Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "Falklands War From Argentina's Perspective | Animated History" video.

@jackroutledge352 not necessarily, the Excocets actually weren't as effective as most people have been led to believe as the French had withdrawn their support; when HMS Sheffield was hit with one the warhead never actually exploded, what destroyed Sheffield was actually the fire from the rocket motor. Also after Sheffield WAS hit the British would've been on the lookout more than ever for more attacks by the same aircraft & missiles the same way, and a Super Etendard would've been no match for a British Harrier with Sidewinders if spotted on radar and intercepted. As for in-flight refueling meh, wouldn't have made that much difference, towards the end the Argentines were losing more planes during missions to British Harriers and air-defences than they were actually achieving anything in those missions, in-flight refueling wouldn't have changed that, plus of course the tanker aircraft itself would've been a sitting duck if caught; and even if the Argentines HAD been more successful in the air, sinking more ships still wouldn't have changed the outcome of the land-fighting. Hell even if the British lost one of our aircraft carriers, the Americans had promised to lend us one of theirs instead
49
@Ayy_Doll_Fiddler the heck are "proto" Argentinians supposed to be? Argentine cavemen or something? Your country dates back to around 1810 I believe...
43
Wasn't very "mini" to those fighting in it
15
@nilihcrevo9820 there's ALWAYS budget cuts going on in the British military of some sort or other, but what troops, vehicles and equipment we do have is always still among the best out there, however unfortunately-small our numbers end up growing thanks to the penny-pinchers
8
@martindione386 they sank a couple of ships, sure, only one of which was actually a warship and out of over a hundred. The rest of the ships we lost were to old-fashioned iron bombs not Excocets and dropped from A4 Skyhawks not Super Etendards, and that was what, four others? None of which were the all-important aircraft carriers? And again, that's six out of over a hundred ships. Still hard losses to take of course, but in the grand scheme of things they never actually effected the outcome of the conflict overall that much, so saying the Excocets were "very effective" definitely depends on how big a picture you're seeing it from. As for the Super Etendards they only got away because they were faster and legged it as soon as they'd fired, if they'd actually gotten in a fight with a Harrier they'd have been blown out of the sky
8
Actually they were kinda split on the matter, between Haig and Kirkpatrick in particular; watch "The Falklands Play" here on YouTube sometime, good little film focusing on all the political and diplomatic maneauvering that went on
8
Why no mention of the fact Britain had a pre-existing claim to those islands from 1764, one we never officially relinquished despite having been forced out by the Spanish? long before Argentina even existed as a seperate independent country?
7
@KAPANGAAAMASTER so your historical claim is based on the "ownership" by the Spanish that you "inherited" huh, ownership over islands that the Spanish took by force from us through simply having stronger forces at the time? "Snatched and grabbed by act of force", in other words? To quote Dr. Costa Mendez, the ambassador of Argentina to the UN in 1982, who then said "such a criminal action can give rise to no rights at all"
6
@KAPANGAAAMASTER oh we accept it's biased, what we don't accept is that it's an incorrect bias to have haha
3
dunno about "easily"
3
@KuhoinX ...the fact you just stated, that if they hadn't been involved in that war in 1979, which only the oldest officers will have, or in the border clash with India more recently which only maybe 30 or 40 guys will've, then they will have had no real military experience will they
3
@KAPANGAAAMASTER good luck with that, uninhabited doesn't mean unclaimed, just like with the Falklands in the late 1700's
3
@TheArmchairHistorian like others have said here, if you're gonna do that you should probably put something at the start of the video properly explaining as much
2
@MrBao-yt7bk yes but you can still tell their side of the story overall without leaving out important information that affects both sides and the history of the whole conflict
2
Those weren't invasions they were raids
2
@saidtoshimaru1832 maybe take a look at the number of times we've deployed larger numbers of men than that for longer than that
2
@martindione386 I disagree but I guess we have different ideas of what "effective" means
2
@martindione386 that is your point of view and one you're free to have, but given it's a stupid point of view I have elected to ignore it ^v^
2
@ThePalaeontologist damn straight haha
2
@Wanderer628 couldn't agree more
1
@nocturne9257 absolutely agreed
1
@robodaviking2209 understandable but if so he should basically do another video exactly like this but from the opposite perspective then, so between the two it's completely fair and balanced, the viewer can watch both then take whichever side on the matter they wish, without one side of the dispute getting more attention and focus than the other
1
@anzaca1 and that'd be fine- IF the British military only was expected to defend Britain itself
1
@megumin1054 hey it still brought down an Argentine plane during the war, and regardless you say Blowpipe I say Harrier or Vulcan or Scimitar tank or Bren (yeah we were still using those at that point), or indeed the SLR and GPMG (they were British versions of foriegn guns produced here under licence after all), or indeed literally any of the ships and submarines the RN or RFA had
1
@megumin1054 as for the GPMG yes, and? It holds no DISadvantages to them either, 50 year old weapon now and still one of the best most reliable machine-guns out there today
1
@saidtoshimaru1832 nope, having looked it up we did indeed lose, you guys won those battles fair and square, so full props to you. I still wouldn't really call them "invasions" as such though, although yeah "raids" does make them sound small and unimportant, so "incursions" perhaps is a better word, not invasions though, trust me if we really were full-on invading Argentina we'd have sent far more men and ships. As it was we were only trying to take control over those particular areas from the Spanish during a much larger conflict after all, secure control over the River Plate and deny reinforcements or supplies to and from Spain's colonies, rather than actually take all of Argentina or even permanently hold on to Beunos Aires. compared to an actual Normandy-style invasion it was, to use an appropriate-to-the-time example, more like the Battle Of Quiberon against the French, or the various other British-supported ultimately-doomed attempts by the French Royalists to regain a foothold on their homeland; or indeed like Market Garden or Dieppe in WW2, high-risk complex & dangerous operations to complete specific objectives toward a far larger goal; aaaand just like with those, the River Plate operations failed miserably too. Other times we did pull it off though :) you win some you lose some
1
@anzaca1 yeah could've gone worse I guess
1
@malcolmmccarthy4622 oh don't go down that rabbit hole or we'll be here all day, you Argentines are of just as mixed ancestry yourselves, and unlike with us there's the Spanish and assorted Native Americans to consider with you lot, to muddy the waters still further of who and what is a "true" Argentinian (not to mention all those Nazi's that fled there after WW2), it's far simpler if we just think of this in terms of the countries and populations as they presently stand and think of them in broad overall terms rather than the various smaller demographics they can be split into
1
@malcolmmccarthy4622 as for "isn't any real stealing" you lot sure don't seem to think that whenever you bring up that "snatched and grabbed in 1833 by act of force" thing, so yeah, you say 1833 or 1820 or 1810, we say 1764
1
A nice thought but too much water (and blood) under the bridge for that now really
1