Loss of HMS Argyll - Interpreting Captain Tancred's Report

[Buffnut453]

I’m researching the loss of HMS Argyll because a relative, AB Ernest Gamble, was probably aboard when she ran aground in October 1915.  Here's a photo of Ernest with his HMS Argyll cap tally:

 

During a recent visit to Kew, I pulled file ADM 137/3643 which was a report into the ship’s loss.

I’m no sailor, so some of the nautical terms are confusing to me.  The quotes below include terms that are unfamiliar to me, followed by a series of questions about them:

“…the position of the ship was fixed by bearings of the land, and a course shaped S.63 E. to follow route ordered by Commander-in-Chief Grand Fleet, speed 17 knots, zig-zagging two points either side of the mean course.”

“At 8.00 P.M. the moon being obscured ship was steadied on its central course S.47 W. and speed reduced…”

“At the same time the Officer of the Watch gave the order Port 20, hard a port, full speed ahead port, stop starboard.”

 

Here are the questions:

1.    What are the courses S.63 E. and S.47 W.?

2.    Am I right in thinking a point is 1/32nd of a circle…in other words 11.25 degrees?

3.    Putting the port engine full ahead would inevitably turn the ship to starboard but that seems to contradict the order to turn to port.  I seem to recall a Titanic documentary which mentioned that a helm order to port actually meant turning the vessel to starboard.  Was that the case here?  

 

Any insights or illumination would be hugely appreciated.  Many thanks in advance.  

Edited 26 November , 2023 by Buffnut453

[johnboy]

I think the reference to zig zagging was to help avoid uboat attacks.

Edited 26 November , 2023 by johnboy

[Buffnut453]

Yep, that makes sense.  I was a tad puzzled by the term "two points either side of the mean course."  If my google-fu is correct, and a "point" is 1/32nd of a circle, then the ship would be turning 22.5 degrees either side of the course.  Which then takes us back to Question 1...what was the course?

[johnboy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Argyll_(1904)

[johnboy]

Would the course be based on a starting point? If he saw the lighthouse Would it be a bearing from that?

[KizmeRD]

“The position of the ship was fixed by bearings of the land” (i.e. albeit in difficult conditions, the OOW carried out a visual fix, presumably from the silhouettes of landmarks that were distinguishable on the shore) and a course shaped S.63 E.” - This sounds to me like the ship had just transited round the north of Scotland and was turning in on a course taking the ship across the Moray Firth.

And since we are discussing Capt. Tancred’s report (to the Court of Enquiry), it’s likely that the information he’s provided refers to the course made good over the ground (from a line drawn on a chart) - which is not the same thing as the actual course being steered by the helmsman (due to the effects of wind, waves and tide). In this case S.63 E. equates to 117 degrees (measured from North). This could well have been the last opportunity in daylight to verify the position of the ship with any firm degree of accuracy.

Note also, that when zig-zagging, there is a base course (aka ‘mean’ course or ‘central’ course) from which the actual course steered gets periodically offset left and right. Over time it’s the averaged out direction of travel that the ship is endeavouring to make good (a combination of all the zigs and zags). 

“At 8.00 P.M. the moon being obscured ship was steadied on its central course S.47 W.” (i.e. a change to a new base course of 227 degrees) “…and speed reduced” (probably due to the atrocious weather) - If the time is correct then this is still many hours away from the time when HMS Argyll ran aground off Bell Rock (which was a little after 04:30). But the new base course suggests to me that the ship was now somewhere off Peterhead and had altered course to take them further down the Scottish coast in the direction of the Firth of Forth (their destination). It may have been that the speed came down to somewhere around 12 knots, or perhaps less. In any case, as the crow flies, they were still some 75 n.m. or so away from Bell Rock (and zig-zagging would have increased the real distance to more like 100).

“At the same time the Officer of the Watch gave the order Port 20, hard a port, full speed ahead port, stop starboard.” -  The time-line sounds a bit confusing here, but rather than being at the same time as the previously mentioned change of course and reduction in speed, I think it means that these were the wheel and engine orders from the OOW, given one after the other, in rapid time. (As taken together, they represent progressively more drastic steps taken to affect an emergency change in course). Therefore sounds like it must be describing the final sequence of instructions to the helmsman, prior to the actual grounding. (At first it was thought that a white sail had been spotted in front of them, before finally realising that it was actually the Bell Rock Lighthouse!).

This sad tell illustrates the dangers of a night passage in heavy seas using only dead reckoning, and very fortunate that the crew were all OK in the end.
 

MB

Edited 27 November , 2023 by KizmeRD

[Buffnut453]

Many thanks @KizmeRD for those helpful insights.  As noted above, I understand the idea of zig-zagging along a mean line of advance which, clearly, results in a far greater distance being covered by the vessel, and hence a longer transit. 

At risk of being a tad cheeky, if S.63 E equates to a bearing of 117 degrees, what about the other course S.47 W?  For sure 'tis a dark art all this nautical mumbo-jumbo! 

I'm still a little confused about the order to turn to port while also running the port screw at full ahead.  To me those seem like opposite directions.  The only explanation I can come up with is that "hard a port" actually meant a turn to starboard which, IIRC, related to the position of a ship's tiller, thus putting the tiller to port would turn the ship to starboard.  However, that seems an oddly archaic thing to be doing in 1915.  

[KizmeRD]

What I don’t quite understand is the need to steer a zig-zag course during such terrible North Sea weather when visibility was hardly any distance at all. Any U-boat would have been rendered ineffective in such poor conditions.

I suspect that HMS Argyll was simply steaming somewhat slower in order to take account of the sea conditions and make things a bit more comfortable for those onboard, whilst also ensuring that the ship’s anticipated arrival in Rosyth coincided with first light.

I know that Capt Tancred arrived on the bridge immediately prior to the grounding  - perhaps he attempted to reverse the action taken by the OOW? (I can’t say for sure, as I haven’t myself seen or read the Captain’s Report).

MB

PS   S 47 W equates to a course of 227 degrees.

PPS  Like other ships of the time, HMS Argyll had a ship's wheel that was mechanically linked to powered steering gear which then turned a rudder (not a tiller, which is a hand-operated means of steering small boats and sailing dinghies).

[Buffnut453]

Here's a snip of the actual report covering the salient points we're discussing:

At no point does Tancred describe any attempt to belay the order to turn to port.  I also understand that Argyll's rudder was turned mechanically and not by a tiller.  However, it was my understanding that the terminology took some time to change.  That may be incorrect but I'd still like an explanation for why the helm was ordered to port when the entire record of engine commands suggests a turn to starboard.  

Edited 27 November , 2023 by Buffnut453

[KizmeRD]

OK, I was trying to avoid going there, but here goes... (and this is where it gets really confusing for non-mariners unacquainted with how things were done in former times - if not exasperatingly stupid!).

HELM ORDERS given on British ships prior to 1934 were relative to tiller movement, irrespective of whether actual steering was done by tiller or by wheel.

The Americans recognised the absurdity of this situation (an historical anachronism based on tradition rather than common sense) long before the Brits did, and they changed the way that the USN issued helm orders prior to WW1. Since 1913 American mariners no longer refer to "starboard" and "port" in relation to movements of a ship's helm, and instead use the terms "right" and "left," relative to the ship’s head. 

In other words an order to put the wheel over to port in the Royal Navy during WW1 had exactly the opposite effect to the very same order  being given during WW2.

MB

[Buffnut453]

Thanks @KizmeRD.  The tiller-based helm orders were exactly the situation I was trying to describe.  I thought it ended a lot earlier than 1934, so thanks for clarifying that matter.  Now it all makes sense that they were trying to turn the ship to the right.

Funnily enough, in my previous post I had considered guessing what bearing S.47 W might be and 227 degrees was the main candidate (essentially, 47 degrees west of south...so 180 + 47 = 227).  Again, that seems anachronistic...why not just say "bearing 227"?

Edited 27 November , 2023 by Buffnut453

[JMB1943]

I would be interested to know the judgement of the Court of Inquiry.

Was Capt. Tancred’s career effectively over, whether he was exonerated or not?

Regards,

JMB

Edited 27 November , 2023 by JMB1943
typo

[KizmeRD]

He went on to become a Vice-Admiral.

He had especially requested that the light in Bell Rock Lighthouse be turned on to assist his ship’s passage, but due to the stormy weather, the lighthouse cohld not be contacted in time (there was no wireless, or cable connection - not until after this incident that is!

MB

Edited 27 November , 2023 by KizmeRD

[Buffnut453]

Alas, the report into the loss of HMS Argyll doesn't mention whether the court martial recommendation was carried out.  Tancred's Wikipedia entry (yes, I know it probably has inaccuracies) records his promotion to Rear Admiral in 1919 and Vice Admiral in 1925.  At first glance, it would seem like his career wasn't too terribly impacted. 

This website (http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/James_Charles_Tancred) states he was severely reprimanded following a court martial convened on 10 December 1915.  

His postings indicate he was rather put out to pasture, serving in ashore appointments (King's Harbour Master and then Captain of Dockyard) in Cromarty until the end of the Great War.   His promotion to Vice Admiral seems to have been a farewell gift since he retired the very next day.  

Edited 27 November , 2023 by Buffnut453

[KizmeRD]

Yes, effectively retired from active service in 1919 and bumped-up to Vice-Admiral on the Retired List.

No further sea-going appointment. **^

MB
 

*** Edit  - My apologies, I’ve just read his bio from the Dreadnought Project, and apparently he was appointed in command of the armed boarding steamer Stephen Furness on 13 December, 1915 before becoming King's Harbour Master and Captain of Dockyard at Cromarty in March 1916.

Edited 27 November , 2023 by KizmeRD

[MerchantOldSalt]

Hello Buffnut453,

2 hours ago, Buffnut453 said:

Funnily enough, in my previous post I had considered guessing what bearing S.47 W might be and 227 degrees was the main candidate (essentially, 47 degrees west of south...so 180 + 47 = 227).  Again, that seems anachronistic...why not just say "bearing 227"?

In your first post you made this statement I’m no sailor, so some of the nautical terms are confusing to me.  The quotes below include terms that are unfamiliar to me.  

With that in mind, I think it a little bit unreasonable of you to describe the system of quadrantal courses and bearings as "anachronistic" if you don't understand the purpose.

In compass work there are three "Norths".  True North the bearing of the North Pole from your position on the Earth's surface.  Magnetic North the bearing of the Earth's Magnetic Pole and Compass North, the north given by your ship's compass.

Ideally a magnetic compass should point to Magnetic North, so there should be no Compass north, but due to induced and permanent magnetism within a ship's iron or steel structure that is never the case.  The ship's compass has to be corrected for this "deviation" using permanent magnets and soft iron and will point to its own version of Compass North until this is done.

Any course or bearing based on true north was described in degrees from 000 to 359.  A course or bearing based on the magnetic compass was described using the quadrantal method you have found in the report, this was purely to prevent confusion as to which of the Norths were being used to describe the course or bearing so that corrections could be applied.  Confusing the two directions could cause all sorts of problems.

This was early days for gyro compasses, which are highly accurate within a degree or so, and are graduated in degrees.  Whilst the American Navy, from 1911 and German Navy from 1908 onwards were both well equipped with gyro compasses during WW1, the Royal Navy lagged behind the first workable British version being produced by SG Brown in 1916.  This was all tied up in patents.  So it is quite normal that HMS ARGYLL, not appearing to have a gyro compass, was still using S47E etc., a magnetic description, in recording courses and bearings.

The system was still in use well into the middle of last century but with the pretty much universal use of gyros on large vessels, has long died out.

Hope this explains the anachronism!!

Tony

 

[Buffnut453]

25 minutes ago, MerchantOldSalt said:

Hello Buffnut453,

In your first post you made this statement I’m no sailor, so some of the nautical terms are confusing to me.  The quotes below include terms that are unfamiliar to me.  

With that in mind, I think it a little bit unreasonable of you to describe the system of quadrantal courses and bearings as "anachronistic" if you don't understand the purpose.

In compass work there are three "Norths".  True North the bearing of the North Pole from your position on the Earth's surface.  Magnetic North the bearing of the Earth's Magnetic Pole and Compass North, the north given by your ship's compass.

Ideally a magnetic compass should point to Magnetic North, so there should be no Compass north, but due to induced and permanent magnetism within a ship's iron or steel structure that is never the case.  The ship's compass has to be corrected for this "deviation" using permanent magnets and soft iron and will point to its own version of Compass North until this is done.

Any course or bearing based on true north was described in degrees from 000 to 359.  A course or bearing based on the magnetic compass was described using the quadrantal method you have found in the report, this was purely to prevent confusion as to which of the Norths were being used to describe the course or bearing so that corrections could be applied.  Confusing the two directions could cause all sorts of problems.

This was early days for gyro compasses, which are highly accurate within a degree or so, and are graduated in degrees.  Whilst the American Navy, from 1911 and German Navy from 1908 onwards were both well equipped with gyro compasses during WW1, the Royal Navy lagged behind the first workable British version being produced by SG Brown in 1916.  This was all tied up in patents.  So it is quite normal that HMS ARGYLL, not appearing to have a gyro compass, was still using S47E etc., a magnetic description, in recording courses and bearings.

The system was still in use well into the middle of last century but with the pretty much universal use of gyros on large vessels, has long died out.

Hope this explains the anachronism!!

Tony

 

 

Hi Tony,

I wasn't being unreasonable...merely ignorant.  Your explanation shows the entirely sensible reason for it.  That said, one could also argue there were easier ways to express the difference between a true bearing and a compass bearing.  

In my defence, the Senior Service does have a tendency to hang onto things longer than they should, as evidenced by the whole tiller discussion in this thread.  I may have been unjustified in terming the compass bearing anachronistic...but the RN has previous. 

All that said, thanks again for explaining to this landlubber why the compass bearing was presented in the manner used in the report.  

Cheers,
Mark

[KizmeRD]

5 hours ago, Buffnut453 said:

Thanks @KizmeRD.  The tiller-based helm orders were exactly the situation I was trying to describe.  I thought it ended a lot earlier than 1934, so thanks for clarifying that matter.  Now it all makes sense that they were trying to turn the ship to the right.

My apologies, I went back and re-checked my facts, and as it turns out the change-over date in respect of helm and steerage orders occurred earlier in June 1931 as far as the Royal Navy was concerned (and became effective from January 1933 for remainder of British flagged Merchant ships***). This was in accordance with recommendations made in the 1929 SOLAS Convention.

I’ve located the relevant Admiralty Fleet Orders - which for interest, see below…

Admiralty Fleet Order [AFO], dated 24 Dec 1930
I : 3296.— Helm Orders. (N.L. 4025/30.—24.12.1930.)
Their Lordships have had under consideration the procedure to be followed as a result of Article 41 of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, in which the contracting powers agree as from 30th of June, 1931, to employ in their merchant shipping a system of direct helm orders, i.e., a system in which the order given refers not to a real or imaginary helm, but to the movement of the wheel, the ship’s head, and the rudder. This Convention has not yet been ratified.
2. Their Lordships are of opinion that this change in the Mercantile Marine would necessitate a corresponding alteration of practice in the Royal Navy. They have decided that in the event of a change, the existing orders ‘starboard’ and ‘port’ shall ultimately be used in the direct sense with opposite meanings to those at present attached to them; but that in order to guard against misunderstanding, the orders ‘starboard right’ and ‘port left’ shall be used in the direct sense for a transitional period, which will normally last for 12 months. This transitional period, of which notice will be given in advance, is intended to familiarise the Fleet as a whole with the new procedure, but in order to meet the needs of officers not at sea during this period, a wide discretion will be left to Flag and Commanding Officers to re-institute it whenever considered desirable. This discretion should not be exercised to such an extent as to make the transitional orders habitual.
Example: It is desired to alter course to starboard, using 20° of tactical helm. At present the order ‘Port 20’ would be given. During the transitional period the order would be ‘Starboard right 20’. After a period of twelve months the order would be ‘Starboard 20’.
The wheel, the ship’s head, and the rudder blade would all go to starboard, and, in ships fitted with helm signals, the green ball on the starboard side would rise, i.e., the higher ‘Helm Signal’ would show the side towards which the ship is turning.
3. From the commencement of the transitional period it is intended to discontinue the use of the word ‘helm’. The words ‘rudder’, ‘wheel’, or ‘steering’ will be used as necessary; i.e. ‘helm indicators’ become ‘rudder indicators’, ‘helm orders’ become ‘steering orders’ etc.
4. In vessels steered with a tiller, the terms ‘starboard right’ and ‘port left’ will be employed as indicating the direction in which the vessel’s head is to move. The terms ‘port’ or ‘starboard the helm’ will be discontinued.
5. In boats under sail, the terms ‘bear up’, ‘keep her away’, ‘luff’, ‘no higher’, ‘very well thus’, should continue to be used. As the term ‘lee helm’ and ‘weather helm’ describe a state of affairs, and are not an order, they will be retained.
8. Subsequent orders will deal with the date of commencement of the transitional period, the precautions to be taken, the training of officers and men in the new orders, and the changes in helm indicators, helm signals etc., which will be necessary.

MB

Edit  *** As far as British merchant vessels were concerned this was in accordance with Clause 29 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety And Load Line Conventions) Act 1932, which implemented the SOLAS suggestion made in 1929, at the International Convention for Safety at Sea. The relevant clauses read:
29. (1) No person on any British ship registered in the United Kingdom shall give a helm order containing the word “starboard” or “right” or any equivalent of “starboard” or “right”, unless he intends that the head of the ship shall move to the right, or give a helm order containing the word “port’, or “left” or any equivalent of “port” or “left”, unless he intends that the head of the ship shall move to the left.
(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall for each offence be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

Edited 27 November , 2023 by KizmeRD

[Buffnut453]

5 minutes ago, KizmeRD said:

My apologies, I went back and re-checked my facts, and as it turns out the change-over date in respect of helm and steerage orders occurred earlier in June 1931 as far as the Royal Navy was concerned (and became effective from January 1933 for remainder of British flagged Merchant ships). This was in accordance with recommendations made in the 1929 SOLAS Convention.

I’ve located the relevant Admiralty Fleet Orders - which for interest, see below…

Admiralty Fleet Order [AFO], dated 24 Dec 1930
I : 3296.— Helm Orders. (N.L. 4025/30.—24.12.1930.)
Their Lordships have had under consideration the procedure to be followed as a result of Article 41 of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, in which the contracting powers agree as from 30th of June, 1931, to employ in their merchant shipping a system of direct helm orders, i.e., a system in which the order given refers not to a real or imaginary helm, but to the movement of the wheel, the ship’s head, and the rudder. This Convention has not yet been ratified.
2. Their Lordships are of opinion that this change in the Mercantile Marine would necessitate a corresponding alteration of practice in the Royal Navy. They have decided that in the event of a change, the existing orders ‘starboard’ and ‘port’ shall ultimately be used in the direct sense with opposite meanings to those at present attached to them; but that in order to guard against misunderstanding, the orders ‘starboard right’ and ‘port left’ shall be used in the direct sense for a transitional period, which will normally last for 12 months. This transitional period, of which notice will be given in advance, is intended to familiarise the Fleet as a whole with the new procedure, but in order to meet the needs of officers not at sea during this period, a wide discretion will be left to Flag and Commanding Officers to re-institute it whenever considered desirable. This discretion should not be exercised to such an extent as to make the transitional orders habitual.
Example: It is desired to alter course to starboard, using 20° of tactical helm. At present the order ‘Port 20’ would be given. During the transitional period the order would be ‘Starboard right 20’. After a period of twelve months the order would be ‘Starboard 20’.
The wheel, the ship’s head, and the rudder blade would all go to starboard, and, in ships fitted with helm signals, the green ball on the starboard side would rise, i.e., the higher ‘Helm Signal’ would show the side towards which the ship is turning.
3. From the commencement of the transitional period it is intended to discontinue the use of the word ‘helm’. The words ‘rudder’, ‘wheel’, or ‘steering’ will be used as necessary; i.e. ‘helm indicators’ become ‘rudder indicators’, ‘helm orders’ become ‘steering orders’ etc.
4. In vessels steered with a tiller, the terms ‘starboard right’ and ‘port left’ will be employed as indicating the direction in which the vessel’s head is to move. The terms ‘port’ or ‘starboard the helm’ will be discontinued.
5. In boats under sail, the terms ‘bear up’, ‘keep her away’, ‘luff’, ‘no higher’, ‘very well thus’, should continue to be used. As the term ‘lee helm’ and ‘weather helm’ describe a state of affairs, and are not an order, they will be retained.
8. Subsequent orders will deal with the date of commencement of the transitional period, the precautions to be taken, the training of officers and men in the new orders, and the changes in helm indicators, helm signals etc., which will be necessary.

MB

Absolutely no apologies necessary.  You were only a few years off.  I thought the practice had changed prior to the Great War.  I still learned a lot from your informative posts.  

[Buffnut453]

Captain Tancred's report praises the skipper of HMS Hornet who pulled alongside the wreck and rescued the bulk of the ship's company.  Tancred's report reads:

At 6.25 A.M. two destroyers, the Hornet and Jackal, arrived, the Hornet coming alongside on the Port Quarter, where a considerable sea was running; took off about 400 men, at a great risk to his destroyer, which was handled in a masterly manner.  This Officer's prompt and plucky action enabled me to save the whole of my Ship's Company.

Doing a bit of digging, it seems that HMS Hornet's captain was Commander Edward Barry Stewart Bingham, who subsequently won a VC at Jutland while in command of HMS Nestor.  Most websites focus on Bingham's VC but it seems he took command of HMS Hornet on 12 February 1915 before taking command of HMS Nestor on 1 May 1916.  At least one website states that Bingham's time in command of Hornet was "largely uneventful" but a couple of websites, including the IWM confirm that it was Bingham whose decisive action saved the bulk of HMS Argyll's crew.