Talk:Convoy PQ 17

message: I rewrote this article, incorporating as much as possible the previous referenced work done by the other editors. I followed a strict source policy, referencing statements with verifiable sources. Any reference to culpability, blame or other degree of wrongdoing in the convoy was limited to official inquiries or memoirs of people with direct access to information (especially Churchill).
*Please note that I have totally refrained from using David Irving as a source. His works are not positively verifiable. That said, I still mentioned him as a controversial figure that accused a leading actor in the convoy's events (Jack Broome). I ask other editors not to include statements written by Irving that are not verifiable - in line with Wikipedia policy marked here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories, Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute and obviously Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. 
*The box describing the ship losses was moved to another page, (here), for fear of turning this article into a list. 
*A map was added by translating an svg map from the french Wikipedia.
*Photos were added from public domain sources (IWM).
*A box with the signals received by the convoy was added.
*A battlebox was added.
ReuV talk 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrite

message: I did a rewrite of the article, added a couple of sections as well as a table showing all the merchant losses as well as their flagged power. I also made sure to note how many merchant men were from each country so everyone can take the losses into account. Several citations were added using two primary sources I found on the web as well as a one direct quotation.
Xatsmann (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Did a rewrite and added a several inline citations

message: This article, as in depth as it is, only mentions the American ships in this convoy.  The British merchant navy's role and the roles of other nations in the convoy are completely left out and unmentioned.  My grandfather was on a ship called the Hartlebury which was severely damaged and then sunk by the German yet I see nothing of this ship mentioned here, only American vessels are mentioned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.59.92 (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is rather strange.  The Commodore of the convoy was an old boy of my old school and had to be fished out of the water at one point after his merchant ship was sunk - yet I have no idea which ship it was and this article doesn't help.  I find it bizarre that there is not one published source listed as a reference - only websites.  For anyone wanting to find out more about PQ 17 this article isn't very helpful. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My area of expertise and interest is the Royal navy in the First World War.  As I write this I'm arm deep in reminiscences and reports of a paymaster who watched the Battle of Jutland from the spotting top of H.M.S. Malaya.  It's all very well being bold, but that only works if you have the knowledge (not that that stops a lot of people on Wikipedia).  Looking through this discussion page there are enough editors who obviously have some knowledge of the PQ 17 bibliography - just look at the debate over Irving's book.  Even that isn't listed as a reference though.  --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: As I recall (from my reading of Broome's book "Convoy is to scatter"), the Commodore was aboard "River Afton". Am I the only person here with a copy?  Philip Trueman (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fault with article

message: PQ-17 was a convoy supplying the USSR... from where?  The US, presumably.
:No, Iceland. PQ indicated the Iceland - North Russia route from September 1941 to December 1942, then JW. See .  Folks at 137 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A while back there was a conversation about this on Talk:Arctic convoys of World War II. Iceland was used as a gathering point for most convoys. Others started from various North American and British locations. Folks at 137 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Have look at the Wiki page on Irving. Folks at 137 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  David Irving.  Great, just great.  Don't know what to trust in that work.  (SEWilco 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Irving's book does use footnotes which are linked to 15 pages of notes.  It at least may provide direction to a primary source, so reported facts can be confirmed.  (SEWilco 05:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: PQ-17 had supplies from the U.S.  The preceding QP convoy contained a gold payment from Russia for the material.  Ah, here it is: HMS Edinburgh's Final Voyage  (SEWilco 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Irving returns to in this issue also although indirectly.  His father survived the Edinburgh sinking but left the family.  (SEWilco 05:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of supply

message: AFAIK Germany got the information on PQ-17 from the Finnish radio intelligence.
:I agree. This information was published in Finland in the early 1980s. The only information in Wikipedia on Finnish radio intelligence is on Operation Stella Polaris, the evacuation of the organization to Sweden and the USA. -- Petri Krohn 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finnish radio intelligence

message: This vessel is said to have turned back early in the convoy's voyage due to ice damage. Later in the narrative it is sunk by a U-Boat as part of the convoy. These two facts are not incompatible; but there needs to be an explanation, if only a sentence to the effect that the Witherspoon rejoined the convoy, explaining whether the Witherspoon sped up to catch the convoy, or the convoy slowed down for the Witherspoon, assuming that the Witherspoon caught up with the convoy at all. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Irving's book, the Witherspoon was a part of the convoy until sunk.  Her convoy position was in the southern rear section, just ahead of the southernmost rescue ship.  List of Liberty ships by hull number, 1 shows her as hull 31, sunk during this operation.  Irving says the Liberty ship Richard Bland holed on Iceland rocks and returned to port.  Early on June 29, four ships got serious damage from ice; the SS Exford returned to port, while the Gray Ranger was slowed to 8 knots.  According to one online tale the Exford hit ice on June 29, although the teller thought that was after the scatter order.  I'll replace the Witherspoon mention in the article with Exford.  (SEWilco 06:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SS John Witherspoon 

message: The article states that "Among the losses that day were U.S. merchant ships SS Pan Kraft, SS Washington ['...commissioned as the troopship USS Mount Vernon on 16 June, 1941.' - SS Washington Wikipedia page], SS Carlton, SS Honomu, and SS Peter Kerr." The SS Washington (the USS Mount Vernon) fought throughout the war and was never sunk. 
The USS Washington "...was a North-Carolina class battleship..." which "served in both the Atlantic and Pacific..." and was "...decommissioned in 1947", according to the USS Washington Wikipedia page. She, too, fought throughout the war and was never sunk.
So: What "SS Washington" was sunk on July 5, 1942? Neither of the above two ships, apparently.
I would appreciate it if a naval historian could correct this contradiction.Writtenright 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SS Washington was a freighter, not warship, thus the "SS" (steam ship) as designation of a merchant ship  to the "USS" (Unites States ship) that warships used. The USS Washington was with the Home Fleet's distant covering force and never got closer than 200 miles to PQ 17.
Xatsmann (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of "SS Washington" 

message: According to Jack Broome's own book, three ships, not two, were lost on 4th July: Christopher Newport early in the day to an attack by a lone Heinkel, and two others (and a tanker damaged) to the second massed attack by Heinkel He 115s in the afternoon.  Is this a contended point, or can I safely amend the article? Philip Trueman 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tricky; Christopher Newport was bombed and sunk in the early hours of 4th July (though in the continuous daylight it's all a bit relative). Navarino and William Hooper were bombed around midday, and had to be abandoned; they were sunk just after midnight. Azerbaijan, the tanker , was damaged in the same attack, but was able to continue. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losses on 4th July 

message: There should be a link to David Irvine and his libel case: see here. It was a significant legal case and is still taught in English law courses.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: David Irvine (again)

message: I've removed these three pieces.
This is misleading :-
"Tirpitz and her escorts were not in fact heading for the convoy; the movement was merely a change of berth"
And this is dubious :-
"The British intelligence services became aware of this, but Pound sent the order to scatter nevertheless"
And this is plain wrong:-
"However, following reports of the successes of the Luftwaffe and U-boats it was soon ordered back to port".
There is a discussion  here if anyone is interested. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosselsprung

message: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/searchresults.asp?SearchInit=0&txtsearchterm=pq+17&txtfirstdate=&txtlastdate=&txtrestriction=ADM&hdnsorttype=Reference&image1.x=29&image1.y=14 shows some search resutls which may be of use, as does http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/searchresults.asp?SearchInit=0&txtsearchterm=pq17&txtfirstdate=&txtlastdate=&txtrestriction=ADM&hdnsorttype=Reference&image1.x=21&image1.y=12  David Underdown (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pssible additional links 

message: I'm having some trouble with the numbers here. The article says; </br>  
"PQ 17 lost 24 of its 34 merchant ships" </br>
Hague says there were 41 merchant ships in convoy; Schofield (The Russian Convoys) says 35 (p77), but then adds 3 rescue ships and an oiler, and another oiler and escort travelling in concert, plus a merchant equipped as a CAM ship (p78); which would bring it up to 41.</br>
For losses Hague lists 19 ships sunk, though he doesn’t list Earlston or Paulus Potter as such, or teh auxiliaries Aldersdale and Zaafaran,though Order of battle for Convoy PQ 17 gives these as sunk. </br>
Schofield says 2 turned back, 13 (plus a rescue ship) sunk by aircraft and 10 by U boat, which gives a total of 23 merchants sunk (p94). He also gives the oiler Aldersdale as sunk (p91). </br>
The OOB page has 24 sunk altogether; however if Alderdale and Zaafaran are deducted from the OOB list the result is 22 merchant ships. </br>
So we either have 24 out of 41 ships sunk, or some number between 19 and 23 out of 35 merchant ships sunk. What is it to be? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: If this event took place in the arctic, why is it considered part of the Atlantic campaign?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by $1LENCE D00600D (talk • contribs) 07:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Atlantic Campaign

message: They had the USS Washington, HMS Duke of York and HMS Victorious on hand as part of the escort force, after all. And the Washington alone would've dismantled the Tirpitz had they fought it. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because she was a force to be reckoned with. Tirpitz was fast, had considerable firepower, an experienced and skilled crew, support from large torpedo boats, submarines and land-based aircraft etc etc. And the cold and windy seas up north could be used to surprise or go around a cover fleet that had to patrol large areas. --MoRsE (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to this, the German sortie didn't just involve Tirpitz; the Rosselsprung force was four capital ships and a dozen destroyers. And if, as you say, Tirpitz was out-gunned by Washington (after all, her sister ship was comprehensively demolished by a ship with the same gun armament) the concern of the Home Fleet commander was the presence of U-boats and the proximity of German air forces to which he had no remedy (as his comments in the source makes clear). Xyl 54 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were they so worried about the Tirpitz? 

message: This article has been tagged for expansion, thus:  
with the edit summary "Russian version has FA status and is over twice length"</br>
This article is 39 Kb long already; the Russian article appears to be 252 Kb long (!), and seems to include information we already have at Lend-Lease, Arctic convoys, Operation Rosselsprung, and, principally, Order of battle for Convoy PQ 17 (23Kb).</br>
I would seriously question whether this article would be improved by a wholesale transfer of that information to here.</br> 
Raising it to FA status is something else again, but I suggest that could be better achieved by building on what is already here. Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no-one has objected in the last two years, so I've deleted it. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand 

message: Ok, so I replaced the Atlantic Ocean campaignbox with a new Arctic Ocean one, because this battle did not take place in the Atlantic.  If there's a problem with this, feel free to revert and discuss.  Howicus (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Campaignbox 

message: The Admiralty instructions..." section had the following:</br>
"The Admiralty suggested the convoy should pass at least 50 miles north of it. The senior officer of the escort preferred to stay in the low visibility on the original route, and to make ground to the eastward. Commander J. E. Broome, in command of the escort squadron, later decided that a more northerly route was necessary, ordered the senior office of the escort to alter the convoy's course to pass 70 miles north of Bear Island... " </br>
which seems to show some confusion about who was who. The same problem was highlighted in the Peer review (point 28), above.</br> 
To be clear: The Senior Officer, Escort (SOE) was the officer in command of a convoy's close escort; in this case, Jack Broome (commander of HMS Keppel). He was the one who demurred from the Admiralty's advice (as the source makes clear), but was over-ruled by a higher-ranking officer on the scene, R.Adm. Hamilton (commanding the cruiser squadron). Though it was customary for command to fall on the senior officer present, in trade protection (such as, on the North Atlantic route) it was (or became) usual for responsibility for a convoy's safety to remain with the SOE, and for other, senior, officers acting in support to defer to his orders (usually couched diplomatically as "requests"). With the Arctic convoys (and particularly this one) interference by higher authorities was a contributing factor in things going wrong. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's who 

message: This passage in the introduction was boldly changed from "The convoy's progress was being observed by the British Admiralty, which ordered the ships to scatter because of information that German navy surface units were being refuelled to intercept the convoy.." (source: Churchill) to "The convoy's progress was being observed by the British Admiralty. First Sea Lord Admiral Dudley Pound, fearing a raid by the German battleship Tirpitz, ordered the covering force away from the convoy and told the convoy to scatter.  The Tirpitz, however, remained in port." (source: Beesley).</br>
I’ve reverted it, as saying “Tirpitz remained in port” is not strictly accurate, and if Beesly actually says that he is incorrect.</br>
Tirpitz’s port was Trondheim; when  PQ17 was sighted she had moved, along with her entourage (and ships from Narvik), to an advance base at Alta fjord where she was refuelling, prior to a sortie, (a full account is here) and the only reason they didn’t set out until after the Admiralty had reacted was that Hitler bottled it, and failed to give the go order until it was too late.</br> 
To say “Tirpitz remained in port” suggests the Admiralty decision was a fuss over nothing. And it wasn’t just Tirpitz, it was three (and should have been four) capital ships; so the threat was real enough. It would be more accurate to say "the raid never materialized". Xyl 54 (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the raid never materialized Rjensen (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And the rest? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Changed from citation to cite book as they all had red on.Keith-264 (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Convoy PQ 17. 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/20060202095710/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/faqs/faq104-2.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq104-2.htm
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) 10:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Convoy PQ 17. 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.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq104-2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013090624/http://lib.aldebaran.ru/author/pikul_valentin/pikul_valentin_rekviem_karavanu_pq17/ to http://lib.aldebaran.ru/author/pikul_valentin/pikul_valentin_rekviem_karavanu_pq17
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) 19:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reference [53] to The Spectator is a dead link to a news website reporting on the broadcast of a documentary.
The simplest solution would be to replace that with a citation for the documentary. PQ17 An Arctic Convoy Disaster. I'd do it, but I've never edited a page and would rather not do it wrong!
Secondly a minor detail, the line relating to that citation refers to Sherman tanks, however according to the caption on an image from the US Naval History library at least one (and likely more) of the tanks were Grant tanks.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c6:ba07:6501:805:51bf:38fd:6e4d  (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link and inaccurate information 

message: The review page for this article appears to be a mess. But how can you describe "Admiral Hipper", "Admiral Scheer", or "Luetvow" as "Capital Ships"? Seriously, you'd need to be drunk as all hell. Those ships are heavy cruisers.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4404:143F:1800:2484:2C39:9316:AEC6 (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The review page for this article appears to be a mess 

message: The section on Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd says   The statement is not cited.  I do not know whether that was the judgment of the court, but 1st edition copies of this book can be purchased from second-hand booksellers, so clearly it is in circulation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd 

message: Oops egg on face, I missed the cite. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. Jrt989 (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits