HMAS AE1

[melliget]

A photo of Telegraphist Cyril Lefroy Baker is on the Association AE1 Inc's website:

http://www.submarine...7d54cb40f0a.jpg

The same photo was used in an article in The Examiner (Tasmania) 21 Sep 1914, as Cyril (nickname possibly Buds) was a local man, born in Lefroy near Launceston.

regards,

Martin

[melliget]

I came across this poem, "The Crew Of The A.E.1." by Will Lawson, in the National Library of Australia's excellent resource, Trove. It appeared in the Cairn's Post on 26 Mar 1943 but in the Bulletin before that, I think.

[Signals]

Hi Martin,

thanks for that, never seen it before.

Doing some heavy work around AE1, interesting what is turning up, bit of a picture forming. They seem very mild on their comments re Besant's behaviour that day, in a three strike policy on a vessel being lost, he had already received 2, the 3rd being the accident. Patey should never have allowed him to go out on this patrol when he had AE2 there defect free.

DB

[melliget]

Re the poem, I later noticed that Peter Richardson has it on his site (ae1submarine.com), although at the time his site was offline. I see Peter has it up and running again.

Martin

[sadsac]

Hello ALL, here is `a puzzlement' - after help by Darren who obtained RAN form for me I have `found' a real anomaly - at least for me !! See later the RAN details from Darren.

Lost in AE1 was ;

MALONEY JOHN JOSEPH PO STO 7299 NE RAN SM AE.1 14.09.14 Z 25

PLYMOUTH 4 PLYMOUTH 1 - 36

Son of Joseph and Alice Maloney, of Queensland ; husband of Beatrice May Reynolds (formerly Maloney), of 93 Fitzroy St., Grafton, North Coast, New South Wales.

Drowned in accidental loss of vessel near New Guinea. D.O.L ; 19.09.14. Lost off New Britain (cause unknown).

So, CWGC has MAloney, but his RAN record has MOloney. As he joined RAN in Australia he did not serve RN.

Reference to PRO gives two other MAloney's being ;

Maloney Alias John Moloney ON 276809 D.o.B ; 2709 1869 P.o.B ; Bristol ADM 188 / 440 (1)

Maloney or Moloney John ON 8714A D.o.B ; 0002 1833 P.o.B ; Cork Ire. ADM 188 / 488 (2)

`Seems' that it could be that (1) was JJ's father & (2) be Gfather ??? What think you ??

Perhaps some of the Forum's experts on Birth Cert's could find an answer ??

Afraid document not too clear, but best I can do !!

Sadsac

Curses - it has said pic too big to upload - it is A4 size !!!

[sadsac]

As I am a complete moron when it comes to sorting out problems re uploading pics I hereby call upon the good services of DARREN / BALTICSUBS to upload the Docs. as he sent to me !!

Are you there DARREN ??????

[Signals]

Hi Dennis, this is from her documents copied in Canberra.

[Signals]

Just to confuse you more

[melliget]

Hi Sadsac.

Maybe CWGC changed it, as they now have Moloney, not Maloney:

http://www.cwgc.org/search/casualty_details.aspx?casualty=3045188

His RAN service record has Moloney:

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/scripts/Imagine.asp?B=4530030

He was born 25 Jan 1889, Capalaba, Brisbane, Queensland.

The AWM Roll Of Honour has Maloney (aka Moloney)

http://www.awm.gov.au/research/people/roll_of_honour/person.asp?p=566481

Brisbane Courier gave name as Maloney (21 Sep 1914):

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/19984794

 

The names seem to be used interchangeably.

Sorry, but I can't see the connection with the other two sailors you've listed.

regards,

Martin

[melliget]

I was about to say that I no longer have access to Brisbane BDMs (moved to Melbourne) but Queensland Historical BDMs are now online, which is handy.

https://www.bdm.qld.gov.au/IndexSearch/mainMenuSubmit.m?main_menu=IndexSearch

Reg #, Given Names, Surname, Father's Name, Mother's Name

1889/C8064, John Joseph, Maloney, James, Alice Conroy

Nothing found under Moloney for that date (25/01/1889).

Martin

[Signals]

Hi Martin,

i had a meeting the other evening with the AE1 Inc group, and there were many questions re Scarlett from AE1.

He seems to have very close links with Stoker from AE2 while serving with the Royal Navy as they both took the B Class boats B6, B7, & B8 to Gibraltar in Aug 1911, and there is the possbility he was Stoker's 1st Officer. And yet Stoker never mentions him in his book Straws in the Wind. Scarlett was invalided 13/6/1913 from the RN in this time due to having TB. From what i can work out his family sent him to Australia after this to recover, i'm sorry to say, in a better climate, and i have been led to believe he went to Brisbane.

He was then given a clean bill of health and appointed to AE1 10/8/1914 in Sydney as her navigating 3rd officer, but i wonder how good his heath actually was.

Have you ever seen or read anywhere when he got to Australia, and where he went?

We are all still trying to work out exactly why Lt Cdr Besant did what he did that day as he clearly did not follow the orders given him by Admiral Patey and left the approaches to Rabaul unguarded in the afternoon, and the enquiry asked for by Patey does not seem to have happened, only some very mild reports with no critical information such as course direction & speed were issued, thus leaving us with no idea where he was actually heading.

One avenue never looked at, but is now, is what did the French say as they arrived the day after when the search was in full swing, so we are hoping their Admiral wrote some report which could supply some critical alterntives to what Patey offered up.

[melliget]

Hi Darren.

Scarlett is mentioned in Fred & Elizabeth Brenchley's "Stoker's Submarine" (Harper Collins, 2001), pp.25-26. On the loss of AE1, the Brenchleys wrote:

"Stoker was distressed. The two submarines had shared travels and

adventure; the officers were friends. 'There seemed to me to lie but a

straw in the wind 'twixt AE2, at anchor in Rabaul Harbour, and her

sister ship, the steel tomb, hundreds of fathoms deep.'

There was more to Stoker's 'straw in the wind' allusion than meets

the eye. AE1's first officer was Lieutenant (the Honourable) Leopold

Scarlett, younger son of Baron Abinger. Stoker had met Scarlett,

(inevitably called 'Will'), during his happy sojourn at Gibraltar before

the war. The two had become great friends. 'About the most loveable

character I have ever known,' Stoker wrote of Will in his personal

scrapbook.

But Scarlett contracted tuberculosis. He was invalided out of the

Royal Navy in 1911, moving to Australia to live on a sheep station.

'When war came he rushed to Sydney, where I was in command of AE2,

produced [somehow] a clean bill of health, and wanted to join me,'

Stoker noted. 'The captain of AE1 was, however, six months my senior,

so exercised his undoubted right and grabbed Scarlett. Had Scarlett not

been so oustandingly valuable as an officer he wouldn't have lost his life

off Rabual.' As we shall see, Scarlett would later figure in another

baffling episode in Stoker's life.

Just what that other baffling episode was, I'm not sure for the moment. The index only refers to the one page for Scarlett, so I will need to scan through. It's been a while since I read the book.

I did some quick searches on NAA to try to locate his passage out to Australia but no luck. Perhaps, even though retired from the navy, he came out as passenger on a naval ship. I notice the date you mention he was invalided out is different to what the Brenchleys give.

I didn't know that the French were involved in the search. What ship or ships were they?

Tubuculosis was no minor thing to recover from (my grandmother died from it in 1926), so Scarlett could well have been still affected by it when he joined AE1. Stoker's "somehow" in reference to Scarlett's clean bill of health suggests the same.

regards,

Martin

[melliget]

From his RN record, Scarlett was:

- Invalided 3 Dec 1912.

- Retired (unfit) 13 June 1913.

[Signals]

Hi Martin,

i'm pretty sure he must have been Stokers 1st officer in Gibraltar. Mmmm, so i wonder how he got to Australia?

The French Cruiser Motcalm arrived on the 15th to take over duties from HMAS Australia, and as one Australians wrote she was no more than a nice target for the Germans. I have her logs for this period and she mentions all the comings & going of RAN vessels such as AE2. We have a Frech Proffessor in charge of their archives on the case, and i have no doubt the French Admiral would have written something. In my work with the British S/M's in the Baltic the Russians would write things from a different persective than the British and would add info they would not, so fingers crossed with this as unless some detailed diary turns up the French maybe our only alternative for information.

If you read closely what is said about AE1 there is no direction of where she was headed when last seen. Most people pressume she took the southern route home from the Duke of York Islands to get in before dark. This the most likely way yes, but there is evidence shown she was heading around the top of the Island group, and as you will notice, when Parramatta lost her she stopped, waited 30 minutes, then went around the top and said she did not see AE1 again. The previous day AE2 was late in getting back in, and it took Stoker almost 3 hours to report AE1 was overdure so he had given Besant a lot of slack to turn up after dark.

[melliget]

Darren.

Good luck with the French angle. Let us know if you find anything.

If you read closely what is said about AE1 there is no direction of where she was headed when last seen.

I've just re-read that report that includes Stoker's statement (Loss of Submarine AE1..). You're right. The report and tracing by Commander Warren, DSO, HMAS Parramatta, shows "estimated courses" of Paramatta but only approximate position of AE1 when last seen. On p.14, Warren mentions that the submarine, some time after 9 am:

"turned to the North'ard and steamed apparently in a North Easterly direction."

No further headings were mentioned by Warren in relation to AE1 over the subsequent 6 and a half hours, only Parramatta. After losing sight of the submarine at 3:20 pm, Parramatta turned and steamed to the direction she was last seen, steaming close to the coast of Duke of York Island. Warren then said:

"I considered that she must have steamed back to harbour

without informing me as she would have to leave at that time

to arrive in harbour before dark."

What Warren was saying is that he assumed this at the time, after the submarine had disappeared, but Patey later reported that Parramatta last saw the submarine about in the position marked on the chart "apparently returning towards harbour", which is not what he said (at least, not in his statement).

It would be very helpful if we knew more about the headings of AE1 through the day, not just that of Parramatta.

Martin

[Signals]

Hi Martin,

the problem with HMAS Parramatta log is that it is a fair log which could have omissions, we have no idea where her working log is or where her Signal books are for this period, but they have her signal logs later in 1914 and onwards. All other vessels, bar HMAS Yarra, have surviving signal books. Warren does not explain why he stopped when he realised AE1 was out of sight.

On the following day HMAS Encounter asked Parramatta directly, "where did you last sight AE1?" Warren gave a position a lot further up the west coast of the Duke of York Islands than what was later marked on the maps. Warren said when he lost sight of AE1 he went back in the direction of where he last saw her, but surely he would have gone due west if AE1 was heading home on the southerly route as she would have been a few miles along after 50 minutes at 10 knots , but he went NW as if AE1 was heading the other way, he then stopped, waited for 30 minutes and went around the top which he had no orders to do. His orders where to stay with the Submarine. Warren then said he did not see AE1 again, well how could he if AE1 took the southern route.

Everyone always says AE1 took the southern route as it would be quicker and this makes complete sense, and that is the only basis for this assumption and the fact Besant was worried about being reprimanded about not following his orders about getting in before dark. Had AE1 taken this route I cant understand why they searched the west coast of New Ireland. Many were convinced AE1 had given chase to a vessel, hence the wide search area. So was Besant worried about getting in before dark, big call to make, but Stoker gave his nearly 3 hours slack before he annouced AE1 had not returned. Besant clearly did not follow his orders during the day as where he was last sighted Admiral Patey gave him the mildest comment about going far northward off his beat. The question remains, what was Besant doing in AE1 so far to the north from his billet? Had he in fact followed his orders all day by guarding the channel, then had decided to go home via the northern route? Parramatta was never going to catch up to AE1 had she gone this way, AE1 would normally do 10.5 knots, while Parramatta only did 6 as her log shows, and this was after stopping for 30 minutes.

We need a diary of comment from the French to solve AE1s last direction.

AE1 should not have been lost, but she was lost for a few reasons, she should not have been allowed to go out in the first place, she had a defective clutch which would only allow her one engine once dived.

With his submarine in this condition, and convincing the Admiral whose understanding of submarines would be limited, Besant then did not use his insurance policy of HMAS Parramatta and continued to ignore her all day. Had he stayed in close contact with Parramatta as ordered, this tragedy would not have happened, or at least we would have known what happened.

You do get a feel after reading Pateys report that a lot more could have been said about what happened that day, off the record comments, Warren also says very little, but one of his Engineering Officers pulled no punched when he said Besant was basically thumbing his nose at them and ignoring them.

The issue of the German vessel is still being expored, my finding of a steamer sighting off the Duke of York Islands the previous evening that was not intercepted gives more weight to this theory. So why would the Germans not brag about their success, thing is, one of them did, but he also said he caught AE1 hove too and that he sailed out flying a white flag before he opened fire on her, a good reason to shut up.

[Guest Peter.J.Richardson]

Darren / Martin,

Are you sure it was the clutch that was defective?

I always thought it was a problem with the main stbd motor.

Quite possibly the valves as these were always playing up.

...she had a defective clutch which would only allow her one engine once dived.

When diving AE1 would have been in reasonable shape using the electric motors + clutches.

Regards, Pete Richardson

[melliget]

Hi Peter.

Yes, in his report Stoker said that AE1 was in working order except for a defective starboard main motor but added that it "would only slightly affect the handiness of the boat and could not be taken to account for her loss". Patey said that Besant had wanted his submarine to remain in harbour the day before the loss "to make good minor defects" but I've not come across any specifics on what those were. Darren may have more info from his visits to the Melbourne archives.

With one engine out of action they lost their redundancy, so I wonder in what sort of scenario could the AE1 have been in danger if the other engine also became inoperable. Even if this happened whilst submerged, they could still get back to the surface without their engines, couldn't they? I imagine the pumps that filled and emptied the ballast and trim tanks worked on battery power and would not be affected by engine failure.

regards,

Martin

[melliget]

Just on the E class's system for controlling its buoyancy, how did it work exactly? My technical knowledge of submarines is non-existent! I've just re-read Besant's own description of his submarine that appeared in Australian newspapers after the arrival of the two submarines:

"As for air, we just breathe what there is in the boat. That would keep us going for 24 hours at a time if we were underneath so long. Of course it would get a bit stuffy by that time. If there was an accident and we sank down to the bottom it would be possible to freshen things a bit by exhausting some of the air in the boat and then using some of the compressed air in the air flasks, which is used for blowing water out of the ballast tanks when we want to rise to the surface."

So no electricity, no pumps required to blow water out of the ballast tanks, just compressed air operated manually? What's the potential for failure in this area? I imagine that they would have always double-checked and triple-checked their compressed air cylinders and had plenty in reserve, given that, without it, they could not get back to the surface.

regards,

Martin

[melliget]

ABC news article: "First submarine memories resurface"

[/url]http://www.abc.net.a...surface/2899096

[Kentishwolf]

Just in case anyone is interested, taken from the Penny War Weekly, 17th October 1914.

First-Class Signalman George Dance, of the missing Australian submarine AE1. Formerly of HMS Hermes, he was transferred to the AE1 shortly after it was launched. The Vessel left Portsmouth for Sydney last February.

CWGC lists George Dance as 8262, died 14/9/1914, aged 27 of the RAN, Memorial ref.4 Plymouth Naval Memorial.

Andy.

[melliget]

Thanks for posting this, Andy. It's good to see another photo of one of the AE1 crew. I'm sure AE1 Incorporated would be interested to see this. George Dance's RAN service record is located here:

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/scripts/Imagine.asp?B=4419199

regards,

Martin

[melliget]

Uncharted submarine wreck found off PNG

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-27/uncharted-submarine-wreck-found-off-png/3604744

The article says it could be a WW2 submarine. Could it be a WW1 submarine? Wasn't Simpson Harbour AE1's destination when she was lost? A long way from where she was last seen, I know.

Martin

[Michael Lowrey]

Well, at least some news accounts are suggesting that it could be AE1.

Best wishes,

Michael

[ph0ebus]

Telegraph suggests it as well:

PNG find may be long missing submarine AE1

Time will tell, eh?

-Daniel