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: 22
0
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The ship that sailed to Falklands in april (original R05):
-Black towers, black end of chimnes.
-No Phalanx !!

The ship that returns, new and clean, after 5,5 months....or
3 months after the war !! (Never was admiral ship !!!) :
-Grey towers and end of chimnes
-Part of Phalanx in pope and complet Phalanx in prow

Why ???

Because is a clon of the original R05 lost in Falklands !!

UK had two operational clones when lost the Invincible the 30/5/82...




posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Congratulations "55heroes".


Really i´m reading all this pages and i see the brits can´t with this.

They can´t deny it.


This thing about Invincible will appear in the argie mass media vey soon, argentinians are not morons, i´m here since june and they know too much things about this war.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
The ship that sailed to Falklands in april (original R05):
-Black towers, black end of chimnes.
-No Phalanx !!

The ship that returns, new and clean, after 5,5 months....or
3 months after the war !! (Never was admiral ship !!!) :
-Grey towers and end of chimnes
-Part of Phalanx in pope and complet Phalanx in prow

Why ???

Because is a clon of the original R05 lost in Falklands !!

UK had two operational clones when lost the Invincible the 30/5/82...


If they could repaint their Shars sea grey at sea instead of gloss white, why not the smoke stacks on the carrier?

Ever noticed how when they enter port sailors wear dress whites, but in war movies they don't?

Say, why weren't the Welsh and Scots Guards wearing their redcoats and bearskins in the Falklands like they do in front of Buck house?

(having fun counting your points?)


M6D

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
Congratulations "55heroes".


Really i´m reading all this pages and i see the brits can´t with this.

They can´t deny it.


This thing about Invincible will appear in the argie mass media vey soon, argentinians are not morons, i´m here since june and they know too much things about this war.





it appears your dellusional to, considering the fact we HAVE refuted the evidence, as quite a lot of it is well, totally implausible, your little hero boy has still failed to answer how that many people from the docks would fail to report this ship or even tell someone :p id personally LOVE to see an explanation to that.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Didn't you read the latest theory? They had two clones of the ship already built so they could just bring one of them out if it sank.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
The ship that sailed to Falklands in april (original R05):
-Black towers, black end of chimnes.
-No Phalanx !!

The ship that returns, new and clean, after 5,5 months....or
3 months after the war !! (Never was admiral ship !!!) :
-Grey towers and end of chimnes
-Part of Phalanx in pope and complet Phalanx in prow

Why ???

Because is a clon of the original R05 lost in Falklands !!

UK had two operational clones when lost the Invincible the 30/5/82...


As I have said before, stop speaking your gibberish and speak at least a sensible modicum of English. What the hell are you on about, part of Phalanx in the Pope? Did he not mind? Did it hurt him? How could he sit down? Did he need a cushion? What the hell......


We had two mysterious, clone ships ready to replace the sunken Invincible, now?
It just gets better doesn't it!

We have refuted all of your evidence and repeatedly made you look the fools. If you cannot accpet that, then bugger off.

Unless you can hold a half-english debate and come up with some mildly-convincing evidence or at the very least, try and explain some of the many questions we have, then I am afraid you will go down in ATS history as a pair of jokers.

You seem to be wishing for some non-existant age of Argentine Supremacy where you managed to conquer a wind swept Penguin Colony off a cash strapped United Kingdom......And you couldn't even do that........

face it lads, you guys got owned down in the S. Atlantic and no amount of gibbering is going to make that situation change.

Like I said before, you just want something to come back to us on, because we sank that Ancient Light Cruiser you called a Battleship, the Belgrano.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
So who`s going to refute the nuking of BA , by black buck mission # 3?



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
For once, I think I can speak for a few Americans when we say,

"We're gonna sit this one out and just watch, because its just too funny."


M6D

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I mean honestly, one MAJOR question among with several answers wer not answered, how to keep everyones mouth shut about it hmm? wasnt answered, how did we pay for a new one?! apprently the US payed for it...YAH...COUGH COUGH MY A**.

unbelieveable....this argument has been refuted..please do not post and make a fool of yourself again with this trash..


BDL

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Interesting to see you have met the two Argentinian trolls (Irish Duck and Arkantos), they've already been banned from two sites that I visit thanks to their insulting replies when people tell them that they're wrong about HMS Invincible. I'm not sure who 55 heroes is, because the other Argentinian normally associated with these two denies it being him.

Just to clear something up which nobody else has noticed:

The list of dead Gurkhas posted earlier on - Google some of the names (ie just a forename or just a surname), pretty much all of them are towns in India, Pakistand or Thailand. I've worked with the Gurkhas a lot (I'm a soldier) and I know for a fact you would never get a list that long with so many different surnames - Gurkhas only have about six different surnames, and usually use their forename instead. Having a list of Gurkha names that long without Gurung appearing once is laughable.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
not only hide the attack to R05 HMS Invincible..
you know the really number of UK soldiers died in 1982?

this only is the list of Gurkas:

BAHARU LUMPUR -
BANDJERMASIN BALU -
BANGUED LAMPUNG -
BILASPUR HABADLIMBU -
BURU HARINFJI -
BUTUAN LIMHA -
DIGUL ARU APO -
HAPATNAM VISHAK -
IMPHAL CUTTACK -


^^Maybe he was named for a grandfather who fought with Slim...



KOLHAPUR BHOPAL -


^^I think Union Carbide had something to do with the death of this one



KUDAT JOHOR -
KUPANG MASINHA -
LABUHANBILIK IPOH -
LEYTE PALAWAIN -


^^ Must be one of the long-lost Filipino Ghurkas!



MAMUJU BALIKPARSAN -
MOGOI DENPARSAD -
NAKTONG ULSAN -
NAM PEGUKOK -
NAMPO HAEJU -
PADAN BUH BELING -
PANAY BOROBU -
PRAPAT PAKAMBARU -
SAIDPUR PATAN JAMMU -
SARAWAK KAYAN -
SIMTANG KINABALU -
TERENGGANU DUMAR -


^^These three look suspiciously like states in Malaysia!



THIRABO RANGPUR -
UDAIPUR SIKKIM -


^^Don't we go there to play cricket?



WAINGAPU PAEKTU -
YAMBI PADANG -

all died in Malvinas / Falklands War was much more that 236 reconogized.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by 55heroes]


Where are Muralitharan, Akhtar, Gavaskar, Miendad and, above all, Lobsang?



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
www.arrse.co.uk...



WAINGAPU PAEKTU - w...u: city in Bali, P...u: mountains in Korea
YAMBI PADANG - Dui Yambi is a place in India, Padang is the capital of West Sumatra



55heroes - look at that site and stop using PLACE NAMES as `proof` that millions of gurkhas died.


edit: And here is the FULL list of all the Gurkhas that died in the Falklands:


BUDHAPARSAD LIMBU - died 24 Jun 1982 filling in trench




long isn`t it.


[edit on 15-9-2005 by Harlequin]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Mister Ward´s book (Harriers over Falklands) show this stupid photo yn the clean and new HMS-Illustrious:


Ehh stupid and lier Ward, this isn´t a R05 Invincible !!
Where is the name R05 under the prow chimne??

Grey and clean tower, ultra clean chimnes....
in the new Illustrious.

Or the Invincible was a first sail-carrier??
No soot in the chimnes and towers??

Ward is a pathetic man
And the brits trolls can´t say anything.

PD: the number of died gurkas in the final combats?
...350 (extraoffcial british sorce)

[edit on 15-9-2005 by 55heroes]


M6D

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Proof that this troll is a liar! lie once and how should we believe the rest hmm?>!



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Yes, brit troll.

Which ship is this?

Ward say Invincible...

And the photo show other clean and new ship...without visible identifcation

Who is a lier?

Tatcher, Woodward, Black and Ward...and others.

But, no all englishmen and engishwomen


M6D

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Very Very hypcrticical of you....how you can call me a troll, yet you make up a list of gurkha casualities, obviously trying to take the blame of himself!

then again, i hope you understand what hypcortical means so you can understand your own situation here troll.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Hi Guys,

My name is Jim and I’m new here. Been lurking for ages but this thread has prompted me to finally register and post some details to stop this rubbish. I’ve got a Royal Navy background and am very familiar with naval technology. I’ll post my views / comments in a fairly random order though as they come to me.

Firstly it is clear HMS INVINCIBLE (Vince) was NOT sunk on 30 May. As far as I can determine an Argentinean plane attacked HMS EXETER and mistook her mast configuration to be Vince. The CVS DID suffer a machinery breakdown while at sea, which took a couple of days to repair, but this was not caused by enemy action.

The reason why Vince was greyed out is very straightforward. She was repainted during the campaign to decrease her profile and visibility. If you look at photos of ships during the campaign, then you’ll notice a lot of escorts left harbour with black masts, but returned with grey paint. The one exception was the T42’s, which had a black stripe down the side on the stack to prevent misidentification as Argie T42’s. Check out Leo Marriots “Royal Navy Frigates Since 1945” for pictures of Type 12’s going south with the new paint scheme.

The reason BRISTOL acted as a flagship and not Vince is again straightforward. BRISTOL arrived late in theatre, towards the end of the campaign and was relatively fresh. BRISTOL was designed from build to act as a flagship for a Rear Admiral and his staff, and was frequently used in that role during her lifetime. She had one of the best Command / Control suites in the fleet and plenty of space to embark a 2*’s staff for a prolonged stay. Vince on the other hand was in need of a refit and a trip home. It was felt more sensible to move the staff once to BRISTOL and let them stay there. If you read “100 Days” by Admiral Woodward, you’ll notice that he was initially keen to use HMS GLAMORAN as his flagship, and only reluctantly moved to a carrier when ordered. It made perfect sense to not use Vince as a command platform.

The Phalanx Issue. As built Vince did NOT have any Phalanx’s fitted to her. Lusty had two fitted in a hurry when she left to go South in 82, and they were retrofitted to Invincible in her post Falklands refit. These were very much bolt on’s though and the place occupied on the flight deck was hardly ideal. Instead at Vince and Lusty’s first major refits, both carriers had 3 sponsons fitted to carry Goalkeeper. This is a major installation as it needs a deep well to hold the gun and its magazines, while Phalanx is a bolt on. Royal was built with the Sponsons already fitted by 1985. If you look at her pictures while on the slipway though, she hadn’t had them then. This was one of the reasons why it took her so long to get into service. IT would have been impossible to tow her south in the war. She was essentially a hull, with no power, no lighting, no working engines, no deck elevators, no fittings, no beds, no ships company, no ops room, no radar, no nothing. To get her in position would have required a minimum 10 day tow to clear the channel, in full view of the public. Why are there no (ZERO) photos of a carrier being towed in this time? Why are there no comments from the tens of thousands of people who lived by Swan Hunters about there being no carriers present when there were 2 just a few weeks previously? Why are there no photos of the Royal being moved down the Tyne? Because it didn’t happen. The Royal never left Swan Hunters during 1982.

A carrier was considered for use during this time – that was the old HMS BULWARK a recently retired CVL from WW2. There were moves afoot to tow her down south, but they never amounted to anything and she never left harbour.

The major problem with this stupid idea is that every other ship loss is recorded. There are hundreds of photographs of the ships that were sunk being attacked and sinking. There are no (ZERO) photographs of HMS INVINCIBLE being attacked, being damaged or sinking. Why is this? Well possibly because she was never sunk. It would be impossible to take all the photos away from people on the Task Force (over 15000 people) so they didn’t bother. So why would the loss of the largest warship since WW2 be ignored? Maybe because it never happened.

I love the idea that the entire ships company (over 1200 people) was sent to HMS HERMES (with over 2000 people onboard) in an airlift. How did this happen? Why are there no photos or records of it? Why is it that for every other loss escort ships moved in to help, and took photos, but in Invincibles case they didn’t? Why is it that the ship was evacuated in such an orderly way that everyone was saved, but not a single person has breathed a word about the most miraculous recovery every in over 23 years? Surely with over 3000 people on one carrier, don’t you think someone might have said something by now? Don’t give me the “Government threat” line because that’s never happened. The reason there are no stories about it are simple – it never happened.

What happened to Invincibles Airwing of 22 aircraft? HERMES was full, so they must have gone somewhere? How did we protect them and land them for so long? How did we manage to not only replace a carrier, but at the same time rebuild 12 FRS1’s with identical serial numbers and have them in place? Its physically impossible to do.

The US build would have been utterly impossible. The Essexes were built in a total war production environment. To build a single unit, in total secrecy, with all materials coming from the UK is impossible. You need to long term order a lot of parts to build a CVS, and most of these parts come from the UK and take years to build. Are you telling me the manufacturers had secret parts ready to go just in case? Why did they not build in the UK when every other ship was replaced in the UK? You cant just order a replacement built, it takes a lot of time to do the plans, to place the contracts (especially with a foreign power) and then build the ship. Could you explain where the photos are of this mysterious carrier doing her sea trials? How was she fitted out in secrecy given the lack of a covered yard in Littons or Ingalls? Why are there no photos at all of her leaving harbour in an open harbour? Why did none of the several thousand workers required to build a ship say anything?

The definitive history of the Falklands War was published over the summer. The author (Freedman) had TOTAL access to all documents relating to the war. Why did he never even hint that she had been sunk, especially when he discussed issues such as the war in Chile and Nuclear Weapons? Probably because there was no such sinking.

By my reckoning if Invincible was sunk, then at least 15,000 servicemen, upwards of 5,000 construction workers and over 50,000 civilians would have to have been deadly silent on this issue for 23 years. Why have they not said anything in all this time?



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Ok Jim
Sorry for my english.

There´s no photos about Invincible attack and sinking?
I can´t believe this.

But, there´s no photos about HMS-Dasher.
And the Dasher lost in 1943....

You say....



The Phalanx Issue. As built Vince did NOT have any Phalanx’s fitted to her. Lusty had two fitted in a hurry when she left to go South in 82, and they were retrofitted to Invincible in her post Falklands refit.


Thank´s !!
Of course there is a ship who was retrofitted to Invincible !!
You need a New Invincible!!

R06 retrofitted to Invincible, off course!!
This is te natural replace to the vince

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

The Lusty is yor heroe ship, that work as two ships for several months !!

The HMS-Bulwark (centaur class) was prepare to replace the Hermes in secret , if Royal navy lost the Hermes.

Why the inservible Invincible no returns inmediately to make the reparations to Port Stanley or to UK ??

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?

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.

The survivors believe the extraofficial british history, that the shif 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)

At the finish of 1982, the tatcher´s history said:
-Vince 18/9/82 to refit !!
(a day after return)
-Lusty end to novemeber return to falklands and inmediately go to completion)
-R07 in construction ....

Have you a photo with 3 carriers in a buildshipper?


If te Vince returns of Gulf War whit original black towers.
Why not after 3 months of postwar after falklands war?
There were not more black paint in UK or into the Vince?



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Well, I know one way we can find out if 55heroes story is real.

Wheres the real Invincible? If it sunk, its on the ocean floor somewhere. If that is found, you have your carrier.


M6D

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
20 years?! haha NEVER HAD BLACK TOWERS FOR 20 YEARS!

nice one mate :p troll, your kinda slow here arent you? wanna get back in hte game? dont talk, it well help your argument a lot.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join