Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Reservists on Good Hope and Monmouth at Coronel


Bart150

Recommended Posts

The National Archives site tells me that for Seamen and communications ratings prefix-less service numbers in the range 178001-240500 were issued 1894-1907 .

If I look up individual men who were at Coronel I get information such as:

The man with service number 200182 had that number allocated in 1898

The man with service number 216687 had that number allocated in 1901

The man with service number 229079 had that number allocated in 1903

The man with service number 233052 had that number allocated in 1904

The man with service number 239636 had that number allocated in 1907

And so on.

I presume that these men signed on for 12 years. Therefore, 229079, 233052 and 239636 must have been at Coronel as regulars, not reservists (unless any of them had some very unusual career pattern).

I'm not interested in specific men as such. I want to generalise about groups of men. From the above it seems safe to say that pretty much all the seamen with a number higher than 229079 who were at Coronel must have been there as regulars, not reservists (not literally all perhaps, because a few might have had some very unusual career pattern).

Anything wrong with that?

Bart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some, like Bashford, might have bought themselves out and been obliged to join the RFR. However, if they don't have the secondary number beginning RFR, we can be reasonably sure they didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reasonable 'broad-brush' assumption for the post-229709 cohort. However, many (most?) of the earlier men could have completed 12 years service and signed on again for another nine years to pension. It is impossible to generalise for these men.

Incidentally, a man could not be "obliged to join the RFR" when discharged by purchase. Except for Special Service men, RFR service after discharge was voluntary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[duplicate posted in error]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the record of Alfred Bashford it states "D[ischarge] by purchase approved subject to joining RFR". Maybe it's semantics, but that appears to me to be an obligation to serve in RFR. Happy to accept there was no general obligation to reserve service except for Special Service men, but it seems that in the case of this individual discharge was made contingent on his agreeing to RFR service. As stated up thread he had at the time of his discharge served just under 5 years of his 12 year engagement, plus just over 2 years of boy service

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horatio

There were a lot of Royal Marines at Coronel. Am I right in assuming that Marines who joined in the years before 1914 normally had a 12-year engagement?

Bart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting comparison between the two cruisers is that MONMOUTH had much larger numbers of Coast Guard ratings (30+) and of Boys (50+) than did GOOD HOPE. It would appear that, in lieu of large numbers of RFR reservists, MONMOUTH was manned by drawing on boys' training establishments and 'old hand' Coast Guard men. The latter, although serving under Admiralty orders (the Coast Guard was controlled by the Admiral Commanding Reserves), were very much regarded as 'reserves' for the RN and, in the case of MONMOUTH, were used as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I’ve got as far as I need on the questions posed in the opening message of this thread.

To recap, I (and, I think, anybody else who has read the available literature on Coronel) have always had the impression that the overwhelming majority of the men who died on Good Hope and Monmouth were reservists hurriedly called back from their peacetime occupations in July 1914. (Bennett’s book, for example, says that more than 90% of Good Hope’s crew were reservists.) But analysis of the casualty lists shows that only 45% of the Good Hope men and 6% of the Monmouth men are recorded as being reservists. Since that seems very surprising, the question arises: Is there perhaps some systematic defect in the casualty lists such that a substantial number of men who are recorded as regulars were in fact reservists?

The total number of casualties in the list is 1663. The number explicitly recorded as reservists is 458. So the question is: Can it be that a substantial proportion – and that means 200 or more - of the remaining 1205 were actually reservists?

In some cases it is possible to know from the man’s service number that he must have been serving as a regular at Coronel, not a reservist. For example, service numbers with the prefix J were first allocated in 1908 to men who signed on for 12 years. Therefore a man with the J-prefix who was at Coronel in 1914 must have been there as a regular, not a reservist. (Unusual career patterns excepted of course. A man could conceivably join the Navy in 1910; decide in 1912 that he didn’t like it and buy himself out; nevertheless for some reason stay registered as a reservist; be called up for the Good Hope in 1914. But, since we are only interested in the big question of whether or not there are hundreds of errors in the casualty list we can ignore the complications of rare possibilities of that sort.)

In other cases the analysis of the service numbers has to be slightly more subtle. For example, if a man has a 6-digit number without prefix then, if it is higher than a certain value, it must have been allocated in 1903 or later and by the same logic as above the man must be a regular. If it is lower than that value there are two possibilities which we can’t decide between: either he is a regular who completed 12 years service and signed on for a further period (in which case the casualty list is correct) or else he completed 12 years service, left the Navy and became a reservist (in which case the casualty list is defective).

So we can place each of the 1205 cases into one of three groups:

Group 1 – service number can be analysed as above, and the conclusion is that the man was a regular

Group 2 – service number can be analysed as above, and there is no conclusion: the man could be a long-serving regular or could be a reservist

Group 3 – service number cannot be analysed because none is given (this applies, to all the officers)

After allocating the 1205 cases to these three groups I get the following counts: Group 1: 681; Group 2: 401; Group 3: 123.

This means that if it is true that at least 200 or more out of the 1205 cases are errors (ie reservists recorded as regulars) then they must all be among the 524 cases in Group 2 and Group 3. This strikes me as not credible. (I could confirm - or maybe refute – this judgement by studying a sample of the career records of these men in the National Archives, but there is a charge for doing this online; so, just for completeness, I’ll do that next time I go to Kew, where access is free.)

Therefore I dismiss the possibility that the casualty list contains a substantial number of errors. I think it can be trusted.

Therefore I conclude that Bennett’s statement that more than 90% of the crew of Good Hope were reservists is false. The proportion was probably something like 50%.

It is also not the case, as I and probably others had assumed, that the makeup of Monmouth’s crew was similar to Good Hope’s. Probably fewer than 10% of the Monmouth men were reservists.

That deals with the opening questions as far as I’m concerned. From the above findings further questions now arise. But first I’ll wait to see if there are any comments.

BTW To keep this message reasonably svelte I’ve left out the detail of my analysis. Since this forum is not a good place to format complicated tables of data, anyone who wants to know more had better pm me.

Bart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would the surgeon on the Monmouth have been a regular RN, or also a reservist recalled to the colours?

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monmouth's Surgeon, Albert J. Tonkinson, was still on the Active List and on the eve of war had been borne on the books of "Victory" as additional for some reason.

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victory may have been administrative for RNH Haslar, but I'm not certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wasn't listed on the staff of Haslar so I'm assuming he was borne for another job. I can have a look in his service record when I'm at Kew next week.

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Name of H.Woods is listed on the Liverpool University War Memorial, and in the Roll of Honour as M.B., Ch.B., 1904, Surgeon, HMS Monmouth.

Did the Monmouth carry two surgeons?

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, Woods was a Staff Surgeon on the staff of the Royal Naval Barracks, Plymouth, on the eve of war, before being appointed to "Monmouth" along with Tonkinson.

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how did he end up on the Monmouth?

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pretty fair summary, Bart. I would be most interested to see the results of your review of the service records in due course.

Thanks for giving us the benefit of your knowledge, Horatio. Much appreciated.

Since I don't live in the UK, it will be a year or so before I get to Kew.

Bart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now a whole host of (IMO) fascinating questions arise. Here are those I have. I’d be glad of any insights into any of them.

1 The First, Second and Third Fleet were categories within the Home Fleet only; they didn’t apply to other ships outside the Home Fleet. Thus when Monmouth was on the China station in 1913 she was not in any of those three ‘Fleets’. When she came back to the UK she might then have been placed in any of the ‘Fleet’ categories. In fact she became Third Fleet and remained so until the emergency of July 1914. All the above is correct, is it not?

2 The model implied by the Admiralty document from Simon was that in peace a Third-Fleet ship had only a tiny crew for care and maintenance, but in an emergency, if the ship was required for service, her crew would be filled up mainly by reservists. But we know that Monmouth was Third Fleet and yet in July 1914 she received a crew of men that were nearly all regulars, not reservists. How come? I see several possibilities:

Maybe the model I just set out didn’t correspond to the Admiralty’s intentions at all. If so, what did they really intend and how has the misunderstanding arisen?

Or maybe that model did correspond to the Admiralty’s intentions, but the Admiralty changed its mind completely at the last minute, and in July 1914 staffed Monmouth and quite a few other Third-Fleet ships mainly with regulars, not reservists. If so, why the huge change of policy?

Or maybe Monmouth was a complete or almost complete exception, and all or almost all the other Third-Fleet ships were indeed treated according to the model. If so, why was Monmouth special?

Or maybe there is some other explanation?

3 Does a document exist showing which ships were in which of the three Fleet categories just before July 1914?

4 Simon says that Good Hope was Second Fleet but placed in the Third Fleet for administrative purposes. Rather than puzzling out what exactly that might mean I just want to put forward the following understanding of what happened:

On 1 July 1914, before there was any emergency, Good Hope had a partial crew typical of a Second-Fleet ship, ie more than just for care and maintenance like a Third-Fleet but not a full crew like a First-Fleet ship; she had perhaps 50% of a full crew or somewhat less.

In late July Good Hope was given a full crew consisting of (very roughly) most of the men already there on 1 July plus a body of newly arrived reservists amounting to about half the crew.

Is the above true?

5 According to Bennett (on Jutland, p26) on 15 July 1914 there was a review at Spithead that included ships from the Second and Third Fleets, with reservists in their crews. On 23 July all the reservists were discharged to their homes. But on 26 July, the process started of calling men back all over again to prepare for war. So these questions arise:

5a Is there a list anywhere of all the ships that were at the review?

5b Were Monmouth and Good Hope at the review?

5c Was the set of Second and Third Fleet ships at the review pretty much the same as the set of Second and Third Fleet ships commissioned for war at the end of month, or where there perhaps many ships at the review that were not commissioned for war or many commissioned for war that had not been at the review?

5d In general, did ships of the Second and Third Fleets have full crews at the review or did they have significantly fewer men at the review than they would shortly take to war the following month?

5e When the reservists all came back again at the end of July did they, in general, return to the same ships they had left about a week before, so that they met up again with comrades they already knew? Or was there a whole new manpower planning process, so that (in general terms) many reservists came back to different ships?

5f Whatever the answers to the above, did Monmouth and Good Hope follow the general pattern or was there anything exceptional about how they were treated?

That’s all for now. Any insights at all into any of the above questions are very welcome.

Bart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bashford's record (as I described up thread in more detail) shows him going straight to Good Hope on 13 July (so a couple if days before the Review), and remaining there until 25 July when he goes on to Victory I's books - which corresponds to when you say men were sent home. He's then brought back to Good Hope at the start of August.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only one (partial) answer. I read in one of the "Coronel" books (which?) that MONMOUTH was put up for disposal and breaking when she returned from abroad. At mobilisation she apparently had to be "prised off the dockyard wall" and there was a pretty desperate struggle to get her anything like operational and fully mannned.

As to whether (if at all) ships received the regulars or reservists that "The Fleet Plan" required, I think it likely that pragmatism ruled on the day. Perhaps MONMOUTH required more regulars because she was in such a bad state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, David. Nice to get that corroboration (assuming we can confirm that Good Hope was in the review).

Suggests another question to me:

5g Bennett says that after the review on 23 July all the reservists were discharged to their homes. But perhaps the truth is that after the review on 23 July all the reservists were discharged from their ships but not to their homes; some went home but many like Bashford were kept on at Victory, Vivid or Pembroke just in case there was a need to man Second or Third Fleet ships again in a hurry (as indeed it turned out there was). Is that what happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the sequence of events in July 1914 went thus:-

15 July - Test mobilisation of the Third Fleet; 18 July - Fleet Review of First, Second and Third Fleets at Spithead; 19 July - combined Fleets sails for exercises which end in a Fleet visit to Portland; 23 July - Third Fleet ordered to sail to home ports and demobilise (reservists to home and regulars to their training establishments/instructional schools); 27 July - First Sea Lord cancels demobilisation before most ships had dispersed their crews to home/barracks; 28 July - Navy placed at notice for war operations by First Lord of the Admiralty (Churchill). First Fleet sails to war stations.

It is very likely, therefore, that GOOD HOPE and MONMOUTH, if their augmentation crews were mobilised around 15 July, may not have been able to disperse all those men before the demob order was cancelled. However, David's Post #46 would seem to indicate that at least some of GOOD HOPE's RFR crew did get away (or more correctly were transferred to the books of VICTORY for a few days - and this does not tell us where the man actually was).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Horatio, I found the ‘hauled off the dockyard wall’ quote. I may as well make a note of all the relevant quotes I found in four books.

Bennett (p17): . . Good Hope (had) a crew including more than 90 per cent reservists

Bennett (p18): ‘(Monmouth) was practically condemned as unfit for further service’ wrote one of the Carnarvon’s midshipmen ‘but was hauled off the dockyard wall and commissioned with a scratch crew

Bennett (p75): (Monmouth sailed) a little later because she happened to be refitting after a commission on the China Station

Pitt (p5): Monmouth with her crew of Scottish fishermen and coastguards, her twelve young naval cadets fresh from Dartmouth, and her outdated engines kept going only by superhuman efforts on the part of Engineer-Commander Wilshin and his staff

Pitt (p8): The vast majority (of the crews of Good Hope and Monmouth) had been happily pursuing civilian vocations less than six months before

Hough (p91): the Good Hope, only recently commissioned and with a raw crew that included a number of reservists, cadets, midshipmen and boys as young as fifteen.. Monmouth also with a raw crew

Hirst (p15): (Monmouth) had been practically condemned as unfit for further service but was hauled off the dockyard wall, commissioned with a scratch crew of coastguardsmen and boys.

It is now clear that what these quotes suggest about the reservist crews is not accurate. Even so, I’m inclined to accept that Monmouth needed a lot of attention, even though some of the comments are probably exaggerated.

By the way, there is a memorial to Engineer-Commander Wilshin in the parish church at Devizes.

I like your notion that since Monmouth was in poor shape in mid-July (and therefore presumably not in the review), she was given a crew of regulars, better able than reservists to get her ready as quickly as possible and to cope with technical problems when at sea. For a Devonport ship an obvious source of suitable men would be those doing courses at HMS Indus. There they must have found my uncle, a Chatham man, ERA 4th c, who before joining the Navy had served a boilermaker's apprenticeship at Haulbowline dockyard.

Bart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...