PN,

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

Biggus, apologies, too tired :)

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

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.

"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.

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.

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