JPMISSON Posted May 27, 2016 Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 (edited) I never pretended anything else than an Italian submarine Classe 600 showing up on a sonar recording Marsa el Hilal.How lucky must have been HMS Decoy and allied to encounter four Italian submarines in the same area on the same morning , June 29 1940...I will not buy that !"They may have sunk" etc ??? : is this sufficient to say that Argonauta is not somewhere else ???There is no word game from me : there was no Naval Station and no Observation Post at Marsa el Hilal in 1940.Besides : when something unexpected happens do you really think it is always possible for a submarine to signal the event to a "Naval Station" or to anyone else for that matter ???No further comment : I am confident the Readers understand my point ! As for P 311 : Massimo Bondone has already identified the wreck . There is no need for anyone to re-confirm : This was the only T Class without a Name in raised metal letters on the Conning Tower and with containers for the Chariots on the after casing. Massimo Bondone did a very nice job !Some Divers know their job better than many "paper-diggers". Finally : I am sufficiently old and familiar with sonar imageing (now) to feel free of revealing my findings to the public.Advice to the contrary is simply ignored .On this Forum : let us stick to technicalities , only . Edited May 27, 2016 by JPMISSON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platon Alexiades Posted May 27, 2016 Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 First, there is no doubt that the five British destroyers attacked at least three Italian submarines the same morning. Uebi Scebeli was sunk and survivors picked up and Tarantini and Salpa confirmed being attacked. These three Italian submarines followed the same route and sailed from Taranto at 27 June, Uebi Scebeli and Salpa sailed together so it was not a coincidence that they were hunted at the same time, Tarantini had sailed a few hours later but travelled slightly faster than the other two and stumbled on the same destroyers actually before them.I do agree with you that it would be quite a coincidence that a fourth submarine, Argonauta coming from Tobruk, would be within an hour or two at the same spot and I have my doubts if she was really sunk by HMS Decoy and company.Unlike you, I admit I do not have a solution to her mysterious disappearance. Drifting mines were reported from time to time near Taranto as they had become detached from Italian minefields. It is not impossible that she ran into one of them. I agree with you that Bondone has made an excellent work with P.311, You might follow his example. I agree also that some divers are more professional than others who make claims with very flimsy evidence. Nobody's perfect but paper-diggers are some time better informed than sonar interpreters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPMISSON Posted May 27, 2016 Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 (edited) My turn for a "Not Impossible"...For information only. WIKIPEDIA https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argonauta_(sommergibile_1932) ArgonautaVarato nei Cantieri Riuniti dell'Adriatico di Monfalcone il 19 gennaio 1931, entrò in servizio il 1º gennaio 1932. Nel giugno 1940 subì caccia antisommergibile al largo di Alessandria d'Egitto, riportando vari danni che lo obbligarono a rientrare a Tobruk[1]. Il 27 giugno ripartì da Tobruk diretto a Taranto, dove sarebbero state effettuate le riparazioni[1]; non se ne seppe più nulla.Il 21 giugno fu rilevato da cacciatorpediniere e bombardato con cariche di profondità; il periscopio d'attacco fu messo fuori uso ed il sommergibile, pur riuscendo infine a sottrarsi alla caccia, subì altri danni di una certa gravità, che lo obbligarono a fare ritorno a Tobruk, dove arrivò il giorno seguente, di pomeriggio[1][2][3]. Dopo aver subito alcune riparazioni provvisorie nella base libica, il 27 giugno, alle 21.45, partì per ricevere lavori più approfonditi nell'Arsenale di Taranto (la rotta da seguire sarebbe stata la seguente: cabotaggio lungo la costa della Libia sino a Capo Ras el Hilal, poi rotta nord-nordovest verso Capo Colonne), ma non se ne seppe più nulla[1][2][3].--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"PERISCOPIO FUORI USO" ... DANNI SOLO ALL'OTTICA OPPURE ANCHE ALLE GUARNIZIONI DELLA STAGNATURA ?"DANNI ABBASTANZA GRAVI" ...."RIPARATI PROVVISORIAMENTE" ... L'AFFONDAMENTO DEL SOMMERGIBILE POTREBBE ANCHE NON ESSERE DOVUTO AD UN ATTACCO NEMICO .NON SAREBBE PER NIENTE "IMPOSSIBILE" CHE L'AFFONDAMENTO FOSSE DOVUTO A CAUSA DEI VARI DANNI SUBITI IL 21 DI GIUGNO 1940.LE "RIPARAZIONI PROVVISORIE" POTREBBERO NON AVER RESISTITO ALLA PRESSIONE ESTERNA.......E SE IL SOMMERGIBILE NON FOSSE PIU' STATO IN GRADO DI EFFETTUARE UNA IMMERSIONE ????COME SI COMPORTA UN SOMMERGIBILE CHE VIENE AVVISTATO DA CACCIATORPEDINIERE : COSA FA' PER NASCONDERSIE FUGGIRE .??? NORMALMENTE S'IMMERGE , VERO ? ANCHE SAPENDO CHE C'E' UN RISCHIO DI ALLAGAMENTO (A CAUSA DEI DANNI RIPORTATI E PROVVISORIAMENTE RIPARATI) IL COMANDANTE AVREBBE DATO L'ORDINE DI IMMERSIONE ???CERTAMENTE : (PER NON ARRENDERSI AL NEMICO) !!!!! NON DICO CHE LE COSE ANDARONO COSI' .DICO SOLO CHE C'E' UN SOMMERGIBILE ITALIANO SUL FONDO DELLA BAIA DI MARSA EL HILAL DOVE ARGONAUTA 2°(VENENDO DA TOBRUCH) DOVEVA PASSARE PRIMA DI PROSEGUIRE IN MARE APERTO FINO A TARANTO .SI SA' PURE CHE L'ARGONAUTA AVEVA SUBITO GRAVI DANNI POCHI GIORNI PRIMA .... SE CI SARA' DATA UNA OCCASIONE DI AVVICINARCI AL RELITTO , VEDREMO SE LE CAUSE DEL "NON-RITORNO IN SUPERFICIE" DEL SOMMERGIBILE SONO VISIBILI E COMPRENSIBILI . SI PUO' SAPERE IL PERCORSO DELLE NAVI INGLESI FRA' IL 27 GIUGNO E IL 29 GIUGNO 1940 ??? Edited July 8, 2016 by JPMISSON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPMISSON Posted May 27, 2016 Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 (edited) Post #30 Quote : The only possibility of Argonauta was lost at Ras Hilal is through a diving accident but this is a very remote possibility and very unlikely as Naval Station or Observation Post (you may prefer to use a word game to prove your point but that does not change the fact) would have been informed of her intention to do so and they were not. Unquote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Very , very difficult to understand .... Assuming Argonauta 2° had had an accident (following the earlier serious damage and temporary repairs at Tobruk , Post #33) ...you would have liked her (possibly already on the seafloor !?!?) to inform the Naval Station (her Base I presume , as they was no Naval Station at Marsa el Hilal and no coastal Guns either...) ...of her "intentions" ? This is totally preposterous ... The only danger could have come from British vessels or planes : none from the Italian side that (surely) would have recognised one of their own submarines from the abbreviated 2 letter code on the Conning Tower ! The submarine went down without anyone witnessing the scene , Whether by day or by night : there was hardly anyone at Marsa el Hilal in those days : this was only mid-1940 ! As for "signalling for help" there was nothing else than the fore and after boe luminose to eventually be released to the surface. The presence or absence of the boe luminose in their pits and the position of the hatches of the Escape Chambers (Garitte di Salvataggio) will certainly be investigated the day we shall be able to dive the wreck. The chances for the Italian submarine (sonar recording Marsa el Hilal 2012) to be ARGONAUTA 2° rate at 99 % Edited May 27, 2016 by JPMISSON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platon Alexiades Posted May 27, 2016 Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 Obviously there is no chance anyone will go to Ras Hilal today to investigate your claims. Your quote: "The only danger could have come from British vessels or planes : none from the Italian side that (surely) would have recognised one of their own submarines from the abbreviated 2 letter code on the Conning Tower !"Just shows you how little you know about operations. Tazzoli was attacked by an Italian aircraft on 22.06.1940 and Gemma by another on 29.06.1940 and this is only two examples in this period. The aircraft do not seem to have read the 2-letter code...Argonauta did not have to inform Ras Hilal coastal post (if you prefer this term to 'station') of her intention to dive but might well have informed MarinaTobruk who would have relayed the information to the proper authorities at the Regia Aeronautica or Marinavia to avoid an error. Sneaking in the bay without being seen, as if in enemy waters, appears odd to me.The only reason you think that you located Argonauta at Ras Hilal is that you read (or someone like myself informed you) that this submarine passed near Ras Hilal and this was as good candidate as any to fit your theory. It has nothing to do with actual identification. You may keep on claiming you located her and I am sure that some people will believe you. I am unconvinced.I would suggest you confine yourself to bring proofs from your discoveries at Tabarka. I am sure you have plenty to do and I look forward to your explanations on the eight submarines you found there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPMISSON Posted May 28, 2016 Report Share Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) You seem to happily bypass the majority of cases when submarines have been identified by their own side and were therefore not attacked... To pretend that Argonauta would have had to signal "Naval Station" Derna , Bengasi or Tobruch of any of her action is simply untrue.Argonauta did not have to radio-inform anyone of her diving or surfacing anywhere as , at the time , British surface vessels had means to geolocate a transmitter (probably no such DF equipment onboard the planes , yet).The Italian authorities all already knew she was on her way from Tobruk to Derna , Ras el Tin , Ras el Hilal , Taranto ! There was absolutely no coastal danger for Argonauta at Marsa el Hilal in 1940 and I challenge anyone to pretend a submarine in dire trouble would have had to request permission to do this or that , let alone the time to transmit a (ciphered) message ! I have no "theories" about the sonar images I have collected , I just correlate them to the drawings and the vintage pictures that are available.I then give my opinion . Period .You may rejoice at the fact Libya is out of bounds today : this protects you for a while of being proved wrong on the case of three submarines (other than U-205) that you say should not be there ! Here in Tabarka the countdown has started : HMS QUENTIN will be the first bad surprise to some .Next will come the British T Class , S 35 , an Italian submarine or two : just to have a "balanced" sequence.To identify all the many wrecks in the zone will require a good five seasons of work . I will give you advance notice so that you may be seated when the documented report will appear on your display ! Edited May 28, 2016 by JPMISSON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platon Alexiades Posted May 28, 2016 Report Share Posted May 28, 2016 Since you favour the thesis of an accidental loss:don't you think that Argonauta's captain would not undertake any trial dive without informing the authorities if he was so concerned on the state of his submarine? Then I assume that he committed gross negligence.You should post us your sonar photographs on this forum without any caption and let us play a game who on this AIDMEN can identify them and come to the same conclusion as you have. If I send you sonar photographs provided by other divers can you give us an answer as you are the expert in interpreting them? If we accept your method of identification then you you should be able to identify ships in sonar photographs even if you do not know where they were taken. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPMISSON Posted May 28, 2016 Report Share Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) You may assume everything you want , really ! Some tentative explanation is in Post #33 and you had better debug the Archives on this one : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shipwrecks_in_June_1940#cite_note-NH064044-111 Reading for date 28 JUNE (not 29 June) Argonauta Regia Marina World War II: The Argonauta-class submarine was attacked and sunk in the Mediterranean Sea off Cape Ras el Hilal,Libya by HMS Dainty, HMS Decoy, HMS Defender, HMS Ilex and HMS Voyager (D31) (all Royal Navy).[111] According to this one...Argonauta would have been sunk on the 28 th (and killed again on the 29 th , further North ???!!!)I shall give credit to the claim 28 th June "off Ras el Hilal" (no Coordinates needed , this is not open sea . Nameplace info is ample).It is only a matter of following the path and time references for the patrol of the British vessels : did they go or did they not go via Ras el Hilal ?This should be a good exercise for you and you might (at last) participate constructively to bringing the truth to the surface. Do not blame my "imagination" again : all the above the texts are public on the Net and not of my doing ! NOTE :The Italian submarine ARGONAUTA 2° was of the CLASSE 600 (not of the "Argonauta-Class" as indicated on the Wiki page Edited July 16, 2016 by JPMISSON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPMISSON Posted May 28, 2016 Report Share Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) Since you favour the thesis of an accidental loss:don't you think that Argonauta's captain would not undertake any trial dive without informing the authorities if he was so concerned on the state of his submarine? Then I assume that he committed gross negligence.You should post us your sonar photographs on this forum without any caption and let us play a game who on this AIDMEN can identify them and come to the same conclusion as you have. If I send you sonar photographs provided by other divers can you give us an answer as you are the expert in interpreting them? If we accept your method of identification then you you should be able to identify ships in sonar photographs even if you do not know where they were taken. Right?I have posted all the sonar images and corellation exercises for the Italian submarine at Marsa el Hilal on two distinct threads : Argonauta-Urge-U-205Relitti Marsa el Hilal I am sorry I have no time right now to play games (as I am preparing the surprise of the year for those who pretend HMS Quentin cannot possibly be 3 nm offshore , near Tabarka) .Besides : I do not play games on tombs ! Edited May 28, 2016 by JPMISSON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPMISSON Posted May 28, 2016 Report Share Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) 104 nautical miles :The distance to be covered by Argonauta 2° between her departure point Tobruk and her last shore-fix RAS EL HILAL , prior to the open sea passage to Taranto.It is not known if the damage(s) she had suffered on June 21 affected her surface speed and/or her capability to move submerged. Edited May 28, 2016 by JPMISSON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platon Alexiades Posted May 28, 2016 Report Share Posted May 28, 2016 We look forward to the "discovery" of HMS Quentin, S-35 and the eight submarines at Tabarka. It is rather amusing that you are citing errors in wikipedia as "proofs" to your discovery of Argonauta. I do not rely on wikipedia but on the original documents. Of course these do not corroborate with your thesis and are thus valueless in your eyes. I am only an amateur historian and do not claim to be an expert but the little I know is enough to see when claims are not substantiated by facts. Perhaps you should direct your efforts in writing fiction, you seem gifted at that.I have made my point and will not bother you any more until I see your proofs from Tabarka but I am not holding my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPMISSON Posted May 29, 2016 Report Share Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) I thought you had more important matters to work on !Do not bother about writing about my "discoveries"...and other "unsubstantiated claims" !I am sure the Readers are only interested in facts , not in our reciprocal "sentiments" or "feelings" or "resentments"...So , we should not overload the disk of this Forum with such things !The only thing we would be glad to read from you is the route with times of passage of the British destroyers that left Alexandria on the 27th June 1940.Did they or did they not follow the coast to hunt for Italian submarines in Libyan-Italian waters , up to Ras el Hilal , and (only then) sail to the Aegean ?We all look forward to getting an answer to that question but (should the answer be NO) do not rejoice too quickly : this would only mean something else caused ARGONAUTA to be resting on the seafloor at Marsa el Hilal. Will you at long last contribute to this search of what happened rather than only expressing contempt for sonar revelations ??? Edited May 29, 2016 by JPMISSON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPMISSON Posted May 29, 2016 Report Share Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Decoy_(H75) Quote : On 29 June 1940 Decoy participated, together with the same squadron, in the sinking of the Italian submarine Argonauta. The squadron patrolled the area between Alexandria, the Aegean Sea and the central Mediterranean from 27 to 30 June 1940 as part of Operation MA3 in support of British convoys from the Greek ports to Port Said and from Alexandria to Malta. Argonauta was probably sunk near Cape Ras el Hilal, Libya,[10] at around 0615 hours by the British destroyers; though it is also possible the Argonauta was depth charged and sunk around 1450 hours that same day by Short Sunderland L5804 of the RAF.[11] The Historical Bureau of the Italian Navy believes the first theory to be more believable, but doubt still persists.[12] Unquote --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments : Despite the many inconsistencies in the various Wikipedia pages concerning Argonauta... Having sailed from Tobruk at 20:45 hrs on June 27 , ARGONAUTA could have been at Ras el Hilal as early as 06:15 hrs , the next day 28 June (Post#40) See Post #38 for the date 28 June (not 29). Unless the damages suffered on June 21 would have slowed her surface speed she would have covered the 104 nm distance in 9h 30mn , at the average speed of circa 11 kn. http://www.aidmen.it/topic/213-marsa-el-hilal-i-relitti/page-3 Velocità in emersione 14 nodi Some other source indicates she left Tobruk at 21:45 hrs . She still could have been Ras el Hilal by 06:15 the next morning : Only her average speed would have been slightly higher than 11 kn. Edited May 29, 2016 by JPMISSON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platon Alexiades Posted May 29, 2016 Report Share Posted May 29, 2016 To put to rest the idea that HMS Dainty, Decoy, etc. sank Argonauta at Ras Hilal: I am attaching some pages mentioning the sortie of the five destroyers of Force C. There are many but I have selected the most relevant ones, indicating the mission, the course (307° from Alexandria) and finally the attack at 0615/29 June which assumed to have caused the sinking of "Salpa" (sic), later modified to "Uarsciek" (sic) and finally to "Argonauta" (?). Anyone who can find a reference to Ras Hilal that has escaped me is free to point it. As I said before, the only possibility of Argonauta is at Ras Hilal is through a diving accident, not impossible but improbable. I do not mind if you state that you "believe" that Argonauta is at Ras Hilal (everyone is free to believe what they want) but I would object to any statement that claims it is as "absolute certainty". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPMISSON Posted May 29, 2016 Report Share Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) Historians (or amateur-historians as you qualify your goodself) should never go into writing : "a Diving Accident , not Impossible but Improbable" .Such a statement has no value whatsoever , the more so considering the poor state of repairs in which the submarine Argonauta was after having suffered such important damages that she was on her way back to Taranto for major repairs....In the "submarine arm" accidents occured and still occur nowadays even without the vessel having suffered an enemy blow....and you know that ! (at least I presume you do ?)The word Improbable is an incorrect addition and therefore it is my turn to say : I do not mind if you state a "diving accident is not impossible"... ...but I do object to the use of the term "Improbable"... And this is not only applicable to the case of ARGONAUTA but to all submarines of all navies. Edited May 29, 2016 by JPMISSON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.