Warship forum
A forum for the Allied Warships section.
Re: USS Mackerel L.I. attack 1941
Posted by:
Brian
()
Date: September 05, 2003 09:44PM
<HTML>I have heard this story many times over, but never seen a shred of proof on its autenticity. Supposedly, after the Free French expedition to St Pierre ey Miquelon the britiah asked the USN to destroy the "bad boy sub", on the grounds she was refueling U-boote off the US East Coast.
Per se, the notion is utterly ridiculous: how would Surcouf have obtained the fuel & justified its use? That's only for starter. I asked a former MN officer friend about the possibility of such thing taking place, he almost sent me a virus to wipe out my computer he was so mad at the insinuation.
Surcouf was in Bermuda on 11/2 and left the following day heading south, she was many miles away the day Mackerel supposedly torpedoed her in LI Sound, which negates her presence at the point of attack.
The CO of Surcouf was a well liked De Gaulle loyalist and the entire crew had been replaced from that which had resisted the British takeover on 3/7/40 @ Portsmouth & Plymouth, thereby eliminating the last bone of contention that ther british wanted "revenge" for the man who was killed by the French sentry that night, quite apart from the british having killed 3 of the sub's crew.
Gry Le Drew, webmaster of a site dedicated to this subject, claims to have seen a letter, signed by J. Edgar Hoover, detailing the orders to sink Sourcouf, but has been unable to produce it or anything related to it.
Personally, I believe this is just another "albatros" a story initiated in unknown place and getting inflated to a disproportionate dimension. I'm pretty positive if someone goes to look for the wreck in the Caribbean at the position where Thomson Lykes reported a collision, the wreck of Surcouf will be found. I just wish someone with ties in the right place could get Robert Ballard to go there.
Regards, Brian</HTML>
Per se, the notion is utterly ridiculous: how would Surcouf have obtained the fuel & justified its use? That's only for starter. I asked a former MN officer friend about the possibility of such thing taking place, he almost sent me a virus to wipe out my computer he was so mad at the insinuation.
Surcouf was in Bermuda on 11/2 and left the following day heading south, she was many miles away the day Mackerel supposedly torpedoed her in LI Sound, which negates her presence at the point of attack.
The CO of Surcouf was a well liked De Gaulle loyalist and the entire crew had been replaced from that which had resisted the British takeover on 3/7/40 @ Portsmouth & Plymouth, thereby eliminating the last bone of contention that ther british wanted "revenge" for the man who was killed by the French sentry that night, quite apart from the british having killed 3 of the sub's crew.
Gry Le Drew, webmaster of a site dedicated to this subject, claims to have seen a letter, signed by J. Edgar Hoover, detailing the orders to sink Sourcouf, but has been unable to produce it or anything related to it.
Personally, I believe this is just another "albatros" a story initiated in unknown place and getting inflated to a disproportionate dimension. I'm pretty positive if someone goes to look for the wreck in the Caribbean at the position where Thomson Lykes reported a collision, the wreck of Surcouf will be found. I just wish someone with ties in the right place could get Robert Ballard to go there.
Regards, Brian</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
USS Mackerel L.I. attack 1941
|
John Kessler | 09/05/2003 03:46PM |
|
Re: USS Mackerel L.I. attack 1941
|
Brian | 09/05/2003 09:44PM |
|
Re: USS Mackerel L.I. attack 1941
|
ROBERT M. | 09/06/2003 02:30AM |