Most assets used in this reenactment are not 100% historically accurate. AV-8B Harriers represent Sea Harriers, Mirage IIIC represents the EA variant as well as Dagger. T-34 Turbo Mentor is represented by Yak-52 while A-4E Skyhawks stand-in for A-4B variant with no hump. Shafrir missile is represented by R-550 or AIM-9 in the CGI footage. These are not mistakes and I would be grateful if you didn't try to 'correct' them.These are simply platform limitations and the closest available options were selected or otherwise this kind of a content wouldn't have been possible. Aircraft skins are not 100% accurate either. While that would have been possible, it would have taken way too long or cost too much to get them exactly right. Thank you for your understanding.
I don't know that other nations used the same camo, but the Jak-52 has very Hungarian AF like paintscheme (except the roundels). I think we have no more them in service for a while now. If you willing to pay the price - and it takes some time to get "green light" for the show - you can fly with Gyula Vári (Fairford trophy winner many times with MiG-29) about a 15-20 minutes. It does not seems long, but that will be more than enough in a constant hard aerobatic maneuvering flight. That would be a hell of a ride.
@@Cuccos19 You mean this paint scheme? I actually adopted a Brazilian one, it was the closest to the one used by Argentina on their T-34s during the conflict. I believe that 15-20 minutes of that aerobatic flight is more than enough for almost everyone 😁
That's true. Argentinian fighter pilots were underfunded, they hit well above their weight, the professionalism of the pilots wasn't backed up by the command. They put their lives on the line for tactical superiority and received nothing back from Command. These are scenarios that are familiar to RAF pilots. So naturally the British military would watch these Argentinian pilots and give a nod to seeing men with no back up, trying their very best for their country. Individual bravery is always admired by any professional fighting force.
Brave men indeed.. I read about a bombing mission carried out by Skyhawks of Argentine AF... They lost half the planes on the first bombing run couple of pilots were Kia. The remaining planes came in and loaded up to go BACK on a second run..the crew chief was crying as he strapped the pilot back in his plane.
I was in the Falklands in 1987. Place is cold, windy, and all-round unpleasant. Too much blood was spilled, too many good people on both sides died for the actions of corrupt, evil men. Both sides displayed courage and honor at times. War is hell.
Hello showtime, Great video´s of this conflict. I served on HMS Glamorgan throughout the conflict and was there on this day!! I remember seeing an aircraft (which I now believe to be Capitan Cuerva´s aircraft )as it crashed into the sea,spinning like a spinning top. The Argentine pilots were incredibly brave throughout the conflict and I salute them.
Thanks for sharing your personal experience. So Glamorgan was close enough to see the Cuerva's Mirage crash. Approaching within several miles of Port Stanley was a pretty bold move.
@@philholding8501 It must have been. The timing and location fits, I don't know what else it could have been. Btw, can you tell me something about the Dagger attack? How close were those bombs?
Very close!!!!! The guys on the flight deck who were alot closer than I was said,in Ian Inskips book "ordeal by Exocet" that if the retard parachutes hadn´t deployed they would have hit??!! On the way home we stopped at Ascension to refuel and we sent a dive team down and they reported that there was "dishing" on the rudders and there was shrapnel damage to them!!!! so pretty damn close.@@showtime112
My understanding of the Falklands air war is that there was little to no dogfighting. The Skyhawks werent armed for it, and the Mirages didn't have the fuel for it by the time they reached the islands. Apart from one or two incidents, most of the Sea Harrier air to air victories were shooting down Skyhawks/Daggers that had already attacked the ships and were fleeing from the engagement zone. Nice video!
There was one proper dogfight and one sort of. Those will be talked about in part two and three of the video. Two is coming out this Saturday. Thanks for comenting!
There are videos on UA-cam of interviews with that Harrier pilot Sharkey Ward. He complained about Harriers from one carrier being asked to attack Argentinian aircraft only after British forces on the ground had already been attacked.
The air war over Falklands Islands is yet another favorite of mine, although I have to admit that I don't really know much about it. This episode is another excellent source of information. Can't wait for the 2nd part!
Also interesting to note that neither participant had proper countermeasure launchers for their aircraft. In the Fleet Air Arm's case (who got countermeasure pods for their Harriers just some time after the conflict) used a rustic method of stashing improvised chaff inside their airbrakes, giving them a singular launch of chaff when they opened them. In the Argentine case, they managed to give their Canberras countermeasures thanks to a pasta factory which used their equipment to make chaff. Still, neither of them had access to flares, which were the main threat for air to air combat in this conflict, which explains why the AIM-9L was so effective here.
Thank you for the very interesting contribution. In many aspects, the aerial engagements of this conflict resembled those of early Vietnam War. No countermeasures, no AWACS support, no look-down/shoot-down radar capability and so on. I didn't know about the pasta factory making chaff but it kinda makes sense 😁😁😁
The USAF gave them AIM-9P/3 missiles, not Ls. The Harrier’s older fire control system could not employ Ls. The P/3s were modified with CO2 seeker head coolers to give them a limited all aspect capability but they were not true “shoot em in the lips” Limas. I was actually there when the Sidewinders were modified at my USAF base.
@@Frankie5Angels150 AIM-9L and 9P had very different guidance fins at the front, the pictures of Harriers during the Falklands War had clearly the 9L design.
Yes, they were both quite limited compared to some later wars such as Desert Storm. This feels a bit like a war from the previous decade (with some exceptions)
The Brits also picked up the most modern up to date sidewinders from the States before they sailed on down to the South Atlantic. The Argie's only had 1st get sidewinders.@@mikemontgomery2654
@@mikemontgomery2654Yes, thankfully Sidewinder had pretty much all of its kinks ironed out by the late '60s, as opposed to Sparrow and such. By 1982 the all-aspect seeking was becoming standard as well. Sea Harrier was also fitted with cannon in the Falklands, which came in useful multiple times. But yeah, in regards to the original comment, I agree that the Falklands air war definitely had more in common with the Six Day War, Yom Kippur, or U.S. aerial warfare in Vietnam from '68-72 than it did conflicts that would happen closer in time to the Falklands, such as Lebanon '82-84, Libya in '86, or aerial aspect of Gulf War of late '90 early '91.
Numerically it was the Argies,, but they were dealing with a NATO charter member. The Royal Navy's Harrier pilots trained and practiced at USAF's RED FLAG at Nellis and TOP GUN, so their skills were (and still are) honed to a fine edge. And the Harrier is a nimble little beast with the excellent Sidewinder.
@@BingoFrogstrangler US special forces too were set up by the British and the US army manual was written by a British captain during the colonial war with France, he is also the reason that militaries adopted camouflage, he introduced green uniforms to his unit for a behind the lines operation.
They were the forerunners of todays Green Jackets (Light Infantry) Green uniform as forerunner to nato camouflage and light equipment for fast penetration and egress.
I was able to be in the cockpit of a (MIRAGE III DA) in a museum here in Argentina with an incredible design that basically was the colors and the sun of the Argentinean flag printed on the fuselage of the plane, if you look for it you can find this exact model on the internet. On the other hand I can share that this is a delta winged interceptor aircraft with poor maneuverability at low speed, and obviously depends on a high altitude for obviously being a plane that can fly at mach 2+. It could be said that they were similarly capable for air superiority both (mirage and the harrier), the mirage being faster and more capable by having that power because of the afterburner being a supersonic but it did not have any suitable missile or avionics as advanced as the new harriers that brought vector thrust and also with V/STOL. Excellent content, apart from being informative is very entertaining. greetings from argentina, buenos aires
Compared to the Harrier ALL other aircraft are pretty bad at the speeds of an air combat, of which 95% are way below Mach1. This is why the Harrier was so good in these situations. Why exactly do you think the USA bought so many Harriers, and even developed them for future use? A typical case of the Uk getting something correct at the right time.
@@BruceConklin-js5rg Not sur exactly what military thrust is! The pegasus mk 6 in the first Harrier jets had a maximum thrust of 19,000 lb/f, whilst the Mirage had a thrust of UP to 14,500lb/f without after burner, and 21,400 lb/f using after burner. So not sure where the military thrust you talk about comes from!
Yes, there were multiple raids but this first one was the most famous and one single Vulcan attacked the Port Stanley airfield which marked the beginning of the British retake of the islands.
Correct two Vulcans (one to do the useless job, and one as back up) and up to twenty Victors to do the refuelling. Black buck was THE single most useless thing in the flaklands war. It did however show Buenos Aires that if we wanted to we could bomb the city and at will!
Let us now forget that the Mirage III was twice as fast as the Sea Harrier and had a much higher ceiling, giving it a big advantage. Also, the main reason that the Mirages had to fly from the mainland was because an RAF Vulcan bomber, flying all the way from the UK in 2 hops, bombed the Port Stanley runway, which dissuaded the Argentinians from making it fit for Mirage operations.
Great video, another video of a period of history getting too little "time in the sun", I love these videos into the "lesser known" wars!!!!! Brave people died on both sides in this conflict and they deserve to be remembered!
I actually want to do something about Super Etendard but in WT it is very high in the French tree and I haven't even began to work it 🙃 There is however a mod in DCS and it has a working Exocet. I have to see if the mod still works well enough.
Nice video. A suggestion: you might want to explain what a “CAP“ is because not everyone watching the video will know that it is the combat air patrol of an aircraft carrier.
Quick correction on the Shafrir 2 regarding your explanation of the Dagger, it was not based on the AIM-9D, it was a fully domestic Israeli development carried out with lessons learnt from the development of the unreliable Shafrir 1 missile in the early 60's and was considered comparable to the AIM-9D in terms of it's performance.
@@showtime112 The Shafrir 1 was somewhat based on the AIM-9B, though that too was designed from scratch and ended up being a horrible missile. There was even a lawsuit from the US that claimed the Shafrir 1 was a copied AIM-9B and as a result a Shafrir was sent to be studied and the results showed it had no common components with the AIM-9 family and featured major departures from the AIM-9 design such as the warhead being located further back. The Shafrir 2 itself being based off of that missile has almost nothing to do with AIM-9s.
@@rodrigoezequiel1972 That is outright false, the Shafrir 2 had very good performence for the time period it was used and was considered fairly reliable.
Love these videos about these small air combats. All the details are MUCH appreciated. I like this channel so much...that I DON'T watch it on my normal web browser, Brave (which blocks ads). I use Chrome. ☮
Hey, thank you very much for the positive feedback! And I appreciate you don't block adds. I know they are annoying but without them, there wouldn't be much of the YT content.
The R530 missile was not used by the Mirage III because before May 1, 1982 it was proven that it limited their flight range. That's why they only carried 2 magic missiles in addition to the fuel tanks. Also, the magic missiles had been received shortly before the war. The Daggers only had Shafrir. What changed after this first day of war was that the FAA was very limited in external tanks for Daggers and Mirage III and that led to the Dagger only being used in ship or ground attack missions. Also, the British were using an AIM-9L missile that was superior to any missile that Argentina had.
Si se uso el R-530 en casi todas las salidas...En el grupo Mirage III Argentina de facebook, Guillermo Ballesteros (que voló MIII en Malvinas) publico hace unos años una lista de todas las salidas de los MIII con el armamento, las matriculas de los aviones y los pilotos que las volaron...De las 27 misiones solo en 2 salieron únicamente con los Magic
@@tomigrunge El grupo 8 fallo a su deber de proteger a los aviones que solo llevaban bombas, debio enfrentar o distraer efectivamente a los harrier.. 19 aviones indefensos fueron victimas de harrier sin que nadie los cuide. Y la excusa del sidewinder no es valida..Si los a4b enfrentaban a navios de ultima generacion erizados de misiles , el deber de los mirage eran hacer lo mismo con los harrier...Se guardaron tras perder apenas un solo avion en combate con el enemigo (cuyo piloto se eyecto)
Nice! Looking forward for part deux. I am writing an article about Perona / García Cuerva vs Barton / Thomas dogfight and this videos are really interesting and useful.
Its a total mistery what do cuerva during the dogfight.. He is responsible for the result..because when the mirages were at +20miles perona told him that ONE fuel tank cant eject is fixed on the plane..in such situation is totaly limited in velocity an maneuberability ..Cuerva should order stop interception and go back to continent...
New Showtime 37 minutes ago??? I'll have to watch it in an hour from now when I'm in an environment where I can concentrate and enjoy the new video. I don't want to waste it.
Great video! I love the achieve footage and backround music. Have you ever thought of having of including an interview with one of the Harrier pilots? They have amazing tecnology with Zoom or Google meets so making an interview would be quite simple. If you could make a video with interviews, achieve footage and backround music it would be great for the channel and you will get more viewers. Keep up the good work!
Thanks a lot, I'm glad you liked the video! I haven't really thought of doing interviews. I don't think I'd be very good at it and they would require a lot of extra time. But who knows, such an option might open someday.
Yes, I should have probably done it before too. But it presents some challenges, I had to reencode the video because the first music I used turned out not to be royalty free.
RAF Flt-Lt Jerry Pook flew ground attack GR3 Harriers in the Falklands War. He was actually quite scathing about the limitations of the avionics of the GR3s, but most of his ire was directed at the Royal Navy.
Great video!! I actually don't know if what I will mention agead will be your "comming up next video's content" so far, but I need to say that there were Argentinean Mirage/Dagger to Royal Navy Sea Harriers air to air direct confrontation at least in two or three oportunities, whith RAFAEL Shafir misiles getting launched at least two times if I'm not wrong, missing the target both, one of them for very few, which I gess it hitted a cliff or so...
Luckily for the Brits the Argies only had the oldest type of Mirage, the Mirage III one of the best multirole fighters of the 60s (see the Israeli Six Day War) but completely old fashioned by 1982. The standard Mirage type in service worldwide in 82 was the stunning Mirage F1 beloved by South Africans and it had already been 4 years since the latest and last type of Mirage, the Mirage 2000 had made its first flight (in 1978). Long story short and keeping all politics aside the Argies faced the British Harriers and their dreadful Sidewinder missiles on an aircraft which was two generations of Mirages behind.
If the Mirage had not had to leave from bases 700km away, everything would have been different. Not to mention if we had acquired the super 530f missile
A Guerra das Malvinas é de grande interesse histórico aqui na América do Su. Inclusive a Força Aérea Brasileira interceptou um Vulcan que teve que pousar no Rio de Janeiro por problemas no reabastecimento aéreo. No Brasil chamamos de Malvinas, por isto nos referimos a Guerra das Malvinas. Obrigado por mais uma excelente história.
@@showtime112Dois F-5E intercepetaram o Vulcan o qual já estava indo em direção ao Rio de Janeiro. Seria escoltado até a Base Aérea de Santa Cruz mas por falta de combustível pousou no Aeroporto do Galeão. Grato pela atenção.
@@showtime112 As i remember the Vulcan landed with no fuel for another attemp. The cause for no refueling was the broken probe that after several refuelings can't receive any more transfer. Vulcan crew tried to fire the anti radiation missile that remains under the wing but with no sucess. The 2 F-5 tookoff with only guns. I will take my magazines and if i find it i will translate and e-mail you
@@eliomarlacerda2364Thanks for the detailed info. If the language is Portuguese, you don't have to translate, I can understand a lot of it. You can just scan it.
I suppose that it probably had a more sensitive seeker, even from the rear aspect but you have a point. AIM-9L's all aspect capability wasn't decisive. Although Sea Harriers based their hook tactics on that.
@@showtime112 anyway UK declare tried to launch 27 sidewinders but ONLY 18 found the target and shoot down it.. ..So nine failed.. Good but far from infalible..
Me and my war gaming buddies created a Compass and Protractor game on the battle while the Falklands was going on. Our Victory Criteria - was whether or not the British Players could deprive the Argentine players of the use of Port Stanley Air Field for their jets. IRL - Argentina never used their jets from that air field - so - by our criteria - they had forfeited the match. I can't help but believe that a more robust military could have lengthened that runway. To a large degree - if it were not for all the people who got killed - the whole thing would be a comedy of errors. Argentina's military had been used to combat communist students and was in no shape to take on a NATO power. How-some-ever ... Margaret Thatcher had emasculated the RN's conventional forces. She felt the UK could not afford a Nuclear Navy and a Conventional Navy - so she was sacrificing the Conventional forces so they could keep their Missile Submarines. Both the little jump jet carriers the RN had - were due to be sold to other nations and one of the amphibious ships - was going to be sold to Argentina. Unfortunately for Argentina the RN has a very long history of doing more with the pittance the British Government gave them than could be expected. The RN had had REAL CATOBAR carriers that could launch F4 Phantoms but as these carriers aged - they were not replaced. The Argentine Navy had a CATOBAR Carrier - but - it couldn't get enough wind across the deck to launch it's Sky Hawks - with ordnance. They were headed into what tiny bit of wind there was - but that was closing on the British Fleet. They finally gave up - and went back to port - where the A4's were launched from land bases - but much, much farther away. Of course - there is nothing new about this what-so-fucking-ever. If you look at how unprepared the US & UK were at the beginning of WWII - it was far, far worse - and horrendous numbers of people died. In the ground war - the Argentine Air Force had been flying supplies into the Falklands in C-130's but - the unit commanders on the ground couldn't get them to their troops - who ended up (to some degree) being rescued from starvation by the British when they defeated them. Lest we be to hard on the failures of the combatants in the Falklands War - remember what is going on in Ukraine right now. Two monumentally stupid wars launched by moronic dictators who should have known better. .
That's quite an elaborate comment, thank you! It is true that so many factors influence the state of any military force. When war seems distant or unlikely, it seems like a waste of money but then sometimes, it comes and all that 'reasonable' savings turn out to have been shortsighted. As I already mentioned in another comment, adapting the Port Stanley runway for fast jets would have been the best move of the War for Argentina.
Argentine Pilots knew exactly their disadvantage of Radar capabilities and AA missile technology. So they avoided any air to air confrontation. That's why the choose to fly low and use low profile attacks.
The high command, for various reasons, decided to stop sending aircraft with air-to-air missiles. And logically, if you don't have missiles, you're loaded with bombs or on the verge of fuel, the smartest thing to do is to avoid the harriers...
Well rear aspect only ir missiles would be actually most effective vs SHAR, from the side, or maybe test quarter, and beneath the wings (or as the harrier is banking..... As we all know where the nozzles of that engine are located. Also.... Radar guide missiles were an extreme worry to FAA Harrier pilots... As, well either none of not all had RWR... And absolutely none had any chaff capability (in 82). They put chaff in the airbrakes I believe, as an emergency measure. FAA were worried as hell that the Argentine AF would rain missiles down upon them, launched at supersonic speed from Mirage III.,... And knowing nothing about it into planes started exploding. Luckily though.... The Argentinians flew into the realm of the harrier and the Lima.... And paid a high price for the error. They really should have been able to at least make it impossible for the FAA cap to defend the task force, just by flying into the combat zone, and forcing interceptions, while the strikers did their thing.... Oh well.... Imagine if the FAA still had the Phantom though. That would have made for a hell of a battle.
It's true that the Mirage had been planned against heavy high-altitude bombers, and it was not so great in maneuverability. But its strong engine and after-burner allowed it to have speed and altitude superiority against the fighters of the era. Israel's tactic for the Mirage was to "saw" the enemy plane with up-down maneuvers, and shoot down enemy planes from up above with the 30mm guns. It was very effective against Mig-17/19/21, very effective in training against Phantom F4, and I'm sure a Mirage III could be a real problem to a Harrier. Range could be a problem though...
I was 5 in 1982 and being British believe in the referendum taken in the islands to remain British. That being said, at 5 years old, my best friends mum was Argentinian and to this day i lament the conflict. The avoidable losses on both sides and wish we could now return to being allies and friends which Britain and Argentina historically are. Visiting the south of Argentina is on my bucket list, but as a friend, to honour the lives lost on both sides. I also was shocked that the famed low-level flying of the RAF was outdone by these Mirage...so low the bombs bounced off the decks as they never had the drop distance to arm! Thats some flying.
Excellent first contacts presentation in the Falklands conflict. Looking forward to the next installment. Then again this why we watch Showtime 112! ♠️🎩🎯🎱🇺🇸🏁🇺🇦🔱🌻🏵️🌸💮🌼🏴☠️🏹
Probably yes. I need to do some deeper research and see how something like that could work, how many videos can be made out of it and so on. Thanks for the suggestion!
The British had a NATO advantage of being supplied by the latest AIM-9L Sidwinder missile, and a disadvantage, no Airborne Early Warning, usually provided by the Americans. It would have been a much worse defeat for Argentina had the Sea King AEW Mk2 been available. Thia would have detected Argentine aircraft at long range giving ships and aircraft a lot longer to prepare and intercept.
if you wanna do an "what if" : imagine that just before the war the Royal Navy had an aircraft carrier with the F-4 Phantom with 4 sidewinders, 4 sparrow/skyflash , a long range radar and better range...
@@juanchelini5937Full-size carriers with Phantoms, Buccaneers, and Gannet AEW. 4 years prior they did, and I’m sure the Argentines took that into consideration when planning the invasion/reclamation.
I believe that although Harriers were equipped with the all aspect AIM-9L, they were such a recent acquisition that their pilots didn’t have time to train with them before the conflict and so they were used as per the previous model. Not sure any advantage was therefore gained.
Os pilotots Argentinos foram de uma bravura de se admirar. Mesmo contra tudo e todos..., foram e enfrentaram a morte numa probalidade alta de não voltarem pra casa. E foram lá e fizeram o que tinham oque fazer.
I think you have to keep doing videos about Malvinas´s War... they are the most viewed in your channel! at least, the last 20 videos... They are very nice and I love to mix btween actual videos and from simulator!
Well, it seems to be the formula that works. The first one I did about a year ago didn't do too well initially but even that one is at almost sixty thousand now. There's plenty more material to cover so I'll probably focus on that for a while.
Another excellent video on a war that doesn’t get enough attention. You and your research assistants really do a great job, I’m sure the info isn’t widely available like WW2, Vietnam, or Desert Storm info is. I was 13 years old when it happened and interested in it like most boys that age would be, but without 24-hour news networks or embedded correspondents there was very little coverage of it in the states. I seem to remember much of it being of the British Parliament and PM. What’s funny is that if the Argentines had sent Skyhawks after the Sea Harriers and used the Mirages & Daggers to hit the ships they might have done better. The A4 was probably maneuverable enough to be a match for Sea Harriers, not to mention being much more difficult to acquire visually due to its small size, and hadn’t the Argentines replaced the Mk12 20mm cannons with much harder-hitting 30mm Adens? Coming in at low level to stay under British GCI then climbing up to attack from below might have worked.
Thanks for the elaborate feedback! Perhaps the A-4s could have been used to fight against Sea Harriers. A-4C could carry the Shafrir 2 missile which was pretty decent, credited with a bunch of kills in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. But I think that Skyhawk pilots didn't receive much air-to-air training.
Don't you think I would have used the Sea Harrier had it been available? I put pinned comment under videos to avoid such 'corrections'. Please read them first. Btw, it is AV-8B :)
I’ve flown with Sharky Wards son, and have done simulator work with an Argentinian T6 pilot from Pebble island, although he wasn’t involved in this incident.
Agreed, Many of the FAA pilots were incredibly experienced. However, 809 was cobbled together and there weren’t enough SHARs so had to raid the training establishment. The SHAR had huge power and that thrust to weight ratio allowed rapid energy regeneration at low altitude. This made it very hard for the Argentinians to get a lock on. This is something the Americans found on many occasions in DACT exercises. That plus superior tactics developed whilst the fleet was sailing, added to the 9L sidewinder and longer time in theatre gave many advantages. That said, the Brits expected to lose over 50% of their aircraft. None were lost to enemy aircraft!
There's a lot of crap about a "ghost plane" that landed in *Brasil.* That actually was a *RAF Vulcan* flying during the Falklands conflict that suffered technical problems & had to divert to an emergency field. The Brazilians didn't want them there as it would show disrespect to a fellow South American nation in Argentina. For the Vulcan it was with Brasil or the sea. The big problem was the plane was carrying a latest gen air to ground weapon that the Americans had kindly given to us & that had stuck on the rail & they were unable to fire from the plane. The whole incident had to be hushed up hence the "ghost plane" legend. The UK also gave the Brazilians a load of military kit + free parts for their British bit built Westland helicopters.
I've never understood why argentinians where so ill prepared to the war that they started. They seemed rely only on non-intervention of the britons. For example they didn't try to adapt the airstrips of the Falkland islands to fast jets or buy more Exocet or more modern IR missiles
Some sources suggest that the Argentine leadership really hoped there would be no British attempt to retake the islands. There are plenty of indications for that.
the only plan was to withdraw days after April 2nd, but popular pressure made the junta have to stay, even so they trusted EVERYTHING that there would be a diplomatic agreement and only limited itself to creating a cosmetic defense in the islands, a castle of letters (not runway lenghten for best jets, no heavy artillery, no tanks, no apc, ), to force the English to an agreement. Obviously, England did not believe the deception nor did they intend to give in. The junta held out hope for peace until the Belgrano was sunk, and then it was too late to equip itself or strengthen the island defenses
It's a free mod by VSN. You can find it (along with a bunch of other mods) on the link I'm sending in a different reply (in case YT decides to block it). If you don't see a link, just search for 'LockOn Forum Deutschland' and go to 'Mods'
In terms of objectives achieved I can’t really see what either side was up to. I suppose the Argentine aim was control of the skies to enable strikes on the invasion fleet. They aren’t showing much aggression at this point. But then what would attacking without advantages or attacking on the Sea Harriers terms achieve? The FAA were clearly happy to hold off until their advantages paid off. (I would just like to add that the physical courage of the Argentine airman has never been in question).
youre correct, but at this time the conflict remains somehow cold, the main goal of the argentine aviation its to sink ships, an importat objetive , not risk assets to shootdown a Sea Harrier, a Harrier down wont change the thing for thebritish but a logistic ship lost sure it does
@@juanchelini5937The Sea Harriers needed to be shot down so Argentine strike aircraft could hit the carriers. That would take the Sea Harriers out of the fight, even if they managed to land on other ships they’d have no weapons and very limited fuel available only if the ships carried helos. And that’s assuming the fueling systems were compatible (overwing v. single-point/pressure refueling.)
The objectives of the Argentine side were primarily to defend the islands from airstrikes and to attack British ships trying to land troops. But they also tried to defeat the Sea Harriers on CAP stations nearby. Shooting down a few Sea Harriers would have seriously limited British offensive capability by making their ships more vulnerable to airstrikes. But Argentinians knew that bringing their Mirages to medium altitude would have put them in a serious disadvantage and they had no way of attacking the Harriers from above (they tried).
@@showtime112 It’s quite ‘un-Andrew like’ for the Royal Navy not to behave in the most aggressive manner possible. To be honest, this mode has served them well for a few hundred years. Nelsons last signal - ‘Engage the enemy more closely’ - has never really been struck down in the eyes of the Andrew.
@@user-mr4uo5mw9n They would have lost it for many reasons but not for those reasons you mention, I think, as while they were definitely being provided with intel. by thatchers best buddy Ronnie this didn’t influence the ultimate strategy( I think). The British could have lost if the Argentine airforce had adjusted the fuses on their bombs. More importantly though, if they’d not gone in half cocked because of social unrest against the junta and waited until they had more Exocets and had properly trained their soldiers in night fighting. If they’d made plans to rapidly extend the runway at port Stanley, or even if they weren’t a vile military junta who threw a load of young conscripts into a battle they weren’t motivated or trained for. I’m no fan of thatcher or British empirical history. No fan of Galtierie either. The British won the conflict through a lot of luck, training and aggression. Chest beating is just what victorious militaries inevitably do after such things have ended - it’s cognitive dissonance through effort otherwise (how do your justify the dead, in other words). An interesting question (something I thought at the actual time of the conflict) was if Thatcher had gambled and lost the Tories would have been out and a Labour government committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament would have been elected in its place.
Hello mate. For vidéo no différence between Mirage3EA and 3C. The EA don't have Doppler fairing under cockpit like french 3E. So.... today first of 12 rafale delivered to Croatian air force at Mont de Marsan AB
@@showtime112 10 single plus 2 twin seat. Training Will be in mont de marsan because OTU is here( better weather)and also St Dizier AB. A HUGE GAP with mig21
Once again, the Mirage III was limited by his design as nuclear bombers interceptor, with an inadequate missile (like too many planes from this era)... It is not surprising Israeli pilots used mainly cannons 😅 I don't know if you have watched this French TV show, it is an unique series in the world I think, "Les chevaliers du ciel", where you can see all the military aircrafts used by France in the 60s.
Yes, like many combat aircraft, it was eventually asked to do something it was not specifically designed for. I didn't watch the series, I thought it was a movie from a later period.
The Mirage's Cyrano radar was also infamously bad and often didn't work properly. I've read of numerous air forces giving up on the radar set and removing them from the aircraft.
Was the Mirage III really less maneuverable than the Sea Harrier? imo the only thing Sea Harrier has going for it maneuverability wise is thrust vectoring, which I think made the gun unusable
The Mirage III with it's delta wing was more maneuverable over the Sea Harrier at high altitude. The Sea Harrier pilots knew this and would avoid high altitude engagements.
Mirage didn't have a very good thrust to weight ratio which was a rather limiting factor. It could pull one short and hard turn but it would loose all the energy (like all delta fighters).
@@socaljarhead7670 Correct. The French Air Force sent a Mirage III over to RAF Coningsby to prepare the Harrier pilots for future air combat. At altitude the Mirage as you say had the greater maneuverability. Harrier pilots knew this during the conflict and would keep any engagements at lower level.
1982 really was the year air-to-air missiles worked - at last ! AIM-9L in the Falklands and AIM-7F over Bekaa valley were a very welcome change from, say, AIM-7E and AIM-9B over Vietnam - only ten years before. When Phantom pilots had to launch missiles in pairs if not in trio to get a kill... first missile rocket motor didn't lit. Second missile lit, but lost target and went crazy. Third missile eventually was the charm... provided the target had not gone away in the meantime !!
Cómo argentino 🇦🇷respeto y admiro a nuestro ejercito argentino pero también admiro a gran Bretaña por su experiencia en guerra como la segunda guerra mundial son soldados muy profesionales y disciplinados
The most serious mistake that the Argentine commands made during the Falklands War was not to send the material to lengthen the Port Stanley/Argentino runway, with an adequate runway Skyhawks, Mirages and Skyhawks could have held both the aircraft carriers and the smaller ships at an adequate distance for effective defense. Mirage and Dagger were potentially superior to the Sea Harriers, these on the other hand had better maneuverability, the AIM9L missiles (which many consider to be the silver bullet but it was not so) and better pilot training. I can't wait to follow the second part of the video, with the clashes between Mirage/Dagger and Sea Harrier, and the consequent loss of 4 Argentine planes in air-to-air fighters (2 Mirage, 1 Dagger, 1 Canberra) against zero british.
Thanks for the elaborate comment! Yes, ability to operate jets from Port Stanley would have been a huge advantage. It's also true that most AIM-9L kills were achieved from rear-hemisphere (which some older models could do as well).
@@showtime112 U mom gradu,Beranama(ivangrad) ima vojni aerodrom koji je napušten a bio je aktivan '90-ih godina,sjećam se kada su s njega uzlijetali J-22 Orao i G-2 Galeb,još mi je urezan u sjećanju mali izduv Rolls-Royce motora"viper" koji su bili jako bučni.Nego,pominjao sam pad dva Galeba u Zaton kod Bijelog Polja,na pola puta između Berana i pomenutog grada,sjećam se jake eksplozije oko 05.00h ujutru,ja sam mozda tada imao 10-11 godina.Kako sam saznao,njih je oborio američki F-111 Raven.Ako šta budem pouzdano saznao,pišem
At the time of the Falklands war my friend and I were playing a lot of SPI's Air War '77 board game, the most accurate simulation we had at the time. We ran simulations of the expected conflicts between Harriers, Skyhawks and Mirages. Before the fleet had reached the islands we had concluded that the British would win the air campaign.
wE rAn sImUlAtIoNs Please, just stop. People like you make us all look like asocial dweebs. You played a board game. Just say that, act like a normal human being.
Air power deployment means a lot of first strike initiatives. Argentina in Falklands and Russia today in Ukraine failed to materialize such initiatives. Argentina could have potentially deployed 50% of mirage / dagger force and another 50% of Skyhawk Force in Falkland Islands. They had enough time to rebuild Islands infrastructure to support such operations. If not from runways then at least from road strips. This would have endangered British harrier deployment because the number of fighter jets Brits could bring was always capped. And Argentina unnecessarily kept itself to a 12-minute loiter time just by not deploying the aircrafts in the front line. Gladly though but it serves as a learning point that wars are lost when you lose the air and air is the first thing you could win or lose in a war. That's why trained Western Air forces always throw everything at enemy in the first hour Just to ensure enemy Air forces fail to operate.
We might have the benefit of hindsight but we can say that preparing Port Stanley runway for fast jets would have been necessary for any kind of a victory against the British.
@@showtime112 certainly, and Argentines certainly had the capabilities. Mirages/Daggers and Particularly A-4 Skyhawks was not very demanding of a high end runway maintenance the way F-16s were back then. Mirages were chosen by Switzerland particularly for its rugged environment operability. Skyhawks don't need any explanation, they are the definition of rugged operations. Argentina might have had a lot of Western equipment but the generals certainly did not realize Western tactics of air warfare. My bad.. They were too busy running the country instead of doing their actual job 😂
Bottom line is the profile of the Mirage was something out of the 1960's, the Sea Harrier was a generation ahead, and it had the missile that was also a generation ahead, plus the level of combat training for the Sea Harrier pilots was far superior. Argentina was lucky there were so few Sea Harriers
Well, in many ways Sea Harriers weren't that advanced. Their radars had little or no look down capability, they had no countermeasures etc. I'd say that pilot training and fuel limitation was probably more significant.
@@showtime112 Not complaining about that, but I have found it difficult to exactly identify what radars the Mirage III's actually had, but I agree the Harrier's Blue Fox radar seems only to have been mostly effective with surface targets. Which may or may not reflect the original purpose of the Harrier as having a land based attack priority. The whole Sea Harrier project was a better than nothing proposition for the Royal Navy
Thanks! Great video. AFAIK Argentine pilots were always flying at very low altitudes to avoid radar from ships. Even it's said that chemical compounds were used to avoid salt from sea in windshields; that low.
Thanks for the comment. 'Always' may be a bit of a stretch. Some original footage, that famous one from San Carlos Water shows aircraft at clearly several hundred feet at times. I also doubt that Skyhawks searching for helicopters were flying at 30 feet above ground.
Argentina had bought Mirage IIIE in 1972 from France. It was the multirole variant of the Mirage, supposedly with a better radar than the IIIC: Thomson CSF *Cyrano II* . Alas it still wasn't very good. French pilots hated it and called it radar TEFAL, which is a brand of non adhesive *frying pans* . Why ? because a) the radar heated a lot and b) it didn't stuck... to the target. As for the Matra R-530, while theoretically SARH and medium range ( = AIM-7 B / C / E as used by Phantoms in Vietnam) it actually wasn't very reliable either. On the short IR missile front: Argentina had Shaffrir-1 (israel) and AIM-9B, not very reliable either. SHARs however had AIM-9L... a true revolution. At last, AAMs had became good enough ! This would be confirmed one month later in the Bekaa valley turkey shot: AIM-7F on F-15 at last worked, unlike the earlier brands of AIM-7s I mentionned.
Most assets used in this reenactment are not 100% historically accurate. AV-8B Harriers represent Sea Harriers, Mirage IIIC represents the EA variant as well as Dagger. T-34 Turbo Mentor is represented by Yak-52 while A-4E Skyhawks stand-in for A-4B variant with no hump. Shafrir missile is represented by R-550 or AIM-9 in the CGI footage. These are not mistakes and I would be grateful if you didn't try to 'correct' them.These are simply platform limitations and the closest available options were selected or otherwise this kind of a content wouldn't have been possible. Aircraft skins are not 100% accurate either. While that would have been possible, it would have taken way too long or cost too much to get them exactly right. Thank you for your understanding.
I don't know that other nations used the same camo, but the Jak-52 has very Hungarian AF like paintscheme (except the roundels). I think we have no more them in service for a while now.
If you willing to pay the price - and it takes some time to get "green light" for the show - you can fly with Gyula Vári (Fairford trophy winner many times with MiG-29) about a 15-20 minutes. It does not seems long, but that will be more than enough in a constant hard aerobatic maneuvering flight. That would be a hell of a ride.
@@Cuccos19 You mean this paint scheme? I actually adopted a Brazilian one, it was the closest to the one used by Argentina on their T-34s during the conflict.
I believe that 15-20 minutes of that aerobatic flight is more than enough for almost everyone 😁
We understand your pain and love the effort
The aircraft images are just illustrating the story, the story is the most important part and I think you conveyed the facts and the issues well.
@@BadatTanking I'm glad you think so, thank you!
Every documentry i ever watched the British army/raf have shown nothing but respect and admiration towards the bravery of the Argentine pilots.❤
The Argentine fighter pilots idolized the British pilots of WWII previous to the war
That's true. Argentinian fighter pilots were underfunded, they hit well above their weight, the professionalism of the pilots wasn't backed up by the command. They put their lives on the line for tactical superiority and received nothing back from Command. These are scenarios that are familiar to RAF pilots. So naturally the British military would watch these Argentinian pilots and give a nod to seeing men with no back up, trying their very best for their country. Individual bravery is always admired by any professional fighting force.
It's a shame the keyboard warriors from both sides can't behave as well as the pilots.
Brave men indeed.. I read about a bombing mission carried out by Skyhawks of Argentine AF... They lost half the planes on the first bombing run couple of pilots were Kia. The remaining planes came in and loaded up to go BACK on a second run..the crew chief was crying as he strapped the pilot back in his plane.
@@fresatx Great story, but not exactly a moral lifter for the pilot.
I was in the Falklands in 1987. Place is cold, windy, and all-round unpleasant. Too much blood was spilled, too many good people on both sides died for the actions of corrupt, evil men. Both sides displayed courage and honor at times. War is hell.
'The actions of corrupt evil men'? They fought for the Falkland Islanders.
@@mikeycraig8970
It wasn't the UK that used death squads on it's own citizens, idiot.
@@mikeycraig8970stupid comment!
Those ‘corrupt and evil men’ were directing that opportunistic invasion from the Argentine side. How dare you neglect to point this out!
Thatcher won her second term. It was bad for us good for Falkland islanders
Hello showtime,
Great video´s of this conflict. I served on HMS Glamorgan throughout the conflict and was there on this day!! I remember seeing an aircraft (which I now believe to be Capitan Cuerva´s aircraft )as it crashed into the sea,spinning like a spinning top. The Argentine pilots were incredibly brave throughout the conflict and I salute them.
Thanks for sharing your personal experience. So Glamorgan was close enough to see the Cuerva's Mirage crash. Approaching within several miles of Port Stanley was a pretty bold move.
Tell me about it LOL!!??¿¿ I think it was his aircraft that we saw,spinning down and down flame and smoke coming off it.@@showtime112
@@philholding8501 It must have been. The timing and location fits, I don't know what else it could have been. Btw, can you tell me something about the Dagger attack? How close were those bombs?
Very close!!!!! The guys on the flight deck who were alot closer than I was said,in Ian Inskips book "ordeal by Exocet" that if the retard parachutes hadn´t deployed they would have hit??!! On the way home we stopped at Ascension to refuel and we sent a dive team down and they reported that there was "dishing" on the rudders and there was shrapnel damage to them!!!! so pretty damn close.@@showtime112
My understanding of the Falklands air war is that there was little to no dogfighting. The Skyhawks werent armed for it, and the Mirages didn't have the fuel for it by the time they reached the islands. Apart from one or two incidents, most of the Sea Harrier air to air victories were shooting down Skyhawks/Daggers that had already attacked the ships and were fleeing from the engagement zone. Nice video!
There was one proper dogfight and one sort of. Those will be talked about in part two and three of the video. Two is coming out this Saturday. Thanks for comenting!
There are videos on UA-cam of interviews with that Harrier pilot Sharkey Ward.
He complained about Harriers from one carrier being asked to attack Argentinian aircraft only after British forces on the ground had already been attacked.
The air war over Falklands Islands is yet another favorite of mine, although I have to admit that I don't really know much about it. This episode is another excellent source of information. Can't wait for the 2nd part!
Thanks for the continuous support! A very unique conflict indeed.
Favourite? People died, on both sides. Come on
@@Ukraineaissance2014 Ex F126 myself, yeah cock they did, but it's history, so chill I have after all these years.
Also interesting to note that neither participant had proper countermeasure launchers for their aircraft. In the Fleet Air Arm's case (who got countermeasure pods for their Harriers just some time after the conflict) used a rustic method of stashing improvised chaff inside their airbrakes, giving them a singular launch of chaff when they opened them. In the Argentine case, they managed to give their Canberras countermeasures thanks to a pasta factory which used their equipment to make chaff.
Still, neither of them had access to flares, which were the main threat for air to air combat in this conflict, which explains why the AIM-9L was so effective here.
Thank you for the very interesting contribution. In many aspects, the aerial engagements of this conflict resembled those of early Vietnam War. No countermeasures, no AWACS support, no look-down/shoot-down radar capability and so on.
I didn't know about the pasta factory making chaff but it kinda makes sense 😁😁😁
@@showtime112 it was the pasta factory "Via Napoli" of Paraná city
The USAF gave them AIM-9P/3 missiles, not Ls. The Harrier’s older fire control system could not employ Ls.
The P/3s were modified with CO2 seeker head coolers to give them a limited all aspect capability but they were not true “shoot em in the lips” Limas.
I was actually there when the Sidewinders were modified at my USAF base.
@@Frankie5Angels150 AIM-9L and 9P had very different guidance fins at the front, the pictures of Harriers during the Falklands War had clearly the 9L design.
Lack of effective air radar and first, or second gen air to air missiles must have been frustrating as all hell back then, for both sides.
Yes, they were both quite limited compared to some later wars such as Desert Storm. This feels a bit like a war from the previous decade (with some exceptions)
Aim 9Ls were advanced missles at the timw
The Brits seemed to do quite well with their sidewinders.
The Brits also picked up the most modern up to date sidewinders from the States before they sailed on down to the South Atlantic. The Argie's only had 1st get sidewinders.@@mikemontgomery2654
@@mikemontgomery2654Yes, thankfully Sidewinder had pretty much all of its kinks ironed out by the late '60s, as opposed to Sparrow and such. By 1982 the all-aspect seeking was becoming standard as well.
Sea Harrier was also fitted with cannon in the Falklands, which came in useful multiple times.
But yeah, in regards to the original comment, I agree that the Falklands air war definitely had more in common with the Six Day War, Yom Kippur, or U.S. aerial warfare in Vietnam from '68-72 than it did conflicts that would happen closer in time to the Falklands, such as Lebanon '82-84, Libya in '86, or aerial aspect of Gulf War of late '90 early '91.
Numerically it was the Argies,, but they were dealing with a NATO charter member. The Royal Navy's Harrier pilots trained and practiced at USAF's RED FLAG at Nellis and TOP GUN, so their skills were (and still are) honed to a fine edge. And the Harrier is a nimble little beast with the excellent Sidewinder.
Guess who set up Top Gun school, Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, try reading a book about it.
@@BingoFrogstrangler
US special forces too were set up by the British and the US army manual was written by a British captain during the colonial war with France, he is also the reason that militaries adopted camouflage, he introduced green uniforms to his unit for a behind the lines operation.
Sharkey Ward fought a lot of 1v1 1v2 and 1v4 and Aggressor pilots were in awe. He had a 25-1 ratio over f15
@user-fj6ms4vr6s, and he never had a Gun jam once... or a Sidewinder miss...
They were the forerunners of todays Green Jackets (Light Infantry) Green uniform as forerunner to nato camouflage and light equipment for fast penetration and egress.
This is becoming such a wonderful documentary series, much better than anything I've seen from the unsung war in south Pacific 👍
I appreciate your positive feedback and continuous support!
The Falklands are in the South Atlantic.
Did you mean south Atlantic?
The depiction of the Mirage IIIEA from the Argentinean Air Force is excellent!
Thank you for the comment!
I was able to be in the cockpit of a (MIRAGE III DA) in a museum here in Argentina with an incredible design that basically was the colors and the sun of the Argentinean flag printed on the fuselage of the plane, if you look for it you can find this exact model on the internet. On the other hand I can share that this is a delta winged interceptor aircraft with poor maneuverability at low speed, and obviously depends on a high altitude for obviously being a plane that can fly at mach 2+. It could be said that they were similarly capable for air superiority both (mirage and the harrier), the mirage being faster and more capable by having that power because of the afterburner being a supersonic but it did not have any suitable missile or avionics as advanced as the new harriers that brought vector thrust and also with V/STOL. Excellent content, apart from being informative is very entertaining. greetings from argentina, buenos aires
Thank you very much for this elaborate feedback!
Compared to the Harrier ALL other aircraft are pretty bad at the speeds of an air combat, of which 95% are way below Mach1. This is why the Harrier was so good in these situations. Why exactly do you think the USA bought so many Harriers, and even developed them for future use? A typical case of the Uk getting something correct at the right time.
At "military thrust" the Harrier had twice the engine power of the Argentine aircraft; there is no comparison.
@@BruceConklin-js5rg Not sur exactly what military thrust is! The pegasus mk 6 in the first Harrier jets had a maximum thrust of 19,000 lb/f, whilst the Mirage had a thrust of UP to 14,500lb/f without after burner, and 21,400 lb/f using after burner. So not sure where the military thrust you talk about comes from!
Blackbuck wasn’t a single aircraft it was a series of missions with various mission parameters.
Yes, there were multiple raids but this first one was the most famous and one single Vulcan attacked the Port Stanley airfield which marked the beginning of the British retake of the islands.
Correct two Vulcans (one to do the useless job, and one as back up) and up to twenty Victors to do the refuelling. Black buck was THE single most useless thing in the flaklands war. It did however show Buenos Aires that if we wanted to we could bomb the city and at will!
Let us now forget that the Mirage III was twice as fast as the Sea Harrier and had a much higher ceiling, giving it a big advantage. Also, the main reason that the Mirages had to fly from the mainland was because an RAF Vulcan bomber, flying all the way from the UK in 2 hops, bombed the Port Stanley runway, which dissuaded the Argentinians from making it fit for Mirage operations.
The Mirage was at the limit of its endurance with no fuel for doing much of anything let alone dogfighting. They did a remarkable job!
It is true they were quite limited in their options (which will show even better in part 2)
Great video, another video of a period of history getting too little "time in the sun", I love these videos into the "lesser known" wars!!!!! Brave people died on both sides in this conflict and they deserve to be remembered!
Thank you for the comment, I'm glad you like the videos!
Since the Super Etendárd has been added to War Thunder. Maybe a video about their participation in the Falklands War. Or even the Iran-Iraq war.
I actually want to do something about Super Etendard but in WT it is very high in the French tree and I haven't even began to work it 🙃 There is however a mod in DCS and it has a working Exocet. I have to see if the mod still works well enough.
Always excited to see new content from you. Another great recreation of a truly avoidable conflict. Respect to the brave warriors on both sides.
Thank you for your positive feedback!
Nice video. A suggestion: you might want to explain what a “CAP“ is because not everyone watching the video will know that it is the combat air patrol of an aircraft carrier.
Thanks! It's a fine line of what you need to explain. Too much might bore some audience but I'll remember the suggestion.
Quick correction on the Shafrir 2 regarding your explanation of the Dagger, it was not based on the AIM-9D, it was a fully domestic Israeli development carried out with lessons learnt from the development of the unreliable Shafrir 1 missile in the early 60's and was considered comparable to the AIM-9D in terms of it's performance.
Thanks for the info. Several sources say that Shafrir was based on the AIM-9 but I guess that doesn't have to be true.
@@showtime112 The Shafrir 1 was somewhat based on the AIM-9B, though that too was designed from scratch and ended up being a horrible missile. There was even a lawsuit from the US that claimed the Shafrir 1 was a copied AIM-9B and as a result a Shafrir was sent to be studied and the results showed it had no common components with the AIM-9 family and featured major departures from the AIM-9 design such as the warhead being located further back.
The Shafrir 2 itself being based off of that missile has almost nothing to do with AIM-9s.
@@showtime112Wikipedia is full of 💩
However, the Shafrir 2 was equal to Shafrir 1 in perfomance...very poor.
@@rodrigoezequiel1972 That is outright false, the Shafrir 2 had very good performence for the time period it was used and was considered fairly reliable.
Muchas gracias.
Gran trabajo de nuevo.
Thank you very much for your feedback!
Sea Harrier and sidewinder: a mortal combination!
It is true that Harriers were pretty effective. Maybe not in these first several engagements but later, they won whenever they had a chance to do so.
No air to air missiles and no fuel for a dogfight....a mortal combination for argentine planes.. despite harriers or 9L
All very brave pilots. I'm looking forward to part 2.
Thank you for the support!
@@showtime112 Will this be a step by step Falklands series?
learnt quite a bit on this one thank you, been watching, now a subscriber.
Thanks, I appreciate it!
Love these videos about these small air combats.
All the details are MUCH appreciated.
I like this channel so much...that I DON'T watch it on my normal web browser, Brave (which blocks ads).
I use Chrome.
☮
Hey, thank you very much for the positive feedback! And I appreciate you don't block adds. I know they are annoying but without them, there wouldn't be much of the YT content.
The R530 missile was not used by the Mirage III because before May 1, 1982 it was proven that it limited their flight range. That's why they only carried 2 magic missiles in addition to the fuel tanks. Also, the magic missiles had been received shortly before the war. The Daggers only had Shafrir. What changed after this first day of war was that the FAA was very limited in external tanks for Daggers and Mirage III and that led to the Dagger only being used in ship or ground attack missions. Also, the British were using an AIM-9L missile that was superior to any missile that Argentina had.
Si se uso el R-530 en casi todas las salidas...En el grupo Mirage III Argentina de facebook, Guillermo Ballesteros (que voló MIII en Malvinas) publico hace unos años una lista de todas las salidas de los MIII con el armamento, las matriculas de los aviones y los pilotos que las volaron...De las 27 misiones solo en 2 salieron únicamente con los Magic
@@tomigrunge El grupo 8 fallo a su deber de proteger a los aviones que solo llevaban bombas, debio enfrentar o distraer efectivamente a los harrier.. 19 aviones indefensos fueron victimas de harrier sin que nadie los cuide. Y la excusa del sidewinder no es valida..Si los a4b enfrentaban a navios de ultima generacion erizados de misiles , el deber de los mirage eran hacer lo mismo con los harrier...Se guardaron tras perder apenas un solo avion en combate con el enemigo (cuyo piloto se eyecto)
Nice! Looking forward for part deux. I am writing an article about Perona / García Cuerva vs Barton / Thomas dogfight and this videos are really interesting and useful.
Thank you! Part two is coming out next weekend.
Its a total mistery what do cuerva during the dogfight..
He is responsible for the result..because when the mirages were at +20miles perona told him that ONE fuel tank cant eject is fixed on the plane..in such situation is totaly limited in velocity an maneuberability ..Cuerva should order stop interception and go back to continent...
New Showtime 37 minutes ago???
I'll have to watch it in an hour from now when I'm in an environment where I can concentrate and enjoy the new video.
I don't want to waste it.
The release was moved to Sunday because of some technical difficulties. I hope you like it!
I'm looking forward to part two Showtime. Great video as usual.
Coming up in a couple of weeks, thanks for the feedback!
Great video! I love the achieve footage and backround music. Have you ever thought of having of including an interview with one of the Harrier pilots? They have amazing tecnology with Zoom or Google meets so making an interview would be quite simple. If you could make a video with interviews, achieve footage and backround music it would be great for the channel and you will get more viewers.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks a lot, I'm glad you liked the video! I haven't really thought of doing interviews. I don't think I'd be very good at it and they would require a lot of extra time. But who knows, such an option might open someday.
the background music is a really nice touch! you should keep that, gets me sucked in to the video.
Yes, I should have probably done it before too. But it presents some challenges, I had to reencode the video because the first music I used turned out not to be royalty free.
RAF Flt-Lt Jerry Pook flew ground attack GR3 Harriers in the Falklands War. He was actually quite scathing about the limitations of the avionics of the GR3s, but most of his ire was directed at the Royal Navy.
Those Mirages are beautiful. Damm.
Many seem to agree!
No kills but a great video. Aerial combat is nothing like the movis but this. Thanks for teaching us those stories
I think this was like a good football game, there don't need to be many goals to be interesting to watch. Thank you for the comment!
Good work..greatings from Argentina!
Thank you very much for the comment!
Great video!! I actually don't know if what I will mention agead will be your "comming up next video's content" so far, but I need to say that there were Argentinean Mirage/Dagger to Royal Navy Sea Harriers air to air direct confrontation at least in two or three oportunities, whith RAFAEL Shafir misiles getting launched at least two times if I'm not wrong, missing the target both, one of them for very few, which I gess it hitted a cliff or so...
That is being worked on, there will be two more videos covering the combat on 01 May 1982.
@@showtime112 owesome! Those are great news! Glad to hear about it!
Always interesting to see, didn't know about A-4s and T-34s doing heli sweeps.
Yes, that is a rather obscure detail. It's one of the rare cases when Skyhawks carried AAMs in the conflict.
Also the FMA IA-58 Pucara fought in Malvinas, and it was used to disuade helicopters.
Excellent video. Looking forward to part 2 👍
Thanks a lot! Spoiler alert, the second part is much less inconclusive 😉
Luckily for the Brits the Argies only had the oldest type of Mirage, the Mirage III one of the best multirole fighters of the 60s (see the Israeli Six Day War) but completely old fashioned by 1982. The standard Mirage type in service worldwide in 82 was the stunning Mirage F1 beloved by South Africans and it had already been 4 years since the latest and last type of Mirage, the Mirage 2000 had made its first flight (in 1978).
Long story short and keeping all politics aside the Argies faced the British Harriers and their dreadful Sidewinder missiles on an aircraft which was two generations of Mirages behind.
If the Mirage had not had to leave from bases 700km away, everything would have been different. Not to mention if we had acquired the super 530f missile
I like the background music. Very fitting.
It's good that you like it because you might hear it again 😁 Such fitting tunes which are also royalty free are not easy to find.
A Guerra das Malvinas é de grande interesse histórico aqui na América do Su. Inclusive a Força Aérea Brasileira interceptou um Vulcan que teve que pousar no Rio de Janeiro por problemas no reabastecimento aéreo.
No Brasil chamamos de Malvinas, por isto nos referimos a Guerra das Malvinas.
Obrigado por mais uma excelente história.
Thanks for the feedback! The Brazilian intercept would be an interesting topic to cover but I don't have the proper assets 🙃
@@showtime112Dois F-5E intercepetaram o Vulcan o qual já estava indo em direção ao Rio de Janeiro. Seria escoltado até a Base Aérea de Santa Cruz mas por falta de combustível pousou no Aeroporto do Galeão.
Grato pela atenção.
@@showtime112as a brazilian with relatives on the air force i would say it wasn't a proper interception it was for sure a escort
@@showtime112 As i remember the Vulcan landed with no fuel for another attemp. The cause for no refueling was the broken probe that after several refuelings can't receive any more transfer. Vulcan crew tried to fire the anti radiation missile that remains under the wing but with no sucess. The 2 F-5 tookoff with only guns.
I will take my magazines and if i find it i will translate and e-mail you
@@eliomarlacerda2364Thanks for the detailed info. If the language is Portuguese, you don't have to translate, I can understand a lot of it. You can just scan it.
The AIM-9L all aspect where newer used, number of kills would have been the same with older AIM-9G
I suppose that it probably had a more sensitive seeker, even from the rear aspect but you have a point. AIM-9L's all aspect capability wasn't decisive. Although Sea Harriers based their hook tactics on that.
@@showtime112 anyway UK declare tried to launch 27 sidewinders but ONLY 18 found the target and shoot down it.. ..So nine failed.. Good but far from infalible..
Mais um brilhante vídeo! Parabéns! Another brilliant video! Congratulations! Fabricio from Brazil.
I appreciate your support, thank you!
Me and my war gaming buddies created a Compass and Protractor game on the battle while the Falklands was going on.
Our Victory Criteria - was whether or not the British Players could deprive the Argentine players of the use of Port Stanley Air Field for their jets.
IRL - Argentina never used their jets from that air field - so - by our criteria - they had forfeited the match.
I can't help but believe that a more robust military could have lengthened that runway.
To a large degree - if it were not for all the people who got killed - the whole thing would be a comedy of errors.
Argentina's military had been used to combat communist students and was in no shape to take on a NATO power.
How-some-ever ... Margaret Thatcher had emasculated the RN's conventional forces. She felt the UK could not afford a Nuclear Navy and a Conventional Navy - so she was sacrificing the Conventional forces so they could keep their Missile Submarines.
Both the little jump jet carriers the RN had - were due to be sold to other nations and one of the amphibious ships - was going to be sold to Argentina.
Unfortunately for Argentina the RN has a very long history of doing more with the pittance the British Government gave them than could be expected.
The RN had had REAL CATOBAR carriers that could launch F4 Phantoms but as these carriers aged - they were not replaced.
The Argentine Navy had a CATOBAR Carrier - but - it couldn't get enough wind across the deck to launch it's Sky Hawks - with ordnance. They were headed into what tiny bit of wind there was - but that was closing on the British Fleet. They finally gave up - and went back to port - where the A4's were launched from land bases - but much, much farther away.
Of course - there is nothing new about this what-so-fucking-ever. If you look at how unprepared the US & UK were at the beginning of WWII - it was far, far worse - and horrendous numbers of people died.
In the ground war - the Argentine Air Force had been flying supplies into the Falklands in C-130's but - the unit commanders on the ground couldn't get them to their troops - who ended up (to some degree) being rescued from starvation by the British when they defeated them.
Lest we be to hard on the failures of the combatants in the Falklands War - remember what is going on in Ukraine right now. Two monumentally stupid wars launched by moronic dictators who should have known better.
.
That's quite an elaborate comment, thank you! It is true that so many factors influence the state of any military force. When war seems distant or unlikely, it seems like a waste of money but then sometimes, it comes and all that 'reasonable' savings turn out to have been shortsighted. As I already mentioned in another comment, adapting the Port Stanley runway for fast jets would have been the best move of the War for Argentina.
Argentine Pilots knew exactly their disadvantage of Radar capabilities and AA missile technology. So they avoided any air to air confrontation. That's why the choose to fly low and use low profile attacks.
True. But this kind of a strategy was very risky once the attack aircraft ran into enemy fighters.
The high command, for various reasons, decided to stop sending aircraft with air-to-air missiles. And logically, if you don't have missiles, you're loaded with bombs or on the verge of fuel, the smartest thing to do is to avoid the harriers...
Well rear aspect only ir missiles would be actually most effective vs SHAR, from the side, or maybe test quarter, and beneath the wings (or as the harrier is banking..... As we all know where the nozzles of that engine are located. Also.... Radar guide missiles were an extreme worry to FAA Harrier pilots... As, well either none of not all had RWR... And absolutely none had any chaff capability (in 82). They put chaff in the airbrakes I believe, as an emergency measure. FAA were worried as hell that the Argentine AF would rain missiles down upon them, launched at supersonic speed from Mirage III.,... And knowing nothing about it into planes started exploding.
Luckily though.... The Argentinians flew into the realm of the harrier and the Lima.... And paid a high price for the error.
They really should have been able to at least make it impossible for the FAA cap to defend the task force, just by flying into the combat zone, and forcing interceptions, while the strikers did their thing....
Oh well.... Imagine if the FAA still had the Phantom though. That would have made for a hell of a battle.
Great video man 👍👌.
Thank you for the positive comment!
Thanks for the good show.
Thank you for the comment!
It's true that the Mirage had been planned against heavy high-altitude bombers, and it was not so great in maneuverability. But its strong engine and after-burner allowed it to have speed and altitude superiority against the fighters of the era. Israel's tactic for the Mirage was to "saw" the enemy plane with up-down maneuvers, and shoot down enemy planes from up above with the 30mm guns. It was very effective against Mig-17/19/21, very effective in training against Phantom F4, and I'm sure a Mirage III could be a real problem to a Harrier. Range could be a problem though...
Yes, the Mirages were operating at the limit of their fuel endurance.
I was 5 in 1982 and being British believe in the referendum taken in the islands to remain British. That being said, at 5 years old, my best friends mum was Argentinian and to this day i lament the conflict. The avoidable losses on both sides and wish we could now return to being allies and friends which Britain and Argentina historically are. Visiting the south of Argentina is on my bucket list, but as a friend, to honour the lives lost on both sides.
I also was shocked that the famed low-level flying of the RAF was outdone by these Mirage...so low the bombs bounced off the decks as they never had the drop distance to arm! Thats some flying.
can you do the libyan tu-22 shotdown by french mim-23 hawk in 1987 ? there's a really detail french article about it
I think that story was covered in the video about French Mirage F1 vs Libya.
Roll on part 2, your the best.
Thank you very much, I'm glad you think so!
Excellent first contacts presentation in the Falklands conflict. Looking forward to the next installment. Then again this why we watch Showtime 112! ♠️🎩🎯🎱🇺🇸🏁🇺🇦🔱🌻🏵️🌸💮🌼🏴☠️🏹
Thanks again! You've seen the first half and the second one gets quite interesting.
Can you do a video about the Brazilian air Force in Italy 1944-45? They used the P-47 and was one the most active units in Europe
Probably yes. I need to do some deeper research and see how something like that could work, how many videos can be made out of it and so on. Thanks for the suggestion!
@@showtime112have you upload any video about Vietnam air war?? It will be interesting! Greetings
@@sebacabregu A whole bunch, this is the playlist: ua-cam.com/play/PL8rEvPLX1k5s0NQqkTkqPHYuchqVxJL0t.html
@showtime112 youre very well documented, i would say perfect, good objetive analysis
I'm grateful for your positive feedback!
Very well-done video!
Thank you for your feedback!
And again... thank you the Work,. greetings Ringo
Thank you for the comment and for another donation!
@@showtime112 your are welcome
Wrong picture of glamorgan.. she had been fitted with exocet by that time in place of B turret..
The British had a NATO advantage of being supplied by the latest AIM-9L Sidwinder missile, and a disadvantage, no Airborne Early Warning, usually provided by the Americans. It would have been a much worse defeat for Argentina had the Sea King AEW Mk2 been available. Thia would have detected Argentine aircraft at long range giving ships and aircraft a lot longer to prepare and intercept.
if you wanna do an "what if" : imagine that just before the war the Royal Navy had an aircraft carrier with the F-4 Phantom with 4 sidewinders, 4 sparrow/skyflash , a long range radar and better range...
@@juanchelini5937Full-size carriers with Phantoms, Buccaneers, and Gannet AEW. 4 years prior they did, and I’m sure the Argentines took that into consideration when planning the invasion/reclamation.
Yes, AEW would have made a lot of difference. Especially for Exocet attacks which were almost impossible to stop with the available assets.
I believe that although Harriers were equipped with the all aspect AIM-9L, they were such a recent acquisition that their pilots didn’t have time to train with them before the conflict and so they were used as per the previous model. Not sure any advantage was therefore gained.
@@numberstation aim-9L had a longer range, it was more better then the previous versions, but yes, it was used like a D model
Os pilotots Argentinos foram de uma bravura de se admirar.
Mesmo contra tudo e todos..., foram e enfrentaram a morte numa probalidade alta de não voltarem pra casa. E foram lá e fizeram o que tinham oque fazer.
Thank you for the feedback!
I think you have to keep doing videos about Malvinas´s War... they are the most viewed in your channel! at least, the last 20 videos... They are very nice and I love to mix btween actual videos and from simulator!
Well, it seems to be the formula that works. The first one I did about a year ago didn't do too well initially but even that one is at almost sixty thousand now. There's plenty more material to cover so I'll probably focus on that for a while.
First, watch it tonight. Was in big birthday, me and my stepson🍾🥂
No problem, the video will be waiting 😉
Another excellent video on a war that doesn’t get enough attention. You and your research assistants really do a great job, I’m sure the info isn’t widely available like WW2, Vietnam, or Desert Storm info is.
I was 13 years old when it happened and interested in it like most boys that age would be, but without 24-hour news networks or embedded correspondents there was very little coverage of it in the states. I seem to remember much of it being of the British Parliament and PM.
What’s funny is that if the Argentines had sent Skyhawks after the Sea Harriers and used the Mirages & Daggers to hit the ships they might have done better. The A4 was probably maneuverable enough to be a match for Sea Harriers, not to mention being much more difficult to acquire visually due to its small size, and hadn’t the Argentines replaced the Mk12 20mm cannons with much harder-hitting 30mm Adens? Coming in at low level to stay under British GCI then climbing up to attack from below might have worked.
Thanks for the elaborate feedback! Perhaps the A-4s could have been used to fight against Sea Harriers. A-4C could carry the Shafrir 2 missile which was pretty decent, credited with a bunch of kills in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. But I think that Skyhawk pilots didn't receive much air-to-air training.
Thank you for the video 😊
Thank you for the comment!
The Harrier on your graphics is a GR7 with a FLIR and 100% Lerx. I know because I installed them. Please use the MK1 Sea Harrier. But a good effort
Don't you think I would have used the Sea Harrier had it been available? I put pinned comment under videos to avoid such 'corrections'. Please read them first. Btw, it is AV-8B :)
@@showtime112AV-8B? Not with RAF roundels on and looks like a GR7 to me too.
@@Dalesmanable The DCS World module is the AV-8B Night Attack. I put the British skin on it because it is a stand-in for the Sea Harrier.
@@Dalesmanable The nose is a dead giveaway (for me).
I’ve flown with Sharky Wards son, and have done simulator work with an Argentinian T6 pilot from Pebble island, although he wasn’t involved in this incident.
Thanks for sharing. I didn't know Sharky Ward's son is a pilot too.
@@showtime112Lt Cdr Kristian Ward passed away on 15 Nov 2018 aged only 45.
Pilot skill and training were the biggest factors
True. It will show in part two when engagements become 'hot'.
Agreed, Many of the FAA pilots were incredibly experienced. However, 809 was cobbled together and there weren’t enough SHARs so had to raid the training establishment. The SHAR had huge power and that thrust to weight ratio allowed rapid energy regeneration at low altitude. This made it very hard for the Argentinians to get a lock on. This is something the Americans found on many occasions in DACT exercises. That plus superior tactics developed whilst the fleet was sailing, added to the 9L sidewinder and longer time in theatre gave many advantages.
That said, the Brits expected to lose over 50% of their aircraft. None were lost to enemy aircraft!
Love this work! really cool !
I appreciate your positive comment!
Nice as usual.regards.
I appreciate your comment, thanks!
Love your vids on the Falklands War. Great job!
Thank you very much! I hope you watch other topics too.
Thanks for this one !
Thank you for watching and commenting!
There's a lot of crap about a "ghost plane" that landed in *Brasil.*
That actually was a *RAF Vulcan* flying during the Falklands conflict that suffered technical problems & had to divert to an emergency field. The Brazilians didn't want them there as it would show disrespect to a fellow South American nation in Argentina. For the Vulcan it was with Brasil or the sea.
The big problem was the plane was carrying a latest gen air to ground weapon that the Americans had kindly given to us & that had stuck on the rail & they were unable to fire from the plane.
The whole incident had to be hushed up hence the "ghost plane" legend. The UK also gave the Brazilians a load of military kit + free parts for their British bit built Westland helicopters.
I've never understood why argentinians where so ill prepared to the war that they started. They seemed rely only on non-intervention of the britons. For example they didn't try to adapt the airstrips of the Falkland islands to fast jets or buy more Exocet or more modern IR missiles
Some sources suggest that the Argentine leadership really hoped there would be no British attempt to retake the islands. There are plenty of indications for that.
the only plan was to withdraw days after April 2nd, but popular pressure made the junta have to stay, even so they trusted EVERYTHING that there would be a diplomatic agreement and only limited itself to creating a cosmetic defense in the islands, a castle of letters (not runway lenghten for best jets, no heavy artillery, no tanks, no apc, ), to force the English to an agreement. Obviously, England did not believe the deception nor did they intend to give in. The junta held out hope for peace until the Belgrano was sunk, and then it was too late to equip itself or strengthen the island defenses
Just a question: what Mirage addon have you used, and if it's free, where is it downloadable?
It's a free mod by VSN. You can find it (along with a bunch of other mods) on the link I'm sending in a different reply (in case YT decides to block it). If you don't see a link, just search for 'LockOn Forum Deutschland' and go to 'Mods'
www.lockonforum.de/community/board/10-mods/
The sea Harriers just blew them out of the sky, the Argentinian pilots were very brave though.
I don't think many people saw Sea Harrier as such an effective air superiority platform when it was introduced to service.
Great video. Keep it up bro. Thanks.
I sure will, thank you for the support!
In terms of objectives achieved I can’t really see what either side was up to. I suppose the Argentine aim was control of the skies to enable strikes on the invasion fleet. They aren’t showing much aggression at this point. But then what would attacking without advantages or attacking on the Sea Harriers terms achieve? The FAA were clearly happy to hold off until their advantages paid off.
(I would just like to add that the physical courage of the Argentine airman has never been in question).
youre correct, but at this time the conflict remains somehow cold, the main goal of the argentine aviation its to sink ships, an importat objetive , not risk assets to shootdown a Sea Harrier, a Harrier down wont change the thing for thebritish but a logistic ship lost sure it does
@@juanchelini5937The Sea Harriers needed to be shot down so Argentine strike aircraft could hit the carriers. That would take the Sea Harriers out of the fight, even if they managed to land on other ships they’d have no weapons and very limited fuel available only if the ships carried helos. And that’s assuming the fueling systems were compatible (overwing v. single-point/pressure refueling.)
The objectives of the Argentine side were primarily to defend the islands from airstrikes and to attack British ships trying to land troops. But they also tried to defeat the Sea Harriers on CAP stations nearby. Shooting down a few Sea Harriers would have seriously limited British offensive capability by making their ships more vulnerable to airstrikes. But Argentinians knew that bringing their Mirages to medium altitude would have put them in a serious disadvantage and they had no way of attacking the Harriers from above (they tried).
@@showtime112 It’s quite ‘un-Andrew like’ for the Royal Navy not to behave in the most aggressive manner possible. To be honest, this mode has served them well for a few hundred years. Nelsons last signal - ‘Engage the enemy more closely’ - has never really been struck down in the eyes of the Andrew.
@@user-mr4uo5mw9n They would have lost it for many reasons but not for those reasons you mention, I think, as while they were definitely being provided with intel. by thatchers best buddy Ronnie this didn’t influence the ultimate strategy( I think). The British could have lost if the Argentine airforce had adjusted the fuses on their bombs. More importantly though, if they’d not gone in half cocked because of social unrest against the junta and waited until they had more Exocets and had properly trained their soldiers in night fighting. If they’d made plans to rapidly extend the runway at port Stanley, or even if they weren’t a vile military junta who threw a load of young conscripts into a battle they weren’t motivated or trained for. I’m no fan of thatcher or British empirical history. No fan of Galtierie either. The British won the conflict through a lot of luck, training and aggression. Chest beating is just what victorious militaries inevitably do after such things have ended - it’s cognitive dissonance through effort otherwise (how do your justify the dead, in other words). An interesting question (something I thought at the actual time of the conflict) was if Thatcher had gambled and lost the Tories would have been out and a Labour government committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament would have been elected in its place.
RIP Sharkey. What a bloke, national hero !
My heart bleeds for those Arge B's! It's tuff at the top.
But it's even harder at the bottom
👍Another truly excellent vid
I'm happy to hear it, thanks!
Good presentation.
Thank you for the comment and for being a subscriber for so long!
Hello mate. For vidéo no différence between Mirage3EA and 3C. The EA don't have Doppler fairing under cockpit like french 3E. So.... today first of 12 rafale delivered to Croatian air force at Mont de Marsan AB
Hey, thanks for the info! Yes, the delivery of the first aircraft is in all the news here :)
@@showtime112 10 single plus 2 twin seat. Training Will be in mont de marsan because OTU is here( better weather)and also St Dizier AB. A HUGE GAP with mig21
@@dominiqueroudier9401 Yes, that seems to be a big concern. There were other options available in the past but there's no going back now.
@@showtime112Thanks. Have you Seen Sabre pictures in your email ? It's a nonsense to use thèse obsolète planes
Very difficult to watch all 3 parts of Falklands series
Once again, the Mirage III was limited by his design as nuclear bombers interceptor, with an inadequate missile (like too many planes from this era)... It is not surprising Israeli pilots used mainly cannons 😅
I don't know if you have watched this French TV show, it is an unique series in the world I think, "Les chevaliers du ciel", where you can see all the military aircrafts used by France in the 60s.
Yes, like many combat aircraft, it was eventually asked to do something it was not specifically designed for. I didn't watch the series, I thought it was a movie from a later period.
@@showtime112 There was the first series in 1966-67, the second series in 1988, and finally the movie in 2005. But I don't recommand the movie 🤢
The iii (3) was an interceptor,the IV and v were much larger aircraft designed as nuclear bombers.
@@eugeneoreilly9356 I saw a Mirage IV up close, at the Istres air base (South of France).
The Mirage's Cyrano radar was also infamously bad and often didn't work properly. I've read of numerous air forces giving up on the radar set and removing them from the aircraft.
Was the Mirage III really less maneuverable than the Sea Harrier? imo the only thing Sea Harrier has going for it maneuverability wise is thrust vectoring, which I think made the gun unusable
The Mirage III with it's delta wing was more maneuverable over the Sea Harrier at high altitude. The Sea Harrier pilots knew this and would avoid high altitude engagements.
Mirage didn't have a very good thrust to weight ratio which was a rather limiting factor. It could pull one short and hard turn but it would loose all the energy (like all delta fighters).
At speed and altitude it was far more maneuverable.
@@socaljarhead7670 Correct. The French Air Force sent a Mirage III over to RAF Coningsby to prepare the Harrier pilots for future air combat. At altitude the Mirage as you say had the greater maneuverability. Harrier pilots knew this during the conflict and would keep any engagements at lower level.
Anyways, the argentinians had a very poor air to air training dogfight
1982 really was the year air-to-air missiles worked - at last ! AIM-9L in the Falklands and AIM-7F over Bekaa valley were a very welcome change from, say, AIM-7E and AIM-9B over Vietnam - only ten years before. When Phantom pilots had to launch missiles in pairs if not in trio to get a kill... first missile rocket motor didn't lit. Second missile lit, but lost target and went crazy. Third missile eventually was the charm... provided the target had not gone away in the meantime !!
The technology definitely matured by that time.
my 2 favourite aircraft! 🤝
Well, then you're the target audience :) Don't miss part two in two weeks.
Nice video 👍
Thanks a lot!
@@showtime112 ❤️
Cómo argentino 🇦🇷respeto y admiro a nuestro ejercito argentino pero también admiro a gran Bretaña por su experiencia en guerra como la segunda guerra mundial son soldados muy profesionales y disciplinados
The most serious mistake that the Argentine commands made during the Falklands War was not to send the material to lengthen the Port Stanley/Argentino runway, with an adequate runway Skyhawks, Mirages and Skyhawks could have held both the aircraft carriers and the smaller ships at an adequate distance for effective defense. Mirage and Dagger were potentially superior to the Sea Harriers, these on the other hand had better maneuverability, the AIM9L missiles (which many consider to be the silver bullet but it was not so) and better pilot training. I can't wait to follow the second part of the video, with the clashes between Mirage/Dagger and Sea Harrier, and the consequent loss of 4 Argentine planes in air-to-air fighters (2 Mirage, 1 Dagger, 1 Canberra) against zero british.
Thanks for the elaborate comment! Yes, ability to operate jets from Port Stanley would have been a huge advantage. It's also true that most AIM-9L kills were achieved from rear-hemisphere (which some older models could do as well).
It was really worth watching *(and to wait for it too)
I'm very happy to hear it, thank you!
Somthing I read at the time, and I wasn’t there, was the British pilots learned to slow down so much they could get behind Argentina jets
Bravo za video👏👏👍👍Veliki pozdrav iz Crne Gore🖐
Hvala na komentaru, pozdrav Crnoj Gori!
@@showtime112 U mom gradu,Beranama(ivangrad) ima vojni aerodrom koji je napušten a bio je aktivan '90-ih godina,sjećam se kada su s njega uzlijetali J-22 Orao i G-2 Galeb,još mi je urezan u sjećanju mali izduv Rolls-Royce motora"viper" koji su bili jako bučni.Nego,pominjao sam pad dva Galeba u Zaton kod Bijelog Polja,na pola puta između Berana i pomenutog grada,sjećam se jake eksplozije oko 05.00h ujutru,ja sam mozda tada imao 10-11 godina.Kako sam saznao,njih je oborio američki F-111 Raven.Ako šta budem pouzdano saznao,pišem
At the time of the Falklands war my friend and I were playing a lot of SPI's Air War '77 board game, the most accurate simulation we had at the time. We ran simulations of the expected conflicts between Harriers, Skyhawks and Mirages. Before the fleet had reached the islands we had concluded that the British would win the air campaign.
Please don’t embarrass yourself talking about board (or video) games when we’re are talking about real men and real war.
wE rAn sImUlAtIoNs
Please, just stop. People like you make us all look like asocial dweebs.
You played a board game. Just say that, act like a normal human being.
Air power deployment means a lot of first strike initiatives. Argentina in Falklands and Russia today in Ukraine failed to materialize such initiatives. Argentina could have potentially deployed 50% of mirage / dagger force and another 50% of Skyhawk Force in Falkland Islands. They had enough time to rebuild Islands infrastructure to support such operations. If not from runways then at least from road strips. This would have endangered British harrier deployment because the number of fighter jets Brits could bring was always capped. And Argentina unnecessarily kept itself to a 12-minute loiter time just by not deploying the aircrafts in the front line.
Gladly though but it serves as a learning point that wars are lost when you lose the air and air is the first thing you could win or lose in a war. That's why trained Western Air forces always throw everything at enemy in the first hour Just to ensure enemy Air forces fail to operate.
We might have the benefit of hindsight but we can say that preparing Port Stanley runway for fast jets would have been necessary for any kind of a victory against the British.
@@showtime112 certainly, and Argentines certainly had the capabilities. Mirages/Daggers and Particularly A-4 Skyhawks was not very demanding of a high end runway maintenance the way F-16s were back then. Mirages were chosen by Switzerland particularly for its rugged environment operability. Skyhawks don't need any explanation, they are the definition of rugged operations.
Argentina might have had a lot of Western equipment but the generals certainly did not realize Western tactics of air warfare. My bad.. They were too busy running the country instead of doing their actual job 😂
Bottom line is the profile of the Mirage was something out of the 1960's, the Sea Harrier was a generation ahead, and it had the missile that was also a generation ahead, plus the level of combat training for the Sea Harrier pilots was far superior.
Argentina was lucky there were so few Sea Harriers
Well, in many ways Sea Harriers weren't that advanced. Their radars had little or no look down capability, they had no countermeasures etc. I'd say that pilot training and fuel limitation was probably more significant.
@@showtime112 Not complaining about that, but I have found it difficult to exactly identify what radars the Mirage III's actually had, but I agree the Harrier's Blue Fox radar seems only to have been mostly effective with surface targets. Which may or may not reflect the original purpose of the Harrier as having a land based attack priority. The whole Sea Harrier project was a better than nothing proposition for the Royal Navy
The video felt like five minutes, not 15.
I appreciate your positive feedback!
E jel ima rafale za dcs,ili f16 da napravis tutorijale za neki od ta dva aviona ako je moguće
Rafale postoji kao mod ali nisam ga još isprobao. Nažalost, nemam vremena za tutorijale, sad se fokusiram samo na povijesne rekonstrukcije.
U redu,hvala na odgovoru
Thanks! Great video. AFAIK Argentine pilots were always flying at very low altitudes to avoid radar from ships. Even it's said that chemical compounds were used to avoid salt from sea in windshields; that low.
Thanks for the comment. 'Always' may be a bit of a stretch. Some original footage, that famous one from San Carlos Water shows aircraft at clearly several hundred feet at times. I also doubt that Skyhawks searching for helicopters were flying at 30 feet above ground.
Argentina had bought Mirage IIIE in 1972 from France. It was the multirole variant of the Mirage, supposedly with a better radar than the IIIC: Thomson CSF *Cyrano II* . Alas it still wasn't very good. French pilots hated it and called it radar TEFAL, which is a brand of non adhesive *frying pans* . Why ? because a) the radar heated a lot and b) it didn't stuck... to the target. As for the Matra R-530, while theoretically SARH and medium range ( = AIM-7 B / C / E as used by Phantoms in Vietnam) it actually wasn't very reliable either.
On the short IR missile front: Argentina had Shaffrir-1 (israel) and AIM-9B, not very reliable either. SHARs however had AIM-9L... a true revolution. At last, AAMs had became good enough ! This would be confirmed one month later in the Bekaa valley turkey shot: AIM-7F on F-15 at last worked, unlike the earlier brands of AIM-7s I mentionned.
Thank you for the elaborate comment!
@@showtime112You are welcome ! I really like your videos. The planes looks so sleek and beautiful.