HMAS AE1

[melliget]

Here he is, Sadsac.

JOHN LAMBERT BOWEN, RAN 9201, born 30 Jan 1890, Macclesfield, Cheshire.

http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/imagine.as...mp;I=1&SE=1

Long career, served on a couple J class subs. Served in WW2 as well. Finished up as Chief ERA.

Possibly died in Australia in 1966.

He wasn't on AE1 though, was he?

regards,

Martin

[Signals]

Hi Martin,

he is not on AE1 in my lists, however he does come up via his papers as coming out with the 2 O Class in the late 1920's.

Sadsac, i have all of these names of men who transferred to the RAN in 1919, just yell is you want them. Went to archives here yesterday & found some stuff to Peirson, (ex E9 Baltic), running down a French sailing vessel on their way south.

DB

[melliget]

Not quite sure what to make of this:

Sydney Morning Herald, 3 July 1919

LOST SUBMARINE AE1

REPORTED ATTEMPT TO SOLVE MYSTERY

H.M.A.S. Suva left port yesterday for Bris-

bane, where she will subsequently be boarded

by Admiral Viscount Jellicoe, who will pro-

ceed in her on his tour of Northern Australia

and his official visit to the islands.

It was reported yesterday that H.M.A.S.

Suva carries a survey party, and that an at-

tempt may be made to locate Submarine AE1,

which disappeared off New Guinea early in the

war. On inquiry being made last night, how-

ever, the naval authorities declined to say

anything regarding the report.

Source: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article15854434

Perhaps the SMH were just fishing for a story and the RAN was just being naturally secretive about the arrangements for the distinguished visitor.

Martin

[sadsac]

MARTIN, no Bowen did not serve on AE! - I only put these chaps in here hoping / knowing that I will grab your & DARREN's attention for info. What I have been doing as I go thro my Submarine files is to pick out all `Your chaps' and see if you have info on them. Naughty of me I know, but when it comes to `looking up' I am the worlds worst cheeky B*g**r !!!

Also thought that such info may be of interest to you & DARREN.

DARREN, thanks for the offer of info on `your chaps' and yes please would very much like !

Sadsac

[melliget]

That's ok, Sadsac - I was just curious. I saw he served on J class submarines and wondered if he'd been on AE1 earlier. Happy to do the RAN lookups.

[sadsac]

Thanks for understanding MARTIN & I would much like such info. BUT, I have been using this Thread - should I / you / we start, or go to a different Thread for such as `our' searching ?? Do not wish to bung this one up as it is specifically AE1.

Await your advice !!

Sadsac

[melliget]

Sadsac.

It's not a big deal but perhaps it would be best, for the sake of clarity (both for the AE1 thread and the other posts), that you create a separate thread for submarine service queries. Obviously sometimes there will be overlap between the two. My two cents worth but of course you're a free agent

regards,

Martin

[melliget]

I wrote to the Minister for Defence late last year asking whether the government would be involved in efforts to search for the AE1. The gist of his reply in January was as follows:

"The Navy will continue to support the search for AE1. Future consideration will be given to contributing Navy assets to future searches subject to operational constraints and the availability of new, specific, credible and compelling information regarding the search location."

Lets hope that, with the Centaur found, David Mearns and his team get involved in the search. Two significant commemorative events are coming up, the Centenary of the Royal Australian Navy (4 October 2013) and the Centenary of the RAN Submarine Force (7 March 2014), not to mention the centenial anniversary of the sinking of the AE1 itself, so here's hoping the AE1 is found well before these milestones pass.

Martin

[Signals]

Hi Martin,

Went through a massive document in the Archives today which cover AE1 & AE2 and their journey to Australia, included press releases as well. There is a heap more in this than the document you can view online. Incredibily detailed from Barrow to Sydney, just wish these sort of details are available for the British subs. They include crew lists.

Cheers DB

[melliget]

Sounds good, Darren. You got copies of everything, of course? There are a number of articles of the submarines' journey to and arrival in Australia available via the National Library of Australia newspaper site. I'll have to visit the archives centre sometime. The last time I visited the PROV (in the late 1990's) it was out at Laverton.

Martin

[Signals]

Hi Martin,

well the Melbourne archives are not as effiecient as the British archives. They have some great things like being able to view & download crews papers from your home, but you just can't roll up & order things to view that day. Strangely the items you want are held in Burwood, so you have to order them and wait until you can am email in which they say they will hold them for 2 weeks. Also they have one reading room only that has a camera stand. Like the British archives you do still have to get a readers ticket.

What i find annoying with AE1, it seems no-one has ever viewed the court of enquiry into why HMAS Yarra grounded while searching for AE1. When you research something you have to view every single possible document you can lay your hands on and build the case, so why was Yarra looking where she was when she grounded? May be nothing in the document, but maybe there is. It seems to have been on the other side of the Islands to where AE1 was last seen. This document i'm currently waiting for official clearance so it can be viewed, so anything you see as NOT YET EXAMINED means exactly that, they still need to view it to make sure it contains no sensitive information.

Yes i did copy everything, I found in the document covering the journey to Australia that it has much more than the title suggests, including all the decision making which led AE2 going to the MED. With this in mind i can see 3 items in the Melbourne Archives on the submarine depot ship Upolu, and although the headings for the documents may lead you not to look, they still need to be ordered and viewed, but these too are NOT YET EXAMINED, will arrange to order them tomorrow.

Anoying as well, all the J-Class logs are in Sydney, and the log books for other ships are in the AWM Canberra. Wish they would have one archive.

Cheers DB

[borley rectory]

Hi Martin,

Any more news on the findings, this is such a fascinating story, I do hope there is some form of conclusion...

[melliget]

Sounds interesting, Darren. Let us know if there's anything of interest in the Yarra file when you do get access to it. Where did you find the info on where the Yarra was searching?

Anoying as well, all the J-Class logs are in Sydney, and the log books for other ships are in the AWM Canberra. Wish they would have one archive.

Guess they've got to share it around. And maybe disaster planning comes into it, i.e. everything in one location makes the prospect of a fire in the archives centre even scarier, as opposed to having different parts distributed around the country.

regards,

Martin

Hi Martin,

Any more news on the findings, this is such a fascinating story, I do hope there is some form of conclusion...

Unfortunately not, Reg. At least I haven't heard anything. No doubt things are going on behind the scenes. Let's hope something happens this year.

regards,

Martin

[Signals]

Hi Martin,

you still find them online, but will have Not Yet Examined on them. Sometimes punch in say HMAS J1, then submarine J1, and keep throwing in different variants of this and see whay you come up with.

DB

[Signals]

Hi All,

has anyone ever viewed the AE1 loss document in the Kew Archives? I'm presuming it would be just a copy of the Australian documents.

A chap has told me he received a cryptic phone call some years back from someone within the submarine museum about the fate of AE1, to the point where this chap believed his contact was about to reveal some clue to AE1’s loss from some source within the Admiralty. This chap from the museum was also trying to get my contact to bid for Besant’s medals when they were up for sale at the time, around the early 90’s. I ran a few names by my contact, and he said yes to the name Gus Britain from the submarine museum. My other contacts that worked in the museum said they knew nothing more of AE1’s loss. Not sure what to make of all that, but anyway.

I have been going through a massive amount of documents on AE1 and creating a full time line form the 12th to 16th of September. Many things now just don’t add up, the Admiral’s report, well he could have well be covering that he failed to act for some hours in ordering a search, as his times for this order and when it was actually sent are hours out. It also seems Parramatta should have been asked some hard questions, around the time we think AE1 was lost Parramatta did in fact stop for 30 minutes, of which the reason was never mentioned to explained in Lt Cdr. Warren’s report.

There was a sighting of a steamer off Duke of York Islands the evening prior to AE1 being lost, the identity of which is now currently being investigated via the German archives. If correct, this more than likely could explain what both AE1 & Parramatta departed from their given areas of patrol that day. Also investigating oil found the following day.

To say the least, AE1 is a very strange loss. The German archives are also being turned upside down at the moment to find if they do in fact have any information, it has been picked up so far they had observed the 2 submarines.

Anyway, keep sniffing!

DB

[melliget]

Hi.

The AE1 was still very much in the mind of the sister of Leading Seaman Corbould on the 40th anniversary of the submarine's loss:

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 14 Sep 1954, p24.

ON ACTIVE SERVICE

CORBOULD.- In loving memory of

Gordon Corbould and his brave com-

rades of Submarine AE1, who gave

their lives for their country Septem-

ber 14, 1944 (sic). Inserted by his lov-

ing sister, Essie.

Unfortunately the newspaper mistakenly "corrected" the year to match the WW2 notices.

Can someone please clarify whether AE1 was present at the surrender of Rabaul on the 13th September 1914? The RAN's page on AE1 suggests it was (http://www.navy.gov.au/HMAS_AE1) , as does the Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_AE1), but in a memo to the Naval Board 23 Sep 1914, Admiral Patey indicated AE1 remained in harbour on the 13th of September "to make good minor defects":

"3. I personally interviewed Lieutenant commander Besant

on Saturday, 12th September, and questioned him as to the state

of his Submarines. He stated that they were both all right,

but that he would like Submarine A.E.1 to remain in harbour until

Monday, 14th September, to make good minor defects. This I

approved of, and he did not go out until the morning of the 14th

September."

Source: "Loss of Submarine AE1.Submitting report from Lieut Stoker as to the reasons he assigns for above loss. [67 pages]" (NAA page 11)

http://naa12.naa.gov...ne.asp?B=373306

I could find no mention of AE1 in:

The Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918

Volume X – The Australians at Rabaul. The Capture and Administration of the German Possessions in the Southern Pacific

Chapter V – The Seizure of New Britain

http://www.awm.gov.a...chapters/05.pdf

Also, which harbour was Patey referring to?

In Lieut Stoker's report (page 7 of NAA document above):

"6. When leaving harbour A.E.1 was believed to be in working

order throughout, with the exception of the starboard main

motor which was defective and could not be used. Arrangements

for making good the defect on return to harbour had been made.

This defect would prevent the starboard propeller being

used when diving, but beyond limiting the underwater speed, it

would only slightly affect the handiness of the boat and could

not be taken to account for her loss."

If AE1 had remained in harbour on the 12th (at least part of that day) and the 13th of September to "make good minor defects", as Patey said, why wasn't the starboard main motor repaired as well?

A couple more points. In the same NAA document above, Lieutenant Warren of the Parramatta states (p.15):

"Very strong currents were experienced during the day."

Whereas Admiral Patey states (p.29):

"9. The weather was fine but hazy, the sea smooth.."

At first I thought these two statements seemed contradictory but I guess a seemingly smooth sea can still have strong currents. If Parramatta had felt the strong currents, then I'm guessing that AE1 would certainly have felt them and perhaps it was a factor in the submarine's demise.

A note on page 45 of the same NAA document states:

Files in Confidential Records re

this matter are 14/0176; 14/0395;

& W.R. 15/285

F. J. Mulrooney ?

17.4.23

Does anyone know what these confidential records might have been? I couldn't find a Mulrooney in the RAN Naval lists of 1923, so perhaps a filing clerk.

One final point. I read through the RAN Naval Board meeting minutes after the time of the loss of the AE1.

Title: Naval Board Minutes, 1914-1919 - Index to Naval Board Minutes 1914-1919 (265 pages)

http://naa12.naa.gov...ne.asp?B=224282

There is no mention of AE1. I find this strange, especially as some of Patey's communications were to the Naval Board. Page 52 of the above document has the minutes of a meeting held 7 days after the disaster, 21 Sep 1914. I looked through subsequent meetings - no mention. AE2 is briefly mentioned on page 63:

Submarine A.E.2. as to her future movements.

Minister's minute "no action at present"

noted.

And on page 68, some mentions of ordering new submarines. As I said, I find it strange that the AE1 was not discussed at the Naval Board meetings (at least it wasn't minuted).

regards,

Martin

[melliget]

From The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 September 1914

http://nla.gov.au/nl...article28114912

ARTIFICER LOWE

Chief Engine-room Artificer Thomas F.

Lowe was born at Leicester, England, 39 years

ago, and joined the British Navy at Burton-

on-Trent eleven years ago. His first boat was

H.M.S. Hampshire, and for the following six

years he was on the engine-room staffs of

many vessels. Five years ago he was ap-

pointed to the crew of a submarine, and he

was changed about a good deal among the

flotilla, with headquarters at Portsmouth.

The last submarine on which he served in

English waters was the D 2. His five years -

that was the maximum time allowed the men

for service on submarines - expired just at the

time the two units of the Australian navy

were ready for their long trip. He volun-

teered, and his record in the British navy was

so good that he was at once accepted as

one of the chief engine-room artificers for the

AE 1. He was on board during the whole of

that record voyage from England to Sydney,

arriving here on May 24. His wife followed

him, arriving in Sydney early in July. She

had the misfortune to lose a 10-year-old

daughter at Adelaide, on the way out. She

now lives at No. 8 Brisbane-street, North

Sydney.

See photo of Lowe in post #9:

http://1914-1918.inv...dpost&p=1319827

Martin

[Signals]

Hi Martin,

AE1 would have been with her depot ship Upolu on the 13th, and that was in Rabaul Harbour.

I have recently been going through all the signal logs, and log books of every vessel up there at the time and have done a time line of events.

Some points of interest were.

The search for AE1 did not begin when the Admiral stated, it was something like 3 hours later in complete darkness. Oil was sighted, but had been dispersed.

A Steamer was sighted of the Duke of York Islands at 1800 hrs on the 13th, Yarra sent a signal that she was going to investigae, but the destroyers were told to stick to their orders, so Yarra went back and changed guard ship duties with Parramatta who did not list sighting a steamer, so what happened to this steamer? Did AE1 go sniffing for it? Besant's behaviour suggests a possibility of this.

There has been a lot made of HMAS Encounter moving back into Rabaul as though this was tied into where AE1 was supposed to go for her repairs that night. Encounter moved back to the Bee Hives so as to take on HMAS Sydney's task of the guardship in Rabaul, with Sydney going to see that night. The vessel that raised the alarm was AE2 which was tied to Upolu, this was at 2015 hrs, so this is where AE1 was heading, and i can see the submarine engineer had been arranging supplies from HMAS Australia that day. HMAS Australia then tried calling AE1 3 times from 2020 hrs to 2030 hrs, there was no answer.

There was so much made recently of a wreck in Rabaul where a diver claims he saw AE1, this location was right under the nose of the Guadships at the Bee Hives. So a little hard to believe from my point.

Upolu offered the suggestion AE1 did not want to enter Rabaul at night in case she was fired on by the guard ship, and was waiting outside the harbour.

HMAS AE2 was also overdue the previous day, the 13th. When HMAS Yarra was asked where is AE2, she should be in by now, Yarra had no idea and presumed she had made it back, so things seemed a little loose up there.

Everybody assumes AE1 was heading westwards when last sighted, but Warren gave no direction, just that he presumed AE1 was going home. If Warren's orders were to escort the submarine, you will notice that when he did lose sight of her, he stopped for 30 minutes via her log, then went around the northern part of the Islands, not the southern part. The search also concentrated at the start on the northern side.

The British concluded AE1 had been mined.

I do not subscribe to the theory AE1 carried out a practice dive, the enquiry into the grounding of HMAS Yarra the following day while searching for AE1 is enough insight to make an educated guess of what happened, Yarra was in a safe situation, but then struck an uncharted reef, smashing her props, and this situation was due to a navigation error and not following a designated passage, but i can see the mistake, he had clearance of depth via his charts, and the reef was not marked. This area would be a disater for a submarine, it was the crossing of shallow to deep water, and AE1 had a deeper draft that Yarra, smashing her props with a gash in her hull would be the end. AE1 was in a safe situation re distance from shore when last sighted, and keeping this distance he should have retuned safely. So AE1 must have gone from a safe situation to an unsafe situation, and that would be going closer in while searching for something. Dive, only if she had to, due to a threat or vessel.

DB

[melliget]

Darren.

Thanks for the reply and all that interesting detail. Where did you access the signal logs, at the AWM?

The one thing that doesn't sit right with me about the steamer theory, i.e. that AE1 maybe have been sent to the bottom by a steamer or other vessel - from enemy fire or by ramming, is why wouldn't that information have come to light after the war? Why would those involved, whoever they might have been, have remained silent?

Do we know what the "minor defects" were that Patey said kept the AE1 in harbour the day before she went missing? Could whatever they were have somehow contributed to her loss? And why wasn't the starboard main motor repaired at the same time as the "minor defects" on 13 Sep 1914?

Let's hope the mystery of AE1 is solved before 2014.

regards,

Martin

[Signals]

Martin,

had a meeting today re AE1, in Canberra with some chaps. Australia warship logs and so forth are a pain, they are spread between Sydney & the AWM, so between them i copied the lot. Sadly many of these documents, that through the way i research i had as a priority, were still sealed up from being moved around 15 years ago.

Steamer theory, I’m not suggesting AE1 was sent to the bottom by a steamer, the fact remains a steamer was sighted the evening before AE1 was lost, and off the Duke of York Islands. Besant may or may not have been sniffing for it and got into trouble, we may never know. RAN ships had been capturing German prize vessels the previous days to this, remember the Admirals comments on Besant’s strange behaviour that day, HE SEEMS TO HAVE GONE FAR NORTH OFF HIS BEAT. Before the German steamer was found wrecked & on fire the rumours were abound that there was a gunboat hiding out in these Islands, the first I can find of this rumour was a letter from a Parramatta officer saying no one has bothered to check this area, these scum of the British Navy are making us the laughing stock and so forth, and then he goes on and says about the gunboat possibly popping off AE1. Every comment about AE1’s demise to a gunboat are unproven theories of men that simply had no other idea of the submarines fate. A German did claim to had done the deed, but it does smell of him taunting his captors. This is listed in the so called diary of an RAN Signalman, but when read closely this document held in the AWM is no diary, dates are all over the place as he filled it in at a later stage, so it is impossible to date when this conversation took place and if this German had prior knowledge of AE1’s demise.

No the defects I can’t be sure, her defects when lost was mentioned today, as the clutch, but I have not seen where that is confirmed. E Class subs continued to operated with all sorts of defects, I can’t see anything causing her loss, her hull I believe was holed or gashed, and she sank quickly.

The information on AE1 is so poor, the enquiry was hardly worth bothering about, it addresses nothing. Warren has not even been asked some very important questions re the last sighting, estimated speed and direction. Read what he says, when last sighted he assumed AE1 was heading for home, yeah great but which way? His orders were to escort the subs, so when he lost sight of her he went the opposite way to what everyone presumes AE1 did. There is a general theory evolving that the reason Parramatta lost sight of AE1 was that she sank there and then, not far from where she was last sighted. Much of this area has not been searched. Even when lost, they were convinced she had given chase to an enemy vessel, that is why they spread the search over such a vast area.

If only we knew what Besant was thinking, where he was all morning when he put his thumb in Warren’s face and did his own thing. What was he looking for, AE2 did not do this the previous day, they stayed in their ordered patrol area, AE1 did not and ventured elsewhere, and that caused her loss. In the end I would be surprised if the conclusion is eventually found that a very simple navigation error is behind all this. Just sounds way to simple though!

My next step is to investigate the sighting of oil, it was found, but i can only find when they went back and checked it again, only to find it dispersed.

DB

[melliget]

I don't know if this is already known but I came across an NAA document containing reports by, among others, Colonel William Holmes, Administrator at Rabaul. In one report, dated 4 October 1914, Holmes states that the "Kolonial Gelleshaft" (probably a typo) was 73 tons gross. Later referred to as the "Kolonial Gessellshaft". See page 14 of following document.

Title: Reports dealing with Captured German Possessions in Pacific

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/scripts/Imagine.asp?B=40261

The 302 page document also includes reports on the capture of the Komet and there are mentions of the Planet.

Page 277 gives brief details of some vessels employed as government vessels.

Martin

[SiegeGunner]

Holmes states that the "Kolonial Gelleshaft" (probably a typo) was 73 tons gross. Later referred to as the "Kolonial Gessellshaft".

The correct German spelling is 'Kolonialgesellschaft'. The Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft (German Colonial Company) was active in Africa and Asia.

The vessel shown in this link is identified as the steamer Kolonialgesellschaft, which took part in an expedition up the 'Kaiserin Augusta River' in New Guinea in 1912-13 - http://www.bundesarchiv.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/bilder_dokumente/00929/index-24.html.de

[melliget]

Thanks, Siege Gunner. I hadn't seen that particular photo before.

regards,

Martin

[Signals]

Hi All,

with all the unseen hard work going on behind the scenes of the group dedicating itself to finding and honouring the gallant crew of HMAS AE1, we must take a pause to remember today as being the 96th anniversary of her mysterious loss.

Her loss would have occurred in the small time frame of between 1530 hrs & 1800 hrs on the 14th of September 1914, but where and when the tragedy occurred is the great mystery, there simply is just no clue to where they went after the last sighting.

We will remember them.

[melliget]

Nice one, Darren. Lest we forget.