sotonmate Posted 7 October , 2006 Share Posted 7 October , 2006 Parties, Another morsel for your delectation in relation to notes, yesterday and the day before, about the Hospital plan mix-up between Netley and India. I see that a military hospital WAS built near the city of Hyderabad,but in a place called Sekunderabad a few dozen miles away. The State this hospital was built in was...... Hyderabad ! Sotonmate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spithead Posted 7 October , 2006 Share Posted 7 October , 2006 Just to confuse the issue on 'Netley' I have another mystery ship. In Thornycrofts Centenary book I quoted (post 16) a section on Hyderabad, well immediatly following this, which I had overlooked, was the following,- "This was a great contrast to another 'Q' ship that was commissioned about the same time. This vessel, which was designed on ordinary lines, was torpedoed and lost within twenty-four hours of first leaving port." I cannot recognize this one in the list of ships built, so perhaps it was built elsewhere. It probably has nothing to do with 'Netley' but being lost within twenty-four hours must have some interest regarding which ship it was. Regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historydavid Posted 7 October , 2006 Share Posted 7 October , 2006 Charles & Mick, The Hyderabad was the first Admiralty ordered PURPOSE built decoy ship. The first decoy vessel was the Victoria, in service from 28/11/14 to 8/1/15. I have identified 20 PC boats and 40 sloops that operated as decoys. The PCs and 39 of the sloops were Admiralty designed warships but had topworks designed by the shipyards, to mimic merchants. The remaining sloop, the Begonia, was built as a regular warship and modified after being damaged in March 1916. I hope to have more info on these vessels by late next week. Best wishes David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 8 October , 2006 Share Posted 8 October , 2006 I feel the plot thickens, that’s now two Q ships built by Thorneycroft, not being to well informed on the building of Merchant vessels 3 foot 9 inches does not to me sound like a normal draft for a 600 ton ship, any comments? I am also wondering if the Hyderabad’s Purpose built tag was more for its weapons and the way they where configured rather than the platform they where on. The story of the lorry reminds me of a snippet I have read (which I now cannot find) that the aft 4” gun on the Hyderabad was camouflaged in a pantechnicon at one time. Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 8 October , 2006 Share Posted 8 October , 2006 Charles, I don't think anyone is saying that Thornycrofts built another Q-ship. As you say, Hyderabad's draught was a mere 3'9", which makes her unusual to say the least. She must have been stable, though, as she survived the passage to and from Northern Russia. I can't find it now, but I thought someone said earlier that Thornycrofts had agreed to build Hyderabad because they had experience of building shallow-draught vessels. The note that Sotonmate found, saying that Hyderabad was 'purchased off the stocks' would perhaps explain how she came to be completed in only four months — but I'm not sure what kind of vessel they could have been building already, of that size and with such a shallow draught, that could be readily turned into Hyderabad. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonmate Posted 8 October , 2006 Share Posted 8 October , 2006 Siege Gunner Spithead said purchased off the stocks,not me ! Sotonmate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonmate Posted 8 October , 2006 Share Posted 8 October , 2006 Interested Parties (as Oak has disappeared !) My 5 eggs concerning draft: Post 13 : the picture shows a bow that seem to be high in the water and I could believe that there is little below the waterline,as instanced by Post 16: the model has a draft gauge at the bow,which bears out the shallow draft,the load line, where the paint changes colour,is not far above the stem. Anyone with a means of magnifying this picture will see that this is so,by reference to the figures shown. I could accept a draught of a bit less than 4 feet,certainly at the bow end. It may be a little more at the stern. Sotonmate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 8 October , 2006 Share Posted 8 October , 2006 Mick, Johns post # 52 mentioning in Thorneycrofts history another Q ship being sunk within 24 hours of commissioning has thrown me. I carnt find anything comparable about that time. The draught of the ship being 3' 9" does still suggest to me PC boat. Regards charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 8 October , 2006 Share Posted 8 October , 2006 Johns post # 52 mentioning in Thorneycrofts history another Q ship being sunk within 24 hours of commissioning has thrown me. I carnt find anything comparable about that time. The draught of the ship being 3' 9" does still suggest to me PC boat. Charles, I think the mention in Thornycroft's history is probably commenting on the 'torpedo-proofness' of Hyderabad with her 3'9" draught (which, I think, was never actually tested) versus the vulnerability of this other Q-ship. I don't read it as saying that they built the other Q-ship or indeed that it was a new build — it could equally (in fact, more likely) have been an existing ship, refitted and commissioned as a Q-ship. Lots of stories about Q-ships turn out not to be true (like many of the claims of having sunk a U-boat), and the '24 hour wonder' may be such a story. Have you been looking around August/September 1917? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 8 October , 2006 Share Posted 8 October , 2006 Siege Gunner Spithead said purchased off the stocks,not me ! Sotonmate Apologies to both of you. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historydavid Posted 8 October , 2006 Share Posted 8 October , 2006 Pals, In order to clarify/confuse the the situation further I give you this extract from Ditmarr & Colledge "British Warships 1914-1919" "HYDERABAD was designed specifically for service as a decoy vessel. She possessed many unique and elaborate features; unusually shallow draught, tilting gun mountings, and collapsible deck structures used to conceal weapons. Twin screws were set in tunnels in the after part of the hull and a false rudder-top that was visible above water suggested a deep draught Reports of torpedoes passing under her hull indicate that the above-water deception was successful. It was intended that one CMB should be carried. The normal crew was 73 at the time of completion (24.9.17). The number 966 used as an operational name stemmed from the builder's number. After refitting as a depot ship, HYDERABAD served in North Russia during the 1919 campaign. " It definetly wasn't a PC boat. Best wishes David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonmate Posted 9 October , 2006 Share Posted 9 October , 2006 Charles/History David et al Re-Post No. 48 and Flower Class Sloops,I took a look at Janes Fighting Ships 1919 today (pps132/133), counted 86, and none of them were built by Thorneycrofts. For the techs among you these consist of 5 class variants: "Anchusa" 26 built:"Aubretia" 4;"Arabis" 26;"Azalea" 9;and "Acacia" 21. Thorneycrofts seem to have had their work cut out building 29 Destroyers and Flotilla Leaders,though even this was curtailed by a PRIORITY order for the HYDERABAD,which I noted from a book in the Southampton Special Collections entitled "Half a Century of Thorneycroft Progress". Thorneycroft had offerred plans to the Admiralty for a decoy based on river boats they had already built for other customers,with a tunnelled stern enabling a decrease in draft. The Admiralty made an immediate order for such a vessel and,as you know, resulted in the 4 month build time. The book mentions that "she has had many torpedoes pass under her". Page 114 of Janes 1919 also lists the 19 PCs (converted Patrol boats) quoted by History David. Sotonmate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonmate Posted 12 October , 2006 Share Posted 12 October , 2006 Peeps, The last part of my previous reply, in relation to Hyderabad,was a bit truncated as I had found the book referred to about 3 minutes before I had to leave to meet my wife (musn't be late even for this subject). Today I wrote down all of the small article about the ship,from the book entitled "HALF A CENTURY OF THORNEYCROFT PROGRESS AND FIVE YEARS OF WAR WORK 1919" which shows no author,obviously a Company production,but which was printed by ADAMS BROTHERS and SHARDLOW LTD of London and Leicester: "When the submarine menace was at it's height,and even the Q ships were getting rapidly torpedoed,it occurred to us that use might be made of our experience with the tunnelled stern-type of river steamers; the idea being that a decoy ship might be built for such shallow draught that she would be practically immune from torpedo attack,as the torpedo cannot be set to run with certainty at less that six feet below the surface. We therefore designed a ship having the appearance of a moderate sized tramp steamer,but which only drew 3 feet 9 inches. We submitted the proposal to the Anti-Submarine Department at the Admiralty,explaining that from our experience of numerous river steamers designed on this principal we believed that such a vessel could be built which would prove a satisfactory sea boat,and suggested that,as she would be apparently immune from torpedo attack,she would be more valuable for decoy purposes than the ordinary ships which had been provided for the purpose. Our proposals were at once considered and the same day we were ordered to proceed with the construction of the vessel,giving it priority over all other work. She was completed in four months from the date of order,which,we think, will be recognised as a good performance for a vessel of 240 feet in length by 35 feet beam,bearing in mind that a great deal of extra work was entailed in constructing the special disappearing mountings for the guns,torpedo gear etc. She was fitted with very heavy armament and various devices for altering her appearance while at sea. The Captain appointed to her was the Officer who had previously commissioned the first of the Q ships. He had been enthusiastic in his praise of her,and the fact of her being in existence at the end of the War is sufficient proof of the soundness of the idea. She has had many torpedoes pass under her. Another Q ship designed on ordinary lines and commissioned about the same time was torpedoed within 24 hours." I think I have squeezed this particular lemon dry now,except to say "Yes'Joseph it does say Torpedo gear !" Sotonmate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 12 October , 2006 Share Posted 12 October , 2006 Sotonmate, Thats a good discription, no date I suppose? or ships name. Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonmate Posted 12 October , 2006 Share Posted 12 October , 2006 Joseph The book was not written with dates of events or building. In this case it suggests the event happened from 1916 onwards as there was a reference before this item about that year. Bearing in mind that the book was written in 1919 they only referred to it as the Hyderabad. Sotonmate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historydavid Posted 12 October , 2006 Share Posted 12 October , 2006 The first vessel used as Special Service Ship was the Victoria, passenger, built 1896, 710 grt. She served from 28/11/14 to 8/1/15, then released, but was reaquired in 1918 as Surf II for other services. Best wishes David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonmate Posted 17 October , 2006 Share Posted 17 October , 2006 Peeps Today at the NA I read a file ADM137/3439 concerning the Hyderabad's attack on one of our own submarines H12,on 6 June 1918 at 53.15N / 5.50W! Having heard six rounds of gunfire and assuming it hostile Hyderabad fired 7 shots in foggy conditions at H12,with no hits. H12 dived and Hyderabad then dropped 2 depth charges and 2 bombs,again no hits. Four Armed trawlers in the vicinity then joined in the hunt. The sub surfaced and was then recognised as one of our own by Hyderabad. But the trawlers opened fire. Hyderabad blew the cease fire signal on it's siren and swung to shelter the sub from further shots. 3 Trawlers stopped but the 4th (Trawler Bracondene) carried on,hitting the sub 3 times,once penetrating the conning tower, killing the Coxswain Petty Officer Thomas H Evans 239495 and wounding the Captain Lt J Fraser RN and AB Arthur Neate SS4093. It eventually stopped firing,later excuse that the gun's crew failed to hear the Captain's order to cease fire (the megaphone was in an upper deck cabin and from this enquiry such vessels were issued with a second megaphone for retention on the bridge !). H12 later stated that the initial six explosions were signal grenades emitting blue smoke,which,because the Hyderabad paid no attention to them as a signal and taking them for gunfire smoke,caused her Captain to assume her to be A HOSTILE MERCHANTMAN,and dived. H12 safely escorted to an Irish port for repairs. No nasty reprimands issued. Sotonmate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theorist Posted 25 February , 2007 Share Posted 25 February , 2007 Some info to perhaps put this question to bed. The Netley is pretty definately the Hyderabad. I have today just been given my grandfather's scrap books and photos. He served on the Zylpha and the Hyderabad under Jock Mcleod (who was his best man at my grandparents wedding). Amongst it I found a scrap book with a covering letter: 'From John I Thornycroft & Co Ltd, 10 Grosvenor PLace, London: 20th August 1919 Sir John E. Thornycroft presents his compliments and asks Asst. Paymaster E. Gordon Driscoll to accept the album of photographs and framed sketch reproduction of H. M. S. "Hyderabad" which is forwarded under separate cover, and he trust that the views will act as a happy reminder of the days spent on this vessel during the war.' The above mentioned sketch is attached. It is pretty clear that this is a sketch made from Philip's photograph of the Netley (though on the sketch there is no name). The first picture in the above mentioned scrap book is the only one of the whole ship. It clearly says "Netley" on the ship. Here is a low res image (but just large enough to read I hope): The rest of the scrap book is fascinating. There are also lots of newspaper cuttings describing the tour that the Hyderabad did after the war showing the public the Mystery Ships and how they functioned. One includes my grandfather's description of 4 torpedoes passing under the ship. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spithead Posted 25 February , 2007 Share Posted 25 February , 2007 and one of Hyderabad during her Russian service. Regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 26 February , 2007 Share Posted 26 February , 2007 Good to know that our suspicions and research were right after all. It would still be nice, though, to find an account that specifically mentions Hyderabad using the alias Netley — even though the inclusion of the Netley pic in Thornycroft's Hyderabad commemorative album seems fairly conclusive. I recall that I offered to give an extra £5 to the Forum fund if anyone could prove that Netley wasn't Hyderabad. It seems my money is safe — as is the future funding of the Forum, so all's well. Thanks again to all who took part in this interesting and enjoyable thread. Whatever happened to Oak, who started it all? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike13 Posted 26 February , 2007 Share Posted 26 February , 2007 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...
mike13 Posted 26 February , 2007 Share Posted 26 February , 2007 Details on the HYDERABAD are on the <miramar ship index> nothing on the Tetley Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest banjo_scap Posted 10 April , 2007 Share Posted 10 April , 2007 Just tripped across this forum when searching re HMS Hyderabad. My interest stems from researching my local church's war memorial which lists a G Broomfield DSM who died 1.4.1918 and has the name of the ship on his gravestone. Found all the information very interesting. Thank You Clive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshdoc Posted 10 April , 2007 Share Posted 10 April , 2007 DSm for minelaying/sweeping http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/archiveVi...;selHonourType= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadsac Posted 10 April , 2007 Share Posted 10 April , 2007 Oak, re Cdr McLeod ; was NETLEY / HYDERABAD the Q.6 ?? looks much like it ! Queenstown - Ireland. MCLEOD John K N/E Lt.Cdr. RN 85U029 Q.6 Vice Admiral Queenstown 23.05.17 G Destroyer Patrols, Boarding Steamers Etc ending 01.10.16 DSO In recognition of special services performed in "Q.6". Good Hunting, Sadsac 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