The Battle of Jutland: The Run to the South - Battlecruiser Action

[HMS Bergamot]

The German battle cruiser squadrons left port at 8am 31st May, 1916, and led the German battle fleet by some 50 miles. By 3:00pm they were 65 miles west of Lodjberg, on the Jutland coast, steaming North.

The British, alerted by some pretty good intelligence, had left port and were at sea even before the Germans had left their ports.

Under the command of Sir David Beatty, the 1st and 2nd battlecruiser squadrons were leading the force, whilst, five miles to the rear, were placed the crack battleships of the 5th battle squadron, the Queen Elizabeths!

The British were steaming east. By 3:00pm the opposing forces were in the same latitude, and, if they had continued on their courses, the British force would have passed some 40 miles astern of the German battle cruisers and 20 miles ahead of the German battle fleet and, in all probability would have been cut off by the Germans and severely handled. However, at 3:00pm, the battlecruisers were ordered to steam north in order to rendezvous with the British Grand Fleet.

This meant that the German and British battlecruiser forces ended up steaming parallel to each other, roughly 45 miles separating the flagships. However, this meant that there was only 16 miles separating the most easterly placed of the British ships (the ‘Galatea' and ‘Phaeton'), and the most westerly placed screening ships of the German force (the ‘B109' and ‘B110').

There, just over the horizon from each other, and steaming along completely oblivious to the other.

Still, fate just had to have a hand in proceedings, and did this by placing a small Danish tramp steamer exactly between the two forces. At 3:00 pm she was sighted by the German cruiser Elbing, which ordered the B109 and B110 to close and examine the steamer.

At almost the same time the British cruisers Galatea and Phaeton also sighted the merchantman, stopped and blowing off smoke, with the shape of two torpedo boats alongside. At 3:20pm ‘Galatea' signalled ‘Enemy in sight!'. Eight minutes later, both British light cruisers opened fire with 6" gun salvoes, and the battle had begun.

As soon as the two German torpedo boats alongside the Danish steamer sighted smoke to the west, they set off in that direction to investigate. B-110 signalling the Elbing with the news of this new development. The British cruisers were soon sighted, where, from their high bow waves, and clouds of funnel smoke they were misidentified as armoured cruisers. It was not until the two British ships turned to fire broadsides that they were identified as light cruisers. The German torpedo boats fell back onto the oncoming Elbing and at 3:32pm that ship opened fire with her 5.9" armament. At a range of 14,000 yards. Soon she scored the first hit of the battle when a shell struck Galatea below the bridge, crashed through two decks, and failed to explode.

The Galatea soon sighted other ships of the German cruiser screen advancing to the attack, and so turned away to the northwest with the intention of leading the Germans on to Beatty's heavy ships. Elbing followed the British northwards whilst Frankfurt and Pillau continued to close the range at high speed. They opened fire at 4:17pm, but soon had to cease fire as the British cruisers turned west and moved out of range.

Meanwhile, Hipper's battlecruisers had been steering towards the Elbing and so, unwittingly, played into Beatty's hands. The German Admiral was unaware of the British battlecruisers in the vicinity and thought that just four isolated British light cruisers was all there was to deal with.

Galatea was keeping Beatty appraised of the oncoming German battlecruisers, signalling that she had sighted the enemy and that "they appear to be following!" which caused much merth apparently on the fleet flagship. Beatty turned to the South in order to cut off the Germans retreat. This movement was not immediately spotted by the 5th battle squadron, and so the gap between them and the battlecruisers increased to nearly 10 miles. At 4:00pm Beatty though he had steamed a sufficient distance southwards in order to cut the enemy off, and steered eastwards. The Germans were steering Northwards, at right angles to the British, but still some 29 miles away. As Galatea was signalling that the German force was still heading northwards he headed north eastwards at 4:15pm, working his forces speed up to 24 knots. The two opposing battlecruiser forces were now on converging courses. At 4:20pm the Seydlitz spotted the smoke and heavy tripod masts of heavy enemy ships and at 4:25pm the British also identified their adversaries. Hipper immediately turned and steered South eastwards in order to lead Beatty towards the High Seas Fleet, whilst Beatty also steered Southwards.

Hipper was acutely aware that the British heavy guns outranged his own by several thousand yards. In both sides ships, telescopes and range finders were trained onto the ships of the enemy. The Germans though were surprised to find the range falling but the British guns remained silent. Conditions of visibility were better for the Germans, with the western sky clearly lit up and allowing Beatty's ships to stand out, the Germans on the other hand were difficult to see against the backdrop of a bank of dark cloud to the east.

The range continued to drop with the guns still silent until, at 17,900 yards, the Germans opened fire first, immediately followed by the British.

The German ships were spot on for range with their shells immediately straddling the British ships. The heavy British shells though whistled clear over the Germans and fell a full mile over, more dangerous to the screening cruisers than the German battlecruisers.

Beatty endeavoured to use his one ship superiority by concentrating two battlecruisers on the German lead ship, but Queen Mary missed the distribution signal and fired at her opposite ship (the Seydlitz) This meant that the second ship in the German line, the Derfflinger was not under fire.

By 4:51pm Lion and Princess Royal had been hit twice whilst Tiger had been struck four times. No shells had hit the German ships as yet.

By 4:54pm the range had fallen to 12,900 yards, very close range for heavy guns. The German salvoes went out at 20 second intervals, landing closely grouped around the British and sending shell splashes 200 feet into the air.

At 5:00pm the Q turret of Lion was struck and pierced. Only the heroism of the turret captain, who ordered the magazines flooded, saved the ship. Worse though was to befell the British. At 5:03 Von der Tann struck Indefatigable with two shells, followed by two more from the next salvo. That ship suddenly disappeared in a huge black cloud of smoke, and from the sky dropped large pieces of wreckage as she was completely destroyed by a magazine explosion.

By 5:06pm, the British 5th Battle squadron, by cutting corners had got to within extreme range of the German battle cruisers, and opened fire on the Von der Tann. Although the target was extremely difficult to make out, and no hits were obtained early on, a steady stream of very heavy shells began to fall around that ship. At 5:09 Von der Tann was hit by a 15" shell which struck her stern. Good damage control enabled her to keep in line.

At 5:17pm, the Queen Mary, under the concentrated fire of two enemy battlecruisers, suddenly repeated the disappearing act of the Indefatigable by blowing asunder following a magazine explosion. The Tiger, following only 500 yards astern was only just able to avoid the sinking wreck of the ship in front by swerving.

The 15" shells continued to rain down on the German ships, with a turret being knocked out on Von Der Tann, and a 15" shell piercing the rearmost turret of Seydlitz caused the ammunition to flare up. However, it only burned, it didn't explode as in the British ships. A little while later another shell pierced the Caesar turret of Seydlitz, and another 90 men burned to death.

As the range decreased between the two fleets to 17,500 yards, both sides sent their torpedo craft forwards to attack. They met between the lines in a high speed combat where the heavier guns of the British destroyers soon told. The Germans withdrew allowing the British destroyers to fire torpedoes. During this fight the destroyer ‘Nomad' was hit in the engine room and stopped, and the German ‘V-29' was hit by a torpedo and sunk. Of about 20 torpedoes fired by the British only two hit (the one on ‘V-29' and another on ‘Seydlitz').

Better results could not be achieved as at this time the smoke of the German High Seas Fleet was sighted to the southwards, the British turned north, the "Run South" came to an end, and with it the scope of our narration.

[HP_Dreadnought]

This is an EXCELLENT writeup of the engagement. I've actually read about it in a couple other places, but nobody was able to explain it as clearly as this.

Any chance you could do the subsequent parts of the engagement as well?

[cissystar650]

Brilliant! I have a book on Jutland.... and as you can imgaine, it's taking me a while to get through it! That write up was so much easier, thankyou!

[herakles]

Yes! A really good read. The descriptions allowed me to understand just what happened.

More please!!

[romft1945]

Reading that b4 breakfast has made my day my Great Grandfather was on the Tiger Oct 1914 to Dec 1916 pity we never new this when they were alive what a story that would have made,but there again if like my father they never spoke about as they I gather, they just accepted it as part of the job,
Rom:)

[astraltrader]

Thank you for your evocative take on the Battlecruiser action which immediately preceeded the main fleet battle at Jutland which occurred soon afterwards between 18:00 and just after 20:00.
I cannot agree however about some of the times you have attributed.
For example it is generally accepted that both sides open fire at 15:48 and then almost immediately HMS Indefatigable blows up [2 survivors from a crew of over 1000] followed by at 16:26 HMS Queen Mary receives a direct hit on her magazine, explodes spectacularly and sinks. [From a crew of almost 2,000 there were only twenty survivors.]. It was just after this that Beatty uttered his famous words "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today".

[Harley]

All reports' timings are somewhat skewed by the issue of Daylight Savings Time. What isn't normally realised is that "Queen Mary's" death throes were quite agonised. A number of damaging hits before A & B magazines presumably blew up and tearing the ship in two, before Q magazine in the aft section blew up the rest of the ship, killing a lot of men who had managed to get out of the ship.

And needless to say, Beatty's full quote was "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today! And something wrong with our system." as attributed to Rear-Admiral Chalmers.

Harley

[astraltrader]

I agree abut the death throes of the old Queen Mary - but the time of sinking I mentioned [16:26] is recognized in virtually all of the many sources of refence I have on Jutland. I agree as well about the full quotation - I was just fitting the famous part of it into the timescale to try and help rather than to be pedantic...

[romft1945]

Good reading again herewith a photo of HMS Invincible sinking at Jutland and some of the crew being picked by HMS Badger,
ROM:)

[MikeS]

Hi, I'm new here and although I'm not Navy, my grandfather, a Chief Petty Officer, perished aboard the destroyer HMS Nomad at the Battle of Jutland (hence my interest in this thread). About eight crew were KIA'd, among them my grandfather. Now here's my question for you history-orientated Navy folk .... Would there be more than one Chief Petty Officer aboard an Admiralty M Class destroyer like the Nomad at the time of WW1? Nomad's complement was eighty crew, including four officers.

The reason I ask this question is for the sake of historical records.

Thanks for sharing.

---

[Harley]

Here's the casualty list for "Nomad" (one has to browse down the page). There would have been a number of POs I'd have thought, but destroyers or manning aren't my specialty.

http://www.northeastmedals.co.uk/britishguide/jutland/hms_nestor_nomad_sparrowhawk_1916.htm

Simon

[MikeS]

Here's the casualty list for "Nomad" (one has to browse down the page). There would have been a number of POs I'd have thought, but destroyers or manning aren't my specialty.

http://www.northeastmedals.co.uk/britishguide/jutland/hms_nestor_nomad_sparrowhawk_1916.htm

Simon

Thank you, Simon, I already have access to that Link. Yes, I would imagine there might have been a number of PO's aboard the Nomad. CPO's is a different matter I think, hence my question.

My question also has bearing on a book: 'POW' by Martin Booth, that tells the story of a young survivor of HMS Nomad after the vessel sank at the Battle of Jutland. The author of that book named the CPO 'Crane' yet used the correct name for Lt.Commander, Paul Whitfield, for example, who captained the nomad at the Battle of Jutland. It's quite possible that the author, on creating a fictitious work based on facts, didn't know the name of the CPO, so used a fictitious name - my assuming only one CPO aboard the Nomad.

If Crane was in fact a CPO, and survived, that implies more then one CPO aboard the Nomad, if you get my gist.

---- Mike

[John Odom]

Well written, and most readable! Thanks! John O.

[TCC]

All reports' timings are somewhat skewed by the issue of Daylight Savings Time. What isn't normally realised is that "Queen Mary's" death throes were quite agonised. A number of damaging hits before A & B magazines presumably blew up and tearing the ship in two, before Q magazine in the aft section blew up the rest of the ship, killing a lot of men who had managed to get out of the ship.

And needless to say, Beatty's full quote was "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today! And something wrong with our system." as attributed to Rear-Admiral Chalmers.

Harley

I thought the quote was "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today! Steer two points port" [i.e. towards the enemy] ;-)

Come on Simon, you're read them all, gives us a[nother fascinating] disertation on the many differing accounts of that one. :-)

[bob shayler]

Thank you Richard. A great read and close to my heart as my Great Uncle was killed in action on H.M.S. Queen Mary.
If we had learned the same lessons as the High Seas Fleet did after Dogger Bank in Jan 1915, our three Battlecruisers might have lived to fight another day,
regards,
Bob

[Clio]

Spare a thought for Jutland 93 years ago today - and the brave of both nations

[davep]

thanks for the reminder Clio

[Jan Steer]

Thanks for reminding me Clio. My grandfather fought as an RN gunner at Jutland and talked of the battle often.

best wishes
Jan

[TCC]

Spare a thought for Jutland 93 years ago today - and the brave of both nations

So Jutland, the THETIS and the battle on 'The glorious first of June'... sort of a mixed bag.
1 win, 1 draw and 1 'still on patrol'

[GilligansIsland]

My great uncle went down with the ship on HMS Queen Mary at Jutland, very sad


James

[bob shayler]

Mine too Jame's, same ship as well. 310707 Petty Officer Stoker James Shayler. A sad day for the Royal Navy and the Nation,
regards,
Bob

[GilligansIsland]

what a coincidence hey Bob, my uncle was Arthur Blachford 272436 Engine Room Artificer 3rd Class, ship went down very fast, they had little time to save themselves

James

[david-P]

Hello everyone - I am new to this board. I joined because I just discovered that my great-uncle was one of the two admiralty civilians killed aboard the H.M.S Princess Royal at the battle of Jutland, he was a canteen assistant.

The reason that i am posting is that I wondered if you all were aware that the official dispatch book for the battle of jutland was available online?
it is here:
Battle of Jutland, 30th May to 1st June, 1916. Official dispatches with appendixes (http://www.archive.org/details/battleofjutland300grearich)

I hope that it is of interest if you haven't seen it already.
It is very long and makes fascinating reading, I have managed to identify the hit that the PR suffered that killed my great-uncle - as the canteen was in the path of the shell that damaged the engine room armour.

I would be very interested if anyone had any deckplans or images of the damage to princess royal.

[david-P]

To follow that previous thread, I have found an out of copyright publication that is full of accounts of the action. It can be found here:http://www.archive.org/details/fightingatjutlan00fawcuoft

Through a bit of research I think I have managed to identify the shell that narrowly missed x turret, passed through the canteen stores on the port side(where my great-uncle would have been stationed) and exploded damaging the engine room armour. It is quite amazing to suddenly get so close to the moment that a near relative died all those years ago.
There are two accounts that have a particular relevance for me - so I'm going to post them here
I hope no-one minds...

--------
Narrative from Officers of H.M.S. "Princess Royal"

(2nd Ship of the Battle Cruiser Line).

At 2.45 p.m. action stations, followed by the bugle " double," were
sounded off, and all communications, instruments, etc., etc., were quickly
tested. The various parties were mustered at their stations ; gas masks, goggles, and life-saving belts produced, and all other final preparations
for action made. Splinter mats, fire hoses, boxes of sand, stretchers,
medical instruments and drugs, leak-stopping gear, shoring-up spars,
spare electrical gear, spare hydraulic gear, engineers' spare gear all these
and the various other action accessories were got ready in a few minutes
as nearly everything was kept permanently ready for action when at sea.

At 3.10 the Engadine sent up a seaplane, and at 3.32 we first sighted
the enemy, 5 battle cruisers faintly distinguishable a very long distance
away, accompanied by some torpedo craft. First of all their smoke, and
later the outline of their masts, funnels, and the upper parts of their hulls
became visible from the gun control position aloft, but from the turrets
only smoke could be observed until some while later. At 3.48 l we opened fire.

The enemy had opened fire a minute or so before us, and their first few
salvoes went over. Their shells seemed to throw up a much smaller splash
than ours although they were firing from 12.2-inch turrets, and we from the
only slightly heavier 13.5-inch turret. Their salvoes then gradually came
closer, until just as we saw the red-black burst of one of our shells hitting
on the leading enemy ship, we noticed the Lion ahead of us hit amidships,
and two minutes later, at 3.56, we were hit by two 12.2-inch shells on the
port side, which temporarily knocked out our " Argo " range-finder tower.

At 3.56 the enemy were bearing about 10 degrees abaft our port beam
(Red 100) steering approximately South, and both squadrons were firing
heavily on each other at a rate and with a determination that made one think
that something big must happen in a few minutes. The notes that a Mid-
shipman stationed in the Conning Tower made during this time are rather
human :

" 3.40. We opened fire. Their first few salvoes were over. They are
" getting very close. They have straddled us. No. 3 of the enemy line has
"been hit and is on fire. We have been hit forward. Argo tower knocked
" out. ' B ' turret control. Lion on fire amidships. Went up to the bridge
" to find out what time we altered course, and got knocked over. M.
" staggered into conning tower badly burnt all over, and reported a large
** number of his gun's crews killed or wounded."

Between 4 o'clock and 4.38 the Germans and ourselves ran on on almost
parallel courses to the southward, each endeavouring to the utmost of our
ability to establish ''a mastery over the other. The majority of the enemy's
shells appeared to fall short throwing up columns of water nearly 100 feet
high, but doing no harm, and causing little of the interference that we had
at the Dogger Bank action when the splashes coming inboard drenched
the turrets and even the bridge, and seriously interfered with the gun-
layers, range-takers, and spotting officers.

1 The times in this narrative are reliable but they are not definitive, as recorders in different parts of the ship do not all agree in the times of their records. Princes Royal's official report gives the time of opening as 3.48 in accord with the record taken aloft, and times quoted taken from other records are based on " zero time." The times noted by the Midshipman in the Conning Tower do not appear to be very [accurate].


348 p.m. to 4.46 p.m. Narrative of H.M.S. "Princess Royal."

However, smoke and a decreasing visibility to the eastward now
became two important difficulties. Our destroyers (at about 4.2) were
between us and the enemy, and their smoke, together with the smoke from
Lion's guns which was drifting across our range, was becoming a serious
nuisance to our gun control. At 4.6 we altered a point to starboard, to
South, to try to avoid the smoke, and for 10 minutes the range opened,
until we were firing at ranges between 18,000 and 19,000 yards, or about
11 land miles. At 12 minutes past 4 we had to check fire for a while, and
we turned back to South-South-East, 20 degrees more towards the enemy,
to close the range. A torpedo just at this time passed right under the
centre of the ship from starboard to port i.e., was fired from our dis-
engaged side, so presumably came from a submarine, though I know of
no one on board who sighted the submarine. When we had closed the
enemy again slightly, to about 18,000 yards, it was pleasing to observe
the 3rd ship of their line heavily on fire, but at 4.22, as a set off to this
advantage, we lost the Queen Mary, and a few minutes later a salvo hit us
abreast " Q " turret.

At 4.24 we altered course more to port towards the enemy, on to a
South-easterly course, and the range came down from 16,000 to 12,000 yards
at about 4.26 (or 4.27). We were straddling the enemy and saw their leading
ship hit ; then our shots came short as the enemy were altering away from
us, and their shots also fell short and went ricochet ting overhead, " Some
" with a whizz sound," as a recorder in the director tower noted, " or others
" with a sharp crashing sound, whilst splinters seemed to creak through
" the air, and we heard several small splinters strike the outside of the tower."

The Midshipman in the Conning Tower at this time again had his
own method of recording succeeding events : " Just missed by a torpedo
" from starboard. Turrets told not to waste ammunition. Argo repaired.
' We are doing 28 knots now. Felt a shock. We have been hit aft by
" a large shell or a torpedo. 4.29. A big fire is raging in Lion amidships.
" 4.30. Ricochet skimmed over the Conning Tower. Destroyers having
" a go between the lines. We are fighting the whole High Sea Fleet alone,
" and are getting it very hot."

This latter statement was moderately correct. At 4.36, after a turn
of 20 away from the enemy to S.S.E., we lost sight of them, at a range
of perhaps 16,000 to 17,000 yards, but, at the same time, sighted right
ahead of us the main enemy battle fleet, which had been reported as closing
towards us from the southward by our light cruiser screen a few minutes earlier.

At 4.38 we turned 16 points to starboard, following round in the wake
16 point turn of Lion, and re-engaged the enemy to starboard at a range
at 4 38. of 15,000 yards, but this range quickly increased, and though

Course now at 4.48 we altered course a point towards the enemy, at 4.52
Northerly. the range had become as much as 18,000 yards.

Our target was now the right hand, i.e., the rear battle cruiser,
but we shifted on to the leading battle cruiser when she was visible (at


4.56), and fired 5 salvoes at her. The enemy line then altered away, and
their range increased until it reached our maximum range, and we had
to check fire. This was at 5.8, and we did not fire again until 5.50, when
the leading battle ships of the Grand Fleet were sighted, and we had altered
to starboard to close the enemy again.

After the turn to the northward, the action was much less intense than
during the run to the southward. Aetern of us, the 5th Battle Squadron
were heavily engaged with the van of the enemy battle fleet, but in the
Princess Royal we were out of range of these battleships, and the enemy
battle cruisers had hauled off somewhat to the eastward and did nofc seem
to be anxious to continue a close action. They were spread out over some
distance, keeping bad station, and were firing with much less regularity
and precision than an hour earlier.

This phase of the action was not very exciting, the only fear from the
ship point of view being that we might get hit in the engine room. Our
object now was to keep the enemy battle fleet following us until we could
lead them into contact with the Grand Fleet.

From a gunnery point of view the firing was becoming very difficult,
the range at 5.0 p.m. being as much as 19,000 yards, and the enemy were
difficult to see. We shifted target two or three times as one or another of
the enemy could be observed, but at 5.08 we had to check fire, being
unable to see a target any longer.

The notes of the Midshipman in the Conning Tower made between
4.38 and 6.0 p.m. were these :

" 4.38 Altered course 16 points to starboard owing to High Sea Fleet.
"4.47 We are retiring on 5th Battle Squadron. Opened fire again.
" Destroyers were recalled from their action about 5 minutes
" ago.
" 4.51 5th Battle Squadron firing over our heads, going in the opposite

" direction.

" 4.54 5th Battle Squadron are turning up astern and following us.
" 4.57 Passed 6 survivors of a destroyer in a boat on starboard side,

" amid heaps of wreckage.

" 4.59 Lion hit badly aft and big fire burning.

" 5.00 No. 2 of the enemy's line has gone into local control. Their battle
" cruisers are very spread out, and there are only 4 of them ;
" everyone seems to think that there were 5 originally. We
" are reduced to Lion, P.R., Tiger, N.Z., and 5th Battle Squadron.
" 5.10 Reduced to 24 knots. Destroyers have not obeyed their recall
" signal, but keep dashing back to fight the enemy light cruisers
" and destroyers.

" 5.15 Lull in the action. People going out to stretch their legs and

" get a little fresh air. Hear that the shell which hit us forward

" early in the fight entered the Admiral's pantry and exploded.

' The whole of the Admiral's quarters is wrecked, and many


" Q. M. have both blown up.
5.36 Prepare for action again.
5.42 Sighted submarine on the starboard beam.
5.43 Opened fire again.
5.44 Another submarine on starboard beam. The battle is not very

" furious at present.

5.55 Part of our battle fleet is in sight.
6.0 They have opened fire."

----------------

Medical Officer of H.M.S. "Princess Royal."

As all our main arrangements had been completed shortly after the
outbreak of war, and were left always ready for action, there remained
little to be done on going to action stations, except to muster the first-aid
parties, test communications, and see that the instruments, stretchers,
etc., were ready.

About 2.30 p.m. it first became generally known on board us that
enemy light cruisers had been reported, and that a seaplane had been
sent up to examine them, and we then immediate^ went to " action stations."

After seeing everything correct, I went on deck to try and see what
was happening. With glasses it was easy to make out five large enemy ships
on our port bow, and away on our port quarter, but apparently much
further off, were our own 5th B.S. Shortly afterwards the enemy opened
fire, and I saw two distinct salvoes fired, but was quite unable to see
where the shell pitched. I then returned to the foremost dressing station,
and not many minutes seemed to elapse before a terrific crash was felt,
and several of the party made a somewhat violent acquaintance with the
deck. All lights were immediately extinguished which led to some con-
fusion in the sudden darkness. After lighting two oil lamps which were
kept for emergencies, and taking a look round, we found only one casualty
amongst the party, this a fairly large scalp wound but whether from a
fall or from a fragment of shell I do not know. Probably the latter, as
next day about 3 Ibs. weight of shell fragments from an 11- or 12-inch
shell were swept up from the deck of the station.

The light from the oil lamps was very poor, and vision was further
obscured by the heavy whitish fumes which began to descend into the
compartment, and which could not be cleared away as the ventilation
fans were always, by order, shut off in action, owing to the danger of flooding
compartments below the water level. The atmosphere became very un-
pleasant, the fumes being irritating to eyes and throat. The gauze respir-
ators in use at that time (1916) were ordered to be put on, and were dis-
tinctly useful for a time, but later on the atmosphere became so unbearable
that I sent a message to the Flag Captain asking for permission to take
up our stations on the port side of the foremost 4-inch battery, situated
on the upper deck under the forecastle. Whilst waiting for permission,
the first-aid party dressed casualties as they occurred.

Not much work was entailed by the change of station, as only
dressings in first-aid bags were taken up to the battery, everything else
being left in the dressing station, as we hoped to return there later (which
we did). In the battery we dressed several cases, chiefly of burns
occurring amongst members of the fire and repair parties parties which
appear to me to have perhaps the most exposed and dangerous job of
any in action ; they certainly did wonderful work under their respective
officers, and I am afraid they suffered many casualties. After shifting
our station it was possible to gather roughly that a shell had entered through the Admiral's pantry and exploded in the Admiral's port cabin,
blowing away a respectable portion of the deck at its after end, and it
was evidently fragments of this shell which had found their way down
the hatchway into the dressing station.

In the meantime other casualties began to arrive, and amongsfc them
a gun-layer from the after turret, which had been put out of action by
a direct nit. He, poor fellow, had a foot nearly blown away, but had been
very skilfully dealt with by the first-aid party in the turret and carried
in a stretcher to us from right aft. This gun-layer had developed German
measles about two days previously, and should by rights have been landed,
but owing to the mildness of his complaint, and because he was an
important rating, he had been kept isolated on board and permitted to
come to sea. Later on I amputated his leg, from which he ultimately made
a good recovery, and he is, I believe, still serving.

The atmospheric conditions in the fore dressing station having im-
proved and several cases requiring operative treatment, we proceeded
to get them down from the 4-inch battery back to the station. We were
still without electric light and the oil lamps were very poor, so this fact
and the uncertainty of what was likely to happen in the immediate future
made me hesitate to start operating at once : moreover, assistance was
required to give an anaesthetic. So I despatched a message to the surgeon
stationed in the turret shell-room to join me in the fore dressing station.
In the meantime I decided to visit the after dressing station, where the 2nd
surgeon was stationed, to see how they were faring there. I found them
very busy amongst casualties chiefly burns, but also some serious wounds
from a shell which had penetrated the upper deck in rear of the mid -ship
turret on the port side. The surgeon himself and several of the party had been
knocked down by the explosion and were suffering from concussion, but
were all carrying on.

On returning to the fore station I found that the surgeon had arrived,
so I proceeded to operate on a Blue Marine 1 who had been brought down
bleeding seriousty from a punctured wound of the face. As the light was
still very bad, one of the first-aid party, who, besides previous experience
at Heligoland and Dogger Bank, had been present at the Bombardment
of Alexandria in 1882, volunteered to assist. He was a stout fellow, and
of great value in keeping up the spirits of everyone. I always remember
him saying at Heligoland on 28th August, 1914, when other members of
the party were new to this class of entertainment, " Lor' bless you, sir,
they fires a lot, but they never 'urts each other ! " this somewhat con-
temptuous opinion of the gunnery world being based on his experiences at
Alexandria.

We had hardly started operating before rapid firing developed, and the
tray with all my instruments was deposited on the deck. However, with
a fine disregard of modern aseptic principles, we carried on, and having dealt with the above-mentioned marine, proceeded to operate on the gun-
layer. The light was most trying, the securing of arteries during the opera-
tion being particularly difficult ; however, in the middle the electric light
was again switched on, and everything then became comparatively easy.
The dressing of large numbers of burns, some very extensive ones, now fully
occupied the time of the whole staff, and when this was completed and the
casualties made as comfortable as possible, hot soup, etc., was supplied.

Most of the wounded, who numbered altogether exactly 100, of which
between 70 and 80 were seriously burned or wounded, were collected into
two groups ; one on the main deck in the lobby outside the Admiral's
cabin, and the other on the mess deck aft on the port side, near the after
dressing station. They lay on mattresses on the deck, or on bedding laid
on mess tables. Two of the men who had been operated upon occupied
the two bunks in the fore dressing station, and one or two others were
in canvas cots on the deck or on the mess tables. The first-aid party worked
hard attending to them, helped by a stoker who was on the sick list at the
time of the action, and who afterwards was promoted by the Captain to
leading stoker for the valuable assistance he gave to the first-aid party
in this action.

About 11 p.m. we had things in fair order, and I was able to go to
the ward-room for some food, where I learnt from a naturally somewhat
excited group of officers that a signal had been received from the Admiral
Commanding Battle Cruisers, saying that we should probably meet the
Germans again on the following morning and proceed to annihilate them.
As an individual, nothing was more pleasing than the prospect of blowing
up as many Huns as possible, but as a medical officer I could not but
reflect on what was likely to be the fate of our casualties, now numbering
some 100, exposed as they would be in further action.

During the night we steamed slowly south, but at dawn nothing of
the Germans was to be seen. During the next day we buried the dead
at sea, and arriving in the Forth on the Friday morning, June 2nd, dis-
charged our wounded in about 2| hours to the hospital ship Plassey.

On thinking over the experiences of being in action at Jutland and
elsewhere, I have been struck with the distinct manner in which a modern
ship in action is divided into two separate worlds ; the one stationed in
conning tower, control positions, and turrets, directing the actual fighting
and movements of the ship ; the other between decks in the engine-rooms
and stokeholds, in the shell-rooms or magazines, and here and there
between decks working as fire parties, repair parties, or first-aid parties,
serving, as it were, the other world of the ship.

As far as my experiences go, the one world is much cut off from the
other, and nothing impressed itself more on my memory than the absolute
absence of authentic news reaching us between decks. At Heligoland
and Dogger Bank actions I heard nothing till the action was over. At
Jutland the only news was bad news, whispered to me about half-an-hour
after the action had commenced by the Master-at-Arms, who was in my
party, that the Indefatigable had been sunk, and shortly afterwards that
the Queen Mary had blown up.

The absence of news and the enforced idleness at the commence-
ment of an action, when one can simply hear the ship firing and neither know
what enemy is being engaged nor what course the action is taking, is un-
doubtedly very trying to all concerned. Later, when work arrives, con-
ditions become easier, though no doubt the sight of maimed individuals
is very trying to the non-medical ranks and ratings of the first-aid party.

At Jutland the conduct of all the wounded was splendid. From the
large number of severely injured who must have suffered considerable
pain and discomfort for at least 48 hours, and who must have realised
what a bad time they would have had in the event of further action
not a complaint was heard. I confess to a much greater admiration for all
ratings than before the war, and also feel that officers and men were brought
much closer to, and had a better understanding of each other after being
in action together than they did before at least this was certainly so
in the Princess Royal.
-----------

[david-P]

Some images of the battle too

[Harley]

I'm guessing that a hit at 18:22 was the one which killed your great-uncle. Here's what Campbell has to say in "Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting". pp.171-172.

The other shell pierced the 6in side armour just above the main deck, and a little forward of 'X' barbette. The angle of impact is given as 15-20° to the plate normal, and the hole as 12in x 12in with a number of concentric cracks. The shell tore the 3/8in-5/16in main deck over the starboard after reserve bunker for 17ft from the ship's side to the fan-room bulkhead, was deflected upwards, badly damaged the casings of both condenser rooms and burst 52ft from impact on the port side below the 1 in upper deck, in which a hole 6ft x 6ft was blown, while the main deck over the port after reserve bunker was riddled. Many casualties were caused among the after 4in crews and salvage party, and the flash of the burst ignited some cordite on the main deck. Both after engine-rooms filled with dense smoke and some penetrated to the starboard forward engine-room, but dispersed after the fires were subdued.
These two shells, which together killed 11 and wounded 31, were from one salvo from the "Markgraf" at a range of about 13,000yds.

Simon

[Bulldog1938]

My granddad was made a PO at Jutland. He was 25. His ship was Conquest, part of the Harwich force. According to his service record, he was "passed educationally for Petty Officer" on 4 June 1913" and "passed professionally for PO (NS) on 1 December 1913." His second period on Conquest from 1 June 1916 to 30 September 1916, gives his rating as PO (NS). In the first period on Conquest,15 June 1915- his rating was Leading Seaman.

[Ednamay]

My father was at Jutland and one of his treasures was a large framed print of the 'battle lines', which he gave to an ex-navy friend when he remarried (aged 80) and moved house.

His comment was "I don't think it was ever like that, it was noisy chaos". He was a gunner, on the Nightingale I think (from his postcards) so his 'view' was probably very restricted!

Ednamay

[astraltrader]

When you say from his postcards - have you got any interesting warship postcards you could post?;)

[Harley]

My father was at Jutland and one of his treasures was a large framed print of the 'battle lines', which he gave to an ex-navy friend when he remarried (aged 80) and moved house.

His comment was "I don't think it was ever like that, it was noisy chaos". He was a gunner, on the Nightingale I think (from his postcards) so his 'view' was probably very restricted!

Ednamay

Do you know who the painting was by? The Grand Fleet's battleships were disposed in six columns across of four battleships before deploying into one line at 18:15.

It's something rarely mentioned in the books on Jutland, but as "Iron Duke" started turning to deploy, she sounded two blasts on her siren signifying that the deployment was going to take place to port, and all the squadron and divisional leaders of the columns had to reply with the same signal. Every man who knew the meaning of the blasts would have realised that battle was imminent.

Simon

[Ednamay]

Terry - Thanks; Bob (Batstiger) has already posted some of my pic's; quite a few were lost (a) when my father remarried in 1975 and (b) when my late husband and i moved to the Island in 1986 BUT my son is a DIY nut and whenever he starts on another room/project, we discover a box (or two) of books, cards, odds and ends.........

Simon - I'm sorry, I don't know the name of the original painter of my father's print of Jutland - I only remember that it was very large, a good 3 feet x (say 18 inches deep . It certainly took up a lot of space on our living-room wall, particularly with a print (slightl smaller!) of Scapa below!

Flippant (forgive me) one for starboard, two for port, and three for astern??

Edna

[NSR]

I have just finished reading Scrimgeour's Small Scribbling Diary 1914-1916 covering the early part of WW1. He was a Mishipman who went down at Jutland on HMS Invincible so the later diary is presumed lost with him. The diary and letters to his mother make fascinating reading as they deal with an era long gone. Jutland itself is dealt with in a series of appendices carrying reports from both British and German naval officers.

My wife came across the book in the Works at a reduced price. The ISBN number is 978-1-84486-075-3 published by Annova Books Ltd foranyone interested in obtaining a copy.

Ken

[barracuda]

I, too, am presently reading Scrimgeour's Diary and am finding it extremely interesting. I looked up Alexander Scrimgeour on the CWGC website to see where he was commemorated, and found that, coincidently, another Alexander Scrimgeour, an ERA, serving on HMS Queen Mary was killed on the same day at Jutland when the Queen Mary was sunk.

I'm attaching a photo of Drake, Indomitable, Inflexible and Invincible which I hope is of interest. Scrimgeour, of course, served in the Invincible.

Peter

[norge0209]

Hi. I'm new to this site, but I am looking for any information on the HMS Nomad. As far as I know, there are no pictures of the ship. My great grandfather, Herbert Henry Hurley, was aboard the HMS Nomad when it was sunk at the battle of Jutland. He was then taken as a P.O.W. in Brandenburg, Germany.

If anyone knows what P.O.W. camp was in Brandenburg, Germany, I would love to hear from you. Also, I always welcome information of any sort.

Thanks.

Jill Hurley
New Jersey, USA

P.S. I have attached records I have about Herbert Henry Hurley, including a letter he wrote to his mother while in the P.O.W. camp.

Ancestry.com = valeur0209; Hurley-Valeur Family Tree

[qprdave]

Jill

HMS Nomad, built by Alexander Stephen and Sons, Linthouse, and launched on 7 February 1916, was an Admiralty M class destroyer. She was commissioned under the command of Lt-Cmdr Paul Whitfield and briefly served in the 13th Destroyer Flotilla of the Grand Fleet. She was sunk on 31 May 1916 at the Battle of Jutland by gunfire from Admiral Hipper's battle-cruiser squadron. 72 survivors (including Whitfield) were rescued from the sea by the Germans and became prisoners-of-war. It was depicted in a book called, Prisoner of War, by Martin Booth serving as the protagonist's ship. The wreck is designated as a protected place under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986.

Have you seen this web page?

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/battles/p_captainsletter.htm

[norge0209]

Yes, I have seen that website, but I appreciate very much the information you gave me. Every little bit helps. (I did not know that there were 72 survivors or that the HMS Nomad is a protected place under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, so thank you.) :)

[JarrowDave]

All reports' timings are somewhat skewed by the issue of Daylight Savings Time. What isn't normally realised is that "Queen Mary's" death throes were quite agonised. A number of damaging hits before A & B magazines presumably blew up and tearing the ship in two, before Q magazine in the aft section blew up the rest of the ship, killing a lot of men who had managed to get out of the ship.

And needless to say, Beatty's full quote was "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today! And something wrong with our system." as attributed to Rear-Admiral Chalmers.

Harley

Ernle Chatfield was the man that Beatty addressed his comments to about "something being wrong etc". In 1936 Chatfield was First Sea lord. If he could have had his way every ships boat would have been made out of six inch armour plate, hence the reduction in the air group from HMS Ark Royal's 60 aircraft to HMS Illustrious's 33. Lessons learnt is a major issue but little understood.


JD
:confused:

[patroclus]

Ernle Chatfield was the man that Beatty addressed his comments to about "something being wrong etc". In 1936 Chatfield was First Sea lord. If he could have had his way every ships boat would have been made out of six inch armour plate, hence the reduction in the air group from HMS Ark Royal's 60 aircraft to HMS Illustrious's 33. Lessons learnt is a major issue but little understood.


JD
:confused:

According to Chatfield, the actual remark by Beatty was "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today". The additional phrases sometimes added (including Churchill's ridiculous "Turn two points to port") are apocryphal.

It may be unfair to blame Chatfield for the armoured carrier. There was, after all, a case for such a ship and it was pushed by Henderson, the Controller. Chatfield was FSL from 1933 to 1938 so he was also responsible for the ARK ROYAL.

[norge0209]

Yes, I have seen that website, but I appreciate very much the information you gave me. Every little bit helps. (I did not know that there were 72 survivors or that the HMS Nomad is a protected place under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, so thank you.) :)

Can someone explain what the Protection of Military Remains Act of 1986 entails? Thanks.

Jill

[steve roberts]

Hi Jill.The act protects wreck sites that contain human remains,that have already not been declared official War Graves.This means that only official authorised dives can be made on these sites.This prevents recreational dives and most important,LOOTING!.An example of of this protection is the numerous u-boat wrecks around the British Isles.In Scapa Flow the wreck of HMS ROYAL OAK is only dived once a year for survey and replacement of the White Ensign. Hope this helps you.Many Regards. Steve

[norge0209]

Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate it.

Jill

[qprdave]

Here is some more information, Jill

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20080950_en_1

[Theletterwriter]

I can appreciate that the wrecks of the Battle of Jutland are now protected war graves but does anyone have any information about the reported salvaging from the Indefatigable by either a company of Danish or German salvagers in the mid 1950's and why this was allowed to happen?

DRW

[Harley]

Is there any other evidence for the allegation of heavy salvage other than the word of a Danish gentleman quoted on GWPDA.org (the only reference I could find)?

Simon

[Don Boyer]

It is a shame, fellow forum members, that the "illegal" (depending on whose rules apply, if any) diving and salvage is constant in all oceans; particularly shameful in our view are WWI and WWII wrecks that are "targets" because they may have MONETARY VALUE aboard in the form of loot or historical artifacts. I know it's rampant in the Pacific, despite the efforts of those like our own forum member Kevin from down under to promote and utilize legitimate diving techniques which have been adapted by many island nations out here to some good effect. (Would you forum members believe that I heard from a very knowledgeable source that the USS Arizona Memorial has had small artifacts stolen OFF THE DECK of the USS Arizona itself? The Memorial spanning the Arizona has no overnight security measures, although the shoreside facilities do. This is off a war grave in the middle of a heavily-guarded military base with roving security patrols afloat at all times! The thought occurred to me that a quick dive is possible from the shore of Ford Island, but there are no really competent dive units about the area -- except those belonging to the navy.)

Then there are the real fun stories. Ever notice that when a LEGITIMATE dive effort discovers that long-lost Spanish galleon full of gold, silver and jewels, every vulture for 10,000 miles including (especially!) the closest national governments attempt any and all techniques possible including lawsuits and illegal seizure in order to get their greedy hands on some of the profits. I'm sure you are all familiar with the latest go around with the Spanish Government by an American salvage company on a legitimate dive. They were smart enough to get the loot to America and bank it, where other governments will pay hell suing for it. They were immediately spanked with a seizure by the Spanish government of their ship, strictly a political ploy of nastiness. Greed Greed Greed!!!

Now warships, with our honored dead aboard, are a different subject. They do have archeological value, but not much compared to many civilian wrecks with their tons of civilian artifacts on board. Few, if any, have GOLD!. There is no need to be diving these for other than purposes of photographing for memorializations and protection. Yet there are still illegal dives on Nachi looking for that "lost" Philippines gold. Wrecks in Belau (Palau) and (Truk) are illegally dived for Japanese memorabilia for the black market, including (sickeningly, skulls and bones) samurai swords and light weapons, uniform items and the like. Japanese soldiers and sailors are due the same respect and honors as ours, especially after all this time to reconcile the atrocities of war.

There isn't enough Coast Guard and Navy in the world to prevent it, despite stringent laws here and there. Vigilance over our own by those in the know is our only hope to ensure preserving many of these old warriors in their last resting place. It will never be enough, sadly.

Regards,

[steve roberts]

I agree with you Don.It is very hard to stop illegal dives on War Graves or Protected sites,while artifacts and other items like nickle steel,especially pre 1945( No residual background radiation in manufacture) and there for worth its weight in gold for medical scanners etc,I was shocked to here that Arizona had artifacts stolen from her.Where do you sell such stuff??? The most despicable thing is Truk Lagoon where Japanese skulls can be found for sale! Leave the ships and the guys alone.Ok Official dives for archiology and survey but DO NOT TOUCH. Many Regards Steve.:mad:

[JarrowDave]

According to Chatfield, the actual remark by Beatty was "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today". The additional phrases sometimes added (including Churchill's ridiculous "Turn two points to port") are apocryphal.

It may be unfair to blame Chatfield for the armoured carrier. There was, after all, a case for such a ship and it was pushed by Henderson, the Controller. Chatfield was FSL from 1933 to 1938 so he was also responsible for the ARK ROYAL.

I wasn't particularly wishing to criticise Chatfield, my major point was about the actualisation of lessons learnt.

For many years, I made a living out of Management Consultancy, and one of the major lessons that I learnt was that very few organisations have a systematic approach to lessons learnt.

So I'll say it again, Lessons Learnt are very important but little understood.


JD

[Ednamay]

I have downloaded and printed off for a longer, more careful, read.

My father was at Jutland but would never talk about it, although he had a print of it in his living room. His usual comment was "Bl***y noise and total chaos!" I think he was on Warspite, I have to get his b/m/d certificates before I can pursue as nok - they disappeared when my stepmother died.

Many thanks for the clarity of the piece.

Edna

[patroclus]

I have downloaded and printed off for a longer, more careful, read.

My father was at Jutland but would never talk about it, although he had a print of it in his living room. His usual comment was "Bl***y noise and total chaos!" I think he was on Warspite, I have to get his b/m/d certificates before I can pursue as nok - they disappeared when my stepmother died.

Many thanks for the clarity of the piece.

Edna

If he was in WARSPITE, there is a good account of the ship's experiences at Jutland in Stephen Roskill's "HMS WARSPITE", Collins, London, 1957.

[Ednamay]

Many thanks, I wil chase it up

Edna

[Asdrúbal el Bello]

It is a shame, fellow forum members, that the "illegal" (depending on whose rules apply, if any) diving and salvage is constant in all oceans; particularly shameful in our view are WWI and WWII wrecks that are "targets" because they may have MONETARY VALUE aboard in the form of loot or historical artifacts. I know it's rampant in the Pacific, despite the efforts of those like our own forum member Kevin from down under to promote and utilize legitimate diving techniques which have been adapted by many island nations out here to some good effect. (Would you forum members believe that I heard from a very knowledgeable source that the USS Arizona Memorial has had small artifacts stolen OFF THE DECK of the USS Arizona itself? The Memorial spanning the Arizona has no overnight security measures, although the shoreside facilities do. This is off a war grave in the middle of a heavily-guarded military base with roving security patrols afloat at all times! The thought occurred to me that a quick dive is possible from the shore of Ford Island, but there are no really competent dive units about the area -- except those belonging to the navy.)

Then there are the real fun stories. Ever notice that when a LEGITIMATE dive effort discovers that long-lost Spanish galleon full of gold, silver and jewels, every vulture for 10,000 miles including (especially!) the closest national governments attempt any and all techniques possible including lawsuits and illegal seizure in order to get their greedy hands on some of the profits. I'm sure you are all familiar with the latest go around with the Spanish Government by an American salvage company on a legitimate dive. They were smart enough to get the loot to America and bank it, where other governments will pay hell suing for it. They were immediately spanked with a seizure by the Spanish government of their ship, strictly a political ploy of nastiness. Greed Greed Greed!!!

Now warships, with our honored dead aboard, are a different subject. They do have archeological value, but not much compared to many civilian wrecks with their tons of civilian artifacts on board. Few, if any, have GOLD!. There is no need to be diving these for other than purposes of photographing for memorializations and protection. Yet there are still illegal dives on Nachi looking for that "lost" Philippines gold. Wrecks in Belau (Palau) and (Truk) are illegally dived for Japanese memorabilia for the black market, including (sickeningly, skulls and bones) samurai swords and light weapons, uniform items and the like. Japanese soldiers and sailors are due the same respect and honors as ours, especially after all this time to reconcile the atrocities of war.

There isn't enough Coast Guard and Navy in the world to prevent it, despite stringent laws here and there. Vigilance over our own by those in the know is our only hope to ensure preserving many of these old warriors in their last resting place. It will never be enough, sadly.

Regards,

Oh, it's curious. If a company or individual attempts to explore or rescue an American warship, "is a shame, ... that the" illegal diving and salvage is constant in all oceans".

However, if an American company seeks to explore and salvage a warship of another country: "that when a LEGITIMATE dive effort discovers that long-lost Spanish galleon full of gold, silver and jewels "..." a legitimate dive "...

And I quote: "Now warships, with our honored dead aboard, are a different subject."

I understand that Spanish sailors from the frigate Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes does not have the consideration of "honored dead aboard," and therefore everyone has the right to trample on the wreck in that left his life fighting bravely to the British fleet attacked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_5_October_1804

I also feel ashamed. But I sign this:
"There isn't enough Coast Guard and Navy in the world to prevent it, despite stringent laws here and there. Vigilance over our own by those in the know is our only hope to ensure preserving many of these old warriors in their last resting place. It will never be enough, sadly."

[Don Boyer]

Show me the paperwork stating under international law that that recent dive was illegal -- I"m sorry, I forget the name of the ship involved. And I am sorry, I am convinced the whole show is more about profit than Spanish honor.

I also feel that IF it were to be shown that that dive was ILLEGAL and against international law, the loot goes back to the "rightful owner" and the guilty are punished. Don't misinterpret my intent, please!

I don't personally like the idea of diving on ANY wreck of ANY nation with "honored war dead" aboard, and I admit, I wrote that poorly and it could be misconstrued as such. Apologies for that one.

I do believe there is legitimate diving to be done from the sense of archeology and learning of history. That does not involve removing of artifacts necessarily or disturbing the bones of the dead. And it doesn't involve stealing a ceramic cup off the deck of the Arizona any more than it does a golden necklace from a Spanish galleon.

By the way, just out of a mild sense of curiosity, would you care to explain in detail just how it was you Spanish acquired all that gold and silver from faraway lands to start with...hmmmmm???

[steve roberts]

Hi Don. To quote an American Admiral(I think COMSUBPAC) "Hit 'em again.HARDER!" Of course he was refering to a Submarine of that name,but I think it fits.Regards Steve.:cool:

[Asdrúbal el Bello]

Show me the paperwork stating under international law that that recent dive was illegal ...

Spain Should Get Shipwreck Treasure from Odyssey, Says Judge (http://www.coinnews.net/2009/06/05/spain-should-get-shipwreck-treasure-from-odyssey-says-judge/)


http://museoarqua.mcu.es/exposicion/recorrido_expositivo/legado_proteger/index.html

[Don Boyer]

Spain Should Get Shipwreck Treasure from Odyssey, Says Judge (http://www.coinnews.net/2009/06/05/spain-should-get-shipwreck-treasure-from-odyssey-says-judge/)


http://museoarqua.mcu.es/exposicion/recorrido_expositivo/legado_proteger/index.html

Thanks for the post, AdB. I have not been following this that closely. And I will state again, if the crew that nabbed that stuff is in the wrong, they should pay the price. Justice for all. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

Regards,

[Asdrúbal el Bello]

Let us close this issue with your heartfelt words.


There isn't enough Coast Guard and Navy in the world to prevent it, despite stringent laws here and there. Vigilance over our own by those in the know is our only hope to ensure preserving many of these old warriors in their last resting place. It will never be enough, sadly.



.

[Theletterwriter]

As I was responsible for raising the salvagaing question in this thread, I would wish to record my own thoughts. The removal of artefacts, relics etc from any wreck is personally abhorrent. Diving on wrecks is fine by me but nothing should be removed. I appreciate the salvaging story of the Indefatigable is not proven but when I first heard of this possibly having taking place in the mid 1950's, I was angry (too put it politely). As if the men of the Indefatigable and those lost at Jutland had not suffered enough. Let us hope the wreck of the Indefatigable now has its protection and that its crew can finally rest in peace.

Douglas

[Don Boyer]

I am in complete agreement with that sentiment, regardless of who is doing the diving and for what purpose.

It's great that we have a professional diver who keeps the forum updated on these things.

You can imagine my feelings when I heard rumors (and they were rumors) that small artifacts had been removed from the USS Arizona, a Memorial inside a major harbor! Especially MY memorial!

[Dreadnought]

My father was at Jutland but would never talk about it, although he had a print of it in his living room. His usual comment was "Bl***y noise and total chaos!" ........

Edna

Edna,

Although I am sure the artist who produced this scene has used a lot of imagination, if he is half correct, then your Father was right in his description of total chaos ...!!


Postcard from my personal collection.

[Don Boyer]

Clive:

Back on track with that post...that is the most amazing piece of artwork I've seen associated with Jutland. A complete fantasy of course, with the German ships in the middle of their supposedly orderly turnaround and physically impossible distances between vessels. Never seen anything like it. Any history on that card/painting??

Regards,

[Dreadnought]

None at all I'm afraid Don, just an unused postcard I have had for some years. As a sepia Abrahams postcard, and by the font used on it, I would guess it was published possibly in the 1930's, but that is a guess. Mad picture isn't it ...!!

[steve roberts]

Good Postcard Clive.If I may sayso,a fine bit of British propoganda too.I don't recall that much damage being inflicted on so many ships at once,and as for the German sailors jumping over the side of what appears to be an undamaged ship? Well the mind boggles with the artistic licence taken by the thing. Regards Steve.:)

[emason]

Interesting postcard Clive. I wonder how the British and German ships cooperated to achieve all their shots landing in the sea at the same time!

[JarrowDave]

Interesting postcard Clive. I wonder how the British and German ships cooperated to achieve all their shots landing in the sea at the same time!

The Andrew was using Dreyer tables and the Allemans, Pollons.

JD

[Harley]

The Germans never used Pollen/Argo equipment.

Simon

[JarrowDave]

Quite right,

Page 65 Fire Power - Norman Friedman - The Germans may have been influenced by the Barr & Stroud synthetic system rather than the Pollen.

Mea culpa

JD
:confused:

[norge0209]

Thank you. Can anyone tell me why there are no pictures of the HMS Nomad? Also, Lieutenant William G Halliley was on the HMS Nomad when it was sunk. A friend has a newspaper cutting saying he was killed on the 31st May 1916 at the battle of Jutland, but subsequent reports say he was captured by the Germans and taken to a POW camp. How could I find out what really happened?

[twist]

My father was on the Falmouth at jutland i understand that she was torpedoed twice.My father and his brother had to jump onto another ship,they survived.He was a stoker PO .I would like to know more about the Falmouth & the incident how many lost there lives.
My father also served in the barge of the commander-in chief vice-admiral Napier in Bermuda who also was on the falmouth at jutland

[qprdave]

I have found a couple of Items that appeared in The Times (first two is one article)

I hope this helps a little

If I find anything else then I will add it here. So drop by later.

Dave

[culverin]

hello norge0209 post#67
hms nomad of the admiralty m class ordered 11-1914 had only been launched
7-2-1916 & brand new at jutland in 13df lt cdr paul whitfield
the opportunities for photos was severely restricted & pics of warships
during the war are inevitably very scarce especially smaller types
& action shots - neither was the censor too keen
her loss is well documented as are all those sunk at jutland together
with names of all who died
i do however possess a picture of her
it was hand drawn by a survivor & dated 18-11-1917 whilst a p o w
in brandenburg & is definitely nomad complete with pendant no g31
surprisingly it is quite accurate but he had time to reflect no doubt
hms nomad only rn ship of this name - 1 battle honour jutland 1916

[Gary Charles]

Hi david-P.
here is a picture, or rather drawing of the hit aft on Princess Royal. Also a short description of the hit made by an Admiralty Secretary.
cheers Charles.
"A heavy shell struck the armour of “X” barbette at the upper deck, splitting the plate at its lower edge and setting it up 6 inches at the middle line. The angle connection to the upper deck was carried away for a distance of 16 feet from the middle line and a hole 14 feet x 6 feet across was blown in the deck adjacent to the barbette, carrying away three deck beams. The plating was badly bulged over a large area around the hole, and the planking ripped up for a width of 14 planks. The force of the explosion also severely buckled the main deck immediately below, while a large hole 7 feet x 4 feet was torn in the N°254 bulkhead about 2 feet above the main deck. The coaming of the hatchway to “X” turret flat was badly distorted, and the cover carried away, while all pipes and ventilation trunks in the vicinity were severed and damaged generally. The ventilating and cooling plant to “X” magazine was shot away."

[norge0209]

hello norge0209 post#67
hms nomad of the admiralty m class ordered 11-1914 had only been launched
7-2-1916 & brand new at jutland in 13df lt cdr paul whitfield
the opportunities for photos was severely restricted & pics of warships
during the war are inevitably very scarce especially smaller types
& action shots - neither was the censor too keen
her loss is well documented as are all those sunk at jutland together
with names of all who died
i do however possess a picture of her
it was hand drawn by a survivor & dated 18-11-1917 whilst a p o w
in brandenburg & is definitely nomad complete with pendant no g31
surprisingly it is quite accurate but he had time to reflect no doubt
hms nomad only rn ship of this name - 1 battle honour jutland 1916

I am sorry I only just saw this reply to my message now. Thank you for the information regarding pictures of the HMS Nomad. I would love to see the picture you have that was drawn by a POW. Can you scan it? You can e-mail me at norwegian16@hotmail.com.

--Jill

[TCC]

And needless to say, Beatty's full quote was "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today! And something wrong with our system." as attributed to Rear-Admiral Chalmers.

Harley

No, the additional bit about '... and there's something wrong with our system' was said on the way home in the afternoon of 1st june in the Admirals cabin/charthouse. Having taxed himself, Beatty then had 40 winks leaning against the bulkhead in his overcoat and scarf!

[Harley]

"In the afternoon [of 1 June] Beatty came into the Lion's chart-house. Tired and depressed, he sat down on the settee, and settling himself in a corner he closed his eyes. Unable to hide his desappointment at the result of the battle, he repeated in a weary voice, 'There is something wrong with our ships', then opening his eyes and looking at the writer, he added, 'And something wrong with our system'. Having thus unburdened himself he fell asleep."

-Chalmers, W. S. The Life and Letters of David, Earl Beatty. p. 262.

Chalmers use of the word "again" refers to Chatfield's recollection of when Queen Mary blew up, which was, "Beatty turned to me and said, 'There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships to-day.'" -Lord Chatfield. The Navy and Defence. p. 143.

[TCC]

According to Chatfield, the actual remark by Beatty was "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today". The additional phrases sometimes added (including Churchill's ridiculous "Turn two points to port") are apocryphal.

It may be unfair to blame Chatfield for the armoured carrier. There was, after all, a case for such a ship and it was pushed by Henderson, the Controller. Chatfield was FSL from 1933 to 1938 so he was also responsible for the ARK ROYAL.

Steady on Patroculus, that may .. just .. be a true thing as Lions 'tactics' upon getting a leathering was to do just that, i.e, change course by 2 points!! ;-)




Armoured Carriers? I thought they were recognised as a good thing that the yanks wish they'd had implemented once the 'divine wind' fell upon them?

[TCC]

"In the afternoon [of 1 June] Beatty came into the Lion's chart-house. Tired and depressed, he sat down on the settee, and settling himself in a corner he closed his eyes. Unable to hide his desappointment at the result of the battle, he repeated in a weary voice, 'There is something wrong with our ships', then opening his eyes and looking at the writer, he added, 'And something wrong with our system'. Having thus unburdened himself he fell asleep."

-Chalmers, W. S. The Life and Letters of David, Earl Beatty. p. 262.

Chalmers use of the word "again" refers to Chatfield's recollection of when Queen Mary blew up, which was, "Beatty turned to me and said, 'There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships to-day.'" -Lord Chatfield. The Navy and Defence. p. 143.

Glad to have helped.

[TCC]

There's a german after-action report from Hipper to Scheer about Britsh Gunnery. It's (I fear) a telling indicment of Beattys leadership and the ignorance of, or inability of those around him to sway him into a more professional? more gunfire practice-orientated mode.

"Report from Admiral Hipper to Admiral Scheer (4 July 1916)

[copy from the RN's Naval Intelligence Division files, dated 21 September 1920]

OBSERVATION ON ENEMY ARTILLERY FIRE

...The fire of the English battle-cruisers has not caused to our battle-cruisers damage of considerable gravity. Since the fall of shot was rarely in proximity to our own ships it is not possible to judge very accurately as to the 'spread' of the shot.

On the other hand the fire of the Malaya battleships (5th BS) and equally later on, that of the bulk of the enemy, produced an excellent impression.

The salvoes arrived absolutely dense (with no spread).

The fall in elevation and direction covered almost the same spot.

The firing constituted a proof of the care with which the British have eliminated in their guns all influences which increase the 'spread,' and of the most remarkable manner in which the English fire control arrangements have been produced, both elevation and direction [sic].

If the English did not atttain greater results, it is on account of the bad quality of their shell, particulary with reference to theinsufficient efficiency of their exploders... "

So the fleet had the technology and know-how on how to pummel the opposing fleet to oblivion with accurate shell-fire, it's just that the Battlecruisers never had the practice-time to put it into implementation.

For all Beattys comradeship to those around him (they all praise him so he had charisma) He'd overlook faults or errors from juniors, plus he was the 'right type'. But he wasn't a very good fighting admiral, was he? Or was he just 'unlucky?

[emason]

For all Beattys comradeship to those around him (they all praise him so he had charisma) He'd overlook faults or errors from juniors, plus he was the 'right type'. But he wasn't a very good fighting admiral, was he? Or was he just 'unlucky?


TCC,
You may be interested in some observations I made on this subject in post#7 here:-

http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8012&highlight=jutland