Talk:Battle of the Atlantic

Talk:Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)/Archive 1

Campaign/campaigns

This:
“The name "Battle of the Atlantic", first coined by Winston Churchill in 1941, is a partial misnomer for a campaign that began on the first day of the European war and lasted for six years”
was changed to
“…for what would be a series of campaigns that began…”
I’ve changed it back as I think this needs discussion: It’s a valid point of view, but all the sources I’ve seen that make this distinction refer to it as a single campaign, to the “longest continuous military campaign of World War II” in fact.
It needs a citation at least; what does anyone else think?
Xyl 54 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to insult you, but have you read the article or anything about the "Battle of Atlantic"? I understand that the article is a general one, and does not reflect actual campaigns, but still a rudimentary knowledge of naval warfare would suggest there were at least 20 campaigns based on weather in the North Atlantic alone! Just because its a badly structured and poorly referenced article does not mean the number of campaigns can be reduced like they never happened.

And I had not even commented on contradictory and dubious statements like "The Battle of the Atlantic was won by the Allies in two months.", but "Also crucial was the US shipbuilding production, as they could literally build merchant ships at a faster rate than the U-boats could sink them, thus enabling them to win the "tonnage war of attrition".

Let's see...

Based on what there is in the article now:

• The North Atlantic theatre - RAN strategic operations
  • Campaign number 1 - primarily operations by anti-submarine RAN surface and air units

1. 2 Submarine warfare

• • Campaign number 2 - trade lane escorting and protection operations

1. 3 Early skirmishes (September 1939 – May 1940)
2. 4 "Happy Time" (June 1940 – February 1941)
3. 5 Great surface raiders
4. 6 Escorts strike back (March 1941 – May 1941)
5. 7 Field of battle widens (June 1941 – December 1941)

• The North Atlantic theatre - USN strategic operations
  • Campaign number 3 - protection of US coastal facilities and shipping

1. 8 Operation Drumbeat (January 1942 – June 1942)

• The Mid-Atlantic theatre - combined Allied naval strategic operations
  • Campaign number 4 - convoy operations

1. 9 Battle returns to mid-Atlantic (July 1942 – February 1943)

• • Campaign number 5 - convoy operations (change in methods)

1. 10 Climax of the campaign (March 1943 – May 1943, "Black May")

• • Campaign number 6 - shipping operations in support of amphibious operations: Operation Torch and Operation Neptune

1. 11 Final years (June 1943 - May 1945)

So, that's six campaigns. That seems to back up my change to “…for what would be a series of campaigns that began…”, and I'm not even counting the real number of campaigns, not dividing them into RAN, USN and Allied campaigns all that much, not considering separate submarine, surface and air campaigns. I honestly didn't think this would need discussion since it is so obvious!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for not meaning to insult me

Yes, I have read the article, (and I too/also think it’s a bit of a mess): And yes, I’ve read a bit about he battle of the Atlantic, as my contribution history might tell you.

Battle of the Atlantic was Churchill’s phrase, and I’m not sure what he meant by it ( or even if he knew: the fight in the North Atlantic only, excluding the Arctic, the Med, and other oceans; against the U-boats only, excluding surface and commerce raiders; the protection of trade routes only, excluding naval actions; the whole war at sea)

There are any number of ways the BotA can be divided ( yours is one, Oberiko’s was another I could come up with a third) but nothing I’ve read even carries a suggestion that it is regarded as more than a single, continuous campaign, that started with the sinkingof the Athenia on the first day, and ended with the Avondale Park on the last.

Do you have a source for your contention, that it would be a mainstream historical view?

Xyl 54 (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall look. To me the suggestion that it was a single campaign is simply ludicrous if only because a single campaign would only represent the POV of the Allies! So, there were at least two campaigns, one Allied and the other Axis, right. On top of that if you read the histories of the RAN and USN, you will not find in them much of a mention of operations conducted solely by the naval forces of the other, i.e. RAN does not describe naval campaigns of USN in the Atlantic and visa versa. Same with Germany and Italy, so thats at least four campaigns. Any way one turns this, it is not a single 5-year campaign!

I had not seen Oberiko's version of the structure.

The bottom line is that if someone can write a book which treats Atlantic operations as a 5-year long single campaign, the its a sure sign they know nothing about Second World War naval operations. Just confused by the continuity of strategic planning--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of fair play, I should give you the sources for the original contention. Roskill and Morison, the official historians, use the term Battle of the Atlantic, and treat it as a continuous event; modern historians like Clay Blair and Peter Padfield do the same. The suggestion that it was more than a battle, but a whole campaign comes originally from Dan van der Vat, in “The Atlantic Campaign”. They are all well respected as sources; I wouldn’t say they "know nothing about WWII naval operations" or are " confused by the continuity of strategic planning".Xyl 54 (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

PS you keep saying RAN; is it the Australian navy you are referring to, or the British (RN)? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its the RN, force of habit of typing RAN.

Yes, sadly the official historians have no idea because they don't seem to understand what is a campaign. A quote from Trevor N. Dupuy,

A campaign is a phase of a war involving a series of operations related in time and space and aimed towards a single, specific, strategic objective or result in the war. A campaign may include a single battle, but more often it comprises a number of battles over a protracted period of time or a considerable distance, but within a single theatre of operations or delimited area. A campaign may last only a dew weeks, but usually lasts several months or even a year.p.65, Dupuy, T.N., Understanding war: History and Theory of Combat, Leo Cooper, London, 1992

If the "Battle of Atlantic is properly analysed, and not just written in a long series of chronological events, you will see that there were very distinct phases in the Allied, USN, RN, Axis, Kriegsmarine, and Royal Italian navies during their five years of Atlantic operations from the North Atlantic to the South Atlantic.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it takes a certain kind of nerve to say the official historians don’t know what they are talking about. You are entitled to your opinion, and I’m trying hard not to get drawn into an argument over this, but I'm wanting to be clear. Are you offering Dupuy as a source for your assertion, or just illustrating your point? Because I have to say, it doesn’t even come close.

First, there’s nothing there that precludes campaigns of great length; and anyway this is borne out by fact; some campaigns were short (Malaya, Norway) some were long (Burma, North Africa) some were vast (the Eastern front) some were small (Dodecanese, Syria). While it does argue against your division, (above), viz: "Campaign number 2 - trade lane escorting and protection operations (1940-41), Campaign number 4 - convoy operations (1942-43), Campaign number 5 - convoy operations (change in methods)(1943-45)", into 3 separate campaigns; trade protection and convoy operations were continuous throughout the 5 year period, they didn't start and stop. And the strategic aims of both sides were the same at the end as at the beginning: for the Axis to disrupt supply routes, and for the Allies to preserve them. The organization, tactics and technology may have changed, but these were continuously developing throughout the struggle.

Second, there’s no mention at all of the BotA in particular. WP is descriptive, not prescriptive; if respected sources refer to something in a particular way ( and v d Vat specifically argues for regarding BotA as a single, continuous campaign) then an alternative source would be needed even to post a contrary view, let alone over-ride it.

Anyway, rant over; Xyl 54 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I find aruging against the BotA being a singular campagin pretty much a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, and one that I've never seen. The overall goals never changed (the Allies were trying to move supplies, the Axis were trying to stop them) the location, while drifting, never really changed (the Atlantic Ocean) and the combatants didn't really change (the U.S. assisted the British most the time and joined, officially, in '41).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My library is not well stocked on the subject matter, nor am I prepared to get into the source-countersource argument. When I am again at the library I will collect the sources and offer them here. I note however that the operations in the Atlantic were not oriented towards "Allies [who] were trying to move supplies, [or] the Axis [who] were trying to stop them" and "while drifting, never really changed". The operations in the Atlantic in the first instance were attempts by the RN to blockade the Kriegsmarine from entering the Atlantic in 1939, before the attempt to move supplies had even begun, and only the interdiction of the regular trade sea routes was the objective of the German command. In fact the first action of the Battle of Atlantic took place in the South Atlantic during the Battle of the River Plate by RN forces which were part of the RN's New Zealand Division requiring very much different campaign planning by that command. The attack on Dakar as I recall was also expressly for the purpose of securing South Atlantic trade routes, which is quite a shift from the North Atlantic, never mind that it was a naval offensive and not a convoy operation. In fact the need for supplies was a war need and not one of any given campaign (according to British Parliament) since the supplies were used not only by the RN, but the Army and RAF also, not to mention civilians. In fact the reason the areas of actions shifted, as illustrated more recently by Chris Bishop in his atlas, is because of the different campaign objectives of the RN and the USN in terms of change in methods of conducting campaigns, forces used, and subsequently the areas that were denied to the enemy. Consider at least the widely different campaigns of the German submarine and surface raiding, and the use of aircraft in Norway (and France?) beyond the range of RAF fighters. Of course they were part of the same war, but they used entirely different methods, vessels and aircraft to achieve their objectives that changed over the five years of the war. In any case, it seems to me that the subject was uncritically approached by the original official historians, and is replicated elsewhere since.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Xyl54 said

In the spirit of fair play, I should give you the sources for the original contention. Roskill and Morison, the official historians, use the term Battle of the Atlantic, and treat it as a continuous event

Turns out your version of fair play is not all that fair Xyl54.

I have looked up both Samuel E. Morison's (two volumes) and and Captain S.W. Roskill's (four volumes). Both copiously divide the Atlantic operations into large chunks attached to their specific areas of operation. Both provide start and end dates for these campaigns that span months, and Morison includes any offensives and battles as their components, clearly stating their names, such as the German submarine offensive 1942 (January - July 1942) p.114, vol 1. Are you aware there were eighteen naval areas of operation within the USN strategic planning of Atlantic operations? Roskill is even more explicit. Chapter XXI "The Battle of the Atlantic" (1st April - 31st December 1941) is preceded by "The African Campaign" (1st January - 31st May 1941) and is followed by "The Home Waters and the Arctic" operations (1st June - 31st December 1941). The Battle of the Atlantic. The Campaign in American Waters, resumed on the 1st January and ended on 31st July 1942. Lest we think that Roskill is talking about the one Campaign, his next three chapters all deal with the same period, but are called "Home Waters and Arctic", "Coastal Warfare" and "Ocean Warfare". This is to reflect the much larger RN naval theatres of war, of which there were ten spanning the globe. Later in second volume he adds in Chapter VIII another curious title "The Battle of the Atlantic. The Second Campaign on the Convoy Routes" (1st August - 31st December) 1942. This is not the second campaign of the Battle of the Atlantic, but the second Convoy Routes campaign, to distinguish from the first. Were there other campaigns on specific theatres of naval operations? Yes, for example the explicitly titled "The Battle of the Atlantic. The Second Campaign in the Western Approaches" (1st January - 31st May 1944). I knew the good Captain could not be so silly as to suggest that the Battle of the Atlantic was a single six-year-long campaign, and I suggested as much.

So, can we change my intro edit again to state that the Battle of the Atlantic was in fact a composite of several naval campaigns?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no; I’ll refer you to Oberiko’s point that what you are presenting is very much a fringe view.

And Roskill says that? Looks like it’s my turn to go to the library. But off the top of my head, the word "campaign" seems to be used a lot more loosely than you are insisting; the Normandy campaign is also part of the North-West Europe/Liberation of Europe campaign: the Narvik campaign is also part of the Norway campaign. Maybe we are just arguing about words;

Anyway, to my previous point: If you have a source for what you say, you have room to post an alternative view; it doesn’t override what’s already there.

So, do you have a form of words to encompass the two?

Xyl 54 (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(How about this)? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Xyl 54. I have no idea what we are arguing about. Al I want is for the reader to understand that the "Battle of Atlantic" so named by Churchill in 1941, was in fact a collection of campaigns and operations by at least four national navies over six years throughout the length of the Atlantic ocean. The nature of these participations by different types of naval, air, and in the case of amphibious operations, the ground forces made seeing the "battle" as on monolithic "thing" quite impossible. I refer you to the two works of the official naval histories of the RN and the USN above. Both were written by recognised authorities on the subject, in the case of RN, a serving officer, over a number of years of research. The RN at least would not use the word "campaign" lightly. I do not know what Oberiko thinks my suggestion is a "fringe" point of view. It is not even a point of view, but actual chapter headings in official histories of these forces! Has Oberiko read these histories? I do not own either set of books, but I had spent a couple of hours selectively reading through them. Both describe the logistic and command difficulties of staging long-duration operations dogged by weather and lack of resources quite apart from enemy activity. In fact it has motivated me to write an article on the history of the Royal Navy Fleet Train, and to expand the section on Admiralty organisation articles because people get caught up with ships and battles, forgetting all the support and administrative stuff that has to happen before ships even leaves the base. I left a rewritten introduction in your sendbox--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What are we arguing about?

I’m sure I don’t know: I wish we weren’t; I’ve got other things to do and I’m sure you have too. Maybe because I feel your idea of the meaning of “campaign” is overly rigid, and that you are trying to change my opinion and everyone else’s to match. I know what you “want the reader to understand”; that’s part of the issue. I said why I thought it was a fringe issue, and so has Oberiko; your response is to question our competence. I think your reading of Roskill is indeed selective, and I don’t think his layout says what you want it to say, but his use of the word "campaign" in the headings of Ch VIII and … is, indeed, curious, ( though my observation about campaigns within campaigns applies, IMO) and gives you room to post your view. The rest is a dubious interpretation.

Re-wording:

as to the 1st part, No!

What you had previously was a change of phrase; now you have a 300 word essay expounding your point of view. I’ve suggested you post your change, with your source, even though I disagree with your interpretation of what “the good captain” says (and no, you didn’t "suggest as much at the time", you said in at least 3 places he didn’t know what he was talking about).

Your re-jigging of the 2nd part of the intro is fair enough.

I am saying this to move this whole thing on: if you are seeking to change my opinion on the subject, this is the wrong place to do it. You can always e-mail me. I've left comments at the sandbox, if you wish to see them..

Xyl 54 (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I’ve not seen a reply here; I am putting in a source for the phrase “longest single campaign… “ if you want to add your comment about “series of campaigns.. with your source, fine.

I think the introduction is OK as it is; I don’t think your re-write improves it any. Churchill created an iconic phrase with “ Battle of the Atlantic”; Someone else (van der Vat?) was able to do the same with “ the longest continuous campaign of WWII, … from the first day ….to the last”. I couldn’t match that, and I don’t think your 200 word essay does either. So I think it should be left alone. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure based on campaigns

I just noticed that User:Xyl 54 had made earlier proposals for article restructuring, which is badly needed, so I will make my own below.

If the article is to convey the enormousness of the Allied naval effort in the Atlantic, they need to appreciate the scale, duration and scope of the "Battle of Atlantic". The operations in the Atlantic were in fact conducted by predominantly four navies: the RAN and USN for the Allies, and the Kriegsmaine and the Royal Italian Navy for the Axis. It seems tome that the limited participation of French naval units can also be included.

The "battle" was waged on three distinct naval fronts:

The North Atlantic - convoy operations to UK and Arctic USSR convoys from Canada and the USA (1940-45)

The Mid-Atlantic - convoy operations to UK (1940-45), North Africa (1940-42), Italian theatre (1943) and southern France (1944)

The South Atlantic - trade lanes to Europe from South America, South Africa, India and Asian military theatres (1939 - 1945)

The combat operations on these fronts were conducted as part of:

Naval intelligence campaign

Submarine campaigns

Campaigns by surface coastal forces

Campaigns by surface escort forces

Campaigns by surface major fleet units

Naval aviation campaigns

Campaigns in support of amphibious operations

Merchant marine campaigns

All these activities were heavily influenced by the different environmental influences (factors) in the different parts of the Atlantic - the weather, the rate of production, and the competency of command and troops. For reasons of weather the operations were planned for execution during certain times of the year in some cases, most notably the support for the Arctic convoys in North Atlantic seaboard.

The operations were heavily influenced by production, including of certain types of vessels and aircraft, and the command of the forces, notably naval intelligence and transfer of units between theatres and fronts, the ability by combatants to maintain adequate crewing, and naval doctrines used in the Atlantic, including employment of emergent technologies.

Each campaign was logically divided into its constituent operations, and prominent combat engagements (battles) between naval forces.

As it is now, the article is a rather confusing and poorly referenced collection of texts seemingly cobbled together as if there was no overall strategic (long term, wide scope) planning on either side although there is a moderately large bibliography section (which does not provide publication dates). This is exacerbated by the Timeline of the Second Battle of the Atlantic which inexplicably stops in May 1943.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Each of these would make an article on its own, and I personally would like to see that. I haven’t seen a general work doing justice to the BotA in less than 400 pages, and most run to several volumes, yet we are seeking to do that in 20. The most this article can offer is an overview, with salient points, and links to fuller treatments in specialist articles.If anything, some parts need trimming, to avoid undue weight.Xyl 54 (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you planning to do this?

The proposal from Oberiko involves restructuring what’s here; your proposal looks like a substantial re-write. If this is what you are intending, I suggest

A) you talk to the person who re-wrote it last time, and

B) seeing as how you’ve called our competence into question, maybe you could tell us your expertise to do this; you don’t seem to have any edits in this area thus far.

Xyl 54 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of the River Plate

In the article the Battle of the River Plate it states "In return, one of Exeter's 8-inch shell penetrated two decks then exploded in Graf Spee’s funnel area — destroying her raw fuel processing system and leaving her with just 16 hours fuel, insufficient to allow her to return home. The ship was doomed but this was kept secret for 60 years." So it appears that Hans Langsdorff had good reason to break off and seek a harbour. I have therefore deleted this from the sentence "If the Kriegsmarine had stood and fought when they had good odds Convoys HX-34, HX-106 and SL-67 would have been annihilated, and the British would have likely lost the Prince of Wales as well as the Hood in the Battle of the Denmark Strait." I am not sure about this sentence as it seems to be providing an alternative history, but I have left it.Mathew Rammer (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's dodgy too. I've lifted it; see new section below. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt at a new introduction

Below is my last proposal taken from User:Xyl 54/Sandbox. I have adopted some of Xyl54's suggestions and not others, and changed the wording somewhat in several places.

The name 'Battle of the Atlantic, was a name first coined by Winston Churchill in 1941 over a year after the start of the Second World War, in reference to the naval war for the control of the Atlantic ocean sea lanes.

The name is a partial misnomer for the naval war in the Atlantic ocean that begun on the first day of the European war in 1939 between the German and Italian navies on the side of the Axis, and the British and French navies on the side of the Western Allies that were joined by the United States Navy after the Attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

The naval war in the Atlantic theatre of operations continued for six years until 1945, and included several distinct areas of the ocean which with its adjacent seas occupies an area of about 106,400,000 square kilometers (41,100,000 sq mi); the naval operations were conducted over two-thirds of this vast area. The Royal Navy conducted operations as part of its strategic naval commands responsible for the Local Home Command in territorial waters, the North Atlantic Command, South Atlantic Command, Americas and West Indies Command and the Mediterranean Command dependant of the operations in the Atlantic ocean. The United States Navy divided the same area into eighteen naval operations Atlantic Areas broadly divided into three strategic zones, the North Atlantic Convoy Areas (area north of the line between Nova Scotia and Spain), the Eastern Atlantic, and the Western Atlantic.

The navies participating in the “Battle of Atlantic” were involved in the conduct of several distinct naval and naval aviation campaigns, naval battles, amphibious operations, and numerous smaller engagements, actions and duels between thousands of naval and merchant surface vessels, submarines, military aircraft and significant land forces, including more than 100 convoy battles and perhaps 1,000 single-ship encounters.

Although it begun as a campaign to safeguard merchant shipping between North America and Europe pitting U-boats and other warships of the German Navy (Kriegsmarine) against Allied convoys, the “Battle of the Atlantic” developed into a war of convoys, coming mainly from North America and the South Atlantic and going to the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, and were protected for the most part by the British and Canadian navies and air forces. From 1942 these forces were aided by ships and aircraft of the United States. The German warships were joined by submarines of the Italian Royal Navy (Regia Marina) after Italy entered the war on 10 June 1940. The hight in the intensity of naval warfare was reached from mid-1940 through to about the end of 1943 in the North Atlantic convoy areas. From 1943 the “Battle of Atlantic” was increasingly concerned with protection of United States and Canadian troopships destined for the great amphibious operations in Africa and Europe.

The strategic advantage switched back and forth between Axis and Allied naval forces for the six years as new weapons, tactics and counter-measures were developed by both sides. The British and their allies gradually gained the initiative and quantitative advantage, and succeeded in driving the German surface raiders from the ocean's trade routes by the middle of 1941, and decisively defeating the U-boats in a series of convoy battles between March and May 1943. New German submarines arrived in 1945, but they were too late to affect the course of the war.

Despite Xyl54's insistence on brevity, I do not see this imperative given the scale of the subject, i.e. all operations by four navies over most of the Atlantic during 6 years. The above is a standard A4 page of typed text, which I think is the least that can be said about this tremendously important area of operations--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of minor suggestions regarding dates: (2nd paragraph) United States naval involvement began prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. United States Navy destroyers were actively convoying British military supplies and attacking German U-boats for a few months prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, and the United States Navy had earlier broadcast locations of German ships being hunted by British and French naval forces. (6th paragraph) 1943 is an inconsistent date for transfer of attention to troopships. Allied troopships had always been primary targets, and the invasion of North Africa was in late 1942 before the trade convoy battles of the spring of 1943. British and then American military occupation of Iceland involved troopship convoys prior to 1942.Thewellman (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The involvement of USN before the declaration of war between USA and Germany/Italy will have to be dealt with in the article. Given the scope of the article, and this being an introduction only, the operations of those destroyers are a minor detail. If I wanted to be technical, I would have said 1941 troopships, because the first sailed out to Martinique soon after the declaration of war. However, the really large flow of troops did not start until after Torch in 1943. There were just no troops to send until then.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be underestimating the extent of defensive troop deployments with respect to the offensive invasion convoys which tend to be more widely discussed. I invite your attention to Arnold Hague's listing of WS convoys in appendix 5 of The Allied Convoy System 1939-1945. The series included 82 ships in 7 Atlantic convoys in 1940 and 340 ships in 31 convoy in 1941.Thewellman (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the first point; this proposal is entirely Mrg3105’s authorship, not mine. It is my opinion that the existing introduction (which isn’t mine either), is adequate as it stands. For comparison, the intro currently reads:-

The name "Battle of the Atlantic", first coined by Winston Churchill in 1941, is a partial misnomer for a campaign that began on the first day of the European war and lasted for six years, involved thousands of ships and stretched over hundreds of miles of the vast ocean and seas in a succession of more than 100 convoy battles and perhaps 1,000 single-ship encounters. Tactical advantage switched back and forth over the six years as new weapons, tactics and counter-measures were developed by both sides. The British and their allies gradually gained the upper hand, driving the German surface raiders from the ocean by the middle of 1941 and decisively defeating the U-boats in a series of convoy battles between March and May 1943. New German submarines arrived in 1945, but they were too late to affect the course of the war.

The Battle of the Atlantic pitted U-boats and other warships of the German Navy (Kriegsmarine) against Allied convoys. The convoys, coming mainly from North America and the South Atlantic and going to the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union were protected for the most part by the British and Canadian navies and air forces. These forces were later aided by ships and aircraft of the United States. The German warships were joined by submarines of the Italian Royal Navy (Regia Marina) after Italy entered the war on 10 June 1940.

(I've reversed the paragraphs for clarity)

The second point, this article is already 72 Mb long; it doesn’t need extra verbiage.

Third, saying more than the most general statement is going to create more debate on what else should or shouldn’t go in. As we are already doing. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The first point is that you asked me to put my suggestion in your sandbox and had gone over it making suggestions, some of which I adopted and some not, so its not entirely mine.

The second point is that the reason the article is so large is because you are trying to cover several large operational areas over a long period of time all in one article. This article really needs to be generalised and other articles spun off as is usually done with a long article. However, when I suggested that the "Battle of Atlantic" is in fact a number of separate campaigns, Xyl 54 told me I didn't know what I was talking about. Xyl54 then admitted that maybe more research is warranted after my "fringe view" turned out to be supported by official histories of two major naval forces involved.

The third point is that the current introduction is a mess lacking basic introduction structure that most first year academic essays are expected to have, which in part reflects Xyl54's refusal to admit that the "Battle of Atlantic" was a number of distinct campaigns, operations/battles and etc., that took place not in the "Atlantic" but clearly defined strategic and operational areas, actually Areas as far as the USN is concerned.

There is a fourth point. Xyl54's last communication to me was that he was going to do a bit more research and return for a review. Quite obviously this was never the intent, which is rather worrying.

Usually the introduction in a large article like this which seeks to summarise numerous campaigns is to include in the introduction: 1) the mandatory introductory sentence, 2) the sentences stating 2a) who was involved, 2b) why, 2c) when, 2d) where and 2e) how the events took place, 3) what the objective/s was, and finally the 4) brief one paragraph abstract of the article, so at least four paragraphs. This is called structured thinking.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this text here mrg, but I don't agree with it at all. Some comments:

• Starting the article by disputing the name of the battle is uncalled for. Whatever the history and exact accuracy of the term, the campaign fought between the Allies and Axis in the Atlantic between 1939 and 1945 is almost universally known as the 'Battle of the Atlantic'.
• I agree with the comment on including an outright inaccuracy about the USN in the introduction
• I don't think that including all those red-linked command titles is needed, especially as they exclude the Western Approaches, which was the most important British HQ of this campaign. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick, I'm not actually suggesting the name not be used. All I'm saying is, the "battle" was for the participants a far more complex set of executables over the 6 years then a single campaign.

Why shouldn't I include those redlinks? Maybe someone will write at least stubs to cover them, particularly as you say the Western Approaches. I might even do it myself--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous!
To answer your 4th point, My last communication to you said nothing of the sort! My post of 27 May said I needed to go to the library, to check your references; my reply on 30 May was that I thought your reading was selective and your interpretation was dubious. But as a compromise I suggested I would offer a source for the opening sentence, and you should add a phrase with your point of view and your source, which is what I put in my sandbox. Instead you offered an essay re-writing the whole introduction which is now on offer here.
And no, (your 1st point) I can’t see anything I said incorporated here, so I object to you trying to pass this off as some kind of joint effort.
To your 2nd point; I said you didn’t know what you were talking about!? It wasn’t me that said “ I don't mean to insult you, but have you read the article or anything about the "Battle of Atlantic"?” on 16 May; Or “Yes, sadly the official historians have no idea because they don't seem to understand what is a campaign” on 19 May; Or “ Has Oberiko read these histories?” on 28 May. But if you think Torch was in 1943, or that there were no US troop convoys in 1942, or that you’ve never heard of Western Approaches Command, I’m starting to wonder.
To your 3rd point, why am I being asked “to admit that the "Battle of Atlantic" was a number of distinct campaigns”? This whole farago is because you’ve taken exception to the description in the first sentence “The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest continuous military campaign of World War II”, which I understand is the mainstream view, and you’ve been angling to replace it with your opinion; the whole dreary story has already been aired at length in Campaign/campaigns section above.
So when is this going to end? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xyl54 as well. I do not see the need for a new introduction, and I do not see the need to change the description as the 'longest continuous campaign'. Buckshot06(prof) 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly you did ask me to place suggestions in your sandbox, and you did annotate them, so that does suggest a collaboration.

It is you who suggested that the idea of the "battle" being a series of campaigns was a "fringe view" referring to official histories to which I replied that in that case the official histories must be wrong. As it turned out when I did go to the library, and did look up the official histories that I was not offering a "fringe view", but indeed the "battle" was divided into campaign and operations by both English official histories, as it must if one has understanding of how navies operate and not just quotes from books.

I have already established eslewhere, as I hope Buckshot06 will soon confirm, that research by many published authors is not always all that good, so just because many have used "campaign" in their books really means very little as an argument, and only proves they had no clue about naval operations, because in all navies the word campaign has a defined meaning as a military term and not just a literary nicety.

The rewrite of the introduction is also not "an essay", but an offering of a structured introduction to the rest of the very large article (which is an essay), with offered explanation why it is written the way it is written. It is largely written to reflect those same two official histories I quoted, and not anyone's personal point of view as you state, so no, I am not trying to push my opinion since I have quoted the page and chapter of the relevant volumes.

Your idea of what I know is yours alone. The Western Approaches command in Roskill is initially named the Local Home Command, and Torch was a very small part of the troopship movements compared to the scale that begun to move in 1943-44, and that is what I said.

And yes, I would like the introduction reconsidered. What is exactly your problem with that?

I don't usually insert references in the introduction unless they are absolutely warranted by controversial claims of the article, but if you continue to insist that I offer a "fringe view" I will do so, if that is what it will take to improve the introduction to this article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of sticking with the existing, concise intro. The various commands, specific size of the ocean and other such information really isn't needed to give the user a quick summary of the conflict. Oberiko (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not confirm anything of what Mrg3105 says above, and indeed he continues to repeat inaccuracies about basic facts. There was no 'Local Home Command,' this is a misreading of a term used to refer to home commands such as Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth, Commander-in-Chief, The Nore, and Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth. Roskill may capitalise it once, but he also capitalises several other stations whose correct titles usually start with 'Commander-in-Chief', such as the Mediterranean. A more contextualised usage of 'local home command' can be found here. The Western Approaches Command, as I've just amended and sourced, started out as a additional hat for Admiral Naismith, C-in-C, Plymouth, and then moved to Liverpool and was divided. Mrg would have found this out, as well as many other things about the battle, if he had bothered to extend his reading beyond Roskill. On the point at issue, I continue to be unconvinced of any need to revise the introduction, and I doubt that Mrg's undoubted expertise on Soviet campaigns on the Eastern Front can be applied without substantial modification to an entirely different, oceanic, theatre. Buckshot06(prof) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Names of commands is immaterial here. When I looked at my notes, I have discovered that indeed Western Approaches Command is the one that was responsible for the area from west of Portland to Clyde. Northwood HQ was in fact the Coastal Command that included Iceland and Norway in its area of operations.

Er, no, that's RAF Coastal Command, with differing areas depending on its groups. Buckshot06(prof) 01:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Other local home commands included Belfast, Liverpool, Milford Haven, Falmouth, Davenport and others. So what? I never professed to be an expert in the Royal Navy operations during the Second World War, Roskill was.

I'm also not out to convince you Buckshot06 of anything. I am simply stating facts as I see them. The fact is that both the official histories of the "Battle of Atlantic" in English divide the operations into multiple distinct campaigns. Do you dispute this fact?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide sources and quotes which states explicitly that it is not one long campaign? For example, the North African Campaign is broken down into several sub-campaigns (Western Desert Campaign, Tunisia Campaign etc.), but it still remains a campaign. Considering that it was a continuous action, in a single theatre (however large), with the same objectives (shipping vs. anti-shipping) and with relatively stable combatants/forces, I don't see any problem with considering it a single campaign, even it can, perhaps, be divided into sub-campaigns. Oberiko (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Oberiko's postion. Buckshot06(prof) 01:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrg: You keep saying your viewpoint is supported by the official historians; I said I thought your interpretation there is dubious, so lets look at that a bit.
In your post on 26 May you made much of the following in Roskill ( your comments from Morison weren’t actually that specific)
.a) “Chapter XXI "The Battle of the Atlantic" (1st April - 31st December 1941) is preceded by "The African Campaign" (1st January - 31st May 1941) and is followed by "The Home Waters and the Arctic" operations (1st June - 31st December 1941)”, and
.b) “Lest we think that Roskill is talking about the one Campaign, his next three chapters all deal with the same period, but are called "Home Waters and Arctic", "Coastal Warfare" and "Ocean Warfare".”
Well, Roskill is dealing with the entire War at Sea, as the book title tells you; BotA is one of half a dozen campaigns he deals with, so BotA is bound to be met fore and aft with sections on action elsewhere. What of it?
.c) “The Campaign in American Waters, resumed on the 1st January and ended on 31st July 1942.”
This is ambiguous at best; the Atlantic campaign where the action shifts to US coast? Or dealing with that action as a discrete whole? Could be either, or both.
.d)” "The Battle of the Atlantic. The Second Campaign on the Convoy Routes" (1st August - 31st December) 1942”, and
.e)"The Battle of the Atlantic. The Second Campaign in the Western Approaches" (1st January - 31st May 1944).”
Your "curious titles", and the only point with any validity. I have interpreted this as examples of a campaign within a campaign, and I don’t think I’m the only one: I gave you the examples of Narvik and Normandy, and Oberiko the Western Desert, as examples of this.
But the fact that Roskill said it gives you room to post an alternative view (and that’s all!) to go with what's already there (eg a phrase like “Or as a series of campaigns over several theatres in several phases" and whatever source you think fits the bill); which I originally suggested as a way to avoid deadlock, and a long, futile discussion. (HA!)
Anyway, If you want to argue over words, how about the title of the book? “Military Histories of World War Two. Campaigns volumes: The War at Sea, 1939-45” : What? The whole war at sea was a single campaign? And you commented on 28 May that the RN wouldn’t use the word “campaign” lightly: Maybe not, but they also only recognize one campaign for honours; there is a single campaign honour, “Atlantic”, covering service in the entire Battle of the Atlantic. Make of that what you will.
As far as what’s in my sandbox, if you want to read anything into my annotations to what you wrote, how about me politely telling you that the intro was fine as it stood. BTW I’ll be deleting it soon, and the link to it you put in here; I’ve been feeling like someone with a guest who’s outstayed their welcome, but now I feel like I’m being burgled.
Xyl 54 (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually could not understand what it was you were trying to say. Do you have Roskill or not?

“Military Histories of World War Two. Campaigns volumes: The War at Sea, 1939-45” : What? The whole war at sea was a single campaign? - this verges on the ridiculous since the title of the book uses plural campaigns.

In any case, what is your problem with my introduction rewrite? Please be specific

What's already there is "The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest continuous military campaign[1] of World War II" and not “Or as a series of campaigns over several theatres in several phases", however, you asked me to make a suggestion on what the introduction should say, and I did.

In any case, I am neither your guest not a burglar, whatever that means. I just do not like the shape of the current introduction, and I'm trying to offer suggestions, sources and alternatives. All you are doing is telling me to go away as if you own the article, rejecting the sources, and refuse to discuss the changes I proposed --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Surface raiders: dubious paragraph

I've removed this:
"The German battlecruiser tactics of retreat when challenged stand in marked contrast to the British 'Nelsonian' tactics of closing immediately with the enemy, no matter what the imbalance in firepower was. If the Kriegsmarine had stood and fought when they had good odds Convoys HX-34, HX-106 and SL-67 would have been annihilated, and the British would have likely lost the Prince of Wales as well as the Hood in the Battle of the Denmark Strait. The cause seems to be a mixture of dread of the reputation of the Royal Navy, mixed with the strategic desire to preserve the few German capital ships afloat. A lack of tactical experience is also evident - individual German battle units were in many ways superior to older Royal Navy units, and could have prevailed in set battles if handled correctly."
Can anyone see any merit in it?
This is completely speculative; Pressing on "Nelson-style" might have resulted in a satisfying gun-battle, but there’d be a good chance the raider would be lost, or crippled, and caught and sunk later; either way, it'd would be likely to spell the end of the raider.
And “annihilate the convoy”? Statistical analysis by the BotA committee showed that an attacker would be unlikely to sink more than 5-10 ships, no matter how big the convoy was; it was the argument for larger convoys, with concentrated escorts And the only times a raider did this, that is what they achieved. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Framework pt. 2

In the bit of down-time at World War II (while we work out our own introduction issues), think I could lend a hand here for a bit? I'd like to do what I can to try and achieve some consensus for building the new framework and introduction.

When we were doing this for WWII, we started by listing the most critical events (see here for the resulting tables). Since the BotA is smaller, could we try listing everything, chronologically, that occurred within it? I think it might give us some more perspective. Oberiko (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Events

• Sinking of the Athenia (3 Sep 1939)
• Battle of the River Plate (13 Dec 1939)
• Altmark Incident (16 Feb 1940)
• First Happy Time (25 Jun 1940 - Mar 1941)
  • Operation Berlin (Jan - Mar 1941)
  • Convoy SC-7 (16 Oct – 19 Oct 1940)
  • Convoy HX-84 (5 Nov 1940)
  • Convoy HX-106 (8 Feb - 13 Feb 1941)
  • Convoy OB-293 (6 Mar - 8 Mar 1941)
  • Convoy HX-112 (15 Mar - 17 Mar 1941)
• U-110 is damaged, British capture a naval version of the Enigma machine (9 May 1941)
• Unternehmen Rheinübung (18 May - 27 May 1941)
  • Battle of the Denmark Strait (24 May 1941)
  • Last battle of the battleship Bismarck (26 May - 27 May 1941)
• Second Happy Time (14 Jan - 14 Apr 1942)
• Convoy PQ-16 (May - Jun 1 1942)
• Convoy PQ-17 (27 Jun - 10 Jul 1942)
• Laconia incident (12 Sep - 16 Sep 1942)
• Battle of the Barents Sea (31 Dec 1942)
• Operation Cerberus (11 Feb - 13 Feb 1943)
• Black May (1943)
• Battle of North Cape (26 Dec 1943)