find it on google "prince andrew daily telegraph invincible": Here are a extract of the interview...
"During the programme, which is broadcast today, Prince Andrew also spoke of coming under attack from a missile while aboard HMS Invincible.
"There are moments of hilarity that I remember," he said. "We were under missile attack one day and a friend of mine and I were trying to finish a Rubik’s cube and just as the missile attack was taking place, we completed it and we were,,,"
@contrafloraljuego That's an entirely different argument dick head. If you are bleating on about that then I will make a show of you at a later date. Getting back on your original statement. WHAT DID THE AMERICANS DO FOR US IN THE FALKLANDS? And what other wars have we had 'our arses saved'? You really do need to read more history books, then you won't make such a fool of yourself.
I served in the RN, i used to drive past Invincible mothballed in Portsmouth Navy base nearly every day :) as far as im aware she's was still afloat :D
Im from Argentina and i can say that if the army sank any ship it was with the help of Rusia. Many people say, that it was the soviets who informed the coordinates, because, in that time;we had not any satellite.
There is a pretty good hi-re photo of Invincible returning to Portsmouth 17th Sept 1982 sans any phalanx gun on the stern on the Naval Air Discussion Board of strategypage com
I would like to offer another perspective on this debate. If the Argentinians actually beleive that they sunk, or badly damaged Invincible, doesn't this make our victory all the more glorious? We managed to defeat a country, 8,000 miles from home, with only one carrier? They are making us look even better than what we are!!!! Let them get on with it they are making us look awesome!!!!!!!!
@FISSIONDELTA You can't hide the construction of a new aircraft carrier, they're pretty big things and need thousands of men and a huge naval yard to build them. The reason HMS Invincible had very little rust as it was one of our newest ships, same with HMS Glasgow, HMS Exeter, HMS Cardiff, HMS Broadsword, HMS Brilliant, all of the other ships were over ten years old so would rust far easier.
30 years after the Falklands War, a member of the British royal talked about one of the most daring missions conducted by the Argentine pilots in the race. On May 30, 82, two aircraft of the Navy Super Etendard Argentina and four A-4C Air Force attacked the carrier, the flagship of the Task Force. This attack was never recognized by the English side. However, in a television interview Prince Andrew, Duke of York, spoke of the time the ship was under ataqueEn an article published by The Telegraph
@FISSIONDELTA The most unusual thing, it is that after finished the war the english men said that the HMS Invincible was in the parallel one 23 where it changed a turbine that was a record, it did not need to do similar repair in the middle of the sea and less in a winter epoch with temperature under zero and where it gets dark more early, being able to do it in a Port
dear tootiredtobeoriginal: you are not telling what happend with this ship after may 30 of 1982, and why it didnt went back home for more than a year after the "uncesfull attack"... and other thing is that the bravery is just bravery theres not such a thing like "stupid bravery" the pilots of the argentinian air force obey orders and follow orders... Britons dont? and then please explain what happened with HMS sheffield, ardent, antelope and others
Quite simple as documented it stayed in Falklands waters till August 1982 till relieved by HMS Illustrious, when the extension of Port Stanley was completed and RAF Phantoms took over. Funnily enough the clue is in another of my videos showing her coming home.
So your claim it took a year to go back is, to be polite, bollocks.
Oh, and stupid bravery is apt, and I would use the same term for Brits doing the same.
The pixelated object on the stern of Invincible was a captured Argentinian 20 mm Ani-Aircraft gun that was brought back as a trophy.
It is likely that the last Exocet missile was jammed with equipment installed in a Lynx. The jamming affected both the guidance radar and the radio altimeter in the missile.
I have a couple of 35mm photographs of Illustrious from Invincible taken at the end of August 1982. I am one of the 1400 crew who can confirm that there was no direct attack.
¿y si no tienen nada que ocultar para que sellaron todos por tantos años? ¿o es que los países "poderosos" se avergüenzan cuando tienen muchas perdidas a manos de otro menos preparado?
We have had a Freedom of Information Act for nearly a decade. The Falklands files are now open, have been for nearly a decade. Most are available on the MoD FoI website.
And the UK admitted to all losses in 1982, it hid nothing. Its a sad state of affairs when a nation clings to propaganda stories of false victories, long since proved to be the fog of war. Even sadder when they invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain the embarassing fact that Vinny is in Portsmouth.
hms broadsword y hms brillant, fueron gavemente dañadas por la aviacion argnetina, y fueron a reparacion, a comienzos del combate de san carlos. tuvieron tiempo de ser reparadas y pintadas
el ivnecible, segun pude apreciar, en fotos, tenia las torres negras. y el R06, las tenia blancas, las imagenes en las que el ivnecible sale de puerto para ir hacia la guerra, tiene las torres negras, pero cuando vuelve las tiene blancas.
solo los mirages dagger y los IA mirages 3 poseian camaras en sus ametralladoras, el resto de los aviones argentinos, no estaban equipados con camaras. y los A-4C no poseian radio altimetros (instrumento fundamental que mide la altura de lavion, con respecto de la superficie del mar)
Incorrect, all A-4 carry a gun camera as standard, funny is it not that the gun camera film of the attack on HMS Coventry is played regularly. Yet supposedly they don't have cameras to hide the complete lack of evidence.
el error es suyo nuevamente, porque en todas las imagenes de la guerra, las camaras son de los mirages.
los A-4 argentinos, no poseian camara. ademas la mayoria no estaban equipados con sistemas de navegacion, por dicho motivo, los A-4 seguina a los que tenian ese equipo, y los que no lo tenian, usaban una brujula un mapa pegado en la pierna del piloto y un cronometro.
eran aviones muy viejos y fueron comprados usados.
All A-4 were equipped with gun cameras, all USN aircraft since WW2 have been equipped with a gun camera, its not exactly modern equipment. And as ex-USN aircraft they came fitted with gun cameras.
@tootiredtobeoriginal That is not strictly true I am afraid. Many of the early A-4 marks were not fitted with Gun Camera's as a standard. Usually Gun Camera's are fitted due to Service or individual Squadron requirements. I don't mean to rain on your parade.
The simple fact is this... HMS Invincible was not sunk, not damaged or otherwise scratched by Argentine aggression durinf the FALKLANDS conflict.
The USN begs to differ, all USN since WW2 have been fitted with gun camera film as standard. I can provide a URL if you wish. Gun camera film from the attack on HMS Coventry has been produced but strangely not from this "attack".
@tootiredtobeoriginal USN aircraft may have the mounts for Gun Camera's as standard but in regards to their actual fitting and use that would be down to a service / squadron requirement. The A-4A, B and C were not fitted with mountings as standard but were later updated. The Argentine A-4's definitely had and were using Gun Camera's, for hitting something as important as a Carrier I am sure at least one of the aircrews would have remembered to have turned it on.
I find it amusing that Argentina still believes they sunk the Invincible, if the British were going to cover up any story I would have thought the hash they made of recapturing South Georgia where they lost a couple helicopters on the glacier would have been first choice.
It's amazing what repeated propaganda can have on society, I'm surprised that Argentina hasn't admitted that they never sunk the Invincible. If they were so sure they did, why not go search for the wreck?
great vidio cant get over some idiots think it was hit, so if it was repaired did they do it at sea ship of that size would have to go into dock even to be painted, nevr mind repair damage of the scale claimed, so come on people of the world who saw it dock? an why would uk lie about it? uk admit even if argie had better general they could of won. so why lie about ship being damaged, an how do you silance what must be a huge crew, independent reporters etc, you cant. it never got hit only answer
Man watch all the ships arriving back from the Falklands, every single one has rust except 1. That comment is from someone whos never been to sea. How long do you think it takes to get rust on a ship?
@ atahualpa Yea rite !! thats why when you land at the Falklands Airport the Dude checking your Passport is a Brit Official FOR EVER You 1 Fuckin Numpty
took a tour around Portsmouth harbour 2 weeks ago. HMS Invincible is moored up for all to see. quite a moment to look at her and remember the history that ship has been a part of.
(i didn't see any gaping holes or patches either) :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ok, obviously the invincible was not sunk, so who said that, smart ass? Argentinians sunk a lot of ships, We damaged the Invincible also , no sunk, We hit it very bad. Ours pilots are heroes, if not ask Pierre Clostermann (Pilot of second World War). Ask about Argentinians Pilots in Malvinas. That´s all about it. MALVINAS ARGENTINAS, TO THE FINAL VICTORY, WILL BE BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who said that? Ah that would be the Argentines claiming it was sunk. It wasn't hit either. Continuing that claim in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary merely makes you look foolish and devalues the bravery of the Argentine pilots.
@tootiredtobeoriginal claiming that the invincible was sunk is foolish, nevertheless, it could be damaged, remember that she was the only ship that couldn't be seen to the public at her return, and she was showing a new painted plate a her port
Oh for gods sake, thats bollocks. She didn't have a painted plate and she was seen by tens of thousands on her return, nor did she disappear there is plenty of picture of her throughout this period.
yes, abosolutely, but then tell me why she arrived 4 moths later than the rest of the fleet, and she was the only ship not allowed to be boarded by the press.
We had 2 aircraft carriers in 1982, Hermes was already overdue a refit and Argentina refused to accept the conflict was over, Invincible stayed behind to provide air cover until she could be replaced by Illustrious in August.
The press were allowed on board, in fact there were press reports from the ship as it entered harbour.
This is just another lie invented to justify an illogical conspiracy theory.
Mick Seamark came on board on 17 September as did all the journalists who had gone south with the ship in April. Also the BBC was on board from 16 Sept to film the arrival. There is even video footage available.
She stayed in the South Atlantic to provide Air Defence while the runway at Port Stanley was lengthened to take Phantoms
No the Argentines were more than 100km from HMS Invincible. They attacked HMS Avenger and missed , the exocet was diverted by chaff and fell into the South Atlantic.
The Argentine government and military can continue with their fantasy if they want to but to believe them is to make a fool of yourself gabyger.
I must congratulate you! i've always thought our pilots lied. now i can confime it. falklands war was stupid from the begining, a selfish act to keep dictadurship:im realy sad for our and british soldiers.
Funny then isn't it that the British managed to do that very speedily at the end of the war, so they could operate Phantoms. Funny also is it not that the British routinely operated Harriers out of rough strips in Germany.
Offensive posts as always will be removed, don't do that again.
aaah for the words i didnt tried to offend you AGAAIN ok i repost it
it is not only a matter of extend the runaway you need to build and hangar build ammunition depot build water depot trucks to move the jets (the dont taxi alone) logistic infraestracture (build the taxi access stanley didnt had that cause didnt had hangars) so you dont just throw a couple of planchet and extend the runaway is a hell of infraestracture and we didnt had the means (heavy cargo planes,ferry ships)
Actually no it isn't, the air force argued that because they really hadn't the heart to do it. And Galtieri flew in ridiculous numbers of half-trained conscripts piecemeal so they didn't co-ordinate the airlift. All you needed was a single ship to carry the requisite equipment.
i believe that the most acceptable answer regarding the invecible matter is that uk didnt had any radar in order to direct the harriers from the land so invincible had to stay to guide them. still a little oddie one but is the best explanation. harriers armed with 2 aim9l where more than enough taking off vertically from malvinas to engage in a probable "retake situation" our MIII wouldnt arrive with much fuel british still had advantage.. for that the radar fact is the best answer i believe
Nope the Type 42 radar did that for them, it was exactly the same fit as on Invincible. And the Harriers never took off vertically, they operated as STOVL Short Take-Off Vertical Landing.
yes the british did the preparation for the phantoms cause they had more cargo tranportation resources than us AND BECAUSE the war was over. we had to take the aa guns panhard vehicles artillery radars all with our cargo planes and we didnt had the infraestructure to do so when te war was over off course brits didnt had to worried about aa defense artillery hellos.. everything we transported in the war.. so the raw materials were easy to transport.
Actually they used materiel left behind by the Argentine forces. Metal planking and arrestor gear, then cannibalised HMS Sheathbill from Port San Carlos.
(Cont) Sure, they don't glamourise the war itself as much, but war wounds (or damage on a ship) are not something to be hidden.
On the other hand, any poms reading this: remember that Argentinians would see it as reasonable to hide damage, and it is a fair question for them to ask.
Both of you: remember that each of you sees the other's attitude as mutually baffling. :)
I think there is a basic problem of understanding here. Argentinian culture is (naturally) based on the Spanish culture, and there is a real sense of machismo involved. In other words, an Argentinian *may* assume that the British have a desire to minimise their battle damage to save face - they may see this as natural behaviour.
To Argentinians reading this: Pleas bear in mind that you are dealing with a very different culture. Brits don't hide war wounds - they celebrate them.
1) This cover-up was attempted to hide a problem with workmanship. The ship was not ultimately lost due to enemy action. That would have been acceptible to the public.
2) Note the outcry when the government attempted this. The UK government doesn't get away with covering up disasters, and it's Britain's own people that oppose it.
So well done - your example proves this point beautifully.
no hiding the problem as a brit pointed to me before in fact was a national security issue the hms dasher was very importan for the british navy. so was the invencible and it took 30 years to reveal the dasher incident we are 26 with te invencible xD
Yes, very important. Because of its manufacture. As I said before, if it had been sunk by a torpedo, there would never have been any attempt. And once again - the people of the UK (many of whom knew) didn't tolerate the cover-up.
So whatever you think about the Dasher (and in detail, as usual, all your facts are wrong), it's simply nothing to do with the case of the Invincible. There's no evidence for this damage because it only happened in the glory-obsessed minds of Argentinians.
mmm they still coupple things that remain uncertain regarding the invincible issue as a matter of fact i dont see the point of letting invincible out by 4.5 months after a war when the whole island is a big aircraft carrier. and many other things that im starting to research.
Hermes would have been the natural choice but her refit had been cancelled just before the war broke out. And there was only one airfield on the island at the time, which required extension to operate fast jets. Invincible stayed until relieved by Illustrious to provide air cover.
Nothing remains uncertain, you just twist the facts to whatever picture you want to paint.
HMS Dasher was an escort carrier, it was a lash up from a merchant ship, hurried into service and was a piece of crap. It wasn't that important for the British navy. The reason it was classified was because the loss resulted from a design flaw. However, the loss was still common knowledge - funnily enough the families knew about it and forced the truth to come out. And it didn't take 30 years for the truth to come out, it was revealed well before that.
"that was one airfield and needed to be refited" in fact that is what you do when you get the phantoms but harriers can take off vertically DUH in fact that is what your harriers did in malvinas DUH.. so your only vulcan bombd didnt prevent us to take off mirage from there DUH cause the runaway was to short DUH contradictions from you.
And if they take-off vertically they have a very limited range. Doh! A short strip at least is essential, thats why the Invincible class has a short runway and ski jump. Doh!
And yes, the Vulcan raid did prevent the use of the strip by fast jets. Doh! No contradiction whatsoever. Doh!
You just see whatever you want. Doh! And ignore what doesn't fit. Doh!
so you prefer to leave the invincible almost without cover and with many planes lost wity and exhaust crew that never was that time onboard after the war? if we decided to retake actions on malvinas the invicible would been easy pickings DUH!
Invincible had adequate escorts, contrary to Argentine propaganda we didn't lose that many planes. It also has to be noted that by the end of the Falklands War the Argentine air force was practically a spent force and no longer a signficant threat. Easy pickings? I don't think so. Any attempt to "retake" the Falklands and your navy would never have left the 12 mile limit.
your only bomb that impacted on the runaway didnt deactivate it as for the hercules used it until the last day of the war.. and we didnt use fast jets cause the runaway was to short.. DUH you didnt prevent nothing cause we couldnt use it anyway DUH that vulcan raid was really poor DUH
So? That was quite deliberate, we needed it when the illegal occupation of the islands was kicked out. And we knew full well that Hercules could use it.
A-4Q Skyhawks of 3 Escuadrilla did operate out of Port Stanley, your engineers tried to extend the runway with steel planking - thanks by the way that came in really handy at the end of the war - and also to install arrestor gear.
regarding your sociologic study of argentines i tell you that i dont come from spaniards i have italian roots. and our macho latino pride has nothing to do with this. (by the way european tourists get crazy with us xD)
bs the latino pride is far different for the spanish pride we dont mistreat our womans in fact we are known as winners in spain or "ligones" cause we simply treat them well. (that is for jonho and his "sociolig study" regarding argentine behavior. and i have some incongruences regarding invencible i will post a video in this months. so you will amuse trying to destroy it
Dagger, I'm sure you will find some ridiculous cockamamie "Evidence" for your claims. After all, people can find "evidence" for the USA hiding alien spacecraft in Area 51. The trouble is, cover-ups are hard to argue against, because if you say "There's no evidence", the nut can just say "See, they're covering it up!"
Still, the fact remains - Invincible arrived in port undamaged. You can talk about it all you like, but it won't change the reality.
Before the hostilites start uk created the rumor that 2 submarines was operating near the islands and for that the junta decided not to operate any ship.. (stupid decision) so build the runaway was even harder cause we had to focus on the aa. and artillery bringing with a couple of planes.
Whatever, it was still a half-hearted effort. The British put so much effort into the Black Buck raids as in the same position we'd have gone balls-out to get the runway operational. We simply couldn't understand why the Argentines never did it.
And Dagger, it is not as difficult as the picture you paint.
not half hearted effort the junta decided not to extend the runaway so everyone obeied what goes for me is a wrong decision. i believe that we should plant another strategy 1) not put that many conscripts on the field a logistical nightmare and not armoured vehicles (the terrain wasnt appropiate) i would gamble to extend the runaway and sacrifice some heavy artillery and some vehicles i personally believe that in a doghfight our mirages III could do it better and more a4 would reach ships
It was half-hearted, they convinced themselves it was too difficult. That was just an excuse not to try, the British have a completely different psychology in that respect.
Mirage III is not that hot a dogfighter, it would have still been outclassed by the Sea Harrier.
fo me the whole strategy was wrong. but with that strategy and with limited cargo planes it was completely imposible to extend the runaway that should be priority number 1 to the junta. but it wasnt. and they decided not to use ships cause of the british rumors of submarines in the islands wich were lie (i must admit brits are experts in the war matter).
I guess we'll have to beg to differ, it wasn't impossible. You just convinced yourselves it was too difficult and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. You under estimated the British resolve.
are you calling us "half hearted"? the runaway wast extended cause the junta didnt want to half hearted our psicology? ask the glamorgan if their hit was a hard hearted one or ask the yarmouth when he got to get out of the poundering cause our land artillery was too close to hit them with hand made calculation. MIII in the exercises with SH was even. try to catch MIII i dont think that of the SH where you get your sources
The whole approach to the Falklands campaign by Argentina was half-hearted. The Junta assumed the British wouldn't respond and was paralysed with indecision when they did.
Yarmouth wasn't hit Dagger.
MIII had better speed but thats all, the Sea Harrier outflew it.
ok i accept that the junta was stupid a bunch of humanity crap (i trying not to use bad words) but "half hearted? to us? "half hearted" is the best adjetive you find for the junta?.
as i tell you yarmouth wasnt hit but they withdrawn at least once cause our land artillery just was too close to hit them i can try to find a book that a yarmouth sailor wrote remembering that night
id like to see how a sh could manage to intercept a fast low MIII. they were not bad for 1982
So what if Yarmouth withdrew because it drew counter battery fire? Big deal.
Dagger, every time the Mirage III mixed it with the SH it came off second best. Fast/low is not where it had the advantage and the British always engaged on their terms. High and fast was your best option.
yes the sh pilotes known that our MIII couldnt go supersonic cause we simply ran out of fuel. so what? you are telling us "half hearted" a half harted nation coulndt mount and exocet in a truck fire it and damage a ship or bring suplies in the hercules til the last day of the war or fire batteries using a pen an a piece of paper or attack last tecnology ships whip dumb bombs.. we are not half hearted. you can use many adjetives but not half hearted
no half hearted the junta decided things wich were badly wrong soldiers there just followed orders if they were ordered to build the runaway they were built. we had to much heart to fight our officer were stupids
it is the same that my last post junta's bad decisions... it was stupid to believe that te brits would not respond. and the strategy was bad planned since the begining. but i dont undestand why half harted.. stupids.. our soldiers followed orders and created amazing things la the truck mounted exocet,the bombing hercules,the retarded bombs upgrade,and so on.. they just followed bad decisions. they are not half hearted at all .
Well try sailing 8000 miles, fight outnumbered 2:1, assault prepared positions at night whilst outnumbered, face an enemy with land bases with only 30 planes that were outnumbered 5:1. Not to mention raising a task force, conducting an amphibious landing, marching across hostile terrain, putting ships in harms way knowing that they would be sunk and compare that with not extending the runway because it was too difficult...QED
mmm no a4c gun camera ever... no gun camera. i may research maybe a4C was bought to the army and not to the navy it is just a suposition that i have to see. but never ever see and a4c gun camera
It was an outstanding victory for the britisch fleet and I realy understand that Britain feels pride and sadness as well when remembering the victory and all the good lives lost
Why speak all this jibberish, if both parties are unsatisfied with the outcome get your troops,ships and aircraft ready and give it another go this time be thorough so the other side can't claim any victory what so ever. enough of this he said she said
killing another hundred just for that stupid one way claim of some pro Galtieri-people ?
No!the British Fleet won that battle and I am sure there are just another two nations able to do or to fight for such an outstanding victory...the USA and Russia.Maybe France but I am not sure about their politics concerning former territories.
why would they risk such a cover up with so many individuals involved ? Even if Argentina would have hit the Carrier..so what ? war was over by the hour for the Argentinien forces.
The building of such a war vessel can not be hided like a top secret jet. There is no sense of covering the building of a whole carrier just to deny that Invincible was hit...no!! Invincible was hit by nothing bigger than albatros shit original quote of a ships ex-crew bloke
Man, you have to suspend reality to believe that an exocet missile and how ever many bombs hit HMS Invincible. Don't you get it! it was wartime propaganda by the Argentines who claimed several times to have sunk one of the carriers and said at one point they had sunk 19 ships including Canberra. Get over it, neither carrier was hit. Your just sore losers, this is your way of fwwling better about it.
There is no Phalanx there, Invincible was brand new and if you compare with the two Type 22 they looked pretty much the same.
It wasn't hit and had it been, we'd have admitted it. If you choose to believe different, well thats up to you. But tell me how do you keep 2000 matelots silent and the grieving families? MMmm?
Several Exocets missed. Two were fired at Sheffield and one missed for example. The Exocet is not unstoppable, the British knew how to stop it and Sea Wolf was specifically designed to kill sea skimming missiles. And there is plenty of information in the literature about how Exocets were countered.
That missile, a single missile, didn't hit anything. It either splashed harmlessly in the sea or the claims of HMS Avenger are correct.
Nope, that incorrect all A-4 have a gun camera as part of its standard fit. All US navy aircraft since WWII have a gun camera as standard - the Argentine Air Force and Navy A-4 were all ex US Navy aircraft.
And you're speaking of HMS Dasher whose loss was officially secret, however, everybody knew about. Just 'cos it was classified didn't mean it wasn't common knowledge.
Nope it didn't turn up a bit later, and no there was not obvious new paint on its starboard side. Thats simply fantasy.
And you have it on its head, the ridiculous conspiracy theories to support a cover up require ever more elaborate suspension of belief to be barely credible.
Britain admitted to every scratch in that war, its that simple.
I used to be on the avenger but i left just before the falklands war, i later met an old ship mate who told me they had shot down an exocet that was coming their way.
The C130 that 'Sharky' Ward shot down was well within range of the Sea Harriers operating from HMS Invincible.
The C130 is a long distance aircraft, it's 480km to West Falkland and that's nothing for a C130, it was on a reconnaissance mission so needed to get within visual range of the British fleet as it had no radar, visual range means it was trying to get close and that means easily within range of Sea Harriers
Dagger think logically don't twist anything to fit your absurd childish fantasy
The British had a technique to increase the chances of decoying a missile. Sea King helicopters would hover at very low level just to the side of the chaff cloud this increased the chances of decoying an exocet and was the reason that helicopters were frequently airborne during operations despite their main purpose being anti submarine warfare which was a reduced threat by then.
This was used in the succesful decoy of 2 exocets on 25 May away from Hermes which unfortunately ended up hitting AC.
This technique was successful because as ttbo said earlier the missile cannot resolve on azimuth so goes for the centre of the return signal the Sea Kings reflect the radar signal along with the chaff so it misses the target.
The exocet on 30 May was witnessed going under the chaff cloud by members of HMS Avenger's crew.
its a very interesting comment!! our radar showed 20+ hellos 1 hour AFTER the attack. you need 20+ hellos to do so? after the attack? i suppose if you got one patrolling you can do that but in 15 minutes (time to take the exocet in hit the target) you woulndt be able to put 20+ hellos.
I believe the accounts from Argentines as to how many helicopter we had aiborne as much as I believe either you or Sr. Ureta.
The Argentines claimed 19 ships sunk at one stage and claimed both Hermes and Invincible sunk numerous times why should I believe any account from them as to how many helicopters were airborne.
In this, I should stress, there is nothing untoward. Pilots always exaggerate claims (one old rule is to always divide pilot claims of A/C shot down by three, and never believe they have sunk a ship until your divers can swim onto the wreck. :) ). Presumably the brits exaggerated their claims too, but the British brass are always pretty anal about correct intelligence. Lucky for historians! :)
not.. the invincible buying was cancelled on may 25 you can check it just the day of our attack and britishh brass? they claimed to take out a skyhawk with a weapon system that they frigate didnt had and then to destroy an exocet with a bofford cannon.. jajaja. common!
The alleged attack on Invincible was May 30 Dagger, you can't even keep the facts straight. HMS Exeter was a Type 42 destroyer not a frigate, one of the first Type 42 with the intended Type 1022 radar fit that could engage at low level with Sea Dart. The comment that the Exocet was splashed by the 4.5" of HMS Avenger is taken with a pinch of salt, more likely decoyed by chaff. It missed. HMS Invincible was much further East than this group of ships, face it, you got nowhere near.
mmmm what could possibly be the biggest ecco in the center of the radar dont answer AC to me cause it was alrdeady hit. and no radar echo of the AC could possible bounce on the etendards screen
Invincible's Harriers continued operating to the end of the war, in fact it was Sea Harriers from Invincible piloted by Dave Morgan and Dave Smith that shot down 3 A4's over Choiseul Sound on 8 June.
The AC was burning but was in no danger of sinking it was left after the 25th I believe as it could provide a valuable decoy in the case of another attack so the British would not want to sink it, yet sank on the 30 May after the attack because Ureta and Isaac bombed it.
i know that mission. when whe attacked the inservible all sea harriers caps landed on differents parts of departure. that man toke off from the island not from the invservible.
The logs show the Harriers that apparently didn't have a home, shooting down a C-130 the next day. What didn't you loose a C-130 to Sharkey War of HMS Invincible on June 1. Me I believe what fits the facts, when something doesn't it has to be suspect but you accept it withour question.
yes its true we lost a hercules in a strange cap waypoint. your harriers never flew over the upper part of isla soledad and the ecos of our bam radar shows different landing areas clearly opering from your established parts of malvinas.
What utter nonsense, the Harriers were all over the island. It wasn't a strange mission, the Neptunes were life expired, the Hercules was impressed to do a surveillance mission. Brave guys who flew it as they must have known they had very little chance of returning.
if you see the engagement area of the hercules you shall find that your harriers couldnt reach that part one day earlier thats why we put the hercules in that route clearly opering from the ground you can reach that route easily. doubtfull honour in that shootdown indeed.
i dont accept it without question i started questioning if i dindt question like most of my country i couldnt talk about subject that i learnt reading i recommend you "halcones en el cielo" nice book indeed xD
your video says "ark royal was complete with a 13º sky jump ramp at the front of the ship
HMS HERMES WAS COMPLETE WITH NO RAMP AND ADDED LATER YOU CAN Change that easily ark royale finished 4 june 1982 7º ski jump refitted later (two years took the illustrious to finish) so ark royale was finished an launched
Ark Royal was completed in 1985, it was still fitting out by Swanhunters in Wallsend, Tyne and Wear in 1982. I used to go down and watch them working on her as a kid from the opposite bank when we lived in South Tyneside.
Hermes refit whilst they fitted the Ski Jump lasted 2 years from memory. Its not that easy to change. Both Illustrious and Invincible were the only two ships of its class in '82 and were both completed with the original 7° ramp.
bullshit again the ilustrious took 2 years in order to complete. and the same day 30 may australia cancelled invisible class purchase exocet missile are not designed for sink they are designed for disable the ship and the inservible class has little little armor our bombs pierce your ships hulk like butter with a knife. nobody ever bought and inservible class.
Nope, Illustrious was finished early in June 1982 (original completion date was 1983). Ark Royal was finished in 1985. No one bought else bought an Invincible class as very few navies could afford a new build. Australia was only interested in Invincible because it was being sold off cheap.
I can confirm that we wanted Invincible, but after the Falklands the asking price went from "Bargain Basement" to "Forget it, she's not for sale." Dagger, you've got this one badly wrong.
find it on google "prince andrew daily telegraph invincible": Here are a extract of the interview...
"During the programme, which is broadcast today, Prince Andrew also spoke of coming under attack from a missile while aboard HMS Invincible.
"There are moments of hilarity that I remember," he said. "We were under missile attack one day and a friend of mine and I were trying to finish a Rubik’s cube and just as the missile attack was taking place, we completed it and we were,,,"
admsitio 2 weeks ago
@mollymoo71 Remember who saved your ass in WW1, WW2 and any other war that you were involved?That is what they did for you.
contrafloraljuego 1 month ago
@contrafloraljuego That's an entirely different argument dick head. If you are bleating on about that then I will make a show of you at a later date. Getting back on your original statement. WHAT DID THE AMERICANS DO FOR US IN THE FALKLANDS? And what other wars have we had 'our arses saved'? You really do need to read more history books, then you won't make such a fool of yourself.
mollymoo71 4 weeks ago
I served in the RN, i used to drive past Invincible mothballed in Portsmouth Navy base nearly every day :) as far as im aware she's was still afloat :D
slothgoonies 3 months ago
Les metimos el Exocet bien por el orto... y se tragaron unas cuantas bombas. Algun día se va a saber la verdad y ahi se van a querer matar piratas
TheSanty1982 3 months ago 3
Im from Argentina and i can say that if the army sank any ship it was with the help of Rusia. Many people say, that it was the soviets who informed the coordinates, because, in that time;we had not any satellite.
j47336 5 months ago
There is a pretty good hi-re photo of Invincible returning to Portsmouth 17th Sept 1982 sans any phalanx gun on the stern on the Naval Air Discussion Board of strategypage com
GazzaLDN 6 months ago
I would like to offer another perspective on this debate. If the Argentinians actually beleive that they sunk, or badly damaged Invincible, doesn't this make our victory all the more glorious? We managed to defeat a country, 8,000 miles from home, with only one carrier? They are making us look even better than what we are!!!! Let them get on with it they are making us look awesome!!!!!!!!
mollymoo71 1 year ago
@mollymoo71 Sadly logic isn't the strong point of your average conspiracy theorist.
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago 2
@mollymoo71
Your older brother(USA) will not be happy you're saying that you won the war alone.
contrafloraljuego 1 month ago
@FISSIONDELTA You can't hide the construction of a new aircraft carrier, they're pretty big things and need thousands of men and a huge naval yard to build them. The reason HMS Invincible had very little rust as it was one of our newest ships, same with HMS Glasgow, HMS Exeter, HMS Cardiff, HMS Broadsword, HMS Brilliant, all of the other ships were over ten years old so would rust far easier.
1984jdoc 1 year ago
@1984jdoc I've removed his comments, I can't be bothered dealing with pricks like that anymore.
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrFolanito 2 months ago
30 years after the Falklands War, a member of the British royal talked about one of the most daring missions conducted by the Argentine pilots in the race. On May 30, 82, two aircraft of the Navy Super Etendard Argentina and four A-4C Air Force attacked the carrier, the flagship of the Task Force. This attack was never recognized by the English side. However, in a television interview Prince Andrew, Duke of York, spoke of the time the ship was under ataqueEn an article published by The Telegraph
MrFolanito 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FISSIONDELTA The most unusual thing, it is that after finished the war the english men said that the HMS Invincible was in the parallel one 23 where it changed a turbine that was a record, it did not need to do similar repair in the middle of the sea and less in a winter epoch with temperature under zero and where it gets dark more early, being able to do it in a Port
FISSIONDELTA 1 year ago
@SuperPeru2010
Hong Kong was leased and returned as promised. That simple, the deal with China guaranteed the wishes of the people of HK.
Break relations if you like, doubt we'd notice.
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago
dear tootiredtobeoriginal: you are not telling what happend with this ship after may 30 of 1982, and why it didnt went back home for more than a year after the "uncesfull attack"... and other thing is that the bravery is just bravery theres not such a thing like "stupid bravery" the pilots of the argentinian air force obey orders and follow orders... Britons dont? and then please explain what happened with HMS sheffield, ardent, antelope and others
juliotube1970 1 year ago
@juliotube1970
Quite simple as documented it stayed in Falklands waters till August 1982 till relieved by HMS Illustrious, when the extension of Port Stanley was completed and RAF Phantoms took over. Funnily enough the clue is in another of my videos showing her coming home.
So your claim it took a year to go back is, to be polite, bollocks.
Oh, and stupid bravery is apt, and I would use the same term for Brits doing the same.
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago
The pixelated object on the stern of Invincible was a captured Argentinian 20 mm Ani-Aircraft gun that was brought back as a trophy.
It is likely that the last Exocet missile was jammed with equipment installed in a Lynx. The jamming affected both the guidance radar and the radio altimeter in the missile.
I have a couple of 35mm photographs of Illustrious from Invincible taken at the end of August 1982. I am one of the 1400 crew who can confirm that there was no direct attack.
timparrott59 1 year ago
¿y si no tienen nada que ocultar para que sellaron todos por tantos años? ¿o es que los países "poderosos" se avergüenzan cuando tienen muchas perdidas a manos de otro menos preparado?
kinderful 1 year ago
@kinderful
We have had a Freedom of Information Act for nearly a decade. The Falklands files are now open, have been for nearly a decade. Most are available on the MoD FoI website.
And the UK admitted to all losses in 1982, it hid nothing. Its a sad state of affairs when a nation clings to propaganda stories of false victories, long since proved to be the fog of war. Even sadder when they invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain the embarassing fact that Vinny is in Portsmouth.
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago
@tootiredtobeoriginal si si y el que gana la guerra escribe la historia! siempre fue así!
kinderful 1 year ago
@kinderful
I suggest you grow up and do not make yourself look foolish with further stupid comments.
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago
Just ask me as I returned back to Pompey along with my shipmates on September 17th 1982 'unscathed' ..............
DUPONTPOWDERCOATINGS 1 year ago
Funny how the Argentines didnt believe anything the junta said after the war, now many years later they believe everything the junta said.
kintore2003 1 year ago
Wait, the Argentinians claimed to have sunk/badly damaged HMS Invincible? And still claim that to this day? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
Nutjobs. Good effort showing up the wacko conspiracy theorists.
Maddog3060 1 year ago
hms broadsword y hms brillant, fueron gavemente dañadas por la aviacion argnetina, y fueron a reparacion, a comienzos del combate de san carlos. tuvieron tiempo de ser reparadas y pintadas
bartcensurado 2 years ago
@bartcensurado
And repair outside of a dockyard is damn easy to spot.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
el ivnecible, segun pude apreciar, en fotos, tenia las torres negras. y el R06, las tenia blancas, las imagenes en las que el ivnecible sale de puerto para ir hacia la guerra, tiene las torres negras, pero cuando vuelve las tiene blancas.
bartcensurado 2 years ago
@bartcensurado
Ever heard of paint, the peacetime paint scheme was dulled down to the wartime system.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
solo los mirages dagger y los IA mirages 3 poseian camaras en sus ametralladoras, el resto de los aviones argentinos, no estaban equipados con camaras. y los A-4C no poseian radio altimetros (instrumento fundamental que mide la altura de lavion, con respecto de la superficie del mar)
bartcensurado 2 years ago
@bartcensurado
Incorrect, all A-4 carry a gun camera as standard, funny is it not that the gun camera film of the attack on HMS Coventry is played regularly. Yet supposedly they don't have cameras to hide the complete lack of evidence.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
@tootiredtobeoriginal
el error es suyo nuevamente, porque en todas las imagenes de la guerra, las camaras son de los mirages.
los A-4 argentinos, no poseian camara. ademas la mayoria no estaban equipados con sistemas de navegacion, por dicho motivo, los A-4 seguina a los que tenian ese equipo, y los que no lo tenian, usaban una brujula un mapa pegado en la pierna del piloto y un cronometro.
eran aviones muy viejos y fueron comprados usados.
bartcensurado 2 years ago
@bartcensurado
All A-4 were equipped with gun cameras, all USN aircraft since WW2 have been equipped with a gun camera, its not exactly modern equipment. And as ex-USN aircraft they came fitted with gun cameras.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
@tootiredtobeoriginal That is not strictly true I am afraid. Many of the early A-4 marks were not fitted with Gun Camera's as a standard. Usually Gun Camera's are fitted due to Service or individual Squadron requirements. I don't mean to rain on your parade.
The simple fact is this... HMS Invincible was not sunk, not damaged or otherwise scratched by Argentine aggression durinf the FALKLANDS conflict.
Ecthaelyon 1 year ago
@Ecthaelyon
The USN begs to differ, all USN since WW2 have been fitted with gun camera film as standard. I can provide a URL if you wish. Gun camera film from the attack on HMS Coventry has been produced but strangely not from this "attack".
tootiredtobeoriginal 1 year ago
@tootiredtobeoriginal USN aircraft may have the mounts for Gun Camera's as standard but in regards to their actual fitting and use that would be down to a service / squadron requirement. The A-4A, B and C were not fitted with mountings as standard but were later updated. The Argentine A-4's definitely had and were using Gun Camera's, for hitting something as important as a Carrier I am sure at least one of the aircrews would have remembered to have turned it on.
Ecthaelyon 1 year ago
I find it amusing that Argentina still believes they sunk the Invincible, if the British were going to cover up any story I would have thought the hash they made of recapturing South Georgia where they lost a couple helicopters on the glacier would have been first choice.
It's amazing what repeated propaganda can have on society, I'm surprised that Argentina hasn't admitted that they never sunk the Invincible. If they were so sure they did, why not go search for the wreck?
hotstuff999 2 years ago
great vidio cant get over some idiots think it was hit, so if it was repaired did they do it at sea ship of that size would have to go into dock even to be painted, nevr mind repair damage of the scale claimed, so come on people of the world who saw it dock? an why would uk lie about it? uk admit even if argie had better general they could of won. so why lie about ship being damaged, an how do you silance what must be a huge crew, independent reporters etc, you cant. it never got hit only answer
tangled1s 2 years ago
Why is the wake on the bow different?
Why does the light come from 2 dif. directions?
paladinee 2 years ago
@paladinee
Simple answer it doesn't.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Rally im sure the CIA has something to do about it :P
No really yhe only thing fisgy is that Invincible was the only ship back with hardly any oxide, which means it was painted at some point.
paladinee 2 years ago
@paladinee
Nope, simply it was newer. That said the Royal Navy does paint its ships, something a professional navy does.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Man watch all the ships arriving back from the Falklands, every single one has rust except 1. That comment is from someone whos never been to sea. How long do you think it takes to get rust on a ship?
paladinee 2 years ago
@paladinee
The Type 22 Frigates and the Invincible didn't look that bad. Funnily enough a new ship doesn't rust as badly as one 50 years old.
And working on the latest Type 45 destroyer I might know a little about ships.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
Who cares what the Argy propagandist's and consp. theorist's say...E,one know's the old saying "The first casualty of war is the truth".
williamblair11 2 years ago
I would'nt claim i was serving on her m8...I do'nt doubt it but even if you were on her in the conflict no-one will beleive you on here.
williamblair11 2 years ago
Sorry chaps...I was serving on her, no bangs, no bumps, no holes.
handg1234 2 years ago 16
@handg1234 new paint... 1 week after the end of the war ,,, mmmm liar
thetubebrain1 2 months ago
@ atahualpa Yea rite !! thats why when you land at the Falklands Airport the Dude checking your Passport is a Brit Official FOR EVER You 1 Fuckin Numpty
keirfree 2 years ago
took a tour around Portsmouth harbour 2 weeks ago. HMS Invincible is moored up for all to see. quite a moment to look at her and remember the history that ship has been a part of.
(i didn't see any gaping holes or patches either) :)
45545512 2 years ago
that carrier could had destroyed half of south america if she wanted it....
Harvin87 2 years ago
No recuperamos las Malvinas, pero estamos orgullosos de la cicatriz esa que les dejamos, y siguen llorando al verla.
Echeniqueitor 2 years ago
Time you grew up.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ok, obviously the invincible was not sunk, so who said that, smart ass? Argentinians sunk a lot of ships, We damaged the Invincible also , no sunk, We hit it very bad. Ours pilots are heroes, if not ask Pierre Clostermann (Pilot of second World War). Ask about Argentinians Pilots in Malvinas. That´s all about it. MALVINAS ARGENTINAS, TO THE FINAL VICTORY, WILL BE BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gabyger 2 years ago
Who said that? Ah that would be the Argentines claiming it was sunk. It wasn't hit either. Continuing that claim in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary merely makes you look foolish and devalues the bravery of the Argentine pilots.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
@tootiredtobeoriginal claiming that the invincible was sunk is foolish, nevertheless, it could be damaged, remember that she was the only ship that couldn't be seen to the public at her return, and she was showing a new painted plate a her port
wackokicker 2 years ago
Oh for gods sake, thats bollocks. She didn't have a painted plate and she was seen by tens of thousands on her return, nor did she disappear there is plenty of picture of her throughout this period.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
yes, abosolutely, but then tell me why she arrived 4 moths later than the rest of the fleet, and she was the only ship not allowed to be boarded by the press.
wackokicker 2 years ago
@wackokicker
We had 2 aircraft carriers in 1982, Hermes was already overdue a refit and Argentina refused to accept the conflict was over, Invincible stayed behind to provide air cover until she could be replaced by Illustrious in August.
The press were allowed on board, in fact there were press reports from the ship as it entered harbour.
This is just another lie invented to justify an illogical conspiracy theory.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
@wackokicker
Mick Seamark came on board on 17 September as did all the journalists who had gone south with the ship in April. Also the BBC was on board from 16 Sept to film the arrival. There is even video footage available.
She stayed in the South Atlantic to provide Air Defence while the runway at Port Stanley was lengthened to take Phantoms
timparrott59 1 year ago
No the Argentines were more than 100km from HMS Invincible. They attacked HMS Avenger and missed , the exocet was diverted by chaff and fell into the South Atlantic.
The Argentine government and military can continue with their fantasy if they want to but to believe them is to make a fool of yourself gabyger.
flashgrim 2 years ago
nice vid. did.t even know there was a conspiracy. too fast thugh hard to read
hobied62 2 years ago
nicely constructed arguments dude, sldes were a bit quick but meh thats what pause buttons for
sajuuk212 2 years ago
Thanks, its a fine balance between getting it in within the time limit and leaving them up for long enough.
tootiredtobeoriginal 2 years ago
I must congratulate you! i've always thought our pilots lied. now i can confime it. falklands war was stupid from the begining, a selfish act to keep dictadurship:im realy sad for our and british soldiers.
BoxerDogsLover 3 years ago 2
also forgot fast planes need and hangar and in malvinas they were no hangars available!
dagger377 3 years ago
Funny then isn't it that the British managed to do that very speedily at the end of the war, so they could operate Phantoms. Funny also is it not that the British routinely operated Harriers out of rough strips in Germany.
Offensive posts as always will be removed, don't do that again.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
aaah for the words i didnt tried to offend you AGAAIN ok i repost it
it is not only a matter of extend the runaway you need to build and hangar build ammunition depot build water depot trucks to move the jets (the dont taxi alone) logistic infraestracture (build the taxi access stanley didnt had that cause didnt had hangars) so you dont just throw a couple of planchet and extend the runaway is a hell of infraestracture and we didnt had the means (heavy cargo planes,ferry ships)
you
dagger377 3 years ago
Actually no it isn't, the air force argued that because they really hadn't the heart to do it. And Galtieri flew in ridiculous numbers of half-trained conscripts piecemeal so they didn't co-ordinate the airlift. All you needed was a single ship to carry the requisite equipment.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
i believe that the most acceptable answer regarding the invecible matter is that uk didnt had any radar in order to direct the harriers from the land so invincible had to stay to guide them. still a little oddie one but is the best explanation. harriers armed with 2 aim9l where more than enough taking off vertically from malvinas to engage in a probable "retake situation" our MIII wouldnt arrive with much fuel british still had advantage.. for that the radar fact is the best answer i believe
dagger377 3 years ago
Nope the Type 42 radar did that for them, it was exactly the same fit as on Invincible. And the Harriers never took off vertically, they operated as STOVL Short Take-Off Vertical Landing.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
yes the british did the preparation for the phantoms cause they had more cargo tranportation resources than us AND BECAUSE the war was over. we had to take the aa guns panhard vehicles artillery radars all with our cargo planes and we didnt had the infraestructure to do so when te war was over off course brits didnt had to worried about aa defense artillery hellos.. everything we transported in the war.. so the raw materials were easy to transport.
dagger377 3 years ago
Actually they used materiel left behind by the Argentine forces. Metal planking and arrestor gear, then cannibalised HMS Sheathbill from Port San Carlos.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
(Cont) Sure, they don't glamourise the war itself as much, but war wounds (or damage on a ship) are not something to be hidden.
On the other hand, any poms reading this: remember that Argentinians would see it as reasonable to hide damage, and it is a fair question for them to ask.
Both of you: remember that each of you sees the other's attitude as mutually baffling. :)
JohnoUsenko 3 years ago
I think there is a basic problem of understanding here. Argentinian culture is (naturally) based on the Spanish culture, and there is a real sense of machismo involved. In other words, an Argentinian *may* assume that the British have a desire to minimise their battle damage to save face - they may see this as natural behaviour.
To Argentinians reading this: Pleas bear in mind that you are dealing with a very different culture. Brits don't hide war wounds - they celebrate them.
JohnoUsenko 3 years ago
MR Johno Usenko i reccomed you research regardinh hms dasher...
dagger377 3 years ago
Excellent example, Dagger. Note two things:
1) This cover-up was attempted to hide a problem with workmanship. The ship was not ultimately lost due to enemy action. That would have been acceptible to the public.
2) Note the outcry when the government attempted this. The UK government doesn't get away with covering up disasters, and it's Britain's own people that oppose it.
So well done - your example proves this point beautifully.
JohnoUsenko 3 years ago
no hiding the problem as a brit pointed to me before in fact was a national security issue the hms dasher was very importan for the british navy. so was the invencible and it took 30 years to reveal the dasher incident we are 26 with te invencible xD
dagger377 3 years ago
Yes, very important. Because of its manufacture. As I said before, if it had been sunk by a torpedo, there would never have been any attempt. And once again - the people of the UK (many of whom knew) didn't tolerate the cover-up.
So whatever you think about the Dasher (and in detail, as usual, all your facts are wrong), it's simply nothing to do with the case of the Invincible. There's no evidence for this damage because it only happened in the glory-obsessed minds of Argentinians.
JohnoUsenko 3 years ago
mmm they still coupple things that remain uncertain regarding the invincible issue as a matter of fact i dont see the point of letting invincible out by 4.5 months after a war when the whole island is a big aircraft carrier. and many other things that im starting to research.
dagger377 3 years ago
Hermes would have been the natural choice but her refit had been cancelled just before the war broke out. And there was only one airfield on the island at the time, which required extension to operate fast jets. Invincible stayed until relieved by Illustrious to provide air cover.
Nothing remains uncertain, you just twist the facts to whatever picture you want to paint.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
HMS Dasher was an escort carrier, it was a lash up from a merchant ship, hurried into service and was a piece of crap. It wasn't that important for the British navy. The reason it was classified was because the loss resulted from a design flaw. However, the loss was still common knowledge - funnily enough the families knew about it and forced the truth to come out. And it didn't take 30 years for the truth to come out, it was revealed well before that.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
"that was one airfield and needed to be refited" in fact that is what you do when you get the phantoms but harriers can take off vertically DUH in fact that is what your harriers did in malvinas DUH.. so your only vulcan bombd didnt prevent us to take off mirage from there DUH cause the runaway was to short DUH contradictions from you.
dagger377 3 years ago
And if they take-off vertically they have a very limited range. Doh! A short strip at least is essential, thats why the Invincible class has a short runway and ski jump. Doh!
And yes, the Vulcan raid did prevent the use of the strip by fast jets. Doh! No contradiction whatsoever. Doh!
You just see whatever you want. Doh! And ignore what doesn't fit. Doh!
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
so you prefer to leave the invincible almost without cover and with many planes lost wity and exhaust crew that never was that time onboard after the war? if we decided to retake actions on malvinas the invicible would been easy pickings DUH!
dagger377 3 years ago
Invincible had adequate escorts, contrary to Argentine propaganda we didn't lose that many planes. It also has to be noted that by the end of the Falklands War the Argentine air force was practically a spent force and no longer a signficant threat. Easy pickings? I don't think so. Any attempt to "retake" the Falklands and your navy would never have left the 12 mile limit.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
your only bomb that impacted on the runaway didnt deactivate it as for the hercules used it until the last day of the war.. and we didnt use fast jets cause the runaway was to short.. DUH you didnt prevent nothing cause we couldnt use it anyway DUH that vulcan raid was really poor DUH
dagger377 3 years ago
So? That was quite deliberate, we needed it when the illegal occupation of the islands was kicked out. And we knew full well that Hercules could use it.
A-4Q Skyhawks of 3 Escuadrilla did operate out of Port Stanley, your engineers tried to extend the runway with steel planking - thanks by the way that came in really handy at the end of the war - and also to install arrestor gear.
Couldn't use it? You didn't try hard enough.
Ever tire of being wrong? Doh!
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
And the sinking of the Dasher may have been classified but it was actually common knowledge.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
regarding your sociologic study of argentines i tell you that i dont come from spaniards i have italian roots. and our macho latino pride has nothing to do with this. (by the way european tourists get crazy with us xD)
dagger377 3 years ago
Mucho macho.
Latino pride is everything to do with this, you lost the war so you're trying to snatch some comfort from a "VICTORY" that never happened.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
bs the latino pride is far different for the spanish pride we dont mistreat our womans in fact we are known as winners in spain or "ligones" cause we simply treat them well. (that is for jonho and his "sociolig study" regarding argentine behavior. and i have some incongruences regarding invencible i will post a video in this months. so you will amuse trying to destroy it
dagger377 3 years ago
Dagger, I'm sure you will find some ridiculous cockamamie "Evidence" for your claims. After all, people can find "evidence" for the USA hiding alien spacecraft in Area 51. The trouble is, cover-ups are hard to argue against, because if you say "There's no evidence", the nut can just say "See, they're covering it up!"
Still, the fact remains - Invincible arrived in port undamaged. You can talk about it all you like, but it won't change the reality.
JohnoUsenko 3 years ago
Whoosh off on a tangent.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
still never saw a4c gun camera.. did you ?
dagger377 3 years ago
As it happens I have but only in a museum.
Standard fit on all USN aicraft, since WWII.
Easy to check on the web.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
Trying?
I amuse myself by taking the ridiculous claims apart in seconds. I don't try at all.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
Before the hostilites start uk created the rumor that 2 submarines was operating near the islands and for that the junta decided not to operate any ship.. (stupid decision) so build the runaway was even harder cause we had to focus on the aa. and artillery bringing with a couple of planes.
dagger377 3 years ago
Whatever, it was still a half-hearted effort. The British put so much effort into the Black Buck raids as in the same position we'd have gone balls-out to get the runway operational. We simply couldn't understand why the Argentines never did it.
And Dagger, it is not as difficult as the picture you paint.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
not half hearted effort the junta decided not to extend the runaway so everyone obeied what goes for me is a wrong decision. i believe that we should plant another strategy 1) not put that many conscripts on the field a logistical nightmare and not armoured vehicles (the terrain wasnt appropiate) i would gamble to extend the runaway and sacrifice some heavy artillery and some vehicles i personally believe that in a doghfight our mirages III could do it better and more a4 would reach ships
dagger377 3 years ago
It was half-hearted, they convinced themselves it was too difficult. That was just an excuse not to try, the British have a completely different psychology in that respect.
Mirage III is not that hot a dogfighter, it would have still been outclassed by the Sea Harrier.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
fo me the whole strategy was wrong. but with that strategy and with limited cargo planes it was completely imposible to extend the runaway that should be priority number 1 to the junta. but it wasnt. and they decided not to use ships cause of the british rumors of submarines in the islands wich were lie (i must admit brits are experts in the war matter).
dagger377 3 years ago
I guess we'll have to beg to differ, it wasn't impossible. You just convinced yourselves it was too difficult and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. You under estimated the British resolve.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
are you calling us "half hearted"? the runaway wast extended cause the junta didnt want to half hearted our psicology? ask the glamorgan if their hit was a hard hearted one or ask the yarmouth when he got to get out of the poundering cause our land artillery was too close to hit them with hand made calculation. MIII in the exercises with SH was even. try to catch MIII i dont think that of the SH where you get your sources
dagger377 3 years ago
The whole approach to the Falklands campaign by Argentina was half-hearted. The Junta assumed the British wouldn't respond and was paralysed with indecision when they did.
Yarmouth wasn't hit Dagger.
MIII had better speed but thats all, the Sea Harrier outflew it.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
ok i accept that the junta was stupid a bunch of humanity crap (i trying not to use bad words) but "half hearted? to us? "half hearted" is the best adjetive you find for the junta?.
as i tell you yarmouth wasnt hit but they withdrawn at least once cause our land artillery just was too close to hit them i can try to find a book that a yarmouth sailor wrote remembering that night
id like to see how a sh could manage to intercept a fast low MIII. they were not bad for 1982
dagger377 3 years ago
I can use a lot worse for the Junta.
So what if Yarmouth withdrew because it drew counter battery fire? Big deal.
Dagger, every time the Mirage III mixed it with the SH it came off second best. Fast/low is not where it had the advantage and the British always engaged on their terms. High and fast was your best option.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
yes the sh pilotes known that our MIII couldnt go supersonic cause we simply ran out of fuel. so what? you are telling us "half hearted" a half harted nation coulndt mount and exocet in a truck fire it and damage a ship or bring suplies in the hercules til the last day of the war or fire batteries using a pen an a piece of paper or attack last tecnology ships whip dumb bombs.. we are not half hearted. you can use many adjetives but not half hearted
dagger377 3 years ago
If you're supersonic all you're doing is making a better target of yourself for heat sinking missiles.
Half-hearted yes, you might have improvised a few surprises but you avoided all the difficult decisions that would have made a difference.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
no half hearted the junta decided things wich were badly wrong soldiers there just followed orders if they were ordered to build the runaway they were built. we had to much heart to fight our officer were stupids
dagger377 3 years ago
You still avoided making the difficult decisions, once it was clear the British would respond they went to pieces as they never believed we would.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
it is the same that my last post junta's bad decisions... it was stupid to believe that te brits would not respond. and the strategy was bad planned since the begining. but i dont undestand why half harted.. stupids.. our soldiers followed orders and created amazing things la the truck mounted exocet,the bombing hercules,the retarded bombs upgrade,and so on.. they just followed bad decisions. they are not half hearted at all .
dagger377 3 years ago
Well try sailing 8000 miles, fight outnumbered 2:1, assault prepared positions at night whilst outnumbered, face an enemy with land bases with only 30 planes that were outnumbered 5:1. Not to mention raising a task force, conducting an amphibious landing, marching across hostile terrain, putting ships in harms way knowing that they would be sunk and compare that with not extending the runway because it was too difficult...QED
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
by the way i dare you to find some gun recording of a4 C not b C.. so you realise that a4c where not fitted with gun cameras ;)
dagger377 3 years ago
All A-4C were fitted with gun cameras as standard. Its been a standard fit for all USN aircraft since WWII.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
mmm no a4c gun camera ever... no gun camera. i may research maybe a4C was bought to the army and not to the navy it is just a suposition that i have to see. but never ever see and a4c gun camera
dagger377 3 years ago
All A-4 Skyhawks were fitted with gun cameras. They never served with the army, only the USN.
A-4B were ex-USN refurbished by Lockheed Martin
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
It was an outstanding victory for the britisch fleet and I realy understand that Britain feels pride and sadness as well when remembering the victory and all the good lives lost
grazyarnie 3 years ago 2
Why speak all this jibberish, if both parties are unsatisfied with the outcome get your troops,ships and aircraft ready and give it another go this time be thorough so the other side can't claim any victory what so ever. enough of this he said she said
gnational87 3 years ago
killing another hundred just for that stupid one way claim of some pro Galtieri-people ?
No!the British Fleet won that battle and I am sure there are just another two nations able to do or to fight for such an outstanding victory...the USA and Russia.Maybe France but I am not sure about their politics concerning former territories.
grazyarnie 3 years ago
why should the british cover that up ?
why would they risk such a cover up with so many individuals involved ? Even if Argentina would have hit the Carrier..so what ? war was over by the hour for the Argentinien forces.
The building of such a war vessel can not be hided like a top secret jet. There is no sense of covering the building of a whole carrier just to deny that Invincible was hit...no!! Invincible was hit by nothing bigger than albatros shit original quote of a ships ex-crew bloke
grazyarnie 3 years ago 2
It probably just ran out of fuel and fell in the sea just like the second missile fired on 4 May.
flashgrim 3 years ago
Man, you have to suspend reality to believe that an exocet missile and how ever many bombs hit HMS Invincible. Don't you get it! it was wartime propaganda by the Argentines who claimed several times to have sunk one of the carriers and said at one point they had sunk 19 ships including Canberra. Get over it, neither carrier was hit. Your just sore losers, this is your way of fwwling better about it.
flashgrim 3 years ago
There is no Phalanx there, Invincible was brand new and if you compare with the two Type 22 they looked pretty much the same.
It wasn't hit and had it been, we'd have admitted it. If you choose to believe different, well thats up to you. But tell me how do you keep 2000 matelots silent and the grieving families? MMmm?
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
can you paint tower without dock? or not?
dagger377 3 years ago
Bosun's chair.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
Several Exocets missed. Two were fired at Sheffield and one missed for example. The Exocet is not unstoppable, the British knew how to stop it and Sea Wolf was specifically designed to kill sea skimming missiles. And there is plenty of information in the literature about how Exocets were countered.
That missile, a single missile, didn't hit anything. It either splashed harmlessly in the sea or the claims of HMS Avenger are correct.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
Nope, that incorrect all A-4 have a gun camera as part of its standard fit. All US navy aircraft since WWII have a gun camera as standard - the Argentine Air Force and Navy A-4 were all ex US Navy aircraft.
And you're speaking of HMS Dasher whose loss was officially secret, however, everybody knew about. Just 'cos it was classified didn't mean it wasn't common knowledge.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
Nope it didn't turn up a bit later, and no there was not obvious new paint on its starboard side. Thats simply fantasy.
And you have it on its head, the ridiculous conspiracy theories to support a cover up require ever more elaborate suspension of belief to be barely credible.
Britain admitted to every scratch in that war, its that simple.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
Counter the fact? HMS Invincible stayed on until the runway at Port Stanley was repaired. Common knowledge.
As to my "mistake", nope I'm just repeating what the Argentines claim and what appears in their CGI video.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
I used to be on the avenger but i left just before the falklands war, i later met an old ship mate who told me they had shot down an exocet that was coming their way.
Didnt know about all this rigmarole though.
fergawdsache 3 years ago
The C130 that 'Sharky' Ward shot down was well within range of the Sea Harriers operating from HMS Invincible.
The C130 is a long distance aircraft, it's 480km to West Falkland and that's nothing for a C130, it was on a reconnaissance mission so needed to get within visual range of the British fleet as it had no radar, visual range means it was trying to get close and that means easily within range of Sea Harriers
Dagger think logically don't twist anything to fit your absurd childish fantasy
flashgrim 3 years ago
The British had a technique to increase the chances of decoying a missile. Sea King helicopters would hover at very low level just to the side of the chaff cloud this increased the chances of decoying an exocet and was the reason that helicopters were frequently airborne during operations despite their main purpose being anti submarine warfare which was a reduced threat by then.
This was used in the succesful decoy of 2 exocets on 25 May away from Hermes which unfortunately ended up hitting AC.
flashgrim 3 years ago
This technique was successful because as ttbo said earlier the missile cannot resolve on azimuth so goes for the centre of the return signal the Sea Kings reflect the radar signal along with the chaff so it misses the target.
The exocet on 30 May was witnessed going under the chaff cloud by members of HMS Avenger's crew.
flashgrim 3 years ago
Indeed correct.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
its a very interesting comment!! our radar showed 20+ hellos 1 hour AFTER the attack. you need 20+ hellos to do so? after the attack? i suppose if you got one patrolling you can do that but in 15 minutes (time to take the exocet in hit the target) you woulndt be able to put 20+ hellos.
dagger377 3 years ago
I believe the accounts from Argentines as to how many helicopter we had aiborne as much as I believe either you or Sr. Ureta.
The Argentines claimed 19 ships sunk at one stage and claimed both Hermes and Invincible sunk numerous times why should I believe any account from them as to how many helicopters were airborne.
flashgrim 3 years ago
In this, I should stress, there is nothing untoward. Pilots always exaggerate claims (one old rule is to always divide pilot claims of A/C shot down by three, and never believe they have sunk a ship until your divers can swim onto the wreck. :) ). Presumably the brits exaggerated their claims too, but the British brass are always pretty anal about correct intelligence. Lucky for historians! :)
JohnoUsenko 3 years ago
not.. the invincible buying was cancelled on may 25 you can check it just the day of our attack and britishh brass? they claimed to take out a skyhawk with a weapon system that they frigate didnt had and then to destroy an exocet with a bofford cannon.. jajaja. common!
dagger377 3 years ago
The alleged attack on Invincible was May 30 Dagger, you can't even keep the facts straight. HMS Exeter was a Type 42 destroyer not a frigate, one of the first Type 42 with the intended Type 1022 radar fit that could engage at low level with Sea Dart. The comment that the Exocet was splashed by the 4.5" of HMS Avenger is taken with a pinch of salt, more likely decoyed by chaff. It missed. HMS Invincible was much further East than this group of ships, face it, you got nowhere near.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
mm i didnt made that post my cousing done it he is like 14 years old i kicked his ass all over the room.. sorry xD
dagger377 3 years ago
now its me.. what is that big difference on the ship structure.. just near the second "caldera".
dagger377 3 years ago
No its just you.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
no it wasnt me i know when me attacked the carrer ;)...
dagger377 3 years ago
When you MISSED the carrier by at least 40 miles.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
mmmm what could possibly be the biggest ecco in the center of the radar dont answer AC to me cause it was alrdeady hit. and no radar echo of the AC could possible bounce on the etendards screen
dagger377 3 years ago
Hit but didn't sink.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
Really, your radar plots are a fiction then.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
Invincible's Harriers continued operating to the end of the war, in fact it was Sea Harriers from Invincible piloted by Dave Morgan and Dave Smith that shot down 3 A4's over Choiseul Sound on 8 June.
The AC was burning but was in no danger of sinking it was left after the 25th I believe as it could provide a valuable decoy in the case of another attack so the British would not want to sink it, yet sank on the 30 May after the attack because Ureta and Isaac bombed it.
flashgrim 3 years ago
Dave Morgan was on Hermes. But on June 1 - C-130 Hercules: Number 801 Squadron CAP (Lt. N. Ward and Lt. S. Thomas) From HMS Invincible.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
i know that mission. when whe attacked the inservible all sea harriers caps landed on differents parts of departure. that man toke off from the island not from the invservible.
dagger377 3 years ago
Nope, the logs show that missions that day were conducted as normal. The next day Sharkey Ward shot down a C-130.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
believe in your logs ;) i believe in our radar signatures ;)
dagger377 3 years ago
The logs show the Harriers that apparently didn't have a home, shooting down a C-130 the next day. What didn't you loose a C-130 to Sharkey War of HMS Invincible on June 1. Me I believe what fits the facts, when something doesn't it has to be suspect but you accept it withour question.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
yes its true we lost a hercules in a strange cap waypoint. your harriers never flew over the upper part of isla soledad and the ecos of our bam radar shows different landing areas clearly opering from your established parts of malvinas.
dagger377 3 years ago
What utter nonsense, the Harriers were all over the island. It wasn't a strange mission, the Neptunes were life expired, the Hercules was impressed to do a surveillance mission. Brave guys who flew it as they must have known they had very little chance of returning.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
if you see the engagement area of the hercules you shall find that your harriers couldnt reach that part one day earlier thats why we put the hercules in that route clearly opering from the ground you can reach that route easily. doubtfull honour in that shootdown indeed.
dagger377 3 years ago
Nope, the Hercules was on a surveillance mission, the supply Hercules flew at night when the chances of interception were less.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
i dont accept it without question i started questioning if i dindt question like most of my country i couldnt talk about subject that i learnt reading i recommend you "halcones en el cielo" nice book indeed xD
dagger377 3 years ago
Really? It doesn't show.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
your video says "ark royal was complete with a 13º sky jump ramp at the front of the ship
HMS HERMES WAS COMPLETE WITH NO RAMP AND ADDED LATER YOU CAN Change that easily ark royale finished 4 june 1982 7º ski jump refitted later (two years took the illustrious to finish) so ark royale was finished an launched
dagger377 3 years ago
Ark Royal was completed in 1985, it was still fitting out by Swanhunters in Wallsend, Tyne and Wear in 1982. I used to go down and watch them working on her as a kid from the opposite bank when we lived in South Tyneside.
Hermes refit whilst they fitted the Ski Jump lasted 2 years from memory. Its not that easy to change. Both Illustrious and Invincible were the only two ships of its class in '82 and were both completed with the original 7° ramp.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
bullshit again the ilustrious took 2 years in order to complete. and the same day 30 may australia cancelled invisible class purchase exocet missile are not designed for sink they are designed for disable the ship and the inservible class has little little armor our bombs pierce your ships hulk like butter with a knife. nobody ever bought and inservible class.
dagger377 3 years ago
Nope, Illustrious was finished early in June 1982 (original completion date was 1983). Ark Royal was finished in 1985. No one bought else bought an Invincible class as very few navies could afford a new build. Australia was only interested in Invincible because it was being sold off cheap.
tootiredtobeoriginal 3 years ago
I can confirm that we wanted Invincible, but after the Falklands the asking price went from "Bargain Basement" to "Forget it, she's not for sale." Dagger, you've got this one badly wrong.
JohnoUsenko 3 years ago