Assets used in this reenactment are not 100% historically accurate. Sea Harrier is represented by AV-8B Harrier II while the IAI Dagger is represented by Mirage III C. These are not mistakes but platform limitations and there's no need to 'correct' them in your comments. Photos of RN ships don't necessarily represent their exact configuration at the time of the conflict. The scene in which Mayor Puga's Dagger is hit doesn't show him eject but due to DCS limitations, this turned impossible to achieve. Also, it seems like I mispronounced the 'Type 22' as 'Type 72'. Broadsword in fact belonged to 'Type 22' class. Thank you for your understanding!
Great re-enactment of the air war in Falkland. I thought the last upload many months ago was the last air battle, so this one is a pleasant surprise. Sea Harriers performed exceptionally well given its limited payload and slower speed against many Argentine aircraft, except the A-4 Skyhawks and Pucaras. I look forward to watching more videos of the air war in the Falklands
Fabulously well made video! I'm reading Harrier 809 on the Falklands War and the use of the Sea Harrier and Harrier fighters by the RN and RAF. But your videos on the Falklands conflict give such a great view into the terrain that even a great book cannot. Seeing this video and then looking at the maps, I am at awe with the sheer difficulty of attacking British targets so far from their bases in Argentina.
Thank you very much for this feedback! We are fortunate to have the actual map of South Atlantic in DCS World (if not the exact aircraft types) and I try to determine the exact locations where these battles took place as precisely as possible.
@@showtime112 your effort, research & accuracy is excellent. I've been subscribed a while now and the videos get better every time. You will have a very successful channel 👍. Anyone with basic aviation knowledge knows the limitations you face with DCS. Your skills make up for the inevitable (yet slight) inaccuracies. Ignore the negative comments.
Yet another cool episode. I can't help but think how eerily similar this engagement to that from the battle of Yavin, namely the destruction of the three Gold Squadron Y-wings! Anyway, keep up the good work and please give us more!
Great program!!! Over 40 years down the road l am still amazed by the courage of the Argentine airmen who flew against the British task force. The pilots of the supersonic a/c knew they couldn't use their afterburners if they didn't want to swim home but they still mounted determined attacks. I am equally in awe of the RN and RAF Harrier pilots. Their professionalism and bravery won the campaign, along with that of the other UK forces involved. Other commenters have spoken about the proper pronounciation of "lieutenant." My understanding is that in Her--uh, His Majesty's--(I'm not used to that yet) army it's pronounced "lef-tenant" and in the RN it's "loo-tenant." I hope someone from the UK reads this and can set the record straight. Merry Christmas to all from Southern California!
anyone who says “Sidewinders won the air war” need to understand a few basic principles. The only advantage AIM-9L offered over early Sidewinders is that it could be fired head on. All Harrier air to air victories were achieved from the rear aspect. So instantly that’s that idea gone. But there’s more, Argentina had AIM-9Bs fitted to their Skyhawks, but also Python missiles, which had twice the range of the AIM-9L. They also had R-550 Magic, a far superior missile to AIM-9L. All of these missiles were French made or Israeli made, just like their jets. Plus not only did they have better missiles, Argentinas A-4s and Daggers were much faster than the Harrier, over mach2 speed when harrier couldn’t even reach mach 1, and on top of that, British Harriers were outnumbered 6-1 by Argentine aircraft. The real reason they won was better pilots, and the harriers good performance in a dogfight. I also should mention that 5 Argentine aircraft were downed using 30mm cannon, and in one engagement, a harrier had a Mirage in his sights and was about to fire his cannons into it, when a second harrier missile hit the mirage almost showering the first harrier in debris.
Great Video! Your editing is getting better because you're adding music with archive footage to explain the background of the conflict. It helps to understand dogfights better. Good job. If you decide to continue making videos about the Falklands War a good idea would be the dogfight of Martin Hale who scored an aerial victory against Argentine Mirage on the 23rd May. Remember, your objective is to make the videos just like the Dogfights series from the History Channel. That is what you're doing: gaining experience and perfecting your knowledge and skills with each video you post. Keep up the good work!
Love your content. One small correction, though. The British military says "Leftenent," not the Americanised "Lieutenent". It's basically the same rank with broadly the same role, compared to the US military, more or less. Just a small detail for future reference. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Your pronunciation is correct but a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy is equivalent to a Captain in the British and US armies. A Sub Lieutenant would be the same as Lieutenant.
Nicely done clip, even with the aircraft not being completely correct I thought you told it really well and it was historically all spot on with the maps and background as well. The Argentine air force were very scared of the harrier for good reason.
Great Storytelling. In a previous episode the Mirages had an advantage a high altitude and the Harriers at low altitude. This would seem to bare out those physical advantages and disadvantages. Guns are cool but it makes me wonder why that first engagement of the Harrier chasing the 4 Daggers didn't use heat seekers?
Thank you very much! After those initial clashes, Argentinians realized that just being at high altitude without any look down / shoot down capabilities means nothing so they just started sending fighter-bombers at low altitude and high speed. Often it worked, sometimes it didn't. I couldn't find the reason why that first Harrier didn't use Sidewinders. Perhaps the pilot couldn't get a lock but I'm just guessing.
It was not really the Harrier outclassing the Dagger as much as it was the latest sidewinder missiles and good tactical awareness due radar ground control etc (ship based in this case). If the Royal Navy was flying Daggers that had those missiles and ground control and Argentina was flying Harriers without the all aspect sidewinders the outcome would most probably have been the opposite, i.e., Harriers getting shot down. I see lots of folks online saying this aircraft is better than that, but what it all comes down to is the whole picture, e.g., how they are used, their tech and weaponry, training, and situational awareness, etc.
@@aquilarossa5191 The AIM-9L situation is one of those things where its hard to say for certain if it was really as definitive as is sometimes estimated. In this particular engagement, all of the kills were also well within the envelope for the AIM-9G. Whilst the Lima certainly didn't hurt, its main improvement over the immediately prior versions, its all-aspect capability, was not really a factor in any of the SHAR's kills. Which makes sense when you think about it, all of the pilots training and aerial combat tactics still revolved around the capabilities of the AIM-9G. They were already sailing South when they got their hands on 9Ls, so trying to re-work their tactics in such a short time may not have been the best idea. The SHAR's also had to assume the likes of the Mirage III were carrying longer ranged, radar guided R530's, so were still at a disadvantage in a head to head engagement. The ship based radar control also had its limits, including being essentially blinded when the ships were close to the islands themselves. That's what directly led to the development of the AEW Sea King helicopters in the wars immediate aftermath.
The Skyhawks got lucky because they attacked on the port side and the ship's port cannon jammed, leaving only small arms fire for defence. Secondly, the bombs just happen to explode in the two worst places possible. Had they have been dropped one second earlier or later, the Coventry would have survived the attack.
Bombs were pretty dangerous too as there were only five Exocets in their inventory but it does seem like a rush to destroy as many ships as possible before you run out of aircraft.
Argentina wasn't facing a possible conflict with Chile, it was planning one. Chile only wanted to be left alone, with the Beagle Channel dispute resolved by international arbitration in the 1970s, Chile's view was accepted. Argentina had NOTHING to fear from Chile.
Second 😱😤. After watched on TV, i read again my book about this aie battle of 24 May, and have the entire report. Cpt Puga said ,he ejected at almost 90° of bank!!!when parachute opened full, he hit water 1 second after!!!
I think the first one was a bot so, you are the first human 😁 I just couldn't make the Mirage pilots eject properly in DCS. They would shoot out upside down and hit the water immediately.
@showtime112 when Puga ejected, he used a Martin Baker mk6JM, almost Zéro-zero. Fitted certainly with extra rocket pack in addition of ejector gun like USN F4B not F4C
@@wilfredbruce5327 Land Campaign was a 2 sided grudge match Between the Para's & the Royal Marines Royal Marines were guarding Stanley when it Fell Para's Took it back , and got the Bragging rights
@@oldman1734 I don't guess, I research. The Ghurkas played a key role in the Falkland war. They were part of the fifth division and their propensity for stealthy infiltration and elimination of the enemy are renowned accounts. They did in fact have a very important role. I would suggest that someone get their facts straight before dissing others with all too common misinformation.
It surprises me that with the top commanders of the British armed forces all being WW2 veterans, that the Royal Navy did not improve flak ships to defend the landing ground, ships bristling with 20mm cannons, heavy MGs, and any other cannon they could get. They could probably have saved a few ships had they done so.
Muchos de los barcos atacados, estaban haciendo de pivote de radar, para interceptar algún ataque de la fuerza aérea argentina, pero el problema se suscitó por estar en transmisión constante con Londres, y eso bloqueo la autodefensa automatica de los buques, algo que no se había previsto nunca antes (debo corregir, pésimo pare el español)
The Royal Navy was designed to fight the Soviet Union where 20mm cannons etc would be of limited use - Russian bombers would launch there missiles well out of range of cannon. They did try mounting machine guns on the ships but I don’t believe his was hugely effect.
They did not get the choice. They used whatever they could sail to the Falklands, which was very little. The RN at the time was concentrating purely on ships designed to fight one thing - Submarines, ie Soviet submarines, in the North Sea. Everything they had that wasnt designed to fight Submarines was mothballed. The carriers themselves were supposed to only carry helicopters at first, as helicopters were the best weapon at the time against Submarines. They only got the Harriers as a last minute decision when one of the admirals complained that what happens if the Soviets decide to defend their Submarines with aircraft, they need something to fight back with.
I read the Osprey Publishing 3-piece book-series (booklets? They have only 90 pages or so) on the Falklands War. One Harrier pilot commented "The Argentinians have no clue of dogfighting." It was a turkey shoot. It must have been somewhat exhilerating for the British pilots to completely outclass their foes like that, when there were grave concerns before the war about the Harrier's chances against the battle-tested, much faster and capable Daggers. 😎
The Harrier crews were fortunate that this particular conflict favored them. Their enemy had more advanced equipment and good pilots, but they were poorly led by their government, and their air campaign involved long distance flights over frigid water, resulting in fighting near bingo fuel, with no support from surface radar or air defenses. The Harriers were at an advantage under these circumstances. Had the Royal Navy been facing waves of Soviet bombers firing fast antiship cruise missiles, the Harrier would not have been the right tool for the job. In that case, they'd have sorely missed their fleet carriers and Phantoms.
@@RCAvhstape And favoured by the Junta too - who told their pilots to avoid the Harriers; not that most types had much fuel left over Falkland to dogfight the Harriers.
The Mirage and Skyhawks are no match against the sea harriers during the Dogfight over Falkland Island great video. Please do the story of Royal Hungary air force vs USAAF & Soviet air force *(The air war over Hungary)*
The Junta told the airforce to avoid the Harriers and concentrate on other targets. And no afterburner for the more modern Argentine fighter-bombers to get back without a swim. There were only (initially) 20 Harriers to overwhelm. The Junta blew it.
The Argentine Military Junta was run very foolishly. With both internal and external threats they decided to launch a war against a major military power run by a Warhawk Prime Minister who was self styled “ The Iron Lady”. Unbelievably poor judgement in my opinion.
Britain was not a major military power at this time and hasn't been since the 1950s. Its military budget had been cut consistently since the end of the Second War War, particularly after the 1966 "White Paper" which cut the Royal Navy from 5 jet carriers to 2 helicopter carriers (HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes). The Royal Navy was never meant to fight an expeditionary campaign ever again, especially not one nearly 4,000 miles away from it's nearest friendly port and land base (Ascension Island). It was oriented as a primarily anti-submarine force against the Soviet Union, but as part of a larger NATO force, not to fight independently. The British Army was set up to defend West Germany from a Soviet Invasion, and to fight the ongoing insurgency and sectarian violence in Northern Island. Whilst the Royal Air Force was geared to defend British territory in Europe from land bases, not be launched from carriers in the South Atlantic or 4,000 miles away from their target in Ascension Island. In terms of conventional military capability Britain was a European power, not a world superpower like the USA, Soviet Union, or even China. Britain did have nuclear weaponry, but it couldn't use them because it didn't have the political clout or economic independence to be able use them. If it did, Britain would have been sanctioned into bankruptcy and support for the Falklands Campaign in Britain would have diminished for both economic and moral reasons. Very, very few Britons wanted to nuke Argentine children for the sake of the Falklands. You can only be a military superpower if you have the political and economic independence to do what want militarily, without major repercussions and that was not Britain in the 1980s. Britain's military was relatively large and well-trained, but was aging, outdated and much of it was due to be replaced, cut or scrapped without replacement. The British military was arguably the weakest it had been in centuries, relative to the rest of the world, especially the Royal Navy which was absolutely the weakest it had been in centuries, if not its entire history. This is why Britain's Falklands Campaign is so impressive. No one doubted the British military was more powerful than the Argentine military and in a straight fight they would inflict more casualties. But this was not a straight fight, the British were well over 7,000 miles further from home. Every scrap of food, drop of drinking water, fuel and oil had to be transported as well as weapons, spare parts, medicine, medical equipment and others had to be shipped from Europe. No one fought a war such as this and won and very few fought it was possible, especially with Britain's resources, but they managed. To finish your point that the Argentine Junta run very foolishly. That's indisputable. Military men are rarely good administrators in terms of domestic politics and economics, but you would expect them to be good at things such military procurement and strategy. But, they really weren't. Had they prepared better, and not been so arrogant underestimating a more powerful and much more experienced enemy, they could have won the war quite easily but they blundered spectacularly instead.
@seamuskavanagh2566 The thing about the British is that they are highly trained and professional...and always find a way to win despite the politicians.
They also only informed the Argentine air force the day before, giving them no time to plan or integrate into the attack properly. Their pilots flew anyway, despite the extremely long sea transit meaning damage meant death - brave men.
Just a very tiny point. In the British armed services, lieutenant is pronounced "lef-tenant". "lew-tenant" is the American pronunciation, so is obviously wrong. Otherwise, thumbs up for an excellent presentation.
42 years ago. I remember it well. Seems like yesterday. Now Argentina probably has similar military capability. UK has about 10th military capability. Go figure
@seamuskavanagh2566 HMS Conqueror was also equipped with Tigerfish torpedoes, the latest and most advanced in service. However the torpedo guidance system was still unreliable so old school torpedoes were used instead. If they had fired Tigerfish and they'd hit, the resulting explosion would have been akin to the USS Arizona blowing up. No-one would have got off. If you mean the individuals using the weapons then thank God for the Paras, Royal Marines and the FAA
In Argentina the military is a much larger institution than it is in either the US and UK. By and large, they are the ones who decides who is gonna be el Presidente and who isn't. At the time of the Falklands War, the Gaultierri Junta of generals had ruled Argentina with a iron fist and the whole invasion of the Falklands /Malavinas was very much an attempt by the regime to stage a 'short, victorious war' to ease public opposition to the regime. The Argentines had invested huge amounts of money into the Fuerza Aerea [Air Force] and its aircraft and training. The service had supplanted the Armada as the second service in the Argentine hierarchy and was constantly pushing for a bigger budget. The failure of the Argentine invasion was not only a failure of the Army and Navy [who could blame the loss on conscripts] but also a HUGE failure on the part of the Fuerza Aerea, who was seen as the more glamorous and professional of all the services. The failure of Argentine aviation was rightfully seen as a major stain on the Fuerza's record and one they have never completely erased.
@@82Pucara11 No. I watched the news and read the newspapers during the Falklands War. It was just before I joined the US Army and I was therefore very interested to see what was happening. Later, I met a couple of Argentine friends who'd fled the Gualtierri Junta and they corrected a couple things I had wrong at the time. I'm not gonna say I'm 1000% right. I've never been to the Falklands and I didn't fight that war. I'm confident in my study of the subject, but my opinion is willing to change as soon as the facts do.
And now you understand whay USN Aircraft Carriers are 1100' long 110k tons and carry 90 Aircraft including E2 EW radar Aircraft and are escorted by multiple destoyers and frigates equipped with Aegis class radar systems and all our Naval fighters are equipped with thier own radars There are but a handfull of nations America couldn't defeat with just a single Ford Class Aircraft Carrier battle group
"There are but a handful of nations America couldn't defeat with just a single Ford Class Aircraft Carrier battle group" North Vietnam being one of them.
You obviously don't know about the Royal Navy protecting US Navy ships in Iraq that thought they were gone because of incoming missiles they couldn't stop but the Royal Navy ships did. You have also seemed to have forgotten that small gun boats exploded themselves on to a US Navy ship and could not be stopped. No one is invulnerable.
@@stevebowman4541 Your context! You stated there are few NATIONS America couldn't defeat with a single CVBG - so exactly how did defeating the North Vietnam Nation go for you?!
If you are referring to 'four-ship Dagger formation', this term is extremely common and frequently used by aviation history books and pilots themselves. It DOESN'T MEAN AIRCRAFT ARE SHIPS! 😁
They are a British Protectorate and British Territory. They are governed by a local council elected by the local people. As long as the people of the Falklands wish to remain British they can do so.
Estuve en varias conferencias con pilotos Argentinos entre ellos Owen Crippa , Puga y otros lamentablemente sin misiles, chaff ni contramedidas electronicas ni altimetros hiban a ciegas tenian que cumplir las ordenes atacar a la Task Force cueste lo que cueste sin discusiones y excusas.....
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Assets used in this reenactment are not 100% historically accurate. Sea Harrier is represented by AV-8B Harrier II while the IAI Dagger is represented by Mirage III C. These are not mistakes but platform limitations and there's no need to 'correct' them in your comments. Photos of RN ships don't necessarily represent their exact configuration at the time of the conflict. The scene in which Mayor Puga's Dagger is hit doesn't show him eject but due to DCS limitations, this turned impossible to achieve. Also, it seems like I mispronounced the 'Type 22' as 'Type 72'. Broadsword in fact belonged to 'Type 22' class. Thank you for your understanding!
I think war thunder may have been a better choice for this one, as it has both vehicles in full
@Denkmaldrubernacht True, but it doesn't have a map which is anything like the Falklands. In DCS, it's the real thing.
@@showtime112Norway map is pretty close, no?
Another great video and aviation history lesson! Thanks again!
@@cfranko1860 I'd say no. Hills are way too steep and Falklands have no trees at all.
Great re-enactment of the air war in Falkland. I thought the last upload many months ago was the last air battle, so this one is a pleasant surprise. Sea Harriers performed exceptionally well given its limited payload and slower speed against many Argentine aircraft, except the A-4 Skyhawks and Pucaras. I look forward to watching more videos of the air war in the Falklands
Fabulously well made video! I'm reading Harrier 809 on the Falklands War and the use of the Sea Harrier and Harrier fighters by the RN and RAF. But your videos on the Falklands conflict give such a great view into the terrain that even a great book cannot. Seeing this video and then looking at the maps, I am at awe with the sheer difficulty of attacking British targets so far from their bases in Argentina.
Thank you very much for this feedback! We are fortunate to have the actual map of South Atlantic in DCS World (if not the exact aircraft types) and I try to determine the exact locations where these battles took place as precisely as possible.
Ooh I've not read that one.
I've read a few others on the Harriers but I'll take a look for 809.
👍
@@showtime112 your effort, research & accuracy is excellent. I've been subscribed a while now and the videos get better every time. You will have a very successful channel 👍. Anyone with basic aviation knowledge knows the limitations you face with DCS. Your skills make up for the inevitable (yet slight) inaccuracies. Ignore the negative comments.
Buenísimo
Me ha encantado!!!
Muchas gracias!
I'm happy to read your positive comment, thank you!
Great work on the air to air actions as always .cheers😊
Thanks!
I appreciate these donations, thank you!
A terrible day for the Argentine Air Force in that one engagement.
A good video as always.
I appreciate your comment, as always!
HMS Broadsword was aType 22 frigate, as were Battleaxe and Brilliant
Batch 1
True, I checked my text and it seems like I mispronounced the number and didn't notice it during the editing.
Yet another cool episode. I can't help but think how eerily similar this engagement to that from the battle of Yavin, namely the destruction of the three Gold Squadron Y-wings!
Anyway, keep up the good work and please give us more!
I have to admit that the comparison didn't cross my mind 😁 Thanks for the comment!
Great program!!! Over 40 years down the road l am still amazed by the courage of the Argentine airmen who flew against the British task force. The pilots of the supersonic a/c knew they couldn't use their afterburners if they didn't want to swim home but they still mounted determined attacks. I am equally in awe of the RN and RAF Harrier pilots. Their professionalism and bravery won the campaign, along with that of the other UK forces involved. Other commenters have spoken about the proper pronounciation of "lieutenant." My understanding is that in Her--uh, His Majesty's--(I'm not used to that yet) army it's pronounced "lef-tenant" and in the RN it's "loo-tenant." I hope someone from the UK reads this and can set the record straight. Merry Christmas to all from Southern California!
Thank you for the comment! I also found info that RN pronounces the rank slightly different but I never researched into it too deply.
Freaking awesome Showtime112. love the AV8B a lot.
Thank you very much for the positive comment!
Original plane was Sea Harrier FRS1 with Black nose cône fiited with long Pitot probe on mid- upper location
Another well researched one!
anyone who says “Sidewinders won the air war” need to understand a few basic principles. The only advantage AIM-9L offered over early Sidewinders is that it could be fired head on. All Harrier air to air victories were achieved from the rear aspect. So instantly that’s that idea gone. But there’s more, Argentina had AIM-9Bs fitted to their Skyhawks, but also Python missiles, which had twice the range of the AIM-9L. They also had R-550 Magic, a far superior missile to AIM-9L. All of these missiles were French made or Israeli made, just like their jets.
Plus not only did they have better missiles, Argentinas A-4s and Daggers were much faster than the Harrier, over mach2 speed when harrier couldn’t even reach mach 1, and on top of that, British Harriers were outnumbered 6-1 by Argentine aircraft. The real reason they won was better pilots, and the harriers good performance in a dogfight. I also should mention that 5 Argentine aircraft were downed using 30mm cannon, and in one engagement, a harrier had a Mirage in his sights and was about to fire his cannons into it, when a second harrier missile hit the mirage almost showering the first harrier in debris.
Great Video! Your editing is getting better because you're adding music with archive footage to explain the background of the conflict. It helps to understand dogfights better. Good job.
If you decide to continue making videos about the Falklands War a good idea would be the dogfight of Martin Hale who scored an aerial victory against Argentine Mirage on the 23rd May.
Remember, your objective is to make the videos just like the Dogfights series from the History Channel. That is what you're doing: gaining experience and perfecting your knowledge and skills with each video you post.
Keep up the good work!
Excelente vídeo! Meus parabéns pelos detalhes históricos e pelas montagens dos vídeos. Forte abraço. Fabricio from Brazil👍🇧🇷
Muito obrigado, Fabricio!
Love your content. One small correction, though.
The British military says "Leftenent," not the Americanised "Lieutenent". It's basically the same rank with broadly the same role, compared to the US military, more or less.
Just a small detail for future reference.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Your pronunciation is correct but a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy is equivalent to a Captain in the British and US armies. A Sub Lieutenant would be the same as Lieutenant.
Nicely done clip, even with the aircraft not being completely correct I thought you told it really well and it was historically all spot on with the maps and background as well. The Argentine air force were very scared of the harrier for good reason.
Great Storytelling. In a previous episode the Mirages had an advantage a high altitude and the Harriers at low altitude. This would seem to bare out those physical advantages and disadvantages. Guns are cool but it makes me wonder why that first engagement of the Harrier chasing the 4 Daggers didn't use heat seekers?
Thank you very much! After those initial clashes, Argentinians realized that just being at high altitude without any look down / shoot down capabilities means nothing so they just started sending fighter-bombers at low altitude and high speed. Often it worked, sometimes it didn't. I couldn't find the reason why that first Harrier didn't use Sidewinders. Perhaps the pilot couldn't get a lock but I'm just guessing.
Great video. The Daggers had no chance against the Sea Harrier. The next day 25 May 1982 the ship Coventry was sunk by Skyhawks
It was not really the Harrier outclassing the Dagger as much as it was the latest sidewinder missiles and good tactical awareness due radar ground control etc (ship based in this case). If the Royal Navy was flying Daggers that had those missiles and ground control and Argentina was flying Harriers without the all aspect sidewinders the outcome would most probably have been the opposite, i.e., Harriers getting shot down.
I see lots of folks online saying this aircraft is better than that, but what it all comes down to is the whole picture, e.g., how they are used, their tech and weaponry, training, and situational awareness, etc.
@@aquilarossa5191 The AIM-9L situation is one of those things where its hard to say for certain if it was really as definitive as is sometimes estimated. In this particular engagement, all of the kills were also well within the envelope for the AIM-9G. Whilst the Lima certainly didn't hurt, its main improvement over the immediately prior versions, its all-aspect capability, was not really a factor in any of the SHAR's kills.
Which makes sense when you think about it, all of the pilots training and aerial combat tactics still revolved around the capabilities of the AIM-9G. They were already sailing South when they got their hands on 9Ls, so trying to re-work their tactics in such a short time may not have been the best idea. The SHAR's also had to assume the likes of the Mirage III were carrying longer ranged, radar guided R530's, so were still at a disadvantage in a head to head engagement.
The ship based radar control also had its limits, including being essentially blinded when the ships were close to the islands themselves.
That's what directly led to the development of the AEW Sea King helicopters in the wars immediate aftermath.
Thank you for the comment!
@@aquilarossa5191 Wrong. They outclassed the Argies in every way. That's why the Argies failed to get a single air to air kill. Ask the Argie pilots.
The Skyhawks got lucky because they attacked on the port side and the ship's port cannon jammed, leaving only small arms fire for defence. Secondly, the bombs just happen to explode in the two worst places possible. Had they have been dropped one second earlier or later, the Coventry would have survived the attack.
Feels like the war almost boiled down to whether the British had enough Sidewinders to stop the Argentinians using enough Exocets.
Bombs were pretty dangerous too as there were only five Exocets in their inventory but it does seem like a rush to destroy as many ships as possible before you run out of aircraft.
Several were shot down by the Royal Navy ships, ground defences (Rapier) and by Harrier cannon fire. None of these were Sidewinders.
It boiled down to Men with fixed bayonets.
It boiled down to the British army, taking back Port Stanley.
Not really, the Super Etendards were never engaged by the Sea Harriers.
Argentina wasn't facing a possible conflict with Chile, it was planning one. Chile only wanted to be left alone, with the Beagle Channel dispute resolved by international arbitration in the 1970s, Chile's view was accepted. Argentina had NOTHING to fear from Chile.
A quick but interesting story. Thanks
Thanks, I appreciate your positive comment!
Second 😱😤. After watched on TV, i read again my book about this aie battle of 24 May, and have the entire report.
Cpt Puga said ,he ejected at almost 90° of bank!!!when parachute opened full, he hit water 1 second after!!!
I think the first one was a bot so, you are the first human 😁 I just couldn't make the Mirage pilots eject properly in DCS. They would shoot out upside down and hit the water immediately.
@showtime112 when Puga ejected, he used a Martin Baker mk6JM, almost Zéro-zero. Fitted certainly with extra rocket pack in addition of ejector gun like USN F4B not F4C
once the british hit the beaches this war was over
The Ghurkas really helped the British in the war.
@@wilfredbruce5327
Land Campaign was a 2 sided grudge match Between the Para's & the Royal Marines
Royal Marines were guarding Stanley when it Fell
Para's Took it back , and got the Bragging rights
@@wilfredbruce5327 Gurkhas took little or no part in the Falklands war. You are guessing.
@@oldman1734 I don't guess, I research. The Ghurkas played a key role in the Falkland war. They were part of the fifth division and their propensity for stealthy infiltration and elimination of the enemy are renowned accounts. They did in fact have a very important role. I would suggest that someone get their facts straight before dissing others with all too common misinformation.
@@wilfredbruce5327 list the actions the Gurkhas took part in.
It shouldn't take you long.
It surprises me that with the top commanders of the British armed forces all being WW2 veterans, that the Royal Navy did not improve flak ships to defend the landing ground, ships bristling with 20mm cannons, heavy MGs, and any other cannon they could get. They could probably have saved a few ships had they done so.
Muchos de los barcos atacados, estaban haciendo de pivote de radar, para interceptar algún ataque de la fuerza aérea argentina, pero el problema se suscitó por estar en transmisión constante con Londres, y eso bloqueo la autodefensa automatica de los buques, algo que no se había previsto nunca antes (debo corregir, pésimo pare el español)
The Royal Navy was designed to fight the Soviet Union where 20mm cannons etc would be of limited use - Russian bombers would launch there missiles well out of range of cannon. They did try mounting machine guns on the ships but I don’t believe his was hugely effect.
They did not get the choice. They used whatever they could sail to the Falklands, which was very little. The RN at the time was concentrating purely on ships designed to fight one thing - Submarines, ie Soviet submarines, in the North Sea. Everything they had that wasnt designed to fight Submarines was mothballed. The carriers themselves were supposed to only carry helicopters at first, as helicopters were the best weapon at the time against Submarines. They only got the Harriers as a last minute decision when one of the admirals complained that what happens if the Soviets decide to defend their Submarines with aircraft, they need something to fight back with.
I read the Osprey Publishing 3-piece book-series (booklets? They have only 90 pages or so) on the Falklands War.
One Harrier pilot commented "The Argentinians have no clue of dogfighting." It was a turkey shoot.
It must have been somewhat exhilerating for the British pilots to completely outclass their foes like that, when there were grave concerns before the war about the Harrier's chances against the battle-tested, much faster and capable Daggers. 😎
The Harrier crews were fortunate that this particular conflict favored them. Their enemy had more advanced equipment and good pilots, but they were poorly led by their government, and their air campaign involved long distance flights over frigid water, resulting in fighting near bingo fuel, with no support from surface radar or air defenses. The Harriers were at an advantage under these circumstances. Had the Royal Navy been facing waves of Soviet bombers firing fast antiship cruise missiles, the Harrier would not have been the right tool for the job. In that case, they'd have sorely missed their fleet carriers and Phantoms.
@@RCAvhstape And favoured by the Junta too - who told their pilots to avoid the Harriers; not that most types had much fuel left over Falkland to dogfight the Harriers.
The Mirage and Skyhawks are no match against the sea harriers during the Dogfight over Falkland Island great video. Please do the story of Royal Hungary air force vs USAAF & Soviet air force *(The air war over Hungary)*
Thank you for the comment and suggestion. I am quite interested in lesser Axis air forces so this topic will probably be covered someday.
The Junta told the airforce to avoid the Harriers and concentrate on other targets. And no afterburner for the more modern Argentine fighter-bombers to get back without a swim. There were only (initially) 20 Harriers to overwhelm. The Junta blew it.
Good video👍. However in british military terminology its pronounced "left tenant" not the americanized "lieutenant"
I'm aware of it. I just can't make myself pronounce it like that. It might as well be 'right tenant' 😁
@@showtime112 lol 😂
@@showtime112 but what you said was wrong
The Argentine Military Junta was run very foolishly. With both internal and external threats they decided to launch a war against a major military power run by a Warhawk Prime Minister who was self styled “ The Iron Lady”. Unbelievably poor judgement in my opinion.
If they had waited another year the British wouldn't have had operational carriers.
Britain was not a major military power at this time and hasn't been since the 1950s. Its military budget had been cut consistently since the end of the Second War War, particularly after the 1966 "White Paper" which cut the Royal Navy from 5 jet carriers to 2 helicopter carriers (HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes).
The Royal Navy was never meant to fight an expeditionary campaign ever again, especially not one nearly 4,000 miles away from it's nearest friendly port and land base (Ascension Island). It was oriented as a primarily anti-submarine force against the Soviet Union, but as part of a larger NATO force, not to fight independently.
The British Army was set up to defend West Germany from a Soviet Invasion, and to fight the ongoing insurgency and sectarian violence in Northern Island. Whilst the Royal Air Force was geared to defend British territory in Europe from land bases, not be launched from carriers in the South Atlantic or 4,000 miles away from their target in Ascension Island.
In terms of conventional military capability Britain was a European power, not a world superpower like the USA, Soviet Union, or even China.
Britain did have nuclear weaponry, but it couldn't use them because it didn't have the political clout or economic independence to be able use them. If it did, Britain would have been sanctioned into bankruptcy and support for the Falklands Campaign in Britain would have diminished for both economic and moral reasons. Very, very few Britons wanted to nuke Argentine children for the sake of the Falklands.
You can only be a military superpower if you have the political and economic independence to do what want militarily, without major repercussions and that was not Britain in the 1980s.
Britain's military was relatively large and well-trained, but was aging, outdated and much of it was due to be replaced, cut or scrapped without replacement. The British military was arguably the weakest it had been in centuries, relative to the rest of the world, especially the Royal Navy which was absolutely the weakest it had been in centuries, if not its entire history.
This is why Britain's Falklands Campaign is so impressive. No one doubted the British military was more powerful than the Argentine military and in a straight fight they would inflict more casualties. But this was not a straight fight, the British were well over 7,000 miles further from home. Every scrap of food, drop of drinking water, fuel and oil had to be transported as well as weapons, spare parts, medicine, medical equipment and others had to be shipped from Europe.
No one fought a war such as this and won and very few fought it was possible, especially with Britain's resources, but they managed.
To finish your point that the Argentine Junta run very foolishly. That's indisputable. Military men are rarely good administrators in terms of domestic politics and economics, but you would expect them to be good at things such military procurement and strategy.
But, they really weren't. Had they prepared better, and not been so arrogant underestimating a more powerful and much more experienced enemy, they could have won the war quite easily but they blundered spectacularly instead.
@seamuskavanagh2566
The thing about the British is that they are highly trained and professional...and always find a way to win despite the politicians.
@@charlesharper2357 That's usually the case, yes.
They also only informed the Argentine air force the day before, giving them no time to plan or integrate into the attack properly. Their pilots flew anyway, despite the extremely long sea transit meaning damage meant death - brave men.
Hi can I ask where you got the Falklands footage from? I'm working on a small project but new to editing. Thanks 🙏
Broadsword was a Type 22 not a Type 72 but otherwise a great video 👍
True, I mispronounced the number and didn't notice it in the editing.
Cool reconstruction! Good Job! 👍
The Falkland War was the "war between two bald men for a comb" using scrap metal.
I wouldn’t call Harriers scrap metal.
Thank you for the comment!
@@moonbaby6134 Not then. But the RAF ones are now: gone to the US for spares.
Just a very tiny point. In the British armed services, lieutenant is pronounced "lef-tenant". "lew-tenant" is the American pronunciation, so is obviously wrong. Otherwise, thumbs up for an excellent presentation.
"La Muerta Negra".
RIP Commander Nigel “Sharkey” MacCartan-Ward, DSC, AFC,.
I remember it well, smithy screaming around 😮
RIP Darryl Cope, HMS Sheffield
42 years ago. I remember it well. Seems like yesterday.
Now Argentina probably has similar military capability.
UK has about 10th military capability.
Go figure
Similar? Not even close. Argentina's military has not had the funds to maintain any kind of reasonable capability.
Well, they still seem to be flying the same Skyhawks 😁
@@showtime112 I thought their Skyhawks have gotten major upgrades, though?
@@showtime112 'Scooters': handled like a dream, according to an F-14 pilot I once conversed with (John Cheshire). 1950s though, a bit old.
Coventry was lost the next day.
❤
Can you make a video about pilot officer rashid minhas shaheed of the Pakistan airforce
😁🇨🇦🤟
Thank you for the comment!
was never a battle of attrition...
.
The British had better strategies for the sea Harriers.
It's "Leftenant", son, when you speak of us.
It’s “Private Pyle” when I speak to you kiddo.
@@guaporeturns9472 It's "Captain Redbeard Rum", when I speak to you. Aaaaa-aaaarrr-aaaargh, me hearty!
Calm down
@@guaporeturns9472 grow up kid he/she was correct.
@ I can tell my comment really got to you…
I win 🏆 🤣
You obviously grew up in a household with only women
The Sidewinders won the air war. Period..👍
But the cheap , old Skyhawks made the Royal Navy bleed , as did the Exocets
@@guaporeturns9472and WW2 vintage torpedos sent the Belgrano to the bottom.
You're not wrong, it's not the entire truth, but not wrong either.
However, weapons can only be as effective as the individuals using them.
@seamuskavanagh2566 HMS Conqueror was also equipped with Tigerfish torpedoes, the latest and most advanced in service. However the torpedo guidance system was still unreliable so old school torpedoes were used instead. If they had fired Tigerfish and they'd hit, the resulting explosion would have been akin to the USS Arizona blowing up. No-one would have got off.
If you mean the individuals using the weapons then thank God for the Paras, Royal Marines and the FAA
@@fus149hammer5 Fitting since the Belgrano was a WWII vintage American built cruiser.
In Argentina the military is a much larger institution than it is in either the US and UK. By and large, they are the ones who decides who is gonna be el Presidente and who isn't. At the time of the Falklands War, the Gaultierri Junta of generals had ruled Argentina with a iron fist and the whole invasion of the Falklands /Malavinas was very much an attempt by the regime to stage a 'short, victorious war' to ease public opposition to the regime.
The Argentines had invested huge amounts of money into the Fuerza Aerea [Air Force] and its aircraft and training. The service had supplanted the Armada as the second service in the Argentine hierarchy and was constantly pushing for a bigger budget.
The failure of the Argentine invasion was not only a failure of the Army and Navy [who could blame the loss on conscripts] but also a HUGE failure on the part of the Fuerza Aerea, who was seen as the more glamorous and professional of all the services. The failure of Argentine aviation was rightfully seen as a major stain on the Fuerza's record and one they have never completely erased.
Fuente: Wikipedia.
@@82Pucara11 No.
I watched the news and read the newspapers during the Falklands War. It was just before I joined the US Army and I was therefore very interested to see what was happening.
Later, I met a couple of Argentine friends who'd fled the Gualtierri Junta and they corrected a couple things I had wrong at the time.
I'm not gonna say I'm 1000% right. I've never been to the Falklands and I didn't fight that war. I'm confident in my study of the subject, but my opinion is willing to change as soon as the facts do.
And now you understand whay USN Aircraft Carriers are 1100' long 110k tons and carry 90 Aircraft including E2 EW radar Aircraft and are escorted by multiple destoyers and frigates equipped with Aegis class radar systems and all our Naval fighters are equipped with thier own radars
There are but a handfull of nations America couldn't defeat with just a single Ford Class Aircraft Carrier battle group
You know this is 40 years old?
"There are but a handful of nations America couldn't defeat with just a single Ford Class Aircraft Carrier battle group"
North Vietnam being one of them.
@@bobdylan7120 In what context is your statement? We both know that they didn't ever even attempt to take on a US CVBG?!
You obviously don't know about the Royal Navy protecting US Navy ships in Iraq that thought they were gone because of incoming missiles they couldn't stop but the Royal Navy ships did. You have also seemed to have forgotten that small gun boats exploded themselves on to a US Navy ship and could not be stopped. No one is invulnerable.
@@stevebowman4541 Your context! You stated there are few NATIONS America couldn't defeat with a single CVBG - so exactly how did defeating the North Vietnam Nation go for you?!
Aircraft are NOT SHIPS
If you are referring to 'four-ship Dagger formation', this term is extremely common and frequently used by aviation history books and pilots themselves. It DOESN'T MEAN AIRCRAFT ARE SHIPS! 😁
@@showtime112 Not outside of USA. they are planes not ships.
I refer to my aircraft as a ship. Fight me.
... the falkland-island belong not to the UK !!!
What flag flies there?
They are a British Protectorate and British Territory. They are governed by a local council elected by the local people. As long as the people of the Falklands wish to remain British they can do so.
@@simoncampbell-smith6745 ... OK, it´s like Palestine, it is still not belong to the zionits!
... ok, is like palestine and still not belong to the zionists, yes !?
@@Reinhardt-sq5zn That makes no sense at all
Estuve en varias conferencias con pilotos Argentinos entre ellos Owen Crippa , Puga y otros lamentablemente sin misiles, chaff ni contramedidas electronicas ni altimetros hiban a ciegas tenian que cumplir las ordenes atacar a la Task Force cueste lo que cueste sin discusiones y excusas.....
British fighter jets also flew without flares.
@@MiG-31893 the only deffect .....