HMAS AE1

[Capt_Starlight]

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

Going submerged in a submarine is to to a "controlled sinking".

A good explanation of how it is done is here => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_valve

Caveat: This may not apply to the design of the E-Class though it general pinciples would apply at least.

Note that the main ballest tanks have a single valve to control both tanks. If there was a malfunction of the valve and or associated gear, no matter how much air was used, the tanks would not "blow" and the submarine would not rise (nor stop sinking). There would be insufficent reserve of bouancy from the other tanks to overcome the weight of water in totally flooded main ballast tanks.

Compressed air tanks would be filled as part of the battery charging cycle on the surface runs.

Pumps are used to move water around from trim tank to trim tank to maintain the trim (horizontal or whatever is desired) of the vessel. Usually when "in trim" a submarine will be at neutral bouancy and level. "Trim dives" are one of normal cycles for a submarine (as water density can vary greatly and vessel weight distribution can vary as stores are consumed). Trim is the responsibility of the First Lieutenat while the "third hand" was the navigator.

[Blackblue]

Would be be nice...but looks WW2 to me. Hopefully I am corrected.....

Rgds

Tim D

[melliget]

Thanks for the info, Capt_Starlight. That's very helpful.

regards,

Martin

[melliget]

Would be be nice...but looks WW2 to me. Hopefully I am corrected.....

Rgds

Tim D

Yes, we'll know soon enough. It would be great if it was the AE1, after all these years. I'm surprised you say it looks WW2 because I can hardly make anything out in that blurry image on the ABC website.

regards,

Martin

[melliget]

The following is from the website of Submarines Association Australia, Queensland (I read this previously elsewhere but can't recall where for the moment). Whatever has now been found may have been what the diver below came across when recovering an anchor:

"Secondly a diving enthusiast by the name of Geoff Tyers had provided information much earlier - he had dived on sunken Japanese transport (KEIFUKU MARU) in the vicinity the entrance of Simpson Harbour to recover a fouled anchor. He stated that when found it was caught on the bow of a submarine which he identified as possibly AE1. He was not regarded a credible witness by Navy and the information was disregarded."

Martin

[Blackblue]

There are other images, including sonar. There is only one recorded submarine loss in the area for WW1...the AE1. I thought I could see a far more raked bow that the AE1 in one of the shots...now I am not so sure. A number of press reports are saying its only 20m long...

Thing is the more I look at them now and compare to original AE1 photos...what I assume is the conning tower does look very similar....or is it too short?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/gallery-e6frg6n6-1226179451959?page=5

[Blackblue]

Original....

Sonar....

Photo....

[melliget]

Thanks, Blackblue. Interesting. That does look like a conning tower but perhaps there's some distortion.

An interesting report covering the 2009 search in Rabaul Harbour (it mentions the wreck the KEIFUKU MARU). They concluded the AE1 wasn't in the search zone but did qualify this by saying the magnetic survey was very difficult.

"The 2009 Magnetometer Search for the Australian Submarine AE1, Rabaul Harbour, East New Britain", Jeremy Green, Report - Dept of Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime Museum No 247, 2009

http://wamuseum.com.au/collections/maritime/march/documents/No.%20247%20AE1%20Rabaul%202009.pdf

Martin

[Blackblue]

Ah well...we'll see...a few historians are coming out and saying its a midget...

[melliget]

At 66 feet long, that's about a third the length of the AE1, so if intact it may well be a Japanese midget. But if it's a piece of a larger vessel... The harbour floor has moved around a lot over the years due to earthquakes and volcannic activity. Yes, we'll see.

[Peter and Ellen]

The Australian Government has just sent out a Media Release stating that it is not AE1. It is believed to be a Japanese submarine and the Japanese Government have been so informed.

They say, that any suggestions re AE1 being found are purely speculation on the part of the Media.

The search goes on.

Regards, Peter

[Signals]

Hi All,

the general thoughts of those closely working through the loss of AE1, while hoping it was, already knew this wreck was highly unlikely. To understand why we have studied all available data on where every vessel was at the time of AE1's last few hours. The entrance to the harbour was guarded by HMAS Sydney at the Bee Hives, she had orders to fire on any vessel that did not identify herself before entering harbour. It is highly unlikely AE1 would have attempted getting though without being seen by HMAS Sydney, a few years back a diver claimed he has seen AE1 in this area, which would mean she would have gone down in view of Sydney. Around 2100 hrs Sydney went to sea & was replaced by HMAS Encounter, and I did ponder if AE1 was somehow caught up in these moments of the cruisers, but this would mean AE1 was 3 hours late from patrol, again not likely.

It is generally considered that when last sighted, to get home before dark, AE1 would have taken the southern route keeping a reasonable distance from the reefs of the Islands. The problem with AE1 is she was like a bushwalker setting off and telling no one which track she would take, so we are left to assume the most likely course. Warren in Parramatta’s report does not state course, speed or direction when she was last seen, which could possibly indicate AE1 was hove too or holding a small patrol area, as she does not seem to have done much from 1430 hrs to the last sighting at 1520 hrs.

When one views the patrol taken by HMS Yarra & AE2 the previous day there seems something amiss with AE1’s patrol. Stoker in AE2 used his escort as he was senior, he placed Yarra to the south of AE2 as his early warning, as their job was to guard the approaches to the St Georges Channel against any possible German units. But with AE1, Besant did not use his escort, he took AE1 far of his designated beat & thus left the gate wide open to the St George Channel. The big question is why? The previous evening at 1800 hrs HMAS Yarra sighted an unidentified steamer off the Duke of York islands, and it seems this vessel was not intercepted, was AE1 looking for this vessel? We don’t know, but something took AE1 on an adventure that day. The communication from Besant to Warren was to say the least, poor, had he used his escort, especially considering AE1 was carrying a defect, we would not be pondering over what happened.

Local legend of the people on the Duke of York islands have passed down the story of seeing the Devil Fish coming close to a reef, going backwards, then going under. I have been looking into the submarines Besant commanded prior to AE1, there is no great evidence of independent navigation, as they would always be escorted by other vessels, so AE1’s solo effort that day could be new to them in this aspect. But unless Besant took AE1 took close in, it is most likely he was forced onto the reefs by some other means. In the area where AE1 was to make 2 turns while hugging the southern route of the Duke of York Islands the currents are noted as extremely strong, and towards the reefs. For only the reason of showing an example, could AE1 haves suffered a mechanical problem that left her disabled in these strong currents? The answer is yes, after studying many RN submarine logs, especially the E Class & D Class, one problem keeps showing up. They had a complicated, and antiquated steering system, so complex an engineer has recently told me it was amazing it worked at all, this was leading to the helms jamming for no apparent reason. Sometimes taking an hour to repair, or in enemy waters having to dive to the bottom, which in AE1’s situation was not possible. If AE1’s helm jammed, (& we must remember this did occur on their trip out from England when HMAS Sydney nearly ran over one of the Subs due to the subs helm jamming in strong currents), then AE1 would be turned towards the reefs & in strong currents, not a pleasant situation. But again, this is only a theory, and only an example of possibilities. We must remember K14 had the same issue, and why this happened, no one ever knew.

Anyway, let’s hope this wreck at least if not AE1, creates some strong interest from those capable of finding her.

[melliget]

Yes, let's hope, Darren. As Peter said, they (RAN historical staff) have concluded that it isn't AE1 and is probably a Japanese midget submarine, which is very disappointing.

I came across a small snippet on the AE1 today. On the 9th of June 1914, three ratings from the AE1 were in a pinnace on Sydney Harbour when it was run down by the North Coast steamer Coombar. One of the men, Act. Ldg. Stoker William James Groves, RAN 7301, b. 13 Apr 1887 in Melbourne, was drowned and it was a close call for the other two, Able Seaman John Reardon, RAN 7474, b. 9 Feb 1891 in Kaikoura, New Zealand, and Leading Seaman John Thomas McGregor, RAN 7532, b. 25 May 1879 in Beaulieu, England. They were pulled from the water exhausted. You may recognise the name of John Reardon - he was the New Zealander who was lost on the AE1 some 4 months later. McGregor was the only one of the trio to survive past the war.

Here's the SMH article (note that they got the names of Groves and McGregor wrong):

http://trove.nla.gov...rticle/15515032

Martin

[CULVERIN]

With the apparent lack of progress of late, though not effort, in an attempt to trace the final resting place of AE.1, i have noted on all threads liberally spread amongst many forums, very little has been dedicated to the construction of this first group of E class boats.

Also, a lack of understanding as to what will, and what will not, sink a submarine.

Although vulnerable, it will only be a breach of her PRESSURE HULL, that will generally, but not always, send her to the bottom, whether surfaced or dived.

The group 1 E class, of which the 2 Australian boats were a part, had 2 internal bulkheads dividing them into 3 distinct compartments. At the time this was felt ideal in the event of accident or damage to the PRESSURE HULL. This was false, and made them uncontrollable when flooded.

In addition to the PRESSURE HULL, which is virtually invisible in all photos, you have the BALLAST TANKS, port and stbd, and ,atop the PRESSURE HULL, the casing, conning tower and most other apparently visible objects.

When a BALLAST TANK is breached, it will NOT sink a boat, so where i see the word HULL, this must only refer to the PRESSURE HULL.

Had AE.1 been dived when her loss occured and her PRESSURE HULL BREACHED, that would be sufficient for her to sink. But she would sink intact and hit the bottom intact, whatever the depth of water.

However, if whilst DIVED she exceeded her designed diving depth, not much over 180', she would have IMPLODED and her wreckage would be scattered.

IF that happened.

I repeat IF.

Then an intact AE.1 cannot be found.

[Signals]

Hi Culverin,

I think most people agree only mowing the lawn with sonar will find AE1, and only then can we hope to find the reasons for her loss. They need sophisticated sonar to carry this out that needs to read like ground hugging radar due to the underwater terrain. If they do carry something like this out it would well come from the RAN trialling such equipment as they do not have the capability at the moment.

There are many reasons why she should have not been lost that is for sure, none more so than Besant not using his escort or communicating any intentions he had. Besant was the senior over Warren, and again I will repeat, Besant did go way to far north off his beat for what reason we may never know, he had left the approaches to St Georges Channel wide open by doing this. The shame also is there was no real investigation at the time, which I would believe would show up many failings from Admiral down, AE1 should never have been sent out when a mechanically defect free AE2 was available to do this task. Besant convinced his Admiral whose understanding of submarines would be limited that all was ok, so I have tried to understand why he was so keen to get out, was it the previous night’s sighting of a steamer? I just do not know. The Submarine service had by this time had not claimed a kill, and Besant would not know Horton just took that crown. It is a true mystery why AE1 was last seen where she was, and nothing like the text book patrol of AE2 & Yarra carried out the previous day.

I do not also believe only a breached pressure hull would or could be the culprit, I have been going through so many Submarine Log Books over the past few years and so many near tragedies show up that we never hear about. Many people have told me that the strict precautions carried out when diving Royal Navy Submarine makes it difficult for diving accidents with a well-trained crew. But there are hidden accidents, an example, G13 dived with her aft hatch still opened, 2 men killed and she was saved by beaching her on a sandbank. H8 in May 1918 when diving had incorrect orders passed down and she crashed into the seabed, resting at 235 feet, any deeper she would no doubt be in trouble. It took some time to get her back up. Had she been lost what would we be saying now, mine?

AE1 did not have such luxury operating in water from 3,000 to 5,000 feet deep, (approx.) If she did implode all I can say the efforts re a search were initially carried out in darkness, and were not done with a fine tooth comb like a modern search that is for sure. They looked far and wide for AE1 believing it likely she had given chase to an enemy vessel, but they were not necessary concentrating where she was last seen. Oil was reported, but it was a dispersed secondary sighting and its origin could not be determined, and also I am unable to locate any reference to the initial oil sighting or location. It is also mentioned bubbles were observed in the diary of one chap, but again nothing mentioned in anything official, and the diary did say the bubbles were in the area where she was last sighted. Most of the retired Admirals from the RAN I correspond with on this topic all believe it is highly unlikely from the time AE1 was last sighted that she would have carried out a dive due to time restraints in being back in harbour before dark as ordered, but I guess it is possible but it would be unusual.

But going back to a previous post I wrote here and again just as a theory on what could happen, she takes off at around 10.5 knots, steers for Rabaul, while heading along the southern coast of the Duke of York Islands she encounters the very strong currents that were reported on the day, these currents were running towards the dangerous reefs, when she does her course alterations for Rabaul her helm jams as I have shown happened many times with D & E Class boats she is now steaming at 10.5 knots aided by around a 3 knot current pushing her towards the reef, and as I pointed out to fix a jammed helm it can take up to an hour which on the surface she did not have this luxury and also she has the defect of only one propeller to fall back on, and of course she had no hope of sitting herself on the bottom as other boats also did to fix this complex steering system. She did not have hydraulic rams to aid steering, it was a complex series of knuckle joints that could at any given moment lock up & seize. Hitting the reef could breech her hull and without looking at my notes she did have a few weaker points where this was possible, these boats were tough customers and where a work of art that is for sure, but like all submarines they have a fine line of being afloat and being a brick, and their bulkheads, well your forward torpedo room floods and there is no hope of staying up even if the other compartments are not flooded. If something like the scenario I mentioned about did occur, AE1 was in a right royal quagmire and had little hope of avoiding tragedy, a tragedy that would have unfolded so fast that it would explain no wireless message and no Very Pistol Flare, and most men would have been trapped hence why no bodies ever found. Remember too, the local lengend passed down is that they saw the Devil Fish head towards the reefs, stop, then went under.

It is interesting reading in regards to the Battle of May Island how events unfolded so quickly and deadly all due to the helm jam in K14. After reading though so many log books there are few real flaws in British Submarine design that could cause a fatal loss such as May Island while the vessel was running surfaced, their helm issues seem the only real problem that could disable and danger the vessel in such a way. Strangely when K14 was inspected, nothing could be found wrong with the helm. My Great Grandfathers boat the E4, twice in a day she had her helm jam in 1917. British Submarines could have issues that could hider operations, but it is hard to think of any that could cause total loss to an E Class boat, people mention Battery explosion, E30 did not sink when hers exploded, E5’s had an engine explosion, she did not sink, they were tough *******.

But I enjoy your post, these are many aspects of construction that we do not get to speak of often enough.

D

Edited 6 October , 2012 by Darren Brown.

[Signals]

Hi All,

for the 100 years anniversary of the loss of Submarine AE1 HMAS Yarra has been made available by Rear Admiral T.W. Barrett to be in Rabual for the event & has been approved to conduct a search over a 5 day period, and if unforeseen circumstanced crop up whereby HMAS Yarra can not attend, another suitable replacement will be sent in her place.

Fingers crossed this time this enduring mystery can be solved as it is long overdue.

So many myths have emerged over the years over her loss that have proved just that, and even just the other day it was put to me that in WW2 she was located & depth charged by the Japanese, all i can say, never heard that one before but if someone does know would be happy to hear the story???????

Also a footnote to AE1's story, recent research has put an end to any German involvement, their movements accounted for, the vessel HMAS Yarra sighted the previous evening on the 13th was the Mekong whose commander stated he also saw the British Fleet as he called them which led him to hide his vessel later found on the 23rd by HMAS Parramatta, it is with little doubt that Besant left his escort HMAS Parramatta, did not communicate with her, and went well north off his beat to find the Mekong as that is the area she was & later hidden. These decisions by Besant led to his vessel being lost by whatever means it occurred.

D

[melliget]

Hi Darren.

Fitting that HMAS Yarra (IV) will be conducting a search on the anniversary, given that HMAS Yarra (I) was involved in the original search.

Re the story that AE1 was depth-charged by the Japanese, I'm struggling to think of a possible motivation for such an action. Couldn't be that the wreck of the old submarine was a navigational hazard, as you would expect that it would have been found before WW2, if that were the case.

regards,

Martin

[Signals]

Hi Martin, it was a well known Australian author on the topic that threw that rumour at me, but nothing else with it, it was suggested her wreck was mistaken for a modem WW2 Sub & depth charged, but as we al know, we suspect she will be deep & I suspect this is just a rumour.

Yes, have you heard the Yarra story?

D

[melliget]

I don't think so, Darren. Which story and which Yarra do you mean?

[Signals]

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/australian-navy-to-resume-100-year-search-for-submarine/1277454

Hi Martin,

it is now staring to get out there, here is a Radio link sent to me by an ex RAN Rear Admiral. This interview covers all that has been going on behind the scenes. If she is not found this time, then it is back to the Drawing board.

D

[melliget]

Thanks Darren. That's very interesting and sounds promising.

[Blackblue]

http://mobile.news.com.au/national/ae1-submarine-found-by-australian-navy-off-png-almost-exactly-100-years-after-wwi-sinking/story-fncynjr2-1227053538987

Let's hope this is true!

Rgds

Tim D

[Dolphin]

We can only hope that the 'contact of interest' proves to be the long lost vessel.

Gareth

[Blackblue]

Maybe MH370?

[Guest JanineFlew]

Hello,

Is anyone able to supply me with a 300 dpi image of the photo of George Dance published in the Penny War Weekly of 17 October 1914, as posted by Kentishwolf on 7 October 2011? I am hoping to publish it in the June issue of the Australian National Maritime Museum's quarterly magazine Signals, to accompany an article about one of Signalman Dance's medals which has been acquired by the museum.

Regards,

Janine