let us go by parts.
British sources in the 1982 denied from the beginning any claim made by Argentina except when there were POW or Basically they could not hide it anymore remember the Argentine also had TV and cameras in 1982.
Argentine TV and press in 1982 were strictly controlled by the Junta. UK press and foreign press with the Task Force were not controlled to anything like the same extent. BBC Reporter Brian Hanrahan aboard Hermes reported the first air strike launched on Stanley on 1st May by saying "I'm not allowed to reveal how many aircraft were launched, but I can say that I counted them all out, and I counted them all back." That was the extent of British reporting restrictions. It was rather pointless, as anyone paying attention (including the Argentine Government) already knew she had 12 Sea Harriers aboard at the time. They were after all displayed on deck when she sailed from Portsmouth... There was no hesitation in reporting our losses beyond giving time for relatives to be informed prior to public notification. Every ship we lost, we admitted to losing. Every aircraft that was lost was admitted to.
You mention the Invincible, what about Prince Andrew duke of York saying in 2012 admitting he was aboard it during a missile attack? only missile Argentina had to do that was an Exocet and the distance obviously is from an Etendard. plus Argentina has claimed that since 1982
At the time Prince Andrew was a serving Sea King pilot with 820NAS aboard Invincible. They carried out ASW patrols on a round the clock basis. It later emerged the helicopters were given an improvised missile decoy duty, where bundles of chaff would be literally thrown out of the helicopter to decoy radar guided missiles like Exocet. That missile is a sea skimmer, and the helicopters flew these missions at a couple of hundred feet above sea level, so that if a missile locked on to the chaff one of them had dispensed, the helo itself could not be hit by the missile as it's altitude could not be changed (after all it was an anti ship missile, and ships don't rise out of the water all that much). So he and his colleagues performed an important defensive task but he himself was in no particular danger.
Beyond that, any recollections he has of being under attack, well all air raids detected on the fleet were signalled to all ships of the CVBG, regardless of which one was directly being attacked. The matter has been investigated, the Skyhawks attacked the type 21 Frigate HMS Avenger. Invincible was 30 miles further away at that point. The best evidence you have is a former Naval officer who recalls the air Raid warning going off on his ship (and every other ship in the Task Force)?
Former Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner tried to hire Bob Ballard, the man who found the Titanic, Yorktown and the Bismarck, to search for the wreck of the Invincible. He laughed at her...
You press is not better.
Our press has many faults. Falsely reporting ships sunk when they aren't or aircraft shot down that weren't isn't one of them. There is often bias in the reporting of facts, but the facts have to be correct.
A true historian questions both sides, also you have to understand in the heat of battle 28 sea harriers can mean a total of 28 harriers of all versions, you are trying to go into technicalities and minor mistakes the press may have committed.
So claiming HMS Hermes as sunk twice and the SS Canberra as sunk twice are minor mistakes...
I can say 28 Harriers and England had 38 there.
in April 1982 there were only 31 SEA Harriers in EXISTENCE. 28 went to the South Atlantic. 22 came back. The other 10 Harriers used were RAF GR.3s, not SEA Harriers
But as a Historian, you have to think too the Argies/Argentinos also are human and lied, so i also doubt 28 Harriers.
No one is denying the Argentines are Human. At the time Argentina was not a free country with a free press, it was a Military Dictatorship, one which had a reputation for treating it's own people extremely harshly, including kidnapping, torture, rape and murder. The 'Disappeared', I believe they are known as in Argentina. Including those dissidents who were flown out over the sea in Argentine Air Force aircraft and thrown out, bound and helpless, at altitude over the sea. I grieve for the Argentine Victims of their own Government. That's the regime we were fighting. It is VERY understandable that the people of the Falklands Islands then and now want nothing to do with Argentina.
In my personal opinion there is a possibility maybe 1 or 2 harriers may have been shot down in air to air i give some credibility, because Generalizations are wrong, i think there are reasons to believe England hides losses by saying these were accidents, i must doubt both sides, why because both sides gain by hiding information and both sides have different accounts.
So i think England very likely lost around 10 Harriers in combat operations and that number goes well with the 2012 claim by Martin Balza`s account
Opinions are all very well. We are dealing in facts. There is no evidence that any Sea Harriers or Harriers were shot down in air to air combat, not because of any special attributes of the Sea Harriers themselves, simply because the Argentine Air Force stopped trying after the Vulcan raids. The Mirage IIIs were withdrawn to protect the Capital Buenos Aires and other key locations, taking them out of the fight. What remained, the Daggers and Skyhawks were used on bombing missions, not to intercept the Sea Harriers. In the opinion of the Sea Harrier pilots, this was a tactical error on the Argentine part, as the Task Force was so short of aircraft if the Argentines had made an all out offensive against the SHARs, even if they sustained a much higher loss rate (even three Mirages lost for every Sea Harrier downed) it would have ended the war in Argentina's favour much sooner. We simply didn't have many Sea Harriers built and nearly all of them went south. Argentina had more aircraft. We were outnumbered 10 to 1. That is a tactical advantage the Argentines should have exploited, but failed to do so.
