HMS Invincible sunk in 1982

oh no , i have read many many time , and they say Illustrious on abt least 40 occasions.

it is you who needs to read the conflicting posts that have been typed by 55heroes and theirishduck (and yourself)


what is the radiation count now in BA? you do know they still haven`t rebuilt all of the city do you.

It's an absolute load of Twaddle this topic! all this stupid untru information, Never mind us British, you are just a bit p i s s e d that you did not hit the Carrier. The one thing that us British are sure of, is that you two are not in a great mental state of mind here!!! the ultimate Crap on here is just getting out of hand. Everyone over in this Country knows that the Invincible NEVER SUNK!!!! can you read what I have just written guys -
NEVER EVER SUNK!!! now perhaps you would really like to do something useful with your Lives from now on eh!!!!!

Honestly! get real

Originally posted by 55heroes

Secret for 90 years?
Because the HMS-Invincible sunk in Falklands 30/5/82
And replaced by a retrofitted sister.

In an increible and absurd history, the clon ship return to Portsmouth, 95 days after the end of the war.

Maybe lost into the triangle of Bermudas for more than 3 months.
At the command of Harry Potter, of course.

An basic and absurd history

Pathetic.

Oh an Incredible piece of History!
And such a big heap of trash*

Here's to the Invincible

*Let's not be profane*

[edit on 23-9-2005 by dbates]

Originally posted by mojouk
have you noticed how similar 55,theduck,and Arkantos all have very similar styles of writing strange that

The only explanation for the blind excuses presented as proof for the Invincible sinking is Argentina propaganda. You know, "We lost the war but we got your ships...ha ha ha!" I like the point that was brought up that if the claim to have sunk them was true, then that makes Argentina look even more ridiculous. Like "What! They still couldn't win?"

Regardless of what stories that the people from Argentina are told of the war in 1982, they should look to the fact that the HMS Invincible is still sailing on the ocean today. The fairy tale of the British have a back-up clone of the Invincible is rather silly. Just before the war the British had made arrangements to sell the Invincible and scrap their other carrier. Their point of view was that they didn't need carriers. It's not likely that they would keep spares lying around when they were in such a rush to rid themselves of all carriers.

No, this all goes back to delusions of grandeur by Argentina. No one likes defeat, but if you must admit you were defeated then why not try to save a little of your pride with it and claim to have inflicted severe damage to your foe. You have to remember that Argentina was ruled by a military dictator much like Kim Jong Il who also makes spectacular claims that no one believes.

Leopoldo Galtieri, the military dictator of Argentina at that time, had already suspended Parliament in Argentina, and banned all other political parties. It's estimated that he helped exterminate 9,000 to 30,000 people in opposition parties. The poor people of the resistance just disappeared and were never heard from again.

Once all other parties were eliminated he removed President Roberto Viola from power and made himself the self-proclaimed ruler of Argentina. He was very unpopular....until he invaded the Falklands. This seemed to lull all his grumbling citizens in to a stupor of support. Recapture of the islands after 150 years of British rule helped boost Galtieri's popularity. It was his undoing however. His army was clearly no match for the British and he was removed from power a few days after Port Stanely was recaptured by the British.

Leopoldo Galtieri spend the rest of his life in exile or in court defending himself from human rights charges. I suppose that there is some part of Argentina that loved the short-lived moment of feeling like they defeated the powerful British. So naturally these tales of how they sank dozens and dozens of British ships including both carriers spread around the country-side in late-night talks around the fire. "Ah! remember when we socked it to the British" *raises glass in toast*

Ironically, their beloved leader Leopoldo Galtieri, killed more people of Argentina than the British ever did.

sources
Wikipedia
encyclopedia.com

Originally posted by Arkantos
The Invincible didn´t return to Portsmouth.
I think my friends Irish Duck and 55heores has explained it in the pages before.

Look I've stated this before. You can't just make these wild claims without some sort of reputable source to back them up. You have yet to show proof of these replacement ships being built in the first place. That would be the first step in proving your point. A link to news paper (not pravda) or a somewhat respected site would be nice.

Elvis is alive and lives in the west wing of the White House. See, I can make ridiculous claims as well, but would I expect you to believe them without proof?

Where are the pictures of the HMS Invincible burning in the ocean. Mysteriously, it's not a problem to find other pictures like this of all the other boats that were hit and damaged in the war.

Finally, stop quoting such large portions of other people's text. It's not necessary.

Originally posted by Arkantos
The ship in Porstmouth is Ark Royal.
They posted photos of that, because Invincible in 1982 didn't´t had phalanx and you could see with it on September??!!!...

To quote Darth Vader..."All to easy!"

Invincible class aircraft carrier
The ships are armed with a variety of weapons. Initially, Invincible and Illustrious were fitted with two Vulcan Phalanx units; these have since been replaced with three Goalkeeper systems.

[edit on 23-9-2005 by dbates]

There are a lot of Austin Power´s disciples...

Retrofit Old Lusty to New Vince in Falklands?

Yes of course, in the middle of august 1982, they were near to finish the work (For this reason there were medals to the Invincible crew.

This clear and new ship...without matriculation R05 or R06 in the low part of the prow chimney...
And the crane moved to Vince position, prow phalanx removed and the photo cut so that the Phalanx of stern is not seen.

Which ship is?
It is apparently cast anchor in San Carlos port.

The Illustricible or the Invintrious?



It is clean and new!!

How do you tell that its clean and new from that picture?

Or for that matter that it is no the invincible that sailed with the taskforce and still does to this day.

Because i have photos of the Invincible in war, in april anda may.
It had black towers, and in may it was dirty, with oxidum. with the matriculation R05 in low parts of chimney.

This was a new ship, with the paint grey of towers and chimnes of trials.
This ship sailed in secret to falklands in july and crossed the Hermes in the sea to gather to part of the crew of the sunk Invincible, to make a retrofitted of R06 and to return with glory to UK.

Unofficial sources affirm that there were many delays in the retrofitted.

And the date of return of the ship to UK was changing, by delay, several times until the inexplicably delayed date of the 17/9/82.

If your you think that besides to have two tracks for airplanes and helicopters in San Carlos and Stanley Port available, and the Illustrious sailing perfectly in 1982 July.

And the Invincible were even in better conditions than those of its game in spite of 4 months military and navigation.

Why it did not return immediately to UK, if the Illustrious were operative and the Invincible seemed to be better than new?

This point continues being inexplicable and puts in untenable situation to the RN besides to offend traditional British intelligence.

If it had to make an assumption change of turbine, so that one saysit did in the middle of the sea and not in Stanley Port is.

And so that one is privily in San Carlos (according to it affirms the RN)

So that the real task that made the rest of the crew of the Invincible is one retrofitted of the Illustrious to Invincible, not a change of turbine but one maneuver disloyal, of concealment of damage privily military, in an isolated port.
Never in the middle of the sea because he is impossible and irrational to do it in that latitude in the winter of the South Atlantic.

For that reason the crew of the sunk Invincible received honor medals, by to have revived a lost ship to defend the humiliated honor of UK.

And never by a stupid, unnecessary and impossible spare part of turbine in means of the sea.
Surely the crew of the Invincible considers itself heroic to itself and has administered an oath silence to UK.
If UK considers that the spare part of helmets in a hidden port is a heroic act and state secret, no crew member of the Invincible will be able to say the truth.

Lynda Cash threatened doing it and they restituted all the benefits rs to him that it asked for in the Court.
For the Argentineans, this change of ships, this concealment of warlike damage with political and commercial aims is a simple cheap and clumsy trap.

And this simple cheap and clumsy trap, also affects great majority of the English citizens who are not accomplices of this absurd and untenable lie.

The position and the Argentine reclamation are true and just.

Evidences, exceed.

thanks to Miguel, Jorge and Norberto, to lead this extraodinary investigation and to give disinterestedly an enormous amount me of evidence to gain comfortably any debate

Vamos Argentina, todavía!!

Originally posted by 55heroes

There are a lot of Austin Power´s disciples...

Retrofit Old Lusty to New Vince in Falklands?

Yes of course, in the middle of august 1982, they were near to finish the work (For this reason there were medals to the Invincible crew.

This clear and new ship...without matriculation R05 or R06 in the low part of the prow chimney...
And the crane moved to Vince position, prow phalanx removed and the photo cut so that the Phalanx of stern is not seen.

Which ship is?
It is apparently cast anchor in San Carlos port.

The Illustricible or the Invintrious?

It is clean and new!!

hehe 55 you have really shot yourself in your foot with this picture. I was under the impression that when an aircraft carrier launches aircraft it has to be sailing at top speed not anchored in bay. This proves this picture is a fake. Looks likethe argies who faked the picture werent too clever

[edit on 24-9-2005 by mojouk]

The detail of harrier taking off seemed to be incorrect, you are right

But the origin of this photo is the Royal Navy...
Perhaps they can explain if she is that harriers can take off from carrier anchored, or the certain date or the real place where was taken.
At the moment and except for the detail that you say, we do not have anything to object to that photo...

I believe that instead of fighting between Argentineans and British, like dogs and cats, we had to demand like citizens, a serious investigation about this controverted fact.
The truth goes to be good for the citizens of both nations.
Anyone is the final truth.
It will be a reason less for fights between citizen victims of stupid governments.
If it is to argue with the English I prefer to do it by trivial subjects but like the fútbol that about serious and painful succes like this unnecessary war, that gained kelpers and the Asian fishing boats, and that we lost the British and Argentine citizens.

Originally posted by 55heroes

Because i have photos of the Invincible in war, in april anda may.
It had black towers, and in may it was dirty, with oxidum. with the thematriculation R05 in low parts of chimney.

Good reason to give it a fresh coat of paint - no as previously stated many ships in the fleet had their radar mast re-painted from flat black to dappled grey to be less visible

This was a new ship, with the paint grey of towers and chimnes of trials.
This ship sailed in secret to falklands in july and crossed the Hermes in the sea to gather to part of the crew of the sunk Invincible, to make a retrofitted of R06 and to return with glory to UK.

Unofficial sources affirm that there were many delays in the retrofitted.

And the date of return of the ship to UK was changing, by delay, several of times until the inexplicably delayed date of the 17/9/82.

She was kept dowm their until Illustrious reliveve her as stated many times before and Illustrious was kept down there until the Port Stanle airfield was able to take a suadron of Phantom jets and associated support facilities and had satifactory radar - something which took a long time to do because of length of the supply chain.

One point the fanatists have never addressed is if Lusty down to the Falklands and secretly replaced Invincible what carrier returned to UK at end of November when in reality Lusty returned after being relieved by the F-4 Phantom squadron

If your you think that besides to have two tracks for airplanes and helicopters in San Carlos and Stanley Port available, and the Illustrious sailing perfectly in 1982 July.

Because they did not have the support faciliates and were judged to be vunerable from a surprise argentine attack

And the Invincible were even in better conditions than those of its game in spite of 4 months military and navigation.

Immediately upon cessatation of hostility Invincible sailed north to calmer water near ascension island for 2 weeks of underway repairs (main thing being gearbox repairs), she then returned to Flaklands and relieved Hermes who cam Home.

Why it did not return immediately to UK, if the Illustrious were operative and the Invincible seemed to be better than new?

Lusty was not ready to sail south she did not even have a harrier squadron as all the appropriate models were in the South Atlantic, she actually took Hermes squadron of Harriers re-formed to make 820 squadron.


Something else you never addressed if Invincible had been hit by an exocet and 2 500lb bomb enough to sink there is no way all her aircraft could have been fueled armed and lauched and enough supplies off for them to continue operation then fly a night to San Carlos (which was on the other side of Falkland Islands from their position) to a base that at this did yet exist which would not have any identification aids or radar etc, and how did the necessary ground personal make it there so that the next morning they able to put up a combat air patrol that shot down an argentine C-130 (that trying to bomb navy ships by pushing bombs out of the back)

Originally posted by 55heroes
This clear and new ship...without matriculation R05 or R06 in the low part of the prow chimney...
And the crane moved to Vince position, prow phalanx removed and the photo cut so that the Phalanx of stern is not seen.


img220.imageshack.us...

It is clean and new!!

Just as a small and little aside


where is the phalanx CIWS, which Illustrious sailed with? they were mounted on the bow and stern?? the position for the CIWS cannot be removed at sea , it requires a dockyard (or Invincible would have had it mounted as an emergency retrofit during the war)

Thats ship is Invincible - and you can clearly see where it has been put through photoshop to remove the R05 tag.


you really are clutching at straws now , relying on photoshopped pictures as evidence.


[edit on 24-9-2005 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by 55heroes

There are a lot of Austin Power´s disciples...

Retrofit Old Lusty to New Vince in Falklands?

Yes of course, in the middle of august 1982, they were near to finish the work (For this reason there were medals to the Invincible crew.

This clear and new ship...without matriculation R05 or R06 in the low part of the prow chimney...
And the crane moved to Vince position, prow phalanx removed and the photo cut so that the Phalanx of stern is not seen.

Which ship is?
It is apparently cast anchor in San Carlos port.

The Illustricible or the Invintrious?

It is clean and new!!

I think that you land yourself deeper and deeper into hot water! with all of this. We know that you are talking rubbish because we know that the Invincible is with us!!! how many more times do we have to tell you this, I guess you must have an appetite for making yourselves look stupid!!!

L

Originally posted by 55heroes

The detail of harrier taking off seemed to be incorrect, you are right

But the origin of this photo is the Royal Navy...
Perhaps they can explain if she is that harriers can take off from carrier anchored, or the certain date or the real place where was taken.
At the moment and except for the detail that you say, we do not have anything to object to that photo...

I believe that instead of fighting between Argentineans and British, like dogs and cats, we had to demand like citizens, a serious investigation about this controverted fact.
The truth goes to be good for the citizens of both nations.
Anyone is the final truth.
It will be a reason less for fights between citizen victims of stupid governments.
If it is to argue with the English I prefer to do it by trivial subjects but like the fútbol that about serious and painful succes like this unnecessary war, that gained kelpers and the Asian fishing boats, and that we lost the British and Argentine citizens.

Yes! of course, they do like to have harriers taking off now, whilst Ships appear stationary!!! heeeeeeeeeeeeeee YEAH RIGHT! I DON'T THINK SO!
Just another darn picture that makes yourself look stupid again! why don't you hang this one next to the FAKE picture with FAKE PLANE AND FAKE SMOKE! because I have seen this one before! and it's just a painting!

GET REAL! with your discussions!

I have been a member of ATS now for just coming up for a year. Whilst I have read some totaly unbelievable threads during this time, I think that this one MUST win the award for the "Biggest load of crap".

Look at the facts. Check your history. Most importantly get a life!

Sorry if this offends members or moderators, but this isn't even a structured argument, its just...............crap!

Let's all remember to keep things civil and discuss the issues instead of other members. Just a friendly reminder (this time) to play nice.

We are waiting for the member of the Invincible´s crew...

Lies and more lies...

In battle for the Falklands, by Adrian English with Anthony Watts

You can read:

"It would appear from persistent Argentine
reports that there was a further Exocet attack on 30
May; British sources are unforthcoming, beyond
confirming that an Exocet was released. A pair of
Etendards escorted by four Skyhawks from IV
Brigada Aerea apparently took part, and later
claimed to have sunk or disabled HMS Invincible for
the loss of two A-4S. The survivors reported heavy
smoke rising from the target ship; Invincible was
certainly not hit on the 30th, or any other day, but
the smoke may have been deliberate to cover a
change of course and perhaps to create a false
impression of damage. HMS Avenger later claimed
to have destroyed an Exocet with a lucky shot
from her 4.5in. gun on this date."

Si, es cierto el humo del incendio fue hecho a propósito
para ocultar un cambio de rumbo y crear una falasa impression de daño.

Es cierto, simularon un impacto de exocet, para ocultar una virada desesperada.

Que imbecilidad impresentable, cambian las torres de negro a gris, pero luego cubren el buque de homo falso para guiar a los 4 A4C hacia el blanco.

tenemos ingleses reconociendo que el Invincible estaba cubierto por humo cuando llegan los dos A4C sobrevivientes a rematar el carrier y mandarlo al fondo del mar.

A confesión de parte, relevo de pruebas.

Originally posted by Arkantos
The Malvinas Island was stolen by england this is the true

Better go read your history, mate. Argentina's claim to the Falklands is as spurious as Guatemala's claim to Belize. They were never yours. You never inhabited them, Argentina has NEVER had possession of the islands, except for a few weeks in 1982.

Britain has a stronger claim to owning half of France than you do to the Falklands.

Originally posted by 55heroes
In an increible and absurd history,

Couldn't have said it better myself!

I think 55heroes needs to get Uhura to get the bugs out of his unversal translator...every time the allegedly oirish waterfowl posts we get the same spelling and grammar problems...

"We am condemning foodstuffs to Rura Penthe!"