General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Re: Is this an attack on U-106 on 01/08/1943?
Posted by:
Lorenzo59
()
Date: June 13, 2015 07:20AM
Correction: Norman Franks states that naval vessels made for the area that U-106 was reported to have been attacked. This site states "allied forces" sent arriving the next day and sinking U-106. Those being allied aircraft, not naval vessels. The latter appear to have (correctly as Franks states) gone to the scene of a 59 Lib attack, not against U-106, but U-383...
Partly to blame (i think) is the misrepresentation of the V/228 attack at 2002 on U-383.
- The sinking of U-383 20.02 hrs, Bay of Biscay, outbound: British Sunderland flying boat JM678 (RAF Sqdn 228/V, pilot F/L S. White), despite being hit by flak during an initial attack run, returned to drop seven depth charges, straddling the U-boat from the starboard quarter. The Sunderland then left to return to base, since flak hits had holed the hull and shot away the starboard float and aileron.
U-383 was last seen by the aircraft (228/V) with a heavy list to port and men jumping overboard. Kremser reported to BdU (at 2137hrs) that they were unable to dive and the boat was out of control. U-218, U-454 and U-706 were ordered to give assistance, with air cover and an escort of three torpedo boats promised the following day. However, U-454 had been lost earlier that day, and U-218, despite hearing the attack from nearby, was unable to locate U-383 in the darkness. The search continued the next day, but both U-boats were attacked by aircraft, and the torpedo boats searched the area without sighting anything. U-383 apparently foundered during the night due to the extensive damage.
(Sources: Franks/Zimmerman)
The above states that V/228 was damaged in the initial attack run, and "returned" for a second. When in fact accorsing to the 228 ORB report and the Coastal Review of the attack, it was the opposite. Why is this important? Because it makes one question, "when was the second attack?". Then we have sources reporting a further attack on U-383 at 2137, and this seems to have been attributed but some, as V/228's "return and second" attack, when in fact theyd long left and X/59 had been sent at 2055 to the position by group...
Partly to blame (i think) is the misrepresentation of the V/228 attack at 2002 on U-383.
- The sinking of U-383 20.02 hrs, Bay of Biscay, outbound: British Sunderland flying boat JM678 (RAF Sqdn 228/V, pilot F/L S. White), despite being hit by flak during an initial attack run, returned to drop seven depth charges, straddling the U-boat from the starboard quarter. The Sunderland then left to return to base, since flak hits had holed the hull and shot away the starboard float and aileron.
U-383 was last seen by the aircraft (228/V) with a heavy list to port and men jumping overboard. Kremser reported to BdU (at 2137hrs) that they were unable to dive and the boat was out of control. U-218, U-454 and U-706 were ordered to give assistance, with air cover and an escort of three torpedo boats promised the following day. However, U-454 had been lost earlier that day, and U-218, despite hearing the attack from nearby, was unable to locate U-383 in the darkness. The search continued the next day, but both U-boats were attacked by aircraft, and the torpedo boats searched the area without sighting anything. U-383 apparently foundered during the night due to the extensive damage.
(Sources: Franks/Zimmerman)
The above states that V/228 was damaged in the initial attack run, and "returned" for a second. When in fact accorsing to the 228 ORB report and the Coastal Review of the attack, it was the opposite. Why is this important? Because it makes one question, "when was the second attack?". Then we have sources reporting a further attack on U-383 at 2137, and this seems to have been attributed but some, as V/228's "return and second" attack, when in fact theyd long left and X/59 had been sent at 2055 to the position by group...
