Dive to recover Lusitania artefacts

[archangel9]

I thought this might be of interest -

"A team of divers and archaeologists will today attempt to recover a number of artefacts from the wreck of the Lusitania.

The vessel was sunk by a German U-boat off the Old Head of Kinsale in 1915, with the loss of almost 1,200 lives.

Divers hope to recover the telemotor and a number of telegraphs, whose needles will indicate what state the engine was in when it went down.

Two vessels and nine divers are involved in the operation, as well as two archaeologists.

US multimillionaire Gregg Bemis, who has owned the wreck since 1968, has spent at least €5m trying to find out if the passenger ship was carrying ammunitions.

Last month, a team lead by him, cut through the hull of the ship in a bid to discover what caused a second explosion on board the passenger liner, which now lies 100 metres below water."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0822/lusitania.html

John

[grantowi]

Would have thought they would have been set to Stop, to allow lifeboats to be lowered

Grant

[centurion]

Would have thought they would have been set to Stop, to allow lifeboats to be lowered

Grant

They would first be set to full astern to take the way off the ship.

Isn't the Lusitania a grave? Is such activity allowed?

[gaelgoir]

i spoke with Mr Beamis last week but he correctly said he was sworn to silence pending issue of the National Geographic programme on the exploration. i heard independently that copper ingots and brass bars were discoverd which would make the wreck a salvage target.

The Lusitania was at full speed impeded by eth torpedo damage and the second explosion damage when she sank. This was because ship's captains were orded to steer for shore at the nearest sandy beach when torpedoed in sight of shore. this manoevure wassuccessful and several ships were salvaged from the south irish coast by the Cork Firm of Ensor's on contract to the Admiralty. The speed of the ship did impede the launching of lifeboats and contributed tot eh loss of life.

The war grave aspect stems from a bizzarre piece of UK legislation which makes warships war graves but does not apply to the graves of merchant sailors in merchant ships even though sunk in wartime. It perhaps stems from the UNESCO heritage convention which particularly excludes warships which always remain the property of the owning country. The legislation is bizarre because there is no effort to designate the whole of the north of France despite remains being found on a weekly basis. No remains survive 90 years in the sea unless buried in anaerobic mud. Therefore if ploughing for farming is not banned in northern France it is bizzarre to interfere with fishing, salvage and indeed scuba diving on wrecks . In any case the Lusitania is in Irish territorial waters and comes under the irish Heritage legislation - the Lusitania is specifically designated. In general all wrecks over 100 years old are designated automatically. Of course there is a twilight zone around a merchant ship, fitted for guns with magazines and carrying munitions while listed in Janes. The orders to merchant ships (often defensively armed) were to try to ram submarines at every opportunity and made nonsense of the cruiser rules and turned every ship into a beligerent.

[Steve Webster]

The Protection of Mititary Remains Act (1986) allows for wrecks to be designated as 'war graves', but a naval ship that sank with loss of life is not automatically a war grave I would need to look at files at work, but I think only c.40-50 vessels are actually designated (though paradoxically all aircraft lost at sea recieve an automatic designation). The Storaa case now allows merchant vessels being use by the navy, or at least partially crewed by naval personell to be designated

[grantowi]

Isn't the Lusitania a grave? Is such activity allowed?

She is a grave, but not a designated War Grave (only applies to War Ships or Planes)

As Mr Bemis owns the wreck, guess he can do what he wants with it

Grant

[grantowi]

The Lusitania was at full speed impeded by eth torpedo damage and the second explosion damage when she sank. This was because ship's captains were orded to steer for shore at the nearest sandy beach when torpedoed in sight of shore. this manoevure wassuccessful and several ships were salvaged from the south irish coast by the Cork Firm of Ensor's on contract to the Admiralty. The speed of the ship did impede the launching of lifeboats and contributed tot eh loss of life.

I thought the 2nd explosion was one of the boilers blowing which took out all of the steam pressure to the engine, which slowed her enough to start launching the boats, the main problem with the launching being the list, one side the boats swung out to far from the side and on the other, were catching on the rivits and turning over

Grant

[Seadog]

Is not this similar to "Grave Robbing", it seems so to me. As for "Mr Bemis owns the wreck and I guess he can do what he likes with it", try telling that to the descendents of the dead who were never found.

Norman

[Guest exuser1]

seems strange that to remove Libety produced glass from a cemetry in New York is deemed grave robbeing ? but to remove items from within this wreck is not ?and when you consider the attiude the yanks have to their remains of people killed in any conflict going back over 200 years ,even to the point with the USS Moniter wreck the cameras were stoped rolling ect when remains were recoverd ,and the reverence given to the CSS Hunley crew ? Whats the diffrence to this wreck ? which included women , very young children and was as we know as a cause to drag the United States in to the war some years later ,my mind goes back to the recuriting poster showing a drowning women with a baby and the words REMBER ! short memories ?

[Seadog]

Perhaps someone can explain the difference between this case and on a hypothetical basis digging up parts of Pheasant Wood and removing artifacts then replacing the earth. I think I know the attitude of GWF members if such an event occurred. What then gives anyone the moral right to disturb what is in fact a maritime grave site, plus who in their right mind would actually sell such a site to the highest bidder. It seems that we have a somewhat ambivalent attitude to land as opposed to ocean graves. Finally I bet that the exploration will turn up as a TV documentary eventually as this is one of the ways of financing such projects.

Regards

Norman

[David Filsell]

I was under the impression that it was a proven (researched and sourced) fact the the L was carrying armaments!

David

[simonharley]

The question, if memory serves, is what sort of armaments she was definitely carrying, and whether they contributed to her speedy sinking.

Simon

[grantowi]

Norman,

Garlgoir has asked the same question, abet the other way around. I have asked this question before on here, yet no-one has given a satisfactory answer

. The legislation is bizarre because there is no effort to designate the whole of the north of France despite remains being found on a weekly basis. No remains survive 90 years in the sea unless buried in anaerobic mud. Therefore if ploughing for farming is not banned in northern France it is bizzarre to interfere with fishing, salvage and indeed scuba diving on wrecks ..

You could also add to the above, building a house on Hill 60 which isnt hypothetical

What is the diffrence between diving a wreck and entering one of the Verdun forts ? people died in both, but there are no remains to be seen in either one

Grant

[grantowi]

Is not this similar to "Grave Robbing", it seems so to me. As for "Mr Bemis owns the wreck and I guess he can do what he likes with it", try telling that to the descendents of the dead who were never found.

Norman,

I think the same everytime someone comes back from a battlefield and shows of some badge or trinket they picked up on a ploughed field, can't recall you claiming that was "similar to Grave Robbing"

Last year some sport divers located a wreck, they lifted some artifacts to try to identify the ship. Thanks to their efforts the familys of the three men who perished when HMPS Snaefell went down in WW2, finally had a location after 60 odd years of wondering

Grant

[simonharley]

Grant, I write this as someone with no experience of diving, but shouldn't those divers have noted the location of the wreck, identified that it was unknown, sought permission to dive on it and "then" possibly have retrieved artefacts from it?

Simon

[truthergw]

The land in France has been farmed for thousands of years. Every now and then, armies fight across it and farming pauses until the fighting stops or moves on. That sequence of events is verifiable as far back as the Roman invasion and that was not the start of it. Farming is an essential industry. Without it, civilisation would break down. To compare French farmers carrying out their daily tasks to divers exploring wrecked ships for fun or profit or to gather historical information is ludicrous.

[grantowi]

but shouldn't those divers have noted the location of the wreck, identified that it was unknown, sought permission to dive on it and "then" possibly have retrieved artefacts from it?

Simon,

Who would they ask ?

It could have been Royal Navy, Merchent, British, French, German, American, Pre WW1, post WW2 and so on

Wrecks are often miles away from where they were reported to have sunk

Grant

[grantowi]

. To compare French farmers carrying out their daily tasks to divers exploring wrecked ships for fun or profit or to gather historical information is ludicrous.

I wasn't comparing the Farmers, Tom - don't think I even mentioned them - but those who pick up the stuff to sell or stick on their mantleplace

Grant

[ph0ebus]

Legally, the owner of this wreck has the right to do what he wishes, no matter how unseemly we think his actions might be. Re: comparing land vs. sea finds, we've been down this road before. We will reach no consensus.

It is one of the reasons, though I have always been fascinated with the whole Titanic disaster, I refused to see the artifacts when they toured. They should have just left things where they lay and let those people rest in peace.

-Daniel

[Steven Broomfield]

Finally I bet that the exploration will turn up as a TV documentary eventually ...

Regards

Norman

Save your money, Norman. Gaelgoir said in post 4: " ... pending issue of the National geographic programme on the exploration ..." which seems to answer your question

[bob lembke]

The question, if memory serves, is what sort of armaments she was definitely carrying, and whether they contributed to her speedy sinking.

Simon

I have not looked at this question for 15 years, and will be flying on memory, but here goes.

I believe that there is no question that munitions were being carried. I believe that I have seen photo-copies of cargo manifests listing same. The Americans supposedly had a system of having a set of primary manifests of cargo but then having a second set of manifests in which they entered material shipped that they did not want to have as public knowledge. At least it carried SMA (supposedly a Belgian officer abord as a passenger heard the distinctive rattle of small arms ammunition cooking off; he lost his household goods, he requested compensation from the Brits, knowing that ammunition should not have been aboard, being ignored, he sued in open court. Supposedly at that point he was drafted into the British Army, sent to the front, and was dead in a month. This is from a Brit source, see below.)

One detailed (but possibly bogus) account has the outer hull being lined with 350 tons of a special variety of guncotton that explodes upon contact with sea-water, carefully packaged in "highly waterproof" burlap. The ship's unusual construction had no compartmentalization between an outer and an inner hull, so water would run down the length from any breech.

I have not heard of it carrying armements, say like cannon as cargo. Some reports, not strongly proven, suggest that the ship had rings for 6" guns built into the deck, and when out of port the guns could be brought out of storage and mounted. The ship was listed as an auxilliary cruiser in the rolls of the RN, I believe.

A lot of what I "know" comes from a UK book by two Brit investigative reporters, I think from the Sunday Times, and published about 25-30 years ago. If 20% of what they dug out, much substantiated by photostats of US shipping documents, etc., is true, the story as they wrote it is a very damning one. I never see mention of this book. (It would take a bit of work to get the book out of storage and clarify the title, but of course "Lusitania" figures in it.)

The first explosion was the torpedo, relatively weak. It was followed by a massive blast that instantly doomed the ship. One theory was coal dust, the second explosives or munitions. Snapping on my mechanical engineering hat, no boiler blast could have done that damage, not by a mile. (After the sinking the UK claimed that there was a second torpedo. Not true, seemingly. The U-boat commander was astonished by the second blast. His cruise diary is available.)

The book in question has many other things, including refusing escorts, radioing the ship to cease zig-zagging, etc. The Brits knew where the U-boat roughly was due to a previous sinking.

As an old New Jersey wreck diver, if the ship is at 100 meters free-swimming diving to that depth is impossible for a sports diver and extremely hairy for hard-core pros with very advanced gear. Robotic film survey would be a safe and practical way to go. Then human diving for a very specific (and dangerous) task.

Supposedly the RN periodically dived on the wreck over a period of many years. Old-fashioned "hard-hat" diving. If there was apparent evidence on the outside of the wreck, don't expect it to be remaining or undisturbed.

Bob Lembke (Resident Hun)

[egbert]

......I believe that I have seen photo-copies of cargo manifests listing same. The Americans supposedly had a system of having a set of primary manifests of cargo but then having a second set of manifests in which they entered material shipped that they did not want to have as public knowledge. At least it carried SMA (supposedly a Belgian officer abord as a passenger heard the distinctive rattle of small arms ammunition cooking off; he lost his household goods, he requested compensation from the Brits, knowing that ammunition should not have been aboard, being ignored, he sued in open court. Supposedly at that point he was drafted into the British Army, sent to the front, and was dead in a month. This is from a Brit source, see below.).......

Bob, I hope the divers will also "find" the wrap of the rancid butter enigma.

Why are the authorities still today 2011, not willing to shed light in the 90 tons mystery. It would be so easy to explain the reason of the "two consignments of unrefrigerated "butter" and "cheese" that together weighed nearly 90 tons and were both destined for the Royal Navy Weapons Testing Establishment in Essex.

Quite what such an establishment wanted with such a large quantity of rancid dairy products remains a mystery to this day!

Curiously though, both those items were insured at the special government insurance rate and even more curious is the fact that the insurance was never claimed.

[grantowi]

As an old New Jersey wreck diver, if the ship is at 100 meters free-swimming diving to that depth is impossible for a sports diver and extremely hairy for hard-core pros with very advanced gear. Robotic film survey would be a safe and practical way to go. Then human diving for a very specific (and dangerous) task.

Quite a few dives have been carried out by sport divers using mixed gas's in the mid 90's - I was a support diver on one of them - and reported that they had great vizability on the wreck and no current at all, a very nice dive apparently

Grant

[J T Gray]

Bob, I hope the divers will also "find" the wrap of the rancid butter enigma.

Why are the authorities still today 2011, not willing to shed light in the 90 tons mystery. It would be so easy to explain the reason of the "two consignments of unrefrigerated "butter" and "cheese" that together weighed nearly 90 tons and were both destined for the Royal Navy Weapons Testing Establishment in Essex.

Quite what such an establishment wanted with such a large quantity of rancid dairy products remains a mystery to this day!

If you'd ever been to Shoeburyness, as immortalised by Ian Dury, you'd believe they'd ship anything there, just to liven the ghastly hole up. Not so much a schiessplatz as a scheissplatz (or whichever way round they go)!

Adrian

[archangel9]

More from RTE -

http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0809/media-3022069.html

The National Geographic programme on the exploration will be broadcast "Next year".

John