The next quote is from Lt.Cmdr. Frasers evidence to the Initial Inquiry to the loss of the Oswald. It has a most significant bearing on why the orders "Prepare to Abandon ship" and "Abandon ship" were given at the time they were. It also demonstrates experience and its use.
982-Had you been in any submarine accident before? "Yes sir"
983-What was that? I saw H.47 rammed and sunk by L.12
984-Were you aboard L.12 at the time? No, I was aboard L.14 but I saw her actually rammed.
990-Reverting to the sinking of H.47 at what speed do you think L.12 was proceeding at the time of the collision, at the time she actually hit? "Not very fast, as far as I remember.
991-Having witnessed that, has it since influenced you with the idea that a submarine will not stand much shock after being hit by another ship? "Yes sir. I have always been under the impression that a submarine probably would sink in a very short time."

One feature of this incident calls into question the provision of life saving equipment by the Royal Navy for their submariners at this period of time.

The German U-boats were extremely well equipped with one man rafts as per attached photograph of such a raft from U 231. There are numerous photos in existence of U-boat crews in them after sinkings. The U-boat arm were also reknowned for their training of crews

In the Merchant Navy we had Fire and Boat drill, known as "Board of Trade Sports" every fortnight. Everyone turned up in Lifejackets at their respective emergency stations and afterwards proceeded to Lifeboat stations where the boats were swung out. I have questioned several royal Navy submariners recently and they cannot recall any "Abandon Ship" drills on any submarines they were on.

Grahame and I know of one relative who blames Lt. Cmdr. Fraser for her Uncles death and one can readily sympathise. It assumes everyone on a submarine, or a ship for that matter can swim or, if not gets a lifejacket. That is very far from the truth as it is absolutely amazing the number of people who go to sea in ships as crew who cannot swim.

However, in the light of the fact that all 55 crew got out of "Oswald" and abandoned ship alive it is somewhat a harsh conjecture she makes.

It was a calm night with no wind or seas and being August the sea temperature would have been reasonably warm which really contributed to the fact that only three crew members, of which two at least were non-swimmers did not survive the two hours in the sea before Vivaldi rescued them.

If Fraser had not had the experience watching H 47 sink very rapidly, as he did then perhaps a few more people might have lost their lives.

Aboard Oswald there were only DSEA sets available to act as lifejackets. In the 1930's and 1940's Submarine Escape Training was conducted in a 15 foot tank, located within Fort Blockhouse, Gosport, Hants.

The DSEA (Davis Submarine Escape Apparatus) set was the equipment used in this facility, not all Submariners were trained to use this equipment.

So in the dark, after the ramming, depth charging and confusion of the abandoning of Oswald the donning of this complicated equipment successfully would have been pretty hit and miss.

I always knew that due to the complexity of the Oswald story and length of time between the incident and court martials it was going to be difficult to keep focused on the facts. It is very tempting to make judgements and come up with different scenarios being Judge, jury and executioner after the event. I am still trying to put across facts surrounding the abandon ship scenario and haven’t even got to the night vision goggles part yet. Remember the incident is down in history as the boat was abandoned before the collision and Fraser was not wearing night vision goggles. Getting on to the finer details is going to take months. In all my posts I am being sure to just state the facts as quoted in the MOD documents; this is made all the more difficult by the wild variations in individual’s accounts. Most of this I am sure is due to the time factor between the sinking and their recollections and some of it may not be. David and I have shared our hard won documentation of events with various interested parties which at this stage may have been a mistake. We I think should have got the facts out there and the story out based purely on the facts available before others put their view on events which of course they are quite entitled to do. I see on the Barrow submariner’s forum (they started off so well) that the story is racing on ahead but in a rather uncontrolled fashion. I read comments like “it would be”, “I should of thought”, “my imaginary view”, “maybe”, “well that’s my view”, “I have no idea”, “one argument would be” etc etc. On this forum we will just stick with the facts, which takes an awful lot longer than a quick read through.

Sorry for the delay in the Oswald story but we are somewhat tied up with the building and launching of our new vessel Wey chieftain 4. Yet more documentation has come to light in the form of letters from David Fraser to his mother whilst a POW also various statements and solicitors letters. Angus Farrar David’s stepson came across them in the attic lost for all these years. He very kindly allowed me to photograph all the documents at his home in Portsmouth and yet another piece of the jig saw is emerging. Back on the case as soon as possible.

As Grahame Knott mentions above we have not been resting, although some might think so .... the action involving HMS Oswald and Ugolino Vivaldi, David Fraser and Roy Marsh's Courts Martials are still very much in our focus.

For my part I have obtained a copy of Peter Padfields "War Beneath the Sea" .... thought it might have some pertinent thoughts .... and I am not at all disappointed. In his chapter -"Towards the Second World War", I believe he is extremely perceptive ....and I quote with his permission ....

"Meanwhile the Admiralty had ordered two distinct types, both revealing an obsession with battlefleet doctrine:one of these, the "O" class ............which suffered many technical problems."

Other snippets which illuminate a part of the Oswald Court Martial ....."Most peacetime excercises with submarines were necessarily unrealistic. Night surface attack was not practised since against battle groups, virtually the only targets foreseen, the risk of collision with darkened screening destroyers was too great.".............

..............."And so little were the exingencies of real war patrols imagined that it was to take the loss of several boats in the first months of the war before notes based on the First World War experience hurriedly compiled and issued as guidance for patrolling at night."
............

.........."Thoughtfull young officers pressed for more realistic training, Lt Ian Mcgeoch, serving in the fleet submarine CLYDE in the mediterranean, submitted a paper to the flotilla staff arguing that they should practise firing torpedoes at night. He was convinced that the submarines small silhouette gave it an advantage in night surface attack, and pointed out that in any case unless they did try night firing they would never find out if their night torpedo sights were any good..... nothing came of the proposal; British night sights remained crude by comparison with others, especially those of the Germans."............

By 1946, when the Courts Martials took place Fraser was condemned in the face of this, by the Board for not having carried out, in August 1940 a night attack on the 'Ugolino Vivaldi' with the expectation he would have succeeded.

Finally Peter Padfield quotes from Hansard of 5.11.1937..... " The departing First Lord, Sir Samuel Hoare, reassured the House of Commons that 'the submarine is no longer a danger to the security of the British Empire' " .... all very pompous head in the sand stuff from those who should have known a sight better and been more encompassing of some bright but Junior Officers.

As Grahame says .... we proceed.... with facts.