Talk:HMS Invincible (R05)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Invincible (R05) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Contents

[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.

At least half the British casualties were caused by air strikes on naval targets, including army casualties, e.g. 32 Welsh Guards killed in the attack on Sir Galahad. In every ground engagement, Argentine casualties were significantly higher than the British. For example:

  • Battle of Goose Green: British 17 KIA, 64 WIA, compared to Argentine 47 KIA, 120 WIA, 1000+ captured
  • Battle of Mount Harriet: British 2 KIA, 26 WIA, compared to Argentine 18 KIA, 50 WIA, 300 captured
  • Battle of Mount Longdon: British 23 KIA, 47 WIA, compared to Argentine 31 KIA, 120 WIA, 50 captured

The British ground forces performed exactly as would be expected against Argentine conscripts, despite the latter's entrenched positions and shorter supply chain. Namely, they chewed them to pieces. The ages of the defenders mean nothing. For example, two of the British dead at Mount Longdon were only 17, and another was killed on his 18th birthday.

As to the supposed attack on Invincible, it is blatant that she wasn't sunk, because she came home, and it is absurd to imagine the British magically acquired an identical carrier from somewhere else - if they had the power to do that, it would have made sense to do so before the operation and have another 9 Harriers in theatre. The British press - who like nothing more than to criticise the government - would have jumped all over it if she hadn't returned in one piece.

If, on the other hand she sustained slight damage, I can't see why it would have been worth covering up. Things get broken in war, and it clearly wasn't enough to do any harm. The idea that Invincible had been hit but not seriously damaged would not have been a shock to anyone after the actual loss of several frigates and destroyers.

Really, this claim is nothing more than wishful thinking on the behalf of Argentines, who, as the losers of the war, have a hard time accepting defeat and are trying to salvage some scrap of honour or delude themselves into thinking they only lost on a technicality. In reality, they lost a war in their own back garden to a distant country with limited power projection capabilities.

91.109.182.71 01:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


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!”


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


[edit] Arbritrary subheading

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

Free country? Free press? Oh my god... yeah right. There you got your credibility. UK is not a free country and has definitivly not free press. Where you on the war? Uh? How do you know all-you-defend? From UK press and goberment. Anything said further the UK borders are lies? Moron. UK's words against Argentina's words. If you said Argentina lies, then UK does it too. There are hundreds of Air Force soldiers and two of the pilots and most of the tecnical crew are alive, they do not lie. They're not Galtieri, they are honorous and brave men, and speak truth. I believe in the eyes that saw the Invincible damaged. You believe what your goberment said, and UK gob has not a nice history. The Malvinas will be Argentina's, surely not by war: because of progress.pmt7ar 07:17, 25 Agosto 2007 (UTC)

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)

"...since as every Histroy book says, the Falklands were given by Spain to Argentina and not to the UK."

This is not true it is another Argentine propaganda lie. Spain did not give the FI to anyone, Argentina claimed them in 1820, 4 years after independence.

Everliving 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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] Talk page guidelines

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics.
Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters.
See talk page guidelines.

[edit] Deletion

Please do not delete comments from talk pages such as the comments deleted here [2]. Although deletion of material on talk pages is considered acceptable if you are removing personal and incivil attacks as per guidelines, i do not think that in this case the discussion warranted deletion. Only the incivil comments that were made can be deleted, not the whole page. I could not find the use of the word "chickenhawk" anywhere on the talk page and the only derogatory term used was Argies. This in itself did not warrant the deletion of the discussion and as such i have reinstated the comments. Woodym555 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[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. .
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.


"The HMS Invincible showed no activity during the Falklands War from May 30th 1982 until the end of the conflict"

Not true, see details below.

"The exact position of the HMS Invincible since May 30th 1982 until it arrived to the United Kingdom is uncertain."

So what?

"The British fighters and helicopters belonging to the HMS Invincible flying at that moment did not return to the ship on May 30th 1982.<"

Yes they did. Everliving 16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Marko, I thought that the Skyhawks actually attacked HMS Avenger? She was the only ship to report being attacked on that day, while, ahem, the Invincible did not. There were 170 sailors on board her, and one of the downed Skyhawks splashed into the sea close enough to grab some wreckage. She was making full speed at the time and was firing her main gun furiously - making enough smoke and steam to make it appear that she was on fire to an unfamiliar eye. The attack claim did come from two young men who had barely escaped with their lives from a hair-raising experience that claimed the lives of two of their friends. They were bound to get things confused. But they did not lay a finger on the Invincible. This myth needs to be finally shot down. Darkmind1970 08:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Argentine claim has been throughly refuted. Beliow are some more details, sorry about the length but I think the truth is important here.

The Exocet launch: Franciso and Collavino did not know what ship they were shooting at. They saw two contacts on their radar and fired at the larger one from beyond visual range and then turned away and left before getting any visual confirmation. They believed it would be the Invincible but had no actual proof it was.

Their radar picked up two contacts. The Avenger and Auxiliares were in front of the Invincible so would have been these two contacts. The Exocet planes had no visual confirmation but fired at the ‘larger’ contact. They turned for home without making any visual contact. The Argentines said there were no other ships in the area despite the fact that there was. The only two eyewitnesses to this ‘attack’ say they saw smoke which is what HMS Avenger was producing as a screen.

The bombing run: The only witnesses for Argentina who say they saw the Invincible were travelling at 900km/h, in a combat situation, only a few meters above the sea, had salt spray all over their canopys, saw two comrades shot down and saw a ship from behind with smoke at a distance of about 13km. It is an established fact that HMS Avenger was setting off smoke to shield the carrier and was in front of the carrier. They make no mention of this ship that they would have flown over, past or by. Why? Any intelligent person can see that in these conditions it is very likely that the pilots were mistaken. There are to many holes in the pilots stories and two many opportunities for them to be wrong.

The conspiracy: To say that the Invincible was sunk the perfect conspiracy of silence has entered a new phase and needs thousands of new people to be involved. All the crew of the Invincible. All the crew of the Illustrious. The crew of any ship that helped rescue the survivors of the sinking. A dockyard and all the workers there. Manufacturers of the specialist equipment needed for an aircraft carrier, which isn’t just lieing around ready to be used. Civil servants. Politicians. The family’s of all those involved, including those who died when the Invincible sunk (after an Exocet and three bombs and sinking there would have been deaths). Foreign governments and their spy agency’s which have also never revealed evidence that this happened. The local people who live near to the dockyard where the replacement was built. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who would know. And not a single one of them ever has come forward to support this theory. Over 10,000 people would have to be silenced 100% effectively for over twenty years with zero leaks. All of this with no one noticing.

Not one bitter, poor, depressed, ex serviceman who knows ‘the truth’ has ever come forward, even on the internet, to support the sinking or hitting claim.

No foreign spy agency has ever uncovered any evidence of the attack. There is no physical evidence of the attack. There are no photos of the attack or of any damage to the Invincible. There are pictures of the Invincible returning to port after the war and of the royal visit to it taken by an independent third party.

The Invincible’s unique feature: Invincible's Gas Turbine COGAG plant layout is particular to her alone; one of the things that was changed in her sister ships was a better machinery layout, access routes and space for essential maintenance. To work in certain areas of Invincible's engine rooms you have to be triple jointed, very small or rake thin. This wasn't a feature the Navy wanted to advertise at the time, but does explain one of the reasons her sisters are longer.

Also, these turbines (and every other mechanical component on the ship) are serial stamped so that the correct spares can be obtained for planned and routine maintenance. In the case of Rolls Royce in particular, the ships mechanical schematics refer to these components by name, serial number and date. This is to ensure that replacements are of the correct type and generation. In addition, the Engineers keep a log book that tracks when components have been replaced and how long they have been in service.

As these schematics, schedules and logs are particular to each ship, and in some cases predate the actual commissioning date, they form very definite, traceable historical proof that Invincible today is the ship that was commissioned in 1980.

Why did the Invincible not look as battered as HMS Hermes: Hermes was hurriedly recommissioned for the Falklands, and was given a very quick coat of paint. She was laid down in WW2, and not completed until much later, and her original hull was not protected very well. Rust had really got a hold of her. On the other hand, Invincible had the benefit of epoxy resin and chlorinated rubber based industrial paint systems developed for the North Sea Oil Industry and they work well.

Building a replacement: How many of you have served in your Navy or Merchant Marine? Ask one of your own Marine Engineers how possible what you’re suggesting is. Any UK shipyard is highly visible from neighboring houses, roads and the like, and the chances of building an aircraft carrier (or any other ship over 3500t) in secret are nil. I don't know how many international yards could build a carrier, but as mentioned earlier the COGAG plant would give them all extreme difficulties, and the chances of keeping it quiet are non-existent.

It took 7 years to make Invincible, 5 years to make Illustrious (a hurried job at the end and she was completed en route to the Falklands) and 7 years to make Ark Royal. And yet you say that such a ship could be built in 3 years? If so, why were the others not built in 3 years?

Sailors could be moved around different ships to cover up deaths: Sailors cannot just be transferred between ships if their ship is hit and suck. Their family knows which ship they are on and their uniform says the ship name so if a sailor on Invincible was killed and his family were told he died on the Coventry they would know that there was something wrong. Also, sailors who had served on the ship which was hit/sunk would know that a casualty listed on their ship was not on board. And yet NO ONE has ever come forward to claim this.

Ark Royal was made to look like Invincible or Illustrious in a cover up: Ark Royal was completed with a 12 degree ski ramp (evidenced by many shipyard and launch videos and photos). Invincible and Illustrious were both originally fitted with 7 degree ski ramps. Illustrious was hastily fitted with phalanx in the shipyard prior to entering service. She did not sail without it. Invincible didn’t have phalanx fitted until her first minor refit. Illustrious sailed for the Falklands on 1st August 1982. Illustrious relieved Invincible on 27th August 1982. Invincible returned to Portsmouth and went for her phalanx refit, completed in Feb 1983. Illustrious was on station until November 1982.

The Ark Royal was not complete in 1982. She was a floating shell, ready for the rest of her equipment to be put in after launch in June 1981 - she wouldn’t be sea ready until 1985. She would have lacked many vital internal components to pull of such a deception and she had a 12 degree ski ramp, not 7 degree as Invincible had. And if the Invincible was damaged and had to be ‘replaced’ by an incomplete sister ship for her return, where did the Invincible go while it was repaired? And when did they put the Ark Royal back? And why did NO ONE notice any of this?

Why did the Invincible not return as soon as the war ended? The ship stayed on station to provide a secure airbase, a command and control point and to make sure that there wasn’t a counter coup in Argentina which would lead another stupid invasion. Just because the war was over didn’t mean the UK would evacuate all military forces from the area. The Invincible stayed to provide support and then was relieved by the Illustrious. Suspicious? No – apart from to someone with no knowledge of military issues and who has a suspicious mind. Common sense and obvious? Yes.

There was still the possibility of a threat from Argentina. The fear was that a non governmental group of Argentine adventurers could land on the FI to ‘claim’ them like Miguel Fitzgerald in 1964 or the 20 Argentine terrorists who landed and took civilians hostage in 1966. Why take risks with millions of pounds worth of equipment? Argentina has been inherently unstable for much of the 20th Century (previously having been in the top 10 of rich nations) and this conflict had come as a surprise, so it was better to be safe rather than sorry. These kind of precautions and operational procedure are what help the British to not lose wars and keep wartime losses down to a minimum as much as possible.

Why give different accounts of an attack? Argentina had no satellite imagery, no spies and no intelligence network. It had no way of verifying the effectiveness of its attacks. It relied on the media and British confirmation of attacks to know what had happened most of the time. By spreading false rumours, the British answered the Argentine claims about attacking the Invincible and made it difficult for Argentina to know just what had happened. This is all standard practice for any nation that knows how to fight a war. Argentina did not know how to fight a war.

Why did the Harriers go to a higher altitude as detected by Argentine radar? The Harriers were 8000 miles from their operational area and all supplies had to be brought thousands of miles into a combat zone – look at what had happened to Atlantic Conveyor. Saving fuel when possible would therefore be of clear advantage. Also, just because they went higher does not mean that the purpose of it was to save fuel. They could have been getting a broader field of vision to watch for Argentine attacks

Why not transfer all the Harriers to Stanley or another land based airfield as soon as possible: If the air force had been based at Stanley then 1) Argentine would have known where it was and could have attacked and wiped out the air arm. 2) It would have been denied the specialist engineering and mechanical facilites of the carriers – why have specialist workshops and personnel available and not use them 3) It would not have been able to move in secret as its starting and end point of each mission would have been known. 4) The planes would have either been out in the open or in temporary shelters which would not provide good insulation from the weather. 5) The pilots and ground crew would have had to be billeted in Stanley which would have put specialist personnel at risk, separated them from their planes and meant that accommodation would have had to be found in a crowded area. 6) All the fuel and weapons for the planes would also have to be transferred to land, making them exposed to attack and harder to load with the specialised equipment on board the ship. 7)Why would you separate the planes from the very vehicle designed to transport, maintain and protect them? No sane or competent commander would.

If you want an example of why the UK did this, look at Pebble Island. Argentina placed a large air group there and lost six Pucaras, four T-34C and one Coast Guard Skyvan as well as radar, fuel and ammunition dumps in a UK raid. The airbase there was neutralised and 16 days later closed and the pilots evacuated back to Argentina. The British were not going to risk Argentina pulling off a similar attack on its very limited aircraft.

Avenger could not shoot down an Exocet with its cannon: Yes it could, it may be unlikley but its not impossible.

Why no or very limited air activity in early June? There was bad weather on 2, 3, 4, 6 June which offered natural protection to the fleet and made take off and landing from carriers very dangerous. Remember that the fleet was 8000 miles from home, spare parts and replacement planes. With the loss of Atlantic Conveyor the UK had a very limited number of planes in the area and so could not risk them being lost. Enough were being lost to enemy action and accidents already and flying in bad weather when there was no critical reason to do so – especially when the land war was going well. The bad weather can be checked with the FAA on their official site.

Up to the 30th of May Argentina had been launching air attacks on the British almost constantly, suffering almost daily losses and causing damage to the British. Yet between 1 and 8 June only 2 Argentine aircraft were shot down – a Lear acting as a spy plane and a supply/bombing Canberra - so the Argentine forces were not flying combat missions either. As soon as the weather cleared, both sides put their combat aircraft back in action.

This information can be checked on the FAA (Argentine airforce) website.

Why does no one know where the Invincible was at certain times: Just because the junta and you now don’t know where the Invincible was from the end of May to end of July does not mean no one does or that it was sunk. Remember that the Invincible was also known as the Invisible because Argentina could not pinpoint her location.

What about the different funnel paint jobs: Standard practice in war to help camouflage a ship.

What about the other carrier that sank in secret in 1943, HMS Dasher: “The sinking OF the converted carrier HMS Dasher is not a mystery or secret. HOW she sank is, or at least was for many years. No one went around saying that Dasher was still afloat after 1943. People weren’t going around in 1955 saying that they had just served on HMS Dasher, she was fine, had never sunk, was active in 1944, etc. Rather that she was lost and it wasn’t clear what the cause of the loss was – friendly fire, mine, sabotage, negligence, etc. Mystery surrounds the sinking, not the fact of the sinking.

Neither was the sinking totally covered up for many years in the manner that the HMS Invincible sinking fantasy demands. Even at the time and despite an official news blackout, relatives of the dead protested and some had bodies returned for burial. People knew their relatives had died but they didn’t necessarily know how or have a body to bury.

The secrecy was imposed not to totally cover up the loss of a carrier – even in WW2 this would have been impossible – but because it was one of the greatest naval disasters in British waters not at the hands of the enemy. The loss of the ship was officially announced in 1945 in The Times. Hardly what you would do if you wanted to cover up the loss is it?

There is a massive difference in covering up the exact details of a ships loss for morale reasons and covering up the actual loss of a major naval asset.

As a matter of interest it is thought that aside from the embarrassment and/or danger of having a carrier lost in home waters that one of the bodies was used in Operation Mincemeat, an espionage assignment to confuse the Germans in WW2.”

Why did Australia cancel the deal to buy a carrier from the UK: The contract to sell the carrier was cancelled by Australia as an act of friendship because it was obvious that the UK needed to maintain a carrier force to be able to fight effectively. Previous to the Argentine invasion, the Royal Navy had been cut down in size as it was assumed that the USSR was the only enemy that would be fought and that the fighting would take place in the North Sea. The 1982 war showed this to be false and that the UK – a vital pillar of NATO and Western defence – needed a full carrier force and the ability to fight expeditionary warfare.

Why are there no pictures of Invincible after the war: Eyewitness account of HMS Invincible on 8th July having surviving the war fine, which features photographs of her after the 'attack'. http://www.twogreens.com/navy/FALKLANDS/falklands.html

What does invincible look in such good condition on that homecoming photograph of her when other ships look rusty, especially the Hermes: When it comes to pointing out the difference between the state of the Invincible and the Hermes, if we ignore the fact that they were different types of ships, built decades apart out of very different materials, you can compare the Invincible with some contemporary ships as they returned from the war:

http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~cyberheritage/

as you can see, they did not all look rust streaked and battered, and those areas that were affected by rust were predominantly around the anchor areas. An area it is impossible to see on the photograph of the Invincible (NOT Illustrious) returning to port in 1982. Their hulls are generally of a very good condition, nothing like the Hermes because they – and the Invincible – were not made of the same materials as the Hermes.

That homecoming shot of Invincible is also taken from a considerable height, a good distance away and is not of great resolution so it cannot be compared with the close up, good resolution shots of the Hermes.

Why no pictures of the Royal visit: There are also photos of the Royal visit to the Invincible after the war if you scroll to the bottom of the page. The Royals are the star here (no surprise, this is the UK), not the ship but it is clear that it is the Invincible they are on, with the bell and life ring: http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/FrameSet.aspx?s=ImagesSearchState%7c0%7c0%7c-1%7c28%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c1%7c%7c%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c1%7c%7cHMS+Invincible%7c1125084063323127%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0&p=1&tag=1

Unless of course the photos were staged and Getty Images, the Royal family and all the other officers in shot went along with the deception and joined the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of other people involved in The Biggest Conspiracy Theory In The History Of The Universe.Everliving 12:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said! This myth really does need to be shot down. Darkmind1970 10:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely, with GoogleEarth, someone can track down all 3 Invincible-class carriers at the same date and time. There were only 3 built. That would put the issue to bed once and for all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.237.25.210 (talk • contribs)

Nobody's doubting that 3 exist now. The conspiracy "theorists" to use a kind term, believe that 4 were built; the original Invincible, 2 sister ships and her replacement. As has been described above, no way could this have been kept secret. Also Google Earth is not real time - shots of a particular area can be years old. Mark83 16:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Some finds:

Here's translated page link

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.malvinense.com.ar/invincible.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAtaque%2Bal%2Bportaaviones%2BHMS%2BInvincible%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26ie%3DUTF-8

It's a very well made document that show both versions (its written by Argentineneans) and has very good information about the attack on the Invencible.

also a video here, showing an interview with one of the survining pilots of that missinon with a computer made movie of the event.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-belVjN_4x4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.208.206 (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

<comment removed> Woodym555 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This site is widely discredited as it contains more propaganda than truth. The person who runs it believes in almost every single conspiracy theory there is about the war, can never prove his arguments and has been shown to be a liar more than once. Everliving 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Article

First of all, I think that the whole thing about the Invincible being hit or not by Argentina's Aire Force should have an article of its own, where the planning of the Argentineans to do it, the two versions of the event, and the two refutals of the versions of the event (why the UK claims that the Argentineans didn't do it, and why Argentina claims that the UK is lying when they say they did it) should have an article of its own. With links to here, the one about Argentina's Air Force in the Falklands War, and the Falkands War Articles.

Second, I really don't care one way or the other (in fact I havem't heard about this two versions till I read this discussion here) but what I've seen so far is spanish speaking people defending the Argentinean version in a very diplomatic and polite way, while other english speaking people are attackig them all the time, making racist coments about Argentineans (calling them Argies for example). From my point of view, while the spanish speaking people do make good points, the english speaking people are looking really desperate to deny everything, and being very rude about it, almost like if they were afraid that the version that they dislike would 'catch on' to others. I think that the Article, if it's made, should be completely neutral, just like Wikipedia standars say they should, and as such should not have such fanatism as the english speaking people in this threads show for the version they are defending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.208.206 (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Argentine side relies entirely on 2 men saying that something happened and a perfect conmspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen before. It means that thousands of people all over the world, civilian and military, have been silenced 100% perfectly for over 25 years and that no journlaist or spy has ever discovered the facts but a few Argentines with the internet can. It is nothing but an internet conspiracy theory. It is not 'desperate' to be able to deny claims when you use facts and evidence. I do not believe that Argie is racist any more than Brit is.There is simply no convincing evidence that this attack was in any way successful. Everliving 16:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the entire Falklands War didn't happen. It was made up by Maggie Thatcher to make sure she stayed in power. The British government bought off the Argentinians to "pretend" to invade, and then she sent the FLeet to the Falklands to "liberate" it. All the news coverage of the war was made up by Hollywood producers, how were ordered by Reagan to help out the Brits (a little "racist" lingo there!). Some Argentinian pilots read an old version of the script, in which the 'Invinible was supposed to be sunk, and just kept up the story.
Now, that makes about as much sense as the RN tying to hide the fact that the Invincible was sunk or damaged. And please, your're judging the veracity of facts on the basis of how nice or racist the proponents are? THeories like this show a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature in general, and of the UK and the US in particular. THere is a wise proverb: A secret shared between more than one person is no longer a secret. Most genuine conspiracies have a short lifespan, and are soon uncovered. THe more complicated a conspiracy, and the more people who no about it, the harder it is to keep it a secret from people in the mainstream of a culture or its press. Second, there are many people within Western nations, particulary the UK and the US, who have no love for the military at all. Something of this magnitude would have been blown open in Britain long ago. THis is just the kind of albatross THatcher's opponents would have loved to have hung around her neck. The fact that none of them ever picked up on this is a good sign that it never happened.
I honestly don't see how this theory deserves its own article, especially when many Argentinians (I have to write out the whole word lest I be accused of being a racist too) disagree on what actually happened. Some clame the ship was only damaged, while others claim it was sunk. Unless someone can find an investigative pice which thoroughly researched the issue, any article would at best be Oiginal research as far as conclusions go. THe sentences covering the issue in this article's text are sourced, and the sources are sufficient for those seeking further information. - BillCJ 05:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hogwash! As per BillCJ, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of verifiable fact, not a place for argument, discussion, conjecture and point of view. I can guarantee that any such article would be speedied back to where from it came. Emoscopes Talk 07:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, Argies, Brit and Yank are not racist in the United Kingdom, they are short hand for Argentine, Briton and American. Margaret Thatcher had many enemies in the United Kingdom, both within and outside her own party, and they would have absolutely loved to have exposed the cover up. Secondly it was a massive push just to get three of these Baby Cruisers, there is no way in hell that we could have found the money for a fourth! Alternatively if it was damaged there is again no way in hell that could have been kept quiet! It would be a massive scandal had the country found out that it had been covered up. Argentina invaded Sovereign British Islands, illegally, and the United Kingdom rightfully defended its interests, the Belgrano was a Military Vessel and therefore a legal target. There is no debate here other than naive Spanish peoples, who do not want to accept that the Malivans are British, the Rock of Gibraltar is British and the Battle of Trafalgar showed an outnumbered British Fleet beat a combined French and Spanish Fleet, both with pressganged drunards. Can we please put this debate to a close. 86.138.254.102 (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)