WWI forum
World War One discussions.
Re: 9/5/1918, U-who?
Posted by:
Michael Lowrey
()
Date: April 16, 2003 09:44PM
<HTML>Brian,
The answer is UC 78. As I wrote before the big crash:
If we accept that the UB 78 was mined off Dover, what then of this attack? It seems certain that a) an U-boat was in fact rammed, b) if not sunk, it at least suffered severe damage, and c) no U-boat boat limped home after being rammed on this date. The solution, I suggest, is that the Queen Alexandra in fact rammed and sank the UC 78.
UC 78 had sailed on May 2, 1918. Her loss is often attributed to a mine explosion followed by a depth charge attck off Dover on the same day. This claim, however, is examined in detail by Grant in "U-Boat Intelligence" and rejected. Grant notes: 1) UC 78 had only sailed five hours before the explosions observed off Griz Nez and could not have gotten there by that time, 2) UC 17 was the boat off Griz Nez and was attacked and/or heard mine explosion and 3) UC 78 laid mines off Boulogne on May 4, and off Newhaven on May 8.
The loss causes listed by the British for UB 78 (ramming) and UC 78 (mine on May 2) were both generated during the war (for UB 78, for example, the May 9 date is listed in the 1919 "Jane's Fighting Ships") and are based upon an obviously incomplete knowledge of German operations.
I suggest that after dropping the last of her mines off Newhaven, that UC 78 then turned toward mid Channel were she was rammed by Queen Alexandra. The date is consistant with a standard UCII patrol duarion of up to three weeks or so. There is no other U-boat that could have been the victim of this attack and there is also no other creditible loss cause for UC 78.
Best wishes,
Michael</HTML>
The answer is UC 78. As I wrote before the big crash:
If we accept that the UB 78 was mined off Dover, what then of this attack? It seems certain that a) an U-boat was in fact rammed, b) if not sunk, it at least suffered severe damage, and c) no U-boat boat limped home after being rammed on this date. The solution, I suggest, is that the Queen Alexandra in fact rammed and sank the UC 78.
UC 78 had sailed on May 2, 1918. Her loss is often attributed to a mine explosion followed by a depth charge attck off Dover on the same day. This claim, however, is examined in detail by Grant in "U-Boat Intelligence" and rejected. Grant notes: 1) UC 78 had only sailed five hours before the explosions observed off Griz Nez and could not have gotten there by that time, 2) UC 17 was the boat off Griz Nez and was attacked and/or heard mine explosion and 3) UC 78 laid mines off Boulogne on May 4, and off Newhaven on May 8.
The loss causes listed by the British for UB 78 (ramming) and UC 78 (mine on May 2) were both generated during the war (for UB 78, for example, the May 9 date is listed in the 1919 "Jane's Fighting Ships") and are based upon an obviously incomplete knowledge of German operations.
I suggest that after dropping the last of her mines off Newhaven, that UC 78 then turned toward mid Channel were she was rammed by Queen Alexandra. The date is consistant with a standard UCII patrol duarion of up to three weeks or so. There is no other U-boat that could have been the victim of this attack and there is also no other creditible loss cause for UC 78.
Best wishes,
Michael</HTML>
Subject | Written By | Posted |
---|---|---|
9/5/1918, U-who? | Brian | 04/16/2003 08:09PM |
Re: 9/5/1918, U-who? | Michael Lowrey | 04/16/2003 09:44PM |
Re: 9/5/1918, U-who? | Brian | 04/17/2003 02:14AM |
Re: 9/5/1918, U-who? | Bruce | 04/18/2003 04:26PM |
Re: 9/5/1918, U-who? | Michael Lowrey | 04/18/2003 05:48PM |
Re: 9/5/1918, U-who? | Bruce | 04/18/2003 09:35PM |