Any ideas here? USS New York

[stevenbecker]

I notice this on another site, but no one else mentions this how believable is it?

"Battleship USS New York possibly joins HMS Dreadnought and Olympic in a "big ship ramming u-boat", as she had a collision with something that *rammed her*. A few weeks before the WWI armistice, she was leading Squadron 9 through Pentland Firth when something hit her hull in the starboard side and then got hit by her propeller, which knocked off two blades of it. When she was drydocked, a dent shaped like a u-boat's bow was found in the side of her hull. However, even over 100 years later no one is sure which, if any, u-boat it was, but most agree that if it was a u-boat, it getting hit by a propeller hard enough to knock off two blades would most likely kill it. The channel was too deep and well mapped to be a rock or shipwreck, so it's generally thought to be a u-boat, possibly UB-113 or UB-123"

[The Treasurer]

The information above is lifted from Jerry Jones book; U.S. battleship operations in World War 1. It is well researched and the information comes from the official reports. As to whether it was a U-Boat and if so which one, that is very plausible, as there are some unexplained disappearances, but it is unproven.

[stevenbecker]

Cheers,

from what I read 

UB 113

14 Sep 1918 - Left Zeebrugge for the western English Channel via north route and was never heard from again. 36 dead (all hands lost).

UB-113, (Cmdr. Pilzecker, F Flotilla) went missing after departing Zeebrugge, probably in the North Sea, September 1918. Read more at wrecksite: https://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?1660

UB 123

19 Oct 1918 - Most likely mined in the Northern Barrage. 36 dead (all hands lost).

After torpedoing the RMS Leinster, UB-123 was returning to Zeebrugge and apparently struck a mine barrage that stretched from Scotland to Norway sinking with all hands; 36 crew members lost. The bodies of Oberleutnant zur See Robert Ramm and his crew of two officers and thirty three men were never recovered Read more at wrecksite: https://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?1664

I surpose its possible, but probable to allow them selves to hit or be hit by a Battleship?

 

Edited 8 April by stevenbecker

[Michael Lowrey]

The date of the incident involving USS New York was October 14, 1918 per the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. See: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/n/new-york-v.html

There's no chance it involved a U-boat. In September 1918, the Northern Barrage — a series of minefields laid by the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy across the North Sea from the Orkneys to Norway designed to keep U-boats from getting in and out of the North Sea became effective. It’s at this point that the number of missing U-boats goes up. Two wrecks of victims of the minefield, U 92 and U 102, were found in 2006. Up to six more boats, including UB 113 and UB 123, may have been lost on the minefield.

All the missing U-boats were assigned to operate elsewhere with U-boats avoiding the Pentland Firth. The British and Americans didn't even bother to include the Pentland Firth in their minefield plans, as the “the navigation of Pentland Firth by submerged submarines is considered impracticable.” (Navy Department, Office of Official Record and Library, Historical Section, Publication 2. The Northern Barrage and Other Mining Activities. Government Printing Office, 1920., p. 94.)

In any case, UB 123 was a High Seas Fleet boat (not Flanders-based) and clearly couldn't have been wasn’t rammed by New York. She was heard from on October 18, asking for a routing through the Barrage with the outbound UB 125 offering a suggestion. The Royal Navy also intercepted the transmission.

 

[Michael Lowrey]

Oh, a possible explanation for what happen to USS New York: why couldn't she have been a bit off course and had a screw touch bottom?

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

Yes, thats more likely then a U Boat

It throw when they mentioned a U Boat running into a Battleship?

Ramming speed maybe!!!!

 

[KizmeRD]

Faulty navigation seems the most likely explanation as far as I’m concerned. That stretch of water is well known for the strength of its tidal currents and when combined with strong winds, the sea conditions can often be atrocious. U-boats would generally struggle to operate there, and even large surface ships with a good turn of speed might sometimes be taken by surprise, especially if they lack local knowledge.

MB

[The Treasurer]

An interesting one. Useful to eliminate UB.123 as a candidate @Michael Lowrey.

The problem with striking ground here is that it would have required New York to have been leading the squadron perilously close to the shore. Jones' summary of the report says that the squadron was steering SW around Old Head on South Ronaldsay at the time, and had then just altered to northwest to approach Hoxa Sound before striking the object. So far as I can tell from charts, there are no skerries more than 2 cables from shore in this area and a turn to a NW heading this close to shore would have taken the squadron onto the southern shore of South Ronaldsay if it had already been this close. The incident happened at 17.42 on the 14th 'as it was getting dark'. Sunset that day in this location was at 16.46 GMT, so there would still have been some light ahead. The powerful currents in the area are of course notorious, but Rodman's report states that the squadron was in mid-channel in 33 fathoms. A large navigation error this close to the final approach to Hoxa would also have been quickly apparent as she approached the entrance shortly afterwards. Knowing the actual reported position of the incident or distance out from Hoxa from New York's log would help of course.

Whilst that does not mean that she hit a U-Boat, it does not appear that striking the ground is a good explanation, unless the description of the position in Rodman's report has been misunderstood. Striking ground might be possible if the squadron passed Lother Rock on the final approach to Hoxa, but any error this close ought to have then quickly become obvious as they very quickly approached the entrance itself and does not square with the report. The dent in the bottom of the hull forward was reported to be consistent with a collision with the bow of a submarine, but it is impossible to say if that is looking for the expected answer of course. A picture of the damage would help if it exists.

Rodman says that Beatty agreed with him that a submarine was the only explanation. Hearsay of course. They were also friends, so he may have been being polite!

[KizmeRD]

So sounds to me that the Squadron was rounding Ronaldsay from the Northeast.
FYI see link below for a detailed description of the passage according to Pilotage book…

https://books.google.de/books?id=NaYuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=Hoxa+Sound&source=bl&ots=nl-BcPKTLP&sig=ACfU3U2yMDCWYIZZi3sPXINJnqwAnEVD4g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEoMjUn7eFAxUS1QIHHXcSCfc4ChDoAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=Ronaldsay&f=false

MB

 

[wallace2]

15 hours ago, KizmeRD said:

Faulty navigation seems the most likely explanation as far as I’m concerned. That stretch of water is well known for the strength of its tidal currents and when combined with strong winds, the sea conditions can often be atrocious. U-boats would generally struggle to operate there, and even large surface ships with a good turn of speed might sometimes be taken by surprise, especially if they lack local knowledge.

MB

In June 1970 HMS Scarborough, F63, went through the Pentland Firth heading west. I was on watch and noted that the bow was 35 degrees off the course made good because of the tidal flow!