Hello Mr. Brooks,

Thank you for finally giving us some detailed explanation about your theory regarding the U-977 and the sinking of the Bahia. The U-156 (KL Richard Feldt) in WWI attempted a similar trick in her home-bound voyage, rigging up a false superstructure and smokestack to appear as a merchantman. The U-156, being originally a Deutchland class cargo sub was rather short (213’) but broad and had a rather high deck, more closely resembling a ship while surfaced, and would have had much more material to construct the façade of a real surface ship. I can’t imagine thow a small Type VIIC, packed with cured meats, etc., would have had the available material to construct anything that could have resembled a legitimate, indistinct surface vessel.

The time involved in constructing such a ruse would also have been significant, placing Shaeffer and his boat in great risk of detection and destruction by allied warships and aircraft, and significantly hindered her diving time and maneuverability. Additionally, why would Shaeffer have ventured to within two miles of an allied warship. I would imagine that any Commander worth his salt would have kept his boat below the horizon of any such vessel, to avoid detection and scrutiny. Then we must believe that a warship would have allowed a strange fishing vessel to steam within just two miles, while still preparing to stream aerial targets. We are to believe that the Bahia’s Commander would prepare to fire warning shots at an unidentified ship, not sound General Quarters, and leave her stern toward the target vessel?

On the contrary, wouldn’t the target exercise have been delayed, General Quarters sounded, the Bahia’ bow brought on toward the target vessel, and signals been given to heave-to for boarding and inspection?

The “defective” depth-charge theory is also suspect. Depth-charges are simple steel cans filled with TNT or Torpex, with a sinking weight and a hydrostatic fuse assembly. Granted, a tracer bullet will not set one off, but any high explosive (HE) round, will. I have never heard of any testing that indicated that a 20mm HE round will not set off a standard U.S. Navy depth-charge, but that a 37mm HE round, would. TNT and Torpex are both high explosive mixtures that require both heart and a high velocity pressure wave to cause detonation. I would be very interested in seeing your citation for the official documentation that identifies a batch of so-called defective depth-charges. Again, I can expect that none will be forthcoming.

Additionally, your assessment that the U.S. Navy had collaborated in such a cover-up in order to avoid civil liability for the loss of the Bahia, is simply baseless. Apparently, you are not familiar with United States law, or the concept of ’sovereign immunity.’ Neither the Federal government, nor defense contractors can be held civilly liable for claims of negligence or defective products. Only recently have there been some movements toward restricting immunity for serious negligent actions by some manufacturers, but no such litigation would have been considered even remotely viable in the 1940s.

Once again, we would all be very interested in hearing your citation of the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Bahia by U-977. If this also comes from Sheaffer’s interviews, book, or memoirs, it must be in the public domain. The question then begs to be asked, why are you the only person who is apparently privy to this information? It sounds a lot like Hitler’s diary.

I look forward to you proving me wrong, as I truly would be interested in finally finding some proof that the final voyage of the U-977 had more purpose than had been stated in Shaeffer’s original book. I may also buy your book, but until we see genuine evidence to support your story, I must place it in the shelf containing other works of fiction.

Have a merry Christmas, all!

Bets Regards,

Paul