U Boote patrols in the Mediterranean Sea

[Platon Alexiades]

Hello Enrico, Peter and Urs,

Enrico: the data is taken from the KTBs of all these U-boats.
I have 17220 days total and 6789 patrol days or 39.42% so very similar data to Peter.

Peter: do you have similar information for the Atlantic?

Best regards,

Platon

U-340 is missing!

It break through the strait of Gibraltar on 1.11.1943, but was lost the next day.

[Platon Alexiades]

Peter,

I think it was lost west of Gibraltar.

Platon

U-340 is missing!

It break through the strait of Gibraltar on 1.11.1943, but was lost the next day.

[Peter K.]

U-340 is missing!
It break through the strait of Gibraltar on 1.11.1943, but was lost the next day.

I think it was lost west of Gibraltar.

That´s possible ... my source was BUSCH/RÖLL in this case. They wrote, that the wreck of the boat is still near Ceuta.

do you have similar information for the Atlantic?

No, I don´t ... too much work without a database solution! 

[Urs Heßling]

hi,

It break through ...

Korinthenmodus EIN 
... broke ... ?
Korinthenmodus AUS

Gruß  , Urs

[Peter K.]

... of course, it BROKE!

[Urs Heßling]

good morning,

... of course, it´s BROKE!

right you are : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Broke ! 

Gruß, Urs

[Platon Alexiades]

Hello Peter,

You are right. Mea culpa. I had the position listed in Uboat.net which is west of Gibraltar but reading the report of her loss, she was indeed sunk after crossing the Strait.
One could add a 64th U-boat, U 26, but of course this was before Italy entered the war.

Many Thanks,

Platon

U-340 is missing!
It break through the strait of Gibraltar on 1.11.1943, but was lost the next day.

I think it was lost west of Gibraltar.

That´s possible ... my source was BUSCH/RÖLL in this case. They wrote, that the wreck of the boat is still near Ceuta.

do you have similar information for the Atlantic?

No, I don´t ... too much work without a database solution! 

[Peter K.]

You are right. ... I had the position listed in Uboat.net which is west of Gibraltar but reading the report of her loss, she was indeed sunk after crossing the Strait.

It´s great to find an other little known detail, PLATON! 

One could add a 64th U-boat, U 26, but of course this was before Italy entered the war.

Of course U-26 operated in the Mediterranean as the first boat of all, but in this case I wouldn´t count it´s war patrol for the reasons you already mentioned!

[Urs Heßling]

hi, Platon,

My Database shows German U-boats: 1482 torpedoes fired with 202 hits (13.63%). This data is not perfect and is being adjusted all the time by corrections but it should be substantially good.

not only the data should be good, but the mentioned results, too, I remember from a talk with Prof. Rohwer that the overall average hit ratio was quite lower.

btw. Do you, Peter or someone else have comparable data of the Allied subs in the Med ?

greetings, Urs

[t-geronimo]

I sent an email with the correction of U 340's fate to the webmaster of uboat.net.
Let's see if he answers.

[Platon Alexiades]

Hi Urs,

My submarine database shows 3363 torpedoes fired and 558 hits or 16.59% (British, Dutch, French, Greek and Polish). These figures should not be considered final as I am in the process of checking the database (a process which may take another year) and I do find mistakes here and there but the final data should not differ much. I consider the number of hits according to what the victim reported and not according to what the submarine claimed (usually claimed hits were about double), this may not be perfect but I think probably as accurate as I can get.
I suppose the next question is the individual percentage:
British 17.12%
Dutch 14.61%
French: 8.99% (these include Vichy, so not technically "allied").
Greek: 10.96%
Polish: 11.76%

Best regards,

Platon

hi, Platon,

My Database shows German U-boats: 1482 torpedoes fired with 202 hits (13.63%). This data is not perfect and is being adjusted all the time by corrections but it should be substantially good.

not only the data should be good, but the mentioned results, too, I remember from a talk with Prof. Rohwer that the overall average hit ratio was quite lower.

btw. Do you, Peter or someone else have comparable data of the Allied subs in the Med ?

greetings, Urs

[Enrico Cernuschi]

British and their allies in the Med. 11 June 1940 - 8 Sept. 1943 14,8% (From Arthur Hazlet, British and Allied Submarine Operations in World War II , 2006, Portsmouth,  published by the Royal Navy Submarine Museum.

Italian in the same time in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea (not Indian ocean) 11,13 %.

It would be interesting to discover which was the per cent (100%?) of the electric torpedoes without wave launched by the German sumbarine in the Med.

   Greetings

    Enrico


PS I see with pleasure that the thread is a successful one rich of authoritative partecipation 


   

[Platon Alexiades]

Hi Enrico,

I do not know how you got 14.8% in Hezlet's book, let me know where it is listed as I cannot find it. My percentage concerns the whole war in the Med for the allies. Statistics in British sources are usually higher than mine. For the war with Italy only I still have 16.98% for the allies. I think my data is a bit more accurate than Hezlet's as I did the research on both sides.
Italian submarines in Med and Red Sea, I have 8.7%, in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean 35.88%. It shows you how tough the war was in the Med. You must remember that I only allow torpedo hits that were confirmed by the victim. In case there were no survivors (very rare), I only count 1 hit unless there is evidence of multiple hits (target slowing down) but usually this is very rare and I do not think will make much difference in the final percentage.
I had begun analysing the type of torpedoes fired by German U-boats in the Med but time did not permit to complete the work, although this should be done in a year or two. So far I had
10 G7a
411 G7e
146 T I, T II and T III
the remainder unidentified yet. Perhaps Peter can provide a more accurate information.

Best wishes,

Platon

British and their allies in the Med. 11 June 1940 - 8 Sept. 1943 14,8% (From Arthur Hazlet, British and Allied Submarine Operations in World War II , 2006, Portsmouth,  published by the Royal Navy Submarine Museum.

Italian in the same time in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea (not Indian ocean) 11,13 %.

It would be interesting to discover which was the per cent (100%?) of the electric torpedoes without wave launched by the German sumbarine in the Med.

   Greetings

    Enrico


PS I see with pleasure that the thread is a successful one rich of authoritative partecipation 


   

[Enrico Cernuschi]

Hello Platon,

it's not a book, but a CD rom "Hezlet, Arthur. British and Allied Submarine Operations in World War II. Portsmouth, United Kingdom: The Royal Navy Submarine Museum" rich of graphics and statistic datas from the original proceedings. The time about that RN submarines per cent, as I said before, is 11 June 1940 - 8 Sept. 1943.

The 427 Italian torpedo total 11/6/1940  - 8/9/1943 is from: Bertini Marcello, La Marina Italiana nella Seconda Guerra Mondiale vol. XIII: I sommergibili in Mediterraneo, two volumes, ed. by the Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare, Roma 1972.

The hits (both ships sunk and damaged, of course) in the Med. are:

HMS Calypso
Orkanger (2 torpedoes hits)
Elgo
Baron Erskirne
Cheik
HMS Escort
Beme
RHS Helli
R.S. Gemma (friendly fire)
HMS Triad
HMS Coventry
Clan Cumming
HMS Bonaventure (2 torpedoes hits)
Refah
Murefte
Antar
Le Tarn
Castillo Oropesa (2 torpedoes hits)
Sainte Marcelle
HMS Havock
R. CT Usodimare (friendly fire)
Antares
Brisbane Star (2 torpedo hits)
Deucalion
HMS Cairo
HMS Nigeria
Ohio
HMS Kenya
Clan Ferguson (2 torpedoes hits)
Empire Hope (2 torpedoes hits)
Tynwald
Awatea
Narkunda
HMS Algerine
HMS Argonaut (2 torpedo hits)
HMS Samphire
Terwani
HMS Cleopatra

Tot 45 torpedo hits

In the Red Sea were launched 13 torpedoes, six of them hit and sunk the tankers James Stove and Atlas.

427 + 13 = 440

Hits 50 i.e. 11,3


Let me add that I never spoke about not to "allow torpedo hits that were (not) confrimemed by the victim". This is an unfair way to debate. The only overrate I know about this matter is the Admiralty Historical Branch declaration sent to the Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare on 1976 stating the British submarines in the Med. had achieved, until 8 Sept. 1943, a per cent of 25% of hits. Such a bpmbastic infpo was duly recorded by Admiral Vitaliano Rauber in his: "La Marina Italiana nella Seconda Guerra Mondiale, vol. XXII: La lotta antisommergibile, ed. Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare, Roma, 1978", but the professionals added they were far from persuaded by such a declaration. As a matter of fact the a.m. CD Rom was made by the honest Admiral Hezlet as a reaction at the propaganda fabrications imposed by the MOD during the Sixties to his earlier book about submarine warfare and its publication was restricted to the electronic form only just to respect his will and to avoid in the meantime too many embarassing questions.

What strange? the value of the British sources is, at best, little. They are mere miles gloriosus fair tales. A German member of this same forum is studying since years the alleged causes of sinking of U Boote prodiced buy the Admiralty on 1946 and had yet discovered many errors (and something worste). that commonly quoted record was an home made list whose purpose was to declear the RN supremacy in the Atlantic ASW warfare. Churchill himself used this argoument in his very readable and little trustworthy history of the second world war to support the UK special role during and after that conflict in front of the "damned Colonials".

Ther's still very much to discover.

May I ask you about the source of your datats used for the Italian submarines patrols on the oceans?

  Greetings

   Enrico         




       
   

[Platon Alexiades]

Dear Enrico,

I have Hezlet's book (two volumes) which had a very limited circulation (200 copies numbered) and there is no data that I can find for this specific period although he has considerable statistical data. Perhaps it was added on the CD, does it tell the number of torpedoes fired and hits or just the percentage?

The data on Italian submarines, as far as torpedo hits is very similar to what you list. However I only credit BRONZO with one hit (in the attack of 12 August 1942, he could not have hit EMPIRE HOPE and CLAN FERGUSON with 2 hits each, he only fired three torpedoes and claimed one hit) and he probably hit EMPIRE HOPE (CLAN FERGUSON was apparently sunk earlier by air attack). Of course I am open to correction, this night was very confusing as the convoy broke apart and we do not know exactly what happened. Francesco Mattesini is working on a new version of his book and he may will clear a few things up. I do credit ASCIANGHI with two torpedo hits when she sank ALGERINE (you credit only one).
A few minor adjustments are also here and there but I have 473 torpedoes fired for Med and 10 for Red Sea whereas Ufficio Storico lists only 427. For the Red Sea, I have only three hits: ATLAS (1 hit), JAMES STOVE (2 hits).
I admit that my data in the Red Sea may be incomplete as most of the patrol reports were destroyed (I think during the evacuation) and there are a couple of torpedo attacks which I have no details.

My source are the patrol reports at the Ufficio Storico where I have been fortunate to be a frequent visitor, I have read them all during a period from 2005-2010. Luckily for us most patrol reports have survived (something like 95%+) which is remarkable considering the circumstances of 8 September [I would like to take the opportunity to express my thanks to the staff at USMM if they ever read these lines, they have always been very kind to me despite my atrocious Italian!].

I do not agree with your statement that British sources have "miles of glorious fair(y) tales". I think they did pretty well but nobody is perfect and one can always find faults here and there. I think the Brits were probably those who were the more rigorous in assessing claims, one may argue that they benefitted from ULTRA to check the claims and this was partially true.
Assessing submarine claims for torpedo hits is a bit difficult as it entails checking the victim's version and when statistics were produced at the end of the war, there was no fault in claiming imaginary sinking. The fault was in assessing all claimed hits when a target was sunk. For example, if a target was claimed to have been hit three times and sunk, the submarine was credited with three hits if the target was confirmed sunk even though survivors' reports may have reported only one hit. There was no rigorous check or attempt to check the victim's version of events except to confirm that it had been sunk or damaged because they just did not have time to do so. It was most expedient to believe the submarine commander if his claim of sinking had been confirmed. You must realize that checking things was not as easy as today, no benefit of internet and emails! Usually checking was done by sending letters of inquiry to their Italian counterparts and an answer could take weeks, I think they did their best for the time.

An examination of claimed hits versus actual hits will find that they were about double and this was true for ALL Navies in World War II.

British claims to actual sinking were I think the closest to the reality. If you look at American submarines, the sinking claims at the end of the war were found to be almost double the reality. This does not mean that they were bad submariners, after all they destroyed more than half of the Japanese shipping! And their percentage of hits may have been better than British submarines. But percentage of hits must be examined in contest of the area and the opposition, look at the Betasom data versus Italian Med submarines. Statistics have to be treated with caution, the experience of the submariner was not the same, too many factors intervene that can twist the result. Hypothetical question: could Kretschmer have been the same ace had he sailed for the first time in 1943 or 1944? He might have been sunk on his first patrol. This does not detract that he was the greatest ace according to tonnage sunk but it was much easier to sink vessels in 1939-1940 (even with defective torpedoes!) then in 1944!

All the best,

Platon