I do like that movie

I'm a long boy

A lot of aerial combat happens at subsonic speeds, and being able to operate from anywhere when you enemy is restricted to land bases far away is a major advantage.

I have not yet

they are wrong

I don't see why that's impossible. We know General Resource is around in universe as far back as 2019

It's always fun to keep looking for them

They still lost the war that they incited

@@thefrenchcommander5770 true but i don’t think its worth giving this side of the story a “hype”. These pilots lost a no-win situation but theyve risked it anyways. Ironically: a boring match. Well tbf the Argentinian pilots werent as skilled or experienced as the NATO pilots. But still i can see them maybe doing a little bit better with those transponders completely turned off. And then theres their Obsolete aircrafts…

This is simply nonsense. The GP bombs that the Argentines delivered from too low didn't even _have_ IFF. They had simple impact fuses, which were equipped with a time delay to protect the launching aircraft. There was no conspiracy there, just Argentine pilots who didn't understand that aspect of their weapons. That's understandable because their doctrine didn't anticipate delivery from such low altitudes. That was an exceptionally brave and skillful improvisation on their part. The same agoes for Exocet. IFF can be spoofed, so nobody builds an IFF keepout into a weapon like that. What Exocet _did_ have was a fairly crude radar seeker that was easy to jam/decoy, which is why the only UK ships to be hit were the Sheffield (which didn't realize she was under attack and didn't even try to jam or decoy the missile) and the Atlantic Conveyor (which was a commercial ship and didn't have jammers or decoys). By the way, scoring 3 hits and 2 kills out of a pre-war inventory of 5 Exocets was an exceptional performance on the part of the Argentines. They couldn't have expected any better, and if they hadn't been very skilled they would have done far worse. No credible Argentinian source has ever claimed that they got a torpedo shot at the carriers. The fact is that it's _very_ difficult for a diesel boat like the Type 209 to intercept a carrier in the open ocean. The only way they can realistically get a shot is if the carrier comes to them, so example by transiting a chokepoint. The UK had it much easier against the Belgrano because they had nuclear boats that were able to sustain high speeds underwater and thereby get into position.

@@yokokoko499 IFF had nothing to do with it. The bombs that failed to explode didn't have IFF in the first instance. Nor did Exocet. And there is no such thing as "underwater IFF", so the bit about the torpedos is ridiculous. Given that the Argentinians only had a grand total of 5 Exocets, 3 hits and 2 sinkings was an extremely good performance. They had and have nothing to complain about there. It also was unrealistic to expect a diesel boat that has to snorkel (and thereby expose itself to radar) to go any distance was going to catch a carrier group in the open ocean. That only happens when the carriers is constrained to a small operating box, and the UK didn't operate like that.

@@patrickchase5614 i didn’t particularly agree that theres underwater IFF transponders. What I’m saying is their transponders was one of their biggest reasons why they failed in the air

They were indeed!

You're gonna like my 104 vid

I love Drach but this is the Airdock

It really is!

@@fightertales It would make one hell of a movie

Thanks for watching!

I have plans for the Akron and Macon. They did come after WWI though