HMT Lancastria
Bay Man
The Lancastria, Cunard Liner, was the biggest disaster at sea in British
History.
Death toll varies but could have been around 6,000 to 7,000. 9,000 were
estimated to have been on board when she was bombed, around 2,400 were
estimated to have been saved. Churchill ordered a complete black out of the
sinking, survivors were sworn to secrecy.
The entire 51st Division of Scottish Highlanders surrendered to Erwin Rommel
near Saint-Valery-en-Caux on June 12, 1940. The last open French port,
St-Nazaire, became something of a Mecca to these lost legions still trying
to get to the UK. The life raft of choice for these men was obvious. Docked
at the river port was the 16,243 ton five-decked troopship HMT Lancastria.
The ship, a former Cunard cruise liner taken up from trade, was taking all
the British troops that could squeeze aboard. Civilian refugees, stranded
RAF ground crews and others also crowded aboard.
On June 17, 1940, before the Lancastria could leave the coast, a German air
strike found her. Luftwaffe Junkers JU-88 bombers dropped a string of armor
penetrating bombs on the troopship, swarming with British soldiers like an
anthill. Men trapped below decks in cargo holds, passageways, and storage
areas had no chance of escape. Only those in exterior cabins with portholes
or on the upper most deck even had an opportunity to flee to disaster. The
Lancastria "turned turtle" and rolled over very fast while still in her
moorings. Follow on waves of German fighters strafed defenseless British
tommies floating among some 1,400 tons of burning fuel oil that had seeped
from the Lancastria's bunkers.
Overall losses of have only been estimated due to the fact that no loading
manifest was available from the stricken ship. Some unofficial lists count
upwards of 9,000 men aboard the ship when it was struck and only 2477 could
be accounted for after she rolled. This leaves a simple maths worst case
scenario of almost 7,000 soldiers and sailors drowned in the harbour. The
loss of life at sea can only be rivaled by that of the German troopship
Wilhelm Gustloff torpedoed in the Baltic by a Soviet submarine in 1945 with
the loss of some 5900 souls. It was the largest single day loss of life to
the British Army since the Battle of the Somme.
It should be remembered that the RMS Titanic which perished with 1,517 souls
and the RMS Lusitania with the loss of 1198, while tragic, are still muted
by the scale of the Lancastria's sinking.
Winston Churchill, who had proclaimed only days before that the entire
British Expeditionary Force in France had been withdrawn through Dunkirk,
when confronted with the reports of the loss of life in St-Nazaire, ordered
that the event be kept secret. In fact, the Royal Navy's files on the vessel
are classified for one hundred years and will not be open to the public
until the year 2040.
William Black
> Winston Churchill, who had proclaimed only days before that the entire
> British Expeditionary Force in France had been withdrawn through
> Dunkirk, when confronted with the reports of the loss of life in
> St-Nazaire, ordered that the event be kept secret.
Or possibly not...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4174143.ece
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Bay Man
news:hbvj9l$qh1$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bay Man wrote:
>
>> Winston Churchill, who had proclaimed only days before that the entire
>> British Expeditionary Force in France had been withdrawn through Dunkirk,
>> when confronted with the reports of the loss of life in St-Nazaire,
>> ordered that the event be kept secret.
>
> Or possibly not...
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4174143.ece
The 100 year gag is still in place I believe. The story leaked out in the US
press then the UK had to follow.
This is probably the largest loss of life a sea ever, yet few know of it.
On third of all British deaths in the BEF were in this ship. Did you see a
clip about in the World at War series, or any other? How many war books
mention this sinking? Few and far between aren't they.
Many questions need answering. Why was a ship so vulnerable, stopped in
open water with enemy planes around, allowed so many men on board? A CAP
over St. Nazaire could have been in place from English airfields. The CAP
could have followed the ships over the Channel.
William Black
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hbvj9l$qh1$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Bay Man wrote:
>>
>>> Winston Churchill, who had proclaimed only days before that the
>>> entire British Expeditionary Force in France had been withdrawn
>>> through Dunkirk, when confronted with the reports of the loss of life
>>> in St-Nazaire, ordered that the event be kept secret.
>>
>> Or possibly not...
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4174143.ece
>
> The 100 year gag is still in place I believe.
100 year gag on what exactly?
The story leaked out in
> the US press then the UK had to follow.
With wartime press censorship?
Nope.
> This is probably the largest loss of life a sea ever, yet few know of
> it.
The Germans lost an awful lot more when MV Wilhelm Gustloff and a couple
of others went down in 1945.
You obviously haven't heard of that one...
On third of all British deaths in the BEF were in this ship. Did you
> see a clip about in the World at War series, or any other? How many war
> books mention this sinking? Few and far between aren't they.
Same with the sinking I mentioned.
That you hadn't heard of it is highly illuminating.
> Many questions need answering. Why was a ship so vulnerable, stopped in
> open water with enemy planes around, allowed so many men on board? A
> CAP over St. Nazaire could have been in place from English airfields.
> The CAP could have followed the ships over the Channel.
I would imagine any CAP would have been shot to bits.
I'm not sure the technology existed for a rolling air escort for
shipping in 1940, but I'm sure someone will tell us.
David H Thornley
> Bay Man wrote:
>> Many questions need answering. Why was a ship so vulnerable, stopped
>> in open water with enemy planes around, allowed so many men on board?
>> A CAP over St. Nazaire could have been in place from English
>> airfields. The CAP could have followed the ships over the Channel.
>
> I would imagine any CAP would have been shot to bits.
>
I don't know what German aircraft could reach the area. Lancastria was
sunk by Ju 88s, which could operate at considerably longer range than
Bf 109s. Conceivably there could have been a Bf 110 escort, but
the Battle of Britain showed how badly that was going to work.
So, let's see. St. Nazaire is maybe 150 miles from the closest point
of Britain, call it about 200 miles from the average closest fighter
base (since there would not be a large complex of fighters based at
the right point, not even around a major city like Plymouth).
The total range of a Hurricane I is about 700 miles, which means that
something like half the endurance would be getting there and back
again, and two hours would be spent in transit. It's hard to tell
how much time could be spent over the target, because that depends.
If there's no interception, the Hurricanes could spend perhaps an
hour and a half over the target, but if they intercepted an enemy
raid they'd expend fuel and ammo fast, and would have to return.
If you wanted six hurricanes over the target at all times, that
probably means twelve at normal times (allowing for some to
intercept and return), and allowing two hours to turn the
Hurricanes around that is probably a commitment of forty or
fifty total. That, at the time, would be considered a lot of
on-duty Hurricanes and pilots.
This would also need to be a pre-arranged operation, which seems highly
unlikely. Lancastria was stopped awaiting U-boat escort, which was
a bad move, but if the operation were coordinated enough for a distant
CAP it would presumably be coordinated enough for a couple of destroyers
to be available. Presumably, also, if air attack was expected,
the captain would have decided to damn the torpedoes and get out of
St. Nazaire ASAP.
Let's consider the Channel Dash in early 1942. This was carefully
preplanned, and the German ships enjoyed good CAP through their transit.
This was considered highly impressive at the time.
To conclude, the RAF could have maintained CAP over St. Nazaire, but
it would have required significant resources and could not have been
done on an ad hoc basis. The evacuation operations themselves were
done almost exclusively on an ad hoc basis, and were disorganized.
There was pretty much no hope of a CAP over St. Nazaire.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Bay Man
> Bay Man wrote:
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:hbvj9l$qh1$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Bay Man wrote:
>>>
>>>> Winston Churchill, who had proclaimed only days before that the entire
>>>> British Expeditionary Force in France had been withdrawn through
>>>> Dunkirk, when confronted with the reports of the loss of life in
>>>> St-Nazaire, ordered that the event be kept secret.
>>>
>>> Or possibly not...
>>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4174143.ece
>>
>> The 100 year gag is still in place I believe.
>
> 100 year gag on what exactly?
>
> The story leaked out in
>> the US press then the UK had to follow.
>
> With wartime press censorship?
>
> Nope.
>
>> This is probably the largest loss of life a sea ever, yet few know of it.
>
> The Germans lost an awful lot more when MV Wilhelm Gustloff and a couple
> of others went down in 1945.
>
> You obviously haven't heard of that one...
You obviously never read the first post.
Estimates are that it was the greatest lost of life at sea ...ever.
> I would imagine any CAP would have been shot to bits.
But you have imagined a lot.
Bay Man
news:i46dnWnEw-jHLnnX...@posted.visi...
> To conclude, the RAF could have maintained CAP over St. Nazaire, but
> it would have required significant resources and could not have been
> done on an ad hoc basis. The evacuation operations themselves were
> done almost exclusively on an ad hoc basis, and were disorganized.
> There was pretty much no hope of a CAP over St. Nazaire.
The UK had substantial numbers of planes. A CAP could have been arranged at
short notice. A few hundred planes was easily available for the operation,
even if the time over the ships was short.
Don Phillipson
news:hc2k34$nis$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
It appears no Hurricane or Spitfire squadron had in June
1940 ever attempted to fly out of sight of land, let alone
navigate over water for 150 miles. "Hundreds" of fighters
would mean dozens of squadrons (each flying 12 to 16
aircraft if at full strength): but 5 Group had only about 20
squadrons to defend the whole of southern England. I
doubt if Fighter Command would have been capable of
escorting the Lancastria at so little as 24 hours' notice,
even if ordered by the CAS and the PM.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
David H Thornley
>
> The UK had substantial numbers of planes.
And notably fewer on active service, in the area, and uncommitted.
A CAP could have been arranged
> at short notice.
Sez you. It would have required coordinated planning that would
have extended over several airbases. Please come up with some
sort of example.
A few hundred planes was easily available for the
> operation, even if the time over the ships was short.
>
That's a significant portion of Fighter Command, which had
maybe about a thousand planes available. Are you sure they
had nothing else to do besides hang around places the
Germans weren't expected to attack?
David H Thornley
> Estimates are that it was the greatest lost of life at sea ...ever.
>
sinking is listed as far more deaths.
William Black
That's just plain wrong.
The MV Wilhelm Gustloff sinkings involved undoubtedly far greater loss
of life with some 9,000 dead.
Bay Man
>>
>> Estimates are that it was the greatest lost of life at sea ...ever.
>>
> Whose estimates? Certainly not at Wikipedia, where the Wilhelm Gustloff
> sinking is listed as far more deaths.
Do a Google on Lancastria, or RMS Lancastria, SS Lancastria & HMT
Lancastria. Lots comes up. Many estimate more than the Wilhelm Gustloff.
Which was not estimated to be 9,000.
One prime point is how this major sinking was near air-brushed out of
history. Not a major secret, although details are, it was just forgotten
and not mentioned by most historians.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> "David H Thornley" <da...@thornley.net> wrote in message
> news:ysednZA1t_4pQnnX...@posted.visi...
> >>
> >> Estimates are that it was the greatest lost of life at sea ...ever.
> >>
> > Whose estimates? Certainly not at Wikipedia, where the Wilhelm Gustloff
> > sinking is listed as far more deaths.
> Do a Google on Lancastria, or RMS Lancastria, SS Lancastria & HMT
> Lancastria. Lots comes up. Many estimate more than the Wilhelm Gustloff.
> Which was not estimated to be 9,000.
Googling Gustloff took about 5 seconds.
http://www.wilhelmgustloff.com/unknown.htm
"The torpedoing of the Wilhelm Gustloff by the Russian submarine S-13
resulted in over 9,000 tragic deaths - a staggering figure by any
comparison. Heartbreakingly, estimates have indicated that up to half
of those who perished were children."
Wikipedia also claims over 9,000.
Mike
Tero P. Mustalahti
> http://www.wilhelmgustloff.com/unknown.htm
>
> "The torpedoing of the Wilhelm Gustloff by the Russian submarine S-13
> resulted in over 9,000 tragic deaths - a staggering figure by any
> comparison. Heartbreakingly, estimates have indicated that up to half
> of those who perished were children."
>
> Wikipedia also claims over 9,000.
Of course we have to remember that we are dealing with estimates here.
In both cases the situation was chaotic and nobody was actually counting
the people on board. The estimates concerning Wilhelm Gustloff vary a
lot, from 6,000 up to over 9,000. Most modern estimates seem to support
the latter figure, however, but they are still estimates.
Tero P. Mustalahti
William Black
> One prime point is how this major sinking was near air-brushed out of
> history. Not a major secret, although details are, it was just
> forgotten and not mentioned by most historians.
Look, you hadn't even heard of the MV Wilhelm Gustloff when you started
this.
Nobody talks about the details of losses in a retreat, they're taken
for granted.
That you think someone has kept a secret when it was on the front page
of contemporary newspapers says more about how you view history than
anything about any supposed cover-up.
You have also still to tell me exactly what is being kept secret about
this incident...
Geoffrey Sinclair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lancastria
"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
news:hc19sj$jan$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hbvj9l$qh1$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Bay Man wrote:
>>
>>> Winston Churchill, who had proclaimed only days before that the entire
>>> British Expeditionary Force in France had been withdrawn through
>>> Dunkirk, when confronted with the reports of the loss of life in
>>> St-Nazaire, ordered that the event be kept secret.
>>
>> Or possibly not...
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4174143.ece
>
> The 100 year gag is still in place I believe.
No. The official report seems to be locked away until 2040, the
rest is in the public domain.
> The story leaked out in the US press then the UK had to follow.
The loss of life was not published during the war and articles
appeared at the same time in the UK and US press it seems.
> This is probably the largest loss of life a sea ever,
No, for example,
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/maritime-1.html
Rates it as number 4 in marine loss of life incidents in WWII.
> yet few know of it.
So who has heard of the major losses at sea apart from Titanic?
Given the above can you tell us numbers 1, 2 and 3 in WWII?
How about all time?
They should be right at hand.
> On third of all British deaths in the BEF were in this ship.
The ship had plenty of civilians on board.
http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/LossofHMTLancastriaatStNa.html
Puts the death toll below that of the Bay Man claims.
Has 4,206 killed and 37,959 missing, BEF only, the missing including
the men taken prisoner.
RAF casualties are put at 1,526, RN casualties directly related to the
campaign are part of the general RN casualties reported.
> Did you see a clip about in the World at War series, or any other? How
> many war books mention this sinking? Few and far between aren't they.
So again tell us the ready to hand list of loss of life by incident at sea
in WWII. And how many people can name them.
> Many questions need answering. Why was a ship so vulnerable, stopped in
> open water with enemy planes around, allowed so many men on board?
It needed to stop to pick up passengers, then wait for an escort.
It needed to overload as there was not enough shipping for the
people wanting to evacuate.
It decided to wait, rating the chance of a submarine attack a
greater risk than an air attack.
> A CAP over St. Nazaire could have been in place from English airfields.
No. Distance from the closest point in England (Salcombe or
Start Point in Cornwall) to St Nazaire around 205 to 210 miles.
If you want to use the airfields in Plymouth add around another
15 miles.
Hurricane I range at optimal cruising 525 miles maximum, 440
miles with 20 minute reserve.
Spitfire I range at optimum cruising 575 miles, range with combat
allowance 395 miles.
On 5 June Fighter Command reported it had 466 serviceable
aircraft of which Spitfires and Hurricanes, with 36 of these types
in reserve. By June 22 it had 565 operational aircraft.
On 18 June, the day after the Lancastria loss the Germans took
Caen, Cherbourg, Rennes, Briare and Le Mans. So only bases
in Cornwall could fly a basic direct route.
The last RAF fighter squadron based in France, number 73, left
Bagneux/Saumur for Castle Camps on 18 June, the airfield is
around 100 miles from St Nazaire.
> The CAP could have followed the ships over the Channel.
No, since there was no procedure to do this with fighters, in
any case a quick night passage was possible.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Louis C
(snip bits of nonsense that others already replied to)
> The last open French port,
> St-Nazaire, became something of a Mecca to these lost legions still trying
> to get to the UK.
St-Nazaire wasn't the last open French port, try Marseilles. If you
meant French ports on the Atlantic, try Bordeaux.
> Winston Churchill, who had proclaimed only days before that the entire
> British Expeditionary Force in France had been withdrawn through Dunkirk,
> when confronted with the reports of the loss of life in St-Nazaire, ordered
> that the event be kept secret.
Winston Churchill had proclaimed no such thing, as he was keen to
emphasize that British forces remained on the Continent to fight the
Germans alongside their French allies. What he did claim was that the
encircled BEF forces had been successfully evacuated, which they were.
Evacuation of the "second BEF" and other rear-area forces took place
during June and was generally successful, with some 150,000 being
evacuated. The Luftwaffe made no concerted and coordinated attempt to
stop these evacuations (or similar French efforts to North Africa).
Isolated bombing attacks sank a few ships, but things could have been
far worse had the Germans decided that closing off the French Atlantic
ports was a priority.
LC
Bay Man
> Bay Man wrote:
>
>> One prime point is how this major sinking was near air-brushed out of
>> history. Not a major secret, although details are, it was just forgotten
>> and not mentioned by most historians.
>
> Look, you hadn't even heard of the MV Wilhelm Gustloff when you started
> this.
You never read my first post. This is twice I have reminded you.
> Nobody talks about the details of losses in a retreat, they're taken for
> granted.
That around 1/3 of the total British military casualties in the Battle for
France were in one ship is something that does stand out. It sort of
screams at you. I'm sure many reading this never knew of the Lancastria
sinking. Many believe the Germans waited for it to be full before attacking,
when they could have sunk it empty and took the men as POWs.
The RN documents over the sinking are still under wraps. What they would
reveal we don't know, but apparently a number of requests to release them
have been denied.
Bay Man
news:4rKdnRSFJ4soDnjX...@westnet.com.au...
> No. The official report seems to be locked away until 2040, the
> rest is in the public domain.
The point is why? What have they got to hide?
>> The story leaked out in the US press then the UK had to follow.
>
> The loss of life was not published during the war and articles
> appeared at the same time in the UK and US press it seems.
>
>> This is probably the largest loss of life a sea ever,
>
> No, for example,
>
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/maritime-1.html
>
> Rates it as number 4 in marine loss of life incidents in WWII.
>
>> yet few know of it.
>
> So who has heard of the major losses at sea apart from Titanic?
> Given the above can you tell us numbers 1, 2 and 3 in WWII?
>
> How about all time?
>
> They should be right at hand.
>
>> On third of all British deaths in the BEF were in this ship.
>
> The ship had plenty of civilians on board.
>
> http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/LossofHMTLancastriaatStNa.html
>
> Puts the death toll below that of the Bay Man claims.
>
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/theatres-of-war/western-europe/investigation/invasion/sources/docs/1/enlarge.htm
>
> Has 4,206 killed and 37,959 missing, BEF only, the missing including
> the men taken prisoner.
>
> RAF casualties are put at 1,526, RN casualties directly related to the
> campaign are part of the general RN casualties reported.
I don't believe them. That is one of my points. The report is still secret.
During WW2 the British did tell lies to their own people.
The War Illustrated stated in 1940, there were no technical details or
photographs available at that time of the sinking of Richelieu at Dakar.
She was sunk to prevent the Vichy French turning her over to the Nazis it
said. We all know the ship was not sunk at all. In fact it put a 15 inch
shell into HMS Barham.
There is the issue covering Oran as well.
http://tinypic.com/r/2ujt7kk/4
There coverage of the Richelieu:
http://tinypic.com/r/308bqs1/4
>> A CAP over St. Nazaire could have been in place from English airfields.
>
> No. Distance from the closest point in England (Salcombe or
> Start Point in Cornwall) to St Nazaire around 205 to 210 miles.
They operated from grass strips - great advantage. The planes could have
been in France until the last seconds and then flew back to England. The
Germans were not occupying that part of France - yet.
Bay Man
news:hc3u0h$1jb8$1...@bowmore.utu.fi...
> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> Of course we have to remember that we are dealing with estimates here. In
> both cases the situation was chaotic and nobody was actually counting the
> people on board. The estimates concerning Wilhelm Gustloff vary a lot,
> from 6,000 up to over 9,000. Most modern estimates seem to support the
> latter figure, however, but they are still estimates.
Both sinking are estimates. We have to conclude they were both equal lacking
any meaningful data. Maybe be in 2040 will know more.
William Black
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4rKdnRSFJ4soDnjX...@westnet.com.au...
>
>> No. The official report seems to be locked away until 2040, the
>> rest is in the public domain.
>
> The point is why? What have they got to hide?
>
British secret papers are kept secret for 30, 50 and 100 years
depending on content.
The usual reason for reports being kept secret for that amount of time
is that one or more individuals are named who could reasonably be
expected to be alive after fifty years.
What do you think they're hiding?
William Black
What on earth do you think they're keeping a secret?
The losses for the whole campaign are well known.
Bay Man
> Bay Man wrote:
>> "Tero P. Mustalahti" <term...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hc3u0h$1jb8$1...@bowmore.utu.fi...
>>> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>>
>>> Of course we have to remember that we are dealing with estimates here.
>>> In both cases the situation was chaotic and nobody was actually counting
>>> the people on board. The estimates concerning Wilhelm Gustloff vary a
>>> lot, from 6,000 up to over 9,000. Most modern estimates seem to support
>>> the latter figure, however, but they are still estimates.
>>
>> Both sinking are estimates. We have to conclude they were both equal
>> lacking any meaningful data. Maybe be in 2040 will know more.
>>
>
> What on earth do you think they're keeping a secret?
The is a 100 year wrap on the RN report. I was hoping someone might tell me
why.
Bay Man
> Bay Man wrote:
>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4rKdnRSFJ4soDnjX...@westnet.com.au...
>>
>>> No. The official report seems to be locked away until 2040, the
>>> rest is in the public domain.
>>
>> The point is why? What have they got to hide?
>>
>
> British secret papers are kept secret for 30, 50 and 100 years depending
> on content.
>
> The usual reason for reports being kept secret for that amount of time is
> that one or more individuals are named who could reasonably be expected to
> be alive after fifty years.
>
> What do you think they're hiding?
I don't know. Obviously some incompetence. It stinks of the air attack in
Bluff Cove, Falklands, in 1982. The troops should not have been on the
ships in that position at anchor. Sitting ducks. And the inevitable
happened. The officers on the shore where wanting them off ASAP.
I was looking into this sinking as my great uncle was in charge of a Cunard
ship (officer in charge) when his liner was sunk off Newfoundland in WW1 -
he shamefully ran it aground and no one was killed - it was in ballast going
to pick up 1000s of Candian troops to take to France.
http://www.geocities.com/Cunard_Line/Ascania-I.html
What always hit me was how this massive loss of life was that it is rarely
mentioned in history books or TV documentaries. I have only ever read about
it in the odd naval mag and from old sea dogs.
William Black
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hc52fk$qgd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Bay Man wrote:
>>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4rKdnRSFJ4soDnjX...@westnet.com.au...
>>>
>>>> No. The official report seems to be locked away until 2040, the
>>>> rest is in the public domain.
>>>
>>> The point is why? What have they got to hide?
>>>
>>
>> British secret papers are kept secret for 30, 50 and 100 years
>> depending on content.
>>
>> The usual reason for reports being kept secret for that amount of time
>> is that one or more individuals are named who could reasonably be
>> expected to be alive after fifty years.
>>
>> What do you think they're hiding?
>
> I don't know. Obviously some incompetence. It stinks of the air attack
> in Bluff Cove, Falklands, in 1982. The troops should not have been on
> the ships in that position at anchor. Sitting ducks. And the
> inevitable happened. The officers on the shore where wanting them off
> ASAP.
Well no.
What do you think was supposed to have happened?
William Black
The usual reason has already been explained to you.
Stephen Graham
> What always hit me was how this massive loss of life was that it is
> rarely mentioned in history books or TV documentaries. I have only ever
> read about it in the odd naval mag and from old sea dogs.
This is, once again, a case of you not being familiar with an incident.
Among other places, it's covered in _The War in France and Flanders
1939-1940_, the relevant volume of the UK army official history,
published in 1953.
Geoffrey Sinclair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lancastria
By way of conspiracy central. We start off with the claim there
is a 100 year gag on the attack.
"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
news:hc4la6$ucc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4rKdnRSFJ4soDnjX...@westnet.com.au...
>
>> No. The official report seems to be locked away until 2040, the
>> rest is in the public domain.
>
> The point is why? What have they got to hide?
They? It was a French port, there were few fighters available, there
was no ground control, no radar, the risks of loss had to be balanced
against the reality those left behind would be lost to the war effort.
>>> The story leaked out in the US press then the UK had to follow.
>>
>> The loss of life was not published during the war and articles
>> appeared at the same time in the UK and US press it seems.
No reply here.
>>> This is probably the largest loss of life a sea ever,
>>
>> No, for example,
>>
>> http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/maritime-1.html
>>
>> Rates it as number 4 in marine loss of life incidents in WWII.
No reply here.
>>> yet few know of it.
>>
>> So who has heard of the major losses at sea apart from Titanic?
>> Given the above can you tell us numbers 1, 2 and 3 in WWII?
>>
>> How about all time?
>>
>> They should be right at hand.
No reply here.
>>> On third of all British deaths in the BEF were in this ship.
>>
>> The ship had plenty of civilians on board.
>>
>> http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/LossofHMTLancastriaatStNa.html
>>
>> Puts the death toll below that of the Bay Man claims.
>>
>> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/theatres-of-war/western-europe/investigation/invasion/sources/docs/1/enlarge.htm
>>
>> Has 4,206 killed and 37,959 missing, BEF only, the missing including
>> the men taken prisoner.
>>
>> RAF casualties are put at 1,526, RN casualties directly related to the
>> campaign are part of the general RN casualties reported.
>
> I don't believe them.
This is known. Trouble is the BEF casualties are well known. The
Germans could count the prisoners.
> That is one of my points.
No it is a major impediment in you understanding history.
> The report is still secret.
And everything else is in the public domain.
> During WW2 the British did tell lies to their own people.
Apparently the idea is they continue to tell lies about WWII.
The usual conspiracy logic, the lack of evidence of a conspiracy
is proof of two conspiracies, the original and the cover up.
> The War Illustrated stated in 1940, there were no technical details or
> photographs available at that time of the sinking of Richelieu at Dakar.
> She was sunk to prevent the Vichy French turning her over to the Nazis it
> said. We all know the ship was not sunk at all. In fact it put a 15
> inch shell into HMS Barham.
>
> There is the issue covering Oran as well.
> http://tinypic.com/r/2ujt7kk/4
>
> There coverage of the Richelieu:
> http://tinypic.com/r/308bqs1/4
And this is supposed to tell us what? That the British over estimated
their success?
>>> A CAP over St. Nazaire could have been in place from English airfields.
>>
>> No. Distance from the closest point in England (Salcombe or
>> Start Point in Cornwall) to St Nazaire around 205 to 210 miles.
The rest of my deleted information,
If you want to use the airfields in Plymouth add around another
15 miles.
Hurricane I range at optimal cruising 525 miles maximum, 440
miles with 20 minute reserve.
Spitfire I range at optimum cruising 575 miles, range with combat
allowance 395 miles.
On 5 June Fighter Command reported it had 466 serviceable
aircraft of which Spitfires and Hurricanes, with 36 of these types
in reserve. By June 22 it had 565 operational aircraft.
On 18 June, the day after the Lancastria loss the Germans took
Caen, Cherbourg, Rennes, Briare and Le Mans. So only bases
in Cornwall could fly a basic direct route.
The last RAF fighter squadron based in France, number 73, left
Bagneux/Saumur for Castle Camps on 18 June, the airfield is
around 100 miles from St Nazaire.
> They operated from grass strips - great advantage.
This is the reply to above information, after the information
was deleted. They needed to operate from water to close
the range. Is the idea there were sea grass airstrips round?
I gather reality has to be denied forever. The claim was the
coverage could have been made from England, that is a joke.
As for grass airfields name ones in England closer than the
distances I have given.
> The planes could have been in France until the last seconds and then flew
> back to England.
The last evacuation of RAF fighters was given in my post.
As for the idea of continuous fighter cover try the reality the RAF
in France did not have the aircraft, the stocks of fuel and spare
parts to do this by June 17 in the sort of numbers required to
keep the Luftwaffe from attacking shipping.
> The Germans were not occupying that part of France - yet.
What the Germans were occupying was given in my post.
By the way in terms of cover ups, this is from the War in France
and Flanders by L F Ellis, published in 1954.
"Between 40,000 and 60,000 British and Allied troops were thought
to be converging on Nantes, but neither exact numbers nor the times
of arrival were known.[31]
In preparation for the lifting of so large a number, Admiral
Dunbar-Nasmith ordered the assembly of a considerable
concentration of ships, including the destroyers Havelock,
Wolverine, and Beagle, the liners Georgic, Franconia, Duchess
of York, and Lancastria, the Polish ships Batory and Sobieski,
and a number of cargo ships. For the most part these had to lie
offshore in Quiberon Bay, twenty miles north-west of the Loire
estuary, where there was good anchorage for large ships but no
anti-submarine or other defences. It was a risk which had to be
taken, for no safer anchorage was available. Movement began
on the 16th and over 12,000 troops were embarked that day
on the Georgic, the Duchess of York, and the two Polish ships,
and sailed for home. The enemy's bombers attacked the ships in
Quiberon Bay, but only the Franconia was damaged. The loading
of stores went on all night, and additional ships arrived from
England-and some from Brest. The destroyers Highlander and
Vanoc also joined the flotilla.
The day that followed, June the 17th, was memorable for the only
tragedy that marred the success of these difficult and dangerous
operations. At Nantes the sun rose on a scene of great activity,
large bodies of troops were assembling in the port to be taken home, and
--303--
in and out of the river entrance destroyers and smaller craft were busy
ferrying parties to the ships which were waiting for them in the roads.
Overhead, fighters of the Royal Air Force patrolled at frequent intervals
to keep the sky clear of the enemy's bombers. And more ships arrived
to increase the speed of evacuation.
The morning's achievements raised high hopes that again the Navy's
task would be completed without loss, but at a quarter to four in the
afternoon, when the fighter patrol which had been maintained throughout
the day along a thirty-mile stretch of the coast was not over the port,
enemy bombers made a heavy attack on the ships assembled in the
roadstead and the mouth of the river. While destroyers and all the
smaller craft with anti-aircraft weapons defended themselves vigorously,
the Lancastria, with 5,800 troops-including many of the Royal Air
Force-already on board, was heavily hit and set on fire, and within
fifteen minutes sank with great loss of life. Nearly 3,000 perished, though
why so many lives were lost is something of a mystery.[33] It is true that
there were not enough lifebelts on board for the quite exceptional number
that had been embarked, and that a film of the ship's oil-fuel spread over
the surrounding waters. But the master, who was saved, testified that there
was no panic aboard, and the ship sank slowly where small craft were
present in considerable numbers. Doubtless many of these were so busy
defending themselves from the air attack (which continued for forty-five
minutes) that they failed to realise the urgent plight of the Lancastria's
men, yet this does not fully explain why there was so great a loss of life."
Joe Osman
Prussia. Many people were killed when they refused to get out of line
for their spot on an evacuation ship even though the docks were
undergoing Russian dive bomber attacks.
Joe
Bay Man
> Basically the Bay Man report is directly from,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lancastria
>
> By way of conspiracy central. We start off with the claim there
> is a 100 year gag on the attack.
>
> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:hc4la6$ucc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4rKdnRSFJ4soDnjX...@westnet.com.au...
>>
>>> No. The official report seems to be locked away until 2040, the
>>> rest is in the public domain.
>>
>> The point is why? What have they got to hide?
>
> They? It was a French port, there were few fighters available, there
> was no ground control, no radar, the risks of loss had to be balanced
> against the reality those left behind would be lost to the war effort.
Again, why the 100 years wrap? You never answered it.
>>>> The story leaked out in the US press then the UK had to follow.
>>>
>>> The loss of life was not published during the war and articles
>>> appeared at the same time in the UK and US press it seems.
>
> No reply here.
We know that.
>>>> This is probably the largest loss of life a sea ever,
>>>
>>> No, for example,
>>>
>>> http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/maritime-1.html
>>>
>>> Rates it as number 4 in marine loss of life incidents in WWII.
>
> No reply here.
So that web site says.
>>>> yet few know of it.
>>>
>>> So who has heard of the major losses at sea apart from Titanic?
>>> Given the above can you tell us numbers 1, 2 and 3 in WWII?
>>>
>>> How about all time?
>>>
>>> They should be right at hand.
>
> No reply here.
I am not into your quizzes.
>>>> On third of all British deaths in the BEF were in this ship.
>>>
>>> The ship had plenty of civilians on board.
>>>
>>> http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/LossofHMTLancastriaatStNa.html
>>>
>>> Puts the death toll below that of the Bay Man claims.
>>>
>>> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/theatres-of-war/western-europe/investigation/invasion/sources/docs/1/enlarge.htm
>>>
>>> Has 4,206 killed and 37,959 missing, BEF only, the missing including
>>> the men taken prisoner.
>>>
>>> RAF casualties are put at 1,526, RN casualties directly related to the
>>> campaign are part of the general RN casualties reported.
>>
>> I don't believe them.
>
> This is known. Trouble is the BEF casualties are well known. The
> Germans could count the prisoners.
I still do not believe them. Why the 100 years wrap?
>> That is one of my points.
>
> No it is a major impediment in you understanding history.
You are confused. Again. :(
>> The report is still secret.
>
> And everything else is in the public domain.
Whay is secret? What does it hide?
>> During WW2 the British did tell lies to their own people.
>
> Apparently the idea is they continue to tell lies about WWII.
Sort of by not telling us all the facts.
> The usual conspiracy logic, the lack of evidence of a conspiracy
> is proof of two conspiracies, the original and the cover up.
Why have a 100 year wrap?
>> The War Illustrated stated in 1940, there were no technical details or
>> photographs available at that time of the sinking of Richelieu at Dakar.
>> She was sunk to prevent the Vichy French turning her over to the Nazis it
>> said. We all know the ship was not sunk at all. In fact it put a 15
>> inch shell into HMS Barham.
>>
>> There is the issue covering Oran as well.
>> http://tinypic.com/r/2ujt7kk/4
>>
>> There coverage of the Richelieu:
>> http://tinypic.com/r/308bqs1/4
>
> And this is supposed to tell us what?
What is says, proof of lies. They called it propaganda,
>>>> A CAP over St. Nazaire could have been in place from English airfields.
>>>
>>> No. Distance from the closest point in England (Salcombe or
>>> Start Point in Cornwall) to St Nazaire around 205 to 210 miles.
>
> The rest of my deleted information,
It needed deleting.
> On 5 June Fighter Command reported it had 466 serviceable
> aircraft of which Spitfires and Hurricanes, with 36 of these types
> in reserve. By June 22 it had 565 operational aircraft.
Nice to know and some of these could have been around St Nazaire.
>> They operated from grass strips - great advantage.
>
> This is the reply to above information, after the information
> was deleted. They needed to operate from water to close
> the range. Is the idea there were sea grass airstrips round?
St. Nazaire was land.
>> The planes could have been in France until the last seconds and then flew
>> back to England.
>
> The last evacuation of RAF fighters was given in my post.
They could have gone back to cover the St. Nazare evacuation.
>> The Germans were not occupying that part of France - yet.
>
> What the Germans were occupying was given in my post.
The were not occupying St. Nazaire.
<snip quoted info>
What was apparent was that the RAF had planes that could operate from grass
strips being based around the areas where the ship where. They never were
deployed. At the last moment they could fly out and cover the ships as much
as possible or ditch in the Channel if short of fuel. Then English land
based planes could take over.
The RAF was absent.
..and we still don't know the full story - until 2040.
Rich
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> > ..and we still don't know the full story - until 2040.- Hide quoted text -
It might be helpful if you actually identified the Admiralty record(s)
at Kew regarding HMT Lancastria that you think are closed under the
100-year rule. So far, after some searching, I have not found such a
document. Given that the primary Admiralty records holding for World
War II, ADM 199, contains 2,578 items, that isn't so surprising of
course. There is also the not so minor matter that all I have found so
far were closed under the 30-year rule and have been open since the
1970s. Further, most such closings are essentially due to the
following of administrative rules, most that reveal personal
information about named individuals are closed for a period determined
so that the open date is presumptively after the death of any person
so named. OTOH, many records can simply be opened by request after a
review, in my experience the actual reason that many of thses
"mysterious" records remain closed is because none of those who find
them so mysterious ever request to have them opened since that would
sspell the deathknell to their idiotic conspiracy theories.
Geoffrey Sinclair
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:HOmdnRwPboNM5HvX...@westnet.com.au...
>> Basically the Bay Man report is directly from,
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lancastria
>>
>> By way of conspiracy central. We start off with the claim there
>> is a 100 year gag on the attack.
>>
>> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
>> news:hc4la6$ucc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4rKdnRSFJ4soDnjX...@westnet.com.au...
>>>
>>>> No. The official report seems to be locked away until 2040, the
>>>> rest is in the public domain.
>>>
>>> The point is why? What have they got to hide?
>>
>> They? It was a French port, there were few fighters available, there
>> was no ground control, no radar, the risks of loss had to be balanced
>> against the reality those left behind would be lost to the war effort.
>
> Again, why the 100 years wrap? You never answered it.
The official report is apparently not available until 2040, as
for reasons why not go ask the people in charge of the
documents instead of inventing conspiracy theories, and
making clearly untrue claims.
For all you know the report could be available already or as
son as someone asks for it.
>>>>> The story leaked out in the US press then the UK had to follow.
>>>>
>>>> The loss of life was not published during the war and articles
>>>> appeared at the same time in the UK and US press it seems.
>>
>> No reply here.
>
> We know that.
Yes, facts that contradict the conspiracy theory are rather painful
so they have to be ignored.
>>>>> This is probably the largest loss of life a sea ever,
>>>>
>>>> No, for example,
>>>>
>>>> http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/maritime-1.html
>>>>
>>>> Rates it as number 4 in marine loss of life incidents in WWII.
>>
>> No reply here.
>
> So that web site says.
Ah I see, the Bay Man claims about most loss of life are shown
to be wrong, so time to ignore the fact. Looked up the loss of
life in the German sea evacuations in 1945 yet? Or is that
another subject to be avoided because it does not fit the
Bay Man fiction?
>>>>> yet few know of it.
>>>>
>>>> So who has heard of the major losses at sea apart from Titanic?
>>>> Given the above can you tell us numbers 1, 2 and 3 in WWII?
>>>>
>>>> How about all time?
>>>>
>>>> They should be right at hand.
>>
>> No reply here.
>
> I am not into your quizzes.
Translation, Bay Man is once again wrong, and will pretend it
does not matter.
>>>>> On third of all British deaths in the BEF were in this ship.
>>>>
>>>> The ship had plenty of civilians on board.
>>>>
>>>> http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/LossofHMTLancastriaatStNa.html
>>>>
>>>> Puts the death toll below that of the Bay Man claims.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/theatres-of-war/western-europe/investigation/invasion/sources/docs/1/enlarge.htm
>>>>
>>>> Has 4,206 killed and 37,959 missing, BEF only, the missing including
>>>> the men taken prisoner.
>>>>
>>>> RAF casualties are put at 1,526, RN casualties directly related to the
>>>> campaign are part of the general RN casualties reported.
>>>
>>> I don't believe them.
>>
>> This is known. Trouble is the BEF casualties are well known. The
>> Germans could count the prisoners.
>
> I still do not believe them. Why the 100 years wrap?
The casualty figures are not under 100 year suppression orders.
They are quite accurate, plenty of sources, like the German
prisoner take, the war graves commission and so on can be
used to cross check.
And if you really need to known about the Lancastria official report
go ask the people in charge of the archives.
>>> That is one of my points.
>>
>> No it is a major impediment in you understanding history.
>
> You are confused. Again. :(
No Bay Man has a conspiracy theory that is a joke but is
not going to give it up again.
>>> The report is still secret.
>>
>> And everything else is in the public domain.
>
> Whay is secret? What does it hide?
The secret is the secret. Go ask for the report if it is so
important. Fight for its release, but I suppose asking
others to do it and inventing conspiracy theories is so
much easier, rather than real work.
>>> During WW2 the British did tell lies to their own people.
>>
>> Apparently the idea is they continue to tell lies about WWII.
>
> Sort of by not telling us all the facts.
Ah I see, the "all the facts" line. So tell us all, what colour was
the ship painted? An important fact when it comes to it being
observable from the air.
And so on. When the conspiracy theory runs aground simply
keep asking for more details, and then more details.
>> The usual conspiracy logic, the lack of evidence of a conspiracy
>> is proof of two conspiracies, the original and the cover up.
>
> Why have a 100 year wrap?
You could have asked the archives people many times over
in the time you have taken to spew the conspiracy junk onto
the internet. Strangely someone else has to go ask them, Bay
Man is incapable, which does explain the time taken on
conspiracy theories.
The world is not into your requests for documents.
The usual conspiracy logic, the lack of evidence of a conspiracy
is proof of two conspiracies, the original and the cover up.
>>> The War Illustrated stated in 1940, there were no technical details or
>>> photographs available at that time of the sinking of Richelieu at Dakar.
>>> She was sunk to prevent the Vichy French turning her over to the Nazis
>>> it said. We all know the ship was not sunk at all. In fact it put a
>>> 15 inch shell into HMS Barham.
>>>
>>> There is the issue covering Oran as well.
>>> http://tinypic.com/r/2ujt7kk/4
>>>
>>> There coverage of the Richelieu:
>>> http://tinypic.com/r/308bqs1/4
>>
>> And this is supposed to tell us what?
>
> What is says, proof of lies. They called it propaganda,
Ah I see, Bay Man tells lies about something, therefore Bay Man
tells lies about this subject. Simple really. And easily provable.
>>>>> A CAP over St. Nazaire could have been in place from English
>>>>> airfields.
>>>>
>>>> No. Distance from the closest point in England (Salcombe or
>>>> Start Point in Cornwall) to St Nazaire around 205 to 210 miles.
>>
>> The rest of my deleted information,
>
> It needed deleting.
Horrible wasn't it? Showing the fighters were out of range.
So it had to be deleted. So back in it comes.
If you want to use the airfields in Plymouth add around another
15 miles.
Hurricane I range at optimal cruising 525 miles maximum, 440
miles with 20 minute reserve.
Spitfire I range at optimum cruising 575 miles, range with combat
allowance 395 miles.
>> On 5 June Fighter Command reported it had 466 serviceable
>> aircraft of which Spitfires and Hurricanes, with 36 of these types
>> in reserve. By June 22 it had 565 operational aircraft.
The above should have "331 of which were Spitfires and Hurricanes."
There were over 40 Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons so you can see
what sort of average strength the units had.
> Nice to know and some of these could have been around St Nazaire.
Yes folks, now the CAP from England has gone, it is time to announce
the RAF was supposed to have plenty of airfields around St Nazaire,
stocked with all they needed apparently. Plus of course squadrons
that were in shape to move to France, perhaps Bay Man will list the
available squadrons, given the losses taken in France and over Dunkirk.
Of course Bay Man cannot actually find such airfields, or squadrons,
but hey, tow Cornwall to just off St Nazaire and it would have such
airfields. Such a move fits the Bay man logic quite well.
Then just add radar stations and fighter control rooms.
More deleted information,
On 18 June, the day after the Lancastria loss the Germans took
Caen, Cherbourg, Rennes, Briare and Le Mans. So only bases
in Cornwall could fly a basic direct route.
The last RAF fighter squadron based in France, number 73, left
Bagneux/Saumur for Castle Camps on 18 June, the airfield is
around 100 miles from St Nazaire.
>>> They operated from grass strips - great advantage.
>>
>> This is the reply to above information, after the information
>> was deleted. They needed to operate from water to close
>> the range. Is the idea there were sea grass airstrips round?
>
> St. Nazaire was land.
Actually the port was and is mainly water.
>>> The planes could have been in France until the last seconds and then
>>> flew back to England.
>>
>> The last evacuation of RAF fighters was given in my post.
>
> They could have gone back to cover the St. Nazare evacuation.
Yes folks, Bay Man decides reality and demands people agree the
earth is flat.
Try aircraft do not stay operational without stocks of fuel, ammunition
and spare parts, and the RAF did not have such stocks around St
Nazaire.
More deleted text, the stuff that just has to be ignored,
As for the idea of continuous fighter cover try the reality the RAF
in France did not have the aircraft, the stocks of fuel and spare
parts to do this by June 17 in the sort of numbers required to
keep the Luftwaffe from attacking shipping.
>>> The Germans were not occupying that part of France - yet.
>>
>> What the Germans were occupying was given in my post.
>
> The were not occupying St. Nazaire.
Amazing apparently occupying parts of France between St
Nazaire and England does not count.
> <snip quoted info>
"By the way in terms of cover ups, this is from the War in France
and Flanders by L F Ellis, published in 1954."
It had to be snipped, the publication of the disaster in 1956
ruins the Bay Man official conspiracy claims.
> What was apparent was that the RAF had planes that could operate
> from grass strips being based around the areas where the ship where.
Bay Man will now list those grass strips, and detail how well
stocked they were for RAF operations.
> They never were deployed.
Apart from the RAF fighter patrols that is. The ones Bay Man
chooses to ignore.
> At the last moment they could fly out and cover the ships as much as
> possible or ditch in the Channel if short of fuel.
Yes folks, this is supposed to be serious. The official history notes
the ships were largely left alone, but Bay Man arrives in a time
machine to let everyone know what is to happen. Even then the
RAF was not in a position to intervene properly, it is called a lack
of aircraft and bases.
Note the way Bay Man casually throws away the large CAP
fighter force, at a time the RAF was acutely short of fighters.
> Then English land based planes could take over.
Ah the switch from CAP from England is underway.
The ships would have done a fast passage at night, since they
were moving closer to Luftwaffe bomber bases.
> The RAF was absent.
By the way note the snipped text told people the RAF was present,
hence the need to delete it.
> ..and we still don't know the full story - until 2040.
Do not worry, in 2040 Bay Man's successor will still be claiming
the full story has not been told, the report leaves unanswered
questions etc. the usual stuff. Certainly there will be no request
for the report much better to claim conspiracy.
Meantime Bay Man will now release the list of RAF units available
to go to France, the amount of supplies they had in France and
the airfields where those supplies were. Since Bay Man says the
units were available and the airfields and supplies were as well,
Bay Man must have the information ready to go, so it should
be a simple task to tell the world. Give the facts.
For those living in the real world Douglas Bader found an
extreme example in 242 squadron, the men had only the clothes
they were wearing, the squadron had about 1 small tool kit and
almost zero spare parts. His reaction meant he ended up in a
meeting with Dowding.
Bay Man
> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:hc75vq$bdn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:HOmdnRwPboNM5HvX...@westnet.com.au...
>>> Basically the Bay Man report is directly from,
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lancastria
>>>
>>> By way of conspiracy central. We start off with the claim there
>>> is a 100 year gag on the attack.
>>>
>>> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
>>> news:hc4la6$ucc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:4rKdnRSFJ4soDnjX...@westnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>>>> No. The official report seems to be locked away until 2040, the
>>>>> rest is in the public domain.
>>>>
>>>> The point is why? What have they got to hide?
>>>
>>> They? It was a French port, there were few fighters available, there
>>> was no ground control, no radar, the risks of loss had to be balanced
>>> against the reality those left behind would be lost to the war effort.
>>
>> Again, why the 100 years wrap? You never answered it.
>
> The official report is apparently not available until 2040, as
> for reasons why not go ask the people in charge of the
> documents instead of inventing conspiracy theories, and
> making clearly untrue claims.
I never invented a conspiracy theory, you did, as you see one somewhere. I
questioned why the RAF were not active protecting these ships when they were
quite capable of doing something. Fighter engaging bomber may have made
they pull of the mission.
>> I am not into your quizzes.
>
> Translation, Bay Man is once again wrong, and will pretend it
> does not matter.
No, I am not into your quizzes.
>>> This is known. Trouble is the BEF casualties are well known. The
>>> Germans could count the prisoners.
>>
>> I still do not believe them. Why the 100 years wrap?
>
> The casualty figures are not under 100 year suppression orders.
So some think.
<snip conspiracy theory obsession>
Geoffrey Sinclair
"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
news:hc7idi$adf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Let's see now, someone who is busy asking what is there to
hide is determined to claim they are not into conspiracy
theories.
> as you see one somewhere.
No, Bay Man is not a conspiracy. Just invents them.
> I questioned why the RAF were not active protecting these ships
> when they were quite capable of doing something.
Actually Bay Man was inventing RAF capabilities, you know,
the war games that do not worry about supplies and have
perfect intelligence sort of approach.
I note the Bay Man list of available RAF units and bases has
not been supplied, not surprising really.
How about this for a start, how many fighter squadrons did the
RAF have at the time? What were they equipped with?
> Fighter engaging bomber may have made they pull of the mission.
Details have been given and ignored.
>>> I am not into your quizzes.
>>
>> Translation, Bay Man is once again wrong, and will pretend it
>> does not matter.
>
> No, I am not into your quizzes.
Translation, Bay Man is once again wrong, and will pretend it
does not matter. Much easier than learning real history.
Hence the way so much text has to be discarded.
The questions were,
So who has heard of the major losses at sea apart from Titanic?
Given the above can you tell us numbers 1, 2 and 3 in WWII?
>>>> This is known. Trouble is the BEF casualties are well known. The
>>>> Germans could count the prisoners.
>>>
>>> I still do not believe them. Why the 100 years wrap?
>>
>> The casualty figures are not under 100 year suppression orders.
>
> So some think.
Amazing, Bay Man claims no conspiracy but is busy announcing
the well known casualty figures are wrong. The truth is apparently
being hidden.
They are quite accurate, plenty of sources, like the German
prisoner take, the war graves commission and so on can be
used to cross check.
And if you really need to know about the Lancastria official report
go ask the people in charge of the archives.
> <snip conspiracy theory obsession>
Translation remove all the facts that Bay Man cannot answer.
Asked for the report yet, or even started to identify what file
it is in?
I will just put back in some key lines,
Looked up the loss of
life in the German sea evacuations in 1945 yet? Or is that
another subject to be avoided because it does not fit the
Bay Man fiction?
Go ask for the report if it is so
important. Fight for its release, but I suppose asking
others to do it and inventing conspiracy theories is so
much easier, rather than real work.
You could have asked the archives people many times over
in the time you have taken to spew the conspiracy junk onto
the internet. Strangely someone else has to go ask them, Bay
Man is incapable, which does explain the time taken on
conspiracy theories.
The world is not into your requests for documents.
Do not worry, in 2040 Bay Man's successor will still be claiming
the full story has not been told, the report leaves unanswered
questions etc. the usual stuff. Certainly there will be no request
for the report much better to claim conspiracy.
Meantime Bay Man will now release the list of RAF units available
to go to France, the amount of supplies they had in France and
the airfields where those supplies were. Since Bay Man says the
units were available and the airfields and supplies were as well,
Bay Man must have the information ready to go, so it should
be a simple task to tell the world. Give the facts.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Bay Man
> Nothing new here, just having a laugh.
The only laugh here is on you.
The Lancastria sinking. Some simple facts:
* Few historians or TV docs ever mention this sinking in which one 1/3 of
all British casualties in the Battle of France occurred. It is probably the
largest loss of life ever at sea. That is strange it itself.
* A 100 year secret wrap is on
* The RAF was never called to protect the ships, despite having no pressing
role as Dunkirk was evacuated.
* The RAF could have operated on grass strips near the port. They never.
* The massive RN was largely absent
* The ship was anchored in open water like a sitting duck to German
aircraft.
And apologists say nothing went wrong. Amazing.
Geoffrey Sinclair
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:iMWdnUsYxvt5T3rX...@westnet.com.au...
>
>> Nothing new here, just having a laugh.
>
> The only laugh here is on you.
Ah good, delete all the facts, start again. More laughter breaks.
No text can survive because it is time for Bay Man to simply
repeat the junk claims again.
> The Lancastria sinking. Some simple facts:
>
> * Few historians or TV docs ever mention this sinking in which one 1/3 of
> all British casualties in the Battle of France occurred. It is probably
> the largest loss of life ever at sea. That is strange it itself.
Ah yes, fact, mentioned in the official history published in 1956.
Next, ignore the fact it was not the largest loss of life at sea, Bay Man
has still not looked up the WWII sinkings yet, obviously.
Next, we are supposed to ignore Bay Man does not believe the official
casualty lists, but is sure 1/3 of the losses were in this sinking. Anyone
else noted this disconnect? One third of an undisclosed figure. Also
note casualties include PoWs and come to the best part of 70,000, so
the BayLancastriaMan was really carrying a load.
As for few historians and TV docs, perhaps Bay Man can give the
list of such histories and programs that should have covered the
loss, you know something on more than just the Dunkirk evacuations.
I suspect no list can or will be provided.
> * A 100 year secret wrap is on
No. It was published in 1956, officially. A report might be under
the 100 year rule but I note Bay Man has still not bothered to
actually check this.
> * The RAF was never called to protect the ships, despite having no
> pressing role as Dunkirk was evacuated.
The official history notes the RAF fighters in France were running
patrols in the area. Quotes provided.
As noted in the strength returns Fighter Command had a rather big
job at the time, recovering from the losses in France.
Again, name the air bases, supplies and units available.
> * The RAF could have operated on grass strips near the port. They never.
Bay Man has been asked repeatedly for the airfields, the relevant
supplies and the relevant units that would have operated there, so
far zero. Facts ruin Bay Man, so just delete them.
> * The massive RN was largely absent
Apparently the home fleet should have been there.
Imagine if the German bomber had sunk a battleship there,
imagine what Bay Man would have said about risking
important ships. Remember Bay Man wants to hurt
reputations, so far it is only Bay Man's though.
> * The ship was anchored in open water like a sitting duck to German
> aircraft.
It was not in open water and it was anchored like all the other
transports until it was time to leave, as a convoy protected by
the RN ships present. There was no room to undertake
major evasive action.
> And apologists say nothing went wrong.
Name the apologists who say nothing went wrong, even the official
history notes the disaster.
> Amazing.
Yes it seems Bay Man is determined to ignore history even when
presented with basic information. Quite amazing.
The rest is part of the text deleted, nothing new
I note the Bay Man list of available RAF units and bases has
not been supplied, not surprising really.
How about this for a start, how many fighter squadrons did the
RAF have at the time? What were they equipped with?
Amazing, Bay Man claims no conspiracy but is busy announcing
the well known casualty figures are wrong. The truth is apparently
being hidden.
They are quite accurate, plenty of sources, like the German
prisoner take, the war graves commission and so on can be
used to cross check.
And if you really need to know about the Lancastria official report
go ask the people in charge of the archives.
Looked up the loss of
William Black
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:iMWdnUsYxvt5T3rX...@westnet.com.au...
>
>> Nothing new here, just having a laugh.
>
> The only laugh here is on you.
>
> The Lancastria sinking. Some simple facts:
>
> * Few historians or TV docs ever mention this sinking in which one 1/3
> of all British casualties in the Battle of France occurred. It is
> probably the largest loss of life ever at sea. That is strange it itself.
You have been repeatedly told that this sinking was NOT the largest loss
of life at sea.
> * A 100 year secret wrap is on
What on earth is 'a secret wrap'?
Have you asked for the file to be released?
> * The RAF was never called to protect the ships, despite having no
> pressing role as Dunkirk was evacuated.
That's because, as has been repeatedly explained to you, they didn't
have the capacity to do so.
> * The RAF could have operated on grass strips near the port. They never.
They had no fuel and ammunition there.
This was before the days such supplies could be delivered by air.
> * The massive RN was largely absent
Well, those bits of it that weren't sinking...
What would you have liked them to send?
> * The ship was anchored in open water like a sitting duck to German
> aircraft.
It was stopped awaiting its destroyer escort.
You know, those RN ships you said they didn't send...
Louis C
> The War Illustrated stated in 1940, there were no technical details or
> photographs available at that time of the sinking of Richelieu at Dakar.
The caption in the picture you scanned doesn't say that. It says no
technical details or photographs are available of the Richelieu -
which strikes me as odd: did the French keep their battleship design
secret from their British allies? - no mention is made of it having
been sunk at Dakar.
In all fairness, Richelieu was hit at Dakar, and hits regularly
translate as "sinkings" in wartime reports. I forget the British
losses as reported by Vichy at the time, but I'm pretty sure they
included HMS Resolution.
> There is the issue covering Oran as well.http://tinypic.com/r/2ujt7kk/4
The RN had definitely hit Dunkerque, and a torpedo bomber raid a few
days after the initial battle hit her again with a large explosion
being seen, so it wasn't entirely unreasonable of the British to
believe they finally had crippled her.
> >> A CAP over St. Nazaire could have been in place from English airfields.
>
> > No. Distance from the closest point in England (Salcombe or
> > Start Point in Cornwall) to St Nazaire around 205 to 210 miles.
>
> They operated from grass strips - great advantage. The planes could have
> been in France until the last seconds and then flew back to England. The
> Germans were not occupying that part of France - yet.
French airfields, grass strips or not, weren't available in the St
Nazaire area at the time. They would require more than a strip of
grass, by the way: things like high-octane fuel, repair and signal
installations, and of course being reasonably confident not to be
overrun by German ground troops would all have been considered
desirable.
LC
Louis C
following is from Vol 1 of the official RAF history, "The Fight At
Odds", p. 148-149 from this link:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-RAF-I/UK-RAF-I-5.html
"It remained for the A.A.S.F. fighters to cover the evacuation of the
ground staff and of the three remaining British divisions under Lt.
General Alan Brooke. But evacuation, other than that of 'surplus
stores and personnel' had not yet been officially ordered from home.
For though there was now no conceivable military justification for
retaining our forces in France, there was some natural fear that our
withdrawal would prejudice the French against continuing the fight
from North Africa. By midnight on 16th June, however, that question,
though not yet decided, was heavily compromised. Spurning the hastily
considered and quixotic offer of union with Great Britain, the French
Ministers entrusted the fate of their country to P�tain. The aged
victor of Verdun had been agitating since 5th June for the premiership
and peace. He now had one; and he at once set out to get the other.
His approach to the Germans on 17th June was the signal for the
complete evacuation of the British forces.
Barratt's task was to cover seven ports with five squadrons. It
was merely another variant of the problem with which the Royal Air
Force was already familiar--how to make a pint go as far as gallon. To
La Pallice and La Rochelle, the ports of which least use would be
made, Barratt sent the anti-aircraft batteries which had defended the
A.A.S.F. airfields. For Nantes and St. Nazaire, whence the flow of
troops would be heaviest, he grouped three squadrons--Nos. 1, 73 and
242. For Brest he arranged a small detachment from the squadrons at
Nantes. And for St. Malo and Cherbourg he ordered protection by two
squadrons--Nos. 17 and 501--at first from Dinard, then from the Channel
Islands. Fighter
Command aircraft from Tangmere would also give help over
Cherbourg, while Coastal Command would protect returning vessels. With
these arrangements made, Barratt then took off for England. The final
operations came under the control of his Senior Air Staff Office, Air
Vice-Marshal D. C. S. Evill, who had been throughout the campaign, in
Barratt's words, 'a tower of strength'.
In spite of the inevitably sparse nature of the cover provided,
and in spite of 'scenes of indescribably confusion' at Nantes, the
evacuation was entirely successful. the Luftwaffe dropped bombs by day
and mines by night, but achieved remarkably little. Only off St.
Nazaire, where on the afternoon of 17th June German bombers making
their third attempt within two hours sank the Lancastria with five
thousand troops abroad, was there a major disaster. In this case the
enemy made clever use of cloud cover to elude our patrolling
Hurricanes.
By the afternoon of 18th June the ground forces had made good
their escape, and the fighters, most of whom had flown six sorties on
the previous day, were free to depart. After No. 73 Squadron had flown
the final patrol, the last Hurricanes left Nantes for Tangmere and the
mechanics set fire to the unserviceable machines. A little time was
lost while a thoughtful sergeant gave one of the staff cares to a well-
disposed caf� proprietor nearby, and while a more commercially-minded
airman endeavoured to sell an Austin Seven. Then the rear parties of
the ground and operations staff took off in transport aircraft. A few
hours later German tanks came rumbling into Nantes."
Denis Richards' account is by no means unbiased, but that's an
additional data point.
LC
Greg Schuler
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
I find it amazing that you managed to get this far into the debate
without resorting to Tooze in some obtuse manner. Small steps, Bay
Man, but it should be counted as progress.
Do you have any idea that the people that frequent this group tend to
be a bit more educated on the subject matter than people who rely on
TV Documentaries and slick coffee-table books? Your grand
pronouncements regarding some "obscure" fact is generally well know to
the majority of group members. What becomes frustrating then is the
lengths you go to press home your absurd points without any
consideration of the group audience and your refusal to admit maybe,
just possibly, that others know more.
There is simply nothing you have proposed that would suggest a
deliberate conspiracy by the British to cover up the sinking. Tragic
as it was - it happens, especially in war and moreso during a full-
scale retreat. Your lack of appreciation for the conduct of all types
of military operations is frustrating to say the least.
It would have been a good idea to fly constant air cover over the ship
and beaches, but the risk weighed was geared more towards submarine
activity. It happens.
Mike Muth
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:iMWdnUsYxvt5T3rX...@westnet.com.au...
>
> > Nothing new here, just having a laugh.
>
> The only laugh here is on you.
>
> The Lancastria sinking. Some simple facts:
> * Few historians or TV docs ever mention this sinking in which one 1/3 of
> all British casualties in the Battle of France occurred.
The British suffered 66,000 casualties up to the evacuation at
Dunkirk. Are you saying 33,000 men were lost aboard Lancastria. Even
if we exclude prisoners, we still have 23,000+ casualties up to the
fall of Dunkirk. did the british suffer 11,000 casualties on
Lancastria? Oh, wait. We've forgotten St Valery, so the numbers
would be higher.
> It is probably the
> largest loss of life ever at sea. That is strange it itself.
Lots of things don't get mentioned. One hardly hears of the Germany
losses at sea in 1945, yet the worst loss of life in a WW II maritime
sinking was the Wilhelm Gustloff. This site (http://
www.shipwreckregistry.com/index6.htm) lists the Lancastria as #6 in WW
II (I hadn't heard of 4 of the first 5), but with an inflated death
toll and the same questions Bay Man is asking.
Even the Ferry Sinking in the Philippines in 1987 had a higher loss of
life than the Lancastria sinking. So, "probably the largest loss of
life ever at sea" would seem to be a considerable exaggeration.
> * A 100 year secret wrap is on
Is it? I've seen a couple of references to that, but no one has
indicated anything official.
> * The RAF was never called to protect the ships, despite having no pressing
> role as Dunkirk was evacuated.
That turns out to *not* be true. In the message which Geoffrey
Sinclair posted, he quoted from a book and included this text:
"Overhead, fighters of the Royal Air Force patrolled at frequent
intervals
to keep the sky clear of the enemy's bombers. And more ships arrived
to increase the speed of evacuation.
The morning's achievements raised high hopes that again the Navy's
task would be completed without loss, but at a quarter to four in the
afternoon, when the fighter patrol which had been maintained
throughout
the day along a thirty-mile stretch of the coast was not over the
port,
enemy bombers made a heavy attack on the ships assembled in the
roadstead and the mouth of the river."
So, there was an overhead patrol, but it was out of position when the
German bombers arrived. It would seem that the fighters were
protecting shipping scattered along that 30 mile stretch of coastline.
> * The RAF could have operated on grass strips near the port. They never.
They operated from somewhere, else there would have been no overhead
patrol.
> * The massive RN was largely absent
The "massive RN" is a myth. The Royal Navy was large but was
stretched so thin it couldn't provide adequate ships to escort trans-
atlantic convoys. What was available was committed to evacuations.
> * The ship was anchored in open water like a sitting duck to German
> aircraft.
It was still loading troops when the German attack arrived (without
warning). It's usually a good thing to be anchored when loading and
unloading. It was in open water because the docks were in use. It
was in the roadstead. You know, the place where ships anchor when
dock space is not available. It was far from the only ship loading
troops in the harbor.
> And apologists say nothing went wrong. Amazing.
Obviously things went wrong, as they are wont to do in warfare. No
one has denied that. Folks are saying there is no conspiracy.
The sinking of the ship was quickly known in England. However, there
was another event which overshadowed the disaster in the news. It
seems that France surrendered to the Germans at a time which kept the
Lancastria off the front pages. BTW, Churchill wrote that wanted
release of the news delayed, not prevented.
--
Mike
Louis C
> > * Few historians or TV docs ever mention this sinking in which one 1/3 of
> > all British casualties in the Battle of France occurred.
>
> The British suffered 66,000 casualties up to the evacuation at
> Dunkirk.
I believe the figure you are thinking of is 68,000 casualties for the
whole campaign i.e. to late June, rather than just to early June
(Dunkirk).
That figure would include the troops captured at St Valery en Caux.
The Lancastria death toll would be in the ballpark for a third of all
British deaths in May & June 1940, for what little that's worth,
though.
LC
Bay Man
news:942058a8-1fb4-4400...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Only off St.Nazaire, where on the afternoon of
> 17th June German bombers making their third
> attempt within two hours sank the Lancastria with five
> thousand troops abroad, was there a major disaster.
> In this case the enemy made clever use of cloud
> cover to elude our patrolling Hurricanes.
Thanks.
Sounds like they never had enough planes and/or screwed up. They must have
known which ships had the most men on board. When you do you patrol around
them as they are the No. 1 priority.
Bay Man
> The Lancastria death toll would be in the ballpark for a third of all
> British deaths in May & June 1940, for what little that's worth,
> though.
That is what I wrote.
Don Phillipson
> > Only off St.Nazaire, where on the afternoon of
> > 17th June German bombers making their third
> > attempt within two hours sank the Lancastria with five
> Sounds like they never had enough planes and/or screwed up. They must
have
> known which ships had the most men on board. When you do you patrol
around
> them as they are the No. 1 priority.
The comment seems misplaced so far as no
RAF units were then functioning on French soil,
the RAF had no fighters with the range to reach
St-Nazaire (south coast of Britanny), and no RN
aircraft carriers were within range.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Bay Man
Only off
> St.Nazaire, where on the afternoon of
> 17th June German bombers making their third
> attempt within two hours sank the Lancastria with five
> thousand troops abroad, was there a major disaster.
> In this case the enemy made clever use of cloud
> cover to elude our patrolling Hurricanes.
3 raids in two hours? After 2, that tells me that maybe the men should have
been taken off and loaded in the dark.
Don Phillipson
> > St.Nazaire, where on the afternoon of
> > 17th June German bombers making their third
> > attempt within two hours sank the Lancastria with five
> > thousand troops abroad, was there a major disaster.
> > In this case the enemy made clever use of cloud
> > cover to elude our patrolling Hurricanes.
>
> 3 raids in two hours? After 2, that tells me that maybe the men should
have
> been taken off and loaded in the dark.
We can examine in more detail than this . . .
It would probably take 2 hours to disembark 5,000
men from the Lancastria (using three to six ordinary
gangways, assuming space was free in the port to
permit her to tie up at dockside.) It would take more
time to re-embark the same men (because the authorities
would want to check the identities of everyone boarding,
to be adequately sure they included no civilian refugees,
enemy infiltrators etc.) and before then the organized
British Army units (the bulk of passengers) would have
to muster somewhere reasonably close to the docks.
I cannot imagine it would be possible to unload and reload
everyone in less than six hours. This may have seemed
an unrealistic tactic to the SS Lancastria's captain, who had
survived air attack twice in less time than six hours.
Louis C
> The comment seems misplaced so far as no
> RAF units were then functioning on French soil,
Bay Man's comment certainly is misplaced, but RAF units were still
operating on French soil, see the link from the official history of
the RAF that I had provided in a previous post.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-RAF-I/UK-RAF-I-5.html
LC
Louis C
> 3 raids in two hours? After 2, that tells me that maybe the men should have
> been taken off and loaded in the dark.
And that tells me you've just demonstrated total ignorance of the
conditions then prevailing. Some of the reasons why I think so, in no
particular order:
1. The Lancastria was moored a few miles offshore, "taking off" the
men to reload them in the dark was not possible. Loading had been
going on for a long time with the ship well over capacity by the time
the Luftwaffe attacked it. It had taken a noria of smaller ships to do
so.
2. St Nazaire was a huge area and a key port, it wasn't a small
seaside resort with just Lancastria standing out. Lots of alternative
targets, and Lancastria wasn't the only ship attacked, let alone sunk,
this day.
3. If Luftwaffe bombing of a port had been reason enough to forfeit
evacuation in daylight, then the British would never have managed to
evacuate so many men from France. Fortunately, WWII British admirals
seem to have been made up of sterner stuff than some of their
grandsons.
LC
Bay Man
news:hhveo0$pmi$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:hhshpr$8a5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> > St.Nazaire, where on the afternoon of
>> > 17th June German bombers making their third
>> > attempt within two hours sank the Lancastria with five
>> > thousand troops abroad, was there a major disaster.
>> > In this case the enemy made clever use of cloud
>> > cover to elude our patrolling Hurricanes.
>>
>> 3 raids in two hours? After 2, that tells me that maybe the men should
> have
>> been taken off and loaded in the dark.
>
> We can examine in more detail than this . . .
> It would probably take 2 hours to disembark 5,000
> men from the Lancastria (using three to six ordinary
> gangways,
You take off as many as you can. You do not start counting how many can go
down a gangway.
Bay Man
> Bay Man wrote:
>> 3 raids in two hours? After 2, that tells me that maybe the men should
>> have
>> been taken off and loaded in the dark.
>
> And that tells me you've just demonstrated
> total ignorance
Do not be so insulting. One thing I am not is ignorant and stupid. If the
ship is under attack you take men off. It is as simple as that. When Sir
Gallahad was hit by an Argentine plane in the Falklands, men were screaming
at the commanders to take them off as the ship was stationary. The plane
came and hit the ship and many men needlessly died. You take them off, and
in the Lancastria's case after two air attacks you do not keep men on board
when they can be on the adjacent shore, even if cold and wet, they are still
alive. Especially when 5.000 are on board. Get it? They even knew that
then.
Louis C
> Do not be so insulting.
You are being needlessly insulting to the people who were there at the
time. They were faced with difficult choices, they had given the
matter a great deal more thought than you clearly have, whatever
mistakes they may have made must be considered in that light.
Failing to evacuate the Lancastria after the air attacks started was
certainly not oversight, nor the sort of "what were they thinking?"
mental breakdown you imply it to have been.
> If the ship is under attack you take men off.
Looking up the circumstances of the attack is particularly easy. I
strongly suggest you do so as well as actually read the links some of
us post here before hitting that "reply" button.
The short answer is that there was no time to take men off.
> It is as simple as that.
It had taken hours to bring the men on board, there were no boats in
the immediate vicinity when the air attack started, the Lancastria was
sunk within about 20 minutes of it being hit.
It's as simple as that.
> You take them off, and
> in the Lancastria's case after two air attacks you do not keep men on board
> when they can be on the adjacent shore
What "adjacent shore"?
From
"Tugs, trawlers, tenders, in fact craft of all types, each one packed
with people, had for hours transported thousands of combatants, all
pretty exhausted, from the port of Saint-Nazaire to liners. These were
anchored out at sea, several nautical miles from the port, because of
the expected air raids."
You could find the same information in official histories, could you
be bothered to look them up, but this is from the testimony of a
British serviceman who was there at the time. I suggest he knows
better than you do.
Regarding how easy the evacuation would have been, try this other
testimony from
http://www.britisharmedforces.org/pages/nat_alfred_lockyer.htm
"Alfred found his way to the Docks and joined a massive queue on the
dockside for boats taking men out to the "Lancastria" which was moored
in the Charpentier Roads further out, there wasn't panic but thousands
of men were jostling for position and getting more anxious by the
hour.
When nearly at the front of the queue an RN Officer shouted at his
group to jump aboard a landing barge and not the boats loading for the
Lancastria as he said that ship was full, Alfreds barge was to make
for the "Oransay", this was another converted Cunard Liner now used as
a troopship. The officer added that we must not worry as there were
plenty of ships to take them all back to England but ships must not be
overloaded, they all felt happier at this."
So here's from someone else who was there at the time. Now, try
announcing "Sorry lads, looks like the Luftwaffe might be bombing us,
so boarding will only take place at night with ships sailing before
dawn, it might be a few more days before most of you can find a ship,
let's hope the advancing Germans have tea breaks".
Later, from the same account:
"At this point German Bombers appeared overhead, a mixture of Dorniers
and Junkers Dive Bombers and commenced to bomb all the ships in the
port. The Somersetshire Hospital ship was not spared this bombing as
it made its way out to sea but luckily was not hit. "No kit bags or
other gear except what's strapped to you" an officer ordered, lots of
kit was left on the dockside or thrown into the water.The first bombs
hit the Oransay at 2:10pm and damaged the steering gear and navigation
equipment which delayed the ships departure for some hours."
So ALL the ships are being bombed, not just the Lancastria, a hospital
ship is bombed and missed, another liner is bombed but can eventually
make its way to Britain. Evacuation was risky, people had to take
their chances that they might be bombed. The Royal Navy had a somewhat
less than unimpeachable safety record in the Dunkirk and following
evacuations, yet strangely enough no-one thought of suing it until you
came along.
> Especially when 5.000 are on board. Get it?
Oh, I get it all right. What I also get is how many were waiting for
shipping space and willing to take the chance, as well as how many
took the chance and were evacuated. I suggest you look up both
numbers. I've just checked that it could be done - the information is
out there online. Hint: either number is larger than 5,000. Good luck.
LC
Bay Man
> Bay Man wrote:
>
>> Do not be so insulting.
>
> You are being needlessly insulting to
> the people who were there at the
> time. They were faced with difficult choices,
It is not black and white, all off or none off the ship. You start
evacuation. On the third attack the Germans sank it. It is not as if they
never had any warning. If the ship gets hit during evacuation when half are
on-shore then many men are saved. It is simple.
Then there is the matter of the patrolling Hurricaines. A JU88 is no match
for one of these in a dog flight. What were they doing?
> The short answer is that there was no time to take men off.
AFAIK, none were taken off and it was sunk on the third attack. After the
first attack you take men off immediately - at least you start. When all
clear you being them back on. If the ship has to sail with many on shore who
will end up in POW camps then so be it. At least they are alive.
Louis C
> It is not black and white, all off or none off the ship.
Yes, it is.
You either decide to evacuate and take your chances, or decide not to
risk lives (despite the fact that this was war) and likely jeopardize
the evacuation.
As I wrote, this was a difficult choice, but it was made.
> You start
> evacuation. On the third attack the Germans sank it. It is not as if they
> never had any warning. If the ship gets hit during evacuation when half are
> on-shore then many men are saved. It is simple.
The ship had arrived at 4 am, it had taken maybe 8 hours until 2 pm to
load an estimated 7,000. The ship was hit at 4 pm. Assuming a constant
rate, this means 1,750 lives saved. This assumes they're not sunk
while evacuating - boats and launches were more vulnerable than big
liners. If all ships adopt this policy, it means the evacuation lasts
longer i.e. more chances of casualties from air attacks as everybody
will be spending more time in the danger area.
> Then there is the matter of the patrolling Hurricaines. A JU88 is no match
> for one of these in a dog flight. What were they doing?
Read the link I provided for the anser.
> AFAIK, none were taken off and it was sunk on the third attack. After the
> first attack you take men off immediately - at least you start.
Are you aware that the idea was not putting people ashore, but
evacuating them?
> If the ship has to sail with many on shore who
> will end up in POW camps then so be it. At least they are alive.
There was a war on. Note that with your "at least they're alive" idea,
the British would never have done Dynamo. After all, plenty of ships
were bombed with significant loss of life, better to keep the troops
off them, off the beaches even (the Germans kept bombing those) so
they'll be safe and sound in a stalag, right?
As I wrote, it seems that WWII British admirals were made of sterner
stuff.
LC