Adrian Roberts Posted 6 January , 2007 Share Posted 6 January , 2007 BBC2's Timewatch this evening was about the incident when HMS Venturer sunk U864 when both were submerged. This is said to be the only such incident ever. However, I thought I had heard of an incident in WW1 of a submerged Uboat being sunk by a submerged Allied submarine. Is this true or am I getting confused? Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionia Posted 6 January , 2007 Share Posted 6 January , 2007 BBC2's Timewatch this evening was about the incident when HMS Venturer sunk U864 when both were submerged. This is said to be the only such incident ever. However, I thought I had heard of an incident in WW1 of a submerged Uboat being sunk by a submerged Allied submarine. Is this true or am I getting confused? Adrian I believe that VENTURER's success was the only such sinking in the history of submarine warfare where the target was both detected and sunk whilst both sbmarines were submerged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 6 January , 2007 Share Posted 6 January , 2007 BBC2's Timewatch this evening was about the incident when HMS Venturer sunk U864 when both were submerged. This is said to be the only such incident ever. Hello Adrian, Not being able to watch the BBC; where, when and how did this occur? Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paul Siemons Posted 6 January , 2007 Share Posted 6 January , 2007 See this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2511387,00.html Greetings from Antwerp, Belgium, Paul Siemons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 7 January , 2007 Share Posted 7 January , 2007 Paul, Welcome to the forum. Many thanks for your link. Fascinating story. All the best for 2007 Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 7 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 7 January , 2007 I believe that VENTURER's success was the only such sinking in the history of submarine warfare where the target was both detected and sunk whilst both sbmarines were submerged. So the WW1 incident I am thinking of could be a situation where one or both were on the surface but submerged later... Michael Lowrey will probably know, I may PM him if he doesn't see this. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 7 January , 2007 Share Posted 7 January , 2007 How did the WW2 sub know what depth setting to give the torpedo? Or was it a proximity fuse? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 7 January , 2007 Share Posted 7 January , 2007 I am afraid I missed this programme. Was the U-boat submerged but snorkelling and therefore at a known depth? In any case a brave decision by the British sub's commander to fire a salvo of all his 4 torpedoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 7 January , 2007 Share Posted 7 January , 2007 Adrian, I believe that in all succesful submarine on submarine attacks in World War I, the victim was on the surface. Best wishes, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionia Posted 7 January , 2007 Share Posted 7 January , 2007 QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jan 7 2007, 10:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How did the WW2 sub know what depth setting to give the torpedo? Or was it a proximity fuse? Phil B The U-boat was schnorchelling (judging by the amount of noise it was making) and consequently the depth settings were not a problem. VENTURER fired a salvo of four torpedoes set for 30' and 36' and obtained one hit. VENTURER did not sight a schnorchel but did make a few sightings of a periscope ( the periscope in U-boate was arranged to look over the top of the schnorchel). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 8 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 8 January , 2007 The U-boat was schnorchelling (judging by the amount of noise it was making) and consequently the depth settings were not a problem. VENTURER fired a salvo of four torpedoes set for 30' and 36' and obtained one hit. VENTURER did not sight a schnorchel but did make a few sightings of a periscope ( the periscope in U-boate was arranged to look over the top of the schnorchel). This answers another question I had... The programme mentioned that Venturer's crew could hear diesel engines on the hydrophones, but to do this the U-boat must have been schnorchelling. But the programme didn't mention that Lt Launders could see a schnorchell, only a periscope, through his own periscope. So was the schnorchell a lot shorter than the periscope, and so more difficult to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionia Posted 8 January , 2007 Share Posted 8 January , 2007 This answers another question I had... The programme mentioned that Venturer's crew could hear diesel engines on the hydrophones, but to do this the U-boat must have been schnorchelling. But the programme didn't mention that Lt Launders could see a schnorchell, only a periscope, through his own periscope. So was the schnorchell a lot shorter than the periscope, and so more difficult to see? That was what I had intended to convey in my earlier post. Yes, the periscope would have been further out of the water than the sschnorchel. My information comes from V-A Sir Arthur Hezlet's "British and Allied Submarine Operations in WW2". I have not seen the BBC program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 8 January , 2007 Share Posted 8 January , 2007 Why would the periscope be further out of the water than the schnorkel? I believe that submerging the schnorkel was less desirable than submerging the periscope. (And it was bigger?) Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staffsreg Posted 8 January , 2007 Share Posted 8 January , 2007 I think the U boat was struggling with a faulty diesel engine, and this caused excess noise, they were on their way to get this engine fixed, when Venturer found her! then her skipper expertly tracked her for a few hours, and with maths, experience and dead reckoning, fired his entire load of torpedoes. If he'd have missed and the U864 wasn't damaged (remember he didn't know she was) then he knew they were in big trouble, the hunter hunted...... Ivan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionia Posted 8 January , 2007 Share Posted 8 January , 2007 QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jan 8 2007, 09:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why would the periscope be further out of the water than the schnorkel? I believe that submerging the schnorkel was less desirable than submerging the periscope. (And it was bigger?) Phil B Unless the periscope was raised higher than the schnorchel the view from it would be restricted not only by the mass of the schnorchel but also by the feather of its wake. Hezlet is quite definite that the periscope, in the U-b0ats, "was arranged to look over the top of the schnorchel and so was generally high out of the water". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfh249 Posted 9 January , 2007 Share Posted 9 January , 2007 I didn't think the snorkel was introduced until WW2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now