Operación Invencible

[Peugeot205 2,745]

View File

Operación Invencible

---

Operación Invecible for the Falklands MOD

 

A "What If..." Scenario

 

Important requirements

 

July 2013 path

Strike Fighters North Atlantic

Falklands Redux MOD by eburger68

 

Readme , credits and more info in the readme.pdf file of the .rar file

 

Enjoy

 

 

Cangas

---

• Submitter
  FRPignon
• Submitted
  05/16/2014
• Category
  User Made Missions

 

[+eburger68 201]

JMBalestre:

 

Interesting mission. But why does the Invincible have no escorts or even a destroyer screen? How about Harriers flying CAP?

 

Eric Howes

[Ice Man 10]

Can I use the mission also with the "July 2012" patch?

Thank you!

 

Greetings,

Ice Man

Teo

Edited May 17, 2014 by Ice Man

[Peugeot205 2,745]

JMBalestre:

 

Interesting mission. But why does the Invincible have no escorts or even a destroyer screen? How about Harriers flying CAP?

 

Eric Howes

 

According to the Argentine Pilots, the Invicible was "alone" in the sea, they only made visual contact with the carrier, however according to the radar search of the Super Etendard 3 objects were found, one big an other 2 smaller far away from the big one, accoording to some RN information one of those 2 contacts may have been the HMS Exeter, but we don't know what really happened there. I've just tried to create the mission as accurate as possible so according to my information the invincible was "alone" . About the Harriers , in the real mission no CAP flights were found, futhermore, at the task force carriers there was always 1 harrier on alert at the end of the deck armed and refueled ready to take off in 5 minutes if it were needed, during the attack Ureta said that the deck of the carrier was clean, and that this issue was a big surprise for  them.

 

 

 

Can I use the mission also with the "July 2012" patch?

Thank you!

 

Greetings,

Ice Man

Teo

 

Give it a try and tell me, I did not check it with that path.

[+dtmdragon 2,704]

Have you got any more information on the real life incident? I've not heard of it before. Sounds incredible at that point of the war the Invincible would have been left untended by escorts etc. Did Argentina even have the intelligence capability to pinpoint the location of a specific ship?

 

Edited May 17, 2014 by dtmdragon

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Have you got any more information on the real life incident?

 

Because it didn't happen... they may well have mounted an attempt however the Invincible was not hit. There are a few "documentaries" in Spanish on youtube that detail the alleged events however there is no physical evidence or witness testimony outwith the pilots claims. The fact that the ship remained on station and operational before going on to serve another 28 years kinda puts it to rest. As a theory exorcize/"what if" the raid is somewhat intereseting though.

 

Craig

Edited May 18, 2014 by fallenphoenix1986

[Peugeot205 2,745]

Because it didn't happen... they may well have mounted an attempt however the Invincible was not hit. There are a few "documentaries" in Spanish on youtube that detail the alleged events however there is no physical evidence or witness testimony outwith the pilots claims. The fact that the ship remained on station and operational before going on to serve another 28 years kinda puts it to rest. As a theory exorcize/"what if" the raid is somewhat intereseting though.

 

Craig

 

Both Castillo and Vazquez died that day , and there are no bodies, what a mistery!!! , all the exocets were used. 1 for testing, 2 were launch while attacking the Shefflield, only one hit, and other one used for the Conveyor, one left, and at the end of the war the Argentine navy had 0 exocets avaible. The ship was the last one to arrive to the UK ,and when it arrived it had signals of having suffered a huge repair. I think that the UK is a country that never or rarely admits huge problems when it is the one that  suffers the damage, for example you made a lot of propaganda about Trafalgar but no one talks about Jenkin's Ear war etc etc etc  

 

 

Have you got any more information on the real life incident? I've not heard of it before. Sounds incredible at that point of the war the Invincible would have been left untended by escorts etc. Did Argentina even have the intelligence capability to pinpoint the location of a specific ship?

 

If they were able to locate ships like the conveyor , etc , why not, I'm not an expert in the subject may be some Argetine guys from CA may give you more info.

Edited May 18, 2014 by JMBalestre

[+eburger68 201]

JMBalestre:

 

The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the attack, which might well have been mounted, actually damaged the Invincible. Two pilots might have died, but that in itself does not speak to any damage to the Invincible. That all the Exocets possessed by Argentina at the start of the war were expended also fails to prove that any damage was done to the Invincible. As for the Invincible being the last to return, that again provides no direct evidence of any damage to the ship. Moreover, by all accounts the Invincible stayed behind in the South Atlantic to provide protection for the islands until relieved in August by the Illustrious (the British no doubt being eager not to repeat the mistake of leaving the islands undefended). And the "signals of having suffered a huge repair" -- where is the account coming from? Please provide a link or reference, because every account that I can find online from eyewitnesses of the return has the ship looking "smart" and undamaged. Photos included in this video here:

 

 

If the ship had been hit by the Exocet and bombs, it surely would have suffered major damage and, undoubtedly, numerous casualties. Yet in the 32 years since this alleged attack none of the one thousand crew members have reported this damage. None of the families of those killed or wounded have spoken up. At least none that I'm aware of. And despite the ship allegedly having undergone major repairs (or even being rebuilt from scratch according to some conspiracy theorists), there have been no reliable witnesses from the shipyard that performed these repairs (which was where?) or among the hundreds or even thousands people who would have been involved in such an effort.

 

And please don't tell us about the HMS Dasher, whose sinking in 1943 the British apparently did try to hush up. That effort failed miserably for precisely the same reasons that any effort to cover up major damage to the Invincible would have failed. And there would have been plenty of folks in Britain with plenty of motivation to expose such a cover-up. The Thatcher government was a controversial one with plenty of determined political enemies who would not have hesitated to exploit an opportunity to blacken Thatcher's major accomplishment, esp. heading in to the general election of 1983.

 

No, fallenphoenix1986 is correct: the only evidence offered for the attack and its alleged success is the testimony of a few pilots. And that testimony is simply uncorroborated by any other eyewitnesses or other evidence that surely would have resulted from a successful attack. I think what we're dealing with here is a cherished national myth that acts for some a salve to wounded national pride. The mistake is assume that the British would have been as concerned with covering up such an attack (after dealing already with the fallout from the sinking of the Belgrano as well as the loss of several Royal Navy ships, events which shocked the British public) as others are interested in proving that it really happened.

 

Eric Howes

Edited May 18, 2014 by eburger68

[Peugeot205 2,745]

JMBalestre:

 

The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the attack, which might well have been mounted, actually damaged the Invincible. Two pilots might have died, but that in itself does not speak to any damage to the Invincible. That all the Exocets possessed by Argentina at the start of the war were expended also fails to prove that any damage was done to the Invincible. As for the Invincible being the last to return, that again provides no direct evidence of any damage to the ship. Moreover, by all accounts the Invincible stayed behind in the South Atlantic to provide protection for the islands until relieved in August by the Illustrious (the British no doubt being eager not to repeat the mistake of leaving the islands undefended). And the "signals of having suffered a huge repair" -- where is the account coming from? Please provide a link or reference, because every account that I can find online from eyewitnesses of the return has the ship looking "smart" and undamaged. Photos included in this video here:

 

 

If the ship had been hit by the Exocet and bombs, it surely would have suffered major damage and, undoubtedly, numerous casualties. Yet in the 32 years since this alleged attack none of the one thousand crew members have reported this damage. None of the families of those killed or wounded have spoken up. At least none that I'm aware of. And despite the ship allegedly having undergone major repairs (or even being rebuilt from scratch according to some conspiracy theorists), there have been no reliable witnesses from the shipyard that performed these repairs (which was where?) or among the hundreds or even thousands people who would have been involved in such an effort.

 

And please don't tell us about the HMS Dasher, whose sinking in 1943 the British apparently did try to hush up. That effort failed miserably for precisely the same reasons that any effort to cover up major damage to the Invincible would have failed. And there would have been plenty of folks in Britain with plenty of motivation to expose such a cover-up. The Thatcher government was a controversial one with plenty of determined political enemies who would not have hesitated to exploit an opportunity to blacken Thatcher's major accomplishment, esp. heading in to the general election of 1983.

 

No, fallenphoenix1986 is correct: the only evidence offered for the attack and its alleged success is the testimony of a few pilots. And that testimony is simply uncorroborated by any other eyewitnesses or other evidence that surely would have resulted from a successful attack. I think what we're dealing with here is a cherished national myth that acts for some a salve to wounded national pride. The mistake is assume that the British would have been as concerned with covering up such an attack (after dealing already with the fallout from the sinking attaof the Belgrano as well as the loss of several Royal Navy ships, events which shocked the British public) as others are interested in proving that it really happened.

 

Eric Howes

 

I don't undersatnd the point since I've never said  if the ship was attacked or not , I've just given you some information that I know about the "possible" attack.

 

Sincerely, the ship may be attacked , and it is possible that no one perished in the attack, (You don't build an aircraft carrier if you know that it can be sunk with just one missile) , and that the british goverment , in order to not to show any weakness ordered to the people who served in the ship not to say anything, that people are professionals and loyal and they love their country and if someone tells them not to say something they must keep their mouth close, if you join the military I suppose that you may understand this.

 

And may be the attack never happened I don't know.

 

"And the "signals of having suffered a huge repair" -- where is the account coming from? Please provide a link or reference, because every account that I can find online from eyewitnesses of the return has the ship looking "smart" and undamaged."

 

It is in spanish I'm sorry for that:

 

 

"Resulta difícil asegurar si el Invincible fue alcanzado o no y con qué gravedad, ya que la palabra de los pilotos argentinos no coincide con la de los ingleses, y aunque las imágenes obtenidas del buque una vez concluida la guerra mueven a pensar que no sufrió daños, es cierto que el barco estuvo literalmente desaparecido durante algunas semanas en las que podrían haberse reparado los posibles daños de cara al exitoso regreso del buque a Inglaterra, lo que nos conduce a una pregunta que da sentido a lo manifestado hasta el momento  ¿Mintieron los pilotos de la Fuerza Aérea Argentina y los ingleses disimularon las evidencias o por el contrario las armas argentinas nunca alcanzaron al coloso británico?

 

   Empecemos, pues haciéndonos otra pregunta. ¿Qué pasó con el buque después del ataque?

 

   Para analizar qué fue lo que le pasó al buque tras el supuesto ataque argentino hace falta destacar la gravedad del impacto de cada proyectil que, siempre según la versión argentina, los pilotos arrojaron sobre el buque.

 

 

   "Viendo la poca eficacia de sus armas, con el transcursode la guerra los técnicos argentinos estudiaron nuevos modelos de armas y modificaron sus bombas y espoletas, desarrollando, ensayando, y fabricando con la Industria Argentina nuevos retardos, detonadores y piezas mecánicas a ritmo febril.

Al cabo de 15 días, se entregaron a la unidades de combate nuevas bombas que se emplearon por primera vez el día 25 de mayo, en el HMS Coventry, el cual desapareció instantáneamente de la superficie ante el impacto de tres de ellas. Su empleo se repitió con el "Sir Galahad" (hundido), el "Sir Tristan" (hundido) y la Fragata "Plymouth" (inutilizada). También se atacó al Invincible. Por fin los impactos de las bombas argentinas en los buques ingleses significaban su destrucción o los dejaban fuera de combate." (Fuente: Halcones sobre Malvinas)

 

   El portaaviones no solo habría recibido el impacto de tres de esas poderosas bombas, sino que también sufrió el de un misil Exocet. Este misil hundió o inutilizó seriamente a los blancos ingleses cada vez que fue lanzado durante el conflicto, aunque hay que recordar que en alguna ocasión fueron desviados mediante el uso del chaf haciendo blanco en otros objetivos distintos de los elegidos.

 

   "Tras el ataque al portaaviones, el radar argentino ubicado en Malvinas detectó una gran actividad de helicópteros británicos que se dirigían al este de la isla Soledad. Al mismo tiempo los aviones del Invincible se elevaron a doce mil metros de altura con el fin de ahorrar combustible para más tarde aterrizar en San Carlos, donde las tropas británicas se habían establecido el 21 de mayo." (Fuente: La Guerra Inaudita II)

 

   Al leer ese fragmento del libro del Comodoro Moro, cabe preguntarse por qué los Harriers no se enteraron del ataque, ya que hubieran podido defender al portaaviones con sus misiles Sidewinder. ¿Cómo es posible que la única arma de defensa del portaaviones no actuara aquella tarde contra los aviones argentinos? Los Harriers eran muy superiores a los A4C de la FAA. Tampoco se ha respondido nunca la pregunta de por qué el general Moore, que había dirigido todas las operaciones en tierra desde el Invincible hasta el momento del ataque, trasladó su estado mayor a San Carlos después del ataque argentino.

 

   Existe también un testimonio de un soldado británico que es muy sospechoso. Se trata de Ana Gerschenson, quien cambió de sexo años después de terminada la guerra. En el año 1982, se destacaba como enfermero del Invincible. El artículo del diario dice (diario Clarín, 20/11/02): "El marinero transexual aseguró haber sufrido un trauma por haber tenido que tratar "terribles heridas" en la enfermería del Invincible, supuestamente debidas a los  ataques de los aviones argentinos durante los días del conflicto." 

 

   Otro dato que da que pensar es el regreso a Portsmouth del HMS Invincible después de las hostilidades el día 17 de septiembre de 1982, tras 166 días en alta mar, cuando el resto de unidades navales lo hicieron entre junio y agosto. ¿Dónde estuvo? ¿Qué estuvo haciendo?"

 

http://www.el-sextante-del-comandante.es/85205419

http://www.malvinense.com.ar/smalvi/10/1596.htm

http://www.eltribuno.info/salta/286742--Inglaterra-nunca-admitira-el-ataque-al-Invencible-.note.aspx

http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/may30.html

 

In German:

 

http://www.airpower.at/news02/0410_falklands/exocet_4.htm

 

This one in english

 

http://britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html

 

Here in french with different points of views.

 

http://forummarine.forumactif.com/t2938-controverse-operation-invincible-30-mai-1982

 

 

You can believe in the attack or not , but everybody must admit that there are many unkowns in both versions and that may be we will never know what really happened.

Edited May 18, 2014 by JMBalestre

[+eburger68 201]

JMBalestre:

 

You wrote:

 

Sincerely, the ship may be attacked , and it is possible that no one perished in the attack, (You don't build an aircraft carrier if you know that it can be sunk with just one missile) , and that the british goverment , in order to not to show any weakness ordered to the people who served in the ship not to say anything, that people are professionals and loyal and they love their country and if someone tells them not to say something they must keep their mouth close, if you join the military I suppose that you may understand this.

 

 

But there were over 1000 men who would have had to keep quiet -- for over thirty years. And the families of the dead and wounded (not likely you hit a ship, even a large one, with an Exocet and multiple bombs without causing at least some casualties). And the personnel of any shipyard where repairs were made (or the ship rebuilt) which, if done in the Mississippi (as some theories allege) would necessarily involve the surrounding community as well as U.S. government officials. And members of the British government and the MoD. And amongst all of these thousands of people, both civilian and military, not one cracked after thirty years? Not a single person? No one with ill will towards the Thatcher administration or outrage at the alleged cover-up?

 

And why would the British government be so concerned about apparently minor battle damage to the Invincible after dealing with much more devastating attacks on other ships as well as widespread outrage at the sinking of the Belgrano?

 

Simply not believable. And not possible either, given that we know how the attempt to hush the Dasher sinking failed so miserably.

 

As for the long passage in Spanish that you posted, I looked through it -- it's mainly a rehashing of alleged events. Not a shred of concrete evidence or eyewitness testimony offered save for the mention of the name of one nurse, who was reportedly traumatized by treating casualties while aboard Invincible which (in the language of the original) "presumably" came from "attacks by Argentine aircraft during the days of the conflict." Pretty thin.

 

I'm sorry, but if anyone wants to claim that this attack did score direct hits on Invincible, then the burden is squarely on them to provide evidence for it. Such evidence ought to be abundant and easy to find, given the nature of the alleged event. And so far, they have offered none.

 

Eric Howes

[Peugeot205 2,745]

JMBalestre:

 

You wrote:

 

 

But there were over 1000 men who would have had to keep quiet -- for over thirty years. And the families of the dead and wounded (not likely you hit a ship, even a large one, with an Exocet and multiple bombs without causing at least some casualties). And the personnel of any shipyard where repairs were made (or the ship rebuilt) which, if done in the Mississippi (as some theories allege) would necessarily involve the surrounding community as well as U.S. government officials. And members of the British government and the MoD. And amongst all of these thousands of people, both civilian and military, not one cracked after thirty years? Not a single person? No one with ill will towards the Thatcher administration or outrage at the alleged cover-up?

 

And why would the British government be so concerned about apparently minor battle damage to the Invincible after dealing with much more devastating attacks on other ships as well as widespread outrage at the sinking of the Belgrano?

 

Simply not believable. And not possible either, given that we know how the attempt to hush the Dasher sinking failed so miserably.

 

As for the long passage in Spanish that you posted, I looked through it -- it's mainly a rehashing of alleged events. Not a shred of concrete evidence or eyewitness testimony offered save for the mention of the name of one nurse, who was reportedly traumatized by treating casualties while aboard Invincible which (in the language of the original) "presumably" came from "attacks by Argentine aircraft during the days of the conflict." Pretty thin.

 

I'm sorry, but if anyone wants to claim that this attack did score direct hits on Invincible, then the burden is squarely on them to provide evidence for it. Such evidence ought to be abundant and easy to find, given the nature of the alleged event. And so far, they have offered none.

 

Eric Howes

 

I don't understand the discussion . If you don't believe it , ok , If you believe , it is perfectly fine. ,and if you don't really know what really happened so that you don't know who is telling the truth, like me,  it is ok too.

 

During a war many things happens, and most of them are buried there or they come back after several years other are just rumours etc etc

 

My point is that although the attack may never happened , there is not a super super super solid evidence telling us this attack never happened , in the same sense that there is not any evidence super super solid that tell us that the pilots really hit the Invicible. Because the main argument is: The Invincible went to the Falklands and returned, and no one in the ship said that there was any attack  so no attack was held. 

 

"not likely you hit a ship, even a large one, with an Exocet and multiple bombs without causing at least some casualties"

 

Ok , but the missile may be was launched and deviated by the RN by  using ECM and the 2  pilots may have dropped the bombs but the bombs may did not hit the ship so that the mission really happened and it was a falilure , why not? Do you know someone who were there? 

 

And also , at the official Argentine Air force web page , there is a nice report with pictures and information about the operation, and for me it is significant that an official body like the Argetine air force had that kind of information online and avaible for everybody, do you really think that an official body would put online wrong information? Yo could say, why not? ok, but  would you imaging that the Royal Air Force , the Armée de l'air or the USAF would do this? Posting wrong information about and event that happened years ago being that institutions serious bodies? I don't think so.

 

Yo can believe what you want but in the same sense you are telling me that nothing happen i can also think with similar arguments that the contrary could also happen.

[+eburger68 201]

JMBalestre:

 

You wrote:
 

 

My point is that although the attack may never happened , there is not a super super super solid evidence telling us this attack never happened , in the same sense that there is not any evidence super super solid that tell us that the pilots really hit the Invicible.

 

 

One might as well say: there is not super super solid evidence that we are not all being secretly controlled by the lizard people from outer space, in the same sense that there is not any evidence super super solid that tell us that we are being secretly controlled by the outer space lizard people.

 

But that confuses the burden of proof and falsely presumes the two assertions make for two equally plausible theories or accounts.

 

And there are not two equally plausible theories, with the matter of choosing between them simply a matter of personal whim or belief. There is one theory that has been offered with no clear supporting evidence to support it and plenty of reason to doubt it. Without such evidence the logical conclusion is that it didn't happen.

 

You then wrote:

 

Yo could say, why not? ok, but  would you imaging that the Royal Air Force , the Armée de l'air or the USAF would do this? Posting wrong information about and event that happened years ago being that institutions serious bodies?

 

 

You already answered this question yourself when you pointed out in an earlier post that militaries and governments do lie and spread misinformation when it is in their own interest. And, indeed, the entire case made for this allegedly successful attack is based on the assumption that the UK government lied and has continued to lie about the events of that day in 1982.

 

But, again, the burden isn't on the UK government or anyone else to prove that the Invincible didn't suffer battle damage from that attack; it is on those who assert that it did.

 

Eric Howes

Edited May 18, 2014 by eburger68

[Peugeot205 2,745]

"One might as well say: there is not super super solid evidence that we are not all being secretly controlled by the lizard people from outer space, in the same sense that there is not any evidence super super solid that tell us that we are being secretly controlled by the outer space lizard people."

 

You did not get what I was trying to tell you , may be my english is very bad. Moreover I don't understand this discussion in this kind of topic, It is an useless off-topic since the things being discussed do not match with the aim of the post: To Talk about any possible problem or imcopatibilty between the Mod and the game.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

 

Do you know someone who were there? 

 

 

Yes... several actually.

 

So are we to take it that it is totally implausible for an official body such as the F.A,A or C.O.A.N to lie through their teeth but its perfectly reasonable to believe that the Royal Navy, RAF, UK Government, multiple defence contractors and god alone knows how many individual military and civillian personel to do exactly the same thing?

 

Craig

Edited May 18, 2014 by fallenphoenix1986

[Wrench 9,859]

All right, everyone.

That's enough

 

I've edited the file announcement text by adding the words

 

A "What If..." Scenario.

 

Any further discussion is pointless.