Speaking of bombing... ua-cam.com/video/5YPo8zDkvy4/v-deo.html I don't think we can re-enact this though... since DCS AI currently have Superman's hearing.. and have built in night vision... but you might like the story cap (and maybe the song about them as well).
Many of the Argentine Fast Jet Pilots were very well skilled. As they received training in Britain from the Royal Air Force in the 1970s. When the relations between Britain and Argentina were very cordial. The training included how to attack Navy ships. Additionally, Britain sold a lot of its military technology to Argentina in the 1970s. Including 2 Type 42 Destroyers. The exact same type of Destroyer as HMS Coventry. Consequently, the Argentine pilots were made well aware of the Type 42's weaknesses and how to exploit them. The Argentine Air Force inflicted by far the most damage and casualties on the British Task Force. They were extremely capable and very brave.
@@andywilliams7323 that's not true my friend. The way that Argentine Air Force pilots learned how to attack those ships was thanks to Argentine Naval Aviation, that use to have british ships and they looked how to attack them without being detected.
1) tanks were always dropped before the attack; 2) they only carried 3 bombs on the center hardpoint; 3) they never went up before releasing bombs. They stayed low all the way in firing canons before releasing the bombs; 4) they never made a second pass, they ran like hell after release.
Bueno; no tan así. Digamos que los tanques externos de combustible, no se eyectaban durante ni luego el bombardeo (solo en ocasiones A/G), aunque siempre lo hacían al tratarse de un enfrentamiento u escape de las PAC. Por otro lado, es completamente cierto: a 80nm bajaban de 30.000 pies a 300/100 pies y, recién a 40nm se ponía a rasante (30/15 pies). Solo los de la armada levantaban un poco antes de lanzar (no mucho) y, muy poco los M-5 Dagger luego de tirar cañones. Las bombas tenían un retardo en la espoleta de 12 seg. Para que la explosión no dañara “las aeronaves” de ataque. Se atacaba a rasante (a la altura del puente de los buques), los saltaban invirtiendo y nivelando, para emprender el escape a rasante (30 pies unas 25nm); luego ascendían y reabastecían. Llevaban 3 bombas (similares a las Mk-83 o 1x1.000 libras). Jamás hacían reempleo o 2° pasada. Well; Not so. Let's say that the external fuel tanks were not ejected during the bombing (only sometimes A / G), although they always made it as a confrontation or escape from the PAC. On the other hand, it is completely true: 80nm were falling from 30,000 feet to 300/100 feet and, just at 40nm was stubborn (30/15 feet). Only those of the Navy raised a little before throwing (not much) and, very little the M-5 Dagger after throwing canyons. The pumps had a delay in the 12 sec spur. For the explosion to not damage "the aircraft" of attack. He was attackedly attacked (at the height of the ships bridge), they jumped them investing and leveling, to take the escape to the exhaust (30 feet about 25nm); Then they ascended and represented. They carried 3 pumps (similar to MK-83 or 1x1,000 pounds). They never made a replacement or 2nd passed.
As an argentinian I send my respects to brithish man who fought in the conflict, brave and heroic acts where seen on both sides. Great video, I'm getting into DCS and this channel is amazing 🤝🏻
Lo que dices es lo que debería pasar en todos lados. Los combatientes merecen respeto, porque luchan arriesgando el bien más preciado, que es la vida. La batalla por las Islas Malvinas fue tan atípica que hasta se aplicó el código de caballeros. Creo que los pocos guerreros que no merecen mucho respeto, son los “mercenarios” que luchan por dinero. Los VGM (Veteranos de la guerra de Malvinas), requieren respeto y ponderación; ya sea Argentinos como Británicos. Por otro lado, DCS tiene cosas muy entretenidas. Tienes que fijarte bien si tu intensión es formar parte de algún escuadrón virtual. Te recomiendo que recopiles y leas todos los Tutoriales y guías que encuentres, para poder practicar offline. Bienvenido al mundo virtual de los loquitos de la aviación e combate Salud ----------------------------------------------------- What you say is what should happen everywhere. The combatants deserve respect, because they fight risking the most precious good, which is life. The battle for the Malvinas Islands was so atypical that the Code of Knights was applied. I think the few warriors who do not deserve much respect, are the "mercenaries" fighting for money. The VGM (Veterans of the Falkland War), require respect and weight; Whether Argentine as British. On the other hand, DCS has very entertaining things. You have to look good if your intention is to be part of a virtual squad. I recommend you collection and read all the tutorials and guides you find, to be able to practice offline. Welcome to the virtual world of aviation and combat loquitos Health
My respect to everyone who perished in that conflict and to their families. If you think economically, in terms of money, the Argentine Air Force and the Argentine Navy inflicted a lot of damage on the English forces. The pilots were very experienced, knew their aircraft very well and were extremely brave. Unfortunately, the aircraft were in a deplorable state, many of the cannons did not work and the ejection seats were expired or did not work either. Many died from not being able to eject. That was the bravery of Argentines. You have to respect that. And yet they never made a film about this conflict, which is a shame. Thank you very much for that video, Cap. Especially because you are British, it means a lot and says a lot about you. Congratulations and God Speed.
I was watching a documentary about the naval action of the Falklands conflict just the other day. It's actually really interesting because the Argentine's had spotted one of the two British carrier groups before they were detected and were set to launch a strike force armed with Exocet missiles to sink the British carrier, but the wind had mysteriously died down completely which took away the Argentine Navy's ability to launch their aircraft. It was theorized that, had the wind been blowing and the Argentine aircraft launched, that the Argentine pilots would have sunk the British aircraft carrier and that would have been enough to end the conflict and send the British navy home. Such a pivotal point in history decided by the weather. Thatcher might have lost all of her political support which would have shaken up elections not only for her, but for her party. Foreign policy decisions in the following decades might have been made differently. So many events in the subsequent history of the world might have been altered because the wind died down on one day.
There was actually many moments where the brittish had to make split decisions on whether to continue or not. There where like 6 ships who had been hit with missiles that did not explode (because the Argentines flew so low that they did not have time to arm properly). Had these exploded the brittish would have most likely decided that it was not worth continuing. Another time was when they where disembarcing troops. Had the Argentines hit the landingcraft, the brittish would probably not continue the invasion. A third time was before attacking Port Stanly, the brittish had such low supplies that if the Argentines had known about their logistical problems and just fought for another day or so, the brittish would not have been able to continue. The war was much more balanced than people like to think. However it is now known the brittish had nuclear weapons, which might have been used.
@@tuff9486 Wow. Could you imagine the international backlash that Britain would have received had they used a nuclear weapon on such an inconsequential piece of land? I for one am grateful that the world did not see that come to pass.
@@tuff9486 todo lo q decis es siento, la verdadera historia de la rendición de Argentina fue q Thatcher amenazó con un ataque nuclear sobre Bs.As. les recomiendo ver Guerra desde el Aire, un documental del canal History Cannel, ahí los pilotos argentinos cuentan toda la historia. Saludos
The Argentine pilots on the carrier knew that their mission to attack the British fleet would most likely be that they would not return. They probably were relieved that they couldn't launch. There is another part of the Argentine carrier returning to port and how it's combined anti submarine air warfare units (helicopter and trackers) saved it from being sunk by a British submarine that chased it all the way back to port. Talk about a lot of what if possibilities of war.
Really need some more ships (T42s and Frigates) in DCS. Broadsword had actually locked up the Skyhawks with Seawolf as they were coming in but Coventry turned across her bow so was unable to fire - so one of the few occasions the skyhawks were able to get high enough for their bombs to arm.
@@virtualinsanity2457 I don't think the Sea Harrier had a lock, it was just that they were going to attack and were warned off because of "friendly" SAMs (Sea Darts), I'd be quite surprised if a Sea Dart was realistically at risk of going rogue (semi-active homing) but I'm not an expert.
@@tomriley5790 yeah they had to make a quick decision and based on earlier success with the darts called them off, I remember reading the SHAR pilots were fuming after being called off saying over the radio “are you fucking joking, we’ve got them!”
@@tomriley5790 Sea Dart couldn't go rogue in the traditional sense of seeking an alternative target, but because it used proportional navigation in addition to SARH, it could be athreat to other aircraft. I witnessed this firsthand as a 909 maintainer aboard Birmingham, when we were conducting Sea Dart firings in Cardigan Bay. 909 lost lock on the towed target and the dart proceeded to take out the towing aircraft.
I knew a gentleman who was a chef on the Coventry. Never talked about the conflict, except the once when he told me he'd been on Coventry in the Falklands ( I knew he'd been a chef in the Navy previously) R.I.P. Bob.
Felicito el intento o la intensión. SUGERENCIAS: 1) Les recomiendo rehacerla en el mapa de “Islas Marianas”, en la zona situada entre los aeropuertos de “Tinian Intl y, Saipan Intl” y a: 20nm de Saipan en el radial 165°, poniendo 2 buques como piquete de radar; entrando desde el NORTE de Tinian 360° a SUR (hasta las 20nm del Rad 165 SUR de Saipan), para poder bordear la costa de Tinian. Podría despegar desde “Antonio B Won Pat Int”, Navegar 110nm rumbo 360° (WP1), girar WP2 rumbo097° una 50nm y seguir con el plan anterior. Luego regresar como puedan. 2) ¿Cómo hacían aquellos pilotos? Usaban un patrón de vuelo denominado “GRAN - BAJO - GRAN” = Despegan (Despegaban ya volando bajo, para no alertar a la inteligencia de los vecinos, que le daban información a la flota). 40nm de una posición determinada, ascendía a 10.000 pies para hacer repostaje. Luego ascendían a 35.000 pies y a unas 100/80nm descendían hasta una altitud máxima entre 100/50pies. Cuando se aproximaban a 60nm de la posición o DANGER ZONE, emprendía vuelo bajo (rasante) con un margen de 30/15 pies para no ser detectado por los radares. El patrón de vuelo bajo, era respetado antes, durante y después de llegar al objetivo. La formación era en línea con una separación de no más de {“100mt” a 20nm} y 20mt a partir de las 10nm. 3) El ataque de la FAA, siempre se hizo a rasante (no tomaban altura (excepto los de la armada o pilotos navales), a 30pies y ascendían a 60 pies, porque la cubierta de los buques estaba aprox. a 40pies. Lanzaban sus bombas y saltaban a los buques en un ángulo de 90° o virando; invertían/nivelaban y escapaban a rasante máximo hasta una distancia de 25nm, para luego emprender la navegación de regreso. Retornando, volvían a hacer repostaje a Gran altura 4) Las bombas que podrían usar serían: 3x MK-83 (TER) 1x AN-M65 PG de BR 1.000 lb PREGUNTA: ¿cómo hicieron para suprimirle los cañones FALANGE a los buques? SALUDOS {desde Argentina} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EN (Google Translate) I congratulate the attempt or intention. Suggestions: 1) I recommend it to redorate it on the map of "Mariana Islands", in the area located between the airports of "Tinian Intl and, Saipan Intl" and A: 20nm from Saipan in the radial 165 °, putting 2 ships such as radar picket; Entering from the north of Tinian 360 ° to Sur (up to 20 nm from RAD 165 south of Saipan), to be able to skirt the Tinian coast. It could take off from "Antonio B Won Pat int", navigate 110nm Rumbo 360 ° (WP1), turn WP2 Rumbo097 ° 50nm and continue with the previous plan. Then return as you can. 2) How did those pilots do? They used a flight pattern called "Great - Low - Great" = take off (they took off and flying low, so as not to alert the intelligence of the neighbors, who gave information to the fleet). 40nm of a given position, amounted to 10,000 feet to reflect. Then they amounted to 35,000 feet and about 100 / 80nm descended to a maximum altitude between 100 / 50pies. When approaching 60nm of the position or Danger Zone, he undertook low (ground) flight with a margin of 30/15 feet not to be detected by radars. The low flight pattern, was respected before, during and after reaching the objective. The training was in line with a separation of no more than {"100mt" at 20nm} and 20mt from 10 am. 3) FAA's attack, always did not take height (except those of the Navy Navy or pilots), 30pies and amounted to 60 feet, because the vessel's cover was approx. 40Pies. They launched their Pumps and jumped the vessels at an angle of 90 ° or virting; Invested / Leveled and escaped maximum up to a distance of 25nm, and then take back navigation. Refuelin and Returning to, great height. 4) The pumps they could use would be: 3x MK-83 (TER) 1x AN-M65 PG BR 1000 LB Question: How did they take to suppress the Falange guns to ships? CHEERS {from Argentina}
Hi cap. here is alejandro from Argetina. Again absoluty amazing. But the camo that you use are form A-4C of the Grupo 4 de Caza (Fighter group 4). The attack was made by the A-4B of the Grupo5 de caza (Fighter Group 5). I will send you by the Instragran some photos of the pilot and her planes
@@searchtron7601 Politics of the conflict aside, the forces on both side did their absolute best. There is a great interview with a sea harrier pilot who scored a number of air to air kills on Skyhawks and, as is often the case, he talks very matter of fact about the actual process that led to it, but he speaks so highly of the skill and bravery of the Argentine pilots. Prior to the Falklands the relationship between the UK and Argentina had been good. I hope it continues this way in the future :)
Loving the Ace Combat soundtrack in the background. They always make those soundtracks so good! I think it’s “Blue on Blue” from Ace Combat Assault Horizon
Nice Reenactment, indeed was 4 skyhawks, in 2 groups, the first group Carballo - Rinke (Damage Broadsword) and second Velasco - Barrionuevo (made the hit Coventry). This 2 ships were diverting attention for the main attack on San Carlos bay, so it was like setting a trap. Why you climb so much before drop bombs? suppose DCS don’t let you drop bomb bellow 50mts, if you see the hits on most UK ships were always on the side, so they drop low with bouncing bombs tactic, flying at 10-15mts to avoid radar detection and Sea Dart missil until 20km when they can’t reach the time for activate. The Coventry shoot down 3 of our fighter early that day, that was returning from San Carlos bay attack. So she sunk fighting. should be proud of your sailors (RIP). It was one of the few attack sorties how return with the full members to the continent alive. Arg perspective 25 may attack day: ua-cam.com/video/JEofjadnnyY/v-deo.html
i Think the guys at GR are simply using the 3 step iron bomb drop tactics used by USNavy during Vietnam... Step 1: a low level approach to avoid SAM followed by Step 2: a climb to get altitude in order to perform Step 3: a final dive with controlled altitude angle and speed up to a computer assisted bomb drop Of course this was a tactic specially designed to maximize bomb accuracy by USAF who had air supremacy, was confronted by 1960's SAMs that had extremely poor performance against low altitude targets and needed time to correctly acquire target. This tactic wasn't realistic against Sea Dart missile in open seas, so Argentine pilots used a straight run release that increased plane survival chances despite lowering the accuracy (accuracy that wasn't helped by a bomb computer since unlike A4E and later, A4B and C didn't have it installed) Y como sos Argentino va en Español: los muchachos de GR usan en el video la táctica de bombardeo en 3 pasos que usaba la USNavy y el USMC en vietnam. Paso 1: aproximación a baja cota para evitar detección de radar que pudiera vectorizar cazas y SAMs seguido de Paso 2: una escalada a altitud para poder realizar Paso 3: un picado final con altitud velocidad y ángulo controlado para arrojar bombas asistido por una computadora de tiro Esta táctica fue diseñada para maximizar la precisión de las bombas "tontas" por la USNavy/USMC que tenían a su favor la supremacía aerea y eran confrontados por SAM de tecnología de los 60s que tenían muy mala performance contra blancos en baja cota y necesitaban tiempo para adquirir blanco calcular trayectoria y lanzar. La táctica de la USNavy no era aplicable para bombardeo naval en mar abierto contra Sea Dart, asi que los pilotos de la ARA/FAA usaron una táctica de ataque naval con carrera recta (estilo torpedero de la segunda guerra mundial) a máxima velocidad lanzando bombas con retardadores de caída (solo la ARA hasta que a final de conflicto la FAA incorporó la táctica y abandonó las bombas de 500kg). Esta táctica daba mayores chances de sobrevida al avión atacante (que de todas formas los A4B y A4C no tenían como los A4E computadoras de tiro, así que tampoco podrían haber utilizado asistencia para lanzar bombas)
One of the pilots, when launch the bobms said: "Viva la Patria Carajo.... Gringos de mierda"... those were words of the Captain Pablo Carballo y th Lt, (jr) Carlos Rinke.
Amazing. My step-father was an RAF Chaplain and was in the Falklands for 6 months in the late 80s (post conflict). He went around the island and blessed the various cairns of fallen soldiers, since it had yet to be done at that time. I have just started playing and i'm getting my head around the A4 at the moment. I spent ages following your LABS tutorial and couldn't for the life of me work out why it wouldn't work, only to discover they added the CMPTR switch to work lol. My brother and I are trying to learn to play DCS together. Is there a good way we could go into the same game together to practice?
Question? Didn't Argentinians attacks were "one pass howl ass" afair. As in they were dropping all bombs in one go and running away? Are you doing those multiple strikes for cinematic reasons, or am I miss informed on how the Argentinian AF and Navy did things
This war was a very teachable moment for the US Navy... It taught them how vulnerable they were to anti-ship missiles and high speed low flying fighters which gave birth to CIWS and other close in systems. Btw down vote because.... because it's just me.
It wasn't a teachable moment for the USN, the US Phalanx CIWS had been in production since 1978, 4 years before the Falklands war. It was a teachable moment for the RN, CIWS's were fitted to most RN combat vessels post Falklands.
@@Rangit0t0 Phalanx was fitted to RN ships at the expense of the skipper's launch, which when originally suggested before the Falklands was met with incredulity by the admiralty and the skipper had to have a launch to get ashore in some of the locations the RN visited. Many of the lessons learnt from the Falklands resulted in the Batch 3 T22 and T23s.
Ok, You all saw that some underwater volcanic eruption or mythological sea-monster suddenly pushed up the Ocean's surface, and Cap did in fact not crash like a total noob after an otherwise flawless run. Right ?
@@grimreapers Welcome. It was my dad's ship. He finished his at-sea spate and started his on-shore duty a scant few months before she sank. He would have been in the engine room at the time. He then joined Illustrious, just in time for one of the gearboxes to explode, fighting the fire in said engine room apnews.com/article/1e468564aa39162a95a14d9c206074fd
Say what you want about the Argentine pilots. They sure had big balls. Don't know much about how they planned out the attacks beforehand. Or if it was just bomb whatever you can kind of thing.
How much research was done into FAA and Armada tactics for these videos? I have to echo the other comments remarking on inaccuracies like popups, multiple runs etc. If you’re doing a historic reenactment surely it wouldn’t hurt to get it right?
-It was two sections of Group 5 that attacked HMS-Coventri and HMS-Broadsword, one attacked from the ground, as Go to the recreation (1st Tte Velazco and Alf Varrionuevo) and the other was made from the open sea (Cap: Carballo and Tte Rinke) of the latter there is a spectacular photo taken from the Brodsword and that synthesizes how the Argentine pilots fought Photo Yesterday: fotos.subefotos.com/fdd71909e042be9cd6009a23efeddc79o.jpg Photo today:fotos.subefotos.com/9a598b43f0cc5b09f8f48a6491f9a104o.jpg
In the RN ship classification is based on role, not size or displacement. A frigate has a primary role of general-purpose (Type 21) or ASW (Type 22, Type 23), a destroyer has a primary role of AAW (Type 42, Type 45). The RN refers to classes of ship by Type to indicate their role also, so a Type 2X is ASW and a Type 4X is AAW. This will change with the introduction of the Type 31 frigates in a few year's time which will be general-purpose, which should be a Type 8X.
Cap have you ever done a video showing the difference between full power breaks on, then release brakes versus full power on without brakes? Do you get in the air quicker? By how much time and distance?
The A-4 Skyhawk had a roll rate of an incredible 720 degrees per second. However pilots were prohibited of exceeding 360 degrees per second according to the A-4 NATOPS Training Manual because of potential aircraft structural damage.
I know you are just having a laugh and I am a big fan of your videos, but this was a poor reenactment. There’s so many books out there on this war about what happened from both perspectives which if you had paid some interest to could have given some decent basic historical military naval and aviation information. Plus given your large audience perhaps dedicate future “re-enactments” to all the servicemen involved on both sides and make it clear these videos are loosely based on what happened. Otherwise as you begin to cover conflicts closer to home from which ex servicemen/women and their families are still alive- you are likely to upset those who see the inaccuracies and lack of respect regarding what really happened.
I did post a comment and it suspiciously dissapeared. But I think, personally, this was a very insensitive video to post especially having friends and family that were very much involved. What makes it worse is you, a Brit are being the aggressors towards a British Naval fleet.
In real life the Skyhawks flying so close to the sea would fog up the front of the glass with sea spray such that it was difficult to see. So no wonder you hit the water in the end. :-)
EXCUSE ME GRIN REAPERS Step a link "Aircraft in Malvinas (low resolution 480)" ua-cam.com/video/ci2F8B1it0A/v-deo.html Mi homenaje PD: If you want grin reapers: I can go through links to interviews with the Malvinas pilots and, related material
Why arent you guys using the bombing computer? Admittedly I dont know a ton about the Argentinian Skyhawks so they could have not used the system but im curious nonetheless
FAA only got the Ferranti dive bombing gunsight (not even an analog computer). Velazco was incredible accurate with his aiming tho. He squared al least two of his 3 bombs on HMS Coventry, less than a meter from the water sufrace, while flying at 900 kph at 10m height (and while being shoot missiles, 20mm oerlikons and machineguns to his face).
I don't understand - if it's a game, why on earth would you preface the gameplay with a veteran talking about how awful it was to be under this attack and then try and replicate it? I do understand that you want to see how the Falklands War would have played out in DCS, and indeed might have played out in real life with certain variables changed - but why on earth would you attach it to real people with real experiences, whether British sailors and soldiers who got killed or maimed by the Argentinian attacks, or indeed the poor Argentinian pilots who got shot down by the AAM's from the ships and the Rapier batteries as well as the Sea Harriers?
What's to "understand"? The intro seemed to me like a fitting tribute to those who fought in a historic battle, and it set the scene for it's digital re-enactment. I didn't see anything that could have triggered your outrage. Seems like contrived outrage.
People watch his videos from all over the world. Many watching will have little or no familiarity with the Falklands War or that specific incident. So he prefaces all his re-enactment videos with something providing real-life information about the incident he then re-enacts. In order to inform his viewers about the incident and what its impact and consequences were. He then re-enacts the incidents in DCS to learn, gain and show understanding and insight into what it was really like. For both educational and entertainment purposes. What he does is no different to the multitude of other people who create both digital and physical re-enactments of real-life historic incidents and battles. No disrespect is intended. In fact, he honours those who died and were injured. By informing and educating others about what happened. And keeping the knowledge of it alive across the multitude of his viewers.
"why on earth would you attach it to real people with real experiences" because those veterans were the people were there, war tales are biased enough having 2 sides, and get more biased and distorted when not told by the people who was there
What the one that didn't happen and was made of fake propaganda? HMS invincible was never destroyed during the Falklands War. @@grimreapers Think aswell reinacting something like this is a tad ott and foul play with the amount of people lost on either side in the conflict. Particularly when I've family who fought there. "get some Coventry" .........
@@scottishchewi7794nobody (who has heard the veterans)says it was destroyed , it was attacked , brits deny it (and have a record of war censorship to save face so skepticism go both ways), anyways it's an interesting mission to simulate .
@@andoapata2216 Luckily i lost no one. Thing is the propaganda coming out of Argentina at the time said it was destroyed. Most folk still believing that to this date.
Comments on the C-130 shootdown video: "Harrier pilot was a murderer!" "War crime!" "How dare you celebrate a successful kill!" Comments on this video: "Oh, so brave!" Ah, nuthin' like fair-weather fans.
13 bombs hit British ships but didnt go off.............you do the maths on that..,.had even 3 or 4 of them exploded the outcome of the whole war could've been different
Speaking of bombing... ua-cam.com/video/5YPo8zDkvy4/v-deo.html
I don't think we can re-enact this though... since DCS AI currently have Superman's hearing.. and have built in night vision... but you might like the story cap (and maybe the song about them as well).
ua-cam.com/video/yzCPnNpuhy0/v-deo.html
@@grimreapers ohhh nice.
ahhh.. the I-16.. always makes my wife laugh watching me crank the landing gear up in VR lol
Seems like Argentine skyhawk pilots were really good at their job...
agree
Many of the Argentine Fast Jet Pilots were very well skilled. As they received training in Britain from the Royal Air Force in the 1970s. When the relations between Britain and Argentina were very cordial. The training included how to attack Navy ships. Additionally, Britain sold a lot of its military technology to Argentina in the 1970s. Including 2 Type 42 Destroyers. The exact same type of Destroyer as HMS Coventry. Consequently, the Argentine pilots were made well aware of the Type 42's weaknesses and how to exploit them.
The Argentine Air Force inflicted by far the most damage and casualties on the British Task Force. They were extremely capable and very brave.
@@searchtron7601 he probably thinks Argentina won too.
@@andywilliams7323 that's not true my friend. The way that Argentine Air Force pilots learned how to attack those ships was thanks to Argentine Naval Aviation, that use to have british ships and they looked how to attack them without being detected.
Remarkable bit of flying to get _that_ close to a modern guided missile destroyers and then hit it with dumb bombs at low-level.
1) tanks were always dropped before the attack; 2) they only carried 3 bombs on the center hardpoint; 3) they never went up before releasing bombs. They stayed low all the way in firing canons before releasing the bombs; 4) they never made a second pass, they ran like hell after release.
Bueno; no tan así. Digamos que los tanques externos de combustible, no se eyectaban durante ni luego el bombardeo (solo en ocasiones A/G), aunque siempre lo hacían al tratarse de un enfrentamiento u escape de las PAC. Por otro lado, es completamente cierto: a 80nm bajaban de 30.000 pies a 300/100 pies y, recién a 40nm se ponía a rasante (30/15 pies). Solo los de la armada levantaban un poco antes de lanzar (no mucho) y, muy poco los M-5 Dagger luego de tirar cañones. Las bombas tenían un retardo en la espoleta de 12 seg. Para que la explosión no dañara “las aeronaves” de ataque. Se atacaba a rasante (a la altura del puente de los buques), los saltaban invirtiendo y nivelando, para emprender el escape a rasante (30 pies unas 25nm); luego ascendían y reabastecían. Llevaban 3 bombas (similares a las Mk-83 o 1x1.000 libras). Jamás hacían reempleo o 2° pasada.
Well; Not so. Let's say that the external fuel tanks were not ejected during the bombing (only sometimes A / G), although they always made it as a confrontation or escape from the PAC. On the other hand, it is completely true: 80nm were falling from 30,000 feet to 300/100 feet and, just at 40nm was stubborn (30/15 feet). Only those of the Navy raised a little before throwing (not much) and, very little the M-5 Dagger after throwing canyons. The pumps had a delay in the 12 sec spur. For the explosion to not damage "the aircraft" of attack. He was attackedly attacked (at the height of the ships bridge), they jumped them investing and leveling, to take the escape to the exhaust (30 feet about 25nm); Then they ascended and represented. They carried 3 pumps (similar to MK-83 or 1x1,000 pounds). They never made a replacement or 2nd passed.
@@equis. Thanks!!!
As an argentinian I send my respects to brithish man who fought in the conflict, brave and heroic acts where seen on both sides. Great video, I'm getting into DCS and this channel is amazing 🤝🏻
Also respect to the Argentinians who fought bravely :)
Certainly gave the Brits a run for their money! Respect to those who fought on both sides.
Lo que dices es lo que debería pasar en todos lados. Los combatientes merecen respeto, porque luchan arriesgando el bien más preciado, que es la vida. La batalla por las Islas Malvinas fue tan atípica que hasta se aplicó el código de caballeros. Creo que los pocos guerreros que no merecen mucho respeto, son los “mercenarios” que luchan por dinero. Los VGM (Veteranos de la guerra de Malvinas), requieren respeto y ponderación; ya sea Argentinos como Británicos.
Por otro lado, DCS tiene cosas muy entretenidas. Tienes que fijarte bien si tu intensión es formar parte de algún escuadrón virtual. Te recomiendo que recopiles y leas todos los Tutoriales y guías que encuentres, para poder practicar offline. Bienvenido al mundo virtual de los loquitos de la aviación e combate
Salud
-----------------------------------------------------
What you say is what should happen everywhere. The combatants deserve respect, because they fight risking the most precious good, which is life. The battle for the Malvinas Islands was so atypical that the Code of Knights was applied. I think the few warriors who do not deserve much respect, are the "mercenaries" fighting for money. The VGM (Veterans of the Falkland War), require respect and weight; Whether Argentine as British.
On the other hand, DCS has very entertaining things. You have to look good if your intention is to be part of a virtual squad. I recommend you collection and read all the tutorials and guides you find, to be able to practice offline. Welcome to the virtual world of aviation and combat loquitos
Health
When you hit the fast speed, I had flashbacks of my VCR eating a tape back in the day..lol
Good times...
My respect to everyone who perished in that conflict and to their families.
If you think economically, in terms of money, the Argentine Air Force and the Argentine Navy inflicted a lot of damage on the English forces. The pilots were very experienced, knew their aircraft very well and were extremely brave. Unfortunately, the aircraft were in a deplorable state, many of the cannons did not work and the ejection seats were expired or did not work either. Many died from not being able to eject. That was the bravery of Argentines. You have to respect that. And yet they never made a film about this conflict, which is a shame.
Thank you very much for that video, Cap. Especially because you are British, it means a lot and says a lot about you. Congratulations and God Speed.
We did, but they are just a compilation of fake bullsh*t.
Awesome video Cap. Respect for the ones who perished on both sides, war is always a tragedy.
0:29 to 2:39 RIP HMS Coventry and her lost crewmen.
I was watching a documentary about the naval action of the Falklands conflict just the other day. It's actually really interesting because the Argentine's had spotted one of the two British carrier groups before they were detected and were set to launch a strike force armed with Exocet missiles to sink the British carrier, but the wind had mysteriously died down completely which took away the Argentine Navy's ability to launch their aircraft. It was theorized that, had the wind been blowing and the Argentine aircraft launched, that the Argentine pilots would have sunk the British aircraft carrier and that would have been enough to end the conflict and send the British navy home. Such a pivotal point in history decided by the weather. Thatcher might have lost all of her political support which would have shaken up elections not only for her, but for her party. Foreign policy decisions in the following decades might have been made differently. So many events in the subsequent history of the world might have been altered because the wind died down on one day.
That's true.
There was actually many moments where the brittish had to make split decisions on whether to continue or not. There where like 6 ships who had been hit with missiles that did not explode (because the Argentines flew so low that they did not have time to arm properly). Had these exploded the brittish would have most likely decided that it was not worth continuing. Another time was when they where disembarcing troops. Had the Argentines hit the landingcraft, the brittish would probably not continue the invasion. A third time was before attacking Port Stanly, the brittish had such low supplies that if the Argentines had known about their logistical problems and just fought for another day or so, the brittish would not have been able to continue. The war was much more balanced than people like to think. However it is now known the brittish had nuclear weapons, which might have been used.
@@tuff9486 Wow. Could you imagine the international backlash that Britain would have received had they used a nuclear weapon on such an inconsequential piece of land? I for one am grateful that the world did not see that come to pass.
@@tuff9486 todo lo q decis es siento, la verdadera historia de la rendición de Argentina fue q Thatcher amenazó con un ataque nuclear sobre Bs.As. les recomiendo ver Guerra desde el Aire, un documental del canal History Cannel, ahí los pilotos argentinos cuentan toda la historia. Saludos
The Argentine pilots on the carrier knew that their mission to attack the British fleet would most likely be that they would not return. They probably were relieved that they couldn't launch. There is another part of the Argentine carrier returning to port and how it's combined anti submarine air warfare units (helicopter and trackers) saved it from being sunk by a British submarine that chased it all the way back to port. Talk about a lot of what if possibilities of war.
Really need some more ships (T42s and Frigates) in DCS. Broadsword had actually locked up the Skyhawks with Seawolf as they were coming in but Coventry turned across her bow so was unable to fire - so one of the few occasions the skyhawks were able to get high enough for their bombs to arm.
Plus they told one of the 2 harriers on CAP to not engage dispute having the skyhawk locked up.
@@virtualinsanity2457 I don't think the Sea Harrier had a lock, it was just that they were going to attack and were warned off because of "friendly" SAMs (Sea Darts), I'd be quite surprised if a Sea Dart was realistically at risk of going rogue (semi-active homing) but I'm not an expert.
@@tomriley5790 yeah they had to make a quick decision and based on earlier success with the darts called them off, I remember reading the SHAR pilots were fuming after being called off saying over the radio “are you fucking joking, we’ve got them!”
@@tomriley5790 Sea Dart couldn't go rogue in the traditional sense of seeking an alternative target, but because it used proportional navigation in addition to SARH, it could be athreat to other aircraft. I witnessed this firsthand as a 909 maintainer aboard Birmingham, when we were conducting Sea Dart firings in Cardigan Bay. 909 lost lock on the towed target and the dart proceeded to take out the towing aircraft.
@@petecook8265 Ouch! Were they okay?
I knew a gentleman who was a chef on the Coventry. Never talked about the conflict, except the once when he told me he'd been on Coventry in the Falklands ( I knew he'd been a chef in the Navy previously) R.I.P. Bob.
9:07 I was watching and thinking to myself, “what if Cap lost his situational awareness and smashed into the water?”
Most of the times: Argentines
Final dive: Japanese
As an Argentinian i must say... TEIKO HEIKA BANZAAAAAAAAAAAAI
Felicito el intento o la intensión.
SUGERENCIAS:
1) Les recomiendo rehacerla en el mapa de “Islas Marianas”, en la zona situada entre los aeropuertos de “Tinian Intl y, Saipan Intl” y a: 20nm de Saipan en el radial 165°, poniendo 2 buques como piquete de radar; entrando desde el NORTE de Tinian 360° a SUR (hasta las 20nm del Rad 165 SUR de Saipan), para poder bordear la costa de Tinian. Podría despegar desde “Antonio B Won Pat Int”, Navegar 110nm rumbo 360° (WP1), girar WP2 rumbo097° una 50nm y seguir con el plan anterior. Luego regresar como puedan.
2) ¿Cómo hacían aquellos pilotos? Usaban un patrón de vuelo denominado “GRAN - BAJO - GRAN” = Despegan (Despegaban ya volando bajo, para no alertar a la inteligencia de los vecinos, que le daban información a la flota). 40nm de una posición determinada, ascendía a 10.000 pies para hacer repostaje. Luego ascendían a 35.000 pies y a unas 100/80nm descendían hasta una altitud máxima entre 100/50pies. Cuando se aproximaban a 60nm de la posición o DANGER ZONE, emprendía vuelo bajo (rasante) con un margen de 30/15 pies para no ser detectado por los radares. El patrón de vuelo bajo, era respetado antes, durante y después de llegar al objetivo. La formación era en línea con una separación de no más de {“100mt” a 20nm} y 20mt a partir de las 10nm.
3) El ataque de la FAA, siempre se hizo a rasante (no tomaban altura (excepto los de la armada o pilotos navales), a 30pies y ascendían a 60 pies, porque la cubierta de los buques estaba aprox. a 40pies. Lanzaban sus bombas y saltaban a los buques en un ángulo de 90° o virando; invertían/nivelaban y escapaban a rasante máximo hasta una distancia de 25nm, para luego emprender la navegación de regreso. Retornando, volvían a hacer repostaje a Gran altura
4) Las bombas que podrían usar serían:
3x MK-83 (TER)
1x AN-M65 PG de BR 1.000 lb
PREGUNTA: ¿cómo hicieron para suprimirle los cañones FALANGE a los buques?
SALUDOS {desde Argentina}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EN (Google Translate)
I congratulate the attempt or intention.
Suggestions:
1) I recommend it to redorate it on the map of "Mariana Islands", in the area located between the airports of "Tinian Intl and, Saipan Intl" and A: 20nm from Saipan in the radial 165 °, putting 2 ships such as radar picket; Entering from the north of Tinian 360 ° to Sur (up to 20 nm from RAD 165 south of Saipan), to be able to skirt the Tinian coast. It could take off from "Antonio B Won Pat int", navigate 110nm Rumbo 360 ° (WP1), turn WP2 Rumbo097 ° 50nm and continue with the previous plan. Then return as you can.
2) How did those pilots do? They used a flight pattern called "Great - Low - Great" = take off (they took off and flying low, so as not to alert the intelligence of the neighbors, who gave information to the fleet). 40nm of a given position, amounted to 10,000 feet to reflect. Then they amounted to 35,000 feet and about 100 / 80nm descended to a maximum altitude between 100 / 50pies. When approaching 60nm of the position or Danger Zone, he undertook low (ground) flight with a margin of 30/15 feet not to be detected by radars. The low flight pattern, was respected before, during and after reaching the objective. The training was in line with a separation of no more than {"100mt" at 20nm} and 20mt from 10 am.
3) FAA's attack, always did not take height (except those of the Navy Navy or pilots), 30pies and amounted to 60 feet, because the vessel's cover was approx. 40Pies. They launched their Pumps and jumped the vessels at an angle of 90 ° or virting; Invested / Leveled and escaped maximum up to a distance of 25nm, and then take back navigation. Refuelin and Returning to, great height.
4) The pumps they could use would be:
3x MK-83 (TER)
1x AN-M65 PG BR 1000 LB
Question: How did they take to suppress the Falange guns to ships?
CHEERS {from Argentina}
Hi cap. here is alejandro from Argetina. Again absoluty amazing. But the camo that you use are form A-4C of the Grupo 4 de Caza (Fighter group 4). The attack was made by the A-4B of the Grupo5 de caza (Fighter Group 5). I will send you by the Instragran some photos of the pilot and her planes
Thanks
I highly recommend the book “One Hundred Days” by Admiral Sandy Woodward who was the Task Force commander for the UK.
Definitely worth it, I even read an argentinian book that praised him
Those pilots of the Fuerza Aérea Argentina had some very large hairy ones
agree
@@searchtron7601 Politics of the conflict aside, the forces on both side did their absolute best. There is a great interview with a sea harrier pilot who scored a number of air to air kills on Skyhawks and, as is often the case, he talks very matter of fact about the actual process that led to it, but he speaks so highly of the skill and bravery of the Argentine pilots.
Prior to the Falklands the relationship between the UK and Argentina had been good. I hope it continues this way in the future :)
@@bunburyodo hey , what's a little war between friends ?
Loving the Ace Combat soundtrack in the background. They always make those soundtracks so good!
I think it’s “Blue on Blue” from Ace Combat Assault Horizon
Correct!
Un gusto recreen las misiones argentinas. Saludos de Argentina
It is a lot harder than one would initially think.
That Ace Combat soundtrack in the background:) 👍
Got to know, How did you feel the first time sitting back down to play DCS again on your Monitor after getting back from Flying in VR ?
Cap's nemesis, the glassy water, strikes again
sigh...
can this be reenacted? that ship was hit due to bad maneuvers. broadsword interrupted the coventry radar lock when she turned in front of it.
Is it just me or is the water harder to see since the update?
impossible to see with clouds on.
@@grimreapers probably pretty realistic actually.
Billy Mitchelle's dream come true
Well, that was a nice birthday present to wake up to. 🙂
Happy birthday! x
I remember the first military aircraft I ever sat in was an A-4, we used them as trainers in aviation electricians school.
Nice Reenactment, indeed was 4 skyhawks, in 2 groups, the first group Carballo - Rinke (Damage Broadsword) and second Velasco - Barrionuevo (made the hit Coventry). This 2 ships were diverting attention for the main attack on San Carlos bay, so it was like setting a trap. Why you climb so much before drop bombs? suppose DCS don’t let you drop bomb bellow 50mts, if you see the hits on most UK ships were always on the side, so they drop low with bouncing bombs tactic, flying at 10-15mts to avoid radar detection and Sea Dart missil until 20km when they can’t reach the time for activate.
The Coventry shoot down 3 of our fighter early that day, that was returning from San Carlos bay attack. So she sunk fighting. should be proud of your sailors (RIP).
It was one of the few attack sorties how return with the full members to the continent alive.
Arg perspective 25 may attack day:
ua-cam.com/video/JEofjadnnyY/v-deo.html
i Think the guys at GR are simply using the 3 step iron bomb drop tactics used by USNavy during Vietnam...
Step 1: a low level approach to avoid SAM followed by
Step 2: a climb to get altitude in order to perform
Step 3: a final dive with controlled altitude angle and speed up to a computer assisted bomb drop
Of course this was a tactic specially designed to maximize bomb accuracy by USAF who had air supremacy, was confronted by 1960's SAMs that had extremely poor performance against low altitude targets and needed time to correctly acquire target.
This tactic wasn't realistic against Sea Dart missile in open seas, so Argentine pilots used a straight run release that increased plane survival chances despite lowering the accuracy (accuracy that wasn't helped by a bomb computer since unlike A4E and later, A4B and C didn't have it installed)
Y como sos Argentino va en Español:
los muchachos de GR usan en el video la táctica de bombardeo en 3 pasos que usaba la USNavy y el USMC en vietnam.
Paso 1: aproximación a baja cota para evitar detección de radar que pudiera vectorizar cazas y SAMs seguido de
Paso 2: una escalada a altitud para poder realizar
Paso 3: un picado final con altitud velocidad y ángulo controlado para arrojar bombas asistido por una computadora de tiro
Esta táctica fue diseñada para maximizar la precisión de las bombas "tontas" por la USNavy/USMC que tenían a su favor la supremacía aerea y eran confrontados por SAM de tecnología de los 60s que tenían muy mala performance contra blancos en baja cota y necesitaban tiempo para adquirir blanco calcular trayectoria y lanzar.
La táctica de la USNavy no era aplicable para bombardeo naval en mar abierto contra Sea Dart, asi que los pilotos de la ARA/FAA usaron una táctica de ataque naval con carrera recta (estilo torpedero de la segunda guerra mundial) a máxima velocidad lanzando bombas con retardadores de caída (solo la ARA hasta que a final de conflicto la FAA incorporó la táctica y abandonó las bombas de 500kg). Esta táctica daba mayores chances de sobrevida al avión atacante (que de todas formas los A4B y A4C no tenían como los A4E computadoras de tiro, así que tampoco podrían haber utilizado asistencia para lanzar bombas)
SI CARAJO QUE VIVA LA PATRIA ARGENTINAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Toda la operación fue en vuelo rasante, los bombardeos fueron a 100 pies del buque.
One of the pilots, when launch the bobms said: "Viva la Patria Carajo.... Gringos de mierda"... those were words of the Captain Pablo Carballo y th Lt, (jr) Carlos Rinke.
Amazing. My step-father was an RAF Chaplain and was in the Falklands for 6 months in the late 80s (post conflict). He went around the island and blessed the various cairns of fallen soldiers, since it had yet to be done at that time.
I have just started playing and i'm getting my head around the A4 at the moment. I spent ages following your LABS tutorial and couldn't for the life of me work out why it wouldn't work, only to discover they added the CMPTR switch to work lol.
My brother and I are trying to learn to play DCS together. Is there a good way we could go into the same game together to practice?
Question?
Didn't Argentinians attacks were "one pass howl ass" afair. As in they were dropping all bombs in one go and running away?
Are you doing those multiple strikes for cinematic reasons, or am I miss informed on how the Argentinian AF and Navy did things
Yes, most of a4's load was fuel and only 3 bombs , one pass and run for your life as low and fast as you can.
@@andoapata2216 True, but sadly, most of the bombs didn't explode (miss configuration).
This war was a very teachable moment for the US Navy... It taught them how vulnerable they were to anti-ship missiles and high speed low flying fighters which gave birth to CIWS and other close in systems. Btw down vote because.... because it's just me.
It wasn't a teachable moment for the USN, the US Phalanx CIWS had been in production since 1978, 4 years before the Falklands war. It was a teachable moment for the RN, CIWS's were fitted to most RN combat vessels post Falklands.
Agree to the downvote.
@@Rangit0t0 Phalanx was fitted to RN ships at the expense of the skipper's launch, which when originally suggested before the Falklands was met with incredulity by the admiralty and the skipper had to have a launch to get ashore in some of the locations the RN visited. Many of the lessons learnt from the Falklands resulted in the Batch 3 T22 and T23s.
Long live ARGENTINA... what a beating we gave them!
Ok, You all saw that some underwater volcanic eruption or mythological sea-monster
suddenly pushed up the Ocean's surface,
and Cap did in fact not crash like a total noob after an otherwise flawless run.
Right ?
can't see water surface anymore...
in the next video Cap and GR teach us how to pilot a submarine :)
Coventry was a Type 42 Destroyer, not a Frigate.
thx
@@grimreapers
Welcome.
It was my dad's ship.
He finished his at-sea spate and started his on-shore duty a scant few months before she sank.
He would have been in the engine room at the time.
He then joined Illustrious, just in time for one of the gearboxes to explode, fighting the fire in said engine room
apnews.com/article/1e468564aa39162a95a14d9c206074fd
Say what you want about the Argentine pilots. They sure had big balls. Don't know much about how they planned out the attacks beforehand. Or if it was just bomb whatever you can kind of thing.
on the bottom left corner of the radar altimeter there is a little purple knob to adjust the threshold for the laws warning
How much research was done into FAA and Armada tactics for these videos? I have to echo the other comments remarking on inaccuracies like popups, multiple runs etc. If you’re doing a historic reenactment surely it wouldn’t hurt to get it right?
zero research into FAA and Armada tactics for any of these vids.
-It was two sections of Group 5 that attacked HMS-Coventri and HMS-Broadsword, one attacked from the ground, as
Go to the recreation (1st Tte Velazco and Alf Varrionuevo) and the other was made from the open sea (Cap: Carballo
and Tte Rinke) of the latter there is a spectacular photo taken from the Brodsword and that
synthesizes how the Argentine pilots fought
Photo Yesterday: fotos.subefotos.com/fdd71909e042be9cd6009a23efeddc79o.jpg
Photo today:fotos.subefotos.com/9a598b43f0cc5b09f8f48a6491f9a104o.jpg
You referred to Coventry as a Frigate. She was A Type 42 Destroyer. Is there a difference?
Copy thx
In the RN ship classification is based on role, not size or displacement. A frigate has a primary role of general-purpose (Type 21) or ASW (Type 22, Type 23), a destroyer has a primary role of AAW (Type 42, Type 45). The RN refers to classes of ship by Type to indicate their role also, so a Type 2X is ASW and a Type 4X is AAW. This will change with the introduction of the Type 31 frigates in a few year's time which will be general-purpose, which should be a Type 8X.
Fuckin' John Wick requested a video, you're a legend now, man
lol
Oh no ...the gauchos is coming
In real life did any of the British Forces attempt to interdict the C 130 refuellers ? It would have been air campaign over had they done so.
CIWS phalanx or similar would have shredded those low flying Skyhawks.
Cap have you ever done a video showing the difference between full power breaks on, then release brakes versus full power on without brakes? Do you get in the air quicker? By how much time and distance?
thx
Wow that roll rate looks realistic......
The A-4 Skyhawk had a roll rate of an incredible 720 degrees per second. However pilots were prohibited of exceeding 360 degrees per second according to the A-4 NATOPS Training Manual because of potential aircraft structural damage.
What key is it you pressed when watching him go in to freeze the camera there to watch the bomb go in @ 9:36 and 10:28 ?
I know you are just having a laugh and I am a big fan of your videos, but this was a poor reenactment. There’s so many books out there on this war about what happened from both perspectives which if you had paid some interest to could have given some decent basic historical military naval and aviation information. Plus given your large audience perhaps dedicate future “re-enactments” to all the servicemen involved on both sides and make it clear these videos are loosely based on what happened. Otherwise as you begin to cover conflicts closer to home from which ex servicemen/women and their families are still alive- you are likely to upset those who see the inaccuracies and lack of respect regarding what really happened.
I did post a comment and it suspiciously dissapeared. But I think, personally, this was a very insensitive video to post especially having friends and family that were very much involved. What makes it worse is you, a Brit are being the aggressors towards a British Naval fleet.
A great video of a bad day.
9:05 was water that blury to you too or is the youtube compresion? that water shading seems so flat
It's completely flat since clouds changed. Can't see surface at all anymore :( please fix
In real life the Skyhawks flying so close to the sea would fog up the front of the glass with sea spray such that it was difficult to see. So no wonder you hit the water in the end. :-)
EXCUSE ME GRIN REAPERS
Step a link "Aircraft in Malvinas (low resolution 480)"
ua-cam.com/video/ci2F8B1it0A/v-deo.html
Mi homenaje
PD: If you want grin reapers: I can go through links to interviews with the Malvinas pilots and, related material
Una estúpida recreación de ese memorable ataque!
Bueno algo es algo no te quejes
Ace combat Assualt horizon, Pipeline I think
What town are you from Cap?
Ely, UK
@@grimreapers I knew you were from a sane part of the country :D
Why arent you guys using the bombing computer? Admittedly I dont know a ton about the Argentinian Skyhawks so they could have not used the system but im curious nonetheless
Because the argentine A4's didn't have any, specially the ones from the Air Force. Naval A4's tended to be better rigged.
Use the force Luke
The b models of the Skyhawks only had the mark 1 eyeball as their bombing computer. :-)
FAA only got the Ferranti dive bombing gunsight (not even an analog computer). Velazco was incredible accurate with his aiming tho. He squared al least two of his 3 bombs on HMS Coventry, less than a meter from the water sufrace, while flying at 900 kph at 10m height (and while being shoot missiles, 20mm oerlikons and machineguns to his face).
I don't understand - if it's a game, why on earth would you preface the gameplay with a veteran talking about how awful it was to be under this attack and then try and replicate it? I do understand that you want to see how the Falklands War would have played out in DCS, and indeed might have played out in real life with certain variables changed - but why on earth would you attach it to real people with real experiences, whether British sailors and soldiers who got killed or maimed by the Argentinian attacks, or indeed the poor Argentinian pilots who got shot down by the AAM's from the ships and the Rapier batteries as well as the Sea Harriers?
What's to "understand"? The intro seemed to me like a fitting tribute to those who fought in a historic battle, and it set the scene for it's digital re-enactment. I didn't see anything that could have triggered your outrage. Seems like contrived outrage.
People watch his videos from all over the world. Many watching will have little or no familiarity with the Falklands War or that specific incident. So he prefaces all his re-enactment videos with something providing real-life information about the incident he then re-enacts. In order to inform his viewers about the incident and what its impact and consequences were.
He then re-enacts the incidents in DCS to learn, gain and show understanding and insight into what it was really like. For both educational and entertainment purposes.
What he does is no different to the multitude of other people who create both digital and physical re-enactments of real-life historic incidents and battles. No disrespect is intended. In fact, he honours those who died and were injured. By informing and educating others about what happened. And keeping the knowledge of it alive across the multitude of his viewers.
"why on earth would you attach it to real people with real experiences" because those veterans were the people were there, war tales are biased enough having 2 sides, and get more biased and distorted when not told by the people who was there
Well…all of those WWII games have to go now.
Well the next video Should be the 30 of may attack of HMS Invincible.
rgr
What the one that didn't happen and was made of fake propaganda? HMS invincible was never destroyed during the Falklands War.
@@grimreapers Think aswell reinacting something like this is a tad ott and foul play with the amount of people lost on either side in the conflict. Particularly when I've family who fought there.
"get some Coventry" .........
@@scottishchewi7794nobody (who has heard the veterans)says it was destroyed , it was attacked , brits deny it (and have a record of war censorship to save face so skepticism go both ways), anyways it's an interesting mission to simulate .
@@scottishchewi7794 sorry for your loss .
@@andoapata2216 Luckily i lost no one. Thing is the propaganda coming out of Argentina at the time said it was destroyed. Most folk still believing that to this date.
Comments on the C-130 shootdown video: "Harrier pilot was a murderer!" "War crime!" "How dare you celebrate a successful kill!"
Comments on this video: "Oh, so brave!"
Ah, nuthin' like fair-weather fans.
lols yup
the water is so hard to see now!.... any pilots/seaworkers etc, is it realistic?
From what I heard it was realistic pre-2.7
Death by pitch black water of beta?
I know it's driving me frigging nuts...
13 bombs hit British ships but didnt go off.............you do the maths on that..,.had even 3 or 4 of them exploded the outcome of the whole war could've been different
The Argentinian final attcacks were at low level and not the way you depicted.
Cap, flying 2.0 beta 4?
rgr
firstest
how embarrassing for you Cap
The new water effects in 2.7 CAN't SEE water! And yes embarrassing.
I am kinda surprised how Michael describes what happened that day and his feelings. It’s a war, not a summer vacation.
Brother se escribe argentina no argentine
ua-cam.com/video/mYOW1a8Dzkk/v-deo.html with love xd
It was not a game . . you!! have no respect.