HMS COREOPSIS (ex drifter later Q ship)

[nicknobbyclark]

H.M.S. COREOPSIS

The 0 ship Coreopsis was a drifter before her conversion to naval uses. She succeeded in.sinking the enemy submarine UB85 in the Irish Sea on April 30 1918. Can anyone tell me anymore about the incident?

I understand that this action also features in the book Verschollen" by D.Messimer? I would like to know if anyone on the forum has this publication?

Thanks

Nick Clark

[Michael Lowrey]

Nick,

Yes I do have Verschollen. The sinking of UB 85 is not complicated and doesn't even have that much to do with the drifter Coreopsis. Basically, drifter spots surfaced U-boat and opens fire on it. Submarine dives, but unrelated to the drifter's gunfire, floods through her not properly closed hatch. The boat takes water and the hatch between the conning tower and control room below also can't be closed (in one account because of extra cabling ordered installed by the CO). The bilge pump failed and water got into the batteries, releasing chlorine gas. All this forced the U-boat to surface, where she was fired on by five drifters, and forced to scuttle.

Dwight Messimer classifies the loss as through accident and gunfire.

All accounts I have read indicate that the Coreopsis was operating as a patrol vessel and not a Q-ship.

Best wishes,

Michael

[welshdoc]

if you havnt seen it hese a good article on Q ships

http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyBritishQships.htm

[Michael Lowrey]

if you havnt seen it hese a good article on Q ships

http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyBritishQships.htm

...though the article uses outndated U-boat loss information. An accurate count would be 10 or 11 U-boats to Q-ships proper plus the two to trawler/submarine combos. (UB 13 was mined, UC 72 has just been reclassifed as missing, not sunk by Q-ship.) Also the four listed possibles were not sunk by Q-ships.

Best wishes,

Michael

[nicknobbyclark]

Thank you for your help

I was interested to read a little of what appears in Verschollen, I've also read that this was more of an accidental sinking rather than a successful attack by the drifter. It seems that the U-boat had to give up while it was on the surface, due to persistent gunfire from drifter Coreopsis, as the U-boat lay stricken.

The connection of Q ship and drifter and the name of HMS Coreopsis is still a mystery? The drifter I am trying to find is HMS Coreopsis (re-named HMD Olivine WW2). However, I came across a reference to a WW1 RN Sloop by the same name (HMS Coreopsis)?

Looking through Lenton's WW1 book, it appears that Coreopsis was later changed to Coreopsis II. Maybe this was due to two vessels of the same name?

I also two copies of an IWM photograph that appears in two books, one is the more recent World War One In Pictures (an IWM publication) and the other is in the 1930's publication, 'Twenty Years After'. Here the following caption accompanies the photograph:

H.M.S. COREOPSIS

The 0 ship Coreopsis was a drifter before her conversion to naval uses. Her most successful exploit took place in the Irish Sea on April 30 1918, when she succeeded in. sinking the enemy submarine UB85. The news, when it reached home, was the more welcome in that on the same date tour British vessels, totalling 15,000 tons, had been sunk by U boats, with the loss of 50 lives. The name Coreopsis, which literal means, "resembling a bug," is that of a beautiful flower.

Looking at the picture (attached below this message). it can't be a drifter because it's larger vessel? So it seems that this mistake has been made in both books? Maybe another explanation is that this is a picture of another ship named the Coreopsis and possibly the RN Sloop?

Is there any one out there that could help shed some more light on this one or help with any information regarding the drifter Coreopsis and U-boat UB 85

All comments would be welcome

Regards to all and thank you for your time.

Nick Clark

PS Have added the IWM Photo of HMS Coreopsis

[Michael Lowrey]

Nick,

Your theory about the confusion about the name Coreopsis is correct -- the books are confusing the sloop and the drifter. The sloop Coreopsis was a 1290 ton vessel launched in September 1917 and of the Anchusa class, which were designed to act as Q-ships. The photo could well be of the sloop Coreopsis -- certainly looks about the right size.

And the Royal Navy did indeed change the name of minor vessels like drifters by adding a II when something more substantial was built like a sloop or destroyer (most WWI destroyers actually displaced a little less than sloops.)

Also take the standard British-sourced accounts with a grain of salt. The Royal Navy often played up the accounts to make it seem more heroic/more definite/the result of effective RN ASW measures rather than something like a stuck hatch.

See http://www.uboat.net/wwi/boats/index.html?boat=UB+85 for a bit on UB 85.

Best wishes,

Michael

[Kath]

German World War One U-boat wreck found off Scottish coast

https://news.sky.com/story/german-world-war-one-u-boat-wreck-found-off-scottish-coast-10623321

[Hyacinth1326]

There are some serious questions over the identity of this wreck.  It may well be UB-85 which yielded survivors and sank at 54° 47  N 5° 27 W according to the log of Coreopsis but the wreck in question could also potentially be UB-104 (Bieber) believed lost on her way home from Lyme Bay, UB-113 (Pilzecker) on her return from SW coast or UB-63 (Gebeschus) billet in Irish Sea or UB-119 (Kolbe) last believed to be operating off Belfast.  The latter is a strong contender.

Edited 26 August , 2022 by Hyacinth1326

[Kath]

Or " its sister boat UB-82."

[Michael Lowrey]

I've looked closely at this situation and am working with divers to sort this all out. A couple of points:

The wreck in question is not that near the historical loss site of either UB 82 (12 miles away) or UB 85 (16 miles away). There certainly are cases where a 16-mile discrepancy would not be an issue, such as a sinking on the open ocean well away from land. The North Channel is not such a place, and as Hyacinth correctly notes there are other UBIIIs that remain unaccounted for. It's very likely the wreck survey in 2016 is one of the missing UBIII, with UB 119 and UB 63 being more likely as they were assign to the Irish Sea, but at this stage UB 104 and UB 113 can’t be ruled out.

I’d be shocked if the wreck surveyed in 2016 was UB 85. And to take it a step further, I fully expect the real UB 85 to be found at a location much closer to the historical loss site in the next year or two.

UB 82 has seemingly not been found to date. During the lock down,  a colleague of mine reached out to divers in the area. They reported that the obvious possible sites had been dived and aren't a submarine. There's a very real possibility the wreck of UB 82 was missed in previous surveys of the area. A certain technical diver claimed to have found UB 82 more on the Irish side but there are issues with his claim.

[Hyacinth1326]

Kath

The mysterious 'Grid-Tech Diver' claimed to have discovered UB-82 between Kintyre and Rathlin Island a few years back.  Maybe he did find her and maybe he didn't but the jury is out as to how much credence we should  give his findings. For what it is worth I drew some  sources together and noted the following about the destruction of UB-82.  As regards the claims of 'Grid Tech diver' my mind remains open.

NARA T-1022, Roll 81, PG61842, ADM 137/808

Final patrol:
     UB 82 left Helgoland on April 7, 1918 for a billet in the South Western approaches via the norweg. UB 82 transmitted a passiermeldung off Lindesnes in Norway on 9th April and made a second transmission off the North Minches on 10th April. The boat entered the North Channel where U 19 is known to have exchanged recognition signals with UB 82 West of Bull Point, Rathlin Island on 15 April at 06:30.  No further word was heard from the boat but sightings of a U-boat were recorded by coastal watchers on April 12th,13th and 15th as the  Larne Diary testifies:

'...She appears to have passed up Kilbrennan Sound then East of Arran, down the Clyde No. 1 Channel. HMS Prince was fired at and missed four miles East of Ailsa Craig on the 15th instant at 11:00.  On that day at 07:45, HMT Samuel Spencer reported hearing a submarine morsing in Loch Indail, Islay.  Depth charges were dropped but nothing further was heard or seen'

The Auxiliary Patrol was placed on high alert.  A series of intensive hydrophone  hunting searches took place. Post war efforts to discover the fate of UB 82 and her crew have always focused upon an encounter between the patrolling drifters Pilot Me (Master A. Walker) and Young Fred (Lt. T. Kippins RNR) and a U-boat on 17 April.

The Larne drifters were routinely patrolling between Torr Head and Mull, when at 17:15 a periscope was spotted fifty yards off the starboard quarter of Pilot Me. The drifter responded by adopting a zig-zagging course, then dropping four depth charges across the U-boat’s estimated track. Skipper Walker next stopped the engines of Pilot Me, prior to ordering hydrophone drill. At 17:45 the U-boat’s bows appeared at an acute angle between the two ships. Both vessels opened fire at 300 yards range with their six-pounder guns. Hits were recorded on the base of the conning tower and on the stern casing. The U-boat dived, but Young Fred was apparently able to deliver two further accurate depth charges. A violent underwater explosion was followed by a column of water shooting ‘higher than the drifter’s masts’. The location of this incident was recorded as, 55° 13’N, 05° 55’W. Amongst the debris was found, painted gratings, brass fittings, fragments of furniture, mattress, bedcover and oily debris were found what was taken to be a human knee-joint and two sailor’s caps, bearing ribbons of the IV and V Flotillas. The names of the owners, ‘Rommel’  and  ‘Scharnewski’  were  found in the linings.  Both Skipper Walker and Lt. Kippins were awarded the DSC for their role in this, one of the Auxiliary Patrol’s most efficient attacks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Spindler P60

 

Edited 27 August , 2022 by Hyacinth1326

[Kath]

I found the report when sorting old newspapers & thought it might be of interest.

[Hyacinth1326]

The article certainly was of interest and many thanks for posting but my anxieties are not directed at you, rather the failure of the article to explain on what grounds the divers concluded that the wreck was UB-85. 

It pays to be very cautious when it comes to assigning an identity to a submarine wreck as the article states.  We know that two UB IIIs were sunk in this vicinity and more boats were potentially lost in this area while in transit.  It is likely that Pilot Me and Young Fred accounted for UB-82 and that her wreck lies further North off Mull.

 

 

Edited 28 August , 2022 by Hyacinth1326

[Michael Lowrey]

Hyacinth, I have some knowledge of what happened: During the surveying work for the Western Link power cable six years ago, a previously charted wreck was examined and looked like a submarine. The wreck was further examined with a ROV — it wasn’t dived at the time — with Innes McCartney being brought in to make sense of it all. The wreck proved to be a UBIII with a 105mm gun. The interpretation of the wreck as UB 85 (or later as UB 85 or UB 82) is simply what Innes thought it could be based upon his understanding and interpretation of the historical record. Innes, for whatever reason, decided it wasn’t one of the missing boats. I agree with you that the logic behind Innes’ determination isn’t so obvious.

[Hyacinth1326]

ahhh. Thanks for that.