Talk:Battle of the Atlantic/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Convoy links

I've changed the convoy links from the "hyphen" to the "space" format, as per discussion at Naming Conventions, and to avoid re-directs. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

I have removed Brazil from the list of belligerents. No where in the entire article is Brazil mentioned, and I do not believe Brazil should be listed until the article makes a mention of their contribution. --PlasmaTwa2 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Vichy.

A minor point. Should we add Vichy France on the Axis side of the info box? While relatively minimal, there were naval engagements between the Allies and said in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Battle of Dakar comes to mind as an example. Thought I would check before adding. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing Free France is included among the Allies, I'd say yes. AFAIK, the contribution from either was small, but comparable. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I will go ahead and add it. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, battle of Atlantic generally refers to Axis campaign against Allied convoys. Simply because Allies attacked Vichy forces in ports that could be considered to be on atlantic, doesn't make Vichy actual participant of Atlantic battle.--Staberinde (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not "ports that could be considered to be on atlantic" but ports that were directly involved in the U-boat war. Lorient, to name only one, was used as a base. And the U-boat pens were heavily (if ineffectually...) bombed by RAF BC. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I meant ports like Dakar that were actually controlled by Vichy. For Lorient we have Military Administration in Belgium and North France, although I personally have some doubts about adding it as separate combatant.--Staberinde (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with TREKphiler on this as these engagements were part of the overall battle for the Atlantic.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft losses

I dispute that the Allies, collectively, lost just 119 aircraft. Coastal Command lost some 233 on ASW ops, June 1941 - May 1943 alone. Losses of Allied aircraft were around 600 or so. The Luftwaffe lost about 400 or so in support of Atlantic operations. Dapi89 (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a puzzling area; I’ve been trying to find some numbers on this for a while without much success.

The 119 figure (at a guess) comes from here (summary, at the bottom of the page) which is aircraft shot down by U-boats. But a lot of Coastal Command’s casualties seem to have been operational, due flying thousands upon thousands of patrol hours. Some figures I had on Operation Derange had losses of 19 aircraft, for 5 U-boats sunk. Just 5 planes were shot down by flak from the U-boats; the rest were by Greman aircraft(4), lost while on patrol(4), or crashed on landing or takeoff(6). Extrapolated up could give a loss of about 600 aircraft, like you said, but I don’t know which figure would be relevant here. Added to this it wasn’t just Coastal Command involved ( see here) and Coastal also had casualties from operations outside the Atlantic theatre (like the Channel, North Sea, Arctic, even the Baltic).

BTW Your figure of 400 German aircraft lost is interesting, as their Atlantic op was on a much smaller scale than the Allies; where is it from? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very reluctant to start adding operational losses/attrition, 'cause then IMO you open it up to whether training, commo/liaison, & ferry losses should be counted. (IMO, no, in all cases.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is the danger and its a sentiment I share.

Coastal Command's losses amounted to 873 from all causes on maritime ops, 1,700 overall (Strat. Bombing etc).

With regard to German air losses; again the danger with adding losses is the the Germans had no naval air arm (besides the few Arado aircraft slung on Capital ships), so I am counting from my collective (and fragmented) sources, all aircraft lost on bombing raids against ports in the UK as well as ASO losses in the North Sea/Artic that contributed to the BOA (as they were connected with the BOA). So I readily admitt that I don't have a single source that says "c. 400", but losses are in that region. The Luftwaffe, begining in June 1943, renewed their efforts to provide air support to the UBs. Their recognition that air power was key came too late, although a fleet of 600 machines were earmarked for ASO over the Atlantic at that time, including the Ju 290 and He 177 units. So the Luftwaffe's commitment actually grew substantially. It was at its hieght in 1943/44. Dapi89 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Comprised/composed

Fowler's Modern English Usage distinguishes comprised from composed, saying that the special function of comprised is to introduce a list of the parts making up the whole that is the subject; that is, it means to consist of or be composed of; all the parts compose the whole, the whole comprised (all) the parts. So I am changing it back to composed of--TedColes (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

By the numbers

"not sinking U-boats in anything like sufficient numbers." As noted, this is a doctrinal issue. USN demanded sinkings; RN & RCN beleived convoys getting through was enough. I'm inclined to change it on that basis, in particular because RCN escorted the bulk of shipping for the duration, & because this gives a misleading view of the situation. Objections? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Doobie doobie dubious

While I'm unaware of any Hedgehog patters going off together as a result, the potential certainly existed. It's called "countermining", & was why, frex, torpedoes in a spread were fired with a delay between them: so the first wouldn't set off the rest. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hedgehog bombs were contact fuzed so they only went off if they hit something. Multiple explosions either meant multiple hits on a U-boat or else they were being used in very shallow water and the bombs were hitting the sea bed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.77.184 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Hedgehog bombs were contact fuzed". I did know that. (Probably better than you, actually.) Torpedoes with contact pistols were equally susceptible. Or did you not see that part? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(Probably better than you, actually.)

Whoa! - fight! - OK chaps, I'll hold your anoraks while you sort it out - LOL!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't need four stars to be in The Show

Any thoughts on including Frog Low, CO 10th Fleet, among the commanders? His contribution was as important as Raeder's, at least, probably more. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hedgehog

I have two library books, both titled "The Battle of the Atlantic", one by John Costello & Terry Hughes, the other is by Andrew Williams. Both mention Hedgehog - 'each charge was set to explode on impact'. Neither goes so far as to say 'When one of the Hedgehog charges exploded, it set off the others which increased the weapon's effectiveness.'

In light of what has already been discussed above and what is not in both my references, I'm removing the dubious content. If anyone can cite a source, go ahead and replace it.

RASAM (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox; who is in?

What is to be done with the infobox, here?
Up to now it’s listed the major players only, ie the commanders of the main combatants who held the highest operational post (so, Donitz but not Raeder, Noble and Horton, but not Pound).
Is there any good reason to change this? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My argument all along has been to keep the operational commanders only. Given the strategic decisions involved, I have no strong objection to adding their seniors, tho I find it a bit pointless. If that's to be the case, all of them belong: King, Pound, Raeder, & the RCN Chief of Naval Staff (Nelles?). The case for King alone is flimsy at best. (As I think of it, what about Bowhill, Joubert, & Slessor @Costal Command...?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I generally feel that in operational commanders should be the only names listed in articles like these. Yes, there were strategic decisions made by their superiors, but in turn their superiors made decisions at the grand strategic level. There's no reason to not include FDR, Churchill, or Hitler if we include the navy chiefs. There were certainly tactical commanders who did important things, and arguably could be included as well. But then we have a near meaningless mash of names crammed into the infobox - names that only people already familiar with the topic could establish the hierarchy and importance of which. This doesn't help anyone. Parsecboy (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

My main arguments for King and Raeder to be added:

-there were both commanders of they navy

-there were both responsable of what they navy do,and they sign mission and agreements ,also manage,and had signified effect in the course of the battle of atlantic

-in 1942 in operation drumbeat ,the jobs of stopping uboats falls to admiral ernst king,commander in chief of united state naval force

-in begining of 1942 obvious was King who led marines to die, because he refuse to establishe convoys,claiming that he lacks the destroyers to guard them!

-American entres in the battle of atlantic was a disastrous ,mainly because of King

-Desperate to end the carnage ,Churchill finnaly convince the King to change tactics ,after major protest against him - so from him there were convoys in americans waters

-King administrated which battleship and war ship should be dispatched in battle of atlantic or in pacific

-And you put there in the list of commander ,a guy which page doest exist,if i want to see info about him what i do ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 10 April 2011

♠"then we have a near meaningless mash of names" That's not the strongest argument I've heard against. ;p It's not invalid.

♠"there were both responsable of what they navy do" Not for the operational decisions, which are the ones really at issue.

♠"in 1942 in operation drumbeat ,the jobs of stopping uboats falls to admiral ernst king" Actually, it doesn't. It falls on Andrews. King's responsibilities were guiding strategy, policy, & resource allocations; & dealing with FDR & Churchill on what USN could, & couldn't, accomplish with the resources allocated, & establishing what the Navy needed to accomplish the goals set.

♠"in begining of 1942 obvious was King who led marines to die, because he refuse to establishe convoys,claiming that he lacks the destroyers to guard them" A policy decision, not an operational one, in keeping with King's position. It deserves a mention, but doesn't justify King's inclusion.

♠"American entres in the battle of atlantic was a disastrous ,mainly because of King" Again, not a reason to include him. To mention him, yes.

♠"Desperate to end the carnage ,Churchill finnaly convince the King to change tactics ,after major protest against him - so from him there were convoys in americans waters" Again, a policy decision, not an operational one.

♠"King administrated which battleship and war ship should be dispatched in battle of atlantic or in pacific" Again, policy (or strategy), not operations.

♠"And you put there in the list of commander ,a guy which page doest exist" Not a good argument for adding King, I don't think, since there won't be information about Andrews there, either. (Redlinks are a fact of life on WP.)

♠Since it's a complicated subject, the infobox is bound to be a compromise. As a principle, it can't be all-inclusive, even if we might want it to be. That's what the page is for. Let me say what I think is needed. One, delete Fliegerführer Atlantik (since, per Parsecboy, adding Coastal Command will add clutter, & omitting CC but including FA is unbalanced). Two, omit anybody not an operational commander. (This leaves out Lowe, Canaris, Knox, the director of B-Dienst, & the senior guy at BP, just off the top of my head. All deserve mention, & probably more recognition than they've gotten from historiographers IMO, but don't belong in the infobox.) Three, take as given the senior operational commanders are dealing with their air & intelligence counterparts, & their seniors, who thus don't need to be in the infobox. (Otherwise, we'd need not only Raeder & King, but Pound, Harris, & Portal, given the wrangle over VLRs & ASV, & Churchill too, since that's where the decision got made.) Four, make explicit reference (in the lead?) to the contributions of air & intelligence outfits of both sides. Five, hopefully stop fighting about it.

♠Since it is likely to be a bit contentious on its own, let me also explain why I suggest adding in the lead: to get the important names right away. That still does leave some debate over the importance of Low, Knox, & Bowhill in some minds, perhaps...but not in mine. To understand the Battle without understanding their contributions is impossible. I'd say the same about the British (& German!) boffins, who go mainly unmentioned. Their contributions were equally crucial. I wouln't advocate putting R. V. Jones in the infobox, either. Leaving him, & his kind, out would be criminal. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If Japan is not in the infobox then what is the point of having the Action of 13 May 1944 plus the other incursions that Japan subs made into Atlantic waters Pfifer11 (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the infobox is not for every country who had a couple of ships appear in the Atlantic. Not every combatant making a trivial contribution rises to inclusion. And this has been discussed before, & I thought it was settled. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find there is more contribution by Japan than Vichy France and Fascist Italy. Not to mention in comparison with other infoboxs that litter WWII wiki pages; these contain just a few persons or a single ship/boat from a single country invloved in battle or siege where a flag is then added.. Siege of Malta is one good exmple. Besides Japan fought a number of actions in the Atlantic theatre almost second to the Germans. This will be left in Pfifer11 (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"I think you will find there is more contribution by Japan than Vichy France and Fascist Italy." I really doubt it. What was it, 3 or 4 I-boats on single patrols? A handful of delivery missions to Germany? "almost second to the Germans"? Don't be absurd. Moreover, adding single ships here is preposterous. This isn't a single action, like Midway or Kormoran v Sydney, it's a campaign. Your argument makes as little sense as Spain being in the infobox for Barbarossa or Fall Blau. "This will be left in"? If so, why hasn't anybody protested Japan's removal til now? BTW, if Japan gets in, do I get to include Cuba? Brazil? Trinidad & Tobago? I'm pretty sure they all had one ship involved. Will they be "left in", too, just on your say-so? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If the infobox is supposed to be a thumb-nail sketch of the subject, it seems a bit daft to include items that aren’t even mentioned in the text. (Contrary-wise, just because someone is referred to in the text doesn’t necessarily earn them a place in the infobox…). If we go with the leaders who had operational command (which is sensible) then King wouldn’t have place in the box, though he (like Churchill, or Hitler, for that matter) should get a mention in the text for their influence on strategy.

Bogdanz: you seem to have a downer on King’s contribution to the proceedings; you should read Blair’s comments for an alternative view.

Trek: On the subject of Harlinghausen, I’d be inclined to take him out, rather thn put the Coastal Command blokes in ( particularly as I just read that KG 40 (uniquely) was under Donitz’ control, not Goering’s).

Pfifer: If your reference to the 13 May action relates to the Atlantic campaign template, that’s a whole other issue; a number of the actions there weren’t part of the BotA (PQ 17, for example); it probably needs bringing up there. And a Japanese contribution spanning 1942-1945? That is over-stating the case more than somewhat...Xyl 54 (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

On Harlinghausen et al, Xyl, I think we're in agreement, which is why I suggest prominent mentions of other important players, & their organizations, as early in the page proper as feasible. On King, it appears there's an inadequate (or mistaken) grasp of his role. On Japan, it appears either inadequate understanding of the low level of involvement, or undue weight issues; either way... You bring up PQ17, which I'm embarassed to say I'd forgotten about. (I tend to exclude the Arctic ops from "Atlantic", for some reason. Go figure.) That raises an issue of who the Russian equivalent of Horton was. I don't recall ever coming across a name, I'm ashamed to say. Add him (presuming we can identify him...)? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to jump in, King is out of scope as he was the head of the USN, and not an operational commander. While he obviously had influence over the allocation of ships, tactics used, etc, he didn't command the USN in the Atlantic in any real sense. Japan is definitely out of scope; the only Japanese ships in the Atlantic were passing through it while sailing between France and Japan, and they didn't conduct any patrols (I imagine that their brief was to avoid combat at all costs, as they were basically transport ships and submarines). Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Trek: The commander of the Soviet Northern Fleet was Arseniy Golovko, but I'd be dubious about puting him in: I would be inclined to see the Arctic convoys as a separate campaign from the BotA also. It begs the question whether the BotA is something different to the Atlantic campaign, but it's a bit off-track for this thread, so I've raised it here if anyone wants to chip in. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thx for finding him, Xyl. I haven't read the page in a bit, but IIRC, the Arctic convoys are mentioned as part of the Battle (if an offshoot). As noted, I'd mention Golovko, but not in the infobox. On Japan, Nick, AFAIK you're right. That's another reason for exclusion. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:07 23:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

if you added japan in battle of atlantic,add on allies sides this country which participated in atlantic:

-Australia with Royal Australian Navy hunted the Bismarck and took also part in the D-Day landings.

-Mexico which declared war on Germany,participated with ships in atlantic

-Grece with The Royal Hellenic Navy,The Greek merchant navy also contributed a lot during WWII ,largely compressed in convoys,Greek Navy sank 2 Italian subs (the Uarsciek was captured by Greek and British destroyers on 15 Dec, 1942 in the Mediterranean but sank while in tow and the Neghelli) and 1 U-boat.

-Soviet union with soviet navy ,convoys from atlantic to artic

-South Africa ,with ships between atlantic and indian ocean\

- plus some island from carribean : exemples many cubas merchants ships were sunk by u-boats

And i dont think japan fight any military action in atlantic in 1942 neither in 1943

BogdaNz

I added Japan because of the campaignbox which includes at least two action where Japanese boats (submarines) were sunk Action of 13 May 1944 and another of which Japanese submarine I-52 (1943) was sunk. Also the Action of 6 February 1945 which Japan were involved in. This is just cause for adding Japan as a a combatant as in other campaignboxes in military history articles on wikipedia. Pfifer11 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I continue to maintain a handful of encounters do not entitle Japan to combatant status. The contribution of Italy is barely enough, & I'd only keep Vichy because it was home of the major U-boat bases. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm sure it will as Japan used the Yanagi (exchange) missions between Germany and Japan and even historians admit that Japan was already a part of the Atlantic campaign as well as German propagandists. Here is a link yanagi-missions. I'm working on this as an article and as you will see it was greater and more vital than you think. Pfifer11 (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The supply missions were no more part of the Battle of the Atlantic than U-boat arrivals in Japan were part of the Pacific War. They were strategic exchanges between (putative) allies, not active operations against convoys. Show me just one I-boat attack on a Britain-bound convoy. ASW ops against I-boats were of trivial import compared to efforts against U-boats, & undifferentiated because the Allies couldn't identify them reliably. (Hell, they couldn't reliably identify friendly boats!) This is of a scale comparable to German aid to Japan, & Germany does not merit inclusion at Pacific War, either. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well in that look at [[Pacific War] in infobox it sates major axis/allied combatants with links. Perhaps then the same should be done for this page and Japan would NOT be included. The current list could expand as long as the list did for Pacific War Pfifer11 (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't make too close a comparison with the PW infobox. It's a compendium because there was compromise over how much scope the page has. It has to cover PTO, SWPA, & CBI, & even then, with German ops in Indian Ocean (U-boats & raiders, which weren't trivial), Germany doesn't merit inclusion. This page doesn't cover near as much, & Japan's efforts are far less significant. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Pacific War infobox is a slow-moving trainwreck and not a good example of anything! As for Japan and Vichy France, what sources state that they were participants in the Battle of the Atlantic? It's a shame that we're arguing over the infobox when the quality of this article on an important topic is, to be frank, awful. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bitter Ocean

Having just finished reading the 2006 book Bitter Ocean by David Fairbank White (Headline Publishing Group) ISBN - 13 9 780 7553 1089 0, I would strongly advise that it is not used as a reference, for further reading or anything else. A "Reliable Source" it is not. Some of the 'facts' in it are highly questionable. Here are but a few examples:

p. 66 Torpedoes were not the only dangers merchant mariners confronted. Others faced V-2 rockets and Luftwaffe attacks. (my emphasis) I didn't know that missile warfare was conducted in the Battle of the Atlantic.
p.180 Lieutenant Commander Peter W. Gretton was another ace. Gretton, SOE of the crack B-7 Escort Group... I never did find out what 'SOE', apart from its better-known 'Special Operations Executive' stood for; nowhere in the book could I find an explanation.
p.259 ...Allied naval and air chieftains gathered...(my emphasis once more) This curious turn of phrase describes the assembly of officers for a strategy conference. I thought a 'chieftain' was a type of Native American or a post-war British tank.

The back-cover blurb describes this book as "authoritative and beautifully written".
It is neither.

RASAM (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The V-2 error does suggest fact-checking its claims is in order, certainly. As for the others, incompleteness isn't necessarily error; I take SOE to mean "senior officer escort". And "chieftain" isn't exactly obscure as a ref to the top brass... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'V-2 error' imparts an element of doubt: not a good thing to have in any sort of book, never mind one that might be used as a reference. That's why I said it should not be regarded as a 'reliable source'. As I also said above, the examples shown are not unique, they are examples; there are plenty of others.

You might take SOE as 'senior officer escort' and you are probably right, but for ignorant saps like me, it should be more obvious; maybe the inclusion of a glossary (something that is quite common in many other military history books), would help.

I have never seen 'chieftains' used in this context; 'chiefs' maybe, but 'chieftains' no.

As a rule of thumb, a book that is any good, be it reference, poetry or novel, has some positive quotes from reviews on the back cover; I'm afraid this one doesn't have any. It looks like the 'authoritative and beautifully written' bit has been added by the publishers in an attempt to give the impression that it is, er, 'authoritative'.

I'm not slagging the book off per se, but I am saying that as a potential reference it should be avoided; there are far better books about the Battle of the Atlantic out there.

RASAM (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

1942 - 1941

"In early 1942, the problems were determined to be due to differences in magnetic fields at high latitudes[16][page needed] and a slow leakage of high-pressure air from the submarine into the torpedo's depth regulation gear. Eventually those problems were solved by about March 1941, allowing the torpedos to become a formidable weapon.[17] "

the text in italics contains a time-paradox. dunno much about the topic but isn´t it obvious that there is SOMETHING wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.154.195.115 (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)