Only the Dead Have Seen the Last of Submarine Warfare – Part Two

Iain Ballantyne, author of ‘The Deadly Trade: The Complete History of Submarine Warfare from Archimedes to the Present’, concludes a two-part look at the contours of a fast evolving new undersea confrontation. Iain is talking about the history of submarine warfare during this year’s Isle of Wight Literary Festival and will touch on some of the topics outlined below.

The bad old days are back. Just as happened during the Cold War face-off, today the Russian Bear and the West are snarling at each other in a war of words while their militaries train relentlessly for the day it all turns red hot. They hope that by being ready for combat they will deter the other side from launching an attack, though there is no capitalism versus communism ideological struggle underpinning it this time.

Pumped up, ultra-muscular nationalism allied with a desire to maintain superpower status and control scarce natural resources to shore up a tottering economy seems to drive Russia. It also nurtures massive resentment towards the West for not respecting it enough post-1991 and is intensely hostile towards EU and NATO expansion into its ‘near abroad’.

In the West, there is bewilderment at how things could suddenly get so serious again, with reluctance to invest in hard power tools in a time of economic and political turbulence.

There has been a nerve agent assassination plot committed on a NATO member state’s soil by Russian military intelligence agents. A series of cyber attacks on commerce, industry and national infrastructure along with alleged interference in the political process are also suspected of being staged by Russia. There is a temptation to see this as the most vital East-West battleground – a conflict in which cyber weapons and the occasional foray by not-so-secret agents are the main weapons deployed by Russia. In reality it is all running in parallel with the flexing – and even use – of hard power military muscle by the Kremlin, including submarines.

The newly upgraded Oscar II Class guided-missile submarine Orel returning to her Northern Fleet base in the Kola Peninsula. Photo: Russian defence ministry.

With Moscow’s submarines now at their most active since the end of the Cold War, President Vladimir Putin has authorised construction of up to a dozen Yasen Class, nuclear-powered attack submarines. An expansion of Russia’s conventionally powered submarine force is well underway too. The new Improved Kilo Class boats are cruise missile capable, with some having already launched attacks against rebel targets in Syria (to shore up the Damascus regime). The older, nuclear-powered Oscar II Class – so called carrier-killing guided-missile boats (SSGNs) – are also being regenerated with new weaponry. They will form a serious threat to Western naval forces.

NATO has responded by proposing establishment of an Atlantic Command to operate in times of crisis to counter surges in Russian naval activity. The precursor to this has been reactivation of the US Navy’s 2nd Fleet organisation to take overall charge of co-ordinating efforts from the North Atlantic down to the Caribbean. In recent years there has been an upsurge in NATO Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW) exercises, from the Mediterranean to the Arctic. The Russians have responded by staging their own ASW training in the same operational theatres, most recently as part of the huge time zone-spanning Vostok-18 exercise.

The Astute Class attack submarine HMS Ambush (nearest) during an ASW exercise in the Mediterranean with other NATO units. Photo: WO Artigues (HQ MARCOM)/NATO.

Beyond such play-acting, serious though it is, there have been episodes where units from both sides of this so-called new Cold War have been engaged in hunting each other. Russian submarines have trailed a Franco-American carrier strike group in the Mediterranean while Moscow’s anti-submarine vessels pursued a Dutch diesel boat seeking to gather intelligence on the Russian Navy’s own aircraft carrier operating off Syria. A US Navy attack submarine has allegedly engaged in trailing Russian surface warships in the Med. In more northern waters the Finns, Swedes, Norwegians and Balts have responded to suspected submarine intrusions (and in the case of the Finns even using depth charges).

Aside from those shadow games, the bombardment of Assad regime chemical warfare sites in Syria this April saw a nuclear-powered submarine launching cruise missiles from somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean. It was not a British boat, but the USS John Warner, one of the USN’s Virginia Class SSNs. There were reports in the media of Royal Navy submarines also being on standby to participate in the attacks. In the end, so it was claimed, rather than launch cruise missiles, an Astute Class boat was engaged in an undersea game of cat and mouse with two Russian Navy Improved Kilo Class submarines deployed from Tartus, Moscow’s main naval facility in Syria.

However, there are also doubts an Astute Class SSN was there at all – due to a lack of availability in the UK’s SSN force. Yet in the current war of nerves between the Russia and the West, which takes so many different forms, just the thought of a British, or American, SSN lurking in the eastern Mediterranean was surely a powerful inhibitor on the Russians? A Kilo might be super-stealthy at slow speed on battery power, but nothing beats the sheer speed and hitting power of SSN. The mere suspicion of one being nearby would make a Kilo captain very cautious.

The Russians have, meanwhile, described Britain’s new super-carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth – which this autumn made her maiden transatlantic voyage to welcome aboard her first F-35B strike jets – as ‘just a convenient, large maritime target’. Russia undoubtedly has every intention of sending out submarines to find and trail Queen Elizabeth, in order to gain intelligence on the carrier’s performance that may help sink her, should it ever come to hot war.

Resuscitating the NATO ASW effort is no small task. Rear Admiral Roger Lane-Nott, a former RN Flag Officer Submarines (FOSM), warned at the end of last year: ‘The chilling fact is that the organisations, relationships, intelligence, and capabilities that once supported a strong ASW network for NATO in the North Atlantic no longer exist.’

An exterior view depiction (from astern) of the forthcoming City Class (Type 26) frigate (or Global Combat Ship as the design is officially known). Image: BAE Systems.

The commitment to building eight new generation City Class (Type 26) ASW frigates is, however, a major investment UK national security and will be big boost to NATO defences. They are to be base ported at Devonport, the traditional home of the RN’s ASW primary surface warships. Three Type 26s have been ordered at the time of writing, to be named Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast, with another to be christened Birmingham.

There have also been cash injections into programmes to build new Dreadnought Class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and to ensure a seventh Astute Class SSN (to be christened Agincourt) is constructed. The arrival of the first of nine new P-8 Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPAs) for the RAF in 2019 is another welcome sign of long overdue revival.

There have even been encouraging indicators the British political leadership is finally awake to the new struggle for the freedom of the oceans – and the need for strong ripostes. UK Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson in late May gave the inaugural Sir Henry Leach lecture during the RUSI Sea Power conference in London.

He pointed out that Russia’s submarine activity has “increased ten-fold in the North Atlantic.” Mr Williamson went on: “But that’s not all. In 2010, the Royal Navy had to respond once to a Russian Navy ship approaching UK territorial waters. Last year we had to respond 33 times. It goes to show the increasing aggression, the increasing assertiveness of Russia, and how we have to ensure we give the right support to our Royal Navy in order to give them [sic] the tools to do the job and keep Britain safe.”

Whether or not the Royal Navy is getting enough of the tools – and quickly enough – to do the job is open to debate. Were the UK sticking to a North Atlantic orientated maritime defence strategy, then seven Astutes, eight Type 26s, six Type 45 destroyers, nine P-8s and two new super-carriers (the cutting edge of the New Navy) would be just about enough to cope – but British strategic over-reach looks likely to be layered on top of existing overstretch, with simultaneous major long-term commitments to the Arabian Gulf and also patrolling the South China Sea.

During the Cold War a Soviet Navy submarine of the Whiskey Class is escorted out of NATO waters by the British frigate HMS Rothesay. Photo: Via US DoD.

Back in the late 1960s the British gave up enduring commitments – and shore bases – east of Suez at a time when they had dozens more frigates and destroyers, several aircraft carriers and dozens of nuclear and conventional submarines, with around 20,000 sailors at sea. Today the Royal Navy is so short of sailors it is selling off warships or putting them into mothballs so their people can be sent elsewhere.

The Royal Navy is redefining the concept of spreading the jam very thinly but it gamely battles on, retaining a reputation for excellence and playing in the big league in those niche areas. It must be hoped the gaps it its sovereign capabilities are not one day exploited ruthlessly by a merciless opponent (like Russia).

The challenge The Royal Navy is facing today – and for decades to come – is clearly formidable, especially in the realm of ASW, with the current head of US Navy forces in Europe, Admiral James Foggo warning in a podcast this month (October): “Russia has renewed its capabilities in the North Atlantic and the Arctic in places not seen since the Cold War.”

The admiral also warned that Russia is seeking to “project power” not only into the Arctic but also the North Atlantic and Greenland Iceland UK Gap (GIUK) – Britain’s back yard. Foggo did not hide the nature of the undersea threat: “I think Russian submarines today are perhaps some of the most silent and lethal in the world,” he said, though adding that the US Navy’s own “hold the edge.”

The admiral also explained that Moscow is tasking its submarine forces with finding weak points in NATO’s armour. “We know that Russian submarines are in the Atlantic, testing our defences,” said Admiral Foggo. He suggested the Russians are “preparing a very complex underwater battlespace to try to give them an edge in any future conflict. And we need to deny them that edge.”

Admiral Foggo believes Russian “actions and capabilities [have] increased in alarming and sometimes confrontational ways”. Moscow is laying down the gauntlet to both the USA and NATO, which inevitably includes the UK.

Admiral James G. Foggo during a meeting with Admiral Ketil Olsen, Military Representative of Norway to the NATO Military Committee. Photo: NATO.

Its Trident nuclear missile submarines have been subjected to attempts by Russian SSNs to find and trail them, so negating the deterrent’s chief effect – the ability to deter a potential enemy by hiding in the sea and being ready to strike with devastating force at any moment.

Admiral Foggo remains “concerned about the potential for miscalculation” and suggests NATO cohesion is key to handling the risks. That has to include seeking a decisive edge in both submarine warfare and ASW, with British naval forces compelled to be at the fore, for reasons of geography if nothing else.

• This is an adapted and updated version of an article that was published in The Association of Royal Navy Officers Newsletter (Summer 2018)

Recent episodes in the new East-West naval rivalry and action-packed aspects of submarine warfare across the ages are recounted in Iain Ballantyne’s new book ‘The Deadly Trade: The Complete History of Submarine Warfare from Archimedes to the Present’, published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson (752 pages, hardback £25.00/eBook £12.99). More details here.  It is available via Amazon and Waterstones or other retailers and shops.
Iain Ballantyne is also founding and current Editor of WARSHIPS International Fleet Review magazine, which in 2018 celebrated its 20th birthday.

Only the Dead Have Seen the Last of Submarine Warfare – Part One

Iain Ballantyne, author of ‘The Deadly Trade: The Complete History of Submarine Warfare from Archimedes to the Present’, begins a two-part look at the contours of a fast evolving new struggle in which the UK’s submarines and surface forces will inevitably be required to play a key role.

Whether it has been the French, US-based Fenians pursuing the cause of Irish Liberation, the German Navy – by order of the Kaiser and later the Fuhrer – or the Soviet Union, the enemies and potential foes of Britain and its allies have over many decades enthusiastically pursued submarine warfare.

While we are unlikely to see vast, epic clashes as occurred during the two world wars, it is likely only the dead have seen the last of submarine warfare (to adapt a famous phrase coined by the philosopher George Santayana – NOT Plato as some have claimed – who wrote in 1922: ‘Only the dead have seen the end of war’).

In fact, submarines of the West and Russia have in recent times frequently unleashed weapons in anger – to strike deep inland, via cruise missiles, rather than using torpedoes to sink ships – while a new Cold War-style confrontation is also evolving across the oceans, stretching all the way from the North Atlantic and Mediterranean to the South China Sea.

Symbol of a resurgent Russia under the sea: The Improved Kilo Class submarine Rostov-on-Don, which Moscow has used to fire Kalibr cruise missiles into Syria. Photo: © Cem Devrim Yaylali.

Today Russia is deploying more and more submarines to test the defences of NATO nations and a high priority in the North Atlantic remains detecting and trailing the nuclear deterrent boats of the UK, USA and France. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, the assault ship HMS Albion in the late summer of 2018 made her presence felt in the South China Sea, where she conducted a Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) in waters that Beijing has (illegally) claimed sovereignty over. China has flouted international law by constructing a chain of fortresses on reefs and small islands, in a bid for total dominance of surrounding waters (and in which it intends to create Soviet-style bastions to protect its nuclear missile submarines). The Royal Navy has joined the American, Japanese and Australian fleets in agreeing on a major effort to show China it cannot restrict rights of transit through such key zones.

Arguably the best counter to Russia’s submarines lurking on the edge of UK territorial waters – or the Chinese seeking to exert unwarranted control on (or under) the South China Sea – is another submarine, namely a nuclear-powered hunter-killer. In that respect the British have something to offer. Despite difficulty maintaining force levels since the end of the Cold War they have preserved a reputation as deadly exponents of submarine operations.

Given the hostile attitude of many Royal Navy admirals in the early 1900s to the mere idea of submarines, development of such expertise over the years was not necessarily a given. Yet the RN’s submarine arm has achieved many feats in combat, some of which have yet to be equalled (which, let’s face it, is actually a good thing as it means an absence of major sea wars).

The one confirmed instance of a submarine destroying another while both were submerged remains HMS Venturer’s sinking of U-864 off Norway in early 1945. The only time a nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine has sunk a surface vessel in time of war remains HMS Conqueror’s attack on ARA Belgrano during the 1982 Falklands conflict. Since WW2 the only other episodes in which submarines have sunk surface vessels using torpedoes are the sinking an Indian frigate by the Pakistan Navy boat Hangor (in the early 1970s) and destruction of a South Korean corvette by a North Korean craft in 2010.

The assault ship HMS Albion calls at Yokosuka, Japan, prior to her recent patrol in the South China Sea. Photo: US Navy.

During the latter stages of Cold War – which saw plenty of dangerous moments that, thankfully, did not result in actual, full-on submarine versus submarine combat – the novelist Tom Clancy upset his own nation’s navy by paying tribute to Britain’s formidable submariners rather too enthusiastically.

‘While everyone deeply respects the Americans with their technologically and numerically superior submarine force, they all quietly fear the British,’ Clancy observed. He added: ‘Note that I use the word fear. Not just respect. Not just awe. But real fear at what a British submarine, with one of their superbly qualified captains at the helm, might be capable of doing.’ Those skills were very much in demand during the confrontation between NATO and the Soviet Union, with British submarines on the leading edge of a high stakes poker game under the waves, which saw numerous close shaves.

Watching the Hollywood version of Clancy’s best selling-novel, ‘The Hunt for Red October’, the other day, it struck me that it no longer seems like a 1980s museum piece. Today we are back in ‘a war with no battles, no monuments’, as Captain Marko Ramius (played by Sean Connery) puts it in the movie. The revival in Hollywood interest in submarine movies, such as ‘Hunter Killer’  [not based on my own book] and the forthcoming ‘Kursk’  reflects the upsurge in tensions and rivalry and under the sea between East and West (as well as the enduring appeal of submarine dramas).

For the West is confronted with what Vice Admiral James Foggo USN in 2016 described as a fourth Battle of the Atlantic – following on from those of the 20th Century’s two world wars and the Cold War – in which a new generation of Russian submariners are seeking to dominate the oceans. In October 2015 another senior USN officer, Admiral Mark Ferguson, who at the time commanded NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command and US Navy forces in Europe and Africa, depicted Moscow as constructing ‘an arc of steel from the Arctic to the Mediterranean’ by deploying ‘a more aggressive, more capable Russian Navy’.

Holding the line in the new Battle of the Atlantic: The Royal Navy nuclear-powered attack submarine HMS Trenchant. Photo: US Navy.

The Russians mean to exert this decisive presence as part of a global maritime challenge to the West. At the beginning of 2015 Russian submarines reportedly tried to detect – and then trail – one of the UK’s Trident submarines as the latter departed (or returned to) its base on the Clyde. Having cut the RN’s frigate force and axed the Nimrod anti-submarine aircraft, under the calamitous 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), the UK Government had to ask its allies to help hunt down the intruder or intruders (a job previously performed by the Royal Navy in tandem with the RAF).

In fact, since 2014 – following the Crimean annexation that heralded a more aggressive Russian military – Moscow is suspected of regularly sending its submarines to stray close to, or even sneak into, territorial waters of not only the UK and USA, but also Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Baltic States.

Fears were raised at the end of 2017 that the Russians might even use their submarine forces to attack the UK’s seabed infrastructure, such as Internet cables and energy pipelines. This was surely not unexpected? Since WW2 the capability to interfere with (or sever) underwater cables has been pursued by leading submarines forces (of both East and West). For example, during WW2 the Royal Navy made a major effort to cut seabed communications links between Japanese garrisons scattered across Asia. The latter day effort by the Russians serves only to enhance the contention that we have not seen the end of submarine warfare – in all its many forms.

This is an adapted version of an article that was published in The Association of Royal Navy Officers Newsletter (Summer 2018)



Recent episodes in the new East-West naval rivalry and action-packed aspects of submarine warfare across the ages are recounted in Iain Ballantyne’s new book ‘The Deadly Trade: The Complete History of Submarine Warfare from Archimedes to the Present’, published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson (752 pages, hardback £25.00/eBook £12.99). More details:  It is available via Amazon and Waterstones or other retailers and shops.
Iain Ballantyne is also founding and current Editor of WARSHIPS International Fleet Review magazine, which in 2018 celebrated its 20th birthday.

Long Voyage Of ‘Puny Boats’ To Becoming The Mightiest Vessels Of War Ever Seen (Or Rather Unseen)

With this year seeing the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1, in which submarines played a major role, across a series of four blogs Iain Ballantyne looks at the epic story of submarine warfare. As told in his latest book ‘The Deadly Trade: The Complete History of Submarine Warfare from Archimedes to the Present’, the boats and their crews have progressed from originally being viewed with contempt to inspiring awe and terror. In part one, Iain takes us from early times in submarine warfare to the dawn of the 20th Century and the power of submarines today.

There can be no doubt the submarine in its various forms is a powerful weapon of deterrence and a means to mercilessly wage war or exert control in both coastal waters and the open ocean.

Today nuclear-powered submarines are just about the most complex and costly warships in existence. Creating and operating them is the mark of a Tier 1 nation (as even UK Prime Minister Theresa May might understand).

On the cutting edge of modern submarine warfare: The US Navy attack submarine USS John Warner, which in April 2018 launched cruise missiles to destroy Assad regime chemical warfare facilities in Syria. Photo: NATO.

Armed with nuclear weapons, submarines, such as the UK’s current and future Trident missile boats, possess the ability to destroy millions of lives by potentially inflicting world-ending devastation – they threaten a level of destruction that is beyond our imaginations. It is impossible to conceive anyone would ever unleash such terrible power, but while they exist the risk is always there.

For both sides in the debate on renewing the UK’s Trident deterrent, the answer seems to be simple…the deterrent preserves peace or we are a missile launch away from extinction…Renew it, or get rid of it. The reality is a lot more nuanced than that – even for some who back its renewal the whole issue is imbued with ambivalence – reflecting attitudes towards the application of submarines in wars down the ages.

Both sides of the argument have merit and any sane person would surely wish to have multilateral nuclear disarmament, which hopefully will happen sometime within the next few decades – in fact, the sooner the better.

Yet, in the short-term, is the Continuous-at-Sea Deterrent (CASD) in a submarine the best means to show rogues states and bullyboy would-be superpowers you won’t be pushed around? Does it still prevent an outbreak of major conventional warfare that may costs millions of lives? Possibly it does both and remains a so-called weapon for peace, preventing bad situations from getting even worse.

For, thanks to great power rivalry, today there are several struggles for dominance on land and at sea underway simultaneously. From the Arctic to the Black Sea, from the eastern Mediterranean into Arabia and over the South China Sea and Korean Peninsula war clouds are gathering, or – in some places – have already given way to fire and thunder.

Aside from the rivalry between the great powers underpinned – and overshadowed – by vessels armed with nuclear missiles, in the past few years submarines armed with conventional weapons have been at the forefront of simmering – and sometimes white hot – confrontations between East and West.

Poor torn-apart Syria has more than once been bombarded with cruise missiles launched by Russian conventionally powered submarines and this year also by a nuclear-powered American submarine. Just a few years earlier British and American submarines launched dozens of cruise missiles to help pull down the Gaddafi regime in Syria and even to try and assassinate the dictator himself.

The reach and power now achieved by submarines – to potentially end all life on the planet with nuclear tipped weapons, or seek to change the course of history up to a 1,000 miles inland via cruise missiles – has been a long time coming and was completely unimaginable even a century ago.

In fact the idea of a combat vessel that could remain invisible under the sea until it struck with utmost devastation taunted the imagination of artists, scientists and inventors for centuries before it ever became a practical reality.

In the late 14th Century no less than Leonardo da Vinci made sketches for what he called ‘a ship to sink another ship’. In England during the 16th Century retired naval gunner William Bourne and his former captain William Monson separately created designs for a submersible and an underwater cannon, though neither man sought to make them real.

The challenges involved in creating a viable submarine were considerable: the inventors had to devise a means to dive the vessel, then achieve neutral buoyancy under the waves so it could maintain depth and move up and down (plus also horizontally) at will. A means of propulsion was required, a system of navigation, all while somehow sustaining the lives of the crew and fitting it with a workable weapon. Some died in the attempt but others achieved incremental progress.

A depiction of Bushnell’s Turtle and with would-be British target in the background.
Image: Public domain.

What really boosted efforts by various people was a desire to destroy the most powerful maritime force on the surface of the ocean – the Royal Navy – with putative diving machines seeking to provide equalisation for those who found their ambitions thwarted by the British.

Among them, in the late 1770s, was the American colonial rebel David Bushnell with his Turtle, reputedly the first fighting submersible. Propelled and manoeuvred by the pilot’s muscle power, the Turtle was a failure when put to the test off New York against a British warship, its attachable mine failing to gain purchase on the hull of the 64-gun Eagle.

In the early 1800s Robert Fulton, another American, offered the wind and muscle-powered Nautilus to France, aiming to assist its struggle against British naval hegemony. Napoleon ultimately shunned the proposal, thinking Fulton a con artist, so he took his talents to Britain and offered to help destroy the French invasion fleet being assembled to conquer the troublesome English. Fulton fared no better in England – where the top admirals were less than enthusiastic about his proposals – than he had across the Channel and so went home in a huff.

Robert Fulton’s plunging boat Nautilus, built in France but destroyed by Fulton himself to prevent the host nation for exploiting it without his permission. Image: US NHHC.

Later on in the 19th Century the Bavarian artillery soldier Wilhelm Bauer and one-time English clergyman George Garrett were among those who took a tilt at building a proper submersible war vessel.

British submarine pioneer George Garrett (with bushy beard) at the helm of a Nordenfelt submarine boat in the Baltic during the 1880s. Photo: US NHHC.

Bauer’s large metal box with a snout, the Fire Diver, relied on two musclemen using a treadmill for propulsion and the air it enclosed to make sure its occupants did not suffocate. The Fire Diver’s means of attack was a pair of mechanical hands fixed to the outside, which were meant to attach an explosive charge to the would-be target vessel. Unfortunately, it got stuck in the mud on the bottom of Kiel harbour, with Bauer and his assistants only narrowly avoiding death, making the world’s first successful escape from a submersible craft.

Bauer became a wanderer, working in England with Isambard Kingdom Brunel on the Great Eastern steamship at the time of the Crimean War, but fell out with his English hosts. He headed for Russia and offered a new submersible attack craft called Sea Devil to the Tsar, whom he tried to charm by sending musicians under the waves in it to serenade him. Russian admirals were less impressed – they were offended by its sheer cheek in seeking to sneakily sink surface ships – and allegedly conspired to sabotage Sea Devil, which ended up coming to grief on the bottom of a basin at Kronstadt naval base.

Some 30 years later George Garrett – in addition to being a former Manchester curate, a one-time school headmaster in strife-torn Ireland where he invented razor-edged mortarboards for his teachers to wield in order to protect pupils – worked with the Swedish engineer and arms manufacturer Thorsten Nordefeldt.

With the notorious Basil Zaharoff as their salesman they endeavoured to sell steam-powered submarines to various countries. Garrett’s boats didn’t work very well, though one sold to the Ottomans distinguished itself by becoming the first ever submersible to fire a self-propelled torpedo while dived. Garrett’s career as a submarine inventor came to a shuddering halt when a large vessel sold to the Russians ran aground on the delivery voyage.

Steam wasn’t necessarily a bad idea – after all nuclear-powered submarines of today are steam powered – but Garrett’s reach was far in excess of technological practicality of his era, and he exhibited poor attention to the detail of operational utility. His boats need a whole day cruising on the surface to build up enough steam to manage only three knots when dived – with erratic depth keeping – and then could stay (more or less) submerged only for a few hours. Also, the threat of being broiled alive was a distinct danger for Garrett or anyone else daring to sail his creations under the sea.

Some years earlier the deaths of three crews in pursuit of an effective undersea war vessel did score a notable achievement. For the early submarine inventors included Confederate rebels who during the American Civil War of the 1860s created the H.L. Hunley, which was again man-powered and had several fatal mishaps while in development, but would make history.

The H.L. Hunley actually managed to use a spar torpedo to sink the Federal Navy warship Housatonic, the first vessel ever claimed in war by an underwater craft. The Hunley may have made history but sank herself in the process – sustaining fatal damage to her watertight integrity thanks to the explosion – and carried her last crew to a watery grave.

A cutaway drawing of the H. L. Hunley with crew ready to propel the craft through the water.
Image: US NHHC.

By the end of the 19th Century, however, there were signs that, finally, someone might yet produce a workable undersea war machine, which is where we will pick up the story in the next part of this short series.

This article is a revised and expanded version of part of an article that was first published in ‘Scuttlebutt: the magazine of the National Museum of the Royal Navy (Portsmouth) HMS Victory and the Friends’

For much more on these incredible true-life tales, read ‘The Deadly Trade: The Complete History of Submarine Warfare from Archimedes to the Present’, published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson (752 pages, hardback £25.00/eBook £12.99)  which is available via Amazon or Waterstones and other retailers and shops.


Archive by month

Archive by year