Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

HMAS AE1


melliget

Recommended Posts

Hi Martin,

thanks for all the great postings on here. After reading Peter Richardson’s website, and viewing John Fosters views, where do you think they are at. John Foster does not believe the German vessel theory but at the same time has not found AE1. It is a shame the records for the German chap & his vessel are so difficult to dig up.

AE1 would have to be the strangest submarine losses of the war. I have read through the AE1 loss document, a big mistake seems to be Parramatta not following AE1 back to base, and why did she go the other way around Duke of York Island instead. Parramatta's orders were to patrol with the submarine. I think they can all be thankful there was on in depth inquiry into her loss.

If the theory of the German vessel is to be believed, then why was not what was told to the signalman followed up, or was it? This is where I notice people start to talk of a cover up. With a cover up you would have to ask why? Could the British/RAN do such a thing, i guess the answer is yes. The state of art battleship Audacious was sunk by a single German mine, this sinking was covered up, (attempted), for a couple of reasons, strength of the battle feet and so on, but it was also shocking this battleship could be lost by such simple means, something they would not want the Germans to know. AE1 was, in 1914, a state of the art British E Class submarine, the last thing they would want the Germans to know is how simply she could be sunk by a small German vessel with a gun. It took the Germans to lose ships such as Prinz Adabert & Undine to realize you did not have to use larger important ships to carry out patrol duties where submarines operated.

I noticed where this German chap claimed to have sunk AE1 has not been searched!.

Diving accident, and this comment does not include striking an uncharted rock, but does anyone recall an E Class sub being lost like this? Stoker was possibly in the best position to know what Beasant could or would have done, and he was left scratching his head as to why AE1 would have been diving at this point. All the w work I have done with the Baltic subs, yes they quite often carried out practice dives, but generally after maintenance, or part of training a few days before a patrol, and they would left someone know what they were doing, and quite often they were done with an escorting vessel on hand. As mentioned, it is not me here questioning why AE1 would do a practice dive, but another submarine commander who was there in Stoker from AE2.

With the Baltic subs, they would only dive on their return to base if an enemy vessel showed itself.

As mentioned, AE1 is a strange one.

Cheers DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Darren.

It certainly was/is a mysterious loss. Hopefully when they do find the AE1 (it has to be found eventually, surely), examination of the wreck might provide clues as to the cause.

I have viewed some of Peter Richardson's excellent site but I'm not fully up to speed on the German theory. I do recall reading a file on the NAA that contained some report of a burning boat having been found on a beach, some natives later relating (or was it a captured German officer?) that a small enemy steamer was responsible and something about a gun being thrown overboard to hide the evidence but the story sounded odd to me. Not sure if that was part of that theory. I'll see if I can dig that out again. Wouldn't a gun have been heard by someone in the vicinity, either on land or sea, if an attack on AE1 had taken place?

I suppose there's a possibility that, with the Centaur being found, David Mearns may be brought in to help with the search. I wouldn't be surprised to hear some announcement along these lines. Would be a boon for the search.

Every search must present its own unique challenges. One of the complicating factors with the AE1, I believe, is that there has been some volcanic activity in the area and pyroclastic matter has covered a marker vessel in the proximity so perhaps AE1, wherever she lies, has also been covered. I'm only guessing here but, though that may make her more difficult to find, it may also help to preserve her more than if she was openly exposed to strong currents.

Wasn't some mechanical problem the cause of the demise of the AE2? I read the Brenchleys' book years ago but vaguely recall that the AE2 had a sudden loss of trim when trying to evade the Turkish torpedo boat which is why Stoker was forced to take her to the surface. Could a similar event have happened to AE1 and they were unable to recover control? Or some other mechanical or structural problem? There are some reports on the NAA site about some structural issues and sub-standard material was found to be the cause of at least one of them.

regards,

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The circumstances around the loss of the AE2 were in a rather different environment - and the same problems may have affected other losses in the same area - including British, French & Australian. The Dardanelles represent the area where both sea (salt) water and fresh water merge, the fresh water coming from the Black Sea via the Bosphorus and the Sea of Marmora.

As the submariners found in 1915 the Dardanelles themselves had several currents/layers of salt and fresh water. A salt water environment provides more bouyancy than fresh water and submarines in the Dardanelles would loose trim when passing from one layer of water to another and, in some cases, find themselves almost "trapped" at the interface of the two layers. The AE1 was in a purely sea water environment when lost, so should not have had any trim issues. The E class was generally a successful class and E class subs operating away from the difficult environment of the Dardanelles did not seem to suffer from any trim issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Martin,

read the article you posted, yes Mr Mearns would be a good fresh idea. Best thing he did with HMAS Sydney was use common sense, and in that case commons sense was just not too common. All the clowns with such ridiculous theories now look like fools when they Germans were telling the truth all along, just a few issues of how the Germans got her so close remain.

This article on AE1, all the talk is of AE1 making it to Rabaul, but did she get that far? No one believed this until that diver said he thought he saw her when his anchor was caught on a deck railing, he dived down to free it, and years later saw a photo of AE1 and thinks that was her. With that said, what deck railing does an E Class have? They have flimsy vertical stanchions with a looped top end and a safety wire running through them. After so many years in the water one of the first things that rusts away is the flimsy free flowing deck casings on which these stanchions are attached. And one other note, whilst on a patrol like AE1 was involved, these safety wires are removed & stowed, there is a photo of AE1 in Rabual before she was lost showing that they have been removed & her wireless masts stowed.

Another thing to remember, John Fosters sonar report from 2009, they found nothing & believe she is not there. I guess when you’re as passionate as John you have to have a crack at it. The German story does need more work, around things like did the German chap find out about AE1 prior to telling the signalman his story and was just taunting his captors? People say why did he not go for the bragging glory. What he told the Australian signalman was that he came out of the eastern passage of Duke of York Island group flying a white ensign. He caught AE1 stopped outside the entrance, and put a shot into her and ran over her. Using a white ensign could be one reason to shut up. But as mentioned, this theory need more work, how big was his vessel which was found scuttled as you say.

Martin Wills is correct with the loss of AE2, when she hit the different water density layer she bounced back up to the surface and was shot at. As mentioned earlier, it is not me questioning this diving accident theory, but AE2’s Commander Stoker, and he would know far more than any of us. I believe it most likely that AE1 would have only dived had she sighted an enemy. Submarines of this era would steam on the surface until getting to a particular patrol billet, then spend days submerged during the day on this billet, come up at night & charge, go to the bottom for the remainder of the night, come back up and remain at periscope depth for the day, putting up their periscope around every 20 minutes. A boring existence, on the way home again, all on the surface, UNLESS, an enemy vessel was sighted, even a small sailing vessel, or an aircraft.

In AE1’s case, Parramatta was the only vessel in the area that we know of, and AE1 was in communication with her about 2.5 hours before AE1 was due back. Whatever happened to AE1 was quick with all signs of sinking like a brick. She had been using her wireless around 1520 hrs, but whatever happened she could not send a message. Being submerged and striking a rock would account for this, so would an attack from a German vessel if she was in the diving process.

All the work i did with E18, well in the end, no great mystery, no German ship as so many books tell us, just a simple navigation error where she turned too early into a known mined area.

Cheers DB,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Darren and all others :)

We should keep in mind that the news of the sinking of an british submarine by an german auxiliary might have been hidden by the Allies (maybe), but NOT by the Germans.

There are no survivors so an probable use of the "White Ensign" should be no problem - just don't mention it or deny it.

What an nice success for the Germans if it happend, but I don't believe that theory, after all those years it should have come to light (just my opinion) !

Oliver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Oliver,

the reason i'm throwing this topic up is similar to the reasons you have mentioned, not convinced myself and we need some people to throw their views up. The German chap in question is difficult to trace, he was also seperated from the rest but that could be a varitiy of reasons. If what he said is untrue, then we was taunting his captors, and i can't work out if he had prior knowledge of AE1's loss before he spoke to the signalman in question. The son of this Aussie signalman is still alive at 89, and he still says his father was adamant the German was telling the truth.

Your are right, i'm not a great cover up believer after all this time as something always comes to light, but until they find AE1 then every theory has to be left on the table. I saw a dive site where someone says one of HMAS Parramatta's crew claimed they had run over AE1. Once again, how can you keep a crew quite for all those years, you can't.

A theory that was in my head, was AE1 could dived at the eastern entrance of the Duke of York Island and used her periscope to have a look in there. The reason for diving, she had no deck gun, and from what i have read they did not know if a shore gun was at the entrance, or if there was in fact a gunboat in the area. The currents on this day were reported to be very strong and when HMAS Benalla carried out a search a couple of years ago she reported to find it difficult to keep a straight line. This is how she could have got into some form of troube, but again, who knows.

Cheers DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some background on what was happening in German New Guinea at the time.

Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918 - Volume IX

Chapter III – Capture of the German Colonies: German New Guinea

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories...chapters/03.pdf

The loss of AE1 is briefly covered on pp. 96 (last para.) and 97.

Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918 - Volume X

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

Appendix 12 – German Diaries found at Rabaul

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories...chapters/26.pdf

One diarist, a German post-office official, states:

p. 552

14 August.- . . . The Siar and Komet returned. After

taking in coal, both left again to get into safety. At Mioko a ship's

wreckage has been washing ashore: a cabin, broken oars, a small

red buoy, a cap with the inscription H.M.S. Encounter.

I wonder, if true, which ship or boat this was and why the cap from Encounter? She was a RAN ship by then.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I know this is all based on supposition and unreliable sources but could that cap from Encounter have belonged to one of the crew of AE1?

I've just gone through the RAN records of the entire crew and the only two that previously served on Encounter were Telegraphist Cyril Baker and Stoker John Bray:

BAKER, Cyril Lefroy, Telegraphist, RAN (1268)

Encounter, 2.8.13 - 3.8.14

Penguin, 4.8.14 - 14.9.14

BRAY, John James, Stoker 1st Class, RAN (1604)

Encounter, 18.7.12 - 20.11.12

Encounter, 21.11.12 - 31.12.12

London Depot, 1.1.13 - 27.2.14

Submarines, 28.2.14 - 24.5.14

Penguin, 25.5.14 - 14.9.14

Of the two, Baker was the one more recently on the Encounter, having been on the AE1 a little over a month, and perhaps still wore his Encounter cap.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the wreckage observed by the German diarist could have been that of the nameless schooner mentioned in this article from The Mercury (Hobart).

The Mercury, Tue 20 Oct 1914

THE LOST SUBMARINE

WAS SHE SUNK?

A NAMELESS SCHOONER ON FIRE

The "Sydney Morning Herald's"

Rabaul correspondent, writing on Sep-

tember 27, says:-

"The tragedy of the AE1 is the first

loss that the Australian navy has sus-

tained, and its magnitude seems all the

grimmer for the atmosphere of mystery

which surrounds it.

"On the afternoon of September 15

the submarine was sighted off Gazelle

Point, south of Herbertshohe, heading

in the direction of Rabaul. She was

never seen again.

"A strange patch of oil floating on

the quiet surface of the water, a name-

less schooner, with a gun-mounting

from which the gun was missing, dis-

covered on the coast in flames and

sinking - these are the only clues we

possess to the manner in which the AE1

came to her end, and they are by no

means conclusive.

"Whether she was actually sunk by a

shot from the enemy, whether an un-

seen pinnacle of coral ripped open her

plates, or the pumps refused to do

their work in bringing the vessel again

to the surface after a dive, will pro-

bably remain for ever unknown.

"There are those who, unable to be-

lieve that the AE1 was destroyed by

hostile agency, feel that the bitterest

circumstances in the disaster lies in the

thought that those on board of her died

before they had been able to strike a

single blow against the enemy. They

have no doubt some reason on their

side.

"But though Lieutenant Besant and

his companions perished without the fir-

ing of a single shot, the fact that their

death lacked the qualities of the spec-

tacular detracts no whit from its

nobility or its example. They obeyed

their orders, and they died in that

obedience.

"They gave their lives for their King

and for the Empire as surely and as un-

hesitatingly as though the AE1 had

sunk, bows toward the enemy, rent and

shattered from stem to stern beneath a

crashing rain of shells."

Source: http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/artic...?searchTerm=AE1

According to Arthur W Jose, however, who wrote the Official History etc. Vol IX, chapter III (link in post 35), no oil was ever seen:

"But no trace of the AE 1 - not even the tell-tale shimmer of

escaping oil on the water - was found, or has been since that time."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Martin,

the date of the diary is 14th of August, AE1 went missing a month later.

Also the comment below from the newspaper below, it was the 14th of September, i know of no sighting off Cape Gazelle heading for Rabaul, her last sighting was by Parramatta off Duke of York Island.

"On the afternoon of September 15

the submarine was sighted off Gazelle

Point, south of Herbertshohe, heading

in the direction of Rabaul. She was

never seen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops! :blush: Thanks for picking that up, Darren. Yes, a "slight" (!) mistake on my part (doesn't pay to look at this stuff late at night, does it). The Encounter was involved in the operations to capture German New Guinea, so perhaps that explains the lost cap.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter.J.Richardson

Dear All,

My apologies for the blunder yesterday, where I just re-added Darren's thread.

1. I am working on exhausting all leads with Wilhelm Reuschel.

2. This means checking his personal background as well as his service record.

3. Reuschel's real rank on the SMS Planet - Petty Officer or Machinist Mate.

4. Did he stay behind in Rabaul after the SMS Planet departed to;

a) have treatment for TB (consumption) or

B) was he left guarding a cache or stores

3. I need to know what the registered name of the vessel Reuschel claims to have been in charge of.

a) 'Deutsch Kolonialgesellschaft' or

B) 'Kolonia Gesellschaft'

c) Neither, but this name became the accepted one. In particular 'KG'.

In truth it is most probably a vessel owned by the German Kolonial Society? Deutsche KolonialGesellschaft.

Gesellschaft translates loosely to society.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Deutsche+Ko...ved=0CDYQ5wIwCg

5. Size, tonnage & build material.

6. Why it never came up on any of the Australian records.

Martin,

"Look, I know this is all based on supposition and unreliable sources but could that cap from Encounter have belonged to one of the crew of AE1?"

This wreckage and cap were found during the Australian's first trip to Rabaul in August, I believe.

"On 11 August the destroyers HMAS Parramatta, HMAS Yarra and HMAS Warrego, covered by the light cruiser HMAS Sydney, prepared to launch a torpedo attack on the German anchorages in Simpsonhaven and Matupi Harbour, New Britain, but found the enemy squadron gone. Landing parties were placed ashore at Rabaul and Herbertshöhe to destroy the wireless station, but when it was learned that the station lay inland it was clear that an expeditionary force would be required.

Where a wooden cabin or oars could come from is anyones guess."

I would also like to find out when the 'Meklong' 450 ton coastal vessel was hidden in the creek in Mioko Harbour.

This as we know was discovered by returning 'Yarra' marines two weeks after the AE1 disappeared.

By then the 'Yarra' would know the D of Y Islands very well. And steered clear of the north west exit.

But they dropped anchor within 50 metres of the 'Meklong' and did not see it.

So well camouflaged was she.

But essentially I need to be able to place Reuschel & the 'KG' at the scene. Or find evidence that completely refutes this story.

Kind regards - Pete Richardson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6. Why it never came up on any of the Australian records.

Peter.

One record for the Kolonialgesellschaft on the National Archives of Australia site:

Title: Imperial District Court Rabaul Shipping register: steamship "Kolonialgesellschaft"

Contents date range: 1912 - 1914

Series number: G255 (Correspondence files - Imperial Govt of German New Guinea)

Barcode: 1038465

Unfortunately not yet available online.

regards,

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the AWM website, a photo of AE1 which is perhaps the last known photo of her. Dated 9 Sep 1914, the AWM description is:

"View of the Royal Australian Navy submarine AE1, taken from the bridge of HMAS Encounter when letters were being delivered to the fleet at a rendezvous off Rossell Island before proceeding to Rabaul."

Source: http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/A02604

post-29417-1263788769.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Martin.

there are 2 more shots of her in Rabual taken after this one. The deck casing was so much longer on these early E's as apposed to those built later.

Cheers DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter.

Most of the documents from the captured Planet are held at the AWM but I notice two are held in Melbourne, namely:

Telegrams for German ship "Planet" not to be tansmitted (sic)

Translation of German confidential book found on board ship "Planet"

Both dated 1914. I'll try to get to the Victorian Archives Centre over the next week or so to view these. Unfortunately the centre is only open Tue, Wed, Thu and Fri (my fortnightly Monday off doesn't help).

Apart from the Victorian Archives Centre, does anyone know what other naval research centres are available in the Melbourne metropolitan area? Or does the base at Flinders, HMAS Cerberus, have an historical section that the public can access? I see they do have a museum which I plan on visiting soon.

regards,

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An obituary for the only Tasmanian on board the AE1. He was from Lefroy (this was also his middle name).

The Mercury (Hobart), Mon, 21 Sep 1914, p.5

THE TASMANIAN VICTIM

LAUNCESTON, September 21.

Cyril Baker, the wireless telegraphist

on board the ill-fated submarine AE1,

was a native of Lefroy, and the fourth

son of Mr. J. Baker, miner, who at vari-

ous times resided at Lefroy, Mathinna,

Avoca, and elsewhere. Cyril, who was

in his 22nd year, had had about three

and a half years' service in the Royal Aus-

tralian Navy. He joined H.M.A.S. Pro-

tector when she was at Launceston, and

after passing an examination in wire-

less telegraphy was transferred to

H.M.A.S. Encounter. He volunteered on

the outbreak of war for service as wire-

less telegraphist on the submarine and

was accepted. He was a keen, industri-

ous and intelligent lad, and would prob-

ably have gone far in the service. He

was a grandson of Mr. Thomas Andrews,

at one time manager of the New Golden

Gate Mine, Mathinna. Much sympathy

is felt locally with his relatives.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MARTIN / DARREN, putting this request in here hoping you will see it ;

Do you have knowledge / info on this RAN Chap ?? Do you have his RN number & forenames ??

BLACK V E STO RAN 4997 NE RAN 030691

030118 SC

180103 DOLPHIN

SC 180201 ALECTO

H7 180831 ADAMANT

SC 190118 DOLPHIN VIVID DOLPHIN

J1 190221 BONAVENTURE

J1 190325 PLATYPUS

PLATYPUS 250319

JOINED RN 080715

SS/ 5 YEARS R A N MELBOURNE 4997

SENIOR IN RATING 200416 STO

Looks as if he is one of `your Melbourne chaps' Martin

Sadsac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sadsac.

According to this man's RAN service record, he was previously in the Mercantile Marine, so perhaps he wasn't in the RN. I can't find him in the RN index.

Stoker Victor Edwin BLACK, born Leyton, Essex, 3 Jun 1891.

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

Date of entry RAN 8.7.1915 (left 18.7.1920).

Previously spent time in the Mercantile Marine.

Slight typo there (in your post): joined RAN (not RN) 8.7.1915.

regards,

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sadac,

pretty sure Martin is right here, most i have either have their previous RN number, or a comment on loan from RN. I tried just using his birth date and he is not on the RN lists.

Cheers DB

P.S. Those notes help at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MARTIN / DARREN, thanks for that.

Will check on my info. Meantime here's another of `your chaps' - got him ??

BOWEN JOHN LAMBERT ERA ES D/M 6860 NE RN NE 141015

SC 151014 DOLPHIN MAIDSTONE

J1 160314 DOLPHIN TITANIA CORMORANT BONAVENTURE

J1 190220 DOLPHIN PLATYPUS

JOINED RN 271013

DISCHARGE FROM RN ON TRANSFER TO R A N

SENIOR IN RATING 271016 C S EXPIRES 261025

ADM 188 / 1031 D.o.B ; 300190 P.o.B ; MACCLESFIELD CHESHIRE

Sadsac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...