Reading Roskills "The War At Sea" vol 1 you come across a lovely aerial photo of Convoy OB331 taken on 10th June 1941. I thought I would cross reference that in Arnold hagues "The Allied Convoy System 1939 - 1945 and see what happened to it. OB 331 consisted of 47 ships all of which made it safely across the Atlantic. There is a nice summary of the OB convoys which for me sets down the reality of the success of Convoying. Yes, I am well aware there were many horrendous losses but lets put them in context. How did the Allies win the war? Simply by getting a huge ... no, VAST amount of equipment, personnel and stores across the Atlantic. If the losses were so huge then the war would never have been won. OB Convoy figures give a snapshot ....and I say a snapshot because there were many many more convoys. OB Convoys were from Liverpool bound for the North America and Carribean. OB 1 - 179 comprised 177 convoys with 2,470 ships from 10 09 1939 to 05 07 1940. Of these two convoys were attacked, each losing one ship to U-boats and 1 ship to collision and 1 wrecked. Total Crew killed were 37 dead on the "Navasota". OB 180 - OB 349 comprised 168 convoys with 5,812 ships from 10 07 1940 to 01 08 1941. Of these 23 convoys were attacked for the loss of 61 ships. 44 by U-boats, 1 to mines and 16 by aircraft. Total Crew killed among these ships amounted to 674 of which 253 were aboard the "City of Benares". As this shows there were an awfull lot of convoys and an awfull lot of ships with really a comparitively small percentage of loss. These ships were outward bound and mostly in Ballast, apart from the City of Benares and some 4 or 5 other ships where they lost practically all the crews most of the ships sunk lost around 2 -5 crew. I will do a 1943 era convoys later .... but trust some will find this interesting. David
Am very much looking forward to your further analysis, Barnsey. Would it be fair to say the U-boats would have found the ships travelling in ballast a harder target to chase down or perhaps of less interest given they weren't carrying valuable cargo (doesn't make sense to me as a sunk ship is no use to anyone)? It might also indicate the U-boats being "marshalled" to attack the inbound convoys? Just idle thoughts from an MN novice.
Hi Andy, The whole affair is extremely interesting and when you really get "into it" you realise that Doenitz never had much of a chance from the start. Yes I know Churchill said the only thing that really worried him were the U-boats and that so many have said it was a close run thing but in actual fact thats not quite so. By the time Germany had overrun Norway, The low Countries and France a huge proportion of their Merchant Fleets were under British control so we actually had more ships than we started the war with in spite of those British vessels which had been sunk. That carried us through, in spite of great losses along with chartered shipping until the Americans produced the Liberty ships and T2 tankers. Briefly. For a start Doenitz did not have very many U-boats and his one aim was to sink Allied merchant ships .... first and last, nothing more nothing less..... stop supplies of food and fuel, starve Britain to sue for peace. It was not to be so of course as Hitler kept interfering but worst of all War was not supposed to be declared on Britain until around 1945 when Doenitz would have a full fleet of U-boats. Hitler was paranoic about Norway, about many things really!!! and insisted U-boats were around for all aspects of those campaigns and defense...dividing the force available. He also demanded U-boats be sent into the Medditerreanean at a crucial time in the Atlantic ... again the fleet was divided and so on it went. However Convoying is all about getting ships in a group and protecting them with a screen rather than having hunting packs of warships dashing hither and thither all over the place looking for a U-boat here or there to no avail. Ships in Ballast or loaded present differing aspects but the problem for Doenitz was finding the Convoys in the first place. Ocean Navigation in that era even up to the early 1970's was not a precise form and don't let anyone tell you to the contrary .... I hold a Master Foregn-Going certificate!!! Simply ... you departed from a last known point on a coast and set a course across the ocean. You streamed over the stern "The Log" which was a propellor on a line which revolved around according to your speed recording the distance travelled on a dial. This you read every hour and so with the course you steered and the distance you travelled you work out your new Latitude and Longitude. Great, however the wind can blow you off course, Leeway as can any current, Set. So you make an educate guess for those. The position calculated from all that is known as a Dead Reckoning position. If there are any stars to be seen at twighlight in the morning or evening then by dragging out your sextant and using the time of the sight and a DR Position you can actually get a Fix using usually up to 5 stars. You then start running your DR from that position all over again and so on across the ocean to make a landfall. I have heard some cock and bull stories in my time at sea with people taking exaggerated care over their sights and working to any number of decimal points claiming to be accurate within meters. I'll give them a couple of miles if everything is right but within 5 miles is more realistic. As for the Noon sights .... working them out by hand is great fun and keeps the old mental arithmetic spot on but really all you are doing is getting two position lines .... one at 0900 and one at 1200 ( roughly) and hoping that distance run, Leeway and Set have not stuffed up the DR you used too much. This is known as a "Running Fix" ie you run between two position lines using a dead reckoning run. A position line is one on which the ship sits .... if you have two position lines then the ship is somewhere on each of the two, the only place a ship can be on two position lines at once is where they cross ... hence you have a fix. Now, take that into an Atlantic crossing aboard a U-boat. He hasn't had a sight for days. he has been popping up and down and has been running on Dead Reckoning. His actual position could be TENS OF MILES out. So he sights a Convoy and gives its position according to his reckoning....he was supposed to stay with the convoy and report its position while other U-boats were marshalled on to him. Now those U-boats also have been running on Dead Reckoning and also have errors which makes homing on the initial U-boats position which is probably hugely in error and hence finding the convoy even more difficult.... do you begin to see the problems of co-ordinating an attack. Now to be completely unfair on the U-boat/s the Royal Navy have a High Frequency Direction Finder ( Huff Duff, lovely acronym) and as soon as the U-boats start chatting they are detected by an escort who peels off and steams down the bearing of the U-boats radio signal until he comes across the U-boat, who isnt very far away of course. The escort attacks, maybe sinks the U-boat but in anycase puts him under and he looses the contact with the Convoy. Ships running independantly and Stragglers or Bolters were comparitively easy meat as was proved in the first World war and the second on the American coast before convoying was introduced there. All the U-boats had to do was lie in wait on a known route ... Hope that goes some way to amswering your questions.
Convoys Hello David, Interesting, look forward to more of it. The importance of the convoy system cannot be overstated in my opinion and is illustrated by the US experience in 1942. Early in 1942, US Admiral King made the decision not to convoy ships on the United States eastern seaboard. This was against British advice gained through much experience from WWI and from the first two years of the war. As a result of this, Doenitz and his U-boats enjoyed a "second happy time". It was not until convoys were introduced in May 1942 that the "second happy time" came to an end. Regards Hugh
Hi Hugh, Totally agree .... King was responsible for a horrendous amount of casualties with his hidebound decision not to form convoys on the American coast ....they didnt have to been heavily escorted to have cut down on the sinkings even. He absolutely hated acknowledging anything British and his Dogmatic approch was disastrous for Merchant ships.
You mentioned the City of Benares in your first post David ..... Heres a little more .... British children were among the casualties - a devastating loss ! CITY OF BENARES (September 17, 1940) City Lines passenger liner of 11,000 tons (Captain Landles Nicoll) carrying some 400 passengers and 99 evacuee children on their way to a new life in Canada. Part of convoy OB-213, the ship was torpedoed by the U-48 (Heinrich Bleichrodt) when 600 miles and five days out from Liverpool, its starting point. A total of 325 souls were drowned including seventy seven of the ninety children on board. Many survivors were picked up by the destroyer HMS Hurricane. This tragedy ended the British Government's Children's Overseas Resettlement Scheme in which 1,530 children were sent to Canada, 577 to Australia, 353 to South Africa, 202 to New Zealand and another 838 children sent to the United States by the American Committee in London. In August, 1940, the Dutch liner Vollendam was torpedoed and sunk off Ireland but the 321 children on board were all saved. (HMS Hurricane was later lost on December 24, 1943 to the U-415). The U-48 survived the war and was scuttled on May 3, 1945.
A news posting from Canada regarding the Battle of the Atlantic: Ottawa — The Honourable Greg Thompson, Minister of Veterans Affairs, issued the following statement today regarding the 66th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. "The Battle of the Atlantic was a battle unlike any other of the Second World War. For six long years, brave Canadians courageously fought to protect the crucial supply lines to Great Britain and the European Front. Without these supplies, the war effort would have collapsed. Sixty-six years ago, in May 1943, the battle turned significantly in favour of the Allies after receiving more training, air cover, special intelligence and better equipment. However, victory was not without sacrifice. More than 4,600 courageous service men and women from the Canadian Merchant Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force died at sea during the Battle of the Atlantic. Through six years of enemy attacks and severe conditions, the Canadians protected Allied convoys and our national coastline. Canada became the guardian of those in need, and today we continue this noble tradition. The Canadian Forces now serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world are proudly upholding our tradition of defending freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Today we honour those who served over the turbulent waters of the Atlantic Ocean. We remember, with everlasting gratitude, those who made the supreme sacrifice-those whose final resting places cannot be marked by graves. Lest we forget." For more information on Canada's contribution in the Battle of the Atlantic, visit the Veterans Affairs Canada Web site. Veterans Affairs Canada - Anciens Combattants Canada
City of Benares, one of the only well one of..to bring me close to tears. The story as related in Their Finest Hour. One young lady seperated from her brother in the water...spent a harrowing time holding on until Hurricane raced to the scene...The description of the sinking and subsequent rescue is emotional, and I defy anyone not to have a lump in their throat as they read that account. In fact I'm off to read it again. Thanks for reminding me.
