Talk:Mary B Mitchell (Q-ship)

Title

I've listed this article simply as Mary B Mitchell; I understand the normal procedure is to use a prefix, but in this case I'm really not sure what the prefix would be. As a schooner I wouldn't know what to use; as a Q-Ship I'm unsure if they were prefixed "HMS". If anyone has an idea, perhaps they could respond here. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

afaik Q-ships were not given a prefix, after all they were Q-ships! - ClemMcGann (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

she was renamed Mary y Jose while she was requisitioned. Interesting encounter in [[1] - ClemMcGann (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Chatterton says she masqueraded as Mary Y Jose (of Vigo) on her first cruise (p68); but she used a lot of disguises in her career, depending on where she was. The trick was to masquerade as a ship that a U-boat might reasonably meet, in the area where the Mitchell was operating, but not so close that the real Mary Y Jose (or Jeannette, or Neptun, or whatever) might be encountered (which would let the cat out of the bag!). Xyl 54 (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I need to add her role during WW2, her cargo of coal and her trips to Lisbon Lugnad (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to reconcile the recent edits (adding U-boat designations, DNW source) to the books listed as sources, but I'm afaid I can't. The DNW page is interesting, but I don't know that it's a reliable source, so I've moved it to an External links section. Also, a source for the U-boat designations would be useful. Xyl 54 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is incompletely referenced, but a contemporary newspaper report (London Gazette 16 February 1917, and of 11 August 1917) would be a RS. Lugnad (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

The service history section currently says "After the war, it was concluded that Q-ships were greatly over-rated, diverting skilled seamen from other duties without sinking enough U-boats to justify the strategy" with a reference from Anthony Preston.
I've labelled this as dubious: Firstly, this article is about the Mary B Mitchell; the comment is more suited to a general article on Q ships, and is out of place in an article on a partcular ship. Secondly, it is non-neutral; if it stays it’ll need something posing an alternate view to give a balanced position. It is untrue that Q ships were a waste of time, and there are a decent number of sources to attest to that. While there were defensive measures (high speed and zigzagging, at first, later convoys and air patrols) there was little effective way to engage and sink a U-boat before the last year of the war. Which made Q ships one of the few methods that had any effectiveness at all, before then. And all the major navies of WWI used them, though none to such an extent as the RN. Their effectiveness may have been over-estimated; during the war it was difficult to tell if a U-boat, having been hit a few times and disappearing under the surface, had been sunk, or just submerged and legged it. And after the war they were seen as exciting, so they were well publicized. Also, service in them certainly required high standards: But it is extreme to dismiss them as an unjustified waste of resources. Nor is it reasonable to suggest their crews would have been better employed doing something else. Up to the end of 1915, of the 22 U-boats sunk, 9 were lost accidentally or disappeared, compared to 5 sunk in decoy actions; would it be reasonable to suggest the RN should have sat at home and waited for the U-boat to sink themselves? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of early books, such as [2] "Q-ships and their story" published in 1922, persumably written in the flush of victory, which extoll the virtues of Q-ships. Truth is the first casulty in any war. Losses to u-boats could not be concealed, so propaganda was required to assert that there were losses of u-boats. We are not here to engage in primary research. The cite is from a respected book written by a respected author. Perhaps we should add that many Q-ships were lost.[3]The consensus on the number of Royal Navy Q-ships lost in action is 61 - the French losses were two. Three Arklow schooners served as Q-ships in WWI, between them only one submarine was sunk. Unfortunately it was a RN submarine. The events of 20 June and 3 August 1917 recounted in the article could not be verified. If you have recent books saying otherwise, I would be interested, and the article will be ammended. I await, with interest, your response. Lugnad (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My objection, firstly, was that you’ve made a general comment about the value of Q-ships in an article on a particular ship; the place for such an assessment is in the Q-ship article, not here. If you want an evaluation of the Mitchell’s effectiveness as a Q-ship, its already in the article; she had three encounters with U-boats (a high number for one ship, actually) and although it was believed she had sunk them, in fact all three had escaped.

Secondly, your single quote is too selective to be neutral. For a more balanced assessment you could try the source you found, further down the page: “On the face of it… But…”. And if by “not here to engage in primary research” you mean not drawing our own conclusions from sources, you might need to re-consider dismissing a book as untruthful, just because it was written in 1922.

If you want more recent sources than 1922 try Messimer Find and Destroy (2001), which charts the development of anti-submarine warfare in WWI, including decoy vessels, by all sides; or Tarrant The U boat Offensive (1989) which has running totals of losses, by cause. Ritchie, the source here (1989, three years after Prestons book!) has the summary "As the total known kill of U-boats was 145, Q-ships accounted for 8 percent of all U boats sunk, a very respectable total" (p 157): And Halpern A Naval History of World War One (1994) has "The successes achieved by the Q ships in the summer of 1915 were all the more important because so few methods had appeared to work against the submarine" (p 300).

I agree, Anthony Preston is a respected source, which is why I’d be interested to know the context in which the quote is set,(not having the book to hand).

And, “If I have recent books…. the article will be amended”? (shades of ownership!) The article needs amending as it is; I am wanting to agree the way forward. Either the sentence should be removed altogether (and put it in the Q-ship article, if you want) or the paragraph will have to be re-written to achieve a neutral point of view. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Let us see if we can find common ground. I can understand the view that a comment on the ineffectiveness of q-ships is better on a general article than on an individual ship. This article does emphasise her role as a Q-ship. She did have a reputation of being successful. There is an interesting – but inaccurate – piece in Flagship to Murmansk: A Gunnery Officer in HMS 'Scylla', 1942-43 by Robert Hughes. “that ship was one of the most famous of the Q-ships in the last war”. In the article we have “She had a reputation for being an efficient and successful vessel.”. I am unaware of any other Q-ship which claimed two u-boats in the same day. [4]

With the benefit of hindsight, we know that no U-boats were sunk. She had no actual achievements in 1917, other than exaggeration, propaganda and medals. While some other Q-ships did sink u-boats, Mary B did not.

Is there any point in saying “Mitchell was able to score some hits before the U-boat disappeared, but no loss was confirmed.”?

Would you consider revising and/or reducing the coverage of 1917?

She had a long career from 1892 to 1944, let’s put 1917 into perspective. Lugnad (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You asked for context in Preston's book; her is a ocr complete with ocr errors:

intention of luring a V-Boat to the surface for an easy sinking with her deck gun. If all went well a 'panic party' aban¬doned ship, leaving gun-crews aboard who would open fire as soon as the V -Boat came within range. Although a few spec¬tacular successes were scored the Q-Ship idea was greatly over-rated, and tied up skj]]ed seamen who were needed else¬where, without sinking enough subma¬rines to justify itself. A variation on the decoy theme was to use trawlers and submarines together to stop V-Boats from shelling the Aberdeen fishing fleet. Among the trawler fleet would be one trawler towing an old, small submarine instead of a trawl. The submarine was in touch with the trawler by means of a telephone link, and could cast off the towing wire. The idea actually worked twice, although each time technical snags nearly ruined everything, and the submarines each sank a V-Boat. News of the sinkings got back to Germany but it did have the desired effect of warning the V-Boats off the fishing fleet.

The Allies also armed merchant ships to enable them to fight off V-Boats. This was seized on by Germany as an excuse for sinking merchantmen at sight, des¬pite the fact that merchantmen had been armed for centuries. In practice the pro¬vision of a small gun of obsolescent de¬sign on the poop of a tramp steamer did little but boost the crew's morale; how¬ever bad the shooting from a submarine's deck-gun the shooting from the average steamer was probably much worse.

In 1916 two important countermea¬smes were introduced. The first was the

Lugnad (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The next page discussed depth charges and hydrophones Lugnad (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the context, there; my opinion of Anthony Preston has taken a bit of a knock! The slighting comments about arming merchant ships are bit shallow; Messimer shows that arming merchant ships had a very positive effect, particularly in the early stages (of 206 attacks on ships at the end of 1916, for example, over half were unsuccessful, and in ¾ of those cases it was because the U-boat was driven off by defensive fire. Even though no U-boats were sunk, it was a significant counter-measure/deterrent).

As for reducing the coverage of events in 1917, well, no; the article was originally written on the Mitchell as a Q ship; the only reason it wasn’t titled HMS Mitchell is because that would have been inaccurate. You’ve added stuff on her merchant career, which is fair enough, but to then want to dump the Q-ship stuff is a step too far, I think.

As a counter-point, though, a lot of the stuff here (and at Cymric (schooner)) is non-specific to the subject; it’d sit better in a general article on the Arklow schooners, I feel. Have you considered creating one? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, whatever your present opinion of Preston, can I assume that your earlier opinion “Anthony Preston is a respected source,” remains?

If you were to add another opinion – what might it be?

You say “the article was originally written on the Mitchell as a Q ship”. My initial thought would be that a Q-ship which had zero success was hardly worth an article, but on reflection – she did have a great (perhaps undeserved) reputation at the time; with 2 U-boats sunk in one day and DSO with bar awarded, and that piece in Flagship to Murmansk. (I must look for it again)

We could have two articles. I could create Mary B Mitchell (schooner) in line with Cymric (schooner), with a short piece on 1917 saying main article Mary B Mitchell (q-ship) while Mary B Mitchell becomes a disambig page

A lot more can be said of Mary B Mitchell, for example 1940. Mary B Mitchell was carrying butter, other foodstuffs and pit props to Britain. In August 1940 Germany "required" Ireland to cease food exports to Britain. If Ireland agreed then her ships would not be attacked even in UK waters, but if there was no agreement then they would be regarded as legitimate targets. On 15 August deliberate attacks on neutral Irish ships near British ports began. Meath was lost - fortunately the crew survived but 700 cattle drowned. Hours later, on 16 August, the schooner Lock Ryan left Fowey, Cornwall, bound for Arklow. She was attacked by three German aircraft. The attack, after the German ultimatum, was against the schooner Lock Ryan, returning to Arklow after delivering foodstuffs and collecting china clay for the Arklow Pottery works. She was strafed and bombed by three German aircraft. One bomb went directly through the hatch into the cargo hold. Fortunately Lock Ryan's cargo of china clay adsorbed the blast and although badly damaged, she survived. Ireland protested to Germany, demanding compensation. On 17 August 1940, Germany declared a large area around Britain to be a "scene of warlike operations". Germany acknowledged the attack but refused to pay compensation to ships in British waters "through which the Irish had been offered free passage but on terms which were rejected". Despite the danger Mary B Mitchell and the other ships continued delivering food to Britain. By the end of 1940, nine Irish ships were lost. That figure may be small compared with Allied losses, but it represents a larger proportion of the small Irish fleet.

(some months later the deliberate attacks stopped, The Nazis realised that Irish-American politicians were starting to back calls for America to join the war; (long before Japanese involvement); which would not have suited Germany at that time) Up to that they (for example JFKs father – their ambassador to London) were isolationist

Reflect for a moment on the Mary B Mitchell. Germany had warned them not to deliver food. The creamery at Campile was bombed. Another schooner on the same mission was bombed. Yet Captain Dowds, Peter Dempsey, Michael Connors, Felix Byrne, Jack Gaffney and Tim Weadick sailed Mary B. Mitchell with a cargo of butter (and other); sailed alone and unarmed. I suggest that 1940 should be least an equal year for Mary B Mitchell as 1917, in the article. (She didn’t move to the Lisbon run until 1943)

Some day I just might do something on the Arklow schooners, but it would be a mammoth task

Lugnad (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Earlier I mentioned an interesting piece in Flagship to Murmansk: A Gunnery Officer in HMS 'Scylla', 1942-43 by Robert Hughes, you might find it interesting, here it is:

On the morning the Captain sent for me it was a morning that would have warmed the heart of a marine artist. The blue sky, the white horses, and a three-masted schooner in full sail, heading south-eastwards towards the enemy coast was inviting its perpetuation on canvas. "I sent for you, Hughes, because I thought you'd like to see her. Now where do you think she's come from, eh? Bound from Port Talbot to Bordeaux with a cargo of coal. Port Talbot is your home, isn't it?” “Yes, sir. Thank you very much for thinking of it, sir.” I watched the little ship, seeing her under the familiar coal-hoists, with the mountains in the background and my home at the foot of them. “What's her name, sir? I can see she's flying the Eire flag.”

“ Mary B. Mitchell. some sort of a Nautical Academy according to our information. Gives young fellows sea training.”

“Bit of a come down for her to be flying the neutral flag, sir!” “Come down? What do you mean?”

“I don't know if you remember the name, sir, but that ship was one of the most famous of the Q-ships in the last war. I've read about her.”

“You're right. I remember the name now. A come down indeed.” With the muzzle of the guns following her, the one-time Q-ship answered our questions, and went humbly on her way, brooding perhaps on her memories of the White Ensign that whipped proudly from her gaff many years ago. - -

There are several problems with that piece. For a start Bordeaux was under Nazi occupation. If Mary B. Mitchell was headed there then HMS Scylla should not have permitted her to proceed. Why would Port Talbot be sending coal to the Nazis? She was never a Nautical Academy. This must have been a misunderstanding from the fact that her captain, Captain Dowds, was principal of the Irish Nautical College. Two (at least) other sources describe a happier meeting between HMS Scylla and Mary B. Mitchell . I hope that you found that interesting. Lugnad (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, both events could have happened. The boarding party could have had their class of 1936 reunion, and returned saying that Capt Dowds was principal of the Irish Nautical College, that got slightly misunderstood and the misundersanding was is the conversation related to Robert Hughes. As for her voyage: the Port Talbot and cargo of coal were correct. Bordeaux should have been Lisbon Lugnad (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, the difference between us is that you see the Q-ship episode as primary. I see is as just a year in a long life. Is that a fair summary? Lugnad (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading "Secret Victory": [5] Lugnad (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To answer your first point first; yes, I still see Preston as a reliable source. You can’t always agree with everything an author says!

As for what I would put an alternative, I’ve put a draft here.

I'm not familiar with Hughes' book, though it looks like my kind of thing.

And your summary of our two positions looks fair enough; my primary interest is naval history, especially the first and second world wars; I’m interested in ships generally, but warships particularly.

Q-ships are a tricky subject; there was a lot of hype after WWI, which maybe led to an overly dismissive attitude later. As someone once said, if a man falls off a horse to the left, the next time he’ll fall off to the right.

My interest in the Mitchell stems from seeing the plaque in Bangor, which said she sank two U-boats; I was pretty sure that wasn't accurate, hence me looking into it.

I find Q-ships interesting anyway, a complex story of move and counter-move. They were effective, at least in the beginning, and worth a try, but in the end the advantage remained with the U-boat; a U-boat skipper could always decline the bait and escape unharmed, while the Q-ship skipper couldn’t force an action, and the smallest slip on his part could give the game away. And the U-boat always had the option of sinking by torpedo rather than by gunfire, which is what ended up being the norm.

As for their usefulness, maybe one factor is that one of resources (this is OR!); a U-boat carried just a few torpedoes, compared to the number of shells ((particularly the coastal boats from Flanders that operated in the Channel; the UC boats carried 7 torpedoes, compared to 120 odd shells, the UB boats between 2 and 10 torpdoes); forcing a U-boat to use torpedoes rather than gunfire to sink merchant ships would cut short its patrol, and force a return to base, with a hazardous transit of the Dover strait minefields each way. As an example, the most successful commander, Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière, on his most successful patrol in June/August 1916, sank 54 ships in the Med using only 4 torpedoes; all the rest were sunk by gunfire. His boat (U-35) carried just 6 torpedoes and 300 rounds for a 88m gun.

As for splitting the article, it might be a solution; MOS.SHIPS allows for more than one article on any one ship if it had more than one notable life, and the Mitchell could qualify at a stretch. Examples are the Phoenix and Belgrano articles, or the Augustus and Sparviero ones. I’d suggest, though, rather than have a dab page for two articles on the same ship, you take out the stuff for MBM (schooner) (which’ll keep the attribution simpler) and we move the rest to MBM (Q-ship) with a main article link at the "Later career" section, to match the pattern.

What do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Balance in Structure

(just a convenient break)

It seems that we understand each other. That is positive. We agree on what our differences are.

Q-ships are, as you say, “interesting”. I wonder if Q-ships were ever effective. In the early days mines were the most effective against U-boats while convoys were the most effective defence. Your own analysis shows: “in the end the advantage remained with the U-boat”. Re your OR: The reaction of U-boats to Q-ships was to shell from a greater distance, rather than using extra torpedoes. The stories from the American mule drovers after the Barralong incident did not help efforts to involve the US in the war, and involving the US was paramount.

You mentioned the plaque in Bangor. The q-ship aspect of Mary B which is interesting is that reputation, not what she did or didn’t do.

Your draft looks ok, it could clarify the total and possibly mention the unfortunate J6. Your proposal not to have a dab page is sensible. Two articles would avoid the issue of balance in the structure of the article; whether the Q-ship years are important or not.

Pat Sweeney wrote Liffey Ships last year [6]. I was told that his next book is Bayly’s Navy. (or is it Baily? ) He must have to say something on this subject. Bayly was in command at Queenstown (now Cobh) where Q-ships were based.) (and Q stands for Queenstown?). I will try to find out.

If there is just the one article, then there should be some equality between the various chapters of the life of Mary B. She was a film star – there are lots of nice pictures of that but I’m unsure of their copyright status. Under her second owner she was a tourist in the med. Then there was her time delivering food to Britain. Also the pit props; I did not realise how important they were. They used to get them from Norway – but that totally stopped. Not forgetting the Lisbon run and all that went on in between. If she had a success as a Q-ship then her service would rank – but she hadn’t. Therefore imo the present balance would need to be adjusted

We are there – or nearly there – on the effectiveness of Q-ships. Next what will we do about the balance – the relative importance as expressed in level of heading and the amount of verbiage on the different chapters of her life.

Lugnad (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

While we are on the subject of Qships. Some were for intelligence gathering, Sayanora in ww1 and HMS Tamura in ww2 Lugnad (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Bayly" is the spelling in all the sources I’ve seen (and there's an article here); and yes, he was commander of the Queenstown station (There was no unified command for the decoys; each station commander seems to have had his own flotilla of them). The connection between the Q designation and Queenstown is logical, and asserted by several authors, but no-one seems to know for sure.

On the subject of effectiveness, (and for your interest) you might want to look at Tarrant’s figures for U-boat losses. Up to July 1917 (three years into the war) 72 U-boats had been lost; of these the main causes were accident (or unknown), 28: Q ship, 10: ramming, 9: torpedoed by submarine, 9 (includes the 2 decoy ops in July 15): and mines, 6 (though to be fair a number of the unknown losses were probably mines/slip ups while mine-laying; the UC boats had far more accidental losses than the UB’s; draw your own conclusion). Which supports Halpern's conclusion, though it's true their effectiveness ( which was already on the decline) diminished even more in the last year of the war, while other measures (including mines) became more effective. By the end of the war 178 U-boats were lost/destroyed; 56 were accident/unknown, while the main other causes were mines 34, depth charges 25, rammed 21 (5 by merchant ships), torpedoed by submarine 18, then Q-ships 11. And the majority of Q-ship losses occurred in this last year; at least 13 were torpedoed without ever catching sight of their attacker, as the U-boats increasingly made surprise torpedo attacks on ships.

On the subjext of this article, though, what would you like to do? Do you want to split it? I'm keen to see articles on all the significant Q-ships (and Mitchell is one, for her reputation alone, though three encounters is creditable, even if they came to nothing) But I can see from the point of view of a civilian career it isn’t a big thing; one of the anomalies of history that some random exchange of fire can get an article to itself, while 30 years of faithful service counts for very little! Having an article on each "life" is a good way to go; and it'll clarify the categories no end! Xyl 54 (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

PS I've not come across the Sayonara; was she a Q-ship, or a Special Service Vessel? (The decoys were all SSV's but the reverse wasn't necessarily true (take HMS Fidelity, for example)... Xyl 54 (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Bayly. Pat Sweeny has lectured on the subject. A publisher did ask him to write a book. But it seems unlikely. I am of the impression that his view on q-ships is closer to your pov than mine: “in the early days there was nothing else”. And Bayly is correct.

Since you are “keen to see articles on all the significant Q-ships” “and it'll clarify the categories” we need two articles.

Sayanora (Lt F M Simon RNR) in mentioned in Room 40 – British Naval Intelligence 1914-1918 by Patrick Beesly page 185

HMS Tamura (Lt Commander W.R. Fell) is in British Spies and Irish Rebels page 289 by Paul McMahon

Both books use the term Q-ships. Are you on email? There is a story of SS Irish Oak (1919) which might interest you.

Lugnad (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Split

To make it formal (following the discussion above) it is proposed to split this article into Mary B Mitchell (schooner) and Mary B Mitchell (Q-ship), as the ship had two notable lives. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, Done. (per discussion here). Xyl 54 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that I agreed to this, I regret agreeing. One article would be better Lugnad (talk)