General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Re: Surcouf's Fatal Last Journey. Part .4
Posted by:
Terry Andrews
()
Date: September 15, 2002 01:40PM
<HTML>The first indication of Surcouf's fate came in a cable from the British Consular Shipping Adviser at Colon, Panama :-
French Cruiser-Sub SURCOUF not repetition not arrived.
' THOMPSON LYKES USA Army Transport northbound convoy yesterday now returned after collision with unidentified vessel which apparently sank at once at 2230R 18th february in latitude 010 degs 40 north longitude 079 degs 30 West. Sge searched the vicinity until 0830 today 19th February but no survivors or wreckage. Only sign was oil. Considerable bow damage made to THOMPSON LYKES at fore foot.'
Three days after the accident on 21st February the Consular Shipping Adviser at Colon assembled the facts in a message to the British authorities concerned :-
Following additional information obtained from perusing statements by Master, Officer of the Watch and two military gunners on board THOMPSON LYKES.
(a) United States Ship without lights course 356 degrees at full speed approximately 14 knots. Originally steering for Windward passage but diverted for Cienfuegos, Cuba.
(b) Other vessel not observed until white light flash seen one point to starboard bow about half minute before collision. Wheel put hard to port but before ship answered helm light again seen this time right ahead so wheel reversed hard to starboard engine still full ahead.
(c) Heavy collision very shortly afterwards. On reaching bridge after collision Master stopped engine. While still close on port beam vessel seen sinking with great disturbance of water. Gunner states bow of other vessel thrown up clear of the water before sinking. Calls in English for help were heard by witnesses but their ship carried headway lost contact. Master delayed lowering lifeboats allegedly on account of sea running intending to do so later when party of survivors were located.
(d) Meanwhile shortly after vessel sank violent underwater explosion was felt in United States ship. having carried her way about half mile ship put back to where Master estimated other had sunk. Searchlight revealed no sign of survivors or wreckage but much oil. Weather described as rather heavy sea fresh wind; visibility not mentioned. United States Authorities informed by W/T. Search abandoned 0830, 10 hours later.
(e) Consider statement either taken badly through inexperience or considerably condensed and important evidence either not elicited or not recorded e.g. no statements produced from helmsman or seaman look-outs.
(f) from personal observations 15 yard distance, nature of damage to US ship points to other not being surface craft, as upper two third stern post and of pole plate not damaged.
(g) US Authorities now severely limit comminication to ships and preserve close secrecy. Nothing has been told me officially but local Naval Intelligence persuaded by US Navy Port Captain at my request allowed me unofficially to read above statements. They know that I am reporting facts and inference to you but have probably not repitition not informed their superiors of my reading statements or reporting on them. Army officers also interrogated candidates witnesses later.
(h) Understand that although carrying Army personnel US ships manned solely by Merchant crew. Do not know if Master warned he might meet French cruiser S/M Surcouf [sic]. British and other Allied merchant ships leaving here show dim navigational lights in Caribbean Sea.
What the (probably American) Consular Shipping Advisor at Colon did not say was that he, the responsible authority, had FAILED to warn either Surcouf or the convoy that the subamrine was routed on a reciprocal track to the convoy that would take her straight into its grain.
Nothing more, of any significance, was immediately established about the ramming but fresh rumours were now circulating. The most unpleasant and damaging of these stories gained widespread credence:- it was to the effect that Surcouf was deliberately rammed and sunk in the belief that she would otherwise be handed over to the enemy.
Leaving aside circumstantial evidence, which is admittedly less complete than might be expected, there are two good reasons for rejecting this version of events.
Premeditated ramming by a merchant ship, especially one carrying troops, could not possibly have been contemplated by responsible authorities; it could well have resulted in the ramming vessel herself being sunk, and the Thompson Lykes did indeed sustain heavy damage. Nor would a collision necessarily result in the Surcouf sinking. Rpeated attempts to ram u-boats, through out the war, were often unsuccessful: they required very nice judgement and a good deal of luck. Ramming was not the way to ensure that Surcouf went to the bottom.
Supposing, however that the Americans and presumably, the British had connived at Surcouf's destruction by some other means?
If Surcouf was indeed rammed by the Thompson Lykes was it an accident - an accident to which submariners were particularly prone before the days of radar (the British M.1 tragedy springs to mind) or, just possibly (according to one officer present at the Board of Enquiry), it was the result of an instant reflex action by the Thompson Lykes which was certainly not planned.
But the evidence reported in (c) above regarding calls for help in English appear to be at odds with the reported crew of Surcouf unable to speak any language other than their own! And the chances of a member of the 3 man crew of Royal Navy personnel being on the bridge at the time is very unlikely, even if their was why was not more shouts for help heard from the French crew?
It is when you start to look at such anomallies of the statements taken that one wonders if indeed Surcouf was the victim of the Thompson Lykes and not some American or British Submarine.
It is here and only at the moment speculation that with Surcouf's background of being at the centre of political trouble where ever she went that her mutual destruction would be better for all concerned. Surcouf had a knack of taking off on her own under orders from France without informing the British Admiralty as to what or where she was going. The rumours of Fifth Column activity may have lead to her mutual destruction in an unknown location. My theory and for what it is worth is that Project C.A. 35 is indeed the Surcouf. The political aspects mentioned in CA.35 have all the hall marks of the sorts of activities that Surcouf was reported to have been up to back in 1941/42.
As for the sidescans these can very easily have been doctored, to hide the original lines. and make her look like a Type XIB for what purpose though i cannot think why, because if Surcouf is indeed laying down there then I would think that finding her where she should not be would be ground breaking if not politically embarrassing for America and British concerns alike.
And before anyone says that this is impossible, I would just like to remind them of U-869 and her known wherabouts before it was really known!
Original documents on Surcouf are lacking by their absence and indeed some are still on the secret lists, why this should be is not known, but speculation haunts Surcouf as much as it haunts Titanic. In trying to unravel Surcouf;s demise one comes up against barriers of offcialdom why this still prevails speculation and rumours will persist. it is sad therfore that even in death, Surcouf should still continue to attract suspicion and hostility towards not only herself but also ill-informed speculation about the manner of her passing.
Perhaps Surcouf and her company (wherever she is) should be allowed to rest in peace.
I hope that you have enjoyed this report on Surcouf and I also hope that you have not got bored by my writings. All comments welcome good or bad!
From your Ace Reporter,
Terry Andrews.
For The U-Boat Chronicles.
Copyright 2002.
Insumming up Surcouf never accomplished anything for which she was designed and she had an un-happy knack of being at the centre of political trouble.</HTML>
French Cruiser-Sub SURCOUF not repetition not arrived.
' THOMPSON LYKES USA Army Transport northbound convoy yesterday now returned after collision with unidentified vessel which apparently sank at once at 2230R 18th february in latitude 010 degs 40 north longitude 079 degs 30 West. Sge searched the vicinity until 0830 today 19th February but no survivors or wreckage. Only sign was oil. Considerable bow damage made to THOMPSON LYKES at fore foot.'
Three days after the accident on 21st February the Consular Shipping Adviser at Colon assembled the facts in a message to the British authorities concerned :-
Following additional information obtained from perusing statements by Master, Officer of the Watch and two military gunners on board THOMPSON LYKES.
(a) United States Ship without lights course 356 degrees at full speed approximately 14 knots. Originally steering for Windward passage but diverted for Cienfuegos, Cuba.
(b) Other vessel not observed until white light flash seen one point to starboard bow about half minute before collision. Wheel put hard to port but before ship answered helm light again seen this time right ahead so wheel reversed hard to starboard engine still full ahead.
(c) Heavy collision very shortly afterwards. On reaching bridge after collision Master stopped engine. While still close on port beam vessel seen sinking with great disturbance of water. Gunner states bow of other vessel thrown up clear of the water before sinking. Calls in English for help were heard by witnesses but their ship carried headway lost contact. Master delayed lowering lifeboats allegedly on account of sea running intending to do so later when party of survivors were located.
(d) Meanwhile shortly after vessel sank violent underwater explosion was felt in United States ship. having carried her way about half mile ship put back to where Master estimated other had sunk. Searchlight revealed no sign of survivors or wreckage but much oil. Weather described as rather heavy sea fresh wind; visibility not mentioned. United States Authorities informed by W/T. Search abandoned 0830, 10 hours later.
(e) Consider statement either taken badly through inexperience or considerably condensed and important evidence either not elicited or not recorded e.g. no statements produced from helmsman or seaman look-outs.
(f) from personal observations 15 yard distance, nature of damage to US ship points to other not being surface craft, as upper two third stern post and of pole plate not damaged.
(g) US Authorities now severely limit comminication to ships and preserve close secrecy. Nothing has been told me officially but local Naval Intelligence persuaded by US Navy Port Captain at my request allowed me unofficially to read above statements. They know that I am reporting facts and inference to you but have probably not repitition not informed their superiors of my reading statements or reporting on them. Army officers also interrogated candidates witnesses later.
(h) Understand that although carrying Army personnel US ships manned solely by Merchant crew. Do not know if Master warned he might meet French cruiser S/M Surcouf [sic]. British and other Allied merchant ships leaving here show dim navigational lights in Caribbean Sea.
What the (probably American) Consular Shipping Advisor at Colon did not say was that he, the responsible authority, had FAILED to warn either Surcouf or the convoy that the subamrine was routed on a reciprocal track to the convoy that would take her straight into its grain.
Nothing more, of any significance, was immediately established about the ramming but fresh rumours were now circulating. The most unpleasant and damaging of these stories gained widespread credence:- it was to the effect that Surcouf was deliberately rammed and sunk in the belief that she would otherwise be handed over to the enemy.
Leaving aside circumstantial evidence, which is admittedly less complete than might be expected, there are two good reasons for rejecting this version of events.
Premeditated ramming by a merchant ship, especially one carrying troops, could not possibly have been contemplated by responsible authorities; it could well have resulted in the ramming vessel herself being sunk, and the Thompson Lykes did indeed sustain heavy damage. Nor would a collision necessarily result in the Surcouf sinking. Rpeated attempts to ram u-boats, through out the war, were often unsuccessful: they required very nice judgement and a good deal of luck. Ramming was not the way to ensure that Surcouf went to the bottom.
Supposing, however that the Americans and presumably, the British had connived at Surcouf's destruction by some other means?
If Surcouf was indeed rammed by the Thompson Lykes was it an accident - an accident to which submariners were particularly prone before the days of radar (the British M.1 tragedy springs to mind) or, just possibly (according to one officer present at the Board of Enquiry), it was the result of an instant reflex action by the Thompson Lykes which was certainly not planned.
But the evidence reported in (c) above regarding calls for help in English appear to be at odds with the reported crew of Surcouf unable to speak any language other than their own! And the chances of a member of the 3 man crew of Royal Navy personnel being on the bridge at the time is very unlikely, even if their was why was not more shouts for help heard from the French crew?
It is when you start to look at such anomallies of the statements taken that one wonders if indeed Surcouf was the victim of the Thompson Lykes and not some American or British Submarine.
It is here and only at the moment speculation that with Surcouf's background of being at the centre of political trouble where ever she went that her mutual destruction would be better for all concerned. Surcouf had a knack of taking off on her own under orders from France without informing the British Admiralty as to what or where she was going. The rumours of Fifth Column activity may have lead to her mutual destruction in an unknown location. My theory and for what it is worth is that Project C.A. 35 is indeed the Surcouf. The political aspects mentioned in CA.35 have all the hall marks of the sorts of activities that Surcouf was reported to have been up to back in 1941/42.
As for the sidescans these can very easily have been doctored, to hide the original lines. and make her look like a Type XIB for what purpose though i cannot think why, because if Surcouf is indeed laying down there then I would think that finding her where she should not be would be ground breaking if not politically embarrassing for America and British concerns alike.
And before anyone says that this is impossible, I would just like to remind them of U-869 and her known wherabouts before it was really known!
Original documents on Surcouf are lacking by their absence and indeed some are still on the secret lists, why this should be is not known, but speculation haunts Surcouf as much as it haunts Titanic. In trying to unravel Surcouf;s demise one comes up against barriers of offcialdom why this still prevails speculation and rumours will persist. it is sad therfore that even in death, Surcouf should still continue to attract suspicion and hostility towards not only herself but also ill-informed speculation about the manner of her passing.
Perhaps Surcouf and her company (wherever she is) should be allowed to rest in peace.
I hope that you have enjoyed this report on Surcouf and I also hope that you have not got bored by my writings. All comments welcome good or bad!
From your Ace Reporter,
Terry Andrews.
For The U-Boat Chronicles.
Copyright 2002.
Insumming up Surcouf never accomplished anything for which she was designed and she had an un-happy knack of being at the centre of political trouble.</HTML>
