The Gr.3s didn’t even start showing up to the fight until much later after being shipped down on Atlantic conveyor.
And the Mirages fighting the Shars after some cat and mouse is a fact that has been confirmed by many.
I think he’s referring to Argentina Air Force
Well yeah they were the only argies at play.
The 5th of may never really left port.
He mentioned that Argentine Navy A-4’s were aging and cracked airframes
1 Like
The only time they tried to attack from the carrier. There wasnt enough wind to take-off (ironic for the area) and so were forced to abort. (only if they had bought SHars)
Then Belgrano was sunk and they werent taking any chances so the A-4s were sent back to the mainland and conducted raids from there whilst the carrier and the bulk of the Argentine navy returned to port
They had about 6 in a semi-usable state. though most should have probably been grounded
As we have had some debate and discussion over the Sea Harriers effectiveness in air combat.
I felt it would be great to look into the Argentinian perspective of the matter.
It seems even the Argentinians viewed the Shar as a very very serious threat and outright stated that it was superior to the mirage 3 up to 25,000 feet.
I’ve heard the phrase too, but like I said earlier, Im pretty sure it wasnt something commonly used among the pilots. The video Moments of Valor: Argentina is based on fragments from the accounts of then capt. Pablo Carballo. But honestly, I’ve never heard him, or any other pilot, for that matter, actually use that nickname for the shars Still, we cant definitively say the phrase doesnt exist or that it was pure propaganda either.
By the way, I came across something interesting from Santiago Rivas, a well known and reliable argentine military researcher and author. (check the end of the post for the reference)
1 Like
Its funny clearly the term existed, but its origin is still unclear.
According to Santiago Rivas, it might have been a misinterpretation by british radio operators of argentine pilots referring to the harrier as a “moscardón” (blowfly).
I´m not denying they were involved I’m just talking about what their actual mission was. The mirage III was an interceptor, meant for continental air defense, not for strike missions at ranges far beyond its capabilities.
To assess how effective the Mirage III could have been, you´d need to flip the scenario: send shars loaded with bombs and full drop tanks all the way to Buenos Aires, then see how well the mirage IIIs performed in their designed role, as interceptors.
Given the circumstances of the war, the comparison simply doesnt make sense. Its like trying to decide who was the better football player Paul Scholes or Harry Kane based solely on the number of goals they scored.
What I’m really pushing back on is those kinds of comments. Youre presenting the information in a way that, whether its out of ignorance or bad faith I honestly dont see how that helps the moderators fix the Harrier.
1 Like
They literally came to fight the Shars with nothing but drop tanks and missiles.
In the first many battles they were not flying strike missions. There intent was to do exactly what they where made to do, intercept and fight.
I’m pretty sure that carrier couldnt even reach the operational top speed required for proper takeoffs. Under those conditions, not even hurricane force winds would get a fully loaded A4 off the deck.
Thats the sad truth. The people who fought, on both sides, are surely seen as heroes in their respective countries. In Argentina, though, the high command? Total bastards.
I think they were fine when sailing at full speed into head winds and in the south atlantic there is usually quite a bit of wind.
But they were in a pretty poor state iirc. Though cant blame them for going for the A-4s. I think they bought all of them for about the same price of 2 new SHars
No ones saying it wasnt a good aircraft, but youre comparing plane vs plane. What I’m asking you to do is compare everything: the aircraft, the context, logistics, missiles, prior combat experienc, capabilities, external support, intelligence, and more.
I dont think youre quite getting the point, arguing plane vs plane ends up being a sterile, shallow debate that doesn’t really reflect what actually happened.
1 Like
This thread wasn’t really about what actually happened. Its about the sea harrier, and how it stacks up as an aircraft IRL compared to its terrible and inaccurate representation in game.
Thats the point, the carrier was far from fully operational. As for the A4s, they had been in service for years and were being replaced by the SUE at the time. They were practically retired, pulled out of some basement, and sent back into service.
Exactly but your main hypothesis is that the aircraft was much better in real life than it is in the game, and your arguments to support that idea boil down to comparing stats or results in a simple jet vs jet matchup.
Is that literally not the metrics we use to calculate aircraft performance in War Thunder. Hmmm?
Along with various performance charts I have used in the past it is without a doubt very seriously underperforming.
Forget it, mate I’m not going to argue with you over things that are honestly pretty insignificant. You know exactly what I mean, especially regarding the argument with POLYDEUCES you know.
I guess theres no point in dragging this out any further.
Even though its an interesting topic for a healthy discussion, this just isnt the place for it.
I hope I didnt cause any trouble
if I did, I truly apologize. That was never my intention.
Ok, I made this topic to address Gaijins neglect. It is the perfect place.