Malvinas War in 1982

here I bring a bonus track
While the picture observed
.

.
the helicopter on the ship class invincible mentioned for "electronic intelligence" never had the equipment for that purpose, only it was with the Sea Kings from 820 Squadron. And in any case with the Canberra PR9 or Niromds that secretly operating from bases in Chile.
.
source:http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chile.htm
.

.
.

.
.
The registered XZ795 helicopter belonged to 815 Squadron based in the land-based RNAS Yeovilton.
in departure from UK was assigned to HMS Sheffield, but was doing joint operations with HMS Broadsword and HMS Brilliant its role was ASW (antisubmarine).
.
He had important role in the recovery of the South Georgia and damaged the Argentine submarine ARA Santa Fe (logical not?).
Another helis in his squadron was lost whit the Atlantic Conveyor.
.
However as can be seen not return to UK with HMS Brilliant to which was assigned the May 7, 1982.
.

.
.
I ask:
Why deny honors triumphant return home after his outstanding performance?
Only justified by the role it played so well, the anti-submarine warfare.
.
This closes the following concept. The Invincible class ship that is in the photo had a fear of a renegade submarine attack (much more likely that a suicide bombing of our decimated aviation.
so look for shallow water and strengthen their ASW capacity with aircraft and helicopters of others lost vessels.
.
They do it in San Carlos out of sight of the people and the media.
They are near the alternative track from where they operated the Harriers, then, what is the sense of getting there?
.
.
.

So what is this bonus picture about? It shows a carrier, so what?

the point is just that
is an aircraft carrier, but not the same that came out of UK in April 1982. As I can not ensure that it is the same that goes to Portsmouth in September.

Yes it is the same carrier. HMS Illustrious had a Phalanx, HMS Invincible didnt, and that ship clearly doesnt have one, so that means it's Invincible.

look carefully...
.
.

no man!! ... that ship not has five months at sea!

and that is just one of the clues that is not the R05
.
.
See as show HMS Hermes at return with much more time at sea

.
.
.

It is HMS Invincible, it can ONLY be HMS Invincible. HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal were built with CIWS,HMS Invincible wasnt, that picture has no CIWS, so it has to be HMS Invincible.

It is a basic "retrofit" camouflage.
R06 to R05
Basic.

-Remove the both CIWS
-Change of position liferafts (babor & estribor)
-Advancing the crane

And magically resurrects the R05 Invincible...

When the R06 sailed to Malvinas?
In late June (unofficial)?
Or the August 2 (official)?

Very Simple:
Late June: R06 ex Illustrious, New Invincible
August 2: R07 ex Ark Royal, New Illustrious

UK tied the conflict in Swan Hunter, no in Malvinas

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

1-Removes CIWS, How would we do that at sea?
1-Move crane forward. How would anybody be able to do that at sea?

Have you even bothered to look at the pictures of ships that were damaged? the repairs a clearly seen, yet not a single repair is seen on the Invincible.
You and the rest of your argie mates are living in a fantasy world. Face it, you started a war, you lost the war. For whatever reason you just cant accept that fact, you are living in a dream world if you believe that nonsence, if you dont believe me, why dont you get in touch with a ship repair yard and ask them if it's possible to do the repairs and changes that your talking about. Even the Russians on this forum dont believe your silly claims, infact nobody does believe them except argies, and we all know how brainwashed they are. Take a look at your claims.
1- Sunk Invincible, though she sailed home without a scratch on her.
2- Sunk Canberra, though she delivered the argie POWs back home.
3- Sunk HMS Fearless, though she picked up a downed argie pilot 2 days later.
4- Killed thousands of PARAS at Goose Green, yet we only had 255 losses in total.
5- Shot down over 100 Harriers, even though we didnt take half of that down.
6- HMS Sheffield sunk by bombs, even though everybody knows it was an Exocet.
7- HMS Hermes hit by Exocet, even though she sailed home without any battle damage.
8- Claim that sinking the Belgrano was a war crime, even though your government of today, Captain Hector Bonzo, you navy and the Junta at the time says it wasnt.
According to the Junta you guys were winning the war right up untill you surrendered, in other words you lot were lied to, and you knew that, so how come this silly story, clearly invented, is now fact according to you?
You say the picture shows HMS Illustrious, can you prove it?
Another point for you to consider, HMS Ark Royal wasn't commisioned until 1985, so that pisses on your claim that Ark Royal replaced Illustrious. One last point, How come we had 3 carriers in 1983 (Ark Royal still on the Tyne)where did we get the 3rd one from? We must have got it from somewhere, could it be that you never touched Invincible.

Aberdeenlad wrote:You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

1-Removes CIWS, How would we do that at sea?
1-Move crane forward. How would anybody be able to do that at sea?

Have you even bothered to look at the pictures of ships that were damaged? the repairs a clearly seen, yet not a single repair is seen on the Invincible.
You and the rest of your argie mates are living in a fantasy world. Face it, you started a war, you lost the war. For whatever reason you just cant accept that fact, you are living in a dream world if you believe that nonsence, if you dont believe me, why dont you get in touch with a ship repair yard and ask them if it's possible to do the repairs and changes that your talking about. Even the Russians on this forum dont believe your silly claims, infact nobody does believe them except argies, and we all know how brainwashed they are. Take a look at your claims.
1- Sunk Invincible, though she sailed home without a scratch on her.
2- Sunk Canberra, though she delivered the argie POWs back home.
3- Sunk HMS Fearless, though she picked up a downed argie pilot 2 days later.
4- Killed thousands of PARAS at Goose Green, yet we only had 255 losses in total.
5- Shot down over 100 Harriers, even though we didnt take half of that down.
6- HMS Sheffield sunk by bombs, even though everybody knows it was an Exocet.
7- HMS Hermes hit by Exocet, even though she sailed home without any battle damage.
8- Claim that sinking the Belgrano was a war crime, even though your government of today, Captain Hector Bonzo, you navy and the Junta at the time says it wasnt.
According to the Junta you guys were winning the war right up untill you surrendered, in other words you lot were lied to, and you knew that, so how come this silly story, clearly invented, is now fact according to you?
You say the picture shows HMS Illustrious, can you prove it?
Another point for you to consider, HMS Ark Royal wasn't commisioned until 1985, so that pisses on your claim that Ark Royal replaced Illustrious. One last point, How come we had 3 carriers in 1983 (Ark Royal still on the Tyne)where did we get the 3rd one from? We must have got it from somewhere, could it be that you never touched Invincible.

-Usted puede cambiar la posicion de la Grua y retirar ambos CIWS, varias veces en un recorrido de 8000 millas durante varias semanas y con al menos 700 tripulantes a bordo (excluyo los miembros del grupo aereo del Invincible)
En tan extenso recorrido esas sencillas maniobras tambien se han podido realizar en la Isla de Ascension o en las Islas Virgenes (St. Thomas) o en Puerto Rico o en Fort Lauderdale (USA)
Pero no tenga usted dudas, tambien se pudieron haber hecho en San Carlos, Islas Malvinas o en el medio del mar.
Son muy sencillas de hacer.

Mas absurda es la excusa britanica para explicar la desaparicion del Invincible por meses de Malvinas, argumentando que dicho carrier con problemas de propulsion se fue a aguas mas calmas y tropicales a cambiar una turbina en medio del mar, en lugar de hacerlo en la misma Bahia de Puerto Stanley.
Absurda e ilogica, carente de fundamento en la historia naval.

Un buque con problemas de propulsion debe tomar de inmediato un puerto, cesar su movimiento y realizar la reparacion.
Nunca recorrer miles de millas en invierno a una latitud extrema y en el impredecible Atlantico Sur.
Un pequeño carrier angosto, de poca manga, con poca velocidad, sucumbe facilmente a un oleaje embravecido si pierde totalmente la traccion y no puede cortar las olas, entra en vuelta de campana rapidamente.
Un riesgo absurdo e innecesario.
Nunca documentado.
Si era peligroso entrar a la Bahia de Puerto Stanley, tambien lo era a la Bahia de San Carlos.

Todas las demas mentiras y embustes que ustede me esat citando o enumerando, son fruto de estupida propaganda de los medios de masas argentinos, que repetian argumentos de inteligencia britanica o eran manipulados por la misma.

Los reclamos ciertos acerca de los fallecidos ocultados o no declarados en el HMS Coventry, jamas fueron recogidos por los medios de masas argentinos ni britanicos, por que son tan ciertos como el del hundimiento del Invincible y su reemplazo por el Clon R06.
Van en contra de los intereses britanicos, de la NATO y de todos los fabricantes de armamentos del hemisferio norte.

Por ultimo, UK construyo 4 clase Invincible.
El casco original R07 (ex Ark Royal) es muy diferente al R06 que reemplaza.

El "Illustrious" R06 que zarpa en Junio de 1982 (secreta, nunca admitida) para clonarse como Invincible, es totalmente diferente al "Illustrious R07" que zarpa el 2 de Agosto de 1982.
En este caso no les salio una clonacion tan correcta, como la retrofit del R06 a R05 para reemplazar al Invincible hundido.

Y el Ark Royal que se comisiona entre 1984 y 1985, es totalmente diferente al R07, que se boto en 1981.
Es un buque totalmente nuevo y diferente al R07, que se construyo aceleradamente en 26 meses. Desde Junio de 1982 a mediados de 1984

La clonacion del R06 a Invincible (R05) ha sido aceptable...aunque muy obvia
La clonacion del R07 a Illustrious (R06) es mala, con diferencias muy notables.
la clonacion del R0X a Ark Royal (R07) es horrible.

El HMS Invincible fue impactado por un exocet AM-39 y dos bombas de 500 libras, el 30 de mayo de 1982, a las 14.30 hs de la Argentina.
Y la orden de abandono para el resto de la tripulacion que intentaba salvarlo se dio a las 21.00 hs de la Argentina. Dato emitido en tiempo real por la BBC.
El R05 se hunde por la noche.
La mayoria de sus tripulantes son evacuados al HMS Hermes.
Incluso Bob Marsden, quien fallece por accidente operacional en cubierta del HMS Hermes el 15 de Junio de 1982.
Es la unica baja que se admite en el HMS Invincible luego del ataque del 30 de Mayo, precisamente por la actitud del comando de Woodward. En muchos videos del Hermes se lo cita como muerto propio. Y en videos de sus deudos se muestra siempre la cubierta del Hermes y no la del Invincible.
El resto de los fallecidos en el Invincible, a excepcion de los dos del 6 de Mayo de 1982, se hallan ocultados a la opinion publica, como los fallecidos en el HMS Coventry.
Bob Marsden no se oculta pues su fallecimiento se produce en otro buque cuando el propio se hallaba hundido.
Era un "invitado" al Hermes entre cientos de evacuados sobrevivientes del Invincible.
Un fallecimiento imposible de ocultar.

El Invincible no solo que fue tocado, y averiado seriamente, con un incendio generalizado total.
La idea de que lo que se oculta es un daño y reparacion surge de las mismas fuentes inglesas de inteligencia, con el fin de provocar confusion.
Para darle calma a sus extripulantes que abandonaron un buque escorado con grave averia, y habilitar de tal forma el regreso de un buque nuevo varios meses despues.

(la masa al ver el buque nuevo piensa que los picaros y astutos ingleses han reparado el Invincible ...cuando lo cierto es que lo han cambiado por el R06)

La idea de que nunca fue tocado fue para calmar a la opinion publica por unas semanas y tambien para explicarle a todos los buques de reparacion y recuperacion de cascos de la TRALA (Salvageman, Irishman, etc. etc.)por que nunca habia llegado un Invincible averiado a reparacion.

Dos mentiras
-Averia y reparacion
-Nunca fue tocado
Para confundir a la gente y calmar a las partes

Una verdad
-El Invincible R05 fue hundido el 30 de Mayo y reemplazdo por el casco R06, retrofitado y camouflado a R05

PMSL

You can supply eveidence of all this can you?

How did we manage to hide all these dead sailors and reporters?

A carrier takes 5 years to build and kit out, how did we have 3 together in the UK in 1983, you said a new carrier was built in 26 months, thats more than 2 years. To help you, 1982 plus 26 months equals 1985, but we had 3 together in 1983, 2 in Portsmouth and 1 on the Tyne HOW?

You said HMS Invincible couldnt go into Stanley, yet you posted a picture earlier showing her in Stanley, the picture is an official Royal Navy pic. How can that be?

Now lets talk about all the photos showing HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious together, how did we do that, you said Ark Royal was completely different from HMS Invincible, that is the only thing you have said that is true, these pictures show two carriers in different configuration, I.E. one has CIWS (Illustrious) and one doesnt (Invincible) How did we do that?

Aberdeenlad wrote:PMSL

You can supply eveidence of all this can you?

How did we manage to hide all these dead sailors and reporters?

A carrier takes 5 years to build and kit out, how did we have 3 together in the UK in 1983, you said a new carrier was built in 26 months, thats more than 2 years. To help you, 1982 plus 26 months equals almost 1985, but we had 3 together in 1983,2 in Portsmouth and 1 on the Tyne HOW?

You said HMS Invincible couldnt go into Stanley, yet you posted a picture earlier showing her in Stanley, the picture is an official Royal Navy pic. How can that be?

Now lets talk about all the photos showing HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious together, how did we do that, you said Ark Royal was completely different from HMS Invincible, that is the only thing you have said that is true, these pictures show to carriers in different configuration, I.E. one has CIWS (Illustrious) and one doesnt (Invincible) How did we do that?

Yo no necesito mostrar evidencias de algo que es obvio.
Las fotos del R06 que suben en la Royal Navy son tomadas en la Bahia de San Carlos, donde fueron a buscar al los Sea Harriers y Sea Kings evacuados del Invincible hundido. Que esperaban en una pista auxiliar
Es una torpe y burda maniobra para demostrar supervivencia del buque hundido.

Un set de fotos (yo tengo 3 )tomadas a la distancia todas retocadas y adulteradas, para que no se note que es un buque con alrededor de solamente un mes de navegacion. Fotos de mediados de Julio.
Del arribo a San Carlos del R06 quien fue escoltado por la HMS Danae y algunos buques auxuliares de la RFA.

La industria naviera britanica podia construir durante la segunda guerra mundial un Clase Colossus en menos de 2 años.
La industria naviera de los 80, tenia mano de obra ociosa, cientos de obreros navales suspendidos o despedidos.
Los buques britanicos de los 80 eran de construccion simple, modulos livianos que se ensamblaban de forma moderna.
En construccion acelerada 26 meses sobraban para construir el R0x o si deseas R08.

El hundimiento del Invincible fue un beneficio para los obreros navales britanicos,quienes de tener un casco con una venta demorada a Australia el R05, y dos cascos completandose lentamente el R06 y R07, pasaron a otra situacion mucho mas favorable.
Finalizacion acelerada de los cascos R06 y R07, y la construccion del cuarto casco.

Miles de puestos de trabajo inesperados, una bendicion para una industria que se hallaba colapsada y en recesion antes del 2 de abril de 1982.

Pero como ninguno de los Invincibles (R06, R07 y R0x) se le pudo vender a nadie (ni Australia, ni India, ni Chile) todo el costo de la operacion corporate, mas la operacion de reemplazo de cascos lo pagaron los sufridos ciudadanos britanicos.

Decenas de miles de millones de dolares en la Operacion Corporate.
Cientos de muertos britanicos y argentinos.
Presupuesto naval para buques imposibles de vender. La Clase Invendible (ex Invincible)
Un enorme costo innecesario para defender las Malvinas de sde 1982 hasta 2010.

Cientos de marinos britanicos fallecidos en el Coventry y el Invincible, y en Malvinas, ocultados por el Reino Unido.
Agregandole sufrimiento extra a sus familiares y amigos quines no pueden cerrar el duelo. No pueden nombrar a sus muertos como tales ni llevarle flores a algun cenotafio o tumba marina.

Un sacrificio innecesario para todos, mucho mas grave para los britanicos que para los argentinos, pero malo para todos.
Una tension innecesaria entre dos naciones que nunca fueron enemigas, ni debieran serlo.
------
Las fotos que dicen mostrar al Invincible y al Illustrious navegando en Malvinas al Fines de Agosto de 1982, con integrantes de Grupo Bristol y los escoltas del R07, solo muestran al R06 y al R07 navegando en un sitio incierto en una fecha incierta.
No hay certeza de nada, no es prueba de nada.

Y para quienes conocemos al detalle los planos de todos los clase Invincible, solo podemos ver al R06 retrofitado a R05, y al R07 al que le han quitado el sky jump moderno y le han colocado el sky jump antiguo (el original de los cascos R06 y R05

Se olvidaron de otros detalles bien visibles y que ademas estan en los planos originales del R07, quizas por el apuro, quizas por torpeza o quizas por subestimar a los investigadores historicos argentinos.

El R07 con casco antiguo y Sky Jump moderno, nunca navego con esa configuracion (que se ve claramente en Swan Hunter en Junio del 82)

Por que razon?
Por que se convirtio en el New Illustrious, que zarpa en agosto de 1982 hacia Malvinas al mando de Jock Slater, a reemplazar al R06 al mando de Jeremy Black.
Quienes regresan junto al rematen del Bristol Group, todos al mando del Contraalmirante Derek Reffel, cuya aparicion a fin del conflicto es totalmente inexplicable.
Salvo para relevar a Woodward quien estaba dispuesto a admitir todas las bajas y hundimientos de la Royal Navy, tal como lo hizo con Bob Marsden, fallecido en el Hermes y no en el Invincible.

Increible Reffel, 4 años mas antiguo que todos los comandantes de la RN durante el conflicto, llega el 1 de julio y en lugar de relevar a Black en el Invincible, releva a Alan Grose en el Bristol, un buque menor desde el que se supone va a comandar una formacion antiaerea encabezada por un portaaviones...

Reffel...el unico buque que comando fue el HMS Sirius.
Totalmente innecesario en Malvinas.
Es el cerebro del ocultamiento del hundimiento del Invincible.
Junto con su compañero de promocion John Fieldhouse
El y sus complices (Hugo White, Hopkins, Griffith, Forbes y demas)

PMSL

Now I know your an idiot.

You say you sank Invincible, but you also say you dont need to show evidence. WTF is that all about?
You cant explain why we had 3 carriers in the UK at once, in 1983. Mate, I think you should go back to the drawing board, It's time to rethink your story. Everything you have said, is false. Everything you have said differs from the official argentine version, why is that?
And you still dont explain how we managed to get a quite a few photos of both Invincible and Illusrious together after the war.
As your in a Russian group posting your lies, you could at least post in English or Russian to help any Russian members of this group.
You can stop with the copy and paste also, we have seen all that rubbish.

You have a solid point!

Soltec ,we all know you speak English since you did in your first posts , so please show courtesy!

I also gather that your a patriot of your own country , which is nice , but people have different opinions , so respect them also please!

Soltec , I also have to give you a warning , since you were rude to other members . I hope this was a one time warning!


Aberdeenlad, please post a intro in the following forum: http://russiadefence.forumotion.com/member-introductions-and-rules-f6/

Aberdeenlad wrote:PMSL

Now I know your an idiot.

You say you sank Invincible, but you also say you dont need to show evidence. WTF is that all about?
You cant explain why we had 3 carriers in the UK at once, in 1983. Mate, I think you should go back to the drawing board, It's time to rethink your story. Everything you have said, is false. Everything you have said differs from the official argentine version, why is that?
And you still dont explain how we managed to get a quite a few photos of both Invincible and Illusrious together after the war.
As your in a Russian group posting your lies, you could at least post in English or Russian to help any Russian members of this group.
You can stop with the copy and paste also, we have seen all that rubbish.

Los pilotos de la Fuerza Aerea Argentina, sobrevivientes al ataque, Enrique Ureta y Gerardo Isaac, confirman el impacto del misil exocet AM 39 sobre el HMS Invincible.
Lanzan ademas 3 bombas de 500 libras con alta probabilidad de ser impacto adicional al del misil.
Alli termina tanto la historia oficial de la Fuerza Aerea Argentina como el de la Armada Argentina.
Del destino final del buque duda todo el mundo, no solo los argentinos, sino toda persona que se halla vinculado de alguna forma al combate naval.
Es totalmente absurda la historia inglesa, con un contraalmirante relevando a un capitan de navio desde un buque menor, por que el buque mayor esta desaparecido o cambiando una turbina en el medio del mar, en un sitio mas tranquilo y mas calido.
Absurdo.
Contradice la cadena de mandos tradicional de cualquier Marina de Guerra del Mundo.
No existia ninguna necesidad de tenr un clase Invincible en Malvinas, ni en Julio ni en ningun mes siguiente.
No habia ninguna amenaza importante desde Argentina.
Los ingleses teniana totalmente dominada la situacion, contrlaban las islas, tenian 2 o 3 pistas de aterrizaje en las mismas.
Los Sea Harriers podian despegar desde ellas o desde cualquiera de los buques de la RFA con esa aptitud.
La Royal Navy tenia ademas buques de avanzada con misiles SAM, Sea Dart, Exeter y Cardiff, y luego Birmingham y Southampton. Todos Clase 42 Batch 2.
La FAA y la ARA no tenian aviones para ningun ataque, no habia ningun riesgo de ataques rebeldes o de conspiraciones, la mayoria ademas requeria de repostaje en vuelo.
Ninguno de los operadores de Inteligencia Britanica se pudo sacar una foto a bordo del R05, ni Andres Ortega Klein, ni Black, ni Reffel, ni White, ni Hopkins, ni Griffith, ni Lynda Cash.
O fotos y videos de archivo de Abril y Mayo, o bien el R06 en san Carlos, todas fotos lejanas.
Nosotros no tenemos que probar nada.
Los britanicos ya ocultaron un hundimiento de Portaaviones el HMS Dasher en la segunda guerra.

En el caso del Invincible hay un reclamo firme de averia y posible hundimiento, y del lado britanico solo aparece evidencia tardia, difusa y contardictoria.
Tenian dos clones el 30 de mayo, el R06 y el R07.
Tienen 3 zarpadas comprobadas, el 5 de abril el R05, el 23 de Junio el R06 y el 2 de Agosto el R07.
Pero solo dos arribos, el R06 el 17/9/82 y el R07 en Diciembre de 1982.

Hay cientos de pruebas circulando en el mundo, y los expertos mayoritariamente se inclinan por que al menos el exocet AM39 impacto en el HMS Invincible, y que los britanicos ocultan ese hecho y sus consecuencias posteriores.

Por ultimo, luego del ataque la primer version inglesa decia que habia sido sobre el casco al garete del Atalntic Conveyor, pero cuando los tripulantes del Salvageman (buque auxiliar de la flota de recuperacionn de cascos)informa que el A. Conveyor se habia hundido el 28 de Mayo, entonces la mentira britanica cambia y aparece Hugo White afirmando de que el buque atacado fue la microscopica fragata Clase 21 HMS Avenger, correspondiente al Bristol Group, o sea bajo el mando de Grose/Reffel/Fieldhouse.

John Foster Woodward, el verdadero heroe ingles, a quieN considero un excelente militar y CABALLERO, no nombra al Invincible entre a los buques bajo su mando el dia 13 de Junio, dice que solo el Hermes, la Exeter y la Yarmouth estan sin daños y al 100% de su operatividad, y enumera a todos los demas con sus averias y problemas. NUNCA NOMBRA AL INVINCIBLE.

Russian Patriot wrote:You have a solid point!

Soltec ,we all know you speak English since you did in your first posts , so please show courtesy!

I also gather that your a patriot of your own country , which is nice , but people have different opinions , so respect them also please!

Soltec , I also have to give you a warning , since you were rude to other members . I hope this was a one time warning!


Aberdeenlad, please post a intro in the following forum: http://russiadefence.forumotion.com/member-introductions-and-rules-f6/

Sorry. Russian Patriot.
I will translate and edit my posts.

Still posting rubbish.

Foster John Woodward, the true English hero, whom I consider an excellent military and CABALLERO, does not name the Invincible between vessels under his command on the 13th of June, only the Hermes says, the Exeter and Yarmouth are undamaged and 100% of its operations, and lists all their breakdowns and other problems. NEVER NAMED THE INVINCIBLE. (Your words translated into English)

Why would he talk about Invincible after 13th June? What is that point all about?

There are hundreds of tests to circulate in the world, mostly experts are inclined to at least the Exocet AM39 impact on the HMS Invincible, the British and concealed that fact and its aftermath. (Your words translated into English)

There are only argie accounts of this fake attack.

They had two clones on 30 May, the R06 and R07.
They tested three claws on 5 April, the R05, 23 June, the R06 and the R07 August 2.
But only two arrivals, the R06 and R07 on 17.09.1982 in December 1982. (Your words translated into English)

How did we clone HMS Illustrious? You said we used R07 HMS Ark Royal she wasnt commissioned until 1985, in 1982 she was nowhere near ready to go to sea. You still dont explain the photos of HMS Invincible and HMS illustrious together, how did they happen?

The fact is, you cant prove anything, you claim no videos or photographs were allowed to be taken on Invicible, strange that they are all over the web,"no need to keep a carrier in the South Atlantic" your ground forces had surrendered, your country had NOT declared an end to hostilities and the runways on the Falklands could not support the Harriers at that time.

Would any Russians like to ask myself or the original funny story teller any questions on this matter?

Aberdeenlad wrote:Still posting rubbish.

Foster John Woodward, the true English hero, whom I consider an excellent military and CABALLERO, does not name the Invincible between vessels under his command on the 13th of June, only the Hermes says, the Exeter and Yarmouth are undamaged and 100% of its operations, and lists all their breakdowns and other problems. NEVER NAMED THE INVINCIBLE. (Your words translated into English)

Why would he talk about Invincible after 13th June? What is that point all about?

There are hundreds of tests to circulate in the world, mostly experts are inclined to at least the Exocet AM39 impact on the HMS Invincible, the British and concealed that fact and its aftermath. (Your words translated into English)

There are only argie accounts of this fake attack.

They had two clones on 30 May, the R06 and R07.
They tested three claws on 5 April, the R05, 23 June, the R06 and the R07 August 2.
But only two arrivals, the R06 and R07 on 17.09.1982 in December 1982. (Your words translated into English)

How did we clone HMS Illustrious? You said we used R07 HMS Ark Royal she wasnt commissioned until 1985, in 1982 she was nowhere near ready to go to sea. You still dont explain the photos of HMS Invincible and HMS illustrious together, how did they happen?

The fact is, you cant prove anything, you claim no videos or photographs were allowed to be taken on Invicible, strange that they are all over the web,"no need to keep a carrier in the South Atlantic" your ground forces had surrendered, your country had NOT declared an end to hostilities and the runways on the Falklands could not support the Harriers at that time.

Would any Russians like to ask myself or the original funny story teller any questions on this matter?

Here is the R06 clone out from Portsmouth (as Illustrious)to Malvinas in late June 1982


Note the three red marks on the island


Here is the R06 in late August, retrofited to R05 Invincible, sailing somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean in formation with the R07 retrofited to R06, and the rest of Bristol Group.




Note the same three red marks on the island


It,s is obviously the same clone R06 with a couple of months sailing in the Atlantic, with and a simple retrofit or camouflage.

The R07 was almost on par with the R06 at Swan Hunter, then to 25 February 1982 was intended for sale in Australia.
After February 25 Australia opted for the R05 Invincible.
And after its collapse on May 30, 1982, Australia cancel all purchase of any class Invincible.
So did India and Chile in the years following.

You really dont know what your talking about. Take a look at the picture you posted above!! 2 Carriers together, picture taken in 1982 in the South Atlantic, HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious, if you sunk Invincible, where did we get the 3rd carrier from to be able to take this photograph? HMS Ark Royal was still being built in the North of England and wasn't even able to go to sea for a further 18 months after this picture was taken. So where did we get another carrier built and ready for going to sea,in 3 months?

Have a look at this link HMS Invincible, no red items on the island, why?? simple, they were moved because they are "mobile". that means they are not static.
http://www.satrapa1.com/articulos/moderna/portaaviones/imagenes/27-%20HMS%20Invincible%20(17-05-1982).jpg

You said that Illustrious and Ark Royal were almost on a par in 1982, have a look at this pic, does that actually look like they are on a par?

Ark Royal in background, nowhere near on a par.

Aberdeenlad wrote:PMSL

You can supply eveidence of all this can you?

How did we manage to hide all these dead sailors and reporters?

A carrier takes 5 years to build and kit out, how did we have 3 together in the UK in 1983, you said a new carrier was built in 26 months, that's more than 2 years. To help you, 1982 plus 26 months equals 1985, but we had 3 together in 1983, 2 in Portsmouth and 1 on the Tyne HOW?

You said HMS Invincible couldnt go into Stanley, yet you posted a picture earlier showing her in Stanley, the picture is an official Royal Navy pic. How can that be?

Now lets talk about all the photos showing HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious together, how did we do that, you said Ark Royal was completely different from HMS Invincible, that is the only thing you have said that is true, these pictures show two carriers in different configuration, I.E. one has CIWS (Illustrious) and one doesnt (Invincible) How did we do that?

The way NATO and "Allies" hide all of their losses...with lies, good marketing, propaganda and shifting of attention, very easy as long as you control media and information flow! Just like US killed only 100 000 civilians in Iraq??? But 400 000 seem to be missing, vanished, or that Iraq invasion created 1 000 000 refugees, but somehow there's more than 4,5 million in refugee camps all over that region and other countries. Or the way US lost only 4000 soldiers but by simple math of the begging of the conflict if you go through all the newspapers and add the losses they are around 10 000 that they actually reported themselves, God knows how many more died!
And so on...!

SerbNationalist wrote:

Aberdeenlad wrote:PMSL

You can supply eveidence of all this can you?

How did we manage to hide all these dead sailors and reporters?

A carrier takes 5 years to build and kit out, how did we have 3 together in the UK in 1983, you said a new carrier was built in 26 months, that's more than 2 years. To help you, 1982 plus 26 months equals 1985, but we had 3 together in 1983, 2 in Portsmouth and 1 on the Tyne HOW?

You said HMS Invincible couldnt go into Stanley, yet you posted a picture earlier showing her in Stanley, the picture is an official Royal Navy pic. How can that be?

Now lets talk about all the photos showing HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious together, how did we do that, you said Ark Royal was completely different from HMS Invincible, that is the only thing you have said that is true, these pictures show two carriers in different configuration, I.E. one has CIWS (Illustrious) and one doesnt (Invincible) How did we do that?

The way NATO and "Allies" hide all of their losses...with lies, good marketing, propaganda and shifting of attention, very easy as long as you control media and information flow! Just like US killed only 100 000 civilians in Iraq??? But 400 000 seem to be missing, vanished, or that Iraq invasion created 1 000 000 refugees, but somehow there's more than 4,5 million in refugee camps all over that region and other countries. Or the way US lost only 4000 soldiers but by simple math of the begging of the conflict if you go through all the newspapers and add the losses they are around 10 000 that they actually reported themselves, God knows how many more died!
And so on...!

Very good, but what has that got to do with HMS Invincible and the Falklands war?

[quote="Aberdeenlad"][quote="SerbNationalist"]

Aberdeenlad wrote:PMSL

How did we manage to hide all these dead sailors and reporters?

It was just an answer to this sentence...everything else wasn't taken into consideration! ^^^^^^^

[quote="SerbNationalist"][quote="Aberdeenlad"]

SerbNationalist wrote:

Aberdeenlad wrote:PMSL

How did we manage to hide all these dead sailors and reporters?

It was just an answer to this sentence...everything else wasn't taken into consideration! ^^^^^^^

Again very good, would you care to enlighten me as to how we hide approx 1000 dead sailors and journalists?

It's usually easy, death by accident in a storage yard, KIA for few, toxins for others, fell into the sea and drowned, don't report about it...you ppl have good imagination and you believe anything you see on TV, so what's on TV is the truth, so it's really easy!

SerbNationalist wrote:It's usually easy, death by accident in a storage yard, KIA for few, toxins for others, fell into the sea and drowned, don't report about it...you ppl have good imagination and you believe anything you see on TV, so what's on TV is the truth, so it's really easy!

That might be easy in your country, but I can asure you it's impossibe here in the UK. Let me make it clear for you: 1000 dead sailors would be noticed, 50 or so dead journalists would be noticed, an aircraft carrier not returning home, would be noticed. Now I suggest you get your anti west head off and put your rational head on and think about it. This is not a Serbia versus the west battleground, it's a military forum, and a very good one at that. If you have something to contribute to the discussion, then please contribute, but if all you want to do is bitch at the west then I would reckon another forum would be the place for you to go.

Don't worry about me and "the west", I still have some good opinions and hopes for it, because I don't do generalisations, not all are bad, just some. And again about that, if US can do it and spin it so can UK, if you really think that you are not controlled by media think again, you know what media tells you, that's it, a little bit more on the side maybe. Now to be realistic, could you cover up 1000 killed soldiers or sailors or whatever, yes! Could you cover up 50 reporters, well, harder so 50-50% chance! Could you cover a carrier, No! But then again you could cover it being damaged and you could cover deaths on it, just not it being sunk, wich btw is a very though job, it's not easy to sink a destroyer, not to mention a Carrier.

So my feelings are all mine, I actually unlike many like parts of "the west" and I respect it, do I love it and want to be part of it, NO! In any case you can't know anything about what is in my head or who I am, or how I think, or how smart or stupid I am, so please don't try to make those asumptions because in the end they just sound stupid, this is internet, you can't know ppl here!
Cheers!