One officially reported statement of a German submarine captain said that three submarines, including his own, had been damaged by the barrage but all had reached port. The injury in his case prevented his diving. Other accounts, in the press and from individuals, give some indication of the moral effect produced by this great minefield, reaching to the German Army and also among civilians.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of the submarines that passed the line of the barrier were harmed by it, but the effect upon the enemy went far beyond such tangible injuries. Every successive case of being damaged yet escaping destruction would increase the moral effect, and magnify the number of losses that would be attributed to the barrage, as other submarines failed to return. Official summaries rate depth charges first, mines next, in importance among the five most effective measures against submarines.
A mark of royal approval was indirectly conferred upon the Mine Force undertaking after only one excursion, in the bestowal upon Rear Admiral Strauss of the honor Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George, and our operations received mention later by the First Sea Lord of the British Admiralty in his reply to the congratulatory message of Admiral Sims upon the conclusion of the armistice:
We recognize with a feeling of gratitude the debt we owe to the United States Navy for its wholehearted support during the past 18 months, not only in the submarine campaign and extensive minelaying programme, but also in sending the Atlantic squadron to reinforce the Grand Fleet ...
During the four months intervening, the press made occasional brief reference to the effectiveness of the North Sea barrier but, compared to other operations, ours received scant mention. A veil of general silence was deemed necessary for our doings, and the policy of concealing the destruction of submarines stood in the way of even telling our men the few authentic reports we did receive of damage to the enemy from our own work.
One account, widely copied in the British and home press, described the barrier, which we had begun and were still at work upon, as already a fact and a British accomplishment! And when, in October, the story was released in America, the accounts which reached us dwelt mainly upon the parts of the work done on shore. As the Secretary of the Navy put it, the minelaying was done with “no glamour nor romance nor appreciation.”
It was not in the character of our officers and men, however, to feel discontent. Thoroughly interested in their work and convinced of its importance, they were satisfied to have it progressing well, and to wait for their part to receive its due.
Admiral Sims expressed his recognition shortly before we sailed from Portland, England, for home. All the commanding officers, many other officers, and 25 men from each minelayer were assembled on board the San Francisco, and when the admiral came on board, his flag was broken at the main truck. After brief mention of the large numbers and the many activities of our naval forces in European waters, he said that the Mine Force—
had done a stunt the like of which had not been done in the world before. After we came into the war we designed a mine, built it, equipped the minelayers, sent them over to this side and planted more mines in less space of time than any nation in the world ever thought of doing before. As to the efficiency of the mine barrier, that is something that has not concerned you so particularly as those who designed it; but fitting out the vessels, learning to handle the mines, planting them, and going through the strenuous work has been really one of the finest accomplishments of the navy on this side.... as a nautical feat, a piece of seamanship, it has been perfectly successful.