HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

From the birth of the Dreadnought to the period immediately after the end of World War I.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by marcelo_malara »

Hi guys. You know that the said pre dreadnought was anchored at Port Stanley during the attempted intrusion of Spee´s squadron. Two questions:

-it is said that the RN setup a system of shore directed firing for the ship, as she had no direct view of the waters outside the harbor. Does anyone have the details as to how the fire was to be directed?

-naval lore says that with two 4 guns salvos she hit one of Gneisenau´s stacks. Is there any proof of this claim besides the British looking thru a telescope?

Regards
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi Marcelo,
I read somewhere ia book (I think it was called Coronrel and the Falklands) that the old pre- dreadnought battleship 'Canopus' did indeed fire on the German ships and hit one of them but the gun had apparently been loaded with a practice shell which carried no explosive so did not do too much damage. Where the information came from I do not know.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by marcelo_malara »

Hi Paul. Yes, the book you mentioned is Coronel and the Falklands (Bennett, Geoffrey), the practice shell ricocheted in the water short of Gneisenau and (supposedly) hit the stack, whereas the other two AP shells exploded on impact with the water. The question is if there is a German testimony supporting this claim.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by wadinga »

Hi Marcelo,

The most likely German source would be Hans Pochhammer's book (Senior survivor) Before Jutland- Admiral Spee's Last Voyage pub 1931. If you can find it-good luck!

British sources may not be that biased though. German survivors may have told their rescuers this happened when they were picked up.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by marcelo_malara »

Hi Wadinga. Thanks for the reference!

A heavy damaged stack would allow smoke thru the damage, most probably closer to deck than to top, it should have been noticed by other ships. From time to time a shell described hitting by the shooters but denied by the receiving side is discussed, may me this is just the case. It would be strange (or pure luck) that a ship whose fire is controlled remotely from the shore would hit in the first or second salvo a moving target at extreme range.

Regards
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by wadinga »

Hello Marcelo,

After an internet search I found the following in a personal letter by Commander PJ Stopford, one of Canopus' officers
We fired five rounds and gathered from the survivors afterwards that one had ricocheted on to the Gneisenau and that a piece of another shell had hit the Nürnberg. This had the satisfactory effect of causing them to turn and steam away at full speed.
this is from a splendid download available at http://warletters.net/wp-content/upload ... 931916.pdf
which has Captain Grant's wartime memoirs together with a number of letters written by Canopus' crew members. The relevant part of Commander Stopford's letter is on page 96. You can decide if the unnamed German crewman was ingratiating himself with his captors, or providing details of a true event.

Maybe the detail about the after turret attempting to cheat the drill by pre-loading their guns can be found somewhere. Captain Grant makes no mention of such shenanigans and given the dignity of his position may have kept such things to himself.

There are details of setting up up the observation post which gave range and bearings of the enemy to Canopus, and since the intervening land was low lying there is confirmation the ship could see her target and it was not "blind fire".

The fascinating detail in this material is one of the delights of drilling down through the fractals of history where subsequent retellings edit out interesting and informative facts in the fatuous claim of providing focus and clarity.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by Byron Angel »

marcelo_malara wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:51 pm Hi Paul. Yes, the book you mentioned is Coronel and the Falklands (Bennett, Geoffrey), the practice shell ricocheted in the water short of Gneisenau and (supposedly) hit the stack, whereas the other two AP shells exploded on impact with the water. The question is if there is a German testimony supporting this claim.
Allow me to recommend "The Kaiser's Pirates - Hunting Germany's Raiding Cruisers in World War I" by Nick Hewitt. Hewitt is not "a name", but he worked as an historian at the IWM and definitely knows his way around the archives. He provides a decent account of the preparations made by Canopus for defense of Port Stanley prior to the arrival of Sturdee. The book also contains a good selection of photographs. Amazon currently has some affordable Kindle and audio book deals available for this title.

FWIW.

B
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
I believe the story of the loading of a practice shell on Canopus was mentioned in Coronel and the Falklands book, I would have thought that firing 12" shells whilst still in port would have rattled a few windows there!
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by marcelo_malara »

Thanks guys. I think that the letter posted is pretty conclusive about the true of the history. Anyone knows another instance of a moored ship firing at a moving one directed from shore?

Regards
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by wadinga »

Hi Paul,

Study of the Google map and Capt Grant's memoir (see above) will show Canopus was moored quite some distance away to the east from the teeming metropolis of Stanley Town Centre, such as it was at that time. I don't think broken windows would be a problem.

Hello Marcelo. Since Canopus was sitting on the mud, the process of surveying in a remote observation post would be relatively easy with theodolite and surveyors's chains. However i am interested whether they would express azimuth from true north or magnetic? I suppose they could create a true north reference at the OP, to match Canopus gyro. This is more like a land artillery situation where a forward OP might control a remote battery's fire. Except there are no landmarks or handy map references.

viewtopic.php?t=6552 features a moored Jean Bart vs the manoeuvring Massachusetts is probably the nearest parallel.

Or viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8279&p=78570&hilit=richelieu#p78570 is another moored Frenchman, Richelieu vs Barham.

I don't know whether these tied-up ships used their fire control gear or a remote observation point.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by marcelo_malara »

Hi Wadinga. For the sake of accuracy, I think that true North would be used both in the ship and in the OP, surveyed by Sun meridian passage (or other mean) and not by gyro compass in the case of the ship.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by wadinga »

Hi Marcelo,

It's not very sunny in the Falklands, I expect sun shots are few and far between. :cool: I guess they could derive true north at both locations, but spotting and corrections via the telephone line were more important. As it was the targets were not in range for long enough to really get going.

If Canopus and the Falklands Dad's Army had been required to fight off Von Spee on their own, this gun system with telephone connection from spotting stations and shore-mounted secondary armament would have had more of a workout. A sort of miniature Dardanelles campaign. Or Oslo Fjord 1940 maybe?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by marcelo_malara »

Well, this was near summer, one day would suffice to find true North and calculate the bearing of the fore and aft line of the ship, from that any true bearing could be converted to relative bearing.

One question, the pier of Stanley is located on a E-W line, in the South shore of the internal bay as seen in this old chart. But the documents referred says that just one turret commanded the strait leading from the outer bay, and that Canopus fired with the fore and aft turret to the East, so she must had been moored bow or stern to the pier, and the other extreme of the ship must had been anchored away from the pier.


Image
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
Just a thought, if Canopus had been able to raise enough steam get out, how would she have fared against the German squadron?
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: HMS Canopus at Port Stanley

Post by wadinga »

Hi Marcelo,

I have yet to confirm but I think HMS Canopus was at the extreme eastern end of Stanley Bay. The Google satellite picture shows a large shallow area east of the new causeway to the airport and as close within the bay as you can get to coastal Point Hooker on your chart. If the ship is oriented N-S the forward turret can fire over the narrow low neck to the north into Port William Bay, and both turrets can fire east and south east. Both turrets could fire to the west at any ship emerging from the narrow entrance from William Bay into Stanley Bay.

Grant says waves from Westerly gales were breaking across the decks when the vessel was grounded, and that fits with the maximum fetch on the long axis of Stanley Bay

As I suggested, I think Canopus was several miles away from Stanley town and its pier (and windows).

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Post Reply