you are just trying to minimize its importance and say it was no important victory, the Conveyor had an important feature you want to avoid, it was a Harrier launch pad regardless it was only with fuel and fuel tanks, the victory shows a trend, on 28th the conveyor was struck and on the 30th the invincible was attack, in 2012 Prince Andrew said he was on the invincible when it was under attack and he was there.
Quite the contrary. You seem to think the ship was only a high value target if it could be considered an aircraft carrier. Not true, in fact the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor was the single MOST IMPORTANT LOSS at sea of the whole war, because of how much vital equipment below decks and how many helicopters were lost. It had almost a decisive effect on the war, changing the nature of the Land campaign. If those helos had not been lost, the troops on board the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram would not have had to be transported by those ships to Bluff Cove, they would have been air lifted forward from San Carlos. You seem to want to denigrate one of the biggest victories of the War on the Argentine side simply because the ship wasn't one of 'Grey Funnel Lines' finest.
You might swallow the lure of the British press, but i do not, the concealment of the attack was given because on the 28th and 30th of May Argentina was trying to knock down the British airpower, the Conveyor was a total success, the Invincible well i do not the degree of success but the fact the Prince Andrew spilled the beans after 30 years shows how ill prepared were the British and how close to defeat they were, and while British propaganda claims how well they were trained, the fact is if France would had delivered more Exocet, the British fleet was not going to survive.
You don't seem to understand the nature of the British press. They are not now nor have they ever been organs of government, quite the opposite. Quite a number of press with the Task Force were not even British, so also had no loyalty to UK Gov. Whilst their were operational restrictions placed on all reporting (the famous "I counted them all out, and I counted them all back", referring to the first Sea harrier raid on Stanley from Hermes. 12 aircraft btw). Every ship that was hit was reported to have been hit at the time. In fact the reporting did aid the Argentine side because it gave away the fact their bombs were being dropped too low and weren't arming before impact, and this was the only after action damage assessment available to the Argentine Air Forces at the time. They corrected the bomb fusing and more started exploding when they hit their targets. So our press certainly did us no favours there. Prince Andrew had a solid, if generally uneventful War and now seems keen to make his war stories a bit more exciting. Exaggeration creeps into these stories quite naturally over time.
Against the Soviets, with Backfires the British fleet had no chances, very likely the French would had defeat them too and the reason to conceal the attack is simple, in 1982, the British were a decaying power, and they only beat Argentina thanks to France never delivered more Exocets
but really your new avatar so funny