Submarines R4 and R9 (14th Submarine Flotilla) 1918/19 - uncertainties regarding operational periods...

[brimacombe]

Good afternoon to you all.

I hope someone might be able to bring a bit of clarity to my confusion!

On the attached Service Record, about halfway down, it appears that the individual was serving in

Submarine R4 from 10 May 1918 to 31 Dec 1918, was then part of a spare crew between January and June 1919 and then in Submarine R9 - July to November 1919. 

Vulcan (as the accounting base and Depot ship) would indicate to me that both R4 and R9 (and his period as Spare Crew) were part of the 14th Submarine flotilla (operating, initially from Ireland).  Now, R9 was commissioned in July 1919 (and was allocated to the 14th Submarine Flotilla) so that fits,

However R4 wasn't launched until June 1918 (and not commissioned until August 1919) - so what am I not seeing here?  The more I look at it the more exasperated I'm getting!  I'm pretty certain it does say R4 (and not R9, though even if it was R9 it still wouldn't make sense).

June 1918 saw the 14th Submarine with just four submarines, H8, H11, H12, and H14, the first R Class (R1) doesn't join the Flotilla until December 1918.  

The list number indicated that he was certainly 'on the books' of Vulcan during the period.

I'm stumped!  

I'd really appreciate any thoughts with the hope of being able to clear the muddy waters!

With thanks, as always.

 

[The Treasurer]

I can confirm the commissioning date for R.4 at Chatham was actually 23/7/1919. She was very delayed in completion, along with her sister R.3, having launched in June 1918. A junior ERA would not normally be assigned to a sub in WW1 prior to launch, let alone a boat that wasn't going to complete for ages, so R.4 makes no sense at all for May 1918.

 

I wonder if the number is a badly written seven or eight - after another look I think the latter very plausible. R.7 completed on 29 June 1918, R.8 26 July 1918. The date of his assignment makes more sense as assignment to an imminently completing boat, which is when you expect the junior ERAs to be assigned. The filming quality of these service records is always an issue, making it hard to see whether the extra line is just a slip of the pen (7), or a missing element is a gap in the ink (8). The only other war completed boats were 11 and 12 and neither of these are plausible.

 

He was obviously later assigned to R.9 as she neared completion in July 1919.

Edited 16 November , 2023 by The Treasurer
amended - maybe R.8?

[brimacombe]

2 hours ago, The Treasurer said:

I can confirm the commissioning date for R.4 at Chatham was actually 23/7/1919. She was very delayed in completion, along with her sister R.3, having launched in June 1918. A junior ERA would not normally be assigned to a sub in WW1 prior to launch, let alone a boat that wasn't going to complete for ages, so R.4 makes no sense at all for May 1918.

 

I wonder if the number is a badly written seven or eight - after another look I think the latter very plausible. R.7 completed on 29 June 1918, R.8 26 July 1918. The date of his assignment makes more sense as assignment to an imminently completing boat, which is when you expect the junior ERAs to be assigned. The filming quality of these service records is always an issue, making it hard to see whether the extra line is just a slip of the pen (7), or a missing element is a gap in the ink (8). The only other war completed boats were 11 and 12 and neither of these are plausible.

 

He was obviously later assigned to R.9 as she neared completion in July 1919.

Thanks for your thoughts The Treasurer, my rational thinking was saying it must be another number other than 4, so the R.7/R.8 theory certainly makes more sense.

Thanks again for taking the time to reply

[brimacombe]

Putting a spanner in the works...

both R7 and R8 were assigned to Platypus Flotilla (R7 in July and R8 in August) - the entry on the service record states the Depot Ship as Vulcan for the entire period - 10 May 1918 to 31 Dec 1918 - so, does this rule both vessels out of the running?

Could it perhaps be a transcription error in the letter as well as an issue with the number as already alluded to - Perhaps being H.8 (which was certainly with the 14th Flotilla during the period)?

[seaJane]

Looking at the reproduction, I make them both R9, with the 9 sitting very low on the line - but I'm not sure whether that helps, sorry!

[brimacombe]

Thanks seaJane - I had initially made it out to be R9, just like you, but it doesn't fit the date.  The more I look at it the more I'm seeing an 8 with the lower right side missing (wishful thinking perhaps!!)

[seaJane]

It's frustrating, isn't it!

[The Treasurer]

19 hours ago, brimacombe said:

Putting a spanner in the works...

both R7 and R8 were assigned to Platypus Flotilla (R7 in July and R8 in August) - the entry on the service record states the Depot Ship as Vulcan for the entire period - 10 May 1918 to 31 Dec 1918 - so, does this rule both vessels out of the running?

Could it perhaps be a transcription error in the letter as well as an issue with the number as already alluded to - Perhaps being H.8 (which was certainly with the 14th Flotilla during the period)?

I didn't check the Pink List. As you say, the June list has only H.8, H.11, H.12, with Vulcan at Kingstown. H.14 joined prior to the Armistice. So R.9 is still nonsense, but that means you have a transcription error by whoever completed the entry, as I agree that the letter is very clearly R. If the document being copied from was poorly written, it is most likely that H.8 could look like R.9, but really it's anybody's guess what the entry should actually be without another piece of data to cross-reference.

[brimacombe]

THANKS GUYS!  Looks like it's going to remain a bit of a mystery!