Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 28 May 2006

Battle of the Atlantic was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}.

Military history Unassessed

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

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 , 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)

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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 Misplaced Pages 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))

• Delisted good articles