There a number of biases and inaccuracies in this lecture, his description of the Santa Fe attack is wrong. It was not found by a helicopter on a special forces mission. It was found by a group of helicopters that had been dispatched intentionally to find it. He is incorrect to say that South Georgia was of no strategic value, Grytvicken is a sheltered harbour and the navy had identified it as a place to shelter the fleet if the war had dragged into winter. The PR aspect was only a bonus to that strategic point. The SAS were advised not to go on Fortuna Glacia by the Royal Navy, the SAS used the SATCOM to get their foolish plan authorised by Northwood. The Fortuna Glacia plan lost the task force two valuable troop carrying Wessex that would be sorely needed later in the war. The navy wanted to do a classic show of power using Naval Gunfire to overawe the Argentines and push them to surrender before a fight. It was the Special Forces going over the local task force commander via SATCOM to put forward their plan instead stopped this happening. When the Santa Fe beached in Grytvicken it was a show of Naval Gunfire that persuaded the Argentines to surrender without a fight. His insulting comments to the Navy about no destruction of property and firing into the mountains entirely misses the point! They fired into the mountains, the Argentines saw the reality of their position and surrendered! The navy could of levelled Grytvicken if they so wanted but that would of risked the members of the BAS. For all his bluster about daylight attacks the Argentines surrendered due to the shock and awe of the Royal Navy. At least he noted that their ridiculing of the Navy was wrong in that case. South Georgia was retaken despite the actions of Special Forces, with virtually no damage to property and one loss of life. The only damage to property was the loss of the helicopters forced into the foolish Fortuna Glacia plan.
Shaun Mclaren I was quoting Chris Parry's book and lecture When laying out the mistakes in this lecture. So I am at a slight loss why you are saying that I don't have a clue. The special forces guy was indeed there but he was viewing the situation from a narrow point of view and a fair amount of bias.
Matthew Rowe The information is out there. You don't need to "believe" rather look up the facts and learn that the SAS were an actual hindrance to the whole operation.
Shaun Mclaren RAdm Chris Parry is quite scathing about the SAS, especially their backchanneling to have the Naval, R Marines and Paras planners ideas overuled.
I have been to South Georgia and the Falkland Islands. You would be hard pressed to think of a worse place to fight a war. As a former Paratrooper I was amazed at what these Soldiers did.
+PalleRasmussen I always hated weather that was around O-5C where that weather just seeps through your bones, I live in Florida USA. Much better weather!
@@hoghogwild why do you think that I am unaware of that? And that I do not know my military history. Finland and Russia in winter is worse than anywhere though. Except, I have since moved to Greenland, which makes both look hospitable.
This guy is speaking from his very narrow perspective: the naval bombardment (~32:00) was a demonstration of force and helped persuade the Arg garrison to surrender, thus he didn't get shot in his mad dash assault. Still, it must have taken some courage, not knowing the opposition had already surrendered.
I think the surrender was an importanty clue on tacticvs to wiin with less losses. From an agentinian pespective: 1 your main suipply rouitre had just been cut 2 litle or no contact with HQ, you must asssume any meesage you send will be intercepted and you have no idea of the enemy's immedfiaste intentions 3 the enemy are using artillery (naval gunfire) and seem to have al the time and amnmmunitioon in the world to get it right 4 thec enremy has attack helicopters 5 Your mines don'r work ('coz of he cold?) 7 You have no Anti Aircraft, anti sub, anti surface vesel or een anti-tankj weapon ie no way to even put up any resistance, no way to fight back 8 you know how your guys react to people (Chilean backed leftists) shhhoting them and you can make a good guess how your troops would be treated i the enemy sufffered casualties. why exactly would you hold on? Now all we need to do is impose thosee condfitions to the Argeentinre troops o Falkland and we're in business. no?
i am sorry but a lot of this is not how i remember , i was aboard RFA TIDESPRING , argentine sub santa fe was spotted while RFA TIDESPRING was on a 24 hour pump over or fuels and water with RFA BRAMBLELEAF , the 2 wessex helicopters lost were from RFA TIDESPRING, the prisoners were put aboard RFA TIDESPRING , in our forward rope lockers and stores , we took them north to ascention for repatriation , they were guarded by RFA and RAF ( onboard by default) , there are a few other issues that i dont feel ring true , i can not account for what happened ashore , i sat through this lecture and feel quite upset and disappointed ,
He likely was adding to the event to make it more dramatic. If you listen to veteran army types telling their stories, you have to take much of it with a grain of salt.
According to Rear Admiral Chris Parry's Hudson Institute lecture the SAS operation was a complete cock-up from start to finish. They would not take any naval advice and tried to do it the hard way and screwed up big time. Personal I tend to believe Chris Parry over Alan Bell.
Peter Gibbs There were quite a few smscrew ups not least of which was Fortuna Glacier and over optimistic assesment of the route against knowledgeable advice. Failure of mechanical equipment in atrocious weather conditions but for all that the island was taken without any U.K. casualties.. Give me “failures” like that any day.
@@dickensdickens3025 AS I said, HMS Antrim's Westland Wessex 3 ASW (anti-submarine warfare) Helicopter. Other helicopters in the operation were the Wessex 5 (troop transporter versions) used by the SAS and later a Gazelle and Wasp, both small helicopters. BTW Chris Parry is not a pilot, he was the Flight Observer/Anti-Submarine Warfare Officer on the helicopter.
My understanding is that the retaking of South Georgia was indeed strategic. It was to be the winter anchorage for the naval task force should the conflict have extended but a few more weeks.
It's now common knowledge that Haig and Reagan almost-certainly gave the Argentinian military details of British intentions for South Georgia. With friends like the United States, who needs enemies.
I agree with Fedaykin24. There are several inaccuracies in this presentation, most notably associated with the rescue on Fortuna Glacier and with the attack on the submarine Santa Fe. For example, there were no Sea Kings in the South Georgia Task Force and the attack on the submarine was as a result of a deliberate naval plan to seek and destroy it. As I was a direct participant in both incidents, I feel that I can speak with some authority. The presenter has been somewhat flexible with the truth.
This operation sounds like a cluster flock from the very beginning. No recon, no ground assets, virtually no air assets and lack of communication limited coordination. Through all of those snafus, they succeeded with their mission. Impressive.
Yes, but let´s agree they fought no-one. Argie military are notoriously inept at everything that is not torturing a person tied to a metal bedframe, stealing babies at the moment of birth, or kidnapping nuns. This was no Operation Chariot, rather a "shoot the pigeon" fair ground game. Alfredo Astiz, commander of the South Georgias garrison, gave in without a shot; stark contrast to his macho bravura when he sequestered Dagmar Hagelin, an 18-year-old Swedish student, or infiltrated the Plaza de Mayo Mothers in Buenos Aires Cathedral pretending to be looking for a disappeared relative. He gained the appreciation and confidence of the Mothers, only to kidnap and "disappear" one of them. That was the "enemy" the British faced.....
Javier Gil Vidal Let’s not agree…So the Argentinian military just magically managed to kill 250 British servicemen during the Falklands War? Try and put a critical thought between your ears occasionally it might help.
But the whole poit of having the SAS involvd was to act as those ground assets., reconaisance partiescooms navvigatgfion etc THey had GPS no other bugger did. They expect to be weakly supported. They know they are going intpo thec uinknown relying on speed and stealth to evade to evade captture. Thec SAS had the bes Communications - stealth satelllite all the way basck to London. they also had the ear of senior politicxal command,..When you are talking it really helps if someone is listening., y'know? Pesonal opinion SAS are speciakl as in secret,. Should only be used when what you cant to do is unlawful or illegal.SHould b carefuilly looked after any conflict regarding mrental health etc. Ex-members orf special forces should be silent on what they do
@@brucebartup6161 The SAS did not have GPS.... The GPS satellite constellation wasn't started until the late 1980's.... They did have some portable satellite comms however. No stealth satellite either..
The Royal Marines Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre were best trained and equipped to deal with Fortuna Glacier. In many areas The SAS are a 'jack of all trades and master of none'. They should never of undertaken that mission. Fedaykin may of served there as he doesn't claim he did or didn't. Therefore It's not for others to criticise.
Only problem is the MAW Cadre were very small and could not be in two places at once. I worked with them and the SAS. All top blokes, but the MAW CAdre had their tasks and 22 had theirs.
@@nacholibre1962 AIUI MAW advice was not to go the Fortuna glacier route, the SAS decided to go ahead based on the advice of Brummie Stokes (who I have just read sadly died in 20016) and Bronco Lane who had climbed Everest in 1976. AIUI RN and RM personnel (albeit rarely) have the opportunity to follow Shackletons route across S. Georgia over the Fortuna Glacier, I don't know if this was the case in the 1980s but even if not I suspect there will have been serving Marines that had been on the Glacier and could have given advice about the likely conditions. Note that in the British defence of S. Georgia they too were defeated by Naval gunfire which they had no response to, although NP8902 made rather a better fist of it before having to surrender than the Argentinians did.
Royal Navy : Don't go onto the Glacier SAS : We are the SAS you do what we say - We are the best Royal Navy : The conditions are too bad on the Glacier but we can get you in somewhere safer and closer SAS : We are the SAS you do what we say - We are the best Royal Navy : There is no need to take such risks SAS : We are the SAS you do what we say - We are the best Royal Navy : We know what we are talking about and know best SAS : We are the SAS you do what we say - We are the best Royal Navy : We will not go SAS : We are the SAS we've spoken to LONDON and you do what we say - We are the best 2am the next morning SAS : HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELP - We are the SAS come and save us. Royal Navy : Shackleton salutes you ua-cam.com/video/yLn2TJZqR_o/v-deo.html
I was a member of 565 RLD Para signals. I was on the ship that picked up M company after the surrender and dropped them off at the Ascension islands. I got a nice sun tan on the slow cruise back to Southampton. Isolate the warmongers.
South Georgia and Fortuna Glacier were an absolute fiasco for 22SAS MT troop. Thei arrogance was astounding. Their operation was rejected the Capt on Antrim boy they called Maggie Thatcher for the go ahead. From there it was downhill of the way to distance.
Peorhum Nothing is won until the boots are on the ground. No one said the SES/SBS were solely responsible for the recapture of South Georgia. It was a mixed Task force of many elements but particularly the Royal Navy Air Squadrons helicopters and crews who were invaluable and took the heavy work and fight to the enemy and without which operation paraquat would not have succeeded without casualties.
David Smith He got married in Hereford. The staff nurse... I think if my memory serves me right her name was Caroline. She was very bitter at. his loss, understandably so.
David Smith Yes , Both Lawrence Gallagher and Ed “Wally” Walpole where in D squadron l, Lawrence was SSM at the time he died. Wally was a humble soul and a lovely person.
Malcolm Rifkind, (later to be Sir Malcolm Rifkind ,go figure) paid a visit to the Falkland Islands shortly before the invasion and basically shouted from the roof tops that Britain was no longer in a position to defend the territory, letting the Argentinian junta know that the door was wide open🤔. It was a very profitable conflict for the defence industry🤫.
I think it's known as The Fog of War. Also, the Navy did not want the SAS there any case. The SAS did not inspire confidence by insisting on being landed on the glacier with the intent of hiking to their target. This was clearly never going to happen. In the eyes of the Navy, the SAS needed to be rescued by a heroic RN helo pilot. Not exactly an impressive beginning.
South Georgia had political value, if not strategic value. You don’t just hand over sovereign territory there while defending the Falklands. Securing South Georgia sent the political message that the UK would defend her territories.
I believe Grytviken harbor is where the soldiers brought south by the QE2 were transferred to other ships because that was as close to the battle zone as the British, (and probably Cunard) wanted to take that ship. So it was valuable as a deep-water anchorage. And the bombardment of the Argentine positions was deliberately designed to show the invaders that this is what will happen to you if you don't give up. This man seems dismissive of how it was carried out.
Talk about blowing your own trumpet! the SAS were embarrassing SBS were far more professional. Some of these people doing these overpaid speachers must have gone to a different conflict to me.
South Georgia is obviously of strategic importance , one because of its port , and its land ! for storage of equipment and resources and of course its one of the closest friendly uk islands to the falklands ! 🤣 I forget who I was watching but the personal accounts I've heard is that the experts advised the sas not to land on the glacier as it was ridiculous , there reply was we will do it because the Argentines will not expect us from that direction ?
Check out ua-cam.com/video/yLn2TJZqR_o/v-deo.html for the other (sounds truer!) side of the story from the Navy. Navy: "We're not flying you onto the glaciers, its too unsafe, and you won't be able to move from your position" SAS: (gets on sat phone to London) "Mummy Thatcher, make them do it" Thatcher: "do as they say" So Navy deliver the SAS, who decide that after all, they can't make any progress, and call for extraction, at the cost of two helicopters. Arrogant idiots.
The only thing insane here is the UK Empire. Do you think we South Americans like to have the military base of an aggressive nuclear Empire in our face?
the lack of military bases was one of the main reasons argentina invaded sgssi, and there was only a light military presence in the falklands. the reason there is now a serviceman for every 7 islanders is purely because of argentinians invading. also apart from the nazis, only south americans have militarized antarctica, attacked unarmed scientists in antarctica and invaded other nations antarctic claims. dont throw stones.
What's insane is you speaking for all the other cheeky cunts as if anyone is supposed to care. What do they put in your water? *pyar estrogen. who ever gave you guys the internet... needs a slap.
also the UK arnt allowed to send nukes to the Falklands, SGSSI, or BAT, because as part of the Falklands right to self-determination they signed treaties banning nukes from their lands and waters. But that said the UK, and Russia, are the only Nuclear powers that can nuke anywhere on earth, so they don't really need the Falklands to store nukes.
+Ry Boy America can ALMOST nuke everywhere, there are small portions of East Antarctica and South-East Africa which are out of range, unless the US borrows Ascension/Diego-Garcia or starts patrolling the south Atlantic/Indian ocean. also before anyone else gets on my dick. China, France, DPRK, India (they say they can but its likely exaggerated), Pakistan, Israel, Iran (fictitious), and Burma (rumoured, but likely fictitious) cant nuke everywhere either. UK and Russia can nuke everywhere because they are very spread out, the UK is the only nation which exists on every continent and Russia is the largest Nation. PS also technically no country can nuke everywhere as both the UK and Russia have agreed to never detonate nukes in Antarctica (France, China, Pakistan, India, and USA also agreed) but you know what i mean.
There a number of biases and inaccuracies in this lecture, his description of the Santa Fe attack is wrong. It was not found by a helicopter on a special forces mission. It was found by a group of helicopters that had been dispatched intentionally to find it.
He is incorrect to say that South Georgia was of no strategic value, Grytvicken is a sheltered harbour and the navy had identified it as a place to shelter the fleet if the war had dragged into winter. The PR aspect was only a bonus to that strategic point.
The SAS were advised not to go on Fortuna Glacia by the Royal Navy, the SAS used the SATCOM to get their foolish plan authorised by Northwood. The Fortuna Glacia plan lost the task force two valuable troop carrying Wessex that would be sorely needed later in the war.
The navy wanted to do a classic show of power using Naval Gunfire to overawe the Argentines and push them to surrender before a fight. It was the Special Forces going over the local task force commander via SATCOM to put forward their plan instead stopped this happening.
When the Santa Fe beached in Grytvicken it was a show of Naval Gunfire that persuaded the Argentines to surrender without a fight. His insulting comments to the Navy about no destruction of property and firing into the mountains entirely misses the point! They fired into the mountains, the Argentines saw the reality of their position and surrendered! The navy could of levelled Grytvicken if they so wanted but that would of risked the members of the BAS.
For all his bluster about daylight attacks the Argentines surrendered due to the shock and awe of the Royal Navy. At least he noted that their ridiculing of the Navy was wrong in that case.
South Georgia was retaken despite the actions of Special Forces, with virtually no damage to property and one loss of life. The only damage to property was the loss of the helicopters forced into the foolish Fortuna Glacia plan.
Oh dear he was there you were not Hmm who do i believe ? and the special pleading for the navy shows your biases don't you think ?
Grunt soldiers seldom have the broad view of action, and typically know little of what happened beyond their line of sight.
Shaun Mclaren I was quoting Chris Parry's book and lecture When laying out the mistakes in this lecture.
So I am at a slight loss why you are saying that I don't have a clue.
The special forces guy was indeed there but he was viewing the situation from a narrow point of view and a fair amount of bias.
Matthew Rowe The information is out there. You don't need to "believe" rather look up the facts and learn that the SAS were an actual hindrance to the whole operation.
Shaun Mclaren RAdm Chris Parry is quite scathing about the SAS, especially their backchanneling to have the Naval, R Marines and Paras planners ideas overuled.
The navy people I've seen say that south Georgia has a deep water anchorage which is of major strategic value...
And of course a morale booster for the British public, a morale damager for the Argentinians.
I have been to South Georgia and the Falkland Islands. You would be hard pressed to think of a worse place to fight a war. As a former Paratrooper I was amazed at what these Soldiers did.
+uncleavi2002 It is a dreary, wet, cold place. I can think of two worse places though; Finland in winter, Russia in winter.
+PalleRasmussen I always hated weather that was around O-5C where that weather just seeps through your bones, I live in Florida USA. Much better weather!
@@PalleRasmussen This was the Falklands, going into Winter. Summer in the North is Winter in the South.
@@hoghogwild why do you think that I am unaware of that? And that I do not know my military history.
Finland and Russia in winter is worse than anywhere though. Except, I have since moved to Greenland, which makes both look hospitable.
@@PalleRasmussen Your post gave me the impression that you may not have. No one said anything about any knowledge or lack thereof.
This guy is speaking from his very narrow perspective: the naval bombardment (~32:00) was a demonstration of force and helped persuade the Arg garrison to surrender, thus he didn't get shot in his mad dash assault. Still, it must have taken some courage, not knowing the opposition had already surrendered.
I think the surrender was an importanty clue on tacticvs to wiin with less losses.
From an agentinian pespective:
1 your main suipply rouitre had just been cut
2 litle or no contact with HQ, you must asssume any meesage you send will be intercepted and you have no idea of the enemy's immedfiaste intentions
3 the enemy are using artillery (naval gunfire) and seem to have al the time and amnmmunitioon in the world to get it right
4 thec enremy has attack helicopters
5 Your mines don'r work ('coz of he cold?)
7 You have no Anti Aircraft, anti sub, anti surface vesel or een anti-tankj weapon ie no way to even put up any resistance, no way to fight back
8 you know how your guys react to people (Chilean backed leftists) shhhoting them and you can make a good guess how your troops would be treated i the enemy sufffered casualties.
why exactly would you hold on?
Now all we need to do is impose thosee condfitions to the Argeentinre troops o Falkland and we're in business.
no?
Been to Norway, but still turned up in jungle boots. BAD PLANNING.
Alan Bell! Demonstrates that he is a legend in his own lunch break..... And clearly nothing more!
i am sorry but a lot of this is not how i remember , i was aboard RFA TIDESPRING , argentine sub santa fe was spotted while RFA TIDESPRING was on a 24 hour pump over or fuels and water with RFA BRAMBLELEAF , the 2 wessex helicopters lost were from RFA TIDESPRING, the prisoners were put aboard RFA TIDESPRING , in our forward rope lockers and stores , we took them north to ascention for repatriation , they were guarded by RFA and RAF ( onboard by default) , there are a few other issues that i dont feel ring true , i can not account for what happened ashore , i sat through this lecture and feel quite upset and disappointed ,
He likely was adding to the event to make it more dramatic. If you listen to veteran army types telling their stories, you have to take much of it with a grain of salt.
According to Rear Admiral Chris Parry's Hudson Institute lecture the SAS operation was a complete cock-up from start to finish. They would not take any naval advice and tried to do it the hard way and screwed up big time. Personal I tend to believe Chris Parry over Alan Bell.
Peter Gibbs There were quite a few smscrew ups not least of which was Fortuna Glacier and over optimistic assesment of the route against knowledgeable advice. Failure of mechanical equipment in atrocious weather conditions but for all that the island was taken without any U.K. casualties.. Give me “failures” like that any day.
@@dickensdickens3025 He was the Flight Observer on Antrim's Wessex 3 helicopter.
@@dickensdickens3025 AS I said, HMS Antrim's Westland Wessex 3 ASW (anti-submarine warfare) Helicopter. Other helicopters in the operation were the Wessex 5 (troop transporter versions) used by the SAS and later a Gazelle and Wasp, both small helicopters. BTW Chris Parry is not a pilot, he was the Flight Observer/Anti-Submarine Warfare Officer on the helicopter.
My understanding is that the retaking of South Georgia was indeed strategic. It was to be the winter anchorage for the naval task force should the conflict have extended but a few more weeks.
It's now common knowledge that Haig and Reagan almost-certainly gave the Argentinian military details of British intentions for South Georgia. With friends like the United States, who needs enemies.
I agree with Fedaykin24. There are several inaccuracies in this presentation, most notably associated with the rescue on Fortuna Glacier and with the attack on the submarine Santa Fe. For example, there were no Sea Kings in the South Georgia Task Force and the attack on the submarine was as a result of a deliberate naval plan to seek and destroy it. As I was a direct participant in both incidents, I feel that I can speak with some authority. The presenter has been somewhat flexible with the truth.
Who were you with, Jack?
Neither of you were there, you fucking muppet, so sum up!
@@nacholibre1962 I was in the crew of ANTRIM's Wessex 3 - reckon that qualifies me to say what happened.
@@wilco148 ANTRIM's Wessex 3.
@@jackaubrey8435 I was on the SMAC team at the time. Still seems like yesterday.
This operation sounds like a cluster flock from the very beginning. No recon, no ground assets, virtually no air assets and lack of communication limited coordination. Through all of those snafus, they succeeded with their mission. Impressive.
Yes, but let´s agree they fought no-one. Argie military are notoriously inept at everything that is not torturing a person tied to a metal bedframe, stealing babies at the moment of birth, or kidnapping nuns. This was no Operation Chariot, rather a "shoot the pigeon" fair ground game. Alfredo Astiz, commander of the South Georgias garrison, gave in without a shot; stark contrast to his macho bravura when he sequestered Dagmar Hagelin, an 18-year-old Swedish student, or infiltrated the Plaza de Mayo Mothers in Buenos Aires Cathedral pretending to be looking for a disappeared relative. He gained the appreciation and confidence of the Mothers, only to kidnap and "disappear" one of them. That was the "enemy" the British faced.....
Sounds like a normal military operation to me...
Javier Gil Vidal
Let’s not agree…So the Argentinian military just magically managed to kill 250 British servicemen during the Falklands War? Try and put a critical thought between your ears occasionally it might help.
But the whole poit of having the SAS involvd was to act as those ground assets., reconaisance partiescooms navvigatgfion etc THey had GPS no other bugger did. They expect to be weakly supported. They know they are going intpo thec uinknown relying on speed and stealth to evade to evade captture.
Thec SAS had the bes Communications - stealth satelllite all the way basck to London. they also had the ear of senior politicxal command,..When you are talking it really helps if someone is listening., y'know?
Pesonal opinion SAS are speciakl as in secret,. Should only be used when what you cant to do is unlawful or illegal.SHould b carefuilly looked after any conflict regarding mrental health etc.
Ex-members orf special forces should be silent on what they do
@@brucebartup6161 The SAS did not have GPS....
The GPS satellite constellation wasn't started until the late 1980's....
They did have some portable satellite comms however.
No stealth satellite either..
The Royal Marines Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre were best trained and equipped to deal with Fortuna Glacier. In many areas The SAS are a 'jack of all trades and master of none'. They should never of undertaken that mission. Fedaykin may of served there as he doesn't claim he did or didn't. Therefore It's not for others to criticise.
Only problem is the MAW Cadre were very small and could not be in two places at once. I worked with them and the SAS. All top blokes, but the MAW CAdre had their tasks and 22 had theirs.
@@nacholibre1962 Fair comment. Wars never easy.
@@nacholibre1962 AIUI MAW advice was not to go the Fortuna glacier route, the SAS decided to go ahead based on the advice of Brummie Stokes (who I have just read sadly died in 20016) and Bronco Lane who had climbed Everest in 1976. AIUI RN and RM personnel (albeit rarely) have the opportunity to follow Shackletons route across S. Georgia over the Fortuna Glacier, I don't know if this was the case in the 1980s but even if not I suspect there will have been serving Marines that had been on the Glacier and could have given advice about the likely conditions. Note that in the British defence of S. Georgia they too were defeated by Naval gunfire which they had no response to, although NP8902 made rather a better fist of it before having to surrender than the Argentinians did.
PS - as he says, he was not in the group that was on the glacier and certainly had nothing to do with the submarine incident.
Royal Navy : Don't go onto the Glacier
SAS : We are the SAS you do what we say - We are the best
Royal Navy : The conditions are too bad on the Glacier but we can get you in somewhere safer and closer
SAS : We are the SAS you do what we say - We are the best
Royal Navy : There is no need to take such risks
SAS : We are the SAS you do what we say - We are the best
Royal Navy : We know what we are talking about and know best
SAS : We are the SAS you do what we say - We are the best
Royal Navy : We will not go
SAS : We are the SAS we've spoken to LONDON and you do what we say - We are the best
2am the next morning
SAS : HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELP - We are the SAS come and save us.
Royal Navy : Shackleton salutes you
ua-cam.com/video/yLn2TJZqR_o/v-deo.html
I was a member of 565 RLD Para signals. I was on the ship that picked up M company after the surrender and dropped them off at the Ascension islands. I got a nice sun tan on the slow cruise back to Southampton. Isolate the warmongers.
Shackleton landed in Southgeorgia in his celebrated rescue of his crew
Two Wessex 5s were lost, not Sea Kings.
South Georgia and Fortuna Glacier were an absolute fiasco for 22SAS MT troop. Thei arrogance was astounding. Their operation was rejected the Capt on Antrim boy they called Maggie Thatcher for the go ahead. From there it was downhill of the way to distance.
All the SAS did on South Georgia was destroy two Brit helicopters
You sad twat!
@@nacholibre1962 Does sound about right to me. Sounds like the naval bombardment won the battle, not the SAS or SBS
there were you no
Peorhum Nothing is won until the boots are on the ground. No one said the SES/SBS were solely responsible for the recapture of South Georgia. It was a mixed Task force of many elements but particularly the Royal Navy Air Squadrons helicopters and crews who were invaluable and took the heavy work and fight to the enemy and without which operation paraquat would not have succeeded without casualties.
A Brilliant presentation,
RIP L/Cpl R E Armstrong (Paddy) D Sqn Mountain Troop.
David Smith knew Paddy well
David Smith He got married in Hereford. The staff nurse... I think if my memory serves me right her name was Caroline. She was very bitter at. his loss, understandably so.
David Smith Yes , Both Lawrence Gallagher and Ed “Wally” Walpole where in D squadron l, Lawrence was SSM at the time he died. Wally was a humble soul and a lovely person.
David Smith Good luck to you
@@dickensdickens3025 You too bud.
The BBC Pebble Mill lunchtime programme, presented by Bob Langley predicted the invasion of the Falklands, months before the Agentinians invaded.
Malcolm Rifkind, (later to be Sir Malcolm Rifkind ,go figure) paid a visit to the Falkland Islands shortly before the invasion and basically shouted from the roof tops that Britain was no longer in a position to defend the territory, letting the Argentinian junta know that the door was wide open🤔. It was a very profitable conflict for the defence industry🤫.
I've done courses with Alan. Decent guy. He owns Globe Risk Intentional in Toronto.
BELL, set up the initial recruitment phase for the NRT at Bruce Power in the early 00"s.
Fog of war, its just a testament to the quality of the people
Landing on South Georgia: 'Well this sucks'.
FOR SALE. Ex Argentinian rifles, never fired, dropped only once lol
I think it's known as The Fog of War. Also, the Navy did not want the SAS there any case. The SAS did not inspire confidence by insisting on being landed on the glacier with the intent of hiking to their target. This was clearly never going to happen. In the eyes of the Navy, the SAS needed to be rescued by a heroic RN helo pilot. Not exactly an impressive beginning.
South Georgia had political value, if not strategic value. You don’t just hand over sovereign territory there while defending the Falklands. Securing South Georgia sent the political message that the UK would defend her territories.
I believe it also had strategic value......but that was not the reason given to John Q Public at the time - quite understandably.
I believe Grytviken harbor is where the soldiers brought south by the QE2 were transferred to other ships because that was as close to the battle zone as the British, (and probably Cunard) wanted to take that ship.
So it was valuable as a deep-water anchorage.
And the bombardment of the Argentine positions was deliberately designed to show the invaders that this is what will happen to you if you don't give up.
This man seems dismissive of how it was carried out.
Is it common for SF people to big themselves up by being so negative about everyone/ everything else?
Talk about blowing your own trumpet! the SAS were embarrassing SBS were far more professional. Some of these people doing these overpaid speachers must have gone to a different conflict to me.
Unbelievable!!
South Georgia is obviously of strategic importance , one because of its port , and its land ! for storage of equipment and resources and of course its one of the closest friendly uk islands to the falklands ! 🤣 I forget who I was watching but the personal accounts I've heard is that the experts advised the sas not to land on the glacier as it was ridiculous , there reply was we will do it because the Argentines will not expect us from that direction ?
Verbal diahorreah.
Terrible sound put you off
Check out ua-cam.com/video/yLn2TJZqR_o/v-deo.html for the other (sounds truer!) side of the story from the Navy. Navy: "We're not flying you onto the glaciers, its too unsafe, and you won't be able to move from your position" SAS: (gets on sat phone to London) "Mummy Thatcher, make them do it" Thatcher: "do as they say" So Navy deliver the SAS, who decide that after all, they can't make any progress, and call for extraction, at the cost of two helicopters. Arrogant idiots.
If were mountain troop, 22SAS, I would keep silent about this fiasco. They were arrogant and not fit for purpose.
inter-service arrogance, a bit like inter medical speciality arrogance......more achieved with mutual co-operation
The tricky australia spindly grab because layer postsurgically file apud a unkempt retailer. entertaining, quirky circle
Malvinas Argentinas
Come and get them
The only thing insane here is the UK Empire. Do you think we South
Americans like to have the military base of an aggressive nuclear Empire
in our face?
the lack of military bases was one of the main reasons argentina invaded sgssi, and there was only a light military presence in the falklands. the reason there is now a serviceman for every 7 islanders is purely because of argentinians invading.
also apart from the nazis, only south americans have militarized antarctica, attacked unarmed scientists in antarctica and invaded other nations antarctic claims. dont throw stones.
What's insane is you speaking for all the other cheeky cunts as if anyone is supposed to care. What do they put in your water? *pyar estrogen. who ever gave you guys the internet... needs a slap.
also the UK arnt allowed to send nukes to the Falklands, SGSSI, or BAT, because as part of the Falklands right to self-determination they signed treaties banning nukes from their lands and waters. But that said the UK, and Russia, are the only Nuclear powers that can nuke anywhere on earth, so they don't really need the Falklands to store nukes.
+Jack Drewitt don't be stupid, the US also has nuclear armed subs capable of striking anywhere
+Ry Boy America can ALMOST nuke everywhere, there are small portions of East Antarctica and South-East Africa which are out of range, unless the US borrows Ascension/Diego-Garcia or starts patrolling the south Atlantic/Indian ocean.
also before anyone else gets on my dick. China, France, DPRK, India (they say they can but its likely exaggerated), Pakistan, Israel, Iran (fictitious), and Burma (rumoured, but likely fictitious) cant nuke everywhere either.
UK and Russia can nuke everywhere because they are very spread out, the UK is the only nation which exists on every continent and Russia is the largest Nation.
PS also technically no country can nuke everywhere as both the UK and Russia have agreed to never detonate nukes in Antarctica (France, China, Pakistan, India, and USA also agreed) but you know what i mean.