Did Argentine Aircraft Attack HMS Invincible? (The Last Exocet Attack)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2023
- In late May 1982, Argentine Navy was left with only one AM39 Exocet missile. Their Super Etendards had successfully attacked and sank two British ships but the main prize, the two aircraft carriers was still untouched. Could the last anti-ship missile be the silver bullet and bring the victory to Argentina? What exactly happened and why is this the most controversial airstrike of the entire Falklands War?
Main sources:
- Mariano Sciaroni, Alejandro Amendolara - Handbrake!: Dassault Super Étendard Fighter-Bombers in the Falklands/Malvinas War 1982
amzn.to/3ZRhYIq
- Jeffrey Ethell - Air War South Atlantic
amzn.to/3sW0pe6
- Rowland White - Harrier 809: Britain’s Legendary Jump Jet and the Untold Story of the Falklands War
- Malvinas | Yo ataqué al Invencible
• Neočekivano iskustvo Z...
Support the channel on Patreon:
/ showtime112
Donate via Paypal:
www.paypal.com/paypalme/showt...
Join our Discord server:
/ discord
Audio mastering by Don Solaris:
• Shorts
Music by Yevhenii Kovalenko from Pixabay
pixabay.com/music/ambient-dar...
and Long Road by Futuremono
#militaryaviation #militaryaviationhistory #royalnavy #harrier #falklandswar 
Наука
![Young Nudy - John Wayne (feat. Metro Boomin) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NY8HnYYo2fo/mqdefault.jpg)
Some of the assets used in this reenactment are not 100 percent historically correct. A-4 Skyhawks flown by the Argentine Air Force were C models without the hump and here, they are represented by A-4E with the hump. HMS Avenger is represented by a Leander class frigate and HMS Invincible is from a later period. Bombs that Skyhawks use are Snakeye because there are no parachute retarded bombs in DCS World. Ship photos used here also might have some different modifications. These are not mistakes but simply the closest available options. Super Etendard skins were historically more dark grey and less blue but that would take too much time and/or money to get right. This historical event is interpreted differently by the two sides. Both versions are represented here which is indicated by a national flag in the top left corner. Mere visual representation does not indicate that the video creator claims any of the versions is the correct one, but simply shows what it might have looked like. Thank you for your understanding.
It's cool that you point these discrepancies out.
Appreciate it.
☮
Not saying they didn't ID it, but misinterpreted the black smoke coming out of the exhaust stacks as a Exocet hit. That carrier was at flank speed and maneuvering so they couldn't get a successful bomb run on it. I'm 100% positive it wasn't hit by either the Exocet, or the parachute bombs, MAINLY because that ship had a 3000 man crew, over the last 40 years someone, somewhere, at sometime would have said something. @maximipe
Muy bueno el video si podés poder traductor en los comentarios estaría genial saludos muy buen trabajo
The reasons why the British government, or the U.D government wouldn't admit/cover up such an attack would be due to political pressure to eliminate the use (call into question) such naval assets. A good example is the Book "Revolt of the Admirals" by Barlow. There was a feverish movement in both the United States and Great Britain to eliminate the use of large warships (Especially aircraft carriers.) If an aircraft carrier was damaged by a 3rd world nation with limited supply aircraft and munitions, what hope that squandered made of floating Cash have against a single Soviet Oscar SSGN? Even today, the current size of the Royal Navy is testament to that continued struggle of existence.
Meanwhile, to those saying "crew was too large to keep quiet." They've never been in the military; especially a cold war military. Even people who work in the Shipyards and airfields, know how to keep secrets. Millions of Americans served on nuclear Submarines, but I bet your life you can't find the actual operation specs of those ships. Not even the hull thickness: anywhere.
@@oveidasinclair982you never held a security clearance mate.
It's difficult to believe that everyone on-board Invincible has been sworn to silence about damage to the carrier for the past 40 years. And where was it repaired? She looked fine when returning to Portsmouth
It is also curious that Prince Andrew mentioned to a newspaper that he was in combat while serving on the aircraft carrier but then refused to talk about it.
Someone somewhere would have talked, the ship had a large crew, too large to keep quiet for over 40 years.
@@oveidasinclair982 There is also the fact that every UK shipyard where the work could be done is out in plain sight IIRC. The rumor of a damaged HMS Invincible coming into port would bring out every cameraman (amateur as well as professional) and every aircraft that could be hired. There would be no hiding her and the damage would be self evident.
@@robertf3479only thing confirmed is the bravery of Argentine pilots.
@@aveenkadavil2416 They died pointlessly.
You "missed" one Exocet attack although cronologically it happened after this Invincible mission on June 12th, the one on HMS Glamorgan from an improvised land launcher called ITB - Instalación de Tiro Berreta - It destroyed a helicopter and killed 14 sailors although it was an MM38 and not an AM39 Exocet missile. Argentinians hacked it so it could be launched from a mobile platform instead of a ship. The ITB was later found by UK forces, brought to the UK and reversed engineered turning it into the Excalibur platform stationed in Gibraltar since 1985 until 1997 when it got replaced by a more modern system
I am aware of that attack but I didn't put it in the same category. Argentine Navy had plenty of ship-launched Exocets but air launched versions had a potential to sink or seriously damage an aircraft carrier and maybe (even though it was a long shot), change the course of the war. Land based Exocets could only sink ships which came close to the Islands.
To be fair there were three land based attacks they attempted. One against HMS Penelope, and two against Glamorgan. Only one hit
Soy amigo de los pilotos Argentinos. A decir verdad los ingleses tuvieron el apoyo de Chile sobre la información de los aviones nuestros . Tuvieron mucha suerte que no explotaron todas las bombas que le acertamos a los buques británicos, de haber explotado Argentina ganaba la guerra
I'm probably super late to the party, but as an active Argentine Marine Infantry Officer, I've grown up hearing about the Malvinas Conflict (yeah, sorry, I'm not calling them "Falklands"). From what I've gathered over the years, there is no doubt in any fighting man's mind, that there's an unspoken respect between combatants, on both sides. Our pilots gave their all, as did our sailors, soldiers and Marines, of whom I'm proud to carry the legacy on. And ask any Argentine Marine, sailor, soldier or airman, and they'll unequivocally tell you, we respect the British Marines, sailors, soldiers, and airmen. Whether the HMS Invincible was struck or not, maybe we'll never know. Both sides lost a lot, and both sides fought bravely. The Malvinas Conflict was a political stunt gone horribly wrong, and Argentine and British lives were lost as a result. Cheers to all men who fought and died in the skies, seas and on the Islands. May their memory live on.
I really appreciate this constructive comment!
Well said, although I can tell you we absolutely do know that Invincible was never attacked and never hit. It was a propaganda story made up by the junta so that they could tell the people they'd just lost at Goose Green, but could put that story on the back pages of the newspapers and lead in with a mythical headline. The Falklands War was indeed a political stunt gone badly wrong.
@@rickyphillips7630 ¿Goose Green no fue un invento del Almirante Fieldhouse para levantar la moral británica? ¿Le convenía a él que se supiera la noticia del ataque al Invencible justo en ese momento?
@@tristansimoncini1511 That's ridiculous... Admiral Fieldhouse did not "invent" Goose Green. We had already announced victory at Goose Green the day before the failed attack on HMS Avenger on May 30th. You come out with this guff and wonder why you and your mates are called conspiracy theorists??
@@rickyphillips7630 busca la entrevista que le realizó recientemente Kasanzew a Julian Thompson. Ahí aprenderás quién organizó lo de Goose Green y para qué: levantar la moral británica. ¿dos días después aceptarían un ataque contra el Invencible?
There is no doubt about the courage of the Argentine pilots attempting to find targets so far out to sea, especially the four men who had at best rudimentary navigation ("steer west southwest until you reach the coast, then find your way home from there") and no radar or ECM. 50% loss in the Skyhawk force and still they kept coming. While the end result of the war wouldn't have changed, the Exocet hitting Carrier Invincible would be something the Royal Navy probably couldn't hide even if the ship were not lost.
Thanks for the comment, very good points!
There are many shipyards in Western countries that could have repaired that damage. During WW2 the US repaired a great deal of British and free French ships. All they had to do was bring the Invincible in under the covers of night, cut, weld and paint and have her out before sunrise.
@@Mthammere2010 The same problem would exist no matter where they would have taken her. The speed of this slapdash repair you talk about is not really possible. And the time needed to bring her into a shipyard would eat away at much of that "under cover of darkness" that you postulate.
Sorry dude, but as my Dad would say, "It don't work like that." Both ships I served in needed shipyard work from time to time, just getting the smaller of two alongside a pier at any shipyard, public or private would take two or three hours. And if she needed a drydock for repairs, 6 hours MINIMUM just to get her in place, the dock gate closed and the water pumped out.
@@Mthammere2010 That sounds rather unlikely. An Exocet hit would have caused massive damage that could not just have been painted over in a few hours.
@Mthammere2010 it's funny then, that Invincible remained on station conducting CAPs daily, when Hermes returned home as soon as Argentinian forces surrendered. I was on another British ship steaming in convoy with Invincible days after this and there was no sign of damage, and no possibility of getting to a friendly port (with repair facilities) and back.
The Argentine pilots' accounts are not believable. Of the thousands of sailors either on Invincible or ships in the vicinity in the weeks after not to have seen something or kept a secret for 40 years, beggers belief.
I was on Invincible from before until well after these so called events. We did not get bombed but we had some scary moments not least when Atlantic Conveyor was sunk. Possibly some pilot misunderstood what had actually happened but then he was in a fight for his life and not trying to produce a youtube video. The Argentinian press released a photo of Invincible in flames similar to the one in this video. In reality we printed it off and posted it on the door of our HQ with the added caption of " Damage control works". I think there were three photo's of us being sunk and many people still believe that we were. I'm not that good a swimmer.
Thank you for sharing your experience. Yes, there was an Argentine photo but that was fake. The scenes in this video don't suggest that the attack really happened, only what it might have looked like according to the testimonies of Argentine pilots.
My respects from Argentina. It was a confilct neither side should have involved.
if argentina had 10 more missiles, you could have been in another place rn. mind boggeling to think that a silly number on a piece of paper could make the difference.
If Argentina had waited a few more months we couldn't have responded as Invincible had been sold to Australia and Hermes really should've been scrapped.
Thanks for setting that straight! Great to hear from someone who was actually there. I remember the Falklands War.
Hugh Balfour, the Captain of HMS Exeter covers the whole engagement in depth in an oral history he gave at the Imperil War Museum. The two Skyhawks overflew Exeter after attacking Avenger and somebody on the bridge wing of Exeter got a photo of a Skyhawk over the ship during the attack. He states on reel 3 on the link below that between the Skyhawks and Exeter was a butt load of smoke from the Sea Darts that he launched and it is quite possible that the only thing the A-4 pilots saw were the Mast tops and Radar Antennae of Exeter when they over flew the ship. Exeter was the only Type 42 Destroyer in the Royal Navy at the time fitted with a Type 1022 Air Search Radar. The only other ship in the Royal Navy fitted with that Radar equipment was HMS Invincible. The 1022 Antenna looked very different from the main search radars fitted to the rest of the British and Argentinean Type 42s. Balfour thinks that the Argentine pilots made an honest mistake, they saw a ship covered in smoke with a Type 1022 Radar and as far as they (and the High Command) were aware the only Royal Navy ship down there with that equipment was Invincible. Exeter had only been in the Falkland's for a few days and it was possible that the Argentineans were not aware she was there yet.
Balfour's interview - www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80014200
Photo of Skyhawk flying over Exeter on 30th May 1982 - hmsexeter.co.uk/falklands.php
Um conflito esquecido do século xx, a Guerra das Malvinas pede destaque.Teus episódios da guerra aérea estão excelentes. Obrigado🇧🇷
Thank you very much for your positive comment!
Os vídeos dele são mesmo excelentes!
Los ingleces siempre van a hacer todo lo que este a su alcance para que se olvide donde modifique la historia cuando no les haya sido tan favorable para ellos.
Muy buen video! 👌
I think your sum-up was correct. However you did ask about the Skyhawk pilots: ‘Could they be lying to make themselves look like heroes?’ Given the British radar had already been alerted by the Super Etendard ‘pop-up’ and everyone was just watching the Skyhawks come in, with their fingers on the trigger, I think most people would agree all four of them were pretty heroic for pressing home their attack at that time.
That's exactly what they did. Promotion and medals. The pilots were spirited away to Buenos Aires immediately after and emerged only when the story had had taken hold so much, that they'd be fools to discourage it it.
@@rickyphillips7630si se atacó al destructor hms coventry y a la fragata hms broadsword en mar abierto, hundiendo al hms coventry en 20 minutos, y se duda de los pilotos argentinos? El portaaviones hms invincible esta en el fondo del mar .. cuando volvió el hms invincible pintado a nuevo, es que en realidad era el akr royal..uk son los reyes del engaño ..saludos
@@rickyphillips7630 Real pity Exeter only had 10 Sea Darts in her magazine as she hadn't had chance to restore her missile magazine on the way down and weather had stopped her from getting more missiles once she got down there. She got 909 lock on the two Skyhawks who's pilots started this bullshit story and had she had more missiles, she would have nailed both of them on top of the two she did kill. Seeing that she had no idea when she was going to get reloads she let the two Skyhawks get away.
@@richardvernon317 Those pilots have more balls than you will ever have kid, be more respectful. Even if they were your enemies, they deserve respect. These stories occur in all wars
Gracias por tratar este tema de forma imparcial. Nosotros somos un grupo de personas de Argentina que se dedica a investigar este ataque para poder llegar a la verdad histórica. Aunque para mucha gente sea difícil aceptar que el hecho fue ocultado, nosotros creemos que hubía muchas razones para hacerlo y también fue facilitado porque el buque no recibió grandes daños. Hasta 1981 la Ley de Secretos Oficiales del Reino Unido penalizaba con la muerte a quienes no cumplían la ley. No es descabellado pensar que todos los tripulantes respetaran el secreto por muchos años, más aún sin bajas de consideración. Gracias nuevamente, muy buenos los videos sobre el conflicto de 1982. Los mejores deseos. Consulta: ¿de qué país son ustedes?
¿Estás diciendo que esto sucedió según el video?
What a load of rubbish.
HMS invincible had a ship's personnel of 1000 and not a word in 40 years! The aircraft carriers were protected by guard ships such as Avenger and Exeter, which did an effective job.
@@colinlambert882 For much of the time there was a frigate off each beam to act as a last line of defence. Any inbound Exocett would have hit them first. The whole idea is preposterous.
Some versions of the myth have Ark Royal renamed Invincible and a fourth CVS being built to make up the numbers. It's all bat shit.
No creo que los argentinos hayan oído hablar de reuniones informativas "extraoficiales". Si el objeto hubiera sido alcanzado, fuentes británicas lo sabrían o al menos lo afirmarían al 100%. No se puede ocultar tal cosa a los medios británicos.
I don't think the Argentines have heard of 'off-the-record' briefings. If the thing had been hit, it would be known or at least asserted by British sources, 100%. You cannot hide such a thing from the British media.
I served aboard HMS Brilliant and I can categorically assure everyone that the Invincible was never hit. HMS Brilliant was the carriers 'goalkeeper' as we had the Seawolf close defence missile system.
Todos saben los que les paso al hms invincible, esta en el fondo del mar, cuando en 1943 se incendia y hunde el portaaviones hms desher se creía eso , en realidad lo hundió un submarino alemán.. hms invincible buque insignia de la task force, sería una vergüenza para la OTAN..
@@pedroacdc7770 The Dasher story is a dead duck. Completely different reasons, and it stayed covered for only a few weeks anyway. This whole "It's a bit like Dasher" story was cooked up by internet conspiracy theorist Miguel Bortolotto.
¿Dónde estaba la HMS Brilliant el 30 de mayo de 1982? Te pregunto esto porque en los informes oficiales no figura ese buque. Por el contrario, ese día estaba el HMS Glamorgan al lado del portaaviones Invencible.
@@tristansimoncini1511 Taken from HMS Brilliant diary.
30th May. Sunday. ‘Z’ From TARA to TEZ and Falkland Sound. Daily defence watches. Goalkeeping on Invincible. RAS ( L ).
@@wafudave6041 o está mal tú diario o están mal los informes oficiales del ataque. No coinciden
The Exeter was operating 40 miles south of Invincible. Besides, there would have been serious injuries and trauma. Its hilarious to think 1,800 British sailors would all allow the Navy to cover up any such attack for 40 years.
If an Exocet and bombs (don't think you gave their weight) had hit and detonated in Invincible it would have required major repair at a dry dock which those Russian satellites etc would have exposed (there is NO WAY to cover up such a thing). I served in the Fleet Air Arm for over 27 years from 1984, on both Invincible and Illustrious and NEVER heard ANTHING about ANY damage to Invincible.
There is also absolutely no way any Invincible class ship could confused with ANY other RN ship, they look so Unique. Add to that the Argentines reputation for lying (which was almost as bad as the Russians) and you can safely bet your left bollock both pilots were just after kudos!
I believe they had more than 5 Exocets though some were land launched like the one that hit HMS Glamorgan.
Fun fact, the UK requested the kill codes for the Exocets from France (which would have rendered them impotent) but despite being a fellow NATO member (even if not a full one) they refused.
El sistema berreta usaba Exocet M-M38 y no los AM-39 más modernos y con más alcance.
France had no obligation to render the best Anti-ship missile in the world redundant to a potential enemy
Of course they refused. They rely heavily on foreign arms sales to make their domestic defense industry economically viable. Had they handed Britain those codes, they might as well have kissed their defense industry goodbye. I’m not a fan of a lot of French foreign policy, but this is one case where assisting would’ve been so counter to their own national interests it’d be tantamount to treason. Any other nation would’ve been compelled to do the same in that situation. I suppose it never hurts to ask, but it’s not the sort of thing to hold against them.
They had only 5 air launch Exocet
Some good points. Argentina had plenty more Exocets but not the air launched versions. Ships were held back and they didn't confront the RN.
Great video 👍
Thanks a lot!
That was very enjoyable. Thank you!
Thanks, I'm happy to hear it!
Confusion in combat is an age-old problem. Truth is, when your life is on the line, you may tend to see what you want to see. I believe that is what happened in this case. Two fellow pilots were dead and they attacked a ship knowing at any moment they could be over taken and destroyed by avenging British pilots. I am not questioning the courage or skill of the Argentines. Only how willing they were at that moment to die for that cause and that government.
Hello, great comment, what happens is, having a father in '82 in the air force and listening to their stories, they, like all soldiers, swear the flag, until they lose their lives. They would have fought for any government when what is being defended is the country, defacto government, traitors, the same ones who lost the war. greetings from Argentina
Thanks for the comment! Confusion seems to be the most logical explanation, historical precedents exist.
@@chocomike8227 The ones who lost the war were inept, not traitors. To suggest they were traitors may imply they had any skills whatsoever. Argentina lost that war for many reasons, and most of them were timidity and ineptness on behalf of the senior commanders... but not treason.
Ask Prince Andrew, he knows.
Harrier 809: Britain’s Legendary Jump Jet and the Untold Story of the Falklands War from Robert White. Its an excellent book, i find it really intressting that neither side was really prepared for war. The argentines air forces A4s per examples had major maintenance issues like the charges for the ejection seats were well passed their expiration date. While the brits scrambled to get enough airframes and pilots for the fromation of 809 squadron (the third sea harrier squadron that took part in the falklands war) in a very short time.
Thanks for the comment! You might also say that both sides were preparing for a different war. The Royal Navy was supposed to fight Soviet submarines in North Atlantic, Sea Harriers were primarily supposed to intercept Soviet bombers such as Tu-95. Argentine Air Force was mostly training for a war against Chile.
I doubt the missiles actually hit, seeing as Royal Navy would have a hard time covering it up (possible not likely). The bravery on the Argentine side has to be noted, what a daring mission they had to carry out. Great video Showtime.
Unless the Invincible was hit by a missile or bomb that failed to explode, it wasn't hit.
Thank you for the feedback! That makes sense.
LOL, the myth lives on. A4’s an attack in open water against a Fleet Carrier group equipped with Sea Wolf and Sea Dart. Plus a reported an attack on a Frigate by A4’s round the same time frame. The Frigate was attacked on its helicopter deck.
Thank you for commenting!
Hey , this is an Aicraft Carrier , not a frigate😉
@@searchtron7601 Argintines attacked the stern of a Frigate in poor visibility and mistook it for a flight deck of an aircraft carrier
@@David1701Gthat makes a lot of sense 👍
@@richardvernon317 I didn't know that thank you 👍
Thanks for another great video. I tend to believe the British version. As you said, they admitted many other losses and had no reason to conceal another one.
Thank you for the comment!
It wouldn´t have been the first time in history the British lied about a case like that.
Nor the second.
Nor the third....
@@sixtosilxtra4842 Let me try and quantify what you’re trying to tell the world. You actually think that the dictatorship didn’t lie? They lied all the time about everything. They even told the world that they were winning when they were losing every single battle. Do you accept that the press releases that the dictatorship put out saying the mission of the 30th of May was a success, without questioning it and accept it as absolute truth, despite the irrefutable evidence of it being a lie? Do you accept all the other claims by the dictatorship such as the attack by a Puccara on HMS Hermes and the sinking of the SS Canberra? Aren’t they not all true? “Estamos ganando”. Wasn’t that all true as well?
If I asked you to produce the irrefutable proof that London had lied and you can show us all this evidence, will you be able to do that? You see, the only evidence of a strike against HMS Invincible, is circumstantial and conjectural. Tell me why the military thought it was necessary to put gun-cams on military aircraft? What is the reason for this? You have only the words of two men who were likely to have experienced target fixation. This is why the camera was necessary in military aircraft.
Most of the circumstantial evidence is made up, such as the decline in air activity, despite Sharkey Ward, shooting down a C130 on the day after the damage to his ship was supposed to have happened. Look up that engagement. Not one conspiracy theorist has taken up my challenge to obtain a confirmation from a firm of marine engineers, to support the claim that the structural damage from an exocet, can be repaired in the way described. Not one.
@sixtosilxtra4842 difficult to lie when you've got a substantial chunk of Fleet Street on board!!!
@@sixtosilxtra4842 ..different times .... and some lies are impossible to keep. Imagine the logistics of trying to keep a lie such as that in a country like modern Britain? Just about everyone would have talked ferfusaxe! ...this is not NAZi Germany, or even WW2 Britain. Also I understand the telling of lies in wartime to not give an enemy an advantage, but the British had also the press on board and admitted every sinking pretty quickly. However even if you did manage to muzzle the press long term (impossible) there is no way on earth you can muzzle that crew to this day.
I don't think the Brits were lying about their carrier not getting hit, that carrier carried a large crew and over the last 40 years someone would have said something. It's highly plausible that the Argentine pilots mistook the carriers thick smoke coming out of it's exhaust stacks as a missile hit, the Invincible was most likely at full throttles, yanking and banking, doing everything they could to make themselves a more difficult target for a bomb run, which apparently worked. As for the Exocet, the Brits knew one was coming and chaff apparently did it's job on that missile, maybe if Argentina could have fired more, one could have made it through, but the Brits had plenty of time to prepare for it.
Thank you for the comment! Misidentification is quite believable, especially when you consider some historical precedents.
The smoke would not have come from Invincible's smoke stack. Invincible was powered by gas turbines and the only smoke was a very slight blue diesel haze.
If you were burning a more modern day diesel based fuel, modern day diesel is more refined, my understanding was back in the 80's it wasn't so refined. @@chrisknight6884
Porque los pilotos que salieron a esa misión y fueron derribados no volvieron??
Estan los documentos de esa misión me podrías explicar???
Intriguing video. Well made and balanced.
I lived in Gosport at the time (it's the other side of Portsmouth Harbour). We saw HMS Invincibles' home coming. Unlike the WW2 British carriers she had no real armour. Even light external damage would have been visible and not easily fixed on the voyage home. Not trying to pour scorn in the Argentinian pilots bravery, but their accounts don't really hold up to publicly visible scrutiny we had at the time.
Thank you for commenting and sharing your experience. Repairing of the Invincible in secrecy is definitely the weakest point of Argentine explanation.
The best on RUclips as always!
Quite a compliment, thanks!
Hms invincible stayed on station until Port Stanley Airport was fit for duty
Thank you for the comment!
Hermes stayed first on station, and was later was relieved by Invincible. Hermes returned to the UK on July 21st
1982. Invincible was relieved by Illustrious on August 28th 1982. Illustrious took flaship duties from RA Derek Reffell on board HMS Bristol and not from HMS Invincible. Invincible returned to the UK on September 17th 1982. Illustrious was relieved by F4-Phantom II Squadrom from the RAF on October 21st 1982 Illustrious returned to the UK on December 7th 1982, after a trip that included Puerto Rico, Fort Lauderdalle and Philadephia.
Another great video, thanks for sharing Sir! I do not belive that the Argentine pilots lied, but when you expect to see something, sometimes your mind tricks you and you belive what you are seing is the thing you expected to see - not the first time this has happened and it will certainly not be the last. We also have to remember the stress the Argentine pilots would have been feeling during the attack.
Indeed. Can't blame the Argentine A-4 pilots though. After seeing half of their flight shot down and killed, they were extremely nervous and extremely desperate to complete their attack and escape before they were killed too. Therefore they misidentified HMS Avenger (frigate) as HMS Invincible (carrier). Basically, they attacked the first British ship they could reach. Also, their bombs were released so low that they didn't have time to arm themselves, and all bombs missed.
Thank you for watching! I used to think that it would be very hard to confuse an aircraft carrier with a frigate but now, it seems quite believable.
The evidence seems to suggest that they were pressured to lie by senior officers. A witness present at their debriefing describes the two pilots initially reporting they could not identify the target, then being pushed and pushed and "reminded" of what _Invincible_ looked like until they conceded that it might, potentially, have been _Invincible_ - at which point the -interrogation- debriefing ended and the senior officers rushed out to announce the sinking of _Invincible._
This is a textbook example of how to generate false testimony. It's often used by police to coerce confessions from innocent suspects.
Another excellent and well balanced episode. I hadn't heard about the Soviet satellite imagery being shared with the Argentines.
Thanks! Argentinians are pretty sour about US intelligence supplied to the British but Argentine authors confirm the Soviet intelligence being given to Argentina. It makes perfect sense.
The Soviets almost lost a submarine loitering in the area, to be discovered as they were they must have been asleep.
@@showtime112en realidad nó, la informacion de los movimientos de la flota britanica eran aportadas por el escuadron Fenix a bordo de Learjet de la Fuerza aerea y por los aviones de reconocimiento maritimo S-2 Neptune, realmente el único aporte sovietico venía del numero de barcos y no de su posicion.
@@germanojeda6272Actually yes. I've seen the intelligence sent by the USSR to Argentina. It was nothing to do with Phoenix Squadron.
@@germanojeda6272 Los S-2 Neptune tuvieron su ultima misión con el ataque al Sheffield por acabarsesu vida util. Fueron suplantados por aviones de reconocimiento alquilados a Brasil:los Embraer emb111 Bandeiramte, que volaron el resto del conflicto.
Thank you for covering this contentious topic, both sides definitely would have their reasons to say it did or didn't happen. For the British, admitting that their carriers were reached by such unsophisticated aircraft could have meant a great blow to the prestige of their Navy, specially considering the context of the cold war, if Argentines could hit it with a single ASM and Skyhawks it painted a dire situation for the British if they had to face the soviets in a hypothetical cold war gone hot, it wouldn't have been smart for the British to admit a weakness like that. On the other hand it would probably be embarrassing for the Argentines to admit that such a complex and important operation had been fumbled by chaff, and that two pilots had died for nothing. It could also be an honest mistake from the pilots, even though they were trained to identify the ships they were fighting, it's very possible that confirmation bias and the heat of the moment made it easy to misidentify the smoke covered ship.
No matter what really happened, it's still one of the most exciting air operations of the war, considering all the moving parts, high stakes and how the Argentines had to really stretch their fuel even more than normal, it's their very own "Doolittle raid". I've listened to the pilots narrate their POV of the events in interviews many times, so it was awesome to see it acted out.
Wow, this is my favorite comment so far! Excellent points and it's hard to argue with any of them.
I should add that what really happened is already well known. It wasn't attacked. It wasn't hit. There was a failed attempt to attack HMS Avenger this day, and that was it. The rest is mythology and propaganda.
@@rickyphillips7630 MENTIROSO!!!
If the Cold War had ever got hot, it would have been fought on the plains of central Europe. It's impossible to overstate how unnecessary aircraft carriers would have been to Britain in this enterprise, given how close Britain is to mainland Europe. Why would Britain need to be using Harriers flying off aircraft carriers in the North Sea rather than Tornados out of East Anglia and Lincolnshire?
personally I'd find it hard to believe that not one of the crewmen aboard the HMS Invincible wouldn't have mentioned by now being struck by a Exocet missile.
True. Especially in the country where tabloids are as huge as in the UK.
Es una apresision personal muy congruente, lo incongruente es la "claridad" del casco del HMS Invincible al llegar a Porthsmouth si se compara con el desgaste de otros navios como el HNS Hermes.
Y viendo los reveses economicos de Margaret Tatcher y su politica de "meter bajo la alfombra" muchas embarcaciones fueron dadas de baja o vendidas a las marinas de Libia, Egipto, Chile despues de la guerra así que no queda mucho registro por donde constatar.
And all blokes on the attendant escorts
Une vidéo extraordinaire qui a dû demander beaucoup de travail, alors un grand bravo à vous!!
L'exocet a marqué un autre point le 11 juin en touchant un navire britannique effectuant un bombardement contre la terre. Le missile avait été démonté d'un navire argentin, adapté pour être monté sur une remorque puis envoyé sur les îles.
Thank you for your feedback! Yes, there was one more Exocet attack, the one you mention. Argentine Navy had plenty of ship launched Exocets but only air launched ones could have hit the carriers and maybe alter the outcome of the war so I put that one in a different category.
During the Battle of the Phillipine Sea in 1944 in WW2, one of the Japanese fleets mistook a small Task Force of Destroyer Escorts (small bbudget-Destroyers, weight 1200 t) and small Escort Carriers (much smaller than normal carriers, weight 10.000 t) for a fleet of Cruisers (30.000 t ships) and Fleet Carriers (60.000 t).
Not just for some seconds or minutes, but for hours. Many factors contributed to this, an initial failed identification, smoke, heavy resistance, technical issues. Just after fighting them for hours, they understood their mistake.
Back to 1982: Flying at 700 km/h between ships that shoot your friends down, seeing a target in smoke and chaff for less than 10 seconds with some detail, being at the same time scared and in hope for a good kill, I think the Argentine misidentified.
It seems like a logical explanation, thank you!
Nice video 👍
Thanks, Chups!
An excellent presentation!
Thank you for the positive feedback!
Invincible was some miles from where this attack took place. After the war she remained on station at the Falklands while the airfield was made ready for fast-jet ops. She was not held back for repairs and indeed I have a photo I took of her a few weeks after the surrender and she looks a little shabby but completely undamaged.
Thank you for the comment and for sharing!
Argentine here, I'm also of the opinion that the attack failed, I'm interested in that pic, do you have it posted somewhere? I've seen a couple of the Vince with an Argentine Huey on the deck, one from some distance to the carrier, and another one from the deck with the chopper very visible.
Intacto? .. el portaaviones hms desher dijeron que se hundió por un incendio, después de 50 años se supo que lo hundió un submarino alemán, hms invincible esta en el fondo del mar ,en esa zona donde se lo atacó esta prohibido hacer exploraciones petroleras...
@@pedroacdc7770 había más de mil tripulantes en el Invincible, cómo hacés para ocultar la muerte de tantas personas, aunque hubiesen sido el 10%? hay que enfrentar la verdad, la misión fue temeraria, digna de admiración y respeto, pero falló
@@pedroacdc7770 The HMS Dasher incident was absolutely nothing like this, and for very different reasons. Furthermore, the secret was out within two months. You can't compare this to Invincible. The May 30th attack was a failure, which wasn't against Invincible but HMS Avenger. There was no attack on HMS Invincible.
This was one of your most exciting videos. I can imagine the Royal Navy crews training for years and then one day these blips come roaring at low level to destroy you. Things got real in a hurry. I was a helicopter pilot in the US Army when this war happened and we followed it with great interest as this was one of the few conflicts with western vs western technology. We were also big fans of the Harrier jump jets and many of our pilots had flown in NATO ops with the RAF and RN and were greatly impressed by their professionalism and skill.
I was active duty USN at the time, on staff at Great Lakes Naval Training Center. We followed this war as you did. By this point I had just received orders to an Atlantic Fleet destroyer, by the time I reported for duty both the Combat Systems and Engineering departments were digesting information passed down the Chain of Command as well as making recommendations to improve the defenses of our ships and how to deal with the inevitable battle damage a sea fight would inflict.
Any source of hard information was fair game whether it was HMS Sheffield, USS Stark, USS Samuel B Roberts and so on. I like to think that the changes we made to the various doctrines both aboard our ship and recommended up the Chain of Command saved lives and protected our ships. USS Princeton and USS Tripoli survived hitting mines for example.
Thank you for sharing your personal view of the conflict! I was only nine but I remember watching the news and seeing images from the war. Many valuable lessons were certainly learned from it.
The reality is, we do know what happened. The Falklands is the perhaps the best-documented and recorded war in history. British officials at the MoD have a long history of leaving sensitive documents and laptops on trains and in bathrooms so the idea we could have hushed up a successful or even any attack on Invincible is ludicrous.
The reality is the Argentinian propaganda arm told another tall tale. They stretched out the accounts of surviving pilots who in their original accounts were not even sure of what they attacked. Hardly an isolated incident: Their papers ran stories with doctored photographs claiming Invincible sunk multiple times. They did the same with Canberra, the doctored photo being particularly memorable with a really badly edited in F-86 Sabre. I think I remember reading about one of the Argentine strike squadrons claiming to have sunk HMS Avenger still to this day. They should really inform the Pakistani Navy of this fact, who are her current operators (under the name PNS Tipu Sultan).
I'll say it as a Brit, Argentine pilots were incredibly brave, daring buggers who gave the RN a bloody nose flying their old birds to the limit, and paid a hellish price for it. Lending credence to these fairy tales does their memory a disrespect.
¿De que propagada habla? Porque llamar propaganda a publicaciones de una revista es poco serio. La FAA NUNCA reclamó haber hundido el Canberra o el Avenger... Así que deje de mentir.
La realidad es que 2 pilotos con experiencia suficiente para diferenciar una Tipo 21 de un Portaaviones, atacaron al Invencible. ¿Que pasó después? No lo sabemos con seguridad. Inglaterra tiene fama de manejar muy a gusto la información a lo largo de su historia bélica (y tal es el caso, de que la versión argentina fue siempre 1 por 40 años, mientras que la inglesa cambió varias veces), y eso no lo puede negar.
Thanks for the comment! Propaganda and an attempted morale boost is a possible explanation.
Sr. you are wrong. The pilots who attack they say the true. Now there is no one "prograganda" and the pilots continues saying the true. Of course the UK have it on secret. This mission as well all the mission the pillots say the true. you can on RUclips. there many videos about it.
The Argentine pilots, in addition to having iron balls, knew what they were doing on their attack missions against the Royal Navy. All frigates and battleships, including the English aircraft carrier, that were attacked by the warfighters of the Air Force and the Navy were checked and verified on the ground. What happened in the Falklands War was no fairy tale. England and its allies won the war, but lost heavily in terms of millions and millions of dollars and pounds sterling due to losses in weapons, mostly caused by Argentine pilots. As an Argentine I am proud of my fighter pilots.
@alejandrocamano1295 please produce a single piece of hard supporting evidence that argentinian pilots hit a British carrier. Should be quite simple, its probably the best documented and studied war in human history. I'll wait.
Good work.....thanks !
Go Argentina 🇦🇷👍🏻
Thank you for your comment!
Gracias!
Errr... they failed to hit it and lost to aircraft in trying. You call that "good work"??
Very interesting video. I can say with total certainty, that HMS Invincible was never hit by any bomb or missile. I was on that ship for the duration of the conflict and she received no damage. Are late arrival back in the UK was due to us waiting to be replaced by HMS Illustrious. Its as simple as that.
Thank you for testifying,
According to the Argentine conspiracy nutters, you were all threatened under some "great military secret£ never to tell the truth... I have lots of friends who were crewmates of yours, and of course, all will happily tell the truth that she was never attacked or hit.
If the Argentine account were true then it would be impossible to hide. When Invincible returned to Portsmouth she could be seen close up with out any visible damage. RUclips has videos on it.
I understand the carrier was quickly repaired in secrecy and sold to India
Some versions say she was repaired at Ascención Island, the Northamerican base, before arriving quite later than the rest of the fleet. And with a not natural bright for a ship that has been months in the sea.
Perhaps not impossible but very hard
@@searchtron7601 Invincible stayed in the Royal Navy and was scrapped in 2011.
@@sixtosilxtra4842 Ascension had one jetty, that was it. No repair facilities. It would have taken 6-12 months, not a lick of paint. The story is pure rubbish. Invincible was never attacked or hit.
To keep it polite: war is hell. 🥺
Congrats on another great video, my friend! 👍🏻👏🏻💪🏻🍻🍻🙋🏼♂️
Agree . We need to unite because war against Human Kind is coming under the excuse of WW3
Thanks Pappa! It wasn't because of viewers like you that I asked for politeness :)
@@showtime112 Oh, I see now! 😬
Well, what can you do? That's the Internet for you! 🤷🏼🤦🏻♂️🙋🏼♂️
Them Etendards are some beautiful kites, that`s all I have to say.
Thank you for commenting!
Riveting.
Thoroughly enjoyed this video.
The visuals and the description/facts.
Thank you for making it.
☮
I'm happy to hear it, thank you!
If this was true and the HMS Invincible was bombed, military historicans would have known about this over 10 years ago, as clasified documents from this confict become unclasified afer 30 years in the UK.
Thanks for the comment!
There are lots of clasified documents still clasified about that conflict.
Many were clasified for 90 years.
@@sixtosilxtra4842 Yea that mainly due to things being still operational that still need to be kept secret.
So a incident like the Invincible being bombed would have been declasified cause it have no impact on todays RN.
There are still documents relating to Isandalwana that are classified and I'm damned if I can understand why but the reclassification has been done three times so far so somebody somewhere must have a reason and yes there are still many documents from the Falklands war that are classified but I guarantee none of them are about damage to invincible.
Exactly, and the May 30th attack documents were released in 2012. I have a copy. Invincible was never hit. Not even close.
Thank you showtime 112 for the videos!!!
Thank you for appreciating it!
Thank you, my Dad was on the Avenger and this is the most information i have ever had about this event. I was told the missile flew across its bow.
Thank you very much for commenting! It was an event worth examining and remembering.
Yes and no. Avenger did have a missile go across its stern a few days before, wrongly reported as an Exocet. On May 30th, chaff from Avenger decoyed the Exocet off the port side. The missile sailed past her (several hundred meters away) and locked onto HMS Andromeda but ran out of fuel and hit the sea. Minutes after the attack, the crew of Avenger tried to rescue pilot Omar Jesus Castillo from his aircraft, but found his body to be missing the top part of his head. They only recovered his flight hood and respirator. Castillo had actually been hit by one of his own bombs bouncing off the waves as he came in to attack Avenger just port side of the bow.
Very interesting episode of this war.
Thank you for the comment!
Thank you for your movies.@@showtime112
It's inconceivable that the world's media would not have noticed battle damage on The Big Vince.
Si claro jamás han silenciado hechos que los dejaría en ridiculo😂
Excellent video.
I appreciate it, thanks!
Absolutely i will believe Britons' explanation.
Thank you for the comment!
not to piss on anyone's chips here but lets all remember that brave pilots from same country had already made sworn testimony to their sinking the Hermes and the Canberra too on several occasions. so embarrassing was the Canberra claim that Galtieri did not want the Argentinian POWs repatriated by the ship due to the amount of times they "sunk" it.
??? Eso no es verdad, para nada. Cuando un piloto argentino reclamo haber hundido al canberra y hermes? Deje de mentir.
I have to say that I didn't come across these claims. Perhaps they were made but historians these days simply dismiss them.
Reminds me of when an American B-17 pilot claimed to have sunk an "S.S. Normandie class" liner / troop transport during the Battle of Midway, when bombing the Japanese invasion fleet. (The S.S. Normandie was the largest ship in the world at that time, and of course it wasn't serving in the Japanese Navy, but was tied up in New York Harbor). LOL.
It was the end for Argentina at this date. I think that they need something to put under their teeth before bowing out from this war that they have lost.
It's usual during the war for creating a legend. The HMS invincible returned at home at the end of the conflict he had not sunk anyway.
Salut Jeanne. D'après mon bouquin, c'est sur 2 skyhawks au tapis par sea darts de Exeter. Le radar du SuperEtendard a accroché l Exeter et Avenger dans le même alignement donc un gros spot sur le scope. Ya eu un tir de fusées leurres Curvus et nuages de chaffs.. et après la mauvaise visibilité et la vitesse à troublé la mémoire des 2 pilotes !!°
@@dominiqueroudier9401 Bonjour.
T'es d'accord qu'étant donné l'émotion de la perte des deux A-4 SKYHAWK argentins juste avant, les pilotes ont dû se tromper de cible et ont cru voir l'HMS INVICIBLE touché.
L'Exocet a dû être brouillé par le lance-leurres et son nuage de paillettes.
@@jeannezehner9450 les Skyhawk se sont fixés sur Nav des SUE. Une fois missile tire et fait Demi tour. Les Skyhawk ne peuvent que suivre missile par mauvaise visibilité... Le reste est un enchaînement de circonstances.
Comment se déroule la fac? ya t'il les flics présent ??
@@jeannezehner9450zut j'ai oublié de te dire que j'ai trouvé photo des 4 Skyhawk de cette attaque au moment du décollage. Envoyer aussitôt a showtime
@@dominiqueroudier9401
Que deux sont revenus de cette attaque en réalité ???
Thanks You for the video. Saludos desde Argentina 🇦🇷
Felicitaciones por el video, es extraordinario!!!
Alguna vez crucé mensajes con un forista español y hablando justamente acerca de este ataque al HMS Invincible, me dijo algo muy cierto y que me quedó grabado para siempre.
Este español me dijo: "mira, si los británicos al día de hoy, todavía no reconocen a ciencia cierta las bajas quw tuvieron en la batalla del Cabo Trasfalgar, no te parece que menos aún reconocerán este ataque?"
Esto me pareció muy cierto, por lo que desde ese momento, dejé de preocuparme por el tema.
El ataque, existió.
Siempre fue reconocido por la parte argentina, no así en un comienzo poe los británicos que luego de unos años, cambiaron y sí lo han reconocido.
El Príncipe Andrés, cometió la infidencia de reconocer que ese día, se encontraba en el HMS Invincible, jugando al dado de mil caras o dado mágico con un amigo y los sorprendió la alerta de un ataque argentino.
Ahora la cuestión no es si el ataque se produjo, sino la efectividad del mismo, y aquí los británicos tienen muchas más razones para mentir o disimular la verdad, muchas más que las que tienen los argentinos.
Esto no es nuevo, si tomamos el caso del ataque alemán al Lusitania de la Primera Guerra Mundial, veremos cómo los británicos mintieron deliberadamente durante más de un siglo, conociéndose finalmente hoy día lo que verdaderamente sucedió.
Saludos cordiales desde Buenos Aires.
They didn't attack Invincible. They tried to attack HMS Avenger and missed.
Siempre los ingleses mintieron ese buque era insignia de la flota británica, Argentina penetró el corazón de la flota casi atacando bien del sudeste por la espalda, ni se imaginaron , casi 4 horas de vuelo, ese 25/5/82 se atacó a mar abierto hundiendo en 20 minutos al destructor hms coventry récord mundial en mandar al fondo del mar ,los pilotos ARGENTINOS tienen unos huevos de acero y no mentían jamás, piensa que sería una vergüenza para la OTAN que aviones modelo 50 pongan la bomba con la mano sobre una flota moderna ,los ingleses no pudieron dejar fuera de servicio la pista de puerto argentino, jaa una pista estática y sin movimiento, ahí queda claro que los ARGENTINOS tenemos valores y principios y NUNCA VAMOS A MENTIR...
@@pedroacdc7770. Ok. Was Lami Dozo a pilot and some of his staff?
@@pedroacdc7770 "We will never lie!" - meanwhile lying about HMS Invincible being damaged
@@pedroacdc7770 This is hyperbolic tripe... Argentines literally live by lying. It is a cultural thing. Your side told a thousand lies a day. They claimed they had sunk Invincible 18 times previously... so were they not lying those times too? And Invincible was not the flagship, as you state. Hermes was..... oh, but according to you, the "world record holders" of Argentina (another lie) never lie, right? You look silly here.
Real Nice vídeo. Seems unreal undercover such attack if an aircarrier would be dammage. But the incredible courage of argentine pilota must be recognized.
Thanks for the feedback!
It is apparent from every shred of evidence available that there was a failed attempt to attack HMS Invincible, which ran into the picket ships, HMS Avenger and Exeter instead, and which failed. The crew of Invincible, and Avenger, and Exeter, are all consistent in the key details. The physical, empirical evidence shows this too, such as Castillo's flight hood and respirator which were recovered by the crew of Avenger moments after the attack. They even saw what remained of Argentine pilot Omar Jesus Castillo... this was 21 nautical miles away from Invincible. In short, the carrier was never attacked.
The surviving Argentine pilots, Gerardo Isaac and Ernesto Ureta, returned to base where in their initial debriefing, they could not identify the target... yet two hours later, there could be no mistake!!?? Their report was written for them, and it is evident that whoever wrote that report had never flown a combat aircraft, but was a desk jockey. There are moments of impossible "crouching tiger" hang-time which are not possible in real life. There's the exploding kamikaze jet engine which is so ludicrous that Isaac and Ureta omit it from their stories now. The whole thing is oddly reminiscent of the Death Star scene from the 1977 film Star Wars.
It should be plain, talking as a historian and from a purely historical perspective, that all primary and secondary evidence as well as physical evidence, shows an attack on Avenger which simply missed. No evidence - other than the pilots questionably saying so - points to Invincible being hit. Simply put: it wasn't. In all wars, but seemingly often in the Falklands War, we encounter a conflicting narrative, whereby both versions cannot be true at the same time. Consider the two Sea Harriers supposedly shot down on May 1st when actually, none were. Consider the claims made for Lieutenant Daniel Jukic and Captain Garcia Cuerva, both on May 1st, to have attacked HMS Hermes, neither of which accounts are true.
Let's look at the supposed downing of a Sea Harrier by the crew of the gunboat Rio Iguazu, which never happened, yet one man won the Cross for Valour in Combat (Argentine Victoria Cross) for doing so, or Poltronieri of the RI6 who claimed to have held up an entire battalion and also received the medal, despite many comrades and even one of his officers, saying it didn't happen. Let's consider every Argentine veteran who claimed to have killed a Gurkha - and there are thousands of those - so that if all were true, we'd have had about 6,000 Gurkhas killed, when actually none were. Aldo Rico, whose name needs no introduction in Argentina, had a Kukri knife which he had always claimed he had killed a Gurkha for, and he used to tell the tale... when confronted, he had to admit he had bought it in a shop. I could go on to speak of Carlos Robacio, who claimed to have fought and slaughtered the Gurkhas at Tumbledown, yet Robacio never went near the front lines and had to admit he never saw an Gurkhas because they were not there.
The list is endless, and these "hero stories" largely did the rounds because the defeated veterans felt ashamed. Their country called them cowards and made them outcasts for many years, so every man cooked up his own "hero story" typically involving Gurkhas, to prove that he, at least, was brave. There are Argentine pilots who put their hands up to crippling SS Canberra twice, Norland once, Exeter once... heck, Gerardo Isaac falsely claimed he had hit HMS Avenger on May 25th, when Avenger wasn't even there! The first and only time he saw Avenger was May 30th when he shot down the port side. Probably he refused to admit it because he would look like a liar. These are fog of war stories and false memories mixed with propaganda, wishful thinking and a heavy dollop of quite understandable "hero story" mentality, which, considering the two decades of being treated as outcasts, one can understand from the Argentine veterans.
But it isn't history...
Both Sea Harriers XZ 452 and XZ 453 were shot down on 1st May 1982 and the Wikipedia page in Spanish to do with the 601st Air Defence Artillery Regiment more than confirms it with the contradictory statements on behalf of the Officer Commanding 801st Naval Air Squadron for all to see as he tried to explain away the losses of both British fighter-bombers and their pilots. Private Oscar Poltronieri from B/RI Mec 6 was in the thick of the action covering the Argentinian retreat from Two Sisters Mountain and Captain Peter Galloway from the British light cruiser HMS Glamorgan confirms it when he says the British warship had to stay behind a clear a platoon of conscripts (under 2nd Lieutenant Aldo Franco) that included a troublesome machinegunner or three (more than likely just Poltronieri who simply changed positions). See Wikipedia page in Spanish to do with Battle for Two Sisters Mountain.
@@vivaseineldin This is absolutely untrue, and it is easy to prove. Sea Harriers XZ 452 & XZ453 were lost on May 6th on a CAP mission in bad weather, presumed to have collided in terrible visibility. One single Sea Harrier took a 20mm shell through the tail fin on May 1st and landed back on Hermes. It was repaired the next day.
Spanish Wikipedia is a useless resource since it left the Wikipedia group and went solo, allowing anyone to modify anything without moderation or rules. It is easily the worst resource one could look up.
The Poltronieri story is not believed by many of his comrades, and Colonel Esteban Vilgre La Madrid has even said that the story is somewhere between apocryphal and hyperbolic. Yes, certain units of B Coy RI6 did make a good stand at the end, and doubtless there were one or two of the RI4 who did make a good last ditch fight too... Two Sisters was a killing ground, and easy to do that, but let's not get carried away.
The point stands that if one took every hero story from the Argentine side, there would be about a million British deaths, more Harriers shot down than we had in service, the entire population of Nepal wiped out and every ship sunk at least four or five times... but hey, Spanish Wikipedia said so, right?
@@vivaseineldin No Sea Harriers Shot down on 1st May 1982!!! Spanish Wikipedia is bollocks. XZ452 and XZ453 collided on the 6th May 1982. one of the pilots killed the collision shot down a Canberra on May 1st. Argentinian army is full of liars!!!
@@vivaseineldin Two Sisters was long, long After May 1st. No Sea Harriers were lost on May 1st whatsoever. The two aircraft you are talking about were lost on May 6th in bad weather, possibly due to collision. Stop talking pish.
Men, machines and nerves of steel! Seeing your wing-men get hit, go down but staying the course of attack. Much respect to the Argentine Skyhawk pilots!
That's for sure, Seeing two of your comrades shot down like that and knowing a missile with your name might come any moment..... It's hard to even imagine.
They attacked the frigate HMS Avenger, NOT Invincible though.
With regards to this raid yes it did happen but the Argentine results where incorrect as the HMS Avenger was attacked at the exact same time and you have to think that the 2 surviving A-4's had just seen their wingmen shot down and the weather was not the best at the time... Next if they did manage to hit and damaged HMS Invincible where was she repaired as doing this kind of repair at sea would have been an extremely difficult job and if the Soviets had spotted her in any port they would have provided pictures to prove she was damage? and as to the 1000+ crew being kept quiet on the damage, once you get a few drinks into a matelot they will happily talk... And finally as to why HMS Invincible stayed down south any longer it was simple she stay there to provide combat air patrol over the Falklands until Stanley Airport was fully capable of supporting the GR3 Harriers which provided cover until the F-4's replaced them followed by Tornado's and currently Eurofighters...
Thank you for the comment, good points there!
Excellent and on point. The only thing not accurate was that Invincible only remained on station until relieved by Illustrious (who had AEW aircraft). It was Illustrious that stayed until the temporary airfield and Phantoms was commissioned.
El portaaviones hms invincible esta hundido ..dudar de los pilotos ARGENTINOS? el 25 de mayo se ataca a mar abierto y se hunde al hms coventry (20 minutos) y se deja fuera de combate hms broadsword, por eso creo que el hms invincible esta hundido ,vuelve 2 meses después nuevo pintado y con un sistema antiaéreo phalanx que nunca tuvo , era el akr royal que lo sustituyó.
We stayed on station because the Hermes boilers were not reliable. We waited till the illustrious was ready. That it had Early warning Sea kings was a bonus but NOT the reason we waited for it
Sheffield hit by an Exocet who didn't exploited but caused fire which finally sank it. In Vietnam an aircraft carrier was on fire from a bomb which exploited by accident. It hardly avoided to be sank but finally made it. In my opinion the Exocet would had sank it or put it out of operational order. If it was out of service in my opinion British wouldn't have air superiority and they would probably lose the war.
A successful Exocet hit would have probably disabled the carrier, I agree.
Sheffield didn't sink due to the exocet hit or fire directly. It sank under tow in heavy seas with no Battle Damage repairs on the Exocet entry hole. On a different day in different conditions the ship may well have survived the tow to South Georgia.
Aircraft Carriers are hiper fragile to Any concequence . Just imagine if they face Russia or any other power
But it is well known that the Sea Harrier´s activity decreased a lot after that day.
@@sixtosilxtra4842. The claim that sea harrier activity deceased, is a blatant lie. There was no drop in air activity and that’s corroborated by the sequence of events following on from the event, including Sharkey Ward shooting down a C130 on the following day. If you don’t believe me then google it, because fanatical Argentinians try and claim that this was a war crime. He was stationed on Invincible and that’s where he flew from. Each carrier was carrying its maximum complement of Harriers. To even contemplate that one carrier could absorb the other carrier’s aircraft is like saying that a Mini Cooper can transport 10 people for a ten hour non stop journey. It’s ridiculous. There was no room for them. There were twenty six Harriers in total. They were pitted against two hundred and forty fixed wing aircraft of the Argentinian airforce. These Harriers had to perform every role, from reconnaissance to ground support and CAP and each pilot was often at the limit of his physical endurance whilst their Argentinian opponents spent more time resting than operational due to limited air to air refuelling facilities. If one carrier was taken out then the British wouldn’t have been able to continue. The military staff colleges around the world, ignore this silly Argentinian fallacy, because they know more than you. They know that it is near impossible to hide such an event from the world, even to this time, let alone produce an intact aircraft carrier within weeks, with no sign of the type of damage that would have undoubtedly been inflicted by an exocet and two bombs. And by the way, Invincible didn’t return alone and invincible wasn’t the only ship which didn’t show signs of rust. Hostilities hadn’t been declared over. It wasn’t like a game a football where both teams leave the pitch after the game and the stadium is empty and everyone goes home. A garrison needed to remain in place. Ships needed to remain on station until replaced and that included an aircraft carrier to provide CAP. There were no operational facilities available on the islands to adequately support the harriers or any strike aircraft as the ARA knew. Air defence needed to be maintained and until the facilities had been built, it could only be achieved by an aircraft carrier hence why The Vinnie was replaced by the newly constructed HMS Illustrious. Google the pictures of Illustrious and the dates it was on the islands. Google the dates that the British extended the runway in Stanley and when Phantoms were stationed there. Google the time period before that. You claim that there was a marked reduction in air activity. Do you honestly think when hostilities hadn’t been declared finished and there was still the possibility of Argentinian incursions, that the British would be so stupid as to keep back an aircraft carrier which was out of service and couldn’t provide air defence, just to save face!???!
I was on HMS Glamorgan & remember this attack as it was on my 19th Birthday. My action station was on the upper deck so I recall the chaff shower going up as my officer told me to start worryingly the gun was fired chaff more than 10 times. It was fired considerably more than 10. I remember seeing the Sea Dart launched (though I can’t recall the ship that fired it/them). Perhaps Invincible was one of them. (My memory maybe playing games we). The weather wasn’t brilliant but I think sea state was calm ish. The simple facts are that after we were stood down the crew that were not on the upper deck were incredibly relieved. Unbeknown to me on the upper deck they were told to brace brace brace. The Exocet did not hit us and did not hit any other ship around us. Whether it was splashed by gunfire, deflected by chaff or simply ran out of propellant I do not know. It definitely did not hit a UK Warship. Respect to all.
Thank you for sharing your experience!
I recall wild cheering and celebrations by Argentine troops in Stanley at around that date. The story was that a carrier had been hit and sunk and another needed to make for port for repairs. The war was effectively over and Argentina had triumphed. This euphoria lasted for a few hours. The next day, the gloom reality for them, returned.
Thank you for sharing your experience!
Honremos por siempre a nuestros héroes hombres del aire,tierra y mar ellos fueron más allá del deber todo mi respeto a sus familiares,soy un exsoldado clase 62 el tiempo transcurrido no es olvido.....✨️✨️✨️✨️💪🇦🇷
Thank you for the comment!
I was on the Invincible in 1982 this attack is fantasy. We did come under attack a couple of times but no jet came within 20 miles of the ship. An exorcet passed us and the Hermes and hit the Atlantic Conveyor but that's all... I may have slept through the attack and missed it mind..
Thank you for your testimony!
That was the May 25th attack. Argentina claims a successful strike on Invincible on May 30th, the day they attacked Avenger. There is a whole rubbish conspiracy theory about it, which also claims you crewmen are all lying, bound by some great "military secret" 🤣
My older brother was also on Invincible and told me more or less the same story as yourself . he did 22years in the fleet air arm it was his last ship .
Regarding this attack scenario it reminds me a lot of the WW2 Battle of the Coral Sea where the Japanese attacked the USS Sims and USS Neosho. The Japanese pilots were convinced they attached a battleship and aircraft carrier. In reality Sims was a destroyer and Neosho was a tanker. The Japanese were flying piston engine aircraft and mis-identified their targets. One can only imagine the difficulty of an inexperienced air force pilot, flying a jet, at full throttle, trying to identify a ship type and complete his attack!
Oh, according to the tin-foil-hat wearers here, there was never any incident where ships were mistaken for aircraft carriers... there were several occasions i the Pacific War, just such as this, as you say.
There certainly are historical precedents for something like that.
I never like challenging a fellow veteran’s integrity but I know for certain, the Invincible was never hit. The two pilots MAY have made an error…..if target fixation is possible so is misidentification. Also, having lost two colleagues so quickly, that may have encouraged them to turn back…and maybe expand a little on what really happened 🙏🏻
Thank you for your opinion!
I know the pilot Isaac in say in a conference "never fly over is deck just on side and lower the same" so i just flying 4mts over the sea just more lower so if the sailor of the HMS Avenger say "the fighter fly touching the sea with the wings" its as an evidence", they say tath?
@@germanojeda6272 That made no sense. Write in your own language.
But it is also known that the Sea Harrier´s activity decreased a lot after that day.
@@sixtosilxtra4842. The sea harrier activity didn’t decrease. Major Enrique Rey, the man in charge of one of the Argentinian RADAR installations on the islands, said categorically in a military forum, that they didn’t notice any change in air activity. Sharkey Ward who was stationed on the Vinnie, shot down an Argentinian plane the next day.
If we look at the facts, the regime lied too many times to even count the lies. The Invincible was sunk in four different occasions and Prince Andrew was apparently dead. The Argentinian prisoners embarking on the Canberra, joked that the “English are sending us home in a submarine”. They were told like the rest of the world, that Argentina had successfully attacked and sunk this ship as well. With due respects to those who lost their lives in the San Juan tragedy, I often wonder if the lack of seaworthiness that caused this accident, was as a result of someone else also not being truthful.
Avenger was facing the incoming A-4s, not stern on, but bow on. I am sure Ureta and Issac thought at the time they were attacking a carrier given the stress of the situation - but many things point to their perception being off. How could Issac see an asymmetry when they were flying at around the same height as the carrier flight deck (50 feet was used by flight ops as the height), furthermore, the bombs were released below their min height to arm - as with so many FAA attacks. Also, the SuE pilots just fired at a blip on their radar in an enviroment that was already filled with chaff following their detection on one of the pop ups. The had no idea what they had aimed their missile at.
They were carrying parachute retarded bombs so they could have worked very well. There is a diagram that Ureta drew in his report which indicates that the attack was made from roughly the angle shown in the video (although the ship was probably maneuvering as the Skyhawks were approaching so they could have seen it from different angles)
@@showtime112 : I think parachute retarded bombs need to be released from a higher altitude than 50 feet, in order for the parachute to have time to extract from the bomb casing and open.
Isaac and Ureta were essentially paid off to create a lie, so that the junta could diminish the loss at Goose Green which they still hadn't admitted to. It was simply propaganda. The Argentine press claimed they'd sunk Invincible 19 times in the same month!!
@@showtime112 Muchas gracias por apoyar a la versión de los pilotos argentinos frente a este gran caudal de operadores informáticos que claramente repiten siempre los mismo argumentos. Su intención es desprestigiar a los pilotos argentinos, siempre que se habla de ellos aparecen los mismos nombre de operadores. Son parte de la llamada Operación Quito, una operación de inteligencia británica en las redes argentinas. Fue descubierta hace pocos años. Saludos
@@laverdadsobreelhmsinvincib3992This is tripe. It didn't happen and even you know it, which is why you've spent five years fabricating and misinterpreting evidence about it.
On may 30th I was onboard HMS Avenger, at that time I was a LWEM, Leading Weapon Engineering Mechanic, looking after various systems, main job was internal comms but with a mismatch of other systems including the ships Exocet missiles. The ship had UAA1 installed, this system picked up 2 Exocet missile radar systems, one missile was seen to explode, one went past, we assumed decoyed by chaff, the ships gun was used to engage the missiles, as to the seen exploding missile being hit by the gun, something made it explode. The attack was followed by 4 Skyhawks, one crashed, we think it dropped its bomb, which bounced and hit the launch plane before it armed. We saw the green dye from the pilot, but he did not survive. At no time, during the actual conflict was the Invincible that close to the Faulklands, she, and the Hermes, were well away to the east.
Well said, although there was only one Exocet on May 30th, not two. However, many of your shipmates have also confirmed that Om,ar Jesus Castillo was hit by his own bomb and crashed off the port bow.
Given the circumstances and the available evidence, the British account is IMO very much the true one. There would be no way to hide such a damaged carrier and given the circumstances the mistaken identification of the target by the Argentines would be understandable.
Indeed - unless the Invincible was hit by an Exocet or bomb that failed to explode.
Thank you for the comment! That is the biggest weakness in the Argentine version in my opinion.
Good bless the ordinary service man on both sides.
Thanks for the comment!
Why is this ridiculous claim still being considered some 40 years later? With due deference to the incredible bravery of the Argentine pilots; No, HMS Invincible was not damaged, sunk or otherwise.
The fact is that plenty of people in Argentina strongly believe it. Even if you completely dismiss the attack on Invincible, it is still a very interesting event from this war.
And Ukraine still winning the war😂
Exactly. The claimed attack has been debunked ad infinitum. It It didn't happen.
is not considered or debated mate, just a video about some old stories, no one anywhere still thinks about this shit not even Argentinians at least not the youngest population
ertainly! The phrase you provided translates to English as follows: “The young population in Argentina definitely considers it, and they remember and sing songs. The soccer fans in Argentina do this whether it’s friendly matches or important games.” 🎵⚽
Super Etendard looks so cool
Ok, but, which version do you belieave?
Well, it seems very strange that an aircraft carrier could be repaired in secrecy and that nobody from the Invincible's crew gave any testimony about the attack. Britain is after all a democracy, something would have leaked.
@@showtime112 The BBC reporters would have blabbed, they did about everything else. No secrets with them quislings nosing around.
Where was Invincible repaired then?
Hard to say, shangri-la or Narnia are my guess.
If it was the Clyde the whole of Glasgow would have known
They never hit her
It is true that repairing an aircraft carrier would have been hard to hide. Even in the pre-smartphone times.
As i can read in my book. SuperEtendard 'radar detected à big spot, in fact Exeter and Avenger in same alignment. . May be also by Royal navy jamming with Curvus flares and chaffs clouds fired by the 2 ships. .Sûre, 2 skyhawks shot down by Sea dart from Exeter. ...like X files, truth is out there😂. Will send you some pictures by email 🙋♂️
Thanks for the comment, looking forward to the mail!
I wish we could post pix in youtube
@@searchtron7601Ask to Showtime112 ✌️🙋♂️
That many sailors, no way that secret keeps for this many years. A few pilots exaggerating what happened, that's very believable.
It does make sense, thanks for commenting!
Excellent
Thank you very much!
HMS Avenger and HMS Exeter were on guard duty, protecting the fleet’s main assets, and did an effective job, despite the launch of the Exocet, and the bomb attack on HMS Avenger. As others have pointed out, Invincibles' crew of 1000 would hardly have kept silence for 40+ years, let alone the transparency of British reporting at the time, from the destruction of Sheffield & Coventry, to the attack at Bluff Cove. Coventry’s loss was reported in the House of Commons by John Nott the following day, hardly keeping secrets. The rest is a good story for the brave surviving Argentinian pilots to tell their grandchildren, as in “once upon a time“.
Exactly.
they could never admit Invincible was hit and will never admit that although it is true
@@MrJuampi40 it isn't true. Invincible was never attacked, so it certainly wasn't hit. You guys have tried for five years to prove it, and failed. Bortolotto tried for almost 20 years and failed. Moro, Randazzo, many others have tried: all failed. Because it didn't happen.
How can you call something "true" which you can't prove? Which you can't even form a robust theory about? Which you and your crew have to lie about to make it look in any way credible? It is obvious that Isaac and Ureta cannot say the truth: that they failed to hit a frigate. But that is the truth.
Simple answer no they didn’t hit a carrier.
If the Argies can convince themselves that the Falklands belong to them or that they’re not colonisers, it can’t be too hard for them to convince themselves that they hit a carrier.
@@mumblerinc.6660 Yes.Malvinas Do belong to us.[ UK will leave them when they are no use for them sooner or later] NO, the Carrier was Not hit. Do not confuse Apples with oranges.
Do not fool third countries viewers with the " self determination" excuse of no more than 1500 kelpers. UK really cares about a militar base and natural resourses [ petrol and fishing rights] on the other hand, for the Argentines is all about a piece of land with geografical and histórical UNDENIABLE bond.
@usemytime1976 Dream on. The Falklands are always going to belong to the Falkland Islanders. Argentina has no claim, the right to self determination lies with them, not the stroppy tantrums of the economic basket case of South America. The Falklands are just a shiny bauble dangled by Argentina's clownshow of a political elite every time they drive the economy into another hole, as is the case right now.
@@Pentonavalsolutions Get back in the kitchen Manuel from Barcelona 😂
@@Pentonavalsolutions GB was on the falklands before Argentina existed as a country. Plz explain this undeniable bond that magiclly occoured before you even existed.
Pozdro dzieki za film
Woah, Argentine air force pulled a H3 on Royal Navy... I will go with that one...
Thank you for the comment!
This fake "successful attack" was basically an argentine propaganda. Thanks for the video. Excelent.
Thank you for watching and commenting!
Reckon our Argie pilots should have gone to Specsavers?
EXCELLENT, AS USAL. THANKS and greetings from Mexico City.
Thanks, always nice to read your comments!
Yes, but the attack on Invincible never happened. It was only a propaganda story.
I can imagine a whole airbase crossing their fingers for that pilot.
There is no way the British could have kept such an attack under wraps for any length of time regardless of how much they wanted to. There were journalists on those ships, for crying out loud. Also, after any successful attack such a ship would have required extensive repairs, new parts and equipment etc. and there is even less of a chance that those could have been carried out in secret in any dockyard in the world that would have the facilities to carry them out.
That makes a lot of sense.
Wasn't there an intelligence officer from Argentina that had been on the Narwal held prisoner on Invincible ? He was sure it was a mock up (lols) as he'd been told of the great hero who 'sunk' the Invincible. Still the love probably got the pilots an excellent pensions of air play to them. They will ned it.
The one who thought he would be executed when he saw a priest entering his cabin? Yes, I remember reading about him but I don't remember hearing what happened to him later.
Thats the chap, the brits brought the chaplain to reassure him but it made him worse. Im going too dig out one of my books and try and let you know how he was
@@showtime112
No, he moved moved off a few days prior prior.
I remember when the Narwhal was straffed by a couple of harriers two seakings were sent over to pick up prisoners and intelligence as the boat was sinking. We had the prisoners on the deck of the invincible and it was the first time we heard we had been sunk.. "Damage control saved this ship" 😂
I remember the day. At the time of the attack I'd been tasked to shut some sea cocks (drainage valves which are closed when anticipating an attack as a pre-emptive measure to slow down water ingress in the event of the ship listing due to damage). At the time the chaff launchers were firing, and we'd been given the order to brace, I was on my stomach crawling my way along a 30ft maintenance shaft which at the time was packed full with stores (mainly metal beer barrels for the senior rates mess), leaving just a 2ft high gap to crawl through and gain access to the last of the valves. Although I'd heard the chaff launchers go off several times before, it wasn't a pleasant experience in the dark, in a cold metal compartment with only the space equivalent to a long ventilation conduit and the noise of multiple rockets going off above my head. I tried not to think of the fact that exocets are programmed to hit midships, just above the water line (which was exactly were I was). I knew things must be serious when I heard, and felt the multiple launch of our Sea Dart. Suffice to say, if Invincible had been hit, I wouldn't be here today. Great video by the way 👏
Thank you very much for sharing your experience. It was quite something to read and a very strong testimony to the British version of events. I am also very grateful that (unlike some) you understood the purpose of the video.
Responding on a forum is not something that I've previously felt compelled to do. I found myself on your channel and liked your respectful, unbiased approach (I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that reading some of the information that is 'out there' leaves me with the distinct urge to pinch myself, mainly to check that I've not being living in some kind of parallel universe all these years).
Stuck up a Jefferies tube at really the wrong moment eh :-)
@@alan-sk7ky Yes, you could say that. There were much better places to be at the time!
No Sea Dart was launched from Invincible on 30Th May , you are confusing dates my friend
LTCDR Ward shot down the C-130 the night after this supposed attack, launching from HMS Invincible, which was still fully operational and launching and recovering aircraft as normal. Hardly the condition you'd expect after being hit with a missile and bombs.
So no, this attack did not eventuate against Invincible. There was an attack, but it never engaged the carrier. Two A-4s shot down, Exocet launched, targeted Avenger, and didn't hit anything.
Thank you for the comment!
The whole of the UK saw HMS Invincible sail back into Portsmouth on it's return... Not a mark on it.....
That's the biggest hole in Argentine arguments, I'd say.
Not quite...According to NATO sources, the Invincible was hit by (at least) one bomb, most likely two...and probably an Exocet missile... A week after the peace agreement the Royal Navy informed the Invincible had just changed while at sea two of her turbines (not specifying why)...and it was known through diplomatic channels that the carrier made a visit to an American shipyard before sailing back to Portsmouth...It makes one wonder...
@@rainbowseeker5930 And what NATO source would that be?
@@fhlostonparaphrase - Your guess is as good as mine, but the leak originated in NATO's Headquarters...
@@showtime112 Some versions say she was repaired at Ascención Island, the Northamerican base, before arriving quite later than the rest of the fleet. And with a not natural bright for a ship that has been months in the sea.
Si no es cierto que los marineros están bajo la ley de secreto militar, que uno de ellos hable en un video y que niegue el testimonio de los pilotos argentinos (que sí aparecen en público). Ricky Phillips dice que hay 1000 personas que niegan el ataque pero ninguna de ellas ha hablado en público en 40 años. Curioso, no?
No... there are three of them here, including the top voted comment, from Invincible veterans telling you lunatics that there was no attack on Invincible and that she was never hit. You're just too blinded by tin foil to actually want to see the truth.
@@rickyphillips7630 mientras no presenten una declaración en video... quedará la duda sobre el alcance de la Ley de Secretos Militares del Reino Unido. Espero que muchos se den cuenta de este detalle y que la gente exija la verdad.
@@tristansimoncini1511This isn't a "detail". It isn't a thing. A video of someone saying something is no more proof of the veracity of someone's statement than the written word, which you also ignore. It is quite obvious from the number of books coming out by veterans that there is no secret law. None of these men are bound by anything.
@@rickyphillips7630 cuál de los veteranos del Invencible escribió un libro? Además del capitán....
@@tristansimoncini1511 I think it's in "The Big Book of Nothing Happened" - a thrilling read!!
live in Portsmouth. bote Carrias returned with no damage that could be seen.
Thank you for contributing!
"... but, please, keep it polite." I love you man. This is what it's all about here, if we care about being truthful.
Thank you very much for this comment!
And yet no mention of CAP which would have intercepted the known threat before it engaged. And no visible damage when invincible returned home. Had it been hit by Exocet the damage would have been catastrophic and not easily repaired or camouflaged. No this is a non-runner and a disguise for an aborted mission.
Unless the Exocet hit Invincible but failed to explode. (Not saying I believe this.)
As for the CAP, they could have been elsewhere and not in a position to easily intervene on time. An airborne early-warning radar would have been crucial for this. Also, once you start shooting SAMs, it's much better for your CAP not to be in the zone.
It is time that this old myth of the May 30th attack dwindled off... there was an attempt to attack the Type 21 Frigate HMS Avenger, which failed. Yes, the target was Invincible, but the Argentine pilots came in too far to the west by over 20 nautical miles. The Exocet latched onto the twin signatures of Avenger and Exeter behind her, possibly confused by a sea squall which had got up, and Avenger deployed chaff from her port side Corvus launchers which successfully lured the Exocet away. It briefly locked onto HMS Andromeda, far back, but ran out of fuel and hit the sea. This incident was recorded in the logs. The crew of Avenger can recount the Argentine attack with near-perfect clarity barring the obvious fog of war, and moments after the attack, they tried to recover the body of Argentine pilot Omar Jesus Castillo, but only managed to get his flight hood & respirator.
It is therefore evident that with this being over 20 miles from Invincible (and with visibility that day being circa 9 miles) that those pilots never even saw HMS Invincible, and that Invincible was never attacked. How could Avenger recover the pilot's effects and recount his injuries, which they did, from over 20 miles away? It is obvious that they could not.
In over two hours of questioning, neither pilot could identify the target until coerced to do so. There were three reports, ranging from unofficial to official in that time, and it is quite evident that the third and final report, the official one, was not written by the pilots themselves. It uses snippets of their own testimony but paints them over a collage which bears a very striking resemblance to the attack on the Death Star from the 1977 film Star Wars. In fact, it is so similar that it beggars belief. The additional elements, such as the aircraft achieving a "Crouching Tiger" style hang-time are unrealistic, and forces one to conclude that the final report was compiled by someone at a desk who had never flown an aircraft in his life.
The entire weight of evidence and outright proof shows that Invincible was never attacked, and the declassified May 30th report (declassified in 2012) shows that this evidence is correct. Over the last 41 years, the Argentine myths and conspiracy theories about this incident have grown inexorably, but they stand on no evidence other than the say-so of two pilots who were coerced into backing a much-needed propaganda story with the promise of promotion and medals, which they got.
It is reasonable to assume that an enquiry should be launched, if Argentina is so sure of this, and that the two pilots would stand their stories against the evidence. However, no historian has ever backed their claims, no history book has ever said it happened, no war college teaches that it happened, all because it didn't happen. No damage to Invincible, no casualties, no missing aircraft, no leaks in over 41 years to suggest it. If there was direct evidence, it would have come to light, and it hasn't. The evidence from declassified material only gets stronger and proves it never happened. The conspiracy theories from Argentina which claim it did are wild, unsubstantiated fantasies which get weirder every year... the bottom line - and take this from a multi time international best selling Falklands War Historian - is that there was no attack on HMS Invincible at any time. This is a fact.
I understand why I hardly succeeded in sinking any British boat with Strike Fighters 😅
😁 Thanks for the comment!
In 1987, SUE commander at the time of the war met Adm. Woodward at the US naval Academy. They talked about this attack.
There Will be an eternal debate about what really happened but it is Hard to confirm a direct hit only based on the A4 pilots debrief.there is no satélite or aereal fotograph confirmation.Niether the BBC [ Whose journalists admited previous hits] published anything about it. FINALLY none of the 3000 Invincible crew said anything too.
What is remarkable is the whole operation and the courage of the Argentinian naval and Air force pilots. Lo digo como Argentino y se que me van a criticar pero la opinión de 2 pilotos [ por más valientes que sean] sin mucha experiencia en ataques navales, sin conocer previamente al buque a atacar y en medio [ tan como definió 1 de ellos ] del fenómeno conocido por fascinación de blanco, ofrece muchas, muchas dudas. Supongo que deberemos esperar hasta q se desclafiquen los archivos.
Thank you for the feedback!
@@showtime112you re welcome.
Por fin, ¡un Argentino honesto y no cegado por un nacionalismo rampante!
Thank you for an impartial comment based on facts.
¿Puede alguien, cualquiera, enumerar los canales de TV o de RUclips en los cuales han dado entrevistas los tripulantes del HMS Invincible? ¿Por qué estuvieron callados durante 40 años ante las acusaciones de los pilotos argentinos? ¿Será que la ley británica de secretos militares les impide hablar de este tema en público? Desde ya, gracias
Why? Why do they have to give an interview? Do you give interviews on why fairies don’t exist?
@@likeitout son los tripulantes acusados de mentir, ¿a quién esperas que le vamos a preguntar? ¿Qué pensarías tú si los pilotos argentinos se escondían por 40 años?
@@tristansimoncini1511. The only people who accuse them of lying are people like you and a few tin foil hat wearers. So the many ex crew members don’t even know that they’ve been accused of lying. Have you asked the ex crew members of HMS Hermes about the suicide attack of Judic? Or the crew of the Canberra about the day that their ship sank? It’s exactly the same. Outside your little world of conspiracies that is.
There is no secret. The May 30th file was declassified in 2012. Nobody has gone on a video because that's not what British veterans do. Argentine veterans do that, usually to make up lies about how heroic they were. Why have Isaac and Ureta not defended themselves against 40 years of accusations that they are liars? Why have they not put their medals on the line? Why have they not called for an enquiry? No British Invincible veteran is going to go on RUclips to say "Nothing happened". They are too busy either laughing at Argentine fantasy stories, or just getting on with their own lives.
@@likeitout Exactly... Argentina claimed Hermes sunk four times... should her crew post a video explaining that they weren't sunk four times? HMS Brilliant and Avenger and Exeter were claimed sunk... should their crews take to RUclips desperately defending themselves against a ludicrous accusation of something that never happened?
The obvious point is that Isaac and Ureta were well rewarded for their silence 41 years ago and have dined out on the lie for over four decades, so aren't going to put their credibility to the test now.
I can't see why either side would lie.
There could be a number of reasons. Thanks for the comment!
The initial British version of events was that the Super Etendards had hit and finished off the British container ship Atlantic Conveyor in their last Exocet attack on 30 May:
"The pilot who fired the Exocet mistook the still smoldering hulk of the Atlantic Conveyor for a carrier, and thus wasted the last Exocet" (Atlas of Maritime History, Richard Natkiel, pg 241, 1986)
"The Argentinians had wasted their last Exocet missile and a number of bombs on the burned-out hulk of the container ship Atlantic Conveyor, mistaking it for a carrier" (Canadian Defence Quarterly, Volumes 13-14, pg 59, 1983)
"The authors have examined the evidence to suggest that Francisco had mistakenly launched his unit's last Exocet at the drifting hulk of Atlantic Conveyor, which sank on this day" (Air War S Atlantic, Jeffrey Ethell, A. Price, pg170, 1986)
"The survivors reported heavy smoke rising from the target ship; Invincible was certainly not hit on the 30th, or any other day, and it is now generally accepted that the target was the hulk of Atlantic Conveyor, deliberately towed into position as a decoy". (Battle for the Falklands (2):Naval Forces, Adrian J. English, Anthony Watts, pg 30, 1982)
The problem with this story is that the already-damaged Atlantic Conveyor had sunk whilst under tow on 28 May 1982. (SS Atlantic Conveyor - Wikipedia)
This isn't entirely true... these are not "official British versions" at all, but repeats of the same initial error in various publications. Initially, Argentina was still shouting how it had hit Invincible on May 25th (which of course, it had not) and as there was no attack on Invincible on May 30th, the UK Defence Ministry naturally assumed that Argentina was simply re-stating the May 25th claim, and said no, they hit Atlantic Conveyor, which was true.
In short, the initial British reply was not a "version of events of May 30th" at all.
I served in the Royal Navy during the Falklands war. If Invincible had been hit we would have known about it, it would have been impossible to keep it quiet.
Thank you very much for sharing, this is a very good point.
Porque estaba impecable en comparacion al HMS Hermes en su arrivo a Portsmouth?
No parece que haya sido una embarcacion venida de la guerra.
@@germanojeda6272 HMS Hermes was launched in 1953 and HMS Invincible was launched in 1977. Why is it a surprise to you that a much newer ship would be in better condition? You can't believe this is good evidence, surely.
❤
👍
Thanks for another comment!
Plot twist.....based upon how much smoke was belching out of that ship....it was the Kuznetsov.