Personnel Vessel Crews Refused to Sail to Dunkirk

Discussion in '1940' started by Drew5233, Mar 2, 2011.

  1. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    A few pages on some of the ships that at some point for one reason or another refused to sail or where crews had to be replaced or supported my Royal Navy personnel.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

  3. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Non naval crew getting bombed and strafed, it is a wonder to me that made another trip after the first.

    We are talking "Mrs Miniver" boats here aren't we?
     
  4. JCB

    JCB Senior Member

    I don't blame 'em . Soldiers had only ONE nightmare journey.
     
  5. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    They were Personnel Vessels - I guess you could describe them as Troop Ships. Probably around 5 to 8,000 tons I would guess without checking.
     
  6. 4/7 RDG

    4/7 RDG Member

    I really like the way that a crew would much rather face the entire German army than a Leading Stoker and his squad with fixed bayonets - corporal Jones was quite right . . .
     
  7. Vitesse

    Vitesse Senior Member

    They were Personnel Vessels - I guess you could describe them as Troop Ships. Probably around 5 to 8,000 tons I would guess without checking.
    An assortment of ferries and coastal pleasure steamers by the look of the names.

    Auto Carrier gets a mention here: Full text of "Stretcher bearers... at the double!"
     
  8. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    What is the duty of a ferry crew in time of war ? I can imagine that those from the IOM routes would little have expected to be repeatedly sailing into a war zone. they were not trained for it and were basically unarmed.

    I can understand a call for volunteers but it sounds as if these crews (who could've been aged from 14 to 65, presumably) were facing the 20th century equivalent of the press gang.
     
  9. Roy Martin

    Roy Martin Senior Member

    They were mostly 1,000 to 3,000 tons. Mostly unarmed! Of those that survived the smaller ones went on to be Convoy Rescue ships (still with their merchant crews) on the North Atlantic and Arctic. The larger ones became LSI s, at the time of the D-Day landings most of the British larger ones were still under the Red Ensign, as were the 13 specially American built Empire LSI s.

    Roy
     
  10. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    I seem to be in the minority here. While I can understand the reason given (total exhaustion) for the crew of the Tynewald not wanting to go out again after 5 trips, the others refusing to go after one trip or not at all is not appreciated. It was their people out their on the beach needing help, and they were refusing to stick their necks out for them. This was a very desparate time, and desparate measures were called for as the saying goes. This is just my opinion guys, but feel free to tear into it. I have no tolerance for cowardice. When someone is in a bad way, you should help them. The men on the beach had their necks stuck out for a long time. The ones who ducked out and ran had to live with that decision for the rest of their lives.

    What if all the merchant mariners refused to take to their boats and cross the oceans and run the gauntlets of the u-boats and Luftwaffe? Is there a difference here?
     
  11. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    I think you have to appreciate they were pleasure boats/ferries who's crews were used to sailing around the Isle of Man, Scotland or across the Irish Sea doing day trips for example before the war. It's a subject I've not looked into in much detail and doesn't really get mentioned in any Dunkirk books but my understanding is they had all volunteered (because they wanted to stay with there ship/the adventure etc) and had done at least one trip to France before refusing to go back - Some crews had been on the go for 7 days without rest or proper food or sleep so its hardly surprising that some crews did suffer the effects of what the operation entailed and couldn't manage another trip - It certainly wan't a pleasure cruise across the channel like it is today and the trip across four years later was a lot easier in my opinion.

    It's also worth mentioning that some of the crews left Dunkirk expecting it to fall to the Germans at any moment so some may have been reluctant to go back being convinced that there were no troops left to rescue and the Germans would be waiting for them.

    Exceptional circumstances asked for exceptional human beings during May 1940 and I don't judge nor blame anyone one of them for their actions-The fact they were there marks everyone a remarkable human being in my book. For everyone that refused to return there must have ten to take their place.
     
  12. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    You may find these two links interesting too in what it was like travelling across the the English Channel during Op Dynamo on a Personnel Vessel.

    SS King George V

    St. Seriol
     
  13. Tab

    Tab Senior Member

    When you take into account that most of these people sailing these ships were civilians, and probably not the fittest people around, also probably in advanced years.
    Then it is a bit more understandable why they refused to go. Now many of these people had probably had also served in the forces before and knew just what it takes to run a ship into a coast under fire and felt that there sell by date had long since past
     
  14. leccy

    leccy Senior Member

    I seem to be in the minority here. While I can understand the reason given (total exhaustion) for the crew of the Tynewald not wanting to go out again after 5 trips, the others refusing to go after one trip or not at all is not appreciated. It was their people out their on the beach needing help, and they were refusing to stick their necks out for them. This was a very desparate time, and desparate measures were called for as the saying goes. This is just my opinion guys, but feel free to tear into it. I have no tolerance for cowardice. When someone is in a bad way, you should help them. The men on the beach had their necks stuck out for a long time. The ones who ducked out and ran had to live with that decision for the rest of their lives.

    What if all the merchant mariners refused to take to their boats and cross the oceans and run the gauntlets of the u-boats and Luftwaffe? Is there a difference here?

    You got to remember that alot of the crews of these merchant ships pressed into service were not the young and the fittest as alot of those had already been called up, you had alot of older crew including some who had retired but either been called back for limited Hostilitys only or just for the evacuation. They were not armed or equipped to fight or sail in a war zone (some of the ships were barely capable of actually crossing the channel). The ships Masters were under incredible strain to try and control their ship, dodge bombs, pilot the ships in unfamiliar waters, no rest and when they get back refuel and set off again.
    You call them cowards but would you like to go to sea and face bombing in a ship such as this, the frustration of not being able to even return fire adds to their trauma. The Official Medway Queen Preservation Society.

    The crews had no breaks and were physically and mentally worn out. They suffered PTSD as much as anyone. Many were veterans of WW1 so had those memorys coming back. Until you have been in such a situation you can not really comment on what they should have done and call them such things as cowards.

    For the most part convoys were pretty plain sailing with station keeping being the hardest part, it was not every convoy that was hit and even less were hit as hard as convoys like PQ17.
     
    jan1 likes this.
  15. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    With hindsight, we realise how important the evacuation of the BEF was, but for the crews of the ships (and indeed the general public), restricted news reporting and the need to put a gloss on things probably meant that many didn't even realise the significance of events or that so many could be brought home, and of course the subsequent fall of France may not have been anticipated by the majority.

    These events occurred at the end of the 'phony war' - not after five years of total war.

    Those boats were absolutely sitting ducks and the continual sailings must have seemed futile to many.

    I don't feel that it is at all appropriate to blame these civilian crews.
     
  16. dbf

    dbf Moderatrix MOD

    I noted that some of them had already done trips to Dunkirk, or Boulogne. We can all come to a point where we'd be more of a hindrance than help in whatever we do through fatigue. I wouldn't judge anyone who didn't want to go. The MN in particular put up with a lot of conditions and lack of recognition that I'm appalled at ... if the ship was sunk and any crew survived, they didn't get paid from the date of sinking. If they were killed in home waters, or en route to UK as 'passengers', they weren't even classed as casualties "in service" - no cwgc headstones or memorials for them. I'm sure Hugh would put me right if I'm wrong, but I believe that to be the case.
     
  17. Hugh MacLean

    Hugh MacLean Senior Member

    I think it is easy for those who don't understand much about the Merchant Service; how it was manned, their working conditions of service and their relationship with the ship owners and the government prior to and during WW2 to pick out a few isolated cases where the Masters' felt, for their own reasons, that they couldn't make another trip or refused to take a ship out.

    There was no 'phoney war' for merchant seamen, they started to die in their hundreds and thousands from 1939 right through until the very day the Armistice was signed. Their conditions of service at the start of the war were terrible and as Diane has said when their ships were sunk, any crew that did survive did not receive any wages until they could get back to the UK and sign on another ship again. When the ship was sunk the agreement between the seaman and the ship owners ceased from that moment. Many families of seamen suffered financial hardship because of this draconian rule. [Effectively the MN were still working to peace time rules while at war] The government waited until the spring of 1941 to bring in the Essential Work (Merchant Navy) order. This ensured effective registration of merchant seamen and also attempted to make improvements to their conditions of service. One of the things the EWO was supposed to correct was the loss of pay on ceasing employment due to loss of the ship.

    Diane is also correct with regard to those who lost their lives at sea not directly caused by enemy action - they are not recognised by the CWGC and have no memoriams in the same way as those in the armed services are remembered. To my mind this means that Great Britain and the Commonwealth has not remembered them or their sacrifice.

    Recognition for the MN was along time coming and many many seamen didn't live to see their own government finally remember them and their service. Up until very recently, WWII boards such as this would only have fleeting mentions of the Merchant Service - I am glad to see that at least on this one that does not apply.

    I would also point out that statistically the casualty rate among merchant seamen was higher than all three services. So cowardice is not a word that I would use and I know that the squaddies at Dunkirk didn't use it - quite the opposite - they hailed them as heroes.

    Regards
    Hugh
     
  18. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    Yes, y'all are right and I apologize. The term "cowardice" that I used was very unfair and definitely unkind to the memory of the brave crews, and I was wrong to use it in reference to the merchantmen in question here. I was taking my daily walk through the neighborhood this afternoon and was thinking of the thread and what I posted. I should have chose a better word, and I wish that I could take it back. The more I thought about it, the more I regretted posting it as such. In my original post (#10) I did acknowledge the physical and mental strain on the crews, pointing out the effort of the crew of the Tynewald in particular as an example. They did more than was physically expected of them, as did others. Everyone has their own breaking point, and I understand that. But at times like this I feel that everyone should do more, but that's just me.

    Even though the debacle at Dunkirk was an "American Free Zone", I've always admired the British Army's (along with French and Belgian support-got to give them credit as to not get blasted here) struggle, along with the Royal Navy's determination to rescue them. It was Bataan with a better ending.

    Still I cannot waiver in my position that those men on the beach needed help and I couldn't live with myself if I didn't do everything possible to help out. When I read about incidents like this, I put myself, in my mind that I am there to understand what was going on (I tend to get wrapped up in what I am reading). I'd like to believe that I would have paddled over there in my pirouge to bring just one back if that's all I could do, but I wasn't there, so who knows.

    I guess it is easy (and usually wrong) to judge or compare others by one's own convictions and expectations.

    To tell y'all the truth, I figured that more of y'all would be more upset or unhappy with the ones who didn't make return trips to the beach as scheduled.
     
  19. leccy

    leccy Senior Member

    Many of the Merchant Marine did give their all (when I joined the Army you were reckoned to be able to function for 3 full days with no sleep but after that you would be useless for around a week, some of these blokes did 7 trips in nine days and between sailings they were having to prepare their boats to go again, they were physically and mentally exhausted nothing could have got them capable of going again).
    There were many who were not even merchant mariners but weekend sailors with their own little boats that joined in to ferry from shore to ship (quite a lot of the abandoned small craft).
    There was a great enthusiasm for people to take their boat and sail over to Dunkirk but not all could face it time and time again.
     
    jan1 likes this.
  20. You have to remember too that the Royal Navy ships were split into watches. While one watch was on duty the other was resting. Many merchant ships did not have this luxury in 1940, as their crews had been decimated. Many MM officers were drafted int the RNVR or wavy navy, and many MM crew like engineers etc were also used in other services. The younger Merchant Mariners had been called up.
    I remember whilst serving in HMS Ark Royal in 1962, we were on exercise in the south china sea with US and Dutch and HMAS (Australian ships) and we went to 4 on 4 off (4 hours on/4 hours off) for 48 hours. There was no bombing or straffing. No danger of U-boats, and at 17 years of age I was pretty fit and keen. At the end of it I was exhausted, disorientated and didn't know the difference between port and starboard. I think I have a slight inkling of what those guys put up with, and being as they lifted my Dad off the mole at Dunkerque I am eternally grateful
     
    dbf likes this.

Share This Page