Modern Graphics Showcase

[vodkakov]

With all this talk of the Falklands, here's some Argentine naval vessels...

[curtsibling]

The Argentine planes where for the most part, inferior or prop-driven designs - Albeit flown with courage.

The Harrier had the advantage of the world's best airmen at the controls too.

But I agree with Case, it would not be balanced to over-power the Harriers in a scenario.

...

[curtsibling]

@vodkakov:

Nice work!
Including the controversial Belgrano too -
Which, despite being a powerful battleship, was considered an unfair target!

[vodkakov]

The only reason why I raise the issue of the Harriers is that whilst playing one of the Falklands scenarios I downloaded off of civfanatics, I found them to be useless and given that the British only seemed to have 4 per carrier, it seemed a bit unbalanced. Basically, the Argentine fighters were too powerful with a significant numerical advantage...

[Case]

Originally posted by vodkakov
Didn't the Argentines also make use of the airfield(s) on the Falklands, as they weren't taken out of action?

From memory, the Argentines only operated their propeller driven Pucara light attack aircraft from bases in the Falklands - the single strip at Stanley was considered to be too short and too vunerable to sustain jet fighters. The British seem to have shared this view, with the post-war air defence of the islands being performed by Harriers untill the new Mount Pleasant airbase was completed.

given that the British only seemed to have 4 per carrier, it seemed a bit unbalanced.

From memory, about 20 Harriers operated from the Hermes and about 15 operated from the Invincible replacement aircraft were shipped and flown(!) into the theatre during the war, including No. 1 Squadron of the RAF.

However, having played that scenario, I do agree that the harriers are much too weak, and don't adequetly reflect the critical role they played.

[vodkakov]

Thanks for the info, Case

[vodkakov]

@typhoon: Does this fix the colours?

[Jimmywax]

Originally posted by curtsibling
@vodkakov:

Nice work!
Including the controversial Belgrano too -
Which, despite being a powerful battleship, was considered an unfair target!

I thought the Belgrano was an outdated U.S. WWII Cruiser. Is it the ship the brits sunk with their subs.

[vodkakov]

ARA General Belgrano was a Brooklyn class cruiser formerly called the USS Phoenix. It took part in the Pacific theatre of World War II, including in an operation after Pearl Harbour to try and find the Japanese. It was sunk by HMS Conqueror (an SSN) with about 400 (I think) fatalities. It was controversial because it was outside of the exclusion zone that the British had declared around the Falklands. However, the British claimed it was merely zig-zagging its way towards the islands. Regardless, the ship's demise acted as a deterrant to the Argentine carrier, which turned back and didn't approach the islands.

[GePap]

Originally posted by curtsibling
The Argentine planes where for the most part, inferior or prop-driven designs - Albeit flown with courage.

The Harrier had the advantage of the world's best airmen at the controls too.

But I agree with Case, it would not be balanced to over-power the Harriers in a scenario.

...

Actually, most Argentine aircraft were Mirage III's, with the Skyhawk (A-4) being the main strike aircraft and a few Super Etendards in tow. The problem for the argentines was not the quality of their aircraft (the Puccara is a fine attack aircraft) but:

1. The quality of bombs- several British ships survived direct hits because Argentine Bombs failed to explode

2. Lower pilot training

3. Less effective air to air missiles

4. The Argentines were operating at the end of ther operational range- most of the time, the argentine aircraft only had time to make one or two passes before they had to fly home or run out of fuel- you can;t really stay around to gain air superiority if you will run out of fuel at any time.

A simple way to have this in a scenerio is to have the argentine aircraft have to fly to the end of their range in making their one attack- then they are vulnerable to the Short range Harriers, who would be able to make multiple attacks in the air with time to go back to their Carriers and thus be safe from the Argentine fighters.

I think that simulates reality better than giving the Harrier much higher attack bonuses than the argentine aircraft.

[curtsibling]

Actually, most Argentine aircraft were Mirage III's, with the Skyhawk (A-4) being the main strike aircraft and a few Super Etendards in tow. The problem for the argentines was not the quality of their aircraft (the Puccara is a fine attack aircraft) but:

I am well-aware of the OOB for the Argentine airforce.

1 - This point was well-reported at the time of the war.
2 - This one is obvious.
3 - Again, a less obvious, but known factor.
4 - This point was well-proven some 40 years previously, in the Battle of Britain.

Being from the nation that won the conflict,
I think you can be assured I know about the details...

[Case]

Yet more threadjacking

Originally posted by curtsibling
I am well-aware of the OOB for the Argentine airforce.

Just on that topic, the Royal Air Force has a fantastic site at www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/argau.html which details the Argentine OOB.

www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_158.shtml is also rather cool (and features some rare and excelent photos).

As for the Mirage IIIs, while the Argentines did have a lot of them, they were withdrawn to provide air defence of the Argentine mainland following the famous Black Buck raids on Stanley.

[vodkakov]

Very interesting site with lots of info (the Air Combat Information Group one). Thanks, Case!

[jim panse]

Anyone up for improving some gfx?

[jim panse]

And that F-22 here ...