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: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:
M6D

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
you far from win it, we have multiple proof that numero sailors say the ship never sunk even to family, while your lack of proof is just purely awful, i think its time to use those ignore buttons boys!




posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
"Following the surrender, "Invincible's" first priority is to sail well clear to the north, escorted by frigate "Andromeda" in order to change a main engine."


www.naval-history.net...

you can replace a main engine in 3 months at South Atlantic , and can´t
install it in Uk in 15 months?




posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
"Following the surrender, "Invincible's" first priority is to sail well clear to the north, escorted by frigate "Andromeda" in order to change a main engine."


www.naval-history.net...

you can replace a main engine in 3 months at South Atlantic , and can´t
install it in Uk in 15 months?



The carrier is capable of carrying out an engine change or any manner of repairs at sea, bearing in mind it has more than one engine. Changing an already aoprational engine out of an already operational ship is different to installing a bran spanking new one to a bran spanking new ship.

EDIT: Besides, you may find it was probably just a turbine and not the whole engine. I doubt the WHOLE engine could be swapped out at sea and would require dry dock.

Besides, the very site you link to, in the very next paragraph, contradicts your absurd claims that Invincible was sunk.



But there is no relief for "Invincible" which has to await the arrival of newly-commissioned sister ship "Illustrious" carrying a reformed No.809 Sea Harrier squadron and the first early airborne warning Sea Kings. Reaching the Falklands on the 27th August, and after a day's vertrep, "Invincible" is at last able to head north on the 28th accompanied by "Bristol" and later RFA "Olna", arriving at Portsmouth on the 17th September to be met by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. After 166 days at sea, "Invincible" claims the record for the longest continuous carrier operations ever.
Source


[edit on 5/9/05 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
this is getting to me and i dont believe i have answered these troll`s again(more points for the trolls)

this is from an american rundown of the entire falklands conflict.. i have picked out a quote for you

quote"The final, most damaging, attack occurred near sunset
that same day. Two Argentine Super Etendard aircraft
attacked the Battle Group positioned 120 miles northeast of
Port Stanley. Each aircraft fired a single Exocet missile
from a distance of 28 miles. One, possibly two missiles
struck the container ship Atlantic Conveyor. As was the
case with the attack on HMS Sheffield, many sources believe
the missile(s) failed to detonate, but started fires which
destroyed the ship. The Argentines incorrectly believed
they had hit one of the British aircraft carriers.8 Al-
though this was not true, the loss of Atlantic Conveyor was
still a serious loss. A large amount of equipment including
tents, helicopters, and most of the metal matting needed to
construct an Expeditionary Landing Site ashore for the
Harriers. Total losses for the day; three Argentine aircraft
destroyed, two British ships lost, one damaged"

the full story

www.globalsecurity.org...

now please enough of this already...has anyone1 got access to a crew manifest of the invincible...out and in???



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
learn history before post...

from the beginning i come giving proofs of this:
HMS Atlantic Conveyor and Coventry was attacked May 25 1982
HMS Invincible was attacked May 30 1982



M6D

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I wouldnt laugh considering how kickeddown your arguments been.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
If you still saying Invincible didn´t sink...
How do you explain this?...


Arrivals to Porstmouth, this are the last ships in ariving there after the war:

CV Invincible; DD Bristol; FR Avenger, Andromeda, Penelope; MCMS Brecon, Ledbury and support ship St Helena; Ambulance ship Hydra
www.naval-history.net...


Can you see in this photo the ships i ´d put at the top?




external image


No, because this photo is not of the arriving, in this book they lie. The photo show us when the Task Force went to the Falklands not when they were coming from the war.

the author of the book, Ward (member of the tripulation of the Invincible) is a big liar.
Why did he lie?





[edit on 5-9-2005 by asala]



Why a hero of the Falklands War is a big lier?


[edit on 5-9-2005 by TheIrishDuck]

[edit on 5-9-2005 by TheIrishDuck]

*resized large image*

[edit on 5-9-2005 by dbates]


M6D

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
If i am correct in saything this, they would lie because they were on the OTHER side of the war! of course theyre going to lie, they dont want such a stinging reputation of defeat, theyd try to pull somthing out of it, have you for one second thought of the repercussions to sinking a carrier in the royal navy? do you KNOW what theyd do?!
most likely in revenge the carrier in the 'mighty' navy would be ordered to be sunk, retialiation, eye for an eye, our subs could probably sneak in to the harbours and do it.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
The only reason they continur with these ludicrous claims is to get back some sort of pride after we creamed their Flagship, the Belgrano.










Awww...the poor Argies......


M6D

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I deffintely agree, the only reason we didnt target their carrier was that we thought it would be signifant overkill, and be somewhat out of order, however, think about it, sink our carrier? whats holding our sub fleet back from a retaliation order to sink theirs?



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by M6D
I deffintely agree, the only reason we didnt target their carrier was that we thought it would be signifant overkill, and be somewhat out of order, however, think about it, sink our carrier? whats holding our sub fleet back from a retaliation order to sink theirs?


Exactly. In order to save face the RN would have sunk whatever Argie ship they could find.

As it stands, it is the Argie Navy that was humiliated and went running back to port after the loss of the Belgrano.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes

Originally posted by xmotex



Then in 1985 Ark Royal was built and another one in secret, which you know today as Invincible.


How does one build a 20,000 ton aircraft carrier "in secret?"
Cover it up with an 800 foot tarp and hope nobody notices?

It takes thousands of people to build a major warship, how does one keep them all silent?




Nothing is impossible.

In WW2 the HMS Dasher was sunk and nobody knew that after 30 years.

The official cause of her sinking is still doubtful. The findings of the Board of Enquiry were never released until 1972 and even now information is being witheld. This is just part of a veil of secrecy which has surrounded HMS Dasher ever since. Rescuers, survivors and witnesses - everyone with any knowledge of what befell the Dasher in these waters - all were sworn to secrecy.

An important new piece of information may explain the Governments reticence to release all of their records. There is a strong possibility that one of the bodies from the Dasher was used in Operation Mincemeat to dupe the Germans about a possible invasion of Greece at a crucial time of the war in 1943. The loss of HMS Dasher and 379 young lives is still not fully understood by those affected. Mystery still surrounds the sinking, the burial graves and the true identity of the Operation Mincemeat body. Perhaps when all the facts have been revealed, they can be finally laid to rest.

here the link:
www.submerged.co.uk...



So it´s possible that Invincible had been sunk and UK doesnt accept it.

Remember there is a secret of 90 years about Falkands War when the secret of the WW2 was only of 30 years.


Troll, troll, troll your...aircraft carrier? gently down the South Atlantic Ocean...merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but an act of incredible denial...

Anybody else note the disturbingly good English used in this post as compared with the "English is my third major language" spelling and syntax of other posts? If you're going to quote a source then attribute that source.

As for "a secret of 90 years"...You can't even get your facts straight. What part of 1982 comes under 90 years? And how many aircraft carriers did the RN have in 1915?

Go find out about HMAS Voyager and the THREE commissions of enquiry involved in that effort. And people still say the truth was covered up.

This is some of the funniest stuff I've read since The Long, Dark, Teatime of the Soul. Not even Terry Prachett is this funny.

It's like the Germans claiming to have sunk the Ark Royal how many times before they actually did?

The Argentine forces were handed such an absolute knockout that they had to cling to every possible reason to celebrate, no matter how spurious.

It has been proven since the Battle of Britain that kill claims by both sides were wildly overstated. The Brits even had the proof of how many planes were shot down each day, they were watching the radar screens, but official policy said "don't question the pilots, just accept their claims and celebrate them". Those claims have been entered in the official histories of individual squadrons and the RAF, despite being false. And the Brits WON the Battle of Britain.

The Argentines didn't win ANYTHING in the Falklands, except that first night, when 2 companies of RMs weren't enough to hold off an entire expeditionary force...



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
No, because this photo is not of the arriving, in this book they lie. The photo show us when the Task Force went to the Falklands not when they were coming from the war.

the author of the book, Ward (member of the tripulation of the Invincible) is a big liar.
Why did he lie?





[edit on 5-9-2005 by asala]


That's a bloody good question and I'd like an answer because Sharky Ward has a been a consistent critic of the RN's senior managers (and the gov't) and their continued inability to use Sea Harrier properly. In his book he was particularly scathing about the Task Force commander Rear Adm. Sandy Woodward. Given that his criticism is so public, why would he not be screaming the truth about the sinking of the Invincible from the rooftops for the world to hear and crowing "See, I told you so. If you'd listened to me we'd still have an aircraft carrier!"?



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
ok you wont accept that then invincible wasn`t sank on the 25th...how about this little quote frome the same source

quote"On 29 may a C-130 transport aircraft attacked a British
tanker enroute from Ascension to the Falklands operating
area. Eight bombs were dropped scoring one hit, but the
bomb failed to explode. There were several sporatic attacks
at San Carlos but no damage was inflicted on the Fleet. One
A-4 was shot down by a Rapier missile.13"

please note the date..this is the following paragraph

quote"The following day, two Super Etendards and two escorting
A-4s attacked the Task Force. The single, remaining Exocet
missile was fired, reportedly against HMS Invincible, ,but no hit was achieved14 One of the A-4s was shot down by a
Sea Dart missile. The most important facet of the attack
was that because of the distance of the Task Force from the
mainland, air refueling was required. Due to the limited
air refueling assets, the number of aircraft which could be
assigned to the attacking force was also limited.15"

now please provide links and sources that can be verified..and also ask yourself this...everyone has some self pride and obviously you do or you wouldn`t be defending your point of view..but you have to provide a credible source...the best your nation can do out of this is learn from the mistakes your junta made..create a damage limitation exercise...accept your nation was wrong and learn from the many nations willing to help you
and the truth is..it doesnt matter if you sank ALL our ships...WE WON.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
this post is referred the collapse of the sunk of HMS Invincible R05.



When You they find proof sufficient to shut up to me, i will open post about the ARA General Belgrano. Thanks for its interest in the subject.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   


u still havent answered why there are 3 British Invinicble class aircraft carriers instead of two if the Brits have lost one already back in the early 80s. not to mention this woman wearing this beret, if they manage to hide it to complete detail to make sure this fake Invincible is the Invincible.





posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
This promotional photo¨s date is after 18/5/89

The first carrier is the R07 renamed as R05 HMS-Invincible, with 1986/89 refit. It has 3 goalkeeper (Plattform babor/popa, plattform estribor and center/proa)
No 2 Phalanx, as before 86/89 refit.

The second carrier is the R06 HMS Illustrious before the 91/94 refit.
It has the originals 2 Phalanx. (estribor/popa and estribor/proa)

The third carrier is the R08 (Made in USA) renamed as R07 HMS Ark Royal, with the original configuration.
It has 3 Phalanx in the same position as Goalkeeper in the first carrier.(Plattform babor/popa, plattform estribor and center/proa)
--------------------------------------------------

Invincible
R05
"N"
Photos: [Launching], [Invincible after 1980's refit], [Recent photo].

Built by Vickers. Laid down 20 July 1973, launched 3 May 1977, accepted by RN 19 March 1980, commissioned 11 July 1980.

Sale to Australia cancelled due to the Falklands war. Saw extensive combat in the Falklands. Major refit & modernizaton 5/1986 to 18 May 1989. Major refit and removal of the Sea Dart launcher completed 3/2000.

[Back To Top]
Illustrious
R06
"L"
Photos: [Illustrious as completed], [Recent photo].

Built by Swan Hunter. Laid down 7 Oct 1976, launched 14 Dec 1978, commissioned 20 June 1982.

Ship was rushed to completion for Falklands service; final completion was not until 5/1983. Laid up pending refit 30 June 1989; major refit & modernization 1 July 1991 to 5/1994. Sea Dart launcher removed mid-1998.

[Back To Top]
Ark Royal
R07
"R"
Photos: [Ark Royal as completed], [Recent photo].

Built by Swan Hunter. Laid down 14 Dec 1978, launched 4 June 1981, trials 10/1984, commissioned 1 Nov 1985.

Decommissioned to reserve 11/1994 pending refit; major refit & modernization at Rosyth 5/1999 through 2001.
---------------------------------




posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
Nothing is impossible.

In WW2 the HMS Dasher was sunk and nobody knew that after 30 years.

The official cause of her sinking is still doubtful. The findings of the Board of Enquiry were never released until 1972 and even now information is being witheld. This is just part of a veil of secrecy which has surrounded HMS Dasher ever since. Rescuers, survivors and witnesses - everyone with any knowledge of what befell the Dasher in these waters - all were sworn to secrecy.

An important new piece of information may explain the Governments reticence to release all of their records. There is a strong possibility that one of the bodies from the Dasher was used in Operation Mincemeat to dupe the Germans about a possible invasion of Greece at a crucial time of the war in 1943. The loss of HMS Dasher and 379 young lives is still not fully understood by those affected. Mystery still surrounds the sinking, the burial graves and the true identity of the Operation Mincemeat body. Perhaps when all the facts have been revealed, they can be finally laid to rest.

here the link:
www.submerged.co.uk...

So it´s possible that Invincible had been sunk and UK doesnt accept it.

Remember there is a secret of 90 years about Falkands War when the secret of the WW2 was only of 30 years.


Sorry to pick you up on a massive flaw in your argument there 55 but the identity of the body that was used for Operation Mincemeat was kept secret for an entirely different reason, it was at the request of the next of kin whose permission was sought to use the body. They agreed under one condition, that the identity would never be divulged.

The unfortunate gentleman whose body was used actually died of chemical pnumonia brought on by the ingestion of rat poison. I think that if you know the details regarding the sinking of the Dasher and any other fully fueled fighting ship, you would undertstand that the bodies of both the survivors and the victims were covered in heavy diesel oil (which would not have been present in an aviation accident which was the cover story for Mincemeat) and also badly burned. Bodies from the sinking of the dasher would have been unsuited to convincing the German Intelligence Services that the man had been the victim of an airplane crash.

details can be read here
en.wikipedia.org...
and
militaryhistory.about.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   
wait a minute...did u just post up saying that the third carrier was made in the USA!!!
not to mention posting up more information below that says its built by Swan Hunter that is a British shipbuilding company. man u need check carefully.

[edit on 6-9-2005 by deltaboy]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join