|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 20, 2014 13:45:51 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by steveh on Apr 20, 2014 19:36:09 GMT 12
Cripes, that was a different world & time. Who was the Admiral I wonder, just a wee chap for so much gold braid?  Steve. |
|
|
|
Post by komata on Apr 21, 2014 5:58:51 GMT 12
The 'Distinguished Military Person' is (to give him his full title), Admiral of the Fleet, The Right Honorable The Earl Jellicoe GCB OM GCVO. Aka John Rushworth Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe (1859-1935). In the 1920's he was, for a short time,
Governor General of New Zealand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Warren on Apr 21, 2014 12:06:36 GMT 12
HMS New Zealand at Lyttleton 2nd Sep 1919 during Admiral Jellicoe, this, a Battle of Jutland veteran to boot.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 21, 2014 12:48:31 GMT 12
Is that snow on the hills?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Warren on Apr 21, 2014 14:18:06 GMT 12
Is that snow on the hills? Yes indeed, a photo from a gorgeous book by Ross Gillett 'Australian and New Zealand Warships 1914-1945. |
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Apr 25, 2014 19:03:55 GMT 12
Nice pic Ian, a Dogger Bank and Heligoland vet too, although New Zealand's record at Jutland is often written as possessing a great rate of fire during the battle, but rather ignominiously of the over 400 shells fired by her enthusiastic gunners, only four hits were made on enemy warships. Equally as embarrassing was that during Dogger Bank, of 147 12-inch rounds fired, no hits on enemy ships were observed. Interestingly, HMS New Zealand was fitted with flying off platforms on one of its turrets for the operation of Pups and Ship's Camels for scouting purposes. There are a few images about with these mounted on the ship. I wonder if any Kiwis flew aircraft from her platforms?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Warren on Apr 25, 2014 19:26:32 GMT 12
Interestingly, HMS New Zealand was fitted with flying off platforms on one of its turrets for the operation of Pups and Ship's Camels for scouting purposes. There are a few images about with these mounted on the ship. I wonder if any Kiwis flew aircraft from her platforms? Thanks nuuumann, from one off the many books in my library, I have read/learned a Kiwi did fly and was part off the testing, I don't recall the article but NZ flyers always seemed to be at the forefront with the flying and experiments, seems to be an ongoing trait. |
|
|
|
Post by ams888 on Apr 25, 2014 20:28:08 GMT 12
I was looking up papers past to find a newspaper article for my facebook page that I run called 100 years ago, NZ History from 100 years ago. Anyway i found this article regarding HMS New Zealand. It would have been quite a spectacle watching for Royal Navy Crusiers having a race...  |
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Apr 25, 2014 21:30:31 GMT 12
It would be interesting to find out a name, Ian. From a book I have, three airmen embarked aboard New Zealand in 1918: Flt Cdr A.W. Mylne, Flt sub Lt V.S. Grigg and Wt Off A. Neeson. Any of these ring a bell as Kiwis? Actually, New Zealand was fitted with two flying-off platofrms, one on P and Q turret. I have a picture in a book of a 1 1/2 Strutter and a Camel on board.
Many thought that's about all they were good for! I remember reading that the battlecruiser squadrons raised a combination of disdain and envy among sailors serving on vessels in the Grand Fleet. The BCS crews were just across the Forth at Rosyth where they could be in the centre of Edinburgh in less than half an hour, whereas the Grand Fleet had only the dubious delights of Kirkwall in Orkney near their mooring station at Scapa. The disdain comes from the fact that the Grand Fleet battleships were well exercised by Jellicoe, frequently carrying out gunnery training, whilst Beatty and the BCS rarely ventured out for such trivialties; Beatty preferring to have his ships spic and spann, with the crews engaged in polishing and scrubbing, rather than the war stuff. Consequently, their firing was way off the mark, with the exception of the Fifth BCS, which spent time at Scapa with the Grand Fleet. This was telling during Jutland, when its ships' firing proved more accurate than the other battlecruisers.
Not surprised the New Zealand lost the race. The Indefatigables were repeat Invincibles with a slightly different gun and boiler arrangement, whereas the Big Cats, Lion, Tiger, Princess Royal and Queen Mary were newer, better thought out ships. It was one of these that the Admiralty initially promised the Dominion of New Zealand's money would go to to begin with, but somewhat disappointingly, its funding got a second rate ship instead. Not that the public were aware of that. Fisher, for some reason exaggerated the capabilities of the Indefatigables publicly, crediting them with more powerful armour and armament than they actually had.
|
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Apr 25, 2014 21:58:34 GMT 12
“It would be interesting to find out a name, Ian. From a book I have, three airmen embarked aboard New Zealand in 1918: Flt Cdr A.W. Mylne, Flt sub Lt V.S. Grigg and Wt Off A. Neeson. Any of these ring a bell as Kiwis?”
To the best of my knowledge, none of the above were New Zealanders. A possible candidate, if there were a New Zealander present, might be Samuel Dawson, RNAS, RAF, of Masterton, but I’ve not come across anything to confirm his participation in any HMS New Zealand flying-off trials. Dawson was one of the seven who flew off HMS Furious in the famous carrier strike against the German airship sheds at Tondern in July 1918.
Errol
(Work in progress: Ack Emmas to Zeppelin Hunters – New Zealand airmen and airwomen in the Great War and Russia, 1914-1919)
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Apr 25, 2014 22:11:24 GMT 12
One of my Great-Great Uncles was a stoker on HMS Queen Mary. He lost his life (along with most of the ships company) when she exploded during the Battle of Jutland. The British lost 4 ships at Jutland in almost identical manner, caused due to poor ammunition handling practices. In order to get a high rate of fire (which did indeed tend to be inaccurate!) the gun crews stowed extra cordite powder bags around the turret and wedged open the flash arresting doors in the ammo feed elevators. Once they took a hit to the turret, they had a nice powder trail heading straight to the main magazine. the crews didn't have a chance... It took the Royal Navy quite a while to work out what happened and enforce stricter ammunition handling controls.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Apr 26, 2014 3:37:46 GMT 12
Thanks for the info on those gents, Errol, I thought you might know if any of them were Kiwis. I didn't realise Dawson was one. Flew Ship's Camel N6823 and was interned after landing in Denmark/Schleswig Holstein. It's possible he might have flown one of New Zealand's aircraft, even if it wasn't aboard ship at the time; New Zealand's machines were nominally based at Turnhouse, the ships' machines were often moved about different vessels during their lifetimes. The Tondern raid pilots trained at Turnhouse and at least one of the aeroplanes that served aboard New Zealand also went aboard Furious at some stage.
This sounds intriguing; one of HMS New Zealand's Ship's Camels flew combat sorties in Russia in 1919, N7140, flown by Stuart Culley, who shot down L 53 in 1918.
Interesting info on your Great great uncle, Bruce, although only three British capital ships were sunk at Jutland, the battlecruisers Invincible, Queen Mary and New Zealand's sister ship Indefatigable; Lion was badly hit, as you state, and Beatty had to transfer his flag, but it survived the battle and was scrapped post war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Warren on Apr 26, 2014 11:17:54 GMT 12
Looks like everyone here has covered the history or least almost as much unless you go and buy the book JUTLAND 1916. Well worth to post the deck plan and arrangement , impressive ships for the period.  |
|
|
|
Post by komata on Apr 26, 2014 12:53:07 GMT 12
For those who might be interested, there is a scale model of HMS New Zealand on display in the Military history section of the Auckland War Memorial Museum.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Apr 26, 2014 14:16:13 GMT 12
The Indefatigables might have been impressive, but they were flawed and were simply improved Invincibles, which were roundly disliked and condemned as poor designs at the time by many. The following battlecruiser designs rectified many of the issues of the previous two classes, but the question was asked at the time, why were the Indefatigables built as they were? They were intended to be battlecruiser variants of the Neptune, but ended up lesser ships. Anyway, indeed, for us here in the Dominion the ship, despite its faults was most certainly a source of pride.
As well as a Search light and sundry items. Outside near the cenotaph are a couple of her four inch guns. At the RNZN Museum at Torpedo Bay there is a good display on the ship, as well as her bell and deck name plate. The museum has in its collection furniture and other items from the ship's wardroom, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Warren on Apr 26, 2014 15:25:58 GMT 12
For those who might be interested, there is a scale model of HMS New Zealand on display in the Military history section of the Auckland War Memorial Museum. Been a long few years since I stopped at the Auckland War Memorial Museum, was that a constructors model? |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Warren on Apr 26, 2014 15:32:29 GMT 12
The Indefatigables might have been impressive, but they were flawed and were simply improved Invincibles, which were roundly disliked and condemned as poor designs at the time by many. The following battlecruiser designs rectified many of the issues of the previous two classes, but the question was asked at the time, why were the Indefatigables built as they were? They were intended to be battlecruiser variants of the Neptune, but ended up lesser ships. Anyway, indeed, for us here in the Dominion the ship, despite its faults was most certainly a source of pride. As well as a Search light and sundry items. Outside near the cenotaph are a couple of her four inch guns. At the RNZN Museum at Torpedo Bay there is a good display on the ship, as well as her bell and deck name plate. The museum has in its collection furniture and other items from the ship's wardroom, too. It is amazing the silly things they did, almost lets kill people to test a theory, Neptune , "something wrong with our damn ships today". |
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Apr 26, 2014 16:16:10 GMT 12
Indeed, Ian. You have to wonder about the machinations of these guys, but of course, so far away in time and distance allows us to be objective about people and events in a way that they could not have been at the time. Fisher's influence was remakable and considerable and, in many cases enormously problematic for the vessels conserned. The Lions, although faster and with more powerful armament that the Indefatigables, were considered to be poor boats because of their inadequate protection and the fact they did not meet their intended performance objectives. Death traps in a fleet engagement. The Battlecruiser concept was not the best idea in a battle fleet; ideal in the pacific, where big gun warships were few - if not non existent, but in the North Sea, bad idea. As for the likes of the Courageous, Glorius and Furious, the three ugly sisters....
Let's not fudge the issue, Ian: "There's something wrong with our bloody ships, today..."
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Warren on Apr 26, 2014 20:31:07 GMT 12
Let's not fudge the issue, Ian: "There's something wrong with our bloody ships, today..." Strange sort of thinking of the times, and weird after the experience they trusted themselves with the concept 25 years later, but then in saying that both the battle cruiser and battleship seem to fear from things the three ugly sisters got turned into, least there was some change in ideas. It would be nice I one could post a good series of photos of the HMS New Zealand model from the War Memorial Museum , another thought maybe I should hook into it and build a running RC model |
|
