Cargando la pagina... por favor espere!



No puedes ver la pagina? Click aqui
 
Foros de discusión El Malvinense
Bienvenidos al foro del diario digital "El Malvinense", para expresar sus ideas sin censura. Activo desde mayo 2008
 
InicioInicio  FAQFAQ   BuscarBuscar   MiembrosMiembros   Grupos de UsuariosGrupos de Usuarios   RegistrarseRegistrarse 
 PerfilPerfil   Entrá para ver sus mensajes privadosEntrá para ver sus mensajes privados   LoginLogin 

HMS Invincible R05
Ir a página 1, 2, 3 ... 160, 161, 162  Siguiente
 
Publicar nuevo tema   Responder al tema    Foros de discusión -> Guerra de Malvinas
Ver tema anterior :: Ver tema siguiente  
Autor Mensaje
mensajes_anteriores



Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mar May 20, 2008 3:08 pm    Asunto: HMS Invincible R05 Responder citando

May be i don?t explain very well.

I you want to see all the evidence go to the group "Malvinas Seguimos Ganando" of yahoo groups, i have told you weeks ago.
There asks all the questions you want.
Put this picture here, is different to put it in my web page.

http://ar.groups.yahoo.com/group/malvinasseguimosganando/


No, if you look in my work of the british casualties at the final of the note, i wrote:
"este trabajo no es definitivo y en la medida que se vaya obteniendo mas informaci?n, se ir? actualizando, por lo que podr? obvservar que con el paso de los d?as, este trabajo puede variar su contenido. ?ltima actualizaci?n: 21/11/05"


What AAF pilots (Ureta and Isaac) said nobody care because the important thing is the Exocet impact, we know it went into the carrier and with only that missile is enough to damage or sunk that simple carier of 20tns.
Atlantic Conveyor was sunk with an Exocet too, and it was 15tns.
Invinicble was different as Hermes, of course, because it was made by aluminum ("aluminio") and was easily to that ship to burnt quickly, so with only the Eoxcet is enough to sunk a ship like that characteristics.


Woodward not mention Invincible in his memories, because it was not any more in service by 13 of june, because he mention only three IMPORTANT ships of the navy, which were in good conditions, the others were damaged, sunk or with mechanical problems.
Minerva and Penelope were not important to the Royal Navy fleet at that moment.
He was mention important ships of the fleet, and only had 3 on good conditions, why he mention the mechanicals poblems of all the important ships "Broadswoard", "Andomeda", "Avenger", "Arrow", etc etc...
but forgot of a very important ship, the second carrier!!! why??? he was talking about the most important ships of the fleet, and forgot of Invincible, why did no forget of Hermes?, for example.

Go and ask Woodward if you can, go and interview one member of the Invinicble crew, let?s see, i?m sure if they lie you will notice that, why don?t you go and ask them.

I recived lot of e-mails from british citizens and member of the Royal Navy, who said me Invincible was ok and never been damaged, that people old me they had pictures of the Invincible from the ship in the South Atlantic after the war, and they never gave me the pics, i told them show me the pics and i will apologies for saying this, but they never gave me nothing!! They lie to me, only to save the honor of their country, because don?t want to accpet the real situation or at least search and talk about it.
Here i?m not doing this to say "Argentina won the war, is better than Biritsh", no, i?m only do his to investigate what really happen, i?m not care of the consecuence, and i know Argentina lost the war, but i want to know what had happenned.

Regards,
Patricio
22/02/06



-----------

HUTCH

Patricio.

Please forgive the capitals. It is not to shout but to draw emphasis.

Once again your story changes as soon as what you have shown as ?evidence, proof or fact? is shown to be flawed or open to interpretation. Now, the only two witnesses in the entire world who support Argentina don?t matter. All that matters is that the Exocet hit the carrier.

On the evidence given here you DO NOT KNOW that the Exocet hit the HMS Invincible. That is GUESSWORK. Why? Because the pilot who fired the Exocet had no idea what he was shooting at other than a large radar contact in an area the Invincible was thought to be in. Then, two pilots say they made visual identification of a ship at a range of around 12km, when they were going at 900kph in an extremely stressful situation in an area where another ship is on record as letting off smoke. When they looked back they could see only smoke and they flew home to report that they had attacked the ship they had taken off to attack.

There are NO witnesses to the Exocet strike.
There are only TWO witnesses to an attack against a ship wreathed in smoke.

To say that ?we know? the Exocet hit the carrier is FALSE and GUESSWORK. You are GUESSING that that:
a) The radar contact was the Invincible.
b) The missile travelled all the way to target and was neither shot down or mislead by counter measures.

They are both GUESSES.

The Exocet may have had the capability to sink the Invincible but that does not mean that it hit the ship.

When you talk of Woodward you are GUESSING again. You are saying that YOU know what he meant that day through GUESSWORK and reasoning which is entirely your own. You are putting your words in his mouth. You then shoot yourself in the foot by saying that the other ships had ?mechanical problems? as it is entirely possible that the Invincible did have these but they were not serious enough to take it out of operations.

You are seeing conspiracy where there is none. You are taking a single comment he made on a single day and expanding that to an admission that a capital ship was sunk.

Instead of trying to get me to do your work for you why don?t you try to get any evidence at all that the ship was hit? All you have are two peoples testimony (which you now say is unimportant) and a handful of photographs that are used to infer things not shown in the photos themselves. Again, I have to point out that thousands upon thousands of people would know the ?truth? about this and NOT ONE of them has ever, ever come forward.

These people who email you sound just like you ? ?I have lots of proof but I am not going to show it to you?. It sounds like you have been contacted by many eyewitness none of whom has agreed with your version of events. Do you not think this is significant?

If we assume that the conspiracy fantasy your idea relies on is true, why would people ?silenced? by the government 100% successfully for over 20 years get in touch with you? Why would they expose themselves in this way, especially if they then said they would show you photos which they know don?t exist. It does not make any sense.

You say that they lie so why wouldn?t Argentines lie?

Best regards,

Hutch


--------


http://www.twogreens.com/navy/FALKLANDS/falklands.html


I?ll said it again, not all the evidence is here!
Go to that group of yahoo and you will see.


The Exocet impact the two pilots saw it and then we know because as you said the first two carriers had 194 meters and the other 210.

But, in others web pages, put the Illustrious and the Invincible with 210 meters. Even the official site of the Royal Navy:
http://www.navynews.co.uk/ships/invincible.asp

May be with the pass of the years the Invincible grew up, and pass from 194 to 210, hehe who know...

After r05 sunk, the r06 came to be the "new" Invincible.
The r07 pass to the Illustrious, and the new ship, the r08 pass as r07.
Or may be the new ship replace the Invincible and now it?s wih 210, and the r06 with 194 and the other with 210 too, who know...


If want more explanations about this, go the group and ask all the questions.

--


ABRIL 06


I realise that I should have been more specific with my observations, as I was referring to the top photo that you seem to think shows Invincible returning from the Falklands.

It doesn't, as there's an American destroyer in the foreground. I think she's making an official visit to a US port in this picture.

The other photo does indeed show Type 21 Frigate, but that isn't the photo I'm referring to.

Can you explain how Invincible and Illustrious can be photographed together in late August 1982?

I?m highly amused by your suggestion that Illustrious was "ghosting" as Invincible. If I read you correctly another ship would have been built at some later point in time, which beggars belief.

I would also note that they didn't do a great job, because they built her short and with the same defects!

Invincible is the only "short arse" of the three, and although all three ships are externally similar, internally there are many differences.

Invincible's Gas Turbine COGAG plant layout is particular to her alone; one of the things that was changed in her sister ships was a better machinery layout, access routes and space for essential maintenance. To work in certain areas of Invincible's engine rooms you have to be triple jointed, very small or rake thin. This wasn't a feature the Navy wanted to advertise at the time, but does explain one of the reasons her sisters are longer.

Also, these turbines (and every other mechanical component on the ship) are serial stamped so that the correct spares can be obtained for planned and routine maintenance. In the case of Rolls Royce in particular, the ships mechanical schematics refer to these components by name, serial number and date. This is to ensure that replacements are of the correct type and generation. In addition, the Engineers keep a log book that tracks when components have been replaced and how long they have been in service.

As these schematics, schedules and logs are particular to each ship, and in some cases predate the actual commissioning date, they form very definite, traceable historical proof that Invincible today is the ship that was commissioned in 1980.

In essence, she is what she is. I look forward to your counter argument with interest.

CAS


-----

JPL

Por lo que tengo entendido esa foto no es de 1982, esos portaaviones son el Illustrious y el Ark Royal, fijate que ambos tienen phalanx.
Es muy interesante lo que dec?s sobre las turbinas del portaaviones, seguramente tendr?an su numero de serie y su rutina de mantenimiento...pero quien tiene acceso a ellos??? supongo que debe ser "secreto"...claro ser?a de gran ayuda pora descubrir la verdad.
Sobre la foto del "Invencible" entrando a un puerto, el otro barco, si es una fragata norteamericana. El tema ser?a saber si en esa fecha hab?a alg?n buque de USA en ese puerto (cosa que no me parecer?a raro). Igualmente ese no es el punto, quisiera que postees, si ten?s alguna fotograf?a donde se vean las consecuencias de tan larga campa?a en el Atl?ntico Sur, ya que las pocas que v?, o se ve "impecable" o tiene muy baja resoluci?n...
X FAVOR CAS, LA INFORMACI?N COMPLETA LA POD?S ENCONTRAR EN "MALVINAS, SEGUIMOS GANANDO", YA QUE ELLOS SON LOS PIONEROS EN EL TEMA, Y SI YO PONGO AC? LO QUE DICEN ELLOS, SIENTO QUE LES ROBO INFORMACION.

http://ar.groups.yahoo.com/group/malvinasseguimosganando/

Saludos, JPL.

--


I can answer some of your queries:

You will note that both of the ships have a 7deg ski ramp. Ark Royal was built with a 12 deg ski ramp. Each ship also has a deck code. N = Invincible; L = Illustrious; R = Ark Royal

Invincible's first refit (to fit phalanx amongst other things) started in Sep 82. She came out of this refit in Jan/Feb 83? She later had the Goalkeeper system fitted.

In any case, this photo demonstrates the fact that both ships have 7deg ski ramps and only one has phalanx fitted, hence they are Illustrious and Invincible in company. The attached link shows Ark Royal under construction. Note the angle of the ski ramp.

http://images.cjb.net/b1bdb.jpg

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there are no records of any American ships in port at that time, and I cannot remember seeing one there. Your point about the condition of Hermes ?v- Invincible has already been answered by Hutch.

However, I can add that Hermes hurriedly recommissioned for the Falklands, and was given a very quick coat of paint. Please remember that she was laid down in WW2, and not completed until much later, and her original hull was not protected very well. Rust had really got a hold of her. On the other hand, Invincible had the benefit of epoxy resin and chlorinated rubber based industrial paint systems developed for the North Sea Oil Industry and they work well.

I have tried to access the forum you mentioned but I have not been allowed to register as yet.

Have you ever considered the impracticalities of hiding the loss of a capital ship such as Invincible? There is no way that all of the relatives could be kept quiet, and I would like to know where the replacement came from. I could go on at length regarding the technical difficulties this would present, not least the fact that no other non-UK shipyard could install the COGAG plant employed on the Invincible class, mainly because they?re the largest of their type ever fitted at that time and this type of propulsion system isn?t used in US capital ship production. I?m not saying the US couldn?t do it, just that the retooling exercise would take them years to complete.

Also, the psychological blow to the Royal Navy may not have been as you expect. Rather than humiliation there would have been rage. Ever heard of HMS Hood? The flagship of the fleet, and she was sunk by the Bismarck in WW2 with the loss of almost the entire crew. The general order went out to ?sink the Bismarck? and that?s what happened. However, although a lot of the German crew escaped the sinking, not many were picked up by the Royal Navy. Vindictive in the extreme perhaps, but justifiable to those seamen who remembered the Hood with pride.

Similarly, U-boats terrorized British merchantmen early in the war. The RN fought back, and it is well known that only a third of all Germans who crewed them ever came back. This wasn?t entirely accidental, as the RN liked to ?see red? whenever they forced a U-boat to the surface, effectively sending it back to the bottom before the crew could escape. Again, the RN view on this was that the U-boats attacked unarmed merchantmen and therefore deserved all they got.

So, back to my main point, had the Invincible been lost it wouldn?t have been possible to cover it up, and far from ending the war I think it would have escalated it to a different level with undesirable consequences for all concerned.

Regards

CAS


--


Hola "CAS",

Este es el "Invencible" en exhibici?n:

[img:b57810576b]http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/7125/i8bi.jpg[/img:b57810576b]

Este es el Ark Royal en el mismo puerto:

[img:b57810576b]http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/2671/a9oq.jpg[/img:b57810576b]

El Invencible es de 194m de largo y el Ark Royal de 210m de largo...
Por favor, fijate vos...porque parecer?an (no estoy seguro) que el largo de los dos portaaviones son iguales...(??????)

(las dos fotos son de la misma escala)

Sobre el ocultamiento de las bajas...no s? si ser?a tan imposible c?mo lo ves vos, fijate que los muertos los podr?an haber "transferido" a otros barcos hundidos y admitidos, para ocultarlos. Sobre el 100% de efectividad del ocultamiento ?por qu? no?. Me da para pensar que los triupulantes que estuvieron en el Invencible el 30 de mayo de 1982, sean tan silenciosos, cuando las tripulaciones de otros barcos es tan comun verlos por internet.

Saludos, JPL.


--


My apologies, I?m having some difficulty translating your posts into English, the translator doesn?t quite get it right and I?m missing some points. My daughter has tried to help, but she?s still learning Spanish and isn?t quite there yet.

You present novel arguments that revolve around apparent circumstantial evidence being represented as certain facts, yet you seem to disregard any proof that disproves your theory. If the ship I served on was part of an international conspiracy it was a remarkably well crafted one, and one beyond the capability of modern Britain to achieve. Having served in the UK Forces I do not have your confidence in our Intelligence Services ability to keep anything secret anytime.

As mentioned earlier, I've seen the logs and machinery that prove your assertions are misplaced, and the reason why a lot of my colleagues haven't answered on other forums is largely because you're speaking utter rubbish, and other serious historians have already disproved your arguments conclusively. I take it you?re aware that Invincible received an extension in refit?

I would also suggest that you do not have much of an idea about building ships or where they are built. How many of you have served in your Navy or Merchant Marine? Ask one of your own Marine Engineers how possible what you?re suggesting is. Any UK shipyard is highly visible from neighboring houses, roads and the like, and the chances of building an aircraft carrier (or any other ship over 3500t) in secret are nil. I don't know how many international yards could build a carrier, but as I've mentioned earlier the COGAG plant would give them all extreme difficulties, and the chances of keeping it quiet are non-existent.

Another question: at what range do you engage a target with an air-launched exocet? I only ask because I?ve never heard of visual targeting in recent times, most of it is radar/sensor driven, and observing impacts with the naked eye is not possible. So how did the Argentinean pilots observe the impacts, and how where they sure?

Regarding black masts; my understanding is that this is more to do with tradition rather than visibility. Black masts mean the ship is commissioned, otherwise it's not. Look at HMS Victory; I believe she's still commissioned. As an Engineer my interest in (and ability to observe) what went on ?topside? was limited, and I can?t really comment on the nuances of these features.

I originally started looking at these forums because of reports that Argentina was in the process of re-arming its air force. I can only assume that your extremely nationalistic stance and desire to rewrite history is to put a gloss on your defeat in the Falklands war. I feel that such extreme propaganda is a gross disservice to the young men who fell, and it won?t help those veterans who are still alive to achieve the recognition they deserve.

Like you I am appalled, but not surprised, at the way Argentina has dealt with her war veterans, as there are many Gulf war veterans in the UK who are dying of chemical poisoning (Gulf War Syndrome) that isn?t officially recognised by our Government. Political indifference to people who win or lose wars isn?t only an Argentine problem.

While Britain won the war, it was not the ?strole in the park? that many believe. While your pilots were particularly effective at ship attacks, how many air combat kills did they achieve? On the other hand, I?m aware of the stress many sailors on ships in ?bomb alley? suffered. It isn?t a pleasant experience, and many had psychological problems after the war.

However, it did prove that Britain needed to revise much of its strategic and tactical thinking, with the retention of proper aircraft carriers and landing ships, and major equipment revisions. Current building plans for the Navy will give them capabilities they haven?t had since WW2. It also instigated wholesale changes to UK equipment, as in some important respects Argentinean troops were better equipped then British soldiers, who had semi automatic (SLR) versions of the FN as opposed to your fully auto versions, and British DMS boots leaked like hell, causing trench foot. A few years after the war these were replaced by high leg combat boots, and the SA80 is now the standard issue firearm of UK forces.

I do hope that you?re not trying to instigate or justify some future military action. The net result of such an action would be the unnecessary deaths of more young people and I firmly believe such a course of action would be a grave mistake for both Countries.

CAS

--------


Something occurred to me that conclusively proves my points. Look at this photo:

http://images.cjb.net/470f2.jpg

You will note that Illustrious is passing the incomplete Ark Royal with her 12 deg ski ramp.

This photo shows Invincible and Illustrious in company in late August 1982. The lack of phalanx on Invincible comfirms this date. Note that both have 7 deg ski ramps.

http://images.cjb.net/a8828.jpg

If that's not conclusive proof she's afloat I don't know what is.

CAS


--

This topic has certainly flared in to life again! Good. CAS9480 - its great to have someone here who does not believe the Argentine propaganda story (only some Argentines do anyway of course) and can back that up with more technical knowledge than me. I hope that you will stick around for a while ? it can be frustrating as the Argentine case is based on blind (near religious) faith in the sinking of the Invincible and sadly circumstantial evidence and guesswork is more important than hard fact to many. I use www.freetranslation.com to read Spanish, as it can translate whole webpages. I think that the (for some) sudden existence of opinion and evidence that does not support their claims and actually disproves it is a shock to some of our fellow posters, but it is important that they see that there are two sides to history, not just what they were taught in school.

Personally (to waffle on a bit longer if you?ll indulge me), I think that the military fairytales are so important to some - not all ? Argentines because they have no other outlet for their patriotism re: the Falklands. It is quite clear that Argentina is a long, long, long way from ever getting control over the Falklands and that the war produced the exact opposite of what they wanted. In order to make sense of this (and the deaths, Argentina losing the war and the cost since), some have taken refuge in Argentine war heroism/stories. But the actual heroism was not enough, so they have had to find refuge in heroism which either did not occur or which there is no decent evidence for. Its better to think that Argentina lost the war but killed over 1000 British and sunk an aircraft carrier as that at least seems to make their own dead ?worthwhile?. That is why I think this conspiracy theory (and the 800+ secret deaths) exists.


JPL

Where did the picture you posted up of the ?Invincible? entering a port come from? Who took it? When did they take it? Where did you get it from? The boat in front is a Spruance class USA destroyer as far as I can tell. I do not believe that there was one in Portsmouth to witness Invincible?s return. But if you can tell us where, when and whom the photo came from it will make this easier.

Sailors cannot just be transferred between ships if their ship is hit and suck. Their family knows which ship they are on and their uniform says the ship name so if a sailor on Invincible was killed and his family were told he died on the Coventry they would know that there was something wrong. Also, sailors who had served on the ship which was hit/sunk would know that a casualty listed on their ship was not on board. And yet NO ONE has ever come forward to claim this.

Why not 100% effectiveness of the concealment? Once again you are back into The Greatest Conspiracy Theory In The Universe as it is only that which allows your ?theory? to exist. If the Invincible was sunk and replaced by the Illustrious you would have to silence nearly 2000 men from those two ships and any journalists aboard. Then all the rescue ships that saved the Invincible?s crews. Then all the family of those who died when Invincible sunk. Then you would have to build a replacement and make sure that all the dockworkers ? thousands of men ? were all silent. And their familiys as they would be working round the clock to build an exact replica. And you would have to silence all the component suppliers, civil servants and others involved. Over 10,000 people would have to be silenced 100% effectively for over twenty years with zero leaks. All of this with no one noticing. Sound likely?

Why should the crew of the Invincible be on line? Once again you are back to paranoid pointing at shadows, seeing things which aren?t there, seeing conspiracy all over the place and seeing only what you want to see. More to the point, why has NOT ONE of them ever offered any supporting evidence to these fantasy claims? Not one. Not one bitter, poor, depressed, ex serviceman who knows ?the truth? has ever come forward, even on the internet, to support the sinking or hitting claim.

Alexander

No where in this extract does Cash say or ?recognize? that HMS Invincible was attacked by Argentina on the day of the Exocet attack. Or any other day.

HMS Invincible had a large sick bay to cater for her Navy and RAF crew of nearly 1000. This would obviously be used to cater for any other casualty?s if they could be accommodated there ? it is not always possible, practical or safe to get to a hospital ship, hospital ships can run out of certain medical supply? s, or they can fill up so injured sailors, soldiers and airmen can be sent anywhere they will get medical attention. Smaller ships have less ability to cater for casualty?s and a large ship will have more equipment, medical staff and specialist personnel. Common sense and certainly not sinister or ?proof? of an attack on the Invincible.

Dan

What proof/references do you have of these radio communications which said the Invincible was in danger of sinking? Where did you hear about or read such a statement? Where could we all read a transcript of this?

The Argentine pilots did not see the Exocet impact. No one saw it impact ? it was fired at a large radar contact and then two pilots say they saw a ship letting off smoke, which was what HMS Avenger was doing.

You may believe them but why should anyone else? Two eyewitnesses against thousands and many other facts. They were two men who flew out to attack a particular ship and came back and said they did it. They knew that the course of the war might depend on the success of their mission and what a surprise they say they achieved it. They may or may not be liars. The attack may or may not have been a propaganda story by the junta. They may ? and going by Patricio?s evidence its very likely ? have attacked the wrong ship. But what we do know is that it had no impact on the war effort and Argentina was still defeated. If the UK can lose an aircraft carrier (which would also mean many men and planes) while fighting a war 8000 miles from home and still defeat Argentina, that surely means the Argentines fought even worse than was thought before?

Despite what you claim, it is obviously the Argentine side which relies upon their men never lieing as do all the ?extra death? claims. Most of the argument here has come down to everyone having to believe that Argentines don?t lie ? you said so yourself in connection with the Argentine pilots who say they attacked the Invincible.

Alfredo

Your statement that the British side is the fairytale is hilarious ? try and turn the oppositions tactics against them, hey? It is not just us who believe s it but the entire rest of the world.

What does the Argentine side have and what does it rely on?
Guesswork.
Blind faith.
Belief that Argentines always tell the truth and the British always lie.
Two biased eyewitnesses.
A paint job.
Argentina not knowing where the ship is after the war
Pictures which are either from unknown sources or an attempt to compare wildly different images or ships.
Air activity around an aircraft carrier.
Many, many thousands of people ? sailors, airmen, dockworkers, politicians, civil servants, civilians, suppliers and all their family?s - being silenced all over the world, alive or dead, 100% successfully for over twenty years in paper, internet or TV format.
No foreign (USA, USSR, Warsaw Pact, France, Israel, China, etc) intelligence agency?s discovering this massive conspiracy but an Argentine on the internet doing so.
An aircraft carrier being built in record time, in utter secrecy somewhere in the world with no one anywhere noticing and the cost not being noticed or having an impact on the budget.
The manufacturing of all the replacement components in record time with no questions being asked by suppliers, delivery men or engineers.

Or you can believe that the Invincible was not attacked and so none of the above was necessary. Which sounds more like the fantasy? Or the joke?

Dan.

We are Chileans? How funny. As your argument has been shown to be a deeply flawed, conspiracy theory style patriotic fantasy you are having to resort to portraying us as the arch enemy? Hilarious.

Do you still have those photographs that you were sent? I think we would all enjoy the opportunity to see them and judge for ourselves. Also the webpage address if you still have that.

There are photos of the Invincible after the war. One has been posted up here several times (the one from above where the detail is rather low quality due to the height) and I have posted a link to a site where there are pictures of the Invincible afloat after the war ? in those it is clear that due to her very modern and very recent construction that from a distance there is not much weathering visible. Just because there are not lots and lots of pictures does not prove any of the fantasy claims. By the time the Invincible got back ? it had to stay on station to make sure that Argentina was not going to do anything stupid again ? the war had been over for some time so there would not necessarily be a huge crowd.

You are again reduced to guesswork and circumstantial evidence as you have no hard proof. No eyewitnesses other than two Argentines. No statements from the thousands of people who would know ?the truth? as you see it. No wreck of the Invincible where it was ?sunk?. Nothing that would be acceptable in any respectable book, journal, periodical or university course.

Alfredo

This really belongs in the ?British Casualty?s? thread so we do not confuse the two conversations.


Some general points to all?..

When it comes to pointing out the difference between the state of the Invincible and the Hermes, if we ignore the fact that they were different types of ships, built decades apart out of very different materials, you can compare the Invincible with some contemporary ships as they returned from the war:

http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~cyberheritage/

as you can see, they did not all look rust streaked and battered, and those areas that were affected by rust were predominantly around the anchor areas. An area it is impossible to see on the photograph of the Invincible (NOT Illustrious) returning to port in 1982. Their hulls are generally of a very good condition, nothing like the Hermes because they ? and the Invincible ? were not made of the same materials as the Hermes.


There are also photos of the Royal visit to the Invincible after the war if you scroll to the bottom of the page. The Royals are the star here (no surprise, this is the UK), not the ship but it is clear that it is the Invincible they are on, with the bell and life ring:

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/FrameSet.aspx?s=ImagesSearchState%7c0%7c0%7c-1%7c28%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c1%7c%7c%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c1%7c%7cHMS+Invincible%7c1125084063323127%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0&p=1&tag=1

Unless of course the photos were staged and Getty Images, the Royal family and all the other officers in shot went along with the deception and joined the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of other people involved in The Biggest Conspiracy Theory In The History Of The Universe.


Best regards to all.

Hutch


-------


[img:b57810576b]http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/6968/invin5b5fg.jpg[/img:b57810576b]


Well, let?s see if the british of the fourm can help us. For me something sounds strange, because it?s a bit confuse, may you can help...


This the war diary of a member of the crew of HMS Brilliant:


04/06/82
Weapons Systems still playing up. Good buzz we are going in tonight with and Get This ...... INVINCIBLE.......!!!!!!!! 1915 A/S Air Raid nowt happened!!

*"nowt"?? may be he was saying "now" or "not"? what?s is nowt?


06/06/82
70 days at sea, Alacrity on her way home (3 duff engines). Our Wolf is still tits up, going in tonight with INVINCIBLE again, don't know why but then again does anybody???


07/06/82
Going in again with Invincible tonight apparently doing the same as last night, someone, somewhere must know why??



I don?t know may this can help with all this.



Regards.
--------

I don't think the ship in the "Ark Royal" video is actually Ark Royal, or if it is its post 1985.

The ship in the video has been commissioned. Ark Royal wasn't in 1982, and it's doubtful that she could move at that time. She wasn't fitted out.

The video, although rather quick, seems to show a 7 degree flightdeck, again confirmation that it isn't Ark Royal.

I don't believe Ark Royal has the same radar setup as the other two ships. She doesn't have a forward radome setup. I will verify this when I find out.

nowt = nothing. The sailor is indicating a bit of an anti-climax i.e. nothing happened. "Going in" would normally mean going in to combat, mission etc., or engaging in a combat operation.

Are the dates accurate? If they are it indicates that Invincible was afloat and capable of mounting operations.

----

MAYO 06

HUTCH

Despite the fact that the argument posted below has already been made ? several times ? it seems it needs to be made again. It involves the work of both Cas and myself, so thanks to Cas. Keep fighting the good fight! I only ask that those who find lots of text ?boring? actually take the time and effort to read what is posted instead of just dismissing it and then think about it.

Let us have actual intelligent debate after it. If you want to argue with something, please provide a good reason and evidence and fact to back it up, not just propaganda, changing the subject or blind prejudice. Have an open mind. Remember that just because you do not understand something does not make that thing mysterious or suspicious: personal ignorance does not mean international conspiracy.

I?ve probably missed a few things but this is the bulk of the argument which conclusively disproves the Invincible was sunk by Argentina and makes it very unlikely that if she was attacked, that she suffered anything more than minor damage. I do not rule out the possibility that the Invincible was attacked, its just very, very unlikely and there is no evidence of any damage being caused if she was actually attacked.

Perhaops someone from the Argentine conspiracy theory side would like to post a refutation to some of these point? Those who don't find debate 'boring' of course.

The Exocet launch:

Franciso and Collavino did not know what ship they were shooting at. They saw two contacts on their radar and fired at the larger one from beyond visual range and then turned away and left before getting any visual confirmation. They believed it would be the Invincible but had no actual proof it was.

If we look at the radar diagram on Patricios site the position of ships around the Invincible undermines the Argentine version of events. In that version of the attack the Argentine pilots say the carrier ??was not doubt, it was, inexplicably alone, without other ships nearly?? yet the picture shown clearly puts the Avenger and Auxiliares in front of the Invincible within line of sight, not counting the Cardiff and Exeter to the left and the Hermes in the background. How could they miss so many ships and yet visually identify the Invincible at a range of around 12km while travelling at maximum speed? How could they not see any other ships and yet the Exocet planes radars picked up two contacts?

Furthermore, if a radar was searching for a target it would target the Avenger and the Auxiliares first and one of these would be bigger than the other. The account says that ??they saw two targets, one bigger than the other. They wait a little to be sure they would impact to the bigger and 17 miles, exactly 17 miles before the big target Francisco launched the Exocet?.? It is therefore highly likely and more than possible? just going on the evidence Patricio supplied - that they were locking on to the Avenger and the Auxiliares and fired the Exocet at one of those targets.

Their radar picked up two contacts.
The Avenger and Auxiliares were in front of the Invincible so would have been these two contacts.
The Exocet planes had no visual confirmation but fired at the ?larger? contact.
They turned for home without making any visual contact.
The Argentines said there were no other ships in the area despite the fact that there was.
The only two eyewitnesses to this ?attack? say they saw smoke which is what HMS Avenger was producing as a screen.

The bombing run:

The only witnesses for Argentina who say they saw the Invincible were travelling at 900km/h, in a combat situation, two comrades shot down and saw a ship with smoke at a distance of about 12km. It is an established fact that HMS Avenger was setting off smoke to shield the carrier and was in front of the carrier. They make no mention of this ship that they would have flown over, past or by. Why? Any intelligent person can see that in these conditions it is very likely that the pilots were mistaken. There are to many holes in the pilots stories and two many opportunities for them to be wrong.

The conspiracy:

To say that the Invincible was sunk the perfect conspiracy of silence has entered a new phase and needs thousands of new people to be involved. All the crew of the Invincible. All the crew of the Illustrious. The crew of any ship that helped rescue the survivors of the sinking. A dockyard and all the workers there. Manufacturers of the specialist equipment needed for an aircraft carrier, which isn?t just lieing around ready to be used. Civil servants. Politicians. The family?s of all those involved, including those who died when the Invincible sunk (after an Exocet and three bombs and sinking there would have been deaths). Foreign governments and their spy agency?s which have also never revealed evidence that this happened. The local people who live near to the dockyard where the replacement was built. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who would know. And not a single one of them ever has come forward to support this theory. Over 10,000 people would have to be silenced 100% effectively for over twenty years with zero leaks. All of this with no one noticing.

Not one bitter, poor, depressed, ex serviceman who knows ?the truth? has ever come forward, even on the internet, to support the sinking or hitting claim.

No foreign spy agency has ever uncovered any evidence of the attack. There is no physical evidence of the attack. There are no photos of the attack or of any damage to the Invincible. There are pictures of the Invincible returning to port after the war and of the royal visit to it taken by an independent third party.

The Invincible?s unique feature:

Invincible's Gas Turbine COGAG plant layout is particular to her alone; one of the things that was changed in her sister ships was a better machinery layout, access routes and space for essential maintenance. To work in certain areas of Invincible's engine rooms you have to be triple jointed, very small or rake thin. This wasn't a feature the Navy wanted to advertise at the time, but does explain one of the reasons her sisters are longer.

Also, these turbines (and every other mechanical component on the ship) are serial stamped so that the correct spares can be obtained for planned and routine maintenance. In the case of Rolls Royce in particular, the ships mechanical schematics refer to these components by name, serial number and date. This is to ensure that replacements are of the correct type and generation. In addition, the Engineers keep a log book that tracks when components have been replaced and how long they have been in service.

As these schematics, schedules and logs are particular to each ship, and in some cases predate the actual commissioning date, they form very definite, traceable historical proof that Invincible today is the ship that was commissioned in 1980.

Why did the Invincible not look as battered as HMS Hermes:

Hermes was hurriedly recommissioned for the Falklands, and was given a very quick coat of paint. She was laid down in WW2, and not completed until much later, and her original hull was not protected very well. Rust had really got a hold of her. On the other hand, Invincible had the benefit of epoxy resin and chlorinated rubber based industrial paint systems developed for the North Sea Oil Industry and they work well.

Building a replacement:

How many of you have served in your Navy or Merchant Marine? Ask one of your own Marine Engineers how possible what you?re suggesting is. Any UK shipyard is highly visible from neighboring houses, roads and the like, and the chances of building an aircraft carrier (or any other ship over 3500t) in secret are nil. I don't know how many international yards could build a carrier, but as mentioned earlier the COGAG plant would give them all extreme difficulties, and the chances of keeping it quiet are non-existent.

It took 7 years to make Invincible, 5 years to make Illustrious (a hurried job at the end and she was completed en route to the Falklands) and 7 years to make Ark Royal. And yet you say that such a ship could be built in 3 years? If so, why were the others not built in 3 years?

Sailors could be moved around different ships to cover up deaths:

Sailors cannot just be transferred between ships if their ship is hit and suck. Their family knows which ship they are on and their uniform says the ship name so if a sailor on Invincible was killed and his family were told he died on the Coventry they would know that there was something wrong. Also, sailors who had served on the ship which was hit/sunk would know that a casualty listed on their ship was not on board. And yet NO ONE has ever come forward to claim this.

Ark Royal was made to look like Invincible or Illustrious in a cover up:

Ark Royal was completed with a 12 degree ski ramp (evidenced by many shipyard and launch videos and photos).
Invincible and Illustrious were both originally fitted with 7 degree ski ramps.
Illustrious was hastily fitted with phalanx in the shipyard prior to entering service. She did not sail without it.
Invincible didn?t have phalanx fitted until her first minor refit.
Illustrious sailed for the Falklands on 1st August 1982.
Illustrious relieved Invincible on 27th August 1982.
Invincible returned to Portsmouth and went for her phalanx refit, completed in Feb 1983.
Illustrious was on station until November 1982.

The Ark Royal was not complete in 1982. She was a floating shell, ready for the rest of her equipment to be put in after launch in June 1981 - she wouldn?t be sea ready until 1985. She would have lacked many vital internal components to pull of such a deception and she had a 12 degree ski ramp, not 7 degree as Invincible had. And if the Invincible was damaged and had to be ?replaced? by an incomplete sister ship for her return, where did the Invincible go while it was repaired? And when did they put the Ark Royal back? And why did NO ONE notice any of this?

Why did the Invincible not return as soon as the war ended?

The ship stayed on station to provide a secure airbase, a command and control point and to make sure that there wasn?t a counter coup in Argentina which would lead another stupid invasion. Just because the war was over didn?t mean the UK would evacuate all military forces from the area. The Invincible stayed to provide support and then was relieved by the Illustrious. Suspicious? No ? apart from to someone with no knowledge of military issues and who has a suspicious mind. Common sense and obvious? Yes.

There was still the possibility of a threat from Argentina. The fear was that a non governmental group of Argentine adventurers could land on the FI to ?claim? them like Miguel Fitzgerald in 1964 or the 20 Argentine terrorists who landed and took civilians hostage in 1966. Why take risks with millions of pounds worth of equipment? Argentina has been inherently unstable for much of the 20th Century (previously having been in the top 10 of rich nations) and this conflict had come as a surprise, so it was better to be safe rather than sorry. These kind of precautions and operational procedure are what help the British to not lose wars and keep wartime losses down to a minimum as much as possible.

Why give different accounts of an attack?

Argentina had no satellite imagery, no spies and no intelligence network. It had no way of verifying the effectiveness of its attacks. It relied on the media and British confirmation of attacks to know what had happened most of the time. By spreading false rumours, the British answered the Argentine claims about attacking the Invincible and made it difficult for Argentina to know just what had happened. This is all standard practice for any nation that knows how to fight a war.

Why did the Harriers go to a higher altitude as detected by Argentine radar?

The Harriers were 8000 miles from their operational area and all supplies had to be brought thousands of miles into a combat zone ? look at what had happened to Atlantic Conveyor. Saving fuel when possible would therefore be of clear advantage. Also, just because they went higher does not mean that the purpose of it was to save fuel. They could have been getting a broader field of vision to watch for Argentine attacks

Why not transfer all the Harriers to Stanley or another land based airfield as soon as possible:

If the air force had been based at Stanley then
1) Argentine would have known where it was and could have attacked and wiped out the air arm.
2) It would have been denied the specialist engineering and mechanical facilites of the carriers ? why have specialist workshops and personnel available and not use them
3) It would not have been able to move in secret as its starting and end point of each mission would have been known.
4) The planes would have either been out in the open or in temporary shelters which would not provide good insulation from the weather.
5) The pilots and ground crew would have had to be billeted in Stanley which would have put specialist personnel at risk, separated them from their planes and meant that accommodation would have had to be found in a crowded area.
6) All the fuel and weapons for the planes would also have to be transferred to land, making them exposed to attack and harder to load with the specialised equipment on board the ship.
7)Why would you separate the planes from the very vehicle designed to transport, maintain and protect them? No sane or competent commander would.

If you want an example of why the UK did this, look at Pebble Island. Argentina placed a large air group there and lost six Pucaras, four T-34C and one Coast Guard Skyvan as well as radar, fuel and ammunition dumps in a UK raid. The airbase there was neutralised and 16 days later closed and the pilots evacuated back to Argentina. The British were not going to risk Argentina pulling off a similar attack on its very limited aircraft.

Avenger could not shoot down an Exocet with its cannon:

Yes it could, it may be unlikley but its not impossible.

Why no or very limited air activity in early June?

There was bad weather on 2, 3, 4, 6 June which offered natural protection to the fleet and made take off and landing from carriers very dangerous. Remember that the fleet was 8000 miles from home, spare parts and replacement planes. With the loss of Atlantic Conveyor the UK had a very limited number of planes in the area and so could not risk them being lost. Enough were being lost to enemy action and accidents already and flying in bad weather when there was no critical reason to do so ? especially when the land war was going well. The bad weather can be checked with the FAA on their official site.

Up to the 30th of May Argentina had been launching air attacks on the British almost constantly, suffering almost daily losses and causing damage to the British. Yet between 1 and & June only 2 Argentine aircraft were shot down ? a Lear acting as a spy plane and a supply/bombing Canberra - so the Argentine forces were not flying combat missions either. As soon as the weather cleared, both sides put their combat aircraft back in action.

Why does no one know where the Invincible was at certain times:

Just because the junta and you now don?t know where the Invincible was from the end of May to end of July does not mean no one does or that it was sunk. Remember that the Invincible was also known as the Invisible because Argentina could not pinpoint her location.

What about the different funnel paint jobs:

Standard practice in war to help camouflage a ship.

What about the other carrier that sank in secret in 1943, HMS Dasher:

?The sinking OF the converted carrier HMS Dasher is not a mystery or secret. HOW she sank is, or at least was for many years. No one went around saying that Dasher was still afloat after 1943. People weren?t going around in 1955 saying that they had just served on HMS Dasher, she was fine, had never sunk, was active in 1944, etc. Rather that she was lost and it wasn?t clear what the cause of the loss was ? friendly fire, mine, sabotage, negligence, etc. Mystery surrounds the sinking, not the fact of the sinking.

Neither was the sinking totally covered up for many years in the manner that the HMS Invincible sinking fantasy demands. Even at the time and despite an official news blackout, relatives of the dead protested and some had bodies returned for burial. People knew their relatives had died but they didn?t necessarily know how or have a body to bury.

The secrecy was imposed not to totally cover up the loss of a carrier ? even in WW2 this would have been impossible ? but because it was one of the greatest naval disasters in British waters not at the hands of the enemy. The loss of the ship was officially announced in 1945 in The Times. Hardly what you would do if you wanted to cover up the loss is it?

There is a massive difference in covering up the exact details of a ships loss for morale reasons and covering up the actual loss of a major naval asset.

As a matter of interest it is thought that aside from the embarrassment and/or danger of having a carrier lost in home waters that one of the bodies was used in Operation Mincemeat, an espionage assignment to confuse the Germans in WW2.?

Why did Australia cancel the deal to buy a carrier from the UK:

The contract to sell the carrier was cancelled by Australia as an act of friendship because it was obvious that the UK needed to maintain a carrier force to be able to fight effectively. Previous to the Argentine invasion, the Royal Navy had been cut down in size as it was assumed that the USSR was the only enemy that would be fought and that the fighting would take place in the North Sea. The 1982 war showed this to be false and that the UK ? a vital pillar of NATO and Western defence ? needed a full carrier force and the ability to fight expeditionary warfare.

Why are there no pictures of Invincible after the war:

Eyewitness account of HMS Invincible on 8th July having surviving the war fine, which features photographs of her after the 'attack'.
http://www.twogreens.com/navy/FALKLANDS/falklands.html

What does invincible look in such good condition on that homecoming photograph of her when other ships look rusty, especially the Hermes:

When it comes to pointing out the difference between the state of the Invincible and the Hermes, if we ignore the fact that they were different types of ships, built decades apart out of very different materials, you can compare the Invincible with some contemporary ships as they returned from the war:

http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~cyberheritage/

as you can see, they did not all look rust streaked and battered, and those areas that were affected by rust were predominantly around the anchor areas. An area it is impossible to see on the photograph of the Invincible (NOT Illustrious) returning to port in 1982. Their hulls are generally of a very good condition, nothing like the Hermes because they ? and the Invincible ? were not made of the same materials as the Hermes.

That homecoming shot of Invincible is also taken from a considerable height, a good distance away and is not of great resolution so it cannot be compared with the close up, good resolution shots of the Hermes.

Why no pictures of the Royal visit:

There are also photos of the Royal visit to the Invincible after the war if you scroll to the bottom of the page. The Royals are the star here (no surprise, this is the UK), not the ship but it is clear that it is the Invincible they are on, with the bell and life ring:

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/FrameSet.aspx?s=ImagesSearchState%7c0%7c0%7c-1%7c28%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c1%7c%7c%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c1%7c%7cHMS+Invincible%7c1125084063323127%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0&p=1&tag=1

Unless of course the photos were staged and Getty Images, the Royal family and all the other officers in shot went along with the deception and joined the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of other people involved in The Biggest Conspiracy Theory In The History Of The Universe.



The above post contains reasons why things happen, clear refutation of the Argentine case and photographical evidence. The photos are not perfect but I don?t think that anything would satisfy some people on this site. Even a picture of the Invincible?s return with the captain holding up a copy of that days newspaper would not satisfy some people. But it does show that there are pictures to support the UKs account.


Best regards to all.

Hutch
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado
mensajes_anteriores



Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie May 21, 2008 12:17 am    Asunto: Responder citando

SEPTIEMBRE 2006

Estas son las mejores fotos que tengo del HMS Invincible volviendo a UK el 17/9/1982:





En esta se aprecia el ?xido en algunas partes:

[img:ed8a906ebb]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8596/malvinense3jv6.th.jpg[/img:ed8a906ebb]

[img:ed8a906ebb]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/4420/inv1kh8ip3.th.jpg[/img:ed8a906ebb]

[img:ed8a906ebb]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7940/inv2av5pk4.th.jpg[/img:ed8a906ebb]

[img:ed8a906ebb]http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/8039/malvinense4np6.th.jpg[/img:ed8a906ebb]

[img:ed8a906ebb]http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6149/malvinense2hc8.th.jpg[/img:ed8a906ebb]

A ver si alguien me puede ayudar a identificar que es esto, parece ser una parte de distinta tonalidad en la pintura (?):

[img:ed8a906ebb]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8215/malvinense5vo6.th.jpg[/img:ed8a906ebb]

[img:ed8a906ebb]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7613/inv3qe8qx3.th.jpg[/img:ed8a906ebb]

[img:ed8a906ebb]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5364/malvinense6qc3.th.jpg[/img:ed8a906ebb]

Esta ?ltima demuestra que la foto en blanco y negro del Invencible que poste? en un mensaje anterior ES el Invencible entrando a puerto el 17/9/82. ya que el buque de USA en 2do plano es el mismo.

[img:ed8a906ebb]http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/7496/20822037747bd1f3474oth9.th.jpg[/img:ed8a906ebb]

Saludos, JPL.

PD: No puedo evitar seguir teniendo dudas Laughing


---

OCTUBRE 2006

[quote:ed8a906ebb="raptor"]"en nuestro pa?s hay dos personas que nos deber?an de explicar algunos detalles, porque su historia no cierra."


El que tendr?a que dar explicaciones sos vos, caradura, que desde ese pasqu?n que ten?s por p?gina de internet, te la pasaste diciendo que ten?as radiofotos tomadas desde sat?lites y helic?pteros donde se ve?a al Invincible tocado.

Te mandaste el verso que presenciaste un estudio de las fotos donde se ratificaba su veracidad y que la misma hab?a sido comprobada en Alemania.

Y despu?s para coronar tus delirios te prendiste a la infamia del cambio de portaaviones.

Y ven?s a pedirle explicaciones a Ureta e Isaac, como si tuvieras autoridad moral para algo!

Ellos por lo menos subieron a sus aviones y fueron a cumplir la misi?n.

Vos lo ?nico que hac?s es reinvindicar el mesianismo de algunos, mentirle a la gente y tirar carne podrida a los cuatro vientos.

Dej? de robar.[/quote:ed8a906ebb]

Che payasito, estas equivocado.

Yo nunca publiqu? esas cosas que dec?s, te confundis de persona man.
A Alemania??? deja el alcohol...

----

Relata: Alf?rez Isaac (Piloto de A4C)

Todo empez? el d?a 29 de Mayo de 1982.
Como yo hab?a tenido hacia muy poco tiempo una misi?n, me consider? libre y decid? dedicarme a disfrutar de un merecido descanso. Relaj? uno a uno mis m?sculos, puse mi mente en blanco, y en ese instante lleg? un soldado a decirme que me llamaba el Primer Teniente Ureta.
-?Cambiese que salimos?- me dijo.
Cumpl? la orden.- No me puede adelantar algo, aunque sea cual es el blanco? Pregunte.
?bamos a otra base para dispersi?n de aviones (esto significa cambiar el lugar de asentamiento de los mismos para evitar una sorpresa enemiga en tierra).
- posteriormente tenemos otra misi?n de diversi?n (enti?ndase distraer la atenci?n del enemigo), pues los S?per Etendard van a salir a buscar al portaaviones.
Despegamos. Enseguida tuve problemas de comunicaciones y una vez juntos en el airea, hice se?as de que no escuchaba nada.
Con nosotros tambi?n ven?an el Primer Teniente Jos? Daniel V?zquez, el PT Omar Jes?s Castillo y el Teniente Paredi.
Navegamos, si ellos sub?an, yo sub?a. Si iban rasante, los segu?a, si estaban en final, yo entraba. Aterrizaron y aterric?. Saqu? mi avi?n de servicio por falla de radio.
En cuanto ingres? a la sala de pilotos, note un ambiente cargado de electricidad. Eran las 13.10 horas.
Nos llamaron a la sala de operaciones; a?n est?bamos sin comer, ?Sentarse, tienen que cumplir una misi?n?
Pregunte: Cual es el objetivo?
- ?El portaviones!!!!!
Continu? copiando, hab?a muchas cosas por hacer y poco a tiempo para pensar? ?Gracias a D?os!!!
Minutos despu?s llego el Mayor Lupia?ez y nos dijo: tranquil?cense, muchachos, que se suspendi?.
Guardamos todo y nos fuimos a comer.
Mientras comiamos, le dije al PT Castillo que no habia estado en la reunai?n, que el blanco era el Portaaviones, dejo dee comer.
--?Tranquil?cese, que esta cancelada?, le dije
--?No, esta demorada?, me dijo el PT Ureta; deje de comer
M?s tarde os dijeron que deb?amos cambiar dos aviones de los que trajimos pues no estaban en condiciones ?ptimas.
Se fueron el PT V?zquez y el Piran
Deambulamos por toda la base, preocupados, cansados, sin elementos de aseo. Cenamos todos juntos.
Habl? con mi padre por tel?fono y le dije que no se hiciera problemas, que deb?a cumplir una misi?n dif?cil y solo quer?a escuchar su voz antes de salir. El es militar y me entendi?. Me desped? pensando que quiz?s era la ultima vez que escuchaba su voz. Antes de cortar, me dijo a ?Tene Fe?
Nos fuimos a dormir a un lugar bastante incomodo; extra??bamos nuestro ambiente. No dorm? nada.
Me levant? y pregunte si hab?a alguna novedad, nadie supo darme una respuesta satisfactoria.
Al mediod?a del d?a 30 llegaron los que tra?an los aviones. Invite al PT Castillo a dormir un rato y me dijo que no, pues quer?a comprar unas cosas para su familia. El PT Ureta acepto mi invitaci?n.
Dormimos un rato. De pronto son? el tel?fono y realmente ninguno de los dos quer?a atender, pues present?amos lo que significaba ese llamado. Vino un soldado y atendi?, lo retamos por demorarse en atender. Era para nosotros, mandamos a pedir un veh?culo para darnos un peque?o lujo y fuimos a la sala de pilotos.
Llego la orden y de diversi?n tenia muy poco; era ataque.
Estaba grave la cosa. Planificamos, hicimos la reuni?n previa. Era una misi?n conjunta con los S?per Etendard, de los cuales una llevaba el misil Exocet y el otro iba como apoyo de radar.
Si fallaban los SE, dos de los A4C o uno de los KC-130 de reabastecimiento nos volv?amos.
Si encontr?bamos piquetes de radar antes del blanco, nos volv?amos. Si no encontr?bamos el blanco nos volv?amos, todo salio a la perfecci?n.
Los SE despegaban 5? antes que nosotros.
Nuestro indicativo de Escuadrilla ese d?a era ?Zonda?
Rezamos un Ave Mar?a en la cabecera de pista y despegamos solo cuatro A4C. Nos reunimos. A 70 Km de la costa se rompi? el horizonte artificial de mi avi?n, el PT V?zquez me dijo que me volviera, y desde tierra el Jefe de escuadr?n me dijo que siguiera.
Por haber iniciado el regreso, perd? unos 50 km, yendo al reabastecimiento solo.
Al H?rcules de adelante fueron los SE y ala de atr?s nosotros.
Hicimos casi 200 km sobre el mar altern?ndonos en las mangueras de jugo. Llegamos al punto de desprendimiento, formamos los dos sistemas juntos- los SU y los A4C- y nos lanzamos con una sensaci?n de desamparo a esa inmensidad azul. Unos 100 km adelante iniciamos el descenso.
La metereolog?a estaba mala, con c?mulos nimbus, viento, lluvia y un mar muy encrespado del que volaban nubes de espuma.
Alcanzamos el rasante.
Luego de un tiempo subieron los SE a cierta altura para chequear con el radar, descendieron, volvieron a subir, y as? sucesivamente.
Yo iba controlando mi navegaci?n. Sab?a que a una distancia determinada deb?an lanzar el misil.
Cuando mi equipo me indico la distancia, mire hacia el gu?a y vi salir al misil que llevaba en su ala derecha, tenia cabeza gris y de su tobera sal?a una llamarada constante, producto del quemado de su propulsante. Apenas lanzado, inicio un ascenso de unos 15?, luego, bruscamente inici? un descenso de unos 30? en picada, parec?a que iba a estrellarse contra el agua, pero al llegar a esta, se puso paralela a esta y se estabiliz? en vuelo rasante. Comenz? a alejarse, dej?ndonos lentamente atr?s, formando una n?tida estela con los gases de combusti?n.
Los SE, cumplida su misi?n, iniciaron un viraje y regresaron a su base. Perdimos de vista al misil.
[b:ed8a906ebb]Un minuto despu?s lo vi al frente de nosotros, inconfundible, inmenso, majestuoso; ven?amos entrando por la popa del Invencible. [/b:ed8a906ebb]
Le avise al jefe de Escuadrilla, hasta ah? el silencio hab?a sido total para los ?Zonda?: ?al frente el ??portaviones!!!
Nos empezamos a juntar. Era un instante sobrecogedor, impresionaba. Era la realidad de lo que puede un coraz?n contra la ciencia.
Iniciamos el ataque de dos de cada lado. Mientras nos acerc?bamos comenz? a salir humo a ambos lados de la torre (producido por el impacto del Exocet) el que fue aumentando r?pidamente su intensidad.
Unos 13 Km. antes vi una explosi?n a mi izquierda, la que alcanz? de lleno al 1er Tte. V?zquez. Sigui? el 1er Tte. Ureta al frente del ataque, y el 1er. Tte. Castillo y yo a cada lado.
Cuando ya lleg?bamos, a dos Km. Otra explosi?n, cuya onda expansiva sacudi? mi avi?n, abati? al 1 Tte. Castillo, que fuera, como cadete, abanderado de la Escuela de Aviaci?n Militar en C?rdoba, y primero en su promoci?n.
Apret? rabiosamente el disparador de mis ca?ones. [b:ed8a906ebb]Llegu? al blanco cuando este estaba totalmente cubierto por el humo. Su mole tapo todo frente a mi[/b:ed8a906ebb], apret? el disparador de mi bomba y sal? por un costado, temiendo chocar contra su torre, oculta por el humo. El gu?a tambi?n arrojo su bomba delante m?o.
Sal? por la derecha, segu? al frente, volv? por la izquierda, puse G negativas, y despu?s positivas, invent? maniobras esquivando los misiles que sab?a que me estaban tirando. [b:ed8a906ebb]Mientras me alejaba, el portaaviones hab?a perdido completamente su contorno y era solo una nube de humo en el mar. [/b:ed8a906ebb]
Me empec? a preocupar por las fragatas y los Harrier. Vol? unos 200 Km. Rasante.
Comenc? a sentir un calor tremendo, por lo que pens? en bajar la temperatura con el corrector de aire que esta en el panel derecho, pero para mi sorpresa, mis manos se negaron a cumplir la orden de mi cerebro y quedaron aferradas a la palanca de mando y al acelerador.
Llam? por radio y nadie me contest?.
Al frente v? un puntito y me dije: sonaste, tiraste hasta el ?ltimo cartucho de tus ca?ones y ahora estas indefenso?. Era el PT Ureta. Me vi?, me acerque y le forme. Vi su traje antiexposici?n color naranja y lo identifiqu?.
Me dijo: vamos al reabastecedor! Entonces me relaj? totalmente ya que tenia a otro haci?ndose responsable de llevarme sano y salvo a tierra.
Fuimos uno a cada KC-130; y me costo acertar en la canasta de reabastecimiento. Nos fuimos.
En cierto momento lo vi mirar dentro de su cabina, probablemente sumido en sus pensamientos, por lo que le dije?- unos-dos, mire un poco hacia abajo, no vaya a ser que nos sorprenda una fragata...?
Perforamos las nubes. Abajo estaba el agua del mar. Vimos la tierra, aterrizamos. La pista estaba llena de gente, lagrimas, felicitaciones, abrazos, interrogantes y mas lagrimas.
En la inmensidad de nuestro mar hab?an quedado para siempre dos valientes argentinos. Los Primeros Tenientes Jos? Daniel V?zquez y Omar Jes?s Castillo.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b:ed8a906ebb]Un minuto despu?s lo vi al frente de nosotros, inconfundible, inmenso, majestuoso; ven?amos entrando por la popa del Invencible. [/b:ed8a906ebb]
[color=red:ed8a906ebb]Isaac lo identifica positivamente y ve su torre a una distancia supeior a los 13 km y a vuelo rasante[/color:ed8a906ebb]

[b:ed8a906ebb]Llegu? al blanco cuando este estaba totalmente cubierto por el humo. Su mole tapo todo frente a mi[/b:ed8a906ebb]
[color=red:ed8a906ebb]No lo pudo ver detalladamente de cerca[/color:ed8a906ebb]

[b:ed8a906ebb]Mientras me alejaba, el portaaviones hab?a perdido completamente su contorno y era solo una nube de humo en el mar. [/b:ed8a906ebb]
[color=red:ed8a906ebb]No pudo verlo luego del ataque[/color:ed8a906ebb]

CAS opina que los pilotos se pueden haber confundido...
Yo personalmente no lo creo...
Creo que todav?a queda otra opci?n que coincidir?a con casi todo...pero seguro...nada

Saludos, JPL.



---


I don't have time to spend on this site at the moment because of work but I repost this to show that some of the points being brought up again have already been dealt with long ago.

The constant repeating that was necessary to get over basic points was a very frustrating part of posting here. As was the blind nationalism/racism and ignorance of some posters, the fact that Argentine education seems to be almost utterly deficient in teaching basic historical research methods, and utter rubbish like "Argentines always tell the truth and are never mistaken about anything ever". Which was and is the basis of most Argentine's arguments.

However, I was pleased to see that some people have now accepted that what they believed/were taught is false, or at the very least highly dubious. Some people still prefer to belive in fairy stories or conspiracy though or desperately cling to a totally discredited theory. They only make themselves look foolish

Remember that the last time this was posted up there was no point by point refutation (as was requested) or any real attempt to refute the vast majority of what Cas and myself had posted.




[b:ed8a906ebb]The Exocet launch: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

Franciso and Collavino did not know what ship they were shooting at. They saw two contacts on their radar and fired at the larger one from beyond visual range and then turned away and left before getting any visual confirmation. They believed it would be the Invincible but had no actual proof it was.

[color=orange:ed8a906ebb]If we look at the radar diagram on Patricios site the position of ships around the Invincible undermines the Argentine version of events. In that version of the attack the Argentine pilots say the carrier ??was not doubt, it was, inexplicably alone, without other ships nearly?? yet the picture shown clearly puts the Avenger and Auxiliares in front of the Invincible within line of sight, not counting the Cardiff and Exeter to the left and the Hermes in the background. How could they miss so many ships and yet visually identify the Invincible at a range of around 13km while travelling at maximum speed? How could they not see any other ships and yet the Exocet planes radars picked up two contacts? [/color:ed8a906ebb]
Furthermore, if a radar was searching for a target it would target the Avenger and the Auxiliares first and one of these would be bigger than the other. The account says that ??they saw two targets, one bigger than the other. They wait a little to be sure they would impact to the bigger and 17 miles, exactly 17 miles before the big target Francisco launched the Exocet?.? It is therefore highly likely and more than possible? just going on the evidence Patricio supplied - that they were locking on to the Avenger and the Auxiliares and fired the Exocet at one of those targets.

Their radar picked up two contacts.
The Avenger and Auxiliares were in front of the Invincible so would have been these two contacts.
The Exocet planes had no visual confirmation but fired at the ?larger? contact.
They turned for home without making any visual contact.
The Argentines said there were no other ships in the area despite the fact that there was.
The only two eyewitnesses to this ?attack? say they saw smoke which is what HMS Avenger was producing as a screen.

[b:ed8a906ebb]The bombing run: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

[color=blue:ed8a906ebb]The only witnesses for Argentina who say they saw the Invincible were travelling at 900km/h, in a combat situation, only a few meters above the sea, had salt spray all over their canopys, saw two comrades shot down and saw a ship from behind with smoke at a distance of about 13km.[/color:ed8a906ebb] It is an established fact that HMS Avenger was setting off smoke to shield the carrier and was in front of the carrier. They make no mention of this ship that they would have flown over, past or by. Why? Any intelligent person can see that in these conditions it is very likely that the pilots were mistaken. There are to many holes in the pilots stories and two many opportunities for them to be wrong.

[b:ed8a906ebb]The conspiracy: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

To say that the Invincible was sunk the perfect conspiracy of silence has entered a new phase and needs thousands of new people to be involved. All the crew of the Invincible. All the crew of the Illustrious. The crew of any ship that helped rescue the survivors of the sinking. A dockyard and all the workers there. Manufacturers of the specialist equipment needed for an aircraft carrier, which isn?t just lieing around ready to be used. Civil servants. Politicians. The family?s of all those involved, including those who died when the Invincible sunk (after an Exocet and three bombs and sinking there would have been deaths). Foreign governments and their spy agency?s which have also never revealed evidence that this happened. The local people who live near to the dockyard where the replacement was built. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who would know. And not a single one of them ever has come forward to support this theory. Over 10,000 people would have to be silenced 100% effectively for over twenty years with zero leaks. All of this with no one noticing.

Not one bitter, poor, depressed, ex serviceman who knows ?the truth? has ever come forward, even on the internet, to support the sinking or hitting claim.

No foreign spy agency has ever uncovered any evidence of the attack. There is no physical evidence of the attack. There are no photos of the attack or of any damage to the Invincible. There are pictures of the Invincible returning to port after the war and of the royal visit to it taken by an independent third party.

[b:ed8a906ebb]The Invincible?s unique feature: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

Invincible's Gas Turbine COGAG plant layout is particular to her alone; one of the things that was changed in her sister ships was a better machinery layout, access routes and space for essential maintenance. To work in certain areas of Invincible's engine rooms you have to be triple jointed, very small or rake thin. This wasn't a feature the Navy wanted to advertise at the time, but does explain one of the reasons her sisters are longer.

Also, these turbines (and every other mechanical component on the ship) are serial stamped so that the correct spares can be obtained for planned and routine maintenance. In the case of Rolls Royce in particular, the ships mechanical schematics refer to these components by name, serial number and date. This is to ensure that replacements are of the correct type and generation. In addition, the Engineers keep a log book that tracks when components have been replaced and how long they have been in service.

As these schematics, schedules and logs are particular to each ship, and in some cases predate the actual commissioning date, they form very definite, traceable historical proof that Invincible today is the ship that was commissioned in 1980.

[b:ed8a906ebb]Why did the Invincible not look as battered as HMS Hermes: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

Hermes was hurriedly recommissioned for the Falklands, and was given a very quick coat of paint. She was laid down in WW2, and not completed until much later, and her original hull was not protected very well. Rust had really got a hold of her. On the other hand, Invincible had the benefit of epoxy resin and chlorinated rubber based industrial paint systems developed for the North Sea Oil Industry and they work well.

[b:ed8a906ebb]Building a replacement: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

How many of you have served in your Navy or Merchant Marine? Ask one of your own Marine Engineers how possible what you?re suggesting is. Any UK shipyard is highly visible from neighboring houses, roads and the like, and the chances of building an aircraft carrier (or any other ship over 3500t) in secret are nil. I don't know how many international yards could build a carrier, but as mentioned earlier the COGAG plant would give them all extreme difficulties, and the chances of keeping it quiet are non-existent.

It took 7 years to make Invincible, 5 years to make Illustrious (a hurried job at the end and she was completed en route to the Falklands) and 7 years to make Ark Royal. And yet you say that such a ship could be built in 3 years? If so, why were the others not built in 3 years?

[b:ed8a906ebb]Sailors could be moved around different ships to cover up deaths:[/b:ed8a906ebb]

Sailors cannot just be transferred between ships if their ship is hit and suck. Their family knows which ship they are on and their uniform says the ship name so if a sailor on Invincible was killed and his family were told he died on the Coventry they would know that there was something wrong. Also, sailors who had served on the ship which was hit/sunk would know that a casualty listed on their ship was not on board. And yet NO ONE has ever come forward to claim this.

[b:ed8a906ebb]Ark Royal was made to look like Invincible or Illustrious in a cover up: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

Ark Royal was completed with a 12 degree ski ramp (evidenced by many shipyard and launch videos and photos).
Invincible and Illustrious were both originally fitted with 7 degree ski ramps.
Illustrious was hastily fitted with phalanx in the shipyard prior to entering service. She did not sail without it.
Invincible didn?t have phalanx fitted until her first minor refit.
Illustrious sailed for the Falklands on 1st August 1982.
Illustrious relieved Invincible on 27th August 1982.
Invincible returned to Portsmouth and went for her phalanx refit, completed in Feb 1983.
Illustrious was on station until November 1982.

The Ark Royal was not complete in 1982. She was a floating shell, ready for the rest of her equipment to be put in after launch in June 1981 - she wouldn?t be sea ready until 1985. She would have lacked many vital internal components to pull of such a deception and she had a 12 degree ski ramp, not 7 degree as Invincible had. And if the Invincible was damaged and had to be ?replaced? by an incomplete sister ship for her return, where did the Invincible go while it was repaired? And when did they put the Ark Royal back? And why did NO ONE notice any of this?
[b:ed8a906ebb]
Why did the Invincible not return as soon as the war ended? [/b:ed8a906ebb]

The ship stayed on station to provide a secure airbase, a command and control point and to make sure that there wasn?t a counter coup in Argentina which would lead another stupid invasion. Just because the war was over didn?t mean the UK would evacuate all military forces from the area. The Invincible stayed to provide support and then was relieved by the Illustrious. Suspicious? No ? apart from to someone with no knowledge of military issues and who has a suspicious mind. Common sense and obvious? Yes.

There was still the possibility of a threat from Argentina. The fear was that a non governmental group of Argentine adventurers could land on the FI to ?claim? them like Miguel Fitzgerald in 1964 or the 20 Argentine terrorists who landed and took civilians hostage in 1966. Why take risks with millions of pounds worth of equipment? Argentina has been inherently unstable for much of the 20th Century (previously having been in the top 10 of rich nations) and this conflict had come as a surprise, so it was better to be safe rather than sorry. These kind of precautions and operational procedure are what help the British to not lose wars and keep wartime losses down to a minimum as much as possible.

[b:ed8a906ebb]Why give different accounts of an attack? [/b:ed8a906ebb]

Argentina had no satellite imagery, no spies and no intelligence network. It had no way of verifying the effectiveness of its attacks. It relied on the media and British confirmation of attacks to know what had happened most of the time. By spreading false rumours, the British answered the Argentine claims about attacking the Invincible and made it difficult for Argentina to know just what had happened. This is all standard practice for any nation that knows how to fight a war. Argentina did not know how to fight a war.

[b:ed8a906ebb]Why did the Harriers go to a higher altitude as detected by Argentine radar? [/b:ed8a906ebb]

The Harriers were 8000 miles from their operational area and all supplies had to be brought thousands of miles into a combat zone ? look at what had happened to Atlantic Conveyor. Saving fuel when possible would therefore be of clear advantage. Also, just because they went higher does not mean that the purpose of it was to save fuel. They could have been getting a broader field of vision to watch for Argentine attacks

[b:ed8a906ebb]Why not transfer all the Harriers to Stanley or another land based airfield as soon as possible: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

If the air force had been based at Stanley then
1) Argentine would have known where it was and could have attacked and wiped out the air arm.
2) It would have been denied the specialist engineering and mechanical facilites of the carriers ? why have specialist workshops and personnel available and not use them
3) It would not have been able to move in secret as its starting and end point of each mission would have been known.
4) The planes would have either been out in the open or in temporary shelters which would not provide good insulation from the weather.
5) The pilots and ground crew would have had to be billeted in Stanley which would have put specialist personnel at risk, separated them from their planes and meant that accommodation would have had to be found in a crowded area.
6) All the fuel and weapons for the planes would also have to be transferred to land, making them exposed to attack and harder to load with the specialised equipment on board the ship.
7)Why would you separate the planes from the very vehicle designed to transport, maintain and protect them? No sane or competent commander would.

If you want an example of why the UK did this, look at Pebble Island. Argentina placed a large air group there and lost six Pucaras, four T-34C and one Coast Guard Skyvan as well as radar, fuel and ammunition dumps in a UK raid. The airbase there was neutralised and 16 days later closed and the pilots evacuated back to Argentina. The British were not going to risk Argentina pulling off a similar attack on its very limited aircraft.

[b:ed8a906ebb]Avenger could not shoot down an Exocet with its cannon: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

Yes it could, it may be unlikley but its not impossible.

[color=red:ed8a906ebb][b:ed8a906ebb]Why no or very limited air activity in early June? [/b:ed8a906ebb][/color:ed8a906ebb]

There was bad weather on 2, 3, 4, 6 June which offered natural protection to the fleet and made take off and landing from carriers very dangerous. Remember that the fleet was 8000 miles from home, spare parts and replacement planes. With the loss of Atlantic Conveyor the UK had a very limited number of planes in the area and so could not risk them being lost. Enough were being lost to enemy action and accidents already and flying in bad weather when there was no critical reason to do so ? especially when the land war was going well. The bad weather can be checked with the FAA on their official site.

Up to the 30th of May Argentina had been launching air attacks on the British almost constantly, suffering almost daily losses and causing damage to the British. Yet between 1 and 8 June only 2 Argentine aircraft were shot down ? a Lear acting as a spy plane and a supply/bombing Canberra - so the Argentine forces were not flying combat missions either. As soon as the weather cleared, both sides put their combat aircraft back in action.

This information can be checked on the FAA (Argentine airforce) website.

[b:ed8a906ebb]Why does no one know where the Invincible was at certain times: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

Just because the junta and you now don?t know where the Invincible was from the end of May to end of July does not mean no one does or that it was sunk. Remember that the Invincible was also known as the Invisible because Argentina could not pinpoint her location.

[b:ed8a906ebb]What about the different funnel paint jobs: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

Standard practice in war to help camouflage a ship.

[b:ed8a906ebb]What about the other carrier that sank in secret in 1943, HMS Dasher: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

?The sinking OF the converted carrier HMS Dasher is not a mystery or secret. HOW she sank is, or at least was for many years. No one went around saying that Dasher was still afloat after 1943. People weren?t going around in 1955 saying that they had just served on HMS Dasher, she was fine, had never sunk, was active in 1944, etc. Rather that she was lost and it wasn?t clear what the cause of the loss was ? friendly fire, mine, sabotage, negligence, etc. Mystery surrounds the sinking, not the fact of the sinking.

Neither was the sinking totally covered up for many years in the manner that the HMS Invincible sinking fantasy demands. Even at the time and despite an official news blackout, relatives of the dead protested and some had bodies returned for burial. People knew their relatives had died but they didn?t necessarily know how or have a body to bury.

The secrecy was imposed not to totally cover up the loss of a carrier ? even in WW2 this would have been impossible ? but because it was one of the greatest naval disasters in British waters not at the hands of the enemy. The loss of the ship was officially announced in 1945 in The Times. Hardly what you would do if you wanted to cover up the loss is it?

There is a massive difference in covering up the exact details of a ships loss for morale reasons and covering up the actual loss of a major naval asset.

As a matter of interest it is thought that aside from the embarrassment and/or danger of having a carrier lost in home waters that one of the bodies was used in Operation Mincemeat, an espionage assignment to confuse the Germans in WW2.?

[b:ed8a906ebb]Why did Australia cancel the deal to buy a carrier from the UK: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

The contract to sell the carrier was cancelled by Australia as an act of friendship because it was obvious that the UK needed to maintain a carrier force to be able to fight effectively. Previous to the Argentine invasion, the Royal Navy had been cut down in size as it was assumed that the USSR was the only enemy that would be fought and that the fighting would take place in the North Sea. The 1982 war showed this to be false and that the UK ? a vital pillar of NATO and Western defence ? needed a full carrier force and the ability to fight expeditionary warfare.

[b:ed8a906ebb]Why are there no pictures of Invincible after the war: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

Eyewitness account of HMS Invincible on 8th July having surviving the war fine, which features photographs of her after the 'attack'.
http://www.twogreens.com/navy/FALKLANDS/falklands.html

[b:ed8a906ebb]What does invincible look in such good condition on that homecoming photograph of her when other ships look rusty, especially the Hermes: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

When it comes to pointing out the difference between the state of the Invincible and the Hermes, if we ignore the fact that they were different types of ships, built decades apart out of very different materials, you can compare the Invincible with some contemporary ships as they returned from the war:

http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~cyberheritage/

as you can see, they did not all look rust streaked and battered, and those areas that were affected by rust were predominantly around the anchor areas. An area it is impossible to see on the photograph of the Invincible (NOT Illustrious) returning to port in 1982. Their hulls are generally of a very good condition, nothing like the Hermes because they ? and the Invincible ? were not made of the same materials as the Hermes.

That homecoming shot of Invincible is also taken from a considerable height, a good distance away and is not of great resolution so it cannot be compared with the close up, good resolution shots of the Hermes.

[b:ed8a906ebb]Why no pictures of the Royal visit: [/b:ed8a906ebb]

There are also photos of the Royal visit to the Invincible after the war if you scroll to the bottom of the page. The Royals are the star here (no surprise, this is the UK), not the ship but it is clear that it is the Invincible they are on, with the bell and life ring:

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/FrameSet.aspx?s=ImagesSearchState%7c0%7c0%7c-1%7c28%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c1%7c%7c%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c1%7c%7cHMS+Invincible%7c1125084063323127%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0&p=1&tag=1

Unless of course the photos were staged and Getty Images, the Royal family and all the other officers in shot went along with the deception and joined the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of other people involved in The Biggest Conspiracy Theory In The History Of The Universe.



The above post contains reasons why things happen, clear refutation of the Argentine case and photographical evidence. The photos are not perfect but I don?t think that anything would satisfy some people on this site. Even a picture of the Invincible?s return with the captain holding up a copy of that days newspaper would not satisfy some people. But it does show that there are pictures to support the UKs account. Whereas the Argentine account ahs two men saying that something happened. And thats it.


Best regards to all.

Hutch

--


OCTUBRE

Este portaaviones...(1 de abril de 1982)

[img:ed8a906ebb]http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/3761/malvinense1qu9.th.jpg[/img:ed8a906ebb]

?Es el mismo que este?...(19 septiembre de 1982)

[img:ed8a906ebb]http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6149/malvinense2hc8.th.jpg[/img:ed8a906ebb]

Rolling Eyes

He leido en otros foros:

* declaraciones de un "testigo" espa?ol, que dicen haber visto al Invencible en Gibraltar "humeando" y "destrozado" en octubre (?) Rolling Eyes ...Entonces...?el que lleg? el 19/9/82 a UK es otro? Aparte... semejante espect?culo debe haber sido visto por miles de personas en Gibraltar, Algeciras, etc...?fotos?

*Declaraciones de Carballo que merecen el mayor de mis respetos, pero nada concreto.

* Supuestos marinos ingleses que hablan de que se encontraron la turbina, asiento eyectable y restos del piloto en la cubierta inferior del portaaviones.

* Un interesante relato, pero incomprobable, como dice el forista que lo escribi?:

[color=blue:ed8a906ebb]"...Momento emotivo de la charla fue cuando llor? recordando que su padre fue uno de los 21 muertos en al ataque de la aviaci?n argentina al Invincible en la guerra de las Malvinas..."
"...Dijo que lo que impacto fue un misil Exocet a la altura del hangar, explot? y destruy? aviones y helic?pteros (no dijo si fueron muchos o pocos ni tampoco indico cifras exactas) y que despu?s comenzaron a incendiarse el combustible de los aviones. El incendio fue muy grande y dicen que lo que salvo a la nave fue que uno de los hangares estaba abierto lo que permiti? que una parte del humo y la onda expansiva de las explosiones escaparan por ah?. La catapulta del hangar qued? destruido y tardaron 5 d?as en repararlo trabajando las 24 hs. Respecto a las bombas comenta que una cay? a popa y en el agua, la otra a proa y en el agua y la tercera impact? en el Sky Junp pero no deton? aunque lo dejo inoperante. Comento que escucharon y vieron a los A-4 pasar por arriba y describir una curva en su vuelo de escape.
El ataque ocasion? (seg?n ?l) 21 muertos y 40 heridos, muchos de ellos gravemente quemados.
Al nav?o despu?s del ataque lo remolcaron entre 3 buques y hab?a un buque taller que fue el que realiz? las reparaciones y el trabajo final se hizo cerca (pero en alta mar) de Puerto Argentino despues de finalizada la contienda pero que tambi?n insumi? mucho tiempo.
A el se le dijo que ac? se cre?a que se le atac? pero que el gobierno brit?nico negaba y que aparte no habia pruebas de eso, ?l respondio que le parecia una estupidez no informar la verdad en honor a los muertos y que ?l en su casa pose?a las fotos de la nave averiada que fueron sacadas inmediatamente despu?s del ataque por tripulantes incluso muestran cuando la reparan en alta mar..."
[/color:ed8a906ebb]

* Heridos argentinos que estuvieron en la enfermer?a del Invencible algunos d?as despu?s del 30/5/82 y no vieron ning?n da?o apreciable...

?Qu? creer? ?Qu? es lo que sabemos realmente? ?Qu? es lo que tenemos, aparte del relato de los pilotos? ?Que cosas son datos concretos y que cosas s?lo aportan m?s confusi?n?

Creo que hasta no tener nuevos datos concretos (ll?mense fotos/ documentos/ etc.), el tema es por lo menos dudoso (ojo: la versi?n arg. y brit?nica).
Mientras tanto, seguiremos buscando...

Saludos, JPL.

P.D.: La foto que postee del Invencible en Pto. Argentino [b:ed8a906ebb]no[/b:ed8a906ebb] es de apenas finalizada la guerra, sino del d?a anterior a partir de regreso a UK.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado
mensajes_anteriores



Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie May 21, 2008 12:19 am    Asunto: Responder citando

DICIEMBRE 2006


Muy buena foto.
Es dificil saber qu? es con exactitud, pero parece ser rastros de agua reflejando la luz solar. Fijarse en la ?ltima foto c?mo se acumula el agua en la cubierta del portaaviones, formando "charcos" y c?mo se refleja la luz...

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/2365/rrr6pq8.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/1563/eeefk3.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]
[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3097/eeeegu0.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/8610/carrier079hs6.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

Saludos, JPL.



--


JULIO 2007

[quote:6b2f9331ac="cas9480"] if an RFA attended Invincible I suspect that the problem was mechanical.
but given the size of these, or her turbines, I remain highly skeptical on how possible such repairs at sea would be.
[/quote:6b2f9331ac]

CAS, admitido por los propios brit?nicos, luego de la rendici?n [b:6b2f9331ac]SI se cambi? una turbina del HMS Invincible...[/b:6b2f9331ac]

[color=darkred:6b2f9331ac]Following the surrender, "Invincible's" first priority was to sail well clear to the north, escorted by frigate "Andromeda" in order to change a main engine. [/color:6b2f9331ac]

Fuente: naval-history.net

Saludos, JPL.


---


SEPTIEMBRE 2007

Raptor:

el buque se hundio o fue hundido por la Royal Navy la noche del 30 de Mayo de 1982. (...) llegar a una conclusion en base a hechos reales y comprobables, no a historietas u operaciones de prensa.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estar?a encantado de que aportes pruebas a tu teor?a, porque las pruebas de que el Invencible pudo operar su grupo a?reo durante los d?as posteriores al 30/05 y que volvi? a UK flotando y por sus propios medios ya hay y a montones. En cambio no hay una sola prueba demostrando que el portaaviones sufri? alg?n tipo de da?o y mucho menos su hundimiento.

Obviamente me gustar?a ver pruebas fehacientes, para evitar volver a dar vueltas sobre un tema que a esta altura ya cansa.

Saludos.


---

CristianG

Mr. Green Y si te cansa, no lo leas mas.

Laughing Por otro lado me estas dando la razon, tanto el Invincible como el cercano Hermes tenian sus aviones con cobertura AA (sidewinder AIM 9L)a segundos de despegue.
Los 4 A4C fueron a una mision suicida sin ninguna posibilidad de retorno, es en lo unico que estoy de acuerdo con Ureta.
Y debio haber denunciado a sus superiores por ello y no chuparles las medias con una historieta ridicula. Por solidaridad con Vazquez y Castillo.

Twisted Evil Pruebas de que hubo uno o quizas dos buques clase Invincible navegando en el Oceano Atlantico a partir del 20 de Junio las hay de sobra.

Lo que no hay es fotos ni testimonios del Invincible en Puerto Argentino, ni en ningun otro puerto alternativo hasta 3,5 meses despues de haber sido atacado el 30/5/82.

Un buque con averia funcional, con problemas operativos en la traccion, toma puerto de inmediato una vez terminado el conflicto.

Y eso es lo que falta, y eso no solo me "aburre" a mi sino que me llena las pelotas que se insulte a la inteligencia argentina y mundial con una estupida fabula de un buque perdido en un Vortice Maligno por 3,5 meses.

Idea Un dato concluyente es que cuando la OTAN pedia la posicion del R05 a la Royal Navy (el R05 portaba cargas de profundidad nucleares para guerra ASW contra los subs sovieticos del Pacto de Varsovia) en esas coordenadas nunca hbia ningun buque (esto lo ha dicho un piloto de SUE, Mayora si mal no recuerdo)

No hay ninguna evidencia de que el Invincible haya navegado desde Malvinas hacia el paralelo 23?o hacia UK, solo hay fotos de preguerra, o previas al ataque del 30/5/82 algunas con torres negras y otras con torres grises (aparentemente repintadas a gris en Ascension)
Y luego fotos del Illustrious navegando como salio del astillero y luego de ser retrofitteado a R05....camouflado de Invincible pero visiblemente un buque nuevo y no con 5 meses en el mar.

Respecto a los grupos de aeronaves del Invincible operando luego del 30/5/82, justamente lo tenes a Ward, que ataca al hercules C130, pero partiendo desde la pista auxiliar de San Carlos a principios de Junio.
Caliente como una pava hizo explotar al C130 innecesariamente cuando este estaba tratando de amarizar.
Te aclaro que donde estaba el C130 era fuera del alcance por autonomia respecto de la presunta ubicacion del Invincible.
Laughing En ese momento en el fondo del mar...

Que vuelen los aviones y helicopteros sobrevivientes de un portaaviones hundido, no indican que este este a flote.
Y mucho menos si atacan a aviones operando fuera de su alcance.
Es una falacia absoluta.
Los Harriers que estaban en estacionaria a gran altura sobre el Invincible, viendo si se podia salvar o lo mandaban a pique, operaban desde el Hermes o desde la pista de San Carlos a partir del 31/5/82.
Hubo tiempo de sobra para evacuar a la tripulacion, los heridos y todas las aeronaves operables del buque.
Actividad que tambien fue monitoreada por el CIC de la FAA en Malvinas.

Mr. Green Pero vuelvo al principio "Raptor" si el tema te aburre, no lo leas...no quieras imponer caprichitos ni informacion falsa o discutible.
Ni la propaganda de la Royal Navy o la propaganda de la FAA.

Twisted Evil Un buen investigador historico independiente, en especial de asuntos belicos, debe poner en duda todo...absolutamente todo.
Incluso las boludeces que se digan en su propio pais.
Esa es la diferencia precisa con un propagandista.

Laughing Hay tantos temas interesantes, si te aburre este...ahonda en los otros.
Hay varios que son desopilantes.

---

CAS

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7986/11invincibleillustriouspg2.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

You will perhaps note that there are three ships.....

See http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/pages/aircraft_carrier_index.htm

---

CRISTIAN G

[quote:6b2f9331ac="raptor"]Espero ansioso esas evidencias que sostienen tu teor?a. De verdad.

Espero tambi?n que no seas la misma persona que anduvo vagando por distintos foros haci?ndose pasar por varios foristas a la vez, mostrando fotos rid?culas que en nada pudieron ayudar a sostener la rid?cula historieta de la construcci?n en modo "turbo" de un portaaviones en USA.

Espero tambi?n que te ahorres de mostrarnos fotos donde te imagin?s emplazamientos Phalanx o Goalkeepers donde no los hay para tratar de justificar el delirante "reemplazo" del R05.

Espero que no seas uno de los que mont? el grupo en Yahoo que se la pas? vendiendo humo y carne podrida hasta que la mentira se supo.

Saludos.[/quote:6b2f9331ac]

Espero que no me estes amenazando, piscui.

Idea Te doy dos datos mas
Ese mismo 30/5/82 Espa?a, a la que nos tuvimos que sacar por la fuerza de America en el siglo XIX, entraba a la OTAN a hacer los palotes.
Y a convertirse en la traductora directa al castellano de toda la propaganda inglesa.

El 1/6/82 el Primer Ministro de Australia cancela la compra del Invincible...
Que cosa loca, no?
Quien va a comprar un buque hundido o un gemelo tan facil de hundir como el R05.
Tampoco la India compro ningun clase Invincible.
Demostrando que esos buques, tal como lo decian los parlamentarios laboristas en los 60 nacieron obsoletos y subdimensionados para su tarea especifica.
Que es la de escolta de flota y lucha antisubmarina, o sea uno de los primeros blancos a ofrecer en una guerra en serio.
De ese tipo de carriers se hundieron varios en la segunda guerra, y se hundian en la epoca previa a los misiles ASM y SSM.
No es un portaaviones en serio, no es un nucleo de flota.

Es un portahelicopteros ASW descartable, los Sea King son para ataque ASW, el Sea Dart SAM de mediano alcance y para AA de corto alcance estaban los Sea Herriers.
Luego de MLV le pusieron los Vulcan Phalanx y Goalkeeper, segun fuese el casco, que son ca?ones precisamente anti-misiles.

No se de que hablas de USA, en UK un clase Colossus que es mucho mas complejo que un Invincible se hacia en plena guerra en menos de dos a?os.
Que es el tiempo de construccion efectiva a doble turno de un buque modular de esas caracteristicas, y mas aun con tecnologia naviera de los 80.
Si te referis a si un cuarto casco se pudo hacer en 2 a?os en UK o en USA, te confirno que si.

Mr. Green Por ejemplo entre junio de 1982 y mayo de 1984 ... Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
Por ejemplo usando el msimo sitio que se estaba usando para la clase Ocean a principios de los 80, que curiosamente se demoro hasta 1992.
Muy bien un buque que se inicio bajo nomenclatura de Oean puede haberse reconvertido a R08 o cuarto Clase Invincible.

Twisted Evil Seguis errando el bochin, Raptor...los que tienen que demostrar por que el Invincible no toco nunca puerto en 3,5 meses son los ingleses.
Por que razon desaparecio del mapa y se fue a hacer una ridicula reapracion a mar abierto, cruzando nada menos que el Oceano Atlantico Sur en Invierno con problemas de traccion.

Laughing Laughing Laughing No te preocupes que dentro de las boludeces que se han dicho, hay un espa?ol que comento verlo entrar en octubre a Gibraltar, todavia humeando (un incendio de 5 meses Laughing Laughing Laughing )
Cuando el Invincible real o un clon habian ya regresado "oficilamente" desde un vortice maligno el 17/9/82 a UK.

Razz Te equivocas, campeon, los que estan en falta por haberse contradecido chapuceramente y haber inventado una historieta absurda son los britanicos.

Laughing Laughing Laughing El pescado podrido lo venden quienes lucran a partir de la mentira.
En todo caso una hipotesis puede ser cierta o errada, pero nadie ha cobrado nada por eso. Por el contrario hasta se ha pagado un programa de radio para difundir una alternativa posible a dos mentiras insoportables.

O acaso la hipotesis de la FAA no se contradice al 100% con la de la Royal Navy.

Creo que estas mas caliente que Ward, y que no medis tus palabras chaval.

Anda y reclamale a los ingleses, no a mi ni a andie que haga investigacion historica seria y no sea chupamedias de nadie.

Very Happy Simplemente le estamos dando una mano a Pato con este tema, ya que es un buen investigador historico independiente y punto.

Mr. Green Me suena amenazante e inquisidor tu post.
Parece surgido de la misma inquiscion espa?ola...
si si si los que se subieron a la OTAN a hacer operaciones d eprensa en castellano precisamente el 30/5/82. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Wink Mandale saludos a juan carlos borbon de mi parte, que no lo puedo llamar rey, por que en la Republica Argentina , la Constitucion prohibe explicitamente las prerrogativas de sangre, por ende la figura de rey no existe salvo en los naipes, las barajas o el ajedrez.

--


[quote:6b2f9331ac="cas9480"][img:6b2f9331ac]http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7986/11invincibleillustriouspg2.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

You will perhaps note that there are three ships.....

See http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/pages/aircraft_carrier_index.htm[/quote:6b2f9331ac]

Laughing Laughing Laughing Foto vieja de principios de los 90
En primer plano esta el Invincible (R05 o R06????) post refit con sus 3 goalkeeper.

En segundo plano esta el Illustrious (R06 o R07 ???) pre refit, o sea con la configuracion vieja de dos Vulcan Phalanx (un en popa estribor y otro en proa estribor)

En tercer plano esta el Ark Royal (R07 o R08 ???) tal como salio del astillero, con la proa reformada y la disposicion de 3 ca?ones antimisiles en este caso los yanquis Vulcan Phalanx (la disposicion es similar al primero o sea el Invincible Post Refit) uno esta en una plataforma semicircular en popa babor, otro en plataforma elevada a media eslora estribor y el tercero esta en el centro en proa (falata Leonardo Di Caprio sentado encima)

Esa foto es de 1990 Hutch !!
Laughing Laughing Laughing
Mad No insultes a la inteligencia argentina, no somos todos pelotudos o chupamedias por aqui.

Rolling Eyes Debieras ponerte a estudiar la historia de la Clase Invincible, en lugar de subestimar a los investigadores historicos serios argentinos.

Mr. Green Yo respeto mucho a los investigadores ingleses no encuentro razon para que un ingles no me respete o incluso le falte el respeto a mi inteligencia.

--

Well, here's an actual launch picture, and as you can see from the image below, her basic superstructure was painted but she wasn't fitted out, was she?

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3656/royalnavyaswmvhighres00hu1.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

We've covered this ground on many occasions, and I will not become involved again as the claims are absurd for many reasons.

My main question to ChristianG would be this: where in the world could a ship the size of Invincible be built in total secrecy with a propulsion system unique to the UK at the time with no leak of her loss ever coming to light? Rolling Eyes

I feel ChristianG's claim are a wild flight of fantasy and pure farce.


CAS

--

No me tomes por imbecil Cast
Conoizco la historia de la Clase Invincible mejor que muchos Almirantes de la Royal Navy

Las refits menores declaradas hasta esa foto fueron

Refit del Invincible ligera a partir del 18/9/82 (otra payasada) que en realidad consistio en sacar lo mas rapido posible de Portsmouth al buque nuevo que entro simulando ser el Invincible.

Al que no pudo subir ningun periodista salvo la familia real.
Y en todas las fotos externas e internas se ve un buque nuevo con un par de meses en el mar como maximo.

Finalizacion de Illustrious a partir de su regreso de Malvinas a fines de 1982, en realidad finalizacion del casco R07 que salio con lo puesto.

1985 se Comisiona el Ark Royal (R08) ese extra?o buque ue tenia 2 ca?ones en en 1982 y obra viva negra, pero se transformo en ptro buque en 1984, con obra viva clara y todas las mejoras que luego mostraria el Invincible en 1989.

1986 Primera refit importante del Inmvincible (queda identico al Ark Royal pero con Golakeepers en lugar de Phalanx)

1990 cuando sale el Invincible se sacan esa foto de los Tres carriers y en 1991 entra a su primera refit importante el Illustrious, que es el que se ve mas anticuado en el medio de la foto.

Rolling Eyes Mas datos aqui:
[url]
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/uk_light.htm#r05[/url]

CRISTIANG
--

Of Course.

El Invincible es un peque?o crucero portahelicopteros de aluminio, no es un clase Nimitiz....

Es mucho mas peque?o incluso que un crucero mediano de USA.

200 m de eslora
20.000 ton de desplazamiento
De aluminio, modular (muchas piezas son similares entre diferentes clases de buques de Aluminio de la Royal Navy)
Hueco, liviano....un peque?o buque escolta de menso de 20 aeronaves (entre Sea Kings y Sea Harriers)

Muy, muy peque?o y muy pero muy simple.

Hacer un clon en secreto salvo:
1)Al gobierno de Margaret Tatcher
2)Aseguro la reusurpacion de Malvinas (si la poblacion inglesa o britanica sabia que el Invincible habia sido hundido, quinto buque importante en 9 dias desde la Ardent, hubiese presionado para que la operacion Corporate se abortara)
3)El Honor y orgullo del pueblo britanico.
4)A la Royal Navy, fue a una guerra a 10.000 km sin buques adecuados
5)A la industria naviera britanica, que estaba en crisis en 1982. Industria que se basa economicamente en la produccion de buques de guerra para uso propio y para la exportacion.
6)La situacion dentro de la OTAN de UK hubiese sido insostenible.
7)Inclusive la posicion de la OTAN versus el Pacto de Varsovia se hubiese deteriorarado.
8)El prestigio de los fabricantes de armamentos convencionales chatarra o inutiles, tambien llamados tacticos, se hubiese deteriorado

Es muy logica la negacion del da?o de guerra, admitir el hundimiento del Invincible hubiera significado un desastre para la moral britanica, un colapso.
Es muy probable la construccion de un 4to clase Invincible, para producir un reemplazo encadenado. Con un nombre falso que luego se podria haber cambiado.
Como de hecho se cambio el nombre original del Ark Royal.

Idea Habia demasiados intereses en juego, CAS.
Es logico que los britanicos que son muy inteligentes y astutos hiciesen el reemplazo de buques.
Lo raro hubiese sido que pudiendolo hacer, no lo hubiesen intentado.

Question O acaso tu no sabias que ademas del R06 y R07, la Royal Navy estaba alistando en secreto al Bulwark, para reemplazar a su gemelo Hermes si este era hundido en Malvinas.
Y tambien para negar el da?o.

Rolling Eyes UK jamas iba a reconocer el hundimiento del Invincible o del Hermes, si habia una minima opcion de ocultarlo mediante un reemplazao.

Smile No se si esta bien o mal, pero s logico que intentaran el ocultamiento de da?o de guerra.
Ya lo habian hecho 40 a?os antes con el HMS Dasher.


--

[quote:6b2f9331ac="JPL"]ChristianG ?que opin?s de esta foto?

HMS Invincible at anchor off Port Stanley before leaving the Falkland Islands to return to the UK

http://imageshack.us][img:6b2f9331ac]http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/338/rnimage2lm4.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac][/URL]

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConMediaFile.25083#

?Y de estas?

[b:6b2f9331ac]10 fotos de la llegada "a escondidas" a UK el 17/9/82[/b:6b2f9331ac]

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5672/malvinense1xk9.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5023/malvinense2ak2.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8596/malvinense3jv6.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/4420/inv1kh8ip3.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7940/inv2av5pk4.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/8039/malvinense4np6.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6149/malvinense2hc8.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8215/malvinense5vo6.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/4209/malvinense7xk0.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

[img:6b2f9331ac]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5364/malvinense6qc3.th.jpg[/img:6b2f9331ac]

Saludos, JPL.[/quote:6b2f9331ac]

La primera es un montaje.
Se ve claramente que el agua es lo suficiente calma, como para realizar alli mismo el cambio de turbina.
Si el buque hubiese estado alli, alli se hubiese hecho la reparacion.
No te das ciuenta que es una tomadura de pelo decir que necesitaba irse al paralelo 23? para realizar la reparacion?
Tan dificil de entender, es?

El resto son fotos de una llegada que nunca fue escondida, de hecho huubo una enorme pompa.
El que regresa es un clon seminuevo.
Lo que se le esconde al periodismo no es la averia interior del buque como sostiene la FAA, lo que se esta ocultando es que es un buque totalmente nuevo.
No esta repintado como dice Aeroespacio.
Esta todo con pintura nueva, por que es un buque nuevo.

O el cascaron de un buque nuevo, repleto de aviones y helicopteros que fueron embarcados de apuro o llegaron volando... tanto los helos como los Sea Harriers son de despegue y aterrizaje vertical.

Es bastante simple todo.
Si partis de dudad de todos los testimonios, tanto britanicos como argentinos (por que ademas se contradicen completamente) es por que hay una historia oculta.
Yo presumo que la FAA y la Royal Navy acordaron una historieta que deja a ambas partes bien paradas.
La FAA llego y acerto, no malgasto dos vidas inutilmente y los ingleses pudieron hacer una reparacion magica en medio del mar.

Ninguna es la verdadera.

El buque se hundio y fue reemplazado o bien nunca fue impactado por nada.
No hay otra opcion posible,


---

Los oficiales de la FAA y el aparato de propganda de la FAA nos ha faltado el respeto a los argentinos desde el mismo inicio de la guerra.
Figuraban estupidamente mintiendo en las revistas de actualidad.
En especial los escuadrones asentados en San Julian de Dagger y A4C.
Se podria escribir un libro entero de mentiras e imbecilidades escritas por miembros u obsecuentes de la FAA. Muchas de ellas dejando pesimamente paradas a las de mas fuerzas armadas.
Quizas la mas inmunda sea escuchar a pilotos y tripulantes de hercules C130 y KC 130 decir que sobrevolaban la Base de Puerto Belgrano en 1 o 2 de Mayo y veian la flota anclada.
Podes seguir con el Pucara Torpedero, el Hercules Bombardero, los robos de blancos de Carballo, Ureta habndao del supercarrier clase Forrestal, Saratoga navegando solo (sin su grupo de apoyo) en Malvinas, Moro hablando del motor del avion de Castillo entrando por el elevador del Invincible...y es una enorme cantidad de imbecilidades y faltas de respeto, hacia todos.

El regreso del supuesto Invincible a Portsmouth el 17/9/82 nunca fue ocultado, es un chamuyo mas de estos impresentables.
El buque entro con una anorme escolta de embarcaciones civiles
Quizas un dato que debierase considerarse es la hora de arribo, alli estaba terminando el verano, para ver si es cierto que lo demoraron para que entrase al atardecer, de forma tal quue subiese la falilia real, no los periodistas y al dia siguiente ya no estuviese mas, pues se iba a una refit.

No debia amanecer un buque nuevo en Portsmouth el 18/9/82, como no debia amanecer un Invincible incendiado el 31 de Mayo de 1982.

Ureta e Isaac no solo no dicen la verad sino que mienten.
No seria extra?o que lo hiciesen por presion de sus superiores en su momento, pero a esta altura no tiene ninguna justificacion. Salvo el hecho de que quizas le produjesen un da?o innecesario a sus allegados, amigos y familiares.
Entiendo que en la FAA se sabe perfectamente que es un chamuyo inventado para la gilada.
Lo mismo que la supuesta foto del Invincible incendiado (sobre una foto del Invincible de 1980)
Se sabe perfectamente que es todo un chamuyo.

Question Lo que no se puede precisar es si pudieron ver al Invincible con humo, eso es probable, por la diferencia de tiempo que les sacao el misil en su trayectoria.

Nadie dice que la FAA y la RN hayan acordado un plan de antemano para encubrir el verdadro destino del Invincible.

Idea Pero resulta extra?o y altamente sospechoso que ambas fuerzas que sostienen historias diametralmente opuestas, nunca hayan avanzado para demostrar cual dice la verdad y cual miente.
Lo que indicaria que ambas mienten.
Y que le estan robando un blanco historico a la Armada Argentina, rival en el aire de la FAA (en especial para el impresentable se?or crespo) y basicamente rival en el mar de la Royal Navy.

Rolling Eyes No hay un acuerdo previo, pero hay un silencio confuso...que traba toda investigacion posible.
Operan de hecho como "Socios del Silencio"


[quote:6b2f9331ac="raptor"]Ovnis, Sasquatch, Nessie, gnomos, fantasmas, chupacabras, el pitufo Enrique... un portaaviones construido en tiempo record al que hubo que hacerle un "retrofit" y ocultar a miles de personas, varios escuadrones de aviones y helic?pteros transladados desde un buque hundi?ndose y milagrosamente operan un par de horas despu?s sin sufrir una sola baja. Fotos reales que son desestimadas como montajes y fotos oscuras y poco n?tidas que son tomadas como reales. Una conspiraci?n a nivel intergal?ctico incluyendo a rusos, americanos, argentinos e inglese que estuvieron all?.


Sos muy r?pido a la hora de insultar, pero muy lento a la hora de aportar un s?lo dato fehaciente.

Ovnis, Sasquatch, Nessie, gnomos, fantasmas, chupacabras, el pitufo Enrique... un portaaviones construido en tiempo record...

Saludos[/quote:6b2f9331ac]

El que insulta y no aporta absolutamente mas que chamuyo de la OTAN sos vos. Mas precisamente chamuyo traducido al espa?ol en espa?a.

Tenes decenas de datos relacionados entre si que cierran mucho mejor la hipotesis de recambio, que la de los A4C Stealth de la FAA o bien la de la reparacion milagrosa seguida de la desasparicion por 3, 5 meses en un vortice maligno del HMS Invincible, sostenida por los ingleses
Cuya tripulacion tolero casi 6 meses de navegacion ininterrumpida, 3 de los cuales fueron en posguerra, en un buque que iba y venia pero nunca aparecia.

Lo que es cuestion del chotacabras es que coexistan dos versiones totalmente opuestas.
La de la FAA y la de la Royal Navy, y que ninguno se ataque a fondo para demostrar que el otro miente.

Question Sera acaso por que ambas partes mienten?

Conspiracion?
Y ...a mi me parece que amas de 25 a?os de los hechos, al menos una de las partes esta tomando de pelotudos a todos los demas habitantes del planeta.
Yo creo que las payasadas y los cuentos de chupacabras, Ovnis, Osnis y demas viene de forma pareja.

Que dato fehaciente queres que te traigamos?
Una foto infrarroja panoramica del Invincible hundiendose durante la noche?
A Woodward reconociendo que perdio el Invincible?
Si lees los documentos y escritos de Woodward en los dias posteriores al ataque del 30/5/82 leeras que preventivamente no nombra al Invincible ni entre los 3 buques anos ni entre el resto averiado. Lo omite.
O queres a algun tripulante del Invincible contando que garompa hicieron navegando 3 meses de posguerra sin nunca tomar puerto...te aclaro que en UK ese tipo de secretos de estado son obligatorios de mantener. En especial para marinos profesionales.
Pero cualquier ciudadano y sus familiares pueden pasar a ser blanco.
queres que aparezca alguna pagina de honoro o pagina oficial del HMS Invincible...curiosamente no hay ninguna.
Salvo la que intenta subir a veces el enfermero transexual extorsivo, cuyo titulo suele ser HMS-Invincible82. Y dura lo que un pedo en una canasta.
Hasta el imbecil Nigel Ward en su libro, trata de confundir a la gente mostrando una foto de la salida de la flota con el Invincible, el Hermes y varios buques de la RFA, pero diciendo que es una foto de la llegada.

Hay decenas de evidencias.

El que no aporta nada sos vos.
Que ademas decis que te aburris, pero no podes abstenerte de participar en forma ademas inquisidora y torpe. Muy lejos de la investigacion historica.
Pareces un repetidor de discurso de Servicio de Inteligencia Espa?ol, al servicio de los intereses de la OTAN.

Yo no tomo, te aclaro, ninguna foto como cierta.
Ni las britanicas ni las argentinas.
Son todas llamativamente escasas y "raras".

Me limito a elaborar una hipotesis a partir de hechos ciertos interrealcionados entre si, y de contradicciones e inexactitudes, surgidas en especial del lado britanico.
Las payasadas escritas del lado argentino, creo que han sido puestas en evidencia en su mayoria (aunque de la FAA, una verdadera caja de Pandora del chamuyo, se puede esperar cualquier cosa)

Lo nuestro es una hipotesis, basada en investigacion historica seria acerca de un hecho sobre el cual hay dos versiones totalmente contradictorias.

Y como buena investigacion historica seria e independiente, parte de negar todo lo que no esta probado.

La primera victima de una guerra es la verdad.
Ambos lados siempre mienten, pasa en todas las guerras.



Hutch
UK y USA, pueden construir facilmente un portahelicopteros liviano de la Clase Invincible en menos de 2 a?os.

Por ejemplo si se usan las instalaciones destinadas a la demorada clase Ocean en UK.

Son dos industrias navales de guerra muy poderosas y versatiles.

Era mucho mas complejo construir un clase Colossus de hierro en dos a?os en la segunda guerra mundial, en menos de dos a?os que un clase Invincible de Aluminio en los 80.

Como casco es mas complejo un Colossus (de similar tonelaje que uun Invincible) o tambien un Centaur que como casco es muy similar a un Colossus solo que posee blindaje-

Lo complejo de un Invincible es su parte electronica, que es modular y se fabrica o se prearma fuera del astillero.
Y luego se ensambla en partes como piezas aisladas de un juguete Lego.

Son escoltas de flota, de aluminio, livianos y rapidos.
Su aptitud es la caza de submarinos sovieticos con los helicopteros Sea King.
Y proteger al nucleo de una flota d ela OTAN precisamente del ataque de submarinos.
Los Sea Harriers estan para proteger a los helicopteros y para proteger al buque del ataque de otros aviones.
Buques descartables, el primer blanco a ofrecer.
Junto con los clase 42 que oficiaban de piquetes de alerta de radar, que luego pasaron a operar junto con las fragatas clase 22 para combinar el efecto de l tipo d emisiles AA.
Y de poco les sirvio pues un solo obsoleto A4C hundio al Coventry en menos de 20 minutos, con solamente dos bombas de 500 libras que acertaron, el 25/5/82.

El Ark Royal que aparece en 1984 es totalmente diferente al Ark Royal casi terminado que se observa en el Rio Tyne en 1982.
Todo indica que se trata de buques diferentes, salvo que vos me puedas contar que realizaron una compleja refit (que en el supuesto Invincible llevo 3 a?os) en en periodo de menos de dos a?os a un buque que aun no habia sido puesto en servicios.

Smile Un record absoluto, un buque que entra en refit, antes aun de haber sido botado.
O sea el supuesto R07, que se transforma milagrosamente en otro buque diferente.
El R07 original es e que entra en refit precisamente en 1991, como Illustrious, es un Invincible largo de 210 metros de eslora, similar en esas dimensiones al R08.
Mientras que el R05 y R06 son gemelos cortos, o sea de 194 metros de eslora.

Las industrias navieras de UK y USA pueden hacer un Invincible nuevo en menod de dos a?os.
Lo que no pueden hacer es reparar al R05 en medio del mar.
Ni tampoco hacer una refit previa a a botadura del R07, es totalmente absurdo e irracional.

Rolling Eyes Yo no afirmo nada al 100% de seguridad, es posible pero no probable que al Invincible nada le haya impactado el 30/5/82.
Pero toda la evidencia, salvo los relatos falseados de Ureta e Isaac, indican averia por Exocet AM 39, incendio, hundimiento, negacion del da?o de guerra y reemplazo por un gemelo.

Wink Lo mismo que hubiesen hecho si podian, en el caso de perder el Hermes....reemplazarlo por el Bulwark, buque que pese a haber sido desafectado un a?o antes, estaban rearmando en secreto (reconocido por fuentes britanicas)
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 27 Sep 2007 10:48 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Cristian G

It is not really insulting to compare the Invincible sinking theory to other fairy tales and fantasy stories.

You seem to believe that Invincible disappeared into this ?vortex? which is absurd. She did not disappear, she was on station doing her job. Her position would not be widely reported.

I believe Invincible?s deployment was one of the longest continual deployments, but then this was a war.

?What is question of chotacabras is that two totally opposite versions coexist. The one of the FAA and the one of the Royal Navy, and that no is attacked thorough to demonstrate that the other mind.?

This is not unusual. The Argentina version is not backed up by facts it is based almost entirely just on what 2 people said.

?Conspiracy??

The claim that the Invincible was sunk is a conspiracy theory. It relies on thousands of people all around the world being silenced 100% effectively for over 25 years. It is simply not credible.

?A panoramic infrared photo of the Invincible sinking during the night??

Does any such photo exist? Remember that, mysteriously, there is no gun camera footage of this supposed attack.

?If you read documents and written of Woodward in the later days to the attack of the 30/5/82 leeras that preventively names to the Invincible neither between the 3 ships anuses nor between the damaged rest. It omits it. ?

That does not mean that the ship was sunk though. Wear and tear on a ship in wartime is very common.

?Or queres to some crew member of the Invincible telling that garompa did sailing 3 months of postwar period without never taking port??

This is not strange.

?I clarify to you that in UK that type of state secrets is obligatory to maintain. In special for professional sailors.?

It would not just be sailors who would know though. Politicians, dockyard workers, civilians, civil servants, manufacturers and more would have known about it. Secrets from the war have been revealed before but there is not one whisper that this theory is true.

?queres that appears some page of honoro or official page of the HMS Invincible? peculiarly is no.?

So what? Many ships from the RN have no official page and Invincible has retired from active service.

?Except for that tries to raise sometimes the nurse extorsivo transsexual??

No where does this person say that Invincible was sunk.

?There are tens of evidences.?

Wrong. there is a lot of guesswork and assumption which all is based on the Exocet hitting the Invincible.

?I limit myself to elaborate a hypothesis from certain facts interrealcionados to each other??

No you do not. You assume that the Exocet hit and that the ship was sunk (or was badly damaged) then try to justify that.




?UK and the USA, can easily construct a light aircraft carrier of the Invincible Class in less than 2 years.?

What is your evidence for this? Has it ever been done? Or are you just guessing again?

?For example if the facilities destined to the delayed Ocean class in UK are used.?

Again a total guess from you not based on fact but ill informed guesswork.

HMS Ocean:

The RN pioneered the Commando carrier concept in the early 1960s by converting the light carriers Albion and Bulwark to embark a Royal Marine Commando, its equipment, stores, plus supporting helicopters and landing craft. It later modified the carrier HMS Hermes to operate in the Commando role alongside its primary duties as an anti-submarine warfare carrier. Bulwark was paid off for scrap in 1981; Hermes retired in 1984 for subsequent sale to India.

Recognising the capability gap, and having committed to the long-term retention of an amphibious capability, the UK government announced plans in 1986 to procure two new Aviation Support Ships (ASS). A Staff Requirement was endorsed that year: each ASS was to accommodate 800 Royal Marines (plus their weapons, vehicles and stores), and to embark and support a squadron of 12 medium-lift helicopters (operating from a six-spot flight deck) by which to deliver an initial airborne assault and secure a safe beachhead.
Tenders for a 'whole ship procurement' were invited in October 1988, with three consortia submitting bids received in July 1989. However, the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) budgetary provision of ?105 million per ship proved totally unrealistic, forcing the ASS procurement to be shelved.

The end of the Cold War, and the attendant 'Options for Change' defence review completed in 1990, saw the ASS programme resurrected (albeit for just one ship). Approval to re-open the competition for what was now cast as an LPH came in November 1991, the MoD having re-visited the original requirement and identified areas where the procurement specification could be relaxed to meet a budget cap in the region of ?170 million.

An invitation to tender was issued in February 1992. Bids were received from Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited (VSEL) and Swan Hunter Shipbuilders that October, with the intention to place a contract by the end of November 1993. However, as 1992 drew to a close, a budget-driven planning blight within the MoD cast a dark cloud over the future of the programme.

It was thus a fortunate coincidence that in early 1993 the RN was forced to press the air training ship RFA Argus into service as a makeshift LPH during operations off the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. The accommodation and facilities on board proved totally unsuitable for the demands of a large embarked military force, reaffirming the need for a purpose-built asset.

Ministers subsequently reaffirmed the place of the LPH in the equipment programme, and the procurement process was 'reactivated' in March 1993. Given concerns over Swan Hunter's financial position, the MoD decided to accelerate the procurement process in order to ensure competition and give Swan Hunter management an opportunity to secure the future of the yard.

Initial tenders from the two bidders were close in price, but were both assessed to be non-compliant in some significant areas. In addition, Swan Hunter's overhead provision was assessed to be unrealistic. Following a short period of clarification talks, best and final offers were requested on 26 March 1993 against the procurement specification (revised to take account of the clarification process).

When the new bids were submitted on 22 April it was immediately evident that a significant price differential had emerged, with VSEL lowering its price to ?139.5 million (in effect opting to support the bid from its reserves); Swan Hunter's offer had increased to over ?210 million. The recommendation to the MoD's Equipment Approvals Committee to award the contract to VSEL was endorsed on 30 April. Following the inclusion of certain costed options, a ?143.9 million fixed-price contract to build the LPH, given the name HMS Ocean, was awarded to VSEL on 11 May 1993. Two days later Swan Hunter was forced into receivership. (VSEL itself was purchased by GEC in 1995; it now constitutes the Barrow operation of Marconi Marine [part of Marconi Electronic Systems, which itself has been sold by GEC to British Aerospace, now called BAE Systems!])
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ocean.htm

So you see how complex and difficult it is to get a ship built and that the supposed delay is not suspicious.

?They are two very powerful and versatile naval industries military.?

Powerful enough to complete a modern capital ship in record time, with no one noticing, at some secret location with no costs being discovered and no one out of the thousands of people involved telling anyone for over 25 years, and no foreign spy agency finding this out? Fantasy, Childish fantasy.

?He was much more complex to construct iron a Colossus class in two years in World War II, less than two years than a class Invincible de Aluminio in the 80.?

What are you basing this on? You clearly know nothing about ship construction or advances in modern technology that happened between the construction of these ships.

?Disposable ships, the first target to offer.?

They were not ?disposable?. They were the core of the RN fleet and without them the UK would not have had an effective fleet. You do not make expensive disposable ships the most vital ones in your fleet.

HMS Ark only was only commissioned in 1985. She was not ?almost finished? in 1982 as she had only been launched in 1981, she was just floating. So there is no surprise that she looked different as she had not been completed.

Yes, complex refits are more than possible ? especially after the lessons of the FI war, especially when the ship is not finished.

?The original R07 is and that enters refit in 1991 indeed, like Illustrious, it is a long Invincible of 210 meters of length, similar in those dimensions to the R08.
Whereas the R05 and R06 are twin short, that is of 194 meters of length.?

Where did you get this information from?

Invincible R05: 194m - 209m. (Invincible had her flight deck extended during a refit)
Illustrious R06: 194m ? 209m (Also had a flight deck extension)
Ark Royal R07: 210m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_class_aircraft_carrier

If the UK can magically create brand new carriers in record time and maintain a silence across the globe of thousands of people permanently do you not think that such an easy mistake would have been avoided? Why have no journalists or foreign spy agencies deiscovered this?

?The shipbuildings of UK and the USA can make a new Invincible in menod of two years.?

Where is your proof of this?

?I do not affirm anything to the 100% of security, is possible but nonprobable that to the Invincible nothing has hit him the 30/5/82.?

This is just a hope based on what 2 people say happened. And neither of them saw an Exocet hit the Invincible.

?But all the evidence, except for the falseados stories of Ureta and Isaac, indicates failure by Exocet A.M. 39, fire, collapse, negation of the damage military and replacement by a binocular.?

No it does not. There is no evidence that the Exocet hit the Invincible. There is no evidence that there was a fire. There is no evidence that the ship sunk. There is no evidence that she was replaced.

?Just like they had done if they podian, in the case of losing Hermes?.to replace it by the Bulwark, ship that in spite of to have been desafectado a year before, was rearming privily (recognized by British sources)?

Bulwark was being prepared to act as an emergency carrier if totally necessary and this is not a secret. It would only have been used if absolutely necessary as she was in a bad state. Bulwark would not have pretended to be Hermes but would have been a replacement if one of the other carriers had gone down.


The Exocet launch: Franciso and Collavino did not know what ship they were shooting at. They saw two contacts on their radar and fired at the larger one from beyond visual range and then turned away and left before getting any visual confirmation. They believed it would be the Invincible but had no actual proof it was.

Their radar picked up two contacts. The Avenger and Auxiliares were in front of the Invincible so would have been these two contacts. The Exocet planes had no visual confirmation but fired at the ?larger? contact. They turned for home without making any visual contact. The Argentines said there were no other ships in the area despite the fact that there was. The only two eyewitnesses to this ?attack? say they saw smoke which is what HMS Avenger was producing as a screen.

The bombing run: The only witnesses for Argentina who say they saw the Invincible were travelling at 900km/h, in a combat situation, only a few meters above the sea, had salt spray all over their canopys, saw two comrades shot down and saw a ship from behind with smoke at a distance of about 13km. It is an established fact that HMS Avenger was setting off smoke to shield the carrier and was in front of the carrier. They make no mention of this ship that they would have flown over, past or by. Why? Any intelligent person can see that in these conditions it is very likely that the pilots were mistaken. There are to many holes in the pilots stories and two many opportunities for them to be wrong.

The conspiracy: To say that the Invincible was sunk the perfect conspiracy of silence has entered a new phase and needs thousands of new people to be involved. All the crew of the Invincible. All the crew of the Illustrious. The crew of any ship that helped rescue the survivors of the sinking. A dockyard and all the workers there. Manufacturers of the specialist equipment needed for an aircraft carrier, which isn?t just lieing around ready to be used. Civil servants. Politicians. The family?s of all those involved, including those who died when the Invincible sunk (after an Exocet and three bombs and sinking there would have been deaths). Foreign governments and their spy agency?s which have also never revealed evidence that this happened. The local people who live near to the dockyard where the replacement was built. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who would know. And not a single one of them ever has come forward to support this theory. Over 10,000 people would have to be silenced 100% effectively for over twenty years with zero leaks. All of this with no one noticing.

Not one bitter, poor, depressed, ex serviceman who knows ?the truth? has ever come forward, even on the internet, to support the sinking or hitting claim.

No foreign spy agency has ever uncovered any evidence of the attack. There is no physical evidence of the attack. There are no photos of the attack or of any damage to the Invincible. There are pictures of the Invincible returning to port after the war and of the royal visit to it taken by an independent third party.

The Invincible?s unique feature: Invincible's Gas Turbine COGAG plant layout is particular to her alone; one of the things that was changed in her sister ships was a better machinery layout, access routes and space for essential maintenance. To work in certain areas of Invincible's engine rooms you have to be triple jointed, very small or rake thin. This wasn't a feature the Navy wanted to advertise at the time, but does explain one of the reasons her sisters are longer.

Also, these turbines (and every other mechanical component on the ship) are serial stamped so that the correct spares can be obtained for planned and routine maintenance. In the case of Rolls Royce in particular, the ships mechanical schematics refer to these components by name, serial number and date. This is to ensure that replacements are of the correct type and generation. In addition, the Engineers keep a log book that tracks when components have been replaced and how long they have been in service.

As these schematics, schedules and logs are particular to each ship, and in some cases predate the actual commissioning date, they form very definite, traceable historical proof that Invincible today is the ship that was commissioned in 1980.

Why did the Invincible not look as battered as HMS Hermes: Hermes was hurriedly recommissioned for the Falklands, and was given a very quick coat of paint. She was laid down in WW2, and not completed until much later, and her original hull was not protected very well. Rust had really got a hold of her. On the other hand, Invincible had the benefit of epoxy resin and chlorinated rubber based industrial paint systems developed for the North Sea Oil Industry and they work well.

Building a replacement: How many of you have served in your Navy or Merchant Marine? Ask one of your own Marine Engineers how possible what you?re suggesting is. Any UK shipyard is highly visible from neighboring houses, roads and the like, and the chances of building an aircraft carrier (or any other ship over 3500t) in secret are nil. I don't know how many international yards could build a carrier, but as mentioned earlier the COGAG plant would give them all extreme difficulties, and the chances of keeping it quiet are non-existent.
It took 7 years to make Invincible, 5 years to make Illustrious (a hurried job at the end and she was completed en route to the Falklands) and 7 years to make Ark Royal. And yet you say that such a ship could be built in 3 years? If so, why were the others not built in 3 years?

Sailors could be moved around different ships to cover up deaths: Sailors cannot just be transferred between ships if their ship is hit and suck. Their family knows which ship they are on and their uniform says the ship name so if a sailor on Invincible was killed and his family were told he died on the Coventry they would know that there was something wrong. Also, sailors who had served on the ship which was hit/sunk would know that a casualty listed on their ship was not on board. And yet NO ONE has ever come forward to claim this.

Ark Royal was made to look like Invincible or Illustrious in a cover up: Ark Royal was completed with a 12 degree ski ramp (evidenced by many shipyard and launch videos and photos). Invincible and Illustrious were both originally fitted with 7 degree ski ramps. Illustrious was hastily fitted with phalanx in the shipyard prior to entering service. She did not sail without it. Invincible didn?t have phalanx fitted until her first minor refit. Illustrious sailed for the Falklands on 1st August 1982. Illustrious relieved Invincible on 27th August 1982. Invincible returned to Portsmouth and went for her phalanx refit, completed in Feb 1983. Illustrious was on station until November 1982.

The Ark Royal was not complete in 1982. She was a floating shell, ready for the rest of her equipment to be put in after launch in June 1981 - she wouldn?t be sea ready until 1985. She would have lacked many vital internal components to pull of such a deception and she had a 12 degree ski ramp, not 7 degree as Invincible had. And if the Invincible was damaged and had to be ?replaced? by an incomplete sister ship for her return, where did the Invincible go while it was repaired? And when did they put the Ark Royal back? And why did NO ONE notice any of this?
Why did the Invincible not return as soon as the war ended? The ship stayed on station to provide a secure airbase, a command and control point and to make sure that there wasn?t a counter coup in Argentina which would lead another stupid invasion. Just because the war was over didn?t mean the UK would evacuate all military forces from the area. The Invincible stayed to provide support and then was relieved by the Illustrious. Suspicious? No ? apart from to someone with no knowledge of military issues and who has a suspicious mind. Common sense and obvious? Yes.

There was still the possibility of a threat from Argentina. The fear was that a non governmental group of Argentine adventurers could land on the FI to ?claim? them like Miguel Fitzgerald in 1964 or the 20 Argentine terrorists who landed and took civilians hostage in 1966. Why take risks with millions of pounds worth of equipment? Argentina has been inherently unstable for much of the 20th Century (previously having been in the top 10 of rich nations) and this conflict had come as a surprise, so it was better to be safe rather than sorry. These kind of precautions and operational procedure are what help the British to not lose wars and keep wartime losses down to a minimum as much as possible.

Why give different accounts of an attack? Argentina had no satellite imagery, no spies and no intelligence network. It had no way of verifying the effectiveness of its attacks. It relied on the media and British confirmation of attacks to know what had happened most of the time. By spreading false rumours, the British answered the Argentine claims about attacking the Invincible and made it difficult for Argentina to know just what had happened. This is all standard practice for any nation that knows how to fight a war. Argentina did not know how to fight a war.

Why did the Harriers go to a higher altitude as detected by Argentine radar? The Harriers were 8000 miles from their operational area and all supplies had to be brought thousands of miles into a combat zone ? look at what had happened to Atlantic Conveyor. Saving fuel when possible would therefore be of clear advantage. Also, just because they went higher does not mean that the purpose of it was to save fuel. They could have been getting a broader field of vision to watch for Argentine attacks
Why not transfer all the Harriers to Stanley or another land based airfield as soon as possible: If the air force had been based at Stanley then 1) Argentine would have known where it was and could have attacked and wiped out the air arm. 2) It would have been denied the specialist engineering and mechanical facilites of the carriers ? why have specialist workshops and personnel available and not use them 3) It would not have been able to move in secret as its starting and end point of each mission would have been known. 4) The planes would have either been out in the open or in temporary shelters which would not provide good insulation from the weather. 5) The pilots and ground crew would have had to be billeted in Stanley which would have put specialist personnel at risk, separated them from their planes and meant that accommodation would have had to be found in a crowded area. 6) All the fuel and weapons for the planes would also have to be transferred to land, making them exposed to attack and harder to load with the specialised equipment on board the ship. 7)Why would you separate the planes from the very vehicle designed to transport, maintain and protect them? No sane or competent commander would.

If you want an example of why the UK did this, look at Pebble Island. Argentina placed a large air group there and lost six Pucaras, four T-34C and one Coast Guard Skyvan as well as radar, fuel and ammunition dumps in a UK raid. The airbase there was neutralised and 16 days later closed and the pilots evacuated back to Argentina. The British were not going to risk Argentina pulling off a similar attack on its very limited aircraft.

Avenger could not shoot down an Exocet with its cannon: Yes it could, it may be unlikley but its not impossible.

Why no or very limited air activity in early June? There was bad weather on 2, 3, 4, 6 June which offered natural protection to the fleet and made take off and landing from carriers very dangerous. Remember that the fleet was 8000 miles from home, spare parts and replacement planes. With the loss of Atlantic Conveyor the UK had a very limited number of planes in the area and so could not risk them being lost. Enough were being lost to enemy action and accidents already and flying in bad weather when there was no critical reason to do so ? especially when the land war was going well. The bad weather can be checked with the FAA on their official site.

Up to the 30th of May Argentina had been launching air attacks on the British almost constantly, suffering almost daily losses and causing damage to the British. Yet between 1 and 8 June only 2 Argentine aircraft were shot down ? a Lear acting as a spy plane and a supply/bombing Canberra - so the Argentine forces were not flying combat missions either. As soon as the weather cleared, both sides put their combat aircraft back in action.

This information can be checked on the FAA (Argentine airforce) website.
Why does no one know where the Invincible was at certain times: Just because the junta and you now don?t know where the Invincible was from the end of May to end of July does not mean no one does or that it was sunk. Remember that the Invincible was also known as the Invisible because Argentina could not pinpoint her location.

What about the different funnel paint jobs: Standard practice in war to help camouflage a ship.

What about the other carrier that sank in secret in 1943, HMS Dasher: ?The sinking OF the converted carrier HMS Dasher is not a mystery or secret. HOW she sank is, or at least was for many years. No one went around saying that Dasher was still afloat after 1943. People weren?t going around in 1955 saying that they had just served on HMS Dasher, she was fine, had never sunk, was active in 1944, etc. Rather that she was lost and it wasn?t clear what the cause of the loss was ? friendly fire, mine, sabotage, negligence, etc. Mystery surrounds the sinking, not the fact of the sinking.

Neither was the sinking totally covered up for many years in the manner that the HMS Invincible sinking fantasy demands. Even at the time and despite an official news blackout, relatives of the dead protested and some had bodies returned for burial. People knew their relatives had died but they didn?t necessarily know how or have a body to bury.

The secrecy was imposed not to totally cover up the loss of a carrier ? even in WW2 this would have been impossible ? but because it was one of the greatest naval disasters in British waters not at the hands of the enemy. The loss of the ship was officially announced in 1945 in The Times. Hardly what you would do if you wanted to cover up the loss is it?
There is a massive difference in covering up the exact details of a ships loss for morale reasons and covering up the actual loss of a major naval asset.

As a matter of interest it is thought that aside from the embarrassment and/or danger of having a carrier lost in home waters that one of the bodies was used in Operation Mincemeat, an espionage assignment to confuse the Germans in WW2.?

Why did Australia cancel the deal to buy a carrier from the UK: The contract to sell the carrier was cancelled by Australia as an act of friendship because it was obvious that the UK needed to maintain a carrier force to be able to fight effectively. Previous to the Argentine invasion, the Royal Navy had been cut down in size as it was assumed that the USSR was the only enemy that would be fought and that the fighting would take place in the North Sea. The 1982 war showed this to be false and that the UK ? a vital pillar of NATO and Western defence ? needed a full carrier force and the ability to fight expeditionary warfare.
Why are there no pictures of Invincible after the war: Eyewitness account of HMS Invincible on 8th July having surviving the war fine, which features photographs of her after the 'attack'.

http://twogreens.co.uk/navy/FALKLANDS/falklands.html#JULY

What does invincible look in such good condition on that homecoming photograph of her when other ships look rusty, especially the Hermes: When it comes to pointing out the difference between the state of the Invincible and the Hermes, if we ignore the fact that they were different types of ships, built decades apart out of very different materials, you can compare the Invincible with some contemporary ships as they returned from the war:

http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~cyberheritage/
as you can see, they did not all look rust streaked and battered, and those areas that were affected by rust were predominantly around the anchor areas. An area it is impossible to see on the photograph of the Invincible (NOT Illustrious) returning to port in 1982. Their hulls are generally of a very good condition, nothing like the Hermes because they ? and the Invincible ? were not made of the same materials as the Hermes.

That homecoming shot of Invincible is also taken from a considerable height, a good distance away and is not of great resolution so it cannot be compared with the close up, good resolution shots of the Hermes.
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 27 Sep 2007 12:11 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Question Cual es la razon para que el HMS Invincible estuviese navegando por 5,5 meses, sin tomar nunca amarras en ningun puerto?

Precisamente un buque con reclamo de averia que desaparece del planeta en la posguerra, con una tripulacion fantasma de + de 1000 personas divagando por el planeta por 3 meses.

Si fue hacia el paralelo 23? a reparar una turbina, lo que es un insulto a la inteligencia de la humanidad...
por que razon no siguio viaje a UK?
Y si iba a volver a Malvinas, por que razon no hizo la reparacion en Malvinas?

Que estupida funcion cumplia el Invincible o el Illustrious en Malvinas en la Postguerra?
Si tenian el aeropuerto de Puerto Argentino operable.

Los argentinos operaron con Hercules C130 hasta el fin de la guerra.
Por que no siguieron operando con los VSTOL Sea Harriers y Harriers desde Puerto Argentino, de la misma forma en que lo hacian desde la pista de aluminio de San Carlos durante la guerra?

Cual era el peligro?
Una supuesta rebeldia en la Armada Argentina, que mandase a combatir a sus dos submarinos gasoleros 209 Salta y San Luis?
Submarinos que debian salir a la superficie a hacer snorkel periodicamente, con un radio operativo muy limitado.
Un blanco muy sencillo para los Sea Kings apostados en Puerto Argentino o en cualquier sitio de las Islas Malvinas

A atacar que cosa, iban a ir los dos submarinos argentinos, con sus torpedos SST 4 deficientes?

Que sentido tiene toda esa payasesca farsa, de mandar al Illustrious casi sin armamento, o a medio terminar a Malvinas?

Una simple operacion de inteligencia britanica para encubrir un hundimiento y mover a los Clase Invincible sin ninguna razon por el Oceano Atlantico.

Luego del 14 de Junio de 1982, UK tenia el mejor portaaviones posible, las Islas Malvinas.
Alli podian colocar uno o mas reabastecedores en vuelo del tipo KC 130 y mantener en el aire, si es que ese era el miedo, la cantidad deseada de Sea Harriers, Sea Kings, Phantoms o cualquier otro avion o aeronave.

No habia ningun riesgo de ataque submarino argentino, no habia exocets, la FAA y la Aviacion naval estaban reducidas a obsoletos Avinones de tipo A4. Que se derribaban como moscas con los Sidewinder AIM 9L
Solo contabamos con dos KC 130, para reabastecerlos, los que tambien eran blancos faciles, para los britanicos apostados en tierra.

Ademas se habia firmado el cese del fuego, no habia ni medios, ni razones ni contexto politico, para realizar un ataque en rebeldia a las fuerzas britanicas en Malvinas.

Que sentido tenia mantener a 1000 personas a bordo del Invincible por 3 meses. Torturar a su tripulacion, familiares y amigos?

Que sentido tuvo mandar al Illustrious a Malvinas?
Que sentido tenia poner portaaviones livianos, escoltas de flota cuya aptitud es la lucha antisubmarina, en Malvinas y luego de la guerra.

A que flota debian defender?
De que submarinos debian defenderla?

Absolutamente ridicula, un montaje teatral para confundir a la opinion publica.

Nadie tiene el 100% de la seguridad acerca de la veracidad de las hiptesis que pugnan por la verdad.

Pero tu debes reconocer Hutch, que la posicion britanica en este tema es muy debil.
No tiene racionalidad.
Parte de chismerio y desinformacion.

La fantasia insultante ...es el buque que navega como fantasma 3 meses esperando la llegada de su gemelo inutil, a cumplir ninguna funcion en Malvinas

Mr. Green Y lo mas importante Hutch, la hipotesis del hundimiento del Invincible y su recambio por gemelos, excede a su autor y coautores argentinos.

Tiene vida propia.
Va a seguir sola, independientemente de nuestra voluntad.

Y es mucho mas aceptada por los ciudadanos britanicos inteligentes y expertos en guerras, y aun mas expertos en guerras navales, que entre los ciudadanos argentinos que poco saben de guerras, y que recien estan despertando del cloroformo que significo la FAA contando e inventando estupideces por mas de 25 a?os.

Very Happy En 1982 nadie pensaba en Internet, de hecho no existia ni siquiera como proyecto.
Hoy existe, las dudas y la busqueda de la verdad van mucho mas rapido que una operacion de prensa o de inteligencia, montada en medios tradicionales.
Casi tan rapido como el incendio de un portaaviones repleto de combustibles y municiones altamente inflamables.

Cool La hipotesis del hundimiento y recambio explica mejor que ninguna otra, decenas de hechos incoherentes y contradictorios, que aislados confunden.
Pero que en ese contexto hipotetico cierran y se relacionan de una forma racional y coherente.
Una pantalla de inteligencia y desinformacion britanica. Muy audaz. Demasiado para mi gusto.

Rolling Eyes Tatcher tenia que sostener su gobierno impopular, re-usurpar Malvinas le sirvio, UK debia mantener su flota de superficie de la RN y mantener activos los astilleros navales de guerra...toda una industria dependia del resultado de la Operacion Corporate.
La OTAN tambien estaba comprometida, como lo estaban lso fabricantes de armamento chatarra obsoleto del Hemisferio Norte.

Es logico, algun Invincible debia volver a casa (fuese el R05, R06 o R07)
Y algun Centaur tambien debia hacerlo (el Herrmes o el Bulwark)

Very Happy Tu sabes Hutch, no se puede tapar la luz del sol con las manos.
Los ciudadanos britanicos
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado
mensajes_anteriores



Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie May 21, 2008 12:20 am    Asunto: Responder citando

CAS

Well, I don't see how the fact that this yard didn't build anything for the military between 1980 and 1980 proves anything.

What the site does indicate is that this yard makes extensive use of steam turbines in a COSAS like system rather than the RN preferred COGAG/COGOG system. Fundamental difference of concept, design and gearbox.

Also, the ship's average construction time seems to be around 3 or 4 years from start to finish.

Finally, the ship yard itself isn't particulary well hidden:

[img:064db534ce]http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/9820/airge8.th.jpg[/img:064db534ce]


---------


[quote:064db534ce="Mortimer"]Critian quisiera aportar algo sobre lo que dijo el periodista brit?nico John Witherow, coment?, que hasta el d?a 30 de mayo, (fecha en que fue atacado el portaaviones brit?nico Invincible), transmit?an la informaci?n obtenida en tierra firme a Londres mediante la estaci?n de comunicaciones satelitarias a bordo del ?Invincible?. A partir de esa fecha, ya no lo pudieron hacer m?s.

?Ser?a otra extra?a coincidencia? Muy extra?a como dicen algunos militares que investigaron el caso, ciertamente, [color=blue:064db534ce]ya que simult?neamente ese mismo d?a se observ? que las interferencias electr?nicas del enemigo cesaron[/color:064db534ce]. Pues el ataque hab?a afectado la estaci?n de comunicaciones del portaaviones, y reci?n se reasumieron cuando se llevaron a San Carlos otros equipos para continuar con esta tarea, poco antes de la finalizaci?n del conflicto.[/quote:064db534ce]

Very Happy Son decenas de hechos que cieran y dan como valida la hipotesis del hundimiento y recambio.
Yo se los dije a los ingleses en un debate mitico en Abovetopsecrets (un foro britanico)
Si esto se resolviese por la via judicial en una corte imparcial, mi hipotesis le ganaria a cualquier fabula inglesa o cualquier payasada de la FAA.

Fijate que la reaccion del ciudadano tipico britanico, que no es otra que un sumiso subdito de un rey o una reina, es argumentar la imposiblidad de hacer esa cascara de nuez de aluminio en secreto o bajo otra nomenclatura o matricula.
Como si cada operario de Vickers, Swan Hunter y demas estuviese perfectamente al tanto de la historia naval del casco en el que esta trabajando.
Si por ejemplo esta en una refit de un casco o esta terminando otro.
Son operarios no agentes secretos.
Los astilleros dond ese construyen armas navales por lo comun son zonas restringidas o incluso zonas militares.
La informacion que sale de ellos es perfectamente seleccionada o peinada por sus propios organismos de prensa e inteligencia militar.

Los ingleses no ponen en duda que el Invincible haya sido averiado o que su tripulacion este juramentada de silencio, bajo amenaza de traicion a la patria.

Sino se escabullen con la idea de que un Invincible es un Nimitz, cuando al verlos uno la lado del otro en fotos muy conocidas un Invincible parece un Chihuaua y un Nimitz un Gran Danes.
Un Invincible es un buquecito de mierda que se sube y se baja sin demasiado esfuerzo.

Y hay un hecho concreto, el supuesto R07 de 1982 es totalmente diferente al de 1984, y el detalle mas critico es la obra viva clara, que inicaria un absurdo repintado que a su vez indicaria un trabajo en dique seco.
Como ya lo dije, una refit previa a la botadura.
Visiblemente el Ark Royal del 1982 es el R07, pero el de 1984 es otro buque bien diferente. Tiene los adelantos que luego aparecerian en 1989 en el supuesto Invincible.
Esta totalmente fuera de secuencia logica.

No pueden negar el ataque, y si hubo alguna averia de consideracion nunca la hubiesen podido reparar sin tomar puerto.

La foto que muestran con Puerto Argentino de fondo es un vulgar montaje de los buques en Ascension.
Se ven aguas absolutamente calmas y un fondeo llamativamente cercano a la costa.

Si el buque fue averiado, entonces esa foto y todas las que intentan demostrar que el buque salio indemne son truchas.

Y todo lleva a lo mismo, al hundimiento y reemplazo por un gemelo.

Rolling Eyes En Argentina la investigacion no puede avanzar mas, pues afecta directamente a los intereses propagandisticos de la FAA, que debiera reconocer publicamente que Ureta e Isaac no le pegaron a nada, que mintieron y mienten en sus cronicas y relatos.
Y que lo que muy probablemente viesen fuera al Invincible humeando luego del impacto del exocet, pero a la distancia.
Y tambien debieran reconocer la imbecilidad de haber mandado a 4 pilotos y sus aviones a una muerte segura, a una mision sin retorno posible.

Mad Por otro lado hay oficiales de la ARA que tambien dicen boludeces por estar mal informados acerca de lo que es un Clase Invincible.
A menudo son aviadores navales los que simplifican, diciendo "un misil no hunde a un portaaviones"
Es probable que a un Nimitz, a un Kutsnetsov, a un Forrestal o incluso a un Essex ...no lo hunda un exocet.

Pero a un Invincible el solo impacto e incendio primario que genera un exocet, lo colapsa y deja sin gobierno y los incendios secundarios lo rematan.

Wink Los ingleses suelen decir que el Glamorgan es el unico buque que soprto un impacto de exocet y no se hundio.
En este caso un MM 38 lanzado en tierra que no exploto.

Rolling Eyes Y es muy probablemente un gui?o para quebrar el juramento de silencio....
Te estan diciendo en otras palabras que "TODOS LOS BUQUES IMPACTADOS POR MISILES EXOCET SE HUNDIERON" excepto el HMS Glamorgan.

Evil or Very Mad Hay intereses concretos de ambas partes para que la verdad no se sepa.

Razz Otro dato que confirma que estan ocultando algo bien groso es el secreto de archivos por al menos 90 a?os.
Y digo al menos, por que esta mentira se puede prolongar eternamente.
CRISTIAN G


------

[quote:064db534ce="cas9480"]Well, I don't see how the fact that this yard didn't build anything for the military between 1980 and 1980 proves anything.

What the site does indicate is that this yard makes extensive use of steam turbines in a COSAS like system rather than the RN preferred COGAG/COGOG system. Fundamental difference of concept, design and gearbox.

Also, the ship's average construction time seems to be around 3 or 4 years from start to finish.

Finally, the ship yard itself isn't particulary well hidden:

[img:064db534ce]http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/9820/airge8.th.jpg[/img:064db534ce][/quote:064db534ce]

CAS.... no se construyen buques en instalaciones bajo techo?

Question Cmo se trabaja en los paises con inviernos largos, donde ademas nieva frecuentemente?
Por ejemplo Suecia?

Se trabaja al aire libre y cajo la nieve?

Los operarios y obreros navales se transladan con skys...

Laughing Un segundo uso para el famoso Sky Jump, para esparcimiento de los operarios que trabajan en cubiertas de buques nevadas.

Un Invincible pudo haber sido construido en cualquier sitio, en UK en las instalaciones para la clase Ocean, en USA, o en cualquier pais con industria naviera que fuese integrante de la OTAN.

La construccion en secreto de un gemelo, no es una noticia para figurar a diario en la primera plana de "The Sun" precisamente.


--

cas9480
Moderador


Registrado: 08 Abr 2006
Mensajes: 1052
Ubicaci?n: Shetland Islands, UK

MensajePublicado: 27 Sep 2007 04:05 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
I think you're missing my point.

I'm unsure what your objective was by posting up the information on the Litton yard, and it reinforced our basic premise that building in secret and technological differences make your suggestion an impossibility.

I do agree that there are many civilian yards that could accomodate a ship the size of Invincible, but I'm unaware of any indoor facilities large enough.

There is a very good reason why there are very few military shipbuilders in the world, and that is that the base facilities and infrastructure are incredibly expensive to maintain. Building the basic hull is the easy part when compared to fitting out, which is the tricky and expensive bit.

You also overlook the technical difficulties presented by Invincible's specification in terms of engineering layout and tooling, which in the 80s was unique to the RN, and even today I think is only used on a handful of NATO ships.

I would also refer you to the previous 50 odd pages of debate on this subject and Hutch's brief synopsis of the main factors.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 27 Sep 2007 04:44 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Ok CAS
La posibilidad de producir un cuarto clase Invincible no se agota en USA.

Volvamos a UK.
Aqui tienes otra curiosidad, otro inexplicable intervalo historico.

La Clase "Ocean" muy similar a la Invincible...
Comenzo en 1980, pero su primer buque se empezo a construir en 1993.

Y ademas intervinieron varios astilleros:
Kvaerner, Govan y luego fue terminado en VSEL.

Tu puedes leerlo aqui:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/uk_helo.htm#oce

Otra opcion es que el primer buque clase Ocean se reconvirtiera en el cuarto clase Invincible.
Basicamente la diferencia esta en la Isla, los demas son detalles subsanables o corregibles en pocos meses.

Design: Basic design is similar to Invincible class VSTOL carriers, with the following general changes: modified island, diesel propulsion, no skijump or VSTOL capabilities, reduced armament, completely new internal arrangements. Hull built to merchant standards.

Armamemt: 3 Phalanx CIWS

Muy similar al Ark Royal 84/85 con 3 Phalanx .... (es la base del R08? o New Ark Royal?)

Exclamation Pero muy diferente al Ark Royal de 1982 (el R07) que portaba solo dos Phalanx en diferentes posiciones.

Smile Ahora tienes el casco base para el cuarto Invincible, su armamento modernizado y el o los astilleros donde pudo haber sido construido.

Muy muy simple....atrasas varios a?os el programa Ocean y construyes un cuarto Invincible.

Y lo haces en varios astilleros....

Por ejemplo el R07 lo rematriculas como R06 en 1983 y lo llamas illustrious, luego sacas una parte del Ocean de un astillero y lo mandas a otro para que sea terminado como clase Invincible...mas precisamente como Ark Royal, y lo vuelves a matricular como R07

Idea Los buques ingleses suelne moverse de astillero, en sus distintas etapas de construccion.

Smile Quizas esta posibilidad te parezca mas viable desde el punto de vista intelectual.
Es absolutamente viable y posible.
Reconvertir el primer Ocean, a cuarto Invincible.

Wink El programa Ocean es de 1980, previo al conflicto por Malvinas u Operacion Corporate.
Pudo haberse retrasado, precisamente por una reconversion a otra clase muy similar...a la que le faltaba un buque que se habia hundido el 30/5/82.

Cool Si observas en detalle alRak royal de 1984/85 veras que tiene mucho mas de Ocean que del original Ark Royal de 1982 R07, que era simplemente una version 16 metros mas larga que el R05 y el R06.
Sin embargo en 1984 aparecio un Invincible totalmente diferente-

Rolling Eyes Puesdes descartar la hipotesis de la construccion en USA si lo deseas, pero la posibilidad de que el primer Ocean fuese reconvertido a cuarto Invincible, no es para nada descabellada.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
Leono
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 16 Mar 2007
Mensajes: 83


MensajePublicado: 27 Sep 2007 06:40 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Lo que veo, es que, si los brit?nicos han negado el ataque argentino al Portaaviones HMS Invincible porqu? de lejos y nunca un mano a mano con los argentinos para ver quien dice la verdad y as? la historia sea historia y no mentiras.
Porqu? ese gran misterio brit?nico de no explicar que fue lo que sucedi? con el HMS Invincible el 30/05/82, que no se supo m?s de ?l, que los brit?nicos dicen tantas huevadas que atacaron al HMS Avenger o al HMS Exeter, al casi hundido Atl?ntic Conveyor, que solo vieron un avi?n argentino sobrevolar la zona, que el misil fue desviado, etc.
Cuantos testigos presenciales brit?nicos vieron ese d?a desde sus buques el ataque de la aviaci?n argentina y digan tantas huevadas juntas.
No me van a venir a decir que no vieron perfectamente el ataque argentino a que buque fueron dirigido el misil Exocet AM-39 de la armada y el resto de las bombas de los Skyhawk de la Fuerza A?rea. Tan boludos son los ingleses que no saben diferenciar un buque atacado.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 27 Sep 2007 06:50 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Smile El exocet AM 39 impacto precisamente en HMS Invincible
Las bombas de los A4C se lanzaron contra la Avenger y erraron.

Ningun A4C llego a sobrevolar el Invincible, pro es probable que hayan establecido contacto visual, como para confirmar el impacto del misil exocet.

Los britanicos no entran en debate serio, por culpa de la FAA y de los pilotos Ureta e Isaac, que mienten.

Si se hubiesen acercado al Invincible (suponiendo que no hubisn atacado a la Avenger, hubieran sido facilmente derribados por los Sidewinder AIM 9L de los Sea Herriers que defendian al nucleo de la task force.

Wink Se acercaron a distancia de contacto visual, pero no a distancia o radio de alcance de los Sidewinder, que como debes saber son misiles AAM de muy corto alcance.

Rolling Eyes Si ellos dijesen la verdad y no la boludez que les escribieron Crespo, Lami Dozo y los demas chantas de la FAA seria todo mas simple.
Con queconfirmaran el impacto del exocet ya estaria 90% probado el hundimiento.


----


Me equivoco o...

En Pto Argentino antes de zarpar para UK no ten?a ca?on antia?reo... ?y cuando llega a UK, si? Shocked

[b:064db534ce]?Se lo instalaron en el camino?[/b:064db534ce] Rolling Eyes

[img:064db534ce]http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/8208/hundido1au0.jpg[/img:064db534ce]

[img:064db534ce]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8215/malvinense5vo6.th.jpg[/img:064db534ce]

[img:064db534ce]http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/4209/malvinense7xk0.th.jpg[/img:064db534ce]

Saludos, JPL.

---

[quote:064db534ce="cas9480"][quote:064db534ce="CristianG"]Ok CAS
La posibilidad de producir un cuarto clase Invincible no se agota en USA.

Volvamos a UK.
Aqui tienes otra curiosidad, otro inexplicable intervalo historico.

La Clase "Ocean" muy similar a la Invincible...
Comenzo en 1980, pero su primer buque se empezo a construir en 1993.

Y ademas intervinieron varios astilleros:
Kvaerner, Govan y luego fue terminado en VSEL.

Tu puedes leerlo aqui:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/uk_helo.htm#oce

Otra opcion es que el primer buque clase Ocean se reconvirtiera en el cuarto clase Invincible.
Basicamente la diferencia esta en la Isla, los demas son detalles subsanables o corregibles en pocos meses.

[b:064db534ce]Design: Basic design is similar to Invincible class VSTOL carriers, with the following general changes: modified island, diesel propulsion, no skijump or VSTOL capabilities, reduced armament, completely new internal arrangements. Hull built to merchant standards.[/b:064db534ce]

[b:064db534ce]Armamemt: 3 Phalanx CIWS[/b:064db534ce]

Muy similar al Ark Royal 84/85 con 3 Phalanx .... (es la base del R08? o New Ark Royal?)

Exclamation Pero muy diferente al Ark Royal de 1982 (el R07) que portaba solo dos Phalanx en diferentes posiciones.

Smile Ahora tienes el casco base para el cuarto Invincible, su armamento modernizado y el o los astilleros donde pudo haber sido construido.

Muy muy simple....atrasas varios a?os el programa Ocean y construyes un cuarto Invincible.

Y lo haces en varios astilleros....

Por ejemplo el R07 lo rematriculas como R06 en 1983 y lo llamas illustrious, luego sacas una parte del Ocean de un astillero y lo mandas a otro para que sea terminado como clase Invincible...mas precisamente como Ark Royal, y lo vuelves a matricular como R07

Idea Los buques ingleses suelne moverse de astillero, en sus distintas etapas de construccion.

Smile Quizas esta posibilidad te parezca mas viable desde el punto de vista intelectual.
Es absolutamente viable y posible.
Reconvertir el primer Ocean, a cuarto Invincible.

Wink El programa Ocean es de 1980, previo al conflicto por Malvinas u Operacion Corporate.
Pudo haberse retrasado, precisamente por una reconversion a otra clase muy similar...a la que le faltaba un buque que se habia hundido el 30/5/82.

Cool) Si observas en detalle alRak royal de 1984/85 veras que tiene mucho mas de Ocean que del original Ark Royal de 1982 R07, que era simplemente una version 16 metros mas larga que el R05 y el R06.
Sin embargo en 1984 aparecio un Invincible totalmente diferente-

Rolling Eyes Puesdes descartar la hipotesis de la construccion en USA si lo deseas, pero la posibilidad de que el primer Ocean fuese reconvertido a cuarto Invincible, no es para nada descabellada.[/quote:064db534ce]

I'm rather surprised that you think they are similar when there are such fundamental differences in their construction techniques, propulsion systems and profile.

HMS Ocean is:

Diesel powered and much slower than the Invincible Class (48,000hp compared to 97,000hp and 18kt compared to 28kt)

Built to civilian rather than military standards.

Ships can be built in the modular fashion you describe but they won't be fully fitted out.

To do what you describe, which is to take elements of a military built turbine driven ship and meld it with a civilian built diesel ship is absurd, not to mention that slicing up ships on this scale will get noticed.

So, given Hutch's notes above, I think we can cross this one off the list as well.

It may only be my opinion, but you do appear to be clutching at straws here. Wink[/quote:064db534ce]

Estoy hablando del cascc CAS.
De la estructura del buque vacio.
Que es lo primero que se bota al agua y se lleva a remolque hacia otro astillero.
Tengo la secuencia completa de la botadura del R05 y el R07.
Se construye primero el casco y parte de la isla.

Acaso tu no has leido acerca de carriers que se abandonan por la mitad de proyecto o se reconvierten a otra categoria.

USA tuvo 56 carriers botados en su historia, sin embargo el Ronald Reagan es el CVN 76

Hubo 20 que no llegaron a finalizarse o se reconvirtieron.

O acaso hay algun impedimento para que el casco recien iniciado del un Ocean se reconvierta a un clase Invincible.

Todo lo demas se va colocando despues.
Lo primero que se hace es el casco completamente vacio, sin instalacion electrica, ni propulsores y por supuesto sin armamento.


---


[quote:064db534ce="JPL"]Me equivoco o...

En Pto Argentino antes de zarpar para UK no ten?a ca?on antia?reo... ?y cuando llega a UK, si? Shocked

[b:064db534ce]?Se lo instalaron en el camino?[/b:064db534ce] Rolling Eyes

[img:064db534ce]http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/8208/hundido1au0.jpg[/img:064db534ce]

[img:064db534ce]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8215/malvinense5vo6.th.jpg[/img:064db534ce]

[img:064db534ce]http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/4209/malvinense7xk0.th.jpg[/img:064db534ce]

Saludos, JPL.[/quote:064db534ce]

El Invincible nunca atraco en Puero Argentino, ni en las cercanias.
Me lo confirmaron dos fuentes confiables, una Argentina y otra Britanica.

El buque que entra a fines de Julio es el casco R06...lo que muestra otra contradiccion con la historia oficial inglesa que lo da como zarpado el 2 de agosto.

De hecho hay evidencia que luego del 30/5/82 hay dos zarpadas de buques de la clase Invincible desde UK.
Puede ser el R06 dos veces o una vez el R06 y otra el R07.

Smile Pero esta claro que esa foto trucada en un presunto fondeo en cercanias de Puerto Argentino esta trucada.
Entiendo que en la costa de Malvinas el oleaje suele ser bastante mas notable, al menos a la distancia que debiera ser fondeado un Clase Invincible sin correr el riesgo de quedar varado en una bajamar.

Esta demasiado cerca, ademas de haber muy poco oleaje.

Mr. Green Son buques diferentes.


--

CAS

[quote:064db534ce="CristianG"]Shocked Creo que lo que me cuentas no deja de ser una "historia oficial"

Confused Es extra?o leer este tipo de argumentaciones de ciudadanos britanicos.

Rolling Eyes En especial refiriendose a tiempos de la Guerra Fria entre OTAN vs Pacto de Varsova.
Tiempos de conspiraciones, complots, desinformacion, espionaje, agentes secretos, armas secretas, etc. etc.

Shocked Los ingleses han ganado fama, (merecida o no ...no lo se) de ser grandes espias, astutos, manipuladores de complots y maniobras de ocultamiento....hasta han tenido un super agente secreto, James Bond el agente secreto 007 del MI 6.

Shocked Y tu luego me describes la fabricacion de armamento belico de tipo tactico, como si se tratase de un evento social, una salida de fin de semana familiar, con los ni?os en las esculeas dibujando las armas secretas.
Los operarios de los astilleros alegremente entrando como quien lo hace a una Iglesia, quizas incluso cantando canciones alegoricas al nuevo buque.

Idea Pienso que ninguna de ambas visiones de la realidad es exacta.

No toda la industria de armamento militar es super-secreta, manejada por agentes del MI 6 al estilo Hollywoodesco de James Bond.

Tampoco toda esa misma industria es una festividdad continua con plena participacion popular como si se tratase de una Navidad continuada.

Por lo menos yo he vivido 5 a?os en la base mas importante de la Armada Argentina ( mi padre fue oficial de la ARA) Puerto Belgrano y en el pueblo lindero, Punta Alta...nadie sabia nada acerca de lo que hacia o dejaba de hacer la flota.

Los Astilleros Navales argentinos no son una plaza de juegos donde van los ni?os a pasar las tardes.
El acceso suele ser restringido.

Creo que tu me cuentas una historia como tu quisieras que fuera.

Pero que esta muy lejos, de ser la verdadera.

Question Debieras preguntarle a los familiares y amigos de los 350 fallecidos en el HMS Dasher, por que razon debieron mantener el silencio por 40 a?os.
Cuando salio a la luz este complot.
Quizas aun hoy en el 2007, la poblacion mundial e inglesa podria pensar que el Dasher fue adesguazarse a Alang, India ...y no que se hundio por accidente operacional en 1943.

Rolling Eyes Me quieres convencer que la flota de superficie britanica no iba a ser desafectada completamente de la OTAN, por ser totalmente inadecuada para un enfrentamiento con la URSS y Aliados?

Y tu sabes que salvo los Submarinos Nucleares Britanicos, ningun otro buque era apto para la OTAN.
Y la OTAN tenia razon.
Toda la flota de superficie britanica podia ser hundida facilmente por una peque?a escuadra sovietica.

Malvinas demostro que la flota de superficie britanica era totalmente inutil para una guerra seria.
Imagina que han perdido buques por ataques de bombarderos chatarra como los A4 B o A4Q, con bombas de la segunda guerra, que activaban sus espoletas por gravedad

Question Que hubiese pasado con las clases 42, 22, 21, 12, 82, Antrim, Invincible, Centaur (Hermes) y demas en un enfrentamiento con una escuadra liderada porun Supercarrier Sovietico con aviones Mig y Sukoi de ultima generacion, con misiles sovieticos.

Exclamation Que poder antisubmarino tenia la flota inglesa de superficie, si sufrio 3 ataques de un submarion gasolero 209 argentino, sin poder detectar su ataque y tampoco poder hundirlo luego del ataque.

Toda la flota de superficie britanica estaba con cartel de remate.
La industria naval, en especial la de buques de guerra, estaba en profunda recesion en 1982. Su destino era sombrio y deprimente

Reconocer la perdida del Invincible, era ponerle fin al gobierno de Tatcher y un golpe mortal para la industria naviera.
Y una cachetada insoportable para el orgullo de la Royal Navy de los britanicos en general.

Tu me quieres convencer de que la OTAN no tenia durante la guerra fria, proyectos militares secretos, con aprobacion parlamentaria, a sobre cerrado, en sus paises integrantes?

Entiendo que todos los gobiernos del mundo, formen parte de alianzas militares o no, tienen dinero para "gastos reservados"

Construir un peque?o portahelicopteros de aluminio, de 20 mil toneladas o 200 metros de eslora, cuyo costo final no llegaba a los 300 millons de dolares, es una moneda, un penique, en el presupuesto destinado a la OTAN.

Y los beneficios infinitamente mayores, tu sabes:
-Mantener el prestigio de la OTAN, la Royal Navy y los fabricantes de armamento chatarra inservible del hemisferio norte.
-Mantener en alto el orgullo y honor de la ciudadania britanica.
-Sostener al impopular gobierno conservador de Margaret Tatcher (que ademas era aliada ideologica de Ronald reagan)
-Continuar la usurpacion de las Islas Malvinas, asegurando la presencia de la OTAN en el Atlantico Sur, con la riqueza pesquera, eventuales posibilidades petroleras y basicamente una proyeccion hacia la Antartida.

Cool) Todo por el insignificante precio de construir en secreto, un peque?o portahelicopteros descartable de juguete, en 2 a?os...

Question CAS, por que razon India no compro ningun portahelicopteros Invincible Class?

Laughing Acaso por que en Asia, ya no compran mas armamento chatarra?
Han comprado un excelente buque ruso en lugar del Vince.
Y la Fuerza Aerea India por ejemplo usa los Sukoi 30, SU 30

Question Cual es el destino previsible de los 3 Inservible Class (Invendible, Illustrious, Ark Royal)
-Alang (India) para desguaze
-UK (para desguaze)
-Espa?a (para reforzar su rol de primer blanco a ofrecer por la OTAN)
-Chile (para porvocar una carrera de compra de armamento basura en Sudamerica?)[/quote:064db534ce]

My first question would be how many shipyards and launching ceremonies have you been to? The civic pride that Communities feel when ships are launched cannot be under estimated, and it is a very ceremonial event attended by everyone and their dog.

That?s a major factor here, as are the apparent cultural differences that you find strange.

While I can agree with some of your points I would observe:

As far as I'm aware most British dockyards and naval establishments have visitor?s centres. They [i:064db534ce]encourage[/i:064db534ce] visitors, because it is one of the best forms of recruitment and advertisement going. Public visibility means public support, and public support and pressure on Government means large ship orders.

You also seem to overlook the major difference between shipyards and naval bases. One is manned by civilians (mostly), while the other is manned by Naval or Marine personnel. We?re talking about the former here.

I am not suggesting that yards are open playgrounds on a daily basis, but on the Tyne etc. the schools will get involved in major projects. After all, the teachers know many of his/her class pupils will have relations at the yard etc. and as the children become teenagers many will have their first work experience in the yards.

The symbiotic relationship between a yard and its surrounding suppliers is another factor. While a yard may employ 7500, another 10,000 may be employed in supporting industry.

So, to keep a secret of what ships are being built while under daily public gaze? Not credible, and as far as I?m aware it still isn't possible to construct a major capital ship in Britain under cover.

Again, as you point out Britain has a long standing maritime tradition, and her ship yards are in the same locations they were in the 1800s and 1900s. In most cases there simply isn?t the space for build major covered facilities, and the proximity of transport systems, services and suppliers makes moving the yards economically unfeasible. Not to mention that environmentalists usually get extremely upset about ship yards and heavy industry in general.

I generally agree with some of your points about the state of the fleet in 1982; at the time so would many officers on the ships themselves. Quite simply the RN should not have been able to achieve what it did in this type of campaign. That they did is testiment to the sailors rather than the suitability of the equipment they had. Bear in mind that many senior officers on Frigates and Destroyers in the Falklands knew that they were classed as expendable. The priority was to land troops and recapture the islands. This was achieved, but at a very high cost.

What they would have achieved in any battle with the Soviet Bloc is open to question, as they formed part of a defensive mesh of ships from several nations, but it is a good topic for debate, but not here.

It is no accident that some of the oldest ships in the Task Force faired better when hit than the newer ships. However, newer all-steel ships suffered just as badly (more in fact) as those ships with aluminium superstructures. Your assertion that aluminium is in some way a cheap and nasty alternative isn?t supported by the fact that it is taking over in shipbuilding. The reports that aluminium built ships (actually only their superstructures) were the major cause of failure for RN ships due to fire in the Falklands is incorrect. Aluminium doesn?t rust.

A small helicopter carrier is a dismissable toy that can be built in two years? We?ve already seen that it takes a well equipped US yard 3 to 4 years to build a Commando Carrier, so how about other similar ships from those nations that can build to a military standard?

Principe de Asturias; Laid Down 1979; Launched 1982; Commissioned 1988
Giuseppe Garibaldi; Laid Down 1981; Launched 1983; Commissioned 1985
Admiral Gorshko; Laid Down 1978; Launched 1982; Commissioned 1987

Hopefully I have made the point that two years for the secret building of an Invincible clone isn?t possible in a NATO shipyard or anywhere else for that matter.

However, there is another, rather more compelling argument that I can cite why the UK wouldn?t have hidden the loss or damage of a Capital Ship in the Falkands. The national shock at the loss of the ships we did lose was severe.

Once the conflict was over questions were asked why our ships were being hit with such alarming results, and the lessons of the Falklands war has shaped RN design and build strategy since. The Royal Navy knew the national view on this, and it would certainly have used any information on the Invincible to strengthen its fixed wing carrier argument.

Lastly, the fact that Invincible wasn?t sold may have something to do with her rather dodgy (initially, anyway) engine and gearbox arrangements. After all, would you buy a car that couldn?t move?





-------

hutch

Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 01 Oct 2007 09:27 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG


?The length of a Invincible class nothing has to do with the Sky Jump.?

The deck was extended I believe, as the site says. If you think this does not include the flight deck please prove this.

?They are light and fast, but dismissable if they are damaged.?

Air craft carriers, even ones of the strange Invincible class, are not disposable. They were the core of the fleet.

Shipyards do not work all the time on building ships.

?In the inexplicable and ridiculous trip of the Illustrious towards the Falklands in 1982??

What is ridiculous about it? It was going to a war zone and then the war ended so it went to relieve the Invincible.

??nonpass by some port of the USA??

Why would it pass a USA port? The USA is not near or on the way t the FI is it?

?? is understood that its presence was totally unnecessary.?

Wrong. It was there to defend the FI and continue to provide the protection that the Invincible had.

Mortimer

Please provide proof of what this journalist said.

Communications shut down all the time, they are not flaw proof. Strange coincidence? Only to the paranoid.

?Very strange as some military say who investigated the case??

Who are these people? Please provide proof of them and what they said.

CG

?They are tens of facts that would cieran and give like valued the hypothesis of the collapse and spare part.?

Well what are they? We have seen very little of these facts and most can be easily explained. You also ignore the massive facts against this claim.

?I said them to the English in a mythical debate in Abovetopsecrets??

I read that thread. The Argentine side was thoroughly discredited.

??the reaction of the British typical citizen, who is not other than a submissive subject of a king or a queen??

Utter rubbish and racist, xenophobic trash. What an idiotic thing to say.

?As if each worker of Vickers, Swan Hunter and others was perfectly to as much of the naval history of the helmet in which this working.?

They would know they were building an aircraft carrier and not one of these thousands of people has ever come forward to support your claim.

?The information that leaves them perfectly is selected or combed by its own organisms of press and military intelligence.?

You could not cover up 100% perfectly for over 25 years in an pen democracy with a free press the construction of an entire aircraft carrier.

?The English do not put in doubt that the Invincible has been damaged??

Which English claim this?

??or that its crew this administering an oath of silence, under threat of treason to the mother country.?

These oaths are broken all the time ? it was broken in the early 1980?s when issues about the sinking of the Belgrano were released . The UK does not shoot or hang those convicted of treason. And out of the many, many thousands of people who would be involved in this conspiracy not one has ever come forward in over 25 years.

?And there is a concrete fact, the supposed R07 of 1982 is totally different from the one from 1984..?

As the Ark Royal was not finished in 1982 what do you expect? Of courseit would be different.

?The photo which they show with Argentine Port of bottom is a vulgar assembly of the ships in Ascent.?

Can you prove this? Or is it another guess?

?But to a Invincible the single impact and primary fire that exocet generates, colapsa and leave without government and the secondary fires finish off it.?

Guesswork.

?Another data that confirms that they estan hiding something well groso is the secret of archives by at least 90 years.?

That is common in the UK.

?The certain thing is that there is a mantle of silence imposed of 90 years, that covers the maximum life expectancy of any crew member of ship ingls that has participated in the Corporate Operation.?

And not one of them, of the thousands of other people who would know, have ever broken this silence. A 100% perfect conspiracy.

?A Invincible could be constructed anywhere??

A guess. It would take a specialist yard to build a specialist military aircraft carrier and a very skilled workforce.

?..in UK in the facilities for the Ocean class, in the USA, or any country with shipbuilding that was integral of NATO.?

So you claim but it was done in total and utter silence and no one has said anything about it ever.

?Comenzo in 1980, but its first ship empezo to be constructed in 1993.?

This delay has already been explained to you.

?Another option is that the first ship Ocean class became the fourth Invincible class.?

This is not a sensible or intelligent option though.

?Basically the difference this in the Island, the others is subsanables or correctable details in few months.

You claim this despite clearly having no knowledge of shipbuilding.

?Perhaps this possibility seems to you but viable from the intellectual point of view.
It is absolutely viable and possible.

Only to the paranoid and delusional. Now you have even more people involved in this conspiracy.

?Puesdes to discard the hypothesis of the construction in the USA if you wish it??

We can discard it because there is absolutely no evidence for it at all other than the claims of an Argentine who ahs already demonstrated their prejudice and ignorance.

Leono

?Because that great mystery British of not to explain that it was what happened to the HMS Invincible the 30/05/82??

Why is it a great mystery? Nothing happened so there is nothing to report. The UK used standard disinformation against Argentina so she would not know what had happened.

CG

?Exocet A.M. 39 impact indeed in HMS Invincible?

There is no evidence for this at all it is just a guess based on what two people said they saw.

?Two reliable sources confirmed me, an Argentina and another Briton.?

You have two sources to support your claim - thousands of people do not support it.

But please provide proof of these claims and your witnesses.

?And if they indeed talk about my, it is proud me to be considered the voice that represents my mother country in this controverted subject.?

You are proud of what you have claimed? I doubt that Argentina would be pleased to be ?represented? by you if only because of how little you know.

Eagle

??example I mistreat of prisoners of the FAA by British??

Can you provide more detail of this claim please?

CG

?I came to give a hand him to Patricio??

Did he ask for it?

?Times of conspiracies, complots, secret disinformation, espionage, agents, secret arms, etc. etc.?

And those times are over and have been for a while now and still no one has come forward to support this paranoid conspiracy. You are not speaking about a small conspiracy but one involving many thousands of people all across the world, civilian and military. It is inconceivable to cover up such an event so very, very well.

?James Bond secret agent 007?

You do know that he is a fictional character?

?You had to ask the relatives and friends to him of the 350 deceaseds in the HMS Dasher, so that reason had to maintain silence by 40 years?

This is incorrect and has already been explained.

?Perhaps even today in the 2007, the world-wide and English population podria to think that the Dasher went to adesguazar itself to Alang, India? and not that hundio by operational accident about 1943.?

No one thinks that, the loss of the Dasher is well known.

?To recognize the lost one of the Invincible, was to end to him the government of Tatcher and a mortal blow for the shipbuilding.?

Why? The loss of one ship would not have brought down the government, especially as the UK won the war. And the loss of a ship meant another would have to be built, so more jobs and money.

?And an unbearable slap for the pride of the Royal Navy of the British in general.?

Just your opinion based on personal prejudice and ignorance.

?To construct a small aircraft carrier of aluminum, 20 thousand tons or 200 meters of length, whose the 300 final cost did not arrive at millons of dollars, is a currency, a penny, in the budget destined NATO.?

And yet you can find no evidence at all that this happened or anyone of the many thousands of people who would have been involved or where it happened.

?CAS, so that India reason I do not buy any aircraft carrier Invincible Class??

That is up to them. Maybe they could not afford it? Or maintain a high technology carrier? Once again you are reduced to random guesses.

?Who recurrio to a complex and audacious mechanism of concealments, disinformation and spare part.?

The most complex conspiracy in human history involving thousands of people all across the world which has remained 100% perfect for over 25 years.

??and if the order of the British government or the intelligence services is to maintain closed the mouth, therefore they tendran it until the rest of its life.?

You really know nothing about the UK, the military or intelligence services do you?

?To that he was disappeared by 3.5 months??

The Invincible did not disappear as has been explained to you many, many times already.

?That peculiarly one came to the Falklands, without no, but absolutely no real necessity to come.?

Wrong this is your ill informed opinion based on personal ignorance.

Raptor

??it could demonstrate nothing, beyond a febrile imagination that bordered on the paranoico.?

Well said.

CG

?No crew member of the Invincible saw sink to his ship so that they were already evacuated basically in Hermes.?

What us your evidence for this? Any at all? Or more guesses?

You want photos taken to fit in with your prejudices. The universe does not work that way. As you claim that things happened, you have to provide the evidence that it did, not just ask for pictures to support your case as there is so little evidence on your side. Why would lots of photos be taken in the first place? You want reality to conform to the rules you have written but that just does not happen and it is not ?inexplicable?.
?What it is not understood is where was the Invincible between the 30/5/82 and the 17/9/82.?

You do not know and it is not made public. That is all. There is no mystery other than in your mind.

?And that plastic surgeon of ships I visit to become after 5.5 months of continuous navigation (great part in the South Atlantic) a new ship but that the one that salio.?

Its not new, it?s a modern ship built to withstand rust and the crew would have made her look more presentable before she arrived in port. I have already told you all this and suggested that you look at pictures of other ships returning home from the FI. All the modern ones, built like Invincible, looked good as well.

Cas

?Yet not one of the many thousands of people there noticed or mentioned any differences, including the professional sailors and journalists.?

A very, very good point Cas. Somehow an Argentine with the internet can discover this but the rest of the world?s journalists and spy agencies can not. He can see it but the USSR could not.

CG

?There are photos near but cloudy, or defocused, perhaps so that the Vince I enter with a condition of quite poor light.?

So even when there are photos you still cling to your paranoid claims. A clear refusal to accept reality.

?And perhaps margaret Ttacher habia prohibited the roll use of 400 HANDLE or Tripods for prolonged exhibitions? ?

Now you make a new and even more paranoid claim based on nothing but your delusions.

?Some crew of the Invincible must have returned in Hermes.?

What evidence do you have for this? Any at all? Or more guesswork?
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado
mensajes_anteriores



Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie May 21, 2008 12:20 am    Asunto: Responder citando

CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 01 Oct 2007 12:39 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Laughing Laughing Laughing Asi que todas las tripulaciones regresaron lo mas rapido posible luego de la guerra.
Salvo la del Invincible que, no solo estuvo embarcada inexplicable e innecesariamente por mas de 5,5 meses, sino qe ademas se dedico a reparar el buque (supongamos cambiar la turbina) y ademas se dedico a asear todo el buque...pero nunca atracaron en ningun puerto... Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Shocked Lo que lograron instalar entre la gente ingnorante los ingleses, es que un Clase Invincible es un super-portaaviones (entre la gente ignorante, por que ni Australia ni India compraron ningun Invincible class)
Cuando en realidad es un simple portaaviones liviano, en realidad es un portahelicopteros con aptitud para lanzamiento de aviones VSTOL, cuya finalidad en cualquier flota es la de "escolta de flota"
Un buque de aluminio liviano, el primer blanco a ofrecer.
Una especie de piquete de radar pero con aviones VSTOL y helicopteros para lucha antisubmariina o ASW.

Decenas de portaaviones made in USA y made in UK fueron reconvertidos a ese fin.

A los que se les colocaba o injertaba una pista angulada (como se hizo con el AEA 35 de Mayo cuyo original clase Colossus no la tenia) pasaban a tener capacidad para operar aviones a turbina.
A otros de categorias simolares se los reconvertia, sin colocar la cubierta angular, a portahelicopteros para lucha ASW.
Y a un ultimo grupo se los reconvertia a buques de asalto anfibio.

Lo Invincible Class nacieron originalmente como esta segunda categoria, repito portahelicopteros livianos para lucha ASW, luego con la aparicion de los aviones VSTOL Sea Harriers, se los comenzo a llamar Porta-aviones (denominacion muy discutible y discutida por el bloque laborista en el parlamento)
Este tipo de buque no existe en la actualidad, salvo como concepto en UK , en Espa?as que venia de tener una inmundicia similar el Cabot de USA renombrado como Dedalo, Italia con el Garibaldi...y quizas alguna republiqueta mas.

La tercer categoria es la que ha progresado por ser mas apta y versatil, la de desembarco anfibio.
De tal forma un portahelicopteros auxiliar escolta de flota con capacidad de lucha ASW agrega la capacidad de asalto anfibio.
En ese sentido USA desarrollo 3 categorias, la Iwo Jima peque?a e insignificante como los Invincible o Principe de Asturias o Garibaldi (que son todos cascaras de nuez que no llegan a portar mas de 20 aeronaves en total) a la que reemplazo por buques del doble de tonelaje, primero los Tarawa y luego los Wasp...siempre hablando de alrededor de 40 mil toneladas.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Jamas un Invincible Class puede ser considerado un portaaviones nucleo de flota, precisamente por su escasisimo tonelaje y poder de fuego, y basicamente por ser extremadamente vulnerable a cualquier ataque misilistico de buques con SSM o de aviones con ASM.

Twisted Evil Los britanicos fueron muy audaces de venirse hasta MLV con esos dos cacharros impresentables que eran el Hermes y el Invincible, muy confiados de las capacidades defensivas de los misiles SAM (Sea Dart, Sea Wolf y Sea Cat)
Pero tenian alistados los recambios (Bulwark, Illustrious y el R07)
Ademas su aliado USA tenia decenas de portaaviones livianos similares que podian reemplazarlos, varios de la segunda guerra Essex, alguno mas grande de la Clase Midway o como dije buques similares los Iwo Jima que incluso portan ese mismo tipo de aviones y helicopteros.

Mr. Green La confiabilidad y funcionalidad de un Invincible Class es similar a la de un clase Casablanca norteamericana (pese a ser un buque mas grande) de los cuales se hundieron rapidamente varios en la segunda guerra (St. Lo, Gamber Bay, Ommame By, Bismark Bay)
O incluso la del mas antiguo PAL yanqui el hundido CV 7 "Wasp"

No eran ni siquiera comparables con la Clase Essex yanqui, o las Clases Eagle o Ark Royal, britanicas, o la Clemenceau Francesa.

Un buque "descartable"....

Evil or Very Mad Otra gran imprudencia britanica fue mandar a esas dos cascaras de nuez con cargas de profundidad nuclearea al Atlantico Sir, violando los tratados de no proliferacion nuclear.
Y contaminando el Oceano Atlantico con por ejemplo la carga del Sheffield y la del Invincible.

Parece que nuestros amigis ingleses no me pueden decir que buqe es ese con el casco de un Ivincible y una isla similar pero no igual a la del Ocean.

Mr. Green Quizas sea e primer Ocean de 203 metros, que se reconvirtio en un Invicible de eslora intermedia.
Y por eso el Ark Royal aparece mas corto que el Illustrious en todas las fotos en que navega a la par.

Idea
R05 (Vickers) Invincible 194 metros, hundido el 30/5/82
R06 (Swan Hunter) Illustrious 194 metros rematriculado como Invincible
R07 (Swan Hunter) Ark Royal 210 metros rematriculado como Illustrious
R0? (Kvaerner Govan) Ocean 203 metros, reconvertido a Ark Royal


----------

Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 02 Oct 2007 01:54 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG

?So all the crews returned as rapidly as possible after war.?

No. They returned when their ship had completed its duties there. Some returned sooner than others but they did not all rush home as fast as possible.

??not only was embarked inexplicable and unnecessarily about but of 5.5 months??

It is only inexplicable to you. It was not unnecessary as you wrongly claim as has already been explained to you several times.

??and in addition I dedicate myself to clean up all the ship??

Of course the ship would be cleaned up. the military runs on discipline.

?? but never they berthed in no port? ?

Why would it?

?What they managed to install between ingnorante people the English, is that a Invincible Class is a supercarrier??

Who in the world ever said that the Invincible was a ?super carrier?? Apart from you? Once again you are basing your claims on your xenophobia and personal ignorance.

?When in fact it is a simple light aircraft carrier??

Which has performed well in various conflicts around the world for many years. It may not be a carrier in the true sense but it helped defeat Argentina and ha served well many other times.

??the first target to offer.?

Once more you seem to be making the absurd claim that the Invincible class was disposable. Total rubbish.

You seem to enjoy posting up lots of information about carriers which seems to serve little point. Anyone can cut and paste material from other websites.

?Invincible Class never can be considered an aircraft carrier fleet nucleus..?

Wrong. It was for the UK. The UK was retiring all its older carriers and the Invincible class was to be the core of the fleet and the carrier option. It is not a traditional carrier class but it has still performed its job and done that well.

?The trustworthiness and functionality of a Invincible Class are similar to the one of North American a Casablanca class (in spite of being a great ship but) of which quickly sank several in the second war..?

Wrong. No Invincible has ever sunk or been sunk (other than in your deluded imagination) and the Invincible calls has performed well in its assigned role.

?A disposable? ship?. ?

They are not disposable ships and no intelligent person would claim it.

I ask you again ? where did you get your data on the size of the Invincible class ships from? What is your source? I have already explained that the ships underwent a refit and had their decks extended. Many sources on the internet seem to be confused as to the sizes.

And how is it that one Argentine with just a computer can find this out but the USSR, China, Israel, Argentine intelligence, the rest of the world and every single journalist can not? You would be a world renowned journalist and famous across the world if you could actually prove this.

You fail to answer any of my questions.

You have also failed to provide a single witness to what you claim happened. And there would probably be over 10,000 people who would have known if the Invincible had been sunk.

?My point is that UK can arm ships of modular form without requesting permission to him to anybody. ?

What does this mean? The UK can build its own ships but it can not build an entire aircraft carrier in secret with no one noticing.

You have no idea about manufacturing or ship building. You talk a lot about carriers but with no actual demonstration of knowledge and mention lots of carrier names and classes as if that is supposed to impress us that you have any idea what you are talking about. But your ignorance and prejudice is clear.

?And that all are prefabricated ships, with a infinity of parts in common that they interchange to each other.?

The similarities do not mean that you can build one brand new carrier out of parts that you already have. They do not all just slot easily together like bricks in a wall and once the structure is complete it still takes years to actually finish the ship as they are very complex internally.

?And that if NATO decides to make a ship of the Invincible type, it can privily do it and in than 24 months, with parts less prefabricated.?

This is just your personal opinion based on ignorance and prejudice and you have provided no proof to support your claims.

?That secret projects exist.?

You are not talking about a ?secret project?. You are imagining a global conspiracy covering many, many thousands of people military and civilian which has been perfectly kept for over 25 years and which no spy or journalist in the world has uncovered.

?That the English already have committed concealments of damage military.?

All nations do this. And this is not ?concealments of damage military? but a global conspiracy which the world has never seen before.

When you are shown photos ? many photos ? you still doubt them and invent more theories to make reality fit your view of it. Paranoid conspiracy.

?But never, Argentine Port appears the Invincible berthed in the port of Puerto Stanley??

Why would it?

??.in spite of suffering of a failure of traction that had put it first in the list of ships berthed in port.?

What source says that the Invincible was in a port?

?They are disposable ships..?

Again you are wrong. The core of the fleet is never disposable.

?And that single in UK exists 8 shipyards with capacities to construct this type of ships (Invincible/Ocean/Albion).?

Please name these shipyards.

You have not provided any evidence at all that any of these shipyards did this, or any witnesses at all you are just saying that they can. That is not evidence other than to the deluded.
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 02 Oct 2007 08:32 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Laughing Quien se va a ofrecer como testigo de una conspiracion de ocultamiento de da?o belico.
Que ciudadano britanico lo haria?
1)Por que razon pondria en juego los intereses de su pais en favor de un pais sudamericano al que precisamete le quieren robar sus islas Malvinas, todos sus recursos y proyeccion antartica
2)Por que razon pondria en riesgo su vida ante el accionar previsible de los servicios de inteligencia militares y estatales britanicos en contra de su persona y de la de sus familiares.
Acaso solo un suicida muy renegado de UK dijese la verdad, seguramente con la conviccion de que serian las ultimas o quizas las anteultimas de su vida.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Acaso existe algun ciudadano yanqui que haya manifestado en forma concreta que el 11/9 ningun Boeing se estrello contra el Pentagono.
Quizas Michael Moore lo haya intentado, pro aun se seguira hablando por siempre del avion que impacto sobre el Pentagono.
Ningun ciudadno yanqui quiere ponerse en contra a al CIA, FBI y demas.

Un buque debe ser higienizado para regresar de una guerra?
Esa afirmacion insulta la inteligencia, ni el Hermes ni ninguno de los buques averiados que desfilaron por al menos dos puertos, tenian signos de haber sido higienizados.
La mayoria estaba totalmente oxidados y conn averias repararas provisoriamente.
Literalmente dabna asco.

Todos los buques de guerra y auxiliares tomaron puerto Stanley luego del 14/6, con excepcion del Invincible que nunca fue visto atracado apuerto.

5,5 meses es mas que una campa?a de un supercarrier Nuclear Nimitz, que es autosuficiente en su provision de energia.

Ni el Invincible ni el Illustrious y sus tripulaciones tenian nada que hacer en Malvinas luego del 14/6/82.

El Invincible no es nucleo de flota, el Hermes lo era.
Si los britanicos los usan como tales, es por que simplemente la OTAN o las diversas alianzas con USA encuentran rivales tan navalmente "peligrosos" como Afganistan o Irak.

Son buques totalmente descartables, con la misma tecnologia de construccion del Sheffield o Coventry.
Una vez incendiados quedan ciegos en lo que a electronica se refiere, por el bajo punto de fusion del aluminio, ty ademas por la misma razon colapsan las transmisiones....la rigidez estructural se pierde rapidamente.

El Sheffield se hundio por un incendio secundario de un exocet que no exploto.
El Coventry se hundio en 20 minutos, por el impacto de solo dos bombas de 500 libras.
La Antelope se partio al medio como buqye de juguete por la explosion e una bonba de 500 libras.
El Invincible se incendio por un exocet que exploto y provoco un incendio incontrolable.

Buques de alumnio, ligeros , livianos, con un gran tendido electronico, y cobertura misilistica.
Si eso falla o son impactados, son tan vulnerables o mas que un buque mercante.

---

CAS


Your views and the actual facts of the matter seem to be seperating at an increasing rate.

Rather than relying upon any actual facts or answering any technical questions put to you, you seem to deviate into a cloak and dagger world of conspiracy.

Your ignorance of Naval architecture is readily apparent, as is your ignorance of aluminium in shipbuilding and shipbuilding in general.

Do you realise that the compartmentation of the Invincible Class is probably better than that found in an American carrier? Do you know why?

In general British carriers have always had greater structural integrity because we don't use deck edge lifts.

The main advantage to using internal, rather than deck edge, lifts is that the integrity of the hull isn't breeched, and as such the ships have far greater rigidity and integrity. This extends to fire protection, and damage contol systems designed for its suppression.

However, on a daily basis the measure of a ship isn't what damage it can withstand in battle; there's a far greater test. What sea and storm conditions can they withstand? US Carriers seek shelter in storms.

Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 03 Oct 2007 08:27 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG

?Who is going away to offer like witness of a conspiracy of concealment of warlike damage.?

As there would probably be around 10,000 people who would know about this and they would be a mixture of civilian and military as well as foreign, there would be plenty of people who could say something. Yet there is no one.

A 100% perfectly kept secret for over 25 years. Not one person in all that time has told a journalist, put it on a website, left it in their will, published a book, made an announcement, etc.

If a journalist could prove this it would make their career, make them world famous and make them rich.

A poor ex sailor could make money by proving it.

There are huge amounts of people who could become rich and famous is they proved this but not one of them does.

Instead thousands of people remain perfectly silent for over 25 years.

?So that reason pondria in game the interests of its country??

This is based on the crass and stupid assumption that every person ? British or foreign, military or civilian - who was a witness or knew about it supports the UK and what it did in the FI war. That is absurd and a stupid point to make ? people do not all think the same, they are not all regimented in their thoughts and opinions they are individuals.

?So that reason pondria in risk its life before foreseeable driving of the military intelligence services and state British against its person and of the one of its relatives.?

Now you are back to having paranoid mental delusions. MI5 and British intelligence are not the Gestapo. They do not go around killing people in the UK ? and abroad ? at will to defend state secrets. Such things probably do happen for very selective reasons and very rare reasons, but you are talking about silencing thousands of people, all over the world, UK and foreign 100% perfectly for over 25 years. It is not feasible, especially in the age of the internet.

The Official Secrets Act ? which would cover this ? has been broken many times, even concerning the FI war. And yet not one person out of thousands has come forward to support your wild and delusional claims.

The UK is not a police state. It is a free democracy with an open press. A press which constantly looks for ways to attack the government.

?Perhaps some Yankee citizen exists who has showed in form makes specific that the 11/9 no Boeing I crash against the Pentagon.?

You are back to paranoid internet conspiracy theories again.

?No ciudadno Yankee wants to against put to a the company, FBI and others.?

Wrong. Many Americans do take a public stand against the USA government, the FBI, the CIA, etc.

?That affirmation insults intelligence??

Your theories insult intelligence as they are not based in reality, you have an aversion to the truth and to facts and are deeply ignorant of the issues involved. You also generally run away when questions are asked.

?The majority totally was oxidized and conn failures you repaired provisorily.?

Look at the pictures. The modern ships that are returning are not covered in rust, they just have small traces. Do you not think that a Captain would tidy his ship up if he could?

?All the ships military and aids took port Stanley after the 14/6??

Can you prove that?

??with exception of the Invincible that never was seen berthed apuerto.?

Why would the Invincible go to a port? It is an aircraft carrier, designed to move around so that its location is not known. Once again you want reality and history to obey your rules and the universe does not work that way.

?Neither the Invincible nor the Illustrious and its crews tenian nothing that to do in the Falklands after the 14/6/82.?

You have already had explained to you many, many times that the ships were there to provide defence for the FI. Their location would change and they would not advertise where they were ? to do so would be stupid.

?They are totally disposable ships??

Why you continue to repeat this very stupid statement which make you look very foolish I do not know. Carriers are not ?totally disposable? ships, especially when the entire operation depends on them.

?The Invincible fire by exocet that I operate and I cause an uncontrollable fire.?

Guesswork. No one saw the Exocet hit the Invincible and no one has ever confirmed that there was any kind of fire on the ship. You are guessing based on ignorance and prejudice. You are a fantasist.


--

JPL

Al parecer el Invencible estar?a en esta ubicaci?n seg?n la foto oficial de la Royal Navy:
Si es un montaje esta muy bien hecho, excepto por los montes del fondo muy borrosos y tengo dudas sobre las alturas y formas, sobre todo de los montes que estan a la derecha del Tumbledown... Rolling Eyes

Saludos, JPL.
http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/8149/mtqv1.jpg

[img:ce02564260]http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/2162/ptoargcopyxa4.jpg[/img:ce02564260]
[img:ce02564260]http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/2162/ptoargcopyxa4.7dcec88cad.jpg[/img:ce02564260]
[img:ce02564260]http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/9470/ptoqrg2copyyx7.jpg[/img:ce02564260]


--

Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 03 Oct 2007 01:42 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG

You asked:

"That ship I am constructed in Litton Ingalls between 1982 and 1984?"

4604 Chandler U.S. Navy Destroyer DD 996 18-Jan-82 DDG 996: to Taiwan 2006 as Tso Ying (DDG 1805)

4701 Ticonderoga U.S. Navy Cruiser CG 47 22-Jan-83 Struck 2004

4801 Hayler U.S. Navy Destroyer DD 997 Feb-83 Sunk as target 2004

4901 Yorktown U.S. Navy Cruiser CG 48 15-Jul-84 Struck 2004

http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/ussbldrs/postwwii/shipyards/active/gulf/ingalls.htm

The dates given are the delivery dates so construction would have started before then. As you can see the shipyard was busy.


---

CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 03 Oct 2007 05:39 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Exclamation No interpreto bien las referencias por la falta de escala entre fotos, en especial la "oficial" del Invincible de la RN.

Rolling Eyes Es logico que es una foto bien hecha.
Que puede ser de cualquier momento y de cualquier buque Clase Invincible.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Buque que siempre aparece en condiciones borrosas, de baja definicion, mal iluminado o fuera de foco.

Razz Esa foto no era muy popular, sin embargo ahora se ve muy frecuentemente en los sitios britanicos.

Seria bueno saber a partir de cuando aparece en la bibliografia mundial.
Supongo que debiera aparecer en 1982.

Shocked Lo que tambien s muy llamativo es que siempre haya UNA SOLA FOTO en cada instancia probatoria de la sobrevida del Invincible.

Laughing Pareceiera que siempre es la ultima foto del rollo.
Qu no hay varias que la convaliden desde distintas posiciones o ni siquiera ua secuencia de fotos tomadas desde la misma ubicacion del observador.

Mr. Green Son buenas las fotos de los montajes britanicos.
No viste esa en que navegan a la par el Vince y el Lusty y se nota que es mucho mas largo uno que el otro.
Pero que luego aparece retocada y corregida y entonces ambos parecen short hull o sea de 194 m

Rolling Eyes Del otro lado tenes a UK, USA, la OTAN...tiene infinitas capacidades de manipular la realidad e incluso inventar una realidad paralela.

Vos lo ves al Vince alli anclado...y lo primero que pensas, es:
1)Por que no lo repararon alli mismo
2)En que puerto lo repararon
3)Por que no siguio viaje a UK
4)Para que volvio a MLV si el Illustrious estaba comisionado desde el 20/6/82 y muy bien lo podria haber reemplazado desde fines de Julio (de hecho eso es lo que hizo, pero disfrazado de Invincible)
5)Necesitaban tiempo para poner en condiciones el tercer casco el R07, es la unica explicacion racional posible.


---

Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 04 Oct 2007 06:53 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG

?Qu are no several confirm from different positions or not even ua sequence from photos taken from the same location of the observer.?

Once again you ant reality to fit what you think it should be and the universe does not work that way. There are photos of the Invincible but that is not good enough for you, you want reality to conform to your view of it. Why would there be a sequence of photos? Why would there be lots of photos of the Invincible in various locations all pin sharp in detail?

?Across tenes to UK, the USA, NATO? has infinite capacities to manipulate the reality and to even invent a parallel reality.?

You are back to a paranoid fantasy world. You need many thousands of people all across the world for this theory of yours and you can find no evidence at all of it.

You seem to be very afraid of governments and believe that they can do anything they want and that no one will notice. That the UK, USA, NATO can do anything and control people 100% effectively when it is clear that this is not true.

?They needed time to put in conditions the third helmet the R07, is the only possible rational explanation.?

Only to those who believe in a deluded conspiracy theory for which there is so very little evidence that it is laughable. You have no witnesses to the sinking. You have no witnesses for the creation of a brand new ship. You have no witnesses that the crews were swapped over. You have no witnesses for the evacuation of the Invincible. DO you have any witnesses for anything at all that you claim?

You fail to answer the questions you are asked.

The Argentine case so often relies on a very few photographs and interpretations of them. Taken on their own they may seem impressive ? in the way that some pictures of the Yeti / Abominable Snowman, UFO?s, space aliens, the Loch ness Monster, etc, seem impressive when they are see on their own as well.

But when you look at what would have to lie behind such a photograph to support your claims, the theory soon looks ridiculous. And just look at what your claim would need to make it true ? the biggest and most perfect conspiracy in the history of the universe.

There would be probably 10,000 or more people involved in this, they would be civilian as well as military and be from all across the world ? and yet in over 25 years not one person has come forward to support this claim.

In over 25 years no journalist or foreign spy has ever uncovered evidence that this happened. And this happened at the height of the Cold War yet the USSR, Israel, Warsaw Pact, China and every other nation on the planet did not find out that this happened.

Any journalist who broke this story would be rich and famous yet they do not. Any one of the UK?s rival nations could announce this but they do not. Why? Because it is not true.

Argentina would know the position where she ?attacked? the Invincible so why has no one ever found the wreck of the ship there?

I can see how it would make someone feel special and clever to ?discover? such a thing, but it is nothing more than an internet conspiracy theory.
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 04 Oct 2007 11:15 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
[img]http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=527412238&size=l&context=set-72157600303250708[/img]
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 04 Oct 2007 11:20 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Well, that did not work.

Anyway - if you go to this persons website you can see his personal pictures from the FI war.

Including pictures of HMS Invincible after the war.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_hopkins/sets/72157600303250708/


Yet more photographic proof that she did not sink.
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
JPL
Moderador


Registrado: 05 Nov 2005
Mensajes: 1406
Ubicaci?n: Ciudad de Buenos Aires

MensajePublicado: 04 Oct 2007 02:45 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Hutch escribi?:
Well, that did not work.

Anyway - if you go to this persons website you can see his personal pictures from the FI war.

Including pictures of HMS Invincible after the war.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_hopkins/sets/72157600303250708/


Yet more photographic proof that she did not sink.


Excelentes fotos Hutch, no las ten?a

Muchas gracias

Saludos, JPL.

--

CRISTIAN

[quote:ce02564260="JPL"][quote:ce02564260="Hutch"]Well, that did not work.

Anyway - if you go to this persons website you can see his personal pictures from the FI war.

Including pictures of HMS Invincible after the war.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_hopkins/sets/72157600303250708/


Yet more photographic proof that she did not sink.[/quote:ce02564260]

Excelentes fotos Hutch, no las ten?a

Muchas gracias

Saludos, JPL.[/quote:ce02564260]

Twisted Evil Ya lo explique en otro post, esas fotos son tomadas desde el Crucero HMS Bristol, a la ida a MLV son del Invincible y todas estan mal reveladas adrede por aparecen cambiadas las bandas de estribor y babor.
Son del periodo que va del 18/4/82 al 30/5/82

El resto son del Illustrious (se diferencia facilmente por los radomos de los ca?ones Phalanx a propa y a popa) y e inexplicablemente (para la gilada) tambien esta navegando al lado del Bristol....

No hay ninguna foto del Invincible volviendo a ningun lado.

Razz El MI6 se va a tener que esforzar un poco mas...falta evidencia de la sobrevida del Invincible luego del 30/5/82.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado
mensajes_anteriores



Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie May 21, 2008 12:20 am    Asunto: Responder citando

CRISTIAN G

[quote:445c1b8eb8]?That it happens to be a innombrable ship, a ghost ship.?

It was not a ?ghost ship?. It was doing its job defending the FI. Why would the UK advertise its presence?[/quote:445c1b8eb8]

Por que habia un reclamo de averia y presunto hundimiento acerca de ese buque.

Que trabajo estaba haciendo el Invincible defendiendo las Malvinas?
Que cosa podia hacer un buque inexistente o bien situado en el fondo del lecho marino?

Question Defendiendolo de la FAA ?
Laughing Laughing Laughing No haca falta, la FAA ya estaba argumentando haber combatido al CV US-Saratoga
Pierre Clostermann y Carballo estaban combatiendo contra la verdad y escribiendo una historia complementaria y funcional a la de la Royal Navy.

O acaso Pierre Clostermann no fue piloto de la RAF ?

Twisted Evil Los argentinos no somos idiotas Hutch.
Estas sobreestimando adrede el poder de fuego de lo poco que quedaba operativo de la FAA y el COAN luego de la guerra.
No habia poder de fuego ni habia ninguna posibilidad de contraataque suicida.
Eso es una torpe manipulacion de datos, un falseamiento de la realidad, una operacion de inteligencia britanica.

Con los ingleses en las Islas malvinas, y basicamente operando el aeropuerto de Puerto Stanley y con capacidad de repostaje en vuelo garantizada, no existia ninguna necesidad de permanencia de ningun PAL britanico al Este de las Islas.

El Hermes partio en menos de un mes, y detras de el Hermes debio haber partido el Invincible.
Y en el peor de los casos tenian disponible el Illustrious desde el 20/6/82 comisionado por la reina....por lo que podia haber llegado el 10/7 a Malvinas si es que era necesaria la presencia de un PAL ASW en Malvinas.

De ser cierta la historia montada por la Royal Navy, Pierre Clostermann, Carballo y la FAA, acerca del poder de fuego de la FAA y del poder defensivo de los Clase Invincible el escenario hubiese sido otro.

El Illustrious a mediados de Julio en Malvinas.

Relevando a ambos portaaviones, al Hermes y al Invincible.

Pero lo cierto es que no hacia falta exponer a ningun buque, por dos razones muy simples
1)En Argentina no habia margen politico, ni poder de fuego para una accion suicida. Si en la FAA hubiese habido pilotos kamikaze hubiesen atacado durante la guerra y no despues, cuando el aeropuerto de las Islas estaba en manos argentinas.
La FAA no tenia kamikazes, por el contrario tenia todo un escuadron mediatico en la base de San Julian, con enviados de todas las revistas y periodicos de propaganda de masas.
Luego del 14/6/82 volvieron todos a sus bases y a sus hogares.
Eso los ngleses lo podian monitorear facilmente, sin necesidad del Invincible fantasma

2)Las capacidades defensivas de un Clase Invincible son reducidas en poder de fuego y radio de accion.
Mucho mas aun si lo colocas al Este de las Islas Malvinas.
No tiene razon de ser su presencia ni la extension de su periodo de navegacion a 5,5 meses con toda la tripulacion a bordo, mas de 1000 personas, sin tomar puerto nunca.

Laughing Lo que argumentan los ingleses no es algo medianamente serio, es una imbecilidad desde el punto de la navegacion maritima y de la guerra naval y aeronaval. Una falta de respeto a la inteligencia de interlocutor.
Es violencia intelectual y psicologica.
Parece una novela fantastica de Ray Bradbury ... Laughing Laughing Laughing

Twisted Evil Sirvio de cortina de humo en junio de 1982, y en los a?oos en que la FAA monopolizo estupidamente la historia de la guerra, y la adorno y reescribio como otra novela de Ray Bradbury.
Complementaria a la Novela de la Royal Navy.

Cool) Si el Invincible no hubiese sido hundido hubiese aparecido en todos lados, hasta en las etiquetas de la sopa Campbell.
Y hubiesen regresado triunfalmente juntos con el Hermes.

Y si era necesario un Invincible Class en Malvinas (algo insostenible y ridiculo) hubiesen mandado el Illustrious a fines de Junio a Malvinas, que como te dije estaba listo al menos el 20/6/82.

PD:
Question Por que razon cuando la OTAN pedia las coordenadas del Invincible, luego del 30/5/82 en las coordenadas que daba la Royal Navy, la OTAN nunca podia encontrar ningun buque ?


--

[img:445c1b8eb8]http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6076/hmsillustriousbeingdwarao9.jpg[/img:445c1b8eb8]

Aca tienen bien clarito el tama?o y el poder de fuego de un Portaaviones nucleo de Flota y un portaaviones escolta de flota para combate antisubmarino.

Esta el Illustrious (lase Invincible) que no puede portar mas de 20 aeronaves en total al lado de un Nimitz, el Stennis.

Los Invincibles calan muy poco, despues les subo fotos en dique seco y su manga como se ve en la foto es muy estrecha.

Jamas hubiesen soportado un misil explotado en medio del Oceano Atlantico Sur.
Ni hablar de dos bombas de 500 libras adicionales.

Un Invincible puede atracar practicamente en cualquier puerto comercial donde atraque cruceros comerciales.
Cala poco y es angosto, no necesita canales anchos ni profundos.

Rolling Eyes Como se nota claramente, no todos los portaaviones son iguales.

Idea De todas forma aun al a?o 2007 se considera que un clase Nimitz no es totalmente inmune a un ataque con misiles ASM.
No se va a hundir con un solo impacto, pero el porcentaje de capacidad de desvio o neutralizacion es muy bajo.

Los misiles ASM son la pesadilla de todo portaaviones en la actualidad y por eso salvo USA, se construyen muy poco.

Y hablo de misiles ASM (que se lanzan desde aviones) por que los SSM que se lanzan desde buques, son mas faciles de neutralizar por que su vector (un buque) es mucho mas simple de batir en especial desde una fuerza de portaaviones.

Y tambien lo son los misiles antibuque que se pueden lanzar desde submarinos, aunque esos no son tan populares y no cualquiera puede tener un submarino con esas capacidades de fuego.

En cambio un avion con misles ASM es algo relativamente accesible, de hecho nosotros los teniamos desde hace 25 a?os.

No hay ningun buque en la actualidad 100% a ese tipo de ataque.


--

CAS

A few observations:

I see you've quietly dropped your orginal "disposable" aluminium argument. How quaint. Wink

One Type 21 was hit by more than one bomb in the Falklands and didn't sink until an attempt was made to defuse it. It doesn't just depend on what hits, but where it hits.

True, Invincible (draft 7.5m) can use commercial port facilities, but so can Nimitz (draft 11.5m). You also seem to be somewhat overawed by the width of Nimitz's flight deck. Her beam at the waterline is a mere 40m, which isn't much wider than Invincible. The practical outcome of this is that Nimitz rolls a lot in heavy seas. I think US carriers are totally top heavy, but that's just my opinion. I like to see ships than can take heavy weather.

I do agree with your point about the overall vulnerability of large Carriers, as they present a much better target and are far less maneuverable than a smaller ship. Have you factored target aspect ratio and decoy counter measures into your deliberations? Invincible has a far better chance of changing heading in a shorter space of time.

I would also note that some ship and sub launched missiles most certainly would sink a carrier with one hit. You use nuclear warheads, which was the tactic the old Soviet Union intended to use against the US carrier fleets. I doubt modern Russia has abandoned their thinking on this.


--


CRISTIAN


Smile Si habia algun argentino en el Vince fue desembarcado antes del 30/5/82

Aca tienen al Invincible viniendo con el Hermes desde Ascension hasta Malvinas.

Siempre andaban juntos a distancia visual o un poco mas, para darse cobertura mutua.

Es lo logico, eran dos portavioones chicos y muy vulnerables en esepecial el Invincible:

[img:445c1b8eb8]http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5473/hermesax8.jpg[/img:445c1b8eb8]


---

[quote:445c1b8eb8="CristianG"]Smile Si habia algun argentino en el Vince fue desembarcado antes del 30/5/82

Aca tienen al Invincible viniendo con el Hermes desde Ascension hasta Malvinas.

Siempre andaban juntos a distancia visual o un poco mas, para darse cobertura mutua.

Es lo logico, eran dos portavioones chicos y muy vulnerables en esepecial el Invincible:

[/quote:445c1b8eb8]

In a war zone would you put all your eggs in one basket? No, you would seperate them if you could, wouldn't you?

CG, you really are quite naive.

CAS

--

Y aca tienen al Hermes volviendo a UK, y cruzandose con el Illustrious para pasarle parte del la tripulacion evacuada del Invincible, antes de entrar a Porstmouth creo que el 21/7/82

[img:445c1b8eb8]http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/3296/hmshermesandhmsillustrigw5.jpg[/img:445c1b8eb8]

CRISTIAN

....

[quote:445c1b8eb8="cas9480"][quote:445c1b8eb8="CristianG"]Smile Si habia algun argentino en el Vince fue desembarcado antes del 30/5/82

Aca tienen al Invincible viniendo con el Hermes desde Ascension hasta Malvinas.

Siempre andaban juntos a distancia visual o un poco mas, para darse cobertura mutua.

Es lo logico, eran dos portavioones chicos y muy vulnerables en esepecial el Invincible:

[/quote:445c1b8eb8]

In a war zone would you put all your eggs in one basket? No, you would seperate them if you could, wouldn't you?

CG, you really are quite naive.[/quote:445c1b8eb8]

El Amirante Woodward los situaba a no mas de 20 millas entre si CAS.
Debieras estudiar un poco mas antes de poner en duda todo lo que digo.

Ademas si se hundia uno de los dos portaaviones en el medio del mar, adonde pasabas rapidamente la tripulacion evacuada?
Al otro, helitransportandola.

Ya habian tenido la experiencia del Coventry.

Imagina un hundimiento rapido de un carrier, como sacas a los evacuados rapidamente.
Con viajes cortos en helicopteros entre ambos.

Y eso fue precisamente lo que monitoreo el CIC de Malvinas, un febril movimienot de helicopteros, que tenioan que evacuar a 1000 personas.

Era lo esperable, Argentina tenia un solo Exocet, UK lo sabia.

Eventualmente podia hundir a un portaaviones pero nunca a los dos.

Y ningun avionn de la FAA podia llegar a cercanias para bonbardeo gravitacional sin ser derribado varias veces antes (Seawinder, Sea Dart, Artilleria AA.

Lo correcto era mantenerlos juntos....


---

Aqui se lleva la preciada carga hacia alguna base naval o destino secreto.

[img:445c1b8eb8]http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7366/illustrious1982la9.jpg[/img:445c1b8eb8]



--

Foto de la llegada del "Invencible", se ve con bastantes detalles:

[img:445c1b8eb8]http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2664/1982ic9.jpg[/img:445c1b8eb8]

Saludos, JPL.

--
CRISTIAN

Se ve todo muy nuevo en ese buque.
No parece haber navegado por 5,5 meses

Respecto de las chorreaduras de oxido en la zona de
ambas anclas, no se preocupen.
Aparecen tambien en los buques antes de ser botados.
Seguramente salen con la estructura exterior del buque
desde muchos antes de estar en comision.

Salvo ese detalle, que se ve en cascos pelados, el buque
parece un 0 km, recien sacado de la concesionaria.

--

Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 15 Oct 2007 08:51 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG

?That work was doing Invincible defending the Malvinas??

That was its job. If the enemy knew where it was that job would be harder.

?The Argentines are not idiots Hutch.?

I did not say they were.

?These purposely overestimating the firepower of what little was left of the FAA operating and HLSOC after the war.?

Overestimate? Why take any chances at all, especially with such vital assets?

?No habia firepower nor had any opportunity to counterattack suicide.?

Again, why take any chances at all?

??a British intelligence operation.?

You have no evidence to support that at all.

?With the British in malvinas Islands, and basically operate the airport in Port Stanley and capable of air refueling guaranteed not exist any need for permanence of any PAL east of the British Isles.?

That is your personal opinion based on ignorance and prejudice. You have shown many times you do not understand basic facts about the issues and do not understand what you are talking about.

?And in the worst cases had available since June 20, 1982 Illustrious commissioned by the queen .... it could have reached the 10/7 to Malvinas if they needed a presence in PAL ASW Malvinas.?

And Illustrious was sent down to the FI, being actually finished on route. Hermes returned, leaving Invincible on station and then Illustrious replaced Invincible.

?If some history mounted by the Royal Navy, Pierre Clostermann, Carballo and the FAA, on the firepower of the FAA and the defensive power of the Class Invincible scenario would have been another. ?

I do not know what this means.



But the truth is that not much needed to expose any vessel, for two very simple reasons

?In Argentina there was not enough room politico nor firepower for a suicidal action. If the FAA had kamikaze pilots had been attacked during the war and not after, when the airport was in the hands of the Argentine Islands.?

The UK would not be 100% sure of this and so it would be foolish to take any chances, especially with such a valuable ship as a carrier.

?After June 14, 1982 all returned to their bases and to their homes.?

The UK would not be 100% sure of this and so it would be foolish to take any chances, especially with such a valuable ship as a carrier.

?It has no reason to be his presence nor the extension of his term of sailing to 5.5 months with the entire crew on board, over 1000 people, without taking port ever.?

This is again your personal opinion based on deep personal ignorance and prejudice. You clearly food not understand the military or how a military operates.

?A lack of respect for the intelligence of interlocutor. ?It is intellectual and psychological violence. ?It seems a fantastic novel by Ray Bradbury ...?

You claim this but you have failed to provide evidence to back up your claim and you invent new lies when it suits your paranoid fantasy. You make wild and utterly unsupported claims, do not answer questions and ignore photographic evidence.

?If the Invincible would not have been sunk had appeared everywhere, even in the Campbell soup labels.?

Why? Again, this appears to be your personal fantasy.

?And had returned triumphantly together with the Hermes.?

No it would not and only a fool or a deeply ignorant person would claim this. How many times do you need very simple things explained to you? The Invincible would stay on station in the FI to defend the FI and because it had facilities for aircraft that nowhere in the FI did have. The Invincible was an aircraft hanger, billeting for pilots and engineers, command and control centre, runway and maintenance station for the airplanes and there were no other comparable facilities in the area so it would stay there.

?And if it required an Invincible Class in Malvinas (something unsustainable and ridiculous)??

It is only ?unsustainable and ridiculous? to you - someone who does not know what they are talking about.

??had commanded the Illustrious in late June to Malvinas, as I told you I was ready at least June 20, 1982.?

The Illustrious was required in the FI and so the Illustrious was sent to the FI being finished on route there.

?For that reason when NATO pedia coordinates of Invincible, after May 30, 1982 at coordinates given by the Royal Navy, NATO could never find any ship??

Are you claiming that NATO did not know where the ship was? Can you prove that? Or is it another lie you have invented to desperately keep your bizarre claim alive?

?Aca this is making a historical analysis of a disputed fact, this is accusing the enemy of concealment damage of war, without charging a dime for it.?

You are not making a historical analysis. The ?facts? are disputed by very few people.

??based on years of research.?

Have you seriously dedicated years of research to this? And this is the result?

?And if that carrier sink (no doubt for me)??

You have no evidence to support this claim, refuse to answer questions, refuse to accept photographic evidence and have displayed great ignorance and prejudice concerning the topic.

?And here are returning to the Hermes UK, and crossing the Illustrious to pass part of the crew evacuated the Invincible??

You have no evidence at all that the crew of the Invincible was evacuated from the Invincible. None.

So much you say ? if not everything ? has to be doubted because you have no credibility, no knowledge of what you are talking about and constantly invent new elements to your fantasy.

?And that was precisely what ICC monitoring the Malvinas, a feverish movimienot of helicopters, which tenioan to evacuate 1,000 people.?

This is just a random guess and in no way at all was it ?precisely? what the Argentines apparently monitored. Do you really think it is odd that there was a lot of air activity around an aircraft carrier?


?It is all very new to the ship.?

Wrong, it is a modern and almost brand new ship that was made with modern materials. Once again we see your ignorance.

?Except for that detail, which is in helmets peeled, the ship Seems 0 km, recently removed from the concessionaire.?

Your personal opinion based on deep ignorance.

?And there are good claritas repairs to the deck,?Where deconstruct the canyon Phalanx to the retrofit of ?Hull again.?

Total and utter guesswork based on what a stain on the deck of the ship might be. Deeply pathetic as usual.
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
cas9480
Moderador


Registrado: 08 Abr 2006
Mensajes: 1052
Ubicaci?n: Shetland Islands, UK

MensajePublicado: 15 Oct 2007 01:56 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
So, in summary:

HMS Invincible was replaced by HMS Illustrious, and her crew were unknowingly transplanted on some night without realising what was happening. CG, is that what you're purporting?

The internal layout of Illustrious was miraculously converted to match Invincible's original blue prints including re-routing some 2000m of intricate ductwork, reworking the engine, gearbox and machinery layouts, altering at least 20,000 serial plates and removing all traces of identification, not to mention the not insubstantial task of making a Swan Hunter ship match a Vickers built ship.

You seem to be of the opinion that because a ship looks the same outside it is the same inside. Nothing could be further from the truth, and one of the biggest issues here is where each ship was built.

No one who did this work ever decided to sell their story.

No sailor or marine who served on Invincible then or since ever noticed that the original blueprints and O&M manuals didn't match what was fitted, and we were all duped, including the dockyard workers who originally built her!

No foreign agent ever suspected that this had happened.

No journalist ever investigated anything (despite the fact that investigative journalists uncovered the truth about one of the UK's most serious building mistakes on the secret nuclear submarine programme)

No freedom of information request has ever been forthcoming.

I could go on and on here...but despite all of these amazing feats of ingenuity and reverse engineering they forgot to paint a small piece of deck? Laughing
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 15 Oct 2007 03:24 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Exclamation Para la tripulacion del Invincible, el Casco R06 se llama a partir del 30/5/82 de nuevo Invincible.
Asi de simple CAS.

Question El casco R05?
Construido por Vickers, como tu dices.
Rolling Eyes No se....desaparecio...no esta mas...a proposito?
Existio?

Nuestro Invincible es...este.

Luce difernte por dentro, es logico...ha sido el fruto de la refit del dia 18/9/82...el dia inmediato al arribo a Portsmouth
(Refit oficial declarada por la Royal Navy)

Parte de la tripulacion fue subida al casco retrofitteado por unas pocas horas, se la desembarco el 17/9/82.... y por meses no volvieron a ver al buque.
Creo que hasta Marzo o Mayo de 1983.

Cas, cuanto tiempo estuvo el Invincible amarrado a Portsmouth luego del triunfal regreso del 17/9/82?

Amanecio el 18/9/82 en el mismo sitio?
O de inmediato se fue a hacer una refit?

Revisa la historia oficial del HMS Invincible y encontraras una refit a partir del 18/9/82.

Yo voe regresar a Portsmouth un buque nuevo, inmaculado...inclusive la torre gris tiene poco hollin de las chimeneas, inclusive menos que las pretendidas fotos en Malvinas (Fotos del R05 en Ascension)
El humo manchando la torre gris es un perfecto reloj de tiempo.

La tripualcion original del Invincible, penso en su momento que el buque estaba siendo reparado en algun sitio.
la evacuaron y luego la subieron unas pocas horas a un gemelo nuevo, la voolvieron a bajar.
El gemelo desaparecio del puerto y recien la tripulacion del Invincible volvio a abordarlo para marzo o mayo de 1983 (no recuerdo bien)

Question Agente secretos extranjeros?
Estamos hablando de historia real, no de ciencia ficcion.

Los agentes secretos extarnjeros estaban descansando luego de haber descubierto que el HMS Dasher se habia hundido en 1943...no tenian ganas de seguir investigando sobre los portaaviones fantasmas ingleses.

Yo veo arribar un buque nuevo CAS.
Totalmente nuevo.
No veo a un buque de varios a?os, con 5,5 meses de navegacion continua.

Veo al 95% de la tripulacion en la parte externa del buque.
Veo a todas las aeronaves aterrizadas sobre cubierta....

Podria ser inclusive un paseo de la tripulacion del Invincible y de sus aeronaves, en el cascaron del R07.
Que como te digo, de inmediato vuelve al astillero.

La prensa nunca pudo entrar al buque.
Por que como tu bien dices, era otro buque.

Rolling Eyes Hay testigos britanicos que manifestaron en su momento la sorpresa de ver la banda de estribor como "nueva"....muchos pensaron que era por una reparacion debido a averia.

Es logico, el publico ve solamente una banda del buque, ve la banda de estribor en este desembarco (hay casos que amarran por babor, los clase Invincible , por que no tienen pista angular)

Pero si tu miras las decenas de fotos del arribo triunfal, CAS, veras que el buque esta nuevo por todos lados.

El unico oxido es el de las anclas...que curiosamente es el que se acumula en los astilleros por simple accion del tiempo.

Y si tu me dices que la tripulacion limpio todas las chorreaduras de oxido de ventanas y claraboyas en un puerto intermediario...por que razon, no limpiaron tambien el oxido de las anclas?

La posicion inglesa respecto al Invincible, es inconsistente, es impresentable.
_________________
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
cas9480
Moderador


Registrado: 08 Abr 2006
Mensajes: 1052
Ubicaci?n: Shetland Islands, UK

MensajePublicado: 15 Oct 2007 03:44 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG

I think our technical arguments are very cohesive and their relevance entirely goes over your head.

Your "historical research" amounts to nothing, and those statements you have claimed as facts are torn to shreds under informed scrutiny.

You have not responded to one technical argument presented to you, and your level of ignorance is truly epic in scale.

We must therefore assume that you are incapable of disputing these technical arguments, and as Hutch so succinctly put it, your arguments are indeed pathetic.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
cas9480
Moderador


Registrado: 08 Abr 2006
Mensajes: 1052
Ubicaci?n: Shetland Islands, UK

MensajePublicado: 15 Oct 2007 03:56 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
cas9480 escribi?:
CG

I think our technical arguments are very cohesive and their relevance entirely goes over your head.

Your "historical research" amounts to nothing, and those statements you have claimed as facts are torn to shreds under informed scrutiny.

You have not responded to one technical argument presented to you, and your level of ignorance is truly epic in scale.

We must therefore assume that you are incapable of disputing these technical arguments, and as Hutch so succinctly put it, your arguments are indeed pathetic.


Oh yes, and while I remember, look at the three Invincibles sailing together after months at sea. Very little in the way of rust, due to modern epoxy coatings (as explained earlier).

You are trying to compare an end of life carrier (Hermes) with a new ship that uses modern paint systems.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado
mensajes_anteriores



Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie May 21, 2008 12:21 am    Asunto: Responder citando

[quote:97daf24630="cas9480"][quote:97daf24630="cas9480"]CG

I think our technical arguments are very cohesive and their relevance entirely goes over your head.

Your "historical research" amounts to nothing, and those statements you have claimed as facts are torn to shreds under informed scrutiny.

You have not responded to one technical argument presented to you, and your level of ignorance is truly epic in scale.

We must therefore assume that you are incapable of disputing these technical arguments, and as Hutch so succinctly put it, your arguments are indeed pathetic.[/quote:97daf24630]

Oh yes, and while I remember, look at the three Invincibles sailing together after months at sea. Very little in the way of rust, due to modern epoxy coatings (as explained earlier).

You are trying to compare an end of life carrier (Hermes) with a new ship that uses modern paint systems.[/quote:97daf24630]

Pero ustedes son payadores de la pampa humeda, no parecn ingleses a la hora del canto.

Que pintura epoxica le vas a poner a un buque en el medio del mar?

CAS, yo me crie en la Base Naval mas grande de mi pais, camine por varios de los buques que combatieron en Malvinas, entre ellos el ARA Crucero Belgrano, y en ambos portaaviones clase Colossus el ARA Independencia y el ARA 25 de Mayo.

Me crie viendo buques de guerra, en puerto y navegando en el mar, en el Oceano Atlantico Sur.

Ademas navego a vela desde los 14 a?os y hago windsurf desde los 27 a?os, se erfectamente lo que es al agua y como navega cada embarcacion en el rio y en el mar.

Ustedes dicen que tuvieron que mover el buque fantasma para cambiarle la turbina, cuando tenian una enorme bahia y un puerto para hacerlo.

Ahora resulta que tambien lo pintaron en el medio del mar, pero se olvidaron justamente del oxido del ancla, que precisamente es el que se va acumulando desde la botadura de los buques.

Es impresentable lo que nos contas, el buque que regresa es visiblemente un buque nuevo.

Como cuernos se colgaban para pintar el buque en medio del mar?

Lo de la re-pintada del buque es nuevo, jamas oi que argumentaran eso.

Si lo repintaron en medio del mar, como hicieron?
Por que no repintaron la zona de ambas anclas?
Acaso por un pedido de la Reina o del principe Andres?

Y si lo repintaron en un Puerto, en cual fue?
Hay alguna documentacion de ese atraque a puerto?

Que hizo la tripulacion de 1000 personas mientras repintaban el buque y cambiaban la pintura...todos se reconvirtieron magicamente a operarios de astillero naval ?

Como controlas la disciplina de 1000 personas enjauladas en un buque 90 dias de postguerra, acaso el enfermero transexual Lynda Cash los mantenia sedados?

Para que hacer toda esa payasada, si el Invincible jams tomo la insignia de Almirante de Flota en Malvinas, es un buque con reclamo de averia, que desaparece del planeta por 3 meses con 1000 personas a bordo y reaparece inmaculado en UK.
Y que al dia siguiente, se escapa al astillero a hacer una "Refit"

Ya te explique que esa estupiad y tramposa foto de los 3 carriers es de 1990, antes de la refit del que eustedes llaman Illustrious, peroe s el casco R07 que se ve en el medio de la foto.

Como bien dice mi compatriota Rotweiller, yo conozco la historia oficial de los 3 buques de la Royal Navy y ademas conozco la otra probable historia.

Mas adelante voy a subir evidencia que el casco que se comisiona como Ark Royal, no tiene nada que ver con el casco original R07.
partiendo por el color de la obra viva (la parte que va debajo del agua) que pasa de ser negra en su origen a ser luego gris cuando se bota y luego negra a los pocos meses.
Pero ademas todo el buque es diferente, dsde la proa hasta la poscion de los 3 Phalanx (la actual) en lugar de 2 Phalanx la original.

Pero lo que no pueden explicar los ingleses, es donde estuvo el Invincible desde el 30/5/82 hasta el 17/9/82.
Y como rejuvenecio completamete el buque a tal punto de ser muy similar a los dos gemelos que tenia UK el 30/5/82???

Es inexplicable CAS.

Cualquier argentino que este leyendo esto, se da cuenta de que ese buque es nuevo, no necesita ser VG ni haberse criado entre buques de guerra

No es el Invincible repintado, puede ser el R06 o el R07.
Pero definitivamente ese buque no es el R05.

--

Twisted Evil Aca tienen a los dos gemelos del Invincible en mayo o Junio de 1982.

El primero es el casco R06 (corto 194 metros) , alli esta matriculado como Illustrious (tiene la L en popa) con los Phalanx a estribor popa y estribor proa.

En segundo plano esta el casco R07 (largo 210 metros) que como veran estaba muy avanzado para esa epoca (a mas de 3 meses del regreso triunfal trucho)

Por un lado los ingleses nos quieren hacer creer que ellos cambiaron una turbina en el medio del mar y repintaron todo el buque en el medio del mar, con una tripulacion exhausta a bordo, que no eran ni pintores ni mecanicos navales.
Esa fabula debe ser creida

Sin embargo dicen que es imposible que por ejemplo el buque que esta en segundo plano se pueda terminar en 3 meses, al menos en la parte exterior para dar una vuelta hasta Portsmouth y volverse al astillero en el Rio Tyne.
Con posibles cientos de personas especializadas a bordo, y con toda la infraestructura de un astillero.

Idea Pero con un condimento mas, en el hemisferio norte, era Verano ... dias largos...
mientras que en el Hemisferio Sur era invierno, dias muy cortos.

Smile Lo razonable es terminar el segundo buque para tener dos buques aparentando navegar para el 17/9/82
(es un hecho de que para el 17/9/82 habia dos clase Invincible navegando)
Y no tener una tripulacion divagando por el medio del mar, cambiando turbinas y repintando el buque.

CAS, Hutch...alli tienen a los dos clase Invincible que navegaban el 17/9/82 uno en malvinas y otro en UK.

Y ninguno es el R05 Invincible, construido por Vickers.
Pues ese buque fue hundido por un impacto de exocet AM 39, lanzado desde un avion Super Etendard al mando del Capitan de Corberta ARA Alejandro Francisco, que estallo alrededor de las 14.30 hs, y produjo el hundimiento del buque por la noche.

Para 1984 el casco R06 era el Invincible y el casco R07 era el Illustrious, ya con rematriculacion definitiva

El buque de segundo plano es el casco R07, y no tienen nada que ver con el que se comisiona luego en 1985 como Ark Royal.

[img:97daf24630]http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9919/2gemelosdelinvincibleru0.jpg[/img:97daf24630]

--

Very Happy Aqu tienes al verdadero Ark Royal actual, que no es el casco R07, sino otro diferente. El R08 que se construye entre 1982 y 1984.

[img:97daf24630]http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9131/r08sb6.jpg[/img:97daf24630]

Y aqui lo tienes navegando junto al casco R07 rematriculado como Illustrious (el que esta en segundo plano en la foto del rio Tyne)
En los Trials de 1984/85

Otro buque que cambia milagrosamente sus formas y colores y que entonces debiera haber sufrido una refit previa a la puesta en comision ???
Question Para que reforman un buque nuevo, casi totalmente antes de comisionarlo?
O es otro buque?

Ray Bradbury esta siempre presente en la historia de la Clase Invendible

[img]
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5933/r08yr07zr5.jpg[/img]


--


[img:97daf24630]http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5933/r08yr07zr5.jpg[/img:97daf24630]

-

CG

This has really become quite pathetic now.

?For the crew of Invincible, Casco R06 is called again from May 30, 1982 Invincible.?

The crew would know if their ships had been exchanged for another one.

?Part of the crew was retrofitteado ascent to the hull for a few hours, the landing on Sept. 17, 1982 .... For months, and did not come to see the ship. I believe that until March or May 1983.?

You have no evidence for this. Once again you make up new lies in a desperate bid to support your crazy idea.

?Cas, how long the Invincible was docked at Portsmouth after the triumphant return of Sept. 17, 1982??

As it had been on a long ? at that time I think the longest ?continual deployment it is in no way strange that she would enter a refit. It is strange to people like you who know nothing about what they are talking about.

Invincible needed her air defences improved and would have been inspected after such a long time on operations.

I believe that the refit was from her arrival back in the UK to February 1983. Definitely not time to build a new ship.

?Check the official history of HMS Invincible and find a refit from September 18, 1982.?

The official site of the Royal Navy on the Invincible makes no mention of any of her refits. Why would it?
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1281

?I voe return to Portsmouth a ship again immaculate ... ?

It was not immaculate, you can clearly see rust on the ship. Remember that the Invincible was only 2 years old when she was deployed and was made with modern, anti rust materials.

?The original tripualcion Invincible, we thought at the time that the ship was being repaired in somewhere.?

You have no evidence for this.

?The evacuated and then climbed a few hours to a new twin, voolvieron down.?

You have no evidence for this.

?The twin disappeared from the port and the crew just came into the Invincible deal for March or May 1983 (I do not remember well)?

You have no evidence for this.

?Secret Agent foreigners??

No spy agency on the entire planet has ebver discovered any evidence that this happened. And this happened at the height of the Col War.

?We are talking about real history, not science fiction.?

Some of us are talking about history, you are a laughable and pathetic fantasist who has no proof for what he claims.

?The secret agents extarnjeros were resting after having discovered that the HMS Dasher had been sunk in 1943 ...?

HMS Dasher was known to have sunk in 19943 and her loss was reported in the newspapers in 1945. Her sinking was not a mystery nor was it covered up.

??had no desire to further research on the British aircraft carrier ghosts.?

Total rubbish. Are you seriously claiming that the USSR would not have been interested in the 1980?s in a UK carrier being sunk? You really are very ignorant.

?I see a ship arriving new CAS.?

You see that because you are deeply ignorant, ignore the facts and live in a deluded paranoid fantasy world.

?I see 95% of the crew on the outside of the ship.?

What is that supposed to prove?

?I see all aircraft on deck realistic .... ?

What is that supposed to prove?

?Can even be a walk of the crew of Invincible and its aircraft, in the thinning of R07.?

You have no evidence to support this.

?The press was never able to enter the ship.?

Why would they go on board?

?Because as you well say, it was another ship.?

You have no evidence for this.

?British Witnesses said at the time that the surprise of seeing the band starboard as "new ".... many thought was for a repair because averia. ?

Please provide proof of these quotes.

And remember that many people would be like you ? ignorant of ship building and the materials used in modern ship construction. It would be no surprise if the crew of the Invincible had tidied the ship up as she approached the UK either.

?The oxide is the only anchors ...?

Where would you expect it to be?

?And if you tell me that the crew clean all chorreaduras oxide windows and skylights??

Do you seriously believe that a crew would not clean and tidy a ship once it is out of a combat area? Once more your deep personal ignorance is evident.

?And you know you were in a war, that the veteran wants to go home as soon as possible and deserves it more than anyone else.?

That does not mean that they would be sent home before the job was done though. Invincible left the FI when her replacement had arrived. Again you show massive personal ignorance of real life.

?Imagine the discipline inside the ship under these conditions (2.5 months wore ademas de guerre)?

You clearly know nothing of the military, especially the Royal Navy. The military runs on discipline.

?As tenes 1000 people whom their relatives and friends suspect the worst or are desperate to see them around and around by the Ocean three months more.?

They do not suspect ?the worst?. They know that the ship is afloat. They may want to see their relatives but they know they willhave to wait.
?I can just say that, but I remember that when the fleet dilemma sea Puerto Belgrano had a feeling of terrible anxiety in the air.?

That is what you felt under totally different circumstances and has no relevance here. The circumstances are also utterly different.

?I do not seem possible to what the British have, either from a physical point of view nor from the human point of view.?

Once more we see your personal opinion based on ignorance and prejudice.

?Many years of investigating this issue??

They have been wasted years which have left you with a theory no intelligent, open minded person could believe.

??others have always emerged indicating the collapse and replacement by a new twin.?

Another lie. You have no convincing evidence at all and make up new lies when you need to. You have not a single witness or piece of evidence for what you claim.

?Now it appears that also painted in the middle of the sea, but just forgot oxide anchor, which is precisely which will accrue from the launch of the vessels.?

They did not forget it ? that area will always rust so there is no point in painting over that at sea because it will just rust up again.

?That made the crew of 1,000 people while repintaban the ship and changed the paint ... everyone is magically converted to operators shipyard??

Painting is not hard for most people, you do not need to be a shipyard worker to do it.

?As controls discipline caged 1,000 people on a ship 90 days post-war??

You really know nothing of the military do you? Especially a highly trained professional one. These people were trained professionals doing their job in a service based on discipline. The war itself may have been over but their job was not.

??perhaps the transsexual nurse Lynda Cash Zilil the sedated??

What does this refer to?

??to disappear from the planet for three months?

It did not disappear it was doing its job.

??with 1,000 people on board and reappears in immaculate UK.?

It did not look immaculate when it returned. Look at the pictures. Which you have clearly not bothered to do.

?And the following day, escapes to the yard to make a "Refit"?

Obviously. It had been at sea a massive amount of time and it had become clear in the war that a new air defence system was needed.

?As you said my fellow Rotweiller, I know the official history of the 3 ships of the Royal Navy??

No you do not.

A ship undergoes massive changes while being built so changes are inevitable.

?But it can not explain the English, where he is the Invincible since May 30, 1982 until September 17, 1982.?

It is in the FI region doing its job of protecting the FI until it is relieved. This has been explained to you many, many times and you have no evidence that anything else happened.

?Any Argentine this reading this, you realize that this ship is new ??

Anyone who reads what is posted up here and believes your theory is a fool.

?On the one hand the British want us to believe that they changed a turbine in the middle of the sea and repintaron around the ship in the middle of the sea, with an exhausted crew on board, which were neither artists nor naval mechanical. That must be ancient fibula?

That is not impossible, it is just very, very difficult. Remember that a ship like Invincible is not crewed by untrained people or conscripts ? there would be masters of mechanics on board and very highly skilled engineers and crew. In the military it does not matter if you are ?exhausted? ? if there is a job that has to be done, it is done.

Just because a ship is afloat it does not mean that it is yet operational. If you knew anything about shipbuilding ? which it is clear you do not ? you would know that.

??at least on the outside to give a return to Portsmouth and back to the shipyard on the River Tyne.?

You have no evidence that this happened.

?With hundreds of potential specialists on board, and the entire infrastructure of a shipyard.?

It takes a long time to fit out a ship.

?And not having a crew wandering by the middle of the sea, changing repintando turbines and the ship.?

If it has to be done it will be done. If you knew anything about the military you would know that.

?And none is R05 Invincible, built by Vickers.?

You have no evidence for that.

?Well, that ship was sunk by an impact of exocet AM 39??

There is no evidence or any witnesses to Invincible being struck by an Exocet.

??and resulted in the sinking of the ship at night.?

There is no evidence or any witnesses for this.

?For 1984 the hull was the Invincible R06 and R07 hull was the Illustrious, and with final rematriculacion?

There is no evidence or any witnesses for this.

?The ship is the background hull R07, and have nothing to do with that then commissioned in 1985 as Ark Royal?

There is no evidence or any witnesses for this.

?Here is the true current Ark Royal, which is not the R07 helmet, but another.?

There is no evidence or any witnesses for this.

?The R08 is constructed between 1982 and 1984.?

There is no evidence or any witnesses for this.

?Another ship miraculously change their shapes??

What changed about their shapes?

??and colors??

In the UK we have something we call paint? which allows us to change the colour of things.

??and then should have undergone a refit prior to placing on commission? ? ??

What does this mean? If a weakness has been identified during construction then it will obviously be resolved before the ship sails if possible.

?For reforming a ship again, almost entirely before assigning??

What does this mean? If a weakness has been identified during construction then it will obviously be resolved before the ship sails if possible.


You are living in a deluded and pathetic fantasy world and you are an embarrassment. Look at how many witnesses you have. Look at how much proof you have. Look how you invent new elements all the time. Look at just what a level of perfect international conspiracy your theory relies on. Look at how little you know about the military, the Navy, shipbuilding, etc. Think about how it is that no journalist or spy has ever discovered any evidence that this happened and how it is that a lone Argentine with the internet and no knowledge about the subject can. I can see how this would make you feel special and important but it is a fantasy.

--

Mr. Green Hutch, no hace falta que me putees en gringo.

Ustedes cuentan una historieta infumable para cualquiera que tenga un minimo conocimiento de buques de guerra, de la dinamica de una batalla naval, de logistica y reparaciones y basicamente alrededor de todo lo "humano" en lo naval.

La gente una vez terminada una guerra y a bordo de un buque quiere y debe volver a su casa.
No se pasa 3 meses jugando a las escondidas en medio del Oceano Atlantico Sur en pleno invierno.

Laughing Y alli tenes bien clarito al 4to casco de la clase Invincible, al "R08" rematriculado como R07.
Que es un buque claramente diferente al 3ro de la clase.
Laughing Hasta le pintaron la obra viva de un color diferente para que sea mas escandalosa la diferencia.
Pero es totalmente diferente el buque, empezando por la proa.

Question Por que no me pones alguna evidencia del momento en que fue puesto en comision, el buque que esta en segundo plano en los astilleros del Rio Tyne?
O sea el original R07

Question Y te repito la pregunta...es un caso de un buque nuevo que va a refit antes de ser puesto en comision?

Laughing Cuantos buque declaro UK en Refit entre 1982/83/84 para justificar que habia tan poco buque navegando?

Mr. Green A mi me podes poner a putear a todo UK m a toda la RN , a la Reina y la Familia Real, a los Servicios de Inteligencia y si queres poneme a toda la OTAN en contra.
Cool) Con puteadas y amenazas no se gana un debate ni se prueba absolutamente nada.
Conmigo perdes el tiempo, no me vas a amedrentar...si considero que estoy en la verdad, que la evidencia me es abrumadoramente favorable como lo es en este caso, puedo ir solo contra el mundo.
Rolling Eyes No me vas a hacer cagar con insultos.

Smile Yo llevo la celeste y blanca dibujada en el alma, por lo tanto respeto el poder de los rivales (no quiero usar el termino enemigo) pero no estoy obligado a cagarme ante nadie.

Si esto se dirimiese en una corte, aprobando pruebas para convencer a un jurado imparcial, irian perdiendo e juicio por goleada, ante un solo argentino.
Que cuenta una historia que se asemeja demasiado a lo que muy probablemente haya ocurrido.

Wink Vos me pediste pruebas, alli las tenes...


---

CG

?Hutch, no need for me putees in gringo.?

I do not know what this means. Possibly it is some kind of local phrase which does not translate well?

?You have a comic flick to anyone with a minimum knowledge of warships, the dynamics of a naval battle, logistics and repairs and basically everything about "human" in shipbuilding.?

I have clearly shown more knowledge than you. You have almost zero knowledge of everything you talk about and constantly invent new lies and refuse to answer questions.

?People once finished a war and a ship's wants and should go home.?

You really are a civilian and very ignorant of the military aren?t you? You show no knowledge of the military, discipline or what it means to be in the military.

Just because a war appears to be over it does not mean that all forces leave that area immediately ? they stay until the job is done. The soldiers may want to go home but they stay until they are relieved, they do not just leave because some people want to go home. They are professionals under orders.

?It is not happening three months playing hidden in the middle of the South Atlantic Ocean in the middle of winter.?

It was doing its job. You have had this explained to you many times but seem unable to accept reality.

?That is clearly different from a ship on the 3rd of the class.?

Wrong.

?But the ship is totally different, starting with the bow.?

What does this mean?

?And you repeat the question ... is a case of a new ship that will refit before being put into commission??

Which ship are you talking about? If it becomes clear, during construction, that a ship has weaknesses then they will be fixed before the ship enters service.

?Many ship declare UK in Refit between 1982/83/84 to justify that had so little ship sailing??

What does this mean?

?I can make the entire UK m bitching the whole RN, the Queen and the Royal Family, the Intelligence Services, and if you want poneme the entire NATO against.?

I am not sure what you are saying here, it appears to be more paranoid ramblings. You have failed to provide any evidence at all that any of these groups were involved in your delusions.

?With Ten and threats do not win a debate or test anything.?

No one has threatened you. They have asked to see your evidence and you do not have any.

?Conmigo lose time, I am not going to scare??

Once again these are classically paranoid words. No one is threatening you, no one is after you, no one is trying to scare you. Do you often think that others are plotting against you?

? ... if I feel that I am the truth??

You are wrong and deluded and have been shown to be so.

??that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor me as it is in this case??

No it is not, that is a lie from an ignorant and prejudiced person.

??I can go alone against the world.?

Once more we see you trying to make yourself out as a heroic martyr figure, instead of a laughable liar with a paranoid theory they have no evidence to support.

?If this is settled in a court??

No one would be stupid enough to take this series of lies, ignorance and bizarre mutterings to a court. Especially as you have not one witness out of the many thousands who would have been involved in this deluded conspiracy.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado
mensajes_anteriores



Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie May 21, 2008 12:21 am    Asunto: Responder citando

CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 16 Oct 2007 02:33 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Mr. Green Te quedaste sin argumentos Hutch.

Rolling Eyes Y solo he subido el 10% de la evidencia que he acumulado durante mas de 7 a?os.

Wink La mayoria de las fotos que estan viendo ustedes, son fotos de fuentes britanicas, de ciudadanos britanicos que han subido orgullosamente sus archivos personales de fotografias a Internet.

Rolling Eyes Tenemos las botaduras y las puestas en comision de casi toda la clase, como ha sido y en que ha constituido cada refit.
Como era la relacion comercial de la Royal Navy, con cada astillero.
Como eran los planos de los buques y los contratos oficiales.

Smile Te equivocas, yo no soy ni un martir ni un heroe, me queda muy grande esa camiseta.
Pero he tenido la suerte de conocer y convivir con heroes en serio, de verdad de carne y hueso.
No soy soldado, ni civil ni profesional, pero me he educado en el hogar de un soldado profesional, mi padre.
Y conozco el mandato de un soldado, "hacer siempre lo que se considera correcto hacer, no especular ni medir consecuencias"
Exclamation Los heroes y los martires son otros en mi pais, que no tiene aun ni dos siglos como pais.
Yo simplemente me considero leal a ellos.
Es una simple cuestion de lealtad. Wink

Volviendo al topic, el buque que esta en segundo plano en los astilleros del Rio Tyne, es el casco R07 (para mi es el actual Illustrious, para ustedes es el Ark Royal) en sus planos difiere solamente de los cascos R05 y R06 en la eslora (largo del buque) y en el Sky Jump, que tiene 12 grados mas de inclinacion hacia arriba.
Se puede ver.

Si como dicen los ingleses los trabajos en astilleros en verano son extremadamente lentos, inclusive mas lentos que todo lo que puede hacer la tripulacion del Invincible en medio del mar del invierno del atlantico sur... Laughing Laughing Laughing
Entonces a ese segundo buque en Tyne le faltan muchos meses para ser puesto en comision...
Pues bien, el buque que aparece como R07 en 1984, no solo esta terminado, sino que es completamente diferente al buque que se esta terminando de construir en la foto del rio Tyne.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Contame entonces como hacen para terminar de construir ese buque y al mismo tiempo hacerle una refit, previa a la puesta en comision.

Es como si yo dijese que estoy terminando de armar un Renault 5 a paso de tortuga, pero luego apareciese terminado, flamante y con un color diferente, un Renault Clio.

Y la pregunta es ...que paso con el Reanault 5?

Para los que no siguen el debate, el Renault 5 es el casco R07, el que se ve en segundo plano en el astillero.
El Renault Clio es el buque con obra viva gris, el Invincible deste?ido, que aparece como R07 navegando en segundo plano del buque que esta matriculado como Illustrious, pero corresponde perfectamente a las caracteristicas del Renault 5, perdon del casco R07.

Question Como era la cuestion Hutch, en la misma medida en que terminaban el Renault 5 lo iban transformando a Renault Clio?

Very Happy No tiene coherencia logica la historia inglesa.
La posicion argentina es mucho, pero mucho mas fuerte.
_________________
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
cas9480
Moderador


Registrado: 08 Abr 2006
Mensajes: 1052
Ubicaci?n: Shetland Islands, UK

MensajePublicado: 16 Oct 2007 03:34 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
No answer to any technical queries, no proof and absolutely no credibility.

CG, it is quite apparent that you're not a soldier or a professional.

We have tried to politely highlight the technical holes in your argument with little success.

A lack of technical knowledge isn't a crime, but your argument is undermined by your clear ignorance of basic engineering concepts, military doctrine and shipbuilding.

While it's not clear from the translation, are you claiming that you have construction plans for the Invincibles?

Your claim that Ark Royal only differs from Illustrious in the length of flight deck and angle isn't true either. They're mechanically and electrically very different internally, and if you actually had the plans you would see this quite clearly. Your comment?

However, we have still to see the evidence of your years of research. When will you present it?
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 16 Oct 2007 05:18 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Smile No soy un soldado profesional, es cierto.
Un soldado profesional, como mi padre, se enrola burocraticamente a una estructura vertical y rigida como lo es cualquier fuerza armada, en su adolescencia.

Rolling Eyes En cambio yo accedi a informacion desde mi infancia, sin ninguna obligacion formal ni rigidez.
Era un simple ni?o, a menudo acompa?ando a mi padre, que actuaba como observador imparcial, con la flexibilidad mental de un civil.
A una edad corta si tu quieres, pero lo suficiente como para almacenar recuerdos en mi memoria, relacionarlos entre si y sacar las conclusiones necesarias.

Twisted Evil Tu eres el que esta obligado a creer todo lo que te cuentan tus superiores si es que eres militar profesional.
A no cuestionar nada, aun ante planteos absurdos, como el de buque fantasma que desaparece 3 meses y aparece mas nuevo que cuando partio a la guerra, 5.5 meses antes.
Yo ademas soy ciudadano de primera, en una republica democratica, no estoy obligado a creerle a nadie, y la figura que encarna el mayor poder en mi pais es la figura del Presidente de la Nacion, que puede ser cualquier ciudadano comun, inclusive yo mismo podria serlo.
Y aun esa figura esta bajo custodia y control permanente a cargo de otros dos poderes de la Nacion, el Legislativo y el Judicial.
Yo nazco en condicion legal igualitaria al resto de los argentinos, no soy subdito de nadie.
La Constitucion de mi pais prohibe explicitamente las prerrogativas de sangre, o sea en mi pais la monarquia y los reyes estan prohibidos.
Son figuras anticonstitucionales.
Fuera de la ley.
Yo no estoy obligado por ley a rendirle pleitesia ni a ser subdito de nadie y tampoco estoy bajo juramente vertical a una rigida estructura militar.
No debo encubrir las cagados o errores de un Almirante o una Primera Dama, por estar juramentado, argumentando que son cuestiones de Estado.

Vos me decis que no conozco de ingenieria naval, es cierto soy ingeniero agronomo, debo manejar muchas mas variables que interaccionan con el tiempo, que un ingeniero naval y debo aplicar muchas tecnologias diferentes, genetica, biologica, quimica, estadistica , etc.
Y mi manejo del tiempo debe ser mucho mas preciso, en mi profesion los costos de demora y los costos de oportunidad, se pagan con la ruina.

El mapa del tiempo de todos los procesos que debo controlar es mucho mas complejo y preciso, que el simple ensamblaje de un Portahelicopteros Liviano de aluminio, escolta de flota con aptitud para la lucha antisubmarina, de alrededor de 200 metros de eslora.

Tu le debieras preguntar donde estaban los conocimientos de ingenieria naval, a los familiares de los tripulantes del portaaviones HMS-Dasher que tambien fue un portaaviones hundido en 1943.
Que UK , la RN , los Reyes y Primeros Ministros ocultaron por 40 a?os...sin necesidad de hacer ningun reemplazo.

Que le respondian a la gente que preguntaba por el HMS-Dasher (ex Mercante Rio de Janeiro si mal no recuerdo) luego de 1943?

Que habia sido mandado a desguace?

Y si alguien planteaba que si el buque no aparecia, era por que habia sido hundido...
entonces que le decian?
Que se habia marchado con los 350 fallecidos a bordo a cambiar una turbina a la Antartida?

Que decia la tripulacion sobreviviente del HMS-Dasher, acerca del destino de su buque?
Lo mismo que dice la tripulacion del HMS-Invincible....nada.

Estan bajo juramento de silencio.
Es correcto, son soldados profesionales y subditos de una reina.
No tienen ningun compromiso con la verdad historica.
Son funcionarios estatales en retiro efectivo.

Question Por ultimo CAS, que es lo que ocultan los archivos secretos de la Operacion Corporate, clasificado y en secreto por 90 a?os?

Acaso ocultan el hundimiento del HMS Invincible y su recambio sucesivo y alternado por los dos gemelos disponibles ? Question Question Question

Mr. Green Todo indicaria que ese el "el secreto".... no es cierto?
_________________
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
cas9480
Moderador


Registrado: 08 Abr 2006
Mensajes: 1052
Ubicaci?n: Shetland Islands, UK

MensajePublicado: 16 Oct 2007 06:02 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
The weather map of all the processes that should control is a lot but complex and to be exact, that the simple assembly of a Portahelicopteros Light of aluminum, escort of fleet with aptitude for the fight antisubmarina, of around 200 meters of length.

You have an obsession with aluminium; again I would reiterate that most British ships are steel built, not aluminium. Have you actually read anything that has been written previously?

You claim to have historic knowledge of the Invincible Class yet you can't get the basic facts correct. How convincing do you think that is?

You have little or no appreciation of ship building, as military ships are built in very few naval yards in the world. How many military ships are built in South America? If the process is as simple as you say, surely military ships could be produced in yards there, no?

Your him should ask where they were the know-how of ingenieria naval, to the relatives of the crew members of the aircraft carrier HMS-Dasher that tambien was a sunken aircraft carrier in 1943. That UK, the RN, the Kings and First Ministers hid for 40 years. ..sin need to do ningun replacement.

That him respondian to the people that asked for the HMS-Dasher (former Merchantman Rio of Janeiro if badly I do not remember) after 1943?

That habia been sent to scrapyard?

See Hutch's previous responses to HMS Dasher.

And if someone presented that if the ship not aparecia, he was because habia been sunken... Then that him decian? That itself habia gone with the 350 dead on board to change a turbine to the Antartida?

That decia the tripulacion surviving of the HMS-Dasher, about the destiny of its ship? The same thing that the tripulacion of the HMS-Invincible....nada says.

Totally different issues, and one sank, one didn't. However, the relatives of those who died on HMS Dasher were notified at the time in the usual manner.

They are low oath of silence. Is correct, are professional soldiers and subditos of a queen. They do not have ningun commitment with the truth historica. They are state officials in effective retreat.

Rather amusing this, as the UK Government isn't very good at keeping secrets. Ask the Russians. Hutch will know what I mean, as Argentines seem to bestow a level of efficiency on British intelligence and secret services that I don't think exists.

You also overlook a whole range of practices, memorials etc. relating to how UK military units honour their fallen comrades.

We also have a far more open and aggressive press than Argentina; again, if there was a story here it would have been pursued at length by any number of major news organisations just to embarass the UK Government.

By I finalize CAS, that is what hide the secret files of the Operacion Corporate, classified and in secret for 90 years?

Perhaps they hide the sinking of the HMS Invincible and their successive spare and alternated by the two available twins?

Every indicaria that that the "the secret".... is not certain?

I personally think this relates to nuclear issues; they're the ones that are usually given such lengthy classification periods. However, when Thatcher dies it may be reviewed.

--


[quote:937ea29bce="CristianG"]Question Question Question Los Clase Invincible y por ejemplo los Clase 42, no usan paneles de aleacion de aluminio??

[img:937ea29bce]http://www.zwatla.com/emo/2007/new/005.gif[/img:937ea29bce]
El ARA Santisima Trinidad es un clase 42 Made in Argentina, y es gemelo del ARA Hercules Made in UK.
Y son buques de aleacion de aluminio, el casco se hace con paneles de aleacion de aluminio.

[img:937ea29bce]http://www.zwatla.com/emo/2007/new/030.gif[/img:937ea29bce] Acaso es falso lo que estoy diciendo?[/quote:937ea29bce]

I can't comment on the Argentine built ship (I recall she was damaged during construction?) but the only ships that had aluminium superstructures in the RN were Type 21s.

The Type 21 class were a totally private (Vosper?) design, which was unique at the time. Nowadays, there are a number of specialist ships in service, made of glass fibre amongst other things.

I very much doubt that your Type 42 varied in design to the extent that she had an aluminium superstructure, but there is a wealth on information available on the Sheffield and the Type 42, and I posted a link to the official report on her loss in this thread (possibly the photos one, I can't remember which).

This details materials etc. used in her build and what caught fire and why are included in the report.

CAS
--

CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 16 Oct 2007 10:01 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Idea Yo no hable de superestructura, hable de los paneles laterales del buque.
Los que en otros buques son de acero o incluso son blindados como el Hermes.

Los paneles laterales, que fueron atravesados por los exocets y bombas como si se tratase de buques de manteca.

Question O no recuerdas en que condicion regreso el HMS Glasgow a UK?
Traspasado de lado a lado por una bomba de 1000 libras lanzada por un A4 de la FAA.

Buques de manteca, "butter?s ships"
Blandos, se derriten facil.

Question Acaso el Invincible incendiado podria regresar a puerto solamente con su superestructura?
Su superestructura, mas la tripulacion mas el armamento tenian menos peso especifico que el agua como para mantenerse a flote, luego de perder la estanqueidad?

Algun ciudadano britanico hubiese tolerado ver fotos del Invincible incendiado y destruido como el Atlantic Conveyor, sin exigir de inmediato la renuncia de Tatcher y el aborto de la Operacion Corporate?

En el lapso de 9 dias los britanicos habian sido humillados perdiendo 4 buques: Ardent/Antelope/Coventry/Atlantic Conveyor

Hubiesen sacado a patadas en el trasero a Tatcher del gobierno, de la misma forma en que nosotros sacamos a Galtieri y la Junta de miercoles esa.

PD: el ARA Santisima Trinidad no tuvo ningun problema durante su construccion. Fue hundido en puerto a causa de un atentado terrorista y luego reflotado. Rolling Eyes
_________________
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 17 Oct 2007 07:47 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG

?And I just climbed 10% of the evidence that I have accumulated over more than seven years.?

You have spent 7 years on this and you have not one witness. 7 years and you invent new lies to support your claim when you need to. You say this is only 10% ? why not start a brand new thread on this topic with 100% of your evidence?

?Most of the pictures that are watching you, are photos of British sources, British citizens who have proudly raised their personal files of pictures to the Internet.?

So? If you remember the sides in the war were the UK and Argentina, so photos would come from those sources.

??I am not nor a martyr or a hero??

Very true.

?But I was lucky enough to know and live with heroes seriously, the truth of flesh and blood.?

More pointless personal information which shows that you are biased.

??but I was educated in the home of a professional soldier, my father.?

More pointless information which adds nothing and shows your bias.

??not to speculate?"

You constantly speculate and provide no evidence to support your claims.

?It is a simple matter of fairness.?

You are not being fair, you are assuming that an event for which there are no witnesses took place and that a vast conspiracy exists. You ignore all evidence which goes against your paranoid theory, including multiple photographs.

Returning to the topic, the ship that in the background in the shipyards of the River Tyne, is the helmet R07 (for me is the current Illustrious, for you is the Ark Royal) only differ in their levels of helmets in the R05 and R06 length (length of the ship) and the Sky Jump, which has more than 12 degrees slope upwards.

You can see.

?If, as the British say work in shipyards in the summer are extremely slow??

Why are you claiming that they are slow?

??even more slow that everything can be done by the crew of Invincible in the middle of winter sea south of the Atlantic ...?

Wrong once more. Any repairs that had to be done on the Invincible at sea such as the turbine would be done as fast as they could do it.

?So in this second vessel Tyne lacks many months to be put into commission ... ?

It takes a long time to build a modern warship. Just because it is in the water does not mean it is ready to ail.

?Well, the ship appears as R07 in 1984, is not just finished, but that is completely different to the ship that is completing the building in the photo of the river Tyne.?

What is ?completely different? about it?

You compare cars with major war ships? What a stupid thing to do, the two are incredibly different.

You have zero evidence that the ships were swapped around. Not one witness out of thousands of people.

?Argentina's position is much, but much stronger?

No, it is a joke.

?I am not a professional soldier, it is true.?

It is true and very, very obvious that you have no understanding of the military.

??even in the face of absurd arguments??

Your arguments are the absurd ones. You have no evidence at all that the ships were swapped or that one pretended to be another. You just say that it happened, which would be unacceptable beyond the academic age of 16.

??such as the ghost ship that disappeared three months??

It did not disappear that is a very foolish thing to say. It stayed in the FI and did its job.
??and it appears that when more new party to the war, 5.5 months earlier.?

It does not look new, other than to the ignorant like you. It was a nearly brand new ship built from modern materials to prevent rust.

??I am not obliged to believe anyone??

You have also decided not to believe reality and to live in a childish and paranoid fantasy world where you are some kind of hero.

Why this utterly pointless information about Argentine political structure? Once again you are running away fro the debate, refusing to answer questions, etc.

??and I am not under oath to a vertical rigid military structure.?

And you are also very ignorant of the military and how it works.

??I do not know naval engineering??

You have shown no understanding of naval engineering at all but have pretended that you understood it.

??is true I am agronomo engineer??

I even have to doubt this.

??I have to handle many more variables that interact over time, a naval engineer and must implement many different technologies, genetic, biological, chemical, statistical, etc..?

None of this means you have any understanding of naval engineering at all as you have demonstrated so many times already.

?And my time management must be much more precise, in my profession costs of delay and the opportunity costs, are paid with ruin.?

In naval engineering if things go wrong people die and wars can be lost. Money is a factor but the main factor is life.

??that the simple assembly of a Portahelicopteros Lightweight aluminum escort fleet with the ability to fight anti-submarine, about 200 meters.?

You think it is simple? What and absurd statement which one more shows your ignorance and prejudice.

?That UK, RN, Kings and Prime Ministers concealed for 40 years ... without making any replacement.?

Another lie which has been dealt with before -

?What about the other carrier that sank in secret in 1943, HMS Dasher: ?The sinking OF the converted carrier HMS Dasher is not a mystery or secret. HOW she sank is, or at least was for many years. No one went around saying that Dasher was still afloat after 1943. People weren?t going around in 1955 saying that they had just served on HMS Dasher, she was fine, had never sunk, was active in 1944, etc. Rather that she was lost and it wasn?t clear what the cause of the loss was ? friendly fire, mine, sabotage, negligence, etc. Mystery surrounds the sinking, not the fact of the sinking.

Neither was the sinking totally covered up for many years in the manner that the HMS Invincible sinking fantasy demands. Even at the time and despite an official news blackout, relatives of the dead protested and some had bodies returned for burial. People knew their relatives had died but they didn?t necessarily know how or have a body to bury.

The secrecy was imposed not to totally cover up the loss of a carrier but because it was one of the greatest naval disasters in British waters not at the hands of the enemy. The loss of the ship was officially announced in 1945 in The Times. Hardly what you would do if you wanted to cover up the loss is it?

?Que le respondian to people who questioned by the HMS-Dasher (former Merchant Rio de Janeiro if I recall) after 1943??

It was sunk. No one claimed that it was still afloat.

?Like the crew of HMS-Invincible said .... nothing.?

Your crazy theory requires not just the crew of Invincible to be silent but Hermes, Illustrious, Ark Royal, ship yard workers, all the aircrew from these ships, civil servants, politicians and more all in an open and democratic nation being closely watched by the USSR.

Your theory does not mean the covering up of one ships loss but its total replacement and no one noticing or saying anything for over 25 years. No spy or journalist discovering anything but an Argentine with an internet connection and no knowledge at all can?

?They have no commitment to historical truth.?

Neither do you.

?Finally CAS, which is what we hide the secret files of Operation Corporate, classified and secret for 90 years??

The UK has a very intelligent policy of making various things secret ? how the UK fought a war, its weaknesses and strengths, how people and machines worked is obviously of great interest to the UK?s enemies. So the information is classified until it is no longer useable. This is a standard policy. Why would the UK let Argentina know exactly what happened in the war?

?We hide the sinking of HMS Invincible and its future replacement and alternated between the two twins available??

There is no evidence that this happened other than inside your head.

?Perhaps the Invincible fire could only return to port with its superstructure??

There is no evidence that there was a fire on Invincible from an attack.

?Some British citizen had tolerated see photos Invincible burnt and destroyed as the Atlantic Conveyor, without demanding immediate resignation of Thatcher and the abortion of Operation Corporate??

Various people in the UK would have been happy to see Thatcher resign (during or after the war) or see Corporate abandoned.

?In the span of 9 days the British habian been humiliated losing four ships: Ardent / Antelope / Coventry / Atlantic Conveyor?

And?

?Would drawn kicked in the rear door to the government??

That is just a guess based on your personal opinion. The loss of those 4 ships did not end the war did it? the loss of a carrier would have been a near fatal blow to Corporate and yet the campaign continued and Argentina was defeated.
----

CAS

So, in essence you were wrong again and are trying to find a way out of your latest faux pas.

I would reiterate again that only the superstructures of some RN ships were aluminium.

Their hulls, decking, bulkeads, transoms and other structural elements etc were steel. The Invincible class in particular is very structurally sound.

They do not have armoured belts as per the battleships of old, mainly because armoured belts didn't do their job very well against high trajectory shells and aerial bombs. They were intended primarily for torpedo threats.

--

RULO

Estimados CAS y Hutch

si traducis correctamente mi post veras que yo no digo TURBINA, digo que las fotos corresponden al sistema de catapulta (gearbox).


te muestro algunas fotos donde se puede apreciar que en caso de incendio no alcanza con el o los puestos contra incendios que poseia el vince.
las fotos corresponden al rescate del Sheffield y a la Ardent por parte de la Yarmouth.

[img:937ea29bce]http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07425/sheffarrow2.jpg[/img:937ea29bce]

[img:937ea29bce]http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07425/sheffield102.jpg[/img:937ea29bce]

[img:937ea29bce]http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07425/sheffhole1.jpg[/img:937ea29bce]

[img:937ea29bce]http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07425/sheffhole22.jpg[/img:937ea29bce]

[img:937ea29bce]http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/852/sheffield11ax7.jpg[/img:937ea29bce]

[img:937ea29bce]http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9234/yarmouthardent2pg3.jpg[/img:937ea29bce]

[img:937ea29bce]http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4087/yarmouthardentek1.jpg[/img:937ea29bce]



Podrias asegurar que la energ?a nunca se cort? durante el apagado de los incendios? las bombas funcionaron con la presi?n suficiente para la cantidad de agua necesaria?
Si fuera as?... porque se necesito de otros buques para apagar los incendios? se puede observar hasta un bote neum?tico colaborando con la extinci?n del incendio.
Estos eran buques que no llevaban en su interior grandes dep?sitos de municiones o combustible, como si es el caso del Vince.
y las cargas nucleares?
Fijate que todo suma a un solo punto.
[u:937ea29bce][b:937ea29bce]En los dos casos fueron alcanzados, en ambos se hundieron.[/b:937ea29bce][/u:937ea29bce] Wink Wink Wink

_________________

[i:937ea29bce][b:937ea29bce]Se complace en informar al Gran Pueblo Argentino que los invasores pagaron muy caro la recuperaci?n territorial de nuestras islas Malvinas, Georgias y Sandwich del Sur. Dios guarde a la Reina, de sus servidores se encargan nuestras armas.[/b:937ea29bce][/i:937ea29bce]


--

CAS

Rulo

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, as the translation isn't clear.

The official report I posted earlier goes into some detail why Sheffield was lost, and yes she did lose water pressure through the fire main. In addition, her smoke suppression systems weren't working, nor were her fans.

Smoke was the main cause behind the loss of the Sheffield as the crew couldn't effectively fight the fire because quite simply they couldn't see what they were doing, nor could they breath without using breathing apparatus. This allowed the fire to gradually take hold.

However, it took quite some time for her to sink, and myths about aluminium and instant melting steelwork etc. can be dismissed out of hand.

--

CRISTIAN

Rulo te esta diciendo que un incendio bajo cubierta es toxico, que los humos toxicos de una explosion interna adentro del Invincible no se evacua por las ventanas abiertas.
Que solamente puedes apagar el incendio desde la cubierta o desde otro buque auxiliar.
Y solo te mantienes en cubierta mientras la temperatura te lo permita.

Rolling Eyes Las cubiertas del Invincible con el humo toxico de los incendios eran inextinguibles desde adentro del buque..

Confused Ademas del riesgo de nuevas explosiones.

Una vez incendiado el Invincible, la mejor decision es evacuarlo completamente, y luego torpedearlo para que no amanezca a flote.

Lo que hubiese sido una imagen devastadora, para la moral del resto de la flota.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado
mensajes_anteriores



Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie May 21, 2008 12:21 am    Asunto: Responder citando

CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 19 Oct 2007 07:58 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Mr. Green La investigacion historica seria, se basa en negar todos los elementos aportados por la propaganda de un lado y del otro.

Y luego tratar de encontrar a partir de hechos ciertos, probados e indiscutibles una buena historia con coherencia logica interna.

Rolling Eyes En muchos casos la investigacion historica no llega a la verdad de los hechos.
Pero se aproxima mucho mas que las versiones propagandisticas de ambas partes.

Wink Si tu me lees, soy tan critico de la propaganda argentina como de la propaganda inglesa.

Y considero que esta guerra fue absolutamente innecesaria.
Que las victimas de ella, ademas de los combatientes han sido los ciudadanos britanicos y argentinos.
Y los ganadores han sido Margaret Tatcher, los Kelpers, los pesqueros asiaticos y la industria naval britanica.

Todos los demas hemos perdido, de alguna u otra forma hemos perdido.

Rolling Eyes Mi investigacion historica personal me dice que ha sido una guerra totalmente innecesaria CAS.
Y que si de una buena vez se conocen los verdaderos hechos, no volveremos a caer en el mismo error.

Smile Tu sabes, para los argentinos las Malvinas son parte del continente americano, no son parte del continente europeo.
Y por consecuencia, las Malvinas son argentinas.

Hay que resolver ese problema de una forma civilizada, sino volveremos a recaer periodicamente en el mismo asunto.

Quizas sean mis nietos contra los tuyos, o los tartara-nietos o varias generaciones despues.
La verdad historica es la mayor garantia para que los hechos de 1982 no se repitan pero a una escala mayor.
_________________
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
gercanz



Registrado: 15 Jun 2007
Mensajes: 30
Ubicaci?n: tucuman

MensajePublicado: 21 Oct 2007 11:22 pm Asunto: Coodenadas del Hundimiento Invencible Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Hola CG: Vos tendrias las coordenadas del lugar del undimiento del Vince?

Porque se podria explorar el fondo y buscarlo, verda?

Un abrazo!!!!
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 22 Oct 2007 06:22 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Rolling Eyes El buque puede haber navegado varios kilometros por inercia, se midio segun Portela, un movimiento de un elemento que radiaba calor hacia la zona de Trala.

Pero desaparecio precisamente a la hora den que las radios de Onda Corta confirmaban la oren de abandono por inminente hundimiento del buque alrededor de las 21 hs hora argentina.

Es uy diferente tratar de ir a buscar un buque hundido al fondeo del mar cuando todas las partes tienen interes, como paso con el Crucero Belgrano...y pese a ello no se pudo hallar (lo que me alegra profundamente, pues las tumbas marinas nunca deben ser violadas).

Imaginate a los argentinos buscando en el lecho del fondo mar a varios miles de metros sobre datos falseados u ocultados por los ingleses.

Seria ademas de muy caro, de resultado previsiblemente negativo.

La unica forma de hacerlo es si se filtrase informacion precisa inglesa y se lograse financiacion extranjera para hacer la busqueda.

Estamos a a?os luz de poder ni siquiera intentarlo.
_________________
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 22 Oct 2007 08:51 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG

??my hypothesis can be understood by a child of 12 years or maybe even less.?

It could only be believed by a child as it is so obviously a fantasy which you have no proof for. No intelligent, open minded person could possibly believe it.

?See a ship arriving back to port after having been declared 5.5 months sailing steadily, seems an intervention Harry Potter.?

Only to ignorant people like you.

The port in the FI was not ?safe? and I doubt it would have been equipped. The entire point of an aircraft carrier is that it moves around.

?It's a tale flick, the liar Thatcher and its intelligence services, to remain in power in the UK.?

You have zero evidence of this and have utterly failed to prove it in any way. You have no credibility and are a joke.

?It is a lie offensive, it is intellectual violence, it's a lack of respect..?

This pretty well sums up your absurd ?theory?.

?We have no responsibility whatsoever??

So once again we hear how Argentines have no responsibilty for anything that ever happens.

?The British position regarding the fate of Invincible is weak, little solid little credible, contradictory and irrational.?

Wrong. you have shown yourself to be an ignorant liar whoYhas no evidence for what they claim and no evidence to support their crazy theory.

Rulo

These photographs are moot as no Exocet hit the Invincible. There are no witnesses to it ? Argentine or British ? and no evidence that the ship had a missile impact. You just have total speculation and guesswork based on assumption and other events that happened to other ships.

For some reason no Argentine gun camera footage of the Invincible attack is present. Why is that?

CG

Once again you are back to ill informed guesswork from someone who has consistently shown they do not understand the military, the navy or naval shipbuilding.

?The Invincible covers with the toxic smoke from the fires were unquenched from the inside of the ship ..?

You have no evidence at all that this happened.

?The serious historical research, is based on denying all the elements produced by the propaganda from one side and the other.?

You have done no ?serious historical research? and not bothered to learn anything about what you talk about. And invent new lies when you need to. If you tried to show your ?theory? to any respectable academic they would laugh in your face.

?And then seek from certain facts, tested and indisputable a good story in a coherent internal logic.?

You have avoided facts and you make up details whenever you want. In all of your supposed years of research you have not found one witness or one piece of physical evidence to support your claims.

So you claim that just because the FI are near to S America they should be Argentine? Ridiculous. Should Argentina belong to Chile as they are close?

?We need to solve this problem in a civilized way??

It would help if Argentina had a government intelligent or brave enough to actually want negotiations over the FI issue.

Gercanz raises a good point. Surely the Argentine pilots must have known the coordinates where they attacked the ship, so why has no one ever looked for or found the wreck?

?The ship may have sailed several kilometers by inertia??

This is just another pathetic guess from you.

?But disappeared precisely at the time??

Can you prove this please?
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
JPL
Moderador


Registrado: 05 Nov 2005
Mensajes: 1406
Ubicaci?n: Ciudad de Buenos Aires

MensajePublicado: 22 Oct 2007 09:27 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CristianG escribi?:
Rolling Eyes El buque puede haber navegado varios kilometros por inercia, se midio segun Portela, un movimiento de un elemento que radiaba calor hacia la zona de Trala.

Pero desaparecio precisamente a la hora den que las radios de Onda Corta confirmaban la oren de abandono por inminente hundimiento del buque alrededor de las 21 hs hora argentina.


Shocked

Cristian

?Nos pod?s ampliar un poco sobre lo escuchado ese d?a por las radioaficionados?
Supongo que en un momento as?, es imposible mantener un "silencio de radio". Buques, helic?pteros y dem?s deben haber estado comunic?ndose fluidamente.

?Escucharon la orden de abandono del buque? Shocked
Supongo que si est? grabado, lo deben tener "bajo siete llaves" ?no?
?Que dice de esto la inteligencia argentina que realizaba escuchas?

Saludos, JPL.


--

CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 22 Oct 2007 09:50 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Smile Por Onda Corta, se daba la informacion de la orden de abandono inmediato del buque, alrededor de las 21 hs hora argentina.

No recuerdo las radios.
Radio Colonia seguro, pero afirmaba que repetia informacion de varias fuentes extranjeras.
Tambien lo han escuchado por onda corta como te digo.

Para la noche del 30/5/82 el Invincible estaba en inminente hundimiento.

Los que lo vivimos lo recordamos.

Creo que lo que te digo demuestra que en Buenos Aires, habia muchisima gente que estaba siguiendo la guerra con alto nivel de interes y participacion.

Y no como afirman los extranjeros, la prensa apatrida y muchos VG oportunistas y/o mal informados.
La situacion en el continente era muy diferente a lo que la prensa cuenta.

Y que en algunas ciudades del interior por el clasico afan de protagonismo provinciano o por aburrimiento o opr oportunismo se hiciesen estupidos oscurecimientos, no implica una accion mas patriotica.

Muchas de esas boludeces las promovieron intendentes farabuteros, en pueblos que no figuran ni en el mapa.
Mientras que Buenos Aires, blanco prioritario continental, no podia hacer estupidos oscurecimientos por lo grande que es y por que a determinado nivel de armamentos los oscurecimientos son payasadas.

Lo cierto y real es que aqui la gente estaba siguiendo dia a dia lo ocurrido por todos los medios que estuviesen a su alcance.

Y repito el dato historico real, a la noche del 30/5/82 el Invincible estaba hundido, eso propalaban las radios extranjeras,

Su resurreccion es un milagro de Harry Potter.
_________________
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 22 Oct 2007 09:56 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Confused Hutch, tus aportes en este tema se estan reduciendo a meras descalificaciones e insultos.

Yo no tengo ninguna razon para acatar como cierta la propaganda triunfalista britanica.
Como tampoco tengo razon para rendirle pleitesia a ningun rey o reina.

En mi pais la Monarquia y los reyes y reinas estan tan prohibidos como el colnialismo.
Son ilegales, prohibidos por el articulo 16 de nuestra Constitucion Nacional.
La palabra de la se?ora Elizabeth, o los se?ores Carlos y Andres, no me merece mayor respeto que la de cualquier otro ciudadano britanico.

Mi hipotesis es infantil, es ignorante.

La historia inglesa es FALSA.

Trae un tripulante del HMS Invincible, para que chatee con nosotros, en especial conmigo.

Mr. Green O acaso me tienen miedo?
_________________
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 22 Oct 2007 09:56 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG

?For Short Wave, it was the best information of the order of immediate abandonment of the ship, around 21 pm hour argentina.?

Can you prove this?

?I do not remember the radios.?

What a surprise.

??information from various foreign sources.?

Can you prove this?
What 'foreign sources'?

?For the night of May 30, 1982 the Invincible was in imminent collapse.?

You have provided no evidence for this other than fantasy, guesswork and lies based on ignorance and prejudice.

?And I repeat the real historical figure, the night of May 30, 1982 the Invincible was sunk, that foreign radios blared?

You have provided no evidence for this other than fantasy, guesswork and lies based on ignorance and prejudice.
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 22 Oct 2007 02:24 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Rolling Eyes La unica fantasia, es la historia que cuentan los ingleses acerca de un buque fantasma que se quedo 3 meses, luego de finalizada la guerra yendo y viniendo en el medio del mar, sin tomar puerto nunca y sin tomar el almirantazgo de flota jamas.
Para luego aparecer 5,5 meses luego de haber zarpado, mucho mas nuevo de lo que salio.

Fantasia
Realismo magico de Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
Novela de Cuencia Ficcion de Ray Bradbury.
_________________
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
cas9480
Moderador


Registrado: 08 Abr 2006
Mensajes: 1052
Ubicaci?n: Shetland Islands, UK

MensajePublicado: 22 Oct 2007 03:30 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG

You seem to have a notion that 5 months at sea is an extraordinary length of time.

It isn't, and it's a great deal shorter than the periods spent at sea in the 50s, for example.

I would also mention that the UK's nuclear submarine fleet, especially the Tridents, spend very long periods at sea submerged.

In recent times the RN has tried to reduce deployments to six months to meet the demands of sailor's families, but overseas committments mean that this is still hard to achieve.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 22 Oct 2007 04:16 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Very Happy Para mi lo que son extraordinarios son los 3 meses que el buque estuvo desaparecido luego del fin de la guerra, sin cumplir ninguna funcion en concreto.
Salvo circular por el Oceano

El amirantazgo de Flota pasa del Hermes al Bristol y del Bristol al Illustrious.

El Invincible pese a quedarse 3 meses mas, nunca asume el mando de la flota.

Cuanto duran los ejecicios normales en un supercarrier Clase Nimitz, sin tocar Puerto ????

Un buque que nunca toca puerto, requiere de un buque que lo acompa?e continuamente suministrandole combustible....

Para cualquier buque 5,5 meses sin tomar puerto es una barbaridad, es inaceptable.

No cabe la comparacion con un submarino nuclear.
_________________
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
Malvinero



Registrado: 12 Abr 2007
Mensajes: 66


MensajePublicado: 22 Oct 2007 04:43 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Tengo unas dudas,

C?mo hizo el HMS Invincible para estar 5,5 meses en el mar y solo?
De donde sacaron combustible para regresar a Gran Breta?a si no tocaron puerto, ni hubo otro buque que le administrara combustible en el oc?ano Atl?ntico?
Ten?a suficientes galones de combustibles el Vince?????.

Saludos
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
cas9480
Moderador


Registrado: 08 Abr 2006
Mensajes: 1052
Ubicaci?n: Shetland Islands, UK

MensajePublicado: 22 Oct 2007 04:57 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
RFA Tankers and Auxiliaries are deployed on a constant shuttle run to fleets or ships at sea.

Ships in the Gulf currently remain on station for six months (although it's far longer at the moment due to manning issues). US Carriers are on station for even longer.

Neither put into port. In both cases they generally can't dock at neutral ports because the US and UK operate a policy of not declaring whether their ships are carrying nuclear weapons.

Most Captains will try to make port if the option presents itself, but if there's no relief vessel they simply stay at sea.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it sinister.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado
mensajes_anteriores



Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie May 21, 2008 12:22 am    Asunto: Responder citando

[quote:bd9615b726="Rulo"]de un listado de la misma Royal Navy indica que desde el inicio de las operaciones hasta mucho despues de la finalizaci?n de las hostilidades participaron los siguientes buques tanques o auxiliares:

RFA British Tay
RFA Appleleaf
RFA Blue Rover
RFA Pearleaf
RFA Plumleaf
RFA Tidespring
RFA Tidepool
RFA Brambleleaf
RFA Bayleaf
RFA Olmeda
RFA Olna
RFA Sir Percivale
RFA Sir Bedivere
British Avon
Astronomer
Avelona Star
G A Walker
Laertes
St. Helena


En ningunas de las p?ginas de los buques, diarios de capitan o relatos, figura que hayan suministrado combustible o provisiones de algun tipo al HMS Invencible luego del 30 de mayo.

Lo ?nico que se puede encontrar es una foto parcial del Olmeda reaprovisionando a un portaaviones clase invencible Very Happy Very Happy [size=18:bd9615b726][b:bd9615b726]solo que esta fechada..... en 1985[/b:bd9615b726][/size:bd9615b726] Very Happy Very Happy

que pueden ver aqu?:
[b:bd9615b726]http://www.naval-history.net/FpRFAOlmeda-Invincible1985.JPG[/b:bd9615b726]

[img:bd9615b726]http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07432/FpRFAOlmeda-Invincible1985.jpg[/img:bd9615b726]

Entonces quien lo asisti? Question Question Question

CAS creo que tu podr?s darme la informaci?n correcta.
De lo contrario deber? pensar que lo aprovisionaron nuestros queridos hermanos Chilenos o alg?n buque soporte del USS Saratoga Razz Razz


[b:bd9615b726]_________________

Se complace en informar al Gran Pueblo Argentino que los invasores pagaron muy caro la recuperaci?n territorial de nuestras islas Malvinas, Georgias y Sandwich del Sur. Dios guarde a la Reina, de sus servidores se encargan nuestras armas.[/b:bd9615b726][/quote:bd9615b726]

Esa foto es del Invicibe, pero corresponde al casco corto R06 Ex-Illustrious.
Y precisamente es cuando toda la clase Invincible vuelve a usar las torres negras, como lo hacia antes de la guerra, con un unico casco el R05 fue hundido en Malvinas, enese caso las torres ya habian sido repintadas a gris y por esa razon, para que la tripulacion y los periodistas no sospechasen se mantuvieron todos los gemelos grises entre junio de 1982.
Como dato anecdotico, el casco R07 se bota con las torres negras, y asi permanece por mucho tiempo, luego se repinta gris con fines de inteligencia y ya para 1985 con el R08 navegando se pasan todos a torres negras.
Muy basico y elemental.

CRISTIAN

--


RULO

Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Hablando de f?bulas y delirios...
vean esto y despu?s comentamos:

http://www.hms-yarmouth.com/crew/80/frank%20evans.htm


Saturday 1st May 82

0130 Yarmouth Entered TEZ (Total Exclusion Zone) 200 miles NE of Falklands
Air Attacks commenced

1054 2 Mirage III?s SHar (Sea Harrier) turned them away at 130 miles.
1130 2 Mirage III?s SHar stopped them at 100 miles.
1155 2 Mirage III?s SHar stopped them at 100 miles.
1259 2 Super Etendard 90 miles ? fired one Exocet which landed in the sea 12 miles away.
1310 2 Super Etendard ? stopped by SHar at 100 miles.
1415 2 Mirage III?s at 80 miles. Turned away.
1430 2 Mirage III?s at 100 miles. Stopped by SHar.
1503 2 Super Etendard 90 miles. Turned away.
1615 2 Mirage III?s 80 miles. Turned away.
1645 1 Super Etendard 80 miles. SHar intercepted and missed.
1703 1 Super Etendard came low overland from F. I. and turned away by SHar.
1832 3 Pucarra (twin engined prop) ditched bombs 15 miles away.
1926 2 Super Etendard turned away at 80 miles.
1935 2 Mirage ? 1 downed by SHar.
1920 1 Mirage downed by own AA fire over F.I.
1922 2 Canberra Photo Recce ? 1 downed by SHar.
1941 4 Mirage ? 1 downed by SHar

A submarine contact get 3X3 from Plymouth ? No result
Brilliant and Yarmouth plus 3 Sea Kings looking for Arg Sub San Luis ? Lots of depth charges and some dead whales.
Alacrity Helo and Arg FPB have GPMG battle ? helo leaking lots of fuel but made it back OK.
Arrow, Alacrity and Glamorgan Naval Gunfire Support (NGS) on Port Stanley and Darwin Airfields.
Arrow attacked by 3 Mirage III?s during night NGS ? 1st casualty ? 1 AB with stomach wounds.
Vulcan and Sea Harriers attack on Port Stanley, Darwin and Goose Green ? 1 Skyvan and 1 Islander aircraft destroyed.

Sunday 2nd May 82

Task Group (TG) shadowed by Arg Narwhal ? Alacrity put starshell over and they legged it.
Argentine press report we lost 7 Sea Harriers, 2 Helo?s and 1 Frigate in flames ? we have no losses.
Yarmouth off to bring RFA Fort Austin in through Arg Submarine operating area.
Arg press reports that ??the British Fleet is in retreat and the attempted landing has been repulsed?
Conqueror hit Belgrano with two torpedoes.
Approached by 3 Arg Corvettes which turned away when SHar launched.
Quiet day, maybe they are good Catholics and don?t work on Sundays.

Monday 3rd May 82

0430 Unknown Arg vessel fires at Sea King patrol helo with GPMG/Oerlikon ? Sea King OK and RTB.
Coventry launches Lynx to investigate above contact (small warship) and hits it with two Sea Skua ? contact blows up. Pilot reports Sea Skua?s work as advertised.
Glasgow Lynx goes to pick up any survivors.
Glasgow Lynx picked up a second contact 20 miles beyond first and on investigation fired at by (possible) 4.5 HE. Responded with 2 Sea Skua and reports lots of smoke and flames from contact.
Hermes put out SOS and position of possible survivors ? both Helo?s RTB OK.
TG shadowed by Arg Neptune aircraft ? Shar turned away.
The two contacts above were later ID as Arg Navy Corvettes. The Arg press reports they were fishing.

Tuesday 4th May 82

1412 2 Super Etendards fired Exocet ? Hit on Sheffield after passing close down Yarmouth?s starboard side. (Very close, the Officer of the Watch was able to note down its serial number!) We had put up Chaff which may have worked as did Glasgow as it appeared to take a left turn and picked up Sheffield.
The warhead apparently didn?t explode and landed in the water astern of Alacrity. Unfortunately the rocket fuel supply ignited after passing through the Ops room deck and into a shelter station underneath.
We have put fire parties onboard and are fighting fires on Sheffield with teams from Arrow also.
The three ships come under Torpedo attack and Yarmouth pulls away snapping all the hoses and lines to deal with the Sub. (Never did positively clarify this ? The Fleet Chief Sonar came onboard to listen to the recordings and said it couldn?t be anything other than a torpedo contact.)
1745 The fire eventually gets beyond control ? Sheffield fire main ruptured and Sea Dart magazine hotting up. Our paint on port side burning.
1803 All survivors from Sheffield clear now. There are six on Yarmouth, lot more on Arrow and others taken by Helo to other ships ? 30 missing.
TG attacked by 3 pairs of Super Etendards and 5 pairs of Mirage with bombs ? no hits.
Lost 1 Harrier today by AA fire over F.I.

Wednesday 5th May 82


Sheffield still afloat ? no explosion ? still burning.
2 x 2 Mirage attacks ? no hits.
2 Sea Harrier?s collided in fog bank ? Helo?s found some wreckage, no crew.
Yarmouth detailed to wait around Sheffield to see if the Sub(s) come back. MEO went back onboard Sheffield to see what we could salvage from our firefighting gear.

Thursday 6th May 82

1 Arg Recce aircraft seen off by SHar.
Yarmouth told to go find RFA Appleleaf and bring her through Arg Sub Op Area.
Sheffield now 20 presumed dead ? 1 RO.
1813 2 Super Etendards ? Shar turned back.
1814 1 Unknown aircraft turned away at 100 when approached by SHar.
RC Padre has buzzed off to ?bigger ship? ? wonder if he knows something?


Friday 7th May 82

0730 Met up with RFA Appleleaf and got first mail since Ascension.
Yarmouth told to take Appleaf and Olmeda to east and give anti-submarine cover while they pump over.
1500 Back with Task Group
1810 2 x Mirages ? seen off by SHar
1916 2 x Super Etendard ? turned away. (Looking for Sheffield?)

Saturday 8th May 82

Single ship patrols in Port Stanley approaches to stop blockade runners and keep them awake. (and us also)
Yarmouth going to tow Sheffield out of TEZ tonight to meet tug Salvageman from South Georgia.
Args declare Bahia Paraiso to be a hospital ship.
2 Mirage ? seen off by CAP (Combat Air Patrol)
1 Super Etendard ? Rockets hit in the water astern of us.
1 Recce a/c and 2 Super Etendards turned away by CAP.
1 C130 (Hercules) and 2 Mirage ? 1 Mirage downed by CAP.
2330 Picked up Sheffield tow ? weather very bad. Big dent in starboard side Ops Room level from going alongside Sheffield and lost two liferafts. Proceeding at 8 knots as this has to be a fast tow to be out of Arg aircraft range by daylight ? Sandy can?t spare any air cover.

Sunday 9th May 82

1030 Sheffield behaving OK ? thick mist. Good!
Arg Helo trying to find us in mist ? won?t chance radar. We also under total radio silence.
1400 Weather getting worse ? we are having to change course to NE from SE to try and stop Sheffield taking in more water. This course is taking us away from the tug.
Arg have a Boeing 707 recce aircraft out looking for us but he found Arrow instead.
SHar strafe and capture Arg Narwhal ? crew taken off by helo to Invincible. 1 dead and 11 injured out of 14. One Arg Puma downed by Cardiff.
Found Tug position by HF DF but he is having trouble in heavy weather. Slowed tow to 5 knots. Sheffield taking water despite course change. We have the CO/XO/MEO of Sheffield onboard.

Monday 10th May 82

0150 Unable to close Salvageman due to weather. New R/V given.
0626 Almost stopped now ? Sheffield has a 7 deg list to starboard. Salvageman about 40 minutes away.
0700 Sheffield rolled onto starboard side and sank. Posn 50.11S ? 05.35W.
1000 Salvageman arrives with heavy pumps. Searching area for wreckage - only found two self-releasing liferafts. (Not so self-releasing then!)
1340 Search completed ? returning to TG.


Tuesday 11th May 82

0110 Alacrity engages tanker heading into Port Howard ? tanker blows up and sinks.
0800 UK Newspapers report HMS Plymouth attacked by OUR exocet (4th May) cheek!
Signal from MOD to say that from today no one is allowed to give 18 months notice! Must expect this to go on for a while then?
Signal from wives of Sheffield survivors to say thanks for help from us and Arrow.
we have 16 SBS men onboard nobody knows where they are though!


Wednesday 12th May 82


Arg press says their South Georgia garrison are still fighting bravely on ? they are in fact on their way to Ascension at the moment.
Glasgow and Brilliant close in for a crack at the C130?s dropping stores.
1700 Glasgow and Brilliant attacked by 4 Skyhawks. 1 bomb went through Glasgow engine room ? 1 casualty ? badly shocked stoker who saw it pass by him on its way through.
2 Skyhawks downed by Brilliant and 3rd crashes into the sea evading missile ? 4th damaged aft. Glasgow skipper puts a contract on the one who got away ? case of Grouse.

Thursday 13th May 82

Lot more raids than usual today ? none over our side though.


Friday 14th May 82


300 reservists called up ? mostly Comms branch.
SHar put 2 x 1000lb bombs on Port Stanley Airfield
4 Raids this afternoon ? no hits either side.


Saturday 15th May 82

Intelligence suggests that Arg ?hospital ship? Bahia Paraiso is being used to run supplies into F.I.
Glamorgan and SAS have been into Pebble Island airfield and destroyed 6 Pucarra, 1 Skyvan and 3 T34 Mentors.
12 x 1000lb bombs dropped on Port Stanley airfield.


Sunday 16th May

SHar attacked to Arg ships in Fox Bay ? both abandoned and ran aground ? 1 on fire. Ships were Carcarama and Buena Succeso.
All our ships now outside TEZ and refuelling/rearming for ?Future Ops?!!
2 Mirage downed by CAP today.


Monday 17th May 82

Today is Argentine Navy Day ? we are not going!


Tuesday 18th May 82

Still on the edge of TEZ waiting for the Amphibious Group to arrive.

Wednesday 19th May 82

Glamorgan inshore to NGS and sneakies.
Yarmouth told to go and find Hecla. (Sandy?s lost another one!)
Invincible want to transfer Arg POW?s to Hecla.
Given our NGS target maps today ? NGS Liaison officer onboard.


Thursday 20th May 82

Total Radio silence all circuits from 1600 today to hide us from DF sites.
Allocated our NGS sector for tonight ? Yarmouth will go in with Fearless and Intrepid.
C130 Recce Aircraft finds us and Amphibious Group

Friday 21st May 82

Yarmouth, Plymouth, Ardent, Broadsword and Brilliant will support the Amphib Group ? remainder staying with Sandy.
1335 Antrim hit by 1000lb bomb ? didn?t explode ? OK.
Our helo to spot for NGS tonight.
1530 Broadsword hit by 1000lb bomb ? didn?t explode. Wrecked her Lynx and 2 casualties ? both OK.
20 SAS personnel lost when helo ditched.
4 x Skyhawks ? 3 downed by CAP
Ardent hit by 3 x 1000lb bombs and goes into 20 deg list ? we are assisting.
2 Skyhawks bomb us alongside Ardent ? both downed by CAP on the way out.
Ardents magazine warming up and they have all transferred to us.
Plymouth standing by Argonaut ? Argonaut has 2 x 1000lb bombs inboard (unexploded)
1615 1 Pucarra and 2 Mirages downed by CAP.
3 Skyhawks downed by CAP
Brilliant hit by 1000lb bomb ? unexploded ? all OK.
Our Wasp pilot gets a ?mention in despatches? for hovering over the Ardent lifting survivors whilst under attack by the Skyhawks.
We have taken off 168 survivors from Ardent to Canberra by LCT.


Saturday 22nd May 82

Argonaut reports 1 bomb in Fwd Magazine and 1 in Engine room. Fwd one covered in damaged ammunition.
C130 recce flight up again.
Got two GPMG?s from Ardent before she sank ? one on the signal deck and one down aft.
1 Arg patrol boat hit by SHar ? burnt and sunk.
Dozens of raids today ? no more hits reported though.
Sandy sends us out from under CAP to find Arg Submarine Salta


Sunday 23rd May 82

In San Carlos Water (which becomes known as Bomb Alley.
0035 Yarmouth and Brilliant told to go and find Arg MV Monsunen who?s running supplies in and sort him out.
LCT?s patrolling all night and dropping scare charges to deter divers ? don?t know who they scare most!
0400 Pelting down Falkland sound looking for MV. He fires at our helo with GPMG ? and we put one HE into their focsle ? beached and burning.
0635 We have 80 miles to get back before it gets light around 1100 ? doing 28 knots fully blacked out with Brilliant somewhere close! Hope they can keep up!
1015 Intercept from Arg lookout reports two ships moving very fast up the sound ? guess who? 15 miles to go.
2 Sea Harriers engaged 3 Arg Helos on their way to meet us as we came around the point ? all 3 downed.
1110 On station in San Carlos Water.
1125 Loads of Mirage III?s
1315 Our highly efficient Sea Cat damaged a Mirage and a Rapier missile finished it off.
2015 Antelope hit by 2 x 1000lb bombs. One of the attacking Skyhawks was hit by missile from Broadsword and crashed into Antelope?s mast.
2330 Antleope?s bomb explodes ? we saw it from 20 miles away on our way out to refuel.
Later confirmed 11 aircraft downed today.


Monday 24th May 82

Had to really steam to get back to anchorage again due heavy weather delaying fuelling. Only the bows of Antelope showing as we came back in.
Attacked by 4 Mirage as we came up the creek, 2 bombs 100 yards off starboard side. They?ve taken to calling us the ?Crazy Y? ashore.
1 SHar brought down two Mirage with two shots.
Sir Galahad hit by 2 bombs, Sir Lancelot hit by 1, and Sir Bedivere hit by 1 bomb which someone kicked over the side!
12 Aircraft downed today.


Tuesday 25th May 82

Put SBS ashore in Fox Bay then anti-submarine patrol.
no CAP today until fog around carriers clears
1540 Attacked by 4 x A4?s (Skyhawks) ? brought one down with MG fire and nearly had another but our Sea Cat ran out of wind just before it reached it! One SHar lost launching from Invincible.
1555 Got another A4 with small arms fire but it crashed near Fearless and they claimed it, without firing a shot.
Out of one wave of Skyhawks (2 x 4), 7 were brought down.
Broadsword and Coventry outside anchorage waiting to catch them as they cross the Falkland Sound.
Broadsword and Coventry attacked by 3 x 4 Skyhawks. 1 bomb went in the side of Broadsword and out through the upper deck.
Coventry brought down 3 of the attackers before being hit by bomb. Coventry capsized after 20 minutes. Most of the crew picked up by Broadsword and Helo?s.
2 Super Etendards hit Atlantic Conveyor with Exocet.


Wednesday 26th May 82

0100 NGS on Port Howard after landing SBS. We put 300 high explosive and shrapnel shells on targets. Knocked out a battery of howitzers which opened fire on the ship.
0940 Back in anchorage ? 2 Skyhawks bombed the ammunition dump ashore ? fairly spectacular blaze. They passed over us on their way out and both left smoking and leaking fuel.
1005 Both Skyhawks reported crashed in the next valley ? so we are painting them up. Rather enthusiastic Royal Marine shot one of our aerials off the mainmast.


Thursday 27th May 82

Got two more GPMG from Glasgow today and 15,000 rounds of ammo, we will soon have enough for one each. Arg are now using their Naval Skyhawks (different colours). Problem now is that Skyhawks and Shy-talks are both small, white, fast moving targets, but our look-outs have been given pictures of the two.
Got two more GPMG from Sir Lancelot, everyone seems to be giving us their kit and going home!
Atlantic Conveyor sank tonight.


Friday 28th May 82

Argonaut?s bomb removed finally from under all the busted ammunition.
Not much air activity today but a Pucarra ventured over for a look ? and 5 ships claimed it!
We have some prop damage, we think due to catching Ardent?s anchor cable when we went alongside the other day.

Saturday 29th May 82

A C130 came over the hill today and they wheeled a couple of bombs in prams out of the back. The bombs had parachutes attached and were taken out before they came down too far, as was the C130.
A Pucarra attacked a SBS patrol on Mt Rosalie and was brought down ? when an army patrol went up to investigate the wreckage they found a knife stuck in the wing.
Our whaler ashore today filing sandbags when an attack by 4 Skyhawks came in ? one of our lads mistook a latrine pit for a slit trench ? very messy and he walked past the dinner queue on the way back.
Goose Green and Darwin surrendered today.
45 CDO and 3 Para landed OK in Teal Inlet.


Sunday 30th May 82

Argonaut told to go find Stena Sea Spread, get fixed up and go home.
Cardiff hiding off Port Stanley to nab supply aircraft.
Avenger attacked by 2 Exocet ? 2nd shot from her gun hit one missile and the other distracted by chaff. 4 x A4 followed up with bombs ? all missed. 1 A4 downed by own bomb blast ? they seem to have fixed their non-exploding bomb problem now the BBC told them they had one!
Ambuscade reported Exocet closing her and a white dove landed on her focsle. The missile passed by half a mile ahead and didn?t pick Ambuscade up. We have put a pile of bread out on the focsle.
Some high level bombing in the anchorage tonight ? believed to be old Canberra T4?s bought for target towing.

Monday 31st May 82.

The Harrier pad built at San Carlos was put out of action by the Chinook bringing in the Ground Crew.
Arg Hospital Ship Bahia Pariaso boarded and found OK. She is to be allowed into Port Stanley to pick up wounded then into the Red Cross box with Uganda so they can keep an eye on each other.
1 Pucarra down today ? attacked and missed a Sea King then flew into the only tree for 40 miles.


Tuesday 1st June 82

They have found 12 x 200Kg Napalm bombs plus 50 100Kg of the same for fitting onto the Pucarra aircraft.
The Army Field Hospital (intelligently placed next to the Ammo Dump) has been hit by 7 Bombs, only one of which exploded, with no casualties. They have continued operating whilst defusing a bomb underneath one of the operating tables. So far they have dealt with 246 wounded and 79 major ops in 2 days.
Invincible CAP brings down a C130 found later to be a refuelling aircraft for the Mainland based Mirage III?s.
2 new Harriers flown in from Ascension
The Arg are using Pebble Island airstrip again ? until after tonight?s NGS anyway.


Wednesday 2nd June 82

Relieved by Plymouth
We are out of Bomb Alley now on our way to Stena Seaspread (repair ship) outside the TEZ for 48 hour break.
Padre back onboard today ? Says he?s going to buy a dog when we get back ? call it Exocet and boot it round the Parish!
NGS tonight, Avenger vs Pebble Island, Active vs Fitzroy, Ambuscade vs Mount Diamond, Exeter vs Port Stanley supply aircraft.
We alongside Stena Seaspread at 2000.


Thursday 3rd June 82

SHar dropping safe conduct leaflets around Port Stanley. We are still alongside Stena Seaspread patching bits up.

Friday 4th June 82

Argonaut gone home via Ascension Island
Arrow NGS on Port Howard
We sail at 2100 back to TEZ.
4 Canberra?s bombed Mt Kent tonight, got the wrong mountain ? no one but there own troops on there.


Saturday 5th June 82

Task Group was 70 miles away from the position they gave us ? sure he is trying to lose us.
NGS on Bluff Cove tonight with Yarmouth, Cardiff and Avenger, Active has a problem and gone back to Task Group.
We put 300 on various targets, Cardiff put in 280 and Avenger went round to Berkley Sound and put in 80 from the North side. All 3 now steaming back at 27 knots fully blacked out with 200 miles to go before daylight.


Sunday 6th June 82

NGS on Bluff Cove gunline again tonight. No air activity all day.
Alacrity sent home with badly cracked hull. We put 285 on targets tonight and Cardiff 260.


Monday 7th June 82

Two Canberra aircraft high level bombing ? one down by Exeter Sea Dart.
NGS tonight with Cardiff on South Stanley racecourse ? Arrow on Port Stanley airfield.
2 Harriers arrived from Ascension ok.
The contact we almost ambushed turned out to be Brilliant?s Lynx keeping low and silent in case he got ambushed.
The shore spotter says our fire is very accurate with 389 of 395 spot on target. 11 from Cardiff before her gun goes U/S, so we tasked with her 200 allowance also. In total we put 595 shells ashore ? believed to be a record bombardment by any ship since WW2.
We came under fire from a shore battery of six howitzers which we knocked out with 16 shells we had spare.


Tuesday 8th June 82


Another high speed (28 kts) dash back to the Task Force really good fun in a Force 8 gale.
Going back in again tonight for NGS with Plymouth, Arrow and Ambuscade.
Sir Tristram and Sir Galahad bombed by 4 Mirage and 2 Harriers passing on a training flight got all 4. Lots of Welsh Guards still on Sir Galahad. Sir Tristram has a UXB onboard but troops ashore.
Plymouth hit by 2 bombs which passed straight through. Hit in the funnel by Rocket and cannon fire which also exploded a depth charge on her deck. Plymouth brought down one Skyhawk with Sea Cat. The CAP got one of the 2nd wave. The Rapiers got one of the 3rd wave. The CAP got 3 of the 4th wave plus one which crashed flying into the wreckage of the one in from. Busy day!
Arg Hercules attacked passing neutral ship MV Hercules (same name!) The ship is under a Liberian Flag, a US charter and an Italian crew. They?re going to get shouted at by 3 countries!


Wednesday 9th June 82

MV Monsunnen now UK flag (we beached her a few weeks back) found with LCT in tow and rope around prop. Our divers cleared it for her.
NGS again tonight on Mt Tumbldown. 164 rounds.
Almost attacked an unidentified target tonight which turned out to be MV Monsunnen out looking for the LCT they lost this morning.

Thursday 10th June 82

One of our Vulcans which had been forced to land in Brazil due to missing his r/v with his tanker has been released today.
NGS with Arrow on Port Stanley airfield.
Only one raid today from 4 Mirage which ditched their bombs as soon as CAP launched.
Report of hulk of Coventry still floating just under the surface 17 days later

Friday 11th June 82

NGS tonight with Arrow, Active and Exeter on the Northern gunline; Yarmouth Avenger and Glamorgan on Southern gunline.
SHar into bombing role now. 11 x 1000lb bombs on Port Stanley airfield and 14 x 1000lb cluster bombs on troop positions.
We are in support of 42 CDO RM tonight and have put 252 rounds on targets as requested by them, mostly MG posts or Mortar positions.

Saturday 12th June 82


On the way out from NGS last night Glamorgan was hit by a shore based missile. Glamorgan on fire in the hangar and Gas turbine/gear room but still able to make 10 knots. We saw two more contacts which appeared to be deflected by an enormous amount of chaff rockets we put up. Amazing how quick you can get these things launched when need arises!
We are now the only MK6 gun ship left.

Sunday 13th June 82


NGS tonight with Avenger, Active and Ambuscade in Berkley Sound, which Sandy ?thinks? has been cleared of mines.
Avenger hit something solid on the way in and has lost one blade off her prop. Has to lock port shaft.
Allowed MV Irizar (Arg Hospital Ship) into Port Stanley to pick up wounded ? spotters take photograph?s to show way through minefield at the entrance to Stanley.
We put 244 rounds in, Avenger 156, Active 210 and Ambuscade 190. That?s 800 rounds on the troop positions ? must be very muddy because it?s raining also.

Monday 14th June 82

0630 Cardiff trying to sneak up on C130 dropping stores.
NGS for tonight Yarmouth, Avenger, Ambuscade and Plymouth (Back in action)
1400 NGS for tonight cancelled?
1700 Report of white flags in Port Stanley
We are listening on the NGS net to a spotter walking down the road to Stanley by himself and everyone wants information from him! He is passing heaps of abandoned gear and ammunition, but no sign of any live Arg forces as yet. He sounds a bit nervous (understandably!) The Para?s have caught up with him now and are in Port Stanley.


Tuesday 15th June 82

0150 Sandy asks us to report holdings of Arctic clothing. Something going on!
0800 It seems there are some more Arg Forces 1,000 miles away on an island called South Thule in the Sandwich Islands.
Got to go pick up Endurance and RFA Olmeda plus 80 Royal Marines from South Georgia and go and shift them.
We are told to take on stores for another 6 months supply in case we get stuck in the ice!
Arg?s surrender in Port Stanley. Arg commander allowed home to ask permission to surrender Islands. Would like to have a copy of that Request Form. Imagine that at the Arg Skipper?s table!


Wednesday 16th June 82

Mainland Junta won?t sign ceasefire so still at high alert state in TG.
Invincible and Andromeda sent off to the North to refit and repair. We are now en route to South Georgia after filling every space with stores.


Thursday 17th June 82

Signal from Scots Guards ref our NGS in support of their advance into Stanley says ?NGS impressive and devastatingly accurate, to contributing much to successful outcome. Deeply Grateful.? We got called round when we get back to UK, they are based outside Edinburgh.
Still en route to South Georgia with Olmeda. Olmeda lost a derrick in rough weather. Endurance and Tug Salvageman are proceeding on their own from South Georgia.

Friday 18th June 82

1200 Arrived South Georgia ? into Cumberland Bay to pick up stores and Army Blowpipe missile launchers/operators. Royal?s embarked on Olmeda. The temperature is minus 26 degrees.
1900 Sailed for South Thule.

Saturday 19th June 82
Glamorgan and Arrow away to UK today.
Endurance and Salvageman hiding behind a berg off South Thule to put in a recce sometime today.
Endurance blew it and they get spotted. The South Thule commander reports to Buenos Airies that ?The Bandits are here.?
HMS Penguin Naval Air Station, opens up in Falklands


Sunday 20th June 82

1200 Arrived of South Thule. The bunch ashore has been up all night burning stuff.
1205 White flag goes up ashore. Nice quick war that one!
1800 All prisoners back on Olmeda now and our skipper goes across to witness the surrender. It is signed for by an Arg Midshipman who got a quick promotion to ?Island Commander? yesterday!


Monday 21st June 82

1400 Sailed for South Georgia. Endurance and Salvageman staying to try to assess what they were doing on South Thule.
Lady Diana has a son.

Tuesday 22nd June 82

Arrived Grytvyken, South Georgia ? took on Arg POW?s and sailed for Falklands
Splicers!


Thursday 24th June 82


Arrived Port Stanley ? landed POW?s and sailed out again to stay with main Task Group.
Argentina still not called a halt to hostilities. Galateiri got the sack today.


1st July 82

British Enterprise III has engine failure on the way down ? we are to go and find her and stand by until the tug arrives tomorrow. Weather really bad.


4th July 82

Hermes and Broadsword away to UK.


7th July 82

Yarmouth away to UK.



[b:bd9615b726]No le peguen mucho... tal vez fue que se fumo algo antes de escribir[/b:bd9615b726] Very Happy


---


HUTCH

CG

??about a ghost ship??

It was not a ghost ship. It was on station, doing its job. You are just very ignorant.

??that remains three months after the end of the war back and forth in the middle of the sea??

That was what it was there to do.

You keep on mentioning fantasy books and yet you have not a single witness or piece of evidence that your theory actually happened. You refuse to answer questions. You have repeatedly demonstrated great ignorance.

?For me what is extraordinary is the three months that the ship was missing after the end of the war, without complying with any particular function.?

Another lie. It was not ?missing? it was doing its job, something you clearly do not understand. Its function was to protect the FI and offer a secure and well equipped aircraft base for the UKs forces. This is what it did. Just because you do not understand this, it does not make it sinister or odd.
?The Invincible despite staying three months more, never taking command of the fleet.?

HMS Bristol was a better command ship so it became the command ship.

?A ship that never touches port requires a vessel to accompany continuously suministrandole fuel ....?

If you were not so very ignorant you would know that ships can be refuelled at sea.

?For any ship 5.5 months without taking port is a barbarity, is unacceptable.?

For you ? a pathetic liar who has no idea what they are talking about and who makes things up whenever necessary. If you had any understanding at all of the military you would understand this. But you do not.

Malvinero

?How did the HMS Invincible to be 5.5 months at sea and alone??

It?s a ship. Ships sail on the water. They can be replenished by other ships. Quite simple.

Rulo

Why would civilians know which ship refuelled which ship 25 years ago after a war? Why would the crew of these ships put up their diaries or stories anywhere? Why would there be a picture of a refuelling?

Again, you have zero evidence to support your crazy and pathetic claim ? so you demand an impossibly high level of evidence from the UK but offer none yourself. Every single aspect of a war is not captured on film or recorded by someone somewhere and made public.

?Otherwise must think that what our full brothers or some Chileans support ship USS Saratoga?

Just a guess.

CG

??with a single hull R05 was sunk in the Falkland??

You still offer zero evidence of this.

Towers can be repainted. In the UK we have a thing called ?paint? to achieve this. Perhaps you have heard of this? Not how you have not a single witness for anything you claim and that far better educated and connected people have never discovered this conspiracy but you ? a person with just the internet ? has.

Rulo

What is a ?fable or delusion? about this?

?He did not hit much ...?

Here you show how little you know or understand of war and combat.

I am not sure what your conspiracy is claiming now.

The first website is not an official website.

The first website does not say that ??Hermes and Invincible sailed together in a given air support among themselves with PACs that regulate and off alternately.?

Your second website ? the unofficial Bristol one again ? says that Bristol left for the UK on 28th August.

Your third website says that RFA Olna departs the area on August 21st. It does not say that she sails back with Invincible to the UK that day, just that she leaves the FI and will be returning with the Invincible.

The forth website says that Britsol sailed back to the UK on 28th August.

What is your problem with all this? What are you saying is incorrect? The internet is often updated and changed and much information on there can be incorrect. You seem to believe that all UK sites about the FI war are controlled by the UK government ? another paranoid delusion


--

CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 23 Oct 2007 09:52 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Laughing El problema del Bristol es que realmente no parte con ningun Invincible Class de Malvinas.

Parte varios dias antes de lo que declara la historia oficial inglesa (plagada de decenas de contradicciones intencionales) y se debe juntar con el nuevo casco gemelo nuevo del Invincible en UK para hacer la entrada gloriosa.

Quizas haya hecho algunas millas nauticas navegando con el Illustrious con pretendido destino a UK.

Pero el el Bristol navego junto al Invincible en camino HACIA Malvinas.

Y en algunos momentos navega junto al Illustrious, seguramente cuando hacen el cambio de almirantazgo de flota.

Cool Respecto a que ambos portaaviones navegaban cerca entre si, lo he dicho siempre.
Inclusive se ve en las fotos de la partida.

Es absolutamente logico.
Reducian de tal forma la necesidad de aviones de defensa del nucleo de flota y la necesidad de escoltas de ese nucleo.

Eran dos buquecitos de miercoles, me canso de repetirlo, del orden de las 20 mil toneladas de desplazamiento (similares por ejemplo al Atlantic Conveyor o al gemelo Atlantic Causeway)
El Hermes habia sido durante u tiempo un buque de desembarco anfibio con apoyo helitransportado, luego al aparecer los VSTOL Sea harrier paso a ser un escolta de flota, antisubmarino que portaba Sea King para tal fin y Sea Harriers para defender al buque.
El Invincible ya nacio siendo un portahelicopteros ASW, que portaba 6 Sea Harriers para defensa del buque.

Como una parte importante de los Sea Harriers se usaron para combatir AA con aviones argentinos e incluso para batir blancos terrestres, los que quedaban para defender a los portaaviones eran pocos.

Yo siempre digo lo mismo, que tanto Ureta como Isaac, si hubiesen llegado a bombardear al Invincible hubiesen sido derrbados por los Sea Harriers del Invincible o del Hermes.
Por eso su posibilidad de regreso era nula.

Twisted Evil Ademas la evacuacion de una peque?a lata de sardinas con 1000 personas a bordo en el mar, solo se puede hacer de forma helitransportada a la otra lata de sardinas que navega cerca.


Idea El inesperado movimiento de helicoptrtos que monitorea el radar del CIC de Malvinas el 30/5/82 es precisamente eso, helicopteros helitransportando a los tripulantes del Invincible hacia el Hermes, que como dice Woodwrd, nunca estaba mas de 20 millas del Invincible, o sea a pocos minutos en helicoptero entre ambos buques.

Y a esa altura, los buques que podian oficiar de escoltas del nucleo de flota de portaaviones ya eran muy pocos, asi que lo mas logico era mantener un solo nucleo de 2 peque?os portaaviones.

Exclamation Repito el concepto, ni el Hermes ni el Invincible eran portaaviones Clase Nimitz, ni Forrestal, ni Midway, ni tampoco clase Eagle o Clase Essex, aran aun mucho mas peque?os que los Clase Clemenceau franceses.
Buques de miercoles, con pocos aviones y helicopteros a bordo, aviones que ademas tenian un radio de autonomia muy limitado y se rompian o accidentaban muy facil, aviones subsonicos para defensa de su propio portaaviones y nada mas.
Si no hubiese sideo por los misiles yanquis Sidewinder AIM 9L, muy probablemnte las perdidas de buques britanicos se hubiesen duplicado.

Mandar 77 o mas buques a combatir a 10 mil km de sus bases coon la sola conbertura aerea de lo que portaban el Invincible y el Hermes fue un acto demencial de Tatcher.

Y por eso estaban terminado a paso redoblado los respectivos gemelos del Hermes e Invincible , a saber Bulkwark e Illustrious.

Una vez con los ingleses en tierra y operando el aoeropuerto de Puerto Argentino, no hacia falta mas ningun portaaviones navegando ni "defendiendo las islas"
Habia capacidades defensivas de sobra.
Y no habia pelogro ni potencial ni real de ningun ataque argentino.
Argentina no era Libia ni Cuba, no nos gobernaba Kadaffi ni Castro.

Eso es cuento, es fabula, es chamuyo para justificar a los clase Invincible yendo y viniendo.
Es una cortina de humo, vulgar....simple e infantil.
Pareciera tramada por Austin Powers.

Laughing Respecto a las paginas de buques ingleses que aparecen y desaparecen como por arte de magia, no es nada nuevo.
Twisted Evil Aunque lo mas sustancioso surge de las paginas privadas de ciudadanos britanicos que suben fotos ineditas a la Web.
Nuestro blanco prioritario....y algo que no puede controlar el estado de UK, a la gente comun que sube fotos a la web.
_________________
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 23 Oct 2007 10:18 am Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG

?(riddled with dozens of contradictions intentional)?

Please list these ?dozens? of contradictions. Or will you as usual be a total and pathetic failure?

??and must be put together with the new twin hull of the new Invincible in the UK to make the entry glorious. ?

You have no evidence that this happened. At all. You are a pathetic fantasist who looks foolish and is an embarrassment to Argentina.

?It is absolutely logical.?

Your idea is not logical, you display ignorance bordering on deliberate stupidity and you have no evidence that any of this took place.

?Besides the evacuation of a small tin of sardines with 1000 people on board into the sea, can only be done on a h?liport?e the other tin of sardines that sails close.?

You have no evidence at all that this happened, just your personal paranoid delusions based on ignorance and prejudice.

?The unexpected movement helicoptrtos which monitors the radar of the May 30, 1982 Malvinas CIC is just that, landing helitransportando a crew of Invincible towards Hermes??

You have no evidence that this is true. I believe you have failed to prove this helicopter movement took place. Helicopter movement around an aircraft carrier is not a surprise. You have not one witness. You have no physical evidence. You have nothing.

??was an act of insane Thatcher.?

Just your prejudiced personal opinion again from someone with no credibility who has been shown to be very ignorant.

?Once ashore with the British and operating aoeropuerto Puerto Argentino, not missing any more aircraft carriers sailing or "defending the islands"?
?There were plenty of defensive capabilities.?

Again you display just how little you know of the military or the FI post war and just how ignorant you are about anything you talk about. You have already had explained to you many times why an aircraft carrier would stay on station but seem unable to accept reality and prefer to remain in your fantasy world, which makes you look even more foolish.

?Regarding the pages of English ships that appear and disappear as if by magic, is nothing new.?

What ships ?appear and disappear?? Is this yet another example of your apparently unlimited ignorance?

?Our priority target .... and something that can not control the state of UK, ordinary photos, which rises to the web?

None of which support your lunatic theory that only a child or an idiot would believe. The photos which have appeared disprove your paranoid delusions but you can not accept that so you run away like a child.

You cover your posts in faces but that can not hide the absurd statements you make or the lack of evidence for your crackpot ?theory?. You just look childish.
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
CristianG
Usuario Frecuente


Registrado: 26 Sep 2007
Mensajes: 188


MensajePublicado: 23 Oct 2007 12:10 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
Rolling Eyes Te has reducido a insultar al mensajero por que no te gusta el mensaje, Hutch.
_________________
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar e-mail
Hutch
Usuario Activo


Registrado: 12 Ene 2006
Mensajes: 1014
Ubicaci?n: London

MensajePublicado: 23 Oct 2007 12:18 pm Asunto: Responder citando Editar/Borrar este mensaje Borrar este mensaje Ver IP del autor
CG

?You reduced to insult the messenger that you do not like the message, Hutch.?

They are not insults they are facts.

You are very ignorant and continually prove this.

You are very prejudiced and continually prove this.

You know nothing about the military or how a military works.

You do not understand discipline.

You do not understand the navy or naval construction.

You fail to provide any proof to back up your claims.

You invent new lies when you have to, to cover up the gaping holes in your claims.

You refuse to accept proof and evidence when presented with it and refuse to understand when presented with facts so you are being deliberately stupid.

You refuse to answer questions that are raised.

You present no evidence that would convince any open minded intelligent person. Only a fool or a blind Argentine nationalist could belive your ridiculous claims.

You live in a pathetic fantasy land where you can make up reality when you want and ignore it when you do not like it.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado
Mostrar mensajes de anteriores:   
Publicar nuevo tema   Responder al tema    Foros de discusión -> Guerra de Malvinas Todas las horas son GMT - 3 Horas
Ir a página 1, 2, 3 ... 160, 161, 162  Siguiente
Página 1 de 162
Cambiar a:  
Podés publicar nuevos temas en este foro
No podés responder a temas en este foro
No podés editar tus mensajes en este foro
No podés borrar tus mensajes en este foro
No podés votar en encuestas en este foro


phpBB Argento basado en phpBB © 2007 phpBB Argento

Page generation time: 0.2606s (PHP: 96% - SQL: 4%) - SQL queries: 15 - GZIP enabled - Debug on