[skyhawk-arg]

Bob the Nailor, on Jan 8 2005, 11:09 AM, said:

I think you'd better check your history. NO  Harriers were shot down in air-to-air combat during the Falkland Campaign.

http://en.wikipedia....iddeley_Harrier

A total of twenty Sea Harriers were deployed from HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible, and they inflicted serious losses on the Argentine air force destroying 23 aircraft in air-to-air combat. In all three Sea Harriers were lost to ground fire, but none was lost to enemy aircraft.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...pr/duffner.html

In spite of its spectacular successes against British ships, Argentina lost the air-to-air war decisively. Argentine fighter aircraft failed to shoot down a single Harrier. British Harrier losses totaled nine--four to accidents and five by surface-based air defenses
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

14 harriers was shot down by ground fire.

This post has been edited by skyhawk-arg: 09 January 2005 - 10:03:48 AM

[Mothman]

Bob the Nailor, on Jan 8 2005, 02:09 PM, said:

I think you'd better check your history. NO  Harriers were shot down in air-to-air combat during the Falkland Campaign.

http://en.wikipedia....iddeley_Harrier

A total of twenty Sea Harriers were deployed from HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible, and they inflicted serious losses on the Argentine air force destroying 23 aircraft in air-to-air combat. In all three Sea Harriers were lost to ground fire, but none was lost to enemy aircraft.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...pr/duffner.html

In spite of its spectacular successes against British ships, Argentina lost the air-to-air war decisively. Argentine fighter aircraft failed to shoot down a single Harrier. British Harrier losses totaled nine--four to accidents and five by surface-based air defenses
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Bob. welcome to these forums.

I cannot remember the source, but i recall having read somewhere that one of the Harriers that is listed as lost due to an accident was damaged by cannon fire from a Dagger before the accident. :grin: If that's true, I would say it was a lucky shot but anyway the pilot would hav to praised.

About the air-to-air war, it is arguable. After all, there were no argentinian fighter armed for air-to-air combat after May 1st. This was the result of a decission to keep the Mirage III in the continent after the Vulcan's mission from Ascension Island that proved that the RAF could attack Argentina's mainland air bases from there. Anyway, it was a good call, because the Sidewinder AIM-B, the Matra Magic, and the Shafrir Air-to-Air missiles could not compete against the AIM-9L, afaik.

Furthermore, the main goal of the Sea Harriers was to achieve air superiority = deny the airspace over the islands = prevent enemy air activity over the islands, etc... The Argentinian Air Force kept flying until the last day of the battle, flying supplies to the islands, performing attack missions and high altitude bombing mission by the Canberras duing the night.

It was an air war of "attrition", that if it lasted it would have been won by the Harriers anyway. But in some books it is said it was a "tie", if there is such thing in war. Beside, i am convinced that the argentinian aircraft would have to be grounded soon because of lack of air fuel and spare parts if the combat lasted longer than it actually did, even before the Harriers could shot them all down.

To be realistic, without argentinian fighters armed with air-to-air missiles after may 1st and with the aircraft's operational restrictions (range, e.g.), the only thing for a Harrier pilot to really worry about is the Harrier itself: it was (and probably still is) the most difficult aircraft to fly, as proven by its long record of accidents. The argentinian were brave pilots because, even with all the odds against them, they went against Harriers and the Royal Navy's best assets. The british were brave pilots because they were flying the most difficult and accident prone aircraft 14000 km away from home over hostile territory and landing these birds on carriers that were floating in the most treacherous waters of the planet. Needless to say, both sides performed above all expectations during the first air-naval conflict since WW2, and that's what makes this sim project quite appealing, imho. :cool:

Besides, who wouldn't want to try the Sea Harrier and the Mirage, for a change! :)

[andersblume]

Have you read the book Sea Harrier over the Falklands by commander 'Sharkey' Ward?

And btw check this link out: http://www.naval-his...ircraftlost.htm

I count 10 harrier losses :dry:

[skyhawk-arg]

andersblume, on Jan 12 2005, 09:32 AM, said:

Have you read the book Sea Harrier over the Falklands by commander 'Sharkey' Ward?

And btw check this link out: http://www.naval-his...ircraftlost.htm

I count 10 harrier losses  :dry:
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1- may 1st / sea harrier xz-458 / oerlikon 35mm / puerto argentino-port stanley
2- may 1st / sea harrier xz-491 / oerlikon 35mm / puerto argentino-port stanley
3- may 4th / sea harrier xz-450 / oerlikon 35mm / darwin pradera del ganso
4- may 5th / sea harrier / oerlikon 35mm / darwin pradera del ganso
5- may 5th / sea harrier / oerlikon 35mm / puerto argentino-port stanley
6- may 6th / sea harrier xz-452 / not determined / puerto argentino-port stanley
7- may 6th / sea harrier za-453 / not determined / puerto argentino-port stanley
8- may 21th / harrier gr3 899 / blow pipe / puerto argentino-port stanley
9- may 25th / sea harrier za-192 / roland / puerto argentino-port stanley
10- may 27th/ harrier gr3 xz-988 / oerlikon 35mm / puerto argentino-port stanley
11- may 29th / sea harrier za-174 / oerlikon 35mm / puerto argentino-port stanley
12- may 30th / harrier gr3 xz-972 / oerlikon 35mm / puerto argentino-port stanley
13- juny 1st / harrier frs1 xz--466 / roland / puerto argentino-port stanley
14- juny 8th /harrier grm-mk3 /oerlikon or roland/ puerto argentino-port stanley

[andersblume]

Quote

8- may 21th / harrier gr3 899 / blow pipe / puerto argentino-port stanley

Shot down by a blow pipe?! U must be crazy, that’s propaganda! You cant hit anything with a blow pipe, its a useless weapon!

[skyhawk-arg]

andersblume, on Jan 13 2005, 12:07 PM, said:

Shot down by a blow pipe?! U must be crazy, that’s propaganda! You cant hit anything with a blow pipe, its a useless weapon! 
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

members of commandos 601 company hit down a harrier GR3 with a missile blow pipe. The pilot Jeff Glover was ejected and had been taken prisioner by the same company.

[Dante-JT]

British ground forces also used their Blowpipe missiles successfully at the battle for Darwin and Goose Green, shooting down a MB-339:
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falkland...raftlosses.html

Quote

1600 hours.
Two MB.339s attack Darwin. One is destroyed by Blowpipe

[Bob the Nailor]

Hi Guys,
I did indeed read Sharky Wards 'book'. I found the comment about the RAF wasting resources to mount a raid on Stanley with a Vulcan that his harriers could have done pretty laughable. I couldn't believe someone so obviously intelligent could not see the reason for this raid was not to hit the runway, but to show the Argentinian government we could hit their mainland bases. Thus pulling fighters away to defend their northern bases.

As for the bravery of Argentinas pilots and soldiers, yes they were very brave. They took on one of the worlds best trained military forces and put up a creditable fight. I would not have relished taking on the ships in SanCarlos knowing they were a: Heavily armed b:knew you were coming and c: ringed with sams.

I often wonder what would have happend if we still had HMS Ark Royal (aircraft carrier) with her AEW aircraft and her Buccaneer's and F4 Phantoms. I doubt the war would even have taken place.

Now thers an interesting twist for the game, have both sides carriers available.

Bob

[Bob the Nailor]

skyhawk-arg, on Jan 12 2005, 10:18 AM, said:

1-  may 1st   / sea harrier xz-458  /  oerlikon 35mm  / puerto argentino-port stanley
2-  may 1st   / sea harrier xz-491  /  oerlikon 35mm  / puerto argentino-port stanley
3-  may 4th   / sea harrier xz-450  /  oerlikon 35mm  / darwin pradera del ganso
4-  may 5th   / sea harrier             /  oerlikon 35mm  / darwin pradera del ganso
5-  may 5th   / sea harrier             /  oerlikon 35mm  / puerto argentino-port stanley
6-  may 6th   / sea harrier xz-452  /  not determined  / puerto argentino-port stanley
7-  may 6th   / sea harrier za-453  /  not determined  / puerto argentino-port stanley
8-  may 21th / harrier gr3  899      /  blow pipe           / puerto argentino-port stanley
9-  may 25th / sea harrier za-192  /  roland               / puerto argentino-port stanley
10- may 27th/  harrier gr3 xz-988   / oerlikon 35mm  / puerto argentino-port stanley
11- may 29th / sea harrier za-174   / oerlikon 35mm  / puerto argentino-port stanley
12- may 30th / harrier gr3 xz-972   /  oerlikon 35mm  / puerto argentino-port stanley
13- juny 1st   / harrier frs1 xz--466 /  roland               / puerto argentino-port stanley
14- juny 8th   /harrier grm-mk3       /oerlikon or roland/ puerto argentino-port stanley
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Casualties and Aircraft Losses
Britain
Dead
Four Army Air Corps
Five Fleet Air Arm
Two Royal Air Force
Aircraft Lost
Three Chinook
One Gazelle
Nine Harriers
One Lynx
One Scout
Five Sea King
Eight Wessex
Argentina
Dead
41 Argentine Air Force and Navy
Aircraft Lost
Twenty A-4 Skyhawk
Two Aermacchi MB-339
Two Agusta A109
Four Beech T-34C
Two Bell 212
Sixteen Bell UH-IH
Two Chinook
One C-130 Hercules
Two Canberra
22 Mirage III
Thirteen Pucara
Twelve Puma
One Super Etendard


http://en.wikipedia...._War_Air_Forces

If you want details of British aircraft losses look at this link

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falkland...craftlosses.htm

This post has been edited by Bob the Nailor: 15 January 2005 - 12:50:00 PM

[FIghtinghawk]

[quote name='Bob the Nailor' date='Jan 15 2005, 10:44 AM']
Casualties and Aircraft Losses
Britain
Dead
Four Army Air Corps
Five Fleet Air Arm
Two Royal Air Force
Aircraft Lost
Three Chinook
One Gazelle
Nine Harriers
One Lynx
One Scout
Five Sea King
Eight Wessex
Argentina
Dead
41 Argentine Air Force and Navy
Aircraft Lost
Twenty A-4 Skyhawk
Two Aermacchi MB-339
Two Agusta A109
Four Beech T-34C
Two Bell 212
Sixteen Bell UH-IH
Two Chinook
One C-130 Hercules
Two Canberra
22 Mirage III
Thirteen Pucara
Twelve Puma
One Super Etendard


JAJAJAJAJJAJAJAJAJA, Argentina had only 14 mirage III, an we had 4 Super Etendart in the war and none of them were shoot down in the war

I think that your informationis false. If you want the truth enter the argentinian air force page or buy a book.
don't beliebe to the unoficial pages that's all propaganda.

I don't know if all the information that you have there is fake but the most of it is fake.

sorry for my bad english :P

[Bob the Nailor]

You can believe what you like I couldn't give a toss.

How many times did you claim to sink our aircraft carriers ?

We one you lost

And heres a reminder of the flag thats flying over Stanley !

http://www.visualbli.../unionjacks.htm

This post has been edited by Bob the Nailor: 15 January 2005 - 04:13:14 PM

[MBot]

Bob the Nailor, on Jan 15 2005, 10:35 AM, said:

Hi Guys,
I did indeed read Sharky Wards 'book'. I found the comment about the RAF wasting resources to mount a raid on Stanley with a Vulcan that his harriers could have done pretty laughable. I couldn't believe someone so obviously intelligent could not see the reason for this raid was not to hit the runway, but to show the Argentinian government we could hit their mainland bases. Thus pulling fighters away to defend their northern bases.

That might have been the intention of the RAF, but did it realy succede ? You often read that the Vulcan missions on Stanley airport stopped the Mirage III flights over the islands ( because they were forced to move north to cover the mainland ). I haven't seen any evidence yet that supports this. To my knowledge the Mirage III spend the whole war at Rio Gallegos, from where they couldn't cover any significant part of Argentina excpect the southern AF Bases. But an Vulcan attack against them was most unlikely anyway, as that would have been suicidal for a single, unescorted Vulcan.

I think we all agree that the Mirage III ( ar the whole argentinan AF ) stopped to search aircombat because of the disasterous events of 1st May. But why didn't the Mirages apear over the islands between 1st till 21th May ( the Mirage III kept flying escorts and decoy flights over the Falklands after 21th May ) ? Sharky Wards theory that the Mirages spend their whole droptanks stock on first May sounds very plausible, at least much more plausible than Mirage III covering Buenos Aires from Vulcan raids... Are there any argentinan sources on that matter ? That would be very interesting.


While I agree with the original poster that Wards book has to be read with big caution, I agree with Ward that the Vulcan raids didn't achieve much more that morale effects.

[MBot]

Mothman, on Jan 9 2005, 01:56 PM, said:

... the Sidewinder AIM-B, the Matra Magic, and the Shafrir Air-to-Air missiles could not compete against the AIM-9L, afaik.

It is often stated that the good training of the FAA pilots and the excellent AIM-9L were the two big factors that provided the british air superiority over tha Falklands.
Regarding the AIM-9L, this is questionable the me. Altough the AIM-9L should be an all aspect weapon, all kills with this weapon were achieved from the rear aspect. To my knowledge, any attemt to get a lock from the front failed.
On the other hand, on 1st May a Dagger successfully launched a Shafrir from a frontal aspect aganst a Sea Harrier. The missle tracked and the Sea Harrier had to give up much altitude to shake the missle. Altough not killed, that Sea Harrier was effectivly put out of the fight. Seconds later the Dagger was killed by the second Shar.

The AIM-9L was most likely the best AA-missle in the theater, but the Shafrir event - altough perhaps just lucky circumstances - shows that the superiority of the 9L wasn't godlike.

This post has been edited by MBot: 16 January 2005 - 09:47:25 AM

[Argentine Pucara]

Bob the Nailor, on Jan 15 2005, 02:11 PM, said:

You can believe what you like I couldn't give a toss.

How many times did you claim to sink our aircraft carriers ?

We one you lost

And heres a reminder of the flag thats flying over Stanley !

http://www.visualbli.../unionjacks.htm
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For how long.

[Mothman]

MBot, on Jan 16 2005, 07:23 AM, said:

That might have been the intention of the RAF, but did it realy succede ? You often read that the Vulcan missions on Stanley airport stopped the Mirage III flights over the islands ( because they were forced to move north to cover the mainland ). I haven't seen any evidence yet that supports this. To my knowledge the Mirage III spend the whole war at Rio Gallegos, from where they couldn't cover any significant part of Argentina excpect the southern AF Bases. But an Vulcan attack against them was most unlikely anyway, as that would have been suicidal for a single, unescorted Vulcan.

I think we all agree that the Mirage III ( ar the whole argentinan AF ) stopped to search aircombat because of the disasterous events of 1st May. But why didn't the Mirages apear over the islands between 1st till 21th May ( the Mirage III kept flying escorts and decoy flights over the Falklands after 21th May ) ? Sharky Wards theory that the Mirages spend their whole droptanks stock on first May sounds very plausible, at least much more plausible than Mirage III covering Buenos Aires from Vulcan raids... Are there any argentinan sources on that matter ? That would be very interesting.
While I agree with the original poster that Wards book has to be read with big caution, I agree with Ward that the Vulcan raids didn't achieve much more that morale effects.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as i have read the decission to keep the Mirage III in the continent was to protect the air bases in the Patagonia. You all know that the Super Etendard bases in Rio Gallegos were a primary target for spec ops and Vulcans, as well as the 2 KC-130 tankers. If an air raid was not attempted it probaly was either because of political reasons (the exclusion zone set by UK did not included the mainland) or because of the limited success probabilities.

The "significant part" of Argentina, that you mention in your post, was imho the air bases in the south. With the 2 KC-130 Hercules tankers the FAA had and the 4 Super Etendard with 1 Exocet each being destroyed on the ground, the air war is over over the islands. Of course, a Vulcan mission over the air bases would have been very complicated and somewhat suicidal. What if the Vulcans flew from Chile? (or could land in Chile after a mission?) Or what if Chile entered the conflict on UK's side? What if there was a conflict between Argentina and Chile after the conflict with UK had stopped? (it was very possible at the time). Those Mirage III were needed for air base protection, not for fighter sweeps or escorting missions. It also had to be preserved for an eventual conflict with Chile. Imho, it was a very rational call, although I do not think the Mirage III pilots liked the decission.

I'll look for some argentinian sources, but i think i'll probably find some british sources about this first. By the way, I did not say that the Mirage III were moved "North".The Mirage III remained in their southern bases, but stopped flying over the islands.

EDIT: added the lat paragraph.

This post has been edited by Mothman: 22 January 2005 - 12:22:34 AM

[Mothman]

Bob the Nailor, on Jan 15 2005, 05:11 PM, said:

You can believe what you like I couldn't give a toss.

How many times did you claim to sink our aircraft carriers ?

We one you lost

And heres a reminder of the flag thats flying over Stanley !

http://www.visualbli.../unionjacks.htm
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Bob. This is not place for flaming wars. No one claimed having sunk any carrier anyway. Chill out and congrats for the victory. Another piece of wasteland populated with second class implanted UK citizens for the Queen to worry about and spend her money. :rofl: lol. Just chill out and have fun. The war is over and our soldiers are standing side by side in Chipre, btw. Follow their example. They're the ones who die for you. You just play PC games. :cool:

lol

This post has been edited by Mothman: 22 January 2005 - 12:28:14 AM

[MBot]

I still can't imagine that the Mirages were held back because of the Vulcans. I am sure that the AAF did the math and calculated to what extend the RAF could mount Vulcan missions to the south. Even if they didn't know exactly that the RAF only could send a single Vulcan every several days to the south, it wouldn't justify to hold back all 15 Mirage III.
The keep 1 or 2 on ready alert would have been more then enough IMO. But even this is questionable.

If you could dig out some argentinan sources about the orders of the Mirages, that would be great.

[Mothman]

MBot, on Jan 22 2005, 07:20 AM, said:

I still can't imagine that the Mirages were held back because of the Vulcans. I am sure that the AAF did the math and calculated to what extend the RAF could mount Vulcan missions to the south. Even if they didn't know exactly that the RAF only could send a single Vulcan every several days to the south, it wouldn't justify to hold back all 15 Mirage III.
The keep 1 or 2 on ready alert would have been more then enough IMO. But even this is questionable.

If you could dig out some argentinan sources about the orders of the Mirages, that would be great.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok. This is a quick one, although sadly it's just an argentinian source quoting a british source.

I've translated it to english the best i could, so pleaes forgive me for any mistake.

Book: "La Guerra Inaudita" 11th edition
Author: Rubén Oscar Moro
Publisher: Edivérn
Page: 144

"Some british authors have written that the Vulcan attack made the FAS (Air Force South) redeploy its Mirage aircraft to defend their continental bases".

The author took the info from here:
- Ethel & Price, "Guerra Aérea Sudatlántica (Southatlantic Air War)", p. 49
- Mason Tony, "Air power, a centennial appraisal", p. 65

I'll keep looking for something longer and more detailed, anyway.

[javis]

I always liked the A-4. undoubtely, the most vintage at that time (I will not talk about the canberra...), since it was projected by Ed Heinemann in the `52, a design with 30 years on its spine at 1982 and still flying, was the most undefended too, but, the "scooter" accomplished well and was loyal.

this sim will be a good tribute to all those designers like heinemann, dassault, etc.

I just can`t wait to have a demo roaring here!

good job! sigan laburando asì!

[scary_pigeon]

Mothman, on Jan 22 2005, 01:27 AM, said:

Hey Bob. This is not place for flaming wars. No one claimed having sunk any carrier anyway. Chill out and congrats for the victory. Another piece of wasteland populated with second class implanted UK citizens for the Queen to worry about and spend her money.  :rofl: lol. Just chill out and have fun. The war is over and our soldiers are standing side by side in Chipre, btw. Follow their example. They're the ones who die for you. You just play PC games.  :cool:

lol
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

haha yeah.

it has a serious side though. it is a wasteland of inbred englanders who farm sheep and such..

..but they guard for britain a notion: Antartica. By having a presence in the south atlantic we gain a fact on the ground argument for a stake in any future spoils with regards to antartica.

the demonstration of british projection may remind other south american nations that might be interesting in future antartic claims to be aware of britains capability and interest in the region.

This post has been edited by scary_pigeon: 27 January 2005 - 10:27:27 PM