User talk:Wee Curry Monster/Archive 2

Nukes and grandparents
Climate control is what he did Justin, he was a refridgeration engineer. The firm he worked for was contracted by the military to service the climate control, as I understand it. But yes, not entirely sure when a psychoanalyst became a reliable source for entries....we generally rely on papers to use good sources but if we can prove the sources are crap, then I don't think we should be required to take it. Narson 14:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

MedCab
I see that MedCab case was really worthwhile ;) Narson (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that some of Alex's sources were acctually just peoples personal essays/opinions rather than those belonging to the site on which they are hosted. He should have taken me up on my compromise idea I think. Though, is he even still active? Narson (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

AWB fix
Thanks From one Justin to another, thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sovereignty Edits
Recent edits today by an anon seem to be a little odd (replacing United States with US, using US spelling of some words, altering date formats, removing sources) can you check them and see if any of it is worth saving or whether mass revert is best? I find it hard to choose. Narson (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Falkland Islands
Bah, I've grown a thick wiki-skin these days. If they want to get personal and snarl at me for reverting jingoism of both sides, **** em. As much as I hate the pro-argentine position, some of the pro-British guys are enough to make me want to be French. Narson (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see Vintagekits is back with his 'Malvinas War' thingy. Yay. Because that circular argument is always fun. Did get a kick out of looking at his user boxes though. Narson (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a medcab? Narson (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh. Well, he seems pretty opposed to the UK as-is and favours a roll back pre act of union. However, this is not within the remit of 'The Troubles' so ArbCom doesn't apply. Even then, just one edit. It is odd for me to find these people who so oppose the Union. My maternal grandfather came over as a young child with his father, Irish republican catholics fleeing the troubles in the 20s to find a better life in England. The eldest of 13, my grandad went on to lie about his age so he could serve in the RAF Pathfinders. Yet.....I never heard him once speak out in support of the monarchy, at the same time he never spoke infavour of breaking up the union or, that I can recall, of handing over the northern counties (where he was born). Really, if the people who lived through the Easter Uprising and the worst of the British actions in Northern Ireland (And boy did everyone do some pretty awful stuff there) and their children didn't campaign for it, it seems odd that this latest generation produces so many people so eager to tell the scots they should break away from the union and damage their own country in the interests of pride. As the Americans would say, we are an imperfect union, but a union none the less. Todays rant was brought to you by the letters S-L-E-E-P D-E-P-R-I-V-A-T-I-O-N. Narson (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pilot Roster
Hi mate, I've been chatting to some guy recently who reckons his uncle was a Harrier pilot during the Falklands War. I reckon he's a WALT though, he says his uncle's last name was Howgill. Now I've read "Hostile Skies" by Dave Morgan from 800 Squadron, no "Howgill" is in the index. So if he was there, he wasn't on Hermes, is there a list of Harrier pilots on the internet? Or just ones from Invincible? He says he was RAF, but didn't know if was a GR3 or SHAR pilot. Think you can help me out with a link please mate? Ryan4314 (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see, I mean there can't of been that many pilots, I've read the RAF had little to no experience in the SHAR. How many pilots do reckon? 26 planes, I dunno say 30-40 pilots???
 * P.S. Can u show me how to search the London Gazette please, I was trying to figure out how the other day, for an unrelated matter.
 * P.P.S. Isn't there a list of every1 who a got a South Atlantic Medal? Ryan4314 (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 60! Jesus that really is ridiculous. Got a bit depressed this morning, was reading a (dubious) website, made by some British guy who claimed to be a civilian technician on Illustrious when it was hit by an Exocet (and yes he did say Illustrious!). He said the warhead didn't go off, but some guys died and they covered the dent with "tarp" when they pulled into port. He then says MI6 told him to keep it a secret. Don't worry, I know this is obviously bullshit, he reckons he was a computer programmer and the ship suddenly set sail with him on (ignoring the weeks of preparation they took), then he says he was there when the missle hit and was trapped by bent metal (he'd of been flown off, like the other civvy technicians on Hermes, well before he got into the warzone, heck they even got the Chinese laundrymen off). Just worries me, when British people would want to advocate that propaganda. Do you think there's any truth in it? I hope I live till 2082, when they unclassify everything.


 * By the way found a link to the above mentioned website for you (look under "Sunday" at the bottem), dunno what the website is about think the guy is a CSI or something. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert on the Falkland War
It would have been more fun if you have retorted on the 'English Article for English Readers' with 'Local Shop for Local People' ;) Why are people so detirmined to bring the wrath of the nationalists down on the article? Then we end up having to fight for every darn bit of prose in the thing. Narson (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Half the edits to those articles comes from banned users these days I think. They seem to be fairly stable for the most part.....god knows what will happen if the government ever releases the documents for the war early. I fear what could be in those documents. I figure war is like laws and sausages. You don't want to see how they are made. Narson (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice you have put in a couple of edits since the anon did the wholesale changes.....they introduced a metric tonne of errors and confusion (Replaced Argentine Air Force with FAA, which is an acronym used by both sides)....I'm tempted to revert to the last 'good' version, wanted to check your opinion first. Narson (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon edits
Hmmm he must be a great source of info then, but do you see my point about "does it need to be in the Falklands War article?". The article is meant to educate people about the general conflict, his info is a bit specific. Perhaps it should be reserved for the Cardiff article and possible the friendly fire article too, what do u think? Ryan4314 (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, we'll have to tread careful, I have huge respect for Falklands veterans. Maybe we should let a little consensus build...Ryan4314 (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea a bit POV n all, but that's to be expected. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Bloody hell have you seen the Cardiff article!? 12 pics! Ryan4314 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think he's been on wiki long either. His edits are informative, however they tarnish the article at the moment. OK lets wait until we build a mini consensus re; the blue on blue mention on the main article, hopefully Narson or Necessary Evil will notice and come to the rescue (makes sure we don't tell em tho, don't wanna get done for canvassing). Once that's off we'll start on Cardiff, I think requesting peer reviews with it's respective projects will be a good gentle start and build an even bigger consensus. I've already suggested about moving the pics to commons or a gallery, but I guess he's not gonna respond (he hasn't written on any talk page anywhere), what do you think? Ryan4314 (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, he's obviously running out of stuff to put on Cardiff's article hence why he's started on the main. Ok we'll protect the main, but leave the Cardiff one till he gets bored yea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I was pondering it. Partly because I disagree on a couple of big issues with some of the existing co-ordinators (Well, big as far as Wikipedia goes, IMO) who are standing for re-election. That and I quite enjoy the bureaucratic side of things and getting stuff done and decided, I just doubt my editing record is good enough to stand some scrutiny. I have hardly uncontroversial half the time. I am against the use of diacritics where there is a perfectly acceptable English alternative, which, well, doesn't sit with alot of people :) Mind you, I notice there is annother person with the similar view as mine who is already co-ordinator, so at the very least I'll be supporting him. Hrm. Something to think about tommorow. I mean, tossing my name in the ring at least might generate some discussion, which is never bad for the project. Of cours,e I could just be totally wrong and I'll be ignored and receive like two votes. Either or :) Narson (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I tossed my hat into the ring. Let us see what occurs. Oh, did you see the revert of events leading to the falkland wars, by the way? I don't understand the debate at first glass so I didn't auto-revert...Narson (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I have an obsession with checking diffs :) I could see where the anon chap was coming from, in that the current wording is not 100 percent kosher, but, his edit went too far the other way perhaps. The problem is that while 'Brutal' etc should be avoided on a page about the junta itself, I think there it is required because an entry should stand relativly well on its own, and the fact the regime was brutal was a big part. Narson (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but I did get some anon editor ranting about how I'm an evil anti-semite all across wikipedia at one point. :) That was especially funny. Narson (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are probably better off not dealing with it, there are some people who get nutty about the stupidest stuff. Look at the 'Hamilton Family' incident at the Barcelona circuit. Far better off debating it on wikipedia, in my view. At least then it is there incase someone else tries to bring up the same points. Our Falkland articles are not bad, IMO. They were awfully pro-British at one point. Now I think they are far better and far more informative and such. We have elimated some of the clap trap too (That 1833 'invasion' myth really was a fun one, kept on pulling at the string and the entire jumper unravelled) Narson (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're probably right about ignoring him, it was just amusing when he was ranting on about the English not learning Spanish. I replied in Spanish saying I was Scottish and how Britain was not just England.  Don't worry he is now on my block list.  Justin talk 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Best to ignore them. They will never think you are right, you will never think they are, if they refuse to engage in talk on the talk pages, what more can be done? Eventually they will tire or adapt. Shouldn't you be in bed mate? It is getting stupidly late. Even up there in scotland :) And yeah, people forget that. I must say, I'm as scottish as I am English and consider myself British long before I consider myself English, really. Narson (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)

*does the single and free dance* Though, sleeping is a pain ATM. The house is being rennovated due to subsidense damage. We are in week 7 of having builders and decorators trapsing around producing dust. Makes for alot of coughing. Narson (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Anyway old chap, I think I'm going to prep for bed and get some kip. Hope the wife and kidling feel better and you get some sleep. Take care. Narson (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no comments or questions yet. This is either going very well or very badly! Though, it is nice to see there are some far more controversial candidates than me by a long way. Woo! A lighter shade of beige! :) Narson (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Have the family recovered from the stomach bug? Narson (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. I had you pegged as older than someone with 3 and 5 year old kids. Glad they are better. Oh, the thing on the falklands war page about the result is probably spill over from the War of 1812 article again. Narson (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, you can be cantankerous at any age. I do a good job of it at times and I'm only 23. Narson (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And woo, just heard back and got into a BA History course. Years of fun! Narson (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this how talk is used?
Hi guys. What an idiot I have been! I have been blundering my way around this thing with no or very little respect for you people. My only aim was to try and introduce more information that I have on the subject of HMS Cardiff in the Falklands war and thought you just posted away........wrong! Having read the comments made on talk pages I would be most grateful if someone would revert any work I have done and return the affected pages to a pre Griffiths911 state.

God I feel foolish, but my intentions were honourable and I am learning fast. Although I have only just worked out how to use 'talk' (albeit basics) I have 'felt' your 'guidance'. Please accept my apologies and keep up the good work.

Ken Griffiths - ex Able Seaman (Radar) HMS Cardiff 1982. (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Griffiths911

Thank you very much for your kind encouragement.........you deserve to be far less generous. I'll be honest with you and admit that it was a discussion I had recently with the son of Christopher Griffin - (Gazelle blue/blue) that made me so 'hasty' to see updates to the Cardiff page. His name is paul and is obviously very emotional about the whole affair. He thinks that there has been some cover up and he cannot understand why historians have not recorded details surrounding his father's fatal flight on June 6. I explained to him that I saw the missile impact (night vision goggles) and that I really did know what had happened. As you can imagine, the conversation has brought back painful memories and in my naivety I thought I would record this part of history myself...........for him.

The pictures are mostly mine - a couple from Mark Edwards, who has kindly sent them to me and has given his permission to display on Wikipedia. Can I add that Cardiff's war had four distinct experiences for the crew in 1982:

1. The Boeing 707 incident. 2. The blue/blue Gazelle. 3. Canberra B-108 4. HMS Tiger Bay - 'Islas Malvinas'

I will not do any more editing and have removed my material from the Falklands War page (forgetting to complete the 'edit summary'). I would, however, be really grateful if you would consider to improve/change what I have done to make it credible and feel free to ask me anything you need for your material.

I'll be more than happy to be involved in any project but would rather you did the editing!!

Griffiths911 (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Griffiths911

HMS Cardiff
Hi Justin, I've "authored" the Cardiff article on my sandbox here. I'm trying to do it all by the book and follow the relevant project's guidelines (I've only got as far as the infobox at the moment), but could you have a look at the actual content and tell me what violates public domain (just mark it in bold or something), as I'm not really familiar with that aspect of wikipedia, cheers pal Ryan4314 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers, but I'd put that the "?" there coz I wasn't sure if information about them was relevant to Cardiff specifically lol, in the end I decided it wasn't, more belonging on the parent Type 42 article. How do u think it's shaping up, I found some great sources (see talk page) and Ken's a gold mine of pics. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your logic, but after a conversation I've been having here, I realised that Cardiff (or any other Type 42 ship article) is technically an "offshoot" off the mother "Type 42 class" article (even if it's better in quality). As the CVA & Type 82 didn't directly affect Cardiff's life (other than being it's reason for existing) I thought it best to leave it out the article. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Brilliant (I hate Google books, I think it's a little glitchy myself), Thanks for the support mate, I hope it gets a good grade :s Ryan4314 (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL Justin, the rewrite is in the main space now, I've already put up a peer review. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL sorry mate, you can help me do the things they suggest on the peer review tho ;) Basically I gotta nix the "See Also" and "Decorations" sections, move the battle honours into the infobox and scrap the "ship of month" and "freedom of the city of Cardiff" bits. Also I gotta convert all the google books refs from citewebs to citebooks and rewrite the article so it "flows" (u can read more on that in the review). Ryan4314 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Date formats
Looking at this and similar edits, could you please refrain from changing articles on British subjects to American Dating format? The Manual of Style can give you guidance on this subject. --Pete (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28. -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Contact
Hi, is it ok if I E-mail you? I need some advice (no need to reapeat ur address, I've seen it before). Obviously feel free to delete this post after u reply. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
Thanks for the support in the co-ordinator elections. I managed to come in a couple spots shy of a co-ordinator place, but closer to the co-ordinator places than I was to last place so, quite happy overall. Narson (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still not so sure of that one. My edit count is still piddly, I only make ~200 edits a month, though, that should pick up now I have the house back and no longer have to stress over uni. Narson (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And thanks for the wading in on the Amritsar Massacre page. How did you stumble onto that? O.o Narson (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I've never heard it referred to as its current, but, c'est la vie. I acctually attended a lecture on something similar to this, on the difference between genocide/biopolitical extirpation and the negligent mass murder of the colonial powers (Where many died not because the government wanted them dead, but simply because the government didn't really care that much how the ends were achieved). Dr Matthew Feldman gave it, interesting chap. Narson (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe he even supports Ferrari! ;) DOn't worry too much about it, if he keeps it up, there are three editors watching the page. No need to try and discern his motives or play guessing games about them. Some editors just need enough rope and they do the job for you. Narson (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a fair cop, guv!
I only fixed some typos, honest. I was provoked into finding out what I was supposed to be involved with! Dabbler (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

HMS Sheffield
Many thanks for your message re. Sheffield. There does indeed seem to be consistency between the UK and Argentine narratives of the event. This said, there is quite a lot more that could be added about the circumstances of her loss, though much of this information is controversial so might not be appropriate here. --Vvmodel (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Verónico Cruz article
Nice edit. Best -- Luigibob (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Black Buck
LOL Justin, it's me Ryan, just on me GF's comp. The photo is one of Ken's, he's got some real good ones, so I thought I'd try and get em way out there, instead of just leaving them on Commons.

Was worried about the format (I hardly put the pic in the most relevant place) coz I didn't know if the Black Buck article was someones baby, so thought I'd offer consent for a revert. Although I think the pic's appeal (and by that I mean, what it has to offer that the other pics don't) is it's "grainy-ness" and that it was actually taken during hostilities, but that's not to detract from the other pics, they're both very relevant. 92.11.3.23 (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ARA Hercules
Hi, sorry for delaying my answer, but I have a very interesting exchange with a guy which acts like a troll, writes like a troll and uses derogative language like a troll; no doubt he's nothing more than a troll.

As for the Argentinian Type 42:

1)The page where you found the Hercules characteristics shows the current classification of the ship in the Armada Nacional; she's now a hybrid unit, not properly a destroyer. You can see the info for yourself in the last paragraph of the Wikipedia english article ARA Hercules.

2)The original configuration of the Santísima Trinidad and Hércules definitively did include four Exocet missiles; go to this ARA Santísima Trinidad page. There is a description of the original Type-42 in Argentina.

3)In any case, Harpoon missiles were never available to the Argentinian navy, as the Type-42's infobox formerly claimed. Best regards.DagosNavy 15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Black Buck‎
Hi, regarding your rv of my edition, which btw was not very gentile, could you please explain me why is "unnecessary" ? The sentence is cleary incomplete. Its seems that they simply turning off during the rest of the conflict. Jor70 (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I already understand your explanation but do we have any other issue ? due I do not see what this guy is refererring too --Jor70 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, well I'd only put it on the "To-do" list as a sort of "long-range" to do, I was more interested in finding the truth behind the other Black Bucks, barring Sharkey's porkies. Ryan 4314   (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Falklands War
Man, not content with being so anti-British, you now call our bombs retarded?! How dare you sir! -.o Narson (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye, I know. 1000 lb bombs have a hell of a concussion blast (not to mention the shrapnel). You drop retarded, pull up and burn away. I just felt like yanking your leg man :) Narson (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out Argentine naval forces in the Falklands War. Poorly written and seems vaguely biased at first (Called the military occupation symbolic). Might want to poke it. Narson (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry couldn't help noticing this thread, I actually meant to raise a similar question with you Justin. I've recently finished "Vulcan 607", having just read Sharkey Ward's book beforehand. Now obviously you gotta take what Sharkey says with pinch of salt, but do you know why the harriers used to drop "air-burst" fused 1000 pounders over Stanley runway instead of just having them as plain old normal bombs (which would have a degree of penetration compared to an air burst) like what the Vulcans did? Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OIC, so Sharkey's harriers were aiming for targets, not the runway like the Vulcans Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah I know, in fact in his book Sharkey says he reckoned the Harrier could've dropped 1000 pounders at 50,000 feet (same height as the Vulcans) in a diamond formation over Stanley. I guess critics of that idea would say it was impossible with the SHAR's supposedly inneficient blue fox radar, his rebuttal would probably be that they aren't using it properly lol.


 * I kinda felt for Sharkey with the internal struggles he had, but the thing is with inter-service rivalry, everyone is as bad as each other. Plus it's now kinda obvious he'd set out to bad mouth the Black Buck missions, then interpreted facts to corroborate his posistion. Although the core of his argument must have a point, as "607" didn't really offer a good rebuttal. Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see, like I said I couldn't tell if Sharkey was doing another one of his "truth stretching" bits. I'm not surprised though, it sounds like that sort of thing would be totally out of the SHAR's operational limits. I mean sure it can fly at 50,000 ft, but dropping bombs onto that teeny little runway is a whole different thing. Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I recall hearing that about the Blue Fox. I find that when there are 2 strictly opposing points of view regarding the Falklands, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle lol Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Justin I wonder if you could help me, do u know if there is a source that can tell us exactly what the Mirages did towards the end of the war? In particular I'm looking for Mirage activity on June 13 in regards to an attack on a Lynx. Also don't suppose you have anyway of finding info out about a Boeing 707, TC-92 of Grupo 1 De Transoporte Aereo Escuadron II Ryan 4314   (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aw yes I had wondered this too, this is Ken's version of events; Clayton got a mention in dispatches as he was 'bounced' one day by a Mirage fighter and although the Arg fired rockets and cannon at him he evaded and finally flew his Lynx head on to the fighter. The Arg bottled it and headed for home. Some say he was short of fuel and others say he saw the Sea Skua and didn't know what they were.  Clayton, by the way was going to fire a Sea Skua (blindly) as he thought his days were numbered.  His mention in despatches must be recorded somewhere. (It is by the way, I found in the Gazette)


 * Cardiff's ROP says it was a single Mirage as well, but all other sources I found say 3 Daggers. Now like you I assumed it must be the Daggers, after all the ROP does mistakenly count the Canberra they twatted on June 14 as a Mirage (the beauty of hindsight) and maybe one of a formation of 3 rolled in for the attack. But when I saw the date of the attack, I realised it would coincide with the Mirage's return. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur, as Ken also mentions the attack involving rockets. Did Mirages carry rockets? As a side note, what were the Mirages doing back over the islands anyway. It's just this numbers thing doesn't sit right with me, 3 or 1 is a big difference, where would Freedman of got his facts? Ryan 4314   (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If it helps Cardiff position was in San Carlos Water, being a AAW picket for Northern Falklands, what's the range of a Lynx? I definitely agree with you on the squadron of 4 though, maybe one turned back due to difficulties before the attack or something. Ryan 4314   (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Crap, well that's a minor detail anyway (although it does raise a few questions). I've not had much luck searching for argentine ops on June 13 :( Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Any idea how many 707s they had? Can't of just been one, a couple maybe. Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That would have to be TC-92 (the one Cardiff had a run in with) then, but I don't think that's the case. Read a source I've found here (search TC-92, it'll be quicker) Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Yeah I thought so, seems odd to have one 707 (spare parts etc), poor old TC-92 would've been well over worked tracking the fleet all that time. Do u have time to answer a quick E-Mail? Ryan 4314  (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's be awesome, Tiger Bay has her own category on commons, so u can put em there, nice one ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha ha yes! found an Argie source on the "Mirage attack" here it is and here's the original text for ease:

''Tres M-5 Dagger, indicativo "Gaucho", armados con bombas BRP. Misión: ladera Monte Longdon. Tripulación (1) Capitán Norberto Dimeglio, (2) Primer Teniente César Román, (3) Teniente Gustavo Aguirre (este último no decoló por falla de frenos). 1 y 2 despegaron de Río Gallegos a las 11:00. En ruta, la lluvia los obligó a desviarse''

''Próximos a las islas, vieron un helicóptero en vuelo rasante. La sección eyectó cargas externas y lo atacó. El piloto de helicóptero ejecutó hábiles maniobras evasivas y eludió los dos pasajes de cañones de los Dagger. (Se trataba del Sea Lynx XZ 233- piloto Lt. C.H. Clayton, de la fragata Cardiff que operaba en el Estrecho de San Carlos). Regresaron a GAL, donde arribaron a las13:00 horas.''

Se previeron seis salidas de M-5 Dagger de Río Grande con escolta de Mirage M-III de Río Gallegos.


 * LOL don't ask how I worked all this out, but suffice to say it's far better to translate text with Babelfish in bits than as a whole. Seems they were armed with bombs to go over Mount Longdon or something. Appears there was only 3 originally and that they took off from Río Gallegos at 11:00 and rain forced them to turn around or something.


 * After spotting the Lynx they dumped their bombs (something I thought they only did when they spotted a Harrier, can hardly see a Lynx being an air threat lol), and then rolled in. The Lynx dodged the attacks blah blah then they fucked off back to GAL (wherever that is???), getting there about 13:00. Interestingly the text does confirm Cardiff's location as San Carlos Water. Ryan 4314   (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The rain bit puzzled me too, have you had a look at the source page? Maybe I read the wrong part. LOL we said there was probably a number 4 who had a failure didn't we! GAL probably stands for Río Gallegos. I've been trying to work out everyone's position, Navy News says lynx was "south of the Falkland Sound" and ROP says Cardiff was in San Carlos Water. Do you think this attack happened over water? Ryan 4314   (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Another question, do you know the rough number (to the nearest thousand) of British troops involved in the Falklands War? I always thought it was 7,000 and that there were 21,000 Argies. I know there was 3x as many Argies coz people always joked about the old adage of "an invading force must 3x that of a defending force", and how it was completely opposite for us lol. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Found another bit of text now, don't suppose you wanna have a go at translating it too, then we can compare out findings. I got it from here;


 * La primera misión fue poco después de las 11 de la mañana, con tres M-V Dagger que debían bombardear la falda del monte Longdon. Uno de ellos tuvo que regresar inmediatamente por habérsele trabado el tren de aterrizaje. Los otros dos, ya sobre las islas, se toparon con un helicóptero que hacia de piquete radar y tres aviones Harrier, por lo que, anulada la sorpresa, retornaron a su base. La segunda tenía en principio idéntica configuración que la anterior (curiosamente, eran los tres integrantes de la escuadrilla "Torno" que el 1 de mayo protagonizara el primer ataque a la fiota inglesa). Uno de ellos no pudo despegar por problemas mecánicos y los otros dos, capitán Dimeglio y primer teniente Román, se encontraron con un helicóptero de patrulla, al que atacaron, pero una vez más tuvieron que abortar la misión.


 * Ryan 4314  (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's my translation:


 * The first mission was shortly after 11 in the morning, with three M-V Daggers that had to bomb the skirt of the Mount Longdon. One of them had to return immediately "something to do with an undercarriage". The other two, already over the islands, ran into a helicopter "that towards of" (foward of???) the radar picket and three Harriers, reason why (?), annulled the surprise (?), they returned to base. Second it had in principle identical configuration that the previous one (second mission of the day?) (peculiarly, they were the three members of the squadron "Torno" that on May 1 carried out the first attacks on the British (you know what "fiota" means?). One of them could not take off due to mechanical problems and the other two, Captain Dimeglio and First Lieutenant Román, they were with a patrol helicopter, that they attacked, but once again they had to abort the mission.


 * Maybe you'll have better luck Ryan 4314   (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) LOL "floater", they are a strange bunch, I bet they don't even find that funny ;) Can you do me a favour please, I've left my copy of "Hostile Skies" at my partners, would you checking Morgan's diary entry for the June 13 for me? What do you think of the "3 Harriers"? I thought they only went out in two's (unless they were on a raid), at the weekend I'm gonna ask Ken if he can remember seeing the Daggers on radar or something. What's going on with these Tiger bay pic mate?


 * Nah, I'm just trying to find a way verifying this Argentine claim of these mysterious 3 Harriers. I wonder if we could get Ken to ask around on the SAMA forum. Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've got 2 ideas, first one: Concoct a list off all the Harrier pilots from Morgan's, Ward's & Pook's books, then try an E-mail/write them, OR more simply we could get Ken to ask on the SAMA forum, if any Harrier pilots/crew can remember a run-in with some Daggers or just anything about the incident. Ryan 4314   (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried Sharkey's book, he only mentions his missions of the day. He had to go and intercept 2 Mirages escoring "a shadower" (a Boeing I presume), but that was at night time. Do you think they were GR3s on a CAS mission from Sheathbill or omething (ya'know coz there were 3 of them)? Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was talking about it with my dad and although we were only speculating, we thought maybe the Daggers, upon spotting the lone Lynx, assumed it was too good to be true and that there must be Harrier support nearby. So one of em rolls in for a half-hearted attack then all they fuck off, everybody gets to come home, both sides get a cool war story. Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL I think I'll give it a very factual small mention in the article ;) night mate, thanks for the help, if I hear any new developments from ken, i'll let u know. Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) cheers, also did you see I added the Dagger attack to the article Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I must confess, I don't know anything about the guns. Here's a pic of whatever gun it is [[Image:Royal Navy Oerlikon 30 mm twin cannon.JPG|30px]] Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers Ryan 4314   (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Justin, simply I think is fair and equitable named the skirmish in both names, on the other hand I've heard english speakers talking up on the "Malvinas War" either. have a nice day talk —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

VK
Hey, I spotted vintagekits got indef'd for sockpuppeting. I wondered why I hadn't seen him on the Falkland Articles, I assumed due to the whole arbcom case before but wow. You really should keep me better informed old chap ;) Oh, speaking of, I don't suppose you happen to know much about the 'detterent' issue (nukes and the like?)...is that within your professional scope? Narson (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ALR was getting some flak at the Trident replacement page. Though you might give it a look and give your learned opinion. The whole 'large missiles' aspect made me think of you, figured you would know what terms are used in industry and where some sources might be. Narson (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also seems to have some beef with BAE Systems....I figure either a grumpy ex-employee or one of the chaps who makes me feel slightly embaressed when I vote for the lib dems. Narson (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL ur gonna think I'm spying on u Justin, but can I ask what it is/was you do/did? I always assumed you were some RN missile firing bloke (technical term), coz of that debate about self destruct missile codes. Also how is the timeline article going? D'you think it'll be ready in time for April 2? It'd be great to read each day, 26 years to do day since they happened. Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Can't say I get it TBH. Just thought you might know a bit more, and I hate to see ALR getting blasted considering how good he has been at being the level head, but yeah, if you can't get involved, don't :) Hope you had a good easter. Narson (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's cool! Can I ask what missiles you've worked on? Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands‎
This just got moved based on the 1833 article, I reverted the move and left a notice on the performer's page. I expect that there will, accordingly, be a discussion starting on the 1833 name. Must admit, the current name for 1833 doesn't quite sit right with me, just can't think of a better name without making a mountain out of a molehill (Or an invasion out of some yelling from a loud hailer) Narson (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your Comments
Justin, if that's a bad day then you must be a great editor. Your comments were very civil and well put out. You had an opinion and expressed without being aggressive. I didn't feel offended at all, I just disagreed with your assessment and wanted to clarify. Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself, I much appreciate it.

Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: the Cardiff
Hi Justin, I edited HMS Cardiff (D108) per the A-class review which you are of course warmly invited to comment on. The images needed to conform to WP:MOS in that left aligned images should not be interfering with the section headers. Another problem was that some of the images were sandwiching text, which at lower resolution screens leaves about 6 words to a line. There should also be a "cascading" effect so left right, left, right etc for aesthetics. (I couldn't do it with the last image as the section is too small and the image would have interfered with the header) I did shrink my resolution down to 800x600 to do a test and couldn't see any problems with my version. If you still have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks. Woody (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry I'd already scolded the culprit ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aw cheers pal, means a lot coming from you. I'm just giving her a quick peer review before FA! Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation
Hi mate, dunno if you actually enjoy the extra research/translation, but here's 2 accounts from 2 crew members of TC-92, thought you might wanna take a look? Feel free to delete this post as the first account is ridiculously long (it reads like it's actually out of a book)

Short one
Brig. Gral. Walter D. Barbero Actual Jefe del Estado Mayor General Auxiliar del Jefe de Operaciones de Transporte Aéreo. Tripulante de Boeing 707 durante el Conflicto.

"Hasta el 2 Abr ‘82 estuve destinado en la Escuela Superior de Guerra Aérea, como instructor, y después en el Teatro de Operaciones Sur como Auxiliar de Operaciones de Transporte Aéreo. Allí cumplí dos funciones: una como auxiliar del Jefe de Operaciones y otra volando Boeing 707. Con esta aeronave hacíamos vuelos logísticos dentro del continente, y de exploración y reconocimiento lejano en el océano Atlántico, entre la isla Ascensión y Malvinas con el fin de detectar posibles convoyes que se dirigieran hacia la zona del conflicto.

El 22 May, cuando hacíamos un vuelo de estas características con el TC-92 -se encontraba en los mandos el actual Brig. (R) Ritondale- fuimos sorprendidos por cuatro fragatas británicas que nos dispararon misiles Sea Dart. Uno de ellos venía directo a nosotros y debía hacer impacto entre los motores 3 y 4, es decir, en el ala derecha. En esos momentos yo estaba sentado en el asiento de la izquierda y el comandante de la aeronave me ordena efectuar un rápido descenso, cosa que hicimos junto con un viraje muy pronunciado, maniobras que nos permitieron evitar la zona de impacto del misil. Instantes después advertimos que otros tres Sea Dart también venían hacia nosotros pero nuestras maniobras los eludieron.

Llegamos a un nivel de vuelo mínimo para nuestro avión y pusimos rumbo al continente. No podíamos ascender porque de inmediato se encendía el alerta radar, que indicaba que estábamos siendo localizados por los radares de control de tiro de las fragatas. A medida que nos alejábamos de los buques hicimos un ascenso escalonado para ahorrar combustible y asegurarnos el regreso. Así llegamos al nivel 450 (45 000 pies, 14 000 m aproximadamente), que prácticamente era el techo máximo del B707. Con régimen de largo alcance y sin perder altura llegamos a la vertical de El Palomar con el mínimo de combustible, en donde tuvimos que realizar un descenso de emergencia y gracias a que las condiciones meteorológicas eran buenas pudimos aterrizar sin inconvenientes.

El último vuelo fue el 14 Jun pero con el B707 TC-91. Realizando una misión similar en el Atlántico sur nos encontramos con la estela de un avión tipo Harrier que al vernos cambió su rumbo y se dirigió a nosotros. El comandante de aeronave era el actual Brig. Gral. (R) Paulik, quien hizo descender al B707 rápidamente, maniobra que disuadió al Harrier de perseguirnos y nos permitió regresar. Cuando nos acercábamos a Buenos Aires sintonizamos una radio uruguaya que anunciaba la rendición de Puerto Argentino, así que pueden imaginarse la expresión en nuestros rostros y en nuestros corazones al saber que seguramente esa iba a ser nuestra última misión en un conflicto que desgraciadamente cobró muchas queridas vidas de nuestra Fuerza Aérea.

Veinte años después el primer sentimiento que aflora es de dolor y reconocimiento. Dolor por la sangre derramada, reconocimiento y admiración por los cincuenta y cinco hombres de la Institución, que en plena juventud ofrendaron sus vidas en pos de un ideal íntimamente asociado a la defensa de un objetivo nacional. El segundo sentimiento es de orgullo profesional por la fuerza armada más joven, que recibió su bautismo de fuego con su equipamiento y un excelente adiestramiento, pero con hipótesis que no contemplaban un enfrentamiento contra un adversario tan poderoso y especializado en operaciones aeromarítimas.

A pesar de esto, la FAA no eludió el compromiso asumido por la conducción política y aceptó el desafío. Aún previendo una baja probablidad de éxitos, los logros de las operaciones aéreas fueron un ejemplo de profesionalismo y virtudes humanas que hoy son motivo de estudio por analistas de todo el mundo. A veinte años de Malvinas la Fuerza Aérea Argentina rescata el valor de esta gesta, ya que considera a estas tierras parte de sus entrañas por estar regadas con la sangre de los hijos de la Patria. Quedará siempre a la espera de volver por el camino del entendimiento y negociación a aquellos tiempos en que, mediante nuestros vuelos regulares desde el continente se llegó a trasladar a más de 21 000 pasajeros en distintos viajes desde Malvinas, quebrando así con intenso trabajo aéreo el aislamiento de aquellas personas que comenzaban a conectarse con nuestra Patria.

La recuperación militar de las Malvinas ocurrida hace veinte años pudo no haber sido la única respuesta posible, pero ciertamente el 2 de Abril forma ahora parte de nuestra historia."

Long one
EXPLORACION Y RECONOCIMIENTO LEJANO CON B-707. ENCUENTRO CON EL GRUPO BRISTOL DE LA ROYAL NAVY.

En el aire, una voz dice: -...Ezeiza, Fuerza Aérea 729...

En la madrugada del frío y húmedo 22 de mayo de 1982, el crepitar del VHF sobresaltó al operador de la torre de vuelo del aeropuerto Ezeiza. La cabina del B-707 TC-92, estaba silenciosa, ordenada, fría como el amanecer que se adivinaba y pulcra como un quirófano. A 1.3 EPR los 4 turborreactores susurraban su potencia Los rostros de los tripulantes apenas se distinguían en la media luz del instrumental y sus gestos mostraban tensión y resolución. Era una tripulación clásica de la Fuerza Aérea, con hombres formados profesionalmente en la responsable conducta institucional, instruidos como los mejores, profundos conocedores de los secretos del vuelo, curtidos en distintas misiones y concientizados para la tarea que les esperaba.

-...Fuerza Aérea 729, contacto radar... Proceda directamente para final de la pista 11, QNH 1.021, viento calmo. Informe establecido en el localizador….

Las instrucciones del operador eran precisas, su voz seca, resuelta, levemente distorsionada por el transmisor. El también sabía lo que hacia, era otro de los tantos especialistas que distinguen a la Fuerza Aérea.

El hermoso e inolvidable Boeing 707 TC-92 rodó entre la neblina clásica de las horas previas al amanecer en ese frío otoño en guerra.

En la semiclaridad de la plataforma de vuelo, la actividad de la tripulación y la de los auxiliares de tierra que abastecían de combustible y de los lubricantes necesarios para una misión de más de doce horas, era afanosa, con la metódica dedicación de los que saben qué hacer en cada instante; entre las luces de camiones, vehículos de apoyo y susurrar de motores, la tensión iba en aumento.

El primero de mayo, la FAA había recibido su bautismo de fuego, su bautismo de sangre y fuego. Sangre derramada de hombres valerosos, llenos de vida y sueños. Sueños por una patria mejor, sueños por que las tierras irredentas de las Islas Malvinas, volvieran a ser patrimonio inalterable de la argentinidad. Nada pedían ni nada preguntaban. Sólo cumplían con su deber de argentinos y soldados.

El 26 de Abril, el Comando de las fuerzas británicas que navegaban hacia Malvinas, había declarado hostiles a todos los vuelos de Exploración y Reconocimiento y de no haber sido por un grave error de identificación que cometieron las fuerzas británicas y que casi determina el derribo de un avión de transporte de pasajeros brasileño, la suerte de los vuelos de Exploración Y Reconocimiento, hubiera sido otra.

En la fría oscuridad del día que se insinuaba, se realizaron con toda normalidad las tareas previas al despegue, mientras el Comandante de Aeronave y su tripulación hacían los últimos ajustes al planeamiento de la misión a cumplir. El copiloto informa:

-… Lista de control previo al despegue, completada…

Los procedimientos de control de rutina, tantas veces ejecutados, se llevaron a cabo con la precisión acostumbrada. Nuevamente las voces del copiloto y del operador de la torre:

-… Ezeiza, Fuerza Aérea 729, posición y despegue… -… Fuerza Aérea 729, ocupe posición y despegue,... viento 050 °, 6 nudos….

El piloto al mando, ajustó la potencia de los cuatro turborreactores, de acuerdo con la tabla para el despegue, EPR 1,92. El control del mecánico de vuelo, desde su posición, fue exacto, como siempre:

-Parámetros y temperaturas normales.

Mano izquierda sobre el comando de la rueda de naríz, mano derecha sobre los cuatro comandos de potencia. Suave presión sobre los pedales del timón de dirección y liberados los frenos, los casi 40.000 kilogramos de empuje de los cuatro turborreactores, se hacen sentir en la espalda de los tripulantes, la aceleración es mayor de lo habitual, el avión se encuentra sin los 35.000 kilogramos de carga habituales y eso se siente.

- 80 nudos... dice con serenidad el copiloto, -… parámetros normales….

La velocidad se incrementa rápidamente, las luces de del balizamiento de la pista 11 son ahora casi una línea continua, que los lleva al silencio del Atlántico.

-V 1...Vr...Rotación..., informa el copiloto. Con toda suavidad y exacta coordinación natural, el piloto levanta la rueda de nariz del avión e instantes después, casi mágicamente, este increíble y hermoso producto del genio de la humanidad, se eleva raudamente quebrando el silencio de la noche.

-Ascenso positivo... Tren arriba, ordena el piloto. Las instrucciones se cumplen mecánicamente, con exactitud.

Rugiendo sobre los techos de las casas cercanas, donde otros hombres y mujeres se preparan para las tareas diarias de aquel sábado 22 de mayo, el TC-92 desaparece velozmente en la frialdad de la noche. Exactamente a las 06:30 horas, en un todo de acuerdo con la Orden de Operaciones, ese rayo celeste y blanco, como los colores de la Patria, inicia su raudo ascenso, directo para el nivel de vuelo 410, a encontrarse con su destino. La misión asignada, exigía la máxima autonomía posible a fin de lograr presencia continua sobre el enemigo, en tránsito hacia el Teatro de Operaciones.

Los siete tripulantes conocían acabadamente la misión que debían llevar a cabo y los riesgos que enfrentaban. Si fueran interceptados por aviones británicos, como había ocurrido en varias misiones, antes del 26 de Abril, el peligro de ser derribados latía en el fondo de la conciencia de cada hombre. De producirse una interceptación por medios aéreos, las posibilidades de evasión eran nulas, así como las de sobrevivir a un ataque aire-aire, tal como les sucedió algunas semanas después, el 1 de junio, a los inolvidables tripulantes del C-130 TC-63.

Además de la tripulación de rutina, integrada por dos pilotos, dos mecánicos y un auxiliar de carga y despacho, fueron sumadas a la misma un fotógrafo y un radiooperador, dado los particulares equipos de comunicaciones instalados a bordo. El fotógrafo, debidamente equipado, tenía como tarea particular registrar aquellos buques que se detectaran, con el objeto de su posterior identificación, seguimiento y eventual interceptación.

La ruta de vuelo, llevó al avión y su tripulación por el limite internacional del Río de la Plata hasta aguas abiertas y desde allí, fuera del espacio soberano del Uruguay y Brasil a la zona de búsqueda, comprendida entre las coordenadas: S 16° 00’-W 22° 00’, S 16° 00’- W 15° 00’, S 22° 00’- W 22° 00’ y S 22° 00’ W 15° 00’, es decir una superficie equivalente a la de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, ubicada en la latitud comprendida entre las ciudades de Río de Janeiro y Carabelas, en Brasil, pero unas 800 millas náuticas mar adentro, en la inmensidad del Atlántico gris y bravío.

Desde el inicio de los desplazamientos de la armada británica hacia el Atlántico Sur, tanto de las unidades de combate (portaaviones, destructores y fragatas) así como de los buques de apoyo y de sostén logístico, éstos lo hicieron navegando por la bisectríz del triángulo formado por la Isla Ascensión, Islas Malvinas y las Georgias del Sur, para posicionarse al Este de Malvinas y fuera del radio de acción de nuestros cazabombarderos. Conocíamos sus procedimientos y operábamos en consecuencia.

Amanecía lentamente en el Atlántico en guerra. El mundo miraba asombrado hacia estas latitudes, donde desconocidos valientes de un ignoto país, libraban con las primeras potencias del mundo, durísimos combates por el control del espacio aéreo. Las primeras noticias del día, recibidas por radio eran dramáticas, en momentos en que alcanzaron el nivel de vuelo máximo que les permitía el peso del avión. Los manómetros de consumo de combustible indicaban el mínimo esperado y establecido por tablas, lo que les permitiría alcanzar la zona de búsqueda, descender a la altitud mínima posible, fotografiar los buques que se encontraran y posteriormente, regresar a El Palomar.

En las horas que siguieron el Comandante de Aeronave y su tripulación repasaron la tarea a realizar; los procedimientos de evasión fueron exhaustivamente analizados y establecidos los rumbos de escape, en caso de contactos con la flota enemiga. Todos sabían que a pesar de que los portaaviones británicos se encontraban mucho más al sur, existían reales posibilidades de que cazas de despegue vertical, operando desde buques con cubiertas planas, como las de los porta contenedores, pudieran llegar a ser lanzados, con el objetivo de identificar, interceptar y derribar aviones de la FAA en tareas de Exploración y Reconocimiento. También existía la amenaza de misiles SA y de artillería AA de fragatas y destructores enemigos en navegación hacia las Islas Malvinas.

El día previo a la misión, el Comandante de Aeronave, había recibido información de Inteligencia, acerca de importantes movimientos de buques logísticos hacia la zona de operaciones y precisas instrucciones acerca de la misión que debía cumplir. Dicha información era clasificada y debía permanecer como tal, incluso ante el resto de la tripulación. Por ella se conocía que un importante equipamiento logístico se estaba concentrando en la Isla Ascensión, con fuerte escolta de fragatas y destructores al igual que un inusitado movimiento aéreo hacia y en los alrededores de la isla.

El 25 de Abril, poco antes de su partida desde Plymouth el Atlantic Conveyor, recibió el primer Harrier a bordo, en tareas de instrucción de pilotos y auxiliares navales. Varios días después, ya en Ascension Island, 8 aviones Harrier GR3 de la RAF (Real Fuerza Aérea), fueron embarcados por aterrizaje en dicho buque porta contenedores, junto con 3 helicópteros Chinook y 5 Wessex para dirigirse posteriormente hacia las islas Malvinas.

En resumen, la misión de EYR establecía: Explorar, detectar y fotografiar los buques que se encontraran en la zona de búsqueda asignada, poniéndose énfasis en la información disponible, que hablaba de importantes contingentes logísticos en navegación hacia las islas.

Las circunstancias de la vida y las exigencias de la situación, habían determinado que tanto el 1er. piloto como el 2do. mecánico, realizaran ese día su primera misión operativa, es decir, muy pocos días antes habían finalizado sus periodos de instrucción e inspecciones correspondientes, por lo que el Comandante de Aeronave dispuso que el 1er. piloto volara en el asiento izquierdo, a cargo de los comandos de vuelo. Ello le permitiría al Comandante, dedicarse más libremente a la operación del equipamiento electrónico y al control general de la misión.

Hora: 09:52 ( LT). Radar: On (Control de una vuelta de antena). Radar: Off. Transponder: ON (Control de señales luminosas) Transponder: Off. Condiciones de vuelo: FL hacia la zona de búsqueda, estimando ingresar a la misma a las 10:38 (LT), operando en silencio electrónico y con los sistemas de radio en pasivo, haciendo escucha en las frecuencias conocidas de operación de la flota británica.

A las 10:17 horas local (LT), las luces de control del Transponder, titilan levemente y traen la primera señal de presencia de radares de superficie activados y en modo búsqueda.

Instantes después, la primera vuelta de antena del radar de abordo, muestra claramente la presencia de un eco múltiple sobre la superficie del mar y de elevada energía reflejada. El azar, siempre presente en las contingencias de la vida, hizo que por un claro importante en el manto de nubes que se extendía debajo del TC-92, se visualizaran de 4 a 5 buques, (destructores y/o ragatas) que escoltaban un transporte de carga de importante eslora, de color negro y cubierta blanca. Durante los segundos que duró el contacto visual, los buques escoltas, cambiaban rápidamente su posición, acercándose al carguero.

-Registre la posición del INS (Inertial Navegation System), ordena el Comandante al copiloto. Y continúa: –Radiooperador, transmita al Comando de la FAS, el contacto registrado. Continuamos con nuestra tarea de Exploración y Reconocimiento. Posteriormente regresaremos para el control del contacto.

Todos los involucrados circunstanciales, sabían perfectamente, tanto los tripulantes del TC-92 como los integrantes del Grupo Bristol ( Denominación del convoy, según información posterior proveniente de fuentes de la Royal Navy) que partiendo de la posición registrada del convoy etectado, era prácticamente imposible que el mismo escapara a las tareas de control, dado la diferencia de velocidades relativas, a menos que se protegiera con Chaff o engañara a la tripulación de abordo generando ecos falsos en los radares del TC-92, capacidades reales de Guerra Electrónica de la mayoría de los destructores británicos.

Este primer contacto visual y electrónico con el Grupo Bristol, sirvió para incentivar aun más el espíritu de lucha de la tripulación, al comprobarse que las características del contacto y las maniobras de los escoltas, hablaban por sí solas de la importancia del mismo. Por otra parte corroboraba la información de inteligencia disponible y en conocimiento del Comandante de Aeronave.

10:41 hs. (LT). Al ingresar a la zona asignada para EYR, se inició un descenso para FL 100 y seredujo la velocidad a 250 Kts.

- Parámetros ajustados, presiones y temperaturas normales.

La voz del 1er. mecánico, sonaba segura, calma, pero algo tensa, presagiando lo que vendría. Su experiencia le decía ya que la tarea que les esperaba pondría a prueba todo el temple de la tripulación. 11:02 hs. (LT). Manteniendo rumbo general 020º aproximadamente, se detecta un buque navegando con rumbo general al teatro de operaciones, a 80 nm (millas náuticas) de la presente posición.

11:03 hs. (LT). -Descenso para 1.500 pies … .Velocidad indicada 220 Kts.

11:12 hs. (LT). -¡Contacto visual!. Se dejó el buque a la izquierda del avión. Significativamente, la nave sobrevolada, redujo su velocidad de navegación hasta quedar detenida y desde su puente de mando, las luces de un destellador, en código Morse, decían de su función sanitaria. El color blanco del mismo y una cruz roja en su popa, ratificaban su actividad.

11:14 hs. (LT). -…Ascenso a nivel 100…ajuste de velocidad. Control de consumo.

La actividad en la cabina era la de una clásica rutina. Se sucedieron así varios contactos más entre petroleros y algunos buques de carga.

11:43 hs. (LT). La autonomía remanente determinaba que la EYR en el área de búsqueda asignada, llegaba a su fin.

El Comandante de aeronave dice: -Señores..., vamos a ingresar en el INS N° 1, la posición egistrada del blanco a reconocer y volaremos hacia él. Descenso para 1.500 pies, Velocidad 220 Kts…Rumbo 175º….

Las condiciones meteorológicas en el área comprendida entre el limite sur de la zona de EYR y la posición estimada del Grupo Bristol, eran las siguientes: 6 a 8 octavos de Cúmulos humilis a 300/400 metros, con precipitaciones aisladas y visibilidad reducida en la zona de chubascos. Por encima, 8 octavos de Stratocúmulos y Nimbostratus. Los Cúmulus humilis, sobre el mar se saturan de agua y cristales de sal, que producen en los radares meteorológicos, muchísimos ecos en pantalla y de elevado brillo y en este caso saturando la PPI del radar.

Pasaban los minutos y la búsqueda electrónica se hacia ahora con radar en forma contínua, a pesar del peligro que ello entrañaba. Los operadores de los sistemas de GE (Guerra Electrónica)de los buques, recibían información permanente de la posición, rumbo, altura y velocidad del TC-92.

El Comandante de Aeronave trabajaba intensamente en el radar y con la ayuda del resto de los tripulantes en la cabina, trataba de realizar algún contacto visual. Sabían perfectamente que las naves, estaban en un círculo no mayor de las 20 nm. En momentos en que el Comandante advierte que la razón de no detectarlos, se debía también a un intenso lanzamiento de Chaff que saturaba la pantalla y limitaba el contacto radar, ordena:

-Vamos arriba, necesitamos más horizonte radar …Potencia de ascenso …

Esta orden y la feliz circunstancia de contar con hombres concentrados en su tarea, salvaron la aeronave y su tripulación de ser derribados, como veremos.A 4.000 pies de altura aproximadamente, el TC-92 ingresa en una densa masa nubosa de Nimbostratus, con turbulencia moderada y quiso Dios ese día, que nuevamente hicieran contacto visual a través de unos 13.000 pies y entre dos capas de nubes, la inferior y otra de Altostratus muy por encima.

También dispuso Dios que en esos instantes, el 2do. mecánico de abordo, levantara la vista de los instrumentos de control del avión y por la ventanilla derecha, a través del pequeño espacio que queda entre el asiento del Comandante y su tablero de instrumentos, ve, saliendo de nubes una estela de humo color negro e informa:

-Señor,... por la derecha, ¡estela de un avión!...

12:17" hs. (LT). Este contacto visual no hubiera ocurrido, de encontrarse el avión, como unos egundos antes, dentro de nubes y por lo tanto tampoco se hubieran podido realizar maniobras defensivas.

El Comandante de Aeronave, me contó en alguna oportunidad, que ya antes había recibido fuego y múltiples impactos de armas de superficie, en otro tipo de avión y en circunstancias que ya no deseaba recordar. Me dijo también que en esas dos oportunidades y en otras dos más, en sendos choques en vuelo entre aviones, que culminaron en un caso con la muerte de un piloto y en el otro con un avión seriamente dañado, las sensaciones fueron las mismas:

… el tiempo se congeló y los segundos parecían días…ello me permitía pensar calmadamente acerca de cómo y cuando actuar… pero en este caso la situación era distinta… Estábamos en un enorme avión, a muy alta velocidad y sin ninguna defensa como para sobrevivir y yo no estaba solo… También supe instantáneamente, que la negra estela que avanzaba directamente hacia el motor N° 4, era producida por el quemado de un booster de lanzamiento de un misil Sea Dart y no la blanca estela de condensación de algún avión.

-¿Estela de un avión, o de un misil?...exclamó el Comandante, quien al girar nuevamente su mirada hacia el mismo, ve pasar a muy pocos metros de la raíz del plano derecho, otros dos nuevos misiles, que ascendiendo raudamente y por encima del nivel de vuelo del avión, comienzan instantes después una curva de persecución. Sólo quedaban algunos segundos para decidir y obrar.

-…Mío el avión…Fue lo que dijo de improviso el Comandante y haciéndose rápidamente cargo de los controles de vuelo, inició un rápido viraje escarpado de máxima inclinación y muy cerrado,hacia el lado del primer misil, con el objeto de reducir el radio de viraje de aquél, aumentar las aceleraciones y tratar de lograr con ello desprenderlo del guiado electrónico, a la vez que extraía los frenos de vuelo e iniciaba con un medio tonel descendente un descenso de emergencia de máxima perfomance.

Todas las alarmas se activaron, el TC-92 crujía por efecto de la velocidad y las aceleraciones, cuando escucharon la explosión del primer misil. Durante el vertiginoso descenso, otro misil Sea Dart, cruzó la línea de vuelo, muy próximo al parabrisas del avión, frío y letal como una cobra. También se vieron otros dos misiles explotar contra el mar, por el lado izquierdo del avión.

...Recuerdo que lo primero que hice, cuando escuché la explosión, fue controlar la presión del sistema hidráulico, imaginando que podríamos haber perdido el control del timón de dirección y ernos envueltos en un nuevo problema… Nada de ello pasó y con el Mach Airspeed Warning y el Ground Proximity Warning System que no dejaban de sonar y ya muy próximos al agua, entregué nuevamente los controles al 1er.Oficial, agregó en aquella conversación el Comandante de Aeronave.

Ahora sí, con el radar y el transponder encendidos y los turborreactores rugiendo a la máxima potencia permitida, levantando sobre las olas, blancas estelas de espuma, agua y sal, buscaban el rumbo de escape que los alejara de la flota. Cada vez que pretendían ascender algunos metros, el transponder usado como único medio de alerta de radares en superficie, titilaba locamente, activado por las señales de interrogación provenientes de los sensores de navegación y búsqueda y los radares de onda continua de las centrales de tiro de las unidades navales enemigas. Algunos años después un suboficial de la Royal Navy, que se encontraba a bordo de uno de los destructores, como mecánico de helicópteros, contaba que al pasar el avión entre dos de los buques, separados por algunos centenares de metros, la estela de agua que levantaban los chorros de escape de los turborreactores, era de casi el doble de la longitud del avión.

Volaron a ras de las olas por espacio de interminables 25 minutos, hasta que fuera ya del contacto de los radares de la flota, pudieron iniciar el ascenso. También durante esos minutos, se cursaron las comunicaciones de rigor, al Comando de la FAS, informando la situación encontrada y se dispuso el regreso a El Palomar.

-… Señor..., la autonomía remanente en estos instantes, sólo nos permitiría llegar ajustadamente a Río de Janeiro... El informe del 1er. mecánico, reflejaba a las claras el grado de incertidumbre en que se encontraban estos hombres. Se dispusieron nuevos ajustes a la navegación y controles complementarios sobre todos los sistemas del avión, dadas las extraordinarias exigencias a las que había sido sometido. A las 17:43 horas (LT), es decir 11 horas y 13 minutos después del despegue de Ezeiza, el TC-92 aterrizó en El Palomar.

He conversado con el Comandante de Aeronave varias veces, acerca de las decisiones adoptadas antes y durante el vuelo, con relación a esta misión. Siempre me remarcó el grado de autocontrol y disciplina, puestos de manifiesto por cada uno de los tripulantes, en particular en los momentos mas graves de la misión, es decir cuando se encontraban bajo fuego enemigo y durante las maniobras de evasión y escape. También me expresó en reiteradas oportunidades la rustración que le causó, por un lado los instantes que perdió en determinar que el Grupo Bristol, se encontraba bajo nubes protectoras de Chaff, segundos que pudieron haber costado el derribo del avión y además que las maniobras de evasión, también le imposibilitaron el registro fotográfico, en especial del buque porta contenedores, que probablemente haya sido el Atlantic Conveyor y que tres días después fuera hundido por aeronaves de la Armada Argentina, con importantísimos pertrechos militares abordo.

Estas simples líneas, que solo pretenden reflejar una de las tantas circunstancias en que se vieron envueltas las tripulaciones de la Ira. Br.Ae, están dedicadas completamente a la memoria de cada uno de los tripulantes del C-130 TC-63, muertos heroicamente el día 1 de junio de 1982, en tareas de EYR. El Palomar, 15 de Abril de 2003.

Resumen de la Orden de Operaciones del B-707 TC-92

EyR (Visual y Fotográfico)

Objetivo: Componentes Flota Británica, navegando zona WP

A: S 16º 00’ W 22º 00’ B: S 16º 00’ W 15º 00’ C: S 22º 00’ W 22º 00’ D: S 22º 00’ W 15º 00’

Despegue: de El Palomar 220500 May 1982 de Ezeiza 220630 May 1982 Aterrizaje: en El Palomar 221743 May 1982 Tiempo de vuelo: 11:13 horas.

Ryan 4314  (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sovereignty
That chap wasn't being funny, he was using the French national flag of the period before the revolution, that of the drapau blanc or however they say it. What we have ATM is the French royal personal standard. Personally I think we should go with the blue field with 3 fleur de lis in gold, as was normally used by French colonies (And is /far/ more recognisable) Narson (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, just the french being dull and going 'Ey! Let us have a totally white flag'. Imagine that. Why the buggers didn't think of the aethetics of displaying such a flag on a computer screen reading from an online encyclopedia I'll never know. Damn several hundred year old French! :) Narson (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Falklands war task force
Hello :) I'm considering setting up a Falklands war task force on wikipedia and noticed you've edited the subject quite a bit. Would you consider joining the group if I go ahead and create it? Thanks, --Tefalstar (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking of you and trouble, did we ever hear any more on Alex? I forget if that medcab was closed or not. Narson (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I still have my suspicions he was someone's puppet or an old account. Seemed way too versed in wiki complaints. Narson (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You creepy net stalker you ;) Well, just so you know, I'll be out of the country from wednesday night until the following wednesday, I'm visiting the D-day sites in Normandy and spending time at our farmette there. If you ever leave the land of snow, ice and mars bars, feel free to pop by for a cup of tea. Narson (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The block thing I only mentioned because you have to expect the partisan warriors will bring it up (And I'm fairly sure the task force, if it gets going, will be a big target). If you wanted to lead you know I'd be more than happy to back you. :) Oh, and kudos on reintroducing Major Bonkers contrib to falklands, was just about to go searching for it myself after he mentioned it on my page. Narson (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea Tefalstar wimped out on leading us, I'd support you too Justin. Narson, weren't you involved with some sort of admin-type, wiki, behind-the-scenes fun?
 * Three cheers for Justin, I think we should start out slow anyway, like establishing a criteria for what is even classed as a "Falklands article", that and the articles about Argentina needs translating lol. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Me? I don't think so....I ran for MilHist coordinator and lost soundly. I occasionally try and mediate things on talk pages when I keep my head. Apart from that, I generally stay away from admin :) Best to avoid giant men with sticks when you don't know where they will whack ;)
 * As for VK, well, as I said on Bonkers page, if he screws up this time at least it will shut his supporters up. If he doesn't then maybe he has changed, and you know if he makes an agressive POV edit there are plenty of admin ready to lower the boom on his head, including some Irish ones. I don't see a reason to worry too much about him. Narson (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Speaking of admin...have we tried to pressgang PfainUK into it yet? Narson (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Spoke to Kirill about it, he said to use the South American Taskfoce, it's inactive and has all the Argentines interested in the Falklands already there. You want me to make up an invite to send to people? Ryan 4314   (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this? Ryan 4314   (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits
Thought you might be interested, there's a discussion about VK's potential unblocking AN/I at the moment. Pfainuk talk 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from Bonkers
Major Bonkers wanted me to pass on thanks for going to the trouble of restoring his edit. I'm like some kind of love doctor for British editors. Now to set Ryan up on a date with ALR! Narson (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL I think he's already got the feisty hots for a yank on my old FAC called "Woody" (how apt!) Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * God I'm glad I'm a net geek. No needing to date. So, this taskforce seems to have floundered slightly...what shall we do oh glorious patriarch? Narson (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah c'mon Justin, I've finished Cardiff now, so I'm looking forward to sticking my teeth into something (Will get back round to South Atlantic Medal, honest ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll message Kirill about 2mora, see what advice he can give? Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Try bugging Roger about it too Ryan, he is a good egg. Perfectly understandable about work justin, I'm swamped in student finance hell ATM. I swear, last time I did this uni thing, there weren't 29 pages of loan forms with 20 pages of notes. Plus module selections. Plus my car dying. I shall go hide under a duvet until september I think. Narson (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of the name Puerto Argentino
Hi Justin. The header in the article about GADA 601 using the name Puerto Argentino instead of Port Stanley is not PoV, nor an offense to the Islanders; it just reflects the context of May-June 1982.

Its hard to believe that the Argentinians were defending "Stanley", their people or the interest of its people against the British; they were fighting for the military garrison they called "Puerto Argentino". I think a header "Defense of Port Stanley" would be more appropiate for a situation of British or Islander forces facing an invasion from the mainland. I will modify the section's title in a salomonic way, replacing Puerto Argentino or Port Stanley by "the Capital". Regards--Darius (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to make clear that I strongly agree with you: the name of the Falklands capital in English Wikipedia must be Port Stanley. I only mentioned the Argentine name for contextual reasons, but I guess we have arrived to some kind of compromise now.--Darius (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, couldn't help notice this, perhaps something like "Air defence of the capital" might sound better? The word "battle" could confuse readers (as there was no actual battle for the capital, the war ending before then). Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Two points against this argument:


 * 1) Even when there was no battle on the streets of the city itself, the bulk of the engagements on the hills surrounding the capital determined the fate of Stanley.


 * 2) The air defence title doesn't match the events described in the section, since the GADA 601 carried out direct fire support missions during the battle of Wireless Ridge. Thanks for your idea anyway.--Darius (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think your points swing it, while I now agree that "air defence" isn't suitable, I still think "battle" will give readers, who are unfamiliar with the Falklands War, a false connotation that there was an urban battle inside the capital, like the fall of the Reichstag or something. Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Caw this bloke don't reply much does he? Check out a point I raised on his talk here. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Malvinas Islands peso
Could you please add a reference or two for the changes that you made to this article? Much obliged, Dove1950 (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

PINK
What do you mean "see PINK"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Argentine Copyright laws
Justin, I was taking a little break in my work to make some edits and I just found your message. I guess your concern is about the Roland crew picture, the Argentine law makes clear that the image must have been published in order to be copyright-free. I haven't found any source where this pic in particular was reproduced before the 20 years deadline, thus I choose the "fair-use" tag. Thanks for cleaning up another section of "GADA 601". I have some questions for you, but later man, I'am the boss here, but I must "give the example" as we use to say in Argentina ;). Cheers.--Darius (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Alex returns?
So you really thing it is him? I would have figured he would have signed in using the Alex name...he seemed so cocksure of himself, I can't see him believing he has to hide. Narson (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No point gambling with scots ;) Even if I win all I get are useless scottish notes :) Narson (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You get them occasionally in a pub and promptly hand them back in for more drinks. Shouldn't you be in bed at this time of night? You arn't as young as the rest of us you know ;) Narson (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am loving the Falkland Wars montage. Narson (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I horribly misread your message and thought you said 'knocked a couple out during my lunch hour' until I re-read it I was quite disturbed O.o Narson (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My mind is /always/ in the gutter. I'm from brum (Well, Solihull). I've already sent off all my student forms. Blergh. I have to study womens history. It was that or Black British History. Either way not something that interests me too much. Narson (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Occupations
This chap is taking the piss now. Now he is removing a similar catagory from forces used for soviet occupations and replacing it with Soviet armed forces deployments. He is quacking, walking and looking alot like a POV warrior. Narson (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If the CFD fails, which I suspect it will (There /are/ legitimate reasons to have the catagory, if you ignore the small number of articles), then we should be ready to start pruning it mercilessly and get rid of the dross. Narson (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There arn't too many situations where it would be called an occupation. An occupation implies some prolonged period of military rule by hostile forces who havn't annexed the land into the parent company on a permanent basis. Military occupations are usually legitimised by treaties, troops withdraw at end of hostilities or the troops remain but the terratory is annexed under claims of uti possidetis, so they are never really called occupations. I mean, could you imagine if we used the term for any military occupation of any non-sovereign land during wartime? My issue is that occupation stems from 1907 and in that time we have not been in many terratory based wars where we weren't defending what we considered sovereign land or were part of a UN or NATO force. Narson (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Falklands War
Hi Justin A Kuntz. You do know that I wrote "unintelligible" and not "unintelligent"? I just didn't expect such a lousy argument from you :-) See you at Talk:Falklands War --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you think that I get upset over your edits! Well, sometimes people have possessive feelings regarding Wiki-articles. They guard 'their' pages in a zealous way and enjoy status quo (i.e. their last edit!). But your suggestion would be to relax, drink a cup of tea or smoke a joint and think, "well the World (Wikipedia) doesn't deserve my edits anyway"? 8-) --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Justin? The events article...why the heck /are/ there spanish names all over it? It is not the main article or the article on the islands...seems silly to have them. Not that I'd push to remove them, but can't say I'd revert if someone else took them out. Narson (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, I can see them being on the main articles, on all articles everywhere that ever mention it, when it has a perfectly clear name in English? It is a bit wanky. But thats life I guess. Life: Its a bit wanky. ;) Narson (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My user page....
.... no I hadn't noticed - I can be so hopeless sometimes. Thanks for reverting, much appreciated. nancy (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff
I'm impressed. Ryan has certainly come along in leaps and bounds since he first appeared. Good on the kiddo. Narson (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Huzzah! Recognition amongst my peers, cheers Narson :) Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Uti possidetis
Justin, I've added a comment to your note on Uti possidetis at Talk:History_of_the_Falkland_Islands Dab14763 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

main page!
Woah bloody hell! How did that happen!? Good thing I got back when I did, oddly enough I had actually planned to try n get her up once I returned. Did anyone suggest her, or did Raul just decide it? Ryan 4314  (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I most certainly am, I've already sent e-mails to everyone I know. Thanks for spreading the word mate, and for looking after the article (re; Halgin's bizarre edits). Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for running picket duty mate ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid not Coventry, I've got to go out again :( Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know, good rebuttal by the way, I was scouring through MOS looking for a loophole in wiki's grammar policy instead. I think he just wants to edit some text that's actually shown on the main page, as he hasn't attempted to "correct" the rest of the article with his logic. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi mate, just in case you didn't know, I added a list of Falkands books that I have/read on my userpage, let me know what you think? Ryan 4314  (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I really want Freedman's bible, except it's like £30! Maybe for a birthday present lol. Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Justin, do u have the Hugo Buchino book (Thatcher on the front w/ eye patch)? Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Justin, did you see my above question? Also do u having anyway of finding out why the Type 42's Birmingham, Newcastle and Southampton weren't involved in the war? Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, I'll check out the sites tonight, although at first glance; it was actually Cardiff on Armilla at the time (she's literally just started) and she left the frigate Amazon and Gold Rover out there  Ryan 4314   (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Hi Justin, I have time to reply in earnest now to your responses. The book was "Razor's Edge by Hugh Bicheno, he's Argentine. I think the book has gathered some praise in the Falklands community, as it's told from the Argentine side and is apparently quite neutral (although it's got a big fuck off picture of Maggie Thatcher wearing an eye patch on the front!?) I was only asking if you had it, because I was flicking through a copy in a book store the whilst waiting for a friend the other day, and it mentioned a new bit of information for me (Cardiff's position during the Invincible raid, nothing major I know, but might be nice for the article).

The website with the commissioning books is great, does ever ship have a "commissioning book" then? Shame Cardiff's isn't on there, know where I could track it down??? Ryan 4314  (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Crazy IP?
What's the deal with IP guy? Someone wiki user u pissed off from another account? Seems all his edits are reverts of your stuff. You know any admins u can defer him too? Ryan 4314  (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OIC, so he's some crazy nationalist! Well it'll be easier to boot him off then, sounds like a twat, I'd happily say I'm British before I'm English, I love the empire ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh so he's obviously an experienced editor then, why is he hiding as an anon then? I'm sure it'll be one of ur enemies come back to haunt you lol Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The nut job's just sent u a message on my page, thought u should know, I don't mind you guys talking there. Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, isn't Alex something to do with Irish independence and all that? Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OIC, well as part of the British Falklands crowd looks like I'm about to get my first volley of Argentine crazy POV stalking, I'm so honoured, now I really feel part of the gang ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see, shall I rile him up a bit? Shall I suggest Argentina only shot down 250 Harriers instead of 300!? Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That's a good point, we could be construed as "feeding" him. On an entirely different matter, I just joined SATF, in the nieve hope it'll encourage u and Narson to come over. There's not much to be done there, but we could add some cool resources to the list, in particular I want to add the AAF's official website timeline. Ryan 4314  (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OIC, unfortunately I'm Falklands through and through, not much else interests me. Maybe bits of the Cold War do, I love the 60's stuff like the Kestrel and when the Vulcan first appeared, so much like Dan Dare ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL I did wonder where the Zulu stuff came from, just assumed it was your old age ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OMG amazing! Unfortunately my family has been great at "dodging" action throughout time. Although I do believe I have a great grandfather on my mother's side who was a bombardier in WW1. Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was gonna say "wow, the Somme, what are the chances!?" But then I remembered there were millions of guys there, so it is entirely conceivable you'd meet someone with ancestors who had been there. On a lighter note, Cardiff got 40,000 hits whilst on the main page by the way! Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea I am, I don't quite feel "done" yet though. Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You do seem to attract these people Justin! On a more serious note, you should let people know, rather than skirting to the edge of 3RR. All it takes it an admin to get the wrong end of a stick and you are cast into the abyss for a day. These days I've started stopping at 2 reversions on a page, or trying to. Narson (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, you can report open proxies to WP:OP, since they can be blocked per WP:NOP and meta:WM:NOP. Pfainuk talk 15:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeez Justin. You got yourself involved in a hell of a one :) Such a detirmined sockpuppet fest....expect some vandalism on your user page. We should just call you Ol' Lightning Rod. Narson (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, you didn't. See, this is why I flit around the place alot. I dislike the entrenched battles that get you into these kinds of issues. I'd rather be the SAS driving around with jeeps and machine guns than a chap on the maginot line ;) Narson (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm more a blackpowder kind of chap. Let me tell you, trying to hit targets with a baker rifle is a bugger, they are a bit of a mule. My step father is the one you want to talk to about that kind of thing, he is a former para. Narson (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that period loses some of the charm of the 1700s and early 1800s. The chassepot (Lovely bayonet) and dreyse (beautiful brass fittings and a nice deep coloured grain) are interesting. When it comes to the yank ones, I like the original 1861 as opposed to the 63. The confederate used Enfield Muskatoon is elegant in its simplicity. Firing the dreyse after firing things like the Baker really shows you how awesome breach loading is. Narson (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Lee-Enfield was a nice rifle, though, I prefer the long rather than SMLE version. .303 British in general was a solid cartridge, though I've only fired it a few times. Martini-Henry rifles are great if you want to say 'No comedians, please'...though I've only ever fired the Martini-Enfield converts and that was with blanks, obviously. Really, I prefer a good bit of muzzle loading rifle/musket, pistol and cannon. Narson (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea and we all know what happened to the last poor bunch of foreign fuckers who came to Glasgow airport! ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * God I love the scots, it makes you wonder what it really would've been like had the Nazis had a go during the war. I'd like to see the Gestapo try and get in between the crowds at a Celtic and Rangers game lol ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ryan? Don't encourage them! Go sing the fourth verse of the national anthem ;) Narson (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm acctually as Scottish as I am English, Justin :) And as Irish as either...and as Jewish. I'm a real bastard mix. Narson (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know what the time is up the this place you call "Scotland", but down here in sensible old England it's bedtime. Some of us have work tomorrow, as opposed to going to an armour plated pub and drinking till we're sick on a policeman that we've just "asked outside" ;) night Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

British occupations
Because consensus isn't about numbers, it's about arguments. Clearly this wasn't an easy one, which is why no other admin had closed it earlier and it was 10 days overdue. There seemed a genuine division of opinion on whether the category could ever be used properly, at whatever name was chosen, which is why I called it as no consensus. Narson was a "weak delete" saying that it had potential if used correctly: that's an argument about use, not existence, of the category, and I gave that delete call less weight. There were some calls for a rename, which counted in favour of retention of the category in some form, but no consensus that this was the way forward. Hence, overall, no consensus but with closing comments that I thought we'd be back here again in due course - because I'm sure someone will initiate a wider discussion at some point. Regards, BencherliteTalk 08:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with my decision. Arguing your case on the category talk page won't make me change my mind.  Your options are (a) accept it, (b) WP:DRV or (c) renominate.  Note that I am not encouraging you to go to DRV or to renominate. BencherliteTalk 17:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinions can legitimately differ, and I don't claim to be infallible! However, it would have been nice to have been notified of the DRV request, rather than having to spot it on my watchlist.  Regards, BencherliteTalk 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I wasn't assuming malice on your part, and I fully accept it was an oversight. If you end up in this situation, DRV lists, err, the steps.  Regards, BencherliteTalk 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed... what are the chances his first words will be "delete per nom"?! BencherliteTalk 13:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've pruned out the occupation of japan, it was US led and rarely ever regarded as a British occupation but an American one or at worst an allied one. I've also removed the British Occupation Force, it is a formation not an occupation, and a formation subservient to a US occupation. Narson (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Damn. It is driving me nuts. There are some really good occupations that I keep on thinking of, to prove the point it could be useful, but none of them have an article that goes into them in any depth and the only two that could warrant their own article I know nothing about. Narson (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Might be a case, though it is iffy as you have the British state company that was trying to be seized etc. It was also more of an invasion than an occupation. But yes, might be a good one. Narson (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea did we actually occupy much Egyptian territory? I hate the word "occupy", implies to me a that it ended with failure. Ryan 4314   (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) quick question for you both; Falklands, approx 7,000 British troops, sounds about right? Ryan 4314  (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Got another one for you, any idea what Bristol actually did after she arrived at TEZ? I only ask coz she was armed with Sea Dart, and we've all heard stories about the other Sea Dart armed destroyers, why haven't we heard about Bristol? Although, little known fact, apparently she shot at TC-92 along with Cardiff (maybe u can double check this in Freedmans?) Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And another lol, do you have a copy of "Falklands: The Air War" by Rodney Burden? Ryan 4314   (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I know there are other British occupations, we must have had more of them...grr. Well, Suez is a good add I think, on reflection. Still a bit bare. Now I am going to go and fume over the ICC decision to award Pakistan a draw. Narson (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Falklands FF incidents article: What d'you think about?
Justin, I want to know your opinion about an article on the "own goals" incidents regarding the Falklands War. We have the "Cardiff" incident, the two FF kills of GADA 601 and the shooting down of a Gendarmerie's chopper on 30 June by a blow-pipe, this one never undisclosed by Argentine authorities. There was also a blue-blue clash between SBS an SAS units on June 1st. British AAA also killed at least one marine at San Carlos bay while fighting off an A-4 strike and there was another case during the battle of Wireless Ridge. Is there ground for an article or not?.--Darius (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may chip in ;) Sounds interesting, it'd be good if you and Justin both worked on it together though due to your nationalities, perhaps Justin could cover the British incidents and you cover the Argentine incidents??? Otherwise I'll just say "hold on" a little while longer in regards to the Cardiff incident, because I'm currently working on a article about it with some very nice parliamentary resources. Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As it sounds like Ryan may have an input I suggest that we keep the discussion in one piece here. Its probably sufficient material for an article, "friendly fire" is a noteworthy topic - particularly with the view in the British media that its always the Americans fault.  Ryan - do you think the material you're working on could be included or do you want to do it separately.  Justin talk 07:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea of course, whack it in! Although for the sake of, er, "readability" you guys might wanna abbreviate some of it, then link to it, like I have with (or will do) Cardiff. Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DRV of Category:British occupations
My suggestion would be to let the DRV finish, see what else is said, then see what happens with the category in further use. If there's still a problem or a rename still feels like a good idea, bring it back to CFD. A "no consensus" decision doesn't rule out further debate, whereas (e.g.) it's usually seen as inappropriate to relist at CFD too quickly after a "keep" decision. I'll just let the DRV run its course now, as I didn't (and don't) see consensus for a rename – this time round, anyway. Regards, BencherliteTalk 14:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

British Empire
YEp, true I am new to that part of Wikipedia, but was asked by a friend to help find a suitable link-in location to the Orphaned article on the 'Anglo-Ottoman Treaty'. I didn't want to disrupt the flow of the article, but the treaty is a case in point of the 19th British treaty policy of creating asymmetrical trade treaties that would lead to the eventual de-facto rule. I would be grateful for any indications on how to include this treaty in a more acceptable way. --BirgittaHo (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the reference as a see as example. I hope it meets with your approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirgittaHo (talk • contribs) 10:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Doesn't reference itself
I noticed your edit of British Empire with the comment "Undid revision 222138487 by BirgittaHo (talk) wikipedia doesn't reference itself". I have wondered sometimes whether footnotes referring to another article in a footnote are appropriate but have not seen any. I have reviewed WP:FN, MOS:LINK and WP:CS and found no answer to this question. References to other articles seem to be made either as links in the text or under something like a See Also head. Neither of those would work well for something like this (ie: For an example see ...) Your comment has me wondering, is there some policy about this? I am not familiar with the subject of this article at the level of detail being dealt with here, but looking at the article with the footnote, it seems to be a useful way to refer to an example without cluttering the text with a link in brackets. My initial reaction was that the note should not be pitched. I would be interested in your further thoughts on this. -- KenWalker | Talk 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. WP:RS does indeed clear it up.  I had not thought about it as a matter of the reliability of the source and the practice of referring to primary sources but it make perfect sense now.  Thanks. -- KenWalker | Talk 21:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Banner editor
Thank you for reverting the edits of "Generalmesse"'s sockpuppet. I know you are aware he asked me to rewrite the article about Operation Agreement from the Italian side. I smelled PoV, so I kept myself silent. I'am glad his case is now under the scrutiny of admins.--Darius (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Tierra del Fuego
Thought you might be interested in this CFD on categories related to Tierra del Fuego Province in Argentina. Cheers, Pfainuk talk 10:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

New Group you may be interested in
Justin talk 21:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Buenos Aires
Don't mind, it's all right. oh, I saw that you're interested in topics about the Malvinas (Falklands) islands and geography of Argentina. Well I born here, and I'm living in Buenos Aies, in Argentina. If you've some question, just ask it. --Gonza777 (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

English/British
Despite my recent comments, I notice you have re-added the tags, clearly showing you have no intention of listening (as I said with a main ref tag at top, further were are superflous, and IMDb does not say British, and the general consensus on Wikipedia (English, Scottish, Welsh rarely citied)). I suggest we get further editors involved to avoid an unpleasant edit war.--UpDown (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

PNA
Hi Justin. I've performed a clean up of the PNA article. The changes included the removal of the Argentine claim of a Sea Harrier shot down, along with the tag posted by you a month or so ago. I've also added some details about the attack on the Río Iguazú, with the proper citation. Regards. --Darius (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the invitation, and thanks for your compliments :). I will join the project right now.--Darius (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Peter Tracy
Yeah, pretty obvious. Just a note man, if you leave messages, just put down that you think the person may be interested, any indication that you are trying to suggest which way people should !vote and people will yell about canvassing. I'm becomming way too aware of wiki policies. I need to stab myself in the eye now. Narson (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just incase you are a Family Guy fan: Simply Red, standing by. Narson (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hanrahan quote
Justin, I will edit the quote of Brian Hanrahan on the GADA 601 article. Please, if you think that my changes are undue or PoV, feel absolutely free to revert, but go to the talk page to discuss the details. My point is that the article is written from an Argentine prospective (not PoV, just the scope of the page), thus the quotation is more appropriated for an article from a British prospective, for example an article about the Harrier/Sea Harriers campaign in the Falklands war. Hanrahan remarks are far from be 'iconic' in Argentina; I learned of them 20 years ago, when I was 18, 6 years after the war, by the translation of a British source. Recently, in my father's house, I found an Argentine magazine dating back to the first days of the conflict (May 6 or 7). Surprisely, there is some degree of sympathy toward Hanrahan work on HMS Hermes, but, for obvious reasons, no mention of  his famous quote. I decided to preserve his words in the article, but as a footnote and not in the main narrative. Remember that I did the same with a small paragraph about the morale at Goose Green and the names of GADA's fallen soldiers, in the latter case as per WP:MEMORIAL. If you disagree, I insist, feel free to revert and express your opinion at the talk page. Thank you in advance.--Darius (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Cheers for the hand on SGSSI, mate. I made a note on the IP talk page and hopefully that's the end of it. The IP is Boston-based, for the record. Pfainuk talk 23:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fuse/Fuze
You are the expert ;) I know you had reverted to Fuze spelling before hence why I was thinking it was right...and it was. Huzzah. Narson (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Gib
Justin? I know you, so I realise this is unfair that because of that you are the one I ask, but can you step bac from Red Hat on the Gib page? It just isn't helping you getting into it with Red Hat like that. You are getting into that 'Alex' place where bad things can happen. Narson (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, I'm starting to regret ever having that page on my watchlist. Seriously though Justin, stop trying to look for anything good on the other language wikipedias. The English wikipedia only works due to the number of non-native speakers that can provide alternative view points. The spanish one is just pap and it is a shame that money that could be spent on other works is spent maintaining those shambles. Narson (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Air 2 Air
As your our resident missile expert (lol amazing how many times a requirement for that post pops up amongst our circle of friends!) thought u should take a look at at sentence I'm gonna edit on the Air-to-air missile article. It literally reads;

In the Falklands War technically inferior British Harriers were able to defeat faster Argentinian opponents using AIM-9G missiles provided by the United States as the conflict began.

Minor changes first;
 * The AIM9G needs changing to AIM9L right?
 * The Harrier Jump Jet link needs changing to a BAE Sea Harrier one, as SHARs were the only ones to carry Sidewinders during the conflict, right?

Now then, I've been meaning to clarify this sometime anyway, What's the full story with this US-supplied sidewinder thing? I mean, the US didn't literally give us AIM9Ls the day the war started right? We must've had some already, you can't just stick a new missile system on a plane (it needs to be integrated into the computers n all that right?) and then expect the pilots to be totally proficient in using it. Do we have any sources for this?

These "faster Argentinian opponents" were the Mirages, I don't think "being slower" makes an aircraft "technically inferior". Speed is not a measure of quality, it's all about circumstance. Ryan 4314  (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just call them sidewinders, Ryan? ;) I don't think the technical name lends us anything here ;) And I /think/ that the US filled an order using its own stockpiles. Narson (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, just one question tho, what was the British Air 2 Air missile before the war then? Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What did harriers use b4 the lima tho? Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)