General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Re: U-boats attacked by allied submarines
Posted by:
Platon Alexiades
()
Date: March 20, 2012 05:43PM
Hello Francesco,
Thank you for reviving this old thread!
I have done quite a bit of research on the BIANCHI case and I also thought that the TIGRIS' attack was not absolutely convincing.
However I believe that it is almost sure that she was sunk by TIGRIS. I say almost (80% or so) for the simple reason that there is no other submarine in the vicinity and calculating her timeline, she could well have been in that spot. Coe intially assumed that it was a surface vessel and two trawlers but visibility was impaired by an excessive reflection (the sea was glassy calm) on the surface and the distance was 9,000 yds. It appears that the two masts which were taken for trawlers were actually the two W/T masts of the submarine which Bone identified as such. So there were no fishing boats there neither A/S trawlers as they did not escort a submarine so far.
The course of the submarine was estimated through the periscope and to dismiss the attack as it could not have been the course of the submarine is a bit hasty. This assumes that the course estimated was exact but unfortunately errors in estimates were quite common! The time elapsed from the sighting to the attack was relatively short (17 minutes). BIANCHI had sailed for a mission the previous evening escorted by SPERRBRECHER III as far a the Gironde buoy no.1. If the submarine had sailed on a straight course from the Gironde, she would have been approximately on a 257° course and this is about the course she would have taken if she had used Security Route 5 which would have been logical (she was to patrol off Gibraltar). I agree it is quite a bit off the 295° but not impossible. Bone estimated the course by the distance between the two aerial masts, I think he could have been also a way off and he had estimated the range as 3,000 yds but the explosion of the torpedo gave a range of 3,800 yds, an indication that his estimates were not that accurate.
I have checked U-boat patrol reports and none appears to have been in the area. Bone was very cautious and he wrote that he dived deep to avoid a Ju 88 (as far as I know no German aircraft reported any explosion and I think he may have used the "aircraft" as an excuse to explain that he did not follow up with a search for survivors.
If one calculates the distance travelled by BIANCHI since she had left SPERRBRECHER III, she would would have made an average of approximately 11.3 knots or less to be in this position which in my mind is quite acceptable. My question: if BIANCHI was not the submarine attacked, then who was the real target? Now, it is also possible that BIANCHI was attacked and avoided the torpedoes only to be sunk later through another cause but the sound of the explosions was consistent with at least one hit. What do you think?
Best regards,
Platon
Thank you for reviving this old thread!
I have done quite a bit of research on the BIANCHI case and I also thought that the TIGRIS' attack was not absolutely convincing.
However I believe that it is almost sure that she was sunk by TIGRIS. I say almost (80% or so) for the simple reason that there is no other submarine in the vicinity and calculating her timeline, she could well have been in that spot. Coe intially assumed that it was a surface vessel and two trawlers but visibility was impaired by an excessive reflection (the sea was glassy calm) on the surface and the distance was 9,000 yds. It appears that the two masts which were taken for trawlers were actually the two W/T masts of the submarine which Bone identified as such. So there were no fishing boats there neither A/S trawlers as they did not escort a submarine so far.
The course of the submarine was estimated through the periscope and to dismiss the attack as it could not have been the course of the submarine is a bit hasty. This assumes that the course estimated was exact but unfortunately errors in estimates were quite common! The time elapsed from the sighting to the attack was relatively short (17 minutes). BIANCHI had sailed for a mission the previous evening escorted by SPERRBRECHER III as far a the Gironde buoy no.1. If the submarine had sailed on a straight course from the Gironde, she would have been approximately on a 257° course and this is about the course she would have taken if she had used Security Route 5 which would have been logical (she was to patrol off Gibraltar). I agree it is quite a bit off the 295° but not impossible. Bone estimated the course by the distance between the two aerial masts, I think he could have been also a way off and he had estimated the range as 3,000 yds but the explosion of the torpedo gave a range of 3,800 yds, an indication that his estimates were not that accurate.
I have checked U-boat patrol reports and none appears to have been in the area. Bone was very cautious and he wrote that he dived deep to avoid a Ju 88 (as far as I know no German aircraft reported any explosion and I think he may have used the "aircraft" as an excuse to explain that he did not follow up with a search for survivors.
If one calculates the distance travelled by BIANCHI since she had left SPERRBRECHER III, she would would have made an average of approximately 11.3 knots or less to be in this position which in my mind is quite acceptable. My question: if BIANCHI was not the submarine attacked, then who was the real target? Now, it is also possible that BIANCHI was attacked and avoided the torpedoes only to be sunk later through another cause but the sound of the explosions was consistent with at least one hit. What do you think?
Best regards,
Platon
