Chapter XI Submarines
I begin this chapter with a letter written to me on April 18th, 1918, by Colonel Sir Maurice Hankey, Secretary to the War Cabinet:—
My Dear Lord Fisher,
Last night I dined with Lord Esher. He showed me letters of yours dated 1904 describing in detail the German Submarine Campaign of 1917. It is the most amazing thing I have ever read; not one letter only, but several.
Also some astonishing remarks of yours about the Generals who ought to man the War Office in case of war. All men who have come to the top were your nominees. Finally, General Plumer (whom few people knew about) you picked out for Quartermaster-General, with this remark: “Every vote against Plumer is a vote for paper boots and insufficient shells!”8
Priceless, the whole thing! Neck-busy though I am, I have come to the Office early to pay this tribute of my undying admiration, and to beg you to get hold of these astounding documents for your Memoirs. But anyhow, they will appear in Lord Esher’s Memoirs, I suppose.
Yours ever,
(Signed) M. P. A. Hankey.
Now follows a letter which I wrote to a High Official in 1904, and which I had forgotten, until I came across it recently. It’s somewhat violent, but so true that I insert it. I went as First Sea Lord of the Admiralty shortly after—very unexpectedly—and so was able to give effect (though surreptitiously) to my convictions. Not only Admirals afloat, but even Politicians ashore, dubbed submarines as “playthings,” so the money had to be got by subterfuge (as I have explained in Chapter V. of my “Memories”).
Admiralty House,
Portmouth.
April 20th, 1904.
My Dear Friend,
I will begin with the last thing in your letter, which is far the most important, and that is our paucity of submarines. I consider it the most serious thing at present affecting the British Empire!—That sounds big, but it’s true. Had either the Russians or the Japanese had submarines the whole face of their war would have been changed for both sides. It really makes me laugh to read of “Admiral Togo’s eighth attack on Port Arthur!” Why! had he possessed submarines it would have been one attack and one attack only! It would have been all over with the whole Russian Fleet, caught like rats in a trap! Similarly, the Japanese Admiral Togo outside would never have dared to let his transports full of troops pursue the even tenor of their way to Chemulpo and elsewhere!
It’s astounding to me, perfectly astounding, how the very best amongst us absolutely fail to realise the vast impending revolution in naval warfare and naval strategy that the submarine will accomplish! (I have written a paper on this, but it’s so violent I am keeping it!) Here, just to take a simple instance, is the battleship “Empress of India,” engaged in manœuvres and knowing of the proximity of Submarines, the Flagship of the Second Admiral of the Home Fleet nine miles beyond the Nab Light (out in the open sea), so self-confident of safety and so oblivious of the possibilities of modern warfare that the Admiral is smoking his cigarette, the Captain is calmly seeing defaulters down on the half-deck, no one caring an iota for what is going on, and suddenly they see a Whitehead torpedo miss their stern by a few feet! And how fired? From a submarine of the “pre-Adamite” period, small, slow, badly fitted, with no periscope at all—it had been carried away by a destroyer lying over her, fishing for her!—and yet this submarine followed that battleship for a solid two hours under water, coming up gingerly about a mile off, every now and then (like a beaver!), just to take a fresh compass bearing of her prey, and then down again!
Remember, that this is done (and I want specially to emphasise the point), with the Lieutenant in command of the boat out in her for the first time in his life on his own account, and half the crew never out before either! why, it’s wonderful! And so what results may we expect with bigger and faster boats and periscopes more powerful than the naked eye (such as the latest pattern one I saw the other day), and with experienced officers and crews, and with nests of these submarines acting together?
I have not disguised my opinion in season and out of season as to the essential, imperative, immediate, vital, pressing, urgent (I can’t think of any more adjectives!) necessity for more submarines at once, at the very least 25 in addition to those now ordered and building, and a hundred more as soon as practicable, or we shall be caught with our breeches down just as the Russians have been!
And then, my dear Friend, you have the astounding audacity to say to me, “I presume you only think they (the submarines) can act on the defensive!”... Why, my dear fellow! not take the offensive? Good Lord! if our Admiral is worth his salt, he will tow his submarines at 18 knots speed and put them into the hostile Port (like ferrets after the rabbits!) before war is officially declared, just as the Japanese acted before the Russian Naval Officers knew that war was declared!
In all seriousness I don’t think it is even faintly realised—
The immense impending revolution which the submarines will effect as offensive weapons of war.
When you calmly sit down and work out what will happen in the narrow waters of the Channel and the Mediterranean—how totally the submarines will alter the effect of Gibraltar, Port Said, Lemnos, and Malta, it makes one’s hair stand on end!
I hope you don’t think this letter too personal!
Ever yours,
J. A. Fisher.
Note made on January 5th, 1904:
Satan disguised as an Angel of Light wouldn’t succeed in persuading the Admiralty or the Navy that in the course of some few years Submarines will prevent any Fleet remaining at sea continuously either in the Mediterranean or the English Channel.
Now follows a paper on “The Effect of Submarine Boats,” which I wrote while I was Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, October, 1903.
These remarks can only be fully appreciated by those who witnessed the Flotilla of Submarine Boats now at Portsmouth practising out in the open sea.
It is an historical fact that the British Navy stubbornly resists change.
A First Sea Lord told me on one occasion that there were no torpedoes when he came to sea, and he didn’t see why the devil there should be any of the beastly things now!
This was à propos of my attracting the attention of his serene and contented mind to the fact that we hadn’t got any torpedoes at that time in the British Navy, and that a certain Mr. Whitehead (with whom I was acquainted) had devised an automobile torpedo, costing only £500, that would make a hole as big as his Lordship’s carriage (then standing at the door) in the bottom of the strongest and biggest ship in the world, and she would go to the bottom in about five minutes.
Thirty-five years after this last interview, on September 4th, 1903, at 11 a.m., the ironclad “Belleisle,” having had several extra bottoms put on her and strengthened in every conceivable manner that science could suggest or money accomplish, was sent to the bottom of Portsmouth Harbour by this very Whitehead automobile torpedo in seven minutes.
This Whitehead torpedo can be carried with facility in Submarine Boats, and it has now attained such a range and such accuracy (due to the marvellous adaptation of the gyroscope), that even at two miles’ range it possesses a greater ratio of power of vitally injuring a ship in the line of battle than does the most accurate gun. This is capable of easy demonstration (if anyone doubts it).
There is this immense fundamental difference between the automobile torpedo and the gun—the torpedo has no trajectory: it travels horizontally and hits below water, so all its hits are vital hits; but not so the gun—only in a few places are gun hits vital, and those places are armoured. It is not feasible to armour the bottoms of ships even if it were effectual—which it is not.
But the pith and marrow of the whole matter lies in the fact that the Submarine Boat which carries this automobile torpedo is up to the present date absolutely unattackable. When you see Battleships or Cruisers, or Destroyers, or Torpedo Boats on the horizon, you can send others after them to attack them or drive them away! You see them—you can fire at them—you can avoid them—you can chase them—but with the Submarine Boat you can do nothing! You can’t fight them with other Submarine Boats—they can’t see each other!
Now for the practical bearing of all this, and the special manner it affects the Submarine Boat and the Army and the Navy—for they are all inextricably mixed up together in this matter:—
As regards the Navy, it must revolutionise Naval Tactics for this simple reason—that the present battle formation of ships in a single line presents a target of such a length that the chances are altogether in favour of the Whitehead torpedo hitting some ship in the line even when projected from a distance of several miles. This applies specially to its use by the Submarine Boat; but in addition, these boats can, in operating defensively, come with absolute invisibility within a few hundred yards to discharge the projectile, not at random amongst the crowd of vessels but with certainty at the Admiral’s ship for instance, or at any other specific vessel desired to be sent to the bottom.
It affects the Army, because, imagine even one Submarine Boat with a flock of transports in sight loaded each with some two or three thousand troops! Imagine the effect of one such transport going to the bottom in a few seconds with its living freight!
Even the bare thought makes invasion impossible! Fancy 100,000 helpless, huddled up troops afloat in frightened transports with these invisible demons known to be near.
Death near—momentarily—sudden—awful—invisible—unavoidable! Nothing conceivable more demoralising!
It affects the existence of the Empire, because just as we were in peril by the non-adoption of the breech-loading gun until after every Foreign nation had it, and just as we were in peril when Napoleon the Third built “La Gloire” and other French ironclads, while we were still stubbornly building wooden three-deckers, and just as we were in peril when, before the Boer War, we were waiting to perfect our ammunition and in consequence had practically no ammunition at all, so are we in peril now by only having 20 per cent. of our very minimum requirements in Submarine Boats, because we are waiting for perfection! We forget that “half a loaf is better than no bread”—we strain at the gnat of perfection and swallow the camel of unreadiness! We shall be found unready once too often!
In 1918 I wrote the following letter to a friend on “Submarines and Oil Fuel.”
You ask for information in regard to a prophecy I made before the War in relation to Submarines, because, you say, that my statement made in 1912 that Submarines would utterly change Naval Warfare is now making a stir. However, I made that same statement in 1904, fourteen years ago.
I will endeavour to give you a brief, but succinct, synopsis of the whole matter. I have to go some way back, but as you quite correctly surmise the culmination of my beliefs since 1902 was the paper on Submarine Warfare which I prepared six months before the War.9...
In May, 1912 (I am working backwards), Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister, and Mr. Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, came to Naples, where I then was, and I was invited to be Chairman of a Royal Commission on Oil Fuel for the Navy, and on Oil Engines. What most moved me to acceptance was to push the Submarine, because oil and the oil engine had a special bearing on its development.
Continuing my march backwards in regard to the Submarine, there was a cessation in the development of the Submarine after I left the Admiralty as First Sea Lord on January 25th, 1910. When I returned as First Sea Lord to the Admiralty in October, 1914, there were fewer Submarines than when I left the Admiralty in January, 1910, and the one man incomparably fitted to develop the Submarine had been cast away in a third-class Cruiser stationed in Crete. No wonder! An Admiral, holding a very high appointment afloat, derided Submarines as playthings!
In one set of manœuvres the young officer commanding a Submarine, having for the third time successfully torpedoed the hostile Admiral’s Flagship, humbly said so to the Admiral by signal, and suggested the Flagship going out of action. The answer he got back by signal from the Admiral was: “You be damned!”
I am still going on tracing back the Submarine. In 1907, King Edward went on board the “Dreadnought” for a cruise and witnessed the manœuvres of a Submarine Flotilla. I then said to His Majesty: “The Submarine will be the Battleship of the future!”
In February, 1904, Admiral Count Montecuccoli, the Austrian Minister of Marine, invited himself to stay with me at Portsmouth, where I was then Commander-in-Chief. He had been Commander-in-Chief of the Austrian Navy at Pola when I was Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean. We became very great friends out there. The Austrian Fleet gave us a most cordial reception. He also was an ardent believer in the Submarine. That’s why he invited himself to stay, but I refused to let him see our Submarines at Portsmouth, which were then advancing by leaps and bounds. Admiral Bacon was then the admirable Captain in charge of Submarines, and he did more to develop the Submarine than anyone living. The Submarine is not the weapon of the weak. Had it only been properly used and developed, it’s the weapon of the strong, if you use your Naval Supremacy properly, and
seize the exits of the enemy, and make a blockade effectual by Submarines and Mines, which our predominant and overwhelming naval superiority renders feasible.
All that was required to meet a German Submarine Menace was the possession of Antwerp, the Belgian Coast, and the Baltic. We could quite easily have accomplished these three objects.
Nearly three months before the War, before the meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence held on May 14th, 1914, I sent the Prime Minister the following Memorandum which I had written in the previous January; and added:—
The Submarine Is the Coming Type of War Vessel for Sea Fighting
But for that consummation to be reached we must perfect the oil engine and we must store oil.
There is a strong animus against the submarine—of course there is!
An ancient Admiralty Board minute described the introduction of the steam engine as fatal to England’s Navy.
Another Admiralty Board minute vetoed iron ships, because iron sinks and wood floats!
The whole Navy objected to breech-loading guns, and in consequence sure disaster was close to us for years and years.
There was virulent opposition to the water-tube boiler (fancy putting the fire where the water ought to be, and the water where the fire should be!)
The turbine was said by eminent marine engineers to have an “insuperable and vital defect which renders it inadmissible as a practical marine engine—its vast number of blades—it is only a toy.” 80 per cent. of the steam-power of the world is now driving turbines.
Wireless was voted damnable by all the armchair sailors when we put it on the roof of the Admiralty, and yet we heard what one ship (the “Argyll”) at Bombay was saying to another (the “Black Prince”) at Gibraltar.
“Flying machines are a physical impossibility,” said a very great scientist four years ago. To-day they are as plentiful as sparrows.
“Submarines are only playthings!” was the official remark of our Chief Admiral afloat only a little while ago, and yet now submarines are talked of as presently ousting Dreadnoughts.
The above texts, extracted from comparatively modern naval history (history is a record of exploded ideas!), should make anyone chary of ridiculing the writer when he repeats:
THE SUBMARINE IS THE COMING TYPE OF WAR VESSEL FOR SEA FIGHTING.
And what is it that the coming of the submarine really means? It means that the whole foundation of our traditional naval strategy, which served us so well in the past, has been broken down! The foundation of that strategy was blockade. The Fleet did not exist merely to win battles—that was the means, not the end. The ultimate purpose of the Fleet was to make blockade possible for us and impossible for our enemy. Where that situation was set up we could do what we liked with him on the sea, and, despite a state of war, England grew steadily richer. But with the advent of the long-range ocean-going submarine that has all gone! Surface ships can no longer either maintain or prevent blockade, and with the conception of blockade are broken up all the consequences, direct and indirect, that used to flow from it. All our old ideas of strategy are simmering in the melting pot! Can we get anything out of it which will let us know where we are and restore to us something of our former grip? It is a question that must be faced.
Sea-fighting of to-day, or at any time, entails the removal of the enemy’s sea forces. If, as is maintained, the submarine proves itself at once the most efficient factor for this purpose and also the most difficult sea force to remove, let us clear our minds of all previous obsessions and acknowledge the facts once and for all.
Hostile Submarines
It has to be freely acknowledged that at the present time no means exist of preventing hostile submarines emerging from their own ports and cruising more or less at will.
It is, moreover, only barely possible that, in the future, mining and other blocking operations on a very extensive scale may so develop as to render their exit very hazardous; but it is plain that such operations would require a large personnel, unceasing energy and vigilance, and an immense quantity of constantly replaceable materials.
The Submarine and Commerce
Again, the question arises as to what a submarine can do against a merchant ship when she has found her. She cannot capture the merchant ship; she has no spare hands to put a prize crew on board; little or nothing would be gained by disabling her engines or propeller; she cannot convoy her into harbour; and, in fact, it is impossible for the submarine to deal with commerce in the light and provisions of accepted international law. Under these circumstances, is it presumed that the hostile submarine will disregard such law and sink any vessel heading for a British commercial port and certainly those that are armed or carrying contraband?
There is nothing else the submarine can do except sink her capture, and it must therefore be admitted that (provided it is done, and however inhuman and barbarous it may appear) this submarine menace is a truly terrible one for British commerce and Great Britain alike, for no means can be suggested at present of meeting it except by reprisals. All that would be known would be that a certain ship and her crew had disappeared, or some of her boats would be picked up with a few survivors to tell the tale. Such a tale would fill the world with horror, and it is freely acknowledged to be an altogether barbarous method of warfare; but, again, if it is done by the Germans the only thing would be to make reprisals. The essence of war is violence, and moderation in war is imbecility.
It has been suggested that it should be obligatory for a submarine to fire a warning gun, but is such a proceeding practical? We must bear in mind that modern submarines are faster on the surface than the majority of merchantmen, and will not necessarily need to dive at all. Therefore, as the submarine would in most cases be sighted, and as she has no prize crew to put on board, the warning gun is useless, as the only thing the submarine could do would be to sink the enemy; also, the apparently harmless merchant vessel may be armed, in which case the submarine may but have given herself away if she did not sink her.
The subject is, indeed, one that bristles with great difficulties, and it is highly desirable that the conduct of submarines in molesting commerce should be thoroughly considered. Above all, it is one of overwhelming interest to neutrals. One flag is very much like another seen against the light through a periscope, should he have thought it necessary to dive; and the fear is natural that the only thing the officer of the hostile submarine would make sure of would be that the flag seen was not that of his own country.
Moreover, under numerous circumstances can a submarine allow a merchant ship to pass unmolested? Harmless trader in appearance, in reality she may be one of the numerous fleet auxiliaries, a mine-layer, or carrying troops, and so on. Can the submarine come to the surface to inquire and lose all chance of attack if the vessel should prove to be faster than she is? The apparent merchant ship may also be armed. In this light, indeed, the recent arming of our British merchantmen is unfortunate, for it gives the hostile submarine an excellent excuse (if she needs one) for sinking them; namely, that of self-defence against the guns of the merchant ship.
What can be the answer to all the foregoing but that (barbarous and inhuman as, we again repeat, it may appear), if the submarine is used at all against commerce, she must sink her captures?
For the prevention of submarines preying on our commerce, it is above all necessary that merchant shipping should take every advantage of our favourable geographical position, and that we should make the Straits of Dover as difficult as we possibly can.
It is not proposed here to enter into the technical details of such arrangements; but even after every conceivable means has been taken, it must be conceded that there is at least a chance of submarines passing safely through; while at night, or in thick weather, it is probable that they would not fail to pass in safety.
I conclude with some details of British Submarines before and during the War:—
| I. | When I left the Admiralty in January, 1910: | |
| Submarines ready for fighting | 61 | |
| Building and on order | 13 | |
| II. | When I returned to the Admiralty, in October, 1914, as First Sea Lord: | |
| Submarines fit for fighting | 53 | |
| Building and on order | 21 | |
| But of these 21, only 5 were any good! | ||
| 2 were paid off as useless. | ||
| 3 sold to the Italians, not of use to us. | ||
| 4 sold to the French, not of use to us. | ||
| 7 of unsatisfactory design. | ||
| 16 leaving only 5 of oversea modern (“E”) Type. | ||
Nominally, there were 77 Submarines when I returned in October, 1914, but out of these 24 were useless, or had gone to the Antipodes, as follows:
| 2 | to Australia. |
| 3 | to Hong Kong. |
| 1 | sold to Italy useless. |
| 8 | “A” Class scrapped, 10 years old. |
| 10 | “B” Class scrapped, 9 years old. |
| 24 |
77 - 24 = 53 total Submarines fit for Service when I returned in October, 1914.
There were 61 Submarines efficient when I left the Admiralty in January, 1910.
Of those that were on order when I returned, 14 were of “G” Class, but were of an experimental type, and so were not ready till June, 1916, or one year after the Submarines were ready which I ordered on my return to the Admiralty in October, 1914.
Here may be stated the great service rendered by Mr. Schwab, of the Bethlehem Steel Works. I specially sent for him. I told him the very shortest time hitherto that a Submarine had been built in was 14 months. Would he use his best endeavours to deliver in six months? He delivered the first batch in five months! And not only that, but they were of so efficient a type (“H” Class) that they came from America to the Dardanelles without escort, and were of inestimable service out there, and passed into the Sea of Marmora, and were most effective in sinking Turkish Transports bringing munitions to Gallipoli.
The type of Submarine (“H” Class) he built hold the field for their special attributes. I saw one in dock at Harwich that had been rammed by a Destroyer—I think a German Destroyer—and had the forepart of her taken clean away, and she got back to Harwich by herself all right. The Commander of her, an aged man, was in the Merchant Service. (What a lot we do indeed owe to the Merchant Service, and especially to those wonderful men in the Trawlers!)
But Mr. Schwab did far more than what I have narrated above. He undertook the delivery of a very important portion of the armament of the Monitors.
The idea was followed up in making old Cruisers immune from German Submarines—the “Grafton,” an old type Cruiser (and so also the “Edgar”), thus fitted, was hit fair amidships by a torpedo from a German submarine off Gibraltar, and the Captain of the “Grafton” reported himself unhurt and going all the faster for it (as it had blown off a good bit of the hull!), and those vessels were ever so much the better sea boats for it!
It is lamentable that no heed was given to the great sagacity of Mr. Churchill in his special endeavour to give further application to this invention.
In the Submarine Monitor M1, which carries a 12-inch gun, and which is illustrated in this volume, we have the type of vessel I put before the Admiralty in August, 1915. She is the forerunner of the Battleship of the future; but her successors should be built in a much shorter time than she was.