El Ataque al Portaaviones HMS Invencible

TurcoRufa

Colaborador
Colaborador
Muchachos miren lo que encontré:

I was 17 when I went to the Malvinas on HMS Avenger. We saw lots of action but the one that stands out the most was an Excocet attack on our ship 25th May.

I could actually see the missile heading straight for us at about two 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.

One pilot was so low the plane hit a wave and it just catapulted it and it exploded.
Martin Carroll, UK

I was serving on board HMS Hermes at the time and I remember seeing HMS Sheffield burning on the horizon.

It was a horrific sight and it drove home to me personally that this was for real - it scared me!

We picked up survivors from Sheffield and one of them was my class leader in HMS Pembroke. I will never forget seeing him standing the sick-bay queue. I said hello, but he did not recognise me. He had a big gash in his head.
Mike Tracey, UK

Lo saque de la pag de la BBC (la cerré pero ya busca la fuente asi queda claro).

Saludos.-

EDIT: Fuente:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/low/witness/april/24/newsid_2947000/2947639.stm
 

TurcoRufa

Colaborador
Colaborador
The next extract is from The Malvinas War - The Full Story by The Sunday Times Insight Team. ISBN: 0-7221-8282-1.

This extract covers the follow-up attack on ‘HMS Invincible’ Sunday May 29.

Pages 207 to 208.

(...)

The idea was that two Entendards, with their inertial navigation systems, would lead the Skyhawks to the target area, find the Invincible, and fire the last remaining Exocet. The Skyhawks would then follow the smoke trail of the missile and deliver the coup de grace with their bombs. And that is what happened - or almost ( ;) ).

The Entendards found a large blip on their radars, which they took to be Invincible, and one of them fired the last Exocet.

The Skyhawks followed it in. The missile got there first because it was faster. On the radio, the leader of the formation, Lieutenant Jose Daniel Vasquez said as follows: ‘I am seeing it. It is an aircraft carrier. There are flames and allot of smoke. The missile hit it squarely. Now I am going towards it in the trail left by the rocket. Now…bombs away…Attention, number two. Confirm the damage. I am turning away to the right.’ Before he could say any more, Vasquez was shot down and so was the Skyhawk; the other two fled. (Comentario propio: de donde sacaron el relato ese??)

That evening in Buenos Aires confident rumour - as opposed to wild press speculation - had it that Invincible really had been put out of action.

The rumour, and Colombo, were wrong. Argentina has just wasted her last Exocet on hulk of Atlantic Conveyor, the ship he had already killed. That evening, London time, the MoD quietly announced that the huge lady had ‘sunk’.

Fuente:
http://www.Malvinas-malvinas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3249

PD: Disculpen que no lo tradusca, pero quería dejarlo tal cual ya que es un tema que lo vienen tratando muy bien y no quiero que por una mala traducción arruinar este tema.

Saludos.-
 

2-P-111

Colaborador
Turco, gracias por el texto. Buen hallazgo, pero no le creo :D

Son los ases de la desinformación, nunca olviden eso. Estos tipos convencieron a Hitler de que el desembarco de Normandía era de diversión

El primer relato tiene una imperfección (la fecha). Si hay algo que genera dudas, entonces todo genera dudas en un texto.
 

TurcoRufa

Colaborador
Colaborador
Tano aca te dejo "The Official Combat Report for this day." del día "30 May 82" del HMS Hermes! ;)

http://www.raf.mod.uk/Malvinas/cr3005.html

Aunque no dice mucho (mejor dicho nada) sobre los movimientos del buque en si, habla de las misiones de los aviones y te "puede" llegar a servir para sacar conclusiones...

Saludos.-
 

2-P-111

Colaborador
Gracias, Turco en serio. Espero que mis palabras no te hagan pensar que tengo una diferencia con vos. A vos te creo, a los ingleses no. :D:D:D
 

TurcoRufa

Colaborador
Colaborador
Y por último, ya se que los canse:

Here is the Malvinas 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 Puerto Argentino 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.

Fuente:
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/9-2911.aspx

Saludos.-
 

TurcoRufa

Colaborador
Colaborador
2-P-111 No te hagas drama, yo tampoco creo en esa versión, pero para que te crean "tu" versión tenés que primero aprender a respetar las otras versiones y lograr sacar un conclusión verdadera! ;)

Un abrazo!
 
Si bien no es del Invencible, da una idea de las diferentes versiones, aún oficiales de los ataques de la 2°. Pego el link porque esta en PDF.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6E43...heffieldboi_sequenceofevents_exocetattack.pdf

Y vean esto por favor:
Officers aboard the aircraft carrier Invincible failed to alert other British warships about the first Exocet missile attack during the Malvinas conflict although they had 19 minutes warning, it was revealed yesterday.
One missile - fired from an Argentine plane first spotted on radar 180 miles away - hit the destroyer HMS Sheffield, killing 20 men and wounding 24. The Ministry of Defence confirmed yesterday that a series of sightings on HMS Invincible were dismissed by senior officers as "spurious" and that no warning was passed to other ships in the Malvinas task force.

HMS Sheffield, only on half-alert and with its own radar not fully operational, got little more than a minute's warning. The attack caused the first mass British casualties of the south Atlantic war in 1982.

Yesterday a former radar operator on the carrier, David Forster, 37, said the officer who decided not to warn the fleet should "admit and explain" his decision: "I want him to apologise."

He said the officer, in the Invincible electronic operations room, dismissed sightings by him and other operators by accusing them of "chasing rabbits". Mr Forster added that he personally felt he had "let 20 men die" by failing to insist that other ships were alerted. "This has been on my mind for the last 18 years.

"I should have stood up and shouted, 'There's something coming in, believe me - alert the fleet.' I'll always punish myself in my conscience for the death of those men. The Sheffield was a sitting duck. It never had a chance to change course, fire its chaff [anti-radar foil] or even its missiles. Remorse and sadness lie heavy on my heart."

The MoD ruled out an inquiry into the conduct of the officer responsible, whose identity has not yet been officially confirmed. "No doubt the officer will still be thinking 'if only'," a spokesman said.

Remorse


"I don't think that blame is the word, given the set of circumstances. But that does not relieve him of a sense of personal and professional regret."

Last night Des Keoghane, organiser of the Malvinas Families Association, said, "I have spoken to a parent of one of the Sheffield dead. He has not heard of this before - and neither have I."

Invincible's then captain, Admiral Sir Jeremy Black, who rose to be home fleet commander-in-chief and an aide de camp to the Queen before retiring from the navy in 1992, declined to comment.

The MoD confirmed the incident, on May 4, 1982, after a Guardian investigation into separate accounts from two ex-able seaman radar operators on the Invincible. The operators, now civilians, have not previously disclosed what happened

Inquiries established that the incident was confirmed soon afterwards in the Malvinas Deployment Book, a souvenir volume of recollections of Invincible's role in the south Atlantic written by officers. Circulated only to crew members in January 1983, six months after the liberation of the Malvinas, it says the radar sightings were classified as "spurious".

A Royal Navy Sea Harrier fighter was asked to check with its airborne radar "but could find nothing", the deployment book says. The Exocet hit the Sheffield 19 minutes after the first sighting by Invincible, according to its timetable of sightings.

This crucial series of radar traces was not known to the eminent historian David Brown, formerly of the Royal Navy historical branch, when he wrote what the navy regards as the nearest thing to an official history of the conflict at sea.

Mr Brown's book, The Royal Navy and the Malvinas War, says that before the attack "there were no bogeys [unidentified aircraft assumed to be hostile] on any of the radar screens".

Mr Brown notes that in previous days a series of radar false alarms had led to British warships being put on full action stations. His history says the Sheffield was first warned by another destroyer when the two Argentine Super Etendard attack planes - with top flying speeds of 733mph - were only 25 miles away. Her own radar was jammed because officers were making a satellite phone call to fleet headquarters in Northwood, London. They ended the call and spotted the Etendards on their radar 20 miles away.

False alarms


The planes fired Exocets from 12 miles away. One of them locked on to the Sheffield. It had "little more than a minute's flying time to reach the Sheffield", Mr Brown says. The only warning given to the crew was a Tannoyed shout: "Missile attack - hit the deck".

At the time of the attack the Sheffield's unlucky crew was "only in second degree readiness rather than at full action stations", according to another history of the naval conflict. This was "in order to give the crew a short respite. Electromagnetic interference from [the satellite phone] blanketed her detection gear". The Exocet did not explode, but its friction caused a fuel explosion which swept the destroyer with flames and poisonous smoke.

David Forster, who now lives in Victoria, Australia, said: "In the task force we perfected a drill called Red Alpha which closes a ship down into full action stations and battle readiness in four minutes.

"Men are at their radar displays or manning their guns. Most are at their fire-fighting stations. You could defend yourself against any attack. You could dodge and weave, turning at the last moment to confuse an attacking missile.

"I could have given those men on the Sheffield more than four times four minutes if only I'd stood up and said 'Alert the fleet' after getting those contacts on my screen. I had the time to do it. I should have been strong enough to break the chain of command, even if it meant getting my arse kicked.

"I have carried the shame of that day with me and will do until I die."

The man sitting next to him in Invincible's ops room, Mark Booth, 37, son of a Royal Navy signals operator and now a professional golfer who lives in Buckingham, said his memory fully confirmed Mr Forster's account of the radar contacts.

"They were absolutely crystal clear contacts. I was adamant that they were true contacts. I would have bet my house on them.

Hostile aircraft


"After we reported them, they went on to a universal screen in the ops room with the symbol HA for hostile aircraft, the number of the contact and a line plotting the aircrafts' approach to the task force. A lot of people had that on their screens."

But he did not recall any remark by an officer about "chasing rabbits" and disagreed with Mr Forster on the issue of guilt. "We did exactly what we trained for in reporting the contacts. It was for other people in the ops room to act on that information. It is every ship's job to make the rest of the fleet aware of such things.

"Invincible was closer to those contacts and smaller ships don't have the same radar. Any responsibility is on other people's shoulders, not David's. If he had made a fuss in the ops room, he would simply have been treated as hysterical. I feel no guilt at all and David should not. Although we were only 19 at the time, we were very, well trained. We were very good at our jobs. We had the fast reactions that young people often have on electronic matters."

The MoD spokesman said: "David Forster must not blame himself. The buck stops somewhere. Someone else had to make that decision." The Sheffield incident was the Royal Navy's first encounter with low-flying, Exocet-carrying attack planes. Many positive lessons had been learned from it, especially in warship design.

The destroyer's fire-gutted hulk finally sank six days after the attack. This Argentine success - coming only two days after the British sinking of the cruiser General Belgrano, with more than 300 Argentine deaths - doomed diplomatic negotiations and established the Malvinas conflict inescapably as a shooting war.

In May 1983, the next of kin of the Sheffield dead were taken by helicopter to the place where she sank so they could cast wreaths into the sea.


David Forster's story

"As I was the long-distance air surveyor, I operated 1022 radar which covered 258 miles down to 18 miles radius from the ship. I was sitting at my display when a contact appeared at 180 miles. So I waited for the next sweep - and there it was again. I logged it into the computer and reported it as I'd done so many times before.

But this time [an officer] said there was nothing there. The next sweep of my radar came and there it was, now at 160 miles. I reported it again. But the same thing happened. Precious time was passing us by, we did not alert the fleet. We did nothing.

The next sweep of my radar, it was at 130 miles, so I reported it again. This time [the officer] became annoyed and told me 'You're chasing rabbits'. My mate now reported a contact at 120 miles and closing. I changed my display down to watch it closer. The contact was now at 80 miles and closing.

The radar swept again but this time there were two contacts. The second contact was only on our display for two sweeps when it disappeared under radar coverage. This indicated that we were dealing with an Exocet missile designed to skim above the waves. My mate and I reported the double contact and the fact that one had suddenly disappeared. [An officer] told us that we were 'riding a bike'.

Slowly the machines in the ops room began ticking away with the information that Sheffield had been hit. We were shocked with disbelief. An officer came up to us and began handing round sweets.

I should have stood up and shouted, 'There is a fucking contact, there's something coming in, believe me - alert the fleet'. I'll always punish myself in my conscience for not having done that. But you're trained to obey the chain of command regardless. It had been drummed into me."

Mark Booth's story

"I was sitting next to David. We were literally shoulder to shoulder. I knew him very well at the time. He was a very good radar operator.

He nudged me when the first contact came in. We already knew from a contact in Chile that the Argentinian aircraft had launched, so we were expecting something.

David was the very first person to see them. I saw them as clearly as he did. It is quite a disturbing thing to see an enemy aircraft approaching your ship. He was very nervous and could not speak, so I transmitted his message to the air picture supervisor. We definitely said that they were clear contacts.

What he says about the other contacts is correct. The screen giving the identification goes on to everybody's screen in the ops room. There was nothing more David could have done at all."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/sep/26/Malvinas.world

Saludos.
 

Juanma

Colaborador
Colaborador
Aclaremos que cualquier version que dice que se ataco al AC ya es mentira porque los informes verdaderos ya se conocen y el AC ya estaba hundido.

Entonces, porque se mintio?
Se que una pregunta asi puede generar mas dudas, pero a muchos nos lleva a sacarnos las dudas en realidad.
 
Muchachos un sea dart tiene 22 kg de alto explosivo, algo igual o mayor al tnt, es de fragmentacion, tiene espoleta de proximidad, se supone que los aviones iban pegados, si ivan a menos de 10 m, el sea dart mata a 3 seguro creo yo.
 

2-P-111

Colaborador
Excelente Dundia, muchas gracias.

Pregunta: ¿Cómo hicieron para detectar a los SUE a 180 millas y no detectar al Neptune mucho más cerca, mucho más grande y que además emitió? Realmente me quitan el sueño estas cosas.

pereke, creo que volaban más distanciados
 

tanoarg

Miembro del Staff
Moderador
"supuestamente"...recalco..."supuestamente"... el radar que detectaron fue de un cyrano, en vez de un agave (en verdad, supuestamente se confundieron y por eso desestimaron amenaza...otro "JUSTO" en la historia militar inglesa)... en tanto que el neptune, despues de su primer barrido, mantuvo contacto por mae...no necesariamente, el mae del buque, debe "captar" todas las ondas...
un abrazo
 
Tano, el tema es que en el artículo relata el operador del radar 1022 de largo alcance del Invencible que rastrearon un avión que catalogó como enemigo desde 180 millas hasta las 80 millas y los jefes descartaron constantemente ese contacto como falso a pesar de sus alarmas. A partir de allí durante dos barridas vió dos contactos y luego el segundo se perdió, de lo que también informó. El ahora expone que indudablemente ese segundo contacto era un exocet saliendo del avión porque al perderse indicaba que era un "rozaolas".
Lo interesante es que ademas de lo expuesto, el compañero que estaba al lado viendo todo relató "... He nudged me when the first contact came in. We already knew from a contact in Chile that the Argentinian aircraft had launched, so we were expecting something...".
Que rápido llegaba la información no? :yonofui:
Un abrazo.
 

2-P-111

Colaborador
"supuestamente"...recalco..."supuestamente"... el radar que detectaron fue de un cyrano, en vez de un agave (en verdad, supuestamente se confundieron y por eso desestimaron amenaza...otro "JUSTO" en la historia militar inglesa)... en tanto que el neptune, despues de su primer barrido, mantuvo contacto por mae...no necesariamente, el mae del buque, debe "captar" todas las ondas...
un abrazo

Voy a tratar de explicarme mejor, porque escribí rápido y quedó confuso.

Voy a ir poniendo algunos datos de una "entrevista" (si es que a una cena en familia se le puede llamar así). Y me voy del tema del Invencible. Espero sepan perdonar, pero nací en este foro desvirtuando y las mañas no se pierden.

Ese día el Neptune salió a hacer lo que venía haciendo todos los días. Recorría la ruta designada de ese día para el cruce del resto de los aviones haciendo exploración de superficie. Buscaba posibles piquetes en la ruta designada para el cruce de los cargueros y los aviones que se desplegaban a las islas (eso explica en parte por qué la gente de la FAA siempre "bancó" a la gente de Neptune, y he aquí de otra operación conjunta llevada adelante con éxito que no es "tapa de diarios"). Es en ese trabajo que se encuentra con los blancos. La flota británica se había desplegado muy cerca de las islas, de "guapos". Si no me equivoco el Neptune además de tener contacto por MAE (párrafo aparte 1) emitió en 4 oportunidades. La última cerca de las 10:30 (corrijanme por favor). Al emitir detecta blancos. Lo que quiero decir es que si detecta blancos, los radares de búsqueda aérea británicos los tienen que haber detectado, además de tener MAE de la emisión del Neptune (párrafo aparte 2). Si el Neptune emite y detecta con ese RADAR, por línea de visión el radar británico lo tiene que detectar, ya que tenía más alcance de detección. Entre la primera detección y la última el Neptune "simula" una trayectoria de búsqueda de Náufragos. Treta que los británicos "parecen", sólo "parecen" haber creido.

Lo cierto es que ese sector del teatro de operaciones por esa fecha era un caos, había buques pesqueros por todos lados y la flota británica estaba tapada de laburo con las operaciones aéreas. Creo que sí detectaron al Neptune, de la misma forma que lo detectaron repetidas veces después de ese día. En todas esas ocasiones salieron a interceptarlo, excepto la primera, ese día (4 de Mayo). "Salieron a interceptarlo" suena como al pasar. Pero piensen por un segundo como se debe sentir estar en una mole que vuela a 200 nudos cuando le avisan que tiene "Dos lobos en ruta de intercepción". (Es otra historia)

Conclusión. A mi modo de ver los británicos cometieron ese día varios errores tácticos. Obviaron todos los avisos, incluso detectaron por RADAR al Neptune, pero lo desestimaron. Estaban oxidados/dormibundos en el arte de la guerra naval, y se despertaron de golpe. Después de ese día prácticamente no cometieron errores hasta el 8 de Junio.

(Párrafo aparte 1)
Las tripulaciones de Neptune habían comenzado a desconfiar del MAE, ya que daba falsas alarmas en muchas ocasiones. De todas formas tenían perfectamente medido el lóbulo de detección del radar de búsqueda de las tipo 42. Es decir que por MAE podían saber en que momento estaban siendo detectados y en qué momento no. La posición final que pasan a los SUE en vuelo proviene de RADAR.

(Párrafo aparte 2)
Tener tecnología desfasada tiene sus ventajas ::)D permítanme la ironía). De alguna manera, las bases de datos de la Task Force no tenían registrado al Radar del Neptune como de búsqueda y si bien recibieron las emisiones, el sistema no dio las alarmas correspondientes. Este error fue corregido, ya que (palabras textuales) "después del Sheffield cada vez que pinchábamos se armaba un revuelo increíble".

Se que es largo y no da ganas de leerlo. Disculpen por la catarsis.

Un gran abrazo
 
Arriba