Talk:Battle of the St. Lawrence

Discrepancy in dates

"The first attack was by U-553, which torpedoed and sank the British freighter Nicoya at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River several kilometres off Anticosti Island on 10 June 1942, followed by the Dutch freighter Leto in the same vicinity several hours later."
This sentence appears in the 'Spring 1942' section. I have emphasised the date because in a library book in my possession, Victory in the St Lawrence The Unknown U-Boat War by James W. Essex (2004) the date of the sinkings is May 12 1942.
I am inclined to believe the latter date because a) June is normally associated with summer, not spring; (if the sinkings did occur in the summer, they are not shown in the 'Summer 1942' section of the article) and b) on p. 76, the Log of the Lighthouse Keeper has been reproduced which quite clearly shows the May date.

Does anyone know which is right? RASAM (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that the date in the 'Battle of the St Lawrence' in one of the references, (uboat.net), has been altered from 10 June 1942 to 10 May 1942, so I will edit here accordingly. RASAM (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To and from

"... this embargo strained the Canadian National Railway (CNR) system to Sydney and Halifax..." appears in the 'Spring 1942' section. If the railway is to "Sydney and Halifax", where is it from?

RASAM (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Victory?

The infobox lists this as a Canadian victory (it even has a citation) ... that would seem a little excessive given the 23-0 scoreline and the additional general nuisance discussed in the article. Yes, the Germans lost in the end, but I can't see that it's appropriate to claim this battle as a victory over them. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Good points, the article itself doesn't say why the attacks stopped but it doesn't look like the claim as unqualified "victory" really stands up.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because the Canadians had more casualties does not mean the Germans won the battle. That is just like saying "we won the war because we killed more of your forces than you killed ours". It does not work out that way as it does in a game. 209.105.209.174 (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the general reason that it is considered a Canadian victory lies in the fact that the u-boat successes of 1942 were not repeated. After the Gulf had been closed to shipping following the exploits of U-517 and U-162 it was not opened again until 1944, and when the attacks resumed the defenses were much better. The Magog and the Shawinigan were victims, but I don't think there were any civilian vessels sunk in 1944. There were no u-boats sunk, but they did not hinder allied shipping in the Gulf to a significant degree, and when studies after the war revealed the advantage that the mixing of salt and fresh water gave to the u-boats in the Gulf, the prevention of further losses in 1944 is a significant victory in this context. McMuff (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. However, of the total tonnage which used the St. Lawerence River and the Gulf of St. Lawerence in 1942, only three out of every thousand tons was sunk. That is a fairly good record. And I can say that if you lose only three tons out of every thousand you have at sea you are doing pretty well, in fact somewhat better than average. 209.105.209.174 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, pound for pound Canadian defences in the Gulf were really good in 1942 and even better in 1944. The problem is the fact that the losses in 1942 were such a shock to the system in Canada. The Gulf is pretty far inland, it was almost totally under air cover, and it's not that easy to enter into from the open Atlantic. People perceived that was safe from the u-boats, so when that false sense of security was violated you got something close to panic in Ottawa. The tonnage losses were small, but they kept happening over that summer and the u-boats, especially U-517, kept getting away with it. The mixing of salt and freshwater in the Gulf threw off the direction finding in the RCN ships, so even what were thought to be direct hits were off the mark. U-517 even had an RCAF depth charge lodge onto its deck before it got rid of it! But what made the 1942 phase of the battle a German victory was the fact that Ottawa closed the Gulf to shipping the remainder of that season and 1943. They did not have to sink all or even most of the shipping, just enough to make it too costly for Canada (whether economically, psychologically, or what have you) to continue. McMuff (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

U-520

As far as I could glean from some of the sources listed in its own Wikipedia article, U-520 never made it to the St. Lawrence and was sunk in open ocean several hundred miles from the eastern tip of Newfoundland. The Battle of the St. Lawrence for all intents and purposes took place in inland waters bound by the Cabot Strait and the Strait of Belle Isle, so I think counting U-520 as a casualty is not defensible. McMuff (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, so where is the proof that U-520 was trying to enter Cabot Strait? The map of U-520's patrol route on uboat.net shows it getting as far west as Placentia Bay but no further, and then being sunk way out into the Atlantic, the only recorded time it was attacked. You are going to have to cite evidence in order to back up that claim. And please keep in mind that the Cabot Strait is roughly between Cape Breton Island NS and Port Aux Basques, NL.McMuff (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Outside scope

The edits added by 93.139.197.241 are all materially correct, however they point to events that took place outside the Gulf of the St. Lawrence and therefore are not correct in this context. The Battle of the St. Lawrence refers to the actions that took place in the Gulf, bounded by the Strait of Belle Isle, the Laurentian Channel, and the river itself. The mingling of fresh and salt water created unusual sonar conditions that stymied the defenders and provided a happy hunting ground for the attackers, at least in 1942. This is why the battle is unique in the Atlantic campaign and deserves its own battle honour. Sadly, no U-boats that we know of were sunk in the battle area. Read "War in the St. Lawrence" by Roger Sarty or "Battle Of The St Lawrence" by Nathan Greenfield for further info.

The place where the edits would be materially correct (and probably sorely needed) is the page on the Canadian Northwest Atlantic. This was the theatre of the war run by the RCN and included the Gulf and the open Atlantic waters around Newfoundland and the Maritime provinces. McMuff (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Proof about downed U-boats

True that the sinking of the listed U-boats were right on the borders of the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, however they were in Canadian waters and were struck by Canadian aircraft/vessels there. The U-boats desire was to strike the ships at the Canadian shores and therefore they are participants of the battle. Also there have been sightings of U-boats far inland as well such as the Churchill River in Labrador. Here are sources stating: http://www.canadaatwar.ca/forums/archive/index.php?t-403.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB1kyTVdxu4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.184.70 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Remember that Newfoundland and Labrador were not part of Canada in WWII, so within the context of the battle do not count as Canadian territory or waters. Plus, they were all these U-boats sunk far away from the Gulf in what for all intents and purposes is the open Atlantic. There is also the issue of the U-boats that were sunk near Canadian and Newfoundland waters, but not by Canadian forces: U174, U233, U503, U548, U656, U856 and U866 all fall into this category, so why not mention them? The reason why you shouldn't is that they were not in the Gulf either. And as for intent, well... the shortest route from Europe to America goes past Newfoundland, so U-boats sunk near there could have been in transit to the US Coast, the Caribbean, South America... not just the Gulf.

http://www.uboat.net/boats/patrols/patrol_2379.html - Map of U-754's last patrol.

http://www.uboat.net/boats/patrols/patrol_2004.html - Map of U-658's last patrol.

http://www.uboat.net/boats/patrols/patrol_1170.html - Map of U-520's last patrol.

http://www.uboat.net/boats/patrols/patrol_4229.html - Map of U-215's last patrol.McMuff (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Proof that U-boats were sunk

Historians do agree that U-boats were sunk in the Battle of the St. Lawrence. It is a short book; http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back%20issues/CMH/volume%2012/issues%201%20and%202/Roger%20Sarty%20-%20The%20battle%20we%20lost%20at%20home%20revisited%20-%20official%20military%20histories%20and%20the%20battle%20o.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.184.70 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The one u-boat mentioned being sunk in this article, U-517, was sunk in the open Atlantic near the Bay of Biscay according to http://www.uboat.net/boats/u517.htm . No others are mentioned.McMuff (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Photos

The article could use some detail. I am sure there are images with expired copyright since this battle took place between 1942 and 1944. Volcanoguy 11:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ensign

The RCN ensign (not jack, which is what we use) was the White Ensign. Per the official history of the RCN - according to the Memorandum on the Status of Dominion Ships, the white ensign was flown at the stern and the flag of the dominion at the jack-staff and that at time of war the naval service of the dominion would be put at the disposal of the imperial government. Johnston, William; Rawling, William G.P.; Gimblett, Richard H.; MacFarlane, John (2010). The Seabound Coast: The Official History of the Royal Canadian Navy, 1867–1939. Vol. 1. Toronto: Dundurn Press. pp. 245–246. ISBN 978-1-55488-908-2. and "the Admiralty would not allow the new navy to use its own ensign...One fleet, one flag was the response and for the next fifty-five years the Canadian navy flew the ensign of the Royal Navy." Milner, Marc (2010). Canada's Navy: The First Century (Second ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-8020-9604-3.

There is no rule stating it must be the ensign. If you can find consensus for this change, then I'll be happy to agree with you. Charles lindberg (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You made the initial change to jack. You must provide evidence that the jack should be the one placed and not the ensign. Do not put the onus on me when it was you who made the initial change. If you don't want to bring sources, then you can leave the flag unchanged as your change was the one initially challenged. Llammakey (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggested addition: Women in the Battle of the Saint Lawrence -- role of the WRN

My mother was in the Navy, WRN, during WW2 and worked as a radar (sonar?) operator. She and her friends were posted near Saint-Hilaire Quebec, and they worked to make sure that no U-boats came up the deep water navigable channels which reach as far as Montreal (imagine the disaster that could have been). She says that they did spot at least one, but the crew must have realized they had been spotted and turned away. Although preventing anything happening may not be exciting, saving a million people and the vital Port of Montreal is certainly an important job. There were probably other WRN radar (possibly sonar?) operators posted further towards the Gulf as well. The article mentions that U-boats were spotted, but not by who. Some of you historians with access to previously classified documents could add a short paragraph to the "Battle of the Saint Lawrence" article to honour the work of these dedicated Navy women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.238.58 (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Any RS about this?Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)