A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Polynitrogen Rocket Fuel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old December 10th 04, 07:57 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message
...
Henry Spencer wrote:
[With better U-boats] Western aid to the USSR would also have been
cut off, although in itself I don't think that was enough to be
decisive.


Couldn't aid have been given via the Pacific, Vladivostok, and the
trans-Siberian railway, rather than via the Atlantic and Murmansk?


It was - and via Persia and the Caucasus but the transsiberian railway
didnt have the capacity to handle much more traffic than it did.

Keith


  #172  
Old December 10th 04, 09:14 AM
Brian Sharrock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote:

[With better U-boats] Western aid to the USSR would also have been
cut off, although in itself I don't think that was enough to be
decisive.


Couldn't aid have been given via the Pacific, Vladivostok, and the
trans-Siberian railway, rather than via the Atlantic and Murmansk?


Just wondering aloud; -- isn't Japan rather close to
Vladivostock (RuleroftheEast)?

According to this page:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/russia..._Alliance.html

Most of the lend-lease trade from the US to the USSR during
WWII went through Iran. Though, of course, it had to get
to Iran first.


Which ,just wondering aloud again, is rather further from Japan!

--

Brian


  #173  
Old December 10th 04, 06:06 PM
John Thingstad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 9 Dec 2004 22:58:03 -0500, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

Henry Spencer wrote:
[With better U-boats] Western aid to the USSR would also have been
cut off, although in itself I don't think that was enough to be
decisive.


Couldn't aid have been given via the Pacific, Vladivostok, and the
trans-Siberian railway, rather than via the Atlantic and Murmansk?


One of the reasons for occupying Norway was for it to act as a base
for warships blocking the route for convoys to Russia.
This was the route with the highest loss rate of any convoy.
They were quite effective.
In one convoy in 1942 26 ships started and only 11 reached Murmansk.
After this the convoys were stopped for 10 months.


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
  #174  
Old December 10th 04, 10:30 PM
Alan Lothian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , John Thingstad
wrote:


One of the reasons for occupying Norway was for it to act as a base
for warships blocking the route for convoys to Russia.


Airbases came into it too, more than somewhat.

This was the route with the highest loss rate of any convoy.
They were quite effective.
In one convoy in 1942 26 ships started and only 11 reached Murmansk.


PQ 17, July 1942, after a very unfortunate "Convoy is to scatter" order
issued not by the people on the scene (either close escort, distant
escort, or covering force) but by the Admiralty, or to be more precise
Dudley Pound really beginning to lose it. Note that PQ 17 lost 23 ships
out of 34, not 26 out of 37, almost all of them after the Scatter!
order.

After this the convoys were stopped for 10 months.


PQ 18 sailed from Loch Ewe on 2 September, 1942. Six weeks, not ten
months. The convoy was successfully fought through, with losses. To
both sides. 13 merchantmen sunk out of 40, pretty grim, but the Germans
paid for it with 3 U-boats and a slew of torpedo aircraft.

The subsquent Russia convoy was delayed until December not by the
Germans but by Torch, which soaked up a vast number of escorts.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk
  #175  
Old December 11th 04, 12:14 PM
John Thingstad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:30:56 +0000, Alan Lothian
wrote:

In one convoy in 1942 26 ships started and only 11 reached Murmansk.

PQ 17, July 1942, after a very unfortunate "Convoy is to scatter" order
issued not by the people on the scene (either close escort, distant
escort, or covering force) but by the Admiralty, or to be more precise
Dudley Pound really beginning to lose it. Note that PQ 17 lost 23 ships
out of 34, not 26 out of 37, almost all of them after the Scatter!
order.


PQ 18 sailed from Loch Ewe on 2 September, 1942. Six weeks, not ten
months. The convoy was successfully fought through, with losses. To
both sides. 13 merchantmen sunk out of 40, pretty grim, but the Germans
paid for it with 3 U-boats and a slew of torpedo aircraft.

The subsquent Russia convoy was delayed until December not by the
Germans but by Torch, which soaked up a vast number of escorts.


I stand corrected.
Thanks for those insights.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight Rusty B Space Shuttle 10 May 16th 04 02:39 AM
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight Rusty B Policy 10 May 16th 04 02:39 AM
impulsive launch vs rocket equation Parallax Technology 7 February 5th 04 03:01 PM
NEWS: Redstone rocket turns golden today - Huntsville Times Rusty B History 0 August 20th 03 10:42 PM
Rockets not carrying fuel. Robert Clark Technology 3 August 7th 03 01:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.