![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
this article is awful, it is incoherent and does not properly explain what happened or the background context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.156.146 ( talk) 05:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the SAS were outnumbered. http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/sas.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.99.232 ( talk) 09:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It's OK Ryan. Woodward only refers to Sea Harriers. As you wrote in the summary, the GR3s were, on the contrary, forced to perform extremely low level flyings in order to avoid radars, but compromising accuracy and bomb's fuses reliability (I read this in Jerry Pook's book). On the other hand, the same happened to the Argentine pilots against naval targets-- Darius ( talk) 12:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
On what basis is this classified as a victory? It was a minor skirmish at best and the outcome indecisive. It would be better to simply not put anything there at all. Also the language is incorrect as pointed out previously, the SAS are not commandos. Darius, I'm surprised you would insist on this. Justin talk 16:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
unindent
Thanks for the change Darius, appreciate it. Justin talk 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
An article exists that covers this event, Gavin Hamilton (British Army officer), why does this minor event (in terms of the conflict merit its own article? Kernel Saunters ( talk) 10:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Darius, see [2] I've cleaned up some of the English useage, tidied up gramnmar and added some English translations. Are you happy with those proposed changes? Justin talk 10:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we move the article to Skirmish at Many Branch Point. Ryan4314 ( talk) 11:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Done the page move and reverted to my cleaned up version with tyhe text added by Kernel Saunters. Everyone happy? Justin talk 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Once the British achieved air supremacy over the islands, the Argentine elite force became isolated.[5] The helicopters which should have flown them back to Stanley were destroyed by GR3 Harriers near Mount Kent and Shag Cove House.[6]
This sentence is technically incorrect, not matter if they are referenced or not
1) The British do not achieved air supremacy, (neither the Argentines of course): Plenty of sources: but to mention some e.g. Argentine strike planes were able to attack as they wish, transports planes go in and out, etc . 2) yes some helicopters were destroyed, but they were still plenty of them around from both EA and FAA. in fact the British flew some of them after jun14.
Not only Port Howard have not a good logistical support, the same could be say to units close to Stanley, It was more a organisation problem than of resources-- Jor70 ( talk) 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Can't see the relevence of the starvation bit. I would be inclined to remove it.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 01:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
this article is awful, it is incoherent and does not properly explain what happened or the background context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.156.146 ( talk) 05:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the SAS were outnumbered. http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/sas.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.99.232 ( talk) 09:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It's OK Ryan. Woodward only refers to Sea Harriers. As you wrote in the summary, the GR3s were, on the contrary, forced to perform extremely low level flyings in order to avoid radars, but compromising accuracy and bomb's fuses reliability (I read this in Jerry Pook's book). On the other hand, the same happened to the Argentine pilots against naval targets-- Darius ( talk) 12:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
On what basis is this classified as a victory? It was a minor skirmish at best and the outcome indecisive. It would be better to simply not put anything there at all. Also the language is incorrect as pointed out previously, the SAS are not commandos. Darius, I'm surprised you would insist on this. Justin talk 16:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
unindent
Thanks for the change Darius, appreciate it. Justin talk 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
An article exists that covers this event, Gavin Hamilton (British Army officer), why does this minor event (in terms of the conflict merit its own article? Kernel Saunters ( talk) 10:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Darius, see [2] I've cleaned up some of the English useage, tidied up gramnmar and added some English translations. Are you happy with those proposed changes? Justin talk 10:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we move the article to Skirmish at Many Branch Point. Ryan4314 ( talk) 11:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Done the page move and reverted to my cleaned up version with tyhe text added by Kernel Saunters. Everyone happy? Justin talk 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Once the British achieved air supremacy over the islands, the Argentine elite force became isolated.[5] The helicopters which should have flown them back to Stanley were destroyed by GR3 Harriers near Mount Kent and Shag Cove House.[6]
This sentence is technically incorrect, not matter if they are referenced or not
1) The British do not achieved air supremacy, (neither the Argentines of course): Plenty of sources: but to mention some e.g. Argentine strike planes were able to attack as they wish, transports planes go in and out, etc . 2) yes some helicopters were destroyed, but they were still plenty of them around from both EA and FAA. in fact the British flew some of them after jun14.
Not only Port Howard have not a good logistical support, the same could be say to units close to Stanley, It was more a organisation problem than of resources-- Jor70 ( talk) 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Can't see the relevence of the starvation bit. I would be inclined to remove it.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 01:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)