Technology and Operations  
This forum is for discussing technological & operational matters pertaining to U-boats. 
Re: Possible I-class wreck confusion with type X1B
Posted by: Simon Gunson. NZ ()
Date: January 05, 2009 08:52AM

Pappy asked ...

"Just ran across your post today. Do you have the same thoughts that I had a few years ago that the supposed X1B Cruiser (which supposedly was never built) off the east coast of the US just might be an IJN boat ? (www.subsearecovery.com)."

I recall a decade ago reading "Sunk" by I-boat captain Mochitsura Hashimoto.

He commented on six I-class boats sailing to Europe which made no sense to me as the list should read:

(1) I-8
(2) I-30
(3) I-29
(4) I-34
(5) I-52

What many people don't realise is that there were two I-boats with the code name MOMI. Also that after the Germans put a pilot aboard I-52 that ULTRA disclosed a proposal to re-use the code name MOMI for another boat. I-52's code name changed from MOMI to FOHRE.

There is also a Ktb from 1 August 1944 talking about "Japanese U-boat "Föhre" has today still not appeared at the meeting place."

On 2 August 1944 the Ktb recorded "The Japanese U-boat "Föhre" again did not appear at the escort meeting point tonight. Japanese Attache group suggests that the boat probably gave 96 hours (instead of 36 hours) off the escort assembly point in her message. The escort is therefore taking up the position again tonight although the grounds for this assumption are unlikely."

On 4 August 1944 BdU concluded "The loss of Japanese U-boat "Föhre" must now be presumed."

To pursue this theory you will need to trawl through Ktb after August looking for further mention of another Japanese boat called MOMI or even perhaps KEIFER etc.

It appears the codenames applied to the missions and not the individual boats. If one Japanese submarine was eliminated they would just send another with the same codename.

I have heard of this Type XIB and got booed off another forum for raising it. Have you been personally involved with this ?

No chance that you might have found Sercouf instead ?

I'd welcome any private emails on the subject of type XIB and would be happy to perform some research in return for communication with the finders of this wreck.

It seems unlikely that the type XIB was built with nobody noticing it, unless this was done during the days of the Washington Treaty when Germany was secretly building a few u-boats for Turkey etc. You would think that if so then Germany would proudly proclaim it's existence. Then there is the lack of sightings by other U-boat men. You could not keep people quiet on this vessel.

All the same if there is a wreck of a huge U-boat out there then there has to be a rational explanation somewhere.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Written By Posted
comparison? kirkyrm1 03/23/2002 12:38PM
Re: comparison? joe brandt 03/23/2002 02:49PM
Re: comparison? kirky 03/24/2002 05:00PM
There are no photos of I-52 Forest 03/23/2002 04:49PM
Re: There are no photos of I-52 joe brandt 03/23/2002 07:35PM
Re: There are no photos of I-52 Gene Birdsong 10/21/2008 12:57AM
Re: comparison? Pappy 03/28/2002 01:48AM
Re: Possible I-class wreck confusion with type X1B Simon Gunson. NZ 01/05/2009 08:52AM
Re: Possible I-class wreck confusion with type X1B ROBERT M. 01/06/2009 11:54PM
Re: comparison? vito 11/22/2008 11:10AM
Re: comparison? Richard Uno 11/25/2008 10:40AM
Re: comparison? vito 11/25/2008 11:29AM
Re: comparison? Richard Uno 11/25/2008 12:14PM


Your Name: 
Your Email: 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  *******    *******   **     **  **        ******** 
 **     **  **     **  **     **  **           **    
 **                **  **     **  **           **    
 ********    *******   **     **  **           **    
 **     **         **   **   **   **           **    
 **     **  **     **    ** **    **           **    
  *******    *******      ***     ********     **