Talk:SS Atlantic Conveyor

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SS Atlantic Conveyor article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Maritime / British / European C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Ships C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Shipwrecks Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

South America: Falklands Start‑class Low‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from SS Atlantic Conveyor appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 March 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the first British merchant navy ship lost to enemy fire since World War II was the Atlantic Conveyor, sunk by an Argentinian Exocet missile during the Falklands War?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/March.

Wikipedia

Cargo

The cargo list in paragraph 3 clearly doesn't match that of the photo. Anyone know 'the truth'? miterdale 18:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Middlebrook's The Falklands War 1982 says she sailed from the UK with 6 Wessex and 5 Chinooks and (perhaps) one Harrier. At Ascension one Chinook was removed and 8 Sea Harriers and 6 RAF Harriers were onboard, leaving 3 RAF Harriers behind. Sea Harrier Over The Falklands says she arrived at the Falklands with 8 Sea Harriers and 6 Ground Attack Harriers (GR 3) "plus some helicopters". So the photo looks right. Geoff/Gsl 12:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article "Land Rover Series" the vessel carried "several hundred" Land Rovers. That's a lot of Land Rovers and a lot of money! If correct can it be added to the article please. --kingboyk (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you hold on, I've never seen that claim before and I think it is dubious. The AC was intended to support aircraft operations in the Falklands and was carrying a temporary strip and other bits'n'pieces such as tentage. I've added a fact tag, so lets see what happens. Justin talk 13:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I don't know either way but am interested to know :) --kingboyk (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cynical military rumour used to hold that if everything recorded as being lost on the 'Conveyor had actually been aboard she would have gone down long before reaching the Islands. This is almost certainly an exaggeration, but it does seem that quite a lot of diffy kit was written off in that sinking. 194.74.62.195 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mars bars?

What was more devestating than the loss of the helicopters, according to Andy McNab in his book "Bravo Two Zero", was the loss of all the Task Force's Mars Bars.

Bravo Two Zero was about the Iraqi war, can somebody confirm or remove the statement? Doesn't sound too plausible... considering the consequence was a rather big set back in the deployment of troops...

--Andreala 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems quite callous, because it is followed by the statement "Twelve men died upon the Atlantic Conveyor, including the vessel's commander..." I think this should be rewritten or the bit about Mars bars should be removed. Grant | Talk 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me as being more of a case of gallows humor than anything else. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read B20 for a while and don't have a copy to hand but IIRC he was talking about the blow to the morale of the troops caused by the loss of their supplies. Mars bars being something of a synecdoche for the whole thing. Helcopters burned, men died, but the troops on the ground noticed that they were on short rations. 194.74.62.195 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors

Is there a list of suvivors available or is this confidential –Gunner 10/11/06

All Survivors from Atlantic Conveyor transferred from rescuing ships to "British Tay" and returned to UK via Ascension Islands. 18 Squadron (Chinook) Survivors: Clive "Arnie" Arnold, Roy Boakes, Pete Collie, Steve Hitchman, Pete Jack, Brian Joplin, Rod Maclean, Adrian Ventress, Alan "Geordie" Watson, Andy Wise. Clive "Arnie" Arnold & Adrian Ventress recued by SeaKing flown by Prince Andrew taken to "Hermes" joined by Steve Hitchman who had jumped overboard on first impact. All others from 18 Squadron picked up by "Alacrity" - A7rny 01/08/08

Notes

^ Taylor, Robert. Sea King Rescue, signed by Prince Andrew.

These seems to lead to a site which is flogging prints. To be removed? Dmgerrard 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No its the only reference I can find to the fact that Prince Andrew was the first to rescue survivors. It is a good reference as the man himself has signed the painting. If you find a better reference then do. Dbdb 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exocet

Corrected the comments on the technique used to seduce Exocets. Rather than seducing an Exocet to fly over a target, the technique involves the missile passing between the ship and helicopter. A radar can resolve in range but not in azimuth, two objects close to each other appear as one and it will aim for the centroid (hopefully passing between the two). Chaff rockets fulfill a similar function by appearing to increase the length of the target. Atlantic Conveyor was simply too big for either to stand a decent chance of success. What AC needed was a close-in defence system such as Phalanx or Goalkeeper. Justin talk 23:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, if bow/stern on would it have made a difference ? May be academic, as I don't know how long it took to turn. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 14:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bow/Stern on could have made a lot of difference, thanks for reminding me as I'd forgotten that. It comes down to how Chaff is dispensed, the mistake some system designers make is to fire chaff off in both directions - the ship is in the middle and thats where the missile goes. If you can make a chaff cloud to one side, you can seduce the missile in that direction. The crew launching the Exocet would have made a beam attack, if there was AEW, sufficient warning could have enabled the ship to manoeuvre and it may have given it a chance. Relying on picking the missile up as it came over the radar horizon would not have given sufficient reaction time. In truth, the moment the missile seeker locked onto Atlantic Conveyor there was very little it could have done. Justin talk 16:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had described the technique as having the missile go between the ship and helicopter but your wording is clearer and has some lovely ones in it, I especially like centroid. I think what AC needed was a Sea King helicopter decoy and, assuming it had one, with a pilot who dared to keep it low to the ship. Just my opinion.Dbdb (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNINDENT

All of the sources I have to hand indicate that the fires were started by the warhead detonating after penetrating the hull. Currently there are the two versions in there but I intend to revise the article to the version I added if no citation is provided. Justin talk 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certain authors may state that the warheads detonated but this very POV, I would ask the question were they on the ship at the time? DId they see the missile warhead explode? Indeed survivors of AC may not be able to answer these questions, the sustainer rocket motor may have exploded, also burning propellant could have have set ammunition and fuel alight, just to cite a few reasons. Do not automatically assume that the exocets fired functioned correctly. In any war or conflict there is always a percentage of munitions that does not function correctly. It is better to cite both views with references. Aquizard 22:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Recompense

Did the government pay for this ship? I'd be pretty pissed off if I was Cunard and I'd leant my boat to Maggie and then she went and sank it.Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinking of Atlantic Conveyor

I wonder why it was that all the helicopters aboard the Atlantic Conveyor had not been flown to land where they

would be far safer from air attack. Can anyone supply an answer?

Paul Eden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.240.194 (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was too early in the campaign for there to really be any land to which the helicopters could be flown. The British forces had only just made their landings, establishing a toehold, by the time Atlantic Conveyor was hit. It was presumably considered more risky to transfer too much of the logistics and supplies to shore before having a clearer idea how the land campaign might develop. Also while the ships had all the logistical support available for the helicopters, there were no comparable land-based facilities in British hands as yet. Atlantic Conveyor was probably considered to be the far safer location from air attack as well, located where she could be defended by sea-borne anti-air missiles on nearby British warships and screened by carrier-based aircraft. Benea (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]