Munitions Found on Lusitania

[bob lembke]

This thread was started by Kim about the question whether or not there were munitions on board the Lusitania when it was torpedoed. The article she linked, and the comments of several Pals, suggest that this is still a question in some people's minds.

I bought and read the Simpson book perhaps 20 years ago. I mentioned it as it seems to have conclusive evidence that there was ammo on board, unless the guy counterfeits documents and Cunard documents and puts photostats of these forgeries in his book. I mentioned this as at least we should accept that it is generally held that there was some ammunition on board; it seems like some people still do not accept that.

I cannot vouch for the rest of the book, nor can I testify on the accuracy of the supposed expert on the supposed two types of gun-cotton. I think that there are a few open questions, I will make a few comments, and hopefully sneak out of this thread.

I might mention that the American businessman diving on the wreck seems to be guided to some degree by the Simpson book, for good or bad. I also must say that there is a fair amount in the book that would annoy some nationalistic British types.

Bob

[bob lembke]

The impression I have is that there are far more reliable sources on the sinking out there.

Keith Allen has an essay on the "Lusitania" controversy on the excellent GWPDA website;

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika00.htm

Simon

Hi, Simon;

I read the Simpson book 20 years ago. I am not too interested in the WW I naval war presently. In the course of this thread I poked thru the book for say 20 minutes, and I went to the Keith Allen article and spent 15-20 minutes reading one of its chapters, the one on supposed armaments and ammunition on the Lusitania.

Based on that thin study, and without actually knowing of the truth of some of Simpson's assertions, I got a very strong impression that Keith Allen's essay not only tries to knock down the Simpson book, which might be justified, or not, but that he attacks it in deceptive ways. He seems to repeatedly state that Simpson states a certain thing, and then knocks down that assertion, when it seems that he sets up the argument by mis-stating what Simpson actually said in the first place. In only a few minutes or reading I seemed to note several places where he said that Simpson said something, when Simpson actually raised a possibility, perhaps says that it cannot be determined at this time, etc.

As far as ammunition or explosives are concerned, Allen first makes an argument that the small arms ammunition on board is really not "explosives", which is not literally true, but could be argued. Then, on the subject of the shrapnel, he makes the argument that "filled shrapnel shells" actually means the warhead, filled with shrapnel balls, but no bursting charge, no propellant case, no propellant, no primer; actually he does not make an argument, he just states it. The Bethlehem Steel manufacture's document states that the "1248 cases of 3" shrapnel shells filled, 4 shells to a case" (I find it hard to call the warhead and loose shrapnel balls rattling about a "filled shell"). My Ian Hogg's reference on artillery includes three Brit period 3" guns. The Ordnance QF 13 pdr (3.0") threw a 5.67 kg/12.5 lb shrapnel shell. The 15 pdr BLC Field Gun and the QF 15 pdr Gun Mark 1 both threw a 6.35 kg / 14.0 pound shrapnel shell. Now, the 1248 cases of four shells weighed about 82 lbs. each (No calculator at hand.) That really sounds like four 14 pound shells in a wooden case, a nicely-sized man-load. I would guess that the warhead (what is the right term, gunners?), the load of shrapnel shells, no fuze, no bursting charge, no shell casing, no propellant, and no primer, of a 14 lb. shrapnel shell would probably weigh 7-8 lbs. It just does not add up. The 82 pound case would be 4 14 lbs shells (56 lbs.) and a 26 pound case, or possibly a lighter case, and a bit of other packaging. The idea of sending the warheads bare with some shrapnel balls poured in is rediuculous, but Allen is refusing to admit that the 3" shells are 3" shells, because that would clearly be shipping explosives on a passenger ship, which would have violated all sorts of things, which he will not admit.

On the basis of 20 minutes' reading I coud put up and disect several other examples of Allen's manipulations. Simpson may or may not be largely correct, or intellectually honest, or what. I do not know. I cited him as he seems to prove that the ship carried ammunition. Allen is clearly intellectually dishonest in his attempt to knock down Simpson. Simpson makes a case that there is a good chance that Churchill staged the sinking of the Lusitania. He makes a very good case that the UK government frames the ship's captain. So we can expect many British WW I students to really dislike Simpson's book.

I urge anyone who wants to use Allen to evaluate the Simpson book to make the effort to put the essay and the actual book side by side, not just rely on the Allen essay blindly.

Bob

[ionia]

IMHO Simpson’s book is best described by a reviewer in “The American Historical Review” of more than thirty years ago. The review began:

“He (Simpson) provides a great deal of information about the LUSITANIA that is mingled with an appalling amount of misinformation. The problem is to determine which is which. Quoted material is almost invariably presented with imprecision: imagined conversations are put into the mouths of participants; details not in the cited sources are manufactured; some of the footnoted documents are unlocatable; surmise and suspicion are presented as facts; and wrong, even contradictory, conclusions are drawn from the evidence. Much of the time one wonders if the book is history or hoax."

[ionia]

Well there was certainly the idea in the British parliament that it affected prize money as see this extract from Hansard 25 July 1862 MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE (a good naval name) "In case of war the officers would, no doubt, do their duty; but their energy would be somewhat lessened by the fact that there could be no prize money, in consequence of the abandonment of our maritime rights in the Declaration of Paris."

Prize was (and is) a Droit of the Sovereign and, at the beginning of every conflict, the Sovereign would issue a Proclamation or Order in Council transferring his rights (in whole or in part) to the captors (who otherwise would have no rights at all in prize and therefore no prize money).

The Honourable Member for Honiton was incorrect in his observation about lack of prize money in a future war (as he was incorrect about one or two other things).

As far as prize was concerned, I think that the effect of the Declaration of Paris would be to reduce the number of neutral ships taken in prize because of the “neutral flag covers enemy goods” clause. However this decrease would probably not have been substantial as no doubt the British Government would have widened the list of contraband (as it did in the Great War of 1793-1815 and would do again in the Great War of 1914-1918). A blockade of the enemy’s coasts would certainly have been instituted. Of course, weapon development after 1856 made literal compliance with the blockade clause difficult by 1914.

The Declaration of Paris is at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/decparis.asp

The Declaration of London 1909 was to “flesh out” the Declaration of Paris and it is interesting to read the conflicting views within the Admiralty on its adoption. (See: “Sea Power & the Control of Trade”, Navy Records Society, Ashgate, 2005.)

[bob lembke]

As I said, I mentioned the Simpson book as it had what seems to be clear evidence of the Lusitania carrying ammunition; on pp. 108-09 are photostats of three sections of the "true manifest" of the Lusitania, on the stationary of the Cunard Steamship Company, Limited, showing, among other things, 4200 cases of cartridges shipped by Remington and 1250 cases of shrapnel and 18 cases of fuses shipped by the Bethlehelm Steel Company. As the topic of this thread was the presence or absence of ammunition, this I thought was useful and probably proved the point.

Poking thru the book, after 20 years, I find that the author made a great deal of the longitudinal bulkheads running down either side of the hull about 8-10 feet from the outer hull for most of the length of the ship, and included mechanical drawings on pp. 20 and 104 which show these. The coal for the boilers were stored between the outer hull and the parallel bulkhead, and in order to access the coal openings were cut thru the bulkheads at intervals to access the coal, hence defeating the water-tight integrity of the bulkheads. But I am not finding a true double hull described. Perhaps over the 20 years my brain converted this parallel bulkhead into a double hull, which arguably it provided.

The discussion of the probable location of the gun cotton was much more convoluted than my memory. The book says that George Booth, the brother of Alfred Booth, the Chairman of Cunard, actually bought the guncotton, and the family company, Booth and Company, which partially owned Cunard, financed the purchase. On Cunard's manifest as photocopied on page 108 is listed about 190 "cases Accouterments" listed as shipped by Booth and Company. There is a lot of other material about the activity of George Booth and Booth in Company in purchasing military equipment and supplies for the UK.

I do not have the time or the interest to sort all this out. The book, for all that I know, could be full of fabrications. I can give my opinion that if these major matters were fabricated, I would think that Allen's essay would demolish the book on those grounds, not engage in the petty sophistic tricks that I noticed; repeatedly mis-stating what Simpson said on some point, and then attempting to disprove the mis-statement that Allen had fabricated.

Bob Lembke

[MikB]

Hi, Simon;

I read the Simpson book 20 years ago.

...not just rely on the Allen essay blindly.

Bob

If the U-boat commander didn't know he was targeting Lusiitania, or even if he did but had no detailed and qualified data on her cargo, none of this matters a monkey's.

He was using a new weapon against possibly its biggest target to date, and maybe all he saw was the opportunity to cause misery to the enemy by murdering noncombatants.

It isn't the facts that matter so much as what Schwieger knew.

Regards,

MikB

[bob lembke]

IMHO Simpson’s book is best described by a reviewer in “The American Historical Review” of more than thirty years ago. The review began:

“He (Simpson) provides a great deal of information about the LUSITANIA that is mingled with an appalling amount of misinformation. The problem is to determine which is which. Quoted material is almost invariably presented with imprecision: imagined conversations are put into the mouths of participants; details not in the cited sources are manufactured; some of the footnoted documents are unlocatable; surmise and suspicion are presented as facts; and wrong, even contradictory, conclusions are drawn from the evidence. Much of the time one wonders if the book is history or hoax."

This may well be true. There seems to be a lot of very interesting material that would seem to be easily refuted if fabricated. The organization of the book is complicated and to me is a problem. Might you know the name of the author of the above assessment?

Bob

[ionia]

This may well be true. There seems to be a lot of very interesting material that would seem to be easily refuted if fabricated. The organization of the book is complicated and to me is a problem. Might you know the name of the author of the above assessment?

Bob

The reviewer was Thomas A. Bailey, Professor of History at Stanford University, and the review was published in The American Historical Review, Vol. 79, No. 1 (Feb., 1974), pp. 114-115 .

[bob lembke]

The reviewer was Thomas A. Bailey, Professor of History at Stanford University, and the review was published in The American Historical Review, Vol. 79, No. 1 (Feb., 1974), pp. 114-115 .

Thanks, Ionia;

Don't know of the gentleman, but Stanford is one of our very best universities. They have a Hoover Institute, which has many important documents of the WW I era in their archive; this organization is very conservative.

Just wanted to make sure that the author was not one of the expansive Churchill clan. Some years ago US TV had a docu-drama on Mussolini, and as I watched I was quite surprised at the depiction, Mussolini was a very kind, misunderstood man, evil underlings were doing bad things behind his back, he had so much love for people that he just had to have a mistress as well as a wife to absorb his great love, etc., etc. Really was scratching my head, and when it the series was over (say 4 hours) and I watched the credits the American producers had hired Mussolini's son as the screen-writer! His family, including the actress Gina Loligibrinia (or some other well-endowed Italian actress of recent memory), are still quite active in Italian politics. I think that his grand-daughter was recently mayor of Rome.

Bob

[manchester terrier]

came across this about the blockade

The British Blockade, A J Balfour, 1915

cheers

baz

[manchester terrier]

How about this then?

The law of blockade by A M Low (1916)

[HMS Zinnia]

The coal for the boilers were stored between the outer hull and the parallel bulkhead

true ...

in order to access the coal openings were cut thru the bulkheads at intervals to access the coal, hence defeating the water-tight integrity of the bulkheads.

untrue !

as I mentioned above , those coal bunkers could be isolated from the boiler rooms by watertight doors . I'm pretty sure that the explosion of the torpedo did some WT doors go south , and indeed , the sea water rushed into the first boiler room .

At sea , even in critical zones , those doors remained open , to allow the supply of coal to the boilers . It was just in case of main problem ( flooding , fire ) that those doors were shut .

Each boiler room was isolated from the other by watertight bulkheads , so were the coal bunkers . If one of those bunkers was flooded , no other could be flooded , there was no connection between them

"Lucy" had ammunitions on board , this has been prooved meanwhile , this is true ...

Regards ,

laurent

[bob lembke]

Hi, laurent;

I agree with everything you say. By openings cut thru, I meant the openings necessary to gain access to the coal. I agree that no-one seems to be saying that there were openings cut thru the the traverse bulkheads from blister to blister, as I think that you termed them. What Simpson said about this, which makes sense (depending on design details), is that in practice the coal that would be at the bottom of this coal access door would prevent the "waterproof" door of the opening from closing fully and sealing so that when dropped the door would still leak water into the boiler rooms. If this is actually true would depend on design and also on crew discipline in cleaning away all of the coal lying across the threshhold defore dropping the hopefully waterproof door. I would think if a torpedo hit the hull at a given outer hull point opposite a boiler room, which by the diagrams seem to be 8-10 feet from the longitudinal bulkhead, there certainly could be damage to the longitudinal bulkhead, the open waterproof door, perhaps the stoker crew, lighting, etc., plus blast effect and water rushing in, and the probability of crew reaching the door, cleaning the threshhold, and successfully dropping the door in a waterproof state before fleeing the boiler room probably would be low. Additionally, Simpson pointed out that if the coal level in the compartment was not low the coal in the bunker would exert pressure against the door/door path and probably foil the proper closing of the door. All in all, not a great system, which the author stated that almost everyone agreed with.

As to armements, Simpson did detail the installation of the mounting rings for the 6" guns, but I don't know if he stated or even believed that the guns were either on the ship or if they or some of the full compliment of 12 were, he may have just stated that it was possible. (I did not re-read the whole book after seeing this thread, but by now have spent about an hour poking thru it, examining the index, etc.) I think that Mr. Allen stated that the idea of installing guns was absurd, it certainly was not, a number of German armed liners or commerce raiders were armed with 5.9" gun batteries, sometimes about 8 on a ship. There was the famous battle between two armed liners, each of which was disguised as the other, in which the German armed liner was sunk. The book also stated that the Royal Navy dived for decades on the wreck, easily cutting off lots of stuff that they did not want future divers to see. Again, not broadly defending the book, just pointing out that Allen attacked it by mis-representing what Simpson actually said and then arguing that his mis-statement was not resonable or false. I saw about four examples of this in only reading a fraction of the essay.

Simpson not only said that Churchill probably was behind a conspiracy to have the ship sunk to whip up hatred of the Germans and hopefully bring the US into the fray, but also hinted, with much less evidence, that the King was in on it. A lot of stuff in it to make the blood of a patriotic Brit boil. Due to this one should carefully examine attacks on the book, although they may well be true. We all tend to accept something that agrees with the various leanings and beliefs that we all have, and reject that that offends our various beliefs.

Bob

[HMS Zinnia]

Hi Bob ,

those WT doors were hydraulically powered , so I don't think a few bricks of coal would prevent the closing of that door . But again , the explosion might have distorded that door ( and other ones )

Anyway , Lusitania was build under Admiralty rules , this had to be done because Cunard had no financial means to build the two sisters , the Admiralty paid for the construction , Cunard paid back on a 20 years plan , those Admiralty rules meant that all the machineries had to be under the water level , this is why she had that peculiar bulge above the rudder ( making of this one of the most beautiful "butt" ever seen on a ship , just my opinion ) , but she was still a liner , manned by a civilian crew , and thus having no special protection against torpedoes nor against guns .

I guess that in 1906 , the British politicians were so innocent to believe that liners travelling the Atlantic Ocean would be protected by any international law .

in 1915 , the rules applied by the Germans were different . I've read somewhere that Schwieger , the U-Boat captain , didn't really know what he was aiming at , he only saw a big ship with the four stacks . The german merchant officer on board that sub , recognized the ship ...

I think both countries were in fault , the german U-Boat captain , because he torpedoed a ship protected by the conventions , the British Admiralty by not protecting the traffic around that area , certainly when such liner was in the vicinity . the Lusitania captain didn't apply the zig-zag procedure either , facilitating the U-Boat attack ...

I never have believed that Churchill was involved in Lucy's loss , if that had to be known , he would have been hanged politically , or even physically ...

Regards ,

Laurent

[egbert]

Here is an informative site of the Lusitania foundation with supplementary informations about the known cargo (other than the undisputed rifle ammo); I fear the truth of the real cargo may only be revealed when the still secret classified and true cargo manifest will be disclosed. This has not happened until today. I am wondering why the officials even today do not disclose this piece of information for the peace of mind of so many people discussing the cargo load.

[simonharley]

On the home page of the above mentioned website is this little notice:

"All information on this web site comes from the painstaking research we have done for our books at various Public Records Offices, the Cunard Archives, the National Maritime Museum, Imperial War Museum, Merseyside Maritime Museum,

and multitude of books, papers and various other sources.

There is nothing contained on this web site that has not been verified by sight of documentary evidence."

It's interesting that on amazon.com there are two scathing reviews out of three listed on the book produced by the authors of the website, "The Lusitania Story". I have been searching for a proper review in a peer-reviewed journal but have thus far failed.

Simon

[egbert]

Simon, thats exactly what I mean: all speculations could have an end if the authorities would disclose the true manifest to the public. Why are they not doing that?

[egbert]

Also I do not understand why the authorities are not willing to shed light in the 90 tons mystery. It would be so easy to explain the reason of the QUOTE "two consignments of unrefrigerated "butter" and "cheese" that together weighed nearly 90 tons and were both destined for the Royal Navy Weapons Testing Establishment in Essex.

Quite what such an establishment wanted with such a large quantity of rancid dairy products remains a mystery to this day!

Curiously though, both those items were insured at the special government insurance rate and even more curious is the fact that the insurance was never claimed. END OF QUOTE"

I have no answer and am still puzzled about the secrecy of the authorities. So for my part I can only consult wikipedia.org or other non governmental websites. Hope the divers find the answers in the next years....

[bob lembke]

in 1915 , the rules applied by the Germans were different . I've read somewhere that Schwieger , the U-Boat captain , didn't really know what he was aiming at , he only saw a big ship with the four stacks . The german merchant officer on board that sub , recognized the ship ...

I think both countries were in fault --------

Laurent

Simpson states that the civilian pilot captain on board the U-20 identified the approaching ship as either the Lusitania or its sister ship the Mauritania, and added: "both armed cruisers used for trooping." Simpson added that: "At that very moment the Mauretania was 150 miles away at Avonmouth loading troops for the Dardanelles." Unfortunately he does not give sources for these important points. As such, the Mauretania would have been a legitimate target. While not a violation of the rules of war, operating one ship as an armed (I am sure) troop transport, and its sister ship as a passenger vessel, in the same waters, surely put the passenger ship at considerable risk. The U-20 had just stopped a steamer, and the boarding party found a deck gun and two sandbagged MG posts with several MGs.

Bob

[centurion]

Bob you keep referring to Simpson as if he were an infallible source which he clearly isn't

[ionia]

It's interesting that on amazon.com there are two scathing reviews out of three listed on the book produced by the authors of the website, "The Lusitania Story". I have been searching for a proper review in a peer-reviewed journal but have thus far failed.

Simon

There is a review in The Northern Mariner / Le Marin du Nord, Volume XIII – 2003 No. 2 p. 89 if you can access this journal. I have not seen it.

[bob lembke]

Bob you keep referring to Simpson as if he were an infallible source which he clearly isn't

Centurion, I find this comment quite remarkable. I have repeatedly stated that I do not know of the veracity of many of Simpson's assertions. Please look at post # 57, when it was suggested that the book might even be a hoax, I said: "That might well be true." I cited the book as some people still seem to assert that there were no ammunition on board, and it has photocopies of the actual manifests of the cargo on Cunard stationary showing the inclusion of over a hundred tons of small arms ammo, 5000 artillery shells, which my calculations show to have almost certainly been filled with explosives, besides shrapnel balls, fuses, and material shipped by Cunard itself that might have been bulk explosives. This addressed the original point of the thread.

I now have read the book a total of about an hour and a half, after reading the whole book 20 years ago, and I can see why the book sets the blood to boil; for example, suggesting that Churchill, the British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey, the King, and possibly Admiral Fisher were involved in a conspiracy to sink the Lusitania by ordering it to sail to the location of a known U-boat location (the U-20 had just sank two other ships there), ordering it to not zig-zag, and withholding an escort. There is a lot more in the book, and I have no idea if it is true, but the stuff is generally sourced and the existance of the sources could be proven or disproved. Perhaps it has been done, but not by Allen, by what I have read.

I might add that no-one attacking Simpson has actually stated that they have read the book.

This discussion has far exceeded both my knowledge of the sea war and my interest. I mentioned it to lead people to the photographs of the manifests showing the shipments of ammunition on Cunard stationary.

Bob Lembke

[centurion]

Centurion, I find this comment quite remarkable. I have repeatedly stated that I do not know of the veracity of many of Simpson's assertions. Please look at post # 57, when it was suggested that the book might even be a hoax, I said: "That might well be true."

Exactly my point.

[ian turner]

I think I have posted this image before, but seems a relevant time to repost it.

The sum mentioned in figures, when read backwards reads: "popovoll" (a**e full) meaning in the sense of having had a good kicking in the backside....

[ph0ebus]

Hi all,

I think that the shipping of munitions and contraband on passenger ships probably has to have been the worst kept secret in history. One only has to read the newspapers of the day to find out which liners were carrying what illicit cargo and where they were headed. Hell, the passenger ship I have been researching, albeit tagged as a DAMS, was packed to the gills with munitions and contraband of various stripes when she was sent to the bottom by a u-boat, but of course, the focus then was on the women and children who died, and not those whose arms shipments (in violation of the law) put them in harms way.

At this point, does it even matter what the government says now about the Lusitania? I mean, the answer is right there on the ocean's bottom.

take care,

-Daniel