The U-Boat sunk by the Trawler Gunner and Quickly

[yellow]

I am currently trying to research the Trawler Gunner which in 1917 became the Q Ship 31 (PLANUDES)

Despsite there being hardly any information at all online or in books concerning this trawler or what it actually did...........I came across this rather interesting file at the TNA

ADM 137/3121

Sinking of a German submarine by H.M. Trawlers Quickly and Gunner 1915.

My question is does anyone have any knowldge at all of these events......does anyone know which U-Boat.........or is the TNA file a document concerning an un-confirmed sinking because it doesnt mention the number of the U-Boat?

Ive been to uboat.net and there is no mention at all of these events or the Gunner. So if this is a genuine sinking is it some kind of new discovery?

Many Thanks,

Steve.

[Michael Lowrey]

Steve,

It's almost certainly NOT a genuine sinking. At this stage, all but four 1915 U-boat losses are well understood (survivors or identified wreck solid). And the specifics of those cases great restrict the possibilities:

• U 31 sailed on her first and only patrol on January 13, 1915 and did not return. This was an about 10 day mission to patrol a specific point in the southern North Sea. This was not a mission against merchant shipping, and U 31 did not have freedom to maneuver.

• UB 3 disappeared en route from Cattaro for Smyrna. Last contact was May 28, 1915 when a radio signal was received from the small submarine stating she was within 80 miles on her destination... (This looks like some sort of operational loss.)

• U 26 disappeared in the eastern Baltic (possibly mined) after August 30, 1915.

• UC 9, a small minelaying submarine w/o a deck gun, did not return from a short (maybe three day) mission from Flanders to lay mines in the Long Sands area. She sailed on Oct. 20, 1915; the body of crew member washed ashore near Long Sands on Nov. 12, 1915. (Again accidental loss looks like likely -- own mine or (less likely) diving accident.)

Best wishes,

Michael

[spithead]

Steve

There is a good account of the action between GUNNER, QUICKLY and the german submarine

in Q Ships by Carson Richie. The U-Boat took quite a battering and had the conning tower smashed by 12pounder shells and was seen to sink in an eruption of oil and bubbles. Admiral Startin who was

aboard the Quickly was convinced that he had sunk the U-Boat, so the admiralty entered it into a special

'Enemy submarines destroyed' file. It seems the submarine was able to return to base as her loss does

not appear in any list of difinitive kills.

Gunner and Quickly came from Granton Scotland. Action took place on 20th June 1915

There is quite a bit more which would take to long to relate but if there is anything specific I could help

with please let me know.

John

[yellow]

Thank you everyone for your responses.

I guess I really need the Richie book........its one I dont have. Strange that an Admiral was onboard a trawler......fascinating stuff! I guess he wanted a few more medals!

Are there anymore mentions in the book for Gunner?

Steve,

[zooloo]

The "most successful" Q-Ship captain was Gordon Cambell - he was a Rear Admiral.

It seems, in general, that senior naval officers were in the thick of it - Keyes and Zeebrugge.

zoo

[spithead]

GUNNER is mentioned again but nothing special, but there is a good index which gives a rundown on all the Q-Ships. Q-SHIPS by Carson Richie published by Terence Dalton 1985 ISBN 0 86138 011 8.

There is aother mention of the action although not as good in 'Q Ships and their story' by E.Keble

Chatterton, but in a different confrontation in the book it says that GUNNER twice engaged a

U-Boat without success on 20th August 1916.

Hope this helps

John

[amlovell]

I find an extended report on this in the Beatty Papers at the NMM (of all places), written by Startin, in BTY/5/1.

If it is not a genuine sinking, it is an oddly detailed accounting of a false one. Selective excerpts and facts related in the letter:

edit: the cover letter to this report is dated "23rd July, 1915" The encounter with the submarine happened on the 20th July (definitely not J20 une, as stated above, as though the Starting report does not mention the month but clearly states that the 19th was a Monday, which it was in July but was not in June).

Submarine had two masts, which she lowered before attacking. She also may have had two guns, one before the tower.

"10.32 Opened fire with 12pr, a splendid lucky shot striking the hull abaft the conning tower. Much smoke was seen coming from her. ... The 6 pr claims to have put the foremost gun out of action. The 3rd shot from the 12 pr struck the submarine right forward, and flames were seen by myself and everybody coming from her bows."

"10.50 She submerged until her conning tower was awash but came to the surface again, and tried to steam away on the surface. ... Submarine appeared to be steaming very slowly and was enveloped in smoke at times."

"11.5 Another shot from the 12 pr now shattered the conning tower. ... We closed with a view to ramming her, but by the time we arrived, 11.15, she had sunk, and at first could clearly be seen beneath us. There was much oil and many bubbles, the depth was sounded (42 fathoms), and a charge exploded at about 15 fathoms, but nothing came to the surface."

If this is not a genuine sinking, it seems likely that a submarine was damaged or (at the very least) had to abort an attack due to a level of resistance that would have to appear within a war log if the submarine returned to base.

tone

Steve,

It's almost certainly NOT a genuine sinking. At this stage, all but four 1915 U-boat losses are well understood (survivors or identified wreck solid). And the specifics of those cases great restrict the possibilities:

Edited 10 June , 2015 by DulcetTone

[Michael Lowrey]

Well, with the correct date, the action is easy to find: The boat attacked was U 16 (Oblt.z.S. Leo Hillebrand). U 16 was indeed nearly lost in this action — because she lost control of her trim as she dived. U 16 broached, and then lost control in the opposite direction, bottoming out in 76 meters. None of the three hits U 16 had taken had penetrated the submarine’s pressure hull, so the U-boat was able to surface and return to base. (She reached Helgoland on July 22nd).

The German account claims that U 16 scored to hits on Quickly. Can any one confirm that? If so, I can and will put it in uboat.net's database of ships "hit" (sunk, damaged, or taken in as a prize) by U-boat in World War I.

Hillebrand was promoted to kapitänleutnant on April 24, 1916, would go one to sink over 130,000 tons of shipping, and was awarded the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern in December 1917. He was the 22nd most successful U-boat commander of World War I. A bit more info on him can be found here: http://uboat.net/wwi/men/commanders/127.html

References: Arno Spindler Der Krieg zur See: Handelskrieg mit U-Booten, Volume II, pages 134-135. (German official history), Naval Staff Monograph XIV: Home Waters, Part V, Home Waters From July to October 1915, pages 30-32.

Best wishes,

Michael

[amlovell]

I also saw mention of the U-16 attack in a Google hit on a book this morning.

As to damage to the British, none, as the Startin report states flatly that: "No damage was done either to the "Gunner" or to this vessel or their crews."

tone

[Felix C]

USNI Proceedings article "The Effect of Depth Charges on Submarines" Vol. 61/3/385 from 1935 indicates the first reported use of depth charges against submarines was made on July 20, 1915, when the British armed trawlers Quickly and Gunner made an unsuccessful attack on a German submarine. Based on the date these DCs were Type B or C and small explosive charge, 32.5 or 35lbs, passing unnoticed compared to the Type D 300lb charge which was reported by submarines surviving the experience. 

AND

The article states the motorboat Salmon depthcharged UC7 in July 1916. I understand that is now not believed to have been the case. Do we know what submarine, if any, was attacked by Salmon? Interested in knowing why it was not reported by the submarine. Well DCs can sound as a detonating mine. Not knowing the size of Salmon, it may have carried the  small explosive charge units which did not make an impression. 

Using "An Explosive Story: The Rise and Fall of the Common Depth Charge" Fraser M. McKee as published https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol03/tnm_3_1_45-58.pdf the amount of DCs issued in 1916 is sufficiently few in number that I am surprised a motorboat, as Salmon is described, was issued one. 

Thoughts?

Regards

FC

 

Edited 11 October , 2023 by Felix C

[Michael Lowrey]

It's quite possible no U-boat was present.; UC 7 certainly isn't the answer. The description of the attack from the Naval Staff Monograph (Volume 17, page 72):

Quote

On the night of July 6 the motor boat Salmon (Lieutenant Temple West, R.N.V.R.) was patrolling off Southwold, when at midnight, listening on the hydrophone,
he heard a noise like “ a wind whistling through a pipe.” An hour or so later it grew gradually louder, till the dull hum of what seemed like a dynamo could be heard. The boat went ahead and a depth charge was dropped, which exploded 100 yards astern, and then immediately there rose a “ terrific ” explosion, throwing up a column of water 50 ft. high and giving the boat a violent shock. Myriads of great bubbles rose to the surface and nothing more was heard in the hydrophone. A ship passing that forenoon saw a great circle of oil close to the spot. The account is circumstantial, but no wreckage was picked up, then or later, and the evidence was not considered at the time conclusive enough for an award.