H.M.S. or H.M.M.?

[pete-c]

Just come across a mention in a ADM document for  'H.M.M. Earl of Peterborough'.   Has anyone ever found other instances of H.M.M. being used in place of H.M.S. for these Monitors?   I can't see any mention of this in Big Gun Monitors by Ian Buxton.

[horatio2]

HMS EARL OF PETERBOROUGH. HMM is wrong - just as wrong as HM Battleship (HMB) or HM Torpedo Boat Destroyer (HMTBD) would be in recording a ship's name. That said, surely the Admiralty clerk cannot have made an error?

[pete-c]

4 minutes ago, horatio2 said:

HMS EARL OF PETERBOROUGH. HMM is wrong - just as wrong as HM Battleship (HMB) or HM Torpedo Boat Destroyer (HMTBD) would be in recording a ship's name. That said, surely the Admiralty clerk cannot have made an error?

 

Thanks horatio - this is what I suspected.  Actually, although this is found in an ADM file, the actual page/pages relate to an R.N.A.S. Flying Report.  Having said that, the officer who signed the report on behalf of the Captain of H.M.S. Ark Royal, was a Lieutenant R.N.V.R.   It is surprising that nobody spotted the error when the ADM File was collated.

[Uncle George]

41 minutes ago, horatio2 said:

HMS EARL OF PETERBOROUGH. HMM is wrong - just as wrong as HM Battleship (HMB) or HM Torpedo Boat Destroyer (HMTBD) would be in recording a ship's name. That said, surely the Admiralty clerk cannot have made an error?

 

But what about His Majesty’s Trawlers? 

[horatio2]

Fine, by me, as a collective description. The individual boats, strictly speaking, are all HMS ****.

Ditto HM Drifters, HM Whalers, HM Tugs, whatever. If they are commissioned ships/boats they are His Majesty's Ship ****.

Pedants rule OK?

[daggers]

Submarines, boats not Ships?

[Uncle George]

3 hours ago, horatio2 said:

Fine, by me, as a collective description. The individual boats, strictly speaking, are all HMS ****.

Ditto HM Drifters, HM Whalers, HM Tugs, whatever. If they are commissioned ships/boats they are His Majesty's Ship ****.

Pedants rule OK?

 

Thanks. I’ve often come across mention of, say, ‘HMT Edward Gallagher’. I thought I’d dig up a contemporary example, but have only come up with the prosaic ‘Trawler 465’ from the attached 1915 article.

 

This is just a work of journalism, but Lieutenant Crossley and ‘Trawler No. 465’ appear in the ‘London Gazette’. Did ‘HMS’ come along later in the war?

 

[horatio2]

5 minutes ago, Uncle George said:

Did ‘HMS’ come along later in the war?

A.239 STAR OF BRITAIN was an Aberdeen-registered trawler hired by the Admiralty and commissioned as HMS STAR OF BRITAIN on 4 September 1914. 465 was her Admiralty Number. One could argue (but best not to) that under the Admiralty she was not  trawler but a minesweeper. These boats were often referred to by their (more concise) Admiralty No., especially in ships' logs.

[Uncle George]

1 hour ago, horatio2 said:

A.239 STAR OF BRITAIN was an Aberdeen-registered trawler hired by the Admiralty and commissioned as HMS STAR OF BRITAIN on 4 September 1914. 465 was her Admiralty Number. One could argue (but best not to) that under the Admiralty she was not  trawler but a minesweeper. These boats were often referred to by their (more concise) Admiralty No., especially in ships' logs.

 

Thanks again. The writer of that 1915 article (whose byline was ‘W.D.N.’) tells us of, “ ... Trawler 465 (her name in peace was the Star of Britain) ... “

 

I like this article. “Trawler 465 will probably be patched up again. She will go to sea, she will sweep for mines, and she will run her daily risk of violent and terrible death. It is all in the day’s work. Lieutenant C. V. Crossley, R.N.R., will probably command her and take the risks with her, and, if needs be, he will walk with a calm step again into the black bowels of his ship, will face death with pulses even, and courage icy and sure ... “ Stirring stuff.