YD Scuba Diving Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Imported post

<font color='#0000FF'>just back from malin after diving a wreck sitting on a rocky bottom at 60 mtrs,a very big submarine with 2 deck guns and a small'ish conning tower with the forward torpedo tubes exposed probably from impact with the sea bed and a huge whole amidships that looks like a bomb blast from an aircraft.
some wreckage is scattered on the seabed but generally sub is intact and although it looks like a seagoing type u-boat further dives would be needed to confirm.
all hatches are open and the 2 deck guns are facing upwards suggesting an aircraft attack??
both forward and aft compartments have torpedoes present and shells are scattered around the deck guns again suggesting an action that caused the loss of the boat.
the size of the boat is much larger than the usual u-boat and despite being in 60 mtr a torch is not required other than to look inside the hull,the vis was about 25 mtrs and the wreck had more fish than could be counted this caused us to believe it was a much bigger wreck than a sub before we dived it as it looked massive on the sounder.
a very good dive i have to say despite a 25 mile run out to it,i will dive it again with a digital video and post a few picks and maybe some one who knows about these things might shed some light on it.
depth 60 mtrs gas 12/43 tx ccr 1.3 setpoint.
bt 25 mins tdt 52 mins.

cheers
barrie
 

·
DUE CEO, Booking agent, Coffee maker & Dogsbody...
Joined
·
10,161 Posts
Imported post

Hi Barrie

Ron Young on here may be able to help, also Michael Lowery who is very much involved in U-Boat net is on YD as well and will probably give you a rough ID very quickly as he has  world wide data base
 

Dive Safe

Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,240 Posts
Imported post

Barrie mate,

Not that I'm panting with anticipation (OK, I'm lying
), but please hurry up amd dive the beast again and take those infernal piccies!!

Can't wait to see 'em!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
Imported post

Are you sure it's a U-boat and not British or American? Don't know anything about subs, it's just a thought!

Peter
 

·
WWI naval researcher
Joined
·
161 Posts
Imported post

Barrie,

My guess from the limited information available would be German and World War I. The standard U-series boats from that era were rather large (starting at 64 meters in length) and would have typically carried two deck guns and had torpedo tubes forward and aft. The conning towers also were fairly small.

When German submarines were most active around the British Isles in WWII (mid-1944 on), they typically did not carry deck guns.

A gun pointing to the sky does not necessarily mean it was last used to try to shot down a plane -- have seen several cases of guns pointed skyward from what we are presuming were trawler snags.

It is most definitely not an American war loss. The U.S. lost no submarines in WWI in combat and only two off the U.S. coast in WWII in the Atlantic.

Okay, some questions to narrow things down:

a. How many torpedo tubes are their forward and aft?
b. How big are the deck guns? Are they both the same size?
c. Can you get to the propellers?

Best wishes,

Michael
 

·
The brains & beauty behind 'Kinky Divers'
Joined
·
1,585 Posts
Imported post

<font color='#8D38C9'>very exciting, wonder if we can get the Loyal Watcher to take us there on our trip next year!


Blanaid
 

·
Respected Wreck-diving Author & Resident Farnes Ex
Joined
·
666 Posts
Imported post

Hi Barrie,

As Michael says, it is most likely WWI. Possibly either SM U 89 or maybe SM U 45, which was sunk by HM submarine D7.
The number of tubes and rough position would be a big help too.

Cheers Ron
 

·
WWI naval researcher
Joined
·
161 Posts
Imported post

Barrie,

I'm with Ron, the two obvious large WWI U-boats lost in the area are U 45, sunk by a torpedo from HMsub D7 on September 12, 1917 and U 89, rammed by the armored cruiser HMS Roxburgh, on February 13, 1918.

The historical loss positions for the two boats are (U 45) 55°48'N, 7°30'W and (U 89) 55°38'N, 7°32'W.

Both boats were built at the Imperial Dockyard at Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) and are pretty close to identical. They would have four bow and two stern tubes (Conway's incorrectly has U 45 with only two bow tubes.) The conning tower would be somewhat forward of the mid point of the boat.

Hope this helps,

Michael
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Imported post

<font color='#0000FF'>thanks for the info and i have to say i agree with a ww1 sub because of its size.
a.   How many torpedo tubes are their forward and aft?
4 forward and 2 aft.
b. How big are the deck guns? Are they both the same size?
big,probably an 88 and a 105.
c. Can you get to the propellers.
yes,its sitting up proud on a rocky bottom when we left the shot we faced a wall of fish,as we went through them the sub came into view and we where facing the port prop that looked a lot closer into the hull then the normal u-boat,due to a bit of a run we did not see the sub from astern.
diving it again over the june bank holidays so i will get some more info.

cheers
barrie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
Imported post

<font color='#000F22'>WW1 U-boats tended to have their number stamped on the hub of the propeller, & you could check the material of manufacture (bronze or steel).

quote from Innes McCartney's book which has a lot of useful information with regard to identifying the vessel by the features.

HTH

gareth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Imported post

[b said:
Quote[/b] (Michael Lowrey @ April 26 2004,15:22)]The historical loss positions for the two boats are (U 45) 55°48'N, 7°30'W and (U 89) 55°38'N, 7°32'W.
<font color='#0000FF'>michael,
i will confirm the positions next time i'm in malin i didnt bring them back to dublin,it's about 25 miles out and roughly 7 miles from the justicia.
i will be back up this weekend so i will post the bang-on lat/long next week,they are in the gps on the boat.

cheers
barrie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Imported post

[b said:
Quote[/b] (Michael Lowrey @ April 26 2004,15:22)]September 12, 1917 and U 89, rammed by the armored cruiser HMS Roxburgh, on February 13, 1918.
<font color='#0000FF'>michael,
i think thats it u89 the damage behind the conning tower is consistant with a ram on reflection as gash is very clean and hull/pipes/cables etc are cut clean through.

cheers
barrie
 

·
WWI naval researcher
Joined
·
161 Posts
Imported post

Barrie,

I would agree that you probably have the U 89.

The deck guns also sound right. The standard armament in 1917 and early 1918 for these large ocean-going boats would be a long barreled (45 caliber) 105mm gun forward  of the conning tower and a shorter barreled (30 caliber) 88mm aft of it. The 105mm looks much more massive than the 88mm. I have photos of both if that would help.

As Gareth mentioned, identiffing information is typically stamped on the hub (boss) of the props. These are not, however, as simple to interpret as Innes makes it out to me. Each yard had their propellers marked in a different manner. I am aware of no photos of the hubs of a Danzig-built submarine.

There's apparently a small difference in the shape of the conning towers of U 45 and U 89. The forward part of U 45's conning tower is vertical, U 89's has a several foot tall notch or step if you will at forward end of its conning tower.

best wishes,
Michael
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Imported post

[b said:
Quote[/b] (Michael Lowrey @ April 26 2004,21:34)]There's apparently a small difference in the shape of the conning towers of U 45 and U 89. The forward part of U 45's conning tower is vertical, U 89's has a several foot tall notch or step if you will at forward end of its conning tower.
<font color='#0000FF'>michael,
the conning tower is the only part of the wreck totally covered in marine growth and is therefore next to impossible to see details,it is however in two sizes the base section is about 40% bigger than the upper section but the periscope is not evident.
thanks for the info and i will confirm the gps next week.
cheers
barrie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Imported post

[b said:
Quote[/b] (divegyrl @ April 26 2004,14:02)]very exciting, wonder if we can get the Loyal Watcher to take us there on our trip next year!


Blanaid
<font color='#0000FF'>Now that's an excellent idea Blanaid!

Cant wait  


stu.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Hi,
I am not sure if a definite ID has been made. Last I hear it was U89, I have dived this sub twice , I was unable to make out any marking on the prop bosses, and have a shell from beside the conning tower, the shell is marked 1915 and has a Very interknit locking mechanisms that guard the primary detonator. The warhead is just a solid cast iron lump fitted with a detonator on the nose. It was reported that a depth charge is lying out on the sea bed a short ditance away, ( I am not sure as I didn't look , Ignorance is bliss).

II


bang-on said:
<font color='#0000FF'>just back from malin after diving a wreck sitting on a rocky bottom at 60 mtrs,a very big submarine with 2 deck guns and a small'ish conning tower with the forward torpedo tubes exposed probably from impact with the sea bed and a huge whole amidships that looks like a bomb blast from an aircraft.
some wreckage is scattered on the seabed but generally sub is intact and although it looks like a seagoing type u-boat further dives would be needed to confirm.
all hatches are open and the 2 deck guns are facing upwards suggesting an aircraft attack??
both forward and aft compartments have torpedoes present and shells are scattered around the deck guns again suggesting an action that caused the loss of the boat.
the size of the boat is much larger than the usual u-boat and despite being in 60 mtr a torch is not required other than to look inside the hull,the vis was about 25 mtrs and the wreck had more fish than could be counted this caused us to believe it was a much bigger wreck than a sub before we dived it as it looked massive on the sounder.
a very good dive i have to say despite a 25 mile run out to it,i will dive it again with a digital video and post a few picks and maybe some one who knows about these things might shed some light on it.
depth 60 mtrs gas 12/43 tx ccr 1.3 setpoint.
bt 25 mins tdt 52 mins.

cheers
barrie
 

·
WWI naval researcher
Joined
·
161 Posts
Jake,

Not sure if you did this or not but to see what's on a boss (hub), you'll need to polish it.

A word on WWI U-boat propeller markings: There was no standard way in which these were marked. Different yards stamped different information on their propellers -- some included a lot of information, some very little. There also seems to be some variation by the same yard over time. At least least one yard only included production batch information, not individual boat number, on its screws.

U 89 was built by the Danzig Imperial Dockyard. This yard didn't build that many boats during the war and most of the boats that were lost went down well off shore. As a result, I can't tell you want to expect on her props -- we have never seen one. There could be a lot of information, there could be nothing at all. (As I say that someone will of course prove me wrong by describing the props off what is thought to be U 90 in the English Channel -- well go for it, it'll make my day.)

Best wishes,

Michael
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top