Talk:Operation Sutton

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Overseas Territories This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European / South America 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force South American military history task force South America: Falklands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as Low-importance).

An image used in this article, File:San Carlos-Paras & chopper.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:San Carlos-Paras & chopper.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- talk) 15:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

According to the Lt. Esteban, his combat group don’t had deads during the combat. I am not sure, but probably the deaths of this article are from the other section who had problems during the withdraw, but a I’m not sure if this other group had deads during combats. Hehex2020 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not sure but you removed cited content anyway. Really,

WP:NOTHERE. WCM_email 06:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

No, really I am sure, because the other sección weren't have dead’s during the withdrawal. Hehex2020 (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting cites content and the silence is consensus Hehex2020 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t respond to me, it isn’t my problem Hehex2020 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No ignoring you repeating the same crap isn't consensus, edit warring is your problem. The casualties are cited, you're removing cited content. Stop it. WCM_email 16:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edit also has a cite. If instead of spending 13 years of your life on Wikipedia, you had spent a little time learning Spanish, you would understand what my source says. Hehex2020 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm half-Spanish, I can understand Spanish perfectly well. If you spent a little time listening to what people are telling you instead of insisting you are here to right

WP:GREATWRONGS you might learn something. And I have been to Argentina many times, in fact my cousin is married to an Argentine. Let me guess and I'll only need a couple of goes, you consider yourself a Porteño right? WCM_email 17:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not porteño but I live near porteñolandia. In my edit I only put accurate information about the sección “gato”(doesn’t named in the article), I put the commandos as part of the military strength and I delete the information about the crashes Jets because that’s part of the battle of Dan Carlos. Hehex2020 (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Hehex2020 (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why I can’t put more and more accurate information about the section “gato”? Hehex2020 (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is

wp:or?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Acording to "Comandos in acción" (ISBN 978-950-620-312-2), the EC Guemes did had casualties. "A eso de las cuatro de la noche, con media docena de heridos [...] Reyes ordenó la retirada" Traslate: "By the 4 o'clock, with half a dozen of wounded [...] Reyes ordered the withdrawal".--Malvinero10 (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lt. Morgan's Harrier was splashed by the Task Force "Yapeyú" of the 5th Infantry Regiment in Port Howard, with two 12,7mm and light guns fire. The 601 Commandos also fired Blowpipe and exploded behind the GR.3 but the main cause was the people of FT Yapeyú.--Malvinero10 (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem. In Argentina there is a tale that increases the popularity of the 601 and 602 companies and the 25th Regiment, to the detriment of the other units.--Malvinero10 (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read

wp:or, we cannot use unsourced claims.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I know that policy. I will search sources for that. I can assure you that plane was shot down by the Task Force Yapeyú. With regards.--Malvinero10 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lt Morgan wasn't shot down, you're possibly mistaking Flt Lt Jeff Glover, shot down over Port Howard by a Blowpipe missile. WCM_email

Yes, I was referring to Jeffrey William Glover. Sorry.--Malvinero10 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burden, Rodney A.; Draper, Michael I.; Rough, Douglas A.; Smith, Colin R.; Wilton, David (1986). Falklands: The Air War. British Aviation Research Group.

ISBN 0-283-99035-X. says that while the Argentine's credited it to a Blowpipe, Glover later believed that he had been shot down by 20 mm groundfire (pp. 107–108). It is arguable whether this was actually part of Operation Sutton - While Glover was originally ordered to support the landing, there was nothing in the San Carlos area to attack, and he was ordered to attack Argentine positions at Port Howard, 20 miles away and on the other side of Falkland Sound. After overflying Port Howard (and finding no targets), he was ordered to photograph the area, and it was then (after a further 15 minutes flying over West Falkland to let any defences cool down) that he was shot down.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

 Comment: I'm not sure but as I understand, the Argentine Army couldn't deploy 20 mm guns (or bigger) in Port Howard or Fox Bay. According to the Official Report of the Argentine Army of 1983, the 3rd Infantry Brigade (of which the 5th Infantry Regiment belong) didn't received his heavy weapons because the transport Córdoba, which loaded these weapons to cross to the Malvinas, never did the deliver by the threat of the British submarines (p. 53).--Malvinero10 (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20 mm appears to be Glover's judgement of what his aircraft was hit by from the sound and feel of the impacts - "in view of the three explosions he heard before his aircraft began to roll, he now believes the most probable cause of the damage was three hits from explosive 20 mm rounds" (Ethell and Price) - of course this is hardly a positive identification of the nature of what rounds hit the Harrier. If this shootdown is within the scope of the article, then it would probably be better to simply that it was claimed by both units (with appropriate sources), just as the claims of which ship shot down which aircraft during the Battle of San Carlos is almost impossible to definitively prove, as everybody was shooting at incoming aircraft, which were claimed as shot down by multiple sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]