Talk:Convoy Faith

(First comments)

Probably a good idea to explain that III./KG 40 is the 3rd Gruppe (Group) of Kampfgeschwader (Bomber Wing) 40. And link escort carrier. Pictures of the aircraft or ships involved would be a good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I've been trying to find clearly PD photos but without success. The article also needs info on the purpose of the convoy. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Swale

The article is still flawed. The nub here is the chronology of battle. The assertion 'The frigate HMS Swale further strengthened the convoy's escort on 11 July.' is seriously misleading. Whilst the vessel did indeed arrive on that day, the words 'further strengthened', and the placement of the sentence ahead of the paragraph about the attack, clearly imply that Swale was present before the bombing of the troopships. By the time Swale arrived, there was no longer a convoy to escort. The criticism of htmls per se is difficult to understand, the implication that only hard copy such as Munro's book is infallible is risible. Moreover, does not the sheer absence of as much as one reference to Swale in the account of the attack (not a single survivor rescued, nor gun fired, nor torpedo launched), seem odd? As for the role of the MV Port Fairy as a munitions carrier / ammunition ship, I regret I can find only the proscribed htmls once more, notably the Merchant Navy Association website [1] which states: Ammunition in adjacent cargo spaces was jettisoned and compartments flooded to minimise the risk of explosion. More work needed here. Ptelea (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ptelea, I'm not suggesting that websites can't be reliable - I frequently use them as reference. My concern is that those websites do not appear to have been published by an individual or organisation with a clearly established reputation for accuracy - this is normally determined by whether the website has been used as a reference in other reliable sources and/or whether its author is a recognised authority on whatever the website's topic is. Munro does say that Swale was present at the time of the initial attack (his wording in the paragraph on events prior to the attack is "as the small convoy came abreast of Finisterre the frigate Swale joined up to make an A/S escort of four which was doubtless considered adequate"). Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick. How's Munro's reputation for accuracy? Herewith again the extract from Holms' (CO of the SO ship HMCS Iroquois), report to the Admiralty:

• 23. The three enemy planes were now withdrawing to the eastward and at about 2207 tracer was seen on the horizon in this quarter. This is presumed to have been fired at the retiring planes by SWALE who was joining from the south east.
• 25. It was not known how many crew and passengers were in the bombed ships and I could not therefore estimate whether the escorting warships would be able to accommodate all survivors. Further, it was considered unwise to send PORT FAIRY on alone, SWALE had not yet joined and an escort could not be spared, PORT FAIRY was therefore kept close by, both to embark any surplus of survivors and for her own safety.
• 27. IROQUOIS ordered SWALE, on joining at 2235, to carry out an A/S sweep around the rescue party.

Observations:

• (1) They can't both be right.
• (2) Holms was there (was Munro?) and submitted the report one week after the attack.
• (3) I emailed the National Archives office Kew for help, but only received this reply: 'Unfortunately there is no 1943 log book for HMS Swale amongst The National Archives collections...I am sorry for the disappointing reply. Yours sincerely, Steven Cable, Remote Enquiries Duty Officer' www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
• (4) In the absence of Swale's log, which reference was Munro using?
• (5) Dare I suggest Munro's account of Swale is of what should have happened, that Cape Finisterre was the intended rendezvous point, and has now been taken as fact? As a state-of-the-art River class A/S ship only commissioned the previous year (she was to sink two U-boats during the war), sweeping would have been her obvious role. Note in Holms' report: 5. IROQUOIS suggested to MOYOLA that when H.M.S. SWALE joined (in accordance with F.O.C. Gibraltar’s 100023B) it would be advisable that she be positioned on the port beam of PORT FAIRY whence she could take up IROQUOIS position when IROQUOIS was absent from the screen to make ahead sweeps before dark and before first light.

Note also that Swale was under orders from FOC Gibraltar, further substantiating her origin as that port.

Resolution:

• (1) Apparently Holms' report is held at Kew, where Tim Gates, author of the html accessed it. If I too can obtain copy, would this be deemed an acceptable reference? Note TG gives full reference to the report (Kew, UK (Ref ADM 199/1032)
• (2) If not, then we be completely open and acknowledge in the article that accounts of the role of Swale in the action are at variance?

Regards, Ptelea (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ptelea, My concern is that we don't actually have a reliable source which contradicts Munro's account, which is a reliable source as it's a professionally-published book. It's also by far the most detailed account of this battle I've been able to locate. If you can access the original of that file and/or a copy of it on a reliable website it would be very helpful, but it still has the limitation of being a primary source - we can then discuss the differing accounts though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nick, I have duly requested a copy of Holms' report to the Admiralty from Kew. Regret I can't share your blind faith in professionally-published books. Digressing a little, my aforementioned grandfather, whose long naval career spanning both WWs was distinguished only by his escapology, was sole survivor of HMS G9 rammed and sunk 1917 in a 'friendly-fire' incident. [2] The first 'professionally-published book' gave the name of the vessel which sank her as HMS Petard, an error perpetuated until publication of A S Evans' book on submarine losses in 1986. Likewise her sister ship G 11, lost on the rocks below Howick in dense fog after overshooting her home port of Blyth: the RN Sub. Museum, no less, still maintains the location of her wrecking as Harwich, 350 miles to the south, and not a rock in sight. Will write again on receipt of report from Kew. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, excellent, and thanks a lot for following up on this - I really appreciate it. I certainly don't have blind faith in professionally published books: I just assume that they're correct unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. Of course they contain errors from time to time. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the late Arnold Hague's unpublished monograph on the WS convoys excludes 'Faith', unlike Munro's. Ptelea (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've somewhat belatedly consulted the Canadian official history, and its detailed account of this battle - which is referenced mainly to Iroquois report of proceedings and deck log - states that only Iroquois, Douglas and Moyola were protecting the convoy at the time of the attack. As such, I've removed the reference to Swale being present at this time. Hopefully when your copy of the report arrives it checks out with the online version, and explanation of when Swale joined the action can be added. Apologies for not thinking of this source earlier - the credit belongs with Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) for suggesting this source as part of the A class review. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is good news, especially as I have yet to hear from the Naval Records, Kew, even though

they credited their account with my £8 and ninepence on 4 May. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nick, I am now in possession of the HMS Swale: Report of the proceedings while escorting SS Duchess of York, California, and Port Fairy, 11 - 14 July, 1943. Ref. Adm. 199/1032, prepared by CIC Western Approaches, obtained from The National Archives, Kew, London. The report confirms that Swale was not present during the attack, noting she had been sailed by Flag Officer, Gibraltar, and was joining when the convoy was first attacked, though it also states it is not clear why Swale was 13 miles from the convoy when first attacked. It also acknowledges that Swale's good work in putting out the fires in SS Port Fairy may well have saved the ship.

Where now? Do you need sight of these documents to accept them as valid references? If so, I'll need an address. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'm very happy to take your word, and I see that you've already added some material from the file to the article. Thanks a lot for this. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)