Contents

Talk:British logistics in the Falklands War

	British logistics in the Falklands War is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 28, 2021.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 19, 2017 WikiProject A-class review Approved August 17, 2018 Featured article candidate Promoted
	Afact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 29, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that British logistics in the Falklands War depended on ships that were STUFT?
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Logistics / British / European / South America 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 Associated task forces: /  Military logistics and medicine task force British military history task force European military history task force South American military history task force Additional information: /  This article has passedanA-Class review. British Overseas Territories Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories 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.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. South America: Falklands Low‑importance 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 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). British Empire Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article states that: 'Stromness had 10-by-2-foot (3.05 by 0.61 m) aluminium panels for airfield surfacing, which were landed at Green Beach by helicopter and landing craft, and taken to the site with civilian vehicles. The airstrip was completed, with a ski jump for Harriers, using more than eighty of the panels, assembled by hand, on 2 June' Can this really be true? on my maths the Panels would only cover 200ft x 8ft or equivalent, surely nowhere near the size needed for a runway. Perhaps a vertical land only pad?? I tried to research online but couldn't find anything other than this article. Thanks 46.226.49.230 (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As 18 months have passed with no comment to the contrary, and it was clearly still bugging me - I've removed the suspect sentence about having 80 panels until someone can confirm or deny the truth in it. 2A02:C7F:769B:F800:DCB3:FD2:A80:763E (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first thing you did was look up the cited source, which says:

Fortuitously loaded on board the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Stromness before she departed the United Kingdom were strips of Pre-fabricated Surfacing Airfield, which were originally intended for 59 Independent Commando Squadron to repair bomb damage and for a vertical take-off and landing pad. Some of these heavy 10 x 2 feet aluminium panels were landed in bundles by helicopters and landing craft near Green Breach and then hauled to the operating base using vehicles loaned by the settlement manager, Alan Miller. By 2 June 11 Field Squadron, working on unprepared ground and without any heavy equipment, had slotted together by hand over eighty strips to build an 850-foot runway, a pad for vertical take-off and landings and dispersal areas for four aircraft. Originally ten dispersal areas had been planned. The sappers used their ingenuity and redesigned the fuel handling system into one capable of pumping ashore 40,000 gallons of aviation fuel.

— Van der Bijl & Aldea 2003, pp. 86–87

Your can find pictures of it here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7: Thank you for the response and for that excellent link which was most interesting. However, I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me or the original sentence. I've read the source and it does not corroborate the fact that 80 panels were used. I don't profess to be any sort of expert, which is why I was intrigued by it. The source confirms that a 850 foot runway was built, which is not possible using only 80 10x2foot panels. There must be a definition of what constitutes a "strip" - perhaps a strip is made up of a certain number of panels. If a strip was a runway-width of panels, that would be much more realistic, but you still wouldn't get the required length with 80 strips. Basically with or without the confusing statement in the article, I'm still interested in how this runway was actually made up :). Many thanks 2A02:C7F:769B:F800:EC86:5028:4550:C11A (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I still have a copy, but from memory Julian Thompson's book The Lifeblood of War: Logistics in Armed Conflict included a chapter on logistics in this campaign. Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does. I have a copy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After some poking around, it turns out I still do as well Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try this Privratsky lecture too: [1].

During the Falklands War they carried 100,000 long tons (100,000 t) of freight, 95 aircraft, 9,000 personnel, and 400,000 long tons (410,000 t) of fuel.[26]

Can anyone edit with the actual conversion rate? (If 400,000 long tons is 410,000 t, shouldn't 100,000 long tons be 102,500 t?) Also clarify whether e.g. (410,000 t) is in metric or imperial tons? 157.203.254.2 (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The conversion is correct. I'm not going to explain it; it was on your high school syllabus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We went to high school, your reply is not clear, and there's no need to be a prick about it. My understanding is 100000 long tons is 112000 short tons, 400000 long tons is 448000 short tons. That's correct as per Google. If you don't agree please can you deign to explain why. 46.226.49.231 (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is not what you were taught. Help:Convert: By default, the output value is rounded to adjust its precision to match that of the input. An input such as 1234 is interpreted as 1234 ± 0.5, while 1200 is interpreted as 1200 ± 50, and the output value is displayed accordingly, taking into account the scale factor used in the conversion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]