Two interesting stories based on an fact that I didn't know until recently. Apologies in advance for the especially heavy dramatization of footage in this video... We aim for a cinematic style, and non-US archival footage of submarines is a little more limited than with other topics (not to mention UA-cam hates when creators use even G/PG-rated combat footage, further limiting what is available.) Side fact, as well: an NK midget sub is alleged to have sunk a SK corvette in 2010, but NK denies possessing subs of that type: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yono-class_submarine. Evidence points to likely, but unconfirmed.
The use of various video footages is understandable. Otherwise there would be none. I took a tour on HMS Conqueror in San Diego in 1978 or 79. She was there being fitted for sub-Harpoon missiles
Not since they lifted the the South Korean ship from the ocean bottom, it is confirmed it was hit with a torpedo. Some US Navy ships/subs were used in this footage but none were harmed. You could do a video on NK sub activity, the 1996 Sang-O class that ran aground and the NK SOF killed the crew and exfiltrated themselves back to NK and the 2010 sinking of the ROK navy ship.
fumblerooskie I watched a documentary on the falklands war which had interviews from both sides. It’s really good and shows how a lot of the argentines didn’t want to kill the British, but war is war and they had orders. It’s called “the Falklands war - the untold story”
@@Darckstarchild actually their called the Falklands and by the way there was a vote, in which the falklanders voted almost unanimously to remain part of the Uk
@@enricocarrara4741 you meant to say "they're" but can't speak English. As all the population is Brits, I'm not surprised how they voted. The pronunciation is: Islas Malvinas. An impartial American.
@@caitgems1 Royal Navy is a fucking joke these days with Parliament slashing the military budget every year. Britannia does not rule the waves anymore.
@@caitgems1 that was true maybe 120 years ago. Ever since the nuclear arsenal came of age, britian has lost most if not ALL of its authority on the worlds oceans. and the walking punch line known as the "royal" family isnt helping matters.
As an ex Royal Navy sumbmariner, there was no option other than to take out Belgrano. It was an active asset in a war zone. It's not like they were there on a penguin spotting cruise.
To be fair the Captain of the General Belgrano said the attack on his ship was a legitimate act of war, along with the chief Admiral of the Argentine Navy. The only people who cry sour grapes are unrepentant Argentine nationalists and the uneducated.
They also began the war with a Helicopter assault on Bunk houses. Raping them with gunfire, rockets and grenades on what WOULD have been unarmed commandos without warning. It would have been a war crime had the commandos not changed their battle plan. But that’s none of my business.
So let me get this straight... Argentina kicks off hostilities then cries foul when the other party fights back??? I wasn't aware of the no tag backs rule of war...
@@memonk11 The exclusion Zone was for neutral shipping.. Combatant warships were fair game. I read an account by a senior Argentine Navy officer - Flag Rank - who admitted that, if roles were reversed, he would have done the same think, so please quell your irrational outrage.
HMS Conqueror was later involved in a highly secret mission called Operation Barmaid in which she used specially designed cutters to shear through the cables of a then new Soviet towed array sonar whilst it was being tested from behind a Polish-flagged vessel. She then carried the sonar back to base for analysis by British and American naval intelligence. The cutters were designed to make it appear as though the towed sonar had snagged on a rock or some debris and sheared off, rather than being deliberately cut away and stolen.
@Jay Devine The log book went 'missing' 😂. Not heard that before - assuming the capture of this array is what led to that Walker guy and his son getting done for treason in the US.. ?
@@observinglife7366 That is sad! I didn't know that, his was the honour of commanding the last Royal Navy 'Man of War' on which a foreign nation surrendered to Her Britannic Majesty's armed forces! That ship should have been preserved as a museum - but our own bloody marxist led city council put every obstacle they could think of in the way of bringing her back to her home port. Towed to Turkey and scrapped - what a disgrace!
@@plymouth5714 He was known for a particular maneuver during the Falklands war where he effectively powered in at speed, swung the Plymouth around "handbrake turned" and opened up with the main 4.5 inch gun on the cliffs behind the Argentine position. He sent a message to them that he would bring the cliffs down on them, they surrendered.
It is tragic that people had to die. It's also tragic that they started this war, sending many conscripts to their death fighting hardened Royal Marines, Paras, Gurkas and The might of the Royal Navy. Your statement was so to the point that it is amazing.
Yeahweat thebuffet Learn some history you melt, Argentina wasn't even a country when Britain ruled the Falklands, hell the conferderation of States in South America had barely been a thing. Theres arguments over who found it first, Britain or France but that doesn't matter because we took it from the French. The only claim the Argies have is through the Spanish as the Spanish had a fort on there which we Brits took over after kicking the Spanish out. Btw you're an idiot, Spanish were just as Imperalistic as Britain, hence why much of South America speaks Spanish, the natives in South America had their land and rights stolen by the Spanish who preceded to nearly wipe out a civilisation through disease so up yours you biased prick. Perhaps all the fuckers with Spanish ancestry should fuck off back to Spain and leave any pure natives left to rule the land if you think Imperalism was so bad.
Well, that isn't difficult, being that the title clearly states there are only two that have sunk an enemy ship... The title would be incorrect if it wasn't one of them!
At the end of the day, during a war any enemy military asset is a target whether it is heading towards the front or leaving. The only time it should not be targeted is when surrendering. The Belgrano was not surrendering and as such was a valid military target.
while the sinking of Belgrano was per definition justified and the Argentinians asked for it the British aren't known to care much of playing after the book so it would have been no shocker if they had sunk it as it was entering dock or even with white flag.
Børre Børresen even if it had been entering a port/dock, it would have been a valid target. You are wrong though. If it had been showing a white flag, it would not have been sunk. It would have been boarded, crew taken prisoner and ship taken, do not confuse Brits with yanks.
no problem at not confusing the Yanks with anyone... the yanks you know are no good since they don't know what they are doing else from trying to brute-force everything. "It would have been boarded, crew shot with hand on their head and ship\WW1-uboat sunk with all evidence" *there, fixed it it for you.
@@brrebrresen1367 The British and Americans have dominated the world and lead Human civilization over the course of modern history because of strong willed people that took great risks to achieve what they did. You can learn from this history, and strengthen your own will to achieve your own goals, or you can complain like a loser with a childish victim mentality and achieve nothing. Your choice.
How can it be illegal to sink a warship when that warship is engaged in hostile action against friendly forces, or when engaged in legally declared war?
At the time the exclusion zone was meant to contain the conflict, so there would be no fighting outside the zone even between Britain and Argentina. The Belgrano was outside that zone when it was sunk, the argentines claimed as she was outside the zone and sailing away she should never have been targeted, but as said in the video, the British had informed the Argentinians they no longer recognised the zone as exclusive and latter it was confirmed she was going to sail into the zone to attack. There was also a lot of issues regarding the sinking as she was maned mostly with young conscripts (many of whom died) and was being targeted by a professional nuclear navy ship outside the zone, and that being a second hand ww2 warship she was no real threat, even though she was. EDIT: I'm not the one who was questioning the legality, just trying to help answere the above comment from Eric!
L Lock In practice, nobody (besides the occasional Argentine hardliner) seriously disputes the sinking. Much of the argument is only done for argument’s sake. It was awful, but it was a war. British warships were also sunk during the conflict. It’s quite likely that the sinking of the Belgrano prevented the first carrier battle since WW2, and a potentially disastrous naval battle that would’ve resulted in many more casualties.
Interesting pair of stories. . It is hoped that Argentinia learned that when you start a war, the other side will shoot back, and you don't get to decide what they shoot at or where they shoot at it.
the argies didnt seem to give a shit when they sank 6 british ships
5 років тому+10
Fighting a real war isn't the same as arresting journalists, students and trade unionists, tying them to metal beds and ripping out their finger and toe nails. Argentine armed forces: "What! The enemy can fight back!"
The generals who ruled Argentina were in their positions because they killed civilians who do not shoot back. Finally, when they started a war against an actual country, they assumed that the leader who was a woman, would not shoot back. They were fancy dress bully boys who are now vilified in their own country for what they were.
As an Argentinean, yeah, the dictator who invade the islands, when he said that they were getting invaded, he was drunk, and, for example, if you want to protest against the idea, a "falcon verde" (the green ford falcon used by the military) would stop in front of your house, you will get in, and never be seen again, so when we invaded we tried that they wouldn't even care, but we'll it happened, as a fun fact every map BY LAW needs to have a small map at the corner with the "Malvinas" (Falklands) and the Artic "slice" the is supposed to be from us
I think the important lesson that Argentina learned in 1982 is that it is unwise to pick a fight with the undefeated heavyweight champion of the World even after she has gone into semi retirement.
The British empire was at their height around the early 20th century. So ya while they were not as strong in the 1980s they still had what it takes during the Falklands war.
As a Briton, I do feel great sympathy for the ordinary Argentine sailors on the Belgrano. Young men sent into a war that a fascist dictator started But Argentina WAS the aggressor and Buenos Aires was foolish and arrogant to test British resolve. Argentina violated the freedom of the Falkland Islanders and Britain liberated them.
@@unclesam5230 Well, the definitions of fascism vary greatly so it's not an exact term. While Galtieri, Videla and Anaya may not have been classic fascists with Mussolini busts on their desks, they still held total contempt for democracy and were clinging to power by having opponents tortured and making them "disappear", partly by dropping them over the open sea from helicopters. They made a complete dog's breakfast of the Argentine economy and currency and when despite all the repression, opposition and protests threatened to overthrow them, they kicked up military confrontations first with Chile, than with the UK. Sounds fascist enough to me...
@@unclesam5230 really your republican party at the time seemed to have liked him , even going as far as telling the iron lady not to go to war , tell me was he in your pockets or was you in his 🤔
The General Belgrano was supposed to be sunk. The British said, that there was a warzone, so that no civilian ships would go there. But military targets could surely be attacked outside of that zone. I‘ve never heard of a war, where enemy targets couldn‘t be attacked in international waters.
The Argentines started the war and they're pissed they lost a ship!?! The Brits lost six ships, I don't recall them whining! There is a fundamental maxim, count the cost BEFORE you go to war! If you can't bare the cost/loss then don't start the fight!
Remember that the Argie military attache told his government that there would be no war. He was of the 'professional' opinion that the British had neither the will or ability to contest possession of the islands, and would therefore do nothing. They didn't have to count any cost because they wouldn't have to fight. Oh to see the faces of the members of the Junta when the task force sailed. Or the poor conscripts when the Tin Triangle roared over the large runway and rendered it unserviceable. "But we were told the British wouldn't fight. That thing just flew 6,000 miles to bomb us, and now we're going to have to fight a properly led, properly trained professional army. Oh woe is us."
As I recall it put US in quandary; two allies were in a shooting war, and we were technically obligated to help both! I think we stayed neutral, sort of. We did allow the British to obtain satellite data of the south Atlantic!
British were within their rights to sink the Belgrano, if you're hunting British ships and already invaded British sovereign territory makes you a legitimate target
Never quite understood this argument about "sailing away instead of towards" with the belgrano. Unless you have surrendered you can be targeted, those are the rules. And it didn't matter if you're orders are to deliver cake and presents to the enemy, it's war, you're armed, part of the opposition and a target.
Also, the Belgrano had some of their heavier weaponry at the back. Swinging about would have brought those into a clear arc on several potential targets. Naval combat hasn't been about ships of the line running alongside each other for quite a while.
The whole controversy stands from the fact that officially war was never declared by either party and Britain had stated that they would sink any Argentine ship that came within 250 miles of the Falklands as it was an exclusion zone. The Belgrano never actually breached that zone, however prior to the Conqueror requesting to sink her the exclusion zone was increased in radius, but the Belgranos CO was unaware.
@@ohnolookwho241 Did we say we *wouldn't* sink anything outside the zone? Probably an important little detail there? 😉 Honestly, if you invade your neighbor, refuse to leave and are told that they are coming to take it back? Well then, if you start having a bit of a cruise in your navy, you can't complain if you get shot at. You're not on a pleasure cruise are you?
British ships trying to avoid being torpedoed always zigzagged, so how would the particular direction of a warship at any time matter? Or is there one rule for British ships and another for Argentine aggressors?
@@ohnolookwho241 You don't have to declare war when you have been invaded. Imagine if the Germans in 1945 had complained that the Polish hadn't declared war before returning fire.
@J Calhoun are you stupid? There was no crime or mallice involved here. It was war. An armed conflict. These people aboard the vessels had all the knowledge in the world and knew that there was the likelyhood of being killed in combat. Yet they did what they did. Respect people who do their job, yet dont cry for people who volunteered to die
@J Calhoun i have, and in the way where i did not literally sign up to die. Now go back to playing army with your toys and let people who have actual brains to think do their thing. If you have a slither of intellect, you would understand that this is their job as much as my daily job is what it is. If i get a bad day, i dont expect to have the whole world bow before me in respect of me. Now, as i have done so, it's your time. Have you ever signed up to die? sure doesnt look like so.
@@johnfrisby5145 Belgrano was armed with Exocet missiles...The Argentine military fired these at any opportunity against Royal Navy and merchant shipping. Usually with devastating results...although analysis of the attacks suggest that not one of the missies exploded...but the rocket motors set fire to the ships superstructure in each case. Sheffield was sunk in retaliation for the Belgrano attack...the aluminium superstructure actually started to burn...it sank 3-4 days after the attack whilst being towed...They also fired these weapons from land based sites against Royal Navy ships that were giving land based forces naval gunfire support. These missiles did a lot of damage and killed many personnel...The sinking of then Belgrano took the Argentinian Navy out of the conflict...The attack on the Sheffield happened on the 4th May...The largest ship lost was The Atlantic Conveyer (Attacked on 25th May 1982/Argentina's National day and a very serious attempt to destroy or disable one of the Royal navy's Carriers)which was carrying the vast majority of ALL the UK's logistical equipment and (crucially) the balance of Chinook helicopters...(Only one RAF Chinook had been flown off The Atlantic Conveyor../This is assessed as the greatest loss in real terms for the British during the campaign..)
@@malcolmyoung7866 Belgrano wasn't armed with Exocets, but the two escorting destroyers were. However, it shouldn't be imagined that the Belgrano was no threat to the British Task Force. Had she managed to get within gunnery range, her 6" guns would have devastated any British ship she hit since they were all relatively modern unarmoured designs, while the Belgrano's thick armour would have provided a significant degree of defence against their 4.5" guns and even their Exocets.
Certainly, Conqueror should be made a museum ship. The UK has an unbelievably tiny number of warships preserved for a nation to whom it's navy has been so historically important.
Hey! I got the chance to get inside the PNS Hangor back when I was a kid on a school trip. Never realised the historical importance of the submarine or even it's name at the time. I still remember that there was a room full of buttons in the back end which they said was where the torpedoes were fired from, one kid burst into tears after hearing that while I was giddy with excitement. Near the front, there were these two little metal steps going downwards which I didn't notice and fell face first.
May I recommend you a good history channel sir/madam? If you like straight to the point factual videos about events In history (particularly the world wars), check out Mark Felton Productions.
There was some things not right or could have gone into more detail about. IE the use of stock footage in this video shows a "Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruiser" infact 4:06-4:10 is USS Mobile Bay (identified by her hull nomenclature) 6:46-6:56 appear to be a Soviet/Russian ship. I can't tell exactly due to bad video quality but it appears to be a "Sovremenny class destroyer" 7:41 is British Frigate "HMS Broadsword" again identified by her hull nomenclature, though she did serve in the Falkland War, just not sure why show footage of her while talking about Argentine destroyers. 9:40-9:45 again is USS Mobile Bay. The Argintine ship sunk talked about in this video "ARA General Belgrano" was originally "USS Phoenix CL-46" she commissioned into the US Navy in 1938, fought in WW2 and was sold to Argentina in 1951. She was one of 9 Brooklyn class light cruisers. Also as the other guy stated Mark Felton is a great UA-cam historian who has video about the Falkland War. Other great History channel I would recommend would be, Drachinifel (if you're interested in Naval history), Military History Visualized, The History Guy: History Deserves to be remembered, and Potential History. just a few of my personal favorites.
There’s relatively new intelligence that has just been released over the last few years, highlighting that Chile was actively helping the British during the Falklands. They had gathered intelligence that the Argentinian war ship WAS on its was to attack British ships, and relayed this to London, this is what primarily drove the decision to attack. However this could not be acknowledged at the time due to the relationship between Chile and Britain being extremely covert.
because if British didn't respond the Falkland invasion, Argentina would invade Chile. There were massive troops and armored division built up at the Chilean border by the Argentinians.
Not that hard to determine. It was done by the ship builders themselves. One of those Union fails that eventually cause the site they were working at close. Selfish stupidity.
@@jrregan like many unionised industries in the UK. They drive the industries out of business by giving over inflated demands and refusing to produce the product in an acceptable timescale. This is why the British car industry died, cars were delivered so late off the line due to strikes, people stopped buying British. A foreign made car could be ready for the agreed date.
Liverpool has the distinction of making Pyongyang look a little less communist, such are the ingrained levels of far-left militancy there. The Unions in a wide range of British industries committed universal suicide in the 1960’s, to 1980’s. This included ship building, steel production, plane manufacturing, cars, washing machines, electronics, household boilers, textiles, telecommunications, medical supplies, coal mining, pretty much everything really. Workers greed coupled with bloody awful product quality eventually led to our once great manufacturing industries almost entirely moving overseas. Naturally the far-left militant unions didn’t understand how any of this could be even remotely their fault. “Power to the workers of the world Comrade !” Fucking idiots.
@@jrregan they tried that shit with the colins class subs we have , now the colins is up for retirement and the south australian ship company is now wondering why we are buying foreign subs
@Hissam Ullah In battle of Chawinda India lost 29tanks(indian claim) or 120tanks(pakistani claim) and Pakistan lost 44 tanks (indian claim) and pakistan also lost 460km2 (neutral claim) or 518km2 (indian claim) If you keep aside the disputed tank number Pakistan admitted it lost a large chunk of land so i think it was an Indian Victory you Pakistanis cant do anything better than lying
@Hissam Ullah India's advance into Pakistan was halted by a UN mandated CEASEFIRE because of which pakistan lost 518km2 land, Can you explain how did pakistan win it?
Regarding the outrage over the sinking of General Belgrano: From Nicholas Monsarrat's novel 'The Cruel Sea': U-boat Commander: "You attacked us from behind." Corvette Commander: "It's war. I'm sorry if it's too hard for you."
Correct. I found it surprising also, that with regard to the Allies and their WW2 submarines, he didn't mention any British kills. Only German and American. HMS Storm and HMS Venturer to name but two submarines had several kills between them. HMS Venturer actually participating in an underwater Sub battle. But I suppose the video is only really about Post WW2.
True, and because of the WW2 era armour on that ship, HMS Conqueror did not use its normal modern torpedoes but used old WW2 era torpedoes instead, some of which it was carrying just in case of this eventuality, as modern ones would not have been able to get through the ships thick armour.
I understand the difficulty in finding footage, but to use a Soviet submarine, and diesel submarines when describing a British SSN is a little too liberal with facts.
The ethics for photograph's is much looser than for printed work. If something in print is wrong, the world pounces, and correctly so. Many documentaries simply splice in random footage of tanks and weapons that were not used in the subject being discussed. Discussion of events that took place in winter show vehicles going across dry land. There is a line between entertainment and historical scholarship, and that line is frequently crossed with photographic products.
Maybe as usual the North Koreans denied it or something so unless both sides agree the incident took place he isn't including them. Or he could have simply missed it as you say.
The Belgrano was a U.S. Navy ship from WW II. Her day had passed and so she was sold to Argentina. It was war. And the UK was trying to help and protect its citizens who had been attacked.
@@tesstickle7267 they where not taken hostaje they wehere concetrated in sertain points during combat that points where marked to avoid colateral damage during the combat. is sencible ting to do thats why civilian casualtis are so low (3 persons 2 by british air atack and one from a heart atack)
Right. . There is some evidence that the South Korean vessel ROKS Cheonan was sunk by a North Korean midget sub in 2010 but no conclusive evidence has been presented as of yet. Probably other incidents I'm not aware of as well.
The Last Saxon >> That I haven’t heard. And I think it unlikely as experts can determine whether a submarine fell victim to an attack or an internal explosion, particularly in such shallow water. ‘Kursk’ was a sad episode, like other submarine accidents (‘Thresher’ & ‘Scorpion’ among them).
It's just "HMS Conqueror" or "The Conqueror" in British parlance. It makes no sense as "The HMS Conqueror" as the would be in long form "The Her Majesty's Ship Conqueror". It's a small thing but frustrates me when I see stuff like this so often. It's a cracking video though and I thank you for creating it.
When Argentina invaded the UK I was concerned about the ability of the UK to project sufficient power to retake the islands. I had no doubt in my mind Argentina just honked of the wrong Prime Minister and the wrong country. MY main concern was the absence of a Large Carrier. The last true carrier HMS Ark Royal had just been scrapped. Had that ship been available with her air group, The UK probably wouldn't have lost any ships. It Carried F4 Phantoms. The designed role for the F4 was fleet defense.
Ironically HMS Hermes (The 'old' style carrier in the conflict) had been ear marked to carry the F4..however, it was too small to do so effectively so that plan was scrapped...Hermes, although an 'old school' carrier had the 'ski jump' ramp for the Sea Harrier fitted to it....and the ships weight was not that different from the newer carriers (Illustrious and Invincible)
Submarines haven't just stopped. We just haven't fought any serious wars since. Serious as in using the full combined arms of a navy, an air force and an army. Falklands was the closest we came to peer warfare. Bombing the crap out of Vietnam and the middle East may have been expensive in souls and time and materiel but there was never any chance of the Western powers suffering a real defeat. Hopefully the Falklands can be used as a lesson, with determination even the Argentinians were able to blood the royal navy. Yes, the royal navy was in a state of change from old cold war tech to a more modern outfit. Remember that the next time you see somebody describing war with Iran or China. Who are substantially more militarized and arguably more determined than the Argentinians.
"Even the Argentinians were able to bloody the Royal Navy" Wow what arrogance. You'all had better remember that you are nothing but America's little bitch. You are no longer the British Colonial Empire. Those couple of centuries were the only ones where you mattered in world history. Sit pretty in your English Channel and enjoy the fact that you don't share borders with powerful enemies. And if you must sate your ego, send one division and a flotilla attached to American might in any war America decides about and claim victory on the back of the Americans. That is all you'll ever achieve. Iran? China? You'all don't have the wherewithal for going up against countries even half as challenging (Unless you British lickspittles lick the spit of mighty USA to make it happen)
"decimate" is a Latin word for the punishment given a Legion which showed cowardice in battle: one in ten legionnaires would be executed. It never meant "nearly wiped out"
Bingo. If you're going to say "decimated enemy shipping", that's bad enough. You make it far worse when you say, in effect, "reduced 60% of them by 10%". Words have meaning. You don't get to simply discard their meanings when it suits you.
My pet peave is the masses of writers, actors and average schmoes that say "over and out" to end a voice transmission. The word "over" means I've stopped transmitting and expect a reply, the would "out" means I've stopped transmitting. No reply is expected. So "over and out" is contradictory and confusing. And "roger" does not mean "affirmative"!! Ahrrrrrrrr ye mateys...splice the mainbrace...
The French army had/has legionnaires. The Romans had legionaries, from the latin legionarius. My daughter the archaeologist always corrects folk on this. Great to see the correct use of decimate, it makes a pleasant change. Apparently the Romans also used to ensure it was the unlucky selectees' closest comrades, probably the ones who shared their leather tent, who beat them to death - just to make the point.
One other interesting thing you could have included in the video is that those Mk 8 topedoes fired by the British sub were unguided torps, similar to what would have been fired in WWII.
Another fun fact, HMS Conqueror was equiped with Tigerfish homing torpedoes, but the captain decided the use the Mk8 as the Tigerfish was notoriously unreliable.
@@FrankyLon That's just additional information. It might have qualified as a "fun fact" if all three torpedoes had missed, or depending on how black you like your humour, if one had turned 360 and sank the sub.
They needed something with a big enough warhead to punch through WW2 era armor. Guided torpedoes of the time didn't have the necessary warheads to kill something like that.
since they remained in port, nuetralised, how many lives did that save? Well done the Conqueror, every right to fly the Jolly Roger when returning to port too.
Unless it relayed a message that they surrender and are prepared to be boarded then they are fair game. That would be the only way it would be a war crime if it was sunk.
im in hawaii and we all remember the greeneville ramming the ehime maru, a japanese fishing ship they did one of those hollywood jump surfaces and broke the fishing ship in half. i dont remember when but it was about 20 years ago off of hawaii. when i told my grandfather about it (he was working at pearl harbor the day it was bombed) he sighed deeply and said, "are we at it again?" it doesnt belong in this video because it wasnt an enemy ship and was officially an accident. officially.
The U.S. sold my old diesel boat(USS Catfish SS339) to Argentina. The British damaged her so bad she had to ground herself to keep from sinking. Yes I know I really did not own the Catfish but after serving on her for 5 years I kind of thought of her as mine. Good memories, she was on her first WW2 patrol when Japan surrendered.
Fact-- The INS khurki captain Mahendra nath mulla went down with his ship He has remained so far the only Indian captain to go down with a vessel. 5 days before the sinking of khurki Indian navy took down Pakistani submarine pns ghazi.
Kind of interesting. Actually never really realized it before. WW2 was really the peak of submarine combat and then after it just went down with no sub to ship conflict since then really. Advances in military tactics, tech, and arsenals have changed the scope of things. Great video.
For firepower I would agree, but the ballet that went on during the cold war in the north Atlantic with Soviet missile boats and NATO hunter-killers was amazing. It was cat and mouse and the stakes were world obliteration. One UK sub was tailing a Soviet sub (both set for silent running) so close that they colided, but both sides will not confirm it happened due to national security reasons
@@sergarlantyrell7847 I served on Diesel boats for 18 years ASW frigates and Destoyers couldn`t find jack shit on the time I was on them. Only thing that used to find us were RAF Nimrods.
@Kenneth McKay Americans often refer to their own warships using the definite article; for instance, 'The USS Nimitz' or 'The USS Donald Cook'. Therefore, a certain amount of latitude should be given when they refer to Royal Navy vessels in the same manner.
Fair play to the Captain of the Belgrano for being honest about his intentions. Don’t know how anyone can complain when a warship gets sunk during a war.
In the end, your vessel and her crew had a spotless mission with no controversy what so ever, no war crimes charges to yell at each other about... plus the Brits always turn out in strength for anything vaguely Falklands related. It's unfortunate but controversy gets people talking.
@@kalashnikovdevil no war crimes? Dude pakistan commited genocide in bangladesh.. 3 million dead, 2 millon raped.. Rape camps were there.. Btw U.S tried to stop india by sending 7th fleet thank god for soviets they stoped 7th fleet..
@@sumanchatterjee6591 didn't say the Pakistani military didn't commit war crimes. I said specifically their submarine with a confirmed kill didn't, as compared to accusations of war crimes against the British submarine.
US Navy Sonar Tech here... This is hilarious! The opening of this video shows a sub "pinging", which allows any warship in range of the sound to track and sink it! If you are noisy, you will die!
After HMS Conqueror had sunk the Belgrano, the aircraft carrier 25 de Mayo retreated to port and did not take any further part in the conflict. There were two British nuclear submarines in the area hunting the 25 de Mayo, in a way the sinking of the Belgrano saved hundreds of lives on the aircraft carrier.
I actually attended the launching ceremony of HMS Conqueror at Cammell Laird Shipyard in Birkenhead. My uncle worked on her and he got tickets for me and my Mother,i was only ten years old at the time. Lairds is a very old shipyard and actually built ships for the Confederate Navy during the US Civil war.
Fun fact #2 - Upon initially targeting the Belgrano, and in preparation of the sinking to come, the captain of the HMS Conqueror ... had his men break for lunch. Fun Fact #2A - The captain of the Belgrano selected WWII era torpedoes to be fired at the Belgrano. This was done not necessarily because the Belgrano was a WWII era cruiser (which started its service as the USS Phoenix), but the captain felt it was fitting for a ship with that history.
@@comradeivan3903 I wouldn't necessarily say a higher production quality. I think the editing of dark docs is slightly better, but overall Dr. Mark's videos seem better researched.
@David Parry his "FACTS" are inaccurate, example "m8 Greyhound vs King tiger 1944" never happened, no tiger 2 was in the St. Vith area the closest one was 30 miles north.
6:56 You put your left foot in You put your right foot out You put your left foot in and you shake it all about And suddenly you remember you're in a shooting war That's what it's all about
@@A_Haunted_Pancake Which is why they quaked in their boots after Operation Black Buck, and kept so many fighters at home. They were afraid of the Tin Triangles' ability to bomb mainland targets.
Well, there may have been a submarine or two which snagged the fishing nets of a trawler and capsized them. Plus, didn't a North Korean sub sink a South Korean corvette just a few years ago?
The falklands is British overseas territory not a protectorate and it most definetely was not a war crime. Not only was war declared but the captain of the belgrano himself stated that the sinking was perfectly legal and that his ship was moving to engage royal navy ships.
Interesting fact about HMS Conquer's attack on the Belgrano. For several hours before the attack Conquer was submerged directly below the Belgrano. The Belgrano was unwittingly masking the very submarine that would go on to sink her.
That pic takes me back, I lived beside the old North gate at Faslane and watched the Conk's come home. My Dad was a police sergeant in the launch that helped to protect it from hippies and tree huggers.
I served on the HMS Glamorgan and she was hit by Exocet and 13 sailors died and I later served with a PO that was on the HMS Coventry. The Exocet has a range of 150km so as history proved the Belgrano was going to attack and the exclusion zone was extended.
Two interesting stories based on an fact that I didn't know until recently. Apologies in advance for the especially heavy dramatization of footage in this video... We aim for a cinematic style, and non-US archival footage of submarines is a little more limited than with other topics (not to mention UA-cam hates when creators use even G/PG-rated combat footage, further limiting what is available.) Side fact, as well: an NK midget sub is alleged to have sunk a SK corvette in 2010, but NK denies possessing subs of that type: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yono-class_submarine. Evidence points to likely, but unconfirmed.
Dark Docs Keep up your magnificent content, it is evident thousands of folks, including me, greatly enjoy your efforts! 👍
The use of various video footages is understandable. Otherwise there would be none. I took a tour on HMS Conqueror in San Diego in 1978 or 79. She was there being fitted for sub-Harpoon missiles
Not since they lifted the the South Korean ship from the ocean bottom, it is confirmed it was hit with a torpedo. Some US Navy ships/subs were used in this footage but none were harmed. You could do a video on NK sub activity, the 1996 Sang-O class that ran aground and the NK SOF killed the crew and exfiltrated themselves back to NK and the 2010 sinking of the ROK navy ship.
Dude you make some great content please keep up the work watching your videos blows my mind every upload
Thanks for the insight. Great video as always. Keep em coming!
Hats off to the Argentine captain of the Belgrano, Héctor Bonzo, for telling it like it actually was.
fumblerooskie I watched a documentary on the falklands war which had interviews from both sides. It’s really good and shows how a lot of the argentines didn’t want to kill the British, but war is war and they had orders.
It’s called “the Falklands war - the untold story”
You have to take into account that the Argentine Navy was attempting to sink one or both the RN's aircraft carriers.
Malvinas siempre argentinas 🖐
@@Darckstarchild actually their called the Falklands and by the way there was a vote, in which the falklanders voted almost unanimously to remain part of the Uk
@@enricocarrara4741 you meant to say "they're" but can't speak English. As all the population is Brits, I'm not surprised how they voted. The pronunciation is: Islas Malvinas. An impartial American.
You've got to appreciate that the captain of the Belgrano confirmed that they were hunting British ships.
She was engaged in a pinscher movement on the British surface fleet with their aircraft carriers further north
Moral of the story, don't fck with the Royal Navy 🇬🇧
@@caitgems1 Royal Navy is a fucking joke these days with Parliament slashing the military budget every year. Britannia does not rule the waves anymore.
@@olympia5758 . Those two brand new state of the art aircraft carriers are nice though and the biggest ships the RN have ever had (just saying).
@@caitgems1 that was true maybe 120 years ago. Ever since the nuclear arsenal came of age, britian has lost most if not ALL of its authority on the worlds oceans.
and the walking punch line known as the "royal" family isnt helping matters.
It's hilarious that the President of Argentina claimed the sinking of the Belgrano is a war crime. Even the Captain of the ship refutes that bullshit.
@@onebridge7231 don't you just love the world??
Junta; "you sunk our ship!"
UK; "yes, but what where you going to do with it?"
Junta; "sink your ships"
UK; Ok, so...?"
Junta;" you sunk our ship!"
There are people out there who honestly think that was a war crime.
@@danielsummey4144 There are people out there who believe the world is flat too lol.
As an ex Royal Navy sumbmariner, there was no option other than to take out Belgrano. It was an active asset in a war zone. It's not like they were there on a penguin spotting cruise.
Scottish Outdoors Nobody seriously questions that, thankfully.
Basically :D
Argentina complained about the rules after they invaded the Falklands?
Like all bullies
They also invaded the falklands without declaring war beforehand so the don’t really need to be told that their ships will be sunk🤷♂️
Nah na na nah na....
To be fair the Captain of the General Belgrano said the attack on his ship was a legitimate act of war, along with the chief Admiral of the Argentine Navy. The only people who cry sour grapes are unrepentant Argentine nationalists and the uneducated.
They also began the war with a Helicopter assault on Bunk houses. Raping them with gunfire, rockets and grenades on what WOULD have been unarmed commandos without warning. It would have been a war crime had the commandos not changed their battle plan. But that’s none of my business.
So let me get this straight... Argentina kicks off hostilities then cries foul when the other party fights back???
I wasn't aware of the no tag backs rule of war...
Argentina: *Shocked Pikachu*
That is how WW1 started. No tag backs.
Maritime exclusion zone. Declared by Britain. Completely ignored by Britain.
@@memonk11 The exclusion Zone was for neutral shipping.. Combatant warships were fair game. I read an account by a senior Argentine Navy officer - Flag Rank - who admitted that, if roles were reversed, he would have done the same think, so please quell your irrational outrage.
@@memonk11 Enemy combatant, exclusion zones don't matter.
HMS Conqueror was later involved in a highly secret mission called Operation Barmaid in which she used specially designed cutters to shear through the cables of a then new Soviet towed array sonar whilst it was being tested from behind a Polish-flagged vessel. She then carried the sonar back to base for analysis by British and American naval intelligence. The cutters were designed to make it appear as though the towed sonar had snagged on a rock or some debris and sheared off, rather than being deliberately cut away and stolen.
Yeah know of this story Gaz - makes me wonder what we've been up to since - sneeky bastards we are. 😂
@Jay Devine The log book went 'missing' 😂. Not heard that before - assuming the capture of this array is what led to that Walker guy and his son getting done for treason in the US.. ?
@@Dave-hu5hr all I am saying is the amount of times a RN sub has been reported as hitting ice burgs, that also has Soviet hull paint 😁
Hmmm. Interesting comrades
HMS Conqueror never fired again throughout the war" Well after the Belgrano the Argentine Navy was never seen again - she had nothing to fire at!
Plymouth 57, on a more sad note, Captain David Pentreath, commander of the Type 12, HMS Plymouth passed away last year in June. Just for info.
@@observinglife7366 That is sad! I didn't know that, his was the honour of commanding the last Royal Navy 'Man of War' on which a foreign nation surrendered to Her Britannic Majesty's armed forces! That ship should have been preserved as a museum - but our own bloody marxist led city council put every obstacle they could think of in the way of bringing her back to her home port. Towed to Turkey and scrapped - what a disgrace!
@@plymouth5714 He was known for a particular maneuver during the Falklands war where he effectively powered in at speed, swung the Plymouth around "handbrake turned" and opened up with the main 4.5 inch gun on the cliffs behind the Argentine position. He sent a message to them that he would bring the cliffs down on them, they surrendered.
Tragically? It was war. You shouldn't start wars you can't finish.
Your mouth to Washington DC's ears
It is tragic that people had to die.
It's also tragic that they started this war, sending many conscripts to their death fighting hardened Royal Marines, Paras, Gurkas and The might of the Royal Navy.
Your statement was so to the point that it is amazing.
@Yeahweat thebuffet killing retreating men?
Please enlighten us, what retreat is this?
@Yeahweat thebuffet ... are you saying that the Argies attacked a pair of small islands, then when confronted, they started to run away?
Yeahweat thebuffet Learn some history you melt, Argentina wasn't even a country when Britain ruled the Falklands, hell the conferderation of States in South America had barely been a thing. Theres arguments over who found it first, Britain or France but that doesn't matter because we took it from the French. The only claim the Argies have is through the Spanish as the Spanish had a fort on there which we Brits took over after kicking the Spanish out. Btw you're an idiot, Spanish were just as Imperalistic as Britain, hence why much of South America speaks Spanish, the natives in South America had their land and rights stolen by the Spanish who preceded to nearly wipe out a civilisation through disease so up yours you biased prick. Perhaps all the fuckers with Spanish ancestry should fuck off back to Spain and leave any pure natives left to rule the land if you think Imperalism was so bad.
Argentina : invades British territory
Argentina : you sunk our cruiser , that's illegal
Everyone else : not really , you started it
Everyone else wasn't on uks side, but UK pretty much said don't care ,sunk it ,it's war lol no one's going to do anything against the UK anyway ha
@ThatCrazy Drunk The Royal Navy has more admirals than ships. Rule the waves? What a joke.
@ThatCrazy Drunk ruled*, your time is over.
@Mrlightning 101 More like the early 1940s... by the end of WW2 the US Navy was huge, pretty much bigger than everybody else put together.
They are lucky we didn't nuke the mainland
The instant I saw the title of this video I knew HMS Conquerer would be in it.
same. It helps that I just finished watching a 4-hour documentary about the Falklands conflict 2 days ago haha
Well, that isn't difficult, being that the title clearly states there are only two that have sunk an enemy ship...
The title would be incorrect if it wasn't one of them!
Well considering its one of the only 2 submarines to sink an enemy ship since WW2 I wouldn't really call that a guess.
underwaterdick it’s made by an American, anything can ups have been included in this video.
Ditto! Haha
3 cheers for the Royal Navy .......🇬🇧☠️
At the end of the day, during a war any enemy military asset is a target whether it is heading towards the front or leaving. The only time it should not be targeted is when surrendering. The Belgrano was not surrendering and as such was a valid military target.
while the sinking of Belgrano was per definition justified and the Argentinians asked for it the British aren't known to care much of playing after the book so it would have been no shocker if they had sunk it as it was entering dock or even with white flag.
Børre Børresen even if it had been entering a port/dock, it would have been a valid target. You are wrong though. If it had been showing a white flag, it would not have been sunk. It would have been boarded, crew taken prisoner and ship taken, do not confuse Brits with yanks.
no problem at not confusing the Yanks with anyone...
the yanks you know are no good since they don't know what they are doing else from trying to brute-force everything.
"It would have been boarded, crew shot with hand on their head and ship\WW1-uboat sunk with all evidence"
*there, fixed it it for you.
@@brrebrresen1367 The British and Americans have dominated the world and lead Human civilization over the course of modern history because of strong willed people that took great risks to achieve what they did. You can learn from this history, and strengthen your own will to achieve your own goals, or you can complain like a loser with a childish victim mentality and achieve nothing. Your choice.
@@proximacentauri3627, you can also learn from history you just need to read it and not get it from Trump's twitter.
How can it be illegal to sink a warship when that warship is engaged in hostile action against friendly forces, or when engaged in legally declared war?
At the time the exclusion zone was meant to contain the conflict, so there would be no fighting outside the zone even between Britain and Argentina. The Belgrano was outside that zone when it was sunk, the argentines claimed as she was outside the zone and sailing away she should never have been targeted, but as said in the video, the British had informed the Argentinians they no longer recognised the zone as exclusive and latter it was confirmed she was going to sail into the zone to attack. There was also a lot of issues regarding the sinking as she was maned mostly with young conscripts (many of whom died) and was being targeted by a professional nuclear navy ship outside the zone, and that being a second hand ww2 warship she was no real threat, even though she was.
EDIT: I'm not the one who was questioning the legality, just trying to help answere the above comment from Eric!
The sinking of this ship kept the Argie fleet in port for the war, a good decision promptly and effectively made.
L Lock In practice, nobody (besides the occasional Argentine hardliner) seriously disputes the sinking. Much of the argument is only done for argument’s sake. It was awful, but it was a war. British warships were also sunk during the conflict. It’s quite likely that the sinking of the Belgrano prevented the first carrier battle since WW2, and a potentially disastrous naval battle that would’ve resulted in many more casualties.
Because the UK is full of pussycat's that hold value in the word's of people who wish to conquer them.
@@jhfdhgvnbjm75 Light Cruiser. The Belgrano was the former U.S.S. Phoenix.
Interesting pair of stories. .
It is hoped that Argentinia learned that when you start a war, the other side will shoot back, and you don't get to decide what they shoot at or where they shoot at it.
the argies didnt seem to give a shit when they sank 6 british ships
Fighting a real war isn't the same as arresting journalists, students and trade unionists, tying them to metal beds and ripping out their finger and toe nails. Argentine armed forces: "What! The enemy can fight back!"
The generals who ruled Argentina were in their positions because they killed civilians who do not shoot back. Finally, when they started a war against an actual country, they assumed that the leader who was a woman, would not shoot back. They were fancy dress bully boys who are now vilified in their own country for what they were.
As an Argentinean, yeah, the dictator who invade the islands, when he said that they were getting invaded, he was drunk, and, for example, if you want to protest against the idea, a "falcon verde" (the green ford falcon used by the military) would stop in front of your house, you will get in, and never be seen again, so when we invaded we tried that they wouldn't even care, but we'll it happened, as a fun fact every map BY LAW needs to have a small map at the corner with the "Malvinas" (Falklands) and the Artic "slice" the is supposed to be from us
The war was started by a desperate drunk idiot who was the leader of a violent military coup, not "argentina'
I think the important lesson that Argentina learned in 1982 is that it is unwise to pick a fight with the undefeated heavyweight champion of the World even after she has gone into semi retirement.
....and that says it all. nice one mate.
The British empire was at their height around the early 20th century. So ya while they were not as strong in the 1980s they still had what it takes during the Falklands war.
Undefeated? Are you sure?
In the 20th century perhaps
@@commander2552
Who defeated the British? Not the Germans, not the Japanese. Not the Americans.
@@commander2552 Are we a little jealous fella..... what is your issue....
As a Briton, I do feel great sympathy for the ordinary Argentine sailors on the Belgrano. Young men sent into a war that a fascist dictator started
But Argentina WAS the aggressor and Buenos Aires was foolish and arrogant to test British resolve. Argentina violated the freedom of the Falkland Islanders and Britain liberated them.
Centrist Philosopher the dictator wasn’t fascist you need to research him more and America put him there to fight the Communists.
A lot of the Belgrano's sailors died when her escorts ran away.
@@unclesam5230
Well, the definitions of fascism vary greatly so it's not an exact term. While Galtieri, Videla and Anaya may not have been classic fascists with Mussolini busts on their desks, they still held total contempt for democracy and were clinging to power by having opponents tortured and making them "disappear", partly by dropping them over the open sea from helicopters. They made a complete dog's breakfast of the Argentine economy and currency and when despite all the repression, opposition and protests threatened to overthrow them, they kicked up military confrontations first with Chile, than with the UK.
Sounds fascist enough to me...
@@unclesam5230 really your republican party at the time seemed to have liked him , even going as far as telling the iron lady not to go to war , tell me was he in your pockets or was you in his 🤔
Gaz M J we put him in there to fight against the communists
the sinking of the belgrano wasnt a war crime
im argentinian and i admited
Sacking pochettino could be an act of war though
@@DavidLee-vi8ds i say wasnt an act o war
Yes, pretty awful the outcome for the sailors stranded in the south Atlantic...but that's war
@@SirBorisHayter Another terrible mistake!
David Lee there was actually no declaration of war
I met the Captain of the Conqueror in 2012. A proper gentleman. Carried out his duty as ordered, effectively and diligently.
The General Belgrano was supposed to be sunk. The British said, that there was a warzone, so that no civilian ships would go there. But military targets could surely be attacked outside of that zone. I‘ve never heard of a war, where enemy targets couldn‘t be attacked in international waters.
The Argentines started the war and they're pissed they lost a ship!?! The Brits lost six ships, I don't recall them whining! There is a fundamental maxim, count the cost BEFORE you go to war! If you can't bare the cost/loss then don't start the fight!
Remember that the Argie military attache told his government that there would be no war. He was of the 'professional' opinion that the British had neither the will or ability to contest possession of the islands, and would therefore do nothing. They didn't have to count any cost because they wouldn't have to fight. Oh to see the faces of the members of the Junta when the task force sailed. Or the poor conscripts when the Tin Triangle roared over the large runway and rendered it unserviceable. "But we were told the British wouldn't fight. That thing just flew 6,000 miles to bomb us, and now we're going to have to fight a properly led, properly trained professional army. Oh woe is us."
Argentina: Starts war
Enemy: Fights back
Argentina: :o
The Price of Admiralty is always high. Only the USN and the RN are STILL willing to pay the price for Command of the Sea.
As I recall it put US in quandary; two allies were in a shooting war, and we were technically obligated to help both! I think we stayed neutral, sort of. We did allow the British to obtain satellite data of the south Atlantic!
I figure that professional opinion was based heavily on what his commandante/ el presidente wanted to hear!
British were within their rights to sink the Belgrano, if you're hunting British ships and already invaded British sovereign territory makes you a legitimate target
Never quite understood this argument about "sailing away instead of towards" with the belgrano.
Unless you have surrendered you can be targeted, those are the rules.
And it didn't matter if you're orders are to deliver cake and presents to the enemy, it's war, you're armed, part of the opposition and a target.
Also, the Belgrano had some of their heavier weaponry at the back. Swinging about would have brought those into a clear arc on several potential targets. Naval combat hasn't been about ships of the line running alongside each other for quite a while.
The whole controversy stands from the fact that officially war was never declared by either party and Britain had stated that they would sink any Argentine ship that came within 250 miles of the Falklands as it was an exclusion zone. The Belgrano never actually breached that zone, however prior to the Conqueror requesting to sink her the exclusion zone was increased in radius, but the Belgranos CO was unaware.
@@ohnolookwho241
Did we say we *wouldn't* sink anything outside the zone?
Probably an important little detail there? 😉
Honestly, if you invade your neighbor, refuse to leave and are told that they are coming to take it back?
Well then, if you start having a bit of a cruise in your navy, you can't complain if you get shot at.
You're not on a pleasure cruise are you?
British ships trying to avoid being torpedoed always zigzagged, so how would the particular direction of a warship at any time matter?
Or is there one rule for British ships and another for Argentine aggressors?
@@ohnolookwho241 You don't have to declare war when you have been invaded. Imagine if the Germans in 1945 had complained that the Polish hadn't declared war before returning fire.
32 of my mates died on the galahad , plus god knows how many horrific injuries , i have no sympathy for the belgrano .
That's what happens when you join the military.
Maverick Johnson stfu
@@Dylan-hx8vd salty much? When you play with fire, you might burn your fingers. I have no sympathy for the crews of either vessel
@J Calhoun are you stupid? There was no crime or mallice involved here. It was war. An armed conflict. These people aboard the vessels had all the knowledge in the world and knew that there was the likelyhood of being killed in combat. Yet they did what they did. Respect people who do their job, yet dont cry for people who volunteered to die
@J Calhoun i have, and in the way where i did not literally sign up to die.
Now go back to playing army with your toys and let people who have actual brains to think do their thing. If you have a slither of intellect, you would understand that this is their job as much as my daily job is what it is. If i get a bad day, i dont expect to have the whole world bow before me in respect of me.
Now, as i have done so, it's your time. Have you ever signed up to die? sure doesnt look like so.
I love this channel is because there are always interesting topics with a touch of dark surrealism. Keep up the amazing work.
No mention that the Argentine cruiser was a former U.S cruiser that survived the Pearl Harbor attack.
Yeah, I've just commented on that, the USS Phoenix.
@@johnfrisby5145 Belgrano was armed with Exocet missiles...The Argentine military fired these at any opportunity against Royal Navy and merchant shipping. Usually with devastating results...although analysis of the attacks suggest that not one of the missies exploded...but the rocket motors set fire to the ships superstructure in each case. Sheffield was sunk in retaliation for the Belgrano attack...the aluminium superstructure actually started to burn...it sank 3-4 days after the attack whilst being towed...They also fired these weapons from land based sites against Royal Navy ships that were giving land based forces naval gunfire support. These missiles did a lot of damage and killed many personnel...The sinking of then Belgrano took the Argentinian Navy out of the conflict...The attack on the Sheffield happened on the 4th May...The largest ship lost was The Atlantic Conveyer (Attacked on 25th May 1982/Argentina's National day and a very serious attempt to destroy or disable one of the Royal navy's Carriers)which was carrying the vast majority of ALL the UK's logistical equipment and (crucially) the balance of Chinook helicopters...(Only one RAF Chinook had been flown off The Atlantic Conveyor../This is assessed as the greatest loss in real terms for the British during the campaign..)
I served on two other Phoenixs; both junk. USS Phoenix zsSN 702 - junk! Drilling right West Phoenix only slightly better.
@@malcolmyoung7866 Belgrano wasn't armed with Exocets, but the two escorting destroyers were. However, it shouldn't be imagined that the Belgrano was no threat to the British Task Force. Had she managed to get within gunnery range, her 6" guns would have devastated any British ship she hit since they were all relatively modern unarmoured designs, while the Belgrano's thick armour would have provided a significant degree of defence against their 4.5" guns and even their Exocets.
Certainly, Conqueror should be made a museum ship. The UK has an unbelievably tiny number of warships preserved for a nation to whom it's navy has been so historically important.
Imagine starting a war and then complaining when you get absolutely rofl stomped
“The empire strikes back”
Hey! I got the chance to get inside the PNS Hangor back when I was a kid on a school trip. Never realised the historical importance of the submarine or even it's name at the time.
I still remember that there was a room full of buttons in the back end which they said was where the torpedoes were fired from, one kid burst into tears after hearing that while I was giddy with excitement. Near the front, there were these two little metal steps going downwards which I didn't notice and fell face first.
Blind Observer is that how you kept your account name?xD
I'm from Pakistan too, Amazing Submarine!
Once again Dark Docs, you hit a home run!!! Love the in-depth research and a topic no other channels like yours cover. Excellent work!!🙏👍
May I recommend you a good history channel sir/madam? If you like straight to the point factual videos about events In history (particularly the world wars), check out Mark Felton Productions.
Kim Jong Long Dong 🙏
There was some things not right or could have gone into more detail about. IE the use of stock footage in this video shows a "Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruiser" infact 4:06-4:10 is USS Mobile Bay (identified by her hull nomenclature) 6:46-6:56 appear to be a Soviet/Russian ship. I can't tell exactly due to bad video quality but it appears to be a "Sovremenny class destroyer" 7:41 is British Frigate "HMS Broadsword" again identified by her hull nomenclature, though she did serve in the Falkland War, just not sure why show footage of her while talking about Argentine destroyers. 9:40-9:45 again is USS Mobile Bay. The Argintine ship sunk talked about in this video "ARA General Belgrano" was originally "USS Phoenix CL-46" she commissioned into the US Navy in 1938, fought in WW2 and was sold to Argentina in 1951. She was one of 9 Brooklyn class light cruisers.
Also as the other guy stated Mark Felton is a great UA-cam historian who has video about the Falkland War.
Other great History channel I would recommend would be, Drachinifel (if you're interested in Naval history), Military History Visualized, The History Guy: History Deserves to be remembered, and Potential History. just a few of my personal favorites.
Sexual Tyrannosaurus I agree but still a great topic.
There’s relatively new intelligence that has just been released over the last few years, highlighting that Chile was actively helping the British during the Falklands. They had gathered intelligence that the Argentinian war ship WAS on its was to attack British ships, and relayed this to London, this is what primarily drove the decision to attack. However this could not be acknowledged at the time due to the relationship between Chile and Britain being extremely covert.
because if British didn't respond the Falkland invasion, Argentina would invade Chile. There were massive troops and armored division built up at the Chilean border by the Argentinians.
I heard that during the war and that Peru was helping Argentina
Argentina should be thankful we never caught up with the Carrier.
it was hidden away.... all the brit subs wanted that kill.
@@ayebeemk2ayebeemk285 We knew where it was, we was chasing it but it headed into Argie waters where it had some degree of protection.
@@sensibledriver933 I lived through the whole episode, I guess you saw active service; Hats off to you Sir.
@@ayebeemk2ayebeemk285 No I didn't serve.I learned about it from many documentories on the sublect, but I also lived through it.
You might find it interesting to look up the history of the Argentine Carrier.
I've never heard about the sabotage of the Conquerer. Can you cover that incident?
Good suggestion.
Not that hard to determine. It was done by the ship builders themselves. One of those Union fails that eventually cause the site they were working at close. Selfish stupidity.
@@jrregan like many unionised industries in the UK.
They drive the industries out of business by giving over inflated demands and refusing to produce the product in an acceptable timescale.
This is why the British car industry died, cars were delivered so late off the line due to strikes, people stopped buying British. A foreign made car could be ready for the agreed date.
Liverpool has the distinction of making Pyongyang look a little less communist, such are the ingrained levels of far-left militancy there.
The Unions in a wide range of British industries committed universal suicide in the 1960’s, to 1980’s. This included ship building, steel production, plane manufacturing, cars, washing machines, electronics, household boilers, textiles, telecommunications, medical supplies, coal mining, pretty much everything really. Workers greed coupled with bloody awful product quality eventually led to our once great manufacturing industries almost entirely moving overseas.
Naturally the far-left militant unions didn’t understand how any of this could be even remotely their fault.
“Power to the workers of the world Comrade !”
Fucking idiots.
@@jrregan they tried that shit with the colins class subs we have , now the colins is up for retirement and the south australian ship company is now wondering why we are buying foreign subs
Knew about the HMS one. Had no clue about the Pakistani one!
Yeah most of so called defence channel fail to cover any other country except of America/Russia
Did you know about the North Korean sub that sank a war ship less than 10 years ago??
India sunk PNS Ghazi & burned Karachi port in Operation Trident, so they got more than even.
@Hissam Ullah In battle of Chawinda India lost 29tanks(indian claim) or 120tanks(pakistani claim) and Pakistan lost 44 tanks (indian claim) and pakistan also lost 460km2 (neutral claim) or 518km2 (indian claim)
If you keep aside the disputed tank number Pakistan admitted it lost a large chunk of land so i think it was an Indian Victory you Pakistanis cant do anything better than lying
@Hissam Ullah India's advance into Pakistan was halted by a UN mandated CEASEFIRE because of which pakistan lost 518km2 land, Can you explain how did pakistan win it?
Regarding the outrage over the sinking of General Belgrano: From Nicholas Monsarrat's novel 'The Cruel Sea':
U-boat Commander: "You attacked us from behind."
Corvette Commander: "It's war. I'm sorry if it's too hard for you."
No mention that the belgrano was the uss phoenix during the second world war and was present during pearl harbor attack .
Is that relevant?
Was it wrong to sink the belgrano because it was once part of the US navy and was present during the attack on pearl harbor?
Correct. I found it surprising also, that with regard to the Allies and their WW2 submarines, he didn't mention any British kills. Only German and American. HMS Storm and HMS Venturer to name but two submarines had several kills between them. HMS Venturer actually participating in an underwater Sub battle. But I suppose the video is only really about Post WW2.
True, and because of the WW2 era armour on that ship, HMS Conqueror did not use its normal modern torpedoes but used old WW2 era torpedoes instead, some of which it was carrying just in case of this eventuality, as modern ones would not have been able to get through the ships thick armour.
@@dannygroom3327 Yes it is relevant, as it's history that deserves to be remembered.
@@highlysuggestible861 lol a great channel
I understand the difficulty in finding footage, but to use a Soviet submarine, and diesel submarines when describing a British SSN is a little too liberal with facts.
Richard Dupuis -he has a disclaimer right at the top of the description 🤷🏻♂️
Read the pinned comment...
Richard Dupuis Learn to read you ill-informed and blatantly uneducated fool.
@John Doe You are an idiot of the highest order.
The ethics for photograph's is much looser than for printed work. If something in print is wrong, the world pounces, and correctly so. Many documentaries simply splice in random footage of tanks and weapons that were not used in the subject being discussed. Discussion of events that took place in winter show vehicles going across dry land. There is a line between entertainment and historical scholarship, and that line is frequently crossed with photographic products.
You forgot about the ROKS Cheonan which was sunk sunk by a north Korean submarine in 2010
Maybe as usual the North Koreans denied it or something so unless both sides agree the incident took place he isn't including them. Or he could have simply missed it as you say.
I knew about the Belgrano and the Cheonan but not about that India-Pakistan one
It was NOT during a war. It was a peacetime attack.
@@RadioactiveSaddam Technically North and South Korea and the US are still at war so... (I'm assuming you are referring to the sinking of the Cheonan)
It's never been proven, hence it's exclusion I"m sure.
The Belgrano was a U.S. Navy ship from WW II. Her day had passed and so she was sold to Argentina. It was war. And the UK was trying to help and protect its citizens who had been attacked.
the citizens were not ataked
@@anuvisraa5786 yes they were,they had their homes invaded and taken hostage by argentine military.
@@anuvisraa5786 Ah, so what do you call it when a foreign army invades and occupies your country ?
@@CaptHollister an invacion and ocupation
@@tesstickle7267 they where not taken hostaje they wehere concetrated in sertain points during combat that points where marked to avoid colateral damage during the combat. is sencible ting to do thats why civilian casualtis are so low (3 persons 2 by british air atack and one from a heart atack)
Let me help with the title.
The only 2 post World WarII submarines to sink enemy ships... that we know about.
That would definitely be a more accurate title.
That would be a logical assumption.
Right. . There is some evidence that the South Korean vessel ROKS Cheonan was sunk by a North Korean midget sub in 2010 but no conclusive evidence has been presented as of yet. Probably other incidents I'm not aware of as well.
The Last Saxon >> That I haven’t heard. And I think it unlikely as experts can determine whether a submarine fell victim to an attack or an internal explosion, particularly in such shallow water. ‘Kursk’ was a sad episode, like other submarine accidents (‘Thresher’ & ‘Scorpion’ among them).
@@jaybee9269 One account was that the Kursk dropped a torpedo on the deck during loading, and that the volatile propellant later probably leaked.
It's just "HMS Conqueror" or "The Conqueror" in British parlance. It makes no sense as "The HMS Conqueror" as the would be in long form "The Her Majesty's Ship Conqueror". It's a small thing but frustrates me when I see stuff like this so often.
It's a cracking video though and I thank you for creating it.
There's no "the".
I love that you focus on topics that not many outlets cover. Please, keep it up!
Imagine being butthurt when someone sinks one of your warships during a war that you started.
Imagine throwing rocks a jezz Clark
for real
When Argentina invaded the UK I was concerned about the ability of the UK to project sufficient power to retake the islands. I had no doubt in my mind Argentina just honked of the wrong Prime Minister and the wrong country. MY main concern was the absence of a Large Carrier. The last true carrier HMS Ark Royal had just been scrapped. Had that ship been available with her air group, The UK probably wouldn't have lost any ships. It Carried F4 Phantoms. The designed role for the F4 was fleet defense.
Ironically HMS Hermes (The 'old' style carrier in the conflict) had been ear marked to carry the F4..however, it was too small to do so effectively so that plan was scrapped...Hermes, although an 'old school' carrier had the 'ski jump' ramp for the Sea Harrier fitted to it....and the ships weight was not that different from the newer carriers (Illustrious and Invincible)
I've always wondered how different the war would have been if the UK hasn't scrapped HMS Eagle and Ark Royal
You gotta love the names the Empire uses for their ships.
@@iLuvBillGates HMS Indefatigable is my favourite
@@mariacornwallis1602 Did you read Hornblower?
Submarines haven't just stopped.
We just haven't fought any serious wars since.
Serious as in using the full combined arms of a navy, an air force and an army.
Falklands was the closest we came to peer warfare.
Bombing the crap out of Vietnam and the middle East may have been expensive in souls and time and materiel but there was never any chance of the Western powers suffering a real defeat.
Hopefully the Falklands can be used as a lesson, with determination even the Argentinians were able to blood the royal navy.
Yes, the royal navy was in a state of change from old cold war tech to a more modern outfit.
Remember that the next time you see somebody describing war with Iran or China.
Who are substantially more militarized and arguably more determined than the Argentinians.
"Even the Argentinians were able to bloody the Royal Navy"
Wow what arrogance. You'all had better remember that you are nothing but America's little bitch. You are no longer the British Colonial Empire. Those couple of centuries were the only ones where you mattered in world history. Sit pretty in your English Channel and enjoy the fact that you don't share borders with powerful enemies. And if you must sate your ego, send one division and a flotilla attached to American might in any war America decides about and claim victory on the back of the Americans. That is all you'll ever achieve. Iran? China? You'all don't have the wherewithal for going up against countries even half as challenging (Unless you British lickspittles lick the spit of mighty USA to make it happen)
Death Parade what a silly tosser
Death Parade the fact you speak English makes you our bitch
"decimate" is a Latin word for the punishment given a Legion which showed cowardice in battle: one in ten legionnaires would be executed. It never meant "nearly wiped out"
Rick Valley thats is one of my favorite “I make smart youtube videos” mistakes. It happens so much that it could be a drinking game, platform wide
"Point blank range" is another of those phrases that's always used incorrectly, and let's not even get started on "vomitorium".
Bingo. If you're going to say "decimated enemy shipping", that's bad enough. You make it far worse when you say, in effect, "reduced 60% of them by 10%". Words have meaning. You don't get to simply discard their meanings when it suits you.
My pet peave is the masses of writers, actors and average schmoes that say "over and out" to end a voice transmission. The word "over" means I've stopped transmitting and expect a reply, the would "out" means I've stopped transmitting. No reply is expected. So "over and out" is contradictory and confusing. And "roger" does not mean "affirmative"!! Ahrrrrrrrr ye mateys...splice the mainbrace...
The French army had/has legionnaires. The Romans had legionaries, from the latin legionarius. My daughter the archaeologist always corrects folk on this. Great to see the correct use of decimate, it makes a pleasant change. Apparently the Romans also used to ensure it was the unlucky selectees' closest comrades, probably the ones who shared their leather tent, who beat them to death - just to make the point.
One other interesting thing you could have included in the video is that those Mk 8 topedoes fired by the British sub were unguided torps, similar to what would have been fired in WWII.
Another fun fact, HMS Conqueror was equiped with Tigerfish homing torpedoes, but the captain decided the use the Mk8 as the Tigerfish was notoriously unreliable.
@@FrankyLon That's just additional information. It might have qualified as a "fun fact" if all three torpedoes had missed, or depending on how black you like your humour, if one had turned 360 and sank the sub.
They needed something with a big enough warhead to punch through WW2 era armor. Guided torpedoes of the time didn't have the necessary warheads to kill something like that.
That’s a coincidence. The target had been a WW2 USN vessel
The sinking of the Belgrano have the effect of the enemy navy didn't leave port again
since they remained in port, nuetralised, how many lives did that save? Well done the Conqueror, every right to fly the Jolly Roger when returning to port too.
Well, there was a war going on. And the Belgrano was a warship. Therefore a legit target.
yes it was like the hercules in the same war wich stil is the longest anti naval air patrol in histori to sink a ship
@Paul deTorch True.
Unless it relayed a message that they surrender and are prepared to be boarded then they are fair game. That would be the only way it would be a war crime if it was sunk.
im in hawaii and we all remember the greeneville ramming the ehime maru, a japanese fishing ship they did one of those hollywood jump surfaces and broke the fishing ship in half. i dont remember when but it was about 20 years ago off of hawaii. when i told my grandfather about it (he was working at pearl harbor the day it was bombed) he sighed deeply and said, "are we at it again?"
it doesnt belong in this video because it wasnt an enemy ship and was officially an accident. officially.
The U.S. sold my old diesel boat(USS Catfish SS339) to Argentina. The British damaged her so bad she had to ground herself to keep from sinking. Yes I know I really did not own the Catfish but after serving on her for 5 years I kind of thought of her as mine. Good memories, she was on her first WW2 patrol when Japan surrendered.
Fact-- The INS khurki captain Mahendra nath mulla went down with his ship He has remained so far the only Indian captain to go down with a vessel. 5 days before the sinking of khurki Indian navy took down Pakistani submarine pns ghazi.
@Hissam Ullah yeah you keep dreaming buddy
I live in Karachi, I beleive I have seen PNS HANGOR's other submarines in the Navy Museum, also been to Manora Bay, amazing place!
All Hail Haangoor .... from Pakistan
Not gunna lie, giving an extra thumbs up for the pronunciation in this episode. Well done!
im not he cant seem to pronounce the letter " g "
@@imbetterthanyouis I think he overused the Spanish pronunciation on English words :)
@@Ray.Norrish must have done lol
Argie Navy after fighting Dirty War: "iAy Caramba! ¿You mean an enemy can shoot back?"
Kind of interesting. Actually never really realized it before. WW2 was really the peak of submarine combat and then after it just went down with no sub to ship conflict since then really. Advances in military tactics, tech, and arsenals have changed the scope of things. Great video.
For firepower I would agree, but the ballet that went on during the cold war in the north Atlantic with Soviet missile boats and NATO hunter-killers was amazing. It was cat and mouse and the stakes were world obliteration. One UK sub was tailing a Soviet sub (both set for silent running) so close that they colided, but both sides will not confirm it happened due to national security reasons
The junta didn't think Britain would fight so far from home, Great Britain - playing away from home for centuries and winning!
In the Silent Service there is a saying - there are two types of ships at sea, submarines and targets.
It's a fun quote but whoever said that has obviously never heard of ASW Frigates and Destroyers, or is conveniently forgetting about them.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 I served on Diesel boats for 18 years ASW frigates and Destoyers couldn`t find jack shit on the time I was on them. Only thing that used to find us were RAF Nimrods.
Destroyer: Let me introduce myself.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 Rest assured, we heard them.
The Russians sinking most of there own submarines doesn’t count then.
@The Doge-Emperor of Dogekind well Americans did steal a chopper and jet from them. So good idea.
"PNS Hangor was nicknamed 'The Shark'." Bruh! 'Hangor literally means 'Shark'. :3
Ya but it couldn't save Karachi 😂😂 also the Pakistani navy we destroyed the almost entire Pakistani fleet 😂😂
@@INDIANEMPIREREBORN Yeah. So.......what does that have to do with the comment?
Only ship we’ve ever lost
The empire strikes back comes to mind
Good video
Argentina: "It's heading back to port!"
Britain: "NO IT'S NOT!"
*Torpedoes Intensify*
After the war, all that sinking of ships type thing seemed to have stopped. I blame the UN.
"The" HMS Conqueror?
There is no additional "the"
@Kenneth McKay Americans often refer to their own warships using the definite article; for instance, 'The USS Nimitz' or 'The USS Donald Cook'. Therefore, a certain amount of latitude should be given when they refer to Royal Navy vessels in the same manner.
However, 'The HMS Conqueror submarine' is correct.
@@TheHoipoloi 'The Her Majesty's Ship Conqueror submarine'.
Why is that correct?
@@kurt44mg42 I would not refer to the American use of the English language as a benchmark!
@@kurt44mg42 Not really, Conqueror was never a US ship.
The last Jolly Roger 🏴☠️ to be flown to date
Fair play to the Captain of the Belgrano for being honest about his intentions.
Don’t know how anyone can complain when a warship gets sunk during a war.
Being a Pakistani, I'm gonna be honest, the comment section makes me sad. Legit no one acknowledge the Pakistani sub but meh, it's fine
In the end, your vessel and her crew had a spotless mission with no controversy what so ever, no war crimes charges to yell at each other about... plus the Brits always turn out in strength for anything vaguely Falklands related. It's unfortunate but controversy gets people talking.
@@kalashnikovdevil no war crimes? Dude pakistan commited genocide in bangladesh.. 3 million dead, 2 millon raped.. Rape camps were there.. Btw U.S tried to stop india by sending 7th fleet thank god for soviets they stoped 7th fleet..
@@sumanchatterjee6591 didn't say the Pakistani military didn't commit war crimes. I said specifically their submarine with a confirmed kill didn't, as compared to accusations of war crimes against the British submarine.
We appreciate the work done by pns gaji.
@@sumanchatterjee6591 vikrant with the Soviet sub stopped the 7th fleet
US Navy Sonar Tech here... This is hilarious! The opening of this video shows a sub "pinging", which allows any warship in range of the sound to track and sink it! If you are noisy, you will die!
Americans! PLEASE stop prefixing “HMS” with the word “the”!!! Saying “The Her Majesty’s Ship” doesn’t make any sense!
It's worse than that, should be HMSM (Her Majesty's SubMarine) Conqueror.
Haha. Touché
After HMS Conqueror had sunk the Belgrano, the aircraft carrier 25 de Mayo retreated to port and did not take any further part in the conflict. There were two British nuclear submarines in the area hunting the 25 de Mayo, in a way the sinking of the Belgrano saved hundreds of lives on the aircraft carrier.
I actually attended the launching ceremony of HMS Conqueror at Cammell Laird Shipyard in Birkenhead. My uncle worked on her and he got tickets for me and my Mother,i was only ten years old at the time. Lairds is a very old shipyard and actually built ships for the Confederate Navy during the US Civil war.
Stephen Smith I believe the CSS Alabama came from Lairds
Respect to the Belgrano’s captain for admitting the truth. Real man.
After that they sent the SAS and things got worse for Argentina.
the SAS literally killed to special forces british soldiers lol, argentina lsot because of the submarines there was no way to land ships for supplies.
The book about what the Conqueror did next is well worth reading.
Fun fact #2 - Upon initially targeting the Belgrano, and in preparation of the sinking to come, the captain of the HMS Conqueror ... had his men break for lunch. Fun Fact #2A - The captain of the Belgrano selected WWII era torpedoes to be fired at the Belgrano. This was done not necessarily because the Belgrano was a WWII era cruiser (which started its service as the USS Phoenix), but the captain felt it was fitting for a ship with that history.
You forgot the USS Greeneville, which sank a Japanese high school fisheries ship in 2001 and killed 4 students, 2 teachers, and 3 crewmembers.
it not a war kill
I wish you would collaborate with (Dr.) Mark Felton Productions.
Nothing personal to DarkDocs, but Mark really does have a higher production quality with thorough research and period footage.
@@comradeivan3903 I wouldn't necessarily say a higher production quality. I think the editing of dark docs is slightly better, but overall Dr. Mark's videos seem better researched.
@@kimjonglongdong3158 I would have to disagree
@@comradeivan3903 and that is perfectly understandable. But I still like both channels, so oh well I guess
@David Parry his "FACTS" are inaccurate, example "m8 Greyhound vs King tiger 1944" never happened, no tiger 2 was in the St. Vith area the closest one was 30 miles north.
Lesson: do not invade UK territory!
Falklands is not UK territory
@@cartmanbrah01 yes it is, The falklands were British long before Argentina existed.
@@cartmanbrah01 it really is buddy.
@@cartmanbrah01 Oh please, there we go with the expected Argentinian apologist. The Falklands are British. End of story.
ever been there ?
Only in the 2000's can sinking an enemy ship in war is a "War Crime"
just wait till the milenials are old enough to run things we cant have wars because it might hurt someones safe space feewings
@@imbetterthanyouis I truly hope the day comes we can't have and won't have wars.
@@065Tim That would just make humanity soft which would lead to stagnation and decay a far worse fate then war.
@@065Tim get a haircut hippy
One of your better videos. Good stuff.
6:56 You put your left foot in
You put your right foot out
You put your left foot in and you shake it all about
And suddenly you remember you're in a shooting war
That's what it's all about
The Belgrano with a legitimate target. End of argument.
All of Argentina was a legitimate target.
@@A_Haunted_Pancake Which is why they quaked in their boots after Operation Black Buck, and kept so many fighters at home. They were afraid of the Tin Triangles' ability to bomb mainland targets.
Well, there may have been a submarine or two which snagged the fishing nets of a trawler and capsized them.
Plus, didn't a North Korean sub sink a South Korean corvette just a few years ago?
"GOTCHA!"
The Sun Newspaper remember it like it was yesterday.......
The falklands is British overseas territory not a protectorate and it most definetely was not a war crime. Not only was war declared but the captain of the belgrano himself stated that the sinking was perfectly legal and that his ship was moving to engage royal navy ships.
Interesting fact about HMS Conquer's attack on the Belgrano. For several hours before the attack Conquer was submerged directly below the Belgrano. The Belgrano was unwittingly masking the very submarine that would go on to sink her.
The north Koreans sank a ship using a submarine as well
I was expecting something on this too.
@@chileislandhopper yeah they sank a frigate in 2010 i think
don't invade, don't get sunk
Dark Docs, 2nd to none. I swear to god the narrator is Ex-CIA,
Eh, no not at all this is all very easily accessible information.
he sounds like a total bibble.
That pic takes me back, I lived beside the old North gate at Faslane and watched the Conk's come home. My Dad was a police sergeant in the launch that helped to protect it from hippies and tree huggers.
You really do give a balanced and respectful and unbiased story Dark5,
it is a pleasure to watch and listen to your channel.
As private Pike put it...."well, you started it...!"
Basil Fawlty, wasn't it?
Bingo! When i saw the title, I said to myself, has to be the Falkland war.
The footage in this video is hardly ever what the narrator is talking about at the time. Annoying.
I served on the HMS Glamorgan and she was hit by Exocet and 13 sailors died and I later served with a PO that was on the HMS Coventry. The Exocet has a range of 150km so as history proved the Belgrano was going to attack and the exclusion zone was extended.
800 years later: Every interplanetary stealth ship to sink enemy craft since WW23