HM Submarine E22 - survivors?

[J T Gray]

I've been corresponding recently, after a long lapse, with a distant cousin who (amongst other things) has created an online memorial to the crew of E22. I recall quite clearly reading that there were two survivors, who kept themselves afloat by clinging to the remains of the seaplane platform she had been fitted with. However, he cannot find that reference and various sources on the ever-reliable internet describe her as being lost with all hands.

Does anyone have details of the two survivors, or know where on earth I read that?

Many thanks,

Adrian

[ionia]

ERA F.S. Buckingham and Signalman William Harrod survived and were picked up by UB18 (vide"Beneath the Waves" by A.S. Evans). Buckingham survived by clinging to splintered wood of the platform for carrting the two small hydroplanes.

[sadsac]

Adrian, following on from input by IONIA, find here details of Submarine Service of the two ratings mentioned as having survived the sinking of HMS/m E.22 ;

BUCKINGHAM FREDERICK SAMUEL ERA C/M 3549 NE RN 070790 020216

SC 160202 DOLPHIN

E22 160224 MAIDSTONE DOLPHIN PRESIDENT

SC 190120 DOLPHIN LUCIA

E33 190204 LUCIA

HOSP 191120 DOLPHIN

SC 191229 DOLPHIN

G6 200306 DOLPHIN

SC 201022 DOLPHIN

H44 201111 VULCAN

L11 220110 VULCAN

SC 230706 DOLPHIN CONQUEST

K2 230821 CONQUEST

SC 250811 DOLPHIN MAIDSTONE

H30 260426 MAIDSTONE

H24 260508 MAIDSTONE VULCAN

PEMBROKE GENERAL SERVICE 190127

C S EXPIRES 10933 SENIOR IN RATING 110911

Survivor of the sinking of HMS/m E22

ADM 188 / 1025 P.o.B ; Islington London D.o.B ; 7 July 1890

HARROD WILLIAM THOMAS GEORGE LSIG C/J 10833 NE RN 010894 040818

E22 LATE P.O.W. GERMANY

ADDL 190201 DOLPHIN

LENT VICTORY 190816 L. SIG. COURSE

ADDL 191213 DOLPHIN

U126 200301 DOLPHIN

ADDL 210406 DOLPHIN

K12 210620 INCONSTANT

SC SICK 230521 CONQUEST

HOSP 230523 HASLAR

ADDL 230710 DOLPHIN

M1 231029 CONQUEST

HOSP 240611 CHATHAM

DISCHARGED TO SHORE CST EXPIRED 3/8/24 FROM 'M1' CONQUEST.

C S EXPIRES 010824 SENIOR IN RATING 010812

Survivor of the sinking of HMS/m E22

ADM 188 / 668 P.o.B ; Woolwich London D.o.B ; 1 August 1894

Sadsac

[J T Gray]

Magnificent, thank you both very much!

Harrod must have thanked his lucky stars he got off M1 at the right time too... Rather him than me going back onto subs having survived being torpedoed!

Adrian

[Signals]

He was sick over this period whilst on Maidstone, probaily best not to list his illness although very common if you know what i mean. If you want it send me a PM.

Harrod William Thomas George Signalman 21 J10833 20th to 24th of February 1916

[J T Gray]

I think I'll pass, thank you, Darren - I think I can guess what sort of illness you mean. As my interest was in the discrepancies between the accounts of the sinking and the number of survivors, I don't think it's relevant!

Now, I wonder if I am going to b up James' memorial site if I tell him...

Adrian

[Signals]

Hi Adrian,

not a problem, i have medical records for many submariners, some injuies, some not. Didn't know how deep you wnated to go on this chap, and i would not like to post some issues the men were having anyway.

Some of the injuries are of interest though, but Harold is not one of them.

Cheers DB

[Guest Richard]

Hi! William Harrod was my Great Uncle!

[NWR]

Hi, I am researching the loss of the E22. She is listed as being lost off Great Yarmouth. The UKHO have the position as 52 36 403 N / 03 05 090 E. This position is 49 miles east of Great Yarmouth. By chance would anyone have any information as to either confirm or question the position offered by the UKHO. Any information would be very much appreciated.

Many thanks

Paul

[The Treasurer]

1 hour ago, NWR said:

The UKHO have the position as 52 36 403 N / 03 05 090 E.

The loss was observed by E.26, 3 miles to her south-east, reckoning her own position as 52° 40 ' N, 3° 3 ' E if that helps. Of course this will have the usual dead reckoning error.

@Michael Lowrey might have some position info from UB.18, which sank her.

I notice Marine Aggregates claim to have located the wreck during a survey in 2022, '70 kilometres off the coast of East Anglia' in 35m. Their scan shows a submarine wreck broken in two just aft of the CT, but it appears they have assumed it is E.22 based on the official position of wreck ID 28012 (E.22).

[Michael Lowrey]

I've gotten a location of 52 36 404 N / 03 05 089 E for E 22 from another source. Unless you're working directly with the divers etc. or they release video of a wreck it's hard to know the accuracy of such an attribution. And yes, people will assume an attribution based upon location. It's a valid strategy in many but not all cases, particularly if you're sure of the class of a submarine wreck.

[NWR]

Thank you Michael and Treasurer. Agreed regarding attribution of a given vessel based upon an approximate position of loss. Being a diver I have found this on quite a few occasions, ie once down on a wreck you are faced with a site that does not match up with what is listed at the given position. For the most part this is recognised through engine type and boiler configuration and design. The fun part then begins it trying to then identify the given site. Looking on a chart the position given by E26 ties in with the UKHO position. So would it then be safe to assume that it is likely that the site listed is either the E22, or if not, it is in that general area, ie approximately 40 miles due east of Great Yarmouth?

 

Edited 19 February by NWR

[Michael Lowrey]

Well, this is an area with very few submarine losses — it's north of the large number of German submarines sunk on British mines off the Belgian coast but also south and west of where most of the British submarine losses were in World War I along the northern Dutch coast. So, yes, I would suspect that the listed wreck site of 52 36 404 N / 03 05 089 E (or 52 36 403 N / 03 05 090 E) really is E 22.

[NWR]

Michael, yes agreed, highly likely to be the E22. Here is a classic case of misidentification of a given site based on approximate position of loss. The RN submarine D5 which was lost off the Norfolk coast in 1914. Up until 2014 the site had been listed as that of the SS Perth. In 2014 divers from Dive 125 dived the site only to find that it was in fact that of a submarine, they in turn identified the site as that of the D5. 

Edited 19 February by NWR

[The Treasurer]

28 minutes ago, NWR said:

In 2014 divers from Dive 125 dived the site only to find that it was in fact that of a submarine, they in turn identified the site as that of the D5. 

I found that the original official position was incorrectly recorded as a result of bad assumptions, misread signals and reports when I researched the loss of D.5. The contemporary reports in the archives from the skippers of Homeland and Faithful , who rescued the survivors, as well as information from Herbert himself, were very clear that the loss occurred more or less where it was found, on the line of mines laid by Stralsund, as were a number of the signals. Official loss positions do need to be treated with caution.

[NWR]

43 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

I found that the original official position was incorrectly recorded as a result of bad assumptions, misread signals and reports when I researched the loss of D.5. The contemporary reports in the archives from the skippers of Homeland and Faithful , who rescued the survivors, as well as information from Herbert himself, were very clear that the loss occurred more or less where it was found, on the line of mines laid by Stralsund, as were a number of the signals. Official loss positions do need to be treated with caution.

Agreed on official loss positions needing to be treated with caution and in turn with an open mind. I have found this to be the case on numerous occasions when diving and researching various sites, ie not as listed. Interesting to see from your post as to how the incorrect position came about, thank you for that. Perhaps you may be able to add some information on the loss of the C33 in my additional post / thread?

Edited 19 February by NWR