Talk:David Wanklyn

message: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The seaplane 

message: The last edit needs to be reverted.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text: I've unprotected the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Thanks, I've made the change. GregJackP Boomer!  18:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 26 August 2015 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Excessive Sociality? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Did he know? 

message: : 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)
thread_title:  1941 raid