(Evan Brennan) wrote in message om...
Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
Spin Doctor Guy Alcala has again left out a number of inconvenient
facts -- thirty-three inconvenient facts, in this case. Between May
1st and June 13th, 1982, Argentine C-130 Hercules transports
operated
33 flights into the airfield at Port Stanley, carrying 434 tons of
cargo and 514 personnel. They also managed to evacuate 264 wounded.
Evidently, the crater was not quite the detriment you and the RAF
would like us to believe.

Even, you really need to take off your dark goggles occasionally. You
might then have less trouble reading the portion of my post
immediately preceding the part which you quoted out of context, to
wit:

"During the campaign the runway had been cratered by the Vulcan bomber
and Harrier raids, and had suffered over 1,000 'scabs' or shallow
scuffs in its surface. The Argentinians had temporarily back-filled
the five large craters [Guy: 1 deep one by Vulcan, the other four
shallower, by retard bombs dropped by SHAR/GR.3], enabling them to
continue to fly in C-130 Hercules transports right up to the end.
"By properly repairing three craters and dealing with about 500
'scabs', No. 1 Troop of 59 Commando Squadron Royal Engineers had the
northern half of the runway ready to accept the first British Hercules
on 24 June [Guy: Obviously, risks worth taking in landing
They had also arranged rings of earth on the runway
to show up as craters on British air reconnaissance photos.


So what? I said you did not mention the 33 flights by the C-130s. You
mentioned one specific flight in which a Hercules (supposedly) "almost
crashed".

Oh, please. What exactly did you think I was referring to when I
wrote "The Argentinians had temporarily back-filled the five large
craters . . . enabling them to continue to fly in C-130 Hercules
transports right up to the end"? I also didn't specifically mention
the numerous flights by Fokker Fellowships and Friendships as well as
the CANA Electras which also continued to fly in during the war, which
Moro never mentions. As it happens, one of the navy's Electras
appears to have been the last a/c to land at Stanley with a load from
the mainland and then return.

I don't know how much plainer I can make it.

Nor do I, but it appears no matter how plainly I make it, you'll still
ignore any parts which disagree with your biases.


Maybe you and Alistair Gunn should pass around a collection plate
to
have the crater enshrined.

Why would we need to do so? The only reason either of us mentioned it
was because you were referencing an anecdotal quote provided by Moro;
I merely provided the facts. How you get from there to our supposed
worship of the crater, I have no idea


Your longwinded response and rather astonishing selectiveness towards
"facts" suggests otherwise. : )

Oh, you mean like where the facts I selected were the actual damage
repairs the runway required, rather than relying on an anecdotal quote
from a highly-biased source like Moro, as you apparently do? But
here's your chance to dazzle us with your analytical skills, and show
us that you're trying to be objective. You have Moro, and from
references you've made to it, you apparently also have "Air War South
Atlantic." Using those two sources plus any others you wish (you'll
want to use a good naval reference like Jane's, Conway's etc. for the
era), why don't you analyse for us Moro's claim that:

1. The Dagger attack on June 8th hit a frigate other than HMS Plymouth
(Moro suggests HMS Diomede, owing to a pilot's claim that he saw "F
16" on the ship),

2. That said frigate was off Port Pleasant rather than in Falkland
Sound when attacked,

3. That Plymouth, which he agrees was in Falkland Sound, must have
been hit by a British air attack,

4. And that IR emissions from said frigate were detected from the
Argentine Ops Center (presumably in Port Stanley)?

Using just those three sources, you have enough info to conclusively
prove or disprove the first three of Moro's claims, and can easily
argue the other based on basic physical phenomena. I don't have Moro
handy at the moment, but I think he discusses this attack around page
296, and you'll especially want to pay attention to the photos showing
what is stated in "Air War South Atlantic" to be during and
post-attack photos of HMS Plymouth," especially the frame from the gun
camera of one of the Daggers involved, as Moro claims that this is in
fact another ship entirely. I think they're between pps 172-173.

We await your reply. Please, everyone else hold off your comments
until we give Evan a chance to show us his prowess as an analyst of
the reliability of Moro's claims in this matter.

Guy