Mike, Joaquin Mumbru was sunk by U 156 at 31°17'N, 17° 39'W (location per U 156's KT while on a votage from Barcelona for New York with general cargo. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Michael, E 18 wwa not sunk by Q-ship. she was either mined while homebound (more likely) or an operational loss. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

City of Glasgow's official number was 121304. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Ron, There's a problem here: There was a special guest on board in the form of Ensign Earle F W Childs, an American Liaison and lieutenant in the United States Navy. Ensign is itself the lowest rank of commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy -- and other accounts make clear that his rank was in fact a lieutenant (two ranks higher). See, for example, Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

I would also be interested to know about any British minelaying in the area, which could have been the source of the (drifting?) mine. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Ron, Many of the details from Hocking are not supported by UC 35's KTB. For example, there was no second torpedo. The U-boat did put eight rounds into the steamer 55 after the torpedo attack and she finally goes down 46 minutes after that. There were five explosions as the ship sank which may have been apparently were taken to be a second torpedo. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

...and U 152 and U 141. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Daniel, More like an UC 66 related item on eBay. The British version — as in their official history -- has two submarines engaged with BAYARD -- UC 66 and U 85. This is a critical detail in linking U 85 to the Q-ship action with the PRIVET the next day. I've looked ast UC 66's KTB. The handwritten KTBs are always a bit hard for me, but there does not appear to be an mention of
Forum: WWI forum

Dennis, Yeah, that would be nice. Unfortunately, documentation of what pieces ended up on which boat just isn't know to exist. Some documents simply were discarded at some point along the way, others were destroyed during WWII. And to take it even a step further, we're not even completely sure what ended up happening to all of the surrendered U-boats. In fact it's an issue e
Forum: WWI forum

Michael, The steamer OTAGO was Swedish-flagged at the time of her loss (J. Ingmansson, Karlshamn, owner). She was torpedoed and sunk by U 19. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

MPC, What other Prussian awards did Lohs get? House Order of Hohenzollern? (The two classes of Iron Cross are given, of course.) Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Gary, One obvious problem: HMS Danae was a light cruiser completed in June 1918. Light cruisers are not vessels used to hunt submarines. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Des, Your clock doesn't sound like the sort of think that would be pulled off a sinking U-boat. I think it's much more likely that the clock came from a surrendered U-boat that was later scrapped. Unfortunately, the numbers attached to such artifacts are often inaccurate. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Phil, I haven't read Castles of Steel but I do have Dreadnaught. Massie is a first-class writer, who gives a great sense of the feel of the period, but as a historian he's largely repackaging what's appeared before while not adding a lot of new information or analysis. And when writing about the WWI U-boat war, that can be a problem, as it's underreseaerched to begin wit
Forum: WWI forum

U 28 sank the 3042 grt vessel build in 1904 as PONTOP which beacem RIO TIETE in 1915. For the ship built in 1898 see: Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Also came also a reference to ADA D. BISHOP in "Lloyd's War Losses": she's a missing vessel and likely not a war loss. LWL has her as being a British (probably really Canadian or from Newfoundland) sailing vessel of 93 tons net (not gross) that sailed on January 10, 1918 from Twillingate, Newfoundland for Gibraltar with a cargo of codfish. She never arrived at her destination.
Forum: WWI forum

Michael, The obvious ones: Gold Shell (note spelling): probably a mine laid by SMS Möwe, but would need the exact position to be sure. 12.june.1917 Moreni: U 64 24.nov.1917 Actaeon: U 84 5.sep.1918 Mount Vernon, 18372 grt, Damaged but reached Brest (troopship): U 82 Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Rodney, No. I think Deryck is referencing L. Leith's unpublished official history "The History of British Minefields 1914-1918." The only copy that I'm aware of is at the Admiralty Library. The U-boat research community is just starting to extract the full value from this critical document. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Rodney, The U.S. merchant marine loss list on line is not reliable -- it originally came out in 1922 or 1923, amounts to which boat the Allies <i>thought</i> sank a specific vessel. It does not draw upon German information. The vessels you asked about, with one possible exception, were not mined. The boats responsible: Hilonian May 16 1917: UC 35 John D. Archbold June 16 191
Forum: WWI forum

CABO VERDE was sunk by UC 69. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Simon, I had the same question. Oliver has looked this one up at TNA (as the PRO is now called): she was the LA RESOLU of 186 grt. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Ron/Michael, LEDA was damaged by U 49 on Nov. 11, 1916. The boat that sank her on December 6, 1917 was most certainly NOT UC 49. UB 75, however, makes a lot of sense, as she was operating in the area and didn't return from patrol. (The wreck of UB 75 was located a few years ago.) Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

U 47 sank the three ships in question. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

U 155 was the only U-boat in the area and should be responsible for this attack. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

If everything is as advertised, U 30 being involved doesn't make much sense either. She sank the Downshire and Cambank alright -- on February 20th in the Irish Sea. It's hard to get her to then be off Longstone three days later -- but then not home until the 28th. Will have a look at the appropriate KTBs over the weekend. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

While certainly no sub was sunk in this action, I do question whether U 27 was the U-boat caught in Alexander Hastie’s trawler as she only sailed on February 25th, 1915. U 34 might be a possibility though. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Simon, Thanks. This is starting to get complicated... I would suppose the next question would be exactly what UC 26's orders were. How long and what patrol area? On a related note, it's clear based upon BVLAS and (it not being in) Lloyd's War Losses that the sailing vessel IRIS, which is credited to UC 26, is a missing vessel. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: WWI forum

Oliver, A U-class boat really isn't a possibility in this case though. They stopped going through Dover in early March 1917 (U 85 was nominally the last but that's an entirely different issue) and didn't resume in any quantity before September 1917. (U 49 aborted a patrol through Dover in April 1917.) So it would seem that it's UB 31 or having to seriously think about it be
Forum: WWI forum

UB 32, in any case, is not the answer. Don't have UB 31's KTB. The wreck of UB 39 has been located off the Flanders coast in a location that matches a minefield. My view to date is has been that she was mined while outbound, based upon the lack of attributable sinkings. Obviously, we'll have to reconsider that if UB 31 didn't attack the St. Jacques. UB 39's patrol
Forum: WWI forum

OK, I got a question here: is the squadron designation corect? CV-9 was the USS Essex, which was in the Pacific. If the reference is to an aircraft squadron, then it should presumably be something like VC-9. Best wishes, Michael
Forum: General Discussions