Seaman Gunner aboard HMS Argyll....but which weapon(s)?

[Buffnut453]

Merry Christmas everyone!!!  I know this isn't very seasonal but I'd greatly appreciate any help the experts on GWF can provide on the subject of this thread.

A relative served as a Seaman Gunner prior to and during the Great War.  He was aboard HMS Exmouth from 28 Oct 1913 thru 28 Feb 1914 before joining HMS Argyll.  According to Wikipedia (which may not be accurate...but it's all I have), HMS Argyll had a range of weapons, including:

• 4 × single BL 7.5-inch Mk I guns
• 6 × single BL 6-inch Mk VII guns
• 2 × single 12-pounder 8 cwt guns
• 18 × single QF 3-pounder Hotchkiss guns
• 2 x single 18-inch torpedo tubes

Wikipedia's armament list for HMS Exmouth lists similar weapons, albeit without the same specificity (e.g it lists 6-inch, 12-pounder and 3-pounder weapons but no variants/manufacturers).  Intriguingly, Exmouth doesn't appear to have had any 7.5-inch guns.

My stupid question...is there any way to discover to which of these weapons my relative might have been assigned aboard HMS Argyll?  I know it's a long-shot but I have zero knowledge about RN training processes and qualifications for specific weapons.

Any insights would be very much appreciated.    

[horatio2]

4 hours ago, Buffnut453 said:

.is there any way to discover to which of these weapons my relative might have been assigned aboard HMS Argyll?

In short - No. He would, initially at least, have ben employed on the weapon(s) for which he had received earlier training in shore gunnery schools. Hemay have also received at-sea, on-the-job training in other gunnery systems installed in his ship. The gunnery qualifications he had, acquired ashore or afloat, would have been recorded in in his personal Gunnery History Sheet, few of which have survived.  You might strike lucky with the odd notation on his ADM 188 ledger record of servvice.                       

Edited 25 December , 2023 by horatio2

[stevenbecker]

For what I remember in my short peroid in the Navy, I qual in Gunnery in all weapons systems at that time with 40/60 and 4.5 guns not to mention the .50 cal MG, and was employed with these weapons on River class Ships, and with Patrol boats 40/60 

I know I was not allowed on the Anti sub gear, only the guns

Then again it was a long tome ago and I was 15 to 17 before joining the Army.

[Buffnut453]

5 hours ago, horatio2 said:

In short - No. He would, initially at least, have ben employed on the weapon(s) for which he had received earlier training in shore gunnery schools. He way have also received at-sea, on-the-job training in other gunnery systems installed in his ship. The gunnery qualifications he had, acquired ashore or afloat, would have been recorded in in his personal Gunnery History Sheet, few of which have survived.  You might strike lucky with the odd notation on his ADM 188 ledger record of servvice.                       

Many thanks horatio2.  I suspected as much.  Can you help me understand the roles and responsibilities of a Seaman Gunner?  I presume he would be responsible for all aspects of operating and maintaining the ship's weapons?  Would Seaman Gunners also be responsible for the torpedoes or did that fall to another specialization?  

43 minutes ago, stevenbecker said:

For what I remember in my short peroid in the Navy, I qual in Gunnery in all weapons systems at that time with 40/60 and 4.5 guns not to mention the .50 cal MG, and was employed with these weapons on River class Ships, and with Patrol boats 40/60 

I know I was not allowed on the Anti sub gear, only the guns

Then again it was a long tome ago and I was 15 to 17 before joining the Army.

Thanks stevenbecker.  Qualifying on multiple weapons makes a lot of sense to enable flexibility of operation.  The heat of battle is no time to be figuring out how to operate a particular weapon.   

[stevenbecker]

From what I remember the weapons qual was at the school of Gunnery, then at South Head (in Austalia)

There we instructed on each weapon system and had to qual on each weapon

I still remember turning on the Power to the 40/60 mount and going for a spin, or being stuck in the loading line in the turret of the 4.5's, no fun there

 

[16thBNCanScotJim]

Hello, I have no navel military experience but I was general infantry. I would likely agree that he would have likely been trained on all the weapons onboard, so as to be able to be deployed to any position required onboard. It was this way in the Army.  You were given the basic operational training for the weapons in the platoon, so same same I think.

 

Jim

[KizmeRD]

The only way of knowing what specific gun your relative was assigned to would be to view the ship’s ‘Watch & Quarter Bill’, which sets out every seaman's ‘Watch’ (work shift), ‘part of ship’ (place of work), their mess, their Action Station, their Special Sea Duties etc. etc. - but these are transient and I’ve never seen one preserved, let alone a specimen dating all the way back to WW1.  In short, your question is almost impossible to answer.

MB

Edited 26 December , 2023 by KizmeRD

[horatio2]

@KizmeRD has noted the important difference between a rating's day-to-day employment and his place in action. It should be noted that your man was, first and foremost a seaman (ordinary, able or leading). This was his substantive rating. Seaman gunner (and Seaman Torpedo Man) was a non-substantive rating. As a seaman he would have been called upon to participate in any number of daily evolutions (e.g. lowering and manning ship's boats). It would be wrong to think that, just because he was a Seaman Gunner, he was spending most of his working time at the guns. He certainly would have been required to clean and maintain his action station gun position, be that turret, gun mounting or magazine. But in-depth maintenance or repair would have been the resposonsibuility of the technically-trained Armourers.

[Buffnut453]

Many thanks @KizmeRD and @horatio2 for those additional insights.  Given the weather conditions on the night when HMS Argyll ran aground on the Inchcape Rock, I doubt the ship would be running at Action Stations so, presumably, my relative was performing other duties if he was on watch at the time...or he was sleeping/eating if he wasn't on watch. 

I do appreciate all these insights.  They've all helped me better understand my relative's role and responsibilities aboard HMS Argyll.