good stuff. Thank you.
I remember this war, what went wrong was that although the British navy was not at it's best, it still had the most determined personnel. the Argentines were fighting for the Junta. Free men fight better
you having " fought as or against a free man" exactly how many times titch?
Yeah, right.
Short answer: Argentina who knew nothing about fighting a war attacked the British who had hundreds of years of war experience.
Starting a naval war with the UK was disingenuous but the Argentine air force gave a decent account of themselves considering what they were working with.
Yes but England navy never fared much better than Argentina navy, England lost 9 ships
It's not England navy. It's The Royal Navy @@briantones5993
England? Right expert you.@briantones5993
Superb upload. Thank you for sharing.
Respect to both.I know many Europeans who love Argentina and the Argentinian people.Love from Bosnia
Yes; the tango became a big fad in the 1920's in Europe; still quite popular. Believe it or not, there was once an expression". "rich as an Argentine."
Belgrano was like driving a Morris Minor into An F1 race........incompetence at the highest level!
It was a very expensive victory, five of our vessels were sunk, you had to admire the Argentinian airmen in their old Skyhawk fighters
Actually I do not wish to use the word cheap but it could have been far far worse. I certainly expected it so and many of us said buckle up its a one way trip.
argentines had 190 planes brits a few harriers nothin to admire if the argies same amount of planes they would have not got near any ships fact
and the UK fighting 8000 miles from home, give me a break.Argentina fighting on there own doorstep.Name another country that could have achieved what the British did in this war.??????????
All wars are expensive. The recovery of the FI was an outstanding achievement by HM Armed Forces.
@@derekrichardson6515 Argentina was having a serious problem with its neighbour on the West, Chile. Thus, some of the best Argentine gear and troops were stationed across a 4.000km +/- border, with planes and serious stuff kept there, in reserve. Moreover, those Argentine planes fighting the UK had to make their sorties from the mainland (200km?) with air refueling included, after the airfields in the islands became compromised (which didn't take long). The big problem was that military government/s were dropping on popularity in a brutal fashion, and taking over the islands was, as the video stated, a popularity boost, and also, it's true that the junta wasn't really expecting Britain to retaliate with the Cold War not being precisely that "cold" at that moment. Cheers.
The captain of the Belgrano himself said that he wasn't returning sailing away and that the British submarine had acted according to the rules of war. He said in another interview that it absolutely was not a war crime.
Bruce Robinson confirmed otherwise.
@@MarkHarrison733 the captain of the vessel is a better source than someone who wasn't there
@@littleshep5502 It was a war crime, like the sinking of Bismarck.
@@MarkHarrison733 neither of those were warcrimes
@@littleshep5502 Tommy Byers admitted the crew of Bismarck had surrendered before they scuttled their ship. The Royal Navy refused to accept their surrender, and continued firing.
The Hermes had a damaged propeller and was limited on speed which controlled the speed of the taskforce.
It was to be scrapped later in 1982 and Illustrious had been sold to Australia in Feb 1982 but was not sent.
Fine margins.
Don't poke a sleeping lion, you'll get mauled.
It was this conflict that prompted me to join the army a couple of years later after leaving school.
I believe the latest Defense review stated that there would be no major land war in Europe in the next ten years.
SP: The Putin Mind Reading expert was on vacation that day. Nothing wrong with the review's conclusion at the time.
They said the exact same thing in June 1939.
Normalcy bias blinds even those paid not to be blinded by normalcy bias.
Planners keep getting caught with their pants down.
They missed WW2, the Balkan war, Putin's invasion of Ukraine and many others.
Just shows how LITTLE these experts know.
Question: What went wrong with the Argentine navy?
Answer: The Royal Navy!
This!
_"What went wrong?"_
They thought they stood a chance.
When the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk, 3 of the 4 CH-47 Chinook helicopters of 18 Squadron went down with the ship.
Only one Chinook had been assembled and flown to the island. That Chinook known as Bravo November (ZA718).
When is part 3 coming???
HMS Sheffield had plenty of warnings about the attack, the Captain from HMS Glasgow had radio the radar contact on numerous occasions to Sheffield but the gave the wrong bearing to the contact
Who told you that "HMS Sheffield had plenty of warnings about the attack" and why do you believe them? To what -if anything is it relevant; where and what is your syllogism?
why is the sinking of the Belgrano controversial? just me looking in from the outside it seems war was going on and just because every ship will be fired apon in the circle doesn't mean an enemy military target on the edge and in range is perfectly safe, its still a war going on. is there something I'm missing?
You have it basically spot on. Argentina had been warned warships were valid targets even if outside the zone, it had accepted that. Britian had also intercepted the orders it was under, and knew what it was planning to do (skirt the exclusion zone, and attack the taskforce from the side), therefore it was sunk. It being a war crime is one of the many things the juntra tried to pin on Britain, unfortunately, it's also one of the lies that stuck (another one being HMS invincible being damaged in an attack)
@@littleshep5502 Problem is the reality has long been overtaken by the spin. I once overheard a young Argentine woman sat in front of me on a coach in Cuba explain to her non Argentine friend that the sinking was a war crime as the Belgrano was a hospital ship.
That puzzling circle some politicians invented, drew in their minds and told newspapermen about changed nothing in the way wars are fought at sea.
The Argentine carrier 25th of May (ex Karel Doorman of the Netherlands navy, ex HMS Colossus of the Royal Navy) would have been and should have been sunk on the same day, but for politically-motivated cowardice in their rules of engagement and delayed decisions at the Admiralty for the same politically-motivated cowardly reasons: political creatures exist to avoid blame and take money.
It's as old as Sun Tzu; once engaged in a war, or once a military leader is appointed to command a war, the sovereign (leader of a country) has no command privileges, that's not even the role of the civilian appointed to negotiate peace with the enemy.
What an absolutely brilliant series. I was born a year after the Falklands, and know little about it. The videos on this channel are well made, informative and engaging to watch. Well done!
Excellent series. Thank you. 👍
Wow an imperial War museum channel pure class. 👏 You've just got a new sub 👍
I tell you what went wrong in a few lines if you know the true story behind the Malvinas, as an Argentine I tell you that no one wanted this war, Galtieri was an "anti-democratic" president, our forces were not prepared or trained, however I must clarify that the Argentine Air Force acted in a very professional and heroic manner. The attempted occupation by the Military Government was a stupid and desperate measure. If none of this had happened, today the Malvinas would be a neutral territory with normal commercial relations and a lot of tourism.
The Galtieri regime in Argentina and the Thatcher Government in the UK were both happy to have an 'offshore' war going on (both assumed they would win) to attract attention away from dismal economic and political situations at home. Thatcher would not have won the next election (which she called early) without the 'victory' in the Atlantic. As regards the Malvinas, it was and remains British, as its occupants did, and still do wish. I understand it does have a tourist trade based mainly on its wildlife ... some of its penguin colonies remain protected by Argentian mines.
@@alfnoakes392 What are your grounds for determining that these Islands are British?
@electricdroid I think you have summarized it very well. A lot of disputed war-torn areas could make a hell of a lot of money from turism and trade, like Ethiopia or Kosovo in Europe and the Falklands/Malvinas too. Well said.
No one in Argentina wanted this war ??
Say that to the hundreds of thousands of people in that square when galtiair gave his speech they worth in jubilant celebration and baying for British blood
Also, the American submarine USS Catfish which was sold to Argentina and renamed the Santa Fe, was destroyed while in port. It was scuttled by the British af ter the war as it was too damaged to salvage.
The Santa Fe was hit close to South Georgia's harbour at Grytviken by SS-11 missiles fired from Wasp helicopters.
The damage prevented them from submerging safely, so they made port in Grytviken, where they were captured by the Royal Marines.
One sailor on the Santa Fe was shot in error, as the marine believed he was trying to scuttle the submarine in port.
Great video I've seen from the channel. Actually this is my second one I've seen, the first one is about the Vulcan and Operation Black Buck.
Hopefully one day you can talk about the intervention in Sierra Leone back in 2000. Such an under-discussed topic that was one of the few success stories in military intervention. I think it's best to talk about it while covering the history of Chinook helicopters in British service, seeing how critical they were during the intervention in Sierra Leone. And also since the 20th anniversary of the event fell during the pandemic.
Sierra Leone and the events there can be found in the Osprey series of books; Operation Certain Death.
The politics and gangsterism behind the events are explained quite well.
- also the rescue of British Soldiers by special forces, clearing up some, let's call them 'mistakes', in the news coverage at the time.
I've always liked that the commercial ships used by the RN were referred to as Ships Taken Up From Trade or STUFT.
What? Now I have to subscribe so I can be notified of the next episode! Very excellent documentary.
An autocrat decides a "short victorious war" will cover them in glory and distract the people from the truly horrible job they are doing.....sound familiar?
The idiocy of that is the same reasoning also obviously works for Thatcher. If she had done nothing, it would be defeat in the last election. _Shouldn't have a woman as PM. If the PM had been a man, this wouldn't have happened_ . Autocrats or democracies, winning wars boosts popularity. The islands were very far from the UK. But also far enough from Argentina that they couldn't defend it easily.
The Argentinean Navy wasn’t ready to prevail against the Chilean Navy, and still, after the shock of the British actually responding to the invasion, they found themselves facing probably one of the only two Tier 1 navies in the World.
I watched this on the news when I was 17, it was a war caused by Argentina and the British had no choice but to retake it. I remember the harriers and the royal marines being the heroes of this conflict, and how Argentina ended up in financial despair after the events. I also remember that the US fueled the British bombers after their bombing run so that they could return to England.
I wouldn't say that, otherwise somr American will come chirping in saying "we won the war"
I think the bombing runs began from Ascension Island, but that's several fuel tanks from Falkland.
Power of propaganda
Thank you🙏
Humbled by your thumbnail image.
Great video!
As a UK citizen, I remember to this day how angry I was at the "Gotcha" headline and others. I argued with others about the fact that war isn't a football match and that some of our ships will be sunk and lives lost. Fortunately, the casualties on both sides were not as high as they could have been. To all that lost family or friends in the conflict my heart goes out to you.
@@SwitchTF2 The willingness and ability to criticize and disparage our own armed forces is what helps prevent tyranny. We're not a military dictatorship, and I don't want to become part of one.
Absolutely spot on. 😂
The three naval elements were Task Groups, not Task Forces. Woodward was not in command of the Task Force, Adm John Fieldhouse at Northwood was the overall commander.
Or so you are told.
@@vhawk1951kl How man years did you do in the military??
@@richardvernon317 with buyback? - Don't be daft none at all those big yellow stripes don't just go away by themselves. The nearest I went or came to the army was the officer training corps at school and I thought that was a stupid waste of time - because it was
The overriding issue for the RN in 1982 was that successive governments had convinced themselves that the Cold War anti-submarine role in the North Atlantic took precedence and the need for a credible expeditionary capability had passed. It went way beyond the Nott review, which was never actually implemented. All very convenient when defence spending was being subjected to continuous real-terms cuts.
The 1966 Healey review cancelled the CVA-01 large aircraft carrier project and all but one of the T82 destroyers. The T42 destroyers and T21 frigates that emerged from the review were cheap austerity ships and not equipped as they should have been. The Invincibles were basically small anti-submarine helicopter carriers that could also embark a handful of Harriers. They were not designed as true light fleet carriers.
More cuts to the surface fleet with the 1975 Mason review and then the planned Nott cuts in 1981. Invincible and the more capable but elderly Hermes, with their small air groups and no airborne early warning, were never intended to provide air cover/strike for a large task force operating 8,000 miles away from home against a quite capable land-based air force. Obvious really but the result of 20+ years of complacency. Unfortunately the same mindset is still there 40 years on.
you guys are the best. great video.
Slight error in the commentary, Coventry was not lost in ‘Bomb Alley’, she was hit later when on long-range air detection patrol out to the West of the islands with HMS Broadsword.
I remember the amazing speed the task for was put together. The jingoism of the gutter press was revolting, but in times of war they have their place. Although not a Thatcher fan, I saw that there was no alternative, and I admired her guts. The yanks gleefully predicted our defeat but they were basing their predictions on their level of competence. They had forgotten that for the British fighting forces, courage is unlimited.
Well said
The yanks know all about ,running away ,it still goes on today 😂
Thankfully the islands are protected now, so it won’t ever happen again.
Something that I have never understood is how it was possible that in 150 years the Argentines had not devised a defense plan for when they recovered the islands, and that they only began to wonder what to do when the British fleet was on its way.
because the Americans told them the brits will have a moan and walk away do nothing and they also thought it would be impossible for them to fight a war 8000 miles away and allot of it at sea in the worse conditions imaginable , very true fact. the uk been a sea faring nation for century's it does not frighten them in them condition's
@@topbanana4013 _Yeah sea faring pirates_
@@irwan3064 reply using 1 brain cell
@@irwan3064 , so were the Spanish, in fact the very land that is now called Argentina, was stolen by Spain!.
@@williammorley2401 yes, one colonial naval pirate after another, firstly Portugal, Spain,France,the last one England (UK)
Great episode!
(Indonesia).
Perang Malvinas yang...
Menarik serta Bagus untuk pembelajaran Sejarah Dunia..
👍👍🙅👍👍
QE2 isn't "Queen Elizabeth the 2nd", it's "Queen Elizabeth 2". It's the second ship named after the first Queen Elizabeth rather than the first ship named after the second Queen Elizabeth.
There is some confusion over the name. Cunard did intend to name her after the reigning monarch, but the queen herself vetoed that. So she's the second ship named Elizabeth. And the first one had been named for Elizabeth Bowes Lyon (the queen mum). So she's arguably the person the ship is named for. Although there was a bust of the current queen on the ship herself.
which doesn't make much sense, i mean the British didn't name their second King George V King George V II
@@b_de_silva what? I think you’ve screwed up your numerals there. Either that or you have no bloody clue what you’re talking about
@@SwitchTF2 what i meant to say is the royal navy doesnt add numerals to indicate that a ship is the second of taht name, the example i gave was a battleship from ww1 King George V, during WW2 a second ship of that name was built but they didnt add a numeral to indicate that. and i just realized that QE II is a cruise liner so nvm what i said
@@b_de_silva QE11 wasnt royal navy ,So your point is invalid and pointless.
Ref the sinking of HMS Sheffield, some additional information. HMS Glasgow briefly spotted on her Type 965 radar the attacking Super Etendard aircraft, when they popped up prior to launching the exocets. Glasgow started firing off chaff and sent out a warning to the task group. HMS Invincible fitted with the then new Type 1022 radar could not verify the contact, dismissing it as spurious. If the report had been acted upon the outcome for Sheff may have been different.
@Tom Foster Stop talking mince. Coventry turned to stbd to try and present a smaller profile to incoming aircraft after her seadart failed to get a lock. Unfortunately as they did so they blocked the Seawolf arc of the Broadsword. Ajax had nothing to do with it..
The Belgrano was a retired USN Second World War veteran, the USS Phoenix. She had 11 battle stars, and a Presidential Unit Citation from the government of the Philippines. Sad this was her fate.
Ironically she was considered to be a lucky ship as she pretty much sustained Pearl Harbour without damage.
Or perhaps being sunk due to enemy action rather than being broken up for scrap is a better end for a warship.
@@donjones4719 I'd agree with that, that's what happened to the Big "E" the most famous American Flat top. It's like scrapping the HMS Victory.
Don't sell good ships to fascist governments is probably the way
Sunk by WW2 design torpedoes, too.
Awesome Aircraft. I love the Harrier to this day after seeing it perform at an Air Show El Toro, Ca 1991
Many years ago I was at a screen launch event in central London. Met a bloke called Del Moon who'd served on Sheffield. Think he was in the communications part. Told me about the nightmares he had, and would probably continue to have for the rest of his life. I'm terrible at remembering names. Odd how I've remembered that name after all these years. Was but a five minute chat whilst waiting for drinks.
Thank you so much for mentioning the exploits of the Mine Clearance Team,the unsung hero,s of the conflict.As always in war it,s the people you don.t hear about who make the difference between victory and defeat.
If the governments at the times didn't scrap ark royal or eagle, Argentina would had second thoughts of invading the Falklands because they knew those ships could have launched attacks on the mainland.
"What went wrong" is they took on the British.
The Falklands campaign could not have been mounted much less won without US help...British magazine The Economist, 1984.
@@rayjames6096 The americans didnt help at all. They didnt send any men or anything. The only thing they did was completely stay out of the conflict. The Americans didnt help at all.
@@freneticness6927 The US provided 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel, hundreds of Sidewinder missiles, thousands of rounds of mortar shells, aircraft matting, shrike missiles and other equipment plus moved a spy satellite from the northern hemisphere to the south Atlantic and other intelligence that was key to the UK victory. Look it up.
@@freneticness6927 Also allowed the UK to use the US air base on the leased Ascension islands.
@@freneticness6927 You got it now...the only thing The Economist was wrong on was the helicopter carrier the US was going to loan to the UK if needed wasn't the USS Guam but was the USS Iwo Jima.
they were outclassed from the start
Hello, do you have any worksheets to go along with this series of five videos, please? I really like the videos and I'd like to use them in a lesson but at 16 minutes long, I need some sort of question/study paper to keep pupils' minds focused on the content.