Can anyone please confirm the accuracy of the following,viz.:

"Palmbranch" steamship sunk in April or May, 1917 on its way towards Kola,North Russia (possibly 1918 or 1919?) with a cargo of high explosives and poison gas. Sunk by U-75 (May 4, 1917 date?).

I checked U-boat Net for U - 75 but NO such ship's name appears as a victim of the U-boat.

Ref: "Griff" "Surrendered. Some Naval War Secrets" Cross Deep, Twickenham: (Author) (192?) page 148 (150)

Is this just post-war myths generated by an all too eager to cash in hungry writer or journalist grasping at sensationalized (read made up) "war stories?"

John
Toronto

Poison gas cargo is interesting.

There was an SS Palmbranch part of the Nautilus Steam Shipping Co all of whose ships ended in -branch. She survived the war. Three of the lines ships were sunk by U boat, Olivebranch, Hollybranch and Willowbranch (the latter whilst acting as a Q ship). None any where near Russia. Pinebranch was sunk at Archangel in1917 but by a collision.

Thank you Centurion for such a quick and informative response which of course only deepens the mystery!
John

In 1919 there were fears that the Bolsheviks would use gas in North Russia. Newly developed VM and VA gas generators were sent out to Ironside who had requested gas capability. They arrived sometime in April. There is no evidence that either side actually used gas.
I think the story is at best an amalgam of a number of unrelated facts and rumours.

The ss Palm Branch 3891 GRT was attacked by a U-boat on 3rd May, 1917, by torpedo and gunfire but escaped. This incident took place in the Arctic Sea. ("British Vessels Lost at Sea 1914-18", HMSO)

So we have a number of unconnected incidents
Palmbranch attacked by U boat (but survives the war) 1917
Pinebranch sunk by collision at Archangel 1917
Gas sent to Ironside at Archangel in 1919

Put them in a journalistic blender and you uncover a secret of WW1!

This initial statement should start questions. If a ship was torpedoed and sunk in 1917, how was she able to go to North Russia in 1918 or 1919?

According to the Ship's List: SS Rangoon, launched in 1897 was sold to Nautilus SS Co., Sunderland, in 1907 renamed Palm Branch. She was sold again in 1929 to Italy and renamed Carbonavi eventually sinking in 1934 on the way to the breakers. There are passenger lists fro her at Kew up to 1929.

Pine Branch launched 1883 was sold in 1895 to C. Rahtkens, Rostock sunk in collision with s/s FANE at Archangel, 1917 salvaged and sold to M. Buskov, Archangel renamed Ilya, 1921 seized by U.S.S.R. Government renamed Yenesei, 1921 sank after striking iceberg in Kara Sea.
http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/lines/nautilus.htm

Well,

OLIVE BRANCH actually was torpedoed off the North Cape (72°34‘N-27°56‘E) on 02.09.1917 by U 28. While finished off with gunfire, she exploded and took U 28 with her !

She was on her way to Murmansk and Archangelsk with ammunition !

Oliver

Who reported the incident?

The submarine was very close when she shelled it and was sunk by debris when the ship exploded and sank only one man was drowned on the Olive Branch
McGILL, D. Ship’s Cook MM SS Olive Branch (Sunderland) drowned 3.9.17

Cheers Ron

Okay from all the posts so far:

"Palm Branch" was the actual name of the ship and she apparently was attacked in May 1917 on her way towards Russia presumably with explosives or ammunition and probably carrying some types or quantities of chemical weapons.

"Olive Branch" was attacked and sunk but in doing so destroyed her attacker U28 around the same time and roughly in the same area.

I presume btw from the last posts that only 1 man died aboard "Olive Branch" but that ALL the crew died from her attacker U-28?

Thanks all,
John
Toronto

"The only survivors of the incident were the crewmen from OLIVE BRANCH who had abandoned the steamer after it was
torpedoed. They had rowed far enough away that they survived the explosion and reported the incident when they were
rescued that same day. The British reported that the survivors from OLIVE BRANCH refused to take the survivors from U28 into their boats, because the boats were already overcrowded. Apparently survivors from OLIVE BRANCH had enough time to identify U28." Quote from VERSCHOLLEN Dwight R. Messimer author. OLIVE BRANCH was sunk on 2 September 1917 with one crewman dead.

As for the cargoes of the two ships, Lloyds War Losses list it as "munitions" for Olive Branch and for Palm Branch just a line (no listing of cargo).

Hope this helps some,

Joe R

When it comes to Olive Branch and U 28, it's best to be a bit careful. Certainly the U-boat was sunk by the steamer’s cargo going off and, ultimately, there were no survivors from the submarine's crew. That said, the account in Verschollen is taken from post-war British propaganda accounts, which stress that the Germans didn’t deserve to be saved -- a rather obvious attempt to justify the British conduct during the Baralong Affair.

I would be most interested to see the primary source statement on the sinking at Kew.

Best wishes,
Michael

Thanks Michael. Can you please pm me? I wonder what U-Boat Net has to say about U-28.
John
Toronto

There is no evidence whatsoever so far that there was any chemical weaponry on the ship. We can assume munitions only by the fact that many ships on this run were carrying them.

All accounts of the OLIVE BRANCH sinking mention that she was carrying ammunition - together with other military stores. U-28 is said to have been hit by a motor lorry travelling through the air at excessive speed.

I was referring to Palm Branch we can only assume she was carrying munitions

In the case of the sinking of U 28 I have seen various differing accounts one of which includes the lorry, others suggest that the boat was heeled over by the blast to the extent that open hatches flooded. However I have seen no account that actually includes any direct eyewitness evidence so its all very vague.

I think the carrying of munitions is a fair assumption. I have not seen an account of PALM BRANCH's encounter with this U-boat in the Arctic Sea. However, Hurd in "The Merchant Navy" relates in some detail the attempt by a U-boat to sink her in the English Channel on 21st November, 1916 when she was en route to the USA. Despite taking several shell hits, by dexterous handling she managed to escape, made repairs in a French port and continued her voyage to America.

Do we actually have evidence that the Arctic incident happened? Could it be a garbled rehash of the Channel event? Quite a coincidence else.

The May 3/4, 1917 action between Palm Branch and U 45 most certainly did happen and is described in Spindler’s official history and is referenced in both the ships attacked section of British Vessels Lost at Sea 1914-1918 and the damaged vessel section of Lloyd's War Losses: The First World War. U 45 missed with a torpedo and then engaged in a firefight. The action ended only when patrol vessels arrived.

Of interest is the Spindler states that Palm Branch's cargo included munition, explosive material, and "Giftgas" -- chemical weapons.

Best wishes,
Michael

Ouch!

Is this the only recorded instance of a u-boat being hit by a truck?

Can you provide the source(s) for above please? Very intriguing stuff...

-Daniel

Curious how the enemy who never seized, boarded nor catpured this vessel would have been apprised of her cargo. Perhaps post-war official military historical co-operation or official historians using contemporary or near contemporary newspaper accounts?
John
Toronto

That's an anti U-boat tactic and weapon I haven't heard before.

Maybe the u-boat commander was low on diesel fuel and thought the chaps on the Palm Branch wouldn't need such stuff in the condition that their ship was in!
John

A vessel launched in 1897 that could outrun 2 U-boats is quite something.

I am sceptical about any cargo manifests declared after the war, particularly without impeccable references.

Especially since the only source quoted so far is a German Admiral

... a German admiral, in writing the official German history of the U-boat war against merchant shipping. OK, Spindler is not infallible, but I believe we have to give the source some weight. Without looking at U 45's file (which I have on microfilm but I don't own a microfilm reader), I'm not sure what that statement was based upon. However, clearly there was something that Spindler deemed creditable that suggested that Palm Branch was carrying gas. It could have been an exchange with the Royal Navy postwar, it could have been a published account.

With the material published in the 1920s you have to be careful. Some of it was essentially official leaks, others pulp press inventions. (That U 28 was sunk by a truck falls in the latter category.)

Best wishes,
Michael

"a German admiral, in writing the official German history of the U-boat war" exactly my point. Whilst I'm sure that he would have information as to the U boat movements etc I would be much less confident that he would know the ships manifest

"With the material published in the 1920s you have to be careful. Some of it was essentially official leaks, others pulp press inventions. (That U 28 was sunk by a truck falls in the latter category.)" very true and so might poison gas.

Lots of merchant ships were able to outrun U-boats and especially if they were submerged. You could probably have run as fast as a submerged U-boat during WWI.

After both wars, the Allies dumped ships with 100s of tons of poison gas etc, so it is not impossible for the Palmbranch to have been carrying it.

Cheers Ron

Okay again. Does anyone know of a u-boat being destroyed after successfully destroying its target by the result of the target's sinking that is reliably eye-witnessed and documented by both sides (i.e. survivors)?
John

But the U boat was not submerged (unless it could use its gun under water!) and on the surface under diesel power would be faster than most merchant men. There is a common misconception about U boat attacks in both wars - the majority of torpedo attacks on merchant shipping were carried out on the surface (gun attacks of course had to be carried out on the surface!). The U boat was effectively a torpedo boat that could submerge to avoid detection and attack but spent most of its time on the surface.

We are talking about 1917 not post war. Dumping ships post WW2 with poison gas - where is your evidence? Palm Branch could have carried gas (as could any ship in WW1) but there is no evidence of any gas equipment being delivered to Russia until April 1919

One odd thing - some of the postings have mentioned the Palm Branch exchanging fire with the U boats - apart from a number of larger merchant ships equipped with a medium gun firing sternward British merchant ships were not usually armed in WW1 (apart from Q ships)

As of 22 December, 1917 (the last date I have), the total number of merchant vessels "fitted" to take defensive armament was 3,719 - and 467 howitzers and bomb-throwers had been delivered.

Simon

In the November 1916 engagement the PALM BRANCH was not armed. The only post that implies an exchange of fire in the 1917 action is No. 21 and I assume the poster is accessing German records.

Palm Beach out ran not only surfaced U-boats, but also their gunnery. Here's the highlights of some posts:
'ionia' date='Nov 2 2009, 10:26 …1916... Despite taking several shell hits, ...
'ionia' date='Oct 31 2009, 11:41 PM … attacked by … gunfire …
I've read the sources quoted. It is not clear whether Palm Beach was Defensively Armed in 1917.

I agree with Centurion.
In my opinion neither the credibility of the source nor the veracity of the information in this instance has been established.

You incorrectly assume that all WWI U-boats were identical. This was not the case. The November 21, 1916 incident happened in the English Channel. Only two U-boats were operating there at that time, UB 40 and UC 26. UB 40, a UBII class submarine, only had a top speed of 9.1 knots. UC 26, a UCII class minelayer with significant torpedo attack capacity, had a top speed of 11.6 knots. Will figure out which boat attacked Palm Branch by gunnery over the weekend, but it is absolutely plausible that the steamer could outrun UB 40 and she possibly also may have been able to outrun UC 26. Starke-Schell lists Palm Branch's speed as 11 knots when built in 1897.



Both British and German sources are quite clear that Palm Branch had been defensively armed during the May 3/4, 1917 engagement. Spindler (volume IV, pages 84 and 85) says so; indeed U 45 was very lighly damaged by a shell from the steamer. And to repeat, British Vessels Lost at Sea 1914-18 says so as well. For "how attacked", it lists "torpedo; gun" for "how saved", "Missed; by gun" and also gives the symbol used through the publication to indicate a defensively armed merchant ship.

I somehow doubt that fully laden in 1916 and almost 20 years later she would be able to replicate that speed.

The following is an extract from “Under the Black Flag” by Captain R.S. Gwatkin-Williams CMG RN, who was captain of the old cruiser HMS INTREPID, depot ship for Armed Boarding Steamers in North Russia.

“The ss PALM BRANCH (Master – Captain Malling - than whom no finer officer existed in our merchant navy- one in fact whose courage and skill have been recognized with the award of the DSO and Bar. His ship had amongst her cargo a large quantity of high explosives and poison gas and mounted an American 13 pdr gun aft. This gun was a concession to the insistent demands of the Master, he having been previously chased and shelled in a gunless ship by a submarine. But purely by his own skill, seamanship and resolution, he had escaped destruction and brought his ship safely into port – the scars of battle still showing in the PALM BRANCH when she arrived in the Arctic. Captain Malling had organized his crew as efficiently as those of a man-o-war; everything had been thought out beforehand……….at a quarter to four on the afternoon of the 4th may, 1917 the PALM BRANCH was zigzagging her way towards the entrance of the Kola Inlet. The weather was calm and clear, the land already in sight and no special warnings had been received as to the presence of submarines in the vicinity ……”

The action is then described – with two(?) submarines, one of which was mistakenly claimed sunk (U-75, identified from a telephone buoy).

The story of the OLIVE BRANCH and the truck is also related in the book.

So on the one hand she was saved by patrol vessels and on the other her own gun.

Fascinating reading. I'm not surprised that the Master was so insistent following his previous encounter!

Just back from looking at some documents on microfilm. Everything checks out.

U 45's file includes copies of two newspaper articles describing the May 4, 1917 action against Palm Branch. The articles claim that the steamer sank U 75, the U-boat that laid the mines that account for HMS Hampshire with Lord Kitchener aboard, with a shell hit after she missed with a torpedo and then fought off a send U-boat by gunnery. (It left after a shell hit.)

U 45's account is broadly similar: torpedo miss, then broaching, with a shell hit that did light damage. The U-boat then surfaces and there's a firefight. Per U 45's acount, the submarine leaves when a patrol vessel arrives.

Where did the Britsh get the idea U 75 was involved? A buoy was fished out later that said, well, "U 75."

And where did Spindler, in writing the German official history, get the information that Palm Branch was carrying explosives, munitions, and poison gas? The newspaper articles, which were published in the Times on December 23, 1921 and News on the World on December 25, 1921, say so. The Germans took the newspaper accounts, which are quire similar, to be official leaks. (It's difficult to read them any other way.)

Lastly, Palm Branch was shelled by UB 40 on November 21, 1916 with the U-boat claiming six shell hits.

Best wishes,
Michael

Thanks Michael for your latest post and the details. A never ending search eh? Did you get my last pm to you regarding the hospital ship trial transcript(s) that I am keenly interested in?
John

John,

Did not get the PM. Please send it again our e-mail me about.

Best wishes,
Michael

Hello Michael: just pm you and please use my direct email to respond as my current GWF inbox is full.
John

Thanks for that Michael,

It sounds like Spindler was telling the truth, along with British News Papers of the time, but some people just don't want to believe it

Cheers Ron

Some people like to know what the references are for information.

I am interested to know: what the relevance is of a ship carrying poison gas to an active combatant in 1917? That is how almost every canister of the stuff manufactured in Britain or the USA got to France, Flanders or any other war zone in WWI. Is the argument that Germany was at liberty to carry poison gas by rail for use on the Eastern Front, but Russia’s allies were not permitted to send it by sea?

To recap: the details of her cargo were accurate, that she made the run to Russia in 1917 (before the October Revolution and when the new Russian government were still pursuing the war) is also accurate; the detail about her being sunk was a fabrication.