May be our british fellas can answer my question

Did Americans aid British in the conflict? If yes, how?

It seemed that Americans only backed British politically and through UN Channels and moreover they kept calling for peace between the two hostile parties.

is that right?

USA did not aided British forces militarily.

USA had important diplomatic ties with both the parties involved in the war. So Reagan Administration initially focused more on playing the role of mediator between the two nations but that role was in-effective and Reagan Administration blamed Argentina for failure.

So they supported Britain diplomactically and imposed sanctions on Argentina. But they did not provided any sort of aid to them in the conflict.

More details can be provided by British.

Actually, you missed something very important. Once the US realized that they were not going to be able to mediate this conflict, they did indeed throw their support behind the Brits. They did not send troops, munitions or supplies, as none were needed by the British at the time. However, the US did take all the intelligence information that they were constantly gathering and sent everything that they got to the British, no questions asked. Please remember that Australia, Britain, Canada, and the US are bound by an information sharing treaty, and as such, it was entirely normal for them to send the info in the way that they did. However,it must also be remembered that Argentina was (and is) also a US ally, and the US was within its rights to refuse to give any intelligence information to the British as they were attacking another ally. The US did not exercise that right, and the tactical information gathered and sent to British forces in the field helped in the final result: the Argentine surrender in Port Stanley.

Hope this helps.

Dean.

Good explanation

Thanks Dean!

That was a clear and interesting explanation Dean.

Yeah, nice post Dean, I didn't know that.

Nice explain, Dean. Thanks for the sharing.

After some fence-sitting, the US government did decide to aid Britain in the Falklands war.
They supported Britain with both military intelligence ( though from what I've read it wasn't very useful), and logistical aid.
The vast majority of logistical aid was non-military, but the US did make an important contribution to the fighting abilities of the Sea Harriers, by providing the RN with the latest models of the US Sidewinder air to air missiles.

Originally Posted by redcoat

After some fence-sitting, the US government did decide to aid Britain in the Falklands war.
They supported Britain with both military intelligence ( though from what I've read it wasn't very useful), and logistical aid.
The vast majority of logistical aid was non-military, but the US did make an important contribution to the fighting abilities of the Sea Harriers, by providing the RN with the latest models of the US Sidewinder air to air missiles.

well, AIM-9s counted for at least the entire kill ratio of the Royal Navy Harriers

Wrong. At least one of the kills was due to the 30mm cannon not a missile strike. Read chapter 4 about the harrier at this site...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1984/HJA.htm

Regarding air to air kills involving a missile strike it was always the AIM-9 because THAT was the only AA missile they were carrying.