Ships that were sunk which had civilian casualties

[Guest Pete Wood]

If you know of a ship that sunk and had civilian casualties, due to enemy action (shell, torpedo, mine etc), please could you give me the name of the ship (and the approximate date of sinking, if known).

Thank you.

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

-I presume youve access to a copy of "British Vessels Lost @ Sea 1914~18"{HMSO 1919} Reprinted Patrick Stephens Ltd; Cambridge,Various ISBN 0 85059 384 0

Which gives ,as well as HM Ships ;all British Merchant Vessels,with the numbers of Casualties ,plus Cause,Submarine,Surface Craft,Mined.Storms Etc,from which you can no doubt extract Civilian Casualties??

Eg:May 1915 30,396 Tonnes 7th May Lusitania 15 Miles S.from Old Head of Kinsale. Submarine No Warning Torpedo 1198 Casualties

[kin47]

Yes, there were several. I do have a complete list, but before collating it for you, do you want Canteen Personnel included?

don

[Guest Pete Wood]

Thanks, guys. I am still waiting on a few books to arrive (ordered through Abebooks and Amazon).

Don, I am particularly interested in casualties who are NOT recorded by the CWGC.

So, ideally, I would like a list of ships and the number of casualties who are not on the CWGC register.

If this is a mammoth task, and I suspect it will be, let me know the easiest way to proceed without encroaching too much on your time.

Sincere thanks

Pete

[Terry Denham]

For the record -

Canteen Personnel in Admiralty employ or that of the Navy and Army Canteen Board do qualify for CWGC commemoration under the same conditions as Mercantile Marine men.

[Michael Lowrey]

A quick note on British Vessels Lost at Sea 1914-18: it includes a listing of merchant ships the Admiralty knew or thought based on what they knew during the war were sunk/damaged/"molested" by the enemy (including mine) during the war. It also includes fishing vessels sunk or believed sunk by the enemy. Merchant or fishing vessels lost (or believed lost if there were no survivors) in storms, by grounding, or collision (etc.) are not in BVLAS.

The Royal Navy's guesses made during the war as to what happened to ships that went down with all hands proved not to be 100% accurate though. (The information in BVLAS was first published in 1919.) The sorting out of U-boat sinking claims was down by the Germans and took many years to complete. In doing the attributions, the Germans came across a number of cases (Elve, Lapwing etc.) where the Admiralty had though a loss was not war related (and thus not in BVLAS) when in fact it was.

Hope this helps,

Michael

[Guest Pete Wood]

So, Michael, in addition to the information in BVLAS, is there a list of these additional ships (claimed by the German authorities)......??

[Michael Lowrey]

So, Michael, in addition to the information in BVLAS, is there a list of these additional ships (claimed by the German authorities)......??

Pete,

The place to start is the missing and untraced section of "Lloyd's War Losses: The First World War." In the half dozen cases identified by the late 1930s, there are notes there explaining what happened. Admiral Spindler and his team didn't start going through the 1918 losses until about 1940, so those cases wouldn't be included even there. I can attempt to extract a list from my database, but I'm not sure I have all the vessels listed as missing marked as such... (You could also get these by working through the offical German history, Handelskrieg mit U-Booten, by Admiral Arno Spindler. The five volume set is out of print, extremely rare, and extremely expensive.)

Note also that WWI sinkings aren't 100% attributed out even today! It's quite possible that future research will uncover additional vessels sunk by enemy cause that have not been recognized to date. Most of these vessels should be listed among the missing and untraced in "Lloyd's War Losses: The First World War" but I can't guarantee even it is 100% complete, especially if you were after someone that, for whatever reason, might have been on a foreign flagged vessel. You also might have a problem tracing the extremely rare cases (if they even exist) of someone killed on a British fishing vessel that was not sunk and is not on the CWGC register. By definition, such an event would not be in BVLAS, and may not be in Lloyd's either.

Best wishes,

Michael

[Terry Denham]

The situation is not quite as bad as it may seem at first from the above.

RT is seeking civilians who died from war causes - in this scenario from losses aboard ship - who do not qualify for CWGC listing.

The vast majority of civilian losses at sea from war causes were men of the Mercantile Marine and a few other maritime related organisations who do qualify for CWGC listing (accepting that some may have been omitted if a ship has not been recognised as lost through war causes).

RT is, therefore, looking for civilian passengers aboard merchant or naval vessels who do not qualify for CWGC listing rather than a list of all civilians lost at sea due to enemy action. This has to be a far smaller list but still hard to pin down.

eg. The crew of the Lusitania have CWGC listing but the civilian passengers do not.

I hope I have the interpretation correct from what RT has said.

[Michael Lowrey]

Terry,

I don't disagree with your assessment. You certainly should be able to track down the overwhelming majority of non-CWGC civilian casualties fairly easily by using BVLAS and/or Lloyd's War Losses to begin your search. Still, the war at sea is of large enough scope -- the Germans et al sank about 7,000 ships of all nationalities, about half British, plus perhaps another 1,000 ships damaged or taken as prize -- that finding the last few percent of cases would undoubtedly be a time consuming process. And given how the reporting was done, I suspect that are probably some cases that will be extremely difficult to identify.

Best wishes,

Michael

[Terry Denham]

Michael

Yes, I agree. Finding the last few would probably be very frustrating.

I think RT is only looking for Commonwealth nationals and so that would remove a percentage of the casualties from the search (RT, correct me if I am wrong on that).

Then, of course, there were a few civilian passengers on naval vessels (not counting the canteen staff and dockyard workers who have CWGC recognition). I sent RT five or six civilian names yesterday who died on HMS Hampshire!

[Guest Pete Wood]

Gentlemen, thank you.

I can see, now, how badly I phrased the question. Sorry.

Just to confirm, it is Commonwealth casualties who died as a result of enemy action (of any kind) that I am interested in - and only those who are not already on the CWGC register.

Terry, thank you for the names. One name was new to me, and it was nice to have the others confirmed.

Not all dockyard workers had CWGC recognition, though.....??

[Terry Denham]

Not all dockyard workers had CWGC recognition, though.....??

RT

Absolutely correct. Not all dockyard workers did qualify. Only certain Admiralty Employed Civilians qualified.

In the context of the posts above, I was thinking of the civilian shipyard/dockyard workers who died aboard HM Submarine K.13 when it sank in Gareloch on 29.01.17.

Apart from the naval crew, six employees of Fairfield Shipbuilding Co Ltd and one dockyard employee were granted War Grave status as they were at sea working on the vessel when the disaster occured. They were classified as Recognised Civilians who died on duty as a result of the increased threat brought on by the war.

As far as I can recall, they are the only examples of civilians in this situation from WW1 in the CWGC database.

They are now all buried in Faslane Cemetery.

[Greenwoodman]

Hi Pete

P&O ship S.S. Maloja (en route London-Gibraltar-Bombay and the largest ship in P & O’s fleet) struck a mine off Dover and sank in 29 minutes on 26/02/16. 155 lost their lives. Richard Thomas Cragg (Dockyard Articifer ex-Plymouth Dockyard) appears to be part of a group of dockyard workers employed by the navy to work in a dockyard abroad, as other victims and survivors also had dockyard occupations.

Info from the local paper and from the Times. Cragg is not commemorated by CWGC, but is remembered on a local memorial and gravestone.

[kin47]

Reference S.S. MALOJA

Four dockyard workers are commemorated: Frederick W. Cox, Albert W. Langley, George E. Pert, and Albert Rose.

I hadn't bumped into Cragg before. I wonder how many more were missed?

don

[Guest Pete Wood]

Thanks, Richard.

I don't understand why Cragg is not commemorated when....

Name: VINCE, ARTHUR

Initials: A

Nationality: United Kingdom

Rank: Established Skilled Labourer

Regiment: H.M. Dockyard

Unit Text: H.M. Gun Wharf, Chatham (H.M.S. "Natal")

Age: 53

Date of Death: 30/12/1915

Additional information: Husband of Elizabeth Mary Vince, of 37, Blythe Rd., Catford, London.

Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead

Grave/Memorial Reference: 15.

Cemetery: CHATHAM NAVAL MEMORIAL

(Thanks to Don for sending me the above).

[Terry Denham]

From the info given, Cragg seems to have been a passenger on a civilian ship and was not working aboard a naval vessel as the K.13 men.

'HM Dockyard' was one of the Recognised Civilian Organisations which gained CWGC listing if certain additional qualifications were met. Again, from the info given, Cragg was no longer an employee of HM Dockyard (Plymouth) but a civilian employee of (probably) a contracted firm.

Vince obviously died at sea in a naval vessel as his name is on a naval memorial to the missing.

[Terry Denham]

Cause of death for VINCE...

Killed by internal explosion of vessel in Cromarty Firth 30th December 1915 (HMS Natal)

It is the working aboard a naval vessel that is the crucial point to gain CWGC recognition.

Obviously, my comment about the K.13 men being the only examples in the list was wrong as Vince is another case!

[Guest Pete Wood]

It is the working aboard a naval vessel that is the crucial point to gain CWGC recognition.

I wish it was that straight forward. I have the names of 78 civilians (named by the admiralty) who were onboard the Princess Irene when it blew up. But not all of them are commemorated by the CWGC.

[Terry Denham]

What was their function aboard the Irene?

Without knowing the details, I would assume that they were civilian contractors rather than Admiralty employees/HM Dockyard employees. This would not give them recognition.

The K.13 men are the oddballs as six of them were just such civilian contractors and seem to break every rule. I have tried to get to the bottom of their listing but no answer seems to be available. The names would, of course, have been supplied to CWGC by the Admiralty.

[Guest Pete Wood]

Ok this guy is commemorated:

Name: CHITTICK, WILLIAM

Initials: W

Nationality: United Kingdom

Rank: Shipwright

Regiment: H.M. Dockyard

Secondary Unit Text: Sheerness (H.M.S. "Princess Irene")

Age: 30

Date of Death: 27/05/1915

Additional information: Brother of G. Chittick, 18, Granville Rd., Sheerness.

Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead

Grave/Memorial Reference: 15.

Cemetery: CHATHAM NAVAL MEMORIAL

But his colleague J Lupton (shipwright) is not.

I also have the names of shipwright's apprentices, who were onboard, skilled labourers and 'boys' who are not commemorated.

What does the job title have to do with commemoration...??

[Terry Denham]

As I mentioned above, 'HM Dockyard' was one of the Recognised Civilian Organisations which did qualify for recognition under certain circumstances as did Admiralty Employed Civilians.

Many dockyard workers worked for private firms rather than the Admiralty or HM Dockyard. They did do work for the Admiralty but did not 'work for the Admiralty'.

This differentiation means that the Admiralty/HM Dockyard names get commemorated whereas the others don't. As I said in my post above, it is the six K.13 men that are the anomaly in this system.

[Guest Pete Wood]

It's a good job this project is under way then....

My thanks to everyone who has been supplying names/leads - and to those who wish/have to remain anonymous but are helping, 'behind the scenes'!!

[Terry Denham]

I have just checked all the 'HM Dockyard' personnel in the CWGC database and there are many from the 'Irene' (all the job titles you mention) and those from the 'Maloja'. Without seeing your list, I cannot tell if they are all now there.

It is always possible that some of the names you have may have been missed by the Admiralty in error and should have been listed as 'HM Dockyard' rather than being recorded as civilians.

[Guest Pete Wood]

This differentiation means that the Admiralty/HM Dockyard names get commemorated whereas the others don't. As I said in my post above, it is the six K.13 men that are the anomaly in this system.

I had a long conversation with someone this morning about this. I believe there is more to this than meets the eye.

I have a fair amount of evidence that it actually boils down to pension rights. If the War Office granted the next-of-kin a war pension, then the 'civilian' was recognised by the CWGC.

I know of many war pension cases which weren't awarded until after the CWGC cut-off date. This is where the commemorations appear, to me, to be a bit hit and miss.

If you were to find their records, I am sure you will find that the K.13 men's next of kin got a killed-on-active service (or whatever the correct term is) pension from the Admiralty.