Man, I would KILL to have these in game...

[Londoner]

Originally posted by BlAin:

I am sure that if any enemy can counterbalance with decent air support (think of the Falkland war and the numerous successes Argentinian pilots had over British warships)

The Argies lost 75 aircraft! not a single RN Sea Harrier was shot down and they provided negligible air support for their land based garrison (a handful of Skyhawk sorties). The only reason they had a modicum of success against the fleet is our pathetic number of Harriers available for CAPs - 20 IIRC (and half of these were being deployed at high altitude stupidly) plus the fact that our Seadarts were crap. After the first couple of air engagements they were given standing orders to dump ordnance and RTB if Harriers were encountered!

The only RN loss which actually had operational concequences was the loss of the container ship (name escapes me) which had all our choppers on board. No one can doubt the bravery of the Argie aircrews but their hit and run tactics were costly and their effectiveness debatable.

[ August 08, 2007, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Londoner ]

[Battlefront.com]

Londoner,

No one can doubt the bravery of the Argie aircrews but their hit and run tactics were costly and their effectiveness debatable.

Not debatable... when the dust settled, who had control of the Falklands?

On a serious note, I think the Royal Navy learned a LOT of hard lessons during that engagement. The campaign was successful, but I think most would agree that the British losses were not insignificant and could have been worse had a few variables not been sorted out earlier (primarily the Argentine Air Force losing so many of its planes). All of this is from dusty memories, so you Britsh should not be offended if you need to correct me!

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Londoner:

the loss of the container ship (name escapes me) which had all our choppers on board.

"Alantic Conveyor"

[JonS]

Originally posted by Londoner:

The Argies lost 75 aircraft! not a single RN Sea Harrier was shot down

Harriers shot down 21 aircraft with no air-to-air losses themselves, although five Harriers were lost to ground fire (plus one more to friendly ground fire )

The claim that the Agentinians lost 75 aircraft coupled to zero Harrier losses is a little deceptive.

Agentine Aircraft Cas, Falklands War

Aircraft Lost in the Air:

11 x IAI Dagger A (9 by Sea Harrier, 1 by Sea Wolf HMS Broadsword, 1 by Rapier SAM)

10 x A-4B Skyhawk (3 by Sea Harrier, 3 by Sea Wolf HMS Brilliant, 1 by Sea Dart, 1 by AAA HMS Fearless, 1 by SAM/AAA/small arms fire and 1 by friendly fire)

7 x A-4C Skyhawk (2 by Sea Harrier, 3 by Sea Dart, 2 by combination Sea Cat/Rapier/Blowpipe)

3 x FMA IA 58 Pucará (1 by Sea Harrier, 1 by Stinger SAM, 1 by SA fire 2PARA)

3 x A-4Q Skyhawk Navy (3 by Sea Harrier)

2 x Mirage IIIEA (1 by Sea Harrier, 1 by friendly fire)

2 x B.Mk62 Canberra (1 by Sea Harrier, 1 by Sea Dart)

1 x C-130E Hercules (Sea Harrier)

1 x Aermacchi MB.339A (Blowpipe)

1 x Learjet 35A (Sea Dart SAM)

3 x Puma SA330L (1 by SAM Sea Dart, 2 by gun fire)

1 x Puma SA330L (Royal Marines gun fire in Georgias)

Destroyed on the ground:

9 x FMA IA 58 Pucará

1 x Agusta A109

1 x Boeing Ch-47C Chinook

2 x Aérospatiale Puma SA330L

4 x Beechcraft T-34 Mentor

2 x Skyvan 3-M

Captured after the war:

11 x FMA IA 58 Pucará

2 x Agusta A109

9 x Bell UH-1H Iroquoi

1 x Boeing CH-47C Chinook

1 x Aérospatiale Puma SA330L

3 x Aermacchi MB.339A

2 x Bell 212

Lost with ARA General Belgrano:

1 Aérospatiale Alouette AI03

Flying accident in the war zone:

1 x Westland Lynx HAS.Mk.23

2 x FMA IA 58 Pucará

1 x Aermacchi MB.339A

2 x A-4C Skyhawk

Total:

75 x fixed wing aircraft

25 x helicopters

Nearly half the total of 75 a/c were lost either on the ground, captured, or due to accidents.

Comparing total UK losses, we have ...

British Aircraft Cas, Falklands War

Aircraft Lost in the Air:

3 x Westland Gazelle AH.1

3 x Harrier GR.3

2 x Sea Harrier FRS.1

1 x Scout AH.1

Flying accident in the war zone:

4 x Sea Harrier FRS.1

1 x Harrier GR.3

2 x Westland Sea King HC.4

2 x Westland Sea King HAS.5

2 x Westland Wessex HU.5

Lost onboard a ship:

3 x Chinook HC.1

3 x Westland Lynx HAS.2

1 x Westland Wessex HAS.3

6 x Westland Wessex HU.5

Self-destruct in Chile:

1 x Westland Sea King HC.4

Total:

10 x Aircraft

25 x Helicopters

[ August 08, 2007, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[BlAin]

From what I've read and learned about the Falklands conflict, although the newly released Sea Harriers were not in sufficient numbers to effectively engage all enemy aircraft, albeit they had air superiority by over 80%, I also know that very few engagements because a logic would prevail as to not fight disadvantaged, thus logically wanting to fight at one's own respective best altitude resulted in less losses on both sides, more on the Argentinian side though because their Canberras and Skyhawks were defenseless birds at the time. Would the Sea Harriers try and engage Mirages at their best altitude, one would wonder if the latter would have had the upper hand.

Furthermore, the whole of the Argentine Navy was recalled to port once submarine threats were imminent. So all the planes taking off were doing it from the mainland, seriously hampering their ability to patrol effectively with rare airfueling occasions. Would the Argentinian plan be not "botched" and carefully planned instead (Argentina knew the islands like their backpockets), I think the runway on Stanley airfield could have been substantially improved as they had a full 15 days before any threats from the British could come in sight. They air war would have been different in many ways...

[Londoner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

On a serious note, I think the Royal Navy learned a LOT of hard lessons during that engagement. The campaign was successful, but I think most would agree that the British losses were not insignificant and could have been worse had a few variables not been sorted out earlier (primarily the Argentine Air Force losing so many of its planes). All of this is from dusty memories, so you Britsh should not be offended if you need to correct me! Steve

Very true Stevey baby. Thanks to a little last minute diplomacy the French held back on a final delivery of Exocets, so the Argentine Air Force only possessed IIRC 8 (air launchable) units, hence them having to resort to the old fashioned bombing runs. If they had got hold of a decent number the taskforce could well have been devastated. On the other hand we knew exactly how many they had so I imagine we'd never have dispatched the fleet (at least as it was) if they had the missile in substantial numbers.

Originally posted by JonS:

The claim that the Agentinians lost 75 aircraft coupled to zero Harrier losses is a little deceptive.

Sure, 40 aircraft were lost in combat IIRC. I was going to change that figure but I figured what the hell, it looks nice.

I thought all our Harrier losses came from accidents and the friendly fire incident! I didn't realise 5 were lost to ground fire. You learn something new every day.

Originally posted by BlAin:

Would the Sea Harriers try and engage Mirages at their best altitude, one would wonder if the latter would have had the upper hand.

This is a moot point. IIRC the Mirages had to come in at low altitude to avoid detection and launch their Exocets.

Sure, having Mirages flying air supremacy sorties would've given them another option, however as you say, loiter times would've been extremely poor (I didn't think they had any air to air refuelling capabilities) and (again) IIRC they didn't have any modern air to air weapons (to compete with our shinny new AMRAAMS). Even if they had got hold of some, the radar packages on their Mirages were terribly dated. Not that the Harriers were perfect, I think the FA2 (with updated radar suite) was developed in light of pilot's complaints during the conflict.

Originally posted by BlAin:

I think the runway on Stanley airfield could have been substantially improved as they had a full 15 days before any threats from the British could come in sight. They air war would have been different in many ways...

Indeed. I've always wondered why the Argie plan was so shoddy. Ok due to political considerations it was apparently rushed somewhat but you'd think the Junta would want to get it right!! Failure would (and obviously did) prove costly in the extreme!

I guess history is littered with gambles.

[ August 09, 2007, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: Londoner ]

[MikeyD]

" All of this is from dusty memorie..."

I had purchased one of the first VERY expensive VCRs back then and as result I have a collection of slowly corroding broadcast new reports of the '82 Falklands war (and the Lebanon war too!). Video of Pucaras and Skyhawks doing screaming wave-height strafing runs against moored ships at the landing beach is still hair-raising to watch.

As an asside, I just read that after 25 years suicide deaths among the aging British Falklands war veterans have now exceeded the original combat deaths.