Talk:SS Atlantic Conveyor

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

message: ^ 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)
thread_title: Notes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Exocet

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recompense 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sinking of Atlantic Conveyor 

message: 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.   WCMemail 12:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  WCMemail 17:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Self-Published Source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Error in List of Deaths 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Title needs changing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Now done, if you'd like to check. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rescue of Survivors 

message: 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)
thread_title: New source material

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes but in a separate memorial section. WCMemail 07:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of Preserved Class 40 Diesel Locomotive 40106 'Atlantic Conveyor'