Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:1982 in aviation

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1982 in aviation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad intentioned information about the Argentines destroyed planes

In this article it is not given importance to the fact that the most of the argentine planes destroyed were destroyed during air to surface combats, no into air to air combats. Hehex2020 (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't get what you mean by "Bad intentioned information". I am Argentine, and as far as I know, the Sea-Harriers shot down 20/21 Navy's and Air Force for only one kill by our forces, a Scout chopper over Goose Green (two if you want (see Bluff Cove air attacks), but this would be original research according to WP rules). Claims to the contrary have proven to be wrong, even by Argentine authors. Same thing for air-to-surface combat, as you say: four Harrier/Sea Harriers plus a couple of helicopters on our side, for 19 shot down by British naval and ground AA fire. So, except that you want to cite the Junta's daily reports as reliable sources, yup, it's true, Argentine naval and aerial forces lost 100+ aircraft shot down/destroyed/crashed/captured for 36 of the Task Force.---Darius (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Darius, I've tried to explain to this guy about WP:FRINGE but he is determined to right WP:GREATWRONGS in his mind. On another article he is claiming an Argentine soldier armed with a swiss army knife killed half of the SAS (slight exaggeration). WCMemail 00:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, J. Some people here still don't distinguish between the due respect to our vets and the wild claims of the dictatorship, it maybe they are too young or too naive. Don't worry about this particular bloke; he will eventually give up or be permanently blocked. Nice to hear from you again, my best wishes.--Darius (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did take a peak and the text was ambiguous, I have clarified and added a cite. Are you able to provide a cite for the losses on the mainland? WCMemail 11:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 100 figure (which also appears in Burden et al{{'}s Falklands: The Air War) appears to include at least one accidental loss, that of a Lynx helicopter - which doesn't seem to be related directly to operations in the Falklands. There were also five Falkland island registered civil aircraft destroyed in the war, mainly by British bombs/artillery fire. It is probably worth saying that the figures quoted for both sides include direct combat losses (from air-to-air and ground-to-air fire, losses on the ground (by bombs, shellfire and the SAS), aircraft that were captured (in various conditions - only a few of which were airworthy or capable of being made airworthy),aircraft lost aboard ships that were damaged or sunk and accidents. At the moment that isn't clear to the reader.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, I've added a caveat along the lines suggested. Over to you Darius for a cite. WCMemail 14:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not an exhaustive list at hand, J., but I found this article about the crash of a Bell UH-1H and a Pucará, both of them off Caleta Olivia while patrolling the coast between late April and May 1982. They were carrying out these operations within the area know by the FF AA as "TOAS" (Teatro de Operaciones del Atlántico Sur), that included, besides the "TOM" (around the Falklands, Georgias and Sandwich), Argentina's economic exlusive zone. Destroyer ARA Santísima Trinidad also lost a Sea Lynx in this area during the withdrawal of the Argentine Fleet in early May.--Darius (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Lynx and the Pucara are included in the 100 figure given in Burden et al - the UH-1 isn't.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using junta’s information, I am telling that the most of the Argentines loses were in air to surface combatas, no in air to air combats. Hehex2020 (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the study: http://www.radarmalvinas.com.ar/hundimientos/aviones_argentinos.pdf The quantity of Argentine planes destroyed by British forces are 41-43, adding the destroyed by friendly fire, the crashed and the captured the total quantity is approximately 68. This quantity can be tested by the article of the war what has a similar quantity of losses. Hehex2020 (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source only lists fixed-wing planes; it fails to take in account the choppers by all causes, plus a couple of Pucará losses in the mainland (within the TOAS).--Darius (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In That article appear the word “plane” not "aircraft" or "choppers and planes". Also in my source listed planes destroyed in the air and in the land like the destroyed during the attack pebble island. Hehex2020 (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just some boring facts using Falklands Air War "FAW" and the spanish language PDF "PDF" linked above -
Argentina
Number Serial Type FAW PDF
1 C-433 Dagger Yes Yes
2 C-428 Dagger Yes Yes
3 C-409 Dagger Yes Yes
4 C-404 Dagger Yes Yes
5 C-403 Dagger Yes Yes
6 C-407 Dagger Yes Yes
7 C-437 Dagger Yes Yes
8 C-419 Dagger Yes Yes
9 C-430 Dagger Yes Yes
10 C-410 Dagger Yes Yes
11 C-433 Dagger Yes Yes
12 I-015 Mirage III Yes Yes
13 I-019 Mirage III Yes Yes
14 C-303 Skyhawk Yes Yes
15 C-313 Skyhawk Yes Yes
16 C-246 Skyhawk Yes Yes
17 C-208 Skyhawk Yes Yes
18 C-206 Skyhawk Yes Yes
19 C-248 Skyhawk Yes Yes
20 C-309 Skyhawk Yes Yes
21 C-325 Skyhawk Yes Yes
22 C-242 Skyhawk Yes Yes
23 C-305 Skyhawk Yes Yes
24 C-244 Skyhawk Yes Yes
25 C-319 Skyhawk Yes Yes
26 C-304 Skyhawk Yes Yes
27 C-215 Skyhawk Yes Yes
28 C-301 Skyhawk Yes Yes
29 C-310 Skyhawk Yes Yes
30 C-226 Skyhawk Yes Yes
31 C-228 Skyhawk Yes Yes
32 C-204 Skyhawk Yes Yes
33 B-110 Canberra Yes Yes
34 B-108 Canberra Yes Yes
35 A-527 Pucara Yes No*1
36 A-506 Pucara Yes No*1
37 A-517 Pucara Yes No*1
38 A-502 Pucara Yes No*1
39 A-520 Pucara Yes No*1
40 A-523 Pucara Yes No*1
41 A-529 Pucara Yes No*1
42 A-552 Pucara Yes No*1
43 A-556 Pucara Yes No*1
44 A-531 Pucara Yes No*1
45 A-511 Pucara Yes No*1
46 A-537 Pucara Yes No*1
47 A-555 Pucara Yes No*1
48 A-509 Pucara Yes No*1
49 A-513 Pucara Yes No*1
50 A-514 Pucara Yes No*1
51 A-515 Pucara Yes No*1
52 A-516 Pucara Yes No*1
53 A-522 Pucara Yes No*1
54 A-528 Pucara Yes No*1
55 A-532 Pucara Yes No*1
56 A-533 Pucara Yes No*1
57 A-536 Pucara Yes No*1
58 A-549 Pucara Yes No*1
59 A-540 Pucara Yes No*1
60 TC-63 C-130H Yes Yes
61 T-24 Learjet Yes Yes
62 H-83 Bell 212 Yes No
63 H-85 Bell 212 Yes No
64 0660 Skyhawk Yes Yes
65 0667 Skyhawk Yes Yes
66 0665 Skyhawk Yes Yes
67 0764 MB339 Yes Yes
68 0765 MB339 Yes Yes
69 0761 MB339 Yes Yes
70 0763 MB339 Yes Yes
71 0767 MB339 Yes Yes
72 0719 T-34C Yes Yes
73 0726 T-34C Yes Yes
74 0729 T-34C Yes Yes
75 0730 T-34C Yes Yes
76 0649 Alouette Yes No
77 0735 Lynx Yes No
78 PA-54 Skyvan Yes Yes
79 PA-50 Skyvan Yes Yes
80 PA-12 Puma Yes No
81 AE-337 A-109 Yes No
82 AE-331 A-109 Yes No
83 AE-334 A-109 Yes No
84 AE-406 UH-1H Yes No
85 AE-409 UH-1H Yes No
86 AE-410 UH-1H Yes No
87 AE-412 UH-1H Yes No
88 AE-413 UH-1H Yes No
89 AE-417 UH-1H Yes No
90 AE-418 UH-1H Yes No
91 AE-422 UH-1H Yes No
92 AE-424 UH-1H Yes No
93 AE-504 Puma Yes No
94 AE-505 Puma Yes No
95 AE-501 Puma Yes No
96 AE-503 Puma Yes No
97 AE-500 Puma Yes No
98 AE-508 Puma Yes No
99 AE-521 Chinook Yes No
100 AE-520 Chinook Yes No
Types
Type FAW PDF Note
Dagger A 11 11
Mirage III 2 2
A-4B/C 19 19
Canberra 2 2
Pucara 25 10 *2
Hercules 1 1
Learjet 1 1
Bell 212 2 0
A-4Q Skyhawk 3 3
MB 339 5 7 *1
T-34C 4 4
Alouette III 1 0
Lynx 1 0
Skyvan 2 2
Puma (Prefecture Naval) 1 0
A-109 3 0
UH-1H 9 0
Puma (Army) 6 0
Chinook 2 0
100 62
  • 1 The PDF claims seven MB339 losses, although only six aircraft appear to have been deployed and one returned to the mainland.
  • 2 The PDF claims ten Pucara were captured but the FAW lists 25 losses.

So clearly not a real issue with the current entry on the page. MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1982_in_aviation