Can we start moving all our posts on Invincible in here?
Ta.
And all that they actually came up with was that crappy airbrushed picture… this implies that the gun cam footage didn’t show what they wanted it to show, so they faked a picture, badly.
But, I suppose if you really really want to believe it, you’ll believe anything.
From AIDES thread.
Man of Stoat wrote Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:24 am
From somewhere neutral:
http://www.falklandkrieg.de/seite_geschichte_lang.php wrote:
30.05.1982
Nach argentinischen Meldungen wurden der britische Flottenverband mit Raketen und Bomben angegriffen und ein Flugzeugträger durch einen Raketentreffer (Typ “Exocet”) beschädigt. Diese Meldung wird durch die britische Seite nicht bestätigt.“According to Argentine reports the British fleet was attacked with rockets and bombs and an aircraft carrier was damaged by a rocket hit (“exocet” type). This report was not confirmed by the British side.”
EAGLE wrote Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:18 am
Of course in that topic there is a difference on the argentinians and british thoughts, each one believes in its versions.
The only thing that I can do here is to write the argentine version:
With the Harrier signals of appearance and disappearance from the radar, the argentine forces could estimate relatively well the position of a british aircraft carrier.
It was a joint mission between the Air Force and the Navy Aviation. The Air Force provided two tankers KC-130H (Ranquel 1,2) Hercules and four A-4C Skyhawk aircraft (Zonda 1,2,3,4), armed with snakeye bombs. The Navy provided two of its newest aircraft, the Super Etendard (Ala 1,2). One of them was armed with a AM-39 Exocet missile.
Mc Donnell Douglas A-4C Skyhawk, Argentine Air Force
Lockheed KC-130H Hercules, Argentine Air Force
Dassault Super Etendard, Argentine Navy
The attack would come from the south-east, because it was a point where the argentine aircrafts never attacked to the british ships, so it could be used as surprise.
The eight aircrafts met each other in the South Atlantic ocean, where the six attackers were supplied with fuel, and the KC-130 stopped there to wait for the aircraft when those where returning.
Meeting of the 8 aircraft, the Skyhawks are being supplied by the Hercules
The attack began when the raid found with the support of its radars the british fleet, and descended to the level of the sea in order to not being detected by the enemy radars.
When the aircrafts were at 20 miles of the fleet, the Super Etendards ascended and the aircraft “Ala-1” launched the missile to the highest signal. The A-4C pilots had the order to follow the trail of the missile and attack to the victim.
The mission was prepared in order to attack in two waves, the first with the deadly and furtive Exocet, and the second, when the crew was shocked and occupied trying to restore the ship, with silly (non propulsed/guided) bombs.
The four Air Force pilots followed to the missile, and saw an explosion. Then they accelerated to the 100% of their aircrafts. Was there when a missile or an anti-aerial weapon shoot down to the first Skyhawk (Zonda 1), which descended quickly and dashed itself to the water. Seconds later, a second Skyhawk was reached, this time with antiaerial fire. The A-4C “Zonda 2” exploded in the air.
The two survivors advanced in formation by the pope-babor of the ship, with a lot of anti-aerial fire, and dropped their bombs over a “damaged and smoked ship” –as one of the pilot said-.
An A-4C Skyhawk dropping its bombs over the HMS Invincible
The aircrafts separated each other in order to confuse to the defenders, and then they met again in order to make the encounter with the tankers Hercules.
At that time, the continental radars and the Malvinas islands radars ensured that the activity of enemy combat aircrafts that appeared in the sea (in other words, that aircraft which take off in an aircraft carrier) was incredibly down.
When the pilots landed, they ensured to have attacked to a “big white ship, with two towers and a flat and continued platform. Then they were separated and interrogated. The argentine officers on the base showed to the pilots in separate pictures of all the british ships that were in the South Atlantic, and both pointed to the same picture… the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible…
Real photograph of the reenconter of the pilots
According to me and different historians, what happened later was:
When the Invincible was put down of the service by the argentine attack, it was restored on a british or a commonwealth dock, since its brother, the HMS Illustrious was put in service quickly and was used as a false Invincible until August, when the official british version said that the real Illustrious substituted to the Invincible in the South. What happened in August to me was that the real Invincible (touched that May 30th, and renamed Illustrious to encover the damaged suffered) had recovered it capabilities, and substituted to it brother, who was using his name in the South Atlantic. I hope you’ll understand what I tried to say with this (not trying to have your agreements, only that you understand what I am trying to say)
Here I show you a map of the attack
That’s the argentine story, the story that I made guided by the argentine official versions. I hope you’ll understand it
Man of Stoat wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:58 am
Sorry, mate, theory relies on the presence in the South Atlantic of a ship which many people know for an absolute hundred percent fact could not possibly have been there. Illustrious did not appear on the scene until 27th August. Absolute 100% fact, no cover-ups, unless Royal Navy ships can travel back in time.
You cannot completely silence the crews of the two carriers, the picket ships, all their families, anyone who lives overlooking the docks, the dock workers, the BBC, the tabloid journalists present, etc etc etc. Is this so hard to understand?
No neutral source says anything other than “according to Argentine reports the British fleet was attacked and invincible was hit, this is unconfirmed”.
Yet another AIDES incarnation: NYhunter: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-14638.html
Eagle and ManofStoat, please delete your posts in the other thread. If you want to please repost them here, and delete them from my post.
Good stuff 1000yd, I will delete them from the AIDES thread. What about the OP Rosario Thread! Millions there!
Real photograph of the reenconter of the pilots
I’m impressed with the sharpness and depth of field of the image and richness of colour shown on a photograph taken through the periscope of a sub.
Sorry, Cuts and Eagle, my fault, I swapped the images by mistake!!!
Eagle, I haven’t got the picture link, could you do the honours. Cheers.
However this picture is still gash!!!
In the report by the Argentines, two aircraft were shot down in the run up to the carrier. At the same time, one by guns, and one by missile. Missiles wouldn’t work too close to the ship but in the picture all 4 of the bombing planes are visible close up to the ship.
Pure fantasy, even if based on the Argentine report. Everyone else in the world knows this attack never took place against the Invincible.
And also the pictures shows the bombing… of what? The sea? that is the only thing that could have been hit by the plane in the foreground!!!
Reference the credibility of the pilots, I have a picture, if I can scan it and get it on the net I will, that clearly shows a silhoute and date of an attack on a ship that never happened.
I think it was a destroyer of some sort. So let’s face it, the records of the ARA and FAA are already seen as fallible.
Are you really going to see that ski ramp when it’s pitching, the weather is bad, you’re approaching from oblique angle, and you are dodging incoming at 400+ kts?
I can certainly imagine two pilots being mistaken, however I cannot imagine everybody on the ships being mistaken or involved in what would have to be the best cover-up of all time?
Talking of cover-ups, the British military didn’t even manage to hide the fact that it was secretly testing nerve agents on volunteer soldiers in the 1950s! And that didn’t involve anywhere near as many people!
Bingo! http://p076.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm9.showMessage?topicID=1933.topic
The ship in question is the destroyer HMS Exeter (Type 42 Destroyer).
There are clearly some major differences, but if you look at it again there are quite a few similarities too. There is a large air search radar in front of the foremast, and a funnel in between the two masts. There is also a lump behind the aft mast (funnel in Invincible, air search radar on the T42) and fairly large flattish areas fore and aft. It isn’t by any means identical, but there are some similarities there such that under pressure you could possibly mistake the two. My opinion anyway - and unfortunately that’s all anyone can really say about the similarities between the two.
Just looking for references to an attack on Exeter at the correct date - can you re-post when the attack in Invincible was supposed to have taken place? Unfortunately I’ve forgotten already :oops: .
Can you stick this in the invincible thread pdf? Cheers.
A mod can split individual posts or block of posts but cannot join several posts or stick a post to an existing thread. Unfortunatelly.
Would it be possible to move all the Invincible posts out to a third thread and then move all the posts in the Invincible thread to that one too? I know it’s a lot of work, but I think the way the discussion progressed is pretty important to understanding it here and that won’t be saved if posts are just copied across by individuals 
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.
The A-4c had no guncamera installed that was removed long before the war due his malfunction, remember those aircraft were made in the early sixties.
And the pilots wasnt “blokes” but guys with enormous balls. :twisted:
And this is last I say about the 30th may I becaming boring with this discution.
Partner you are wrong LOL…
The three objects are the bombs, not Skyhawks, and the A-4C is evaiding the carrier breaking right… here the picture bigger…
Interesting article here, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html about the use of air power on both sides of the conflict.
With reference to the possibility of the pilots misidentifying the Atlantic Conveyor for HMS Invincible, some paralells may be drawn in this quote:
That the political repercussions of failure were still an important part of the Junta’s press releases is beyond doubt, that all their gen came from debriefs is not:
My bold.
Sorry eagle, my bad, either way they aint going to his a moving ship.
All planes had gun cameras removed?
And they couldn’t find 4 planes in the whole of the AFA and FAA with gun cameras to record this momentous propaganda moment?
Rubbish.
The gun cameras obviously clearly showed the wrong ship, which would have become apparent when the Intelligence types had all the time in the world to view them, in warm, safe dry offices.
Argentines tell pilots too keep quiet, and maybe say 10 intell types. No more than 20 people know. The junta tell them their families are dead (free parachuting lesson out of Herc, no parachutes needed) if this gets out. 20 years down the line, no one would believe them anyway.
Many people may “believe” that Invincible was hit but the number who can say they saw it, in pictures or live, are few. Even those listening to a live net, when the pilots said “we got her” or whatever don’t know what ship was hit!!!
Or.
The Royal Navy manages to silences 1000s of sailers, and families. When a half finished carrier is sailed out of dock, down to the Falklands and takes the place of Invincible.!!!
Think of how many people would have to be kept quiet? From people who would now see the dock empty (hold on wasn’t there a carrier in there yesterday?), people who worked on her, the new crew, the people who victualed her, the people who may have seen her going (we don’t generally close down our FREE water ways) and all the families there of. And the crew of the invincible, their families and the blokes who would have to be sent down to the Falklands to help repair her, to bring her back.
Assuming hte Invincible didn’t put in to a freindly dock, which would have been spotted by locals and Ameican and Russian satelites which you can bet your last dollar were watching this war with interest!!
The Illustrious was rushed out of dock. The men of the dockyard worked herculean shifts and finished her 3 months early, for the war effort. And she still missed the war. I beleive there were bulkheads that were still being painted en route.
Edit to add.
Why would this picture be neccesary then?
It is clearly completely fabricated (we wont even discuss that), yet looks like what a aircraft approaching from the rear (as they apparently did) would see in a gun camera. Which would be the only camera available.
It was published in one of your newspapers. Shows exactly what was reported, and would appear to be as if taken in action.
I have split these posts from the other topic. I’m not sure I want to copy and quote all the ones from the AIDES Topic again as they will end up out of context as there is no way to insert posts in between others. The best thing I can offer is that everyone reads the other Invincible thread and if necessary quote back to it here.
I have locked this thread, it was a good idea to have Invincible on just 1 thread but when I looked at the other one it had many more posts.
My solution is to lock this one, if you want to refer to a post here, please quote it there.
Hope this is OK.
I personally dont believe that Invincible was hit let alone sunk. However I do have some information regarding the above.
I had a long chat with the subject of low level attacks on ships by aircraft with a pilot who used to fly the Bucc in this role.
He stated that at 600kts and 100 feet they could make out a ship at aproximately 8-9 miles, however they did practice it almost every day. By make out ships he meant type of ship, adjust course and attack. The conditions in the N Atlantic and N Sea being very similar to the S Atlantic. I know the Bucc was a better attack ac than a Skyhawk, but then again an A-4 was slower so would presumably have more time to acquire.