Maritime inquiry 1939 - 1945

The information below regarding ships in the Nortraship fleet is a direct transcript of the original source "Sjøforklaringer fra andre verdenskrig (1940 - 1945)". The informasjon is collected from maritime inquiries held during and right after the war. The information may differ from the other quality assured information in Krigsseilerregisteret.

Date
August 30, 1940
Location
Utenfor Skottland (Duncansby Head)
Cause
Torpedert eller bombet fra fly [tyske]
Cargo
Pulpwood
Route
Indian Bay, Newfoundland - Clyde - Medway L.R.
Crew list
Komplett
Survived
21
Captured
0
Deceased
0 [0]
Missing
0
  • Abstract

    Date
    September 10, 1940
    Location
    Leith
    Administrator
    Fungerende konsul T. Norman F. Salvesen

    ...

    Appeared Ingvald Mathiesen, Bergen, who stated that he was the master of the s.s. "Marstenen" ...

    The appearer produced log extract for the voyage which was written according to memory as the log books had been lost when the ship went down.

    The appearer referred to what had been entered in the log extract and further stated that the vessel was about 22 miles S.E. of Duncansby Head when the explosion occurred. He is of opinon that the vessel was hit by an "aerial" torpedo or bomb. The vessel had watertight bulkheads, but the appearer did not know whether they were closed. The vessel was still floating when she was abandoned, but the appearer did not know whether she had sunk later. To the questions enumerated the appearer replied:-

    2, 3, 4 and 6:- No.

    7. As statedabove.

    8. No.

    ...

    ... 1st witness, John Strand, 2nd officer, who stated that he was on watch when the vessel was struck aft on the port side at about 21.30 l'clock on the 30th August. He could not say whether the vessel was struck by torpedo from aeroplane or submarine. Did not see any plane near the vessel, but saw and heard firing in the distance. The captain was on the bridge, ordinary seaman Vallist at the wheel and deck boy Powell on the look-out on the bridge. To the questions enumerated the withess replied:-

    2, 3, 4 and 6:- No.

    7. Probably a torpedo.

    8. No.

    ...

    2nd witness:- Meinhard Vallist, ordinary seaman, who stated that he was at the wheel and could not see what occurred. Heard aeroplane, but could not say how near to the vessel. About a quarter of an hour after the explosion the vessel was partly submerged.

    ...

    3rd witness, Murig Powell, deck boy, who stated that he was on the look-out on the bridge. He saw some flashes at about 9.30 o'clock. The explosion took place on the port side approximately amidship. The vessel heeled over to the port side and sank in about 7 -8 minutes with the bow out of the water. The witness neither saw nor heard any aeroplanesas he was ordered under cover by the captain when the firing was heard.

    ...

    4th witness, Nils Skogvoll, steward, who stated that he saw flashes of firing in the distance. He then went to the machine gun and got this ready at 21.25 o'clock. Heard explosion at 21.30 o'clock. He had first seen 3 aeroplanes when he went forward to fech his torch. The aeroplanes were at a distance of about 400 metres. He assumed that the vessel was struck by an "aerial" torpedo from a low-flying aeroplane whilst he had his attention directed upwards with a view to firing at aeroplanes which might appear. The vessel sank in about 10 minutes with the bow out of the water.

    ...

    5th witness, Hugo Frøland, chief engineer, who stated that he was on watch from 20 o'clock. Heard explosion between 21.20 and 21.30 o'clock. Shut off the steam with the quick shutting steam valve. The dynamo engine was kept going. The water poured in very quickly. The tunnel door was not closed. The vessel was floating with the forecastle above water when they left her. The vessel was degaussed at Belfast the 18th August and tested at Gourock the 22nd August when the current was put on and never shut off even when the vessel was abandoned. To the questions enumerated the witness replied:-

    2, 3, 4 and 6:- No.

    7. Does not know, but as far as the witness can understand it could not have been a mine.

    8. No.

    ...