Earlier Depth Charges

Hi all,

So I came across the following quote recently in Percy Scott’s autobiography “Fifty years in the Royal Navy:

“The depth charge, which ultimately turned out to be the antidote to the submarine, furnishes a remarkable illustration of Admiralty methods. Who invented it? It has even been suggested that it was an American. What are the facts? On the 1st October, 1914, Captain P. H. Colomb submitted the design of a depth charge, actuated by a hydrostatic valve. On the 19th October Admiral Sir Charles Madden made a similar proposal, and suggested a howitzer to " lob" the charges out. Although I was head of the Anti-Submarine Department at the Admiralty, I was left in ignorance of both these proposals - an illustration of bad administration and the extent to which the Admiralty works in watertight compartments, one not knowing what the other is doing.

So, on the 16th November, I proposed a depth charge which could be dropped from an aeroplane or surface craft. The idea was so simple that these depth charges could have been supplied in quantities by the end of the year. What happened ? These three valuable suggestions were treated in the usual Admiralty way efforts were made to improve on the idea in order to produce something which would bear the hall mark of the Admiralty, with the result that, instead of having a depth charge and ejecting howitzer at the end of 1914, we did not get them until 1916. It was a serious matter, for I have no doubt that had the depth charge come into use in 1914, as it could have done, it would have saved a loss of about £200,000,000.“

I generally find Scott to be a reliable source, though one with a chip on his shoulder about the Admiralty. Still, it has been hard to confirm this, or get any other details. Admiral Madden was Jellicoe’s chief of staff (and future First Sea Lord), and Captain Colomb (who is hard to find info on as he shares a name with the naval strategist writer who died in 1899) produced some studies of past invasions to support the Naval position during the Beresford Inquiry. The only other place I have seen this referenced was an article on the on the work of the Bureau of Invention and Research (which was quoting Scott).

So, two questions, anyone have any information to confirm or deny Scott’s claim? And, assuming it is true, how much difference could depth charges at the end of 1914 have made in WW1. It would still be a problem finding submerged U-boats, but there would certainly be some instances where being able to drop a depth charge would have resulted in a sub kill prior to 1916. What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
Considering they tried dropping hammers otl dropping a depth charge had to better.

Even if there are no kills before 1916 starting work on them in 1914 would see a much higher rate of proliferation. OTL ships were carrying 2 depth charges for anti submarine work until June 1917, 4 from then and 30-40 in 1918.

Anyway my point was that having a depth charge in 1914 might only see 5 or 10 kills between 1914 and 1916 but by 916 it would be a mature system that's everywhere and the kills would quickly rack up.

Reading Scott I generally feel he says he did too much.

He was recalled from retiremental in November 1914, his first job was to outfit 16 merchant ships as dummy warships. Then he was a consultant in gunnery efficiency, then on the 16th of November he was the head of antisubmarine warfare and inventing depth charges.

Very busy week or two from returning from retirement.
 
Considering they tried dropping hammers otl dropping a depth charge had to better.

Even if there are no kills before 1916 starting work on them in 1914 would see a much higher rate of proliferation. OTL ships were carrying 2 depth charges for anti submarine work until June 1917, 4 from then and 30-40 in 1918.

Anyway my point was that having a depth charge in 1914 might only see 5 or 10 kills between 1914 and 1916 but by 916 it would be a mature system that's everywhere and the kills would quickly rack up.

Reading Scott I generally feel he says he did too much.

He was recalled from retiremental in November 1914, his first job was to outfit 16 merchant ships as dummy warships. Then he was a consultant in gunnery efficiency, then on the 16th of November he was the head of antisubmarine warfare and inventing depth charges.

Very busy week or two from returning from retirement.
Yeah, he does seem to take credit for a lot of things. I do try to take him with a grain of salt. But I do keep finding confirmation from other sources That he did do what he said he did. I haven’t found one for this yet, but it does kind of make sense. Scott had a very public debate in the newspapers prior to the war about the ability of submarines. As submarines start proving to be a problem In 1915, putting Scott in “charge” of anti-submarine measures would be a good way to deflect criticism. I have seen in other places that the Admiralty at the time was pretty compartmentalized. I could see him having a position and the Admiralty still doing most of their work in other departments.
 
Could a more mature depth charge system convince the Admiralty that convoys could be a useful offensive anti-submarine tactic? Draw subs in and destroy them type of thing?
 
Top