Wreck of WWII German U-boat found off North Carolina

[a2capt]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/21/us/north-carolina-u-boat-wreck/index.html

The German sub, the U-576, was found at the bottom of the Atlantic 30 miles off Cape Hatteras and just 240 yards from an American merchant ship, the merchant tanker Bluefields, which was part of a 24-ship U.S. convoy heading from Virginia to Key West, Florida, on July 14, 1942.

Few people realize how close the war actually came to America's shores," David Alberg, superintendent of NOAA's Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, said in a statement. "As we learn more about the underwater battlefield, Bluefields and U-576 will provide additional insight into a relatively little-known chapter in American history.

I think most CAP people know how close things were...

[LSThiker]

I think most CAP people know how close things were...

You would be surprised.  Even though they know the story of subchasing, I have met a number that do not realize the actual distance.  They did not know that German subs were in our harbors and German spies would sneak up onto shore.  I think most of these people believed our planes were flying hundreds of miles out.  When I gave a history presentation to my wing, it was an ocean of surprised looks when I mentioned distance in yards and not miles.   

In addition, people fail to realize that we had patrol bases on the West Coast (although a lot of the area were grounded) and had border patrol with Mexico. 

[CAP_truth]

Would be nice if it was sunk by one of our aircraft.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Isn't there still an unconfirmed hit?

[LSThiker]

Isn't there still an unconfirmed hit?

U-576 was sunk due to gunfire from the USS Unicoi and depth charges from several OS2 Kingfisher aircraft. 

[Private Investigator]

Interesting. Thank you for sharing. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Isn't there still an unconfirmed hit?

U-576 was sunk due to gunfire from the USS Unicoi and depth charges from several OS2 Kingfisher aircraft.

Yea, I read that.

[Devil Doc]

Those Darn little Red and Yellow Planes.

[LSThiker]

Yea, I read that.

Ah, I did not read the article so I assumed that information was not in there. 

[PHall]

Yea, I read that.

Ah, I did not read the article so I assumed that information was not in there.

You do know what assume means, right?

[LSThiker]

Yea, I read that.

Ah, I did not read the article so I assumed that information was not in there.

You do know what assume means, right?

Are you assuming that I do

[PHall]

Yea, I read that.

Ah, I did not read the article so I assumed that information was not in there.

You do know what assume means, right?

Are you assuming that I do

I assume nothing, that's why I question.

[AirAux]

IIRC, we actually sank the Bluefields...  It wasn't spoken of much in CAP history, but...

[LSThiker]

IIRC, we actually sank the Bluefields...  It wasn't spoken of much in CAP history, but...

What is your source on this information?

The U-576 fired only four torpedoes.  Two hit the SS Chilore.  The third hit Mowinckel.  The fourth hit the Bluefields.  The Mowinckel later went into a US mine field and was further damaged.  The captain abandoned ship.  When it was later towed by the Martin, it struck another mine.  Despite a torpedo and two mines, the ship was ultimately saved.  The Chilore also went into the mine field and struck two mines.  It was later sunk when being towed back.     

[LSThiker]

I think this is what you are referring to:

A CAP attack on 12 to 14 July might have damaged U-402 or U-576, although the U-boats were probably too far south of Atlantic City at the time. Three ships were torpedoed on 15 July shortly after convoy KS 520 left Chesapeake Bay; and another ship in the convoy fired on a submarine which submerged after two Navy planes dropped depth charges. The submarine is believed to be U-576 because it was never heard from again and no other U-boat reported attacking that convoy. A CAP attack off New Jersey on or after 15 July could have sunk U-576 if she survived the battle with convoy KS 520. U-89, U-458 and U-754 were also in the vicinity, and moved north along the coast where U-754 was sunk by a RCAF plane on 31 July. A late July CAP attack might have been against one of these three U-boats; but the log of U-754, which might have recorded the attack, was lost when it sank.Thewellman (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHistory_of_the_Civil_Air_Patrol

An interesting short "talk".

And I agree that most likely, we never really sank any U-boats.

[MisterCD]

If you wish to see the U.S. Navy's Gulf and Eastern Sea Frontier War Diary information regarding CAP's coastal patrol actions, go here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.cap.gov%2Ffiles%2Foriginal%2F0cb33704b7ca9ff484a16df556d060b2.pdf&embedded=true

Simple truth is there is zero evidence from the American, British, or German sources to make any sinking by a CAP aircraft confirmed, plausible, or probable and the evidence supporting any conclusive claim of damaging a U-boat is thus far non-existent. If hard conclusive evidence can be provided I welcome it, but so far after 70+ years nothing has been produced by CAP, the American or foreign military and/or archival sources.

[AirAux]

And you never will.  Our role was so secretive and controversial due to civilians being involved that it has been sealed along with the JFK assassination records.  Trust me, if you knew the truth about how demoralizing we were to the Axis and the number of kills attributed to CAP, you would tremble and cry out in terror.  Best to say it was a wartime legend and let it rest. 

[Fubar]

Trust me, if you knew the truth about how demoralizing we were to the Axis and the number of kills attributed to CAP, you would tremble and cry out in terror.

Trust you? Why should I trust you, do you know the "truth" and if so, how? Why can't I know the "truth" like you do?

The fact CAP didn't sink anything doesn't diminish the bravery and patriotism of those who flew the coastal patrols, but let's stop the "stolen valor" of claiming successful sinkings when there were none.

[PHall]

Trust me, if you knew the truth about how demoralizing we were to the Axis and the number of kills attributed to CAP, you would tremble and cry out in terror.

Trust you? Why should I trust you, do you know the "truth" and if so, how? Why can't I know the "truth" like you do?

The fact CAP didn't sink anything doesn't diminish the bravery and patriotism of those who flew the coastal patrols, but let's stop the "stolen valor" of claiming successful sinkings when there were none.

But how do YOU know that there were no sinkings?

Cite please or drop it, your call.

[MisterCD]

Trust me, if you knew the truth about how demoralizing we were to the Axis and the number of kills attributed to CAP, you would tremble and cry out in terror.

Trust you? Why should I trust you, do you know the "truth" and if so, how? Why can't I know the "truth" like you do?

The fact CAP didn't sink anything doesn't diminish the bravery and patriotism of those who flew the coastal patrols, but let's stop the "stolen valor" of claiming successful sinkings when there were none.

But how do YOU know that there were no sinkings?

Cite please or drop it, your call.

After awhile this becomes a cyclical argument without end. No amount of primary historical research can bring some people to the realization that the onus for proof rests on the Civil Air Patrol if they are to make claims that they sank two submarines and killed approximately 90 to 100 sailors of the Kriegsmarine. Yes, statements were made by generals and reports...provided by the CAP...published in late 1943 listing statistics compiled by CAP National Headquarters.

The CAP claims are nebulous even to the organization's own records. There is limited to no information that the CAP has or has ever provided to verify its statistics. The Haggin - Farr attack is the lone exception, although the Navy discredited the claim in the immediate aftermath and it has never been linked to any particular U-boat in the postwar records as nothing has been found to support it. No hard information has been provided to verify the assertion of a U-boat running around off Florida, link any particular U-boat sighting, attack, or other event with a specific boat.

Several retorts to this have been that "the military covered it up and did not give CAP proper credit" and that "the Germans would never admit failure to the CAP planes." Well, the attacks by the military are well-documented with wrecks found at the reported locations. In the aftermath of the attacks of U-boats the Germans acknowledged having been sunk off the U.S. East and Gulf coasts the Navy or Coast Guard recovered bodies, survivors, wreckage, and other hard evidence. The latter also includes multiple eye witnesses to the event by multiple parties.

What about CAP then? What do we have? Well, we have accounts of aircrews and occasionally the information they logged on occasion about dates and rarely attack coordinates. This information has been cross referenced with German, USN, and USAF/USAAF records. Thus far nothing has been found to link a CAP attack with successfully damaging a U-boat much less sinking one. Although the Germans never reported a U-boat missing off the East or Gulf coasts from the 1942 - 1943 period CAP was operating, the U-869, lost in 1945, was  located accidentally off the New Jersey coast (and not off Morocco) so the records have shown to be occasionally off. The USN and USCG, however, were able to locate records recording attacks in the vicinity of the wreck to link the wreck with an attack.

So what U-boat(s) could CAP have sunk? No one has ever provided information in over 70 years to point a particular CAP attack to a particular U-boat that can be asserted with more than internet forum posting. If the documentary evidence can be assembled from CAP, American military records, and German records, and either a wreck located that the military has not claimed without any solid evidence to support the claim or hard records to document the infliction of damage, then CAP will have the solid, factual foundation to make claims. Until then, we are making pronouncements on shaky ground and it brings into question our credibility on other claims, past and present.

Ultimately, I'm not here to change opinions or bring decades of CAP history indoctrination crashing down. If asked about information on particular aspect of the organization's heritage, I'm obligated to provide the best possible product with the best information available. If this information does not parallel past claims, then further research has to be conducted to get to the bottom of the situation. When you exhaust all available material and sources, perhaps it is best to realize that the previous assertions are incorrect, and then to determine why.

[THRAWN]

Please stop injecting fact into the discussion of this mythology. Now it's time to feed my sasquatch....

[AirAux]

MisterCD, it sounds like you have infallible belief in Navy history.  Try this from the Naval History and Heritage Command: "The most famous US Navy losses which have occurred in the area popularly known as the Bermuda Triangle are USS Cyclops in March 1918 and the aircraft of Flight 19 in December 1945. The ship probably sank in an unexpected storm, and the aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed into the ocean -- no physical traces of them have ever been found. Another well known disappearance is the civilian tanker SS Marine Sulphur Queen carrying bulk molten sulfur which sank in February 1963. Although the wreck of Marine Sulphur Queen has not been located, a life preserver and other floating artifacts were recovered. These disappearances have been used to provide credence to the popular belief in the mystery and purported supernatural qualities of the "Bermuda Triangle."



Since the days of early civilization many thousands of ships have sunk and/or disappeared in waters around the world due to navigational and other human errors, storms, piracy, fires, and structural/mechanical failures. Aircraft are subject to the same problems, and many of them have crashed at sea around the globe. Often, there were no living witnesses to the sinking or crash, and hence the exact cause of the loss and the location of the lost ship or aircraft are unknown. A large number of pleasure boats travel the waters between Florida and the Bahamas. All too often, crossings are attempted with too small a boat, insufficient knowledge of the area's hazards, and a lack of good seamanship."

Ergo, there are many times when there are no known facts involving sinking of ships or disappearance of aircraft.  Quit wasting your time trying to disprove an accepted and beloved theory from 75 years ago.   Why not work with more recent disasters of CAP and study and report on the rise and fall of HWSRN.  At least that endeavor might assist CAP in not repeating the same thing again, which is actually the only reason for history in the first place.

[MisterCD]

MisterCD, it sounds like you have infallible belief in Navy history.  Try this from the Naval History and Heritage Command: "The most famous US Navy losses which have occurred in the area popularly known as the Bermuda Triangle are USS Cyclops in March 1918 and the aircraft of Flight 19 in December 1945. The ship probably sank in an unexpected storm, and the aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed into the ocean -- no physical traces of them have ever been found. Another well known disappearance is the civilian tanker SS Marine Sulphur Queen carrying bulk molten sulfur which sank in February 1963. Although the wreck of Marine Sulphur Queen has not been located, a life preserver and other floating artifacts were recovered. These disappearances have been used to provide credence to the popular belief in the mystery and purported supernatural qualities of the "Bermuda Triangle."



Since the days of early civilization many thousands of ships have sunk and/or disappeared in waters around the world due to navigational and other human errors, storms, piracy, fires, and structural/mechanical failures. Aircraft are subject to the same problems, and many of them have crashed at sea around the globe. Often, there were no living witnesses to the sinking or crash, and hence the exact cause of the loss and the location of the lost ship or aircraft are unknown. A large number of pleasure boats travel the waters between Florida and the Bahamas. All too often, crossings are attempted with too small a boat, insufficient knowledge of the area's hazards, and a lack of good seamanship."

Ergo, there are many times when there are no known facts involving sinking of ships or disappearance of aircraft.  Quit wasting your time trying to disprove an accepted and beloved theory from 75 years ago.   Why not work with more recent disasters of CAP and study and report on the rise and fall of HWSRN.  At least that endeavor might assist CAP in not repeating the same thing again, which is actually the only reason for history in the first place.

You missed this element I believe:

Ultimately, I'm not here to change opinions or bring decades of CAP history indoctrination crashing down. If asked about information on particular aspect of the organization's heritage, I'm obligated to provide the best possible product with the best information available. If this information does not parallel past claims, then further research has to be conducted to get to the bottom of the situation. When you exhaust all available material and sources, perhaps it is best to realize that the previous assertions are incorrect, and then to determine why.

The only party claiming CAP sank or damaged U-boats is CAP. If going to make a claim, you best have support for it, particularly if going to make sure of heritage for either the Congressional Gold Medal or the 75th anniversary. As for more recent adventures, work is underway on those. Perhaps you might wish to work on a subject yourself. As for the former national commanders, there too are areas being addressed. One person cannot research them all, so if volunteering for the work then join it. It would certainly be more beneficial than throwing stones on CAPtalk.

[AirAux]

I am not throwing stones, you are the one taking pot shots at CAP heritage.  You have no more factual proof that CAP didn't sink submarines than I have that they did, but my theory does no harm to CAP where yours attacks the honor, integrity, courage, heritage, pride, and esprit de corps of CAP.  If only all history was factual, but you know it is not.  If this is your crowning contribution to CAP history, may I suggest you direct your quest elsewhere, such as why we switched to maroon epaulets.  That could certainly squelch some ugly rumors.   You start pulling on threads of our history and the whole [darn] thing could become unwoven.  We don't do this for pay or because we have to.  You remove our heritage and it weakens us severely.  Govern yourself accordingly.

[MisterCD]

Watch your words when you accuse someone of denigrating an organization and its history. Nothing more I say will reach someone such as yourself, so I consider the matter closed.

[PHall]

Watch your words when you accuse someone of denigrating an organization and its history. Nothing more I say will reach someone such as yourself, so I consider the matter closed.

Are you threatening him?  Yeah, that really makes you look good.  Such a professional, NOT!!!

[Fubar]

But how do YOU know that there were no sinkings?

Cite please or drop it, your call.

Well, I only go by what the experts publish. The United States Navy says we didn't sink any subs. There's a IG report (that I can't find again, dangit) from either the AAF or USAF, I don't recall, that basically says CAP says it sunk some subs but provides no actual evidence and a review of CAP records couldn't find any proof. We were basically called out for making up our own history (the guy who wrote the report was later assigned to head CAP if that helps someone find the report).

But then I suppose you think all the government facts are made up. To each his own.

[abdsp51]

Doubt this has validity since I am unsure of the source but it does highlight and pose the question.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/214634299/U-Boat-Kills-Off-the-United-States-1942-43

[PHall]

But how do YOU know that there were no sinkings?

Cite please or drop it, your call.

Well, I only go by what the experts publish. The United States Navy says we didn't sink any subs. There's a IG report (that I can't find again, dangit) from either the AAF or USAF, I don't recall, that basically says CAP says it sunk some subs but provides no actual evidence and a review of CAP records couldn't find any proof. We were basically called out for making up our own history (the guy who wrote the report was later assigned to head CAP if that helps someone find the report).

But then I suppose you think all the government facts are made up. To each his own.

Somewhere outthere there is a report showing the munitions used in these attacks were expended or were lost.
Because the one thing that the US military demands 100% accountability on is ammunition and munitions.

[LSThiker]

Quit wasting your time trying to disprove an accepted and beloved theory from 75 years ago.

So we should just believe a story without evidence?  Not even a theory at that as a theory has strong evidence to support it.  The fact of the matter is, if you make a claim, you must support said claim with evidence.  It does not matter how much wishing, how many people believe it, or how long it is told.  That without evidence can be rejected without evidence.  Otherwise, we would still be stuck in the stone age. 

It is possible that CAP did sink two submarines.  After all, absence of evidence does not equal evidence.  However, until said evidence is found, we cannot make the claim that CAP sunk two submarines.

my theory does no harm to CAP where yours attacks the honor, integrity, courage, heritage, pride, and esprit de corps of CAP.  If only all history was factual, but you know it is not.

Yes it does harm the organization.  Publishing unsupported or even false information calls into the question the honor, integrity, and heritage of CAP.  So if we keep saying "CAP sunk two submarines", when in fact we did not, then how is that for integrity? 

Not all history is correct.  That is why historians, scientists, philosophers, and others look for the truth.  We know there is false information out there, it is our job to correct said false information instead of continuing to spread it. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

But how do YOU know that there were no sinkings?

Cite please or drop it, your call.

Well, I only go by what the experts publish. The United States Navy says we didn't sink any subs. There's a IG report (that I can't find again, dangit) from either the AAF or USAF, I don't recall, that basically says CAP says it sunk some subs but provides no actual evidence and a review of CAP records couldn't find any proof. We were basically called out for making up our own history (the guy who wrote the report was later assigned to head CAP if that helps someone find the report).

But then I suppose you think all the government facts are made up. To each his own.

Somewhere outthere there is a report showing the munitions used in these attacks were expended or were lost.
Because the one thing that the US military demands 100% accountability on is ammunition and munitions.

What I was thinking as well. I was under the impression this was a supported, factual , CAP accomplishment.

Now it sounds like someone was afraid to land with a bomb underneath (understandable), or was a glory hound (less so), and released the payload, and claimed a kill. Didn't one of the shots claim seeing an oil slick?

[LSThiker]

What I was thinking as well. I was under the impression this was a supported, factual , CAP accomplishment.

Now it sounds like someone was afraid to land with a bomb underneath (understandable), or was a glory hound (less so), and released the payload, and claimed a kill. Didn't one of the shots claim seeing an oil slick?

Or dropped it on a whale (happened a few times) and did not want to admit it to his drinking buddies.  Come to think of it, but I think more whales died by CAP than Nazis.

[Майор Хаткевич]

What I was thinking as well. I was under the impression this was a supported, factual , CAP accomplishment.

Now it sounds like someone was afraid to land with a bomb underneath (understandable), or was a glory hound (less so), and released the payload, and claimed a kill. Didn't one of the shots claim seeing an oil slick?

Or dropped it on a whale (happened a few times) and did not want to admit it to his drinking buddies.  Come to think of it, but I think more whales died by CAP than Nazis.

There's whales in the atlantic/ gulf?

Edit: there are....learn something new each day...but sub's...don't they look bigger?

[Майор Хаткевич]

So...this is all a farce:

The CAP's first kill was claimed by one of the larger aircraft. The Grumman G-44 Widgeon, armed with two depth charges and crewed by Captain Johnny Haggins and Major Wynant Farr, was scrambled when another CAP patrol radioed that they had encountered an enemy submarine but were returning to base due to low fuel. After scanning the area, Farr spotted the U-boat cruising beneath the surface of the waves. Unable to accurately determine the depth of the vessel, Haggins and Ferr radioed the situation back to base and followed the enemy in hopes that it would rise to periscope depth. For three hours, the crew shadowed the submarine. Just as Haggins was about to return to base, the U-boat rose to periscope depth, and Haggins swung the aircraft around, aligned with the submarine and dove to 100 feet (30 m). Farr released one of the two depth charges, blowing the submarine's front out of the water. As it left an oil slick, Farr made and second pass and released the other charge. Debris appeared on the ocean's surface, confirming the U-boat's demise and the Civil Air Patrol's first kill.[6]

The sinking was perhaps the crowning achievement for CAP's Coastal Patrol, which continued to operate for about 18 months (from 5 March 1942 to 31 August 1943) before being officially retired. During this time, the Coastal Patrol reported 173 U-boats and attacked 57 of them with 83 ordnance pieces, resulting in two confirmed kills.[7] Overall, the Coastal Patrol flew 86,865 missions, logging over 244,600 hours. Coastal Patrol aircraft reported 91 ships in distress and played a key role in rescuing 363 survivors of U-boat attacks. 17 floating mines were reported and 5,684 convoy missions were flown for the Navy.[8]

[LSThiker]

So...this is all a farce:

The CAP's first kill was claimed by one of the larger aircraft. The Grumman G-44 Widgeon, armed with two depth charges and crewed by Captain Johnny Haggins and Major Wynant Farr, was scrambled when another CAP patrol radioed that they had encountered an enemy submarine but were returning to base due to low fuel. After scanning the area, Farr spotted the U-boat cruising beneath the surface of the waves. Unable to accurately determine the depth of the vessel, Haggins and Ferr radioed the situation back to base and followed the enemy in hopes that it would rise to periscope depth. For three hours, the crew shadowed the submarine. Just as Haggins was about to return to base, the U-boat rose to periscope depth, and Haggins swung the aircraft around, aligned with the submarine and dove to 100 feet (30 m). Farr released one of the two depth charges, blowing the submarine's front out of the water. As it left an oil slick, Farr made and second pass and released the other charge. Debris appeared on the ocean's surface, confirming the U-boat's demise and the Civil Air Patrol's first kill.[6]

The sinking was perhaps the crowning achievement for CAP's Coastal Patrol, which continued to operate for about 18 months (from 5 March 1942 to 31 August 1943) before being officially retired. During this time, the Coastal Patrol reported 173 U-boats and attacked 57 of them with 83 ordnance pieces, resulting in two confirmed kills.[7] Overall, the Coastal Patrol flew 86,865 missions, logging over 244,600 hours. Coastal Patrol aircraft reported 91 ships in distress and played a key role in rescuing 363 survivors of U-boat attacks. 17 floating mines were reported and 5,684 convoy missions were flown for the Navy.[8]

Not all a farce.  Just the account of Capt Haggins and Maj Farr is not supported by evidence unless that [7] reference has some new evidence.

There's whales in the atlantic/ gulf?

Edit: there are....learn something new each day...but sub's...don't they look bigger?

Yup.  New England whaling was a massive business in the 1800s. 

[a2capt]

The subs may not look that much bigger than some whales, but I'm sure they don't bend like whales do ..

[RiverAux]

I would bet good money that if were to add up all the claimed uboat kills made by all US forces during this period that they would probably exceed to the total number of German subs ever built. 

Just because evidence that wasn't available for decades sheds doubt on many of these claims doesn't mean that they were made by a glory hound or liar.  Honest mistakes can and were made at the time. 

Our guys were out there.  They did attack dozens of U-boats and I'm not surprised that these were all unsuccessful given the tiny bombs that they using.  We did spot submarines, report them, and then have them sunk by better armed forces.  Perhaps more detailed digs into the records may reveal that some of those incidents weren't quite what we thought as well, but so what? 

[THRAWN]

Perhaps more detailed digs into the records may reveal that some of those incidents weren't quite what we thought as well, but so what?

Exactly. Why let facts get in the way of a good story?

[RiverAux]

Perhaps more detailed digs into the records may reveal that some of those incidents weren't quite what we thought as well, but so what?

Exactly. Why let facts get in the way of a good story?

If you want to know all the facts, don't get into military history.  We will never know exactly what happened at every moment during an entire war, or even a particular campaign or battle.  Thats just the way it is. 

What we have for the most part is the reports of CAP members who said they did such and such at some place and time.  I would be surprised if there ever was any actual physical evidence or reports from others (US or German) to corroborate these CAP reports.  Thats the way things work in war. 

[Eclipse]

Our guys were out there.  They did attack dozens of U-boats and I'm not surprised that these were all unsuccessful given the tiny bombs that they using.  We did spot submarines, report them, and then have them sunk by better armed forces.  Perhaps more detailed digs into the records may reveal that some of those incidents weren't quite what we thought as well, but so what?

Well, WWII isn't really a popular subject for historians or documentarians, I mean it's not like there are entire cable channels and sections of libraries dedicated
to the subject, right?  Plus, it's only been like 69 some years since things cooled off, so let's get some time and space between us for perspective.

The trouble is that CAP has pinned the majority of its identity on "those little yellow airplanes", including the apocryphal comment by AH himself. So
any intimation that the story presented isn't true, or has been "enhanced" over the years, kicks out a leg right out from under the entire organization.

If you do the math on a lot of events of this type, especially during wartime , there tend to be details that are blurred, characters "combined for dramatic
effect", and generally the lens of time skewing the interpretation, but military organizations have plenty of cool points to shed because they
haven't basically sat on the same from front porch for 70 years and told the same story to whomever will listen.

CAP doesn't, and needs to understand that when current ops are stagnant, and you pin your identity on something that some people
call into question, that costs it cool points it can't afford, and will never earn back.

[THRAWN]

Perhaps more detailed digs into the records may reveal that some of those incidents weren't quite what we thought as well, but so what?

Exactly. Why let facts get in the way of a good story?

If you want to know all the facts, don't get into military history.  We will never know exactly what happened at every moment during an entire war, or even a particular campaign or battle.  Thats just the way it is. 

What we have for the most part is the reports of CAP members who said they did such and such at some place and time.  I would be surprised if there ever was any actual physical evidence or reports from others (US or German) to corroborate these CAP reports.  Thats the way things work in war.

Or any kind of history....

No one is saying that we have to know all of the facts, all of the minute details, for every moment of every day. However, sinking one sub, let alone two, is a pretty big claim. The burden of proof is not on the people who doubt the claim in the face of the evidence, but on CAP, who is making that claim.

No question that CAP had a presence on the coastal areas in question. Big question about just how effective that presence was.

[RiverAux]

Well, I do agree that CAP history seems to begin and end with the WWII subchasers and while that heritage is important whether or not we sunk any subs it was only a small part of what we did in WWII much less the rest of our history. 

For proof of the overemphasis on WWII, just look at the latest CAP history book which devotes more than half of its pages to WWII era stuff. 

[RiverAux]

However, sinking one sub, let alone two, is a pretty big claim. The burden of proof is not on the people who doubt the claim in the face of the evidence, but on CAP, who is making that claim.

Keep in mind that the information needed to refute the reports of our pilots wasn't available for many, many decades after the war. 

I'd say that since our current national historian is now disputing any such claims that it is unlikely that the sub sinkings will be claimed at the national level in the future (though I wouldn't doubt that a few such references will make it into public affairs news releases for a while). 

But, just what evidence do you want CAP to produce showing that we did attack German subs?  There are probably some original patrol reports in the archives that could be put together, but the chances of finding corroborating information are nil. 

[THRAWN]

Well, I do agree that CAP history seems to begin and end with the WWII subchasers and while that heritage is important whether or not we sunk any subs it was only a small part of what we did in WWII much less the rest of our history. 

For proof of the overemphasis on WWII, just look at the latest CAP history book which devotes more than half of its pages to WWII era stuff.

It's 4 years out of the past 70+. Reminds me of the high school prom queen who keeps talking about the "glory days". Lots of stuff has happened since then....

[THRAWN]

However, sinking one sub, let alone two, is a pretty big claim. The burden of proof is not on the people who doubt the claim in the face of the evidence, but on CAP, who is making that claim.

Keep in mind that the information needed to refute the reports of our pilots wasn't available for many, many decades after the war. 

I'd say that since our current national historian is now disputing any such claims that it is unlikely that the sub sinkings will be claimed at the national level in the future (though I wouldn't doubt that a few such references will make it into public affairs news releases for a while). 

But, just what evidence do you want CAP to produce showing that we did attack German subs?  There are probably some original patrol reports in the archives that could be put together, but the chances of finding corroborating information are nil.

Since CAP is making the claim, it's not my responsibility to tell them what kind of evidence to produce. The Germans and the US Navy have both produced enough evidence that no boats were lost in the areas or time periods claimed that it nullifies the claim.

[Eclipse]

But, just what evidence do you want CAP to produce showing that we did attack German subs?

What authority awards a maritime "kill"?  The Navy?

I know there's a process, just don't know what it was at the time, and certainly it wasn't taken lightly.

Until that authority, whatever it was or is, awards it officially, it didn't happen, just like any military decoration or award.

[LSThiker]

What authority awards a maritime "kill"?  The Navy?

I know there's a process, just don't know what it was at the time, and certainly it wasn't taken lightly.

Until that authority, whatever it was or is, awards it's officially, it didn't happen, just like any military decoration or award.

I believe it was the Navy at the time. 

[RiverAux]

However, sinking one sub, let alone two, is a pretty big claim. The burden of proof is not on the people who doubt the claim in the face of the evidence, but on CAP, who is making that claim.

Keep in mind that the information needed to refute the reports of our pilots wasn't available for many, many decades after the war. 

I'd say that since our current national historian is now disputing any such claims that it is unlikely that the sub sinkings will be claimed at the national level in the future (though I wouldn't doubt that a few such references will make it into public affairs news releases for a while). 

But, just what evidence do you want CAP to produce showing that we did attack German subs?  There are probably some original patrol reports in the archives that could be put together, but the chances of finding corroborating information are nil.

Since CAP is making the claim, it's not my responsibility to tell them what kind of evidence to produce. The Germans and the US Navy have both produced enough evidence that no boats were lost in the areas or time periods claimed that it nullifies the claim.

In case you missed it, the CAP national historian was in this thread specifically denying this claim.  While parts of CAP may still be using this information (since it is still found in various official places), your overall point is moot. 

[RiverAux]

But, just what evidence do you want CAP to produce showing that we did attack German subs?

What authority awards a maritime "kill"?  The Navy?

I know there's a process, just don't know what it was at the time, and certainly it wasn't taken lightly.

Until that authority, whatever it was or is, awards it officially, it didn't happen, just like any military decoration or award.

What award would have been given in relation to an attack on a submarine?  I'm not talking about the reported kills, but the 50+ reported attacks. 

[LSThiker]

Since CAP is making the claim, it's not my responsibility to tell them what kind of evidence to produce. The Germans and the US Navy have both produced enough evidence that no boats were lost in the areas or time periods claimed that it nullifies the claim.

In case you missed it, the CAP national historian was in this thread specifically denying this claim.  While parts of CAP may still be using this information (since it is still found in various official places), your overall point is moot.

I think both of you are agreeing that the claim is unsupported.

[AirAux]

In a further attempt to sink CAP and discourage members by demonstrating their uselessness to the Air Force, our renewal membership cards are now plastic coated paper instead of plastic.  Obviously saving $.23 of our $60.00 dues.  Guess you won't flash that around for credibility anymore.. 

[Eclipse]

In a further attempt to sink CAP and discourage members by demonstrating their uselessness to the Air Force, our renewal membership cards are now plastic coated paper instead of plastic.

Not really related, but I noticed that as well.

Why not just make it an app and call it a day.?

[LSThiker]

In a further attempt to sink CAP and discourage members by demonstrating their uselessness to the Air Force,

Talk about a straw man argument.

[Майор Хаткевич]

In a further attempt to sink CAP and discourage members by demonstrating their uselessness to the Air Force, our renewal membership cards are now plastic coated paper instead of plastic.

Not really related, but I noticed that as well.

Why not just make it an app and call it a day.?

Are you saying that they are even worse than before now?

[Eclipse]

Are you saying that they are even worse than before now?

Yes.  My health insurance card is literally thicker as is my library card.
Now that I think of it, so are my kid's school IDs.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I know we had the nice cards 4-5 years ago, which were changed to the skinnier Ines. Are they even worse than that now, or is that what were talking about ?

[Eclipse]

Next-Gen Worse.

It'll be "print your own" on 20lb bond next.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

Aw for Pete's sake can't you find something meaningful to complain about?  For years CAP Membership Cards were paper as were FAA Certificates, state drivers licenses, and the list goes on.  If something like a coated paper membership card is all it takes to get panties in a wad it's a shallow organization indeed.

On the U Boat saga who really cares?  If all kill claims were true then there were many more aircraft shot down, subs sunk, etc than were ever built.  It's called "Fog of War".  It happens and often it does take years to even start correcting the data.  Get over it.

[Private Investigator]

Well, I do agree that CAP history seems to begin and end with the WWII subchasers and while that heritage is important whether or not we sunk any subs it was only a small part of what we did in WWII much less the rest of our history. 

For proof of the overemphasis on WWII, just look at the latest CAP history book which devotes more than half of its pages to WWII era stuff.

It's 4 years out of the past 70+. Reminds me of the high school prom queen who keeps talking about the "glory days". Lots of stuff has happened since then....

I know who you are talking about. 1966 Prom Queen and today still says her little brother went to Viet Nam to take her parents attention away from her. "That little brat!" Funny if was not so sad. 

[THRAWN]

Aw for Pete's sake can't you find something meaningful to complain about?  For years CAP Membership Cards were paper as were FAA Certificates, state drivers licenses, and the list goes on.  If something like a coated paper membership card is all it takes to get panties in a wad it's a shallow organization indeed.

On the U Boat saga who really cares?  If all kill claims were true then there were many more aircraft shot down, subs sunk, etc than were ever built.  It's called "Fog of War".  It happens and often it does take years to even start correcting the data.  Get over it.

I care. And you should. And all members should. The claim has been made for years. It has also been called into question for years and finally, we have a national historian who is not afraid to put down the Kool Aid and take a good honest look at the evidence.

Claiming that something happened, or using statistics, or any metric that you use to attract members and not having anything other than anecdotal evidence to back it up calls into question the integrity of the organization.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

I am not defending the claims of having sunk 1 or a dozen U-Boats.  The facts as presently known state CAP did not sink anything (OK maybe scared the crap out of a whale or two), so it's time to quit beating a dead horse by continuing to try and defend something with no defense.
Maybe at the worst CAP's involvement in WWII was little more than a "feel good" exercise to let the members feel they were contributing to the greater good of the war effort.  Something along the lines of the scrap drives which made many people feel they were going something great but in truth accomplished little outside morale building. 
Maybe CAP's involvement was more than a morale building effort but how much more?  I am not taking anything away from those members who perished while performing their mission and duty for they did in fact give the last full measure of duty and that can never be taken away by anyone.

This is not to find fault with the CAP for all services of all nations inflated victory claims while deflated losses.  It is only thru the filter of time that the true numbers begin to take shape.  For well written documentation of this I would suggest two books:  Combined Bomber Offensive published by the Air University Press at Maxwell AFB, and Winged Victory which is a good hard look at the major players of Army Air Corps/ Air Force and their actions and failures in WWII.  (Arnold, Spaatz, etc.  should be titled "the Gods had clay feet).

As a followup:  www.archive.org  A free site of various library collections of books, music, films, videos, photos and such.   Search and you can find several WWII era propaganda films (anti-sub operations off the east Coast included).  Training films (how to fly the B-17, 25, 26, P-38,47,51,F6F, etc) film clips of various CAP Cadet activities from the 1950's, etc.  A good way to waste a bunch of hours.

[AirAux]

You are probably more right than you know, "was little more than a "feel good" exercise to let the members feel they were contributing to the greater good of the war effort."  In reality and thereby fact and real history, CAP has contributed next to nothing for the expense it has cost the taxpayers.  In reality, very few have been saved concerning the manhours of training and the expense the volunteers have given.  CAP was a recruiting tool for the Air Force for a while, but now recruiting is not of concern with the drawdown of the services.  With the future of drone warfare, areospace is of little consequence to anyone.  Most wings are now made up of good old boys flying clubs and the rest is of little concern.  I feel we are on the dusk of what was considered to be a beneficial program at one time, but now is an albatross around the neck of the Air Force and believe it or not, they could use the money elsewhere.  Perhaps it's time for the wanabees to look into their local state defense force.  Or see if Pineda is still looking for volunteers.  Go ahead and steal the thunder and glory and see what's left.  After all the truth is more important than mission...  So our program has been based on BS, well, we always knew that, didn't we.     

[Eclipse]

the truth is more important than mission...

The truth is not mutually exclusive from the mission, it is part of the mission.
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/CoreValues_2AB4D48FE86A8.pdf

Integrity

Integrity is the cornerstone of the core values. It is the quality of being honest,
sincere, and morally upright; and without it, the other core
values cannot prevail. Integrity requires discipline, consistency and persistence in order
to reflect the core values in everyday life. In practice, it involves doing the right thing,
understanding and implementing not just the rules and regulations but the spirit of what they
stand for. Former Air Force Chief of Staff, General Charles A. Gabriel said, "Integrity is the
fundamental premise of service in a free society.
Without integrity, the moral pillars of our military strength – public trust and self-respect – are lost." 

[AirAux]

So, after 75 years of lying, deceiving, however you want to put it, now we are so worried about integrity???  Are you saying that the core values have not prevailed for all these years because of our past of non-integrity?  And so I go back to my premise, we are as doomed as doomed can be... 

[Eclipse]

As I tell people all the time "We can't fix last year."

Don't know / don't care about what was done in the past.

Integrity is what happens >NOW< if the assertions that have been made about the sinking(s)
are proven to be false, or are not verifiable.

You accept, correct, and move on.

[Alaric]

...  In reality, very few have been saved concerning the manhours of training and the expense the volunteers have given.  CAP was a recruiting tool for the Air Force for a while, but now recruiting is not of concern with the drawdown of the services.  With the future of drone warfare, areospace is of little consequence to anyone.  Most wings are now made up of good old boys flying clubs and the rest is of little concern.  I feel we are on the dusk of what was considered to be a beneficial program at one time, but now is an albatross around the neck of the Air Force and believe it or not, they could use the money elsewhere.   

If you feel that way, why are you still here? 

Most wings are now made up of good old boys flying clubs and the rest is of little concern.

Really?  How many wings have you been a member of, I've been a member of 6 and all of them must be members of the minority as all have thriving ES, CP and AE programs.

Perhaps it's time for the wanabees to look into their local state defense force.  Or see if Pineda is still looking for volunteers.  Go ahead and steal the thunder and glory and see what's left.  After all the truth is more important than mission...  So our program has been based on BS, well, we always knew that, didn't we.

Wannabees?  Wannabee what's?  I want to be a member of an organization that contributes to its community, and I am.  So once again my question to is why are you still a member?

[AirAux]

Why would you want to be a member of an organization that has used lies for 75 years to recruit members?  Things like this draw attention to the alternative motives of the organization and it's upper level management.  This discredits the organization and taints all that belong to it.  The fact that so many want to wear the Air Force uniform so badly that they will give up uniformity for the whole organizations would certainly lead on to the conclusions that wannabees control enough of the organization to forego true uniformity for all.  I, too, have been in numerous wings for over three decades and began as a cadet.  Keep drinking to kool-aide...

[Alaric]

Why would you want to be a member of an organization that has used lies for 75 years to recruit members?  Things like this draw attention to the alternative motives of the organization and it's upper level management.  This discredits the organization and taints all that belong to it.  The fact that so many want to wear the Air Force uniform so badly that they will give up uniformity for the whole organizations would certainly lead on to the conclusions that wannabees control enough of the organization to forego true uniformity for all.  I, too, have been in numerous wings for over three decades and began as a cadet.  Keep drinking to kool-aide...

I don't know how to drink to kool-aide, unless you mean I should offer a toast in its honor.  I wasn't recruited based on our WWII heritage, I was recruited based on ES work.  I have never worn the air force uniform so that would be a negative.  Also, I have found that those who answer questions with questions generally have not thought out their answers.

[AirAux]

"So once again my question to is why are you still a member?"
"Also, I have found that those who answer questions with questions generally have not thought out their answers."
Touche'.  I am a member because I can be and because I must deliver the truth as I see it just as the Historian feels he must spread the truth as he sees it.  So, knowing the program as I do, I would imagine that your ES experience has been less than twice a year, so why do you stay?

[Alaric]

"So once again my question to is why are you still a member?"
"Also, I have found that those who answer questions with questions generally have not thought out their answers."
Touche'.  I am a member because I can be and because I must deliver the truth as I see it just as the Historian feels he must spread the truth as he sees it.  So, knowing the program as I do, I would imagine that your ES experience has been less than twice a year, so why do you stay?

Imagination is great in the year 2014 I flew 7 CD sorties did SAREVALs in 2 different wings, SAREXs in 3 different wings, and a HLS mission and the year is not over yet.  In addition I was able to instruct others at the NER MAS, become qualified as an MSO and PIO, and did a ground school for AP.  So I'm a member because I'm busy.  That doesn't include my work in PD, Admin, or Personnel.

[LSThiker]

I am a member because I can be and because I must deliver the truth as I see it just as the Historian feels he must spread the truth as he sees it.

You have an interesting belief in "delivering the truth as you see it" since you are more concerned about the "image of CAP" rather than the truth.  According to you, we should just continue to spread false information because it makes the organization look better.

"Quit wasting your time trying to disprove an accepted and beloved theory from 75 years ago."
"You have no more factual proof that CAP didn't sink submarines than I have that they did, but my theory does no harm to CAP where yours attacks the honor, integrity, courage, heritage, pride, and esprit de corps of CAP."
"In a further attempt to sink CAP and discourage members by demonstrating their uselessness to the Air Force,"
"Go ahead and steal the thunder and glory and see what's left.  After all the truth is more important than mission...  "
"Things like this draw attention to the alternative motives of the organization and it's upper level management.  This discredits the organization and taints all that belong to it."

For some unknown reason, for you, determining the truth (whether or not we did actually sink two submarines) will destroy the organization, so we should not investigate it.  Did you also know, hiding the truth will also discredit an organization?

[AirAux]

As the man said, "You can't handle the truth."  How about the Historian work on something like the number of lives saved a year by CAP..  The real bonafide number with facts.  Is it 100, 80, 48, 32, or much less?  Let's see how effective we really are, shall we?  If we are interested in destroying legend, let's do it.  Alaric, you are to be praised, you are a man of few that are truly dedicated.  Few know the effort you have gone through to accomplish what you have.  I respect you and thank you for your service.

[LSThiker]

As the man said, "You can't handle the truth."

Well it can be difficult to change views on an "accepted and beloved theory from 75 years ago".

How about the Historian work on something like the number of lives saved a year by CAP.

So a historian can only work on one project at a time?  Hmmm, I might need to tell my commander that because apparently I am working on 9 projects too many.  Besides, why is that any different than working on the sub-sinking story?  Will people just argue about the numbers of saves just as much as the subs?  Claim that by correcting the numbers it brings into question the integrity, honor, and heritage of CAP?

Let's see how effective we really are, shall we?

Yes we of course should just as the AAF went through an AAR of the CAP.  The organization as a whole should always continuously determine its effectiveness.  That is one thing the commander appreciates from my position as a historian in that I have a tendency to notice the trends as oppose to the other staff positions.  You know, telling the forest from the trees and what not.

If we are interested in destroying legend, let's do it.

No one is interested in destroying legend, just correcting the information so that we can tell truth instead of falsehoods.

[RRLE]

FWIW - CAP is not alone in validating and maybe disproving elements of its WWII mythology.

The USCG Aux's first "history" book on itself was The Volunteers and was written by an early National Commodore (NACO). The WWII chapters were very heavy on the USCG Temporary Reserve (TR) and its primary sub-components the Coastal Patrol, Beach Patrol and Volunteer Port Security Force. The Aux was laying claim to their history and claimed it as part of the Aux heritage. There were other parts of the TR that the Aux did not lay claim to - the women's auxiliary SPAR, the USCG Police and the NOAA Weatherman (not a modern radical group).

The problem being was that the TRs were not part of the Aux. The USCG forced anyone, with a few exceptions, who wanted to join the three components, to join the Aux first. The Aux was a civilian organization and was a parking place for the TR candidates until they were trained and passed a rudimentary security screen. Once trained and "secured" the member became a military member of the USCG TR. They could remain an Aux if they wanted to. After the war, the USCG converted TR flotillas into Aux flotillas and most of the TRs who were still in the Aux dropped out. To combat the drop-off the Aux got authorization to wear military ribbons on the Aux uniform - something that had been prohibited until then and has caused issues ever since.

At no time did the Aux civilian leadership control, direct or have any say over TR affairs. The USCG military officers controlled the TR.

It wasn't until the late 1990s and early 2000s that the Aux began to face up to its real heritage and begin to drop any references to the glory of TRs as part of its heritage - although vestiges of the old claims surface from time-to-time. The reassessment was lead by a membership group, outside the normal chain of leadership (the Aux doesn't have a chain of command), who used the resources of the web to challenge the perceived wisdom/myth. The debunkers were treated pretty much the same way the CAP historian has been treated in this thread but they have largely carried the day.

And like CAP, some of TR patrols claim to be have fired on (with rifles) German U-boats but there is no verifiable proof of this. The one claim that has some outside proof is that a U-boat may have accidentally surfaced under a TR patrol boat near Fort Lauderdale, FL. There is some independent evidence that when the boat was pulled to inspect the hull damage, that there was paint on the bottom that matched the color of the U-boats.

After the war, the USCG encouraged flotillas to produce unit histories. I have a small collection of these published hard bound books. None recount the tales of daring-do that made it into official history - The Volunteers. Nor are the feats recorded in the official records of the USCG or the US Navy Sea Frontier command. Like elements of the CAP history, the TR/Aux feats appear to have been internally generated with no verifiable outside proof.

The most famous feat of the TRs was that one boat was the object of the longest SAR in WWII. The story is an incredible story of survival at sea and they pretty much self-rescued. The story is told in "The Navy Hunts The CGR 3070" by Lawrence Thompson, Lt, USNR. It was published by Doubleday in 1943/44.

What is interesting is that while the Aux was claiming the history of others - it totally missed something it had real involvement in - the 1989 Mariel Boatlift. I had at one time, and might still have in my records, the day-to-day diary of the 7th District USCG Aux Commodore who ran the Aux side of the operation. It is fascinating reading and something the Aux pretty much ignores in its history. For some reason, a civilian volunteer organization choose to highlight (steal) the history of a military organization it was loosely connected to and ignore its own achievements in its appointed role.

[James Shaw]

Just a tidbit of information to share on how new discoveries can change the outcome of perceived and accepted history.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/10/29/amelia-earhart-plane-fragment-identified/

[LSThiker]

Just a tidbit of information to share on how new discoveries can change the outcome of perceived and accepted history.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/10/29/amelia-earhart-plane-fragment-identified/

Have heard the same story about strong evidence. I won't hold my breath. It would be wonderful if this does turn out a strong lead.

[Mitchell 1969]

Why would you want to be a member of an organization that has used lies for 75 years to recruit members?  Things like this draw attention to the alternative motives of the organization and it's upper level management.  This discredits the organization and taints all that belong to it.  The fact that so many want to wear the Air Force uniform so badly that they will give up uniformity for the whole organizations would certainly lead on to the conclusions that wannabees control enough of the organization to forego true uniformity for all.  I, too, have been in numerous wings for over three decades and began as a cadet.  Keep drinking to kool-aide...

I doubt that there were any lies at all. CAP during WWII was hastily assembled and mission-focused. The administrative components didn't get as much attention as field components. I'd bet money that nobody saw it lasting 2 years, let alone 70+.

The National Commander, Johnson, was a CAP officer who was given an Army commission so he could run CAP full time. There is an IG report making the rounds that illustrates the amateur feel to CAP HQ - not that amateurs are bad people, but there didn't seem to be much in the way of oversight or training to bring them up to professional expectations.

What would things have looked like had CAP units been formed locally but attached to active Army bases under active chains of command? We'll never know, but I vividly recall what it was like when TSA was created - standing up an organization on day 1 that was supposed to be performing that mission starting on day 1 was a disaster.

And - lets not forget that we have tremendous advantages in information gathering, transmittal and retrieval that were not present in WWII.

That leaves us in 1942-45 with an embryonic organization that was started in a hurry, volunteers trying to do their jobs and staffed by people who may not have been professionally trained or experienced. I can easily see "I heard that a couple of guys at Coastal Patrol Base number X...." being retold and retold to the point that it sounded factual. Then somebody wrote it down. Somebody else passed it along and....

If there is any fault here, it's shared by Army and Navy people who passed the information along without verifying. Or, perhaps, no fault at all - maybe they believed it to, at the time, with what they thought they knew. Those faults were later compounded by the various authors who basically looped the claims back onto themselves. But, who cares? Combat claims during the Battle of Britain had the same result, due to "fog of war." It takes post-event research to tidy it all up.

We are at a point in history where it is possible to look at the claims with greater scrutiny. We owe ourselves the truth, no matter what it is.

Nothing, nothing, detracts from the courage, hard work and sacrifice of the people who flew those searches and who may have even believed that they hit or even sank subs. They were there. They put it all on the line.

[RiverAux]

Should people not join the AF because WWII fighter pilots may have claimed kills that didn't actually happen?

Should they avoid the Navy because they honestly thought they sunk some subs that they hadn't?

I bet there are dozens and dozens of WWII AF squadron and Navy histories that also have higher number of kills and sinkings than actually had happened. 

And so on....

Fog of war people.  They reported what they thought had happened to the best of their ability.  Sometimes they turned out to be wrong. 

[James Shaw]

Should people not join the AF because WWII fighter pilots may have claimed kills that didn't actually happen?

Should they avoid the Navy because they honestly thought they sunk some subs that they hadn't?

I bet there are dozens and dozens of WWII AF squadron and Navy histories that also have higher number of kills and sinkings than actually had happened. 

And so on....

Fog of war people.  They reported what they thought had happened to the best of their ability.  Sometimes they turned out to be wrong.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: