Debate: The Search for U864

Sorry it's very long and late in posting but it took a while to type. It's more for anyone with a serious interest.

Comparison: The Global range U864 was the same size as 10 triple width double-decker buses. The Atlantic range Venturer was two thirds its size. Surfaced the larger U864 was 30% faster, but submerged the smaller Venturer was 30% faster. Armaments were roughly equivalent. All other things being equal either could have sunk the other.

The instruction to Venturer about where to find U-Boats appears to have been sent it four days before it accidentally stumbled upon the U-864, so we should not make too much of the program’s excitable suggestion it was an Enigma success. It seems most likely the U-864 was only making a lot of noise because it had a fault. And no one will ever know if it was zigzagging under water, nor if when attacked it dived or turned away, or tried to do both – the Venturer’s aiming report suggests it just tried to turn away but is inconclusive.

The action Track Chart from HMS Venturer Battle report is at http://www.klammi.de/Personen/Page11095/U864/U864-14/u864-14.html

Below are selected extracts from Royal Navy records.

Extracts from letter 28/02/11945 Admiral (Submarines) to Secretary of The Admiralty, re H. M. Submarine Venturer – report of 11th War Patrol:

“It is thought that noisy machinery may well have been the cause of the U-boat’s H. E. sounding like diesel engines”.

“Whether or not the U-Boat was zigzagging when submerged will remain a matter for conjecture”.

“The enemy’s course and speed were accurately estimated without any asdic ranging. It is considered, however, that had it been required, an occasional asdic range could have been obtained with little risk of detection”. [To support that latter point the letter includes mention of a precedent, saying that: “On 6th Sept 1940, H. M. Submarine Tribune successfully attacked a U-boat which was sighted at no time, contact being maintained for 40 minutes by echo-ranging and H.E.”].

Extracts from H. M. Submarine Venturer – report of 11th War Patrol [The report has 13 Sections most of which have nothing relevant to the action. Most of them just summarise particular kinds of information logged in Section A, together with added opinions. EG: Summary of wireless transmissions heard from Bergen, notes about performance of Venturer’s radar (apparently not used at any time during the action of interest) The Section A is like a ship’s log covering the entire patrol, about half a dozen entries per day. I have shown only a few that give an idea, except for those of the 9th February 1945 which I have shown complete for that day]:

Section A:

Friday 2nd Feb 1945:

“1500 Sailed Lerwick to patrol …” [Basically the course was from the Shetlands base due East straight across the North Sea to patrol off the opposite Norwegian Coast in the usual shore hugging lane used by German shipping, and except for the 9th February 1945 all the subsequent reports mainly concern diving co-ordinates for the day, surfacing co-ordinates for the night, sea and weather conditions, sightings of lighthouses, searchlights, fishing boats, aircraft, detection of German on shore transmitters, and various other “routine” bits and pieces].

Sunday 4th Feb 1945:

“0705 Land sighted ahead.”

“1300 Positioned identified off Feje.

Monday 5th February 1945:

“1608 Received F. O. (S/Ms’) 051444 – ref probable U-Boat routes.”

Tuesday 6th Feb 1945:

“0715 Dived and continued to patrol off Fejeosen.”

Thursday 8th February 1945:

“2025 Surfaced and continued to patrol off Fejeosen. Bergen W/T heard during night acting as beacon.”

Friday 9th Feb 1945 [Complete]:

*********

0000 Wind S – 3, Vis c 6, Sea 22, Bar 993, Temp 49.
0018 Aircraft detected bearing 315 deg, range 18,000 yds, passing.
0103 Aircraft detected bearing 360 deg, range 22,500 yds, passing.
0720 Dived, still patrolling off Fejeosen.”
0845 Finish Track Chart Number 3, start number 4.
0900 Deep sea Ketch bearing 075 deg, course south.
0923 – 1246 Attack on dived U-Boat, see section G.
p.m. Withdrew to westward then began passage to Kors Fjord. Reloaded torpedoes.
1308 Received F. O. (S/Ms’) 091131 – weather forcast.
1500 Finished Track Chart Number 4.
1805 Searchlights observed in direction 090 deg, sweeping. Many fishing vessel lights spreading southward from Feje.
1940 Surfaced in position 60 deg 35’ N, 04 deg 30’.5 E. Many lights from large fishing fleet in sight between bearing 050 deg and 120 deg. [Transcription note: In the typed report co-ordinates with decimals of minutes have the decimal placed after the minute sign].
2305 Received F. O. (S/Ms’) 092222 – ref. friendly aircraft.

**********

Saturday 10th Feb 1945:

0700 Dived in position 60 deg 12’ N, 04 deg 42’ E. Patrolled off Korsfjord. Start Track Chart Number 5.

[Then patrolling same area until Thursday 15th Feb 1945 “0855 Entered Lerwick Harbour”].

Section B:

“From early on the 9th, to early on the 13th, the weather was generally fair with good visibility.”

Section N:

“The U-Boat attacked, although zing-zagging at periscope depth, was not thought to have been aware of Venturer’s presence. His H. E. was very loud and sounded as though Diesels or other heavy machinery was running – Schnorkel was definitely not in use.”

Section G Attack Form:

1212A hrs 9/2/45 60 deg 45’.3 N, 04 deg 35’ .6 E. Target: Dived U-Boat, possibly supply type, Draughts between 20ft. (casing) and 43ft. (Keel).

Hits: One. Time of explosions (all from launch of first torpedo) 2min 12.5sec, 5min Exactly, 5min 16.0sec, 5min 33.0sec. Result: Sunk.

Enemy course: 135 deg
Own course: 097 deg
Track: 140 deg
Range: 2,000x
Speed: 3.5 Knots
DA Used: 3 deg (Asdic)
Type of Salvo: 1.5 lengths
Spread: 270ft
FTI: 17.5 secs
Point of aim: Stem
Torpedoes fired: Four (CCR Impact only)
Depth of torpedoes: 30 & 36ft
Range on sighting: 5,000x
Weather: Wind SW-2, Vis bc 7, Sea 31. Sun clouded over.

Own Asdic: H. E. heard faintly at 0932 – periscope first seen at 1050. Revs counted;- 170. target unidentified. A/S set used to stalk, obtained enemy’s course and speed, and to fire, an asdic length of 180 feet and range of 2,000 yards being set on the Torpedo Director. Transmissions were not used, the bearing and magnitude of the H. E. being accepted as sufficient guide for stationkeeping.

Enemy Screen: None. No escort observed waiting to rendezvous off Feje.
Enemy Counter Attack: None.
Enemy avoiding action: None observed. Salvo spread from stem to half length astern to cover probable turn away.

The rest of the Section G is a page long detailed step by step report of the stalking and action; the main points being:

0932 Very feint (? diesel) H. E. heard bearing 340 deg, it then faded. [Note: The “(? diesel)” was typed in where it is in the line of text and as part of the action report and is definitely not a later addition by someone].
1010 H. E. again heard, now bearing 295 deg, increasing ….
1035 Bearing now 320 deg. Still nothing to be seen.
1050 O.O.W [Officer on watch] after prolonged search over bearing sighted “a thin mast”. Nothing could be seen shortly after. Altered course to North to intercept H. E.
1115 Sighted periscope and prepared to attack. Target was well to northward of accepted route and was apparently proceeding on diesels (by the noise) or running some noisy machine like an air compressor – there was definitely no Schnorkel in use.
1117 … it was thought advisable not to fire hastily but to take station on him and catch up to fire when better estimations of course and speed were possible.
1122 Periscope again sighted, one showing about eight feet and another showing about three feet.
1151 … gaining bearing on his starboard quarter. Enemy appeared to be zing-zagging about a mean course of 120 deg.
1210 Target altering course to starboard leg of zing. Altered with full helm to 140 deg track to fire by asdic. D. A. 2 deg + 1 deg.
1212 Fired four torpedoes by asdic, in view of long firing interval and position on enemy’s quarter (rendering an avoiding turn away at the sound of torpedo H. E. almost certain) fired the first torpedo at the estimated position of the stem and spread in half lengths to one half length astern. [Note: Text “(rendering … … certain)” also typed in brackets where it is in original report].
1214.5 Loud sharp explosion followed by breaking up noises.
1217 Fainter sharp explosion, followed by two more at 16 and 17 sec intervals (believed to be three torpedoes striking off Fedje). In view of the regularity of these explosions it seems probable that either the first or last torpedo hit the U-Boat. [Note: IE two or three of the torpedoes that missed the U-Boat probably ran past it at their 30 or 36 ft depth setting to explode when they hit the rising sea bed in front of Fedje Island].
1240 Gathering seagulls observed on starboard bow.
1246 Entered patch of extensive and spreading oil film which got progressively thicker as it was penetrated until the wavelets looked yellow brown as they lifted against the light. In this patch was a long cylinder, a little bigger than a torpedo, floating with fair buoyancy. This canister appeared to be made of steel and had several brackets etc., on its length; one end had a door with butterfly nuts, the other end appeared to be welded. It is thought possible this container might have been an empty upperdeck torpedo stowage which had torn free at the explosion, this possibility and the low revolutions per knot (170 revs for 3 – 3.5 Knots) seem to indicate that the target had been a supply U-Boat. Also observed in the oil patch were many odd pieces of wood and numerous dead fish of various size – the seagulls however kept well clear of the oil, none was seen to alight for the feast. It was impossible to see below the surface for any remains at low buoyancy on account of the oil. The position in which the oil was found seems to indicate that the last torpedo was the one that hit.

[Note: The information about the seagulls would probably have been mainly to establish that the Venturer had not inadvertently sunk a Norwegian fishing boat].

End.

What was the intended use of the 1857 flasks of mercury ?

submarines have a design feature when submerged have negative bouyancy therefore in the keel a concentration of ballast is required to maintain the vertical centre of bouyancy mercury is an ideal product to induce stabilty both vertical and longitudinal

The U864 was said to have engine trouble and the engine room was shown with bits of machinery going up and down.Surely if the submarine was submerged it would have been running on the electric motors,which do not have reciprocating parts.Also there was reference to the engines being mistaken for fishing boat engines,again my point,if submerged etc.
Regards

The nonsense was a German submarine operating it's deisel engines underwater? the snort mast came after the War.
Ex-submariner.

As an ex-submariner I watched your program submarine Venturer stopping German U-boat. It said it heard the U-boats deisel engines underwater that is impossible submarines underwater run on electric motors, the deisel engines shut off, After the war we developed the snort mast.
Surprised two submariners on the program went along with your inaqurate story.Apart from that it was excellent.

The recent program about the sinking of the above U-Boat shows the submarine using its diesel engines when submerged, how is this possible?
I thought that this type of submarine could only use battery power when submerged.

I found most of this programme fascinating. What a pity it was let down by some sloppy editing. Why, oh why was the section about RAF Lancasters bombing the Norwegian sub-pens accompanied by library footage of firstly RAF Blenheim light bombers - circa 1940 to judge from their markings - and then pictures of USAF B-17 Flying Fortresses - there is surely plenty of film of Lancasters available!!!
The second and more annoying issue was the misnaming of Barnes Wallace's 12,000 pound bombs, as dropped by the Lancasters. These were called "Tallboys" - as in the piece of furniture - NOT "Tally-boys" as the narrator somehow managed to mispronounce the name!
What is more worrying is that if I can spot these issues on a single viewing how much confidence can I have in the submarine aspects of the documentary, where I have little background knowledge.

How could the British submarine have detected Diesel engines if the U-Boat was submerged unless it was using a snorkel? Therefore, the mast seen was the snorkel tube.

I'm a bit puzzled by last night's programme which depicted U864 limping home, submerged, with a noisy engine. The programme clearly showed the crew struggling with one of the diesels so I assumed that the noisy engine was the diesel. When adventurer did a periscope check they needn't have bothered looking for their adversary's periscope because U864's snorkel would have been visible for miles. The trouble is I didn't see a snorkel. Was one fitted? If not how did U864 travel submerged with a noisy diesel? Was it fitted with a top secret oxygen manufacturing unit? I thought this new technology wasn't developed until the type XXI sub. Was U864 in fact travelling submerged using battery powered electric motors? Was one of these damaged? I think Timewatch should tell us how U864 was making way.

Apologies for not being able to quote references as I am comparing the programme to an account of the sinking of U-864 I read some time ago.

The account, as I recall it, had one major difference to the account on Timewatch. U-864 was running submerged on electric motors, not diesels. This is borne out by the fact that Launders only saw the U-boat's periscope, and saw no sign of a "schnorchel" (which would have to have been deployed in order to run the diesels while submerged). In the account I read the Asdic operator reported that the U-boat's machinery was noisy, but did not mention diesel noises.

The major reason given for U-864's demise was her captain's 'shameful periscope drill' which allowed Launders to calculate the final firing solution which he would not have been able to do from the largely inaccurate Asdic bearings.

HOW WAS THE CHANGING DEPTH OF THE EVADING U BOOT CALCULATED IN TO ATTACK SOLUTION? OR WAS IN JUST TERRIBLE BAD LUCK THAT THE U BOOT HAPPENED TO PUT HER SIDE IT TO THE PATH OF THAT LAST FISH?

This programme showed three mistakes which were quite fundamental to this fascinating story. The first mentioned Lancaster bombers flying to northern Norway to bomb U-Boat pens. The shot of these aircraft in flight actually showed Flying Fortresses, which were not capable of carrying the 12 ton TALLBOY bombs used in that raid. Mistake number two occured when the voice over called these bombs "TALIBOY" bombs. Number three was showing the U-boat under way using Diesel engines while submerged. As far as I am aware this was not possible without the use os a Schnorkel or similar device, and the boats electric motors would be used.
Having said all this, it was still a very interesting programme and reminded us of how brave those sumariners, of both nations, truly were.

Why don't the makers of these films, especially those with military content, or any other for that matter, employ advisors with the required knoledge to check the programs and films before they are broadcast. Last nights program on U864 had me jumping out of my armchair in frustration at the blatent and obvious differences between the commentary and the film clips. The commentary was talking at one point about German JET ENGINE development and showing a very obvious ROCKET ENGINE. They then went on to talk about RAF Lancaster bombers and showed first of all a Bristol Blenheim and then USAAF B17 Fortresses. Such inaccuracies are unforgivable especially as they credit at the end the Imperial War Museum amongst others. Who vets the contents before they are put together or is accuracy not a concern.
Later they went on to talk of the U-Boat having diesel engine problems and showed film of the crew working on and talking of cylinder problems nothing about electric motors. Unless it was equipped with a "snorkel" unit which was not talked about then the U-Boat would have been proceeding on the SURFACE. A Snorkel unit which allowed the U-Boat to remain submerged whilst still running on diesels would have been seen through the British subs periscope at all times, The British submarine was then said to have heard unusual underwater sounds which let to the detection of the said U-Boat and the attack was all planned and carried out underwater. There are some very large discrepancies somewhere in the records and memories of those involved.
Unless Timewatch checks their programs with someone who has some knowledge of the relevant subjects it will just be another fanciful program of speculations and as inaccurate as the Americans versions of the WWII.

TOXIC MERCURY
because the mercury is contaminating the immediate sea area, why can they not vacuum the mercury from the sea bed either before or after they have removed the mercury canisters ?

Just a bit of info about what the Germany sent to Japan towards the end of the war.Some very interesting stuff.

560 kilos of uranium oxide was shipped to Japan in the U-234. That amount of uranium oxide contained about 3.5 kilos of U-235. That is about 1/5th-1/3rd the amount needed to make a nuclear bomb. The material certainly found its way to Oakridge but there is no way of knowing specifically what device it was used in.

The Japanese had a substantial amount already gleaned from scouring China for their nuclear research facility in North Korea. They had developed gas centrifuges to refine uranium back in the 1930s. The Germans got into that technology about 1942. The benefit was the lack of heavy water needed. Decrypts of messages point to Germany/Japan transfering this technology and material in 1943-44. When Italy capitulated in 1943 a sub with uranium oxide bound for Japan was surrendered in South Africa.

Also on board the U-234 was lots of cargo. Cargo containers were built to fit in the original mine shafts forward, midships and astern. Four cargo containers were carried topside. 240 tons of cargo were loaded for departure March 25,1945. Cargo included three crated Messershmitt Me-262 jet fighters and an ME-163 rocket-propelled fighter, Henschel HS-293 glider-bomb, extra Junkers jet engines, 10 canisters of uranium oxide, a ton of diplomatic mail, and over 3 tons of technical drawings, plus other technology (torpedo, fuses, armor piercing shells, etc.) Passengers were 9 high technical officers (one general) and civilian scientists.

U-219 and U-195 had delivered 12 V-2s to Japan in 1944. U-859 sunk in 1944 was carrying uranium. The U-219 was turned over to the Imperial Navy to become the I.505. The U-195 became the I.506. There were something like 98 known attempts or successful voyages to Japan so we can only imaging what goodies were sent. Certainly the uranium oxide was not the 1st shipment.

I have just watched and enjoyed the story of HM Submarine "Venturer" V U864, however, there were a number of technical errors in the scenes showing the stalking of U864. One that stands out is the reference to diesel engine noise being heard by the hydrophone operator on board Venturer. This would only have been possible if U864 was on the surface, at the time, with the engines drawing air down through the open conning tower hatch. The only way for a submarine to be submerged and still have her diesel engines running would be if she was fitted with a Snorkel, this was not indicated. The engine room shots from U864 also shows the engines operating, not possible if she was fully submerged.
There were also comments about the bombing raids by Lancaster bombers, no Lancaster's were shown in the clips.

Time watch make some superb historic programs, but I have an issue with its latest one about a German U-boat carrying jet engines and mercury to Japan; I would have like to know why it was carrying so much Mercury.

The other issue was the boats propulsion. My very limited knowledge of submarines is that when submerged the sub runs on batteries and at night the sub runs on the surface using its diesel engine to propel and charge the batteries. I believe at least some subs could run just below the surface using a snorkel system to provide air and exhaust for the engine. I think this system was not very popular and unreliable due to the swell of the sea.

If the German U-boat was concerned that it was being followed; why would it be using a damaged, noisy diesel (with a snorkel?) instead of running deep and silent?

With regard to the crew of HMS Venturer. I have a copy of the war diary obtained from the Royal Navy Submarine Museum. There were several Distinguished Service Order decorations handed out to the crew for this and the previous sinking of U771 in November 1944. One of which was awarded to Leading Telegraphist John Stanley Byrne, HMS Venturers Asdic operator who was on watch during the attack. My late Father in law.

I also have in my families possession a press photograph and cutting (I believe from the Daily Express) of J S(Jimmy) Launders and five of HMS Venturers crew members after receiving their decorations at Buckingham Palace.

As a postscript, Launders 'learned his trade' as a submariner when serving with the famous (fighting 10th) submarine flotilla operating out of Malta on submarine P35 (Later HMS Umbra).

I have a great deal of other related information I would like to share in exchange for information on the WWII clandestine Norwegian shipping watch operation 'Hangman'.

I have just watched the timewatch programme and have a question. It was stated that U 864 was submerged throughout the action and was running her diesel engines which require air and exhaust. Normally diesel engines were only used on the surface and battery powered electric motors used when submerged so if she was using diesels she must have had a snorkel for air and exhaust. If she had a snorkel then it she have had to be close to the surface at all times to keep the snorkel above the water and this could have been seen by the british submarine. Diesel engines are also very noisey so why was she not using her electric motors which would be quieter and allow her to travel at a deeper depth?

How does a WW2 U-boat run any distance underwater on its diesel engines without the use of a schnorkel to provide oxygen for combustion and to remove the exhaust gases? This was the supposed situation in the above Timewatch.

A fascinating programme, however when discussing the bombing of the U-Boat pens in Bergen by LANCASTER bombers, the 'reconstruction' featured a two engined aircraft. If you do not know that the most famous bomber in history had four engines, what faith can we have in all the "facts" surrounding this little known historical episode. With one lamentable lapse you destroy your credibility!

The mast spotted by the venturer would have been the snort induction mast wouldn't it? Not the periscope, she was running diesels, and you can't run them submerged.

This was not first time a sub was sunk by another.

On 28 November 1941(!) in Meditereanean Dutch O21 sank German U95

Full details at uboat.net