The 3 Fighters

sorry, but I can't see "three fighters", how can it be that every thread in this forum after at least three pages is totally OT. Moderators here
are very quick in banning but don't see permanent OT postings.
regards
cimmex

cimmex said:

sorry, but I can't see "three fighters", how can it be that every thread in this forum after at least three pages is totally OT. Moderators here
are very quick in banning but don't see permanent OT postings.
regards
cimmex

Click to expand...

We have let this thris thread continue on its course, because:

1. We have already many threads just like it.

2. The thread was not taken seriously by anyone because of the original post and Poll. In the end however there have been a lot of interesting discussion to come out of this thread (just look at parsifals posts). Is it wrong to the enjoy the interesting discussion that has propped up in this thread. We will never stop interesting discussions. If you do not like the discussion in this thread, then just don't post in this thread.

If you do not like how this forum is moderated, you are more than welcome to leave.

Thank you.

Hi Cimmie et al


I apologise for the detour this thread has taken, but it is still relevant to where the discussion had been going before it more or less closed down. It was claimed that the Allies did not have air superiority over the channel or over the Atlantic Coasts. There were some other claims made regarding maritime control of the coastal waters of western europe. The purpose of what im doing is relevant to that, in that it shows, in as much detail as i can find, the extent and effect of air operations and air/sea control. It has grown to a task bigger than I had expected, but still useful.


I intend to make some sort of analysis of losses raids perhaps sortie rates and the like. This should conclusively show that whilst they took heavy losses, the ability of the allies to project force anywhere on the Atlantic seabord was above questioning.


If there is no further debate at that point, I will open a new thread with all of the relevant bits of information transferred, on Air and Naval operations over the Coastal areas of Europe as an infomration source.

Until then, i am hoping people will be patient with me and enjoy the information I am providing.

I have a question about the legitimacy of the P-51s rule. most of the 109s the p-51s faced against were flown by inexperienced pilots. what if the flying skills of the pilots of the bf.109 and the p-51 were equal? wouldnt the bf.109 have some marked advantages over the p-51?

What kind of marked advantages would Bf-109 enjoyed over P-51, in what period of the war?

If im not mistaken, i believe the bf.109 was quite agile for its type. plus, even though the mustang has 6 heavy caliber machine guns, the bf.109s cannon makes one hit far more destructive than a single bullet. if we are talking the 30mm, one hit would be enough to destroy a mustang, and if the bf.109 is as or more agile than the mustang, a pilot of reasonable quality could get in behind the mustang long enough to hit it with the cannon. the bf.109 model i-m referencing is the K-4 or if not then the best of the G-series.

in this aspect im offering the situation p-51 VS bf.109. in war, the advantages i see are in versatility. the bf.109 was able to be extensively modified for destroyer, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, and carrier configurations. the p-51 was an able dogfighter, and just as equally a fighter-bomber, but it had unrealized potential. i think the p-51 could have done more than it was allotted for. but the point still stands that the bf.109 and p-51 are very different airplanes in respect to design and design goal. this is really just my opinion though. personally i believe the p-51 to be equal to the bf.109 in dogfighting, but less able than the bf.109 in terms of versatility(and dependability in terms of that versatility). the bf.109 was the core of the luftwaffe, and it was a very fantastic aircraft. as for its standing against other fighters throughout the war, the only thing i see that made the 109 fail was poor pilot training.

Sagittario64 said:

in this aspect im offering the situation p-51 VS bf.109. in war, the advantages i see are in versatility. the bf.109 was able to be extensively modified for destroyer, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, and carrier configurations. the p-51 was an able dogfighter, and just as equally a fighter-bomber, but it had unrealized potential. i think the p-51 could have done more than it was allotted for. but the point still stands that the bf.109 and p-51 are very different airplanes in respect to design and design goal. this is really just my opinion though. personally i believe the p-51 to be equal to the bf.109 in dogfighting, but less able than the bf.109 in terms of versatility(and dependability in terms of that versatility). the bf.109 was the core of the luftwaffe, and it was a very fantastic aircraft. as for its standing against other fighters throughout the war, the only thing i see that made the 109 fail was poor pilot training.

Click to expand...

The Me 109 never 'failed' - ditto the Mustang. had the Mustang been tasked as a n interceptor of heavy bombers, it would have been very easy to re-install 4x 20mm and immediately escalated its armament above the 109. The Mustang could carry a far heavier load of bombs, napalm or fuel than any configuration of the 109... and it could do this 400-700 miles from its base.

The 109 was an interceptor, the Mustang was a an air superiority fighter with great performance and range although the 109 (IMO) was a better dogfighter. The problem is that the rank and file USAAF fighter pilot was better trained, better led and in general more aggressive - leading to the lopsided air to air results of the 109 vs the P-51B/C/D/K and we don't even get to the P-51H.

December 1941 Part I

1.– 10.12.1941 Blockadebrechers Portland (7132 BRT, Kpt. Tünemann) and castle country (7320 BRT, Kpt. Schütz)reaches Bordeaux , in journeys from Osaka and Kobe.

1.– 12.12.1941 North Ocean Convoy PQ. 5 sets out 27.11. with 7 trade ships without enemy contact from Hvalfjord to Archangelsk where it arrives at the 12.12. safe. Convoy QP. 3 sets sail 28.11. with 10 trade ships also without enemy contact from Archangelsk to Seidisfjord (escort groups see 27.11.-12.12.) — the escorts are cruisers Berwick and Kenya and the destroyers Intrepid, Offa and Onslow. embarked are flying personnel of the RAF to Great Britain , that had the order to deliver Hurricanes in north Russia. — Of the 8.-12.12 the cruisers Kent and Kenya convey Foreign Minister Eden and the Soviet. Ambassador May ski from Scapa Flow to Murmansk, to a conference with Stalin in Moscow. (Of the 25.-29.12. turns Eden on board the cruiser Kent to England back).

1.– 28.12.1941 waters around Great Britain LW Airplanes manage to sink nördl. the Shetlands the Trawler St. Leonard (210 BRT), in the Irish sea the Marinetrawler Milford Earl (290 BRT) and Phineas Beard (278 BRT) near Lunan Bay. Damaged in the irish Sea the destroyers Puckeridge (repair until August 1942), westl. of Bardsey Iceland the tankers Lucellum (9425 BRT) and in the St. -Georgs-channel the niederl. De Ruyter (458 BRT).

1–. 22.12.1941 North Sea 2nd S flottille (KKpt. Feldt, 1-mal) and 4th S flottille (Kptlt. Bätge, 2-mal) carry out mine operations near area before Orfordness (2.12.), Cromer (4.12.) and the mouth of the Humber (4.12), for the first time with mines of the type LMA and LMB. East of Aldeburgh / Orfordness sink the tanker British Captain (6968 BRT) and at the 6.12. the Greenland (1281 BRT). North of Cromer sinks the Fireglow (1261 BRT). East of the Humber sink the Welsh Prince (5148 BRT), the Dromore Castle (5242 BRT), the Benmacdhui (6869 BRT) and the Greek Stylianos Chandris (6059 BRT). The successes cannot be assigned in all cases with security the mines put by fast boat, it are also air mine hit possible.

3.– 15.12.1941 North Ocean U-boat-operations off the nor Polar coast. Contact with a Ger convoy near Malofeyev, K -3 ( Kpt. Gadzhiev, on board) engages near Rolvsöy with the steamer Altkirch on. The U hunters UJ 1403, UJ 1416 and UJ 1708 counteratttack with depth charges. Kpt. Gadzhiev surfaces because of damages engages in a surface battle and obtains a directl hit to UJ 1708/ and the transport Faröer (470 BRT), The two other escorts, armed only with 4 x 2-cm-Flak 2-cm are forced to retire from the superior firepower of the submarine (2–10 cm, 2–4.5 cm).

Before the Porsangerfjord, D-3 (Kptlt. M. A. Bibeyev with the boss of the 2nd U-boat-division, Kpt. 2.Rg. Kolyshkin, on board) contacts on the 5th and 6.12. several steamers, but the torpedoes detonate on rocks Outside the Tanafjord Sealion (LtCdr. Colvin) sinks the the small norweg. Steamer Iceland (638 BRT). Near the Varangerfjord, M -171 (Kptlt. Starikov) engages without success a tanker in the convoy on. M-174 lands agents at the Varanger coast. K-2, Shch-402, Shch-403, M-172 and M-176 operate without success. The patrol of K-22 (Kpt. 3.Rg. Kotelnikov with the commander of the U-boat-brigade, Kpt. 1.Rg. Vinogradov on board) is discontinued after mine barriers are laid in the Rolvsöy- and in the Sommelsund, and engages a norweg flagged ship with torpedo and artillery. Fischlogger Veidingen on, that escapes, but sinks from the artillery damage. Shch-421 misses in the Persfjord the norw. Steamer Mimona.

4.– 8.12.1941 Irish Sea air mines laid by the LW hit sink in the Bristol channel south of Barry on the 4.12. McLaren (2330 BRT) and on the 7.12. the Severn carriers (119 BRT), near Rosslare (Ireland) on the 8.12. the Gertie (341 BRT).

5.– 30.12.1941 Biskaya British U boat operations. Of the 5.-15.12. sub Una observes the German transport Ausmarsch- and in the Biskaya, but the ship escapes. Subsequently, of the 15.12.-2.1., H. 32, H. 34, H. 43, Oberon, Ursula, P. 36, P. 39, the franz. Junon and the niederl. O-10 in the Biskaya undertake extended patrols keeping French bases in and above all Brest, under surveillance . Because of a feared outflow of the heavy KM. Ships in Brest are set up all available allied U boats in the room west of Brest (cf. 22.3.1941). Submarine H. 31 gets lost in these enterprises probably at the 20.12. through mine hit.

6.– 15.12.1941 North Ocean K-22 (Kpt. 3.Rg. V. N. Kotelnikov) goes at the 6.12. with the commander of the U-boat-brigade, Kpt. 1.Rg. N. I. Vinogradov, and lays on the 9.12. in the Rolvsöy Sound a mine barrier from, and contacts a norw cutter, engages on the surface with gunfire, (however target escapes) but sinks a small escort vessel in Mylingen further details not given) .

8.– 23.12.1941 North Ocean Convoy PQ. 6 departs with 8 ships, accompanies of 3 Trawlern (until 12.12.) and subsequently the cruiser Edinburgh and the destroyers Echo and Escapade, without enemy contact from Hvalfjord to Murmansk. The mine sweepers Hazard and Speedy also provide local escort out of Murmansk, contact a German Destroyer (see 17.12.). In Murmansk, 2 remianing freighters in the harbour make a run out of port on the 20.12., in company with 5 other trade ships from Archangel with a sowj. Ice breaker in escort. they get stuck however on the 23.12. in Molotovsk in the ice and must remain through the uberwinter.


9.12.1941 North Ocean on patrol near Kirkenes KM. Submarine U 134 (Kptlt. Schendel) near Tanafjord erroneously sinks the Ger Steamer Steinbek (2184 BRT).

9.12.1941 North Sea / Biskaya Brit. Bombers sink the German freighter Helder Madrid (8573 or 8777 BRT) and that M 1203 (est 800BRT) near Brest by mine.

9.– 14.12.1941 Norway Brit. Bombers sink on the 9-12th the Norwegian freighter Bjoenn (5509 BRT) in Hustadvika, . Torpedo airplanes sink on the 12.12. near the Nordfjord the Picket boat V 5101/Blitz. On the 14.12. the small freighter Topaz (142 BRT) sinks through by causes unkown (but it is carrying ) explosive material load (35 ts dynamite) in Haugesund.


15.– 29.12.1941 North Ocean near the norweg. coast . Sov K boots-1, K-21, M-171, M-172, M-174, Shch-401, Shch-403, Shch-404. on the 16th and 17.12. puts K-1 (Kptlt. Avgostonovich) four mine barriers between Ullsfjord and Lyngenfjord, on which first sinks at the 26.12. the norw. Steamer Kong ring (1994 BRT). On the 18.12. ther is a futile combat between a submarine (K-1?) and the U hunter UJ 1214 near Kvaenangenfjord. On the 21.12. M -174 (Kptlt. N. e. Egorov) near Vardö sinks the Ger. Steamer Emshörn (4301 BRT). on the 22.12. Shch -403 (Kptlt. Kovalenko) near the Porsangerfjord misses the coastal steamer Ingöy. On the 28.-29.12, K -1, Shch-401 and Shch-404 all miss different targets. The size of the attacked targetds are often over-estimated by sowj. U-boat-commanders (and how is this different from other nationalities 0 and detonations on rocks are reported again and again as hits.

16.12.41 – 9.1.1942 Norway British U boat on picket. On the 16.12.- 9.1. Tigris is located near Utvaer (see operation "Anklet") and on the 23.- 29.12. works in company with Tuna before Stadlandet.

17.12.1941 North Ocean in an attack at the Kola coast encounters the 8th KM Z flottille (Kpt.z.S. Pönitz) with Z 23, Z 24, Z 25 and Z 27 about 14 sm north of cape Gorodetsky on the arrival of the convoy PQ. 6 .

Cruiser Edinburgh and destroyers Echo and Escapade to Archangel.

Minesweepers Hazard and Speedy were shceduled to meet the convoy, but on Dec. 17 they encountered the German destroyers Z 23, Z 24, Z 25 and Z 27, which mistook them for Russian destroyers, and an action resulted only in 4 hits on Speedy, which was damaged and forced to return. Leda was then sailed to replace her, and met the convoy together with Hazard on Dec. 19, escorting it to Murmansk with arrival the next day.

At this time, 5 ships had to spend the winter in Russian waters, due to delays in unloading, El Oceano operating under Russian control for a while. She made an independent voyage to Iceland (arrived Febr. 18-1942), after having broken away from the escort when returning to Murmansk for a homeward convoy, causing great anxiety to the British command at Murmansk.

2 ships, Elona and Explorer, returned with Convoy QP 8 on March 1-1942, while Mirlo returned with QP 4, Dekabrist with QP 5.

Interception of the convoy is unsuccessful.

18.12.1941 North Ocean a LW Ju 88 sinks the sowj. Trawler Navaga (RT-4) in Vostochnaya Liza by aerial Mine. .

19.– 26.12.1941 North Sea mine operations of the 2nd S flottille (KKpt. Feldt) and 4th S flottille (Kptlt. Bätge) operating near the Coast of Cromer (19./21.12), Great Yarmouth / Lowestoft (21.12.) and Orfordness (22.12). successes are to be indicated Lowestoft. Through mine hit and sink on the 23.12. the belg. Leopold II (2902 BRT) east of Lowestoft, on the 23.12. the Greeks. Rokos Vergottis (5637 BRT), on the 24.12. Merchant (4615 BRT) and Stanmount (4468 BRT) nordeast of Great Yarmouth, on the 25.12. the Cormead (2848 BRT) near Lowestoft. The successes cannot be assigned in all cases with rtsinty to mines laid by Schnell Boote it is quite possible some losses are due to mines laid by aircraft . On the 26.12. the Minesweeping trawler Henriette is sunk near the Humber estuary . Damaged near Humber estuary on the 21.12. the Greeks. Nellie (4826 BRT) and before Aldeburgh on the 24.12. Eastwood (1551 BRT).

drgondog said:

The problem is that the rank and file USAAF fighter pilot was better trained, better led and in general more aggressive - leading to the lopsided air to air results of the 109 vs the P-51B/C/D/K and we don't even get to the P-51H.

Click to expand...

I agree. I read German memoire and they always press: American pilots are very agressive, they seemed to be everywhere.. much more so than for example British. Or Soviet. I always wondered - German developed a tactical approach, perhaps because of many years of front experience. US pilots got extreme high standard of training, but were relative new, most of them. And it is also seen in front troops, that fresh recruits are very agressive, they do not understand their vulnerability yet... like veterans, who are more cautious. IMHO aggressive spirit of US pilots - attack enemy always, pursuit it, destroy it - was key to success. This is good offensive spirit, also applies imho for US ground troops in Normandy.. by ardennes, less much. What are your thoughts?

Sagittario64 said:

If im not mistaken, i believe the bf.109 was quite agile for its type. plus, even though the mustang has 6 heavy caliber machine guns, the bf.109s cannon makes one hit far more destructive than a single bullet. if we are talking the 30mm, one hit would be enough to destroy a mustang, and if the bf.109 is as or more agile than the mustang, a pilot of reasonable quality could get in behind the mustang long enough to hit it with the cannon. the bf.109 model i-m referencing is the K-4 or if not then the best of the G-series.

Click to expand...

No one would dispute the agility of the 109, neither that a cannon is more potent than a HMG. The K-4 was really a great performer, so was the F-4, and late Gs.
It's the time span of P-51 usage that makes 109 loosing much of it's edge. That is apparent for important 10 months of WW2 (Dec 1943 - Sept 1944) that P-51B->K has a firm speed advantage vs the 109. Even in 1943 the 109 doesn't posses any speed advantage vs. P-51/P51-A. The 109 is fine point interceptor, but ill able to project the power over some distance - unlike the P-51 of all the flavors.
I agree that a cannon shell hit will badly hurt the P-51, but so will 109 feel when the burst of MG fire hits home.
The K-4 bridges the speed gap, it is a better climber, but other things remain unsolved.

Sagittario64 said:

in this aspect im offering the situation p-51 VS bf.109. in war, the advantages i see are in versatility. the bf.109 was able to be extensively modified for destroyer, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, and carrier configurations. the p-51 was an able dogfighter, and just as equally a fighter-bomber, but it had unrealized potential. i think the p-51 could have done more than it was allotted for. but the point still stands that the bf.109 and p-51 are very different airplanes in respect to design and design goal. this is really just my opinion though. personally i believe the p-51 to be equal to the bf.109 in dogfighting, but less able than the bf.109 in terms of versatility(and dependability in terms of that versatility). the bf.109 was the core of the luftwaffe, and it was a very fantastic aircraft. as for its standing against other fighters throughout the war, the only thing i see that made the 109 fail was poor pilot training.

Click to expand...

109 excelled in it's principal task, but was ill suited for other. As a fighter-bomber, it's bomb-load was nothing to write home about. Destroyer (bomber destroyer?) - needed for Germany, I'd say it was a good plane. OTOH, Mustang Ia in RAF service was carrying 4 cannons, so P-51 as a platform is not any worse. I'm not sure that any variant of the 109 could be stated as a night fighter, since it did not carry any radar. In order to make the 109 carrier capable, it received wings of greater span - I'd say that plain vanilla 109s were not that suited for carrier operation, not any better than P-51.

I look at the P-51 basic design as well able to do what ever 109 basic design could (and Spit, for that matter), and then some.

Sagittario64 said:

in this aspect im offering the situation p-51 VS bf.109. in war, the advantages i see are in versatility. the bf.109 was able to be extensively modified for destroyer, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, and carrier configurations. the p-51 was an able dogfighter, and just as equally a fighter-bomber, but it had unrealized potential. i think the p-51 could have done more than it was allotted for. but the point still stands that the bf.109 and p-51 are very different airplanes in respect to design and design goal. this is really just my opinion though. personally i believe the p-51 to be equal to the bf.109 in dogfighting, but less able than the bf.109 in terms of versatility(and dependability in terms of that versatility). the bf.109 was the core of the luftwaffe, and it was a very fantastic aircraft. as for its standing against other fighters throughout the war, the only thing i see that made the 109 fail was poor pilot training.

Click to expand...

Do not confuse being modified for many different roles because there was nothing else available with true versatility. 109 carrier version was made because with only one carrier even near completion it made no sense to spend time designing and building a single engine airplane that would be built to a max number of a few dozen aircraft. Not all fighter bombers are equal, just because a fighter plane can carry a bomb (or a few small ones) doesn't mean it is the equal of another fighter plane than can carry bomb/s. Early Wildcats could carry a pair of 100lb bombs, early Zeros could carry a pair of 132lb bombs. Effectiveness of a "fighter bomber" is dependent on many things. How accurately can it place the bombs, the bomb load (1000lbs is better than 200lbs), the range it can carry the bombs (being able to carry 2000lbs doesn't mean much if the plane can't reach the target with the 2000lb load), and even resistance to ground fire.

A lot of countries used (or tried to) single seat, single engine fighters at night fighters, again more because they had nothing else ( or enough something elses') at the time. Success (or lack of it) could also be measured in the accident rate in addition to combat results. Some countries "night fighters" being nothing more than their slowest landing or easiest to land available fighter. Night fighters to be truly successful in combat in WW II usually needed a dedicated radar operator ( or very, very good electronics or ground handling).

The Americans had enough production capacity that they could build aircraft for specialized roles and not have to modify one airframe into too many different roles.

Ok youre all right. my apologies for being so aggressive. i guess ive heard one too many cocky opinions on the luftwaffe vs the usaaf. not from here though. everyone here gives both sides in the war due credit and respect.

Think you are rather opposite from being aggressive.

well maybe not aggressive, but i know my tones werent pleasant.

December Part II

Operation Anklet (from an english source) LOFOTEN ISLANDS 2nd RAID 26/27th DEC 1941

Operation Anklet,

This was the first time all three services combined their resources to mount an amphibious raid against a defended coast. As Mountbatten said at the outset "... nobody knows quite what is going to happen and you are the ones who are going to find out." The RAF provided air cover for over 7 hours and undertook diversionary raids elsewhere. None of the British ships was hit by enemy bombs but a phosphorous bomb from a disabled British plane hit one of the landing craft resulting in some casualties.

Much had been learned by both sides. Later the Germans over-stretched their Atlantic wall with the deployment of 30,000 extra troops to reinforce the Norwegian sector. Clearly Hitler had taken the bait that Norway might well be "the zone of destiny in this war." The Press Unit had been very active during the raid and some of the most graphic and dramatic photographs in WW2 were taken. These and eye witness reports were later used for morale boosting purposes at a time in the war when there was little good news to cheer about.

The future pattern of sizeable raids and landings had been set.

Summary of Action

Allied Forces: Air- Bomber Command and Coastal Command; Sea - Cruiser H.M.S. Kenya, Landing Ships H.M.S. Leopold and Prince Charles, Submarine H.M.S. Tuna plus four destroyers; Land - No 3 Commando, two troops of No 2 Commando, a medical detachment from No. 4 Commando and demolition experts from No. 6 Commando, a Royal Norwegian Army Detachment.

Axis Forces: Air - Luftwaffe Heinkels, ME 109s and JU 88s. Land - 150 men from 181 Division, 50 troops on leave in the area.

Outcome (positive) - successful destruction of coastal defences, oil and fish factories, radio transmitters, stores, a lighthouse, a power station, 9 merchant ships totalling 15,000 tons and four Heinkels. 30,000 additional German troops deployed to the Norwegian sector taken from other fronts but notably the Atlantic Wall. 150 Germans killed, 98 captured and 71 Norwegians took passage to the UK.

Outcome (negative) - Commandos: 2 Officers and 15 OR killed, 5 Officers and 48 OR wounded, Norwegians: 1 Officer killed and 2 OR wounded, Royal Navy 2 OR killed and 2 Officers and 4 OR wounded and RAF 31 killed (2 Hampden's, 7 Blenhiem's and 2 Beaufighters were lost).

The Army, Norwegian and Naval casualties come from PRO document DEFE 2/83. The RAF casualties come from DEFE 2/83 (for the Coastal Command losses) and Bomber Command losses 1941, W.R. Chorley, Midland Publishing (for the Bomber Command losses).

23./24.12.1941 Biskaya a Sunderland of the RAAF Sq. 10 sights and damages the Ger Provision tanker Benno (former norw. Oil Jacob, 8306 BRT) through near hit with Depth Charge bombs. On the 24.12. the damaged ship is forced into Spanish waters and interned after attacks by torpedo armed Nesaforts of 22 Sqn RAF. (I believe the spaniards confiscated the cargo and interned the ship....I cannot find any other references to her in the war). The German war diary says the ship was sunk by 22 Sqn but I actually think this is wrong....though the putcome is the same)

25.– 31.12.1941 North Ocean deployment of the first Km Uboat wolfpack in northern waters. They concentrate south of the bear island against British Murmansk convoys. On patrol from 25.12. to the 25.1. the group "Ulan" with U 134, U 454, U 584 leads attacks against PQ.7A (see 2.1.42) and PQ. 8 (see 8.-20.1.42).

On the 26.12. the convoy PQ.7A Hvalfjordur (Iceland) with 2 ships leaves, accompanies of the ASW Trawlern Hugh Whale Poles and Ophelia. In heavy weather beginning on the 28.12. the sowj. Steamer Waziristan, is attacked later by a German military aircraft and on the 2.1. by U 134 (Kptlt. Brosin) and sinks. — On the 31.12. the convoy PQ.7B with 9 ships follows escorted initially by the Trawlern Capes Aragona and Wastwater, they are removed from the Convoy from the 4.1., replaced by the destroyers Icarus and Tartar. Cruiser Cumberland misses the convoy and proceeds (with cargo) independantly to Murmansk. — On the 29.12. convoy QP leaves Murmansk with 4 ships, joined by 13 trade ships from Archangelsk with Seidisfjord as its destination

P-51, It has great legs.