Talk:Convoy SC 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Major edit[edit]

I’ve changed things round a bit, as the current text has the timings wrong; at least, they are different from the sources I’ve used; I don’t know what sources were used originally. I’ve used Lund and Ludlums book, as it is specifically about this event; Roskill is the official history, and the others are both fairly comprehensive.Xyl 54 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I’ve moved this bit here, as it seems a bit long on opinion;
"SC7 was just the second convoy to be attacked by a wolf pack, groups of German U-boats making coordinated attacks. Convoy tactics were rudimentary at this early stage of the war, and in any event it is difficult to see what tactics would have helped a single rather slow and weak ship trying to protect 35 even slower targets from a pack of submarines. There was little that the Scarborough could do, even when reinforced from Britain the next day, October 17, by the sloop Fowey and the new corvette Bluebell. The escort ships stayed behind from time to time to rescue drowning sailors, leaving the other ships unescorted. Perhaps it was a bad decision to stop for rescue work, but those saved were certainly grateful."
What does anyone think? Xyl 54 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've re-written this bit as a conclusion; if anyone is unhappy about it, please let me know. Xyl 54 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


I’ve changed the word "Decisive" from the designation as a German Victory, because very few battles are truly decisive, usually one or maybe two in a campaign; as far as the battle of the Atlantic goes, the decisive battle, if there was one single engagement that qualifies, was probably ONS 5.
SC 7 was a substantial/major defeat for the Allies, but I don’t see how it decided anything.
Donitz and BdU were no doubt pleased that their pack attack tactics were effective, but they were already committed to them; SC 7 didn’t decide that.
As for the allies, SC 7 and the contiguous defeat HX 79 didn’t persuade them to abandon convoy as a strategy, or the convoy system.
I am mindful this issue has already caused an edit war ( or at least an edit scuffle), so I am laying out my reasons for the change to clarify the issue.Xyl 54 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And again;
I notice the link I added to the infobox result to here was deleted a while ago, and the adjective "decisive" has turned up again.
So, one more time, where is the justification, and what is the source, for describing this action as "decisive"? What did it decide? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit[edit]

Changed the name of one of the combatants to Germany. "Nazi Germany" never existed as an official name. --Vosselmans 10:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


What is the issue over the naming of the combatants? Why is it nazi, or apologist, or revisionist, to have the name read “Germany”? Xyl 54 13:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Compare it to the Confederacy in the USA. The confederate Army was every bit as much American as Nazi Germany was German, but the distinction must be made due to the stark differences in national will and historical prespective between the Union and Confederacy. Nazi Germany is as starkly different from present-day Germany, WWI Germany, West Germany, or East Germany that the distinction is sorely needed in all historical references.--Asams10 14:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
OK (and thank you finally for a lucid answer)
I can see different historical entities may need specifying (though the Confederacy and Union mayn’t be a good example, as they were two sides of a civil war; the United Provinces as opposed to the Netherlands before the C17th maybe, or England as opposed to Great Britain in the same period, when England’s wars weren’t Scotland’s wars). And as there is a page for this period, entitled “Nazi Germany”, the links should go to that page.
But I don’t see the issue over the caption; to me it looks like gloating. Are we to specify “Nazi German victory”? And as the previous comment says, that wasn’t the official name for the country at the time; if we aren't to say just "Germany" there’s a stronger case for using that.Xyl 54 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


There's been some confusion over the numbers of combatants in this battle, which changed throughout. There were 7 U-boats involved, though not all were present at the same time; U's-48,-38, -46,-99,-100,-101, and -123. U-124 sank a straggler from the convoy, but wasn’t involved in the battle itself. There were 5 escort ships (again, not all present at once); the sloops Scarborough, Fowey and Leith, and the corvettes Bluebell and Heartsease. They're all mentioned in the text.I hope that clarifies matters. Xyl 54 12:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


The ISBN numbers are as presented in the books; Roskill does not have an ISBN number, hence ISBN (none). Xyl 54 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The spacing doesn't particularly matter either way (the numbers are the same with or without breaks or dashes), but if you make sure that there's nothing between "ISBN" and the string of digits - no colon, no dash, or in this case, no (UK) etc - then the MediaWiki ISBN parser can interpret it and we can have all the fun of Special:Booksources.
As regards "no ISBN", it's a bit redundant to say so - a 1950s edition isn't going to have an ISBN because they didn't exist! - but I guess it doesn't hurt. Shimgray | talk | 10:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


The "Conclusions" section was deleted, with the edit summary "deleted conclusion because sc 7 wasnt the second convoy to be attacked by wolfpacl;also major wrong information".
I've restored it, as the statements in the conclusion are based on the sources listed. Convoy tactics were rudimentary at this stage of the campaign, and the response of SC 7's escorts was unco-ordinated; both Roskill and Lund/Ludlam say so. It was this experience, and the debacle over HX 79, that hastened the formation of escort groups and the development of group escort tactics, and the other reforms carried out by Percy Noble at Western Approaches Command. But if anyone is unhappy with this, or wishes to spell out what exactly is "major wrong information", please post.
On the subject of SC 7 being only the second convoy to be attacked by a wolf pack, I'm less sure what the source is (it was here whan I arrived), but I know it took a while for wolf pack operations to become effective, and wasn't helped by a lack of operational U-boats to form functioning packs; a number of convoy attacks prior to this were by "lone wolves", rather than co-ordinated operations. But some sources either way would be useful (I'll see what I can dig up). Xyl 54 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sc 7 wasnt second convoy to be attacked:
First was HX-65(with derivated convoys,HX-65B,HX-65B) wast attacked by wolfpack on 24 august 1940
Second was HX-72 attacked on 20 spet 1940
and then sc 7
And all these 3 were coordinated attack.
I propose to change the conclusion Udisblizbadjoke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Udisblizbadjoke (talkcontribs) 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
So, what are you saying; SC 7 was the third convoy to be attacked by a wolf-pack? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes udisblizbadjoke
No,actually i did some research and they are more convoys attacked by 2 or more u-boats before these.sc1,sc2,sc3,sc6 hx-72 hx 67 .......udisblizbadjoke
Then your research should have told you that SC’s 1,2, 3 and 6 were attacked by individual U-boats; and HX 67 wasn’t attacked at all. What is your source for this? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No,they were attacked by 2 or more u-boats at once,coordinated.] Look on page and look at sc convoys ,hx convoys search for them.There were many convoys before sc 7 attacked by groups of u-boats .Also look at and see all sc convoys and hx... Better to remove part with second convoy udisblizbadjoke —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

Well we can argue the point. As far as the article goes, it’s fair enough to take the “second convoy” comment out, but something needs to go there; a conclusion, of sorts. I’ve added a piece; do you agree with that? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

yes udisblizbadjoke —Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC).