U Boat losses

[Chris Noble]

This was one of the features contained in a local news programme a couple of years ago. A local sub aqua club produced a video to catalogue the numerous wrecks off the east coast of Yorkshire. Particular attention was paid to some of the U-Boat wrecks that had apparently fallen victim to souvenir hunters. In this light, does anybody have any information regarding the following;

UB 41, sunk in minefield 5/10/17 off Scarborough.

UC 39, sank after Depth Charging by British Destroyer 'Thrasher', 8/2/17

UC 47, rammed by British Patrol Boat P57, East of Flamborough Head, 18/11/17

UC 70, sunk by British aircraft B.K. 9983 and British Destroyer 'Ouse' off Whitby, 28/8/18.

Finally, UC 75, rammed by British Destroyer 'Fairy' off Flamborough Head 31/5/18.

Any info on the above most appreciated.

Regards, Chris.

[Michael Lowrey]

Chris,

Souvenir hunting is a problem on the four UCs you list though probably not on UB 41 as she was only found two years ago in deeper water and is not where she's suppose to be according to the conventional account. Exactly what sort of information are you interested in? Details of loss, exact location, depth, current condition of wreck?

Best wishes,

Michael

[Chris Noble]

Michael,

Purely historical, not interested in posting any dive locations etc, this is purely research into the men who fought and died in the submarine warfare of 1914/18.

Regards

Chris

[Michael Lowrey]

Chris,

For the basics on the boats starts here and follow the links: http://www.uboat.net/wwi/boats/listing.html

As an introductory remark, the waters off Yorkshire were patroled by U-boats from both the High Seas Fleet (HSF) and Flanders. (These were separate commands.) For the Flanders-based UBIIs, UCIIs, and UBIIIs, the English east coast was sort of an operational workup station. It was seen as being less dangerous than going through Dover and a place where new boats or veteran boats with new commanders could go and get some experience.

The HSF also operated in these waters. They had a few UBIIs and UCIIs that did these patrols (off Scottland too where the Flanders boats didn't operate) plus th odd new UBIII. U-series boats weren't off Yorkshire (big UEI minelayers excluded) after about September 1916. (The HSF UCIIs also operated throug Dover in mid-1917).

If you have more specific questions, ask.

Best wishes,

Michael

[Chris Noble]

Many thanks for the information Michael, and the link, most fascinating. Just stepping out, so to speak, in my research into the submarine warfare of the Great War, so please, excuse my ignorance on the subject.

As regards the, desecration, my words, of war graves, which they are, i find this utterly deplorable. There does not seem to be enough protection of these sites to say the least.

As regards the thread, the loss of UB41. Was she sunk in a British minefield or a victim of her own activities? Namely, was she 'fouled' whilst laying one of her own mines? Your thoughts Michael?

Regards, Chris.

[Michael Lowrey]

Chris,

For a warship wreck, war grave typically means diving it on a no touch basis. The vast majority of divers do so. A small minority don't. As with everything else, it can be a matter of degree and intent -- scrubbing a propeller in hopes of locating and photographing identifying marks to positively identify an unexplained U-boat wreck is a lot different from using explosives to blow a wreck open to get at desirable and sellable items from a well understood submarine loss with the entire crew entombed inside. Note that nationality is not a constraint -- I've heard of British divers doing the same to British submarine war graves.

As someone who works with divers to locate and identify WWI submarine wrecks (I do the research, tehy do thediving), I am quite aware of the moral dilemna involved -- the historian in me wants as much information as possible to come out (many divers tend to be secrative, so figuring out what has been found and where is a real challenge) but at the same time I realize that there are a number of divers who would use the information simply to vandalize the site.

UB 41 sunk on her own mine? Er, nope. UBs are smaller torpedo attack boats, UCs were the smaller minelayers. Now "smaller" is a relative term. The first UB and UC boats (UBI class, UB 1 to UB 17, UCI class UC 1 to UC 15) were indeed smaller vessels of little more than 100 tons displacement. The UCII class (UC 16 to UC 79) were substantial vessels fully capable of sailing all the way to the Med on their own and conducting torpedo attacks on convoys after dropping their mines.

UB 41 is an interesting case though because it shows the problems with a lot of German and British submarine sinking attributions. UB 41 disappeared off the Yorkshire coast. On October 5, 1917, an explosion was observed maybe two miles off Scarborough and it was presumed that this was UB 41 going down on a mine. There was some dispute as to whose mine UB 41 allegedly hit -- the Germans noted that UC 55 had laid mines in the area about three months earlier. Other accounts seems to suggests a British mine.

Now a submarine lost two miles off Scarborough should be found rather easily with current technology. And that is exactly where UB 41 isn't. Her wreck was found about 10 miles further north in 2003 -- so much for that big explosion just offshore being associated with her loss. UB 41 did, in fact hit a British mine though. A colleague contacted the Historical Branch and they confirmed the wreck site is an exact match for a RN minefield. The other WWI U-boat missing in the area, the UB 75, was located at almost the exact same time in 2003 about a mile away.

Best wishes,

Michael

[Chris Noble]

Many thanks for the clarification Michael. I too, heard that a large explosion was viewed from the coastline. A fascinating subject Michael, and one that i hope to explore further. Your contributions to the Forum are most welcome.

Kindest regards, Chris.