Précis of
Attacks by Bramble and SEAGULL
Date: 8.7.42
Time: 1620
Position:67° 26’N, 41°23’ E
Depth of Water: 23 fathoms
Weather conditions: Wind – light, variable, Force 1. Sea – calm.
Visibility – 1 to 1 ½ miles closing down later to 2 cables.
NARRATIVE
HM Ships BRAMBLE and SEAGULL were carrying out
an A/S sweep off the entrance to Archangel. The ships were in line
abreast one mile apart steering 170° at 5 knots. At 1620, SEAGULL on
the port beam of BRAMBLE, obtained a contact at a range of 1,500
yards on the port bow. The echo had a closing inclination and the
bearing was reported to be drawing left and the contact was
classified as ‘submarine’. A series of attacks were then carried out
by both ships. Details are as follows:
No. of attacks |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
4th |
5th |
6th |
Time |
1629 |
1647 |
1710 |
1739 |
1825 |
1908 |
Ship |
SEAGULL |
BRAMBLE |
SEAGULL |
BRAMBLE |
SEAGULL |
BRAMBLE |
Inclination |
Closing |
Opening |
Closing |
NIL |
Opening |
Nil |
HH |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Loud |
Nil |
Nil |
Movement of Target |
Slowly left |
Slowly left |
Left – steady |
None |
Steady – right |
Nil |
Range of losing contact |
150 yards |
200 yards |
150 yards |
150-200 yards |
200 yards |
150-200 yards |
Time to fire obtained by |
Recorder |
Recorder |
Recorder |
Recorder |
Recorder |
Recorder |
No. of D/C’s |
5 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
Depth settings |
100 & 200 ft |
100, 150 & 200 ft |
150 ft |
250 ft |
100 & 150 ft |
250 ft |
Remarks |
Oil |
Oil |
Oil & Bubbles |
Oil |
Oil |
Oil & Air Bubbles |
No. of attacks |
7th |
8th |
9th |
10th |
11th |
Time |
1942 |
2017 |
0212/9 |
0235 |
0327 |
Ship |
BRAMBLE |
SEAGULL |
SEAGULL |
SEAGULL |
SEAGULL |
Inclination |
Nil |
Closing |
Opening |
Opening |
None |
HH |
Nil |
Nil |
HE and whistle effect. Tapping noises. |
None |
None |
Movement of Target |
Nil |
Right |
Left/Right |
None |
None |
Range of losing contact |
150 - 200 yards |
150 yards |
150 yards |
150yards |
150 yards |
Time to fire obtained by |
Recorder |
Recorder |
Recorder |
Recorder |
Recorder |
No. of D/C’s |
5 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
Depth settings |
100, 150 & 200 ft |
100 & 150 ft |
100 & 150 ft |
250 ft |
250 ft |
Remarks |
Oil & Air Bubbles |
Oil |
Oil & Bubbles |
Steady stream of oil |
Oil |
Varying visibility sometimes down to two cables
hampered the movements of ships when hunting and attacking. The
necessity for conserving depth charges particularly as there were no
reserve stocks in North Russia at that time, was the reason for the
small pattern that were used. Although no track chart has been
forwarded it is fairly clear that all these attacks were made on the
same contact as there appeared to be no difficulty in holding the
target, both ships being more or less continuously in contact.
BRAMBLE was required for other duties and left the area after the
seventh attack, SEAGULL remaining in the vicinity.
A Dan buoy was laid in the position of the
contact at 2135 by SEAGULL. Thereafter SEAGULL remained in contact
without attacking during the night. Nothing was heard until 0200
when, at a range of 600 yards, strong hydrophone effect, tapping
noises and whistle effect were heard. At this time the range started
to open and the target was again attacked as described above, the
contact being held until 0835/10, with no further movement or sound.
At 0417/14, on returning to the position, SEAGULL found the contact
in the same place still stationary and quiet.
SURFACE EVIDENCE
Oil and bubbles were seen coming to the surface
in a steady stream, but there is no record of a sample having been
obtained or analysed nor is the probable type of the oil mentioned
in the reports of either ship.
Four loud underwater explosions were also
reported by SEAGULL at 1810 and two by BRAMBLE at 1847. It is
possible, however, that these were delayed depth charge explosions
in view of the fact that the depth of water is only 23 fathoms, and
BRAMBLE had been dropping depth charges set to 250 feet and SEAGULL
set to 150 feet.
It has been reported that a Russian minesweeping
trawler met with an obstruction in 67° 27’ N, 41° 20’ E whilst
sweeping on the 9th July.
ASDIC EVIDENCE
Details of the contact held have been described
above. Recorder traces obtained during the period of this attack
have faded but a trace obtained of the contact on the 10th
July has been forwarded by SEAGULL. This is clearly marked and has
the general appearance of a submarine contact. If, in fact, as
stated in SEAGULL’s report, the target started to move at 0200/9 to
the tune of various noises, having remained stationary since the
previous attack at 2017/8, the possibility of this contact being a
wreck would appear to be ruled out.
C.O.’S OPINON
SEAGULL: Considered that the U-boat was sunk.
BRAMBLE: It appears that the U-boat must have
been so badly damaged in one of the earlier attacks that she was not
able either to surface or move away from her position. The U-boat
made little or no movement after the earlier attacks which evidently
crippled her.
S.O. First
Minesweeping Flotilla's Opinion
The C in C, White Sea Forces informed me that the
Russians still intended to carry out diving operations but that an
opportunity had not yet occurred. The Russians, however, must have
carried out some form of investigation as he also informed me that
one end of the considered U-boat was lying 40 feet from the bottom
and he had no evidence of any wreck in that vicinity.
With reference to RAD’s minute, all explosions
from BRAMBLE and SEAGULL of depth charges dropped were accounted
for, and the explosions referred to were from a different source.
SUBMARINE TRACKING ROOM’S OPINION
There is no tracking evidence of the presence of
a U-boat.