RMS Queen Mary v HMS Curacao-who was to blame

[jainso31]

HMS Curacoa, named after the island Curaçao in the Caribbean Sea, was a Ceres group C-class light cruiser. In 1942, she became one of the Royal Navy's major accidental losses during the Second World War

In 1939, a few months before the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe, she was selected for conversion to an anti-aircraft cruiser and underwent a refit at Chatham Dockyard. She then served with the Home Fleet during the Norwegian Campaign in 1940, until, on 24 April, she sustained heavy damage from aerial bombing and suffered 30 casualties. She returned to Chatham for repairs and resumed active duty in August, serving with the Nore Command convoy defence. During "Warship Week" in March 1942, she was adopted by the civil community of Wolverhampton.

On 2 October 1942, she was escorting the ocean liner RMS Queen Mary carrying nearly 20,000 American troops of the 29th Infantry Division to join the Allied forces in Europe. Both ships were following evasive zigzagging courses about 60 km north of the coast of Ireland when the Queen Mary cut across the path of the Curacoa with insufficient clearance, striking her amidships at a speed of 28 knots and cutting her in two. The Curacoa sank immediately, about 100 yards from the Queen Mary. Due to the risk of U-boat attacks, the Queen Mary did not assist in rescue operations and instead steamed onward with a damaged bow. Hours later, the convoy's lead escort returned to rescue 99 survivors from the Curacoa's crew of 338, including her captain John W. Boutwood.

The incident occurred as the result of several factors. The captain of the Queen Mary made the assumption that her escort ship would track her course change and adjust accordingly. Meanwhile, Captain Boutwood on board the Curacoa assumed the standard seafaring rule that an overtaking ship must yield. The resulting convergent courses were reported on board both ships and the Queen Mary's First Officer issued a correction, but both the reports and correction were dismissed by the respective ship's captains

The loss was not reported until after the war ended, whereupon the Navy immediately pressed charges against the Queen Mary's owners, Cunard White Star Line. The High Court of Justice subsequently ruled mostly in favour of the latter, giving two-thirds of the blame to the Admiralty and one third to Cunard White Star. This ruling would become important in the civil lawsuits subsequently filed against Cunard White Star Line by relatives of the Curacoa's deceased. It also prompted significant revisions in Royal Navy policy, including the suspension of escorts for passenger liners indefinitelyUnder the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, the Curacoa's wrecksite is designated a "protected place"

ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW
The greatest danger facing the Q.M. would be when she neared this coast, and had to reduce speed in coastal waters when she would be considered a fairly easy target for the enemy, but it was a risk that had to be taken, and to safeguard her as much as possible, so a rendezvous was arranged to the west of Northern Island, where she would start to reduce speed, and would be met my HMS Curacoa and a destroyer
escort to make the final leg of the passage to Liverpool, where the press and photographers would be lined up to make the most of this important aspect of the war. But then, disaster struck. The escort was sighted, but a junior officer on the bridge of Q.M. failed to inform his captain, and did not reduce speed, as Curacoa was slowly turning to take up position ahead of the Q.M. with her destroyers each side. The result was, that Q.M. struck her amidships slicing the Curacao in two,, the rear section sank almost immediately, the forward half managed to stay afloat long enough for some to get out from below decks and survive the tragedy, among those was Henry Bell from the Humber Division RNVR. The damage to Q.M. was not so serious and she was in no danger of foundering, so quick decisions had to be made. It was decided at high level that the normal rules of the sea would be overlooked, and instead of the liner stopping to pick up survivors, when she would have been a target to any U Boats in the vicinity, and perhaps sunk with the loss of these young Americans after all the press ballyhoo, she would carry on her voyage to Liverpool, escorted by the destroyers and 338 souls of the crew from the cruiser Curacoa, who might have been saved, were left to perish. The Q.M. made it safely to Liverpool and docked amid great publicity, so to save the great day, it was decided to put a news black out on the unfortunate Curacoa. A person who was on board the Queen Mary when it sank the Cruiser Curacoa states "we did not dock in Liverpool. We went to Greenock, Scotland and disembarked on a ferry boat"



The question arising is "Who was at fault in this most unfortunate affair????

jainso31

[derek s.langsdon]

Of course the safety of the incoming us troops was paramount, but from the detail you gave Jim seems the blame entirely down to the QM's Junior officer on the bridge who didn't slow nor advise his Captain, while the Curacao Captain followed correct procedure.A tragic loss of 239 lives being the end result. No surprise this was kept quiet at the time !
dsl

[jainso31]

Thank you for your interest and observations Derek
.In my opinion this fatal incident was created by a mixture of misunderstanding between the two captains for a start; and an obduracy on the part of the Curacao's captain to follow the seafaring "Rules of the Road"; in this case that the overtaking ship,(the QM) must yield!!!

jainso31

[Trevalgan]

Originally Posted by jainso31

HMS Curacoa, named after the island Curaçao in the Caribbean Sea, was a Ceres group C-class light cruiser. In 1942, she became one of the Royal Navy's major accidental losses during the Second World War

In 1939, a few months before the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe, she was selected for conversion to an anti-aircraft cruiser and underwent a refit at Chatham Dockyard. She then served with the Home Fleet during the Norwegian Campaign in 1940, until, on 24 April, she sustained heavy damage from aerial bombing and suffered 30 casualties. She returned to Chatham for repairs and resumed active duty in August, serving with the Nore Command convoy defence. During "Warship Week" in March 1942, she was adopted by the civil community of Wolverhampton.

On 2 October 1942, she was escorting the ocean liner RMS Queen Mary carrying nearly 20,000 American troops of the 29th Infantry Division to join the Allied forces in Europe. Both ships were following evasive zigzagging courses about 60 km north of the coast of Ireland when the Queen Mary cut across the path of the Curacoa with insufficient clearance, striking her amidships at a speed of 28 knots and cutting her in two. The Curacoa sank immediately, about 100 yards from the Queen Mary. Due to the risk of U-boat attacks, the Queen Mary did not assist in rescue operations and instead steamed onward with a damaged bow. Hours later, the convoy's lead escort returned to rescue 99 survivors from the Curacoa's crew of 338, including her captain John W. Boutwood.

The incident occurred as the result of several factors. The captain of the Queen Mary made the assumption that her escort ship would track her course change and adjust accordingly. Meanwhile, Captain Boutwood on board the Curacoa assumed the standard seafaring rule that an overtaking ship must yield. The resulting convergent courses were reported on board both ships and the Queen Mary's First Officer issued a correction, but both the reports and correction were dismissed by the respective ship's captains

The loss was not reported until after the war ended, whereupon the Navy immediately pressed charges against the Queen Mary's owners, Cunard White Star Line. The High Court of Justice subsequently ruled mostly in favour of the latter, giving two-thirds of the blame to the Admiralty and one third to Cunard White Star. This ruling would become important in the civil lawsuits subsequently filed against Cunard White Star Line by relatives of the Curacoa's deceased. It also prompted significant revisions in Royal Navy policy, including the suspension of escorts for passenger liners indefinitelyUnder the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, the Curacoa's wrecksite is designated a "protected place"

ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW
The greatest danger facing the Q.M. would be when she neared this coast, and had to reduce speed in coastal waters when she would be considered a fairly easy target for the enemy, but it was a risk that had to be taken, and to safeguard her as much as possible, so a rendezvous was arranged to the west of Northern Island, where she would start to reduce speed, and would be met my HMS Curacoa and a destroyer
escort to make the final leg of the passage to Liverpool, where the press and photographers would be lined up to make the most of this important aspect of the war. But then, disaster struck. The escort was sighted, but a junior officer on the bridge of Q.M. failed to inform his captain, and did not reduce speed, as Curacoa was slowly turning to take up position ahead of the Q.M. with her destroyers each side. The result was, that Q.M. struck her amidships slicing the Curacao in two,, the rear section sank almost immediately, the forward half managed to stay afloat long enough for some to get out from below decks and survive the tragedy, among those was Henry Bell from the Humber Division RNVR. The damage to Q.M. was not so serious and she was in no danger of foundering, so quick decisions had to be made. It was decided at high level that the normal rules of the sea would be overlooked, and instead of the liner stopping to pick up survivors, when she would have been a target to any U Boats in the vicinity, and perhaps sunk with the loss of these young Americans after all the press ballyhoo, she would carry on her voyage to Liverpool, escorted by the destroyers and 338 souls of the crew from the cruiser Curacoa, who might have been saved, were left to perish. The Q.M. made it safely to Liverpool and docked amid great publicity, so to save the great day, it was decided to put a news black out on the unfortunate Curacoa. A person who was on board the Queen Mary when it sank the Cruiser Curacoa states "we did not dock in Liverpool. We went to Greenock, Scotland and disembarked on a ferry boat"



The question arising is "Who was at fault in this most unfortunate affair????

jainso31

Just a small correction, The Queen Mary always ended her eastern trip anchoring off Gourock, as it was felt to be further away from German bombers range, and the surrounding hills gave more protection. Also the press would not have been allowed anyway near her as her comings and goings were highly secret.

John

[jainso31]

Thank you John for your interest and observation-I think in the event it is easy to interpret Greenock and Gourock and vice versa- as they both on the south bank of the R Clyde.I have to admit though. that I did not know that it was Gourock not Greenock.

jainso31

[Trevalgan]

I got my information from the book "Grey Ghost, R.M.S. Queen Mary at War" It lists every wartime trip, and Gourock was the port of arrival every time.
It wasent until July of 45 that she switched to Southampton.

Cheers

John

[jainso31]

OK John I've accepted that you are absolutely right-what I would like to see is your opinion as to who,if at all anybody,was at fault in this unfortunate event.

jainso31

[Trevalgan]

Sorry did'nt mean to go on about Gourock so much.
I think the percentage of blame laid out by the courts, which after appeals by the Admirality, was I think 50/50, was fair, but in actuality I think Curacao was more to blame than the Queen Mary. For a start Curacao could maneuver much more rapidly than an eighty thousand liner, plus the Queen Mary was still zig-zaging a very complicated course. Just before the collision the Senior 1st officer on watch on the Queen Mary's bridge, had become concerned about Curacao's proximity and had ordered a slight turn away from the cruiser, and had mentioned to Staff Captain Harry Grattidge, who was in his sea cabin off the chartroom, his concern, to which Grattidge replied "Dont worry he will keep out of our way"
I dont think either ship was really aware of the situation they were getting in, nor was there any communications to ascertain the intentions of the other vessel. But the net result was the tragic loss of 383 lives

John

[Old Salt]

In normal situations the International Regs. to Prevent Collisions would apply.

However when warships operate in company, the Naval Rules apply.

In this instance Curacao was taking up a naval station e.g. line ahead
In which case QM should remain on course whilst other units joining take station. Lawyers no doubt had a field day.

Rules apart, signals should have been exchanged about course, speed, ziz zag plan number & zero hour. etc. QM should have been appointed guide . Curacao's intentions as to her station also exchanged.

One could expect experienced mariners both MN and RN to have performed this simple task. but were clearly not co-ordinated .

A dreadful tragedy which should never have happened. And a hard decision not to rescue survivors.

Brian

[jainso31]

A pretty fair assessment John, given what was said between the QM's 1st SOW and the Staff Captain "____he'll keep out of our way";unfortunately Curacao's captain Boutwood had other ideas.
What confounds me is why a seagoing man like Boutwood would think that an 80000T liner travelling at 28kts could get out of his way??!!

jainso31

[BlackBat242]

Without regard to regulations, common sense tells you that, just as with large freight trucks (lorries) and small cars, so too with ships... the smaller one is expected to stay out of the way of the large one!

There is an old saying used (or used to be used) in US drivers' education courses:

Here lies the body of Jonathan Ray.
He died defending his right-of-way.
He was right, dead right, as he drove along.
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong!

Also seen with the names Willie Gray, John G. Day, John O'Shay, George McFay, Mike O'Shea, Samuel Jay, etc.

[jainso31]

Yes BB- I am very much coming round to your point of view-thank you for your interest and the little allegorical ditty- which is very much to the point.

jainso31

[patroclus]

[quote=Trevalgan;10021820]Sorry did'nt mean to go on about Gourock so much.
I think the percentage of blame laid out by the courts, which after appeals by the Admirality, was I think 50/50, was fair, but in actuality I think Curacao was more to blame than the Queen Mary.John[/QUOTE



The judgement of the Court of Appeal, confirmed on further appeal to the Lords, was two-thirds of the blame to CURACOA and one third to QUEEN MARY.

[jainso31]

Thanks Peter for giving this a look; and clearing up the matter of what the Court of Appeal finally decided re. the ratio of blame-which I consider, very much in hindsight; to be accurate.

jainso31

[Old Salt]

Originally Posted by jainso31

Thanks Peter for giving this a look; and clearing up the matter of what the Court of Appeal finally decided re. the ratio of blame-which I consider, very much in hindsight; to be accurate.

jainso31

Always remembering that was Lawyer v Lawyer -2/3 v 1/3 in a civil case.
Having faced a barrage of lawyers who had never been to sea and had little knowledge of the subject in question , I am not impressed by their conclusions.

Both COs were to blame for the reasons I have already stated. Did either of them get hauled over the coals ??

QM, turning, hit C. amidships. With the turning circle of a ship that size, Curacao must have been a good distance off as she was passing QM, Probably the normaf distance off a warship would keep off a carrier. IMO she was not too close.

I wish I had the details to plot this out .....

Brian

[jainso31]

The main points in this case are a)the QM was not a warship; and she made regular high speed Atlantic crossings,adopting a zig zagging course and b)it is a known fact that Curacao did have sufficient time to make a course alteration to avoid collision;that ship's captain chose not to, because in his book the Naval Code should be followed ie the overtaking ship must yield-yes the QM all 80000tons of her travelling at 28kts must alter course!!!
The QM was under strict orders never to voluntarily stop at sea for any reason.
The sense of that in this instance was further enhanced by the facr that she was ferrying 20000 US troops.Hence the verdict of 2 to 1 in QM's favour
Thanks again Brian for your deliberations.

jainso31

[Old Salt]

Originally Posted by jainso31

The main points in this case are a)the QM was not a warship; and she made regular high speed Atlantic crossings,adopting a zig zagging course and b)it is a known fact that Curacao did have sufficient time to make a course alteration to avoid collision;that ship's captain chose not to, because in his book the Naval Code should be followed ie the overtaking ship must yield-yes the QM all 80000tons of her travelling at 28kts must alter course!!!
The QM was under strict orders never to voluntarily stop at sea for any reason.
The sense of that in this instance was further enhanced by the facr that she was ferrying 20000 US troops.Hence the verdict of 2 to 1 in QM's favour
Thanks again Brian for your deliberations.

jainso31

Jim

(a) Agreed QM was not a warship ... neither were the merchant ships in a convoy. I suspect that Curacao expected it to act like one. Confusion reigned . I also expect QM had no idea what Curacao was doing either.

(b) the overtaking rule is not in the Naval Code, it is in the International Regs

(c) The fact that she was carrying 20000 troops or was empty has naught to do with the International Regs . You say 'hence the verdict ... ?????

Like I have said, a simple rendezvous between two ships. but neither ship had any idea what the other was doing. Exchange of basic info before joining is good seamanship

Brian
Ship Driver ( not lawyer !)

[jainso31]

Brian
Your last sentence speaks volumes-and if communication had been made-if it was possible; and of course ,allowed-then yes- the collision would have been averted.
Coming to the QM never stopping-this decision was made by Government i assume-and therefore International Regulations were waived BECAUSE she travelled very fast and invariably carried many military personnel.
I do believe that those in charge on the QM did know what Curacao was doing and, as was said; and I quote "he'll keep out of our way"

jainso31

[Old Salt]

I have just found another thread on this subject : HMS Curacoa 1917-1942 in the RN section

Brian

[jainso31]

That is correct Brian-this thread is to discuss specifically the who's and why's of culpability in this most unfortunate of events.
Should it be deemed as part of the original then so be it.

jainso31

[GaryH]

The Royal Navy filed a lawsuit against Cunard (QM's owners) after the war but the courts ruled in favour of Cunard - which is what prompted the Royal Navy to spit the dummy out and change its policy regarding the protection of passenger ships

[jainso31]

Gary that is interesting -something that I have never heard about.Perhaps if you return you can expand on that point-particularly in view of the C o A's judgement was given post war.

jainso31

[Old Salt]

Originally Posted by jainso31

Brian
Your last sentence speaks volumes-and if communication had been made-if it was possible; and of course ,allowed-then yes- the collision would have been averted.
Coming to the QM never stopping-this decision was made by Government i assume-and therefore International Regulations were waived BECAUSE she travelled very fast and invariably carried many military personnel.
I do believe that those in charge on the QM did know what Curacao was doing and, as was said; and I quote "he'll keep out of our way"

jainso31

Jim

I would expect radio silence but signal lamps and flags were the normal. I see no reason they could not communicate.

I have no problem with QM not stopping, I said it was sad. But such are command decisions.

The quote "he'll keep out of our way" was made by the Staff Captain in his cabin. He had no idea what was going on, except that his OOW was concerned. Why did he not go to the bridge ? So his OOW carried on and ......

Brian

[jainso31]

You have a point there Brian-why didn't the Staff Captain go to the bridge to see for himself-probably because he was quite confident that Curacao would "keep out of our way"As it turned out -Curacao did not.

jainso31

[Trevalgan]

Originally Posted by jainso31

You have a point there Brian-why didn't the Staff Captain go to the bridge to see for himself-probably because he was quite confident that Curacao would "keep out of our way"As it turned out -Curacao did not.

jainso31

Yes, that is a good point. The cabin is very accesible to the Bridge as it is on the Port Side immediatly aft of the Wheelhouse. The room is actually called the Captains Chart Room, and besides the chart table it has a Bunk/Settee and was used as by the Captain when he was needed on the bridge for long periods of time, for instance, fog and ice conditions. It even has a sliding window out into the Wheelhouse. Robinson who was the Officer on watch, may not have put enough emphasis on his concerns with the proximity of the Curacao, but all the same I would have thought Grattidge would have made the effort to have a look. The actual Captain was Commodore Sir Cyril Illingworth, and Harry Grattidge also went on to become Commodore of Cunard in 1948.