PQ17

[Hangarshuffle]

I've just been watching a programme on BBC2 about the Artic Convoys. By Jeremy Clarkson of BBC Top Gear fame.
Well done JC and BBC, a very good programme.
Concede this has little to do with this website.
Except as a good history lesson in operating ships without adequate air defence umbrella? Or the perils of being under military command?


Met a couple of DEMS gunners many years ago in Wallsend, old boys and decent brave humble men -RIP.
Anyone else see it care to comment?

[Shack37]

Yes, I saw it and it filled in a few gaps in the vague details I had from reading about it as a lad. You have to ask how a man with a brain tumour and exhausted from lack of restful sleep should have been left in the position of 1st Sea Lord to make such important decisions.

This is not a dig at the man himself but a criticism of those who were aware of his health problems, which were surely bound to affect those decisions and did nothing about it.

[triskele]

Forgive my 1st post but the Russian convoys were brutal. I escorted some Veterans arround our replenisher some years back and one of the old boys asked to sit it out. He had a bad limp, told me the leg was amputated by a Russian surgeon at Polyarno without anaesthetic, calmly told me the Russ threatened him with a revolver to shut up his screams, the surgeon was angry but also exhausted. he was nineteen at the time. Truly horrible, beyond my capacity for thought to be honest.

[Hangarshuffle]

Must have been a tremendous,terrible strain for Pound. I mean those two months of the war July and August 1942 there is so much going on. Artic and PQ17 but one battle. Also Malta convoy with Pedestal. Atlantic convoy. North Africa and Rommel's so called Plan Orient*. German push toward the oil culminating in Stalingrad What we call the Far East and Guadalcanal (spell?) for the Americans. Dieppe raid. Frightful really. We were losing, everywhere.


*Not positive on plan name but did he not want to hook left up through Palestine and the Levant and link up with Army Group South?


So much going on. Sacrifice the Merchant men to save his cruisers and destroyers for another day?

[Courtney Mil]

It was a remarkably good programme. Old JC (who wrote and presented it) has a good feel for such things. Not just a petrol head.

[Hangarshuffle]

I wonder what he will do next? RAFs Battle of Berlin? Dieppe Raid? If he wants to do another about unmitigated disasters.

[Courtney Mil]

Or maybe he just wants to make good programmes about interesting and (in some places) little understood military historical events.

[Hangarshuffle]

Expect he may do more on the First War soon, what with the anniversary of it all this year. Max Hastings has a book out about the same, going to read it. I've tried to upload the pictures I took of the little known Merchant Navy memorial at South Shields and failed dismally, will try again tomorrow.

[huge72]

My late uncle was on the Minelayer HMS Menestheus with the 1st Minelayer Sqn at this time. As most of the Squadron were converted merchantmen, they were used as a decoy convoy for PQ17 and others. They were ordered to sail north of the Arctic Circle and hopefully draw off the enemy bombers. It wasn't a success as we know but at the time it was considered a one way ticket!!!

[BEagle]

When I was talking with him a few weeks ago, I told Jeremy how good people thought his programme on the St Nazaire raid was - and he hoped that we'd enjoy the PQ17 one just as much.

Well, personally I thought it was very good indeed. Thanks, JC!

Another fine programme he made was 'The Victoria Cross: For Valour'. In it, amongst other accounts, he described the heroism of Maj. Robert Cain during the Battle of Arnhem...

Cain was Jeremy's father-in-law; his wife was unaware of her father's VC until after he passed away, because it seems "He never thought to mention it"....

[SASless]

Just this once.....Top Gear, JC, Russian Convoy......and the connection to things Aircrew is.....? Would not this be more appropriate elsewhere? As we don't talk about Women Infantry Marines....surely Top Gear and JC don't fit either.

[airborne_artist]

Just this once.....Top Gear, JC, Russian Convoy......and the connection to things Aircrew is.....?

Another fine programme he made was 'The Victoria Cross: For Valour'. In it, amongst other accounts, he described the heroism of Maj. Robert Cain during the Battle of Arnhem...

There's the Military Aviation connection for you SASless ;)

Arnhem was also of course the scene for Flt Lt David Lord's VC.

[skua]

Seconded that it was a (nother) good JC programme.


Keeping Pound in post does not reflect well on WSC. He was not even replaced as Chairman of the CoS Committee until March 1942.

[FODPlod]

HMS Fencer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Fencer_%28D64%29)'s flight deck being cleared of snow during an Arctic convoy operation. Two Fairey Swordfish of 842 Naval Air Squadron aft on the flight deck:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/HMS_Fencer_clearing_snow.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

My father-in-law was on HMS Liverpool:

On 25 May, Liverpool began escorting PQ 16, a convoy of 35 merchant vessels bound for Murmansk, the largest convoy yet undertaken in support of the Soviet Union. PQ 16 had considerable protection, including the light and heavy cruisers Nigeria, Kent, and Norfolk, and numerous destroyers and submarines, with distant cover provided by the Home Fleet.[54] Inevitably, the convoy came under attack, beginning with a sortie on the 25th that damaged the freighter SS Carlton. Sustained attacks from U-boats and at least 242 German aircraft yielded a total of seven vessels sunk on the 26th and 27th.

Then:

HMS Liverpool returned to the Mediterranean in June to participate in Operation Harpoon, part of the Malta Convoys. While assigned to Force W covering convoy WS 19 on 14 June, Liverpool and the convoy came under attack by at least 38 Axis aircraft.

Just too few escorts stretched too far.

[izod tester]

After the experience of PQ17, 2 Squadrons of Hampden torpedo bombers were sent to Russia to counter the threat of Tirpitz against PQ18. My father was a pilot on 144 Sqn. One of the pilots of the other Squadron, 455, was shot down en route to Russia and subsequently shared a room at Stalag Luft III with my uncle. It is noteworthy that the PoWs took OpSec seriously and did not discuss anything related to service matters where Germans might overhear them, that my uncle found out that my father had flown ops as part of the same torpedo bomber wing as his room mate.

The Hampdens were subsequently handed over to the Russians and my father returned home by ship and 144 Sqn was reformed as as Torbeau Sqn.

[goudie]

A really excellent programme and as has been stated, well presented by JC.
Amazing story re. the armed trawler leading the three American merchantmen through the ice.

[November4]

My late Grandfather sailed with HMS Suffolk on a Russian convoy. All he would ever say was "bl00dy awful time" and how they had to use steam hoses to clear the ice from the guns before they became top heavy. Nothing else would ever be said about that voyage.

He also took part in Norway (bombed off Narvik), Dakar (torpedoed) and Malta and Atlantic convoys with HMS Resolution.

Aviation link - "RAF.....never bl00dy saw them"

[NutLoose]

As a sheer example of the tenacity of the crews of these ships, there is one story that I always come back to that of the brave Jervis Bay and her crew, read their story here and that of the crew that came to their rescue.

HMS "Jervis Bay":Convoy HX.84. 5th November 1940:Research by David Bews:Highland Archives (http://www.internet-promotions.co.uk/archives/caithness/jervisbaydetail.htm)

The tale of the San Demitrio in that link also beggars belief

[Pontius Navigator]

Nut, I read a book back in the early 50s which included the Jervis Bay. I don't recall the detail of the other stories except one covered the epic 107 days in a lifeboat.

[superq7]

NutLoose, thanks for the link ie Jervis Bay, what brave men they were.

[SASless]

Y'All might recall PQ-17 was the first joint US/UK Convoy and was under UK Command. American ships and crews were part of the merchant ships and crews and suffered losses as did the British ships.

The majority of the cargoes were American built tanks, trucks, weapons, and other supplies.

So....let's don't forget the jointness here as two thirds of the ships were US vessels.

Or....the 14 American Ships sunk and the 73 American Sailors that were killed.

Order of Battle....


Order of battle for Convoy PQ 17 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_for_Convoy_PQ_17)


Interesting to note there was a freighter named "Winston-Salem" and the Battleship "North Carolina" were present.....my hometown and state represented.

The "Show Boat" (USS North Carolina) is a War Memorial in Wilmington, NC.

[Flap Track 6]

Some military aviation content: my late father in law was in the Fleet Air Arm 42 to 46. He was told he was going on the Arctic convoys, so got kitted out with all the cold weather gear etc. Where did he end up? Malta! He reckoned the heavy clothing made an excellent pillow.

[Hangarshuffle]

Yes a fair point well made in the programme, something I wasn't aware of until now. Brave men all.

[Chugalug2]

If the scatter (nee dispersal) of PQ17 was truly the personal decision of one man, albeit the First Sea Lord, what were others at the Admiralty saying or doing? The only thing he was acting on was intelligence from a neutral (Sweden) country. It was counter to his own in house intelligence, nor was it confirmed by Norwegian Resistance sources, yet he removed the entire Escort (minus one minesweeper according to the prog, that brought in three Freighters!). Why did no-one oppose Pound's bizarre decision, never mind if they knew or did not know of his medical condition? Even when Norway confirmed that Tirpitz had not budged, he still did not recall his Escorts. What did they say or do then?
The Air Ministry might have been a den of intrigue, but even that is preferable to those who say nothing at all, lest it hurt their careers.
Poor Show!

[tdracer]

Hangershuffle - Do you know what was the exact title of the program?


I'd like to search BBC America to see if it'll make it to this side of the pond, but need to know what to look for http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

[SASless]

As I read the history....Pound polled his staff and with the exception of Admiral Moore (Vice Chief of Naval Staff) all were against Dispersal. The Staff meeting lasted all day long with some breaks and interruptions.

Air Recce had shown the German ships to have left Trondheim and other intelligence reported them to be anchored in Altenfiord with no signs of departing.

Fleet Intelliigence (Submarine Tracking Unit) reported U-Boats were in the area where the Allied Cruisers would be withdrawing.

Pound appeared to not be persuaded by the information given him by Commander N. E. Denning re the location and status of the German surface units.

Pound's personally written Order was to disperse then a second Order was written upon realizing the correct Order was to "Scatter" rather than merely break formation and proceed indecently towards Murmansk.

The decision was wrong and resulted in the piecemeal destruction of the Convoy by German Aircraft and Submarines. Had more attention been paid to Air Recce to confirm the location of the German surface units.....perhaps the disaster could have been prevented.

The Admiralty kept a very tight Lid on the event.....as it was some time in 1949 before Churchill himself learned it was Pound who made the decision.

[airborne_artist]

TD Racer. It's available as a torrent. Download and install uTorrent or similar.

PQ17 An Arctic Convoy Disaster is the title.

[4Greens]

As usual there were not sufficient aircraft available for maritime surveillance. Sound familiar ?

[Pontius Navigator]

Chug, ultimately command is a sole responsibility and not a democratic one.

[Chugalug2]

command is a sole responsibility and not a democratic one.

What's that got to do with the price of fish? The Board spends all day discussing and all are opposed to the First Sea Lord, with one exception; so back to the other half with a "I'm home dear, what's for dinner?".
This order was unique, no other convoy had been ordered to scatter by the Admiralty. Can you imagine CAS ordering the Bomber Stream to scatter because he thinks that the Luftwaffe might be launching an Me262 NF variant that night, though no-one else does (bar one!)?
Call up Churchill and tell him, never mind the social niceties. The FSL has obviously lost his marbles and many lives and much treasure is at stake. This isn't a marginal, on the one hand but then again on the other, scenario. Nothing suggests that Tirpitz is out after PQ17, SigInt, Ultra, PR, nothing, except for one report from that very suspect source, a neutral country. Somebody needed to man up and go over Pound's head. Nobody did. The integrity of Naval High Command remained intact. The integrity of PQ17 ended up in tatters.
Poor Show!

[Robert Cooper]

Slight thread drift here, but Alistair McLean wrote an excellent book, HMS Ulysses, about the North Atlantic convoys. Although a work of fiction, it is based on his experiences as an ordinary seaman on Murmansk convoy escorts, and is based on PQ-17.

It's a story of survival against insurmountable odds, and MacLean describes an enemy "far more deadly than any mine or U-boat": the weather:
"Do you know what it's like up there, between Jan Mayen and Bear Island on a February night, Admiral Starr? Of course you don't. Do you know what it's like when there's sixty degrees of frost in the Arctic - and it still doesn't freeze? Do you know what it's like when the wind, twenty degrees below zero, comes screaming off the Polar and Greenland ice-caps and slices through the thickest clothing like a scalpel? When there's five hundred tons of ice on the deck, where five minutes' direct exposure means frostbite, where the bows crash down into a trough and the spray hits you as solid ice, where even a torch battery dies out in the intense cold? Do you, Admiral Starr, do you?"

This book is one of the best explorations of naval warfare I have read, and provides a unique perspective of what the men on those convoys went through.

Bob C

[racedo]

Potentially the leadership in place was such that one couldn't challenge decisions being made, even if wrong.

Don't know enough about leadership of RN in WW2 but time and again people were elevated or left in positions of power because of their name or connections.

[Chugalug2]

Once again, I seem to not understand a word of your post, racedo.

one couldn't challenge decisions being made, even if wrong.
Er, yes one can by er... challenging them!

time and again people were elevated or left in positions of power because of their name or connections.
Any elevating done to Pound seems well earned. He commanded a ship at Jutland and did well overseeing the Battle of the Atlantic:-
Dudley Pound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Dudley_Pound)

He was however very unwell. The Brain Tumor that he died of was already diagnosed by the time he scattered PQ17. He was also kept awake at night by a painful hip. He was not fit for the job (or any job?) and should have been medically retired. I imagine that the fault lay with the RN Medical Service at the time. Why didn't they pull the plug on him?

Interestingly Churchill worked well with him, so was it another penalty of that great man's foibles? Whoever and wherever the decision taken to keep him in harness was in retrospect disastrous, but not for the reasons that you so cryptically espouse.

[Lyneham Lad]

Recorded it and watched it tonight. If you have the opportunity to catch it on BBC iPlayer etc, then I strongly recommend it. Documentary TV at its very best and oh so moving. Jeremy Clarkson fronted a brilliant programme.

[racedo]

Er, yes one can by er... challenging them!


Junior officer challenging decorated War Admiral as per your quote.............who gets listened to and who gets sidelined even if correct ?

Any elevating done to Pound seems well earned. He commanded a ship at Jutland and did well overseeing the Battle of the Atlantic:-
Dudley Pound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew%2F531072-pq17-2.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSir_Dudley_Pound&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew-57%2F)

He was however very unwell. The Brain Tumor that he died of was already diagnosed by the time he scattered PQ17. He was also kept awake at night by a painful hip. He was not fit for the job (or any job?) and should have been medically retired. I imagine that the fault lay with the RN Medical Service at the time. Why didn't they pull the plug on him?

Again questioning someone who has achieved that rank can and would be career limiting for person doing it. Pulling plug on an illustrious career by questioning if someone is medically capable at time when all that is happening is defeats is not going to happen.


Interestingly Churchill worked well with him, so was it another penalty of that great man's foibles? Whoever and wherever the decision taken to keep him in harness was in retrospect disastrous, but not for the reasons that you so cryptically espouse.

But you have highlighted how well he worked with Churchill which may have been what kept him in position.

Loyalty is something that Churchill understood given what he had been through.

[SASless]

As usual there were not sufficient aircraft available for maritime surveillance. Sound familiar ?

Familiar with the RAF refusal to provide Coastal Command the assets it needed.....when the RN was fighting the U-Boats which were far more a threat at that time than what was going on in Germany.

That Bomber Fellow, who like so many Air Force types, thought Wars are won by Strategic Bombing when every study during and after WWII proved exactly the opposite.

Had adequate assets been provided, even at direct detriment to the bombing offensive, far more ships would have been saved from destruction and thousands of mariners would have been spared horrible deaths.....not to mention how much more material, supplies, weapons, vehicles,airplanes and petroleum would have made it to the UK and Russia.

[vascodegama]

What I find difficult is the idea that the escorts could not deal with the threat. With 2 battleships to one and a superior number of other ships I would say that the odds were on the allies side. Let's not forget that another KGV battleship had already taken part in the sinking of another Bismarck class.

[BEagle]

Some 6 battleships and battlecruisers, 2 aircraft carriers, 13 cruisers, and 21 destroyers were ordered to sink the Bismarck though. Bismarck sank the Hood and seriously damaged the Prince of Wales; as Jeremy Clarkson explained in the programme, the PQ17 escorts would have been comprehensively out-gunned by the Tirpitz with its 8 x 15" main armament.

Quite how well the distant screen battelships USS Washington (9 x 16" main armament) and HMS Duke of York (10 x 14") would have fared against Tirpitz is open to doubt - it was only when a torpedo strike by FAA Swordfish rendered the Bismarck unmanoeuvrable that the RN was able to close sufficiently to finish her off.

Had Tirpitz been able to evade the Allied battleships and closed on PQ17, she would have been like a shark amongst minnows.

Perhaps the First Sea Lord followed the doctrine of Gen. Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett, "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."?

[4Greens]

A certain officer called Nelson disobeyed his superior at Copenhagen with a perfect result.

[Chugalug2]

racedo, your objection to my suggestion that a superior's order might be challenged if it flies in the face of the known facts seems to be based on the effect it would have on the career of he who objects.
You make my point splendidly! Those who sat around the table that day were not JOs but VSOs, so even more career at stake you might say. Tough! Their responsibility was to see that the best appreciation of the situation was made and thus the best course of action taken. It wasn't, because to a man they deferred to the bizarre, unprecedented, and obstinate opinion of a sick man, and one other.
They failed their country, their Service and, most importantly of all, those in PQ17 and those desperately waiting for the relief it carried.
Poor Show!

[goudie]

Robert Cooper HMS Ulysses

I read this book when I was a young man. The descriptive writing, of the Arctic Sea conditions, stayed with me for many years. An excellent read.

[Biggus]

SASless,

"...Familiar with the RAF refusal to provide Coastal Command the assets it needed...."

Lets actually throw some facts at that comment shall we? The PQ-17 tragedy occurred in July 1942. In 1942 the RAF was very short of four engined long range aircraft, especially ones suited to maritime reconnaissance. The Short Stirling and Handley Page Halifax were only entering service in small numbers. The best long range assets available to Coastal Command were US built Liberators and PBY Catalinas, and UK built Sunderlands.

As to the numbers game, in Feb 1942 (the closest date I could readily find to July 1942) Coastal Command had 44 Squadrons including 5 4 engined and 4 PBY.

In March 1943 Bomber Command had 62 Sqns, only 36 of which were 4 engined, with considerable numbers of 2 engined Wellingtons and Whitleys still around. In direct comparision, in Feb 1943 Coastal Command had 48 Sqns, of which 16 were 4 engined or PBY.

I would suggest that a ratio of 62:48 does not imply that Coastal Command were starved of aircraft. Indeed 48 Sqns shows the importance that was given to airpower in the maritime environment. Yes, Bomber Command was bigger, and the bomber offensive was a high priority, but you must consider the situation at the time. With (apart from the situation in North Africa) limited ability to "take the fight to the enemy/strike back" other than from the air, the Bomber Offensive was seen as the only way seen to keep the pressure on until the infamous "second front" was opened. Striking back was an important psychological, as well as practical, strategy.

Various comments have already been made about Churchill. It should be noted that the one thing that "kept him awake at night" was his fear over losing the "Battle of the Atlantic". He certainly saw it as a main long term priority, and aircraft were well recognized as a way to neutralize and eventually destroy the U-Boat threat.

[racedo]

racedo, your objection to my suggestion that a superior's order might be challenged if it flies in the face of the known facts seems to be based on the effect it would have on the career of he who objects.
You make my point splendidly! Those who sat around the table that day were not JOs but VSOs, so even more career at stake you might say. Tough! Their responsibility was to see that the best appreciation of the situation was made and thus the best course of action taken. It wasn't, because to a man they deferred to the bizarre, unprecedented, and obstinate opinion of a sick man, and one other.
They failed their country, their Service and, most importantly of all, those in PQ17 and those desperately waiting for the relief it carried.
Poor Show!

You are overlooking the groupthink prevalent in many organisations at senior level where people go down a route because not to goes down badly.

Deference to someone because of their position has time and again led to disaster because people who could challenge either haven't or done it in such a way that nobody believes them. Nobody wants to end someones career because you forever remembered for doing it.

Errors in judgement that have occurred previously but despite the errors the cock up still worked out without it being a disaster because the enemy did something unexpectedly.

Sadly everybody then forgets the errors that led to it and happy it worked out.

Commanders who disobey orders and it turns out ok get away with it, those who disobey and it ends in disaster are not so lucky.

I have no disagreement with you that PQ17 was badly served by those in London.

[racedo]

A certain officer called Nelson disobeyed his superior at Copenhagen with a perfect result.

What would have been outcome for his career had it gone badly ?

How many people disobeyed orders and it led to disaster have then gone on to greater things ? Would suggest not many as they then removed from position.

[goudie]

How many people disobeyed orders and it led to disaster have then gone on to greater things ? Would suggest not many as they then removed from position.
Removed from position yes, but in many cases booted up to the next rank, so in a way rewarded for failure!

[Chugalug2]

racedo, you may well suggest that the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty were only capable of group think. I couldn't possibly comment, other than to say that the group think on this occasion was opposed to scatter. The problem was that when over ruled by their superior (+1), the group think seems to have been an agreed position that no more could be done. Wrong!
Poor Show!

[SASless]

Beags,

The USS North Carolina carries nine 16 inch guns.....and would have been capable of going toe to toe with the Tirpitz.

We have to remember the Tirpitz was at anchor in Altenfijord.....and not at sea.

The FSL had been told that.


As to disobeying Orders.....Pound was the FSL and thus the most Senior Officer in the RN....thus he issued Orders and everyone obeyed them. Is that not the way a Military force operates?

[Pontius Navigator]

Chug, I am with racedo. I stand by my position that the one in command is in absolute command. Have you never heard your boss ever say that boss say it is not a democracy.

Another VSO that again went against advice was Boy Browning. I am sure there are many other instance where operations, both successful and unsuccessful, were forced through against advice.

Staffs might by sycophantic (Kim Jong-Un's spring to mind) or give best and unequivocal advice but still ignores. Dowding, Park, and Leigh-Mallory spring to mind although in that case is was one 2* disagreeing with the other.

Where I would agree with you is that Pound was wrong and should have been over-ruled but even at that exalted level it would have been a fine line between incapacity and mutiny.

[SASless]

I am loathe to quote Wiki.....but there is a good summary of the situation faced by Coastal Command prior to and during the War.

It points to the Air Ministry in unflattering terms and points out the lack of preparedness and strategic thought prior to the War....and a failure to properly assess the threat of the U-Boat and properly address the needs of Coastal Command re Trade Protection as a result.

Bomber Command may have been seen as the only way to take the fight to the Enemy by some.....but starving to death while doing that would have been a sad outcome of a false priority. Recall Food Rationing did not end until 1948 in the UK.

The loss of the French Fleet and German access to French Ports is what presented the Allies with a real problem and led to unsustainable losses in Merchant Shipping owing to the ease in access to the Atlantic by the U-Boats.

Once that threat was recognized, strategic plans developed, and proper priority was given to Airborne Anti-Submarine Warfare, did Coastal Command and US Forces (primarily USN Carrier forces) become effective in dealing with the U-Boat threat.

RAF Coastal Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Command)

[Chugalug2]

Which part of racedo's diatribe are you with, PN? He has successively suggested that (UK?) Commanders were only there because of accident of birth and by the same token could not be removed, to a different position that their subordinates were not willing to risk their careers in challenging their decisions, to yet another position that decisions taken at Board level are subject to Group Think, even though all are opposed (bar 2) to what the Group Think states. I am not persuaded by any of those scenarios.


We are not looking here at a tactical command. If the Convoy Commander orders it to scatter, it scatters. What we are looking at is a supposed best course of action after careful lengthy deliberation at the Admiralty. Of course the resultant order is sent in the name of the FSL, but the assumption of those receiving it is that is an overall agreed position and not contrary to it.


You cannot have a situation where one man can imperil thousands of others and millions of tons vital supplies simply because he is unwell, and thus rejects the advice given him by everyone else (bar 1). This is exceptional and requires exceptional response, rather like when Air Marshals issue illegal orders. Your duty then is to kiss goodbye to your career and report them to their superiors. Whether you do or not is the measure of you, not of them.

[Pontius Navigator]

When JC was talking of the Tirpitz and comparing shell weights he also mentioned the thickness of her armour. I think he made a slip in units when talking on the thickness of her armour.

Her main belt protecting the machinery spaces etc was 13 inches and that on the main turrets was 14 inches. Her weakest spot was her main deck between 3.9 and 4.7 inches.

Now it was a truism at the time that you needed an armour piercing shell of greater diameter than the thickness of the armour. It follows that only plunging shot from the 6 inch gunned cruisers would have been effective against the main deck.

[SASless]

The Allies had three Battleships (North Carolina, Washington, Duke of York), four Heavy Cruisers (Wichita, Tuscaloosa, HMS Norfolk, HMS Cumberland), and one Aircraft Carrier (Illustrious) along with several Light Cruisers and dozens of Destroyers with which to confront the Tirpitz Task Force.....which seems a fairly substantial force with which to confront the German unit.

The German Task force had one Battleship (Tirpitz), One Heavy Cruiser (Hipper), and two other Cruisers (Lutzow and Scheer), Ten Destroyers, and Nine U-Boats.

What was the head count of ships during the final shoot out with the Bismarck?

[Pontius Navigator]

SASLess, it was Victorious not Illustrious as the latter was in the Indian Ocean. As you know, Victorious was then loaned to the USN in Dec 1942.

[SASless]

One of the dangers of quoting Wiki......

[racedo]

Which part of racedo's diatribe are you with, PN?

I see little point in engaging where you feel personal abuse becomes your point.

[Pontius Navigator]

SASLess, yes, there are traps in wiki. I amended one error in the PQ17 article.

Another case in point arose on a different thread. The same location was mentioned on wiki in 3 separate areas and led to different conclusions.

[Pontius Navigator]

Commanders were only there because of accident of birth Largely true, the officer class was alive and well.

and by the same token could not be removed, to a different position that their subordinates were not willing to risk their careers in challenging their decisions, to yet another position that decisions taken at Board level are subject to Group Think, even though all are opposed (bar 2) to what the Group Think states. I am not persuaded by any of those scenarios.

Once at that position they could only be removed by Churchill and it could not be done in the course of that one day.

What we are looking at is a supposed best course of action after careful lengthy deliberation at the Admiralty. Of course the resultant order is sent in the name of the FSL, but the assumption of those receiving it is that is an overall agreed position and not contrary to it.

Quite

You cannot have a situation where one man can imperil thousands of others and millions of tons vital supplies simply because he is unwell, and thus rejects the advice given him by everyone else (bar 1). This is exceptional and requires exceptional response, rather like when Air Marshals issue illegal orders. Your duty then is to kiss goodbye to your career and report them to their superiors. Whether you do or not is the measure of you, not of them.

Equally true, no one argued that that should not be the case but clearly it was.

What we are arguing is that Pound had the power and no one was prepared to challenge it. I would also argue that the powers of command at that time were near absolute.

To come nearer to home and more recent times, we were on a 'mandatory' launch order. In the event that we were required to launch the order would be given by the CinC. Our captain at the time said he would refuse that order. Who would have been right had we been ordered to launch - this was peacetime.

[sunnybunny]

If I may chip in to the argument about disobeying orders. I haven't had a chance to watch the program yet so apologies if this has already been covered.

One of the PQ17 escorting destroyers was Keppel commanded by Jack Broome.

I need to dig out his book but IIRC he did question the order to withdraw initially (ack flag at the dip) but had confirmation and when alongside the Admirals cruiser in a high speed chase to the south, which he assumed was to engage the Tirpitz, asked why they had withdrawn when discovering it wasn't to engage the enemy. But by then it was too late to go back and had to abandon the convoy

It is possible that he may have ignored the order to withdraw if he was in full possession of the facts?

He went on to say he felt thoroughly ashamed and felt the navy had let down the merchant marine badly.

[Biggus]

SASless,

Reference Coastal Command - what exactly is your point? Have you actually read the link you posted to?

Yes, Coastal Command was the Cinderella of the RAF prior to the outbreak of war. However, what sort of maritime war were the British expecting to fight against the Germans? One largely confined to the North Sea. The fall of France and Norway, giving German access to Atlantic and Arctic coastlines was not envisaged. Coastal Commands thinking was inevitably a reflection of that of the Royal Navy. As for Royal Navy thinking at the time, your linked article quotes:

1937 "the Royal Navy no longer considered U-Boats were a threat to Britain's sea lanes

" in December 1937, the Naval and Air Staffs met again, and changed the priority to North Sea reconnaissance. The Naval Staff insisted that commerce raiders presented the greatest danger, and aircraft could prove decisive only in locating enemy Warships.]"

Yes, the RAF failed to adequately assess a future U-Boat threat, but so did the RN. As for not properly developing ASW by aircraft before the war, you're correct, it didn't happen. But neither did the RAF properly develop the art of night fighting. The RAF bomber fleet was inadequate at the start of the war, the fighter force not much better - in 1937 it was still mainly biplanes - air transport was minimal, etc, etc. Pre war errors and false assumptions occurred on all sides, for example, the Germans failed to develop a long range bomber. As for armed services having Cinderella services or aircraft, it still occurs today, where many air forces seem Fast Jet centric as lead by their hierarchy.


My point is that by the time of the PQ-17 convoy, July 1942, the penny had dropped about the importance of long range maritime aviation, and the RAF was doing it's best to catch up on pre war neglect. When you're fighting a global war, with forces stretched literally across the planet, Africa, the Far East, etc, based on pre war assumptions and assets planned for a North Sea conflict, it's not surprising that there are never enough assets to go around.

Oh - by the way, food rationing didn't end in the UK until 1954- not 1948!

BBC ON THIS DAY | 4 | 1954: Housewives celebrate end of rationing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/4/newsid_3818000/3818563.stm)

Or, since you seem to prefer wiki:

Rationing in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom)

[SASless]

Considering the effectiveness of the U-Boats during WWI....it begs the imagination to think they would be considered any less capable during the Second World War.

I believe you will find it was a competition for assets and resources that drove the decision making by the Admiralty and Air Ministry and not any really deep strategical thinking.....matter of fact all evidence would show the "strategic thinking" was flawed in the years leading up to the start of the War.

The American Military was no better equipped or prepared than the British for the onset of hostilities on a world wide scale. We at least had begun to ramp up production and grow our forces prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Remember we had begun to escort Convoys prior to declaring war on Germany and had lost several combat vessels in that effort.

Look at the gross failure of the US Navy to heed the advice given by the RN re Convoys and inability to darken the lights along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts......killing how many hundreds of mariners. Our CNO was no great lover of things British as you may recall.

Montgomery and his "Bridge Too Far" adventure was yet another example of a Commander refusing to heed the input of his Intelligence Officers. We see how that turned out.

There were ample warnings of the Ardenne Offensive (Battle of the Bulge) that were ignored as well.

Some how I do not believe that an Officer upon receiving an Order takes the time to consider the factors that led to the issuance of that Order.....and way too many times Orders given from a great distance away from the battlefield seem to fly in the face of the tactical reality. Yet.....local Commanders obey the orders given from up the Chain of Command.....that is how the military operates.

[Pontius Navigator]

local Commanders obey the orders given from up the Chain of Command.....that is how the military operates.

Exactly, a point that Chug seems blind to.

[NutLoose]

I thought the story of the little armed trawler with his three ships in tow would have made a damned good film... It shows though in his award that he deserved higher, but for the disobeying of orders.

As for the Costal Command cover, that would appear to have been a suicide mission at that range and how would you maintain it? It's alright sticking 500 bombers over a distant target at a given time, but maintaining an air presence over hostile territory so far north for a sustained period would be impossible.

[petit plateau]

Bismarck and Tirpitz were essentially 50,000 tonne battleships rather than the 35,000 tonne allied battleships. The Germans had contravened the Washington naval treaty (which was intended to minimise an arms race) and this gave their ships a significant advantage. When it comes to battleship vs battleship combat they can be very brief and very singular, with insufficient time for team efforts by a 'squadron' to bear fruit. One should not use hindsight - the admiralty was rightly very worried about the Tirpitz.

( poor Pound was basically overworked to death despite his illness)

[SASless]

Following the loss of the Bismarck and the Graf Spee.....would the Germans have risked the Tirpitz if the Heavy force had closed up on the Convoy to be located by German Aircraft and perhaps a U-Boat?

I would suggest not.....as it was their last big Ship....and Hitler would not countenance another propaganda disaster.

Perhaps that is why it did not deploy against the Convoy.

The destruction of this convoy in July, 1942 was Tirpitz' greatest, if indirect, success. Prime Minister Winston Churchill called the event, "one of the most melancholy naval episodes in the whole of the war."

In June, the Germans became aware that convoy PQ-17, consisting of 35 merchantmen plus escorts, would be heading for Russia late in the month. They assembled two battle groups to attack it: Battle Group 1 centered on Tirpitz, and Battle Group 2 centered on Lützow. These forces sortied on July 5, but some ships ran aground, others had mechanical problems; only Tirpitz, 2 cruisers, six destroyers managed to get out to the sea lanes. They headed for Bear Island, where convoy PQ-17 was reported, but aware that they had been spotted, returned to base the next day. Meanwhile the British understood that Tirpitz was preparing to attack the convoy. On this basis, the order was given for the convoy to scatter (a decision that has been subsequently questioned and challenged). For the merchant ships and their crews, the result was deadly. German aircraft and submarines, working together, sank 24 of the 35 ships.

And it all happened because the Admiralty thought that Tirpitz was in the area.

[Chugalug2]

PN, I'm not suggesting that Pound's order would not be easily countermanded. Almost certainly if it had been the order would have been executed making it very difficult to reform the convoy and escorts. The point I am making is that someone should have tipped off Pound's superiors that he was ignoring the advice of others and in doing so needlessly leaving PQ17 exposed to the very real menace of the U boats and the Luftwaffe. Who those superiors might be, I don't know. What they could do in the face of a fait accompli, I don't know. Would they do anything? Again I don't know. What I do know is that as many as possible that had been overridden that day should have alerted someone higher up the CoC. Conspiracy to Mutiny? So be it. One life, one career, against so many? The decision was so bizarre as to warrant challenging and reporting, and should have been.
Your V bomber example is inappropriate. Your Captain knew that order could come, and if he wasn't going to obey it the answer wasn't to disobey it but to offer to resign instead. Tough choices all.
I do not share the characterisation of the UK Officer Corps then by you and racedo as by accident of birth. The wartime realities meant that ability not birth counted for more. Pound was FSL because of his record and proven ability not because of his birth, but he was human and subject to its frailty. The RNMS should have been on to that. It failed him and the country.

racedo, I don't think 'diatribe' given the list of generalisations that you came out with amounted to personal abuse but rather fair comment. The discussion was about one VSO, one order, and the consequences of that order. It was you that expanded it out to condemnation of most holding (UK?) command. I thought that 'diatribe' summed it up well. I'm sorry that you disagree.

[vascodegama]

BEags -they weren't all fighting Bismarck at once. Also PoW was not fully ready when sent out with Hood , not only that but Hood was hopelessly under armoured. It was hardly surprising that the first blood went to the Germans. Notwithstanding rudder damage, Bismarck had all her guns and armour intact at the final action.

[Pontius Navigator]

Your V bomber example is inappropriate. Your Captain knew that order could come, and if he wasn't going to obey it the answer wasn't to disobey it but to offer to resign instead.

I beg to differ. It was not the V-force; it was a single crew; it was near the end of the cold war.

PN, I'm not suggesting that Pound's order would not be easily countermanded. Almost certainly if it had been the order would have been executed making it very difficult to reform the convoy and escorts.

A fait accompli rather than an implicit endorsement.

The point I am making is that someone should have tipped off Pound's superiors that he was ignoring the advice of others and in doing so needlessly leaving PQ17 exposed to the very real menace of the U boats and the Luftwaffe.

his successful campaign against German U-boat activity and the winning of the Battle of the Atlantic

He was a hero.

What I do know is that as many as possible that had been overridden that day should have alerted someone higher up the CoC.

There were only two higher than Pound.

One was Churchill and the other was the great one, Politics and Propaganda.

As you know, Stalin and King were very displeased and the civilian morale was still fragile and to punish a hero would not have helped.

I do not share the characterisation of the UK Officer Corps then by you and racedo as by accident of birth. The wartime realities meant that ability not birth counted for more. Pound was FSL because of his record and proven ability not because of his birth, but he was human and subject to its frailty.

Piffle. That might have been true of the lower ranks in the Army but the RN was resolute in dividing RN from RNR from RNVR. [I]Pound joined the RN as a midshipman in 1891 Born the son of Alfred John Pound (an Eton-educated[1] barrister) and Elizabeth Pickman Pound (née Rogers) (an American from Boston),[2] Pound was descended from Dudley Leavitt Pickman,[3] an early Salem, Massachusetts merchant, on his mother's side.[4][5] He was educated at Fonthill School in East Grinstead, Sussex.[6]

No way was he not of the 19th Century officer class.

The same was true of Tovey was born on 7 March 1885 at Borley Hill, Rochester, Kent, the youngest child (of eleven) of Lt Col Hamilton Tovey, RE, and Maria Elizabeth Goodhue.[2] He was educated at Durnford School, Langton Matravers

2SL was a cadet in 1899.

[Chugalug2]

Sorry if I misunderstood the situation re your captain, PN. Whatever it was, if he was contemplating disobeying an anticipated order then my reaction remains as was, ie don't!
By the same token I am not suggesting that Pound's order should have been disobeyed. Why should it have been? Those receiving it assumed that Tirpitz was out and close by. The trouble was that it wasn't. The only people who knew enough about it to know different were at the Admiralty. If the only person senior to Pound was Churchill, then he should have been told of their concerns about Pound. Instead the RN closed ranks and PQ17 was fed to the wolves.

Nor am I suggesting that Pound deserved punishment of any kind. On the contrary he had served his country well to this point, but he should have been retired on health grounds. As to his CV, what is the point that you are making? None of it suggests that he was FSL because of his birth, rather it was because of his ability. What is wrong with that? Are you suggesting that a wavy navy hostilities only FSL would have been better? PQ17's scatter was not because of Pound's birth but rather because of his health. We keep coming back to that and why it meant that others should have stepped in.

I can't see why that is so difficult to accept. Goodness knows there were examples of some who were never up to their job, and if you throw in accident of birth as well you end up with SAC SEAC, but he was hardly typical. British Commanders served us well on the whole, subject of course to the usual revisionists.

[Albert Driver]

The loss of PQ17 cost 153 lives.
The loss of the Hood, leading a superior force against the Bismarck, at one stroke cost 1415 lives.
The PQ17 ships and cargo were replaceable.
The Hood was not. Its loss had an effect on operations in the Med and in the North Atlantic until much later in the war when the rest of the KGV class battleships were ready (and even then individually no match for the Tirpitz).
The bigger picture casts a different light on Pound's decision.

The Nelson Spirit is all very well but it is necessary to have the superior ships and gunnery to carry it off. In WW2 the RN did not have that luxury, dependent as it was for the first part on a largely WW1-built battle fleet.

[Pontius Navigator]

By the same token I am not suggesting that Pound's order should have been disobeyed. Why should it have been? Those receiving it assumed that Tirpitz was out and close by.

Agree. Never suggested any difference.

The only people who knew enough about it to know different were at the Admiralty. If the only person senior to Pound was Churchill, then he should have been told of their concerns about Pound. Instead the RN closed ranks and PQ17 was fed to the wolves.

Agree.

Nor am I suggesting that Pound deserved punishment of any kind. On the contrary he had served his country well to this point, but he should have been retired on health grounds.

Agree, but even retirement on health grounds, a well known Soviet euphemism may have been misconstrued.

As to his CV, what is the point that you are making? None of it suggests that he was FSL because of his birth, rather it was because of his ability.

I am suggesting that he was Navy through and through and so were his subordinated.

What is wrong with that? Are you suggesting that a wavy navy hostilities only FSL would have been better?

No, that they were not Navy through and through like the Admiralty Board; they were different.

PQ17's scatter was not because of Pound's birth but rather because of his health. We keep coming back to that and why it meant that others should have stepped in.

Neither statement is proven.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Andrew Robert's Masters and Commanders is a good read if you want to know more about Pound and Churchill.
IIRC He makes the point that Churchill had decided to take his whole Chiefs of Staff team through the war, favouring consistency. In the end Pound was the only one to be 'subbed', for Cunningham.

I had the privilege of interviewing our local butcher for my school history project on the Arctic Convoys, as he had been a seaman on PQ17. He had never talked to anybody about it before, or since. I think he only agreed as he already knew I was set on a military career. Hel is cold, not hot.

[SASless]

Crewing a Tanker off the East Coast of the United States was no picnic either.....and could be a fair imitation of "Hell".

User:Gatechjon/OSCAR CHAPPELL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gatechjon/OSCAR_CHAPPELL)

[Hipper]

I didn't see the programme but did it consider what would have happened if Pound had kept the convoy and its escorts intact?


Tirpitz, Scheer and Hipper sailed at 1055 on the 5th (the convoy scattered on the 4th) but after numerous intercepts by the Germans of Russian and British radio messages indicated the German force had been spotted, plus the decimation of PQ17 by U-boats and aircraft, the Germans thought it wise not to take further risks and the force returned to base.


Had the convoy not scattered perhaps the Germans would have thought the risks worth it.


Having said that, the Barents Sea battle on New Years Day 1943 showed that a weakish allied escort could fend off a timid German attack.


Was it really Pound's illness that caused this debacle? I understood he simply misjudged the situation perhaps because he was not convinced of the intelligence suggesting Tirpitz and co had returned to base. The PRU could not find them.


This film gives some good images of the ships and maps, starting around 23.45.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyxeCg4YSiY

[SASless]

Three Part Series by the History Channel.....

Convoy PQ17 (Part 1/3) - YouTube

[4Greens]

Matter of historical interest. Lloyd George had to force the Admiralty to institute a convoy system in the First World War.

[goudie]

David Irving is not at all happy with this programme, claiming blatant plagiarism

Jeremy Clarkson?s BBC show in battle with Nazi historian - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10550874/Jeremy-Clarksons-BBC-show-in-battle-with-Nazi-historian.html)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

David Irving is not at all happy with not having been in a national newspaper for a while........:suspect:

[SASless]

Had the convoy not scattered perhaps the Germans would have thought the risks worth it.

No way.....the Germans knew they had the Air Power and U-Boats arrayed to do the job with no risk of losing their very limited Surface fleet units in a sea battle with Allied Surface Units that included an Aircraft Carrier.

They had learned the lesson about what threat enemy aircraft could be.

Unlike the British who sent two fine ships to a certain death early on in the War during the fight for Singapore.

Now if they could have coordinated an Air/Sea attack.....perhaps they might have thought about it.....but they probably had not progressed to that ability owing to the distances involved and the questionable weather.

The Tirpitz did far more good at anchor as a potential threat than at sea engaging numerically superior Allied Naval Units with far less risk of loss.

[Chugalug2]

Hipper:-
Was it really Pound's illness that caused this debacle? I understood he simply misjudged the situation perhaps because he was not convinced of the intelligence suggesting Tirpitz and co had returned to base.When you alone, whoever you are, are confronted with the same information as everyone else but come to a different conclusion to all of them (bar one), a little voice inside your head should be asking yourself why is that? Given that Pound died of an already diagnosed Brain Tumour the following year it is highly probable that the lack of that little voice and the Brain Tumour were related. Of course, as PN has pointed out, it is unproven. I suspect though that it was the case.


The really sad thing is that it seems the others sitting around that table (bar one) did not think that Pound should have heeded them, nor that they should take further action. PN points out that they were all 'Navy through and through', and hence placed their Service above all else, including PQ17. If fingers need to be pointed anywhere then mine would be pointed at them, rather than at Pound.

[clicker]

Thank you Hipper for that clip.

Most of the footage was new to me. Refreshing to see that you didn't get any modern day filming until it was almost completed.

Well worth watching, even if I don't understand the German commentary.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Perhaps amongst this orgy of hindsight, guessing, second-guessing, unqualified medical surmise and classist prejudice we might consider what might (would) have happened has PQ17 not been so ravaged.

It was only the shock at the scale of the losses that prompted the Admiralty to rethink light escort convoys and beef the Naval support of subsequent ones up to a level that actually achieved some useful protection. Had this not happened it is quite possible (inevitable) that the Axis efforts on later convoys would have been far better organised and far, far more successful.

War is often a learning process. Lessons are often learned the hard way. As ever, rather than all the usual conspiracy theories the truth is probably far more mundane. Pound (like the rest of the Admiralty, Navy and Government) was so scared at the hazard from of the big German Battlewagons that he based his decision on this. As a Naval man he could not believe that that Germans would NOT use Tirpitz on this occasion. No normal Naval commander would have passed up such an opportunity. The German's reluctance to use their battleships repeatedly wrongfooted the Allies who always expected them - well - to be used, not tied up when they had the opportunity to be so devastating.

It took a long while for the lesson to be learned that aircraft were effective against subs, but before radar, end especially before centimetric radar they weren't so useful. Might that not just have a bearing on the perceived importance of Coastal Command?

PQ17 taught that convoys must be heavily supported and that the must stick together come what may. Pound's undoubted misjudgement taught us that valuable lesson.

Consider how many victories have been won by commanders ignoring the advice of their "intelligence" staff. Are they vilified? A commander has to decide something, and as commander it is his can to carry if it is the wrong one. Or the right one for the wrong reasons. Or the right one in the face of incorrect intel (WMD - GW2) that certainly wouldn't have been believed had it been correct as there was no precedent in warfare for secretly disposing of game-changing weapons. A situation not entirely dissimilar to the failure to deploy the Kriegsmarine's major assets in the face of all convention Naval wisdom to the astonishment - and confusion of conventional Naval tacticians.

And finally on the results of disobeying orders, when it was said that the heroic commander of that little trawler got a DSO for his troubles I cried "Whaaat!", and they then said that if he hadn't disobeyed orders it would probably have been the DSC. Sometimes you're wrong even if you do the right thing. Except that disobeying orders is just wrong, even if it works...

[SASless]

Chug....are you being deliberately thick about this?

Pound was the FSL.

He made the decision.

He hand wrote the original Order to Disperse and withdraw the Escorts.

He alone bears the responsibility for the decision he alone made and the orders he issued following that decision.

You can argue all week.....which you have.....and the facts don't change.

Pound owned it lot, stock, and barrel.

That is the essence of Military Leadership and Command.

You can pontificate, posture, pose, suggest, accuse, whatever.....but Pound was the Man. He got it WRONG! Why he did so, does not matter in reality. It was his decision to make....he made it .....and there it is. We cannot see into his mind to determine what his thinking was. He did not explain his decision....he just made it and issued the orders by his own hand.

Staff advise.....the Commander decides.

[Chugalug2]

SASless:-
Chug....are you being deliberately thick about this?
Well, not deliberately....FSL was not being staffed, he was consulting fellow members of the Board of Admiralty. OK he was the serving head of the Royal Navy, and had the power to go against their advice, as he did (bar one). I'm not criticising him for exercising that power so much as criticising his fellow Board members for apparently shrugging their shoulders with a collective "Yeah, well what can you do?". This was more akin to a Cabinet decision whereby all the Members present are opposed (bar two) yet the action taken is presented as a united one. The cost in materiel was immense, at a time when it was greatly needed.
I find it strange that the Bismark when seen as a direct threat to Atlantic convoys was hunted down and despatched by the Royal Navy, despite its ability to outgun them, yet her sister ship when similarly a direct threat to the Arctic convoys was avoided like the plague. Did Stalin have a point (even if I don't)?

[SASless]

Perhaps they thought trading another "Hood" or two might not be worth it when they were thinking Air Attacks, X-Boats, and Submarines might prove much cheaper in lives. The psychological effect offered by the loss of the Hood cannot be overstated.

[Albert Driver]

PQ17 was replaceable (terrible, but true). Pound's capital ships were not.
If he were to take on the Tirpitz he needed to know exactly where it was and meet it with the very few allied warships capable of matching it in speed and armament. He couldn't run the risk of it meeting warships that couldn't either outfight it or outrun it - of which he had many.
He didn't know for certain where it was. The bigger picture prevailed.

153 PQ17 lives were lost. Compare that with the number of crew on a single battleship or carrier, of which we lost many.

[Hipper]

'No way.....the Germans knew they had the Air Power and U-Boats arrayed to do the job with no risk of losing their very limited Surface fleet units in a sea battle with Allied Surface Units that included an Aircraft Carrier.'


SASlass, the German Admiral had in fact departed to attack the convoy (after it had scattered) in anticipation that orders would be forthcoming. Hitler gave the go ahead before noon that day, the 5th. They were not exactly aware of the presence of battleships or aircraft carriers in the region.


It was Hitler who placed the 'no aircraft carrier or battleship' restriction on Tirpitz but it was Raeder who signalled for the Tirpitz group to return to Norway. I would therefore think that, given the situation before the convoy scattered, the Germans may well have continued the attack.


I agree with Agaricus bisporus. Apart from fuel shortages, the German surface fleet was restricted in its actions by Hitler, something the allies don't seem to have been aware of, hence they assumed that they would behave as the Royal Navy would in similar circumstances. And that is probably the cause of the PQ17 disaster.

[clicker]

Regarding the trawler's CO. Who's orders did he disobey?

OK the big boys were recalled by higher command. The convoys direct escort pulled off because the CO thought there was going to be an attack by German task force and therefore he was to support the RN task force.

Now I'm no military person but I can't believe that an armed trawler would be of any help to the main RN fleet, if indeed she could keep up with the departing escorts.

[Pontius Navigator]

Unlike the British who sent two fine ships to a certain death early on in the War during the fight for Singapore.

Churchill sent Repulse and the POW as Force Z to bolster the Far East against the Japanese. They were sunk just 3 days after Pearl Harbour when the USN lost most of its battleships.

No. 453 Squadron RAAF, which was to provide air cover for Force Z, was not kept informed of the ships' position. No radio request for air cover was sent until one was sent by the commander of Repulse an hour after the Japanese attack began. Flight Lieutenant Tim Vigors proposed a plan to keep six aircraft over Force Z during daylight, but this was declined by Phillips. After the war, Vigors remained bitter towards him for his failure to call for air support on time.[4] He later commented, "I reckon this must have been the last battle in which the Navy reckoned they could get along without the RAF. A pretty damned costly way of learning. Phillips had known that he was being shadowed the night before, and also at dawn that day. He did not call for air support. He was attacked and still did not call for help."[20] Daytime air cover off the coast was also offered by Wing Commander Wilfred Clouston of No. 488 Squadron RNZAF, but his plan, "Operation Mobile", was also rejected.[21]

the Royal Air Force and the British Army fighting for their lives, the Royal Navy could not be true to its tradition by remaining idly at anchor.[22]

Air cover was clearly limited but there was no question of the ships being 'sent', especially by someone that had no strategic oversight.

[Chugalug2]

I'm not sure if the iPlayer link to the JC prog has been posted before, but if not here it is:-
BBC iPlayer - PQ 17: An Arctic Convoy Disaster (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03n3297/PQ_17_An_Arctic_Convoy_Disaster/)

Despite having infuriated and exasperated others, I have enjoyed this thread, as others on PPRuNe, for its ability to dot and cross the i's and t's. I'm sure that I am not alone in seeing the irony of the Royal Navy and the Kriegsmarine avoiding their prize fighters coming into contact with each other, preferring to endlessly circle the ring waiting for the bell. I wonder if the Red Army appreciated it as well?

Rather like the eternal squabble over the CBO, the PQ17 saga seems to divide opinion. It appears that some still see Pound as having acted correctly in securing his warships at the cost of expendable freighters and crews, and that it was the Board (bar two) that got it wrong. If Hitler had sent Tirpitz into the North Atlantic instead, I suspect that reaction would have been very different. Once again it appears that he was our greatest asset, to be kept alive if at all possible. :ok:

[FODPlod]

Unlike the British who sent two fine ships to a certain death early on in the War during the fight for Singapore.Early on in the war? Britain was well into its third year by Dec 1941.

[Albert Driver]

It's a question of scale, chugalug.

Large numbers of convoys were in continuous operation around the world from 1939. Vast numbers of merchant ships were lost both in and out of convoy. Difficult decisions had to be taken daily as to whether to support which convoy, with what sort of cover and for how far. Many other convoys lost their cover at short notice and in desperate circumstances at times. PQ17 was an extreme example but just one of many.

I'm not unaware of the loss of merchant seamen in WW2. My own father-in-law only narrowly survived one such sinking. Their plight was dreadful.

But... in the scale of war all these losses were of far less long-term consequence than, for example, the loss of the early fast carriers (32 knots wasn't enough for Glorious to escape Scharnhorst). The Hood disaster showed we had nothing to rival Bismarck/Tirpitz and Scharnhorst/Gneisenau and they could only be brought down by numbers - or by air power, of which there was not much more than the Swordfish variety at the time, which meant essentially a trap had to be carefully laid. There could be no question of sending out battleships of the R Class or the Queen Elizabeth class, even in numbers, at 21 knots against these ships and after Hood even the big fast battle-cruisers were out of the picture.

In these circumstances extreme caution was necessary. Pound wasn't kept awake at night by his bad hip. He was kept awake by his responsibility to keep the fleet intact until the cavalry arrived to cover the Atlantic supply chain and give him some slack, and until he possessed some decent naval air power.

[Chugalug2]

Good post and well explained AD, thank you. Your comment re the Merchant Marine is very apposite. I remember well one of their ex seamen recounting his experience as a young man, on shore leave and between convoys in a blitzed Liverpool (in civvies of course), in The World at War. He was waiting for a bus when a woman walking on the opposite pavement, crossed the road, spat in his face, and then retraced her steps. His crime of course was that he was not in uniform. A Service with a loss rate approaching that of Bomber Command, their pay stopped as they jumped from their sinking ships as the voyage was now over.

The real victims of PQ17 though were blissfully unaware of it I suspect, ie the front line troops of the Red Army. Were they still advancing unarmed with orders to relieve the dead and injured of their weapons in order to arm themselves?

War's a bitch!

[SASless]

FOD,

Just once I wish you would get your facts straight before you make like a count without the "O".

Just Exactly how long had you been at War with Japan when Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk?

They arrived in Singapore on 2 December and were sunk on 10 December....three Days after Pearl Harbor.

We began to patrol upon the start of the War in September 1939. and then escorted Convoys to Iceland for a period of time before going all the way to the UK....and lost our first ship in October 1941....three months before Pearl Harbor.

Remember the German Navy was under orders to not attack US Ships until we declared War on them following Pearl Harbor.

Fod......do spare me will you......European Wars were of no obligation to us but we were giving you lot plenty of support well before December 7, 1941 much of it in direct violation of International Law. Our Navy was escorting convoys and fighting U-Boats well before our Declaration of War on the Axis Powers.....remembering Germany and Italy that had not attacked us.



Your Prime Minister went for appeasement and it got you a big War rather than a much smaller one had you stood up to A. Hitler before he built up his War Machine.

Think for a second just how many American War Dead are buried in the UK and Europe......before you go telling the Yanks about how you won the War will you.

[Robert Cooper]

As I understand it Pound was advised by his intelligence officer that the Tirpitz was not out, as supported by Naval intelligence. Pound did not believe this and called a meeting of his operations staff, and apart from one they all voted not to remove the escorts and disperse the convoy.

Seems Pound ignored his staff and took the decision on his own, and had to live with it.

Bob C

[clicker]

I wonder if Pound was remembering Jutland, its causes and results. After all he was there.

If I read my history books correctly while claimed as a victory for the RN, in the long term that was true, in the short term the RN suffered a very bloody nose, both in ships and men. Not helped by the lost of several warships though the incorrect handling of the cordite charges to get the firing rate quicker.

Perhaps Pound was concerned that any victory over the German fleet might be too costly in short term.

[bosnich71]

Chugalug ... regards merchant sailors pay being stopped once they were sunk etc. That is very true. In the case of an Uncle of my wife he was torpedoed, picked up by another merchant ship, and subsequently lost his life when that ship was itself torpedoed.
So, the Uncle died at sea whilst not being paid.

[bosnich71]

Sasless ... .. "we were giving you plenty of support well before December 7th.1941"....
very true but it was all paid for and that's why Britain ended up bankrupt and the America's wealth had tripled by the cessation of hostilities. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/infopop/icons/icon7.gif

[Pontius Navigator]

bosnich, very true, my old man, a 2nd at the time, and the 3rd, were evacuated to Australia and one had a job treading grapes and the other sewing mail bags.

At the end of a weak one had blistered hands and the other feet so they swapped jobs . . . no welfare there either. He got a job as 2nd on a Blue Star and worked passage back to UK.

[FODPlod]

Unlike the British who sent two fine ships to a certain death early on in the War during the fight for Singapore.Early on in the war? Britain was well into its third year by Dec 1941.FOD,

Just once I wish you would get your facts straight before you make like a count without the "O".

Just Exactly how long had you been at War with Japan when Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk?

Your initial post just said "the War".

There was only one Second World War. I read it in a book somewhere. :hmm:

[FODPlod]

Fod......do spare me will you......European Wars were of no obligation to us but we were giving you lot plenty of support well before December 7, 1941 much of it in direct violation of International Law. Our Navy was escorting convoys and fighting U-Boats well before our Declaration of War on the Axis Powers.....remembering Germany and Italy that had not attacked us.

Your Prime Minister went for appeasement and it got you a big War rather than a much smaller one had you stood up to A. Hitler before he built up his War Machine.

Think for a second just how many American War Dead are buried in the UK and Europe......before you go telling the Yanks about how you won the War will you.

Don't overdramatise. Where did I say anything about lack of US support or who won the war? My entirely factual response comprised:

Early on in the war? Britain was well into its third year by Dec 1941.

Incidentally, when you repeat your reference to "the War" in your latest post, do you mean the same "the War" you cited in your previous post or something different? If you now mean World War II (as I quite understandably but incorrectly assumed you intended before), it was a combined effort as illustrated by this episode which occurred when Britain had been fighting for almost three years:Cape Hatteras - British Cemeteries (http://www.nps.gov/caha/historyculture/british-cemetery.htm)
In the early years of World War II, the U.S. Navy was ill-prepared for the German U-Boat threat prowling off the Atlantic coast. Merchant ships from various nations running along the eastern seaboard were constantly harassed and sunk by the German submarines. The U.S. Navy had no ships suited to anti-submarine patrol. Britain offered assistance, sending 24 Royal Navy vessels with their British crews to patrol sensitive areas along the East Coast, including the Outer Banks.

One of those British ships, the HMS Bedfordshire, was a trawling vessel that had been converted to anti-submarine duty, and was stationed at Morehead City, N.C. On May 12, 1942, while the Bedfordshire was on patrol, a German torpedo struck the ship and sank it, resulting in the loss of its entire 34-man British crew.

Over the next few days four bodies from the Bedfordshire were discovered on Ocracoke beaches and in the surrounding waters. Citizens of Ocracoke buried the sailors near the village cemetery. A fifth body, an unknown sailor from the Bedfordshire, washed up on Hatteras Island, and was buried next to a British sailor from the merchant vessel San Delfino, torpedoed a year earlier. The U.S. Coast Guard carefully maintains the cemetery at Ocracoke. The graves and cemetery grounds on Hatteras Island are maintained by the National Park Service...

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/69/30/7b/british-cemetery-in-ocracoke.jpg

[SASless]

There is a second pair of Graves in Buxton, NC.....for Two Crew Members of a British Tanker Crew.


British Cemetery on U.S. Soil #2, Buxton, North Carolina (http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/24597)

A couple of years ago I posted about these two cemeteries and noted the flag at the Ocracoke site was weather worn and needed replacing but the Annual visit was not going to be for some time and offered to pass one along to the Coast Guardsmen that volunteer to maintain the Cemetery should someone send one to me.


It is a good thing that we still show our Respect to those who were killed.


http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/5e/0a/c7/5e0ac731b64148be02d66431dc99bcc1.jpg




I would suggest it wasn't Lend Lease that bankrupted the UK but rather the fact you had gotten involved in maintaining an Empire around the World, had invested heavily in the "Southern UK" of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa,Singapore, Hong Kong, and other areas. Then when the Germans got up to their antics.....you had to spend fortunes building up your own forces and defenses. That combined with the costs of fighting a War then losing one Colony after another and the income from those places.....you found yourself in a situation that just would not work.

Throw in the Labour Party and its Progressive Agenda at the end of the War and the devastation it caused.....nope it wasn't Lend Lease that got you.

Remember that at the end of the War....Great Britain owed something like 4.2 Billion Dollars to other Nations (Plural.....more than the USA you notice) and at that time the USA loaned Great Britain 4.2 Billion Dollars at a 2% Interest Rate, and Canada loaned another 1.25 Billion.

When the Empire crashed.....there was bound to be catastrophe for the Economy in the UK....you went from being a Super Power to being just another small Island Nation on the edge of Europe with all that portends.

The Economic downfall of the UK was the collapse of the Empire, having fought both a European War, a War in Asia, and campaigns trying to maintain an Empire, and allowing Socialists to take over government.

[vulcanised]

PQ17 repeated tonight BBC2 2130.

[dragartist]

SASless,
the min picture in your last post was of the American cemetery at Madingley just North of Cambridge, England. I am 10 miles away.


https://www.google.co.uk/#q=cambridge+american+cemetery


I have visited many times particularly when hosting US visitors. We are surrounded by USAF bases in the East particularly WWII bombers of the 8th Air Force. One would naturally expect the graves to be airmen. There is surprisingly a large number of US Seamen buried or commemorated there on the walls in the building on the left or the long wall along the front.


when there was a fuss over budget and sequestration last year, locals were up in arms about the cemetery being closed to visitors. I believe it is manned by Federal employees. I am not sure but I don't think it closed. I guess the staff would have turned up without pay.


I enjoyed the TV documentary and following the discussion on this thread. learned quite a bit.


I am not too sure on your take on Empire as I was a student of Engineering not economics of war. Had the US not funded the effort and joined the war we may all have been speaking German this side of the pond. had we not supported Russia would they too have lost? would Hitler then have had the resources to wage war with the US and win? I am suggesting it was in the US interests to join the war without having to wait for Pearl Harbour. I know it is a theme running on several threads on PPRuNe but our [UK] Govt has become a puppet to yours on many global issues. Must thank you for your assistance during the Falklands. Any oil down there we owe you half!


Don't mean to make fun on a serious thread however.

[vulcanised]

had we not supported Russia would they too have lost?


That's one way of looking at it but I often wonder if Russia (perhaps unintentionally) gave us as much help as any other nation by giving Adolf as much grief as they did, at a huge cost to their people, both military and civilian.

[Pontius Navigator]

The Russians would have lost more ground but ultimately they would not have lost. Theoretically the Germans should have conquered Leningrad but didn't. Similarly, to get to close to Moscow and fail.

The Russians had moved their centres of production to the east of the Urals. The German supply lines were so stretched to maintain an army in the field in the Soviet winter.

[SASless]

Drag,

During that Shut Down, the National Park Service barricaded our Memorials in Washington DC.....to include the WWII Memorial despite "Honor Flights" of WWII Vets being scheduled.

A couple of Hundred Thousand Veterans and others turned up to remove what we now call "Barrycades" and assisted the WWII Vets to enjoy their visits. It was one of the most enjoyable days I have had. We owe that Generation far more than to see them shut out of their Memorial for partisan politics.



What contact I have had with those who work at the Overseas's Cemeteries and Monuments are as you suggest....People who understand the special places those are.

Our NPS is not filled with that kind of folk it would appear.


Had Hitler listened to his Generals all during the War.....particularly in Russia....perhaps all of Europe and the UK would be speaking German yet today.

Had Hitler not ordered the invasion of Russia , the Germans could have had peace with the Russians. However, once that football got kicked and A. Hitler set out to fight a Two Front War, it was only going to be a matter of time until the Germans were defeated.

It was when General Winter showed up in Russia the first time that Hitler should have realized he could not win.

Too much distance....too long a Supply Line....too much Snow and Cold....and a very tough determined enemy, that upon the USA coming into the War, could afford to trade land and lives for the most precious commodity in War.....Time.

[dragartist]

By the look of it SAS you are having a Russian winter at the moment. keep the old folks warm.


Thanks for the replies. I am finding this thread very thought provoking.


I wish I had been old enough to talk to my granddad and Gt uncles about their wartime experiences.

[Hangarshuffle]

True. All those Nazi planes were full of it. Hope they remember that.

[SASless]

A better question.....if the Japanese had not attacked US and British Forces in the Pacific but had instead attacked Russia and possibly in conjunction with German forces, have knocked the Russians out of the War....then turned to the Pacific.....would we all be eating Sushi and Sauerkraut?

Recall the Sorge Spy Ring had discovered the Japanese plan to attack in the Pacific and relayed that information to the Russians....thus allowing them to use forces that would otherwise have been forced to remain deployed in anticipation of a Japanese Attack.

The Russians had already fought the Japanese and had given them a beating....which caused much concern about new attacks by the Japanese and the need to defend against that possibility.

[bosnich71]

SAS .... I don't know whether it was Lend Lease or paying for an Empire that bankrupted Britain, what I do know is that every penny loaned to Britain by America was re-paid. And the British were not included in the Marshall Aid Plan which didn't help either. I think that you will also find that American troops stationed in Australia, for example, were all provisioned at the expense of the Australian Government so I think that would be equally true of G.I's in U.K.
I should add that I am thankful for the efforts of American troops in Europe and their sacrifices in ridding the world of fascism. But at the same time if Britain and the Commonwealth had rolled over in 1940 there is no doubt that most of Europe would have remained under Nazi rule for many years to come and also that America would have continued to let it happen.

[Mickj3]

bosnich71
Afraid you are wrong about the Marshal Plan. The UK was the biggest recipient of aid under the plan receiving twice as much as Germany. The plan announced at Harvard University on the 5th June 1947 was described by Bevin as "a lifeline to a sinking man" and by Churchill as " the greatest act of unselfishness by a great nation ever". Congress was asked for $17 billion but authorised $13Bn of which the UK received approx $3bn. See
BBC - History - British History in depth: The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml)
Nothing to do with aviation I know but one has a better discussion when one is aware of the facts.:ok:

[SASless]

Bos.....The question is not whether you stood against the Nazi's in 1940....but should you have done so much sooner and perhaps have avoided the huge War that occurred after the UK and France Declared War on Germany.

The images of Chamberlain waving that piece of Paper in his hand proclaiming "Peace in Our Time".....should still be a reminder of why drawing hard lines and sticking to them is the better policy.

You seem to ignore the fact it was a European War, started by European Nations, over things European.

We were not part of Europe, were not a Commonwealth Country, and owed not one bit of Allegiance to Great Britain. If anything.....we owed a great deal more to the French if you consider the mutual history between the Three Nations.

When you Dance....you pay the Piper.

[Hipper]

It is thought in some quarters that Chamberlain was buying time because we weren't ready for war, or rather, less ready then we were in September 1939.


The Russians deserve a lot of credit for their contribution to WW2 but ultimately they and the Germans were the ones that started it. Remember it was the Molotov-von Ribbentrop agreement, splitting up Poland and giving the Russians a free hand in Finland, that effectively triggered the war:


Molotov?Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact)

[bosnich71]

Mickj3 .... so I was wrong ref. Marshall Aid but the fact remains that a good proportion was spent on re-paying 'war debt' so it became a case of give with one hand and take back with the other, from the American viewpoint of course.

[bosnich71]

SAS ... many people have the same view of Chamberlain as yourself but there is no doubt that had he not "waved his "piece of paper" and had there been a war with Germany before 1939 a much larger war may well have been avoided but the result would have been a German victory and a much different Europe than did eventuate.
The 2nd. War was not started by France and Britain, as you state, but by the German nation intent on domination of Europe, a Germany who had already invaded various European countries and whose invasion of Poland on the 1st September 1939 resulted in a declaration of war by France and Britain on the 3rd. of the month.
As for " when you dance, you pay the piper', fine if that is what you think but it doesn't sit too well with the view that the Americans saved democracy for all the right reasons.
If you consider that America owes more to France than Britain then fine again just give them a ring next time you get into a bunfight somewhere in the world and we Brits can stay at home.

[Pontius Navigator]

But did we need to declare war on Germany?

Would Germany have started commerce warfare in 1939?

Could we have simply reinforced France?

Would things have settled down?

Would Germany have attacked Denmark and the Netherlands?

Would Germany have attacked France?

[dirkdj]

Eye-opening reading: 'A Century of War' by William Engdahl; not about soldiers and generals but about politics and bankers. The driving force behind most (all?) wars.

[SASless]

Bos.....when our Welfare Man tried to crank up a War in Syria following upon his great successes in Libya and Egypt.....you folks elected to sit it out. So that has already happened.

Mind you I fully agree and appreciate that happening as it caused the Welfare Man to take a walk with Allah in the Rose Garden or whatever that "Come To Jesus Meeting" entailed.

Despite the rush to intervene.....you notice Mum is the word today so it must have been a Phony War he wished to kick off....but did not.

We digress.....my point was to remind you that War extracts a heavy price from any country that gets involved and the fact Great Britain went bankrupt as a result of the War....imagine what it would have cost had we not bankrolled much of the Allied Effort.

At the end of the War we were spending 42% of our GDP on the War on a current basis and had incurred the highest level of Debt in our history.....which has only been matched recently due to the spending habits of our Congress.

We spent ourselves broke doing exactly what Great Britain did.....maintaining much too big a Military and trying to shift to a Socialist Welfare State.

We spent the Soviet Union into the Poor House.....but sadly it is our turn now.

You do recall the French came to our aid when we were serving an eviction notice to you lot.....that is why I see us having a certain amount of allegiance to them.

Granted dealing with DeGaulle during WWII more than paid that debt.

The French are wise in one way....they only get stuck into Wars they think are in their interest. Maybe that is a lesson we in the United States should take.

[teeteringhead]

Granted dealing with DeGaulle during WWII more than paid that debt At the risk of thread drift, one understands that when France decided to become "estranged" from NATO, CdG demanded that all US troops leave France.

Allegedly (and one hopes really) the then POTUS or Sec of State (Johnson or Rusk? I think it was 1966) asked:

"Does that include the 60 000 buried there .........?" :ok:

[SASless]

Back to Topic....somewhat.

This link makes for some interesting reading as it is a concise history of the Russian Convoys....and reminds one of the dangers and losses that occurred on those voyages.

Riding to War in a Heavy Cruiser or Battleship is one thing....but the thought of being on an Vessel loaded down with Munitions, Explosives, or Gasoline just does not bear thinking about.


Russian Convoys, 1941-1945 (http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsRussianConvoys.htm)


As to PQ-17 losses.....some 173 Merchant Sailors were killed.....not a single Casualty aboard any Navy Vessel incurred defending the Convoy. That is the most telling Statistic in my estimation.

[Bevo]

Mickj3 .... so I was wrong ref. Marshall Aid but the fact remains that a good proportion was spent on re-paying 'war debt' so it became a case of give with one hand and take back with the other, from the American viewpoint of course.
At the risk of more thread drift I feel I must put the record straight on this comment. With the 1953 London Debt Agreement, only about 15% of the Marshall plan funding to England had to be repaid. The rest was converted into grants with no repayment needed.

[Pontius Navigator]

As to PQ-17 losses.....some 173 Merchant Sailors were killed.....not a single Casualty aboard any Navy Vessel incurred defending the Convoy. That is the most telling Statistic in my estimation.
Not wishing to belittle the number killer but there has been little mention of the survivors.

A merchant ship of the time might have had a crew of 40 or more. That suggests near 2000 seamen on 24 ships. I am sure the survivors stories would be fascinating too.

[Chugalug2]

A far larger but unknown number of Russians would have died for want of the supplies that went to the bottom of the sea, instead of into their hands. Dreadful though the loss of sailors' lives was, the survival rate based on PN's rule of thumb is truly impressive.
Presumably an escort would have been despatched if possible to look for them when they were in convoy, but once scattered they were truly on their own. Did the bulk of them make landfall in lifeboats? JC spoke of many ending up on the bleak foreshore of Novaya Zemyla, fighting off the bitter cold by burning driftwood. As you say, PN, fascinating and terrible stories to be told.

[Heathrow Harry]

generally escorts were not detailed to leave the convoy and look for survivors - too few escorts to start with - on some convoys there were trawlers along to
pick up survivors but they also had a fairly awful casualty rate in their own right

[SASless]

One figure given for Ship losses was 9% overall for the Russian Convoys....including both Merchant and Naval Vessels. Quite a few convoys made it without losing a ship or only a few.

[tow1709]

There is an excellent book about this convoy by Godfrey Winn. Long out of print but worth searching for.

Winn was a civilian newspaper journalist who sailed in HMS Pozarica - a former merchant ship converted to an anti-aircraft cruiser armed with 8 x 4-inch AA guns.

This ship, too, arrived in Novaya Zemlya, after the scattering, accompanied by at least one merchant vessel found en route.

Re rescuing of survivors, I seem to remember PQ17 was accompanied by two or three dedicated rescue ships, but I think at least one was itself lost.

[SASless]

I have a copy of "The Destruction of PQ.17" by David Irving laying on my Desk.

Printed in 1968....Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-25749.

Very well written account.

[bosnich71]

Bevo ..... so only 15% of my comment was correct then ? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/infopop/icons/icon7.gif

[bosnich71]

Pontius .... the answer to all of your questions ref. would Germany have attacked France etc.Maybe,maybe not.
P.s. Your Father/ Grandfather wasn't a student at Oxford during the Thirties was he? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/infopop/icons/icon7.gif

[Mick Strigg]

The Royal Navy has two Swordfish, both of which should be flying this year, but only if enough money is raised to keep them in the air. If you can help, please go to www.fnht.co.uk (http://www.fnht.co.uk)

Thanks

[teeteringhead]

There is an excellent book about this convoy by Godfrey Winn. Long out of print but worth searching for.

About a tenner (2nd hand ex-library stock) from the usual South American River.

[Pontius Navigator]

Pontius .... the answer to all of your questions ref. would Germany have attacked France etc.Maybe,maybe not.
P.s. Your Father/ Grandfather wasn't a student at Oxford during the Thirties was he? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/infopop/icons/icon7.gif

No, he was Merchant Navy.

[bosnich71]

Pontius ... "he was Merchant Navy", then he has my admiration.
My Brother was merchant navy as well but happily after hostilities ceased.He always reckoned that percentage wise their losses were the highest of all services. He may have been slightly biased, can anyone confirm or deny ?


P.s. Ref. my question... no disrespect was intended toward any relative of yours.I asked the question because of the pre war debate at the Oxford university about fighting for one's country etc.
I was reminded of this because of what I perceived to be a questioning of the causes of the 2nd. World War and some on this blog seeming to blame the British, and to a lesser extent the French, for causing it.

[Chugalug2]

Wikki states that in WWII, German U-boats sank nearly 14.7M tons of Allied shipping (2828 ships). UK total tonnage lost amounted to 11.7M tons (54% of the total MN fleet at outbreak). 32000 MN lives lost in convoy in WWII. Wherever that stands in the pecking order of sacrifice, it was prodigious, but gave us the ability to survive in order to win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Navy_(United_Kingdom)
RIP

[Wander00]

My adoptive father, long before I was on the scene, had a place as a MN deck officer cadet in the 20s, but could not take it up after his father died (could not afford the premium), so went into civilian employment ashore. Consequently missed the convoys, but ended up a fireman in the London blitz, and managed to survive that - so I guess the Old Man must have had a charmed life.

[Pontius Navigator]

had a place as a MN deck officer cadet in the 20s, but could not take it up after his father died (could not afford the premium),

Now that is interesting. My grandfather, a builder, had 2 sons. The elder was a purser and my father a seaman. Incidentally the former was the Officers' Mess manager at Leeming during the war!

[SASless]

Interesting site....a good place to start looking at Merchant Navy losses during WWII.


Merchant Navy Losses WWII (http://www.worldnavalships.com/merchant_navy_losses.htm)

[teeteringhead]

but ended up a fireman in the London blitz, and managed to survive that ...as did Teeters Snr (and I'm still trying to get his Defence Medal!).

He was just rebuilding his own business which had failed in the 30s Depression, so wanted to stay in London. Joined the AFS (Auxilliary Fire Service) on the Monday morning after war was declared, so avoiding call-up.

Some of his mates who were (called up) had a far cushier time sweeping up and peeling spuds around Aldershot and similar - so not one of Pop's better decisions.

Later on he tried to become a WOp/AG, but discovered he was too old - at 30! Mind you, had he gone to Bomber Command, I might not be around to write this ...............:eek:

[Pontius Navigator]

SASLess, thank you, two ships on which my old man served were subsequently sunk, one just 2 months later.

[Rallye Driver]

Merchant Navy losses were equivalent to 17%
Royal Navy losses 9.3%

To put in context, 24,490 out of 39,000 U-Boat crews also perished – a loss rate of over 70%!

There were FAA Swordfish losses where the wind was blowing so hard that they were unable to catch up with the escort carriers and had to ditch astern.

[SASless]

There were FAA Swordfish losses where the wind was blowing so hard that they were unable to catch up with the escort carriers and had to ditch astern.


The Carriers should have turned about....and then reverse course again and pass under the Aircraft and allow them to land going backwards. Bit of astute ship handling and it could have been vertical landings.

[racedo]

SASLess, thank you, two ships on which my old man served were subsequently sunk, one just 2 months later.

Know a guy from church who when I was talking of visiting The Somme in Sept told me his Dad had been there as a Horse Vet and came back as did all relatives who served.
In Second one seems all his relatives were in Merchant Navy and though boats sunk from under them they all managed to come home, he served in FAA post war.
I have indicated that in event of 3rd one I want to know exactly where his family are serving.

[racedo]

The Carriers should have turned about....and then reverse course again and pass under the Aircraft and allow them to land going backwards. Bit of astute ship handling and it could have been vertical landings. Agree

Who was it that ignored SOPs in South Pacific in WW2 at night by lighting up the carriers believing getting his aircraft aboard was more important than following orders.

Bearing in mind the subject and what was discussed earlier I think that showed leadership to his men.

Found it Marc Mitscher
Marc Mitscher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Mitscher)

[MightyGem]

The Carriers should have turned about..
Hmm…so the carrier, along with it's escorts would leave the convoy, backtrack 10, 20, 30, whatever miles to pick up a lone aircraft and then have to play catch up in obviously atrocious weather? All the time the convoy is without a major part of it's escort force.

[awblain]

If the wind's 80 knots, and the aircraft only makes 120 knots, it's not clear that turning the ship would have made much difference.

The Swordfish crew straying too far downwind would have been the problem.

[Hangarshuffle]

It was either Max Hastings or Len Deighton who researched and wrote: Highest losses in WW2 for UK were Bomber Command Aircrew, Front Line Infantry, Tank Crews and Merchant Naval Crews including military DEMS gunners (Defence Equipped Merchant Ships).
My friends father was MN and sunk 5 times, and was the only boy of his class of sea going mates from Helensburgh to survive the war.
Russians didn't like either the Hurricane or the tanks (Churchill, Valentine and US Sherman) we sent them and found them markedly inferior to their own T34 or KV1 and varients. Its sometimes hard to find reference to any of the war material we despatched via the North Cape IMHO.
Did it all work as well as the propaganda makes out?
Was it all really that useful to the Russians?


*RAF were forced to send Hurricanes to the Russians, so sent their worst crates - understandable really but soon twigged. What exactly did the Russians ever do for us (except spill vastly more amounts of blood and kill 9 out of 10 of the common enemy)?

[SASless]

AW.....Helicopter Pilots are aware of that concept.....even when it is a stationary object they are working to/from.

[Union Jack]

To put in context, 24,490 out of 39,000 U-Boat crews also perished – a loss rate of over 70%! - Rallye Driver

It was either Max Hastings or Len Deighton who researched and wrote: Highest losses in WW2 for UK were Bomber Command Aircrew, Front Line Infantry, Tank Crews and Merchant Naval Crews including military DEMS gunners (Defence Equipped Merchant Ships). - Hangarshuffle

The U-Boat casualty rate was nearer 85% if the 5000 who were captured are taken into account. The Royal Navy Submarine Service losses of 38%, compared with the overall Royal Navy loss of slightly less than 8%, are exceeded only by those of Bomber Command.

Jack

[Biggus]

Without wishing to appear too pedantic, I think it only accurate to point out that 24,490 out of 39,000 is actually 62.8%, not over 70%.

Likewise, if you add the 5,000 captured, then 29,490 out of 39,000 is 75.6%, not nearer 85%.

Either the numbers are wrong, or the % calculation.

None of which detracts from the fact that the loss rate was horrendous, but it has a certain inevitability for a force that became technologically disadvantaged and fought to the bitter end on the losing side of a conflict...

[SASless]

Biggus...it was War...they were the enemy and if we had been successful their Loss Rate would have been 100%.

You cannot discount the courage the German Submariners displayed knowing the odds had turned and they were taking severe losses but we have to remember it was our duty to kill them as efficiently and aggressively as possible.

[Union Jack]

Without wishing to appear too pedantic, I think it only accurate to point out that 24,490 out of 39,000 is actually 62.8%, not over 70%.

Likewise, if you add the 5,000 captured, then 29,490 out of 39,000 is 75.6%, not nearer 85%.

Without wishing to appear remotely fussed, I think it is only accurate to point out that, whilst Biggus's arithmetic is indeed absolutely spot-on, the figure of 24490 on which it is based is unrelated to my comment.

That said, I strongly concur with his last paragraph, recalling that over 50000 men in some 15 navies lost their life serving in submarines during the Second World War.

Jack

[SASless]

US Sub losses....

World War II US submarine losses in the Pacific 1941 to 1945 (http://www.valoratsea.com/losses1.htm)

[izod tester]

Whilst Bomber Command sustained the highest number of casualties in the RAF during WW2, it also had the largest number of personnel exposed to risk. In "Right of the Line" by John Terraine there is a table worked out by the Air Member for Training in November 1942 which shows the percentage chance of survival for 1 or 2 tours by aircraft role:

Type of Squadron - % chance of survival - One Tour - Two tours
Heavy and Medium Bomber - 44 - 19.5
Light Bomber - 25.5 - 6.5
Day Fighter - 43 - 18.5
Night Fighter - 39 - 15
Long Range Fighter - 59.5 - 35.5
Torpedo Bomber - 17.5 - 3
Heavy GR Landplane - 71 - 50.5
Medium GR Landplane - 56 - 31.5
Light GR Landplane - 45 - 20
Sunderland Flying Boat - 66 - 43.5
Catalina Flying Boat - 77.5 - 60
Fighter Reconnaissance - 31 - 9.5
Bomber Reconnaissance - 42 - 17.5

The light bomber figures reflect the high losses of Blenheims and Battles in France and Belgium at the beginning of the war. The heavy bomber losses continued throughout the rest of the war whilst the Torpedo Bomber loss rates probably diminished with the introduction of the Beaufighter and Mosquito into anti-shipping strike.

[gr4techie]

Is that a typo or did torpedo bombers have a 3% chance of survival on their second tour? Holy guacamole !

I'm also surprised at the low chance of survival for night fighter, I wouldn't have thought night fighters were that much at risk, unless most of their casualties were flying accidents.

[Pontius Navigator]

gr4, my uncle disappeared off North Foreland in a Beau. No enemy activity that night, he never had any contact once he was operationa;l

[FODPlod]

US Sub losses....

World War II US submarine losses in the Pacific 1941 to 1945 (http://www.valoratsea.com/losses1.htm)

???

British submarine losses:
World War II British submarine losses in the Atlantic, Europe, Mediterranean and Far East 1939 to 1945 (http://www.naval-history.net/WW2aBritishLosses05SS.htm)

[izod tester]

GR4Techie, no the Torpedo Bomber crewmember rate of survival for 2 tours is not a typo. Note, that is the chance of survival for 2 tours that was 3%, not the chance of survival on the 2nd tour. Probably, as a crew became more experienced, their chances of survival rose as they figured out how to avoid the defending AA fire. In my fathers case, his strategy was to stay as low as possible after torpedo release and aim to cross the targets bow as closely as possible and turn away under the target ships bow when most AA guns could not bear. He told me the closest he came to being killed was on a torpedo bomber familiarization exercise with HMS Kenya when he misjudged the ships speed and nearly collided with the bow. After completing his first tour he was posted to a Beaufighter OCU where he assessed his chances of survival as being lower than on Ops - monitoring practice engine failure on take-off with the student in the pilot's seat and the instructor crouched behind him killed 2 of his friends. He took advantage of the need for Armament Engineers to transfer branches thus, probably, enabling me to make this post.

[Biggus]

I believe there is an argument (not necessarily mine) that says, for the amount of military damage achieved vs losses sustained, it might have been more cost effective for Coastal Command not to bother making any direct attacks ( as opposed to mine laying) on German maritime traffic along the coast of Norway during WW2....

[SASless]

The Hunter-Killer Task Units used the tactic "Locate....Force to Surface....Kill" very effectively by using ASW Ships and Aircraft from Escort Carriers. At some point the U-Boats would have to surface to charge Batteries which made them vulnerable to attack both by aircraft and surface ships.

The presence of Carrier Aircraft also forced the Subs to remain submerged and thus much less able to maneuver for attacks on surface shipping and Convoys.

The advent of the Snorkel mitigated that tactic somewhat but with the introduction of Airborne Radar capable of detecting the Snorkel....the pendulum swung back to the Allies favor.

The Carrier Project - The Battle of the Atlantic (http://home.grandecom.net/%7Ecvproj/battle-atlantic.htm)

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/car-9.pdf

[Biggus]

PN,

By "...German maritime traffic along the coast of Norway...." I wasn't referring to submarines....

[Pontius Navigator]

Biggus, apologies, too tired :)

Could be why the V-bombers were designed with a secondary role as mine layers - Vulcan certainly.

[JonnyT1978]

Russians didn't like either the Hurricane or the tanks (Churchill, Valentine and US Sherman) we sent them and found them markedly inferior to their own T34 or KV1 and varients. Its sometimes hard to find reference to any of the war material we despatched via the North Cape IMHO.
Did it all work as well as the propaganda makes out?
Was it all really that useful to the Russians?


I believe the Russians weren't too enamoured with the Spitfire either. I seem to remember from a Bill Gunston book that they were big fans of the P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra, due to their toughness and the large-caliber cannon.

If I remember correctly too, Gunston also recounted the story of meeting some senior officers from the Russian Airforce post-war and they told him they wouldn't let anyone over 35 fly the aircraft. Asked why, the Russian officer replied (straight-faced) "balls get caught in prop-shaft"

Anyway, it was an excellent documentary. JC seems to have a knack for getting the 'tone' of these right.

[A A Gruntpuddock]

"Was it all really that useful to the Russians?"

My father-in-law was on the Russian convoys - they were treated with great suspicion and rarely allowed off the ships.

Considering the conditions experienced in getting there (spent a lot of time hacking off ice in atrocious conditions to avoid turning turtle), he was not amused.

[Chugalug2]

Whatever the Russian Government said or didn't say, or what it told its own people, the Russian Convoys were an essential lifeline to a beleaguered country. It's all very well to say that a Red Army victory was inevitable over the Wehrmacht, but it takes more than overwhelming manpower to get there. The convoys bought the Soviets time to get their own act together, having lost most of their aircraft and tanks in the initial blitzkrieg.
If your father in law wanted the Nazi regime defeated, then his part in the Arctic War was a vital component in that, no matter how he was treated by our Russian allies.

[Toadstool]

Sorry if this has been posted before, too late and too much port to check through thread, but the story is on at 0200 this morning on BBC2