General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Re: Surcouf's Fatal Last Journey. Part .4
Posted by:
John Griffiths
()
Date: September 15, 2002 05:13PM
<HTML>Terry,
Well done, mate!
Okay - on to technicalities which bothered me when I read them. There is mention of both stern post and pole plate damage. How? If the Lykes boat hit a sub ( and by the account, hit her three quarters on, sheering to starboard) she would have certainly damaged her stem post - possibly down to the forefoot and under the curve of the bow - but stern post? That seems unlikely. Is that a typo on your half mate?
The only way she could have damaged her stern post would be for the unknown object to have gone down on impact and then come up again as the ramming vessel travelled over her - however, I dispute this as any object would:
a) not sink that fast and
b) would have caused severe damage to the underwater hull of the ramming vessel, possibly rupturing or indeed severely damaging the underwater hull which would have required dry docking. The effect is known as 'rippling'.
If this did happen, then the stem post would have showed damage - but so would the underwater hull of the ramming vessel. Was the Lykes boat drydocked? Anyone have a piccie of her or was she a standard built boat and, if so, what type?
CA-35? More likely that one is an I-400 class, given that the CA-35 plot shows two turrets and a hanger on deck. Unless she has been reported wrongly and the hanger is the casement carried by Surcouf....? Thought I'd throw that one in!
Embarressment? Oh yes! The RN and the French did not have a good relationship after what happened to the French fleet at Mers-el-Kabir. After all, the RN sunk the majority of their wardhips and severely damaged more.
Given Surcouf's history, it seems likely that a back water posting would be on the cards rather than active front line duty - but to admit the vessel was not ready fully for operational service shows how off hand the British were in treating the vessel and her crew. That is one embarressment they could do without! However, I dispute the ramming theory on the grounds that the ramming vessel was a troop carrier - the US would not willingly risk the lives of its men like that.
So, what happened to the Surcouf? It would be interesting to hear others views on this part of the study of naval warfare.
Once again, Terry - thanks for the reportage, mate. News At Ten next?
John</HTML>
Well done, mate!
Okay - on to technicalities which bothered me when I read them. There is mention of both stern post and pole plate damage. How? If the Lykes boat hit a sub ( and by the account, hit her three quarters on, sheering to starboard) she would have certainly damaged her stem post - possibly down to the forefoot and under the curve of the bow - but stern post? That seems unlikely. Is that a typo on your half mate?
The only way she could have damaged her stern post would be for the unknown object to have gone down on impact and then come up again as the ramming vessel travelled over her - however, I dispute this as any object would:
a) not sink that fast and
b) would have caused severe damage to the underwater hull of the ramming vessel, possibly rupturing or indeed severely damaging the underwater hull which would have required dry docking. The effect is known as 'rippling'.
If this did happen, then the stem post would have showed damage - but so would the underwater hull of the ramming vessel. Was the Lykes boat drydocked? Anyone have a piccie of her or was she a standard built boat and, if so, what type?
CA-35? More likely that one is an I-400 class, given that the CA-35 plot shows two turrets and a hanger on deck. Unless she has been reported wrongly and the hanger is the casement carried by Surcouf....? Thought I'd throw that one in!
Embarressment? Oh yes! The RN and the French did not have a good relationship after what happened to the French fleet at Mers-el-Kabir. After all, the RN sunk the majority of their wardhips and severely damaged more.
Given Surcouf's history, it seems likely that a back water posting would be on the cards rather than active front line duty - but to admit the vessel was not ready fully for operational service shows how off hand the British were in treating the vessel and her crew. That is one embarressment they could do without! However, I dispute the ramming theory on the grounds that the ramming vessel was a troop carrier - the US would not willingly risk the lives of its men like that.
So, what happened to the Surcouf? It would be interesting to hear others views on this part of the study of naval warfare.
Once again, Terry - thanks for the reportage, mate. News At Ten next?
John</HTML>
