Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
B52STRATO

Target: Invincible

Recommended Posts

Tomorrow will mark the 31st year of the actual longest raid conducted by a "Skyhawk" unit. But there is still some mist over this day, the Royal Navy never admited a hit on her aircraft carrier, saying that the HMS "Exeter" had shot-down the ennemy "Exocet", and from the Argentinian side the two Armada "Super Etendard" pilots never saw their target, firing from 23 miles, while of the four F.A.A "Skyhawks" crews, which followed the missile smoke trail to find their aim, only two survived the attack (one being down at 8 miles off, the other near the "Invincible" and its escort), testifying one direct hit on a ship "with a ski-jump, a large superstructure, two chimneys and multiple radomes". However, following this operation, various reports from the Royal Navy mention a Harrier traffic downturn in the "Invincible" area, and an increased number of helicopter rotations. The ship will also take more than a month to join the "Hermes", already in station in the regained archipelago.

 

Is new documents are now available on this event ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HMS Invincible was not hit. The Atlantic Conveyer was hit. The conspiracy theory crowd continues to march.....

 

They were actually all just actors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit that much remains unclear on this operation, not as much as the disapear of K-129 nor the campaigns of USS Halibut. But would it be more suprising than the sinking of the "Hercules" tanker (220 000tons anyway), hit by a Canberra, or the attack of the "British Wye" by a bomber converted C-130 or even the hospital ships "Uganda" (UK) and "Bahia Paraiso" (Argentina) navigating together ? I doubt that the "Exeter" could had intercept the missile with her short-range weaponry. But even if the "Exocet" hit or not the Royal Navy aircraft carrier, it is simply impossible to say or think that its sailors have not defended her valiantly in a war where anti-ship missiles were used for the first time and that CIWS did not exist. Instead, if after a missile and Mk-80 serie bomb hit the ship was still afloat and still ensure departures and arrivals on her deck, well she could not better deserve the name of "Invincible" .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would all of the crew on the ship NEVER talk about the fact that a ship was hit? What possible reason would there be to stay silent as to whether or not a missile hit when it didn't sink the ship?

 

It's one thing to deny enemy action sunk a ship and it was an accident or something, it's another to have a ship fight in a war victoriously and say it wasn't hit when it was when the hit did so little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is also what we think about the Glomar Explorer geologic researches until some of its crew talk about the moon pool internal organisation under the derrick section. But as these testimonies were all made under false names, nothing can prove this can't come from Clancy like scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is weird that the Invincible ceased operations and such, and i guess there had to be something wrong with her, if she was hit and as screwed as it was said, yet there is no further evidence, the brits are masters at keeping things secret. It could have been fixed, people could have been made to shut up for all this time, and deaths be attributted to other causes, but all of the former? and why? I don´t think the Argentine pilots are lying, but there must be another explanation other than the british hiding a fact like that when they have no practical reason for it, as far as i understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is weird that the Invincible ceased operations and such, and i guess there had to be something wrong with her, if she was hit and as screwed as it was said, yet there is no further evidence, the brits are masters at keeping things secret. It could have been fixed, people could have been made to shut up for all this time, and deaths be attributted to other causes, but all of the former? and why? I don´t think the Argentine pilots are lying, but there must be another explanation other than the british hiding a fact like that when they have no practical reason for it, as far as i understand.

 

That is it. I am not here to strike on the UK but only look for new official reports, if they were release, which mention why the carrier rejoined the Hermes so lately, shurely not for a vacation tour accross South Georgia, why the helicopter activity increased in the attack area, and why there were repairs made at sea.

 

How would all of the crew on the ship NEVER talk about the fact that a ship was hit? What possible reason would there be to stay silent as to whether or not a missile hit when it didn't sink the ship?

 

The only testimony I got about the Exocet came from one of the Skyhawk pilots. He talk about it as they follow its smoke trail to found the battle group but never saw it strike the ship, and that of the small load of bombs they dropped solely one Mk-82s impact was confirmed. One of the Royal Navy reports mentioning the missile being shot down by the Exeter can of course be correct.

Edited by B52STRATO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battlefield reports are notoriously unreliable. The adrenaline, the smoke, the quick actions, all lead to people often thinking they're seeing things they really aren't, or missing things they should've noticed.

That's one reason why gun cameras and post-strike BDAs were implemented, because film can't remember wrong.

 

In this instance, you have something one pilot remembers vs the entire crew of a naval vessel. Can a pilot be wrong about whether the target he hit was one or another? Sure. Can an entire crew NOT know, NOT remember, or decide to keep secret their ship was hit? Hardly.

Occam's Razor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arg, here you scored an extra point, philosophically and logically difficult to face. However I found that much of the online community refuses to recognize the operation possibility itself. Many forums tend to contradict each others, just like the wikipedia pages (I grant you, this is not always a reference) of the Exeter and Invincible. The destroyer page contains both victories from its Sea Dart on the two Skyhawk (plus one probable on the AM-39) on May 30. While the one of the Invincible ignore this event (looking at the Talk page and its respectfull writers well explain why).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Invincible ignores the event because it never happened. You need to search Atlantic Conveyor. That ship was hit and did sink with the majority of the CH-47s onboard, which delayed and hampered the ground attack very seriously. Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the most know here in this forum, i served out my military time on the cold side of the iron curtain. The Falkland War was also a topic of military training.

The story the told us was, that the Agrentinians tried to attack the Invincible with Exocet missiles launched by Super Etendards. One plane was tasked with the strike mission and the other plane acted as back up and had only to launch his missile in the case of malfunction of the intended strike plane.

The attack went as planed and the missile was launched successfully. It locked on the Invincible and headed for it.

The British detected the incoming missile and laid a chaff curtain which hided the Invincible and gave the seeker head of the missile a false target. After flying trough the chaff cloud the seeker head of the Exocet locked on the biggest radar echo, which was the Atlantic Converyor and hit this ship.

So they told us the story and i believe that if the Invincible would have been hit, then they would have told us this, because UK was on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shurely all know about the Atlantic Conveyor, the fact is that it happen five days before the mission launched against the Invincible. Gepard's testimony is interesting to compare with Western documents about May 25 event. I took some notes about it years ago, revealing that after the raid on the "Sheffield" both SP-2H (0707/2-P-111 and 0708/2-P-112) were decomissionned and transferred to Comandante Espora naval base due to lack of spare parts, and leaving the Comando de Aviacíon Naval without any efficient exploration and radar guidance aircrafts. However, on May 23 and using the Harrier traffic trajectory the headquarter estimated one aircraft carrier location and ordered an attack on it. After refuelling at 1545, and approaching the estimated point, both Super Etendard pilots found nothing and headed back to Rio Grande. On May 25 the same technique is used to mark the carrier group at approximately 110 nm NW of Stanley (noted as Puerto Argentino) and the CoAN the ordered a new attack. Both Etendards took off frome Rio Grande with one AM-39 each at 1430, reffueled an hour later before starting their dive on attack profil and fired their missiles at 1632, striking the Atlantic Conveyor. Landing at R. Grande at 1830. One Super Etendard 'platoon' (quoted as 'section') was transferred to Espora the next day, the CoAN fearing a British counter attack, with the last Exocet missile available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Argentinian military actually won the war. They lost it because their liberal politicians stabbed them in the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Argentinian military actually won the war. They lost it because their liberal politicians stabbed them in the back.

 

Eh?

Only if we redefine the word "won".

 

As for the conspiracy of the invincible cover up... I've had arguments with fruit-loops actually suggesting that the ship was lost and rebuilt secretly in the States over a period of 1 to 2 months, hence why she was late back to Portsmouth, nothing at all to do with the fact that she stayed on station to provide a CAP over the Islands until relieved after the war. Others claimed that the crew have been silenced for decades, not possible on such a scale as someone would have spoken out by now, similarly the casualties could not have been covered up as families would have know what ship the deceased were serving on.

 

I've seen all three Invincible class ships in port at the same time and been aboard all three at various times. I have been below decks on Invincible and saw no evidence of massive structural repair. I'm a mechanical engineer, if such repairs had been done I would have known.

 

The attack may have been conducted but Invincible most certainly did NOT take any hits.

 

Craig

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Navy had no problems declaring all the other ships that were sunk/hit - and Invincible wasn't even the flagship (that was HMS Hermes) - so all the available evidence suggests conspiracy theory only I'm afraid - and wishful thinking from the fog of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen all three Invincible class ships in port at the same time and been aboard all three at various times. I have been below decks on Invincible and saw no evidence of massive structural repair. I'm a mechanical engineer, if such repairs had been done I would have known.

 

 

Thank you Craig, that was the kind of testimony I was looking for. About these 2 months of absence, avoiding the idea of a world timing record on a super-mega top secret rebuilt in a US shipyard while at the same time Columbia, after refuelled with a space-cruiser launched from nazi's moon base, sabotaged surveillance satellites during secret STS-3bis mission, could the Invincible has returned to Ascension for maintenance after his stay in South Atlantic ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if you want to suggest that perhaps the RN has (or used to have) a place capable of repairing ships, perhaps mobile, perhaps a foreign military base, that was never publicly acknowledged (perhaps because it was in the naval base of a country that didn't want to appear to be helping them vs Argentina), that is an entirely different matter. I can easily see some nation saying "you can do some repairs here, but you cannot say you did it, and we will deny it if asked" if travel times don't seem to jive with known locations.

 

That is a far different matter than pretending a ship wasn't hit and seriously damaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not about an unknow place to repair unknow damages, more precisely just to doing standard maintenance that could not be made at sea after all this time in station. It's just that I still ask myself and try to find where could the ship be during these two months. Does the RN couldn't used Ascension as a maintenance point, to refuel and rearm the Invincible, using the same installations as the ones used as a stating point during its descent to South Atlanttic ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still ask myself and try to find where could the ship be during these two months.

 

I already told you, she stayed behind to provide a CAP over the island incase Argentina started getting ideas again. She was then relieved by Illustrious and went home.

 

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's copied (I must have jump a line while reading the other day...). Would you allow me to extract your evidence for a study topic ? Thanks to your answers I could consider to finish my paper on the Argentinian side and go to the British operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.