Talk:German submarine U-505

Untitled
As a US Navy Yeoman, I was stationed in Glenview, IL and assigned to Admiral Daniel V. Gallery's staff. The command, known as Chief of Naval Air Reserve Training Headquarters. My position was in the Public Information Office. Our staff was heavily involved in the civilian publicity of moving the captured U-505 to the Museum of Science and Industry. The capture of the U-505 was actually one of the best kept secrets of World War II. Because the US wanted to keep the capture secret, the crewmen of the U-505 were interred in a POW camp in upstate New York. They were well treated and allowed to write letters home. However, none of their mail was ever posted. Since it was in our interests that the German Naval Command believed the submarine to have been sunk, it was important no one in Germany ever heard from any crew member. Thus, the Germans did not concern themselves with changing the naval codes, which they would have done had they know the U-505 was captured. Having the codes from the U-505 helped the allies begin to control German submarine operations in the Atlantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.242.103 (talk • contribs) 18 November 2004 (UTC) - (For his part in saving the ship and her crew from almost certain destruction after their commander had abandoned them, Meyer was merely, "absolved from all blame") It probably was not a "almost certain death" situation. Unless you define every patrol as near-death-situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trublu (talk • contribs) 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So it was all just another patrol by just another u-boat? Nothing special happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsduhamel (talk • contribs) 15 July 2005 (UTC)

- Truly doubt the surviving crewmen were buried in upstate New York. I guess that would keep them quiet, though. The article says they were help in Louisiana. Any reliable sources for the New York bit? Moioci (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Purpose and benefit of the capture

 * The capture of U 505 was done to capture her codebooks, which provided the Allies with the ability to read recent German codes. However, in this case it was somewhat futile as the British had already captured enough material to read the German codes.

Gallery captured U 505 mainly because he thought he could. It was neither approved nor disapproved by the Navy. It is true that the British could already read the German U boat communications but each day they had to crack the key of the day. Positional information used map coordinates that the British had not yet fully deciphered. After the capture of U 505 reading the German codes was faster and more complete.Rsduhamel 02:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

{unreferenced} tag
This is a pretty good article, but it only cites a single source, and yet contains a lot of anecdotes and stuff that may or may not be apocryphal. Good article, but those interested in the topic, can you maybe find a couple more sources? Thanks! :) --Jaysweet 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've a couple of cryptography history books which cover U-505; I'll try and add a few more citations here and there. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This article seems to be taken almost word for word from http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq91-1.htm which lists a select bibliography. Patrick Berry 18:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That page has, according to the Internet Archive, been around since 2000; this page was started in 2002. I was concerned about copyright infringement, but the text is probably in the public domain because the above is "an official US navy site". We should acknowledge the base for the text, though, otherwise it's plagiarism. &mdash; Matt Crypto 18:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Brought on land?
my grandmother lives in chicago and was working near lake shore drive when the U-505 was brought to the museum. she said they had to get very large pipes and use them as rollers to get them to the museum.

First capture since 1815?
..the first time a US Navy vessel had captured an enemy at sea since 1815 I didn't want to just add a cite tag to this (they're the wikipedia wonks tool of choice) but is this really true? several years into WW2, and with WW1 before that, and the US navy had not captured anything else? I suppose capturing vessels at sea is quite difficult and excludes those that have been scuttled or surrendered. I just find it surprising, and wonder if this is just a bit of hyperbole that become attached to a famous vessel. EasyTarget 09:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not true. We captured a number of ships in the Spanish-American War (see armored cruiser Vizcaya), a number of ships in the American Civil War, and many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcal1971 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, definitely not true. I googled a bit and soon found this story of a German raider captured by a US cruiser. And there sure are more incidents since 1825 where the US navy captured an enemy ship.Gray62 (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dan Gallery's claim
This is Gallery's claim:


 * "This was the first capture of a foreign man-of-war in battle on the high seas by our Navy since June, 1815, when the American sloop-of-war "Peacock" boarded and seized the British brigantine HMS "Nautilus" in the Straits of Sunda near Singapore.


 * "This statement requires explanation to meet the objections which readers familiar with naval history are sure to raise. I say "foreign enemy man-of-war," which eliminates captures by either side in our Civil War--and there were very few. I also say "on the high seas," which eliminates the Spanish ships that we raised from the bottom of Manila Bay or salvaged off the beach near Santiago. I also exclude the many German ships that were turned over to the Allies after the Germans surrendered in World Wars I and II. They were not captured in battle. So far as I have been able to find out from much research, the U-505 is indeed the first foreign enemy man-of-war captured in battle on the high seas by the U. S. Navy since 1815." -- U-505, Daniel V. Gallery, Paperback Library edition, first printing, page 8

Note that the statement in the introductory passage recites "first warship to be captured by U.S. forces on the high seas since the War of 1812." It doesn't say "foreign", so it would incorrectly exclude the Confederate sloop I found when I added a comment here in "Talk" earlier today (which comment has been removed from some reason). Terry Thorgaard (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC). Perhaps I failed to save my comment, but I was referring to the Confederate sloop Archer, which I read was captured by the USN somewhere off of Portland, Maine, which would thus be "on the high seas". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Archer Terry Thorgaard (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As for the above references, Vizcaya was salvaged off the beach near Santiago, not boarded and captured in battle. The Alexander Agassiz was not a "man-of-war". She was a civilian vessel crewed by non-combatant civilians. Rsduhamel (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a plaque at the exhibit that commemorates this. See this photo, sorry it's so blurry but the area was dimly lit. "This prize of war is dedicated to the memory of the American seamen who went down to unmarked ocean graves helping to win victory at sea. The U-505 was boarded and captured on June 4, 1944 (at?) Cape Blanco, French West Africa, by Task Group (22-3 of the?) U.S. Atlantic Fleet. This is the only German submarine (to be?) boarded and captured at sea, and the first foreign man-o-war so captured by the U.S. Navy since 1815." cmadler (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, no. See the list at the bottom.  U-110 was captured at sea, as was U-570.  Two others were taken but lost. JMOprof (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of those were taken by the British Navy, so don't contradict the "first since 1815" claim, though they do seem to contradict the claim that it was "the only German submarine" taken. However, the claim is there and well documented, so at the least, it should remain as a claim, with evidence to the contrary also noted. E.g.,Gallery claimed that [t]his was the first capture of a foreign man-of-war in battle on the high seas by our Navy since June, 1815, and a plaque at the exhibit contains this claim, as well as a statement that U-505 was "the only German submarine to be boarded and captured at sea". The latter claim appears to be untrue, however, as at least two other German submarines (U-110 and U-570) were boarded and captured by the British Navy during World War II. Or something similar that acknowledges the claim while also questioning/refuting it. cmadler (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost fine by me. While it the British Army, it's the Royal Navy.  I was told why once, but don't remember.  It's also the RAF and RMC.  Other than that, GTG. &#9786;  JMOprof (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal viewpoint or actual fact?
"The submarine was towed to Bermuda in secret, and her crew was interned at a US prisoner of war camp where they were denied access to International Red Cross visits."

I don't see a reference for this statement about Red Cross visits. If this page is for a non-biased and factual account of what the U-505 is then please cite the source or remove it. It doesn't make sense with the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgo95 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This was true and is recounted in Playing with the Enemy. I put the information back in the paragraph referenced by the book. Rsduhamel (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

German officer ranks
I notice a fairly liberal use of German officer ranks in this article, i.e. Kapitänleutnant has been shortened to "Kptlt" and Oberleutnant to "Oblt". I can find nothing in the MoS on the subject of German ranks, (the nearest I have come is section four which starts off: Do not invent abbreviations or acronyms...). So, are the likes of "Kptlt" and Oblt" inventions? I'm sure there is something in the MoS about writing the rank in full on first mention, but I'm blowed if I can find it.

I think the abbreviations look rather clumsy and the full rank should always be used, but maybe thats because German ranks are involved. What do other editors think?

RASAM (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * These aren't invented. I've seen them elsewhere, not least uboat.net. (I should say, the exact form varies--Kplt, Kpnlt, or Kptlt, frex--but the actual abbrev, no. IDK what the KM standard was...) I agree, long form on 1st use, but after that, I find it a bit overkill: it's like using Lieutenant Commander every time. Personally, I have no prob with the abbrevs. (Maybe being more used to them?)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  05:20 & 05:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Shipping out

 * Is it possible to identify the types of ships U-505 sank? It's usual in Blair, & I think it would be worth adding, if it's available.
 * On an unrelated note, I deleted the T-25 rescue info as off-topic for U-505.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  05:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS OF U-505, AND U-BOATS IN GENERAL
On youtube, I've seen somebodys ten minute video of the guided tour thru U-505. Some points which might be relevant for inclusion in the wikipedia article. Firstly: the steering: There is an emergency steering wheel in the Aft torpedo room. But the main steering is a push-button console in the control room. How does a push-button control steering? I have no idea. Second issue: Food preparation:  There's no galley on this boat? I saw no galley in the video of the tour. I saw bunks; A navigation table; Captains quarters; Ships officers quarters; diesel engine room; forward torpedo room; Aft torpedo room; and they said theres a head (toilet) forward and aft. No galley. No shower. And you have to crap in a discarded food can if you're running silent. Marc S., Dania Fl.  206.192.35.125 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Never seen the video. I disbelieve steering was entirely by pushbutton; all the steering stations I've seen have a wheel. And do you really believe there's no galley? Try feeding 40 men for 30 or 40 days without one. I find "no shower" improbable, too.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just there on Monday. The helm does indeed have pushbuttons for rudder control. There are pushbutton helms in the control room, conning tower, and on the bridge. You can see photos at ubootwaffe.net. They could be electric, hydraulic, or pneumatic, or some combination, I don't know which. The disadvantage is if you lose power, you have to relay rudder and plane orders to the manual stations, which for the rudder is in after torpedo.


 * There is a galley, I think it's forward, just aft of the petty officers' quarters. It's got a three burner stove and an oven the size of a shoebox. There is no shower and only two heads, one of which can't be used for the first few weeks because it's used for food storage. If any of this is interesting, it should probably go in the main German Type IX submarine article.


 * The tour was disappointing, they lowered the floor to make it more accessible, so you don't get an accurate impression of the space. The torpedo rooms, conning tower, and bridge aren't on the tour. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I was on the U505 in 1980 when it was still outside and the internal access was quite different in 1980. There definitely WAS a galley - I have a distinct memory of a wooden cutting or chopping board, deeply eroded from use. Of course this is all OR so cannot be used in the main article. 58.168.69.62 (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Galley is seen around 8:45 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eMESHrRbME. Supposedly consisted of three hotplates, two shoebox-sized ovens and a very small refrigerator. Here's a still photo: http://uboat.net/gallery/U505C/photo/14 Moioci (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Observations
1. Is there not a bit too much on her capture? Over 50% of the Contents list concerns the subject. After all, she wasn't the only U-boat to be captured - the article itself says so. 2. According to the 'ships hit by U-505' on "Uboat.net", the Colombian ship sunk is named the Urious, so where has the Roamar come from? Is there a name change here? 3. In the 'Popular culture' section, it states: "Production of the motion picture Playing with the Enemy is underway and release is scheduled for 2011. (my emphasis) Has the film been made and released? A spot of up-dating might be in order.

RASAM (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. The capture is what makes this sub notable, and it's the only one on display (I think), so I don't think it's undue.
 * 3. You could have updated it, but I'll do it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. It depends on what you mean by 'on display'; e.g. U-534, although not captured, is on display at Birkenhead, Merseyside, in the UK; U-995 is at the Laboe naval memorial near Kiel in Germany and U-2540 is still afloat as the Whilhelm Bauer. According to the article List of submarine museums, there are over twenty countries with submarines on display. If you mean U-505 is the only U-boat on display in the US, you're probably right.
 * 3. As for point three above, I specifically emphasized "scheduled for 2011" because I have no idea whether "the film [has] been made and released" or not. So I could not update it.

RASAM (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In context, I think he means "the only undamaged type IX on display". 58.168.69.62 (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Engines running
Regarding this:


 * This order was obeyed so promptly that scuttling was not completed, (although some valves were opened) and the engines were left running.

This makes it sound like the engines would normally be shut down for scuttling, but that's not the case. Scuttling a sub normally calls for engines ahead full, planes full dive, and hatches, vents, and sea strainer open. I would change it but I don't have the reference in front of me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cracking up note
I don't mind having the citation inline in the "cracking up" note. But I had made it a first-class cite because someone had added a "citation needed" where it had been inlined before. I suggest we change this back to the way I had it (plus Trappist's typo fix). Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was taking that as a request for the source, i.e. Blair, rather than a separate cite. IMO, adding Blair is enough.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it already said "Blair" when someone added the "citation needed." But I won't argue, I like it the way it is now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The name, but not the book, which IIRC wasn't mentioned...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  05:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

U-505 Periscope.
I"m not going to put the whole story here as I don't have enough authoritative information, but what I've heard of the separation of the U-505 and its periscope, and even more so its subsequent reunion, is a remarkable story that should probably be included here. 58.168.69.62 (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd think the topic is covered well enough in the existing paragraph. I saw the U505 in September, and the periscope is really a minor part of the exhibit.  It's not installed, rather it is encased alongside the hull.  JMOprof (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Court-martialling considered
The article states that Admiral King considered court-martialling Gallery for capturing instead of sinking U-505. I find this more than a bit dubious. The reference is a book that focuses on Bletchley Park, not the U-505 story. Captain Gallery's plans were cleared by his superiors (although they thought he would never pull it off). He did not break any laws nor disobey any orders. What would Admiral King have court-martialled him for? In the end Captain Gallery received a commendation for his actions. Gallery says nothing about any opposition in any or his books on the subject (other than being told he was crazy when he revealed his plans). This one statement seems to go against everything else written about U-505. I'm considering removing it from the article. Rsduhamel (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Please take it out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @, , To reply (belatedly!): In fact Clay Blair says the same in his history of the U-boat War; King was furious that Gallery had jeopardized the Enigma secret, particularly on the eve of D-Day. He was also concerned that Gallery's "overweening thirst for publicity" (p.554) would let the cat out of the bag. I've added some detail and an explanation about this, to make it less dubious. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Internal contradiction - identity of Columbia vessel sunk on 'Third Patrol'
The second sentence under 'Third Patrol' contains the following sentence "She sank the American ships Sea Thrush and Thomas McKean and the Colombian Roamar in the Caribbean Sea." The table under 'Raiding History' pairs the vessel name Urious with the country 'Columbia'. Which, if either, is correct? At uboat.net Urious is noted as sunk by U-505; '(ROMAR)' in the same cite seems to be not a ship name, but rather an owner's group name. --Neonorange (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Butt of jokes
Goebeler in his book "Steel Boats" disputes the claim that U-505 "became the butt of jokes throughout the base." I wouldn't remove the claim, but maybe we should add something? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography vs further reading
What't the difference between these sections? I would have thought "Bibliography" would be for works that are cited in the References, and "Further reading" would be for works that are not cited. But that doesn't seem to be how it's organized. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Engines running?
We've got this in the text: "They also stopped her engines." This is sourced to history.navy.mil, and that is what the source says. But Savas p. 153 says the engines weren't running, the sub was running on the electric motors. I suspect they mean "engines" as in "electric engines" but this would be an imprecise, misleading, and non-standard usage. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There are actually two sources cited for this. One is history.navy.mil, but the second one is Fischer's diary. Since he was dead at the time, this can't possibly be in his diary. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Popular Culture
U-505 appears briefly in Ken Follett's (fictional) book, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_the_Needle where it attempts to pick up the German spy off the coast of Scotland, but fails due to a storm.

Should this be mentioned under popular culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.170.179 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on German submarine U-505. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090330202644/http://www.ubootwaffe.net:80/ops/boat.cgi?boat=505 to http://ubootwaffe.net/ops/boat.cgi?boat=505

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

ROAMAR
My research shows some confusion on the ship or ships of the third voyage. Some sources show the ship "SV Urious" as owned by the ROAMAR company, or the SS Roamar, or both. Are we talking two ships, or one ship with some confusion as to its true name? The Wiki page Colombia during World War II shows two ships; which was the diplomats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.128.48 (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on German submarine U-505. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212012351/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2065&ResourceType=Structure to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2065&ResourceType=Structure
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014044320/http://hnsa.org/ships/u505.htm to http://www.hnsa.org/ships/u505.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212012351/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2065&ResourceType=Structure to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2065&ResourceType=Structure
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014044320/http://hnsa.org/ships/u505.htm to http://www.hnsa.org/ships/u505.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Bibliographic issues with Goebeler's Steel Boats, Iron Hearts
Be aware that there are some nit-picky bibliographic issues in citing the Hans Goebeler book on the subject of U-505, Steel Boats, Iron Hearts. The book appears to have been released by Wagnerian Press in 1999 with no ISBN which is not unusual for private or self-published books. Later re-issues and publications appear to have a variant title, Steel Boat, Iron Hearts (note the change from plural Boats to singular Boat. This appears to be primarily on the cover of these later books. I made some minor fixes in the Bibliography section to this work, including a link to the OCLC record to the original Wagnerian Press edition as well as a title change; title was also changed as mentioned in the main wikipedia entry. In any case, someone wishing to acquire the original should probably be seeking the authoritative title. There might be a better way to make this clear. Heave to! --Quartermaster (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

First capture since War of 1812 nonsense
This claim is unsourced and completely bogus, the US navy captured several enemy warships between the War of 1812 and World War Two. See for example the Battle of Antón Lizardo.XavierGreen (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing this. I noticed that we claimed this twice, with links to two different captures, but I had not got around to investigating. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Treatment of prisoners
I’ve consolidated the information on the treatment of prisoners to one section; it didn’t belong in Awards. I’ve also moved the stuff about prisoners being denied access to the Red Cross from the Introduction. It isn’t salient enough to be at the top of the page, and feels like someone is trying to manufacture a fault. Given the importance of maintaining the secret there’s little else that could have been done; and as the surest way to have kept the secret would have been to shoot them and dump them over the side, the actual treatment of the prisoners wasn’t unreasonable. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Enigma machines captured
Enigma (2001 film) mentions that the capture of U-505 yielded an Enigma machine (no citation given), while Enigma machine states that 2 Enigma machines were captured, now on display in Chicago. Would this be significant enough to add to the article? I am not sure how significant this capture was to the ongoing Enigma decryption work being done by the allies, perhaps others will know?? Tony 1212 (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)