Weaver - Nightmare at Scapa Flow: The Truth About the Sinking of HMS Royal Oak

This eBook edition published in 2012 by

Birlinn Limited

West Newington House

Newington Road

Edinburgh

EH9 1QS

www.birlinn.co.uk

First published in 1980 by Cressrelles Publishing Company Limited, Malvern

This edition published by Birlinn Ltd, 2008

Copyright the Estate of H.J. Weaver 1980

The moral right of H.J. Weaver to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form without the express written permission of the publisher..

ISBN: 978-1-84341-042-3

eBook ISBN: 978-0-85790-518-5

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

The battleship HMS Royal Oak was lost in Scapa Flow, the impregnable main anchorage of the Home Fleet, on the night of October 1314, 1939. Each year, on the Saturday closest to that date, surviving members of the crew gather before the war memorial at Southsea to pay tribute to the 833 officers and men who went down with their ship or died in the inhospitable waters of the Flow. No chaplain was present at the first service of remembrance I attended, and Taffy Davies, a Royal Marine corporal at the time of the sinking, stepped with quiet dignity into the role of what he called the sin bosun. The usual brief silence was observed, and he asked everyone to remember not only former shipmates, but sailors of every nation who fought and died for a cause they believed to be just.

To those same men I dedicate this book.

H.J. WEAVER

January 1980

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored

ALDOUS HUXLEY

In order to keep things as simple as possible, distances are given in yards and land miles, which everyone understands, rather than sea miles. It has not been possible, however, to avoid nautical terminology altogether, and this very brief glossary may be helpful to some readers. The prefix HMS is used for the first mention of each naval vessel.

No naval incident of the last war has caused such a complex and enduring controversy as the sinking of HMS Royal Oak. The event has been dealt with in official and unofficial histories of the war at sea, it has been the subject of dozens of newspaper and magazine articles; and it has inspired one novel and three investigative books, the most recent of which appeared in 1976. All of these accounts are incomplete, inaccurate or contradictory and frequently all three with the result that, after 40 years and several million words, exactly what happened in Scapa Flow on that disastrous night for Britain is still far from clear.

It is the normal practice for writers lacking any formal qualifications in naval or historical matters to nod in the direction of their betters at about this point and acknowledge that no serious historian doubts that Royal Oak was torpedoed by the German submarine U-47, commanded by Kapitnleutnant Gnther Prien. However, if facts are the raw material of history, it is extraordinary how many facts historians have failed to provide about what is recognised as one of the great submarine exploits of all time. It is possible to read everything published to date about this spectacular feat of arms without being able to give a precise answer to any of the following basic questions:

What ships of the Royal Navy were in Scapa Flow on the night Royal Oak was lost?

Lt. Prien says in his log, or war diary, that the main Fleet anchorage was empty. Is this unlikely statement true? If not, what ships were there?

When did the hunt for a suspected U-boat begin... what ships took part... when were the first depth charges dropped?

One of the reasons given by Lt. Prien for making his escape from Scapa Flow after sinking Royal Oak is that he thought he had been seen by the driver of a car which stopped opposite him on the shore. Assuming that there was a car on the shore, who was the driver... where was he going... did he see the U-boat... why has he never come forward?

According to Wilhelm Spahr, navigator of U-47, crew members on the submarines bridge saw three guards on the shore as well as a car. Assuming this statement to be correct, who were these guards... what were they doing... why did they not see the U-boat?

Lt. Prien also claimed to have torpedoed a twin-funnelled northern ship, subsequently named as the battlecruiser HMS Repulse, anchored some 600 yards beyond Royal Oak. The official British version of events is that Repulse was not in Scapa Flow at the time and Lt. Prien mistook the elderly, and comparatively tiny, sea-plane carrier HMS Pegasus for the battlecruiser. Where precisely was Pegasus anchored in relation to Royal Oak?

In the light of what can be deduced about visibility in Scapa Flow on the night in question, is it likely that Lt. Prien saw Pegasus at all?

According to the crew of U-47, part of the Scapa Flow defences reacted as if Royal Oak had been bombed, not torpedoed, and searchlights criss-crossed the sky above the U-boat. Was there an air raid alarm in Scapa Flow... how many land-based searchlights were in position... what action was taken by their crews?

One version of the U-47 story claims that the submarine, having escaped from Scapa Flow, was subjected to an attack by an armada of Royal Navy destroyers and patrol boats from dawn to dusk on October 14. Which British warships were involved in this action, assuming that it took place?

According to another version of the U-47 story, this attack took place on October 15, not October 14. Assuming that this is the correct date, which British warships were involved?

Who was blamed officially for the loss of Royal Oak?

Was the blame justified?

It is the lack of firm answers to questions such as these which has ensured the continuation of the Royal Oak controversy for 40 years. The roots of the controversy are embedded in the fact that nobody has yet succeeded in reconciling Lt. Priens story with the story told by the