It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HMS Invincible sunk in 1982

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
you search proof?
see it...
R05 HMS Invincible starting "Operation Corporate" in april of 1982.







one more time... photos, not only words...




posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

Originally posted by stumason
Also, you have ignored my pointing out to you that Illustrious never had phalanx....but you claim it did....any answer?



Illustrious always had phalanx man.

seriously are you drunk?




here a link you put:

# Armament:

* 3 x Phalanx/ Goalkeeper
* 2 x 20mm Close range guns

www.worldhistory.com...(R06).htm



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..................I was waiting for you to do that....My evil plan falls into place...

I think you will find that those armament stats are for the Invincible CLASS....

You see where it says 3 x Phalanx/ Goalkeeper...

Well...

The Invincible and Illustrious both have the Goalkeeper and Ark Royal has the Phalanx.

Invicible and the Illustrious never had Phalanx. In fact, Invincible had no CIWS at all during the Falklands.

[edit on 4/9/05 by stumason]



Have you read my posts?????????


i always said Invicible 05 never had the stupids phalanx and lusty yes.
I put photos and photos you can´t understand

you are joking here.


Illustrious has phalanx man go to the port and look!!!!!

search a photo of lusty and see the phalanx.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   


the airfield was not damage man i had explain you this 3 times!!
a hercules could why a harrier no? if a harrier no need the field, it can go up and down easily.



Dude..It was damaged. Read the evidence. By the time we took back the Falklands from the Argie invaders, that airfield was damaged, after several raids. It was not suitable to operate a swuadron of combat aircraft from and was more feasable to operate them from a carrier until the infrastructure was repaired. that means things like hangars and such, not just the runway. We also knocked out the radar too.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
the airfield was not damage man i had explain you this 3 times!!

You mean the san carlos one? The one that stu pointed out was a prefab one?


a hercules could why a harrier no? if a harrier no need the field, it can go up and down easily.

As stu said, it was temporary, they couldnt use it in the long haul like the other one.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
At the risk repeating myself please see below 2 Invincible class carriers one the one in the background is Invincible you can tell this as she has no phalanx all other ships in the class were built with phalanx.

You can also tell that this picture was in the immmediate aftermath of the Falklands as when Invincible returned and underwent a re-fit Invincible had phalanx fitted too

So the only time this pitcure of 2 Invincible class carrier could have been taken is just after the Falklands conflict when Illustrious relieved Invincible, as that was the only other carrier of that type that existed in 1982 in a sailable condition.


So there is no way Invincible could have been sunk on the 30th May 1982 as Illustrious was not commmisssiioned until several days later and did not set sail to the South Altantic until 2nd August.

Please also do not try to say the picture was taken in 1985 when the 'replacement' appeared as ALL the carrier had phalanx at that time therefore such a picture could not have been taken at any other time.





Note Illustrious in the foreground with her hastily fitted Phalanx one in front and to the right of the sea dart emplacement at the front of the ship and one on the port stern.

Note Invincible in the background (Flight Deck Code N) had no phalanx these were fitted when returned to the UK and had her post Falkand refit - (she had the front phalanx fitted in a different position to Illustrious) - as the Falkland taught the RN it was a priority to have them hence the hasty fitting to Illustrious



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   


Have you read my posts?????????


Yes. They are full of lies.




i always said Invicible 05 never had the stupids phalanx and lusty yes.
I put photos and photos you can´t understand

you are joking here.


Illustrious has phalanx man go to the port and look!!!!!

search a photo of lusty and see the phalanx.


Illustrious never had the goddam Phalanx.

Show me a genuine source or picture that says otherwise. Meanwhile, I will rely on the RN to tell me:



HMS Invincible and Illustrious each have three Thales Nederland (formerly Signaal) Goalkeeper CIWS. Goalkeeper's Gatling principle 30mm gun provides a maximum firing rate of 4,200 rounds/min with a range of 1,500m.
Source



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
you search proof?
see it...
R05 HMS Invincible starting "Operation Corporate" in april of 1982.







one more time... photos, not only words...



you have just disproved your claim that Invincible only had black smoke stack by the way as all your picture you have posted show only grey smoke stacks as she sailed to Falklands

[55heroes neatly shots himself in the foot ... ow!]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Popeye
At the risk repeating myself please see below 2 Invincible class carriers one the one in the background is Invincible you can tell this as she has no phalanx all other ships in the class were built with phalanx.

You can also tell that this picture was in the immmediate aftermath of the Falklands as when Invincible returned and underwent a re-fit Invincible had phalanx fitted too

So the only time this pitcure of 2 Invincible class carrier could have been taken is just after the Falklands conflict when Illustrious relieved Invincible, as that was the only other carrier of that type that existed in 1982 in a sailable condition.


So there is no way Invincible could have been sunk on the 30th May 1982 as Illustrious was not commmisssiioned until several days later and did not set sail to the South Altantic until 2nd August.

Please also do not try to say the picture was taken in 1985 when the 'replacement' appeared as ALL the carrier had phalanx at that time therefore such a picture could not have been taken at any other time.





Note Illustrious in the foreground with her hastily fitted Phalanx one in front and to the right of the sea dart emplacement at the front of the ship and one on the port stern.

Note Invincible in the background (Flight Deck Code N) had no phalanx these were fitted when returned to the UK and had her post Falkand refit - (she had the front phalanx fitted in a different position to Illustrious) - as the Falkland taught the RN it was a priority to have them hence the hasty fitting to Illustrious




The photo was taken in 1982, december i think.

It is Lusty and Ark Royal, didn´t finish and no phalanx.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Actually....I stand corrected...Invinceable and Illustrious did have Phalanx, but never had them until AFTER the Falklands and then had them ripped out 1986 to be replaced by Goalkeeper..



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
about of Puerto Argentino/Port Stanley airport....
the infantry simulated crater with piles of land and all in the Royal Navy believed in this!



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason



Have you read my posts?????????


Yes. They are full of lies.




i always said Invicible 05 never had the stupids phalanx and lusty yes.
I put photos and photos you can´t understand

you are joking here.


Illustrious has phalanx man go to the port and look!!!!!

search a photo of lusty and see the phalanx.


Illustrious never had the goddam Phalanx.

Show me a genuine source or picture that says otherwise. Meanwhile, I will rely on the RN to tell me:



HMS Invincible and Illustrious each have three Thales Nederland (formerly Signaal) Goalkeeper CIWS. Goalkeeper's Gatling principle 30mm gun provides a maximum firing rate of 4,200 rounds/min with a range of 1,500m.
Source





when i talk about phalanx i m not talking about a specific phalanx.

So don´t be stupid.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Stumason, both Illustrious (hastily fitted at commissioning) and Invincible (at post-falkland re-fit) had phalanx, they were replaced later by Goalkeeper when they had the Sea Darts removed and the flight decks extended.

See my post above with the photo of Invincible and Illustrious.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by Popeye]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   


when i talk about phalanx i m not talking about a specific phalanx.


There is a big difference between the Phalanx and Goalkeeper. If you are going to use visual references to prove your point then there is a need to be specific.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   


Stumason, both Illustrious (hastily fitted at commissioning) and Invincible (at post-falkland re-fit) had phalanx, they were replaced in the 90's by Goalkeeper when they had the Sea Darts removed and the flight decks extended.


Invincable was refitted in 1986 and the Illustrious in 1994

[edit on 4/9/05 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

The photo was taken in 1982, december i think.

It is Lusty and Ark Royal, didn´t finish and no phalanx.



Ark Royal was not in a sailable condition at that time she was an empty hull in the process of being fitted out, her engines were not even operational, I suppose she could have been towed by some subs for the photo



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Popeye buy lenses... and read correctly

HMS R05 Invincible = radar towers >black
"twin" Invincible = radar towers> gray



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
see the two sides of history...

go to Malvinas/falklands to replace to R05 Invincible



return to UK 07/1982



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Popeye

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

The photo was taken in 1982, december i think.

It is Lusty and Ark Royal, didn´t finish and no phalanx.



Ark Royal was not in a sailable condition at that time she was an empty hull in the process of being fitted out, her engines were not even operational, I suppose she could have been towed by some subs for the photo


What ???

haha

look:


june 82, Lusty and ark royal








ark royal just finished on 4 june 82:




M6D

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
about of Puerto Argentino/Port Stanley airport....
the infantry simulated crater with piles of land and all in the Royal Navy believed in this!


Sorry but thats the most unbelieveable crap ive ever heard, if it was so 'fakingly' damaged, then why the hell would it take so long to get it repaired? nice one there, siumlated craters



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by M6D

Originally posted by 55heroes
about of Puerto Argentino/Port Stanley airport....
the infantry simulated crater with piles of land and all in the Royal Navy believed in this!


Sorry but thats the most unbelieveable crap ive ever heard, if it was so 'fakingly' damaged, then why the hell would it take so long to get it repaired? nice one there, siumlated craters



yes in a war you can do that.

But you are a boy you don´t know nothing about that tactics.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join