The museum in Port Stanley has - not surprisingly - a large section devoted to the Falkalnds war. Very interesting and if you have watched this video then if you visit the Falklands you really must visit it. Some titbits I learned: - The officers of the British ship HMS Endurance were friendly and had dined with the officers of the Argentine submarine Santa Fe before the conflict. When the conflict broke out the Argentine orders were to sink any british naval ships. However, mysteriously, the Endurance was not sunk despite the ship's officers knowing it was nearby and that it must have known exactly where they were. After the war the captain of HMS Endurance got a chance to ask the captain of the Santa Fe why they hadn't been sunk. He said they thought from the silhouette they were a merchant ship. The captain of the Endurance, when interviewed years later said the captain of the Santa Fe must have known in reality exactly which ship it was, especially as there so few ships anywhere near South Georgia. - One of the medical people in the British Army was decorated by both the British and Argentinians. - One of the Argentine prisoners of war was a nearly-finished-training surgeon, and ended up becoming part of the British medical team, working to help mend both British and Argentine wounded.
“Control"?! You keep using biased terminology imply it's Argentinan but occupied by the British. It's been wholeheartedly British since before Argentina was a country.
Bro this is one of the most unbiased channels.any way on the map looks more Argentinan than British. Any way is yours now and no I am not from Argentina.
Dude Britain tried this with America we kicked there candy asses in no time and I think at it’s too close to Argentina so should be there’s British always stealing and trying to tax others countries shit crazy to me that reminds me of this Boston yea part we had guess who’s ass we kicked them 😏
The Falkland islands were discovered by English sailors in the mid/late 17th century before Argentina even existed. Argentina has absolutley no legal or rightful claim. A rather nice twist to this war was that during the previous 25 years or so the Soviet Union had claimed that the British armed forces were useless and degenerate and would fold up in any continental war if the Warsaw Pact ever decided to initiate WW3. The reaction of the 4 day preparation to get a viable task force together and sail 10,000 miles, fight a war, take losses and still win was probably the final straw to the Warsaw Pact countries. They Knew with such allies NATO would hold together and win. The Falklands War was a huge nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union.
@@BigMakBattleBlog Err..it was later revealed that the US deciphered the Argy Navy orders and informed the UK that Belgrano was forming up for a pincer movement to destroy the RN carriers. HMS Conqueror didn't fk around.
@@BigMakBattleBlogactually a few countries helped out, they just didn’t advertise the fact. There is a reason the RN harriers had the latest war stock sidewinder missiles and the bulk fuel required for the fleet.
The Belgrano was no threat has been debunked over and over with even her captain said they were planning on approaching the task force. And he saw it af a justified sinking. Being ouside the exclusion Zone didn't mean the Argentinian task force was safe during the conflict.
Correct The 200 mile EZ was to indicate to neutral powers to keep there ships out of the area or face attack without warning and and as a member of the UN we had a duty of care to make sure neutral parties weren't hurt in the conflict. The EZ wasn't there to help the Argentine's. It wouldn't have mattered if the Belgrano or any other ship was sailing in the Pacific or Indian Ocean the rules of engagement allowed us to attack any ship or even a military aircraft!
The Belgrano although old was still a formidable ship and had she been allowed to engage she could have done a lot of damage - as sad as its loss was, war is war.
The British troops outnumbered the Argies? What were you on when you did your research? Outnumbering the Argies - what a load of rubbish, it was their backyard and we still kicked their butts after sailing halfway down the world!
As an ex naval engineer, I feel the need to point out that the least likely branch in the navy to survive an attack is the engineering branch. When you look at it, the best way to disable or sink a ship is to target the largest open spaces below the waterline. These are the engineering spaces. (Propulsion spaces /engine rooms, boiler rooms.) The engineering branch also tends to supply the primary damage control groups so are most likely to be in the damaged sections. This conflict occurred during my 4th year as an engineering apprentice with the RNZN. Although we did have some presence in the patrol zones, I was never actively involved or drafted to those zones, however, I did get to speak to some of the British naval personnel that had been there.
The Brits were not “humiliated” by the loss of HMS Sheffield. Brits know that you take casualties during war. It’s WAR. And Britain won. The islands remain the Falklands, and always will be.
@@dmeinhertzhagen8764 defeated hell no just lost a ship and some men. the aggies recalled their Aircraft Carrier to port and that is where it sat for the rest of the war.
6:45 maybe I'm just old school, but once you kick the hornets nest, the idea of certain assets being outside a particular "zone", just sounds weird. If you're the aggressor, either your military is fully committed to an operation or don't start it to begin with. Sounds like some childhood game where something is "safe" and doesn't count.
The Belgrano was a legitimate target in the theatre of conflict..... it's destruction kept the rest of the Argentinian Navy firmly tied to the wall for the rest of the war, a genius move. It may have been seen by many as a cowardly attack but it paralysed their entire Navy.
Correct, the exclusion zone applied to the rest of the world (especially the Russian sub shadowing the fleet), not to the Argentine Navy. The captain of the Belgrano later said that his ship was a legitimate target. No controversy whatsoever.
The "zone" was where it was politically correct for the British to fight the Argentinians. Although the Argentine military didn't believe in any "zone" unless it benefited them. But to the world Britan looked bad if they went outside the "zone."
All those young men on both sides who were killed because a Dictator wanted to show how tough he was. It was as absurd as if the US were to claim Vancouver Island , British Columbia, and the young men who died on both sides must be remembered, and recalled when we have a Dictator who chooses war over peace
The Argentinian dictator was looking for something to divert the public's attention from the disasters his policies had caused in the country. So he resurrected an old dispute that hadn't been active for 100 years as something that could get the people fired up. This is basically what Hitler did when he used the Jews as convenient bad guys.
The Argentine Navy also had the Veinticinco de Mayo aircraft carrier to its disposal. After its initial deployment against the British Task Force and the sinking of the Belgrano, it was withdrawn and kept in port.
@@woods457 In fact there were 3 seaworthy submarines and one barely mobile. The Santa Fe was the oldest (WWII) and then there were the San Luis and the Salta (*) which were modern (type 209/1200). The problem that these submarines had is that they had never fired a real torpedo, and when they did so the guiding wires were cut. It was a problem of incorrect connections and another example of the brutal improvisation of the high command of the Argentine armed forces. (*) Argentine submarines are generally named with the names of provinces that begin with the letter "S": Salta, San Juan, Santa Fe, San Luis, etc.
On the return to port, the crew of the Veinticinco de Mayo were convinced they made sonar contact with a British submarine and were being stalked by it - but it's possible a third parties submarine was shadowing them (Soviet or U.S..)
@@efnissien The Veinticinco de Mayo was being targeted by HMS Splendid and had orders to sink it if they launched aircraft. Fortunately for them the weather prevented them doing so and they were not engaged by HMS Splendid
@@sichere And ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was formally the Colossus class British carrier HMS Venerable, before being sold to the Netherlands ( who renamed it Karel Doorman) before they sold her to Argentina. They also had a number of British built Type 42 destroyers.
I really do not know where you have got your information from but you are completely wrong about the level of opposing forces. The invading Argentinian outnumbered the British forces. The British forces won the battle of the Falklands. This with numerous loss of life to both sides of the conflict. R.I.P to all who died. They were serving their country.
Capitulate because the UK at the time was seen as weak. So some lads packed their kit and changed history. Russians and Chinese took note that we could put together an invasion force in 3 weeks, sail 8000 miles and win a war despite being out numbered. That spooked them and made them think twice about tangling with us in Europe.
Not to mention the UK were selling their carrier's before the invasion as part of a strategic Defence Review which had downsizing of troop numbers in it. So ultimately they thought the UK wouldn't bother and leave them to it. With many of the Uks NATO partners supplying the Argentinians with weapons, aircraft, ships and so on that the UK would be encouraged to let it be. Gotta love politics it makes no sence mast the time.
@@jasonhesson1030 It took a lot longer than that. Spent a week in Tidworth loading and then unloading until the CO eventually said no STUFT could carry Chieftains and we weren't going. Sent the Regts Simitars though. Shame. Spent the war doing everyone else's guard duties across the Garrision.
So full of inaccurate information have blocked recommendations for your channel, also all your videos seem to have a very distinct anti British tone to them a good historian lays out the facts without bias, and it seems you can't do that.
The Exocet was not an Argentinian secret, we knew they had both air and sea launched weapons. We also knew they'd dismounted some and put them on an improvised ground mounting. And the Argentinian Naval inventory had more than a small force of patrol boats and frigates, noted by you mentioning the cruiser they possessed.
Both Galtieri and Thatcher wanted this war - both needing a propaganda win to deflect from domestic problems. How it all started was pure serendipity for both leaders: a salvage ship (British-owned but based in Buenos Aires) landed on uninhabited South Georgia and - following maritime convention - put up a flag to show any passing ships that there were people ashore on that uninhabited island. As it happened, the ship was carrying an Argentine flag. Another ship spotted this flag and reported an Argentine presence upon British territory. The rest is history - Galtieri used it as a catalyst for an invasion force to the (inhabited) Falklands and Thatcher used it as an excuse to say that the Argentines had started it all and British territory must be defended. Serendipity. As for the Exocet missiles, Thatcher personally requested French president Mitterrand to stop supporting the Argentinians. Without that cessation of French commercial support, the British naval force would have been doomed. Mitterrand was a therapy devotee and complained extensively to his psychiatrist about the amount of pressure he got from Thatcher. I'm sure I heard it on one of the Dark Docs channels, but it's alleged that the British fleet commander (aboard HMS Hermes) ordered the freighter Atlantic Conveyor to steer into a path that put it inbetween an incoming Exocet and the aircraft carrier, thus deliberately sacrificing Atlantic Conveyor to save Hermes.
The exclusion zone was for all ships, however we were at war with Argentina therefore we could attack Argentinian navy ships anywhere in the world, this is why the Argentinian navy never protested the sinking. if you watch interviews with the Argentinian military commanders at the time they agree the sinking was justified and within the rules of war. It is poor research and a lack of understanding of the rules of war and what the exclusion zone meant that has led to people thinking the sinking of the belgrano was illegal, it was not.
Sinkng of the Argentine Cruiser, Belgrano by HMS CONQUEROR was the first shot of anger of the war if you are not inculding the retaking of South Georgia by the Royal Marines.
I disagree with you. A day earlier the RAF and the Royal Navy had bombed the runway of the islands' capital and another minor airfield. And there were several aerial combats.
As the son of a veteran of the conflict there are some glaring inaccuracies and lack of research in this video. Very disappointing given the usually high quality of these videos.
The General Belgrano was an old U.S. Navy warship from WW2 called the USS Phoenix. The British Navy was very familiar with this class of ship and knew exactly how to send it to the bottom. We probably told them exactly where to aim.
Royal Navy ; "please France, give us the guiding codes and patterns of Exocet" France ; "no, i dont think so" France a bit later in Farnborough Airshow ; *displays Exocet as "battle proven"* xD
The Belgrano was oringinal American and sold off. It was the first ship to be sunk by a nuclear Sub. The SAS, from the books I read where frustrated that they weren't in the fight and wanted to get stuck in. They where even told it would be one way and they would have to fight there way out, so more like St Nazaire raid. The Stinger was first used in combat to shoot down an Argentine plane. The Argentinian Army was not eager, they where full of conscripts who surrendered when they where told the Gurkas where coming. The Army told them that the Gurkas where Cannibas who would eat them. So they panicked and surrendered rather than get eating alive. 😂😂😂😂 The war was short lived and unfortunate, but it has many interesting stories involved with it. So much bravery, and Sadness.
The inaccuracies in this video are appalling. The Argentine navy had more than just "frigates and patrol boats". They had a US built heavy cruiser, the Belgrano, which the British sank as it was a major threat to the T.F. Also, the Argies were not "outnumbered" by British ground troops at all. I could carry on, but can't be bothered if you lot can't. Your researcher should be sacked.
The Argentinian garrison outnumbered the British ground forces on the Falkland’s until just before the surrender. The Argentinian Air Force was numerically vastly superior to the British carrier air group that was dependent on the VTOL Harrier, hardly a superior fighter craft. In the end, the British won by superior training,leadership, and morale of its forces…. Not quantity of arms or superiority of equipment and technology. We are not talking US military vs Iraq here
So many inaccuracies in this video - really poorly researched. You actually said that the Argentinians were outnumbered where it was British soldiers who were outnumbered 3:1 and let’s not even go there on aircraft. You say the Belgrano was no threat to the British fleet? LOL. Read what the captain of the Belgrano said afterwards.
"The odds were against Argentina"! Are you having a laugh here, the British were fighting a conflict 8,000 miles from home whilst Argentina (Patagonia) is only 300 miles from the Falkland Islands.
Also, about two thirds of the 27,000 Brits were engaged in logistical tasks being carried out by thousands of Argentinians in Argentina not accounted for in this video. Among combat troops we were outnumbered on the ground - quite heavily before 5 Brigade landed.
You are wrong that the Belgrano was " no threat" it was in fact planning an attack and sailing in and out of the exclusion zone, its own captain stated the sinking of it was justified.
The secret was this: France told Thatcher that Argentina did not have the algorithms needed to communicate the exocet with the Mirage which was true, until Argentina figure it out. The last exocet was fired from the ground in the island against the Glamorgan.
The crew of the Sheffield, didn't have time to brace for impact, the Exocet was nicknamed 'The mother-in-law' because by the time you see it approaching, it's to late. Interestingly, it was also the first operational use of "Stinger" shoulder launched surface to air missile, when an SAS soldier with zero training on the missle (at the time it was recommended that troops have 8 weeks training & the only trained Soldier had been killed in a helicopter accident) took out an Argentine Pucara. Also the Argentinians, were far from inferior. And it does them a disservice to say so. They had a lot of similar and in some cases superior kit (Radios, Nightsights, exocet missiles). The ace card the British had was the Chilean government, unlike pretty much everyone else on the continent the Chilean government chose not to get in step with the Argentine cry that the conflict was 'anti imperialist' - so the Chileans kept pressure on the border with Argentina. This meant the Argentinians couldn't re-deploy troops from the southern Chilean border to the Falklands. These guys would have been used to conditions like those in the Falklands and were battle hardened - a lot of the troops sent to the Falklands were sent from the northern parts of the country and suffered with the weather.
@@colinpiper4386 Most have been engaged in border conflicts, or 'counter insurgency operations' since the 1940's. If you ask anyone who fought on Mt. Tumbledown or Goose Green .
Not true. The task force had seventy ships, most of which were civilian. British troops amounted to no more than five thousand infantry and only twenty four Harriers. The odds were highly in favour of Argentina I'm surprised as your docos are usually better informed. You clearly screwed this one up.
@@pete9501 not surprised. The weapons officer had decided to leave the war room and the captain was in asleep in his stateroom. Effectively they were as relaxed as sailing down the Channel in an active war zone. The enquiry (which was heavily redacted) only slightly chastised the officers for their actions/inaction, but the crew were praised for their actions following the impact. Even after losing his ship the captain still managed to end up a rear admiral so it wasn’t politic to speak about it.
Prime Minster Margaret Thatcher, a woman with backbone. The jumped up Argentine Generals never stood a chance especially when you understand the mission statement of the British Military ‘’ Close with the the Queens enemy’s and kill them ‘’. Nothing has changed today. However we should feel sorry for the Argentinian conscripts who did want to be there and were so forced to fight, unlike British soldiers who are led by their officers.
Thatcher's actions before the conflict, gave the Argentinians every encouragement to invade. For instance (and amongst other things such as cutting back the British Armed Forces), withdrawing HMS Endurance from patroling the area. The subsequent Franks Report acknowledged that it "may have served to cast doubt on British commitment to the Islands and their defence". The previous PM (James Callaghan) having had to deal with previous Argentinian "interest" (which he dealt with by ensuring they knew a Royal Navy sub had been sent to patrol the seas around the Falklands), warned Thatcher against the withdrawal.
@@dratz50 In many ways I can agree with you how ever the Conservative Government had inherited an economy in decline so economy’s were inevitable. Our military forces had been steadily reducing in men and equipment for some time since our Empire and Protectorates were reducing in number. The only real Royal Navy presence was the Antarctic Patrol Vessel, not exactly a serious threat to the Argentinian forces. It was clear to all the Falklands were, are and will be British. The only reason the Generals invaded was their bloody grip on the Argentinian people was slipping fast and they desperately need a totemic rallying point. Prime Minister Jim Callaghan was ex-Royal Navy so often preferred maintaining the senior service to the other armed services. Historically at one time the Royal Navy could face down the two biggest Navy’s in the world, sadly we are no longer in the position. If the British Government failed to understand the Argentinians might invade then the Argentinians failed dismally to appreciate the the qualities of Prime Minster Thatcher and our armed forces. Let’s hope the Argentinians don’t bother to waste anymore blood and treasure on on invading the Falklands Island which are no more theirs than the Isles of Scilly.
Umm the title of this video keeps changing from bad to worst. 3rd and current title = "The Savage Soldiers Who Destroyed One of the Most Secret Modern Weapons" Stupid
This video is full of so many inaccuracies, the Argentinians outnumbered the British in aircraft and ground forces and had more than frigates and destroyers as the video says and even contradicts when it talks about the General Belgrano, at Goose Green 2 Para a 600 man battalion fought and beat 1500 Argentinians and in all the following battles around Stanley the British were outnumbered. The British won because its forces were a motivated professional force not conscripts who didn’t want to be there.
Random footage of the conflict not relevant to the audio. Commentary is jumbled; maybe loosely based on facts but with a lot of opinion thrown in and a lot of inaccuracies.
At 5:08 you say that the Argentinians were significantly outnumbered by the British coming in to land. It was actually the other way around: In ground troop numbers there were (roughly, and numbers shifted during the conflict) just over 8.000 Argentinians on the Falklands, confronted by about 4.000 Brits in late May.
As usual a number of inaccuracies. At 6:08...... the Argentinian Navy certainly did have destroyers. Including 2 x British type 42, the Santisima Trinidad and Hercules, one built in the UK, the other in Argentina under licence. The similar Royal Navy ships had the Union Flag painted on the upper surfaces for identification purposes. Lack of research is evident.
And what is forgotten that France where supplying Argentina with the exerciser-set missiles and yes Britan stood alone ofther county's where in shock in the aftermath of the British victory.
The Belgrano was involved in a planned pincer attack on the British Taskforce which was aborted at the last moment because the Argentine Carrier the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2) was unable to launch her aircraft, The Belgrano Battle Group then changed course on a heading towards Argentina, whilst awaiting further orders, This is when The ship was Attacked, The Argentine Junta had been Warned one week earlier Via The Swedish Embacy That Any Argentine Military Asset Would Be Attacked Inside or Outside the Exclusion Zone if Deemed a threat, The concept of a Total Exclusion Zone was a novelty in maritime law; the Law of the Sea Convention had no provision for such an instrument. The purpose of it seems to have been to reduce the amount of time needed to ascertain whether any vessel in the zone was hostile or not. The zone was widely respected by the shipping of neutral nations
I heard the the warhead in the exocet missile that hit the sheffield DID NOT actually explode but it still managed to sink the ship! Other than the symbolic value I don't think the falklands should have been that important to either country . Though supposedly there was valuable undersea oil there but don't know if that's true. ⚛😀
Look at sealion oil deposit Falklands... a small blip of as of yet undrilled deposits known to geologists.., the tax to the uk just from squid fishing is worth 100s of millions a year... more than oil
The warhead did not explode the subsequent damage was called by burning rocket fuel furthermore, the fire pumps where put out of action which means the crew could not effectively fight the fire. Their only possible means was to utilise the Rover Gas turbine to bring saltwater into the ships main fire main. HMS Sheffiled was not sunk, but later taken to deeper water and scuttled.
Falkland Islanders voted unanimously for these Islands to remain British. Of a turnout of 92%, 99.8% voted to remain a British territory, with only three votes against. It’s irrelevant what both countries want or claim what matters is what the resident population want. Democracy settled it in the end.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.920 | 3 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KwiW2M_kAg4/mqdefault.jpg)
My Dad(D.Melvin.CPO.RN.Rip🤕) served on Hms Conqueror....Lest we forget!.🇬🇧⚓️🌊⚔️🛡🇬🇧👁😎✌️
The museum in Port Stanley has - not surprisingly - a large section devoted to the Falkalnds war. Very interesting and if you have watched this video then if you visit the Falklands you really must visit it. Some titbits I learned:
- The officers of the British ship HMS Endurance were friendly and had dined with the officers of the Argentine submarine Santa Fe before the conflict. When the conflict broke out the Argentine orders were to sink any british naval ships. However, mysteriously, the Endurance was not sunk despite the ship's officers knowing it was nearby and that it must have known exactly where they were. After the war the captain of HMS Endurance got a chance to ask the captain of the Santa Fe why they hadn't been sunk. He said they thought from the silhouette they were a merchant ship. The captain of the Endurance, when interviewed years later said the captain of the Santa Fe must have known in reality exactly which ship it was, especially as there so few ships anywhere near South Georgia.
- One of the medical people in the British Army was decorated by both the British and Argentinians.
- One of the Argentine prisoners of war was a nearly-finished-training surgeon, and ended up becoming part of the British medical team, working to help mend both British and Argentine wounded.
I knew about the Red and Green Life Saving Machine, but not about the Argy Dr.
The "One of the medical people in the British Army..." was Surgeon Commander Rick Jolly of the Royal Navy.
@@iainstewart9844 thanks, I should have said military as I couldn't remember
Doctor to Friend and Foe . Rick Jolly- well worth reading
“Control"?! You keep using biased terminology imply it's Argentinan but occupied by the British. It's been wholeheartedly British since before Argentina was a country.
Dont mess with Margaret Thatcher. She knew how to deal with despots.
Bro this is one of the most unbiased channels.any way on the map looks more Argentinan than British. Any way is yours now and no I am not from Argentina.
Dude Britain tried this with America we kicked there candy asses in no time and I think at it’s too close to Argentina so should be there’s British always stealing and trying to tax others countries shit crazy to me that reminds me of this Boston yea part we had guess who’s ass we kicked them 😏
What a chump
British robbed the world indeed. Without a doubt
The Falkland islands were discovered by English sailors in the mid/late 17th century before Argentina even existed.
Argentina has absolutley no legal or rightful claim.
A rather nice twist to this war was that during the previous 25 years or so the Soviet Union had claimed that the British armed forces were useless and degenerate and would fold up in any continental war if the Warsaw Pact ever decided to initiate WW3. The reaction of the 4 day preparation to get a viable task force together and sail 10,000 miles, fight a war, take losses and still win was probably the final straw to the Warsaw Pact countries. They Knew with such allies NATO would hold together and win.
The Falklands War was a huge nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union.
I mean not one other country in NATO helped though. Even though it was a Dictator/Junta invading our sovereign territory
@@BigMakBattleBlog Err..it was later revealed that the US deciphered the Argy Navy orders and informed the UK that Belgrano was forming up for a pincer movement to destroy the RN carriers. HMS Conqueror didn't fk around.
@@BigMakBattleBlogactually a few countries helped out, they just didn’t advertise the fact. There is a reason the RN harriers had the latest war stock sidewinder missiles and the bulk fuel required for the fleet.
If any conflict in history should have carried the tag line "Fu*k around and find out!" then this would be the one...
The Belgrano was no threat has been debunked over and over with even her captain said they were planning on approaching the task force. And he saw it af a justified sinking. Being ouside the exclusion Zone didn't mean the Argentinian task force was safe during the conflict.
Correct
The 200 mile EZ was to indicate to neutral powers to keep there ships out of the area or face attack without warning and and as a member of the UN we had a duty of care to make sure neutral parties weren't hurt in the conflict.
The EZ wasn't there to help the Argentine's. It wouldn't have mattered if the Belgrano or any other ship was sailing in the Pacific or Indian Ocean the rules of engagement allowed us to attack any ship or even a military aircraft!
Correct, I saw the documentary where the Captain said this.
The Belgrano although old was still a formidable ship and had she been allowed to engage she could have done a lot of damage - as sad as its loss was, war is war.
The Belgrano was a school ship, it posed no threat at all. Students were murdered
The Belgrano posed no threat? Nonsense. It and it's Excocet armed destroyer escorts could have caused massive damage
RIP Darryl Cope, HMS Sheffield
mark felton has a much better video
The British troops outnumbered the Argies? What were you on when you did your research? Outnumbering the Argies - what a load of rubbish, it was their backyard and we still kicked their butts after sailing halfway down the world!
As an ex naval engineer, I feel the need to point out that the least likely branch in the navy to survive an attack is the engineering branch.
When you look at it, the best way to disable or sink a ship is to target the largest open spaces below the waterline. These are the engineering spaces. (Propulsion spaces /engine rooms, boiler rooms.)
The engineering branch also tends to supply the primary damage control groups so are most likely to be in the damaged sections.
This conflict occurred during my 4th year as an engineering apprentice with the RNZN.
Although we did have some presence in the patrol zones, I was never actively involved or drafted to those zones, however, I did get to speak to some of the British naval personnel that had been there.
The Brits were not “humiliated” by the loss of HMS Sheffield. Brits know that you take casualties during war. It’s WAR. And Britain won. The islands remain the Falklands, and always will be.
They were absolutely and thoroughly humiliated! The sacred Ô so Royal British Navy defeated by a rag tag military.
@@dmeinhertzhagen8764hardly defeated 😂 they sunk a few ships during a island hoping war that’s nothing
@@dmeinhertzhagen8764 defeated hell no just lost a ship and some men. the aggies recalled their Aircraft Carrier to port and that is where it sat for the rest of the war.
A lot of inaccuracies in this video 🤨
6:45 maybe I'm just old school, but once you kick the hornets nest, the idea of certain assets being outside a particular "zone", just sounds weird. If you're the aggressor, either your military is fully committed to an operation or don't start it to begin with. Sounds like some childhood game where something is "safe" and doesn't count.
Welcome to modern warfare. AKA limited conflict AKA operations other than war.
The Belgrano was a legitimate target in the theatre of conflict..... it's destruction kept the rest of the Argentinian Navy firmly tied to the wall for the rest of the war, a genius move. It may have been seen by many as a cowardly attack but it paralysed their entire Navy.
Correct, the exclusion zone applied to the rest of the world (especially the Russian sub shadowing the fleet), not to the Argentine Navy. The captain of the Belgrano later said that his ship was a legitimate target. No controversy whatsoever.
The "zone" was where it was politically correct for the British to fight the Argentinians. Although the Argentine military didn't believe in any "zone" unless it benefited them. But to the world Britan looked bad if they went outside the "zone."
All those young men on both sides who were killed because a Dictator wanted to show how tough he was. It was as absurd as if the US were to claim Vancouver Island , British Columbia, and the young men who died on both sides must be remembered, and recalled when we have a Dictator who chooses war over peace
Isn’t that the way it always happens.
54° 40’ or fight!!
The Argentinian dictator was looking for something to divert the public's attention from the disasters his policies had caused in the country. So he resurrected an old dispute that hadn't been active for 100 years as something that could get the people fired up. This is basically what Hitler did when he used the Jews as convenient bad guys.
Check the Pig War involving the San Juan Islands. Some famous names show up, and it's a good read.
@@Weesel71 -- thanks, I will.
The Argentine Navy also had the Veinticinco de Mayo aircraft carrier to its disposal. After its initial deployment against the British Task Force and the sinking of the Belgrano, it was withdrawn and kept in port.
Don't forget they had at least one submarine out there, the Santa Fe i think it was called, it was later disabled at South Georgia..
@@woods457 In fact there were 3 seaworthy submarines and one barely mobile. The Santa Fe was the oldest (WWII) and then there were the San Luis and the Salta (*) which were modern (type 209/1200). The problem that these submarines had is that they had never fired a real torpedo, and when they did so the guiding wires were cut. It was a problem of incorrect connections and another example of the brutal improvisation of the high command of the Argentine armed forces. (*) Argentine submarines are generally named with the names of provinces that begin with the letter "S": Salta, San Juan, Santa Fe, San Luis, etc.
On the return to port, the crew of the Veinticinco de Mayo were convinced they made sonar contact with a British submarine and were being stalked by it - but it's possible a third parties submarine was shadowing them (Soviet or U.S..)
@@efnissien The Veinticinco de Mayo was being targeted by HMS Splendid and had orders to sink it if they launched aircraft. Fortunately for them the weather prevented them doing so and they were not engaged by HMS Splendid
@@sichere And ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was formally the Colossus class British carrier HMS Venerable, before being sold to the Netherlands ( who renamed it Karel Doorman) before they sold her to Argentina. They also had a number of British built Type 42 destroyers.
I really do not know where you have got your information from but you are completely wrong about the level of opposing forces. The invading Argentinian outnumbered the British forces. The British forces won the battle of the Falklands. This with numerous loss of life to both sides of the conflict. R.I.P to all who died. They were serving their country.
What the Faulk did they think England would do?
Capitulate because the UK at the time was seen as weak. So some lads packed their kit and changed history. Russians and Chinese took note that we could put together an invasion force in 3 weeks, sail 8000 miles and win a war despite being out numbered. That spooked them and made them think twice about tangling with us in Europe.
Not to mention the UK were selling their carrier's before the invasion as part of a strategic Defence Review which had downsizing of troop numbers in it. So ultimately they thought the UK wouldn't bother and leave them to it. With many of the Uks NATO partners supplying the Argentinians with weapons, aircraft, ships and so on that the UK would be encouraged to let it be. Gotta love politics it makes no sence mast the time.
@@pete9501
3 days, not three weeks!
@@jasonhesson1030 It took a lot longer than that. Spent a week in Tidworth loading and then unloading until the CO eventually said no STUFT could carry Chieftains and we weren't going. Sent the Regts Simitars though. Shame. Spent the war doing everyone else's guard duties across the Garrision.
@@pete9501
Crossed lines as I thought you were referring to the CBG, not the Ampib!
Soooo……essentially the video’s title is click bait as the mission was canceled and nothing was destroyed. You owe me 14:12 of my life back.
The Argentinians were not at all prepared for a fight with the British. Why would you say that? The endeavor was doomed from the start.
So full of inaccurate information have blocked recommendations for your channel, also all your videos seem to have a very distinct anti British tone to them a good historian lays out the facts without bias, and it seems you can't do that.
The Exocet was not an Argentinian secret, we knew they had both air and sea launched weapons. We also knew they'd dismounted some and put them on an improvised ground mounting. And the Argentinian Naval inventory had more than a small force of patrol boats and frigates, noted by you mentioning the cruiser they possessed.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes: in second place, Argentina!
Wait, so the operation was canceled and they never actually destroyed “one of the most secret modern weapons”?
Yeah, you got it.
Both Galtieri and Thatcher wanted this war - both needing a propaganda win to deflect from domestic problems. How it all started was pure serendipity for both leaders: a salvage ship (British-owned but based in Buenos Aires) landed on uninhabited South Georgia and - following maritime convention - put up a flag to show any passing ships that there were people ashore on that uninhabited island. As it happened, the ship was carrying an Argentine flag. Another ship spotted this flag and reported an Argentine presence upon British territory. The rest is history - Galtieri used it as a catalyst for an invasion force to the (inhabited) Falklands and Thatcher used it as an excuse to say that the Argentines had started it all and British territory must be defended. Serendipity.
As for the Exocet missiles, Thatcher personally requested French president Mitterrand to stop supporting the Argentinians. Without that cessation of French commercial support, the British naval force would have been doomed. Mitterrand was a therapy devotee and complained extensively to his psychiatrist about the amount of pressure he got from Thatcher.
I'm sure I heard it on one of the Dark Docs channels, but it's alleged that the British fleet commander (aboard HMS Hermes) ordered the freighter Atlantic Conveyor to steer into a path that put it inbetween an incoming Exocet and the aircraft carrier, thus deliberately sacrificing Atlantic Conveyor to save Hermes.
‼️‼️ Afternoon with Dark Docs ‼️‼️
i find it interesting how misleading the titles of a lot of these videos are.
The British kicked ass an took names dude
The exclusion zone was for all ships, however we were at war with Argentina therefore we could attack Argentinian navy ships anywhere in the world, this is why the Argentinian navy never protested the sinking. if you watch interviews with the Argentinian military commanders at the time they agree the sinking was justified and within the rules of war. It is poor research and a lack of understanding of the rules of war and what the exclusion zone meant that has led to people thinking the sinking of the belgrano was illegal, it was not.
I remember coming home from school to watch the news on this battle
Sinkng of the Argentine Cruiser, Belgrano by HMS CONQUEROR was the first shot of anger of the war if you are not inculding the retaking of South Georgia by the Royal Marines.
I take it you're not counting the shots fired when the Argentines landed in the Falklands.
I disagree with you. A day earlier the RAF and the Royal Navy had bombed the runway of the islands' capital and another minor airfield. And there were several aerial combats.
@@bulukacarlos4751 Op Blackbuck! Looks like I need to re-read my history!
As the son of a veteran of the conflict there are some glaring inaccuracies and lack of research in this video. Very disappointing given the usually high quality of these videos.
I was thinking the same
The General Belgrano was an old U.S. Navy warship from WW2 called the USS Phoenix. The British Navy was very familiar with this class of ship and knew exactly how to send it to the bottom. We probably told them exactly where to aim.
USS Phoenix survived Pearl Harbor, and was deemed a lucky ship.
the torpedoes used could only hit the ship not some particular part of the shipthey werent guided missiles
it wasn't secret the British knew the Argentinians had them,
Royal Navy ; "please France, give us the guiding codes and patterns of Exocet"
France ; "no, i dont think so"
France a bit later in Farnborough Airshow ; *displays Exocet as "battle proven"*
xD
President mitterande wrote in his memoirs that if he hadn't provided the codes, Thatcher was preparing to use nuclear weapons on Argentina.
The data was provided 'unofficially' by the company that made Exocet.
God rest all our troops that gave their lives for the freedom and liberty of the population of the Falklands
The Belgrano was oringinal American and sold off. It was the first ship to be sunk by a nuclear Sub.
The SAS, from the books I read where frustrated that they weren't in the fight and wanted to get stuck in. They where even told it would be one way and they would have to fight there way out, so more like St Nazaire raid.
The Stinger was first used in combat to shoot down an Argentine plane.
The Argentinian Army was not eager, they where full of conscripts who surrendered when they where told the Gurkas where coming. The Army told them that the Gurkas where Cannibas who would eat them. So they panicked and surrendered rather than get eating alive. 😂😂😂😂
The war was short lived and unfortunate, but it has many interesting stories involved with it. So much bravery, and Sadness.
That Argentine A-4 pilot needs his story told.
Also what's underhand in tactics about launching anti ship missiles against warships you're at war with? 😂
The inaccuracies in this video are appalling.
The Argentine navy had more than just "frigates and patrol boats".
They had a US built heavy cruiser, the Belgrano, which the British sank as it was a major threat to the T.F.
Also, the Argies were not "outnumbered" by British ground troops at all. I could carry on, but can't be bothered if you lot can't.
Your researcher should be sacked.
Belgrano was a threat, it was not fleeing, it was repositioning.
You forgot the Argentinian aircraft carrier in the small ships of the Argentine navy.... Woefully inaccurate all over the place.
My dad was there with the Royal Artillery.
The Argentinian garrison outnumbered the British ground forces on the Falkland’s until just before the surrender. The Argentinian Air Force was numerically vastly superior to the British carrier air group that was dependent on the VTOL Harrier, hardly a superior fighter craft. In the end, the British won by superior training,leadership, and morale of its forces…. Not quantity of arms or superiority of equipment and technology. We are not talking US military vs Iraq here
"Yeah Yeah, da F*ck'n Islands, just ova dere off Stat'n Island dere sumwhere......"
So many inaccuracies in this video - really poorly researched. You actually said that the Argentinians were outnumbered where it was British soldiers who were outnumbered 3:1 and let’s not even go there on aircraft.
You say the Belgrano was no threat to the British fleet? LOL. Read what the captain of the Belgrano said afterwards.
Anybody else feel that this video ended somewhat abruptly, a little incomplete?
T he number of inaccuracies in this post is incredible, almost every fact is wrong, I think it was written by an Argentinian
"The odds were against Argentina"! Are you having a laugh here, the British were fighting a conflict 8,000 miles from home whilst Argentina (Patagonia) is only 300 miles from the Falkland Islands.
The odds are Always against any enemy of the UK .
Do you really think that? I mean c'mon Argentina never had the financial, manpower, or toys to compare with Britain.
Also, about two thirds of the 27,000 Brits were engaged in logistical tasks being carried out by thousands of Argentinians in Argentina not accounted for in this video. Among combat troops we were outnumbered on the ground - quite heavily before 5 Brigade landed.
@@otterspocket2826 100% correct, it also was not 127 RN ships, there were a lot of merchant and RFA ships, not fighting ships at all.
Exactly. It is a poorly researched piece. Puts the reliability of his other videos into doubt.
We always win in the end..... Steady boys steady.
Suez?
You are wrong that the Belgrano was " no threat" it was in fact planning an attack and sailing in and out of the exclusion zone, its own captain stated the sinking of it was justified.
It do is Argentinian. Why UK and US has Islands far away from their mainland??.. That island is closest to Argentina so it's theirs
The secret was this: France told Thatcher that Argentina did not have the algorithms needed to communicate the exocet with the Mirage which was true, until Argentina figure it out. The last exocet was fired from the ground in the island against the Glamorgan.
Don’t forget, the Falklanders had voted to remain British!
The crew of the Sheffield, didn't have time to brace for impact, the Exocet was nicknamed 'The mother-in-law' because by the time you see it approaching, it's to late.
Interestingly, it was also the first operational use of "Stinger" shoulder launched surface to air missile, when an SAS soldier with zero training on the missle (at the time it was recommended that troops have 8 weeks training & the only trained Soldier had been killed in a helicopter accident) took out an Argentine Pucara.
Also the Argentinians, were far from inferior. And it does them a disservice to say so. They had a lot of similar and in some cases superior kit (Radios, Nightsights, exocet missiles). The ace card the British had was the Chilean government, unlike pretty much everyone else on the continent the Chilean government chose not to get in step with the Argentine cry that the conflict was 'anti imperialist' - so the Chileans kept pressure on the border with Argentina. This meant the Argentinians couldn't re-deploy troops from the southern Chilean border to the Falklands. These guys would have been used to conditions like those in the Falklands and were battle hardened - a lot of the troops sent to the Falklands were sent from the northern parts of the country and suffered with the weather.
😂 battle hardened troops, no South American army has battle hardened troops.
@@colinpiper4386 Most have been engaged in border conflicts, or 'counter insurgency operations' since the 1940's. If you ask anyone who fought on Mt. Tumbledown or Goose Green .
So it's OK to invade another country but not sink its ships 😂
Not true. The task force had seventy ships, most of which were civilian.
British troops amounted to no more than five thousand infantry and only twenty four Harriers.
The odds were highly in favour of Argentina
I'm surprised as your docos are usually better informed. You clearly screwed this one up.
It is not wise for a country to antagonise it's protectors. This is how revolts happen.
Hmmmm. 6:28 that particular HMS CONQUERER is a 1911-vintage ORION-class superdreadnought.
I thought so. That looked nothing like Belgrano.
Your description of the part Sheffield played in her own sinking glosses over a lot of culpability.
You mean chatting on the HF which meant the radars didn't work. Have a good friend who survived the sinking. Doesn't talk about it.
@@pete9501 not surprised. The weapons officer had decided to leave the war room and the captain was in asleep in his stateroom. Effectively they were as relaxed as sailing down the Channel in an active war zone. The enquiry (which was heavily redacted) only slightly chastised the officers for their actions/inaction, but the crew were praised for their actions following the impact. Even after losing his ship the captain still managed to end up a rear admiral so it wasn’t politic to speak about it.
It was the Satcom not HF that blanked the frequency band of the missile seeker head.
Yet again Dark Docs anti British rhetoric is very evident, how about you state the facts without bias for either side for once.
Cuz Britain sucks
And that was the only cruise i have ever been on lol.
Prime Minster Margaret Thatcher, a woman with backbone. The jumped up Argentine Generals never stood a chance especially when you understand the mission statement of the British Military ‘’ Close with the the Queens enemy’s and kill them ‘’. Nothing has changed today. However we should feel sorry for the Argentinian conscripts who did want to be there and were so forced to fight, unlike British soldiers who are led by their officers.
Margaret Thatcher, milk snatcher
Thatcher's actions before the conflict, gave the Argentinians every encouragement to invade. For instance (and amongst other things such as cutting back the British Armed Forces), withdrawing HMS Endurance from patroling the area. The subsequent Franks Report acknowledged that it "may have served to cast doubt on British commitment to the Islands and their defence". The previous PM (James Callaghan) having had to deal with previous Argentinian "interest" (which he dealt with by ensuring they knew a Royal Navy sub had been sent to patrol the seas around the Falklands), warned Thatcher against the withdrawal.
@@dratz50 In many ways I can agree with you how ever the Conservative Government had inherited an economy in decline so economy’s were inevitable. Our military forces had been steadily reducing in men and equipment for some time since our Empire and Protectorates were reducing in number. The only real Royal Navy presence was the Antarctic Patrol Vessel, not exactly a serious threat to the Argentinian forces. It was clear to all the Falklands were, are and will be British. The only reason the Generals invaded was their bloody grip on the Argentinian people was slipping fast and they desperately need a totemic rallying point. Prime Minister Jim Callaghan was ex-Royal Navy so often preferred maintaining the senior service to the other armed services. Historically at one time the Royal Navy could face down the two biggest Navy’s in the world, sadly we are no longer in the position. If the British Government failed to understand the Argentinians might invade then the Argentinians failed dismally to appreciate the the qualities of Prime Minster Thatcher and our armed forces. Let’s hope the Argentinians don’t bother to waste anymore blood and treasure on on invading the Falklands Island which are no more theirs than the Isles of Scilly.
Keep it up bro. Pick up a copy of Damn the Valley by William Yeske.
Umm the title of this video keeps changing from bad to worst. 3rd and current title = "The Savage Soldiers Who Destroyed One of the Most Secret Modern Weapons" Stupid
HMS Sir Galahad was hit by bombs not an exocet.
The Harrier was not suited for dog fighting. It was mainly for ground attack roll.
The RAF Harrier was a ground attack aircraft. The RN Sea Harrier was a fighter. And proved itself very well in the Falkland Islands
You said several British ships, where did you get that from I think you want to get your information right wherever you got it from.
This video is full of so many inaccuracies, the Argentinians outnumbered the British in aircraft and ground forces and had more than frigates and destroyers as the video says and even contradicts when it talks about the General Belgrano, at Goose Green 2 Para a 600 man battalion fought and beat 1500 Argentinians and in all the following battles around Stanley the British were outnumbered. The British won because its forces were a motivated professional force not conscripts who didn’t want to be there.
Ah yes, the sinking of the General Bell Grande, flag ship of the Taco Bell Navy
This has to be the most inaccurate video I’ve seen on the Falklands Conflict
Random footage of the conflict not relevant to the audio. Commentary is jumbled; maybe loosely based on facts but with a lot of opinion thrown in and a lot of inaccuracies.
At 5:08 you say that the Argentinians were significantly outnumbered by the British coming in to land. It was actually the other way around: In ground troop numbers there were (roughly, and numbers shifted during the conflict) just over 8.000 Argentinians on the Falklands, confronted by about 4.000 Brits in late May.
I think you should have done a lot more research or at least some before you posted this.
you don't fly the Union Jack.....its a pole..you fly the Union flag
Great video as always
"Soldiers Who Destroyed "? their own chopper😃
As usual a number of inaccuracies.
At 6:08...... the Argentinian Navy certainly did have destroyers.
Including 2 x British type 42, the Santisima Trinidad and Hercules, one built in the UK, the other in Argentina under licence.
The similar Royal Navy ships had the Union Flag painted on the upper surfaces for identification purposes.
Lack of research is evident.
4 mins in and I'm fed up with the BS, bye
Wars are always hidden specific missions Beyonce mediastream loud ... nice introduction
And what is forgotten that France where supplying Argentina with the exerciser-set missiles and yes Britan stood alone ofther county's where in shock in the aftermath of the British victory.
The Belgrano was involved in a planned pincer attack on the British Taskforce which was aborted at the last moment because the Argentine Carrier the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2) was unable to launch her aircraft, The Belgrano Battle Group then changed course on a heading towards Argentina, whilst awaiting further orders, This is when The ship was Attacked, The Argentine Junta had been Warned one week earlier Via The Swedish Embacy That Any Argentine Military Asset Would Be Attacked Inside or Outside the Exclusion Zone if Deemed a threat, The concept of a Total Exclusion Zone was a novelty in maritime law; the Law of the Sea Convention had no provision for such an instrument. The purpose of it seems to have been to reduce the amount of time needed to ascertain whether any vessel in the zone was hostile or not. The zone was widely respected by the shipping of neutral nations
Could at least use appropriate helicopter footage......Chinook doesn't look much like a Sea King......
I heard the the warhead in the exocet missile that hit the sheffield DID NOT actually explode but it still managed to sink the ship! Other than the symbolic value I don't think the falklands should have been that important to either country . Though supposedly there was valuable undersea oil there but don't know if that's true. ⚛😀
Look at sealion oil deposit Falklands... a small blip of as of yet undrilled deposits known to geologists.., the tax to the uk just from squid fishing is worth 100s of millions a year... more than oil
thanks I didn't know any of that stuff so the falklands war was about a lot more than just national pride@@stevenlarratt3638 ⚛😀
It was also about the Islanders, over 90% of which voted to stay British. @@FrankOdonnell-ej3hd
Yes, I think I was told by a sailor chum many years after the war that it was the Excocet motor that burnt the ship out.
The warhead did not explode the subsequent damage was called by burning rocket fuel furthermore, the fire pumps where put out of action which means the crew could not effectively fight the fire. Their only possible means was to utilise the Rover Gas turbine to bring saltwater into the ships main fire main. HMS Sheffiled was not sunk, but later taken to deeper water and scuttled.
Bye bye Dark docs, stick your bias
The Argentine navy also had submarines and an aircraft carrier, one we sold to them.
Very little reserch done here!
6:28 that’s HMS Conqueror but not the submarine of the name!
mmm ... not the most accurate of videos or narratives ...
So many errors here
Rubbish commentary. Stock film clips bearing no relevance to the script.
Drivel from start to finish.
Could thumbnail guy look any more like LEO WANKER??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
one of the most decorated uk military soldier was general pinochet.
I think you'll find it's the British that were vastly outnumbered not the Argentinians
EWS aircraft we're removed( ritire) they would have been handy to protect ships
The British lost a Ship with most of there Helo support, so they had to move ships into more Dangerous close landing bays. They became easier Targets.
TH-cam COMMIES I AM COMING , GET READY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Falkland Islanders voted unanimously for these Islands to remain British.
Of a turnout of 92%, 99.8% voted to remain a British territory, with only three votes against.
It’s irrelevant what both countries want or claim what matters is what the resident population want.
Democracy settled it in the end.
Hence the saying "Don't mess with the S.A.S !!!
Try a video about pebble island