Sub found off seahouses

[josquin]

Ron,

If you want what you say to be taken seriously, and not dismissed as another piece of 'War Is Hell But Britain Can Take It' propaganda, then you (not us) need to provide the TNA Reference number, the file name, the document name, the page number and the author(s) details. Otherwise it remains unsubstantiated.

Ron,

I concur fully with Hedley's assessment of the status of the substantiation and documentation with respect to the specific matter at issue.

Trelawney

[Wrecktec]

It is now almost nine years since the NA at Kew was visited to collect info on a number of boats, including J6 and that was only seven years after the files on the Court of Inquiry were opened to the public, so nothing else has been written about J6 and the Inquiry, which was taken from the official files. They had been locked away for 75 years and only opened in 1997.

Of course since then my colleague has been back about five times and spent many days searching the archives for details of other boats and vessels.

(The loss of HM s/m J6 and the Court of Inquiry ADM. 156/131 into sinking of HMS/M J6 by Special Service Vessel CYMRIC under LT. FH Peterson D.S.O. DSC RN, 156/147 & 131 156/172.)

I am not bothered about what other people think or believe one way or the other now, but I know what we wrote about J6 is correct and If someone can prove otherwise, lets see it.

Ron

[josquin]

It is now almost nine years since the NA at Kew was visited to collect info on a number of boats, including J6 and that was only seven years after the files on the Court of Inquiry were opened to the public, so nothing else has been written about J6 and the Inquiry, which was taken from the official files. They had been locked away for 75 years and only opened in 1997.

Of course since then my colleague has been back about five times and spent many days searching the archives for details of other boats and vessels.

(The loss of HM s/m J6 and the Court of Inquiry ADM. 156/131 into sinking of HMS/M J6 by Special Service Vessel CYMRIC under LT. FH Peterson D.S.O. DSC RN, 156/147 & 131 156/172.)

I am not bothered about what other people think or believe one way or the other now, but I know what we wrote about J6 is correct and If someone can prove otherwise, lets see it.

Ron

We did not publish a book on the subject, so the burden of proof does not weigh heavily upon us. Historians realize that the veracity of their accounts

are only as good as the accuracy of their documentation. I will survey what ADM 156/147 & 131 and 156/17 records do state about Peterson's testimony

and his reception afterwards by the submariners. Official records of inquiries are a different category of documentation than sources like Jones's book--

the fact that Jones was a serving officer and knew everybody is all the more reason that the caveats apply that we mentioned in earlier posts, as this

unfortunate event resulted in the loss of life and the cast the RN in a very bad light (hence the records being sealed for the better part of a century).

I recognize the substantial research that serves as the foundation for your book; I differ only about the likelihood of this single occurrence and the

credibility of its documentation. Of course, official reports, like postwar memoirs, can be self-serving in their own way, but more often by what they

selectively omit rather than by what they affirm. We definitely have an affirmation in this instance that invites additional scrutiny. Again, no historian

can ever write an account that is 100% definitive, or "correct"--historians write accounts that are only as factual as the accuracy and integrity of their

sources. Additional constraints on veracity follow from the interpretations historians bring to bear on their subjects and how this affects what is

included and how it is presented. My concern here is with documentation rather than interpretation, and I will follow your encouragement to refer

to the NA sources.

Trelawney

[Markus Robinson]

Ron suggests that we "take some time out and visit the UK National Archives at Kew, which will verify what we discovered after many days of research there."

I spent weeks in Kew researching the U 51 class German boats during WWI. My focus was not on the J6 at the time. Unfortunately, "based" in the United States, it will be a while before I can return to Kew. That said, I have a complete copy of the inquiry minutes and as previously stated, they say NOTHING either about compliments on the Cymric's gunnery, nor any saluting by the surviving J6's crew. IF Ron can quote us chapter and verse from ADM documentation or some other documentation at Kew (other than the somewhat self-serving account in By Guess and By God) supporting his contention that the J6's crew saluted the commander of the Q-ship Cymric, then I will reconsider my assertion that the "saluting" account should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Otherwise, I think Ron's assertion about Kew documentation only muddiest the waters, and I concur with Hedley Malloch's comments. Our credibility as historians rides on our ability to ferret out the truth as best we can and rely on verifiable accounts.

The account of the J6 sinking in Watchdogs of the Deep is interesting for several reasons. That account begins on page 176 and continues to page 182.

It begins

One of the most tragic submarine losses of the war was when submarine J6 was sunk by a British mystery ship, otherwise know as a Q-ship. I remember this tragedy well, for only a wonderful piece of luck save our boat from falling into the trap that closed upon our sister submarine.

Jones goes on to describe how the Cymric stalked the J2 as well.

... we were returning from patrol (as usual on the return trip we were on the surface making for Blyth at a speed of eighteen knots) I was one of the look-outs on the conning-tower. The captain was on the bridge and a very keen look-out was kept for periscopes, as we believe enemy submarines were active in the vicinity of Blyth. The sea was very calm, hardly a breath of wind blowing. Presently we sighted a sailing ship on our stern quarter. She appeared to be a large schooner with all sails up. We studied her very carefully through our binoculars. Presently the skipper, after examining her through the glasses, said: "Look at that ship with all her sails up. There is not a bit of wind and yet, according to the bow wave she is making, she is doing about twelve knots and driving hard to catch us up. She is either a Q-ship or a raider, and she certainly has nasty designs on us. We won't invite trouble, and she will not catch up to us now."

Later we learned that the innocent-looking schooner was first-class mystery ship. While our captain was discussing her she had taken our indication mark, not as J2 but as U2. Her crew had closed up to action station and were just ready to drop her screens and open fire on us. Only for the wisdom shown by our captain in keeping clear and outspeeding the Q-ship, we would have been blown to smithereens.

In Blyth harbor we secured the position alongside J6. The boat was making final preparations prior to sailing. For some time the two crews exchanged yarns. I particularly notices that the boys of J6 were very downcast. One of them said: "I feel that something is going to happen to this 'hooker' this trip."

Remarks such as this seldom com from any of the crews. An odd feeling came over me that this was the last time we would be alongside J6.

There follows a second hand account of the sinking of the J6 which is not presented in the first person and which contains some inaccuracies. It notes however that the J6 was flying her ensign when departing, and was still flying it after being repeatedly hit

Amidst this continual battering she was getting j6 turned away from its aggressor. Probably her steering was out of control. Her ensign was still flying but somehow the Q-ship could not see her blunder and intended to finish the supposed enemy submarine.

With the J6's crew mustered on deck, Jones continues

By this timer all who could possibly get on deck had crawled up --- they could see that their submarine was sinking. Mercifully the Q-ship ceased firing and lay off ready for the final attack.

... The unfortunate crew of the submarine struggled to put the canvas boat in the water; the plank was unbolted and thrown into the sea, then wounded and drowning men struggled to get a hold on this wooden life-belt. The mystery ship watched this drama, still fully convinced that J6 was a U-boat. Meanwhile, most of the crew were in the water, some giving up the swim, some managing to swim near the mystery-ship. Several of J6's crew told me that they heard some of the Q-ship's crew cheering their victory --- not dreaming they were watching their own men frantically endeavouring to reach them...

Jones' account ends

The following day a court of inquiry was held. The whole thing was kept very quiet and no blame was attached to anyone. It was all in the game."

Ron asserts that Leading-Torpedo Man T. M. Jones, author of Watchdogs of the Deep "assisted" at the inquiry. In his book, Jones does not say he did. If that is the case, it is significant that in HIS six-page account of the events he does not report that the J6's crew "saluted" the Cymric's commander. And in any event, it is a certainty that Jones did not participate in the private deliberations of the board in which it and the Admiralty subsequently held the Cymric's commander primarily responsible.

The first conclusion by the inquiry was "We attribute blame to - 1. The Commanding Officer of “CYMRIC” in that he was not justified in opening fire before he had established her identity; J.6. being in full buoyancy, men on conning tower, mast up, ensign flying, gun unmanned and not acting in any way suspiciously."

[Markus Robinson]

I am startled that a historian would state something like:

"I am not bothered about what other people think or believe one way or the other now, but I know what we wrote about J6 is correct and If someone can prove otherwise, lets see it."

What began as a simple request to document an astounding claim (that the J6's crew saluted the captain responsible for the friendly fire sinking of their boat the day before, killing sixteen of their crewmates) has become a challenge "to prove me wrong" because frankly, I know what I know...

I checked both the 1930's sources Ron cites, found significant inaccuracies in those accounts, and statements and absence of statements that further bring into question the assertion. I checked the court of inquiry record that further tends to cast in question Ron's assertion. So, other than Mr. Trelawney's statement that he will go to Kew to more fully "check the records," I find it disappointing that Ron does not feel it necessary to provide his source for this claim. This is not the stuff that elicits confidence in a historian's credibility. Why are you now working WITH us Ron to get to the bottom of this?

It is now almost nine years since the NA at Kew was visited to collect info on a number of boats, including J6 and that was only seven years after the files on the Court of Inquiry were opened to the public, so nothing else has been written about J6 and the Inquiry, which was taken from the official files. They had been locked away for 75 years and only opened in 1997.

Of course since then my colleague has been back about five times and spent many days searching the archives for details of other boats and vessels.

(The loss of HM s/m J6 and the Court of Inquiry ADM. 156/131 into sinking of HMS/M J6 by Special Service Vessel CYMRIC under LT. FH Peterson D.S.O. DSC RN, 156/147 & 131 156/172.)

I am not bothered about what other people think or believe one way or the other now, but I know what we wrote about J6 is correct and If someone can prove otherwise, lets see it.

Ron

[Signals]

Hi All, I think there is a misunderstanding with this thread.

Ron simply seems to have confused Able Seaman Jones for Lt Carr.

Jones wrote “Watchdogs of the Deep” he does not say he was anything to do with the inquiry; in fact his knowledge of the event is fairly much as he wrote it, and he would have no knowledge as an Able Seaman to any of the Officer’s decision making or what was said in the inquiry. On this he covers what happened with his views only. His book is fine when it comes to his boat, his experiences, but my criticism is more around him writing stories about the Baltic & Mediterranean campaigns in his book when he was never there, and this all goes on similar lines to By Guess & By God.

Ron I can see meant Lieutenant William Guy Carr who wrote By Guess or By God, and he does say he was there, and was there to witness the inquiry, and does say he saw the J6 crew Salute. Again my previous comments about this book are based on him writing about theatres of war that Carr was never involved with, so he became a story teller of theses events, not a witness to them. The submariners-saluting-the-Q-ship-men may or may not be true. I neither know nor care, being more concerned with material fact concerned with events surrounding the sinking, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, the sad thing with WW1 British Naval History is it has continued to toe the line of failed Admirals who wanted the public to believe they had defeated the HSF & U-Boats, when in fact they did neither, and much of these between the wars books reflect this thinking & writing style.

I do not have it, but read it once, but my notes say Evans, author of ‘Beneath the Waves’ obtained independent info from the Submarine Museum and repeats the saluting thing on p127. So there is an avenue you can persue other than Kew, get the book, and contact the Submarine Museum if Evans does give a footnote. But as mentioned, I no longer have a copy of the book, so hope my notes are correct.

[josquin]

Darren,

The Evans book and the Submarine Museum are valuable leads to follow-up in addition to Kew. Many thanks for informing us

so we can examine further the veracity of the alleged saluting incident. Your comments about the unreliability of Admiralty

accounts, and the reasons for this, are appreciated generally as well as strengthening our skepticism concerning the saluting incident.

Regards,

Trelawney

[Hyacinth1326]

Some disturbing psychic slips exposed on this thread. At times it reads rather like the Roland Freisler fan club playing at British maritime research.  No wonder Signals felt compelled to row back from such company.

 

Context and balance: Writing as someone who has previously benefited from his help, I can observe that Wrecktec's research was  structured on cited primary source material, seasoned with the odd aside.  The saluting stuff is one of those asides. It is incidental to, and not the subject of, one of his books (as Josquin has asserted in post 26. Nor did Wrecktec mention anything about compliments having been paid to Cymric's gunners, as the 'naval historian' claimed in post 20). Anyone familiar with Wrecktec's work knew of both his generosity and his reliability.  This was the first time that direct extracts from ADM/156/131 had greeted the light of day since the Inquiry. IMO Wrecktec's account is substantially accurate but because of the necessarily episodic nature of his work, fails to acknowledge the wider scenario. The context to this thread is that Wrecktec was actually freely providing  a member of this forum with information and just look at the anal broadside he received for his goodwill. Wrecktec's sole offence - if offence it be - had been merely to repeat the long-entrenched story of this beau geste (as maritime historians before and since have done, Arthur Hezlet, Paul Kemp, A.S. Evans, Richard Compton-Hall and Brian Head among them). It is widely acknowledged that Wrecktec's contribution to British maritime history research has been significant. Academics will be referencing his books long after mine have been remaindered. The notion of any of these characters lecturing Wrecktec  in the art of writing a serious book on maritime history is frankly, knicker-wettingly funny.  A more proportionate tone might have been appropriate.  Wrecktec, who never posted again here after this episode, was a gentleman of the old school to the day he died. I, however, am not. My response is therefore unapologetically forthright.  

 

Frankly I don't give a monkey's whistle as to whether the survivors of J6 did or didn't salute Peterson or anybody else for that matter. Its just so much paradigmatic flotsam and jetsam. And as Kewhounds know full well it is not the sort of stuff to be preserved in ADM files.  A  bit like the Trident/Tigris reindeer or Horton being the first boat commander to adopt the jolly roger. You won't find reference to any of these in an ADM file but this does not mean they are not true.   

 

What is true is that multiple discourses thread a dismal track through this woeful affair. Friendly fire incidents, many involving 11th Flotilla boats, were endemic on the U-T/T-U/T-M/M-T convoy run, as Signals has indicated. The inquiry chose not to dwell on the frequency of blue on blue contacts in the War Channel.On March 11, 1917, a Granton 'Q' ship (Merops Q28) opened fire on G5 off the mouth of the Tyne. The boat was forced to submerge in order to escape. Neither party had witnessed the other's recognition signals.  On March 19, 1917,  Rosyth based HMS Orpheus opened fire on J1.  A catastrophe was only narrowly avoided.  In the aftermath of this incident Admiralty staff observed, 

 

'It has always been accepted that the first consideration must be the safety of our surface vessels and in the case of our patrols, freedom of instant action. The existing arrangement by which the onus of keeping clear rested upon the submarine was therefore a clear and logical one'

 

Naval Staff Monograph, 1917, p 269.

 

An incident involving C10 on May 3, 1917 which in may ways pre-figured the J6 affair was never mentioned despite an inquiry (ADM 137/3384).  On May 20, 1917 at 12:50, Miranda II opened fire on J1 in the War Channel (Source Naval Staff Monographs Vol 19, para 132).  On May 7, 1918 the returning Blyth submarine G5 was fired upon by Admiralty yacht Agatha. Again not discussed in relation to the J6 inquiry.  The submariners blamed the training level of reservists, with rather more substance Admiral East Coast railed at the constant failure of Captain (S) 11, Stanley Willis to keep him informed of submarine movements from Blyth (ADM 137/2241). Rather an important omission  given that  the staff of Rear Admiral East coast was responsible for briefing U-T/T-M convoy escorts. There does not appear to have been a significant failure of communication between Immingham and the 10th (Tees) Submarine Flotilla (Dunbar-Nasmith).  As Rear Admiral East Coast warned in a prescient memo of June 7,1918, friendly fire incidents were particularly frequent at the point at which the Longstone/Lista Light route met the War Channel. This was to be where J6 was attacked and where J3 narrowly escaped being rammed by an escort trawler in July 1918.  One further point.  British submarines were indeed to be expected off Blyth - but so were U-boats.

 

High Seas Fleet U-boats had been marauding in the swept channel and along the Longstone/Lista route since late 1916.U-78, U-80, UC-40, UC-59, UB-21, UB-34, UB-67 and UB-77 all operated in this sector from June to September 1918.  (Spindler Band 5).  It is pertinent to relate that UB-115 had been destroyed in the War Channel by 7th Flotilla convoy escorts a short distance from Blyth as recently as September 29. Moreover Room 40 warned SNO Granton on October 12 that a major sortie was in the offing. At least one UC boat of HSF I Flotille, quite possibly two, were expected to lay mines between Longstone and Blyth on or around October 16 (ADM 137/3917). UB-121 was operating between Blyth and Coquet from October 28th. Room 40 suspected this operation would form an extension of the 'Bell Rock Arc' designed to snare elements of the Grand Fleet (see Spindler, Rundschau). Cymric was dispatched to hunt for these boats, so was J6. At no stage was Rear Admiral Startin, SNO Granton made aware of the movements of J6 or any other boat of the 11th flotilla (ADM 137/258) The upshot is that both J6 and Cymric were hunting U-boats in the same sector, the Longstone/Lista Light route but incredibly neither was warned of the other's presence..

 

So where does this get us ? 

All concerned knew the submarine recognition system (two letter challenge followed by two letter response then three coloured smoke grenades) to be unfit for purpose (ADM 137/1890) but despite the litany of near-misses which preceded the destruction of J6, the scope of the inquiry was rendered too narrow to pursue the matter. Irrespective of whatever the dramatis personae of Cymric or J6 did, didn't do, said or didn't say, saluted or didn't salute, it is patently obvious that they were  operating within a hopelessly flawed communications structure beyond their control. IMO the J6 affair  may be thus seen an accident looking for somewhere to happen.  In an act of delicious irony C. in C. Grand Fleet appointed Captain Willis to the J6 Inquiry.  An inquiry is often given shape and meaning by virtue of what it is sanctioned to ignore as much as what it is commissioned to investigate and you won't find any of the preceding material discussed or even mentioned in ADM 156/131 or any related file.The Inquiry was suffused with expediency at every level.The outcome was never really in doubt, the incident was proficiently cauterised.    The Inquiry Report tells us how the crew of J6 died.  It makes no attempt to explore the systemic failures behind their deaths. All told, the question 'why' these failures formed no part of the inquiry is the substantive issue here, not the veracity of a saluting operetta.  

 

Sources: Only by sieving through a far broader range of primary source documents is it possible to glean a picture of what transpired.The content of ADM 156/131 is meaningless shorn of the context outlined above.

Preceding posters have dismissed Carr's book, 'By Guess and by God'  because the inconvenient material therein does not accord with their critical agenda. The Carr account had to be undermined (deemed 'self-serving' albeit without a grain of credible substantiation) and the goalposts moved in a clumsily predictable fashion.   I can assure that generations of British submarine historians have regarded and continue to regard Carr as a reliable witness to events relating to the 10th and 11th Submarine Flotillas as a plethora of books and academic papers bear witness.  The saluting episode was  described in  'Beneath the Waves' (1986 Kimber edition, P127). Evans has of course been the vade mecum  for research into British submarine losses for the past thirty years. Within the Submarine Museum archive you will find the Winser papers. Alfred Winser was also an eye-witness to the Inquiry. Part of this material was extracted to the J6 file where it has resided for at least three decades.

Some might find it rather curious how this shrill thread  petered out at the threshold of the Submarine Museum...I don't.

 

Howlers: Mr Robinson's zeal for factual accuracy is most edifying  He therefore cannot possibly be the same Markus Robinson who described Scarborough in 'Der Kapitan' as being, 'in the English Channel opposite Cherbourg'...or that, 'unrestricted submarine warfare started in April 1917' can he....?

Perhaps the torpedoing of Lusitania was really just one of those,  'patriotic liberties taken with the facts' on the part of das perfide Albion ?

 

The critical scalpel could be applied deeper and wider but it will suffice to remind readers of the words Mr Robinson directed at Wrecktek,

 

 'this is not the stuff that elicits confidence in a historian's credibility...' 

 

'Quod multi ab injuria est stultus orationem'

 

Edited 2 June , 2022 by Hyacinth1326

[Kath]

1 hour ago, Hyacinth1326 said:

the saluting business

Could it have been an ironic gesture?

If it occurred!

 

Kath.

Edited 9 June , 2019 by Kath

[Hyacinth1326]

 I can only observe that Peterson had been awarded a DSO* and DSC* before the J6 sinking.  I see from my notes - which are far from comprehensive - that in his prior career he had attacked at least three U-boats while based at Leith or Granton. I know nothing of his career before the summer of 1915 but he was already decorated.

 

Lt  Peterson commanded the Q trawler Taranaki in a tandem operation with Leith submarine C24 (Lt F Taylor). On July 26, 1915, Taranaki was in a fight with U-6 which may have left the U-boat damaged. Yes !  U-6. 

 

By 1917 the Granton Q trawlers were acting on d/fs provided by Room 40.

On April 24 1917, Peterson, now in command of Granton based trawler, Roskeen fought an inconclusive gun duel with UC-29 off Amble, Northumberland.  The U-boat dived to safety. Roskeen suffered shell damage to her bridge.

 

  On May 15, 1917 Q trawler Roskeen commanded by Peterson fought a gun duel with UC-40.  The U-boat escaped.  Peterson was seriously wounded with shell splinters puncturing  his face and lungs. Several men were wounded. Roskeen suffered significant shell damage and was taken out of service.

 

The 'Q' schooner Cymric was Peterson's last wartime command.  On October 12, Room 40 specifically informed SNO Granton that at least one High Seas Fleet UC minelayer was expected to lay mines between Longstone Light and Blyth on or around October 16.  This was related to the abortive set-piece operation designed to snare elements of the Grand Fleet, described in the Room 40 history (HW 7/2).  

 

Draw your own conclusions.  

 

The J6 crew 

 

Officers: Survivors:

Lt Commander Geoffrey Warburton,

RN Lt Edward Masterman Loly,

RN Lieutenant Harry Robbins,

 

RNR Casualties:

Sub Lieutenant James Brierley,

RN Artificer Engineer Charles Thomas Bright O/N 269922

 

Ratings:Survivors

CPO Alfred Albert Ernest Phillips O/N 228052

PO Philip Groves O/N 218673

PO Herbert Bertrand Clear Green O/N 211866

 PO James Felix Luff O/N J10625

L/Sea Frederick William Noakes O/N J18834

AB Dennis Deasey O/N J17183

AB Harold Hall O/N J21184

Sig George Field O/N J10938

Tel Leonard Bertie Warner O/N J60705

CERA John Robertson O/N RNR/EA.1405

 Ch Sto Albert Edward Joyner O/N 286459

Sto William James Crancher O/N K19879

Sto Sidney Ernest Knibbs O/N K13381

Sto William Hockridge O/N K10070

 Sto John Stephen Preston O/N K17085

 Sto Albert Edward Rawlings O/N 303850

 

Casualties:

L/Sea Edward George Rayner O/N J5764

AB Arthur Herbert Hill O/N J5428

AB William Thomas Russell O/N J28769

AB Frank Andrew Tyler O/N J21161

AB Henry Thomas White O/N J13130

L/Tel George Herbert Wickstead O/N J31563

 Boy Tel Henry Percy Sexton O/N J58647

ERA3 Ernest William ArmstrongO/N M12905

ERA3 Athol Davaar O/N M14927

ERA4 Herbert Edward Philip Burwell O/N M3779

L/Sto Percival James Stevenson O/N K1628

Sto Albert Edward Savidge O/N K19992

 Sto Philip Tachon O/N K20794

 Sto William Piper Thompson O/N K23871

 Sto George Seymour O/N K2420

 

                 Resurgam !

 

Sources: Naval Staff Monographs (Home Waters)1915, pp 32-33, Home Waters 1917 , p74 and p77 

ADM 137/1450-1

ADM 137/255

ADM 137/535

ADM 137/730

ADM 137/4069

ADM 275/20 and 23

J6 File, Submarine Museum

Handelskrieg mit U-booten bands 4 and 5, Marine Rundschau, vol 33, pp 247-9, Arno

Technical History Series: East Coast Convoy and a whole heap of logs that I cannot be bothered to record

. 

Edited 24 July , 2019 by Hyacinth1326