exMud:
Sorry, can't let that one go. (And I'll declare my interest here - I served in the FAA as an air engineer and was in the Falklands in 1982, alongside 801 Squadron).
You say that in your experience, the Harrier was a 'poor combat manoeuvring aircraft' - I respect your experience, but compared to any other UK combat aircraft in 1982, how 'poor' was the Sea Harrier exactly? I absolutely agree that compared with the US fighters at the time, it was not a first rate machine, but how about compared to the F3? Or the Jag? Or even the F-4?
You then add in the observation that:
'if the opposition aren’t making much effort to avoid you (basically because of lack of training), then you don’t need much manoeuvrability - or skill - to get kills, especially using a magic piece of kit like the 9L.'
OK, I'll bite. According to the FAA pilots I knew (and still know) the Argies were plenty agressive and 'good stick and rudder merchants' (their phrase, not mine) but tactically poor. They made plenty of efforts to avoid the SHARs, mostly unsuccessfully.
Your observation about the 9L being an excellent weapon is well made. But to use it effectively in the Falklands, flying from small decks in poor weather at maximum range, needed highly trained, agressive and very, very skilled pilots. Fortunately the Fleet Air Arm had them.
Actually, you want to know the key thing you need to get kills? To be at the war and to engage the enemy. That's exactly what the FAA has done since WW2, and that's why FAA pilots have got the kills. (Oh, and I include the RAF guys serving with the FAA down there).
I apologise unreservedly for a slight case of spleen venting, but these were brave pilots doing a great job. Slagging them off like this is, IMHO, 'not on'.
Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the stuff for real,
Engines