Talk:Arctic naval operations of World War II

Geographical extent of this article.

This article is based on an incorrect definition of the Arctic Ocean. The areas of ocean within the Arctic Circle does not actually equal the Arctic Ocean. For the actual extent of the Arctic Ocean, see: Borders of the oceans #Arctic Ocean. Plus, this article needs a thorough copy-edit. Manxruler (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What exactly does "The Arctic Circle defining the "midnight sun"..." mean? And what does it have to do with the Arctic Ocean? Manxruler (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the Arctic Circle is fairly widely defined as the parallel of latitude marking the southern extent of 24-hour sunlight or darkness on the summer or winter solstice, respectively. The definition of the Arctic Ocean has varied as you suggest. Second world war naval references often refer to events within the Arctic Circle as Arctic rather than Atlantic; and I have attempted to clarify that distinction in the introduction. I have included some references to southern Norway Kreigsmarine bases significant for staging to Arctic operations, but my intent was to focus on navigation north of the Arctic Circle and generally exclude all ground combat and naval combat south of the Arctic Circle.Thewellman (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Then the article is wrongly named. I don't really know what it should be called, but this is the wrong name. The definition of the Arctic Ocean hasn't varied that much, so to claim that things which happened off Nordland (Narvik, Lofoten etc.) happened in the Arctic Ocean is just plain wrong. Those events took place in the Norwegian Sea. The lead did not help in that respect, we can't just invent our own definitions of oceans. The fact that the Brits etc. would call operations north of the Arctic Circle "Arctic" doesn't mean they took place in the Arctic Ocean.

I think that mentioning Kriegsmarine bases further south which were involved in operations in the Arctic Ocean is fine. It seems that what you're trying to accomplish with this article is something more like "Naval operations of World War II north of the Arctic Circle, in Norway, Finland and Russia", would that be correct? Arctic Ocean naval operations of World War II, on the other hand, is a perfectly valid subject for an article, and I can help you work on the article. Manxruler (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have renamed the article to avoid confusion. As you may be aware, the present IHO 3rd edition definition of the Arctic Ocean was adopted in 1953. I haven't been able to locate a copy of the 1937 IHO 2nd edition which would have been in effect for the period of interest; but I understand it specified different boundaries. The CIA definition is more expansive than the IHO 3rd edition definition by inclusion of the Kara and Barents Seas, and I have seen alternative Arctic Ocean definitions expanded to include the Greenland, Norwegian, North and Baltic Seas. Other definitions consider the Arctic Ocean an obsolete term for the northern extent of the Atlantic as IHO has expanded the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans to encompass what was previously known as the Antarctic Ocean or Southern Ocean.

My intent was to focus on the unique naval environment of ice with continuous darkness or daylight. I am reluctant to place the names of countries within the title, because of potential confusion about inclusion of land battles. Finland and the Soviet Union (or Russia) might be perceived to include the isolated Baltic Sea campaign; while specifying Norway and Iceland would expand the area and require a larger article for comparable coverage.Thewellman (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the new title of the article, this is no longer an issue. It's a good title for the article. Do you know of any further military operations, say in the Canadian or Russian (Soviet) Arctic, or Alaska? Manxruler (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC

To the best of my knowledge, polar operations were comparatively uncommon outside of the European theatre. Hilfskreuzers undertook some Antarctic operations. The most notable are covered in individual articles like German auxiliary cruiser Pinguin. US/Japanese combat was infrequent in the Aleutian Islands Campaign; but coverage might be expanded concerning long term effects of measures like the Alaska Highway. The United States defensively evacuated indigenous island residents to resettlement areas and destroyed their homes to prevent possible use by Japanese forces. This caused cultural devastation by inappropriately grouping tribes with historic animosities, and by preventing, for the duration of resettlement, learning through practice the skills necessary for subsistence in unique environments. Repair in kind was impractical when resettlement was allowed; and replacement shelters accelerated dependence on outside materials for maintenance.

Despite emphasis on Arctic convoys of World War II and the Persian Corridor, Ruge indicates approximately half of Allied material support to the Soviet Union arrived in Vladivostok for shipment west via the Trans-Siberian Railway or Northern Sea Route. Operation Wunderland and the U-boat supported BV 138 reconnaissance of August 1943 appear to have been intended to intercept the latter; but the subject of westbound Soviet wartime supplies might be worthy of an independent comprehensive article including US and Japanese incidents with neutral Soviet ships in the Pacific.Thewellman (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It would definitively seem that the effects on the US Arctic you mentioned here should be included. Some mention of the Allied supplies should also be made, in addition to a separate article on the westbound supply route. It's within the scope of the article. Manxruler (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood your question because of the mention of Alaska. The Pacific is entirely south of the Arctic Circle; but I am still looking for an appropriate reference citation to verify Allied war materials aboard Soviet ships engaged in the Kara Sea.Thewellman (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about the Kara Sea convoys. activity in the entrance to the White Sea should also be included, I believe. Manxruler (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"German reinforcements from French bases"

Why is this the name of the last section? I don't recall anything offhand about any connections of bases in France with the arctic sea fronts. And France didn't own any arctic bases I don't think. And the bulleted events don't seem to have anything to do with French bases. What's the deal here? Herostratus (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• This represents the period following the Allied invasion of France when Norwegian ports became the only Atlantic bases available to German warships; and U-boats which had sailed from French bases in Brest, Lorient, La Rochelle, Saint-Nazaire, and Bordeaux returned to Norway. With the exception of a comparatively few Monsun Gruppe boats operating out of Penang, the Arctic became the source of all Kriegsmarine operations on the world's oceans. Thewellman (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Erm. This could be clearer... "Period after the loss of bases in France" or something... "Operations to the end of the war" would be OK too... Herostratus (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Split material in multiple pages.

Since the page discuss multiple events often with neat separations, I am thinking about transporting part of the bulk of the listed engagements in new articles to 1) better address specific campaigns and operatins 2) Make the page something of more easy to access than a huge list of data. My area of interest is the Soviet Navy operations, and for this field I was planning to create 4 separate pages for the Soviet submarine operations, mostly focused close or nearby the northern and eastern Norwegian fjords ("Soviet submarine Arctic campaign of 1941, Soviet submarine Arctic campaign of 1942 etc."). to match similar works done for Black Sea and Baltic (the fourth one could be named "Soviet naval Arctic offensive of 1944" because involved a number of MTB raids. Lupodimare89 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please delay deleting material from this article until we can reach a consensus. This article was prepared in a chronological format to allow comparison of timing of Soviet and Royal Navy operations. Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe assets needed to be allocated between these two adversaries, and this factor in success or failure of individual operations may be obscured if the material is entirely separated. May I suggest an alternative of retaining at least a brief description of each event in this article? Thewellman (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course I would have not blindly removed material, I was looking as potential example the other "Umbrella pages" of the Eastern Front naval operations (moving the bulk of engagements of specific campaign, and retaining the most iportant ones or summaries in this page): https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Baltic_Sea_campaigns_(1939%E2%80%9345)#Operations_in_1941 https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Black_Sea_campaigns_(1941%E2%80%9344)#Operations_in_1941 The problem here for Arctic is that making a comparison between Soviet and Royal Navy operations is quite murky because the two fleets did not operated at the same condition/location/times. Royal Navy (and other allies) escorted the Convoys engaging U-boats and German Fleet in open sea naval battles. Soviet Navy was involved only sporadically in surface fights, while they focused efforts in subarine raids alongside the north-east Norwegian coast (British joined this only for the 1941 campaign). German Navy rarely had to split their units, because while it was Destroyers and Uboats attacking the Allies Convoys, it was the light ASW forces (UJ sub hunters, M-class minesweepers etc.) that countered the Soviet subs. Then there are a number of peculiar cases and operations that by geographical, time and operative nature has been described separately by literature (like the page I already worked here: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kara_Sea_U-boat_campaign ) or minor German destroyers raids in soviet waters in 1941 (that can be easily retained on this page, hardly deserving a full page for themselves). Air anti-ship operation are a matter apart, because (for the Soviet's side) there was little to zero cooperation with the submarine operations. In the end, the pattern of work could be: 1) "Allies submarine Arctic campaign in 1941" (Allies, because it included joint British-Soviet operation) 2) "Soviet submarine Arctic campaign in 1942" (Soviet submarines operating alone) 2) "Soviet submarine Arctic campaign in 1943" (Soviet submarines operating alone) 2) "Soviet naval Arctic campaign in 1944" (Soviet submarines and mtb offensive) A summary of the main ships sunk (or the sheer number of them) could be retained on this page, in addition to provide the link of each separate campaign/offensive. Air anti-ship operation are a matter apart, because (for the Soviet's side) there was little to zero cooperation and coordination with the submarine operations and every anti-ship success (by British and Soviet) can be simply listed here. Lupodimare89 (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't consider the see also notes a useful chronological substitute for the events transferred to the Kara Sea U-boat campaign, because the notes indicates the campaign covers the last half of the war overlapping many Royal Navy convoys and carrier raids. Although the Kreigsmarine may not have split its units, decisions had to be made as to what areas would be patrolled, or what engagements would be accepted. Please leave a specific placeholder at the date of a moved event. For example, if you want to move something like:

August 1943: U-255 operated near Novaya Zemlya as a refueling station for a BV 138. The BV 138 searched for Kara Sea convoys to be attacked by Lützow and the Wiking Gruppe of U-302, U-354 and U-711. The U-boats torpedoed 3771-ton Petrovski and sank 2900-ton Dikson.

to the Kara Sea U-boat campaign page, leave behind a summary like:

August 1943: Assisted by Lützow and flying boat reconnaissance, Wiking Gruppe U-boats torpedoed two Soviet freighters in the Kara Sea.

Thewellman (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The idea of adding these descriptions with "Month-Year" is a good one! I am going to re-insert data in this way. It could potentially solve the problem of lengthy article, provide the significant data and still correlate the text of this page with the detailed separate page (as personal info, and it is detailed in the main page for Kara Sea, in the end "Lützow" never took part at the operation/s). Lupodimare89 (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Here the current status of the condensed operation (as example):

• July - September 1943: German U-boats operated in Kara Sea against Soviet shipping: U-255 operated near Novaya Zemlya as a refueling station for a BV 138. The BV 138 searched for Kara Sea convoys to be attacked by Lützow and the Wiking Gruppe of U-302, U-354 and U-711. The U-boats torpedoed 3771-ton Petrovski and sank 2900-ton Dikson, 7169-tons Tbilisi, 2480-tons Arkhangel´sk and 4169-tons Sergej Kirov in addition to 3 minesweepers and 3 other auxiliary vessels. However U-639 was lost after being intercepted and torpedoed by Soviet submarine S-101 .

NOTE: I enriched it with details originally absent in this page but present in the separate page. Also I moved the link to the separate page directly on the month entry. Do you think is good as solution? Lupodimare89 (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• The example you mentioned seems appropriate, because there were no intervening events within the time period selected. The change for August-September 1944 is problematic because of intervening events, and you neglected to include all appropriate reference citations. I suggest confining events to a single month would generally give improved chronological utility, because that time period is more consistent with the length of a naval operation or patrol. Thewellman (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Groznyy(EM)1942.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary in introduction

Thewellman, I've summarised information in the introduction which goes into too much detail for that part of the article. I've no objection to its inclusion in the article, but it ought not be included in the introduction in its current detail. Stara Marusya (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your summary deletes some significant information. It obscures the summer limitations of the route, and eliminates the fact that approximately a quarter of this tonnage was shipped after the European war was over. Your substitution of "Arctic route" for westbound through the Bering Strait is ambiguous with respect to eastbound tonnage arriving through the Barents Sea.

The primary deletion is a single sentence summarizing four summers of activity. The remainder of the article is primarily dated events. While you suggest the deleted information could be more usefully detailed later in the article, you have failed to do so. Adding four sentences (one for each summer) into the following chronology would seem the least effort, but the format would be inconsistent with the dated events. I question if that would be an improvement over the single sentence in the introduction. Perhaps you had something else in mind, but your recent edits have functionally deleted sourced information without replacement. Thewellman (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

We can discuss to what length information ought to be summarised for the introduction, but I reckon the first point to deal with is, that nothing should be in the introduction that isn't in the main part of the article. The main part is where it should go first. Stara Marusya (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)