Malvinas War in 1982

Hi friends
I need help to find information about HMS Invincible and their sisters ships Illustrious and Ark Royal in 1982.
Here in Argentina newspapers say that Russia (former URSS) give satellital information about HMS Invincible to carry out the successful attack in May 30 of 1982.

there are books or sources of information where you can view these photos?

There are books about HMS Invincible class to download?

Thanks

Here I share photos on the laid up the R05 HMS Invincible.
As much as I try a long time I could not get the same from HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal


Enjoy and comment

Argentina arrested several Soviet vessels in Falkland waters during the blockade. CCCP were no friend of the junta and we never offered them weapons unless they withdrew support for American occupation of Central America, which they never did. No mention of our intelligence revealing UK ship positions was ever recorded, nor was it likely to happen.

Thank you for confirming my opinion
It is highly unlikely that CCCP help Argentina being the military junta in charge.
But here many newspapers took that information from Spanish newspapers.
100% of the intelligence information that allowed the attack came from Nestro own armed forces.
The raiding party consisted of two Navy Super Etendard Argentina and 4 A-4 Skyhank Air Force. Of these, only two survived the attack.
HMS Invincible was hit according to the testimony of the two pilots who returned.
From that moment, the ship happened to the mystery as the other two in the same class. Latest in 1985 can get accurate data.
UK tried to hide the fact, both would have the effect on the morale of the troops, and the fact that the ship was carrying large number of nuclear warheads.

here some photos of attack

HMS Invincible was confused for the Atlantic Conveyor. None of the RN's carriers were hit.

The possible confusion between the Atlantic Conveyor and HMS Invincible is one of the many versions that UK use to hide the attack.

First:
At first glance you can see they are very different vessels.
.
VM Atlantic Conveyor

.
HMS Invincible

.
.
the two A-4 pilots survived the attack on the HMS Invincible in May 30, describing the presence of two towers, radars and shape of the isle of the ship so it is impossible to confuse.

Second:
The Atlantic Coveyor was attacked and hit on May 25 (5 days before) for only two Naval Aviation Super Etendard identified 3-A-203 and SUE 3-A-204.

See this photos
SUE 3-A-203

SUE 3-A-204


.
.
The Atlantic Conveyor was sunk  finally on May 26 as they refer themselves as English sources.
see here
http://www.naval-history.net/F47opsweek9.htm
.



.
On the same day, May 25(our national day) were attacked and damaged the following ships:
D-42 Coventry
(sunk, second Type D-42 destroyer in 20 days! Sister ship of HMS Sheffield)
.



F-21 Broadsword

HMS Fearless

F-21 Avenger

This map show the SUE + Exocet missions day by day





Third:
the two Super Etendard who participated in the mission of HMS Invincible
were:
SUE 3-A-202
Cpt. cvt. Alejandro Francisco
SUE 3-A-205
Lt. Nv. Luis Collavino
members of the ALA squad
as you can see from the photo previous post

Question still remains... where is the evidence HMS Invincible was hit? Everything that is attributed to that attack is what happened to the AC. Clearly the Invincible wasn't sunk as the pilots claimed and it came back to port with no noticeable damage.

I remember at the time of the war reports that the Soviets put up extra satellites to monitor British tactics during that conflict.
The reports of the time stated that there was little chance that data was supplied to either side in the conflict... the British or the Argentine forces.

BTW a hit on the British aircraft carrier during the conflict would have been catastrophic to their attempts to take the islands.
Without the sea harriers the generally poor air defences of the British ships would have led to much worse losses.
Of the CIWS the British ships actually had the Sea Wolf was having some problems with its software and of the other SAM systems, the Sea Slug was totally obsolete against missiles and the Sea cat was largely ineffectual against missiles, while the Sea Dart was not intended to engage low flying targets and I believe was in service in the Argentine Navy so its engagement envelope would be known.
The added problem was that most of the support and transport vessels were civilian and had no soft defences like ECCM nor were they constructed to take battle damage etc.
This meant that successfully jammed and spoofed anti ship missiles might miss a British destroyer and go on to hit one of their transport ships instead, which had no such protection.
It is quite a contrast to look at British and Soviet boats of the period, with the Soviet vessels covered in short range missiles and gatling guns, while the British vessels lacking the same. However after the war even the Soviet boats had heavy calibre machine guns added to add to the close in firepower of the vessels.

Interesting photos by the way, of a largely forgotten war.

As I said, I am researching
There are many, very many,but not say too many things that do not match in the official British history.
As proof I could upload this picture
.
.
Invincible burning photo

.
.
.
The same was supplied from outside to various news agencies, a few days after the attack.
In Argentina, this picture was not known and many took it as an example of the attack.
.
However, through my research succeed in securing this other photo.
.
.
.
Original picture
.
.

.
23 years later.
It was not a public photo, not on the site of the Royal Navy or honor pages
.

It's got in an British Forum,
where after debating for a while, decided to close the thread without justifiable cause.

The English forist indicated that the photo of the HMS Invincible in flames, was a response from the British secret services to discredit the position Argentina of the ship sinking.
Because of the secrecy imposed on the subject by the British government could only tell me that does not completely distrust the stories of pilots A-4 survivors of the attack.
.
.
.
My research finds new evidence every day about that reality differs from the published story.
I want to get to the truth, not military retaliation, but to honor the men who gave their lives on both sides of the war.
.
.

I could have told you that was fake just by looking at the deck. You wouldn't leave jets next to a burning fire. Trying to prove such a thing is desperation, it never happened. British wouldn't publish a photo with the word Invencible on it. That is the Spanish spelling of it.

as I said before
Some Argentine media took the picture as proof...
NOT ME
.
the photo was published with the flames on the cover of a magazine in Argentina, so you can read the Spanish text

Dear Vladimir:
who know information about why the HMS Illustroius sail to Falkland urgently in June 20 of 1982?

I remember that the surrender of the garrison Argentina took place on June 14 (six days before)

Any government is happy to lie to its own people let alone the rest of the world if it is in their interests, but I think the loss of a carrier would not be possible to conceal for long if at all.

1982 was before photoshop trickery, but photos have been manipulated for as long as there have been photos.

Photos are worth 1,000 words but what is the worth of a lie that takes 1,000 words to tell?

I rather doubt the British government could have kept such a loss hidden, they didn't seem to attempt to hide the loss of other vessels in that conflict.

Regarding the sending of the HMS Illustrious I would suspect they would want to get some land based aircraft down there as quickly as possible to try to defend the island and also to relieve the forces already there so they could come home.

I suspect the Argentine media would have more reason to claim extra kills than the British government would have reason to conceal the damage of such an important ship. I would assume such damage would not demoralise the British people, but make them more likely to want to see the job done.
The Argentine media probably just want to sell newspapers.

GarryB wrote:

Photos are worth 1,000 words but what is the worth of a lie that takes 1,000 words to tell?

When it comes to China, photos aren't worth 1 word. I am at the point where I have to see a video, and then scrutinise it closely.

In wars, the first casualty is the truth.
It is the only rule is confirmed in all conflicts, all that does not change.
.
.
In 1943 HMS Dasher sank with 350 sailors into the sea, nothing was heard of it until the issue was discovered in the 80´s
UK also lies with the amount of casualties in Malvinas, but I am no expert on that topic.
.
.
Why send the HMS Illustrious (R06)???
our air power was decimated and no Argentinian radar in Malvinass was suicidal any attempt to reach the islands.
.
.
Why risk this with a ship delivered emergency?
.



.
.
.
As of that date was already available safer alternatives and immediate
.
From May 21 from the task Force had the runway in San Carlos,
.
.



.
.
Puerto Argentino (Stanley) airport, that despite the bombing remained operational throughout the conflict,
.






.
.
None of these could be sunk or attacked by submarines.
.
.
addition to the carriers, most ships had the ability to operate the Sea Harrier / Harrier due to its characteristic V / STOL.
Sorry but the list is long.
I do not include Sir Tristan and Sir Galahand because they were left out of action before the attack on HMS Invincible
.
.
RFA Stena Spread



.
.
RFA The Anchorage

.
.
RFA Fort Austin

.
.
RFA Sir Lancelot

.
.
Baltic Ferry


.
.
Europic Ferry

.
.
Sir Bedivere

.
.
Sir Geraint

.
.
RFA Elk

.
.
RFA Argus



.
.
RFA Reliant

.
this can clearly see the flight deck and the hangar
.

.
.
RFA Resource

.
.
CS Iris
.
INCREDIBLE!! more than 800 helicopter transport operations with only 3900 tons displacement!
.

.
.
.
and several more ships that were able to receive aircraft or helicopters as seen in this photo of the departure from Ascension and in the Strait of San Carlos
.
.



.
an link for more details
.
http://www.rfa.graphical.freeuk.com/misc.html
.
.
.
.
My respects and honors the pilots who attacked in the Strait of San Carlos and condolences to the large number of injuries and deaths in ships Tristan and Galahand
.
.
Sir Galahad



.
.
Sir tristan



.
.
However, possibly the HMS Illustrious (R06) arrived in late July to Malvinas ....

.
see more at
http://www.omnipelagos.com/entry?n=british_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War
.
.
(Or not?? While I continue to investigate)
.
.
.

Vladimir79 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Photos are worth 1,000 words but what is the worth of a lie that takes 1,000 words to tell?

When it comes to China, photos aren't worth 1 word. I am at the point where I have to see a video, and then scrutinise it closely.

Sorry if the pictures are boring ....
if you want videos, you can search on YouTube.
.
I do not need a video of my parents making love to know that I am his son.
Our life, as the life of a ship is not a single moment, is not a few days.
.
It's all life, from birth to death.
.
.
.

Needless to say, I see no evidence that it was hit much less sunk. You will be hard pressed to find any since it didn't happen.

GarryB wrote:Any government is happy to lie to its own people let alone the rest of the world if it is in their interests, but I think the loss of a carrier would not be possible to conceal for long if at all.

1982 was before photoshop trickery, but photos have been manipulated for as long as there have been photos.

Photos are worth 1,000 words but what is the worth of a lie that takes 1,000 words to tell?

I rather doubt the British government could have kept such a loss hidden, they didn't seem to attempt to hide the loss of other vessels in that conflict.

Regarding the sending of the HMS Illustrious I would suspect they would want to get some land based aircraft down there as quickly as possible to try to defend the island and also to relieve the forces already there so they could come home.

I suspect the Argentine media would have more reason to claim extra kills than the British government would have reason to conceal the damage of such an important ship. I would assume such damage would not demoralise the British people, but make them more likely to want to see the job done.
The Argentine media probably just want to sell newspapers.

Accepting the theory of the arrival of HMS Illustrious (R06) at the end of July,...
what happened to the HMS Invincible (R05) because returned to the UK in September 17 of 1982,
three months later than the end of the war?
where they were?
what they did all that time?
Because it imposes a strict secret until the year 2075?
Because there are four different versions of the British government about the attack on the HMS Invincible?
.
these are just some questions that have no satisfactory answer and why continued my search.
.
.
I agree with your analysis of the Argentine media, still suffer because of misinformation or selfish interests corruption.

soltec wrote:Dear Vladimir:
who know information about why the HMS Illustroius sail to Falkland urgently in June 20 of 1982?

I remember that the surrender of the garrison Argentina took place on June 14 (six days before)

I'm still waiting for your reply.
I hope you have more information than our friend Garry.
As stated above, is found not to need the urgent dispatch of an twin-aircraft carrier to Malvinas.
.
.
Tell me your reason why it would send quickly.
.
.
.
.

soltec wrote:
Accepting the theory of the arrival of HMS Illustrious (R06) at the end of July,...
what happened to the HMS Invincible (R05) because returned to the UK in September 17 of 1982,
three months later than the end of the war?
where they were?
what they did all that time?

Illustrious relieved Invincible on August 27th. R05 was on station off the Falklands to keep watch if the Argentinians attacked. It is no secret where it was.

UK tried to hide the fact, both would have the effect on the morale of the troops, and the fact that the ship was carrying large number of nuclear warheads.

If the UK could actually conceal the fact that its carrier was hit and sunk why didn't it claim there were no ship losses at all during the war? If it is for morale then I would think admitting the Sheffield and several other vessels being sunk while effectively covering up the sinking of another more important vessel is strange behaviour.

the two A-4 pilots survived the attack on the HMS Invincible in May 30, describing the presence of two towers, radars and shape of the isle of the ship so it is impossible to confuse.

Impossible? Impossible like a super advanced AEGIS class cruiser mistaking a climbing airbus for a descending F-14? Impossible like a hunter going out hunting deer and ending up shooting his mate because he was looking for deer and when he saw movement and heard movement he was sure he also saw a deer.
No disrespect to the pilots but when you are searching for something in a period of stress you see features you are looking for and dismiss or create features you can't see.

who know information about why the HMS Illustroius sail to Falkland urgently in June 20 of 1982?

If the Invincible was really sunk the British task force would have no airpower, I would think they would have sent a replacement carrier much earlier than 6 days after the conflict ended.

When it comes to China, photos aren't worth 1 word. I am at the point where I have to see a video, and then scrutinise it closely.

Same with me with regard to the latest weapon from Iran...

Why send the HMS Illustrious (R06)???
our air power was decimated and no Argentinian radar in Malvinass was suicidal any attempt to reach the islands.

Why wouldn't you send replacements? The crew and pilots on the Invincible will have been under serious stress and a high workload for a month, why not send down replacements so they can go home?
BTW with the extra satellites I doubt the Soviets would have missed a carrier sinking and why would they keep quiet about it?

From May 21 from the task Force had the runway in San Carlos,

Having a runway is one thing. Having aircraft and control setups in place is another.

addition to the carriers, most ships had the ability to operate the Sea Harrier / Harrier due to its characteristic V / STOL.

A harrier is not a helicopter and a helicopter is not a harrier. Ships with helos are not the same as ships with harriers. A ship with a helo carries equipment, fuel and weapons for that helo. To replace the helo with a Harrier would require a rather significant change to the ship and a complete change in the ships role.

Sorry if the pictures are boring ....
if you want videos, you can search on YouTube.

The pictures are not boring, but slow to load for me because at the moment I am reduced to dialup speed.
The one photo I want to see is the photo of the burning ship which will not load for me. The others are off topic, but interesting.

The photo of the HMS Invincible burning has just loaded for me, and I must say I am not convinced.
I would want stronger evidence than this of an attack.
I don't doubt they wanted to attack it.
I could accept they tried to attack it.
But this photo is not evidence of anything at all.
Not enough to base a conspirasy theory on in my opinion.

Dear Friends:
do not worry;
.

.
professional work took me a long time this week but I am preparing my response.
certainly would be nice accompanying photos or sources of their answers or theories

Dear Comrade Vladimir
Even in the hope that supply its data to support his assertion, I propose the following:

1 - Positions on the isles.



After the June 14, before the ceasefire, the British possessed sufficient infrastructure to coordinate the flights of other Harriers and Sea Harriers.
a) Borbón island airfield (ex COAN Calderón)
b) RN airfield at San Carlos Bay
c) Air base in Goose Green (ex BAM Condor)
d) Port Stanley Airport (ex BAM Malvinas)*


*June 24 began to extend the airport runway and in August and could operate the F-4 Phantom coming from Ascension

In the latter two facilities, were fully operational even after the war.

In the BAM Condor had 11 guns of 20 mm AAA system and TIGERCAT missile laucher coordinated by a Westinghouse radar and two fire control radar ranges.
also a significant amount of portable SA-7 missiles of Soviet origin.

In BAM Malvinas systems consisted of nine 20mm guns, four 35mm and one launcher Roland missile AA

a mute witness to the effectiveness of our systems AAA



2 - Naval Support
The following ships had the ability to operate helicopters in its natural form, but due to capacity V / STOL of harriers could do it.
Even "Atlantic Causeway" and "Contender bezantes (RFA Argus) were true aircraft carrier vessels.

"Bristol" "Active" "Alacrity" "Ambuscade" "Arrow" "Avenger" "Yarmouth" Wasp Helicopter
"Cardiff" "Exeter" "Andromeda" "Minerva" "Penelope" Lynx helicopter
"Brilliant" "Broadsword" 2xLynx helicopters
"Hecla", "Herald" and "Hydra" Wasp Helicopter
"Regent", "Resource" Wessex
"Fort Austin", "Fort Grange" Wessex/Sea Kings
"Stromness" Fligth deck
"Olmeda", "Olna" Sea Kings/Wessex
"Tidepool", "Tidespring" Wessex
"Blue Rover" Fligth deck
"Sir Bedivere" Fligth deck
"Engadine" (Helicopter support ship) Fligth deck
"CS Iris" (more that 800 helicopter missions) Fligth deck

capacity for more than a helicopter
"Canberra" "Norland""Baltic Ferry""Nordic Ferry""Queen Elizabeth 2""St. Edmund"


3 - Argentine Aviation Status
The ceasefire came at the time that the Argentine forces were required to its maximum capacity.
Think for a moment stand still taking in the Falklands and domain radar at low altitudes due to the AAA's own defenses, aviation Argentina suffered serious damage.
The few remaining operational aircraft and Exocet missiles possessed no further to justify an operation as complicated as the fleet or attacking ground targets again.
For that still would have to violate their own ceasefire orders.
On the way he would find a frigate or destroyer Early warning, CAP Harriers avoid the area, fully functioning AA settings.
AAA overflight facilities and pass them, throwing their bombs and return to the continent with the últiima drop of fuel.
Simply have been a suicide. Military, psychologically and politically.
.
4 - Conclusion
.
Why send a new carrier with a matter of urgency if the defense of the island was secured in multiple ways?
.
.
Relieve the HMS Invincible??
Although the HMS Illustrious came out on June 20 in the UK there is a black hole between the date of departure and arrival more than three months later to England.
To stay that long at sea?
.
.

Withholds information that only a few ships and others may be due to multiple factors.
Do not forget that in the HMS Invincible carrying the royal household member and also a number of atomic weapons as can be seen in the attached file that demonstrate the value of covering military and psychological attack.
.
.
Archive for the nuclear charge distribution in the Task Force in 1982
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4625B8A4-C533-4DAD-9FA5-0BFEE58F8D69/0/op_corporate1982_nuclear_weapons.pdf
.
.

I found these photos which can be significant.
For example in this:
.


.
Source: Aircraft Illustrated Vol 15 N ° 10-1982
.
It indicates that the HMS Illustrious leaves for Falklands to replace the HMS Hermes, NOT THE HMS INVINCIBLE.
This is logical given that Hermes is the leading ship of the fleet and according to the PDF of nuclear weapons would be carrying 40% of all nuclear weapons.
.
Here are some pictures of him.




source: malvinense.com.ar
.
.
The third is about a change of turbines.
In this case it is the HMS Southampton
.

.
Source: air-defense.net
.
As you can see a ship is less than the HMS Invincible, the change is made in port, in a quiet place, not in fear of an attack and I think much less, with atomic charges on board.
.
.
.
anyone has pictures of the return of HMS Illustrious?
.
.