Can someone shed some light on the fact that some ships (both in the Baltic and Black Sea) hade registered that they had been attacked by uboats/torpedo but in the records there are no attacks registered. They would be called false observations. Im especially referring to some observations in January and February in the baltic. The attacked ships where the Swedish "Landsort" (31 January 1945) and (on 2 February)"Gute" (freighter). According to HMA and Jürgen Rowher the were no attacks carried out these dates. I have read somewhere that false observations were common... Can someone shed some light on the matter om false observations? How common were they? What would be the cause of such observations? Currents? Other?
Cheers, J
False torpedo observations.
-
lupodimare89
- Member
- Posts: 594
- Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 02:32
Re: False torpedo observations.
Actually i have "Landsort" as attacked by L-3 on 31 January 1945 that also made three attacks overhall that day (the others against "Cap Arcona", a very big ship).
For what i learned on these years of amateourish-research, everyone claimed everything in war: i've never bothered much to track record all the missed-torpedo alleged attacks, because there are already enough numerous incidents of submarines depth-charged and sunk with alleged proofs (materials, oils, bubbles etc.) on both side and no actual submarine in the spot, or sometimes even ships sunk recorded by submarine torpedoing while there was no submarine at all and it was because of mine (i've one neat case of such, for a German ship in Black Sea and very recently also a cargo in Baltic during 1942).
For what i learned on these years of amateourish-research, everyone claimed everything in war: i've never bothered much to track record all the missed-torpedo alleged attacks, because there are already enough numerous incidents of submarines depth-charged and sunk with alleged proofs (materials, oils, bubbles etc.) on both side and no actual submarine in the spot, or sometimes even ships sunk recorded by submarine torpedoing while there was no submarine at all and it was because of mine (i've one neat case of such, for a German ship in Black Sea and very recently also a cargo in Baltic during 1942).
Re: False torpedo observations.
Thanks!
Regarding the L-3 attack on "Landsort" I have learned that this attack is not accurate. Does any one know more?
Is it possible for L-3 to be outside the swedish coast (57.28n 17.20e) and later same evening be able to sink the Cap Arcona at Rixhöft, Danziger bucht?
Regarding the freighter Gute, they reported torpedoes 200 meters from the bow but spotted no sub. This was on the 1 February 1945. In the sources I've read that there were no attacks carried out on that date.
Regarding the L-3 attack on "Landsort" I have learned that this attack is not accurate. Does any one know more?
Is it possible for L-3 to be outside the swedish coast (57.28n 17.20e) and later same evening be able to sink the Cap Arcona at Rixhöft, Danziger bucht?
Regarding the freighter Gute, they reported torpedoes 200 meters from the bow but spotted no sub. This was on the 1 February 1945. In the sources I've read that there were no attacks carried out on that date.
Re: False torpedo observations.
L-3 didn't attack nor LANDSORT, nor CAP ARCONA. Both is Rohwer's errors. He made many of them, especially when it come to soviet subs. In reality L-3's place of attack at 06.28msk was much more to east (57.16,5 N - 21.07,6 E, near Ventspils). Evening attacks were in same place too and not against CAP ARCONA. So both cases (LANDSORT and CAP ARCONA) were false sightings. In tense circumstances of war all sides often made such erroneously things. Soviet side "see" so many ghost torpedo tracks in 1941 in same Baltic.
Btw, GUTE is absolutely same case. No attacks was made at all that day by soviet subs (as also 1.2.45 - Rohwer say that GUTE "was attacked" at 1 Feb).
Btw, GUTE is absolutely same case. No attacks was made at all that day by soviet subs (as also 1.2.45 - Rohwer say that GUTE "was attacked" at 1 Feb).
Re: False torpedo observations.
Thanks Igorr!
Thats what I thought. There have been some discussions lately regarding these observations in Sweden and no one believes me when I say these were false observations. (Especially Landsort and Gute) People in Sweden tended to see Soviet submarines everywhere during WW2. (And in some ways in modern times too)
Is HMA basically the work of Rowher? Or are there other historians involved. Seems that it should be updated...
Any recommendations on an other more updated site on the internet?
Cheers,
Thats what I thought. There have been some discussions lately regarding these observations in Sweden and no one believes me when I say these were false observations. (Especially Landsort and Gute) People in Sweden tended to see Soviet submarines everywhere during WW2. (And in some ways in modern times too)
Is HMA basically the work of Rowher? Or are there other historians involved. Seems that it should be updated...
Any recommendations on an other more updated site on the internet?
Cheers,
Re: False torpedo observations.
HMA at beginning is pure Rohwer's data, but then Thomas Weiss made many corrections. Not as many as need, however.