Archimedes,
I don't understand your first point. I don't care who asked for or supported Blackbuck. I know what the UK view was. I have been reading about what Woodward et al wanted for 30 years. The point (as you put it) that we could bomb their soil is a British point. They may well have looked at the raids and dismissed the threat as minimal, they might have been scared witless. The point is I don't know what they thought and I am trying to find out!
My question was 'What was the Argentine view?' (which in fairness you go on to mention) without it you cannot begin to understand the raids' effect. I am very interested by what you say about the Mirage DCA and OCA, exactly what I was after - thank you. I understand it was actually a UK statement about not attacking the mainland which helped the FAA allot its fighters.
The Argentine C2 is interesting though. I read a USAF paper about it. Were the 8 Grupo Mirage allotted to FAS (southern air force - the formation tasked with striking the FI, newly formed as I understand) and then denied to it? Or were they allotted to FAS but apportioned to DCA vice OCA? The importance of course being whether or not they were anything to do with hostilities prior to Blackbuck. The FAA had to maintain its posture towards Chile of course, so not all assets were allotted to FAS.
You assume that it was Black Buck which led to the Argentines not extending the runway at Stanley. Based on what? The fact is they didn’t. I want to know why not, not hear a guess as to why not.
All very interesting.
Courtney,
I know what the guys did. We have all known for decades - helped along by the excellent Vulcan 607 book. They flew an amazingly long way, with an amazingly complex texaco plan, in some pretty unpleasant weather and did so pretty much from a standing start at the drop of a hat. Their skill, dedication and heroism is beyond doubt. But I for one have only ever been fed sweeping statements about the effect of the raids. I have never discovered sortie rates for OCA that drop dramatically post Blackbuck for example.
I have sometimes infuriated people with this - but one of my pathological hatreds is people who simply trot out perceived wisdom or regurgitate other people's opinions as fact. I only listen to people if they have accrued knowledge, subjected it to their own conscious thought and arrived at an opinion of their own. I would be an incredible hypocrite if I didn't do the same myself.
If you interpret my search for facts as criticism of the crews you are a long way off the mark. But I do understand the 'I was there, you weren't' school of thought at the tactical level at least.