Gallipoli Armada

[gladstone]

Helloh.

Was the Australian, 28 transports, and NZ 10 transports, convoy of November 1914 the largest invasion force since the Armada?

How many troops were aboard.

How many horses.

How many Guns

Any Nurses

Was it the only formal convoy from Australasia.

Was it escorted all the way, or did ships proceed independently after the Emden was sunk.

On what date was it advised to disembark at Egypt rather than England.

Help my kids, please

[healdav]

Offhand, I think you'll find that the fleet sent to invade Abyssinia and depose King????? in the 1870s or so was the biggest invasion fleet assembled. I forget how big now, but it seems to have approached D-Day.

Remember that Kipling refers to it in one of his short stories - the one about the animals talking about how they each make war; and the elephant talks of being put on a ship to go somewhere.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

I think that the BEF crossing in 1914 was larger, but that was a peaceful invasion...

[frev]

Hi Clarence

Is this an assignment your kids are doing at school? If so, it would probably be a good idea for them to have a bit of a look at the “WW1 Official Histories” – which are on-line to be viewed at the Australian War Memorial website.

In answer to some of your questions –

According to R. Kearney in “Silent Voices” (the history of the 10th Bn):

“The transports carried 30,000 Australian and New Zealand troops as well as nurses, stores and almost 7500 horses.”

The convoy was being escorted by HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Sydney, HMS Minotaur & the Japanese cruiser Ibuki.

The HMS Minotaur was called away on other business on the 8/11/1914. The HMAS Sydney left them to pursue the Emden on the 9/11/14. (The Emden wasn’t actually sunk – it was beached after being badly damaged)

And as per the Official Histories: “On November 11th the Melbourne went on to Colombo to coal, leaving the convoy in the charge of the Ibuki. The same day the Hampshire arrived, and her captain took over command of the fleet from the time until it reached Suez Canal.”

The news that they were heading to Egypt instead of England was received by Bridges on the night of the 27th Nov – the troops were advised on the 28th.

Hope this helps.

Cheers, Frev

[Tim]

During Operation Neptune (The assault phase of Operation Overlord) the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

11,590 aircraft were available to support the landings. On D-Day, Allied aircraft flew 14,674 sorties, and 127 were lost.

In the airborne landings on both flanks of the beaches, 2395 aircraft and 867 gliders of the RAF and USAAF were used on D-Day.

Operation Neptune involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.

By the end of 11 June (D + 5), 326,547 troops, 54,186 vehicles and 104,428 tons of supplies had been landed on the beaches.

Cheers,

Tim

[T8HANTS]

No sorry you are all wrong

The unsuccessful French invasion attempt of Southern England of July 1545 was larger, with 265 ships, 10,00 horse, and between 30 - 60,000 men. This produced the biggest naval battle seen to that date, and the loss of the Mary Rose, and the French flagship who's name I cannot remember, which had been damaged earlier. The fighting on land, on the Isle of Wight, produced an estimated 2-3,000 casualties, mainly from Hampshire, and Wiltshire, as well as the Island.

Th Armada of 1588 was smaller, I believe.

Gareth

[gladstone]

The question was poorly framed. It resulted from my desperation at being unable to adjudicate on a discussion between two teenagers, and then being unable to easily google an answer. Gallipoli found this forum.

Thanks for the answers, but there is a long way to go.

The key aspect is Convoy.

The BEF did not appear to ship as a convoy to France.

I do not know about the Canadians.

I am still checking, but the ships appear to have sailed independently through the Suez Canal. That may have been volume control, but may indicate they arrived seperately from Aden.

The actual miles steamed is still hard to work out.

Back to google, and the on-line histories,Frev

[per ardua per mare per terram]

The Admiralty didn't introduce convoys until 1917, so if it was a convoy the Royal Australian Navy was more enlightened. The BEF went across without convoys, but with escorts and the looming protection of the Grand Fleet.

The number of escorts compaired to the number of escorted ships suggests that this wasn't a standard convoy. You would have to hunt the sources, but I'm guessing that they set off together then sailed at their own pace.

Another ship involved in protection duties was HMS Pyramus.

Have you tried seaching P&O sites for the distance? They have probably established the optimum route over the years.

[frev]

Another ship involved in protection duties was HMS Pyramus.

Apparently also it's sister ship HMS Psyche. [info supplied via a friend]

This makes six escorts originally, does anyone know of the possibility of a seventh. (?)

As my G/Uncle's diary states: "...... it was a fine sight to witness as there was 38 transports and 7 gunboats, we traveled three abreast and our convoy all round us to a distance of about 20 miles" .

The convoy had sailed from Australia in the above formation during the 6 week trip.

The whole convoy left Aden together on the 26th Nov, but after receiving news of their new destination:

"The Maurganui, carrying Major General Sir Alexander Godley, the commander of the New Zealand Force, and the Orvieto, with General Bridges, were allowed to make their own speed ahead of the other transports to Suez" [Off. Histories]

The rest of the convoy on reaching Suez, entered the canal one after the other.

And I'm sure I've read the distance travelled - somewhere - just can't remember where at this point!

Cheers, Frev

[gladstone]

Frev

The cruisers Philomel & Psyche helped escort the NZ ships to Albany.

The 3rd 'similar' ship of the NZ Squadron was Pyramus, but there appears no formal record of its presence in Albany.

Minotaur, Melbourne, Sydney and Ibuki are shown in all standard diagrams of the convoy, and there would be no obvious reason for excluding the 3 P's if they were in fact there.

Things get pretty imprecise once Minotaur leaves.

[frev]

Clarence

Just harping on the part of the NZ escorts a little longer:

After a little more research, according to the Aus Off. Histories the

Ibuki, Minotaur, Psyche & Philomel left NZ

but the

Ibuki, Minotaur, Philomel & Pyramus arrived WA harbour

This is explained by Maj Fred Waite (1919) in "The New Zealanders at Gallipoli" - he notes that just after the NZ convoy left Tassie (enroute to WA), the Psyche returned to NZ and her place was taken by the Pyramus.

When the Aus & NZ convoy left the WA harbour, they parted company with the "2 old 'P' Class cruisers" - as they had been replaced by the Melbourne & the Sydney.

So we're back to the original 4 on escort duty from Australia.

And I still don't know where my G/Uncle got the no. 7 (perhaps he was worse at math than me!)

Cheers, Frev.

[peggie]

The last 2 transports to join the Convoy were escorted from Fremantle by the "IBUKI" and "PIONEER".

They had experienced gale conditions in which the PIONEER was damaged. After delivering her charges, she "turned back".

The "MILTIADES" carried exactly 600 other ranks of Imperial Reservists.

[PhilB]

Clarence, are we talking about the convoy from Australia to Egypt (which I wouldn`t call an invasion force) or that from Mudros (?) to Anzac (which I would)? Phil B

Just looked again. You meant the 1914 convoy. Would you class that as an invasion force?

[Wayne Saillard]

Hello !

The First Contingent, as it was known, was only intended to transport the troops to England (later changed to Egypt), for training purposes. As such it is not correct to call it an invasion fleet. To qualify for that title, the ships would have had to sail directly to the area of conflict and disembark the troops for immediate deployment in the field.

On the other hand, the Official History Volume One, Chapters V and VI do specifically refer to the ships as travelling in convoy. Indeed, the Admiralty prohibited the sailing of the ships unless in convoy and accompanied by escorts - due to the presence of German warships in the area. Chapter VI also has the following diagram showing the layout of the transports (in convoy formation) at the time HMAS SYDNEY left the convoy to do battle with the SMS EMDEN.

Hope this helps

Regards

Wayne

[joseph]

I wouldnt say invasion force, but Convoys did sail the 30 plus transports and escorts bringing the 7th Division from Bombay on the 19 November 1914 sailed in Convoy.

Regards Charles

[peggie]

Wayne.

Thanks, but I am unsure that the Admiralty was so concerned with the need to escort the first contingent through the Indian Ocean.

My understanding is that the Governor-General of Australia personally intervened [perhaps by the old-boys network] to raise awareness of German threats to the Convoy. The Brisbane ships had actually set sail, other states countermanded sailing orders, and the Australian Parliament expressed annoyance at NZ's insistance that escorts be sent to Aukland to pick up their troops.

Once the problem had been fixed, ie the Emden "Beached and done for", all was plain sailing again. The second fleet set sail shortly after, towing submarine AE2 behind a transport. Some protection!!

[Wayne Saillard]

Hello Peggie !

Please note that my observations were based, as mentioned above, on the Official History, Volume One, Chapters V and VI. This is available online at the Australian War Memorial website should anyone care to consult it in order to obtain further details.

Regards

Wayne

[Guest mufti]

Peggie.

It seems you may be confusing the Admiralty with the War Office.

The footnote to p150, Chapter VI ov the RAN Volume 9 of Official History may throw some light.

The G-G was certainly hands-on and it would be interesting if you could elaborate on his involvement. I do recall reading that he, and not the Australian Parliament was in telegraphic conduct with the War Office.