Zeebrugge Raid 1918

[Guest thigginbotham1]

Hi Dom,

Thanks for your reply, i do have a copy of Ernest's service record, and as you say the raid itself isn't mentioned. But he did receive leave at the right time just before the raid.

Im pretty convinced that he was on the raid as he passed on in the 1950's before anything could really be published on the subject and he had told my grandma (his daughter when she was a child) many of the details of the raid that only someone on the raid would have known.

But thank you again for the pointers in the right direction.

All the very best

Tammy

[SiegeGunner]

Hi Dom,

Do your lists of participants include a Harold A Illingworth ? Possibly on a ML - could also be Ostend rather than Z.

I have a copy of Carpenter's book inscribed with his name and accompanied by his invitations/programmes for the 1951 'Coming of Age' Dinner of the Zeebrugge (1918) Association and the Sixtieth Anniversary Dinner and Commemoration (at Z) in 1978. Also with the book are two WW2 photos of 'Reg Williams', one annotated 'Chief Motor Mech. ML 512', and another photo glued into the book, in the Ostend appendix section, showing ML 512, together with a newspaper death announcement for Wilfred Edwin Kelly (Lt RNVR, 1944). Also a letter from Kelly's wife, saying he died of heart failure, and finally a pic of HMS Midge, inscribed 'Sent by WEK, July 1944. Midge's bell being his wedding present to us. HAI'.

I can't find Illingworth in any of my sources, but it seems likely he was on ML 512 or another of the Ostend MLs.

By the way, am I right in thinking that there was discord among Z & O veterans at some stage, leading to there being more than one Zeebrugge Association ?

Thanks in advance

Mick

[domwalsh]

Hi Mick,

Had a quick check in my files last night. There is no list of ML or blockships crews so there isn't a lot to go on. I don't have anything in my own files although I can confirm that ML512 was in the first Ostend Raid rather than Zeebrugge. Kelly was MID for his part in the raid, though sadly the original reports do not mention him, or indeed ML512. Does your copy of Carpenter's book have autographs in it? At many of the association reunions the members would often sign each others' copies. I will check my own copies (I have one original book belonging to a Deck Hand from ML282) plus copies of a couple of others. If I find these 3 men's autographs I will let you know.

I am certainly aware that the Zeebrugge Association did have tensions - some members thought the committee were rather self-important - but have not heared of a breakaway. Do you have evidence of that?

Is there any chance of getting copies of what you have? Don't go to any trouble but if you had a scanner I'd love copies for my files.

Best regards,

Dom

[bob lembke]

Guys;

As you may have noticed from my other posts , the main thrust of my research on WW I is flame throwers (FW), primarily the German flame effort (the largest), but also that of other combatents. As you probably know, the HMS Vindictive had two large FWs whose fire tubes were built into two "huts" on the left side, fore and aft. These large and complicated devices were shot up and unworkable before they could be used, supposedly some flame oil excaped, and the British were lucky that this oil and the devices did not ignite during the battle.

Additionally, multiple sources indicate that the landing parties were issued portable FW. My recent research indicates that these probably were a model called the "Hayes", which seems to have been designed earlier in the war. These are some pictures of these devices floating about. I understand that the large ones were a model called the "Vincent", designed by a Capt. F. C. Vincent.

One (two?) question(s); were these portable devices actually used, and were they useful? I understand that one source says that they were not useful, and the crews had to toss them and charge with cutlasses; another source, (an article in the Military Illustrated issue of July 1996, # 98; author Peter T. Scott) supposedly says that these devices were useful, but did not provide details. the second (third?) question; where were these obtained from? The British Army had dropped the use of all models of FW about a year earlier, and supposedly Gen. Foulkes, CO of the Special Brigade, put the large ones into "storage" in the open weather where they presumably rusted away. Foulkes was very down on FW, was very head-strong, and I suspect that he was not likely to cooperate with an effort to revive the weapon. He had dispersed his personnel with FW experience, or put them to other tasks.

I believe that the FW at Zeebrugge were manned by men of the R.N.A.S. and prepared for the assignment at one of their bases. The Hayes devices pictured were simple and could be produced in a machine shop of medium capability.

Does anyone have any info on this, or could someone point me to sources, hopefully primary sources, that describes the fighting on the mole in some detail? (Language is not a problem; I have four European languages, but my super-wife, the "librarian-of-fortune", has 11 down well.)

If anyone has, or has a lead to a German source describing the fighting, I would be happy to whip up and post a translation, if not of impossible length. I have almost every issue of the three main German official histories (not unit histories) produced by the Reichsarchiv (about 66 volumes), and I am 98% sure that they do not describe this raid; a lot of the history for 1918 was never produced; the major series only finished 1917 in 1939, when they then had better (or worse) things to do.

Would anyone be interested in my looking up and posting (in German and my translation into English) the German OHL (Highest Army Command) daily communique(s) that covers this fighting? These daily communiques seemed to be, on their face, accurate, and were relied on, for example, by the top AEF brass. The Germans seemed to develop their spin by being selective in their selection of battles to discuss, but not by selecting a battle and stuffing propaganda and lies into the narrative.

Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide.

Bob Lembke

[domwalsh]

Dear Bob,

The official report of the raid, including personal accounts by some of the RNAS participants, is held at the National Archives, ref: ADM 137/3894. I have a copy and could probably scan in the relevent pages if you're interested.

Regards,

Dom

[SiegeGunner]

Hi Mick,

Had a quick check in my files last night. There is no list of ML or blockships crews so there isn't a lot to go on. I don't have anything in my own files although I can confirm that ML512 was in the first Ostend Raid rather than Zeebrugge. Kelly was MID for his part in the raid, though sadly the original reports do not mention him, or indeed ML512. Does your copy of Carpenter's book have autographs in it? At many of the association reunions the members would often sign each others' copies. I will check my own copies (I have one original book belonging to a Deck Hand from ML282) plus copies of a couple of others. If I find these 3 men's autographs I will let you know.

I am certainly aware that the Zeebrugge Association did have tensions - some members thought the committee were rather self-important - but have not heared of a breakaway. Do you have evidence of that?

Is there any chance of getting copies of what you have? Don't go to any trouble but if you had a scanner I'd love copies for my files.

Best regards,

Dom

Dom,

I've actually got three copies of 'The Blocking of Zeebrugge', but only Illingworth's copy is inscribed, and then only with his own name: Harold A Illingworth, June 1929. It is the standard Herbert Jenkins edition, but has been professionaly re-bound in brown boards, but with only 'Blocking of Zeebrugge' and 'Carpenter' on the spine and nothing on the front board. The photo of ML 512 I mentioned has been bound in on an additional flap of paper in the Ostend Appendix section.

I knew there was some friction in the Association and deduced from various 'clues' that there might have been a schism at some stage. The 'clues' were the name: Zeebrugge (1918) Association, where the insertion of the date reminded me of 'Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd', perhaps suggesting an intention to distinguish from another organisation of a similar name; secondly the invitation to the 'Coming of Age' Dinner of the Association in 1951, suggesting that the Association only came into being in 1930.

There are also various 'clues' in the invitation itself, which begins:

"We are holding our 21st dinner, which is to be a joint affair for all ranks who served at Zeebrugge and Ostend on 22/23 April 1918 and 9/10 May 1918, at the Imperial Hotel, Russell Square, London WC1. It is the earnest wish of the President, Chairman and Committee that this should be a huge success, being the first in which we shall join forces. On looking back over the years which have passed since those memorable days in 1918 it seems remarkable that we have not had such a dinner before, however it has now come to pass and we sincerely hope that you will endeavour to attend, so make a special effort to be with us. Can we fill the dining room? - Yes! with your help. Vice Admiral AFB Carpenter VC DL JP in the Chair."

and continues (after details of the Dinner arrangements):

"Your Committee suggest that if you have any differences of opinion about our working or social affairs to put them in 'dry dock'. Come ashore and join your old ships at the Imperial. Sink your differences for this popular occasion."

and concludes (after details of the Commemoration Service and forthcoming RNVR Association Reunion):

"THE NARKER"

The curse of life is the 'narker'. This is the bloke who sees no good in anything, who thinks he is 'being done' by everyone and is warning others, openly or subtly, that they are being got at. In any association they are deadly. They kill comradeship quickly and surely, they never suffer loss of form, no matter how staunch the rest of the members are, the 'narker' undermines moral more quickly than one apple rots a barrel. Give him a miss. Remarkably free from this menace is our Association and it is perhaps the secret of our success.

G J Moyse, Hon. Secretary

On reflection, these 'clues' perhaps point more to ongoing tension in the Association rather than to a break-away. The members, at that time, must have been aged between about 50 and 65+

I will scan and e-mail you these 'loose papers' and photos (eventually - I have quite a lot of commitments at present).

Mick

The charge for dinner, by the way, was 12/6d (62.5p).

[bob lembke]

Dear Bob,

The official report of the raid, including personal accounts by some of the RNAS participants, is held at the National Archives, ref: ADM 137/3894. I have a copy and could probably scan in the relevent pages if you're interested.

Regards,

Dom

Dear Dom;

Your offer is kind indeed. Kew is hard to reach from the Colonies, and as I am at present busily tracking down my wild and whacky English relatives, a first priority if I can get over to London again would be to get to see them, not immerse myself in dusty libraries, as I did last time, lest they die on me. My one day window to visit Kew a couple of years ago was spiked by a brief illness of my wife, who had some research there herself.

Another kind stranger is giving me some German materials, which he can't read, and if he approves I will be happy to feed you some material from the other side of the mole, so to speak. Let me know what your specific interests are. I have 66 of the 68 or 69 volumes in the three series of the official (not unit) histories published by the Reichsarchiv, but none seem to cover this raid; the German coverage of the war is thin for 1918; for example, the series Der Weltkrieg 1914-1918 published the volume winding up 1917 in 1939, and then the Big Nastyness started up. (One series was half produced in 1919 and then the Allies actually stepped in and halted its production; most of the works that were finished covered the Eastern Front!) Once I have some info from the German side, I can then probably make some milage with unit histories or other sources that will then suggest themselves.

I can PM you with details. Thanks!

Bob Lembke

[domwalsh]

Hi Mick,

Thanks for offering to get me copies of the material. No hurry.

Interesting stuff on the association. There clearly was some tension though I too am not sure there was ever a breakway. I think maybe it was a case of people giving up membership. Interestingly, I am in contact with the son of the secretary, G Moyse, who was in the RMLI at Zeebrugge.

By the way, I looked up the autographs I have and couldn't find your men, I'm afraid.

Thanks again.

Best

Dom

[SiegeGunner]

Dom,

Thanks for looking through the autographs. I will find Illingworth eventually. The trick may be to look in sources covering ML operations before and after Z, where crews are likely to be mentioned, and casualties remembered.

I wonder whether any of the friction in the Association revolved around differing views on the success etc of the raid?

Thanks also for posting the article (your own ?) on the RMA/RMLI ballot. Very interesting. Other distinguished participants, eg. Bryan Adams (survived) and Brock (kia), also lost out - largely, it was said, because the men who would have voted for them were themselves dead.

regards

Mick

[bob lembke]

Here is the report on the raid in the daily communique from the Highest Army Command.

Englischer Landungsversuch in Zeebrügge gescheitert - Drei englische Kreuzer und drei Zerstörer versenkt

Berlin, 24. April.

In der Nacht vom 22. zum 23. April wurde ein großangelegtes und mit rücksichtslosem Einsatz geplantes Unternehmen englischer Seestreitkräfte gegen unsere flandrischen Stützpunkte vereitelt. Nach heftiger Beschießung von See aus drangen unter dem Schutze eines dichten Schleiers von künstlichem Nebel kleine Kreuzer, begleitet von zahlreichen Zerstörern und Motorbooten, bei Ostende und Zeebrügge bis unmittelbar unter die Küste vor, mit der Absicht, die dortigen Schleusen und Hafenanlagen zu zerstören. Gleichzeitig sollte, nach Aussage von Gefangenen, eine Abteilung von vier Kompagnien Seesoldaten (Royal Marines) die Mole von Zeebrügge handstreichartig besetzen, um alle auf ihr befindlichen Baulichkeiten, Geschütze und Kriegsgeräte sowie die im Hafen liegenden Fahrzeuge zu vernichten. Nur etwa 40 von ihnen haben die Mole betreten; diese sind teils tot, teils lebend in unsere Hand gefallen. Auf den schmalen, hohen Mauern der Mole ist von beiden Seiten mit äußerster Erbitterung gefochten worden. Von den am Angriff beteiligten englischen Seestreitkräften wurden die Kleinen Kreuzer "Iphigenia", "Intrepid", "Sirius" und 2 andere gleicher Bauart, deren Namen unbekannt sind, dicht unter der Küste versenkt. Ferner wurden 3 Zerstörer und eine größere Zahl von Torpedomotorbooten durch unser Artilleriefeuer zum Sinken gebracht. Nur einzelne Leute der Besatzung konnten von uns gerettet werden. Außer einer durch Torpedotreffer verursachten Beschädigung der Mole sind unsere Hafenanlagen und Küstenbatterien völlig unversehrt. Von unseren Seestreitkräften erlitt nur 1 Torpedoboot Beschädigung leichtester Art. Unsere Menschenverluste sind gering.

Is there interest in seeing a translation of this? I don't know the engagement well enough to know if this was an accurate representation. What it might do is claim that deliberately sunk block ships were sank by German fire, but this soon after the battle, and from several hundred miles away, these details might not have been figured out right away.

Bob Lembke

[SiegeGunner]

Bob,

There is a translation of the German communiqué on pp.159-160 of Deborah Lake's 'The Zeebrugge and Ostend Raids 1918' (Pen & Sword, 2002). If the text you have names the first of the light cruisers sunk as Iphigenia, the communiqué may have been updated/corrected at some stage, as the initial version mistakenly named the ship as Virginia.

regards

Mick

[bob lembke]

Bob,

There is a translation of the German communiqué on pp.159-160 of Deborah Lake's 'The Zeebrugge and Ostend Raids 1918' (Pen & Sword, 2002). If the text you have names the first of the light cruisers sunk as Iphigenia, the communiqué may have been updated/corrected at some stage, as the initial version mistakenly named the ship as Virginia.

regards

Mick

Thanks, Mick. I plan to get Ms. Lake's book, Amazon peddles it for a fair price. I did not set to translating the communique, as a quick skim does not suggest anything too exciting. These communiques usually have some very specific info, like POWs, MGs captured, etc. that check well against other sources. But in this case, obviously the people in Berlin did not have a clear picture 24 hours later, not surprising, as we don't seem to have one almost 90 years later.

Dom has kindly sent me the official report of the R.N.A.S.'s commander on the spot (Correct?) on their participation in the raid. Their participation focused on Flammenwerfer and phosphorus grenades, and the provision of four "gun bearers" (Lewis guns?). The report identifies six landing parties, and the R.N.A.S. men that joined them:

Captain Halahan's party: Two gun bearers, one phosphorus grenadier.

Commander Brock's party: as above

Marines' party: A NCO commander, four flammenwerfer* bearers, one phosphorus grenadier.

Seamen's party: as above

H.M.S. Iris' party: as above

H.M.S. Daffodil's party: as above

* The British seemed to have universally used the German term.

The text of the report seems to imply that the first four parties were from the Vindictive.

The report and a couple of supporting statements from a flammenwerfer bearer and a grenadier give a mixed report on the use of the flammenwerfer. Supposedly "Considerable difficulty was occasioned with the portable flammenwerfers, several being hit and losing all pressure before leaving the ship." Frankly, I find this statement problematic. I have a lot of detail on about 300 of the 653 plus German flame attacks in WW I (including all units with FW, probably about 750), and I have, after reading literally hundreds of sources, mostly German, only two or three verifiable cases where a FW "exploded" (that could cover a variety of incidents; fire?, an explosive loss of pressure?, etc.) due to enemy fire, although that supposed event is a staple of Allied writing on the topic of FW.

The Hayes unit the British used here seems to have used standard compressed gasses tanks, which would be several times as heavy and strong as needed and used by the Germans. The "hosing" used was entirely iron or steel piping, and 98% of the time would not be under pressure, except for a 6" piece. It would be extremely unlikely that small-arms fire or reasonably-sized shell fragments would puncture these devices; all surfaces are sharply curved.

The Hayes was a very simple and, IMHO, a bad design. (I am a mechanical engineer, and am familiar with 20-30 FW designs, and have blueprints of a number of them.) Aside from being heavy, their ergometrics was very bad, and a to my mind design flaw would lead to an instantaneous discharge of all propellant gas without oil if held at the wrong angle, a possibility increased by the bad ergometrics. The above quote from the report continued: "Thewy were also very awkward to handle on the Mole, and some were damaged getting over the top." Air-Mechanic W. H. Gough, seemingly the most successful wielder of a FW, said in his report: "as the flammenwerfer I carried was very unwieldly, I could not keep up with the platoon - - -"

The report also stated: "Exceptionally good work, however, was done with the few (note - FWs) that got ashore intact, especially in one instance, where Air Mechanic Gough was able to play the fire on men who were endevouring to land from the German destroyers." Gough's own report was a bit ambiguous, and states that the men he fired flame at were dispached by other raiders on the mole.

So it seems that some FW were brought onto the mole, but played a minor role. My preliminary info from the German sources suggests that they did not mention the FW in action, a suggestion that they were not effective.

The British airmen were certainly very brave, but were hampered by a very hard to handle, heavy design of flawed functionality. Aside for Livins' work on FW, most British FW design was conducted by self-appointed men that I would characterize as "gentlemen tinkerers", who made some astonishing mistakes, for example, using air and even compressed oxygen as a propellant, causing spontaneous explosions within the device, embarrasingly at formal demonstrations before high officers. A professional engineer would never make such a mistake. The German design work was started in 1901 by a professional chemical engineer working on high pressure spraying-nozzle design, and in 1907 by a published scientist and fire-fighting director. The final light German FW, the Wex, out early in 1917, if not earlier, was, to my mind, a more elegant design than the WW II German FWs, and light enough for, upon occasion, for a man to wear two of them. Fully loaded with oil and nitrogen, they were lighter than the standard infantry pack.

(I know, I know: "If you were so smart, why did you lose the war?" I hear it all the time from my wife.)

As I get more info from the German side, I will keep us posted.

Dom; can you provide a more formal citation? You have kindly provided the Kew "address"; does the document have a title, was it presented to the head of the R.N.A.S. (What is R.N.V.R.? R.N. Volunteer Reserve?) Many thanks!

Bob Lembke

[domwalsh]

Bob, the reports form part of the following:

ADM 137/3894

Reports on Zeebrugge and Ostend operations

1918 Apr-May

Covering dates: 1918 Apr-May

Scope and content: Reports on Zeebrugge and Ostend operations

Access conditions: Normal Closure before FOI Act: 30 years

Closure status: Open Document, Open Description

Held by: The National Archives, Kew

Cheers,

Dom

[bob lembke]

Dom;

Many thanks. I just ordered the Deborah Lake book.

As the official histories do not seem to cover the raid, I will try the unit histories, which are hard to get. I have a history of the German Marinekorps Flanders, but it is, I think, terribly short.

Due to the design, the Hayes FW would seem to have been tilted forward to spray fire. But if tilted too far forward (say the carrier stumbles or the heavy, clumsy device slips in his hands; it does not seem to have been worn) and all the propellant would woosh out in a second or two.

The report states that the grenadiers also carried cutlasses. Any info on the flammenwerfer bearers? In the German flame troops the flame thrower carriers had a P 08 on a lanyard tucked in their shirts or in a grenade pouch on the chest (no clumsy holster), but others carried "razor-sharp" short spades for close fighting. No rifles at all, some NCOs might have a slung carbine plus a P 08.

Bob Lembke

[13tolmie]

Hi everyone.

I've made this request before, so forgive me for repeating myself. I'm researching the role of the Royal Marines in the Zeebrugge Raid which took place on St George's Day 1918 with a view to writing a book. It will be biographically based, with an entry for each man who took part and, where possible, a photo. Any snippets or leads, no matter how trivial they may seem, would be gratefully received. For my part, I am happy to help anyone researching individuals, as I have mountains of info, photos etc of both marine and naval participants. I'm always happy to check names to see what info I've got.

Best wishes,

Dom

[13tolmie]

Dom,

I have joined this forum in the hopes I might be able to obtain more information about my great uncle Able Seaman John Yeadon (J 30413) of the Vindctive who was posted as missing following the Zeebrugge raid. I have found his name and details on the CWGC site and have downloaded his service record from the National Archives and have atttached it to this posting. As I live in Canada I am unable to visit the National Archives and would be very grateful if you could give me any additional information.

On his Service Record there is a stamp stating that he participated in the ballot for the V.C. I have been unable to find much information about the naval ballot. Also, I have researched the London Gazette which is online and there is no mention of him receiving any decoration posthumously. I would have thought if he were on the V.C. ballot, he might have received some other decoration.

Thanks. Any help would be appreciated.

Toronto

John_Yeadon_service_record.pdf

[domwalsh]

Hi Toronto,

I haven't yet checked my files to see if I have anything on your great uncle. But in terms of the ballot, he wouldn't be mentioned in the London Gazette unless he'd got an award or mention in despatches, which he did not. Everyone who took part in the raid who formed part of the landing parties on the Mole or who were part of the crew of Vindictive, Daffodil and Iris had their records annotated to the effect that they had participated in the VC ballot. Even those who were killed had their records marked up as such as they were eligible to be voted for posthumously. There were two VCs awarded to the Navy by ballot and two to the Royal Marines. Everyone who survived the raid and was able to do so was given a bit of paper and told to write the name of the man they reckoned should get the VC. The officers voted for one officer - Capt Carpenter of the Vindictive - while the rest voted for one of their own - AB Albert McKenzie. You should look at the very excellent website run by Colin McKenzie on his forebear. Meantime, I've attached an article I wrote a while back about the marines ballot. Although it was cocked up, the article might give you some idea of how it worked.

I will let you know if I find anything on AB Yeadon. His name certainly rings a bell with me. Do you have a photo of him?

Best regards,

Dom

COOKE_TFV_VC_ballot_article.doc

[13tolmie]

Hi Toronto,

I haven't yet checked my files to see if I have anything on your great uncle. But in terms of the ballot, he wouldn't be mentioned in the London Gazette unless he'd got an award or mention in despatches, which he did not. Everyone who took part in the raid who formed part of the landing parties on the Mole or who were part of the crew of Vindictive, Daffodil and Iris had their records annotated to the effect that they had participated in the VC ballot. Even those who were killed had their records marked up as such as they were eligible to be voted for posthumously. There were two VCs awarded to the Navy by ballot and two to the Royal Marines. Everyone who survived the raid and was able to do so was given a bit of paper and told to write the name of the man they reckoned should get the VC. The officers voted for one officer - Capt Carpenter of the Vindictive - while the rest voted for one of their own - AB Albert McKenzie. You should look at the very excellent website run by Colin McKenzie on his forebear. Meantime, I've attached an article I wrote a while back about the marines ballot. Although it was cocked up, the article might give you some idea of how it worked.

I will let you know if I find anything on AB Yeadon. His name certainly rings a bell with me. Do you have a photo of him?

Best regards,

Dom

COOKE_TFV_VC_ballot_article.doc

[13tolmie]

Hi Dom

Thank you for your prompt reply. Unfortunately I do not have a picture of John Yeadon.

Have checked the McKenzie Website and was really impressed. I sent Colin an email in the hopes he might have information on other AB's who were on the HMS Vindictive.

There is one item on the Service Record of John Yeadon which I do not understand. In two places on the record is written NP 4018/18. Do you or any other members of the forum know what this means?

I have just ordered a book from the National Archives, Tracing Your Naval Ancestors. Hope it and this forum will give me some direction. Somewhere there must be more detailed records which would tell me what role John Yeadon played at Zeebrugge (landing party??), if he received any awards, the papers he signed when he enlisted etc.

Also, when I looked at his Serivce Record, it seemed as if most of the entries were in the same handwriting. If so, why? What do you think?

Wendy

Toronto

[horatio2]

The enlistment papers of your GU are almost certainly in the Engagement Ledgers (Seamen - Continuous Service) held at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, Yeovilton. They will not contain any service details but will contain all the data he gave when signing-up. Try them on www.fleetairarm.com or e-mail info@fleetairarm.com.

[bob lembke]

The enlistment papers of your GU are almost certainly in the Engagement Ledgers (Seamen - Continuous Service) held at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, Yeovilton. They will not contain any service details but will contain all the data he gave when signing-up. Try them on www.fleetairarm.com or e-mail info@fleetairarm.com.

Was your guy in the Fleet Air Arm? If so, I might have some information.

Or do you mean that his records are held there for some bureacratic reason?

If he was in the Fleet Air Arm he probably did some very interesting and fairly well documented work there.

Bob Lembke

[horatio2]

Bob, Some years ago the FAA Museum took into its custody, and thereby saved, a vast number of naval Engagement Papers that were destined for the bonfire. Toronto's GU John Yeadon was probably not in aviation - his J number indicates RN Long (Continuous) Service.

[bob lembke]

The F leet Air Arm men along on the raid (about 38 men) mostly tried to use two types of flame-throwers, and also incinderary grenades, mostly without success. They even may have made them themselves.

Bob Lembke

[SiegeGunner]

Bob,

Those guys were Royal Naval Air Service. The Fleet Air Arm is a later invention. The FAA Museum at Yeovilton (roughly mid-way between the naval ports of Portsmouth and Plymouth) is on the edge of a naval airbase, so has plenty of space, but a comparatively small staff and limited resources. They have given a home to the original paper copies of a lot of records that have been microfilmed or otherwise digitised elsewhere - sometimes less than perfectly - so they are the 'authentic source' for certain types of records (other, more knowledgeable members will tell you exactly which records). Unfortunately, they don't have the resources to respond rapidly to enquiries - so if you happen to know of a wealthy American whose antecedents served in the RNAS and who has several million dollars to bequeath to a very good cause .... I'm sure that they, and many members of this Forum, would be be very grateful!

Mick

[domwalsh]

Hi Wendy,

I concur that the FAA Museum is your best bet on further material, although the chances of finding out what his role was on the raid - whether as ship's crew or storming party - are remote. There is a casualty book at the National Archives that has correspondence/telegrams etc on identification of bodies, and if I get there some time soon I will have a look for you. His service record would have shown any awards if he had got any, and as he is not listed anywhere else we can assume with certainty that he did not get anything, I'm afraid. The only medals he would have received would have been the standard three campaign medals, the 14-15 Star, British War Medal and Victory Medal plus a Memorial Plaque that was given to next of kin of those who died on war service. The handwriting is in the same hand mainly as the service ledgers were filled in from time to time only from other records.

I have looked up AB Yeadon but all I can confirm is that he was initially listed as missing before being confirmed as having died.

I'm not sure what NP ref exactly means, but it presumably refers to the original corresponance or file containing notification of his death. I am not aware of any NP files being retained anywhere, but I guess it may refer to the material in the Zeebrugge casualties book. I'm afraid the scope of what you will be able to find on your forebear beyond what you have is pretty limited. But do email the lady who runs the archives at the FAA as she is generally very helpful and in return for a small fee would send copies of anything she finds. The other option is to do a Google search to search the local newspapers for the time of his death as they often carried details of death etc of their local heroes. There may be a local library for Hull that has the newspapers of the time on file.

Best regards,

Dom