Bit puzzled; the E36 is supposed to have been lost off Harwich after a collision with E43? "A fisherman has found a wreck near the Dutch island of Texel. Based on sonar images it is presumed to be a British submarine from the First World War. The wreck was found on a location where people fish a lot, it is likely that unexplored torpedo’s are still on board. Th wreck was found at around 8 meters depth, the fisherman is quite certain that it is the E36. This submarine was lost with all hands on January 17th, 1917 when it collided in that area with her sister ship, the E43. The wreck is around 15 meters long, which is the length of this type of submarine. The E-Type submarine was 55 meters in length and was armed with 5 torpedo’s." http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/british-wwi-submarine-dutch-island.html
Well, it certainly looks like a submarine wreck. I'm wondering why it is 'chopped' into so many pieces and kind of folded up on itself? Strong currents? If its only 8m down it shouldn't take long to verify her identity.
I have read reports about US ASW forces depth charging suspected enemy targets that turned out to be old wrecks in WWII, so....
Ok, according to this both subs were heading for a patrol area east of Terschelling- http://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?16072 Hold on, another contradiction; according to this the E36 was lost by an unknown cause in the North Sea- "E.36, submarine, E-class (E.9 group), ordered 11.14. Launched 16.9.16 John Brown. E.16-56 of class mostly served at Harwich or other East Coast ports from completion. Sunk 17.1.17 by unknown cause, North Sea." http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyBritishShips-Dittmar1.htm Surely the captain of E43 would have reported the collision?
Good point. I forgot about that. The wreck of the Luistantia was depth charged several times as well. 8m seems kind of shallow for a suspected "enemy submarine", though. I wonder if the article got the depth wrong.