PDA

View Full Version : Sinking of the u-85


navyvet
08-01-08, 06:53 PM
Thought this would be of interest.

By Bill Geroux
Times-Dispatch Staff Writer
(http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/authors.Bio.-content-cva-ric-authors-bill_geroux.html)

The Navy waited more than three months, until July 22, 1942, to announce publicly that 29 men from a sunken German U- boat had been buried "with full military honors" in the Hampton National Cemetery.

The Navy released a photograph of an Army honor guard carrying one of the Germans' caskets to a grave. The Navy disclosed only that the unidentified U- boat had been sunk "some time ago on Atlantic patrol." The graves went unmarked until autumn, when the cemetery quietly erected headstones, just like the stones marking the graves of fallen Americans. But the Germans' stones gave only their names, as accurately as Naval Intelligence agents had been able to decipher them.
In February 1943, the Navy revealed that the Roper had sunk a U- boat and that the destroyer's captain, Lt. Cmdr. Hamilton Howe, had been awarded the Navy Cross. (Howe retired in 1956 as a rear admiral.) Newspapers noted that Howe's destroyer previously had rescued Jesse Roper Mohorovicic, the "lifeboat baby."
Still, the Navy disclosed no details of the sinking, nor did it connect the Roper to the burial of the Germans. The Navy had misled the public into thinking lots of U-boats had been sunk.
Virtually all the facts of the sinking and burial remained secret for more than 20 years. In 1963, Virginia historian Parke Rouse Jr. reconstructed much of the story from newly declassified documents. Rouse had first heard the story as a young newspaper reporter in April 1942, when the Navy had rebuffed him with a no-comment.
The elite Navy divers who secretly explored the wreck of the U-85 in 1942 found no vital secrets. They concluded the sub had been expertly scuttled and lay too deep at 96 feet to salvage.
Decades later, private divers with superior equipment would empty the deteriorating U-85 of artifacts - including a typewriterlike, four-rotor Enigma decoding machine, which might have helped Allied cryptologists greatly in the spring of 1942.
The U-85's Enigma machine has been donated with the support of the German government to the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum in Hatteras, N.C., which is treating it chemically to get it in condition for public display. Hatch covers from the U-85 are on display at the Old Coast Guard Station museum in Virginia Beach and the museum on the grounds of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse.
The Roper finished World War II in the Pacific, where a kamikaze damaged it so badly in 1945 that it was later sold for scrap. The Navy donated the Roper's anchor to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston, where it still stands in front of MIT's Pratt School of Naval Architecture.
History books offer mixed views of the fight between the Roper and the U-85. Many credit Howe and the destroyer with sinking the first U- boat in U.S. waters - America's first real counterblow to the lethal German U- boat offensive.
But some writers have critiqued the battle. "The destroyer's excessive caution was canceled by the U- boat's overconfidence," wrote Samuel Eliot Morison in "The Battle of the Atlantic."
Clay Blair, in his book "Hitler's U- boat War," asserted that the Roper "had the opportunity to capture U- boat prisoners for intelligence and propaganda purposes, and there was a good possibility that in such shallow waters Navy divers could enter the U-85 and recover a four-rotor Enigma . . . and other secret materials. But the excited Americans apparently did not give these matters any consideration."
This debate is not confined to the history books. Ten years ago, several former Roper crewmen, including Rhodes Chamberlin, defended the ship's actions in a lively exchange of letters with a Hampton freelance writer, Ann Davis. She argued that Howe deserved censure and not the Navy Cross for dropping the depth charges that killed the Germans. They argued Howe had no choice under the circumstances and should not be second-guessed.
Retired Navy Capt. Kenneth Tebo, the officer of the deck at the time of the sinking, lives in Northern Virginia. He can still see the Roper passing close to the men in the water before the depth-charge run.
"I saw them . . . " he said in a recent interview, but could not finish. After a moment he said, "War is rough, let's face it." Tebo said Howe had no choice but to drop the depth charges.
Last winter, the cemetery erected 29 new headstones for the Germans, after six years of urging by Dr. Hansjuergen Fresenius, a cousin of the U-85's captain, Eberhard Greger. Fresenius, a retired physician in Germany, pointed out to the cemetery that the old stones contained misspellings and other errors.
Fresenius has called the depth charge killings "murder." (See accompanying story.) But he called the new headstones another step toward reconciliation.
The new stones bear the Germans' full names in dark type that stands out in the veterans cemetery. Seven of the stones, however, show the wrong date of death.
One stone bears the name of a German who apparently died on a different U- boat, Davis said. The true occupant of that grave is most likely another, unidentified member of the U-85 crew, she said.
Every year at the Hampton cemetery, a local German-American group conducts a small memorial ceremony for the U- boat crew and German POWs who died in Tidewater prison camps.
It is one of a string of small, international ceremonies annually along the coast of Virginia and North Carolina for the casualties of the U- boat war.

This article was originally published on Feb. 13, 2005 in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

GoldenRivet
08-01-08, 07:03 PM
I agree... he had no choice given the circumstances and should not be second guessed for making the command decision he made to drop the charges despite the fact that men were in the water.

I thought i read in "torpedo junction" that it was suspected that U-boat commanders might let off some crew in the water to fake a scuttling and throw off the destroyer.

though in hind sight i cant imagine a sub skipper doing that - if the Roper's C.O. felt that it was a possibility of a ploy or trick he was within his right to continue his attack.

it could be argued a lot of ways.

I have read a great deal about this particular incident.

navyvet
08-01-08, 07:09 PM
The u 701 and u352 are buried on the same coast off N C. 65 years in 115 ft. of water. The 352 gave us our first prisoners. The crew of the 701 are still onboard.

GoldenRivet
08-01-08, 09:13 PM
sad war for all involved

U-46 Commander
08-01-08, 09:46 PM
Destroyers are meant to sink submarines, duh!:doh: Tell that to that crazy person!

GoldenRivet
08-01-08, 10:51 PM
Destroyers are meant to sink submarines, duh!:doh: Tell that to that crazy person!

that is correct. destroyers are meant to sink subs...

the problem which is presented is that a majority of the crew abandoned the sinking sub and were floating in the water calling for the destroyer to help them.

the skipper... viewing it as a ploy... continued his depth charge runs.

when a depth charge explodes within any fair distance of a swimming human being the shock wave passes through the water and then through the body essentially rupturing all of your internal organs. stomach, splean, kidneys, lungs, testicles you name it.

the lady is basically saying that the destroyer commander ordered a depth charge run on swimming sailors who were not only defenseless against the attacking destroyer at this point... but they were attempting to surrender... and as such should have been taken prisoner... not depth charged into oblivion.

what im about to say has the benifet of perfect hind sight...

If he had not commenced the depth charge run against the scuttled sub and floating survivors, there would be a 29 young German men who made it home to see their wives, kids, girlfriends and parents.

however, at the time, suspecting that the u-boat commander was attempting to make it look as if the boat had been scuttled in order to escape, and then later pick up his crew... he decided to continue the DC runs against the sub.

as the old saying goes

"War is hell"

i dont mean to seem coy when i say that, one man could stand on one side of the fence and say the roper's crew murdered thos germans.

another man could stand on the other side of the fence and say that the roper's actions were correct given the situation.

which side of the fence any of us stands on will not change history, perhaps one day if any of us find ourselves in such a terrible position as to decide whether or not to drop high explosives into the water next to a swimmer we can think back to this event and make a human decision.

just because war is horrible... doesnt mean we have to be. thats the way i look at it.

In no way can i speak for that commanding officer... of course none of us can... we werent there and didnt experience the confusion and tension which accompanies any military engagement.

its a sad story, and one worthy of discussion and recognition.

Sailor Steve
08-01-08, 11:38 PM
Well said.

Kaleu_Mihoo
08-02-08, 03:11 AM
If one frustrated maler hadn't got ambitions to conquer the world, the captain of the destroyer didn't need to drop the charges at all. It's as simply as that. And the young man would be at home in Germany, with their families, girlfriends etc. The purpose of a destroyer was to sink subs to prevent sinking more of your ships in the name of the maler. The captain probably only wanted to make sure the sub is sinking and was not only damaged, so calling this "murder" is only a small step away from considering those sailors "victims" of the war, which is a ridiculous tendency you can see for some time past.

Penelope_Grey
08-02-08, 05:45 AM
Well considering there were 29 men in the water, that is more than half the crew. VIIC's could only carry about 50 men including the commander... so seeing that amount of men they could have guaged that this was no trick. Losing nearly 30 men would be too much operating a type VII U-Boat on 20 men could be done in a pinch, but, well it would certainly be a LOT of work. Also if it was a ploy, that many men in the water is a lot of men to sacrifice to save your boat.

Basically, its a mixed bag, in the heat of the moment the captain of the Roper probably did not consider it as logically as I just did... such is the benefit of hindsight. However I do believe Clay Blair has a valid point in what he says about over-excitement... they lost out on a golden opportunity because they were so keen to sink the U-Boat.

Is what happened out their murder? No. But I do think this could quite easily be considered as being a crime only one level under murder. The men were killed but that was not the intention of the commander, at least I hope not. Is he a murderer? Not quite. But flipping close to it IMO.

Again... it all comes down to who won the war IMO.

Had the Germans won this would probably be considered a pretty hanous war crime (a sick irony too considering what the Nazis were up to in East Europe!)
But the Germans lost. Therefore, no war crime.


I take the stance though that since those men in the water 1) were so many, and 2) they were surrendering and caling for help... the captain was wrong to do what he did.

Yes, I appreciate that the U-Boat represented a threat to his ship and crew, definately. But in that shallow water and it being 1942 and the advancements in detection capability, don't tell me that destroyer could not have easily tracked that U-Boat.

So what if it was just 2 men in the water who got out of the sub, does that make the act less bad? If it was just a handful of men, then in my view captain is well within his rights to say I wasnt sure it was genuine or a trick, and that is legitimate given what GR posted above. But as numbers go up the line gets more fuzzy. By the time you get over 20 you have to sit and think, well hang on. 20 men are shoved out of the sub to trick the destroyer????

Basically... the captain here did wrong.

Jimbuna
08-02-08, 07:18 AM
Good points by both GR and PG....but even with the benefit of hindsight (something denied to everyone in the heat of battle and the need to make an instantaneous assessment).

Who would want to play God ?

We should all just hope and pray that these dark times are never allowed to repeat themselves.

Subtype Zero
08-02-08, 03:41 PM
We should all just hope and pray that these dark times are never allowed to repeat themselves. Amen, Jimbuna!

Jimbuna
08-02-08, 05:21 PM
I should imagine if the next one ever becomes a reality it would end up nuclear anyway :-?

barkhorn45
08-02-08, 05:34 PM
along the same line but in a different theater i saw a newsreel film on discovery ch.a few years back that showed british beufighters sinking a japanese transport loaded with soldiers.when the aircraft began straffing the helpless men in the water clinging to wreckage the announcer practically cheered saying'these soldiers of nippon won.t fight again'.then there was film of [i believe it was the uss tang] a submarine crew shooting the surviving soldiers who were aboard a transport they had just sank as they floated in the water.they were acting like it was target practice,shooting them with mg and rifle fire until they ran out of targets.i guess war is truelly hell indeed.

Penelope_Grey
08-02-08, 05:35 PM
I always remember reading a post on here somewhere along the lines of

WW3 will be fought with nuclear weapons
WW4 will be forught with spears

Or sumfin like that, food for thought at any rate.

barkhorn45
08-02-08, 05:44 PM
I always remember reading a post on here somewhere along the lines of

WW3 will be fought with nuclear weapons
WW4 will be forught with spears

Or sumfin like that, food for thought at any rate.

einstein was asked once what he thought the weapons of ww3 would be and he replied that he did'nt know but the weapons of ww4 would be sticks and stones.

Jimbuna
08-02-08, 06:20 PM
Clever words :up:

HW3
08-02-08, 07:37 PM
One thing to remember, there were 29 bodies recovered the next day. Whose to say exactly how many men were in the water during the DC attack, and how many were not recovered due to the body sinking after death.