USS Washington & PQ-17 dsaster

[Doug_FL]

Did the Capt of WA express any concerns about not being near enough to the
convoy, to help if Tirpitz sortied? The Allies even had an aircraft carrier. I would
think all the captains of these capital ships, would notice they were not close
enough to support each other.

I wonder if the whole idea of convoys, to Russia, at that time of year would be
a sound military strategy. Exposing valuable battleships, Cruisers and even carriers
to land based German air power. Then losing both the supplies and the surface
vessels.

The resupply effort to Malta cost several ships as well. Moving supplies proved very
costly at times. I guess there was just no other way. But, those convoys cost the
RN a lot of ships.

 

[MontyB]

As I understand it Admiral Tovey wanted to suspend the departure of PQ17 until such time as he had sufficient escorts, including an aircraft carrier, to get PQ17 though. Political necessities overruled Tovey, Churchill and Roosevelt insisting that convoys were to be sent to Russia at all speed irrespective of what cover could be provided or what German forces were on the prowl. Tovey had suggested smaller, more regular convoys but had, again, been overruled.

 

[LeEnfield]

Do you think that Russia needed these supplies our do you think that they could have waited until it was safe enough fir the allies to deliver them

 

[Doug_FL]

Yes, that war material was needed. The question is it worth it. Would be in the same sense all military decisions are made on operations. A cost benefit analysis of the overall effort to win the war. Supplies on the bottom of the ocean don't do any good trying to win a war.

If the Allies were to lose too much in the way of vessels (both naval and merchant), and supplies that could be used elsewhere to help win the war, then they might be better used to pursue other operations. That might be a better way to win the war. So, such a risky convoy, as those Arctic Convoys were, might not be worth it in the overall strategic situation of winning the war.

That was the point of my post and the question I was asking.

 

[LeEnfield]

There are always great risks in war and you don't win with out taking those risks