visit full thread |
board home |
site home |
recent posts |
top topics
“There´s no photos about Invincible attack and sinking?
I can´t believe this. “
That’s correct, there are no photos of HMS INVINCIBLE attack and sinking because it never happened. Provide me with 1 (ONE) photograph that is genuine and was taken on the attack.
“But, there´s no photos about HMS-Dasher.
And the Dasher lost in 1943.... “
For the love of God, we lost a minor escort carrier in the war in confused circumstances. We were in a total war and we admitted to the loss of dozens of capital ships and carriers. It beggars belief that you assume the biggest cover up in history on the basis of one minor loss.
"R06 retrofitted to Invincible, off course!!
This is te natural replace to the vince”
What on earth are you talking about – Invincible returned home without Phalanx and received them.
”There are two posible replaces
R07 for R05 (50% of argentines think this)
or
R06 for R05
and
R07 for R06
(the other 50% of argentines think this)
The Lusty retrofitted to Vince.
And the R07 retrofitted to Lusty
And the R08 laid down in 1982 and commisioned en 195 replace the R07 and asume the name HMS-Ark Royal”
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. The sheer insanity of what you’ve suggested is enough to convince me that you are a lunatic. How many times do you have to be told very simply that HMS INVINCIBLE WAS NOT SUNK. It was and is physically impossible to build a CVS in 2 years with no notice. No nation on earth could do it in peacetime.
”The HMS-Bulwark (centaur class) was prepare to replace the Hermes in secret , if Royal navy lost the Hermes. “
Not quite, BULWARK was prepared to act as a hull to be towed south from which helos could be flown. She was in very poor material condition and the plan was scrapped.
“Why the inservible Invincible no returns inmediately to make the reparations to Port Stanley or to UK ??”
There was no visit to Port Stanley as the water isn’t deep enough for a carrier to come alongside. Standard procedure is for a Depth Under Keel at least that of a vessels hull, and the water in the port Stanley area isn’t 20m deep. Also the threat of air attack remained high as we weren’t sure whether Argentina might try something stupid again so she remained at sea. She was serviceable enough to remain at sea until Illustrious was worked up and then she went home while Lusty stayed down south.
”Why the New Vince and New Lusty, they even mantained grey towers, both even the end of 1985 (The R08 mantain grey tower too)
Why 3 years with grey towers?
And why 20 years with black towers.
Why the New Vince go and return to Gulf War in 1991 with black towers?”
What does it matter? Ships change colour schemes on a regular basis, the tower colour is irrelevant. Frankly the fact that you think the colour of a mast is important shows just how weak and useless your argument is.
”The survivors of the Vince never can see your ship sinking, because they were evacuated to Hermes.
The ship sunk in the night (at 16.00 hs was night) after 20.00hs.(argentine hours)
The international radios OC, said the 30/5/82 thah the ship was sinking and the tripulants evacuated.”
You’ve clearly never been to sea. At action stations the entire crew is on watch. In the event of a hit the fire fighting parties kick into action and attempt damage control. HQ1 will report over the tannoy what is going on to direct fire parties as required. It is impossible for the ship to have been hit without the whole ship knowing about it. Take that from someone who has done plenty of fire drills at sea. You seem to think that the entire ships company didn’t know that their entire ship was hit, that they just got up and left the ship for no good reason and didn’t notice that she’d been sunk. What on earth are you smoking, as this is ridiculous.
I will ask again – why did none of the 1200 Vinces ships company nor 2000 Hermes ships company EVER report an evacuation, why did no one ever comment on this or go to the news? Probably because it never happened.
Why has no Royal Navy damage control course ever covered what went wrong unlike every other incident on an RN warship - because there never was an incident.
As for sinking at night – well that’s total rubbish, you’d still get photos of the hull burning end from end. More to the point why does the silly picture on your website show the ship being attacked and hit and burning in the day? Oh wait, that’s because it’s a total piece of fiction, the attack never happened, the ship was never hit. If she was hit then we’d have hundreds of photos from DAYLIGHT.
“The survivors believe the extraofficial british history, that the ship was repaired. But the real history is other. The okd Vince was replace for the Lusty.
And the Lusty for the R07 (who was retrofitted to R06)"
I note you have totally avoided my questions on how a replacement would have been built or why none of the 70,000 people who would have noticed the sinking and rebuilding have ever said anything. You also forgot to comment on the official history.
Could you explain to me in simple terms how HMS INVINCIBLE went to Australia in early 1983, while HMS ILLUSTRIOUS remained in Portsmouth in refit? Oh can you also explain how HMS ARK ROYAL remained at Swan Hunters being completed if Invincible was sunk.
I can only conclude that you are deluded and cannot accept a simple fact. HMS INVINCIBLE was never attacked, hit or sunk by the Argentian Air Force. Deal with it.
[edit on 15-9-2005 by Jim30]
From Thread: HMS Invincible sunk in 1982
Posted by Jim30, on September 15, 2005 at 15:30 GMT“There´s no photos about Invincible attack and sinking?
I can´t believe this. “
That’s correct, there are no photos of HMS INVINCIBLE attack and sinking because it never happened. Provide me with 1 (ONE) photograph that is genuine and was taken on the attack.
“But, there´s no photos about HMS-Dasher.
And the Dasher lost in 1943.... “
For the love of God, we lost a minor escort carrier in the war in confused circumstances. We were in a total war and we admitted to the loss of dozens of capital ships and carriers. It beggars belief that you assume the biggest cover up in history on the basis of one minor loss.
"R06 retrofitted to Invincible, off course!!
This is te natural replace to the vince”
What on earth are you talking about – Invincible returned home without Phalanx and received them.
”There are two posible replaces
R07 for R05 (50% of argentines think this)
or
R06 for R05
and
R07 for R06
(the other 50% of argentines think this)
The Lusty retrofitted to Vince.
And the R07 retrofitted to Lusty
And the R08 laid down in 1982 and commisioned en 195 replace the R07 and asume the name HMS-Ark Royal”
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. The sheer insanity of what you’ve suggested is enough to convince me that you are a lunatic. How many times do you have to be told very simply that HMS INVINCIBLE WAS NOT SUNK. It was and is physically impossible to build a CVS in 2 years with no notice. No nation on earth could do it in peacetime.
”The HMS-Bulwark (centaur class) was prepare to replace the Hermes in secret , if Royal navy lost the Hermes. “
Not quite, BULWARK was prepared to act as a hull to be towed south from which helos could be flown. She was in very poor material condition and the plan was scrapped.
“Why the inservible Invincible no returns inmediately to make the reparations to Port Stanley or to UK ??”
There was no visit to Port Stanley as the water isn’t deep enough for a carrier to come alongside. Standard procedure is for a Depth Under Keel at least that of a vessels hull, and the water in the port Stanley area isn’t 20m deep. Also the threat of air attack remained high as we weren’t sure whether Argentina might try something stupid again so she remained at sea. She was serviceable enough to remain at sea until Illustrious was worked up and then she went home while Lusty stayed down south.
”Why the New Vince and New Lusty, they even mantained grey towers, both even the end of 1985 (The R08 mantain grey tower too)
Why 3 years with grey towers?
And why 20 years with black towers.
Why the New Vince go and return to Gulf War in 1991 with black towers?”
What does it matter? Ships change colour schemes on a regular basis, the tower colour is irrelevant. Frankly the fact that you think the colour of a mast is important shows just how weak and useless your argument is.
”The survivors of the Vince never can see your ship sinking, because they were evacuated to Hermes.
The ship sunk in the night (at 16.00 hs was night) after 20.00hs.(argentine hours)
The international radios OC, said the 30/5/82 thah the ship was sinking and the tripulants evacuated.”
You’ve clearly never been to sea. At action stations the entire crew is on watch. In the event of a hit the fire fighting parties kick into action and attempt damage control. HQ1 will report over the tannoy what is going on to direct fire parties as required. It is impossible for the ship to have been hit without the whole ship knowing about it. Take that from someone who has done plenty of fire drills at sea. You seem to think that the entire ships company didn’t know that their entire ship was hit, that they just got up and left the ship for no good reason and didn’t notice that she’d been sunk. What on earth are you smoking, as this is ridiculous.
I will ask again – why did none of the 1200 Vinces ships company nor 2000 Hermes ships company EVER report an evacuation, why did no one ever comment on this or go to the news? Probably because it never happened.
Why has no Royal Navy damage control course ever covered what went wrong unlike every other incident on an RN warship - because there never was an incident.
As for sinking at night – well that’s total rubbish, you’d still get photos of the hull burning end from end. More to the point why does the silly picture on your website show the ship being attacked and hit and burning in the day? Oh wait, that’s because it’s a total piece of fiction, the attack never happened, the ship was never hit. If she was hit then we’d have hundreds of photos from DAYLIGHT.
“The survivors believe the extraofficial british history, that the ship was repaired. But the real history is other. The okd Vince was replace for the Lusty.
And the Lusty for the R07 (who was retrofitted to R06)"
I note you have totally avoided my questions on how a replacement would have been built or why none of the 70,000 people who would have noticed the sinking and rebuilding have ever said anything. You also forgot to comment on the official history.
Could you explain to me in simple terms how HMS INVINCIBLE went to Australia in early 1983, while HMS ILLUSTRIOUS remained in Portsmouth in refit? Oh can you also explain how HMS ARK ROYAL remained at Swan Hunters being completed if Invincible was sunk.
I can only conclude that you are deluded and cannot accept a simple fact. HMS INVINCIBLE was never attacked, hit or sunk by the Argentian Air Force. Deal with it.
[edit on 15-9-2005 by Jim30]
You may use this content as long as you comply with our Creative Commons Deed by properly sourcing the author as owner, source the AboveTopSecret.com website as co-owner, do not create a derivative work, and do not use it for commerical purposes.
