J T Gray Posted 9 December , 2004 Share Posted 9 December , 2004 Dick, This gent was my great grandmother's brother. Name: BEWERS, WILLIAM JOHN CORNELIUS Initials: W J C Nationality: United Kingdom Rank: Chief Stoker Regiment: Royal Navy Unit Text: H.M. S/M. "E22." Age: 39 Date of Death: 25/04/1916 Service No: 280241 Additional information: Son of Mr. and Mrs. William Bewers, of Hockley; husband of Violet Eva Bewers, of 12, Pottery Cottages, Leighcliff Rd., Leigh-on-Sea, Essex. Served in the South African War. Awarded China Medal 1900. Long Service and Good Conduct Medal. Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead Grave/Memorial Reference: 17. Cemetery: CHATHAM NAVAL MEMORIAL The child on his arm was born in 1910, so the photo is 1910-11 in date. I'll follow this message with the interesting bits of his records and see what anyone can tell me. I have lots from various sources on E22 and its loss - books, magazine articles, websites etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 9 December , 2004 Author Share Posted 9 December , 2004 Ooops.... a bit larger than I thought... I've resized the next ones a bit. Sorry, Mr Moderator, must try harder! That's a real career sailor's collection of tattoos! Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 9 December , 2004 Author Share Posted 9 December , 2004 And finally the bit of his record that will interest you! I think HMS Thames was a Submarine Service ship by 1906, wasn't she? It's only his last two postings that make any mention of a Submarine number, so I guess he was probably on the depot ship rather than below the surface. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 9 December , 2004 Share Posted 9 December , 2004 Excellent stuff, Adrian, many thanks for posting this. Thames was the first submarine depot ship, upon which the original submarine pioneers were based when recruitment first began, and during these very first years it was moored in Fareham creek (basically north-west extremity of Portsmouth Harbour). In 1914 the Thames was the depot ship for the 5th Submarine Flotilla based at Sheerness, under the command of Commander Alexander R Palmer. In August 1914 HMS/m C2 was commanded by Lt Cdr. Herbert W Shove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 9 December , 2004 Share Posted 9 December , 2004 He joined Maidstone, from which E22 was operated, after the above service. As the War progressed, the smaller and less capable submarines of the first classes, A, B and C were either retired, used for training or else limited to coastal defence duties as more of the larger E (and subsequent) classes came into service for offensive patrols and mining etc. Although most submariners' papers indicate the submarine as well as the depot ship name, this is not always the case: vide last entry on Maidstone. Also, for various reasons during this early period service in submarines was not a permanent draft, which could account for the jump to-and-fro between surface ships, shore establishments and depot ships. For example, according to a report of 1910, during ten years' service a man might serve in subs for five years, then aboard a surface ship for two, before returning to submarines for the final three. It was oft commented that submariners needed to become reacquainted with the harsher discipline (imposed rather than self-imposed) encountered on surface vessels. You will probably know that DD stands for "Discharged Dead". Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 9 December , 2004 Author Share Posted 9 December , 2004 Hi Dick, I'd guessed that DD had to do with being dead, as for the exact meaning... now I know! You know more than I do - do you also read it that he spent five years on/in/around HMS Thames, then various surface vessels 1911-1914 before returning to the Submarine service on the outbreak of war? Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 9 December , 2004 Share Posted 9 December , 2004 Yes, but Bonaventure was a submarine depot ship from 1907 and Mercury was a submarine tender 1905-14, so this would point to some connection with the Submarine Service for much of this time 1911-14, except when serving on SIRIUS (1892), which was a protected cruiser of the Apollo Class which served until it was used as a blockship at Zeebrugge: interestingly when he was made up to Chief Stoker. Additionally, HMS Pembroke was a shore establishment; Lyne - don't know, but presumably quite old since I've come across her regarding being used as a troop transport in the 1890s. Since he was an experienced sailor and a senior rating by this time, he could have been an instructor rating aboard these vessels; a member of the depot ship crew proper; a part of a spare submarine crew; or on submarines throughout or for just a part of this time but it is not mentioned on his ADM188 (like the last Maidstone entry, where you know he was at sea aboard a submarine but this is not made clear on his notes). Have you been in touch with the RNSM about whether they have his Submarine Service Card? It may have survived and be held by them, but chances are it was ditched a long time back (especially since he was a stoker). They also have some Continuous Service Certificates for DD sailors, so these are worth asking about. Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 10 December , 2004 Author Share Posted 10 December , 2004 Thanks very much for those, Richard. I have certainly been in touch with Gosport about photos as they supplied me with 3 - the one of C2 is a cracker. As for Sub. Service Cards etc, I will have to see the letter I got back to see if I asked. They should have a copy of his service record (ie as above) as I got it from the chap I met at Kew researching dead submariners, freelancing for Gosport. What, I wonder, are the odds on two people at Kew, on the same day, looking for the same man's records? Even given the number of men killed in WW1 it can't be that high, can it? Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 10 December , 2004 Share Posted 10 December , 2004 Hi Adrian When I last visited the archives I noted they have catalogued their WW1 Cards, so should be easy enough to trace. You might be interested to know that submariners stood a one-in-three chance of being killed in WW1 (c.1200 fatalities) and a total of 60 submarines were lost to accidents (mostly friendly fire or collisions) or enemy action. A similar death rate was experienced in WW2: at least there was an element of consistency. Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 10 December , 2004 Author Share Posted 10 December , 2004 Jeez.... I knew it was high, but 1 in 3... Makes the blood run cold... Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 10 December , 2004 Share Posted 10 December , 2004 Adrian, I should also point out that submarine warfare by its nature often does not leave particularly satisfing answers as to what happened to individual boats and their crews. Too often all we know is that a boat sailed and did not returned, with but theories as to what happened. There are also cases where a submarine clearly was destroyed, but we are not sure which submarine it was. (Luckily, H.M.S/M. E22. does not fall into one of these categories.) On the flip side of the coin, divers today are still do discover WWI submarine wrecks from both sides, at times not where they are suppose to be. Best wishes, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 11 December , 2004 Share Posted 11 December , 2004 As Michael says, the vast majority of submarine losses occurred in just such circumstances - they simply failed to return from patrol (don't have my book or research notes to hand for precise figures). Of the unknown losses: most can be attributed to mines, a very few to mechanical failure, and the remainder sunk by an enemy - most likely a U-boat - which was itself sunk before its kill was able to be reported. Adrian, forgot to ask - do you know who the baby is in the photograph? Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 13 December , 2004 Author Share Posted 13 December , 2004 I'll second Michael's comments - lucky for me that E22's loss was well-documented, but obviously not very lucky for WJCB. I do seem to recall seeing a program a few years ago about a WW2 U-Boat wreck discovered about 20 miles off Massachusetts that turned out to be down in the official record as lost in the Bay of Biscay - I suspect that if submarines did not make a contact with base that probably quite a few still lie away from where they are supposed to. Wasn't there the hulk of a WW1 U-boat somewhere up a creek in Norfol;k into the 1970s? Anyone know if it is still there? Dick, the baby is his niece, Queenie Carter. Mum's cousin is visiting her over Christmas! Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 13 December , 2004 Share Posted 13 December , 2004 Hi Adrian The photo archive at the RNSM has a dedicated box of snaps for every submarine that saw service in the RN, ranging from official photographs to informal images of the crew taken whilst at sea. Might be worth looking through them if you want additional pictures of him. Forgot to add that he is wearing his QSA, China and RN LSGC medals. Now, if under Remarks it says "LS(?)....medal 1/11/10" as it seems to: I assume this was date of issue of the award of this medal - and would tie in with fifteen years' adult service (joined at age 18) plus a few extra months whilst his paperwork was submitted and the award approved, named and despatched. Thus, one could date the picture to November 1910 onwards. Interestingly, I knew a very old guy who joined the Navy in 1912 and served through both WWs. Unlike today, when most LSGCs are awarded at divisions/a parade by the Captain of the vessel or the Commodore of the shore establishment (or else some other dignitary), he was told by his mate that the medal had arrived and was waiting in the blacksmiths' store (for he was one) aboard the ship for whenever he wanted to pick it up! Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 13 December , 2004 Author Share Posted 13 December , 2004 Well spotted! I'd always wondered what the squiggle under remarks read. That's great! And fits perfectly with Queenie's age. Can I take it that you've named the medals in the order he'd be wearing them l-r? I will freely admit I have no idea in which order you wear the things! Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 13 December , 2004 Share Posted 13 December , 2004 Hi Adrian Yes, (our L to R on the photo). British campaign awards are worn in chronological order from right-to-left. Since the Boer War and China 'Boxer Rebellion' campaign overlapped (1899-1902 and 1900 respectively), and one could serve in China before SA and get both medals, a decision was made that the Queen's South Africa Medal would take precedence: I assume for uniformity and because the Boer War started before the other campaign. He does not seem to have engagement/battle/territory bars on either of these two campaign medals, signifying that he did not land ashore during either campaign, but was in the territorial waters lending support during the time period. Long Service and Good Conduct awards are worn after any other British medals (but before any foreign awards). I would assume he did not take his medals to sea with him, but rather they were left aboard the depot ship with the remainder of his kit - do you know if they are still in your family? Otherwise, I could imagine such a group making a few grand, given the medals and the fact that he was a KIA submariner: quite unusual group. Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J T Gray Posted 13 December , 2004 Author Share Posted 13 December , 2004 Yes, that would confirm my suspicions - he was on board HMS Terrible during the period of the Boer War and the Boxer Rebellion. I'd never been sure if he'd been sent ashore or not, but with a crew of 900-odd I guessed the odds were against it. He was on board HMS Terrible for the 1901 census - in Wei-Hei-Wei (spelling?) Harbour in China. He had a wife, and twelve sisters and two brothers (!) so I suspect that even family lost track of the medals long ago. However I'm agreed with you that it'd be quite a group - and with a Dead Man's Penny (did the Navy get them?) and scroll who knows/ Perhaps I should start hunting for them... There was a Bewers from his home village killed in 1945 - I wonder what the local paper there is? Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 13 December , 2004 Share Posted 13 December , 2004 Adrian Navy casualties also got the plaque and scroll. Since he was at sea aboard C2 from 1914, he'd almost certainly qualify for a 1914-15 Trio. You might find it useful to look at the naval medal rolls (like MiCs for Army, but listed according to surname in big ledgers) to see to whom his WW1 medals etc. were issued. His existing medals and personal belongings - as opposed to kit items which might have been auctioned to raise funds for his family - should have been returned to his n.o.k. (presumably his wife). Most submariners took on patrol little more than the clothes they could wear, and never changed them whilst on patrol, so a lot of items would have remained. I think if the group are on the open market today you'd need pretty deep pockets to buy them: I was quoted £600 a year ago for just a trio and plaque to a guy killed aboard a submarine (maybe E22, can't remember sub. but recall it was sunk in 1916). With the other medals and photos you'd be talking big bucks. (Although you could get a replica set made up for under £100 if you wanted them solely for display.) And HMS Terrible's Naval Brigade - taking guns off the cruiser and using them to compensate for a lack of artillery against the Boers - provided the stimulus for the recently resurrected (unofficially) Naval Gun Run. Here is a link for a potted history: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/request/setTempl...005002006001003 Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now