HMS / HMT Attentive III 1915

hulltrawler
6th November 2007, 17:11
Hi
Doing some research for someone and would ask if anyone has a photo of HM Trawler Attentive III of the Dover Patrol 1915 .

X Hull Trawler Seaward Ho H312
Built 1914
CWG Beverley
Req 1915 - 1919 Adm No 1512

treeve
6th November 2007, 21:30
Also alter ego, as GUY THORNE and WINOOKA, apparently.
may help to find that picture for you. Sunk in collison 1936.

hulltrawler
6th November 2007, 23:08
Thanks for that treeve
I did have her history but did not think of the guy thorne ideally a pic of her as HMT attentive would be nice.

Roger Griffiths
6th November 2007, 23:32
Hello Cris,
Cannot help you with a photo I'm afraid.
I may be wrong on this one but in my opinion, for what it's worth, SEAWARD HO did not have a change of name in 1918. ATTENTIVE 111 was a shore establishment at Dover and SEAWARD HO was the Nominated Depot Ship for that base.
I know the CWG book and by default Gerald Toghill say that she did change her name but I can find no mention of this in Colledge who says SEAWARD HO was hired from 1915-1919. I have attached the page from Ben Warlows book Shore Establishments of the Royal Navy.

regards
Roger

hulltrawler
7th November 2007, 11:51
Hi Roger,
I also questioned this myself due to not been able to find Attentive III specifically.

I have copies of Colledge & Dittmar I think it is 1914 - 1919 provided by Gil,

Seaward Ho

"1512 H312 SEAWARD HO 331/15 1-2PDR, 1-7.5 in BT M/S 5.15 -1919
= ATTENTIVE III 5.18"

Looking at the shore establishments book

ATTENTIVE III DOVER, A/P Parent. does A/P stand for Aux Patrol ?

Nominated Depot Ship 01.04 18 - 01.05.19

As Nominated Depot Ship would she have taken the Depot Name ?

Regards Chris.

Roger Griffiths
7th November 2007, 20:11
Hello Chris,
The abbreviations appendix in Shore Establishments of the Royal Navy says. A/P= Auxiliary Patrol
"As Nominated Depot Ship would she have taken the Depot Name ? "
I honestly don't know but I have never come across an RN ship with a seagoing capacity to carry a suffix number such as 111 after it's name. I have only seen this in connection to Shore Establishments.
If no one here comes up with a definitive answer I will ask around.

regards
Roger

Hugh MacLean
7th November 2007, 21:47
Hello Chris,

HMS ATTENTIVE III would have been the accounting base at Dover.
Similar RN "stone frigates" (shore establishments) were named like this during both World Wars.
PRESIDENT I, II, III
VICTORY I, II, III, IV
DRAKE I, II

Roger is correct these were not seagoing ships.
I am not 100% sure either, but I don't see the logic in having the depot ship, in this case SEAWARD HO, named the same as the accounting base.

Regards

hulltrawler
7th November 2007, 22:06
Hi Roger and Hugh,
Here is one of the log sheets / HMT Attentive III for 14 Oct 1918.

As you can see she was definately at sea and a sea going vessel.
other logs give different events all at sea.

?.

Regards Chris

treeve
7th November 2007, 23:16
Even to the point of crossing off the S and replacing with a T.
excellent.

treeve
7th November 2007, 23:32
I see in the NA there are "Ship's Logs" for Attentive III
covering period 1916 - 1919.
ADM 53/34429 to 34442.

hulltrawler
8th November 2007, 00:04
Hi Treeve
This is one of the logs I believe as it was sent for from NA.

chris

treeve
8th November 2007, 00:56
I thought it would have been Chris. What struck me that the dates coincide.
Also I thought it may help anyone reading this thread at a later date; I know many people eventually come across these threads, when seeking info on their family and their history. I am also conscious of the errors which exist on the net as to her original name. Glad to see both you and Roger digging deeper. Best Wishes, Raymond

Roger Griffiths
8th November 2007, 15:24
Hello Chris,
I was incorrect about RN vessels having a suffix such as 111 after their name. For example If you look at the entry for ATTENTIVE 11 in SERN there is reference to a SEARCHER 11 as NDS, (although I cannot find her in Colledge). Colledge however mentions ATTENTIVE 11 and a vessel called ADDER which was renamed ATTENTIVE 11 in 1919.
It's all a little confusing but there seems little doubt that from the logbook page you have that HMT ATTENTIVE 111 was a seagoing vessel at this time. it would be interesting to read the earlier logbooks from 1916 onward to see exactly when the name change took place, or did she have the name ATTENTIVE 111 from the start of her RN service.
SEAWARD HO is mentioned in the Hull rfb 1914-1918 Together with the code number M.2623-20. I have never seen this before. There are no comments about her being requisitioned. Did the RN take her direct from CWG? there seems a big gap between her launch date and her being registered in Hull but that may be down to the bureaucracy.

regards
Roger

hulltrawler
8th November 2007, 16:41
Hi Roger,
The way I am reading this so far with the details you have provided and what we can ascertain so far.

Seaward Ho Requisitioned 05 1915 - Possibly straight from the builders ? will have to check Fishing register.

I then think she was renamed ATTENTIVE on the 01- 1916

My reason is the Shore base information.
Attentive became Attentive II ( Shore Base ) 01 1916

ATTENTIVE III on the shore base info says 01 - 1916
X Attentive

with the Collidge & Dittmar saying she was renamed ATTENTIVE III 05 1918
and the shore base document states 01/04/1918. I think we can safely say she did not become ATTENTIVE III till around April - May 1918

All indications are that the Shore base for this time at Dover was ATTENTIVE II. Untill 01/05/1919 when ATTENTIVE III name was amalgamated into ATTENTIVE II.
I persume when ATTENTIVE III was released back to her owners.

Will try to find out a little more
Regards Chris.

Hugh MacLean
8th November 2007, 20:11
Hello Chris/Roger,
It is getting a tad confusing, I have to agree that the ship's log does tell me that HMT ATTENTIVE III was indeed a seagoing vessel. I note also the scoring out of the HMS replaced by HMT. There is a few things on the web about ATTENTIVE III which I am sure you have seen but this interests me: http://www.motorlaunchpatrol.net/written_accounts/personal_accounts/jones.php

the second para suggests that in 1917 SEAWARD HO was called by her own name and HMS ATTENTIVE III was the Dover shore base.

Still somewhat confused by it all.

Regards

hulltrawler
8th November 2007, 21:04
They certainly confused matters swapping the base names - a deception ploy.
I think it would be safe with no documentation to conclude she was Seaward Ho till early 1918.

Roger Griffiths
8th November 2007, 21:48
A little more to add to the confusion.
The attached is from from a post first world war Admiralty publication which I obtained from TNA some years ago. Without further in depth research I would suggest Chris's theory would be not far off the money.

regards
Roger

treeve
8th November 2007, 21:57
Effectively then, do all the Attentive III logs relate to the one vessel
and/or the shore establishment?
After all, the ADM logs cover 1916 to 1919.
Surely Logs are written sequentially and contemporaneously.
The vessel's name should be equally so? Question is Chris,
which logs (datewise) do you have? Best Wishes, Raymond

hulltrawler
8th November 2007, 22:17
The logs are Oct / Nov 1918 only unfortunately as you say earlier logs may have provided a better understanding.
Is there any logs recorded for the seaward Ho at NA? and if so timescale.
These old eyes not been what they where does the Seaward Ho in rogers lists have a ! at the end of it`s name. If so it seems to be the only one with this.

I only wanted a picture ( Laughs ).

treeve
8th November 2007, 22:34
Chris, the same thing happens to me only too often, a
simple question ends up in a massive quest to get to the
bottom of it all, and then I get diverted into various other
linked stories .. makes it all worth while.
Oh yes, I checked before and just now, nothing on any
vessel with name Seaward ...

Roger Griffiths
9th November 2007, 19:05
Hello All,
Just to put this one to bed.
I looked at the Navy Lists and as you are aware HM vessels are not listed in the WW1 editions presumably for security reasons but there are lists of merchant ships which were requisitioned by the RN.
SEAWARD HO (without the !, must have been a North Devon bloke who wrote that) first appeared in the April 1915 edition and her last appearance was in the July 1918 edition.
In the January 1919 edition HM vessels were again listed and ATTENTIVE 111 is mentioned with Skipper RNR John Henry Corn SA 2232 is in command. Also borne by this vessel are a whole heap of personal from Captain down who I presume were the rump of the officers from the shore establishment. Therefor I think it is safe to conclude that the name change occurred some time in mid 1918.
So what happened to the logbook of SEAWARD HO. Lot's of the smaller vessels logs were destroyed or lost.
In the general scale of things these conclusions seem unimportant but we are going to do it at all we may as well get it as correct as possible.

regards
Roger

PS still cannot find a picture

hulltrawler
9th November 2007, 22:59
Hi Roger
Many thanks for your persistence and clarifications it is much appreciated and we got there in the end I suppose.

Regards Chris.
Still looking

LynD
11th June 2010, 00:05
I everyone interested in Attentive 111. My grandfathers record of his service in the Dover Patrol clearly states Attentive 111 11th May 1915 and again 1st April 1916. He has left a diary of 1916 so I will re-read it and see what else I can come up withHi Roger,
The way I am reading this so far with the details you have provided and what we can ascertain so far.

Seaward Ho Requisitioned 05 1915 - Possibly straight from the builders ? will have to check Fishing register.

I then think she was renamed ATTENTIVE on the 01- 1916

My reason is the Shore base information.
Attentive became Attentive II ( Shore Base ) 01 1916

ATTENTIVE III on the shore base info says 01 - 1916
X Attentive

with the Collidge & Dittmar saying she was renamed ATTENTIVE III 05 1918
and the shore base document states 01/04/1918. I think we can safely say she did not become ATTENTIVE III till around April - May 1918

All indications are that the Shore base for this time at Dover was ATTENTIVE II. Untill 01/05/1919 when ATTENTIVE III name was amalgamated into ATTENTIVE II.
I persume when ATTENTIVE III was released back to her owners.

Will try to find out a little more
Regards Chris.

LynD
13th June 2010, 07:08
Seaward Ho was definately a seagoing vessel in 1915 as my grandfather in his diary states that they often left Dover to relieve Seaward Ho. On his records it states he was attached to Attentive 111 on trawlers Fraser and Barle...Does anyone know what Patrol business was being carried out at the address 21 Waterloo Crescent Dover and a Lieutenant W G Morgan .....Can anyone help please.

LynD
13th June 2010, 07:21
My grandfathers records shows in 1915 he was on Trawlers Fraser and Barle and across the top it states Attentive 111. Also mentions he often left Dover Harbour to relieve Seaward Ho. Maybe somebody could help me with another query. What Patrol business was being conducted in number 21 Waterloo Crescent Dover and a Lieutenant named W. G. Morgan.

LynD
30th June 2010, 08:01
I am confused regarding the Dover based Trawler Fraser. My grandfather was on board April 1915. Then on the 10th February 1916 he states in his diary that the Fraser was blown up off Dover. But I have found another listing that the trawler Fraser was destroyed in June 1917. Anyone know if there were two Fraser trawlers at Dover.

Roger Griffiths
30th June 2010, 18:57
There was only one HMT FRASER FY1379 and she was sunk off Boulogne by a mine laid by the German submarine UC65 on 17/June/1917.
http://www.uboat.net/wwi/boats/index.html?boat=UC+65
That means your grandad got it wrong or there was some kind of explosion onboard in 1916 which he recorded in his diary.
Unfortunetly, The logbook of HMT FRASER has been lost or destroyed. Without costly research at the British Archive I doubt you will find the correct turn of events.

Roger

LynD
1st July 2010, 05:07
There was only one HMT FRASER FY1379 and she was sunk off Boulogne by a mine laid by the German submarine UC65 on 17/June/1917.
http://www.uboat.net/wwi/boats/index.html?boat=UC+65
That means your grandad got it wrong or there was some kind of explosion onboard in 1916 which he recorded in his diary.
Unfortunetly, The logbook of HMT FRASER has been lost or destroyed. Without costly research at the British Archive I doubt you will find the correct turn of events.

Roger

Thank you Roger....Yes I could not find a second one and especially one that was destroyed on the 9th February 1916. Another query you may be able to help me with his record states he was assigned to D (no other info) on the 22nd March 1915 to Vivid. Then in April he went aboard Fraser. He states he started with the Dover Patrol on 8th April. Would D mean Dover or Devonport as I know Vivid was the base there. But he never mentions being at Devonport. I do know that in 1915 he was undertaking some kind of clerical work at 21 Waterloo Crescent. I am at a loss to know what he did for nearly a month before joining the Fraser. Do you know if all new recruits were sent to Devonport or could he have gone straight to Dover...Help.

Roger Griffiths
1st July 2010, 16:53
Thank you Roger....Yes I could not find a second one and especially one that was destroyed on the 9th February 1916. Another query you may be able to help me with his record states he was assigned to D (no other info) on the 22nd March 1915 to Vivid. Then in April he went aboard Fraser. He states he started with the Dover Patrol on 8th April. Would D mean Dover or Devonport as I know Vivid was the base there. But he never mentions being at Devonport. I do know that in 1915 he was undertaking some kind of clerical work at 21 Waterloo Crescent. I am at a loss to know what he did for nearly a month before joining the Fraser. Do you know if all new recruits were sent to Devonport or could he have gone straight to Dover...Help.

Yes. VIVID was RN Barracks Devonport. I should imagine the "D" refers to Dover as there is a Waterloo Crecent there, right near the habour and I should think it was requisitioned by the RN.
There are some records concerning 21 Waterloo Crescent in the East Kent Archives. What they contain is unknown to me.
Regards Lt. W G Morgan the only one who seems to fit the bill is this one.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=7914980&queryType=1&resultcount=69

May be worth downloading his service records.


Roger

LynD
8th July 2010, 04:37
Yes. VIVID was RN Barracks Devonport. I should imagine the "D" refers to Dover as there is a Waterloo Crecent there, right near the habour and I should think it was requisitioned by the RN.
There are some records concerning 21 Waterloo Crescent in the East Kent Archives. What they contain is unknown to me.
Regards Lt. W G Morgan the only one who seems to fit the bill is this one.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=7914980&queryType=1&resultcount=69

May be worth downloading his service records.


Roger

Thank you Roger for your help..It is possible that he was sent to Devonport (Vivid) before going to Dover. I do know that when he left Australia late 1914 to return to Britain he wanted to be assigned to a naval warship but ended up in Dover till 1917 when he transferred to the Salvage section. I will download Lt Morgan's records as it might help. My grandfather at different times was at 21 Waterloo Crescent...I was actually in Dover about 2 years ago and stayed at the hotel in Waterloo Crescent I wish I had known where number 21 was....Maybe when I return I will be better prepared...

LynD
1st August 2010, 04:14
A little more to add to the confusion.
The attached is from from a post first world war Admiralty publication which I obtained from TNA some years ago. Without further in depth research I would suggest Chris's theory would be not far off the money.

regards
Roger

Roger Could you please look up in your book for me a trawler with the name Vivante or similar mined around 1916 or 1917. I cannot find this trawler anywhere. Any clues?

vcourt
10th May 2014, 08:26
Many thanks to Roger, Chris, Hugh and Raymond for the detailed discussion on the HMS / HMT Attentive III back in 2007. As one of those who discovered this thread when undertaking family history research it is great to see so much detail provided, even if the topic is confusing. The sharing of your collected knowledge is much appreciated.
Vicki