The other link was on liveleak, so no worries. Difficult to spot when it's like that.
They were flying that low for a mix of all 3.
What really scuppered them was the overall tactics they employed - attack the ships, not the planes. It gave the Harriers free-reign to take them down - we would have probably lost otherwise.
(, Thu 9 Jun 2011, 11:37, Reply)
Well partly
They demonstrated a fearsome anti-shipping capability but deployed it against the wrong ships. If they'd concentrated on the aircraft carriers it would have been pretty much game over.
The air combat stats on the other hand were pretty decisively in favour of the Harrier.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Thu 9 Jun 2011, 12:02,
Reply)
My understanding
is that they were going for the carriers, but ship recognition at 50ft and over 1,000 mph while being shot at is a tricky business. The Sea Harriers did very well though considering how slow they are.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Thu 9 Jun 2011, 12:26,
Reply)
Its tricky to give a full account of reasons
on a touchscreen phone from a toilet stall but here goes:
The Argentine Air Force never got close enough to the Carrier fleet to bomb them, using Beyond Visual Range Exocet missiles which, while deadly enough, could be spoofed, and which were targetted via radar. A Carrier looks like any other large vessel on a radar screen, meaning the pilots have to make an educated guess based upon the ships position within the fleet. Any competent Admiral will know this and shuffle accordingly.
Those ships that were bombed were either acting as screen ships and therefore distant from the fleet (HMS Coventry) or were supporting the land invasion in and around San Carlos (HMS Ardent). While difficult to identify from low-level they're only ever going to be Frigates, Destroyers or Amphibious Assault vessels.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Thu 9 Jun 2011, 13:00,
Reply)