@@gavinrogue9604 Estás equivocado y engañado. Tampoco está tomando nota del referéndum. El 99,8% de la población desea que FALKLANDS sea un protectorado de la corona británica. You are incorrect and deluded. You are also taking no note of the referendum 99.8% of the population wish the FALKLANDS to be a British Crown Protectorate.
@1996freddie The French were on east Falklands, the west is where British ships landed which was uninhabited, so not French and thus not invaded. Nor was there any fighting between the French and British, it was the Spanish that pushed and lost. And after Spain withdrew only one Country had an Internationally recognised claim, Great Britain, otherwise Vernet wouldn't have had to ask Britain for permission to set up on east Falkland. He had to get permission from Buenos Aires as that's where he registered his business, not because they had laid a claim to the Islands. Oh, and by the way, Argentina didn't exist then either, Buenos Aires was where he had already based his mainland interests and for purely legal reasons register a new venture. Now I was in 42 Commando in 1982 when Johnny actually invaded, I was only 17, but at 14 I knew where the Falkland Islands were. And took part in retaking Our territory from the little bitch Johnny. And I lost a couple of good mates taking it back and freeing the Islanders who were used as a shield by that noble Johnny.
As a Falkland islander, it's always interesting to watch people's reaction to the war and out history. There is still a lot of pressure today, 40 years on, from Argentina for the Falklands to become Argentinian. Despite the referendum that happened in 2013 they still claim the islands are theirs. They make life difficult for us, they refuse to let flights through their airspace if flying here, try to impose fishing restrictions in our own waters and generally harass the islands and our people. They are convinced that we are here against our will and we need liberating from the british. They are determined, I'll give them that, but it's no match for the will and determination of us islanders. We are a strong community that is proud of our history and put nationality.
Dont be surprised if they make a play for it again depending what this current situation plays out like. China have stated that they're going to make a play for Taiwan soon
@@FayeClegg they can't , Argentina is in a much worse state than they where in 1982 militarily and the islands are defended by a much much larger force that includes Typhoon fighters , 1300 personal , Advanced radar systems and there's always either a Type 23 Frigate or Type 45 destroyer deployed there.
Ems, the Argentinians illegally invaded, and British blood was spilled!. I can't ever see any British government giving in to the Argies, if they do then they'll never get elected again for at least a generation!. If the argies want to play at being awkward, then maybe you islanders could too, like forbidding Argentines from visiting the islands!.
It cost half a million pounds for each islander for the Falklands war. Its money well spent imo. We weren't protecting the islands. We were protecting British people. Much respect to you
If ever the islanders were ceded back to Argentina for political reasons, it would be tragedy and a waste of all those lives lost. It is weird how a military junta dictatorship thought it was making islanders free, when it was the opposite. The Falkland Islands are far more prosperous under the British also. Argentina is forever bankrupted or close to it. Must be the oil they are after!!!
Jean Kirkpatrick the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. dined at the Argentinian embassy when news of the invasion broke, and during a key Security Council resolution, failed to vote on the side of the U.K. as the U.S.A. were trying to preserve good relationships with Latin American countries. This was shocking to us Brits, that the U.S.A. would not support their staunchest ally and fellow Democracy against Argentina, which was at the time a despotic militarily led country! This was brushed over in the video. President Reagan was due to visit the U.K. on a State visit as a guest of H.M. Queen Elizabeth, so this put him in somewhat of an embarrassing position. He did relent and eventually helped us militarily, particularly thanks to the British Ambassador in Washington talking directly to the U.S. public via the media. This of course wrecked his policy of aligning the U.S. with Latin America during this crucial Cold War period. Britain has always maintained the Falkland Islanders right to self determination which is written into U.N. Law, hence the reason for the 2013 Referendum to check on the Islanders views. Most Islanders can trace their ancestry back to the early 1800’s before Argentina was even a Country, so I cannot see how their claim to them is valid.
Honestly, this isn't surprising. The US never supports the UK in any major international crises. Suez, the Cod Wars (OK, not major, but still), Northern Ireland.
Still to many Americans in public and govt got their heads stuck in 1776 that and their inbuilt ability not to understand anything outside of America will always leave their allies in danger of been thrown under a bus!!!
@@martynclarke5167 yes, one bomb did hit the runway because they were dropped diagonally. One of the many things that were great about operation Blackbuck was the refuelling tankers were refuelled
How can you cover this subject and NOT cover the Black Buck raids?!?!?! God, it took the USA 20+ years to complete a longer bomb run, and the raids stopped the Argies from staging a major air presence,air defence and troop landings before the Royal Navy turned up
The last mine field was finally cleared in November last year, 38 years after the conflict, on the 10/11/2020. Thats dd/mm/yyyy for Americans. The 3 penguines who voted for Argentine rule were later taken outside and shot! But we don't talk about that.
My partner was stationed there after the war, she told me the story of how there were flying penguins there, "but penguins can't fly said I" "they can when they have stepped on a landmine" she said. :)
@@RobG001 My stepdad was in the merchant navy and transported stuff from the Ascension Islands to the Falklands after the war and he told me about exploding penguins. Also their fascination with military helicopters flying over them. They would stop walking, look up and watch as the 'copters flew overhead, causing the penguins to then fall on their backs as they didn't have the sense to turn around!
One of the greatest stories to come out of the Falklands War was that of Rick Jolly, Officer Commanding Medical Squadron Royal Marines. After the war he wrote a book called 'The Red and Green Life Machine', about the joint Medical Field Station set up in a small warehouse in Ajax Bay following the San Carlos landings. Green for Royal Marines and Red for the Paras as they pooled resources available. It was situated right next to an ammo dump and therefore did not have Red Cross markings, meaning that hospital work went on under threat of air strikes at all times. The field hospital served British and Argentine casualties equally showing no favouritsm, and it's testament that almost all casualties evacuated there survived their wounds. Jolly was awarded an 'OBE' for his services. In 1988 Jolly visited Argentina and enquired after many of the Argentine servicemen he had tended to, and because of this it was discovered by the Argentine authorities the work he had done and Jolly was also awarded the 'Officer in the Order of May'. The only person to be decorated by both sides for his work in the war.
The supply chain was 8,000 miles. No war has ever been fought with an 8,000 mile supply chain. They did not think the UK could retake the Islands as Argentina was only 200 miles away.
The Soviets watched on very closely , totally shocked at how the British pulled off such a feat that was so so far away with limited re-sources. That tough British military experience and detailed intelligence gathering all part of the mix. Such brutality in fighting , British Para troopers and Royal marine commandos fighting up hill into the cold wet mountains at night, being shelled upon, mortar's raining down, hardly any British firing positions stationed for support,... taking loses, but still pushing forward and taking there objective's. Some horrific battles, for both sides in that campaign. RIP those... If you get the chance look up the SAS raids and the raid that was pulled at the last minute to invade the Argentina homeland " An air force base " which was to wipe of their Skyhawks etc "
I respect our armed forces so much. They deal with and do terrible things so us civilians don't have to. Drinks on me if I find out you're a squaddie in the pub lol
Chile played a major part in helping the British with (very) long range bombing by providing a land base for some surveillance aircraft (nimrods) to land and spy on the Argentine aircraft. It came back to bite thatcher later when she gave the ex Chilean dictator (General Pinochet) political sanctuary in the UK but due to secrecy around the 'agreement' could not explain to the public how and why he had earned it.
The other comment I would note is the mention of South Georgia. The Squad of marines on the island cause far more damage than they should have. They seriously damaged a Corvette with 84mm & 66mm LAW's, plus hundreds of hits on the bridge by their section machine gun. They shot down a helicopter and inflicted casualties on the forces that landed. You should watch the show Tea & Medals in which they talk to the officer commanding about the action. He got his medal as much for keeping his men alive and then minimising loss of life for the Argentines by letting them know about the booby traps. It's amazing the Argies didn't take note of how hard it was to suppress about 12 men.
The last people to invade Britain successfully were the Romans. The French tried it in (I think) the early 1800's but that didn't go too well for them. Adolf Hitler wanted to try in 1940, but decided to give up, and try Russia instead. If Hitler had gone ahead, Winston Churchill had issued express orders to use chemical weapons to prevent them gaining a foothold on British soil. A friend of mine was posted in Germany with the British army back in the late 70's. He and a few other squaddies decided to go for a night out in the nearest big town. They were standing outside a nightclub, when a large doorman, who had a pet snake round his neck, kept waving in the face of one of the squaddies. He did did it once too often. The squaddie grabbed the snake, and immediately chewed through it right behind it's head, then threw it down at the doorman's feet. After which the squaddies walked into the club. A few seconds later, the doorman appeared inside the club, pointing at the group of squaddies, shouting "crazy Eeenglish"......
Politically I opposed Thatcher and most of my friends did. Having said that, something which must be said about her was she was a good leader. Her politics might have sucked but she certainly knew how to lead a country, which is more than can be said about those who followed her.
I remember it well from first hand experience. The French had supplied the Dassault Super Etendards and Exocets to the Argentine air force. One of the many reasons that we and the French still don't get along, apart from 400 years of almost constant war. 😉
Honestly, a this point (especially lately) if one more person says the words "our close friends and allies the French" then they're clearly smoking weed on another fucking planet.
At the time the French had only delivered a few missiles. Due to the conflict they agreed to suspend further exports and delay the technical package, which was a team and equipment to teach the Argentines how to fit Exocet to their planes. Unfortunately the Argrntinians learned for themselves. We also had help secretly from USA and Chile. The Daily Mail or The Sun are not the best sources for learning history! 😉
@@66crowieNot sure why you think the OP gets his history from the Mail.... he's correct they had supplied both the aircraft and the missiles. Yes they suspended sending over new exocets but they still carried on fulfilling the aircraft order, so they had more super etendards at the end of the war than the start.. granted an aircraft like that with no armament is pretty useless, but they still supplied them nonetheless.. and continue to do so.
@@JakeThys the Mail/Sun comnent was directed at the responders who have the misconception the UK won the conflict with no outside support. The US provided satalite imagery, shrike missiles and early warning of incoming planes. Chile allowed use of a secret sub base and protected the ditched SF team and Chinook crew. France suspended missile exports. Without any of this covert assistance, the outcome may have been very different.
Hey William, hope you are doing. Actually, Argentine population was not aware of the missing people and all the kilos and brutalities accioned by militar government.
I had a heated debate on a Falklands War forum a few years ago with a couple of young Argentines who swore all those people who disappeared had actually moved to Switzerland.
@@tomasscirocco6062 I can remember the protests, done at risk of life and limb, and the people carrying photos of their missing loved ones long befor the Falklands were an issue. It was becoming a real problem for Galtieri hence the war.
I find it hilarious that the Pope actually thought that people were going to honor his whole "line down the middle" thing. The British being protestants probably would have loved to thumb their nose at anything the Pope claimed.
It was a damn shame about the Belgrano. That ship was originally the light cruiser USS Phoenix, a survivor of Pearl Harbour. She had no business being in that conflict and should've been in dock for historical value in the US. The whole conflict was nonsense, Argentina didn't even exist when the Falklands was settled. It was good the people were liberated, though a heavy price paid for it. Thankfully the islands are well defended now and the islanders can live in safety and essentially govern themselves to great effect.
Yes, a work colleague of mine at the time was born in Stanley and was very worried about his parents there. Although the British civilians were confine to their houses, the Argentine fellows treated them OK apparently.....
It was all about principles and democracy - the people there by far the majority, want British support and defence. The same in Gibraltar southern Spain and Northern Ireland.
@@RobG001 I presume that Britain never declared war, hence the parliament could act , and not needed royal approval for it, The declaration of the exclusion zone was one protecting British Interests. One war the British somewhat lost was the Cod Wars against Iceland.
The Vulcan bomber also played a part in this war, carrying out the longest bombing raid of the time, I think it may have been surpassed recently but the story behind that is a good one. Finding spare parts for the old plane that they needed being used as ashtrays in a airforce base and so on.
And interviews with the Captain of the Belgrano who had no issues at all with the attack - he was part of a two pronged pincer movement with he freely admitted to, and the British stopped him. War stuff.
It's debatable whether they were even out of the exclusion zone. It's been indicated that the Belgrano was actually turning to come back into the exclusion zone. Boats don't spin on a dime, they have a very big turning circle. It's fair game imo.
@@DeadlyDan Fair game indeed. "Total exclusion zone" meant everything. Out side of it was a "not so total exclusion zone" all the way to the Argentinian coast - ie military units deemed to be a threat. Belgrano's captain was fully aware of that.
The exclusion zone only applied to neutral ships - the UK was at war wtiith Argentina and could attack their assets anywhere in the world; the exclusion zone was irrelevant for Argentinian vessels
The British Royal Marines although hugely outnumbered, stopped the Argentine invasion force in its tracks but were ordered to surrender by the Governor of the Falklands to stop further bloodshed. They had already inflicted severe damage to the invading force and would have carried on fighting otherwise.
HMS conqueror is the only nuclear submarine to sink an enemy vessel (the General Belgrano) and only the second submarine to sink an enemy ship since the second world war. Not only was it a victory for the British, it was a small victory for the Argentinian people ending General Galteri brutal regime.
@@theant9821 Because the carrier was the bigger threat to the fleet. Sinking Belgrano the carrier scuttled off to port. But could have still come out to play.
I was at the launching of HMS Sheffield and it broke my heart to watch her end. My husband was called out to go to the Falklands too. Then we got a call they changed the brigade and sent the para's instead. Our regiment was really ticked off!!
Just wanted to add a few things which I'm pretty sure I'm right about - but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong ;) Even though they were technically neutral in the conflict, the US did secretly supply the UK with the latest version of their AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile which helped greatly in establishing air superiority. The bulk of Argentinian fighters involved were US-supplied Skyhawks and French-supplied Dassault Super Etendards (which carried the French Exocet "over-the-horizon" anti-ship missile that was so deadly to Royal Navy ships. Both were significantly faster than the UK's Harriers/Sea Harriers, which led to RAF/RN pilots developing the tactic of "VIFFing" (Vectoring in Forward Flight). They would rapidly adjust the Harrier's VTOL jet outlets and basically stop in mid-air. The enemy would flash past and suddenly, the British pilots had the enemy clearly in their sights. Although, it's counted as a victory now, the entire conflict was frequently "touch-and-go". Like when the container ship, Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by an Exocet. Almost all of the helicopters that were supposed to transport troops from the landing zones closer to their targets, ended up at the bottom of the South Atlantic. So instead, the troops had to march for hours on end, in horrendous conditions - then fight an entrenched enemy. And I think it's their bravery and tenacity that most of us Brits are proudest about.
@@RobG001 I asked a reversist who was involved in the war, "what was the most important factor in the conflict". He replied " The fitness of the troops and the ability to cope with extreme conditions. It was down to training."
My college teacher said at the start of the Falklands war, she was teaching high school, and one of the kids asked her where the islands were? Having never heard of them, and because of their name, she said the Falkland islands sounded like they had a similar type of names that were up in the very North of Scotland, and beyond, like the Hebrides, Orkney's etc, and told the girl, that's where they were. The next morning right across the front page was a picture of the islands, with an arrow pointing to them saying something like, "The Falkland Islands are here!" both the teacher and her class had a chuckle over her misplaced direction. Joking aside though, I did remember watching a documentary about the war years ago, and one of the things that stood out for me was when the interviewed an Argentine soldier. He said that looking back, before they went to the islands, that they had been lied to. Their bosses had told them that there were Argentines being held hostage on the island by the British. That they had invaded the islands, which were filled with desparate Argentines, vertually enslaved to the British. And they had to go and take back their islands, freeing their enslaved countrymen. That this was the overwhelming reason to get there as quickly as possible, and that message was drummed into them. And of course, we wanted to go in, fight for the freedom of our people. We were all ready to fight our enemy. However, when we landed, we landed, I realised that we had been lied to. That there were no enslaved Argentines, that these islands were completely British, and if any of our people were there, they were completely free, and wanted to be there. That there was nothing Argentinian about the islands, we weren't fighting to take back our land, we were trying to take over someone else's, and dying for nothing. The ship the General Belgrano, that sake by the British, was originally a US ship surviving the attack on Pearl Harbour during WWII. Despite current things going on with him now, during the conflict, Prince Andrew was an acting, serving pilot in the Royal Navy, and was in the Falklands during this time.
I think most people thought they were to the west of Scotland, Despite knowing of the Falkland Islands office in Westminster and collecting Falklands Islands Stamps when younger. Apparently some Naval ranks thought much the same. When they actually got to the South Atlantic they found the maps they had were still from the same era as Falkland himself and his mapping, despite the survey etc ship previously no maps had been updated or corrected for sea depths and similar
With a more military reaction you should look at the Iranian Embassy siege where terrorists took hostages in the embassy in London and the SAS went in and won easily, there is a video about it on The Operation Room's channel and there is even a movie on it called 6 days on netflix that worth a watch. Keep up the great content.
Sorry to double post - I know its rude. But even as a Brit I remember one video from this - an Argentinian pilot desperately trying to out manoeuvre a heat seeking missile. Even the guy that shot the missile was screaming "Eject, you idiot!" But the guy stayed in his plane - and went down with it. But I tell you - that was 20 seconds of the most amazing flying I've ever seen. Yes, he absolutely should have ejected. But the manoeuvres he pulled trying to defend were incredible - you'd think the plane would break, let alone the pilot. He did get shot down and did lose his life - but I was 8 years old in 1982 and STILL remember that footage. Obviously I am proud of our military, especially recently... but you have to respect your enemy. That pilot - that has stuck with me since I was 8 years old - was bloody good. Should have bailed though.
the argentinian pilots cant eject, the explosive device in the seats are too old and dont work, they know that. that pilots was braves, the dictators and high command was a bunch of idiots and cowards
@@morganstraussg OK - I didn't know that. Thank you Carlos. My only response is to say how amazing the pilot was - if he had lasted just a few seconds more, the missile would have run out of fuel. As I said previously - you have to respect your enemy....
As a Brit, I had just started university in South Africa when the war broke out in 1982. There was a senior student there, of German descent, who delighted in walking around the residence singing "Don't shoot at me, Argentina" at the top of his voice, trying to wind me up. It didn't work because I thought it was super funny!
No the French did not aid Argentina. The Argentines had previously bought French equipment - especially the exocet missiles. When the conflict broke out France halted all sales to Argentina including badly needed spare parts.
There are some discrepancies in the basic story.The harrier soon dominated the sky's on arrival,none lost in dogfights , infact the Argentine air force would leave the area as soon as they came into contact with the harrier.The loss of ships was basically down to the fact that we were put out on picket duty to deliberately attract attacks to give the landing of the troops and equipment more chance of being hit.The Belgrano ( a survivor of Pearl harbor ) was too much of a threat to be allowed to go further. Once on land the outnumbered British would attack hard and then give them chance to surrender. These engagements were done on foot carrying all equipment needed. All in all traveling 12000km and taking three Islands back from a country only a few hundred miles away. After loosing the ship carrying the helicopters and tonnes of equipment it was a bigger accomplishment than most people give credit for. If you want to learn about the air dominance achieved by the harrier and the tactics look up Lt/ cdr Sharkey Ward squadron leader fleet air arm royal navy.A true leader of men by example.
@@alanwalton1260 yes absolutely the RAF harriers GR4 if I remember correctly,are ground attack specialists, and, the " wafus" ( nickname we general service RN gave to the fleet air arm ,who ,incidentally were the most under rated and under appreciated guys of the whole campaign, constantly repairing and maintaining the aircraft ( including the helicopter squadrons) and making sure the pilots had nothing other than the enemy on their minds.). It's a crazy story of how the none flyers in charge ( sir sandy Woodward) didn't listen to the flyers and ordered the harriers not to use the blue fox radar as he didn't think that the harrier could match the Argentine air force , but , that , inadvertently, probably cost more ships and men than if the harrier had made its presence known.....why?... the Argentine junta had ordered that a dog fight was to be avoided and they must not engage the harrier......of course this was not known at the time but it is quite possible that the harrier was in the area when a ship on picket duty was targeted. If anyone is interested in this fascinating story look up CDR Sharkey Ward , he was CO of a harrier squadron and tells it from a pilots perspective dealing with the enemy and the top brass. I first met him ( although he wouldn't know me from Adam) on Ark Royal when he flew phantom f4 .....
Let’s see who had the best… Strength: Argentina Weapons: draw, both sides had the same weapons on the ground Training: British Expertise: British Aircraft: Argentina Pilots: Draw, both very well trained and brave Navy: British, after losing one ship the Argentine navy disappeared from the sea Leader: Britain, Thatcher was a very strong and at times ruthless leader Outcome: Decisive British victory
Bro they missed out something... My great auntie ran into shells and shouting to stop the war because it still had people in thier houses and she made the Argentines to talk to the British and make a truce. Her name was Alison Bleaney she was a Docter at the Falkland islands
The Argentine ship, General Belgrano, sunk by a British submarine, was a USA ship and was a survivor of Perl Harbour at which time it was named Phoenix.
My neighbour at the time served in a mobile Rapier Missile battery and told me shortly after war that the outcome had been touch-and-go when the Argentine air force (who fought very bravely) had sunk the British transporter Atlantic Conveyor carrying nearly all the heavy lift helicopters required for the land phase of the war. This meant the British soldiers had to walk (yomp) 50 miles overland to engage the Argentines dug-in around Pt Stanley and elsewhere. My neighbour also said his missiles failed to work at first because sea water had entered the electronics on the journey down, making them defenseless against the Argentine Pukara aircraft until replacement boards could be dropped in. Their winter equipment was also very poor and, traumatically , he witnessed a friend blown-up trying to grab a booby-trapped tent left by the argentines. My neighbour became severely debilitated with PTSD, which I saw slowly destroy marriage and cripple his life. Thus the official casualty figures were incomplete.
Equipments wise, they were closely matched. Small arms were similar in performance. The Argentines had more night vision kit and better boots/cold weather gear. It was professionalism and training that won the day.
SOme of the Argies' ammo was dodgy...they had a lot of misfires and broken rifles apparently, and most were conscripts and very badly trained...young boys most of them.... British grunts that were there said it was almost a shame to shoot them, as they were pretty hopeless, although very brave (a bad combination!)
I have no idea where you got that nonsense from. the vast majority of Argentinian conscripts had zero appropriate cold weather gear and as to the guff about them having better night vision equipment .......
The conscripts I came across were mostly cold, wet, hungry and scared sh*tless. The rumours going around that the British soldiers would just shoot them, even if they surrendered, was probably the driving force behind them fighting on. I particularly like the one that if the Gurkhas captured you, they will chop off your head and eat your heart. I, like most squaddies, had no hatred for the Argentine grunts. They were the enemy, and while they kept fighting, we kept trying to kill them. We, and I'm sure your average Argentine grunt, were relieved when the ceasefire order was given. You could see the fear in their eyes when they laid down their weapons and surrendered. Once we disarmed and searched them, we set about getting the wounded sorted depending on severity of the wounds. ( The uniform, or language, made no difference to the medics.) We fed them, gave them smokes from those that had them, and slowly you could see them relax when they realised them weren't going to get a 7.62 in the head. On a side note, I wonder how many Argentine's realise that they had British blood running through them, from the hundreds of Army, Navy and Marines who donated it.
I like to think at this point it's just genetic. People have been trying to kill us (the British) for so long that the only people left on our Island are the children of all the bloody minded murderers who won.
The 2013 referendum was the idea of the islanders. The reason was that Argentina tried online to play the colonial card. A few celebrities even came out saying Britain should give it back believing it was Spanish and Britain were oppressing the locals.
9:01 As soon as the British land on any place, those that defend it know their dead. The result of 400 years of perfecting war tactics and having a military that is feared worldwide. That's why the US has the preferred ally of the UK in any major armed conflicts.
The SAS and SBS had been landed by submarine on the Falklands weeks before the main force arrived. Their primary role at that time was intelligence gathering. Once the shooting began, the SAS and SBS took on the role of night time raids, usually taking out forward observation posts, artillery spotters etc. I gather one particular Argentine forward supply depot type place had a number of sentries outside during the night. The following morning, all were found dead, with a red mark round their necks. It didn't all go to plan though. On one occasion, an SAS patrol bumped into an SBS patrol, each thinking the other was enemy. Needless to say, all hell broke loose. Sadly, one SBS trooper was killed.
You Americans always underestimate us British. Fun fact the British Royal Marines and the USMC just had military exercises and the USMC had their arses handed to them by a much smaller force lol
As has been alluded to in the comments, there were no eastern block weapons systems used by Argentina. Their equipment came from the West, including British anti aircraft weapons like the Roland. FN FAL rifles which produced a conflict where both sides were using the same weapon. They had US artillery and recoilless rifles, machine guns and mortars. They did have some Panhard armoured cars (French I think). A lot of the other small arms were US stuff like the GPMG M60 machine gun. The navy was US surplus, including the submarines. As I noted in a response below their air force equipment came from the US, UK, France and Argentina itself.
As I remember the British media were the best ally Argentina had reporting in detail troop movements, the hugh logistic loss of the Atlantic Conveyor and the BBC topped it by advising the Argies that their bombs were not exploding when hitting the ships and they needed to adjust their tactics. Somebody in Argentina must have been listening to the BBC world news because all of a sudden they started sinking our ships. Towards the end of the conflict the final troop movements did seem to have been delayed, as it seemed to have just happened to me seems madness, yes we were all eagar for updates but not at the cost of British lives. I should think this was a lesson learnt by the military and probably the reporting media is now controlled more closely whenever our troops are involved in military conflicts.
The problem is that the news can also become a disadvantage. This is why they were not allowed to state the number of sea harriers used in an attack. All that could be said was " I counted them out and I counted them back!`"
@@donsharpe5786 I only remember this memorable statement as only used once but you are right the senior service did seem to keep a tighter grip on the reporting media probable because they had to use the onboard communications, couldn't see them being allowed to set up their own satellite link. But I can remember with amazement how we reported the failure of the bombs hitting the ships and not exploding. This was bad enough but then the media reported why and how they could solve the problem, as I said the Arggies must have had their transistor radios turned on because their tactics changed and we began to lose lives and ships. The media coverage was immense and respectfully done, a part of British history well and truly documented, a reminder to the world why "Great" is in our title but more importantly it should teach the ruling powers just how damaging an uncontrolled media can be during a crisis. I see no problem suppressing the media if is saves British and allied lives.
Hi dude iv just watched your video I am a 6th generation Falkland islander I an 52 years old .all my life we have been threatened and bullied by Argentina .
This wasn't in NATO's remit, 'North Atlantic' is the clue. They did help as far as they could within the bounds of legality, especially the Americans. The French, of course, leaned the other way.
I used to play rugby with a chap who was a sailor on HMS Coventry, he was on it when it was sunk. His PTSD didn’t really hit him until about 10 years ago.
Mixed feelings about Thatcher. She was tough militarily. See the Iranian Embassy Siege in London. She went too far in suppressing the British workforce and singlehandedly ruined British manufacturing. 4/10. She gets the 4 for standing up against aggressors.
British industry was killed off by two factors Mark: 1. Dinosaur unions who resisted modernisation because it meant fewer staff were needed, resulting in our goods being more expensive to buy. Example: British coal was so expensive to get out of the ground that no one would buy it - Our own power-stations were importing Polish coal. Strikes ruined delivery times resulting in lost orders. Engineering, ship building and many other British companies went off to the Far East where there were trained workforces, up to date factories and more efficient operating procedures. 2. The shift to the east. Thatcher had nothing to do with creating the situation, but she reacted to one of it's causes by dismantling the powers of the union barons**. No wild-cat strikes, valid voting etc etc. **Scargill (mining) and 'Red Robbo' (Longbridge Car Works) My dad was an engineer at Longbridge, he got sick to death of the unions - he quit and went into teaching.
@@gordonsmith8899 Well I thank you for your insights. I was no fan on the unions at that time myself. They were holding Britain to ransom. I couldn’t stand Scargill either as he was a nasty little blowhard. My father was on the picket lines as a police officer and many miners spoke to him saying they hated Arthur Scargill. It was a bad time for regular miners and manufacturing workers. What annoyed me about Thatcher was her singular inability to look for compromises with moderate forces. I believe that had she done that her legacy would have been better. I was a young man when Corbyn was active in Militant Tendency and I saw how he sold out regular folk for extremism. Thus, I was forced to vote Tory, because I could not vote for a man that had supported the IRA or the Munich murderers. I am not left wing or right wing. Compromise by the unions and Thatcher could have healed many divisions, but she believed she was always right and for that I gave her 4/10. She should have isolated Scargill and the other extremists by building a consensus but it was a missed opportunity.
Sad story about the Argy cruiser which was originally an American ship that managed to escape from Pearl harbour as she was under steam at the time of the attack...(USS Phoenix)
The Argentinians didn't have Soviet war technology; it was an anti-communist regime! The air force had a mixture of French, Dutch, American, Israeli and Argentine aeroplanes. The bulk of the British deaths were suffered in Argentinian attacks on British ships.
I think some of the RAF planes had to have a very quick service at zero notice before they were sent out, and one of the ships had been in the breakers yard as Thatcher signed off the war. She'd forgotten she'd authorised the break up! But, that's the British Government - poorly, minimally prepared, but our boys will get us out of this! Really! Best under financed forces in the world.
The British actually trained their pilots and senior officers,they had French fighter jets and missiles,most of the uk fatalities came from the navy ships getting hit.
Like Churchill, she was the perfect Prime Minister for the time. To think we will not attempt to take it back was very foolish. We don't like losing wars. The Belgrano was sailing in and out of the exclusion zone when sunk. The Argentinians had both Russian and French Exocet missiles. The Exocet was good but the Russian equipment wasn't. The Marines that landed were supposed to be transported to the battle by helicopters but they were sunk on the Atlantic Conveyor container ship. The Marines were forced to walk all the way with equipment, officially called a "yomp". They covered many miles per day.
One thing the UK had that set us worlds apart was the Fleet Air Arm. During this conflict the RAF were given token missions due to politics. Sadly, the FAA was dismantled including the Harrier Jump Jet . You should read "The 100 Day War" by Pete Starkey. Brilliant book and describes the air battles that took place.
i started basic training re 2 years after the conflict ended,trained by some of the guys who fought in the conflict,not fit for combat but experienced compotent soldiers i remember a joke told by an nco 2 marines were taking cover behind a rock when an etandard plane flew over 1st marine said to 2nd,no problem,and threw his false teeth at the plane blowing it up what the hell d'you do that for 2nd marine quipped? it's ok mate,they were an extra set lol
Operation Black Buck played a big part in the RAF securing air surpremecy over the Falkland Islands. It is the longest bomb run in history and the video on the operation here on TH-cam is fascinating.
Thatcher definitely divides public opinion on her domestic policies, with some calling her (one of or the) best UK Prime Ministers of History, but on the other hand she is being incredibly hated by many particularly in Scotland/Wales/North of England (so much so that when she died in 2013, the song "Ding Dong the witch is Dead" was streamed so much it got to #2 on the national music charts). But nobody can dispute her strength as a leader, or criticise her response to the Falklands Crisis. In this she is is like Winston Churchill, who was problematic in many ways but is still celebrated for his leadership during WW2.
I cannot disagree with a great deal of your argument Dylan, but it's my view Mrs T had little option when dealing with the unions who were issuing threats of disruption and chaos if their demands weren't met. My father had such a lasting loathing of "Red Robbo" that I stopped asking him questions. I agree her frequent imperious presentation could and did alienate many moderate people who could have been her allies. In particular, testing the poll-tax in Scotland was a massive error of judgement.
@@gordonsmith8899 In general her statecraft was good, that doesn't mean people need to like the results. Being a conservative leader she probably had no choice but to be hostile to the Trade Unions in that time of economic transformation, but that doesn't excuse the state-sanctioned violence at events like the Battle of Orgreave, or the lack of regeneration funding for former mining towns which led to those places being disadvantaged to this day.
@@DylanSargesson The police didn't turn up at Orgreave to find an empty field. Old industries were dying or adapting in all parts of the UK at that time. The answer for many people was to move to where the new jobs were being created.
@@gordonsmith8899 I don't intend to get into an argument about the achievements or otherwise of the Thatcher government, that one is a well hashed-out argument elsewhere in which it's seemingly obvious we have opposing views. I do think that the whole discussion of Thatcher is needlessly toxic though, which is sad. In general I oppose Thatcherism and her time in government, but I can give it credit on some policy areas where it's due - I know some people who would think I was dead wrong to even do that. The 70s/80s were massively interesting times in UK politics, but due to these sorts of feelings it's hard to have a serious discussion.
I never agreed with her politics, but her stance on terrorism and defending the British people, that was incredibly admirable. She had balls. More than I can say for any politician nowadays.
I was a child at the time (I would have been about 5), but definitely remember seeing footage from the conflict on TV - I don't know what happened to the Argentine leader following them, but I have heard before that he basically tried to take the islands to shore things up back in Argentina. I think Argentine buses still have (or did last I know) words on them to the effect of 'Las Malvinas are Argentine' (but in Spanish/Argentine, obviously). More recently, Top Gear (in the Clarkson days) did a special where they travelled through Argentina, and Clarkson - by accident or design - had a number plate on his car that definitely invoked the Faulklands and the year 1982. The Argentines weren't impressed, to say the least. South Georgia island - that the video mentions - was the subject in an episode of 'Yes, Prime Minister' (an old British political sitcom), that strongly referenced the Faulklands without directly invoking them. I think the Faulklands conflict may also have contributed to medical treatment, and the cold climate there aiding medically (something about people lasting longer before/while being treated due to the cold) - being so close to the Antarctic. Prince Andrew famously served in the Royal Navy at the time, and fought in the Faulklands. At least he didn't have to sweat in that cold. :)
Another factor in the difference between British and Argentinian forces was that many of the Argentinians were young conscripts ,just called up ( a form of obligatory National Service) with no time to have had much training .They were badly equipped for winter ,on scarce rations and until the British forces arrived ,were often reduced to begging for food from the Islanders themselves. After the surrender and when the British investigated the supplies for the Argentinians, there was found ample food of the type for Officers. No wonder the poor buggers surrendered when they could.
Most of the Argentinian Air Force was Amerıcan A4 Skyhawks with French Mirage 111s , Super Etendards with Exocet missiles, Israeli Daggers and Argentinian Pucara Turboprops. To my knowledge they had no Russıan fixed wıng baircraft. They also had some old English Electric Canberra bombers!
One of the decisive moments was the boming of the airfeld at Stanley by Vulcan bombers meaning that the Arentine Airforce had to Fly From Carriers outside the Exlcusion zone. After that they returned to ascension and flew over Beunos Aires once or twice. The Vulcan being the only bomber to nuke USA twice (in war games)
The Argentine Air Force did not fly from carriers but the Mainland. The single Vulcan raid on the Port Stanley runway had little to do with preventing Argentina from using the runway. It was clearly easily repairable and was a political gesture.
I remember reading a story about the Korean War where 620+ English Gloster Rifles held off 25,000 Chinese soldiers for quite a while, which helped the allies gain the advantage.
Omg . . . Nobody understands the "exclusion zone" ... That was a zone where ANY vessel would've been atracked by the Royal Navy . Any enemy ships outside the exclusion zone was fair game . The exclusion zone was for civilian or corporate vessels . The sinking was NOT controversial
Argentina was western aligned and had western equipment/weapons, not Soviet stuff. Their best planes were French Mirage's and the British ships that were hit, were hit by French sold, Exocet missiles and the standard issue Argentinian rifle was the Belgian FN/FAL.
There was a very large ex pat British population living in,what is now called Argentina.the same as South Africa,the only difference is the Britain didn’t send send troops,due to the fact they didn’t have enough soldiers to contest it.
In the video they said Russian or Soviet. NOT TRUE,American and French planes. The British never kicked out Argentinians, they were never there. People who watch believe this trash.
The Argentinian forces were mostly equipped with NATO supplied weapons, in the main from the USA and France. That is why the British missile defence systems on the ships did not work that well as the air launched Exocet missiles (supplied by France) where identified as being friendly until it was too late for the automatic systems to intercept them. The systems had to be manually overridden.
I think it was just 2 to 3 weeks after the Sheffield had been hit, that electronic countermeasures were available. Thankfully they were not needed. Quite a number of 20mm and 30mm guns were removed from minesweepers and coastal patrol craft, to beef up the defences on the RN ships though, given the Argentines were pressing home air attacks.
The British used the same equipment as their Argentine counterparts, such as the FN FAL, the only difference was that theirs had a full auto option. It was due to superior training and tactics as well as the presence of Gurkhas which were a large contribution to the wars victory, including better morale and mobile artillery, however due to the unique nature of the Falklands islands heavy equipment such as tanks weren’t used since they were practically useless and whilst the odd Land Rover and warrior APC was deployed, soldiers were expected to carry everything on their backs to the fight and then were expected to fight the enemy half an hour later if not then and there and is the reason why fitness and high standards are vital, since whilst you may have access to technology, vehicles, drones and the like, it doesn’t do anyone any good if a soldier can’t reach your position in a timely manner, as well as to then be expected to fight said enemy as soon as they arrive which could take several hours to even days.
Lets be fair. The intention had been to make the force and air lift fighting force with troops and equipment being carried by helicopter. But when the exocet missile hit the Atlantic Conveyor it took out 3 of the four Chinooks intended for that purpose. Consequently the force became air supported with the heavy equipment and supplies carried into established positions and cas-evac for the wounded. Your point is otherwise well made because the Brit's could adapt and use Shanks pony.
Warriors didn't come into service until 1988 - six years after the war ended. Two Recce Troops of CVR(T)s from B Sqn, The Blues & Royals were sent over - totaling 4 Scorpions, 4 Scimitars & 1 Samson. All with lower ground pressure than a man - rather important, fighting over bogs.
@@madisntit6547 Seems to have been? I agreed and added that the Cdo Logs Regt took Eager Beavers (High Mobility Fork Lifts), motorcycles and even 4-tonners with fuel cells to the FI and used them effectively, as well as the BVs. I also attached an IWM pic of the BVs from 1982 - perhaps that's why it's gone?
Totally didn't mention the RAF "black buck" mission where a Vulcan Bomber damaged the runway at Port Stanley to stop the Argentinians using it to re-supply or base their aircraft. Their aircraft were mainly French made, with some US made Skyhawks too. They used the French made anti-shipping missile to sink a few of our ships. The UK didn't get any help from the EEC/EU.
That is Daily Mail level of history. The French gave you info on the radars they sold to the Argentinians, how Exocet worked etc. EU didn't exist in 1981. EEC was an economic and not political alliance. Learn basic history before repeating the Brexiteers nonsense .
@@asicdathens The Falklands war was in 1982. I was 12 at the time and remember the UK liberated the Falklands by ourselves. I only mentioned the EU for those who didn't know what the EEC was. Since you say the EU was a political alliance and since the UK only had a refferendum to join the EEC, a trade alliance, you remind us how the UK poeple never agreed to be part of the EU. We left when asked though, so that's good.
@@Payne2view The UK Parliament/ House of Lords voted to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon ( That created EU) You voted them. So the myth of European unelected bureaucrats should end one day. If you didn't like it you should have rebelled
@@asicdathens Nobody voted for them on a manifesto of the Treaty of Lisbon. In fact, at the time, we were told (like most anti-referrendom sittuations) that it was a technical document that the public would never understand, so we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it, they knew what they were doing so there. IF the Lisbon Treaty had been honestly explained and put the the public vote (as it should have) I don't think it would have been signed by the UK. Thankfully we have left and no longer have multiple MEPs from different parties representing the same electoral constituencies who move from Brussels to Strasbourg every few months, like some sort of Mad Hatter's Tea Party. The Commission was never directly elected by the public and we only have to see that the current President of the EU is a former (i.e. no longer elected) German Defence Minister. What is democratic about that?!
@@Payne2view Ireland had a referendum on the Treaty BTW. The important positions of the EU are decided by the national governments that are elected by the local population
so noone has mentioned that, Britain only held onto the falkalnds to export penguins fto the Irish. Guisness boiling vats, the a L Murray distillation process.
The RAF sent Avro Vulcan medium range bombers to The Falklands via Ascension Islands, with mid air refuelling. The aircraft bombed Port Stanley airfield, apparently the first bomb did the damage. Without loss they returned to the Ascension Island. This remains the longest bombing mission in History, 8,000miles round trip.
Yes it was until the US sent a plane from the US non stop i think to Afganistan . to bomb there , totally unnecessary of course , but lets not have the Brits one up on us .
Check out the story of operation 'Black Buck' - Where RAF Vulcans bombed Port Stanley runway to prevent Argentina having an airstrip on the islands. At the time, they were the longest range bombing raids in history, and required multiple convoluted mid-air re-fuelling - with tankers for the bombers needing to themselves be mid-air re-fuelled so they could stay with the bombers to allow them to make the distance.
I'll just add these snippets about the British Antartic Territory (BAT) : "The UK's formal claim dates back to 1908 via the Falkland Island Dependencies Letters of Patent. It is the oldest formal territorial claim on the continent. " "In 2007 Britain claimed more than 1million sq km of seabed off BAT, a move that would extend the UK's oil, gas and mineral rights."
As for Air superiority... The Harrier was the only plane at the time that could stop dead mid air and fire at it's persuers when they overshot. The harrier could land on a parking spot and fly backwards.
interesting fact, the general belgrano, the cruiser sunk by a british submarine that made the rest of the argentine navy scurry back to port. was originally the USS phoenix and survived the bombing of pearl harbour.
We had 2 carriers there, it was on Argentinas doorstep so the odds were well in their favour. Our harriers shot down Argentinas aircraft in most cases but some still got through. We only had what we took with us to fight, once that had gone it was 1000s of miles from home with a sth Atlantic winter drawing in so it had to be done under those circumstances. As per usual, all of our servicemen were outstanding. The names and units names have slipped my mind now, but the battle to take goose green. When they made their plans the Co went back to his company to brief them on the attack and said "gentlemen, in the next 24hrs the promotional prospects in this company are going to be fucking excellent".
2 Para - the only unit to fight two battles. Goose green was typical British cock up, but in the usual British way, just got on with it. There second battle, Wireless Ridge, made up for it - hard lessons well learned.
While I was working in the Argentine during the rules of Videla & then Viola the threats of war with Chile over the "disputed" Beagle Islands twice with full military mobilisations. These coincided perfectly with really bad economic news which got relegated off the front pages...At the time of the war everyone expected just more Argentinian sabre rattling...thus it was a bit of as surprise. I think the UK Foreign Secretary had to resign over it.
Lets get one thing straight Britain did not invade the Falklands it was Argentina who invaded the Falklands and the British kicked them out.
Yeah I agree. You can't invade your own territory 😆
No, las malvinas son argentinas y los ingleses la robaron
@@gavinrogue9604 we had a colony on there almost 50 years before your country existed
@@gavinrogue9604 Estás equivocado y engañado. Tampoco está tomando nota del referéndum. El 99,8% de la población desea que FALKLANDS sea un protectorado de la corona británica.
You are incorrect and deluded. You are also taking no note of the referendum 99.8% of the population wish the FALKLANDS to be a British Crown Protectorate.
@1996freddie The French were on east Falklands, the west is where British ships landed which was uninhabited, so not French and thus not invaded. Nor was there any fighting between the French and British, it was the Spanish that pushed and lost. And after Spain withdrew only one Country had an Internationally recognised claim, Great Britain, otherwise Vernet wouldn't have had to ask Britain for permission to set up on east Falkland. He had to get permission from Buenos Aires as that's where he registered his business, not because they had laid a claim to the Islands. Oh, and by the way, Argentina didn't exist then either, Buenos Aires was where he had already based his mainland interests and for purely legal reasons register a new venture.
Now I was in 42 Commando in 1982 when Johnny actually invaded, I was only 17, but at 14 I knew where the Falkland Islands were. And took part in retaking Our territory from the little bitch Johnny. And I lost a couple of good mates taking it back and freeing the Islanders who were used as a shield by that noble Johnny.
As a Falkland islander, it's always interesting to watch people's reaction to the war and out history.
There is still a lot of pressure today, 40 years on, from Argentina for the Falklands to become Argentinian. Despite the referendum that happened in 2013 they still claim the islands are theirs. They make life difficult for us, they refuse to let flights through their airspace if flying here, try to impose fishing restrictions in our own waters and generally harass the islands and our people. They are convinced that we are here against our will and we need liberating from the british. They are determined, I'll give them that, but it's no match for the will and determination of us islanders. We are a strong community that is proud of our history and put nationality.
Dont be surprised if they make a play for it again depending what this current situation plays out like. China have stated that they're going to make a play for Taiwan soon
@@FayeClegg they can't , Argentina is in a much worse state than they where in 1982 militarily and the islands are defended by a much much larger force that includes Typhoon fighters , 1300 personal , Advanced radar systems and there's always either a Type 23 Frigate or Type 45 destroyer deployed there.
Ems, the Argentinians illegally invaded, and British blood was spilled!. I can't ever see any British government giving in to the Argies, if they do then they'll never get elected again for at least a generation!. If the argies want to play at being awkward, then maybe you islanders could too, like forbidding Argentines from visiting the islands!.
It cost half a million pounds for each islander for the Falklands war. Its money well spent imo. We weren't protecting the islands. We were protecting British people. Much respect to you
If ever the islanders were ceded back to Argentina for political reasons, it would be tragedy and a waste of all those lives lost. It is weird how a military junta dictatorship thought it was making islanders free, when it was the opposite. The Falkland Islands are far more prosperous under the British also. Argentina is forever bankrupted or close to it. Must be the oil they are after!!!
Jean Kirkpatrick the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. dined at the Argentinian embassy when news of the invasion broke, and during a key Security Council resolution, failed to vote on the side of the U.K. as the U.S.A. were trying to preserve good relationships with Latin American countries. This was shocking to us Brits, that the U.S.A. would not support their staunchest ally and fellow Democracy against Argentina, which was at the time a despotic militarily led country! This was brushed over in the video. President Reagan was due to visit the U.K. on a State visit as a guest of H.M. Queen Elizabeth, so this put him in somewhat of an embarrassing position. He did relent and eventually helped us militarily, particularly thanks to the British Ambassador in Washington talking directly to the U.S. public via the media. This of course wrecked his policy of aligning the U.S. with Latin America during this crucial Cold War period. Britain has always maintained the Falkland Islanders right to self determination which is written into U.N. Law, hence the reason for the 2013 Referendum to check on the Islanders views. Most Islanders can trace their ancestry back to the early 1800’s before Argentina was even a Country, so I cannot see how their claim to them is valid.
The Irish government also supported the Argentinan Junta against the British at the time. Look it up.
@@gingerbaker4390 What a surprise?
@@wessexdruid5290 No surprise really.
Honestly, this isn't surprising. The US never supports the UK in any major international crises. Suez, the Cod Wars (OK, not major, but still), Northern Ireland.
Still to many Americans in public and govt got their heads stuck in 1776 that and their inbuilt ability not to understand anything outside of America will always leave their allies in danger of been thrown under a bus!!!
Weird, no mention of the Vulcan bombing the airfield. One of the most impressive air raids going. Look up Operation Black Buck.
@@oldman1734 one of them hit which was enough. The point was also psychological, the Argentinians never thought there was a chance of being bombed.
@@martynclarke5167 yes, one bomb did hit the runway because they were dropped diagonally. One of the many things that were great about operation Blackbuck was the refuelling tankers were refuelled
It was a largely ineffective raid that had little or no impact on the conflict.
the longest bombing raid in history
How can you cover this subject and NOT cover the Black Buck raids?!?!?!
God, it took the USA 20+ years to complete a longer bomb run, and the raids stopped the Argies from staging a major air presence,air defence and troop landings before the Royal Navy turned up
The last mine field was finally cleared in November last year, 38 years after the conflict, on the 10/11/2020. Thats dd/mm/yyyy for Americans.
The 3 penguines who voted for Argentine rule were later taken outside and shot! But we don't talk about that.
And made into Guinness :)
My partner was stationed there after the war, she told me the story of how there were flying penguins there, "but penguins can't fly said I" "they can when they have stepped on a landmine" she said. :)
I hope Argentina leaves the Falklands alone
@@RobG001 My stepdad was in the merchant navy and transported stuff from the Ascension Islands to the Falklands after the war and he told me about exploding penguins. Also their fascination with military helicopters flying over them. They would stop walking, look up and watch as the 'copters flew overhead, causing the penguins to then fall on their backs as they didn't have the sense to turn around!
Love the comment about the 3 penguins, my type of humour.
One of the greatest stories to come out of the Falklands War was that of Rick Jolly, Officer Commanding Medical Squadron Royal Marines. After the war he wrote a book called 'The Red and Green Life Machine', about the joint Medical Field Station set up in a small warehouse in Ajax Bay following the San Carlos landings. Green for Royal Marines and Red for the Paras as they pooled resources available. It was situated right next to an ammo dump and therefore did not have Red Cross markings, meaning that hospital work went on under threat of air strikes at all times. The field hospital served British and Argentine casualties equally showing no favouritsm, and it's testament that almost all casualties evacuated there survived their wounds. Jolly was awarded an 'OBE' for his services. In 1988 Jolly visited Argentina and enquired after many of the Argentine servicemen he had tended to, and because of this it was discovered by the Argentine authorities the work he had done and Jolly was also awarded the 'Officer in the Order of May'. The only person to be decorated by both sides for his work in the war.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Jolly
You forgot to mention the two uxb in the roof if I remember 2 x 500lb
And everyone treated at the hospital survived
Absolutely agree. Rick Jolly is a shining antithesis to the almost continuous bitching about how the UK forces conduct themselves in combat arenas.
Maroon should say, Red are MP's.lol
The supply chain was 8,000 miles. No war has ever been fought with an 8,000 mile supply chain. They did not think the UK could retake the Islands as Argentina was only 200 miles away.
They thought wrong.
The Soviets watched on very closely , totally shocked at how the British pulled off such a feat that was so so far away with limited re-sources. That tough British military experience and detailed intelligence gathering all part of the mix. Such brutality in fighting , British Para troopers and Royal marine commandos fighting up hill into the cold wet mountains at night, being shelled upon, mortar's raining down, hardly any British firing positions stationed for support,... taking loses, but still pushing forward and taking there objective's. Some horrific battles, for both sides in that campaign. RIP those...
If you get the chance look up the SAS raids and the raid that was pulled at the last minute to invade the Argentina homeland " An air force base " which was to wipe of their Skyhawks etc "
True, the Soviets always shit themselves when the Brits are in town.
I respect our armed forces so much. They deal with and do terrible things so us civilians don't have to. Drinks on me if I find out you're a squaddie in the pub lol
@@reiverraider4887 when and where mate 😂
Chile played a major part in helping the British with (very) long range bombing by providing a land base for some surveillance aircraft (nimrods) to land and spy on the Argentine aircraft. It came back to bite thatcher later when she gave the ex Chilean dictator (General Pinochet) political sanctuary in the UK but due to secrecy around the 'agreement' could not explain to the public how and why he had earned it.
New Zealand also indirectly helped by agreeing to take over out patrols in the southern Ocean and South pacific to free up our fleet.
Chile helped because the first country Argentina thought about having a war with was them.
The other comment I would note is the mention of South Georgia. The Squad of marines on the island cause far more damage than they should have. They seriously damaged a Corvette with 84mm & 66mm LAW's, plus hundreds of hits on the bridge by their section machine gun. They shot down a helicopter and inflicted casualties on the forces that landed. You should watch the show Tea & Medals in which they talk to the officer commanding about the action. He got his medal as much for keeping his men alive and then minimising loss of life for the Argentines by letting them know about the booby traps. It's amazing the Argies didn't take note of how hard it was to suppress about 12 men.
There were 22 Royal Marines: Lt Keith Mills, his 12 man RM Detachment from HMS Endurance plus an additional 9 RM from NP8901 aka "Mill's Marauders"
As a Brit I must admit the determination of the Argentinian air force pilots was excellent, we payed a heavy price in ships and men
th-cam.com/video/7WKmxTNOpVU/w-d-xo.html
British OMG !!! The best and hardest fighting nation on the planet !!! I wouldn’t want to invade them !!!
The last people to invade Britain successfully were the Romans. The French tried it in (I think) the early 1800's but that didn't go too well for them. Adolf Hitler wanted to try in 1940, but decided to give up, and try Russia instead. If Hitler had gone ahead, Winston Churchill had issued express orders to use chemical weapons to prevent them gaining a foothold on British soil. A friend of mine was posted in Germany with the British army back in the late 70's. He and a few other squaddies decided to go for a night out in the nearest big town. They were standing outside a nightclub, when a large doorman, who had a pet snake round his neck, kept waving in the face of one of the squaddies. He did did it once too often. The squaddie grabbed the snake, and immediately chewed through it right behind it's head, then threw it down at the doorman's feet. After which the squaddies walked into the club. A few seconds later, the doorman appeared inside the club, pointing at the group of squaddies, shouting "crazy Eeenglish"......
Doorman was Argentine then? Or Mexican???😉
@@Brian-om2hh The Normans successfully invaded in 1066
germany almost destroy them if it where launched the B2 rockets
Politically I opposed Thatcher and most of my friends did. Having said that, something which must be said about her was she was a good leader. Her politics might have sucked but she certainly knew how to lead a country, which is more than can be said about those who followed her.
Too right
All who followed her have been useless or war criminals
I remember it well from first hand experience. The French had supplied the Dassault Super Etendards and Exocets to the Argentine air force. One of the many reasons that we and the French still don't get along, apart from 400 years of almost constant war. 😉
Honestly, a this point (especially lately) if one more person says the words "our close friends and allies the French" then they're clearly smoking weed on another fucking planet.
@@saundyuk fuckin’ too right 👍
At the time the French had only delivered a few missiles. Due to the conflict they agreed to suspend further exports and delay the technical package, which was a team and equipment to teach the Argentines how to fit Exocet to their planes. Unfortunately the Argrntinians learned for themselves.
We also had help secretly from USA and Chile.
The Daily Mail or The Sun are not the best sources for learning history! 😉
@@66crowieNot sure why you think the OP gets his history from the Mail.... he's correct they had supplied both the aircraft and the missiles.
Yes they suspended sending over new exocets but they still carried on fulfilling the aircraft order, so they had more super etendards at the end of the war than the start.. granted an aircraft like that with no armament is pretty useless, but they still supplied them nonetheless.. and continue to do so.
@@JakeThys the Mail/Sun comnent was directed at the responders who have the misconception the UK won the conflict with no outside support.
The US provided satalite imagery, shrike missiles and early warning of incoming planes. Chile allowed use of a secret sub base and protected the ditched SF team and Chinook crew. France suspended missile exports. Without any of this covert assistance, the outcome may have been very different.
It always amazes me how quickly the Argentine people forgot how many people went missing under the brutal regime of General Galtieri.
Hey William, hope you are doing. Actually, Argentine population was not aware of the missing people and all the kilos and brutalities accioned by militar government.
I had a heated debate on a Falklands War forum a few years ago with a couple of young Argentines who swore all those people who disappeared had actually moved to Switzerland.
@@tomasscirocco6062 I can remember the protests, done at risk of life and limb, and the people carrying photos of their missing loved ones long befor the Falklands were an issue. It was becoming a real problem for Galtieri hence the war.
we didnt
Are you just going out for a while?
I find it hilarious that the Pope actually thought that people were going to honor his whole "line down the middle" thing. The British being protestants probably would have loved to thumb their nose at anything the Pope claimed.
It was a damn shame about the Belgrano. That ship was originally the light cruiser USS Phoenix, a survivor of Pearl Harbour. She had no business being in that conflict and should've been in dock for historical value in the US. The whole conflict was nonsense, Argentina didn't even exist when the Falklands was settled. It was good the people were liberated, though a heavy price paid for it. Thankfully the islands are well defended now and the islanders can live in safety and essentially govern themselves to great effect.
Nice to someone using the term 'conflict', and not 'war' Learned that from my GF who served down there (British Army), 2 tours I believe she said.
Yes, a work colleague of mine at the time was born in Stanley and was very worried about his parents there. Although the British civilians were confine to their houses, the Argentine fellows treated them OK apparently.....
It was all about principles and democracy - the people there by far the majority, want British support and defence. The same in Gibraltar southern Spain and Northern Ireland.
@@RobG001 I presume that Britain never declared war, hence the parliament could act , and not needed royal approval for it, The declaration of the exclusion zone was one protecting British Interests. One war the British somewhat lost was the Cod Wars against Iceland.
The Vulcan bomber also played a part in this war, carrying out the longest bombing raid of the time, I think it may have been surpassed recently but the story behind that is a good one. Finding spare parts for the old plane that they needed being used as ashtrays in a airforce base and so on.
the bomber have low ratio of efficiency
The Belgrano was only controversial because the media didn't understand what an exclusion zone was.
And interviews with the Captain of the Belgrano who had no issues at all with the attack - he was part of a two pronged pincer movement with he freely admitted to, and the British stopped him. War stuff.
It's debatable whether they were even out of the exclusion zone. It's been indicated that the Belgrano was actually turning to come back into the exclusion zone. Boats don't spin on a dime, they have a very big turning circle. It's fair game imo.
@@DeadlyDan Fair game indeed. "Total exclusion zone" meant everything. Out side of it was a "not so total exclusion zone" all the way to the Argentinian coast - ie military units deemed to be a threat. Belgrano's captain was fully aware of that.
The exclusion zone only applied to neutral ships - the UK was at war wtiith Argentina and could attack their assets anywhere in the world; the exclusion zone was irrelevant for Argentinian vessels
One of these days the full story of the sinking of the Belgrano will come out. Oh and it has nothing to do whether it was justified or not!
The British Royal Marines although hugely outnumbered, stopped the Argentine invasion force in its tracks but were ordered to surrender by the Governor of the Falklands to stop further bloodshed. They had already inflicted severe damage to the invading force and would have carried on fighting otherwise.
The Falklands have never been part of Argentina - never. They were a crown dependency before Argentina as we know it ever existed.
HMS conqueror is the only nuclear submarine to sink an enemy vessel (the General Belgrano) and only the second submarine to sink an enemy ship since the second world war. Not only was it a victory for the British, it was a small victory for the Argentinian people ending General Galteri brutal regime.
*GOTCHA*
The General Belgrano was formally the USS Pheonix and is one of the ships that escaped the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Other sub should have sank their carrier.
@@flybobbie1449 why? Sinking the Belgrano achieved what it needed to, the carrier played almost no part in the war as a result.
@@theant9821 Because the carrier was the bigger threat to the fleet. Sinking Belgrano the carrier scuttled off to port.
But could have still come out to play.
I was at the launching of HMS Sheffield and it broke my heart to watch her end. My husband was called out to go to the Falklands too. Then we got a call they changed the brigade and sent the para's instead. Our regiment was really ticked off!!
My dad had recently left Coventry for a shore base.
Just wanted to add a few things which I'm pretty sure I'm right about - but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong ;) Even though they were technically neutral in the conflict, the US did secretly supply the UK with the latest version of their AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile which helped greatly in establishing air superiority. The bulk of Argentinian fighters involved were US-supplied Skyhawks and French-supplied Dassault Super Etendards (which carried the French Exocet "over-the-horizon" anti-ship missile that was so deadly to Royal Navy ships. Both were significantly faster than the UK's Harriers/Sea Harriers, which led to RAF/RN pilots developing the tactic of "VIFFing" (Vectoring in Forward Flight). They would rapidly adjust the Harrier's VTOL jet outlets and basically stop in mid-air. The enemy would flash past and suddenly, the British pilots had the enemy clearly in their sights. Although, it's counted as a victory now, the entire conflict was frequently "touch-and-go". Like when the container ship, Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by an Exocet. Almost all of the helicopters that were supposed to transport troops from the landing zones closer to their targets, ended up at the bottom of the South Atlantic. So instead, the troops had to march for hours on end, in horrendous conditions - then fight an entrenched enemy. And I think it's their bravery and tenacity that most of us Brits are proudest about.
America sold us weapons, but that was the extent of their help and they will sell weapons to anyone.
Yomping was the term they used if memory serves me for the march across the island. :)
@@RobG001 The Royal Marines called it 'Yomping'. For the Paras, it was 'Tabbing'.
@@RobG001 I asked a reversist who was involved in the war, "what was the most important factor in the conflict". He replied " The fitness of the troops and the ability to cope with extreme conditions. It was down to training."
My college teacher said at the start of the Falklands war, she was teaching high school, and one of the kids asked her where the islands were? Having never heard of them, and because of their name, she said the Falkland islands sounded like they had a similar type of names that were up in the very North of Scotland, and beyond, like the Hebrides, Orkney's etc, and told the girl, that's where they were. The next morning right across the front page was a picture of the islands, with an arrow pointing to them saying something like, "The Falkland Islands are here!" both the teacher and her class had a chuckle over her misplaced direction.
Joking aside though, I did remember watching a documentary about the war years ago, and one of the things that stood out for me was when the interviewed an Argentine soldier. He said that looking back, before they went to the islands, that they had been lied to. Their bosses had told them that there were Argentines being held hostage on the island by the British. That they had invaded the islands, which were filled with desparate Argentines, vertually enslaved to the British. And they had to go and take back their islands, freeing their enslaved countrymen. That this was the overwhelming reason to get there as quickly as possible, and that message was drummed into them. And of course, we wanted to go in, fight for the freedom of our people. We were all ready to fight our enemy. However, when we landed, we landed, I realised that we had been lied to. That there were no enslaved Argentines, that these islands were completely British, and if any of our people were there, they were completely free, and wanted to be there. That there was nothing Argentinian about the islands, we weren't fighting to take back our land, we were trying to take over someone else's, and dying for nothing.
The ship the General Belgrano, that sake by the British, was originally a US ship surviving the attack on Pearl Harbour during WWII.
Despite current things going on with him now, during the conflict, Prince Andrew was an acting, serving pilot in the Royal Navy, and was in the Falklands during this time.
I think most people thought they were to the west of Scotland, Despite knowing of the Falkland Islands office in Westminster and collecting Falklands Islands Stamps when younger. Apparently some Naval ranks thought much the same. When they actually got to the South Atlantic they found the maps they had were still from the same era as Falkland himself and his mapping, despite the survey etc ship previously no maps had been updated or corrected for sea depths and similar
With a more military reaction you should look at the Iranian Embassy siege where terrorists took hostages in the embassy in London and the SAS went in and won easily, there is a video about it on The Operation Room's channel and there is even a movie on it called 6 days on netflix that worth a watch. Keep up the great content.
Yes! That was brilliant. The s.a.s don't mess around.
I would like to, and will take any military-type suggestions :)
We didnt invade we liberated our people and our island from a Argentine invasion
Sorry to double post - I know its rude. But even as a Brit I remember one video from this - an Argentinian pilot desperately trying to out manoeuvre a heat seeking missile. Even the guy that shot the missile was screaming "Eject, you idiot!" But the guy stayed in his plane - and went down with it. But I tell you - that was 20 seconds of the most amazing flying I've ever seen. Yes, he absolutely should have ejected. But the manoeuvres he pulled trying to defend were incredible - you'd think the plane would break, let alone the pilot. He did get shot down and did lose his life - but I was 8 years old in 1982 and STILL remember that footage. Obviously I am proud of our military, especially recently... but you have to respect your enemy. That pilot - that has stuck with me since I was 8 years old - was bloody good. Should have bailed though.
the argentinian pilots cant eject, the explosive device in the seats are too old and dont work, they know that. that pilots was braves, the dictators and high command was a bunch of idiots and cowards
@@morganstraussg OK - I didn't know that. Thank you Carlos. My only response is to say how amazing the pilot was - if he had lasted just a few seconds more, the missile would have run out of fuel. As I said previously - you have to respect your enemy....
As a Brit, I had just started university in South Africa when the war broke out in 1982. There was a senior student there, of German descent, who delighted in walking around the residence singing "Don't shoot at me, Argentina" at the top of his voice, trying to wind me up. It didn't work because I thought it was super funny!
The longest bombing raid in history, carried out by the Avro Vulcan. Worth a look at the logistics. French helped Argentine .
No the French did not aid Argentina. The Argentines had previously bought French equipment - especially the exocet missiles. When the conflict broke out France halted all sales to Argentina including badly needed spare parts.
There are some discrepancies in the basic story.The harrier soon dominated the sky's on arrival,none lost in dogfights , infact the Argentine air force would leave the area as soon as they came into contact with the harrier.The loss of ships was basically down to the fact that we were put out on picket duty to deliberately attract attacks to give the landing of the troops and equipment more chance of being hit.The Belgrano ( a survivor of Pearl harbor ) was too much of a threat to be allowed to go further.
Once on land the outnumbered British would attack hard and then give them chance to surrender.
These engagements were done on foot carrying all equipment needed.
All in all traveling 12000km and taking three Islands back from a country only a few hundred miles away. After loosing the ship carrying the helicopters and tonnes of equipment it was a bigger accomplishment than most people give credit for.
If you want to learn about the air dominance achieved by the harrier and the tactics look up Lt/ cdr Sharkey Ward squadron leader fleet air arm royal navy.A true leader of men by example.
and nearly all argetine aircraft lost in air combat were to navy pilots NOT air force pilots
@@alanwalton1260 yes absolutely the RAF harriers GR4 if I remember correctly,are ground attack specialists, and, the " wafus" ( nickname we general service RN gave to the fleet air arm ,who ,incidentally were the most under rated and under appreciated guys of the whole campaign, constantly repairing and maintaining the aircraft ( including the helicopter squadrons) and making sure the pilots had nothing other than the enemy on their minds.).
It's a crazy story of how the none flyers in charge ( sir sandy Woodward) didn't listen to the flyers and ordered the harriers not to use the blue fox radar as he didn't think that the harrier could match the Argentine air force , but , that , inadvertently, probably cost more ships and men than if the harrier had made its presence known.....why?... the Argentine junta had ordered that a dog fight was to be avoided and they must not engage the harrier......of course this was not known at the time but it is quite possible that the harrier was in the area when a ship on picket duty was targeted.
If anyone is interested in this fascinating story look up CDR Sharkey Ward , he was CO of a harrier squadron and tells it from a pilots perspective dealing with the enemy and the top brass.
I first met him ( although he wouldn't know me from Adam) on Ark Royal when he flew phantom f4 .....
Britain had a foot in the falklands before argentina as even a country, end of story
No, you took them in 1833
You might want to have a look at one or other of the "Black Buck" videos concerning the RAF bombing raids on Port Stanley.
Let’s see who had the best…
Strength: Argentina
Weapons: draw, both sides had the same weapons on the ground
Training: British
Expertise: British
Aircraft: Argentina
Pilots: Draw, both very well trained and brave
Navy: British, after losing one ship the Argentine navy disappeared from the sea
Leader: Britain, Thatcher was a very strong and at times ruthless leader
Outcome: Decisive British victory
argentinian pilots were better, the brittish admit that, thebritish had better aircraft, and weaponry, included night vision, that argentina dont had
Bro they missed out something...
My great auntie ran into shells and shouting to stop the war because it still had people in thier houses and she made the Argentines to talk to the British and make a truce. Her name was Alison Bleaney she was a Docter at the Falkland islands
The Argentine ship, General Belgrano, sunk by a British submarine, was a USA ship and was a survivor of Perl Harbour at which time it was named Phoenix.
My neighbour at the time served in a mobile Rapier Missile battery and told me shortly after war that the outcome had been touch-and-go when the Argentine air force (who fought very bravely) had sunk the British transporter Atlantic Conveyor carrying nearly all the heavy lift helicopters required for the land phase of the war. This meant the British soldiers had to walk (yomp) 50 miles overland to engage the Argentines dug-in around Pt Stanley and elsewhere. My neighbour also said his missiles failed to work at first because sea water had entered the electronics on the journey down, making them defenseless against the Argentine Pukara aircraft until replacement boards could be dropped in. Their winter equipment was also very poor and, traumatically , he witnessed a friend blown-up trying to grab a booby-trapped tent left by the argentines. My neighbour became severely debilitated with PTSD, which I saw slowly destroy marriage and cripple his life. Thus the official casualty figures were incomplete.
Equipments wise, they were closely matched. Small arms were similar in performance. The Argentines had more night vision kit and better boots/cold weather gear.
It was professionalism and training that won the day.
SOme of the Argies' ammo was dodgy...they had a lot of misfires and broken rifles apparently, and most were conscripts and very badly trained...young boys most of them.... British grunts that were there said it was almost a shame to shoot them, as they were pretty hopeless, although very brave (a bad combination!)
I have no idea where you got that nonsense from. the vast majority of Argentinian conscripts had zero appropriate cold weather gear and as to the guff about them having better night vision equipment .......
The conscripts I came across were mostly cold, wet, hungry and scared sh*tless. The rumours going around that the British soldiers would just shoot them, even if they surrendered, was probably the driving force behind them fighting on. I particularly like the one that if the Gurkhas captured you, they will chop off your head and eat your heart. I, like most squaddies, had no hatred for the Argentine grunts. They were the enemy, and while they kept fighting, we kept trying to kill them. We, and I'm sure your average Argentine grunt, were relieved when the ceasefire order was given. You could see the fear in their eyes when they laid down their weapons and surrendered. Once we disarmed and searched them, we set about getting the wounded sorted depending on severity of the wounds. ( The uniform, or language, made no difference to the medics.) We fed them, gave them smokes from those that had them, and slowly you could see them relax when they realised them weren't going to get a 7.62 in the head. On a side note, I wonder how many Argentine's realise that they had British blood running through them, from the hundreds of Army, Navy and Marines who donated it.
@@grahamo22 the Argentine marines were the ones with night vision
I like to think at this point it's just genetic.
People have been trying to kill us (the British) for so long that the only people left on our Island are the children of all the bloody minded murderers who won.
The 2013 referendum was the idea of the islanders. The reason was that Argentina tried online to play the colonial card. A few celebrities even came out saying Britain should give it back believing it was Spanish and Britain were oppressing the locals.
9:01 As soon as the British land on any place, those that defend it know their dead.
The result of 400 years of perfecting war tactics and having a military that is feared worldwide. That's why the US has the preferred ally of the UK in any major armed conflicts.
😂😂😂😂😂
Spot on
The SAS and SBS had been landed by submarine on the Falklands weeks before the main force arrived. Their primary role at that time was intelligence gathering. Once the shooting began, the SAS and SBS took on the role of night time raids, usually taking out forward observation posts, artillery spotters etc. I gather one particular Argentine forward supply depot type place had a number of sentries outside during the night. The following morning, all were found dead, with a red mark round their necks. It didn't all go to plan though. On one occasion, an SAS patrol bumped into an SBS patrol, each thinking the other was enemy. Needless to say, all hell broke loose. Sadly, one SBS trooper was killed.
You Americans always underestimate us British. Fun fact the British Royal Marines and the USMC just had military exercises and the USMC had their arses handed to them by a much smaller force lol
As has been alluded to in the comments, there were no eastern block weapons systems used by Argentina. Their equipment came from the West, including British anti aircraft weapons like the Roland. FN FAL rifles which produced a conflict where both sides were using the same weapon. They had US artillery and recoilless rifles, machine guns and mortars. They did have some Panhard armoured cars (French I think). A lot of the other small arms were US stuff like the GPMG M60 machine gun. The navy was US surplus, including the submarines. As I noted in a response below their air force equipment came from the US, UK, France and Argentina itself.
And type 42s, exocets, etendards, Skyhawks, sea dart, harpoon, sidewinder and probably more
As I remember the British media were the best ally Argentina had reporting in detail troop movements, the hugh logistic loss of the Atlantic Conveyor and the BBC topped it by advising the Argies that their bombs were not exploding when hitting the ships and they needed to adjust their tactics. Somebody in Argentina must have been listening to the BBC world news because all of a sudden they started sinking our ships. Towards the end of the conflict the final troop movements did seem to have been delayed, as it seemed to have just happened to me seems madness, yes we were all eagar for updates but not at the cost of British lives. I should think this was a lesson learnt by the military and probably the reporting media is now controlled more closely whenever our troops are involved in military conflicts.
The problem is that the news can also become a disadvantage. This is why they were not allowed to state the number of sea harriers used in an attack. All that could be said was " I counted them out and I counted them back!`"
@@donsharpe5786 I only remember this memorable statement as only used once but you are right the senior service did seem to keep a tighter grip on the reporting media probable because they had to use the onboard communications, couldn't see them being allowed to set up their own satellite link. But I can remember with amazement how we reported the failure of the bombs hitting the ships and not exploding. This was bad enough but then the media reported why and how they could solve the problem, as I said the Arggies must have had their transistor radios turned on because their tactics changed and we began to lose lives and ships. The media coverage was immense and respectfully done, a part of British history well and truly documented, a reminder to the world why "Great" is in our title but more importantly it should teach the ruling powers just how damaging an uncontrolled media can be during a crisis. I see no problem suppressing the media if is saves British and allied lives.
Hi dude iv just watched your video I am a 6th generation Falkland islander I an 52 years old .all my life we have been threatened and bullied by Argentina .
Argentina: *invades some small British islands off their coast*
Britain: *from over 8000 miles away* So you have chosen....death
Pretty much, Sam!
It was so good to see all our NATO allies queuing up to help us liberate the Falkland Islands
This wasn't in NATO's remit, 'North Atlantic' is the clue. They did help as far as they could within the bounds of legality, especially the Americans. The French, of course, leaned the other way.
Thatcher specifically said we could do it ourselves
@@matt36866 Love her or loathe her, she made a decision and stuck to it.
I used to play rugby with a chap who was a sailor on HMS Coventry, he was on it when it was sunk. His PTSD didn’t really hit him until about 10 years ago.
What the hell would a Californian know about standing up for anything
Mixed feelings about Thatcher. She was tough militarily. See the Iranian Embassy Siege in London. She went too far in suppressing the British workforce and singlehandedly ruined British manufacturing. 4/10. She gets the 4 for standing up against aggressors.
British industry was killed off by two factors Mark:
1. Dinosaur unions who resisted modernisation because it meant fewer staff were needed, resulting in our goods being more expensive to buy.
Example: British coal was so expensive to get out of the ground that no one would buy it - Our own power-stations were importing Polish coal.
Strikes ruined delivery times resulting in lost orders. Engineering, ship building and many other British companies went off to the Far East where
there were trained workforces, up to date factories and more efficient operating procedures.
2. The shift to the east.
Thatcher had nothing to do with creating the situation, but she reacted to one of it's causes by dismantling the powers of the union barons**. No wild-cat strikes, valid voting etc etc.
**Scargill (mining) and 'Red Robbo' (Longbridge Car Works) My dad was an engineer at Longbridge, he got sick to death of the unions - he quit and went into teaching.
@@gordonsmith8899 Well I thank you for your insights. I was no fan on the unions at that time myself. They were holding Britain to ransom. I couldn’t stand Scargill either as he was a nasty little blowhard. My father was on the picket lines as a police officer and many miners spoke to him saying they hated Arthur Scargill. It was a bad time for regular miners and manufacturing workers. What annoyed me about Thatcher was her singular inability to look for compromises with moderate forces. I believe that had she done that her legacy would have been better. I was a young man when Corbyn was active in Militant Tendency and I saw how he sold out regular folk for extremism. Thus, I was forced to vote Tory, because I could not vote for a man that had supported the IRA or the Munich murderers. I am not left wing or right wing. Compromise by the unions and Thatcher could have healed many divisions, but she believed she was always right and for that I gave her 4/10. She should have isolated Scargill and the other extremists by building a consensus but it was a missed opportunity.
Sad story about the Argy cruiser which was originally an American ship that managed to escape from Pearl harbour as she was under steam at the time of the attack...(USS Phoenix)
The conflict was called in the American media 'The Empire Strikes Back' and we did against the Republic...
The Argentinians didn't have Soviet war technology; it was an anti-communist regime!
The air force had a mixture of French, Dutch, American, Israeli and Argentine aeroplanes.
The bulk of the British deaths were suffered in Argentinian attacks on British ships.
I think some of the RAF planes had to have a very quick service at zero notice before they were sent out, and one of the ships had been in the breakers yard as Thatcher signed off the war. She'd forgotten she'd authorised the break up! But, that's the British Government - poorly, minimally prepared, but our boys will get us out of this! Really! Best under financed forces in the world.
The British actually trained their pilots and senior officers,they had French fighter jets and missiles,most of the uk fatalities came from the navy ships getting hit.
Like Churchill, she was the perfect Prime Minister for the time. To think we will not attempt to take it back was very foolish. We don't like losing wars. The Belgrano was sailing in and out of the exclusion zone when sunk. The Argentinians had both Russian and French Exocet missiles. The Exocet was good but the Russian equipment wasn't. The Marines that landed were supposed to be transported to the battle by helicopters but they were sunk on the Atlantic Conveyor container ship. The Marines were forced to walk all the way with equipment, officially called a "yomp". They covered many miles per day.
One thing the UK had that set us worlds apart was the Fleet Air Arm. During this conflict the RAF were given token missions due to politics. Sadly, the FAA was dismantled including the Harrier Jump Jet .
You should read "The 100 Day War" by Pete Starkey. Brilliant book and describes the air battles that took place.
I think the conflict wouldn't have even happened had we kept our "proper" carriers festooned with F4s and Buccaneers.
The last of the mines were cleared just a couple of years ago so after 40 years there are no longer any no go areas.
Thank you for making it safe again for all who live on the lslands
i started basic training re 2 years after the conflict ended,trained by some of the guys who fought in the conflict,not fit for combat but experienced compotent soldiers
i remember a joke told by an nco
2 marines were taking cover behind a rock when an etandard plane flew over
1st marine said to 2nd,no problem,and threw his false teeth at the plane blowing it up
what the hell d'you do that for 2nd marine quipped?
it's ok mate,they were an extra set
lol
how funny th-cam.com/video/7WKmxTNOpVU/w-d-xo.html
Operation Black Buck played a big part in the RAF securing air surpremecy over the Falkland Islands. It is the longest bomb run in history and the video on the operation here on TH-cam is fascinating.
Thatcher definitely divides public opinion on her domestic policies, with some calling her (one of or the) best UK Prime Ministers of History, but on the other hand she is being incredibly hated by many particularly in Scotland/Wales/North of England (so much so that when she died in 2013, the song "Ding Dong the witch is Dead" was streamed so much it got to #2 on the national music charts).
But nobody can dispute her strength as a leader, or criticise her response to the Falklands Crisis. In this she is is like Winston Churchill, who was problematic in many ways but is still celebrated for his leadership during WW2.
I cannot disagree with a great deal of your argument Dylan, but it's my view Mrs T had little option when dealing with the unions who were issuing threats of disruption and chaos if their demands weren't met.
My father had such a lasting loathing of "Red Robbo" that I stopped asking him questions.
I agree her frequent imperious presentation could and did alienate many moderate people who could have been her allies.
In particular, testing the poll-tax in Scotland was a massive error of judgement.
@@gordonsmith8899 In general her statecraft was good, that doesn't mean people need to like the results. Being a conservative leader she probably had no choice but to be hostile to the Trade Unions in that time of economic transformation, but that doesn't excuse the state-sanctioned violence at events like the Battle of Orgreave, or the lack of regeneration funding for former mining towns which led to those places being disadvantaged to this day.
@@DylanSargesson
The police didn't turn up at Orgreave to find an empty field.
Old industries were dying or adapting in all parts of the UK at that time. The answer for many people was to move to where the new jobs were being created.
@@gordonsmith8899 I don't intend to get into an argument about the achievements or otherwise of the Thatcher government, that one is a well hashed-out argument elsewhere in which it's seemingly obvious we have opposing views.
I do think that the whole discussion of Thatcher is needlessly toxic though, which is sad. In general I oppose Thatcherism and her time in government, but I can give it credit on some policy areas where it's due - I know some people who would think I was dead wrong to even do that. The 70s/80s were massively interesting times in UK politics, but due to these sorts of feelings it's hard to have a serious discussion.
I never agreed with her politics, but her stance on terrorism and defending the British people, that was incredibly admirable. She had balls. More than I can say for any politician nowadays.
I was a child at the time (I would have been about 5), but definitely remember seeing footage from the conflict on TV - I don't know what happened to the Argentine leader following them, but I have heard before that he basically tried to take the islands to shore things up back in Argentina. I think Argentine buses still have (or did last I know) words on them to the effect of 'Las Malvinas are Argentine' (but in Spanish/Argentine, obviously).
More recently, Top Gear (in the Clarkson days) did a special where they travelled through Argentina, and Clarkson - by accident or design - had a number plate on his car that definitely invoked the Faulklands and the year 1982. The Argentines weren't impressed, to say the least.
South Georgia island - that the video mentions - was the subject in an episode of 'Yes, Prime Minister' (an old British political sitcom), that strongly referenced the Faulklands without directly invoking them.
I think the Faulklands conflict may also have contributed to medical treatment, and the cold climate there aiding medically (something about people lasting longer before/while being treated due to the cold) - being so close to the Antarctic.
Prince Andrew famously served in the Royal Navy at the time, and fought in the Faulklands. At least he didn't have to sweat in that cold. :)
Just a small point. There is no "u" in Falklands, last time I checked!
Just a quick update to this video there are no more mines on the islands
Another factor in the difference between British and Argentinian forces was that many of the Argentinians were young conscripts ,just called up ( a form of obligatory National Service) with no time to have had much training .They were badly equipped for winter ,on scarce rations and until the British forces arrived ,were often reduced to begging for food from the Islanders themselves. After the surrender and when the British investigated the supplies for the Argentinians, there was found ample food of the type for Officers. No wonder the poor buggers surrendered when they could.
you should check out a prog called Operation Black Buck1 Falklands Most Daring Raid its about the Longest bombing in history at the time
Hi I'm from the UK and remember the war so well but i didn't know about all the history, fascinating, 🍻🙏🙏🙏
Most of the Argentinian Air Force was Amerıcan A4 Skyhawks with French Mirage 111s , Super Etendards with Exocet missiles, Israeli Daggers and Argentinian Pucara Turboprops. To my knowledge they had no Russıan fixed wıng baircraft. They also had some old English Electric Canberra bombers!
also WW2 bombs
One of the decisive moments was the boming of the airfeld at Stanley by Vulcan bombers meaning that the Arentine Airforce had to Fly From Carriers outside the Exlcusion zone. After that they returned to ascension and flew over Beunos Aires once or twice. The Vulcan being the only bomber to nuke USA twice (in war games)
The Argentine Air Force did not fly from carriers but the Mainland. The single Vulcan raid on the Port Stanley runway had little to do with preventing Argentina from using the runway. It was clearly easily repairable and was a political gesture.
@@BP-kx2ig The Argies did have a carrier, but they sensibly kept in port.....
I remember reading a story about the Korean War where 620+ English Gloster Rifles held off 25,000 Chinese soldiers for quite a while, which helped the allies gain the advantage.
@@madisntit6547 Yes they were overrun, but by doing what they did, gave the allies the advantage.
@@madisntit6547 , he did say, 'for quite a while'!.
Omg . . . Nobody understands the "exclusion zone" ... That was a zone where ANY vessel would've been atracked by the Royal Navy . Any enemy ships outside the exclusion zone was fair game . The exclusion zone was for civilian or corporate vessels . The sinking was NOT controversial
Argentina was western aligned and had western equipment/weapons, not Soviet stuff. Their best planes were French Mirage's and the British ships that were hit, were hit by French sold, Exocet missiles and the standard issue Argentinian rifle was the Belgian FN/FAL.
There was a very large ex pat British population living in,what is now called Argentina.the same as South Africa,the only difference is the Britain didn’t send send troops,due to the fact they didn’t have enough soldiers to contest it.
I used to wake Maggie up, she was honest, she said what she believed, unlike most politicians.
The Argentine Air Force had A-4 Skyhawks along with French built Mirage III and Super Etendards and Italian Pucaras.
Pucaras were designed and built in Argentina.
In the video they said Russian or Soviet. NOT TRUE,American and French planes. The British never kicked out Argentinians, they were never there. People who watch believe this trash.
Sinking the Belgrano only controversial to those that know nothing about wars.
David Edbrooke: Yes....even the Belgrano's captain admitted that he would have done the same thing if the positions were reversed.
The Argentinian forces were mostly equipped with NATO supplied weapons, in the main from the USA and France. That is why the British missile defence systems on the ships did not work that well as the air launched Exocet missiles (supplied by France) where identified as being friendly until it was too late for the automatic systems to intercept them. The systems had to be manually overridden.
I think it was just 2 to 3 weeks after the Sheffield had been hit, that electronic countermeasures were available. Thankfully they were not needed. Quite a number of 20mm and 30mm guns were removed from minesweepers and coastal patrol craft, to beef up the defences on the RN ships though, given the Argentines were pressing home air attacks.
The British used the same equipment as their Argentine counterparts, such as the FN FAL, the only difference was that theirs had a full auto option. It was due to superior training and tactics as well as the presence of Gurkhas which were a large contribution to the wars victory, including better morale and mobile artillery, however due to the unique nature of the Falklands islands heavy equipment such as tanks weren’t used since they were practically useless and whilst the odd Land Rover and warrior APC was deployed, soldiers were expected to carry everything on their backs to the fight and then were expected to fight the enemy half an hour later if not then and there and is the reason why fitness and high standards are vital, since whilst you may have access to technology, vehicles, drones and the like, it doesn’t do anyone any good if a soldier can’t reach your position in a timely manner, as well as to then be expected to fight said enemy as soon as they arrive which could take several hours to even days.
Lets be fair. The intention had been to make the force and air lift fighting force with troops and equipment being carried by helicopter. But when the exocet missile hit the Atlantic Conveyor it took out 3 of the four Chinooks intended for that purpose. Consequently the force became air supported with the heavy equipment and supplies carried into established positions and cas-evac for the wounded. Your point is otherwise well made because the Brit's could adapt and use Shanks pony.
Warriors didn't come into service until 1988 - six years after the war ended. Two Recce Troops of CVR(T)s from B Sqn, The Blues & Royals were sent over - totaling 4 Scorpions, 4 Scimitars & 1 Samson. All with lower ground pressure than a man - rather important, fighting over bogs.
I used to love a good TAB.
@@madisntit6547 Seems to have been?
I agreed and added that the Cdo Logs Regt took Eager Beavers (High Mobility Fork Lifts), motorcycles and even 4-tonners with fuel cells to the FI and used them effectively, as well as the BVs. I also attached an IWM pic of the BVs from 1982 - perhaps that's why it's gone?
@@madisntit6547 They were - and still are. Not the same model vehicles - they've been up-versioned, including air-con :-)
Totally didn't mention the RAF "black buck" mission where a Vulcan Bomber damaged the runway at Port Stanley to stop the Argentinians using it to re-supply or base their aircraft. Their aircraft were mainly French made, with some US made Skyhawks too. They used the French made anti-shipping missile to sink a few of our ships. The UK didn't get any help from the EEC/EU.
That is Daily Mail level of history. The French gave you info on the radars they sold to the Argentinians, how Exocet worked etc. EU didn't exist in 1981. EEC was an economic and not political alliance. Learn basic history before repeating the Brexiteers nonsense .
@@asicdathens The Falklands war was in 1982. I was 12 at the time and remember the UK liberated the Falklands by ourselves.
I only mentioned the EU for those who didn't know what the EEC was. Since you say the EU was a political alliance and since the UK only had a refferendum to join the EEC, a trade alliance, you remind us how the UK poeple never agreed to be part of the EU. We left when asked though, so that's good.
@@Payne2view The UK Parliament/ House of Lords voted to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon ( That created EU) You voted them. So the myth of European unelected bureaucrats should end one day. If you didn't like it you should have rebelled
@@asicdathens Nobody voted for them on a manifesto of the Treaty of Lisbon. In fact, at the time, we were told (like most anti-referrendom sittuations) that it was a technical document that the public would never understand, so we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it, they knew what they were doing so there. IF the Lisbon Treaty had been honestly explained and put the the public vote (as it should have) I don't think it would have been signed by the UK.
Thankfully we have left and no longer have multiple MEPs from different parties representing the same electoral constituencies who move from Brussels to Strasbourg every few months, like some sort of Mad Hatter's Tea Party. The Commission was never directly elected by the public and we only have to see that the current President of the EU is a former (i.e. no longer elected) German Defence Minister. What is democratic about that?!
@@Payne2view Ireland had a referendum on the Treaty BTW. The important positions of the EU are decided by the national governments that are elected by the local population
win the skies. Britannia rules the waves
The ship that the royal navy sunk, the 'General Belgrano' was originally 'USS Phoenix' that was at pearl Harbour when the Japanese attacked.
This was the last war that British troops were not shot at by Americans
Good Vid..👍
so noone has mentioned that, Britain only held onto the falkalnds to export penguins fto the Irish. Guisness boiling vats, the a L Murray distillation process.
But they do it in an ecologically sound way using old and injured penguins. That is where the bitterness comes from.
International waters start 300 miles off the coast and the Falkland Islands are 650 miles off the coast of Argentina.
Moral of the story. Do not mess with the Brits.
I'm surprised that they didn't mention the Vulcan bombers and their contribution
Sean Penn needs to watch that video
The RAF sent Avro Vulcan medium range bombers to The Falklands via Ascension Islands, with mid air refuelling. The aircraft bombed Port Stanley airfield, apparently the first bomb did the damage. Without loss they returned to the Ascension Island. This remains the longest bombing mission in History, 8,000miles round trip.
Yes it was until the US sent a plane from the US non stop i think to Afganistan . to bomb there , totally unnecessary of course , but lets not have the Brits one up on us .
Check out the story of operation 'Black Buck' - Where RAF Vulcans bombed Port Stanley runway to prevent Argentina having an airstrip on the islands.
At the time, they were the longest range bombing raids in history, and required multiple convoluted mid-air re-fuelling - with tankers for the bombers needing to themselves be mid-air re-fuelled so they could stay with the bombers to allow them to make the distance.
If you can, read Vulcan 607 by Rowland White, it's the story of how the British disabled the airstrip. Amazing to say the least.
United Kingdom, not Great Britain. There's a difference.
Cold, wet, miserable?? It’s wet, but not very cold and definitely not miserable. Good video overall btw 👍
I'll just add these snippets about the British Antartic Territory (BAT) :
"The UK's formal claim dates back to 1908 via the Falkland Island Dependencies Letters of Patent. It is the oldest formal territorial claim on the continent. "
"In 2007 Britain claimed more than 1million sq km of seabed off BAT, a move that would extend the UK's oil, gas and mineral rights."
As for Air superiority... The Harrier was the only plane at the time that could stop dead mid air and fire at it's persuers when they overshot. The harrier could land on a parking spot and fly backwards.
interesting fact, the general belgrano, the cruiser sunk by a british submarine that made the rest of the argentine navy scurry back to port. was originally the USS phoenix and survived the bombing of pearl harbour.
They weren't ready for the british. x
No, no they were not! The British came in strong
We had 2 carriers there, it was on Argentinas doorstep so the odds were well in their favour. Our harriers shot down Argentinas aircraft in most cases but some still got through. We only had what we took with us to fight, once that had gone it was 1000s of miles from home with a sth Atlantic winter drawing in so it had to be done under those circumstances. As per usual, all of our servicemen were outstanding. The names and units names have slipped my mind now, but the battle to take goose green. When they made their plans the Co went back to his company to brief them on the attack and said "gentlemen, in the next 24hrs the promotional prospects in this company are going to be fucking excellent".
2 Para - the only unit to fight two battles. Goose green was typical British cock up, but in the usual British way, just got on with it. There second battle, Wireless Ridge, made up for it - hard lessons well learned.
@@HankD13 I'm talking about names and units not the whole of 2para.
@@tobytaylor2154 Sorry - your comment was followed by Goose Green.
While I was working in the Argentine during the rules of Videla & then Viola the threats of war with Chile over the "disputed" Beagle Islands twice with full military mobilisations. These coincided perfectly with really bad economic news which got relegated off the front pages...At the time of the war everyone expected just more Argentinian sabre rattling...thus it was a bit of as surprise. I think the UK Foreign Secretary had to resign over it.
Why does the guy in the video keep saying England and English? It was Britain and he even shows a British flag.
Queen Elizabeth's son Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot in this war.
And don't forget what the Islanders did while occupied , putting their lives at risk to get intel out and direct the shelling from ships =-)