Kildonan Posted 22 April , 2018 Share Posted 22 April , 2018 I have been diving a wreck on the Runnelstone near Lands End, Cornwall for the past 20+ years, locally it is known as the Joshua Nicholson but I have doubts about this being the correct name. The SS Joshua Nicholson 1853 tons, was on a voyage from London to Alexandria with a general cargo when she was torpedoed by U - 70 on 18th March 1917. The wreck we are diving has a cargo of munitions, mainly thousands of 75mm French shells together with some field guns and (thanks to the Arms section here) what I now know to be Hotchkiss machine guns. Many of the brass shell cases are marked "Roumanie" on their base. According to Lloyds War Losses WW1 , BVLS, DODS she was sunk off Wolf rock some 15 miles south of the wreck we are diving. Ajax, in The German Pirate his methods and record states: The British steamer Joshua Nicholson was torpedoed by German submarine without warning at 6.30 a.m. on the 18th March, 1917. She began to settle down very rapidly, with a heavy list to starboard. While the port lifeboat was being lowered she capsized, and three men were drowned. Another man was blown into the water by an explosion. After the ship had gone down, six men came to the surface and clung to pieces of wreckage. Of these, three sank during the next five hours, the remaining three being picked up at about 5 p.m., exhausted but alive. I have read elsewhere that she was taken in tow and foundered, obviously both reports cannot be correct. My question is: does anyone have any information on this ship which I have not listed? I have no knowledge of why this wreck was given this name, but it will not be the first wreck off Cornwall known by an incorrect name! Any help gratefully received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 22 April , 2018 Share Posted 22 April , 2018 I handle much of the WWI information for uboat.net and can get you a copy of U 70's KTB (war diary) describing the incident. One question about the wreck: is it fitted with a gun? Best wishes, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 22 April , 2018 Share Posted 22 April , 2018 (edited) from tyneside ships website undated Edited 22 April , 2018 by johnboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kildonan Posted 23 April , 2018 Author Share Posted 23 April , 2018 Michael and John many thanks for the offer and photograph, much appreciated. Michael, the wreck is in shallow water and has been smashed to pieces by the violent storms that hit that part of the coast. The main identifiable parts of the wreck are the huge engine, single boiler and bottom hull plating which gives you a rough outline of the ship. I have not seen a gun which indicates that it was mounted to the ship. The field guns on the wreck are on carriages with iron, spoked wheels which have rubber "tyres". If there is any information in the KTB which would help I would appreciate it, even if it only says that she was seen to sink, as this would put paid to the "taken in tow" reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 23 April , 2018 Share Posted 23 April , 2018 (edited) If sailing from London to Alexandria where was French ammunition collected from? She is listed as DAMS so would have had one or two guns mounted at the stern Edited 23 April , 2018 by johnboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 23 April , 2018 Share Posted 23 April , 2018 1894: Engine tripled (18, 30 & 48 x 40ins), 150nhp by Palmer’s Co Ltd new engine 1894, do dimensions help|? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Currell Posted 23 April , 2018 Share Posted 23 April , 2018 (edited) Kildonan, According to ADM 116/1536 (Defensively Armed Merchant Ships), the Joshua Nicholson was fitted with the 12-pdr. 12 cwt. gun (number of guns not specified). If you do come across a ship's gun, it might be useful in verifying her identity. If she was fitted with a single gun, it would most likely be located at the stern of the ship. Regards, Ralph Edited 23 April , 2018 by Ralph Currell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 23 April , 2018 Share Posted 23 April , 2018 10 minutes ago, Ralph Currell said: Kildonan, According to ADM 116/1536 (Defensively Armed Merchant Ships), the Joshua Nicholson was fitted with the 12-pdr. 12 cwt. gun (number of guns not specified). If you do come across a ship's gun, it might be useful in verifying her identity. If she was fitted with a single gun, it would most likely be located at the stern of the ship. Regards, Ralph Any guns on a DAMS HAD to be fitted at the stern. The gunners were RN or RNVR Where did you find details of the gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Currell Posted 23 April , 2018 Share Posted 23 April , 2018 (edited) Yes, that's right for a single gun. Some ships were armed with a bow gun as well (perhaps they would no longer be considered defensively armed) but considering the size of the Joshua Nicholson I expect we'd be looking at a stern gun only. The gun details appear in ADM 116/1536 "Defensively Armed Merchant Ships" at the National Archives (Kew). I don't have the complete document copied, but I think it was "Confidential Admiralty Interim Orders" dated 29 November 1916, which contains a list of vessels armed. Regards, Ralph Edited 23 April , 2018 by Ralph Currell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 23 April , 2018 Share Posted 23 April , 2018 1 hour ago, Ralph Currell said: Yes, that's right for a single gun. Some ships were armed with a bow gun as well (perhaps they would no longer be considered defensively armed) but considering the size of the Joshua Nicholson I expect we'd be looking at a stern gun only. The gun details appear in ADM 116/1536 "Defensively Armed Merchant Ships" at the National Archives (Kew). I don't have the complete document copied, but I think it was "Confidential Admiralty Interim Orders" dated 29 November 1916, which contains a list of vessels armed. Regards, Ralph To maintain these ships were DAMS i thought they had to only have guns at the stern so as not to be able to attack, Are you mistaking them with Q ships? Can you post the regs, if you find them , allowing guns on the bow or perhaps pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Currell Posted 23 April , 2018 Share Posted 23 April , 2018 (edited) Hi johnboy, I was thinking of the Olympic when I posted my earlier message. She had a gun forward and one aft during 1915-16. As a military transport I'm not sure if she would qualify as a DAMS though. Anyway, I looked through what I have regarding defensive armament. A considerable amount of information can be found in pamphlet TH 13 (Technical History - Defensive Armament of Merchant Ships), part of MT 25/33 at the National Archives. I couldn't find anything from a legal standpoint mandating the position of the guns aft, or prohibiting those forward. Practical considerations -- the fact that the merchant ship should be steaming away from the enemy -- seem to have dictated the guns being aft. The above-mentioned pamphlet states that in 1917 plans were put in hand to mount howitzers facing forward on all DAMS ships over 3,000 gross tons, so it seems to have been permissible at that stage of the war. This would have been in addition to existing guns astern. Regards, Ralph Edited 23 April , 2018 by Ralph Currell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 23 April , 2018 Share Posted 23 April , 2018 2 hours ago, Ralph Currell said: The above-mentioned pamphlet states that in 1917 plans were put in hand to mount howitzers facing forward on all DAMS ships over 3,000 gross tons, so it seems to have been permissible at that stage of the war. This would have been in addition to existing guns I don't think theses plans were implemented, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 23 April , 2018 Share Posted 23 April , 2018 (edited) Kildonan, I'm not sure what you dived, but it most certainly wasn't the Joshua Nicholson. U 70 's KTB gives the site of the attack as 49°40'N, 6°41'W against an armed steamer on a SW course. Quote Treffer. Dampfer sinkt senkrecht über den Achtersteven in 4 Minuten, ohne ein Boot bemannt zu haben. Größe circa 3000 t. Translation: "[Torpedo] hit. Steamer sinks vertically over the stern in 4 minutes without manning a boat. Size about 3000 t." Best wishes, Michael Edited 23 April , 2018 by Michael Lowrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Currell Posted 24 April , 2018 Share Posted 24 April , 2018 Just a thought, would the 75mm shell casings have a date or lot number stamped on their base? Narrowing down the date might assist in identifying the ship. Regards, Ralph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kildonan Posted 24 April , 2018 Author Share Posted 24 April , 2018 Johnboy, Ralph and Michael, Thank you for the additional information. The triple expansion engine would seem the obvious line of inquiry, however the engine on the wreck is jammed up against a reef making it very difficult to take any measurements or even to see it properly. Regarding the stern gun fitted, I have dived what must be the stern as the large iron prop is there. What makes life difficult all over the wreck is the constant Atlantic swell and kelp, in a relatively shallow depth. The plus point is that the visibility is usually excellent. I have posted pictures of the shell cases and the Hotchkiss machine gun parts under a different thread in "Arms" on this site. They are titled "French shell case markings" and "Can anyone identify these gun parts". Michael, the position and the fact that the KTB states that the ship was seen to sink is very useful. How do we know that we are talking about the same ship? Was it identified in some way in the KTB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 24 April , 2018 Share Posted 24 April , 2018 Going by the cargo you might be looking at a French ship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 24 April , 2018 Share Posted 24 April , 2018 (edited) Translation: "[Torpedo] hit. Steamer sinks vertically over the stern in 4 minutes without manning a boat. Size about 3000 t." Which ties in with the Captain and 25 crew being killed, as per Lloyds reports. Andy Edited 24 April , 2018 by stiletto_33853 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 24 April , 2018 Share Posted 24 April , 2018 Michael Lowerys post says it is not the ship. |In fact he does not say which ship the KTB refers to or a date. Is it referring to another ship [possibly the one found?} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Currell Posted 24 April , 2018 Share Posted 24 April , 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Kildonan said: I have posted pictures of the shell cases and the Hotchkiss machine gun parts under a different thread in "Arms" on this site. They are titled "French shell case markings" and "Can anyone identify these gun parts". Thanks, I see the threads. I'd defer to an expert, but it seems to me the shell case markings show a date of 1916. The 'Roumanie' is interesting. Might this be an arms shipment intended for Romania? The Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_during_World_War_I#Romanian_recovery lists many items supplied by the Allies, including Hotchkiss machine-guns and 75mm guns. My understanding is that Allied supplies to Romania were delivered through Russia, so maybe we're looking at French munitions bound for Romania via a Russian port in 1916 or 1917. Would that be consistent with the wreck location off Cornwall? Regards, Ralph Edited 24 April , 2018 by Ralph Currell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 24 April , 2018 Share Posted 24 April , 2018 Wouldn.t the shells bear the country of origin, not destination country.? Would the ||French have entrusted the carrying of munitions to Britain or done it themselves? I have looked for newspaper items for reports of anything washed ashore near Lands End. Nothing so far,There are lists on line of British ships lost some with unknown locations. but do not say where from and to or general description of cargo so not much hope there. I wonder if the French have same sort of lists More questions than answers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kildonan Posted 24 April , 2018 Author Share Posted 24 April , 2018 By posting the shell photographs I was hoping that someone here would be able to narrow down their date of manufacture, it seems that French munitions experts are few and far between! They are probably on the French equivalent of this site? I am assuming that the 4.16 on the base of the Lebel bullet indicates that it was manufactured in April 1916. If this was the same for the shells then I would be surprised if they were stored for so long before shipping. I would have thought that the need for shells in 1916 would have seen them expended earlier than March 1917 when the Joshua Nicholson was sunk. Hopefully Michael will be able to give a bit more info. from the KTB, if indeed there is any. Meanwhile I will search for French ships lost in late 1916/ 1917. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 24 April , 2018 Share Posted 24 April , 2018 IAre there signs that this ship was sunk by another ship;/u boat, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 24 April , 2018 Share Posted 24 April , 2018 (edited) Kildonan, There's not a lot more information in U 70's KTB. The date is March 18, 1917, the location is as given, the attack as described. The time is cut off on the microfilm, though it should be readable on the original held at BAMA Freiburg. It's not unusual for a U-boat not to have identified the ship it sank. The linkage between U 70's attack and Joshua Nicholson was first made in Spindler's German official history of the submarine war against merchant shipping. Looking at the other ships sunk on March 18, 1917, I see no reason to question it. Best wishes, Michael Edited 24 April , 2018 by Michael Lowrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 24 April , 2018 Share Posted 24 April , 2018 Thanks Michael Was it unusual for a uboat not to name a ship it had sunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 24 April , 2018 Share Posted 24 April , 2018 1 minute ago, johnboy said: Thanks Michael Was it unusual for a uboat not to name a ship it had sunk? It happened a fair amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now