Why be a Stoker in the Royal Navy 1900-1910?

[The Guardroom]

Can anyone help explain how someone at the age of 20 years pre WW1 decided to become a Stoker in the RN. Was it a case that they identified the men suitable (low education or high strength) ?

How or what was the process or reason for chosing this positionon board ?

If not the decision of the navy and individuals could apply to be a stoker, then what was the attraction / higher pay or better pension ?

I would have thought that to be working hard down in the bolier rooms of a ship where the risk on death if sinking would have been a turn off, rather than a signaller who could get further training as equipment improved and had a chance a greater survival than someone below decks, especially where boliers could explode.

Thanks,

Alan

[tootrock]

Alan,

At the end of the 19th century Coast Guard men were almost universally drawn from the Royal Navy, and indeed were liable to be sent back to sea if they committed certain offences

The following paragraph from the "Qualifications and Promotions" section of "The Coastguard Regulations 1898" suggests (to me at any rate) that Navy Stokers were considered to be of lower status (or education) than others.

305: Men who formerly held the rating of Stoker are eligible for promotion equally with others, providing they qualify and are in all respects deserving of advancement.

However two paragraphs later we have:

307: (2) The period of previous service in the Navy necessary for appointment is:

For Seamen class...........9 years

For Stoker class.............6 years

Perhaps the life of a Stoker was so dreadful that after 6 years it was thought they deserved a change!

I cannot comment on the relative rates of pay between Seamen and Stokers.

Regards,

Martin

[truthergw]

Stoker was a rank, it did not necessarily imply stoking a boiler. I doubt if a signaller on the bridge or open deck while under fire, would have thought he had a safer job than one of the black gang, tucked away below decks behind all that lovely steel plating.

[joseph]

Pay 1914, on attaining rank.

Able Seaman; 1/8 per day

Officers Steward; 1/9 per day

Signalman; 1/11 per day

Telegraphist; 1/11 per day

Third Writer; 2/- Per day

Stoker 1st Class; 2/1 per day

A stoker was by far the most qualified of none artisan ratings, so maybe a shrewd move.

Regards Charles

[T8HANTS]

My Grandfather ended the war as a CPO stoker. He transferred into the Navy via the Royal Marines. He had to do this because he was unable to join the Royal Navy direct in 1912 as apparently they were not recruiting.

As a skilled musician he was almost automatically taken on by the RM's and could transfer with out a problem.

His motive for transferring into the Navy was he wanted to learn about steam. Prior to the war he had been an unskilled brick maker. After a succession of steam related jobs either static engines or his greatest love a Sentinel Steam Wagon.

I don't know for certain, but I am told that from brick-maker to CPO Stoker shows he was no slouch.

Gareth

[Guest geoff501]

Those that did have to stoke, were required in large numbers. So plenty of jobs available. I believe the Lusitania (ok a racehorse ship) used 1,000 tons of coal per day. From rows of bunkers, several boilers had to be fed with fuel, keeping the loading balanced as the bunkers depleted.

Various ranks of Stoker accounted for about 35% of the casualties on 31/05/1916.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Stoker was a rank, it did not necessarily imply stoking a boiler. Stokers were the primary mechanical grade aboard so it did not merely imply brute strength and ignorance. It is interesting to see the stereotypes associated with them; the shovelling coal aspect was shared with locomotive firemen and they were not characterized in the same way. The navy was continually in the news pre war, with all the ships being launched and Spithead reviews; it was the senior service and had a lot of kudos. There was also the prospect of foreign travel. Pre war I doubt that anyone considered where they’d be when the shells flew.

What was his pre war occupation? Maybe it was just as simple as the prospect of regular work.

[The Guardroom]

Thanks all. Helps understand the role he would have played on board. His previous job as a young man was a bargeman on the Kent medway. At least he was close to the stoker training base on HMS Northumberland at Sheerness. Guess this could have been a magnet to join as well, thinking of it....

[Lorac]

My Gt. uncle was a stoker at the Battle of Jutland and lost his life on HMS Invincible.

I found this link to be very useful to get an idea of pay, promotions etc.

Hope its of help.

Link >> http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/LondonGazette/Index.html

[healdav]

I remember discussing the point about which part of the ship was safest in action, and the absolute answer was given by a couple of officers who had served during the war.

ON DECK. There might be bullets and shells flying around your ears, but if the ship sank you would get off. The blokes below just drowned unless very, very lucky. Officers, being the last out had little if any chance.

[Justin Moretti]

I remember discussing the point about which part of the ship was safest in action, and the absolute answer was given by a couple of officers who had served during the war.

ON DECK. There might be bullets and shells flying around your ears, but if the ship sank you would get off. The blokes below just drowned unless very, very lucky. Officers, being the last out had little if any chance.

The version I heard was: "The safest place is behind the thickest armour (including coal bunker-based protection etc.). The next safest place is in the most exposed position available." I think the rationale was that behind armour, you stand the best chance of the shell or its fragments never reaching you (assuming you are up against balanced opposition, e.g. one dreadnought-class ship vs. another, and not armoured cruiser vs. German battle line); whilst in the most exposed position on deck, the chance that a shell will directly hit your actual body is minimal, and if it does not, the chances are it will only hit funnels or boats or some other lightly built fixture and go overboard before exploding.

However, once you balance the protection of the belt etc. against the time it takes to evacuate, those two officers probably have a very valid argument. One wonders how valid it was for the British at Jutland, most of whose capital ship casualties exploded with total or near-total loss of their crews (bar a literal handful), although Dannreuther of the "Invincible" supports their point, being up in the control top and able to get out of it as it sank to sea level.

[truthergw]

There could be no ' safe ' place on a warship on the high seas or indeed, in water deep enough for her to sink in. We have only to look at Scapa Flow or Pearl Harbor to see that. Neither were crews of merchantmen any safer, exposed to attack as they were. When most of the crew would drown if a ship sank, any measure of relative safety would be in the mind. I can well imagine an officer or crewman rationalising his position to help himself stay calm when in action. Any member of a crew who put to sea in almost any ship at that time, was a brave man.

[Clio]

Board of Trade statistics indicate that a large percentage of those who served as stokers in the merchant navy by 1917/1918 were listed as 'lascars'. There was an increasing reliance upon non British personnel and not just because of the cheap foreign labour factor. According to research I have gathered for a forthcoming book, by early 1918 there was a wide perception among both the authorities and the seafaring classes that the engine room of a collier, a tramp or an oiler was not the place to be.

[Clio]

I rather think that after Feb 1917 if you worked on a merchant you were more likely to fear the overwhelming ingress caused by a torpedo detonation in the engine room rather more than fragments of red hot casing from an exploding shell.

[derekpara]

The version I heard was: "The safest place is behind the thickest armour (including coal bunker-based protection etc.). The next safest place is in the most exposed position available." I think the rationale was that behind armour, you stand the best chance of the shell or its fragments never reaching you (assuming you are up against balanced opposition, e.g. one dreadnought-class ship vs. another, and not armoured cruiser vs. German battle line); whilst in the most exposed position on deck, the chance that a shell will directly hit your actual body is minimal, and if it does not, the chances are it will only hit funnels or boats or some other lightly built fixture and go overboard before exploding.

However, once you balance the protection of the belt etc. against the time it takes to evacuate, those two officers probably have a very valid argument. One wonders how valid it was for the British at Jutland, most of whose capital ship casualties exploded with total or near-total loss of their crews (bar a literal handful), although Dannreuther of the "Invincible" supports their point, being up in the control top and able to get out of it as it sank to sea level.

When a ship goes to action stations all watertight doors on and below the waterline are closed as part of Damage Control measures. Not much chance of getting out from the engine/boiler rooms.

Incidentally, one of my Action Station positions in the RN of 1951 was at the stern gland of an aircraft carrier ! That's where the propellor shaft exits the hull. Even in peace time it concentrates the mind !

[derekpara]

When a ship goes to action stations all watertight doors on and below the waterline are closed as part of Damage Control measures. Not much chance of getting out from the engine/boiler rooms.

Incidentally, one of my Action Station positions in the RN of 1951 was at the stern gland of an aircraft carrier ! That's where the propellor shaft exits the hull. Even in peace time it concentrates the mind !

I think that's why I decided to join the airborne after NS !

[T8HANTS]

My CPO Stoker Grandfather's thoughts on the battle of Jutland was "Our gunnery was poor, but we had the best polished watertight doors in the fleet". I later learned that his ship HMS Cochrane did not fire a shot during the battle.

Gareth

[DaveBrigg]

A relative volunteered to be a stoker on a warship in WWII because of his pacifist outlook. The rationale being that when stoking, you weren't directly contributing to the death of other men.

[Toms girl]

Can anyone help explain how someone at the age of 20 years pre WW1 decided to become a Stoker in the RN. Was it a case that they identified the men suitable (low education or high strength) ?

How or what was the process or reason for chosing this positionon board ?

If not the decision of the navy and individuals could apply to be a stoker, then what was the attraction / higher pay or better pension ?

I would have thought that to be working hard down in the bolier rooms of a ship where the risk on death if sinking would have been a turn off, rather than a signaller who could get further training as equipment improved and had a chance a greater survival than someone below decks, especially where boliers could explode.

Thanks,

Alan

Hi Alan

In the early 1900s boys often came from training ships

while there and often when only sixteen or seventeen they

were divided in to seaboys and signalboys, this meaning often

they became stokers through no chose of their own.

Regards Margarette

[Hatchetjack]

So very interesting my Grandfather joined the Navy via Royal Marines about 1910 and served as a stoker through to1919 He was not a large stoker image man and became leading stoker,

I  knew him well as a young boy and wish now I had been aware enough to ask the right questions but he passed when I was 9,

I was aware he served in WW! but until recently was unaware that he was a"regular"...He was my maternal grandfather..my paternal grandfather served in the Boer War and WW1 in the Royal Horse Artillery.

[Lawryleslie]

6 hours ago, Hatchetjack said:

So very interesting my Grandfather joined the Navy via Royal Marines about 1910 and served as a stoker through to1919 He was not a large stoker image man and became leading stoker,

I  knew him well as a young boy and wish now I had been aware enough to ask the right questions but he passed when I was 9,

I was aware he served in WW! but until recently was unaware that he was a"regular"...He was my maternal grandfather..my paternal grandfather served in the Boer War and WW1 in the Royal Horse Artillery.

The lingering regrets many of us have for not quizzing our Grandfathers and Fathers who fought in both WWs. My Grandfather fought in the ill fated Collingwood Battalion RND in 3rd Battle of Krithia during Gallipoli campaign. He was wounded and casevaced back to England via Maltese hospital. I only found this out years after his death when I was given his original RNVR Service Certificate by my Aunty which spurred me into many years of research. I now have about 90% of his Wartime story. Just wish I could have talked to him about it before he died. The horrors of that campaign must have weighed heavily on his mind to prevent him opening up to me, his grandson. Although the little he spoke of his naval career did inspire my own 34 year naval career as an artificer.

[Hatchetjack]

7 hours ago, Lawryleslie said:

The lingering regrets many of us have for not quizzing our Grandfathers and Fathers who fought in both WWs. My Grandfather fought in the ill fated Collingwood Battalion RND in 3rd Battle of Krithia during Gallipoli campaign. He was wounded and casevaced back to England via Maltese hospital. I only found this out years after his death when I was given his original RNVR Service Certificate by my Aunty which spurred me into many years of research. I now have about 90% of his Wartime story. Just wish I could have talked to him about it before he died. The horrors of that campaign must have weighed heavily on his mind to prevent him opening up to me, his grandson. Although the little he spoke of his naval career did inspire my own 34 year naval career as an artificer.

I realise I made a slight error and I was in fact just short of eleven when my GF passed...in such little slips so much is lost..not in my case but family stories passed down.

We first realised my Gf had a larger service record whilst my wife was doing..and still is..family research...the 1912 census showed my GMother as sole occupant..further research revealed my GF was in Gibralter bound for the South China Sea....I found it poignant as have been in Gib many times literally in my GF's footsteps.( I was actually there the morning of the SAS/IRA confrontation..another story)

Does anyone else have any more details of a stokers responsibilities?..as mentioned my GF was not a large man. My Godfather was his oppo in The Navy and he too was not a large man both wiry rather than bulky.

So proud of my GF's generation and my Father's in WW2...five brothers on active service..two Navy and three army one of whom did not return and is at rest in a Canadian cemetery in Italy. My mother's brother served in NAfrica as did my Father;s brothers before going on to Italy.

Lest We Forget Indeed.....my Mother always quietly wept at "Abide With Me" before the Cup Final..the brother who didn't return was a twin.

[Hatchetjack]

Again a slip...census was 1911....so easy to lose a link through error....

[healdav]

On 04/11/2007 at 13:34, Justin Moretti said:

The version I heard was: "The safest place is behind the thickest armour (including coal bunker-based protection etc.). The next safest place is in the most exposed position available." I think the rationale was that behind armour, you stand the best chance of the shell or its fragments never reaching you (assuming you are up against balanced opposition, e.g. one dreadnought-class ship vs. another, and not armoured cruiser vs. German battle line); whilst in the most exposed position on deck, the chance that a shell will directly hit your actual body is minimal, and if it does not, the chances are it will only hit funnels or boats or some other lightly built fixture and go overboard before exploding.

However, once you balance the protection of the belt etc. against the time it takes to evacuate, those two officers probably have a very valid argument. One wonders how valid it was for the British at Jutland, most of whose capital ship casualties exploded with total or near-total loss of their crews (bar a literal handful), although Dannreuther of the "Invincible" supports their point, being up in the control top and able to get out of it as it sank to sea level.

Not the slightest doubt about it. Those on deck had, and still have, the best chance of survival. Those working in, say, the magazines, have little chance of getting out, and the bigger the ship, the smaller the chance (more ladders and more men on them).

I remember discussing this when on board ship at some time, and the answer from everyone was unanimous.

[Bart150]

A stoker who served pre-1914 had a good chance of getting a reasonable job on retirement, since there was a lot of steam-driven techmology about.

My paternal grandfather retired from the RN as a chief stoker in 1902, and then as a civilian went straight to work with the steam engines that generated electricity for the dockyard at Haulbowline Island in Ireland, while the country all around was still without electricity. Family lore claims that he had a big role in electrifying the dockyard, but that may be just wishful thinking. Be that as it may, a house in the dockyard went with the job.