Original subtitles

August 2004.

A World War I mystery lies 100 feet beneath the murky waters of the North

Sea.

It's like looking into a crystal ball which is no longer clear.

In 1983, a German submarine is found off the coast of England, twisted in the

wreckage of a British ship.

The submarine itself was wedged into the side of the boat.

History books say the two enemy ships sank 18 miles apart.

So why are they entangled at the bottom of the North Sea?

The key to resolving this mystery is in the diving.

Welcome to England and the North Sea.

I'm John Chatterton.

During World War I, the German U-boat UB 107 was patrolling off the coast of

England when she was sighted on the surface and sunk by an armed trawler.

Well, that's the last we hear of the UB 107 for almost 70 years until her

wreckage is discovered by local divers.

Problem is, they don't discover it where it's supposed to be.

They find it some 18 miles down the coast.

And that's not all of it.

The wreckage of the UB-107 is actually entangled in the wreckage of another

World War I ship, a freighter called the Malvina.

Well, I've got two questions.

How did the UB-107 get from where it's supposed to be to where we find it

today? And how did the wreckage of those two World War I ships come together?

Well, there's more than a couple of theories.

And the problem right now is trying to get everyone to agree on just what the

facts are.

And for me, my next step is to get in the water.

August 2004.

For many Britons, summer along the Yorkshire coast means holidays and

vacations at seaside resorts.

But for others, it's the only window of opportunity for one thing.

Diving shipwrecks.

We're very privileged, being on this coast, that there are so many shipwrecks

to actually be discovered.

And when we go in down to dive them, we just don't know what we're going to find

when we get down at the bottom.

This is, you know, it's very exciting.

In terms of diving, the visibility here for most of the year is very, very poor.

It's only between June and September when the visibility becomes acceptable.

As members of the Scarborough Sub-Aqua Club, Carl Racey and Andrew Jackson have

been wreck diving off the English coast for over 20 years.

They'll be joining me on my investigation 100 feet down to the

bottom of the North Sea.

There lies the evidence that a chapter in World War I history is wrong.

At first glance, the story of Germany's UB 107 appears to be straightforward.

Historical records say that on the night of July 27, 1918, the UB 107 was on

patrol when a group of British Navy trawlers sank the submarine along with

their 38-member crew.

But there's a problem with that story.

Because the U-boat is actually 18 miles away from where she's reportedly sunk.

And the wreckage of a British steamship, the Malvina, is entangled with the

wreckage of the submarine.

It's as if the two enemy ships went down together.

But how could that have happened?

In 1918, Germany's UB-107 is part of a turning point in history.

When technology is changing how people live and how they die.

July 1914.

World War I begins and a new age in warfare is born.

Tanks replace horses.

Machine guns supplant rifles.

Airplanes are soaring above the clouds while submerged under the sea is a new

invisible threat, the submarine.

World War I at sea turned out to be nothing like what people expected it

would be. If you asked a naval officer in July 1914 if they thought that

submarines would be the key to victory potentially in the war, they would have

laughed at you.

The British Navy and the German high seas fleet were the two lions in the

arena, you might say.

So the U-boats were not really looked upon as part of the big scene of naval

battle.

At the beginning of World War I, the submarine is an untested and unproven

weapon.

However, within months, the U-boat takes center stage, and what was considered an

underwater novelty is now seen as a formidable weapon.

The U-9 sinks three British armored cruisers with heavy loss of life.

It's the first time that a submarine was able to inflict substantial damage on

the enemy.

It was a shocking development in both Germany and Britain.

The next step for the Germans is to put a stranglehold on the British Isles.

That means developing a submarine that can operate in the shallow waters of the

North Sea, a submarine like the UB-107.

The UB-107 was specifically for inshore coastal waters, so it was designed

really to attack Britain's coastline.

She was a decisive weapon. She had four forward torpedo tubes, one aft torpedo

tube. She had a 105mm deck gun.

The Germans viewed the U-boat, really, as a weapon that was manned.

But the men inside viewed the U-boat as an iron coffin.

By the end of World War I, more than a third of them would not be coming home.

Typically, 100 feet isn't beyond the range of most recreational divers.

But this isn't the Caribbean.

This is the North Sea.

It's not a really easy place to dive.

And you've got to be, you've got to prepare yourself a lot more for it.

We know that at least one person has died on this site before, and that was

largely, I understand, down to inexperience.

Our dive plan calls for Andrew and fellow Sub Aqua Club member Colin Bell

to go in first and tie a line 100 feet down to the submarine.

Then cameraman Dan Kroll and I will follow.

The area that we're diving is one mile off the white cliffs of Flamborough Head

and involves some unique challenges.

I think one thing we've got to take into account for this site, the visibility is

impaired. It's an area of a lot of silt.

There's a lot of sedimentary drift here. It's a well-known phenomena and all this

sediment drifts down.

It's to do with the strength of the tides.

It creates tidal patterns that are quite unusual.

There are only four periods in the day when the water stops moving.

So you've got to predict exactly when they are to be able to dive on the wreck

site.

We not only have these short tidal windows in which to explore the wreck,

but also face the obstacles of strong undercurrents, losing our way in

unpredictable visibility and time.

The North Sea dive season is quickly coming to a close.

The guys warned me Flamborough Head would be a challenge, and when Colin and

Andy return to the boat, I find out how bright they are.

Yeah, it's visible less than a foot.

It's tied in, but it's not... I can't make out what it is. It looked like a

spar off the ship, but at least we've got a tie on something.

But you think visibility is about like a foot? It's a foot. If he didn't have his

torch, I wouldn't have seen him at all.

It's a touch contact, really.

Could have been a handrail.

Andy and Colin have secured a line down to the wreck, but the visibility is so

poor this morning, I'll have to wait until the afternoon tide to get another

chance to dive.

This investigation won't be easy.

It's no secret that low visibility and shipwrecks are always a dangerous

combination. especially in the unpredictable north sea

i'm here in the north

sea one mile off the english coast and below me are two wrecks from world war

one that lying 100 feet down entangled in a deadly embrace conditions on our

first dive this morning were too dangerous

Strong currents and bad visibility can be a diver's recipe for disaster.

So we sat down to strategize for our next attempt.

Hopefully, better conditions this afternoon will help me uncover how a

German sub and a British steamship came to be trapped together in a watery

grave.

So in spite of the fact it's a nice sunny day today, it may be great for the

families who are vacationing here, but it's not.

ideal conditions, not even close to ideal conditions for us.

What were the contributing factors to the weather conditions today?

What we're seeing now is the swell, the lift.

So that swell is running up that bottom shoaling and it's lifting the

sills off the seabed as it's doing that.

You guys had absolutely no idea where you were down there.

Really, you don't know if you were on the Malvin or if you were on the sub,

right? No, it's a piece of steelwork. It didn't look particularly smooth.

I guess I would say it's the ship.

But it wasn't safe to leave that line and start wandering around.

Now, what's going to be our plan for this afternoon?

I think he's right that it will drop off a lot this afternoon. I think we could

go. 50 improvement in the swell we are going to be working with an incoming

tide meaning possibly clean water correct i hope so yeah it's just such an

unusual area this it doesn't seem to follow the normal rules of the curse you

know but at least now we've got a line to the wreck yeah we've got a shot line

in so we can go down there we can we can at least get on the wreck site if the

visibility is as poor as it was this morning we'll abort the dive we'll come

back up

Solving the mystery of how the two ships came together also means finding clues

above the waves.

The historical records of the UB-107 might offer an explanation as to how and

why the U-boat is 18 miles from where she's supposed to be.

July 26, 1918.

Germany's UB-107 and her 38-man crew set sail across the North Sea from her base

on the occupied Belgian coast.

The sub is armed with 10 torpedoes, all to be used against the Allies.

The UB-107's mission was what was called Hunded's Creek, to sink merchant

shipping wherever they found it.

Shipping is Britain's lifeline to the outside world.

The Germans know that if British sea trade can be halted, the island nation

would find itself in a stranglehold.

Coal and the coal trade was the very lifeblood of the British war effort.

And the East Coast sea line was its very artery. Strike a blow there and you

would materially damage the British war effort.

One day after leaving her base, the UB-107 patrols the English coast

searching for targets.

But the U-boat is spotted by the British.

Four British ships rush out to sink the sub. The Royal Navy trawlers Calvia,

Commander Naismith, Walter Priory, as well as the steam yacht Vanessa.

By 9 p.m. that evening, stormy weather and rough seas hindered the search for

the UB-107.

Then, as the trawlers make their way past the town of Ravenscarf, a surprise.

The 107 actually broke surface in quite rough weather, close to the Calvia.

The Calvia turned to try and ram the UB107, and in response, the

UB107 dived again to get out of the way.

The four trawlers pinpoint the UB107 and for two hours drop a barrage of depth

charges.

Shortly after, air bubbles and oil are seen coming to the surface.

But did they sink the UB-107?

The patrol vessels had stayed in the area.

The following morning, it was said that a headless body came to the surface and

it was said it was in German uniform.

The trawler's depth charge attack combined with the evidence of the

headless body lead the British to only one conclusion.

Given that the UB-107 was the only U-boat, missing on that station at that

time and this was the best sinking claim out there for it the british and

assumed this attack by prowlers had in fact sunk the ub-107

the 1918 sinking of the ub-107 off ravenscar is written

into the official british record and remains uncontested for almost 70 years

but in 1983

18 miles south of Ravenscar, local divers discover the wreck of the British

World War I steamship Malvina.

And she's not alone.

They discovered something very bizarre.

There was also a wreck of a German submarine there.

This turned out to be the UB-107.

Although historical records say that a different German sub, the UB-104, sank

the Malvina.

Identifying marks on the wreck confirm this sub is indeed UB107.

But how can this be?

The UB107 was supposed to have been sunk by depth charge 18 miles away.

We're back for our second dive, hoping six hours has improved the visibility

and strong currents 100 feet below.

But I quickly learned this is only wishful thinking.

My first day of diving in the North Sea is over.

With poor visibility and a wicked current, I'm still unable to see the

wrecks.

There are theories to explain why this World War I German U-boat and British

steamship are locked in a fatal embrace, but no one has a definitive answer.

And I'm not leaving the North Sea without some answers.

August 2004.

Despite sunny skies above the North Sea, my first dive 100 feet below has been

far from perfect.

The wreckage of the World War I German submarine UB-107 and the British

steamship Malvina lie entangled on the bottom.

But visibility is terrible, and looking for clues in the dark doesn't make this

mystery any easier to solve.

We had every bit of 12 inches of visibility with a

strong surge on the bottom.

We couldn't really...

see much of anything unless it was right in front of our mask we couldn't go

very far from the line we had to maintain physical contact with something

there's no way we could tell exactly where on the wreck we were search

was just beating us around a couple of rag dolls down there it's not the kind

of conditions for doing any kind of real work on a shipwreck.

It's been a disappointing first dive, so I'm hoping the next few days will

bring improved water conditions.

Diving setbacks aside, we still have a mystery to unravel.

Why is the wreck of the UB-107 18 miles from where she is reported sunk?

Part of that answer may be found in examining what we do know.

Unlike the UB-107, finding the wreck of the Malvina near Flamborough Head is no

surprise.

Records indicate the steamship was sailing along the English coast with war

materials when she was torpedoed and sunk by the German submarine UB-104

on August 2, 1918.

But recently, historian Michael Laurie makes a discovery that changes the

record. and provides a new explanation as to who really sank the Malvina.

The Germans in their official history credit the Ubi 104 with the

destruction of the steamer.

In fact, if you look at the German logs from the submarines from Ubi 104,

there's a problem.

The problem is UB-104's own charts show the U-boat was nowhere near the Malvina

when the steamship sank on August 2nd.

UB-104 couldn't have torpedoed the Malvina. And German submarine records

show there's only one other U-boat on patrol that could have.

The UB-107.

Well, my view is that UB-107 did in fact torpedo Malvina. Personally, I've got no

doubts on that score. We can be relatively certain of it because we know

for a fact no other submarines were in the area at the time.

This new information could explain why the UB-107 is in the same location as

the Malvina.

But then why do history books claim the 107 was sunk 18 miles away?

Was it just wishful thinking?

The British, for obvious reasons, wanted to conclude that their patrols had sunk

a German submarine.

However, the evidence, if you examine it, is very, very slight.

Some historians claim a key piece of evidence used by the British to confirm

the destruction of UB-107 doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

The crews of Vanessa and Calvia found a headless body floating on the surface.

I believe it was the next day.

The body might have been in the water quite a while.

It was said to be very far gone under decomposing circumstances, and the

body was never searched.

The trawlers themselves didn't think the body related to the submarine they

thought they'd sunk.

That connection came from British intelligence officers about two weeks

afterwards.

There's also evidence that two ships are torpedoed at almost the same time of the

reported depth charge attack on the UB-107.

German submarine records confirm that the UB-107 is the only U-boat on patrol

that could have sunk these ships.

The German official history concluded that UB-107 was not sunk by the

trawlers, and it sank these two ships, John Reddick and the Chloris.

Historians Ron Young and Pamela Armstrong believe that the UB-107 was

not depth charged on July 27th and instead was patrolling the English coast

when she torpedoed the Malvina six days later on August 2nd.

But how did the UB-107 sink and become entangled with the Malvina right after

this attack?

I think the UB-107, having been satisfied that The Molvena had

sunk, tried to go around the back of the steamer and misjudged it and run into

the right of the stern near the propeller.

Another plausible theory is that the submarine was proceeding at periscope

depth or quite possibly was on the surface and that she was forced to dive

very suddenly perhaps by the arrival of an anti-submarine trawler.

A scenario where UB-107 torpedoes the Malvina and then immediately crashes

into the sinking wreckage is one way to explain how and why we find them

entangled off Flamborough Head.

However, this hypothesis hinges on the fact that the Malvina was torpedoed. And

in 1918, torpedoes aren't the only explosive threat facing merchant ships.

During World War I, the British set out mine barrages all around this area, and

they set up swept channels, and this was, of course, safe lanes for vessels

to travel in. Now, it was the job of the German U-boats to get out there and set

their mines in these safe lanes.

Now, the survivors from the Malvinas stated that it was a torpedo that sank

the ship, but it was at least equally likely that it could have been a mine.

The British were setting mines out here. The Germans were setting mines out here.

Mines were everywhere.

When it comes to U-boats, one-third of all the U-boats sunk in World War I went

to the bottom as a result of striking a mine.

Despite the fact that the Malvina survivors reported they believed the

torpedo struck the ship, the possibility of a German or British mine destroying

her can't be dismissed.

My hosts in England, Carl Racey and Andrew Jackson, dove the wreck site

earlier this summer in much better visibility.

They do not believe the Malvina was torpedoed by UB-107 and instead think

she was the victim of a mine.

We've always suspected that the Malvina was sunk by a mine.

I suppose from the survivor's point of view, if they can...

Have people believed that there were torpedoes? There's probably less stigma

than hitting a mine.

I mean, if you've hit a mine, you've done it yourself, haven't you, in a way?

Whereas if you've been torpedoed, you're a total victim.

There was a lot of confusion as to what sank particular vessels. The Malvina

sank in three minutes.

Did you really have a lot of time to contemplate what actually caused the

problem?

Carl and Andrew believe the evidence does support the British trawler's depth

charge attack on UB-107.

And they offer a different theory to explain why the two ships are entangled

together. Well, first of all, how do you get the UB-107 from there 18 miles

away to where we find the wreck?

That's a good question.

We sincerely believe that the attack did take place off Ravenscar and the UB-7

did suffer some damage. At what level, it's hard to say. And it was either...

sort of wounded to the point where it couldn't do any more and it could have

drifted down just in a semi-buoyant state, or they could have actually

slightly survived the attack and just been trying to make their way home.

Yeah, so there was a six-day window to get down here, so it's quite feasible

that the tide would...

just push the the uh the wreck down here or it had some kind of propulsion still

yes that's possible so the relationship between the ub107 and the malvina

according to your theory is it's just coincidence yes the ub107 just happened

to be there yeah and it you know disabled essentially on the bottom yeah

uh uh and the malvina strikes a mine and sinks

directly overhead.

Well, I can add to that because I don't actually think it was coincidence.

I think this drift down here that the 107 took, that we think she took,

was through waters where there are lots and lots of mines laid.

And, you know, the chances are she was pretty damaged up here in the original

attack. So I think there's a good chance that when she drifts down here that she

could pick a mine up on the route.

What you mean is you snagged one of the tether cables. The mines were anchored

to the seabed with a great weight, and there'd be a chain coming up to the

surface. So if she drifted past one of those and picked one up and carried it

along the seabed, then it was inevitable that eventually a ship would actually

hit that mine and that the two vessels would end up pretty close together.

So, you know, that takes the coincidence out of it.

That's... Certainly something to look for. If you were to find the chain

from one of those mines, or the anchor, that would

certainly add a lot of credibility. It's only a scenario to explain how the

vessels might have come to be together.

It may well be that it didn't snag a mine and the Malvina just coincidentally

sank on it, but it does offer an explanation of why they're together.

A drifting UB107 that catches a mine chain is an interesting angle to

investigate. There may be a chance we could find some physical evidence of a

chain on the wreck site.

But not everyone agrees with the idea that the UB107 could drift 18 miles from

one location to another, especially after a depth charge attack.

The facts are absolutely clear, and they're enshrined in basic

hydrodynamics. But a submarine with a pierced pressure hole the size of a

millimeter will sink at the position where it is hauled. It may roll

backwards and forwards. What it will not do is travel. That, frankly, is

ludicrous.

It's clear that both historians and divers have strong opinions.

But can we prove one of these theories that bring the UB-107 and the Malvina

together?

The answers could be waiting on the wrecks. But if visibility doesn't

improve, will I be able to find it?

One mile off the English coast, 100 feet down, the wreckage of the world war one

german submarine ub-107 and the british steamship malvina are entangled at the

bottom of the north sea did the ub-107 torpedo the malvina and

then crash into the sinking wreckage or could a drifting ub-107 snag a mine

and then drag it into the steamship

Yesterday, the surface conditions weren't too good.

The sea was a little bit rough. When we got down to the wreck site, visibility

was less than a foot.

In essence, we couldn't get anything done.

Today, it's a new day. The sun's out. Seems like the wind has calmed down a

little bit. So we're going to give it another shot, and we're going to do the

best we can do.

But will our best be good enough?

I'm hoping on this dive an extra foot of vis could help me find clues.

But the wrecks are proving not only to be a challenge, but dangerous.

According to our dive plan, if one person calls the dive, we all ascend.

I'm not sure what the problem is, but Carl seems to feel it was important

enough for us to all head up to the surface.

Visibility is about two feet. That's what we expected.

There's a pretty strong current on the bottom.

I think the location possibly wasn't where we wanted to be.

But I don't know. We'll have to see when he comes up.

What was the problem?

What was the problem?

Well, we just couldn't see, couldn't we? It was dangerous.

Okay. That was your concern?

I mean, I could hardly see. I got out of your way, let you come down, and as I

came to you, it was just, you know, I couldn't see anything in front of us,

could I?

However, the dive isn't a total loss.

In the few minutes we were down there, Carl may have caught a glimpse of some

evidence, a chain.

It didn't look like anything I've recognized before. It was strange.

What kind of chain is it?

I'd like to take a look for myself, but I don't think visibility is going to

improve dramatically in the near future.

However, Carl and Andrew dove the site before my arrival and videotaped the

wrecks in better conditions.

Right now, the best way to move this investigation forward is to look at

their video.

So the next day, we went back to the Scarborough Sub-Aqua Club to view the

footage.

To me, the official histories of these two ships have too many holes.

So what I need to determine is whether the wreck of the UB-107 provides enough

evidence to fill in the gaps.

As we look at the wreckage on the Malvina, it's obvious that there's not

much left of the wreck.

Even if there was substantial wreckage, it's still almost impossible to tell

whether it was a torpedo or a mine that caused the explosion that resulted in

the sinking of the ship. But, you know, you guys...

have hypothesized that it's possible that the UB-107 moving along on the

seabed became entangled in a mine chain.

And then yesterday, you think you saw a chain.

Absolutely, definitely saw a chain. It's just where that chain's from. There's

nothing with the submarine that I could connect it to. It's there. It's foreign

to the submarine.

Could this chain have come from a mine? And support Carl and Andy's theory.

It's a good lead, but as I examine the footage of the wreck, I realize the

chain is not the only clue to consider.

I see an important piece of evidence in the footage that may be my smoking gun.

The UB-107's radio mask.

The UB-107 had a forward and aft antenna for sending and receiving radio

communications.

Radio technology was in its infancy during World War I.

and simply setting up a U-boat's radio mast was a time-consuming task.

If the crew of the UB-107 had taken the time to raise their two 30-foot

antennas, it could only mean one thing.

It would almost certainly prove the submarine was on the surface, not in bad

weather, obviously not trying to attack anything.

A U-boat crew sending or listening to radio transmissions, could not have been

prepared for an offensive attack.

A deployed radio mast would rule out the possibility that UB-107 torpedoed the

Malvina.

This is what we believe is the radio mast.

We're just picking it up there on the stage. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's the right thickness. It's tapering away, just like we'd expect, and it's

what we were told. Well, that's certainly one of the things I'd like to

get a better view of.

Yeah. But what about the base of that mast?

Do we have any video of the base of that mass?

We've got a few fleeting glimpses while we're passing it and you can actually

see in the place where it should be there is something sticking up.

And just behind us now, there's a bit of a silhouette, and that is exactly where

the radio matches. Stop it. And that seems to be the stub.

Right at 12 o'clock. But we don't quite stay on it long enough, because we

didn't appreciate what it was at this point.

Ideally, what we'd like to see is some of the gearing mechanism on there, to

see that it actually has been extended by the drive of the gears, which only

could have been done on the surface.

by the crew themselves.

A U-boat on the surface with the masts up would not be looking to attack

another ship without putting those masts up. That's right.

The video of the wreck shows the base of the radio mast lying just behind the

torpedo loading hatch.

I think if I can just get down to that base, its gear should reveal if that

mast was in a raised position or not.

I'm certain visibility will still be a problem. So we sat down to figure out

what went wrong on yesterday's dive and strategize a new plan.

See, I think Danny was working against you yesterday.

Because I think all the stuff from me and Danny lying there was totally wiping

out your visibility.

Would you say that that mast is within six feet of the hatch?

Yeah.

The best thing is for us to tie to it, as we've said. Tie to it, it can be no

mistake, and you don't have to go anywhere, you don't have to swim

anywhere, disturb anything.

And maybe just you two go down without... Yeah, and just get it cleaned

up. Yeah.

As few people down there as possible.

The radio antenna may be the clue needed to solve this mystery.

Could it have been upright and deployed when the UB-107 sank?

Finding that answer will be a tall order. There's no guarantee that

visibility will improve, and as the brief North Sea dive season comes to an

end, this is my last chance.

It's the final day of my investigation in the North Sea, and that means I've

only got one more chance to dive the wrecks of the World War I German

submarine UB-107 and the British steamship Malveen.

For this last dive, I want to investigate a lead that I think may be a

smoking gun.

The UB-107's radio mast.

I think we're really close. We're right on top of the mast for the

radio antenna.

Now, this is a gear-driven mast, so the thing is, it wouldn't have, like, fallen

up into position. And the only way it could be in the upright position...

as if the crew on board the U-boat put it that way. If they were attacking

another ship, they certainly would take the amount of time necessary to bring

that mast down to get themselves ready for an attack mode before they went

after their target.

But so far, we haven't been able to get that videotape evidence that we're

looking for. So we're running out of time.

If we can prove these masts were up and deployed when the U-boat sank, it would

be a strong indication supporting the theory that the UB-107 did not torpedo

the Malvina.

The currents are still strong, but the visibility has improved enough for me to

get up close to the wrecks.

As I head 100 feet down to the bottom, I'm thinking that our gamble has paid

off. I can see clearly for about three to four feet.

And these precious few feet of extra vis means that I can eliminate one of our

theories about the fate of the UB-107 and the Malvina.

If both the forward and aft radio masts were not in use, they would have been

locked down on the top deck of the submarine.

But I don't see them there.

I only find the aft mast lying perpendicular to the submarine at a near

90 degree angle.

What I'm really interested in is that base.

If the gear mechanism appears to be in a locked and upright position, I think we

can definitively say the radio mast was in use when the submarine sank.

The base of the radio mast doesn't absolutely prove the antenna was up, but

I still believe some conclusions can be made in the case of the UB-107 and

Malvina.

It seems to me that both of our theories have some, but not all, of the truth to

them.

My gut tells me that UB-107 was not depth charged by trawlers near Ravenscar

on July 27th.

Instead, she was 30 miles away and torpedoed two ships later that evening.

Then at a certain point between that night and six days later on August 2nd,

somehow, someway, she met her end.

Although the base mechanism of the aft radio mast doesn't offer definitive

proof that it was raised, I think finding the antenna where I did is an

important clue.

If that antenna mast had been locked down and simply fell off the wreck or

was dragged off by a fishing net, I find it too coincidental that it would then

land on the seabed, perpendicular to its base, as though it were deployed.

Also, there is no trace of the forward antenna, which says to me, it too lies

perpendicular to the sub, but underneath the wreckage of the Malvina.

It's my opinion that the most reasonable explanation for the sinking of the UB

-107 is that she had to make an emergency crash dive while on the

surface using a radio.

And a raised radio antenna says to me the UB-107 was not in a position to

torpedo the Malvina.

The explosion that sunk the steamship most likely came from a mine.

But other questions still remain in this mystery.

Did the UB-107 and Malvina sink at the same time?

Why would UB-107 do the unusual and raise its radio mass so close to the

enemy coast?

Perhaps one day, history will have the answers.

This is just a great example of how history is a work in progress.

The case of the UB-107 and the Malvina would indicate to me that neither side

is entirely right and neither side is entirely wrong the evidence is somewhat

subject to interpretation it's subjective what's not subjective

274 german submarines in world war one sank nearly 13 million

tons of allied shipping the submarines and the submariners had proved

themselves they'd proved the technology and the world's navies would never be

the same The submarine was here to stay.