HM S/M and a U-boat ID

[James A Pratt III]

In the book "Inside Room 40" page 101 It has some intercepted German messages:

On 3 May (1915) German aircraft number 78 (FdH FF 19) from Borkum reported that at 06.30 hrs it had seen a British submarine on the surface in 117 epsilon, which dived when the aircraft swooped to attack it. The aircraft continued to patrol the area for half an hour, hoping to catch the submarine resurfacing. At 07.15hrs between 92 and 93 epsilon it saw a half-submerged submarine, which again dived as the aircraft approached it. The submarine did not respond to any recognition signals from the aircraft, so the pilot dropped three bombs, one of which fell just in front of the bow.

[James A Pratt III]

part 2

"Then the next day the pilot of another aircraft, number 112 (Ago) reported that at 14.30hrs he sighted a British submarine in 75 epsilon and at the same time he also saw a German submarine in 84 epsilon going north. The plane warned the German vessel and then dropped three bombs on the enemy submarine which exploded near it, but apparently did no damage at the British submarine did not dive, but fired shrapnel at the aircraft, 'which burst close' to it. The shrapnel persuaded the pilot to retreat out of bombing range and so the incident ended."

Anyone know which British submarine(s) was involved? and what U-boat could it have been?

[Simon Schnetzke]

James,

the German submarine, sighted on May 4th, was U 27 (Wegener).

 

Cheers,

Simon

[The Treasurer]

3 hours ago, James A Pratt III said:

In the book "Inside Room 40" page 101 It has some intercepted German messages:

On 3 May (1915) German aircraft number 78 (FdH FF 19) from Borkum reported that at 06.30 hrs it had seen a British submarine on the surface in 117 epsilon, which dived when the aircraft swooped to attack it. The aircraft continued to patrol the area for half an hour, hoping to catch the submarine resurfacing. At 07.15hrs between 92 and 93 epsilon it saw a half-submerged submarine, which again dived as the aircraft approached it. The submarine did not respond to any recognition signals from the aircraft, so the pilot dropped three bombs, one of which fell just in front of the bow.

D.7 reported being attacked with 3 bombs at 6.15 GMT.

[The Treasurer]

15 hours ago, James A Pratt III said:

Anyone know which British submarine(s) was involved?

E.5 reported a seaplane that dropped 2 bombs on what was assumed to be a submarine two miles away at 1.15pm GMT. It then turned toward E.5 and fired a rocket and 3 white flares. E.5 opened fire with 2 rounds and it turned away. It dropped two more bombs 2 miles away, one seen to cause a large explosion, then disappeared.

 

11 hours ago, Simon Schnetzke said:

the German submarine, sighted on May 4th, was U 27 (Wegener).

Does U.27 report being bombed? (see above)

Edited 23 February by The Treasurer

[The Treasurer]

I've edited the above as Benning's report says that the first bombs were dropped on what was 'apparently a submarine', implying that he didn't actually see anything. The intercept decode may simply be a slightly garbled version of events. Or, an embarassed seaplane commander could simply have made up a good story to gloss over why he bombed a shadow in the water and mistook a British submarine for a U Boat then got shot at by it. Benning is very clear that the bombs were nowhere near E.5. Of course an embarrassed Benning might exaggerate how far away the bombs were to gloss over how he got jumped by a seaplane.

Unravelling history does require not taking anything at face value. A check of U.27 war diary for the day would clear up whether Wegener saw any of this.

Edited 23 February by The Treasurer

[Simon Schnetzke]

I will share the content of Wegener‘s diary on Sunday. 
 

Cheers

Simon

[Simon Schnetzke]

Hi mates,

please find attached the entry of Wegener’s war diary.

 

Best wishes,

Simon

 

 

[The Treasurer]

Thanks @Simon Schnetzke That report helps clarify things.

So Wegener exchanged recognition signals with the aircraft, which then fired 3 red flares, between 1.10 and 1.30 GMT. Cloudy with not very good visibility. It all ties up time wise. The position Benning gives shortly before is between squares 83 and 82 right next to 75. Wegener was off to the northeast in 84. Both U.27 and E,5 seem to have been surfaced throughout. It seems that in the visibility E.5 and U.27 were too far apart to see each other, with the plane in the middle. The recognition signals seen by Benning tie up apart from the colour, as does the firing at the plane by E.5. So that just leaves the question of why the bombs were apparently dropped 2 miles from E.5.

There were four other British subs in the area. E.13 mentions nothing at this time, but like E.5 was heading west for their rendezvous off Terschelling on the surface. D.4 (to the west of D.8) simply saw the seaplane passing east at 1.05 - whilst submerged at the billet off the Ems, so the plane was some distance away. D.8 surfaced at 1pm to head west for the rendezvous, but spotted a sub of 'U.5 to U.8' type at 1.15, dived and made an attack run. She could not close within 1000 yards, so did not fire. This is the time the bombs were dropped and she was therefore evidently close to U.27, which we now know was also close to the plane. Perhaps the plane spotted D.8, which dived before it reached her and the bombs were dropped in the area in the hope of putting off an attack on U.27, which the plane was obviously concerned about. If the bombs were not close Vaughan-Jones may not have noticed the small bomb explosions. He would not be likely to see the plane close by whilst submerged. The report from D.1 is missing, but Waistell's summary mentions nothing about D.1 for the 4th. She also had the westernmost billet off the Ems and so would still have been submerged and probably further west than the incident.

The actual report from the seaplane might clear it up if it exists, but unless Benning is effectively lying, the only other likely explanation would be that the seaplane made a fairly random attack on a submerged and oblivious D.8, which was certainly in the same area, in the course of which she was shot at by E.5 as she headed into the zone of the action from the east.

Edited 25 February by The Treasurer
Had a longer look at the reports this morning and added detail above