Talk:Convoy HX 79

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Military history: Maritime / British / Canadian / European / North America / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	Canadian military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	World War II task force

Move[edit]

I've moved this page to a British English format, as per Tag below. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve moved this now to the format suggested at the MilHist discussion on naming convoys. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written in British English on the basis of strong national ties to the topic.
And it is the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article.

Comment[edit]

The first sources I've used mention a third convoy, HX 79A, which was also attacked by the same pack later that day, losing 7 ships; I can't find any other details or even a mention in any of the other books I've been using for this. Anybody know anything about it? Xyl 54 12:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can I. Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on additional sources Keith-264 (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a source for the final table in the article. I assume it is from one of the sources in the footnotes but I don't have them to check which it might be. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Done (Took a while to remember which source.) Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now assessed B. Donner60 (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]