![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I've made some edits to the English, including removing a phrase which appeared to indicate that the runway was still operational after the first mission. I have removed it because it did not make any sense, not because I disagree with it. Tripper 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with the source cited and quoted regarding the Argentine deception at Port Stanley airfield. The USMC is not a verifiable source to quote from and contains obvious errors and an anti-British slant. Photographic evidence exists of the damage to the airstrip, and it was exactly as intended. A 35 degree runway cut with 1000lb iron bombs. To say this is unsuccessful is simply untrue. Furthermore, the quoted source mentions the Argentine myth of a shot-down Harrier as a fact. The only fact on that matter is that it is not true. All of the RAF and RN Harriers were accounted for. The claim to have shot one down is ridiculous, and exists only in the minds of the fascist junta that was convinced it had also sunk one of the Royal Navy carriers. I can verify personally that they did not sink a carrier, as I have actually seen both of the ships deployed following their return to the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The raid was sucessful in that the Vulcan put a bomb -as intended- on the runway; however, putting airfields out of action for any length of time is notoriously difficult even today ( ask the Tornado crews from 'desert storm' in 1991) and so from that perspective did not achieve the desired objective. 'Black Buck' was a far more effective set of missions politically, as it showed the commitment of the British Forces to a military resolution. Harryurz 09:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually Black Buck 1 was more about denying the Argentine fast jets the use of Stanley. It was well known that the C130s (of which Britain had many) could operate from damaged and shortened runways.Furthermore, the British were aware during the entire campaign, that the Argentines were still operating an air bridge between Argentina and Stanley. It was seen as more important to avoid it being used by Mirage and Skyhawk aircraft.Had Mirage fighters had its use, they would have been very effective over the skies of the Falklands and its environs. In this (denying its use by fighters), it could be said that Black Buck 1 and 2 were successful.A simple dictum of war is that if you do something to stop the enemy doing something and they then don't do that something, then the something you did was a success, whether or not the enemy then claimed they were never going to do it anyway!-- Kenbod 13:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Kenbod
It should be noted and remembered that within a few months of the war ending, the RAF was operating Phantom F4s from Stanley, having lengthened the runway. All this, several thousand miles from the UK. Whether or not the FAA planned to use it for fast jets, it had to be assumed they would. Accordingly, it had to be made unusable by Argentine fast jets if possible. Hind sight is one thing, military planning is another. It was very sensible to deny use of the airfield to fast jets.-- Kenbod 16:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Kenbod
I am highly suspicious of claims that the Argentines "spoofed" airfield damage at Stanley. These claims vary from those in this article to claims such as those in The Secret War for the Falklands: SAS, MI6 and the War Whitehall Nearly Lost by Nigel West that Black Buck 1 actually missed it's target by 1 kilometre because of a surveying mistake allegedly made by the Argentine firm that supposedly constructed the runway. The post raid photograph taken shortly after the raid clearly shows a line of craters, the first of which is astride the runway. A quick look at Google earth cofirms this, as most of the craters are still visible 20 odd years later. The claim made in the above mentioned book seems to be that the Argentines were somehow able to hide 21 very large bomb craters and fake another 21 including just one on the runway (why not two?)all within the space of a few hours. Highly unlikely.
As for the claim that the Argentines covered the runway with "fake" bomb damage by day to discourage further attack, daylight photographs taken shortly after the second Black Buck raid (see Squadron Leader Jerry pook's RAF Ground Attack Falklands) give this the lie because the runway repair is clearly visible and the runway itself, obviously serviceable, with no sign of debris (real or not) on the runway. In other words, the British were aware of the true condition of the runway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenbod ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that a myth has developed from somewhere and has found its way into a number of publications. From there, it has become "fact".-- Kenbod 13:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Kenbod
Again. why the official version of the FAA was removed ? Aerospacio is the FAA official magazine For n time: Mirages were not removed of operations over the islands ! READ please, they simple have no fuel nor adecuate AAM for dog fighting. As result of the May 1 encounter FAA decided to not engage anymore the seahars on low altitude but they still flew until June 14 at high altitude in diversion flights.
And regarding your TEXT BOOK RAID is also false. ARA Fokker F-28 land there for last time 12 june. -- Jor70 ( talk) 21:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You need to read all: Las misiones del Grupo 8 continuaron sin mayores incidentes hasta la misma noche del 14 Jun (la última de la guerra), cuando una pareja de Mirage escoltó a los Canberra del Grupo 2 de Bombardeo que atacaron las posiciones británicas en Monte Kent. De esta manera, terminaba la guerra para el Grupo 8, habiendo efectuado 47 misiones de cobertura y 9 salidas de diversión. As it said there, Mirages were not removed from operations over the islands. -- Jor70 ( talk) 13:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
As per the Fokker F-28 flights: from ARA site ... las trayectorias rasantes nocturnas hacia y desde las islas y las osadas maniobras para eludir el peligro de los aviones Harrier,tras producirse el desembarco inglés, ... ( their night low flights ... after the English (sic) landings ... -- Jor70 ( talk) 13:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll suggest that the Pucarás mentioned in the Effect section should be deleted. Pucara is designed to operate from very rough strips and Argentina deployed them to the dirt track runways at Goose Green and Pebble Island as well as Port Stanley. Pucarás flying from Port Stanley after Black Buck 1 and 2 isn't evidence of the concrete runway's status. Argentine helicopters flying from Port Stanley isn't mentioned either. Collateral damage to parked Pucarás is of course relevant. Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 23:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Justin A Kuntz mentioned that the bomb craters from Black Buck One and Two could be seen on Google Earth, especially after snow fall. If BB2's bombs didn't detonate, their craters aren't visible from space. Am I wrong? --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 13:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Rowland White's "Vulcan 607" is about Black Buck One, there's very little of the others. BTW White is pro-BB and is almost in bed with the RAF ;-) They gave him a free trip to the Ascension Island & the Falkland Islands and a free ride on an air-refuelling sortie (not a Victor). He also was onboard Wellesbourne Mountford's Vulcan when it was taxiing. He's a thorough author, that's for sure but as the Americans say "there is no such thing as a free lunch" TINSTAAFL. White is a good source for the aircraft, the aircrews' challenges etc. but the results of Black Buck is very pro-RAF. He claims that the Aermacchi MB-339 light attack jets were grounded by 607's attack (p. 284-85), that Argentina's entire Mirage fighter force was redeployed to the north of the country (p. 364) and that Black Buck One caused Argentina to lose General Belgrano (p. 364). He states that "368 lost their lives in the freezing South Atlantic" (368 is an archaic number, the correct number is 323). His primary Argentine source is Comodoro Héctor (Manuel) Rusticcini, Argentine Air Force, the logistic commander BAM Malvinas (Port Stanley), not a Mirage pilot. --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 16:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Seeming as we're having a little surge in all things Vulcan, what do you reckon that is on the bottom of this Vulcan? The bomb bay doors open? This photo was taken in the 2 weeks between the first raids and the Shrike missions, would they "test fly" the Vulcans then? Ryan4314 ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking at Google Earth regarding "Port Stanley Airport". From 51°41'23.89"S/57°46'59.52"W to …41'20.20"S/…°49.93"W there are five craters heading for the runway. The grey runway from 57°45'50.36"W to …46'53.01"W is "extended" to …47'26.66"W by some white area. Further to the East there is one crater at …41'09.55"S/…47'44.51"W, probably from Black Buck Two. To the West there is one crater at 51°41'18.72" S/57°45'42.74" W, probably from Black Buck Seven. I can't get an Internet address for the view, that's why I use the longitudes/latitudes. According to some editors three strings of Black Buck bomb trails can be seen on Google Earth. Can anyone explain? --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 17:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I started this page about a million years ago with a couple of paragraphs. I am very impressed by the scholarship and hard work of of you who contributed. Thank you all. Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 08:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
"There are urban legends that claim Argentine engineers building the runway plotted its position incorrectly on maps, leading to the British missing the runway."
This statement has been challenged since 2009 and till today there's no reliable source for it. I tried to find one but I had no luck, and I've found instead that in the book The Falklands War 1982 by Duncan Anderson it says that "Unknown to the RAF, the Argentine engineers who had constructed the airfield had made a mistake when plotting its position on survey maps".
I'll leave it up to you but three years seems way too much for a waiting, according to Template:Citation_needed.
"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable".
Cheers. -- Langus ( talk) 19:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Distance between Wideawake/Ascension and Mount Pleasant/Falklands is 6300km, not 7500. regards, 212.23.103.46 ( talk) 05:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I suppose that the bombing raids were as much about prestige and "shock and awe" as they were about tactical damage. The Vulcan was a major British project in its time, and like Concorde, is shown off for the simple fact that the UK could build and run them as much as anything that they could do.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 19:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. I've just seen the one at East Fortune today, which was captured by the Brazilians for a while...
No It was not not captured, it landed because its refuelling probe broke and was only allowed to proceed back to Ascension after the weapon was removed and it was not allowed to continue with future missions. Brazil was neutral and the emergency landing usually meant the internment of the aircrew and aircraft until hostilies ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.50.215 ( talk) 12:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It is clear from the un- retouched photographic evidence and witness statements that the Black Buck raids had no significant material effect upon air operations from Port Stanley airfield,"
the RAF had "attempted to rewrite history and exaggerate the part that they played in the 1982 conflict".
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Falklands-bomb-mission-dismissed-RAF-attempt/story-15542755-detail/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.223.161 ( talk) 12:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Consider for use in article. Ryan4314 ( talk) 14:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The damaged area is still visible on the ground at the present time - July 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.50.215 ( talk) 12:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Although the article starts by listing 6 missions, number 5 is described as the last one. Anyone know what happened to Black Buck 6? Was it planned but never carrried out? Rowland White in Vulcan 607 states there were only 5 missions, but the Thunder and Lightning website cites Black Buck 6 as the one that ended up in Rio, and then talks about a 7th raid -- Jeffjn 09:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know of the Black Buck mission which was "forced" to land in Brazil and sequestered for the rest of the war? -- Dali-Llama 17:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed a section about the withdrawl of the Mirage foces not being due to Black Buck. We have cites to say that Black Buck was the reason, and while this cite is an RAF site and so probably not unbiased we don't have another cite to the contrary. When we have a cite the passage can go back. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
On 2nd May 2007, John Reeve, accepting in a BBC news report that the Vulcan force's sticks of bombs only scored a single, direct, thousand-pounder hit on the airstrip, revealed that the Black Buck raid was strategically crucial in that it denied the Argentine Air Force a fast jet forward runway in the occupied Falklands for the duration of hostilities. This is corroborated by the historical fact that all their fighter-bomber raids were carried out from the Argentine mainland. The Black Buck mission was, therefore, a huge success and should be acknowledged as such. (JonLishman 3/5/07) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.123.71 ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The "Grey Funnel Line" Royal Navy to the unknowing, considered from before the actual invasion that it was their theatre of operations and the brown jobs aka British Army and the RAF had no business there. One senior fish head actually threw his cap out of his office window shortly after he was informed by Margaret Thatcher personally that the other branches would be involved - "No iffs or butts." Talk about throwing the toys out of the bath! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.50.215 ( talk) 12:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Why were so many refuellings necessary, the Vulcan had a range of more than 4.000 km. So one or two refueling should habe been enuogh. -- 95.222.189.69 ( talk) 00:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
One "R" is missing on the longest red line in Refuelling Plan schema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.233.129.131 ( talk) 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Operation Black Buck. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Operation Black Buck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 ( talk · contribs) 15:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The Refuelling plan caption states that "The attacking Vulcan was refuelled seven times on the outward journey and once on the return journey", while the article contains this : "The attacking Vulcan was refuelled four times on the outward journey and once on the return journey". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.233.129.131 ( talk) 18:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
It was actually seven out, one home. The reference to four refuellings outbound is incorrect, since even the cited source says (wrongly) six. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 21:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I've made some edits to the English, including removing a phrase which appeared to indicate that the runway was still operational after the first mission. I have removed it because it did not make any sense, not because I disagree with it. Tripper 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with the source cited and quoted regarding the Argentine deception at Port Stanley airfield. The USMC is not a verifiable source to quote from and contains obvious errors and an anti-British slant. Photographic evidence exists of the damage to the airstrip, and it was exactly as intended. A 35 degree runway cut with 1000lb iron bombs. To say this is unsuccessful is simply untrue. Furthermore, the quoted source mentions the Argentine myth of a shot-down Harrier as a fact. The only fact on that matter is that it is not true. All of the RAF and RN Harriers were accounted for. The claim to have shot one down is ridiculous, and exists only in the minds of the fascist junta that was convinced it had also sunk one of the Royal Navy carriers. I can verify personally that they did not sink a carrier, as I have actually seen both of the ships deployed following their return to the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The raid was sucessful in that the Vulcan put a bomb -as intended- on the runway; however, putting airfields out of action for any length of time is notoriously difficult even today ( ask the Tornado crews from 'desert storm' in 1991) and so from that perspective did not achieve the desired objective. 'Black Buck' was a far more effective set of missions politically, as it showed the commitment of the British Forces to a military resolution. Harryurz 09:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually Black Buck 1 was more about denying the Argentine fast jets the use of Stanley. It was well known that the C130s (of which Britain had many) could operate from damaged and shortened runways.Furthermore, the British were aware during the entire campaign, that the Argentines were still operating an air bridge between Argentina and Stanley. It was seen as more important to avoid it being used by Mirage and Skyhawk aircraft.Had Mirage fighters had its use, they would have been very effective over the skies of the Falklands and its environs. In this (denying its use by fighters), it could be said that Black Buck 1 and 2 were successful.A simple dictum of war is that if you do something to stop the enemy doing something and they then don't do that something, then the something you did was a success, whether or not the enemy then claimed they were never going to do it anyway!-- Kenbod 13:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Kenbod
It should be noted and remembered that within a few months of the war ending, the RAF was operating Phantom F4s from Stanley, having lengthened the runway. All this, several thousand miles from the UK. Whether or not the FAA planned to use it for fast jets, it had to be assumed they would. Accordingly, it had to be made unusable by Argentine fast jets if possible. Hind sight is one thing, military planning is another. It was very sensible to deny use of the airfield to fast jets.-- Kenbod 16:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Kenbod
I am highly suspicious of claims that the Argentines "spoofed" airfield damage at Stanley. These claims vary from those in this article to claims such as those in The Secret War for the Falklands: SAS, MI6 and the War Whitehall Nearly Lost by Nigel West that Black Buck 1 actually missed it's target by 1 kilometre because of a surveying mistake allegedly made by the Argentine firm that supposedly constructed the runway. The post raid photograph taken shortly after the raid clearly shows a line of craters, the first of which is astride the runway. A quick look at Google earth cofirms this, as most of the craters are still visible 20 odd years later. The claim made in the above mentioned book seems to be that the Argentines were somehow able to hide 21 very large bomb craters and fake another 21 including just one on the runway (why not two?)all within the space of a few hours. Highly unlikely.
As for the claim that the Argentines covered the runway with "fake" bomb damage by day to discourage further attack, daylight photographs taken shortly after the second Black Buck raid (see Squadron Leader Jerry pook's RAF Ground Attack Falklands) give this the lie because the runway repair is clearly visible and the runway itself, obviously serviceable, with no sign of debris (real or not) on the runway. In other words, the British were aware of the true condition of the runway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenbod ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that a myth has developed from somewhere and has found its way into a number of publications. From there, it has become "fact".-- Kenbod 13:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Kenbod
Again. why the official version of the FAA was removed ? Aerospacio is the FAA official magazine For n time: Mirages were not removed of operations over the islands ! READ please, they simple have no fuel nor adecuate AAM for dog fighting. As result of the May 1 encounter FAA decided to not engage anymore the seahars on low altitude but they still flew until June 14 at high altitude in diversion flights.
And regarding your TEXT BOOK RAID is also false. ARA Fokker F-28 land there for last time 12 june. -- Jor70 ( talk) 21:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You need to read all: Las misiones del Grupo 8 continuaron sin mayores incidentes hasta la misma noche del 14 Jun (la última de la guerra), cuando una pareja de Mirage escoltó a los Canberra del Grupo 2 de Bombardeo que atacaron las posiciones británicas en Monte Kent. De esta manera, terminaba la guerra para el Grupo 8, habiendo efectuado 47 misiones de cobertura y 9 salidas de diversión. As it said there, Mirages were not removed from operations over the islands. -- Jor70 ( talk) 13:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
As per the Fokker F-28 flights: from ARA site ... las trayectorias rasantes nocturnas hacia y desde las islas y las osadas maniobras para eludir el peligro de los aviones Harrier,tras producirse el desembarco inglés, ... ( their night low flights ... after the English (sic) landings ... -- Jor70 ( talk) 13:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll suggest that the Pucarás mentioned in the Effect section should be deleted. Pucara is designed to operate from very rough strips and Argentina deployed them to the dirt track runways at Goose Green and Pebble Island as well as Port Stanley. Pucarás flying from Port Stanley after Black Buck 1 and 2 isn't evidence of the concrete runway's status. Argentine helicopters flying from Port Stanley isn't mentioned either. Collateral damage to parked Pucarás is of course relevant. Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 23:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Justin A Kuntz mentioned that the bomb craters from Black Buck One and Two could be seen on Google Earth, especially after snow fall. If BB2's bombs didn't detonate, their craters aren't visible from space. Am I wrong? --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 13:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Rowland White's "Vulcan 607" is about Black Buck One, there's very little of the others. BTW White is pro-BB and is almost in bed with the RAF ;-) They gave him a free trip to the Ascension Island & the Falkland Islands and a free ride on an air-refuelling sortie (not a Victor). He also was onboard Wellesbourne Mountford's Vulcan when it was taxiing. He's a thorough author, that's for sure but as the Americans say "there is no such thing as a free lunch" TINSTAAFL. White is a good source for the aircraft, the aircrews' challenges etc. but the results of Black Buck is very pro-RAF. He claims that the Aermacchi MB-339 light attack jets were grounded by 607's attack (p. 284-85), that Argentina's entire Mirage fighter force was redeployed to the north of the country (p. 364) and that Black Buck One caused Argentina to lose General Belgrano (p. 364). He states that "368 lost their lives in the freezing South Atlantic" (368 is an archaic number, the correct number is 323). His primary Argentine source is Comodoro Héctor (Manuel) Rusticcini, Argentine Air Force, the logistic commander BAM Malvinas (Port Stanley), not a Mirage pilot. --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 16:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Seeming as we're having a little surge in all things Vulcan, what do you reckon that is on the bottom of this Vulcan? The bomb bay doors open? This photo was taken in the 2 weeks between the first raids and the Shrike missions, would they "test fly" the Vulcans then? Ryan4314 ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking at Google Earth regarding "Port Stanley Airport". From 51°41'23.89"S/57°46'59.52"W to …41'20.20"S/…°49.93"W there are five craters heading for the runway. The grey runway from 57°45'50.36"W to …46'53.01"W is "extended" to …47'26.66"W by some white area. Further to the East there is one crater at …41'09.55"S/…47'44.51"W, probably from Black Buck Two. To the West there is one crater at 51°41'18.72" S/57°45'42.74" W, probably from Black Buck Seven. I can't get an Internet address for the view, that's why I use the longitudes/latitudes. According to some editors three strings of Black Buck bomb trails can be seen on Google Earth. Can anyone explain? --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 17:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I started this page about a million years ago with a couple of paragraphs. I am very impressed by the scholarship and hard work of of you who contributed. Thank you all. Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 08:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
"There are urban legends that claim Argentine engineers building the runway plotted its position incorrectly on maps, leading to the British missing the runway."
This statement has been challenged since 2009 and till today there's no reliable source for it. I tried to find one but I had no luck, and I've found instead that in the book The Falklands War 1982 by Duncan Anderson it says that "Unknown to the RAF, the Argentine engineers who had constructed the airfield had made a mistake when plotting its position on survey maps".
I'll leave it up to you but three years seems way too much for a waiting, according to Template:Citation_needed.
"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable".
Cheers. -- Langus ( talk) 19:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Distance between Wideawake/Ascension and Mount Pleasant/Falklands is 6300km, not 7500. regards, 212.23.103.46 ( talk) 05:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I suppose that the bombing raids were as much about prestige and "shock and awe" as they were about tactical damage. The Vulcan was a major British project in its time, and like Concorde, is shown off for the simple fact that the UK could build and run them as much as anything that they could do.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 19:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. I've just seen the one at East Fortune today, which was captured by the Brazilians for a while...
No It was not not captured, it landed because its refuelling probe broke and was only allowed to proceed back to Ascension after the weapon was removed and it was not allowed to continue with future missions. Brazil was neutral and the emergency landing usually meant the internment of the aircrew and aircraft until hostilies ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.50.215 ( talk) 12:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It is clear from the un- retouched photographic evidence and witness statements that the Black Buck raids had no significant material effect upon air operations from Port Stanley airfield,"
the RAF had "attempted to rewrite history and exaggerate the part that they played in the 1982 conflict".
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Falklands-bomb-mission-dismissed-RAF-attempt/story-15542755-detail/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.223.161 ( talk) 12:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Consider for use in article. Ryan4314 ( talk) 14:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The damaged area is still visible on the ground at the present time - July 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.50.215 ( talk) 12:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Although the article starts by listing 6 missions, number 5 is described as the last one. Anyone know what happened to Black Buck 6? Was it planned but never carrried out? Rowland White in Vulcan 607 states there were only 5 missions, but the Thunder and Lightning website cites Black Buck 6 as the one that ended up in Rio, and then talks about a 7th raid -- Jeffjn 09:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know of the Black Buck mission which was "forced" to land in Brazil and sequestered for the rest of the war? -- Dali-Llama 17:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed a section about the withdrawl of the Mirage foces not being due to Black Buck. We have cites to say that Black Buck was the reason, and while this cite is an RAF site and so probably not unbiased we don't have another cite to the contrary. When we have a cite the passage can go back. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
On 2nd May 2007, John Reeve, accepting in a BBC news report that the Vulcan force's sticks of bombs only scored a single, direct, thousand-pounder hit on the airstrip, revealed that the Black Buck raid was strategically crucial in that it denied the Argentine Air Force a fast jet forward runway in the occupied Falklands for the duration of hostilities. This is corroborated by the historical fact that all their fighter-bomber raids were carried out from the Argentine mainland. The Black Buck mission was, therefore, a huge success and should be acknowledged as such. (JonLishman 3/5/07) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.123.71 ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The "Grey Funnel Line" Royal Navy to the unknowing, considered from before the actual invasion that it was their theatre of operations and the brown jobs aka British Army and the RAF had no business there. One senior fish head actually threw his cap out of his office window shortly after he was informed by Margaret Thatcher personally that the other branches would be involved - "No iffs or butts." Talk about throwing the toys out of the bath! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.50.215 ( talk) 12:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Why were so many refuellings necessary, the Vulcan had a range of more than 4.000 km. So one or two refueling should habe been enuogh. -- 95.222.189.69 ( talk) 00:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
One "R" is missing on the longest red line in Refuelling Plan schema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.233.129.131 ( talk) 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Operation Black Buck. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Operation Black Buck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 ( talk · contribs) 15:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The Refuelling plan caption states that "The attacking Vulcan was refuelled seven times on the outward journey and once on the return journey", while the article contains this : "The attacking Vulcan was refuelled four times on the outward journey and once on the return journey". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.233.129.131 ( talk) 18:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
It was actually seven out, one home. The reference to four refuellings outbound is incorrect, since even the cited source says (wrongly) six. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 21:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)