Adrian Roberts Posted 18 March , 2006 Share Posted 18 March , 2006 I recently read an account of the Battles of Coronel and the Falklands which filled a few gaps in my knowledge. But to enquire a bit further... How many casualties did the British suffer, and in what ships? I think it was very few but I don't think it was zero. What role did the Cruiser HMS Carnarvon play? The account I read mentioned her leaving Stanley with the rest of the force but no mention after that. Am I right in thinking that she assisted the battlecruisers in engaging Scharnhorst and/or Gneisenau (rather than chasing the light cruisers)? Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted 18 March , 2006 Share Posted 18 March , 2006 RN casualties for Battle of The Falkland Islands were 10 killed, 19 wounded. As for ships I can only find the following: HMS Invincible - 1 wounded (22 hits taken, mostly 8.2in) HMS Inflexible - 1 killed, 3 wounded (3 hits taken) HMS Glasgow - 1 killed, 4 wounded (2 hits taken) HMS Kent - 16 casualties (38 hits taken) Cheers, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionia Posted 18 March , 2006 Share Posted 18 March , 2006 I recently read an account of the Battles of Coronel and the Falklands which filled a few gaps in my knowledge. But to enquire a bit further... How many casualties did the British suffer, and in what ships? I think it was very few but I don't think it was zero. What role did the Cruiser HMS Carnarvon play? The account I read mentioned her leaving Stanley with the rest of the force but no mention after that. Am I right in thinking that she assisted the battlecruisers in engaging Scharnhorst and/or Gneisenau (rather than chasing the light cruisers)? Adrian [/quot The armoured cruiser CARNARVON - an "improved" County Class ship - (Flag of Rear Admiral Stoddart) preceded the battlecruisers out of Port William but, being a slower ship and with boilers under repair, quickly fell behind. She did not get within range of the German armoured cruisers until they had been slowed by damage inflicted by the battlecruisers. She managed to fire one salvo at the SCHARNHORST before the latter sank and subsequently fired some salvos at the GNEISENAU. Ammunition expended: 85 x 7.5” and 60 x 6” shells. The CARNARVON later took part in the search for the DRESDEN in the Straits of Magellan. In February, 1915, whilst approaching the Abrolhos Rocks she ran onto an uncharted rock and had to be beached for temporary repairs before proceeding to Rio de Janeiro for docking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 20 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 20 March , 2006 Tim Thanks; the figures you quote don't completely add up but they give a good idea. Maybe if we could find figures for Cornwall they would add up? It makes sense that Kent would take the heaviest casualties, in her one-to-one slogging match with Nurnberg. Ionia Thanks also. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 20 March , 2006 Share Posted 20 March , 2006 Adrian, Hms Cornwall took 18 hits and had no casualties Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted 20 March , 2006 Share Posted 20 March , 2006 Castles of Steel by Robert Massie says that HMS Glasgow suffered 1 dead & 4 wounded & splits Kent's 16 casualties into 4 dead & 12 wounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 21 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 21 March , 2006 So adding Joseph's and Gibbo's figures to Tim's breakdown, we have 20 wounded and 6 killed, which is different from Tim's total of 19 WIA and 10 KIA. But this implies that even if we did get figures that seemed to add up nicely we couldn't be sure they were exactly right! I wonder if there is a missing bit of info in Invincible's figure of 1 wounded despite 22 x 8.2in hits? Not an impossible figure though - there was a large element of luck. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 21 March , 2006 Share Posted 21 March , 2006 CWGC records the following dead from the Battle of the Falklands. Inflexible (1) Glasgow (2) Kent (8) This includes those who died of wounds in subsequent days - the latest being from HMS Glasgow on 27.01.15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted 21 March , 2006 Share Posted 21 March , 2006 A Naval History of World War I by Paul Halpern says the British suffered 10 killed or died of wounds but doesn't split by ship or give a figure for wounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 21 March , 2006 Share Posted 21 March , 2006 For those interested, here is the full list of the British dead from the Battle of the Falklands. TITHERIDGE, A C Private PO/11220 Royal Marine Light Infantry H.M.S. Kent 08-Dec-14 STANLEY CEMETERY, FALKLAND ISLANDS YOUNG, W Seaman 2543/C Royal Naval Reserve H.M.S. Kent 08-Dec-14 STANLEY CEMETERY, FALKLAND ISLANDS KELLEY, SAMUEL Private PO/3793 Royal Marine Light Infantry H.M.S. Kent 08-Dec-14 STANLEY CEMETERY, FALKLAND ISLANDS KIND, W J Private PO/15049 Royal Marine Light Infantry H.M.S. Kent 08-Dec-14 STANLEY CEMETERY, FALKLAND ISLANDS MARTELL, EDWIN HENRY Petty Officer Stoker 310682 Royal Navy H.M.S. Glasgow 08-Dec-14 STANLEY CEMETERY, FALKLAND ISLANDS WOOD, WALTER Private PO/16920 Royal Marine Light Infantry H.M.S. Kent 08-Dec-14 STANLEY CEMETERY, FALKLAND ISLANDS LIVINGSTONE, NEIL Able Seaman 190790 Royal Navy H.M.S. Inflexible 08-Dec-14 CHATHAM NAVAL MEMORIAL DUCKETT, G A Officer's Steward 1st Class L/2428 Royal Navy H.M.S. Kent 09-Dec-14 STANLEY CEMETERY, FALKLAND ISLANDS SNOW, G Private PO/16958 Royal Marine Light Infantry H.M.S. Kent 20-Dec-14 STANLEY CEMETERY, FALKLAND ISLANDS SPENCE, T Sergeant PO/5674 Royal Marine Light Infantry H.M.S. Kent 24-Dec-14 STANLEY CEMETERY, FALKLAND ISLANDS BRIDGER, MAURICE JAMES EDWIN Able Seaman J/7095 Royal Navy H.M.S. Glasgow 27-Jan-15 PORTSMOUTH NAVAL MEMORIAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted 21 March , 2006 Share Posted 21 March , 2006 Terry seems to have produced the definitive answer. 11 British sailors & marines died as a result of wounds suffered at the Falklands. Presumably some writers have omitted Maurice Bridger, who took over 7 weeks to die, & the erroneous number of 10 dead has been repeated in subsequent works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 21 March , 2006 Share Posted 21 March , 2006 And Bridger's CWGC record states 'Died of wounds received in action at Battle of Falkland'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 22 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 22 March , 2006 I wonder why so many (6 of 8) of Kent's dead were Marines? Could they have been members of one gun crew that took an umlucky hit? Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 22 March , 2006 Share Posted 22 March , 2006 Captain Allen's report (quoted in abbreviated form in Geoffrey Bennett's 'Coronel and the Falklands') says: "I regret to report that during the action four men were killed and twelve men wounded. The Kent was struck thirty-eight times altogether by the enemy's shells during the action, but there is no serious damage to the ship. The total number of rounds fired was 646." So four of the wounded evidently died later. Captain Allen's report continues - and this may help to answer Adrian's question - "Only one fire occurred during the action, and that was in A3 casemate. A shell struck the gunport and burst; the flash must have ignited one or more charges inside the casemate, as a flash of flame went down the hoist into the ammunition passage. There was a charge at the bottom of the hoist at the time, but fortunately the man standing there, Sergeant Charles Mayes, RMLI, had the courage and presence of mind to throw away the charge and flood the compartment, which prevented the fire spreading. There can be no doubt that the ship narrowly escaped being blown up ..." Incidentally, in reading my way towards the description of Kent's engagement with Nürnberg, I did a double-take when I read (page 127): "And by that time darkness veiled the faster Seydlitz which had separated from her consorts ...." - but fortunately for Admiral Sturdee, this Seydlitz was only a supply ship ! Regards Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashton Posted 23 March , 2006 Share Posted 23 March , 2006 I have an account which generally accords with Captain Allen's report but notes the following further damage to Kent: "Kent's fore topgallant mast was shot through the heel but remained held up by its stays." "A shell reached Kent's wireless-room and wrecked her transmitting gear, but the receivers still functioned" From Coronel and After by Glasgow's Paymaster Commander, Lloyd Hirst, (Peter Davis Ltd 1934) Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashton Posted 23 March , 2006 Share Posted 23 March , 2006 And - Sergeant Mayes was awarded a G.G.M. Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 23 March , 2006 Share Posted 23 March , 2006 Derek, Bennett says that Sergeant Mayes was awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal. I'm not a medals person, so forgive me if GGM was just a slip of the keyboard. regards Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashton Posted 23 March , 2006 Share Posted 23 March , 2006 Mick you are correct on both counts and thanks for pointing it out. Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted 27 March , 2006 Share Posted 27 March , 2006 Adrian, after I posted, I noticed my maths was out! At least now, we've all figured out the KIA and WIA numbers. I found this photo of HMS Kent showing battle scars. Cheers, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted 27 March , 2006 Share Posted 27 March , 2006 HMS Carnarvon was a Devonshire class armoured cruiser. It was one of six launched in 1903/04. The design was similar to the Monmouth class except that the twin 6 inch (153 mm) turrets were replaced with 7.5 inch (190 mm) single turrets. HMS Kent and HMS Cornwall were Monmouth Class armoured cruisers. Displacement: 10,850 tons. Speed: 22 knots (41 km/h). Complement: 655 Length: 450 ft (137 m). Beam: 68 ft 6 in (20.88 m). Draft: 24 ft (7.3 m). Armament: four 7.5 inch (190 mm) guns, six 6 inch (153 mm) guns, eighteen 3-pounder guns, two 18 inch (460 mm) torpedo tubes. The Devonshire Class armoured cruisers were: Antrim, launched on 8 October 1903, sold for breaking up on 19 December 1922. Argyll, launched on 3 April 1904, wrecked on 28 October 1915. Carnarvon, launched on 7 October 1903, sold for breaking up on 8 November 1921. Devonshire, launched on 30 April 1904, sold for breaking up on 9 May 1921. Hampshire, launched on 4 September 1903, sunk by a naval mine on 5 June 1916. Roxburgh, launched on 19 January 1904, sold on 8 November 1921. The County Class heavy cruisers were launched in 1926/28. Cheers, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 28 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 28 March , 2006 Tim Thanks for this info and the picture. I wonder if the shell hole in the photo is the one that caused the damage that nearly lost the ship, mentioned in Mick's post above. Guns sited low in casemates, as in the picture, often proved useless in a heavy sea, and it has been suggested that this may have contributed to Monmouth's loss (though with her opponent's superiority, it may not have made much difference). Hampshire (Devonshire class) was the vessel in which Kitchener was lost. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted 28 March , 2006 Share Posted 28 March , 2006 Yes, you've really got to wonder whether it was really worthwhile placing guns in that position. One never really wants to admit to the enemy being superior, but of course it's a different story if you're the superior one. The AWM has some nice photos of HMS Cornwall if you're interested. Cheers, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 28 March , 2006 Share Posted 28 March , 2006 The damage photo certainly seems to fit with Captain Allen's report. I have always assumed (admittedly without looking into it more deeply) that the profusion of lightly-armed, lightly-armoured cruisers built in the early years of the century were designed for speed, to get to trouble spots around the Empire in a hurry, engage smaller and inferior vessels and bombard coastal targets (hence the low-down QF guns in casemates), with only an outside risk of an encounter with an opponent of approximately equal spec. Some of the ships engaged at Coronel and the Falklands seem to have known one another on the China station in peacetime, which must have made the battles especially traumatic, as well as meaning that each side had a fair idea of the quality of their opponents. Reports after the Falklands all paid tribute to the skill and courage with which von Spee's squadron fought their ships. The survivors must have come away realising that the world would never be the same again, and wondering apprehensively what the future held for them. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 28 March , 2006 Author Share Posted 28 March , 2006 Yes, you've really got to wonder whether it was really worthwhile placing guns in that position. It wouldn't surprise me if they were thinking that the old sailing warships had their lowest guns even closer to the water; they could always close the portholes in heavy weather, so why not place some of the guns low down on a modern (i.e. about 1905) ship? It would aid stability as well. But of course this presupposes that your enemy thinks the same way and will be equally handicapped in bad weather. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now