U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
-
- Member
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: 26 May 2007, 16:22
- Location: USA
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
I feel that the point of no confirmation by Bletchly Park is easily explained and means nothing. Number one the assumption that the Alies intercepted all communications is a myth. Anyone familiar with either radio communications or intercept is aware of that untruth. As to the absense of an attack report I would point out that he had been ordered to cease hostilities and return to port and thus was disobeying orders, commiting an act which coul have voided the surrender. Thus he would have been unlikely to admit it to those same superiors particularly over the airwaves, remember disobedience of orders in wartime is a shooting offence.
- JTG
- Member
- Posts: 840
- Joined: 20 Mar 2006, 22:10
- Location: R.N. La Mare, Jersey, British Channel Islands
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
Equally, ignoring an order to cease hostilities and return to port, voiding the surrender, would have then become a hanging offence for an offensive action post-surrender.
Would that have made it worthwhile - in the ongoing speculation - to not only submit the Boot and its crew to that ignominy but to also take that risk for one's own, very personal neck?
Not my field, I only ask!
Best
John
Would that have made it worthwhile - in the ongoing speculation - to not only submit the Boot and its crew to that ignominy but to also take that risk for one's own, very personal neck?
Not my field, I only ask!
Best
John
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
I think everyone is agreed that, if it did take place, the claimed dummy attack would have been a piece of pointless bravado.
However, the main problem with the claim seems to be that it lacks any corroboration and, indeed, is contradicted by other evidence (see above).
Cheers,
Sid.
However, the main problem with the claim seems to be that it lacks any corroboration and, indeed, is contradicted by other evidence (see above).
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
Dr. Axel Niestlé, one of the foremost German U-boat researchers, in an article titled "Der Fronteinsatz des U-Bootes U 2511" (published in: "Marineforum" 12-1998) has provided a detailed argumentation that the dummy attack most probably never took place.
Additional information e.g. here:
http://www.u-boot-archiv-cuxhaven.de/lang1/u_2511.html
or here:
http://bismarck-class-forum.dk/thread.php?threadid=5088
That does not change my personal opinion that the type XXI U-boats, with their hull forms, batteries, listening and fire direction devices, were one of the finest technical accomplishments of the war.
Additional information e.g. here:
http://www.u-boot-archiv-cuxhaven.de/lang1/u_2511.html
or here:
http://bismarck-class-forum.dk/thread.php?threadid=5088
That does not change my personal opinion that the type XXI U-boats, with their hull forms, batteries, listening and fire direction devices, were one of the finest technical accomplishments of the war.
-
- Member
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 20 Nov 2010, 18:09
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
Hi
We seem to be getting excited by this topic.
a) for BP to have identified a message as originating from 2511
i) 2511 would have had to send a message
ii) an X stations would have had to intercept it intact
iii) BP would have had to decrypt it
b) an electro boat attack could be made at opportunity e.g. of a crossing target, the passive sonar operator only needed to, identify the signature as a vessel, (and hopefully a hostile one). If the crew brief indicated they were aware that a cruiser was a town class or a specific pennant number they would probably have needed to use the periscope, which is still covert at other than close range. Operationally they could have fired on the acoustic signature signature.
c) One of the other electro boats U-2336 missed the cease hostilities return to port signal and torpedoed two vessels.
d) It would not have been a Kriegsmarine military court case had a captain ignored the signal and proceeded to continue hostilities, but an international crime, lots of the people got away with war crimes... there might have been an illegal drum head court martial in the PoW camp, given the sub crews were interned for a long interval post the capitulation, but seems unlikely.
So a dummy attack need not have required closing or manoeuvring for a better hit probability or periscope sighting but in any case caution would have required a periscope identification e.g. to try and identify and avoid ASW vessels, which would still have been required to prosecute unidentified subs... see case c) above.
Noel
We seem to be getting excited by this topic.
a) for BP to have identified a message as originating from 2511
i) 2511 would have had to send a message
ii) an X stations would have had to intercept it intact
iii) BP would have had to decrypt it
b) an electro boat attack could be made at opportunity e.g. of a crossing target, the passive sonar operator only needed to, identify the signature as a vessel, (and hopefully a hostile one). If the crew brief indicated they were aware that a cruiser was a town class or a specific pennant number they would probably have needed to use the periscope, which is still covert at other than close range. Operationally they could have fired on the acoustic signature signature.
c) One of the other electro boats U-2336 missed the cease hostilities return to port signal and torpedoed two vessels.
d) It would not have been a Kriegsmarine military court case had a captain ignored the signal and proceeded to continue hostilities, but an international crime, lots of the people got away with war crimes... there might have been an illegal drum head court martial in the PoW camp, given the sub crews were interned for a long interval post the capitulation, but seems unlikely.
So a dummy attack need not have required closing or manoeuvring for a better hit probability or periscope sighting but in any case caution would have required a periscope identification e.g. to try and identify and avoid ASW vessels, which would still have been required to prosecute unidentified subs... see case c) above.
Noel
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
The information in the links:piggychops wrote:Hi
We seem to be getting excited by this topic.
There are several points in Schnee's report that are at least very questionable.
1.)
Schnee and other authors (who mostly refer to him) said that he left Bergen on april 30th. Allied Intelligence and individual interrogation reports by crew members from after the boat was transfered to england proove that U 2511 left Bergen on may 3rd, 02:30. This fact leaves pretty low time to reach the point where the cruiser was sighted.
2.)
According to Schnee U 2511 on his way sighted a group of 4 warships (first by sonar and later by periscope) which could be avoided by changing the course.
According to allied documents there was never a hunter or similar group at that time in that area.
3.)
Schnee reported to have received the order to return immediately back to Bergen on may 4th. This is unlikely.
The first time this order was broadcasted by wireless was 4.5., 16:14. After that the order was repeatedly broadcasted at given times. These times were geared on the "typical behaviour" of submarines at that time.
Submarines at that time in a high danger area like the area around the Faroe Islands went submerged by day and surfaced or snorkeled by night to recharge batteries and receive wireless. So it is most likely that U 2511 came to surface late in the evening of 4.5. or on early morning of 5.5. and this would be the earliest possible point of receiving the order.
Schnee then says that after detecting the Norfolk group by sonar he went to periscope depth and could make out the heavy cruiser on far distance.
Light conditions in that area would have allowed this only on 4.5. before sunset or on 5.5. after sunrise.
So receiving the order to return to base and detect the cruiser on the same day is highly unlikely.
The logs of HMS Norfolk state that she was part of operation "judgement" and left the carrier group on 5(!!!). may, 07:02. Even during the rest of the day she was far north of the Shetland-Faroer-area!! She passed west of the Shetlands on 6.5. but at that time U 2511 must have been much more east because otherwise it would have been impossible to be back at Bergen on the same evening.
According to allied documents there was no other british cruiser, secured by some destroyers, at that time in that area.
The only other possible one, HMS Bellona, was without destroyers and an experienced commander like Schnee should have been able to make out differences between theses two cruiser types - at least on a distance of 600 m!!
Also some crew members said during their interrogation in england that the cruiser incident happened much later on the patrol, shortly before reaching Bergen.
Schnee stated the he allowed some crew members to have a view on the cruiser through the periscope.
Niestlé and even Erich Topp in a letter following Niestlé's article state that this is most highly unlikely.
The danger of being detected and attacked would have been much too high on such a short distance!!
4.)
According to Schnee the cruiser he sighted and "attacked" layed already in Bergen when he reached the harbour.
The first allied ships to come to Bergen was indeed a group of ships of which HMS Norfolk was the flagship - but this was on 15.5.!!!
All documents like war diaries and other stuff in Bergen were destoyed because there was enough time to do that. Not only the war diaries of the boats but also those of the flotilla, staff and so on.
How could it happen that war diaries were compared like Schnee stated??
And last but not least: If this incident really happened and the Royal Navy believed Schnee they would have at once become aware of the fact that the type XXI was highly dangerous.
Why then is there no single official report about that????
Is pretty convincing.
The fact there was not a cruiser with destroyer escorts in the area of U2511 is the clicher
-
- Member
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 20 Nov 2010, 18:09
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
I'd suggest this is adapting conspiracy theory postures, from scant and unreliable information, very exposed to errors...
Hinsley merely says 'She carried out a dummy attack on a British cruiser' but does not name Norfolk
In poor light sea condtions it would be quite possible to miss identify a vessel class, Graf Spee initially miss identified one heavy and two light cruisers, in good visibility at range, when good intelligence on the British squadrons, was available...
Allied intelligence was indeed aware of many innovative operational aspects of the electro boats e.g. from decrypts of Ja Diplomatic traffic, so they did their very best to delay the commissioning of the boats.
e.g. 16 knot submerged speed would have matched the ASW Flower class corvettes speed...
A work colleague from 1969 was 1st Intelligence officer on board the surrendered boats at one of the locations, he still had his boxes of photos in work (then) and certainty would have had to write a large report, just because such reports are not visible to us today does not mean they did/do not exist...
Decrypts of the Ja traffic are available...
Noel
Hinsley merely says 'She carried out a dummy attack on a British cruiser' but does not name Norfolk
In poor light sea condtions it would be quite possible to miss identify a vessel class, Graf Spee initially miss identified one heavy and two light cruisers, in good visibility at range, when good intelligence on the British squadrons, was available...
Allied intelligence was indeed aware of many innovative operational aspects of the electro boats e.g. from decrypts of Ja Diplomatic traffic, so they did their very best to delay the commissioning of the boats.
e.g. 16 knot submerged speed would have matched the ASW Flower class corvettes speed...
A work colleague from 1969 was 1st Intelligence officer on board the surrendered boats at one of the locations, he still had his boxes of photos in work (then) and certainty would have had to write a large report, just because such reports are not visible to us today does not mean they did/do not exist...
Decrypts of the Ja traffic are available...
Noel
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
I think it time for me to make another plea for Moderators to modify contentious thread titles.
I would suggest that "U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk" is stating as fact something that is very much in dispute. I would suggest it should be modified to "U 2511's claimed dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk". Even the addition of a final "?" would be an improvement.
As it stands, the thread title is historically misleading - a cardinal sin on a history forum like AHF. At the very least, the claim is highly contentious and, on the independent evidence available, it is a fiction.
Cheers,
Sid.
I would suggest that "U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk" is stating as fact something that is very much in dispute. I would suggest it should be modified to "U 2511's claimed dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk". Even the addition of a final "?" would be an improvement.
As it stands, the thread title is historically misleading - a cardinal sin on a history forum like AHF. At the very least, the claim is highly contentious and, on the independent evidence available, it is a fiction.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
- Member
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 20 Nov 2010, 18:09
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
Hi SidSid Guttridge wrote: and, on the independent evidence available, it is a fiction.
Cheers,
Sid.
Don't forget to write to HMSO about Hinsley's similar claims in 'British Intelligence in the second world war' as well.
Noel
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
Hi Piggychops
Hinsley was not a first hand witness. He is apparently relying on a single page in the National Archives, about which we know nothing at present.
To repeat my earlier point:
One cannot assume anything without looking at p.68 of ADM 234/68. As it is in the Admiralty files, it might well be the original, questionable, post-surrender, naval debriefing claim from which the whole legend/myth has grown. If so, it would stand alone and unsupported.
Cheers,
Sid.
Hinsley was not a first hand witness. He is apparently relying on a single page in the National Archives, about which we know nothing at present.
To repeat my earlier point:
One cannot assume anything without looking at p.68 of ADM 234/68. As it is in the Admiralty files, it might well be the original, questionable, post-surrender, naval debriefing claim from which the whole legend/myth has grown. If so, it would stand alone and unsupported.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
- Member
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 20 Nov 2010, 18:09
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
Hi SidSid Guttridge wrote:Hi Piggychops
Hinsley was not a first hand witness. He is apparently relying on a single page in the National Archives, about which we know nothing at present.
I accept that Hinsley was not operating the electro boats acoustic system or periscope ...
You have made an assumption that Hinsley is relying on the ADM referenced, when instead he could be merely pointing us to an additional source, note the uboat crews were interned for a long interval after hostilities and may have been interview at length, about e.g. potential war crimes or electro boat performance..., the latter before handing over an intact electro boat to the Su navy. I'd doubt that they will ever make un-expugated debrief details public... e.g. what KJ Waldheim said to his interrogators post war internment... they would be too bulky and probably well embarrassing...
It may be indeed be merely a transcript of the already published Uboat debrief, but it does not seem important either way, dummy attack or no, we are getting engrossed in conspiracy theories... It is quite possible that any of the patrol electro boats had acoustic signatures they could have attacked but passed up on, for caution or reduced probability of a kill, e.g. by May 3rd they had made six cruises and sunk one ship on each of four, for no losses, this in the face of intense anti sub patrols.Sid Guttridge wrote:
To repeat my earlier point:
One cannot assume anything without looking at p.68 of ADM 234/68. As it is in the Admiralty files, it might well be the original, questionable, post-surrender, naval debriefing claim from which the whole legend/myth has grown. If so, it would stand alone and unsupported.
Cheers,
Sid.
You are assuming the claim of a dummy attack is false, and requesting the mods alter title? Without troubling to review the ADM referenced...
Hinsley has had a history of extracting important information from vestigial clues, e.g. the Invasion of Norway and the patrol locations of weather ships with rotor machines, and keymat..., the RN thought the first was risible and paid with a carrier sunk, they assumed he was correct for the 2nd.
Noel
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
Hi Piggychops,
I am basing what you call my "assumption" on what you posted:
"Hinsley: British Intelligence in the 2nd world war: volume 3: part 2: page 631: footnote *: indicates
'She [Sic U 2511] carried out a dummy attack on a British cruiser before returning to Norway in accordance with the surrender degree'
One might well assume that Bletchley Park decrypted the operational message. Except that Hinsley indicates no signals were decrypted and references ADM 234/68 p 98"
If you have any other primary source, please bring it forward.
I make no assumption about what is in ADM 234/68. Indeed, I wrote precisely that; "One cannot assume anything......"
I am not requesting that the moderators alter the title because I am "assuming the claim of a dummy attack is false". If that were the case, I would suggest that the title be changed to something like "U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk was a fiction: Discuss." and I am definitely not.
I am suggesting the thread title be changed to reflect the real situation - that the claimed dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk is very much in question. That is why I suggested it be changed to something like "U 2511's claimed dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk" or "U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk?".
This is nothing to do with conspiracy theory and everything to do with urban myth.
In fact, there appears to be absolutely no hard evidence of this supposed attack, just the commander's later claim, and it is entirely possible this is what lies in ADM 234/68. On the other hand, there appears to be a mountain of evidence that the incident could not have taken place as described.
Cheers,
Sid.
I am basing what you call my "assumption" on what you posted:
"Hinsley: British Intelligence in the 2nd world war: volume 3: part 2: page 631: footnote *: indicates
'She [Sic U 2511] carried out a dummy attack on a British cruiser before returning to Norway in accordance with the surrender degree'
One might well assume that Bletchley Park decrypted the operational message. Except that Hinsley indicates no signals were decrypted and references ADM 234/68 p 98"
If you have any other primary source, please bring it forward.
I make no assumption about what is in ADM 234/68. Indeed, I wrote precisely that; "One cannot assume anything......"
I am not requesting that the moderators alter the title because I am "assuming the claim of a dummy attack is false". If that were the case, I would suggest that the title be changed to something like "U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk was a fiction: Discuss." and I am definitely not.
I am suggesting the thread title be changed to reflect the real situation - that the claimed dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk is very much in question. That is why I suggested it be changed to something like "U 2511's claimed dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk" or "U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk?".
This is nothing to do with conspiracy theory and everything to do with urban myth.
In fact, there appears to be absolutely no hard evidence of this supposed attack, just the commander's later claim, and it is entirely possible this is what lies in ADM 234/68. On the other hand, there appears to be a mountain of evidence that the incident could not have taken place as described.
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
I have the log of HMS Norfolk and I have the transcript of Schnee's account but I have been unable to square Schnee's account with Norfolk's movements. Neither curiously can Dr Niestle who mapped out U 2511's course from the scant information offered by Schnee, allied to more concreete information drawn from the courses taken by other U-boats heading for a similar billet.
Schnee certainly discussed the matter with his captors who found his account convincing at the time - hence Roskill mentioning it. Schnee gave the first public domain account of this alleged attack in 'Die erste und letzte Feindfahrte eines U-bootes vom Typ XX1' in MOH Nachrichten 13, 1964 3, S50-52.
There is no surviving log/patrol report of U 2511
PS I posted the Norfolk Log in the previous thread. Within the week I will try and post the material in ADM 234/68 p 98 and you can make your own minds up.
Schnee certainly discussed the matter with his captors who found his account convincing at the time - hence Roskill mentioning it. Schnee gave the first public domain account of this alleged attack in 'Die erste und letzte Feindfahrte eines U-bootes vom Typ XX1' in MOH Nachrichten 13, 1964 3, S50-52.
There is no surviving log/patrol report of U 2511
PS I posted the Norfolk Log in the previous thread. Within the week I will try and post the material in ADM 234/68 p 98 and you can make your own minds up.
Silent Warriors: Submarines lost around the British coast in war and peace
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
Didn't lot's of normal submarines get within firing range of Allied naval units during WW2 without being noticed, so why the big deal about this ?
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: U 2511's dummy torpedo attack on HMS Norfolk
Two reasons:
1) Because, on the evidence so far available, this particular incident may well be be a fiction, which is the very antithesis of history, which must be fact-based on sound evidence
2) Because it is used as evidence that the new German submarines were undectable by the Allies. If it didn't happen, it is not evidence of this at all.
There are important evidential principles at stake here. It is not just another case where "normal submarines get within firing range of Allied naval units during WW2 without being noticed".
Cheers,
Sid
1) Because, on the evidence so far available, this particular incident may well be be a fiction, which is the very antithesis of history, which must be fact-based on sound evidence
2) Because it is used as evidence that the new German submarines were undectable by the Allies. If it didn't happen, it is not evidence of this at all.
There are important evidential principles at stake here. It is not just another case where "normal submarines get within firing range of Allied naval units during WW2 without being noticed".
Cheers,
Sid