RL Depth Charge Damage: U-175

[danlisa]

I pray for this level of detail in any Silent Hunter series.:o

I'm suprised this boat even surfaced but the pressure hull seems to be intact.

Click Me: It's a biggie.
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4965/u175jc5.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=u175jc5.jpg)

Read about the entire attack here:
http://www.uscg.mil/history/WEBCUTTERS/spencervsu175.asp

[Keelbuster]

strange that the damage is so contained to the lower rear conning tower. It looks like it tore out the whole supporting structure to the AA gun platform. But the rest of the tower, and the deck (even the rails on the deck) just below are relatively unscathed.

Very cool though.

[Huskalar]

Very nice picture. :yep: :up:

[seafarer]

I pray for this level of detail in any Silent Hunter series.:o

I'm suprised this boat even surfaced but the pressure hull seems to be intact.



Giving the guy working on the conning tower (looks like he's got a cutting torch going), I assume she's fully surfaced. if so, she's pretty low in the water, so I'm assuming there has been some major flooding.

A bit like a shot up plane though - any landing you walk away from is a good one (any dive you surface from is a good dive).

[danlisa]

Was definately a DC attack. The guy on the UBoat is a US sailor.

I put the link to the full events in the first post.:up:

[Captain Nemo]

It may have been a DC attack that brought this u-boat to the surface, but the damage to the conning tower might have been inflicted by the escorts opening fire with every weapon available to them. This was mainly done to prevent the u-boat crew manning the deck gun as well as trying to stop the crew abandoning the u-boat and scuttling it so that it could be captured.

Nemo

[seafarer]

Reading the whole account, the conning tower damage looks like it wasn't due to a depth charge though. That look's like a hit from one of the Spencer's 5" guns, after the DC attack forced her to the surface.

At least 41 of the crew were picked up - better then the fate of the crews of most u-boats that took such a DC beating.

But, it's sad about the Coast Guardsman who died from the friendly fire shrapnel - you don't often think of friendly fire casualties when you think of the Battle of the Atlantic.

[Captain Nemo]

But, it's sad about the Coast Guardsman who died from the friendly fire shrapnel - you don't often think of friendly fire casualties when you think of the Battle of the Atlantic.

I remember reading a book about the arctic convoys in particular convoy PQ17. When under attack by enemy aircraft, it was quite common for gunners on merchant ships to hit other ships in the convoy with their ack ack guns when trying to shoot down low flying torpedo bombers.

Nemo

[Brag]

To me, it looks like most visible damage was done by guns. The other pix in the article show the conning tower being hit. Lots os smoke is coming out of the conning tower hatch.

Good find, Dan!

[Morts]

i really hate how they keep calling them nazis on that website:-?

[Subnuts]

i really hate how they keep calling them nazis on that website:-?

They're just quoting the original captions printed with the photographs.

[baggygreen]

Thats because of the time the comments were written on the back of the photos tho Morts..

My question is why did they start shelling the sub once it was blown clear to the surface? I wouldnt have thought it very likely the subs crew could ready the deck gun without being spotted doing so...

[seafarer]

Thats because of the time the comments were written on the back of the photos tho Morts..

My question is why did they start shelling the sub once it was blown clear to the surface? I wouldnt have thought it very likely the subs crew could ready the deck gun without being spotted doing so...

Pretty much standard practice, from the attacks I've read of u-boats being forced to the surface. Open up on them with everything at hand. The goal was to be sure to put the boat on the bottom - period. When my father's ship was in a similar situation, that's what they did - opened fire as soon as the boat was spotted on the surface.

From their perspective, the u-boats offered no mercy to their victoms, so they were offered none in return. I think that's one thing we can't have a true perspective of, not having lived it. A lot of people truly hated the germans (ever see the interviews on Band of Brothers with "wild Bill" Garnier - he says quite bluntly that when he landed in Normandy, his personal goal was to kill as many germans as he possible could, and he admits, that turned into quite a few in fact). The crews of the convoy escort ships and the various merchant marines really had no sympathy for the u-boat crews - none at all.

It's really near impossible to put yourself into their emotional shoes - I mean anyone, from any side, who lived and faught in WWII.

[baggygreen]

I can completely understand that seafarer, the uboats put crews into the cold atlantic with no warning, the desire to kill them with no mercy is understandable to an extent.

I was thinking more though of the fact that had they decided not to shell it into oblivion, they could've gained a treasue trove of information before it sank - surely the shelling only made the boat sink with all the more speed...:hmm:

[Brag]

i really hate how they keep calling them nazis on that website:-?

They're just quoting the original captions printed with the photographs.

The original captions were war propaganda.

That Allied ASW ship commanders acted with unnessesary brutality against surfacing U-boats, there is no question about it.

Too bad (as far as I know) no allied war criminals were ever put on trial.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

...That Allied ASW ship commanders acted with unnessesary brutality against surfacing U-boats, there is no question about it.


Horsepoop.

A surfaced U-boat (even obviously damaged) can fire a torpedo.

In war it is KILL or BE KILLED.

Preventing the crew from abandoning the U-boat by laying suppressive fires on it... and discouraging said crew from scuttling it... can give a boarding crew time enough to get to the U-boat and have an opportunity to capture battle winning information.

In so doing, a captain launching a boarding party places his own boat at risk of attack by other potentially undetected U-boats.

Controlling the scene surrounding a foe that may still yet have his teeth and will to fight isn't brutality. WAR is brutality. War IS Hell. To fight a war, regardless of which side you are on... you must come to peace with the idea of ending someone's life.

It can also be argued that it was brutal for convoys to be under orders not to pick up survivors of previous attacks.

It can also be arguably classified as 'brutality' when you are forced to commit to a DC run through survivors already in the water from lost vessels... You must deny the enemy his attack and its possible consequences...

These things necessarily happened more than you may realize.

You must also understand the stress caused by constant uncertainty... and the compressing weight of being continuously close to death at any moment, for all involved.

Firing SOMETHING... ANYTHING... EVERYTHING at an enemy that you can FINALLY lay your eyes on... becomes almost unstoppable.

However, when the threat for the moment ends, humanity returns... and the urge to rescue "Those men in the water!" returns, whether or not it is possible given the circumstances of the moment. Whether or not they are friend or foe no longer matters.

...The needs of the many? The needs of the few? Make the wrong decision and you wouldn't be a captain for long... and may even be shot for dereliction of duty.

Maybe in the future, before making such sweeping statements as you did concerning ASW ship commanders and their implied regularity of brutality, you can take a few minutes to walk in their shoes as best you can.

There is a lot more to it than what meets your eye.

It certainly wasn't anywhere near as simple as you made it out to be.;)

[seafarer]

I can completely understand that seafarer, the uboats put crews into the cold atlantic with no warning, the desire to kill them with no mercy is understandable to an extent.

I was thinking more though of the fact that had they decided not to shell it into oblivion, they could've gained a treasue trove of information before it sank - surely the shelling only made the boat sink with all the more speed...:hmm:

The problem, at least for convoy escorts, was that they were usually far too few to properly protect the convoy in the first place. So most had strict orders not to spend too much time on any one contact. If they had a firm contact, of course the pressure was there to make the actual kill and not just force the boat to break off. Even then, in the early years, most of the escorts efforts were directed to just breaking up attacks - forcing the u-boat to break contact and run. There were just too many u-boats and far too few escorts to really spend the time hunting down and trying to kill a contact.

Even if a kill was to be made, it needed to be made quickly, and then high tail it back to their station with the convoy. A lot of the corvettes would have orders to never get more then a certain distance from the convoy, no matter what, since their low top speed could take awhile to catch back up with the main body of ships.

Hunter/Killer groups, of course, acted differently. And even things like HMS Bulldog's capture of the first enigma machine (and more importantly the naval code books) was really just good fortune. Bulldog rammed U-110 with the intent to sink her - capture was only a late thought, too late to fully avoid hitting her. U-110 then
luckily obliged by not sinking too quickly, allowing a boarding party to get aboard and stabilize the boat and seize the goods. In both the case of U-110 and U-505, the allied ships got lucky too in that the u-boat crews abandoned ship quickly (U-505 was still underway when the boarding party got on her on - the crew had got out so quickly that they'd left motors running, and had failed to make proper preparations for scuttling).

I'd say it was a matter of expediency. Even in 1943, the time of the action in the first post, the u-boat presence was such that convoy escorts did not have the time to mess with capture, boarding and such (plus the weather in the Atlantic could often make such an effort a very lengthy and risky procedure anyway). They just needed to make the kill, and move on to the next crisis, and hopefully make it into port.

[Hitman]

Horsepoop.

A surfaced U-boat (even obviously damaged) can fire a torpedo.

In war it is KILL or BE KILLED.

Preventing the crew from abandoning the U-boat by laying suppressive fires on it... and discouraging said crew from scuttling it... can give a boarding crew time enough to get to the U-boat and have an opportunity to capture battle winning information.

In so doing, a captain launching a boarding party places his own boat at risk of attack by other potentially undetected U-boats.

Controlling the scene surrounding a foe that may still yet have his teeth and will to fight isn't brutality. WAR is brutality. War IS Hell. To fight a war, regardless of which side you are on... you must come to peace with the idea of ending someone's life.

It can also be argued that it was brutal for convoys to be under orders not to pick up survivors of previous attacks.

It can also be arguably classified as 'brutality' when you are forced to commit to a DC run through survivors already in the water from lost vessels... You must deny the enemy his attack and its possible consequences...

These things necessarily happened more than you may realize.

You must also understand the stress caused by constant uncertainty... and the compressing weight of being continuously close to death at any moment, for all involved.

Firing SOMETHING... ANYTHING... EVERYTHING at an enemy that you can FINALLY lay your eyes on... becomes almost unstoppable.

However, when the threat for the moment ends, humanity returns... and the urge to rescue "Those men in the water!" returns, whether or not it is possible given the circumstances of the moment. Whether or not they are friend or foe no longer matters.

...The needs of the many? The needs of the few? Make the wrong decision and you wouldn't be a captain for long... and may even be shot for dereliction of duty.

Maybe in the future, before making such sweeping statements as you did concerning ASW ship commanders and their implied regularity of brutality, you can take a few minutes to walk in their shoes as best you can.

There is a lot more to it than what meets your eye.

It certainly wasn't anywhere near as simple as you made it out to be.;)

I fully agree and want to add: According to standard and internationally approved naval war rules, no combat ship ceases to be treated as hostile/enemy until it has unmistekably surrendered, f.e. waving a white flag and/or lowering its own national flag. A surfaced U-Boot has not necessarily surrended and still retains potential to attack the enemy. Plus a surfaced U-Boot the crew is leaving WITHOUT previously surrendering is still a combatant. Self-sinking practices are not allowed once surrended, thus any ship involved in self-sinking is still hostile.

[Wilcke]

Danlisa,

Thanks for the post, nice pics. Brutal it was with no quarter given. Such is war.

Wilcke

[seafarer]

I pray for this level of detail in any Silent Hunter series.:o

I'm suprised this boat even surfaced but the pressure hull seems to be intact.

Click Me: It's a biggie.
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4965/u175jc5.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=u175jc5.jpg)

Read about the entire attack here:
http://www.uscg.mil/history/WEBCUTTERS/spencervsu175.asp

DoH! I just realized too, that the USCGC Spencer is the same class (treasury class) as the USCGC Taney. The USCGC Taney is a museum ship in Baltimore's inner harbour - I took my nephews on her this summer.

[Morts]

i bet this is what the guy onboard the uboat was thinking http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c297/morty-dk/haha.jpg

:rotfl: :rotfl: yea im bored