Doomed to fail

General naval discussions that don't fit within any specific time period or cover several issues.
NCC1717
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:26 pm

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by NCC1717 »

The photo on page 93 of Innes McCartney “Jutland 1916 Archaeology of a Naval Battlefield”, shows two platforms low on the after side of the mainmast. In Richard Perkins’ identification album Volume III, the section on the Warrior class (aka Achilles class pages 35-44) shows those as searchlight platforms, and only on the Cochrane. On the Defence class, they only appear on the Minotaur and Shannon. The two Black Prince class ships do not have them, and in any case the funnels in the photo are too tall for BP or DofE. The foremast is obscured in the photo, but from the platforms that are visible, I think the best match with the Perkins drawings is Shannon (page 31).
NCC1717
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:26 pm

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by NCC1717 »

Correction to my 11:54 post:
Black Prince class ships had their funnels raised prior to Jutland, so that is not a disqualification.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by wadinga »

Hi NCC1717,

Nice piece of detective work :D

Sadly I don't have Perkins III but they are an excellent source. I've been looking to find an exact match but the mystery photo is pretty poor definition. How about the structures between second and third and third and fourth funnels? There seems to be a number of structures on the foremast just above the bridge, does this feature in Shannon? Were all her searchlights moved up the masts from their original platforms between funnels 1 and 2 and between 3 and 4? Warships Illustrated no 12 British Cruisers of WWI R A Burt shows a distant Shannon "1915/6" with one searchlight on the after side of the mainmast, and the structures in their original positions ie different to the mystery ship. Also there are structures on the foremast but they are high up close to the spotting top, not low down.

The mystery photo is indistinct but I find it hard to think there are five 7.5" turrets along her side.

Friedman British cruisers of the Victorian Era has a picture of DoE p 260 with lower funnels as completed, but says BP at least had hers raised by 6ft in 1912 p 257 so much more like the mystery ship.

This www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/20513406 is a 1916 picture of Warrior which has clutter low down on the foremast and at least one structure low down on the mainmast.

It would be a shame if the mystery picture doesn't show anything like the situation apparently claimed by Admiral Hoare. :(

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
NCC1717
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:26 pm

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by NCC1717 »

structures between second and third and third and fourth funnels
Perkins shows searchlight platforms and box-like structures added between the funnels on most of these ships during the war, but none look like the photo, as none show the same structure in both the 2nd and 3rd gaps. The gaps between funnels 2, 3 and 4 in the photo look completely filled, and there are no apparent searchlights. I suspect the view is not beam on, but from the starboard quarter, which would explain the filled gaps.
structures on the foremast just above the bridge, does this feature in Shannon?
Perkins shows both Cochrane and Shannon with those added, dated to 1914-1917. As with a lot of my other books, changes are often specified by a range of years (e.g., 1916-1917), which leaves unanswered my usual question of what they looked like at Jutland.
Burt shows a distant Shannon "1915/6" with one searchlight on the after side of the mainmast
Perkins page 31 shows one searchlight platform abaft (but not attached to) the mainmast “1914-1915 only”, and two (one above the other) attached to the after side of the mainmast “added 1915-1917”.
Also there are structures on the foremast but they are high up close to the spotting top, not low down.
The structures on the foremast just above and below the level of the top of the funnel are consistent with Perkins' drawings, but are partly hidden by the mast if I am correct about the photo's quarter aspect. Perkins also shows three wider platforms higher up.
I find it hard to think there are five 7.5" turrets along her side.
I agree. It looks like two light strips corresponding to turrets and a smaller light patch half-way in between. Since I can’t see any indication of the 6 inch guns, that might match DofE after her main deck guns were removed (sometime 1917 or later?). Although Perkins does not have detailed drawings for DofE late war, she may have received the searchlights that the other ships did.

I think there is a ‘3’ missing from your photo link:
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205134063
Perkins drawing of Warrior for 1916 (page 42) matches that photo closely.

Regards,
NCC1717
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by wadinga »

Hi NCC 1717 and all,

Looking again at the mystery photo I am struck by the extended lozenge shape of the fighting tops. These are identical with those of Duke of Edinburgh in photos whereas Shannon , Cochrane and Defence have square tops without the noticeable projection. In the Wikipedia entry for her I note
In March 1916 the ship had her main deck 6-inch guns removed and the openings plated over. Six of the guns were remounted on the upper deck, three on each side, between the wing turrets, protected by gun shields
This quoted Anthony Preston as a source, and which explains why we cannot see many turrets on her main deck. Does Perkins record this?

This fits with Byron's quote picked up from TFAJ:
whilst the Duke of Edinburgh passed between Birkenhead and ourselves causing Birkenhead and Gloucester to alter course to port."
Which also conforms nicely with the photo's provenance from RA Hoare aboard Birkenhead. I consider this a definitive ID and thus this picture records a significant moment at Jutland. Whatever one's opinion of Arbuthnot's actions, it is clear that his zeal to get to grips with the enemy caused him to charge through a light cruiser squadron and in front of the BCS, whether it is recorded in Harper's rationalized rendition or not.

Armoured cruisers after Jutland continued to carry out valuable work in convoy and troopship escort and to act instead of capital ships for overseas stations so as not to deplete the Grand Fleet. After the massacre of a Scandinavian convoy in Oct 1917 protected by destroyers Strongbow and Mary Rose (both sunk) Minotaur and Shannon were acting as a covering force for another convoy in December. However, they were too far away to render assistance before it too was overwhelmed.

As a covering force these armoured cruisers should be perfectly adequate against expected opposition if positioned well. They had gun power to “see off” cruisers like Brummer and Bremse which had decimated the October convoy, or the destroyers which attacked the December one. The December debacle was caused by the covering force attempting to cover both inbound and outbound convoys. Later in 1918 there was concern the HSF would send a more powerful force of battlecruisers against the convoys and so a detached force of battleships or battlecruisers was deployed.

In April 1918 the Germans did initiate a general fleet movement far into northern latitudes to attack the convoys, a highly risky and poorly planned jaunt which failed to find a convoy and if the GF had got earlier warning to intercept, could have resulted in the HSF being cut off far from their distant bolthole. After months of inaction, I expect they had been pressured to “do something” to match the German army’s Western Front offensive. The British submarines near Heligoland failed to report the HSF’s departure and the first warning they were out was when Moltke’s radio distress calls were intercepted when one of her propellers dropped off and her condensers salted up.

The HSF was still only operating on the eastern margin of the Norwegian and North Seas so there was time to get home safely, even with Moltke being towed, before Beatty could intercept.



All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
NCC1717
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:26 pm

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by NCC1717 »

This quoted Anthony Preston as a source, and which explains why we cannot see many turrets on her main deck. Does Perkins record this?
Perkins shows this change (page 49), but only on the drawing for 1917-1920. The drawing for 1914-1917 does not. Neither drawing shows the two searchlight platforms on the mainmast as in the photo.

The 3LCS was passing in front of the battle fleet to get to their station ahead, and crossed the path of the 1CS. Presumably both squadrons were making their best speed, with the light cruisers a couple of knots faster. That an observer on the 3LCS would say:
... the 1st Cruiser Squadron (Defence, etc) broke through the center of our squadron as we made to the eastward.
Is understandable, but an observer on the armoured cruiser squadron might state things differently.

Regards,
NCC1717
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by Byron Angel »

NCC1717 wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:21 pm
This quoted Anthony Preston as a source, and which explains why we cannot see many turrets on her main deck. Does Perkins record this?
Perkins shows this change (page 49), but only on the drawing for 1917-1920. The drawing for 1914-1917 does not. Neither drawing shows the two searchlight platforms on the mainmast as in the photo.

The 3LCS was passing in front of the battle fleet to get to their station ahead, and crossed the path of the 1CS. Presumably both squadrons were making their best speed, with the light cruisers a couple of knots faster. That an observer on the 3LCS would say:
... the 1st Cruiser Squadron (Defence, etc) broke through the center of our squadron as we made to the eastward.
Is understandable, but an observer on the armoured cruiser squadron might state things differently.

Regards,
NCC1717

One of Beatty’s LC squadrons passed right through the GF’s cruising formation at right angles to its heading. Everyone had important places to go, important things to do and a general sense of haste.

That’s why I find nothing particularly outre in Arbuthnot’s management of his squadron.

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

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by wadinga »

Hi NCC1717,

Does Perkins show the extension aft of the top on the mainmast and forward for that on the forward mast, which DofE definitely has in photos?

3LCS as screen was conforming with the movements of Lion as part of the BCF. The entire Grand Fleet and the BCF were moving NE but the 1CS was moving S. One might ask were they "the only ones in step"?

Whatever perceived threat there might be from Wiesbaden risking a collision between one or more 14,000 ton cruisers with friendly vessels including VABCF makes little or no sense as there may be far more damage than a torpedo might do.

Not withstanding the circumstances of battle the anti collision regulation at sea is as follows.

Rule 15
Crossing situation
When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit,avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel

In the photo what I believe is Duke of Edinburgh has Birkenhead on her starboard bow.

Hi Byron, I can see Southampton's track cutting across the GF cruising tracks but hitting the first one according to Harper not until 18:25 when Marlborough leading turned at 18:15. They then proceed up the disengaged side. Is there a description in TFAJ of light cruisers cutting through the battle squadron?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
NCC1717
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:26 pm

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by NCC1717 »

Is there a description in TFAJ of light cruisers cutting through the battle squadron?
I don't know if it is realistic, but there is a famous painting by Charles Dixon showing just that:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ,_R.I..jpg

I have had a print of this painting since about 1970, published by USNI. IIRC, it was on the cover of Proceedings about that time.

NCC1717
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by Byron Angel »

wadinga wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:05 am Hi Byron, I can see Southampton's track cutting across the GF cruising tracks but hitting the first one according to Harper not until 18:25 when Marlborough leading turned at 18:15. They then proceed up the disengaged side. Is there a description in TFAJ of light cruisers cutting through the battle squadron?

Map 30 of the map case accompanying Corbett's Naval Operations, Volume III (The Battle of Jutland) covers the time span 6.00 - 6.15pm and is titled "Junction of the Fleets". It shows three light cruiser squadron in the immediate proximity of the GF (still in cruising formation through this 15 minute period of time).

As of 6.00 pm -
Six divisions of dreadnoughts are shown sailing SE in line abreast, led in order (from NE to SW) by KGV, Orion, Iron Duke, Benbow, Colossus, Marlborough.

4th Light Cruiser Squadron is shown in line ahead, heading NE, passing directly across the path of Orion's division about 3,000 yds ahead of the lead ship. IMO, it would easily have cleared Orion's division; it then is shown turning in succession 8 points to starboard to a parallel SE course and passing ahead of KGV's division and Orion's division.

3rd Light Cruiser Squadron is shown in line ahead on a NE course about 1,000 yds ahead and directly astride the path of Benbow's division. Within the next three minutes (est) this squadron pass across the bows of both the Iron Duke's column and the Orion's column and, by 6.15 is shown about 5,000 yds ahead of KGV's column. Based upon Map 29, it appears that this squadron at no time physically interpenetrated the GF cruising formation.

1st Light Cruiser Squadron (led by Galatea) is depicted in Map 30 in line ahead formation on course NE, crossing the path of Marlborough's flank division at right angles about 2,000 yds ahead. This map shows less than one minute's worth of course track, with the accompanying footnote appended "passing through the lines of the Battle Fleet". Map 31 (6.16 - 6.30 pm) shows no track chart for this squadron, only providing a further footnote remark "1st Light Cruiser Squadron hereabouts passing through the lines of the Battle Fleet."

2nd Light Cruiser Squadron (led by Southampton) is absent from Map 30, but appears on Map 31 approaching from the WSW and well astern of the GF, already in process of its deployment.


Trust this helps.
NCC1717
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:26 pm

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by NCC1717 »

Map 30 is available online here:
https://www.naval-history.net/WW1Book-RN3-P30.jpg
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by Byron Angel »

NCC1717 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:09 pm Map 30 is available online here:
https://www.naval-history.net/WW1Book-RN3-P30.jpg

That's the one.

Byron
NCC1717
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:26 pm

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by NCC1717 »

Is there a description in TFAJ of light cruisers cutting through the battle squadron?
The Fighting at Jutland [1921 edition]
Pages 137 - 138
Narrative of H.M.S. Galatea [excerpts relating to passing to the port side of the battle fleet by the 1LCS]

“We went across the line at 27 knots, the squadron splitting up and getting over where best they could – a pretty piece of seamanship. Just as we were dashing across the bows of Agincourt she fired a salvo over us…
Just as we turned up on the port, the disengaged, side of the battle fleet…”

This may be the inspiration for Dixon's painting. It does not seem to agree with the reports from 1LCS in the despatches:
https://archive.org/details/battleofjut ... 4/mode/2up

NCC1717
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by wadinga »

Hi NCC1717, Byron and all,

Thanks to the first named for the link to the despatches, making for fascinating reading of the unfiltered reports from various officers.

Of the incidents regarding Arbuthnot's close calls with various ships I noted:
This [turning to port to avoid Warrior] caused Lion to cease fire and lose touch with the enemy. Chatfield
Then I observed the '' Defence ' followed by the " Warrior " alter course across the bows of the Battle Cruisers, the latter passing very close to the bows of the " Lion." Henry Blackett Captain Duke of Edinburgh
A number of Light Cruisers passing, at close range, between this ship and the enemy prevented us opening fire. J Birch Gunnery officer Duke of Edinburgh
He unaccountably fails to mention that his own ship had burst through their line.
Our light cruisers had now passed under our stern fairly close to us and projectiles of 6-in. and 4-in. guns were falling fairly well round us from the aforementioned light cruiser. Captain Molteno Warrior
He makes no mention of passing close ahead of Lion, and his unscaled sketch shows this to be well ahead of the BCF.

As noted above there might be instances of smaller, more nimble vessels having to avoid ships of the GF in order to clear the stage for the deployment into line of battle. Arbuthnot, in his zeal to attack Wiesbaden was travelling at near right angles to vessels already engaging the enemy, and in some cases disrupted their fire and caused them to lose contact.

Byron has described with excellent perception how some pieces of the Jutland puzzle must be modified to fit. I wonder how long ago the first adjustments to preserve reputations took place. Blackett says Warrior was very close to the bows of Lion, but Warrior's captain claims he was a mile ahead. In the case of Blackett himself we have a photo of how close he was to the light cruisers. I consider that in order to accommodate Beatty's refusal to accept his circling manoeuvre Harper modified the track of the BCF which erased a compensating turn back to starboard at 18:25 after avoiding collision with Warrior at 18:!5. This adjustment to the north meant Harper could rationalise the BCF's relative position later in the action. Obfuscation on top of obfuscation.

Arbuthnot is supposed to have played tennis with Lady Beatty some days before the battle, suggesting a close relationship with the Beatty family. Yet Beatty sandwiches the unvarnished account of the destruction of Defence between effusive praise for the actions of destroyers, and similar for the way Horace Hood brought the 3rd BCS into action. He obviously didn't see anything particularly heroic, praiseworthy or perhaps even justified in Arbuthnot's disruptive charge through the BCF and its screen.We British often like to characterise our most highly motivated opponents as fanatics, but we may also have our share too.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Doomed to fail

Post by Byron Angel »

Imaginative speculation is always great fun. But, at the end of the day, it is facts that are important. Arbuthnot was explicitly following his orders, as laid down in the GFBOs, to screen the battle fleet from enemy light forces and particularly to destroy or drive off any nearby opposing cruisers. The GFBO orders were clear and gave Arbuthnot no wiggle-room for interpretation or deviation. Arbuthnot's 1CS element was also by far the nearest British cruiser force to Wiesbaden and by far the best armed to deal with the threat.

Wiesbaden was well positioned at that time, in terms of both range and relative bearing, to deliver a torpedo attack upon the approaching BCF. Arbuthnot interposed his command between the BCF and Wiesbaden to close the German cruiser; Defence and Warrior almost certainly blanketed the BCF with their immense output of funnel smoke at flank speed, but said smoke almost certainly also screened Wiesbaden's view of Beatty's battle cruisers.

Arbuthnot did nothing wrong in cutting off the BCF in pursuit of his duties; he was simply conducting business in the big leagues, as was everyone else at Jutland that day. Galatea and her LC squadron weaved their way right across and through the GF's cruising formation and barely drew a footnote mention. German torpedo-boat flotillas were trained to interpenetrate their dreadnought battle-line under action conditions.

This will be my last post on the Arbuthnot affair; it is becoming a bit tedious.
Post Reply