HMS Invincible sunk in 1982

And your a dirty liar, who cant read, if you saw what i said perhaps you wouldnt be so ignorant, when they captured hte airfield theyre was a delay before it was worthy for aircraft again, why would there be a god damn delay if it was just fake craters genius?

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

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.

What is the tactical advantage for the British pretending an Airfield is damaged and not using it? or are you saying that the Argies pretended it to be damaged? because that is a lie also. The airfield took several raids and bombs where dropped. Wether you like it or not, the airfield took damage.

i bet you wish for the days of the Junta again....

[edit on 4/9/05 by stumason]

Originally posted by M6D
And your a dirty liar, who cant read, if you saw what i said perhaps you wouldnt be so ignorant,

when they captured hte airfield theyre was a delay before it was worthy for aircraft again, why would there be a god damn delay if it was just fake craters genius?

Look little boy we are talking about Invincible here.
However i ´ll answer you.

Argentina could use the airfiled until june 14. Uk coudd do the same.
But they lie about it to bring the Illustrious and kept the tripulation of Invincible.

That´s it .
i proof with pictures you only bla bla bla.

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
What ???

haha

look:


june 82, Lusty and ark royal

external image

ark royal just finished on 4 june 82:

I am afriad that those 2 dates dont work.
The first 2 show the top side being worked on, and your tellling that they finished in just 4 days and got it operational in that time?

[edit on 4-9-2005 by asala]

And look here you Human being, I MAKE IT VERY clear to you to ANSWER the ever loving question before you start asking them, why would britain pretend its damaged hmm? im getting quickly tired of your slow moving boat apparatus.

ADMIN EDIT for childish language and inability to control temper

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Springer]

sorry not 1982 is 1981.

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
sorry not 1982 is 1981.

1981? Ark Royal didn't enter service until 1985. She was laid down in 1978 and was launched in June 1981. It took another 4 years of sea trials to get her ready for service.

Besides, launching does not in anyway constitute a ready warship. She would have been missing vital components and weapons for starters.

And lets keep the insults out of the thread. Tis not worth it....

[edit on 4/9/05 by stumason]

[edit on 4/9/05 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
sorry not 1982 is 1981.

1981? Ark Royal didn't enter service until 1985. She was laid down in 1978 and was launched in June 1981. It took another 4 years of sea trials to get her ready for service.

And lets keep the insults out of the thread. Tis not worth it....

[edit on 4/9/05 by stumason]

what?
i´m not insulting you.


The photo one and two are from 1981.

The other in 1982.


That´s clear now.

mmm, got it, insults are out of it, but id just like to point out i cant be called a 'little boy' when my sentances acutally make sense.
Anyway, from this point it seems the evidence is inumerably against what irishduck seems to be saying, at what point is it counted as refuted

and please, provide proof as to what year your photos were taken from, instead of just saying, its hardly provinganything when the date cannot be proven.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by M6D]

Please refrain from insults.. thank you.

Asala

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
sorry not 1982 is 1981.

1981? Ark Royal didn't enter service until 1985. She was laid down in 1978 and was launched in June 1981. It took another 4 years of sea trials to get her ready for service.

Besides, launching does not in anyway constitute a ready warship. She would have been missing vital components and weapons for starters.

And lets keep the insults out of the thread. Tis not worth it....

[edit on 4/9/05 by stumason]

[edit on 4/9/05 by stumason]

i said this a few hours ago.

Ark Royal 07 was launched in 1981.
The used as transport in december 1982 when uk took the photo with Illustrious as Invincible.



[edit on 4-9-2005 by TheIrishDuck]

The R07 was used in 1982 como transport to replace R05, the survivors frist are moved to HMS Hermes and after to R06 Illustrious
In 1985 was comissioned the REAL R08 Ark Royal.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by 55heroes]

Originally posted by 55heroes
The R07 was used in 1982 como transport to rescue survivors of HMS Invincible.
In 1985 was comissioned the REAL R08 Ark Royal.

What?

There is no R08 Ark Royal. Its R07. In 1982 she was no where near sea worthy. Have you any photos showing the Ark Royal leaving port in 1982? Any photo..... no, you don't, because she never did.

no photos of R07???
see the last colour photo...

i have good lenses for you...

Originally posted by 55heroes
no photos of R07???
see the last colour photo...

i have good lenses for you...

Your photo's show the R05 and R06. The only photos of Ark Royal (R07) are the ones showing her under construction.

this photos are june of 1981...
the R07 float... and much more.So much as to serve of transportation of emergency to the south atlantic area ( Malvinas /Falklands)

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

i said this a few hours ago.

Ark Royal 07 was launched in 1981.
The used as transport in december 1982 when uk took the photo with Illustrious as Invincible.



[edit on 4-9-2005 by TheIrishDuck]

How could it be used as a transport if they didnt even know it worked and if it DIDNT work??
What would they use it to transport?
I cant believe this...theres absolutely 0 proof to this theory except a home made site and a few argentinian pilots statements.

Originally posted by 55heroes
this photos are june of 1981...
the R07 float... and much more.So much as to serve of transportation of emergency to the south atlantic area ( Malvinas /Falklands)

Yeah she's afloat, theres no engine, 0 weapon systems, 0 operational systems.
The ship is basically a hull, thats it.
She was only operational until 1985, why? It took that long put the sytems in.
Tell me how she would make it to the south atlantic with no bloody engines?

QUOTE :" I cant believe this...theres absolutely 0 proof to this theory except a home made site and a few argentinian pilots statements."

thats because they are trolls , a chance phone call the other day tipped me off that the 2 of our current crowd spammed the arrse forum with identical crap

and yes they got their arse handed to them there too

YRS - APE

20th June 1981

Yes she is afloat but you might notice if you look careful she is even missing her second smoke stack is missing she did not have operational engines installed so there is no way she could have left the shipyard in 82, you may also notice all the radar and communications gears is also missing.

These are not part you can just pop down to the supermarket to buy we are talking lead times over a year for many of these items

There is no way that on 31st May (the earliert time they would have known to order this if what you say is true) the Royal Navy went to the shipyard and said get Ark Royal ready in a few weeks and the Shipyard no problem.

There is no way the procurement of these items planned for 83 and 84 could have been bought forward and installed in a few weeks, plus the yard was focused for most of June and July in getting Illustrious ready to sail to the Falklands.

Also she would have been notice if she left the shipyard 3 years ahead of scheduled.


Also Ark Royal was designed and built 16 meters longer than Invincible I am sure this would have come to someones attention (in picutre of Invincible and Illustrious I posted earlier if the Invincible was really the Ark Royal as you falsely claim she would appear longer). Are you now going to claim that they quickly chopped 16 meters off her?