Source: ADM 199/1783 Proceedings of
U-boat assessment committee. U-boat attack by Sharpshooter
Précis
of Attack by SHARPSHOOTER
Date: 13.9.42
Time: 1131
Position: 75° 54’ N, 08° 49’ E
Depth
of Water: 1,150 fathoms
Weather: Wind NNW Force 5, Visibility 2 to 5 miles
NARRATIVE
SHARPSHOOTER was in position ‘W’ astern of Convoy PQ18, when at 1131,
a firm contact, bearing 110° at a range of 2,100 yards was obtained.
The ship turned towards and increased speed to attack, using a 5°
throw off. The first pattern was dropped at 1135 ½ . Three further
attacks were carried out and the details of all these attacks are as
follows:
No. of attack |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
4th |
Time |
1135 ½ |
1140 ½ |
1203 ½ |
1216 |
Inclination |
Opening |
None |
Opening |
Opening |
H
E |
None |
None |
Yes and whistle effect |
Yes |
Did target appear to move |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Range at which contact was lost |
Instant echoes |
Instant echoes |
Instant echoes |
Instant echoes |
Time to fire obtained by |
Recorder |
Recorder |
Recorder |
Recorder |
No. of D/C’s |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Depth settings |
150, 250, 350 & 500 feet |
250 & 350 feet |
250, 350 & 500 feet |
150, 250 and 350 feet |
Remarks |
Conning tower partially surfaced |
|
Conning tower shown |
Air bubbles |
After
the first attack the U-boat’s conning tower partially broke surface,
and a portion of the U-boat is reported to have surfaced again at 1204
i.e. just after the third attack. SHARPSHOOTER states that after this
attack she became directing vessel to enable TARTAR to attack but that
the latter lost contact during the run in and broke off the attack.
TARTAR did however carry out two attacks on contacts which could not
definitely be classified as ‘submarine’. It is not clear however
whether TARTAR was attacking the same contact as the one attacked by
SHARPSHOOTER. The attack by TARTAR are the subject of a separate
report.
Air
bubbles were seen after the fourth attack and contact was lost shortly
after. The hunt was then broken off and the ships returned to their
stations on the screen. SHARPSHOOTER states that full patterns were
not fired owing to a failure of the firing gear.
SURFACE EVIDENCE
As
stated in the narrative. The conning tower of the U-boat was seen on
two occasions, the first being shortly after the first attack and the
second shortly after the third attack. It is noted, however, that
TARTAR, who was assisting in this hunt, presumably did not see the
conning tower on either occasion as she makes no mention of it in her
report. Air bubbles were also seen shortly before contact was finally
lost. It is noted that depth settings were between 150 and 500 feet.
It would appear, however, that the U-boat was shallow, a position
which is borne out by the fact that in each attack contact was held on
instant echoes.
ASDIC EVIDENCE
Asdic
conditions were described as good. The recorder trace has evidently
faded considerably but the echo marks are clearly visible for most of
the time. They have the appearance of being a ‘submarine’ contact
though in one or two places they are rather ragged indicating possibly
that contact was being held either on or through the wake.
CO’S OPINION
A most
promising attack. The U-boat appeared to be blowing tanks after the
fourth attack.
RAD’S
OPINION
None
expressed.
SUBMARINE TRACKING ROOM’S
OPINION
Analysis of tracking evidence of U-boat operations against PQ18 tends
to suggest that three U-boats of the total operating may never have
returned to base.
DECISION OF U-BOAT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
Insufficient evidence of damage.
16th
November 1942