Attack on Convoy CW9 "Peewit" night of 7/8 August 1940
 

Convoy CW9 ("PEEWIT") was attacked by "E" Boats off Beachy Head/Newhaven during the early hours of 8 August 1940. Whilst I have found all of the detail of those attacks the Board of Trade (Shipping Division) reports from the masters of the ships are all adamant that they were also attacked by aircraft that night which dropped flares and bombs. This was at 02.00 hrs.

I am not convinced there was an air attack and think the captains mistook the sound of the "E" Boat engines for aero engines.

Before I dismiss the air attack can anyone shed any light either way?

Re: Attack on Convoy CW9 "Peewit" night of 7/8 August 1940
 

Andy,

No German air activity over CW9 recorded that early AFAIK. A solo Do17P of 4.(F)/14 was tasked with a reconnaissance of the convoy after the S-Boat attacks and reported 17 ships about 15 miles SSW of Selsey Bill at 6.20 a.m. (BST).

Re: Attack on Convoy CW9 "Peewit" night of 7/8 August 1940
 

Peter

Thanks - yes, thats as I thought.

Reading through the survivors reports from the ships in convoy they talk about the sound of low flying aircraft at 02.00ish, but as the attack from the E-Boats came almost at once I figured they must have mistaken the growl of the E-Boat engines and thought they were aero engines. However, I thought I'd check because the report of aircraft (and of being bombed!) crops up in three reports from different individuals and all from seperate ships. The only explanation is that they mistook the engine sound.

Re: Attack on Convoy CW9 "Peewit" night of 7/8 August 1940
 

According to the Arnold Hague Convoy Database at:
http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/hague/index.html

Convoy CW 9 contained 26 freighters with no escorts. It departed Southend on 7 August 1940.
The Empire Crusader (1042 tons) was bombed and sunk. It was the only vessel of this convoy to be sunk.

I can’t access the Miramar Ship index site to get more particulars.



I hope that this sheds some light on all this.


DGS

Re: Attack on Convoy CW9 "Peewit" night of 7/8 August 1940
 

Doug

Many thanks for you kind assistance.

However, Empire Crusader was certainly not the only loss!!

If interested, look out for "Convoy Peewit". Published by Grub Street end of May 2010.

Hope that I have not broken any forum advertising rules, here?

If I have, no doubt the mods will edit as appropriate.

Re: Attack on Convoy CW9 "Peewit" night of 7/8 August 1940
 

Hello friends,

here:
http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/ind...c,12499.0.html

we had a thread about the CW.9 - Peewit. We have different informations about the size of the convoy, escorts etc. Do you know the vessels at the various stages of the voyage?

Are they nemed in your book Andy?

Thank you

Darius

Re: Attack on Convoy CW9 "Peewit" night of 7/8 August 1940
 

Darius

Yes, as far as possible the composition of the convoy (ship names), escort vessels, attacking E-Boats (S-Boot) and attacking Luftwaffe formations are all comprehensively detailed in the book for the period 07.00 on 7 August through to late pm on 8 August when the convoy dispersed.

I am unclear as to difference of data you have.

I was grateful for the assistance of Karl Scheuch in relation to detail of the E-Boat attacks.

Andy

Re: Attack on Convoy CW9 "Peewit" night of 7/8 August 1940
 

Hello Andy,

one version: there were 26 merchant vessels and no escorts,
other one: with 20 merchants and 6 escorts.

Where the 6 escorts all ex-merchant vessels? This would explain the difference?

Thank you

Darius

Re: Attack on Convoy CW9 "Peewit" night of 7/8 August 1940
 

I should point out that the Hague convoy site, while detailed, follows a rule that losses stated only reflect those that were in convoy at the time. Those vessels that were sunk or damaged but had "bolted" or "romped" out of the convoy would not be counted. As indicated elsewhere in this thread, the convoy had been scattered by E-boats and there would be the strong temptation for vessels to dash into nearby port. This would easily account for the Hague site listing only one of the losses.

Re: Attack on Convoy CW9 "Peewit" night of 7/8 August 1940
 

As far as I can gather, there were 24 merchant vessels plus escorts - the latter all RN ships.

Unfortunately, I could not trace the complete sailing order for CW9.

Six other merchant vessels sailed out from the Solent on 8 August intending to join the convoy, but missed it. They, however, were also attacked (by air) and some sunk.

Doug - I think I have pretty comprehensively covered all of the losses to CW9 in my book "Convoy Peewit" but I am always receptive to other versions or input. There was certainly more than one loss (if that is what Hague suggests?) although some of the losses off the IOW were technically not to CW9 since those six ships were attempting to join the convoy but never did. I should also add that whilst the convoy had been scattered (and some sunk) during the night time attack the survivors had re-formed into convoy at around dawn. None had done a runner into port, and in fact it was not possible for vessels to enter port at night-time during this period.