Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British logistics in the Falklands War

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

British logistics in the Falklands War[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

British logistics in the Falklands War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article has been around for a long time, but I expanded it last week. I believe that it now meets our criteria for A class. The Falklands War was unusual in that it was a full-scale conventional war in the late 20th century that was fought between two regional powers thousands of miles apart. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments mainly related to criteria A4

General

  • On unit symbols, does MOS:UNITSYMBOLS apply to weaponry? I've only ever seen 105mm, 81mm etc etc in the sources, and 105 mm just looks odd.
    @WP:MILHIST coordinators: There's nothing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The expectation I've always come across (in ACRs and FACs over the last 8 or 9 years) is that articles will follow Wiki's MoS, regardless of what specialty sources use. There should generally be a good reason to not follow the MoS, and the argument that sources follow a different style is not a good one. Parsecboy (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Parsecboy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My misunderstanding. I didn't appreciate the distinction between ammunition, which is what is referred to in this article, and weaponry. FactotEm (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

1st para

  • The British government had already taken some action. On 29 March, the submarine HMS Spartan was ordered to sail for the South Atlantic. Reads like there is a link between the Argentine invasion and Spartan's departure on 29 March, but next para says that intel of the invasion was first received on 31 March.
    checkY There had been rising tensions since Argentine scrap metal merchants raised the Argentine flag at South Georgia Island on 19 March. Added a sentence to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence, The tanker RFA Appleleaf...[joined] Endurance and Appleleaf???
    checkY Should be Fort Austin Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd para

  • The Commander-in-Chief Fleet, Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, was placed in command of Task Force 317, with overall responsibility for the operation, codenamed Operation Corporate, was based at Northwood Headquarters. Too many commas and two "was" statements. Maybe better written as something like: "Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, Commander-in-Chief Fleet at Northwood Headquarters, commanded Task Force 317 with overall responsibility for the operation, which was codenamed Operation Corporate."
  • Are "Air Component" and "Land Component" proper nouns? If not, they should not be capitalised. "Commander" after "Land Component" should certainly not be capitalised.
    checkY De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to know that Commodore Michael Clapp was "Commodore (Amphibious Warfare) (COMAW)"? Adding his position makes that clause very confusing, and positions aren't given for Curtiss, Moore, or Woodward.
    checkY Fair enough. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe make ...and Brigadier Julian Thompson's 3rd Commando Brigade formed the landing force (TG 317.1). a separate sentence. All previous clauses detail appointments, while this last clause includes some detail of the force as well (3rd Commando Brigade). Alternatively maybe just state "...and Brigadier Julian commanded the landing component (TG 317.1)."
    checkY Done, but I now have to mention the 3rd Commando Brigade below. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibious

1st para

  • RFA Sir Tristram was in Belize, but could meet up with the fleet on its way south; but RFA Sir Bedivere was in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and would not be immediately available. I think ""RFA Sir Tristram was in Belize, and could meet up..." would read better, considering there is another "but" shortly after.
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd para

  • ...or to carry passengers who had already booked voyages. Might be better as "...or to meet their existing booking obligations" or similar. When you later say that ships were allowed to be requisitioned along with anything on board I had visions of OAPs on SAGA cruises suddenly being diverted to the South Atlantic.
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a practice known to have been used by King Richard I in 1189 for the Third Crusade... Is this necessary? I think the unusual nature of the situation is just as well conveyed simply by saying "a practice last exercised during the Suez Crisis in 1956."
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3rd para

  • During the Falklands War they carried 100,000 long tons (100,000 t) tons of freight, 95 aircraft, 9,000 personnel, and 400,000 long tons (410,000 t) of fuel. "transported" instead of "carried" might be more accurate?
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4th para

  • The choice was quickly narrowed to P&O's 44,807-gross-register-ton (126,880 m3) SS Canberra. It's not a choice if there's only one option.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions

2nd para

  • The conversion of Atlantic Conveyor at Devonport required the removal of 500 tie down points for containers from her deck; adding a landing pad for helicopters and Hawker Siddeley Harriers; installing UHF radio equipment and satellite communications; adding accommodation for 122 men; installing a liquid oxygen tank; cutting additional hatches; and modifying the stern doors. Any reason for the semi-colons? Wouldn't commas do the job just as well?
    checkY Replaced semicolons with commas
  • Some 17 ships were fitted with helicopter landing pads. On Canberra and Queen Elizabeth 2, the area around the swimming pool was used, as it had been designed to hold the weight of 70 to 100 long tons (71 to 102 t) of water. This could use a semi-colon instead of a period after "landing pads" IF you're saying that the pool on Canberra and QE2 was converted to landing pads. If not, then the 2nd sentence doesn't make clear what the pool areas were used for.
 Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ascension

2nd para

  • This rapidly declined to 700,000 US gallons (2,600,000 l) on 19 April, and then 12,000 US gallons (45,000 l) on 25 April when a supply tanker with 2.4 million US gallons (9,100,000 l) commenced replenishment. Not clear what exactly rapidly declined here. I think you actually mean that of the 950,000 they let the Brits have, 250,000 was used by 19 April, and a week later only 12,000 gallons of the original 950,000 was left, but the way it's written suggests that the Americans reduced the amount of fuel they were prepared to let the Brits have.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Para

  • This far exceeded the capacity of the island's water supply, and McQueen instituted draconian measures to limit numbers. Did he restrict the numbers of people allowed on Ascension? The logical measure would be to limit water consumption.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4th Para

  • Not intended for long cruises, Canberra's endurance was 27 days at 18.5 knots (34.3 km/h; 21.3 mph). This sentence seems to be just dropped in there, and does not seem to have any relevance to the rest of the para.
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over the beach

3rd para

  • You introduce "Red Beach" without further explanation until 2 paras later. Maybe better to just say "in the beachhead", as that is introduced earlier in the para.
  • {done}} Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7th para

  • Commander Rick Jolly brought the Headquarters of the Medical Squadron of the Commando Logistics Regiment and No. 2 Surgical Support Team ashore from Canberra, No. 1 Medical Troop from Sir Galahad, and the Parachute Clearing Troop from Norland. Difficult sentence. Maybe split it up? Certainly the first part might be better written "Commander Rick Jolly brought the Medical Squadron Headquarters of the Commando Logistics Regiment..." to eliminate of..of.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8th para

  • The Harriers of No. 1 Squadron RAF had already been transferred to Hermes,[102] One Wessex of 848 Naval Air Squadron had already flown ashore, and a Chinook of No. 18 Squadron RAF was in the air at the time; but three Chinook and six Wessex helicopters were lost. I think you could usefully link this to the preceding narrative by beginning the sentence "Of its cargo, the Harriers..."
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lone surviving Chinook... Makes it sound like the Chinook was saved from the Atlantic Conveyor, but you already stated that nothing could be salvaged. Maybe better to say "The task force's only remaining Chinook..." or similar?
    It already says that one Chinook was in the air. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and went on to serve in the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. Interesting, but is it relevant? Maybe this info is better as a note in the cite?
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over the mountains

1st para

  • ... for there were no relief crews for the landing craft or helicopters. The use of "for" to mean "because" stood out to me as a bit ye olde English. I don't think it's a problem in itself, except that there's another "for" soon after, so maybe "due to no relief crews being available for the landing craft..." is better?
  • Nor could the helicopters operate at night. Four Sea Kings had night vision equipment, but these were reserved for night operations. To allow the crews to rest, and necessary aircraft maintenance to be performed, they were not employed during the day. All wrong. The second sentence is nonsensical, and contradicts the first. Maybe better written: "Only four helicopters were equipped with night vision equipment and could operate at night, and for reasons of crew rest and maintenance these were not allowed to operate during the day." or similar.
    checkY Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which left six Sea Kings and five Wessex helicopters available for logistical and tactical missions. What about the Chinook mentioned in the previous para?
    checkY A Chinook is not a Sea King or a Wessex. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5th para

  • The manoeuvre was repeated, successfully, the following night. Technically, the manoeuvre of the previous night was (I assume) take off - can't get through because of the blizzard - turn back, so that wouldn't have been what transpired the following night. Maybe "A second attempt the following night succeeded."?
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6th para

  • "EFHE" is mentioned with no prior explanation of what it is.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Hope this helps. FactotEm (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Much appreciated. I feared that there would be few reviewers for an article on such an obscure conflict. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment on A4

  • Section "Over the mountains", 9th para, 1st sentence Brigadier Tony Wilson's 5th Infantry Brigade reached Cumberland Bay off South Georgia Island on Queen Elizabeth 2 on 27 May. There's a bit of a geographic leap in the narrative here, and it took me a while to figure out that 5th Brigade was being shipped to the Falklands via South Georgia Island. Maybe needs clarifying a little? Similarly, the sentence The first ship to arrive at San Carlos was Atlantic Causeway... appears later in that para, long after the arrival of other ships at the Falklands is described. Maybe worth clarifying along the lines of "The first ship transporting 5th Brigade..." or similar?
    Added a sentence clarifying this, and moved the sentence about arriving at San Carlos. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions relating to criteria A2

  • The article ends quite suddenly. Do the logistics of running down the installations on Ascension and the Falklands, and returning troops and equipment back to the UK also have a place in this article?
    checkY Added a section on logistics in the immediate aftermath of the war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    These were held for intelligence gathering, and to encourage Argentina to surrender, but it has been stated already that the Argentines had surrendered. FactotEm (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY The Argentine Forces in the Falkland Islands had surrendered. Hostilities continued. There was still one more combat operation, the reoccupation of the South Sandwich Islands. Tweaked the wording to make this a bit clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information about the logistical problem is spread throughout the article. Is it possible or worthwhile to add a section summarising the various figures in one place? Maybe a section at the beginning describing the size/components of the task force's fighting element, the supplies necessary to support that force, and the shipping necessary to transport it all, or at the end summarising the actual figures? FactotEm (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final question:

  • In the Aftermath section, I'm a little confuesed by the statement, A replacement for the lost Sir Galahad was ordered, and two roll-on roll-off ferries, RFA Sir Caradoc and a new Sir Galahad, were chartered while the new RFA Sir Galahad was built and Sir Tristram was repaired. A new Sir Galahad was chartered while a new RFA Sir Galahad was built? Two different ships with the same name?
    checkY My mistake. It should have been Sir Lamorak. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, having just re-read, happy to support. FactotEm (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of the Falklands War before? It seems to be well-known only to people over a certain age. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Watched it on the news as it was happening. FactotEm (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iazyges[edit]

Will get to soon. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • " According to Admiral Sandy Woodward, who commanded the British Royal Navy aircraft carrier group during the Falklands War, the British Army, Royal Air Force, the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence, as well as the United States Navy, all "initially suspected the whole operation was doomed."" What is the context of this quote? Is he saying that they all had, in their official projections, Britain failing to retake the islands, or else is he stating that this was the attitude, or unspoken opinion, of these groups?
    What he wrote was:
    "It should be recalled that there were several highly competent organizations which initially suspected the whole operation was doomed. In no particular order they were:
    (a) the United States Navy, which considered the recapture of the Falkland Islands to be a military impossibility;
    (b) the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall, which generally regarded the whole idea as too risky;
    (c) the Army, which considered it to be ill-advised, for lack of a "proper" advantage ratio in land force numbers;
    (d) the Royal Air Force, which seeing little role for themselves on account of the vast distances, and no chance of a navy surviving in the face of an air force, was inclined to agree;
    (e) the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr (now Sir) John Nott, since success would probably overturn the 1981 Defence Review."
    In my re-write of the article, the original article became the lead. (I often do this.) I vacillated over leaving this in, because the connection to logistics is not explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In some cases the owners preferred requisitioning, as it allowed them to break existing contracts." Is it known if any actually requested requisitioning, or is this just that some merely later stated they are glad that it was such?
    checkY. The source notes that some companies demanded requisitioning. P&O is the specifically mentioned in this context in the source, so I have added this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fuel was a critical requirement of the task force, and for political reasons could not be obtained from South America or South Africa." Why? To me, this hints at either England being embarrassed at needing others help in this task, or else other countries supporting Argentina in their invasion, thus refusing to give fuel to England. Is either true?
    checkY The second is true. Added "Countries in South America, even if sympathetic, felt unable to offer overt support in a conflict involving a neighbouring state, while South Africa was an international pariah at the time due to its system of apartheid, and collaboration with its regime risked alienating other countries at a time when Britain needed all the support it could muster for its international diplomatic efforts." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ships were not combat loaded." May wish to explain what this means, but it isn't critical.
    checkY There is a whole article on the subject. Added "loaded in such a way that the weapons, ammunition, equipment and stores that the embarked troops would require on landing were immediately accessible." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Avro Vulcan bomber over Ascension Island on 18 May 1982 (Image caption)" May wish to add [an] in front of Avro Vulcan.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stores were difficult to identify, as many were poorly labelled. This made it difficult to distinguish real ammunition from training ammunition." May wish to change to:
    "Stores were difficult to identify, as many were poorly labelled, making it difficult to distinguish real ammunition from training ammunition."
    checkY done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Five of the seven escorts were hit, HMS Ardent fatally." You may wish to make a listing of the seven escorts, even if it is not known which of the five were hit (other than HMS Ardent, obviously). (You may already have this, and I have just missed it, but I haven't been able to find it.)
    checkY Sure I can. I just thought it might have been a bit of a roll call. Changed to: "Of the seven escorts, five, HMS Antrim, Ardent, Argonaut, Brilliant and Broadsword, were hit; only HMS Plymouth and Yarmouth were unscathed. Of those hit, only Broadsword was fully capable of continuing the fight, and Ardent was ablaze and sinking."
  • That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review! Note that I am going away tomorrow, and will not have access to my books to answer questions like I have today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this nomination. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • Half were requisitioned; the rest were chartered Were the owners compensated for the requisitioning of their vessels? Is there any information on how much this cost? Were the crews requisitioned as well or were they volunteers?
    The crew are not "requisitioned"; they continue to serve on their ship. It is a form of forced charter. The company is paid for the ship, but not compensated for loss of business. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For transporting vehicles, a roll-on/roll-off vessel was preferred preferred to what—the previous ship mentioned is also RO/RO? Also, the link should go on the first mention.
    checkY Deleted previous message. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, Marchwood had only a single jetty "Unfortunately" is editorialising; suggest finding another word or removing it
    checkY deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns about the vulnerability of the base led to three RAF Harriers being assigned for air defence How realistic were these concerns? Did the Argentinians have anything with the necessary range to be a serious threat to Ascension?
    checkY The threat was taken seriously. Added a bit about its source and nature. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately, another 30 days' supply had been ordered on 17 April, and was on its way south See above about "unfortunately"
    checkY deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 45 Commando embarked in LCUs that took them from Ajax Bay to Port San Carlos. It then yomped to Douglas It doesn't matter much whether you use singular or plural but do it consistently.
    checkY Switched to "it". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • which it reached at 13:00 on 28 May, reached the Arroy Pedro River What sort of distances are they?
  • However, this was nowhere near as good as Teal Inlet "However" isn't adding a lot there.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Staggering amounts of ammunition Editorialising?
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Argentine Military Cemetery was subsequently built "subsequently" is one of those words that's widely misused, and used to mean several different things; suggest changing to "later" unless you mean to imply that it was a consequence of the British cemetery being built, or better still replacing it with the date of construction.
    checkY Changed to later. I'll see if I can locate a source for the date. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have thought the Vulcan bombing runs (Operation Black Buck, and my what a sorry state that article is in!) and the complexities of refuelling the Vulcans en route would have merited a mention here.
    I had thought of it as an operational matter, but I'll look into it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything that could be said about the feasibility of the UK undertaking a similar operation today? It's the sort of thing the BBC and the tabloid press like to ruminate over when talking about defence cuts, particularly the current state of the Royal Navy (which is little more than a coastal defence force, at least until the new aircraft carriers have crews and, erm, aircraft).
    The war is quite obscure. It occurred while I was at school. In the wake of the war, a lot of books appeared which I snapped up. Since then there has been little interest, except for a brief resurgence in 2007 for the 25th anniversary. I presented a paper a conference on expeditionary warfare at which an unfortunate British historian had to present a paper on the Falklands War with Julian Thompson sitting in the front row glaring at him like the Duke of Wellington listening to a paper on the Battle of Waterloo. But most people have never heard of the war or, for that matter, the Falkland Islands.
    The downward trajectory of the British armed forces means that the Royal Navy is about half the size it was back then, and could not carry out the same operation today; but Argentina also has a much smaller force. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While any commentary on the RN tends to reflect on its reduction in size and capabilities since 1982, I tend to agree that the topic isn't relevant to this article. It's also a complex issue: while the RN probably couldn't do what it did in 1982 any more, the small fortune which has been spent on developing and maintaining RAF Mount Pleasant as an air head and establishing various other facilities in the Falklands should mean that it doesn't need to. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice piece of work. I don't know how you flit between such different subjects the way you do, but you do it impeccably! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! Much appreciated, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy with the responses so happy to support. I would like to a sentence or two about the Vulcans but I certainly won't withhold support over it. Also, images are all appropriately licenced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limited comments by Nick-D[edit]

As there are already three substantive reviews above (all of which are either supports or seem to be near that point) I'll only post some limited comments. The closing coord should note that I contributed a very small amount of text to the article.

  • The lead is mainly focused on the challenges the British forces faced, and not how they were overcome: I'd suggest broadening it somewhat.
    Any idea what can be added? (Fell free to add.) I'm not good with leads. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the article provides good coverage of the efforts undertaken to sustain the post-war garrison in the Falklands and enable its reinforcement, did the British Government or Armed Forces make any other changes to the logistical capabilities of the military as a result of the lessons learned from the war? Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That looks good, so my comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/British_logistics_in_the_Falklands_War&oldid=816104636"