Warship forum
A forum for the Allied Warships section.
Re: USS Direct AM-90 vs. German U-Boat
Posted by:
Craig Andrews
()
Date: March 22, 2006 02:56AM
Hi, Brian.
Actually, it's great to correspond with someone with an interest in this.
I am basing everything I know on information contained in my father's Navy Commendation Medal citation, along with letters from my dad to my grandfather and conversations with my dad in his later years. Here is the text of his citation:
"The Commander in Chief of the Atlantic Fleet takes pleasure in commending Lieutenant (j.g.) Thurlo M. Andrews, United States Naval Reserve, for services set forth in the following:
For meritorious conduct in the performance of his duties as gunnery officer on board the USS Direct, on the afternoon of 7 July 1943 and while under enemy submarine attack in Atlantic waters, he personally took command of his ship after his senior officers had been wounded, and although faced with tremendous difficulties through loss of officers and men, so directed the handling of the situation that the attacking submarine was repulsed and a crippled British cruiser as well as his own ship was able to reach port safely and effect repairs. By his presence and his courage he inspired his officers and men, and his conduct was in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service".
Now, as a Navy veteran myself, I understand "sea stories" whose basis in fact can be questionable. But the citation I've copied above would seem to lend credibility to the accounts related to me by my father.
Dad always felt that detailing a converted PC like USS Direct to escort a damaged capital ship across the Atlantic was a vivid reflection of the sorry state of U.S. Navy escort assets in the Summer of 1943, before the arrival of the masses of destroyer escorts that began coming out of American shipyards that year.
He also spoke with great respect of the German skipper involved in this action. He said they had picked up the sub on the Direct's elementary sonar, and the sub seemed to be drawing the Direct away from the cruiser. Then, the Direct suddenly lost contact with the sub. According to my dad, the Direct went dead in the water in an attempt to hear the u-boat. After drifting for several minutes, the u-boat suddenly crash-surfaced very close to the stern of the Direct, where, in its minesweeper configuration, the Direct had no armament. Dad believed the German captain had decided to fight it out on the surface because he didn't want to waste valuable torpedoes on a target like USS Direct. He felt that the German correctly deduced that surfacing close aboard of the Direct's stern would put Direct in its most vulnerable position vis-a-vis the submarine. The German gun crews bubbled up out of their ship's sail and got their main gun and a smalller anti-aircraft gun into action very quickly. Before the Direct could get sufficiently turned to get its own guns into action, the Direct's captain and x-o were wounded and eight ot its enlisted crew were killed.
Back to your point, though. You find no record of a damaged cruiser crossing the Atlantic in this time frame. Could the date on an official Navy citation be wrong, perhaps caused by the "fog of war"? That's indeed possible. Was this -- as my dad always said -- such a minor action involving such a minor American warship that the incident basically got lost in the midst of bigger stories? That's also very possible. Did the fact that the Direct reverted back to its PC configuration by June, 1944 obscure the record of a small ship in a very big war that got its name changed in the middle of everything? Once again, it's only conjecture.
I've decided the only way I can be certain about all of this is by going to the Navy Historical Center at Washington Navy Yard, and trying to find the log of the USS Direct, AM-90. Your thoughts/
Actually, it's great to correspond with someone with an interest in this.
I am basing everything I know on information contained in my father's Navy Commendation Medal citation, along with letters from my dad to my grandfather and conversations with my dad in his later years. Here is the text of his citation:
"The Commander in Chief of the Atlantic Fleet takes pleasure in commending Lieutenant (j.g.) Thurlo M. Andrews, United States Naval Reserve, for services set forth in the following:
For meritorious conduct in the performance of his duties as gunnery officer on board the USS Direct, on the afternoon of 7 July 1943 and while under enemy submarine attack in Atlantic waters, he personally took command of his ship after his senior officers had been wounded, and although faced with tremendous difficulties through loss of officers and men, so directed the handling of the situation that the attacking submarine was repulsed and a crippled British cruiser as well as his own ship was able to reach port safely and effect repairs. By his presence and his courage he inspired his officers and men, and his conduct was in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service".
Now, as a Navy veteran myself, I understand "sea stories" whose basis in fact can be questionable. But the citation I've copied above would seem to lend credibility to the accounts related to me by my father.
Dad always felt that detailing a converted PC like USS Direct to escort a damaged capital ship across the Atlantic was a vivid reflection of the sorry state of U.S. Navy escort assets in the Summer of 1943, before the arrival of the masses of destroyer escorts that began coming out of American shipyards that year.
He also spoke with great respect of the German skipper involved in this action. He said they had picked up the sub on the Direct's elementary sonar, and the sub seemed to be drawing the Direct away from the cruiser. Then, the Direct suddenly lost contact with the sub. According to my dad, the Direct went dead in the water in an attempt to hear the u-boat. After drifting for several minutes, the u-boat suddenly crash-surfaced very close to the stern of the Direct, where, in its minesweeper configuration, the Direct had no armament. Dad believed the German captain had decided to fight it out on the surface because he didn't want to waste valuable torpedoes on a target like USS Direct. He felt that the German correctly deduced that surfacing close aboard of the Direct's stern would put Direct in its most vulnerable position vis-a-vis the submarine. The German gun crews bubbled up out of their ship's sail and got their main gun and a smalller anti-aircraft gun into action very quickly. Before the Direct could get sufficiently turned to get its own guns into action, the Direct's captain and x-o were wounded and eight ot its enlisted crew were killed.
Back to your point, though. You find no record of a damaged cruiser crossing the Atlantic in this time frame. Could the date on an official Navy citation be wrong, perhaps caused by the "fog of war"? That's indeed possible. Was this -- as my dad always said -- such a minor action involving such a minor American warship that the incident basically got lost in the midst of bigger stories? That's also very possible. Did the fact that the Direct reverted back to its PC configuration by June, 1944 obscure the record of a small ship in a very big war that got its name changed in the middle of everything? Once again, it's only conjecture.
I've decided the only way I can be certain about all of this is by going to the Navy Historical Center at Washington Navy Yard, and trying to find the log of the USS Direct, AM-90. Your thoughts/