Wreckreational Diving

7/10/2010 - First Dive On The UB88

I have always been intrigued by anything man-made under water. Whenever I came across debris I wondered how long it had been down and where it came from. In 1989 I read Shipwrecks of Southern California by Patrick Smith and Bonnie Cardone. The chapter describing the WW1 German submarine UB88 fascinated me. Knowing it was out there somewhere sparked an interest for me. A few years later I met a couple of divers who had been searching unsuccessfully since the 1940s for the sub. Using a fathometer and dragging a hook along the bottom were common techniques, but a time consuming way to look for wrecks. Things are much easier today.

In 2003 the UB88 was finally discovered by Gary Fabian and Captain Ray Arntz. They assembled a team to dive the site, document the condition of the wreck and post the findings on their website UB88.org

Keeping the location to themselves, they made it clear they didn't want anyone stripping the sub for artifacts. The theory that a stripped wreck is not worth diving doesn’t hold sea water either. Many local wrecks, including the Olympic II were stripped shortly after their discovery, yet remain popular dive sites half a century later. Besides, the UB88 was stripped before it was even sunk.

My friends and I decided to conduct our own search. Using hints from the original dive report, we searched the area between Los Angeles Harbor and Huntington Beach out to the oil rigs for a few years. Although this led to the discovery of wrecks and reefs previously unknown to us, the UB88 still eluded us.
Recent events motivated me to continue the search on my own. I would have to acquire GIS software to read the survey images found at USGS and Seafloor Mapping

I downloaded the images and ordered Manifold software. It was $245, considerably less than it was when we began our search seven years ago. When I didn't receive the activation code I contacted Manifold's customer service department. They gave me the runaround for a week and refused to re-send the code. I cancelled my order and went to ESRI GIS instead. I downloaded the freeware and went to work. It was fairly easy to learn despite never having used GIS before. I had to create anchors for the files, make layers, then convert them to KML files and add to Google Earth. I overlaid the survey images and found targets everywhere.

I checked each scan, noting the coordinates of possible targets. I now faced the daunting task of checking more than a hundred targets. Not having access to our previous database, I feared I would have to dive dozens of potential targets that we had eliminated before. Recently, Google Earth has included data on their maps that show great detail of local wrecks and reefs. Perhaps it won’t be long before all of our wrecks show up clearly without having to download scans.

Suddenly, I had a revelation. Maybe we were over-analyzing this search. I went back to UB88.org and assessed what I had read and seen before.
Gary and Ray's sonar image was 175 feet long. The sub was originally 182 feet in length. The Fox newsreel on their website showed the sub making a nose dive after the shelling. If it hit bow first on the bottom and crushed about seven feet off the bow I assumed the depth would be less than 182 feet but probably more than 175 feet. Once the stern dipped below the surface it would slow its descent. The newsreel cuts off just before that happens. Maybe this was a clue. Could it be this easy? I disregarded the misdirection the team planted in their reports. I knew it wasn't near the oil rigs. I knew it wasn’t in 230 feet because of the bow damage and the marine life on the wreck. I doubted it contained 25 pounds of TNT. The oil companies would never allow an explosive charge to sit near four rigs. Ask British Petroleum if that is a good idea. What remained were a few helpful clues.

The UB88 was sunk during an exercise put on by the U.S. Navy for the mayor of Los Angeles, Navy brass and the local press. Being born and raised on military bases I learned that the military does things in two fashions, convoluted and methodical, or quick, fast and in a hurry. I was hoping it was the latter. Would they have scuttled the sub in a secret location that only Ray Arntz could find later and take the coordinates to his grave? Not likely. Would they hide it so Kevin Rottner couldn't retrieve the toilet for his collection? Doubtful. Sometimes the simplest solution is the correct one.
They would have to tow the sub far enough offshore to avoid launching a torpedo onto someone's front porch. Open ocean is south of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. I drew a line directly south of the old Navy base and followed it until I found a depth between 175 feet and 182 feet. There were only a few targets in the area, but one of them was exactly ten miles south in 178 feet. It sounds simple. A nice round number. Seven years of searching and I found it by myself in a couple of weeks. Could it be this easy?

On May 8, 2010 Merry and I went out to meter the targets. The first one we checked revealed nothing, but a second target shouted Guten Tag to us. We found an object that had nine to twenty feet of relief in every area we checked. We left the area to check another target and then went back to double check our find. This time we found a small area that topped out at 133 feet, 45 feet off the sand. It just had to be the conning tower. We went back a month later and found the same depths, so we were positive it wasn’t a school of fish or dirty water confusing our fishfinder.
After two months of waiting for the ocean to calm down we finally went out to dive the sub on July 10. The sea was flat, but the water was still a bit dirty and green. We set our float on the high spot and anchored nearby. As I dropped, the water became darker. I was about to thumb the dive when a deep shadow appeared to my right. I swam over and was very relieved to see the conning tower. I had planned to swim the length to find the shallowest point to drop our marker next time. I think I will use the numbers I have.
Visibility was only about ten feet. The video camera and lights make things look better than they really are. I’ll go back when the conditions improve and try for better footage.