PQ17
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
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.
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
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.
Last edited by SASless; 3rd Jan 2014 at 14:02.
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.
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!
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!
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
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
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.
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.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
TD Racer. It's available as a torrent. Download and install uTorrent or similar.
PQ17 An Arctic Convoy Disaster is the title.
PQ17 An Arctic Convoy Disaster is the title.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Chug, ultimately command is a sole responsibility and not a democratic one.
command is a sole responsibility and not a democratic one.
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!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Once again, I seem to not understand a word of your post, racedo.
Er, yes one can by er... challenging them!
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
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.
one couldn't challenge decisions being made, even if wrong.
time and again people were elevated or left in positions of power because of their name or connections.
Dudley Pound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
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.
Er, yes one can by er... challenging them!
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
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?
Dudley Pound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Loyalty is something that Churchill understood given what he had been through.
As usual there were not sufficient aircraft available for maritime surveillance. Sound familiar ?
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.
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.
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."?
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."?