"Storia Militare" e HMS URGE: si accoglie l'ipotesi Misson-Mattesini

[JPMISSON]

MARSA EL HILAL  and  TABARKA 

 

More clarifications

MARSA EL HILAL.

 

Some of the sonar images , Marsa el Hilal 2012 , show a British U Class submarine and an Italian

Classe 600 submarine.

Unless there are other candidates : these are respectively HMS URGE and ARGONAUTA 2°.

Note : The FOURTH (Unidentified) submarine is the only question mark , remaining .

 

Nobody has ever pretended that no dive is needed but the identifications of HMS QUENTIN and 

of SCHNELLBOOT S 35 (Tabarka , Tunisia) have been done without diving the wrecks  and the

dives on these wrecks will only prove the point that a dive is not always mandatory  :

It much depends on evidence that can be found (as  a complement to the sonar image) in texts ,

drawings and vintage pictures  .

 

For HMS URGE and... ARGONAUTA and... HMS QUENTIN and... S 35 , there is so much conclusive 

evidence that it is simply correct , if not an obligation , to publish the information  .

To do otherwise would be outright selfish and against moral behaviour .

Do not worry : the claims will all prove correct , even if they cannot be immediately verified

(at Masa el Hilal only) . 

 

As shown on the Google Earth picture , posted several times on the Forum , U-205 is not in the

area sonar-searched in 2012 . 

Therefore , none of the three submarines on the sonar recording can be U-205 .

When I said that on the day we conducted the search we went straight to the area where ONE

wreck is marked on the 3355 Admiralty chart : this is correct except that in this area the sonar

shows , additionally , many  , big-size wrecks : any of these could be the (only) one selected to

appear on the chart .

Maybe some other researchers could help find out the identity of this (only) wreck marked on

Admiralty chart 3355  and which appears for the first time in the edition  September 1960 .

 

Those interested in the mysteries about HMS URGE and U-205  ought to read the book titled

ORDEAL BY WATER  by Peter Keeble , one of the only two divers who are said to have seen the

U-205  resting on the seafloor . 

None of them was a submariner and the British did not know (at the time) that HMS Urge was there !

In these circumstances I challenge anyone to pretend that a "non-submariner diver" could not have 

easily mistaken a submarine for another .......in the semi darkness of 23 fathoms of sea water !

 

Yes , I confirm that (for someone not conversant with the differences between submarines of German,

British or Italian design) it is quite impossible to figure out the true origin of the boat !

 

The U-205 search by the British took place in 1943 , one year after HMS Urge had already been there 

and had been subject to marine growth .

In  http://www.aidmen.it/topic/91-sommergibili-u-205-urge-argonauta-2%C2%B0/    I have already listed  some of the reasons why it is so obvious the British did not find the German U-205 but their own submarine  : HMS URGE .

The reasons are multiple and based on what can be read in Ordeal by Water , a first hand account of

what was found and seen there , on the seabed at Marsa el Hilal .

 

Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-205

Quote :

Aftermath[edit]

U-205 is widely believed to be the submarine with the erroneous number U-307 in Peter Keeble's book Ordeal by Water, in which he describes his dive to recover encrypting equipment from a sunken U-boat.

Unquote

 

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

For ARGONAUTA 2° :  it is not for me to give the reason why she sank or... why she sank in that place  . 

My only responsibility is to disclose what one can see on the recording : an Italian CLASSE 600 submarine .

We only know she was going back to Taranto for some repairs that could not be made at any base in Libya .

Several submarines of various nationalities never surfaced again because of a catastrophic leak or for some

reason other than an enemy attack and we all know that  !

 

 

TABARKA

 

The outmost will be done this summer , 2016 ,  to find the Names of all the submarines awaiting to be visited ,

identified , remembered and honoured .

It is about time the sacred submarine graveyard off Tabarka is surfaced from oblivion . 

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by JPMISSON

[Platon Alexiades]

If according to you a "non-submariner diver" could easily have taken HMS Urge for U-205 your point is a valid one but I will also use the same reasoning that a "non-submariner sonar operator" could also make the same mistake the other way around... 

As for the book by Keeble: it is true he makes a mistake by identifying the submarine as U-307 and this is not his only mistake. He gives no dates and is very vague so I would not rely on his recollections for absolute accuracy.

For the presumed presence of Argonauta, I would be interested in your theory on her loss and perhaps hear from Franco Mattesini on this subject.

I look forward for your identification of the eight submarines you found in the Bay of Tabarka and some lively discussions. It must have been quite an hecatomb that an ignorant researcher like myself has overlooked...

 

Platon

[JPMISSON]

MARSA EL HILAL

 

HMS URGE  versus  U-205

It might be of interest to the Readers of the Forum to know that there is a somewhat enormous difference between a   "non-submariner diver"   approaching a 60 m long wreck in 26 fathoms and a  "non-submariner sonar-operator" , sitting comfortably in front of a screen displaying a sonar recording .

The (then) hard top diver Peter Keeble had about one hour bottom time ....

I have spent almost three years on the subject , using all the resources of the sonar software and the data and pictures that can be found on the Net ...

The only portions of the Italian , British or German submarine-designs that I do not fully know are the insides  !

Put me blindfolded in front of models of submarines and I will tell you if they are British , German or Italian . 

 

Peter Keeble made no mistakes and the absence of date , position and details is only because at the time his book was published , 1957 , the British Official Secrets Act was still in vigor ...

His Chapter VIII is titled   TOP SECRET DIVE  . 

 

As for the reasons why he must have been diving HMS URGE instead of the U-205 , here are a few :

 

According to the RN report , the U-205 was resting on the seafloor , listed to Port...

The sonar picture shows a submarine (URGE) sitting upright or very slightly listed to Starboard .

Keeble writes : "on an even keel"  : this does not match the RN report .

 

When searching for the submarine , the first British diver reached the bottom with a shot line 230' long .

This is consistent with a vertical depth around 50 to 60 m : 26 fathoms or more , as per Chart 3355 .

The wreck of U-205 lies in only 22 fathoms or less than 40 m .

The wreck is just about discernable on Google Earth pictures 2014 : 32°  54'  49"  N      22°  11'  07"  E

 

According to Keeble (in hard hat attire) he managed to enter the Conning Tower after he realised the hatch was OVAL .

Oval shaped Hatches (both Upper and Lower) in the C.T. is a specific British feature .

There are no Oval Hatches on any German U Boat : they are all Circular .

Had the hatch been circular he would not have been able to enter the Conning Tower .

 

He found the Conning Tower Upper Hatch OPEN : this could very well be possible for HMS URGE but not for U-205 :

At the time U-205 sank , the submarine was still under tow by Gloxinia ... WITH ALL HATCHES (obviously) CLOSED . 

 

He found bodies floating in the Conning Tower : this would certainly be possible for HMS URGE  but not for U-205 :

The few casualties on U-205 happened ON DECK , when under fire from Gloxinia or Paladin : there was certainly 

nobody inside (whether alive or dead) when the British started towing the U-205 : all the crew had been transferred

on the British vessels . There would have been no body left on board .

 

ARGONAUTA 2°

I have no  "theory"  or  "theories" : my only duty was to report the presence of an Italian CLASSE 600 submarine there .

The total lack of interest and commitment of others , to find out more about this forgotten sub and its crew , is most surprising and regrettable to say the least . 

 

 

TABARKA 

Not to worry : the entire community knows nothing about these wrecks and their contents   !  

Edited July 12, 2016 by JPMISSON

[Francesco Mattesini]

Platon e Jean Pierre.

 

Sulla causa della perdita ARGONAUTA, della quale abbiamo ampiamente discusso, senza trovare una soluzione condivisibile, può essere successo di tutto: attacchi di idrovolanti Sundarland della RAF e attacchi dei cacciatorpediniere della 2^a Flottiglia, ed è difficile stabilire a chi sicuramente spetta il successo. Ma una cosa la ritengo quasi certa, ossia che l’ARGONAUTA, nella sua navigazione di trasferimento da Tobruk verso Taranto, deve essere affondato dal largo di Ras el Hilal dove si sono svolti parte dei citati attacchi britannici.

 

Quindi non ritengo che il suo relitto si trovi nel Golfo di Ras el Hilal, che avrebbe potuto raggiungere soltanto trovandosi in serie difficoltà. Ma a questo punto, dato che nel Golfo non ci sono attacchi aerei e di navi di superficie, come sarebbe affondato, per quale causa?

 

Si possono fare tante ipotesi, ma se non si trova il relitto le ipotesi rimangono tali.

 

Franco

[Francesco Mattesini]

British and Other Navies in World War 2 Day-by-Day
by Don Kindell

 

NAVAL EVENTS, JANUARY 1942 (Part 1 of 2) (in outline only)
Thursday 1st – Wednesday 14th

 

Monday, 27 April [errore é il giorno 29, il 27 é quello della partenza dell'URGE da Malta]

 

Submarine URGE (Lt Cdr E P Tomkinson DSO) was sunk by Italian aircraft off Ras el Hilal. Cdr Tomkinson, Lt D B Allen, Lt J M S Poole DSC, Ty/Lt J S D Ransome DSC RNR, twenty eight ratings and 11 RN rating passengers for Alexandria were lost.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Francesco Mattesini

[JPMISSON]

MARSA EL HILAL

ARGONAUTA 2° 

 

I cannot believe no one in Italy is willing to have the slightest look at the sonar picture and the correlation with the line drawing of an Italian submarine CLASSE 600 , posted on this Forum more than a year ago.

This is one of your submarines .

The lads in there are your fellow countrymen .  

Edited July 12, 2016 by JPMISSON

[Platon Alexiades]

Dear Franco,

 

The date is not the only error that Don Kindell made in this case. If authors repeat errors made by others that does not make it true. Kindell had done an excellent work but it is natural that  errors will slip by. An historian cannot be sure of all his facts and cannot analyze each of them carefully. You never made an error in your books? I can show you many errors in Chronik des Seekrieges by Rohwer/Hümmelchen and in the Official Histories, does it mean they are all bad? Many errors were made after the war when assessment made about submarines that disappeared with all hands were made hastily. Axel Niestlé has made many re-assessments of losses of German U-boats.

As for Argonauta I think we both agree that the possibility of being sunk close to shore at Ras Hilal is a very remote one. No British destroyer or aircraft attacked a submarine at Ras Hilal, no mines (Italian or British) were laid at Ras Hilal, so we are left with the hypothesis that she was lost accidentally. Italian submarines were usually travelling on the surface in Libyan waters when following the coastal route from Tobruk to Ras Hilal. Why would Argonauta dive in the Bay of Ras Hilal? Perhaps for a trial dive? As far as I know, an accident in these circumstances would not be impossible but very odd and extremely rare. Sneaking in the Bay without being noticed, she could have been taken for enemy and sunk by Italian aircraft, So I think this hypothesis has no solid foundation. Italian submarines were instructed to proceed surfaced in Italian-controlled waters unless they advance gave warning that they would submerge for a trial dive or other reason. I have not read any document that Argonauta informed Ras Hilal that she would carry a trial dive. An accident on the surface? So close to shore and no bodies recovered?

 

Perhaps you can also identify the eight submarines found by Jean-Pierre at Tabarka? Can you name me any one of them? I find it strange that HMS Quentin and S-35 all reported to have been sunk over 40 miles from Tabarka made their way to this bay.

You have to forgive me if I take all this with a lot of scepticism.

 

Jean-Pierre is citing his Keeble as his main authority on the search for U-205 and his conclusion that they got the wrong wreck and dived on HMS Urge. You will find the actual report of the search of U-205 (from ADM199/432, TNA) attached to this message.

 

You will find that:

 

1. Keeble is not listed as one of the divers. He probably heard the story from fellow divers and attribute it in his book as his own. It makes a very thrilling chapter but there no specific details such as the day or even month when it happened. It helps sell the book. I think that Keeble let his imagination take over.

 

2. When the dive-boat arrived they went straight to the buoy marking the spot which HMS Gloxinia had left after U-205 had sunk. You will now let me believe that Gloxinia accidentally dropped it on HMS Urge?

 

I prefer to rely on an official report to that of a thrill-seeking author. Jean-Pierre may prefer otherwise. To each his own.

 

Platon

[Francesco Mattesini]

Caro Platon,

 

l’Ammiraglio Fioravanzo mi disse un giorno. La Storia si fa per gradi, e dobbiamo accettare, anche se non ci piacciono, novità e correzioni di errori.

 

Si, di errori io ne ho fatti molti, ma confrontandoli a quelli degli altri, che tu ai citato, e direi anche di aggiungervi tra i più famosi Christopher Shores, le cui opere però sono molto istruttive per la conoscenza della guerra aerea, mi posso contentare.

 

Nelle seconde edizioni dei miei libri sono sempre corso ai ripari, anche se ciò mi dispiaceva.

 

Ho dovuto togliere al sommergibile MOROSINI un successo importante come quello del modernissimo piroscafo britannico  STANGARTH, per sostituirlo con il modestissimo e vecchio MANAQUI, e ciò a comportato che nelle classifiche totali di affondamenti quel sommergibile è passato dal 3° al 4° posto dietro il MOCENIGO, mentre Athos Fraternale scivola anch’esso di un posto nella classifica dei comandanti affondatori, passando dal 3° al 4°, dietro  Longanesi Cattani.

 

Questa sostituzione l’ ho fatta nell’articolo sull’attività dei sommergibili italiani nelle Antille per il Bollettino d’Archivio USMM, in PDF, una volta accertatomi della verità.

 

Così come, dopo una nostra lunga discussione, mi sono convinto che il sommergibile TOTI non aveva affondato il RORQUAL ma il TRIAD e nella 3^a Edizione di “Betasom”, se verrà stampato, ho già apportato la correzione.

 

Non entro nei particolari dell’U 205, dal momento che non ho documenti che tu mostri. Ma mi sembra impossibile che i sommozzatori scesi su quello scafo, riconoscendo particolari dello scafo e apparecchiature tecniche, avessero scambiato un sommergibile tedesco per uno inglese. Assolutamente impensabile.

 

Franco

[Platon Alexiades]

Dear Franco,

 

I would not like to leave the impression to the readers of this forum that I am not open to discussions or that I know everything. I make often mistakes and found mistakes in my only book after it was printed. Nobody's perfect. As Admiral Fioravanzo told you, History is done in little steps and corrections are to be expected as part of our evolution.

 

I feel that people interested in our hobby should be encouraged to ask questions and contribute even minor bits. Discussions are very valuable even if we do not always agree with the opposite views. Some neophytes may ask questions that we found outrageous but they should be answered nevertheless. Recently, a fellow Canadian asked if it was true that a U-boat had entered the St. Lawrence and operated in Lake Ontario! I am not against asking this type of question but I think we can answer with certainty that this was never the case even though some people here may claim to have been witnesses. The only U-boat which went to the Great Lakes was the captured U-505.

 

I am in complete agreement with you for the case of MOROSINI/MANAQUI and the sinking of TRIAD by TOTI (actually it was believed for a while that it was RAINBOW not RORQUAL).

For me I have nothing to add to HMS Urge and would wait till the wreck located by sonar by Jean-Pierre is definitely identified. I am quite aware that it is not easy to identify a wreck after more than 70 years, marine growth will make it very difficult even if a diver is about two or three meters away or by robot photography. To rely solely on sonar is not enough, at least not for me. I would add that I saw much sharper sonar images which were quite misleading (what I thought was a submarine turned to be a merchant ship).

 

Cordially yours,

 

Platon

[JPMISSON]

MARSA EL HILAL   and   TABARKA 

Some points

 

Reviewing the many Posts on this Forum about the wrecks sonar-located at Marsa el Hilal

and Tabarka , the Readers can now see how upsetting the presence of these wrecks can be to some ...

 

One thing is certain : the sonar searches in both these places have yielded results that seem to

contradict the written texts found in Naval Records and Books , at least for the final position of these

lost vessel.

 

Although for Marsa el Hilal we cannot yet convince those who doubt about the obvious presence of WWII

wrecks there (other than just U-205) , it is only a matter of weeks before we find and reveal the Names

of the ones off Tabarka , particularly those of the submarine-tombs .

As for HMS QUENTIN and S 35 , although the sonar images are only too clear to all but a few , we shall

of course provide additional evidence so as to obtain justice  : we are no hoaxers  ! 

 

It is hoped that immediately after more evidence will have been provided , those who so persistently and

publicly denied the reality we posted on this Forum will , conversely , publicly admit their misjudgement 

on our work and our intentions .

 

The attached data is to allow others to pursue the search , should we fail  (for whatever reason) .

The many souls down there deserve being remembered and honoured .

Edited April 27, 2016 by JPMISSON

[JPMISSON]

TABARKA  

Wrecks  HMS QUENTIN  and  SCHNELLBOOT  S 35

 

For the identification of these wrecks , using their sonar image and vintage pictures :

 

HMS QUENTIN          see  :    http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10144318

 

SCHNELLBOOT S 35   see :   http://www.s-boot.net/sboote-wracks.html

                                                This site now gives the coordinates of the wreck as obtained during the 

                                                 sonar search (with GPS data) , off Tabarka , 2015 .

                                                 Note : no other Schnellboot was lost in the whole area .

 

 

[JPMISSON]

TABARKA  

Wrecks  HMS QUENTIN  and  SCHNELLBOOT  S 35

 

For HMS QUENTIN  see        :    http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10144318

 

For SCHNELLBOOT S 35 see :   http://www.s-boot.net/sboote-wracks.html

SCHNELLBOOT 

German Schnellboot S 35 : identified from sonar image alone , without diving the wreck .

http://www.s-boot.net/sboote-wracks.html

This Website now gives the true position of the wreck of this  Schnellboot with the coordinates

indicated by GPS during the sonar search (2015) that revealed her presence on the seafloor , 

off Tabarka , Tunisia :

 

S 35

28.02.43

Mittelmeer

37^o 04’ N

08^o 52’ E *)

 

Edited April 27, 2016 by JPMISSON

[Platon Alexiades]

If you think that these photographs are enough proofs to establish without further discussion that they represent HMS Quentin and S-35 and do not need to be investigated further then the standards of discovery must have become very low indeed...

I find it strange that vessels reportedly sunk 40-50 miles from Tabarka all drifted there...

I am still waiting for the identity of the 8 submarines in the Bay of Tabarka and the story how they got there.

I wish you luck for your sonar searches but pardon me if I lack credulity.

 

Platon

[JPMISSON]

Discussions are futile , to my taste at least . I have no longer any time for that  !

 

A little patience : we shall soon see which of  "Archives"  or  "Evidence from the Sea"  will prove right ...

especially when it comes to the position of submarines who have been  thought to always be resting on the 

seabed exactly where they disappeared from the surface . 

This belief will now have to be corrected for many of the lost submarines .

 

As for the submarines at Tabarka : I will only provide the evidence . Others are welcome to build  "stories" .

I am no Story-teller nor Archive copier .... I only bring sonar images to the table .

Yet , this seems to be too much to some .

 

No lack of Credulity ...  just lack of Fairness  !

[JPMISSON]

For information only .

 

A complement to the dossier "SUBMARINES at MARSA EL HILAL" :

 http://www.aidmen.it/topic/438-storia-militare-e-hms-urge-si-accoglie-lipotesi-misson-mattesini/page-3

"A German and a British submarine , pretty close to one another..."

The "pretty close to one another"  is purely  from J. Mallmann Showell  (I had not provided any indication

on this matter...until 2015 !)

 

A hoax to some ....! 

"Impensabile" to others .....

 

The sonar recording 2012 shows three submarines other than U-205 .

Therefore there are four submarines on the seafloor at Marsa el Hilal .

 

http://www.amazon.fr/Jak-P.-Mallmann-Showell/e/B001HD225A