Can anyone tell me why . . .

[LewPaper]

. . . during WWII, delivering goods to Russia when so much tonnage was sunk, thousands lost their lives and so much resources were used by the convoys that they didn't use the narrow stretch of sea between NW Alaksa and NE Russia?

[cazzz1975]

didnt most of the supplies come from the UK

wouldnt the bering straits have sealed up (with ice) at certain times of the year?

[dotty.]

cos it's a tad chilly

[sandyRoe]

Agree with Cazzz. Murmansk was the only port that had clear water all of the year.

[bibblebub]

What about the overland haulage distance required to firstly get the goods to NW Alaska and then all the way across Russia to Moscow.

[DTCwordfan]

and the Japs were buzzing around

[cazzz1975]

convoys originated from loch ewe, liverpool and reykjavik.

[sandyRoe]

My dad, a marine radio operator, sailed on some of them.

[chrissa1]

Wrong side of the Continent.

[LewPaper]

Thanks fellas. But cazzz - well, for the goods that came from the uk, don't go that way!!! and at the other times of the year? Certainly could've saved a lot. sandyRoe - Ok, so sail across the north of Russia. Hugging the coast, any losses could've been vastly reduced. crosswordfan - yeh, war's like that, but your point is?

[boxtops]

Until very recently it was only at certain times of year that the northern channels above Norway were navigable, IMO.

[LewPaper]

boxtops - YES I know but even if for a few weeks could save a lot of lives, goods and ships.

[Scylax]

As mentioned, the whole N. Atlantic and the Bering Straits were alive with U boats;
3500 miles of jeopardy. Why risk it when Murmansk was the lesser of 2 evils ?

[LewPaper]

I don't know where you get that idea from - the width of the Bering Straits is only about 50 miles and as the U-Boats could congregate there, so could anyone else. The risk is the same, only the length of it changes.

[dundurn]

Short answer is that they did use the Vladivostok route. Around half of all supplies to the USSR during WWII went across the Pacific and then by train across Asia. It's the train bit that gave the problem. Ships deliver more, faster. Another major supply route was round Africa, up into the Gulf across Iran and into Russia, some via the Caspian Sea.but most, again, by rail or truck convoy.

[LewPaper]

Thanks dundurn. Very interesting answer.

[claymore]

Biggest mistake the west ever made was going to the aid of Russia in ww2.

[Scylax]

Exactly, Lew, the U-Boat risks were the same, but the time exposed to those risks was considerably reduced by using the shortest route. Murmansk was also ice-free all year,
while the Bering Straits presented unsurmountable problems in winter.

The long route, via the Cape of Good Hope, similarly had U-Boat hazards and surface raiders aplenty. It's a hell of a long way, too. No, Murmansk, if not ideal, was the logical expedient

[murraymints]

why ???

[LewPaper]

Thanks Scylax. I knew there had to be a reason, after all far greater minds than mine decided on the route but I wanted to know what that reason was. And claymore, I wonder what would've happened if the Nazis didn't have that theatre of war to defend. It was a monumental cock-up to invade Russia and I'm convinced the best agent we had in the Nazi ranks was Hitler himself. I don't think we could've won without him.

[Scylax]

Lew, the best advice I can give you for a definitive answer, is to recommend that you read:
' The Road to Russia : Arctic Convoys 1942' by Bernard Edwards
Published by Leo Cooper, Barnsley, 2002
ISBN 0 85052 898 4

Incidentally, the awful fate of Convoy PQ17 might have been averted by using another route, away from the threat of German surface units in the Norwegian fjords, but in truth the fault lay with our Admiralty, which ordered the RN escorts to abandon the convoy, and for the merchantmen to disperse. The main threat, the Tirpitz, never left her moorings, and the unescorted convoy was torn apart by U-Boat packs. The route was OK, but Admiralty thinking was timorous, to say the least.