HMS INVINCIBLE R05 - THE BIG VINCE - BRIEF - NO.17 

Glllluuuuuuibbbbnn ggllluuuubbbbnn 🇦🇷🇷🇺✌️

Last carrier to go head to head against an enemy nation with an aircraft carrier, and as sundowner says: FUCKEN INVINCIBLE!!!

The last one blew the fuck up 😂😂😂

@@bigships exactly

My dad was on her too! I wonder if you know him 😂

has to be the £119 microphone

Everyone has told the truth for the last 42 years... it's only you conspiracy theorists who tell lies about it 🤣🤣🤣

no, Invincible had the Goalkeeper as well. Ark had the Phalanx (not that she ever went to sea!)

@@cooldad100 Do we really know as a fact that the Exocet that hit the Atlantic Conveyor originally had a lock on HMS Invincible? I'm not sure we do but perhaps I'm wrong.

All three had Phalanx to start with. You could have the noise of Seakings and Harriers burning and turning on deck but if the Phalanx opened up it would make you jump.

Politicians not the RN.

@@normanboyes4983 both. HMS Ocean. After £100m refit - sold to brazil for £90m.

For a carrier this size its not entirely unprecedented. But it was also due to spending cuts as her sister served right up till 2014

cheers

soon :P its on the list. and i dont think they really went for it. Armour on warships has gone away as its better for penetration then spall damage

if you dont like it why are you here?

im trying to find a way i can in power director

There are no British documentary’s on it because you can’t make a documentary on something that never happened.😂

@@lukemcgahern2357 Tu no fuiste parte de la tripulación del HMS Invencible durante la guerra de 1982, no estábas ahí como para negar un ataque que nunca viste. Son los tripulantes del portaaviones los que deberían haber aparecido y echar por tierra las versiones de los pilotos. Hace 40 años que tienen a una tripulación callada que jamás comentaron en público que fue lo que sucedió el 30 de mayo de 1982, porqué el HMS Invencible desapareció del conflicto justo ese mismo día 30 de mayo. Todo el mundo se dio cuenta que faltaba un portaaviones después del ataque del 30 de mayo, que casualidad, no???? Solo operaba el portaaviones HMS Hermes. No decimos que fue hundido, pero sí que lo golpearon y lo dejaron fuera de combate con el misil Exocet AM-39, con más de 200 cohetes y bombas como vienen asegurando los pilotos desde hace 40 años. El ataque hacia el portaaviones existió y este sufrió daños de consideración que lo retiraron de la guerra para repararlo en alguna parte, fuera de la vista de todo el mundo tratando de ocultar el daño que le hicieron los pilotos argentinos. No existen fotos del HMS Invincible después del 30 de mayo de 1982, ni videos de que estába operando por la zona, tampoco existe información hacia donde se lo llevaron después del 30 de mayo, porque el portaaviones que llega en septiembre a Portsmouth llama mucho la atención, aparece muy lujoso, con pintura nueva, sin óxido, sin grandes manchas de aceite en la popa y en la pista, nada que ver como mostraban al portaaviones hasta el 30 de mayo, el día que despareció de la guerra. Más de mil tripulantes que no aparecieron en público dando entrevistas y explicar todas las cosas raras que le sucedió a su portaaviones después del 30 de mayo, quedaron muchas preguntas sin responder, pero ellos no quieren dar entrevistas. Solo que a tres tripulantes del HMS Invencible se les escaparon unos comentarios en público que hace asegurar que algo malo les sucedió a su portaaviones HMS Invencible el 30 de mayo de 1982, uno es del enfermero "Brian Cash" o Linda Cash que se hizo transexual al haber sufrido un trauma por haber tenido que tratar "terribles heridas" en el departamento de enfermería del "Invencible, debido a los feroces ataques de los aviones argentinos durante los días del conflicto. El otro testimonio es el del príncipe Andrés que detalló varios hechos, que "estaba solo abajo en la cubierta con misiles volando al rededor", "nos ordenaron que nos tiráramos al suelo y nos pusimos a cubierto". El otro tripulante es David Watts quien recordó una conversación que tuvo con la Reina y el Príncipe de Edimburgo a bordo del portaaviones en septiembre de 1982 “Estaba en el hangar del portaaviones cuando la Reina se acercó a mí y me preguntó: ¿Cuál era tu función durante la guerra? y yo le respondí que era el responsable de armas del buque. Ella me preguntó ¿fue duro? a lo que le respondí “durísimo”. Detrás de ella, estaba parado el Príncipe Felipe que elevó sus ojos al cielo por el comentario que le acababa de hacer a la reina. No me vengas con el cuento de que tienes un tío, un abuelo, un amigo, un primo que estuvo en el portaaviones y te dijo que no fue atacado, es un truco viejo que ya lo conocemos. 😉

Con este tema hay que llegar al fondo glugluglubbbb

@@lukemcgahern2357 creo que el principito metió la pata de palo y se guardo el cubo mágico y el parche en el culo

​@@germanboris2288the only place to repair that damage would be britain. And yet she remained on station till illustrious arrived

Didnt get attacked, and even if they did. Was a fairly lousy job seeing as she kept sailing for 25 years!

@@admiralmallard7500 It could be attacked but not sunk. There's a CIA document that Places between 55 and 75 NM east of the island after May 30. When I find it, I'll transcribe the paragraph. That location plus a 50% less air activity. Something happened.

@efeunoalot So why did hermes return home if she was the only functional carrier till illustrious came online. Presuming Invincible was hit

@@admiralmallard7500 Invincible returned with a nice and fresh painting. 😉

@efeunoalot Yes because they painted it while docked at the falklands. There is nowhere to repair a british carrier in the south Atlantic

Tbf they were only usefil for certain roles

You talk crap, it sailed from the UK to Antarctica and fought a war ...

You also forgot too incluse shortly there after Austrialia gave up its fleet air arm, forever

Well if the choice is three smallish carriers or NO aircraft carriers you take what you can get. The RN was damned glad to have these three ships and got far more use out of them than any one had ever expected. by the end of their service life were held to be the bargain of the century.

@@mattwho81 Yes, i take your point, and would'nt argue with it!..The problem came on 'resaleability'!..Navy just didnt want it!..Nor did other navy's as it stands! Dont get me wrong, they served their purpose, they were just far too small!..One of them may have served as a dedicated ASW ship..But Navy said it was too small even for that, and went for 2 Navantias which are twice the size, Navy is looking at one of these converted as a dedicated carrier with a 25-30 aircraft capacity!..Who knows?..You have to convince brain dead politicians! Americans seem to be a bit envious of the Queen Elisabeth class though! 5th gen. capable! Not so most American carriers!

@@fa0676 not a huge difference , the Falklands are only 750 miles off the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula , but see what you mean 👍

i noticed that, im still getting used to the new mic, and i didnt notice it in edit

She was pretty invincible. You guys failed to even touch her.

A question on qoura asked how Argentinians would behave if the British hadn’t sent a task force and accepted the invasion as a “fait accomplis”. A Brazilian answered. He said that they would arrogantly strut around like they had the biggest balls on the planet, claiming to have achieved the greatest military victory in history. He added, if they lost the war, they’d lie and strut around like they had huge balls, pretending they won the greatest military victory in history. He invited people to read comments from Argentinians. I thought his reply was a little unkind and a generalisation. That was until I read many of the comments online coming from Argentinians. I also saw a T shirt being worn by someone in a photo. Emblazoned on the T shirt, was the ubiquitous outline of the islands, coloured with the Argentinian flag on top of which was the outline of an aircraft carrier. The writing around the image read “Veterano de Guerra 1982, portaaviones ARA 25 de Mayo”. The wearer was presumably an ex crew member. What shocked me was his boastful arrogance. If I had been one of the sailors posted to that ship in 1982, I’d have felt ashamed that my ship had run away from the combat. I wouldn’t wear a T shirt that advertised the fact that myself and my comrades, watched the war on the television screens in the comfort and safety of the bars in Puerto Belgrano, as my contemporaries in the British Royal Navy, fought like lions, risking air attacks whilst throwing their ships into San Carlos, day after day, knowing that at any moment, they could die. And now I read the lies which weren’t just perpetrated during the war (Judic attacking the Hermes, the so called sinking of the Canberra, Estamos Ganando etc etc), but are still being told today. And I realise that this Brazilian spoke the truth.

@@likeitout Now repeat all your garbage, but without crying... Let's start from the fact that I am not Argentine, I am Costa Rican and like me, the vast majority of Latinos applaud the courage of the Argentine brothers, in confronting a larger and more powerful country, the English imperialist thieves, those who, without the help of the Chilean traitors would probably have left with their tails between their legs; With old weapons, but a lot of courage, they managed to sink many of the ships of the "glorious British naval" including one of their flagship and pride of their fleet, with modern weapons, they would have eliminated them from the face of the earth, that is the TRUE. What a life in Argentina and what a life in Latin America, without the influence of imperialist garbage!

@@SLK-Estudio “Costa Rican”. Even worse. You can’t even put a decent football team together. I wouldn’t boast about being mediocre. You have to jump on the back of the Argentinian identity because Costa Rica underachieves “courage of the Argentine brothers” The fact you said “English”, is absolute proof of your low level of education. There hasn’t been an “English” navy or army, for three hundred years. But I’d you actually read some British history, you wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss. The British navy fought. The Argentinian navy ran away. The Argentinian infantry surrendered in their thousands to an attacking force that was much fewer in numbers and the Argentinian soldiers didn’t even leave their defences to take the fight to the enemy. Then waiting for the British from behind their minefields and heavily fortified mountain top dug outs, they only fought for a few hours before surrendering or abandoning their defences and running away. A British officer, inspecting the formidable nature of these captured Argentinian defences commented “I could have grown old defending these positions”. If you want to see real tenacious defence with breathtaking courage by 19 year old conscripts against all odds then google Imjin River April 1951. They astounded the world and it was even headline news in your country at the time. “Chilean traitors”. Only someone with an infantile outlook on life, will label those who opposed the country that was about to invade them, “traitors”. Traitors to their enemy???? !!! Are you seriously that stupid??? What did you expect them to do? Help their enemy, Argentina? Really? An Argentinian defeat ensured that Chile would be safe. “probably have left with their tails between their legs;”. Probably, is a word used by a dreamer. That alongside “could have” and “would have”. In the mean time, in the world of reality, the Argentinians were losing EVERY single battle because their amateur soldiers were unable to stand up to British bayonets. Chileans weren’t present; fighting at Goose Green, Two Sisters, Tumbledown etc. the only Latinos who were engaged, were Argentinians who abandoned their positions to run back to Stanley. Have you read “No Picnic” by Julian Thompson? A book often cited by malvinizers because of its little Read it!! (If these malvinizers read it, they wouldn’t cite it). Argentina held all the strategic, logistical and numerical advantages in that war, hence why the dictatorship thought they would win. “old weapons,”. The Argentinian standard issue rifle was the FAL. The British had the inferior semi auto SLR. Argentinian boots were better, they had better American made night sights, Israeli Parka etc etc. do you want me to continue? The mirage was front line combat in the French and Israeli airforces. The FAA vastly outnumbered the subsonic Harriers. Are you saying Argentina started a war with the British knowing they couldn’t win because of “inferior weapons”? Like I said, read “No Picnic” to see how the Argentinians had the upper hand because even the United States naval strategic planners, predicted an outcome in favour of Argentina. But If you’re actually saying that the Argentinians knew from the start that they didn’t stand a chance against the U.K. then you must be admitting crass incredulous idiocy which if you’re saying is a Latino trait, explains the reason for your third world under development. “sink many of the ships of the "glorious British naval"”. 6 ships from a total of 127? Call that a victory? This was a naval campaign. In a naval campaign, ships will be sunk. What was the Argentinian navy doing in this naval campaign???? Answer? They ran away when one of their ships was sunk. The only naval campaign in history where one side refused to come out from the safety of their home ports, to fight. “including one of their flagship”. That’s the cherry on the cake of idiocy. Tell me, what is the reason why airforces across the world, put gun cameras on their combat aircraft? Go on! Try and give an answer. Something to do with target fixation and inability to be accurate when suffering stress distorted perceptions???? The lying is incredulous. Self delusion is the realm of those who can’t or won’t face up to reality. “What a life in Argentina. What a life in Latin America”. You can’t even pump safe clean drinking water into every household. What a third world life living in an underdeveloped nation where poverty, crime and destitution is rampant and who’s standing within the world community is that of a midget.

@@SLK-Estudio The flagship was HMS Hermes... so you think your Argentine masters whom you simp for, sank HMS Hermes too? Or you're just thick and ignorant? User "likeitout" has absolutely educated you here...

Con 5 am39 se volvían remando con el parche en el ojt🇦🇷✌️

Then how did she return home

Tell that to turkey scrapping her in the 200s