Talk:GADA 601

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentina

If you would like to participate, you can improve GADA 601, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] MILHIST B-Class assessment

There are a few uncited paragraphs in the political unrest section early in the article; if these can be cited, then the article will be eligable for B-Class. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 31 May edit

Hi. I've copyedited just one paragraph (only did one as I soon realised this article is gonna need a fair bit of work as far as copyediting goes). I've also tagged a few things that might need changing;

  • I've changed "CAP" to "attack". CAPs were when SHARs patrolled the skies to intercept enemy aircraft, the only ground attacks they performed whilst on CAP, were high-level "nuisance bombings" of Port Stanley . Also Morgan's book refers to it as an "attack"
  • I think you might of meant isthmus instead of peninsular. A peninsular is normally a strip of land surrounding by water on 3 sides, where as the land Goose Green is on, actually connects to Lafonia
  • This sentence is a bit unclear; "A second Sea Harrier was fired at, and a claim was made by 20 mm cannons from Grupo 1. The third jettisoned its bombs and flew back to the Hermes."
    • "A second Sea Harrier" was this the one behind Taylor? That would make it "the third SHAR"
    • Are you sure you mean "jettisoned"? In aviation term that implies the pilot (Ted Ball) merely discarded the weapons, unarmed, without aiming at any target, just to get them off his aircraft (usually an emergency procedure when extreme manoeuvrability is required). Also in Morgan's book Ball briefly mentions the attack went "ok" (barring obviously the loss of their first pilot) and doesn't mention anything of an emergency requiring him to jettison his weapons. Perhaps something like "dropped his bombs, but failed to destroy any targets" (do we actually know if Ball missed???) would be more suitable.
  • The details or Taylor's crash are very specific, "losing the left wing in the process. The aircraft cartwheeled in the air and crashed at a 35º angle. The body of the pilot was thrown trough the canopy and fell 80 meters away from the jet wreckage." do you have a ref for this?
  • Drop the "the" before "Hermes", call her just "Hermes" or "HMS Hermes"

In the two following paragraphs information is repeated i.e. the Sea Eagle trial bit. Also the "first of its kind to fly ever" part is a bit confusing, firstly it wasn't a new model/variant of a SHAR, just merely one with some different equipment (none of the harriers were identical, albeit with minor differences). Secondly it can't of been the first time it had flown, else they would've never got it on the carrier in the first place. I'd just drop the whole line myself personally.

I think that covers it, anything you're not happy about feel free to message me (on this page though), cheers ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL mate, I don't think you understand ;) Sea Harrier number XZ450 was just an ordinary Sea Harrier. "XZ450" is just it's individual number. It wasn't a "prototype" or a new version of the Sea Harrier (or GR3), it didn't actually carry a Sea Eagle or anything special like that during the war, or have any enhanced capabilities. To quote Morgan, "The airframe (the aircraft) had been allocated (given) to British Aerospace (by the Royal Navy) at Dunsfold so they could carry out trials of the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile".
Do you see what I mean, after the trials were finished they would removed the Sea Eagle testing equipment and replaced the RWR, so all this about variant and models is invalid. :) Ryan4314 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, sorry for editing before coming here to discuss. I'am glad to have getting the point about XZ450.
I wrote that Ball "jettisoned" the bombs because according to Argentinian sources: el tercer avión descarga sus bombas en cualquier parte posiblemente para perder peso y poder alejarse así más rapidamente de la zona. Translation: "the third aircraft dropped its bombs elsewhere, probably in order to loss weight and fly away from the area as quickly as possible." You're right, however, that "to jettison" implies unarmed ordnance, and that was not the case. I've already edited the phrase properly.
Finally, about the "peninsular", the text mentions a small portion of land west of the isthmus of Darwin which is in fact what you describe as a peninsular. You can see it in this battle map of Goose Green
Goose Green
Goose Green
below. The guns position is marked in red.
I also want to make clear that English is not my mother language, so if there is some copyedit needed, or the sentences seems a bit messy or even awkward, feel free to clean up them merciless ;).
P/S= Congratulations for the photo montage in the Falklands war article. It's cool, man :).
Thanks for replying, I made a mistake though concerning "Ball's bombs", if your reference does say "the third aircraft dropped its bombs elsewhere, probably in order to loss weight and fly away from the area as quickly as possible." then we should use the world "jettison". However I am always wary of using an Argentine source to say what the British were thinking and vice versa (for example), do you understand?
Great research on the peninsular though! Don't worry about the language barrier, hopefully me and Justin have shown that we're neutral and you can trust us, so we're be able to help/guide you :)
P.S. Praise for the montage should go solely to Justin, I gave up half way through, but he persevered with it. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which variant of English should be used?

A user has requested comment on History and Geography.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFChist list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


Here's the rules concerning the usage of English variants on Wikipedia. GADA 601 is an article about a South American military unit, the majority of the article covers a war with the British. Which form of English spelling should be used?

Slight lean towards British English: I'm not particularly bothered either way, but I guess out of all the countries that use English, British users are thr ones most likely to read this article due to the units huge role in the Falklands War. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest British English, unlikely to be of interest to the Americans, most relevance to the British and Argentish is closer to British English anyway. Justin talk 16:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
My opinion would be British English if there is an edit war going on. Buckshot06(prof) 21:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, no edit wars here, I just used the RFC as the quickest way to draw in a neutral consensus :) Ryan4314 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, just so that anyone who doesn't know is aware, I believe the rule is to stick with the spelling variant that the original author used and that the rules say somewhere that the page usage should not be changed. What would that give? Buckshot06(prof) 00:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yea, do you mean the thing at WP:ENGVAR?

Retaining the existing variety

If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.

I guess the; "In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic" bit states we should leave it as is, as the article doesn't have strong ties to Britain. Although my only concern is that the "first major contributor" of this article will happily admit that English isn't his first language. Darius are you familiar with the differences between American and British English?
If we have just one variant of English consistent throughout the article, it will make the copyediting easier. Also, currently me & Justin are the only English (as in 1st language) editors making contributions to this article, it may be more practical for us to use British-English, as I'm not familiar with American-English, if that is in fact the variant of English Darius is using. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well folks, unhappily my only knowledge about the differences between American and British English is that an "organisation" is British and an "organization" is American :). The spoken stuff is another matter, of course... I think that being Ryan and Justin the two main native-English speakers contributors, the British spelling suits better, but feel free to choice the variant by yourselves. Regards.--Darius (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Events

A couple of things about this article, clearly its written from an Argentine perspective given the subject. However, it still contains a lot of claims that post-war were shown to be optimistic. Would it not be better to use both sets of sources to focus on what happened, rather than what either side claimed. This was kinda prompted by your comment, Ryan, and I tend to agree. Justin talk 16:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the only dubious claim from the Argentinian side is that of the free-fall bombs hit either by AAA or Roland. I mean by dubious a claim that is not specifically recalled by any British source. By the way, I think the claim of a Sea Harrier flying to a mission without any kind of RWR equipment is also quite suspicious.
The performance of the 35 mm during the battle of Darwin and the figure of Harrier/Sea Harriers shot down or damaged come all of them from British authors, some of them involved in the operations (Pook, Morgan, Squire).
On the other hand, the article should include both sets of sources without seeking an improbable synthesis, since "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". (See WP:V).--Darius (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've always been a bit doubtful of what any side "claims", I much prefer to look at a side's self-declared losses/casualties. I haven't read this article all the way through, but Justin I take it you might also be referring to the "The 20 mm cannons from Grupo 1 claimed they shot down another of the Sea Harriers." I'm happy to keep the bit about the Argentine claim in, but would prefer to word it a bit more negatively, thus giving more weight to the British source (the "declaring" source in this case).
Perhaps something like this; "The 20 mm cannons from Grupo 1 claimed they shot down another of the Sea Harriers. However British sources have confirmed that XZ450 was the only aircraft lost that day."
Unfortunately Darius the part about the lack of RWR is true, multiple British sources (including fellow SHAR pilots) have confirmed this potentially embarrassing fact for British, it's the realities of war I'm afraid. In 1982, we had a lot budget cutbacks, thus a lack of Sea Harriers, hence why we had to recall one from trials. Also Darius although "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" remember the "verifiability" has to come from a Reliable source, when 2 sides claim opposite things, both should be mentioned. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, I didn't use the word dubious and I do hope you don't believe that was what I was implying. I was making no comment about your article or yourself.
I was simply referring to the fact that during the war both sides made somewhat optimistic claims about battle damage inflicted on the other. Post-war many of the British claims have been revised to reflect what is now believed to have happened. With respect I don't think the same has happened on the Argentine side, for example the Argentine navy and air force still claims to this day that HMS Invincible was hit in an attack on 30 May; it wasn't. I've also seen Argentine authors claiming upwards of 60 Sea Harriers shot down (when there was only about 20 in-theatre).
My comments were actually prompted by one of Ryan's remarks, because on the British side it has been suggested that the presence of the Sea Eagle panel on the ZX450 had led Argentine intelligence to conclude that Sea Eagle was operational and this was a factor in keeping the Argentine navy in port. I'd put that claim in the dubious category, even though I can point to two independent sources that would verify it. I was actually pontificating about whether that should be included or whether anything from the Argentine side would corroborate it.
As noted by Ryan above, ZX450 did have the RWR removed, it was a trials aircraft that was pressed into service due to the paucity of Sea Harriers at the time.
As to your comments about hitting free fall bombs. A few hand calcs using the methods in the Rheinmetall Handbook on Weaponry would confirm such claims are distinctly dubious verging on the mathematically impossible.
Anyway referring back to my original point, was a suggestion that we can either endeavour to give a balanced viewpoint by using information from both sides or simply put both into the article and leave it for the reader to decide. Justin talk 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Justin. First of all, thanks you for cleaning up the article :). ::::Remember that this is our article; may be I have ample access to Argentinian sources, but the article is not mine, it belongs to Wikipedia.
I agree with you about HMS Invincible, and the wild claims about the number of RS1/GR3 shot down (they will hang me here in Argentina :). Same case for the free-fall bombs, even if Squire's RAF diaries (There is a link in the article) mentions a number missions failing to see the impact of their bombs. Pook also (page 166) asserts that during a post-war visual recce on Stanley airfield:
"Apart from these delights [booby traps] the airfield was littered with unexploded ordnance, including cluster bombs, rockets and 1,000-lb bombs. I noticed that some of our 1,000-lb bomb casings lay about on the surface and were split open like a banana, with no obvious crater nearby-yet more evidence of the inadequacy of the weapons we had used."
Still, I also agree with you on this point that mathematical probability for this is minimal.
It's possible that, given the state of the wreckage of XZ450, the Argentine intelligence was never aware about the Sea Eagle panel. I've read about the items retrived from Taylor's corpse, and none of these gave the Argentines any tip about the Sea Eagle, only a loose idea of the position of HMS Hermes.--Darius (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries, glad we're on the same wavelength, I was just trying to help out with the article.
By the way, there is a simple explanation for those bomb casings. A lot of the bombs dropped were low-level retarded bombs using the 117 tail. They're not at their best when used at low level against a hard target, since what can happen is that they hit tail first, which results in a high rate of rotation slamming the bomb body against a hard surface. This is called slap-down in the trade and often results in a burst case.
And with BL755 there is a certain dud rate, the quoted figure is 5% but its actually a lot better than that. However, as there is 147 bomblets and they were heavily used, that results in a lot of unexploded ordnance. Another problem with the freefall ordnance was that the bomb fuzes were set before take-off with the result that if the mission were changed, they couldn't change the mission. This caused problems for Morgan and his wingman when they attacked Narwhal; the original mission called for lofting into Stanley, which changed to dive bombing a ship. The fuzes were wrong and none went off.
And if they had managed to hit a 1000 lb in flight, it would certainly be known about. A hit from a 35 mm would have caused a high order detonation and you'd have seen that for miles. Justin talk 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Black Buck

Sorry for re-adding the cite of Mottino about the airstrip status, but I think there are already so many details on the text about the Vulcan operations that the cite must stay.--Darius (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the quote, perhaps a link to the effects section of the BB article is in order? Justin talk 13:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with you, Justin.--Darius (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harrier GR.3 at Goose Green

[1] I've made an edit and then self-reverted as it was a lot of changes. What I've tried to do is bring together information from the conflicting Argentine and British reports and report both sides. What do you think Darius? Justin talk 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent review, Justin!. You have save me a lot of work!. I was thinking of including Pook's point of view from his own book. If it's OK for you, I will repost you're edition. Thank you! :)--Darius (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)