Submarine sunk by HMS LLEWELLYN

[Sgt Stripes]

Could anyone confirm that HMS LLEWELLYN sank the German submarine UC 19 on 4 December 1916. I have been unable to find any information to confirm this action.   

Edited 22 December , 2019 by Sgt Stripes

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Not according to Uboat,net:

https://uboat.net/wwi/boats/?boat=UC 19

[KizmeRD]

Seems unlikely, HMS Ariel claimed the sinkng two days later (on 6th December 1916), but this could have been UC-29

Michael

Edited 22 December , 2019 by KizmeRD

[travers61]

44 minutes ago, Sgt Stripes said:

Could anyone confirm that HMS LLEWELLYN sank the German submarine UC 19 on 4 December 1916. I have been unable to find any information to confirm this action.   

 

Just incase it helps to have a link to a source of this claim, its info shown on the wikipedia page for the history of the Destroyer. The source given there is a book called U Boats Destroyed - author Paul Kemp.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer#Early_designs

[Hyacinth1326]

 I would not place too  much faith in any U-boat kill claims for 1916 without the benefit of a submarine wreck as evidence.  The reason is that the paravane was of dubious usefulness and until the introduction of D2 Type depth-charges in 1917, Admiralty pattern depth charges  didn't work.  Many claims for U-boat sinkings can be found in Admiralty records but not all stand up to close scrutiny. 

 

HMS LLewellyn  apparently spotted a surfaced  U-boat on December 4, 1916 at a distance of 300 yards. LLewellyn  turned in to ram but missed.  The destroyer turned again and this time dropped a single depth charge. Next morning an oil slick was spotted near the depth charge attack. Oil and debris were  still bubbling up four days later. At any rate even if a U-boat was attacked, successfully or not, it was not UC-19. The Llewellyn attack took place off Calais.According to Spindler  UC-19's patrol billet was some distance West of Calais.

 

The Ariel claim has only slightly more credibility.  From the evidence of her log, Ariel was twelve miles SW of Bishop's Rock on December 6 when a look-out on the destroyer spotted the conning tower of a U-boat.  The U-boat dived at the same time it was apparently spotted.  Ariel now dropped a depth charge ahead of what was assumed to be the track of the U-boat.  The starboard paravane was lowered to a depth of 30'. This is the log extract:

'2:12 Sighted conning tower of submarine. Full Speed

2: 16 Dropped depth charges

Speed as requisite for sweeping with paravane'

 

The subsequent explosion is said to have brought oil and wreckage to the surface. However the paravane report attached to the log is unchecked.  The implication of this is that the paravane operators did not believe they had achieved a kill. Subsequent dives in and around this location (49 39N 06 21'2W) have not led to the discovery of a U-boat wreck. 

 

At any rate U-boat net awards a possible 'kill' to the destroyer Landrail for her attack South of the Goodwins.  This is probably because Spindler took the Landrail claim seriously   Here is an extract from her log for Wed. 13th December, 1916 01:52 'Sighted enemy submarine diving in 51.7.4N, 1.45.10E. Expended two depth charges'   There is no mention of debris or evidence of a sinking in the log.  However subsequent accounts have added that debris was found and that the commander of Landrail stopped to examine same.  As previously observed, this detail does not appear in the ship's log and looks suspiciously to me like intelligence embroidery..

 

Hardly convincing stuff.  

 

See Spindler 'Handelskrieg' Band 3

Termote  'War Beneath the Waves'

Keble-Chatterton 'Fighting the U-boats'

Landrail and Ariel Logs

Edited 24 December , 2019 by Hyacinth1326

[Michael Lowrey]

Well, the Royal Navy did pay prize money in 1919 to HMS Llewellyn for sinking UC 19 on December 4, 1916. However, this proved to be in error, as Llewellyn's attack was actually against the homebound UB 18, which reached Zeebrugge. (Source for this reattribution: Naval Staff Monograph 18, pages 39 and 40).

 

The cases of UB 29 and UC 19 are complex, as they sailed the same day and had an overlapping patrol area off the Scillys. UB 29 was found off the Flanders coast a few years ago; the fate of UC 19 still remains at issue. The Ariel attack clearly isn't the answer, as that must have been against UB 29 (the steamer John Sanderson was in a gunnery action against a "large" U-boat some distance away two hours latter, which must have been UC 19).

 

As for why uboat.net lists Landrail as possibly sinking UC 19, that's simple: there's a known, poorly understood submarine wreck in the vicinity of the attack site, which now lies in a French no-dive zone. The wreck could be of UC 19, sunk by Landrail, but other missing Flanders U-boats can't be excluded. See Innes McCartney, The Marine Archaeology of a Modern Conflict: Comparing the Archaeology of German Submarine Wrecks to the Historical Text, page 81.

Edited 23 December , 2019 by Michael Lowrey

[Hyacinth1326]

Many thanks for pointing that out.  I do note that Innes also regards the Landrail attribution as 'a similar implausible depth-charge attack' however (page 101 on my version of his book).  Maybe 'implausible sounding attack by Landrail', might be a better stance until the identity of the UC is established.

[Michael Lowrey]

The wreck is sufficiently close to the Landrail attack site to qualify as a "possible" — it's worth noting, it quite plausibly could be UC 19. Does it have to be UC 19? No. It could be one of the four other still missing Flanders UBIIs/UCIIs that got caught in a mine net. Would I hope this wreck is examined again in the future? Yes. Unfortunately, that requires the French to give permission, which they so far have been unwilling to do.

[Hyacinth1326]

My reservations are due to the failure rate of pre- Autumn 1917 British depth charges allied to their weak payload.  Landrail only dropped two of them.  It was dark and calculating the U-boat track would have been something of a challenge, not to mention guessing the depth settings.   Also the primary source document, Landrail's log does not mention any evidence of a 'kill'.  You will readily understand my scepticism but hey, if the 'Mystery 'UC' turns out to be UC-19 then I am happy to be wrong... We know that Buoy 7a was routinely used as a navigational aid so yes, it could be one of several boats.   

Edited 24 December , 2019 by Hyacinth1326