The K Boats

[Waddell]

One aspect I particularly enjoy about this forum is reading other members views on books. I enjoy it mainly because my friends and peers don't really read the same subject matter, hence there is nowhere else to turn.

I've had an old paperback copy of this book lying in my "to read" pile for a while and was wondering if any forum members can recommend it or otherwise?

I've had a look on wikipedia and there is something that appeals to the eccentric engineer in me about a steam powered (on the surface) submarine. Although looking through the book there appear to be a few line drawings of subs stuck in the bottom of the ocean. Apparently the idea's were well ahead of there time, however the execution was exactly that in a few cases.

Any opinions/recommendations?

Scott.

[truthergw]

I read this a long time ago. I no longer have my copy. If I remember correctly, the consensus was that they were behind the times. When they had petrol, diesel, electric engines, to go back to steam was indefensible. Very, very brave sailors indeed.

[John(txic)]

to go back to steam was indefensible. Very, very brave sailors indeed.

The boats were meant to act as Fleet submarines: with the technology of the time, it was thought that only a steam turbine would give them the speed to carry out their designed role. A flawed concept, especially with the prevailing visibility in the North Sea - and not resurrected, I believe, until the advent on the Nuke boat.

And yes - read the book!

[Dolphin]

Scott

It's a good, and entertaining, account of the disastrous service of these particularly awful submarines. Somehow, steam engines and very large submarines were a combination that was never destined to work.

Cheers

Gareth

[IanA]

I read it a long time ago but remember being fascinated and enjoying it.

[simonharley]

I have a review of the book written in 1963 by a man who had served in both the K class and the M class submarine. He condemns Everitt for painting a far too negative view of both the concept and the operational record of the K class and rips apart the manner in which the book was framed so as to impart the most sensationalism. All valid points. And to be perfectly honest, just because a book is enjoyable or entertaining, doesn't mean that it's right. From the responses thus far it would appear everyone who has read it now believes that compared to other early British submarines the K class was "a suicide club" which is hardly true.

I for one wouldn't bother reading it. It's probably worthwhile for the appendix which acts as a bibliography though.

Simon

The review is available from http://www.naval-review.org and is in No. 2 Issue, 1963, pp. 235-238.

[Waddell]

Thanks to all for your replies.

Simon,

I had a good read through that review by Eeyore Smith. I agree with what you are saying, Smith puts forward a very strong criticism of the book. I guess he would know having actually served on the subs safely.

He points out that he believes the book is overly dramatised. This is the reason why I have been a bit hesitant to read it as the 1974 paperback version I own looks more like a Douglas Reeman novel with it's dramatic painting of the K16 on the front. It made me question the book a little.

I think I'll read it anyway as I know little about these craft, but will keep in mind Smith's criticism as I go through it.

By the way the naval-review website is a substantial resource. Thanks for the link.

Regards,

Scott

[Halder]

It's always worth asking George Malcolmson, the excellent archivist at the RN Submarine Museum, for some pointers on K-Class boats; they have reams of material on them down there, as well as books.

I know from past conversations with the staff at the museum, the general consensus is that the Ks are deserving of their 'calamitous' nickname.

Strangely, given the class' infamy Everitt's book is the only one in our archive. I did come across a pamphlet from the early 80s by a chap called Martin Brice, M Class Submarines, published by Outline Publication which is a good pictorial history of the M boats.

[simonharley]

It's always worth asking George Malcolmson, the excellent archivist at the RN Submarine Museum, for some pointers on K-Class boats; they have reams of material on them down there, as well as books.

I know from past conversations with the staff at the museum, the general consensus is that the Ks are deserving of their 'calamitous' nickname.

Strangely, given the class' infamy Everitt's book is the only one in our archive. I did come across a pamphlet from the early 80s by a chap called Martin Brice, M Class Submarines, published by Outline Publication which is a good pictorial history of the M boats.

Upon further enquiries it would seem that after 40 years Everitt is still the only person to have written anything half-decent on the K class. I would have thought someone would have ground out a book for Arms and Armour or Conway by now, but apparently not.

It is rather harsh condemning a class as "calamitous" - unlucky would be a far more apt word and it's a far better generalisation (especially when looking at the losses of other submarine classes). It is worth noting that the book isn't referenced - you just can't beat fifty year-old hearsay (now it's ninety year-old hearsay).

Someone really needs to go back and write a "balanced", referenced book on the subject. Perhaps the RN Submarine Museum could organise something rather than making unhelpful use of adjectives.

Simon

[Halder]

I think we're being a little dismissive of Everitt's book - unfairly. Although it's not referenced per se, there's a comprehensive bibliography listing a lot of correspondence, use of personal papers, interviews, documents and the like. It was, to be sure, written before the submarine museum was officially established and before the PRO began to disgorge material, so a new K book is long overdue.

As for unhelpful adjectives... The 'Calamitous Ks' is a fairly long-standing nickname used by deeps; I have a feeling they also referred to them as the 'suicide club'. To lose one in three boats on exercises/trials, be it through poor design, mishandling or poor tactics, would seem to be a very high loss ratio.

[Ste]

I have read it: I thoroughly enjoyed it. I know very little about submarines of the period, and am therefore not in a position to make informed comment about the book's accuracy. As with all subjects, it is wise to read several sources before reaching a conclusion. This one is certainly worth reading.

'I say number one: my end is diving - what the hell is your end doing?!?'

:>

Ste

[centurion]

I'd read the book before I did some research on steam subs in general (the French also had them). Just as the U boat was effectively a submersible torpedo boat (which actually spent most of the time on the surface) so the K boats were intended to be submersible destroyers spending most of the time accompanying the fleet on the surface and rushing ahead to submerge and lie in wait for the enemy fleet. Most of the criticisms etc in the book appear entirely justified despite the protestations of a few who supported the scheme. The French steam subs appear to have been worse than the K boats which were at least reasonably seaworthy on the surface. Internally they were ill planed with no standardisation so that some valves were opened by turning a wheel or lever clock wise, others anti clock wise whilst some opened by moving the lever from the vertical in either direction, and yet others were open when the lever was in the vertical position. There were a lot of valves.

[truthergw]

I'd read the book before I did some research on steam subs in general (the French also had them). Just as the U boat was effectively a submersible torpedo boat (which actually spent most of the time on the surface) so the K boats were intended to be submersible destroyers spending most of the time accompanying the fleet on the surface and rushing ahead to submerge and lie in wait for the enemy fleet. Most of the criticisms etc in the book appear entirely justified despite the protestations of a few who supported the scheme. The French steam subs appear to have been worse than the K boats which were at least reasonably seaworthy on the surface. Internally they were ill planed with no standardisation so that some valves were opened by turning a wheel or lever clock wise, others anti clock wise whilst some opened by moving the lever from the vertical in either direction, and yet others were open when the lever was in the vertical position. There were a lot of valves.

Possibly not designed by a submariner, then?

[MartinWills]

It's a very enjoyable and informative read, so well worth picking up - and there is not a lot else on the subject. Yes, it could be better in some respects, but it is also of an age.

I've seen it a number of times as an inexpensive paperback - so keep your eyes open.

Martin

[Waddell]

Thanks Martin, Ste, Centurion.

Martin,

I've got the cheap paperback version, which doesn't have any photographs, just line illustrations. If anyone wants to post a good picture of a K-class it would be appreciated!

I've just started reading it as time permits.

Just a thought regards a more up to date version of their history. I'm a bit surprised a book hasn't been written regarding the engineering of the vessels. Surely there must have been some heat issues when the sub submerged after running on steam. Let alone sealing issues with the stacks.

Thanks all.

Scott

[centurion]

Just a thought regards a more up to date version of their history. I'm a bit surprised a book hasn't been written regarding the engineering of the vessels. Surely there must have been some heat issues when the sub submerged after running on steam. Let alone sealing issues with the stacks.

Yes they were hot but their sheer size mitigated this somewhat. Being oil fired there was nothing burning and producing heat when they submerged and went onto electrics. The big problem was the heat from the boiler. Sealing stacks and various other vents was a problem and there was always a chance of error as the book does describe.

The first of the 'modern' steam subs was the French Narval built in 1897. Before submerging the crew of the Narval had to shut down the boiler fires, lower and seal the funnels and close air intake and exhaust valves. This took about fifteen minutes; crash diving was not an option.

The safety of oil burning steam submarines was inevitably compromised by the need for one or more funnels that passed through the pressure hull. In the winter of 1914 the French steam powered submarine Archimedes encountered very rough weather in the North Sea, off the German coast. A wave badly damaged the funnel so that this could not be retracted and the appropriate hatch sealed, this meant that vessel could not submerge to avoid the bad weather. The hole in the hull allowed water to wash in from the heavy seas whilst the damage to the funnel meant that the draft to the furnaces was greatly reduced thus limiting the engine power (including that necessary for pumping). The Archimedes and her crew only survived through the efforts of a continuous bucket chain that bailed for more than a day. Her British liaison officer was greatly praised for is efforts in maintaining moral and effort amongst the exhausted and flagging crew.

With the K boats the requirements of the steam engines meant that diving was a complex business, requiring funnels to be retracted and many valves and other orifices to be closed, this could take eleven minutes. "Dive dive dive" was not really applicable to the K boats.

I enclose a drawing I made of a K boat in its 1918 form. The radio masts also had to be lowered before diving.

[Waddell]

Thanks for the drawing and the explanations Centurion. Exactly what I was looking for.

Starting to remind me of the BRM V-16. Some very complex engineering issues involved at the time.

Regards,

Scott.

[BJanman]

Hi

Does anyone know anything about an experimental submarine, which was sunk by a British Destroyer on 31st January 1918 in home waters by mistake? Apparently there were over 50 drowned including Capt. Hugh Sladen Sheilds RAMC.

I have been sent a photograph of a monument in St Margaret Pattens Church, Central London, which I have been told is a monument to the event, and it has Capt Hugh Sladen Shields name on it but I cannot trace him. I have found a Lieut Hugh John Haden Sheilds RAMC on the CWGC website, who is in the RAMC roll of honour as Hugh John Sladen Shields but he was killed in action in 1914.

If anybody can give any advice on the incident or the memorial then that would be great, I am a tad confused.

Thanks

Barbara

[NeilEvans]

I've had alook, but to no avail.

Would this chap be of interest, think he was commanding the vessel?

http://www.cwgc.org/search/casualty_detail...asualty=3047486

He is listed on Church Stretton's War Memorial, and, St. Chads Church Shrewsbury, Shropshire.

Pm me if you'd like them

Neil

[BJanman]

I'm not sure, I have now found this one David Stocks

The photograph is a full length picture of the memorial so I cannot read any names. I think I will try and find more information from the person who sent it to me. If it includes Henry John Hearn I will contact you by PM you for more details.

Thanks for your help

Barbara

[centurion]

K 17 was sunk by HMS Fearless in Jan 1918. She was not however an experimental submarine. The K Class steam subs were operational On the same day K 4 was rammed and sunk by K 6. It was part of some disastrous maneuvers. (K4 had already rammed and Sunk K1 some months before. It seems the biggest danger to K boats was other K boats).

[J T Gray]

K 17 was sunk by HMS Fearless in Jan 1918. She was not however an experimental submarine. The K Class steam subs were operational On the same day K 4 was rammed and sunk by K 6. It was part of some disastrous maneuvers. (K4 had already rammed and Sunk K1 some months before. It seems the biggest danger to K boats was other K boats).

A swift search for the so-called Battle of May Island should throw up the history you want. This time two weeks ago I was looking at the memorial at Anstruther Harbour.

Adrian

[sadsac]

BARBARA, following on input by Centurion & Adrian - Commander STOCKS is you man on the Memorial erected by as you see on this posting. Of Capt Sheilds NO not lost in subs.

STOCKS DAVID DE BEAUVOIR CDR NE DSO CLD'H RN SM K.4

31.01.18 Z 34 D PORTSMOUTH 28 PORTSMOUTH 7 - 563

Son of John Wallace Stocks (late Captain B.H. Lt. Horse), and Elizabeth Brock, his wife ; husband of Cherida Stocks, of Westcombe, Evercreech, Somerset.

Drowned through collision in North Sea. HMS FEARLESS.

Awarded D.S.O., London Gazette 19.11.15. When in H.M.S/m E.2.

During his stay in the Sea of Marmora from 09.12.15, to 03.01.16, he destroyed 19 Dhows, and 1 steamer, and damaged 1 steamer. He also destroyed Mudania Railway Station.

Cruised for 32 days in the Sea of Marmora and inflicted great damage on shipping.

Devised a new method of breaking through nets.

Chevalier Legion D'Honneur (France).

HMS FEARLESS. ADM 104 / 110. Record 1663. Page 231.

Drowning "K.4" - sunk in collision.

Also Commemorated in St Margeret Pattens Church, Eastcheap, London.

Tablet installed by Mrs De Beauvoir Stocks.

Sadsac

[spithead]

The K Class boats were known as the 'Experimental Fleet'

Regards John

[centurion]

The K Class boats were known as the 'Experimental Fleet'

True but experimental applied to the tactics not the boats