Talk:Falklands War

• /Archive01
• /Archive02
• /Archive03
• /Archive04
• /Archive05
• /Archive06
• /Archive07
• /Archive08

Archived

Talk page was a little long so I archived it. Justin talk 12:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

28,000 men

Why were my edits reverted, when Britain obvisly sent 28,000 men to the islands? (http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=falklands+war%2B28%2C000+&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=) /Snillet 15:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I did put it in an edit summary. See WP:RS, the source you quoted would not satisfy that criteria. You're welcome to put in an edit supported by the appropriate citation. Justin talk 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry! /Snillet 15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, its a good idea to generally assume good faith for other editor's actions. There is usually a good reason for their edits. Vandalism is usually the obvious exception. Justin talk 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is with the "British victory"?

Can we please remove the words "British victory" from the result section. As per the War of 1812 it is clear that it was a status quo ante bellum and that Argentina had emphasised to Britain how much it claimed the Malvinas (hence giving them victory in a sense). Agian, I also direct you to the Vietnam War where the US wern't "defeated", they simply withdrew to a situation where they neither gained or lost territory themselves. Please learn that only the US can win wars (and they havn't lost any, ever). Please change please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.2.104 (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make a WP:POINT. This war is not similar to the war of 1812 as a whole in any but the most simplistic reading of the war. Narson 16:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, Argentina invaded the islands - the British recaptured them. Argentinian forces did not withdraw to the island - they put up their hands and surrendered to the British. The Islands remain British to this day, over two decades later. In what sense could this possibly be considered to be anything other than a complete victory for the British? BobThePirate 01:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing agains't the result being a British victory but decisive is wrong, plain word. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is 'decisive' wrong Kurt? The war decided who is in possession and control of the Falkland Islands. It is hard to think of many other wars that had such a straight forward outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Its a long standing consensus text, strong opinions do not over-ride consensus. I have reverted your changes for now. Justin talk 23:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The result as it is stated in the previous version is not a standing fact. Claiming such is absurd. Also, interestingly enough, this "decisive victory" is mentioned in Spanish version of the article, which happens to be featured - unlike this one. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have politely pointed out to you, the text is a long standing consensus agreement, agreed after much debate. It isn't actually my version. I will revert once more to the consensus text, please do not revert again. I am asking you not to edit war over this, as I noted earlier strongly held opinions do not trump consensus. Thank you. Justin talk 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The result was decisive, the Argentine forces surrendered, Britain got to keep its penguins, the military Junta toppled not long after, it swept the government of the day to an election victory, the armed forces got the reprieve they wanted from the cuts....yes, there were losses, but in essence the entire Argentine force was 'lost'. As for what the spanish wikipedia has in their so-called FA, I tend to ignore it. Having read it over, it looks like it wouldn't pass GA tests here, let alone FA ones. Narson (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - I should say that I have no real preference either way as to the inclusion of decisive, while I think it was a pretty solid victory in the end, I am certainly willing to entertain the notion of not having decisive in the infobox, however, I'd need some better reasoning to change my opinion than someone yelling 'absurd' over and over again. Narson (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The war did not occur to make a point, if it had been, then the defeat would not have lead to the end of the argentine military junta. It was an absoultely decisive victory for the British in every sense, and I challenge anyone to come up with a sound arguement otherwise. The argentines invaded the islands, the british recaptured them after a realatively one sided campaign and 2 and a half decades later, the islands are still british, and the argentines are not in a position to recapture them given the added military strength there. In addition to that there is the signal it sent globally, especially to Russia that large poorly-equipt conscript armies are unlikely to hold their ground against well trained, well equipt, professional soldiers. As above, this is just trying to make a Point WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 11:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does everybody believe that the Argentine troops were poorly equipped and the British troops well-equipped? The British boots were falling apart so the soldiers hoped that the dead Argentines had the same boot size as themselves. The British paratroopers brought Sterling submachine guns to the war zone and quickly exchanged them to conquered Argentine 7.62 mm SLR's. The Argentines had more artillery pieces and more powerful guns (155 mm). Argentine sharpshooters had just as many night vision scopes as their British counterparts, British soldiers had to charge with bayonets one or two times, etc. UK was better equipped at Sea and in the Air, but not on the Ground. Necessary Evil (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point, the Argentines used the FN-FAL, I believe, not the British derivative SLR :) Narson (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, I slovenly used SLR (Self-Loading Rifle) as a synonym for semi-automatic rifles, not for the British version. Perhaps they were renamed SLR on the spot? - No, I can't save it ;-(. Well Narson, the Argentine version was called FM FAL (Fabricaciones Militares - Fusil Automatico Liviano) not the Belgian FN FAL (Fabrique Nationale - Fusil Automatique Léger), (Gotcha!) (1-1). 8-) Necessary Evil (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh? They made a licensed one too? Interesting :) Learn something new every day. Narson (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm being pedantic, but does anyone know why the British para's actually brought submachine guns to the fray? (it's something that's been bugging me) One thing I will say though is, use of a bayonet does not imply lack of resources or technological edge. The British are still using the bayonet in Afghanistan, and I don't think anyone can say the Taliban are better equipped or technologically superior. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sterlings were given to rear echelon units because the British Army has a long standing dislike of issuing pistols to soldiers (they're only for officers). Don't assume there is logic to it. And it wasn't just the Army that was poorly equipped, the navy had wanted to fit CIWS to the Type 42 in the '70s but had been thwarted by the treasury. The design of the Type 42 was compromised by treasury restrictions, such that the Batch 1 boats were not brilliant in heavy seas, the last thing you'd want in the South Atlantic. (One of the reasons why the subsequent Batch 2 boats and the later Type 22 were stretched.) Then there was the genius in defence procurement who thought polyester flash hoods were a good idea - till the burns injuries on RN ships. And the use of cheap wiring, which lost us several ships. I could go on... Justin talk 23:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So hang on the para had SLR's and Sterlings? I assumed they just had Sterlings as their "primary" weapons. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The prime weapon was the SLR with the GMPG in the fire support role. Sterlings were carried by troops who were in the front line but not necessarily in an infantry role. For instance, Forward Artillery Observers were issued with Sterlings but soon acquired something better. Does that clear it up? Justin talk 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the British army has always been a bit odd in its equiptment choices. It took it until the 1980s to get any kind of burst or fully automatic weapon issued to the standard guy, apparantly because of a belief that the average infantry man would waste ammo or somesuch, so increased ammo useage, no increase in kill ratio, and they would have to provide obscene amounts of ammo to get the same effect. Spot the flaw ;) Narson (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Justin I understand now, the L22A2 Carbine would perhaps be the modern day equivalent? I can see the logic in the British Army's choice though, considering the spray and pray debacle in Vietnam, not to mention the unreliability of automatic heavy barrels. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not called the sterling by the British Army - it is the SMG. As for odd choices of weapon, the SLR was an excellent weapon which served for nearly 30 years with minor modification. Even today, the SA80 is usually used in the automatic single-shot mode; just like the SLR of old. The British Army insists on high standards of marksmanship. I have spent time in Fort Lewis and elsewhere with the US Army and their small-arms philsophy is different. Platoons were not short of firepower as each section had a GPMG although the Paras may have grouped these into fire sp sub-units. Did the paras also have the .50 browning MG? As for the use of the bayonet, it is intended more an expression of martial spirit than an alternative weapon system. Cold steel continues to have a metaphorical and actual visceral effect.--MJB (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC) R IRISH 1986 - 1994

Absolutely right, the SMG was still on general issue to drivers and so on up to the first Gulf war, but they had some severe safety issues(I have a friend who shot himself in the foot with one, although that was not really the fault of the weapon to be fair!). It was actually an excellent close quarters weapon, far superior to any pistol and more accurate, although when you are dealing with targets at sub 30 metres accuracy is less of an issue! The paras did not have the .50 in the Falklands and in fact they where lucky to have as many GPMGs, it was certainly not considered the norm then to have one per section (although the Army adopted that philosophy pretty quickly for a while after 82). The cold steel was used as an alternative weapon system on numerous occasions during the war, you can fit a bayonet to an SMG as well, THEN it's a scary looking weapon. The SLR was probably one of the best assualt rifles ever deployed by the British, a true man killer which after all is the point!BennyTec (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite correct about the .50 calibres. A number were captured at Goose Green and were used by both the Para and Royal Marines. There was a picture in Globe and Laurel shortly after the conflict where a Marine was returning some ammunition to its former owners. Justin talk 09:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I know the photo you mean, it was taken on Mt Harriet. As for the Paras having .50s captured at Goose Green, I don't know of any being brought forward to Longdon or Wireless Ridge for their assaults. It is true to say they used weapons from Longdon, Two Sister etc to support the attacks on Wireless Ridge, Tumbledown etc but I doubt the helicopter space was available to carry much in the way of extra heavy weapons up from Goose Green. BennyTec (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) The Argentinian objective was to liberate - and subsequently to defend - the Malvinas, and the British objective was to recapture the Falklands. I don't see how, according to our neutrality policy, one could use any other phrase than "British victory" to describe the actual result.

The word "decisive" might be seen as editorialising in that it applies a subjective quality to the victory. I would personally prefer the word "complete" for objectivity, but will defer to prior consensus. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why some one hasn’t pointed this out, but the topic creator was a typical American troll. Sadly he failed to cause an argument with his very incorrect statements. Have a nice day now! (80.42.138.81 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Hmm, the OP said that the US (presumably the USA?) has never lost a war. But in the same way, I cannot think of a single war that they have ever won by themselves without outside help. The War of Independance = French, both world wars = all other Allied nations. And also the only reason the USA 'saved' us was not because 'Americaz da best' but because we were low on troops and supplies and the USA came in extremely late on in both wars and so, at that point, were less 'depleted' than us. So please don't come onto these forums and say that 'only the USA can win wars' because I have one word to say to that: bullsh**. 213.78.183.91 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Memorial sites

Recently a British 'Roll of Honour' was added in the external links and we also have a spanish memorial in there.....now, while I greatly respect those that died on both sides, fighting for your country is an honourable thing, but....I fear that they have little to no place on a wikipedia page, especially one so controversial, as not only can it be divisive, it also humanises the war (Which I don't think we should do) and begins to poke at being somewhat of a 'remembrance' thing. However, I'm kind of on the fence, so I brought it here for opinions. Narson (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm you've got a point, it's a sore subject. I guess it would be best not to link to any memorial sites, except a lot of the sources for neutral factual information also come from memorial sites. So we can't claim to be neutral whilst letting one link stay and another not. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is actually two links to a British Roll of Honour, surely one would suffice. Personally I see no objection to links to memorial sites, so long as its balanced with both sides represented and the sites linked to use neutral language. If they sought to push POV or to denigrate the opposition, I'd say they were provocative and should not be included. As a side note, some of the external links are now broken, I'd suggest they need reviewing/fixing and possibly culling. Justin talk 14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The newly added http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Databases/Falklands/ claims that 260 people serving with British Forces or Islanders died in the Falklands War, but there is no list - one can only search for the names. Its sources and references are among others: http://www.falklandswar.org.uk/FAQ.htm#23 with 255 casualties (omitting laundrymen Lai Chi Keung from HMS Sheffield, Kye Ben Kwo from HMS Coventry and Gurkha Budhaparsad Limbu - 24. June 1982), http://britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/roh.html with 255 casualties (123 + 88 + 10 + 9 + 25 + 1 + 3 = 259 ??, 253 did not return from South and 3 women civilian casualties = 256?), http://www.sama82.org/garden/home.htm (258 named casualties) and Martin Middlebrook's book Operation Corporate (main source) which was later published as a revised version called Task Force by Martin Middlebrook himself, with corrections for events and names since "he was misinformed when carrying out his original research". The http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/home.aspx?geotype=London is BTW not available for non-subscribers. I believe that http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Databases/Falklands/ is unsuited as a reference for the death toll - why not use http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/rollofhonour.html, a official MoD web site? Necessary Evil (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree, the official site of the MoD would probably stand as a better source for WP:RS, whilst the roll-of-honour site has good intentions there is an amateurish feel about it. Justin talk 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Commanders

I can see why Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is listed as 'commander', but technically all UK armed forces belong to, and are directed by, the sovereign (i.e., Queen Elizabeth II). I realise this would look odd. Mark Burgess (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be a bit like listing King George VI in WW2 over Winston Churchill, the Monarch may legally be in charge of the armed forces, but for all practical purposes parliament retains a strong hold on the army. I figure it has something to do with a little spat in the 1600s. Narson (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL @ "spat" Ryan4314 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Too much detail

The attack on Santa Fe Part is full with so much detail that it hurts the brevity of the article. 144.122.13.161 (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Norwegian listning post

Added info regarding the involvment of Norwegian inteligence to the article.Mortyman 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Missile Destruct Codes

For information, I'm a Aeronautical Engineer with 20 years experience working in guided weapons. Secret missile destruct codes don't exist outside of Hollywood. They don't exist! I actually supplied a source rebutting the claims in the Times article stating they don't exist. If they were provided with destruct codes, they were pretty useless as the Exocet hit rather a lot of ships.

The story about the missile destruct codes, originated from Mitterand's psychoanalyst, who Mitterand allegedly blabbed sensitive secrets of state to. Funnily the story only emerged after Mitterand was dead and it was a disgrace that any serious paper printed this utter drivel. This source easily fails the test of verifiability, because there are technical references that would rebut it. Recognise it for what it is, sensationalist claims to help the sales of his book.

Britain didn't need French technical help on the Exocet, they were somewhat expert having been involved in the missiles development through BAe Dynamics at Hatfield and were experienced operators of the system. The main help we had from the French was the refusal to ship additional Exocets and the removal of French experts who were commissioning the system. The Argentine Navy managed to activate the system without French help, which of its own right was a major technical achievement. The French also refused to export AM-39 to Peru, since they figured they would obviously be transferred to Argentina.

Now having removed what I believed was a good faith edit, explaining why it was wrong I suggest you really should have discussed here before reverting to put it back in. I would be happy to go through why it isn't technically feasible even now. Your references do not back up the story because they are all based on the story reported in the Times. I have removed the passages related to this story, please discuss here before putting any of this back. Justin talk 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You are an old old bugger, Justin ;) Narson 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cantankerous old bugger these days. Justin talk 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the movies are far more secure than real life. I mean, weren't our nukes secured by simple barrel locks for decades? I think I lost faith in military security after my grandpa told me how when he was a refridgeration engineer, he used to get called in the middle of the night that a nuke was getting too warm and could he come check the refridgeration unit. Narson 00:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Narson, I think you'll find that one of a number of obstacles on the route to a weapon was secured by a padlock. From memory it was the inspection hatch. To get that far, at least in the Polaris days, involved three pass exchanges, two airlocks, a couple of further pass inspections etc.

ALR 12:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Justin, even before you removed the para altogether, I had toned the passage down to something more inline with what the newspaper reports actually said - they don't mention self-destruct codes at all. The reports only mention aditional data on the exocet's radar characteristics, and posibly some assistance in "interfering" with missiles that were for sale - nothing about the rubbish about codes for making them self-destruct after launch. That co-operation from the French was received seems to have been confirmed by Sandys, even if the psychoanalyst's story is somewhat elaborated. David Underdown 08:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest even some of these stories are either based upon a misunderstanding or sensationalism. The British knew the Exocet system very well indeed. During the 60s and 70s, there was considerable co-operation between the French and British in missile development. Much of the Exocet was designed in co-operation with Britain, the French got the production contract and in turn Britain was to have produced a lightweight system that eventually became Sea Skua. Britain didn't need additional technical details from France, they pretty much knew the system inside out.

The rest of this story, how France co-operated in stopping Exocets getting to Argentina is already well known and is worthy of inclusion - but it is already partly mentioned in the article under MI6 activity. I would suggest that is a good place to include that aspect of the story. However, I would point out that this is based on reputable stories, whereas the pyschoanalyst's claims are fanciful nonesense and should not be given any credence. [1]John Nott revealed much of this in 2002, some 3 years before the Times published its "article".

BTW Narson, I think your grandad may have been pulling your leg a bit. Expensive weapons are stored in climate controlled conditions to extend their shelf-life. However, if you want to know about truly mad ideas involving nuclear weapons do a search on Blue Peacock.... Justin talk 08:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting if the initial British involvement in the Exocet could be added to that article - it's currently not mentioned anywhere that I can see. In lieu of that, it doesn't seem impossible that there had been some later changes to systems in any case. At the moment we have verifiable sources saying one thing, and you saying they're wrong - rememebr verifiability, not truth. Anyway, I only ended up with this article on my watchlist form fixing the London Gazette reference, so I'm not going to make a huge issue of it. David Underdown 11:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading something by Keegan about three years ago which talked at length about the SIS operation to disrupt supply of weapons to Argentina, with the tacit approval of the French authorities. I think there was also mention of the French Govt confirming that the weapons hadnt been modified, hence the ESM and ECM would be as expected.

Whilst I agree that the issue is V not T, I think there comes a point when the story really can't be credible. Weapon systems which operate under guidance, such as Sea Dart can be forced to self destruct, but it's not by sending a code to the weapon. Weapon systems which are self guided have no communication path to allow a message to be passed advising a self destruct, so the only way to prevent them impacting is via ECM.

ALR 12:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is more than one side to verifiability and truth. If a source is of dubious quality and is directly contradicted by other reliable sources, then it can be discounted. I think that applies here, I didn't just remove it saying it was untrue - I originally backed this up with sources. In fact, if you care to look back through the history I originally put in an edit that demonstrated the claims were false and it was another editor who removed the offending paragraph. The original edit was then re-introduced and I removed it.

Just to clarify ALR's comments for the non-technical audience weapons that rely on a third party designation can offer a limited abort capability. This are guidance systems such as Semi-Active Radar Homing or laser designation, where the operator must illuminate the target for the system to work. Some abort capability is achieved by switching off the illuminator (SARH/LGB) or in the case of an LGB, the operator can walk the spot off the target. This isn't self-destruct however as the system will continue to operate as advertised but the operator is deliberately acting to cause a miss. The warhead will in fact detonate either at impact or when it reaches the system limit. Justin talk 14:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it's way OT and down into the arcane weeds but the Dart would prematurely explode in the case of switching off the T909. The loss of front lock break up system carried with it a risk of collatoral damage, but it with any munition there is always a risk of that once initiated.

ALR 14:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Then we are agreed. Let us make merry with crumpets and wine...and possibly appletiser for me as I don't drink. Narson 14:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

On of the points I've been trying to make is that the even the newspaper sources don't actually refer to self-destruct codes, just technical data such as (confirming) the radar characteristics. In my initial edit I did remove the obvious rubbish about self-destruct, but I've never been sure that what I edited it too has actually been evaluated. I rather got the impression that he removed the section en bloc, without actually looking at it. David Underdown 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't, I made the point that the "revelations" in the "exclusive" Times article, were actually already in the public domain, from a story released in 2002 in the Telegraph. It is in the article lower down and I added a link to the original article above. Admittedly the detail could be expanded but information was duplicated - does that clear it up? Sorry if I hadn't made it clear. Justin talk 20:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, there just seemed to be a certain amount of talking at cross-purposes going on. David Underdown 21:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Currently this article reads a little too much like a (well researched) chronology. I suggest that it needs brief sections pulling together the themes of the article. Thus:

(1) At the beginning: a section stating the difficulties involved (which led the US Navy to consider the operation 'a military impossibility'; diff: [2], removed [3]). These include: length of, and differences of, the two lines of communication; the brief window before the Antarctic winter; the disparity in size of forces (it's bizarre that this isn't mentioned already: it was some 3,000 British against an estimated 10,000 Argentinian troops); and lack of tactical air superiority.

(2) At the end: a section stating why the British won. The 'obvious' answers include conscript v. professional army and the decision not to oppose the San Carlos landing. However, Hugh Bicheno has some interesting ideas: that the Argentine's first priority should have been to extend the Port Stanley runway so that they could fly fast jets off it and that the Belgrano should have been based in Port Stanley and used as a mobile artillery platform.

All of these are easily citable and would not constitute WP:OR.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Me personally, I'm not keen on the edit to the start of the article, besides I thought the British only had like 21 Harriers?

Although I do agree about emphasizing the distance the British had to fight. It's something I had a hard time imagining until I did some research into it. Maybe a comparison to another well known conflict or perhaps better doing a; "How many times would the UK fit into the distance between the two countries". I'd suggest a scale picture (maybe running horizontally across the page) but I think that's already a matter of some debate. I don't think the picture on the "lead up to the Falklands War" is to scale either. Ryan4314 14:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the exact number of airplanes is a bit of a red herring. The points to emphasise from that diff are the quotation (US Navy - 'a military impossibilty') and the discrepancy in number (and type) of aircraft. The article needs to draw some conclusions (without being WP:OR) rather than being a simple narrative.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I must admit the "military impossibility" bit is catchy, but I think we can do better, you might want to look this up; I can remember watching a documentary called Sea of Fire about the sinking HMS Coventry. The documentary was adapted from the Captain's (David Hart Dyke) book, "4 weeks in May" or something, in the docu he says something like he was posted at the naval academy prior to the war, and that they had actually run a scenario a couple of days long about if the Argentines invaded the Falklands Islands, and concluded that it'd be impossible to recapture them. Then you could tie in a bit about the distance. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Sub

Reverted changes claiming there may have been other ships sunk by nuclear subs. Conqueror's attack is a verifiable claim, anything else isn't. If you have a conspiracy theory fine but wikipedia is not the place for it. Justin talk 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a brief, highly reasonable caveat ("...publicly known..."). That's hardly a conspiracy theory, especially given a little thing called the Cold War, where such an event may well have happened but not come to public light. In any case, if it makes you feel better, leave it the way you have it. Peace. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Times - "Legal fears left Atlantic Conveyor defenceless"

I've added new info. obtained under the Freedom of information Act on the Atlantic Conveyor article - [4]. Dunno if it merits adding here. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've corrected some of the facts on the Atlantic Conveyor article. There is an element of sensationalism in the Times article but I notice you've managed to tone it down to something more appropriate. To be honest I think thats too detailed information for this article. I would suggest we don't go too far down in the weeds of the detail. Justin talk 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

British Restraint

I am always surprised that no mention ever seems to be made of the amazing restraint under which the British conducted this war. Although the British were quite capable of attacking Argentinian airfields on the mainland (as demonstrated by the Black Buck raids) the decision was taken not to try and hinder the Argentine Air Force's operations in any way. While this may have been politically expedient it certainly contributed to British losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Black Buck was a couple of Vulcan bombers hitting a runway on the Falklands with debatable effect and the war stretched our military to its limits, from what I am aware. Plus, with the cold war, there were very real limits on what the various other powers would accept Britain doing. Narson (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Realistically raids on the Argentine mainland were never going to happen, they would have been suicide missions. A single Vulcan against an integrated air defence system that was very capable. Argentine defences picked up a Sea King at zero feet that should have been in the weeds of the Doppler filter on their radar sets. The Argentine Air Force managed poor resources very carefully and put up a very credible performance, raids on the mainland were never really an option. If you can find a source that backs up such a claim then sorry but its not credible. Justin talk 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur, although I used to believe the British didn't attack the Argentine mainland because it would bring the Americans in against them under the Rio Pact (which is nieve, pacts don't mean nothing, especially when America publicly declared support for the UK). Which kind of coincides with what Narson said "Plus, with the cold war, there were very real limits on what the various other powers would accept Britain doing". Also Argentina had a great Air Defence system (probably from fear of going to war with Chile), it's just that the Falklands are a little bit too far out of reach for fighter craft. This meant that when Argentine jets got there (often having to fly over British forces), some only had 5 minutes to patrol, then had to go back refuel and it's at this time that the harriers would attack them. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is being dismissed - it's a worthwhile topic for the article to cover. The British official history revealed a SAS raid on a Argentine mainland airbase which was cancelled shortly before it was going to be launched and I vaugely remember that it discussed why Britain didn't blockade Argentina with its nuclear subs. Can someone with a copy confirm this? --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to sound dismissive. And it would be nice if we could mention this in the article (it would certainly save this discussion from happening over and over again), but as there is no way of confirming this, if we (the editors) reached a consensus on the reason (and we'd probably be right) we still shouldn't do it. Because as Colbert said that'd be Wikiality. In regards to the SAS raid (proposed & cancelled one), it's mentioned in the article under Falklands War#SAS operations. Speaking of requests, anyone have any opposition to start mentioning the reports about Argentine troops starving in the article? Also it would be nice if someone (maybe someone who specializes in that field, Justin) could talk about how the Sea Kings were used as decoys against exocets and how naval counter-measures worked (or didn't work), for us laymen please. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Justin will point out how wrong I am but I believe the problem with the navy counter measures was the lack of over the horizon radar combined with the exocets ability to 'wave skim'. The Sea Dart system is verticle launch, so, combine short detect time with the fact your missiles have to launch vertically and then correct to intercept at close range...doesn't add up to a bucket of fun. Narson (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the OTHR article, tactical radar works in straight lines so no ship is going to have a meaningful OTH capability. The paucity of organic AEW wasn't useful though. OTOH there are reports of HUMINT, and SM surveillance, reporting of a/c launch which would give some early warning of potential attack, but that depended on the warnings getting passed back and then forwarded to the TF.

There were a number of issues with detection of the a/c and the weapon seekers, the low level capability of the weapons themselves being part of that. The other aspect was the mutual interference between the Satcom and the radar, leading to the loss of picture whilst passing traffic.

Dart is a vectored launch, the T23s have VL Seawolf, but they're not Falklands vintage. It's a pay off, with VL the weapon has to orient itself, with vectored launch the launcher assembly has to do that. you lose time in both instances although VL appears better for very short range, whereas vectored launch is better for longer range; although that brings with it a maintenance overhead. (J4/J5 experiences)

Anyway, with respect to the supposed restraint:

• The operation was to recover the islands, not claim territory on the mainland. First principle of war is selection and maintenance of the aim.
• Any enduring operation on the mainland would have provoked an international response, at the very least a reduction in support from the US.
• Any enduring operation on the mainland would have required an expeditionary capability far in excess of what was available, essentially it would have opened up a second front against a well positioned defender, as opposed to a tactical, but dug in, defence.
• Justin has already indicated the constraints the Argentine aviation was operating under at extended range.
• The SMs were already committed to higher value tasking than a blockade.

I think it wasn't so much restraint as a need to focus on what was important.

ALR (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't understand most of that! lol I said in "Layman's terms", not all of us have a bloody working missle in our shed. ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Essentially Over-the-horizon radar is impractical unless you have a ship the size of Malta, and in any case it's of limited use at the warning ranges you're talking about for anti-ship missiles. The task force had limited airborne early warning from the embarked sea kings.

With respect to the weapons, and it's a real rabbit hole, vertical launch means that the weapon is more complex, since it has to have a mechanism to point it in the right direction to acquire the guidance signal after it's been launched. That increases the weapon cost and failure rate. A vectored launch weapon needs the launcher to point it in the right direction, which makes launching it a little slower. A vectored launch weapon is les complex, marginally cheaper and has improved reliability, but it does mean that you're dependent on the launcher working all the time. The whole decision about vertical or vectored involves quite a lot of different issues. Using vertical launch does improve adaptability, the US silos allow a single launcher to be used for a range of different weapons, improving the flexibility of the platform. In my opinion that makes up for the costs.

Narson was right, in recognising that he might be wrong ;)

It's described as layered defence, with the need to actually knock the weapon out of the sky being the last resort. Better to intercept it at range, or use soft kill methods to prevent it hitting the target, either by missing or detonating early.

ALR (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the AEW Sea King didn't come into service till after the war, it was introduced as one of the lessons of the war. Originally it was a lash up (parts of the system were pipes from an oil rig) that was developed under an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR). About the only thing I would add to ALR's excellent discourse on the subject is that one of the issues with the countermeasures was that naval doctrine insisted on a manually launched system, an automatic system would have been far more effective - but I guess the navy didn't like the idea of system that would launch chaff rockets without any warning. Justin talk 10:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I had thought that bags had been deployed. somewhat before my time though.

ALR (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Would have been a very different war if it had been, the Exocet raids would have been far less effective. Justin talk 11:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your answer, although I think it's to a different question ;) Basically the Royal Navy fired rockets when the exocets were coming? Ryan4314 (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Chaff rockets increase the apparent length of the ship and can seduce a radar guided missile. Justin talk 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Sweet! I understand now, so that's what chaff does. I don't know if your poetic/artistic Justin, but what do you think the world would look like to a radar guided missle? I'm being serious, for example a creature that had no eyes but sonar like hearing, might "see" it's environment as a colourless 3D map in it's head, sound dampening materials would appear "invisible" to it probably. Do you get what I mean? Ryan4314 (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an engineer, don't know if that is either poetic or artistic. A radar seeker has a field of view in both azimuth and elevation. in elevation it can use the time of return to resolve what it can see into range bins. When an object is inside its field of view all it will "see" is a blob in azimuth and it can "aim" at the centroid of what it "sees". The nearest I can put it in laymans terms is that it can resolve range quite finely but it can only tell the direction of the apparent centre of an object in its field of view. If you were to have two objects at the same range within the field of view it would see only one object. So in terms of what it would see in 3D it can tell something is there, in range it knows exactly but the bearing can be spoofed by having two objects close together or by using a radar reflective material like chaff to make it look bigger than it is. What it sees depends on the signal reflecting from the object, stealth works by reflecting the incoming electromagnetic waves away from the transmitter. If you had a material like you see in Hardware-in-the-loop facilities that is designed to destructively interfere and reduce the reflected signal it can't see it. A simple analogy for radar is to imagine a torch in pitch darkness, you can only see what it illuminates and if its far enough away all you see is a blob. 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin A Kuntz (talk • contribs)

OIC! So if a decoy Sea King hovered above a ship, the Exocet would see a triangular blob (providing the ship was "side-on" to the exocet) and aim for the middle of it. Or if the ship turned to face the exocet, reducing her profile it'd would see a vertical rectangle and aim for the middle of that yes?

So which direction to they fire chaff in? I'm assuming every direction, or maybe really high up? Ryan4314 (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you fire chaff in all directions its self-defeating, the ship is still at the centre. I think perhaps you misunderstand. Ignore the Sea King for the moment. If you had two ships steaming one in front of the other, with an Exocet coming from side on, if both ships are within the seeker field of view at the same time, it appears as one target. The missile will head for the centre, which in this case is the gap between the two ships. Thats how it works. So if you use chaff to seduce a missile, for a side-on attack you would try to increase the apparent length of the ship, from the rear or front you would try to increase the apparent width on one side only. Is that clearer? Justin talk 09:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryan

To an extent you're focussed on the ship self defence, but in practice any ship is part of a wider task group. Escorts, like the T42, are intended to protect High Value Units; the command and control ship, logistics ships and the amphibious ships. They are sometimes referred to as bullet catchers in some quarters, since as a last resort they take the weapon that's aimed at the HVU.

So this is where you get back to the whole layered defence thing. In this instance one approach to reducing the threat would have been to take down the Argentine capability at source, preventing them taking off in the first place. If that's not possible then vector Combat Air Patrol onto them and take them down before they launch. Prior to launch there might be some use of chaff Charlie, intended to confuse the operator into directing the weapon towards the wrong target, once the weapon is in flight there is Chaff Delta and Chaff Sierra intended to decieve the weapon into locking onto the wrong thing, or then seducing it away from the ship. The three types have slightly different electronic characteristics because they're used against different sensors and ranges.

Chaff C used to be in three inch rockets which deployed the chaff distant from the ship, Chaff D similarly, but closer to the hull. Chaff S is deployed at the launcher.

Chaff D and S are used in conjuntion with manoeuvre, moving the ship out of the cloud. Thats one of the reasons why automatic pattern laying isn't desirable, you need to control the pattern in relation to ship movement.

There is also the option to use active jamming, taking the radar signal from the weapon, mashing it up, and sending it back to generate a false conclusion.

In the case of the exocet part of the difficulty is the use of the radar in the terminal phase, it doesn't illuminate in the mid-flight so there is very short notice of its approach.

The radar cross section of a Sea King doesn't really compare to that of a ship, helos have to carry a device which actually responds to a radar and retransmits in order to keep them visible on the display, so I'm skeptical of claims that the helo itslf was used as a decoy. There used to be a form of chaff called Hotel, essentially bags of Chaff C and D mix dropped out of the helicopter. I think use of Chaff H was ceased in the early 90s, if not before. The risk to the helo is that as the weapon approaches the chaff cloud it will start to discriminate and picks out the airframe as the most viable part of the target to aim for.

Getting back on topic, given the first principle of war, the only reason to actually be operational on the mainland would have been to deny the Argentine air the opportunity to launch, or to prevent their maritime assets from putting to sea. the value of success countered by the likelihood made it impractical and very undesirable.

ALR (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So why did the SAS embark on a mission to do precisely that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In ALR's defence, the SAS were told to abort that mission on the mainland, so late that they were actually in flight Argentina at the time! I believe the helicopter pilots had to do a crash landing (on purpose) on a beach in Chile and were ordered to surrender to Chilean authorities (Chile and the UK were allies at the time, sort of), and that the SAS had to make their own way out. I think it was actually British High Command who ordered the abort, not the politicians surprisingly. However I do remember reading a book by one of these supposed former SAS soldiers, and he blamed the the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor a week later because of the abort.

P.S. Yes, thankyou Justin and ALR, I understand quite well now thankyou. Cheers for your patience.

I hadn't bothered responding to the anon contribution ,as the different ops are discussed in the article. The two nominal large scale ops were scrubbed round, they weren't viable since they would probably have involved the loss of a squadron of SF plus the air assets to support them. Which is what I was alluding to above. The recce patrol which did get to the mainland was just that; a recce patrol, not an assault force. In practical terms the recce patrol could have contributed to the indicators and warnings of a/c launch, but couldn't have sustainably taken down the aircraft.

ALR (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I mean even if the book I read was legit, I tend not to take soldiers opinions as fact. I think they're so close to the action sometimes they "can't see the woods through the trees" so to speak. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it was an SAS book, you have to assume if they let them publish it, it is usually full of clap trap. If they were telling the truth, then official secrets act would shut the book down. Look at McNabb and all the controversy over his book. Narson (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The SAS raid on the Argentine airfields was cancelled by the politicians, basically they weren't prepared to send a squadron of the SAS on a suicide mission. Justin talk 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Number of Airborne Exocets

Hi guys, I've heard Argentina had 5 "AM39" air-launched Excoets. Anyone know where they all went? Atlantic Conveyor was hit by 2, an Argentine account of the Sheffield mentions 2 Exocets being launched and 1 hitting, but never actually says the other 1 missed. And Glamorgan was hit by an MM38 (surface-launched) that was ripped of a ship and put on a truck. So that makes 4 (if we figure the Sheffield one just missed, can't see why it would though?), anyone know what happened to the last? Ryan4314 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL Justin's just told me the 2nd Exocet going for Sheffield was decoyed and splashed harmlessly into the ocean, he's just working on a getting a source now, well done Justin. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[5] Page H-6 shows the Exocet hit the sea approx. 1/2 mile off Sheffield's port beam Justin talk 18:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG how annoying, the answer to this question is on the Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard article. In fact there is more info about the Exocet in the Argentina section then there is the plane! Why don't people add this stuff to relevant articles grrr. Thanks for the source Justin, you really do deserve those Barnstars! Ryan4314 (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you know, Justin is a super nationalist pig dog swine and we are horribly pro-British and have no redeeming features ;) We deserve nothing! ;) Narson (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The final Exocet was launched in an attack on the Task Force on May 29th. The Argentines claim it hit HMS Invincible, the British version was that it was shot down by a lucky hit from HMS Avenger. There is absolutely no evidence to support the Argentine version, the British admitted to every scratch received but that doesn't stop numerous "conspiracy" theories to cover it up. Justin talk 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd think the news crews would notice the big hole in the side of Invincible when she sailed back to her home port after the conflict if that had happened. Though the number of exocets and how they were used would be an interesting paragraph in the article if anyone can source it, considering they are one of the famous parts of the conflict (And God knows how much money the Exocet manufactuer made on orders off the back of the Falkland successes) Narson (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea I think we should add it to the article, I'll see if I can hunt down some sources. It'll definately be useful coz when I first started learning about the Falklands War, I just assumed Argentina had like a million exocets and that they were flying about all over the place lol ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The BoE on the sinking of HMS Sheffield will tell you where the first 2 went, the second 2 hit Atlantic Conveyor. This article on Britains Small Wars gives an Argentine account of the attacks on the 29th May including the claims to have hit HMS Invincible as well as references to British accounts of the same incident. Does that help? Justin talk 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea I was thinking of using the Britain's Small Wars "Exocet!" article, although it'd be nice if we could find a source about HMS Avenger... (lol I love how Justin does all the work, and we just simply put it in) Ryan4314 (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. [6] Personal site by a crew member, [7] Google books page from Battle for the Falklands By Adrian English, Anthony John Watts Published 1982 Osprey Publishing ISBN 0850454921 (though personally I don't like this as a reference as it is full of factual errors), its also mentioned in the Channel 4 book but again that book has errors. Some details here [8], more details here [9], [10] another Argentine site claiming success against HMS Invincible, [11] Captains diary from HMS Yarmouth

[12] gives details of attacks by the improvised Exocet launcher from Stanley, interestingly this site claims 3 Exocet launchs from land (naval version).[13] another Google books reference for the attack on HMS Glamorgan. Another reference for the attack on HMS Glamorgan [14].

If you seriously want to look for the wilder conspiracy theories on the net do a search for "The Irish Duck" Justin talk 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here Justin, lol talk about not seeing the wood through the trees, silly me ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you need a non-English source (neutral!?!), here is a French one: Frédéric Marsaly: Super Étendard au Combat: la saga d'un guerrier in Aviation Française Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007, ISSN 1951-9583:
"Même si aujourd’hui encore les Argentins soutiennent qu’ils ont touche l’Invincible, il est étonnant qu’aucun des 2.000 marins embarqués ni aucun des dizaines de journalistes présents à bord n’ait jamais publié quoi que ce soit en ce sens, ni publie une seule photo compromettante, alors que depuis plus de vingt ans, il se publie pléthore de livres et d’articles sur ces opérations."
My translation (feel free to improve it): [Even today the Argentines still support that they have hit the Invincible. It is astonishing that neither one of the 2.000 embarked sailors nor one of the tens of journalists present onboard never published anything to support this claim, or published a single compromising photograph, although there for more than twenty years, has been published plethora of books and articles of these operations.] Necessary Evil (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Still some confusion, imo. The section of the article states that 1. Yarmouth is missed because of chaff being released, 2. Sheffield is hit and 3. another Exocet splashes. This makes it sound like three Exocets. Did Exocet #1 initially target Yarmouth but then retargetted to Sheffield after Yarmouth's chaff was fired? * * * In the .pdf somebody referenced above it is Glasgow that releases chaff. Did both Yarmouth and Glasgow release chaff? * * * Finally, I think that referring simply to "Hermes" in that section is confusing. In my first read-through I *guessed* that Hermes was some sort of computerized fire control system. --AStanhope (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There were two Exocets fired at Sheffield. One hit and the other was decoyed by chaff from HMS Yarmouth splashing in the sea. Two further Exocets were fired at Atlantic Conveyor, both hit. The final Exocet of 5 was fired at HMS Avenger, it was downed by a lucky hit from a 4.5" gun. HMS Hermes was the task force command centre, the whole battle group was run from there. Justin talk 23:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - but these were three different events, no? Did Exocet #1 target Yarmouth, miss due to chaff and redirect itself to Sheffield? As this piece of the article stands now it is unclear. --AStanhope (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong), Exocet #1 & #2, we're aimed at Sheffield. One hit, the other was guided away by Chaff from HMS Yarmouth. You see, the group of ships form a defence as a whole, not each one defending itself. Yarmouth launched Chaff to protect Sheffield. (read the discussion above, it's about how Royal Navy ships defend themselves from Exocet, it's very interesting) Although your confusion does worry me, perhaps we have not made it understandable in the article guys, what do you think? Ryan4314 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Three attacks. Attack 1 aimed at HMS Sheffield. Two missiles fired at HMS Sheffield. One hit. The second missed due to being diverted by Chaff from HMS Yarmouth. It wasn't targeted at Yarmouth but distracted by Yarmouth's launch of countermeasures.

Attack 2 aimed at Atlantic Conveyor, two missiles fired. Both hit.

Attack 3 aimed at HMS Avenger, lucky shot downed the missile.

Personally I thought Ryan's edit was OK, however if its causing confusion feel free to improve it. Justin talk 00:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very cool how they work together to defend the group. In the .pdf someone references above [15] "GLASGOW" is the entity indicated to have fired chaff (see Page 5 - 14:02h 07s). Was Yarmouth code-named GLASGOW? Note that SHEFFIELD is identified as SHEFFIELD in the document. --AStanhope (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL do I detect a hint of sarcasm? Well the source does indeed indicate HMS Glasgow (D88) and you can read about "Chaff Delta" in ALR's entry titled "Ryan" 6 paragraphs from the bottem of the "British Restraint" section. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• No intentional sarcasm - still confused. --AStanhope (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to be confused about, it was Glasgow who launched the chaff that made the 2nd missile "splash". Glasgow, Coventry and Sheffield form what is called a picket line, to protect the aircraft carriers. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've got that. Now, seriously, I'm not being deliberately obtuse here. The "picket line" is Glasgow, Coventry and Sheffield... Why then does OUR ARTICLE refer to Yarmouth as both target and chaff launcher? --AStanhope (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yarmouth wasn't the target but it was in the picket line, it also fired chaff. Justin talk 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Just started reading Hostile Skies by Dave Morgan, says Yarmouth fired chaff n all Ryan4314 (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add something about one specific airborne exocet attack. The fabled Invincible attack took place in the afternoon of the 30 May and not 29 May. I can remember the attack very well in HMS Cardiff and wrote: I was off-watch when we went to action stations therefore I went to the Junior rates dinning hall (spare hand). I stayed there but ended up being the only one left.........I got scared so went to the Ops Room and stood behind George Foster (TI Operator) and watched the attack on radar. We saw the exocet on radar (19nm...I think) and all hell broke loose. Exeter was firing Sea Darts which became visible to our gun crews.........a young Sub Lieutenant screamed on the intercom "Alarm Missile........" so all the gunners started to fire at the friendly Sea Darts (miles away and well out of range). After a few moments of bedlam......Ops Room trying to get a 'lock' on the radar targets and the gunners firing at friendly missiles the Captain asked the young officer for a visual update and got the reply........"Sir, I don't know what the f*****g hell is going on!". The Captain was very calm and his eyes were 'smiling'. It was all over in a flash..........and I wish I had stayed in the bloody dinning hall. Please excuse the language used in my description but that's how it happened. Captain Hugh Maxwell Balfour, commanding officer HMS Exeter, made an excellent contribution in the book Forgotten Voices Of The Falklands - The real story of the Falklands War in the words of those who were there - p.186 p.187, by Hugh McManners. ISBN 987-0-09-190880-5 In it he describes the attack and details how Exeter having just shot down two A4's fired off a Sea Dart blindly at the incoming exocet. I have to admit that I have always thought that it was very unlikely that Avenger took out the exocet that day, but then I knew about how many Sea Darts Hugh Balfour threw into the air and some of the lads in Exeter's operations room were close friends of mine.........some still are. I hope this helps.Griffiths911 (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the correct date of 30 may is in the main article. 29 May was mentioned above. Further to what I have said it is interesting that Admiral Sandy Woodward, in his book, 'One Hundred Days' states that the exocet flew between Avenger and Exeter before ditching in the sea as it was either badly aimed or unserviceable. Amazing thing to say. Avenger is supposed to have hit the exocet with a 4.5" shell - a claim presumably started in the little frigate - therefore it is unlikely that the upper deck crews or the Officer Of the Watch saw the missile act this way. Hugh Balfour certainly does not mention anything of the sort.Griffiths911 (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I first saw the claim about HMS Avenger downing the Exocet with her 4.5" in an article in the Navy News just after the war. I don't suppose you've kept any copies from back then? Its always been described as a complete fluke and you know its just got that ring of truth about it - I mean if the British were covering it up they would have come up with a more convincing story.

BTW I'm also looking for a copy of the Navy News edition where Invincible and Illustrious pass each other in the South Atlantic when Invincible was relieved - in part so that I can put to bed the myth that Invincible was sunk in the war and the British covered it up. Justin talk 13:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't, sorry. I don't think any evidence produced would convince the Arg that Invincible was not hit that day.Griffiths911 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell lets not open this can of worms again, Justin even if you had a special "back in time" camera and took a photo of an immaculate Invincible, they'd still call it conspiracy. All we can do is document it's disputed, give the facts and lets the readers draw there own conclusion. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

US Offer of Fixed Wing Cariers

As I recall from the time, the big issue of the war was Thatcher's declination of the offer by Regan for a fixed wing (ie. real) carrier fleet. This almost cost the UK the war. This issue deserves at least mentioning. (I do not have solid references handy or I would add it myself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.62.200 (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We had carriers...they were deployed and the harriers did well. I seriously doubt us that the US offered to send us some of their carriers to use, so the idea of not building big CATOBAR carriers was a choice about price. I think we have a section on cuts already. Narson (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, the US was prepared to offer a Tarawa class amphibious assault ship that could have operated Harriers, not a supercarrier for fixed wing operations. It wasn't a realistic proposition, it would have taken months to train a British crew to operate it and the war would have been over. The alternative, a US crew, would have been an escalation of the war. A generous offer but it was a "big issue" since it wasn't practical. Justin talk 11:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything Justin said is right and it is mentioned in the "Events leading to the Falklands War" article, at the bottom of the "Shuttle diplomacy and U.S. involvement" section. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

Looking through the article the only images are of random airplanes like 3 maps and a newspaper. Some infantry pictures would defintly help the article. BonesBrigade 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright is the problem. Many of the famous/recognizable images of the conflict are U.K. crown copyright, and as a result will not be usable here for another 25 years. The rest are press images, first published in the U.K. which would be life of the photographer+70 (i.e. not PD until around 2100AD). I don't think we have any free images of British troops with a Falklands like background holding SLRs. The situation for Argentine photographs may be better... Megapixie (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

South Atlantic Medal (Peer Review)

I've posted the South Atlantic Medal article for a peer review, you can contribute to it here if you like :) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Spanish name

We seem to have a protracted campaign to remove mention of the Spanish name. Personally I feel that since even the naming of islands is a large part of the historical dispute, and particularly in light of our policies on writing from a neutral point of view, it's imperative that these remain. The anoan has occasionally argued that this is an english article, for english readers. It's not, it's a general article for an english-reading audience, which may well include those whose mother tongue is Spanish, and who know the conflict better under another name, leaving the Spanish language names helps them to confirm that they are reading about what they thought tehy were. David Underdown (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, it's just one guy. User 210.4.100.115 hasn't even contributed to a discussion yet, obviously thinks we'll change our minds if he keeps removing it... Ryan4314 (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm jsut trying to make sure there really is a clearly stated consensus, if he keeps messing with it after taht, we can look at page protection, or blocking. David Underdown (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea good idea, everyone here cool with keeping the Spanish translation in the lead? Ryan4314 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As has been stated, it is the current compromise, any attempt to alter that will disrupt the article and it is no worse, really, for its inclusion. Narson (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Signing the edit I just finished.

"Lots and lots of style tweaks. Sp, links, italicization, non-Anglophone usage."

It took me so long to finish this edit that I was logged out when I saved changes.

--Rich Rostrom (Talk) 05:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff's friendly fire incident

Does this entry:

On June 6, HMS Cardiff shot down a British Army Air Corps Gazelle helicopter from 656 Squadron, piloted by Staff Sergeant Christopher A Griffin, with a Sea Dart missile. The wreckage of the aircraft was later found two miles south of Mount Pleasant Peak. This was the only fatal blue-on-blue surface to air incident of the Falklands War and was attributed to the Gazelle making an unannounced flight, contrary to established rules at that time.

really need to be in the article? The main article should be about the war in general, particular incidents like this would be more suitable on Cardiff's article. What do you guys think? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. On the one hand its a fine detail and that sort of detail should be included in the main articles stemming from this summary article. On the other, if it were the only blue-on-blue incident it may be worth mentioning. However, it isn't, there were blue-on-blue engagements during the battle for Goose Green, there were incidents between Special Forces on Mount Kent and in most of the final battles of the campaign. I would suggest it is left in the HMS Cardiff article. Justin talk 22:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That goes for the pic of the Sea Dart launcher too, it's the biggest pic on the article and doesn't even show a Sea Dart missile! Although the para one is good, but makes the formatting look dodgy at the moment. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree and removed the offending items from the main article. Just a couple of points to ponder though. 1. it was the only blue-on-blue surface to air incident that concluded with fatalities. 2. When you look at that Sea Dart launcher what impression did it make? I was trying to leave the reader with an impression of repetative action.....no gloss, no fireworks, just a knackered looking missile launcher. I have a lot to learn and I thank you for pointing me in the right direction guys.Griffiths911 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Outcome

I know this has come up in the past by the current outcome reads:

Decisive British military victory (status quo ante bellum), collapse of the Argentine Military Junta led by dictator Leopoldo Galtieri

However, the concept of status quo ante bellum (as things were before the war) and a decisive victory are in many senses polar opposites. One would argue that the islands were infact Argentine when the war began (as a result of the invasion), thus the returning of a captured island does not qualify as status quo ante bellum. The capture of the islands was a decisive argentine victory, and the subsequent recapture was a decisive British victory. Decisive in the fact that the terms in both cases were unconditional. Although seemingly things were 'as they were before the war' they were infact not. The islands were solidly in British control, soveriengty over the islands was more directly acknowledged, the conflict served as a benchmark of a modern professional army fighting a large conscript army and so on. Things were not 'as they were before the war'. If you want a true example of status quo ante bellum look to the War of 1812 or the Iran-Iraq War. The status quo ante bellum definately needs removing, it doesnt really apply to this sort of conflict. Is there consensus on this? 90.196.237.117 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You cannot separate the Argentinian invasion and the British re-capture; they are phases of the same war. Before war - British control. During war: degree of Argentinian control. After war: British control. After all wars, things are never the same. You describe the Iran-Iraq war as a perfect example but I am not sure that the mothers of the many dead would agree. After the 1812 War the US were minus a White House. Status quo ante bellum is apt unless you can suggest an equally accurate and concise alternative. Perhaps "Gotcha!" --MJB (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the arguments specious at best, the Argentines invaded, the British kicked them out and returned to the same situation after the war. A clearer example of the term you could not hope to find. Justin talk 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that specious. You are agreeing with me! --MJB (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL apologies my comments were intended for the previous contributor. Justin talk 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Justin and MJB, after a war nothing returns back to "normal" and more importantly the Argentine invasion was the start of the war, that continued till June 14. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of FAA abbreviation

The abbreviation "FAA" may stand for Fuerza Aérea Argentina (the Argentine Air Force) or, less commonly, the Fleet Air Arm. Given that both air services took part in the war, I suggest that the abbreviation is not used and thereby confusion may be avoided. Greenshed (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement on that. Argentine Air Force or what not is easy to use, as is Royal Navy aircraft or whatnot. Narson (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems a sensible suggestion so I would agree. I'd also suggest an explanatory note at some point to further clarify matter. Justin talk 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But for further clarification, on the English wikipedia, English spellings and acronyms would have priority. In English it would be Argentine Air Force or AAF. However, acknowledging that the original suggestion of avoiding confusion is a compelling argument, I would still suggest this is adopted. Justin talk 23:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the confusion; US residents will think of Federal Aviation Administration, as seen if you follow the FAA-link. There are so many letter combinations and FAA have three aviation hits!

AAF for the Argentine air force and RN for Fleet Air Arm if they have to be abbreviated. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed per nom ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the incovenience and this delay, but AAF looks somehow strange and uncommon even in english (see e.g. [16] [17]) I didnt see it before for the Air Force. Could we use "FAA (Arg)" , "Arg.AF" or something more appropiate ? .-Jor70 (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the last is an unconvincing suggestion.Deipnosophista (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I believe BadWolf42 has gone too far [18] in his edit. This discussion agreed to remove the abbreviation FAA, not to replace all "Argentine Air Force" with AAF. This article is so long that you can't be sure that all the readers read the Falklands War#Conventions used in the article. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he'd gone too far, that does kinda imply he acted without consensus, which is clearly untrue. AAF was actually proposed by Narson and myself above. Its still open for debate and as its consistent it can easily be changed. AAF + a wiki link with a redirection to the Argentine Air Force should suffice. IMHO. Justin talk 16:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor point, I went for the full writing out of Argentine Air Force. Not that I have any huge objection to the abbreviation :) Narson (talk)

The consensus was to replace FAA with AAF or RN - not to replace "Argentine Air Force" with AAF everywhere. Since AAF is a home made abbreviation, it is paramount that AAF is written in full (or as you wrote linked to the wiki article) in strategic places. Readers only interested in certain sections might overlook the "Conventions used in the article" section, which by the way wasn't even followed by BadWolf42 himself. "this article uses AAF for the.." with AAF in italic text. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so keen on seeing AAF everywhere per Evil's "Readers only interested in certain sections" bit (because they might not hav eseen the abbreviation explained at the start of the article). I agree that wiki-linking it will help with confusion, but can't we just use the "AAF" abbreviation where it sounds more grammatically correct instead of "Argentine Air Force", you know a sort of half n half Ryan4314 (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) Having a section titled "Conventions used in this article" is a clumsy and inelegant addition to the article. It should not be necessary. An abbreviation should be used only where it is beneficial to the article, and where there is no ambiguity and/or a wikilink is provided. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I must say I am rather nonplussed by the tone of some people's posts here. BadWolf42 acted in good faith here, he proposed an edit, it was discussed and he implemented it. There are two forces here with the same acronym, he's kept a NPOV by showing no preference to either and avoided any confusion that would have resulted. I also hear criticism here but no positive suggestions as to what would be a better alternative, constructive criticism is welcome, destructive criticism is not. I've added a wiki link to the Argentine Air Force, I hope that will satisfy critics. If not please have the good grace to make an alternative suggestion. Justin talk 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you apparently felt my last post was not positive enough. I suggest that we remove the section entitled "Conventions used in this article", and make it unnecessary by changing all non-standard or uncommon abbreviations to their unabbreviated, English form. Just to be absolutely clear what I mean by this:

• where RN is used to mean "Fleet Air Arm", change it
• where RN is used to mean "Royal Navy", leave it alone
• wherever FAA is used, change it
• where AAF is used to mean "Argentine Air Force", change it.

What do people think? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope to had done a "constructive criticism" in by recent post, I think we all agree that AAF is not used in any other media and most of the readers would not read the entire article. Im fine with SheffieldSteel suggestion to not use any abbreviation .- Jor70 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not the only article that sets out to define some of the terminology used, it may have gone in the recent rewrite, but Roman Catholic Church certainly used to contain an extensive section on naming Roman Catholic/Catholic/The Church. AAF doesn't see like to difficult an abbreviation to work out (though I don't particularly like the overlinking currently applied, as that in itself violates a guideline). Equally using, in this article, RN to refer to Fleet Air Arm aircaraft doesn't seem like a big issue, since ultimately that's what they are, all the men invovled in flying them belong to the Royal Navy after all. Writing everything out in full every time is simply clumsy. David Underdown (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a balance issue here. The "Black Buck raids" section is peppered with wikilinks and unless the reader suffers from a very bad memory, two of the wikilinks are superfluous. I'm convinced that strategic wikilinks are in order, combined with "Argentine" replacing "AAF" when possible. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of AAF would anyone have any objections to AR AF? AF is an accepted acronym for Air Force, AR is a recognised shorthand for Argentina[19]. Justin talk 20:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think we have some kind of consensus to change AAF so If nobody care I will replace back the 13 "AAF" with "Argentine Air Force" and see later if some of them could be rearranged with "AR AF" or something more appropiate. BTW, "Royal Navy" is mentioned 20 times in the article. --Jor70 (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be okay to use Argentine (Argentinian?) in places too. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not keen on AR AF mate, just coz how it looks. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, I also already removed/changed several instances so I think further abbreviations would not be necessary (compared with other terms often used too) --Jor70 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've copyedited some of those edits for English grammar Justin talk 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Humbly requesting contributions to a peer review of a British warship

Hi guys, I've recently rewritten HMS Cardiff (D108), I'd like to get it up to an FA standard so I've put it up for a peer review here. I'd greatly appreciate any contributions you guys could make to it, or if not it'd just be nice if you could take some out time to read it and let me know what you thinks :) Ryan4314 (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spanish on PsyWar Leaflet

My Spanish is admittedly pants but I translated the heading on that leaflet as the island of convicts, Islas de los Condenados is, I think, the correct translation of the title. Justin talk 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is likely a dual meaning. Condemned and Convicted have very similar meanings in English, possibly the same word in spanish? Just a guess. I am more of a French speaker. Maybe there is a MoD website referring to it that will have the desired meaning? Narson (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The leaflet came from here[20] I think, I do think the Spanish is a not entirely correct. Guess we could ask over on the translation service, unless Jor70 wants to have a go? Justin talk 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My rather old and basic Collins Gem Spanish-English/English-Spanish gives the verbs 'condenar' to condemn, to convict or to be damned 'condenarse' (reflexive) to confess (one's guilt) nouns 'condena' sentence (as in prison sentence from context), 'condenación' condemnation, damnation and going the other way, the only verb given for 'to condemn' is condenar. David Underdown (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural impact section

I have removed the reference to the World Cup of 2002 from this part. The citation provided mentioned nothing of the Falklands war. Whoever put it in is asuming the reason the players did not swap shirts at the end of England's 1-0 win is because it was the 20th year since the conflict. The citation was missrepresented. Dapi89 (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being a little over-cautious here, the second para of the match report begins "Historical overtones gave this match more than the usual significance", now some of that is purely the footballing history between the two nations, but that's always given extra bite by this conflict. The way it was worded in the article didn't draw a direct line between the conflict and the refusal to swap shirts, it was merely given as one example of the continuing edge between the two countries in the sporting arena. David Underdown (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Dapi's posistion, the assumption that particular event was because of the war is OR. Heck half the England squad were probably in nappies at the time of the war. On a side note, the "Cultural Impact" section is really slim all things considered, perhaps after the anniversary is over we could really beef it up. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes this was my position. Interestingly enough David, the report also mentions that the game was played in unusually good spirits given the past meetings in 1986 and 1998, which were much closer to the conflict: even then player swapped shirts. I believe Terry Butcher ended up with Maradona's no.10 shirt...even stranger considering he scored the "hand of God" goal in that '86 meeting. I still believe that the source is not good enough and also implies that every sporting event involving England and Argentina is related to the war. We don't say the same for France, Germany or Italy - should 1966, 1970 or 1990 be mentioned in World War Two articles? Dapi89 (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK David Underdown (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bomb Alley & freefall bombs

This section is seriously unencyclopedic. The paragraph below directly contradicts itself and the surrounding ones.

It's based on anecdote, overriding documentary evidence and the paragraph itself has been rewritten with so much qualitative and speculative minutae to be IMO useless.

Current:

In order to avoid the highest concentration of British air defences, Argentine pilots released ordnance from very low altitude so that their bomb fuses did not have time to arm before impact. The low release of the retarded bombs (some of which had been sold to the Argentines by the British years earlier) meant that many never exploded, as there was insufficient time in the air for them to arm themselves. (A simple free-fall bomb will, during a low altitude release, impact almost directly below the aircraft which is then within the lethal fragmentation zone of the resulting explosion. A retarded bomb has a small parachute or air brake that opens to reduce the speed of the bomb to produce a safe separation between the two. The fuze for a retarded bomb requires a minimum time over which the retarder is open to ensure safe separation.) The pilots would have been aware of this, but due to the high concentration levels required in order to avoid the anti-aircraft defences of SAMs and AAA, as well as any British Sea Harriers, many failed to climb to the necessary release point. The problem was solved by the improvised fitting of retarding devices, allowing low-level bombing attacks as

What I wish to return it to (the original, a long time ago, was written by me from cited sources, which have been deemed "incorrect" by anecdote!):

In order to avoid the highest concentration of British air defences, Argentine pilots released their free-fall ordnance from a very low altitude. Often therefore, their bomb fuses did not have time to arm before impact (a simple free-fall bomb will, with a low altitude release, impact almost directly below the aircraft. Thus the fuse requires a minimum altitude). The pilots would have been aware of this, but, distracted, many failed to climb to the necessary release point. The problem was solved by the improvised fitting of retarding devices, allowing low-level bombing attacks as employed on 8 June.

• Why does the first paragraph still mention the (documented) retrofitting of improvised retarding devices if the devices were already retarded? (contradiction)
• Why did people blame the BBC? (contradiction)
• Why is it relevant or notable of the possible origin of these bombs? (trivia)
• Why explain a free-fall bomb if they weren't? (confused)
• Why mention the pilots concentration levels? They were distracted or paniced and we can't tell which. (speculation and trivia)
• Air defences tend to mean SAMs and AAA and were mentioned already. (trivia and repetition)
• Sea Harriers weren't in bomb alley as it was a free-fire zone for the ships (Clapp). (speculation and trivia)

Cited sources and well understood principles are being overridden for anecdote and contradictory anecdote at that. Then so much speculation and cruft has dripped into the paragraph as to make it unencyclopedic. Branding both Marine and Naval commanders as not understanding the technology is the stated reason for overriding these data. Incredible!

I give up. --BadWolf42 11:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your points, see below

• Contradiction should be removed
• People blamed the BBC for letting the Argentines know they were dropping the bombs too low, retarded bombs have a minimum height for release. I suggest you read David Morgan's "Hostile Skies", where he describes climbing to release height in the bomb run to get above minimum release height. One of the Argentine mistakes was they didn't do that in the approach to the target, probably due to inexperience as only their navy colleagues had used them before the war.
• Just for information, a lot of the bombs were surplus Mk17 1000 lb bombs sold to them by the Royal Air Force, though some were French as well. This relevant to the article.
• Both retarded and slick are freefall bombs.
• Possibly I'd agree, I'd argue more due to a lack of experience with the ordnance delivered.
• Possibly.
• No this is well documented, it should be easy to find a source.

And as I noted on your talk page, I was encouraging you to discuss not insist on a change. Justin talk 08:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum. The problem with the original is that it was inaccurate. Justin talk 08:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

neutrality issue

this whole section i'm copying here is not neutral and it only represents the view of the chilean pinochet supporters. it only sounds like a justification of chilean dictatorship attitude and is not even the official position of the chilean government. please check parts like "desire to become a first world country" (??) I do not think that "chilean point of view" is a relevant thing to the article.

"Some Latin Americans also perceived Chile to have broken the TIAR[citation needed] because it provided some support for UK troops.[84] But, from Chile's point of view, the situation was seen differently:

Chile was considered officially an enemy by Argentina[85], In 1978 Argentine forces had started (and few hours later aborted) the Operation Sovereignty[86] involving invasion of the islands south of the Beagle Channel and the possible invasion of continental Chile. The Beagle conflict was still smouldering, Argentina had refused to accept the Pope's arbitration proposal of 1980, and 6 weeks before the Falklands War Argentina provoked the (ARA Gurruchaga) incident with Chile at Deceit Island[87]. Moreover, one of the reasons given for the absence of the Argentine Navy and higher numbers of professional soldiers during the Falklands War was to keep them in reserve in case they were needed against Chile In his speech of 2 April, Galtieri called Operation Rosario the beginning of the recovery of Argentine sovereignty over the southern territories in general.[88] Hence the argument given by Chile for its abstention in the TIAR was the refusal of Argentina to follow resolution 502 of the United Nations. The real cause may be that the erratic Argentine foreign policy (support[89] for USA policy in Central America and looking for support in the Non-Aligned Movement, the planning and starting of a war of aggression against Chile[86] while looking for Chilean support at the TIAR, desire to become a first world country and breaking the cereals embargo against the Soviet Union after the Afghanistan occupation, etc) could bring[90] this new impulse of Argentine nationalism again (as in 1978) to the frontiers of Chile, recognized by the arbitration award in 1977 (both countries submitted this question to binding arbitration under the auspices of the British Crown, but this was then unilaterally repudiated by Argentina). Such issues may also lie behind the improvement of the relations between Chile and UK, which has been seriously damaged by the Sheila Cassidy affair, the use of British made planes during the coup d'état in 1973, and the violations of human rights by the Pinochet regime. Whatever the truth on these matters, in September 2001 the President of Mexico Vicente Fox cited the Falklands War as proof of the failure of the TIAR." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.60.235 (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What is your point ? We are talking about 1982 here, not now and Pinochet was the Chilean Government then--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I see your point either, the exception possibly being "desire to be a first world country", as it appears a reasonably accurate summary. It could do with some editing for grammar and content but seems otherwise accetpable to me. Justin talk 09:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this IP seems to be from Argentina we must assume that the problem lies in some part of the presentation of the history of the two countries' conflicts... but without more concrete info, I can't tell exactly what the problem is. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Name disputed?

Paragraph 1 of the article says that the islands' "name and sovereignty have long been disputed". Certainly sovereignty has long been disputed. But surely it is wrong to say that of the name. The name is different in different languages (in English the Falklands, in Spanish Malvinas, in French Malouines - just as Dublin is such in English but Baile atha Cliath in Irish, or Bangkok such in English and Krung Thep in Thai), but is not disputed. A correction is surely needed here. Deipnosophista (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The spanish and french name (Malvinas/Malouines) is not a translation of Falklands, but a seperate naming system that has become embroiled in the sovereignty debate. Narson (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Logical argument, but I think the name is used as a "cause celebre", you know as a rallying point for either side. Bit like the Derry/Londonderry name dispute. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is exactly that - a translation. Translation consists of changing an expression in one language into an expression in another. It is not simply declaring a word in one language to be a word in another language.

One can see this in relation to common words. Taking French, a language quite well known to English speakers, sometimes words are identical in both (an example might be "rotation"). Sometimes there is one word in one language and a quite different word in another with the same meaning (the bird called a "robin" in English is called a "rouge-gorge" in French). Sometimes although there is an equivalent the meanings are by no means identical in their range of referents and implications (eg "grateful" in English as against "reconnaissant" in French). Sometimes there is no direct equivalent at all and one must resort to a lengthy periphrasis (eg, the French concept of a "Grande Ecole" has no direct referent in Anglophone societies).

So it is in relation to proper names: some have the same form in different languages and others do not; if they do not, then translation involves changing the form. It is therefore muddled to talk about a "separate naming system": a language, in fact, is itself a separate system of naming everything. The other examples of names that I gave are relevant. Deipnosophista (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Except there exists two translations. There is a French (and spanish) use of Falklands (Les Isles Falklands, IIRC. Chile also refers to, or did refer to, them as the Falklands) as well as use of Malvinas/Malouines. Why? Political reasons. The name /has/ become political with the use of a name becoming almost a decleration of support for a claim. That is what makes your examples slightly irelevant, while I do enjoy the Robin, I don't think it has the political aspect that the Falklands does. There is even debate within English as to usage, some far left groups insist on using the term 'Malvinas Islands' or such in order to refute colonialism or through some general anti-British feeling. The name is a battleground, metaphorically speaking, for the claim. Narson (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a translation, as opposed to a transliteration, which is the point. Obviously the issue is the use of the name rather than the existence of separate names in itself. I have altered the paragraph to clarify the issue if there was any confusion. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the change purely because the original wording was a long standing consensus text. No offence is intended but I'd suggest you agree a consensus wording in the talk page first before a horde of POV editors descend and start an edit war over it. Tedious experience has taught me that there is nothing so contentious as names on this topic. Justin talk 12:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries - change or revert as required as per whatever consensus there is. I understand that it may be a tendentious topic. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record (as far as gaining a consensus on this), I still oppose any change to the opening paragraph as per mine n Narson's entries. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

<Unindent>I think Badgerpatrol's edit has some promise if we want additional clarity. Though it needs some tweeking. I'll have a go and post it up here after I have my hair cut. It is difficult to edit wiki looking like an English Sheepdog with a bald patch. Narson (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Right.....first of all current:

The Falkland Islands consist of two large and many small islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina; their name and sovereignty over them have long been disputed.

Badger's proposal:

The Falkland Islands consist of two large and many small islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina; the use of the islands' English name as opposed to its Spanish equivalant, and the issue of sovereignty more generally, has long been a source of dispute between Argentina and the islanders.

My proposed edit:

The Falkland Islands consist of two large and many small islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina; the use of either the islands' English or Spanish names has become embroiled in the general dispute over the issue of sovereignty between Argentina, the islanders and the United Kingdom.

Not great though....anyone care to polish? Narson (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the older version. It's simpler and says just as much. Perhaps "their name" could be a wikilink or footnote, if more info is needed? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new main picture

Guys I think we should change the main article pic, we can barely see the islands in the current pic. I propose we pick an image that is really iconic of the war, I would've suggested the Belgrano pic ( File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg ) as it's the most famous, but the event around the sinking has some controversy and might flare some tempers. So how about the Antelope pic of her mag exploding ( 30px ), it's always shown in documentaries about the war and it's an amazing photo too. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The iconic picture I usually think of is the "yomper" a Royal Marine with a union flag on the radio aerial. But that might get others upset and start an edit war. My suggestion would be something neutral, just a map of the islands themselves. Justin talk 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot about that one, it's very iconic, although I agree it is a bit POV, what with having a flag in it. Even though the the Antelope one is of a British ship blowing up, at first glance to the uneducated reader, it's nationality it unidentifiable. Ryan4314 ([[User

talk:Ryan4314|talk]]) 07:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, not as POV as that image of the Argentines surrendering in Stanley (Annother good picture). What feature pics do we have of the conflict? If any? Narson (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Something really simple, how about just this one ? Justin talk 09:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cold War there is a montage of several pictures File:Cold WarMix.jpg, perhaps the above mentioned pictures could collectively be NPOV. Ryan4314 knows all traps in licensing fair use (crown copyright) and free images. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A montage would be great, showing Thatcher and the Junta along with various scenes from the Argentine conquest to the Argentine surrender. I am, however, about as good at arty things as Damien Hurst (i.e. not very). Anyone else any good at this picture editing malarky? Narson (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I like the montage idea as well, looks slick and we could use the more controversial pics like the Belgrano and yomping ones. Are we all in favour? I'll take responsibility for it if no one minds? Ryan4314 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The 'iconic' yomping picture is at 30px. I dont know if it will last on en.wikipedia.org. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice one Evil. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(indent)Hi Folks, I heartly agree with the montage. Albeit I'am Argentine, I think an image of Argentinian troops surrendering is perfectly NPOV if part of the assembled pics. An interesting idea could be a four-pic montage showing Thatcher and the Junta (or Galtieri) on top, and below the Belgrano sinking along with the iconic photo of the Antelope's explosion in the darkness.--Darius (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started on a montage already, it's got the Belgrano and Antelope pics, the marine yomping flag one and a pic of the marines surrendering outside Government house (this one is iconic as it apparently spurred a lot of public opinion in Britain to go to war). What do we think? Ryan4314 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea, Ryan. I think this is the best possible montage for the article. Good luck.--Darius (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done Ryan. Congratulations!!.--Darius (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The montage is NPOV and very nice - however there is perhaps a copyright problem. The marine with a Union Jack is as far as I know not public domain. It can be justified as fair use on en.wikipedia.org but not on commons.wikimedia.org . Unless I'm wrong the montage will sooner or later be removed. To avoid that, it must be moved to en.wikipedia.org with a fair use rationale. If the image is public domain, there is no problem. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll move it, needed to add a description anyway Ryan4314 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Doubly so in fact, have you seen it's funny name Ryan4314 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you can't blame User:L'Aquatique for the funny name; she was handed over five pictures and a request for doing a montage - without telling her what article it was meant for. Her Argentina War Montage image name is odd, but as I said it's not her fault. Falklands War Montage is fine, short and describing. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I was only making a little joke ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

m'kay -- Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The montage with the yomping picture won't work, as it's fair use, and unusable in that context. Megapixie (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The image was apparently released into PD when it shouldn't have been, since the yomping and the Antelope are both in copyright. I think we can reasonably argue fair use to illustrate the subjects in question in this article but the montage is another issue.

Under "unacceptable uses", WP:NFC includes as unacceptable:

An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima).

I don't know if these images qualify, but we need to be aware of this. What is the threshhold needed to say if these two images are indeed iconic representations of the Falklands War? There is discussion ongoing here as well.

If not, do we have any other images we can use, say , File:HMS Plymouth damaged.jpg, File:MV Atlantic Conveyor burning.jpg, or ? They're not nearly so iconic, and it would be better if we acknowledged the land war as well as the sea war, but they are free. The Commons category does not have any land war photos.

For the record, most other Wikipedias are using a map or the Argentine war memorial in Buenos Aires and I don't think we want either here. Pfainuk talk 18:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Another image File:Gada82-GooseGreen.jpg from the Battle of Goose Green. Pfainuk talk 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really expecting the montage to survive so I'll find 2 other public domain pics. Are "iconic" pics bad then? Just for the record the Yomping and Antelope are pretty iconic in Britain, in fact I'd even equate the yomping one to the American flag raising on Iwa Jima. Also 2 of the 5 pics featured "land war" soldiers, if anything the "air war" is getting jipped. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK - well there's plenty of pictures of planes on this series. Iconic is good - based on the above, if "the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war" then we can use it to illustrate that war. I'm wondering if in that case the yomping might do for an image to represent the war on its own. Pfainuk talk 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but due to this war being so recent we have a problem with POV, if we had just a pic of British Royal Marines carrying the flag into the capital, it would piss a lot of people off lol. That's why we thought of a montage, see above :) I'm looking for some new pics now, think I found a good one of Harriers during the conflict. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Here's File:Sea Harrier during Falklands War.jpg a nice one taken during the conflict, it's from IWM. Are we allowed to chop off the text at the bottem? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems the yomping pic is ok.

The IWM has a free license use for non-profit organisations, provided that the photo is accompanied with an acknowledgment that it is courtesy of the IWM. Justin talk 19:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That means it's ok as long as we use the IWM license (see new harrier photo)? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 1000000)Fair enough. I think it could be NPOV given that the British ended up winning the war (Vietnam War's image hardly gives equal treatment but it gives an accurate idea of the results), but I'm used to dealing with this dispute on other articles, so yeah, probably better to be sure. You can certainly chop the text off if it's public domain. If Wiki has an IWM licence template, use it, otherwise be careful because we can't have non-commercial-only licences per WP:NFC Pfainuk talk 19:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, just had a look at the licence. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that IWM images are Crown Copyright per [21]. Thus the correct template is Non-free Crown copyright, meaning that they are fair use only (HMG doesn't care if we use it according to our other policies, but it's not free enough to be "free" in Wikipedia terms). Pfainuk talk 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Crown Copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an educational organisation (such as schools, colleges and universities). This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown Copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified, the copyright status acknowledged and picture reference numbers quoted (usually a two or three letter code followed by a series of numbers).

Where Crown Copyright does not exist, this will always be stated.

The Imperial War Museum would like to state our thanks to those who allowed us copyright permissions for non-IWM copyright works that appear on this site.

The way I read that provided we comply with the license requirements providing a copyright acknowledgment, none-commercial use is OK (but I'm not a lawyer either). Justin talk 20:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My reading of things is that it's OK with the IWM but not with Wikipedia. Note WP:NFC#Background, which says:

To honor its mission, Wikipedia accepts incoming copyright licenses only if they meet Wikipedia's definition of "free" use. This is a higher standard than we would need just for our own use. But our ability to use a work does not guarantee that others may use it. We reject licenses that limit use exclusively to Wikipedia or for non-commercial purposes. Commercial use is a complex issue that goes well beyond a company's for-profit status, another reason to be careful. In fact, we reject any licenses with significant limitations. That is not free enough.

Also note this letter asking permission based on Crown Copyright (which was refused). The argument goes that if Wikimedia ever decides to sell Wikipedia under the GDFL, we're no longer non-commercial. Pfainuk talk 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well all of the above just confused the hell out of me. Are you saying we can use the Harrier and Yomping pics or not? Ryan4314 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not by my reading. I'll ask at the Media copyright questions page to be sure though. Pfainuk talk 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry mate, this is starting to piss me off now. You lot can delete what needs deleting and I'll revert the pic back to what it was originally, that way if someone else can be arsed to deal with all this they can try. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, I'll keep going at it if you don't mind. If we can use the yompers and Harrier I'll go back to the requests with those, otherwise what do people think of this or this combined with this or this? All from Ken G, so they're all fine licence-wise. Pfainuk talk 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Judgement is "no", I'm afraid, so do we want to use Ken G's images? Pfainuk talk 21:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, is this a free encyclopedia or not? Let me have a think and I'll see what I can conjour up from Ken's images. Justin talk 22:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I put an montage together from wikipedia images, I just have to figure out the licensing. Justin talk 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, cheers. Send it my way if you want a second opinion on the licensing - if you upload it we can always change the licence, that's no problem. Watch out for IWM pictures on Commons though - there are a few there that aren't correctly licensed. Pfainuk talk 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

OK I've uploaded two images 30px and 30px. I could use free images but the picture of HMS Antelope exploding is absolutely iconic so I've included it. Other images would simply not have the impact. Justin talk 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I like that - I prefer this one (which I notice is already in the article). Pfainuk talk 21:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting out the license for me, I had a stab at it but it is difficult to follow. Justin talk 21:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've had another go at bits I missed - it's not simple stuff. I re-uploaded the yomping picture in Yomp last night and rewrote the fair use rationale before realising that you can change the licensing in the same way as any other edit. Pfainuk talk 22:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

NATO

it should be explaned in the article why nato did not help UK... --Philtime (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed-wing aircraft in the Info box

User Justin A Kuntz is familiar with the Falklands War and its arms. He however fails to comprehend that the info box is intended for manageable information for curious readers at a glance. As Harriers are fixed-wing aircraft the "10 fixed-wing aircraft" is better than the detailed "6 Sea Harriers - 4 Harrier GR.3". Following his logic the 'Casualties and losses' should be re-written to: 1 Belgrano, 1 Guppy, 2 Type 42s, 2 Type 21s, 1 Round Table-LSL etc. "Harriers" is reserved for well-informed circles and gives new readers the impression that this article is for 'members' only. Justin A Kuntz' recent edit with the Tiger Moth comment is unintelligible; if readers believes that the war was fought with biplanes they'll might as well believe it was with Sopwith 7F.1 Harrier biplanes. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a disparity at the moment between the info presented for Argentina, where we merely say 75 fixed-wing aircraft, and the breakdown into type for the British forces. The harrier is pretty well-known, and as has been pointed out in edit summaries, could be wiki-linked for those who don't immediately recognise it. David Underdown (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I originally broke it down as one of the IP POV warriors posted some ridiculously inflated figure of over 60 aircraft (which some extreme nationalists in Argentina do claim - see http://www.malvinense.com/). I had actually planned to do an edit in my lunch break, to set up losses by aircraft type on the Argentine side; notably the ship losses are already broken down by type. Fixed-wing aircraft is too broad a category in my book, it could include anything from micro-lights to 747 (hence by comment about Tiger Moths). I might break it down into fast jets or transports, who knows. I'm open to discussion and suggestions. Justin talk 10:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't you edit it to 10 Harriers? Rather than be specific on which model of harrier? I do think the Harrier is well known enough that people are going to know what it is. Narson (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I could, I could even edit down to 10 fast jets. Justin talk 11:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I'm a /huge/ fan of fast jet. About as much detail with 'fast jet' as you get with 'Fixed wing'. Fast jet, as a common noun, is subjective. I consider the V-1 to be quite fast at 300 odd MPH (and a jet engine). Concorde fast? 10 Harriers is shorter than 10 Fixed-wing Aircraft or 10 Fast Jets too, so we get more info for less space, how can that be a bad thing? Obviously that level of detail is difficult to go into when there is a whole mixed back of planes lost, as for the argentines IIRC, but hey, if we can get more detail for less words, I'm all for it. Smoke them if you've got them and all that.Narson (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

UNIDENT

Source is ARGENTINE AIRCRAFT LOST, 3rd April - 15th June 1982

Helicopters

Puma x 6 + 1 captured = 7 cum total 7
Lynx x 1 = 1 cum total 8
Alouette III x 1 = 1 cum total 9
Chinook CH-47C x 1 + 1 captured = 2 cum total 11
Agusta A-109A x 1 + 2 captured = 3 cum total 14
Bell 212 x 0 + 2 captured after the war = 2 cum total 16
Bell UH-1H x 0 + 9 captured after the war = 9 cum total 25

Fixed Wing Aircraft

Pucara x 13 + 11 captured after war + 1 destroyed under unknown circumstances = 25 cum total 50
Mirage IIIEA x 2 = 2 cum total 52
Dagger x 11 = 11 cum total 63
Canberra x 2 = 2 cum total 65
Aermacchi MB-339A x 2 + 3 captured after the war = 5 cum total 70
Shorts Skyvan x 2 = 2 cum total 72
A-4C Skyhawk x 9 = 9 cum total 81
A-4B Skyhawk x 10 = 10 cum total 91
A-4Q Skyhawk x 3 = 3 cum total 94
T-34C Mentor x 4 = 4 cum total 98
C-130E Hercules x 1 = 1 cum total 99
Learjet 35A x 1 = 1 cum total 100

Which for fixed wing I'd break down into:

Bombers 2 = 2 (Canberra)
Fast Jets 2 + 11 + 9 + 10 + 3 = 35 (Mirage IIIEA + Dagger + Skyhawk)
Transports 1 + 1 + 2 = 4 (C-130+Learjet+Skyvan)
COIN Aircraft 25 = 25 (Pucara)
Trainers 5 + 4 = 9 (MB339 + Mentor)

For Helicopters:

Utility 1 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 9 = 16 (Lynx + Alouette + A-109 + 212 + UH-1)
Medium Lift 7 (Pumas)
Heavy Lift 2 (Chinooks)

Call Fast-jets = Fighter Aircraft if you prefer, COIN are usually pretty specialist. Justin talk 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"75 fixed-wing aircraft" versus "6 Sea Harrier & 4 Harrier GR.3" is a rather unbalanced statement. That's necessary at clashes between i.e. Israel and Hezbollah since one of the combatants isn't so well-informed about its own strength/losses. But in the Falklands War there is documented knowledge so the statement has to be balanced. I concur in breaking down the aerial losses to types is useful. IMO "Trainers" should be "Armed Trainers" to avoid wrong impressions and I'll go for the "Fighters" although it's A-4 Skyhawk. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's too much information for the infobox. Better to leave as a summary in the infobox, and link to more detail elsewhere in this article or another. Megapixie (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The intention was simply condense it down, I'd no intention to put all that information in. The above is to show my reasoning. Justin talk 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit:

Argentine aircraft losses
Bombers 2
Fighter Aircraft 35
Transports 4
COIN Aircraft 25
Armed Trainers 9

Argentine helicopter losses
Utility 16
Medium Lift 7
Heavy Lift 2

British aircraft losses
Fighter Aircraft 10

I'll break the British helicopter losses down as well. Justin talk 13:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO "Helicopters" shouldn't be specified at all and "Fighters" should replace "Fighter Aircraft" - in line with "Bombers" and "Transports". If anyone disagrees with "Fighters", just remember F-15E Strike Eagle.

BTW details are plentiful at Argentine air forces in the Falklands War#Casualties and aircraft losses and British air services in the Falklands War#Casualties and aircraft losses. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to put forward an example of how you'd like it to be done.Justin talk 14:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my late answer, I've been an official at a local championship in athletics.

Casualties and losses
649 killed	258 killed
1,068 wounded	777 wounded
11,313 taken prisoner	115 taken prisoner
2 bombers	10 fighters
35 fighters	24 helicopters
4 transports	2 destroyers
25 COIN aircraft	2 frigates
9 armed trainers	1 LSL landing ship
25 helicopters	1 LCU amphibious craft
1 cruiser	1 containership
1 submarine
4 cargo vessels
2 patrol boats
1 spy trawler

--Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, I've amended it slightly. Justin talk 08:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, much better. Justin talk 18:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)