CAN OF WORMS:
Invincible was never hit!
http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/falk.htm
In addition the Argentines believed they had hit Invincible when they struck both Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor. However this set back did not stop the Argentine propaganda machine claiming to have sunk Hermes on three separate occasions. In fact, to this very day, many Argentines still believe they hit Invincible either sinking her or forcing her to put into Cape Town for repairs.
Please, let separate propaganda from facts.
The Atlantic conveyor was attacked on 25th May.
The attack on Invincible was on 30th may and in a very different location away from the wreck of Atlantic Conveyor.
However this set back did not stop the Argentine propaganda machine claiming to have sunk Hermes
I dont give a damn for “argentina propaganda machine” as I say before those are the idiots that make some argentines fall in ridiculuos.
My source for the confirmation of the hit in the HMS invincible are the First leutenant Ernesto Ureta and Gerardo Isaac.
Why would the British admit every single little scratch on every single boat, except this one? Why do the veterans organisations never mention it, when they mention everything else in very fine detail? Argentina seems alone in the world in believing that it hit invincible, and when the sources of only one country say something, then it’s true to seriously in doubt.
Two pilots say they hit it, everybody on the ship says they didn’t.
I dont know the reasons for the alleged “concealment”
I trust in the debriefing of the pilots, if you dont belive it, is okay. I can live with that, is not the mayor issue of the war.
I am told by someone who works as a naval analyst for a living (Stuart Slade, who goes by “Seer Stuart” on the internet and works for Forecast International) that the attack you’re thinking of was actually aimed at one of the escorts (can’t remember the name - might have been or sounded a bit like Fife or Exeter). His next comment was that this class of escorts had been deliberately designed to have a very similar sillhouette to the Invincible class of aircraft carriers with exactly this contingency in mind.
If this is true, what we have here is another instance of the fog of war - the Argentinian pilots under fire attacking a ship that is designed to look just like Invincible but either missing or causing minimal damage while thinking they’ve seriously hit it. And the British not being aware what the Argentinians think so not bothering to deny it.
It’s quite easy to find any amount of photographs of Invincible before, during & after the conflict.
Any damage done (or repairs thereto) would be easily visible to both the press & the public.
There is none.
The Argentine pilots hit Atlantic Conveyor, which would “paint” on the radar of the time as a near identical image. They never came within visible range on this instance, so could not confirm the target using MkI Eyeball.
You have to ask why the Invincible came in the night at harbour, even the french can’t see it. :arrow:
The Invincible will always be a bone of contention, who do you believe the air crew who claim the hit or the entire crew of the Invincible, the various journalists based on the carrier, families and friends of both and to be honest and inspite of the official secrets act just about everyone serving in the area at the time. It really isnt somthing that you can cover up no matter how hard you try.
The govenment at the time was unpopular and the left wing press would have wasted no time in putting such a story on the front page and if they had sniffed a cover up they would have really gone to town, that is the benifit of a free press.
Over the last few years publishers have been falling over themselves to sign up ex millitary types with tales to tell, do you not think that had there been a cover up that it would have come up given the level of BS that has made it into print.
The main point is what would it serve to cover up such an incident. The British public hoped for a victory but knew that it would not be easy and losses were expected. We had become used to losing ships so one more would have made no difference.
I had a friend serving with 3 Para and was informed that he was listed as wounded at Longden within 36 hrs, before his family was informed and I was in Gemany at the time so info wasnt hard to come by at the time.
Lets face it, as Brits we would be more likely to admit to the sinking/damage and point out we still managed to win a war that we were at disadvantage in already!!!
I think that Latin America macho pride is different to British. The Argies would do this, as the ship is called Invincible, so they would try to do this. They think the Brits would do this also.
Given that the ARA report lists that the exocet (only one of which was capable of destroying a ship see Atlantic Conveyor and the warships struck by the weapon) AND the bombs AND the alledged straffing AND the (quite frankly strange) claim that a engine from one of the two shot down aircraft managed to break free of the dissolving plane and managed make it to the flight deck of the Invincible, sliding across the deck and down in to the hanger deck via an elevator.( :? )
And she still was afloat/or sunk depending on how loony you are.
Then the Brit mentality is to openly boast that you couldn’t sink her, hit her yes, sink her no. Even if she was sunk, remember that when Antelope(?) sank, her picture was shown to the world sinking in a V for victory shape with a broken back. That was what was said “V for Victory”.
If we had lost her, then cover it up during the war yes, but the moment we won we would have pointed out we managed to take on a numerically supeior foe, lose 2 out 3 major aircraft carrying ships (inc Atlantic Conveyor) and still win!!!
It is that simple.
Panzerknacker if you would, could you dig up the official ARA report. I think you will find it includes the aircraft engine hitting the ship. It makes for spectacular reading.
When the Invincible topic first came up (in a far more heated debate than this, which is nice to see) I found a site that listed a Harrier from Invincible being shot down by Argentinian anti-aircraft fire on the 1st of June. If Invincible was damaged or sunk on the 30th of May, her aircraft couldn’t be flying on the 1st if June.
I’m off to work in a bit but I will post the link again when I finish this afternoon.
From http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/falk.htm
Aircraft Carriers And The Falklands War
Out of all the different units involved in the 1982 Falklands Conflict is perhaps the aircraft carrier participation that people most remember. For a few months Invincible and Hermes were household names and some of the most vivid images of the war are of their victorious return to Portsmouth. However it could have been a very different story and as the task force left for the South Atlantic in April 1982 many feared that the carriers would never return…
The Royal Navy Carrier Fleet Before the War
When the Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands in early April 1982 the Navy could only immediately supply two carriers- Invincible and Hermes. The only other carriers on the scene was Illustrious, then under construction at Swan Hunter, and Bulwark laid up in Portsmouth Dockyard. The 1960s and 70s had seen the run down of Britain’s carrier fleet, most notably with the cancellation of the CVA fleet carrier replacement programme. In its place the Navy ordered a class of anti-submarine helicopter cruisers that over time developed into the Invincible Class small fleet carriers. Under the 1981 defence review the newly commissioned Invincible was to have been sold to the Australians where she would serve as the R.A.N’s flagship (named H.M.A.S Australia) replacing the long serving Melbourne (ex- H.M.S Majestic). Indeed the future was bleak for the Invincible Class as a whole- even if they weren’t sold there was the possibility of mothballing at least one of them. The sale of Invincible was part of a number of reductions (including that of the Ice Patrol ship Endurance) that sent the wrong messages to Argentina regarding Britain’s willingness and ability to defend the Falkland Islands. Meanwhile after some years in reserve at Chatham the aircraft maintenance ship (and former aircraft carrier) Triumph had been sold for breaking up in Spain in 1981. Together with the conversion of Albion, Bulwark and Hermes into commando carriers during the 1960’s and the cancellation of the CVA programme meant that the Ark Royal and Eagle would be Britain’s last true aircraft carriers. Eagle was decommissioned at Portsmouth on 26th January 1972 and later that year she was towed to Devonport where she remained until the 13th October 1978 when she left for breaking up in Cairnryan. Ark Royal served slightly longer arriving at Devonport for the final time on 4th December 1978. She remained there until the 22nd September 1980 when, despite public dismay and some calls to preserve her, she began her tow to Cairnryan for breaking up and by the time of the Falklands war she was nearing the end of the scrapping process. However in a stroke of luck the commando carrier Hermes had undergone a second conversion, this time to a ski-ramp carrier during a £30,000,000 refit in 1981. She was now capable of operating the new Sea Harrier aircraft that would prove so vital in outcome of the war.
Operations
Hermes and Invincible both left Portsmouth on the 5th of April 1982 after a frantic period of preparation. Invincible sailed under the command of Captain J.J. Black and was joined by nine Sea King helicopters of 820 Squadron and eight Sea Harriers from 801 Squadron in the channel. Both vessels were tempting targets as not only were they amongst the largest, most powerful and important units of task force but Prince Andrew was a Sea King helicopter pilot from 820 Squadron on Invincible, while Hermes was the flagship of the task force with Admiral Woodward aboard. Although the threat principally came form the air there was also the somewhat smaller, yet none the less dangerous threat from the submarines beneath the waves. This threat was confirmed after the war when it was revealed an Argentine submarine fired six torpedoes at the British fleet, none of which had any success. In addition the Argentines believed they had hit Invincible when they struck both Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor. However this set back did not stop the Argentine propaganda machine claiming to have sunk Hermes on three separate occasions. In fact, to this very day, many Argentines still believe they hit Invincible either sinking her or forcing her to put into Cape Town for repairs. As for the actual participation in the war both Invincible and Hermes served as floating airfields. Sea Harriers from the two ships were involved in air strikes following the initial Vulcan raid on Port Stanley and were frequently in action after that. Hermes original air group was later augmented with Sea Harriers flying from Ascension. With the end of the war Hermes sailed for the UK on 5th July while Invincible left a little later on, on the 29th July. She was relived by her brand new sister ship Illustrious on 27th August 1982. Hermes arrived back at Portsmouth on the 21st July to a terrific welcome (including a flypast by a Victor and three Sea Harriers) that was repeated for Invincible together with destroyer Bristol on the 17th September. Invincible had spent 166 days at sea- believed to be the longest period of continuous carrier operations.
Above: (left) H.M.S Invincible passes the Round Tower as she leaves Portsmouth. A Sea Harrier can be seen on the ski ramp and her sailors line the decks. Uncertain water lay ahead: many believed the situation would be resolved by the time the task force reached the Falklands while others feared the navy would loose one or both carriers.
‘Veinticinco De Mayo’
Of course Britain wasn’t alone in operating carriers. The Argentine Navy had one too- Veinticinco De Mayo (named after Argentina’s national day: the 25th of May). She started life as the British Light Fleet Carrier H.M.S Venerable, launched in December 1943. After a brief career with the Royal Navy, Venerable was sold to the Netherlands and renamed ‘Karel Doorman’ in 1968. She suffered a major fire and was re-sold to Argentina in 1961 and named ‘Veinticinco De Mayo’. The deployment of four nuclear powered ‘hunter-killer’ submarines by the Royal Navy and the subsequent sinking of the General Belgrano by one of them, Conqueror, confined most of the Argentine fleet to home waters. Veinticinco De Mayo, the largest unit in the Argentine Navy, was no exception. For the duration of the conflict she remained in Argentina’s shallow coastal waters and played little part in the conflict. However some of her aircraft were later flown on raids from mainland Argentina. If it hadn’t been for Conqueror and the other nuclear submarines a direct confrontation between the Argentine and British carriers may have occurred.
Offer from the Americans
The departure of Invincible and Hermes to the South Atlantic raised one important question in those both in the Falklands and at home- what would happen if either carrier was disabled or destroyed? Their presence was paramount to the mission. As Admiral Woodward had said “Loose Invincible and the operation in severely jeopardized, lose Hermes and the operation is over”. The other British commando carrier, an earlier sister ship of Hermes, Bulwark, was laid up in No.3 basin Portsmouth Dockyard. She underwent a survey to see the suitability of sending her if the war continued or a carrier was rendered inactive and work was started to take her out of mothballs. However her re-entry into service would take some time by which time the war may well be over and at worst lost. The other option was waiting for the completion of Illustrious. She was in fact completed 3 months early and after hurried and brief sea trials headed down south, commissioning en-route (20th June 1982). Lessons learnt from the war had already been put into practice and she was fitted with the Phalanx close in weapon system- previously considered too expensive. Illustrious arrived on scene as the conflict ended but if it had gone on any longer her arrival would have given the battle weary fleet a significant boost. If one of the carriers had been lost it was likely that the British forces would have been pulled back, regrouped and waited for Illustrious and Bulwark before attempting to retake the islands a second time. Although never officially acknowledged there are reports that during the conflict the United States offered Britain the loan of a US Navy aircraft carrier should the worst happen to either Invincible or Hermes. One source claims the American carrier in question was the U.S.S Eisenhower* while another source suggests that it was the Keersage† . The Guam and Oriskany are also mentioned and it is rumoured that Royal Navy officers visited the Norfolk navy yard to inspect two Iwo Jima class vessels. Regardless of the ship and regardless of weather the offer was even made it is almost certain that it would have been turned down or would never have materialised. The problems involved with manning and equipping a foreign vessel of this size in a time of the war would be difficult to say the least. Where would the Royal Navy get the manpower for a capital ship of this size? After all there were and still are significant technical differences between RN and USN equipment. Then there are the political implications. The US and UK had always had a ‘special relationship’ but this would be pushing it to its limits. By merely supporting UK the USA were jeopardizing relations with South America and additionally the American public may not have the same resolve to lend American equipment to fight a battle thousands of miles from not only the United States but also from Britain. * The Secret War for the Falklands by Nigel West † Falklands Documentary on the Discovery Channel.
Temporary Carriers
Such was the need to transport and operate aircraft in the Falklands, the Ministry of Defence requisitioned many merchant ships. Whilst some were converted to hospital ships or troop carriers several were converted into basic aircraft carriers. The container ship Atlantic Convoyer was one such vessel. She had been laid up on the River Mersey but she and her sister ship Atlantic Causeway were taken to Devonport where they were hurriedly converted into ‘harrier carriers’. However, the Atlantic Convoyer was one of the more unfortunate participants of the war. On May 25th she was struck by an exocet missile and was immediately evacuated as fire spread through the ship. Together with her loss was the destruction of 3 Chinook and six Wessex helicopters and the tragic deaths of 12 men, including several from the merchant navy. Other Royal Navy ships had some aircraft capability including the helicopter support ship RFA Engadine and the Assault ships Fearless and Intrepid ,which at one point during the campaign both successfully landed Sea Harriers on their helicopter flight decks.
Above: Two very different views of the SS Atlantic Convoyer. (left) The Atlantic Convoyer was converted into a temporary ‘harrier carrier’ thanks to the versatility of the Sea Harrier which has vertical takeoff and landing ability. As can be seen from the photograph the flight deck was shielded from the elements by walls of containers at each side.(right) The Atlantic Convoyer after it was struck by the exocet.
Carriers After the War
Soon after the war ended and to the relief of many the sale of Invincible was cancelled and H.M.A.S Melbourne decommissioned on 30th June 1982 without replacement although the Australians were offered the elderly Hermes instead. This decision appears to have been vindicated with Invincible’s successful operation off the former Yugoslavia and off Iraq. After decommissioning two years after the end of the war Hermes was laid up at Portsmouth dockyard until 1986 when it was announced she had been sold to the Indian navy. She had a refit at Devonport in 1987 and was handed over to her new owners who commissioned her on May 12th 1987 and renamed her ‘Virrant’. She has finally been replaced by a new purpose built commando carrier named Ocean. Hermes sister ship Bulwark never did sail again other to the breakers yard. Finally, the Veinticinco De Mayo was laid up in 1993, plans to refit her for further service never materialised and in December 1998 she left Argentina bound for the scrapyard at Alang, India. Some of her equipment was sold to Brazil for use on her sister ship ‘Minas Generias’ (ex-H.M.S Vengeance).
The Falklands proved the need for Britain to have two operational carriers at any one time. This has been hard to meet even with three carriers- taken late 1999 for example. Illustrious is active, Invincible is undergoing a period of maintenance in dry dock at Portsmouth while Ark Royal has just started a major refit at Rosyth. The loss of Britain’s fleet carriers will be reversed in the future with the introduction of two large carriers from 2012.
My boldening of what I think are the most pertinent points.
I understand his point of view…but saying that the pilots attacked the wreck of the Atlantic Conveyor is an Erwinism :? .
I only hope that this discution dont get stuck in the “Invincible” issue.
Off-topic: Nice said Panzerknacker! 
To be honest we just need to leave it.
As many people have said on the Brit side, we have admitted to every scratch and loss, apart from Invincible. Given that even secret documents have been released about nuclear depth charges being carried down south, surely documents would have been released on the subject of damage and/or sinking. Also the 1000+ crew and their families, and anyone they have ever spoken to, have not hinted at this ever happening.
On the Argentine side, it has passed in to folk law that a raid was succesfully pursued on a ship with the name Invincible. Two men died in this raid, there is alot of public affection for the men who survived, it was the last shot (thre were no more exocets) and more importantly it was the one thing that the Argentine nation can hold on to from an otherwise abortive and pointless war that they were embarked upon by an otherwise hated government.
I think the sum arguement of the ARA that Invincible was hit revolves around two very scared men, who may or maynot have hit the Invincible and the fact that the Invincible was painted on the way home.
If we read the official RN report, backed up by papers (and thousands of UK population who turned out to watch!!!).
Hermes and Invincible both left Portsmouth on the 5th of April 1982.
Hermes arrived back at Portsmouth on the 21st July to a terrific welcome (including a flypast by a Victor and three Sea Harriers) that was repeated for Invincible together with destroyer Bristol on the 17th September. Invincible had spent 166 days at sea- believed to be the longest period of continuous carrier operations.
You can see why she would need to be painted, Hermes was in rag order and she came back 58 days earlier! Also at one point (possibly 5th May) the Invincible had a quite major repair job carried out on her turbines, over night. This has also led to some believe she was damaged.
There is a belief, that the ARA kept their boats tied up because there was a chance of their pilots shooting them up by mistake. Bearing in mind that there was one type of ship owned by both Navies. (the Royal Navy ones had big black ID stripes painted down them but I can’t remember which type it was)
At high speed even ships can be confused, and those that say a carrier wouldn’t be confused with a Frigate or similar, remember that Invincible class carriers are quite alot smaller than most other carriers. On radar they would look similar, at mach 1 under fire and dodging radar lock, would the pilot get a good look before hitting the “drop now” button?
Type 42 destroyer, which was the most modern air defence destroyer available to the UK at the time (still is come to think of it!)
Particularly as the Invincible class were designed to have a similar sillhouette to one of the classes of escort (can’t remember which one).
No escort ship had a Ski-jump, wich was that.? :?
There is a belief, that the ARA kept their boats tied up because there was a chance of their pilots shooting them up by mistake. Bearing in mind that there was one type of ship owned by both Navies. (the Royal Navy ones had big black ID stripes painted down them but I can’t remember which type it was)
Those ships where never deployed because after losing the Cruiser the Admiral Anaya ( a tit) dont want risk any more big ship, nobody said to him that it was a real war and those ships was were badly needed…that is the way that the Military rulers want to win the conflict. :roll:
Ski jumps aren’t the most obvious feature - remember that when conducting an attack you’re going to be approaching the ships at something like 10 miles a minute.
I assume the attack would have been at low level, perhaps 100 ft up. From 100ft your visual horizon is pretty close - maybe 5 miles on a really clear day, more likely 3-4. That means you have between 20 and 30 seconds to identify your target, aim at it, arm and drop bombs, etc.
This is done while navigating, keeping an eye out for enemy fighters and dodging flak/missiles etc. When your workload goes up, your ability to see things goes down drastically - believe me, I’ve tried it when flying (in gliders) and it really is dramatic.
Secondly, remember that the growth in the size the target appears to you is geometric rather than linear - at half the distance, the target appears to be four times the size, not half the size. This means that it is only in the last fraction (say a quarter, maybe a fifth) of the 20-30 seconds your target is visible that it is large enough to pick out features like a ski jump. That means you’re in the last 4-7 seconds of the attack, and a bomb will take roughly 2.5 seconds to drop from 100ft up (s=ut + 1/2 a t^2). Allowing for a 0.5 second human reaction time (pretty good considering the circumstances and the nature of the information to be processed) that means that there is between 1 and 4 seconds (with IMHO 1 being the most likely - this being based on my personal experience only, so make of that what you like) in which they could see small features like the ski-jump and decide to target something else. If they were looking another way, concentrating on something else, etc. in that time they wouldn’t see it and would attack on their earlier target.
After dropping bombs, survival mode will presumably kick in. No point watching them go all the way in if you’re being shot at, just get the hell out of there and try to survive. Nobody is going to hang around to confirm what they think they were shooting at if they value their life at all.
This leads me to the conclusion that the ship they attacked was identified from a distance - almost certainly from the sillhouette - and they were only looking at the big features they could see from a distance. That means the would be looking for a big ship in the middle of the formation with flat decks front and rear and a large central superstructure. I have been told by a guy called Stuart Slade on another forum (goes by the name of Seer Stuart, he works as a naval analyst for Forecast International and has written a number of good essays over at Warships1 and another board) that one of the classes of escorts present at that particular moment in time was deliberately designed to have a similar sillhouette to the Invincible class (or vice-versa - can’t remember) with exactly this contingency in mind.
Now to my mind, given this information, the fact that I have yet to see any accounts from the UK side of an attack on Invincible on this date and that I seem to remember seeing at some point details of an abortive attack (attacked and near missed, something like that) on the ship Stuart mentioned it all ties up to one conclusion. That the Skyhawk pilots under a lot of pressure and fire misidentified a ship designed to look like Invincible as the Invincible, attacked, and quite possibly because the ship was rather smaller than Invincible missed while thinking they had hit. This ties up very neatly and fits all the facts.
There are one or two problems. The biggest one of course is that I can’t for the life of me remember the name of the escort and some very quick googling didn’t give me any ideas. If I had it I could check attack reports and put the sillhouettes up side by side for comparison. That coupled with what I suspect would be a record of an attack on this escort at a time no other Argentine aircraft were nearby would in turn tie the whole thing up very neatly.
Unfortunately, I’m really rather lazy and can’t be bothered. Sorry :oops:
Well… I have to recognize that your post is a good one and you explained that from an objetive point of view.
Unfortunately due the unavailability of the A-4C guncams for technical reasons in the end all is resume to the verbal description of the pilots, aniway if you can remember the frigate/destroyer wich resemble from some angles of viwe to the “Invincible”…that would be nice.
The pilots who actually saw the target were going hell for leather after the exocet, the plan being to bomb the Invincible when she had just been hit by exocet.
If the Exocet had hit, Invincible would have been critically damaged, flight ops would have been hindered, yet the aircraft were flying the very next day. She was then alledgedly bombed.
Panzerknacker wrote:
Unfortunately due the unavailability of the A-4C guncams for technical reasons in the end all is resume to the verbal description of the pilots,
Hold on, the Argenentine side is based purely on two blokes testimony? What technical reason would render TWO guncams unavailable? I would have thought the Argentines would have moved heaven and earth to get pictures to prove their point.
I think the Argentine Junta have stitched up another propaganda coup!!!
Edit to add:
Hold on, the Argenentine side is based purely on two blokes testimony? What technical reason would render TWO guncams unavailable?
Sorry, insert
What technical reason would render TWO guncams in TWO seperate aircraft unavailable?
And what happened to the Black boxes? Don’t they record radar returns, and other data that has been processed. Not to mention the location of the aircraft. This could be used to prove where they were at the time.