WW I U-boat documentary tonight on History Channel

[Regulus]

Hi,

For those of you interested in a larger view on WW I, there is a documentary on History Channel tonight on the UB107, one of the Flanders U-boats operating from Bruges.
I was told by the producers it should be on a 9 tonight. They will sent me a copy, as we contributed with a number of pictures and info on the war diary and the ship which is on top of the U-boat, the Malvina, a victim of UB104.
Would like to hear your opinion meanwhile, as it will be at least two weeks before I can see it.
For those who still doubt it, WW I German U-boats are and were my main interest. Aviation still comes second...

Best from Johan

[Regulus]

Hmm ? Nobody seen It ?

Best from Johan

[greenknight]

Due to a commitment earlier in the evening, I only saw the last 1/2 hour of the program. I hope The History Channel airs it again as what I saw was quite interesting.

I hope to learn more about U-Boats in WWI. I have an Osprey series book on them and a book that I picked up some years ago called "The Killing Time", but haven't read them thoroughly.

On a personal note, as a child I asked my grandfather who was raised on a farm on the northern Irish coast about his recollections of WWI. He described seeing a ship which was carrying lumber sunk by a U-Boat. I've subsequently seen on one of the U-Boat web sites that there was quite a bit of U-Boat activity in the waters in that vicinity.

[Regulus]

Hi Green Knight,

Thank you very much !

For U-boats you're always welcome on my forum on the Kaiserliche Marine :

http://www.voy.com/65298/

also take a look at :

http://www.uboat.net/wwi/

where I've contributed quite a lot. There are lot's of very good books on WW I U-boats, but unfortunately most of them are in German.

Thanks and best from Johan

[Zeppelin]

Hi Johan,
I was able to watch the show (thanks for the advance notice!).
As far as the subject went, I found it very intriguing. As far as the show itself, I found it frustrating to watch.

On the good side, they did a good job describing the mystery of why there should be this sub wreck mixed in with the wreck of the SS Malvina. They made it quite clear that the records of the British claims are insufficient and there is much more to this mystery. Dang it, they've got me quite interested in it now! They also showed very well how difficult it is to investigate the wreck due to the poor visibility and dangerous currents at the wreck site. Congratulations are also due for interesting graphics and the use of the archival material you provided for them. Certainly the mystery begins to get somewhat clearer when they included information from the war diaries.

However- they just about drove me crazy with the editorial content of the show. They incessantly repeated the same material and information over and over, trying to lengthen what was really a half-hour documentary into a full hour of show. Here in the USA we get commercial breaks about every ten minutes (or less sometimes!) which lengthens a 50-minute production into an hour-long program. Unfortunately, after every commercial break, the narrator/host diver would launch into a repetitive recap of the mystery and showed the same footage as before. It's as if they thought the viewer had forgotten everything once the commercials started! AAaaarrrrrrg! Poorly done from that point of view.

As for their theories, I believe thy were reaching on several points. While the theory of catching a cabled mine and dragging it into the Malvina is dramatic stuff, without any evidence they are just dreaming. As for the host diver's theory about the radio mast position meaning they had no intention of attacking Malvina, well, even his own evidence was inconclusive about the positioning of the mast.

They made it very clear that German records proved that UB-110 did NOT have the opportunity to torpedo the Malvina as it was not anywhere in the vicinity. Is that what your records really showed, Johan?

While I was frustrated by the editing style and repetitive narration, this mystery is definitely fascinating and deserves much more investigation. I'm glad they went to the trouble to make the show.

Best regards,
Zeppelin

[Regulus]

Hi,

No there is no doubt about the fact that UB104 sank the Malvina, I even gave them a list of all the Malvina's that were sunk in WW I and there is only one possibility and that is clearly the one by UB104 as the others are much smaller. Plus the sinking can be found in the war diary of UB104, they have been discussing this point endlessly with me over and over again, and there even was an idiot 'expert' on the matter who said that UB107 did torpedo the Malvina and that she sank the U-boat and so the U-boat was first down and then afterwards the Malvina (broken up in two pieces !) landed upon her. GRRRR !
Meanwhile I did get the list of photo's they used from my archive, and again they managed something unbelievable, they used almost none at all on the UB III class submarines, but others on the UC class or the propagandaposter, so if they have no purpose with the material such as 15 photo's of the simmediate sisterships of UB107 (such as 105 or 110), with the material of it's base at Brugge, with the photo's and plans of the U-boat sheds and bunkers (of which one later served for the construction for the WWII u-boats) hell, I don't know what they were busy with...
Diary of UB104 : 1 august - 17 august 1918 operation 2 at the British east coast : vor Flamborough Head Britische Dampfer Malvina (1879 - 1244 BRT) nach UT treffer (torpedo)
So let's try to follow these guys : The UB104 was nowhere near but was operating in the area and did torpedo the ship before Flamborough Head where also the UB107 sank ????
I specifically said and mailed UB104 and they came with UB110 which sank on the 19th July 1918... ????
UNBELIVABLE ! That is the one and only word I have for it. History Channel ? Mystery channel - misery channel !

Best from Johan

[Zeppelin]

Johan,
I may have said UB110 by mistake, may have meant 104... I'll be watching it again tomorrow to check what "facts" they are disclosing/using, so I can let you know probably Friday (gone for a day).

Checking the UB107 info on uboat.net, that information there was mentioned during the show, although they were insisting that UB104 (?) could not have sunk the Malvina due to it being so far away. Hmmm, let me recheck what they said and I'll post again.

Meanwhile, this would not be the first or only time that "documentaries" on the History Channel were mere fantasy... I specifically remember a show attempting to change the story of PT-109, which was horribly incorrect and seemed only to try changing the popular conception of John F. Kennedy. This has been discussed before by members of the US Naval Institute through their magazine, Naval History. In fact, I have seen other episodes of "Deep Sea Detectives" and I wonder if the producers care at all about historical accuracy. or are just trying to create a show to deduct their expenses from taxes...

Best regards,
Zeppelin

[Zeppelin]

OK, I had some time to review the show again and write down their stated facts:
British report trawlersCalais, Cmdr.Naismith, Vanessa, Walter Priory attacked UB107 on July 27 1918 and sunk her.
However, about the same time, 2 ships (John Rettig and SS Chloris) were torpedoed about 30 miles away. The only u-boat recorded in the area at that time was uB107.
The wreckage of UB107 was identified 18 miles from the area of Ravenscar, near Flamborough Head. Ah, what a place! Historically, I believe John Paul Jones had a little battle in that vicinity as well.
The wreckage of the UB107 is entangled in the wreckage of SS Malvina.
German records indicate UB104 sank Malvina on Aug 2, 1918.
On this show, the host claims the german records must be wrong on this account as their own records show UB104 to be nowhere near that location at that time. Johan, does this then go contrary to what the records show? They say this comes from UB104's own logbook records. If they mistated this part then they may have done it to deliberately open the way for their theories. Their contrary information comes from a historian named Michael Lowrey.
The two theories put forward: UB107 snagged a mine and dragged it into Malvina. However, no mine chain found.
Host's theory: Location of radio mast (aft) indicates uboat was using radio system on surface and could not have been in preparation to attack Malvina with torpedoes. Radio mast (forward) not found, probably under wreckage of Malvina, assumes also extended for operation. Conclusion: Malvina sunk by mine, not torpedo, not by UB104, and unknown reason why Uboat107 was sunk there. No one believes it drifted there after an attack by trawlers. Problem with his theory: again, no one has found a mine chain.

Hope this helps, sorry I said UB110 for some mysterious reason. Had to be a cosmic ray hitting my head at that moment.

Best regards,
Zeppelin

[Regulus]

Hi,

I know Michael Lowrey rather well and here's what he replied to me in a discussion on another forum :

"The attribution of UB 104 sinking Malvina is incorrect. If you look at UB 104's KTB you'll note that she isn't off Flamborough Head until the morning of August 3, 1918 and sinks a vessel there midday on the 3rd. Malvina, per British sources is sunk at about 4:30am (as I recall) on August 2nd. The French steamer Cambrai was, however, sunk off Flamborough Head within a mile of the location given in UB 104's KTB on August 3. There's no attribution in Spindler for the sinking of Cambrai..."

This opens a rather difficult discussion. According to British sources, not mentioned (so still discussable), the Malvina was sunk on the 2nd in the early morning. The note on Spindler and the Cambrai is correct, but she could also have run into a mine, which also remains a good possibility.
There is no claim in the UB104 log that they sank the ship on the 2nd, but clearly on the 3rd as she was on the 2nd near the Hoofden and sank the Flevo IX and Remke.
To be continued, on that part.

One reaction on the other forum on the matter concerning the masts

How about a UB107 tangled in the mine tether when ship hits mine and boingo, lands on submarine. After antenna pulled out by a trawlers net, forward antenna status unknown.

and also :

Probably the main reason that her 30-foot radio masts were "stowed" is that they were unable to withstand the force of the seawater while curising submerged, unless there were fore and aft
guys intalled to stiffen them. Raising and lowering them via that
primitive bevel-pinion gear drive must've been lotsa fun during heavy seas.........

My reply : Concerning these masts : normally the masts were turned up or down by a mechanism in the inside of the U-boat, not the outside of it and could not be used in heavy seas, as they were to break off. They were of light material (originally wood and later steel cylinders)and using them in heavy sea would also give a possibility on electrical problems such as shortcircuiting and in case of bad weather they also used the Minenabweiser for radio transmissions, in this case only with half of the range they normally had. The masts had a range between 200 and 700 miles, depending on early or late war and other circumstances, and also on the fact if it was day or night.
Transmissions were only made in case of important news, avary or return home hour and date. So the antennas can very well have been up to signal the success they had with the sinking of the two ships earlier that evening.

Now concerning the wreck. In a telephonecall with New York and the makers of the program there was stated to me in very clear language that the wreck was in very bad condition, and had been blown to pieces by wreck hunters, so it is impossible to see for what reason the U-boat UB107 sank, but a mine is to my believe and also to Michael Lowrey's the most probable reason. So anyway finding a chain from a mine in this kind of dark peasoup which is the North Sea at this time of year, is like looking for a needle in a haystack and it would even be the case with a clear view.
What is more, taking conclusions concerning the masts with a severely damaged wreck like this is also impossible. The masts could have been up, but that remains nothing else then a theory.

And in this part it seems everything is blown to pieces. It was not the UB107 who sank the Malvina, but probably or possibly (I'm being carefull) the UB104 so the conclusion they come to as you mentioned is written by someone who doesn't know what he or she's talking about and that is very clear, they even seem to have mixed up both U-boats and dates to get to a conclusion.
It looks as the UB107 sank the Malvina and not the UB104, in discussions, and it seems also in the comment in the documentary

Untill today I have still not received my copy of the documentary or my money for the use of my material...

Well it might be a lesson...

Best from Johan

[Zeppelin]

Well, that solves one question for me at least. The Host of the show surmised that the UB107 was in the process of using the radio masts and may have been surprised and had to submerge in an emergency dive. I wondered if this may have been due to aircraft spotters, which were in greater use in 1918. But since the attack on Malvina was evidently still the dark of pre-dawn, this would be highly unlikely.

The computer-generated wreckage layout used in the show shows the aft radio mast detached from the base, lying perpendicular to the submarine deck (on its side), as if it had been extended. But could this just be circumstantial? I don't know how the masts were stored in a collapsed manner. Was it on deck or below deck as with a pulled-down periscope?

Pondering,
Zeppelin