But the RN still had recon assets, both in the form of aircraft, and perhaps most especially satelite access which was something the Argentines could only dream of. This left the RN in a considerably better position than the Argentines who reduced to guestimating the position of the British fleet due to an almost complete lack of even maratime recon aircraft and perhaps worst of all it made them largely unable to attack the most vulnerable part of the British fleet, its supply line. The Argentine Mirages were providing fighter cover from bases on the S-American mainland, the closest of which was Rio Grande 380nm away (if memmory serves). By contrast the Royal Navy was positioned only some 70–100 NM East or North East of the islands which left the Harriers in a considerably better fuel situation when engaging Dagger/Skyhawk strikers or Mirage fighters no matter how you turn it and especially if the latter were attacking the fleet it self. The distances involved here left the Mirages with only 5 mintutes or so of effective time in the area before having to return and this only if they did not use their burners. Compare this to the Harriers who could spend 40 minutes to an hour on CAP over the fleet. The fuel situation was better for the Skyhawks of course since they had in flight refuelling. I have always found the way people criticise the Argentine Mirage fighter pilots performance in the Falklands to be a bit unfair due to their inferior missiles, low fuel supply and lack of a forward base. It is a testimony to their courage that they had the balls to attack the Harriers at all given the circumstances.

Firstly I have to agree on the point of satlite surveilance but not the lack of or abundance of recce aircraft on either side. The second point I would like to make is that the people who regarded the Argentine forces the most were the British who faced them. So if you are thinking that I am criticising them I have to tell you that you are wrong. The Argentines were and are regarded very highly by the British for their skill and courage but surely this doesn’t take away from the skill and the courage of the British. When you say this:

have always found the way people criticise the Argentine Mirage fighter pilots performance in the Falklands to be a bit unfair due to their inferior missiles, low fuel supply and lack of a forward base.

I have to ask who is criticising them and what lack of forward base? They had the Falklands and they had an upgradeable airstrip at Stanley and they did not do anything really worth while with it. Their mistake. My point again is I am not criticising Argentina but when these discussions come up Britian always gets criticised. It is said they only won because Argentina was at a disadvantage. Well the British had disadvantages of their own that are handily overlooked but I don’t hear anybody say ‘oh those poor British lads how they fought and died’. No. All you here about is the poor Argentine lads who fought and died and suffered as if the Brits were some kind of evil oppressor and those Brits who died and suffered deserved it as if their lives are somehow less important.

We have to try put aside our political allegencies and preconceptions if we are going to try to take apart why a battle was won or lost. From the British point of view its hard to say what point of view we prefer. If a potential enemy underestimates us they will likely lose against us which is okay when the shooting starts. However a military force is there as much to prevent war as it is to fight one and, as is what happened in 1982, Argentina’s underestimation of British political will and military capability led to a war that Argentina lost. A war that they fought in their own back yard and when all is said and done should have won but did not. Yes they had their disadvantages, so did the British. No they did not work to their strengths, the British did. The British were slightly luckier and they may or may not have had better equipment. You may not like us, you may want us to fail at whatever we undertake, fair enough but your appraisal is still way off the mark and British lives are just as important as Argentine lives.

Not only that, but the Argentine Mirages were also operating at the extreme limit of their range, had no in flight refuelling capability and did not benefit from adequate reconnaissance or radar cover much of the time, the Daggers at least had inadequate navigation equipment and any use of afterburners by the Mirage III’s when tangling with the Sea Harriers would have left them running out of fuel on the return journey. Things would have been alot harder for the Royal Navy even if the Argentines had only taken the trouble to included an extra ship in the inital invasion fleet carrying a battalion of engineers with heavy construction gear to extend the runway at Port Stanley. This would have allowed the forward deployment of Mirages, the maintenance of a CAP over the area, it would have shortened response times from hours to minutes and allowed the Mirages to make full use of their supeiror speed.

Most of that argument can be said of the British task force too. It was inadequate radar cover that caused the loss of so many ships and the introduction of the AEW Sea King a year later. The Sea Harriers and Harriers were also operated at the extreme of their range because the carrier fleet was ‘standing off’ on its station. To compound this they were at the extreme end of an 8000 mile long logistics chain with the closest freindly territory nearly 4000 miles away on the Assension Islands. If the carriers ran out of fuel what good would the SHARs have been then? Also they did not have in flight refueling either only the Nimrods, Herculese and Vulcans had that facility, if the SHARs wanted fuel they needed to land first. I have to agree that if the Argentine forces had made more use of Stanley the outcome ‘might’ have been very different but we will never know will we?

………….or snake.

Blimey. Was it the glasses that fooled me? Or was it the face mask and the underpants? You never can tell.

I am quite happy on here thank you, however, I can’t help but notice that some people are deliberately being annoying to other members – as you, as moderator, have also seen. That is silly. I am not whinging for the sake of it, but the level of stupid destructive arrogance on here, compared to, for example the General Aviation (ok, Weaver threads are an exception) and the Historic aviation board, is verging on the ridiculous.

I think we need some examples. You are indeed correct and I think none of us are blameless (after this thread you can count yourself in on that) but you are being a bit general. I know this bit is the general discussion board but is it general discussion that has piqued your wrath? Is it people taking the p*** or is your name Victor Meldrew(ish) and you have no sense of humour? You have shown us no humour whatsoever so far and therefore we fell the need to enforce it upon you.

UKPsyco and kye- IT WORKED!!!!!!!!! MY GOD IT ACTUALLY TOOK OFF WITHOUT CATCHING FIRE!!!! THANKS GUYS!!!… Now, to find these pesky American B-17’s…
Regards,
BARNOWL

I FEEL A SONG COMING ON! “Up we fly to bash the Flying Fortress, up so high etc etc anon anon……………………………..” 😀

Chris Plummer sings…..

Eidelwies, Eidelwies……………………….come in eidelwies this is tulip one we havn’t got all day you know! Whilst that bloke commanding the Polish mob hums the tune to Van der Valk.

Barry Foster.