These messages were added to this story by site members between June 2003 and January 2006. It is no longer possible to leave messages here. Find out more about the site contributors.
Message 1 - Snowberry
Being totaly familiar with this ship I know this story to be absolutely ridiculous. For example, ever tried picking up a depth charge physically and throwing it over the rails Ever tried using a tommy gun on a bridge full of people. Ever tried using a pair of opera glasses to spot aircraft. The maximum tested roll was 35 degrees, any further and she would have turned over. From the day of launching in Canada she had a mast fitted antenna for radar. What was the point in telling this story and, more to the point, why has the team put it to the forefront as a true war story.
Ìý
Message 2 - Snowberry
The WW1 D type depth charge weighed a hefty 300lb and initially were rolled off the stern of the ship, but I thought the WW2 type weighed 600lb (270Kg).
And didn't the WW2 type have to be thrown 50 metres clear of the ship (for safety reasons) in a pattern of 9 or 10 charges? Or have I got this wrong?
Peter
Ìý
Message 3 - Snowberry
"Snowberry was built on the Clyde at Greenock/Gourock where she was commisioned."??
HMCS Snowberry was commissioned at Quebec City on 26 November, 1940. She arrived at Halifax on 13 December for further work and sailed 9 February, 1941, with convoy HX.108 for the U.K. There she completed fitting out at Greenock, completing on 3 April, and worked up at Tobermory before joining Western Approaches Command, Creenock, in May. She left Aultbea early in June to join convoy OB.332, arriving at Halifax on 23 June 1941 to join Newfoundland Command.
Just to set the record straight.
Ìý
Message 4 - Snowberry
Harry and Peter,
It is so refreshing to see that despite those who continually revile me for being so active in the matter of authenticity, that there are others now becoming concerned.
The fact that someone with such a high site "profile" as Peter is now raising questions, may finally have the team re-consider the whole matter of this site and what it is trying to achieve.
Max Strammer.
Ìý
Message 5 - Snowberry
I am glad someone did some research to confirm my original comments. As regards the depth charges the answer is "No" for the first part of the war they were rolled over the stern from previously stored depth charge rails. The operators set the depth of explosion as ordered from the bridge. The depth set was such that, prior to exploding the ship had steamed sufficient distance to avoid damage. They were normally launched in two's until the advent of the "Throwers". Then they were rolled over as usual but the "Throwers" hurled a lighter charge to supplement them. On one occasion I was in a destroyer when a charge exploded prematurely blowing off our starboard screw and creating problems with the port drive shaft. It took us five days to get back to harbour over a distance that should have taken 24 hours.Thanks for the memory jog.
Ìý
Message 6 - Snowberry
Many thanks for that information Harry.
Ìý
Message 7 - Snowberry
Posted on: 21 February 2004 by Peter Walker
HMCS SNOWBERRY CONVOY ESCORT Comments on Forum refering to message number
Message 3
I joined Snowberry 21st April 1941 at Greenock lent to the RCN because they were short of asdic operators likewise a coder was lent because at that time the RCN did not have coders
I thought the ship was built on the Clyde because I seem to recall that tha drafting authorities told me that The Admiralty had given the ship to the RCN
I do not recall going to Loch Ewe but now that you mention it it rings a bell.I definately recall going to Tobermory as "MONKEYBRAND" the Admiral in charge of working up came on board to offer the services of his team for general drill The Captain politley declined .He was a professional a Lt in the RCNR not RCNVR and in peacetime the Master of a freighter .on the West Coast hauling timber .
I remember the convoy to Halifax a few of the crew suffered chronic seasickness and were incapacitated for nearly all the voyage some vomiting blood
Thanks for your valuable contribution
Ìý
Message 8 - Snowberry
Thanks for for that clarification; your initial post caused quite a rumpus :)
Our memories are fallacious things, especially after 60 years.
Best wishes,
Peter
Ìý
Message 9 - Snowberry
Sorry Peter. That reply does not go anywhere near an explanation of the gross and impossible inaccuracies of the original input.Our memories as you say, become dulled with time but forgive me for saying so ,not that dull.
Ìý
Message 10 - Snowberry
Harry
You are the expert in these matters, and I do take that into account.
However, in 1939 you were already an old salt with years of service under your belt. In 1939 Researcher 235181 (check him out here U235181) was a Boy Seaman. He has another story(Secret Operations) here A2325656 in which he mentions the Minna.
When I first read that story I checked for the Minna, no trace. I then checked the entire list of navy ship names, no Minna. So I dismissed the story.
Then, a few days ago on a hunch, I tried something different and found this site About links
and found this: "The £7.8 million Scottish Executive-funded vessel has been built at Ferguson’s shipyard in Port Glasgow, and is the third ship to be named ‘Minna’, all of which have been built on the Clyde." So there had been a Minna, and the story had a basis in truth.
When I posted my own story, which of course I know to be true, I was astonished to find it disbelieved. In the light of all this, I now am inclined to accept Researcher 235181 for what he says he is, an ex matelot.
Why don't you ask him some direct questions Harry? You know the service inside out.
Fond regards,
Peter
Ìý
Message 11 - Snowberry
I have tried but received no answer. Despite his youth there were so many fundamental untruths and exaggerations it was impossible to ignore. The following examples I pointed out to him.
(1) Throwing a depth charge manually over the guard rail is virtually impossible due to it's weight.
(2) The ship was fitted with radar (known as RDF) when she first sailed.
(3) She was fitted with the standard gyroscope so all this problem of finding the correct course was simply gobblygook.
(4)No convoy with a maximum speed of three knots in fair weather was ever assembled. It would have been suicidal.
(5) The opera glasses and tommy gun were obviously the product of a fertile imagination.
(6) Admiralty would never have accepted a corvette without armament.
(7) The roll from upright at an angle of 45 degrees sounds dramatic but truly impossible.
So you see Peter, get him to answer these questions and we may have an explanation such as "Poetic License". He obviously will not answer me. If he cannot then his story should be deleted.
Ìý
Message 12 - Snowberry
Posted on: 29 February 2004 by Peter Walker
At the beginng of the war minna was used as an examinatio vessel in the Forth off May Island
Please read the following book:-
" UNDERCOVER SAILORS*
Secret Operations of World wAR II
AUTHOR A.Cecil Hampshire
Publisher William Kimber London 1981
Ìý
Message 13 - Snowberry
Posted on: 13 April 2004 by Peter Walker
Snowberry did not have a gryo compass She had magnetic compasses in the wheelhouse on the open bridge and for the Asdic (Type 123a trawler set)
During ww2 ships sometimes were accepted incomplete .Bellona had to be accepted incomplete on Admiratlty Instructions.
As far as I can recall it was the intention to use a parbuckle to roll the charges over the gunwhale near the thrower stowages.The charges would have had an appropriate depthe setting
The binoculars were not lorgnettes they were small and not very powerful unlike the AP ones
There was no Radar ,There was a crows nest on the mainmast
Rolls of 45DEG were recorded by Escort Carriers on Russian convoys
Ìý
Message 14 - Snowberry
Absolute baloney. Why persist in this fabrication. Surely it was enough for you to endure the situation and what conditions actually prevailed, these needed no elaboration, they were bad and people like yourself endured them with fortitude. Exaggeration demeans your real war time contribution. Both the Canadian and Admiralty archives written at the time and the hand over documents signed by the Admiralty and first Captain and XO contradict almost everything you described. This is my last word on this subject. I suggest you do the research yourself.
Ìý
Message 15 - Snowberry
Posted on: 10 May 2004 by Peter Walker
WHERE CAN THE DOCUMENTATION BE SEEN
Story with photo