Jump to content

Talk:Battle of San Carlos (1982)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lt Osses

[edit]

Are you certain he participated in the Attack on HMS Coventry Steve Bowen (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the books and according the name index of Moro's book Lt Osses only was part of Leo on May 21 and Truco on May 27. But according Carballo's , both Zeus and Vulcano were 3 planes each (btw carrying 3 BRP each) in which Carmona (Volcano 3) aborted so he said they remain in FIVE planes. But here [1] at 6:30 Barrionuevo himself is relating how FOUR planes attacked the ships so I think you are probably right, Osses surely returned for some reason like Carmona. --Jor70 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo "Tom" Lucero

[edit]

I understand that this Brave man has recently been killed (Early March 2010) while flying a Piper PA-11/12, spreading corn fields in Cordoba, Argentina. He always wanted to meet Geoff Nordass, the Royal Marine who rescued him, but it never happened Geoff Nordass story in The Sun. Ironic that he survived an ejection in such hostile skies. --Steve Bowen (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More British Info

[edit]

A very good quality article if not for the fact it appears to have been crafted with care primarily by people from the Argentine side - there is not even a list of British aircraft, and it looks like all Argentine sorties, but not all UK sorties have been documented. Perhaps some recruiting from Uk-centric pages such as Harrier would help fix this. Bachcell (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the recent Harrier entry because that is not specifically result for this battle but for the whole war so is not properly for the Aftermath of the battle. Also is highly debatable due the lack of any efective AAM missiles on the AR fighters. Anyway, would be really a great addition to have the Harries PACs sorties added between the AR flights. unfortunately this is not listed in Argentines books, perhaps you could help --Jor70 (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored it. The battle did show effectiveness of carrier-based STOVL aircraft against supposedly superior land-based aircraft, and sidewinders were effective if not sophisticated. I believe this was the first combat where land-based aircraft were challenged only by a jump-jet carrier, and land-based aircraft nominally are not "compromised" by the penalty of STOVL hardware - subsonic performance and reduced range/payload. It may well have turned out differntly if there were no Harriers flying combat air patrol to make the raiders dump their bombs or harass them, not to mention shooting down a number of aircraft as recoreded by the incidents in the article. I didn't see that any Harriers were downed in exchange for Argentine lossses, the Dagger is a much faster plane than the Harrier. The Harrier is certainly not the equal of a Nimitz-class carrier full of Tomcats that the US Navy would have had at its disposal, that tiny short Harriers armed only with sidewinders would shoot down so many aircraft with no loss to their own is certainly notable. Bachcell (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you dont see the issue here. This is an article covering just 5 days of the 45 days of operations. The Harrier performance is not an aftermath of those days. In fact the first, and only, air combat occur 20 days before. It is more properly for Aftermath of the Falklands War#Military analysis but in any case your analysis is incomplete because you are not considering the facts: FAA only 2 tankers for all the A-4, Daggers/Mirages without KC capability so no supersonic advantage here and most important all the strike aicraft didnt carry any AAM missile per self defense. So, did the British have Spitfires with those AIM-9L the result would be most probably the same. Do not add again until a new consensus is established. --Jor70 (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the inclusion in the overall conflict wouldn't mean that it didn't also apply to this battle. If the British had retired all of their carriers, there would be been no harriers, and this articles includes destruction or harrassment of Argentine planes by Harriers. Conventionally, land planes are the most capable, followed by carrier-based, and the worst possible planes are vertical-takeoff capable, so it is clear the British made the most of a theortically bad situation of piting toy Harrier fighters against Mach-2 capable Daggers, whether or not they had tankers, ground control or less sophisticated sidewinder. A similar situation was the North Vietnamese shooting down sophisticated Mach 2 F-105s with elderly Korea-War era MiG-17s which resulted in a complete revamping of US fighter doctrines. Bachcell (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan4314

[edit]

Bachcell, I've had a look at your edits:

"The subsonic Harrier jump-jet armed with simple Sidewinders proved effective as an air superiority fighter even against supersonic-class Daggers."[2]

  • Using words like "even" as a prefix is unencyclopaedic
  • I find it hilarious that you call the AIM9L Sidewinder simple! It was the only air-to-air missile in the world able to achieve lock-on head-on!
  • The correct term is STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing), not STVOL
  • A section titled "Harrier vs Argentines"[3] isn't very neutral, perhaps "Harriers vs FAA" would've been better?

You have added a large section detailing the performance of the Harrier over the entire conflict.[4] In fact your section contains only two sentences on the San Carlos landings. I would suggest the info you have added would be better served on the British air services in the Falklands War article, however I believe it is already there. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggesting improvements. The Sidewinder is still a relatively simple missle compared to radar-guided Sparrow or AMRAAM missles which cannot be carried by small day-fighters like the Harrier. And I suggeted in comments that the section be cut down to balance the rather large and detailed description of the Argentine air forces, but thats' additional work which will come in time. As this battle was a major portion of the Harrier's overall performance, there will be some overlap of the parent article. Bachcell (talk)
It is not our place to comment on missile systems, it will need citing at the very least. I would suggest that instead of adding a large section that you concede "needs trimming down", simply remove it, consider the content, then add what actually needs to be in the article. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the section, take some time to consider what actually needs mentioning in the article (this is not the Cold War, British sections do not need to have an equal number of words as Argentine sections) then reinsert it. I agree the Harrier could do with some more coverage. However I see you've also added Hermes and Invincible to a section titled "British Amphibious Force", during the landings the British carriers were some of the farthest away warships in the whole task force, for their own protection (which also obviously had an impact on the British air cover), due to the commitment of the Type 22's to protect the landings, I would suggest adding the names of the squadrons instead. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ryan, and Bachcell please stop referring the mirages as supersonic fighters unless you add supersonic into the water --Jor70 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:13 skyhawk.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:13 skyhawk.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fotoametralladora Dagger Malvinas.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Fotoametralladora Dagger Malvinas.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Fotoametralladora Dagger Malvinas.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

The article is full of sentences formulated as "X was the case (link to youtube video)" with cute little superscript. Not only are half of these broken, they would be inadequate if they were working; they're just links to videos. No, it's not plainly evident from the video. Wikipedia is ten years old and if you haven't learned in this time what constitutes a decent source you're doing more harm than good. Recognise your limitations, either fix them or do something else. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of San Carlos (1982). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of San Carlos (1982). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail

[edit]

As a non-expert reader, this article's bullet point lists of individual sorties (with call signs, pilot names, and aircraft type) seems to be excessive detail (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). I believe this detail and style makes the article much more difficult to read. I suggest a prose summary of the facts would be much more readable (see WP:USEPROSE). Thoughts? Hohum? Dbsseven (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well inside the size guidelines (small, if anything), and its scope is the air to ship attacks which comprise the battle. Including all of the attacks doesn't seem undue, since without them, the article would be tiny, even if they were generally described in prose. Hopefully others will comment. (Hohum @) 21:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the question is length but presentation style and minutia of detail. "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge..." (per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, emphasis in original). It is difficult to follow what happened when presented in phone book style. Perhaps if this level of detail is needed, below the prose tables with categorical headers would be much more clear about what-is-what. I would suggest hidden by default to avoid overwhelming the prose. Dbsseven (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ps: I am adding back the {{excessive detail}} tag in order to attract other editors to this discussion per their purpose. Dbsseven (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to gather editors who may have an interest, you could add a note on the WPMILHIST talk page. (Hohum @) 23:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd trim the code names, any serial numbers and the names of the pilots and casualties unless notable. Other than that it probably needs some more context and background in general.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum: and @Sturmvogel 66:. In an attempt to find a compromise to find consensus, I have prepared a draft of the on what the engagements section might look like with prose. I have not removed any content, all of the sortes remain in the included table. (I have also not added any content yet as my primary concern was first a layout/style consensus, then add content.) Please do not take this as a final draft, but as a starting point form which we can discuss and find consensus. Let me know what you think. Dbsseven (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good compromise! (Hohum @) 20:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Moore or Julian Thompson ?

[edit]

General Moore did not take over command of British Land Forces until 30th May arriving shortly before 5 Bde. If this "battle" is deemed to have ended on 25th May, then the land force commander was still Brigadier Julian Thompson. As I met Thompson more than once during those few days I can confirm he was the senior commander on the ground during this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.147.175 (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Moore was incommunicado onboard QE2 during the battle. --RD47 (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superiority of Argentine air force

[edit]

Besides the obviously british victory on the battle. Can we add Argentine air superiority over the royal navy? ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the military side of this war, but what superiority? How much of the Argentine air force was lost, in numbers and percentage? I thought you had to control the sky to claim superiority and I don't think that happened. Ships were lost but was that a result of air superiority of other reasons? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said over Royal Navy, bro. And you cant only said Ships were lost but... ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_San_Carlos_(1982)&oldid=1233826704"