Allied Merchant Navy - WWII

[Hugh]

Taken from my website:

"The merchant seaman never faltered.
To him we owe our preservation and our very lives".

The Right Honourable Alfred Barnes,
Minister of War Transport - July 1945.

Regards
Hugh

[Adrian Roberts]

Hugh
I've just looked at your website on loss of City of Cairo, and became engrossed in it. Some very moving accounts of the ordeal of ordinary people in a desperate situation and of the triumph of the human spirit in rising above it (and, as the missionary Donald Miller in lifeboat five felt able to write, the goodness of God in the face of evil)

However, one question occurs - which Kapitan Mertens who torpedoed the vessel pointed out. Why was this ship allowed to sail alone and unescorted into hostile waters? Some of the rescue ships appear to have been on their own as well. Was it a simply a question of some routes being not of high enough density to make up a convoy? Or not enough escorts for all routes? Or just incompetence as Mertens alleged? Any ideas on this?

Adrian

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by Adrian Roberts

However, one question occurs - which Kapitan Mertens who torpedoed the vessel pointed out. Why was this ship allowed to sail alone and unescorted into hostile waters? Some of the rescue ships appear to have been on their own as well. Was it a simply a question of some routes being not of high enough density to make up a convoy? Or not enough escorts for all routes? Or just incompetence as Mertens alleged? Any ideas on this?

Adrian

Hello Adrian,

Thanks for your comments regarding the website. You raise a very interesting question and I think the answer is a combination of all..

In the case of “CITY OF CAIRO” there were many sinkings around the area of South Africa as “Gruppe Eisbar”, the Polar Bear group of U-boats, was operating in the area.

There were no fast escort vessels available and Naval Control Cape Town routed the ship for a lone crossing of the South Atlantic to Recife, Brazil avoiding the U-boat –infested Freetown route to the north. Eventually they would reach Halifax NS where they would enjoy the luxury of a convoy escort across the Atlantic to the UK. As we know the ship never got near the luxury of a convoy escort, being sunk 6 days into her voyage.

The responsibility for routing the ship with its complement of 297 men, women and children, as well as a valuable cargo which also included silver coins was a big decision and presumably had been considered by Naval Control Cape Town and the risk judged acceptable.

Looking at it from Merten’s perspective it was a crazy decision, bearing in mind that his “Eisbar” group had torpedoed the liner LACONIA a couple of months previously with massive loss of life - it too sailing independently.

I presume you have seen Merten’s letter also on my site: http://www.sscityofcairo.co.uk/merten_letter.php

Many ships were also sunk because they were straggelers from convoys as they couldn't keep up and had to be left behind. It would be interesting to look at the number of merchant ships that were sunk while sailing independently during WWII.

Regards
Hugh

[Hugh]

This the latest on the campaign for Merchant Navy Day in Australia

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.a...291830&rss=yes

Lots of good folk working behind the scenes on this one.

Regards
Hugh

[spidge]

Originally Posted by Hugh

This the latest on the campaign for Merchant Navy Day in Australia

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.a...291830&rss=yes

Lots of good folk working behind the scenes on this one.

Regards
Hugh

Great news. You achieve a few things when elections are looming!

[spidge]

DEMS - Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships).


The Maritime RA had its beginnings in the early part of the war when the Admiralty requested
the Regiment to provide 500, 2 man LMG teams for embarking on merchant coasters. Taking with them either Lewis
or Bren guns, they were to provide AA defence for the vessels.
With the increase in severity of attacks on shipping, the Maritime Anti-Aircraft Regiment RA was formed in 1941.

Read more here:

http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/maritime/

[Antipodean Andy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Looking at it from Merten’s perspective it was a crazy decision, bearing in mind that his “Eisbar” group had torpedoed the liner LACONIA a couple of months previously with massive loss of life - it too sailing independently.

I was going to mention the Laconia is Spidge's post about the Azores but I couldn't remember the name of the ship. First read about her in Bob Whinney's The U-boat Peril and, to me, the outcome was more a negative impression of how gung-ho the US could be.

As Whinney explained it, the Laconia was sunk and found to be carrying among its passengers, 1,800 Italian POWs (similar number to British passengers). The successful U-boat captain surfaced and started taking on survivors while calling for assistance (he took on 193 and even made a trial dive with them on board). He broadcast over the international shipping wave saying he wqould not attack rescuing ships. Several other U-boats and an Italian submarine were also ordered to attend by German High Command. Vichy French warships sailed from West African posts and were given free passage through Whinney's area of responsibility. Whinney was based in Freetown. Not differentiating between British and Italian survivors, the U-boats and the ships ended up saving about 1,000. However, despite one U-boat displaying the Red Cross flag, they were attacked by a US aircraft from Ascension (not the Azores after all that!) forcing them to cut the lifeboats they were towing and submerge. The lifeboats were also, apparently, attacked. This led to Doenitz issuing the Laconia Order which ordered that no survivors were to be picked up after a sinking.