Talk:Convoy QP 14
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Convoy QP 14 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
65 escorts?
[edit]Ok, so I think that the number of escorts for this convoy has been drastically overestimated by convoyweb. They're probably counting the distant escort, that was too far away from the convoy to defend it against most attacks. The Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-1945 on page 195 gives a count of 20 merchant ships, four destroyers, seven minesweepers, three AA ships and four corvettes when the convoy leaves Archangel, and on page 197 gives a count of 20 merchantmen, two AA ships, and 11 "corvettes, minesweepers and trawlers," plus the rescue ships Rathlin and Zamalek on September 20th. I'm pretty sure Convoyweb is counting the close and distant escort, which were too far away to defend against most attacks on the convoy. I'll get to the library in the next couple days and see if I can find another source for the exact number and composition of the escort immediately around the convoy, and if I can, I'd like to use that number. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Present use of the term escort is ambiguous. During the war, the United States Navy used the term to refer to the heavy units intended to defend against surface raiders, while the lighter units encircling the formation to provide smokescreens, ASW and AAW defense were identified as the screen. In the situation described by this article, there were at least two screens: one around the merchant ships convoy and others around the heavy units of the covering force(s). I have no objection to revising the infobox figures to reflect the number of ships actually involved in combat, but I suggest the article should include a description of all units available in the area with an explanation of the reasons they were there to avoid ambiguity encouraging changes by other editors. Thewellman (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Re-write
[edit]I've done a re-write of this page; it needed a narrative of sorts, to explain what went on; and the table needed breaking up, to avoid a copyvio (it looks like it was lifted from Arnold Hague's convoyweb page, which would be naughty). I trust everyone is OK with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Expansion
[edit]@Xyl 54: Nearly finished PQ 8 and as here, used the generic background and prelude sections of PQ 18. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Finally got round to doing the lead. Need to add something about Somali. Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- B-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- B-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles