hi, the tanker convoy "severely mauled" was, quite probably, convoy TM.1 in January, 1943, see . Torch had begun in November, 1942, so the negative answer to the statement mentioned above is obvious. Whether the loss affected the Allied campaign is another matter, of course. Ref your 2nd statement: Yes, I read that, too, somewhere, but IMO it is no more than a hypothesis (why j
Forum: General Discussions

hi, tanker KÄRNTEN was in Skjomenfjord for a long time greetings, Urs
Forum: General Discussions

hi, Ken, as I've been given a lot of documents concerning the topic, I developed an interest in the same matter - but : in World War One. There, we have several Allied lists of u-boat captains accused of war crimes. Even on a rather quick check, one can see that many accusations are, quite simply, wrong, referring to the wrong boat, the wrong Commanding officer, a false number of pe
Forum: Warship forum

hi, Ken, I just read your paper refering to the treatment of survivors by u-boat crews (I hadn't seen it before) my respect for a concise paper very well done on a rather hot topic, and a sincere "Thank You" from a retired German naval officer. greetings, Urs
Forum: Warship forum

hi, assuming that the loss position 55-33n 05-24e is correct, one may assume that the loss occurred on German minefield "62" (1000 mines, at depth 2 m), laid on May, 10, 1918 by auxiliary minelayer SENTA ex British DUNS LAW (4077 grt), a converted prize ship, see The operation was covered by 2nd recconnaisance group (RAdm v Levetzow) with cruisers KÖNIGSBERG(II), KARLSRUHE(II), PIL
Forum: WWI forum

hi, Ken, thank you. I quite agree that things like that will take place in the heat of battle and I do not want to blame anyone. The argument "the fact that German submarines frequently work in pairs" is however, questionable. It wasn't a fact and it was merely a weak (and wrong) hypothesis. greetings, Urs
Forum: Warship forum

hi, Ken Dunn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- However she was already famous when she sank U-85. There is, however, a slight shadow over this fame. As far as I know, the ROPER depth-charged the approx. 40 survivors of U 85 swimming in the water after the boat had sunk. see greetings, Urs
Forum: Warship forum

hi, Mikel, a empty ship or a ship with a heavy load on deck but less cargo in the holds may take on weight stored far down in the hull, called ballast (not really a cargo) to lower its point of gravity, i.e. to reduce the risk of capsizing in heavy seas. Nowadays most ships can take on ballast in form of water in special ballast tanks. Sailing boats may have a keel ballast (e.g., lead) to
Forum: General Discussions

Billc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I had been looking for a Swedish ship, There was, indeed, a Swedish ship by that name, chartered during WW II by the IRC for relief transports and especially famous in the Channel Islands for its voyages in 1944/45 see ) But that's not the ship you were looking for. greetings, Urs
Forum: General Discussions

hi, look here greetings, Urs
Forum: General Discussions

hi, it is mentioned here : Search with words Jackal, Janus, Juno Regrettably, the ship's nation, name (Batavia) and tonnage are given incorrectly. There seems to have been a depth charge attack, but no real evidence of a u-boat being there. greetings, Urs
Forum: General Discussions

James Pratt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- 3 May Russian SS Truwor torpedoed 1 KIA U? Some answers are right here : greetings, Urs
Forum: WWI forum

hi, Altostratus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Has a U-Boot ever surfaced in daytime closer enough to see American shores? Oh yes ! In WW I, more precise in August, 1918, U 156 surfaced, clearly visible, off the little twon of Orleans, Mass., and sank 4 barges See in this forum ! greetings, Urs
Forum: General Discussions

hi, lool here greetings, Urs
Forum: General Discussions

hi, @Anyone familiar with how many submarines were sunk by DCs prior to May 1917? there were partial DC successes in 1917: greetings, Urs
Forum: WWI forum

hi, John, jcrt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Question why > would U954 leave her in such a precarious condition so far from a base?. or even not to escort her until she could have sea or air protection and also by staying would have put her with U209 when she got into trouble. What kind of escort could another VII C type boat be, against surface ships
Forum: General Discussions

hi, The 13 boats belonged to the III. torpedo boat flottilla and the Flandern torpedo boat flottilla. At that time, III. flottilla had the boats S 53, S 54, V 70, V 71, V 73, V 81 and G 91, the Flandern flottilla had the boats V 47, S 61, S 63, V 67, V 68, V 69, V 74, V 77, V 82 and G 95. Total 17 boats; I do not know which boats (13 out of 17) participated in the minelaying, some pro
Forum: WWI forum

hi, Felix, somme comments to your list, in which only the cases of British ships appear > The following commanders are considered Great > Britain's war criminals: Personal comment : I know the meaning of your phrase, but one of "Great Britain's war criminals" was Godfrey Herbert, commanding the Q-ship Baralong > Kiesewetter (UC 56) for the sinking of the
Forum: WWI forum

Josephbremez Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Kurt Hartwig's name does not appear on the list of > war criminals published by Great Britain post armistice. it appears, however, on the list provided by Italy, not for the KILDALE case, but for sinking PORTO DI RODI two days earlier (10 APR 1917) greetings, Urs
Forum: WWI forum

Nom Anor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I remember reading somewhere that the 23 > December 1917 losses were caused by mines laid by > German destroyers from Flanders, but I can't be > sure) That is correct. The mines were laid just in the previous night by 13 torpedo boats of the Flandern flottilla greetings, Urs
Forum: WWI forum