Canadian J Posted 4 September , 2015 Share Posted 4 September , 2015 (edited) Could it have been possible that the German sub was not lost and that the pistol shots/ engine trouble was all staged to avert attention? I know this might be incredibly simple but who knows! If they were being relentlessly hunted by destroyers and depth charges, with the possibility of already being partially crippled with minimal opportunity for escape, deception may have been the ONLY option. The U boat must have been well aware that the enemy destroyers had hydrophones and were able to listen to their activity. So, pretend the engine is having trouble, fire 24 shots, wait as long as possible, then creep away when/if the destroyers have gone. I am not even sure if I believe this myself, just some food for thought! - Jordan Edited 4 September , 2015 by Canadian J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 4 September , 2015 Author Share Posted 4 September , 2015 Full disclosure: I'm one of the two people that handles the WWI section for uboat.net. I also work with divers to identify WWI submarine wrecks and Are the fates of all WWI German submarines known? No. Are the fates of all British WWI submarines known? No. (The same applies in WWII.) This does not mean that any and all ASW attacks are potentially viable. Sometimes we can say with complete confidence that no U-boat could have been sunk in a particular attack. This is one of those cases. WWI U-boat operations are really well understood. There's a German official history that includes dates when boats sailed and returned from patrol. In addition, U-boat war diaries survive. No High Seas Fleet or Flanders U-boats go missing at that point in time. Typical patrol length is a month for HSF U-series diesel torpedo attack and UBIII submarines. For Flanders-based boats, it would be shorter. Excessive required patrol length is one item that immediately makes a sinking claim suspect. If the ASW attack had been say two weeks later, it would be a different story, when you get into the uncertainty surrounding Northern Barrage loses. UB 83, which sailed from Germany on September 7, 1918, plays into that -- I'm not in love with the Ophelia sinking claim but it, unlike the American sub chaser claim, is at least plausible. As for Massie, it’s disappointing that he that he uses obviously outdated sources in his book. Best wishes, Michael Michael, That is truly appreciated, and so nice of you to put this amateur right. I am sure you can see why this story captured my attention and, since posting this, it seems to have had a similar effect on several other members here too. Oh, and another thing, you have helped with my education too - so many thanks for that as well. Warmest regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cormorant1898 Posted 5 September , 2015 Share Posted 5 September , 2015 Another possible source of information is a book I have just read - ‘Danger Zone’ by E Keble Chatterton. It relates the battles fought by British and later US naval forces against the German submarine force off the Irish coast and out into the Atlantic. It goes into dates and even latitudes and longitudes in great detail. It is almost too detailed. Unfortunately I have lent the book to a friend who is on holiday at the moment. If the mystery has not been solved by the time he returns, I will investigate. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 5 September , 2015 Author Share Posted 5 September , 2015 Another possible source of information is a book I have just read - ‘Danger Zone’ by E Keble Chatterton. It relates the battles fought by British and later US naval forces against the German submarine force off the Irish coast and out into the Atlantic. It goes into dates and even latitudes and longitudes in great detail. It is almost too detailed. Unfortunately I have lent the book to a friend who is on holiday at the moment. If the mystery has not been solved by the time he returns, I will investigate. David Hi David, That would be greatly appreciated. Try as I might, I can not let this story go. Of course, it does not remotely help that I have such little knowledge of this particular subject, and merely got involved because I was so greatly moved by reading it. It would be really interesting to find out what actually happened, and the identity of that sub. I at least think that we can rely on Sims' account enough to be sure that this was an encounter with a sub. It would be very interesting to find some evidence that described their side of the story. I know I am quite likely wishing for the moon at that, but I am still hooked despite it turning out to be a different mystery to how it first appeared. I would like to thank all those who have helped me along the way with this one. This forum is a truly remarkable resource. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian J Posted 6 September , 2015 Share Posted 6 September , 2015 Mike, I love your enthusiasm and I am sure we can all appreciate being consumed by stories and events related to WW1. We'll certainly be looking forward to anything David can contribute! - Jordan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allison01 Posted 6 September , 2015 Share Posted 6 September , 2015 Ditto Jordan, love Mike's enthusiasm, await with interest David's contribution(have been following this thread without commenting thus far ) Allison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 6 September , 2015 Author Share Posted 6 September , 2015 OK, I will endeavour to live up to my newly acquired reputation for enthusiasm, and try and drive things forwards. Unfortunately, for someone who knows very little, I am never short of theories. Some of these will doubtless be rubbish - please tell me if they are! 1/ I am convinced that the Sims account is accurate - up to a point. The experts who have contributed so far have given me an indication as to where that point should be. I have no doubt that these American Destroyers found a sub. The descriptions of their hydrophone "contact", the propeller wash they noted on the surface, and the undoubtedly man made noises they heard after their depth charge attack all point to that. Forget the reported "pistol shots", they could be explained by a variety of things, perhaps they were hammer blows? In addition however, we had earlier confirmation that American Destroyers were in action on that date - with a RN report describing the sub as "slightly damaged". It is however difficult to establish how they arrived at that if nobody ever saw it. 2/ There is no U-Boat reported as lost near those dates and in that part of the sea. I must thank Michael for confirming that. This leaves me thinking we now just have the following possibilities. 1/ It was a U-Boat, and it got away. If that is the case, then there may be a surviving log that backs the attack, date, and approximate location. That should identify the sub. Thanks again Michael for confirming that a lot of documentation still exists. 2/ It was not a U-Boat, and it didn't get away. Could this have been an allied sub? I struggle to know why an allied sub would be 150 miles west of Lands End. Perhaps showing my ignorance, but I can not see a role for them in convoy protection. Similarly it does not seem the right bit of water for them to be a part of the allied blockade. The limited knowledge I have tells me that British subs were mainly deployed to protect the Channel crossing and outside German occupied naval bases on the coast of mainland Europe. Perhaps however a key element in the Sims account is that they never actually saw the sub, and I do know that British subs were sometimes mistaken for U-Boats and sunk. Can anyone think of another scenario? Am I interpreting the "evidence" badly/incorrectly? I have looked for a British sub that went missing at this time, and have not found anything. Could it have been French? Again, these are chiefly the ramblings of an ignorant amateur thinking aloud. I freely admit that. Thoughts please!!!!! Warmest regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian J Posted 7 September , 2015 Share Posted 7 September , 2015 Great consolidation Mike, thank you! I think spit-balling ideas and thinking out loud is always recommended in solving a mystery, it might cause someone else to start thinking down a different path! -I wonder how often u-boats were sunk under similar circumstances or if u-boats usually escaped? What were the odds of being sunk when facing destroyers dropping depth charges? (I know nothing about the navy so this might be a stupid question no doubt!) -I think diving into the german and french archives on sub/u-boat action in this area would be a good idea to narrow it down farther. To eliminate, or confirm, the theory that it may have been a french or german sub that got away. -If this was a case of friendly fire, could it be possible that it was censored from the records? (although i'm sure this is highly unlikely). - Jordan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 7 September , 2015 Share Posted 7 September , 2015 2/ It was not a U-Boat, and it didn't get away. Could this have been an allied sub? I struggle to know why an allied sub would be 150 miles west of Lands End. Perhaps showing my ignorance, but I can not see a role for them in convoy protection. Similarly it does not seem the right bit of water for them to be a part of the allied blockade. The limited knowledge I have tells me that British subs were mainly deployed to protect the Channel crossing and outside German occupied naval bases on the coast of mainland Europe. Perhaps however a key element in the Sims account is that they never actually saw the sub, and I do know that British subs were sometimes mistaken for U-Boats and sunk. Can anyone think of another scenario? Am I interpreting the "evidence" badly/incorrectly? I have looked for a British sub that went missing at this time, and have not found anything. Could it have been French? Again, these are chiefly the ramblings of an ignorant amateur thinking aloud. I freely admit that. Thoughts please!!!!! Could this be an Allied submarine that was sunk? No. None missing either. And you leave out an option: The attack was against a non-submarine/U-boat target. Yes, that happened. It seems that Ensign Ashley D. Adams was promoted to Lieutenant (Junior Grade) on September 21, 1918 and awarded the Navy Cross. Best wishes, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinBattle Posted 7 September , 2015 Share Posted 7 September , 2015 What, you mean an attack on a submarine that wasn't actually there? The whole thing was a mistaken identity and all the noises were a misunderstanding of underwater effects? Promotions have been gained for stranger things I believe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 7 September , 2015 Author Share Posted 7 September , 2015 Could this be an Allied submarine that was sunk? No. None missing either. And you leave out an option: The attack was against a non-submarine/U-boat target. Yes, that happened. It seems that Ensign Ashley D. Adams was promoted to Lieutenant (Junior Grade) on September 21, 1918 and awarded the Navy Cross. Best wishes, Michael Hi Michael, Firstly, may sincere thanks for contributing again. I must admit, the limited research I had conducted (via the web only) had not turned up an allied sub. I can only think that if an allied sub had been involved, and that it had got away, there would have been several "interviews without coffee". So the allied sub theory would seem to have a big red line through it. Yes, I left out the non sub target, and I have read that naturally occurring things occasionally received the doubtless unwelcome attention of the navy. I guess I believe the Sims account too much to believe that it was anything else - even though that may be a very stupid thing for me to do! I come back to all the "noise" evidence that they picked up. Whilst these noises may all have been interpreted incorrectly, I can not (my ignorance again perhaps) see how they were anything other than man made. Following on from that, if they were man made, it surely had to be a sub? The early part of the account gives evidence that they discovered the "target" and chased it - so it was obviously a moving object and not some sort of static phenomenon on the sea bed. I fully understand that you may be sat at your keyboard thinking "Jeez, this is like trying to knock nails into water" but I do thank you for your patience! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 7 September , 2015 Share Posted 7 September , 2015 Just dipping my toe in the water! From Wiki Congress declared war on April 6, 1917, which meant the United States Coast Guardautomatically became a part of the Department of the Navy.[Note 1]Destroyers and similar escort warships were considered the most effective means of sinking enemy submarines and protecting merchantmen. Therefore, destroyer squadrons were based in the British Isles at major ports including Queenston, Ireland. The capital ships took up positions with the British Royal Navy in the North Sea for an uneventfulblockade of the German High Seas Fleet that would last even after the armistice into 1919.[4] The first victory for the United States Navy took place in the Atlantic on October 15, 1917. The destroyer USS Cassin, commanded by Lieutenant Commander W. N. Vernon, encountered U-61 off Mine Head, Ireland. After chasing the U-boat for an hour, U-61 turned around and fired a single torpedo, which struck Cassin on port the side. Gunner's Mate First Class Osmond Ingram noticed the torpedo just before it struck and alarmed theK-gun crew, who began firing depth charges. Cassin was heavily damaged, but her crew kept her afloat and continued firing. Ingram was killed and would receive the Medal of Honor, while nine others were wounded. Caisin struck U-61 's conning tower, which forced her crew to disengage and retreat.[5] Your incident does not seem to have been reported as a 'kill'. I don't seem to be able to control font size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 7 September , 2015 Share Posted 7 September , 2015 Just dipping my toe in the water! From Wiki Congress declared war on April 6, 1917, which meant the United States Coast Guardautomatically became a part of the Department of the Navy.[Note 1]Destroyers and similar escort warships were considered the most effective means of sinking enemy submarines and protecting merchantmen. Therefore, destroyer squadrons were based in the British Isles at major ports including Queenston, Ireland. The capital ships took up positions with the British Royal Navy in the North Sea for an uneventfulblockade of the German High Seas Fleet that would last even after the armistice into 1919.[4] The first victory for the United States Navy took place in the Atlantic on October 15, 1917. The destroyer USS Cassin, commanded by Lieutenant Commander W. N. Vernon, encountered U-61 off Mine Head, Ireland. After chasing the U-boat for an hour, U-61 turned around and fired a single torpedo, which struck Cassin on port the side. Gunner's Mate First Class Osmond Ingram noticed the torpedo just before it struck and alarmed theK-gun crew, who began firing depth charges. Cassin was heavily damaged, but her crew kept her afloat and continued firing. Ingram was killed and would receive the Medal of Honor, while nine others were wounded. Caisin struck U-61 's conning tower, which forced her crew to disengage and retreat.[5] Your incident does not seem to have been reported as a 'kill'. I don't seem to be able to control font size. I don't have U 61's KTB in front of me, but per the German official history, U 61 broke off its patrol the next day as she was short on fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 8 September , 2015 Share Posted 8 September , 2015 What, you mean an attack on a submarine that wasn't actually there? The whole thing was a mistaken identity and all the noises were a misunderstanding of underwater effects? Promotions have been gained for stranger things I believe.... Yes, that happened. I'm not offering an opinion at this stage on the September 6, 1918 incident, but an attack against a non-submarine target (school of fish, whale etc.) or even an imaginary target is something that always has to be considered. I can think of several U-boat sinking claims that were commonly accepted until recently in which it is now apparent that in actuality no submarine was present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 8 September , 2015 Author Share Posted 8 September , 2015 Yes, that happened. I'm not offering an opinion at this stage on the September 6, 1918 incident, but an attack against a non-submarine target (school of fish, whale etc.) or even an imaginary target is something that always has to be considered. I can think of several U-boat sinking claims that were commonly accepted until recently in which it is now apparent that in actuality no submarine was present. Ah, thanks Michael, the penny has dropped. And sorry Michael, I dd not somehow get the message from your previous post that ALL of the noises could have been a case of mistaken identity. That is probably because I am still convinced that the Sims account seems to detail that the noises were man made, even if their interpretation of them all was stunningly incorrect. That notion kind of blinded me to other possibilities. It still seems like an odd series of different types of noises that would match Sims interpretation, but I can now see that this might be a possibility. If that was the case, I suppose that we will almost certainly never get to the bottom of it. I am still clinging to your phrase that you are not yet offering an opinion on September 6th, and I am hoping that somebody will turn something up. I can better understand now however that that may not be possible. At this stage, I must also say that I am not going to be much use. As I sit here at the moment, I have no sources to consult, and no idea where to find any. Warmest regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 8 September , 2015 Share Posted 8 September , 2015 I don't have U 61's KTB in front of me, but per the German official history, U 61 broke off its patrol the next day as she was short on fuel. It is given as a 'victory'. It surprises me that your incident was not 'officially' reported with co ordinates etc in case the u boat was later missing. The captain would then have had a record of his action. Would there be a list of ships that operated in the area at the time? If so and logs are available would it not be in them even if only to account for the depth charges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cormorant1898 Posted 8 September , 2015 Share Posted 8 September , 2015 Patience. Patience. My friend (the one with my book) comes back tomorrow and I will peruse it immediately. I have to say that, having read it quite recently, I do not recall any incident with pistol shots etc. However, by the last few chapters of the book, i.e. 1917 and 1918, I was beginning to glaze over with all the detail the author provided. I am hoping that a destryer/submarine encounter is recorded at the right sort of time, even if pistol shots were not mentioned. I only bought the book to see if there was any information about my son's recent acquisition - an ex-Irish lightship, the Cormorant. built in 1878 and requisitioned by the Royal Navy on 1 May 1916 to house some republican prisoners. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinBattle Posted 8 September , 2015 Share Posted 8 September , 2015 Perhaps you need to change your Forum name? the Cormorant. built in 1878 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 8 September , 2015 Author Share Posted 8 September , 2015 I don't have U 61's KTB in front of me, but per the German official history, U 61 broke off its patrol the next day as she was short on fuel. It is given as a 'victory'. It surprises me that your incident was not 'officially' reported with co ordinates etc in case the u boat was later missing. The captain would then have had a record of his action. Would there be a list of ships that operated in the area at the time? If so and logs are available would it not be in them even if only to account for the depth charges? You are right, assuming that all logs survive for subs operating in that area on those dates. That might not be the case - I just don't know. Similarly, regarding how to gain access to those logs, I have no idea. We already seem to have ruled out that the sub in the encounter Sims describes was lost, which should add to the probability of something being recorded on the "opposite side of the fence". Similarly, I would expect the logs of the Destroyers would give a more accurate location than "150 miles west of Lands End" - As vague as that is however, it would seem to rule out the Northern Barrage, being at completely the wrong end of the British Isles, and subs being very slow even when they were on the surface. Warmest regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cormorant1898 Posted 8 September , 2015 Share Posted 8 September , 2015 Thanks Kevin. That must be the umpteenth time I have made that error over the past year or so. Old age! How does one change a name?David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinBattle Posted 8 September , 2015 Share Posted 8 September , 2015 Cormorant MDCCCLXXVIII or MDCCCXCVIII Well, you'd need to contact Admin to ask them to change it to whatever you want. Alternatively I won't say a word about your booboo, and leave it as it is....... One easy way would be to click on the "Forums" tab and then scroll all the way down to the Help button and send your request. By the way, wasn't Cormorant also known as Lady December until recently? Perhaps she was registered under yet another name for the missing period in her life. There must be a Ship Registry record of her by Hull Number or other standard reference to track where and who owned her when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cormorant1898 Posted 8 September , 2015 Share Posted 8 September , 2015 Thanks Kevin. I will leave it as it is. Yes Cormorant has had several names. She was sold to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners in 1943 and became the Lady Dixon. You can read the full (and ongoing) story at www.cormorantlightship.blogspot.co.uk David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartH Posted 9 September , 2015 Share Posted 9 September , 2015 Might be worth looking at the site http://www.uboat.net/wwi/fates/, which Michael works on, based upon a multitude of sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cormorant1898 Posted 9 September , 2015 Share Posted 9 September , 2015 How disappointing. I have retrieved 'Danger Zone' and perused the latter part, but Chatterton makes no mention of any actions in Sept 1918. Interestingly Admiral William S Sims wrote a foreword to the book, so presumeably he read it. So, no mention of this incident and no mention either of Ensign Ashlet D Adams and his little group. However, if Sims uses the term Submarine Chasers correctly, it does provide some clues. These vessels were 110ft, 60 tons and petrol engined, with a top speed of 16 knots and an endurance of 1,500 miles (at economical speeds!). Two squadrons were due to leave the USA for Queenstown in May 1918, but were delayed by the threat of U151 arriving off the American coast. As an aside, in October 1916, a similar threat (U-53 ?) had been reported from the Nantucket Lightship, by Captain David Dudley (no, not me!). Anyway, they finally left in June, departed Bermuda on 7 July and reached the Azores on 20 July. From there they went to Brest, where they had a little excitement when a U-boat known as Penmarch Pete (no other clues) fired a torpedo at the USS Bridgeport. Luckily it missed as the Bridgeport was stuffed with TNT for depth charges etc. The sub was attacked but its fate is not recorded - and Brest is 150 miles south of Land's End, not west. Thirty chasers were based at Queenstown under the command of Capt A J Hepburn USN (another lead?). Actual operations did not begin until 20 Sept, but "...they managed to put in some useful attacks and to harry the enemy determinedly". Did this refer to the period before 20 Sept, or after? During the second half of 1918, Germany was losing 2 submarines per week and the earlier well-seasoned crews were being replaced by inexperienced officers and half-trained crews. This and the convoy system saved us from starvation. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 9 September , 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September , 2015 Actual operations did not begin until 20 Sept, but "...they managed to put in some useful attacks and to harry the enemy determinedly". Did this refer to the period before 20 Sept, or after? To answer your question first, the dates given by Sims for this incident were 6th and 7th September. Many thanks David for tracking this info down. That is greatly appreciated. Not "the answer" - but I think we are getting warmer. On the strength of this account, I went back to Sims in search of more clues, and I think I may have found something. Prior to the attack we are investigating, he mentions an encounter with U58 on 2nd September which he fixes as about 250 miles west of Brest. Not a million miles away from his "150 miles west of Lands End". He mentions that they intercepted radio signals from U58 which confirmed that this U-Boat was going to meet up with two others. In his words, after an encouter with U58 on 2nd September, "about a week later" they picked up a message that U58 was off the coast of Scotland. This could be crucial - I don't think the boat in the story we are looking for could have been U58, but it could easily have been one of the other 2. Here is his full account - pages 188 and 189. https://archive.org/stream/victoryatsea00simsiala#page/188/mode/2up That link up of the 3 subs, if documented anywhere in the German logs, will give us 2 (IMHO) very strong possibilities. He also mentions missing pages in the log of U58 that would have covered the events of the 2nd September. If the log still survives, and there are pages for 6th and 7th, I think they would additionally rule it out. If the log survives and covers their radio messages and immediate plans prior to 2nd September, it may well identify those 2 other boats. Warmest regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now