The largest loss of life in maritime history and is still hushed up.
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.
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.
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.
>> 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.
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.
>>> 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.
> 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.
-- 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.
William Black wrote: > 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.
>>>> 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.
> 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.
> > 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.
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)
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?
>>>>> 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.
>> 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.
That's just plain wrong.
The MV Wilhelm Gustloff sinkings involved undoubtedly far greater loss of life with some 9,000 dead.
-- 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.
>> 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.
> >> 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.
"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."
> "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.
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.
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...
-- 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.
>>> 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.
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.
(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.
>> 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.
> 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.
>> 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.
> mtfes...@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.
>> 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
"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.
>> 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 losses for the whole campaign are well known.
-- 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 wrote: >> "Tero P. Mustalahti" <termu...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:hc3u0h$1jb8$1@bowmore.utu.fi... >>> mtfes...@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.
>>> 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.
>>>> 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
"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.
|
