Jump to content

MARSA EL HILAL, i Relitti.


Corto Maltese
 Share

Recommended Posts

No matter how many times Mr Misson repeats his arguments, the problem is the following:

 

1. The Naval Historical Branch (Ministry of Defence) in the UK has rejected the "evidence" of the sonar photographs and the possibility that HMS Urge was at Ras Hilal on 29 April 1942.

2. Mr Misson has failed to produce a single sonar expert who confirms without a doubt that this is HMS Urge in his sonar photographs, no matter how many signs he seems to see in them ("mooring pipe", really?).

 

Platon Alexiades

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see no problem at this end ....

 

The Readers on this Forum have certainly made up their mind with the sonar picture , the data provided by

Mr F. Mattesini and the article of Messrs D. Gatti and G. Massimello in STORIA MILITARE.

There is nothing anyone can say or even do , to move the submarine away : it is there , for all to see  !

History can , at times , be mauled , not Reality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put things into context: besides the claim of HMS Urge, Mr Misson has also claimed he found:

 

The Italian submarine Argonauta sunk according to him by HMS Decoy at Ras Hilal when the attack actually occurred in 35°24' N, 20°10' E (west of Crete). He later changed his story that Argonauta might have been sunk accidentally at Ras Hilal.
 

The tanker Picci Fassio at Ras Hilal when British and Italian sources agree that she was sunk about 40 miles north of Derna or, if you prefer, 40 miles NNE of Ras Hilal (the RAF gives the position as 33°17’ N, 22°40’ E, Italian sources as 33°26’ N, 22°41’ E). He suggested that both were wrong or perhaps the wreck drifted to Ras Hilal. Very likely!

He also claimed that last summer he located in the bay of Tabarka (Tunisia) the following wrecks:

The destroyer HMS Quentin when she was actually sunk by air attack in 37°32’ N, 08°32’ E (about 36 miles north of Tabarka). He suggested the position is wrong and the attack occurred in the bay of Tabarka. So the logs of the cruisers of Force Q are wrong and they steered on a southwesterly course (232°) for three hours after the attack across the Sahara Desert?

The German MTB S-35 mined approximately 18 miles north of Ras Al Dukara (roughly 55 miles NE of Tabarka).

Eight submarines, four of them Italian, two British and two unidentified.

He suggested on the AIDMEN forum that he most probably found AsteriaAvorioCobalto and Porfido.

 

See his comments in: http://www.aidmen.it/topic/188-tabar...litti/page-3)

 

Anyone who knows a little about Italian submarine operations will tell you that these four submarines were lost as follows:

 

Asteria: sunk by HMS Wheatland and HMS Easton in 37°14’ N, 04°27’ E (nearly 210 miles from Tabarka).
Avorio: sunk while being towed after an attack by HMCS Regina in 37°13' N, 06°41' E (about 100 miles from Tabarka).
Cobalto: sunk by HMS Pathfinder and Ithuriel in 37°41' N, 10°00' E (about 70 miles from Tabarka).
Porfido: sunk by HMS Tigris in 38°10' N, 08°35' E (about 70 miles from Tabarka).

 

Mr Misson will have us believe that submarines when they sink do not go down vertically but can drift for long distances and all these submarines were lost on a minefield at Tabarka!

 

I believe that readers of this forum and the authors of the article in Storia Militare will find their trust in all these claims to have been misplaced. I am sure that they believed in good faith that the wreck of HMS Urge had been found. We are supposed to take all these sonar photographs at face value when no sonar expert has endorsed them. I take no pleasure in taking this action but it is time to set the record straight and expose all these fantasies. It is obvious to me that none of them are true.

 

Platon Alexiades

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need to mix things up ....

No panic !   One subject at a time !

 

For HMS URGE :

Extract from

 
BENEATH THE WAVES  , 
A History of HM Submarine Losses , 1904-1971
by A.S. EVANS
 
Publ. 1986 W. Kimbler & Company Ltd.
Publ. 2007 Periscope Publishing Ltd. 
 
Page 314 and 315 :
Quote :
As already stated the 10th Flotilla's exodus from Malta had begun on 26 April , with URGE leaving 
on the 27th . Expected at Alexandria on 6 May she failed to arrive . Two possibilities exist for her loss 
(1) mining soon after sailing Malta (2) an attack off Libya by Fiat Falcon aircraft.
At 0810 on 29 April a submarine used its gun to attack the motor vessel San Giusto , en route for
Derna , in the neighborhood of Ras el Hilal . The submarine was then attacked by the Italian Falcons.
These aircraft were single-seater fighters but were often employed on sea patrols as fighter-bombers
by the addition of underwing racks with two 220-pound bombs . There is some cause for believing
that the submarine in question was Urge . Given that she left Malta on 27 April , Urge could have been
off Ras el Hilal by the morning of the 29th .
...
...
This being so , there is a strong possibility that Urge had been the attacking submarine and in turn was
attacked by one or more of the patrolling Falcons . 
 
Unquote
 

It seems Mr Evans had some "imagination" or  "fantasies" , long before we did  !!!

Edited by JPMISSON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Post # 63 :

Everything I wrote and all the drawings and vintage pictures I have posted on the Forum , to explain the sonar images , remain unchanged .

If (repeat IF) I ever changed my opinion on something  :   I am rather happy with that because (as a popular saying goes) :
Only a fool would say  "I never change my mind"   !
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is evident that Mr Evans made an error in citing the San Giusto case. He never did any research in the Italian archives, preferring to rely on others. As if authors have not made mistakes in the past? Mr Evans did not have a close look at the documents available which prove that HMS Urge could not be at Ras Hilal on 29 April 1942. Please show me a document describing the attack on San Giusto. Nothing can be seen in her file at the Ufficio Storico.

 

We have already discussed the case before. Repeating the errors of others do not make them right. You must admit that you are the only one who sees without a doubt HMS Urge in your photos. You have failed to produce a single sonar expert to confirm your findings. In the past people assumed that you had dived the wreck and recognise it yourself and took it seriously and were misled by your claim. I hope I have opened their eyes. The Naval Historical Branch at the Ministry of Defence (UK) took a look at your photos  and dismissed them. Learn to live with it! You should try to devote your efforts in other areas instead of misleading people in this forum and others.

Edited by Platon Alexiades
Link to comment
Share on other sites

La caparbietà di Platon a negare l'esistenza di documenti inequivocabili sulla presenza di un sommergibile a Ras el Hilal mi fa un certo dispiacere. Intende a tutti i costi dimostrare che Lui ha ragione, mentre invece i documenti da me postati in questo sito, e da tutti consultabili, sono inequivocabili, e non frutto di compilazioni visionarie.

 

Sono anche pienamente convinto che l'URGE, partendo da Malta il mattino del 27 aprile 1942 e marciando anche a una velocità media di 8 nodi, era in grado di trovarsi all'appuntamento con il SAN GIUSTO il mattino del 29 aprile.

 

Sui relitti non intendo pronunciarmi perchè convinto che vicino a Tabarca di importanti non ve ne siano.

 

Sull'URGE attendo fiduciato che un giorno non lontanno vi si possa fare un sopralluogo a vista.

 

Francesco Mattesini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A complemento dei due Posts precedenti  :

 

Solo per ricordare che se ho citato il nome di questi sommergibili Italiani , ho solo accennato alla possibilità che il relitto da me catalogato 2G sia il Dessié , per il dettaglio (una apertura circolare grande) che si vede sull'immagine sonar al di sotto della piattaforma del cannone .

 

Povero Evans (Post #64) che si è inventato la storia dell'attacco a Ras el Hilal , senza nessuna ragione... povero il pilota del CR42 che sicuramente "avrà visto una balena" (anche se in Mediterraneo c'e ne sono poche) , poveri noi tutti a cui è consigliato di scrivere romanzi di fantascienza per liberare la nostra "fantasia immaginativa" ...

 

Questo è solo l'inizio della lotta frà i documenti Sonar e i sacro-santi Archivi .

Given a little more time , molte altre sorprese verranno a galla perchè , come già detto , le storie degli affondamenti e i punti dove sono affondate molte navi e molti sommergibili non sono sempre quelli indicati negli archivi . 

 

Sulla sola base delle immagini sonar e senza nessuna immersione , pretendo e dichiaro pubblicamente aver identificato :

-a Marsa el Hilal , i sommergibili   URGE  e   ARGONAUTA  e la petroliera PICCI FASSIO

-a Tabarka , il HMS QUENTIN  e  il Schnellboot S35

 

Tutte le ragioni e i documenti che mi hanno permesso queste lidentificazioni sono già stati pubblicati sul Forum . Non ho proprio niente da aggiungere : il lettore si farà la sua propria opinione .

Avrei sperato qualche commento sul caso facile della PICCI FASSIO perchè l'immagine è abbastanza chiara e coincide con quello che si legge nei documenti d'epoca . Non dispero che qualcuno si pronunci su quello che vede , anche se la sua opinione fosse contraria a quello che interpreto io .  

Serve solo una mezzoretta per leggere il thread PICCI FASSIO .

Per l'Argonauta , l'mmagine sonar è più difficile da interpretare da tutti e mi sono risolto a inviare il dossier allo Stato Maggiore della Marina .

 

Questo è stato un lavoro molto impegnativo che è durato più di due anni .

 

Qualcuno mi ha rimproverato di "saturare" il Forum con solo cose inventate e per di più inesatte o anche false .

Se fosse cosi' , gradirei una conferma per permettermi di regolarmi d'ora in poi .

Grazie . 

Edited by JPMISSON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pubblicato come Post #41 sul Forum :

 


 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With reference to Post # 40 : 


 

A totally different version of the events is to be found at :

 


and 


 

...very surprisingly (?) what Mr Evans wrote as early as 1986 in his book  Beneath

the Waves (see earlier Post) matches with the archival evidence found and published

very recently by Mr F. Mattesini of the Ufficio Storico della Marina , Rome.

 

The eight page article in the Italian publication STORIA MILITARE , April 2016 is an

excellent account of what really happened at Marsa el Hilal on April 29 , 1942.

HMS URGE was there and I here , publicly , declare that the sonar image obtained from

a sweep at Marsa el Hilal  in 2012 , is of the wreck of that submarine and of no other .

 

Whether the sonar image I published shows "some" evidence , "clear" evidence ,"reasonable" 

evidence , "excellent" evidence or "unchallengeable/unquestionable" evidence does not matter 

the least ...

 

It is not the words that count , only the sonar image  !

 

This sonar image has been published for all to see that at  Marsa el Hilal  there is a wreck which 

is a submarine , a submarine British U Class .

For me this is the wreck of HMS URGE , as quite explicitly indicated as a possibility in Evans' book 

and in very clear and insisting terms at that .... 

For some , there might be no submarine at all or maybe just a whale ? or a pram ?

I am not forcing anyone to accept the term I affixed to the word "evidence" :  people can have a 

good look at the sonar image and provided they do it with an open mind and fairness I fear none 

of their conclusions .

























 






















Edited by JPMISSON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are still waiting for the sonar expert who is supposed to confirm your photos...

You can fool some people some time, you cannot fool all the people all the time...

Last April the Naval Historical Branch has examined the sonar photos and the possibilities of HMS Urge was at Ras Hilal on 29 April 1942 and concluded that there were none.

Despite what Franco wrote "U" class submarines could not average 8 knots per 24 hours because they had to travel submerged during the day (2-3 knots) and surface cruising speed was 6-7 knots. This is why their orders were to travel 90 miles per day. There were no orders to go to Ras Hilal. In fact their orders were to keep as far away from the enemy coasts as possible (Libya and Crete). The orders were very clear: Urge was to arrive through position 34°55' N, 20°05' E at 0700B/30 April and from this position would come under the orders of Captain S.1 (Alexandria). Just look at the map it is 160 miles from Ras Hilal (on 30 April not 29 April!). This is why NHB concluded that HMS Urge could not be at Ras Hilal. If you can find orders to the contrary then produce them. After the disappearance of the submarine, S.1 and S.10 exchanged information to determine the cause of her loss at no point they mentioned that Urge had gone to Ras Hilal.

 

It is not to rob Mr Misson or the CR-42 fighter pilot of their glory, it is just by applying logic.

 

You may disagree with them but I would like to underline that the authors of the Storia Militare were induced in error by the sonar photo. I do not fault them. It is normal that if they were told that the wreck of HMS Urge was found at Ras Hilal they would assume it was caused by the CR-42 fighter. Unfortunately the photo did not show without a doubt that this was HMS Urge. People were hoodwinked into believing it because they assumed that the wreck had been visited when it was not.

 

Franco: I do not deny that there is a submarine at Ras Hilal, this is U-205 and it is probable that this is on the sonar photo although no one could be absolutely sure as it is not very clear.

 

Do you agree with JP that the following are at Ras Hilal?

 

Argonauta

Picci Fassio

 

And the following are at Tabarka:

 

HMS Quentin

S-35

Asteria

Avorio

Cobalto

Porfido

He also just added Dessié

 

If you agree with all of the above then I am not surprised if you think that HMS Urge is in the sonar photo...

People can disagree with my views. I have worked in the past with underwater research teams in Italy, Greece and Poland. They were always honest when they had doubts. I have never encountered before people who deliberately claimed "discoveries" which were false. I hope this is the first and last time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caro Platon,

 

A me non interessa sapere che il relitto dell’U-205 si trova a Ras el Hilal, questo è inequivocabile. J.P. è convinto di aver trovato il relitto dell’URGE nella stessa zona, ed io nel mio ultimo intervento ho detto che sono in attesa di una conferma, che per ora, per la situazione in Libia, tarda a venire.

 

Ho l’impressione che tutte le ricerche del Naval Historical Branch tendano a portare in luce episodi che contrastano con quelli a suo tempo discussi tra la Historical Section  Admiralty  e l’Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare e pertanto, come ho potuto constare, quelle ricerche forniscono informazioni di comodo. Mi spiego.

 

Sommergibili, specie italiani e tedeschi operanti in Atlantico, che nessuno era riuscito a comprendere com’erano andati perduti, ora improvvisamente vengano assegnati a navi ed aerei, naturalmente britanniche,  e noi tutti dobbiamo accettare le loro tesi. Io non ci sto! Per convincermi devono produrre prove sicure. Non é possibile che gli attacchi degli aerei e delle navi di superficie britannici abbiano sempre una vittima, mentre nelle stesse condizioni dìincertezza il successo viene negato agli italiani.

 

Se vogliono fare qualcosa di utile nella questione dell’URGE, che io dibatto da molti anni con ricerche d’Archivio, quei signori ci dicano, dato che Tu non ci sei riuscito, quale era il sommergibile che si trovava  a Ras el Hilal alle 08.00 del 29 aprile 1942, e non ci rispondano che il pilota del primo Cr. 42 che attaccò aveva scambiato il sommergibile per un grosso cetacio, oppure che aveva avuto una visione.

 

Se poi insistono che la perdita dell’URGE avvenne per causa di mine tedesche (guarda caso) nelle acque a 15 miglia dall’entrata del Grand Harbour di Malta, a me risulta (vedi in Internet) che sono stati trovati nelle acque dell’isola parecchi relitti (potrei elencarli), ma non quello dell’URGE.

 

A questo punto perché dovrei accertare la tesi del Naval Historical Branch e la Tua versione, a dispetto della mia che appare molto più logica, poiché l’attacco aereo si sviluppo in presenza  di almeno tre motozattere tedesche che reagirono anch’esse con le loro armi, e la notizia fu portata a conoscenza del Comando Supremo dell’ammiraglio Weichold.

 

Per quanta riguarda la velocità di superficie dell’URGE ( 2-3 miglia all’ora in superficie per mantenere l’occultamento), la tua tesi può essere contestata dal fatto che i sommergibili britannici erano continuamente avvistati in superficie dagli aerei dell’Asse, altrimenti non avrebbero potuti realizzare i grandi successi che hanno conseguito in cinque anni di guerra usando i siluri, ma anche intensamente il cannone?

 

Pertanto, in presenza di un ordine preciso per raggiungere il motoveliero SAN GIORGIO, molto importante per il carico di mine attesa a Darna, una maggiore velocità dell’URGE da parte del Comandante era pianamente giustificata.

 

Cordialmente

 

Franco

Edited by Francesco Mattesini
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caro Francesco,

 

First I will agree with you that what was published on the fate of submarines is open to question and whether by the Ufficio Storico, Naval Historical Branch or other authors, no one is infallible and in the past mistakes were made.

 

I will give you an example: for over 30 years the sinking of the submarine HMS Tarpon was attributed to the German minesweeper M 6. While I was researching the Norway Campaign it became evident that this was an error (due to a partial translation) and this submarine was correctly attributed to the German Q-ship Schiff 40. Her wreck was discovered a couple of months ago. In Germany Mr Axel Niestlé has corrected many errors concerning the loss of U-boats and he published recently a book about them.

 

As far as I know the area around Malta has not been systematically searched for submarine wrecks though there was an effort to locate HMS Olympus and I am informed that it was limited to an area within one or two miles of the spot believed where she had sunk. I do not know if HMS Urge was sunk on a mine there but it is most probable. By the way, although she was supposed to cross a German minefield laid by 3.Schnellbootflottille close to Malta, there was an Italian minefield much further out which she could also have crossed so this thesis has not yet been eliminated. The threat of drifting mines frequent around Malta cannot also be discounted.

 

You tell me that British submarines were frequently attacked on the surface by Axis aircraft. Where do you get this information? Before the supposed attack of 29 April 1942 there are only one instance of a British submarine being successfully attacked on the surface by an Axis aircraft in the Mediterranean: this was HMS Regent on 22 April 1941 in the Bay of Kotor (Yugoslavia) and this was an error because there were negotiations with the Italian authorities for the evacuation of the personnel of the British legation and there was even an Italian Army officer (Lt Bonetti) on board the submarine which was damaged. Otherwise, the only submarines confirmed damaged or sunk by air attack were all in the harbour of Malta or just outside at the time.

 

Did you ever ask yourself why Axis aircraft were not more successful when dealing with enemy submarines? The simple explanation is that all their attacks were carried on submerged submarines (most of the time at periscope depth) except for a few in 1943 when the threat had diminished. It was not because CANT seaplanes were inefficient but it was much more difficult to sink a submarine which was already submerged though in a few instances some of them were damaged.

 

British submarines had strict instructions to remain submerged during daylight hours when east of 01° East because of the danger of air attack. They were allowed to surface for brief period of time during daylight to attack with their gun (and this for a few minutes only) if there were no aircraft in the vicinity but not to travel continuously for hours at a time on the surface as you suggested.

 

Now you will tell me that HMS Urge surfaced to attack San Giusto. I will answer: how could she travel 400+ miles in two days unless she was continuously on the surface which was never the case. You will tell me that San Giusto and/or the German MFPs were attacked with gunfire. I will answer:

 

1.      even if Urge had the time to reach the area, it would not have surfaced to attack vessels escorted by aircraft and there was supposedly continuous air cover in the area. You will agree that there was continuous air cover over Ras Hilal on that day? OK I can accept that for a brief time they may have been no aircraft in sight but then explain the next items.

 

2.      Neither the San Giusto file nor the German MFPs Kriegstagebuch contain any mention of being shelled by an enemy submarine on that day (granted that San Giusto was sunk by HMS Turbulent two weeks later). I do not know where that error comes from but some time one can misinterpret an information and this was the most likely source. If you have a document from San Giusto or the German MFPs reporting being shelled by a submarine please let me know.

 

3.      You will say that the fighter pilot must have seen a submarine although a whale, a shoal of fishes or even a dolphin were sometime reported as submarine (you wrote that yourself in your Aprilia convoy article!)

 

I will reply with nine questions. During the period of HMS Urge trip from Malta to Alexandria I have nine incidents which report attack by an enemy submarine. None of them are true and I can prove no submarine was in the area as we know from their reports were they were (unless you tell me that HMS Urge was involved in each case!).

 

1.      1825/28 April 1942 in 30°50’ N, 18°57’ E (near Marsa Brega): two torpedoes fired at convoy Salona and Ennio escorted by the torpedo boat Cantore and the minesweeper Balear on passage from Tripoli to Benghazi. Cantore dropped four depth charges. No Allied submarines in area.

 

2.      0650/29 April 1942 in 41°23’ N, 17°07’ E (near Bari): the gunboat Cattaro sighted a submarine and attacked it five depth charges (only three exploded). No Allied submarines in area.

 

3.      0937/29 April 1942 in 35°57’ N, 11°55’ E:  S. Luigi and Saturno escorted by the destroyer Folgore and the torpedo boats Centauro and Pallade were attacked by a submarine. Centauro dropped six depth charges and was later joined in the hunt by the torpedo boat CastoreNo Allied submarines in area.

 

4.      1541/29 April 1942 in 35°12’ N, 12°20’ E: S. Luigi and Saturno escorted by the destroyer Folgore and the torpedo boats Centauro and Pallade were attacked by a submarine. Centauro dropped six patterns of depth charges. Claimed to have sunk the submarine as debris were recovered. However, examination of the debris proved to be of German origin and it was believed that she had attacked a wreck. No Allied submarines in area.

 

5.      1630/1 May 1942 in position 310° - Benghazi – 5 miles: a CANT seaplane and a CA.311 attacked a submarine [HMS Thorn was about 30 miles south of Benghazi and did not report any aircraft activity at the time]. No Allied submarines in area.

 

6.      1829/2 May 1942 in 32°34’30” N, 16°16’ E: Savona escorted by the torpedo boat Cantore reported missed by torpedo Cantore attacked the submarine with 7 depth charges but without observing any result. No Allied submarines in area.

 

7.      0940/5 May 1942 in 38°33’ N, 20°30’ E an Axis aircraft dropped two 50-kg bombs on a submarine. No Allied submarines in area.

 

8.       1720/6 May 1942 in 235° - Tinos Island (La Spezia) – 19 miles the Italian auxiliary Vergada attacked a submarine. No Allied submarines in area.

 

9.  2003/6 May 1942 in 228° - Tinos Island (La Spezia) – 21 miles a CANT Z.501 of 187^ Squadriglia sighted a submarine and dropped two depth charges, claiming a probable hit. No Allied submarines in area.

 

If you can contradict me in just one instance, then I will gladly consider the case of the CR-42 fighter or please explain what the people involved in the nine cases above saw? Just to show you that these errors were not rare!

 

Finally, where did the CR-42 fighter claim to have sunk or even damaged a submarine?

And when and where is the proof that HMS Urge got orders to go to Ras Hilal when several submarines were much closer to intercept San Giusto if there was indeed such an order? Were is the ULTRA message? If you think that HMS Urge was the better positioned submarine then please give me a list of British submarines at sea on 27-29 April and where each was located. Any close examination of this will show that HMS Urge would never have been picked to go to Ras Hilal if an interception of San Giorgio was so important as others were closer.

 

I understand very well that people got misled by Misson’s affirmation that he had located HMS Urge but he has been the only one to claim it and despite my request for him to name one sonar expert who will recognise HMS Urge without a doubt in his photos. I am still waiting.

 

I am sorry if I am upsetting some of you by proving to be such an heretic! You have not answered my question about the other discoveries of Mr Misson at Ras Hilal and Tabarka. Please let us know what you think.

 

Cordialmente,

 

Platon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a waste of time  !

This ping pong game should stop : this is not a Game : we are talking about a Tomb .

If someone is disrespectful of the Crew and the Families , the Readers of this Forum will judge .

No words , no speed calculations , no assumptions , no suppositions , no Archive document existing or worse still  "missing" , and no misled pride will ever erase the sonar image from Marsa el Hilal .

It has been published and is there for all to see . The truth has come from the seafloor and this will happen again , from sonar imagery alone  !

It is not up to me to ask a sonar tech to say what he sees it is up to him and no need for an expert in that , either : if he is that bad-sighted just ask a friend : he/she will tell him there is an aperture on the side of the casing of that sonar "object"  (as he calls that Tomb) .

The aperture is the Mooring Pipe as explained in an earlier Post .

I am sorry I have put this trump card on the table much too late after he has so publicly cornered himself on the issue of this wreck not being HMS URGE . I think I had warned him a couple of times about that  !

I would have liked to keep this thread (opened with the sonar picture) strictly to technicalities  .... 

The words that Mr Alexiades has used , all along , to qualify my work and my  "misleading / embroiling"  the public , are there for all to appreciate .

Edited by JPMISSON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDENTIFICAZIONE DEL RELITTO DEL SOMMERGIBILE  URGE , Marsa el Hilal , Libia .

 
 
La ricerca sonar a Marsa el Hilal , eseguita nell'Agosto del 2012 è durata circa un' ora . 
Questo fu fatto per l'addestramento del personale del  Department of Antiquities libico 
per la ricerca nel campo archeologico .
Il sonar utilizzato era Starfish 450 della ditta TRITECH , Aberdeen , Scozia .
Il GPS incorporato non era ancora istallato e percio' sulla registrazione non ci sono dati
geografici che permettono di fare le misure con la differenza nelle coordinate di due punti .
 
La zona perlustrata è centrata attorno alla posizione dell' unico relitto segnato sulle carte
nautiche , nel mezzo della baia . Allegato #1
Tutte le carte nautiche dal 1961 in poi , indicano solo un relitto anche se c'è ne sono altri
e molto vicini l'uno dall'altro . Allegato #2
 
Lo studio della registrazione sonar è cominciato solo a fine 2012 ed è durato fino ai primi
del 2015 : ci è voluto questa durata di tempo per familiarizzarsi con il software , capire cosa
rivelano queste immagini e finalmente essere in grado di pubblicare i risultati senza paura di 
sbagliarsi .
 
Il primo bersaglio ad essere riconosciuto come sommergibile fù per :
-Una struttura lunga e snella (certamente non una nave di superficie) ,
-Una sezione alta e centrale : una Falsatorre di sommergibile ,
-Un "return" forte da dove , su' un sommergibile , c'è di solito un Cannone ,
-Una protuberanza in cima alla Falsatorre : un Periscopio . Allegato #3
 
I dettagli che poi indicano che questo sommergibile è britannico sono questi :
 
-La barra che si vede dietro la Falsatorre : quasi sicuramente il palo Antenna Radio :
  certi sommergibili della U Class (non tutti) avevano questo tipo di Antenna e il URGE
  l'aveva , come si vede sulla foto d'epoca . Allegato #4
-Le ombre sul lato dello scafo leggero (Casing) , dovute alla Piattaforma per il Cannone
  e all'altro allargamento dello scafo verso i timoni di profondità anteriori . Allegato #5   
  
ma , più di tutto altro :
 
-Un Casing (Scafo Leggero) posteriore molto corte , che non copre tutta la lunghezza dello
  scafo resistente (Pressure Hull) : questo è una caratteristica essenziale che permette di
  riconoscere questo relitto come essendo U Class . Allegato #6
  Anche le classe  S e T avevano un Casing meno lungo dell'intero scafo resistente ma solo
  la U Class l'aveva cosi' corto come si vede sul disegno e sull'immagine sonar .
  
  e quel dettaglio poco vistoso che appare lo stesso sul Casing , fra la posizione del Cannone e
  quella del limite anteriore della Falsatorre :
 
-Il  "Mooring Pipe" , quell'apertura cosi' chiamata in inglese , che si vede su tutte le foto
  d'epoca di tutti i sommergibili U Class....     Allegato #4  ,  Allegato #7
 
 
Tutta l'immagine sonar viene capita con l' Allegato #8 .
Il relitto è percio' , senza nessun dubbio , un sommergibile britannico  U Class e tutti gli scritti ,
in Libri o Archivi (almeno quelli Italiani , come citati da F. Mattesini) indicano che è stato il URGE
ad essere affondato a Marsa el Hilal , il giorno 29 di Aprile 1942 , verso le otto del mattino .
 
QUESTA IMMAGINE SONAR E' QUELLA DEL RELITTO DEL SOMMERGIBILE URGE

post-124-0-54037900-1466499080_thumb.jpgpost-124-0-75780000-1466499103_thumb.jpgpost-124-0-58621200-1466499139_thumb.pngpost-124-0-33571600-1466499204_thumb.jpgpost-124-0-28299800-1466499230_thumb.jpgpost-124-0-10382200-1466499250_thumb.jpgpost-124-0-45699700-1466499307_thumb.jpgpost-124-0-61986900-1466499325.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...