PDA

View Full Version : The Invincible!



Man of Stoat
01-22-2006, 12:37 PM
Fine now I get it.


Which I think would also remove the belief that Invincible was sunk during the Falklands

I dont know who say that before....Erwin I guess?

The Invincible was damaged not sunk, I dont know who was the idiot that invented the "teory" of the sinking, that only cause the disbelief of the serius argentine sources.

CAN OF WORMS:

Invincible was never hit!

http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/falk.htm

In addition the Argentines believed they had hit Invincible when they struck both Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor. However this set back did not stop the Argentine propaganda machine claiming to have sunk Hermes on three separate occasions. In fact, to this very day, many Argentines still believe they hit Invincible either sinking her or forcing her to put into Cape Town for repairs.

Panzerknacker
01-22-2006, 12:58 PM
Please, let separate propaganda from facts.

The Atlantic conveyor was attacked on 25th May.

The attack on Invincible was on 30th may and in a very different location away from the wreck of Atlantic Conveyor.


However this set back did not stop the Argentine propaganda machine claiming to have sunk Hermes

I dont give a damn for "argentina propaganda machine" as I say before those are the idiots that make some argentines fall in ridiculuos.

My source for the confirmation of the hit in the HMS invincible are the First leutenant Ernesto Ureta and Gerardo Isaac.

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/8528/malvinas26am.jpg

Man of Stoat
01-22-2006, 01:09 PM
Why would the British admit every single little scratch on every single boat, except this one? Why do the veterans organisations never mention it, when they mention everything else in very fine detail? Argentina seems alone in the world in believing that it hit invincible, and when the sources of only one country say something, then it's true to seriously in doubt.

Two pilots say they hit it, everybody on the ship says they didn't.

Panzerknacker
01-22-2006, 01:17 PM
I dont know the reasons for the alleged "concealment"

I trust in the debriefing of the pilots, if you dont belive it, is okay. I can live with that, is not the mayor issue of the war.

pdf27
01-22-2006, 03:47 PM
I dont know the reasons for the alleged "concealment"

I trust in the debriefing of the pilots, if you dont belive it, is okay. I can live with that, is not the mayor issue of the war.
I am told by someone who works as a naval analyst for a living (Stuart Slade, who goes by "Seer Stuart" on the internet and works for Forecast International) that the attack you're thinking of was actually aimed at one of the escorts (can't remember the name - might have been or sounded a bit like Fife or Exeter). His next comment was that this class of escorts had been deliberately designed to have a very similar sillhouette to the Invincible class of aircraft carriers with exactly this contingency in mind.
If this is true, what we have here is another instance of the fog of war - the Argentinian pilots under fire attacking a ship that is designed to look just like Invincible but either missing or causing minimal damage while thinking they've seriously hit it. And the British not being aware what the Argentinians think so not bothering to deny it.

Topor
01-22-2006, 07:24 PM
It's quite easy to find any amount of photographs of Invincible before, during & after the conflict.
Any damage done (or repairs thereto) would be easily visible to both the press & the public.

There is none.

The Argentine pilots hit Atlantic Conveyor, which would "paint" on the radar of the time as a near identical image. They never came within visible range on this instance, so could not confirm the target using MkI Eyeball.

cpl condor
01-22-2006, 08:30 PM
You have to ask why the Invincible came in the night at harbour, even the french can't see it. :arrow:

LargeBrew
01-22-2006, 11:43 PM
The Invincible will always be a bone of contention, who do you believe the air crew who claim the hit or the entire crew of the Invincible, the various journalists based on the carrier, families and friends of both and to be honest and inspite of the official secrets act just about everyone serving in the area at the time. It really isnt somthing that you can cover up no matter how hard you try.

The govenment at the time was unpopular and the left wing press would have wasted no time in putting such a story on the front page and if they had sniffed a cover up they would have really gone to town, that is the benifit of a free press.

Over the last few years publishers have been falling over themselves to sign up ex millitary types with tales to tell, do you not think that had there been a cover up that it would have come up given the level of BS that has made it into print.

The main point is what would it serve to cover up such an incident. The British public hoped for a victory but knew that it would not be easy and losses were expected. We had become used to losing ships so one more would have made no difference.

I had a friend serving with 3 Para and was informed that he was listed as wounded at Longden within 36 hrs, before his family was informed and I was in Gemany at the time so info wasnt hard to come by at the time.

1000ydstare
01-23-2006, 01:24 AM
Lets face it, as Brits we would be more likely to admit to the sinking/damage and point out we still managed to win a war that we were at disadvantage in already!!!!

I think that Latin America macho pride is different to British. The Argies would do this, as the ship is called Invincible, so they would try to do this. They think the Brits would do this also.

Given that the ARA report lists that the exocet (only one of which was capable of destroying a ship see Atlantic Conveyor and the warships struck by the weapon) AND the bombs AND the alledged straffing AND the (quite frankly strange) claim that a engine from one of the two shot down aircraft managed to break free of the dissolving plane and managed make it to the flight deck of the Invincible, sliding across the deck and down in to the hanger deck via an elevator.( :? )

And she still was afloat/or sunk depending on how loony you are.

Then the Brit mentality is to openly boast that you couldn't sink her, hit her yes, sink her no. Even if she was sunk, remember that when Antelope(?) sank, her picture was shown to the world sinking in a V for victory shape with a broken back. That was what was said "V for Victory".

If we had lost her, then cover it up during the war yes, but the moment we won we would have pointed out we managed to take on a numerically supeior foe, lose 2 out 3 major aircraft carrying ships (inc Atlantic Conveyor) and still win!!!!

It is that simple.

Panzerknacker if you would, could you dig up the official ARA report. I think you will find it includes the aircraft engine hitting the ship. It makes for spectacular reading.

BDL
01-23-2006, 01:57 AM
When the Invincible topic first came up (in a far more heated debate than this, which is nice to see) I found a site that listed a Harrier from Invincible being shot down by Argentinian anti-aircraft fire on the 1st of June. If Invincible was damaged or sunk on the 30th of May, her aircraft couldn't be flying on the 1st if June.

I'm off to work in a bit but I will post the link again when I finish this afternoon.

1000ydstare
01-23-2006, 03:42 AM
From http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/falk.htm


Aircraft Carriers And The Falklands War

Out of all the different units involved in the 1982 Falklands Conflict is perhaps the aircraft carrier participation that people most remember. For a few months Invincible and Hermes were household names and some of the most vivid images of the war are of their victorious return to Portsmouth. However it could have been a very different story and as the task force left for the South Atlantic in April 1982 many feared that the carriers would never return....

The Royal Navy Carrier Fleet Before the War

When the Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands in early April 1982 the Navy could only immediately supply two carriers- Invincible and Hermes. The only other carriers on the scene was Illustrious, then under construction at Swan Hunter, and Bulwark laid up in Portsmouth Dockyard. The 1960s and 70s had seen the run down of Britain's carrier fleet, most notably with the cancellation of the CVA fleet carrier replacement programme. In its place the Navy ordered a class of anti-submarine helicopter cruisers that over time developed into the Invincible Class small fleet carriers. Under the 1981 defence review the newly commissioned Invincible was to have been sold to the Australians where she would serve as the R.A.N's flagship (named H.M.A.S Australia) replacing the long serving Melbourne (ex- H.M.S Majestic). Indeed the future was bleak for the Invincible Class as a whole- even if they weren't sold there was the possibility of mothballing at least one of them. The sale of Invincible was part of a number of reductions (including that of the Ice Patrol ship Endurance) that sent the wrong messages to Argentina regarding Britain's willingness and ability to defend the Falkland Islands. Meanwhile after some years in reserve at Chatham the aircraft maintenance ship (and former aircraft carrier) Triumph had been sold for breaking up in Spain in 1981. Together with the conversion of Albion, Bulwark and Hermes into commando carriers during the 1960's and the cancellation of the CVA programme meant that the Ark Royal and Eagle would be Britain's last true aircraft carriers. Eagle was decommissioned at Portsmouth on 26th January 1972 and later that year she was towed to Devonport where she remained until the 13th October 1978 when she left for breaking up in Cairnryan. Ark Royal served slightly longer arriving at Devonport for the final time on 4th December 1978. She remained there until the 22nd September 1980 when, despite public dismay and some calls to preserve her, she began her tow to Cairnryan for breaking up and by the time of the Falklands war she was nearing the end of the scrapping process. However in a stroke of luck the commando carrier Hermes had undergone a second conversion, this time to a ski-ramp carrier during a £30,000,000 refit in 1981. She was now capable of operating the new Sea Harrier aircraft that would prove so vital in outcome of the war.

Operations

Hermes and Invincible both left Portsmouth on the 5th of April 1982 after a frantic period of preparation. Invincible sailed under the command of Captain J.J. Black and was joined by nine Sea King helicopters of 820 Squadron and eight Sea Harriers from 801 Squadron in the channel. Both vessels were tempting targets as not only were they amongst the largest, most powerful and important units of task force but Prince Andrew was a Sea King helicopter pilot from 820 Squadron on Invincible, while Hermes was the flagship of the task force with Admiral Woodward aboard. Although the threat principally came form the air there was also the somewhat smaller, yet none the less dangerous threat from the submarines beneath the waves. This threat was confirmed after the war when it was revealed an Argentine submarine fired six torpedoes at the British fleet, none of which had any success. In addition the Argentines believed they had hit Invincible when they struck both Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor. However this set back did not stop the Argentine propaganda machine claiming to have sunk Hermes on three separate occasions. In fact, to this very day, many Argentines still believe they hit Invincible either sinking her or forcing her to put into Cape Town for repairs. As for the actual participation in the war both Invincible and Hermes served as floating airfields. Sea Harriers from the two ships were involved in air strikes following the initial Vulcan raid on Port Stanley and were frequently in action after that. Hermes original air group was later augmented with Sea Harriers flying from Ascension. With the end of the war Hermes sailed for the UK on 5th July while Invincible left a little later on, on the 29th July. She was relived by her brand new sister ship Illustrious on 27th August 1982. Hermes arrived back at Portsmouth on the 21st July to a terrific welcome (including a flypast by a Victor and three Sea Harriers) that was repeated for Invincible together with destroyer Bristol on the 17th September. Invincible had spent 166 days at sea- believed to be the longest period of continuous carrier operations.



Above: (left) H.M.S Invincible passes the Round Tower as she leaves Portsmouth. A Sea Harrier can be seen on the ski ramp and her sailors line the decks. Uncertain water lay ahead: many believed the situation would be resolved by the time the task force reached the Falklands while others feared the navy would loose one or both carriers.

'Veinticinco De Mayo'

Of course Britain wasn't alone in operating carriers. The Argentine Navy had one too- Veinticinco De Mayo (named after Argentina's national day: the 25th of May). She started life as the British Light Fleet Carrier H.M.S Venerable, launched in December 1943. After a brief career with the Royal Navy, Venerable was sold to the Netherlands and renamed 'Karel Doorman' in 1968. She suffered a major fire and was re-sold to Argentina in 1961 and named 'Veinticinco De Mayo'. The deployment of four nuclear powered 'hunter-killer' submarines by the Royal Navy and the subsequent sinking of the General Belgrano by one of them, Conqueror, confined most of the Argentine fleet to home waters. Veinticinco De Mayo, the largest unit in the Argentine Navy, was no exception. For the duration of the conflict she remained in Argentina's shallow coastal waters and played little part in the conflict. However some of her aircraft were later flown on raids from mainland Argentina. If it hadn’t been for Conqueror and the other nuclear submarines a direct confrontation between the Argentine and British carriers may have occurred.

Offer from the Americans

The departure of Invincible and Hermes to the South Atlantic raised one important question in those both in the Falklands and at home- what would happen if either carrier was disabled or destroyed? Their presence was paramount to the mission. As Admiral Woodward had said "Loose Invincible and the operation in severely jeopardized, lose Hermes and the operation is over". The other British commando carrier, an earlier sister ship of Hermes, Bulwark, was laid up in No.3 basin Portsmouth Dockyard. She underwent a survey to see the suitability of sending her if the war continued or a carrier was rendered inactive and work was started to take her out of mothballs. However her re-entry into service would take some time by which time the war may well be over and at worst lost. The other option was waiting for the completion of Illustrious. She was in fact completed 3 months early and after hurried and brief sea trials headed down south, commissioning en-route (20th June 1982). Lessons learnt from the war had already been put into practice and she was fitted with the Phalanx close in weapon system- previously considered too expensive. Illustrious arrived on scene as the conflict ended but if it had gone on any longer her arrival would have given the battle weary fleet a significant boost. If one of the carriers had been lost it was likely that the British forces would have been pulled back, regrouped and waited for Illustrious and Bulwark before attempting to retake the islands a second time. Although never officially acknowledged there are reports that during the conflict the United States offered Britain the loan of a US Navy aircraft carrier should the worst happen to either Invincible or Hermes. One source claims the American carrier in question was the U.S.S Eisenhower* while another source suggests that it was the Keersage† . The Guam and Oriskany are also mentioned and it is rumoured that Royal Navy officers visited the Norfolk navy yard to inspect two Iwo Jima class vessels. Regardless of the ship and regardless of weather the offer was even made it is almost certain that it would have been turned down or would never have materialised. The problems involved with manning and equipping a foreign vessel of this size in a time of the war would be difficult to say the least. Where would the Royal Navy get the manpower for a capital ship of this size? After all there were and still are significant technical differences between RN and USN equipment. Then there are the political implications. The US and UK had always had a 'special relationship' but this would be pushing it to its limits. By merely supporting UK the USA were jeopardizing relations with South America and additionally the American public may not have the same resolve to lend American equipment to fight a battle thousands of miles from not only the United States but also from Britain. * The Secret War for the Falklands by Nigel West † Falklands Documentary on the Discovery Channel.

Temporary Carriers

Such was the need to transport and operate aircraft in the Falklands, the Ministry of Defence requisitioned many merchant ships. Whilst some were converted to hospital ships or troop carriers several were converted into basic aircraft carriers. The container ship Atlantic Convoyer was one such vessel. She had been laid up on the River Mersey but she and her sister ship Atlantic Causeway were taken to Devonport where they were hurriedly converted into 'harrier carriers'. However, the Atlantic Convoyer was one of the more unfortunate participants of the war. On May 25th she was struck by an exocet missile and was immediately evacuated as fire spread through the ship. Together with her loss was the destruction of 3 Chinook and six Wessex helicopters and the tragic deaths of 12 men, including several from the merchant navy. Other Royal Navy ships had some aircraft capability including the helicopter support ship RFA Engadine and the Assault ships Fearless and Intrepid ,which at one point during the campaign both successfully landed Sea Harriers on their helicopter flight decks.



Above: Two very different views of the SS Atlantic Convoyer. (left) The Atlantic Convoyer was converted into a temporary 'harrier carrier' thanks to the versatility of the Sea Harrier which has vertical takeoff and landing ability. As can be seen from the photograph the flight deck was shielded from the elements by walls of containers at each side.(right) The Atlantic Convoyer after it was struck by the exocet.

Carriers After the War

Soon after the war ended and to the relief of many the sale of Invincible was cancelled and H.M.A.S Melbourne decommissioned on 30th June 1982 without replacement although the Australians were offered the elderly Hermes instead. This decision appears to have been vindicated with Invincible's successful operation off the former Yugoslavia and off Iraq. After decommissioning two years after the end of the war Hermes was laid up at Portsmouth dockyard until 1986 when it was announced she had been sold to the Indian navy. She had a refit at Devonport in 1987 and was handed over to her new owners who commissioned her on May 12th 1987 and renamed her 'Virrant'. She has finally been replaced by a new purpose built commando carrier named Ocean. Hermes sister ship Bulwark never did sail again other to the breakers yard. Finally, the Veinticinco De Mayo was laid up in 1993, plans to refit her for further service never materialised and in December 1998 she left Argentina bound for the scrapyard at Alang, India. Some of her equipment was sold to Brazil for use on her sister ship 'Minas Generias' (ex-H.M.S Vengeance).

The Falklands proved the need for Britain to have two operational carriers at any one time. This has been hard to meet even with three carriers- taken late 1999 for example. Illustrious is active, Invincible is undergoing a period of maintenance in dry dock at Portsmouth while Ark Royal has just started a major refit at Rosyth. The loss of Britain's fleet carriers will be reversed in the future with the introduction of two large carriers from 2012.

My boldening of what I think are the most pertinent points.

Panzerknacker
01-23-2006, 06:19 AM
I understand his point of view..but saying that the pilots attacked the wreck of the Atlantic Conveyor is an Erwinism :? .

I only hope that this discution dont get stuck in the "Invincible" issue.

Dani
01-23-2006, 06:20 AM
...is an Erwinism :? .


Off-topic: Nice said Panzerknacker! :D :D

1000ydstare
01-23-2006, 06:27 AM
To be honest we just need to leave it.

As many people have said on the Brit side, we have admitted to every scratch and loss, apart from Invincible. Given that even secret documents have been released about nuclear depth charges being carried down south, surely documents would have been released on the subject of damage and/or sinking. Also the 1000+ crew and their families, and anyone they have ever spoken to, have not hinted at this ever happening.

On the Argentine side, it has passed in to folk law that a raid was succesfully pursued on a ship with the name Invincible. Two men died in this raid, there is alot of public affection for the men who survived, it was the last shot (thre were no more exocets) and more importantly it was the one thing that the Argentine nation can hold on to from an otherwise abortive and pointless war that they were embarked upon by an otherwise hated government.

1000ydstare
01-24-2006, 09:20 AM
I think the sum arguement of the ARA that Invincible was hit revolves around two very scared men, who may or maynot have hit the Invincible and the fact that the Invincible was painted on the way home.

If we read the official RN report, backed up by papers (and thousands of UK population who turned out to watch!!!).


Hermes and Invincible both left Portsmouth on the 5th of April 1982.


Hermes arrived back at Portsmouth on the 21st July to a terrific welcome (including a flypast by a Victor and three Sea Harriers) that was repeated for Invincible together with destroyer Bristol on the 17th September. Invincible had spent 166 days at sea- believed to be the longest period of continuous carrier operations.

You can see why she would need to be painted, Hermes was in rag order and she came back 58 days earlier! Also at one point (possibly 5th May) the Invincible had a quite major repair job carried out on her turbines, over night. This has also led to some believe she was damaged.

There is a belief, that the ARA kept their boats tied up because there was a chance of their pilots shooting them up by mistake. Bearing in mind that there was one type of ship owned by both Navies. (the Royal Navy ones had big black ID stripes painted down them but I can't remember which type it was)

At high speed even ships can be confused, and those that say a carrier wouldn't be confused with a Frigate or similar, remember that Invincible class carriers are quite alot smaller than most other carriers. On radar they would look similar, at mach 1 under fire and dodging radar lock, would the pilot get a good look before hitting the "drop now" button?

pdf27
01-24-2006, 12:21 PM
There is a belief, that the ARA kept their boats tied up because there was a chance of their pilots shooting them up by mistake. Bearing in mind that there was one type of ship owned by both Navies. (the Royal Navy ones had big black ID stripes painted down them but I can't remember which type it was)
Type 42 destroyer, which was the most modern air defence destroyer available to the UK at the time (still is come to think of it!)


At high speed even ships can be confused, and those that say a carrier wouldn't be confused with a Frigate or similar, remember that Invincible class carriers are quite alot smaller than most other carriers. On radar they would look similar, at mach 1 under fire and dodging radar lock, would the pilot get a good look before hitting the "drop now" button?
Particularly as the Invincible class were designed to have a similar sillhouette to one of the classes of escort (can't remember which one).

Panzerknacker
01-24-2006, 05:24 PM
No escort ship had a Ski-jump, wich was that.? :?


There is a belief, that the ARA kept their boats tied up because there was a chance of their pilots shooting them up by mistake. Bearing in mind that there was one type of ship owned by both Navies. (the Royal Navy ones had big black ID stripes painted down them but I can't remember which type it was)

Those ships where never deployed because after losing the Cruiser the Admiral Anaya ( a tit) dont want risk any more big ship, nobody said to him that it was a real war and those ships was were badly needed....that is the way that the Military rulers want to win the conflict. :roll:

pdf27
01-24-2006, 06:13 PM
No escort ship had a Ski-jump, wich was that.? :?
Ski jumps aren't the most obvious feature - remember that when conducting an attack you're going to be approaching the ships at something like 10 miles a minute.
I assume the attack would have been at low level, perhaps 100 ft up. From 100ft your visual horizon is pretty close - maybe 5 miles on a really clear day, more likely 3-4. That means you have between 20 and 30 seconds to identify your target, aim at it, arm and drop bombs, etc.
This is done while navigating, keeping an eye out for enemy fighters and dodging flak/missiles etc. When your workload goes up, your ability to see things goes down drastically - believe me, I've tried it when flying (in gliders) and it really is dramatic.
Secondly, remember that the growth in the size the target appears to you is geometric rather than linear - at half the distance, the target appears to be four times the size, not half the size. This means that it is only in the last fraction (say a quarter, maybe a fifth) of the 20-30 seconds your target is visible that it is large enough to pick out features like a ski jump. That means you're in the last 4-7 seconds of the attack, and a bomb will take roughly 2.5 seconds to drop from 100ft up (s=ut + 1/2 a t^2). Allowing for a 0.5 second human reaction time (pretty good considering the circumstances and the nature of the information to be processed) that means that there is between 1 and 4 seconds (with IMHO 1 being the most likely - this being based on my personal experience only, so make of that what you like) in which they could see small features like the ski-jump and decide to target something else. If they were looking another way, concentrating on something else, etc. in that time they wouldn't see it and would attack on their earlier target.
After dropping bombs, survival mode will presumably kick in. No point watching them go all the way in if you're being shot at, just get the hell out of there and try to survive. Nobody is going to hang around to confirm what they think they were shooting at if they value their life at all.

This leads me to the conclusion that the ship they attacked was identified from a distance - almost certainly from the sillhouette - and they were only looking at the big features they could see from a distance. That means the would be looking for a big ship in the middle of the formation with flat decks front and rear and a large central superstructure. I have been told by a guy called Stuart Slade on another forum (goes by the name of Seer Stuart, he works as a naval analyst for Forecast International and has written a number of good essays over at Warships1 and another board) that one of the classes of escorts present at that particular moment in time was deliberately designed to have a similar sillhouette to the Invincible class (or vice-versa - can't remember) with exactly this contingency in mind.
Now to my mind, given this information, the fact that I have yet to see any accounts from the UK side of an attack on Invincible on this date and that I seem to remember seeing at some point details of an abortive attack (attacked and near missed, something like that) on the ship Stuart mentioned it all ties up to one conclusion. That the Skyhawk pilots under a lot of pressure and fire misidentified a ship designed to look like Invincible as the Invincible, attacked, and quite possibly because the ship was rather smaller than Invincible missed while thinking they had hit. This ties up very neatly and fits all the facts.

There are one or two problems. The biggest one of course is that I can't for the life of me remember the name of the escort and some very quick googling didn't give me any ideas. If I had it I could check attack reports and put the sillhouettes up side by side for comparison. That coupled with what I suspect would be a record of an attack on this escort at a time no other Argentine aircraft were nearby would in turn tie the whole thing up very neatly.
Unfortunately, I'm really rather lazy and can't be bothered. Sorry :oops:

Panzerknacker
01-24-2006, 09:21 PM
Well... I have to recognize that your post is a good one and you explained that from an objetive point of view.

Unfortunately due the unavailability of the A-4C guncams for technical reasons in the end all is resume to the verbal description of the pilots, aniway if you can remember the frigate/destroyer wich resemble from some angles of viwe to the "Invincible"...that would be nice.

1000ydstare
01-25-2006, 01:07 AM
The pilots who actually saw the target were going hell for leather after the exocet, the plan being to bomb the Invincible when she had just been hit by exocet.

If the Exocet had hit, Invincible would have been critically damaged, flight ops would have been hindered, yet the aircraft were flying the very next day. She was then alledgedly bombed.

Panzerknacker wrote:

Unfortunately due the unavailability of the A-4C guncams for technical reasons in the end all is resume to the verbal description of the pilots,

Hold on, the Argenentine side is based purely on two blokes testimony? What technical reason would render TWO guncams unavailable? I would have thought the Argentines would have moved heaven and earth to get pictures to prove their point.

I think the Argentine Junta have stitched up another propaganda coup!!!

Edit to add:

Hold on, the Argenentine side is based purely on two blokes testimony? What technical reason would render TWO guncams unavailable?

Sorry, insert


What technical reason would render TWO guncams in TWO seperate aircraft unavailable?

And what happened to the Black boxes? Don't they record radar returns, and other data that has been processed. Not to mention the location of the aircraft. This could be used to prove where they were at the time.

1000ydstare
01-25-2006, 01:15 AM
Can we start moving all our posts on Invincible in here?

Ta.

Man of Stoat
01-25-2006, 03:04 AM
Hold on, the Argenentine side is based purely on two blokes testimony? What technical reason would render TWO guncams unavailable? I would have thought the Argentines would have moved heaven and earth to get pictures to prove their point.

I think the Argentine Junta have stitched up another propaganda coup!!!

And all that they actually came up with was that crappy airbrushed picture... this implies that the gun cam footage didn't show what they wanted it to show, so they faked a picture, badly.

But, I suppose if you really really want to believe it, you'll believe anything.

1000ydstare
01-25-2006, 05:34 AM
From AIDES thread.

Man of Stoat wrote Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:24 am


From somewhere neutral:

http://www.falklandkrieg.de/seite_geschichte_lang.php wrote:
30.05.1982
Nach argentinischen Meldungen wurden der britische Flottenverband mit Raketen und Bomben angegriffen und ein Flugzeugträger durch einen Raketentreffer (Typ "Exocet") beschädigt. Diese Meldung wird durch die britische Seite nicht bestätigt.

"According to Argentine reports the British fleet was attacked with rockets and bombs and an aircraft carrier was damaged by a rocket hit ("exocet" type). This report was not confirmed by the British side."

EAGLE wrote Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:18 am


Of course in that topic there is a difference on the argentinians and british thoughts, each one believes in its versions.

The only thing that I can do here is to write the argentine version:

With the Harrier signals of appearance and disappearance from the radar, the argentine forces could estimate relatively well the position of a british aircraft carrier.

It was a joint mission between the Air Force and the Navy Aviation. The Air Force provided two tankers KC-130H (Ranquel 1,2) Hercules and four A-4C Skyhawk aircraft (Zonda 1,2,3,4), armed with snakeye bombs. The Navy provided two of its newest aircraft, the Super Etendard (Ala 1,2). One of them was armed with a AM-39 Exocet missile.

http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/images/skyhawkc.jpg

Mc Donnell Douglas A-4C Skyhawk, Argentine Air Force

http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/images/herculeskc.jpg

Lockheed KC-130H Hercules, Argentine Air Force

http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/images/sue.jpg

Dassault Super Etendard, Argentine Navy

The attack would come from the south-east, because it was a point where the argentine aircrafts never attacked to the british ships, so it could be used as surprise.

The eight aircrafts met each other in the South Atlantic ocean, where the six attackers were supplied with fuel, and the KC-130 stopped there to wait for the aircraft when those where returning.

http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/images/reaba4.jpg

Meeting of the 8 aircraft, the Skyhawks are being supplied by the Hercules

The attack began when the raid found with the support of its radars the british fleet, and descended to the level of the sea in order to not being detected by the enemy radars.

When the aircrafts were at 20 miles of the fleet, the Super Etendards ascended and the aircraft "Ala-1" launched the missile to the highest signal. The A-4C pilots had the order to follow the trail of the missile and attack to the victim.

The mission was prepared in order to attack in two waves, the first with the deadly and furtive Exocet, and the second, when the crew was shocked and occupied trying to restore the ship, with silly (non propulsed/guided) bombs.

The four Air Force pilots followed to the missile, and saw an explosion. Then they accelerated to the 100% of their aircrafts. Was there when a missile or an anti-aerial weapon shoot down to the first Skyhawk (Zonda 1), which descended quickly and dashed itself to the water. Seconds later, a second Skyhawk was reached, this time with antiaerial fire. The A-4C "Zonda 2" exploded in the air.

The two survivors advanced in formation by the pope-babor of the ship, with a lot of anti-aerial fire, and dropped their bombs over a “damaged and smoked ship” –as one of the pilot said-.

http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/images/atqinv.jpg

An A-4C Skyhawk dropping its bombs over the HMS Invincible

The aircrafts separated each other in order to confuse to the defenders, and then they met again in order to make the encounter with the tankers Hercules.

At that time, the continental radars and the Malvinas islands radars ensured that the activity of enemy combat aircrafts that appeared in the sea (in other words, that aircraft which take off in an aircraft carrier) was incredibly down.

When the pilots landed, they ensured to have attacked to a “big white ship, with two towers and a flat and continued platform. Then they were separated and interrogated. The argentine officers on the base showed to the pilots in separate pictures of all the british ships that were in the South Atlantic, and both pointed to the same picture… the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible…

http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/images/atqinv.jpg

Real photograph of the reenconter of the pilots

According to me and different historians, what happened later was:

When the Invincible was put down of the service by the argentine attack, it was restored on a british or a commonwealth dock, since its brother, the HMS Illustrious was put in service quickly and was used as a false Invincible until August, when the official british version said that the real Illustrious substituted to the Invincible in the South. What happened in August to me was that the real Invincible (touched that May 30th, and renamed Illustrious to encover the damaged suffered) had recovered it capabilities, and substituted to it brother, who was using his name in the South Atlantic. I hope you'll understand what I tried to say with this (not trying to have your agreements, only that you understand what I am trying to say)

http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/images/invincible2.gif

Here I show you a map of the attack

That's the argentine story, the story that I made guided by the argentine official versions. I hope you'll understand it

Man of Stoat wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:58 am


Sorry, mate, theory relies on the presence in the South Atlantic of a ship which many people know for an absolute hundred percent fact could not possibly have been there. Illustrious did not appear on the scene until 27th August. Absolute 100% fact, no cover-ups, unless Royal Navy ships can travel back in time.

You cannot completely silence the crews of the two carriers, the picket ships, all their families, anyone who lives overlooking the docks, the dock workers, the BBC, the tabloid journalists present, etc etc etc. Is this so hard to understand?

No neutral source says anything other than "according to Argentine reports the British fleet was attacked and invincible was hit, this is unconfirmed".

Yet another AIDES incarnation: NYhunter: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-14638.html


Eagle and ManofStoat, please delete your posts in the other thread. If you want to please repost them here, and delete them from my post.

Firefly
01-25-2006, 05:44 AM
Good stuff 1000yd, I will delete them from the AIDES thread. What about the OP Rosario Thread! Millions there!

Cuts
01-25-2006, 07:12 AM
http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/images/atqinv.jpg
Real photograph of the reenconter of the pilots

I'm impressed with the sharpness and depth of field of the image and richness of colour shown on a photograph taken through the periscope of a sub.

:wink:

1000ydstare
01-25-2006, 07:19 AM
Sorry, Cuts and Eagle, my fault, I swapped the images by mistake!!!

Eagle, I haven't got the picture link, could you do the honours. Cheers.

However this picture is still gash!!!

http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/images/atqinv.jpg

In the report by the Argentines, two aircraft were shot down in the run up to the carrier. At the same time, one by guns, and one by missile. Missiles wouldn't work too close to the ship but in the picture all 4 of the bombing planes are visible close up to the ship.

Pure fantasy, even if based on the Argentine report. Everyone else in the world knows this attack never took place against the Invincible.

And also the pictures shows the bombing... of what? The sea? that is the only thing that could have been hit by the plane in the foreground!!!

1000ydstare
01-25-2006, 07:55 AM
Reference the credibility of the pilots, I have a picture, if I can scan it and get it on the net I will, that clearly shows a silhoute and date of an attack on a ship that never happened.

I think it was a destroyer of some sort. So let's face it, the records of the ARA and FAA are already seen as fallible.

Man of Stoat
01-25-2006, 09:07 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Royal_Navy_Invincible_silhouette.png

Are you really going to see that ski ramp when it's pitching, the weather is bad, you're approaching from oblique angle, and you are dodging incoming at 400+ kts?

I can certainly imagine two pilots being mistaken, however I cannot imagine everybody on the ships being mistaken or involved in what would have to be the best cover-up of all time?

Talking of cover-ups, the British military didn't even manage to hide the fact that it was secretly testing nerve agents on volunteer soldiers in the 1950s! And that didn't involve anywhere near as many people!

pdf27
01-25-2006, 01:13 PM
Unfortunately due the unavailability of the A-4C guncams for technical reasons in the end all is resume to the verbal description of the pilots, aniway if you can remember the frigate/destroyer wich resemble from some angles of viwe to the "Invincible"...that would be nice.
Bingo! http://p076.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm9.showMes sage?topicID=1933.topic

The ship in question is the destroyer HMS Exeter (Type 42 Destroyer).

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/rn/destroyers/type42/t4214.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Royal_Navy_Invincible_silhouette.png

There are clearly some major differences, but if you look at it again there are quite a few similarities too. There is a large air search radar in front of the foremast, and a funnel in between the two masts. There is also a lump behind the aft mast (funnel in Invincible, air search radar on the T42) and fairly large flattish areas fore and aft. It isn't by any means identical, but there are some similarities there such that under pressure you could possibly mistake the two. My opinion anyway - and unfortunately that's all anyone can really say about the similarities between the two.

Just looking for references to an attack on Exeter at the correct date - can you re-post when the attack in Invincible was supposed to have taken place? Unfortunately I've forgotten already :oops: .

1000ydstare
01-25-2006, 01:33 PM
Can you stick this in the invincible thread pdf? Cheers.

Dani
01-25-2006, 02:18 PM
Can the mods by any chance move all the posts over together?

A mod can split individual posts or block of posts but cannot join several posts or stick a post to an existing thread. Unfortunatelly.

pdf27
01-25-2006, 04:42 PM
A mod can split individual posts or block of posts but cannot join several posts or stick a post to an existing thread. Unfortunatelly.
Would it be possible to move all the Invincible posts out to a third thread and then move all the posts in the Invincible thread to that one too? I know it's a lot of work, but I think the way the discussion progressed is pretty important to understanding it here and that won't be saved if posts are just copied across by individuals :cry:

Panzerknacker
01-25-2006, 05:00 PM
Hold on, the Argenentine side is based purely on two blokes testimony? What technical reason would render TWO guncams unavailable? I would have thought the Argentines would have moved heaven and earth to get pictures to prove their point.


The A-4c had no guncamera installed that was removed long before the war due his malfunction, remember those aircraft were made in the early sixties.

And the pilots wasnt "blokes" but guys with enormous balls. :twisted:

And this is last I say about the 30th may I becaming boring with this discution.

Eagle
01-25-2006, 06:06 PM
Sorry, Cuts and Eagle, my fault, I swapped the images by mistake!!!

Eagle, I haven't got the picture link, could you do the honours. Cheers.

However this picture is still gash!!!

http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/images/atqinv.jpg

In the report by the Argentines, two aircraft were shot down in the run up to the carrier. At the same time, one by guns, and one by missile. Missiles wouldn't work too close to the ship but in the picture all 4 of the bombing planes are visible close up to the ship.

Pure fantasy, even if based on the Argentine report. Everyone else in the world knows this attack never took place against the Invincible.

And also the pictures shows the bombing... of what? The sea? that is the only thing that could have been hit by the plane in the foreground!!!


Partner you are wrong LOL...

The three objects are the bombs, not Skyhawks, and the A-4C is evaiding the carrier breaking right... here the picture bigger...


http://www.aviationart.com.ar/galerias/militar/Invencible.jpg

Cuts
01-25-2006, 09:20 PM
Interesting article here, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html about the use of air power on both sides of the conflict.


With reference to the possibility of the pilots misidentifying the Atlantic Conveyor for HMS Invincible, some paralells may be drawn in this quote:

The three British warships (one destroyer and two frigates) shelling Port Stanley were attacked by a flight of Daggers that dropped bombs and strafed the vessels with their cannons. This resulted in minor damage to one vessel. However, the elated Argentine pilots’ bomb damage assessment (BDA) optimistically reported heavy damage to one ship and varying degrees of damage to two others.


That the political repercussions of failure were still an important part of the Junta's press releases is beyond doubt, that all their gen came from debriefs is not:


However, the British policy of keeping the press and public informed of casualties actually provided the Argentinians an accurate BDA. The Argentine high command learned within hours that an Exocet had crippled the Sheffield. Had the British not announced the loss, the Argentinians would have likely concluded that their Exo-cets were still malfunctioning and called off further Exocet attacks.My bold.

1000ydstare
01-25-2006, 10:16 PM
Sorry eagle, my bad, either way they aint going to his a moving ship.

1000ydstare
01-25-2006, 10:31 PM
All planes had gun cameras removed?

And they couldn't find 4 planes in the whole of the AFA and FAA with gun cameras to record this momentous propaganda moment?

Rubbish.

The gun cameras obviously clearly showed the wrong ship, which would have become apparent when the Intelligence types had all the time in the world to view them, in warm, safe dry offices.

Argentines tell pilots too keep quiet, and maybe say 10 intell types. No more than 20 people know. The junta tell them their families are dead (free parachuting lesson out of Herc, no parachutes needed) if this gets out. 20 years down the line, no one would believe them anyway.

Many people may "believe" that Invincible was hit but the number who can say they saw it, in pictures or live, are few. Even those listening to a live net, when the pilots said "we got her" or whatever don't know what ship was hit!!!

Or.

The Royal Navy manages to silences 1000s of sailers, and families. When a half finished carrier is sailed out of dock, down to the Falklands and takes the place of Invincible.!!!

Think of how many people would have to be kept quiet? From people who would now see the dock empty (hold on wasn't there a carrier in there yesterday?), people who worked on her, the new crew, the people who victualed her, the people who may have seen her going (we don't generally close down our FREE water ways) and all the families there of. And the crew of the invincible, their families and the blokes who would have to be sent down to the Falklands to help repair her, to bring her back.

Assuming hte Invincible didn't put in to a freindly dock, which would have been spotted by locals and Ameican and Russian satelites which you can bet your last dollar were watching this war with interest!!

The Illustrious was rushed out of dock. The men of the dockyard worked herculean shifts and finished her 3 months early, for the war effort. And she still missed the war. I beleive there were bulkheads that were still being painted en route.

Edit to add.

Why would this picture be neccesary then?

http://www.arrse.com/cpgn2/uploads/forums/inenllamas_1_.jpg

It is clearly completely fabricated (we wont even discuss that), yet looks like what a aircraft approaching from the rear (as they apparently did) would see in a gun camera. Which would be the only camera available.

It was published in one of your newspapers. Shows exactly what was reported, and would appear to be as if taken in action.

Firefly
01-26-2006, 05:02 AM
I have split these posts from the other topic. I'm not sure I want to copy and quote all the ones from the AIDES Topic again as they will end up out of context as there is no way to insert posts in between others. The best thing I can offer is that everyone reads the other Invincible thread and if necessary quote back to it here.

Firefly
01-26-2006, 05:14 AM
I have locked this thread, it was a good idea to have Invincible on just 1 thread but when I looked at the other one it had many more posts.

My solution is to lock this one, if you want to refer to a post here, please quote it there.

Hope this is OK.

Firefly
01-26-2006, 05:28 AM
Are you really going to see that ski ramp when it's pitching, the weather is bad, you're approaching from oblique angle, and you are dodging incoming at 400+ kts?

I can certainly imagine two pilots being mistaken, however I cannot imagine everybody on the ships being mistaken or involved in what would have to be the best cover-up of all time?

I personally dont believe that Invincible was hit let alone sunk. However I do have some information regarding the above.

I had a long chat with the subject of low level attacks on ships by aircraft with a pilot who used to fly the Bucc in this role.

He stated that at 600kts and 100 feet they could make out a ship at aproximately 8-9 miles, however they did practice it almost every day. By make out ships he meant type of ship, adjust course and attack. The conditions in the N Atlantic and N Sea being very similar to the S Atlantic. I know the Bucc was a better attack ac than a Skyhawk, but then again an A-4 was slower so would presumably have more time to acquire.

Panzerknacker
01-26-2006, 07:46 AM
Not all planes had his guncameras removed, fox example there is a lot of guncams of the IAI Daggers and Mirage IIIEA.

Rubbish...well if you want think so.


Argentines tell pilots too keep quiet, and maybe say 10 intell types. No more than 20 people know. The junta tell them their families are dead (free parachuting lesson out of Herc, no parachutes needed) if this gets out. 20 years down the line, no one would believe them anyway

hmmm..the picture sucks but this.....kind X-files

BDL
01-26-2006, 07:51 AM
hmmm..the picture sucks but this.....kind X-files

You think that a right wing dictatorship threatening a very small number of military personnel to keep quiet about something is like the X-Files. but an open democracy like Britain keeping the sinking or damaging of a ship with over 1,000 men (including an heir to the throne and many journalists) on board is completely believable?

Man of Stoat
01-26-2006, 08:47 AM
I am, unsurprisingly, inclined to agree with BDL -- the conspiratorial silence of a handful of military personnel in a military dictatorship is eminently more believable than the connivance and 100% silence of probably tens of thousands of people in a liberal democracy with freedom of expression and freedom of the press (who were indeed present), not to mention an unfinished ship being miraculously finished and travelling back in time to take part.

The pilots probably genuinely believe that they hit it. Bad weather, stress, wishful thinking, having just had your oppos blown out of the sky, high approach speeds, similar-looking silhouettes, oblique approach angles, not wanting to disappoint the folks at home, et cetera. If there genuinely was no gun camera footage, then the only people that would have know for a fact if there was a hit are those on the ship, and almost everybody in the world accepts what they say.

It is, indeed, possibly one of the most contorted conspiracy theories since Elvis rode Shergar into his UFO at area 51 and went for a day trip to play golf at a Nazi base on the moon with Lord Lucan. Two very stressed fast jet pilots said so, and I believe them against all evidence to the contrary, because I really really want to.

Panzerknacker
01-26-2006, 09:12 AM
You think that a right wing dictatorship threatening a very small number of military personnel to keep quiet about something is like the X-Files. but an open democracy like Britain keeping the sinking or damaging of a ship with over 1,000 men (including an heir to the throne and many journalists) on board is completely believable?

Let call a tie, aniway still sound ridiculous, the dictatorship only last 14 moths after the War ( even was not the War the major cause of his downfall).

Man of Stoat
01-26-2006, 09:45 AM
Assume that they're genuinely was no gun camera footage, do you really believe that this huge conspiracy involving thousands and thousands of people in a liberal democracy -- who have all remained absolutely silent on to this day -- and a time-travelling ship is more plausible than two very stressed and probably very scared people being mistaken?

1000ydstare
01-26-2006, 11:53 AM
Panzerknacker wrote:

the dictatorhip only last 14 moths after the War

Long enough to shredd the negatives and positives and tie up the loose ends. Who would believe it now anyway?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even assuming there was camera gun sight footage, the pilots may still honestly believe they got Invincible.

If they were greeted by hordes of people who thought they had got her, they may not have been debreifed until a while after.

Then the spooks say "sorry cameras malfunctioned" as by this point the whole thing had got way out of control. BA is toasting its brave pilots, and the Junta are thinking about throwing a big cheese and wine evening.

Would you want to be a party pooper and say "well, actually you hit sod all"?

C-130 for one.

This is the main problem, the Argies believe it so badly that it happened. The fact there is no credible evidence to back it up doesn't dampen their belief.

Firefly
01-26-2006, 11:57 AM
I think we may have exhausted the reasons why a whole 20000 ton carrier sinking couldnt be covered up in the UK now. Surely there is more to the conflict than this imaginary episode?

Man of Stoat
01-26-2006, 12:06 PM
I think we may have exhausted the reasons why a whole 20000 ton carrier sinking couldnt be covered up in the UK now. Surely there is more to the conflict than this imaginary episode?

The persistent belief amongst some that she was hit despite all evidence and logic to the contrary with seem to indicate otherwise... and an attempt to declare an "draw" and thus imply that an impossible conspiracy and the fact that two pilots may have been mistaken are somehow equally valid...

But I suppose there are some people who for some reason will always want to believe something really really badly, and thus completely ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Firefly
01-26-2006, 12:13 PM
While I dont see it as at all plausible in real life, we can continue to counterpunch in this thread for ever over a supposed sinking of a ship. I dont really think there is more to add to this part of the Topic at all other than going round in circles. I can see what MOS means but until certain members here change their perspective its not going to happen.

I personnaly know an RN Sea King crewman who was on the Invincible and according to him it wasnt sunk! I tend to believe him myself.

Panzerknacker
01-26-2006, 05:26 PM
I think that I make my point but seems I am wrong.

I dont believe any "conspiracy" teory , is not the JFK murder.


Long enough to shredd the negatives and positives and tie up the loose ends. Who would believe it now anyway?

Is possible


Even assuming there was camera gun sight footage, the pilots may still honestly believe they got Invincible.

If they were greeted by hordes of people who thought they had got her, they may not have been debreifed until a while after.

Yeah ...also plausible


Then the spooks say "sorry cameras malfunctioned" as by this point the whole thing had got way out of control. BA is toasting its brave pilots, and the Junta are thinking about throwing a big cheese and wine evening.

Ughhh....you blew it, I said it before THERE WAS NO guncamera installed in those aircraft, a non existent thing cannot malfuction.


Firefly wrote:
I think we may have exhausted the reasons why a whole 20000 ton carrier sinking couldnt be covered up in the UK now. Surely there is more to the conflict than this imaginary episode

:evil: :evil: Seems that I am talking to a wall right here, nobody here ( at list no Argentine members) alleged that the Invincible was sunk.

I am starting to believe that this exagerated claims maybe are the invention of some british guy to discredit all the real argentine claims.

pdf27
01-26-2006, 05:45 PM
I am starting to belive that this exagerated claims maybe are the invention of some british to discredit all the real argentine claims.
More likely Erwin after a beer too many...

Panzerknacker
01-26-2006, 06:06 PM
A british Erwin.

LargeBrew
01-26-2006, 10:25 PM
I'm finding this thread a waste of time and with the potential of destroying the group. All that will happen is that our Argentine members will continue to believe that the Invincible was either sunk and replaced or damaged and that there is a huge conspiricy covering it up, while we will continue to explain why this would not be possible.

I appriciate that some of you have contributed explanations and theory's as to why the Argentinians would make their claim but it is obvious that you are wasting your time, The success of the attack on the Invincible has become an act of faith for Argentinians, it needs no proof and cannot be denied it just is because that is what their history books tell them and it is what they need to believe. We may as well just go and bang our collctive heads against a brick wall.

1000ydstare
01-27-2006, 01:40 AM
Panzerknacker,

Three people on this site have argued long and hard from your position.

These were...

Erwin (aka sturmtruppen) from Argentina.
Irish Duck from Argentina
Arkantos from alledgedly Mexico but possibly from Argentina.

They were the ones who posted that idiotic pictures as proof.

However I must say that your info on gun cams is new.

I've locked this thread, for now, as like Firefly says this can only go round and round.

It is like disproving or proving Christ. The unbeliver wants solid proof, the beliver knows in their heart.

1000ydstare
01-31-2006, 01:00 AM
Topic open again.

Play nice.

Panzerknacker
01-31-2006, 06:49 PM
Panzerknacker,

Three people on this site have argued long and hard from your position.

These were...

Erwin (aka sturmtruppen) from Argentina.
Irish Duck from Argentina
Arkantos from alledgedly Mexico but possibly from Argentina.

They were the ones who posted that idiotic pictures as proof.

However I must say that your info on gun cams is new.

I've locked this thread, for now, as like Firefly says this can only go round and round.

It is like disproving or proving Christ. The unbeliver wants solid proof, the beliver knows in their heart.


That trio...well I think that probably the only reason for his sign-up ( wich happen long before the mine) was to bother the british members and to cause some kind of distress in this forum...quiet a reliable source

1000ydstare
02-01-2006, 12:58 AM
I think Erwin signed up for good reasons, the Falklands issue didn't come up until he was asked about it directly.

Irish Duck and Arkantos probably did only come to the forum to fight their point of view. Certainly Irish Duck and Erwin have appeared on at least two other forums putting their point of view forward on the sinking of Invincible.

We all know they are very dubious sources. However, as has been stated before, the entire proof of whether she was hit or not rests purely on two pilots. Yet the entire ships company of the Invincible at that time have never given the slightest indication that she was hit.

Topor
02-01-2006, 12:59 PM
Not forgetting all those thousands - not all British citizens, on board the rest of the ships, both RN & STUFT, who would no doubt have seen any damage to Invincible.
Yet there has NEVER been a single word from any of them.

1000ydstare
03-05-2006, 09:46 AM
Is there any information on what went wrong with the gun cameras on the aircraft?

It is peculiar that the cameras were not sorted out.

Panzerknacker
03-05-2006, 09:54 AM
Is there any information on what went wrong with the gun cameras on the aircraft?

The third time I say this...the guncameras were removed from those A-4 early than the beggining off the war, I dont know why they were not replaced.

pdf27
03-05-2006, 11:57 AM
The third time I say this...the guncameras were removed from those A-4 early than the beggining off the war, I dont know why they were not replaced.
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.

1000ydstare
03-06-2006, 04:54 AM
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.

Panzerknacker
03-09-2006, 05:17 PM
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 :?:

pdf27
03-10-2006, 08:02 AM
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...

Panzerknacker
03-10-2006, 08:09 AM
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

1000ydstare
03-10-2006, 11:33 AM
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".

Panzerknacker
03-10-2006, 05:26 PM
Yes, but my point is, if they are wrong in a simple matter like this, also can be wrong in more important bussiness. :?

Topor
03-10-2006, 08:51 PM
One Harrier GR3 lost over Stanley

Two SHars lost in a presumed midair collision.

One SHar lost to unknown causes shortly after takeoff.

1000ydstare
03-11-2006, 12:43 AM
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.

1000ydstare
03-11-2006, 12:46 AM
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.

Panzerknacker
03-11-2006, 03:56 PM
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:

1000ydstare
03-12-2006, 01:24 AM
Not a bite I was laughing while I typed it.

Just a premptive strike before we all entered the fantasy zone again.

Panzerknacker
03-12-2006, 10:03 AM
No worry , the erwinism is over.... at list from my side. :wink:

1000ydstare
03-13-2006, 02:27 AM
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?

Panzerknacker
03-13-2006, 04:47 PM
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.

1000ydstare
03-25-2006, 01:12 PM
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

Panzerknacker
03-26-2006, 09:55 AM
Any link to those crapy websites...? :?

pdf27
03-26-2006, 02:39 PM
The British submarine (HMS Invincible?), torpedoed it
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!).

Gregory
12-05-2006, 07:37 AM
Why would the British admit every single little scratch on every single boat, except this one? Why do the veterans organisations never mention it, when they mention everything else in very fine detail?
Hello :D

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 :D

Greg

pdf27
12-05-2006, 12:56 PM
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.[/I]

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.
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...

Gen. Sandworm
12-05-2006, 01:14 PM
Cant say things would be any different in the US. Especially any info involving Iraq. I know the Falklands happen more than 20 years ago but still alot of info in there maybe not the best to let the public know. Probably nothing as crazy as Erwin's and his HMS Invincable claim but ya never know. Right up there with the fake moon landing if you ask me.

Gregory
12-05-2006, 01:22 PM
The Invincible case study, as can be seen in this thread, to some extent is similar to other Falklands War case study - the Chile-based RAF aircraft as Canberras and perhaps C-130s. The fact or not? The British from this forum know it very well as I think. New Statesman vs British Government, journalist Jon Snow vs MoD, etc.

BTW - the subject of RAF in Chile during the Falklands War would be worth of its own thread, if you agree with me...?


Best regards

Greg

Panzerknacker
12-05-2006, 06:11 PM
Agree also very interesting is the commando raid agaist the Super Etendars , codename Mikado.


And fake claims aside , the usual british maner of keeping under secret archives for long time did not help in that aspect.

Firefly
12-07-2006, 07:10 AM
Ah, Secrets are kept Secret for various reasons. Even though it was 30 years ago, perhaps some of the details of the Operations thEn are still in use today. It does not pay to give a potential enemy any insights into your operational methods.

As for RAF aircraft based in Chile, well it will be a very long time before anything would be confirmed or not as Chile for one would not want it made public, if it ever happened that is.

We didnt get to have one of the Worlds best militaries by telling everyone exactly what we did or do, did we!

Dani
12-07-2006, 02:06 PM
Agree also very interesting is the commando raid agaist the Super Etendars , codename Mikado.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/08/nfalk08.xml

True?

Edited:
In 2005, The Times published: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1670775,00.html


Sir Lawrence Freedman, the historian who has compiled an exhaustive three-volume account of the war, also tells for the first time of an SAS mission to sabotage an Argentine bomber base, which was foiled by bad weather, and of the nuclear depth charges routinely carried by four Royal Naval ships in the South Atlantic.

The book appeared later in 2 volumes:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Official-History-Falklands-Campaign-v/dp/0714652075

As for Sir Lawrence Freedman, according to King's College in London http://www.kcl.ac.uk/phpnews/wmview.php?ArtID=1065


He was appointed Official Historian of the Falklands Campaign in 1997. The two volumes of the Official History were published this summer.[2005]

pdf27
12-07-2006, 02:17 PM
Probably. This sort of thing is never confirmed or denied until the records are finally released - in this case probably around 2082 at the earliest.

Panzerknacker
12-07-2006, 05:50 PM
True?



Sure is, there is a lot of info from the argentine side, but there is also a very good source in this book.

http://i19.ebayimg.com/01/i/08/c5/6e/6e_1.JPG



It include a picture of the commandos in the British Embassy in Santiago , Chile and a very detailed history of the plans for the raid.

I have the spanish version.




This sort of thing is never confirmed or denied until the records are finally released - in this case probably around 2082 at the earliest.


Thanks God I did not have to wait until my 104th birthday to know the truth about it, ¿2082? RIDICULOUS. That fact only feed the false claims and other bullshit I repeat Ridiculous.

pdf27
12-08-2006, 09:40 AM
Thanks God I did not have to wait until my 104th birthday to know the truth about it, ¿2082? RIDICULOUS. That fact only feed the false claims and other bullshit I repeat Ridiculous.
The reason is so that anybody who might be involved and be embarrassed by it is long dead. Furthermore, the international complications (e.g. Argentina upset at Chile) will have hopefully calmed down all the way.

Panzerknacker
12-09-2006, 11:00 PM
Embarrased with what...? a british victory ?

For those who are interested in underground operations and commando operations from the british forces the information is available from several sources if you looking for it . From the argentine side is silly try to hide something , everything is on public records.

Even some oldtimers chilenas generals begun to speeled out in this late days, like the retired Gral Matthei chief of the Chilean Air Force in 1982 who in april of this year told to an Argentine newspaper "I do everything nessesary to make argentina loss the war".

Panzerknacker
03-14-2007, 09:10 PM
Computer generated video of the argentine version of the attack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSijrB78Vmw&mode=related&search=

1000ydstare
03-17-2007, 10:53 AM
Seen the vid before, I think it came from a National geo or something, and someone has added the soundtrack.

Utter tosh.

For a start, the 4 attacking planes are trying to stay low, off the radar. The 2 missiliers pop up launch and the fcuk off, at higher level. Cheers chaps, we're allright jack.

Anyway, back to it. The ships can accomodate around 1,000 men. And Invincible was fully loaded with Matelots and a few Marines. She also carried a fair few journos.

If she had been hit, then the news would have broken by now. Compare the casualties on other ships hit during hte war, it would have been impossible to keep quiet.

No secrets, no cover ups, no secret navel dock yards in the South Atlantic to rebuild papier mache coverups.

She would have been repainted down south, due to the time she spent down there, not because of any damage.

As for why. I have covered this before. The Belgrano had been sunk, there were some in the Junta who probably took this as a bit of a personal slight. There for they needed a reply.

Why not Hermes, the Fleet and Task Force HQ? Invincible was targetted (and I believe she was) because of her name. Whether this targetting ever got off the drawing board, or even off the ground I don't know.

That something motivated this attack, and that such build up of info around it is undoubted. That Invincible was never hit is also undoubted.

Reports that one of the downed planes engines hit the ship, and slid in to a elevator shaft (and thus in to the very bowels of the ship/and the hanger deck) are just drivel too. Sentimental clap trap about a man who died, but managed to hit a target for victory.

On the same grounds as the story breaking our about the ship being hit, I often wonder what did happen to the Argentine pilots. The two that were killed. THis must have happened, there must be someone who missed them - family, friends and comrades. So how did they really die?

32Bravo
03-17-2007, 11:16 AM
Why not Hermes, the Fleet and Task Force HQ? Invincible was targetted (and I believe she was) because of her name. Whether this targetting ever got off the drawing board, or even off the ground I don't know.


I think Invincible, because it was a newer, sexier ship. Also, Prince Andrew was serving on Invincible at the time which raised its profile as a target...two birds with one stone.

1000ydstare
03-18-2007, 03:52 AM
Possibly, they were pretty keen on him. Many bombs had "notes" to him wrote on by the groundcrew.

Like I say, the name and the crewman.

Militarily is should have been Hermes.

32Bravo
03-18-2007, 05:03 AM
Possibly, they were pretty keen on him. Many bombs had "notes" to him wrote on by the groundcrew.

Like I say, the name and the crewman.

Militarily is should have been Hermes.


Wont argue with that.

Perhaps this reveals a flaw in the Argentine perception of how the war ought to have been fought. Looking for the high-profile targets with an eye for a headline.

A simillar example, was the they went for warships at San Carlos Bay, instead of the transports. Look at how devastating was the attack on the Sir Galahad and Tristam(?) or the Atlantic Conveyer, and the effect those losses had on the British campaign. They should have gone for more of that.

Panzerknacker
03-18-2007, 12:43 PM
Seen the vid before, I think it came from a National geo or something, and someone has added the soundtrack.

Nah, you confusing it with the attack against the Coventry, that was from Nat geo.


This clip belong to the movie "Malvinas, estuvimos ahi:"

http://www.creavision.com.ar/afiches.jpg

http://www.creavision.com.ar/sinopsisingl.html



So how did they really die?


Not in a british pub, that is for sure. What a ridiculos question, how you think they die ?



simillar example, was the they went for warships at San Carlos Bay, instead of the transports. Look at how devastating was the attack on the Sir Galahad and Tristam(?) or the Atlantic Conveyer, and the effect those losses had on the British campaign. They should have gone for more of that.

That was probably because most of the Argentine pilots did not choose the target they like...but the one they can hit.

32Bravo
03-18-2007, 01:03 PM
That was probably because most of the Argentine pilots did not choose the target they like...but the one they can hit.

Not sure I follow your meaning here. Do you mean that they hit the supply ships because they were more easily hit than a warship? If so, that would have been the better thing to have done, throughout. As I understand it, the Atlantic Conveyor, was a big container ship which confused the pilots into thinking it was a carrier, or because of its location at the time of the attack it gave the largest blipp to the Exocet target locator. Its been a long time since I read any of this, but I'm certain that there was some confusion there.

The British warships were considered expendable. It was their role to be sacrificed in order to protect the supply ships. The British Admiralty expected far greater losses.

The U-Boats (for example) would never go for a Destroyer when they could go for a cargo vessel.

Panzerknacker
03-18-2007, 01:15 PM
Not sure I follow your meaning here. Do you mean that they hit the supply ships because they were more easily hit than a warship?

NO, I mean that if an sole A-4 emerged from the haze after a extremely difficult flight over the wave tops and locate a destroyer in his route, it is most likely that the pilot attacked it, and did not attemp to seach for other more "strategic" targets...because in that way wich he could be less exposed to Sea darts, Sea wolfs, Sea Harrier, rapiers, etc.

I hope you undestand know.

32Bravo
03-18-2007, 05:58 PM
Yes, that makes sense with some of the stories I've read.

1000ydstare
03-31-2007, 01:17 AM
Maybe theywere all targets of oppurtunity, if so I hope the Argentine Air Force has learned, and explained to it's newer pilots that sometimes you have to expose yourself to extreme risk to hit a target that means somthing.

Still can't understand why the Argentine Navy didn't leave harbour and try to engage the fleet. They could have easily interdicted ships on the way down to support the British, either sinking or impounding.

Again, perhaps the risks of the two Subs that we had around, were expanded and the Argeies had to assume there were more.

32Bravo
03-31-2007, 03:45 AM
Maybe they were all targets of oppurtunity, if so I hope the Argentine Air Force has learned, and explained to it's newer pilots that sometimes you have to expose yourself to extreme risk to hit a target that means somthing.

There were occassions when frigates and destroyers were attacked as targets of opportunity (as described above), however, the attacks on RN vessels in San Carlos water negates that argument in that situation. Pilots came in low, skimming the surrounding hills, again with little time to choose a target before being engaged by the air defences. In that situation the supply ships were the bigger and more numerous targets, particularly the Canberra. The officers of the task force were amazed that it wasn't taken out, and the ship was soon withdrawn after the first day's operations to land troops.


In San Carlos Water just south of Fanning Island, sat Canberra, a huge white whale of a target in the now brilliant sun. On the radio net, came the next warning: 'Hostiles. 170 (degrees). five miles and closing.' Almost as soon as it was said, four Mirages appeared in the Sky, diving on (HMS)Antrim, their cannon shells splashing in the water, making a trail which ended inexorably against the ship's side. She was firing back with everything she had, and the pilot of the fourth Mirage thought better of it, and banked away from the exploding tracers until he was going straight for Fanning Head - and the helicopter....

...A gunner named 'G' cocked the machine-gun. Jolly unplugged his headset and ran for his life, throwing himself into a nearby ditch. When the the Mirage passed harmlessly overhead - despite 'G's efforts to bring it down - Jolly went back to the Wessex (helicopter) and plugged in again, and Crabtree said, ruefully : 'Oh, you back with us Doc?' The surgeon felt thoroughly ashamed.

Out over the Sound, a thin white line rose up into the sky towards a speck on the horizon. There was a puff of dirty smoke, with a fireball in the centre of it, and debris began trickling down towards the sea. ....Then a pall of black smoke began to build and over the net someone said, 'What the hell is that?' They quickly worked it out: 'Jesus, it's Ardent.'


...And still the attacks continued. Canberra seemed to be the main target, though there is a question mark over that: given the persistence and success of the Argentinian pilots that day, it's curious that they never managed to hit such a large defenceless target: perhaps, as they claim, they did not try.

Early next morning, on orders from London and under cover of darkness, Canberra removed herself from the firing line and sailed to the eastern perimeter of the Total Exclusion Zone, well out of range of Argentina's planes.
Sunday Times Insight Team.