Talk:Arctic convoys of World War II

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Allied convoys only? 

message: The paragraph regarding commando raids and Tirpitz has been cut and pasted from somwhere. I will amend it for relevance and accuracy because:
#) The Tirpitz did attempt to raid the convoys
#) 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:
#) 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. 
#) 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. 
#) 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Strategy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scharnhorst 

message: Soviet admiral Nikolai G. Kuznetsov in his memoirs  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ships lost 

message: 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)
thread_title: PQ-17

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

message: The article states, that half the LL came through the pacific convoys, and gives a reference. However, I have failed to locate any such information in the given reference or anywhere else for that matter. Can someone confirm/reject the claims in that section? Otherwise, it seems like we should only mention the pacific convoy route, rather than claiming half the LL came from through that line.--Nwinther (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There’s an article now on the Pacific Route, which goes into this. And yes, 50% of all Lend Lease goods went by that route. But simply looking at tonnage is misleading; because of the neutrality between Japan and the Soviet Union, only non-contraband material could be sent that way ie raw materials, foodstuffs, vehicles, railway equipment etc. Armaments had to go by the Persian Gulf route, which wasn’t established until mid 1942, or via the Arctic convoys, which commenced soon after the invasion of the USSR began. So the significance of he Arctic route outweighs the mere tonnage shipped that way. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Convoy section 

message: Although I'm biased toward maps, I think they'd be especially useful in this article.
I think the editors should scan the References, etc., for maps and have a note directing readers to them in the event the maps are copyrighted and cant be posted here.
There are a few good ones in this Reference: http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsRussianConvoys.htm 
173.210.125.42 (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directing readers to maps. 

message: Having just attended an event in the museum of the Great Patriotic War in Moscow during which one of the veterans donated his Arctic Star medal to the museum, and heard a very brief account from the British Naval attache of what the convoys delivered to Russia, surely it would be appropriate in this article to give an account of precisely what supplies were delivered to the Soviet Union and what impact this had on the course of the war.  I'm not knowledgeable, presunably someone amongst the 36 other watchers is. Thanks. Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did they acheive? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Arctic convoys of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207024933/http://www.rmg.co.uk:80/whats-on/exhibitions/arctic-convoys to http://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/exhibitions/arctic-convoys/
*Added  tag to http://www.naval-history.net/WW2Memoir-PQ17-Carswell.htm,
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091102134741/http://ruvr.ru:80/main.php?lng=eng to http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=20741&cid=189&p=25.12.2007
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Arctic convoys of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/exhibitions/arctic-convoys/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040919204225/http://www.veteransagency.mod.uk/ to http://www.veteransagency.mod.uk/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arctic convoys of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040919204225/http://www.veteransagency.mod.uk/ to http://www.veteransagency.mod.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arctic convoys of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424110150/http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=23105 to http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=23105
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: " In particular, the unsuccessful attack on convoy JW-51B (the Battle of the Barents Sea), where a strong German naval force failed to defeat a British escort of cruisers and destroyers, infuriated Hitler and led to the strategic change from surface raiders to submarines. Some capital ships were physically dismantled and armament used in coastal defences.[8]" - name ONE and only ONE unit of the German Navy who was dismantled due to this failed action and You are a hero! Fact is that NO UNIT was dismantled, all were kept in operation. If there were gun emplacements in Norway, Danmark etc they were similar guns as used on the ships but not from any of those ships (except possibly the guns of Gneisenau)! 80.151.9.187 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you're wrong. And you even know why. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  capital ships were physically dismantled 

message: I long believed, following Irving, that the PQ convoys were named after P.Q. Edwards. Now I find in Sebag-Montefiore (Enigma, the Battle for the Code) that were named after Peter Quennell Russell. I arrived here to have a check and ... NOTHING. Suppongoche (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Woodman - cited in this article - suggests the initials were borrowed from a planning officer: Commander Philip Quellyn Roberts (later captain). I'm slightly reluctant to add that detail here without a better explanation of why. There are other sources indicating that there was, indeed, a naval officer of that name at that time, but there's no explanation of why (exactly) the convoys were named after him. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  why PQ?