I know the British were weak in the air & at sea. However, they also had their strengths. Just as the Argentians also had their strengths & weaknesses. Did the AIM-9L win the war by itself, no. However, it made the British job much easier. Would the Argentinians have won the war with better bombs? Had the British had more ships sunk with a corresponding heavier loss of life...Maybe. Higher warship losses certainly would have giving British politicians pause with continuing the war. Further, heavier warship losses would have made attacking the more strategically valuable transports a much easier task. Where, at any point in this discussion did I say the British were "lazy" or "no good". That is only you reading in your own preconceived notion of British weakness. FYI, there is much more to "weakness" than being lazy & no good. Of the British were "strong" then why were so many of their ships sunk or damaged? If the British were "strong" then why did the fail to prevent most Argentinian aircraft from conducting their attacks?