On May 28th 1940, the SS Abukir, an old Egyptian coastal steamer sailing under British flag was torpedoed and sunk by the German S-34 E-boat off the Belgian coast. Of the approximately 500 souls on board, only 24 survivors were recovered. The S-34 first fired two torpedoes that were avoided by the Abukir Twenty minutes later, two other torpedoes were fired, one of which struck the steamer amidships. Abukir burst into flames and sank within a minute. It was the first Allied ship sunk to be sunk by an E-boat. S-34 then trained a searchlight on survivors in the water and machine-gunned them. Many historians consider this tragic incident merely as one of the many tragedies related to the Dunkirk evacuation – just another name on the long list of lost ships. Abukir had met with her fate when coincidentally crossing the enemy’s path. Bad luck. End of story. But was it really a coincidence? Some questions came to mind after reading several (coinciding) accounts of this tragedy: 1) Typically, as a general rule, German E-boats usually applied hit-and-run tactics, with stealth, speed and maneuverability being their main assets. Why would such a ship linger about in the same area for over half an hour? Besides, the Abukir was engaged just at dusk; it would almost seem it was ambushed. 2) At the time, the Channel was a target-rich environment and torpedoes a very precious commodity. Why would an E-boat fire four of them (no less!) at such a modest target? An old, slow (8 knots tops) coastal steamer such as Abukir, with no armament worthy of mentioning, could surely have been dealt with more efficiently by using the E-boats’ heavy machine guns? 3) Finally, from a German point of view, the engagement area was known to be swarming with British destroyers. Slowing down and using a searchlight in order to machinegun defenseless survivors was not only inhumane, it was also taking a huge risk. I can’t imagine any E-boat skipper taking such a risk without very good reason. My point (and reason for starting this tread): there may be more to this incident that meets the eye. Every insight you may provide would be most welcome. Christian
There must be over twenty threads here that refer to her sinking and some refer to research projects.
Indeed! Thank you for putting this to my attention Also rest assured, I did not forget to also take into account the various entries on other forums before initiating this new tread. Most of the data available on the internet is related to the people (passengers and crew) that were on the ship when it sank. One can also find interesting information on wreck site websites (I can recommend wrecksite.eu and dkepaves.free.fr) Perhaps I did not express my intentions clearly enough: what I am looking for, is anything that could shed some new light as to the circumstances of the sinking of the SS Abukir, i.e. was there something (or somebody) important enough aboard this ship that could explain the actions the Germans took that night? I, for one, would love to have a peek at the S-34 captain's log. Can a copy of this document be obtained? Did her captain survive the war? Was this man charged with war crimes? Other records (post-war inquiry boards)? etc. Kind Regards, Christian
I appreciate that the citation refers to the machine-gunning of survivors but I too wonder if that was correct. S-34’s skipper would easily have been identified as Albrecht Obermaier and he surely would have faced war crime charges, and likely the noose, if this was sustained by the evidence. He actually went on to reach the rank of vice-admiral in the post-war Bundesmarine including holding a NATO command. Christian, you seem to impute Obermaier with an appreciation that he doesn’t appear to have had. The American translation of the Kriegsmarine war diary for 1 June 1940 says: "34" (Obermaier) sank a 4,000-ton steamer by torpedo. A heavy explosion indicates that the cargo consisted of ammunition. which almost certainly refers to Abukir – a rather more valuable target than Abukir’s modest 689 tons – and having determined that she was a worthwhile target, why wouldn’t you make a second attack if your first attack was unsuccessful?
Hallo Roberto, Thank you for your reaction. I've been reviewing several accounts on the incident, and they all seem quite honest (not propaganda) and coherent, including the part regarding the machine-gunning of the survivors. I had identified the officer you refer to as the captain of the S-34, but I did not know, however, he had reached such a high-ranking position in the Bundesmarine after the war. https://www.nytimes.com/1940/06/07/...-water-off-to-the-midlands-to-escape-the.html This doesn’t add up… My hope is that this tread will bolster discussion that may lead to new insights. Some accounts claim it was in fact a U-boat, and not an E-boat that torpedoed the Abukir. I had initially dismissed this as being an error born out of ambient chaos and confusion but, at this point, I am not so sure anymore. Where there actually U-boats operating in the neighbourhood at the time of the attack? In such shallow coastal waters? May it in fact have been one of them and not the S-34 that was responsible for machine-gunning the survivors? (I am thinking aloud here). I don’t think we will never know for sure how many people died when the Abukir sank; some sources put forward the figure of 210, whereas others speak of 1000. According to J.M. Pylysser’s book ‘Kustvolk in de vuurlijn’, 45 of them were women (amongst which a number of nuns) and children. I would like to point out though, that Abukir was a tempting military target as some of the passengers were not without carrying a certain weight: for instance, the whole staff of the British Military Mission to the Belgian G.Q.G. was aboard the Abukir. Except for Lieutenant Colonel Davy and Major Hailey, who at the time were seeing Admiral Keyes off in Nieuport, I don’t think any of the others survived. Also noteworthy was the presence of several members of the G.H.Q. Liaison Regiment (a.k.a. Phantom). If I recall correctly, when the Abukir sunk, Wing Commander J.M Fairweather and many of his staff were lost. Finally, military personnel belonging to miscellaneous units were also known to have boarded the ship (e.g. 13 Salvage Unit of the Auxiliary Pioneer Corps, 15/19 Kings Royal Hussars,…), as was the crew of a downed RAF Wellington bomber (belonging to 37 Sqn). Finally, I would like to mention the presence of an unconfirmed number of pilots, officers and men belonging to the Belgian Aéronautique Militaire, none of whom seem to have survived. Most of these men spoke fluent English and had enjoyed pre-war training on British-build military aircraft (Fairey Battle, Fairey Fox, Gloster Gladiator and Hawker Hurricane). This valuable expertise could have been a very welcome complement to the RAF a couple of weeks later but, unfortunately, it wasn’t meant to be. Some forum links containing useful information:: Ships Embarcation Rolls from Dunkirk GHQ Liaison Regiment RAC (Phantom) Roll Of Honour British Army supplies for the Belgian Army in May 1940
Indeed, the citation says U-boat but the War Cabinet was told M.T.B. 31 May 40, with no mention of survivors being machine-gunned. U-13, U-60 & U-62 were operating in the Hoofden area when U-13 was directed against British transports returning from Flanders 29 May 40 - I'm not aware of any other U-boats in the area. Record Type: Memorandum Former Reference: WP (40) 185 Title: Weekly Resume... | The National Archives You don’t say where your ‘Abukir account.jpg’ comes from but one of its sources was the London Gazette account, itself evocative of Captain Fryatt and SS Brussels in WW1.
They missed "Marquis" and got "Abukir". The men aboard "Marquis" seemed certain that it was an E-boat attack. It was a long time before survivors of the sinking were rescued and many others drowned in the meantime. It was a disaster, but there were many disasters at that time.
I still am not convinced the sinking of the Abukir is just one random tragedy. In fact, at this initial stage of research, what I found thus far tends to strengthen this suspicion. Besides, in my opinion, even though Abukir was a legitimate military target, the machine-gunning of helpless people in the water puts this incident in the same category as Le Paradis, Wormhoudt and Vinkt. I would therefor conclude this hardly qualifies as a mere fait divers. Over the last couple of days, I have been struggling to find accounts of Abukir (or Marquis) survivors. The most significant one was provided by the ship’s own skipper, Captain R.M. Woolfenden (published in E. Keble Chatterton’s work ‘The Epic of Dunkirk’): “After the ship had foundered, which I reckon she did in a minute and a half, the C.M.B. turned her searchlight on us and machine-gunned us. There must have been quite a few killed then.” Was this perpetrated by the S-34, or was it another E-boat, perhaps of the same flotilla? Also, a couple of seemingly anodyne details in that same account triggered my attention: First, the Abukir’s captain had a least two telephonic communications between Ostend and Bruges, where the British Mission was located. Since it was not uncommon for the Germans to eavesdropping on telephonic communications and wireless transmissions, they may very well have intercepted these conversations. In fact, during the last call, by the captain’s own account, the exact time of departure from Ostend was mentioned. Second, whilst sailing out of port (together with the SS Marquis), “enemy aircraft flew over, dropping Verey lights and bombs”. Can we assume this to be, yet again, another coincidence? Third, the captain had been informed by Mr. Newman of the British Mission that an escort of two destroyers would be waiting for them off the port, which again emphasizes the importance given to the safety of the vessel. I don’t recall any other ship being provided its own escort. I am very much aware and agree that, though intriguing, this all remains very circumstantial. I had hoped finding interesting bits and pieces in Naval Staff Histories’ ‘The Evacuation of Dunkirk’ but, strangely enough, the Abukir is barely mentioned. It states, however, that HMS Calcutta was missed by a torpedo fired by an E-boat whilst en route to La Panne that same night, i.e. in the same general area and about the same time-frame (0125). The Abukir drama (often spelled ‘Aboukir’ in French) seems to have created quite a commotion among Belgian governmental circles as well. The then Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Hubert Pierlot made several inquiries to Baron Jules Richard (government trustee, former minister and captain of industry), concerning the Abukir’s fate. Up to now, I could find two references for RFIs from Pierlot to Richard: one dated January 29th, 1941, another dated February 6th, 1941. In annex of the latter, two separate reports were supposedly added dated June 1st, 1940 and June 25th, 1940. I am of course eager to lay eyes on these documents. I hope these insights may resuscitate interest and trigger some useful reactions.
Christian, I have read the thread again, so in order: You posted: As indicated below the S-34 had two torpedo tubes, so would have to disengage to lad the second two torpedoes (perhaps below decks). Secondly, if the area was: staying on once the ship was sunk was rather dangerous? Post 2: S-34 was armed (when sunk in 1942 off Malta) with: From: https://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?162981 [/QUOTE] Wki refers - as a class - they had: From: E-boat - Wikipedia A possibly better website - as a class - refers to: From: Schnellboot-class Motor Torpedo Boat I am not a gunnery expert, IMHO machine guns would not sink such a boat, though the superstructure would be badly damaged. The 20mm cannon would punch holes - if aimed at the right place - and the 37mm cannon would be enough to sink the target, with repeated firing. Post 8.Was the Aboukir / Abukir such: Did the German Navy know what was being carried away, whether from SIGINT and treachery? I don't know, personally I suspect the English Channel was known to be a target rich environment and so let the S-boats go! Given the impression I have that the evacuation was rather chaotic, with the German's steady advance, is this likely? What better way of persuading an anxious skipper that leaving port was low risk with two destroyers offshore? Did the diplomat "Newman" once he left it's base (Brussels) have secure communications anyway? I have been unable to identify Newman's rank.
Of course, one can speculate here. But a look at the provable background reveals quite mundane circumstances that probably led to the sinking: Armament: S-34 belonged to the S-30 class. In 1940 they had two torpedo tubes and a 20mm gun. A machine gun was carried as an option. On deployment: The E-boats were the only offensive forces of the KM to fight the evacuation fleet. Thus, pretty much everything that was available in the way of E-boats was thrown into the battle. In this context, one must not forget that these boats operated without radar. They had a relatively small range of vision, which made it very difficult to find possible targets, especially at dusk. E-boats therefore usually operated in groups to increase the chances of success. In this respect, I can well imagine that first another boat attacked unsuccessfully and only then S-34 engaged. Note from my side: At that time, E-boats were still considered purely auxiliary weapons with dubious combat value - so it was THE chance for them to prove themselves. Besides the "Abukir", they sunk two trawlers and two destroyers during OP Dynamo. With such quantities, even a small 900t steamer becomes a worthwhile target to be able to report sinking successes
A couple a pieces to add to the puzzle… Several publications state that the SS Marquis and the SS Abukir were the last ships to sail from Ostend before the first German troops reached the city. This is not completely accurate though: SS Marquis and SS Abukir were indeed the last British ships, but the very last vessels to leave Ostend harbor were in fact MS Diamant and MS Saphir, both belonging to the Belgian John Cockeril Line shipping company. Both ships departed Ostend in the early hours of May 28th, 1940, a couple of hours after SS Marquis and SS Abukir. While sailing in complete black-out, Captain Julien De La Rue, skipper of the MS Saphir spotted several white objects on the waves. He first thought those might be mines and steered clear in order to avoid them. However, it later appeared that the white objects floating on the waves were in fact caps belonging to the nuns that went down with SS Abukir… (these caps eventually washed ashore on a beach near Ostend). It would seem there were also some German casualties. I learned form an unconfirmed source that the Belgian Army had handed over some German PoWs (i.e. captured Luftwaffe pilots and senior flying personnel) to the British custody and that those men also were aboard Abukir when it sank. It would also appear that an interesting account of the Abukir tragedy is to be found in the following publication: ‘Survivors: British Merchant Seamen in the Second World War’ Hardcover – February 5, 2003, by G. H. Bennett (Author), G. Harry Bennett (Author), Roy Bennett (Author) I was unable to find a copy, so if anyone could provide a transcript, I’d be most grateful. Finally, last but not least, some links you might find interesting: Die Schnellboot-Seite - s-Boats in the Kriegsmarine - West 1940 - UK Die Schnellboot-Seite - s-Boats in the Kriegsmarine -Loss of "S 34" - UK Search results: Abukir | The National Archives
The normally very reliable John de S Winser has: Abukir 694/20 (Ministry of Shipping/* ; General Steam) Lost Left Southampton 25/5 with 750 tons biscuits for the Belgian Army; left the Downs 25/5 for Ostend, which found to be in ruins and undergoing half-hourly air attacks; cargo discharged by crew members and Dutch and Belgian sailors; loaded motor cycles, five Army lorries and two staff cars; embarked passengers including pilots and Belgian evacuees; left Ostend 2300 27/5 subjected to two torpedo attacks, the second, when vessel 50 miles NE of N Foreland at 0130 28/5, resulted in being hit amidships in the engine room; stern burst into flames, vessel broke in two, quickly sank to the bottom and turned over; survivors in the water were machine-gunned for Dover; 0700 28/5; of a total of 220 on board, Master and 30 others resued by HMS Codrington, then transferred to fellow destroyer Grenade, ship's report claims attacker was U-boat but sinking officially attributed to E-boat action; 189 lives lost including 15 crew. Punctuation his, expect for the final full stop. Had there been more in the story he would have put it down. I would rather rely on the Master's report that they were sunk by a U-boat. Before I got that particular book I wrote: The coaster Abukir, managed by the General Steam Navigation Company (GSNC) for the MOWT,i had shipped Army stores to Ostend. For the return voyage she embarked a capacity load of over 200 passengers, including women and children, and six priests. After she sailed late on 27 May, she was bombed 'incessantly for one and a half hours,' but was not hit; fire was returned by the ship's sole Lewis gun. At 0115 on 28 May a U-boat fired two torpedoes at the Abukir, both missed. The Master attempted to ram the submarine, but his ship lacked sufficient speed. The U-boat fired two more torpedoes. One hit the little ship amidships; she burst into flames, broke in two and sank within a minute, taking many with her. The Germans machine-gunned survivors in the water and 'many were killed including the Chief Officer.'ii Captain Rowland Woolfenden was made an MBE; Second Officer Vere Rust was Commended.iii i ABUKIR had been built for GSNC in 1920 and sold onto an Egyptian company, General Steam again managed her. ii Supplement to the London Gazette 23rd August 1940 iii Ibid
From my notes I have. Lost after being attacked by motor torpedo boat S34 in the North Sea, near Northinder buoy (position 51 29N 02 16E). The ship was hit amidships by one torpedo and sank within one minute. Thirty-three survivors were picked up by destroyers HMS Codrington, HMS Javelin and HMS Jaguar. C/O: Capt Rowland Morris-Wolfenden (survived) -3 Officer and 12 OR crew and 189(?) passengers killed and 33 survived; Note: Chronologie.pdf says was sunk by S32. Schnellboote says missed by two torpedoes from S32 and hit by one of two from S34. Note: marinearchiv and Lloyd's give the latitude as 51 20N. Note: Schnellboote says 5 crew and 25 passengers survived. It says was carrying about 200 British soldiers, 15 German POW, 5 priests, 50 women and some British school children. Lloyd's says 16 crew and 189 passengers killed (from 21 crew and 210 passengers onboard). Brookwood Memorial lists 1 OR British Army. Regarding the reported submarine claim, all I can add is that there are no associated claims made by a German submarine, but there are German reports crediting the sinking to the S-Boot. Regards, Steve
Christian, For 'SURVIVORS - British Merchant Seamen in the Second World War' it is currently advertised on AbeBooks; there are no libraries in Belgium that have it and many in the UK - from worldcat.org The book has not been cited here before on my first search. I expect someone has it on their bookshelf.
Hugh, Thanks, given your knowledge: were there other reported incidents of S-Boats or U-Boats that early in the war machine gunning survivors in the water? I am skeptical about the allegation here. The ship sank very quickly and many of the passengers were in the hold(s).
As a small addition The KM had at least 11 E-boats (S 11, S 13, S 22, S 23, S 24, S 25, S 26, S 30, S 31, S 32, S 34) but only 3 submarines (U9, U60, U62) in service in the area of the Belgian coast/the English Channel during OP Dynamo. (The rest were off Norway and in the Atlantic). However, in contrast to the E-boats, the submarines had been struggling extremely with defective magnetic torpedo fuses for weeks, (the so-called torpedo crisis, for which some KM officers were later court-martialled) while the "less important" E-boats were still using the old-fashioned impact fuses. I can only say the following about the press report with the machine gun fire: If the commander had been interested in a massacre, he would probably have caused much more carnage by simply running over the survivors with his boat.
David, There was only one, proven case of deliberate killing of the crew of a MN ship by the u-boat arm and that was the PELEUS incident later in the war.There have been some reported incidents but non were ever proven. In the fog of war, I believe some of those involved may have thought they were deliberately targeted but again to my knowledge none was ever proven. I think the press reports regarding the machine gun fire would have originally come from the Second Officer, Wills-Rust. He made a Survivor's Report to the Admiralty Trade Division. Unfortunately, I only have one of the pages which I will attach. Regards Hugh
