WWI forum
World War One discussions.
Re: British submarine H.5 sinking
Posted by:
Clio
()
Date: July 29, 2008 05:42PM
Here's more 'rubbish' for you nemo
“I regret to report that Submarine H5 having failed to return from patrol is considered to have been lost with all hands. It is futher considered that she was the Submarine referred to in the following message from Vice Admiral, Milford Haven: observing hat her line of patrol was in Lat.53, 6N. between Long 4, 30’ and 4, 50W.
‘Message begins: Master of SS RUTHERGLEN reports that his Vessel rammed Submarine 2030, 2nd March when in position Lat.53,4’N. Long 4, 40’W. Submarine was crossing bow at considerable speed. After collision cries were heard and men seen in the water, also there was a strong smell of petrol vapour. Forepeak of RUTHERGLEN is flooded. Ends’
Her Commanding Officer, Lt AW Forbes DSO was an officer of considerable submarine experience and one for whom I had the greatest admiration and in whom I placed complete confidence. I am convinced with my knowledge of this Officer that he at all times took every possible step, first for the destruction of the enemy, and secondly for the safety of his ship and that whatever the circumstances of the collision, that no possible blame can be attributed to him. He was specially noted for the command of one of our larger submarines and his loss to the Service together with that of his men, who have performed excellent work in these waters, is very much felt. It is deeply regretted that Ensign EWF Childs, USN of US Submarine AL2 who was making an instructional cruise in H5 was also lost.
With regard to the SS RUTHERGLEN, it is submitted that she should not be informed that the rammed submarine was British but should receive the usual reward for sinking the enemy, since the success of the campaign must largely depend upon immediate hostile action being taken by any merchant vessel finding herself favourably situated for attacking a submarine. The question of recognition between merchant vessels and allied submarines is not considered feasible and the risk of such an accident happening on a dark night, although deeply to be regretted, must be accepted as a necessary war riskâ€
ADM 137/2071
And by the way, try dropping Ron Young's name into a search engine, note the books and observe the critical reviews. Then hang your ignorant head in shame.
“I regret to report that Submarine H5 having failed to return from patrol is considered to have been lost with all hands. It is futher considered that she was the Submarine referred to in the following message from Vice Admiral, Milford Haven: observing hat her line of patrol was in Lat.53, 6N. between Long 4, 30’ and 4, 50W.
‘Message begins: Master of SS RUTHERGLEN reports that his Vessel rammed Submarine 2030, 2nd March when in position Lat.53,4’N. Long 4, 40’W. Submarine was crossing bow at considerable speed. After collision cries were heard and men seen in the water, also there was a strong smell of petrol vapour. Forepeak of RUTHERGLEN is flooded. Ends’
Her Commanding Officer, Lt AW Forbes DSO was an officer of considerable submarine experience and one for whom I had the greatest admiration and in whom I placed complete confidence. I am convinced with my knowledge of this Officer that he at all times took every possible step, first for the destruction of the enemy, and secondly for the safety of his ship and that whatever the circumstances of the collision, that no possible blame can be attributed to him. He was specially noted for the command of one of our larger submarines and his loss to the Service together with that of his men, who have performed excellent work in these waters, is very much felt. It is deeply regretted that Ensign EWF Childs, USN of US Submarine AL2 who was making an instructional cruise in H5 was also lost.
With regard to the SS RUTHERGLEN, it is submitted that she should not be informed that the rammed submarine was British but should receive the usual reward for sinking the enemy, since the success of the campaign must largely depend upon immediate hostile action being taken by any merchant vessel finding herself favourably situated for attacking a submarine. The question of recognition between merchant vessels and allied submarines is not considered feasible and the risk of such an accident happening on a dark night, although deeply to be regretted, must be accepted as a necessary war riskâ€
ADM 137/2071
And by the way, try dropping Ron Young's name into a search engine, note the books and observe the critical reviews. Then hang your ignorant head in shame.
