CAP and the Battle of the Atlantic

[JohnKachenmeister]

Is it time for a lock?

Not just for sarcasm!

Besides... everybody knows that Admiral King never went to sea.

[JohnKachenmeister]

So, River...

You want to challenge the claims that two submarines were sunk, and you demand documentation a full 65 years after the action?

The submarine described in the post above was attacked and sunk at periscope depth.  How could the aircrews have recorded its hull number?  It was under water!

You are beginning to sound like those conspiracy theorists who don't believe that Neil Armstrong went to the moon... that it was all set up by Hollywood.

I am reminded of a scene from an old movie I saw as a cadet, "The Blue Max."  George Peppard beats the bushes looking for the wreckage of a plane he shot down, and never finds it.  He is counselled by his commander that "Unconfirmed by Army means unconfirmed."

The other side of the coin is that "Confirmed" means just that.  65 years later you can confirm a formerly unconfirmed kill, but not challenge a confirmed one simply because you are not satisfied with the level of proof.  That has already gone down in the battle history.

[RRLE]

Again, I think it very possible that CAP did actually sink a sub or two, but I just don't think we should claim it unless we've got rock solid date and the name of the sub(s) that we sunk.

I can't give you the date or the hull number but I can tell you who CAP says sank the first one and where.

According to Introduction to the Civil Air Patrol CAP Pamphlet 50-5 http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_082503081737.pdf, pdf page 13-14, book page 9 - 10, the U-boat was sunk off Atlantic City, New Jersey by Haggins and Farr.

Now that is the CAP official version. Try checking it out further on the web. I didn't keep the URLs but several writers claim that in checking official records, no U-boat was sunk off Atlantic City. So although you have two names and a location - the fact still is in dispute.

In trying to prove the CAP claim, I ran into another interesting opinion. A German officer is often cited in CAP and other literature and on this thread as crediting CAP with driving the U-boats away. Some even give an exact quote involving 'red and yellow planes'. What the skeptics note is that the name of the German officer is either never given or the supposed source document is not given. Leading many to think the quote itself was made up.

The USCG Aux has a similar problem with some of its WWII exploits. John Tilley, a respected historian, wrote "The United States Coast Guard Auxiliary: A History 1939-1999". It was published by the US Government Printing Office for the Aux's 60th Anniversary. Tilley notes in the footnotes (fn 43, page 173):

Philip Wylie and Lawrence Schwab, "The Battle of Florida," Saturday Evening Post, Vol. 216, no. 37, March 11, 1944, p.52 This article seems to be the original source for much of the lore associated with the Coastal Picket Force.

If you go back into the text. The paragraph to which that footnote is attached begins:

Actual encounters with U-boats attained a status in Coast Guard Auxiliary lore similar to sightings of the Loch Ness Monster.

Tilley also notes that the SEP had published in its January 15, 1944 issue (Vol 216, No 29) what he said is probably the only piece of fiction ever published about the Coast Guard Reserve or the Coast Guard Auxiliary. It was "Days of Glory" by Georgess Carousso. Given his skepticism about the sightings maybe he should have said it was the only intentional work of fiction.

[aveighter]

No, Dave,  it is time for men with an intellectual spine to say enough.  Our official historians have given relevant and documented information.  It is sufficient.  This constant need to decry and diminish our history, service, appearance, etc. is disturbing but seems to be a recurring theme.

Here's a thought experiment.  Try applying rivers historical and analytical approach to your own Naval service and unnumbered Mitchell award.

There should be an automatic lock for stupidity being passed off as intellectual inquiry.

[James Shaw]

I have spoken with the individual who has the original logs from Haggins patrol. They state that all of the patrols both prior to and after that day have specific information as to the patrol itself. The dates and times in question for the sinking are marked through as classified! These are the original logs sent to them from Haggins widow!

I personally feel that if these men who had been entrusted with protecting the lives of their fellow citizens say they saw and sunk a U-Boat than I would personally take their word as truth. I cannot in good conscious tell someone that volunteers their time and possibly their lives that they are liars or are being dishonest.

[mikeylikey]

^^  :clap: :clap: :clap:

[RiverAux]

Folks, if you pick just about any battle in history you will find major discrepancies between what one side thought they accomplished and what actually happened according to the records of the other.  One side will claim that they sunk 5 ships based on their best evaluation of their after action reports and after the war you might find out through examination of the enemy's records that they actually only lost 2 ships.  Does that mean the first side was lying or any less valorous?  No, it just means they got a fact wrong. 

So, for example, do the dates on which CAP claims to have sunk a sub match up with German records of when they lost subs? 

Apparently according to the web site I cited earlier, such records seem to be  available.   

[RRLE]

Just remeber:

When the facts don't fit the legend, print the legend.

Who Shot Liberty Valance?

[aveighter]

Folks, if you pick just about any battle in history you will find major discrepancies between what one side thought they accomplished and what actually happened according to the records of the other.  One side will claim that they sunk 5 ships based on their best evaluation of their after action reports and after the war you might find out through examination of the enemy's records that they actually only lost 2 ships.  Does that mean the first side was lying or any less valorous?  No, it just means they got a fact wrong. 

So, for example, do the dates on which CAP claims to have sunk a sub match up with German records of when they lost subs? 

Your right bud.  I think I'll stick with our historians and their records.  You stick with the Nazi enemy records and recollections.  I think our side had a lock on truth and valor in that particular contest.  You seem feverishly intent on giving the Nazi submariners considerably more than a fair shake on these questions.  

Perhaps you could explain that to us?

[RiverAux]

So, I'm being pro-Nazi by wondering if German records confirm the record of a loss of a sub on the same day CAP claims to have sunk one? 

I guess when I'm writing about Civil War battles that I should stick with Union reports even when they overestimate the size of southern forces by 2 or 3 times? 

Using this line of reasoning we can dump our ground team program since when an aircrew thinks they've spotted a wrecked plane, we can pretty much take that as gospel and send everyone home as there is no need to confirm that what they saw was a plane and if it was the plane, that it was the one we were looking for.   

[mikeylikey]

^ right on!  You beat me to it!!

[RRLE]

RiverAux:

You missed a much better example of why both sides of the dispute must be checked since the one you missed involves U-boats and the Americans and British lied while the Germans were proven right, many years later.

The thing you missed was the sinking of the RMS Lusitania on May 7, 1915 by U-20. The Germans insisted all along that the ship was carrying war material and a valid target. The Americans and the Brits denied that and since the Allies won and winners write history that is how it went into the history books. The Americans also used the sinking of the Luitania and the American lives lost on her as a Casus Bellum. It wouldn't be the first time, nor the last, that trumped up evidence would be used to get the US into a war. 

The wreck has been dove on since the 1960s and those dives confirm what the Germans said and what the Brits and Americans lied about - there was munitions, a lot of munitions, on board.

[RiverAux]

Well, that is getting more into propaganda issues rather than true battle damage assessments.  Tokyo Rose was always claiming that Japan sank way more US ships than they actually did.  I'd be willing to guess that the Japanese navy had more conservative (but probably still high) numbers that the public relations folks then dramatically inflated. 

[Cecil DP]

Just remeber:

When the facts don't fit the legend, print the legend.

Who Shot Liberty Valance?

John Wayne, But Jimmy Stewart got the credit!

[Cecil DP]

Folks, if you pick just about any battle in history you will find major discrepancies between what one side thought they accomplished and what actually happened according to the records of the other.  One side will claim that they sunk 5 ships based on their best evaluation of their after action reports and after the war you might find out through examination of the enemy's records that they actually only lost 2 ships.  Does that mean the first side was lying or any less valorous?  No, it just means they got a fact wrong. 

So, for example, do the dates on which CAP claims to have sunk a sub match up with German records of when they lost subs? 

Apparently according to the web site I cited earlier, such records seem to be  available.   

The problem with the records is that the sinking date may not be the same date as shown in the records. Subs were generally out of communications for most of their voyage. So they would only be reported sunk after a regular report was expected and overdue by as much as a week. If we claimed a sinking on the first of the month, the ship maynot be listed as missing until thefirst of the next month. Same for planes shot down. If two or three pilots see a plane shot down they all reported it in their debriefing and one plane becomes 3. This happened on both sides of the war.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The German records are no more reliable than anyone else's.  Plus, there are something like more than 50 subs still unaccounted for.  Trying to apply audit principles to military intelligence simply doesn't work.  McNamara found that out in Vietnam.

That bring said, allow me to caution our good friend RRLE about stomping around in a political minefield.  While the Lusitania sinking was viewed as an atrocity at the time, what plunged the US into war were letters exchanged between Germany and Mexico in which the Germans sought to solicit the Mexicans to attack the US Southwest.  In exchange, Germany was to guarantee the return of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Califonia to Mexico.

That was fact.

[RiverAux]

I'm more than happy to give some leeway as I mentioned earlier.  If there is a  german sub that was anywhere near where a CAP plane made an attack and went missing at that time, I'd be happy with that. 

The Germans are sort of well known for being detailed recordkeepers and Navies do tend to keep track of when one of their ships go missing. There are hundreds and hundreds of specific records of u-boats and the units that were credited with sinking each one of them.  I would think it be odd that both of CAP subs are among those for which "credit" has not been assigned.   It is possible, just unlikely.

[RRLE]

Subs were generally out of communications for most of their voyage.

You might want to check your German U-Boat communication protocol. Donitz, stupidly, had the U-Boats report every day. It is why the then new and secret High Frequency Direction Finding (nicknamed Huff-Duff) worked so well.

our good friend RRLE about stomping around in a political minefield

I appreciate the warning but you have the cause of the war wrong. Wilson speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson_declares_war_on_Germany begins by discussing unrestricted submarine warfare - by implication the Lusitania. The American battlecry was "Remember The Lusitania" not anything about the Zimmerman Telegram. The Telegram incident is mentioned toward the end of Wilson's speech.

And by the rules of war the sinking of the Lusitania was an atrocity - committed by the Americans and British. The Germans were in their rights to sink it. It was carrying munitions in an area the Germans had told the world community was a war zone. Sinking it was allowed by international law at the time (and now). The atrocity was that the American and British governments hide from the passengers that they were embarked on a military supply ship that was therefore a legitimate target of the enemy. Both governments failed to adaquately warn the the ship's crew and Britian failed to protect the ship in its home waters - and it knew there was at least 1 U-boat in the area.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Subs were generally out of communications for most of their voyage.

You might want to check your German U-Boat communication protocol. Donitz, stupidly, had the U-Boats report every day. It is why the then new and secret High Frequency Direction Finding (nicknamed Huff-Duff) worked so well.

our good friend RRLE about stomping around in a political minefield

I appreciate the warning but you have the cause of the war wrong. Wilson speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson_declares_war_on_Germany begins by discussing unrestricted submarine warfare - by implication the Lusitania. The American battlecry was "Remember The Lusitania" not anything about the Zimmerman Telegram. The Telegram incident is mentioned toward the end of Wilson's speech.

And by the rules of war the sinking of the Lusitania was an atrocity - committed by the Americans and British. The Germans were in their rights to sink it. It was carrying munitions in an area the Germans had told the world community was a war zone. Sinking it was allowed by international law at the time (and now). The atrocity was that the American and British governments hide from the passengers that they were embarked on a military supply ship that was therefore a legitimate target of the enemy. Both governments failed to adaquately warn the the ship's crew and Britian failed to protect the ship in its home waters - and it knew there was at least 1 U-boat in the area.

I do not know you, RRLE.  I suspect from your postings that you may be a cadet.

I am well aware that Wilson, in his declaration of war request, referenced what was, at the time, an atrocity.  I am also aware that the Lusitania would have been a legitimate target of war.  There had also been an advertisement in the New York newspapers  warning that all British-flag ships were subject to attack.

What I am also aware of, which you seem not to be aware of, there was no Anglo-American cooperation in 1916.  In fact, there was pretty much even money on whether the US would side with Germany or Great Britain in World War I.  Until the Zimmerman Letters, anyway.

[RiverAux]

While we have all seen the "d.....d little yellow airplanes" comment about CAP's coastal patrols (did we ever find the original source of this?), minutes ago I came across another, quite different view, of the threat posed by CAP to submarines in WWII as seen by a German submarine commander.

It is in "The United States Coast Guard Auxiliary: A History, 1939-1999" by John. A. Tilley on page 29.  It is actually a quote from "U Boat Commaner: A Periscope View of the Battle of the Atlantic" by Peter Cremer (A Kapitanleutnant in the German Navy). 

In referring to the Coast Guard's Coastal Picket Force (made up primarily of temporary Coast Guard Reservists) and CAP on page 79 he wrote: 

Though their value was precisely nil the participants had fun, besides receiving a boost to their morale, and had an opportunity to indulge their love of air and sea travel free of charge, with Uncle Sam providing the fuel and food