U-Boat victories and claims
 

Good night to all on board!
I was making some researches and found a RAF pilot who claimed 3 U-Boat victories ( actually none of the U-Boats he claimed in 1940 were sunk ) and got the credits for sinking them.
I would like to know, HOW the RAF or USAAF credited their aircrew members with this kind of "victory"?
We all know that by late 1942 the Intelligence Services of both countries were able to "read" Kriegsmarine´s ( ULTRA, Enigma deciphering, etc...) reports. Did they "cross-check" the aircrew claims versus the losses reports at that time?
BUT early in 1940, 1941 - did the RAF credited those "destructions" to the pilot´s report of combat only? I mean: "saw bubbles and foam...and patches of oil..."?
I also communicated with former Mosquito airmen who fought and sunk merchant ships. One of them told me they were credited to the Squadron as a whole, not to indidividuals..Of course, on the heat of Battle, each Mosquito carying 8 rockets, it was impossible to determine who sunk what...
ANY comments or information about U-Boat being credited to RAF and USAAF airmen?
Many thanks in advance for any answer and help.
Adriano

Re: U-Boat victories and claims
 

304.Polish Squadron Coastal Command
18 June 1944
Wellington "A" nr HF331
Time: 22.57
Crew: F/O Antoniewicz (pilot, still alive),F/O Spikowski, F/Sgt Moller, F/Sgt Iżycki, F/Sgt Matias , F/Sgt Szot
U-Boot type VIIC U-441 (sunk, all killed)
Kapitänleutnant Klaus Hartman



Regards

Re: U-Boat victories and claims
 

Thanks PETER!
But I guess I did not expressed myself correctly.
I would like to understand IF early in the war the aircrew were credited with U-Boat victories ONLY by their reports?
AND...if later, by 1943 forward, there was any kind of "cross-checking" the information submitted by the RAF, Coastal Command, etc.. aircrew x ( versus ) known losses intercepted by ULTRA?
As I wrote, some aircrew were credited with U-Boat victories without actually sending them to the bottom...that´s what I am trying to understand: the CREDIT of those claims...
Thanks for your post about a Polish claim. Was it verified by ULTRA or another source?
Yours
Adriano

Re: U-Boat victories and claims
 

Hi Adriano:

Ultra is a fantastic and totally necessary source for evaluating WWII history, but it is not fool-proof. The Kriegsmarine was much more security conscious than the Luftwaffe. Its Enigma machines not only used a 4th wheel early on but they religiously changed rotations and set-up tests. This made it extremely difficult for Bletchley Park to break these codes (Fish, Shark, etc). They did it early, but by late- '41/early '42 there was not much. Not until early 1943 (IRRC) were they "reading" naval transmissions and even then it was not steady or sometimes very fragmentary.

So, Ultra would not likely have confirmed U-Boat sinkings with any regularity. Plus, the only clue that a boat was missing would have been repeated attempts by the HQ to contact the boat.

Re: U-Boat victories and claims
 

But now and again …

Re: U-Boat victories and claims
 

John and Nick,
That what I was looking for...I know for instance that 248 Squadron was sent once to patrol an area where U-Boats were reported to be active - a kind ofa a "rendez-vous" ( perhaps an Intelligence report that must have come from ULTRA intercepts ). The result was that U-976 was attacked by Tsé-Tsé aircrafts and damaged on the spot the U-Boats and ships were supposed to be!
JOHN, from what you said we can assume that RAF Y Service could have listened to those communications - between Kriegsmarine HQs and U-Boats? I read somewhere and can "confirm" that messages from Almirant Canaris, who asked about his dogs were intercepted! So, we can "assume" that from time to time, this kind of "position message" that was not answered could inform the RN as well the RAF that a U-Boat was lost?!
BUT again, it is not very clear to me, HOW the U-Boat victories were confirmed to aircrew who were in combat against them. I mean, for a air-to-air victory one must have a witness, or a wreck, or bodies to confirm the victory, wasn´t that? However, were the U-Boat claims only confirmed by the mission report submited by the aircrew, after a long and tiresome flight and fight?!
Yours ( thanks again for the help...it is a subject that I´ve not read much about, so the vast amount of questions and doubts about how the system worked at that time...Please, do not be offended, if I often return to the same questions and aspects of this technical and personal doubt )
Adriano

Re: U-Boat victories and claims
 

Sorry re-read U-976 as U-960 as being attacked by Tsé-Tsés from 248 Squadron...

Re: U-Boat victories and claims
 

Hello Adriano and all,
British Naval Intelligence relied very heavily on D/F (direction finding) and T/A (traffic analysis) to maintain their OIC (Operational Intelligence Centre) maps. These maps were extraordinarily accurate even during the ‘blackout’ caused by the introduction of the fourth wheel. The OIC situation reports and Naval Intelligence Summaries were constantly updated and it was from these that victories were credited.

Hope this helps,
Bruce

Re: U-Boat victories and claims
 

I can't answer the claims/awards question but maybe www.uboat.net could?

I'm pretty sure that several years ago the Ministry of Defence published a set of books and maps (all in a case) which had details and track charts for all the U-boats "followed" by British Intelligence.

For Adriano: listening stations picked up and recorded traffic BdU and the individual U-boats but this was encrypted, so it was passed to Bletchley Park for decoding (if possible). A lot of information could still be derived from direction-finding (as Bruce says), frequencies and the "fist" of the individual morse operators. Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodger_Winn

And, if you can get hold of it: "Very Special Intelligence: The Story of the Admiralty's Operational Intelligence Centre, 1939-1945" by Patrick Beesley. It's very good on the non-Ultra aspects of buidling up the intelligence picture.