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: 18
0
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
that´s answer is stupid.

And says who?




posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Even Woodward (in his book) accepted on june 13 of 1982 the Task Force had only three ships in good conditions, they were HERMES, YARMOUTH and EXETER.

Invincible may went down and took part of the Polaris Class



Regards.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck


Even Woodward (in his book) accepted on june 13 of 1982 the Task Force had only three ships in good conditions, they were HERMES, YARMOUTH and EXETER.

Invincible may went down and took part of the Polaris Class



Regards.

What defines "good"?
Fully armed, no damage, high morale?
You know I think hitlers line here is quite fitting..
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it"
Hmm 20 odd years yeah I'd say people are believeing.


M6D

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Hmmm, so my answer is stupid huh? so its not plasuaible AT ALL that teh invincible, a ship not even fully completed, yet underway, with an inexerpianced crew WOULDNT be chosen as a command ship?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
You can't explain why the R06 HMS Illustrious cross with HMS Hermes (plenty of Harriers, Copters, people in the same posittion than the arrive 21/7/82)
Obviously the cross is before the 21/7/82...

The official Tatcher's history say..."The Illustrious go to Falklandas the 2/8/82..and arrive the 26/7/82"....to replace R05 HMS Invincible

The real history shows the R06 Illustrious (L in pope, two phalanx and grey towers and end of chimnes) crossing the Hermes in July.
To receive a lot of survivors of the lost R05 HMS Invincible ...
The Hermes can´t entry to Portsmouth with hundrede of survivors of Invincible, ovbiously.

But...in Falklands the HMS-Bristol was the Admiral Ship until 26/8/82...why not the Invincible?

And then...where go the HMS-Illustrious in the period july-august 82?
To USA (in secret, with a part of the survivors on board)?
To Litton Ingalls?

Why the lier tatcher said the R06 go to falklands the 2/8/82....but the the new and clean "Lusty" are crossing the hermes, a month before?

Which ship is definitively who returns in a false history the 17/9/82 to Portsmouth?

The R06 disguised (change L for N, move the lifeguards boats to a Invincible original position)?
Why these ship has two Phalanx and the grey towers?

Or the R07 definitively disguiseed to a R05 Invincible?
Only whith a simple function of transport of survivor and harriers and sea kings of the lost original R05?

Why nobody can enter into the ship, the 17/9/82?
Why inmediately, the 18/9/82, the ship go to the shipbuilder?
Or return to the shipbuilder?=

Wich ship enter to port Stanley in the end of July or first days of august?

The Veteran of Falkland War, the copter pilot, Peter Reynolds (a honorable and serious englishman) no dubt an said to us..."The Illustrious"

As admiral Woodward, never said Invincible.

Woodward after 30/5/82 never explains nothing about Invincible.....Why?
A phantom shipwar?
A Invisible shipwar?

You must study more, about the "smallwar" Falklands Conflict.
Or the "British Vietnam" (as a lot of serious and honorables englishmen, call this war)


M6D

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
ENGLISH VIETNAM! what are you ON?!

look, many of us come from England, if it was called the English vietnam, we would KNOW about it, english vietnam?! thats the lamest comparision i have EVER heard! seriously, both conflicts are ENTIRELY diffrent! vietnam america was winning but hit by gureilla warfare, in the jungles, they killed more amounts of vietcong, but the vietcong didng give up, they laid traps for US forces, and ambushed them in the dense jungle, TWO ENTIRELY diffrent conflicts not related AT ALL
vietnam was NOT american territory, falklands were OURS. and our troops didnt get ambushed as we in all honesty pretty much massacred your forces, so stop pretending to recapture former glory, its just digging a hole for yourself.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Just as alot of people call Buenos Aires ` Argentinas Hiroshima` - they rebuilt it quickly and in secret after it was destroyed by atomic arms. Very quickly afterwards Argentina srrended with the entire country under threat of being caporized.


M6D

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   
But its a great misconception, argentina's hiroshima? why do people need to find an anology when the anology doesnt fit?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   
This is a list of all the ships built at Litton Ingalls shipyard from 1982 until May of 1984. They didn't have enough manpower, or enough time, or the resources to build a carrier for the Royal Navy. And even though I've said this a thousand times I'll say it again, I'll even put it in bold for you, just in case you missed it the other 1000 times. There is no way to build a carrier of ANY size in ANY shipyard and keep it secret! Between the hundreds of workers working on it, and the thousands of workers in the shipyard SOMEBODY would see it and say something about seeing it, especially when they realized we were buildng a carrier for a foreign navy. Sure we have build/overhauled a lot of foreign ships, but never a carrier, and nothing bigger than a cruiser or destroyer.

Oops. Might wanna add the build schedule.


USS Chandler (DDG 996), Guided Missile Destroyer - 1-25-82
Huthnance Vanguard I, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig -1-26-82
Transworld 72, Semisubmersible Drilling Rig - 4-4-82
Chiles Yucatan, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 4-9-82
Global Main Pass I, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 5-17-82
Global Main Pass II, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 6-30-82
Bonito Miss Kitty, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 7-30-82
Transworld 73, Semisubmersible Drilling Rig - 8-20-82
Global Main Pass III, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 9-17-82
Keyes 303, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig -10-29-82
Huthnance Vanguard II, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 11-12-82
USS Ticonderoga (CG 47), Aegis Guided Missile Cruiser - 12-10-82
Global Main Pass IV, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 12-17-82
Bonito II, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 1-28-83
USS Hayler (DD 997), Multimission Destroyer - 2-10-83
USS Yorktown (CG 48), Aegis Guided Missile Cruiser - 5-4-84

[edit on 7-9-2005 by Zaphod58]


M6D

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Dude, what you done there is very hardcore :p i like your style, perhaps id give you a high five one day.

anyhoo, i think this evidence most certainly disproves this rabid trolling we have here boys :p not to mention our other answers to this ignorado.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
The real history, in the secrets UK archives until end off the 21 century is:

R05 HMS-Invincible, lost in Falklands (Malvinas) 30/5/82

R06 HMS Illustrious, Laid down 7 Oct 1976, launched 14 Dec 1978, commissioned 20 June 1982. Sail to Falklands in June 1982.

R07 (ex Indomitable, ex Ark Royal) Laid down 14 Dec 1978, launched 4 June 1981 and commisioned in secret in August 1982, as HMS-Invincible

R08 Ark Royal, builld in secret in USA (Litton Ingalls, as possible) Laid down 1982, trials 10/1984, commissioned 1 Nov 1985.



Have you ever seen Swan Hunters shipyard? It is surrounded by Wallsend and visible to thousands of people on a daily basis. I grew up in the area and had a clear view of Wallsend every morning on the way to school at the time in question. All the locals knew exactly what ships were being built at the time and what stage they were at (most families had a least one person working in the yard).

I can state clearly for the record that the hull you have labelled RO7 was in no way secretly commissioned in August 1982. This just cant have happened as it was still tied up alongside at wallsend and was full of builders throught the period in question. You just can NOT keep something that visible, this secret for so long!!!


M6D

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   
As it seems, i doubt these boys can pull an answer out of this one :p way to much evidence to show that a ship couldnt be built in those yards.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Here's a bit about Litton Ingalls Shipyard.

Mississippi's largest private employer is Ingalls Shipbuilding. Inglalls is located where the Pascagoula River flows into the Mississippi Sound, strategically positioned for easy acces to the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Ingalls Shipbuilding is a division of Litton Industries; the yard is also a Litton Ship Systems company. Pascagoula serves as the headquarters for Litton Ship System. This small rural Mississippi town is home of not only Ingalls but also the Litton ship Systems Full Service Center. Ships of all sorts were made at the site just outside of Pascagoula, MS; ships for the United States Navy as well as a host of commercially owned and operated vessals.

Ingalls's employment rate reached a height in 1977 with 25,000 employees; today employment numbers less than half of that at 10,900
www.elslaw.com...

On top of the other ships being built there was a modernization program going on. USS Iowa was there in October of 1983 being modernized.

Here's a list of ships undergoing modernization/overhaul/reactivation/repairs/outfitting/restoration & conversion from 1982-1985

Multimission Destroyer - 5-21-82 USS Caron (DD 970), Multimission Destroyer - 12-17-82 USS Peterson (DD 969), Multimission Destroyer - 3-25-83 USS Briscoe (DD 977), Multimission Destroyer - 6-8-83 USS John Hancock (DD 981), Multimission Destroyer - 9-9-83 USS Iowa (BB 61), Battleship - 4-28-84 USS Comte De Grasse (DD 974), Multimission Destroyer - 8-10-84 USS John Rodgers (DD 983), Multimission Destroyer - 3-9-85 USS Moosbrugger (DD 980), Multimission Destroyer - 7-5-85 USS Preble (DDG 46).

[edit on 7-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 7-9-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Bravo Zulu, Zaphod!!

I was thinking how to find what you came up with! People can surmise all they want to, but, that is good, hard evidence.

I still say, you won't sink a carrier with an exocet and (being gracious) two or three free-fall bombs. You have to open the hull to the water, not to the air, and destroy watertight integrity. I don't believe that what was launched would do it nor what is claimed to have been launched. Do a search on the topic "Sinkex" and look at the pics of ships taking a beating. You will be surprised at how much it takes sometimes to put even a small vessel down.

[edit on 9/7/2005 by JungleMike]


M6D

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Well put Mike, after all, even small destroyers that were hit by exocets and bombs never sunk immediately, most of he time theyre was always an effort to rescue the ship, and to damage control, several of the ships only sunk after several hours or over night, a ship the size of invincible youd KNOW if it sunk.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
This is a list of all the ships built at Litton Ingalls shipyard from 1982 until May of 1984. They didn't have enough manpower, or enough time, or the resources to build a carrier for the Royal Navy. And even though I've said this a thousand times I'll say it again, I'll even put it in bold for you, just in case you missed it the other 1000 times. There is no way to build a carrier of ANY size in ANY shipyard and keep it secret! Between the hundreds of workers working on it, and the thousands of workers in the shipyard SOMEBODY would see it and say something about seeing it, especially when they realized we were buildng a carrier for a foreign navy. Sure we have build/overhauled a lot of foreign ships, but never a carrier, and nothing bigger than a cruiser or destroyer.

Oops. Might wanna add the build schedule.


USS Chandler (DDG 996), Guided Missile Destroyer - 1-25-82
Huthnance Vanguard I, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig -1-26-82
Transworld 72, Semisubmersible Drilling Rig - 4-4-82
Chiles Yucatan, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 4-9-82
Global Main Pass I, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 5-17-82
Global Main Pass II, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 6-30-82
Bonito Miss Kitty, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 7-30-82
Transworld 73, Semisubmersible Drilling Rig - 8-20-82
Global Main Pass III, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 9-17-82
Keyes 303, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig -10-29-82
Huthnance Vanguard II, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 11-12-82
USS Ticonderoga (CG 47), Aegis Guided Missile Cruiser - 12-10-82
Global Main Pass IV, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 12-17-82
Bonito II, L-780 Jackup Drilling Rig - 1-28-83
USS Hayler (DD 997), Multimission Destroyer - 2-10-83
USS Yorktown (CG 48), Aegis Guided Missile Cruiser - 5-4-84

[edit on 7-9-2005 by Zaphod58]


haha
I talked about this before.
Destroyers and cuisers are easy to build.
They made the new little Invincible in this period: 82 - 85.

Norteamericans do their job fast but the brits are always drinking tea, thats why they couldn´t do an aircraftcarrier in less than two years.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by JungleMike
Bravo Zulu, Zaphod!!

I was thinking how to find what you came up with! People can surmise all they want to, but, that is good, hard evidence.

I still say, you won't sink a carrier with an exocet and (being gracious) two or three free-fall bombs. You have to open the hull to the water, not to the air, and destroy watertight integrity. I don't believe that what was launched would do it nor what is claimed to have been launched. Do a search on the topic "Sinkex" and look at the pics of ships taking a beating. You will be surprised at how much it takes sometimes to put even a small vessel down.

[edit on 9/7/2005 by JungleMike]



Your HMS Coventry sunk in 20 minutes with three bombs.

Invincible was sunk with an exocet an other three bombs.

And if you compare a really aircraftcarrier like one of the USS Navy, Invincible was a boat.


Easy to destroy, easy to build


M6D

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
look you cant really count invincibles sinking time as its the one thats been debated, use logic sometimes...



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
Your HMS Coventry sunk in 20 minutes with three bombs.

Invincible was sunk with an exocet an other three bombs.

Coventry was also a destroyer, much smaller.
You can fit 2 and a half destroyers into an invincible carrier.
She displaced like 4 and a half times the ammount that the coventry did.
One exocet aint going to THAT much damage, unless you strapped an ICBM on to it?


And if you compare a really aircraftcarrier like one of the USS Navy, Invincible was a boat.


Easy to destroy, easy to build

Invincible is tiny compared to the US navy ones but she is by no means a "boat" , she can hold her own quite well and has done in the past in many exercises.
Hell the invincible and hermes managed to destroy quite a few of your planes which where "superior" to our own.
I cant believe this I'm feeding the troll again...


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]


M6D

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
Your HMS Coventry sunk in 20 minutes with three bombs.

Invincible was sunk with an exocet an other three bombs.

Coventry was also a destroyer, much smaller.
You can fit 2 and a half destroyers into an invincible carrier.
She displaced like 4 and a half times the ammount that the coventry did.
One exocet aint going to THAT much damage, unless you strapped an ICBM on to it?


And if you compare a really aircraftcarrier like one of the USS Navy, Invincible was a boat.


Easy to destroy, easy to build

Invincible is tiny compared to the US navy ones but she is by no means a "boat" , she can hold her own quite well and has done in the past in many exercises.
Hell the invincible and hermes managed to destroy quite a few of your planes which where "superior" to our own.
I cant believe this I'm feeding the troll again...


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]


haha yet again our troll here is sying the sink rate of a cherry is the same as an pineapple!




top topics



 
0
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join