Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Air Defence
Message-ID: <1991Apr2.065133.15290@amd.com>
Date: 1 Apr 91 16:59:21 GMT
References: <1991Apr1.042902.17513@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 24
Approved: military@amd.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From: wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus)
>Does anyone on the net out there know how sucessful, if used, were the
>Chaparral, Hawk or Vulcan systems were? ...

It will probably be years before we know for sure.  There will be some
sort of "official assessment" before too very long, I expect, but those
are not always strikingly accurate.  What's needed is a careful study by
a third party, and it will be a while before the necessary evidence is
all available.

As an example of such a study, I note Ethell&Price's "Air War South
Atlantic", still the best overview of air activity in the Falklands.
E&P concluded, based on records and pilot interviews on both sides,
that the Harrier kill count was accurate but the official British SAM
claims were badly exaggerated, with the SAM systems being given credit
for a number of nonexistent kills.

-- 
"The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 are all true."  -D. Harrison|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry