Talk:Arctic convoys of World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arctic convoys of World War II article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] the convoys sailed from Iceland

'the convoys sailed from Iceland'? This doesn't make any sense. How could they have started from Iceland, given that Iceland didn't have a massive production capability or reserves of oil, steel and other resources of the kind that convoys typically carry? Surely the convoys 'started' from the USA or, perhaps, the UK. (A Google search suggests that many Arctic convoys started in Loch Ewe, Scotland - see [1]). Please could the author explain the point. --Jerry cornelius 03:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Presumably the ships weren't a convoy before they left Iceland/Scotland. And the article has always said they started from Loch Ewe as well. Geoff/Gsl 04:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I wrote the basic parts of this article as part of "British Military History of World War 2" - thank you to whoever moved, enhanced (ie put the links in!) and supplemented it. I didn't feel it was easy to find where it was and it ought to have its own page. However, that said, Wiki's search engine doesn't seem very sophisticated. :(
As to where they sailed from - (today's headline is wrong by the way): Prior to convoy PQ17 they assembled off Iceland (Reykjavik I think) having come from ports in countries which did have massive amounts of resources and manufacturing industry. After PQ17 (July '42) they assembled in and sailed from Loch Ewe in Scotland - a remote north-west facing loch near Ullapool. I assume this was for security reasons, but I'll have to get back to you on that. NB, most of the cargo was manufactured goods like tanks, boots, planes etc - the Russians were not short on natural resources. Wiki-Ed 12:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Many thanks for the response. Jerry cornelius 14:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Allied convoys only?

Shouldn't this article say something like "Allied Arctic convoys"? Or were there no Axis Arctic convoys? It seems to me a bit biased toward the Allied POV, but I acknowledge that "Arctic convoy of World War II" could be a universally-recognized historical term of which I am unaware. Could someone more knowledgeable than I am comment on this? — Jeff Q 04:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah it's fine. The Axis did run some very small coastal "convoys" (for want of a better word) but it could not be compared or confused with the heading. Wiki-Ed 12:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy

The paragraph regarding commando raids and Tirpitz has been cut and pasted from somwhere. I will amend it for relevance and accuracy because:

  1. ) The Tirpitz did attempt to raid the convoys
  2. ) The commando raid was one of a number of relevant attacks which convinced Hitler that Britain intended to invade Norway. This was a misconception, but:
  3. ) It was relevant because it (and the fact the convoys were reinforcing Russia) obliged the Germans to send more forces to Norway which could have been used elsewhere.
  4. ) Equally, however, these movements - particularly the naval units - tied down a large number of Royal Navy ships that could have been better used elsewhere. This needs expanding upon.
  5. ) The fate of the Tirpitz is covered in the article on that ship and does not need the level of detail here. It lengthens the article and takes it off on a tangent.

Wiki-Ed 16:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think your edits have made the page better but I have a couple of quibbles

  • If the Tirpitz did attempt to raid the convoys then please fix the Tirpitz page to say so.
  • You wrote "capital ships tied down British resources which could have been better used elsewhere. However, they themselves could have been used more successfully elsewhere. They were designed for raiding commerce in the Atlantic, a job at which they excelled". Where would they have been better employed given the fate of the fate of Bismark, HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales all sunk because of lack of air cover. What evidence is there that they excelled at commerce raiding in the Atlantic? Philip Baird Shearer 17:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Done - I've edited the Tirpitz page slightly. I've also edited and linked the section in question to commerce raiding, citing the articles on Gneisenau and Scharnhorst as examples of successful employment elsewhere - although I admit they are a bit sparse on relevant detail. As for a comparison with Bismark, PoW and Repulse... let's not go there ^^ Wiki-Ed 13:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Scharnhorst

At the moment the Scharnhorst page says she is a battleship, but is that correct? If she was not a battlecruiser, then which ship is an atypical battlecruiser and how did Scharnhorst differ?

Most of the references I have seen is that Scharnhorst was a battlecruiser not a battleship. This includes the Royal Navy site:http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3542.html

Philip Baird Shearer 13:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Battlecruisers/pocket battleships like Scharnhorst occupy an uncomfortable spot in between battleship and cruisers in naval classification. In this case the calibre of her primary armament was too small to class her as a proper battleship, despite the high calibre secondary weapons, speed, armour, displacement etc. Wiki-Ed 13:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ships lost

Soviet admiral Nikolai G. Kuznetsov in his memoirs [2] states:

During the war, 717 transport vessels put out to sea from our northern ports-Arkhangelsk and Murmansk. Out of this number enemy ships and the Luftwaffe sank 90 transport vessels, including 11 Soviet merchantmen.

The article mentions 85 vessels, totally. Pavel Vozenilek 21:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this a point of contention and veterans continue to wrangle over the precise number of ships that were (or were not) sunk. There is probably also some confusion over the definition as some ships were sunk in port. We could change it to "85-90 vessels". Wiki-Ed 12:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic Impact

The section Strategic Impact, needs a paragraph on how useful or otherwise the cargoes were to the Soviet Union and if Soviet propaganda played up or played down the aid they received. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is covered - to a limited extent - in the summary. I am not sure you could give a straightforward answer to the question of whether the cargoes were materially useful or not. There are probably records of what was sent, but what was used is difficult to measure. From the anecdotal evidence I've read the Soviets put some supplies straight into active service (eg tanks), but left other material behind on the quayside (eg. boots). Whether that material was eventually collected and put to use... who knows?
In general I was under the impression the supplies coming from the other routes had a greater strategic impact overall (because they were not contested and had greater capacity) and the contribution was ignored until recently. Wiki-Ed 12:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe PBS has in mind the usefulness of some of the materiel, eg, some tanks (Grants) were referred to as "coffins for 7 brothers", while Shermans were relatively effective). The US military vehicles were critical, as were some raw materials. It's good to separate the militarily useful from the politically desirable. Folks at 137 16:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PQ-17

This:-
"However, although the German ships were part of Operation Knight's Move'... they were merely changing port"
...is insulting: It feels like the people who died are being laughed at (“look, all the Tirpitz had to do was turn around in bed, and they scattered like pigeons”).
And it’s disingenuous; they weren't just nipping over to the oiler; Tirpitz, and her battle group, were moving northwards (ie on parallel course to the convoy) to Altenfjord, the advance base for the attack.
And the Admiralty were quite correct in interpreting it as a threat.
I've changed it to something more honest; and I'm amazed that it's sat here un-challenged for so long. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supply

What ammount of Supply was shiped an what was lost?--87.128.114.161 (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)