Talk:David Wanklyn

Untitled

Sinking of the Submarine “UPHOLDER”

He left Malta 6 April 1942 to move into the Gulf of Susa (Tunisia) in order to land two secret agents Arabs and then recover during the night between 9 and 10, a British Army captain, named Wilson, aboard a dinghy, accompanied him to the ground the two Arabs. Taken on board Captain Wilson, the “Upholder “(Lieutenant Malcolm David Wanklyn) on the night of April 10 and 11 meet at the West Island Lampedusa “Unbeaten” with the submarine on which his passenger transfer he had to go to England, bringing intelligence documents. Thus, the “Upholder”, which was east of the island Djerba, he received the order, as forwarded by 22.55 on the 10th Flotilla Command (Captain G. W. G. Simpson) , to go to lat. 33 ° N, long. 14 ° E to patrol the waters east of Tripoli during the day on 12 April. The next day at 10.15 with the transmission of the command of the 10th Flotilla, the Upholder was told to move to the northeast of Tripoli to build submarines with “Trasher” and “Urge”, that they too were on a mission to neighboring areas, a patrol line in front the route of an important Italian convoy to Tripoli (Operation "Aprilia"). In the grid to come into force at 02.00 on 15, was assigned the position of the Upholder lat. 33 ° 25'N, long. 13 ° 40'E, and between the pressing for the “Urge” and “Trasher”. These two submarines, being about to reach their areas, they heard distant explosions of depth charges that followed the early hours of 14 am until dusk.

That same evening, the “Trasher” attempted, as had been expected to make contact with the “Upholder” but these did not answer. His loss was far attributed to depth charges of the Italian torpedo boat “Pegaso” (Lieutenant Commander Francis Acton), which struck at 16.00 on April 14, in lat. 34 ° 47'N, long. 15 ° 55'E, a supposed submarine sighted by a plane Cannot Z. 506 of the 170th Squadron 83 Reconnaissance Squadron of the Maritime Augusta, escorting the convoy with anti-submarine duties. But after the alarm signal for the presence of a trail to the sea surface considered belonging to the periscope of a submarine, the pilot of the Italian lieutenant Pier Luigi Colli, who was assisted by an official observer of the Royal Navy in person of Lieutenant Tavoni Mauro, he realized that the trail was actually caused by a “dolphin”. Hill confirmed his return to base his mistake, and made it clear that, having witnessed the attack from the “Pegasus”, this was done against some “dolphins”. It must also say that the “Upholder” could not be in that area to the northeast of Malta, because he had moved as much as 100 miles from the position which had been allocated in the barrier, between the “Thrasher” and ” Urge”, and the commander would hardly Wanklyn could take such an initiative. The loss to the “Upholder” are only three possible explanations.

The first is that it is going to end up a barrier Italian mined off Tripoli on the night between 11 and 12 April. But a submarine, which was certainly the “Upholder”, was spotted off the surface measured on the morning of 13, and it is also this hypothesis to be discarded.

The second hypothesis is that it was sunk during an anti-submarine hunting. In the period between 10 and 15 April was held Tripoli with an intense movement of trains arriving and departing, and the Italian side there were two sightings of submarines, on 11 off the port and, as mentioned, 13 Measured off. Consequently occurred off the coast of Tripoli on an antisubmarine search, which was extended during the 13 and 14 to beyond measure by the Germans of the 6th Flotilla bikes minesweeper “R 9”, “R 12” and “R 15” and the Italian torpedo boat “Mantanari”. All of these units discharging many depth charges but none of them report having obtained a concrete result.

The third hypothesis, (I discovered) the more convincing, suggesting that the “Upholder” was sunk by German aircraft on the afternoon of April 14. At 13.10 that day, two “Me 110” and two” Do 17”, which belong respectively to the 8th and the 10th Squadron of the 3rd Squadron of the 26th Destroyer Group (III/ZG.26), while close to the convoy escort operation "Aprilia" spotted a trail, probably caused the hydrophone a submarine, and after he had attacked with bombs observed a dark spot on the sea surface rise.

In fifteen months of war, as of January 24, 1941, the pair “Upholder” - Wanklyn had sunk 16 ships in the Mediterranean to 94,314 ton, including transatlantic Italian “Conte Rosso”, “Neptunia” and “Oceania”, destroyers “Libeccio” and submarines “Saint Bon” and “Tricheco”, and had torpedoed and damaged four other ships, including the cruiser “Giuseppe Garibaldi”. This is the most successful from a submarine and a British commanding officer during the Second World War. With the “Upholder the thirty-two crewmen were lost, including four officers, and a passenger, the captain of C. Parker, Beds and Herts Regiment.

Francesco Mattesini

ROME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.223.89 (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The seaplane

This part of the 'Death' section doesn't seem right:

"More recent research carried out by Italian naval specialist Francesco Mattesini points out to a German aerial patrol supporting the same convoy, composed of two Dornier Do-17s and two Messerschmidt Bf-110s, which attacked an underwater contact with bombs two hours before the Pegaso incident. The author also asserts that the seaplane crew was unsure if the _target they pintpointed to Pegaso was a submarine or a school of dolphins."

My reasoning is that there is mention of 'two Dornier Do-17s and two Messerschmidt Bf-110s' and then 'the seaplane'. What 'seaplane'? The Dorniers and Messerschmidts were not amphibians. I would say that something, (like an introductory sentence for the 'seaplane'), is missing here. RASAM (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by Shem1805

I have had to revert most of Shem1805's edits because of incorrect analysis and or a failure to read what is actually in the article. This edit seems typical. The article does not say Wanklyn sank a Avieri–class destroyer, it says he damaged an unknown destroyer which he believed to be a Avieri–class destroyer along with the Libeccio which is supported by source statements. Then there is this strange edit/deletion, in which apparently "Only one Italian destroyer sunk on 9 Nov 41". Well the article is in agreement: that is what it says. The alterations to the references are equally difficult to understand. The books are not available on google books, and the ones that do show some pages do not have them numbered. It looks untidy as well. Dapi89 (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have taken this out again. To Shem1805: You may think you understand Wikipedia's manual of style but please note the following; Online books. When a book is available online through a site such as Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, or Google Books, it may be useful to provide a link to the book so readers can view it. There is no requirement either to add or remove such links. A link to a Google Book should only be added if the book is available for preview.

Your edits are not valid. As the main contributor and original editor, my style should remain. Also, see the comments on my talk page. Dapi89 (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

MOSCAP

WP:MOSCAP recommends only using capitals at the start of sentences and for proper nouns. Is there some reason we should divert from this on this article? --John (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

John, read the message I sent you. The reversal has nothing to do with you or the edits you made. Dapi89 (talk)

Protected edit request on 26 August 2015

The last edit needs to be reverted. Shem1805 first changed the citation style without obtaining consensus to do so, in violation of WP:CITEVAR. If an admin is unwilling to enforce this, I'm willing to do so as soon as the full-page protection expires. Further, if Shem starts to edit-war his version back in, I have no problem taking him to ANI over this issue. GregJackP Boomer! 11:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Greg, while I agree that WP:CITEVAR applies and that the old style should be preserved, I don't think that reverting this change is pressing at this moment. WP:WRONGVERSION etc. However, now I see that Dapi89 did merge John's copyedit and cleared up Shem's edits afterwards, so only that last edit stands out. I hope that Shem1805 has learned by now that he was in the wrong, content-wise. Now that we have more eyes on the article and an apparent consensus about The Right Version, maybe we could ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP instead, or ping User:CambridgeBayWeather to kindly unlock it? No such user (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No such user, I would support either a RFPP request or a ping. Just let me know if you need me to do something along those lines. GregJackP Boomer! 16:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made the change. GregJackP Boomer! 18:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Page title

FWIW, I asked for page move at WP:RM to the undisambiguated title, as a technical (uncontroversial) request. No such user (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Excessive Sociality?

I have a question about the "Leading Submariner" section, where it states, "Wanklyn did partake in social activities excessively". It then goes on to number fishing and pig-farming among his hobbies. He hardly sounds like a social gadfly - should that read, "did not partake"? -- MarkBrooks (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw this ages ago and meant to correct it. A simple matter of a missing word, in this case "not". Thanks Dapi89 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Dandolo, 'Avieri-class destroyer', imaginary submarine etc.

Let us set things straight. Most of the page here seems to be based on the book "Hero of the Upholder" by Jim Allaway. From what I see, Allaway takes Wanklyn's wartime claims at face value, therey mixing up history and legend. I might as well say that based on what I can read here, his book seems a bit sensationalistic and amateurish. Most submariners from all countries - British, German, American, Japanes, Italian - during that war claimed more ships sunk or damaged than they actually sank, because it was not possible for them to ascertain the exact results of their attacks. Wanklyn was not an exception, and this is more than understandable. The point is, serious historians, postwar, cross-check submariners' claims and enemy records, and find out which ships were actually sunk or damaged. Allaway did not. I have corrected the page, based on actual records that, I repeat, anyone willing to check will be able to. Maybe Uboat.net page, that mentions actual excerpts of Upholder's log, as well as historical research by the meticulous researcher Platon Alexiades, can be considered unreliable (not by me, but I am not the only one here who makes decisions). But there are the cited books from the Italian Navy Historical Branch that support what I have written. --Olonia (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, several other sources cite this information. The Italian sources you use, having done a cursory check, don't appear to exist (with one exception). Third, the use of the word "claim" or "claimed" to have sunk, must be a clue. Sensationalist? I don't think so. Dapi89 (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The Italian sources I used do exist. You did not look for them, you only claim so in order to further your assertions. Other sources cite this information? Name and page, since you only mention Allaway when dealing with said parts of the page.--Olonia (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

For anyone who passes here: here are my 'nonexistant' Italian souces:

http://www.ilmare.com/prodotti/difesa-del-traffico-con-l-africa-settentrionale-tomo-1.php

https://books.google.it/books/about/La_difesa_del_traffico_con_l_Africa_sett.html?id=71GINQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

http://www.marina.difesa.it/conosciamoci/editoria/Documents/catalogo_pubblicazioni_USMM_2014.pdf

http://www.ilmare.com/prodotti/navi-militari-perdute-fotoriproduzione.php

http://www.difesa.it/Content/Manifestazioni/SaloneLibro/2007/LibriDifesa/Pagine/Navimercantiliperdute.aspx

http://www.wed-italy.it/navi-militari-perdute-volume-ii.html

https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/navi-perdute/

https://www.amazon.it/guerra-italiana-vittoria-sconfitta-1940-1943/dp/8804501502

http://www.librimondadori.it/libri/la-guerra-italiana-sul-mare-giorgio-giorgerini

Need more proof of their existance?--Olonia (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

And since we're at it - here is one of the sources cited by Dapi89, "the history of the British U-class Submarine."

here: https://books.google.it/books?id=VyeJ9DOXcOAC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=the+history+of+the+u-class+submarine&source=bl&ots=tNT8z6elsm&sig=hN8TolvAE4JNGaR3wCP8sYZsxiU&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUrMWs9OzSAhXFOBQKHd3kCW0Q6AEIaTAO#v=onepage&q=libeccio&f=false the sinking of Libeccio is mentioned. No mention of damage to an "Avieri-class destroyer", because that did not happen. Neither will you find any mention of sinking of an Italian submarine by Upholder in December 1941, because, again, that did not happen.--Olonia (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Another one: Naval History and Heritage Command (unreliable as well?), list of all Italian submarines lost in WWII: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/united-states-submarine-losses/italian-submarine-casualties-in-world-war-two.html

Two were sunk by Upholder - Tricheco and Ammiraglio Saint Bon (there misspelled as "Ammiraglio St. Ban". Not three.--Olonia (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

So what? Half websites, old Italian military books.

Libeccio was sunk. End of story. It was sunk by Upholder, are you claiming that just disappeared? Dapi89 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I know that Libeccio was sunk. I never claimed Libeccio was not sunk (nor edited the page to cancel the sinking of this ship). You claim that an "Avieri-class destroyer" was damaged, and this did not happen. --Olonia (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I know there's something wrong here. That is an impossible claim to make. Firstly, he "claimed" it. This doesn't mean he sought credit for it's destruction, it means he believed he damaged it, which is what the article said. Second, the Dandolo was sunk, not damaged. Third, you have no reliable source that says he didn't damage an Averi class destroyer. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Dandolo was not sunk. Navi mercantili perdute, Historical Branch of the Italian Navy, page 141. She was only damaged. She was sunk by British torpedo bombers on 8 October 1942.

Wanklyn claimed the destroyer damaged, correct. But the page states that the destroyer was damaged. No reliable source? Aldo Cocchia, La difesa del traffico con l'Africa Settentrionale dall'1.10.1941 al 30.9.1942, Italian Navy Historical Branch, pp. 67-68. --Olonia (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, to the unfortunate ones that will intervene in this dispute. See how Dapi89 reasons. Allaway == Holy Bible. Official history written by the Historical Branch of the Italian Navy == "old Italian military books". Naval History and Heritage Command site == "half websites".--Olonia (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Now whose mixing fact with fiction? You're using work by Aldo Cocchia. He was involved party, and CANNOT be considered reliable. Dapi89 (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Involved in WHAT? Aldo Cocchia was not involved in any of the events involving Upholder.--Olonia (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Jeeezus....What do you think? THE WAR. He cannot be said to have a neutral view. Dapi89 (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's like fighting with a child. Do you know how many books on WWII have been written by people involved in the war? You're grabbing at straws.--Olonia (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What an absurd statement. So what? Does that mean we should use them? Or more specifically those from the Fascist fraternity? Ameuter. Dapi89 (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"Fascist fraternity!" We're already at reductio ad hitlerum! Cocchia served in the Italian navy well after WWII and wrote these books in the 1960s. If we considered historians who had served in the armed forces in any capacity we'd throw to thrash half of the official histories written about WWII, including many used as sources by Wikipedia itself. Just two examples: Gavin Long and I. S. O. Playfair, who is extensively used in the pages of the Africa campaign. Meanwhile, one man wonder what historical works has Allaway written, and what is his reputation as a historian... You're so amateur that you can't even write the word right.--Olonia (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No we wouldn't, and your hysterical responses are unhelpful. I've already explained to you, that Playfair was published through HMSO, and he had assistance. Cocchia's relationship with Fascism needs to be explored for obvious reasons. Would you propose allowing, say, Albert Kesselring to write the official history of the air war in Europe without questioning his accuracy? Ameuter. Dapi89 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No he wouln't what? I am curious. And here you are, provocating and behaving hysterically, while accusing me to do so. No, you did not explain anything. Cocchia published that thorugh the Historical Branch of the Italian Navy, was helped too, relied on official documents and records, and had no relationship whatsoever with Fascism. Officers who were compromised with Fascism were exhonerated postwar. Kesselring was a general and a key figure in the war, Cocchia was just a Captain. --Olonia (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, and it's written Amateur, you ignorant amateur.--Olonia (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should refine your English, and French. And I doubt you could match my qualifications ;)

No he wouln't what? - I said No we wouldn't. Comprende ? Dapi89 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

where's the proof of his apolitical nature? And he was just a captain: exactly. Dapi89 (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Where's the proof of his political nature? Exactly, a Captain who after the war became a respected historian and the director of the Historical Branch of the Italian Navy. One of his books, in that case more a memoir than an official history (indeed, it is not one of the books that I used as sources), has been published even by the United States Naval Institute. Now go on, tell me how the United States Naval Institute are a bunch of fascist amateurs... --Olonia (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I refer you to my comment on the dispute resolution page. Clearly, you have never been to the Italian archives. Dapi89 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Back to the start

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I and another user have been discussing back and forth about some events involving submarine HMS Upholder in WWII. External opinions on the matter would be sorely needed.--Olonia (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I will start again here. Most of this seems to be based on the book "Hero of the Upholder" by Jim Allaway. From what I see, Allaway takes Wanklyn's wartime claims at face value, therey mixing up history and legend. I might as well say that based on what I can read here, his book seems a bit sensationalistic and amateurish to me. But that is a personal opinion. Most submariners from all countries - British, German, American, Japanes, Italian - during that war claimed more ships sunk or damaged than they actually sank, because it was not possible for them to ascertain the exact results of their attacks. Wanklyn was not an exception, and this is more than understandable. The point is, serious historians, postwar, cross-check submariners' claims and enemy records, and find out which ships were actually sunk or damaged. Allaway did not. I have corrected the page, based on actual records that, I repeat, anyone willing to check will be able to.

What I am claiming is:

1) that Upholder did not damage an "Avieri-class" destroyer (which would be a Soldati-class destroyer) on the same day he sank the Italian destroyer Libeccio. Sources: Aldo Cocchia, La difesa del traffico con l'Africa Settentrionale dall'1.10.1941 al 30.9.1942, Italian Navy Historical Branch, pp. 67-68; Giorgio Giorgerini, La guerra italiana sul mare. La Marina tra vittoria e sconfitta 1940-1943, p. 483 to 489.

2) that Upholder did not sink Italian steamer Dandolo in July 1941. She was damaged by Upholder, repaired, and sunk by torpedo bombers in December 1942. Source: Rolando Notarangelo, Gian Paolo Pagano, Navi mercantili perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 141.

3) that Upholder sank Italian submarines Ammiraglio Saint Bon and Tricheco, and no other Italian submarines. The claim for a submarine sunk by Upholder on 8 November 1941 is wrong. That submarine, that is not named in the page, never existed (or, more simply, was the Italian submarine Settembrini that escaped damage). Sources: Luigi Castagna, Navi militari perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 55; Naval History and Heritage Command list

4) that the Italian merchant Bainsizza was not sunk by Upholder, but by aircraft on 14 October 1941. Sources: Rolando Notarangelo, Gian Paolo Pagano, Navi mercantili perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 72; Aldo Cocchia,La difesa del traffico con l'Africa Settentrionale dall'1.10.1941 al 30.9.1942, Italian Navy Historical Branch, pp. 16 to 19.

--Olonia (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

All of the above is further substantiated by Uboat.net, which has been deemed as a reliable source in previous discussions. --Olonia (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Response

Just checked some sources:

• ADM 335/1-4 and ADM 335/63-65 at the archives at Kew, no such claims were made for a ship sunk on 14 October 1941 by 830 or any other squadron, which renders whatever your sources says as questionable.
• Also in the process of checking Night strike from Malta 830 Squadron R.N. and Rommel's convoys, specifically written about the 830 Naval Air Squadron. I remember the source explicitly stating September and October were the unit's unsuccessful months.
• Websites are unhelpful and unreliable. U-Boat.net, has be no means been used as a reliable source. In fact, recently, it has been systematically removed from U-Boat articles precisely because it isn't. Dapi89 (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

1) Prove what you say about said archives. On the Internet, as it happens, anyone can claim to have been to any archive, checked them and found what it fits him... As I said, I am ready to e-mail anyone who requests it the pages that record Bainsizza's many voyages after her imaginary sinking by Upholder, as well as the detailed description of her loss to aircraft on 14 October 1941. Can you do the same?

2) Prove what you say on Uboat.net, instead of making casual remarks on it. Link a discussion where it is deemed unreliable. In this discussion that I have linked, Uboat.net is considered as reliable. I will consider it so until proven otherwise.

3) I will add a further source about Bainsizza's sinking on 14.10.1941: "In guerra sul mare", page 189, written by the respected naval historian Erminio Bagnasco, whose works are used as sources in several wiki pages (this one, for instance). It includes a photo showing Bainsizza in the slow process of sinking (and Navi mercantili perdute has another one), as opposed to her supposed "immediate" sinking by Upholder.

I would also like to invite any third party who applied to the Miramar Ship Index (I am not one of them) to check what it says about Bainsizza.--Olonia (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet another source: The Royal Navy and the Mediterranean: November 1940-December 1941, by David Brown and G. A. Titterton, Naval Staff Histories, Series Editor: Malcolm Llewellyn-Jones Naval Historical Branch, Ministry of Defence, UK. You can check part of it online at this link. The sinking of Libeccio is described, but no claims of damage to another destroyer are made, nor of any submarine sunk by Upholder or on around 8 November 1941. --Olonia (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recommendation

I think that this article badly needs to be trimmed as there's all kinds of detail in here that isn't encyclopedic. Having dealt with submarine and escort claims in the Atlantic for a few articles, I think that anytime that the English-language and Italian sources (especially the official history) disagree about a claimed success that the British claim should be noted and a sentence, or a more detailed note, describing the results of post-war research should follow. There are, I believe, a book or two describing Allied submarine successes that have cross-checked English and German/Italian sources; why have they not been consulted? BTW, I believe that U-boat.net is perfectly acceptable for articles up to GA, but it is not thought to be highly reliable and thus not suitable for A- or FA-class articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I didnt have a chance. Jurgen Rohwer has been added.Dapi89 (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Did he know?

I wonder if he ever knew he'd killed POWs. Obviously the families found out later. 137.188.108.202 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

1941 raid

In early April, British naval intelligence received a report that Albert Kesselring, the Luftwaffe (German air force) commander-in-chief for the Mediterranean, was setting up his headquarters at the Miramar Hotel in Taormina in Sicily. Simpson selected Wanklyn and Upholder for an operation to land commandos onto enemy-held coastland for an assassination attempt against Kesselring. [...] The day before the operation it was postponed, and submarines were deployed to intercept a convoy from Naples. Two weeks later intelligence reported Kesselring had left the area and the operation was abandoned.

This is sourced to the Allaway biography (to Allaway 2004 while the references list has Allaway 1991, but I assume it's the same book). However, I wonder if there's an error here - per our article, in April 1941 Kesselring was still in France; he would then go to the Eastern Front and not come to the Mediterranean until November. So if the raid was indeed planned as described, it must have been _targeting someone/something else - who/what? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)