Unrestricted Submarine Warfare

[Tim Birch]

I was suprised to learn that this extended to sinking hospital ships. The Brittanic, sister ship to the Titanic, was torpedoed and sunk in the Aegean despite being painted white and clearly marked by red crosses. Towards the end of 1916 it seems that the authorities considered discontinuing the use of Malta as a base for military hospitals due to the number of hospital ships being attacked en route to the island.

[AndyHollinger]

Unrestricted meant unrestricted ... I believe there was a History Channel story on this one in particular. I am no expert ... but from the German side, they said they couldn't trust the Allies about what was non-combatant and what was a munitions carrier - see Lusitania and Cunards double role ... was this a hospital ship or a troop carrier?

There is also the Terror Concept. When nothing is safe at sea the campaign will work much better than if there was strict adherence to the "rules" ...

But, also remember the British wanted such stuff to happen and did their best to portray German Uboats as war crimes ... what better way than attacking hospital ships ... and if the Germans shied away from attacking them, why not pile munitions into the lower holds?

By definition, Submarine attacks were really guesses and therefore open to real subjective analysis or consideration. Unless they actually followed the rules - stop, search, let the crew off and then sink - which would put the sub in great peril ... they HAD to make mistakes ... unless they sunk some hospital ships ... these ships would become the troop carriers and munition ships because the British would use them as such to escape the sub attacks.

War is hell ...

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Hi,

The last research that I heard about was that Brittanic was sunk buy a mine and that what finished Lusitania was a coal dust explosion.

All the best

Fred

[per ardua per mare per terram]

In the UK on 22/2/05 there is a Channel 5 programme about the ‘Curse of the Titanic sisters’, which shows a dive on Britannic and various theories on her sinking.

[michaeldr]

For von Holtzendorff's Memo, 22 December 1916, see http://www.gwpda.org/naval/holtzendorffmemo.htm

The text of the memo follows the notes; lots of reading but very interesting

It does not address Tim’s original point, but nevertheless gives the background and indicates the German thinking behind it

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Adrian Roberts]

Didn't see the C5 documentary - anyone know what conclusion they came to about the Britannic?

I have heard that the nurses left the portholes open on the lower decks to air them before they were loaded with wounded soldiers, and the water therefore entered the ship much faster than expected. This was an explanation for why she sank so fast despite having higher bulkheads than Titanic - an alternative to the theory that she sank fast because she was carrying ammunition.

Adrian

[MikB]

They discounted the torpedo theory, and the coaldust explosion for Britannic. They found sonar evidence that apparently showed clearly a line of mine cradles across the ship's path. Some watertight doors between compartments in the boiler spaces were also found open, and this would have contributed to rapid flooding.

Regards,

MikB

[Michael Lowrey]

They discounted the torpedo theory, and the coaldust explosion for Britannic. They found sonar evidence that apparently showed clearly a line of mine cradles across the ship's path. Some watertight doors between compartments in the boiler spaces were also found open, and this would have contributed to rapid flooding.

Regards,

MikB

Actually, all that is old news. Upon learning of the loss of the Britannic and the location, the commander of the submarine that laid the minefield claimed the sinking. No, not after the war -- he did so in late 1916. The official German history, the source of all attributions as to which U-boat sank what, agreed. The edition covering late 1916 was published in the early 1930s.

Britannic should not have sunk from a single mine hit and especially not in less time than it took for her even more famous sister to go down. However, it's also been known for sometime that watertight doors were open when Britannic hit the mine, which would help explain the rapid loss.

Best wishes,

Michael

[historydavid]

Andy,

Re your comment: "Unless they actually followed the rules - stop, search, let the crew off and then sink - which would put the sub in great peril ..."

The latter part is certainly correct, being surfaced or at periscope depth whilst waiting for the crew & passengers to disembark would certainly put a boat in great danger, and on several occasions it caused the loss of U-boats.

However, the 'rule' on stop, search & release crew/passengers was proposed in the Declaration of London 1909 but none of the future belligerants ratified it (the British government only proclaimed its intention of adhering to the proposal).

Given the above date it is obvious that the proposal related to surface ships and did not include submarines (even at the beginning of hostilities in 1914 it was not generally envisaged that submarines would be much of a danger to merchant shipping).

Bearing in mind that we had the largest merchant fleet at that time it was in our interest to promote the 'rule' idea and use it as a propaganda weapon whenever possible.

Best wishes

historydavid

[AndyHollinger]

Yes ... but, in the minds of the Americans and probably the British home front ... the practice of merchant raiding by submarines was "barbarous" and against the rules. The Seeadler followed the rules and Von Luckner was considered honorable and heroic ... Uboat captains war criminals - just part of the deal.

Rules disappear in war as everyone knows ... we can look to the present or the past to see - what needs to get done, gets done.

Unrestricted Submarine warfare was the "devil's bargain" for Germany - it was their only hope of the reverse blockade but it cost them American Neutrality - which went a long way to losing the war. (note the tempered observation - my own feeling is that our (US) effort in WWI's Battle of the Atlantic was more important than our army)

[bpardoe870]

Yes ... but, in the minds of the Americans and probably the British home front ... the practice of merchant raiding by submarines was "barbarous" and against the rules.  The Seeadler followed the rules and Von Luckner was considered honorable and heroic ... Uboat captains war criminals - just part of the deal. 

Just to chime in, my book on the Sea Eagle (Seeadler) and von Luckner is out next week and in prep for that book I had to research the maritime laws in regards to this. You could fly the flag of a neutral country up until the point you fired your weapon, at which point the flag flying above your ship had to be your true country of origin. Likewise the uniform that your men wore had to be that of the navy that they were associated with at the time of firing; otherwise the crew was not bound by military law if the crew was apprehended. There is also a wide range of rules that came into play in regards to appropriate signals to be used, etc.. When you think about it, the rules were very formal and gentlemanly.

Blaine Pardoe

[AndyHollinger]

Is the USCG Training Ship "Eagle" the ship or merely the sister ship of the Seealder ...?

[bpardoe870]

Is the USCG Training Ship "Eagle" the ship or merely the sister ship of the Seealder ...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No relationship exists between the two. The Seeadler was originally the Pass of Balmaha -- built in Glasgow for an American company. The ship was attempting to sell cotton to the Russians (a little capitalism in the face of war) and was boarded by a British aux. cruiser. That ship put a boarding party on her and ran up the Union Jack, essentially marking her as a British vessel under maritime law. She was then spotted by the U-36 who captured her as a prize...through some fairly humorous twists of events.

Most navies before and after the war maintained a traditional sailing ship as a training vessel...something still practiced today.

Blaine Pardoe

[Bob H]

Is the USCG Training Ship "Eagle" the ship or merely the sister ship of the Seealder ...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seeadler was converted from the American owned Pass of Balmaha. Originally built in Glasgow in1888. She was captured in 1915 by U36 and confiscated for carring controband materials.

She was wrecked on a coral reef on Mopeiha Island in the French society Islands in the Pacific 2nd August 1917.

USCG Eagle is one of a class of four sail training ships built for the German navy. She was built in 1936 as Horst Wessel.

Gorch Foch built in 1933 is now the Russian Tovarisch.

Albert Leo Schlageter is now the Portugese Sagres.

After WWII Germany replaced these confiscated ships with a new Gorch Fock to a similar design.

Regards

Bob