International Journal of Diving History 7 (2014)

The International Journal
of Diving History
Volume 7
November 2014
The International Journal of Diving History
published by the Historical Diving Society
Dedicated to promoting and preserving our diving heritage
President: Vice Admiral Sir Richard Jeffrey Ibbotson KBE CB DSC

Editor: Peter Dick
The International Journal of Diving History
Assistant Editors: Richard Walsby, Reg Vallintine, Mike Fardell, Peter Jackson.
Associate Editors: Francesca Giacche, HDS Italia; Lars Gustavsson, HDS Sweden; Volume 7 November 2014
Sven Erik Jørgensen, Dykkehistorisk Selskab (HDS Denmark);
Michal Jung, Hans Hass Institute fur Submarine Forschung und Tauchtechnik;
Bjørn W. Kahrs, Norsk Dykkehistorisk Forening (HDS Norway); Oldrich Lukš, HDS Czechoslovakia ;
Jouko Moisala, HDS Finland; Phil Nuytten, HDS Canada; Franz Rothbrust, HDS Germany;
Robert Sténuit HDS; David Strike, HDS AusPac; Christopher Swann, HDS USA; Contents
Wieslas Wachowski, HDS Poland; Karina Wokalska, HDS Poland. Page No.

We invite articles, book reviews, correspondence, and Points of style
queries on any aspect of the history of diving. Manuscripts, Articles should be fully referenced. Footnotes should be
other contributions, and all correspondence should be in the main body of the text and preceded by the word The Birth and Development of Military Diving in Denmark: 3
sent to: “Footnote”. Notes and references will be printed at the
end of the article. Books should be referred to by the An Historical Overview
Peter Dick author’s surname, followed by the author’s forename or
Ardmore House, Isleworth, Middlesex, TW7 4PH, UK. Finn Linnemann, HDS Denmark.
initials, book title, place and date of publication, and
UK email: hdtimes@talk21.com. relevant page numbers (in that order). The publisher’s
Telephone: +44 (0)20 8560 1907 name is not required unless relevant for a particular The History and Identification of Common Siebe Gorman,
reason, or unless the book is still in print.
or to the Secretary of the HDS:
Michael Fardell
References to journal articles should contain the Heinke and British Military Divers’ Knives from 1840 to 2010 18
author’s surname, forename/intitials, the title of the
Little Gatton Lodge, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 0HB. article in single inverted commas, the title of the journal Dr Michael Burchett (HDS) and Robert Burchett (HDS)
UK email: secretary@thehds.com in italics, the volume number, the issue number, the
Telephone: +44 (0)1737 249961 inclusive page numbers and the place and exact date of
publication. Please italicise (or underline) the titles of Reconstruction of a RolleiMarin Transport Box 42
Information for Contributors books and journals and the names of vessels. Please also
It is preferred that contributors submit papers spell out numbers up to and including twenty, unless Franz Rothbrust, Chairman HDS Germany
electronically. Text should be in plain text, Microsoft rtf, preceding units of measurement.
or as a Microsoft Word document and should not be The editors reserve the right to make stylistic
formatted. Footnotes and references should be numbered changes to conform with the format of this Journal. John Lethbridge’s Diving Barrel: 50
and listed at the end and their position in the text indicated
by the same number in brackets or in superscript. How Long Could he Remain Underwater?
Illustrations are not limited in number but will be
reproduced in black and white only. Ideally the images Copyright of the contents will remain with the T J Newman
should be submitted electronically as jpegs or tiffs and at individual authors who will be asked to agree that futher
300dpi resolution. Otherwise they may be submitted as publication will acknowledge the Journal. Every issue
drawings, photographs (up to A4 size) or transparencies. of the Journal will be copyrighted to protect authors
Letters to the Editor 69
The position of all images should be indicated in the and the HDS against unauthorised use of the contents. Tim Glover, ASIS, FRPS in association with Peter Dick (HDS)
text (eg. “picture 4 here”) and captions should be
provided in a separate document. Original illustrations
Reg Vallintine (HDS)
will be returned but their safety cannot be guaranteed,
so contributors are urged to supply duplicates where At present the Journal is issued once a year. Single issues
possible and to retain the originals. Articles may be may be purchased at £9.50 (including UK postage)
submitted to suitable referees for scrutiny. from our website: www.thehds.com.
Front cover photograph by Marc Jasinski

Layout: Ann Bevan.
4 The International Journal of Diving History The International Journal of Diving History 5
The Birth and Development of Military Diving in Denmark

– an historical overview
Finn Linnemann (HDS Denmark)
General Introduction
From the Viking era (eighth to eleventh centuries) and the year 1510 the Danish navy usually
comprised of ships from specified towns and districts of the country, conscripted on crown authority
as and when the need arose.
The one deviation came in 1397, when the Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Sweden (which
then included the greater part of modern day Finland) and Norway – united under the regency of the
Danish Queen Margrethe I (1353-1412). In its desire to control the Baltic Sea, the unified state came
against opposition from the Hanseatic League, a commercial and defensive confederation of merchant
guilds and their market towns, which was active from the thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries. The
League was well equipped with ships and it became apparent that a standing navy would be required to
oppose it. To meet this need, Queen Margrethe ordered a navy to be built for which the nobility was to
be responsible for providing crews, other than for certain key posts such as master and ship’s carpenter.
The Royal Danish Navy is generally considered to have been born on the 10th August 1510, when
King Hans (1455-1513) established the ‘Common Fleet’, i.e. one composed of elements from the three
states, and appointed his vassal Henrik Krummedige1 to become
In 1521 Sweden left the union and there ensued a long struggle between the two nations over
domination of the Baltic. Denmark and Norway were to remain a twin kingdom until 1814, when by
the terms of the Congress of Vienna following the end of the Napoleonic War they became separate
kingdoms2. The Common Fleet, aka the Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy, was divided into the Royal
Danish Navy and the Royal Norwegian Navy. The centuries of warfare had left a great number of
wrecks on the sea bed in addition to those lost by accident, storm or navigation failure.
As well as salvage of shallow wrecks from the surface, some form of diving must have been used in
the early centuries, though our knowledge of such operations is limited. It was especially important to
recover, where possible, the valuable cannons from lost warships and in the late fifteenth century the
king required as much salvage as possible for the benefit of the crown. Accordingly, fishermen, so-called
1. Henrik Krummedige was born circa 1464 in Norway and died in 1530. He was a Danish-Norwegian nobleman
and a member of both the Norwegian and Danish National Councils (Rigsråd) and played an extensive role in
the politics of the era.
2. Norway was lost to Sweden, but despite the peace treaty, Norway declared its independence and adopted
a democratic constitution on 17th of May 1814. The Viceroy and hereditary prince of Denmark-Norway,
the late King Christian VIII of Denmark, became king of Norway. Sweden responded by waging war on
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted Norway. In the peace negotiations, the Norwegian king agreed to relinquish claims to the Norwegian
throne and return to Denmark if Sweden would accept the democratic Norwegian constitution and a loose
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, by photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without
personal union. The Norwegian parliament (Stortinget) then elected the Swedish king as king of Norway.
prior permission in writing from the publishers.
The union was peacefully dissolved in 1905 and the Norwegian parliament offered the throne to Prince Carl
© 2014 Peter Dick, Tim Glover, Dr. Finn Linnemann, Dr. Michael Burchett, Robert Burchett, Tim of Denmark, who accepted it after a referendum confirmed the monarchy and rejected a republican form of
Glover, Trevor Newman, Franz Rothbrust, Reg Vallintine. government. He ascended the throne under the Norwegian name of Haakon VII.
salvagers (vragere) were granted licenses for the salvage of goods and cannons. Our knowledge of these Judichaer was appointed a rear admiral in 1710 and
early operations is limited, though we know the salvagers worked from small boats using a variety of in the following years, until 1719, supervised various
tools and that men swam down to wrecks to fasten ropes and hooks to recoverable items3. construction works, including diving operations at the
For a better understanding of the progressive historical dialogue that follows, it is necessary to first naval base and in other places4. Other than the King’s
make a distinction between ‘diving in the military’ and ‘military diving’. The former uses divers in their order to build the diving bell, no documentation
traditional roles of salvage, ship and underwater structure repair and rescue operations, etc., while the or drawings have been found in the archives. It is
latter uses specially trained and equipped divers for mine counter operations, ordnance clearance and probable that it was modelled on the Halley bell, as
underwater intelligence or attack operations. was the bell constructed in 1734 by the Swede Mårten
Triewald7, a replica of which was made under the
The Diving Bell Period auspices of the Norwegian Historical Diving Society
From the mid-seventeenth century the kingdom of Denmark-Norway was an absolute monarchy and (Norsk Dykkehistorisk Forening) and tested at the
all major enterprises and activities required crown authority, while the salvage techniques in use relied Norwegian Underwater Intervention site, Bergen in
on free divers, where water depth permitted, or the use of a diving bell. In line with techniques in use 2005-6 (see Fig. 1). We may assume that bell diving
elsewhere in Europe, wrecks were raised by utilising the buoyancy of pontoons or ships. continued in the following years, though there is no
In 1673 a Danish official, Corfitz Braem, witnessed a bell diving operation at Kjelstraumen, a small documentary evidence of diving in the navy in that
fjord north of Bergen. From a depth of 30 metres copper plates were retrieved from a sunken vessel4. period. However, it is known that a diving bell was
Corfitz Braem describes how the diver was dressed in a protective leather suit probably of the same type used in the former Danish West Indies at St. Thomas
later used during the bell diving on the Vasa, as witnessed by the Italian priest Francesco Negri in 16635. on Hassel Island. This bell seems to have come to the
During the Great Northern War (1700-1721), when, after initial successes Sweden faced a coalition island before 1854, but whether it was of the same
of Denmark-Norway, Prussia, Russia and Saxe-Poland-Lithuania, the Danish-Norwegian navy was design as Judichaer’s bell is not known.
successful, but the cost of the war meant it was imperative to retrieve lost cannons and goods. Accordingly,
in 1713 King Frederik IV (1699-1730) ordered that a diving bell and a barge and crane be built. This The Introduction of Helmet Diving Equipment Fig. 1 A replica of Mårten Triewald’s bell was
bell was used on many occasions during the war, including in the salvage of 11 Swedish ships in 1719. There is evidence of military diving in the 1830s. made under the auspices of the Norwegian
The man who constructed this bell might be called the father of Danish military diving. His name A government commission had recommended that Historical Diving Society (Norsk Dykkehistorisk
was Ole Judichaer6 and he was born in 1661. After graduating in Copenhagen in 1683 he went on to the Royal Danish Navy (Kongelige Danske Marine) Forening) and tested at the Norwegian Underwater
study mathematics and shipbuilding. He was employed at the Copenhagen Naval Base in 1690 though should purchase its own diving equipment so as to Intervention site, Bergen in 2005-6.
neither a naval officer nor a marine expert. He constructed two ships of the line in 1697 and in 1698 he avoid employing civilian salvage companies, for whom
was appointed commander, senior grade. In the years 1701–1727 he also taught at the Naval Academy. it had become a lucrative business, for their diving services. The principal salvage company had been
He was appointed captain in 1705 and in 1708–1709 he studied in The Netherlands and in England. founded by Emil Zeuten Svitzer8, who had bought his first diving equipment from England in 1842.
He knew of Edmund Halley, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle and Robert Hooke, was familiar with the This was a Sadler open helmet system, an example of which can still be seen at the Naval Diving School
Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions and undoubtedly witnessed demonstrations of bell diving. (see Fig. 2). Also in 1842 Denmark had its probably first legislation on diving: The Regulation regarding
Diving etc. (Forordning Angaaende Dykkervæsenet m. v.). The first diving equipment purchased by the
Royal Danish Navy was a closed suit system, including an air pump. It was received in 1847, and was
3. Phillips, N: ‘The Tools and Instruments used by Early Salvage Divers’ in International Journal of Diving chosen because it had been used successfully a few years before on the Royal George 9. We believe today
History 1/1 (2005) 47-57. that it was a Sadler 10-bolt helmet system, but it might also have been a Siebe 12-bolt system. A detailed
4. The Danish official Corfitz Braem (1639–1683) describes this salvage operation in his travel book (Reisebaag) list of this equipment has survived.
about six journeys to various European countries 1659–1674. Another interesting observation Corfits Braem
made was that in the same second the diving bell came out of the water, the diver’s breath escaped under 7. Triewald, Mårten: The Art of Living under Water (London).The Historical Diving Society, 2004.
the edge of the bell as a fog. (Ref. Volume 2 of Norsk Magasin by N. Nicolaysen, Johan Dahls Forlag 1868, 8. Emil Zeuten Svitzer (1805 – 1886). His company Svitzer A/S was founded in 1833 and is now a member
Christiania). The leather suit was presumably manufactured in the same way the Vikings made their weather of the A.P. Moller-Maersk Group and has offices in 40 countries specializing in salvage, towing and other
protective leather clothes. A method still used on the Faroe Island in the beginning of the 19th century as maritime work. The company headquarters remains in Copenhagen.
described by Jens Riise Christensen in Dykkehistoris Tidsskrift No. 31, 2007. 9. The Royal George, a Royal Navy 100 gun 1st Rate, capsized whilst anchored at Spithead in August, 1782.
5. Francesco Negri (1623–1698) was an Italian priest and explorer. He was staying in Stockholm in 1663 at the Demolition of the wreck in the years 1839–44 provided a testing ground for the several manufacturers of
time of salvage work on the Vasa. He wrote about the diving bell and how the diver worked and was dressed. the recently developed ‘standard dress’, i.e. a copper helmet secured to a rubberised canvas suit and supplied
(Viaggio settentrionale in otto lettere (Padua) 1700.) with air from a surface pump. Colonel C.W. Pasley of the Royal Engineers, who led the operations, provided
6. For a fuller account of Judichaer’s life see Theill, Cdr. V: ‘Early Bell Diving in Denmark’ in The International a detailed report to The Admiralty in December, 1841 on the equipment used (UK National Archives:
Journal of Diving History 2.1 (2006) 16-19. WO44/281), and recommended Augustus Siebe’s apparatus.
In the coming years the stock of diving equipment Later, a German 3-bolt regulator helmet12 replaced the
increased, but naval diving remained restricted to salvage Rouquayrol-Denayrouze mask. In connection with an expedition
and maintenance and no formal training system was to Greenland in 1891, the Navy purchased the Stove apparatus13,
established. Instead, older experienced divers taught the but whether this was used at the diving school is not clear and
trainees and all divers were attached to the naval yard only the air pump has survived. The Danish 2-bolt helmet, being
in Copenhagen. invented by Peter Hansen Hessing14 and patented in Denmark and
Towards the end of the First Dano-German War Germany in 1907 (see Fig. 4), became soon the standard helmet for
(1848–1850) a German inventor and engineer, Wilhelm divers in Denmark and many 12- and 3-bolt helmets were modified
Bauer10, constructed a submersible to break the Danish with a 2-bolt breastplate. From 1907 the helmet was manufactured
naval blockade of Kiel. This submersible sank, and after at the naval yard and became the standard navy helmet.
the war an attempt was made by the Danish authorities In 1929, the naval diving school became part of the submarine
to raise it. division. It remained the only diving school in Denmark and was
It is likely that naval divers would have been involved, restricted to naval personnel.
but the salvage was unsuccessful and it was not until 1887 The first naval diving manual (Haandbog I Dykning), which
that the submersible, named Brandtaucher (Fire-diver) was was the first official Danish diving manual, was published in 1931.
raised by the Imperial German Navy. It can now be seen It was written by the commanding officer of the diving school,
in the Bundeswehr Military History Museum in Dresden Lieutenant Commander Louis Rostock-Jensen15, who ensured
(Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr). that navy expertise in the field of diver safety was passed on to
the commercial diving world and in 1932 civilians were allowed
The Creation of a Diving School and the Period until the to participate in the annual diving courses. At this time diving
Second World War Fig. 2 The Sadler open helmet accidents were all too frequent and the Royal Danish Navy and
On the 2nd of March 1883 the Royal Danish Navy at the Naval Diving School. the Danish Diving Association (Dansk Dykkerforening)16 made a
established a diving school at the Copenhagen naval joint re-commendation to the Ministry of Commerce, Industry Fig. 4 The Danish 2-bolt
yard (Orlogsværftet) in association with the ship building and Shipping that legislation concerning all diving work be helmet invented by Peter
Hansen Hessing.
department. The Admiralty stipulated that an annual implemented. In 1936 this joint military and civilian effort resulted
class of 5 divers should be trained under the auspices
of a NCO and an experienced diver. Apart from 12. We do not know who was the manufacturer of the 3-bolt helmets purchased by the Danish navy. At
the apparatus already mentioned, some Rouquayrol- that time, from 1870, the company Ludwig von Bremen & Co. in Kiel manufactured 3-bolt equipment
based on the Rouquayrol-Denarouze system. Also Franz Clouth (1838–1910), a German rubber product
Denayrouze diving apparatus with the “pig snout” mask
manufacturer (Clouth-Werke in Cologne), began in 1880 production of diving equipment, and he too
(see Fig. 3), suits and an air pump were purchased11. manufactured a 3-bolt system based on the Rouquayrol-Denarouze system. Franz Clouth became in 1887
the sole contractor of diving equipment to the Imperial German Navy. As a regulator helmet made by
10. Wilhelm Bauer (1822–1875) constructed another Ludwig von Bremen is still at the naval diving school, we must assume that the 3-bolt system purchased was
submarine after the Brandtaucher. It was an improved from Ludwig von Bremen.
version called the Seeteufel (Sea Devil) and was built in 13. Alfred Edwin Stove, a London engineer, patented his diving helmet design in 1888 (Patent No.15498). In
Russia. After 133 successful dives, it was wrecked doing 1891 he registered a second patent, number 4736, for a modified version of his first design and formed a
dive no. 134. company, Stove’s Patent Diving Apparatus and Submarine Engineering Co.
11. In 1860, Benoit Rouquayrol (1826–1875), a French 14. Peter Hansen Hessing (1859–1948) was a diver with the Svitzer Company, when he invented his new
mining engineer, designed a self-contained breathing helmet. He combined the closeness of the 3-bolt helmet’s flange assembly with the large suit opening of the
apparatus with air supplied from a cylinder mounted 12-bolt helmet, so only one assistant was necessary to help the diver in dressing and undressing. 2 bolts were
on the wearer’s back. In 1864, together with Auguste sufficient to fasten a special constructed chest ring, creating a watertight assembly between the helmet and
Denayrouze (1837-1883), a French naval officer, the the suit.
apparatus was adapted for diving purposes. It was 15. Louis Rostock-Jensen (1899–1966) was commanding officer of the Naval Diving School 1928–1934. He
purchased by the French Navy in 1865 and received a had served in the submarines and was also known from the Teddy Expedition to the Northeast of Greenland
favourable British Admiralty report the same year. At the in 1923-1924. He left the navy in 1937 and had a civilian career in a major insurance company. He also had
naval diving school a low pressure 8 liter Rouquayrol- Fig. 3 A replica of the Rouquayrol- several board positions including the board of Svitzer A/S.
Denarouze apparatus still exists with a “pig snout” mask Denayrouze diving apparatus with 16. “Dansk Dykkerforening” was founded in 1920 and acted for many years as the divers’ union regarding
and a matching air pump. the “pig snout” mask. payment and safety.
in the passage of a bill in parliament17. The law required that all divers in Denmark had to have valid time-delay pencil detonators. It took almost an hour for Chirholm to reach the Nürnberg from his
certification issued by an approved diving school in order to carry out their occupation legally. In reality descent point. Having broken and placed the pencil detonators in the charge, he walked away from the
this law made training at the naval diving school mandatory for both military and civilian divers. cruiser and was recovered by a waiting boat. The detonation failed and a few days later a second bomb
Since the naval diving school was Denmark’s only school of diving, some research was carried out of 100 kg, now in a metal canister and with a built-in clockwork timer was constructed, but before the
there. The principal diving equipment was the 2-bolt Hansen helmet system, but naval divers were still second attempt could be made, the Germans surrendered. Chirholm now had to dive to recover the
mostly occupied with maintenance and salvage operations and were not used in a tactical concept. The undetonated bomb with the assistance of a diver from the Nürnberg.
country’s first decompression chamber had been built at the naval yard in 1902 and diving medicine was
an area of the school activities. With the introduction of the diving manual, Haldane’s decompression The Period after the Second World War
tables18 were used as a standard throughout the country. Post war, the naval diving school returned to the naval base in Copenhagen. The training of commercial
divers continued, and from being an independent school it became part of the department of mine
The Second World War Period warfare. In the years since then the school has moved between several departments. At present the naval
The defence cut backs that followed the First World War continued to impact on the military budget diving school comes under the umbrella of the naval special school (Søværnets Specialskole)20, though
throughout the 1930s. Denmark declared its neutrality at the beginning of the Second World War and in practice it still works as an independent unit. Its primary duties are to train civilian and military
had signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. In accordance with the country’s policy during the personnel as:
1914–18 war, the straits and waterways were mined. However, Germany invaded in April 1940, though - Surface supplied diver to 50 metres.
by the terms of the subsequent peace treaty, Denmark retained its parliament and state institutions - Commercial SCUBA diver to 30 meters.
continued to operate relatively normally to 1943, when strikes and acts of sabotage led to the Germans - Diver’s assistant.
closing the parliament and taking complete control. The Danish Navy continued mine sweeping and, - Special unit divers for the navy.
with the army, ordnance disposal during the period from 1940 to 1943. In this work divers were - Commercial divers’ supplementary training (Cutting, welding, demolition, inspection, etc.).
sometimes used to retrieve British bombs from Copenhagen’s harbour and canals and from other major The diving school also takes part in experimental diving and closely monitors the development of
coastal cities. Also mines were dealt with. In 1943 the bulk of the Danish fleet was scuttled, though new diving systems.
a few ships escaped to Sweden, and the naval diving school was closed, but its work was continued at There had been considerable change and
Tuborg Harbour, north of Copenhagen, where civilian students were trained. progress in the world of diving during the
Towards the end of the Second World War, as Germany withdrew from their eastern possession, Second World War, when the use of SCUBA
Copenhagen became a focal point for refugee transportation and there were often large German naval divers and frogmen in military operations had
ships in Copenhagen harbour. To counteract allied air supremacy the German cruiser Nürnberg was proved to be a successful concept. In the
stationed at Copenhagen in April 1945 in an anti-aircraft role. Clearly, the cruiser’s fire power would Royal Danish Navy there was an emerging
present a significant threat in the event of a battle for Copenhagen, and the Danish resistance decided understanding of the use of these types of divers.
to sink her. A naval diver, Henry Chirholm19 was recruited for the task. The first SCUBA divers in the Royal Danish
The attempt took place on the 26th of April 1945. Chirholm used a standard diving suit, Navy were called “frogmen” and were trained
incorporating a Dräger DM 20 injector apparatus adapted to a 2-bolt helmet. The injector apparatus at a torpedo station in the north of Zealand in
was a semi-closed, self-contained system, using pure oxygen, the quantity of expired oxygen being so 1951 (see Fig. 5). They were 6 mine mechanics
small that it would be unnoticeable on the surface. A potassium canister absorbed the carbon dioxide. (a special branch of ordinary seamen) and were
The bomb was a 100 kg explosive charge in a sack and it was intended to be exploded by the use of equipped with a mixture of Danish, German,
French and British equipment. The reason for
17. By Act No. 87 of the 7th of April 1936 on diving trade and the safeguarding of diving operations, it was training those was that they primarily should
decided that anyone who for money undertakes to carry out work as a diver on Danish territory must be in carry out salvage of lost torpedoes during target
possession of a diving certificate. This included the Faroe Islands and Greenland.
practice. It was to be some years before frogmen
18. John Scott Haldane (1860–1936) was the physiologist member of the British Admiralty Committee on Deep
Water Diving, whose report, published in 1908, first established that an ascent to a relatively shallow depth,
were seen in military diving.
followed by stage decompression was safer than the then current practice of a continuous slow ascent. A second The primary task for the Royal Danish Navy Fig. 5 The first SCUBA divers in the Royal Danish
Deep Diving Committee, which reported in 1930, extended Haldane’s tables to greater working depths. after the Second World War was to conduct Navy were trained in the north of Zealand in 1951.
19. Henry Lorentz Møller Chirholm (1919-1998) was a leading gunnery rate (artillerimath), when he joined the
Naval Diving School. During the German occupation he was involved in a military resistance group and that 20. The Naval Special School consists of 5 subordinated courses: The Naval Diving Course (Søværnets
involvement led to his participation in the attack on the Nürnberg. After the war he was promoted to petty Dykkerkursus), the Naval ABCD-Course (Søværnets Havarikursus), the Naval Tactical Course (Søværnets
officer and participated in various clearance diving operations. He later became a special trained officer and Taktikkursus), the Naval Technical Course (Søværnets Teknikkursus) and the Naval Weapons Course (Søværnets
retired in 1979 as lieutenant commander (See Historical Diving Times no. 31, 2002). Våbenkursus).
minesweeping and mine disposal in Danish and only a few were trained divers. During the Second World War these personnel were involved in
territorial waters and beaches. More than bomb and mine disposal. They continued that work after the war in the many mine disposal teams
40,000 mines had been laid in Danish waters (minørhold) which were formed all over the country in order to deal with the thousands of sea mines in
during the war and mine sweepers leased the Danish waters, as previously mentioned.
from Great Britain, together with some from Following the Second World War the Danish defence forces required rebuilding almost from
Denmark and others seized from Germany, scratch. With the country’s accession to NATO in 1949 the Danish straits were once again of vital
were employed in their removal. Naval mine geo-strategic importance. Many new mine depots were established and some of the technical personnel
disposal teams worked along the coast from at these depots were trained as conventional and SCUBA divers. In this role they were part of the
the beaches, some using helmet divers (see Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Service (EOD-Service), with each depot forming its own clearance
Fig. 6), especially when dealing with the diving team to assist fishermen, who fouled mines and other types of munitions with their nets. It was
thousands of anti-invasion mines on the west still a strange organization. The personnel were technicians at a mine depot and therefore assigned to
coast of Jutland. Unfortunately a team of the Naval Materiel Command. However, when they formed clearance diving teams, they came under
five was killed in 1947 whilst dragging a the operational command of the local naval district. As their responsibilities as to diving and EOD-
snag line between two boats, when the Hertz procedures were related to the EOD-Service, their professional behaviour was the responsibility of the
horn on an anti-invasion mine was broken. head of the EOD-Service, who was integrated in the Naval Underwater Weapons School. In times of
However, since then there have been only mobilization, it was planned that once the mine depots had issued their stock of mines, the personnel
minor accidents in mine clearance operations. would form wartime clearance diving teams under
the operational guidance of the head of the EOD-
The Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Service Fig. 6 After World War II naval mine disposal teams Service, who then would be a staff member of the
– Clearance Diving sometimes used helmet divers.
Admiral Danish Fleet21.
From the 1880s the Royal Danish Navy’s From the 1960s the training of the clearance divers
mine warfare operations expanded. Various focussed on methods for handling active mines as
types of moored mines were constructed and even well as dealing with all types of munitions, including
exported. Mining of straits and waters was a key factor on land. Various search methods were introduced
in Danish naval defence policy and some naval officers and the training became more in accordance with
began to see a connection between diving and mine NATO standards, with clearance divers taking part
warfare requiring the use of naval divers to inspect and in various NATO mine warfare exercises.
maintain the mine barrages. Also in the 1960s it became clear that mine
Denmark remained neutral during the First World clearance diving would require a specialized diving
War, but about 9,000 mines were dealt with by mine apparatus if the objectives were to be met. The
disposal teams, mostly on the west coast of Jutland Aqua Lung, which was then in service was too noisy
though divers were not used in that work. It was done and had too high a magnetic signature, so in 1967
by mine technicians, the so-called “minører”, a word the Navy tested the French FENZY DC 55 against
adopted from the French word “Mineur” (see Fig. 7). a German FGT from Dräger (see Fig. 8). Both
They had to sail or wade out to a mine, when it was were semi-closed nitrox rebreathers with individual
located and render it safe or blow it up. This was the principles of dosage. The FGT used a reduction
beginning of the Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal valve and a nozzle to supply a certain amount of
Service (Søværnets Minørtjeneste). After the First World nitrox per time unit to the breathing bag, whereas
War any development about using divers in mine in the DC 55 the dosage was demand controlled by Fig. 8 In 1967 the Navy tested the French FENZY
warfare was put into cold storage because of the major the respiration of the diver. DC 55 against a German FGT from Dräger.
defence cut-backs that followed the end of the war.
The period up to the outbreak of the Second World
21. There were in peace time 8 clearance diving teams connected to the mine depots and other naval
War left the Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Service establishments. The team on the island on Bornholm was specifically trained in handling chemical
to be more an abstract concept than an organization. Fig. 7 During World War I mines were munitions hence the chemical dumping areas in the Baltics. On the Faroe Islands was an EOD-team
Mine technicians were affiliated with the mine depots dealt with by non-diving technicians without divers, and Greenland had to be supported from Copenhagen. In times of mobilization other
and the Department of Naval Mining (Søminevæsenet), called minørers. personnel and the Frogman Corps would form clearance diving teams if needed.
The DC 55 was chosen and was in 1974 purchased by the Navy for the clearance divers and the
frogmen. A modification was made to enable the removal of the scrubber without the use of tools.
At the Naval Diving School a new course in mixed gas diving was established, but was restricted to
clearance divers and frogmen.
The DC 55 proved an excellent apparatus, but unfortunately the divers were not issued with their
own set. Instead, all the sets were stored in a depot and only issued for exercises and special tasks.
Because of the strange organizational structure it was impossible to persuade the Naval Materiel
Command to let the clearance divers and the frogmen have a set of their own. This effectively prevented
divers from training regularly with the DC 55 and from developing a “personal” relationship with their
own apparatus. A diver could hand in a perfect, overhauled set after an exercise and receive one in bad
condition on the next occasion. This impacted on diver’s morale and there were some accidents with the
apparatus, which made it unpopular with the divers, undeservedly so in this writer’s opinion.
In 1989 the Navy replaced the DC 55 with the semi-closed mixed gas ACSC apparatus from the
Swedish company AGA (see Fig. 9). The system had been developed in 1977–1979 and was based on
nitrox. The intention was to extend the bottom time for clearance divers to a depth of 57 metres. The Fig. 10 In the 1980s the
system has a total weight of 50 kilos and although semi-closed there are very few bubbles on expiration. ACSC set was to prove
The breathing air circulates in the system and perfect for the MCM diver.
when needed the expiration gases are given off In the 1980s, the use of Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) systems was expanded with the
through a rubber bag with a slit. This results implementation of a sea borne mine clearance concept, using the Standard Flex 300 ships22. There was
in a minimum of gas escape to the outside. a need for divers to identify mines and also to operate ROV systems carrying a mine disposal charge.
A scrubber deals with the carbon dioxide Admiral Danish Fleet found that a clearance diver was overqualified for this work, and a special mine
and the breathing gas can be reused by the counter measures (MCM) diver training was established. This became part of the new clearance diver
diver with a minimum of oxygen supplement, training system, where all training other than actual diving was provided in modules. The first module
hence the name, Alternatively Closed Semi qualified a diver as a MCM-diver. He could then take further modules to qualify as a clearance diver
Closed breathing demand system. To keep the and finally the full EOD training required for qualification as a team leader. For the MCM diver the
diver correctly weighed when he was working ACSC set proved perfect (see Fig. 10), as they were only required to carry out selective diving on a
on a mine, there is a counter lung in the form located mine and not do area clearance work.
of a rubber bag with lead weights, which In the 1990s it became evident that the organization of military diving was not satisfactory. The
prevents vertical rolling and pitching in time Frogman Corps was becoming increasingly focussed on the anti-terrorism aspect of their operations,
with the diver’s breathing. whilst the EOD-Service, being divided between mine depot service and clearance diving now were the
Each clearance diver was issued with his most experienced divers in the navy. This led to their increased involvement in civilian related search
own set, an arrangement they much preferred and rescue situations and they had also taken over the responsibilities relating to submarine rescue and
and the ACSC was used for all purposes. salvage from the frogmen. The situation in the 1990s with the clearance divers primarily being occupied
The ACSC was a good apparatus, but with as mine technicians, but more and more used in the EOD-Service created more and more problems
the development of very shallow water related to their working conditions. At the same time an age problem arose, as most of the clearance
clearance procedures (VSW), which meant divers as mine technicians were public employees with a retirement age of 60. Having to face the diving
the clandestine clearance of defined coastal and EOD demands began for some to be difficult to meet, as they grew older. If a clearance diver lost his
areas, divers were not able to maintain secrecy
from the last 2 or 3 metres to the beach. It was
experienced many times in various locations 22. The Standard Flex 300 (SF300) multirole vessels, also known as the Flyvefisken Class were built for the Royal
for example on the west coast of Jutland, Danish Navy by the Danish shipyard Danyard A/S between 1987 and 1996. A total of 14 vessels have been
where the divers in the surf area and under built. The first of class, Flyvefisken (Flying Fish) was commissioned in 1989. The Flyvefisken Class is based on
influence of the undercurrent had difficulty a modular concept using a standard hull with containerised weapon systems and equipment, which allows
Fig. 9 In 1989 the Navy replaced the DC 55 with the the vessel to change role quickly for surveillance, surface combat, anti-submarine warfare (ASW), mine
maintaining their position low in the water.
semi-closed mixed gas ACSC apparatus from the countermeasures / minehunter (MCM), minelayer or pollution control. Standard equipment for all roles
A new type of apparatus was required. Swedish company, AGA. includes the command system, radars and hull-mounted sonars.
status, he would still be a mine technician, but there would be no position available for a new diver. This With training plans and student selection criteria prepared and the necessary personnel identified and
problem was brought up with Admiral Danish Fleet and a working group was therefore formed in order three experienced chief petty officers and a medical warrant officer intensively trained as instructors by
to find a future way to organize not only the EOD-Service, but the whole military diving in the navy. the two leading officers. The personnel were very enthusiastic and prepared all the facilities themselves.
A former children’s holiday camp was prepared for accommodation and education, an obstacle course
The Frogman Corps and other things were constructed, and on the 17th of June 1957 with seventeen former coastal defence
Based on the training of the first SCUBA divers in 1951 the first steps were taken to establish a combat Able Ratings (kystmather)24 as voluntary students the Frogman School was established. It was not until
diver school, the Frogman School (Frømandsskolen) in association with the Naval diving School, and in 1962, when the army had formed their special force, the Jaeger Corps (Jægerkorpset) that the frogmen
1955 the future commanding officer of the combined school was sent to USA in order to complete a began to refer to the Frogman School as the Frogman Corps (Frømandskorpset), which about 1964
conventional and SCUBA diver training. In 1956, three other officers were sent to Norway in order to became the official name.
complete a combat diver course, and one of these three officers was already picked out to be second-in- The Frogman Corps grew in the following years.
command of the Naval Diving School and the Frogman School. He had been trained as a diver in the Equipment was updated, and experience was gained from
Allied Special Operations Executive (SOE) during the Second World War and had wartime experience. operations and exercises all over the world. The Lt. Lund
He became responsible for the tactical training of the future frogmen. It was during the course in II oxygen closed circuit rebreather was replaced with the
Norway that the well-known Norwegian diver, Lieutenant Commander Ove Lund, died whilst diving newer Dräger Norge II rebreather and later with the Dräger
with his new Dräger mixed gas apparatus, the ‘Lt. Lund III’. It was a tragic experience, especially for LAR V (see Fig. 12), and the suits were complemented
one of the Danish participants involving in the attempt to rescue him23. with wet suits. Apart from their special operational duties,
The models for the Frogman School were the US Navy Seal Teams, the British Special Boat Squadron the Frogman Corps in the sixties, seventies and eighties also
(SBS) and the Norwegian Froskemannskorpset. Following the testing and evaluation of various types of was part of the clearance diving teams to be formed in the
diving equipment, the Naval Diving School purchased a quantity of Dräger 3X7 compressed air and event of mobilization. Because of this, frogmen took part
the Dräger ‘Lt. Lund II’ oxygen apparatus (see Fig. 11). The greenViking suit and the French Cousteau in NATO exercises for many years together with clearance
constant volume suit were chosen as the preferred types of diving dress. divers. Combined teams of frogmen and clearance divers
were also used. Together with the personnel from the naval
diving school, the Frogman Corps was trained to assist
in submarine rescue operations, but due to the increased
workload related to operations abroad, this role and the
mine clearance duties had to be abandoned and by the
1990s these areas became the sole responsibility of the
clearance divers. From being assigned to the naval diving
school in Copenhagen, the Frogman Corps became a unit Fig. 12 The ‘Lt. Lund II’ oxygen closed
in the submarine squadron, but operational control was circuit rebreather was replaced with the
vested with the Admiral Danish Fleet in Aarhus. Today, newer Dräger ‘Norge II’ rebreather and
however, the Frogman Corps is directly assigned to the later with the Dräger ‘LAR’.
Admiral Danish Fleet.
The role and tasks of the Frogman Corps have developed over the years. During the Cold War,
Fig. 11 The Naval Diving School training was for covert operations and reconnaissance from submerged submarines, for silent assaults on
purchased a quantity of Dräger hostile ships or sabotage on fixed shore installations as well as other combat duties, which characterize
‘Lt. Lund II’ oxygen apparatus. the versatility of the corps. The Frogman Corps is, together with the army’s Jaeger Corps one of the
two units in the Danish Defence force which conducts special operations of the type seen in Iraq
and Afghanistan. With this background the Frogman Corps forms part of the anti-terrorism force in
23. Ove Lund (1924–1956) was originally a sport diver, who in 1951 was headhunted by the Norwegian navy
in order to build up the combat diving training. This training was mostly based on the American Navy Denmark as well as supporting the police in criminal investigations.
Seal training model and he became the first commanding officer of the new Naval Combat Diver School For operational diving today the frogmen are equipped with a DIVEX Shadow excursion unit
(Marinens Froskemannskole) and was so until his death in 1956. Ove Lund introduced the first military (see Fig. 13), which enables them to ascend from deep water on nitrox, changing to oxygen near the
oxygen rebreather apparatus in 1954. The specific construction of the fatal apparatus, ‘Lt. Lund III’, is not
known by the Historical Diving Society in Denmark, but there were two bottles on the back and one on the 24. The Coastal Defence (Kystbefæstningen) consisted of a number of forts and coastal installations around
chest, and we know of a helium dosage regulator (US3.068.864) patented by Dräger in1959. The ‘Lt. Lund Denmark under command of the Admiral Danish Fleet. The Able Ratings (kystmather) had a basic land
III’ apparatus is believed to be a heliox apparatus with regeneration. The final documentation is still missing. military training and were mainly trained as gunners.
Following the organizational changes made to the Danish defence in the new century, military
diving in the Royal Danish Navy now rests solely with the Frogman Corps. The Naval Diving School,
now the Naval Diving Course and part of the Naval Special School, still retains its civilian training
obligation, being the primary diving school in Denmark. Training and the use of divers in a military
operational concept is the responsibility of the Frogman Corps. The special EOD-training of clearance
divers is a co-operational task for the Naval Weapons course, which is also part of the Naval Special
School, and the EOD-section of the Frogman Corps. Another non-diving element, the navy military
police has been assigned to the Frogman Corps and with these three elements the so-called Maritime
Insertion Force has been formed in connection with anti-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa.
This has proved successful, with frogmen leading the surprise attack, the EOD trained clearance divers
handling explosives and weapons and finally the military police ensuring that the procedures for taking
prisoners, their imprisonment and interrogation are in accordance with the Geneva Convention and
other international legislation.
Conclusion
Diving in the Danish military has mainly followed the same trend and tracks that have taken place in
other European countries. Equipment was acquired based on value for money. As a national diving
school the Naval Diving School has kept close contact with the civilian diving world, and it has resulted
in a beneficial outcome for the navy as to knowledge about equipment and procedures not necessarily
related to diving in Danish waters. In that context the Naval Diving School is the experimental diving
unit of the Royal Danish Navy.
Fig. 13 For operational diving today the The military diving as defined earlier has only existed for fifty years. It is solely a matter for the navy,
Fig. 14 The Is-Mix apparatus developed by Interspiro is based
frogmen are equipped with on the proven concepts of ACSC and DCSC systems. though the army engineers had some trained as SCUBA divers in the 1970s. The two naval diving
a DIVEX Shadow excursion unit. organizations, the EOD-Service and the Frogman Corps, were as to diving very alike. The Frogman
Corps were used as clearance diving teams in the beginning and often former frogmen became mine
surface to enable a covert swim to the target. For ordinary compressed air diving the frogmen use specialists and part of the EOD-Service. A navy like the Royal Danish Navy could not afford to have
SCUPBAPRO 15/18 litres bottles and INTERSPIRO composite bottles with wing vest and the Mk III two diving organizations, so for practical, tactical and economic reasons those two organizations were
regulator. As for dry suits, the frogmen now use suits from the American company Diving Unlimited bound to merge. They did so some years ago, and like any marriage, it is for better and for worse.
International (DUI), so the Corps is therefore well equipped for its present roles. Personally I have hoped that all diving in the navy including the Naval Diving School was brought
together under the same umbrella with a Superintendent of Diving as figurehead.
Towards a New Military Diving Organization Let me conclude this account of military diving in Denmark by saying that for today’s military diver
Today the naval diving school still trains all the military divers, maintains contact with the civilian diving is the least of his skills, but it is the skill on which he builds his safety, when conducting all the
diving world and undertakes trials and experiments on diving equipment and methods as mentioned other in the wet element.
earlier. The working group on the future of military diving, formed in the 1990s did not make any final
recommendations, although the outcome was to lead to a new organization for naval divers. Following
the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Danish geo-strategic focus moved from the Baltic to other areas Finn Linnemann is a retired Commander in the Royal Danish Navy and present secretary of Dykkehistorisk
of the world. The mine depots with their mines were mothballed and the clearance divers offered new Selskab (The Historical Diving Society, Denmark). During his naval career he trained in diving and Explosive
positions or retirement. By the turn of the late century the Naval EOD-Service had ceased to exist and Ordnance Disposal. As head of the Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Service he was not only responsible
became, with a number of clearance divers, the EOD-section of the Frogman Corps, which at the same for all naval EOD and IED clearance at sea in Danish waters, both on land and at sea in Greenland and the
time expanded. A new special force organization was born. Faroe Islands.
New diving equipment for the clearance divers was obtained. This was the Interspiro developed
Is-Mix apparatus, based on the proven concepts of ACSC and DCSC systems (see Fig. 14). The Is-Mix
is simple and fast to prepare and operate. There is a minimum of breathing resistance due to the large
diameter of the hoses and the hydrostatically balanced breathing bellows. The Is-Mix is neutral in water
and maintenance is easy and simple too, an apparatus with which the clearance divers are well prepared
for the new era.
At the time of the Great Exhibition (1851) the firm of A. Siebe was producing a divers’ knife which is
shown in an illustration of that period. By 1870 the subsequent firm of Siebe & Gorman was producing
The History and Identification of Common Siebe Gorman, a well-designed, high quality divers’ knife for use by both military and commercial divers. It is not
known when the firm of C. E. Heinke first starting producing divers’ knives, but it is probably around
Heinke and British Military Divers’ Knives the same time as their rival, A. Siebe. It is interesting to note that from 1916 onwards, regulations
from 1840 to 2010 contained within Royal Navy Diving Manuals, required the wearing of a divers’ knife for all underwater
Dr Michael Burchett (HDS) and Robert Burchett (HDS) operations. It also recommended that the divers’ attendant should also carry a knife of some sort.
Fig. 2.
Introduction Left: An 1846 illustration
A divers’ knife is an essential piece of equipment which is worn for both safety and practical reasons. drawn by Captain G. R.
The divers’ knife must be fit for purpose and priority features include a rugged, functional design Hutchinson (RE) showing
combined with quality materials. A divers’ knife must also be securely sheathed to prevent damage or a Royal Engineers diver
injury to the diver, yet easy to withdraw. British divers’ knives (including those for military purposes) wearing A. Siebe ‘closed’
are not designed for combat, but are used as tools for a variety of underwater tasks which may include dress diving apparatus
cutting, levering, hammering and any other uses or abuses the diver can find for it. Divers’ knives also (notice the divers’ knife
tucked into a loop of the
need to withstand knocks, scrapes and the corrosive nature of the underwater environment. It should
waist belt).
be noted that date periods assigned to knives are in many cases, best-fit approximations and some dates Right: Early illustration
may change in the future with new information. of the A. Siebe stand at
It is likely that early divers carried some sort of knife for underwater cutting tasks. In England The Great Exhibition,
the manufacture of divers’ knives designed specifically for underwater use can be traced back to the London, 1851. The diver
mid-Victorian period. The earliest record of a British diver wearing a knife can be seen in an 1846 mannequin is wearing one
illustration drawn by Captain G. R. Hutchinson (Royal Engineers) during the clearance of the Royal of the earliest depicted
George wreck between 1840 and 1844. It clearly shows a diver wearing the A. Siebe diving apparatus screw-fit divers’ knives
and a knife tucked into a loop on the waist belt. with its watertight case
hanging from the divers’
waist belt.
The ‘standard’ hard hat diver generally wore the knife on the left side of the body, attached to a
sturdy leather waist belt which was secured by a heavy brass buckle. The size of the divers’ waist belt
is about 1240 mm (49.0 inches) long and 50 mm (2.0 inches) wide. The gunmetal knife case may
have a split leather strap which is held in place on the divers’ waist belt using a brass through fastening.
Alternatively the strap may be permanently looped on to the brass case and is closed with one or two
rivets. The divers’ belt then passes directly through the case strap loop. The knife handle may also carry
a fixed rope lanyard to prevent knife loss during use. The divers’ waist belt may also be fitted with a
slide-on brass air-pipe holder. (see Fig. 3)
Free-swimming Royal Navy divers continued to wear the ‘heavyweight’ divers’ knife on the waist
until the lighter, rubber-hilted divers’ knives were introduced during the early 1960s. These knives are
more conveniently worn on the lower leg or the thigh in the scuba fashion.
1. SIEBE GORMAN DIVERS’ KNIVES

Siebe Gorman produced divers’ knives for over 100 years, but there is no evidence to suggest that knives
were ever made ‘in-house’, therefore it is probable that production was out-sourced to a specialist knife
Fig. 1. Left: “The divers’ dreaded foe” by E. S. Hodgson (1914) – A fanciful illustration of a knife wielding manufacturer. High quality materials were used in the manufacture of Siebe Gorman knives. Blades were
diver fending off an attack by a giant octopus. Right: Commercial diver undertaking underwater repairs to made from high grade carbon steel, but non-magnetic stainless steel was used for some of their specialist
London Bridge during the 1930s (notice the Siebe Gorman push-fit knife). military knives after WW2. The company also used suitable quality brass and bronze alloys (Admiralty, Naval
Fig. 3. Left: Standard dress diver wearing the classic Siebe Gorman ‘heavyweight’ push-fit divers’ knife on the
leather waist belt.1 Top right: Strap-type brass pipe-holder. Below right: Catalogue advert of a divers’ leather belt
showing the slide-on, round gunmetal pipe-holder.
Fig. 5. Some Siebe Gorman blade inscriptions: SIEBE & GORMAN (1870–1879); SIEBE GORMAN & Co.
and gunmetal alloys) for knife fittings and parts (e.g. tang-nut, guard, ferrule and knife case) to give better (1880–c.1961); SIEBE GORMAN & Co.* (c.1945–1967); SIEBE GORMAN ‘Anniversary’ (1995); SIEBE
corrosion resistance. Some brass parts were even chrome finished for extra protection. HEINKE OF ENGLAND etched maker’s name (c.1962–1967); SIEBE GORMAN etched maker’s name
There are two basic patterns of Siebe Gorman divers’ knives (screw-fit and push-fit) which together (c.1968–1975); SIEBE, GORMAN & Co., Ltd. (post 1975–1995).
include about 10 different knife types (styles that exhibit major features or characteristics) and about 40
knife variants (small variations in one or more of the following: blade edges, handle shapes, materials,
inscriptions, markings, colour, finishes etc.).
It should be noted that the words ‘handle, grip and hilt’ are used interchangeably in the text.
The inscribed maker’s name observed on knife blades changed early on in the history of the company
from: SIEBE & GORMAN (1870–1879), to SIEBE GORMAN & Co. (1880–1961), then SIEBE
GORMAN & Co. Ltd. (for a small batch of post-1975 push-fit knives). (See Fig. 5)
SCREW-FIT KNIVES
Although the earliest known screw-fit pattern knife was produced from about the late 1840s onwards
(when the firm traded as A. Siebe) none have been observed to date (none may have survived). Between
1870 and 1879, the firm of Siebe & Gorman was already producing a screw-fit knife (with associated
Fig. 4.
Two basic patterns of Siebe
Gorman divers’ knives.
Above: Screw-fit knife in
watertight brass case.
Below: Push-fit knife in a self- Fig. 6. British divers wearing military issue Siebe Gorman knives.
draining brass case. Left: RN diver on board HMS Thames wearing the screw-fit knife with a flat-sided handle (c.1911). Middle left:
Diver with older style push-fit knife with a corrugated wooden handle (c.1905).2 Middle right: “P”-Party diver
with the classic ‘heavyweight’ push-fit knife (c.1945).2 Right: Royal Navy Clearance Divers wearing the Siebe
Gorman non-magnetic push-fit knife (c.1950s).
2 Davis, Robert H. 1955. Deep Diving and Submarine Operations. Parts I & II. 6th ed. Siebe Gorman & Co.
1 Photo John Wilkins Ltd. London. The Saint Catherine Press, London.
Fig. 7. Siebe Gorman

screw-fit divers’
knives.
Above: SIEBE &
GORMAN marked
knife with narrow
double-edged blade,
hexagonal tang-nut
and watertight brass
case (c.1870–1880).
Below: SIEBE
GORMAN & Co.
marked knife with
robust blade, turned
wooden handle and
updated tang-nut Fig. 8. Siebe
design (c.1930s– Gorman & Co. Ltd.
1950s). Production Drawing
for the elongated
screw-fit divers’ knife
(dated 1945).
watertight brass case) and some of these knives have survived to this day. During the early part of the
next century, production of the Siebe Gorman screw-fit pattern divers’ knife declined sharply with the
introduction of the more robust and cheaper Siebe Gorman push-fit pattern knife. However some
production of screw-fit divers’ knives did continue to around 1961, although the subsequent knives
were slightly different in style (see later).
The early Siebe & Gorman screw-fit divers’ knife has a plain double-edged, carbon steel blade. The
thin, narrow blade is inscribed with the maker’s name: SIEBE & GORMAN in serif lettering. The
blade’s tang (rat-tail type) extends through the handle and is secured at the butt end by a hexagonal
brass tang-nut. The hardwood handle is usually made from Lignum vitae (Guaiacum spp.) and the
shaped grip has flattened sides (referred to here as ‘flat-sided’). The knife is screwed into a watertight
gunmetal (a type of brass) case that has an external bar to take a leather strap for attachment to the
divers’ waist belt. The brass bar on the case is marked: SIEBE & GORMAN in plain, upper-case
lettering. This type of watertight case remained the same for all subsequent screw-fit knives with the Fig. 9. Siebe Gorman
exception of a slightly longer post-WW2 version that was produced to house a longer screw-fit variant & Co. elongated
knife. After 1880, a broader sturdier knife blade was introduced (but the handle shape still remained screw-fit divers’ knife
flat-sided). However the maker’s name marked along the blade changed to SIEBE GORMAN & Co. with unmarked brass
At some point during the late 1920s or early 1930s a modified screw-fit knife was introduced. The case (1945–c.1961).
robust blade was slightly longer, but carried the same previous inscription of SIEBE GORMAN & Co.
A new design of tang-nut (with two side facets) was introduced, but some observed knives may still have
the previous type of hexagonal tang-nut. The previous style of flat-sided handle was superseded by a The plain-sharp double-edged blade is long and narrow, and the handle is made from Bakelite
turned Lignum vitae wooden handle which has a round cross-section with seven corrugation rings (the plastic. The handle has a round cross-section with six regular corrugations on the rear half, and there
rear corrugation is generally incomplete). The front half of the new style handle is smooth and there is is a distinctive bulge on the frontal portion. The blade is marked as before with SIEBE GORMAN
a gentle, concave waist (it should be noted that handles may vary slightly in shape). & Co. and a variant knife with a plain-edge/saw-edge has also been observed. The watertight case is a
Sometime after WW2, the Siebe Gorman company Introduced another screw-fit knife variant longer version of the normal gunmetal brass case, but the strap bar is narrower and the maker’s name
(post 1945–c.1961) which is illustrated in a production drawing of the time, but the reason for its is absent from the bar. This knife was not very popular, few have survived and they were not advertised
introduction is unclear. in company catalogues.
Fig. 11. (Left)

Siebe Gorman & Co. classic
Fig. 10. Less successful ‘heavyweight’ push-fit divers’
divers’ knives advertised in knife and disassembled parts.
early Siebe Gorman Diving
Apparatus catalogues.
Left: Push-fit knife with Fig. 12. (Below)
grip-shaped brass handle. Siebe Gorman & Co. push-
fit knife with ‘heavyweight’
Middle: Push-fit knife with blade and turned hardwood
shaped, smooth hardwood handle (c.1930s–1950s).
handle. A brass ferrule and guard
Right: Unusual knife having are fitted behind the blade
a solid brass handle and and the tang-nut may be of
curved blade. either design. The knife is
sheathed in a self-draining
brass case.
‘HEAVYWEIGHT’ PUSH-FIT KNIVES
The Siebe Gorman Company produced the push-fit pattern divers’ knife from about 1900 onwards,
and early variants were illustrated in their 1905 catalogue and the 1909 (‘D’) catalogue of Diving
Apparatus. However three of the early knife designs were not successful and few were produced or have
survived. Less successful variants include the push-fit knife with a ‘grip-shaped’ brass handle (1905
catalogue Ref. No. 122); the push-fit knife with a shaped, smooth wooden handle (Catalogue ‘D’ Ref.
No. 272) and an unusual knife with a solid brass handle and curved blade (Catalogue ‘D’ Ref. No. 273
… four are known to have survived). As these three knives are so rare they will not be discussed here,
but they are illustrated for interest.
One particular design of Siebe Gorman push-fit divers’ knife did become increasingly popular and
by the 1920s had become the divers’ knife of choice for the Royal Navy and for most commercial
divers (1905 catalogue Ref. No. 121). The knife has a ‘heavyweight’ double-edged, carbon steel blade
with plain-sharp edges, and the blade is marked with the usual inscription of SIEBE GORMAN & Co.
(inscribed in serif lettering along one side of the blade). The Lignum vitae hardwood handle has a round
cross-section, a slight frontal bulge and six complete corrugations (plus an incomplete rear corrugation).
The front half of the handle is smooth with a gentle concave waist, and there is a round brass ferrule
behind the guard (handles may vary slightly in shape). The tang-nut may be one of two types (either
the older hexagonal type, or the more recent type with two side facets). The knife is secured by a simple
spring-grip retainer inside the ‘heavyweight’ flat brass (gunmetal) case, and the case is self-draining.
There is a rectangular slot on the underside of the case for a leather strap. Although this knife evolved the standard wooden handle was superseded by an equivalent plastic (Bakelite) version of the same style.
into the ‘classic’ design, the brass case remained unchanged throughout its production. Both hardwood and plastic handles have six complete corrugations (but hardwood handles generally
Sometime after the 1920s and towards the outbreak of WW2, a new design of handle (standard have the additional incomplete 7th corrugation nearest the tang-nut).
type) was introduced for the ‘heavyweight’ push-fit knife. The handle’s grip has a round cross-section This classic design of ‘heavyweight’ push-fit divers’ knife (especially those with the standard Bakelite
with regular corrugations on the back half, a distinctive bulge on the front part and a brass ferrule near plastic handle) became the most common variant to be used by commercial UK hard hat divers, and by
the guard. Older examples of this handle style were still made mostly from Lignum vitae hardwood the 1940s became standard issue for British military divers. However since 1962, the Royal Navy was
(although some handles made of less suitable hardwoods have also been observed). By the late 1940s also introducing more specialist rubber-hilted divers’ knives for RN ‘swimmer-divers’ (see later), but the
Fig. 13. Some variants of the Siebe MoD continued to supply the Siebe Gorman ‘heavyweight’ divers’ knives until the late 1970s (mostly
Gorman double-edged, push-fit for use by RN ‘standard’ dress divers).
‘heavyweight’ divers’ knife. The classic ‘heavyweight’ push-fit divers’ knife has been produced with differences in blade materials
From the top: (carbon steel or stainless steel), edge types (plain-edge or saw-edge), surface finishes (plain or chrome
A. Classic knife in self-draining brass case. finished brass parts) and different blade inscriptions. The classic ‘heavyweight’ push-fit divers’ knife has
a nominal length of 335 mm (13.25 inches) and a blade size of 195 x 38 mm (7.75 x 1.5 inches). The
B. Brass case with ordinary leather strap
‘heavyweight’ brass case is about 210 mm (5.0 inches) long.
and brass through-fastening.
Although ‘heavyweight’ knife blades commonly have two plain-sharp edges, some blades from WW2
C. Knife with ordinary carbon steel onwards were produced with one plain-sharp edge and one fine saw-edge (about 26 teeth per inch, or
blade (marked SIEBE GORMAN & Co.) ‘tpi’). Most ordinary divers’ knives are made from magnetic carbon steel and the blade carry’s the normal
having a turned Lignum vitae handle (post inscription: SIEBE GORMAN & Co. However, in 1939 Germany introduced magnetic mine warfare.
1920–c.1945). Therefore in response to Admiralty requirements for mines clearance tasks, Siebe Gorman produced
D. Classic knife (blade marked SIEBE a non-magnetic variant knife at some stage during WW2. The early non-magnetic austenitic stainless
GORMAN & Co.) with black Bakelite steel blade (c.1945–c.1961) has either two plain-sharp edges or one plain-sharp and one fine saw-edge,
plastic handle (c.1940s–1961). and the blade is marked with SIEBE GORMAN & Co.* (the star* symbol denoting a military non-
E. Brass case for non-magnetic knife
magnetic blade). Unlike the ordinary carbon steel blade, the stainless steel version also has the added
(below) inscribed NON MAGNETIC. advantage of being rust-free. The gunmetal brass case remains the same, however some are inscribed on
both sides with the words: NON–MAGNETIC or NON MAGNETIC.
Around 1957 a new Admiralty Pattern (A.P.) non-magnetic knife was introduced into military service.
F. Non-magnetic knife with stainless The knife does not have a maker’s name inscribed on the blade. Instead there is a military code plus the
steel blade (marked SIEBE GORMAN words: NON–MAGNETIC chemically etched on the blade surface. Codes are also deeply inscribed
& Co.*). One edge has fine serrations
on the associated flat brass case. This knife has one plain-sharp edge and one saw-edge with large teeth
(c.1945–1961).
(about 47 teeth; 6 tpi). Three circular, military code marks (3 touching rings) are often seen on the flat
G. Brass case for military issue non- end of the tang-nut and inspection marks may be present on the brass case. Military codes etched onto
magnetic knife (below) inscribed NON the blade and brass case vary according to the period of knife production, and are as follows:
MAGNETIC A.P.6261.
Knife: AP 6260. NON–MAGNETIC is marked on both sides of blade; case is inscribed: NON
H. Military issue, non-magnetic clearance MAGNETIC A.P. 6261 (on both sides). Service issue period: c.1957–1961.
divers’ knife with stainless steel blade
Knife: AP 0433/6260. NON–MAGNETIC is marked on both sides of blade; case is inscribed: NON–
(maker’s name is absent). One edge has
coarse teeth; blade and case are marked MAGNETIC A.P. 0433/6261 (on both sides). Service issue period: c.1962–1967.
with military codes according to the issue Knife: 0433-431-7338. NON–MAGNETIC is marked on both sides of blade; case is inscribed either:
period (service periods c.1957–1995). NON MAGNETIC 0433-431-7339; or: NON–MAGNETIC 0433-431-7339 (on both
I. Chromed finished brass case with sides). Service issue period: c.1968–1995.
chrome leather strap (below). After 1960, blade inscriptions on the classic magnetic Siebe Gorman knives (both for plain-edge
and fine tooth saw-edge knife variants) changed according to the time period. Apart from a few rare
J. Chrome finished knife. Blade is etch exceptions, the typeface also changed to plain upper case lettering. Following the Heinke company take-
marked SIEBE GORMAN (c.1968–1975). over by Siebe Gorman (Feb. 1962) and for a brief period afterwards, knife blades were etch-marked with
the combined name of SIEBE–HEINKE (c.1962–1967). However around 1968, the maker’s blade
K. Non-magnetic knife with stainless steel name reverted back to just SIEBE GORMAN.
blade marked SIEBE, GORMAN & Co. From 1960 to 1975 the Siebe Gorman Company also produced some knives with chrome finished
Ltd. (c.1975–1995). brass parts (plus a chrome finished brass case) for added protection against corrosion, and the case strap
was made from pearl-grey chromed leather. Magnetic and non-magnetic knives that were produced
L. Commemorative issue SIEBE with chrome finished fittings only have blades with plain-sharp edges.
GORMAN 175th Anniversary knife with The manufacture of ‘heavyweight’ push-fit knives slowly declined after the mid-1960s and production
hardwood handle (1995). had mostly finished by about 1975, when the Siebe Gorman Company moved to Cwmbran in Wales.
At this time the company ceased manufacturing diving apparatus and any small scale production of (having one plain-sharp edge and one saw-edge with large teeth) and is made from either ordinary cast
items (including knives) would have been out-sourced to specialist manufacturers. One small batch of steel, or magnetic stainless steel. Overall knife length is 253 mm (10.0 inches) and the blade is 150
post-1975 knives (the blade has one plain-sharp edge and one fine saw-edge) was produced with the mm (6.0 inches) long.
unusual blade inscription of: SIEBE GORMAN & Co. Ltd. A floating version of the Underwater Swimming Knife was also produced with a cork handle and uses
In 1995 Siebe Gorman also produced serially paired “175th Anniversary” commemorative knives the same type of blade and sheaths. Knife inscriptions vary on the rubber grips and blades according to
to commemorate 175 years in the diving apparatus business. The company produced 175 pairs of the period of manufacture, but the relief inscription on the two halves of the die-cast aluminium sheath
knives for public issue which are etched marked with a helmet logo and ‘SERIAL NUMBER XXX’ (C E HEINKE & CO LTD LONDON) remained the same throughout their production.
(where ‘XXX’ is 001 to 175). The knives have hardwood handles and double-edged blades (one By the late 1960s, new designs of well-made scuba knives were being produced by many foreign
knife has two plain-sharp edges; the other knife has one plain-sharp edge and one fine saw-edge). companies. Their increasing popularity among scuba divers inevitably contributed towards the decline
of Siebe Gorman knives, as less expensive products entered the market.
‘LIGHTWEIGHT’ SCUBA KNIVES
A less expensive ‘lightweight’ push-fit divers’ knife (Underwater Swimming Knife) was introduced around 2. HEINKE DIVERS’ KNIVES
1956 and soon became popular among UK scuba divers. The knife was first marketed by Heinke & The family firm of C. E. Heinke ‘Submarine Engineers’ (1844–1871) was less well known than that of
Co. (c.1956–1961), but following the Heinke merger, it was then marketed by Siebe Gorman & Co. A. Siebe, and the subsequent firms [C. E. Heinke & Co. (1871–1922); C. E. Heinke & Co. Ltd. (1922-
as a SIEBE-HEINKE product (c.1962–1975). The Underwater Swimming Knife has a moulded rubber 1961)] never developed the close collaborative relationship with the Admiralty that Siebe Gorman
grip, a thin tapering blade, and uses a leather or die-cast aluminium sheath. The blade is double-edged eventually achieved. Although Heinke became the other major British diving apparatus manufacturer
and Submarine Engineers, they were always eclipsed by the rival firm of Siebe & Gorman (later
Siebe, Gorman & Co.). When compared to Siebe Gorman, the Heinke firm published less company
literature and manufactured a smaller range of products. There is limited information about Heinke
Fig. 14.
Heinke/Siebe ‘lightweight’ Underwater
Swimming knives for scuba diving.
Top: Knives with moulded rubber
handles and die-cast aluminium sheath
(c.1956-1975). Fig 15. Left: Page from Heinke Trade catalogue (c.1900) showing the improved push-fit divers’ knife with
Bottom: Floating knife with cork handle brass grip and brass case. Right: Heinke Trade pamphlet (c.1959/60) showing a scuba diver wearing the Heinke
(c.1962-1975). ‘heavyweight’ knife on a reinforced rubber weight belt.
knives from the company’s Diving Apparatus catalogues (circa 1900 and 1908 publications), or from
their 1950s trade pamphlets. Another serious problem confronting Heinke knife identification are the
large numbers of replica and forgery knives that have been in circulation since the late 1980s (some of
which are of good quality). However from a study of the firm’s history, the careful examination of many
knives and information gathered from a variety of sources, a more informed understanding has emerged.
It is likely that Heinke knife production began around the 1850s at a similar time to the rival firm
of A. Siebe, but catalogued Heinke divers’ knife did not appear until around 1900. It is not known
if Heinke manufactured their divers’ knives in-house, or if production was out-sourced to a specialist
knife manufacturer. However, it is probable that the manufacture of their knives from the 1950s era
was out-sourced, especially with the introduction of their new range of scuba diving equipment around
1956. By contrast to Siebe Gorman, Heinke only produced a few different knife types, and in relatively
small quantities. Heinke knives were produced mostly for commercial and civilian uses, and specialist Fig. 16.
military divers’ knives were not made by the Heinke company (Siebe Gorman had the sole contract Standard
to supply divers’ knives to the MoD until the early 1960s and also provided military divers’ knives to dress divers
some foreign forces). wearing Heinke
All Heinke divers’ knives are of the push-fit pattern and unlike Siebe Gorman, the Heinke firm never ‘heavyweight’
knives.
produced screw-fit knives. Heinke knives can be divided into the ‘heavyweight’ type (a heavy knife with
a shaped brass handle that is housed in a heavy brass case) and the ‘lightweight’ scuba type (the knife Left: Australian
diver (c.1932).
has a rubber grip and a thin blade which is housed in a leather or die-cast aluminium sheath).
Production of Heinke ‘heavyweight’ knives ceased around 1961 when the company merged with Right: Swedish
diver during the
Siebe Gorman & Co. Ltd. The Heinke ‘lightweight’ and the Siebe Gorman ‘heavyweight’ knife
Vasa operations in
continued in production, but were marketed as SIEBE-HEINKE products during the 1960s (see Stockholm Harbour
previous section). (1956).3
Early Heinke ‘heavyweight’ divers’ knives have a single-edged carbon steel blade (occasionally
marked: CAST STEEL; or maker’s name: C.E. HEINKE & Co. LONDON) with a thick back which
tapers to a plain-sharp lower edge. Early Heinke knives have a hollow brass handle and the tang passes
through the handle which is fixed at the butt end with an inlaid flush fitting. The ‘heavyweight’ Heinke Fig. 17.
knife is housed in a self-draining brass case and is securely held inside by a phosphor bronze spring- Heinke
grip retainer. The top of the Heinke brass case has a small distinctive overhang (unlike Siebe Gorman ‘heavyweight’ knife
with solid brass
cases) and there is a slot on the underside to take a fixed leather strap. Slot shape varies, with older cases
handle and brass
having a sharp, rectangular shape and more recent ones have curved slot ends. Handles and brass cases case (no company
of earlier Heinke knives are often marked (sometimes quite crudely) with the maker’s name, the post markings). Blade
code and the firm’s address of the period. has a thick back and
Heinke knives are difficult to accurately date, so estimates for early knives are based on key dates a plain-sharp, lower
for post codes, addresses, and company name changes that are marked on the knives. At some point edge. Brass case
between the two World Wars (possibly during the 1930s) knives with hollow handles were replaced has a characteristic
with a solid equivalent of the same design, and the shaped brass grip is cast directly around the tang overhanging top
lip, an internal
of the blade. These solid cast knife handles (and cases) are often found unmarked without the maker’s
spring-grip and a
name or address. rectangular strap-
More recent Heinke ‘heavyweight’ knives and cases (c.1956–1961) do carry inscriptions and their slot with rounded
handles are cast directly on to the blade tangs (as stated in the 1959/60 Heinke Diving Equipment ends (c.1930s to
catalogue; page 7a). The type of brass alloy used in the production of Heinke handles and brass cases is mid–1950s).
not known; however it is of suitable quality for marine use. Overall size for the late-1950s variant knives
is 28.0 cm (11.0 inches) long, with a blade length of 16.3 cm (6.5 inches).
The following information should help with Heinke knife identification. 3 Franzen, Anders. 1961. The Warship Vasa. Norstedt and Bonnier Publishers, Stockholm, Sweden.
Heinke ‘Heavyweight’ knives Heinke ‘Lightweight’ knives

Knife: single edge, with a plain-sharp lower edge (c.1871–1904). Hollow brass handle is marked: C.E. The knife (c.1956–1961) is double edged with an upper saw-edge and plain-sharp lower edge. The
HEINKE & Co. (left side); LONDON. W (right side). Brass case is marked: C. E. HEINKE & Co. moulded rubber handle is relief marked: HEINKE UNDERWATER SWIMMING PRODUCT
79 Gt. PORTLAND St. LONDON W. (on one side), and HEINKE–LONDON–ENGLAND (on reverse side). The blade is etch-marked:
Knife: single edge, with a plain-sharp lower edge (c.1904–1917). Hollow brass handle is marked: C.E. HEINKE LONDON (plus the words ‘STAINLESS’ or ‘STAINLESS STEEL’ for that type of blade).
HEINKE & Co. (left side); LONDON SE (right side). Brass case is marked: C. E. HEINKE & Co. 87 Stainless steel and ordinary steel blades were both available options. Overall knife length is 253 mm
GRANGE Rd. BERMONDSEY LONDON SE. (10.0 inches) with a 150 mm (6.0 inches) blade. The die-cast aluminium sheath is relief marked on
both sides with: C. E. HEINKE & CO LTD LONDON.
Knife: single edge, with a plain-sharp lower edge (c.1922–1930s). Hollow brass handle is marked: C. E.
(See previous section regarding the Siebe Gorman ‘lightweight’ scuba knives for photos).
HEINKE & Co. Ltd. (left side); LONDON. S.E.1. (right side). Brass case is marked: C. E. HEINKE
& Co. Ltd. LONDON SE 1. Heinke belts
Knife: single edge, with a plain-sharp lower edge (c.1930s to mid-1950s). Solid brass handle (no The ‘heavyweight’ Heinke knife may be worn with the Heinke standard divers’ leather waist belt
inscription). Brass case (no inscription). (similar in size to the equivalent Siebe Gorman divers’ waist belt). However, the belt may be embossed
with the maker’s name: C.E. HEINKE & CO. LTD. LONDON. The waist belt passes through the
Knife: single edge, with a plain-sharp lower edge (c.1956–1961). Solid brass handle is marked: C.E.
fixed leather strap of the knife case which may be secured in position by a brass through-fastening. The
HEINKE & CO. LTD. LONDON (right side only). Brass case is relief marked: HEINKE LONDON
waist belt can also be fitted with a slide-on, brass air-pipe holder which has a leather strap and buckle
(within a rectangular border with curved corners).
to hold the air-pipe in position. With the introduction of Heinke scuba diving equipment from the
Knife: double edge, with an upper saw-edge and plain-sharp lower edge (c.1956–1961). Solid brass mid-1950s, the various types of divers’ knives could also be worn on a reinforced rubber weight belt or
handle is marked: C.E. HEINKE & CO. LTD. LONDON (right side only). Brass case is relief marked: with the lighter webbing weight belt. The quick-release circular stainless steel buckle on the rubber belt
HEINKE LONDON (within a rectangular border with curved corners). is marked: HEINKE LONDON.
Fig. 19.
Above: Heinke divers’ leather waist
belt fitted with ‘heavyweight’ knife
and slide-on pipe-holder. Pipe-
holder is marked: C.E. HEINKE
& CO. LTD. LONDON (c.1956–
1961).4
Below: Heinke divers’ rubber
weight belt (marked HEINKE
LONDON) with ‘heavyweight’
knife and slide-on lead weight
(c.1957–61).
Fig. 18. Heinke ‘heavyweight’ knives with solid brass handles and brass case (c.1956–1961). Knives are
either single-edged (one plain lower edge) or double-edged (one plain edge and one saw edge). The grip is
marked: C.E. HEINKE & CO. LTD. LONDON (on right side) and the brass case is relief marked: HEINKE
LONDON within a rectangular border. Both types of knives fit the same case. 4 Photo David Dekker.
3. RUBBER-HILTED BRITISH MILITARY DIVERS’ KNIVES The carrying position of the knife changed from the divers’ waist belt to the leg (generally the lower
For nearly a century, Siebe Gorman & Co. had the contract to supply the MoD with divers’ knives leg, but sometimes the thigh), and the more contoured shape of the plastic or rubber sheaths and their
and other diving apparatus. From the early 1900s the company supplied the armed services with the elastic rubber straps allowed the new knife styles to be easily worn without discomfort. However within
screw-fit pattern divers’ knife until about the end of WW1; then this was gradually superseded by their the armed services, there was a considerable period of overlap (about 20 years), between the phasing-out
push-fit pattern divers’ knives, which developed into the classic ‘heavyweight’ push-fit type of WW2. of the old pattern of Siebe Gorman ‘heavyweight’ push-fit divers’ knife and introduction of the more
After WW2, Siebe Gorman continued to supply their ‘heavyweight’ push-fit divers’ knives to the MoD modern, rubber-hilted divers’ knives.
until the 1970s. The major types of British military rubber-hilted divers’ knives are as follows:
Since the 1960s, military diving equipment was changing from the old standard-dress diving
apparatus to various types of modern self-contained diving equipment for un-tethered underwater ‘Taylor’s Eye Witness’ Lightweight RN Divers’ Knife (c.1962–1970)
operations. By 1972 the armed forces were adopting the lighter and more modern rubber-hilted This was the first type of rubber-hilted divers’ knife to be introduced into British military service. It is a
divers’ knives, which were supplied by various manufactures including Taylor’s Eye Witness, Typhoon, short knife, having a thin Bowie-style blade with one plain edge and a partial saw-toothed upper edge.
Hopkinson, Nowill & Sons, Life Support Engineering and ‘technisub’. Some of these divers’ knives are The knife has a nominal length of 234 mm (9.25 inches) and a blade length of 114 mm (4.50 inches).
specifically designed with low magnetic permeability (non-magnetic) and non-sparking characteristics There are two versions of this knife – either with a solid blade, or with a hollow slot in the blade (for
for use in underwater mines clearance operations. possible use as a shackle key). Both versions are made from the same materials. The handle is made
of dense black rubber and the stainless steel blade of both versions are etch-marked: TAYLOR’S EYE
WITNESS (an eye logo) SHEFFIELD ENGLAND; with the word STAINLESS across the blade. Both
versions of the knife carry military code numbers according to the period of issue. The rubber hilt and
rubber sheath are marked with associated code numbers, and earlier knives and sheaths carry the older
Admiralty stores codes.
These knives were issued to RN ships divers, Royal Marines ‘swimmer-canoeists’ and members of the
Special Forces. Because of their small size and lightweight construction, they were not popular knives.
Fig. 21.
Royal Navy divers’ knives by ‘Taylor’s Eye
Witness’ (service period c.1962–1970).
Above: Knife blade with hollow slot.
Below: More common version with solid
blade. These Bowie-style knives have
a thin blade etch marked: TAYLOR’S
EYE WITNESS (eye logo) SHEFFIELD
Fig. 20. Royal Engineers diver wearing commercial Typhoon ‘PIC’ knife (service period c.1970-71). 5 ENGLAND STAINLESS. The dense rubber
hilts and sheaths are relief marked with
5 Royal Navy MCDOA archive. military codes according to the issue period.
There are a variety of inscriptions observed on the stainless steel blade, rubber grip, military issue
sheath, and rubber straps. Most commonly, the maker’s name (JOHN NOWILL & SONS LTD.
SHEFFIELD ENGLAND) is etch-marked on most blades, and the NATO National Stock Number of
the knife (NS No 4220-99-523-9744) is relief marked along the rubber grip. An additional Hopkinson
logo (an “H” within a diamond border) may also be observed on the knife hilt. The military style rubber
sheath is relief marked along the front spine with: N.S. No. 4220-99-523-9745 and the rubbers straps
are also marked with N.S.N. 4220-99-523-9746.
‘Non-magnetic’ titanium version (c.1995 onwards)

This non-magnetic knife with a non-sparking (reduced-sparking or spark-resistant) beta-titanium
blade was developed in response to safety concerns over the use and storage of the beryllium-copper
(beryllium bronze) knives (see Life Support knives section below). The non-magnetic titanium knife
Fig. 22. was supplied to NATO countries and until recently, to British mines clearance divers including Mine
Royal Navy Pattern Divers’ Knife by Hopkinson/ Counter Measure (MCM) divers, and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) divers. They are made by
Nowill (service period c.1972-2010). John Nowill & Sons Ltd. under the J. Adams parent company (Sheffield Knives).
Above: Double-edged knife having one plain- The non-magnetic titanium knife has the same design as the magnetic stainless steel issue RN divers’
sharp edge and one saw edge (magnetic stainless knife. However, although the overall dimensions are the same, the grind profile is slightly different;
steel blade is etched with maker’s name). The there are fewer larger teeth (19-22 teeth; 4 tpi) and the knife is comparatively lighter in weight (292
moulded rubber grip and military rubber sheath
g. instead of 434 g.). The non-magnetic, beta-titanium blade is etched marked with: D * (a cross keys
are relief marked with military codes.
symbol) JOHN NOWILL & SONS LTD. SHEFFIELD ENGLAND. The knife was supplied without
Below: Non-magnetic version having a non-
the normal NATO Stock Number or logo on the hilt, but designated as: N.S.N. 4420-99-069-4501
sparking beta-titanium blade with fewer,
larger teeth (knife is supplied with an Eternal for military ordering purposes.
commercial sheath). The magnetic knife and the recent non-magnetic version are still made by the parent company of J.
Adams Ltd. (Sheffield Knives). Jack Adams Ltd. and Divex both supply these knives for commercial and
Royal Navy Pattern Divers’ Knife (c.1972–2010) civilian use, but Divex are the contract suppliers to the MoD. However, the RN Pattern Divers’ knives are
Between 1970 and 1972 the Admiralty did not have a suitable replacement issue divers’ knife, therefore no longer issued to British Military divers, but are still available (2014) for commercial and civilian uses.
the commercially produced Typhoon ‘PIC’ Knife was used by the Royal Navy as an interim measure.
This knife covers the period between the phasing out of the old Typhoon assembled ‘Taylor’s Eye Life Support Eng. Ltd. Beryllium RN Divers’ Knives (c.1972–2005)
Witness’ knives and the introduction of the new Hopkinson/Nowill ‘Royal Navy Pattern Divers’ Knife’. Two version of this Bowie-style knife were manufactured in response to MoD requests for a non-
The new Royal Navy Pattern Divers’ Knife was first manufactured by F.E. & J.R. Hopkinson Ltd. magnetic clearance divers’ knife as a replacement for the older Siebe Gorman ‘heavyweight’ stainless
(Sheffield) under both that and the John Nowill & Sons Ltd. names. In 1996 Hopkinson Ltd. was steel non-magnetic divers’ knife. Unlike austenitic (non-magnetic) stainless steel, beryllium-copper
purchased by J. Adams Ltd. who today owns both the Hopkinson and Nowill & Sons trademarks. alloy (beryllium bronze) has the added advantage of being non-sparking.
There are both magnetic and non-magnetic versions of the knife, but it is the original magnetic version Both versions of the knife were manufactured by Life Support Engineering Ltd., with blades and
that was issued to RN divers for general underwater tasks that did not require the use of specialist non- guards made from beryllium bronze and handles made from dense rubber. Both knives have a nominal
magnetic knives. length of 305 mm (12.0 inches) and a blade length of 175 mm (7.0 inches).
The first version (c.1972–1985) has a blade with a single lower saw-edge and the LIFE SUPPORT
‘Magnetic’ stainless steel version (c.1972 onwards) name may be inscribed along the back edge of the blade. The knife uses a commercial type rubber
The magnetic version of the RN Pattern Divers’ Knife has a double-edged, dagger-form blade with one sheath which carry’s the trademark: SOUS MARINE GUERNSEY. Alternatively, the knife is supplied
plain-sharp edge and one saw-edge (about 30 teeth; 5–6 tpi). Overall knife length is about 330 mm with a stitched brown leather sheath and sharpening tool.
(13.0 inches), the blade is 195 mm (7.75 inches) long and the overall weight is 434 grams. The knife By contrast, the second version of the knife (c.1986–2005) has a doubled-edged blade, with and
has a magnetic stainless steel blade and a dense rubber grip that is moulded directly onto the blade. A upper plain-sharp edge, and lower saw-edge. The knife blade is clearly stamped with the NATO
heavy flat-round, steel butt-knob piece is sunk into the pommel, and just below this is a lanyard hole National Stock Number: 4220-99-758-6192, and the rubber sheath carry’s the relief trademark: LIFE
that passes through the rubber grip. The knife is supplied with the Royal Navy issue, self-draining SUPPORT (within an image of a gas cylinder).
rubber sheath that has two rubbers straps. The knife is secured in the sheath by a horizontal bar and By 1993, about 250 Life Support Engineering Ltd. knives had been supplied to the British Royal
retaining loop. Navy, but due to the potentially hazardous nature of beryllium, it is unclear if these knives were ever
Fig. 23.
Royal Navy Clearance Divers’ Knives by Life
Support Engineering Ltd.
Above: Single-edged Bowie-style knife
Fig. 24. British Army issue divers’ knife by ‘technisub’ (service period c.1990s). A commercially produced heavy-
(service period c.1972–1985).
duty, Bowie-style divers’ knife. The magnetic stainless steel blade is inscribed with National Stock Number 4220
Below: Double-edged Bowie-style knife 99 523 2814 MDE Ó 93 (year of issue).
(service period c.1986–2005). Both knives
have a non-magnetic (non-sparking) blade
and guard made from beryllium-copper alloy. CONCLUSION
The grip is of dense rubber.
The documented history of British divers’ knives can be traced back to its origins during the mid-
Victorian era about 150 years ago. However it is likely that divers were carrying knives of sort for
issued to MoD clearance divers. Therefore the non-magnetic, non-sparking Royal Navy Pattern Divers’ underwater tasks long before this period. By the beginning of the 1900s the well-established diving
Knife with the beta-titanium blade may have been the alternative RN issue clearance divers’ knife from apparatus manufacturing firms of C. E. Heinke and Siebe Gorman were both producing divers’ knives
1995 onwards. However from 2011, the commercially available ‘Ocean Master’ blunt tip titanium for commercial and military uses. A variety of these knives are illustrated in their diving apparatus
divers’ knife has been the MoD issue clearance divers’ knife (not described in this article). catalogues and trade pamphlets that were produced throughout the 20 century.
Divers’ knives are made from suitable quality materials that can withstand the rugged use and the
‘technisub’ Aqualung Army Divers’ Knife (c.1990s) chemical nature of the underwater environment. Two major types of divers’ knives produced in the
This is a commercially produced, heavy-duty, Bowie-style knife that was issued to British army divers. past include the screw-fit pattern (housed in watertight gunmetal brass case) and the more popular
However, the reason why the British Army divers should be issued with a different style of magnetic ‘heavyweight’ push-fit pattern (housed in a self-draining gunmetal brass case). The most popular divers’
knife to that of RN divers is unclear? ‘technisub’ eventually became part of Aqua Lung International knife of all time for use by British standard dress divers is the classic Siebe Gorman ‘heavyweight’ push-
(Air Liquide, France) which is still one of the largest diving equipment suppliers in the world today. fit knife with a Bakelite plastic handle. This knife is eventually produced with a range of different blade
The knife’s double-edged blade has a partial, upper saw-edge and plain-sharp lower edge. The types (e.g. with plain and saw-edges; ordinary steel and non-magnetic stainless steel).
blade is marked: technisub STAINLESS STEEL and inscribed with National Stock number 4220 99 From about the mid-1950s onwards, the introduction of scuba diving equipment lead to the rapid
523 2814 MDEÓ 93 (1993 being the year of issue). The broad arrow mark (crow’s foot Ó) denotes development of lighter, cheaper divers’ knives for civilian and commercial purposes, and this trend
government ownership, and this is followed by the year of issue. The dense black plastic handle is relief continued with improvements in materials technology. From the early 1960s the British Armed Services
marked with the company’s trademark name: AQUALUNG. The knife has a heavy steel butt and a are also increasingly adopting the lighter and more modern rubber-hilted divers’ knives for use in
thick steel guard. The knife has a nominal length of 320 mm (12.5 inches) and a blade length of 200 untethered diving operations (some commercial divers knives are also adopted for military purposes).
mm (8.0 inches). By the late 1970s production of ‘heavyweight’ standard divers knives faded as new designs are developed
The knife fits into a narrow contoured, black plastic sheath that has the ‘technisub’ name and for civilian, commercial and military diving uses.
trademark logo on the front. The sheath is supplied with rubber straps and quick-release buckles. This Vintage and antique divers’ knives are now highly collectible, and one of the major problems
knife is no longer stock-listed. encountered with the older, more valuable knives are the many replica versions that have been produced
since the late 1980s. This is especially relevant to Heinke knives, where there appear to be more replica Siebe Gorman & Co. Ltd. (1905). Illustrated Catalogue of Diving Apparatus. Published by Siebe
types (or variants) than genuine ones. Some replica knives are of good quality, but the majority of Gorman & Co. Ltd., England.
reproduction knives are poor imitations that are easily identifiable. There are no known replicas of
Siebe Gorman & Co. Ltd. (C.1909–1932). Catalogue ‘D’. Diving Apparatus and other Submarine
rubber-hilted British military divers’ knives to date.
Appliances. Published by Siebe Gorman & Co., Ltd., England.
Siebe Gorman & Co. Ltd. (C.1932–1943). Catalogue ‘DA’. Diving Apparatus. Published by Siebe
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Gorman & Co. Ltd., England.
We would like to thank John Wilkins (HDS), Leon Lyons and David Dekker for their helpful
Siebe Gorman & Co., Ltd. (C.1939–1940s, or to early 1950s). Catalogue ‘D4’. Diving Apparatus and
comments and for providing some of the photographs.
other Submarine Appliances. Published by Siebe Gorman & Co. Ltd., England.
Siebe Gorman & Co. Ltd. (C.1965). Marketing Data Sheets; ‘D1’–‘D9’. Published by Siebe Gorman
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
& Co. Ltd., England.
Bevan, J. (1996). The Infernal Diver. Submex Ltd., London.
Siebe Heinke. (1963). The Blue Book of Underwater Swimming 1963. 2nd ed. Published by Siebe
Bevan, J. (2009). Another Whitstable Trade. Submex Ltd., England.
Gorman & Co. Ltd., England.
British Admiralty. (1964). ROYAL NAVY DIVING MANUAL. Manual for Divers: ‘B.R. 155’ (1964).
Siebe Heinke. (1964). The Blue Book of Underwater Swimming 1964-65. 3rd ed. Siebe Gorman & Co.
Published by HMSO, UK.
Ltd., England.
Burchett, M. & Burchett, R. (2011). ‘An Updated Short History of the British Diving Apparatus
Manufacturers, Siebe Gorman and Heinke’. The International Journal of Diving History (2011) 4 (1):
16-34. Published by the Historical Diving Society.
Burchett, M. & Burchett, R. (2014). ‘British Military Diving. A Short Historical Overview from 1838
to 2012’. The International Journal of Diving History (2014) 6 (1): 7-48. Published by the Historical
Diving Society.
C.E. Heinke & Co. (c.1900). Diving Apparatus, Dresses and Hose. 4th ed. Published by C.E. Heinke
& Co., London.
C.E. Heinke & Co. (c.1908). Illustrated Catalogue of Diving Apparatus, Dresses and Hose. 4th and 5th
eds. Published by C.E. Heinke & Co., London.
C.E. Heinke & Co. Ltd. (C.1959). ‘HEINKE- Hans Hass’ Underwater Swimming Equipment. Series ‘A’
Equipment leaflet. Published by C.E. Heinke & Co. Ltd., England.
C.E. Heinke & Co. Ltd. (C.1959). ‘HEINKE LUNGS’. Series ‘B’ leaflet. Published by C.E. Heinke &
Co. Ltd., England.
C.E. Heinke & Co. Ltd. (C.1957). HEINKE Underwater Exploration. Published by C.E. Heinke &
Co. Ltd., England.
C.E. Heinke & Co. Ltd. (C.1959–60). Specifications and Schedules of HEINKE DIVING EQUIPMENT.
Heinke & Co. Ltd., ‘Diving And Safety Equipment Engineers’. Published by C.E. Heinke & Co. Ltd.,
England.
Davis, R. (1955). Deep Diving and Submarine Operations. Parts I & II. 6th ed. Siebe Gorman & Co.
Ltd. London. The Saint Catherine Press, London.
Flook, R. (1999). British and Commonwealth Military Knives. Airlife Publishing Ltd., England.
Franzen, A. (1961). The Warship Vasa. Deep diving and Marine Archaeology in Stockholm. Norstedt and
Bonnier Publishers, Stockholm, Sweden.
Reconstruction of a RolleiMarin Transport Box

Franz Rothbrust, Chairman HDS Germany
The journey to Australia was very long and arduous – halfway around the world; a camera with
underwater housing is delicate and expensive. Consequently, in December 1952, when it was sent to Fig. 2 Original small size
Hans Hass – who at that time was diving off the Great Barrier Reef – Franke & Heidecke fitted their photo from 1952
© Hans-Hass-Institute. Fig. 3 The small photo digitally edited and enlarged © Hans-Hass- Institute
first prototype underwater camera housing into a substantial transport box. Hass was to test the device
in use and to make recommendations for any final improvement.
Andrés Clarós (HDS Spain), an
Fig. 1 underwater camera collector from
Letter from Hans Hass to Franke Spain and John Wild, a Rollei
& Heidecke confirming the arrival collector from England, also showed
of their underwater camera in interest in such a project. Together,
Australia. © Hans-Hass-Institute we decided to reconstruct the box.
In order to recreate the “packing
Dear Sirs,
box”, as it is named in the contents
In the meantime your magnificent
camera has arrived here safely list, as close to the original design as
and it will be a pleasure for us possible, we needed more detailed
to undertake practical testing. I information. For this purpose,
particularly like the forethought the small photo was scanned to a
of putting the equipment in the very high resolution; fine details
wooden case and, I respect the would have faded over the years
considerate care involved with or disappeared completely. The
appreciation. Thank you very resolution of camera lenses and the
much for the time being, and
picture quality available from black
I will report to you in ten days
with the results. I have the feeling & white film at that time was very
that this will be an A1 camera for high. Rollei had expertly developed
underwater photography. the photo and so many important
With many thanks, details, as if by magic, came to light
during digital processing.
I had seen a photograph of this box for the first time whilst working on my text “System Hans Hass This was not a simple, ordinary
– The development of Rolleimarin” for The International Journal of Diving History published in Volume packing box, but a meticulously
5, No. 1 in October 2012. Richard Weiss, designer, engineer and chief of development at Franke & crafted storage box with
Heidecke (Rollei), had pasted the picture below, in the first instruction manual for the ROLLEImarin. compartments for accessories and
A small faded black/white photo with some pen lines about it and a contents list was all the spare parts, as well as all the supplies
information that was available as to the design and contents of this box – no more. Only few details and tools needed to maintain the
were clearly visible on this 60-year old photograph. underwater housing.
From my first sighting, I knew I would very much like to have such a box – as original as possible, On the left hand side is the
with all its features. prototype housing – “PR 230 A” Fig. 4 Packing list © Hans-Hass-Institute
(the catalogue reference used by Claus Prochnow in his Rollei Report 2) – later named “ROLLEImarin”. Fig. 5
The underwater housing is secured in place by a wooden crossbar. The folded frame viewfinder can be Hans Hass’s stereo
seen in a separate compartment in the lower part of the box, partially obscured by the crease in the photo. camera underwater
On the right hand side, is the opened lid fitted with different tools; two open-ended wrenches, a housing in its
transport case.
double C-wrench for the housing front window and viewfinder securing ring nuts. Additionally there
Franke & Heidecke
are two hand-forged screwdrivers. In the lower right corner is a compartment from which a Rollei filter only built three
box protrudes. It contains the coloured filters catalogued in the packing list. The “drive screw driver” such stereo cameras
listed was unfortunately nowhere to be seen. What is a “drive screw driver”? with housings. One
of them was lost at
The dimensions sea, leaving two in
Andrés Clarós had sent prototype PR230 to me in Neustadt for maintenance, and so I was able to existence.
accurately measure it in order to decide on the dimensions for the box. But that was easier said than
done. The left hand side of the photo, with the underwater housing, was considerably distorted in
perspective. Therefore, it was impossible to determine exact dimensions. However, for some details,
this was achievable, but the sum of the dimensions did not make sense and could not be correlated, were stored, take exact measurements and study the construction details. Unfortunately the mysterious
and hence were not dependable. Furthermore, a perspective correction on my computer did not yield drive screwdriver was missing.
any better results; that was even worse. The right hand, lid side, of the picture was less distorted. The But there was another problem; the tool holders in the lid were not constructed with the same
C-wrench fits precisely onto the underwater housing front ring nut; this diameter was known. After professional expertise as the box itself. This can be clearly seen in the enlarged photo showing some
superimposing the ring nut, it was possible to calculate a scale for this page. The dimensions determined “home made” details - the individual wooden pieces for the open-end wrench and screwdriver holders
from this exercise now became consistent. The left hand side of the chest, with the camera, had to be did not fit precisely nor look correct.
the same overall size. What could we do? On one hand we wanted to recreate the box as per the original, was quite
From the dimensions of the underwater housing, the height of the box could be ascertained with common to correct technical errors when making replicas. But then our box will not be a true replica,
certainty. So now the external dimensions of the box were halfway established. only a recreated box.
Consequently I was challenged to rethink the design of the parts holding the tools without deviating
More puzzles too much from the original.
A mystery remained over the spare parts pockets/compartments; there was only a brief reference in the
table of contents: “....firmly screwed in place at given location....”. Even at a high magnification it was The production
not possible to see how these compartments looked in detail from the original photo. Drawings for all parts could now be produced for the box construction. Next, we had to find competent
Both screwdrivers are ‘home-made’, forged tool steel with bent, round welded handles. Why they did craftsmen to make it.
not use commercially available screwdrivers remains a mystery. Maybe, but somehow hard to imagine, Our friend Jaroslav Knotek, from the HDS Czech Republic, recommended Josef Filip, a carpenter
it was because they were still in the short supply, post-war years. and restorer. We gave him the order to build the first five boxes.
Then there was still the mystery of the drive screwdriver. We were unable to explain exactly what was They were made in the style and design of the 1950’s. Like the original, Filip made dovetailed corner
meant by that description - not even using “Google”. joints and glued them with bone glue. Chromed protective box corners are now the only type available;
Unfortunately there were no clues to be found in Michael Jung’s Hans Hass archive. So, for a few they are also larger than the originals. Filip has reduced them in size and then sandblasted them to
months we were standing more or less on the same spot without finding the answers to our outstanding remove the chrome. Together with the brass screws, they were then visually aged in an acid bath. The
questions. Only an archive find or a ‘miracle’ could help us. . . lid hinge comes from old 1950’s stockholding. Filip treated the wood with potassium permanganate to
obtain a slight patina. Finally, the beech wood was impregnated with oil.
A lucky cOincidence The box lock has been professionally recreated as well, as that type is no longer available. This
The miracle happened! One fine day, Andrés Clarós discovered a Rolleimarin stereo underwater housing responsibility was given to Rudolf Provita from the Czech Republic. Provita is specialised in the restoration
– including it’s transport box – on the internet! It was offered as part of a private household sale. What of arms from the 18th and 19th centuries. The locks he built conformed exactly to the original.
a find! After a short search, Michael Jung was able to confirm that it was once owned by Hans Hass! The double ring-nut C-wrenches were manufactured by John Wild in England on his CNC milling
Unfortunately, the double-Rolleiflex, stereo camera was not included; that was auctioned a few machine. The image in the photo and the actual wrench from the stereo ROLLEImarin box served as a
months later by “West Licht” in Vienna. template. He also cut the triangular stencil for the “Rollei F & H” logo on his template cutter.
Most details of this stereo camera transport box corresponded to the box we wanted to recreate. It The first series of tool holders I have built by myself, forging the screwdrivers from silver steel using
was only a little wider, to accommodate the ‘stereo-camera’. At last we could see how and where the parts coal on my barbeque set.
Fig. 6 (Left) The boxes arrive!

Work on the tool holders. Jarolsav Knotek brought the boxes from the Czech Republic to the 7th International Classic Divers
meeting held at Neustadt. A year had passed since the first concept for the reconstruction of the box
and there was much excitement whilst they were unloaded.
Andrés Clarós and John Wild had come all the way to attend the meeting and they were really
impressed with the excellent workmanship of the Czech craftsman. It was a victorious example of
international co-operation!
Fig. 9 (Left)
The replica box
Fig. 7 (Right) locks, together with
Interior: the compartment for the a restored Provita
spare glands, shafts and cup seals is pistol. The lock keys
in the lower left hand corner. The used are not quite
compartment for the flat housing original in style,
seals is in the centre of the right side corresponding more
panel. The frame viewfinder can be to the Napoleonic
seen in its ‘caddy’ in the lower part period.
of the photograph. The locating
Fig. 10 (Below)
block for the underwater housing is
Finished
in the centre. This part is recessed
reconstructed box,
underneath to store spare the housing
with ROLLEImarin
front and viewfinder glasses.
prototype PR 230.
Fig. 8 “Experimental archaeology”. There were probably finger grooves on the left and right, as shown, otherwise
it would not have been possible to pull the carton out of the holder without causing damage.
Fig. 11
Top left: The new box on the left, the
original on the right.
Top right: The stencilled company logo and
below: the “drive screwdriver” next to the
focus coupling.
Below: On the left, our reconstructed box
with prototype PR 230 and on the right the
original stereo camera box with housing.
Fig. 12 The “box creators” from left to right: John Wild (England), Franz Rothbrust (HDS Germany),
Dr. Andrés Clarós (HDS Spain), Jaroslav Knotek (HDS Czech Republic).
We are currently working on a multilingual booklet to be added to each box. It describes in detail
their recreation and the text on the development of ROLLEImarin together with a copy of the first
instruction manual in German; an English translation will also be included.
News of ‘our box’ has spread, so in the coming months a second production run will be made for
interested collectors. Contact us if you would like to have one.
Finally, the mystery of the drive screwdriver has been solved.
A Rollei repair mechanic gave me an important clue. He did not know what a drive screwdriver is,
but said that the focus setting knob on the Rolleiflex was called “drive”. We immediately realised that
the drive screwdriver was needed to tighten the clamping screw on the focus control knob coupling.
Does anyone have a better explanation?
The boxes had unfortunately never been mass produced by Franke & Heidecke, they were probably
too expensive although heavy duty canvas bags were available as an accessory for the ROLLEImarin ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
housings instead.
There are only two boxes known to exist; one is for the first ROLLEImarin prototype, the second My special thanks go to Michael Jung, Director of the Hans Hass Institute (www.histnet.de), who made
for the ROLLEImarin stereo camera. They are evidence as to how much importance was given and the correspondence used in researching the box available to me, and to John Wild for his help with the
how much effort, enthusiasm and pride Franke & Heidecke, together with Hans Hass, invested in the English translation.
“ROLLEImarin” project.
The best technical description of a diving barrel is that by Lethbridge himself, in his famous (and
deceptively thorough) letter of 1749 to the Gentleman’s Magazine, written from his home near Newton
Abbot in Devon. The principle was simple: if a wine or cider barrel could seal liquid in, then it could also
keep seawater out. Lethbridge’s diving barrel was constructed from wood and reinforced with iron. (Jacob
Rowe, who seems to have copied the concept from Lethbridge, designed a copper barrel.) The diver lay
John Lethbridge’s Diving Barrel: horizontally, face-down inside the barrel, which had an end cap fitted to seal him at atmospheric pressure.
How Long Could he Remain Underwater? A small cutaway covered by a thick glass plate allowed him to view the seabed; his arms protruded through
two apertures, sealed (as other accounts relate) with some combination of leather and grease. On the barrel
T J Newman topside were two holes sealed by bungs, which were used to replenish the air: a pair of bellows pumped
air into one, while the old air vented through the other. At the barrel foot another bunged hole allowed
Necessity is the parent of invention, and being, in the year 1715, quite reduc’d, and having a large
leakage water to be released when necessary. The barrel was ballasted to sink in seawater, and manually
family, my thoughts turned upon some extraordinary method, to retrieve my misfortunes; and was
lowered to the seabed from a support vessel. When the diver wished to ascend he pulled on a signal line
prepossessed, that it might be practicable to contrive a machine to recover wrecks lost in the sea ... It
and was recovered to the surface. The barrel was thus an early form of atmospheric diving suit.
is made of wainscot, perfectly round, about six feet in length, about two foot and a half diameter at
The diver would have endured much discomfort. The leather seals would have acted as vicious
the head, and about eighteen inches diameter at the foot, and contains about 30 gallons ... I go in
tourniquets on his arms, stopping the blood supply at only a couple of metres depth. They probably
with my feet foremost, and when my arms are got tho’ the holes, then the head is put on, which is
leaked continuously, and threatened to leak catastrophically at any time. The diver had almost no
fastened with scrues. It requires 500 weight to sink it, and take but 15 pound weight from it, and it
room to move within the barrel, and therefore to avoid any leakage water lapping around his chin. His
will buoy upon the surface of the water. I lie straight upon my breast, all the time I am in the engine,
exhaled carbon dioxide would steadily gain concentration within the barrel. The air would become
which hath many times been more than 6 hours, being, frequently, refreshed upon the surface, by a
progressively more stale and then unbreathable, until it was replenished on the surface, with the diver
pair of bellows. I can move it about 12 foot square, at the bottom, where I have stayed, many times,
suffering varying degrees of hypercapnia – increased breathing rate; headaches; dizziness, confusion;
34 minutes. I have been ten fathom deep many a hundred times, and have been 12 fathom, but with
perhaps even unconsciousness.
great difficulty.
How long could the barrel diver remain underwater? Based on Lethbridge’s description of his barrel
John Lethbridge, describing his diving barrel in the Gentleman’s Magazine of 1749.1
and various anecdotal accounts of his diving exploits, assessments of the potential dive time have
ranged from more than half an hour to only three or four minutes – figures that, apparently, manifestly
contradict each other.
Last Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, Mr Lethbridge of Devonshire, the famous diver, was let
down into the Thames, near White-Hall Stairs, in an engine, and kept under water half an hour; he • • •
took with him meat and drink, and had his dinner under water; he had also fire in the engine, and If available air was the limiting factor, then the diver’s time sealed in his barrel would have been limited
bak’d a cake, bor’d several holes in a piece of wood, besides other performances, in a small quantity of by the carbon dioxide build-up within the barrel. A carbon dioxide concentration above about 5%
air, without the use of air-pipes. would be uncomfortable, and as it increased further would quickly become intolerable. A man breathes
Report in the Weekly Journal, a London newspaper, Saturday, 2 April 1720.2 out about 0.2 litres of carbon dioxide per minute while at complete rest, rising to about 2 litres per
minute when undertaking sustained hard work. For the barrel diver undertaking light work an average
There is something strangely fascinating about the ‘barrel divers’ of early Georgian England – the rate of 0.5 litres per minute seems a realistic assumption.3 At this rate of breathing, the carbon dioxide
handful of men who in search of treasure allowed themselves to be lowered to the seabed in clumsy, concentration within 10 litres of air would reach 5% in 1 minute.
coffin-like contraptions resembling wine barrels. With their willingness to confront primordial fears Lethbridge’s Gentleman’s Magazine letter offers conflicting clues to his dive times. He described
in – to the eighteenth-century mind – an incomprehensible abyss, their composure and bravery initial trial dives in a ‘hogshead’ barrel, first on land, and then in a specially dug trench at the bottom
seems today almost incredible. And as demonstrated in several salvage operations, this combination of of his orchard, when he found he was able to remain more than half an hour underwater4.We do not
man, machine, and determination could be highly successful in recovering lost wreck. Yet the era of know if Lethbridge was using the term literally, but in those days a ‘hogshead’ contained 63 ‘Queen
barrel diving was short-lived. It began in 1715, with John Lethbridge’s experiments in a pond in his Anne gallons’, or 238 litres5. The fully clothed diver would have displaced a volume of perhaps 80
Devonshire orchard, and within four decades it was drawing to a close. The engines and the remarkable
men who had ventured down in them faded into history, leaving only scanty records, and – as the
tercentenary of Lethbridge’s first trial dive approaches – later generations of admiring divers to puzzle 3. Edmonds, pp. 250, 253-4, for carbon dioxide concentrations in exhaled air and symptoms of hypercapnia;
at their achievements. Fardell, p. 10, p. 86 n. 43; Bevan, p. 38.
4 Lethbridge noted that he was able to remain longer in the barrel underwater than on land. Perhaps he gained
some tolerance to carbon dioxide over those initial ‘dives’.
1. Lethbridge, p. 412. 5. In Lethbridge’s day a ‘gallon’ meant a Queen Anne gallon, which by a statute of 1707 was defined as 231
2. BCol. Weekly Journal, 2 Apr. 1720 (see also BCol. Weekly Packet, 26 Mar.-2 Apr. 1720). cubic inches, or 3.785 litres. It was replaced by the imperial gallon (4.546 litres) in 1824.
litres, leaving 158 litres of breathable air6. Lethbridge would have been almost entirely at rest during
these trial dives, and so a thirty-minute dive time until he started suffering significant hypercapnia is
plausible. However, in describing the actual diving barrel, as published Lethbridge’s letter tells that it
had an internal volume of only ‘about 30 gallons’ – that is 114 litres. Subtracting the volume of the diver
leaves some 34 litres of breathable air. This would be sufficient for a dive time of about three or four
minutes with the diver performing gentle work, rising to perhaps seven minutes if he was at complete
rest7. Nevertheless, as published Lethbridge’s letter tells that he had remained in his barrel on the seabed
‘many times, 34 minutes’.
But ‘34 minutes’ is a suspiciously precise figure. In 1977, as part of the Chronicle series of history
documentaries, the BBC television programme The Treasure of Porto Santo told the story of a modern
diving expedition to the wreck of the Dutch East Indiaman Slot ter Hoge, lost in 1724 on the island of
Porto Santo off Madeira. Lethbridge had successfully salvaged the wreck over the following two years.
The Treasure of Porto Santo described a splendid exercise in modern experimental archaeology by Robert
Sténuit and COMEX, who built a replica of Lethbridge’s barrel and conducted a series of trial dives
in a test pool. The programme narrator of Lethbridge’s Gentleman’s Magazine letter interpreted ‘many
times, 34 minutes’ as ‘many times, 3 to 4 minutes’. Michael Fardell, in his thoroughly researched John
Lethbridge: the most successful treasure diver of the eighteenth century (published 2010), independently
reached a similar conclusion, and suggested that ‘34 minutes’ was probably a printer’s error for ‘3 to 4’
or ‘3 or 4’ minutes8.
That Lethbridge could remain underwater only a few minutes is apparently corroborated by two
independent sources. In 1734 a French observer, a Monsieur d’Héricourt, wrote a detailed description
of a diving barrel used by an Englishman – probably Lethbridge – to recover specie from a depth of
about eight fathoms off Marseilles, and noted that the diver could remain underwater ‘no longer than
four minutes each time before the air has to be renewed’. In the early 1820s Samuel Wade Smith, who
was then superintending the sea-wall construction at Plymouth Dock, published his Observations on
Diving and Diving Machines, in which he gave an outline account of Lethbridge’s barrel and related that
‘the quantity of included air being so small, he could not remain in any considerable depth of water
more than five or six minutes at a time.’ Notably, both d’Héricourt and Smith imply that the limiting
factor on the dive was available air.9
6. Given that a man is approximately neutrally buoyant in water, his mass in kilogrammes is approximately
numerically the same as his volume in litres. Eighty kilogrammes may be an overestimate – at approximately
12½ stone, it was perhaps on the heavy side in those days; and the diver’s arms were outside the barrel, and
thus would not have displaced air from inside the barrel. Any overestimate in diver mass will lead to an
underestimate of the volume of air within the barrel.
7. Michael Fardell presents broadly similar calculations in his John Lethbridge: the most successful treasure diver of
the eighteenth century.. [Fardell, p.10].
8. Chronicle, @ 20 mins, 47 mins; Fardell, pp. 10, 21-7, p. 86 n. 42.
9. Smith gives no source for his account of Lethbridge’s barrel, and no likely source seems to have appeared
previously in print. He erroneously stated that Lethbridge was from Okehampton (there had been a
Lethbridge family in that town for centuries), and thus it seems unlikely that his source was close to the
Lethbridge family itself. Perhaps his account was based on hearsay among the bell divers then employed
on the sea-wall construction at Plymouth. Confusingly, Smith describes Lethbridge’s barrel as ‘containing
something more that a hogshead’ – which, if available air was the limiting factor, is inconsistent with a dive
time of only five or six minutes. [Chronicle, @ 45-6 mins, quoting d’Héricourt; Fardell, pp. 41, 71-3 quoting
Fig. 1. Following in John Lethbridge’s footsteps, Robert Sténuit prepares to dive in the replica barrel. d’Héricourt, and p. 56 quoting Smith, p. 97 n. 225; Smith, p. 20; Nigel Phillips and Peter Dick, personal
If only John himself was here to advise on the arm seals ... correspondence to author, confirming the identity of ‘ S. W. Smith’].
From this fragmentary but materially consistent evidence an obvious conclusion presented itself:
previous assumptions that Lethbridge could remain underwater in his barrel for half an hour were
mistaken; instead, his actual dive times were no more than about 4 to 6 minutes. Of course, the useful dive
time would have been significantly less than this. Lethbridge himself says he had ‘been ten fathom deep’
(i.e. 18 m) or so ‘many a hundred times’10. The sink rate of the barrel meant that – at the maximum 15
pounds negative buoyancy described by Lethbridge – it would have taken about a minute to reach ten
fathoms11. After allowing for the recovery, the actual bottom time would have been minimal.
D’Héricourt and Smith aside, there is another source that suggests a barrel dive time, one much
closer to Lethbridge himself: his grandson, Thomas Lethbridge. Thomas was about four years old when
John died, and probably retained vague memories of his grandfather12. From his father (John, who also
barrel dived extensively) and wider family he heard much about his grandfather’s diving adventures.
He was commissioned as a lieutenant in the Royal Navy in 1780, and after leaving little mark on
his profession, and many years on a Greenwich Hospital pension, was superannuated in 1815 on a
commander’s pay. In 1821 – drawing on family memories and on having last seen one his grandfather’s
diving barrels, although in a ‘rotten and demolished’ condition, twenty years previously in Dartmouth
– he corresponded with the Reverend Daniel Lysons, the antiquary and author, about his grandfather’s
diving engine13. He tells that the barrel was ‘about seven feet long’, and just large enough inside to
accommodate the body of a ‘stout man’. He explained that ‘with the advance of water and loss of air’
the diver had to be taken up ‘so as to recover himself, perhaps every 20 minutes’. He also remarked that
no danger ever disconcerted his grandfather, not even when the water was up to his chin and his air
nearly expended14. (From the distance of three centuries, it is apparent that John Lethbridge exhibited
the characteristic aquatic sang-froid of the thoroughbred scuba diver.)
• • •
And so four ostensibly credible sources describing Lethbridge’s barrel give conflicting dive times:
d’Héricourt (4 minutes); Smith (5 or 6 minutes); John Lethbridge himself (34 minutes, or perhaps
3 to 4 minutes, or perhaps something else); and Thomas Lethbridge (20 minutes)15. Adding to the
10. And we know that a barrel diver – probably Lethbridge himself – searched (unsuccessfully) for the wreck of
the Hollandia lost off Scilly in 30 metres of water. [Heath, pp. 150-4; Fardell, pp. 46-7.]
11. The force F (in Newtons) on the barrel as it sinks through the water is given by the equation:
F = 0.5 x ρ x A x Cd x V2, where ρ is the density of seawater (e.g. 1028 kg/m3), A is the frontal area of
the barrel (e.g. 6 ft by 2 ft, or 1.115 m2), Cd is the drag coefficient (e.g. ≈ 1.0), and V is the sink speed of
the barrel in m/s. Rearranging for V, and setting F to 67 Newtons (i.e. 15 lb), we calculate a sink speed of
0.34 m/s (i.e. approximately one metre every three seconds). In practice, with the barrel being restrained by
ropes to the surface, which would have been necessary to control the descent, the sink speed may have been
significantly less than this (although the diver could have used disposable ballast to hasten his descent). Of
course, if the barrel leaked during the dive then it would become progressively more negatively buoyant, by
the weight of the ingressed water.
12. Thomas Lethbridge was baptised in Newton Abbot in February 1756. His grandfather, John Lethbridge the
diver, was buried in Newton Abbot in December 1759.
13. See Appendix A for transcripts of the surviving correspondence, comprising three letters from Thomas Lethbridge.
14. Add. Mss 9428, ff. 353-6, Thomas Lethbridge to D. Lysons, 11, 24 Apr., 14 June 1821 (Appendix A); Steel,
for May 1815, p. 38, and for June 1815, p. 38; Earle, pp. 176-8.
15. To this list might be added a report by the second mate of an East Indiamen that Jacob Rowe’s barrel would
support a diver for half an hour; and J. T. Desaguliers’s account that Rowe’s barrel would support a man Fig. 2 Robert Sténuit in the barrel, accompanied by Marc Jasinski behind the camera, is lowered
for about an hour underwater. [Fardell, p. 30; Desaguliers, p. 215.] Notably, both these reported durations by crane into the COMEX test tank in Marseilles. For his first trial dives Lethbridge made do with a
appear to have been inferred from the available air in the barrel. pond in his Devonshire garden.
confusion, the Weekly Journal of April 1720 relates that during his diving demonstration in the Thames told23. Nevertheless, we have sufficient information to undertake speculative buoyancy calculations.
Lethbridge ‘kept under water half an hour’; and a report in several London newspapers of September If we take Lethbridge’s barrel dimensions and weight of ballast, d’Héricourt’s wood thickness, a diver
1729, describing Lethbridge’s exploits in South Africa, relates that barrel and diver could remain on the mass of 80 kg, the implied volume of air (205 litres), then 70 kg of iron in the barrel’s construction
seabed at six fathoms for three-quarters of an hour16. will give a total barrel mass of 599 kg and a barrel negative buoyancy of 6.7 kg in seawater – that is
One point can be clarified immediately. As we have seen, the statements of d’Héricourt, Smith, and (nearly) 15 lb24,25.
Lethbridge himself (that his barrel contained about 30 gallons) each imply that the barrel dive time was The calculations show that the combination of diver, oak and iron was broadly neutrally buoyant,
limited by available air. This cannot be correct, as a few straightforward calculations will reveal. and that the lead ballast was necessary primarily to offset the buoyancy of the confined air. And with ‘500
In Lethbridge’s own words, the barrel was ‘about six feet in length, about two foot and a half weight’ of lead ballast the volume of air in the barrel must have been in the order of two hundred litres or
diameter at the head, and about eighteen inches diameter at the foot, and contains about 30 gallons.’ more. Certainly, this weight of ballast is inconsistent with the internal volume of the barrel being ‘about
Lethbridge omits to give the thickness of the oak, but d’Héricourt says it was three inches, which seems 30 gallons’, and therefore (with the diver in place) containing less than about 40 litres of air.
plausible17,18. From these figures we can calculate the internal volume of the barrel: 285 litres, or 75 Thus from Lethbridge’s own dimensions for the barrel, and through basic buoyancy calculations, it
Queen Anne gallons19. And this volume is probably an underestimate. After allowing for the thickness is clear that the barrel contained a minimum of about two hundred litres of air26. For an air-limited
of the wood, Lethbridge’s dimensions imply an internal barrel length of 5 feet 6 inches. This is probably dive, this is sufficient for a dive time of at least about 20 minutes. And if the diver was undertaking
too short to allow a ‘stout man’ to fit comfortably into the barrel (and Lethbridge tells that he often very light work, or if he had gained significant tolerance to carbon dioxide, or if (as seems likely)
spent more than six hours inside) – especially as, when in the barrel, the diver had to manoeuvre his Lethbridge understated the size of the barrel, the dive time may have been in the order of half an hour
arms through the two openings20. It thus seems likely that the barrel was longer than six feet. or longer27,28.
The validity of Lethbridge’s dimensions can be tested by checking the barrel buoyancy. In his letter
he tells that the barrel required ‘500 weight to sink it, and take but 15 pound weight from it, and it
will buoy upon the surface of the water.’ The barrel was ballasted with lead on its underside, as depicted 23. Lethbridge tells he used internal reinforcing hoops in the barrel, although only one is depicted in the
d’Héricourt drawing. [Lethbridge, p. 412; Fardell, pp. 71-2, and cover illustration.]. The crush depth of
in d’Héricourt’s drawings21. Lethbridge’s ‘500 weight’ presumably meant five hundredweight: that is
the barrel would have been dependent on the thickness and mechanical properties of the oak, and on the
254 kg of lead ballast22. There was also a substantial quantity of iron used in the barrel construction number and spacing of the internal reinforcing hoops. The stress calculations were beyond the engineering
– in reinforcing hoops, fastenings, cross-bars, and the lifting bracket – although how much we are not theory of Lethbridge’s day. But Lethbridge was clearly an accomplished empirical engineer. He surely
conducted water trials to ensure that his barrel designs would survive the depths he wished to dive to, and
16. It is difficult to explain the Weekly Journal’s 2 April 1720 report that, during his demonstration dives in the would have added internal reinforcing hoops as necessary.
Thames, Lethbridge ‘took with him meat and drink, and had his dinner under water; he had also fire in the 24. Appendix B gives an example buoyancy calculation for the barrel using Lethbridge’s dimensions (Table 1);
engine, and bak’d a cake’. The South Sea Bubble was then getting fully underway – so perhaps this was a and examples of the calculated mass of lead ballast and internal volume of air to maintain close to 15 lb
satire on the extravagant claims being made for some business enterprises. Alternatively, perhaps the report negative buoyancy in seawater when various barrel parameters are altered (Table 2).
was written on the day before publication (1 April, “All Fools’ Day”). [BCol. Weekly Journal, 2 Apr. 1720 25. Is 70 kg of iron – as implied by the stated barrel dimensions and the manned barrel being close to neutrally
(see also BCol. Weekly Packet, 26 Mar.-2 Apr. 1720); Daily Post, 24 Sep. 1729, London Journal, 27 Sept. buoyant – in the barrel construction realistic? The d’Héricourt drawings imply that it is an underestimate, as
1729, Weekly Journal, 27 Sept. 1729, Monthly Chronicle, Sept. 1729; reproduced in Fardell, pp. 70-1.] do pictures of the Sténuit-COMEX replica barrel. More iron would imply more air in the barrel to maintain
17. Presumably d’Héricourt’s ‘3 inches’ was an approximation, and thus we need not concern ourselves with neutral buoyancy, and thus the 205 litres of air assumed in this calculation would also be an underestimate.
potential discrepancies between an English inch and a pre-Revolution French inch. 26. In a postscript to his Gentleman’s Magazine letter Lethbridge remarked: ‘Dr Halley, who frequently conversed
18. D’Héricourt also says that the barrel was two feet wide in the middle (which confirms Lethbridge’s with me ... said, he never thought any man could invent a machine, to work about himself, in so small
account), but only five feet long. This is surely far too short: it would leave only four feet six inches to a quantity, as six ounces of confined air’. This implies (depending on the type of ‘ounce’ and the density
accommodate the diver’s body length. With the limited internal diameter of the barrel, the capacity for of air assumed by Halley) in the order of 136 to 152 litres of air – which appears to be an underestimate.
the diver to lose body length by crouching was almost negligible. The barrel length-to-diameter ratio as [Lethbridge, p. 413; Halley, pp. 104, 367, for previous assumptions by Halley about the density of air and his
depicted in the d’Héricourt drawings does, however, appear roughly consistent with his quoted dimensions use of the Troy ounce; Jurin, p. 302, for a different contemporary view on the density of air. ]
– which raises questions about the literal accuracy of the drawings.[Lethbridge, p. 412; Fardell, p. 71.] 27. These figures are supported by the results of Robert Sténuit’s first trial in the replica barrel (not described
19. The volume V of a tapered cylinder, length L, diameters at each end d1 and d2, is given by the equation: in The Treasure of Porto Santo). With the barrel hermitically sealed on land he found that he could breathe
V = [(d1 x d2) + d12 + d22] x L x π/12. normally for the first 25 minutes but that after 35 minutes he began to be short of breath. After 42 minutes
20. Floud, pp. 100-110, especially fig. 3.4, which suggests that the mean height of mid-eighteenth-century conditions were becoming extremely uncomfortable, and – with his carbon dioxide analyser reading 6.7% –
British military recruits was around 5 feet 5 inches. he halted the trial. [Sténuit (pers. corr. a).]
21. Lethbridge, p. 412; Fardell, pp. 71-2, and cover illustration. 28. Doubtless the Lethbridge’s barrel designs went through many changes over their four decades of operation.
22. The quantity of lead ballast depicted in the d’Héricourt drawings is substantial, and (depending on the Given that the barrel had to house a ‘stout man’ for many hours, perhaps the most plausible design is one
scaling – see note 18 above) appears to have a mass of 200 kg or more. In 1729 London newspapers based on a barrel length of around 6.5 feet (i.e. 6 feet internal length), and perhaps with a weight of iron
published a report of Lethbridge’s barrel being used in South Africa, remarking that it had ‘600 weight of fittings of around 100 kg (or even more). Such a barrel would have an internal volume of air of about 230
lead being fix’d to the bottom, to sink it’. [BCol. Monthly Chronicle, Sept. 1729, see also Daily Post, 24 Sep. litres (with the diver in place), and require about 260 kg (5.1 hundredweight) of lead ballast to maintain a
1729, London Journal, 27 Sept. 1729, Weekly Journal, 27 Sept. 1729; reproduced in Fardell, pp. 70-1.] slight negative buoyancy. See Table 2 in Appendix B.
Leaving aside (for the moment) the question of the ‘34 minutes’ printer’s error, it appears that as
published Lethbridge’s letter contains another error: should not the statement that the barrel contained
‘about 30 gallons’ actually read ‘about 80 gallons’?29 Between Lethbridge’s letter from Newton Abbot and
the typesetting of the September 1749 edition of the Gentleman’s Magazine in London, could an ‘8’ have
been transposed to a ‘3’? The technical details of the barrel provided by Lethbridge himself suggest so.
• • •
Thus it is clear that available air did not limit the barrel dive time to only a few minutes. But what about the
leather arm seals, and their effect on the diver’s arms? The seals surely did leak, but how badly? After what
time at what depth did the pressure on the diver’s arms become unbearable? And at depth were the pressure
on the arms and the leak rate the limiting factors on the duration of the dive, rather than air capacity?30
After much trial and error, the Sténuit-COMEX replica barrel experiment demonstrated that the seals
could be made to work at depths to ten metres, allowing the diver to manipulate basic tools to secure
items of wreck. These latter-day barrel divers quickly found that the vague contemporary descriptions
of the seals were of little practical use – “I’m certainly no efficient silver-fisher yet”, lamented Robert
Sténuit as the seals leaked yet again. They were forced to develop their own seals, using materials
available in Lethbridge’s day. But no one knows how close to the originals their designs may have been.
We do understand the basic physics of the differential pressure across the diver’s arms. But are there
any specific physiological effects that might explain Lethbridge’s statement that he had ‘been ten fathom
deep many a hundred times, and have been 12 fathom, but with great difficulty’? That there was a
maximum depth for a barrel diver at something just over ten fathoms appears to be corroborated by
two other accounts, as noted by John Desaguliers, the Huguenot natural philosopher and engineer, in
his A Course of Experimental Philosophy published in 1744:
Captain Irwin [Irvine], who dived for Mr Rowe, inform’d me that at the depth of 11 fathom he
felt a strong stricture about his arms by the pressure of the water; and that venturing two fathom lower
to take up a lump of earth with pieces of eight sticking together, the circulation of his blood was so
far stopp’d, and he suffer’d so much, that he was forced to keep his bed six weeks. And I have heard of
another that died in three days, for having ventured to go down 14 fathom.31
Why the apparently abrupt cut-off in maximum diving depth? Presumably it was owing to the large
pressure gradient between the diver’s arms and the rest of his body. A modern parallel is that of the
rigid helmet diver. If air is not added to the flexible suit, as the diver descends the suit and occupant
are forced towards the helmet, leading progressively to head injuries, widespread haemorrhaging in soft
tissues, and eventually death.32
Even at moderate depths, the forces exerted by the pressure difference between the barrel diver’s arms
and his body would have been huge – at only 4 metres depth, in the order of 70 lb on each arm; at
29. Eighty Queen Anne gallons is equivalent to 303 litres, which (with the diver in place) would leave some
220 litres of air in the barrel.
30. In his account of the Lethbridge barrel used to search for the wreck of the Hollandia, lost off Scilly in 1743,
Robert Heath mentions that when the bung is removed from the hole through which the air is replenished
‘the confined air rushes out’. [Heath, p. 153.] This positive pressure suggests that the barrel either had been
pressurised (somehow) before the dive or had leaked during it. If the barrel did not leak during the dive, then
the pressure within would actually have decreased, as in breathing a man at (or near) rest generally produces less
carbon dioxide by volume than he consumes oxygen (e.g. by a ratio of between about 0.9 and 0.8).
Fig. 3. ‘An efficient silver-fisher yet?’ 31. Chronicle, @ 41 mins; Lethbridge, p. 412; Desaguliers, p. 215; Fardell, pp. 8, 10.
Signal line in right hand, Robert Sténuit practises Lethbridge-style salvage. 32. Edmonds, p. 111.
10 metres, 180 lb; and at ‘12 fathom’ (i.e. 22 metres), 390 lb33. Notably, in the account of his diving But why did Thomas Lethbridge, who should be a credible source, state that his grandfather ‘with
barrel Jacob Rowe explained that ‘in deep water the diver is forced to make use of a saddle on his back the advance of water and loss of air, he had to be taken up, in the act perhaps of slinging a chest of
... touching the upper part of the engine, whereby the diver can keep his arms at a due distance out of treasure, so as to recover himself, perhaps every 20 minutes’?38 There is no mention here of constriction
the engine.’34 Even with such back support, it is difficult to comprehend how it was possible for the on the arms. Perhaps details of the diving exploits had become embellished during family re-telling, and
barrel diver to endure the forces on his arms at depths greater than, say, five or six fathoms. some of the difficulties forgotten; or perhaps the 20 minutes referred to dives in water only a few feet
Perhaps more important in limiting actual dive time, the barrel diver’s heart would have been unable to deep. As it stands, this figure remains anomalous – an example of how independently sourced historical
pump blood to the exposed arms against the water pressure at depths below about 1.6 metres. Blood would evidence, especially anecdotal evidence, is rarely entirely consistent.
be forced from the diver’s arms back into his body, and lactic acid left to build up in the arm muscles, which The 1720 demonstration in the Thames would indeed have been in only a few feet of water, and thus
would have no oxygen supply35. In a short time the exposed arms would become effectively paralysed. the Weekly Journal’s report that Lethbridge stayed underwater half an hour is plausible. But the 1729
Did this lack of blood supply effectively limit the dive time, rather than air capacity? To return to the newspaper reports that in South Africa Lethbridge remained on the seabed at six fathoms for three-
Sténuit-COMEX replica barrel experiment. Robert Sténuit has kindly elaborated to me his experiences quarter’s of an hour must be viewed sceptically – after all, South Africa was half a world and months
in diving in the replica barrel36.In his own words: away, allowing ample scope for exaggeration as diving stories were retold.39
As for the constriction on the arms, it is, according to my personal experience the first and only limit What of Lethbridge’s claim to have dived to ten fathoms and more? He is known to have salvaged wreck
that a barrel diver (in an engine the size of John’s) will ever reach ... if we assume ... he is diving in from deeper than 20 metres; hence, on the face of it, this appears to be no idle boast. However, in light
any significant depth, that is deeper than 10 feet. of his painful experiences in the test tank, seeking to explain how Lethbridge may have worked at such
In the test tank Robert dived to 10 metres several times, where he found himself ‘suffering seemingly unreachable depths, Robert Sténuit suggests that he may have stopped his descent at about 10
considerable pain’, and in a short time his arms were ‘nearing complete paralysis’. After only three or metres, and (in clear water at least) worked many metres deeper by manipulating tools at the end of a rope.
four minutes at such depths he was forced to give the ascend signal, while he was still able – ‘after that it If we discount the possibility of a barrel diver actually diving to 20 metres, this seems the only explanation.
is not a matter of strength of will, your arms just become paralysed’. This experience convinced him to Of course, working from mid water would negate two of the barrel’s main advantages: being close to
interpret the (as published) Lethbridge letter’s ‘many times, 34 minutes’ as ‘many times, 3 to 4 minutes’. neutrally buoyant the diver could (as Lethbridge points out) easily pull himself around on the seabed; and
Robert’s dives were limited to 10 metres (the depth of the test tank), but he believes he could have gone a diver could work more efficiently with his hands (providing they were not completely immobile) than
perhaps 3 metres deeper, although for only a minute or two. In hindsight, with adapted sleeve designs, with remote tools. One imagines that Lethbridge would have worked from mid water only in depths in
and with a diver’s trick he devised (unspecified! – ‘all divers have their own trade secrets’), Robert thinks which he had no hope of actually reaching the seabed. And it must have occurred to Lethbridge (and to
he could possibly have reached 15 or 16 metres, for two or three minutes perhaps, but no deeper – and others) that salvage from mid water could have been better undertaken from a bell. Bell divers would
certainly not the 12 fathoms ostensibly claimed by Lethbridge. not have suffered constrictions on their arms, and thus would have been able to work deeper, more
Unlike Robert Sténuit, Lethbridge had the opportunity to develop his seals (and hence perhaps to efficiently, and for far longer than their barrel counterparts; they also probably had a wider view of the
spread and site the pressure load optimally on his arms) over many years and many diving expeditions; it seabed. However, as well as better manoeuvrability, the barrel had another important advantage over a
is also possible that he gained some tolerance to lactic acid build-up and oxygen depletion in his forearms conventional bell: although the deployment logistics for both systems would have been similar, the lifting
and hands, enabling him to work at depth for longer than the novice barrel diver. Fundamentally, equipment and the deployment vessels required to support a bell would have been larger than for the
however, Lethbridge’s experiences of pressure physics would have been no different from those endured (much lighter) barrel. On many of the sites worked by Lethbridge, including that at Porto Santo, it would
by Robert Sténuit in the COMEX test tank. As long as the internal barrel remained close to atmospheric have been too dangerous to manoeuvre conventional bell support vessels sufficiently near the actual wreck
pressure, it is difficult to conceive that Lethbridge could have done anything to overcome the crippling (often lost on or very near wave-swept rocks) for the divers to undertake useful work.40 But Lethbridge
constriction on his arms, such that he could dive for much longer than Robert Sténuit. If Lethbridge’s was a most practical man. Surely it would have occurred to him to use a small, one-man bell?
‘34 minutes’ is indeed a misprint, then ‘3 to 4 minutes’ is a plausible (and perhaps the most likely)
correction – although one based on blood supply to the arms rather than available air37. ... spells numbers up to ten and uses numerals for numbers greater than ten. It refers to quantities of up to
ten on eight occasions. For six of these (‘about six feet in length’; ‘about two foot and a half diameter’; ‘glass
33. At water depth D (metres) and density ρ (e.g. 1028 kg/m3), assuming no leakage across the arm seals, the about four inches diameter’; ‘ten fathom deep’; ‘three years since’; ‘six ounces of confined air’) as published
force F (Newtons) pressing each arm, diameter d (metres), back into the barrel is given by the equation: the letter spells out the word; for the other two (‘dived 3 years’; ‘more than 6 hours’) it uses figures
F = 9.81 x ρ x D x (π x d2/4). This can be converted to lbf (pounds force) by multiplying by 0.225. In (intriguingly, both these exceptions refer to time). The letter refers to quantities greater than ten on seven
practice, part of the pressure load on the arm seals would be transferred to the arms; thus the total load on occasions. For six of these (‘30 gallons’; ‘500 weight’; ‘15 pound’; ‘12 foot square’; ‘34 minutes’;
the arm would be larger than the formula implies. For these illustrative calculations I have assumed an arm ‘12 fathom’) as published the letter uses numerals; for only one (‘eighteen inches diameter’) does it spell
diameter of 0.1 m. [See Fardell, p. 8, for a similar calculation.] out the word. [Lethbridge, pp. 412-3.] But we cannot know whether the typesetter of the Gentleman’s
34. Rowe, pp. 19, 26. Magazine kept to Lethbridge’s original distinction between figures and numerals, and so (enticing though it
35. Fardell, p. 7. is) this line of reasoning peters out.
36. Sténuit (pers. corr. a). 38. Add. Mss 9428, f. 353, Thomas Lethbridge to D. Lysons, 11 Apr. 1821 (my italics).
37. If Lethbridge had indeed meant ‘3 to 4 minutes’ perhaps he would have written ‘three to four minutes’ in 39. BCol. Weekly Journal, 2 Apr. 1720; BCol. Daily Post, 24 Sep. 1729, London Journal, 27 Sept. 1729, Weekly
words rather than numerals, leaving such a typesetting mistake less likely? As published, the letter generally Journal, 27 Sept. 1729, Monthly Chronicle, Sept. 1729; reproduced in Fardell, pp. 70-1.
40. Sténuit (pers. corr. b), makes this point.
footnote continued on next page
And so, in the absence of actual evidence, the cycle of supposition, speculation and counter-speculation Appendix A: Thomas Lethbridge letters to D. Lysons
goes on. But we do know that the generation of divers after Lethbridge abandoned the barrel diving
concept. The overriding reason, one imagines, was the unsolvable problem of the leather seals constricting In 1821 Thomas Lethbridge, grandson of John, wrote three letters discussing his grandfather’s diving
and eventually paralysing the arms – a fundamental disadvantage of the barrel diving system which career to the Reverend Daniel Lysons, who was then gathering material for his topographical account of
negated the advantages of manoeuvrability and, compared with a bell, lighter support equipment. Devon (published in 1822 as part of the Magna Britannia series). Lethbridge’s manuscript letters (which
While the hypothesis that in deeper waters Lethbridge stopped his descent at ten metres or so, and have previously been cited in diving history books) are today in the British Library in the Additional
from there deployed tools to the seabed, seems plausible, it doesn’t directly account for his statement Manuscripts series45.
that he had ‘been ten fathom deep many a hundred times’; neither does it account for his pointed Thomas Lethbridge’s handwriting is generally clear, although his loose forming of letters sometimes
distinction between diving to ten fathoms and to twelve fathoms. And Lethbridge, one thinks, was not leaves a word hard to read. In the following transcripts I have (lightly) modernised the spelling and
a man given to unwarranted exaggeration or self-promotion. punctuation, and expanded a few abbreviations. The content requires little comment or explanation.
Can Lethbridge’s claims and Robert Sténuit experiences in the test tank be reconciled? Through There are a few inaccuracies: William Phips’s bell was used with success; John Lethbridge was not the
selective interpretation of evidence the answer is possibly ‘yes’. In Lethbridge’s day the word ‘fathom’ only man to dive in a barrel; the suggested dive time of twenty minutes may be misleading. Of the
was a loose term. It could mean as little as five feet41. Using this value Lethbridge’s statement becomes: individuals named, ‘Mr Kitson’ may have been Charles Kitson, the solicitor of Shiphay near Torquay
‘I have been 15 metres deep many a hundred times, and have been 18 metres, but with great difficulty.’ (although there were several gentleman Kitsons in the area); ‘Mr Gardiner’ was presumably Lysons’s
This is only two or three metres deeper than Robert Sténuit thinks, at a push, he could have got to. brother-in-law, Colonel Cooper Gardiner.
How to account for the remaining difference? With repeated diving, some physiological adaptation to Thomas Lethbridge’s last letter suggests that when he wrote his first (and most informative) letter
the constriction effects on his arms may have enabled Lethbridge to dive a little deeper for a little longer. he had not seen, at least for some time, his grandfather’s letter in the Gentleman’s Magazine. Clearly,
More importantly one thinks, the lure of actual treasure is powerful. Could it have impelled Lethbridge by this last letter Thomas was attempting to use his grandfather’s renown to improve his own family’s
and his contemporaries to venture just that few metres deeper? We do know that barrel divers, with circumstances. Thomas Lethbridge died in 1829.
supreme determination, pushed themselves to their physical limits – enduring pain even to the point
that, in one case at least, they sustained mortal injuries. Letter 1: Lethbridge to Lysons, 11 April 1821 (Add. Mss 9428, ff. 353-4)
• • •
Newton Abbot, April
Confinement; fear of drowning; excruciating barotrauma; leaking seals; water washing around the barrel; carbon 11, 1821
dioxide poisoning; perhaps entire diving seasons without treasure: the barrel diver’s lot was an arduous one. Dear Sir,
Having made a success of his diving engine, the economic historian today might presume that On my return from my ride yesterday I was much disappointed at not seeing you and
Lethbridge would quickly gather his fortune and then enjoy a secure retirement. By the end of 1726, Mrs Lysons, as I could have more fully explained to you what you were desirous of
after his successful salvage of treasure from the Slot ter Hoge, Lethbridge was a comparatively wealthy knowing of my grandfather Mr John Lethbridge of this place. It seems he was possessed
man. He was fifty years old, and had been diving for a decade42. A comfortable retirement in the of a strong idea of living underwater and which he put in practice in the manner you
Devonshire countryside surely beckoned. have read of in the Gentleman’s Magazine by being put into a wooden vessel he had made
But Lethbridge carried on diving. As the Dutch East India records tell, often accompanied by his son and sunk in a pond in his orchard. He then offered his services to some merchants of
John (father of Lieutenant Thomas), John senior worked in the Cape Verde Islands, in the Isles of Scilly, London to adventure with them by diving on the wreck of some treasure ships that were
extensively in South Africa; and almost certainly in many other locations, direct records of which have lost about that time, which they at first declined as they were apprehensive he could not
been lost. Sometimes he was successful, sometimes not. It is not known when Lethbridge actually gave perform what he proposed. And the business had nigh failed, as he had not the means
up going underwater himself; but, as the businessman head of the family employing his son and other alone of fitting out a vessel and he being a landsman had not the requisite knowledge for
divers, he continued to seek out diving ventures using his barrel designs well into his eighties, almost such an undertaking. That at last he offered to proceed with so small a share for himself
to his death in 175943, 44. Clearly, diving meant far more to Lethbridge than merely earning a living: that, rather than not put it in execution, he would have been content with the honour
through being ‘quite reduced’, and turning his thoughts ‘upon some extraordinary method’ to retrieve of it, so strong was the presentment he had of success attending it, and which it seems is
his misfortunes, he had discovered his vocation. now become one of the most valuable discoveries of modern day.
The machine he dived in was built by a cooper, about seven feet long, well
41. The Oxford English Dictionary quotes a dictionary of arts and sciences of 1728: ‘There are three kinds of
fathoms. The first, which is that of men of war, contains six feet; the middling, or that of merchant ships, strengthened inside and out by thick iron hoops, with a quantity of lead suspended at the
five feet and a half; and the small fathom, used in fluyets, fly-boats, and other fishing-vessels, only five feet.’ foot to sink it. It was just large enough in the body for a stout man, with two apertures
42. Fardell, pp. 26, 2. for the arms, and a thick glass in front to view the objects before him, and leather hose
43. Robert Sténuit says that, in his (very) early eighties as he is, he would be ready any day to barrel dive as he
did in Marseilles.
44. Fardell, pp. 31-53; Sténuit (pers. corr. b). 45. For example, Earle, pp. 176-8, 190; Fardell, p. 55, 57-8.
was fixed outside and fitted so to the arms as to prevent the water from approaching too This was in the handwriting of the late Reverend William Buckland, the Rector, and
fast. Yet what with the advance of water and loss of air, he had to be taken up, in the act who had been chaplain many years in a man-of-war, so that he seems positive he was
perhaps of slinging a chest of treasure, so as to recover himself, perhaps every 20 minutes, the first, as there is no record of Phips’s bell having been used with success. The engine
for which purpose he had a line in his hand to give the signal above that it was time to (I now remember was the term given and not the bell) was last in the care of Governor
come up. In this way he went on, and not one of the officers or crew would go down Holdsworth of Dartmouth, and when I went to see it twenty years ago, it was all rotten
in it to give some relief. Nor was there another man found in that day to undertake it. and demolished. And at his decease I was not five years old so that 60 years have elapsed
With the little that he got for his toil, he brought an estate called Adinole [Odicknoll] in and all was like other things forgotten.
the parish of King’s Castle [Kingskerswell] near Mr Kitson’s at Shippy [Shiphay?] Colyton. Had he been bred a seaman and could have conducted his own expedition, he would
He was a man highly esteemed for honour and integrity, and seemed to have been born have been enabled to realise wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. I shall be much obliged
for the express purpose of the discovery, as no danger ever annoyed him whilst he was at by your sending me the price of your history of Devon, as I feel greatly interested in its
work on the wreck of a ship, with the water up to his chin and his breath expended, that welfare.
one might almost say such another man was never produced. Mrs Lethbridge begs to write with me in best wishes to you and Mrs Lysons.
I beg leave to enclose you the impression of his seal and his signature, which I have I have the honour to be most respectfully, dear sir, your most faithful servant,
taken from a deed, almost the last act of his life. The seal is the same as was used by the
family of Sir Thomas Lethbridge MP for Somerset, before the late Sir John L. married, T. Lethbridge
and a sleeve button that came up in a trunk the only relic that I know of that is left of
that mighty exploit, which had it happened at this day would have immortalised him and
enriched his family for ever. It seems he never us[ed] an air pipe at the time, which would
have been of infinite advantage to him, but that is now unaccounted for. Letter 3: Lethbridge to Lysons, 14 June 1821 (Add. Mss 9428, f. 356)
The foregoing I have given you as such having been repeated in my family these last
sixty years, which is as near to the truth as it’s possible for hearsay sayings to be, and you Newton Abbot, June 14, 1821
will please to make as much or as little of it as suits the work you will I hope happily Dear Sir,
announce[?] to the public. And if you have any question to put that I may have omitted,
it will give me great pleasure to answer it. I had the pleasure to reply to your kind favour wherein you requested to know if my
I beg you and Mrs Lysons to accept mine and Mrs Lethbridge’s respectful compliments, grandfather was the first person who recovered property from wrecks, and having since
and also my good friend Mr Gardiner to whom I beg to send my best wishes. I wrote got a sight of the Gentleman’s Magazine where his letter is preserved, I think
from what he says respecting his engine and his conversation with Doctor Halley on
I have the honour to be, most respectful, dear sir, your much obliged humble servant, that subject and also that of Sir William Phips being intended only for a naked man to
Thomas Lethbridge descend, that it is quite [? word here illegible] evidence sufficient to satisfy me that he
may be reckoned the first man who did recover goods from wrecks, and as he was by his
Please to direct to me Newton Abbot, Devon, as all letters follow me from there. great personal abilities of great service to science and of which the Government are now
reaping the benefits, by an improved bell at Plymouth, I beg leave to ask you whether you
think I have any claim on the Government, by representing the business in its true light,
Letter 2: Lethbridge to Lysons, 24 April 1821 (Add. Mss 9428, f. 355) and as I was left to fight my way through the world without friends – I have to request
of you the favour of an introduction to anyone you may have interest with that might
Newton Abbot, April 24, 1821 assist me in making the proper application. I have also a nephew in the Navy whom I
Dear Sir, am interested for, and cannot get him promoted, and as there is to be something done
for the Navy at the Coronation I should wish much to put in my claim if you have any
I beg you will be pleased to accept my best thanks for your kind intention of noting[?] opinion of the merits of my grandfather’s services coming under that head.
my late grandfather in your history of Devon. I omitted to say that he was of the family Mrs Lethbridge begs to present her best respects to you and Mrs Lysons, and please
noticed in Prince’s Worthies of Devon, and there is every reason to conclude that he to accept the same.
was the first person who recovered goods from wrecked vessels, it being recorded in From, dear sir, your most obliged humble servant.
the register of this parish December 11, 1759 – Buried Mr John Lethbridge Inventor
T. Lethbridge
of a most famous Diving Engine, by which he recover’d from the bottom of the sea in
different parts of the Globe almost an hundred thousand pounds for the English and PS: As the Coronation is soon to take place, I shall esteem it a great favour to know your
Dutch merchants which had been lost by shipwreck. opinion as early as may be.
Appendix B: Buoyancy calculations Sources

Add. Mss: Additional manuscripts, British Library, Euston Road, London.
Example buoyancy calculations for the Lethbridge diving barrel design. Assuming standard values for BCol.: Burney Collection of newspapers (British Library).
the densities of oak, iron, lead, and air (listed in Table 1), and seawater density 1028 kg/m3.
Bevan, Dr John. ‘Charles Spalding’s Diving Bell’, International Journal of Diving History, vol. 2, part 1,
pp. 36-46. Published 2006.
Table 1
Chronicle. The Treasure of Porto Santo. Television programme written by Robert Sténuit. Directed by Ray
Buoyancy table using a baseline design for Lethbridge’s barrel: outside length 6 feet (1.829 m); outside Sutcliffe. First broadcast on BBC Two, 24 November 1977.
diameter 2.5 feet tapering to 1.5 feet (0.762 m to 0.457 m); wood thickness 3 inches (0.0762 m); ‘500 Desaguliers, John Theophilus. A Course of Experimental Philosophy. Vol. 2. London, 1744.
weight’ of lead ballast (254 kg); 70 kg of iron fittings; diver volume 80 litres. Earle, Peter. Treasure Hunt: Shipwreck, Diving and the Quest for Treasure in an Age of Heroes. London, 2007.
Edmonds, C., Lowry, C. and Pennefather, J. Diving and Subaquatic Medicine. Australia, 1984. Reprint
Table 1: Lethbridge barrel buoyancy table calculated from baseline design of the second edition, 1981.
Material vol. litres density kg/m3 mass kg net buoyancy kg Fardell, Michael. John Lethbridge: the most successful treasure diver of the eighteenth century. The Historical
Diving Society. London, 2010.
oak 259.5 750 194.6 72.1
Floud, Roderick, and Harris, Bernard. ‘Health, Height and Welfare: Britain 1700-1980’, chapter 3
iron fittings 8.9 7870 70.0 –60.9
in Health and Welfare during Industrialization, edited by Richard Steckel and Roderick Floud.
diver 80.0 1000 80.0 2.2 University of Chicago Press, 1997.
air 205.4 1.225 0.25 210.9 Halley, Edmond. ‘A Discourse of the Rule of the Decrease of the Height of the Mercury in the
lead 22.4 11340 254.2 –231.2 Barometer’; and ‘An Estimate of the Quantity of Vapour raised out of the Sea by the warmth of
the Sun; derived from an Experiment shown before the Royal Society’, in Philosophical Transactions:
TOTAL 576.2 1040 599.1 –6.7 (i.e ≈15 lb)
Giving some Account of the Present Undertakings, Studies and Labours of the Ingenious, in many
Considerable Parts of the World. Vol. XVI. For the Years 1686 and 1687, pp. 104-16 and 366-70.
London, 1688.
Heath, Robert. A Natural and Historical Account of the Islands of Scilly. London, 1750, to which page
Table 2
numbers refer. Reprinted with different pagination, Newcastle, 1967.
Sensitivity variations on baseline barrel parameters: calculated mass of lead to maintain ≈ 15 lb negative
buoyancy, and calculated volume of air. The variations marked * are scarcely plausible if a ‘stout man’ Jurin, Dr. James. ‘Hydrauliks’, in The Philosophical Transactions (from the year 1732, to the year 1744)
was to fit inside the barrel. abridged, vol. 8, part 1, pp. 282-324. London 1747.
Lethbridge, John. ‘Construction and Use of a Diving-Engine’, The Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical
Table 2: Lethbridge barrel buoyancy table variations on baseline design Chronicle, vol. 19, September 1749, pp. 411-13. Re-printed in Fardell, pp. 64-7.
total barrel lead mass kg Rowe, Jacob. A Demonstration of the Diving Engine; Its Invention and Various Uses. The Historical Diving
Variable air vol. litres Society. London, 2000. A facsimile of Rowe’s original manuscript, circa 1730, with an introduction
mass kg (hundredweight)
by Michael Fardell and Nigel Phillips.
no changes 599.1 254.2 (5.00) 205.4
Smith, Samuel Wade. Observations on Diving and Diving Machines. Second edition. Plymouth, 1823.
wood thickness: 3.5 inches* 596.6 226.6 (4.46) 171.8
Steel, David. Steel’s Original and Correct List of the Royal Navy. London, 1815.
wood thickness: 2.5 inches 601.8 284.1 (5.59) 241.6
Sténuit (pers. corr.), Robert. Personal correspondence to author: letter (a) 31 July 2014; and
barrel length: 5.5 feet* 549.2 219.0 (4.31) 179.5 supplementary letter (b) 29 August 2014.
barrel length: 6.5 feet* 649.0 289.5 (5.70) 231.4
barrel length: 7.0 feet* 698.9 324.8 (6.39) 257.3
diameter tapering: 27 to 15 inches* 460.8 146.8 (2.89) 121.3 Acknowledgements
diameter tapering: 33 to 21 inches* 756.3 379.5 (7.47) 304.8 As the references and citations show, this article is largely a series of reflections on the pioneering work
density of wood: 700kg/m3 600.4 268.5 (5.29) 205.4 undertaken by Michael Fardell in his John Lethbridge: the most successful treasure diver of the eighteenth
mass of iron: 100kg 600.4 225.6 (4.44) 205.4
century, and by Robert Sténuit (writer and narrator) and Ray Sutcliffe (producer and director) in their
BBC Chronicle television programme The Treasure of Porto Santo. I am especially grateful to Robert
barrel length: 6.5 feet; mass of iron:100kg 650.3 260.8 (5.13) 231.4
Sténuit for describing his experiences of diving in the replica barrel, and sharing his thoughts on the
practical limitations of barrel diving. Without his help this article would have remained an example of
the acute limitations of desk-bound calculation and conjecture. Of course, unattributed opinions are
my own, and interpretations of previous work and any mistakes are my responsibility.
Thanks to Marc Jasinski for providing photographs of the replica barrel trials, and to Ed Cumming Letters to the Editor
and Steve Roue for providing reference material.
Tim Glover, ASIS, FRPS
in association with Peter Dick (HDS)
Trevor Newman joined the Admiralty Research Laboratory at Portland (UK) in the late 1980s, and
worked in its successor organisations, DERA, Qinetiq and Dstl, chiefly on underwater systems. He was
the technical leader and trials officer for the trials and evaluation of the first two Remus autonomous The Rolleimarin’s Internal Mechanism
underwater vehicles (used for mine-hunting and environmental data gathering) to enter service with the The 2012 issue of the IJDH carried a paper that told the revealing story of Hans Hass’s input into the
Royal Navy. He has dived extensively on the three known wrecks of Admiral Sir Clowdisley Shovell’s design and development of the Rolleimarin underwater camera case in the 1950s. What it did not cover
fleet, lost off Scilly in 1707. He is currently taking time out from work to complete a book on the story were all facets of the design input by the manufacturers, Franke & Heidecke.
of the wrecks, their salvage, and the rise of British sea power in the Mediterranean 1704-7, in which Introduction
Shovell played a major role. When the Rolleimarin first came onto the market in the early 1950s, it represented the most advanced
underwater camera housing available. That accepted, its drawbacks were its high price and, more
particularly, that it was built for a camera using a large 120 film (4x4 cm frame) size that only gave 12
shots per loading, as opposed to the increasingly popular 35mm camera which gave up to 36 shots.
The Rolleimarin came in two parts that could be quickly locked down onto a flat rubber seal using
an over-centre cam device. To insert the twin lens reflex (Rolleiflex) camera,1 the top half (2, in Picture
E) was laid upside down on a flat surface. After its top viewing screen back cover had been removed, the
camera then locked in place over a viewing prism by means of a simple spring loaded bar (Picture A).
This upside down position, which allowed for the rapid reloading of film between dives, also allowed
the rigidly held camera to act as an anchor for a ‘control plate’ mounting a complex mechanism that
allowed diver control over camera speed and aperture, together with the optional use of filters in, what
I term, the early Mk 1 model (Pictures B, C and D) and filters and/or close-up lens in a later Mk 2
design2. For its time, that mechanism was possibly the most complex in use.
With the top locked into position and the whole case rotated 180 degrees ready for use, the prism
then provided a direct view through the camera’s focussing lens.
The Complex Mechanism
While both the early Mk 1 and later Mk2, mechanisms represented masterpieces of design, the Mk2
stands out because it allowed two operations to take place using one control movement. As these
operations were dynamic, a video would be the best way to explain what was involved, although here I
will attempt an explanation of the Mk2 mechanism using words and pictures.
So far, it has been shown how the speed and aperture could be adjusted as could the choice of no
filter, filter 1 or filter 2. Focussing has not been looked at simply because it was on the side of the
camera. The Mk1 could only focus down to 3 feet (~1 metre), which was limiting when it came to
close-up photography underwater. To get over this I added a large condenser lens with a focal length in
the order of 12-in (~300mm), in the water over the front of my first Rolleimarin case. This allowed the
camera to be focussed down to about 12-in (~305mm) underwater.
1. Twin lens reflex cameras had a normal camera lens, above which was a viewing and focussing lens. Both were
mounted in the same plane on a rigid camera front, which could be moved in and out to bring a subject into focus.
2. Light-yellow or deep orange filters were used to increase contrast underwater when using black and white film.
A. The top part of the

Rollemarine case with the
Rollei camera locked in
place over the prism (not
in view). Focussing was by
way of a knob on the side,
which moved the entire
front body of the camera
back and forth, while
aperture and shutter speed
were adjusted by way of
the small knobs on each
side and between the twin
reflex lenses.
The main control plate
and complex mechanism
was mounted rigidly to
the front of the camera
by locating into the upper
A lens supplementary-lens/
filter bayonet fitting.
B C D
B. The front control plate C. When turned D. The lower universal joint rotated a bevel
of the early, Mk1, Rollei unit over, the early Mk 1 gear, while the second bevel gear had a spur gear
(pictured) had two vertical shafts control panel shows built in to it. This picture shows the second bevel
(12, in Picture F), the left one that the two rods gear driving the tiny spur gear that in turn drove
to change shutter speed and the controlling speed and the serrated cup which rotated (in this case) the
right hand one to adjust aperture. aperture each have shutter speed on the front of the camera. With
Centred on the upper lens, a a universal joint, to earlier Rollei cameras speed and aperture could
rotating segmented gear, operated accommodate the in be ‘coupled’, so that when one was changed the
externally, then allowed there to be and out movement other changed in line with it. To allow for this,
no filter, filter 1 or filter 2. This of the front of the the Mk1 control panel had one of the serrated
picture shows (what would have camera whilst it was cup centre screws slightly longer than the other, E
been) a filter in position. being focussed. so that it effectively ‘decoupled’ them. This was
not required on the Mk II design, as the camera
model did not have this feature. E. Numbered parts, as referred to in the text.
Letters to the Editor

Reg Vallintine (HDS)
The Royal Engineers Diving History

May I add some further information, mainly concerning the Royal Engineers, to Michael and Robert
Burchett’s survey of Military Diving in your last issue. (Vol. 6 No.1- December 2013).
F G H
Nineteenth Century
G. No close-up lenses in place. H. Close-up lens in the I. Close-up lens and viewing After their successful clearance of the wreck of the Royal George in 1843, the Royal Engineers divers
half-way position. lens both in position and ready
became involved with diving tasks all around the British Empire. They used bells and a diving team
to take pictures.
on construction tasks in Milford Haven and Plymouth and, in 1844, a team widened and deepened
The Franke & Heidecke engineers, realising a need for close-up photography, then redesigned the the approach channel to St. George’s Harbour in Bermuda. In 1854 they helped clear the wrecks and
front control panel to accommodate a close-up lens, which could be operated underwater using the rebuild the docks at Sevastopol during the Crimean War. In 1863 they established the ‘Submarine
same controls. Mining Service’ and by 1881, twelve of the ‘Mining Companies’ were responsible for the defence
On the Mk II it can be seen that a close-up lens was fitted in the filter 2 position, allowing it to be of naval bases throughout the UK and colonies, maintaining and firing remotely controlled mines.
put over the main bottom (camera) lens or removed by simply rotating the top sector gear. Being a twin Together with Louis Brennan, they developed the ‘Brennan Torpedo’ which was a wire-guided missile
lens reflex camera it was however, necessary to put a similar lens in place or remove it from over the top that was extremely accurate, with a range of one and a half miles from shore. They built the torpedo
focussing lens at the same time; the solution being both complicated an ingenious. at their establishment in Chatham where they also developed and manufactured underwater electrical
With reference to Picture E, note the stationary pivot axle (7) which is fixed to the centre panel (8). lighting that was used by both military and civilian divers.
The moving pin (10) was mounted on a rotating member (3) which held the main close up lens (4). As
this pin rotated it moved up a slot (11) in the focussing close up lens mount (5). “Very Superior Divers”
Consequently, as the top sector gear (6) was turned externally (9) which moved bottom (camera) close-up As mentioned by the Burchetts, the government decided in 1905 to discontinue army diving and
lens into position, the top (viewfinder) close-up lens moved into position at the same time. Being a reflex particularly their ‘submarine mining’ as new long range shore- based guns had been developed to defend
camera, to adjust for parallax between the two lens when the camera close-up lens was in the place, the top ports. However, ‘the sappers’ carried on diving and, in the early years of the twentieth century became
viewing lens had an integrated downward looking prism. engaged in cable laying, underwater levelling and the construction of the secret circular steel forts built
Pictures F, G and H show the whole close-up lens movement in operation. In particular note the offshore at the time of World War One. They continued to clear ports and laid a very large minefield
relative position of the moving peg (10) and the ‘cam’ slot (11). at Greenock, laying 300 mines in 24 hours in spite of “undergrowth ten feet high”. Their divers were
graded as ‘Very Superior’, ‘Superior’ or just ‘Very Good’ and paid accordingly. Tasks undertaken to
Conclusions
qualify as ‘Very Superior’ included working for two hours in 17 fathoms before a direct return to the
This is a brilliant item of design engineering that, to my knowledge, has never received recognition.
surface! They continued diving during the inter-war period, mainly in inland waters.
I hope that this brief overview of what the Franke & Heidecke engineers achieved in the 1950s will
go some way towards rectifying matters. More to the point perhaps, is that so many the large format
pictures taken with the Rollei camera underwater in a pre-digital age can still make people look twice. The Second World War and the Cold War
During WW2, Royal Engineer’s ‘Construction Engineer Regiments’ were used in river crossing
operations on the Rhine and in the repair of bridging along the lines of communication. Some diving
Tim Glover studied photography at Regent Street Polytechnic, served in the Royal Navy as a photographer and was also carried out during the Burma campaign in connection with crossing the river Irrawaddy and
went one to spend 40 years in Kodak Research Laboratories where he worked on complex photographic in the repair of Rangoon harbour. The REs also supplied at least one of the crew of a successful midget
reproduction systems, during which time he had 69 patents filed in his name. submarine, Sgt. Shaw DCM. During the invasion of Europe they checked, repaired and maintained the
‘Mulberry Harbours’ and were later involved in port clearance using standard gear. After the war, they
had training teams at Chatham, Longmoor and at Kiel in Germany where a British Forces broadcaster
called Alexander McKee was taught to dive in standard dress.
New Royal Engineer’s Diving School missiles and torpedo magazines under appalling conditions. A number of medals were awarded and the
Following the start of the ‘cold war’ with the Russians in the 1950s and the development of ‘swimming ensign of the Coventry was re-raised before they left. Details were given at a unique presentation to our
and wading troops’, there was a need to check German river crossings. Vehicles were tested, and means HDS 2007 conference.
of evacuating their crews. In 1960, it was decided to create a new Royal Engineer’s diving school at
Marchwood on Southampton Water and Lieutenant David Jones became chief instructor under a new References:
commander, Lt.Col. Peter Chitty. Their initial task was to train 260 shallow water divers whose duties Historical Diving Times No.23 (1981), pp. 24-25
would include checking river banks, making river profiles and checking crossing points. The school Historical Diving Times No.26 (2000), p.29
became well-established and by 1968 had trained hundreds of army divers. Each field squadron had Proceedings of 16th HDS Conference 2006, pp.27-32
a team of a dozen equipped with Heinke compressed air sets and compressors. In 1969, Alexander Proceedings of 17th HDS Conference 2007, pp.20-24
McKee, who had been taught in 1951 asked David Jones to help him locate the Mary Rose, Henry VIII’s Ubique in Royal Engineer’s Journal 1988, pp.233-238
flag ship sunk in the Solent. Jones sent a team of RE divers with an airlift. A core of timber was drilled Divers and Diving (Vallintine), 1981, pp.129-131
out and found to date from the early sixteenth century.
The 1970s
During the 1970s, the Royal Engineers were engaged in an ‘Engineering for Peace’ initiative, helping
developing countries with projects ranging from reef studies in the Caribbean to jetty building in
Cyprus. Their activites included piling, concreting, cutting & welding, helping local police and even
investigating sewers. RE divers were now supplied with three new diving sets: Submarine Products
‘Aquarius’, the AGA ‘Divator’ and the Kirby Morgan Six.
The Army’s basic compressed air diver course lasted 4 weeks with 20 hours spent underwater. The
advanced diver course extended to 8 weeks of underwater engineering and on successful completion
candidates could receive the Training Service Agency’s ‘Basic Air Diving Certificate’ providing entry to
a subsequent valuable commercial diving career. Ranks above Corporal could take the 3 week ‘Army
Diving Supervisor’ course in management and control of diving teams.
New diving teams were soon operating around the world partly as a result of the RE’s involvement
after a hurricane in Belize. They operated in the West Indies at the Virgin Islands, Anguilla and
Barbuda, in the Pacific at Pitcairn and Christmas Islands, at Mombassa in the Indian Ocean and at
South Georgia in the Antarctic. Between 1975 and 1978, they taught the SAS and the Royal Marines’
SBS and worked with the Manpower Services Commission on diving safety regulations. In 1979 there
were approximately 330 RE trained divers and 80 divers from other arms of the service who had all been
trained at Marchwood. The RE school kept abreast of new developments and became recognised by the
Health & Safety Executive as one of the four schools authorised to run commercial training courses.
The Mary Rose

The newly created Mary Rose Trust asked for help and in 1980 there were 14 RE divers on site. The
lifting frame to hold the wreck was towed to Marchwood for assembling and then delivered to the wreck
site off Portsmouth and lowered. A combined team of RE and Mary Rose divers transferred the wreck
to the cradle and it was successfully lifted to great acclaim.
The Royal Navy

Finally, I would like to draw attention to one of the most astonishing achievements of RN divers a group
of whom were trained as saturation divers while being rapidly deployed to the Falklands following the
war in 1982. HMS Coventry had been sunk in 100 metres of water outside the 12 mile limit and vital
secret material needed to be quickly recovered. The divers received training while on board their ship
travelling down to the South Atlantic, with training dives en route in Falmouth Bay and at Ascension
Island. They recovered ’30 bags of cryptographic material, 20 bags of classified books’ and destroyed
78 The International Journal of Diving History
DIP into DIVING HISTORY Also published by the Historical Diving Society:
Jacob ROWE. A Demonstration of the Diving Engine.

An eighteenth century illustrated manuscript,
reproduced in facsimile, with a transcription of the text
and a biography of the author by Michael Fardell and Nigel Phillips.
Crown quarto, 39 pages including 15 duotone plates, case bound with dust jacket.
£18. ISBN 0 948O65 39 7
C.A. DEANE. Submarine Researches (1836).

The first book on the diving helmet and dress.
A facsimile of the original edition, with an introduction by John Bevan.
Large crown quarto, 86 pages including 18 plates, case bound with dust jacket.
£18. ISBN 1 900496 14 3
K.H. KLINGERT. Description of a Diving Machine (1797)

and A Brief Supplement to the History and Description of a Diving Machine (1822)
Translated into English. With an Introduction by Michael Jung. London: 2002.
Crown quarto, 51 pages, 8 illustrations, case bound with full colour dust jacket.
£18. ISBN 0 9543834 0 0
Mårten TRIEWALD. The Art of Living Under Water (1734).

Originally written in Swedish in 1734 ... and now translated into English,
together with the Use of the Art of Living under Water (1741), by C. J. L. Croft,
Lars Gustafsson and Michael Kahan. With a life of the author, based on an essay
by the late Captain Bo Cassel (Royal Swedish Navy) and an introduction and
commentary by Michael Fardell and Nigel Phillips. London: 2004.
Crown quarto, 96 pages. 21 illustrations, case bound with dust jacket.
£24. ISBN 0 9543834 1 9
John LETHBRIDGE. Michael Fardell.

The most successful treasure diver of the eighteenth century.
Crown quarto, 101 pages, 26 illustration, case bound with dust jacket.
THE DIVING MUSEUM £24. ISBN 9543834 4 3
of The Historical Diving Society
No. 2 Battery, Stokes Bay Road, Gosport, PO12 2QU
In addition, Proceedings of the Conferences for 2001-2013 are also available.
Open on Bank Holidays and Weekends from April–October, 11am–4 pm
The Historical Diving Society
www.thehds.com
The Historical Diving Society was founded in

England in 1990 with the aims of promoting and
co-ordinating research into the history and development
of underwater exploration and the preservation of
associated archives and artifacts.
It is now widely represented internationally enabling
a worldwide exchange of news, views and research
which has uncovered much previously hidden material
and in many instances, has dramatically changed the
perception of diving history.
In addition to the Journal, the Historical Diving
Society publishes a magazine, Historical Diving Times,
monographs of rare works on diving history, videos on
the history of diving, and the proceedings of its annual
conference which is attended by speakers and guests
from around the world.
To purchase copies of its publications and for more

information about the Society visit the website,
www.thehds.com, or email: info@thehds.com.
Registered charity No. 1054184
ISBN: 978 0 9543834 9 7

International Journal of Diving History 7 (2014)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Diving History 7 (2014)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal

President: Vice Admiral Sir Richard Jeffrey Ibbotson KBE CB DSC

Front cover photograph by Marc Jasinski

The Birth and Development of Military Diving in Denmark

1. SIEBE GORMAN DIVERS’ KNIVES

Fig. 7. Siebe Gorman

Fig. 11. (Left)

Heinke ‘Heavyweight’ knives Heinke ‘Lightweight’ knives

‘Non-magnetic’ titanium version (c.1995 onwards)

Reconstruction of a RolleiMarin Transport Box

Fig. 6 (Left) The boxes arrive!

Appendix B: Buoyancy calculations Sources

A. The top part of the

Letters to the Editor

The Royal Engineers Diving History

The Mary Rose

The Royal Navy

Jacob ROWE. A Demonstration of the Diving Engine.

C.A. DEANE. Submarine Researches (1836).

K.H. KLINGERT. Description of a Diving Machine (1797)

Mårten TRIEWALD. The Art of Living Under Water (1734).

John LETHBRIDGE. Michael Fardell.

The Historical Diving Society was founded in

To purchase copies of its publications and for more

Registered charity No. 1054184

ISBN: 978 0 9543834 9 7

You might also like