The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: HMS Invincible?
merman    2/20/2007 3:18:58 PM
Hello everyone!

There's much controversy around what happened that 30 may 1982 during the Falkland War.

Some say the Invincible was not attacked, that it was attacked but not damaged, attacked and damaged, while others go as far as to claim it was ultimately sunk.

The thing is that there is supporting evidence to at least doubt in some way the official british version.

For example, after the war all the Task Force returned to port but the Invincible, which remained at sea for two more months (?). It wasn't seen until august when it docked in the Falklands. It later returned to Portsmouth in mid September but (here another particularity) it looked brand new, instead of battle wary, like HMS Hermes looked upon returning (though it supposedly wasn't damaged during the conflict)

There are a number of theories supporting each point of view, however I'd like to know what do you people think about this matter.

I'll provide links shortly.

Thanks
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
merman    Some photos about this   2/20/2007 4:52:19 PM
There seem to be some differencies between the Invincible that went to war...
Invincible

And the one that came back in 17 September:
Illustrious?

Such as the phalanx system that seems to appear in the photograph
Phalanx?

Also, these pictures here show Hermes and Illustrious meeting in the South Atlantic in June-July. However the British government says Illustrious was in the UK on August.
Hermes and Illustrious
You can see Hermes meeting another carrier in the South Atlantic that should not be there according to the british government.
Illustrious and Hermes

The theory would be that the british government conceals the lose of the Invincible with its sister ship Illustrious until another carrier was built in secret.

I don't know if that is plausible but thats the idea. And believe it or not there are further discrepancies that took place those days that might allow people to think of this theory.

The first british announcement was on June 1 1982, when the Ministry of War announced that the Argentinean Air Force attacked the bulk of the Atlantic Conveyor, not the Invincible, and one of the attackers was shot down. But the attack on the Atlantic Conveyor took place on May 25 and far away from the attack on the 30.

The second british announcement dismissed the last stating that in actuallity the ship attacked was the Avenger and that this ship had downed two attackers with Sea Dart missiles. But this ship was not equipped with this system at that time.

A third version extracted from the book "The Battle for the Falklands" (or so I believe it is translated) by Hastings and Jenkins 1983 states this:
"On may 30 the battle group survived another air attack by Exocet, when the Avenger managed to shoot down the missile with a 4.5 inchs gun, 45 seconds after the alarm". There is no mention of other aircrafts attacking the Avenger.

The fourth version, and the official British version: two A4C were shot down with Sea Dart by HMS Exeter and a 4.5 inch gun from Avenger may have hit another. The Exocet missile could have impacted on the bulk of the Atlantic Conveyor or intercepted by the Avenger's anti-missile system, and the pilots may have mistaken the silhouete of the Atlantic Conveyor with that of the Invincible.

It's all too blurry to understand what happened that day and the english versions don't help much.
I for one, don't know what to believe.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       2/20/2007 5:56:14 PM
HMS Invincible certainly was not sunk, nor was she damaged.
 
Sailors gossip - if she was, word would have got around.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       2/20/2007 6:34:09 PM
The stuff Merman posted is the same boilerplate that gets posted fairly frequently on Argentinian message boards.  I particularly enjoyed the claims that the replacement Invincible was built at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi (where the LHAs and LHDs were built).  Because yeah that would have gone unnoticed.

It is simply not possible for an event of that magnitude to have gone unreported by any of the thousands of personnel and media on board that ship and the surrounding vessels.

As far as photographic evidence, here you go:

illustrious relieving invincible

This is a picture of Illustrious (foreground, Phalanx guns visible) and Invincible (background, no Phalanx).

Illustrious and Invincible could never have been photographed together before the war.  Immediately upon returning to Portsmouth, Invincible underwent a refit which included fitting of Phalanx.  Obviously, this picture could also never have been taken after the refit (or "new construction" as has been claimed).

So, the above photo could only have been taken on 27 or 28 August 82.  Clearly, Invincible is neither sunk nor badly damaged.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    From the stupid question department.   2/20/2007 6:38:06 PM
Didn't the RN immediately start a backfit program of its ships with Phalanx and Goalkeeper, once  the fleet returned from the Falklands? Weren't the Invincibles the first in the que? 

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       2/21/2007 7:37:21 AM

Didn't the RN immediately start a backfit program of its ships with Phalanx and Goalkeeper, once  the fleet returned from the Falklands? Weren't the Invincibles the first in the que? 

Herald

Yes, exactly.  Invincible had Sea Dart launchers but no CIWS of any kind during the Falklands.  As soon as she returned home, she had a refit (from 18 September 1982 to February 1983) during which 2 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx Mk 15 CIWS guns and 2 20 mm GAM-B01 guns were added.  Illustrious was rushed into commision during the war, and two Phalanx guns were actually fitted while she was underway.  Ark Royal was completed with three Phalanx guns, which she still has today.

In later refits, both Invincible and Illustrious had their two Phalanx guns removed and replaced with three Goalkeeper.
 
Quote    Reply

merman    Silly question department 2   2/21/2007 10:41:42 AM
illustrious relieving invincible

This is a picture of Illustrious (foreground, Phalanx guns visible) and Invincible (background, no Phalanx).

Illustrious and Invincible could never have been photographed together before the war.  Immediately upon returning to Portsmouth, Invincible underwent a refit which included fitting of Phalanx.  Obviously, this picture could also never have been taken after the refit (or "new construction" as has been claimed).

So, the above photo could only have been taken on 27 or 28 August 82.  Clearly, Invincible is neither sunk nor badly damaged.
Shouldn't this two ships have the same length?
They don't appear to have the same lenght in this picture. They are fairly close to one another but you can notice quite a difference in lenght there.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       2/21/2007 11:14:28 AM
They do have the same length.  The fish-eye lens used to take the image makes it look as though the two ships are much closer together than they really were.  This is also why Illustrious appears to be bulging toward the camera.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    Another question about photos   2/21/2007 12:00:48 PM
Another thing about the two photos that are often posted to show that Illustrious and Hermes were operating together "when they should not have been"

hermes and illustrious

I do not doubt that the above photo shows Illustrious and Hermes.  However, there is no reason to suppose that this photo was actually taken in the South Atlantic.  Clearly, the two ships' companies are greeting one another, which they would not be doing in a war zone.  Further, Illustrious has one Harrier and one helicopter on deck.  If indeed Illustrious was secretly replacing Invincible, where are all her aircraft?  And why is her crew complement so small?

What I suspect is that this photo shows Hermes on her way back from the South Atlantic meeting Illustrious during her workup.  Illustrious was commissioned underway on 20 June 1982.  Hermes left for Portsmouth on 4 July and arrived on 21 July.  Some of Hermes' aircraft were transferred to 809 Squadron, which then transferred to Illustrious, and Illustrious set sail for the Falklands on 2 August.

There is no reason to suppose that Illustrious, which was on her abbreviated shakedown cruise and awaiting her air wing, could not have encountered Hermes on her way back to Portsmouth.  The two ships were both based in Portsmouth at the time, and both were underway, so they would obviously have to have been in proximity.
 
Quote    Reply

merman    Eyewitness?   2/23/2007 4:54:45 PM

This is interesting: a then 17 year old sailor aboard the HMS Avenger relates as one of his most intense moments of the war the moment his ship (the Avenger) was attacked  by an Exocet and two A4s... on the 25th of may?
Now I understand why even I am puzzled with this... if even this man who was there and lived those days remembers it in this way:
 
He describes the attack executed (supposedly) on the Invincible, but he says:
 
 "I could actually see the missile heading straight for us at about 2 miles. We hit it and destroyed it with a 4.5 shell. Two Argentine Skyhawk A4s then attacked dropping bombs but none of them hit..." Martin Carrol, UK
Martin Carrol
 
So he says the attack was directed on the Avenger on may 25, but that day the Atlantic Conveyor was struck by an Exocet. He is obviously wrong, he is relating the attack of may 30. Ok, just a memory mishap.
 
The thing is that this young man who saw it all relates an attack that doesn't correspond to any of the known versions.

The first british announcement was on June 1 1982, when the Ministry of War announced that the Argentinean Air Force attacked the hull of the Atlantic Conveyor, not the Invincible, and one of the attackers was shot down. But the attack on the Atlantic Conveyor took place on May 25 and far away from the attack of the 30. Martin says the missile was directed at them.

The official British version: two A4C were shot down with Sea Dart by HMS Exeter and a 4.5 inch gun from Avenger may have hit another. The Exocet missile could have impacted on the hull of the Atlantic Conveyor or intercepted by the Avenger's anti-missile system, and the pilots may have mistaken the silhouete of the Atlantic Conveyor with that of the Invincible. Martin remembers the missile heading straight at them, so maybe the silhouete of the Avenger resembles that of the Invincible?
 
How could it be that not even an eyewitness of the attack of may 30 agrees with the official version of the facts. I mean, was the missile heading toward the wreck of the Atlantic Conveyor (attacked 5 days before away from the attack of the 30), or the Avenger? And what were the odds of a 4.5 shell shooting down an Exocet back then?
 
This inconsistencies doesn't mean the Invincible was hit, I know that, but couldn't it be there is something not fitting entirely here?
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       2/24/2007 5:48:15 AM
If the exocet was heading for the wreck of the Atlantic Conveyor, then it must have had some undisclosed sub-surface capability, considering that the Atlantic Conveyor was hit and sunk.

It's entirely possible that a 4.5" shell could hit an Exocet. It may not be particularly probable but that shouldn't rule it out.

I also note that a number of sites espousing this theory suggest that decoys were likewise inffective, citing the atlantic conveyor as an example. Being as the Atlantic Conveyor was not fitted with decoys and was hit because the decoys were successful on other ships, that's not the best reasoning.
 
Quote    Reply

merman       2/24/2007 9:11:04 AM


"If the exocet was heading for the wreck of the Atlantic Conveyor, then it must have had some undisclosed sub-surface capability, considering that the Atlantic Conveyor was hit and sunk."
(Agree!)
"It's entirely possible that a 4.5" shell could hit an Exocet. It may not be particularly probable but that shouldn't rule it out."
(Instead of "not particularly probable" i would say it is quite a fluke hit)

"I also note that a number of sites espousing this theory suggest that decoys were likewise inffective, citing the atlantic conveyor as an example. Being as the Atlantic Conveyor was not fitted with decoys and was hit because the decoys were successful on other ships, that's not the best reasoning."

Flamingknives

However HMS Sheffield was a modern Royal Navy warship, and still... Anyway this sailors recolections do imply decoys didn't work since the missile was heading straight at them. What saved them was a fluke hit from a 4.5'' shell.

But if thats possible - if they managed to hit a sea-skimming missile flying at around 3 meters above the waves at a speed of mach 0.9 - with that kind of targetting skill they should have downed all 4 A4s.

It's quite unbelievable though!

Besides the Argenitne pilots proved quite proficient at what they were doing. The A4 pilots made a positive ID with their own eyes, and I doubt they could take a type 21 frigate for Invincible.

They also observed smoke coming out of it (black smoke not white curtain smoke). But if we are not going to believe the pilots (which is silly because they don't have the need to lie now) then why didn't Vinci came back right after the war, like the rest of the Task Force? Why remain two months more before arriving at Port Stanley?

It is not at all improbable that Invincible was damaged by an Exocet - though not particularly bad - and had to undertake repairs before coming back two months later. Then the brits decided there was no point in telling anybody about it.

But thats what i believe, there is of course no hard proof of it, aside from the Argentine pilots.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       2/24/2007 9:26:41 AM
Fluke hits happen.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       2/24/2007 9:28:16 AM
Well, there are all sorts of eyewitness accounts.  Here is the Falklands diary of a sailor on the HMS Yarmouth.

His version of the events on the day Invincible was supposedly damaged:

30th May
1040 Action stations
1200 GLAMORGAN used Sea Slug in NGS mode on Port Stanley airfield
1511 Air red contacts to the North West Friendly
1512 Air yellow
1625 Air red
1643 Explosion heard ashore (old ammo)
1710 Air yellow
2108 Fall out

1 Harrier lost to AA fire

Group came under Exocet attack, two fired non hit, two A4’s splashed. AVENGER shoots down an Exocet. The 2 A4’s were from Grupo 4 pilots Lieutenant Vasquez and Lieutenant Castill both killed EXETERS Sea Dart.

His later entries make no mention at all of Invincible being damaged, but do mention Invincible being in the battle group.  He also mentions it sailed north for a time to do maintenance in mid June.

Anyway, all of this stuff is just wishful thinking on the part of Argentine supporters.  You have the accounts of two pilots versus the recollections of thousands of British sailors and press, and no evidence whatsoever to support that Invincible was damaged by enemy fire.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       2/24/2007 10:24:19 AM
When Sheffield was hit by Exocet, her countermeasure gear was not switched on, as the sat-phone was in use.  Had the countermeasures had been on, the missile may well have missed.  I don't see any evidence in the Falklands conflict pointing towards the counter-measures not working.

As for the 4.5 inch gun splashing an Exocet - it sounds very reasonable to me, and I have heard it said before that a 4.5 inch shell destroyed an Exocet during the Falklands.  The 4.5 inch gun is a duel purpose weapon, and is radar guided.  I don't know, but can only assume that in the AAA role it uses air-burst shells.  In which case, I don't see why an escorts gun should not be considered a capable CIWS - especially against non-maneuving targets such as Exocet where their flight path can be predicted by computer.

Lastly - Sailors GOSSIP.  Even if there was a decision by the British government not to mention that Invincible was damaged (why on Earth would there be?), word would have got out.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer       2/24/2007 10:41:58 AM
Just from an interested observer, but, Yimmy makes a very good point.  If the Invincible had been hit or sunk don't you think at least one of the thousands of RN sailors would have said something about it over a beer at the local.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy