In that case I suspect it was probably for payload/range reasons. The Skyhawks were operating right on the ragged edge of their range over the Falklands, so I suspect everything possible will have been done to lighten them. Gun cameras are something that is nice to have but not essential, so they would be an early target for removal to lighten the aircraft.
Gun cameras don’t weigh that much do they?
Surely the aircraft guns and ammunition would remove much more weight.
I disagree with their importance surely they would provide no end of info particulary close ups of ships and other potential targets that the aircraft passed over.
And of course they could confirm damage to a important target such as HMS Invincible.
By the way yesterday I was watching a tv series in the History Channel called “Flying trough time”, this particulary chapter was devoted to the Harrier/Sea Harrier.
I was quiet amaze when I hear the phrase “The 28 Sea Harrier deployed in Flaklands ended the War unescattered, the only damage was an AAA shot in the tail of one of these wich was promptly repaired”… :shock: …a terrible lie as you all know.
I am wondering what was that…?? and Erwinism ?, an Invincibilism ? an Britishim…somebody tell me please :?:
I was under the impression that the only Sea Harrier damage was that Flak hit and a mid-air collision between two of them. Those Harriers shot down were I understand RAF machines (GR.3s?) and so technically not Sea Harriers.
Of course I could be misremembering things - let me know if you’ve got any references to Sea Harriers being shot down…
Yes it was talkking about the force in general, aniway.
23rd May 1982
One Sea Harrier lost; Lt-Commander G. Batt killed.
On a night mission to bomb Port Stanley, Sea Harrier crashes into the sea and blows up after takeoff. Lt-Commander Batt did not have time to eject and died in the crash
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/brit-aircraftlosses.htm
Well, that certainly shows that the history channel can be wrong!!!
There were certainly more Harriers lost and damaged than just the one.
Here is a quote from wikipedia taht the Brits may chuckle at!!!
Between 1983 and 1992, Hermes was featured in the opening titles of the ITV/TV-AM programme Good Morning Britain.
I know “Britain” was carried by the two parachutests but can anyone remember what Hermes (actually her crew) used to display? I think it could have been “Morning”.
Yes, but my point is, if they are wrong in a simple matter like this, also can be wrong in more important bussiness. :?
One Harrier GR3 lost over Stanley
Two SHars lost in a presumed midair collision.
One SHar lost to unknown causes shortly after takeoff.
Don’t tell me.
An exocet in to the Starboard side of Invincible, followed by a load of bombs, and if certain reports are to be believed, the engine of one of the shotdown aircraft disappeared in to an elevator and down in to the hanger.
One exocet was able to totally gut Atlantic Conveyor to an burnt out shell, yet HMS Invincible if hit was able to conduct air ops and continue service until the end of the war!!!
HMS Illustrious did not leave port until much later, still unfinished, untrialled but 3 months ahead of time and still missed the war. She never replaced Invincible during the war, even if she had had to it would have taken a month to get her down from UK. All the while Hermes would have been on her own and there would have been fewer air capabilities.
Every nick and scratch was reported on the TV, all stories are out. The Argentines never got Invincible. Deal with it.
Or accept that your military was so poor that it couldn’t win a fight against what was a numerically inferior force to begin with, that you then made even more weaker by taking out two of it’s 3 aircraft carrying ships, Atlantic Conveyor (and all the stores and every chinnook but one for the British)and Invincible.
You were in your back garden!!!
And we still won, despite all this. Apparently.
Is interesting how easy you bite the hook 1000yds, and…
And we still won, despite all this. Apparently.
yeah…I also heard that somewhere. :roll:
Not a bite I was laughing while I typed it.
Just a premptive strike before we all entered the fantasy zone again.
No worry , the erwinism is over… at list from my side. 
On a serious note though Panzerknacker, what is it like in Argentina with regards to the Invincible. Not the technical details just the education/believes of Argentina.
Do you get taught about it in school, media or just passed down by the older generations?
Do all Argentines believe she was hit? How many believe she was sunk and how are they viewed by the rest? Do any believe that she wasn’t hit or sunk?
Well, there is a 80 % wich dont give a damn if they was hit or not because they had no particular interest in the war.
Nevertheless there is a small percentege of fanatical guys wich think that the invincible was sunk and all that idiotic stuff.
A page that show this afirmation:
http://ar.groups.yahoo.com/group/malvinasseguimosganando/
Malvinas seguimos ganando means something like Malvinas we still win or malvinas we continue the victory.
Aniway the entire people agree in one thing…the ex-combatants deserve all our admiration and respect.
I would not agree completely with that…but I am a very crude an frontal guy, so dont pay me too much attention.
Found some mint stuff whilst moocing around on google get this
Apparently there was an article printed in about 1983, in Argentina that claimed an Argentine submarine torpedoed the Invincible!!!
I seem to have lost the link accidentally though!!! I will try to find it again and post it.
also it appears that on a bondage site of all things it is discussed!!!1 :shock:
This is what came up on google from the site
… The British submarine (HMS Invincible?), torpedoed it - and probably eliminated the possibilty of a negotiated Argentine withdrawl at the same time. …
lmao
Any link to those crapy websites…? :?
Ah, so that’s why they think they sank it - our super-secret submarine carrier was hit by the argentinians and seen to go down. It then sneakily went south to torpedo the Belgrano before steaming back to port with a different coloured funnel (which had to be repainted due to a bad case of seaweed!).
Hello 
No simple rules in such cases. I worked many years with the British defense industry PR system composed of ex-officers so I know these methods. Have you ever seen the British pilots’ memoirs on VIFFing during the Falklands War? It is not allowed to tell about it, only the Argentinian pilots mentioned something like VIFFing done by the Sea Harriers in the dog fights. Such a policy.
Imagine the following funny fact: In 1986 I wrote a letter to the British Army Air Corps public relations dept. with simple request for confirmation of Gazelle AH.1 helicopter serial number poorly visible at photograph, the Gazelle which took part in the Falklands War. I wrote it as a military history publicist writing tens of articles about the Falklands War becuase it is one of my hobby. The reply came from… Ministry of Defense! I received the letter with reference signature D/DPR/443 of November 13th, 1986 signed by Captain J. Barry. Captain-member of the British MoD PR machine replied me (the original quotation from the letter I have up to this time):
Thank you for your letter to the AAC.
Unfortunately we are unable to help with your request for photographs and information about the Gazelle helicopter.
What is I asked for the AAC, what is this secret? Only for confirmation as to serial number painted on the tail boom of the L7A1 GPMG-armed Gazelle. The number visible in 70 percent. I wanted to ask an artist for drawing a color plate of that Gazelle for my article.
I do not want to judge if HMS Invincible was hit or not, I wanted to present only the British military system mentality and information policy related to the Falklands War.
Best regards
Greg
[QUOTE=Gregory;90617Thank you for your letter to the AAC.
Unfortunately we are unable to help with your request for photographs and information about the Gazelle helicopter.
What is I asked for the AAC, what is this secret? Only for confirmation as to serial number painted on the tail boom of the L7A1 GPMG-armed Gazelle. The number visible in 70 percent. I wanted to ask an artist for drawing a color plate of that Gazelle for my article.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like a stock reply - the less polite version would probably be something along the lines of “go away you silly person, we’ve got better things to do than search out the answer and generally can’t be bothered to try”. It isn’t like they’re actually getting paid to act as a press agency…