PDA

View Full Version : Vulcan is Back in the Sky!!!



Lone Ranger
10-18-2007, 04:44 PM
Finally, they've done it and put the Vulcan back in the skies again. Ah, the sound of four Rolls Royce Olympus with the throttles open, beautiful.

Some links, the Flight International one has some great pics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/7049694.stm
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/18/218727/picture-first-picture-of-the-avro-vulcan-xh558-return-to-flight.html

And webcam

http://vbc02.verifiedalarms.co.uk/

Vulcan to the Sky Trust.

http://www.tvoc.co.uk/

1000ydstare
10-20-2007, 03:42 AM
Let's get her down BA and distribute some friendship!!!!!

Firefly
10-20-2007, 06:32 AM
Bloody great news, that plane is an icon.

Lone Ranger
10-20-2007, 06:54 AM
I believe the Vulcan did visit Buenos Aires during its world tour.

Pánzon
04-02-2008, 11:18 AM
Last year I´ve read a very good book on the Vulcan operations during the Falklands/Malvinas war, It had an "alphanumeric" tittle that Dr. Alzheimer does not allow me to recall right now.

They faced enormous odds against on those missions which at the end of the line served almost no purpose as they could not put the landing strip out of service, I think though they destroyed a "Skyguard" radar with one ARM.

I sincerely recomend that book, which I do not have right now as I "lent it" to a friend and you know what happens when you do that.:roll:

Saludos.

Pánzon.

Firefly
04-02-2008, 12:23 PM
Vulcan 607

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vulcan-607-Rowland-White/dp/0552152293/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207153313&sr=1-1

A very well written book about a very exceptional Bombing Raid, that although not entirely successful, certainly put the willies up the Junta.

pdf27
04-02-2008, 02:48 PM
They faced enormous odds against on those missions which at the end of the line served almost no purpose as they could not put the landing strip out of service, I think though they destroyed a "Skyguard" radar with one ARM.
Yep, and the Crabs get the mickey taken out of them to this day for it. To be fair to them, however, the Black Buck raids had nothing to do with the airfields they were bombing. It was all about ensuring the Argentinians to keep their Mirage interceptors on the mainland, not the Falklands, which happened.

Pánzon
04-02-2008, 03:05 PM
Hello pdf27.

Cold you please explain me the meaning of this phrase

"Yep, and the Crabs get the mickey taken out of them to this day for it."

I know some "rhime slang", the most ussual, like the "apples and pears " or the stairs...... and my car is certainly a "Jam Jar"........ and I do love "pukka nosh", but this one....... is completelly alien to me.

Cheers,

Juan.

pdf27
04-03-2008, 03:06 AM
Crabs = RAF - the uniform is the colour of Crabfat Grease used by the navy to either grease their big guns (on battleships) or treat venereal disease depending on who tells you the story. It's not a friendly way of describing them.

Firefly
04-03-2008, 07:25 AM
The raid did hit the runway. The Argentinians didn't base any Jets there and so I believe it was successful. Doubly, it was a moral success, it made a statement that the RAF could hit anywhere in the S Atlantic. How many ac did Argentina hold back to defend airbases ad cities?

Lone Ranger
04-05-2008, 05:55 AM
There was a lot of hyperbole and nonsense about the Black Buck raids but they did have some effect.

It caused the Junta to withdraw the Mirage III for the defence of Buenos Aires and effectively put them out of the war. They were the only aircraft capable of taking AAM to the Falklands. The Argentines now claim this is British propaganda but the original source of the story was an interview with an Argentine Air Force officer by an American journalist.

Contrary to most of the propaganda claims on the British side the British never thought they could put the runway out of action. Air power doctrine is quite clear about the limited usefulness of attacking runway surfaces; it can delay but not eliminate bringing airpower into action.

The British knew the Argentines were using C-130 out of the airbase at night. They put a lot of effort into interdiction of these sorties leading to the loss of at least one C-130. The stories about being fooled by mud on the runway are just that - stories.

Another common misconception is that the Argentines made no attempt to use Port Stanley. They flew A-4Q out of the airfield around the 17th April before withdrawing them back to the carrier for an attempted attack on the British fleet. They also fitted CHARG (Chain arrestor gear) and were fitting steel matting to extend the runway (till Black Buck 2).

Then there is the urban legend that the Argentine engineers who built the runway deliberately placed it incorrectly on the map. The airfield was in fact built by British engineers (Babcock International) from memory. This replaced a temporary steel strip that the Argentines built following the infamous Communications Agreement of 1972.

Pánzon
04-05-2008, 06:23 PM
Yes, I think that most of the older M III were dedicated to the defense of the Capital and Cordoba, just in case, but those were only capable by then of using the Super 530 ER/IR, specially designed to attack bombers such as the Vulcan and they were thus useless for any tactical use in the Malvinas theatre. The ones with Magic one capabilitty, remained in the southern theatre.

Black Buck one , did hit half of the width of the runway, making it difficult to operate but not impossible for superb airmen operating in the most difficult situation you can imagine. As sort of "Keh Sahn" áL´creole..........

C 130, Fokker F-28 operated almost to the last day, and there was a flight of Aermacchi 339 of the COAN ( Naval aviattion 1st Squadrilla) one of them during an offensive reconosaince flight discovered the landing in San Carlos water and did two pases attacking a British frigate with rockets and cannon fire... I think it was the HMS Argonaut. and the pilot was Lt. Guillemo ( William) Owen Crippa. Naval Aviation COAN.... reverence to his pair of hardened balls of steel.

So the runway was opertional until the last day, the damage was exagerated with make up so the British recon fligh would report a runway not operational....... that make up was even made "tridimensional, so to disguised the truth even from the stereoscopic recon cameras.

And no, the harriers never catched any C 130 flying in our out Puerto Argentino... the only one lost , to the cappable hands of Cap. Ward, who denied them the possibility of a crash landing and hosed the cabin with 30 mmm cannon....... from my modest point of view, a real ungentemantly act, the plane was just trying to crash landing into the sea and perhaps the possibility for some of the crew to save themselves with their life rafts..... but that is a problem for Mr. Ward´s concience.

Needless to say , in one of so arguable decissions of the COATLANSUR flight "TIZA" where sent into a reconoisance mission to the same place in which the previous day or a few hours before another c 130, was on station reporting enemy activity, so one of the British Frigates plotted an interception course that was just on the limits of the harriers....... the rest is history....

On that c 130 loss, two vice-Commodores lost their life, a Major, and several other specialists.

It was a stupid decission to send that I seem to temember TC.63 C-130 in a recon flight, with a meterological radar, defenseless and to a station in which they KNEW that there was enemy activity.

Cheers,

Lone Ranger
04-06-2008, 06:48 AM
Panzon,

The mud "craters" on the runway didn't fool the British, they knew the runway was still being used throughout the war. They made several attempts to interdict the flights in/out of Port Stanley without much success. Its another one of the legends surrounding the Black Buck raids.

Sorry but I think you're rather harsh on Sharkey Ward, he had very little time to make an interception and you don't have the time to be sporting and give the crew time to "hit the silk". Given half a chance an Argentine pilot would have done exactly the same if the situation were reversed.

Pánzon
04-11-2008, 03:35 PM
Hi Ranger,

No Argentine with knowledge about the Falklands air war will miss the opportunity to "drop" something when talking about Nigel Ward..... I think there are recordings of the last seconds of "TIZA" ( C 130 flight) sending distress signals and announcing a crash landing in the water that are, for the Argentine side, quite emotinal.

Perhaps it is a legend, but I think all is well documented by now. Including a version from Ward´s wingman.

There is also a bit of "command remorse" as the plane was sent unnecesarily to an area known from a previous flight by another C 130 to be compromissed.

In any case, If I were Ward, I would not have given the "coup de grace" to a falling airplane, but off course, I never served, I have no military background except for the Cross of Iron that my grand dad won in WWI....

But I would say, that no Argentine pilot would have fired upon a target that was already taken out of action and on fire, it would be like denying an equal the posibility of ejection.

Anyway... such an "ace" mr Ward. I think his total count was a C 130 and a Pucará...... Both with canon fire, at least the combat with the Pucará was against another fighter plane, driven by the then MY. Tomba, even when it was a COIN turbo prop that was practically a "toy" in comparisson with a Harrier.

I think you guys have much better examples of chivalrous knights than Mr. Ward.

No bad feelings, just the explanation why, this "ace"/ writer will never have a warm welcoming in Argentina.

Cheers,

Pánzon.

pdf27
04-11-2008, 03:43 PM
That's actually a perfect demonstration of the reason Argentina lost that particular war. You guys still have some conception of chivalry in warfare. The British side recognised it as organised murder, and acted accordingly.

It isn't a nice attitude to have, but it works...

Pánzon
04-11-2008, 04:04 PM
Hi pdf,

Thanks for the reply.

Do not underestimate the blood thirst of a Junta that had his hands soaked in his own fellow countrymen blood, they were not the same, but the continuators..... the advantage was that the war was fought by the "professional soldiers", no the manhunters, and conscripted personnel of two "classes" (conscription years at that time)...

I think that in spite of some complains such as "the Argie soldiers shitted in my barn", it was mainly a gentlemen´s war except for a few cases such as the shooting down a Super Puma on its way to SAR the "ARA Alférez Sobral" after being attacked.

Cheers,

Pánzon.

Lone Ranger
04-11-2008, 04:30 PM
Panzon,

Nice to hear from you, in passing did you get my email?

Sorry but I'm going to continue with saying that your condemnation of Ward is out of place, he and his wingman were both low on fuel and had very little time to make the engagement. Having read several accounts of the action, including the comments by his wingman and by various third parties. it was regarded by the British as sad but necessary. Argentina did not have a massive airlift capability and reducing the capacity to resupply Stanley made it a clearly vital target.

There may have been Argentine recordings of the radio call but Ward and his wingman wouldn't have heard them being on a different radio frequency. And to be brutally honest the real blame lies with the commander who put a vulnerable and tempting target in harms way.

If you want to talk emotion, try listening to some of the accounts of the Sir Galahad and the Sir Tristram. The people involved in that incident have moved on, even meeting the pilots who bombed them. It was a war, bad things happen but if the veterans can move on the non-involved shouldn't bear a grudge.

pdf27
04-12-2008, 05:30 AM
I think that in spite of some complains such as "the Argie soldiers shitted in my barn", it was mainly a gentlemen´s war except for a few cases such as the shooting down a Super Puma on its way to SAR the "ARA Alférez Sobral" after being attacked.
Oddly, I'm not arguing that it was somehow ungentlemanly or that war crimes were committed by either side. Rather, I'm saying that the mental attitudes were different. The British had the mindset that they were going to kill the enemy and keep killing until the enemy gave up. The Argentines seem somewhat to have sleepwalked into the war, and many seem almost to have had the attitude that their moral case was so strong (at least to their eyes, having been taught since birth that the islands were part of Argentina - to the extent that many expected the inhabitants to welcome them and speak Spanish) that the British wouldn't attack them.

Indeed, from what I've read Argentine conscripts were treated far worse by their own officers than they were by the British after capture. To the extent that the officers were demanding to keep their personal weapons after capture to protect themselves from the men in some cases, while the conscripts were amazed to see British officers sitting down with their men and eating the same rations.
There was something very, very rotten with the Argentine conscripts sent to the Falklands...

Lone Ranger
04-12-2008, 08:14 AM
The Falklands War is often held up as being remarkable in recent conflicts for the fact that both sides respected the Law of Armed Conflict. About the only concrete example of a "war crime" occurred when Argentine forces machine gunned downed airmen in the water during the San Carlos landings. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9iMvDC40DSUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Commentaries+upon+international+law+Falkland&lr=&as_brr=1&sig=_6P-TITFUP66G7NGb9jn17_ugS4#PPA51,M1 is a link to an American general study of the Law of Armed Conflict that contains a number of examples from the Falklands, written from a neutral observer. So for once on this sensitive subject can we have no flames from a certain contributor.

Your comments on the Argentine conscripts reflect what I've read. For instance did you know that career officers and NCO got superior ration packs than the conscripts? What I found most amazing was that officers would leave the men in the field to sleep in warm beds in Stanley. The conscripts were pursuing a legal case regarding their mistreatment, I did follow it for a while but I'm not sure what happened lately.

Panzerknacker
04-12-2008, 08:17 PM
So for once on this sensitive subject can we have no flames from a certain contributor.



Hahahaha, so funny. So now the war crimes was my invention and "flaming"

You are pathetic.

I didnt wrote the book "Excursion to hell", I didnt wrote the book "Green eyed boys", I didnt pay the argentine soldier to make statements saying the british commited crimes.
I didnt pay british soldier to make them writing books in wich they were portrayed committing crimes.
I didnt put a pistol in the head of that one who said they killed severely wounded argentine soldiers for mercy.
I didnt found a bag full of ears cut off from argentine wounded and dead.

Dont kill the messenger man, for you posting an information wich you dont gree with is flaming, quite a democratic view of the forum. :rolleyes:

And in any case.. why we are talking about war crimes again? Firefly already closed the topic and despite I completely disagree with that decission I think it should not be reopened here.

Pánzon
04-12-2008, 08:24 PM
Hello there,

I have said all that came to my mind about Mr. Ward and his actions........ it may be argued that the airlifting cappability needed to be cut down........ it was already cut. the Herc was going down and on fire.

With regards to the bestiality of the command sending that Herc there, I already expressed my disgust.

Anyway, I rest my case.

With regards of the "machine guning" of Helicopters.. this is the first time I heard about it....... you might be reffereing to the section of the 25th Infantry "lodged" in Fanning Head to "prevent a landing"......... headed by the then Lt. Esteban..60 guys or so? armed with perhaps FALs, maybe a FAP? Thry had to leave their heavy equipment such as a 105 recoiless cannon in Fanning Head to have the oportunity to run........ an event like that would have had a tremendous impact on the media.....

Yes, they sot down a couple of helicopters, but I doubt very much that the survivors were machine gunned in the water.... before retreating and being ready for the battle for Goose Green/Darwin..

Cheers, it is good to talk in such a convivial manner.

pdf27
04-13-2008, 05:19 AM
I dindt put a pistol in the head of that one who said they killed severely wounded argentine soldiers for mercy.
If that's the incident I've heard about, they were critically injured and trapped inside a house that was burning down around them. The only choices facing that British guy in the accounts I've read (who was IIRC a medic) was to leave them to burn to death or kill them quickly.
All I can hope is that if I'm ever in an identical situation someone has the balls to do the same thing for me.


With regards of the "machine guning" of Helicopters.. this is the first time I heard about it....... you might be reffereing to the section of the 25th Infantry "lodged" in Fanning Head to "prevent a landing"......... headed by the then Lt. Esteban..60 guys or so? armed with perhaps FALs, maybe a FAP? Thry had to leave their heavy equipment such as a 105 recoiless cannon in Fanning Head to have the oportunity to run........ an event like that would have had a tremendous impact on the media.....

21st May 1982
On the morning of the San Carlos landings a Sea King helicopter carrying Rapier missiles and escorted by a light Gazelle helicopter, armed with a pintle-mounted machine gun and pod mounted SNEB rockets, flew straight over an Argentine party, which had evacuated Port San Carlos when the landings started. The Argentines opened fire and heavy accurate machine gun fire struck the Gazelle, mortally wounding her pilot Sergeant Andy Evans. Even so, he managed to turn away from the fire and ditch in the water. The two crew men were thrown from the aircraft when it hit the water. As they struggled in the water, the same Argentines who had shot the helicopter down, opened fire on the two crew men in the water, despite their officer ordering them to cease fire. The
Argentine troops continued to fire on the two helpless men struggling in the water for 15 minutes. When the shooting stooped Sergeant Ed Candlish, managed to drag Evans ashore, where he died in his arms. The Sea King they were escorting had managed to avoid the fire. This incident had marked effect on the British troops in the Task Force.

Lone Ranger
04-13-2008, 12:19 PM
You are patetic.

Its spelled pathetic, seeing as you are so keen to pick up on other forum users English, please at least have the courtesy to spell your insults correctly.

Seeing as you seem to have difficulty grasping the point, most foreign commentators point to the Falklands War as an example of how both sides respected the rules of war. That was the point being made.

I will not allow you to drag this into a flame war as you did the last time. I generally don't bother to respond to your posts for that very reason.

Lone Ranger
04-13-2008, 01:02 PM
Yes, they sot down a couple of helicopters, but I doubt very much that the survivors were machine gunned in the water.... before retreating and being ready for the battle for Goose Green/Darwin..

Panzon,

I'm afraid thats what happened but that wasn't the point, I was referring to a reference that highlighted how in the main BOTH sides respected the rules of war. That was the point.

Pánzon
04-13-2008, 04:45 PM
Panzon,

Nice to hear from you, in passing did you get my email?

Hello Lone "Kimosabi":D

No I did not receive any e-mail from you my friend, please look for it in your sent items folder and send it back to me if you can.

With respect to the "mercy kills" that were mentioned before, I do not remember having read about them ( I mean in a house), However, in a BBC Doc that I have in VHS, some years after the battle, I remember an NCO telling the story of how he had to shoot an Argentine prisoner that was burnig alive with what I seem to remember Napalm..... I remember his eyes, and how the tears were coming into that "hardened" warrior and I can not doubt for a minute that he acted in that particular case out of pitty, I remember saying in tears that "he had to decide to put him out of his misery).

It was a war and surely horrible things happened........ I just wish it never happened.

Cheers,

Pánzon.

Lone Ranger
04-13-2008, 05:57 PM
Panzon,

If you wish to drop me a PM with your current email address I'll send it again, I think you may be able to help me with something.

If you wish to know the incident discussed, at Goose Green some Argentina prisoners asked to move munitions they knew to be unstable, in doing so they triggered a napalm canister that engulfed them in napalm, the were burning to death and no-one could have prevented it. The man who shot them put them out of their misery, it was another example of the crap that goes with war. Others with agendas of their own would seek to make more of it than that. I think I made my personal opinion clearer earlier.

Anyway, nice to speak with you once more and to put certain things behind us.

Panzerknacker
04-14-2008, 06:58 PM
Its spelled pathetic, seeing as you are so keen to pick up on other forum users English, please at least have the courtesy to spell your insults correctly.



Thanks is corrected now, I am always looking for improve my english :rolleyes:


Seeing as you seem to have difficulty grasping the point, most foreign commentators point to the Falklands War as an example of how both sides respected the rules of war. That was the point being made

Well, yea. compared with Vietnam or Korea or a more modern conflicts like Irak or Afghanistan the Falklands/Malvinas seems a kindergarten, unfortunately even in this "civilizated" conflict there was unjustified brutality also.


If that's the incident I've heard about, they were critically injured and trapped inside a house that was burning down around them. The only choices facing that British guy in the accounts I've read (who was IIRC a medic) was to leave them to burn to death or kill them quickly.

Is not the same Pdf, check the "war crimes " topic and youll see.

Rising Sun*
04-15-2008, 03:21 AM
I didnt put a pistol in the head of that one who said they killed severely wounded argentine soldiers for mercy.


Perhaps not.

But at least one of your countrymen tried mercy killing during the Falklands war.


Another soldier fired a bullet into his chest to put him out of his misery, but he survived the mercy shot. He spent two years in a ... hospital before he was able to return home. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,475287,00.html

Unfortunately for your position as a strong opponent of British soldiers mercy killing badly wounded Argentinians, the shot was fired into the chest of a badly wounded Argentinian soldier by another Argentinian soldier (whose proficiency in that area was similar to the proficiency of many Argentinian soldiers in other military activities).

As you say it was wrong for British soldiers to engage in mercy killing of wounded Argentinian soldiers, then it is at least equally wrong for Argentinians to engage in it on their own soldiers. In which case you should argue for the Argentinian soldier involved to be charged with attempted murder. Do you?

Pánzon
04-15-2008, 03:08 PM
If you wish to know the incident discussed, at Goose Green some Argentina prisoners asked to move munitions they knew to be unstable, in doing so they triggered a napalm canister that engulfed them in napalm, the were burning to death and no-one could have prevented it. The man who shot them put them out of their misery, it was another example of the crap that goes with war.

This is the event I reffered to in a previous post, I have footage of the NCO that had to decide in a split second how to act...... As I said before, I have no doubts that he thought and that he did what was necessary to avoid further misery to the Argentines in flames......... a soldier can not "pretend" feelings like the ones this NCO was showing... he was morally destroyed just by remembering this.

This is in a documentary from the BBC called "Falklands, Task Force South", which I do have in VHS........ unfortunatelly, my last VCR stopped working years ago.

And it brings me bad memories.

A friend of mine was a pilot and during the presidential campaign of 1988 ( or 89 I am not sure) he was flying around the country the then "candidate" to president Menem........ on the political "rally" all around the country.

They had a failure on take off and thus a crash landing one day........ there were no victims, Carlitos was a fantastic pilot, but the fuselagge ended up twisted in a position in which there was no possibilty for them to abandon the cockpit.

They could not come out through the windows........... so as the flames advanced, there was nothing for the survivors to see more than Carlos and his co-pilot embracing themselves to face their destiny together....

I always say to myself that have I been there and with access to a weapon........ I would have not let them die burning.....and I wish that if something like that ever happens to me, somebody would be armed close by...... and please blow my brains up before the flames catch me.

Cheers,

Pánzon.

Rising Sun*
04-16-2008, 07:34 AM
..

I always say to myself that have I been there and with access to a weapon........ I would have not let them die burning.....and I wish that if something like that ever happens to me, somebody would be armed close by...... and please blow my brains up before the flames catch me.


I think those of us with a realistic appreciation of such circumstances would agree with you. I certainly do.

But I think it also requires something special in another person to do it.

I'm not sure I could kill someone in that situation, least of all a close mate, although I'd want them to kill me if the situation was reversed.

It's all very well to get judgmental about past events we weren't present at and didn't even witness, but I haven't been confronted with a burning or severely wounded person with no apparent chance of survival and no means of alleviating their suffering. Although I've had to deal with animals in such situations and put them down, with sadness.

Unlike PK, I wouldn't sit in moralistic or legalistic judgement on someone who acted with the best intentions in such a situation, whether towards an enemy or their own side.

Pánzon
04-16-2008, 04:09 PM
Thanks for the answer,

In my personal case, I would not hesitate for a split second, no matter the consecuences I would have to confront, I thought about it several times, and the images that come to my mind are terrible...

In that particular case, one of the survivors was a high ranking officer of the Argentine Federal Police, and he was loaded........ but he did nothing...... and rumour run on the funeral that Carlos and his Co-pilot asked to be put out of their misery...... obviously, to no avail.

Pánzon.

32Bravo
04-16-2008, 04:36 PM
Thanks for the answer,

In my personal case, I would not hesitate for a split second, no matter the consecuences I would have to confront, I thought about it several times, and the images that come to my mind are terrible...

Pánzon.

I agree, and it's rather hollow anyone to be moralising over such actions when they have never been burdened with such decisions.

Seeing people dying in agony is not the most pleasant sight, and it's not just the seeing, it's the hearing, the inhuman animal-like screaming, the stinking, smelling, tasting and the devastatingly shocking. Forget the 1000 yard stare, after those experiences, one's gaze takes in light years. No amount of movie watching can prepare one for the disturbing reality of brutally violent and mutilating death. It could have been you!

Pánzon
04-29-2008, 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by www.britains-smallwars.com
21st May 1982
On the morning of the San Carlos landings a Sea King helicopter carrying Rapier missiles and escorted by a light Gazelle helicopter, armed with a pintle-mounted machine gun and pod mounted SNEB rockets, flew straight over an Argentine party, which had evacuated Port San Carlos when the landings started. The Argentines opened fire and heavy accurate machine gun fire struck the Gazelle, mortally wounding her pilot Sergeant Andy Evans. Even so, he managed to turn away from the fire and ditch in the water. The two crew men were thrown from the aircraft when it hit the water. As they struggled in the water, the same Argentines who had shot the helicopter down, opened fire on the two crew men in the water, despite their officer ordering them to cease fire.

Hello to everyone there and specially to the co-forumers that were exchanging info with me regarding this matter.

I just want to say that I have received information that confirms your sayings without a shadow of a doubt. The event happened as you and "small wars" say and it was officialy recognized by the Argentine Army.

Apparently, after the cease fire, Lt. Esteban, the officer in command of that detachment in Fanning Head was looked for by the British obviously to take revenge. The fact that his name Esteban sounded like "Estevez" ( another Lt. who died heroically during the battle for Goose Green) saved him from the wrath of the British as he was presented as "KIA".

It is also true that he tried and tried to have his men cease fire not having much success so the British pilot certainly died.

I am sorry I doubted your says but as I said, I have irrefutable proof that things happened as you mentined.

I have also been informed that some Argentine officer was heavily mistreated after the cease fire including a "staged" firing squad. Apparently it had to do with the same episode.

Fair is fair and I am ashamed of what happened that morning, I consider that event as a consecuence of the nervous tension of the moment as we all know that those 60 Argentines were there alone and by the time they realized they had an ongoing landing, seeing half the RN landing must have been a terrible thing and thus that excess hapened.

If anyone related to the death pilot read this words, I offer my most sincere apologies as I am sure every Argentine soldier does too. People should not be shot at when defenseless and fighting for their lives.

Pánzon.

Pánzon
04-29-2008, 05:37 PM
Lone Ranger,

I have already "dropped" a few lines regarding your request, please understand that we are on the 26th aniversary and the minds of the people you need contact with is at the moment mourning and remembering.

Actually, the day after tomorrow is the 26th aniversary of the "baptism of fire" of the Argentine Air Force on the 1st of May of 1982 when several beloved pilots lost their life such as the then Cap. Gustavo García Cuerva and 1st Lt. José Leonidas Ardiles (cousin of "Ossie") who confronted a section of "experten" of the NAS 801 alone as his wingman could not take off due to aircraft malfunction on take off........ 1st Lt. Ardiles decided to tempt his luck alone on the mission, which speaks about the alloy of which his balls were forged on.

Answer will, if it ever gets to me, take some time, but I have not forgoten.

Pánzon.