If the convoy PQ-17 were guarded by American aircraft carriers

49
If the convoy PQ-17 were guarded by American aircraft carriers


The prerequisites for the defeat of the PQ-17 convoy are not in the British Admiralty, but much further and deeper - in Washington. The troubles of the Arctic convoys were largely related to the amendment to the Lend-Lease Act, which prohibited the escorting of transports with military goods by US Navy ships.
The amendment seemed quite appropriate on 11 in March 1941 (date of signing of the Lend-Lease Act) - it would be strange to drop depth charges on German submarines from the American ships, without an official declaration of war between the USA and the Third Reich. And without depth charges, escorting Lend-Leasing convoys made no sense.

However, the Lend-Lease program itself was a clear manifestation of the double standards of American politics: the “neutral” state openly helps one of the belligerents, and does so on special conditions and with deferred payment. The Germans accepted the terms of the American "game" - there are no rules! - and after three weeks, 3 on April 1941, one of the wolf packs, coolly shot 10 from the 22 American transports of the transatlantic convoy.

The Washington Regional Committee quickly realized that without a decent cover, Lend-Lease transports would never reach the addressee. A day after the April pogrom, the Yankees began to fuss, having begun their first awkward preparations for war: the carrier group consisting of the Yorktown aircraft carrier, three battleships and their escort advanced to communications in the Atlantic; On April 9, the construction of weather stations and air bases on the coast of Greenland began. Warships escorted trade caravans to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, where at the appointed point there was a "change of the guard" - transports passed through the custody of the Royal fleet UK.

The situation became more complicated with the German attack on the Soviet Union - in August, convoys with military cargo began to arrive in Arkhangelsk and immediately the question of covering low-speed transports arose. The US Navy flatly refused to accompany the convoys in the Arctic waters - it was too dangerous in the military and in the political sense. Americans were not at all embarrassed by the fact that most of the transport teams were made up of US citizens. Washington’s position was unchanged: you need these cargoes - so protect them yourself, and we don’t want to ruin our ships. As for volunteer teams, these people know what they are going in pursuit of hard cash.

Even after the official entry into the war, Americans were in no hurry to appear in the polar latitudes - for the first time, US Navy ships took a limited part in escorting the PQ-15 caravan only in April 1942. In the future, all the "help" of the US Navy was limited to a couple of ships. What else can be added about this? It is a pity that the American admirals, having so many possibilities (the Yankees alone had more destroyers than in all countries of the world), preferred to “wash their hands” in such a strategically important operation as conducting Arctic convoys.

The whole burden of transport cover fell on the shoulders of the Royal Navy of Great Britain and the Soviet Northern Fleet. The convoy route was divided into two areas of responsibility: the British were guarding the main part of the road to Bear Island, and Soviet destroyers joined them at the entrance to the Barents Sea. In addition, North Sea sailors acted in supporting directions: when the next convoy approached, exits from submarines were exhibited at the exits from German naval bases in Norway, and aviation The Northern Fleet began to “hammer” the enemy airfields, distracting the Germans and making it difficult for the Luftwaffe to attack the transports going far from the coast.

Objectively, there was no need to demand more from the Northern Fleet (model 1942 of the year) - at that time, the North Sea had only six squadron destroyers (4 of the new “Seven” and 2 “Novika” of the First World War) .
The Northern Fleet suffered from a shortage of ships throughout the war, knowing the problem very well, the British escorted the caravans all the way to the Soviet ports. Otherwise, the Northern Fleet, alone, would not be able to provide reliable cover for the transports.



4 July 1942, what happened was to happen sooner or later. While the American sailors celebrated Independence Day cheerfully, the PQ-17 convoy ships received an order from London: the escort was at full speed to depart to the West, the transports to disperse and follow on their own to the ports of destination. "What the devil ?!" - anxiously talking, seeing as the destroyers turn around and lie on the opposite course.

It was all about the German battleship Tirpitz, which, according to British intelligence, was getting ready to intercept the convoy. Despite the presence of sufficient forces to repel the attack, the British admirals took the shameful, in every sense, the decision to disband the convoy and quickly withdraw their warships away from the polar latitudes.

"Damocles sword" Kriegsmarine

If we put aside various conspiracy hypotheses (using PQ-17 as a "bait", deliberately destroying a convoy, in order to disrupt lend-lease supplies, etc.), the fierce fear of the British admirals in front of Tirpitz is unpleasant: about the Battle of Jutland (1916) and the consequences of the terrible death of the battle cruiser “Hood” destroyed by the very first volley from the battleship Bismarck.

Tirpitz and his retinue crawl out of the fjord

"Tirpitz" almost all the war stood in the fjords, serving as a rusty target for British aircraft. The guns of the super battleship did not make a single shot at the surface targets. No significant operations involving Tirpitz were carried out. It would seem that one could forget about the miserable existence of this pile of metal and concentrate on more important issues, for example, the fight against German submarines.

The battleship "Tirpitz" did not fight. But he fought his image in the minds of the British admirals. The medals must be given to the crews of the Bismarck, Derflinger and Von der Tanna - it was in their glory that the impressive success of the Tirpitz battleship, which, without firing a single shot, bound all the forces of the British fleet in the North Atlantic, rested!

The Germans could not build a battleship at all, it was enough to put a steel box in Altenfjord or a plywood mockup in general - the success would have been the same. I exaggerate, of course, but, I hope, the readers have caught the essence. If the British admirals were a little less conservative and cowardly, the PQ-17 convoy would remain intact.

Let us close our eyes for a moment and present on the spot the transports of the PQ-17 convoy - the unloading American transports in the Leyte Gulf (Philippines). Instead of His Majesty’s Navy cruisers - seven destroyers and six escort aircraft carriers patrolling along the Philippine coast (escort aircraft carriers - the ships are not bad, but terribly slow, their propulsion system and lower hull set are similar to civilian steamboats).

Lovers of marine stories already guessed that we are simulating a sea battle off the island of Samar, which took place on October 25 1944.
It was undoubtedly simpler for the Japanese in that battle — six American “kids” rolled out of the mist ... not one, but four battleships! And also - 8 cruisers and 11 destroyers.
The Japanese had another important advantage — a cleverly planned operation and two distracting blows that allowed them to quietly approach the Leyte Gulf and take the Americans by surprise!


Gambier Bay escort aircraft carrier sinking under the fire of Japanese battleships


When Japanese shells began to fall around, the Yankees urgently lifted up all their planes, the destroyers went into a torpedo attack, and the slaughter began ... As a result, during the 3 hours of chase, the Americans lost one escort and three destroyers, half of the aircraft carriers had damage from artillery fire.

The Japanese had sunk three heavy Japanese cruisers, another one, the Kumano, was dragging somewhere behind without a bow. The rest of the Japanese ships were so beaten and frightened that they turned back and fled from the battlefield.

Now, attention, motor! - instead of the Japanese, the battleship “Tirpitz”, the heavy cruisers “Hipper”, “Scheer” and 9 destroyers of their escort, crawl out of the morning mist. How could end their confrontation with the American "escort"?

If these events were moved to the Barents Sea, the Tirpitz and its squadron would have been sunk long before meeting with the PQ-17 escort. Where the legendary Yamato could not resist, the German battleship had nothing to do. Five or six escort aircraft carriers with a wing equal to the size of the regular Soviet air regiment will score any Tirpitz and Admiral Scheer. The main thing is to have enough experienced and decisive pilots.

Now add a few strokes to this “portrait”. The Yankees owed their “miraculous salvation” to the following factors:

- the disgusting quality of the fuses of Japanese shells, which pierced through fragile American ships and fell into the sea;
Alas, this factor is of little use in the Barents Sea - regardless of the quality of the German shells, the Tirpitz would be guaranteed to be found and destroyed long before the guns reached the distance of fire.

- active support from other aircraft carriers - airplanes from the whole region flew to the aid of six “kids” (only about 500 machines!).
Escort aircraft carriers in the Barents Sea could not wait for help from anywhere, on the other hand, the Tirpitz squadron was three to four times weaker than the Japanese!

Sagent Bay carrier aircraft (CVE-83) of the Casablanca type. Total displacement 11 thousand tons. Max. 19 speed knots. Aircraft 25-30 aircraft

Of course, it is somewhat incorrect to directly compare the tropical Philippines and the polar latitudes of the Barents Sea. Severe weather conditions, icing decks - all of this could hinder the work of carrier-based aircraft. However, in a particular case, the PQ-17 convoy went at the height of the polar summer, and the sun that passed out around the clock was, on the contrary, to play into the hands of the pilots (two-edged weapon - German torpedo bombers, too, are not asleep).

Summing up all the positive and negative factors, and taking into account the balance of power, you can make quite a confident conclusion: whether the American sailors and the favorite "toys" - aircraft carriers (even small escort ones) - were in place of the British, the PQ-17 convoy had every chance to get to Arkhangelsk, and the battleship "Tirpitz" had all chances to sink ingloriously after a brief battle with deck aircraft.
However, it could have ended much earlier - if the K-21 submarine had managed to sink the "Tirpitz" at the exit from the Altenfjord.

Unfortunately, everything happened as it should have happened. As a result, they had to show their professionalism to Soviet naval pilots and seamen-North Seamen, who, without the aid of radar, explored the entire water area of ​​the Barents Sea and "searched" all the bays on the coast of the Kola Peninsula and Novaya Zemlya in search of the American ships sheltered there. It was possible to save 13 transports and hundreds of lifeboats and life rafts, with the surviving sailors.


View of the Arctic Ocean from North Cape (the northernmost point of Europe). Summer, at three o'clock in the morning
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    4 February 2013 09: 35
    Now you can draw a ton of alternative events around PQ17, but there is a real story. In real history, this caravan was put under the slaughter of the Germans. The British command simply abandoned and doomed this caravan, despite the fact that at that moment the caravan was very necessary to the USSR. Personally, in my understanding, on the part of the United Kingdom, it was a typical betrayal of an ally, which for them, in principle, is the norm of things.
    1. Kiev-Ukraine
      +3
      4 February 2013 11: 46
      England was beneficial to weaken the Union as much as possible.
    2. 0
      5 February 2013 03: 48
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      from the side of Small Britain

      "The hero" must be known by sight "- the head of the British naval department Dudley Pound, it was he who gave the order to leave the convoy.
    3. Kibb
      +2
      5 February 2013 13: 13
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      the USSR was very necessary

      So why when it comes to lendlis all shout that it was unnecessary?
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      it was a typical betrayal of an ally

      Dudley Pound decided not to fit the situation, nothing more. He is not the first and not the last of the military leaders to make the wrong decisions ... I don’t have any illusions about British policy, they always betrayed the allies, but I completely do not understand what PQ17 has to do with it
  2. +13
    4 February 2013 10: 00
    Hmmm ...
    The American Navy flatly refused to escort convoys in the Arctic waters - it was too dangerous both in the military and in the political sense.

    It remains only to remember that the PQ-17's long-range cover was actually "Washington". English battleship, huh? :)))))))
    In the future, all the "help" of the US Navy was limited to a couple of ships. What else can be added about this? It is a pity that the American admirals, having so many opportunities (the Yankees alone had more destroyers than in all countries of the world), chose to "wash their hands" in such a strategically important operation as sending Arctic convoys.

    In general, even reluctance to comment on such illiteracy. Just in June 1942, when the caravan of PQ-17 was sent, the battle for Midway actually happened. Until June 1942, the Japanese beat Americans as they wanted, the US fleet was significantly inferior to the Japanese both in the number of heavy ships and in training.
    But even after the victory at Midway, the situation for the Americans was still very far from positive - a lengthy meat grinder was needed at Gaudalkanal, in which more than once or twice military happiness sided with the Japanese and the titanic efforts of American industry to achieve quantitative and qualitative superiority over the Japanese
    Despite the presence of sufficient forces to repulse the attack, the British admirals made a shameful, in every sense, decision to dissolve the convoy and quickly withdraw their warships away from the polar latitudes.

    Which again, "a little" is not true. the decision to disperse the convoy and withdraw the escort was not made by some mythical "British admirals" but by a very specific Dudley Pound, the first sea lord of the admiralty. British admirals, those who commanded ships, were simply forced to obey orders, and why blame them for cowardice?
    then the fierce fear of the British admirals before the Tirpitz is simply explained: unpleasant memories of the Battle of Jutland (1916) and the consequences of the terrible death of the battle cruiser Hood, which was destroyed by the very first salvo from the Bismarck battleship.

    Firstly - not the first, but the fifth :))) Secondly - you should never use common cliches. The death of Hood made a great impression on the English public, because for a long time he was a symbol of the power of Great Britain, but it is unlikely that his death could have hit the admirals so much - Hood was 20 years older than Bismarck and did not go through any major modernization.
    But the fact that the latest British Prince of Wells could not cause decisive damage to Bismarck but left the battle with only 2 operating guns of the GK from 10 - this fact the British admirals must have taken into account.
    and lower case set

    In accordance with the location of the elements of the set, it is divided into the below-deck, side, bottom and set of bulkheads. The set of housing can be longitudinal, transverse, mixed and combined. But here is the LOWER set of the hull - this is some new word in shipbuilding
    Let us close our eyes for a moment and imagine at the place of transports of the convoy PQ-17 - unloading American transports in Leyte Bay (Philippines).

    One might just as well wish to have, say, a pair of nuclear-powered submarines of the Shchuka-B or Antey type. Allies didn’t have ONE escort on PQ-`17
    1. +18
      4 February 2013 10: 00
      Now, attention, motor! - instead of the Japanese, the battleship “Tirpitz”, the heavy cruisers “Hipper”, “Scheer” and 9 destroyers of their escort, crawl out of the morning mist. How could end their confrontation with the American "escort"?
      If these events were transferred to the Barents Sea, the Tirpitz and its squadron would have been sunk long before meeting with the PQ-17 convoy.

      If you recall that at the time of the PQ-17 posting, the USA had already 7 escort crews ... If we recall that in the USA there were simply no extra 200 decks to equip additional escort ships ... If you recall that the level of US carrier aviation in 1942 g and it differed in 1944 g as heaven and earth .... We will understand that if by some miracle all 7 escort teams suddenly ended up in the PQ-17 area, instead of magnificent air raids, Samar Island would have something , similar to Midway, when each squadron flew there I do not know where without any connection and attacked at your own peril and risk, or like in the Coral Sea, where half of the American air group was unable to find enemy ships at all and returned without slurping
      True, one will have to agree - Tirpitz, having discovered enemy carrier-based aircraft, would most likely have interrupted the operation.
      Summing up all the positive and negative factors, and taking into account the balance of power, you can make quite a confident conclusion: whether the American sailors and the favorite "toys" - aircraft carriers (even small escort ones) - were in place of the British, the PQ-17 convoy had every chance to get to Arkhangelsk, and the battleship "Tirpitz" had all chances to sink ingloriously after a brief battle with deck aircraft.

      Yeah. If in the 1942 g the Yankees hadn’t gotten to, suddenly there would have appeared pilots of the 1944 g ...
      Only one small nuance - if in the 1942 year the USSR had a red army of the end of the 1944 g, then we would not need any convoys - the war would have ended laughing
      1. +2
        4 February 2013 12: 11
        Very cute and to the point. + good
        1. +2
          4 February 2013 12: 29
          Thanks for your kind words!:)))
      2. xan
        +1
        4 February 2013 18: 57
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Only one small nuance - if in the 1942 year the USSR had a red army of the end of the 1944 g, then we would not need any convoys - the war would have ended

        can't argue with that
        but what a field for imagination!
      3. Kibb
        0
        5 February 2013 13: 00
        As usual, Andrei put everything on shelves, no need to invent entities, truth is always on the surface ...
  3. 0
    4 February 2013 10: 30
    History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. What happened has happened and any "modeling" is just an exercise in "Vesnukhin's fantasies." Of interest is only what is still hidden in the archives of the British Navy - the true reasons for the departure of the escort ships. But, most likely, this will remain a mystery.
    1. 0
      4 February 2013 14: 56
      Indeed, we are tired of all sorts of "modeling", alternatives. And if the Germans invited kamikaze from Japan ...
      British fanaticism also consisted in the fact that the equipment was delivered in separate units in each vessel, i.e., the death of, for example, a transport worker with trunks minimized the value of the rest of the cargo.


      1. Evgan
        0
        4 February 2013 18: 45
        That's true, uki, these English women! Just to annoy.
        Have you ever thought about the fact that, for example, in 5, various transport transports in a disassembled state will fit more than in a assembled one?
        1. +4
          17 October 2013 21: 39
          Quote: EvgAn
          Have you ever thought about the fact that, for example, in 5, various transport transports in a disassembled state will fit more than in a assembled one?

          Have you ever thought that a simple good sense prompts, even in disassembled form, to fly the planes together, and not according to the "scheme of cutting beef carcasses": tails in one transporter, wings in another? They talk about it.
  4. avt
    0
    4 February 2013 10: 34
    If ......... This is not a conversation, but what is really insulting is the silence or understatement of the attack on Tirpitz Lunin. The Angles feel how this attack looks against the backdrop of the actions of their Admiralty, but they do not publicly recognize.
    1. Evgan
      0
      4 February 2013 13: 45
      In general, the actions of "theirs Admiralty" do not look so bad. There were, of course, isolated moments like the PQ-17 or the breakthrough of German ships across the English Channel from the Atlantic, but in general, the British Navy fulfilled its task.
      1. 0
        4 February 2013 16: 27
        Done with liquid diarrhea and abandon transports from only one signal about the exit of the "Tirpitz" into the sea ??? !!! STE - "mistress of the seas" ??? Do not pull on such a loud title - vilification!
        1. Evgan
          +1
          4 February 2013 18: 20
          And who had no punctures in that war? The Red Army, I remember, lost the Polish campaign, but in my mind it did not become even less "invincible and legendary."
          And in fact, in 1941/1942 Great Britain was no longer the "mistress of the seas".
          1. 0
            9 January 2018 13: 16
            Unsuccessful comparison. The Red Army, at a minimum, pushed forward in this same Polish campaign, contrary to the common sense of military strategy. And in the case of covering the convoy PQ-17? “The Lords of the Seas fled without a fight, the convoy became just a caravan. Reminds "Children's Crusade." However, the tradition of destroying the Twin Towers by their own order was born to our sworn partners not yesterday, and not the day before yesterday. And the fate of the 17th is proof of this.
      2. +3
        17 October 2013 21: 47
        Quote: EvgAn
        Of course, there were some moments like PQ-17 or the breakthrough of German ships through the English Channel from the Atlantic

        Regarding the PQ-17, Stalin asked Churchill, a strictly familiar friend, if the British Navy knew what honor was. Churchill's answer is unknown.
        Operation Cerberus is a slap in the face of the British fleet, which should be remembered by the supporters of the rasskah about the impossibility of Operation Sea Lion. To skip - just like that and not how else can you call such a failure - the entire German fleet stationed in Brest to Norway - this, forgive me, is not a "separate moment". The English lion was tugged at its mustache, but it only purred sleepily and waved its paw listlessly.

        In general, the British Navy completed its task.

        This is what - on a ruptured hernia, giving the Americans national interests for five dozen rusty destroyers, to protect their merchants from the Prinov and Krechmers? Yes, they almost brought England to its knees, like the aces of Goering in 40. If there were no war with the USSR, I would have seen how you would then assess the "results" of the actions of the Royal Air Force in conjunction with the Navy.
        1. 0
          9 December 2017 09: 39
          Churchill's answer is well known. Exaggeratedly he sounded like this; "... if you don’t understand naval affairs, then don’t blather." It should be borne in mind that Stalin attacked the English fleet in excessive drinking, and Churchill was also very cheerful. The conversation was held at the apartment of the Supreme Commander in the Kremlin. I do not want to comment on the actions of the English fleet, but our fleet has shown its complete incapacity. All convoy vessels perished in our waters. Where were our aircraft and our destroyers with submarines? It's easy to scold the English, but we did nothing there either.
          1. +2
            10 December 2017 20: 29
            I wonder what could be done to our Northern Fleet, the smallest of all? And this is in a situation where the commanders of the escorting guard ships often didn’t even know that the convoy had dispersed. And where to look for those ships after the divergence? Or is it not clear that guarding the convoy is much easier (both in the number of ships, in the amount of effort expended, and in the effectiveness of countermeasures) than each of the transports wandering in the sea?

            Our destroyers and aircraft - all that were allocated for the MEETING (and not for search and delivery home) and all that could be sent after learning about the betrayal of the English fleet - were where we needed: they searched and covered what we could to find. But what the hell to do there submarines, I'm sorry, I do not understand. Their search abilities are many times less than that of a simple aircraft, and their effectiveness as a means of air defense and anti-aircraft defense is also not very good. Or is it so, for a show: everything is at sea!

            I highly recommend reading the book by the head of the convoy D. Brum, "The convoy scattered." everything is detailed there, from the inside, right up to the most ridiculous and incomprehensible order to disperse. By the way, he said there: after this command, the convoy ceases to exist as a single organism, it is impossible to assemble it and each ship is for itself. What it cost on a stretch of the ocean where dive-bombers and enemy submarines operate undividedly, he also knew and didn’t have any special illusions about them: he certainly knew that our ships and planes would not have time for them.
  5. +3
    4 February 2013 11: 05
    Now, attention, motor! - instead of the Japanese, the battleship “Tirpitz”, the heavy cruisers “Hipper”, “Scheer” and 9 destroyers of their escort, crawl out of the morning mist. How could end their confrontation with the American "escort"?



    Strange to the author, they had already explained that if there were decent high-explosive and half-armor-piercing shells on German ships, fast-sinking wrecks would remain from American escortmen.
    It is not ironic but the Yankees saved Tsushima thinking of the gunsmiths of Japan.
    their favorite “toys” - aircraft carriers (even small ones, escorted), the convoy PQ-17 had every chance to safely reach Arkhangelsk


    He would have reached it like the rest had not shuffled the admirals of the allies. In the end, fate ... mayting huda ... imagined.
  6. +1
    4 February 2013 11: 53
    What would be ... what would not be ... Speculation. But the cowardice of the command of the fleet of Her Majesty's face. The essence of the Anglo-Saxons World Champions in side jumping.
    1. Evgan
      +4
      4 February 2013 12: 33
      That’s how we could stab all the Angles ... Of course, the PQ-17 lay a dark spot on the British Admiralty, but I would not say that this is the essence of the Anglo-Saxons. For me, by and large, the courage of the British sailors who escorted convoys along the northern route and died in the icy waters is undeniable. As, however, the courage of our compatriots. A low bow and eternal memory to them for this.
  7. Mik rybalko
    +4
    4 February 2013 13: 47
    The author did not even bother to present the events in real light ..
    Compares the 42nd year and the 44th, how many Americans had combat-ready aircraft carriers in the summer of 42nd - three, and this is to the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic ...
    And about the cowardice of the British, nonsense, how the brave cruisers Kriegsamnrin "Hipper" and "Lutzov" fled from British destroyers when they tried to attack the convoy ..
    In the summer of 42nd, the allies could not objectively send the aircraft carrier to the north, they simply did not have free ships, they were not enough in the more important places for the allies, the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic.
    The wave of Japanese victories has not yet been stopped ...
    German submarines were at the pinnacles of success in the Atlantic.
    1. ICT
      0
      4 February 2013 20: 05
      Quote: Mik Rybalko
      And about the cowardice of the British

      Well, here I mean the cowardice of the highest ranks of the Admiralty that solved some of their tasks by recalling the warships, and not the cowardice of their crews (which still cannot understand the meaning of the order)
  8. Edgar
    +2
    4 February 2013 16: 07
    the author seems to have written an article without bothering to think at least any way, and verify the facts.
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk, I even exaggerated the number of escort aircraft carriers, in my opinion there were 3 of them by that date. these are "Long Island", "Charger" and
    "Copahee". in reality, there was only one AV in the western theater that could theoretically participate in this convoy - "Ranger", which from December 1941 to August 1942 participated in the protection of Atlantic convoys. but he was already busy.
    1. +5
      4 February 2013 16: 45
      Well, if sclerosis doesn’t lie to me on the move, there were Avenger and Biter (they have not died yet), like Archer (like Long Island), and I also counted Dasher, although it only went into operation at the beginning of July 1942 :)))
      Quote: Edgar
      the author seems to have written an article without bothering to think at least any way, and verify the facts.

      Yes, here, in my opinion, there is another problem - the author of the article really disliked battleships for something. And by all means proves that aircraft carriers are much cooler :)))
  9. 0
    4 February 2013 20: 45
    If the American aircraft carriers guarded the PQ-17 convoy ... it’s not a fact that they did not abandon the caravan as the British did.
  10. 0
    4 February 2013 23: 11
    Good warriors! The British and the Americans. Yes
  11. 0
    5 February 2013 19: 09
    The article is a goofy gibberish about what would happen to her grandmother if she had grandfather eggs.
  12. 0
    16 February 2013 19: 19
    ___________
    about Pearl?
    1. 0
      16 February 2013 19: 20
      ________________
      1. 0
        16 February 2013 19: 20
        ____________________
  13. Barmen
    0
    21 February 2013 00: 09
    I read about the convoy book. there was some kind of destroyer (I don’t remember the name), so .... He defended the convoy there to the last. Until heroically sank, with a bunch of damage. Enlighten, please, is it another literary myth? Or a real fact? I recall that he (the destroyer) did not obey the order of the Admiralty and turned to cover the convoy. Alive, it seems, there was a doctor and a couple of people ....
    1. +3
      18 October 2013 10: 31
      Quote: BARMEN
      I read about the convoy book. there was some kind of destroyer (I don’t remember the name), so .... He defended the convoy there to the last. Until heroically sank, with a bunch of damage. Enlighten, please, is it another literary myth? Or a real fact? I recall that he (the destroyer) did not obey the order of the Admiralty and turned to cover the convoy. Alive, it seems, there was a doctor and a couple of people ....

      From such a short description of warships, only a certain English corvette from V. Pikul's "Requiem" is remembered, which in fact was not in the escort. ALL British ships turned back. If the Americans were in the escort, they would have turned too.

      There is a book by D. Broom - commander of PQ-17 - "Convoy to Disperse". I advise you to read, there are real radiograms and a diagram of the movement of the convoy forces is also there. Interesting thoughts arise after reading.
  14. 0
    26 February 2013 01: 39
    ______________
    1. 0
      26 February 2013 01: 46
      ___________________
      background.
      1. -1
        26 February 2013 01: 48
        I will make it easier - I will count the chassis of each type)))
        1. 0
          26 February 2013 01: 49
          Do you know how many types of chassis they are? Or do you think only Panzer 1 to Panzer 6?

          purely for the sake of fun in the draft of the four, number 161 if I am unmistakable.
          1. -1
            26 February 2013 02: 07
            at 251
            you can apply a two-sided approach - view indexes, and at the same time look at real machines.

            cool diorama
            1. 0
              26 February 2013 02: 51
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              BRA 251

              By the way cool
      2. 0
        26 February 2013 01: 48
        I just like this one. I’ll think of a diorama. I’m not sure about Feng Shui.
        1. -1
          26 February 2013 02: 27
          you can count purely combat armored vehicles with heavy weapons installed.

          You know yourself, you can't do much with a five-ton "unit" -medovac. and comparing the anti-aircraft gun on the chassis of the "two" with the T-34 is simply offensive for the latter
          1. 0
            26 February 2013 02: 44
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            and compare the anti-aircraft gun on the chassis of the "two"

            When she floods Pe 2 and saves the convoy from attack, and reduces the percentage of hits, it’s not clear who is cooler than the T-34, who was pushing for PAK 40 in that convoy.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You can't fight much with a "one" -med evacuator

            but on the other hand, it can save experienced servicemen who, having gained invaluable navakas, will be a difficult nut.

            And where do you identify 250 Decades with the 75 mm PT gun?

            Or they will get a lot of self-propelled guns to which ammunition was not brought up because of a fragment of a one and a half car that had penetrated the cockpit, without noticing the driver’s bodies in its path.

            and do not forget that 95 thousand armored units without indicating the severity of weapons.
            And so the Germans own 53 approximately + up to 000 heavy trophies, maybe even 10.
            1. -1
              26 February 2013 16: 03
              Quote: Kars
              When she floods Pe 2 and saves the convoy from attack, and reduces the percentage of hits

              crying Only about 10% of destroyed tanks accounted for aviation
              Quote: Kars
              but on the other hand, it can save experienced servicemen who, having gained invaluable navakas, will be a difficult nut.

              which can damage erysipelas after a tank fire
              Quote: Kars
              And where do you identify 250 Decades with the 75 mm PT gun?

              by all indications - to armored vehicles. heavy weapons, high passability, easy booking
              Quote: Kars
              Or they will get a lot of self-propelled guns to which ammunition was not brought up because of a fragment of a one and a half car that had penetrated the cockpit, without noticing the driver’s bodies in its path.

              hmm ... interestingly, in the Red Army were armored carriers? medical tow trucks?

              the second point is that such auxiliary machines were most often converted from combatant units and their number was literally tens or hundreds.
              in the photo-newsreel about WWII somehow there is no mention of thousands of such special vehicles ... where did the 7000 cars on the Pts2 chassis go?
              1. 0
                26 February 2013 16: 12
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Only about 10% of destroyed tanks accounted for aviation

                Supply trucks are not of much less value. And I didn’t write about tank defeats.
                An exploded truck with spare parts can disable a dozen tanks.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                which can damage erysipelas after a tank fire

                Why damage? It’s just possible to get to the hospital, you can lose time.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                hmm ... interestingly, in the Red Army were armored carriers? medical tow trucks?

                was not. therefore, by the way, the German units and showed excellent results despite the fact that they were inferior in the number of linear tanks.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                where did 7000 cars go on the Pts2 chassis?

                Look for the problem. Or refute the production of the chassis - it’s not very important for me personally. I don’t voice the overall figure,
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                literally tens to hundreds.

                So almost a little and thousands can nabratsa.
                1. -1
                  26 February 2013 16: 46
                  Quote: Kars
                  So almost a little and thousands can nabratsa.

                  But not tens of thousands
                  Quote: Kars
                  Supply trucks are not of much less value. And I didn’t write about tank defeats.
                  An exploded truck with spare parts can disable a dozen tanks.

                  This is a philosophy, not a comparison.
                  Then you need to look at 36000 IL-2, which could destroy the Panzerwaffe in three sorties))))
                  we are still comparing the number of armored vehicles. linear, as you say, tanks and self-propelled guns. And the result is monstrous - at least twice the superiority of the Red Army
                  1. 0
                    26 February 2013 18: 39
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    But not tens of thousands

                    Why do you need tens of thousands?
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    This is already a philosophy.

                    This is not a philosophy, this is the prose of life. I would change the BT to the anti-aircraft gun at one time, even two.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    And the result is monstrous - at least twice the superiority of the Red Army

                    Is it monstrous? Let's take a tiger like 5 T-34s, etc. The German lungs, thanks to the walkie-talkie and optics, were not very inferior to our lungs.

                    And now we’ll include evacuation capabilities in the formulas. And the Germans will have a three-fold advantage at least. Some Tigers were reminded more than a dozen times in the magazine 9 TBR.

                    As you recently wrote somewhere, simply multiplying does not explain anything.
                    1. 0
                      26 February 2013 18: 41
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      36000 IL-2

                      And where does the anti-aircraft artillery compare, especially the mobile one?
                      1. 0
                        26 February 2013 18: 43
                        ______
                        I don’t understand what happened to Akhtunpantser. I was never interested in medical tow trucks. And I didn’t save my photo.
                      2. 0
                        26 February 2013 18: 46
                        ____________
                      3. 0
                        26 February 2013 18: 51
                        ____________________
                      4. 0
                        26 February 2013 18: 59
                        _______________________
                      5. -1
                        26 February 2013 20: 38
                        And yet, these are probably vehicles converted from combat tanks
                        Quote: Kars
                        Why do you need tens of thousands?

                        otherwise it will not work 95 thousand

                        36 thousand silt-2 ... let's count the number of PTA barrels on either side))))
                      6. 0
                        26 February 2013 20: 47
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        otherwise 95 thousand will not work

                        You should have seen the debate where you left the link from yesterday. There are links to tables and all that - lists.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        let's count the number of PTA trunks on both sides))))

                        What for?
                    2. -1
                      26 February 2013 20: 36
                      Inters, thanks
                      This must be formalized, do you mind? interesting deep topic

                      Incidentally, what are all these machines called?
                      1. 0
                        26 February 2013 20: 50
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        This must be formalized, do you mind?

                        forward
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Incidentally, what are all these machines called?

                        at the same time and find out.
                      2. 0
                        28 February 2013 23: 22
                        ________________
                      3. 0
                        28 February 2013 23: 22
                        ___________________
                      4. 0
                        28 February 2013 23: 23
                        ____________________
                      5. -1
                        2 March 2013 03: 28
                        The only question is whether it is a separate chassis or rebuilt from a combatant tank. At least he gave the names so that it would be possible to orient ... or at least the purpose of these Pepelians
                      6. -1
                        2 March 2013 03: 26
                        Stug - xnumx galleries?
                      7. 0
                        2 March 2013 04: 48
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Stug - xnumx galleries?

                        then why ammunition will be transferred to shtug)))))))))
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        redone from linear

                        from special chassis, say no - prove it.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The only question is whether it is a separate chassis or rebuilt from a tank

                        That's what you could find for the fate of combat tanks.
                        And it’s interesting where, for example, to consider a converted from a damaged linear tank?)))
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        At least he gave the names so that it would be possible to orient ... or at least the purpose of these Pepelats

                        Why? You will begin to analyze the topic - you know how many factories were produced, how many each produced - in the process and you will know the names. And the purpose is clearer than clear.
                      8. -1
                        2 March 2013 03: 27
                        T-1 ... something based on it ... redone from linear?
  15. 0
    10 March 2013 16: 17
    _________________________________
    1. -1
      10 March 2013 16: 39
      clear
      But is there a photo of a tiger repair in the field?
      1. 0
        10 March 2013 16: 56
        Yes, but you probably need top secret?
        1. -1
          10 March 2013 17: 23
          Quote: Kars
          Yes, but you probably need top secret?

          just a normal picture.
          tiger, the Germans are changing the engine or caterpillar. preferably traces of visible damage from enemy fire. optional: special equipment
          1. +1
            10 March 2013 17: 42
            ______________
            1. 0
              10 March 2013 17: 43
              _____________________
              1. 0
                10 March 2013 17: 44
                ________________
                1. 0
                  10 March 2013 17: 45
                  _______________________
                  1. 0
                    10 March 2013 17: 47
                    ______________________
                    1. 0
                      10 March 2013 17: 48
                      ______________
                      1. 0
                        10 March 2013 17: 50
                        ______________
                      2. -1
                        10 March 2013 18: 59
                        Why so much then)))))))
                      3. -1
                        10 March 2013 19: 14
                        There were armored versions of Sd.Kfz 11 tractors
                      4. 0
                        10 March 2013 19: 36
                        Are they not armored?
                      5. -1
                        10 March 2013 19: 48
                        Quote: Kars
                        Are they not armored?

                        it seemed to me that it was just a tractor
                      6. 0
                        11 March 2013 01: 26
                        ____________________
                      7. 0
                        11 March 2013 01: 27
                        ___________________
                      8. -1
                        11 March 2013 01: 57
                        this is a tiger? the tower. demolished too?
                      9. 0
                        11 March 2013 02: 07
                        The tiger.vryatli demolished. Most likely the millet was removed.
                        At least who knows him --- Wittmann's last tank
                      10. +1
                        11 March 2013 02: 09
                        Or something like this
  16. postman
    +1
    10 March 2013 21: 15
    There is no logic:
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The US Navy flatly refused to escort convoys in Arctic waters - it was too dangerous in the military

    /// battleship “Tirpitz”, heavy cruisers “Hipper”, “Sheer” and 9 destroyers of their escort. /
    Scared

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    and four battleships! And also - 8 cruisers and 11 destroyers.

    DARE into battle

    Either they (Americans) are cowards, or not.
    DO NOT DOCK.
    The bottom line is different:
    -shore aviation cover / the Japanese did not have a close similar
    -submarines ("wolf pack" Doenitsa) / the Japanese did not have and closely similar
    -Eskortniki could hardly act adequately in the northern latitudes / picture of the setting sun from the North Cape capenothing.
    Svalbard at the height of summer:



    Things didn’t happen on the cape, but 2-3 degrees north + in an hour there can be 100% milk and snow + a storm under 40m / s


    Information:
    July 1941 The US government entered into an agreement "on the defense of Iceland during the war", according to which the English units were replaced by American ones. US troops occupied Greenland and Iceland and established bases there. The North Atlantic was declared a “patrol zone” of the US Navy, which at the same time was used to escort merchant ships bound for the UK

    Speech of the Reich Chancellor A. Hitler in the Reichstag on the occasion of the declaration of war
    United States of America - December 11 1941

    Source: The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 389-416.


    11.12.41/XNUMX/XNUMX - Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.
    On the same day, the United States declared war on Germany.



    On November 8, 1942, American troops under the command of General Dwight Eisenhower - three corps (western, central and eastern) with the support of one English division landed on the Atlantic coast of Morocco and on the Mediterranean coast - in Algeria
    =============================
    Convoy PQ-17 "started" 27 1942 June
    !!!
    What is there:
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    it was too dangerous ****, and in the political sense.

    ??
    War m / y USA and Germany (axis) ALREADY GOING 7 (!!!!) a month !!
    What is dangerous (in the political sense)? German urine and all.
    You mixed everything up
  17. 0
    11 March 2013 18: 09


    The destroyer Cardiff after a night shelling of the Falklands coast.
    Fired 277 shells, and shot down his helicopter
    1. 0
      11 March 2013 18: 15
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The destroyer Cardiff after a night shelling of the Falklands coast.

      All the same coast?
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Fired 277 shells, and shot down his helicopter

      And what did he fly there)))
      1. -1
        11 March 2013 18: 41
        Quote: Kars
        All the same coast?

        50 \ 50
        Quote: Kars
        And what did he fly there))

        flew past)))) the gunners mistook the Argentine C-130
        1. postman
          0
          12 March 2013 19: 37
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          artillerymen took

          knocked down Sea Dart anti-aircraft missiles"English helicopter" Gazelle "

          They were all on the nerves.
          Sunday (30.05) The Atlantic Ocean-Argentine Aviation launched the first coordinated bombing attack on an English aircraft carrier. 4 Argentinean “Super Etendard” (2 with PCR, 2 with aerial bombs) and 4 “Skyhawk” with aerial bombs attacked English ships. 2 aircraft fired PKR simultaneously with which 2 “Super Etendard” attacked the aircraft carrier “Hermes” with air bombs and hit it with every 1 air bomb. Both anti-ship missiles missed. 4 “Skyhawk” had a lower flight speed and went on the attack late, which is why 2 of them were shot down by Sea Dart from the destroyer URO “Exeter”.

          Tuesday (01.06/XNUMX) an Argentinean “Hercules” flying out for reconnaissance was discovered by the English frigate “Minerva” in the Bay of San Carlos, which was hit by an English “Sea Harrier” that shot down a target with “Sidewinder” rockets and cannon fire

          Moreover:
          May 30 Argentinean helicopter “Puma” was shot down by mistake by Argentine forces near Mount Kent
    2. postman
      0
      12 March 2013 19: 29
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

      The destroyer Cardiff after a night shelling of the Falklands coast.
      Fired 277 shells, and shot down his helicopter


      5 June
      As a result, recognition errors the British Gazelle helicopter was shot down by a rocket, [/ b] released by the British destroyer "Cardiff". Four servicemen were killed.
      Army Air Corps:
      1. Staff Sergeant Christopher Griffin
      2. Lance Corporal Simon Cocton

      Royal Signal Corps:
      3. Staff Sergeant John Baker
      4. Major Michael Forge




      Losses due to death (excluding residents of the islands):

      On ships at sea - 145
      In battles with enemy ground forces and during shelling - 58
      From air raids on land - 7
      In a plane crash for military reasons - 7
      In a plane crash for non-combat reasons - 23
      When exploding on unexploded ordnance - 2
      From "friendly fire" - 10
      In the hospital from wounds - 1
      No information - 1
      Total - 254
      Note: The four fatalities in the June 5 plane crash are included in the casualties from "friendly fire".

      As you can see, of the 254 dead, only one was identified as dead from wounds in the hospital. According to the official British history of the war for the authorship of Lawrence Friedman, three people died in hospitals.
  18. +3
    18 October 2013 20: 07
    This whole PQ-17 story seems very strange. In Broome's book, there is a diagram of the disposition of the convoy forces, which shows that Tovey's forces are OUTSIDE of the convoy's course (between the convoy and the ice), while there was no one from Norway at all. If such a construction was undertaken to lure the Germans out of the fjords, then why did they escape immediately after leaving? If, on the contrary, they wanted to cover, then why did they hide behind the "merchants"? But even if there were no far-reaching plans, why did the Admiralty lack the courage to assess the situation and try to change it? Just some kind of filth and abomination. It is a pity for people - both ours and allies - who were framed by cowards in epaulets for the slaughter of planes and submarines.
  19. 0
    5 December 2017 19: 36
    The article is interesting. Here Oleg thanks a lot for the really quite realistic assumption that it could have happened if the forces and means of the same time had been used in another theater of operations ..

    Special thanks for this remark at the end of the article: “As a result, Soviet naval pilots and North Sea sailors, who, without the help of radar, explored the entire Barents Sea and“ searched ”all the bays on the coast of the Kola Peninsula and Novaya Zemlya, had to show their professionalism. the search for American ships hiding there. "
  20. 0
    9 January 2018 13: 38
    Hardly the reason for the cowardice of the British admirals. It smells like baaalsh geopolitics. What do we have at the front during this period? - The failure of the Kharkov operation, the Barvenkovskaya trap: on June 28, the 4th Panzer Gotha breaks near Kursk and rushes to the Don, on July 7 the Germans in Voronezh, on July 23 left Rostov-on-Don, by August - Paulus on the outskirts of Stalingrad. There is only one logical conclusion: the financial circles of the USA and Britain, which had previously financed Hitler’s accession, decided that after a protracted war on the Eastern Front, it would be nice to swing the scales slightly towards the Reich. A win-win option: 1) “it happened” 2) weaken the Red Army (the war should last as long as possible) 3) well, how do you like without our lend-lease? do you feel our friendship? In general, nothing personal, just a business. And British and American sailors are just costs. The familiar handwriting of the bourgeois is like the Twin Towers, like the Malaysian Boeing.