WWI forum
World War One discussions.
Re: UC 50
Posted by:
Michael Lowrey
()
Date: July 16, 2004 04:56AM
Bruce,
This whole episode is among the stangest case there is. Highlights:
• The information on this site is correct: Zubian's attack most certainly was against UC 79. I have a copy of UC 79's KTB for that day and it is an exact match. Several other people who have seen the UC 79's KTB have come to the same conclusion.
• The record length for a Flanders-based UCII-class boat operating through Dover that returned home is only 20 days (sample size 140+). Feb. 4 would have been UC 50's 28th day at sea, so there's every reason to believe she was lost well before that date.
• There is, however, an UCII wreck off Dungeness, a few miles from where Zubian attacked UC 79. the sunk boat has damage amidship, possibly from whatever sank her. However, the Royal Navy identified U-boat by documents -- and used explosives to gain entry into the control room to recover them. The damage observed might also have come from such a salvage attempt.
• To date, the original Royal Navy documents about dive operations on the wreck have not been located.
• Dwight Messimer notes the German files contain a reference to the French buoying and the Royal Navy identifing the wreck of "UC 50", presunably that UCII off Dungeness. Significantly, however, they don't say how the RN came to the conclusion that it was UC 50, which is unusual. When the RN identified a wreck, they usually told the Germans postwar exactly how they did it -- in other words which documents they recovered. The RN didn't do that in this case.
• UCII losses aren't that well understood. We have a population of about 9 missing boats or boats with very suspect loss causes. We also apparently have six more unidentified UCII wrecks besides the one off Dungeness. (Strangely, one of these must be either UC 50 or 79.) Most of the missing UCIIs from October 1917 on are associated with one of these known wreck, we just can't absolutely prove this ID yet.
When you sort through it, it the most likely explanation is that the RN found some earlier UCII class wreck while searching for the boat they incorrectly thought they sank on February 4, 1918. The RN tried but couldn't ID the wreck, so just presumed it was UC 50. And the British records on what they found are missing. Hopefully, divers will allow us to solve, to the degree possible, this mystery.
Best wishes,
Michael
This whole episode is among the stangest case there is. Highlights:
• The information on this site is correct: Zubian's attack most certainly was against UC 79. I have a copy of UC 79's KTB for that day and it is an exact match. Several other people who have seen the UC 79's KTB have come to the same conclusion.
• The record length for a Flanders-based UCII-class boat operating through Dover that returned home is only 20 days (sample size 140+). Feb. 4 would have been UC 50's 28th day at sea, so there's every reason to believe she was lost well before that date.
• There is, however, an UCII wreck off Dungeness, a few miles from where Zubian attacked UC 79. the sunk boat has damage amidship, possibly from whatever sank her. However, the Royal Navy identified U-boat by documents -- and used explosives to gain entry into the control room to recover them. The damage observed might also have come from such a salvage attempt.
• To date, the original Royal Navy documents about dive operations on the wreck have not been located.
• Dwight Messimer notes the German files contain a reference to the French buoying and the Royal Navy identifing the wreck of "UC 50", presunably that UCII off Dungeness. Significantly, however, they don't say how the RN came to the conclusion that it was UC 50, which is unusual. When the RN identified a wreck, they usually told the Germans postwar exactly how they did it -- in other words which documents they recovered. The RN didn't do that in this case.
• UCII losses aren't that well understood. We have a population of about 9 missing boats or boats with very suspect loss causes. We also apparently have six more unidentified UCII wrecks besides the one off Dungeness. (Strangely, one of these must be either UC 50 or 79.) Most of the missing UCIIs from October 1917 on are associated with one of these known wreck, we just can't absolutely prove this ID yet.
When you sort through it, it the most likely explanation is that the RN found some earlier UCII class wreck while searching for the boat they incorrectly thought they sank on February 4, 1918. The RN tried but couldn't ID the wreck, so just presumed it was UC 50. And the British records on what they found are missing. Hopefully, divers will allow us to solve, to the degree possible, this mystery.
Best wishes,
Michael
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
Re: UC 50
|
Bruce | 07/16/2004 02:00AM |
|
Re: UC 50
|
Michael Lowrey | 07/16/2004 04:56AM |
|
Re: UC 50
|
Bruce | 07/16/2004 04:39PM |
|
Re: UB 7 & UB 107
|
Bruce | 07/16/2004 05:05PM |
|
Re: UB 7 & UB 107
|
Michael Lowrey | 07/17/2004 01:55AM |
|
Re: UB 7 & UB 107
|
Bruce | 07/17/2004 02:44AM |
|
Re: UB 7 & UB 107
|
Ron Young | 07/17/2004 10:50AM |
|
Re: UB 7 & UB 107
|
Michael Lowrey | 07/17/2004 05:08PM |
|
Re: UB 7 & UB 107
|
Dänemark | 07/17/2004 09:12PM |
|
Re: UB 7 & UB 107
|
Michael Lowrey | 07/17/2004 10:07PM |
|
Re: UB 7 & UB 107
|
Bruce | 07/18/2004 03:02AM |
|
Re: UB 7 & UB 107
|
Michael Lowrey | 07/18/2004 02:14PM |
|
Re: UB 7 & UB 107
|
Dänemark | 07/18/2004 04:35PM |