PDA

View Full Version : The Sinking of U-297


Osmium Steele
08-31-11, 02:43 PM
I hope no one minds. I have been perusing (sp?) the booklet I purchased on the discovery of this uboat. Wanted to share with others who may have an interest.

Exerpted from Richard W. Skinner's booklet U-297 - The History and Discovery of a Lost U-Boat.

Pages 17 and 18

At 4:43pm, just three minutes after sunset and in fading light, whilst the aircraft was at the approximate position 58deg 44min N 04deg 20min W, white smoke was sighted about 5 miles away on bearing 045 green. Hatton immediately altered course to investigate, dropping the altitude of the Sunderland from 400 to 200 ft.

At a range of one mile a considerable wake was clearly visible. In fact as Hatton flew up the course of this wake, his navigator was able to measure its length - some 1,100 ft! None of the crew could see what was causing the wake, (though they were able to calculate its speed as being between 10 and 12 knots in a northeast direction), though we now assume it was the snorkel of U-297.

No doubt thinking that they were reasonably safe using the new snorkel device, the crew of U-297 were about to pay the ultimate price in proving that the theory behind such equipment was not infallible.

Having reached the start of the wake, Hatton describes what happened next:

'Our aircraft crossed the wake's track ahead of the smoke, turned to port and made an attack run at a height of 50 feet along the path of the wake from astern. Unfortunately, the depth charges failed to release, but as no faults were found a similar attack was made.

We closed in on the same course and height; this time the depth charges functioned and a straddle of six fell in a straight line up the wake. The time was 4:52pm.'

'Three depth charges entered the actual wake, with the other three reaching ahead at spacings of 60ft. The wake and smoke immediately disappeared. Our aircraft circled the area and 5 minutes later a pear-shaped oil patch and ochre-colored scum was noted. After a further 20 minutes this had spread to cover an area of 1 mile by 1/2 mile.'

My comments here: Flt.Lt. Hatton and his crew were never credited with the sinking.

In a sad twist, their plane crashed in the hills northwest of Killybegs, County Donegal at 0230 on 14 March 1945, bursting into flames, no survivors.

Bilge_Rat
08-31-11, 04:48 PM
At 10-12 knots, the U-Boat would have been blind, since the periscope vibrated too much at speeds over 5-6 knots to be used and the noise of the diesel would have made the hydrophones useless. Seems like a foolish thing to do in daytime.

Jimbuna
09-01-11, 06:46 AM
At 10-12 knots, the U-Boat would have been blind, since the periscope vibrated too much at speeds over 5-6 knots to be used and the noise of the diesel would have made the hydrophones useless. Seems like a foolish thing to do in daytime.

Agreed, she was lost 12 days into her commanders first patrol:

http://www.uboat.net/men/commanders/10.html

http://www.uboat.net/boats/u297.htm

Osmium Steele
09-01-11, 07:31 AM
While it had been tested on a few VIIs previously, snorkel operations were still relatively new at that time. U-297 was among the first snorkel boats lost.

If the estimated speed is even close to accurate, I'd be inclined to believe the scopes were down. Especially considering the Sunderland's first atack run failed to release any depth charges and still went undetected by U-297.

If someone had been on the scope, I'd certainly believe they would have noticed the big plane either coming or going.

Inexperienced crew, utilizing new equipment with untested operation procedures.

Penguin
09-01-11, 01:00 PM
Maybe the fate of the Sunderland is the reason why U-297's loss was so long unclear, most older literature states it was sunk by water bombs from the HMS Loch Insh and HMS Godall.

I want to add that the wake could also have other reasons than coming from the snorkel, for example it could also come from a damaged pressure tank. Hirschfeld mentioned problems like this in his book. While they were taking part in Operation Drumbeat, they had a problem like that and he said that the trail was visible for several hundred meters. I am not sure if an airplane crew can differ between those little nuances, especially not while moving fast in a combat situation.

It still is a mistake not to check the trail the sub leaves on a regular basis, so dear subsimmers: Keep an eye on the wake! :know:


Inexperienced crew, utilizing new equipment with untested operation procedures.

^This is the verdict. An almost sure death sentence in late 1944.

Btw: Does the book state what snorkel was used? Afaik the Kriegsmarine had 3 "official" types of Schnorchels, and lots of improvised ones.
10-12 knots sounds awful fast for a snorkel ride, but it would depend on the type. In "Die Festung", Buchheim wrote about several snorkel rides, but the one they used was more or less hammered together by the dock workers while Brest was already under siege. They could not even provide one for every boat. He said that they could not go more than 7,8 knots without risking to damage the snorkel.

Jimbuna
09-01-11, 04:09 PM
While it had been tested on a few VIIs previously, snorkel operations were still relatively new at that time. U-297 was among the first snorkel boats lost.

If the estimated speed is even close to accurate, I'd be inclined to believe the scopes were down. Especially considering the Sunderland's first atack run failed to release any depth charges and still went undetected by U-297.

If someone had been on the scope, I'd certainly believe they would have noticed the big plane either coming or going.

Inexperienced crew, utilizing new equipment with untested operation procedures.

More than likely.

Osmium Steele
09-02-11, 05:55 AM
I want to add that the wake could also have other reasons than coming from the snorkel, for example it could also come from a damaged pressure tank.

Possibly, however they first saw smoke at 5 miles. Most likely a snorkel.


Btw: Does the book state what snorkel was used?
<snip>
He said that they could not go more than 7,8 knots without risking to damage the snorkel.

It does not. I also believe the 10-12 knot estimate to be quite high.

I'm trying to find the email addesses of the author and both divers involved to pick their brains about some details.

Jimbuna
09-02-11, 07:45 AM
If the schnorkel was raised then the 10-12 knot speed will be wrong IMHO.