U 133

[Pyotr]

Dear friends
In the No8/2012 edition of the “U-boot im focus” magazine there was an article on U-133. In page 43 a photo (the first attached below) appeared with a caption claiming that it is “the only confirmed photo of U-133”.

However, my humble opinion is that the submarine in the photo is certainly not U-133. It is without any doubt U-331 and I will explain you why.

First of all, on the conning tower, to the left is standing Oberleutnant Freiherr Hans-Diedrich von Tiesenhausen, the man that sunk the battleship HMS BARHAM on 25 November 1941.
His characteristics are clearly recognised. Anyone can see this by comparing with the below well know photograph of Oberleutnant von Tiesenhausen in the second attached photo.

von Tiesenhausen took command of U-331 in April 1941, that being his first command. He was awarded the Knights Cross on 27 January 1942. He led the boat on nine patrols and until her loss on 17 November 1942. He survived and later settled in Canada where he passed away in the year 2000 at the age of 87.
Standing to the right of the photo is Oblt. Ingeneur Erich Zürn. The fact that he carries the shoulderstraps of a Oblt confirms that the photo was taken before February 1942.
As for the coat of arms, which is visible in the conning tower, this is just the fore part of U-331’s coast of arms, meaning the dragon.
See what I mean in the third attached image.

So, the photo of this submarine with Oberleutnant von Tiesenhausen in the conning tower and the mouth of the dragon visible on its side can only be U-331.
I suppose that the author was confused by the emblem that was awarded to U-133 in the book “Embleme, Wappen, Malings deutscher U-Boote 1939-1945” published in 2001 by Koehler Verlag. In the caption the author mentions that the photo is from the U-boot-Museum in Cuxhaven. One can assume that K.Verlag designed the emblem of U-133 based on the same photograph of the U-boot Museum. In this case the only “evidence” that contradicts the fact that the submarine in question is U-331 is the presence of the photo in the U-133 file.
Well… someone must alert the U-boot-Museum that they have misplaced a photo of U-331 in the U-133 file! Due to the resemblance of the two numbers, especially when read in a negative, someone was confused and misplaced it.
I believe that all the above evidence is enough to prove that the submarine in the photo is U-331.
I hope that now there will be general acceptance that the photo that appeared in the magazine is U-331 and not U-133.

[suhren564]

Hallo Pyotr,

vielleicht handelt es sich nur um einen Zahlendreher bei der Drucklegung??

Sorry, mein Englisch ist sehr rudimentär, deshalb antworte ich lieber auf Deutsch.....

[Maurice Laarman]

Pyotr,

Good research.

Did you also contact the U-Focus publisher, Axel Urbanke, about this?
http://www.luftfahrtverlag-start.de/
I am sure he will be interested in this information.

Kind regards,

Maurice

[Pyotr]

Thank you both. I am sorry that I am not able to write in German but I hope that with the use of the translation tool we will be able to communicate fine.

I will contact Mr.Urbanke, thanks for suggesting.

[byron]

Hallo Forum,

Ich bin ganz überzeugt dass Pyotr Recht hat, Urbankes Photo zeigt das U-Boot U-331.
Der berühmte griechischer Berufstaucher Kostas Thoktarides hat das U-Boot U-133 betaucht. Er hat mir das Loch auf der Vorderseite des Turmes bestätigt das auf dem Photo von Urbanke nicht existiert.
Im Anhang das Photo von U-133 mit dem Loch am Turm (weiss jemand den Nutzen des Loches? Antene?).

Byron

[Dimitris Galon]

@ Pyotr

Hello Pyotr,
it is very nice and interesting to read different and occasionally opposite opinions regarding this specific issue.

There is no doubt that the man on the left of the tower is Freiherr Hans-Diedrich von Tiesenhausen indeed and that the person on the right is Erich Zürn, but there is a doubt regarding the identity of the sub.

As is visible, due to the ensign (the pennant on the mast above von Tiesenhausen s. attachment Nr.1) the sub is approved for trials. Due to the environment we may opine, with secureness, that this is the Salamis bay where the old Greek Marine Base used to be. This means that the damages from the second war patrol of U-133 – the sub was in duty mostly in the Solumn Bay- were repaired at the time as the photo was taken. As far as we are further informed (s. attachment Nr. 2) the sub arrived in Salamis on the 22.1.1941 at 10.45. During that time commander of the sub was Kptlt. Hesse. Having as benchmark the preferment of Erich Zürn in Kapitänleutnant on the 1.2.1942 it seems difficult for the machinists of the 23. U-Bootflottille to have finished all the required repairs within nine days. Further more I do not see that Zürn carries shoulderstraps of an Oberleutnant (http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Soldat/Marine/Marine.htm). Please check the attachment Nr. 3 where you may see with more details the shoulderstraps. As far as I may judge the photo shows Erich Zürn as a Kapitänleutnant and not as an Oberleutnant, which means that the photo has been taken after the 1.2.1942. Another issue which gives me the possibility to argue that the sub on the photo it may not be the U-331 is the fact that from 14.1.1942 until 28.2.1942 the U-331 was in duty for 46 days in his 4th war patrol which started on the 14th of January in Salamis and ended on the 28th of February in La Spezia (http://uboat.net/boats/patrols/u331.html) where it stayed until the 4th of April 1942 before starting his 5th war patrol under the command of von Tiesenhausen. As a result we may say with secure that the sub U-331 was not in Greece from 14.1.1942 until 19.4.1942 (end of the fifth war patrol). I assume that the photo was taken between the 1st and the 2nd of March 1942, that it shows Kptlt (Ing.) Zürn and not Oblt. Zürn, that the presence of Kptlt. von Tiesenhausen is to be explained as a coverage of the gap between the  absence of Kptlt. Hesse and the beginning of Oblt. Mohr´s duty on the 2.3.1942 (s. attachment Nr.4). But the most important of all is for me the comparison you mentioned in your message, namely the comparison between the as U-133 considered emblem (s. attachment Nr. 5 from the book "Embleme, Wappen, Malings deutscher U-Boote 1939-1945" and also attachment Nr.6) and the U-331 dragon. I do not see any similarities. They are totally different emblems indeed in accordance to my opinion and my eyes!

Best regards
DG

@ byron

Hallo byron,
es gibt kein Loch auf dem Turm der U-133. Erstens es ist sehr schwierig unter dem Bewuchs zu erkennen ob überhaupt ein Loch, wie auf dem Foto gekennzeichnet, da ist und zweitens man muss es gezielt suchen. Ich war mehrmals da mit dem Ziel den Turm nach dem entsprechendem Loch zu untersuchen (die Diskrepanz Loch oder nicht Loch gibt's schon lange) und kann dir explizit garantieren das es kein Loch da ist. Das ist natürlich meine subjektive Meinung und kann kein objektives Dokument sein. Ich kann eigentlich mit Sicherheit nur über die folgende vier Sachverhalten berichten: Erstens dass das dein Foto ein nicht identifiziertes U-Boot der 23. U-Bootflottille Salamis zeigt. Zweitens dass obwohl das Foto aus dem Photoarchiv U-133 stammt, heißt nicht dass es auch die U-133 darstellt. Letztendlich das Foto mit von Tiesenhausen und Zürn stammt auch aus dem selben U-133 Fotoarchiv. Drittens dass der Kapitänleutnant auf dem Turm verglichen mit anderen Fotos des Oblt. Eberhard Mohr (vergleiche mit dem Fotoarchiv des Sohnes von E. Mohr im Archiv Axel Urbanke) nicht den Oblt. Mohr zeigt (Oblt. Mohr wurde post mortem zum Kptlt. befordert). Viertens dass das angehängte Foto aus dem U-Bootarchiv von Horst Bredow stammt und dass jegliches Copyright bei ihm liegt (s. http://www.dubm.de/disclaimer.html).

Schöne Grüsse
DG

[byron]

Lieber Dimitri,

Ich sende Dir via mail eine Expertise aus Deutschland die meine These unterstützt und die ich hier nicht posten möchte da ich diese Erlaubnis nicht habe.
Vielleicht kannst Du diesen Herren kontaktieren und die Sache mit ihm klären.

Byron

[Dimitris Galon]

Ich sende Dir via mail eine Expertise aus Deutschland die meine These unterstützt und die ich hier nicht posten möchte da ich diese Erlaubnis nicht habe. Vielleicht kannst Du diesen Herren kontaktieren und die Sache mit ihm klären.

Ist in Ordnung byron.
Vielen Dank im voraus!
DG

[kgvm]

Thanks for the interesting details, Dimitris.
But if "U 331" entered La Spezia 28.02.42, von Tiesenhausen must have taken at once a plane to be at Salamis 01./02.03.1942! And all this for just two days??
In my opinion not impossible, but very unlikely.

[Dimitris Galon]

But if "U 331" entered La Spezia 28.02.42, von Tiesenhausen must have taken at once a plane to be at Salamis 01./02.03.1942! And all this for just two days??
In my opinion not impossible, but very unlikely.

Hello Klaus Günther,
yes indeed it seems to be an unlikely task as far as von Tiesenhausen should have taken the plane for two days only but I think that von Tiesenhausen was longer in Greece or better to say he could stay longer in Greece as the next war patrol of U-331 started on 4th of April 1942 from La Spezia. Perhaps a little help of our friends, regarding the KTB of the F.d.U Italien from this period, could be helpful to resolve this problem.

All the best to you dear friend!
DG

[Pyotr]

Dear friends thank you all for your input.

Dear Dimitris, the emblem in the conning tower might be in a different angle than the one to which I compared it, but I think the similarities are clear. Still, I have attached an image where I have highlighted the common characteristics with the same color.
I hope that it will help you to see my point. My argument that K.Verlag designed the emblem of U-133 beeing only based on this misplaced photograph is underlined by the fact that he also included the conning towers' railing in the emblem.

Concerning, the presence of von Tiesenhausen in the conning tower of the unknown(?) submarine at Salamis, please note that it is not logical for the commander of U-331 to be photographed onboard U-133 while his own submarine has just returned from a patrol to... La Spezia. As kgvm mentioned theoritically there was time to air lift von Tiesenhausen from La Spezia to Salamis but 1) there was no need to do this 2) there is no evidence for this and actually there is no evidence that von Tiesenhausen (or anyone else) acted as an in-between commander of U-133 between Hesse and Mohr.

If the photo was taken after the arrival of Mohr on March 2, then one would expect to see him in the picture. I have never seen a photo where the U-boat commander is missing while another sub's commander posses instead.

My opinion remains that the photo was taken before the departure of U-331 from Salamis. That's why she flies the pennant on the mast, she was ready to put to sea.


Dear Byron, the photo of the submarine that you posted is indeed very interesting. Please note that the lack of the hole is not the only structural difference between the sub in Urbanke's photograph and the photo you posted (potentially U-331 vs. U-133).
Sometime ago on the now defunct forum at ubootwaffe.net there was a discussion on the same photo (Urbanke's) with several members agreeing that the submarine could not be U-133. This fact is also underlined by what member Andy wrote there:

the boat on the photo still lacking the characteristic rod antenna c/t sheeting on the port side. U 133 was a Bremer Vulkan-boat and all VII C-boats delivered from this yard starting with U 77 feauture that typical aerial housing.
U-331 on the other side was a VIIC sub built at Emden.

[Dimitris Galon]

Hello dear Pyotr,
first of all I thank you for your valuable help, your support and your contribution to the discourse.

I´ve seen your point from your previous message (#30) and I must confess, after a second and more thorough examination, that there are similarities between the two emblems but also that there are differences and some minor discrepancies. I count them:

1. The distance between the tip of the suspected dragons tongue and the left corner of the lantern is different.
2. The eye of the dragon on the as U-331 proved sub seems to be different than the suspected dragon's eye of the Urbanke's emblem.
3. The curve of what it seems to be the dragon's tongue is different.

In conclusion and as throughout I have to admit that you could be right with your assumption particularly if we take into consideration that it could be the same emblem painted in different time periods. Although I am not absolutely convinced yet I have to thank you for providing us this new option and this "different angle approach" which seems to be correct indeed. I will compare the emblem with other photos of U-331 and I will let you know concerning my final opinion.

Regardless the above mentioned points I would like to confess the following. Years ago I bought all the U-133 photos from Horst Bredow's U-Bootmuseum in Cuxhaven (see some of them as attachments 1-6). After that and having as significant starting point the U-133 emblem from Georg Högel's book "Embleme, Wappen, Malings deutscher U-Boote 1939-1945", Koehler Verlag, and the aforementioned Urbanke's article in the No.8/2012 edition of the "U-boot im focus" magazine, I ended having on the one side a photo stack of more than 20 photos showing the as U-133 "alleged" sub and on the other side a single photo showing clearly the emblem of U-133  in accordance to Högel's book. During that time I felt very sad as I was very disappointed of having buying photos which approved not to show the expected sub. Although on the photos, for example Nr. 6, members of the U-133 crew were visible, as the first officer Oblt. Harald Preuss on the right (while Kptlt. Frauenheim, the commander of the 23. U-Bootflottille inspects the crew) there was not enough evidence to regard the photos as accurate enough having simultaneously the emblem issue as a comparison point. Now, equipped with this new fact (mainly the likely error of Högel's book) I look forward to further examine the photos, contact the right people and compare them with their photo archives. I will constantly inform you concerning my efforts and my investigation.
             
As a last point I would like to mention that all the U-133 photos, which circulate in the net and in private archives, has been derived from the U-133 archive of the Deutsches U-Boot-Museum in Cuxhaven-Altenbruch, Germany, and that all of them are protected by copyright. Also the photo, provided by Byron in message #34, belongs to this archive and is protected by copyright. In accordance to Horst Bredow and the U-Boot-Museum's disclaimer a fee has to be provided for every publication of the photo which is, as far as I remember, 80 euro for a magazine and something like 120 euro for a book. Furthermore a net publication is not permitted.  I had to mention that because first it must be said and second it is not always obvious.

Best regards
DG 

[Dimitris Galon]

However, my humble opinion is that the submarine in the photo is certainly not U-133. It is without any doubt U-331
[...]
As for the coat of arms, which is visible in the conning tower, this is just the fore part of U-331's coast of arms, meaning the dragon.
[...]
I hope that now there will be general acceptance that the photo that appeared in the magazine is U-331 and not U-133.

Dear Pyotr you are absolutely right!

After thorough consideration of the U-Boot-Museum´s  photos of the sub U-331, I am completely sure that the coat of arms on the conning tower of the as U-133 alleged sub, is a part of the snake's head which was the war emblem of U-331. Therefore you are completely right with your statement!

To inform and protect other researchers and history enthusiasts of the mistakes in the existing sources, regarding the sub U-133, I mention here the following points which may lead to false results.

1. The coat of arms of U-133, as it has depicted in Georg Högel's book "Embleme, Wappen, Malings deutscher U-Boote 1939-1945", Koehler Verlag, is not correct. The drawing in the book shows a part of a snake's head which used to be the coat of arms of the U-331 sub.
2. The photo with this depiction, which is in the photo archive of U-133 in the U-Boot-Museum Cuxhaven-Altenbruch, shows the sub U-331 and not U-133.
3. The photo in Urbanke's article in the No.8/2012 edition of the "U-boot im focus" magazine, which is the same as in the U-Boot-Museum Cuxhaven-Altenbruch, is not the sub U-133 but the sub U-331.
4. The same photo, which is contained in the second part of my article in the magazine "Greek Diver" titled "The German submarine U-133", is false as it has been derived also from the same archive.
5. The remaining photos of the U-133 archive of the U-Boot-Museum Cuxhaven-Altenbruch, may be considered as documents which most probably depict the sub U-133 and members of the crew.

I thank you very much for your contribution Pyotr and I stand corrected.
DG

[Pyotr]

I am glad that we have reached a consensus in this matter.
Sometimes it does not take an expert to see the truth. Even without the emblem on the conning tower and the structural changes, one should be alerted that something was wrong.
U-boat commanders (and generally captains) are usually photographed on their command, meaning on their ship and not in someone elses ship.

The presence of von Tiesenhausen in the conning tower should automatically lead to a rational hypothesis that he stands ontop of a submarine that he commanded (in our case U-331). The same should go for Hesse being photographed in front or onboard his own sub. It would have been surealistic to have U-133's captain and crew parading ontop of a different sub.

I am somewhat dissapointed by Mr.Urbanke's editing in the afforementioned article. The article would be great even without the "discovery" of the "one and only real U-133 photo". Also the discrediting of the real U-133 photos which were mentioned as "false" is somewhat annoying. History can be re-visited but not mistreated liked that.

[RePe]

Hallo,
zu #34:

Im Anhang das Photo von U-133 mit dem Loch am Turm (weiss jemand den Nutzen des Loches? Antene?).

bei diesem "Loch" handelt es sich meines Wissens um eine Antennenhalterung.
Bei anderen Photos zu diesem Thema sieht man auch ein "Loch" unterhalb des Wellenabweisers. Hier handelt es sich dann
um die Öffnung des Typhons.

As far as I know, this "hole" is a hold for the aerial.
Other photos on this subject show another "hole" below the breakwater. This is the mouth of the tyfon.

     RePe