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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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
^ 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)
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)
The first aircraft to rescue survivors was a Royal Navy Wessex V of 845 Naval Air Squadron, call sign YD, piloted by Lieutenant Kim Slowe RN. He picked up one survivor from the sea and then picked up a further 13 survivors from the forward deck of Atlantic Conveyor. A Sea King helicopter of 820 Naval Air Squadron from HMS Invincible, piloted by HRH Prince Andrew, picked up the remaining survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.161.20 ( talk) 10:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[1] is a self-published source. Per WP:SPS this cannot be used as a source on wikipedia. Celtic Boatman is persisting in using this as a source to add dubious material to the article (see next section). I am asking Celtic Boatman, who has been warned not to, to desist from doing so. W C M 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 Wee Curry Monster'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)
Celtic Boatman 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. W C M email 12:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I am very grateful to Wee Curry Monster 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 Wee Curry Monster'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 Wee Curry Monster pressed delete a little too hastily and AmomieBot'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)
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)
The article title should be MV Atlantic Conveyor, she was not a steam ship. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 14:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
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 Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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
^ 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)
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)
The first aircraft to rescue survivors was a Royal Navy Wessex V of 845 Naval Air Squadron, call sign YD, piloted by Lieutenant Kim Slowe RN. He picked up one survivor from the sea and then picked up a further 13 survivors from the forward deck of Atlantic Conveyor. A Sea King helicopter of 820 Naval Air Squadron from HMS Invincible, piloted by HRH Prince Andrew, picked up the remaining survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.161.20 ( talk) 10:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[1] is a self-published source. Per WP:SPS this cannot be used as a source on wikipedia. Celtic Boatman is persisting in using this as a source to add dubious material to the article (see next section). I am asking Celtic Boatman, who has been warned not to, to desist from doing so. W C M 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 Wee Curry Monster'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)
Celtic Boatman 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. W C M email 12:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I am very grateful to Wee Curry Monster 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 Wee Curry Monster'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 Wee Curry Monster pressed delete a little too hastily and AmomieBot'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)
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)
The article title should be MV Atlantic Conveyor, she was not a steam ship. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 14:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
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 Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). 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)
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)
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)
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)