Falklands War, 1982, Thread

[Pusser01]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

According to the Task Force commander, Adm Woodward, the major units of the Fleet including both carriers were on their last legs in june 82 as they had been driven hard for three months, and a major mechanical breakdown was inevitable at that point. The ceasfire allowed a lowering of the tension and ships to carry out essential maintenance at sea before they were relieved.

If one of either the Hermes or Invincible had been sunk, I wonder if the UK would have been able to deal with the loss. I remember reading somewhere that serious consideration was given to recommissioning the Bulwark, even to the point of starting to re-brick her boilers before work was stopped. Also Illustrious was only a few very rushed months off completion.

How much credence was there to the US loaning the RN an Iwo Jima LPH at the time if needed?

I guess even if the RN had managed to pull another carrier out of the hat, it still would have found it hard to come up some aircraft for it other than Harrier GR3's, that is assuming the loss of all the airwing with the carrier.

Cheers

 

[Pointblank]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

If one of either the Hermes or Invincible had been sunk, I wonder if the UK would have been able to deal with the loss. I remember reading somewhere that serious consideration was given to recommissioning the Bulwark, even to the point of starting to re-brick her boilers before work was stopped. Also Illustrious was only a few very rushed months off completion.

How much credence was there to the US loaning the RN an Iwo Jima LPH at the time if needed?

I guess even if the RN had managed to pull another carrier out of the hat, it still would have found it hard to come up some aircraft for it other than Harrier GR3's, that is assuming the loss of all the airwing with the carrier.

Cheers

The RN was able to rush HMS Illustrious down to the Falklands to relieve Invincible after the war was won. They had to commission her enroute to the Falklands. The bigger loss would had been if Hermes was damaged or sunk, as she was the bigger ship

[video=youtube;U0UZk1_VR-A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0UZk1_VR-A[/video]


This video is about a speech by one Argentine pilot who affirms Argentina did attack the Invencible aircraft carrier in 1982.
He is Gerardo Isaac a A-4C pilot who claims he took off from Rio Grande air base in continental Argentina and refueled their A-4Cs and Super Etendart.


If you want to beleive it or not is up to you is common among the Argentine air force pilots to claim they attacked the British aircraft carrier in 1982.

He says the KC-130 Hercules flew from Rio Gallegos and refueled the A-4Cs and Super Etendart.


[video=youtube;PrUwGGXI1i4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrUwGGXI1i4[/video]
this video is also from the Argentine pilots who flew and atacked the british fleet
Ernesto Ureta also claims at the end of the video they attacked the aircraft carrier Invencible, he was flying an A-4C, also they claim they damaged at least the aircraft carrier.
They claim the british reduced the air activity after the attack by the A-4Cs and Super Etendart

There is no evidence that the Argentina ever damaged Invincible. First off, when the ship returned to Portsmouth, she was undamaged (any bomb or missile hit would have done more damage than what could be patched up while at sea), and secondly, it would have been a very big thing to keep 1000+ crew members on board Invincible, plus any of the attached media quiet about the damage or attack. Not to mention that other ships in the area would have moved in to assist in repairs to Invincible.

I would therefore state that using the assumption of Occam's razor, since there is no evidence of any damage to Invincible when she returned to Portsmouth, nor has there been any leaks from the crew and attached media that the ship was even hit or damaged, Invincible was never damaged by the Argentinians in the first place.

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

I stood on Invincible's decks in 1984 at the Portsmouth Navy Days, and again in 85 and 86 (when I also stood on Ark Royal's decks). No signs of patching anywhere. There were members of the British Press on board in 82 and indeed reporters from other nations spread throughout the fleet. If anyone for a moment believes the British press would keep a secret as big as a carrier being hit by enemy aircraft, you really don't know these people! They make a pack of hyenas look moral and upstanding, they would tear their own right arms off to scoop their rivals and loyalty to their nation would be incomprehensible to most of them! Ok that's going a bit far and probably describes the current crop rather than their predecessors, but you get the gist. A single bomb hit on a carrier will put a huge hole in the structure as well as igniting many fires. There's plenty of photographic evidence of what this would look like, just google the fires that damaged USS Enterprise, Forrestal and Oriskany in the 1960s. These were accidental, not by enemy action, and all of these ships were between two and four times the size of Invincible. the devastation would have been proportionally that much worse. Yet... there was not even a patch of lighter or darker paint on her when she returned to Pompey.

I also heard a preposterous claim a few years back that Hermes had been badly damaged and had to sail to Galveston in Texas for emergency repairs. The idea that the dockyard workers there would have kept that a secret is simply unbelievable. The Argentine Pilots claims have been investigated in the past, and the general consensus is they were honestly mistaken as to what they had seen for the following reasons:

1. Pilots of the Argentine Air Force normally trained to attack land targets, not warships. That was the province of the Argentine Naval Air Arm. The latter service did provide as much advice to their Air Force cousins on anti shipping attacks but there is no substitute for experience.

2. Never having attacked a warship before, especially one they see with a closing speed in excess of 300-400knots and so have seconds to make their attack run whilst trying to evade AAA and missiles it is easy to misidentify what is in front of you. In this case the only RN warship attacked in the manner described on the date given was the type 21 Frigate HMS Avenger. The T21s had a wide transom stern with full width helicopter pad, and when under attack she would have been making full speed so her funnel would have been belching thick clouds of black smoke, whilst she manouvered hard from side to side. The Skyhawks attacked from the stern quarter and in the few seconds they had her in sight, it would be and indeed was all too easy to mistake her for an aircraft carrier, particularly as that is what they were hoping to see.

Its an easy and understandable mistake to make, and in no way detracts from the bravery, skill and overall professionalism of the Argentine Air Force. The just made an honest mistake.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

the type 21 Frigate HMS Avenger. The T21s had a wide transom stern with full width helicopter pad, and when under attack she would have been making full speed so her funnel would have been belching thick clouds of black smoke, whilst she manouvered hard from side to side. The Skyhawks attacked from the stern quarter...

To this day, seeing the picture of the HMS Antelope like that, broken in two and portruding from the water like that, breaks my heart as it did then. Such fine looking vessels, rendered thus. Such is war, and that brief fight was probbaly amongst the most intense.

Certainly the largest and most major naval exchange since World War II. Easily.

Yeah, but high risks and end up with low rewards is not exactly a recipe for sustainable national defense. The UK is not the only enemy Argentina has to worry about after the war.

You got that right, Equation.

One of the reasons that the garrison on the Falklands was not manned with the very best the Argentines had at the time was that they were afraid that Chile would take advantage of the situation and attack them...so their very best were there, to counter and contain any attack from Chile. Because that attack would not have been on territory that was hundreds of miles out to sea, it would have been right there on their own mainland soil.

But it never trasnpired.

 

[bd popeye]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

Years ago we had a thread about the Falklands War..

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/wor...risks-falklands-malvinas-war-1982-a-1668.html

The conversation turned into what is being posted right now..

I posted this on 04.16.2007

The Argentinian's claim to have hit the Invincible in a missile attack? No way. I remember there was a thread started by some one claiming that the Invincible was sunk during the Falklands war. Ludricous.
Hunter..you started it.

HMS Invincible sunk in Falklands War (1982)

Why it never happened
1. It would take a cover up of unprecedented proportions..The crew, The news media on board, loved ones...etc..etc...
2. Remember that the news media was on board the Invincible during the war. They had reports going daily. I'm "old" I saw the reports on CNN. They never reported any attack.

Viking sez...

I grew up in the Portsmouth area and the task force coming home was a big event. The idea that a Carrier can sneak into Pompey for major repairs and out again without it being extremely obvious is farcical.

You better believe it!
3. When the Invincible returned to the UK it certainly looked unscathed to me. I saw the whole return of the fleet on Tv..CNN ya' know.
4. Ok..Argentina..where's the pictures of the attack??? Film, Video, still photography????

The attacked never happened. Maybe just maybe the Argentinians launched an attack and it failed.....

Bottom line..I watched the reports from the Invincible everyday...The attack never happened.

More on the alleged attack...(dead link)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That link has a interesting account of the "alleged attack"..Where's the pics????

This yahoogroup claims to have pics of the alleged sinking

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

But you have to know Spanish to join....

posted on 04.17.2007

I agree that the sinking of the Invincible is a figment of someones imagination. pure fiction.

Yesterday I searched for any possible credible info on this subject. I found this forum that raged on for several months over this subject.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I took a couple of hours yesterday to read that "flame war" There is a poster there called 55hereos that is so ludicrous ...A must read...

As for nukes in the Falklands. I don't think that the conflict would have ever gotten to that stage. Did the British have or were they prepared to use nukes in the Falklands conflict? Probably. Glad it never happened.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

Jeff, in all honesty it is possible. Personally I have listened to lecture given by the pilot in question. If you were to hear the quivering in his voice when he recall’s the accounts of that action, it does bring you to tears (but then again I am Latin and will have a built in bias just as the English will).

Also remember that the cruiser ARA Belgrano was sunk outside the exclusion zone and the reason why is still being occulted to this day. Therefore, one could say that it is possible that some damage may have occurred, but not reported due to that fact that 21 vessels were either damaged or sunk in the course of the war. To admit that a carrier was also hit (even if only once) would have indicated a serious flaw in Royal Navy operation doctrine

Sorry, but a man quivering when he talks about something he is saying is not evidence...it is emotion.

The Cruiser was sunk because the Argentines had two task forces in the area, on the edge of the exclusion zone at the time. The Cruiser force, and the Carrier force. The carrier could attack the carriers from the air. The cruiser, if she got colse enough, could attack with missiles. The British werre afraid they would try a pincer movement on the carrier task force and that one or the other would get close enough to launch their attacks. Thus they were perceived as a very real and very dangerous threat...and they were. So the sub was ordered to attack the cruiser task force and it did. Simple as that.

The results were telling. Fearinf the UK nuclear attack sub, the carrier task force returned to port and did not leave the safety of the port again. The argentine government was simply unwilling to risk her...and they were probably very smart to do what they did.

Margaret Thatcher explains this very decision in great detail in her own memoirs and states it just about that clearly. I have read them, and she admits openly that this was her reasoning for giving the order to sink the Cruiser and makes no secret of it.

Again, as I said before, this is not about the British "admitting," anything. They admitted when all of those other vessels were hit. Some of them were the best they had in the field in terms of air defense. The press and the people aboard would have long since made everyone aware of what happened...but they did not...and such a "secret" would never have held all of these years anyway. But the principle reason is that there never was such a secret.

And again (this is getting very repetitious) at the time, when it supposedly happened, the Argentine government itself never officially made any such claim...not only that they had damaged one of the carriers, but that they had ever gotten through to and attacked them. If they had succeeded in doing so, at the time, they would have been the first to let the world know. But they didn't. And I was listening to every broadcast and story about this confliict from both sides at the time. And both sides were covered.

Remember, both nations were friendly to the US. But given the cold war at the time, Reagen decided to assist the UK logistically and with intelligence. He did so because to have the UK embarrassed and lessened at that critical time in history would have been far worse for the US, and all of its allies in terms of potential emboldening of the Soviet Union, than for Argentina to lose.

Sorry, but that is the way it came down...and to any impartial observer of history and the grand scheme of things, it is also true, whether people think it is "fair" or not. It had nothing to do with race, or color, or anything like that. it had to do with world-wide geopolitics at the time.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

Look you are working under the idea that the Western British press is free and they do not lie.

No, for the last time, Mig, I am not.

I have already explained that to you.

I am operating under the ideas I have already listed to you many times, and they are analytical in nature and not dependent on anything except what we know happened at the time.

There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that the Agentines got through to and attacked the carriers.

A man saying years later, with a quiver in his cvoice, that he did, is not evidence...it is emotional hearsay.

If all we had was hearsay on either side, then you would have to rely on it. But we do not have to rely on hearsay, we can look at what happened and when you do so analytically with no bias, and with no emotional ties, the answerr is absolutely overwhelming.

Sorry, but that is the way it is. To try and pass of a humongous conspiracy theory that the UK press, the UK sailors, the UK civilians, the World Press who was also present at the time, any yard or ship repair workers, and the Argentine government itself somehow all kept quiet about this at the time, and for all these years since (exceopt ofr a few airmen long after the events) is simply ludicrous.

If they attacked, they would have had camera evidence of it and the Argentine government would have immeidately shown it to the world to use it for the very propaganda you are always talking about to influence other nations, and the people of the UK itself to stop supporting the war.

But they never did. The never claimed themselves it happened. It was never reported at the time. It was not just the UK press who were eporting on this conflict...and in America we were hearing from all sides at the time and I listened to every scrap of info I could find.

I've said all about it now I intend to...except if these claims are made again. When they are, I will counter them with this same information...every time, because it not only belittles the UK service people, whether you know it or not, it also belittles the Argeentine service people who fought, were wounded, and died in that war. It does so because it diminishes their credibility and the brave operations and achievements they did make by trying to introduce this fantastic, urban legend, that has absolutely zero evidence and zero credability other than a bunch of induced emotion from emotional hearsay to try and give it credence. Well, sorry, Mig, it has none.

 

[Jeff Head]

Pointblank, Jeff & others have brought up some interesting points that have been argued for years.

1) How did the UK government keep the crew of 1000 and numerous journalist & their relatives and friends silent over this attack? An impossible task if you ask me.

2) If the ship was hit during an attack where and when was it repaired?

3) Is there a casualty list? I'd like to see that.

Just asking.

Popeye, add this big one to the list:

4) why didn;t the Argetine government at the time announce they had gotten thjrought to and attacked the carrier? They would have had combat videos from their aricraft to prove it, and they would have jumped at a chance to discourage UK allies and the UK people from cotniuing the war.

Yet they did not. Why?

Simple answer. They didn't have any. They never got through.

If they had gotten through all four of these issues would have been out in the open...and the press and the sailors aboard all of those ships who fought that battle at sea, and later their families, would have eventually talked about it. Popeye, you know how scuttlebut works and how fast that comm system works in the Navy.

There's nothing on the horn about any of this, and never has been.

 

[SampanViking]

Yes the Argentinians did fire a Exocet straight at Invincible, Elvis was piloting the jet and a flying Sheargar sacrificed himself by intercepting the missile. A second missile was intercepted by a winged sow following close behind.

Why people keep trying to rehash this nonsense, so long after its sell by date, I have no idea. The idea that such an event could be kept secret for so long and all the thousands that would know keep it quiet is disingenuous. Like many others, I saw the ship post Falklands on many occasions and knew enough service families to know when something would be seriously wrong.

This would be the kind of thing you could keep quiet for a few days, possibly weeks, in order to hide a tactical weakness from an enemy during an active operation, but it could not possibly hold together, even with a concerted establishment effort, any longer than that.

Plus why should we? we celebrate our disasters better than out Victories and the loss of Invincible in its Heroic line of duty would line up with the Charge of the Light Brigade, Dunkirk and the Hood, in perfect order.

Nobody loves a good conspiracy theory more than me, but this is not one of them.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

As long as the british deny it will be no evidence, they will not acknowledge it as the Russians say MiG-15 was better than F-86 and not like the US says F-86 shot down 10 MiG-15s.

I ask you where is the evidence?

Yea...whatever. 1st, this discussion is not about the F-86 and Mig-15. It has no bearing whatsoever on it.

2nd, if you have to resort to trying to equate that separate, completely unassociated, 60 year-old F-86 vs Mig-15 disagreement to this claim about the attack on the Invincible as stated by some old Argentine pilots years and years after the fact and who have no evidence or proof of the same...then that just shows how weak (really, how non-existent) your arguement is.

Thanks for helping make my point. There is no evidence of such an attack, other than emotional hearsay, and there never has been any.

Yet you keep ignoring the points that have been made, particularly that Argenitna itself did not claim this...and never has. They would have been the ones with the real, video evidence from that day, and the first to jump all over it for very obvious reasons that I have already explained...and yet they never did.

Case closed.

Never mind the fact of the truly ludicrous notion that all of the world's press (including the UK and Argentine press at the time), all of the sailors on the various vessels who would have witnessed and taken part in such a battle...and their families, all of those who may have been injured and all of the Drs and nurses who cared for them, all of the people who may have repaired whatever damage, and all of the governments who would have had the intelligence have covered this up completely for well over 30 years now.

Simply an impossible notion, Mig-29...and one we have repeated ad-nuasium to you.

And this we are supposed to believe when throughout the fight the Press from all of those countries (including the UK) and the governments did the complete opposite of what you want us to believe they did for the Invincible? Namely that they were completely open about those other dramatic sinkings of major surface combatants by the Argentines...who also trumpeted those attacks and sinkings at the time?

Please, Mig-29, for the love of God, just listen to yourself!

You are letting you emotions and your bias completely cloud your judgement and accept as fact a notion with no evidence for no more a reason than it is simply what you want to believe because you have heard these other Spanish speaking individuals get emotional in their interviews describing something that never happened and that they cannot prove happened, and you simply want to close ranks with them as a Latino.

I have no horse in this race from either such an emotional or bias basis. At the time, two of our allies were fighting. I was interested because I was working on the aircraft that had taken the place of the A-4 in US Navy service, the A-7 Corsair II. I also understood the reason the US government gave logistical and intelligence support o the UK because of the much larger and broader geopolitical situation at the time. And anyone who lived through the cold war and the A-Bomb warnings and exercises would understand the critical nature of that decision. It may not have been "fair," to the Argentines at the time, but, as I say, from a much broader perspective it was very understandable. Argentina losing control of the Falkland Islands was not going to embolden the Soviet Union back then. The UK losing that war very well could have.

Just the same, many people in America liked, and to this day like, Argentina, her people and their nation. We had sold and given a lot of the military equipment they used in that war to them as a result of that relationship. If not for the A-4 aircraft, they would not have faired nearly so well in their attacks against the British.

So, from that perspective and from your comments here, and as one who has had a lot of good discussions with you over the years, I am giving you some advise...you should stop letting your bias and emotion cloud your judgement about something that otherwise is patently and overwhelming obvious to have never occurred.