Talk:Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Wikipedian removed Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945) from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Related task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Canadian military history task force United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Contents 1 "aided" by US forces? 2 Scientifically wrong 3 ULTRA and the Destroyers Deal 4 H/F D/F 5 British Bias 6 Article Structure and the RCN 7 Re-write 8 Role of the Luftwaffe? 9 "Decisive" Allied victory 10 Hunter-Killer Groups 11 Can't see the narrative for the technology 12 The Italians Submarines in the Atlantic 13 The storyline of this article 14 Admiral King 15 Operation drumbeat 16 Casualties

[edit] "aided" by US forces?

The United States Navy only accounted for 4% of convoy duty. You can take my word for that.

That's only true in a very narrow sense. For most of 1942 and early 1943, the US was indeed only represented on the main North Atlantic convoy route by a few coast-guard cutters and the occasional destroyer (Escort Group A3). But that ignores: US Navy escorts for all fast HX and ON convoys through the western half of the Atlantic from September to December 1941, US efforts to protect shipping off the US coasts and in the Carribbean from 1942 onwards, US Navy escorts for troop convoys, the contribution of US hunter-killer groups from 1943 onwards, the mid-Atlantic convoy route (US-Gibraltar) that was almost entirely escorted by US ships, and the fact that about a quarter of Atlantic merchant shipping was American. JimmyTheOne 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientifically wrong

This sentence is scientifically wrong: "These were typically visited by warships only, and the majority of the fleet then underwent a massive degaussing process, where their magnetic fields were reduced to such a degree that it was no longer "noticed" by the mines."

The magnetic field was NOT reduced, since the mines used the concentration of the magnetic field of the Earth induced by the hull of the ships. Thus the magnetic field could not possibly be reduced (unless this degaussing actually changed the magnetic field of the whole Earth, which would have been quite an achievement and a problem, since the compasses wouldn't be working nowadays). Anyways. What they actually DID was to INCREASE the magnetic field of the ships and thus make the mines sense the ships from far away, and detonate too early.--Msoos 10:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The field of the ships is caused by the slow magnetization of them as they sail with a fixed heading. For instance, if they sail directly north for a period of time, the ship will eventually have a field aligned in that direction. Ships were specifically instructed to vary course continuously for this reason, as well as to avoid submarines.

See for instance [1], you will note that the very term degausing was in fact invented during this process.

Maury 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am no expert, but the text now simply does not explain degaussing clearly enough. Maybe it is good for someone who knows what degaussing is, but for the layman, not. I am not saying that we should have 20 lines explaining what it is, but the brief explanation should be understandable. Please re-phrase, as I am no expert and you seem so! Thanks, Msoos 10:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, this is an encyclopedia. This article should not wander off-topic but concisely point to the article on Degaussing. � Dunc|☺ 12:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually the degaussing article was pretty bad too, so I rewrote it too. Maury 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick comment -- That rewrite looks pretty good to me! (And I do have a slightly closer association with the topic than some...(:-))

And a clarification regarding the first couple of paragraphs above: 'Wiping' warships did reduce the field -- as seen by the mine. It did this by inducing a reverse (remanent) field in the hull that was just enough to balance the one induced by the Earth's magnetism. With this protection, the ship could pass safely over the mine without detonating it. To actually detonate mines safely, a strong pulsed magnetic field was used, produced by current from cables traling behind wooden-hulled minesweepers. -- Pete Goodeve -- 128.32.198.8 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ULTRA and the Destroyers Deal

This article does not mention the massive benefits drawn from ULTRA, or the 'Destroyer Deal' with America in 1940.

That would be

• The massive benefits of Ultra
• The destroyer deal AKA Destroyers for Bases Agreement

Both of these are now addressed in the article. JimmyTheOne 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H/F D/F

This article doesn't mention the High Frequency Direction Finder technology employed from 1941 to work out submarine vectors from German radio transmissions.

This is now addressed in the article. JimmyTheOne 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Bias

Wow, and I thought my great uncle a little paranoid when he talked about the need of the UK to ignore the contribution of the "colonies". The RCN contributed greatly to the Battle of the Atlantic as did the Canadian merchant marine. On my first read of the article I wondered about the sole reference to the Canadian navy. Then I spotted the picture from St. Johns with the caption "Empire Sailors". The picture postdates the Balfour Declaration by 15 years and the Statute of Westminster by 10. At the time the picture was taken, Canada was not part of the Empire and was a self-determining nation. I think I will be taking some time to fill out this article over the next few weeks. OK OK I admit I am overreacting - it is a good article, in need of a little balance. Mkimanderson 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian contribution is now at least acknowledged even if the article still doesn't perhaps give the full credit that is due. JimmyTheOne 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Structure and the RCN

First off, since the many recent additions have been made, this article has become incredibly unbalanced. There is absolutely no reason why the Mine Threat should deserve 8 paragraphs when the role of air power receives only one. This goes the same for support groups.

Although it brings out most of the main points, this article is disjointed and wrongly weighted.

As for the RCN, it is true the part they played has been underestimated somewhat. The pre-war strength of the RNC was 6 destroyers and 5 minesweepers increasing to 3 cruisers, 28 destroyers, 70 frigates 122 corvettes and 60 minesweepers in 1945 (1). These took time to come into service, however, and a number were obsolete. The RCN's escort fleet anywhere around 18 months behind the RN in fitting new detection technologies and other key pieces of equipment. When the RCN was put on to active duty, many of the sailors and escorts were found to be of inferior quality and required additional training. Thus, some were removed from important Atlantic operations to gain experience and such training elsewhere, although the RNC did run its own section of the escorting service (almost numerically half at one point!). This came after March 1943, however, when the RNC was given its own 'Canadian NorthWest Atlantic section'. The RNC came of age unfortunately late. As the Second Battle of the Atlantic was effectively over by 1943 the RCN's input can, and has, been described as 'quantitativeley important but qualitatively poor'(2). The RNC's input into the Second Battle of the Atlantic is unquestionably important, as despite the fact that they performed badly and lost a higher proportion of ships, by just being there the RNC doubtless averted many more lives and ships being lost. A poorly escorted convoy is better than an unescorted one.

I would like to re-iterate my point that this article needs re-structuring and re-weighting.

(1)(2) Sadkovich, James J. (Ed.) (1990) Re-evaluating the Major Naval Combatants of World War Two (Greenwood Press Inc., London)

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head and I agree on reflection with your comment on the 1943 cutoff on the Battle. As an interesting aside, after reading this last night, I went back and pulled out my DVD of the BBC's series on the Battle. Humbling and sad, when you think of the lot of the merchant seamen. Mkimanderson 22:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of these points have now been addressed. JimmyTheOne 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write

As I mentioned in the post directly above, the re-write needs doing. I have a very detailed essay available that might help.

While you're at it, if the article is going to start off (not to mention be titled) "Second" Battle of the Atlantic, the "First" battle ought to referenced and linked. My own preference would be "BotA (WWI)" or "BotA (WWII)" but the choice is already there at "Battle of the Atlantic", so no big deal. But the article ought to link it.--Buckboard 05:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

While someone is about it: how about putting the developments in chronological order. It is currently a mish-mash. I B Wright 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to do this. JimmyTheOne 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Role of the Luftwaffe?

I could not find anything discussing the contribution (or rather lack of it) of the Luftwaffe throughout most of the battle. There were however periods when the Condors were sinking large numbers of tonnage and were a serious threat. Andreas 13:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is now addressed in the article. JimmyTheOne 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Decisive" Allied victory

I accept Allied victory, but decisive? Please, this needs to be discussed.

Kurt.

Have a look at the tonnage sunk figures after 1943, in particular in 1944 before the loss of the land connection to the channel ports. Also, in May 43 Doenitz withdrew all boats from the battle for a number of months, due to unacceptable losses, and they never really came back after that. I think decisive victory is quite appropriate. The Germans were completely beaten in the battle, due to lack of technological progress, failure to fight a combined air-sea battle, and an absence of appropriate counter-intelligence procedures. Why do you think 'decisive' is not appropriate? Andreas 14:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Found the link. Check here. Feb 43 - 310,000 tons lost, 15 U-Boats sunk. Feb 44 - 12,000 tons lost, 15 U-Boats sunk. Andreas 14:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Winning the battle was however achieved with huge losses; between 1939 and 1945, 3,500 Allied ships were sunk (gross tonnage 14.5 million)."

"30,248 merchant sailors 3,500 merchant vessels 175 warships"

That doesnt include the personal losses of that Allied war fleets suffered in the hands of U-boats.

I belive that Allied victory is better.

Kurt.

Yes there were significant losses. That does not make it a less decisive victory. In the end, the Atlantic was pretty safe to get across. The German U-Boat arm had been decisively beaten. In the same way that the Allies had a decisive victory at the Battle of Waterloo, despite the fact that they lost almost the same number of men as the French. Or in the same way as the Germans were decisively beaten in World War II, even though all their enemies took substantial losses in the process. Your argument is not one backed up by Wikipedia use in other battles, and not by general use either. If that is all you base your edit on, I will revert it to its prior version. Andreas 16:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And perhaps answering the RFC against you in a coherent form and in the correct field instead of continueing spreading misinformation would be a more productive thing to do. (Deng 00:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

The victory deserves to be called "decisive" because without it, there could have been no Operation Torch and no Operation Overlord. So the victory was crucial in the outcome of the war in Western Europe. (However, a single word like this is not worth edit-warring over.) Gdr 09:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I agree that it is not worth edit-warring over, but it is a matter of principle. One person's belief should not be allowed to prevail over the opinion of other knowledgeable members. If Kurt can not play nicely by setting out a convincing case for his change, we'll have an edit war. It is up to him. Andreas 09:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Kurt - if you can not make a convincing case why your belief is correct, I suggest you stop editing it in until you have done so. It'll just get edited out. Andreas 09:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent reversion. It was a six-year campaign, but it had been won (decisively) by May 1943. The tonnage numbers outlined above, and Dönitz'decision to withdraw from the Atlantic during summer 1943, make that very clear. It certainly was not an 'eventual' victory, which sounds like the Allies just won because the Germans no longer wanted to fight. Andreas 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between decisive and overwhelming. The campaign was 'decisive' in the sense that it decided an issue or contributed to a decision. Had the Axis powers won, the war would have turned out differently. So this was a decisive victory. Whether it was an overwhelming victory, a narrow one or a phyrric one is a different point. JimmyTheOne 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunter-Killer Groups

The section under "Hunter-Killer groups" says this: "Formed into hunter-killer groups (one of the major tactical reasons for the victory)". This statement appears to be contrary to modern understanding of the actual causes of submarine destruction in the war.

Most modern accounts (see John Keegan's The Second World War and The Price of Admiralty and Ronald Spector's Eagle Against the Sun) agree that the hunter-killer effort was misguided and largely wasted. Convoy grouped the targeted merchant vessels and forced submarines to expose themselves to escorts in order to attack. Submarines simply submerged and avoided Hunter-Killer groups, which found themselves searching a largely empty ocean. Sailboatd2 12:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We could do a better job distinguishing between the Support Groups that operated in the vicinity of the convoys and the roving patrols that did not. JimmyTheOne 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't see the narrative for the technology

While there are presently a lot of things wrong with this article, the thing which stands out most is the way that the narrative of the battle is broken up with over-long descriptions of the various technologies used in the battle. These should be split into new articles and this article be focused on the actual fighting. At the moment this article is not at all successful in informing the casual reader about the Battle of the Atlantic and requires a lot of work. The First Battle of the Atlantic entry is a much more successful article IMO and may be a good model for the development of this article --Nick Dowling 11:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. Hopefully you will think it is better now. JimmyTheOne 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Italians Submarines in the Atlantic

You should read the work of Prof. Jürgen Rohwer (a German) about the role of the Italian submarines in Atlantic (Die italienischen U-Boote in der Schlacht im Atlantik 1940-43). He praises the Italian role and fournishes following informations: The 32 Italian submarines in Atlantic sunk 109 ships (= 593,864 T.) among them the Ocean Liner "Empress of Canada" (1943). The best Italian submarine of WWII was the "Da Vinci" which sunk 120,243 T., this means more than the best American submarine (the "Flasher" with 100,231 T.) and more than the best British submarine (the "Upholder" with 97,722 T.). Facts instead of common places!

The leading English-language historian of the Battle of the Atlantic, Clay Blair, regarded the Italian forces was being ineffective as their submarines were too large and couldn't dive fast enough. --Nick Dowling 08:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this technical explication but the formulation of the text could drive readers to the opinion the Italian crews were "bungler" or "coward". This wasn`t true. Using inadequate submarines the Italian crews did a lot.

I have tried to incorporate this point into the article to give it a more neutral point of view. JimmyTheOne 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The storyline of this article

I’ve restructured and rewritten large parts of this article to try to improve it and, perhaps, move it a little closer to featured article status. I should explain why I’ve made these changes:

• In places, the article was simply wrong. For instance, at one point it said that ‘the RN had yet to institute the policy of convoys, primarily because it slows all of the boats down to the speed of the slowest member.’ But the British actually introduced the first convoys before the outbreak of war.
• Other parts were misleading. For instance, it said that the RAF was able to counter the U-boats and ‘the Western Approaches were soon cleared of the threat’ by the RAF. This simply isn’t true of the first years of the campaign. The RAF lacked the aircraft, weapons, training and tactics to pose more than an irritation to the U-boats until at least 1941, arguably 1942. At another point, the article stated that British destroyers ‘were able to block the exits into the North Sea and the Channel with some success’. This simply isn’t true of the North Sea – and the British weren’t even able to block the entrance to Scapa Flow in 1939.
• The article was (and still is a bit) unbalanced. The Leigh Light had a whole section to itself. There are some excellent sections on mining and elektroboots, but these are minor aspects of the overall campaign. I’m not convinced a long section on mining – by definition confined to shallow coastal waters rather than the open ocean – even belongs in an article of the Battle of the Atlantic.
• The role of the smaller Allied navies was (and still is) underplayed. The huge Canadian contribution to the campaign is hardly mentioned, while the participation of ships manned by Norwegian, Polish, Free French, Dutch and other Allied crews is not mentioned at all.
• It didn’t convey the ebb and flow of the campaign. Although the overall structure of the article was chronological, some parts of the story were in the wrong place.
• There was too much emphasis on individual warship types. Too much credit was given to the introduction of Type VIIC U-boats and River-class frigates. What really mattered was not so much that the Type VIIC was a superb design, but that the Germans mass produced it in sufficient numbers to create real problems for the Allied convoy escorts. Similarly, the frigates were good ships, but they were not particularly fast and there were relatively few of them before 1944.
• Few of the main personalities were mentioned. With the exception of Dönitz, none of the most important or colourful commanders were mentioned – like Günther Prien, Otto Kretschmer, Johnnie Walker or Max Horton.
• Only one ship was mentioned by name. Seemed a shame really.

I hope you will all agree with the spirit of my contributions if not the exact details. I’m sure that what you think of them will soon become clear from your edits. JimmyTheOne 10:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your changes Jimmy. This article is much better than it used to be. The main outstanding weakness, IMO, is that the coverage of the Battle after 1943 needs to be expanded - the Germans were still sending submarines into the Atlantic to attack allied supply routes until the very end of the European War. --Nick Dowling 23:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I began at the top and ran out to steam before the end. I'll try to improve the later sections some time. JimmyTheOne 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admiral King

This article's references to Admiral King need to be deleted and completely reworked. Clay Blair irrefutably documented the false nature of the allegations against Admiral King in "Hitler's U-Boat War".ElectricJoe 05:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to wait for other people to fix the article. If you think that something is wrong and have an excellent source like Blair to cite then by all means edit the article. --Nick Dowling 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation drumbeat

There is a citation that is needed for shore black outs.

There were no US coastal convoys (and no plans for any), and few warships or aircraft for anti-submarine patrol. US merchant ships and tankers were unarmed. Lights in seaboard cities and towns burned as brightly as ever. Samuel Elliot Morrison wrote in "The Battle of the Atlantic" that "Miami and its luxurious suburbs threw up six miles of neon-light glow, against which the southbound shipping was silhouetted; ships were sunk and seamen drowned in order that the citizenry might enjoy business and pleasure as usual." Brocky44 11:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

Shouldn't the lost German warships (and, I suppose, submarines of Allies too) be mentioned? The article already includes a reference to Bismarck Chase. Admiral Graf Spee was also clearly lost within the Battle of the Atlantic. With the Tirpitz I'm not sure. 217.198.224.13 21:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)