Naval Smoke Screen at Gallipoli Landings

[michaeldr]

Way back in the early days of the forum there was a question raised as to why smoke shells were not used by the Navy to cover the Gallipoli landings. I cannot now find that old thread, nor can I remember if anyone confirmed whether or not smoke shells were available at that time. I was reminded of this the other day when I came across this reference to the possible use of a "smoke lighter"

see 'The Naval Review, Vol. IV (1916)'

Dardanelles: Narrative of Mine-sweeping Trawler 448, manned by Queen Elizabeth

"Saturday, April 24th. (1915) -I was under weigh soon after 7.30 a.m., and

proceeded to Prince of Wales to pick up a smoke lighter, which had

been prepared with the object of screening the landing should the wind

be in a suitable direction."

question; can anyone describe how the smoke lighter worked – it is mentioned in so matter-of-fact a way, that one must assume it was a regular piece of the Navy's fleet equipment

This particular trawler "At 3 p.m., when still some way from our destination, I

developed a hot bearing, so there was no help for it but to turn over the

lighter to one of the other trawlers..." and so no more is heard of the 'smoke lighter'

I have not come across this before so I suppose that the wind was not favourable and therefore the scheme scrapped. Has anyone else come across reference to this?

[i -The PoW was off Anzac with Australians on board, so I presume that Z-Beach was the destination of the smoke

ii - The Naval Review can be found here http://www.naval-review.org/]

regards

Michael

[birchp]

Way back in the early days of the forum there was a question raised as to why smoke shells were not used by the Navy to cover the Gallipoli landings. I cannot now find that old thread, nor can I remember if anyone confirmed whether or not smoke shells were available at that time. I was reminded of this the other day when I came across this reference to the possible use of a "smoke lighter"

see 'The Naval Review, Vol. IV (1916)'

Dardanelles: Narrative of Mine-sweeping Trawler 448, manned by Queen Elizabeth

"Saturday, April 24th. (1915) -I was under weigh soon after 7.30 a.m., and

proceeded to Prince of Wales to pick up a smoke lighter, which had

been prepared with the object of screening the landing should the wind

be in a suitable direction."

question; can anyone describe how the smoke lighter worked – it is mentioned in so matter-of-fact a way, that one must assume it was a regular piece of the Navy's fleet equipment

This particular trawler "At 3 p.m., when still some way from our destination, I

developed a hot bearing, so there was no help for it but to turn over the

lighter to one of the other trawlers..." and so no more is heard of the 'smoke lighter'

I have not come across this before so I suppose that the wind was not favourable and therefore the scheme scrapped. Has anyone else come across reference to this?

[i -The PoW was off Anzac with Australians on board, so I presume that Z-Beach was the destination of the smoke

ii - The Naval Review can be found here http://www.naval-review.org/]

regards

Michael

Michael

I think a "Smoke Lighter" was a type of barge [formally known as a Dump Lighter], as per picture converted to form a smoke screen?

Why, I refer to the following;-

At dawn, on 25 April 1915, the invading force landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula. The main forces to land at V Beach were conveyed in the River Clyde, a converted steam collier, and a fleet sweeper. The River Clyde transported 1 Munster Fusiliers; 2 Hampshire Regiment (less two companies); 1 Coy, 1 Royal Dublin Fusiliers; GHQ Signals Section; Field Coy Royal Engineers; and one platoon of the Anson Battalion, Royal Naval Division. It was planned to bridge the intervening water space with a motor hopper, the Argyle, supported if necessary by dumb lighters. With regard to the disembarkation of the troops, four sallyports had been cut in the River Clyde, two on each side at lower deck level, where the men would be waiting. The sallyports opened onto a gangway, three planks wide, which led forward to the bows where there was a hinged extension onto the Argyle which, in turn, had a brow, or gangway, of her own to connect with the shore. The Argyle was to be towed from a gantry on the port side of the River Clyde with a lighter inboard of the latter. A second lighter was to be towed from the starboard side of the River Clyde and others, plus some boats, from aft. A covering force was to be landed ahead of the River Clyde contingent from two fast sweepers, the Clacton and Newmarket (railway packets, ex-Great Eastern Railway).

a possible?

Paul

[stan johnson]

Wonder if the idea came from the Fire ships of Nelsons time? They were often let loose among the enemy.

[michaeldr]

Paul & Stan,

Thanks for your thoughts on this

As I understand it, normally in 1915 a ship would make smoke by introducing some element into the boiler fires

the then ensuing smoke issuing from the funnels

This system would not be available to a lighter

Fire in a vessel afloat is a particularly dangerous thing and I am intrigued by the mechanism for creating and then controlling the fire/smoke

Does anyone have further info on this aspect?

regards

Michael

[birchp]

Paul & Stan,

Thanks for your thoughts on this

As I understand it, normally in 1915 a ship would make smoke by introducing some element into the boiler fires

the then ensuing smoke issuing from the funnels

This system would not be available to a lighter

Fire in a vessel afloat is a particularly dangerous thing and I am intrigued by the mechanism for creating and then controlling the fire/smoke

Does anyone have further info on this aspect?

regards

Michael

Michael,

the lighter has to be as previuosly stated a barge type vessel - adapted to make smoke perhaps with oil drums.

The smoke lighter is then towed behind a trawler both being shallow draft - thus laying down a smoke screen if the wind in the right direction masking the landing troops!

this idea could come from large floating smoke canisters, known as smoke buoys.

Paul

[michaeldr]

Thanks again Paul

It sounds a little bit 'Heath Robinson'

but they were thinking along the right lines

A pity that the wind did not co-operate

regards

Michael

[derekpara]

Paul & Stan,

Thanks for your thoughts on this

As I understand it, normally in 1915 a ship would make smoke by introducing some element into the boiler fires

the then ensuing smoke issuing from the funnels

This system would not be available to a lighter

Fire in a vessel afloat is a particularly dangerous thing and I am intrigued by the mechanism for creating and then controlling the fire/smoke

Does anyone have further info on this aspect?

regards

Michael

Smoke screens from ships were made by increasing or decreasing the amount of air forced into the boilers to aid combustion. Reducing the forced air created black smoke, increasing it created white smoke. Vessels running with no smoke had efficient combustion. Warships with two boiler rooms could make white AND black smoke simultaneously; a very efective screen

[michaeldr]

Derek,

Many thanks for that explanation

As you may have guessed, my use of the word 'element' covered a degree of uncertainty in this matter

& I'm glad to have been enlightened

regards

Michael

[michaeldr]

Another ref;

The Naval Review

AN ACCOUNT OF THE OPERATIONS IN THE DARDANELLES IN 1915.

NOTES FROM H.M.S. PRINCE OF WALES

(page 275) entry for 22nd April 1915

"'We are going to have several lighters filled with oil and resin to make a smoke screen to cover the troops landing"

But no ref to them actually being used on the 25th?

regards

Michael

[michaeldr]

quote from post #1 - "Way back in the early days of the forum there was a question raised as to why smoke shells were not used by the Navy to cover the Gallipoli landings."

At long last I have been able to trace the lost 'smoke screen' thread

the difficulty being that of course it was not originally about anything like smoke screens

Be that as it may

........................

It is interesting to recall that Liddell Hart thought that September 1915 saw the first use of a smoke screen in the Great War

see post #14 here

Can anyone contradict this?

Michael

[Gilgamesh of Uruk]

When did they start using CSA smoke? That certainly seems to have been in use at Zeebrugge. Isn't that the one that lead to a shortage of aartificial sweetners?

[sadsac]

Michael, don't know about Dardanelles, but here's one of many on Belgian Coast Ops. ;

GODSAL Alfred E Since killed in action Cdr. RN 79D089

Brilliant Vice Admiral Dover Patrol 23.07.18 & 21.05.18 Gazette

Operations on Belgian Coast 23.04.18

DSO & Noted for early Promotion

In "Brilliant" led the Ostend block-ships and as in the case of Lt.Commander Hardy, stood into the shore in the face of a tremendous fire from the shore batteries, the wind having shifted and driven back the smoke screen at a critical moment. Commander Godsal's spirit and bearing are those of a very gallant officer.

Regards Sadsac

[springvale]

Michael

Sorry I cannot help on the smoke screen issue. and have to admit that many years of Gallipoli Watching has never previously come across that issue.

Your links to the Naval Review were interesting, and may hold the key to a specific question I am helping{[?] unravel. An AIF soldier 'remembered' that he was taken to Anzac "aboard HMS Destroyer 165

in July 1915". Pendant/Pennant Nos for destroyers seems fairly complex and some guesswork seems inevitable. My guess is that it was HMS Foxhound H16.

From your Gallipoli Watching, and familiarity with Naval Review, and 3,138 posts to this forum, would you have any better guess?

[centurion]

Smoke screens from ships were made by increasing or decreasing the amount of air forced into the boilers to aid combustion. Reducing the forced air created black smoke,

As per this US destroyer laying down a smoke screen in 1918

[michaeldr]

Can any Pal help our new member 'Springvale'

 

quote:

"An AIF soldier 'remembered' that he was taken to Anzac "aboard HMS Destroyer 165

in July 1915". Pendant/Pennant Nos for destroyers seems fairly complex and some guesswork seems inevitable. My guess is that it was HMS Foxhound H16."

Can someone help and please confirm the id of HM Destroyer 165? Was it Foxhound?

Thanks Pals

and a very warm welcome to Springvale

regards

Michael

[Malcolm]

Dittmar and Colledge does indeed list Foxhound as H16, however H65 HMS MARTIN and 6 of her sister ships ( H Acorn Class Destroyers) were assigned to the Med in 1915.

There were no three digit pendants on Destroyers in WW1.

Aye

Malcolm

[Gilgamesh of Uruk]

le Fleming stated that destroyer pendant numbers were changed regularly in WWI. Is that true - if so. might make it harder to work out which was which.

[spithead]

The H numbers went from 00 to 99, and as Malcom says there were no three diget numbers, so it is more than likely that H65 was the one. If the ship had been viewed from an angle at the time it would have looked like H165, utilizing the right side of the H.

Regards John

[Jeff Pickerd]

Michael,

Many thanks for bringing 'Springvale's' request for information on "Destroyer 165" forward.

This enquiry arose from information put forward by a descendant of one of the 8th Light Horse Regiment machine gunners. His father had recorded that he arrived at Gallipoli on the 27th May on board Destroyer 165.

I have established that the date was wrong and the man arrived on Tuesday 27th July, being one of six 8th LHR machine gunners who arrived as part of the 70 Reinforcements under the command of Lt Cecil Talbot-Woods, 5th reinforcements, 8th LHR.

The "Destroyer 165" however has till now drawn a blank. There are several references to Torpedo Boat Destroyers bringing troops across from Lemnos Island to Gallipoli, but these are either referred to as "Destroyers' or by the vessels name.

The regiments of the 3rd Light Horse Brigade did arrive by Torpedo Boat Destroyers, the 8th LHR were shipped across from Lemnos to Gallipoli aboard the "Foxhound & Scourge". The 9th LHR aboard "Scourge & Scorpion", and the 3rd LHFA aboard "Wolverine", Friday 21st May, 1915.

We had considered that 165 may have been 'I'65, possibly one of the River Class Destroyers "HMS Colne, Chelmer & Ribble", but these were discounted as they were during this time actively involved in firing nightly on the Turkish positions as a lead up to the August campaign.

This brought us back to the "Beagle 'G' Class" Torpedo Boat Destroyers, but to the same problem of no references to any pendant numbers for these vessels.

Malcom's confirmation that H16 was the "Foxhound" and H65 the "Martin", would seem to narrow the field done, but I have not come across any references to the "HMS Martin" operating at Gallipoli.

It is fairly certain that these reinforcements embarked from Alexandria on board the HMT "Kingstonian”, Wednesday 21st July and probably arrived at Mudros Harbour, Lemnos, on or before the 26th July.

The 1st A.I.F. records show that 6 officers and 152 other ranks arrived at Anzac Cove for the NZ&A Div, of these 3 officers and 80 other ranks were from the 5th Reinforcements, arriving 27th July 1915. The Aust Div had 231 other ranks, of which 120 were reinforcements.

The question now is, would the "HMS Foxhound" be the only candidate for Destroyer 165?

Or, are there any other possibilities to it being a totally different type of vessel that landed these reinforcements?

I can find no more from over on this side of the world, none of the official records will give the answer.

Thanks in anticipation,

Jeff

[springvale]

Evening All

Some more of the help provided to date:-

http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=447

NB

Have since learned that CLACTON was one of the Lighters that accompanied the RIVER CLYDE to her mooring off Helles

[stan johnson]

The problem with Ships pennant Numbers. Tends to be the fact that ships lost during the war had the pennant No. re-issued to the next ship of that type to be launched. Also some ships were occasionally transferred between Commonwealth and Allied Navies. (Even though the ships name was often changed the pennant No.usually stayed the same.) Ships of the same class of ship were grouped under what is known as a Flag Superior. Today, It generally helps to identify the class of Ship. i.e. A=Auxilaries....D=Destroyers....F=Frigates...S=Submarines with R=Aircraft Carriers.In the list of Pennant Numbers I have(Among my Naval bits and pieces) It shows H16 as both "Outragan and Daring. with H65 as the Duchess....I65 the St.Clair(Which was Launched in July 1918) Also the H69.Foxhound as (Ren Qu`Appelle) From this you can see the difficulty in identifying from long ago the memories of the Old Timers. Still it is interesting and keeps us out of the way of the Wife whilst searching.

[michaeldr]

Thanks to everyone for all the in-put so far and to Jeff for the full background to this question

I follow the reasoning of Malcolm and John in their suggestion of H65 (HMS Martin)

but just like Jeff, I have so far failed to turn up any ref to this ship being at Gallipoli.

On the general subject, this web-page is of interest - Some Notes Concerning RN Destroyer Pendant Numbers

see http://www.gwpda.org/naval/s0400000.htm

and please note the links there to the "Arrowsmith List" Parts 1,2,3 & 4

Drawing a bow at a venture, have I read the Arrowsmith List correctly

and is HMS Beagle numbered HC5?

Like the Foxhound, the Beagle was also sometimes involved in the transfer of troops to the peninsula

and following John's explanation then, similarly, perhaps HC5 could have been mistaken for 165?

regards

Michael

[Malcolm]

Here is the list from Dittmar.

Aye

Malcolm

[springvale]

Malcolm

Thanks muchly.

As the Rivers, including Ribble Chelmer & Cole are in the I category, would it be possible to post the next page fro Dittmar, please.

Has anyone noticed any "Dardanelles" pictures showing destroyers with numbers painted on the hulls?

Bluey

[springvale]

Malcolm

Sorry, the above request was based on a wrong "I believe", but the list would still be greatly appreciated.

Part of my confusion is in trying to get the brain around all the data, such as the Arrowsmith lists in Michael's [thanks Michael ] link, and this one ....2 lists of RN Destroyers

http://www.naval-history.net/index.htm

Perhaps Jeff or I should list all the Destroyers known to have worked at Gallipoli, and try to allocate 1914/15 numbers to them. One of the unusual aspects of our early searches was that the 'known' Dardanelles destroyers were all among the very few "Not Knowns" in the Flag Superior listings we had 'found' at that stage.

Bluey