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.

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...

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.

SASless:-
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)?

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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/sr...cons/icon7.gif

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.

Your initial post just said "the War".

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

Response to second part of SASless rant
 

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

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:

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

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/73...31dc99bcc1.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.

PQ17 repeated tonight BBC2 2130.

Cambridge England
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If it hadnt been for Russian petrol we wouldnt have had the blitz.
 

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

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.

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.

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
Nothing to do with aviation I know but one has a better discussion when one is aware of the facts.:ok:

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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: