(Evan Brennan) wrote in message snip

You really are a pathetic goofball.

Ah, just as I suspected, you know you don't have a leg to stand on as
far as the facts go, so you result to ad hominem attacks.

The British claimed that their surface-to-air weapon systems shot down
at least 52 Argentine planes, but only 20 were confirmed. And yet
you're still whining about Moro.

If ppointing out that Moro is a highly unreliable source is whining in
your book, then I'll happily plead guilty, especially since you seem
to base so many of your claims on verbatim quotes from him. Unlike
Moro, any historian who is actually trying to be objective accepts
that overclaiming happens on all sides in wartime, and that the only
losses each side can be _sure_ of during a war are their own. That
the British SA systems overclaimed during the war, claims which were
published in "The Falklands Campaign: The Lessons" white paper, was
established quite early (1983) by Ethell and Price, and has been
accepted as fact ever since by every historian. Moro cites Ethell and
Price as a major source, and occasionally quotes from them, so he was
certainly aware of the appendix where they discussed the issue at some
length.

And yet, while discussing the British (over)claims in the white paper
(pp 325-326), rather than citing Ethell and Price as independent,
objective confirmation of his own claim that the number of shootdowns
were optimistic, he never mentions them. What possible reason could
he have for failing to mention this outside confirmation from
reputable historians, especially when he never hesitates to say that
he has confirmation of his many dubious (and often laughable) claims
from unnamed, unofficial sources in Britain? Let me suggest a reason:
Mentioning Ethell and Price's research confirming British SA
overclaims would establish their objectivity, and then might raise the
likelihood (indeed, certainty) in the reader's mind that the Argentine
side's SA claims, which Moro accepts at face value, were equally
overblown, as Ethell and Price list figures completely agreeing with
British admitted losses.

Unless, that is, you believe that the Argentine armed forces figures
for British a/c losses, as repeated by Moro, are accurate. Let's
review his claims for British a/c losses:

"1. According to official [British] sources -- 35* (11 fixed-wing and
24 helicopters)

"2. According to our own figures -- 66 (28 fixed-wing and 38
helicopters).

"3. According to unofficial British sources -- 77 (31 fixed-wing and
46 helicopters)."

*Ethell and Price and every other source I'm aware of only list 10
fixed-wing losses, 6 SHAR and 4 GR.3.

So tell me, which set of figures do you think is most accurate? If
you believe, as Moro does (or professes to), that the British engaged
in a huge conspiracy to cover-up the extent of their losses, then you
must believe in either no. 2 or 3. Unfortunately for Moro, no
reputable historian, including Ethell and Price, agrees with him.
Moro's claims are often ludicrously easy to disprove, often using the
very same sources which he used. Or rather, failed to use, either
because he didn't understand that the info was there, or because the
info disagreed with his own pre-conceived beliefs so he chose not to
use it.

Just taking a single case, do you believe that the Argentine defenses
round Port Stanley shot down four SHARs during the attack on the
airfield on 1 May, instead of the single SHAR damaged in the tail by a
20mm hit, admitted by the British?

Personally, I rate Moro as reliable when he's quoting flight callsigns
and t/o times, fairly reliable when he's describing what the AAF
believed was going on during the war, and very unreliable when he's
making the numerous overblown and silly claims which permeate the
book. YMMV, and apparently does.

Once again, I give you the opportunity to show us your analytical
skills as to Moro's reliability, on just one of his many controversial
claims, and one easily proved or disproved from the very sources that
Moro used. To repeat:

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.

You can demonstrate for us that you're attempting to be objective
about Moro as a source, or you can confirm what we all believe, that
you'll accept any claim no matter how ludicrous, if it bolsters your
prejudices. We're pretty sure which path you'll choose, but go ahead
and surprise us.

At least your usual incoherence and poorly aimed shots were especially
appropriate for April Fool's Day.

Apparently every day is April Fool's day for you, but here's your
chance to take a break from that.

Guy