Talk:Argentine air forces in the Falklands War

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

Argentine air participation[edit]

Has anyone got info' on what Argentinian squadrons participated in the Falklands War? SoLando 22:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, sure. which force? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.47.113.5 (talk • contribs) .
I already added argentine units (Jor70 16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Total number of Argentine aircraft really deployed[edit]

The Argentine numbers you just add are not accurate (daggers 35, 707 4, A-4B around 35, pucaras at least 70, ... ) I suggest remove them until we found correct data. --Jor70 19:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only counted those Argentine airplanes in flying condition during the war, and those involved in the war. The Argentine Navy had 5 Super Étendard, but one of them was used for spare parts; the Argentine Air Force had scattered Pucarás all over Argentina, but only 24 on the islands etc.
We wouldn't count RAF Germany on the British side either. The B707 flights before the hostilities might have involved all 4, as you wrote. --Necessary Evil 19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about aircraft deployed to Patagonia, the only ones that remains in the north were those out of service. In any case, you should clarify what those numbers means --Jor70 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An Argentine aircraft should be part of one of the following organisations to be part of the list:
  • Teatro de Operaciones Malvinas - aircraft based on the Falklands Islands.
  • Fuerza Aérea Sur - medium-to-long range combat, reconnaissance and transport aircraft based in Southern Argentina.
  • Teatro de Operaciones del Atlántico Sur - shipborne aircraft.
Necessary Evil 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IAI Daggers were bootleg copies of Mirage aircraft, sometimes authors mix the Argentine Daggers and Mirages.
The skyhawks were Vietnam Veterans, bought without garanties, some of them were not airworthy.
What is your numbers, Jor70 ? Regards --Necessary Evil 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the caution signal. FAA in fact deploy more than the number mentioned but it is difficult to make a difference between those directly employed on the islands and those who served as a strike reserve and guardian of the chilean border. --Jor70 15:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If we are going to include Cdro.Riv. Pucara lost we should also add all planes not lost too, therefore the number of A-4 and Daggers deployed is incomplete Jor70 00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seems to have better sources, so go ahead. All aircraft used against the British must be on the list. Comodoro Rivadavia is part of Fuerza Aérea Sur. Regards Necessary Evil 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More details[edit]

I would like to add some more data like this --Jor70 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date Tail Code Obs
May 21,1982 C-403 Shot down by Sea Harrier ZA190/"009". Pilot Ejected
May 21,1982 C-404 Shot down by Sea Harrier ZA190/"009". Pilot Ejected
May 21,1982 C-407 Shot down by Sea Harrier ZA175/"004". Pilot Ejected
May 21,1982 C-409 Shot down by Sea Harrier XZ455/"12". Pilot Ejected
May 24,1982 C-410 Shot down by Sea Harrier ZA193/"93". Pilot Ejected
May 24,1982 C-419 Shot down by Sea Harrier XZ457/"14". Pilot Lt. Castillo died
May 21,1982 C-428 Shot down by SAM Sea Wolf HMS Broadsword (F88). Pilot Lt. Bean died
May 24,1982 C-430 Shot down by Sea Harrier XZ457/"14". Pilot Ejected
May 1,1982 C-433 Shot down by Sea Harrier XZ455/"12". Pilot Lt. Ardiles died
May 29,1982 C-436 Shot down by SAM Rapier. Pilot Lt. Bernhard died
May 23,1982 C-437 Shot down by by Sea Harrier ZA194. Pilot Lt. Volponi died
Maybe in chronological order?--Necessary Evil 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put them by tail code , but yes I think now that by date + location would be better Jor70 02:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


KC-130[edit]

Is a KC-130 tanker not just an ordinary C-130, with a refuelling kit? I've read that the two KC-130 tankers had the codenames "París" and "Berlín". I've just forgot my source; do you have some comments ? Necessary Evil 17:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, only TC-69 and TC-70 could done aerial refuel, the kit was not changeable to the others airframes. I not remember reading about Paris and Berlin, I know they were/are popularly called Chancha (female pig) Jor70 18:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they were call signs for TC-69 and TC-70 in an attack plan: "..rendezvous with PARÍS on the way out and rendezvous with BERLÍN on the way home..." ?? I recall some of the skyhawks was called VULCANO, ZEUS, MARTE, TORO ETC. Was the aircraft individually painted or was it call signs for one strike? Necessary Evil 17:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every flight mission (strikes,transport,decoy,refuel,...) issued by the FAS (Fuerza Aerea Sur) was called in Spanish Orden Fragmentaria and had a radio signal. Examples are Orden Fragmentaria 1177 : 4 A-4B named Cuña 1 to Cuña 4 , Orden Fragmentaria 2258 (C-130 shot down while perfoming recognition)was Tiza. Cpt Carballo for example was Nene 1 when his section attack Antelope and was Vulcano 1 against the Coventry. KC-130s often used Perro (Dog) 1 and Perro 2 but were always affectively called chanchas --Jor70 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very interesting, there could be a whole new article regarding Argentine missions with call signs and pilots etc. I can remember a map, with PARÍS and BERLÍN as areas, where Skyhawks and/or Super Etendart could meet KC-130's. Regards Necessary Evil 21:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best book that I know about this is this one written by FAA officer. There is also a english translated edition --Jor70 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tube link[edit]

Isn't the video copyrighted and therefore not to be linked to?GraemeLeggett 16:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dont think so, Youtube allows to be linked to them and the content itself would be deleted by Youtube if is not appropiated Jor70 17:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general Wikipedia frowns on links to YouTube for practical reasons; Wikipedia is not liable for copyright violations in a case such as this, but in the scenario you describe, someone will have to periodically check the Youtube link to see if it still works. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this particular video has been in youtube for 2 months now and it does not seem to have any problem --Jor70 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More detail[edit]

I would like to add more coverage of FAA and COAN actions, but I would like to known first if there are any objections. Jor70 17:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but perhaps as subarticles. Necessary Evil 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Argentine Air Force general ranks[edit]

Hi User:Jor70. Fuerza Aérea Argentina has three generalranks:

  • Brigadier General — 3-star or Lieutenant General
  • Brigadier Mayor — 2-star or Major General
  • Brigadier — 1-star or Brigadier General

In the article it's like all senior AF officers are 1-star generals, wasn't Ernesto Crespo a 2-star general? And was Lami Dozo the only 3-star general? Necessary Evil 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All commands were created during April'82 with Air Brigades chiefs choosen as their commanders, Crespo being from IV Air Brigade (a striker), Hughes from the VIII (a fighter), etc. Lami Dozo (AF chief of staff ) was the only 3-star whilst 2-star were AF chief of personel, AF chief of logistic, (non-combatants) etc. Wings commanders (Escuadrillas) were commodores and vice commodores .Jor70 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


T-34 armament[edit]

What kind of guns and rockets were the T-34 armed with? Or are it omitted because they didn't see action (all four were sabotaged at the Pebble Island raid)? If that's the case, it's OK with me. Did the MB.339 attack with guns (the two dead sailors on HMS Argonaut, at D-Day)? Regards Necessary Evil 13:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-34 used to have LAU-32 7-Tube rocket launcher plus SUU-11 7.62mm Minigun pod. Lt Owen Crippa, used rockets and gun fire when overfly the Argonaut during his recco flight. In fact, in his report he confirm the guns impact but didnt know about the rockets result. For engaged the british anphibious fleet alone ( flying twice over the area to determine the number of ships ) he was awarded with the max condecoration La Nacion Argentina al Heroico valor en Combate Jor70 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argonaut was attacked twice by Argentine aircraft on the 21st May. The first, by Lieutenant Crippa in his Aermacchi MB-339, caused some damage to her Radar. The second, by six Skyhawks of Grupo 5, 2 bombs hit, one in the boiler room , the second hit forward below the waterline, passed through a fuel tank and into the Seacat magazine. Although neither exploded, the second detonated a Sea Cat Missile & killed two sailors, Able Seaman Iain M. Boldy and Able Seaman Matthew J. Stuart. It took a number of days to deactivate these Bombs. Steve Bowen (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missions, flights or sorties[edit]

IMHO one mission could involve several aircraft, so maybe sorties would be better. Flights for the aircraft of the airbridge is fine. The picture [Image:FAA Air Bases 1982.gif] a.k.a. "bases.gif" from [1] is accompanied by "malvinas.gif", with the Argentine AFB on the islands. Have you wikified "malvinas.gif", as it might come in handy. Necessary Evil 15:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right sorry, there were sorties (each one = 1 aircraft). You should also perahps find a more suitable section title too than Perfomance. I only took the first picture, but you are free to go :-) Jor70 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Air Campaign like Gulf_War#Air_campaign. Regardless of the name, it should be between "Units" and "Casualties and aircraft losses", with "Armament" before "References".
Regarding the buddy refuelling, I think I've read that COAN had one kit on ARA 25 de Mayo, so 1 Skyhawk was reserved as a tanker 2nd May and in Anderson, Duncan: The Falklands War 1982 (2002) Osprey Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-84176-422-1 page 32 there is a picture of A-4C buddy refuelling. It's a B/W picture, but the aircraft are dark with no pattern and with light underbellies. Necessary Evil 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok with the changes, As I read ARA buddy kit was not operational in 1982 and the new ones not arrived until years later. Jor70 16:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties and aircraft losses[edit]

Im reading here they were 7 on the Hercules (Meisner,Martel,Krause,Lastra,Albelos,Cardone and Cantezano) and 5 on the Learjet (De La Colina,Falconier,Lotufo,Luna and Marizza). That counts 2 pilots and 10 crew men. Then 1May Canberra (pilot and navigator lost) and 13jun Canberra (navigator lost) do you agree ? Jor70 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/caidos.html:
  • Hercules C-130 (I Brigada Aérea)
    • Aviador Militar - pilot
      • Martel, Krause
    • Navegador Militar - navigator
      • Meisner
    • Auxiliar de Carga - loadmaster
      • Lastra, Albelos
    • Mecánico - flight engineer
      • Cardone
  • LearJet LR-35 A (II Brigada Aérea)
    • Aviador Militar - pilot
      • De la Colina, Falconier
    • Aerofotografía - air photographer
      • Lotufo
    • Mecánico - flight engineer
      • Cantezano, Luna, Marizza
so 4 pilots and 8 crewmembers. Canberra is OK with me. Necessary Evil 23:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was counting their role when they were shot down (co-pilots). Also, until today, it is unclear for me why a crew of 7 was used in a recco role.- Jor70 00:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's a Spanish translation problem, but in English air captains and co-pilots are both counted as pilots, so a C-130 could easily have two pilots etc. Necessary Evil 00:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a discrepancy with PUMA helicopter losses, with one entry saying three and an entry saying one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_air_forces_in_the_Falklands_War#Casualties_and_aircraft_losses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background section[edit]

What does this sentence mean? 'Argentine military aviation during the 1982 war did not benefit from their fastest jets neither outnumbering the British Sea Harrier force'? Are we saying that there was no benefit from the restricted speed or the relative numbers of opponents? Please could you clarify this please Kernel Saunters 13:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Also, it would seem that not including Pucaras the Argentinian forces had > 2x the numbers of strike aircraft to deploy (not withstanding the limitations stated). Kernel Saunters 13:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The goal is to put the casual reader back to real facts. Today is common to read in British media things like ... who faced odds of 10 to 1 against the fast jets of the Argentine Air Force [2] :

  • The top ratio of argentines aircraft at the same time over the islands was reach May 1 in 36
  • The A-4, Canberras, Aermacchi, Super Etendard, Pucaras, etc were not fastest than a SeaHarr
  • Had you ever read about a Mirage/Dagger at Match 1 over the islands ? They would go out of fuel !

Also, Is there any mention in the British media about (not counting the 4 available Super etendards)

  • The Argentine strike aicraft do not having any electronic or air missile for self defence ?
  • After flying 1 hour in complete radio silence from their bases in the continent, the Argentine aircraft had less than 5 minutes to overfly the islands and found a target while escaping the high concentration of British SAMs and cannons and the Sea Harriers Caps ?
  • 99% of the attacks (A-4/Daggers/Canberra) were made with free fall dumb iron bombs ?
  • 13 1000lbs bombs hit British Ships without detonating ?
  • In their admirably performance, SeaHarrs just intercept less than 10% of the Argentine strikes, and that not because there were 200 Argentine planes to intercept at a time. And when they do, the air-air combat was AIM-9L vs nothing.
  • Vulcans, RAF Harriers and Sea Harriers were unable to destroy the Port Stanley runway in 45 days ?

Jor70 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The aim should be to give an good overview of the situation rather than to right any perceived wrongs. I can assure you that several of your points have been well reported in the UK especially the UXBs and the lack of time for the pilots in the combat zone so if I have time I'll add supporting info from British sources. I'm still a bit unclear of the meaning of the sentence mean starting 'Argentine military aviation and exactly what the intent is? Kernel Saunters 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote the paragrah, I started with Contrary to popular understanding, ... and that is a fact due we can find dozen of articles written these days (25 years later!!) on the British media Jor70 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the sentence regarding the Argentine military aviation's previous conflict "a century earlier". So... the argentinians had a military airforce in 1882 did they? 86.152.114.34 (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Escuadron Fenix.jpg[edit]

Image:Escuadron Fenix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I've just removed this image, not because of any copyright issue, but as I believe it's irrelevant to the content of this article. The image is in the Escuadron Fenix wikiarticle, and no other squadron badges are shown in this article. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Pucara-plane.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Pucara-plane.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage withdrawal[edit]

I would like to refute this paragraph: Argentine sources indicate....[17][18][19]

  • [17] As a result of these heavy losses...it was decided to pull the Mirage III's back to the mainland to stand alert for a possible Vulcan attack...16 --- 16 is Ethell, "Strike", p. 17.
  • [18] Finally, the bombing raids caused the Argentines to fear an air attack on the mainland, causing them to retain some Mirage aircraft and Roland missiles for defense. Unfortunately the British Secretary of State for Defense announced sometime later that Britain would not bomb targets on the Argentine mainland.5 --- 5 is Hastings, p. 3.
  • [19] Los M III debían defender el territorio continental argentino de posibles ataques de los bombarderos Vulcan de la RAF, brindar escolta a los cazabombarderos de la FAA, e impedir los ataques de aviones de la Royal Navy y de la RAF sobre las Malvinas traslanted by google is The M III should defend the Argentine continental territory from attacks of the RAF Vulcan bomber, providing fighter escort to the FAA, and to prevent attacks by aircraft of the Royal Navy and the RAF on the Falklands that is not withdrawal at all

Therefore there are not argentines sources here for this affirmation

Clearly not, [17] in 16, Ethell is quoting from interviews with Argentine Air Force officers, its quoted in the text as well. [18] 5 is not Hastings it is Air Vice Marshall Stewart W. B. Menaul, "The Falklands Campaign: A War of Yesterday" Strategic Review, Fall 1982 [19] is the Argentine airforce magazine. [17] and [19] are clearly based on Argentine sources, they confirm the withdrawal of Mirage III as the result of the Vulcan raids. The very source you quoted to originally refute that paragraph simply confirms it, this is simply ridiculous. We've been through this before on the Black Buck article, you're going round the buoy again, trying to remove it, again. This is farsical, its an established consensus text and you have not provided a justification. This is attempted censorship. Justin talk 21:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to get an Ethell book copy to read the interview and get back here. Elsewhere the other 2 ref quotes 18: SOME MIRAGES and 19: prevent attacks by aircraft of the Royal Navy and the RAF on the Falklands. --Jor70 (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say every single Mirage III was withdrawn? You're splitting hairs in an effort to censor, this is not acceptable. This is ridiculous, the official Argentine Air Force magazine prints an article that confirms they were withdrawn to defend BA. End of Story, do not pass go, do not collect £200. Justin talk 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Justin's proved the sources are of Argentine origin, looks like you're just trying to POV push Jor. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, are you ok with that SOME MIII where withdrawn whlist other continue normal operations over the islands ?? If that the case then I misunderstand and Im really sorry ( The However from that paragraph should be removed or replaced with "AND" then ) --Jor70 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine "traffic" planes ??[edit]

I'm unsure what the meaning of "traffic" in the section Argentine traffic planes is. Can anyone please clarify?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

Not sure the fact that the Argentine Air Force had supersonic jets needs a cite, since the article contains an order of battle. I don't see a talk page entry explaining what the problem with "weasel words" is. I plan on removing them if an answer is not forthcoming. Justin talk 14:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence says "On paper, the 20 subsonic British Sea Harriers could easily have been wiped out by the more than hundred Argentine combat planes, including many supersonic jets." The reference needed is not for the numbers but for the estimation. On which paper was that estimation of Argentine superiority established? Was there any paper at all, or is it just writer's own analysis?
As for the rest, I shouldn't need to "explain" the problem, as the sentences can be clearly seen that they need to be reformulated, because of being vague, clichés, or subtle formulations of writer's analysis (unless atributed and referenced to someone else). For example "but as always, air power alone cannot win a war" is a cliché (even if air power was not enough in this case, that's not because a given generic quote says so); "...it would be reasonable to think..." is analysis (something can be reasonable or not from the point of view of someone). For more information, see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. MBelgrano (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats pretty much the assessment pre-war, most pundits expected the Fleet Air Arm to be wiped out; including the British (ie it could be sourced).
As to the rest, air power alone cannot win a war is a common military maxim (ie it could be sourced), the others then WP:SOFIXIT. Justin talk 21:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

brigadier jorge HUGHES, airforce radar etc.[edit]

I am curious to know if there is a WELSH connection, perhaps via the long established colony in Patagonia, given his surname. If so, it curiously illustrates a sad and continuing state of unnecessary belligerence between Briton and Saxon in a geographical location which neither of the original tribal entities could have known to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.77.191 (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will find plenty (if not all) of european surnames among Argentines, not only italians or spaniards. --Jor70 (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag[edit]

This article presents a biased version of the issue:

In spite of these disadvantages, Argentine air units bore the brunt of the battle during the six-week war, and inflicted serious damage and losses to the naval forces of the United Kingdom. Low-flying jets attacking British ships would provide the world with some of the most sobering and dramatic images of the war. By the end of the conflict, the British forces had come to admire the FAA's spirited conduct in the face of an effective air defence network[13] during the hostilities, but as always, air power alone cannot win a war. Admiral Sandy Woodward, the British Task Force commander said: "[t]he Argentine Air Force fought extremely well and we felt a great admiration for what they did."[14]

My attempt to describe the flaws of the FAA has been deleted with following edit summary:

are we going to list every good thing and bad thing every writer consider tha FAA did ?

Why is in the article the opinion of an British officer but not the words of an Argentine historian? --Keysanger 10:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is a premise that say: If you want to know how you fought, then ask your enemy. How many (brit) books about the war did you read ? The above sentence summarize all that. and I deleted your post because: 1) it is FALSE, if you read correctly the book that are no opinions of the Cmdr Moro but stories he read on the non-specialist AR media that he refutes and 2 ) all items are very easy debatable , e.g. ground support was provided as possible: airworthy pucaras and night bombing canberras fought until the end in fact the last pilot (a camberra crew died on the last day!) . The extension of the runway was not a fully fault of FAA only, the navy failed in crossing the aluminum plates to the islands and the political use of FAA achievements to gain most power inside the militar junta is totally irrelevant on this article. --Jor70 (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text doesn't meet NPOV. In relying on a single source to provide a bald list, it falls foul of WP:DUE in that it fails to provide due coverage of all of the issues. This is particularly true if the source refutes those criticism, in which case, this is a case of WP:UNDUE, ie it provides undue coverage of the material. The text criticised regarding British comments is not relevant, that is case of providing due coverage reflecting the material available in reference sources. My 2c. Justin talk 11:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the place where Moro refutes those criticism?. I read:
This is not the proper medium in which to rebut such statements or to justify what the service did, or left undone, during the hostilities for reclaiming the Malvinas Islands. Neither does the author wish to be a party or a judge by stating his own opinion. Let the reader, and history, be the judges.
For my understanding a rebut doesn't look like that. IMHO, that means that he doesn't express his opinion about the issue.
More over, at the beginning of the chapter he says:
In order to achieve a better grasp on the realities of Argentina, the reader should be aware of the fact that, after all was said and done, the air force's performance during the conflict come in for some criticism
I ask you: If he tells that to the readers, why shouldn't we show it? Why do you want to be more Catholic than the Pope?
I can't understand why do you want to push in any way and at any cost that the Argentine Air Services were a fantastic acrobatic team without any fail? It is not realistic.
I admit that at the moment there is only one source, but what for a source!, no one of you can deny that Moro is probably one the best connoisseur of the theme. I think that he doesn't support all the criticism, but he feel confident enough to talk free about critic.
Little by little the discussion begins to be boring, you repeat that Moro denied it but you are not able to show the place of the rebuke, you say that Moro didn't criticize the air force, what I never asserted, you suggest that my copy of the text is a fake but don't say where or what is faked or what is the true text. You decline to answer questions about the neutrality of an article that praise his object but doesn't criticize it. Jor70's answers any thing but not my questions and because lacking arguments he tries to begin a personal skirmish ("do you hate Argentina?"). He repeats the history that the Argentines did it well, what I never denied. And so on and so on and so on.
I don't see any progress in your arguments. I was interested to improve the quality of the article, but I can't do it without your commitment. So, if you think the article is good and that the Argentine air service is the first human opus in the history of the mankind that is perfect and without any failure, so , I can't help. Best regards, --Keysanger 20:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither does the author wish to be a party or a judge by stating his own opinion. Moro dont want to be part of that criticisms so you cant say "Moro criticized ..." and second and most important he indirectly refutes all that with the shipwreck story and the bottom of the page that you had already transcript.
  • obviously not perfect, they lost the war after all. What I mean repeatedly is that I will not support your idea of use Moro's as source of those critics but if we find any other realiable sources and is correctly balanced will be ok. In fact the line I found yesterday The Argentine military will not be remembered for a great or classic military plan, or a united effort. They will, however, from the air war they waged be remembered for their individual courage, their national will and their commitment to fight. is a good summary for me
--Jor70 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again: I never said "Moro criticized ...", my contribution began with "Moro points to eleven alleged shortcomings ...". Moro directly says that he doesn't express his opinion about the criticism, I repeat: he refrain from judging directly, please read the sentence. What he did is "to point to". The history of the swimmer is a criticism to the Argentine navy and army that did lesser than the air force. He criticize them but he never said that the air force didn't make errors. Your proposal doesn't mention the alleged flaws. If you want more sources, take a look to the Rattenbach report. --Keysanger 12:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 pillars of WP and no slogans[edit]

Hi Jor70,

Sorry, I can not find your premise If you want to know how you fought, then ask your enemy under the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. You can not choose the most appropriate slogan for your POV and then raise it to a law for other Wikipedians. Definitively WP doesn't work that way. Also your reverts and deletes are, to put it mildly, very unkindly. The POV-Tag says explicit "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.". So, please wait until the dispute is resolved. I would please you very kindly to read often the rules of WP.

Even though you want to hide it, it is obvious (for me) that the intention behind the generous words of Sandy Woodward is to strengthen the loser in order to exalt the victor. That is one of the reason why WP warns us of using WP:PRIMARY sources. Take for example the Commentarii de Bello Gallico of Julius Cesar. This book is also a masterwork of political propaganda, as Caesar was keenly interested in manipulating his readers in Rome to support him. Of course Woodward isn't Cesar but he can't be the only reference about the FAA during the war. I think R.O.Moro is a good amendment for Woodward particularly because you recommended it under "References".

Whether the opinions gathered by Moro are worth to be considered, that should be resolved by the readers and not by you. In any case Ruben O. Moro published it, even though, as you noticed and I transmited to the reader through the word "alleged", he self doesn't support them fully. He knows more of the war than we know.

The rest of your rationale ("2 ) all items are very easy debatable, e.g. ground support...") is WP:OR and it is non usable in this article. Use your personal blog therefor.

I propose you to include in some way the points of R.O. Moro. We can made references to other books also, like "Military Lessons of the Falkland Islands War: Views from the United States" Edited by Bruce W. Watso and Peter M. Dumm, for example. But the reader must be informed about other views about the performance of the FAA.

If you absolutely refuse to write any sentence that could be interpreted as a failure of the FAA, then we will have to get a third opinion about.

Best Regards, --Keysanger 17:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen - please calm things down[edit]

Temperatures appear to be running high, if you would like to ask me for a 3rd opinion on what you're proposing I'd be happy to do so. But if I may interject that although the issues surrounding the Falklands are a hot potato elsewhere, the relationship here on wikipedia is by the by collegiate. Please let us continue to edit in the same spirit. Regards, Justin talk 18:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c:

This edit by Keysanger has some merit but I will qualify that. I personally would have reverted it as well. There are problems with the grammar and spelling and relying on a sole source, there is problems with some of the criticisms.

Let me explain by example. On the runway, the failure to extend has been rightly criticised. The efforts to do so were half-hearted. However, the only way to get much of the heavy equipment there was by sea and once the TEZ was established that wasn't going to happen. The FAA had some capability to do this by airlift, however, this was stymied by the decision of the Junta to pack the islands with conscripts. The FAA did not have the capacity to airlift both. Equally there was an attempt to extend the runway with matting and by adding arrestor gear alebit simple. If we are to include a criticism section then it needs to be balanced. What you've inserted based on a single source is not appropriate.

Comments? Justin talk 20:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equally this edit by Jor70 is also appropriate. A wiki link to relevant material is also worth inclusion. Justin talk 20:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3] If you feel adding a POV tag helps then by all means add it back. However, on this occasion I don't feel it is helpful. Justin talk 20:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out before, all this discussion started from a malinterpretation: the list that Keysanger wrote as Moro thoughts, they arent!!, It is a compiled list by Moro of "internal" (literally from the book) claims made against the FAA, but in fact Moro refutes all that at the end of the same page of the book saying "this is like the story of a man who after saving himself from a shipwreck and once at the shore yells to the others to go out of the water, but no helping anyone" it is very easy to understand who Moro was referring at: the other armed forces.
I would like to add that I do not consider Keysanger edits to be in bad faith at all, but this is the third article that he changed things that are obviously understood and referenced by mutilple sources without first discussing and bringing kaos on articles that were stable for months, e.g. Woodward wasnt the only British officer that highlighted the FAA role, but we do not consider necessary to add anyone else. If you are really interested in learn about this topic I humbly suggest you to read at least 2 o 3 books from both sides first and then discuss within the talks pages --Jor70 (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, perhaps I didn't express myself properly, so allow me to try again. I picked an example above to illustrate the point but perhaps I haven't elaborated enough. If there is criticism of the FAA's role in the war, then we should cover it. If we do cover it, it needs to be neutrally written and present both sides of the story.
The example I chose was the decision not to extend the runway. That decision stemmed from a series of decisions made by the Junta and other services and so criticism of the FAA in that respect is a little misplaced and more than a little unfair. In this case presentation of a list is unjustified and would fail NPOV. I hope that makes that clear.
This article being somewhat focused does allow us to do that sort of analysis that other more general articles don't. So hence, I feel it is a topic that could be covered but we need to focus on presenting a balanced analysis.
On the subject of British commentary on the FAA, I agree, that can be sourced from multiple reliable sources. Praise from one's enemy should rightly be covered and I have seen similar comments from a plethora British sources. That absolutely should be in the article.
I hope this is being helpful guys and I do appreciate that both of you have stepped back from edit warring. Un abrazo. Justin talk 08:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources[edit]

I reproduced in this talk page the _complete_ text of Moro's relevant passage. I think, it is allowed because that is a forum protected by the Freedom of speech. It is a whole chapter. Ruben O. Moro, page 331:

[Begin of the chapter]The air force's performance: sour grapes and testimonials
In order to achieve a better grasp on the realities of Argentina, the reader should be aware of the fact that, after all was said and done, the air force's performance during the conflict come in for some criticism, some examples of which will follow:
* The shuttle was not effective in meeting the logistical needs of the Malvinas garrison.
* The Pucaras sortied on only two occasions.
* The San Carlos beachhead was consolidated due the ineffectiveness of the air force.
* The air force did not achieve the air superiority.
* The air force carried out its own private war with the "little frigates".
* The air force acted very independently during the conflict.
* The air force issued faked and overblown combat reports.
* The air force conducted itself in this fashion in order to garner a larger share of political power, and to create heroes not justified by the facts.
* The air force should have lengthened the runway at Puerto Argentino.
* The air force did not provided ground support.
* The air force failed to operate during the last days of the conflict.
This is not the proper medium in which to rebut such statements or to justify what the service did, or left undone, during the hostilities for reclaiming the Malvinas Islands. Neither does the author wish to be a party or a judge by stating his own opinion. Let the reader, and history, be the judges. Nonetheless, some clarification is due, if only to honor the memory of those who fell in battle, for those who bravely gave their lives did so out of a simple but high ideal, and out of their sense of duty: they gave their live in defense of their of their country.
Such criticism bring in mind the history of the skillful swimmer who reaches safety following a shipwreck and calls out encouragement to the others to follow him, but does not attempt to go to their assistance. The men of the air force swam, as it were, the best they would to keep the dignity both of the nation and of a continent afloat.
[End of the Chapter]

I think that doesn't need to be explained, the text is very clear like water flowing from the Andes Glaciers. But, people that has read so many books sometimes lost the sight for the simple things. We go step by step. In the brief chapter (you can call it as you like sub-chapter, passage, paragraph, text, choose your self) are basically four statements:

  • number 1) the air force's performance during the conflict come in for some criticism
  • number 2) eleven examples
  • number 3) the author does not wish to be a party or a judge by stating his own opinion. he let the reader, and history, be the judges
  • number 4) the air force did his best

My edit was :

The Argentine historian Rubén O. Moro points to eleven alleged shortcomings of the force, amongst others:
etc, etc, etc

The relation between Moro and the following examples is given by Moro points to eleven alleged shortcomings of the force. Unfortunately, the English language is not my stronghold, but in Spanish the sentence is: Moro hace constar once presuntas deficiencias de la fuerza aerea. That Moro does not support or judge the statement is given through the word "alleged". According to the dictionary alleged means "declared but not proved; doubtful or suspect;". Also, again, Moro says it and I think it is the best phrasing we can use.

I want to bring out that the author self considers it worth to be said and that the reader self and the history has to decide about the claims. I think his opinion is given by the title of the chapter "sour grapes and testimonial". He is a very smart author, we all should learn from him.

Regarding the POV-Tag, the reader have to be warned that there are educated guess of a biased article. The rules stipulate it and the delete of the tag is a obstruction of course of the discussion. That are the rules of the English WP. You self know that somewhere else the rules aren't observed and you can see, with a little Spanish knowledge, the quality of the articles that such chaos produces. So let us find some bearable agreement. --Keysanger 12:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) I dont know which publication of the book you have but you are missing the word "INTERNAL" as the sources of those claims, and Moro itself clarify that all these claims are not from him, so unless you find the proper soruces of all these claims you cannot use them as Moro's. If you have a whole perspective of the topic you will find that all these came from the other 2 armed forces during the Rachenbach analysis. And in the event you find a valid source, are we going to add every congratulation from British sources too ? I can list dozens of them.
  • 2) I dont think is common usage in wikipedia article's battles to post what every unit or side cannot did. For example , are we going to edit the British Air forces article too with things such why the Harriers nor Vulcan coudlnt destroy a runway in 45 days, Their nimrods and helicopters coundnt find the ARA San Luis for 15 days, the british did not have enough helicopters to avoid the yump, etc, etc, etc. I dont think this is the sense of these articles .
  • 3) regarding your four points: 1-Not sources mentioned, 2-not sourced and extremely easily refutable, 3-Exactly, so please stop mention Moro because these claims arent from him, 4- agree but irrelevant

--Jor70 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC) --Jor70 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keysanger, first of all, I would say that using a single source for that is not sustainable by our policies. If we're going to include the information, we need to balance it to reflect the weight of evidence in the literature.
For example:
"The shuttle was not effective in meeting the logistical needs of the Malvinas garrison."
FAA did not have adequate assets to sustain the airlift and was reduced to pressing civilian airliners from LADE into service. The runway was also inadequate for larger aircraft like the 707. In addition, they were innovative in, for example stripping out the 737 to land in the airfield, where in theory the runway was inadquate to operate. So is it a fair criticism in isolation? No it isn't, so we have to balance the criticism with the reality.
I hope this is making sense guys. Justin talk 14:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is :

THE HISTORY OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC CONFLICT, The War for the Malvinas", Ruben O. Moro, Praeger Publishers, One Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010, 1989, Translation of La guerra inaudita, ISBN 0-275-93081-5 (Translator: Michael Valeur)

The word INTERNAL, an Argentine word for problems that are known but should no be known (I repeat: problems that are known but should no be known) doesn't appear in the text. As I said I reproduced the whole chapter.

I repeat, Moro writes:

  • the air force's performance during the conflict come in for some criticism I repeat for 3. time Moro writes that in page 331 of the book.

If that came from the other forces, well then we write it also there, please give us the source or the paragraph of the Rattenbach report. No problem. I don't see any problem with that, if the Rattenbach report said it, if Moro said it, if the army said it, if the navy said it or if Chinese said it. That is no problem. Someone said it, there is a book that contain such critics and that is the main key for wikipedia. Not truth but verificability. Any one can buy the book and read in page 331. We can only discuss about importance and minority/majority issues but we can not discuss if it is true of false. That would be original research.

Congratulations from the RAF?, well, we write it there, no problem. (didn't you write it already? What did Woodward say?)

How deep does an article go? It is different, some articles are only an stub other are very extensive on the matters. But if you praise the object of the article you have to accept critics to the object also.

What the RAF did or didn't? well write it, not here but in the article British air services in the Falklands War. No Problem.

If you insist in discussions about true or false, or who said that, then we are wasting our time. Unless you think that I am lying. In this case we can start first a process to find a third person that confirm or denied my copy of the book.

Justin, I can't accept your proposal for being a third opinion because I know that the Truth could destroy your amity to Jor70. nor want I to make an excursus to original research.

In order to get an agreement please respond following questions:

1) Do you accept that my copy of the chapter of an in the USA edited book is truthful?

2) Do you agree that the article presents a biased view of the performance of the air force because the reader is confronted only with positive statements?

3) Do you agree that there are existent critics that is not considered in the article?

Please don't tell me whether the performance was good/bad or your reasons why you find that ... . Our opinions about the war must be, as far as possible, deleted from the article.

I put the POV-Tag again as the WP rules assign for such cases. Please stop editwaring. Best Regards --Keysanger 17:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keysenger, cant you read english ?? well, ESAS NO SON OPINIONES DEL COMODORO MORO, DECIR ALGUNAS CRITICAS SIN NOMBRAR QUIEN NO ES ACEPTABLE, BUSCA ESAS FUENTES, ESCRIBILAS AQUI, Y LUEGO HABLAMOS. --Jor70 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cool
  • write English
  • do not scream
  • Please answer the questions

--Keysanger 18:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keysanger, fine if you don't wish to have me offering a 3rd opinion I cannot force you to do so. I hope my comments were helpful but I fear you have not taken the message onboard. Jor70 please don't react like that, if I may offer a word of advice it is better to focus on content and do not allow emotion to dictate your response. Do not respond in anger. If you wish to ask for further advice I am available by email. I regret I will probably not be around much for family reasons for a little while but I am contactable for advice and suggestions as to suitable sources. Un abrazo. Justin talk 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jor70, you contradict yourself. You wrote in my Talk page "que servicio armado no recibio criticas en toda guerra ?" (which armed force did not get critic during the war?). If they got critics/praise, then write the critics/praise! That is all!. Take for example the article Aerial_warfare#World_War_II:
Strategic bombing by non-atomic means did not win the war for the Allies, nor did it succeed in breaking the will to resist of the German (and Japanese) people.[92][93]
or
However their effectiveness as shock troops employed to surprise enemy static troops proved to be of limited success. Most airborne troops served as light infantry by the end of the war despite attempts at massed use in the Western Theatre by US and Britain during the Operation Market Garden.
Simple. Direct. By no means this statement reduces the achievement of the RAF or the USAF or of his airborne troops. It is not said against the United States of America or the United Kingdom. It is simply what the most people that studied the WW2 say.
Your suggestion in my talk page that I am against Argentina because I want to critize the air force is very embarrassing. If I critize the article Aristoteles, am I against Greece? Do you think Argentina=FAA? What is Argentina? Galtieri? Borges? Both?. Who are you to decide that? Why do you defend Argentina here? That is a encyclopedia and not a Football field. --Keysanger 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think these two examples you provided now , are in the same category of what you intend to do here before ? [4]. I will like to see you doing that in those articles. Unless you provide a reliable source about NPOV I will remove your tag --Jor70 (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. The source is given and of the best: Moro was pilot during the war, was part of the Rattenbach comission and his book has been edited in Argentina and the USA. Now, please, answer my questions:
1) Do you accept that my copy of the chapter of an in the USA edited book is truthful?
2) Do you agree that the article presents a biased view of the performance of the air force because the reader is confronted only with positive statements?
3) Do you agree that there are existent critics that is not considered in the article?.
Best Regards, --Keysanger 21:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


1) No, that are not Moro's opinions, the sources are not mentioned. I will remove the tag tomorrow if by then you dont identify a reliable source

2) No, a) FAA do not had a plan, b) FAA had never considered the possibility of waging a long-range naval air campaign against a major NATO power. c) FAA was not trained or equipped for such a mission. , etc

3) You still have to show realiable critics, you still didnt. In fact Im going to add this from the US Marines Corps: [5] The Argentines lost the war but also distinguished themselves, particularly the pilots of the Navy and Air Force. The Argentine military will not be remembered for a great or classic military plan, or a united effort. They will, however, from the air war they waged be remembered for their individual courage, their national will and their commitment to fight. ... Yet their pilots pressed on with an unrelenting determination. As the air war progressed, Argentine pilots faced less than a 50 percent chance of returning from a mission.1 They could not continue to pursue the destruction of the British fleet and incur air losses at this rate. They still were concerned with an unfriendly neighbor, Chile and had to retain air power to respond to the perceived Chilean threat

We can find lot of that from NATO countries too, if you are still pushing with ridiculous assumptions will need to add all this too.

--Jor70 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion solicited[edit]

Hi Jor70,

I solicited a third opinion, meanwhile, take a break. Your answers are out of place, please re-read the 3 questions and try it again. Best regards, --Keysanger 23:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already had a third opinion (A British one), you are requesting a fouth now --Jor70 (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Keysanger 10:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:
Hi, unfortunately in this case offering a third opinion is not appropriate. You have already had another editor offer an opinion and if this did not resolve your dispute, I encourage you to use WP:RFC or WP:RFAR instead. Many thanks.—ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate ( talk ) 11:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

air power alone cannot win a war?[edit]

The statement "but as always, air power alone cannot win a war" seems to be editorializing. While air power often does not win wars, had the Argentine Air Force managed to sink the British carriers, that would have probably been the end of War for the British. Also, there are a few odd examples, Pink's War springs to mind, where air power did win a war. Greenshed (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had removed that line some months ago. It is indeed incorrect, the key to military victory is strategy. Any combination of forces can defeat any other, if their leader knows how to exploit their own strengths and the enemy's weak points.
By the way, the first paragraph of the "background" section is making editorial opinions as well, see the "it would be reasonable to think..." MBelgrano (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G.222 Ejercito Argentino[edit]

Fueron usados en el puente aereo, foto del 29 de abril de 1982 = http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7256/chanchitas005.jpg ( 3 C-130 + 1 G.222 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.12.61.154 (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Argentine Hercules.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Argentine Hercules.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) 15:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:A-4C Tte casco.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:A-4C Tte casco.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) 15:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:A4Q ARA 1982.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:A4Q ARA 1982.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:A4Q ARA 1982.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move - to partially change name[edit]

Dear wikipedians, I propose to rename this article Argentine air services in the Falklands War, which would be more accurate (as Argentina formally has one "air force", the others are services/commands of the other armed forces or paramilitary forces), and consistent with the name used in the equivalent article on about the British air units in this war(see "Talk Page" of that article). Unless there is a sound reason not to, I'd do the move at some point next week. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your proposal. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. WCMemail 18:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Air campaign[edit]

I’ve edited the air campaign section; the ships sunk/damaged lines seemed out of place with the others (which deal with the various systems) so I’ve moved them to their own section (“Successes”).<br?> This may be uncontroversial, but I’m mindful this is a sensitive subject, so I’m offering this as an explanation. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS:I’ve also re-jigged the Air Campaign part into subsections, to (hopefully) improve the layout. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Argentine air forces in the Falklands War. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Argentine air forces in the Falklands War. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on HMS Invincible up for deletion[edit]

Revisiting the Falklands/Malvinas war. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argentine_air_forces_in_the_Falklands_War&oldid=1205318260"