# The Arctic Convoys- WW 2 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2009, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arctic-convoys-ww-2/507497 "2009-08-24T14:09:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arctic-convoys-ww-2/507497/21 "2009-08-27T04:03:12Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > I think I’d dispute your figures regarding losses. Overall losses were only just over 5 % (merchant ships). Of the early convoys those in 1941 didn’t lose a ship (from very quick research). > > Even the infamous PQ 17 off 1942 lost “only” 66% of the merchant ships. > > One point regarding the convoys is that they were suspended for around 8 months in both 1942 and 1943. It didn’t seem to impact on the Soviet fighting ability. Sorry but I am not going to go through my old books. But the losses were much higher than you state. The Liberty ships were considered sucessful if they made one trip. I believe the only area with a higher % of loss was in the subs. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arctic-convoys-ww-2/507497/22 "2009-08-27T04:23:11Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > It’s because of the cold war that we perceive the Russians as we do. Both because we were more exposed to (west) German delusion about having only lost the war due to sheer numbers, and a desire to paint the Russians as an incompetant horde that could only attack in swarms and could not outfight us. Serious study on the subject shows that almost everything people think they know about the eastern front is a myth. I’d say the Soviets more than proved their military skill from Kursk (where they successfully anticipated the German offensive in that area and totally blunted it) onward (where the strategic initiative was solely theirs for the remainder of the war). But they were lucky to have even survived Barbarossa to reach that point. Despite the huge number of casualties they suffered, it’s truly amazing how they were able to hold off the Germans long enough to “reload” their military strength and begin pushing back. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arctic-convoys-ww-2/507497/23 "2009-08-27T05:01:37Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Sorry but I am not going to go through my old books. But the losses were much higher than you state. The Liberty ships were considered sucessful if they made one trip. I believe the only area with a higher % of loss was in the subs. You are, in fact, incorrect. Of about 1400 individual runs, 85 merchant ships were sunk. The worst losses of any single convoy were 24 out 35 (though 3 more were sunk on the return trip). [Link](http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsRussianConvoys.htm). [Link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II). ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arctic-convoys-ww-2/507497/24 "2009-08-29T05:00:24Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > You are, in fact, incorrect. Of about 1400 individual runs, 85 merchant ships were sunk. The worst losses of any single convoy were 24 out 35 (though 3 more were sunk on the return trip). > > [Link](http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsRussianConvoys.htm). > [Link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II). Those numbers do not sound right. That would mean that 94% of the ships made port. That would be a failed u-boat battle. There were some U-boat captians that sunk over a million tons during the happy times. If you assume an average of 10,000 tons per ship which would be high, that would yeild only 850,000 tons. Their numbers so not track. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arctic-convoys-ww-2/507497/25 "2009-08-29T05:14:28Z")
I also read a story about a third mate. As a Midshipman at the US Merchant Marine Academy he got on a ship headed to Murmansk. On the way there his ship was sunk and he was picked up, that ship was sunk and he was picked up, that ship made Murmansk. He was stuck there several months until enought ships reached port to make a return convoy to New York. ON the way home the ship he was on was sunk, he was picked up. that ship was sunk, and he was picked up. When he got back to NY he passed his thirds and graduated. He shipped out of NY again. When he found out the ship was going to Murmansk he was going to jump ship. The Captian talked out of it, in war time it is treated as desertion in the face of the emeny. He made the trip. He was sunk twice on the way in and twice on the way out. When he arrived in NY he flew accross the country and shipped out of San Francisco the rest of the war. In a short period of time he had 8 ships shot out from under him. Either he was really unlucky to be on 8 out of 85 ships or the numbers are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arctic-convoys-ww-2/507497/26 "2009-08-29T05:27:25Z")
You may be thinking of the happy times which occurred in the Battle of the Atlantic (and to a lesser degree later off the coast of America). However, even then, the losses were no where near 80%. That would be unsustainable. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arctic-convoys-ww-2/507497/27 "2009-08-29T05:40:58Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Those numbers do not sound right. That would mean that 94% of the ships made port. That would be a failed u-boat battle. There were some U-boat captians that sunk over a million tons during the happy times. If you assume an average of 10,000 tons per ship which would be high, that would yeild only 850,000 tons. Their numbers so not track. Wikipedia’s entry on the [Kriegsmarine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsmarine) lists the top U-Boat ace as having sunk 274,333 tons of shipping. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arctic-convoys-ww-2/507497.md?page=1)