|
The Daily Mail Thursday, January 11, 2007
Question
Was the 1957 film
On the above date shown, in answer to the question asked, the readers of the Daily Mail, were provided with some extraordinary answers from no lesser a source than, K S Hett, M.B.E. a former member of H.M.S. Amethyst’s 1949 ships compliment, and in particular as he himself states; “I served aboard H.M.S. Amethyst, throughout the 1949 Yangtze Incident.” (The Yangtze Incident, for Amethyst, began 20th April 1949 and ended 31st July, 1949.) When on Thursday, 11th January 2007., I read what Mr. Hett, had wrote up in answer to the question; “Was the 1957 film The Yangtze Incident accurate ?” this very appropriate gem came to mind as being applicable to Mr. K.S. Hett, M.B.E. ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive. You see where Hett, is seen to state in his written answer; “We had managed to refloat the ship before Kearns joined us.” Hett, is of course referring to Lieutenant Commander, Kearns, who was the Royal Navy Attaché at the British Embassy, Nanking. Next where Hett, is seen to state; “ Amethysts main armament was fully functioning. But once we went aground, the forward guns wouldn’t come to bear on the gun batteries on the north shore and the after gun was hit and put out of action. The Bofors mountings were unusable.” Note, that which I have underlined for future reference. In stating such Hett, omits to mention that, when in the first instance shots from the north bank of the river were fired over and around the Amethyst, without causing damage to the ship or injury to those onboard, the ships Captain, Commander, Skinner, gave three consecutive orders, ‘Both engines full ahead together’. ‘Unfurl the Union Jack down the ships side’. ‘Director find targets’. (2) The first two orders were carried out but the third order wasn’t as Amethyst’s main armament remained in the fore and aft position, the reason being the ships director control for the main armament was in malfunction and as it happens, Hett, was the Director Control Officer, at that time. Where Mr. Hett, is seen to state; “The Bofors mountings were unsuitable” Well being that it was orlikin gun mountings that was on the Amethyst, as can be seen within the encircled area on the photo being posted below, that type of mounting would certainly not be suitable for Bofors.
The truth of the matter is Amethyst’s, secondary armament was lying in a dockyard shed. A little further on in the article by Mr. Hett, he states; “Despite what is shown in the film, Amethyst was at action stations before she came under fire. I believe the training of the armament as part of the drill when going to action stations was one of the factors that provoked the shore batteries into opening fire on us - and this is confirmed in the Chinese battery commander’s autobiography.” States, Mr. Hett, without naming the Chinese Battery Commander. There is also that part in the article by Hett, where he states; “I supervised the preparation for tow by HMS Consort. The gear was ready and the quarterdeck manned but Consort never got within range of the Coston Gun (used for shooting a line from one ship to another) range. Let alone heaving line range of Amethyst. (3) We were all under fire at this time, so those on the quarter-deck were keeping a low profile.” Well here is something that was written in a book titled ‘No Lotus Garden’ by a Scottish Surgeon who was an eye witness to the event that Hett, in his article has been describing, from within chapter seven of the publication, ‘No Lotus Garden’ I now quote; * “I was sitting in my office when a man from the Consulate came in. He told me briefly about what was known and asked if I would fly to Nanking to go to Amethyst from there. In the early afternoon I was at Lung Hwa airfield boarding a US Air Force B-25. Known in the RAF as a Mitchell. I sat in the right hand seat beside the pilot. The sun shone out of a cloudless sky on the green fields of the delta as the plane climbed away. After half an hour we picked up the broad, brown. Yangtze river, navigable by ocean-going ships for five hundred miles past Nanking to Hankow. Flying at a couple of thousand feet, the peaceful scene unfolded with our progress. We could see the trench systems, gun posts and strong points of Nationalists on the bank. At intervals of a few miles a gunboat was moored close to the southern bank. They looked very unwarlike with their guns at rest and not trained northward: washing was strung above the decks. Suddenly a vessel appeared in midstream. From her crosstrees on each side flew a great white flag, and from her foremast a long white pennant stretched tautly aft beyond her stern, held stiffly by the speed of her going. It was the destroyer Consort going at maximum speed Seldom does a destroyer work up to full revs in peacetime, and never in a river. A magnificent bow wave creamed back as far as the bridge: the wash spread in broad white lines across the muddy surface to crash far astern on to the banks. Her guns fore and aft were pointed hard to port, flames and smoke erupting from them. Great splashes rose in the river. An occasional explosion erupted on the south bank from overshoot, but most of the shell splashes were a hundred yards astern. Consort was doing the impossible Running the gauntlet of a narrow channel against hostile, hidden, shore batteries, unable to turn or maneuver. (4) All she could do was to cram on every ounce of speed, and fight back at guns unknown until they opened fire. We circled two times, saw the blue sky, green fields, grey destroyer with her foaming bow wave, dazzling with pennants, angry red gun flashes, shell splashes, black smoke streaming back from the funnels and the yellow water of the Yangtze.
I thought of her
Commander on the bridge, the gunnery officer laying her guns, the crew
working like fiends, the engineers hammering her engines to near breaking
point. The starboard wing of the Mitchell swept up to the vertical. I saw
the pilot holding the stick hard over as he executed a violent diving turn
to pull out almost at ground level.
“The aim of this mission is to get you to Nanking, doctor, is it not ?” We climbed and picked up the river again where it made a bend to the south. There was Amethyst. She lay with her bow aground, listing to starboard. She seemed to simmer in the sun, motionless, out of action, crippled a total contrast to the destroyer. The pilot said we would make one pass. Turning away to gain height, he came round in a circle and put the nose down heading for Amethyst. There was no one on deck, no one looked up or waved. Then she was gone under the belly of the aircraft.
The Mitchell
braked to a stop in front of the control tower at the empty Nanking Airport.
As I shook hands with the pilot he sad to me. “Well, you and I are the only
guys around who have ever seen that sight and I recon we are the only ones
who ever will.” * Unquote. The author of the publication, ‘No Lotus Garden’
was Dr Wedderburn. (5) Where Hett, in that penultimate paragraph points to the film actor Richard Todd, having eared, he Hett, makes no mention of the fact that in a scene from the film Yangtze Incident, where an actor is playing the role of Hett, that role was completely wrong, fictious and over exaggerated, in that, the gun in this clip from the film Yangtze Incident, was not on-board the Amethyst, at the time when the incident occurred.
Within the last paragraph of Hett’s, article he uses the words, gratitude, pride and bravery in complementing the ships companies of H.M.S. Consort, the ship that fought a two hour and forty minute action, while making three valiant efforts to take the Amethyst in tow on the 20th April 1949 and both the London and Black Swan, that made the effort to rescue the Amethyst, on the 21st April 1949 but had to retire from their actions before getting to within thirty miles of Amethysts, position. No where dose Mr. Hett, mention the forth ships involvement in the Amethyst Incident. (6) Being posted here is a list of naval signals for the 30th and 31st July 1949.
(7)
There you see a list that relates to twenty Naval Signals that were transmitted and received, covering the events in the Amethyst Incident, 30th and 31st July, 1949 the importance of those signals, is that they establish the facts of H.M.S. Concord’s involvement in the Amethyst Incident, on the River Yangtze, 30th and 31st July, 1949. By the fact that H.M.S. Concord, was ordered into Chinese territorial waters to train its armament on the Woosung Forts, in readiness to respond should Amethyst, be fired upon whilst passing that sector or location within Chinese territorial waters, those orders placed H.M.S. Concord, in and under a rigour of war situation. I mention that because there is a Minister, within the Ministry of Defence, by the name of Bob Ainsworth, and a Naval Secretary, by the name of Spear, who would dispute that fact. (8) Anyhow, when H.M.S. Concord, covered Amethyst, in passing the Woosung Forts, on the River Yangtze and there after escorted Amethyst, to a location within the Yangtze Estuary, where Amethyst, dropped its anchor in order to allow Concord, to come along side for the purpose of transferring some supplies and fuel oil, as upon reaching that location Amethyst, had the equivalent of seven ton of fuel left on-board, a sufficiency of providing steaming power for a couple of nautical miles only.
Here above you
see a photograph of Amethyst, anchored and as can be seen the Union Jack,
ordered by Commander Skinner, to be unfurled down the ships side, is still
unfurled down the ships side. Also, ratings can be seen to be lowering
fenders into position over the ships side in readiness for H.M.S Concord,
coming alongside. (9) H.M.S. Concord, alongside of Amethyst in the Yangtze River Estuary
By putting the above photograph under magnification and looking at the twin barrels of H.M.S. Amethyst’s rear gun, it can be seen that guns have canvas covering the mouths of the guns barrels!! When after fuling the Amethyst, Concord slipped from alongside her and both ships proceeded out to sea, it was then that H.M.S. Concord, was stopped by H.M.S. Cossack, it was at that juncture that H.M.S. Concord’s, ships log was taken out of commission and Concord, was ordered else where on patrole. Further to this the copy of the telegrame that I am about to post here was sent out by the British Ambassador, Sir Ralph Stevenson, Stationed at Nanking. The terms within the telegrame are note worthy in that they provide an insight into the art of Diplomatic, (Back Stabbing).
End of Story. (10)
|
