wrote in message
news:bnpnuo$15hh$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> In article ,
>   wrote:
> >Would some statistically-knowledgeable folk be ...
> I'm not surprised at Churchill's misunderstanding (or misrecollection)
> of the convoy issue, but I do hope that the Weinberg citation was
> aimed at answering a different question.
> While yes, a (very) close-order convoy may have nearly the
> same probability of detection as a single ship, if the U-boats
> then sank all of them once a convoy was detected, the average
> fraction of all ships sunk would be the same either way.

I don't believe this *ever* happened ("sank all at once").  Please correct
me if I'm wrong.  Even the probability of this happening seems amiss, what
with submarines' limited weaponry, speed (especially near convoys) and
defences.

> If the U-boat was alone and only had time to sink one or two
> boats of the convoy, there would be some protective effect.
> In reality multiple U-boats were steered to convoys once those
> were detected, and wolf-packs formed (and their codes were
> broken, and the story gets more and more complicated).

"Steered to convoys" does not necessarily mean success in catching said
convoys, even when they were detected (which was less and less frequent once
Allied air-supremacy was attained).  Also, U-boat losses were extrordinarily
high, at up to a 35% chance of not returning to port once one put to sea
near the war's end.

> A major reason for convoy sailing was not probability of
> detection but the defense of the convoy, as one escort
> vessel could protect multiple ships, and it would be
> impossible to escort all ships if they were sailing individually.

To quote a German Admiral at Kernevel in the Spring of 1941:  "Our biggest
headache is to *find* the enemy." --The Sea Wolves, Wolgang Frank, 1955,
Holt, Reinhart and Winston Inc.  This is not to disagree with your defence
argument (a valid point), but rather to provide a contrast to your "reason
for convoy sailing was not probability of detection" (which misses the
point, as convoys didn't reduce the probability of detection, but allowed
"nearly as good a chance of a convoy of forty ships in close order slipping
unperceived", as one; and as agreed by you above, of course, if I understood
you... "While yes, ...").   And I don't believe the absence of anything
related to escort protection in Churchill's statement meant he didn't feel
that this was a factor, rather I'd think it was just an obvious contributing
factor not mentioned in this particular discussion on relative ocean/convoy
sizes.   Regards,  Brett.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/31/03 6:25:04 AM