In early May 1983, my ship USS Arkansas CGN-41 anchored off Gibraltar before returning to Norfolk, capping a 7 month 6th Fleet Mediterranean assignment. Our RN comrades would not let me buy my own cheer. On an earlier call in Naples, a shipmate & I took liberty in Sorrento. At a restaurant there, an English family with a son in the RN not only bought us dinner, but got us drunker than we'd ever been before. Falklands was fresh & we were amazed at their kind thoughts & camaraderie. CHEERS
@@georgesteven9644 People living in the Falklands voted to remain with Britain. By 99.80%. With only 3 votes against and 2 blank/invalid. With a turnout of 92%. Accept it dude, the people don't want you there.
Fascinating, in the early nineties i worked with a guy who was on the Antrim as a junior rate during the falklands and now realise that some of his Taller stories were in fact true.
I spoke to an ex paratrooper about the Notts cuts, he said a squadron of naval Phantoms would have made his job so easier…shameful that cuts took place, how in Gods name we won that war is beyond me, sheer guts…
Longest supply line in history. Outnumbered the British went to the other side of the planet and still won. The US navy said it was a military impossibility....
Outstanding! So much interesting information, including the goofs (such as an MP broadcasting the fact we'd cracked the Argentinian codes), the forgetting of previous tactics (such as the use of smoke (to hide ships) and barrage balloons), and the heroism of so many people.
That story of the MP disclosing that you were reading the Argentine codes reminds me of Congressman Andrew Jackson May, who informed the American papers that the Japanese were setting their depth charges too shallow. The Japanese read newspapers too. Almost killed my Granddad aboard the USS Gato.
Well well well. The internet is remarkable isn't it. Almost 38 years later and I see Lt Parry. I was part of the SMAC team on the Antrim. We supplemented the flight in Defence Watches. I helped manhandle that helo (Humphrey) and performed a whole range of tasks. I had to repair the flotation bag after the helo was damaged. I can corroborate re the weather in South Georgia. I took my first trip back to the Falklands last March and met the islanders. I also met an Argentine veteran at Darwin cemetery. It was a lifetime ago but it was just yesterday.
Hello Micky, yeah, I did SMAC 19/233 for my defence watch on Antrim in '82. We must have been on opposite watches. Did you ever get round to reading Parry's book? Interesting enough read but he spends a lot of time bigging himself up and dissing the Skipper. My question has always been, if this was a war diary, why did he wait so long to publish? Was he advised to wait until Captain Young had died, to prevent any challenges to his comments? Seem to remember it came out a couple of years after Young passed on. Cheers, Buster Brown ex 3P mess.
@@xjack2312 Hi Buster. I have not read his book. I have read a couple of others, they do tend to elevate their own contributions (no names, no pack drill). Hey, do you remember those electric suits we wore? Couldn't move in them. Then their was the 'interesting' journey along the port or starboard sides to the cross passage to get back below deck. Always fun in a South Atlantic storm 😳
Hey, just saying as a former Canadian soldier, all very interesting, but what's a SMAC team? Defence watch? Maybe you guys can elaborate and give us more details? I've read all sorts of stuff on the Falklands. This is one part of the story that most people are probably not very familiar with. Thanks!
@@alainrouleau Hi Alain. Basically Defence Watches was when the ship moved to a state of readiness which was one step down from Action Stations. Essentially the ships company was split into two groups. These two groups maintained this readiness over the full 24 hour period. Once the ships 'Flight' (The aircrew and maintainers who operated the ships aircraft) went into Defence Watches their numbers required supplementing for basic tasks such as helicopter handling. Volunteers were trained (in advance) from other ships company members to facilitate this role. I do not recall what SMAC actually stood for. During the devastating air attacks of 21 May 1982, the Flights Senior Maintenance Rating, Chief Petty Officer Terry Bullingham received life changing injuries and was taken off the ship. This obviously impacted the rest of the Flight, meaning everyone had to adapt and take on more tasks. The SMAC teams were no exception to this and experienced what I would describe as highly supervised 'mission creep' For my part I found myself quickly trained in some basic maintenance which was obviously inspected by the Aircraft Engineering Mechanics for approval on completion. There were other examples of this as well. The entire Task Force will have experienced this one way or another. It's probably common to all theatres of conflict.
Great presentation, many wise words and many lessons that will no doubt need to be re-learned the hard way in future conflicts. "Unlimited belligerence" at all levels, indeed.
Not sure I go a bundle on the term 'trade ships' for the Merchant Navy. Crewed by civilians they faced all the same risks as the Royal Navy, especially the Atlantic Conveyor, whose captain swam away from a lifeboat that was full and sacrificed himself.
I don't think it was meant as an insult, but just as a way for a Navy guy to differentiate between the Merchant Navy, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Royal Navy. The skipper of the Atlantic Conveyor, 'Captain Birdseye' as he was nicknamed, was a very brave man and a sad loss.
@@jankaas4504 No disrespect was intended to the Captain of the 'Atlantic Conveyor', who was a very brave man. English as a language is less formal than some other European languages, so it is common practice to refer to the captain or master of a vessel as "skipper". Even the captain of a large warship is referred to by the crew as "the Skipper".
Great lecture, Rear adm Parry doesn't seem to be a fan of the SAS, who he criticized on every mention but likes the SBS (marine/ naval unit) appeared to do a good job by his account. This is a bit sad for I'm. sure that the SAS did some good deeds down there too! Still a good enjoyable lecture, shame about the divisions that always seem to exist between military units of any origin.
I suspect their decision to use the glacial approach against the RN's advice and nearly getting himself and his crewmates killed needlessly would likely colour his opinion.
When you actually look at what the SAS did in the Falklands conflict it raises serious questions about their use (or misuse) and their own sense of importance that verges on hubris. Their reconnaissance of Goose Green seriously underestimated the Argentine numbers; they managed to shoot and kill several members of a SBS patrol (admittedly in the SAS area of operations but a SAS sergeant ignored his officer and opened fire); they did take out an Argentine airfield at Pebble Island but it could have easily been done by naval gunfire. They invited themselves to the battle because their CO wanted to get involved and then used their political clout with Thatcher to assign themselves to actions they wanted to do, such as South Georgia.
@@peterlovett5841 Bravo Two Zero is an other example. However some of the other SAS teams deployed that night landed, took one look at the lay of that land and thought there is no way that we can operate here at all, so the got back in the Chinook and went home
To be honest, I have spent two summers on King Edwards Point as part of the British Antarctic Survey..... I will say that in that case the SAS guys had absolutely no idea of the terrain they were landing on, and worse, did not listen to the people who might know, or to their Helicopter crews who had to both get them there and get them off. I have the greatest respect for the SAS, my father was an IO for them for many years, but on that Op, they done fucked up. However, what Adm Parry did not mention is that in a cross decking operation ordered by the RN 20 SAS lads had been killed when the helicopter carrying them had ditched, SAS confidence in the helicopter crews had thus been dealt a fairly significant blow. After all, if you just saw 20 of your lads killed in a mere transfer between ships, what use the pilots carrying you into the AO? Fortunately both the aircrews and the SAS have learned the lessons the Falklands taught them.... but there are two sides to every tale. The Helicopter crash on that cross decking operation still is one of the greatest single loss of life incidents the SAS has suffered since the end of WWII...... Adm Parry might not want to recognise that those guys probably did not have a great deal of trust in the pilots after that incident... regrettable, and wrong, but such is human nature.....
Great lecture, Very poor lighting. Get the lights off the screen so we can see it please 8 Bells is a great series and deserves the professionalism and quality of the presentation.
"You Can't say 'Can't' to the prime minister". The only response I can think to this is: "Begging your pardon mum, but I am not Robert Cecil, and you are most certainly not Elizbeth I!" Albeit that may be a career limiting maneuver.
One youtube idiot said "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". The problem is that peace requires, as a minimum, the active participation and compromises required for that peace to occur. For war to occur you only need ONE belligerent. This is why, for an outbreak of "Peace" you need to prepare for War. In peace time Armies, Navies and Air Forces are insurance. Insurance is expensive (and hopefully a waste of money). Sane people don't take out insurance in the hope that they will use it.
Kim Wilson He is not alone by any means ,you meet these beauty queens are every where praying for world peace even though history of every civilisation know to man has gone to war bar none, nations are born from war forged consolidated, and advanced in ever activity known to man. Why do they don't educate these morons is beyond me for it is an indisputable fact no war ,no civilisation
Oh dear Rear Admiral! That helo was a Wessex 3 sir! And you were supposedly the Observer on it? Say no more! :-( (From a former RN ACMN) :-) Well done however! But you did have the advantage of Ian Stanley as Your Flight Commander sir! :-)
The MP who used parliamentary privelege to let the Argies know we were intercepting their communications went on to be a peer of the realm. Step up Edward Rowlands, Baron Rowlands CBE former labour mp.
I'm pretty sure the Argies will have been expecting that we were intercepting their communications, or at least attempting to. Hardly a great surprise really.
The first sea skimming anti ship missile was the Swedish RB04C which entered service in 1961. This means Sea skimming anti ship misiles predates the Sea Cat and Sea Dart air defence missiles on the british ships
Enjoyed this. I have to question that the Argies had no communication to poach. Perhaps I misunderstood what you referred to, but there were small groups of soldiers that viewed the British ship movements and communicated it to the mainland. This has been noted in books from British Airmen and from Argentinian troops post war.
Yemen: US-made weapon used in air strike that killed scores in escalation of Saudi-led coalition attacks/The Saudi-led coalition used a precision-guided munition made in the United States in last week’s air strike on a detention centre in Sa’adah, north-western Yemen, which, according to Doctors without Borders, killed at least 80 people and injured over 200, Amnesty International said today. The laser-guided bomb used in the attack, manufactured by US defence company Raytheon, is the latest piece in a wider web of evidence of the use of US-manufactured weapons in incidents that could amount to war crimes.
The Argentinians timed it in their autumn so as to leave them enough time to fortify defences, whilst leaving the British with little opportunity to respond before winter set. So on the 1 April 1982 they launched their attack. To take the Falklands back the British immediately launched "Operation Corporate" and one month later it came very close to disaster in the cold Southern Ocean. The General Belgrano was formerly the USS Phoenix that had survived Pearl Harbour had 15 x 6" guns and 8 x 5" guns that totally outgunned the Royal Navy's 4.5" guns. Her Task Group 79.3 were the Southern "pincer" of four simultaneous attacks planned for the British task force. The Northern "pincer" Task Group 79.1 included the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo formerly served in as HMS Venerable was escorted by two Type 42 destroyers. Task Group 79.4 consisted of three A69 corvettes and following the planned air strike, were to launch Exocet MM38 missiles from over twenty miles away, backed up by two Argentinian submarines that were to initiate the attack. After the British RAF raid on Stanley airfield with Vulcan bombers on 1 May 1982, the Argentine Submarine ARA San Luis launched an unsuccessful attack and was counterattacked for 20 hours with depth charges and at least one torpedo. The Argentinian carrier also attempted to launch six f A-4Q Skyhawk jets against the Royal Navy Task Force but by 3:15 pm light winds had prevented the heavily loaded jets from being launched The British had assigned a nuclear-powered submarine HMS Splendid, to track down Veinticinco de Mayo. They located her on the 23rd of April but were not authorized to engage. Failing to launch her aircraft the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo had to abandon the attack and was forced to leave the area when one of her escort ships detected an approaching Sea Harrier on a reconnaissance mission. On the 2nd May HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrano using three obsolete MK VIII torpedoes, resulting in no further attempts by the Argentinian surface fleet to engage the Royal Navy. On the 4th May after the failed naval attacks, HMS Sheffield was hunting for the Argentinian submarines and was struck by an air launched Exocet missile that had been detected by HMS Glasgow and HMS Invincible. It failed to explode but still put the ship out of action and she sank later. HMS Sheffield had taken over the position from HMS Coventry who was having trouble with her Radar . On 25 May the 15,000 tonne container ship, Atlantic Conveyor was hit by two Argentine air-launched AM39 Exocet missiles and eventually sank. The ship was carrying 600 cluster bombs, fuel, ammunition, helicopters and other vital equipment including a temporary metal runway and over 2,000 body bags, and left the British campaign seriously short of supplies and only one Chinook. On the same day HMS Coventry was attacked by two Skyhawks and hit by three bombs, capsized and was abandoned. If the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo had successfully launched her Skyhawks and the Torpedo had detonated on impact Task Groups 79.3 and 4 would have caused havoc with multiple Exocet missiles and the guns of "USS Phoenix", whilst the British were dealing with battle damage and casualties. The moral of the story is that saturating a defender presents them with a Target Rich Environment and the task force was only saved by a breath of fresh air and a faulty German torpedo !
Wow. Everyone else on the UK side did a Dad's Army job of the whole conflict apart from him apparently. A disgrace to all those who served and pulled of a remarkable achievement at incredibly short notice. A victory that he says was entirely due to the Argentinian effort being even less competent than that of the UK. Hope he's not still on a taxpayer funded MOD pension.
Mate, the South Georgia operation was an appalling balls up. Basically, walking 4.5 inch shells up the beach made the Argentines surrender after the SAS operation failed.
@@dickensdickens3025 Their attempt to attack from the Fortuna Glacier, the SAS guys were very lucky not to die in the appalling weather conditions there.
Steve Barlow Steve the SAS were not crossing fortuna glacier to attack anybody. They were tasked to put an observation and surveillance post in . They didn’t make it, because of appalling weather but incidentally, neither did the two SBS patrols have any any better luck either abandoning their mission and had to be recovered by helicopter. The only people who got into an observation and surveillance post were the SAS boat troop who were tasked to surveil, report and contain the RGs at Leith and Stromness. Which they did succsefully .
Never seen so disrespectful comments about SAS By the way SBS had done nothing before Falklands Disrespectful of guards not able to tab like marines and paras as they showed to they could (tumbledown) Absolutely disgraceful comments from a senior commander
SBS had been around since WW2, they'd fought in ops all over the place...they did all of the really useful work in the Falklands. Without Pebble Island the SAS involvement would have been a disaster all round. The Guards didn't tab or Yomp. Like the rest of 5 Brigade they were lifted by ship to Fitzroy and had a much shorter march to the hills around Stanley, this was after the Welsh Guards had to turn around on a forced march as they weren't up to it.
You're wrong about the SBS, used before the Falklands. SAS at that time thought they walked on water post embassy siege, turns out they needed to wind their necks in a bit. Yep 5th infantry Bde were massively unfit - part of the lessons learned from that conflict is that infantry soldiers needed to be tested physically to a higher standard. In fact nearly all the guards units came straight off ceremonial duties, so they were even more 'unfit'. They TAB tumbledown, they attacked it. They had to TAB to get there. Not disgraceful comments at all, here's a tip for you - don't be complicit in destructive consent, be part of constructive criticism - its how good militaries move forward. I am sure if you have served you know all this.
@@MrLechambre The biggest mistake was that the actual unit that should have gone was the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. They were next in rotation. They were fit and fully trained. The speculation is that some chinless wonder in MoD wanted the Guards to have a greater role....which meant a lot got killed...
Explaining what, that brits were superior than Argentina? That was an obvious matter, who didn't know that? Like the us army fighting against indians. I would like to see him talking about defeating Russia and how they didi it (if it eventually happen). By the way, hearing this old man trying to be funny explaining that serious topic, it's a sort of unbearable situation.
You know the Argentinian Army had at least equal, and often better kit than the British right? They were using the same rifle, the FN-FAL, the Argentinians actually had better night vision equipment, they were dug in, had better armoured and artillery support, and knew the British were coming. To make it worse for the British, they did not have air superiority though had contested airspace. They were fighting an enemy in the defence who outnumbered them and who were dug in. They were fighting an enemy at the end of an EIGHT THOUSAND mile logistics chain, compared to less than 400 for the Argentinians... The Argentinians were NOT the plains Indians... who I may add handed more than one defeat to the US Army during the various Indian wars. Reading you trying to be clever was also... an unbearable situation....
Not many nations could have mounted an 8,000 mile amphibious operation in the South Atlantic winter at such short notice. Badly equipped, heavily outnumbered in air power and against a numerically superior, and better equipped, dug in force with a defensive mind set. Rather a miraculous result, mainly due to the professional commitment of those involved.
TECHNICS1 - The United Kingdom was not ready for this conflict. They had to get ready in a hurry and improvise in many ways. They suffered many significant losses due to the deficiencies in their kit, but they perservered and ultimately prevailed. The performance of the UK armed forces under the circumstances was phenomenal.
This is a professional military man speaking to other military professionals, about what lessons where learnt by the British armed forces in the Falklands and what lessons more generally could be learnt from this conflict by all militaries.
The only thing insane here is the UK Empire. Do you think we South Americans like to have the military base of an aggressive nuclear Empire in our face?
you reap what you sow hombre. instead of blaming others, point your water pistol at the military junta who mislead the Argentinean people, whilst murdering 1000's of your compatriots. The Falklands Islands nor the UK will ever give in to your bullying bullshit. Mind you, if you what to take another crack at it, vamos !
Have to give it to Chris Parry, he has made a living out of this kind of thing since leaving the RN. I was on Antrim in 82 and while his book is factually correct it doesn't read like a war diary pure and simple but more like one that has been modified by an ex Rear Admiral with hindsight. I would also question why he left it so late to publish "Down South", 2012 IIRC. A less charitable man than me might think he'd been waiting for (the generally admired, certainly by the lower deck) Captain Young to pass on (which he did in 2009), so he didn't have to defend some of his comments on said officer. But a fairly interesting lecture nevertheless. Parry normally has something to say on most current or near past military subjects (the British Operation Herrick in Helmand springs to mind) and enjoys a bit of controversy. Keeps him on the telly anyway.
I served onboard HMS Glamorgan during the conflict, a sister ship to Antrim and we used to say about the Seaslug that it needed 2 weeks notice to fire,it was that bad LOL
Indeed it was and that bastard Blair rewarded the twat with a CBE for his troubles. Parliamentary privilege should be suspended if UK citizens safety could be put at risk as a result of gobshitery.
@@MrDavidht Speaking as a Welshman myself, Admiral Parry is more likely to declare a blood feud against the entire Rowlands clan which could last centuries. He probably already has.
Excellent..... I remember this well, the British Military always has my respect and admiration. My Dad visited the museum after the exhibits open, he very much liked the proudly displayed artifacts.
Great lecture. A really good one, and I've seen a few. Q: Why were you allowed to engage Argentine submarines, but not their aircraft? (Especially the Hercules)
Because the submarines can attack you, but the Hercules was just a recon aircraft. Politically you couldn't attack an unarmed plane flying in international airspace, but you could attack a fully armed submarine that had just dropped a platoon of Marines off on South Georgia.
Great lecture very funny and very informative.I read a personal experience book by Lt Cdr " sharky" Ward ( I served on the old Ark Royal in '78 and he was also on board) he discussed the tactics of the Argentine air force saying they should have been aggressive and challenged the Harriers more.( They were given the wrong tactics) But in his book he also covered the training they had in Germany against the top gun squadron the American Aggressor Squadron and beat them . Perhaps the aviation world being a close knit world that the story would have gotten to the Argentine command. I wonder if that was a factor in the choice of tactics
Argebtinians challenged on may 1st 1982 the harriers for dogfigths with mirage 5s, tested every angle of figth. Harriers stayed down waiting, mirage in high altitude. The mirage, with less fuel minutes, left the high altitudes performance advantage, and attacked, but the sidewinder missle was decisive. There was no way argetinian air force could contested the harriers in air to air combat when was armed with that missile. Anyway, the real objective were the ships and ground troops, so the aim was to avoid the PACs or to fool them with fake sorties. Like they did when sir galahad and sir Tristan were attacked, for example.
@@agustinithurralde2741 a very good analysis of the overall event... the royal navy deliberately placed itself on what we called " picket duty" (the term used by trades union members on strike and place themselves deliberately in front of the factory gates to try to stop non striking workers from getting passed) the object was to give the vulnerable troops and equipment more time to get ashore....... one of the harrier squadron leaders Lt Cdr Ward wrote several books and revealed that the biggest problem for the Argentine pilots was the order not to engage with the harriers in open dog fights unless absolutely necessary....." Sharky Ward said that RN had no idea that was the reason why the Argentine air force moved out of the area if the radar picked up a harrier....... it's obvious by the courage shown popping up over San Carlos waters on a bombing run when everyone from land and sea was trying to blow them out of the sky, they were very brave and skillful and so effective that we called it bomb ally and they called it death valley The only reason Snarky could think of as to why that was in the rules of engagement, was possibly the results of the harriers going up against the USAF aggressor squadron of top gun pilots who teach good pilots to be better pilots....... the harrier beat the USAF with their far superior fighters in several exercise senareos, and,as the aviation world is watching each other, it's possible the air force high command thought that a lot of aircraft not coming back from a mission would not be good for moral and therefore denied the pilots permission to engage.....as for the sidewinder it was indeed a great asset especially when you don't have to be pointing in the direction of the target....... The sinking of the Atlantic conveyor by the Argentine air force and the loss of so much equipment and supplies especially helicopters that were the transport for the troops.... almost finished the campaign in its tracks........ The one thing that could have stopped the British was the ability of the Argentine air force,if they had lost 3 or 4 aircraft for every one harrier they would have dominated the sky and things could have been very different..... The British admiralty had very little faith in the harrier ( the last aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal with her buccaneers strick aircraft and the F4 phantom jet fighters had been paid off in 79 And replaced by slower smaller untested in battle,) and the suggestion that 4 out of 6 would probably not come home didn't do anything for the wives left at home.....on hearing the comments Sharky told TV and radio interviews that the harrier was fantastic and agile and could do things no other aircraft on earth can do and he couldn't wait to show the world......it was all for the sake of the pilots wives and children....... but it could also have been something taken seriously by the Argentine military leaders... The royal navy commander didn't want lots of harriers lost to bigger faster fighter jets so ordered the blue fox radar system to be turned off, so,in effect this gave no indication that Harrier's were in the area and the Argentine carried on with the bombing runs,if they had detected the radar they would have followed orders and left the area....... one one successful run the Sir Galahad was hit with devastating results and horrific blast and burn wounds..... One of the very badly burned soldiers ( Welsh guards regiment) met the pilot that did so much damage...... just doing his job nothing was personal One tormented by pain and disfigurement and the other tormented by the effects of doing his duty....... they hugged each other and cried.........
I bought Sharky Ward's marvelous tome, "Sea Harrier" at the book store in 1993 when I was a student at the Naval War College. It is one of the very best war memoirs I have ever read! I enthusiastically commend it to anyone interested in military history, particularly to aviators.
I knew admiral parry when he was a sub lieutenant on 737 sqdn at RNAS Portland in the early 80s when he was a pinger. Nice chap. I read his book Down South about the falklands. The only thing I was disappointed with was the lack of real interaction with the flight crew as a whole. That is apart from CPO Bullingham who unfortunately lost his sight as a result of an attack.
I realize that I'm late to this party but this is the first time I've heard that Grytviken was strategically important as a long-term harbor. I can't find any subsequent/modern analysis (apart from this video) that makes this claim. Nowadays, everyone seems to indicate that Operation Paraquet was only intended as a show of resolve. However, I was able to find two contemporary newspaper accounts (interestingly both American) of the successful recapture of South Georgia as having strategic implications if the British chose to blockade the Falklands rather than invade.
It is a great harbour if you need to take damaged ships during the fight in the Falklands. If you don't have a good harbour you have nowhere to take your ships.
QE2 transhipped its troops to other vessels there, tugs were also there so that battle damaged ships could be taken there and prepared for the long voyage north if necessary.
TGHe only Sprua nce quoy=tgatgion I can find is this A man's judgment is best when he can forget himself and any reputation he may have acquired and can concentrate wholly on making the right decisions."
it would have been more interesting if his slide show was more visible on video - or if you had simply shown his slide show FULL SCREEN on the video with his voice heard over it.
The public in general and our special forces in particular believe our special forces to be supermen, and this belief that they are impregnable and stand at the zenith of military knowledge and capability is in itself a grave weakness. My experience of them is that they are highly capable, supremely well trained and well motivated. However, when it comes to 'big picture' integration of effort, an understanding of the limitations and challenges of the logistics effort and so on, they are remarkably ignorant. I have seen grown men chuck hissy fits because they couldn't fathom why radio batteries, fuel, spare parts and ammunition didn't just appear out of thin air a whole 2 hours after requisitioning them. "Don't you know who we are?" I was more than once asked by an incredulous operator when I told him the materials he was asking for simply weren't available. At the broader strategic and whole of force level, most special forces guys I met were fucking amateurs.
Hissy fits most usually came from the QM who resented the idea of you drawing equipment off his neatly stacked shelves and actually using it as intended.
@@davidhoward8270 Two things can be true. QMs hating their Q Store being played with and SF acting like drama queens when their demands aren't met immediately.
You need that supreme self belief to do what they do. But they can come a cropper when it's nature itself and the weather that they are up against, not a human enemy.
46:54. Ouch... Reagan waited for so long to say US support British actions that actually encouraged Argentinean to fight early on. Typically politician - see who is winning first.
It was well understood that the US had a default support of Right Wing military regimes in S.America. The CIA sided with Galteiri but the Pentagon/NATO sided with UK
@@MrRugbylane Caspar Weinberger was a hero. The Cold War would be won on the Central Front (Western Europe) and Britain was a "key pillar" in the NATO Alliance. Had Op. Corporate been a disaster, Thatcher would've fallen, Labour would've returned to power (lead by Michael Foot - a pacifist!) and Cruise missiles would not have deployed in the UK; indeed, the USAF, in Britain, may have deployed elsewhere. Weinberger knew this and had to contend with some "misguided" characters, in the State Dept. and the dreadful Jean Kirkpatrick, at the UN!
Yes. If im not mistaken the SBS back then were not yet integrated into the UK Special Forces Directorate, unlike the SAS. I believe the SBS were placed under the direct Command of the 3 Commando brigade. Whilst the SAS were basically just allowed to do their own thing.
GeraLd Hanrahan BBC reporter on one of the ship reported that the fuses on the Argentinian's bombs weren't exploding because they were being dropped from ro low a height, which was quickly rectified, resulting in damage to our ships and casualties amongst our personel. Good old BBC.
I was at school (just) during the Falklands and we - my mates and I - had worked this out. It's obvious that you read your enemy's signals during a war, the Argies weren't idiots, they had worked it out for themselves, it didn't matter what the BBC and MPs said - it's the fact we have a free press and political parties who can say what they want which gives us a moral superiority over people like the Argentinian regime of the time..
@@jjwatcher Nope. It was Brian Hanrahan and he didn't. The only way to get copy or TV reports out was through the military, which censored everything. Hence the famous "I counted them all out and counted them all back in again" quote. Brian Hanrahan, who died of cancer in 2010, was invited to cover the last flight of the Harriers at RAF Cottesmore at the express request of the crews. He was too ill to go, but the squadron recorded a special "get well" message with their best wishes. In any case, the Argentinians knew about the bomb problem - they had the bombs, but not the instruction manuals.
In early May 1983, my ship USS Arkansas CGN-41 anchored off Gibraltar before returning to Norfolk, capping a 7 month 6th Fleet Mediterranean assignment. Our RN comrades would not let me buy my own cheer. On an earlier call in Naples, a shipmate & I took liberty in Sorrento. At a restaurant there, an English family with a son in the RN not only bought us dinner, but got us drunker than we'd ever been before. Falklands was fresh & we were amazed at their kind thoughts & camaraderie. CHEERS
Don't forget......you guys across the Atlantic are and always will be brothers and sisters to us, the British people! 👍🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸
@@weedyp Right ON! We don't forget. CHEERS
Having seen scores of lectures on the Falklands war, this is one of the most interesting ones. Thank you.
Malvinas no! Falklands.
@@SaturnV100 Falklands and don`t lie about the history on your trash video.
@@georgesteven9644 And how did the people actually living there vote again? Oh right, British.
@@georgesteven9644 People living in the Falklands voted to remain with Britain. By 99.80%. With only 3 votes against and 2 blank/invalid. With a turnout of 92%.
Accept it dude, the people don't want you there.
stirring bravery and grit shown by the gentleman in the front row, risking their eyes to the whirling pointer. nary a flinch to be seen.
Hahaha 'nary' 😂
🤣🤣🤣 My thoughts exactly
Respect to the British. They did one Hell of a job!
They sure did. Brave men
Fascinating, in the early nineties i worked with a guy who was on the Antrim as a junior rate during the falklands and now realise that some of his Taller stories were in fact true.
That is generally the case, truth is often stranger than fiction in the military! Speaking from 35 years experience in 2 different navies.
I spoke to an ex paratrooper about the Notts cuts, he said a squadron of naval Phantoms would have made his job so easier…shameful that cuts took place, how in Gods name we won that war is beyond me, sheer guts…
And the same is happening again!!!
The Phantoms went long before Nott came on the scene...
Longest supply line in history. Outnumbered the British went to the other side of the planet and still won. The US navy said it was a military impossibility....
Outstanding! So much interesting information, including the goofs (such as an MP broadcasting the fact we'd cracked the Argentinian codes), the forgetting of previous tactics (such as the use of smoke (to hide ships) and barrage balloons), and the heroism of so many people.
That story of the MP disclosing that you were reading the Argentine codes reminds me of Congressman Andrew Jackson May, who informed the American papers that the Japanese were setting their depth charges too shallow. The Japanese read newspapers too. Almost killed my Granddad aboard the USS Gato.
Our MP should have been charged with Treason during time of war…
Well well well. The internet is remarkable isn't it. Almost 38 years later and I see Lt Parry. I was part of the SMAC team on the Antrim. We supplemented the flight in Defence Watches. I helped manhandle that helo (Humphrey) and performed a whole range of tasks. I had to repair the flotation bag after the helo was damaged. I can corroborate re the weather in South Georgia. I took my first trip back to the Falklands last March and met the islanders. I also met an Argentine veteran at Darwin cemetery. It was a lifetime ago but it was just yesterday.
Hello Micky, yeah, I did SMAC 19/233 for my defence watch on Antrim in '82. We must have been on opposite watches. Did you ever get round to reading Parry's book? Interesting enough read but he spends a lot of time bigging himself up and dissing the Skipper. My question has always been, if this was a war diary, why did he wait so long to publish? Was he advised to wait until Captain Young had died, to prevent any challenges to his comments? Seem to remember it came out a couple of years after Young passed on. Cheers, Buster Brown ex 3P mess.
@@xjack2312 Hi Buster.
I have not read his book. I have read a couple of others, they do tend to elevate their own contributions (no names, no pack drill). Hey, do you remember those electric suits we wore? Couldn't move in them. Then their was the 'interesting' journey along the port or starboard sides to the cross passage to get back below deck. Always fun in a South Atlantic storm 😳
Hey, just saying as a former Canadian soldier, all very interesting, but what's a SMAC team? Defence watch?
Maybe you guys can elaborate and give us more details? I've read all sorts of stuff on the Falklands. This is one part of the story that most people are probably not very familiar with. Thanks!
@@alainrouleau Hi Alain. Basically Defence Watches was when the ship moved to a state of readiness which was one step down from Action Stations. Essentially the ships company was split into two groups. These two groups maintained this readiness over the full 24 hour period. Once the ships 'Flight' (The aircrew and maintainers who operated the ships aircraft) went into Defence Watches their numbers required supplementing for basic tasks such as helicopter handling. Volunteers were trained (in advance) from other ships company members to facilitate this role. I do not recall what SMAC actually stood for. During the devastating air attacks of 21 May 1982, the Flights Senior Maintenance Rating, Chief Petty Officer Terry Bullingham received life changing injuries and was taken off the ship. This obviously impacted the rest of the Flight, meaning everyone had to adapt and take on more tasks. The SMAC teams were no exception to this and experienced what I would describe as highly supervised 'mission creep' For my part I found myself quickly trained in some basic maintenance which was obviously inspected by the Aircraft Engineering Mechanics for approval on completion. There were other examples of this as well. The entire Task Force will have experienced this one way or another. It's probably common to all theatres of conflict.
Great presentation, many wise words and many lessons that will no doubt need to be re-learned the hard way in future conflicts.
"Unlimited belligerence" at all levels, indeed.
Happy that this man was there, as he took South Georgia single handed :)
The point about Smoke and Barrage Ballons is very interesting.
Ted Rowlands MP was the one who informed the Argen' gov' via Parliament that we knew their codes. He is now a member of the House of Lords.
One of the key points expressed is "expecting the unexpected"
The Empire Strikes back....
Brilliant. This is why no one should attack the post Magna Culture. John Knott should be buried beside Neville Chamberlain.
Starter for 10 - Which PM declared war on Nazi Germany?
@@cacambo589 Chamberlain, of course. What of it??
William Gruff No need to fight? Neo fucking Nazi are we? Of course we needed to fight!
Akula971 “Mein Kampf” by the sound of it!
Why insult Chamberlin by doing that?
Not sure I go a bundle on the term 'trade ships' for the Merchant Navy. Crewed by civilians they faced all the same risks as the Royal Navy, especially the Atlantic Conveyor, whose captain swam away from a lifeboat that was full and sacrificed himself.
I don't think it was meant as an insult, but just as a way for a Navy guy to differentiate between the Merchant Navy, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Royal Navy. The skipper of the Atlantic Conveyor, 'Captain Birdseye' as he was nicknamed, was a very brave man and a sad loss.
@@stevebarlow3154 i think captain/master is a far more appropriate term in the case of the atlantic convayer, its not a yacht or barge.
@@jankaas4504 No disrespect was intended to the Captain of the 'Atlantic Conveyor', who was a very brave man. English as a language is less formal than some other European languages, so it is common practice to refer to the captain or master of a vessel as "skipper". Even the captain of a large warship is referred to by the crew as "the Skipper".
@@stevebarlow3154On a British Merchant Navy vessel the term is Master, respect please for the dead.
my dad sevrd in the MM for 50 years including ww2
Je always called the captain 'skipper'
its a term if affection rather than insult
What a fantastic gent!
And the Gallipoli commander was absolutely correct. He is best remembered for his "now you need only dig dig dig until you are safe" order.
The guy sitting at the front in the middle has massive eye brows
What a fantastic talk, thank you
Great lecture, Rear adm Parry doesn't seem to be a fan of the SAS, who he criticized on every mention but likes the SBS (marine/ naval unit) appeared to do a good job by his account. This is a bit sad for I'm. sure that the SAS did some good deeds down there too! Still a good enjoyable lecture, shame about the divisions that always seem to exist between military units of any origin.
I suspect their decision to use the glacial approach against the RN's advice and nearly getting himself and his crewmates killed needlessly would likely colour his opinion.
When you actually look at what the SAS did in the Falklands conflict it raises serious questions about their use (or misuse) and their own sense of importance that verges on hubris. Their reconnaissance of Goose Green seriously underestimated the Argentine numbers; they managed to shoot and kill several members of a SBS patrol (admittedly in the SAS area of operations but a SAS sergeant ignored his officer and opened fire); they did take out an Argentine airfield at Pebble Island but it could have easily been done by naval gunfire. They invited themselves to the battle because their CO wanted to get involved and then used their political clout with Thatcher to assign themselves to actions they wanted to do, such as South Georgia.
@@peterlovett5841 Bravo Two Zero is an other example. However some of the other SAS teams deployed that night landed, took one look at the lay of that land and thought there is no way that we can operate here at all, so the got back in the Chinook and went home
To be honest, I have spent two summers on King Edwards Point as part of the British Antarctic Survey..... I will say that in that case the SAS guys had absolutely no idea of the terrain they were landing on, and worse, did not listen to the people who might know, or to their Helicopter crews who had to both get them there and get them off. I have the greatest respect for the SAS, my father was an IO for them for many years, but on that Op, they done fucked up.
However, what Adm Parry did not mention is that in a cross decking operation ordered by the RN 20 SAS lads had been killed when the helicopter carrying them had ditched, SAS confidence in the helicopter crews had thus been dealt a fairly significant blow. After all, if you just saw 20 of your lads killed in a mere transfer between ships, what use the pilots carrying you into the AO?
Fortunately both the aircrews and the SAS have learned the lessons the Falklands taught them.... but there are two sides to every tale. The Helicopter crash on that cross decking operation still is one of the greatest single loss of life incidents the SAS has suffered since the end of WWII...... Adm Parry might not want to recognise that those guys probably did not have a great deal of trust in the pilots after that incident... regrettable, and wrong, but such is human nature.....
It wasn’t just the SAS on the Glacier, it was also SBS and Royal Marine Arctic and Mountain Warfare Cadre.
Lol he said the SAS took out a colony of seals with a Moran anti-tank missile as they were worried it was a bunker
Is it comical to take out a colony of seals with a Moran anti-tank missile ?
You must have a warped mind.
Especially when its a Milan AT missile.
Great lecture, Very poor lighting. Get the lights off the screen so we can see it please 8 Bells is a great series and deserves the professionalism and quality of the presentation.
I heard quite a different story of how the SAS came to be landed on a glacier.
The SAS guy who talked about south Georgia on the RCMI history channel told a different story about the glacier debacle...it's all about perspective.
"You Can't say 'Can't' to the prime minister". The only response I can think to this is: "Begging your pardon mum, but I am not Robert Cecil, and you are most certainly not Elizbeth I!" Albeit that may be a career limiting maneuver.
One youtube idiot said "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". The problem is that peace requires, as a minimum, the active participation and compromises required for that peace to occur. For war to occur you only need ONE belligerent.
This is why, for an outbreak of "Peace" you need to prepare for War.
In peace time Armies, Navies and Air Forces are insurance. Insurance is expensive (and hopefully a waste of money). Sane people don't take out insurance in the hope that they will use it.
Kim Wilson He is not alone by any means ,you meet these beauty queens are every where praying for world peace even though history of every civilisation know to man has gone to war bar none, nations are born from war forged consolidated, and advanced in ever activity known to man. Why do they don't educate these morons is beyond me for it is an indisputable fact no war ,no civilisation
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
This is very well said.
Very interesting insights in Operation Paraquet (last week April 1982)
Love watching this. A ripping yarn.
That was brilliant thank you
I would like to Know what book He show at the begining and He suggest to read. I can not see the slide.
Thanks
It's called Down south: a Falklands war diary. By Lt Chris Parry.
I read it a couple of years ago, very good especially considering he wrote it at the time.
Prime Minister Thatcher meddled in this operation & almost got the sailors killed.
A-4 don’t have 30mm gun, but 20mm. My salute to all the fallen of the Falklands War. Both sides.
Oh dear Rear Admiral! That helo was a Wessex 3 sir! And you were supposedly the Observer on it? Say no more! :-( (From a former RN ACMN) :-) Well done however! But you did have the advantage of Ian Stanley as Your Flight Commander sir! :-)
Robert Graffham, I was really pleased to see your comment because I visited ANTRIM in 1980 and was sure Humphrey was a Wessex III....
Ian Stanley along with the pilots who ended up in Chile performed the most impressive flying in the whole conflict. Some boy
The MP who used parliamentary privelege to let the Argies know we were intercepting their communications went on to be a peer of the realm. Step up Edward Rowlands, Baron Rowlands CBE former labour mp.
I'm pretty sure the Argies will have been expecting that we were intercepting their communications, or at least attempting to. Hardly a great surprise really.
@@loungejay8555 They would have, but Parry confirmed the Argies switched cyphers as a result of the MP's frankly shocking comments.
The first sea skimming anti ship missile was the Swedish RB04C which entered service in 1961.
This means Sea skimming anti ship misiles predates the Sea Cat and Sea Dart air defence missiles on the british ships
Love the General Melchit slide at the end. You've no idea how true that is.
I knew the dummy who revealed that the British had cracked the Argentine code was Labour.
Enjoyed this. I have to question that the Argies had no communication to poach. Perhaps I misunderstood what you referred to, but there were small groups of soldiers that viewed the British ship movements and communicated it to the mainland. This has been noted in books from British Airmen and from Argentinian troops post war.
I took that statement as a matter of scale, ie there was relatively little communication to poach given the scale of operations.
somos argentinos no argie y ustedes son piratas
This guy is hilariously accurate.
Brilliant speech
Yemen: US-made weapon used in air strike that killed scores in escalation of Saudi-led coalition attacks/The Saudi-led coalition used a precision-guided munition made in the United States in last week’s air strike on a detention centre in Sa’adah, north-western Yemen, which, according to Doctors without Borders, killed at least 80 people and injured over 200, Amnesty International said today. The laser-guided bomb used in the attack, manufactured by US defence company Raytheon, is the latest piece in a wider web of evidence of the use of US-manufactured weapons in incidents that could amount to war crimes.
The Argentinians timed it in their autumn so as to leave them enough time to fortify defences, whilst leaving the British with little opportunity to respond before winter set. So on the 1 April 1982 they launched their attack.
To take the Falklands back the British immediately launched "Operation Corporate" and one month later it came very close to disaster in the cold Southern Ocean.
The General Belgrano was formerly the USS Phoenix that had survived Pearl Harbour had 15 x 6" guns and 8 x 5" guns that totally outgunned the Royal Navy's 4.5" guns. Her Task Group 79.3 were the Southern "pincer" of four simultaneous attacks planned for the British task force. The Northern "pincer" Task Group 79.1 included the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo formerly served in as HMS Venerable was escorted by two Type 42 destroyers. Task Group 79.4 consisted of three A69 corvettes and following the planned air strike, were to launch Exocet MM38 missiles from over twenty miles away, backed up by two Argentinian submarines that were to initiate the attack.
After the British RAF raid on Stanley airfield with Vulcan bombers on 1 May 1982, the Argentine Submarine ARA San Luis launched an unsuccessful attack and was counterattacked for 20 hours with depth charges and at least one torpedo. The Argentinian carrier also attempted to launch six f A-4Q Skyhawk jets against the Royal Navy Task Force but by 3:15 pm light winds had prevented the heavily loaded jets from being launched The British had assigned a nuclear-powered submarine HMS Splendid, to track down Veinticinco de Mayo. They located her on the 23rd of April but were not authorized to engage. Failing to launch her aircraft the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo had to abandon the attack and was forced to leave the area when one of her escort ships detected an approaching Sea Harrier on a reconnaissance mission.
On the 2nd May HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrano using three obsolete MK VIII torpedoes, resulting in no further attempts by the Argentinian surface fleet to engage the Royal Navy.
On the 4th May after the failed naval attacks, HMS Sheffield was hunting for the Argentinian submarines and was struck by an air launched Exocet missile that had been detected by HMS Glasgow and HMS Invincible. It failed to explode but still put the ship out of action and she sank later. HMS Sheffield had taken over the position from HMS Coventry who was having trouble with her Radar .
On 25 May the 15,000 tonne container ship, Atlantic Conveyor was hit by two Argentine air-launched AM39 Exocet missiles and eventually sank. The ship was carrying 600 cluster bombs, fuel, ammunition, helicopters and other vital equipment including a temporary metal runway and over 2,000 body bags, and left the British campaign seriously short of supplies and only one Chinook. On the same day HMS Coventry was attacked by two Skyhawks and hit by three bombs, capsized and was abandoned. If the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo had successfully launched her Skyhawks and the Torpedo had detonated on impact Task Groups 79.3 and 4 would have caused havoc with multiple Exocet missiles and the guns of "USS Phoenix", whilst the British were dealing with battle damage and casualties.
The moral of the story is that saturating a defender presents them with a Target Rich Environment and the task force was only saved by a breath of fresh air and a faulty German torpedo !
Typical that the politicians & senior military staff f#ck up what is needed & what needs to be done. Thank god for the NCO's that somehow get it done!
The more things change, the more they stay the same Roy. CHEERS Brother!
@ 36:23 - What's with the Argentinian flag ?
And now we have the defence minister Grant shapps trying to justify the existence of the Royal Marines, some things never change..
The Empire!🤣
strikes back
M.P. Ted Rowlands. Should be in jail.
He won the war with no help.
So the british caused the war, not us 🇦🇷🤜🏻🇬🇧
Still have a good head of hair Sir
Wow. Everyone else on the UK side did a Dad's Army job of the whole conflict apart from him apparently. A disgrace to all those who served and pulled of a remarkable achievement at incredibly short notice. A victory that he says was entirely due to the Argentinian effort being even less competent than that of the UK. Hope he's not still on a taxpayer funded MOD pension.
Mate, the South Georgia operation was an appalling balls up. Basically, walking 4.5 inch shells up the beach made the Argentines surrender after the SAS operation failed.
SvenTviking what failure?
@@dickensdickens3025 Their attempt to attack from the Fortuna Glacier, the SAS guys were very lucky not to die in the appalling weather conditions there.
Steve Barlow Steve the SAS were not crossing fortuna glacier to attack anybody. They were tasked to put an observation and surveillance post in . They didn’t make it, because of appalling weather but incidentally, neither did the two SBS patrols have any any better luck either abandoning their mission and had to be recovered by helicopter. The only people who got into an observation and surveillance post were the SAS boat troop who were tasked to surveil, report and contain the RGs at Leith and Stromness. Which they did succsefully .
SvenTviking Really? That bad? . Remind me how many dead and wounded the Brits suffered in retaking South Georgia because of this appalling cock up?
Smug and derisive. Why am I not surprised?
I agree he is derisive -check out Parry with other accounts - he doesn't get a mention - especially RCMI Toronto speaker SAS operative Bell.
Never seen so disrespectful comments about SAS
By the way SBS had done nothing before Falklands
Disrespectful of guards not able to tab like marines and paras as they showed to they could (tumbledown)
Absolutely disgraceful comments from a senior commander
SBS had been around since WW2, they'd fought in ops all over the place...they did all of the really useful work in the Falklands. Without Pebble Island the SAS involvement would have been a disaster all round.
The Guards didn't tab or Yomp. Like the rest of 5 Brigade they were lifted by ship to Fitzroy and had a much shorter march to the hills around Stanley, this was after the Welsh Guards had to turn around on a forced march as they weren't up to it.
You're wrong about the SBS, used before the Falklands.
SAS at that time thought they walked on water post embassy siege, turns out they needed to wind their necks in a bit.
Yep 5th infantry Bde were massively unfit - part of the lessons learned from that conflict is that infantry soldiers needed to be tested physically to a higher standard. In fact nearly all the guards units came straight off ceremonial duties, so they were even more 'unfit'. They TAB tumbledown, they attacked it. They had to TAB to get there.
Not disgraceful comments at all, here's a tip for you - don't be complicit in destructive consent, be part of constructive criticism - its how good militaries move forward.
I am sure if you have served you know all this.
@@MrLechambre The biggest mistake was that the actual unit that should have gone was the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. They were next in rotation. They were fit and fully trained. The speculation is that some chinless wonder in MoD wanted the Guards to have a greater role....which meant a lot got killed...
Explaining what, that brits were superior than Argentina? That was an obvious matter, who didn't know that? Like the us army fighting against indians. I would like to see him talking about defeating Russia and how they didi it (if it eventually happen). By the way, hearing this old man trying to be funny explaining that serious topic, it's a sort of unbearable situation.
You want a lecture on the Anglo Russian War of 1807-12 or the Crimean War ? .
You know the Argentinian Army had at least equal, and often better kit than the British right? They were using the same rifle, the FN-FAL, the Argentinians actually had better night vision equipment, they were dug in, had better armoured and artillery support, and knew the British were coming.
To make it worse for the British, they did not have air superiority though had contested airspace. They were fighting an enemy in the defence who outnumbered them and who were dug in. They were fighting an enemy at the end of an EIGHT THOUSAND mile logistics chain, compared to less than 400 for the Argentinians...
The Argentinians were NOT the plains Indians... who I may add handed more than one defeat to the US Army during the various Indian wars. Reading you trying to be clever was also... an unbearable situation....
Not many nations could have mounted an 8,000 mile amphibious operation in the South Atlantic winter at such short notice. Badly equipped, heavily outnumbered in air power and against a numerically superior, and better equipped, dug in force with a defensive mind set. Rather a miraculous result, mainly due to the professional commitment of those involved.
TECHNICS1 - The United Kingdom was not ready for this conflict. They had to get ready in a hurry and improvise in many ways. They suffered many significant losses due to the deficiencies in their kit, but they perservered and ultimately prevailed. The performance of the UK armed forces under the circumstances was phenomenal.
This is a professional military man speaking to other military professionals, about what lessons where learnt by the British armed forces in the Falklands and what lessons more generally could be learnt from this conflict by all militaries.
The only thing insane here is the UK Empire. Do you think we South
Americans like to have the military base of an aggressive nuclear Empire
in our face?
Tulaenelorto wasn't a military base until you knuckleheads tried to invade.
@JohnB Wright the Chilean fuckwit you are
you reap what you sow hombre. instead of blaming others, point your water pistol at the military junta who mislead the Argentinean people, whilst murdering 1000's of your compatriots. The Falklands Islands nor the UK will ever give in to your bullying bullshit. Mind you, if you what to take another crack at it, vamos !
I would love to read your take on the French in French Guyana.
Have to give it to Chris Parry, he has made a living out of this kind of thing since leaving the RN. I was on Antrim in 82 and while his book is factually correct it doesn't read like a war diary pure and simple but more like one that has been modified by an ex Rear Admiral with hindsight. I would also question why he left it so late to publish "Down South", 2012 IIRC. A less charitable man than me might think he'd been waiting for (the generally admired, certainly by the lower deck) Captain Young to pass on (which he did in 2009), so he didn't have to defend some of his comments on said officer. But a fairly interesting lecture nevertheless. Parry normally has something to say on most current or near past military subjects (the British Operation Herrick in Helmand springs to mind) and enjoys a bit of controversy. Keeps him on the telly anyway.
10:04 "sea-slug" "...needed the acive cooperation of the target to achieve a successful engagement.." LOL
really nice presentation style
I served onboard HMS Glamorgan during the conflict, a sister ship to Antrim and we used to say about the Seaslug that it needed 2 weeks notice to fire,it was that bad LOL
The name of the traitor MP was Ted Rowlands, Baron Rowlands.
Indeed it was and that bastard Blair rewarded the twat with a CBE for his troubles. Parliamentary privilege should be suspended if UK citizens safety could be put at risk as a result of gobshitery.
I suppose the Admiral doesn't name him as he is a fellow Welshman.
@@MrDavidht Speaking as a Welshman myself, Admiral Parry is more likely to declare a blood feud against the entire Rowlands clan which could last centuries. He probably already has.
@MichaelKingsfordGray Hi Ted
@MichaelKingsfordGray well Mr Angry my name is Howard. There does that make you better..
This is the real deal. A fantastic, often funny but damn professional account. The South Georgia flying alone is heroic.
Excellent..... I remember this well, the British Military always has my respect and admiration. My Dad visited the museum after the exhibits open, he very much liked the proudly displayed artifacts.
Great lecture. A really good one, and I've seen a few.
Q: Why were you allowed to engage Argentine submarines, but not their aircraft? (Especially the Hercules)
Submarines are an active threat to shipping, transport planes arent (even if they used civilian planes to spy on british positions)
Because the submarines can attack you, but the Hercules was just a recon aircraft. Politically you couldn't attack an unarmed plane flying in international airspace, but you could attack a fully armed submarine that had just dropped a platoon of Marines off on South Georgia.
Awesome, very knowledgeable. A good presentation.
Great lecture very funny and very informative.I read a personal experience book by Lt Cdr " sharky" Ward ( I served on the old Ark Royal in '78 and he was also on board) he discussed the tactics of the Argentine air force saying they should have been aggressive and challenged the Harriers more.( They were given the wrong tactics)
But in his book he also covered the training they had in Germany against the top gun squadron the American Aggressor Squadron and beat them . Perhaps the aviation world being a close knit world that the story would have gotten to the Argentine command.
I wonder if that was a factor in the choice of tactics
Argebtinians challenged on may 1st 1982 the harriers for dogfigths with mirage 5s, tested every angle of figth. Harriers stayed down waiting, mirage in high altitude. The mirage, with less fuel minutes, left the high altitudes performance advantage, and attacked, but the sidewinder missle was decisive. There was no way argetinian air force could contested the harriers in air to air combat when was armed with that missile. Anyway, the real objective were the ships and ground troops, so the aim was to avoid the PACs or to fool them with fake sorties. Like they did when sir galahad and sir Tristan were attacked, for example.
@@agustinithurralde2741 a very good analysis of the overall event... the royal navy deliberately placed itself on what we called " picket duty" (the term used by trades union members on strike and place themselves deliberately in front of the factory gates to try to stop non striking workers from getting passed) the object was to give the vulnerable troops and equipment more time to get ashore....... one of the harrier squadron leaders Lt Cdr Ward wrote several books and revealed that the biggest problem for the Argentine pilots was the order not to engage with the harriers in open dog fights unless absolutely necessary....." Sharky Ward said that RN had no idea that was the reason why the Argentine air force moved out of the area if the radar picked up a harrier....... it's obvious by the courage shown popping up over San Carlos waters on a bombing run when everyone from land and sea was trying to blow them out of the sky, they were very brave and skillful and so effective that we called it bomb ally and they called it death valley
The only reason Snarky could think of as to why that was in the rules of engagement, was possibly the results of the harriers going up against the USAF aggressor squadron of top gun pilots who teach good pilots to be better pilots....... the harrier beat the USAF with their far superior fighters in several exercise senareos, and,as the aviation world is watching each other, it's possible the air force high command thought that a lot of aircraft not coming back from a mission would not be good for moral and therefore denied the pilots permission to engage.....as for the sidewinder it was indeed a great asset especially when you don't have to be pointing in the direction of the target.......
The sinking of the Atlantic conveyor by the Argentine air force and the loss of so much equipment and supplies especially helicopters that were the transport for the troops.... almost finished the campaign in its tracks........
The one thing that could have stopped the British was the ability of the Argentine air force,if they had lost 3 or 4 aircraft for every one harrier they would have dominated the sky and things could have been very different.....
The British admiralty had very little faith in the harrier ( the last aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal with her buccaneers strick aircraft and the F4 phantom jet fighters had been paid off in 79 And replaced by slower smaller untested in battle,) and the suggestion that 4 out of 6 would probably not come home didn't do anything for the wives left at home.....on hearing the comments Sharky told TV and radio interviews that the harrier was fantastic and agile and could do things no other aircraft on earth can do and he couldn't wait to show the world......it was all for the sake of the pilots wives and children....... but it could also have been something taken seriously by the Argentine military leaders...
The royal navy commander didn't want lots of harriers lost to bigger faster fighter jets so ordered the blue fox radar system to be turned off, so,in effect this gave no indication that Harrier's were in the area and the Argentine carried on with the bombing runs,if they had detected the radar they would have followed orders and left the area....... one one successful run the Sir Galahad was hit with devastating results and horrific blast and burn wounds.....
One of the very badly burned soldiers ( Welsh guards regiment) met the pilot that did so much damage...... just doing his job nothing was personal
One tormented by pain and disfigurement and the other tormented by the effects of doing his duty....... they hugged each other and cried.........
I bought Sharky Ward's marvelous tome, "Sea Harrier" at the book store in 1993 when I was a student at the Naval War College. It is one of the very best war memoirs I have ever read! I enthusiastically commend it to anyone interested in military history, particularly to aviators.
@@bearowen5480 A great book.
Gave away the Argentinian code breaking
I knew admiral parry when he was a sub lieutenant on 737 sqdn at RNAS Portland in the early 80s when he was a pinger. Nice chap. I read his book Down South about the falklands. The only thing I was disappointed with was the lack of real interaction with the flight crew as a whole. That is apart from CPO Bullingham who unfortunately lost his sight as a result of an attack.
I realize that I'm late to this party but this is the first time I've heard that Grytviken was strategically important as a long-term harbor. I can't find any subsequent/modern analysis (apart from this video) that makes this claim. Nowadays, everyone seems to indicate that Operation Paraquet was only intended as a show of resolve. However, I was able to find two contemporary newspaper accounts (interestingly both American) of the successful recapture of South Georgia as having strategic implications if the British chose to blockade the Falklands rather than invade.
It is a great harbour if you need to take damaged ships during the fight in the Falklands. If you don't have a good harbour you have nowhere to take your ships.
QE2 transhipped its troops to other vessels there, tugs were also there so that battle damaged ships could be taken there and prepared for the long voyage north if necessary.
very informative and I like your sense of humour
TGHe only Sprua nce quoy=tgatgion I can find is this
A man's judgment is best when he can forget himself and any reputation he may have acquired and can concentrate wholly on making the right decisions."
it would have been more interesting if his slide show was more visible on video - or if you had simply shown his slide show FULL SCREEN on the video with his voice heard over it.
A really good presentation content, valuable insights, great conclusions and funny showmanship. Thank you.
Doesnt the SAS and Thatcher know that mountains and glaciers never loose.
He's not a fan of special forces this guy😃
The public in general and our special forces in particular believe our special forces to be supermen, and this belief that they are impregnable and stand at the zenith of military knowledge and capability is in itself a grave weakness. My experience of them is that they are highly capable, supremely well trained and well motivated. However, when it comes to 'big picture' integration of effort, an understanding of the limitations and challenges of the logistics effort and so on, they are remarkably ignorant. I have seen grown men chuck hissy fits because they couldn't fathom why radio batteries, fuel, spare parts and ammunition didn't just appear out of thin air a whole 2 hours after requisitioning them. "Don't you know who we are?" I was more than once asked by an incredulous operator when I told him the materials he was asking for simply weren't available. At the broader strategic and whole of force level, most special forces guys I met were fucking amateurs.
SOUND LIKE THE PERSON SUPPLYING WAS AS WELL!
Hissy fits most usually came from the QM who resented the idea of you drawing equipment off his neatly stacked shelves and actually using it as intended.
@@davidhoward8270 Two things can be true. QMs hating their Q Store being played with and SF acting like drama queens when their demands aren't met immediately.
You need that supreme self belief to do what they do. But they can come a cropper when it's nature itself and the weather that they are up against, not a human enemy.
Great lecture.
46:54. Ouch... Reagan waited for so long to say US support British actions that actually encouraged Argentinean to fight early on. Typically politician - see who is winning first.
This is not true.
It was well understood that the US had a default support of Right Wing military regimes in S.America. The CIA sided with Galteiri but the Pentagon/NATO sided with UK
@@MrRugbylane Caspar Weinberger was a hero.
The Cold War would be won on the Central Front (Western Europe) and Britain was a "key pillar" in the NATO Alliance. Had Op. Corporate been a disaster, Thatcher would've fallen, Labour would've returned to power (lead by Michael Foot - a pacifist!) and Cruise missiles would not have deployed in the UK; indeed, the USAF, in Britain, may have deployed elsewhere. Weinberger knew this and had to contend with some "misguided" characters, in the State Dept. and the dreadful Jean Kirkpatrick, at the UN!
@@danielw5850 Hence Caspar's honorary knighthood from a grateful UK! Those AIM-9Ls and tonnes of aviation fuel made life a lot easier.
@@xjack2312 Indeed! Look at our inter-operability in 2021: British pilots, operating off US flight decks and Vice-versa.
Special forces running off and trying to run their own war is a recurrent problem. They need to be integrated into the overall effort.
Yes. If im not mistaken the SBS back then were not yet integrated into the UK Special Forces Directorate, unlike the SAS.
I believe the SBS were placed under the direct Command of the 3 Commando brigade. Whilst the SAS were basically just allowed to do their own thing.
@@Nomadicmillennial92 True.
The Navy went fishing with the Atlantic Conveyor.
A little too bumptious for me. He was a lt at the time, I think.
Can anyone name the MP who alledgedly gave away that the UK was reading Argentinian signals?
Ted Rowlands, Labour. It wasn't alleged. It's on Hansard.
GeraLd Hanrahan BBC reporter on one of the ship reported that the fuses on the Argentinian's bombs weren't exploding because they were being dropped from ro low a height, which was quickly rectified, resulting in damage to our ships and casualties amongst our personel. Good old BBC.
@@jjwatcher No surprises there, Labour and the BBC both hate Britain and the British people.
I was at school (just) during the Falklands and we - my mates and I - had worked this out. It's obvious that you read your enemy's signals during a war, the Argies weren't idiots, they had worked it out for themselves, it didn't matter what the BBC and MPs said - it's the fact we have a free press and political parties who can say what they want which gives us a moral superiority over people like the Argentinian regime of the time..
@@jjwatcher Nope. It was Brian Hanrahan and he didn't. The only way to get copy or TV reports out was through the military, which censored everything. Hence the famous "I counted them all out and counted them all back in again" quote. Brian Hanrahan, who died of cancer in 2010, was invited to cover the last flight of the Harriers at RAF Cottesmore at the express request of the crews. He was too ill to go, but the squadron recorded a special "get well" message with their best wishes. In any case, the Argentinians knew about the bomb problem - they had the bombs, but not the instruction manuals.
You must be one of the survivor ... you should do one on suicide prevention .
Okay. Beware the habitual. Okay?