Hospital Ship Sinkings

[chrisharley9]

Possibly a controversial question, but one that I will ask anyway - did the Germans have a deliberate policy of sinking hospital ships. From the number of sinkings I have found it cannot have been a case that they were all mistakes

All The Best

Chris

[Michael Lowrey]

Chris,

Your question is overly broad. German submarines sank some 6,500 vessels, including a number of vessels carrying wounded. These include a very few cases of U-boat intentionally and knowingly sinking hospital ships. There are also many more cases of U-boats recognizing hospital ships and letting them pass unmolested.

Germany did not have a consistant policy with regards to submarine warfare in general. To meaningfully discuss the topic, you really have to talk about a specific when and where.

Best wishes,

Michael

[John_Hartley]

And there will, of course, been sinkings from mines - like the Anglia (1915 off Dover).

One casualty, Harry Eastwick, being of interest to me and, at the other end of the country, to SueL. Small world, innit?

John

[chrisharley9]

I meant only those ships that were hospital ships proper ie marked with the Red Cross ie Glenart Castle, Dover Castle, Drina. As I have been doing some research on medical staff killed in the Great war the number of times that hospital ships were attacked surprised me. I have of course ignored those that were mined as this cannot be classed as deliberate attack on a hospital ship

All The Best

Chris

[Michael Lowrey]

Drina??

[chrisharley9]

Yes Michael!

See http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/BritishHospitalShipsTorpe.html

All The Best

chris

[Michael Lowrey]

Yes Michael!

See http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/BritishHospitalShipsTorpe.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. Bad reference. Drina is listed as sunk on March 1, 1917 in BVLAS and Lloyd's War Losses. BVLAS notes that she was armed at the time of her loss. Lloyd's War Losses notes that she was on voyage with passengers at the time of her loss. Then there's this from The Ship's List website:

DRINA 1912

11,483 gross tons ... In Aug.1914 she was briefly used as a hospital ship but soon returned to normal duties. 1st Mar.1917 torpedoed and sunk off Milford Haven by the German submarine UC.65 with the loss of 15 lives. [Merchant Fleets, vol.5 by Duncan Haws]

http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/descriptions/ShipsD.html

I should add that German sources note that Drina was actually mined (minefield on Feb 8, 1917.)

Best wishes,

Michael

[chrisharley9]

No. Bad reference. Drina is listed as sunk on March 1, 1917 in BVLAS and Lloyd's War Losses. BVLAS notes that she was armed at the time of her loss. Lloyd's War Losses notes that she was on voyage with passengers at the time of her loss. Then there's this from The Ship's List website:

DRINA 1912

11,483 gross tons ... In Aug.1914 she was briefly used as a hospital ship but soon returned to normal duties. 1st Mar.1917 torpedoed and sunk off Milford Haven by the German submarine UC.65 with the loss of 15 lives. [Merchant Fleets, vol.5 by Duncan Haws]

http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/descriptions/ShipsD.html

I should add that German sources note that Drina was actually mined (minefield on Feb 8, 1917.)

Best wishes,

Michael

Michael

It looks like there was an attack on the Drina on 30/12/1915 in which at least 2 nurses were killed. The CWGC have the Drina listed as a hospital ship on that date.

All The Best

Chris

[historydavid]

Chris,

The term "hospital ship" is frequently, but mistakenly, used to include hospital transport ships. These transports were allowed to be armed, and, as well as carrying wounded troops and some nursing staff, could also carry war materials.

I assume that the distinction between hospital ship and hospital transport was, that in the former, the troops were still being "treated" for wounds etc , whilst in the latter, troops were deemed to be "recovering" after treatment, although wounds may still have required dressings to be changed

Britain and its allies held that hospital ships, which were clearly marked (red cross and lights etc) should not be molested because their's was a humanitarian role, but accepted that hospital transports, which should not be specially marked, could be attacked and sunk.

The object of sinking shipping, on both sides, was to deny the enemy the use of the ship and the cargo it carried.

This raises the arguement that as hospital ships carried cargo (the wounded) was/is it reasonable to let them pass unmolested, bearing in mind that at least some of the cargo would recover and return to service.

Hospital ships and hospital transports tended to be normal merchant vessels that were requisitioned by the Admiralty and adapted for their intended role. The length of service varied from ship to ship, depending on the requirements at the time (during the Gallipioli campaign there were more ships required than previously, for example).

In the case of the 'Drina', according to The Ships List, "In Aug.1914 she was briefly used as a hospital ship but soon returned to normal duties." This is at odds with the hospital ships list which you referenced which implies that she was a hospital ship at the time of her sinking in 1917. I think that Michael's post clearly indicates that this was not the case. Also, Tennant does not describe her as a hospital ship although he does state that she was mined.

At the time of her sinking she obviously wasn't a hospital ship, although it is just possible that that she was acting as a hospital transport.

I can't find any reference to an attack on her in my information but, if at least two nurses were killed, then she was probably acting as a hospital transport at that date, unless they were passengers. Information on the CWGC site is not always accurate.

To address your original question, if by Germans you mean officialdom (Government, Admiralty etc) then the answer is NO.

However, if you mean submarine commanders, then it seems to have depended on the individual's attitude to the enemy.

Most commanders always treated the enemy with respect and never committed an act of "atrocity" but some quite literally hated the enemy and

acted with maximum force at all times, including shooting up survivors in lifeboats after torpedoing their ship. Whether you class this as an "atrocity" depends on your attaitude to the comments I made above about denying cargo to the enemy.

This latter type of commander would have no qualms about sinking a hospital ship or any other vessel.

Best wishes

David

[chrisharley9]

David

Many thanks for the your very comprehensive answer. I was only vaugely aware of the difference between a hospital ship & a hospital transport so another gap filled. With regard to the DRINA I think I will start a new thread when I have got some more info

All The Best

Chris

[aconnolly]

Chris

Further to Dave's excellent note above, the Official list as published in the Medical History vol I has 16 Hospital Ships sunk by mine or enemy action. The text states that some ships were destroyed after being classed as ambulance transports. By this I think the history means that these 16 were all carrying out pure medical roles at the time they were sunk.

The key issue particularly about those sunk by torpedo in the Channel or around the British coast is that these ships were all (eventually) armed and therefore "fair game" to German naval attack. The following quote from pg 113 of the 1st vol of the Medical History does not have a date for the British policy, but it is clear:

"It seemed as if the distinctive painting of hospital ships ... marked them out for attack on account of their visability. It was consequently determined that all distinctive marks on hospital ships, employed on the channel service at any rate should be removed. They then no longer claimed the protection of the Geneva Convention and sailed as ordinary transports. Their equipment remained the same, but they were designated "ambulance transports" in place of hospital ships, were armed to repel attack, were entitled to a naval escort when necessary, and sailed under the Red Ensign"

By inference, this policy seems to have come about as a result of attacks, but the first torpedo attack was not until March 1917, therefore I suspect the change was in response to the "unrestricted" mining of the Channel in particular. No doubt a naval expert on the Forum can give more detail of policy etc.

Andrew

HS Anglia mined off Dover 17/11/1915

HS Galeka mined off Harve 28/10/1916 (Edited following subsequent post)

HS Britannic mined in Aegean Sea 21/11/1916

HS Braemar Castle mined in Aegean Sea 23/11/1916

HS Glenart Castle mined between Harve & Southampton 1/3/1917; repaired, mined again & sunk 26/2/1918

HS Asturias torpedoed off Devonshire coast 21/3/1917

HS Gloucester Castle torpedoed between Harve & Southampton 30/3/1917

HS Salta mined Harve 10/4/1917

HS Lanfranc torpedoed between Harve & Southampton 17/4/17

HS Donegal torpedoed 17/4/1917

HS Dover Castle torpedoed 26/5/1917

HS Goorkha mined off Malta 10/10/1917

Naval HS Rewa torpedoed 4/1/1918

HS Guildford Castle torpedoed 10/3/1918

HS Llandovery Castle torpedoed 27/6/1918

HS Warilda torpedoed in Channel 3/8/1918

[chrisharley9]

Thanks for your reply - 9 ships torpedoed which shows that at least the U Boat commanders in question knew what they were sinking - is there any thing mentioned in German war diaries about this

All The Best

Chris

[aconnolly]

Chris

I don't have any German naval information. The timings of the attacks were not listed in every case, but where detailed ranged between 11am and 7.30pm with the evening ones being in March-April - ? degree of visability. I guess the lack of specific markings could be interpreted as meaning the German submarine captains only knew they were attacking Allied ships, not specifically hospital transports. The Australian Medical History accuses the Germans of deliberate targeting in 1916, but the facts are that torpedo sinkings did not occur until 1917; the Australian history states the same dates as the British history for the 16 sinkings, so unless there were "near misses" prior to the change in policy regarding markings of the ships etc. it is hard to defintely conclude a deliberate policy existed. It is unclear if hospital ships sunk by torpedo in the Aegean were clearly marked as Hospital ships or if these too operated under the "Ambulance Transport" - ie. "fair game".

Hopefully a forum member with intersts in German naval operations can comment more definitively.

Andrew

[chrisharley9]

Andrew

Many thanks for your answers - i was hoping for more from the German viewpoint, but sadly not

All the Best

Chris

[Michael Lowrey]

Some corrections to the list:

Donegal torpedoed 17/4/1917 and Warilda torpedoed in Channel 3/8/1918 are listed as armed vessels in BVLAS, so would have been ambulance transports.

Galeka was mined on 28/10/1916

Gloucester Castle torpedoed between Harve & Southampton 31/3/1917, damaged only, not sunk

Guildford Castle torpedoed 10/3/1918 -- actually two torpedoes fires at her, one missed, one failed to explode per BVLAS

Glenart Castle was apparently torpedoed on 26/2/1918 and not mined

Asturias torpedoed off Devonshire coast 21/3/1917 -- damaged only, not sunk

Braemar Castle mined in Aegean Sea 23/11/1916 -- damaged only, not sunk

In addition, the Russian hospital ship Portugal was torpedoed and sunk in Black Sea on March 30, 1916.

Best wishes,

Michael

Edited 8 October , 2005 by Michael Lowrey

[Michael Lowrey]

The Australian Medical History accuses the Germans of deliberate targeting in 1916, but the facts are that torpedo sinkings did not occur until 1917; the Australian history states the same dates as the British history for the 16 sinkings, so unless there were "near misses" prior to the change in policy regarding markings of the ships etc. it is hard to defintely conclude a deliberate policy existed.

BVLAS doesn't include any mention of unsuccesful hospital ship attacks in 1916. I think though I know where this assertion comes from. There often was uncertainty where a ship that was sunk or damaged had hit a mine or was torpedoed. In particular, Braemar Castle and Britannic are sometimes listed as torpedo victims (German records show that both were clearly mined). Combine this uncertainty with a wartime willingness to ascribe the worst motives to the enemy plus propaganda, and you have the basis of the claim of deliberate targeting in 1916.

It comes as no surprise that you don't see hospital ships/ambulance transports sunk or damaged in the English Channel before early 1917. German submarines, you see, hardly ever operated in the Channel between France and England before late 1916. The German-based High Seas Fleet boats abandoned going through Dover in April 1915 (they would go through again in some quantity in February 1917 and December 1917/January 1918.) When not going through Dover, these boats went around the north of Scotland and typically didn't operate east of about the Lizard. They simply won't have come in contact with hospital ships/ambulance transports very often.

Flanders-based U-boats did operate through Dover in the English Channel. The limit there was suitable sumbarine availability. The big U-series weren't based in Flanders. It was only with the introduction of the UBII class that the Flanders flotilla had a sub that could operate in the and few were assigned there before mid-1916. Minelayers capable of regularly operating in the Channel (UCII class -- they also made good torpedo attack boats) don't appear before late 1916. The combination of unrestricted submarine warfare plus a big increase in the number of available boats in late 1916 and early 1917 in Flanders operating through Dover causes an increase in the number of ships sunk by mine and torpedo from late 1916 on.

The question then is which of the hospital ships sunk or damaged were attacked knowing they were a hospital ship and which were mistaken attacks. (It is quite easy to misidentify a ship in a submarine.) The best answer is to examine the war diaries of the U-boats involved... (yes, they still exist and I have copies of many of them on microfilm.)

It is unclear if hospital ships sunk by torpedo in the Aegean were clearly marked as Hospital ships or if these too operated under the "Ambulance Transport" - ie. "fair game".

No hospital ships were sunk by torpedo in the Aegean.

Best wishes,

Michael

[aconnolly]

Michael

Thanks for the corrections - I've edited the first post regarding the date of Galeka. I fully agree that it must be difficult if not impossible to identify a ship othwer than "not ours" at the best of times.

Andrew

[Hedley Malloch]

Strategically speaking, it does not make any sense for a combattant to sink his enemy's hospital ships. The logic of war is to give your enemy as many wounded as possible, rather than kill them. Once dead, the only obligation placed on the enemy is to bury them. Better to wound them. The wounded are incapacitated but further the enemy has a duty to look after them, to provide hospitals and highly-skilled personnel such as doctors and nurses. A strategy of wounding rather than killing also ties up your enemy's logicistics, and is very bad for civilian morale. The sensible U-boat commander does not sink hospital ships; instead he shepherds them to their home ports and makes sure that no harm befalls them.

[chrisharley9]

Not the 1st time I have heard that, but probably the best I have heard it put over - Many thanks Hedley

Was the Llandovery Castle a deliberate attack or was this another case of mistaken identity that degenerated into an ugly incident after the sinking

All The Best

Chris

[aconnolly]

Chris

Here are the casualty lists for the 16 ships damaged/sunk:

HS Anglia 17/11/1915: 5 Officers, 128 men, 1 sister and 9 RAMC staff died.

HS Galeka 28/10/1916: no patients on board, 19 RAMC died.

HS Britannic 21/11/1916: no patients on board, 8 orderlies and 1 officer RAMC died.

HS Braemar Castle 23/11/1916: I have no record of casualties. As noted by Michael, it was not sunk, so ? all survived.

HS Glenart Castle mined between Harve & Southampton 1/3/1917; repaired, mined again & sunk 26/2/1918: all on board saved March 1917, I have no record of casualty figures for second attack

HS Asturias 21/3/1917: no patients on board 12 RAMC oderlies, 1 nurse, 1 docter died. As noted the ship was able to beach.

HS Gloucester Castle 30/3/1917: 3 patients died during transfer to rescue craft. As noted by Michael, ship was able to be eventually brought to port.

HS Salta 0/4/1917: no patients on board, 5 officers, 9 nursaes, 37 other ranks RAMC died.

HS Lanfranc 17/4/17: 2 Officers, 20 British and 18 German Other Ranks died.

HS Donegal 17/4/1917: I have no record of the casualty figures.

HS Dover Castle 26/5/1917: all on board saved (staff and patients.) Note some records have 7 stokers killed in the explosion

HS Goorkha 10/10/1917: all saved (staff & patients), ship towed to Malta.

Naval HS Rewa torpedoed 4/1/1918: 4 crew died. I have no details if patients were on board

HS Guildford Castle torpedoed 10/3/1918: I have no figures, but it did reach port, ? all survived.

HS Llandovery Castle 27/6/1918:no patients on board, 88 RAMC staff and 146 crew died.

HS Warilda 3/8/1918 Of the patients, 2 Officers, 118 OR died as did 1 nurse and 1 RAMC.

To corrct an earlier posting of mine, the timing of the torpedo attack on Asturias was in fact midnight. Some timings are not recorded in the data I have, but midnight clearly reinforces the identification problem - I can't see how the German navy can be accussed of deliberatly targeting these ships.

Andrew

[toofatfortakeoff]

In U Boot gegen U Boot Commander Heino v.Heimburg stated hat upon seeing a Hospital ship very clearly marked, 'there seemed to be a lot of British hospital ships going to the Dardanelles" implying that a few were carrying false banners, which definitely applied to merchant vessels coming out of Britain with neutral flags. After consideration he ignored the ship but latrer that day he sank the Royal Edward which was on the same route as an army transport.

[chrisharley9]

Chris

Here are the casualty lists for the 16 ships damaged/sunk:

HS Anglia 17/11/1915:  5 Officers, 128 men, 1 sister and 9 RAMC staff died.

HS Galeka 28/10/1916:  no patients on board, 19 RAMC died.

HS Britannic 21/11/1916: no patients on board, 8 orderlies and 1 officer RAMC died.

HS Braemar Castle 23/11/1916: I have no record of casualties. As noted by Michael, it was not sunk, so ? all survived.

HS Glenart Castle mined between Harve & Southampton 1/3/1917; repaired, mined again & sunk 26/2/1918: all on board saved March 1917, I have no record of casualty figures for second attack

HS Asturias 21/3/1917: no patients on board 12 RAMC oderlies, 1 nurse, 1 docter died.  As noted the ship was able to beach.

HS Gloucester Castle 30/3/1917: 3 patients died during transfer to rescue craft.  As noted by Michael, ship was able to be eventually brought to port.

HS Salta  0/4/1917: no patients on board, 5 officers, 9 nursaes, 37 other ranks RAMC died.

HS Lanfranc 17/4/17: 2 Officers, 20 British and 18 German Other Ranks died.

HS Donegal 17/4/1917: I have no record of the casualty figures.

HS Dover Castle 26/5/1917: all on board saved (staff and patients.) Note some records have 7 stokers killed in the explosion

HS Goorkha 10/10/1917:  all saved (staff & patients), ship towed to Malta.

Naval HS Rewa torpedoed 4/1/1918: 4 crew died.  I have no details if patients were on board

HS Guildford Castle torpedoed 10/3/1918: I have no figures, but it did reach port, ? all survived.

HS Llandovery Castle 27/6/1918:no patients on board, 88 RAMC staff and 146 crew died.

HS Warilda 3/8/1918 Of the patients, 2 Officers, 118 OR died as did 1 nurse and 1 RAMC.

To corrct an earlier posting of mine, the timing of the torpedo attack on Asturias was in fact midnight.  Some timings are not recorded in the data I have, but midnight clearly reinforces the identification problem - I can't see how the German navy can be accussed of deliberatly targeting these ships.

Andrew

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Andrew

HS Braemar Castle the casualties are commemorated on the Mikra Memorial see here

5 of the RAMC dead from the Asturias are buried in Torquay Cemetery

All The Best

Chris

[John Gilinsky]

Not the 1st time I have heard that, but probably the best I have heard it put over - Many thanks Hedley

Was the Llandovery Castle a deliberate attack or was this another case of mistaken identity that degenerated into an ugly incident after the sinking

All The Best

Chris

The Llandovery Castle was a DELIBERATE attack as the sub commander recognized his target during very good weather in daylight as a properly reocgnized British hospital ship. Under the pretense that Llandovery was carrying unauthorized military personnel specifically American aviators he torpedoed the ship. When he proabably realized that he had exceeded orders and worse probably had made a mistake he made a deliberate attempt to blot out any evidence that would contradict his story. He therefore ran down and used the sub's gun to blow lifeboats out of the water. I am writing a in-depth history of this particular event. If ANYONE has ANYTHING on the BRITISH MERCHANT MARINE CREW especially I would love to hear from them!

John

[Borden Battery]

Here is some additional information on the Llandovery Castle hospital ship from a Canadian perspective:

At the start of the Battle of Amiens:

"Each division reported assembly completed by sending Corps Headquarters the code word "Llandovery Castle". Operational instructions for the attack issued by Canadian Corps Headquarters bore the initials "L.C." The Llandovery Castle, a British merchant vessel serving as a Canadian hospital ship, had been torpedoed on 27 June 1918, while returning to England from Halifax. Of a Canadian crew and medical staff totalling 258 all ranks, only 24 survived. Among those who perished were the fourteen Canadian Nursing Sisters aboard."

Source: Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War - Canadian Expeditionary Force, 1914-1919, Colonel G. W. L. Nicholson, p372 (footnote)

Naturally, as a result of this event affecting a lot of Canadian personnel, there are reported to have been several instances where many German defenders at the Battle of Amiens did not survive to become prisoners of war:

"Their determination to punish the enemy had recently been jacked even higher by an atrocity that had taken place on June 27. On that night, a Canadian hospital ship, the Llandovery Castle, was torpedoed by U-86 and sunk on a return voyage to Britain. Kapitanleutnant Patzig, after ascertaining from the ship's captain that the Liandovery Castle carried only medical personnel, then rammed all the lifeboats except one, which managed to escape in the dark. Two-hundred and thirty-four died that night including fourteen nurses. The Canadian reaction was typified by Brigadier George Tuxford, a former homesteader from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan: "Amongst those murdered were two Moose Jaw nurses, Sister Fraser and Sister Gallagher. I gave instructions to the Brigade that the battle cry on the 8th of August should be 'Llandovery Castle,' and that that cry should be the last to ring in the ears of the Hun as the bayonet was driven home."

Amiens - Dawn of Victory, James McWilliams and R. James Steel, p 31

The Llandovery Castle, assigned to the Canadian service was sunk by submarine June 27, 1918. Of the entire ship's company of 258 only 24 survived; and of these only six, one officer and five other ranks, were from the 97 in the medical personnel. Amongst the lost was the whole complement of nursing sisters, 14 in number. The attack was made with utter savagery; even the escaping life-boats were pursued and sunk.

Source: History of the Canadian Forces--the Medical Services (by Sir Andrew Macphail)

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/rcnmed00.htm

"This list of survivors includes only one officer and five other ranks of the hospital personnel of ninety-seven, and the official story of Major T. Lyon, Sergt. A. Knight, Private F. W. Cooper, Private G. R. Hickman, Private S.A. Taylor, and Private W. Pilot, all of the Canadian Army Medical Corps, is a stirring record of the perfect discipline of all ranks and the loading and floating of the lifeboats in the face of every possible obstacle."

Source: History of the Canadian Forces--the Medical Services (by Sir Andrew Macphail)

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lcastl11.htm

Here are the Attestation Papers for three of these men:

G.R. Hickman - http://data2.archives.ca/cef/gpc006/390980a.gif

S.A. Taylor - http://data2.archives.ca/cef/gpc016/627915a.gif (???)

Major T. Lyon - http://data2.archives.ca/cef/gpc009/472970a.gif

[2ndCMR]

The account of the trial of several of the officers of the U-boat makes 'interesting' reading: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lcastl10.htm The captain didn't turn up for the trial, leaving his subordinates to carry the can.

This reminds me of way in which the Kormoran decoyed HMAS Sydney and then machine-gunned the survivors so that there would be no witnesses to an act of piracy. "Who Sank the Sydney" makes a pretty water-tight case.

Of course the Japanese submariners did one better by taking eighty-odd women and children out into the Sumatra Straits and then submerging, leaving them to the sharks.