MC,

Those ships were the "LEND LEASE" program. They carried American food,
and war supplies both.

I do't know what the % was. Each convoy was made up differently. A very
large % was fuel and a very large % was Food stuffs and this was long
before 12/7/4.

OT

OK.

5 cents!

Cheers MC

katysails wrote:


I am now Empress, a much better place to be and you must do my bidding.

from:http://www.armed-guard.com/ag79.html

"As long as men write about the dangers of the seas and the heroic
deeds of those who take their ship into battle against long odds,
they will tell tales of the "Murmansk Run" in World War II, when
merchant ships steamed into the stormy Arctic with supplies for the
Russian front. It was then that the new Libertys went into battle
for the first time and, along with their older companions, faced a
relentless enemy as they fought through to the Barents Sea and the
White Sea to reach the distant Russian supply ports of Archangel and
Murmansk."

"The understandable British reluctance to accept the heavy losses to
merchantmen and escorts on this run, and the continued Russian and
American insistence that the convoys should move regardless of
losses, was a matter of contention that created bitter feelings and
suspicions despite the polite wording of official communiques.

The British viewpoint was expressed by Captain S. W. Roskill, R.N.,
who wrote in War at Sea that "the Russians never relieved the Home
Fleet of any appreciable share of responsibility for defending the
Arctic convoys." Neither, for that matter, did the United States,
where ardent protestations of the need to sail the ships was not
accompanied by any offer of escort craft to help see them through.
Indeed, the U. S. Navy was so woefully short of escorts and trained
personnel that it couldn't even protect Allied ships along the
Atlantic seaboard.

Forty convoys, with a total of more than 800 ships, including 350
under the U. S. flag, started on the Murmansk run from 1941 through
1945. Ninety-seven of those ships were sunk by bombs, torpedoes,
mines, and the fury of the elements. Were the Murmansk convoys
instrumental in keeping Russia in the war? They carried more than
22,000 aircraft, 375,000 trucks, 8,700 tractors, 51,500 jeeps, 1,900
locomotives, 343,700 tons of explosives, a million miles of field-
telephone cable, plus millions of shoes, rifles, machine guns, auto
tires, radio sets, and other equipment."

Thom Stewart wrote:

MC,

Those ships were the "LEND LEASE" program. They carried American food,
and war supplies both.

I do't know what the % was. Each convoy was made up differently. A very
large % was fuel and a very large % was Food stuffs and this was long
before 12/7/4.

OT

Hey Empress,

The Queen as spoken!

My Father-in-law (who I'm visiting now) beat the odds by surviving both PQ17
(4 ships returned out of 36) and PQ18/QP18 (where roughly half survived).
In PQ17 his ship, the Exford, hid in an ice field after the convoy was
ordered dispersed. The bow was crushed by an iceberg, but they managed to
bring the ship back to Iceland for repairs.

At the end of the war, he has on board the tanker Oklahoma when it was
topedoed - they spend 17 days in a liferaft, sailing about 1000 miles to
Curacao.

-jeff

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
from:http://www.armed-guard.com/ag79.html

"As long as men write about the dangers of the seas and the heroic
deeds of those who take their ship into battle against long odds,
they will tell tales of the "Murmansk Run" in World War II, when
merchant ships steamed into the stormy Arctic with supplies for the
Russian front. It was then that the new Libertys went into battle
for the first time and, along with their older companions, faced a
relentless enemy as they fought through to the Barents Sea and the
White Sea to reach the distant Russian supply ports of Archangel and
Murmansk."

"The understandable British reluctance to accept the heavy losses to
merchantmen and escorts on this run, and the continued Russian and
American insistence that the convoys should move regardless of
losses, was a matter of contention that created bitter feelings and
suspicions despite the polite wording of official communiques.

The British viewpoint was expressed by Captain S. W. Roskill, R.N.,
who wrote in War at Sea that "the Russians never relieved the Home
Fleet of any appreciable share of responsibility for defending the
Arctic convoys." Neither, for that matter, did the United States,
where ardent protestations of the need to sail the ships was not
accompanied by any offer of escort craft to help see them through.
Indeed, the U. S. Navy was so woefully short of escorts and trained
personnel that it couldn't even protect Allied ships along the
Atlantic seaboard.

Forty convoys, with a total of more than 800 ships, including 350
under the U. S. flag, started on the Murmansk run from 1941 through
1945. Ninety-seven of those ships were sunk by bombs, torpedoes,
mines, and the fury of the elements. Were the Murmansk convoys
instrumental in keeping Russia in the war? They carried more than
22,000 aircraft, 375,000 trucks, 8,700 tractors, 51,500 jeeps, 1,900
locomotives, 343,700 tons of explosives, a million miles of field-
telephone cable, plus millions of shoes, rifles, machine guns, auto
tires, radio sets, and other equipment."

Thom Stewart wrote:

MC,

Those ships were the "LEND LEASE" program. They carried American food,
and war supplies both.

I do't know what the % was. Each convoy was made up differently. A very
large % was fuel and a very large % was Food stuffs and this was long
before 12/7/4.

OT

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Sure Donal,

Peace in our time was said just after Adofl went into Austria and before
England went to War.

U.S. went to war 12/7/41

Now,Donal, Maybe you would like to give the group a list of the Battles
that the Brits won in that time?

The Battle of Britian comes to mind. If the British had lost, then the
outcome of the American war with Japan could have turned out very
differently.




Your refernce was a Joke? At whose expense?

The Californian electorate.


Regards

Donal
--

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:52:42 +0000, Jeff Morris wrote:

My Father-in-law (who I'm visiting now) beat the odds by surviving both
PQ17 (4 ships returned out of 36) and PQ18/QP18 (where roughly half
survived). In PQ17 his ship, the Exford, hid in an ice field after the
convoy was ordered dispersed. The bow was crushed by an iceberg, but they
managed to bring the ship back to Iceland for repairs.

At the end of the war, he has on board the tanker Oklahoma when it was
topedoed - they spend 17 days in a liferaft, sailing about 1000 miles to
Curacao.

-jeff

I never really realized how dangerous the merchant marine was during WWII
until I read that merchant mariners suffered a higher percentage of deaths
than any of the other US services. They provided a truly heroic service.

Donal,

The "Battle of Britain" was a very glorious defence battle! England took
one hell of a beating and kept on Ticking but it was a defensive action.
El Al in North Africa was also a great defensive victory. I had in mind
offensive actions against the Axis powers by the British from the time
of "Peace in our Time" until 12/7/41.

You must remember that England and France declared war on Germany. That
was when Poland was invaded and went on the defense until the USA
invaded Casablanca.

Now, Donal, I've just responded to comments about the election of an
Austrian being elected Gov. of Calif. and the comment by a American
Baiter's comparison to Adolf. I just wanted to remind him of his own
history of the Hitler years. It seems that the baiters don't like to be
reminded of their own history in the same kind of comments they make

I, myself, think Arnold just might be the right man at the right time
for Calif.

I'm not a Californian but what better a Legal immigrant to set rules
for a State overloaded with illegals. What better a Conservative to make
the owners of those Corp Farms that hire the illegals then turn them
over to the State Welfare System to straighten out the abuse;

But whom the hell am I?

I'm an American who believe we won the war for the Europeans, won the
war in the Pacific for the people that were colonies of the European
Countries that were deserted by their homelands, an American taxpayer
who helped refianced the world thru the Marshall plan and Truman
Doctrine, a follower GWB, who didn't vote for him but is my President (
Just for another year, I hope!)

AND; "I'LL DRINK TO THAT!" and get off this damned soap box!!

Ole Thom

What would the US have built without being given the design of the
supercharged merlin engine? What about radar? Makes one wonder...

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...

Sure Donal,

Peace in our time was said just after Adofl went into Austria and before
England went to War.

U.S. went to war 12/7/41

Now,Donal, Maybe you would like to give the group a list of the Battles
that the Brits won in that time?


The Battle of Britian comes to mind. If the British had lost, then the
outcome of the American war with Japan could have turned out very
differently.




Your refernce was a Joke? At whose expense?


The Californian electorate.


Regards

Donal
--

Let's not forget sonar...

Cheers MC

The_navigator© wrote:

What would the US have built without being given the design of the
supercharged merlin engine? What about radar? Makes one wonder...

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...

Sure Donal,

Peace in our time was said just after Adofl went into Austria and before
England went to War.

U.S. went to war 12/7/41

Now,Donal, Maybe you would like to give the group a list of the Battles
that the Brits won in that time?



The Battle of Britian comes to mind. If the British had lost, then the
outcome of the American war with Japan could have turned out very
differently.




Your refernce was a Joke? At whose expense?



The Californian electorate.


Regards

Donal
--