Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

HMT 'Commonwealth' July 1917, Devonport


smiffy

Recommended Posts

Good afternoon everyone from a beginner on the forum and do not wish to appear to be a smart a..., but, I have just been researching one of our village's casualties from WW1, born England, emigrated to Australia, joined Australian Enginners, sailed from Sydney to France where he was killed. He sent a ship's postcard back to his family, who still have it, of the SS Commonwealth, the ship that he arrived in France on.

Having checked the Miramar ship index, I think the one posted earlier, 3311 tons, is a pure cargo ship, but the 1902 ship, 6611 tons, was a passenger/refridgerated cargo ship, official number 1115903, built by Barclay Curle, owned by W. Lund of London, and is the more likely to have been used as a military personnel transport ship rather than a pure cargo ship.

If you are still after a picture of the SS Commonwealth I can re-contact the family and obtain a copy of it.

Regards

Stewart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Good afternoon everyone from a beginner on the forum and do not wish to appear to be a smart a..., but, I have just been researching one of our village's casualties from WW1, born England, emigrated to Australia, joined Australian Enginners, sailed from Sydney to France where he was killed. He sent a ship's postcard back to his family, who still have it, of the SS Commonwealth, the ship that he arrived in France on.

Having checked the Miramar ship index, I think the one posted earlier, 3311 tons, is a pure cargo ship, but the 1902 ship, 6611 tons, was a passenger/refridgerated cargo ship, official number 1115903, built by Barclay Curle, owned by W. Lund of London, and is the more likely to have been used as a military personnel transport ship rather than a pure cargo ship.

If you are still after a picture of the SS Commonwealth I can re-contact the family and obtain a copy of it.

Regards

Stewart

Here we are Stewart.....3 years on and a very much belated thanks.

Yep, haven't been on this site myself for various reasons since.

Without trawling back I think that 'your' ss Commonwealth (Australian) is almost certainly pictured above.

I'm STILL not sure which one T.A.Smith went out to Messo on.......it's just that I think he referred to it as a little cattle boat

which took all of 6 weeks. This alone makes me think it was the 3,000 tonner.

Anyway, don't think I'll ever know for certain!

Thanks again for the offer of photos, although maybe same as pics above.

regards

Peter

(ps. I bet by now you are out ranking me!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Hello again Pals,

I am re-visiting the references to the ship 'Commonwealth'.

Although Thomas Arthur Smith said he travelled out to Messo on a converted cattle boat, I'm having second thoughts about the 3,353 ton ship?

1) Do you think it was too small to be used as a troop transport?

2) When it was sunk on 19 Feb 1918 it was carrying iron ore. Would it really have converted back from a troopship?

(That was only 6 months after T.A.S sailed out to Messo on a ship named Commonwealth)

3) Did the Australian 'Commonwealth' ever carry troops from England?

(Can we eliminate this/ or any other ship named 'Commonwealth')

4) What is the likelihood of it being the 3,350 tonner?

I have to admit that I am totally confused............maybe we should take a vote on it?

Grateful for any replies after all this time.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 3 years later...

Hello Pals,

Thanks for all of your research and contributions over the years.

Largely due to your information I am pleased to report that a Larger & Improved version of my Book THE LAPIDARY (a biography of my father THOMAS ARTHUR SMITH),  is now available through www. Amazon.co.uk/books..

It now bears MY name PETER ARTHUR SMITH as Author (and not my Pen-name Peter Lancaster).

Thanks again Pals

Peter:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,

 

I'm new to this forum, so please forgive my belated reply to your query about 'Commonwealth'. I believe, from what you have provided above, that the 'Commonwealth' you are seeking information on is actually HMAT A73 Commonwealth, 6,616 ton,  built 1902, trooping capacity 1,005 (23 officers and 982 others, no horses). 

 

HMAT A73 Commonwealth departed England circa 25 July 1917 bound for Australia via Durban without cargo (personnel were not listed on the 'cargo' manifest of troopships, but were listed under 'passengers'). The voyage was utilized by the admiralty. In June 1917, the ship had passed from Australian control to British control, ie the admiralty.   The date of departure from the UK, and its destination as 'via Durban' is much too coincidental, hence my contention that this is the 'Commonwealth' you are interested in. I suggest that the British troops aboard were either disembarked at Durban and transhipped to another vessel for the run to Bombay, then on to Mesopotamia, possibly in a third vessel. Such changes en route are rarely recorded in personnel files (at least Australian ones!), or, and this is the more likely given the sailing times, that Commonwealth proceeded from Durban to Colombo, where the troops were trans-shipped, before Commonwealth made the run to Fremantle and on to the Eastern States.   

 

It's wartime service did not end in 1917, as noted in an earlier post, simply the controlling authority changed. Commonwealth continued on from Durban, departing that port on 4 September 1917 and eventually embarked a large contingent of AIF, departing from Melbourne on 2 November for Suez via Fremantle. The ship made a further trooping voyage from Australia in March 1918, bound for London with civilian war and munitions workers, an AIF medical officer and AANS/AIF nursing staff. It was also used post-war to return the AIF from England to Australia, for example, the voyage departing England on 18 April 1919, to Melbourne, arriving 8 June. 

 

I should also add that, as far as cargo v personnel, most trooping voyages to and from Australia carried cargo, both military and/or commercial, as well as troops, the 'mix' being dictated by the vessel design.  

 

Mike  

Edited by MKC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...