Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

HMS Invincible sunk in 1982

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuckArgentina lost but sunk the Invincible and UK had done the rubish of the century.

I had show you !!!
And i have more, but first answer this or you can´t?


Yoda seriously, you're way off track with this one.

The Argentinians claimed to have damaged the Invincible in '82, but that ship was PACKED WITH NEWS HOUNDS - do you seriosuly, in your wildest Jedi dreams think that they would have failed to notice a 500lb bomb going off or an Exocet hit.

The main British fleet was deliberately positioned beyond the range of Argentine aircraft, only the ships protecting the landings (Ardent, Antellope, Glamorgan etc) and the radar picket ships (Sheffield) were exposed.

Like I said, put this one in the realm of the Americans allegedly not landing on the Moon.




posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   


Support ship "ATLANTIC CONVEYOR" (25th May) hit by Exocet and both sunk

www.naval-history.net...


MV Atlantic Conveyor, with a vital cargo of helicopters, runway building equipment and tents on the 25th.

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
That top photo is a Dutch Goalkeeper system equipped with the 7 barrelled GAU-8A of the A-10A.

Far superior to even Phalanx 1B in my opinion.



Both Invincible and Illustrious have were refitted to carry the Goalkeeper system, whilst Ark Royal still has the Phalanx system.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
That top photo is a Dutch Goalkeeper system equipped with the 7 barrelled GAU-8A of the A-10A.

Far superior to even Phalanx 1B in my opinion.



Invincible 82 didn´t have phalanx!!!!!!


What are you talking about????



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp


Support ship "ATLANTIC CONVEYOR" (25th May) hit by Exocet and both sunk

www.naval-history.net...


MV Atlantic Conveyor, with a vital cargo of helicopters, runway building equipment and tents on the 25th.

en.wikipedia.org...

In drydock 1980's

In Norway 1985

I see no diffrences...



Those photographs are after the war, both are Illustrious.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
Those photographs are after the war, both are Illustrious.

Yes I double checked your CIW thing and you where right, she was givein them after the war.
My bad, hmmm bad site..



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Thats the atlantic conveyor, that was destroyed on the 25th when the argentinians tried to attack the carrier HMS Invincible.

[qoute]
Despite the bad weather, on 30 May, the Argentinean Air Force and the Naval Aviation started their first really coordinated attack, deploying two Super Etendards and four Skyhawks into attack against what they believed was the main body of the British Task Force. After refueling twice from KC-130s, the strike package made a wide turn around to the south of the British fleet, and then initiated the attack by launching a single Exocet, with Skyhawks following closely behind. The British detected the threat, and shot down the missile and two Skyhawks, while the other two attacked a British frigate, misidentifying her for the HMS Invincible due to the bad weather and intensive smoke caused by AAA and ships moving at high speed.
www.acig.org...



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Thats the atlantic conveyor, that was destroyed on the 25th when the argentinians tried to attack the carrier HMS Invincible.

[qoute]
Despite the bad weather, on 30 May, the Argentinean Air Force and the Naval Aviation started their first really coordinated attack, deploying two Super Etendards and four Skyhawks into attack against what they believed was the main body of the British Task Force. After refueling twice from KC-130s, the strike package made a wide turn around to the south of the British fleet, and then initiated the attack by launching a single Exocet, with Skyhawks following closely behind. The British detected the threat, and shot down the missile and two Skyhawks, while the other two attacked a British frigate, misidentifying her for the HMS Invincible due to the bad weather and intensive smoke caused by AAA and ships moving at high speed.

www.acig.org...


Argentina attack the Invicible on may 30.
Atlantic Conveyor was attacked on may 25.

Here they explain the attack:

www.britains-smallwars.com...

www.elmalvinense.s5.com...



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
This is a picture taken of Invincible and Illustrious in the Falklands shortly after the war had ended.



Hermes left the Falklands on July 4th and arrivred in Portsmouth on 21st July.

Illustrious arrived in the Falklands 27th August, the following day Invincible left for Portsmouth and arrived 27th September.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
this is an diagram of as the attack to the R05 HMS Invincible. The position was defined by cooperation between the FAA and the Naval aviation. of the 4 airplanes that they had to fly over the Invincible, 2 were derribed.




more data in successive deliveries



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindwalker
This is a picture taken of Invincible and Illustrious in the Falklands shortly after the war had ended.



Hermes left the Falklands on July 4th and arrivred in Portsmouth on 21st July.

Illustrious arrived in the Falklands 27th August, the following day Invincible left for Portsmouth and arrived 27th September.


The photo you posted is not of 1982. There is Illustrious and Ark Royal is not of 1982.
If you see the both has phalanx.

So if you said Hermes got to Portsmouth on 21 July and Illustrious left on August, how do you explain this photo:








[edit on 1-9-2005 by TheIrishDuck]

[edit on 1-9-2005 by TheIrishDuck]



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Here more...


after "transfered" the crewmen (of the sunk Invicible) from Hermes to Illustrious.




This prove the rubish of the century.

And i have more but this enough for you i think, you only have to admit Invicible did not return to Portsmouth on 1982 Invincible dissapeared of the Earth after may 30 of 1982.




Regards.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that there were at least a couple hundred journalists onboard at the time of the "sinking". Do you REALLLY think that the news organizations wouldn't be screaming about their reporters missing, or nobody noticing, or that they wouldn't have been screaming louder than anyone about their "near death experience" when the missile and bombs hit?



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
I agree with "55heroes" may be he is right.

I have studied this for years and i have lot of material too, i can give you some of them.

After studying about the attack to Invincible i still waiting for someone who tell or answer me this questions:


- There isn´t any registry of aerial activity from that aircraft carrier, from that date (may 30)...


There was some air activity
1st June 1982.
0950 hours.
No.801 Squadron HMS Invincible CAP (Lt. N. Ward and Lt. S. Thomas) destroy Argentine C-130 Hercules 93 km north of Pebble Island. Wards first AIM-l9 Sidewinder he fired fell short of the C-130, but the second started a fire between the port engines, Ward then fired 240 rounds of 30mm, which broke the aircraft's wing of sending it crashing into the sea killing the 7 crew members. This particular C-130 is believed to have been trying to repeat a bombing attempt made by another C-130 the previous day, when an Argentine C-130 made a bombing attack on a British tanker well north of the total exclusion zone. The Argentineans had simply pushed bombs out of the back of the aircraft as they over flew the ship. One bomb struck the ship, but bounced off to no effect.



- Nobody knows where it was the Invincible from the May 30 to July ends, which enter the disguised Illustrious like Invincible in Port Stanley.


HMS Illustrous was in the UK until 2nd August when she set sail for the Falklands some how can she be in Port Stanley at the end of July when it is 8000 miles away



- Nobody can explain why the aircraft carrier do not touch land on June 14 (when the others ships, all the others including Hermes touched port Stanley or returned to England.


Remember only the Argentine forces on the island surrendered HMS Invincible was kept offshore as a precaution



- It is virtually impossible and irrational that the repairs have become to opened sea, with temperatures below cero and a few hours of light.


She was not hit so no repair, however as to being able to carry out repair when HMS Invincible left for the Falkland she only had one operational driveshaft. The second was replaced whilst she was underway in 24 hours, a job that was supposed to take 3 weeks in the docks



- Nobody can´t explain why the second aircraft carrier entered disarmed, if it was the Illustrious it was operative from half-full of June.

HMS wasa not unarmed she carried 809 squadron of Harriers



- Nobody can´t explain why HMS Illustrious returned immediately to UK from Falklands (obviously to be finished and to be armed).


She arrived on station in the Falklands on 27th August and stayed until the end of October when the shore based radar and F-4 phantoms becam operational on the island to provide the necessary security.


-Why the HMS Invincible that left to the Falklands had the black tower, and when it arrived in September it had it of gray color? repainted?? may be but i think is another ship, becasue Invincible didn´t had phalanx and the ships who arrives to Porstmouth as Invincible had phalanx.


Many of the ships got a fresh coat of paint whilst travelling down to the Falklands - I have some pics in a book. Helpedpass the time



[edit on 2-9-2005 by Popeye]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

And Popeye??? what´s up?

You tell me something that you read in a book and i prove it´s a fake, nothing to say?

Why Hermes is with Illustrious??
Your book and your link is a fake.




The picture proves nothing as there is not date reference and to me at least (cant be bother to put it into photoshop and examine, it not possible to tell exactly what ship she is, as Hermes and Illustrous 'not' together both were in Postmouth from 21st July to 2nd August



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   
at the risk of fuelling this foolish notion

there is a lot of " arguement " over what ship is shown in whic himage and what date it was taken

the sad truth is that photoes are OFTEN miss captioned , with incorrect identification / date etc . this is esp true of library images

thats before people start photoshoping images for verious reasons



the OP seems to think that ANY discreprancy in the MOD records is proof of conspiracy . while taking one SINGLE verison of the argentine story as gospel , while ignoring all the demonstrated lies in the argenitne accounts


my ` mini challenge ` to anyone who believes this " invincible sunk " nonsense is to detail the mobements of the 3 ships ypu claim were involved : invincible , illustrious and your " magic " replacement invincible

and simply chart - thier location , and identity in chorolological order detailing where and when idenities were changed , ships complement transfered etc

knock you selves out


YRS - APE



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
IrishDuck the pictures you post that are Hermes and Illustrious are probably Hermes and invincible as you notice the ski jump angle on the Invincible class is a lot less that Hermes (14 degrees) and Invinicible originally had a 7 degree ski jump whilst Illustious and Ark Royal were built with 12 degree ski jumps much closer to that of Hermes.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   


"The ship's flight-deck runway is about 170-m long with a ski ramp set at 12 degrees. The ship supports nine Harrier aircraft including both the Royal Air Force (RAF) GR7/GR9 Harrier II and the Royal Navy (RN) FA2 Sea Harrier, now operated by the combined RAF/RN Joint Force Harrier "
source www.indiadefence.com...

About the possible sale of the HMS Invincible to India in the 2004 the following information was published. Then if the HMS Invincible sky ramp have 7 degrees, the present HMS Invincible is not the original R05.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
The R08, the new Invincible was built in Litton Ingalls after the Tarawa class The Peleliu and before the first Wasp

www.hazegray.org...

www.hazegray.org...

www.hazegray.org...-cl

May someone can tell me what Litton Ingalls did betwen 1980 - 1985.

A new Invincible??? yes, but shhh. don´t tell anyone.



Ok, Ill have a go

Hull No Name Owner Type Delivery
4226 Thorn U.S. Navy Destroyer 21-Jan-80
4227 Deyo U.S. Navy Destroyer 25-Feb-80
4228 Ingersoll U.S. Navy Destroyer 24-Mar-80
4229 Fife U.S. Navy Destroyer 5-May-80
4230 Fletcher U.S. Navy Destroyer 16-Jun-80
4601 Kidd U.S. Navy Destroyer 4-May-81
4602 Callaghan U.S. Navy Destroyer 6-Jul-81
4603 Scott U.S. Navy Destroyer 8-Sep-81
4604 Chandler U.S. Navy Destroyer 18-Jan-82
4701 Ticonderoga U.S. Navy Cruiser 22-Jan-83
4801 Hayler U.S. Navy Destroyer 10-Feb-83
4901 Yorktown U.S. Navy Cruiser 15-Jul-84
4501 Vincennes U.S. Navy Cruiser 30-Jun-85
4502 Valley Forge U.S. Navy Cruiser 2-Dec-85

Hows that for you ? I guess they could have worked on sundays and xmas to get the new invincible done ?!

www.coltoncompany.com...


M6D

posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Its a simple reason why he ignores all the news people on booard at the time, conspirascists often pick and choose theyre evidence and ignore the one sthat go against what they say, its like a disease with them....





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join