This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
There are a few uncited paragraphs in the political unrest section early in the article; if these can be cited, then the article will be eligable for B-Class. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've copyedited just one paragraph (only did one as I soon realised this article is gonna need a fair bit of work as far as copyediting goes). I've also tagged a few things that might need changing;
I've changed "CAP" to "attack". CAPs were when SHARs patrolled the skies to intercept enemy aircraft, the only ground attacks they performed whilst on CAP, were high-level "nuisance bombings" of Port Stanley . Also Morgan's book refers to it as an "attack"
I think you might of meant isthmus instead of peninsular. A peninsular is normally a strip of land surrounding by water on 3 sides, where as the land Goose Green is on, actually connects to Lafonia
This sentence is a bit unclear; "A second Sea Harrier was fired at, and a claim was made by 20 mm cannons from Grupo 1. The third jettisoned its bombs and flew back to the Hermes."
"A second Sea Harrier" was this the one behind Taylor? That would make it "the third SHAR"
Are you sure you mean "jettisoned"? In aviation term that implies the pilot (Ted Ball) merely discarded the weapons, unarmed, without aiming at any target, just to get them off his aircraft (usually an emergency procedure when extreme manoeuvrability is required). Also in Morgan's book Ball briefly mentions the attack went "ok" (barring obviously the loss of their first pilot) and doesn't mention anything of an emergency requiring him to jettison his weapons. Perhaps something like "dropped his bombs, but failed to destroy any targets" (do we actually know if Ball missed???) would be more suitable.
The details or Taylor's crash are very specific, "losing the left wing in the process. The aircraft cartwheeled in the air and crashed at a 35º angle. The body of the pilot was thrown trough the canopy and fell 80 meters away from the jet wreckage." do you have a ref for this?
Drop the "the" before "Hermes", call her just "Hermes" or "HMS Hermes"
In the two following paragraphs information is repeated i.e. the Sea Eagle trial bit. Also the "first of its kind to fly ever" part is a bit confusing, firstly it wasn't a new model/variant of a SHAR, just merely one with some different equipment (none of the harriers were identical, albeit with minor differences). Secondly it can't of been the first time it had flown, else they would've never got it on the carrier in the first place. I'd just drop the whole line myself personally.
LOL mate, I don't think you understand ;) Sea Harrier number XZ450 was just an ordinary Sea Harrier. "XZ450" is just it's individual number. It wasn't a "prototype" or a new version of the Sea Harrier (or GR3), it didn't actually carry a Sea Eagle or anything special like that during the war, or have any enhanced capabilities. To quote Morgan, "The airframe (the aircraft) had been allocated (given) to British Aerospace(by the Royal Navy) at Dunsfold so they could carry out trials of the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile".
Do you see what I mean, after the trials were finished they would removed the Sea Eagle testing equipment and replaced the RWR, so all this about variant and models is invalid. :) Ryan4314 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, sorry for editing before coming here to discuss. I'am glad to have getting the point about XZ450.
I wrote that Ball "jettisoned" the bombs because according to Argentinian sources: el tercer avión descarga sus bombas en cualquier parte posiblemente para perder peso y poder alejarse así más rapidamente de la zona. Translation: "the third aircraft dropped its bombs elsewhere, probably in order to loss weight and fly away from the area as quickly as possible." You're right, however, that "to jettison" implies unarmed ordnance, and that was not the case. I've already edited the phrase properly.
Finally, about the "peninsular", the text mentions a small portion of land west of the isthmus of Darwin which is in fact what you describe as a peninsular. You can see it in this battle map of Goose Green Goose Green below. The guns position is marked in red.
I also want to make clear that English is not my mother language, so if there is some copyedit needed, or the sentences seems a bit messy or even awkward, feel free to clean up them merciless ;).
P/S= Congratulations for the photo montage in the Falklands war article. It's cool, man :).
Thanks for replying, I made a mistake though concerning "Ball's bombs", if your reference does say "the third aircraft dropped its bombs elsewhere, probably in order to loss weight and fly away from the area as quickly as possible." then we should use the world "jettison". However I am always wary of using an Argentine source to say what the British were thinking and vice versa (for example), do you understand?
Great research on the peninsular though! Don't worry about the language barrier, hopefully me and Justin have shown that we're neutral and you can trust us, so we're be able to help/guide you :)
Here's the rules concerning the usage of English variants on Wikipedia. GADA 601 is an article about a South American military unit, the majority of the article covers a war with the British. Which form of English spelling should be used?
Slight lean towards British English: I'm not particularly bothered either way, but I guess out of all the countries that use English, British users are thr ones most likely to read this article due to the units huge role in the Falklands War. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest British English, unlikely to be of interest to the Americans, most relevance to the British and Argentish is closer to British English anyway. Justintalk16:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just so that anyone who doesn't know is aware, I believe the rule is to stick with the spelling variant that the original author used and that the rules say somewhere that the page usage should not be changed. What would that give? Buckshot06(prof) 00:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.
I guess the; "In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic" bit states we should leave it as is, as the article doesn't have strong ties to Britain. Although my only concern is that the "first major contributor" of this article will happily admit that English isn't his first language. Darius are you familiar with the differences between American and British English?
If we have just one variant of English consistent throughout the article, it will make the copyediting easier. Also, currently me & Justin are the only English (as in 1st language) editors making contributions to this article, it may be more practical for us to use British-English, as I'm not familiar with American-English, if that is in fact the variant of English Darius is using. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well folks, unhappily my only knowledge about the differences between American and British English is that an "organisation" is British and an "organization" is American :). The spoken stuff is another matter, of course... I think that being Ryan and Justin the two main native-English speakers contributors, the British spelling suits better, but feel free to choice the variant by yourselves. Regards.--Darius (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things about this article, clearly its written from an Argentine perspective given the subject. However, it still contains a lot of claims that post-war were shown to be optimistic. Would it not be better to use both sets of sources to focus on what happened, rather than what either side claimed. This was kinda prompted by your comment, Ryan, and I tend to agree. Justintalk16:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only dubious claim from the Argentinian side is that of the free-fall bombs hit either by AAA or Roland. I mean by dubious a claim that is not specifically recalled by any British source. By the way, I think the claim of a Sea Harrier flying to a mission without any kind of RWR equipment is also quite suspicious.
The performance of the 35 mm during the battle of Darwin and the figure of Harrier/Sea Harriers shot down or damaged come all of them from British authors, some of them involved in the operations (Pook, Morgan, Squire).
On the other hand, the article should include both sets of sources without seeking an improbable synthesis, since "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". (See WP:V).--Darius (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always been a bit doubtful of what any side "claims", I much prefer to look at a side's self-declared losses/casualties. I haven't read this article all the way through, but Justin I take it you might also be referring to the "The 20 mm cannons from Grupo 1 claimed they shot down another of the Sea Harriers." I'm happy to keep the bit about the Argentine claim in, but would prefer to word it a bit more negatively, thus giving more weight to the British source (the "declaring" source in this case).
Perhaps something like this; "The 20 mm cannons from Grupo 1 claimed they shot down another of the Sea Harriers. However British sources have confirmed that XZ450 was the only aircraft lost that day."
Unfortunately Darius the part about the lack of RWR is true, multiple British sources (including fellow SHAR pilots) have confirmed this potentially embarrassing fact for British, it's the realities of war I'm afraid. In 1982, we had a lot budget cutbacks, thus a lack of Sea Harriers, hence why we had to recall one from trials. Also Darius although "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" remember the "verifiability" has to come from a Reliable source, when 2 sides claim opposite things, both should be mentioned. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I didn't use the word dubious and I do hope you don't believe that was what I was implying. I was making no comment about your article or yourself.
I was simply referring to the fact that during the war both sides made somewhat optimistic claims about battle damage inflicted on the other. Post-war many of the British claims have been revised to reflect what is now believed to have happened. With respect I don't think the same has happened on the Argentine side, for example the Argentine navy and air force still claims to this day that HMS Invincible was hit in an attack on 30 May; it wasn't. I've also seen Argentine authors claiming upwards of 60 Sea Harriers shot down (when there was only about 20 in-theatre).
My comments were actually prompted by one of Ryan's remarks, because on the British side it has been suggested that the presence of the Sea Eagle panel on the ZX450 had led Argentine intelligence to conclude that Sea Eagle was operational and this was a factor in keeping the Argentine navy in port. I'd put that claim in the dubious category, even though I can point to two independent sources that would verify it. I was actually pontificating about whether that should be included or whether anything from the Argentine side would corroborate it.
As noted by Ryan above, ZX450 did have the RWR removed, it was a trials aircraft that was pressed into service due to the paucity of Sea Harriers at the time.
As to your comments about hitting free fall bombs. A few hand calcs using the methods in the Rheinmetall Handbook on Weaponry would confirm such claims are distinctly dubious verging on the mathematically impossible.
Anyway referring back to my original point, was a suggestion that we can either endeavour to give a balanced viewpoint by using information from both sides or simply put both into the article and leave it for the reader to decide. Justintalk08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justin. First of all, thanks you for cleaning up the article :). ::::Remember that this is our article; may be I have ample access to Argentinian sources, but the article is not mine, it belongs to Wikipedia.
I agree with you about HMS Invincible, and the wild claims about the number of RS1/GR3 shot down (they will hang me here in Argentina :). Same case for the free-fall bombs, even if Squire's RAF diaries (There is a link in the article) mentions a number missions failing to see the impact of their bombs. Pook also (page 166) asserts that during a post-war visual recce on Stanley airfield:
"Apart from these delights [booby traps] the airfield was littered with unexploded ordnance, including cluster bombs, rockets and 1,000-lb bombs. I noticed that some of our 1,000-lb bomb casings lay about on the surface and were split open like a banana, with no obvious crater nearby-yet more evidence of the inadequacy of the weapons we had used."
Still, I also agree with you on this point that mathematical probability for this is minimal.
It's possible that, given the state of the wreckage of XZ450, the Argentine intelligence was never aware about the Sea Eagle panel. I've read about the items retrived from Taylor's corpse, and none of these gave the Argentines any tip about the Sea Eagle, only a loose idea of the position of HMS Hermes.--Darius (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, glad we're on the same wavelength, I was just trying to help out with the article.
By the way, there is a simple explanation for those bomb casings. A lot of the bombs dropped were low-level retarded bombs using the 117 tail. They're not at their best when used at low level against a hard target, since what can happen is that they hit tail first, which results in a high rate of rotation slamming the bomb body against a hard surface. This is called slap-down in the trade and often results in a burst case.
And with BL755 there is a certain dud rate, the quoted figure is 5% but its actually a lot better than that. However, as there is 147 bomblets and they were heavily used, that results in a lot of unexploded ordnance. Another problem with the freefall ordnance was that the bomb fuzes were set before take-off with the result that if the mission were changed, they couldn't change the mission. This caused problems for Morgan and his wingman when they attacked Narwhal; the original mission called for lofting into Stanley, which changed to dive bombing a ship. The fuzes were wrong and none went off.
And if they had managed to hit a 1000 lb in flight, it would certainly be known about. A hit from a 35 mm would have caused a high order detonation and you'd have seen that for miles. Justintalk13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for re-adding the cite of Mottino about the airstrip status, but I think there are already so many details on the text about the Vulcan operations that the cite must stay.--Darius (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1] I've made an edit and then self-reverted as it was a lot of changes. What I've tried to do is bring together information from the conflicting Argentine and British reports and report both sides. What do you think Darius? Justintalk19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent review, Justin!. You have save me a lot of work!. I was thinking of including Pook's point of view from his own book. If it's OK for you, I will repost you're edition. Thank you! :)--Darius (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Hostile Skies again, David Morgan refers to dropping air burst 1000 lb bombs as part of the harassment of Argentine forces. It struck me that this could be the reason behind stories of the guns "shooting down" bombs in flight? Justintalk
Ooh that's a good point, I love it when we do this Falklands research! Although I presume the cannon operators would've had to have some sort of radar return to create the illusion of actually targeting the bombs, any ideas??? Ryan4314 (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi both, Ryan and Justin. Yes, I also was aware of VT (variable time) fuse bombs in order to create airbursts (my source is Pook and some RAF diaries entries) and was thinking of a relationship with the alleged "shooting downs". These were mostly diversionary attacks carried out by Sea Harriers from high altitude.
However, I've also found a Sea Harrier mission over Stanley on 29 May (source "Falklands. The Air War", Burden, Draper & others, Arms & Armour Press, 1987) where a premature explosion of bombs in the air is explicity mentioned. I think all this stuff should be in the article as a "may be".--Darius (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah woah we can't put any "maybe"s in the article mate, I'm afraid that's Original Research, me and Justin just like to speculate about this sort of thing for our own interest. For example we came up on a rather interesting theory to explain some discrepancies in a incident that is talked about on the Cardiff article, between 2 Mirages and a Lynx. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But we can put into the article that the British used air-burst 1000 lb bombs, that were detonated by a variable time fuze that would have caused an explosion in the air and let the reader decide. Justintalk07:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. Is anybody aware about the captured Skyguard radars being used in Britain for the civilian surveillance of the air space?. I've read it somewhere, but I am still looking for a reliable source.--Darius (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess thats very much an urban legend. The captured equipment was used by the RAF Regiment for airfield defence. Justintalk08:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What did the source say? As far as I'm aware there was no transfer of kit to the civil sector. If they're under MOD control that probably means they're used at an RAF airfield under the auspices of the RAF regiment. Justintalk15:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the 2002 Parlamentary debate is not clear about, but It became obvious that I was wrong when thinking of "civilian airspace"; the materiel is deployed covertly to surveill military flights. Therefore, the Skyguards are definitively still under RAF or MoD control.--Darius (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few words about the location of GADA barracks. The train station and village of Félix U. Camet -named after an ancient mayor of Mar del Plata- is 4 miles away to the west of the regiment. Thus, the barracks are clearly not within the boundaries of Camet station. On the other hand, we have "Parque Camet", a recreational green area some three miles south of GADA 601. Finally, The southern edge of the barracks limits with a neighborhood also named after Camet, which is part of the city of Mar del Plata. Therefore, I think it's irrelevant to the article to give the precise area where the GADA is in place, since we have the coordinates and their link to Wikimapia.--Darius (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An image used in this article, File:Gada82-a.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:Gada82-a.jpg)
I have just modified 2 external links on GADA 601. 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.
