SMS Dresden- hiding in Chilean fjords 1915

[michaeldr]

If you have not seen this before then it will be of interest - https://youtu.be/bcBfjsiYzYE
Its 24 minutes long, but as well as the Dresden it also spends time on Alexander Selkirk (Robinson Crusoe) and on Admiral Wilhelm Franz Canaris. 
However, there is also some good filming of the wreck, the discovery of the ship's bell and also a look at British navy's “overs” which can still be seen, lodged in the island's cliffs 

[corisande]

Thanks for that. Fascinating for me to see.

I wish I had known about the "overs" in the cliff when I was there. Would have been interesting to see

I need to go through this thread in detail to see where exactly the Dresden was hiding in the Chilean Fjords, as we went through a lot of that remote area

 

[michaeldr]

From  APPENDIX  A.  Telegrams dealing with the Atlantic Squadrons. 
[https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Naval-Staff-Monographs-Vol.IX_opt.pdf

note - there are many other details in this volume]

quote:
15.3.15.
A 243.      I.O., Monte Video, to Adty.                                                                      Recd. 4.52 p.m.

58 Following received from Captain of Glasgow. Begins: Glasgow, Orama and Kent found Dresden at anchor in Cumberland Bay, Juan Fernandez Island, at 9 a.m., on 14th March. After engagement lasting five minutes Dresden hoisted white flag and hauled down her colours. She was much damaged and her crew were leaving her. An officer was sent from Dresden to negotiate, but was told that unconditional surrender only could be accepted. Dresden’s crew set her on fire and after an explosion she sank at 11.37 a.m., local time. Crew are all on shore, with exception of 15 engineer officers,¹ badly wounded, who have been temporarily sheltered in Orama for treatment. Dresden’s captain claimed had already interned, but there was nothing to show this when we approached. Have sent all available medical assistance. No British casualties or damage. Orama proceeding to-night to Valparaiso to land German wounded. Glasgow proceeding to-morrow to Vallenar to coal and afterwards to east coast, calling at Punta Arenas. Kent remains in vicinity of Juan Fernandez to watch for German auxiliary. Dresden lay apart 20 and drowned.² 14th March. 

Footnotes:-
1 - The words “engineer officers” were not signalled by Glasgow. See her W/T Log 46989. 
2 - This sentence should have read “Twenty German killed and wounded.” Glasgow W/T Log 46989. A correct version of this same telegram was received from Valparaiso, 16.3.15, at 8.30 p.m 

end of quote

Edited 19 April , 2023 by michaeldr

[corisande]

Thanks for the further information

The Utube clip was also interesting in that it gave a non British perspective in the commentary

1. Emphasized that Dresden was fired on while in a neutral port

2. Demonstrated, via the trajectory of the British shells embedded in the cliffs, that the British ships had actually entered Chilean waters and fired at point blank range.  I had known that Canaris had been sent in a cutter to negotiate a German surrender with the British. but (obvious when you think about it) this shows that he did not have to row very far to get aboard a British warship, as it was right by him in the bay

[michaeldr]

13 minutes ago, corisande said:

Demonstrated, via the trajectory of the British shells embedded in the cliffs, that the British ships had actually entered Chilean waters and fired at point blank range.

Yes, very interesting indeed - implying that the RN entered 'neutral' Chilean waters to carry-out this action. Unsurprisingly, no mention of this in the Captain's (of the Glasgow) telegram, or in the monograph etc

 

[The Treasurer]

1 hour ago, corisande said:

Thanks for that. Fascinating for me to see.

I wish I had known about the "overs" in the cliff when I was there. Would have been interesting to see

I need to go through this thread in detail to see where exactly the Dresden was hiding in the Chilean Fjords, as we went through a lot of that remote area

 

You might find this sketch of the action from the German official history useful. Distances all in hectometres (100m). There were plenty of legal arguments over Chilean neutrality violations by both Dresden and her British pursuers to keep the diplomats busy:

 

[michaeldr]

If you have the necessary access, then there is something on this aspect in the NYT of April 16, 1915

https://www.nytimes.com/1915/04/16/archives/apology-to-chile-for-dresden-affair-britain-grants-justice-of.html

…...........................

There are further details in The American Journal of International Law of April 1916 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2212284 - ie the correspondence between the Chilean Legation and the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey

Grey's response of 30 March 1915 begins

“His Majesty's Government, after receiving the communication from the Chilean Government of 26^th March, deeply regret that any misunderstanding should have arisen which should be a cause of complaint to the Chilean Government; and, on the facts as stated in the communication made to them, they are prepared to offer a full and ample apology to the Chilean Government.”

Grey then goes on to offer an alternative (British) reading of the possible situation. He concludes however,

“His Majesty's Government do not wish to qualify the apology that they now present to the Chilean Government.”

.........................................................................................

I now find that the exchange of notes can be read here 

 

Edited 19 April , 2023 by michaeldr

[corisande]

9 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

You might find this sketch of the action from the German official history useful. Distances all in hectometres (100m). There were plenty of legal arguments over Chilean neutrality violations by both Dresden and her British pursuers to keep the diplomats busy:

Thanks

The Utube clip does in fact include the German chart and their computer generated chart

The clip presenters then pose the question as to why the charts are different, and do not actually answer that (apart from saying the British were after revenge, which is not an answer to the chart differences)

Leaves me baffled as I would have thought the Germans would have been keen to expose British breaking into Chilean territorial waters.

But on the other hand Canaris was unlikely to have gone 3 miles out to sea in an open boat in the midst of a battle to negotiate.It would make more sense for him to have as it were just "rowed across Cumberland Bay, in order to get onto the British warship

[The Treasurer]

43 minutes ago, corisande said:

Thanks

The Utube clip does in fact include the German chart and their computer generated chart

The clip presenters then pose the question as to why the charts are different, and do not actually answer that (apart from saying the British were after revenge, which is not an answer to the chart differences)

Leaves me baffled as I would have thought the Germans would have been keen to expose British breaking into Chilean territorial waters.

But on the other hand Canaris was unlikely to have gone 3 miles out to sea in an open boat in the midst of a battle to negotiate.It would make more sense for him to have as it were just "rowed across Cumberland Bay, in order to get onto the British warship

There was never any question as to whether Dresden was in Chilean waters. The legal debate about engaging her is muddied by the fact that the ship should have been interned and evidently wasn't, having outstayed the 24 hours allowed. Luce had been told by the Admiralty to seek destruction rather than internment, so didn't hesitate to engage. Both sides were in muddy legal waters (if you'll forgive the pun) and paraded the legal arguments that suited them. So far as I can see the computer chart above is also consistent with the chart from the Official History. Worth adding that the British ships were entitled to enter Chilean waters, just as the Germans were. The breach here was that Dresden had outstayed the 24 hours stay permitted. The British fault was that they were not permitted to fire at an enemy vessel located in territorial waters, etc, etc....

Edited 19 April , 2023 by The Treasurer

[corisande]

29 minutes ago, michaeldr said:

“His Majesty's Government, after receiving the communication from the Chilean Government of 26^th March, deeply regret that any misunderstanding should have arisen which should be a cause of complaint to the Chilean Government; and, on the facts as stated in the communication made to them, they are prepared to offer a full and ample apology to the Chilean Government.”

Well he did apologise then

[The Treasurer]

This thread got my interest! So a bit more detail on the sequence of events, here is the log of Glasgow, available on-line. Glasgow clearly closed Dresden after she ceased fire, prior to Canaris coming on board:

8.41am:  Sighted “Dresden” in Cumberland Bay

8.46am:  Course as requisite for taking up position to fire on “Dresden” without damage to the shore.

    “Dresden” hoisted German colors

9.10am:  Opened fire

9.11am:  Ceased fire. “Dresden” opened fire

9.12am:  Opened fire for 2nd time

9.14am:  “Dresden” hoisted white flag & hauled down colours. Ceased fire

    Proceeded to close “Dresden”

9.38am:  Stopped. German officer came onboard to interview captain

10.30am:  “Dresden” blew up fore magazine

11.37am:  “Dresden” sank

11.37am:  Anchored. Landed doctors from ships present to assist German wounded

 

and here is the log from Kent. Note the chronometers are not aligned!

 

9.30am: Sighted German Light Cruiser Dresden anchored in Cumberland Bay, distant 5 miles.

  9.50am: Dresden 5,000 yards.

  9.51am: Glasgow opened fire.

  9.52am: Kent opened fire.

  9.54am: Cease firing. Dresden hoisted white flag and hauled down German ensign. Kent fired 29 rounds.

11.00am: Explosion on board SMS Dresden, Dresden sinking. Fore magazine blown up by Dresden’s crew. All Dresden’s crew seen ashore and a party returning to blow up the ship after having landed.

12.15pm: Dresden sank approx position N62E, 4½ cables from Lighthouse.

  1.15pm: Came to port anchor in 53 fathoms, veered to 9 shackles. Of the Dresden’s crew: 37 killed or missing, 14 seriously wounded, 30 wounded, not serious. The 14 serious cases taken on board Orama. Remainder landed on Island.

[corisande]

23 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

and here is the log from Kent. Note the chronometers are not aligned!

Interesting

Is this difference of timings "normal" in RN. Could there be an explanation?

[michaeldr]

 

 

Following on from the Treasurer's post above:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-42828/ADM 53-42828-169_1.jpg
8.46am: Course as requisite for taking up position to fire on “Dresden” without damage to the shore.
“Dresden” hoisted German colors
9.10am: Opened fire
9.11am: Ceased fire. “Dresden” opened fire
9.12am: Opened fire for 2nd time
9.14am: “Dresden” hoisted white flag & hauled down colours. Ceased fire
Proceeded to close “Dresden”

In view of the above, then presumably (?) the British overs seen embedded in the cliff in the video, were from the fire of HMS Kent 
http://oldweather.s3.amazonaws.com/ADM_53-45610/ADM 53-45610-091_0.jpg
which fired 29 rounds in this very brief action

 

 

[corisande]

6 minutes ago, michaeldr said:

In view of the above, then presumably (?) the British overs seen embedded in the cliff in the video, were from the fire of HMS Ken

That seems to be the conclusion one would draw from the German map.

But I am unsure why "the computer" concluded that the British ships were in the bay when they fired at the Dresden,

The position of the shell holes in the cliff is not defined at all, and I cannot get a reference to them anywhere

Have the team that found the shell holes written their findings up anywhere ?

[KizmeRD]

The crew of one of KENT’s cutters fished a live pig out of the water following DRESDEN’s sinking. They brought it back onboard and named it "Tirpitz"! 
MB

PS There’s a photo in the Greenwich Maritime Museum collection showing the DRESDEN with white flag flying, and appears to have been taken fairly close by.   https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-592698

MB

Edited 19 April , 2023 by KizmeRD

[corisande]

1 hour ago, KizmeRD said:

PS There’s a photo in the Greenwich Maritime Museum collection showing the DRESDEN with white flag flying, and appears to have been taken fairly close by.

And a collection taken from the shore

[KizmeRD]

1 hour ago, corisande said:

That seems to be the conclusion one would draw from the German map.

But I am unsure why "the computer" concluded that the British ships were in the bay when they fired at the Dresden,

The position of the shell holes in the cliff is not defined at all, and I cannot get a reference to them anywhere

Have the team that found the shell holes written their findings up anywhere ?

The shell impacts are at both ends of the bay, some show twin holes in the cliff rock 3 metres apart, suggesting that they were fired from a twin turret. Only KENT had twin turrets. Evidently there was an issue with the fusing of some of the British rounds fired!

The impact locations and the alignment of the holes in the cliff face strongly suggests that KENT must have entered the bay and circled the anchored DRESDEN, firing on her at close range (down both sides of the ship).

MB

Edited 19 April , 2023 by KizmeRD

[The Treasurer]

4 minutes ago, KizmeRD said:

The shell impacts are at both ends of the bay, some show twin holes in the cliff rock 3 metres apart, suggesting that they were fired from a twin turret. Only KENT had twin turrets. Evidently there was an issue with the fusing of some of the British rounds fired!

The impact locations and the alignment of the holes in the cliff face strongly suggests that KENT must have entered the bay and circled the anchored DRESDEN, firing on her at close range (down both sides of the ship).

MB

Thanks for this; I get it now. I didn't realise the fuzzy red blobs were meant to be positions of Kent circling Dresden!

I've done a bit more digging in some research notes to see if the point-blank shell theories hold any water. The map in the official history is taken from a rough sketch appended by Lüdecke (captain of Dresden) to his report on the action.

Lüdecke reported the minimum range of Kent as 3,600m, dropping from an initial 4,500m, with Glasgow opening at about the same time at 9,000m per the sketch. This ties in with the short closing action commencing at about 5,000 yards reported by Kent.

A serious fire aft very quickly put the four guns of the aft battery out of action. The aft magazine had to be flooded. Two more port guns quickly dropped out and the remaining three starboard guns could not be brought to bear. Honour satisfied, Lüdecke had no choice but to strike within minutes of the action commencing, then stalled for time with negotiations whilst the forward magazine was rigged to explode.

The theories about circling in the bay 200 yards away therefore don't reconcile with Lüdecke's own report. The shell hits ashore were real enough though. Some of these could have been ricochets, as well as overs. The shell hits on land are about where you would expect them, based on the map in the Official History. Those at the bottom likely to be from Glasgow and those at the top from Kent.

Worth noting that Kent's final position per the map was the best one to be in - sitting across Dresden's stern with no incoming fire and no danger of torpedoes.

That's as much as I have to hand. An interesting revival of this thread, so thanks to everyone who has contributed.

[KizmeRD]

Delgado & Kramer’s theory (and their computer model) postulating that KENT circled around DRESDEN in order to attempt to send her to the bottom would mean that the British cruiser would have had to manoeuvre between the land and where DRESDEN was moored (so as to be lined up in a position to hit the South-East arm of Cumberland Bay with ‘overs’), and that means that KENT would have been firing her 5” guns at a distance of about two hundred yards. Bearing in mind the potential of hitting one of DRESDEN’s magazines and the risk of triggering a catastrophic explosion (which at such close range would likely result in the sinking of both ships), I just can’t imagine any competent and responsible Commanding Officer unnecessarily hazarding their ship in the way that Delgado & Kramer have postulated. Therefore I find their hypothesis unconvincing - especially when no contemporary accounts of the action that day (from either of the protagonists, or from the Chileans ashore) evidences what these experts theorise ‘must have been the case’.

MB

[corisande]

I think I have solved the initial question I posed in an earlier post on the 2  naval guns on Robinson Crusoe. It niggled with me that they were in relatively good condition today

They appear in fact to have been 2nd World War defences  from this web site

Actualmente se encuentran 2 cañones de largo alcance producto de la fortificación de la Isla debido a la participación como aliado de nuestro país durante la segunda Guerra Mundial.

[michaeldr]

Thanks for following-up on that, and for the link. That website also mentions that

“the traces of the combat can be seen on the cliffs of Punta de San Carlos where the cannon impacts of the English ships are embedded in the rock” 

[corisande]

23 minutes ago, michaeldr said:

“the traces of the combat can be seen on the cliffs of Punta de San Carlos where the cannon impacts of the English ships are embedded in the rock” 

The reference to British shells landing in the cliffs only seems to apply to Punta San Carlos cliffs. So it looks as if they came from Kent as on this where I  have added the positions from German chart

[michaeldr]

These two photographs are from 'Ruhmestage der Deutschen Marine' by Norbert von Baumbach (1933) and the translation of the caption reads:- 
'The Germans wounded in the raid in Chilean waters are taken on board by the English auxiliary cruiser Orama and taken to the hospital in Valparaiso. The Englishman had previously pledged not to make them prisoners.'

 

......................................................................................................................................................................................................

Looking again at the signal to the Admiralty made by the Captain of the Glasgow 

On 19/04/2023 at 10:10, michaeldr said:

received from Captain of Glasgow. Begins: Glasgow, Orama and Kent found Dresden at anchor in Cumberland Bay, Juan Fernandez Island, at 9 a.m., on 14th March. After engagement lasting five minutes Dresden hoisted white flag and hauled down her colours. She was much damaged

then there must be some doubt about the Greenwich photograph [https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-592698] having been taken at this time, 
as it appears to show little or no damage to the Dresden. 

Edited 21 April , 2023 by michaeldr

[michaeldr]

The following is taken from AN ACCOUNT OF THE SEARCH FOR AND ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION OF THE GERMAN CRUISER DRESDEN as seen in The Naval Review, Vol. IV. 
“As arranged, the Kent approached Juan Fernandez from the eastward, the Glasgow and Orama from the westward. There was the Dresden at anchor in Cumberland Bay! She was flying her colours, and smoke was coming from her funnels. The Dresden's guns were trained on the Kent, which was the nearest of the three British ships. The Dresden made no signal, sent out no boat, nor made any sign that she was interned or wished to intern or to surrender. As soon as the range was clear the three British ships opened fire. The Dresden replied by firing three rounds at the Kent, all three misses. After a few minutes, during which the Dresden had been hit many times and set on fire in several places, she hauled down her colours and hoisted a white flag at the masthead. The ships immediately ceased firing.” 

This again seems to cast doubt upon timing of the Greenwich photograph - the Dresden had been hit many times and set on fire in several places, she hauled down her colours and hoisted a white flag at the masthead.

[KizmeRD]

There is definite evidence of shell holes on the aft quarter of Dresden in the Greenwich photo, also her colours are not displayed, and there is a white flag flying. Judging by the smoke/steam haze, an internal fire may have broken out too. — however, I agree,  the damage does appear to be surprisingly light. I suspect that there may have been an issue with the fusing of the shells (and the use of armour piercing shells against a thin shelled ship such as Dresden would have been less effective than high explosive). Also appears to me that the photos of the sinking taken from shore are consistent with the light damage depicted in the Greenwich photo.

MB

Edited 21 April , 2023 by KizmeRD