MARSA EL HILAL, i Relitti.

[JPMISSON]

http://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/5629.html

Quote :

 

29 Jun 1940
On 29 June 1940 around 0615hours the Italian submarine Argonauta (offsite link) was probably sunk near Cape Ras el Hilal, Libya in position 35°16'N, 20°20'E by the British destroyers HMS Dainty (Cdr. M.S. Thomas, RN), HMS Decoy (Cdr. E.G. McGregor, RN), HMS Dhttp://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/5629.html

 

The attached Google Earth picture shows the position indicated in UBOAT.NET :    35°  16'  N       20°  20'  E

How can one believe this statement  ???  This is 167 nm away from Ras el Hilal .....

PROBABLY  ..?

"NEAR" CAPE RAS EL HILAL ...?

There is reason to doubt the validity or accuracy of this information.

If indeed the British vessels encountered the ARGONAUTA 2° and took action against her it must have been much closern(really near Cape Ras el Hilal as quoted in the report) and not 167 nm away....

 

The sonar recording Marsa el Hilal 2012 shows a submarine , Italian Classe 600 , as per correlation with vintage pictures and original drawings .

ARGONAUTA 2° is in P.A.    32°  54'  N     22°  11'  E

Edited May 25, 2016 by JPMISSON

[JPMISSON]

http://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/5629.htmh

 

 

29 Jun 1940
On 29 June 1940 around 0615hours the Italian submarine Argonauta (offsite link) was probably sunk near Cape Ras el Hilal, Libya in position 35°16'N, 20°20'E by the British destroyers HMS Dainty (Cdr. M.S. Thomas, RN), HMS Decoy (Cdr. E.G. McGregor, RN), HMS Defender (Lt.Cdr. St.J.R.J. Tyrwhitt, RN), HMS Ilex (Lt.Cdr. P.L. Saumarez, DSC, RN) and the Australian destroyer HMAS Voyager (Lt.Cdr. J.C. Morrow, RAN).

 

The attached Google Earth picture shows the position indicated in UBOAT.NET :    35°  16'  N       20°  20'  E

How can one believe this statement  ???  This is 167 nm away from Ras el Hilal .....

"PROBABLY"  ...?

"NEAR" CAPE RAS EL HILAL ...?

......There is reason to doubt the accuracy of this information.

If indeed the British vessels encountered the ARGONAUTA 2° and took action against her it must have been much closer

(really near Cape Ras el Hilal as quoted in the report) and not 167 nm away....

 

The sonar recording Marsa el Hilal 2012 shows a submarine , Italian Classe 600 , as per correlation with vintage pictures

and original drawings .

ARGONAUTA 2° is in P.A.   32°  54'  N         22° 11'  E

see also :  http://www.aidmen.it/topic/91-sommergibili-u-205-urge-argonauta-2%C2%B0/

Edited May 20, 2016 by JPMISSON

[Platon Alexiades]

I agree that the description used on uboat.net as "near Ras Hilal" is misleading. The description could have used "west of Crete" more accurately.  I do not know who wrote it but if one should complain about it then one should write to uboat.net. This is not in the original British report. This error does not justify the claim that ARGONAUTA was lost at Ras Hilal.

[JPMISSON]

UBoat.net  Posts # 16 and 17

Quote

On 29 June 1940 around 0615hours the Italian submarine Argonauta (offsite link) was probably sunk near Cape Ras el Hilal, Libya .

Unquote

 

This I retain correct , for the DATE and for the LOCATION , as Argonauta 2° is indeed on the seafloor at Marsa el Hilal , as per the sonar picture 2012 .

The figures (the coordinates) do not make sense . A well-known NAMEPLACE (Marsa el Hilal) makes a lot more sense .

 

This UBoat.net page suggests the RN seems to claim having sunk ARGONAUTA  near Marsa el Hilal , but as in the case of the many submarine wrecks off Tabarka we now know that even after having been considered "sunk" a submarine can travel some distance before really foundering to the bottom ...

ARGONAUTA 2° rests in the middle of the bay MARSA EL HILAL , most probably since June 29 , 1940 ...

Period.

Edited May 25, 2016 by JPMISSON

[Platon Alexiades]

You are quite right. Submarines have been known to travel after being sunk (about 170 miles in the case of ARGONAUTA). This was common knowledge but I had forgotten. Thank you for reminding me.   Please send your list of submarines at Tabarka as soon as possible. However, it seems we really had bad luck as all these submarines after being sunk travelled to Tabarka all these distances only to founder just about a mile or so from the shore. None of them ever got beached. Bad luck!

Edited May 20, 2016 by Platon Alexiades

[JPMISSON]

I agree that the description used on uboat.net as "near Ras Hilal" is misleading. The description could have used "west of Crete" more accurately.  I do not know who wrote it but if one should complain about it then one should write to uboat.net. This is not in the original British report. This error does not justify the claim that ARGONAUTA was lost at Ras Hilal.

Not misleading at all... , on the contrary : quite the best hint of what must have happened : Argonauta  is resting on the seafloor at Marsa el Hilal , whether some like it or not . 

The simple fact that this report mentions Ras el Hilal renders void any other position (in Lat./Long.) .

The sonar image is of an Italian submarine Classe 600 and the correlation with the drawing Serie Argonauta is just remarkable.

Nothing and Nobody will ever be capable of erasing the sonar images (already published in earlier Posts on this Forum).

"Respected historians" are supposed to make an effort to find the truth , even if the truth is uncomfortable  ...to some of them.

If reading a sonar image is beyond their capabilities , then outside help is obtainable.

We have not seen the slightest effort in this direction , yet....

Have we ???

 

Contempt for other versions of the events is not a responsible attitude and distorting the meaning of other participants to this Forum is most despicable : I never said Argonauta travelled 170 miles to come and rest in Marsa el Hilal ...because she was never seen (let alone "sunk") in position  35° 16' N   20°  20' E. 

("West of Crete" or "South of Greece" or "East of Sicily" or wherever some pretend this is.....)

I simply wrote that the UBoat.net page reading "Argonauta  sunk near Ras el Hilal" , was in all aspects fitting 

the fact that the wreck has been found in the Bay of Ras el Hilal : Marsa el Hilal .....even if the submarine might have kept going for some time and for some distance between the moment she was hit and the moment she came to rest for good on the bottom . 

Edited May 25, 2016 by JPMISSON

[Platon Alexiades]

It might help that you read the reports by the destroyers Dainty, Decoy, Defender, Ilex and Voyager which carried out the A/S sweep of 29 June before elaborating colourful theories. You would then realise that they were nowhere near Ras Hilal on that day. During this morning Uebi Scebeli was sunk and Tarantini and Salpa were hunted but they managed to escape. You would then understand that the position 35°16' N, 20°20' E is accurate enough. Unless all the destroyers concerned and the Italian submarines made extraordinary navigation errors and failed to notice that they were a few hundred metres from the coast at Ras Hilal. If you believe that all this depth charging occurred in the Bay of Ras Hilal without being witnessed by the Italian coastal station then perhaps you think that Italian coastal watchers were blind and deaf...

I am relieved though that you accept the fact that Argonauta did not drift 170 miles...

The sonar image proves definitely that this wreck is Argonauta? If it is so obvious why did it take you three years to get to this conclusion? Unfortunately one can mix imagination and reality too easily.  You also claim that there is a second 600 ton Italian submarine at Ras Hilal. Which one is it?

[JPMISSON]

I believe in nothing but this :

 

-UBoat.net mentioning Argonauta was sunk near Ras el Hilal   :  (35°  16'  N    is not near Ras el Hilal  !).

-Argonauta's route was through Ras el Hilal.

-A sonar recording in the bay Marsa el Hilal showing an Italian submarine Classe 600 (see correlations in earlier Posts).

-Argonauta had a serious problem requiring her to return to Taranto for repairs .Nobody knows the exact reason  for her never surfacing  again.

-After the events , Assessors were quick to claim success for the enemy's lost sea-units.  .

 

Why contradict yourself : In several Posts you say I am jumping to conclusions and now I am being asked why it took me three years to get to this conclusion ... 

Why don't you try to learn (just a little) about sonar imagery : you might then find the answer to your recent question !

A crash course would do !

This would certainly help you acquiring some respect for the work of others !

As for my "imagination" I am glad I have something of that and I pity those who spend their lives digging only into Archives.

Tabarka will be the next best revelator in the whole controversy  "Archives versus Sonar Evidence from the bottom of the sea" .

Edited May 25, 2016 by JPMISSON

[Platon Alexiades]

Unfortunately, I think that when you stare too long at your sonar photographs you begin to imagine things.

It is true that Argonauta followed the coast from Tobruk to Ras Hilal and thence direct to Taranto but she was a few miles off the coast and her route was on the surface up to Ras Hilal. If her captain decided to carry a trial dive in Ras Hilal bay before making the crossing to Taranto, he would have informed the local authorities because submerged submarines in Italian-controlled waters were treated as enemy unless they informed of their intention to do so. 

This may be difficult for you to grasp.

I do not claim to interpret sonar imagery but yours have been shown to experienced divers and none has shared your conclusions. I would suggest that you obtain more solid evidence before clamouring your "finds".

You might dismiss the value of archives research and that is your choice but I fear it will only lead you to hasty and inaccurate conclusions.

[JPMISSON]

We shall very soon see if your contempt for sonar imagery proves justified .

As for your inelegant way of writing about my "imagination" , my "staring too long at sonar images" , my "fuzzy pictures" and other niceties of the sort , (posted on this Forum and on others , since May last year) , they will remain there for Readers to appreciate fully , at any time .

Apparently my sonar images are causing some alarm  !

As stated earlier : I mainly bring sonar images to the table : do what you please with them but do not try stopping this exercise . 

I am only accountable to the Moderators of this Forum and only they can stop me posting  "hasty and inaccurate conclusions" .

 

So , this is my question to the Readers : have you been annoyed or just simply bored with what I have posted so far  ???

I will accept all views and advice .

[Platon Alexiades]

I do not have contempt for sonar images and I have seen some which were quite sharp but I am afraid yours do not rise to the task.

When a vessel is known to have sunk in a specific spot, a sonar image is perhaps enough. However when a vessel is not known to be sunk in a spot surveyed by sonar alone then I think that the onus to prove the claim is greater. Usually, serious divers have either brought back photographs or objects from the vessel which show proofs of their findings. Sometime even photographs are not enough. I do not mind if you think you have discovered a vessel but  this should remain a suggestion rather then a definitive fact. To claim it as a definitive fact is a disservice to historians and underwater researchers alike. You can look on this web site at photos from wrecks discovered by other groups and I would suggest you follow the same procedures.

I am not annoyed or bored, just disappointed. You can keep on posting the same sonar photos but expect a challenge every time until you can provide some solid proofs. I am sorry if this upsets you.

[JPMISSON]

I accept all challenges on TECHNICAL aspects of the sonar imagery ...

 

I have seen nothing of the sort in your Posts , only words about my "wild claims" , my "imagination" , my

"jumping to conclusions" , the need for me to be "more serious" ....

Just read again through your Posts on this Forum and elsewhere  !

This is no "challenge" but bad will and ill faith , probably only due to the fear of Archives being contradicted by 

sonar findings (if only for the Position of the Wrecks).

I have not read a single technical word from you about  PICCI FASSIO , S 35 , HMS QUENTIN  the sonar pictures of which can be understood by a 5 year old child when correlated to the vintage pictures. 

 

As for more evidence , just be a little patient : going to -65m / -78m (at 3 nm offshore) is not like walking into an Archive room ..

One has to wear Flippers (and much more) ... not Slippers.

 

 

 

[Platon Alexiades]

Yes, I am sure a 5-year old child can understand your pictures. The problem is when he grows up he begins to have doubts...

[JPMISSON]

With reference to Post #22 and the theories it offers it might interest the Readers to know that in 1940 there was no such thing as a  "Naval Station"  at  Ras el Hilal .

There was only a Lighthouse....

The Pier for submarines , the Tunnel to reach it and the Observation Post (higher in the hills) were all built circa 1942.

 

This is all there was when I first went to the place in ....1946.

The nearest maritime station was the little harbour at DERNA , 25 nm away.....

Edited May 27, 2016 by JPMISSON

[Platon Alexiades]

In case you are still clinging to the theory that HMS Decoy sank Argonauta in the Bay of Ras Hilal:

I have informed uboat.net that the term "near Ras Hilal" was loosely used in their text as the position 35°16' N, 20°20' E is the correct one (with slight variation from one destroyer's report to another). I have sent them the copy of the documents involved to prove it but knowing your contempt for archive work, they are no use for you as you know better.

Uboatnet has corrected it.

 

I repeat for those interested: HMS Decoy and four other destroyers did sink Uebi Scebeli and attack Tarantini and Salpa. With the many depth charge attacks of the morning of 29 June, they may have sunk a second submarine which could be Argonauta but we cannot be positively sure and this would be west of Crete not at Ras Hilal.

 

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.

 

The wrecks at Ras Hilal will remain unconfirmed for the time being as the situation in Libya is not likely to change any time soon. Have you ever tried to find out if any vessel could have been lost at Ras Hilal after the war?

 

For the wrecks at Tabarka, I do suggest that you rely on robotic equipment and not take unnecessary risks. The depth of about 70 metres is quite deep if you are only using compressed air and I would leave these dives to younger men and only if they are experienced in using mixed gases.

 

Take note of the recent discovery of the submarine P.311: despite the photographs taken, the Royal Navy has been slow before confirming that this was indeed the wreck.

You should do the same before claiming your "discoveries". It is fine to make "suggestions" but do not claim them as "undeniable truths" without some sort of proofs. You may not like dissenting views but this is your prerogative. You will pardon some of us if we are still skeptics...