America's Army Sucks, Fact

Alistair Gunn wrote:

WalterM140 twisted the electrons to say:
Well, that's interesting, but it seems to indicate that the Brits
were gambling they could induce the Argintines to attack incorrectly.
Not very prudent.

The reason the Argentines came in low was Sea Dart, and the reason they
knew to come in at low to beat Sea Dart[1] was because they had two Type
42s of their own. However it's only prudent to assume that it if someone
sells you military kit that the version they sell you isn't as good as
the one they use themselves, so they might have been concerned that a
pop-up attack would have left them fatally exposed to Sea Dart[2]?

[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
against a target at 50 feet?

Yes, in open water. Exeter claimed to have shot down at least one and
possibly two A-4Cs of Grupo 4, during the combined SuE/A-4 attack on 30? May
in which the Argentines believe (or claim to) that they hit HMS Invincible,
while the Brits say they never got close and actually overflew HMS Avenger,
missing her.

[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
into San Carlos Water.

Correct, although Antrim's Sea Slug also limited them somewhat. As a
practical matter, neither Sea Slug or Sea Dart was a factor in/around San
Carlos Water, as the Argentine a/c were coming in 50-100 nm on the deck; any
pop up would have been to clear the hills around the water, leaving far too
little time for the radar-guided area SAM systems to acquire. Exeter shot
down a Learjet while in SCW, but that a/c was cruising at 40,000 feet.
Coming in as low as the fighter-bombers did essentially limited the
engagements to visual detection/acquisition/tracking; even the Sea Wolf ships
usually had insufficient time to fire using radar control when inshore.
Rapier, OTOH, might well have done considerably better if the FAA had gone in
for pop-up dive attacks.

Guy