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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Bevo ..... so only 15% of my comment was correct then ? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...cons/icon7.gif

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/sr...cons/icon7.gif

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

Thanks

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

No, he was Merchant Navy.

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.

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/Merchan...United_Kingdom)
RIP

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.

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!

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


Merchant Navy Losses WWII

...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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Come and get it?
 

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.

Losses and material.
 

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)?

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

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

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...

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.

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

US Sub losses....

World War II US submarine losses in the Pacific 1941 to 1945

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.

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.

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

???

British submarine losses:

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.

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....

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