navy lists for 1941 and after, can you look at them

Discussion in 'The War at Sea' started by DebbieSmith, May 28, 2020.

  1. DebbieSmith

    DebbieSmith Member

    i'm answering myself again here, i can see someone's explained in red about the 25 year thing so thats all good.
    Annie is definite that she's remembering right. so i'll apply for the records. It'll sort it out one way or the other.

    i'm sorry I asked about navy lists, i didn't know they were a special sort of list and ordinary sailors aren't on them.

    Do you want me to tell you what the records say. when they come?
    debbie
     
  2. timuk

    timuk Well-Known Member

    Yes please. You may have to wait several months for a reply especially during this Covid-19.

    Tim
     
  3. Hugh MacLean

    Hugh MacLean Senior Member

    Don't be sorry Debbie - you came here to ask questions because you did not know. That is perfectly fine - the guys are only too glad to help you. The service record is the way to go.

    Regards
    Hugh
     
    Roy Martin and timuk like this.
  4. Alan West

    Alan West New Member

    Good Morning
    This curious and interesting case has been passed to me as a naval researcher.
    I have made enquiries, consulted records, looked at reports into WW2 ship losses and spoken to various individuals.

    My considered opinion is that Samuel Erskine did not perish in 1941 and did continue working in the RN until 1944. However it seems certain that he used a different name after 1941. It is also likely that he took another man's place, in a private arrangement.

    It is not for me to comment on the rights and wrongs of this situation but I do know that occasionally a man might take another man's place for humanitarian reasons.

    It seems very likely that Samuel Douglas Erskine went down with HMS Isis in Normandy in 1944 and is listed among the missing but under a different name.

    It would not be the Admiralty's fault if a man took another name without making this known. Therefore the 'missing' categorisation in 1941 is technically correct, because it appears that Mr Erskine abandoned his given name, absented himself then resumed work under another name, and the Navy could not have known this had occurred.

    So, in conclusion, everyone is correct. The Navy is correct in what it registered, given the facts available, and your contributor (the helper, and the lady she represents) are also correct in their belief about Samuel Erskine's survival past 1941.

    Sincerely, Alan West
     
  5. James Harvey

    James Harvey Senior Member

    What does his certificate of service state
     
  6. Alan West

    Alan West New Member

    The man is officially missing. Presumed lost at sea. HMS Achates.

    HMS Achates was badly damaged in an incident in 1941. (Completely wrecked/sunk the following year.) The written account of Achates' 1941 misfortune, made by Lieut-Commander Ronald C Weyman, clearly shows that part of the ship was obliterated: he writes that, when he looked out after the explosion, "the entire forecastle had disappeared" and there was "empty vertiginous space" with a tattered and bloody hammock swinging there, its occupant gone.

    The official investigation into the incident shows that efforts were made to interview the shocked survivors and to obtain as full a picture as possible of the facts, but there was inevitably a little guesswork regarding exactly who may have been in the part which was blown off.

    I have been spoken to in confidence and am not at liberty to share some of the details I have been given. I remain as confident as I can be that Mr Erskine, who had been a clerk in Gloucestershire, fought throughout WW2 and gave his life for his country in 1944. I don't feel any further exploration of the matter would be necessary or wise.

    Alan West
     
  7. Richelieu

    Richelieu Well-Known Member

    As we sadly live in an age when some people get their kicks from deceiving others I hope you will not take offence if I treat your unsupported account with caution.

    Even if you were the former First Sea Lord I would profoundly disagree with this. Remember that, and taking your contribution at face value, a second man may have given his life for his country in Erskine’s place in 1941. How is his fate recorded: as a deserter who abandoned his family potentially? Doesn’t his family deserve the truth?

    My expectations are that a nominal roll would have been taken of the men returning to HMS Achates before her departure from the U.K. and that a further nominal roll would have been taken of the survivors upon arrival at Seidisfjord. Not much need for guesswork surely.

    Could two individuals switch duties in this way, with Erskine caught on the horns a dilemma when HMS Achates was mined – maybe, with the connivance of some of their shipmates, but would the potential punishment have been so severe that Erskine assumed a new identity rather than own-up? Your remarks are also an imputation that Erskine either deceived his family or of their complicity, and, as his widow could still be alive, potentially libellous.

    You have also raised a question mark against one of a score or more of the 154 men lost with HMS Isis.

    As things stand, the position remains that we have no evidence that the official account was incorrect and that Erskine survived the mining of HMS Achates.
     
    timuk likes this.
  8. Alan West

    Alan West New Member

    No offence taken.
    No intent to deceive or get kicks of any kind.
    Not in any way impersonating the First Sea Lord, there are umpteen Alan Wests of the same sort of vintage and I merely classed myself as a naval researcher which is true.

    I'd say you're right that a nominal roll would have been taken both before sailing and after the damage done to the ship. However there is much evidence to suggest that rolls (being handled by humans) are not always correct in every detail. Some rolls are lost.

    Regarding switching duties: personally I think it unlikely that a man could or would risk switching duties with another and then pretend to be the very same person on the very same ship and hope nobody would notice. But certainly a man could 'disappear' (after a shipwreck) and present themself again for training at a different base from before, while submitting a different name, and carry on from there. Evidence for such behaviour is in personal accounts given by human beings, sometimes in confidence, and not necessarily in official reports.

    You write the following:

    "Could two individuals switch duties in this way, with Erskine caught on the horns a dilemma when HMS Achates was mined – maybe, with the connivance of some of their shipmates, but would the potential punishment have been so severe that Erskine assumed a new identity rather than own-up? Your remarks are also an imputation that Erskine either deceived his family or of their complicity, and, as his widow could still be alive, potentially libellous."

    I know of a number of Forces personnel who deceived their family in multiple ways and for a wide variety of reasons. And people do flee from potential punishments or to avoid shame on themselves or their kin. As I said, it is not for me (or perhaps any of us) to judge.

    "You have also raised a question mark against one of a score or more of the 154 men lost with HMS Isis."

    Yes that's true.

    "As things stand, the position remains that we have no evidence that the official account was incorrect and that Erskine survived the mining of HMS Achates."

    I accept that this is your opinion. How could this matter be taken forward, do you think, in order to attempt to prove it one way or another?

    AW
     

Share This Page