HMS Melpomene - what action did it see

[Jim Strawbridge]

A convoluted question from me. I am researching the mother of Harry Willis who served as as J33526 Boy Telegraphist Harry Willis, Royal Navy. His records show that he died in RN Sick Quarters, Shotley, Harwich from wounds received in action. https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/60522/43343_714_0-00025/272413  The CWGC shows that he served on HMS Melpomene. https://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/412637/willis,-harry/ I perhaps rely too much on Wikipedo for information but I cannot see that Melpomene was in any action that would have caused wounds to Harry Willis. I believe that Melpomene home port was Harwich and I can understand his death at Shotley. So was this an injury sustained in action or death by disease and the service record is wrong ? 

[horatio2]

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Action_of_23_July,_1916

[little bob]

Harry Willis died of his injuries 3/7/1916, CWGC.

 

Bob

[johnboy]

As above death shown as 3/7/1916 I cannot see he died of wounds... only died which generallyi ndicates sickness

[PRC]

The CWGC webpage shows 3rd July 1916 as does Naval History Net, where he is shown as DOI (Died of Injuties).

http://www.naval-history.net/xDKCas1916-07Jul.htm

 

BUT

 

The Grave Registration document attached to the CWGC webpage shows 23rd July 1916. (attached). So does the Cemetery Register

WW1 Naval Casualties shows date of death as the 23rd July 1916. Cause Of Death: Killed or died as a direct result of enemy action.

His Record of Seamans Services ends 23rd July 1916 with a note that looks like its reads "DD 23 July 1916. Died RN Sick quarters Shotley from wounds received in action. (Screenshot of watermarked preview from the National Archive site attached).

 

Would be interesting to see what the headstone actually says, but for me it's looking more likely that the CWGC webpage is in error and they already have the evidence inhouse to prove it.

 

Hope that helps,

Peter

Edited 2 September , 2019 by PRC
Typo

[johnboy]

Thanks Pete.

[johnboy]

There is a pension record on fold3. Transcript on Ancestry gives death as 23/7/1916 . gives his mothers name so I assume a pension was paid to her. So probably confirms DOW

[Jim Strawbridge]

Thank you, all.

[Michael Lowrey]

There's a description of the action in Vincent P. O’Hara and Leonard R. Heinz's Clash of Fleets: Naval Battles of the Great War, 1914-18. The German. II. Torpedo Boat Flotilla (B 97, B 112, B 109, B 110, B 111, G 101, G 103, G 104) was out on a minelaying sortie. The Harwich Force was also out; one division came across the Germans just as B 111 was laying mines. The Germans turned for Zeebrugge. The other division of the Harwich force was ordered to intercept; Morris and Melpomene briefly got into action with the German destroyers. Melpomene was hit once with one man killed and two injured while G 104 suffered a near miss which injured four men.

[PRC]

I've asked the CWGC to check there supporting information to see if it really is just a transcription error,

 

Cheers,

Peter

[Joe R]

According to http://www.denkmalprojekt.org/2016/kaiserliche.marine_diverse-torpedoboote.html there was one causualty

on G104. His name was Walter Schlacht a torpedoman.

 

Respectfully,

 

Joe R

[PRC]

On 04/09/2019 at 10:14, PRC said:

I've asked the CWGC to check there supporting information to see if it really is just a transcription error,

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

Had some interesting feedback from CWGC in that it shows how potentially more widespread this sort of thing could be:-

 

Having investigated this case, it is clear that the date of death error on our entry for Boy Telegraphist Willis occurred as the result of a scanning error when our original registers were scanned to form our database (the OCR software miss read 23rd as 3rd).

I have therefore amended our internal database and this change should replicate on our website within the next 24 hours or so. Please do feel free to check.

As Willis's headstone at Sheffield (Burngreave) Cemetery has the correct date of the 23rd inscribed, no amendment there is required.

 

So looks like no manual QA'ing took place - if it did it certainly missed this one :-)

 

Cheers,

Peter