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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
www.naval-history.net...


Tuesday 1st June

[b31] - Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible shot down south of Stanley by Roland SAM (2.40 pm). Flt Lt Mortimer RAF ejects and is later rescued from the sea.


So , an aircraft was shot down , flying from HMS Invincible on the 1st June 1982.

If the ship had been sunk the day before , where did this aircraft fly from?

Hermes was full , by this time , as the RAF had arrived with Harrier GR3`s and were embarked on both ships.

SO you can`t say `it was on Hermes` as Hermes was full.




posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Popeye

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

Originally posted by Popeye

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
Wrong popeye, because Invincible in 1982 never had phalanx.

The photo you show me is after 1982.

You have you eye pop you can´t see



The picture is Illustrious not Invincible and I have never said it was in 82 only it is before her re-fit when she had her CIWS upgraded and re-positioned... Invincible had Phalanx during her re-fit after the falkands so whether they were fitted in 82 or 83 has not bearing on the positioning.

The picture just proves your assertion that the zoomed pic is the phalanx base of the Illustrious is wrong as the Illustrious's phalanx was in a different position to that you indicated


Ok i understand now, you are agree with me.

So if the picture you see is Illustrious i have nothing to say you are accpeting Invincible didn´t appear any more. Congratulations!!! you are right.


Look here is were i took the photo:
is "Service Pals"

www.servicepals.com...

you have to register to see it.

They posted the photo and say:

HMS Invincible arriving at the entrance to Portsmouth harbour in September 1982 following her service in the Falklands war. I was fortunate to be on one of the numerous small vessels which accompanied her on her last few miles into port.


So now we know is Illustrious so this is one of the proves that INVINCIBLE WAS SUNK IN FALKLANDS WAR 1982.





[edit on 2-9-2005 by TheIrishDuck]


IrishDuck obviously English is not your first laguage so I will try and make this simple so you can understand as you clearly are having problems.

The picture posted of the carrier entering Portsmouth on 17th is Invincible, you claim it is Illustrious as because in the czoomed picture you claim you can seea phalanx in the front of the ship.

I posted a new picture one of Illustrious in the early 80's that show her phalanx was NOT in the position you claimed it to be, THUS this proves your assertion that the she entering Portsmouth is Illustrious is totally wrong, as the carrier does not have a phalanx in the position that Illustrious did at that time, therefore the carrier can ONLY BE Invincible, thus it can not have sunk. It that clear enough.

Your ignorance is hsown by trying to see a phalanx base in the picture but looking at the wrong position (ironically the position that Invincible had the phalanx fitted aftre the Falklands) for Illustrious.


Also if you search the BBC's on this day, you will find someone posting who was a 17 year old rating on HMS Avenger and see the exocet comiong towards his ship before it was destroyed by a flukely shot from the 4.5 inch gun.

There are also posts from people whose father were on Invinvible and they came home.



The photo was taken on september 17, is Illustrious as Invincible.
Can´t understand?????

The phalanx is in a different position because Illustrious was not finished yet, as you could see in the links i gave you before.

And in his tower it didnt have the name R05 or R06, why??? because Illustrious was being as Invincible and Illustrious all the time, it was easier if they kept this space without numbers.

And i told you to go to "Service Pals" and see, if you don´t want to believe me it is not my problem.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacemunkey

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
Well, you couldn´t answer my questions i suppose so.

You have seen the 3 pictures of the Hermes and Illusrious and couldn´t say nothing.


Why the Royal Navy said nothing about this?
Why Hermes is giving Illustrious personal and harriers?
Why Illustrious is there ???

You can´t answer to me you don´t know nothing, but at least accept...


I have more...


HMS INVINCIBLE R05 IN 1982:







SEPTEMBER 17 1982 HMS ILLUSTRIOUS R06: All the people thought was Invincible but it isn´t!!! it has the phalanx !!!!
You can see this photo in "Service Pals" a web page of veterans, it´s the true.





So if you say Invincible didn´t sink...

How do you explain the photo???

In the Falklands War it had no phalanx
In September in Portsmouth it has the phalanx!!!

wuouowououuu


Here is Illustrious in Porstmouth September 17 with zoom:


So accpet that ship was not Invincible


Here is Illusrious in a book, note that is the same place, the same phalanx...





So Illustrious was the ship that was to Porstmouth on September 17 of 1982.


And Invincible where was?


absolutely ridiculous post. next time you post, back it up with proof not from some rubbish Argentianian patriotic website thats blatantly false.

HMS Invincible was on station, in the Falklands well after the war, in fact up until mid July, when it was relieved by HMS Illustrious. HMS Invincible then left for the UK.

Also why do you insist that there is a Phalanx sited on the landing deck!!? do you not think this may get in the way slightly??
The only carrier at the time to have Phalanx was Illustrious, positioned on her bow below the flight deck.


"absolutely ridiculous post. next time you post, back it up with proof not from some rubbish Argentianian patriotic website thats blatantly false."

Wrong, it took me years of working in this, i travelled a lot to have this in my hands. I posted here the 10 percent of all my work and i can´t give you more. Someone con stile my idea. This a public forum.


Illustrious was finished on 1983, so they could have changed the position of the phalanx.

After Falklands war there isn´t any picture of Invincible R05.

I want you to show me one after the war and until the refit of 1983, and you will see the differences.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
www.naval-history.net...


Tuesday 1st June

[b31] - Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible shot down south of Stanley by Roland SAM (2.40 pm). Flt Lt Mortimer RAF ejects and is later rescued from the sea.


So , an aircraft was shot down , flying from HMS Invincible on the 1st June 1982.

If the ship had been sunk the day before , where did this aircraft fly from?

Hermes was full , by this time , as the RAF had arrived with Harrier GR3`s and were embarked on both ships.

SO you can`t say `it was on Hermes` as Hermes was full.



The harriers went to San Carlos.
The Task Force stablished there 21 of may.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Illustrious was finished off in 1983, note the words - 'finished off' - the vessel was quickly made sea worthy during the Falklands war and commisioned as she was sailing to war. As it happened Illustrious relieved Invincible after the war and HMS Invincible sailed back to the UK

Illustrious

Illustrious then returned to the UK at the beginning of 1983 after the airfield at Stanley was repaired.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacemunkey
Illustrious was finished off in 1983, note the words - 'finished off' - the vessel was quickly made sea worthy during the Falklands war and commisioned as she was sailing to war. As it happened Illustrious relieved Invincible after the war and HMS Invincible sailed back to the UK

Illustrious

Illustrious then returned to the UK at the beginning of 1983 after the airfield at Stanley was repaired.




No what are you saying??? repair???Illustrious????

How old are you?


Look...

The war was won before Illustrious could be finished, but she did perform a useful service in the aftermath. Until the RAF airfield on the Falklands was repaired, an aircraft carrier was required on station to protect the area from possible Argentine attack.
Illustrious was needed so quickly that the ship was actually commissioned underway. After the RAF airfield was repaired, Illustrious returned to the UK for a more proper shakedown cruise and workup period, with a formal commissioning on 20 March 1983.
www.nationmaster.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
The Harriers could not have landed at San Carlos on the 30th May as the harrier airfield was constructed until early June and they cerrtainly could not have conduct flight operations as there would not have been the fuel or the ordance in place.

On 1st June Harriers from 801 squadron HMS Invincible were recorded in various air operations including the shooting down of an argentine Hercules

[edit on 3-9-2005 by Popeye]



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I will say again and again,

IN 1982 INVINCIBLE DID NOT HAVE PHALANX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
the memorian to mens lost in Malvinas/Falklands War is something that cannot be denied nor is due to hide.
see this Link and tell me because it died in the Invincible R05 in 1982.


www.sama82.org...



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Popeye
The Harriers could not have landed at San Carlos on the 30th May as the harrier airfield was constructed until early June and they cerrtainly could not have conduct flight operations as there would not have been the fuel or the ordance in place.

On 1st June Harriers from 801 squadron HMS Invincible were recorded in various air operations including the shooting down of an argentine Hercules

[edit on 3-9-2005 by Popeye]



Yeah Ward, a member of Invincible shooted the Hercules and i have a book of him very strange with photos of Illustrious as Invincible haha i catched him.


The harriers could land.
On 30 may the built the airfield.

When Argentine Air Force attacked the Invincible the harriers went to 12.000 meters to save fuel. It was detected by the Argentine´s Falklands radar



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
I will say again and again,

IN 1982 INVINCIBLE DID NOT HAVE PHALANX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






So you agree that the ship entering Portsmouth on 17th September 1982 is Invincible as it does not have phalanx in the 2 places that Illustrous did.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
you need official information about of original armament of R05 in 1982?
see this:
www.sama82.org...


where it mentions phalanx?



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Popeye

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
I will say again and again,

IN 1982 INVINCIBLE DID NOT HAVE PHALANX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






So you agree that the ship entering Portsmouth on 17th September 1982 is Invincible as it does not have phalanx in the 2 places that Illustrous did.






it had the phalanx but as you could see it was covered.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
you need official information about of original armament of R05 in 1982?
see this:
www.sama82.org...

where it mentions phalanx?



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

Originally posted by Popeye

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
I will say again and again,

IN 1982 INVINCIBLE DID NOT HAVE PHALANX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






So you agree that the ship entering Portsmouth on 17th September 1982 is Invincible as it does not have phalanx in the 2 places that Illustrous did.






it had the phalanx but as you could see it was covered.



It is a bit much too claim that both units were covered up as they were not exactly small and even with a tarp cover wouls have appeared on the photo



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
you need official information about of original armament of R05 in 1982?
see this:
www.sama82.org...

where it mentions phalanx?


Thank you for proving my point Invincible did not have phalanx until she returned from the Falklands and then she had them in different places to Illustrious.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
not is your point of view...

R05 Invincible "never ever" had phalanx.
if you affirm yes until she returned from the Falklands...
the phalanx was buy in Puerto Argentino / Port Stanley? or it grew like a flower in the prow of the ship?



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Greetings,

Alrighty... At the minute those two members are neither providing 100% proof nor are they either proving a valid view point.

The information provided is either mistaken by those two posters, or for that matter plainly produced by the citizens of the country that the UK defeated. I feel that its a mere case of poorly constructed media, with its sole purpose to try and drag back some respect to the argie military.

Its a sad fact that like some other nations on the Planet, they can't accept when defeat hits them, the Argies are no different. ::shrugs::

Mods: I wonder if you check those two members IP address's, they could be the same


- Phil



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
If the proof are not sufficient, because UK hide the attack with 4 different versions? Because to make enter the Illustrious September? because to censure the information by 90 years?



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
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 -
KOLHAPUR BHOPAL -
KUDAT JOHOR -
KUPANG MASINHA -
LABUHANBILIK IPOH -
LEYTE PALAWAIN -
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 -
THIRABO RANGPUR -
UDAIPUR SIKKIM -
WAINGAPU PAEKTU -
YAMBI PADANG -

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

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




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join