General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Re: WW2 P48 Submarine
Posted by:
Platon Alexiades
()
Date: November 04, 2018 12:36AM
Hello Chris,
Although it is true that ARDENTE observed an oil patch that does not automatically gives credence to her claim.
A week earlier, just a few miles from there, the Italian torpedo-boat ORIONE attacked a submarine contact, observed an oil patch and claimed it sunk. Supermarina carefully examined the facts and concluded that she had probably depth-charged the wreck of the transport SANT'ANTIOCO sunk on 15.12.1942 by HMS P46 (UNRUFFLED). Ironically, ORIONE Had been one of the two torpedo-boats escorting SANT'ANTIOCO at the time.
This is not to categorically say that ARDENTE did not sink P48. She most likely did but an element of doubt exists.
I do not believe that P48 or any other submarine was lost at Tabarka. I can resume my arguments thus:
1. Why would these submarines go to Tabarka? Only small local fishing vessels were based there. No Submarine Flotilla order (whether from 8th or 10th Flotilla) ever hinted at sending a submarine at Tabarka. During the occupation of Tunisia, Axis vessels used Bizerta, Tunis, Sousse and Sfax. No Axis vessel was sent to Tabarka as it was too vulnerable to air attacks and too close to allied airfields. Incidentally, no Axis submarines operated there either.
2. What was the cause of their loss? No Axis claims by aircraft or A/S craft made in the Tabarka area, ever! This leaves us with mining or accident. Well, no French minefields laid in the Tabarka area 1939-1940 or after. Axis minefields off Tabarka were laid on 16 April and 6 May 1943 (to interfere with MTBs operating from Bone), several months AFTER the submarines were supposedly lost there. This leaves accident as the only alternative. I am the first one to say that we can never rule out accident from the reported losses but six at Tabarka? There must be some real evil spirit there!
3. An error in navigation? I am willing to accept an error of 10, 20 or even 30 miles but none of these submarines operated at less than 60 miles from Tabarka. HM submarines were rarely given freedom of action in a wide area to prevent errors from friendly fire, especially from allied aircraft. Why would they deviate from their patrol area?
Finally, I have yet to see tangible proofs of these claims.
I shall reply to your PM and forward the files.
All the best,
Platon
Although it is true that ARDENTE observed an oil patch that does not automatically gives credence to her claim.
A week earlier, just a few miles from there, the Italian torpedo-boat ORIONE attacked a submarine contact, observed an oil patch and claimed it sunk. Supermarina carefully examined the facts and concluded that she had probably depth-charged the wreck of the transport SANT'ANTIOCO sunk on 15.12.1942 by HMS P46 (UNRUFFLED). Ironically, ORIONE Had been one of the two torpedo-boats escorting SANT'ANTIOCO at the time.
This is not to categorically say that ARDENTE did not sink P48. She most likely did but an element of doubt exists.
I do not believe that P48 or any other submarine was lost at Tabarka. I can resume my arguments thus:
1. Why would these submarines go to Tabarka? Only small local fishing vessels were based there. No Submarine Flotilla order (whether from 8th or 10th Flotilla) ever hinted at sending a submarine at Tabarka. During the occupation of Tunisia, Axis vessels used Bizerta, Tunis, Sousse and Sfax. No Axis vessel was sent to Tabarka as it was too vulnerable to air attacks and too close to allied airfields. Incidentally, no Axis submarines operated there either.
2. What was the cause of their loss? No Axis claims by aircraft or A/S craft made in the Tabarka area, ever! This leaves us with mining or accident. Well, no French minefields laid in the Tabarka area 1939-1940 or after. Axis minefields off Tabarka were laid on 16 April and 6 May 1943 (to interfere with MTBs operating from Bone), several months AFTER the submarines were supposedly lost there. This leaves accident as the only alternative. I am the first one to say that we can never rule out accident from the reported losses but six at Tabarka? There must be some real evil spirit there!
3. An error in navigation? I am willing to accept an error of 10, 20 or even 30 miles but none of these submarines operated at less than 60 miles from Tabarka. HM submarines were rarely given freedom of action in a wide area to prevent errors from friendly fire, especially from allied aircraft. Why would they deviate from their patrol area?
Finally, I have yet to see tangible proofs of these claims.
I shall reply to your PM and forward the files.
All the best,
Platon
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
WW2 P48 Submarine
|
chrisjohnson | 11/02/2018 04:04PM |
|
Re: WW2 P48 Submarine
|
Platon Alexiades | 11/03/2018 05:34PM |
|
Re: WW2 P48 Submarine
|
chrisjohnson | 11/03/2018 06:56PM |
|
Re: WW2 P48 Submarine
|
Platon Alexiades | 11/04/2018 12:36AM |