What's new

The Hercules, which sank the hercules.

Catriel

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
On May 25, 1982, the supertanker VLCC American flag Hercules, started from Belize, loaded with weapons and ammunition that the U.S. was sending to the British Forces tarsk. Argentina intelligence detected the VLCC Hercules, and started to crawl, until there was no doubt that his career was to meet with the British fleet.
The June 8 taken the decision not to allow him to come to the British fleet, and sends a C-130H Hercules, armed with 12 bombs of 250 kgs. The TC-68 is the supertanker 600 nautical miles from Argentina, and 500 of the Falklands. It communicates with the VLCC Hercules and ordered to sail to the port of Mar del Plata. The VLCC Hercules unresponsive and takes a turn to the east. So the TC-68 is cominica the Argentine Air Command, who ordered him to send seabed.
Hercules9Jun.jpg

HERCULESPODCARGADO.jpg

C-130Htc68Armado.jpg

hercule4.jpg

BLogIbr.ae..jpg

transphercules001.jpg

malvinas007.jpg
 
.
This is total nonsense. As an ex VLCC Senior Officer I can tell you these ships do not carry Arms and Ammo as there is absolutely no space on board to do so. If you had said it was carrying fuel that would be more logical but that also fails as a VLCC carries Crude Oil,not bunker fuel for ships. You contradict yourself also as the ship is clearly illustrated in Ballast Condition (No cargo) so what is the point of claiming as you do? This was a neutral American ship attacked by Argentina in error. My ship served in the Falklands carrying Fuel oil for warships, and they are only 22000 tonnes NOT VLCCS. Stop listening to Argentine propaganda. They also claimed to have sunk 'Invincible' and Canberra. Also total nonsense as the Canberra took their POW's home!
 
.
This is total nonsense. As an ex VLCC Senior Officer I can tell you these ships do not carry Arms and Ammo as there is absolutely no space on board to do so. If you had said it was carrying fuel that would be more logical but that also fails as a VLCC carries Crude Oil,not bunker fuel for ships. You contradict yourself also as the ship is clearly illustrated in Ballast Condition (No cargo) so what is the point of claiming as you do? This was a neutral American ship attacked by Argentina in error. My ship served in the Falklands carrying Fuel oil for warships, and they are only 22000 tonnes NOT VLCCS. Stop listening to Argentine propaganda. They also claimed to have sunk 'Invincible' and Canberra. Also total nonsense as the Canberra took their POW's home!

Welcome to forum
 
. .
This is total nonsense. As an ex VLCC Senior Officer I can tell you these ships do not carry Arms and Ammo as there is absolutely no space on board to do so. If you had said it was carrying fuel that would be more logical but that also fails as a VLCC carries Crude Oil,not bunker fuel for ships. You contradict yourself also as the ship is clearly illustrated in Ballast Condition (No cargo) so what is the point of claiming as you do? This was a neutral American ship attacked by Argentina in error. My ship served in the Falklands carrying Fuel oil for warships, and they are only 22000 tonnes NOT VLCCS. Stop listening to Argentine propaganda. They also claimed to have sunk 'Invincible' and Canberra. Also total nonsense as the Canberra took their POW's home!

Ah well; maybe she was carrying all that stuff in the foc'sle? But dash it; she had no foc'sle!
You just caught him out on that Big Fib.
 
.
Ah well; maybe she was carrying all that stuff in the foc'sle? But dash it; she had no foc'sle!
You just caught him out on that Big Fib.
It is not his fib, but Argentina's along with other spurious claims. he just went along with it. In fact she does have a foc,sle space it is under the winches forward . but why would we charter a ship for this pointless waste of time? We had plenty of ships 'Taken up from trade' for this purpose. And we admit to every casualty as we have done for centuries. But this was not our casualty.
 
.
On May 25, 1982, the supertanker VLCC American flag Hercules, started from Belize, loaded with weapons and ammunition that the U.S. was sending to the British Forces tarsk. Argentina intelligence detected the VLCC Hercules, and started to crawl, until there was no doubt that his career was to meet with the British fleet.
The June 8 taken the decision not to allow him to come to the British fleet, and sends a C-130H Hercules, armed with 12 bombs of 250 kgs. The TC-68 is the supertanker 600 nautical miles from Argentina, and 500 of the Falklands. It communicates with the VLCC Hercules and ordered to sail to the port of Mar del Plata. The VLCC Hercules unresponsive and takes a turn to the east. So the TC-68 is cominica the Argentine Air Command, who ordered him to send seabed.
Hercules9Jun.jpg

HERCULESPODCARGADO.jpg

C-130Htc68Armado.jpg

hercule4.jpg

BLogIbr.ae..jpg

transphercules001.jpg

malvinas007.jpg



i have to laugh when you write "ARGENTINE INTELLIGENCE!"...didnt quite help you 31 years ago..and still isn't!...hahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahah
 
. . .
It is not his fib, but Argentina's along with other spurious claims. he just went along with it. In fact she does have a foc,sle space it is under the winches forward . but why would we charter a ship for this pointless waste of time? We had plenty of ships 'Taken up from trade' for this purpose. And we admit to every casualty as we have done for centuries. But this was not our casualty.

I was just kidding! Whatver space she had in her foc'sle was just large enough to have storing space for Ropes, cordage, Paints and grease and a Bosun's/Chippy's little workshop. I did not know of the "Hercules" episode until now but the associated claims are incredible to start with.

Yes; Why on earth would a FOC ship with a multinational crew be employed to ship munitions to the fleet, when UK MoD had a fleet of STUFT to fly the Blue Ensign.
 
.
I was just kidding! Whatver space she had in her foc'sle was just large enough to have storing space for Ropes, cordage, Paints and grease and a Bosun's/Chippy's little workshop. I did not know of the "Hercules" episode until now but the associated claims are incredible to start with.

Yes; Why on earth would a FOC ship with a multinational crew be employed to ship munitions to the fleet, when UK MoD had a fleet of STUFT to fly the Blue Ensign.
Yeah I was going to mention all the stores, ropes etc down there , and had an idea you were joking, but wrote that for the benefit of others . Some Argentines are still claiming they sank 'Invincible' and in fact even going so far to say that somehow we 'built a clone of her' to hide her loss. !
 
.
Yeah I was going to mention all the stores, ropes etc down there , and had an idea you were joking, but wrote that for the benefit of others . Some Argentines are still claiming they sank 'Invincible' and in fact even going so far to say that somehow we 'built a clone of her' to hide her loss. !

My guess is that all the efforts have come out of a "Belgrano Syndrome". The fact that a Battleship like General Belgano (inspite of being an old hulk) got sunk at their door-step and eventually the Falklands got retaken weighed heavily on their minds and egos.

Of course the events of that Campaign were also a 'wake-up' call to Whitehall and the architects of Britain's Naval Policy.
 
.
My guess is that all the efforts have come out of a "Belgrano Syndrome". The fact that a Battleship like General Belgano (inspite of being an old hulk) got sunk at their door-step and eventually the Falklands got retaken weighed heavily on their minds and egos.

Of course the events of that Campaign were also a 'wake-up' call to Whitehall and the architects of Britain's Naval Policy.
Yes, and they boast about the sinking of this neutral tanker- an unarmed civilian ship MILES out side the TEZ yet many call the sinking of Belgrano just outside the Zone a 'War Crime' when in fact the sinking of that Cruiser forced the rest of their navy to hide in port. Then there is also the failed Argentine attempt to mine ships in Gib Harbour.. One rule for us etc.. However I am rather concerned about our Gov'ts lack of action re Spanish incursions at the moment..
 
.
Yes, and they boast about the sinking of this neutral tanker- an unarmed civilian ship MILES out side the TEZ yet many call the sinking of Belgrano just outside the Zone a 'War Crime' when in fact the sinking of that Cruiser forced the rest of their navy to hide in port. Then there is also the failed Argentine attempt to mine ships in Gib Harbour.. One rule for us etc.. However I am rather concerned about our Gov'ts lack of action re Spanish incursions at the moment..


In fact they boast about them sinking a CIVILIAN SHIP but hate the fact we sank a NAVAL ship.. you will never understand their thought processes.. they were even WINNING! JAJAJAJA
 

Attachments

  • it.JPG
    it.JPG
    119.3 KB · Views: 21
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom