oak Posted 2 October , 2006 Share Posted 2 October , 2006 A friend of mine has come across a photograph with the following caption. "The mystery ship "Netley" Commander J. Mcleod RN. Build at Woolston, Southampton by Thornycroft & Co. early in 1916. Heavily armed with guns & torpedo tubes." He is unable to find the ship on Lloyds List. I can't find it on the list of Q-ships that a Forum member kindly linked to on a thread about Q-ships. I would be very grateful if anyone could provide further information on the ship or her commanding officer. Regards, Philip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oak Posted 2 October , 2006 Author Share Posted 2 October , 2006 My friend has given me the additional information that Commander Mcleod was commander of the Q-ship "Zylpha" when it was sunk in 1917. At first he thought that the "Netley" was a cover name used by the "Zylpha," but he subsequently found out that the "Zylpha " was build earlier and by another shipyard. Regards, Philip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 2 October , 2006 Share Posted 2 October , 2006 Philip, See http://www.macleodgenealogy.org/ACMS/D0040/I1715.html Could it be that Netley was an alias of HMS Hyderabad, the only purpose-built Q-ship. I haven't been able to ascertain who built Hyderabad, but I can't imagine a dedicated warship yard like Thorneycrofts (destroyers/flotilla leaders, submarines, CMBs/MLs) finding space to build or fit out any of the other types of vessel used as Q-ships. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spithead Posted 2 October , 2006 Share Posted 2 October , 2006 Hello Philip Some information which may be of interest Mcleod. J.K. ( D.S.O. L.G. 23.5.17 ) Lt. Cdr, RN 31.12. 14. Died 26.9.20 Zylpha Q6 2,917gt built 1894 Collier 3x12pdr service 19.9.15 - 15.6.17. sunk by U Boat S.W. of Ireland 15.6.17. Regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oak Posted 2 October , 2006 Author Share Posted 2 October , 2006 Mick and John, Many thanks for the time and trouble you took on this. Regards, Philip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 2 October , 2006 Share Posted 2 October , 2006 Casualty Details Name: McLEOD Initials: J K Nationality: United Kingdom Rank: Lieut-Commander Regiment/Service: Royal Navy Unit Text: H.M.S. "Victory" Date of Death: 26/09/1920 Awards: DSO Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead Grave/Memorial Reference: G. 6. 13. Cemetery: HASLAR ROYAL NAVAL CEMETERY Philip: could you post your friend's photo? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonmate Posted 2 October , 2006 Share Posted 2 October , 2006 Philip Thorneycroft's records over the period of this vessel's build are kept ,under the National Archives ARCHON system, in the Southampton Archive at the Civic Centre under ref GB/NNAF/B6712. Whether there will be detail present on this "secret" vessel remains to be seen,they also built a range of motor vehicles so it will be interesting to see the extent of the records kept,and whether it leads on to other facts ! Best wishes Sotonmate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spithead Posted 2 October , 2006 Share Posted 2 October , 2006 Philip, See http://www.macleodgenealogy.org/ACMS/D0040/I1715.html Could it be that Netley was an alias of HMS Hyderabad, the only purpose-built Q-ship. I haven't been able to ascertain who built Hyderabad, but I can't imagine a dedicated warship yard like Thorneycrofts (destroyers/flotilla leaders, submarines, CMBs/MLs) finding space to build or fit out any of the other types of vessel used as Q-ships. Mick Mick Hyderabad was built at Thornycroft's,- Yard No. 966, Special Service Vessel, Length 251ft, HP 601, Speed 9.23 knts, Built 17.8.17 at Woolston for Admiralty. Depot ship 1918, sold 5.20. She was designed with the above-water appearance of a small tramp steamer but having a draught of only 3ft. 9in, therefore immune from torpedoes which are normally set at 7ft below the surface. Interesting Q ship but destined not to see much service. Regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted 2 October , 2006 Share Posted 2 October , 2006 Hyderabad is listed in the Q ship index in Dittmar and Colledge as going under the following names: Coral, Nicobar, SSS 966, she was refitted as a depot ship and served in North Russia in 1919 altered in 1920 and sold as the Lemnos. I can find no ship called Netley in the book. Aye Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historydavid Posted 2 October , 2006 Share Posted 2 October , 2006 Philip, As stated the Hyderabad was an Admiralty designed purpose built decoy vessel, but I don't have any record of her ever having used the name Netley. The Zylpha was an ex-collier, built 1894, which also used the name Q 6, and was torpedoed by U 82 SW of Ireland, taken in tow 14/6/17 by HMS Daffodil, but sank 15/6 near Great Skellig Rocks, Bolus Head, co Kerry, Ireland. It is quite possible that the name Netley was used at some time by one of the decoy ships but has fallen through the crack. The fact that the whole business of decoy ships was kept secret may have caused this to happen. Best wishes David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 3 October , 2006 Share Posted 3 October , 2006 It is quite possible that the name Netley was used at some time by one of the decoy ships but has fallen through the crack. Agreed, but what vessel built by Thornycroft in early 1916 was used as a Q-ship? Philip's picture would certainly help us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historydavid Posted 3 October , 2006 Share Posted 3 October , 2006 SG, That was the Hyderabad, started early 1916, finished 17/8/1917. Best wishes David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oak Posted 3 October , 2006 Author Share Posted 3 October , 2006 This thread certainly has sparked off a lot of interest! Thank you to all who replied. Attached please find photo of the "Netley." Regards, Philip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 3 October , 2006 Share Posted 3 October , 2006 Does anyone have a better pic of Hyderabad than this? Hard to tell for sure, as Q-ships changed their appearance, but I think Netley may be Hyderabad. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kin47 Posted 3 October , 2006 Share Posted 3 October , 2006 Hello Mcleod is shown in the NAVY LIST as "SS" (Special Service: i.e. decoy ships). It does not show him to a specific ship. All best don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spithead Posted 3 October , 2006 Share Posted 3 October , 2006 Definitively Hyderabad "The design was submitted to the admiralty with a covering letter explaining that having built many ships of the same principle, it was considered that such a ship would be a sufficiently satisfactory sea-boat and that owing to the shallow draught she would be immune to torpedoe attack. The propasal was at once approved and on the same day the firm was instructed to procced with the constuction of such a vessel with absolute priority over all other work. She was completed in the record time of only four months, which included designing and fitting the special disappearing mountings for the guns, torpedo gear, etc. She was also fitted with various devices for altering her appearance while at sea." Above taken from '100 years of Specialized Shipbuilding and Engineering' John I. Thornycroft Centenary 1964. Regarding Zylpha she was still under the command of Lieutenant Commander J.K. McLeod D.S.O. in 1917. Regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 3 October , 2006 Share Posted 3 October , 2006 So, we seem to have solved the mystery — if the photo captioning is right, it evidently shows Hyderabad, after McLeod took command (some time after 15 June 1917 when Zylpha was sunk), masquerading as Netley. David: the dates would match nicely if you're right that Hyderabad was not finished until August 1917, but how do we square that with John's piece from the Thornycroft centenary publication which says she was completed in only four months ? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historydavid Posted 3 October , 2006 Share Posted 3 October , 2006 Mick, I used the date of 17-8-17 from John's earlier post (No 8). However, there is a serious problem with the dates quoted; we have 1) built early 1916 (post 1). 2) built 17-8-17 (post 8). 3) pictured at sea in early 1916 (post 13). 4) she was completed in 4 months, but which year? We seem to have two themes: 1) Philip's first post & his pic indicate 1916 as the year. 2) One of John's posts states 1917. We need more info to be able to resolve this problem. Best wishes David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historydavid Posted 3 October , 2006 Share Posted 3 October , 2006 Dittmar & Colledge quotes 24-9-17 as her completion date. If we take completion to mean commissioned date that would tie in with John's 17-8-17 build date. Best wishes David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 4 October , 2006 Share Posted 4 October , 2006 David, I think we have the answer, but tying it down may be more difficult. The photo caption says Netley was built by Thornycroft - but Hyderabad was the only Q-ship built by that yard. The picture of Netley looks very much like Hyderabad. McLeod was otherwise occupied until after the loss of Zylpha in June 1917. Hyderabad was commissioned in September 1917. We know McLeod commanded Hyderabad. Ergo (give or take a few elements of proof) Netley was Hyderabad — and I'll give another £5 to the Forum appeal if anyone can disprove that hypothesis. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historydavid Posted 4 October , 2006 Share Posted 4 October , 2006 Mick, I agree that Netley was Hyderabad, but for an extra fiver for Chris I'll work on it Best wishes David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshdoc Posted 4 October , 2006 Share Posted 4 October , 2006 Prehaps the simplest answer is that whoever wrote the caption on the postcard got it wrong and it was built in 1917. Everything else fits Dr Watson. PS a most enjoyable detective thread to follow. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 4 October , 2006 Share Posted 4 October , 2006 Mick, I agree that Netley was Hyderabad, but for an extra fiver for Chris I'll work on it As Gareth says, the tiny tweak needed in order to make all the pieces fit is to change the 6 to a 7. The fact that no-one can find Netley, either as a ship in her own right or as an alias of Hyderabad remains a bit of a mystery, but then that's what Q-ships were all about. Googling Netley turned up refs to other forums that have also been discussing this mystery, so I hope someone will pass on our findings. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 4 October , 2006 Share Posted 4 October , 2006 A bit of the mystery solved, I think. Netley is a place a couple of miles from the Thorneycroft yard on Southampton Water. It could well have been selected as a pseudonym for the Hyderabad (easier to spell at least !) and a simultaneous in-joke and tribute to Southampton and the area local to Thorneycrofts. Netley by way of it's much expanded military hospital was doing sterling work at this time. It naturally would not have been a much trumpeted name since it was on a Q-ship - and I presume that the name of a real or recently sunk ship could not be used for legal reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spithead Posted 4 October , 2006 Share Posted 4 October , 2006 Mick and David Is this the answer ? My post No. 8 regarding date of build 17.8.17 was taken from J.J. Colledge's Vol.2 Navy Built Trawlers, Drifters, Tugs and Requisitioned Ships 1970. It also states that Hyderabad was Purchased on stocks. Could it be that construction started in 1916, and when the Admiralty became interested it took four months to add the refinements for a Special Service ship. As for the name Netley(not found on any records), if you look closely at Philips photo there does seem to be rather a lot of people on the bridge, which may suggest she is not long out of the dockyard, on trials perhaps. Being a special and possibly secretive one-off ship she was given this name untill such times she was handed over to the Admiralty. Mere speculation of course but very interesting and intriguing none the less. Regards John 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