Talk:HMS Invincible (R05)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Is she an "aircraft carrier"?

I'm a bit worried about the opening line --- Invincible is an aircraft carrier

Whenever I've said that to anyone with any connection to the Royal Navy, they've immediately contradicted me and explained that Britain doesn't have any aircraft carriers. Apparently Invincible (and her class) is an Anti-submarine warfare carrier. --jmd 03:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Originally the Invincible class were called through deck cruisers because of politics as the British Parliament at the time would never have funded "aircraft carriers". But they really are light aircraft carriers and not mere anti-submarine warfare carriers as they have a complement of (Sea) Harrier airplanes on board (the carrier's air group usually comprises about nine Harriers and twelve helicopters - amongst which 3 AEW Seaking variants to support the airplanes). So, yes they are aircraft carriers but only light ones at that. They are comparable with the Spanish Principe de Asturias, Italy's Giusseppe Garibaldi or Thailand's Chakri Naruebet. --fdewaele 19:20, 16 August 2005 (CET)

I thought Australia had an Carrier called Invincible too. Must be getting confused with something else... Wallie 09:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Australia had two Majestic class aircraft carriers in the past, being HMAS Melbourne, the former HMS Majestic, which decommisioned in 1982 and HMAS Sydney, the former HMS Terrible, which decommisioned in 1973. Since then, no aircraft carrier has been part of the RAN. -- fdewaele 18:42 CET 24 October 2005

For what it's worth, the RN currently refers to having a "Carrier Strike Group", which seems to be tending towards aircraft carrier rather than ASW. [1] Shimgray | talk | 14:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Many Argentines claim they sank her, or at least badly damaged her in 1982

(here for example, and here is a cute animation)

Is there any truth at all to this claim? If not, how did the rumor get started? Bastie 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Any truth?, lol, 1 or 2 Argie pilots sketchy claims, vs. 1,000 sailors and airmen on board, plus members of the press, plus the sailors on the surrounding ships, pure fiction mate. King nothing 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exocet struck Invincible

I am Spanish, and I have heard both versions about the issue, the Argentinian and the British one, and I must say that I believe the Argentinian one, for several main reasons:

The Invincible showed no activity during the Falkland war from May 30th 1982 until the end of the war. The May 30th is the date the Argentinians claim they launched the attack agaisnt the Invincible.

The exact position of the Invincible since may 30th 1982 until she arrived the UK is uncertain. When the ship arrived home, it clearly showed large parts of the vessel recently painted.

We are not talking about an attack carried out from hundreds of miles away without visual contact between both enemies. The Exocet was launched from far away, but the Argentinians claim that 4 of their A-4 Skyhawk overflew the ship and damaged it with bombs and cannon fire. Furthermore, an Argentinian pilot, who was shot down during the attack, crashed his fighter into the ship. Another A-4 was shot down and 2 A-4 managed to go back home.

The Harrier fighters and helicopters belonging to the Invincible which were flying at this moment, did not fly back to the Invincible this day.

The Argentinian Air Force stills showing today in its web the Invincible as one of the ships seriously damaged by their pilots during the Falklands War, despite they indicate that the UK still denying the attack, here

They show a detailed description of the mission, including some photos, here

I have seen on TV interviews with Argentinian pilots who took part in the mission and what they said looks quite beliavle. Far more beliavle than the “official” denying from the UK.

Calculin

---

Dread from Army RumouR Service (www.arrse.co.uk) writes:

So here we go again, some dodgy Argie lover desperately trying to retrieve some 'honour' from their catastrophic foray into the Falkland Islands. No, none of our aircraft carriers (correctly termed 'through-deck cruisers') was damaged by Argie action. On many other sites, using the same pictures as Calculin lists, they claim that she was sunk and somehow Britain either built a new one in the Falklands or aquired a new one from somewhere.

Utter rubbish, and why spanish speaking people are so desperate to believe the lies of a fascist dictatorship (Argentina) over a democratic and open government (Great Britain before Tony BLiar debased it) is beyond me. Is it because they have been trying to defeat Britain in battle for the last 600 odd years and have always failed? :)

I'd definately never be inclined to believe 99% of Argie claims regarding the Falklands. NJW494 15:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I notice that the pictures in the Argentinian Airforce story of the attack on the Invincible stop being photos and become paintings as the attack goes in.

Who do you choose to believe?

1) Desperate facist 2nd world dictatorship, with a terrible history of its own subjects "disappearing", fighting a war of aggression to bolster nationalist feeling or

2) A 1st world liberal democracy fighting to liberate its subjects, with a famousley free press in attendance.

You choose.

Stu

---

I should not answer to somebody who uses terms like “Argie” or “Argie Lovers”, and sentences as “spanish speaking people are so desperate to believe the lies of a fascist dictatorship” and so on. But today I feel myself as a “spanish speaking Mahatma Gandhi” and I will do the good action of the day. You need a little lesson about the Falkland War.

First of all, we must aknowledge that the Argentinian dictatorship was not a good thing. In fact, I think Galtieri was absolutely inept as a military chief (we will leave apart the tortures that he inflicted to his own people).

Whatever the pupil of a military academy (including myself) leading the Argentinian military in the Falklands War would had defeat the British Army without many effort.

Yo say “their catastrophic foray into the Falkland Islands” what means that you don’t know too much about the Falkland War. In fact, the merits of the Argentinian combatants are much beyond the merits of the British ones. I do not say so as a “spanish speaker”, but as a person interested in the wars that have existed along the History.

If you look at the casualties, you will find 649 Argentinians and 255 Britons. It seems a great victory, but it is not. If you rest the Argentinian victims of the General Belgrano, that is, 323 deads, who were killed out of the exclusion zone, when they were the crew of a WWII cruiser, in a dirty propagandistic maneouvre by the British Government, you will find that the casualties of the true war were 326 Argentinians vs 255 Britons.

You can say that the Britons casualties still lower, but now we could talk about the fact that the Argentinian troops were formed mainly by afraid teens who were serving in the obligatory military service, and the British ones were formed entirely by professional troops (including Gurkas, SAS trops and all the stuff). The picture gets worse for the British honour.

Now we could add that 22 ships of the Task Force were damaged or sunk. And that many of the damaged ones were struck by bombs or missiles that did not explode. And, furthermore we could add that this ships were damaged or sunk by Argentinian aircraft squadrons that did not enjoy air coberture by Argentinian fighters!!

The more you study the conflict, the more the British prestige fall…And you could say that if the Argentinian did not deploy fighters to cover their bombers, they are the stupid ones…what lead us again to Galtieri. Many Argentinian officers asked for a number of Aluminium plates in order to make longer the Falkland airports quickly, before the Task Force arrived. This way, the Argentinians could had deployed they Mirage fighters, in order to give protection to the A-4, Pucará, etc. agaisnt the Harrier fighters. This request, obvious, clear, and logic from the strategic point of view, was denyed by Galtieri the moron. The Argentinian pilots flew in suicide missions each time they attacked the Task Force. They do not deserve the despective treat that you and the ones like you give to them.

Here you have the pic of the two valiant guys who died attacking the Invincible, Ltd. José Vázquez and Ltd. Omar Castillo. I have seen their families and companions speaking on TV. They were real persons, who were shot down by the Invincible air defenses while doing their duty.

Now add the US aid to the Brithis forces (satellites, information, ultra-modern military stuff, etc), add the French negative to the Argentinian request for more Exocet missiles (Did you know that the one that sunk the Sheefield was the first one to be launched by an Argentinian pilot, including trainings?), and add the fact that the Argentinian submarine fleet that so much worried the Task Force was formed by WWII submarines, and you can not avoid to feel some sympathy for the Argentinians.

Oh?, so the photos turned pictures at the moment of the attack? What did you spect? I mean, If I were an Argentine pilot flying in a ‘’sucide mission’’ looking the aircrafts around me exploding, I bet I will not think “hey, wait a moment, I will take a picture!”

D

The pilots who performed the mission (the ones who survived) are real persons, and they do not lie. I have seen their faces, I have heard what they said. Now there is not any “fascist dictatorship” leading Argentina, and the mission agaisnt the Invincible stills in the official web of the Argentinian Air Force.

Now, the most funny comment.

“Is it because they have been trying to defeat Britain in battle for the last 600 odd years and have always failed?”

I know this is not part of the topic here, but I can not avoid give you a brief answer. Look, England lost the vast majority of the battles and wars that it had with Spain. Except the main one: The propagandistic one. I admit that Spain always failed in the movies, comics, and folkloric tales. But we are here talking about the reality.

Spain lost the exclusive property of the seas agaisnt the Dutch, in the middle 17th century. And Spain lost the total dominance at land in the battle of Rocroi (1643), agaisnt the French.

Now is when you talk about the Spanish Armada right? And now is when I give you the link to an interesting web of a historian doctor who teach at Harvard university, about the Spanish Armada. I found it in Wikipedia, and it does not say anything new to me, but maybe it does for you:

Britain was so many times defeated by Spain…

Oh, yes, I forgot Gibraltar. Yes, during the Spanish Secesion War, the Britons (who the hell called them??) took part from one side. They conquered Gibraltar (unprotected) in the name of the archiduke Charles, they lost the war but they forgot to pull down their flag and retained Gibraltar. Despite Phillip V was supported by the majority of the Spanish military and, of course, he won the war, he was not able to recover Gibraltar (at that time, with that old weapons, an extremely good strategic position) . OK, this is a point for you! You can keep it.  ;)

Oh, sure, Trafalgar. But if my memory does not lie to me, this battle took place in 1805. When Spain was just a province of the Imperial France…Yes, the spanish fleet was absolutely destroyed, but it was already destroyed before the battle. Nelson knew it, and this is because he applyied the “Nelson´s touch”. Did you know that many spanish sailors at Trafalgar were recruited by force in the bars and canteens among drunken people and homeless? You defeated Villeneuve, Napoleon and France in 1805, not Spain.

So now, going back to the Falklands topic…yes…looking what England did with Spain, I would say that I never be inclined to believe 99% of British claims regarding wathever the war. And It hurts me, because I actually would like to be impartial.

Ok, That´s all, thanks for aiding me to improve my english!  ;) Calculín

---

More damning proof ;) Bastie 14:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

"and they do not lie" - Yeah they do, if you haven't noticed they've been bald face lying out the back of their teeth for the past 24 years. King nothing 13:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Calculin, your assertion that HMS Invincible did not show up in the Falklands Campaign after the alleged bombing on the 30th May is wrong. A Sea Harrier from the Invincible was shot down on the 1st June, a member of the British Royal Family served on Invincible, the majority of the press reporting on the war were on Invincible, as well as 1,000 crew, marines, aircrew etc. Do you really believe that a ship carrying that many people could be sunk without any one of them mentioning it (not to mention the families and friends of the men aboard)? Plus of course there are photos of her arriving back at Portsmouth after the war

As for the rest - the Belgrano was an enemy vessel and a completely legitimate target. The exclusion zone was to prevent civillian vessels entering the war zone, not a limit on where military attacks would take place. The British forces were also made up of a number of scared 18 year olds - being a professional soldier does not prevent you from becoming scared in battle. The British cannot be blamed for having a professional army or for the decision of the Argentinian government to send their army into battle against it. Considering the Argentinian forces on the Islands outnumbered the British attackers three to one and still managed to lose, I think it can be called a comprehensive British victory.

At Trafalgar, the British ships were also crewed by drunkards taken by force from dockside pubs - pressganged as it was called. The fleet of Spain as destroyed (including the biggest ship in the world at the time, the Santissima Trinidad, a Spanish ship). It was a joint French and Spanish fleet that was destroyed and no amount of Spanish argument can change that.

Bastie - that supposed damning proof that HMS Invincible was hit is an absolutely appallingly bad fake.

Mike

---

Mike, as far as I know, I have never said that the Invincible was sunk. In fact, I have never talk about the severity of the damage suffered by the Invincible. The Argentinian pilots never said that they sunk the Invincible. In the web of the Argentinian Air Force, the Invincible appears as damaged. In my opinion, a few casualties (if there were casualties), can be easily hidden behind transport accidents, pulled into the casualties list of other ships, and so on…the supposed absence of casualties in the Invincible is not conclusive at all for me. But, why I believe that the British lie? Are they natural born liars? I don’t think so. I rather think that what the Britons did hiding the attack against the Invincible, was an act of pure war. The news would had boosted the Argentinian courage and would had been a hard strike into the British courage. And, being clear, we must acknowledge that the British are very good in war propaganda. As I said before, look what they did with Spain.  ;)

When the Invincible arrived Portsmouth, it clearly showed large parts of the vessel recently painted. The official explanation was “maintenance works”.

Well, maybe a Harrier assigned to the Invincible took off from the Hermes and was shot down during the mission. Or maybe the damage of the ship was not enough to avoid all the air operations from the ship. As a matter of fact, the activity of the Invencible almost dissapeared since 30th may.

You said that “The exclusion zone was to prevent civilian vessels entering the war zone”. This is not true, because there did not exist any “war zone”. In fact, the Falkland War was not exactly a war, since there was not a war declaration from Argentine, nor from the UK. The UK established an exclusion zone in which they did not allow any Argentinian vessel or aircraft to enter, no matter if they were military or civilian. The General Belgrano was sunk many miles out of the exclusion zone established by the UK itself. I think the Britons watched the great oportunity with the Belgrano and they did not miss it. Many 17 years old sailors died there.

Sure being a professional soldier does not prevent you from becoming scared in battle, but at least, you have chosen your own profession, and your government pays and trains you for doing your duty. Argentine also had professional forces. But Galtieri the moron only used them during the assault to the islands (by the way, a brilliant operation), and then he sent his best troops back to Argentine and replaced them for a few thousands of teens who only were wishing go back home as soon as possible. The problem was that Galtieri was so paranoic that he feared a Chilean attack during the Falklands war and he put his best troops in the Chilean border and the forced recruits in the Falklands. I would had done the opposite thing, the professionals in the Falklands and the recruits in the Chilean border. Chile has never had enough military power to invade Argentine by a long shot.

As I said, the Argentinians lost because of the ineptitude, cowardy, and lack of decision (actually, lack of balls) of their military government, and not due to the great performance of the British forces.

Concerning the Trafalgar issue, just a couple of comments:

The Santísima Trinidad was the largest vessel at that time, sure. Furthermore, it was built in 1769, that means, 36 years old when she was sunk at Trafalgar. It had also troubles with termites. In fact, it was so large due the absurd additions and modifications made to the original vessel, which made her too heavy, too instable, too fragile and too slow for a naval battle. I would say that the Santísima Trinidad was the largest coffin of its time.

Really the Nelson´s crew was formed by drunkards? I always had understood that, being the UK the first world naval power in 1805, the crews of the Navy were formed by professional and well trained sailors. If the crews were forced drunkards, I wonder how they managed to spent re-loading the guns a third of time of that spent by the Spanish drunkards. I wonder why so many Spanish naval officers, looking at their ships and crews made testament before the battle and gave a farewell forever to their families before embarking. Just look what General Antonio de Escaño said about the Spanish fleet in 1805, months before the battle:

«Esta escuadra hará vestir de luto a la Nación en caso de un combate, labrando la afrenta del que tenga la desventura de mandarla»,

That is,

“This fleet will make the Nation wearing mourning in case of battle, making the affront of the unfortunate person who have the disgrace of leading it”

Three years after Trafalgar, the Spanish Independence war broke out...

Cheers!! Calculín

---

Calculin, HMS Invincible was carrying almost every British journalist reporting on the war. In a free country with a free press it would be impossible to cover up any damage done to the Invincible, even if you could prevent the 1,000 crew members from talking. Also, the dead or injured crew could be put into casualty lists of other ships, but I'm sure the families of those men would have noticed and mentioned something publically over the last 25 years. Also, why would the British continue to hide it now? Still winning the war despite losing their flagship would be an even greater propaganda coup. Invincible dod have maintenance work done to her on the way back to Britain - a large part of the transmission and drive system were replaced due to wear and tear.

Belgrano was a legitimate target of war and there is no law about sinking enemy warships during a war (and invasion of sovereign territory does constitute a decleration of war).

The invasion of the Falklands was not a brilliant operation, it was an operation of absolute overwhelming superiority of numbers. The British forces on the Islands consisted of 68 Royal Marines and 11 sailors spread between the Falklands and South Georgia and a small number of armed Falklanders. The Argentine forces consisted of several hundred infantry with armoured support (AMTRACS and LAV-Ps) and a number of warships including a Type 42 destroyer and a Corvette. Despite the overwhelming superiority in numbers, the British forces managed to kill several Argentine soldiers, destroy a helicopter and severely damage a corvette before being ordered to surrender by the Governor to prevent further bloodshed.

The Argentinians lost the Falklands War because of an unparalleled example of bravery and fortitude by the small number of British soldiers sent to recapture the Islands who fought against an enemy that outnumbered them three to one and was better armed and dug in on territory that was created for defenders.

At Trafalgar - HMS Victory was bulit in 1765 so was actually 4 years older than the Santissima Trinidad. The Royal Navy included a large number of pressed men in their crews, just like every other navy in Europe at the time. They were able to fire faster than their French and Spanish counterparts because they trained more.

Mike

---

Mike,

The Invincible was totally operative on 30th April in the Falklands. I can assume that the most of journalists traveled on board during the Atlantic Ocean cruising, but I bet they disembarked as soon as they approached the Falklands. I mean, I guess the British journalists are like the Spanish ones, always doing what they must not do. How many journalists were on board (it is, where no one of them wanted) on 30th May?

There are one thousand ways of hiding to the families the truth about the death of their loved ones in case of war. I guess we both could find one million cases around the World and the wars…

So the maintenance work was replacing the transmission and drive system due to wear and tear…So, we must admit that in a couple of months of war the transmission and drive system of the Invincible got weared and teared, while the ones of the Hermes were in perfect state…Or maybe that the UK sent the Invincible to the war in the Antartic Ocean with the transmission and drive systems weared and teared…Oh oh, it sounds so bizarre…I rather think that an Argentine Exocet hit such sensitive part of the ship. And maybe the missil did not explode, because the French managed to give the UK many of the desactivation codes of the Argentine Exocets.

Do you really think that winning the war despite losing your flagship would be an even greater propaganda coup?? I don’t think so. Furthermore this would enrage the families of the casualties (I repeat, if there were casualties) and a lot of Britons. An it would be a proof of the British government fooling their own people in a recent war which would encourage many more speculations.

Sinking the Belgrano, 323 deaths, was an stunning and desproportionate response for a bloodless (at least for the Britons) storming operation in the Falklands, where the civilian population and the British prisoneers were always highly respected.

From the tactic point of view, the Falklands invasion was a great operation, well planned, well executed and well performed by the Argentinian special forces. It does not mean that the British troops did not fought with bravery, or that the Argentinian troops performed heroically in a stunning victory. We are talking about different things.

The fact that the British forces managed to kill several Argentine troops can be easyly explained: The Argentine forces had taxative orders for minimazing the British casualties, because Galtieri tryied to provoke the UK as less as possible, while taking the islands, because he never though that Argentina could win a war agaisnt the UK. Sounds ridiculous, and it is. On the other hand, the British forces tryied to kill as many Argentines as they could. They performed very well, I am not talking about moral here. I am talking about balls. The lack of balls of the Argentine government agaisnt the balls of the 68 British marines who defended the islands.

The first thing that you learn about a military attack is that you do it or you do not do it, but you must NEVER half-do it, because then you are lost. Furthermore, due the ridiculous fear of Galtieri, he forbidded his troops to doing whatever the thing that could irritate the kelpers. So, while the kelpers enjoyed the war in their homes, watching it on TV and bingeing each British victory, the Argentine soldiers were freezed, famished (they were forbidden to take food or livestock from the kelpers), demoralized, and sick in no small sice.

You can not seriously say that the Argentine troops were better armed.

Territory created for defenders? Is there some tree in the Falklands? I am not talking about a jungle, but about a single tree…Which is the tallest mountain in the Falklands? I mean, if you try to camoufle your troops in the Falklands, rather you become visible from 1000 km away! They have thousands of bays were the invasion force can easyly disembark without being watched by somebody only a few km away…

Look, since the 200th aniversary of Trafalgar has been not so many time ago, you could call some buddies and I will do the same thing, and we could repeat the battle using replies of the ships…I choose the Victory for my buddies and me, and the Santísima Trinidad for you and your buddies!  ;)

So you think that the British drunkards were able to shot three times faster than the Spanish drunkards because they trained more…I bet it was an intensive training, because the travel from the UK did not take so much time…Sorry, I stand by the theory which says that the British gunners were well trained professionals, while the Spanish ones were drunkards, old men, and homeless…My God, look at the casualties…near 4.500 for the French-Spanish fleet and near 450 for the British fleet…Were your sailors touched by God?

Cheers, Calculín

Maybe your beloved leader Galtieri shouldn't have invaded the Falklands in the first place. Whether the invasion was bloodless or not is really irrelevant. As for the Invincible getting hit by an Exocet? Simply delusional Argie tall tales. Various other British ships were damaged or sunk, so why didn't the British government cover up any of those sinkings? NJW494 15:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Excuse me NJW494,

In the very first place, the UK shouldn't have invaded the Falklands in 1833, since as every Histroy book says, the Falklands were given by Spain to Argentina and not to the UK. In the second place, Galtieri shouldn't have invaded the Falklands in 1982. In third place, if he decided to invade this useless islands and to make a lot of valiant guys dying for a cold desert, he should have gone ahead with all the consequences, and the Falklands would be Argentine today.

You said that whether the invasion was bloodless or not is really irrelevant?…are you kidding? Do you know what a human life is? :) Of course is relevant. This makes all the difference in case of invasion.

The UK could had recovered the islands by a million of ways, i. e. with a crushing embargo together with negotiation, economic and diplomatic pressures, with menaces and a great power demonstration, occupying part of the islands and simply advancing, etc. But Margaret Tatcher (one of the most shameless, cheeky and repugnant politician that have existed in Europe in centuries) needed a quick and smashing victory in order to deviate the attention about the social problems of the UK at that time. She needed the Belgrano sunk. A lot of Argentine and British lives paid the Tatcher’s re-election.

The British government covered the attack against the Invincible because it was the British flagship and the most powerful British unit in the zone, together with the Hermes. Just a matter of war disinformation, which is one of the most powerful war weapons that do exist. If you neglect everything, you lost your credibility, but if you admit almost everything, then you get credibility, and you can lie in the most important issues. This is how it works.

Look, I will tell you a funny anecdote: When the absurd Perejil island crisis broke between Morocco and Spain about a tiny and empty islet three years ago, Spain deployed a disproportionate force in order to re-take the island from Morocco (in fact, this disproportionate force was intended to avoid casualties in both sides, the Moroccan marines had not a chance and they surrender without shooting a single shot). Morocco accused Spain of deploying submarines in the zone, Spain admitted it, Morocco accused Spain of violating territorial Moroccan waters, Spain admitted it (the explanation was “mistake”), Morocco accused Spain of a lot of things, and Spain admitted some, excused others. Then, Morocco accused Spain of sending an spy aircraft which violated the Moroccan airspace all along the Moroccan coast. Spain neglected it. Spain said it was an airplane rented by a TV channel (Tele5) which got lost and violated the Moroccan airspace. The TV news program of Tele5 broke out the next day saying that one of their airplanes with reporters on board got lost and violated the Moroccan airspace, and they asked pardon from Moroccan authorities and so on. All the others TV channels (public and private) supported the news, "Tele5 aicraft get lost and...blabla"). Here, everydody believed what the Spanish government said and laughed at Morocco (you know, "paranoic moors"). Well, I casually met last year the second officer of the aircraft during a course. A Spanish reconnaissance aircraft belonging to the Spanish navy which took pretty photos of all the units deployed along the North coast of Morocco and intercepted all the communications between Moroccan units in the zone. I say this because an investigation journalist reported all this stuff in a book now, so it doesn’t really matter. This is how the things work.

Cheers, Calculín

You've just been duped by Argie propaganda, my friend. If you want to believe it, then go ahead. As for Thatcher, she isn't on my Christmas card list, thats for sure. However, the UK had to turf out the invaders, for various reasons, some to do with the wider political climate of the time. NJW494 21:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Calculin

Many British journalists stayed on the Invincible for the duration of the war. How many were on board on May 30th I don’t know, but there would have been some still on board her. In the UK, there was no way they could have hidden the real circumstances from the families – their families would have known they were on board Invincible, if Invincible was sunk then the families would have known about it (especially as the mother of one crew member of Invincible happened to be Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, the head of Britain’s Armed Forces). I do not know why Invincible needed repairs to her drive system and Hermes didn’t – probably for the same reason my next door neighbour had to have his car towed to a garage the other day and I didn’t – because sometimes things just break. There is no way an Argentinian missile could have hit a British ship with so many crew members (including Royalty) and journalists on board without any of them ever talking about it. Of course winning the war despite losing our flagship would have been a greater achievement – it would have meant winning the war with only one aircraft carrier and would have been great propaganda. speculations. Sinking the Belgrano was an act of war – she was a warship, her crew were sailors in a Navy that had invaded another country. There is no reason what so ever that the Belgrano shouldn’t have been sunk. We will have to agree to disagree about the Argentinian forces invading the Falklands – I believe they performed poorly considering the massive numerical, logistical and equipment advantages they had. The Falkland Islanders were not happy in their homes during the war. There are several accounts from Islanders of being kept in poor conditions by the Argentinians. The Argentinian forces on the islands were far better armed than the British invaders – they had better aircraft in the air and their ground troops may not have been as well trained they had much better night sights, better infantry weapons and better cold weather equipment than the British soldiers. The territory in the Islands is far better for defenders – the long distance visibility works for defenders as well and the dug in defenders were better protected both from the weather and enemy fire than the attackers advancing over the open ground with no cover. Our sailors at Trafalgar were mostly pressganged in exactly the same way as Spanish sailors were – they were basically kidnapped while drunk. The fact that they shot faster was due to practise. The time of journey from Britain to Trafalgar is irrelevant as many would have been pressganged years before the battle. Accounts of pressganging can be found very easily throughout British naval history.

Mike

[edit] Argentina's claim

First of all, pilots of the Argentine Air Force (FAA) claim that they did a "moderate damage" to the ship, and not that they "completely destroyed" it. There are several reasons for supporting their version:
1) The May 30th is the date the Argentines claim they launched the attack against the ship. The HMS Invincible showed no activity during the Falklands War from May 30th 1982 until the end of the conflict.
2) The exact position of the HMS Invincible since May 30th 1982 until it arrived to the United Kingdom is uncertain. When the ship arrived home, it clearly showed large parts of the vessel recently painted.
3) The British fighters and helicopters belonging to the HMS Invincible flying at that moment did not return to the ship on May 30th 1982.
Please don't state that the Argentine claim is "pure fiction" without knowing what are you talking about. Cheers, --Nkcs 05:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A Sea Harrier FRS.Mk.1 of No. 801 NAS which operated from HMS Invincible was shot down by a SAM on 1st June 1982 (Shock Horror: That's after May the 30th, unless my eyes, and my calender decieve me). Now you can cream your jeans for the rest of your life, or get all your mates together who like to belive in Junta generated propaganda, refuted by well over a thousand people who were actually there, and have a wankfest over it. But mate, that won't make it be, or come; true. King nothing 17:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

King nothing the way you've went about the above comment is totally out of line. And Nkcs you can make all the declarations of "facts" you want. But without citations they are worthless. I'm going to stick to referenced facts such as Air and Space Power Journal August 20, 2002 "Argentine Airpower in the Falklands War: An Operational View"

On 30 May 1982, the 2d Escuadrilla made its last Exocet attack on the carrier HMS Invincible, following up with an attack by a flight of Skyhawks. Argentine forces, to this day, claim that they hit and crippled the Invincible with both the Exocet and the Skyhawks' bombs. Apparently, the Exocet was shot down by Royal Navy antiaircraft fire and the hulk of the Atlantic Conveyor was mistaken for the HMS Invincible and attacked by the Skyhawks. Despite Argentinian claims, no British damage resulted from their last Exocet attack."

Mark83 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Al shiefeild le dio un Exocet que no explotó y se hundió igual. Me explican como al Invincible le dan un exocet y 2 bombas de 250kg y llega sin ningun agujero (y sin armas) a gran bretaña?
2. Justo despues del ataque los radares argentinos curiosamente detectan una enorme cantidad de helicópteros en la zona. No estaban recogiendo sobrevivients, no?
3. En los dias posteriores al ataque la cantidad de harriers detecados por el radar de Puerto Argentino se reduce a la mitad... Curiosamente el Invincible tenia el 50% de los aviones ingleses.
4. En la lista de muertos ingleses aparece medio centenar de muertos en el Invincible. Algo tuvo que haberlos matado.
5. Al invincible le toma 3 meses llegar a las Malvinas. De ahi la teoria del intercambio con su buque gemelo, HMS Illustrious.
6. La marina británica explica qué pasó con cada barco, exepto en invincible, cuyos datos estan clasificados hasta 2032.
7. El Invincible que salió de Inglaterra tenía la torre gris y cuando llegó la tenía negra. Tal vez no les gustó el color y se pusieron a pintar en medio del Atlántico Sur.

Imagínense, un país del tercer mundo hundiéndoles un portaaviones a una de las más grandes potencias, ¡¡¡¡¡como se podía permitir que se sepa...!!!!!! Nunca van admitir la verguenza que un portaaviones fue averiado por un avion de museo, eso no lo van a hacer jamas

This is the English language Wikipedia. If you wish to contribute, please do so in English. If you wish to contribute in Spanish, please do so on the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)