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: 26
0
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   
In this other promotional photo, the L ship is longer than the N ship.






posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
No way men!!
The two photos are of 5/4/82

No way
Ward is a lier.

Why?

It takes 7 YEARS in total to build a carrier (and actually she is not even classed as a carrier really) There is NO WAY on this EARTH that there was another ship built in that short space of time. There was only the three! never a RO8 (complete rubbish) and I have to say that you are argueing with the British now who know about thier own ships! so quit making yourself look stupid



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Oops. So much for your argument that they different lengths prove it can't be Invincible. As you can very clearly see the Invincible was the smallest of the three at 194 meters, and the other two were the same length at 210 meters. So unless they built one in two months smaller than the other two, and had it completely built and at sea, that HAS to be the Invincible.

HMS Invincible R 05:
Displacement: 20,600 tons
Length: 194 m
Beam: 36 m
Draught: 7.5 m
Propulsion: Four Rolls-Royce Olympus TM3B gas turbines providing 97,000 hp (75 MW)
Speed: 28 knots (52 km/h), 18 knots (33 km/h) cruising
Range: 7,000 miles at 18 knots (11,000 km at 33 km/h)
Complement: 685 crew, 366 Aircrew
Armament:
Aircraft: Sea Harrier fighter/bomber "jump jets", Sea King helicopters
Motto:

HMS Illustrious R 06
Type STOVL Aircraft Carrier
Propulsion Four Rolls-Royce Olympus TM3B gas turbines delivering 112,000shp to two shafts
Displacement 20,000 tonnes
Length 210m
Beam 36m
Speed 30 knots
Crew 686 plus 366 air group
Armament Three Phalanx or Goalkeeper CIWS, two 20mm guns
Air Group Sea Harrier FA2, RAF Harrier GR7, Sea King AEW, Sea King ASW

HMS Ark Royal R 07
Displacement: 20,600 tons
Length: 210 m (689 ft)
Beam: 36 m (118 ft)
Draught: 7.5 m (25 ft)
Propulsion: 4 × Rolls-Royce Olympus TM3B gas turbines, 112,000 shp
2 shafts
Speed: 30+ knots
Range: 5000 miles at 18 knots
Complement: 685 crew, 366 Fleet Air Arm
Armament: 3 × Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS
2 × GAM-B01 20mm guns
Sea Dart missiles
Aircraft: Sea Harrier fighter/bombers
Sea King helicopters
Motto: Zeal Does Not Rest



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
So now the UK did Time Travel. 55 heros can't show how 2 ships that weren't in the task force at the start of the war are in the task force at the end of the war. Care to explain that? Oh wait you can't as its an inconvinient reality that sits in with your deluded fantasy.

As for the photos,all three ships are slightly different lengths. Its also an issue of camera perspective.

Once more, where is there a SINGLE photo of the Invincible being attack, being on fire on being sunk? You won't post one as you don't have one.

If the best you can do is 2 pictures of Vince and Lusty together and a post war shot of the task force then you are clearly mentally ill.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
They paid everyone in wallsend to keep quiet about the carrier being missing?????????????

That is the biggest joke yet!!!!! Large numbers of my family worked in Swans and the surrounding yards and i know of not one soul that recieved any payment from the government!!! (they were barely paid by the yard!).

This whole thread is a farce!!!



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
LOOK! there has never been another R05 right! so there stories are wrong and made up! There is only 1 HMS Invincible and with R05 and no more OK!
They are so made up! and I find this annyoying when it's so not true!
Why don't post about a topic where you know that your facts are right OK! because you could not be further from the truth on this one.
There is NO cover up! the Ship NEVER EVER got hit OK! so really you should just forget about this topic and start talking some sense.
Sorry but that's how I feel about it all now

You can put as many pictures on here as you like, but nothing is going to state that it did happen! The real Invincible sailed back from the Falklands! and why are there so many on here even questioning these ridiculous statements - Honestly!

L



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
It's kind of like a car accident you know is gonna happen. You want to look away but you just can't resist it.
We KNOW they're trolls, and it's just silly to reply to them, but we just can't help it. That and anyone else that comes along that doesn't know any better should see all the proof that it DIDN'T sink to show the real truth. Deny Ignorance being the motto of the site.

Oh, and 55heroes, I wouldn't put too much trust in that site, even though it IS supposed to be a RN site. According to the same site, ALL the CVS ships were 210 meters long. Do a little basic research, and see for yourself how long they really are, like I did. 194 meters for Invincible, 210 for Illustrious and Ark Royal.

From your same website:
Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers
Name Pennant Number
Invincible RO5
Illustrious RO6
Ark Royal RO7

CVS Statistics
Displacement: 22,000 tonnes
Length: 210m / 686ft
Beam: 36m / 118ft
Speed: 30 kts
Complement: 726 Ship's company
384 Air Group personnel
Armament: 3 x Phalanx/Goalkeeper (CIWS)
2 x 20mm Close range guns
Aircraft: A mix (depending on role) of Harrier GR7 and GR9s, Sea King AEW and Sea King and Chinook stores or troop-carrying helicopters and Merlin anti-submarine helicopters.
Propulsion:

COGAG (Combined Gas and Gas), 2 Shafts

4 x Gas Turbines producing 72MW

[edit on 19-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 19-9-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
is it possible that this guy 55heroes is just putting up these "evidence or proof" just to provoke more discussion so he can get ATS points because if u look at his points and the date he just joined it makes you wonder. he has barely few points in PTS and BTS but over 2k for ATS. makes you wonder he is trying to bring more discussion to a thread where many members have already debunked the idea of Invincible being sunked. he is just denying to make members having to put up more proof that the ship did not sink and would keep on denying until the members are out of anything to say to add more points to his treasure chest.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Hi,

Not trying to put a fly in the ointment, but what about the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes that served in the Falklands. See link below.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Rm172



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by rm172
Hi,

Not trying to put a fly in the ointment, but what about the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes that served in the Falklands. See link below.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Rm172



What´s up with that???

In the link you can see another mistake.

On september 17 The book of the Royal Navy says Invincible returned to UK with Minerva, Penelope and Avenger.
But in the link you gave us said Minerva Penelope and Avenger return to Portsmouth on September 10.





posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   
So the photo of Ward is a big rubishhhhhh




posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

Originally posted by rm172
Hi,

Not trying to put a fly in the ointment, but what about the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes that served in the Falklands. See link below.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Rm172




What´s up with that???

In the link you can see another mistake.

On september 17 The book of the Royal Navy says Invincible returned to UK with Minerva, Penelope and Avenger.
But in the link you gave us said Minerva Penelope and Avenger return to Portsmouth on September 10.




Avenger was damaged in an attack and more than likely was escorted home by the Minerva and Penelope. Her hull was cracked in the attack, and she would have needed an escort on the way home in case something happened to her on the way.


[edit on 19-9-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Source

It took almost 5 years to build the Invincible. I don't see how you could hide the production of another one, when the ship yard is out in the open. This whole story sounds like some sort of propaganda story you'd expect from a country like N. Korea. I expect their citizens think they sink US ships at least once a week.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
In the link of BBC, the Hermes came back with original black tower...

You said the original Invincible was re-painting to grey towers and grey end of chimnes in the midddle of the ocean, for strategic reasons.

In order to cause more accidents with harriers and sea-king, for example...


A Invisible carrier is a problem for its airships....


The Exocets of the Argentine Navy...they were radar guidance.

The bombs and gunfire of the Argentine Navy and the Argentine Air Force, were pilots guidance.
The pilots can shot a carrier, independently if the towers were more visibles or not.

If the Invincible repainted its towers and chimnes, was a stupid strategy.
whise only consequence can was more accidents,
The grey colour was quickly soiled by the smoke and soot.

If the Class 42, was repainted to grey towers is another subject.
They were escort destroyers or alert of radar or memebers of AA packs (with class 22 frigates)
In this case the camouflage has some sense.
In the case of carrier, no.

For that reason the Hermes returned to home with its black original tower, never repainted.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Does anyone have the faintest clue what this lunatic is going on about?



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I think I do. It's a matter of Argentinian pride. They were beat by the British, but would like to think that they did as much damage as possible in their defeat. It's what you would call "saving face" in other countries. There is no amount of fact or fiction that would change their mind.

[edit on 19-9-2005 by dbates]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates


Source

It took almost 5 years to build the Invincible. I don't see how you could hide the production of another one, when the ship yard is out in the open. This whole story sounds like some sort of propaganda story you'd expect from a country like N. Korea. I expect their citizens think they sink US ships at least once a week.

It took seven years to build the Invincible!

L



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
They paid everyone in wallsend to keep quiet about the carrier being missing?????????????

That is the biggest joke yet!!!!! Large numbers of my family worked in Swans and the surrounding yards and i know of not one soul that recieved any payment from the government!!! (they were barely paid by the yard!).

This whole thread is a farce!!!

It's the BIGGEST EVER joke going! I know what you are saying here, because all of my family and friends etc!! worked and built the Invincible so I know everything and I have been on board her again just six weeks ago, so this is just it's just a ridiculous statement and there have neve been any reports to cover up such a made up story!

Sorry guys! but it's true! and the War was such a long time ago now! time to move on from it.

L



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
In the link of BBC, the Hermes came back with original black tower...

You said the original Invincible was re-painting to grey towers and grey end of chimnes in the midddle of the ocean, for strategic reasons.

In order to cause more accidents with harriers and sea-king, for example...


A Invisible carrier is a problem for its airships....


Right, because air traffic control wouldn't talk to them, would they?


The Exocets of the Argentine Navy...they were radar guidance.

The bombs and gunfire of the Argentine Navy


I'm sorry, the what of the who? Where? That would be when their CBG, such as it was, turned tail and ran. What about those vaunted Skyhawks, surely the Harrier was no match for the men of the Asturias...


and the Argentine Air Force, were pilots guidance.
The pilots can shot a carrier, independently if the towers were more visibles or not.


Not if they attack a fleet auxilliary instead, they can't. Not if you don't have maritime search or lookdown/shoot down radar to find your target out there in the wide open sea you can't.

Wait, wait, wait, didn't you say an invisible carrier would be a problem for its own aircraft? How can it be a problem for it's own pilots but not for the enemy? You mean Argentine pilots can find the carrier, launch missiles and drop bombs on it, but RN pilots, who have been aboard for possibly months and who only took off a couple of hours ago will have no idea where it is, or be able to see it because its been repainted?


If the Invincible repainted its towers and chimnes, was a stupid strategy.
whise only consequence can was more accidents,


Really, you can quote the increase in landing accidents caused by this repainting? How many landing accidents did 801 squadron et al suffer during the Falklands campaign?


The grey colour was quickly soiled by the smoke and soot.


Do you know anything about the propulsion system on Royal Navy ships? They have Rolls Royce gas turbines, there is no soot and almost no smoke. The last RN ships to produce soot were probably a pair of Yangtze River gunboats in Hong Kong 60 years ago and then only if they never received a heavy oil (deisel) conversion from coal.

Next you'll be telling us about the soot from Nimitz class carrier...



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
As the British cannot oppose ideas or arguments to balance the debate, we continued with other subjects or evidences.
Somebody said that the complete crew of the Hermes was of 2000 people.

And that has been surely so that some crew member of the Hermes has showed that insome moment they had on board around 2000 people.

Let us see the complete crews of each class


Centaur Class (Hermes)

Centaur class light fleet aircraft carriers

Original Design
Displacement: 24,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 650 x 90 x 24.5 feet/198 x 27.4 x 7.5 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 737 x 90 x 24.5 feet/224.6 x 27.4 x 7.5 meters
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 4 boilers, 2 shafts, 76,000 shp, 29.5 knots
Crew: 1390
Armor: 1-2 inch decks, magazines and machinery
Armament: 4 dual 4.5/45 DP, 2 6-barrel, 11 dual 40 mm
Aircraft: 42

Revised Design
Displacement: 27,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 650 x 90 x 27 feet/198 x 27.4 x 8.2 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 737 x 123 x 27 feet/224.6 x 37.4 x 8.2 meters
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 4 boilers, 2 shafts, 76,000 shp, 28 knots
Crew: about 1100 + 300 air group

Total crew= 1400

------------------------
Invincible Class (Invincible, New Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal)

Invincible class VSTOL carriers

Displacement: 20,600 tons full load
Dimensions: 632.7 x 90 x 21.3 ft
Extreme Dimensions: 688 x 118 x 28.8 ft
Propulsion: 4 Olympus TM3B gas turbines, 2 shafts, 94,000 hp, 28 knots
Armor: none
Crew: 723 ship, 366 air group (1089 total)

Total 1089
-----------------------------------------

The Hermes had around 2000 people between the 30 of May of 1982 until the impossible crossing with the short hull R06 that left hastily of UK in July of 1982, helmet that starts off as Illustrious but soon returns with camouflage of Invincible.
The Hermes receives around 700 survivors of the Invincible (ship crew)and for that reason the temp population of the Hermes rose to 2000.

You can see in this photo the impossible crossing where the survivors of the Invincible happen to their new ship.

And it is impossible because the Hermes returns to Portsmouth the 21 of 1982 July and the Illustrious officially divides the 2 of August of 1982. In fact part long before to be able to receive the naval crew of the Invincible.



I thank for Miguel Bortolotto, Jorge Cruz and Norberto Laffusa who lead this investigation in MSG, about the hypothesis of collapse of the Invincible and spare part, to give me this overwhelming and final evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join