Portland Dorset

There was little glamorous about coal in the Victorian era, it was the fuel that built the industrial revolution and arguably made the largest contribution to the Victorian era and, therefore, by extension, the British Empire. The Ashington Coal Co of Newcastle on Tyne had it’s origins in the late 1840’s, at one time Ashington was “….proudly proclaimed as the largest pit village in the world….”  (Thornton. S in “History Lesson – Ashington No.5: Today’s history lesson – Ashington Coal company No.5” Online resource:  https://northtynesiderailway.blogspot.com/2020/07/history-lesson-ashington-no5.html Accessed: 25/05/2023). The town had the largest private railway system in Northumberland, possibly even in the whole of the North East of England

The Railway was constructed in 1879 and ran from 1880, it was 2ft Gauge to begin with and built to ferry miners between Ashington & Pegwood Colliery, miners alighting at Hirst Platform (Ashington Colliery), it used four and six wheel coaches and was operated by the colliery company (Young. A in “Disused Stations Site Record: Station name: Hirst Platform” Online resource: http://disused-stations.org.uk/h/hirst_platform/index.shtml Accessed: 25/05/2023)

The intimate connection between Ships, Trains and coal was visceral in the Victorian era, without coal there was no steam, without steam there were no steam trains or steamships and without steamships and steam trains there was little or no travel, especially global travel. Whilst Sailing ships and windjammers carried trade across the world for a hundred years, coal and steam power revolutionised industry and travel, shortening distance and travel time to a degree never before possible…… Ashington lies around 4 miles from Morpeth and 15 miles North of Newcastle Upon Tyne and was part of the Hamlet of Bothal (hence the engine name above). Owned by the Duke of Portland, Ashington only really developed into a large town when local men were granted permission to mine in the area paying royalties to the Duke for the privilege. Between 1840 and 1867 the town grew to include “…..Six hundred and sixty five houses (had been) built in eleven long rows, running from East to West, to accommodate the colliers” (Sense of Place North East, Northumberland Communities, Ashington Online resource: https:// communities.northumberland.gov.uk/Ashington.htm Accessed 25/05/2023)

The Steam Collier Ashington was built for the Ashington Coal Company and launched in May of 1892 by William Dobson and Co from their Wincomblee Road Yard, (between Mitchell’s Low Walker Yard and, latterly, the Walker Naval Yard). The Wincomblee yard had three berths and could construct vessels up to 10,000 tons, there was a smaller berth for building tugs and hopper barges

The Ashington was decidedly functional and of her time, utilitarian it could be said, she had forward and aft holds, a meager accommodation and engine room, an open bridge, and was powered by a 3 cylinder compound steam engine & boilers by John Dickinson & Sons of Sunderland. Purpose built as a cargo steamer this was a workhorse, and at around 530 Tons Net weight, she could carry around the same in coal for a dead-weight of 1300 Tons, a coaster destined to be moving coal from pit quay to the corners of empire via much grander passenger and transports of the time

It is truly remarkable to find a receipt for Boiler Steel in the Lloyds Register Foundation Archives where John Dickinson of Sunderland has purchased Steel Plates from David Colville & Sons of Motherwell on the 20^th of March of 1890, it is very likely these plates would become a part of the Ashington’s Boiler…….

William Dobson & Co, Newcastle upon Tyne was started by its namesake William Dobson in 1883, Dobson had previously worked for Barclay & Curle on the Clyde and then moved to Newcastle in 1863 to manage Mitchell’s Yard at Low Walker. The Wincomblee Yard was started in 1883 on land adjacent to the Low Walker Yard and had 3 berths for mid-range vessels up to 10,000 Tonnes and a smaller slipway for Tugs and hopper barges (Tyne Built Ships “William Dobson & Co (1883-1928) – History” Online resource:  http://www.tynebuiltships.co.uk/Dobson-History.html Accessed 02/06/2023)

The Dobson & Co yard built special orders, some for the Russian market, coasters and river boats mainly. It is interesting to note some of these vessels were built and then dismantled to be shipped abroad for re-construction in foreign yards, presumably to allow local fit-out and finish and avoid having the expense of additional work at higher British prices, however there is no note to confirm a specific reason.  William Dobson & Co lasted under the ownership of his sons following William’s death in 1907, they would keep it until the last known vessel, White Crest, was finished in 1928 when the yard was taken over in July of that year by Armstrong-Whitworth

For those of you who love the technical details:

The Ashington Coal Company bought at least one additional steamer, the Woodhorn, built in 1894 by J L Thompson & Sons of Northsands, again using a John Dickinson Engine and boiler, it is the Woodhorn that gives an idea of the routes these vessels would typically run as she was torpedoed on a journey from Blyth in Northumberland en route to Sarpsborg, Norway. Likely these steam colliers would be largely employed on UK coastal journeys, but occasionally see longer trips to Nordic and other North-sea ports, wherever their cargoes would fetch a better price assuredly

One particular journey does become a matter of record however for a distinctly different reason and found in a rather unexpected journal: (The British Medical Journal October 15^th 1892. P 864: “Cases of Asiatic Cholera in the United Kingdom, 1892.”)  where a case of Asiatic Cholera was recorded in a member of the Ashington’s crew arriving in Blyth 06^th Sept of 1892 from Hamburg in Germany. Luckily for him the sailor survived following treatment at Blyth Port Hospital, as Cholera had been expected in Britain having been a large scale epidemic in Europe in the summer of 1892, so much so that The medical Department in the UK deployed a Dr Barry to monitor the spread in Europe. His observations lead to the issuing of precautionary advice and prompted measures to control immigration and preventative emergency arrangements in London and British ports (Hardy. A in “Cholera, quarantine and the English preventive system 1850-1895” Para 2, P 265. Online resource: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/ PMC1036746/ pdf/medhist00042-0032.pdf Accessed 31/05/2023)

 It is clear from the British Medical Journal (Vol 2 No 1659 (Oct 15^th 1892) P864-868, that there was little support for the re-imposition of a period of Quarantine to prevent the wider spread of the disease through Britain from Europe. The report states containment of individuals showing symptoms at the ports had effectively prevented the spread. A perhaps less than expected conclusion from a respected medical journal, especially in light of the Government “overkill” response to our recent viral Covid pandemic. It is interesting to see how easily the Ashington and her steam driven peers demonstrate the huge influence advancing steam technology had on global travel and the spread of populations (and diseases) around the globe……..    

One thing immediately obvious which made Ashington stand out is her forepeak, the pronounced “Crown” or perhaps more Tiara-like bow peak above her Hawses is very distinctive, I can’t recall seeing another like it. In truth, although Ashington lacks the glamour of a Liner, or the more prestigious look of a passenger steamer, she has something distinct about her, an honest swagger if you like! Ashington was sold to a Dutch company, Firma W H Berghuys of Amsterdam, (Noord-Holland) Netherlands in 1905 and re-named Betsy Anna to honour the director’s British Wife. In an odd parody, the Dutch registration of the company who bought her is “Maatschappij tot exploitatie van het Betsy Anna” literally translated as “The company to exploit Betsy Anna”, hopefully the director’s wife had no Dutch language skills otherwise I could foresee some awkward conversations over the dinner table in the Berghuys home……..

There is at least one incident in Betsy Anna’s life with the Berghuys coal shipping company, as the postcard view above illustrates, Betsy Anna aground off the seaside resort town of Egmond aan Zee (by the sea) on the North Coast of the Netherlands, best known for the Dutch painters Cornelis Beelt and Jacob van Ruisdael painting around the area in the 1600’s and, in the time of the Ashington era of our vessel, the small colony of artists hosted by Egmond Binnen including the Americans George Hitchcock, Gari Melchers and Walter MacEwen in the mid 1880’s

The Betsy Anna stranding is detailed in a piece on her in the Dutch Maritime History Databank and describes the event of the 31^st of January 1914: “The steamship was loaded with 1100 tons of coal, came from West Hartlepool and was destined for Amsterdam. In view of the bad weather, the crew, consisting of 17 people, was taken ashore by the Egmonder lifeboat. According to the captain’s report, they had become entangled in the fog. On Saturday afternoon, the tug ‘ATLAS’ left for the beaching location to try and make it off. This succeeded towards evening, and the ‘BETSY ANNA’ was towed into IJmuiden on Sunday morning. (Source: Kleine Courant,’t Vliegend Blaadje, for Helder Texel; 04.02.1914 RN – Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad 31-12-1915)” The sources quoted are the small (local) newspaper “Flying Blade of Helder” 04^th Feb 1914 and the “Rotterdam Newspaper” of 31^st December of 1915

It seems that Ships have been coming ashore at Egmond by the sea for millennia, however it is clear the Betsy Anna did not do so intentionally from the tug Atlas, of Zur Muhlen & Co, towing her off the sandbar evident in the postcard. I can only assume that the small boat attached to Betsy Anna’s bow is attempting to keep her straight as she is hauled to prevent her capsizing during the tow. Betsy Anna’s home port was Amsterdam, however her coaling for North Sea, Baltic and European journeys was often carried out from Rotterdam and in 1910 she would be sold again, this time to another Dutch company, W H Berghuys Kolenhandel N. V. clearly a subsidiary of the original Firma Berghuys but now indicating “Coal Trade” (Kolenhandel) in the title, not just “Firm” (Firma) however Betsy Anna was still managed by The company to exploit Betsy Anna………. This period of Betsy Anna’s life was not without incident and a measure of controversy too, way before Jarrow became a focus for the unemployed marching to parliament in October of 1936, the crew of the Betsy Anna refused to sail her back to Rotterdam from Hull in 1915 in fear of the German U Boat Threat to sink “neutral” (those ostensibly not declared at war) shipping. The crew claimed they were on strike, the shipowners, Naamlooze Vennootschap (limited company) W H Berghuys Kolenhandel, decided to use a strike exemption clause to force the issue, (Schofield. J: “Laytime & Demurrage Interruptions and exceptions to laytime” Ch 4.340 P 36 Seventh Edition Published by Informa Law from Routledge, 711 Third Avenue, New York 2016) the judge (J. Sankey) allowed the use stating “…..I do not think it would be possible to say the abstention of a workman from mere fear to do a particular thing or perform a particular contract would necessarily constitute a strike” the crew were instructed to sail……..

I expect there will be manifests and crew registers available for any native Dutch speaker to find, presuming the records survived the First World War, it would be fascinating to see the extent of the Betsy Anna’s travels, sadly I have no Dutch and can find nothing easily available through the usual myriad sources. The Betsy Anna would definitely have seen some service in the Nordic States as on the 29th December of 1915 she was sold to a Norwegian Company, this again from the Dutch Maritime History site: “The steamship BETSY ANNA, of the shipping company W.H. Berghuis, over here, was sold to Norway for, it is said 350,000 NLG” Even allowing for a decimal place being out (35,000) 35,000 Dutch Guilders in 1915 would be equivalent to just over a million UK£ today

What is abundantly clear is that Betsy Anna continued to cross the North Sea to the UK as, on the 17^th August of 1926, whilst in ballast (empty of coal or cargo) and travelling from Fleetwood in the UK back to Rotterdam, she ran aground at Prawle Point in Devon. I can only imagine Betsy Anna had been carrying coal for the Fleetwood steam trawlers and had unloaded there, the weather on the outbound journey was calm enough but towards Devon she ran into a dense fog, this was all before RADAR or GPS, at that time navigation was by Chart, Compass and Sextant…..or dead reckoning, line of sight essentially, and coast hugging, for some that perhaps lacked sufficient formal maritime navigation training. Betsy Anna ran aground in dense fog at Prawle Point, more specifically just past Gammon Head and Maceley cove on the rocks between Elender Cove and Black Cove, you can clearly see Gammon Head behind her in the photographs taken at the time of her stranding 

As in the Egmond incident, Betsy Anna would be re-floated in an attempt to salvage her, and plans were laid to get her to Cowes in the Isle of Wight for repair. On the 03^rd October of 1926 she was towed off the rocks by the tug Trustee and beached at Salcombe, in order to make temporary repairs before making the onward journey to Cowes

By the 12^th of October the temporary repairs at Salcombe were complete, Betsy Anna was ready and prepared for the Cowes journey. Towing her to Cowes would mean a journey of around 115 miles, taking her past Portland, sadly Betsy Anna did not make Cowes, barely half way and taking on water her towing lines would break off Portland Bill, she would drift the few more miles to The Needles, East of Swanage, where she sank and lies broken apart to this day  

I dived the Betsy Anna in September of 2007 on the Inspiration with Mike Baker, visibility was not great, which is something you put up with fairly often in UK diving, but it does mean you get quite zoned in on smaller areas of the wreck, anyhow the Green Navy Log records: “BETSY ANN SWANAGE DORSET Very Dingy dive – glad of the torch – great hunt round over a very broken old steamer hawse & chain still in place and so was the prop – shaft tunnel very broken up but a full boiler had 2 conger in one small & one which was very large – small lobster under the prop tunnel buddy Mike Baker Viz 2m” I clearly enjoyed the dive even though there was a great deal of debris and you had to make out what you were looking at because of the low viz and lack of wider context, she’s a wreck I’d like to see again in better light, sadly to date that’s the only dive I have done on Betsy Anna……..but you never know!

The loss of the Betsy Anna gets scant mention, although there is an entry in the Dutch Shipping Journal of October 1926:

Het Schip (The Ship) P300 Shipping & Shipbuilding 01 October 1926

“Ship losses. The sea freight steamship Betsy Anna, size 880 bru to reg. to show 1300 ton deadweight, in 1890 by W . Dobson & Co. in New castle built on Tyne belonging to Berghuys’ Kolenhandel te Amsterdam, recently stranded at Prawl point, must be regarded as totally lost“

As always this piece is greatly enhanced by those who illustrate it so beautifully, I am immeasurably grateful for the photos and illustrations of Dorset Diving, underwateradventures.co.uk, michaelmafadyenscuba.info, tynebuiltships.co.uk, marhistdata.nl, Billy Embleton, Ashington Colliery Railway, disusedstations.org.uk, northtynesiderailway.blogspot.com and Lloyds Register Foundation and the Tyne & Wear Archives

Soviet T-43 Class Minesweeper- Hurghada- Egypt

The Russians built 178 T-43 Class Minesweepers during the latter stages of WWII, they were based on a design variously attributed to either the UK or the US. Presumably, as the Soviet Union was an ally to the West at the time, the design was shared freely, although there seems to be no definitive record of that or the specific design origin either. The Soviet T-43 minesweepers were built in Russia (Leningrad & Kerch), in Poland and even in China (Licensed kits at first and then wholly locally). The Russians sold or gifted 44 of these vessels to Pro-Soviet regimes or satellites, with Egypt receiving 7 of them after the Moscow-Cairo arms deal, of 24th of September 1955, negotiated between  Russia’s First Secretary of the Communist Party, (the country’s leader) Nikita Khrushchev and Egypt’s President Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser

The Egyptian declaration nationalising the Suez Canal Company 26^th July of 1956 provoked swift retribution, Israel invaded, backed by Britain and France (Operation Musketeer) in an attempt to oust Nasser and re-establish control over the strategic maritime highway and trading route. The Soviet Union, seeing this as an attempt to undermine their own efforts to increase their influence in the region, began to make serious threats to back Egypt, this pushed the United States to issue stern warnings to Moscow to stay out of the conflict, it looked like a Third World War was imminent

It took the threat of economic sanctions against Israel, Britain & France by Eisenhower (US President) to end the conflict. Britain & France withdrew in December of 1956 and Israel followed shortly after leaving a United Nations peacekeeping force in the area to monitor the situation and allow Egypt to re-open the Canal in March of 1957. It seems the region has always been and perhaps always will be just “one step closer to the edge” than the rest of the world…….but let us steer back towards the El Minya, newly delivered to the Egyptian Navy and, as far as I can determine, playing no part in the Suez Crisis other than perhaps as a catalyst to the wider picture in terms of international political allegiances…….

El Minya was delivered in spring 1956, one of four T-43 ocean-going minesweepers built in former USSR, and delivered as part of a $120 million arms supply. The four T-43 minesweepers delivered in 1956 were named after four different Egyptian cities: Minya, Bahaira, Gharbia and Assiout the hometown of President Nasser himself. For those of you who love the technical details Minya & the T-43 minesweepers were configured like this:

If you thought the end of the “Suez Crisis” would bring about peace in the area events would prove otherwise and although Britain and France withdrew, as the Israeli’s did, eventually, really what ensued was just a lull. The area was rife with tensions, the Israeli’s were on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) were named as an official body by the areas Arab League, a loose confederation of Middle eastern Nations supposedly sharing power in the region. The source of the Jordan River was to be diverted into Syria to the benefit of Syria and the Lebanon, but to the detriment of Israel, and Syria was sponsoring PLO attacks into Israel to weaken its hold on Gaza (“The Six Day War (1967)” Ynetnews Online resource: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3611488,00.html Accessed: 18/05/2023). April 07^th 1967 heralded the shooting down of six Syrian MIG fighter jets by Israel, following a border incursion over Israeli territory, Syria turned to Egypt for support

By May Egypt’s response and it’s rhetoric was ramping up, President Nasser sent nearly 1000 tanks and seven divisions of Egyptian troops into Syria. That move was somewhat influenced by Russia’s insistence to Egypt that the Israeli’s had deployed in force along the Syrian-Israeli border, Nasser demanded the removal of all UN troops from the Sinai and Gaza, immediately following that evacuation Jordan deployed troops along Amman’s Israeli border and war was inevitable. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, a direct provocation to Israel “if IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin wants war, then he was welcome to it.” (Nasser quoted in “The Six Day War (1967) Ynetnews) Jordan pledged its troops to Egypt, Iraq and her allies followed suit and in answer Israel formed a new government and made the now global figure, Moshe Dayan, its minister of defence. June 4^th Israel carried out a pre-emptive air strike and by the next day had destroyed 350 Arab Alliance aircraft and obliterated their airfield runways for the loss of only 20 of their own jets. At first Egyptian airfields were hit, closely followed by those of Syria and Jordan in what was called “Operation Focus”, when it ended over 450 alliance aircraft were destroyed giving Israel almost complete air superiority for the loss of just 46 IAF jets

Whilst the air battle was swift and decisive, the war on the ground was a more drawn out affair. This is mainly a tale of the Air and the Sea more than it is of land battles, suffice to say that despite very large Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian forces the Israeli’s strategy and execution overwhelmed the alliance force. I suggest those of you who want to learn more of the land conflict read the Ynet news pieces quoted in this text, but I will leave you with this quote from the 6 day war article: “The Six Day War saw the military advantage held by Israel’s neighboring Arab countries annihilated as hundreds of tanks were destroyed, over 15,000 enemy soldiers were killed or wounded and some 6,000 were taken prisoner”. A decisive victory for Israel

Eventually, what started as a violent war fell again into a lull, now known as “The War of Attrition” and, although there is no officially recognised start date, it can be considered in effect from around March of 1969. (“War of Attrition (1969-1970)” Online Resource: Ynetnews 22/10/2008 Accessed: 18/05/2023). Nasser was determined to regain Sinai and started shelling the Israeli’s, and both sides executed raids and incursions, but no land was won or lost and the fighting concentrated around Suez. In October of 1967 the Egyptian Navy sank the Israeli destroyer INS Eilat off Rumani and in 1968 Egyptian forces bombarded IDF outposts in the Suez Canal and in 1969 the Egyptian Navy took possession of the Soviet T-43 Class Minesweeper El Minya………

Now there isn’t a great deal I can say about El Minya’s journey to the Red Sea port of Hurghada, there isn’t a great deal available to review and I’m sure what was available at one time, and likely classified information at that, was very limited. The Egyptian Navy would keep vessel movements limited to those who needed to know to avoid military compromise but by whatever means El Minya arrived in the Southern Red Sea port of Hurghada and anchored off the commercial dock to the South of what was then a small fishing village and port, what has become in more recent times a busy tourist area and diving resort

201 Squadron originated as a result of the Suez Campaign, using Kurnasse Phantom 4E aircraft deployed to Ramat David in October 1956. They were the first Israeli Air Force (IAF) Squadron to operate F-4E Phantoms. In September of 1969 they were under the command of Shmuel Hetz, the unit was tasked to carry out anti-RADAR and anti-Surface to Air Missile site attacks against the alliance bases in Suez and the Red Sea coast. Operation Priha (Blossom) was planned as a series of strikes against targets in the Egyptian heartland. The strikes were carried out by the 201 sqn Phantoms and the squadron achieved its first IAF kill (11th November 1969) against an Egyptian Air Force (Soviet) Mig-21, one of the Priha attacks is known to have been executed against a SAM site near Abu Sueir in October 1969

On the evening of the 06^th February 1970 Kurnasse Phantoms of 201 squadron streaked low over the gulf from the East, beneath Egyptian RADAR capability, giving them the element of complete surprise as they attacked the Air Base and nearby air defence systems at Hurghada. It isn’t known if the Israeli’s knew in advance that El Minya was anchored in the harbour, but her anti-aircraft guns would have made her a significant threat and a high value target of opportunity in any case. It was only 15 hours earlier that Egyptian commandos had attacked two Israeli naval vessels moored in Elath harbour in the Gulf of Aqaba, one of the vessels, a 500‐ ton supply vessel, sank within an hour after magnetic mines attached to her hull exploded, reports say most if not all her crew escaped the sinking ship. El Minya would meet a similar fate that day, hit by at least one charge on her starboard side at her bow, probably another landed in close proximity as there is clear percussion damage toward her stern, likely from air to ground missiles from the 201 squadron “Heavy Hammer” (Kurnasse) Phantom’s

New York Times reporter James Feron made the first page with his report from Jerusalem:  (Feron.J. New York Times Feb 07 1970 (P1)) “JERUSALEM, Feb. 6 — Israeli jets attacked and sank a 700‐ton Egyptian minelayer with a crew of 80 in the Gulf of Suez this evening, the Israelis reported. The attack apparently was in retaliation for the sinking of an Israeli coastal vessel in Elath harbor before dawn. The Israeli planes were reported to have caught the Egyptian ship about 35 miles south of Shadwan, the Egyptian island occupied briefly by Israeli commandos recently, at the entrance to the Gulf of Suez. Military officials here said that the minelayer was used in antisubmarine warfare. They said that she carried two gun turrets with double-barrelled 37‐mm cannons and other armament.”

I first dived the El Minya in November of 2008, by this time my “Little Red Wreck Book” was full and the dive is written up in the Green Navy Log and records: “El Mina – HURGHADA HARBOUR Sunk in the Arab Israeli War in 1972 whilst at anchor the wreck lies on its Port Side from the bows @ 17m to the stern @ 32 we opted for 32% mix and Decoplanner software led by the dive guide Nick. The wreck is fantastic – an Egyptian minesweeper. We finned off the shot and up the Port side from the stern to the bow. Open hatches show the mess of debris & wiring collapsed inside. There are 2 wire winches for the towed sweep – one is big – very large bore cable. There are 50 cal AA guns and smaller AA machine guns. Along the deck there are two different sized tow buoys. There is little damage to the main structure and we swam up along the deck to the forward guns and the bow. Six Lion Fish & a shoal of Glass Fish resident at the anchor chains. The starboard side has the blast hole just forward of the bridge area & that opens up the main hull. Would be a good penetration & overall this was a great dive. 32% Nitrox Gas In 220 Out 110 50% Deco for 41 mins (40 on bottom) Buddy Craig/Mark”

I have been lucky enough to visit the Red Sea many times, it’s a place of contrast, from the occasional soldiers isolated for a tour of duty on the Brothers Islands, squat campfire and meagre rations, to the ever developing markets and hotels at Sharm El Sheik, when I first visited Hurghada it was little more than a fishing village and one road town, still distinctly “Arab” despite the two modern hotels stuck at the far end of the quay between the town and its harbour, now Hurghada has swelled and there are new areas of development with more up market hotels and the ubiquitous Hard Rock Café diners, it’s not bad to see, just different. In 1970 when El Minya was attacked Hurghada was a very different place, no hotels, a shanty town road of poor quality buildings and the fisherman’s quay, but perhaps that is a little disingenuous, it was after all not yet a diving resort destination, just an Egyptian fishing village, now even the Brothers Islands sell T Shirts and tourist bracelets….But I digress…..

I next dived El Minya in August of 2011: “Red Sea “El Minya” in Hurghada harbour. The ex-Russian mine-sweeper given to Egypt in the ‘60’s on her Port side about 60 m bow to stern! Sunk by missile from Israeli Phantom Jets. We dropped on the stern & past the props through the rudders to get to the deck area and went to the bows along the sea bed past the Stern Guns (AA) and bridge to the deck 50’ cal’s with cases of ammo in a speed loader nearby. From the bow back down the deck at centre line& over the funnel & bridge looking for entry/exits then back from stern to mid-ships where we entered the forward missile damage & went down the ward room to its bulkhead & turned round to swim back through & exit at the bow section bulkhead through a million & more Glassfish in huge shoals which made a great exit & lovely dive end. Air In 200 Out 70 Viz 20m Buddy Craig VR3 deco 2@12 then 8 @ 4.5 W Temp 27’”

I dived her again in 2013 and once more on my last Red Sea trip in 2015. Every time there is something new to see or something different about her. The 2015 dive we took a look at the barge not far from El Minya, I’ve no idea if it was sunk in the same attack or a later event but there is always something that makes you want to dive her again, she’s a small boat but she has a big piece of history surrounding her and is the only vessel I have dived sunk as a result of a modern rocket attack by Iconic Phantom jets…….

Each dive I have done on El Minya has been a good one, the visibility sometimes in harbour areas can be poor, I’ve been lucky every time on her. The interior has limited opportunity to penetrate but there are places you can get in and swim through, which makes her a challenge on occasion as, by her size, the spaces are somewhat confined. I will post a GoPro dive from 2015 with this piece and you can see one of the routes for yourselves, you can tour the barge too on this one. I do love diving El Minya, there are some who overlook her on the Liveaboards in the area, I don’t understand them, I love rounding off a dive trip with a last dive round this brave reminder of a war most have forgotten long ago

I will leave you with my last dive on El Minya taking in the barge and described in my Navy Log as: “El Minya – A visit to the brave little ex Russian 6 day war victim caught by Israeli Phantoms at anchor – she went down with her anti-aircraft guns blazing & shell cases still remain on the sea bed at her bows in evidence – guns are pointed airborne!! In and out of her along the length from her props at the stern to the bow past the shattered hole in her starboard hull – along the main corridor to exit at the bridge area & back to the stern – I love this dive – Air in 230 Out 100 Buddy Craig”

As usual this piece is only possible due to the generosity of those who bring it to life and I am grateful for the use of photos taken by kiwibavarianphotography.com, ahramonline, Divers-Guide, the IDF Spokespersons Unit,Ynetnews, navypedia, The Imperial War Museum, history.navy.mil, Diver Magazine and the brilliant illustrations by Rico Oldfield and courtesy of drive2.ru

Now why not enjoy a dive with me on El Minya

Faro de Punta Rasca Tenerife

The Cita En El Mar was a typical Canaries Tuna Vessel, built in 1961 in Madeira, Portugal….. apparently, although to date I can find no evidence of that, nor can I find a reference to a shipyard or shipbuilder in Funchal, or any other Madeiran Port that might have constructed her, so we begin this story with a conundrum, the bigger mystery becomes how and why she sank off Punta de Rasca in 1995. Even the date of the sinking of the Cita En El Mar (City on the Sea) cannot be comprehensively evidenced, I have seen 3 different dates quoted on the few diving sites that are local to the wreck, as the most invested in the sinking, Sergio Hanquet, a local Los Cristianos diver is likely the most accurate and he has the sinking on the 14^th of May of 1995

Sergio was confronted by two of the crew, still wet from their ordeal, arrived from the sunken vessel in his Los Cristianos shop, and, as a well-known local diver, was asked to dive the wreck and recover documents on behalf of the captain and crew. Sergio dived the wreck that day, so I believe he is likely to be most accurate in reference to the sinking, his photos of the wreck are a record of her condition immediately after her loss and are visually quite stunning. The Canaries and their surrounding Atlantic waters have three national maritime (jurisdictional) borders, with Portugal, Morocco and Western Sahara (Africa). In its 2014 study on Tuna fishing in the Canaries the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna stated: “The location of the Canary Islands (between 27°N – 29°N and 13°W – 18°W) and their oceanographic characteristics, which are shaped by the cold Canary Current, the trade winds and proximity to African shores (particularly the easternmost islands), attract most species of tuna from both the temperate-albacore (Thunnus alalunga) and Atlantic Bluefin (Thunnus thynnus)—and the typically tropical groups—Bigeye (Thunnus obesus), Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) and Yellowfin (Thunnus albacares). These highly migratory fish reach the islands from several areas of the Atlantic at different times of the year and are the main fishery resource of the Canary Islands”. (“ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA (THUNNUS THYNNUS) (LINNAEUS, 1758) FISHERY IN THE CANARY ISLANDS” Delgado de Molina. A, Rodriguez-Marin. E Delgado de Molina. R and Carlos Santana. J: Online resource https://www.iccat.int/Documents/CVSP/CV070_2014/n_2/CV070020499.pdf Accessed: 24/04/2023). The report goes on to detail trends in the Canaries Fishing from early data sources reaching as far back (Blue Fin Tuna) as 1965, but more on that later…….

The seafloor “bathymetry”, the contours representing the same detail as used in an Ordnance Survey Map on land, show the Ocean around the islands has a typically abrupt fall away to the depths, with a narrow shelf surrounding the Islands but a steep slope dropping to over a 1000 m depth. This produces conditions similar to the open ocean very close to the Island’s shores. The Island group or “archipelago” is conveniently located in a cold water current which, in a similar fashion to the UK’s Gulf Stream Gyre (rotating current), acts as a moderator to the Islands and their maritime climate. The European Parliamentary Fisheries Policy document “Fisheries in the Canary Islands” (2013) piece states, in its executive study: (Part 3)  “The presence of upwelling along the West African coast brings deep cold nutrient-rich waters to the surface and stimulates primary productivity. As compared with the very rich fishing grounds in the upwelling area, waters around the Canaries are relatively poor(er)…….” (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/495852/IPOL-PECH_NT(2013)495852_EN.pdf On-Line Resource: Accessed 24/04/2023). This is clearly concluding the Tuna fishing in the region is better off the African Continental shelf than it is off the smaller Island masses of the Canaries

For those of you who I know will need the details:

The same report goes on to detail some of the more recent figures in regard to Tuna fishing (P10: Para 9) “Tunas have constantly formed the large majority of the landings in recent years. Bigeye tuna was the most common species in 2011, with 31.7% of the total quantity and 26.7% of the value. Skipjack tuna represented 12.5% of the production and 5.1% of its value, but significantly increased in 2012 – up to four times the 2011 figure. Yellowfin tuna and albacore are also major species in terms of value (10.4% and 6% respectively)”. The European Parliament, or at least the Fisheries Policy Department, identifies the deeply rooted reliance the Canaries have on fishing and especially smaller scale, family type businesses: “The structure of the Canarian fishing fleet shows a high social and economic dependency on small-scale fishing. Apart from some specific areas such as Las Palmas and Arrecife, small vessels are the most important segment. The boats less than 12 m long represent 86.7% of the number of vessels and account for 7.8% of the total capacity”  Which confirms the Cita En El Mar as one of the larger of the Canaries Tuna Fleet as she was around 21m in length with a beam around 6m

The Cita En El Mar was a typical trawler of the day and of her region, the Tuna fleet of the Canaries were largely very similar, if not actually sister-ships of the Cita, having long rising bows and fairly open stern decks, ideal for deploying deck mounted or hold stored nets Port or Starboard, using the main mast and derrick gear aboard. The typical type of fishing carried out by these vessels in and around the Canaries and African coats is known as “Purse Seine” netting and uses large scale synthetic nets which can be deployed quickly by a fast boat around shoals of Tuna which can be drawn closed at their base before being hauled aboard. The Tuna boats spray water onto the surface which is an artifice to attract shoals of Tuna by simulating the disturbances made by small fish feeding at the surface. The top of the nets have floats attached, and the bottom have weights, the “Purse Line” is a line running round the base of the net through “Purse Rings” which, when reeled in, closes the bottom of the net on itself trapping the Tuna. It is also highly likely one of the reasons we continue to use the expression “keeping your purse strings tight” as early money purses used the same method of closure

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (“Fisheries and Aquaculture: Tuna purse seining, Handling Mode” Online Resource: https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/fishtech/40 Accessed 02/11/22) details the method as described above but also goes on to describe the difficulties of storing the catch “Storage of tuna once it is caught presents a problem, for the size of the fish is large. Some vessels are equipped to bulk-freeze the catch, but the commonest method is to keep the fish in refrigerated brine tanks (brine at 0 °C), which form much of the lower parts of the hull and are equipped with batteries of seawater pumps for circulation” The Cita En El Mar, although not strictly speaking, a “large Vessel” nevertheless had seawater tanks for keeping the Tuna catch fresh on the journey back from the North African fishing grounds that she frequented

The American Institution NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Association) describe Yellowfin Tuna as: “……torpedo-shaped, they are metallic dark blue on the back and upper sides, and change from yellow to silver on the belly. True to their name, their dorsal and anal fins and finlets are bright yellow, Yellowfin tuna can be distinguished from other tunas by their long, bright yellow dorsal fin and a yellow strip down the side, they are also more slender than Bluefin tuna. Yellowfin tuna grow fairly fast, up to 400 pounds, and have a somewhat short life span of about 7 years” The Atlantic population are not considered at risk or overfished at the time of writing this so they are “sustainable” and an important source of both income and nutrition to a wide sector of the population (Online resource: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/atlantic-yellowfin-tuna Accessed 25/04/2023). The fishing fleets of the Canaries have hunted Yellowfin Tuna off the Saharan African Coast, formerly known as the “Spanish Sahara” (since Spanish occupation in 1884, up until 1975 when Spain abandoned the Western Saharan region) “Canarian fishermen had been working in these waters since the 16th century (Rumeu de Armas, 1956, 1977), when the population in such coasts did not carried out fishing activities” (La web de los “artesanos del Mar” grancanario: Online resource: https://www.grancanariapescaenred.com/en/about-us/brief-history/ Accessed 25/04/2023)

There are very few references to the build location of the Cita En El Mar, as I said at the beginning of this piece I found it difficult to state with any level of confidence that one was definitive whilst researching the vessel. I should state now and for the record that, despite several direct requests to the shipyards I suspected likely to have built her, none have responded and so there is at present no confirmed builder for this workhorse of the Canaries Tuna fleet which I find rather sad. The locations stated for her build include Madeira (Aquarius Diving Tenerife) which I would expect to be Funchal (the main port), the only reference I could find to shipbuilding there was in the time of Henry the Navigator, when Madeira wood was used on Caravels for sailors such as Vasco De Gama

I can find no shipyard in the 1950-1960’s associated with the Port which makes it seem unlikely the Cita En El Mar was built there. I corresponded with a Senor Gutierrez Gimeno, who is involved with the history of Canaries Fishing vessels and has a great archive of photographs of various Tuna Boats. Senor Gutierrez Gimeno believes the Cita En El Mar to be from the Astilleros Balanciaga (Balenciaga Shipyards) on the Urola river mouth at Zumaia in Spain. The Balenciaga yard began by building wooden fishing vessels in 1921 and still builds ships, although now much larger vessels, but still heavily involved with the fishing industry. I have to say, the similarity in the historic photos of wooden hulled Balenciaga Tuna vessels shows a very close similarity to the lines of the Cita En El Mar, sadly the yard did not respond to my requests for confirmation or information, so up to now although “likely” there is nothing to categorically state the Cita En El Mar was built at Balenciaga

So from her launch around 1961 the Cita En El Mar operated off the Spanish Saharan continental shelf and, over her 34 year career, no doubt brought home many thousands of Tons of Tuna from the rich grounds off the African Coast. The times were to change over that period and quite considerably so. What was a traditional and deeply rooted cultural occupation for the Canary Islands would come under attack from several directions, eventually becoming a paradigm shift that had unparalleled consequences for the Islanders and their way of life. In 1975 Spain withdrew from the Western Sahara region, this heralded a change to the fishing areas of the traditional Canary Fleet “The change was traumatic for the Canarian fishing sector, in particular for the artisanal fleet, as it led to the loss of the rich Saharan fishing grounds. Spain signed an agreement with Morocco and Mauritania in 1975, through which a fishing franchise was established for 20 years on the Saharan coastline for vessels based in the Canary Islands. As a result of the agreement, many vessels from other Spanish communities registered in the Canaries, which caused an artificial increase of the fleet and led Morocco to reconsider the agreement” (European Parliamentary Policy Report: Ch 2 Fisheries Management, Para 2: https:// www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ etudes/note/ join/2013/495852/IPOL-PECH_NT(2013)495852_EN.pdf On-Line Resource: Accessed 24/04/2023)

It isn’t a surprise to find the situation changed again following the Canary Islands achieving a “State of Autonomy” from Spain in 1982. This brought some control over their fishing and allowed them exclusive rights to inland waters. In 1986 Spain joined the European Community, although it would not be until 1991 that the Canary Islands became subject to the EU Common Fisheries Policy and accepted the 3 maritime “Zones” contained in the agreement limiting inland waters to to the Canary Islands, the 12 miles from the limitation line becoming Spanish waters and the area from the 12 mile to 200 miles offshore belonging to the EU member countries as common fisheries

These zone changes and the shift in access to the traditional Moroccan and Saharan continental shelf grounds undoubtedly had an effect on the Tuna fleets although it would not be until a similar shift in policy by Morocco in December of 2011 when the Canary Islands Government would quantify the impacts on the fishing community such a change imposed “The rejection of the agreement on 14 December 2011 prevented 26 Canarian vessels from fishing in Moroccan waters (20 tuna vessels and 6 artisanal vessels). The Canarian Government showed that the rejection negatively affected the fishing sector and the related economic activities, and estimated a decrease of more than 50% of the landings at first-sales points, a loss of 250 direct jobs and more than 1000 indirect jobs, as well as a loss of more than 11 million EUR for the fishing companies and of more than 18 million EUR for the Producers Organisations and commercial agents”

It doesn’t take much imagination to understand what impacts such changes had on the Canary Islanders and their traditional way of life, fuel prices were going up, catch sizes were going down, and slowly but surely those families and fishermen started to look to other ways of earning a living. Coincidentally albeit anecdotally the Canary Island Tourist Industry began to bloom, as air-fares decreased and budget airlines like Easy Jet entered the market bringing cheaper, and more accessible Island Holidays with them

So, to the story of the loss of the Cita En El Mar, an ignominious end for such a vibrant and vital part of the Canaries psyche for over 3 decades and the lifeblood of an economy intertwined with the Island life, its simplicity, and its obvious attraction to those of us with hectic treadmill like existences. There are three versions of the loss, all have a central thread and all have an air of authenticity…….which is the absolute truth?……I doubt any but the captain of the vessel on the day truly know. So version one of the sinking of the Cita En El Mar goes that her crew were celebrating a catch far better than they had seen in a long time, heading back for the fishing quay at Puerto Las Galletes. A storm caught the Cita En El Mar as she headed back loaded down with her catch and, with the crew and obviously the Captain somewhat distracted, their navigation fell short and the Cita En El Mar hit the headland at Punta Rasca. Her hull breached, the plucky little boat sat on the rocks as the Captain sent a mayday call out, the call brought other vessels to her aid but the damage to her bow had been too great to survive and, despite being dragged back off the rocks successfully, she foundered pretty much against the headland. The water is deep fairly close in at that spot, the Cita En El Mar took her fishing gear and her catch down with her to 50m, where the sand met the rocks of the headland just a few tens of meters out, and there she lay until her wooden hull was torn from her steel bridge, her wheelhouse and crew accommodation, and was smashed to matchwood over the coming years, leaving only her superstructure on the seabed

Perhaps the only luck to come from the wreck of the Cita En El mar came to Diver Sergio Hanquet, (I believe the photo from diariodeavisos to be one of his superb shots taken the day after the sinking) when, whilst behind the counter in his sweetshop in Los Cristianos, Sergio was confronted by two fishermen from the Cita En El Mar who had asked a friend of his if anyone could help retrieve the ships documents from the wreck. Sergio was a well-known diver locally and must have thought all his birthdays had come at once as the story unfolded. I doubt it took more than a couple of seconds for him to agree to dive the wreck and we are left with some of the most eerie and artful photos any wreck diver has probably seen

Version two of the sinking of the Cita En El Mar has the same core, navigational error, but has the crew simply too insensitive from celebration to notice their course onto the Headland at Punta Rasca, so no storm……just a combination of enthusiastic reverence and a complete disregard for either time, or distance, the end result, the vessel and catch lost to the depths in the same place and manner as version 1. Whilst “possible” (in a similar manner to the Italian Job and the bus ending up hanging over the cliff edge) it is unlikely that a crew, dependent on the revenue from their supposedly record catch, would start to celebrate before that catch was safely landed and the money in the bank…….It’s entirely “possible”, but I find it rather unlikely

So version three of the story again has the same core, the Cita Loaded with a record catch heading back to her Quay to unload, however this version has it that the storm and the sheer size of the catch made her hard to control and, nearing the headland, that situation got worse and she became unmanageable and was essentially driven onto the rocks by a combination of weather and an unusually large catch, in one telling of this version by our dive guide there was a possibility the nets became tangled in her prop as she approached the headland in the storm, pitching and rolling due to the size of her catch……..so it seems the Cita En El Mar, a perfectly sound fishing vessel, having just made a fabulous catch and about to land that catch and make her crew a lot better off, found her way onto a headland that it is hard to imagine a radar would miss, let alone an auto-pilot, or even a Captain & crew somewhat worse for wear and celebration……….or…….. there is another possibility, that despite a good catch, perhaps exactly because of that catch, the owner of the vessel had decided enough was enough, that Tuna fishing had run its course and that it was time to bow out and cash in………I have no idea if the Cita En El Mar carried insurance, I am not for one moment suggesting that a vessel laden with a record catch of Tuna, and clearly beyond any real suspicion in light of that catch, would have been purposefully driven onto a shore, in sight of a lighthouse, placed there to warn vessels away from a treacherous headland……….but you never really know…..do you

I was lucky enough to dive the Cita En El Mar in August of 2005, the Green Navy Dive Log records: “08/04/05 Tenerife CITA DEL MAR Los Galletas Great Descent, whole wreck was visible from about 20m down & lies bow deep to 53m stern at approx. 40m, large wooden fishing trawler which the wood has mostly broken/rotted away from but the metal is fully intact bridge & railings, fuel tanks etc – very picturesque dive nets wound as if caught in the prop (a theory as to its demise from one local diver). Huge shoal of local tropical fish at stern & 1 large Ray swam off as we arrived – beautiful & well worth 15 mins deco! Viz 30m Air In 230 Out 75 Buddy Pieto (Polish dvr)” She was a deep dive and I relished the clear warm Blue of the Atlantic off Tenerife, the long descent with the spectacle of the disembodied superstructure visible very early on, the abandoned nets still evident around the bridge and trailing out to where the stern used to be. It was very odd to see such a strange sight, if anything I had been used to the remnants of ships’ hulls, far more often than their superstructures. In most wooden shipwrecks, if anything, the deck houses and wheelhouses are the first to become flattened or dislodged, usually during the initial sinking. It is a short time below the waves until the surge of current and tide carries the smashed remains away from the hull and therefore these pieces of the ships structure are often absent, but to see an absent hull, that was a different thing altogether………

I hope, in the future, I get confirmation of the shipyard that built the Cita En El Mar. I would very much like to confirm that and perhaps even get hold of her plans……but until that happens I will just thank those who’s help with this piece cannot be underestimated, the wonderful & haunting photos of Senor Sergio Hanquet, Holidaydiver, DanSea, astillerosbalenciaga.com and the photos, information and help provided by Senor Emmanuel Gutierrez Gimeno to both of whom I am very grateful and without whom this piece would be a far lesser telling of the story of the Cita En El Mar

Vassilios T

Vasilios T would start her life in Osaka, Japan as Yard Number 10, she would eventually be named Eastern Temple and become part of the war requirements of the USA, following their entry into World War 1, 02^nd April of 1917. For those of you who love the technical detail:

When The USA finally joined the First World War in 1917 it was after a series of meetings between the First Sea-Lord of the British Admiralty, Winston Churchill, and the US President Woodrow Wilson, Wilson did not want to commit US troops to the war in Europe however Churchill was desperate that he did….. Some say it was no co-incidence that two years earlier, in 1915, the Luxury Liner Lusitania continued to cross the Atlantic carrying American citizens aboard despite the war, and despite the Germans declaring unrestricted warfare on the high seas

Lusitania’s owners, the Cunard Line were British and trade was brisk, Lusitania was one of the fastest ships afloat, between 1907 & 1909 she had won the Blue Riband for the fastest crossing between Queenstown, Ireland and Sandy Hook in New York, no less than 4 times, a crossing of 2780 Nautical Miles, completed in 4 days Sixteen hours and 40 minutes, almost a full 12 hours better than the previous holder, the German Liner Deutschland. There was something to be said for Cunard’s assertion that Lusitania, capable of 25 Knots (47 MPH), could outrun any U-Boat, but the Lusitania didn’t have to outrun any German U Boat……She had to outrun their torpedo’s

It only took one of those torpedo’s, from the German Type 19 U-Boat, U20 on the 07^th May of 1915, to send the Lusitania, to the bottom of the Atlantic off Old Kinsale Head in Southern Ireland, just a couple of hours out of Liverpool and safety. Lusitania had been carrying 1266 passengers with a high contingent of US citizens aboard it, 123 of whom perished in the attack, Germany issued a statement in which they claimed that because Lusitania “carried contraband of war” and that she “was classed as an auxiliary cruiser,” which, in the eyes of the German’s meant U20 had a right to destroy her regardless of any passengers aboard

Germany also pointed to warnings printed in the US papers, alongside all advertising by Cunard and the major passenger liner companies, stating any passengers sailing on British ships did so at their own risk, it didn’t stop international outrage at the sinking of the Lusitania, but it is doubtful Kapitanleutnant Walter Schweiger or the crew of U20, suspected they had sewn the seeds that would bring the US into the war on the side of Britain and her allies almost two years later

Why did Woodrow Wilson wait two years to enter the war, with 123 US citizens at the bottom of the Atlantic you could be forgiven for thinking an act of war against the US had been carried out, and immediate response was necessary, as I am sure Winston Churchill believed, but Wilson was determined to stay neutral and act as nothing more than peacemaker between Britain & Germany, Germany apologized for the loss of American lives on the Lusitania and pledged to end unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic from that point

In 1917 Germany, suffering from the effects of British sea blockades around their very small coastal region, and, with a population on the verge of starvation, declared a return to unrestricted submarine warfare and worse, the Germans were caught red-handed (Zimmerman Telegram) offering Mexico support for any action towards the return of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico (if they supported Germany against Britain and her allies) should the US join the war on the side of Britain…….

Enough was enough it seemed and despite the obvious reluctance to join the “European” conflict that had coloured US public opinion for the intervening years, in April of 1917 Woodrow Wilson went to the US Congress and asked for a formal declaration of war against Germany & her allies. The request went to Congress and the House of Representatives but, after both agreed, on the 07^th of December 1917 The United States finally declared war on German and her ally Austria-Hungary

So what has U20, the sinking of the Lusitania, and the USA’s entry into World War I got to do with the Vasilios T, or as she was known in 1918, The Eastern Temple? To understand this we need to go back a little, before the sinking of Lusitania, indeed to 1914, at the outbreak of World War I, when it seemed the USA had little ambition for international ocean trading (Day, Edmund E. “The American Merchant Fleet: A War Achievement, a Peace Problem” in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 34, No 4, pp1-41. Aug 1920. Oxford University Press. Online Resource: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1885158.pdf Accessed 26/01/2022) “In 1910 the American fleet had fallen to one-twentieth the size of the British; and less than one-tenth of American seaborne foreign trade moved under United States flag. For years before the war, attempts to foster merchant shipping met with stolid indifference when not with vigorous opposition. The business men of the country were convinced that ocean transportation was an industry in which American labor and capital could not profitably engage” As the conflict in Europe became more and more likely to drag the US unwillingly, and ill-prepared into war, the Americans, perhaps realizing their merchant fleet was unlikely to serve their needs in regards to increasing trade between the US and the needs of those in Europe (on both sides, for supplies and materials to immediately sustain their populations, and to enable them to continue fighting) opened their merchant shipping registry (Day, Edmund E. “The American Merchant Fleet: A War Achievement, a Peace Problem” in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 34, No 4, P570. Aug 1920. Oxford University Press. Online Resource: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1885158.pdf Accessed 26/01/2022) Edmund Day has it that the Panama Canal Act of August 24 1912, supplemented by an act of August 19, 1914, removing a five year age limit on vessels applying for registry, accepted that: “Foreign-built vessels thereafter could obtain American registry upon passing the Steamboat Inspection Service test for seaworthiness. Numerous owners of foreign-built vessels quickly took advantage of the free registry act. The greater safety under neutral flag was apparently more than an offset to more expensive American operation.”  Meanwhile cries were going up in the US press for more home built ships…..

Although the US Government took up the cries for merchant shipping production, with ship-yards such as Philadelphia’s Hog Island turning to mass-production techniques and making a significant difference to the speed of construction, the US simply could not keep up with demand for shipping to replace losses, and cope with the increased trade demands of the Allies necessary for the war effort: Charles Geisst, writing in the Encyclopedia of American Business History, “….The domestic yards were swamped with orders and had a backlog of many years. Another shipbuilding boom, reminiscent of that during the civil war, had begun, but builders could not produce ships fast enough to end the crisis” (Geisst, C.R. & Gargano, C. “Encyclopedia of American Business History. P386. Shipbuilding industry, Para2.” Online Resource: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5dGig0fYlj8C&pg=PA386&lpg=PA386&dq=US+cries+for+shipbuilding+1917&source=bl&ots=2vqI-8zYhB&sig=ACfU3U2MYROQVyH0dS2XtDAT7CgGbhmRXA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLsd_239H1AhVPf MAKHZrABxoQ6AF6BAg7EAM#v=onepage&q&f=false  Accessed 27/01/2022) There would have to be another way to ensure the need for merchant shipping was met by the supply of merchant ships

When WWI broke out in 1914 the Japanese had not long ended their war with Russia (the Russo Japanese war of 1904-1905), Russia was an ally to Great Britain against the Austro-Hungarian & German Empire in what was, at that time, mostly a European war as far as the US was concerned. Japan was also an ally of Britain, despite serious misgivings at their motives by the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, however his caution was not shared quite so explicitly by Winston Churchill, obviously losing patience with Grey in a terse telegram of August 1914: (Saxon, Timothy, D. “Anglo-Japanese Naval Cooperation, 1914-1918 In: Naval War College Review. Vol 53, No 1, P66, Para 2” Online Resource https://www.jstor.org/stable/44643068?seq=16#metadata _info_tab_contents Accessed 27/01/2022) “I think you are chilling indeed to these people. I can’t see any half way house between having them in and keeping them out. If they are to come in, they may as well be welcomed as comrades. This last telegram [to Japan] is almost hostile.” Churchill rounded off with “You may easily give mortal offence_which will not be forgotten_we are not safe yet_by a long chalk. The storm has yet to burst”

Despite Grey’s obvious concerns, Japan was both an ally and a ready and willing supply source of available merchant shipping, desperately needed for the war effort, there was little choice and an easy decision to be made: “In 1917, Japanese shipyards hastily constructed (in five months) twelve destroyers identical to the Japanese Kaba class for France: Japanese sailors delivered the ships to French forces in the Mediterranean. In December of 1916, the British chancellor of the exchequer sought and gained the War Cabinet’s approval for the purchase of six Japanese merchant ships, totaling 77,500 tons, The British further requested in May 1917 that the Japanese supply shipping for Chinese workers recruited to work in Europe: Japanese warships helped to escort the convoys to France. Later in the war, Japan and the United States agreed that Japanese shipyards would produce 371,000 tons of shipping for the U.S. Shipping Board.” 

(Saxon, Timothy, D. “Anglo-Japanese Naval Cooperation, 1914-1918 In: Naval War College Review. Vol 53, No 1, P77, Para 1” Online Resource https://www.jstor.org/stable/44643068?seq=16#metadata_info_tab_contents Accessed 27/01/2022)

The Japanese had capacity to help the allies and were willing to turn their impressive and modern shipyards to the war effort too, “Across the harbour from Nagasaki are the Akuno-ura Engine Works, and the Mitsubishi Dockyards, the latter one of the largest of its kind in Nippon [Japan]. It was established in 1856 by the Tokugawa shogunate, under the tutelage of Dutch engineers, but was transferred to the Mitsubishi Co. in 1877; since then its growth has been rapid. Battleships and ocean going steamers of large tonnage are built here (ships like the Tenyo Maru and the Chiyo Maru of the Toyo Kisen Kaisha) and upward of 5000 men are employed. There are 3 dry-docks, salvage steamers, etc” (Terry, Philip. “Terry’s Japanese Empire” Houghton & Mifflin Co, Boston & New York, 1914. In “Old Tokyo Mitsubishi Shipyard, Nagasaki, c1910”. Online Resource: http://www.oldtokyo.com/mitsubishi-shipyard-nagasaki-c-1910/ Accessed 27/01/2020)

So, it was to Japan that the US Shipping Board turned to in 1916 following the introduction of the Shipping Act of September 07^th 2016: “The Shipping Act was a compromise between those favoring a comprehensive program of government ownership of merchant shipping and those advocating continued reliance upon private initiative. Under the provisions of the act, the United States Shipping Board was empowered to build, repair or alter, buy, lease, or charter merchant vessels.” (Day, Edmund, E. “The American Merchant Fleet: A War Achievement, a Peace Problem” in “The Quarterly Journal of Economics Aug 1920 Vol 34 No 4 P 571.” Oxford University Press. Online Resource: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1885158.pdf Accessed 28/01/2022). The year following brought an even more significant act of congress when the US introduced the Urgent Deficiencies Appropriation Act of June 15 1917 authorizing Woodrow Wilson, amongst other things, to: “To place an order with any person for such ships or material as the necessities of the Government, to be determined by the President, might require during the period of the war;” Congress authorized $250,000,000 for the spend and Wilson signed an executive order delegating his powers under the act to the Emergency Fleet Corporation and the Shipping Board

As it was clear there were insufficient ships available from the US yards to meet the requirements of war, even with the transfer of part constructed merchant shipping to the war effort, it was necessary to buy from foreign sources, and Japan could help……..Edmund Day (P586) notes “From the Japan- ese, however, it was possible to purchase thirteen steel cargo vessels already constructed and to contract for the building of thirty others.” The Thirteen Japanese ships already complete were given a classification “Eastern” of which the Eastern Temple would become the Vasilios T

Of the Japanese ships from the 1917 contract, there were only the thirteen which had been available from the outset (none of those who’s keels were on the slip, or that were ordered to be built were delivered in time to see service), but of the thirteen that were contracted, only three from the Osaka Iron Works seem to have been delivered in time to take part in the war, the Eastport (Yard No 907), the Eastern Star (Yard No 915) and the Eastern Light (Yard No 951), (McKellar, N.L. The Belgian Shiplover No96, 09/1963, P503. Osaka Iron Works: in “Steel Shipbuilding Under the U.S. Shipping Board, 1917-1921” Online Resource: https://www.shipscribe.com/mckellar/Contract6.pdf Accessed: 29/01/2022) so we know that Vasilios T (Eastern Temple) did not see service in WWI. Information on these ships is elusive; the few sources available hold little information, perhaps due to the tenuous nature of the initial contractual arrangement with the US, perhaps due to the scarcity of remaining WWI records    

The Eastern Temple eventually arrived in the US to no small fanfare, following her departure from Osaka on the 18^th of June of 1920, it seems three vessels were departing for the USA at the same time, each with a Japanese crew and each with a captain determined to make the crossing and arrive on US soil before either of the others, so much so there was a wager between them (Editorial: Morning Oregonian June 24 1920 P20 Online Resource https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83025138/1920-06-24/ed-1/seq-20/ocr/ Accessed 09/02/2022)

 “With a prize of $3000 at stake, three Japanese-built freighters for the account of the United States shipping board are racing across the Pacific from Yokohama with San Francisco as their goal. The vessels are the Eastern Leader, Eastern Soldier and the Eastern Temple, and all three left Yokohama within 48 hours of each other. According to reports dispute arose between the skippers of the respective crafts as to their steaming capabilities. It was finally decided that each of the captains put up 91000 In American gold, the vessel making the best elapsed time between the two ports to receive the wager. The vessels sailed from the oriental port June 18”

I have nothing but admiration for the 3 captains who’s names have disappeared into history so far, the vessels were pretty much identical, I suppose the speed of crossing was down to the routes the captains took and their navigational skill, rather than any particular advantage from the vessels themselves, sadly history does not record who actually won the wager

The Eastern Temple’s arrival was announced in the 03^rd August edition of the Morning Oregonian, without fanfare, it could be assumed therefore that she had perhaps not won her captain the wager: “The 5500-ton steamship Eastern Temple, which arrived here last week, will be delivered to the fleet corporation Thursday or Friday. She is a product of the Osaki yard of the Nitta Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha, but will be delivered by the Suzuiki company, which brought her across the Pacific”

It did not take long to put Eastern Temple to work and again the Morning Oregonian (14^th September 1920) has her: “To load lumber for Peru & Chile the Eastern Temple is loading at the Danaher mill. She is taking 60,000 feet there. She will also take 100,000 feet at the St. Paul mill export dock” The mills identified would be Washington Lumber Mills, Danaher’s was a significant operation beginning in 1893 “Danaher had purchased a mill from Abraham Coon Young after the panic of 1893. Danaher eventually acquired mills in California, large tracts of timber throughout the Northwest, and logging camps at Darrington and Port Orchard, Washington. During 1918 and 1919 his mill turned out forty million feet of cut lumber making it the fourth largest mill in Tacoma” (Holcomb, J. “Lumbermen and the Four Ls: It’s Time for All Lumbermen to Spruce Up!“: Pacific University, May 1999 Online Resource: https:// commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File: Logging_crew_and_donkey_engine,_Danaher_Lumber_Company,_ca_1916_(KINSEY_139).jpeg Accessed 09/02/2022)

Lumber was a huge export from the US in the early 1900’s, by 1924 Grays Harbour celebrated loading its billionth foot of board, and the seemingly inexhaustible forests and associated logging trade had named it “King Timber”: (Caldbick, J. “Deep-draft Ports of Washington: King Timber and the Growth of Ports” HistoryLink.org Online Resource https://www.historylink.org/File/9529 Accessed: 09/02/2022) “In the early decades of the twentieth century the forest resource in Washington still seemed infinite, and the magnitude of the harvest each year was staggering. Billions of board feet of lumber and countless tons of raw logs were shipped through the state’s deep-draft ports, and they all cut their teeth on the timber trade.” It couldn’t last, but the US was certainly making hay whilst the Sun shone, and the Eastern Temple would play her part in that

The Eastern Temple was set to the South American trade by her managers, the General Steamship Corporation, her first trip would be carrying the Washington Lumber from Tacoma to Peru & Chile. It seems she narrowly missed a devastating explosion when, on the 10^th September 1920 two barges, both carrying Dynamite, collided in the port of Callao (Peru’s main Port & Docks) and exploded. The blast killed fifty people in the port and surrounds and was reported in the Chicago Daily Tribune (11^th September 1920 P1). Wherever she was headed the Eastern Temple seems to be at the heart of some type of drama from the start of her career……

Even though Eastern Temple had left the US and was now in the South Americas controversy was not far behind her. The arrangement that the US Shipping Board had bought her under was explicit, the ship would be delivered to the US by the selling yard, Osaka, that’s fine, the crew would therefore be Japanese and likely the Captain (although not compelled to be), a US citizen. It clearly had not been lost on the Japanese crew that the US offered a potentially better life than that they enjoyed in Japan, the Oregon Daily Journal of 03^rd August of 1920 (P3): “…..eight Japanese members of the crew of the Japanese liner Eastern Temple were in custody here today charged with attempting to smuggle themselves into this country”. The crew of the Eastern Temple, or at least the eight in custody clearly believed the US was a better prospect than a return to their native Japan. If nothing else, this shows the times were fast turning in favour of the US, immigration into America was on the increase, and it wasn’t just Europeans that believed it to be the land of opportunity. The US immigration officials clearly believed this was a common occurrence, the Oregon Journal goes on to note: “This means of entry, according to immigration officials, is common. Japanese, for a suitable consideration, are said to be signed as part of the ships “crew”, this being merely a ruse.”

Whilst the USA dealt with the problem of absconding crew from the Eastern Temple and other fleet ships bought from Japan in the closing year or so of World War One, other countries were challenged by the conflict, in ways they had not dealt with beforehand, one of those countries was Greece. First we go back to 1917 when Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, known to most as Lenin (embracing the theories of the German philosophers Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels), Leon Trotsky and the Bolshevik workers of Russia overthrew the Romanov Dynasty and brought Communism, with its idealistic socialist rhetoric and its revolutionary fervor, to a huge swathe of Eastern Europe. No one knew of the murders being committed at the time, and seemingly, no one noticed the disappearance in July of 1918 of the entire Romanov family, Tsar Nicholas, Tsarina Alexandra and their 5 children, Olga 22, Tatiana 21, Maria 19, Anastasia 17 and Alexi only 13, who had been herded into a basement room in Ekaterinberg, shot and bayoneted to death….. The murder did not stop at the Tsar and his family, their physician Eugene Botkin and servants Anna Demidova, Alexei Trupp and their cook Ivan Kharitonov were also murdered with them, and then buried in woodland in the Koptyaki forest, but not before grenades were used to ensure identification would be impossible should they be exhumed. To overthrow oppression in the name of human rights it seems first you have to remove the human rights of those that you wish to depose…….

The ripples set in motion by the overthrow and murder of the Romanov family reached far and wide, not just in terms of the next hundred plus years, but likely for generations to come as the insipid reverie & barbarism of “socialism” replaced the hubris and, in Russia’s case, failure of Royal sovereignty. One small country that would feel the fall of the Tsar was Greece, or to be more specific the merchant fleets of the Greek Islands. As Greek merchant shipping was used to transport goods during WWI it is unsurprising there were heavy Greek shipping losses during its 4 year period. Following the war the Greek merchant fleet was considerably reduced but an even greater impact, perhaps, was that of the fall of the Russian monarchy. Traditionally the Greek merchantmen had traded the Black Sea via the Aegean Sea and the Bospherous, the narrow entrance between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea at Constantinople, now Istanbul, a Turkish territory from Byzantine days (following the fall of Constantinople to Sultan Mehmed II, of the Ottoman Empire, in May of 1453)

The Bolshevik revolution would bring about changes to the traditional relationships in the whole Black Sea region, the establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) under Marxist/Leninist doctrine, latterly known as Communism, would oust the traditional carriers to and from the region, and impose restrictions that pushed the Greek steamer fleets making it difficult to trade profitably. It did not help that in May 1919 the Greeks, persuaded largely by the British, had landed a military force in Izmir in the Anatolian region of Turkey. This was an allied attempt to take advantage of the 1914-1918 World War defeat of Austro-Hungary and its Ottoman Turk allies, but also a reaction to the Turkish advances into allied areas. The Turkish military, despite being ordered by the Ottoman Government to stand down following the war, refused and, in an atmosphere of nationalism and resistance to the Allies, had advanced into Greece, French held territories and Armenia (Macfie A. L. “The Chanak Affair” P1 Para1 Online Resource: https://ojs.lib.uom.gr/index.php/BalkanStudies/article/viewFile/5126/5155 Accessed: 15/02/2022). The Turkish Army headed by Mustafa Kemal Pasha would be a rallying call as Turkish nationalists rose against their Government, carrying out massacres of Christians to purge the area, and establishing the boundaries of what is modern day Turkey. Turkish control of Constantinople (Istanbul) was re-established and the Greek push into Antalya not only halted, but, in what the Turks called “The Great Offensive” was routed completely, giving the Turks complete control of the Chanak region, the entry to the Sea of Marmaris and, therefore, by extension the Bosphorous. Not only did this lead to an enduring mutual loathing between Turkey & Greece, but also to the Greek merchant fleet removing itself almost completely from the region in favour of other cargoes and ports…..

Greek vessels of the time were largely family owned, a family would pool together funds, go to the Greek government for a low interest loan and then buy second hand ships, often not in particularly great condition, man and run the vessels with family members throughout. As the Greek mainland is surrounded by Greek Islands, most of the merchant vessels were owned by traditional Island sea-farer families “Almost all of them come from the rocky Greek islands. The neighboring islands of Chios and Inoussai, for example, have produced such shipping families as Lemos, Kulukundis, Pateras, Carras, Papalios—who collectively own more than one-third of Greek shipping” (Editorial “Shipping: The other Greeks” P1. Para3. 15 August 1969. Online Resource: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/ 0,33009,901268,00.html Accessed: 15/02/2022). Some Greek owners had bought before the end of the war, when shipping was scarce, hoping to capitalize on the high price commanded for running supplies between the allies and their critical supply-chains, once the war ended those high priced cargoes were scarce, merchant shipping was in decline and some of those expensive investments started to flounder in fairly suspicious circumstances, so much so that British Insurance Companies apparently “Black Listed” Greek merchant vessels from 1920 (Editorial “From a War to a Crisis (1919-1929)” Para 8. Online Resource https://greekshippingmiracle.org/en/history-2/1919/ Accessed: 15/02/2022)

Now let us return to 1920 and the voyages of the United States Vessel the Eastern Temple! With the help of the US Coastguard and the US National Archive it is possible to dig out the various registration and transfers of Trade routes for Eastern Temple, and that begins with her original registration and the issuing of a Department of Commerce, Bureau of Navigation Number, 31^st of August 1920. The official number was requested for her by Celias Miller of Seattle Washington, her declared purpose was “Ocean Freight”, Celias Miller was acting on behalf of the US Shipping Board, the original purchasers. Eastern Temple had only reached the USA from Osaka in late July of 1920, her first voyage from Tacoma 16^th September of 1920 which would have meant some time for her new crew of 36 and her Master to get the feel of her before departure

The Eastern temple was engaged in Ocean Trade under Master Albert E Winslow out of Seattle in September of 1920, then under Master Constantine Philip Zannaras out of New York in September of 1927, then under Master George D Skeriot out of Norfolk & Newport News in December of 1927, and, then under a Master T Nelson (likely Thorvald) out of Miami in July of 1929 and finally, as far as I can determine, under Master Thorvald Nelson out of Norfolk & Newport News in November of 1935, all the other masters were under registry licensing for coastal trading from the various ports noted. The means of determining this is by no means certain, it is assessed against the registry purpose stated on the license and the Captain and port noted on the license, I’d be delighted if any of the families or descendants of these Masters or crew can enlighten me with more detail from personal archives?

The Eastern Temple continued in both Ocean & Coastal roles between 1920 and 13^th December of 1922 when an entry in the Consolidated Certificate of Enrollment & License, the yearly record of inspection and licensing for the USA has her “To be towed to the James River to Lay Up. No Inspection in Force” The US Shipping Board, presumably running out of cargoes or taskings by this time. It had largely been expected that a huge programme of re-building would take place and that there would be a continued need for shipping, this doesn’t seem to have materialized and the US Shipping Board has clearly got more ships than it requires

The laying up of the Eastern Temple would have been a new phenomenon after WWI, with a surplus of merchant shipping the US created the James River Reserve Fleet, wooden & steel ships moored up on the James River from Hampton Roads, at its height, the fleet consisted of somewhere around 800 ships. With such a huge fleet and the potential problems surrounding maintenance, access, up-keep etc the administration of the reserve fleet was given to the US Maritime Administration, a division of the US Department of Transport, not a military dependency, a civil authority who assigned it to the National Defense Reserve Fleet

Colloquially known as the “James River Ghost Fleet”, not particularly surprisingly, the vessels were gradually reduced in number with some of the wooden boats ending up in the Potomac River. In 1920 around 169 of 218 vessels brought to the Potomac were beached in Mallows Bay (Shomette. D. “The Archeology of Watercraft Abandonment: The United States Shipping Board Fleet at Mallows Bay, Maryland: Inventory & Assessment” Abstract. Online Resource https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-7342-8_6 Accessed 15/02/2022) sadly most did not find further employment “….most were sold at auction in 1922 to the Western Marine and Salvage Corporation for reduction and salvage of the metals” despite several attempts at salvaging from the fleet, eventually they were lined up in rows and burned to the waterline, they rest where they sank, as a macabre but colourful nature reserve to this day

In what must have been a very close run thing, with so many vessels to choose from, the Eastern Temple would be fortunate enough to not share the fate of the Potomac Fleet, and would be brought out of the James River Fleet to go back into service after 5 years at anchor. The Eastern Temple is mentioned this time, 16^th September of 1927, as a “Surrender of Ownership and Change of District” which sees her pass the into private ownership when a mortgage was arranged to the tune of $76000 at a rate of 5% interest on behalf of the High Seas Transportation Inc of 1819 Broadway, New York, a reasonably prestigious address by all accounts, at the Columbus Circle end of Central Park. Her new Master, Constantine Philip Zannaras, would have probably had his work cut out getting her crew to bring her back to inspection standards for her new owners the High Seas Transportation Inc of New York

So Eastern Temple returns to the US Merchant fleet, purchased for the princely sum of $95000 with a balance due by mortgage (Judge Northcote: “The Eastern Temple in The Eastern Temple Zannaras v. United States.” Case 4223   13/01/1938 Online Resource: https:// www.leagle.com/decision/ 193846894f2d3741363 Accessed: 17/02/2022) “The amount secured by the mortgage had been reduced and amounted, in March, 1936, to $34,742.72. The vessel was purchased by High Seas Transportation, Inc.” It would seem that Constantine Philip Zannaras held a position as president of the purchasing company (High Seas Transportation Inc) and had also been employed as chief engineer on the Eastern Temple between September of 1927 and December of 1935 when the Eastern Temple was sold on by the US Marshall and the mortgage was to be cleared. Constantine Philip Zannaras claimed a debt against the sale value (closure of the mortgage) in respect of “wages owed” for the performance of duties other than those of chief engineer, it does not say anywhere I can find that Mr Zannaras was successful in his claim………. If nothing else, the claim of Mr Zannaras, and the various changes of Master and Ports of Registry during these years indicate that the Eastern Temple was at work, occasionally Ocean trading, more often Coastal Trading

The use of “to” dates is not exact, however they are dates we can definitively say those captains had charge, even if some were named “in Lieu” of the former captain as noted when documentation (Port Registry etc) took place in the various ports identified. What this demonstrates is the varied Ports Eastern Temple was operating from and to during her US career. There is no account I can find of cargoes except for the arrival where she brought with her (according to the Morning Oregonian of 23^rd July 1920) to the US “a full cargo of oriental merchandise”. As already noted, the Eastern Temple departed Tacoma with a full cargo of lumber when she left for her first voyage from the US 16^th September of 1920. We can of course speculate at other cargo’s because of the nature of the major exports of a country from particular ports, it is likely The Eastern Temple carried Nitrates from Chile as that was the sole export at the time: “For years the Republic has enjoyed a monopoly of nitrates and supplied the entire world with this product. Chilean prosperity depended almost entirely upon this single industry….” (Green. S. & Lane. R. M. “Trade of the Pacific Coast States with the West Coast of South America: The present economic Condition of Chile” US Dept. of Commerce, Jan 1928, P12 Para1 Online Resource: https://books.google.co.uk/ books? id=F19zJ8JTZFoC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq= Trade+of+the+Pacific +Coast+States+with+the+West+Coast+of+South+America&source=bl&ots=sAhgsSm0xR&sig=ACfU3U2py0JLwGWRmyJk9wMT7Mywzil2uw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjj__KXl4n2AhVSXMAKHUHKBGgQ6AF6BAgrEAM#v=onepage&q=Trade%20of%20the%20Pacific%20Coast%20States%20with%20the%20West%20Coast%20of%20South%20America&f=false Accessed: 18/02/2022)

It is at this point we circle back to the Greeks, by 1925 Greece has moved a high percentage of its sea trade to the routes outside of the Sea of Marmaris, leaving the ports of the Black Sea to the Turks and the colonial companies still trying to establish relationships with the USSR and its communist leadership. Despite the move, perhaps because of it, the Greek shipping business was in crisis, the situation wasn’t helped by Britain recognizing the impact of Greek shipping in the 20’s entering their traditional markets for grain, and produce in Argentina and other South American ports, and raising insurance premiums on the Greek fleet. By 1925 with insurance of cargo’s going up and a market in decline: “The commercial secretary of the British Embassy in Buenos Aires reported that ‘the depressed condition of the market resulted in many steamers laying up in the river, and at one time some thirty Greek vessels alone were tied up at Villa Constitucion for several months’. After a short upheaval in 1926, freights fell again in 1927” (Harlaftis. G. “A History of Greek Owned Shipping: The making of an international tramp fleet 1830 to the present day” Routledge 1996. Online Resource: https:// www.academia.edu /5607030/3. _Gelina_Harlaftis_%CE%91_%CE%97istory_of_Greek-Owned_Shipping._The_Making_of_an_International_Tramp_Fleet _ 1830 _to_the_present_day _London _Routledge_1996 Accessed: 18/02/2022). By 1929 major ship-owners submitted a memorandum to the Greek Prime Minister laying out reasons the majority had moved their business to London as a trading base, and suggesting a re-flagging of all Greek shipping was imminent (Editorial “Greek Shipping Miracle: From a War to a Crisis (1919-1929)” Online Resource: https://greekshippingmiracle.org/en/history-2/1919/ Accessed 18/02/2022)

The First World War years saw the Greek fleets hit by torpedo, mine, lost in action etc…. following the losses of  World War I, the World’s Port’s rapid growth was reversed, the USA was not the only country with too many ships and not enough cargo to keep their fleets viable. International trade declined as ravaged countries spent meager funds on reconstruction, then, in the 1930s, came the great depression in the USA and international trade plummeted as a result.  It is surprising to see at least one Greek ship owner seemed to be unconcerned, a Senor E.M. Tricoglu of Eleftherios, Ándros Island, a visionary perhaps? The alarming rate of Greek Shipping  losses of the First World War did not slow in the interwar years and was cause enough to see studies and even books & articles written (“Α history of Greek-Owned Shipping. The Making of an International Tramp Fleet, 1830 to the present day”: Harlaftis, G. Publisher: Routledge, 1996. And “At THE MERCY OF THE WAVES MANAGING RISK AT SEA IN THE GREEK FLEET OF THE INTERWAR PERIOD”: Harlaftis, G. In “The Great Circle” Journal of the Australian Association for Maritime History, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1997: 73-92) in later years trying to explain the unusually high loss rate

The Eastern Temple had operated under the ownership of the United States Shipping Board – USSB, Washington D.C. from 1920 to 1927, being sold on to another American concern, the High Seas Transportation Inc. of New York in 1927 and sailing under their flag until being sold on again by the US Marshall on behalf of the US Secretary of Commerce in 1935 to a Senor E.M. Tricoglu of Andros Island……. Now there had been several ships in the ownership of Senor Tricoglu that came to ignominious ends for one reason or another, the Filia E. Tricoglu, a 274hp, single screw, 3 cylinder steamer of 2489 grt, launched at Bremen 02/12/1895 (formerly the SS RUDELSBURG: 1895-1907, then the BABYLON: 1907 – 1923), which wrecked, “run aground” 27/01/1926 on Siphanto Island on passage from Sulina for Sweden with grain (http://www.teesbuiltships.co.uk/). Then, again in 1926, there was the ELEFTHERIOS M TRICOGLU, another single screw, 3 cylinder Steamship of 269hp & 2659grt (Launched as the SS BEEFORTH: 06/02/1894 – 1908 then as the PRODUGOL: 1908 – 1920, then becoming the ERGINUS 1920 – 1925), wrecked 29th January ’26 on Aranmore Island, County Donegal, on a voyage from Braila to Sligo with a cargo of maize (http://www.tynebuiltships.co.uk/). Finally there was the MINA E. TRICOGLU (Launched as the SS HAWKSER in 1915, becoming the SHEAF MEAD: 1919 – 1930) engaged in ‘deep sea tramping’ along the Pacific coast of North and South America with forays to Australia and the Far East until 9.10.1933 when she became “stranded at Civitavecchia” en-route from the Tyne carrying coal, then being a write-off, scrapped at La Spezia in 1934 (http://www.wrecksite.eu)

Now a loss rate such as that for one ship owner would raise eyebrows under almost any circumstances but war, and, following a global shipping crisis such as that seen between the wars, it cannot have gone unnoticed, however, it is not legally sensible to suggest anything more than a “healthy interest” in what my old boss would have called “previous” whenever such circumstances arose in the behaviors of those engaged in somewhat “concerning” activities…….

Suffice to say there are various theories as to the sinking of the Vassilios T, and a variety of possible causes noted:

 (https://dive.site/explore/site/vassilios-t-wreck-q7vR:)

“Vassilios T. is a well-preserved wreck located off Vis Island, Croatia. In 1939, the 105-meter-long steamer loaded with coal was swept by strong winds on its way to Venice. Officially, it hit some rocks and sank off the western side of the island, but rumor has it that the crew sank the ship on purpose to receive compensation from the insurance company”

(https://divingvis.com/vassilios/:)

“In the stormy conditions the rudder of the ship – built in 1920, belonging to Greece and called Vassilios T. – got destroyed. This 104 m long steamer hit the rocks and finished the cruise on the western side of the island of Vis. There is a rumour that the crew specifically caused the accident so that the owner could have received compensation from the insurance company. Although in times of accident such delusions were commonplace, these are only anecdotal conjecture”

I will leave the reader of this piece to come to their own conclusion in regards to the loss of the Vassilios T, so recently the Eastern Temple, bought by a Senor Tricoglu in 1938, having run against the spit of land at Stupišće, within sight of Komiza harbour, indeed within around a 20 minute walk from the town itself, off the island of Vis, 19^th March in 1939………

I first dived the Vassilios T in September of 2016 and have dived her regularly over the last 6 years, she is an outstanding dive lying on her Port side some 50m or so off Stupišće, a promontory just two miles or so out of Komiza, you could shore dive her from the steps leading to the shipping light placed on the spit to prevent other “accidents” to large, old coal carriers absentmindedly passing such a well charted and, even in 1939, well populated island…….Back in my old Navy Log I recorded: “07/09/16 WRECK OF THE VASSILIOS T off Komiza on Vis Island Croatia. This wreck hit the main part of the island in fog with damaged steering & now lies from 30 -55m on its side close in to shore I had serious tooth pain @ 32m descending along the port side towards the stern & had to stay above that to avoid pain. Swam back along the Port rail over 70 or so m of the 100m long wreck and it is a fantastic ship with so much to penetrate as it was an open hold steamer two front two rear this is one to do again. Viz 25m Air In 230 Out 150”

I only got the one dive on that holiday as my tooth really had a problem, it took root canal extraction to sort out and it would not be for another 3 years that I could get back to dive her again, by that time I had moved on to the Blue Dive Log and it records: “15/07/2019 VASSILIOS T KOMIZA CROATIA Redemption following 2016 tooth issue! This is an awesome wreck on its Port side from around 30m down to 50m we dived over the bridge just for’ard & dived along to the stern & over the rudder & prop & back along the starboard rail & in and along the promenade. Passed the bridge and up to the bow then back to the bridge and over the side to decompress the only issue is thick oil inside & tourist beaches don’t mix  so penetration is prohibited Great Dive!”

I managed to get back to Vis in August of 2021 following the Covid 19 outbreak over Christmas of 2019, when I got seriously ill and had a bad couple of months recovering some semblance of respiratory function, one of the few times I wondered if I was going to pull through an illness to be honest. I eventually felt well enough to dive again and arranged a week of diving with Andi & Aniska, the Blue Log recalls: “28/08/21 VASSILIOS T KOMIZA back to this wonderful 1939 wreck another navigational error! On her way from Swansea with a hold or 3 of coal she is sunk on her port side – Dropped in to the buoy on the anchor & swam the bow all down her length with stops at her bridge & mast & funnel, on to her stern mast & up over her railings to the rudder & prop. Carrying a side-mount for deco not room enough to pass between them went back over the side to swim the stern to forecastle & take a trip through the walkway up to the bow then on to deco a wonderful dive”. I dived her again three days later when a turn in the weather prevented us going to the Brioni which lies another hour round the headland, the Blue Book says “31/08/21 VASSILIOS T KOMIZA Back to Vassilios T  for another dive as we cannot get round to Brioni. This time decided to stay around the bridge & forward end & got permission to enter the bridge area. Swam down to midships and over the starboard side& onto & into the bridge deck. Descended to the sea bed & swam round & through on various paths, great picking ways through easy to see & navigate as she is bare of wooden decking. Swam to the bows lighting up the forward hold on the way!”

Why not join me on that dive?

As I had not got much diving done in the August of ’21 I persuaded Ellie to go back in October for a second crack at the B17 and Brioni, as usual I started to work down to the depth taking another dive on the Vassilios: “11/10/21 KOMIZA CROATIA VASSILIOS T Trimix dive 19/19 to use up some of Andi’s spares from last week. Down to the bow then along her from stem to stern, plenty of wonderful fish shoals and Yellow/Purple coral growth on her superstructure & masts. A brief stop @ her bridge then down to her rudder & prop. Up & over her stern to the emergency steering locker & on to her holds & down her length. Another stop to swim through the promenade starboard deck & into the bridge over her spare anchor. Through the bridge & on to her bow & deco” 

And so to this year’s escapade and my last dive to date on the superb wreck that is the Vassilios T and was, so recently before her demise, the Eastern Temple…. I failed to mention earlier that following the October dive on her of 2021 I once again succumbed to Covid 19, this time I was in Komiza and taken seriously ill with what I thought was Diverticulitis, something I have occasionally suffered from over the last ten years or so, I couldn’t stop violent stomach cramps for 4 days and sacked any idea of trying to get into a dry-suit and put on a weight belt….it wasn’t until we got back to the UK I found out it had actually been Covid…..again! Anyhow, I digress, this year everything went perfectly and I started the diving on the pinnacles to break in gently and followed that with Vassilios……. “29/08/22 VASSILIOS T ( EASTERN TEMPLE)  Another fine dive on the Vassilios dropping in to find the anchor & chain then following the bow & starboard side down to the stern, a drop down to the sea bed & then a view of the prop & back up gently past the emergency steering room deck & up to the bridge. A quick swim through the bridge passage then on to the bow & back up for 11 minutes of deco” On this dive I noticed the impact to the bow, and the minor crack in her that eventually led to her demise, such a gentle and almost superficial break which would indicate a very slow speed when she hit Stupišće, perhaps caution in the fog had driven the captain to “slow ahead”…..perhaps…….

You can take a look for yourself on the dive, where you will perhaps also notice the Vassilios rudder looking completely untouched and serviceable……..

I have to say, Vassilios T is an amazing wreck, if there had not been so much doubt about her sinking, and perhaps such restrictions on penetration, maybe she would have been an equal favourite to the Brioni……….

Once again I am indebted to those who have taken or, where I was able to contact them, allowed the use of their photos for this piece, specifically those of the iliveunderwater.com dive blog site, Lindsay Muha & Frankie Witzenburg of the US National Archives at College Park, Scuba Diving Croatia.Com and Andi & Aniska of Manta Divers in Komiza

2024 Update: I returned to Komiza this year to dive with Andi & Aniska again and 1st off was the Vassilios T, in post dive conversation with Andi it turned out the history of the wreck had been largely unknown until her Greek ownership, Andi did not know her as the Eastern Temple and when I mentioned that it sparked a light……There had been, for as long as Andi knew, a bell, seemingly from Vassilios but with the letters RN somewhere as Andi recalled…..It turns out the bell was sat in front of a beach restaurant on the island of Bisevo and is indeed that of the Eastern temple

Tenerife

The Condesito sits in 20m of water just outside the harbour at Las Galletas, in the Canaries off the island of Tenerife, she sank following a storm in September of 1973, engine problems having left her at the mercy of the sea and her proximity to the coast. El Condesito, or the “little count” when translated from Spanish, was a typical coaster, at 41m long she had two For’ard main holds and a smaller Stern hold, and on the 27^th of September, was carrying cement from the Arguineguin cement factory at El Pajar Beach, Gran Canaria, destined for the construction work being carried out at Los Cristianos, hence locally she is known as “The Cement Wreck”

You would not describe the Condesito as elegant and I doubt she would want you to, El Condesito was function over form every way you look, from her no nonsense bow to her rounded stern, she was built to carry as much cargo as a small sub 50m coaster could carry and in an efficient effective manner, enough to profit from Post War austerity whilst building a new future for her owners. Utility was the necessity and the Western World was familiar with frugality, there were no corners cut on Condesito, nor were there frivolities. The Condesito was a workhorse and could be run with minimal crew to eke out slender profits from cash strapped and often shoe-string businesses, as they tried to re-build what had been destroyed during the last 6 years of war in Europe. The previous 3 years of the Spanish Civil War (prior to WWII), didn’t help, as the Spanish economy was at the point of collapse. The Condor Squadron and military support the Nazis had given General Franco had proven a concept of Blitzkrieg, “Lightening War”, emboldening Hitler’s ambitions for a German Empire, which lead into Hitler’s attempt to impose a “1000 year Reich” on Europe, at the cost of anyone and everyone not willing to buy into that ideal

Following the defeat of the Spanish Republicans by General Franco’s Nationalists in 1939, Spain was practically bankrupt. Payments made for arms and support from the various countries and regimes that supported either side had battered the economy, and the various “purges”, street executions of opposition supporters, by both Republicans and Nationalists, would mean large movements of Spanish civilians out of the country trying to escape the violence. It would be international trading that would bring the Spanish economy back to strength, trading with all Europe, and in order to accomplish that, not taking sides with either the Germans or the Allies would be the key

It was into the landscape of political unrest and post-civil war economic austerity that the Astano shipyard had been born in October of 1941. Started in an existing commercial premises on the banks of the Perlio River in Fene by Jose Caruncho (buying a small carpenters yard from Ramon Perez), who, along with his sons Jose & Jacobo, and another half dozen locals, began the repair and, eventually the design and building, of fishing vessels up to 32m in length (Online Resource: fenecom.bogspot.com “Astano in Memory (1), Astano History 1941-2006 1941” Accessed 16/05/2022)

“The company would be controlled as Astilleros y Talleres del Noroeste, SL, in abbreviation it was defined as ASTANO, SL With a duration of twenty years, extendable for the construction and repair of small wooden and steel boats, which would later give way to ships of a certain size. , motivated by the adaptation and expansion of the facilities of its slipway workshops, slipway cars, dry docks and the means of production to the needs of the shipyard” Astano would launch their first fishing vessel a year later in December of 1942, the Comandante Lobo, and by 1943 they had moved from wooden ships to riveted steel hull construction. Astano did well, business was growing and in 1944 they went public as a limited company

El Condesito began life June 22^nd 1945 as the Marujin, sistership to the Rosita Iglesias No2, a Coastal Vessel owned by Enrique Lorenzo registered out of Barcelona, she weighed 168 Tons, and was 41meters from Stern to Bow and powered by a Triple acting Steam Engine pushing 9 Knots through her single prop, but for those of you expecting figures:

The Marujin was a technological leap from her wooden predecessors built at Astano (being a steel hulled, riveted steamship), and would prove her design and serve a long and (presumably) profitable career eventually outlasting her sistership, the Rosita Iglesias (scrapped in Barcelona in July of 1969), by 4 years. It would not be until 1948 that she took on the name we now recognise, El Condesito, when she transferred ownership from Enrique Lorenzo y Compania to the oddly similar Lorenzo Docampo y Compania who would own her until almost the end of her days when, in 1973, she would transfer to Filiberto Lorenzo de Honor……now I am not doubting, for one moment, the legitimacy of these undoubtedly honourable maritime trading edifices…..I am just rather curious as to the continued theme implied by “Lorenzo” in their titles…….however that is another story, bound, and no doubt legally constrained, by the statutes of several sea-faring national interests we will no longer speak of………

The Marujin was originally owned by the Vigo entrepreneur, Enrique Lorenzo Docampo, a businessman who, like so many of his time started with little and worked his way to fortune, first graduating from art school, then working in the Port and later emigrating to Argentina. Enrique returned to Spain in 1915 at 23 and started a workshop making and repairing steamship boilers

By the 1920’s the workshop, known as “La Vulcano” had 40 workers, branching into railway engine boilers in the ‘30’s and elevating Enrique to become a figurehead of local industry and bringing with that wealth and position. In 1941 Enrique and his chief engineer Florencio Garcia de la Riva established a shipyard, initially repairing wooden hulled ships but launching its own steel hulled vessel in 1948 (VigoEmpresa.com “ENRIQUE LORENZO DOCAMPO MEMORY OF A GREAT VIGUES AND UNIQUE MAN” Online Resource: https://www.vigoempresa.com/enrique-lorenzo-docampomemoria-de-un-gran-vigues-y-hombre-singular/ Accessed 18/05/2022). Enrique never forgot his origins, his factory workers were treated well, Enrique funded a co-operative where the Vulcano Factory workers could take out interest free loans to buy houses, and jobs at Vulcano were considered as lifelong, Enrique seems to have been a man of the people, with a philanthropic side, eventually becoming President of the local provincial council

There has been plenty of confusion surrounding the builders of the Marujin, several dive sites and wreck websites continue to state she was built in the Vulcano yards by Enrique’s company, Enrique Lorenzo y Compania, however Lorenzo ordered her built “for” his company, rather than by his company, the reasons seem lost in time, perhaps hidden away in an archive somewhere to this day? The pictures of her launch are distinctly that of the Astano yard, the two buildings noticeable behind the launch party are a clear match for the drawing of Astilleros depicting the yard as it stood in 1943, and even hinting at the sliding doors in the centre of the building. Pictures of the Vulcano yard in the same era would not have had any resemblance as the slipways were not estuarine, as in those at Astillero, but open sea shore at Vulcano. The launch photos of the Marujin also confirm the shipyard slipway at Astillero, the opposite shore of the Perlio river in Fene being clearly visible and again, not in any way resembling the slips of Vulcano. If that is not sufficient for you then the local history of Fene (fenecom.blogspot.com) has the Marujin as Astano yard no NC 007 (although distinctly more Sean Connery’s “Bond” era than Daniel Craig’s)……..

It seems the confusion is easily understood as the current web-site for the Vulcano yard in Spain (Vigo) has a picture of the Marujin docked (see the photo below titled “Marujin Loading at Dockside c1948”) in its “Historical Builds” section (Factorias Vulcano: http://www.factoriasvulcano.com/en/construcciones-historicas “Historical Builds” 1948 Marujin. Online resource: Accessed 25/05/2022) which states: “In 1948, the first vessel built with a 50 metre long steel hulk cargo ship, the MARUJÍN, was delivered.” The key to the confusion being the translation which has the Marujin both “built” and “delivered” the root, it would seem, of the confusion, both in and of itself. Wikipedia does not help as the entry for the Vulcano yard under the 1940’s decade entry (Wikipedia. Online Resource: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Factor%C3%ADas_Vulcano_S.A.&action=edit&section=2 Accessed 10/06/2022) states “At the end of this decade, specifically in 1948, the Marujín cargo ship, 50 meters long, was launched. The ship was commissioned by Enrique Lorenzo himself and was later sold to Naviera Condal.” Although again there is no mention of “built” or “constructed” in the translation, however, it does rather imply Enrique Lorenzo commissioned the Marujin from his own Vulcano yard……..

I asked both the shipyards directly, to confirm the Marujin construction with documentary evidence, I remained convinced that the Marujin was built and launched out of the Astano Yard in 1945, and that any work on her associated with the Vulcano yard was, at most, outfitting, or perhaps enhancement. There is a good case for such work to have been carried out as the Marujin started life as a steamship, and was later converted to Oil, as Enrique’s Vulcano yard at Vigo began life making boilers for rail engines and work barges, it would not be inconceivable it was the Vulcano yard that converted the Marujin to a Heavy Oil fired engine, however it seems that did not take place until c1967

I was delighted when I received an e-mail from Ainhoa Leal Diaz, the documentation librarian at The Exponav Foundation, custodians of the Astano Yard files. Ainhoa confirmed my belief that the Marujin was indeed designed and built at the Astano Yard as NC7 (Her sistership being NC6) of 1944, launched of course, June 22^nd 1945! “The ship you are asking about, the Marujín, was indeed built in the shipyard of Astano. This statement is supported by the following information:The existence of a document that contains a list of ships built in the shipyard; among them is the name Marujín together with its assigned construction number, NC7” I was very privilidged to be allowed to look through the archive of documents from the Marujin and her sistership Rosita Iglesias No2 and have been allowed to use a couple of the design arrangement drawings from the archive in this piece. The first is the hull blueprint which details the Marujin’s conservative lines and utilitarian draught

The second is the Steering Arrangement detail drawings showing the Marujin’s Stern Deck, Wheel-House, her quadrant and the steering linkages. The detail is excellent, as that presented in these drawings always is, they fascinate me and not only as a result of my early exposure to the Blue Funnel ships of my father’s years in the merchant navy, but as living history. There is something about the hand drawn nature of the blueprints which harks back to an age when people carried out the work rather than computers, now there is nothing wrong with computers, I wouldn’t be able to write these dives up were it not for my PC, but they are impersonal and technical tools, they are not the stuff of tangible physical remains, not hand drawn in inks and graphite’s by skilled human beings, but more the stuff of the ethereal more metaphysical and of the future. Perhaps I just feel more connected to the past than I do the future, perhaps as we age all of us do…….

It appears that in 1948 the Marujin was sold to the shipping company Naviera Condal owned by the Condeminas brothers, and based out of Barcelona. At this point she was renamed Condesito, the name she would carry until her eventual loss. The Condesito was re-registered in Barcelona and began sailing in territorial waters on national routes, (“The Little Count” https://www.sacaletatenerife.com/buceo-en-el-condesito/ Online Resource: Accessed 25/05/2022) “….on several occasions they were in the ports of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and Santa Cruz de Tenerife although they also made frequent trips to the south” going as far as France and Italy. In February of 1970 the Condesito was again sold, this time for around 2.2M Pesetas, at that time around $38.6k, to Naviera La Palmense, becoming part of a fleet of 7 vessels owned by Filiberto Lorenzo de Honor

So, digging a little deeper into the maritime history of the Canaries and, specifically, Tenerife, it seems the final owner of the Condesito, Filiberto Lorenzo de Honor, was a figurehead and leading entrepreneur of marine trade on the island. Juan Carlos Diaz Lorenzo, writing in Puente de Mando in August of 2018: “For almost thirty years, the name of Filiberto Lorenzo de Honor was part of the maritime environment of the Canary Islands. Since the beginning of the 1960s, he had become the most important of the 20th-century cabotage palm shipowners” (Diaz J. C. “Protagonists of the Sea: The Palmero Shipowner Filiberto Lorenzo de Honor 1911-1999” Puente de Mando Online Resource: https://www.puentedemando.com/el-armador-palmero-filiberto-lorenzo-de-honor-1911-1999/ Accessed 17/05/2021) It is easy to imagine the man himself from the description of Juan Carlos Diaz Lorenzo, a wild child refusing to be constrained by established dogma, and at 9 years old, on the run from school and fascinated by his father’s contacts as a provisioner of local shipping, stowing away on the steamer Viera y Clavijo and ending up as cabin boy and deck hand…….. These were very different days than the cossetted age we find ourselves in today, an age where adventure was still available, even if, in an era where the sun had actually begun setting on the empire, and some of the colonies were actually in open revolt

Filiberto sailed with various steamers, from 1920 the Viera y Clavijo and over the next 20 years others owned and run by the Compañía de Vapores Correos Interinsulares Canarios, then in 1930 with the Compañía Trasmediterránea ending up on Álvaro Rodríguez López’s ship “Sancho II” having become an accomplished ship’s cook by that time. Filiberto changed direction at that point and took up running a hotel in La Palma, it may have been the needs of his hotels and those of his peers and his knowledge of the local steamers and their trades, but something pushed Filiberto into ship ownership. Starting small with a motor-sailer in 1947 Filiberto eventually built a small fleet of ships whilst acting as shipping agent for Naviera La Palmense in Santa Cruz de la Palma, by this time, 1955, his fleet comprised of 7 vessels, Guadarrama, Compostelano, Tío Pepe, Airoso, Aranguín, Nicolás Lafuente and Manen

Right up until the 1970’s Filiberto operated his fleet adapting to the emerging requirements of the islands in typical entrepreneurial style, if it was sand required, his ships carried sand, if it was fresh fish, he acquired refrigerated ships, if it was trucks, Filiberto would make use of the tides and ingenuity to off-load using “thick wooden planks” in the absence of cranage (Diaz J. C. “Protagonists of the Sea: The Palmero Shipowner Filiberto Lorenzo de Honor 1911-1999” Puente de Mando Online Resource: https://www.puentedemando.com/el-armador-palmero-filiberto-lorenzo-de-honor-1911-1999/ Accessed 17/05/2021), these were indeed “different times” as Juan Carlos Diaz Lorenzo has it, quoting Filiberto himself “That was – Filiberto himself recalled -, on the one hand, ignorance and on the other, the desire to make money.”

By 1970 Filiberto’s son, also Filiberto, was now manager of the fleet and bought several ships to supplement it, one of which was the Condesito, acquired in 1970 from the Naviera Condal Company of Barcelona. The Condesito would now find herself shipping cargoes under the ownership of Naviera La Palmense, for Americans, leased out at $300 per day to carry “provisions and water from the palms of Gran Canaria to different farms in the areas of Tarfaya and Agadir. (Morocco).” That wasn’t the only cargo she carried as it is also noted she carried “tubes” and “dynamite” although what type of tubes is not distinct and might easily have been anything from tyres to water pipes. The routes the Condesito sailed broadened too, she would now not only call at Las Palmas, Los Cristianos and Santa Cruz, but wider afield from Barcelona to  the Levant (Istanbul), Spanish Sahara, the Canaries and Cape Verde, adventurous, perhaps even ambitious for a modest 43M, 28 year old veteran coaster…….. 

 The evening of September 27, 1973 should have been no different than any other for the Condesito, she had sailed from the Arguineguin cement factory at El Pajar, Gran Canaria, with full holds of bagged cement, intended to help expand the tourist hotels and infrastructure, and desperately needed to meet the demands of the ever increasing tourist trade on the island of Tenerife. The Condesito was approaching the port at Los Cristianos in what some say was a storm, there are conflicting reports of the events, some describe Condesito colliding with the rocks in the Punta Rasca area, just a mile from her final destination, some suggest the crew abandoned the vessel deliberately, with her insurance to claim, and still others argue that her steering failed and that drove her onto the rocks. I can find no mention of a storm in September of 1973 in the Los Cristianos area, that does not mean a local storm did not occur, there are limitations to any non-native trying to identify events, especially with no local contacts to provide an insight to those long lost news sources from the day, more so as that person is also not a Spanish speaker ………  On the realisation the Condesito was floundering, Local fishermen and maritime services tried to save her, but it seems nothing could be done for the Condesito, she ended up firmly stuck on the rock outcrops of Punta Rasca. The remaining crew, although there is no mention of who or indeed how many, abandoned the Condesito on the morning of the 28^th of September of 1973, when those attempting to save the ship became convinced she might break her back. It only took a few hours more before Condesito lost her fight for survival and slipped beneath the seas where she lies today, broken, and abandoned, save by those she draws in to dive her……….

I dived the Condesito with some of FSAC who had joined me and my family for an early sun seeking dive break April of 2005. As I recall it there was Tracy, Jim, Rob and myself and we used Calipso Diving on the recommendation of Jason, one of my Divemasters and his then girlfriend Nerina, both of whom had moved out to work for Calipso as dive guides for a couple of years, but were back in the UK at the time to see relatives.  My Navy Log records “07/04/05 TENERIFE “Condesito” Los Cristianos Ten minute rib ride out to the right of a small harbour near Los Galetas, past the cactus and palm farm. Spent 15 mins in the gullys with all kinds of small tropical fish – most notable were the pipe-fish the biggest I’ve seen at near 1m long. Some smaller ½ m Barracuda & plenty of Urchins & their small black & blue fish. The Condesito was carrying cement & ran aground near the shore, broken & battered- no bows just the stern but wonderfully sited & a photographers dream. Plenty to get inside for & well worth a few more dives Air In 230 Out 90 Buddy Tim”

Another of my rather short descriptives, lacking much in detail considering I really liked this wreck which I remember quite vividly as being lit marvelously whilst we dived her. She only sits at the deepest in 25 or so meters of water, and the light dances on her making her a very picture perfect wreck. I recall her hull being broken but still in line with her stern at the time and much of it still vertical, there being a host of small fish sheltering amongst the debris

I enjoyed the dive at the time but looking at modern pictures of her she was not as broken when we dived her, I recall more of her hull being upright along her length at least, and her engine not being as exposed as it clearly is more recently. I cannot remember the boiler being exposed to the same extent either, so I have a picture in my mind of more of her structure being almost intact along her hull. Clearly time makes a difference, the photos here are more likely 2020 or so and our dive was a good 15 years earlier, it is hardly strange that she has become far more broken than I recall

Whatever the condition of the Condesito now, she is still an interesting wreck, the opportunities to get in and around her clearly a lot safer than when more of her hull was intact. There was only the one opportunity to dive her at the time, we had another, deeper wreck to visit the next day, so our dive was restricted by common sense and was limited to runs around her and, even then the limited penetration that might have been rewarding on the day, went unmentioned in my log. I recall mainly the deck, and the gully she lay in as dive runs, I remember her prop and rudder, vaguely, but can’t see any sign of them on the shots I can find on the websites and, sadly, Jason has nothing in his photo archive on the little wreck we enjoyed in the flashing of sun-beams, dancing in the shallow gully we found Condesito resting in that April morning in 2005

As ever this piece would not be as complete as it is without the help and generosity of those who have contributed to it. My personal thanks go to Harry Bakker of Aquarius Diving in Tenerife www.aquarius-divingtenerife.com for the use of his excellent photos, and to Ainhoa Leal Diaz of the Exponav Foundation www.exponav.org for the information, launch photos and blueprints of the Marujin used in the piece

His Majesty’s Submarine HMS M2

HMS M2 was one of four Monitor Class submarines ordered for the Royal Navy in the latter years of World War 1, in fact only one of those ordered would ever see service during that war, HMS M1, a submarine fitted with a single large gun, as all of the class were first intended to be. The use of such a weapon on a submarine platform seems odd today and perhaps was so even back in the day. The logic seems to have been a surface attack using a large gun was far more likely to result in the sinking of an enemy ship than an experimental torpedo, before the start of World War 1 in 1914 there had not been a recorded successful attack from a submerged weapon since the American civil war, when a charge was, literally, rammed into the side of the Yankee USS Housatonic by the Confederate submarine H L Hunley, in February of 1864 (Clive Cussler in Hicks. B: “Sea of Darkness: Unraveling the mysteries of the H. L. Hunley” ISBN-10 1938170601. Spry Publishing LLC, Mar 2015)

The role the M Class submarines, of which only 3 were ever completed, were intended for was as replacements for the last of the obsolete “K” Class steam powered submarines, the M Class being Diesel Electric and far more efficient than their steam predecessors. The weapon platform was operated at near surface depth, the sighting of the gun being crude to the point of “line of sight”. It seems the drill was to achieve periscope depth, line up to the target, and then rise until the gun was out of the water to fire. An absurd sequence considering if the first shot was unsuccessful, or further targets were observed, the sub had to surface to re-load. It must have come as a complete and devastating shock to the admiralty when, in September of 1914 the German U Boat U21, commanded by Kapitanleutnant Otto Hersing, sank the British Light Cruiser HMS Pathfinder off the Firth of Forth in Scotland, becoming the first submarine in history to sink a ship with a self-propelled torpedo

Perhaps it was the outdated concept of operation that doomed the M Class submarine as a weapon platform, perhaps it was the perfecting of the self-propelled torpedo, and the pace of progress in war, outdating the design of the M Class submarines that demanded the Admiralty stopped thinking of submarine warfare as somewhat underhand, and even ungentlemanly (if that even registers in terms of global conflict)? Then again, perhaps it was the fate of the M1, lost in a collision whilst submerged on an exercise in 1925 (only 7 years after the end of WWI and a mere 14 before the outbreak of WWII in 1939), when the Swedish merchant vessel SS Vidar struck her gun, knocking it from its hull mount and opening the hull to water ingress, flooding her and sending her to the bottom of the Channel off Plymouth with all hands lost? Whatever the reason, two of the three M Class submarines were assigned to other roles and their guns removed M2 becoming a submersible aircraft carrier, M3 becoming a minelayer and M4, still under construction was scrapped before completion

The M2 had started life in 1916, from an admiralty order for four K class submarines an order that increased to 17 (6 were built at Vickers & one, K26, a joint Vickers/Chatham build) which was later changed to an order to build to a new Diesel Electric design, and the Vickers Barrow In Furness yard converted K17, 18, 19, (K27 & 28 were cancelled Vickers orders) into “M” Class Diesel Electric Submarines, M4 (K21) was an Armstrong Whitworth build when cancelled & scrapped in build (K+M Class Submarines. Online resource:  http://www.gwpda.org/naval/ks000001.htm Accessed: 20/04/2022). Of these K class submarines it would be K19 that would become the M2, originally fitted with the 12” 40 Calibre Mark IX Gun, as were all 3 of the completed M Class submarines, M2 also had four 182 torpedo tubes as standard. For those of you who love the technical specifications:

So why was M2’s gun removed and for what reason was she fitted with an aircraft hangar and a stowable aircraft? The initial role of the M Class submarines was supposed to be coastal bombardment, appear out of nowhere and shell coastal batteries defending approaches to harbours and strategic coastal cities, I imagine Gallipoli and the Dardanelles were still in the minds of some at the Admiralty at the time of contract, an enemy submarine appearing off Constantinople and shelling the city, or its defences, might have been the final straw that could have turned the campaign around completely. Anecdotal evidence from the time says the Turks were within 8 hours of fleeing to the hills, in truth there is a quote from one of the senior Turkish Generals to that effect from the day (which despite some hours of looking for it I cannot get my hands on it so you will have to take my word for it until I stumble across it again!), suffice to say there was at least some merit in the proposed concept of operations

There was perhaps more merit in the role of commerce raider, a submarine challenge to the supply chains of Germany, surfacing when steamers were inbound and fully laden with war supplies, or bringing imported goods for retail and much needed food supplies for civilian and military uses. Neither role would be undertaken by the remaining M Class submarines, they were not completed in time to see service during the First World War, and would spend their time on exercise or flying the flag for Britain around the world as a show of strength and sea power. Following the loss of M1 in 1925 both M2 and M3 were taken out of service, the Admiralty no longer confident the huge guns were of any use, nor the roles realistic. M2 had her gun removed and was modified to carry an observation plane in a hangar, M3 re-designed to undertake mine laying duties, the large platforms of the M Class seemingly ideal to take such dramatic changes in purpose and function, but still able to submerge and manoeuvre in the anonymity of the sub surface world

The idea of a submarine equipped with a spotter plane might seem odd, it was certainly a novelty at the time and, on her completion in 1927, it propelled M2 into the headlines across the world. The basis of the need might be a little less evidenced, however the concept of a submarine, ahead of the main battle fleet, surfacing out of the depths and launching a lead spotter plane to look for enemy shipping, or potential enemy threats to the battle fleet, clearly has its attractions. The practicalities of such a submerged operation were not insurmountable, the stowing, launching, and recovery of such an aircraft posed significant problems. The aircraft would have to have foldable wings to reduce its width, it would have to be light enough to take off in a very limited distance, and from a potentially unstable platform, after all, submarines were not the largest craft even given the size of the M Class, and they were prone to rolling from side to side in anything other than mild swells

The M2 re-design, proposed by Greenwich in 1916, would take almost the entire width of the Sub’s pressure hull and have a distinctive domed appearance being slightly narrower at the hull joint. There would be a Jib above, capable of a 180’ pivot across the hull to facilitate the recovery of the aircraft back onto the vessel following a flight. The plane would require pontoons to enable it to land back on the sea and position itself for recovery. Perhaps the most challenging of the problems surrounding carrying an aircraft on the submarine would relate to its stowage and deployment. Lift of any aircraft is dependent on the surface area of the wing in relation to its weight and engine power, to fit the available space of the hangar the wings had to be stubby, and they had to fold back on the hull to narrow the planes stowed cross section, that limited the lift generated and, combined with the size and power of the engine, affected the take-off potential significantly. It would take the ingenuity of perhaps the first aircraft catapult launch system, and definitely the first submarine mounted steam launch catapult, to finally ensure the specially designed Parnall Peto bi-plane could take off from its ground breaking submarine platform

The submarine and its hull could take the modification, the Chatham design proved that, the optimal space available when all the parameters had been calculated, gave the plane its dimensions, and an aircraft manufacturer, George Parnall & Company, took on the design. The Parnall Peto began life as prototype N181, built to Air Ministry Specification 16/24 which described a “Submarine Bourne Reconnaissance Sea Plane” with general characteristics:

This gave George Parnall and his team another challenge as the intended crew was 2, this would allow an observer and a pilot, ideal for spotting missions, far from ideal when considering power to weight, to wing area, on a necessarily small aircraft. However, that was George Parnall’s speciality, probably why he was chosen to prototype the requirement in the first place? Parnall specialised in small aircraft and his answer, designed by Harold Bolas, the Parnall Peto, was exactly that. Harold Bolas, design engineer at Parnall’s, proposed a wood and fabric construction, strengthened with Aluminium and occasional Steel, it was originally powered by a Bristol Lucifer Engine giving out 128 Hp, with plywood floats. Graces Guide (Parnall Aircraft, Peto. Online Resource: https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Parnall_Aircraft Accessed 26/04/2022) has it that it was generally a success, however “….modifications were put in hand and the machine was rebuilt with new wings, metal floats and a 169hp AS Mongoose engine. Tests both on the sea and in the air showed that Bolas had fully met the requirements and it was officially judged to be exceptionally good”

The specification of the Parnall Peto gave it just about enough lift to ensure it could get off the ground, or in this case the M2’s hull, fly a spotting mission with its two occupants and get back to the submarine. This wasn’t an elegant solution it was one born of necessity….compact and bijoux Mostyn….compact & Bijoux

The land trials of the Peto had proven the concept, the steam catapult provided sufficient lift to launch the aircraft, and the jib would allow recovery. In 1927 the M2 had completed fit-out at Chatham and would now take to sea to undergo a more immediate and realistic sea trial, with swells, whitecaps, repetitive submerge and surface trials to check the seaworthiness of the submarine, and the execution of the concept of a stealth platform the like of which had never been seen before

Submarines had occasionally previously carried aircraft, the German U-Boat U12 had sailed to within 30 miles of the Thames Estuary carrying a Friedrichshafen FF29 strapped to its hull. However that was just floated off when the submarine dived, and the plane had to fly back to Zeebrugge itself following its mission over the South Coast. The M2 was an entirely new weapon, one that could appear out of nowhere, in the days before Sonar, deploy its spotter plane, and then lurk at periscope depth awaiting the plane’s return, before lifting it back aboard and sinking into the anonymity of the sea with its aircraft back safe in its hangar. Conditions aboard any submarine of the time were not ideal, there were two shifts of crew in order to carry out “watches” as in any naval vessel, and as a result space was at a premium, even more-so in a submarine than on a Battleship

The M2 seemed to perform well in her sea trials and the aircraft hangar maintained its watertight status throughout, drills became slicker, and the times taken to surface and deploy the tiny Parnall Peto improved with each new exercise. Perhaps the M Class had finally found its place amongst the submarine fleets of the Admiralty, perhaps wars had become far less “gentlemanly” and now, of necessity, were going to be far more clandestine affairs

Deploying the Parnall Peto quickly, in order to maximise the element of stealth and avoid chance encounters with enemy ships, meant preparing her before the submarine was surfaced “The crew of 5 squeezed into the watertight hangar and electric heaters warmed the engine oil.  On the surface, the lowered hangar door was part of the launching ramp and the Peto was pushed onto the ramp and the engine started.  The aircrew climbed aboard as the wings were being unfolded and the sub turned into wind” (Subaeronautical Tales, Para 4. Online Resource: https://www.a-e-g.org.uk/subaeronautical-tales.html Accessed: 01/05/2022). To ensure readiness 24/7, there were two teams of flying crew, and to maintain and launch the aircraft there were 5 mechanics/crew aboard the M2

Contemporary comments have the deployments of the aircraft at around 5 minutes from surfacing. It seems the period between the 1927 conversion completion and 1932 were a continual round of exercises and trials and, on January 26^th of 1932, it seemed just another exercise when M2 and her crew left Portland, in the company of another submarine, to take part in an exercise in the bay area off Chesil Beach

The M2 had sent a radio message at 10:11 that morning to her surface ship the Titania, to announce she would dive at 10:30 (Aviation Safety Network “ASN Wikibase, Occurrence #210792” Online Resource:  https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/210792 Accessed: 01/05/2022). By a twist of fate the M2 had been seen by a passing vessel, the coaster Tyneside, on her way in to dock at Portland:  “That afternoon the coaster Tynesider put in to Portland where the captain told a man at the coaling wharf that he had seen a submarine dive stern first that morning. Later he had seen a surfaced submarine enter Portland and assumed it must have been the same boat. The Tynesider then sailed on to Gravelines and it was not until the evening that the M2 was reported overdue and a search began” (Rod Arnold “The Dugout” Issue 20 May 2020 “M Class Submarines” P19, Para 1. Online Resource: https://www.westernfrontassociation.com/media/11774/dugout-20.pdf Accessed: 01/05/2022)

Nothing more would be seen or heard of the M2 until divers located her hull in 30m of water on the 03^rd February, following extensive searches of West bay, the M2’s last known location. It seemed the M Class of submarines was ill fated, perhaps just like the K Class before them, all further M Class operations were stopped by the Admiralty and Ernest Cox, famed for the Scapa Flow German High Seas Fleet Recovery Operation, was hired to bring the M2 back to the surface to discover what had gone wrong and sent her to the bottom

When Divers located the M2 30m deep in Portland Bay, the hangar door was found to be open, the Parnall Peto was still in its hangar, and several of her hatches were open, what had gone wrong? The two most often proposed scenarios cover the most likely causes, firstly that the hangar door was opened before the submarine had properly surfaced. The second most likely scenario is that the stern hydroplanes, the method the submarine uses to pitch its bow down and drive the hull under the water to submerge, failed in some way causing the submarine to flood the hangar and the main of the hull

There is a third, perhaps less palatable explanation too, if the captain of the Tyneside, who presumably had not seen an M Class submarine before, had identified the stern as the bow……and you will perhaps agree, from a distance the conning tower of the M2 gives the impression the hangar is located behind it…….then the M2 was actually diving as usual, with the hangar doors not fully closed, or worse, the hangar doors failed as the M2 dived and flooded her through the hangar

Apparently there were procedural issues from the outset, the manner in which the M2 maintained her launch state on the surface was unusual, “High pressure air tanks were used to bring the boat to the surface in an awash condition, but to conserve compressed air compressors were then started to completely clear the ballast tanks of water by blowing air into them. This could take as long as 15 minutes to complete. The normal procedure for launching the aircraft was therefore to hold the boat on the surface using the hydroplanes whilst the hangar door was opened and the aircraft launched” (Aviation Safety Network “ASN Wikibase, Occurrence #210792” Online Resource:  https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/210792 Accessed: 01/05/2022)

As far as I can make out the writer of the piece (apologies if I am in error with this), Dr John Smith, makes the conclusion that, if the M2 was using this method to hold surface, then a failure of the hydroplanes would have forced the stern down and dragged the submarine under, as the captain of the Tyneside said he observed, until the hangar flooded and the M2 was beyond saving. There is no doubt the sinking of the M2 could have been caused by a combination of factors, an attempt to improve deployment times, mechanical issues, or just plain human error, whatever the real reason it is unlikely we shall ever truly know exactly how she ended up on the sea bed

The attempts to salvage the M2 were unsuccessful, even Ernest Cox couldn’t get her to the surface, although he came very close, reaching a couple of meters from the surface on one occasion, the weather hindered every attempt and the equipment available to Cox clearly was not up to raising a flooded submarine, from 30m in a series of sets of increasingly bad weather conditions, “The process of making HMS M2 ready for lifting was dogged with a number of severe setbacks. These included bad weather and the parting of the lifting “camels” from the wreck. In fact a total five different attempts were made to raise HMS M2 and they all ended in failure. Finally, in December 1932, plans to salvage the wreck were abandoned.” (Innes McCartney “Lost Patrols: Submarine Wrecks of the English Channel No 3/21, HMS M2 – Aircraft Carrier” P82). In December of 1932 the M2 was finally allowed to rest where she sits today, in Portland Bay. Whatever the reason, the M2 was the final loss of an M Class submarine, the Admiralty could not ignore the repeated failures, and would not tolerate the continued losses, the M Class was abandoned and all remaining craft sold for scrap, including the (up-to that point), successful minelayer M3. M2 is the final, tragic resting place of 58 of her crew, a living memorial to the arms race of the inter-war years, and the ultimate sacrifice of 60 sailors in the service of their country

I dived the M2 in April of 2004 and was lucky enough to have a student with me taking some video, the quality of the video isn’t up to today’s HD standards, but it was early days for your average diver to have a video set-up, it was early days for Brad filming too, but you can see what he shot later in this piece. My Navy Log records: “M2 Portland Dorset  Good descent to the hull with viz @ 5-6m and plenty of life – a great Lobster which came out to play fearlessly! The wreck is splendid with dead man’s fingers everywhere & intact throughout. The bow is odd with cut-outs in the centre. The hangar is silted but we entered for 2 – 3 m then went round the rails & then the conning tower area before ascending. The masts are still in place – remarkably. Buddy Keith Air In 240 Out 100”

As usual, the description is brief noting the main points of the dive. Remembering the dive, I recall trying hard to work out what the launch system was, and how it would have worked, the steam piston tubes were still present but, apart from a basic understanding, the technical details were lost on me. The viz was not bad, it gave enough to see the area you were in, but not enough to get the scale of the wreck. I know I was surprised how long it took to reach the bow and circle back to the conning tower. The hangar was very silted on our dive and it would have been great to see it when cleared, perhaps there are even remnants of the Peto in all the debris blocking it? All I could think at the time was how tragic such an end would have been, I had no idea bodies had been recovered back then, believing there had been total loss. It is clear some tried to escape and, to have been caught in a hatch perhaps indicated the first to attempt to escape failed, and blocked the way for others behind them. At the time the Davis escape gear was a very new piece of kit, I wonder how many would have put faith in it, whatever the circumstances……but we will never truly know

You can watch the edited version of our dive on HMS M2 courtesy of Brad, Considering the conditions on the day it’s a good introduction to the wreck

As ever, the details included here have been supported by the research of others and, for the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of giants, I am indebted to: Dr Innes McCartney, Peter Mitchell (1947-2015) and the infinite resource of the “Tinterweb”

Want to see M2 launch & recover her Parnall Peto aircraft on Movietone News?