WWI forum
World War One discussions.
Re: How many WW1 U-boats were sunk by aircraft?
Posted by:
Michael Lowrey
()
Date: July 31, 2007 03:47AM
VikingG,
A reliable source? This web site uses the latest available information, which reflects both recent wreck discoveries and the very latest research, including my article reassessing the fates of UC 36 and UB 36, see [www.uboat.net]
In general, what you've hit upon are a number of cases of people using outdated sources. Yes, outdated. In 1919, the Royal Navy published a list of what it thought had happened to all 178 German U-boats sunk during the war. This was obviously based upon the information available to it at the time -- which did not include anything from German sources.
The basic idea was the RN was matching U-boat sinking claims against when and where it thought U-boats went missing. These claims can only be as accurate as the Royal Navy's information was complete. And that's the problem. The Royal Navy only had a general idea when Flanders-based U-boats sailed on their final patrols and their assigned patrol areas. It also completely lost track of a few boats. The result is that the Royal Navy offered unworkable theories for a number of losses and misattributed some others.
Most (but not all) of that which makes no sense in the RN claims was caught by Admiral Arno Spindler in the official German history series. The latter volumes in this series came out some time after the war and are rare. Unfortunately, some web sites and authores do not make use of Spindler's work, relying instead on the older -- and inaccurate -- Royal Navy (mis)attributions.
Among the unworkable are a number of claims that U-boats were sunk by aircraft, like the UB 20 and UC 6 claims (the wrecks of both have been found at locations matching minefields/mine nets). The UC 36, August 18, 1917 UB 32 (she hadn't sailed yet), and UC 1 (excess patrol length required) also just don't work.
That leaves the September 22, 1917 claim for UB 32. It's a possible, no more than that -- it hasn't been completely disproven yet but I'd believe it when somebody finds and identifies the wreck at that location.
Best wishes,
Michael
A reliable source? This web site uses the latest available information, which reflects both recent wreck discoveries and the very latest research, including my article reassessing the fates of UC 36 and UB 36, see [www.uboat.net]
In general, what you've hit upon are a number of cases of people using outdated sources. Yes, outdated. In 1919, the Royal Navy published a list of what it thought had happened to all 178 German U-boats sunk during the war. This was obviously based upon the information available to it at the time -- which did not include anything from German sources.
The basic idea was the RN was matching U-boat sinking claims against when and where it thought U-boats went missing. These claims can only be as accurate as the Royal Navy's information was complete. And that's the problem. The Royal Navy only had a general idea when Flanders-based U-boats sailed on their final patrols and their assigned patrol areas. It also completely lost track of a few boats. The result is that the Royal Navy offered unworkable theories for a number of losses and misattributed some others.
Most (but not all) of that which makes no sense in the RN claims was caught by Admiral Arno Spindler in the official German history series. The latter volumes in this series came out some time after the war and are rare. Unfortunately, some web sites and authores do not make use of Spindler's work, relying instead on the older -- and inaccurate -- Royal Navy (mis)attributions.
Among the unworkable are a number of claims that U-boats were sunk by aircraft, like the UB 20 and UC 6 claims (the wrecks of both have been found at locations matching minefields/mine nets). The UC 36, August 18, 1917 UB 32 (she hadn't sailed yet), and UC 1 (excess patrol length required) also just don't work.
That leaves the September 22, 1917 claim for UB 32. It's a possible, no more than that -- it hasn't been completely disproven yet but I'd believe it when somebody finds and identifies the wreck at that location.
Best wishes,
Michael
