Talk:SS Atlantic Conveyor

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)


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

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


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Mars Bars were an excellent source of sugar and were useful for restoring the body's sugar levels and replacing lost energy after strenuous exertion in cold conditions when other sources of food were not available. They were thus not really a luxury. If was for this reason IIRC that Mars Bars were usually included in a survivor's emergency rations pack.


 * The Paras intended transport - the Chinooks - was on board the Atlantic Conveyor and with that ship's loss also went the helicopters, and thus the Paras knew they would have to get to where they were going on foot and so be required to perform strenuous exertion in cold conditions. Hence the Mars Bars became important.


 * The manufacturers have since changed the recipe for the bar and so whether the above still applies to the Mars Bars produced today I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquizard (talk • contribs)

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)

£9.3 million. Surprisingly the government had insurance for wartime losses. I wonder what the premium for that policy was! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.81.201 (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

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)


 * 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

The Chinooks were prepared for the sea journey by having their rotor blades removed (and placed inside their aircraft) and the fuselage then being generously coated in px9 wax oil, before being placed in one-piece green rubber "banana" suit. As this was the first time this process had been used, including removing rotor blades on a moving deck, it proved quite difficult but was achieved by 12 technicians from 18 Sqn while the AC was moored in the UK prior to departure. The original plan was for the small party of 6 technicians from 18 Sqn onboard the AC to be joined by the main party of 18Sqn technicians from the "Norland" to rebuilt and prepare the Chinooks once in the calm waters of the Sound. When this proved impossible to achieve because of the high risk within the Sound, the process was carried out by the 6 technicians on board, in open water with huge risk of personal injury and damage to the aircraft, taking two days just to achieve the rebuilt of one Chinook, BN, and achieving its flight check. A second aircraft, BT, stowed on the rear deck near the ramp, had also been rebuilt by the small team by the 25th May, but was only completed ready for a test flight just 30 mins before the first missile struck. A7rny (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)(a7rny)

Use of Self-Published Source
is a self-published source. Per WP:SPS this cannot be used as a source on wikipedia. is persisting in using this as a source to add dubious material to the article (see next section). I am asking, who has been warned not to, to desist from doing so. WCM email 12:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Now, this is quite interesting. What we are dealing with here is a war situation where some things, whether accurate or not, become public knowledge for historians to comment on and many other things remain private and are often taken to the grave. For example, I was an officer on/ survivor of Conveyor (from conversion to destruction) and am one of the few people around that knows the planned defensive posture of the ship was to turn her stern to any incoming missiles. This is valid high quality first hand historical evidence, yet as I understand it not admissible as a reference source for Wikipedia.

Other unpublished high quality information I have is from logs kept by officers at the time; officers' knowledge of current training and defensive manoeuvres; correspondence with senior decision makers who are sadly now deceased; opinions of weapons and tactical experts; and survivor accounts. Further details have been recovered from newly released documents held at Kew (found with the assistance of staff), which are of value if interpreted.

There is, of course, a lot of relevant and readily available published information about Conveyor of varying quality, some of which has been used as source for the current Wikipedia article.

I am a research scientist by training and what I have are the results of a research project. I am extremely grateful for 's editorial steer and advice given here (see below). Taking this into account, I have concluded that Wikipedia is probably not the place to write about what happened to Atlantic Conveyor, as much of the key evidence would be inadmissible as reference sources.

This being the case, I feel it is probably best that my edits to this Wikipedia article are simply deleted. Given the rapid departure of witnesses, I'll concentrate on itemising and discussing available evidence on my own site for the benefit of anyone wishing to use it for historical purposes at some future date. My survivor account and evidence gathered to date have been captured on electronic media by the IWM Celtic Boatman (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said you can't add material from your own website. As you acknowledge this as your own research I am removing it from the article.  WCM email 17:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring of WP:OR
has repeatedly inserted the claim "thus avoiding distraction by British chaff decoys from launch until their final approach" as regards Exocet. This is WP:OR and WP:SYN on his part and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how the system works. Exocet approaches at low level to prevent detection by Air Defences. WCM email 12:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am very grateful to for taking the time to repeatedly offer correction (I think we were enthusiastically editing at the same time) of my comment on Exocet behaviour -> "thus avoiding distraction by British chaff decoys from launch until their final approach"

I knew and entirely agree with 's factual advice: "Exocet approaches at low level to prevent detection by Air Defences." But this is a short Wikipedia article, so I limited myself to Exocet behaviour that was relevant to the point I was making. Yes, Exocets of the time skimmed the waves to avoid being locked onto by defensive radar systems. In this case, however, detecting the missiles wasn't the problem. They were followed both on radar and visually (as they emitted a prominent smoke trail). The problem was disposing of the missiles before they hit a ship. The only 'goalkeeper' on station was out of range and the other ships were unlikely to be able to down the missiles with their weapons systems. However, there remained two real opportunities to send the missiles in the wrong direction. Firstly, by confusing the aircraft radar systems with false targets. And secondly by using chaff, or another ship, to confuse the missiles' onboard seekers. The first decoy attempt had failed and the second could only work if precisely timed, as the chaff dispersed downwind. My point was that the Exocets were programmed to fly towards the target location on autopilot to avoid the chaff distraction which was being put up continuously by the local ships. The Exocets only turned on their seekers in the last seconds to find a target of suitable size within in a pre-set escape distance from the original destination coordinates. Thus my statement was accurate and I qualified the 'final approach' part in the next paragraph. So I would argue pressed delete a little too hastily and 's tag comment on the post was not helpful (or particularly polite).

If I inadvertently triggered what has been described as an editing war then that certainly was not my intent and is not of any interest to me. In fact, I did not re-insert my website as a visible reference on the live page following its initial removal. Celtic Boatman (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just stripped a discussion which was taking place in comments in the article out of it. Such a discussion belongs on this talk page. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Exocet doesn't behave in the manner you suggest with your edit. In the mid-course phase, Exocet missiles of that generation relied on bearing navigation travelling along a bearing as directed by the azimuth gyro with the height regulated by a small radar altimeter.  To reduce the probability of detection the radar seeker didn't switch on until the terminal phase.  You can chuck chaff about with gay abandon and it will do nothing to deflect the missile.  Nor would chaff be deployed by Frigates to distract aircraft radar, to deploy chaff in that situation would create a massive radar target that would give away the fleet's position.  Chaff in that situation is only deployed as a last ditch defence againt an incoming missiles.
 * In addition, the missiles weren't picked up on Ship radar until they crossed the radar horizon and at that stage they're already in the terminal homing phase.
 * Your statement is just plain wrong, Exocet doesn't fly at low level to avoid chaff decoying.  WCM email 17:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, all Argentine exocet attacks were aimed to disable or destroy a British aircraft carrier (or so they claimed!), this is NOT the only one so drop it already. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Error in List of Deaths
The casualties section states that of the 12 men who died, 6 were merchant navy, 3 were RFA and 6 were RN - clearly this adds up to 15. I assume that the RFA men were counted twice, but I've no idea whether they're being counted as merchant navy or RN. Jellyfish dave (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Three RFA, Chief Radio Officer Ronald Hoole, Ng Po and Chan Chi Sing
 * Three RN, Air Engineering Mechanic (Radio) Adrian Anslow, Chief Petty Office Writer Edmund Flanagan and Leading Air Engineering Mechnica (Electrical) Donal Pryce.
 * Merchant Navy, Captain Ian North, Bosun John Dobson, Mechanic Frank Foulkes, Mechanic James Hughes, Steward David Hawkins and Mechanic Ernest Vickers

Title needs changing
The article title should be MV Atlantic Conveyor, she was not a steam ship.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A lot of reliable sources like the MoD call her the "SS Atlantic Conveyor" do you have a reliable source that says she was not? MilborneOne (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oil-fired steam turbine, so technically a steam ship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.98.209 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SS Atlantic Conveyor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223051413/http://britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Rescue of Survivors
The article states that HRH Prince Andrew, piloting a Sea King, was the first to take off survivors. This is not correct. The first aircraft to rescue survivors, including an RAF engineer who had ended up in the sea after the Atlantic Conveyor was hit by Exocets, was a Royal Navy Wessex V of 845 Commando Squadron, call sign YD, that was piloted by  Lieutenant Kim Slowe RN. The air crewman was a Royal Marine Corporal, Ian Tyrell RM. A Sea King from HMS Invincible, piloted by HRH Prince Andrew, picked up the survivors that were not able to fit into the Wessex V.

The Wessex V, callsign YD, had been embarked on Atlantic Conveyor for 2 days, having previously transitioned to the Exclusion Zone via an RAF Belfast to Ascension Island and then in RFA Fort Austin. After leaving RFA Fort Austin, YD then operated for a few days from HMS Invincible before embarking in Atlantic Conveyor.

YD had just launched from Atlantic Conveyor, to carry out a check test flight, when the ship was hit by the Exocet. YD picked up one survivor from the sea and then picked up a further 13 survivors from the forward deck of the Atlantic Conveyor. All the survivors were taken to HMS Hermes. This correct version of events is told by Harry Benson in his book SCRAM, published by Arrow, ISBN 0099568829, and by Ewen Southby-Tailyour in the book Exocet Falklands published by Pen & Sword, ISBN 978-1-78346-387-9. Kimslowe (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If you are happy then I can (or you can) transfer that account to the main article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Now done, if you'd like to check. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of section "Techniques to defeat anti-ship missiles"
This section has been on this article for a long time, but I think it is badly sourced, and not appropriate in this article. It is about techniques for evading anti-ship missiles (generally); it is not about Atlantic Conveyor.

Jinlye (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there was a controversy that decoys were not fitted to Atlantic Conveyor, this section was added to explain why. WCM email 14:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also disagree. I recall much speculation at the time about Atlantic Conveyor acting as a decoy for the carriers and why it was unprotected. I think its more a case of finding sources rather than deleting content Lyndaship (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest then that the section needs rewriting to be about Atlantic Conveyor specifically and not "Techniques to defeat anti-ship missiles" generally, which is covered in other articles (e.g. Chaff (countermeasure)). And it desperately needs some decent sources - as it stands I think it is fair game to be challenged and removed. On the point about using Atlantic Conveyor as a decoy, it seems an extravagant measure when it had all the Chinooks that the army were counting on for transporting troops and materiel to the front line.  But if there is a reliable source for that, let's add it.  Jinlye (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding use as a decoy, Nigel West claims (The Secret War for the Falklands) that some merchant ships were used as protection for the carriers as decoys for Exocets but Conveyer certainly wasn't one of them. She was moved up prepatory to unloading her cargo of helicopters. The Entendards carrying out the attack popped up briefly out of the radar shadow, got a big contact, assumed it was one of the carriers, and fired their missiles before dropping back below the radar horizon.


 * What Nigel West is referring to is the use of the burn-out hulk of Conveyor after this attack. There is some suggestion that the missile launched on the 30 May attack hit the hulk.  WCM email 08:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * West refers to three merchant ships being used as decoys for the carriers. They would have to have been capable of manouvering in concert with the carriers which the hulk of the Conveyor would not have been able to. As to the subsequent attack, when the Argentines claimed to have hit Invincible, Woodward in "100 Days" comments that no one in the task force was aware of an attack on that day. I believe (but would have to check) that on that day attempts were still being made to recover what cargo they could salvage from Conveyor. Though if the missile did indeed hit the ship that would explain the confusion but doesn't mean it was deliberately being deployed as a decoy. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Having rechecked both the Sunday Times Insight book and Woodward's 100 days, there is no claim that Conveyor was actively used as a decoy, though the former does refer to it being hit by the last Exocet. According to Woodward the A4 pilots that reported seeing the missile hit and the carrier on fire were probably confused by seeing HMS Avenger wreathed in smoke from her gun. (Woodward P305) Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'm going to be bold and remove this controversial/contentious section altogether now. Gentlemen, I would like to remind you all that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we have to be 100% factual than some conspiracy theorist ranting on a Sunday tabloid. In any case, should the controversial issue(s) turn out to be true, we can still reintroduce it into the article page with correct and proper format than what it looks like right now - a pile of badly-written/sourced malcontent turning both the page and Wikipedia into another laughing stock on the internet. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not a gentleman and the Sunday Times is not a tabloid. This removal is premature and I'm going to revert you Lyndaship (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Lynda, Dave is a gentleman and will be mortified at his mistake. If I may, I believe I introduced some of this section, which was an attempt to explain the problem to an editor who completely misunderstood how Exocet worked.  See Talk:SS Atlantic Conveyor and Talk:SS Atlantic Conveyor above.  What I believe is needed is a re-write to:
 * A) Why Atlantic Conveyor was hit in the attack
 * B) Explain why Atlantic Conveyor was not outfitted with Chaff - too large
 * C) Comment on the rumours of the hulk being used as an Exocet decoy (if reliable sources can be found).
 * Does that make sense, do we need to add more? WCM email 12:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree totally that the section needs to be rewritten and if no one did then that would be grounds for removal but while the discussion is still active any removal is premature. I don't have the sources to check the information given and all I have is a hazy memory from the time both from published sources and shall we say those which were not for public consumption. My memory from the latter coincides with what is on the self published website which was previously quoted but has to be dismissed as non-RS. So yes please do rewrite the section as per the RS you have access to Lyndaship (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

New source material
New article with full history of the ship, as well as sinking in the Falklands with photos is | here Farawayman (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Naming of Preserved Class 40 Diesel Locomotive 40106 'Atlantic Conveyor'
Is it worth adding to the article that "on 11th August 1984, [40106], now renumbered D306 was named “ATLANTIC CONVEYOR”, in memory of the Cunard cargo ship and those on board who lost their lives in the 1982 Falklands war. The name was dedicated by John Brocklehurst, Chief Officer of the ship."

Details on the the Class 40 Preservation Society's website here: https://www.cfps.co.uk/about/40106-2 Andywebby (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes but in a separate memorial section. WCM email 07:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)