WWI forum
World War One discussions.
Re: KTB S.M. U 102 on Dec. 8th 1917
Posted by:
Michael Lowrey
()
Date: May 29, 2007 03:26AM
Simon,
SAINT-ANTONIE DE PADOUE: checked UC 17, UC 50, and UC 75 KTBs, and didn't find a match, so possibly something other than an UCII. It also definitely wasn't U 53. The statement says one gun, and since most of the U-series torpedo attack boats had a 10.5 cm and a 8.8 cm by then, will try the Flanders UBIIIs next.
REINE d'ARVOR: found it. Definitely U 89. Note that "Lloyd's War Losses" is wrong -- the sailing vessel was NOT damaged in this action. U 89's KTB does not claim a hit nor does the sailing vessels's official statement mention any damage.
Best wishes,
Michael
SAINT-ANTONIE DE PADOUE: checked UC 17, UC 50, and UC 75 KTBs, and didn't find a match, so possibly something other than an UCII. It also definitely wasn't U 53. The statement says one gun, and since most of the U-series torpedo attack boats had a 10.5 cm and a 8.8 cm by then, will try the Flanders UBIIIs next.
REINE d'ARVOR: found it. Definitely U 89. Note that "Lloyd's War Losses" is wrong -- the sailing vessel was NOT damaged in this action. U 89's KTB does not claim a hit nor does the sailing vessels's official statement mention any damage.
Best wishes,
Michael