THREAT TO HMS CRESSY HMS HOGUE AND HMS ABOUKIR

[grantowi]

Most of the bits that are worth money are normally in the engine room / boiler area, well away from the ammunition stores and as most War ships were top heavy they tend to hit the sea floor upside down, all they have to do is cut out the bottom and haul away.

As it's been dived by sport divers, I'm guessing that their not too deep so salvage should be pretty easy

Grant

[ph0ebus]

Most of the bits that are worth money are normally in the engine room / boiler area, well away from the ammunition stores and as most War ships were top heavy they tend to hit the sea floor upside down, all they have to do is cut out the bottom and haul away.

As it's been dived by sport divers, I'm guessing that their not too deep so salvage should be pretty easy

Grant

I guess that's my question, what are they actually trying to take off the wrecks? And, what's quicker and cheaper, divers with torches or a suitable application of some submarine gelignite? I am asking in all honesty, and hope folks in the know can answer these questions.

-Daniel

[muckandbullets]

Grant,

Perhaps they will circumvent that problem by employing the salvage methods used by Risdon Beazley on Great War wrecks in the 1950s: blow the whole thing with remote charges and scrape up the shiny bits from what is left.

Daniel

Seeing Daniels post, can anyone tell me if you can still just blow a ship up on the sea bed and if you can, would you not need some kind of permission plus lookouts and warnings to other shipping.

Regards MN

[ph0ebus]

Seeing Daniels post, can anyone tell me if you can still just blow a ship up on the sea bed and if you can, would you not need some kind of permission plus lookouts and warnings to other shipping.

Regards MN

I would like to know that as well. I am sure there are different techniques used but it is more a question of what is permitted these days.

Daniel

[grantowi]

I guess that's my question, what are they actually trying to take off the wrecks? And, what's quicker and cheaper, divers with torches or a suitable application of some submarine gelignite?

My guess would be the white metal (brass), bronze and copper fittings ie engine bearings, props, boilers, condensers. Back in the sixty's early dive clubs were salvaging empty brass shell cases for scrap

A chap with a torch can remove parts with little damage to the surrounding structure, same could be achived with a shaped charge (similar to those used on the sunken liner to gain access to the lower decks), but the diver would have to be removed before the charge was set off and then return to see if it had done the job, if it hadn't then refix a new one. The torch chap can cut away until he has done the job and then attach it to the hoist, maybe a longer job but more accurate.

The problem with flattening the wreck with explosives is that you risk damaging the items that your after, could cause the wreck to collapse on top of your item or blow your item, metres away so that you have to try and locate it (from what I have read the underwater vizability on these wrecks is pretty low)

A salvage site would have some sort of exclusion zone around it and a shaped charge going off underwater would be hard to see on the surface (going back to the liner, where some were set of above water, a sharp crack and that was it), but on a wreck that once carried munitions some careful planning and placing would be required

Grant

[MikB]

Most of the bits that are worth money are normally in the engine room / boiler area, well away from the ammunition stores and as most War ships were top heavy they tend to hit the sea floor upside down, all they have to do is cut out the bottom and haul away.

As it's been dived by sport divers, I'm guessing that their not too deep so salvage should be pretty easy

Grant

They're in an area of the North Sea historically known as the Broad Fourteens, from its depth in fathoms - just over 25m.

Regards,

MikB

[MichaelBully]

The Western Front Association are conducting a survey amongst their members

"Should The Western Front Association call on the Government to stop the desecration of the war graves within HMS Cressy, HMS Aboukir and HMS Hogue "

http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-people/memorials/2197-survey-the-war-graves-of-hms-aboukir-hms-hogue-and-hms-cressy.html

I am plesed that interest in this topic is being promoted but in all honesty I can't see how credible any statement from the British Government is going to be : If the Government sold rights to the wrecks they have lost the legal and certainly the moral right to comment.

It would more effective to see if the Dutch government can intervene.

[muckandbullets]

Incredible that the British Government of the day sold the rights. Comrades in Arms giving their lives for their Country. Some might say the British Government of the day were treating their Countrymen with such contempt.

Money was speaking louder than Honour?

Regards MN

[Simon Mills]

The Western Front Association are conducting a survey amongst their members

"Should The Western Front Association call on the Government to stop the desecration of the war graves within HMS Cressy, HMS Aboukir and HMS Hogue "

http://www.westernfr...hms-cressy.html

I am plesed that interest in this topic is being promoted but in all honesty I can't see how credible any statement from the British Government is going to be : If the Government sold rights to the wrecks they have lost the legal and certainly the moral right to comment.

It would more effective to see if the Dutch government can intervene.

I think it would be better if the Western Front Association concentrated more on helping to avoid similar problems in the future. The inescapable fact is that Aboukir, Hogue and Cressy were all legally sold into private ownership by HMG and they were sold prior to the 1986 Protection of Military Remains Act coming in to force, so legally there is nothing that can be done about it without interfering with the current owner's legal rights. As a result, the cost to any government in interfering with those rights could be quite extreme. As the old saying goes, "you can't unscramble eggs" and unless the salvage company sells its rights back to the government then the British Government has neither the legal or moral right to make any legal representations. The Dutch government would be hampered by the same legal obstacle, if not necessarily on the moral issue...

I believe that since the 1986 Act was passed the MoD has been a lot more concerned with regard to the status of war graves, and as such there no longer seems to be such a great desire in government to sell wrecks where loss of life was incurred.

[MichaelBully]

Hello Simon, I agree with about everything that has been said below with regard to the British Government. In respect of the Western Front Association, I have started a discussion on their forum stressing that I welcome the interest in the Broad Fourteens sinkings but am not sure what the British Government can do about it. ( I am an WFA member). I have also posted about the Aboukir, Hogue and Cressy on the WFA Forum before.

In respect of the Dutch government , I think that we would need an opinion from people in The Netherlands what the position is. But we are back to the issue of Dutch divers who seem to be leading the opposition to the scrap salvage companies, and the question of ' should divers go onto a wreck which constitutes a war grave' emerges again.

Regards,

Michael Bully

I think it would be better if the Western Front Association concentrated more on helping to avoid similar problems in the future. The inescapable fact is that Aboukir, Hogue and Cressy were all legally sold into private ownership by HMG and they were sold prior to the 1986 Protection of Military Remains Act coming in to force, so legally there is nothing that can be done about it without interfering with the current owner's legal rights. As a result, the cost to any government in interfering with those rights could be quite extreme. As the old saying goes, "you can't unscramble eggs" and unless the salvage company sells its rights back to the government then the British Government has neither the legal or moral right to make any legal representations. The Dutch government would be hampered by the same legal obstacle, if not necessarily on the moral issue...

I believe that since the 1986 was passed the MoD has been a lot more concerned with regard to the status of war graves, and as such there no longer seems to be such a great desire in government to sell wrecks where loss of life was incurred.

[Simon Mills]

Hello Michael,

I remember being involved in a lot of detailed discussions at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in 2000/2001, back when the UNESCO protocol on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage was being hammered out. There were so many differing interests (government, wreck owners, insurers, salvage companies, divers and historians), all with totally different agendas. I don't believe that the UK Government signed the final document (not necessarily because they disagreed with what was being proposed, but because its scope was pretty unworkable), while the subsequent discussions on the protection of the wreck of the Titanic (2004) were even more involved.

The 1986 Protection of Military Remains Act is a start, but it is only of use insofar as wrecks within UK territorial waters are concerned, although even then the wreck needs to be mentioned specifically in the Appendix to the Act if it is to be accorded any real protection. I don't think that Aboukir, Hogue or Cressy are included in the list, but if they had already been sold to a private owner/investor prior to the Act being passed then they wouldn't be. Interestingly my great uncle's ship, the HMS Bulwark, is one of those wrecks that enjoy the highest level of protection. Generally whenever the UK government sells a wreck then the sale agreement refers to "All Title", in which case the purchaser, in that he/she is buying from a sovereign government, actually has a clearly defined provenance that effectively gives certainty to the extent of their rights. If there are any conditions or restrictions to the terms of the sale then they are usually to be found in subsequent paragraphs, but for the most part there usually aren't.

Regarding divers, most of the reputable agencies (BSAC, PADI, etc.) advise a look but don't touch policy when it comes to exploring shipwrecks, and for the most part unless the site is of extreme sensitivity, in which case the wreck in question is usually included in the Appendix to the 1986 Act, the MoD is generally satisfied that the wreck in question is being treated with due consideration. Penetration of the wreck in question is also discouraged in respect of war graves, if not necessarily always observed.

Designated Vessels.pdf

Regards,

S.

[ph0ebus]

Smit is one of the biggest salvage companies out there. What techniques do they use when they do salvage on wrecks today?

-Daniel

PS If you are thinking about contacting them, good luck with that. I have been trying to get a simple question answered by them for years about a wreck they own and they have not once replied.

[grantowi]

, and the question of ' should divers go onto a wreck which constitutes a war grave' emerges again.

Regards,

Michael Bully

This question (nearly always raised by a non diver) really baffles me

It seems that on land we can trapse all over any battle field, even those where human remains lie just beneath the surface and enter forts and fortifications where men have died. We can even wander over sites on conflict and pick objects up and no one raised any objection

Yet when you transfer the site to underwater - where there are no bodies as the sea's critters are good at removing any evidence of humoid existance - and people (again normally non divers) raise the "It's a war grave site and shouldn't be entered" placards

The majority of divers operate on a "look, but don't touch" basis. There will be those who break the rules, but they are a lot less in number than those collection stuff from battle fields.

Maybe some one could explain the diffrence why it's Ok to trapse around say one of the Verdun forts and not Ok to dive the HMS Cressy. Men died in both places, yet their remains have long gone either with human of sea critter help

Grant

[grantowi]

What techniques do they use when they do salvage on wrecks today?

At 25 Metres, torch and shaped charges

Grant

[MichaelBully]

Hello Simon,

Thank you for all the information -this is what's needed. I think that most GWF pals and WFA members would argue that the scrap salvage merchants looting the wrecks of the three ships is unjustifiable. But just voicing our disapproval is not going to change anything however noble intentioned.

It might assist us to know whether or not the Dutch government agreed to the UNESCO protocol on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. If they have, so much the better for our case. If they haven't, I am not sure what we can do. There is a renewed wave of interest in The Netherlands due to the publication of ' Drie Massgraven Voor De Nederlandse Kust' ( 'Three Massgraves off The Dutch Coast') by Henk H.M. van der Linden, in 2010.

Agreed that the Dutch divers seem very keen not to disturb anything on the ships, they have also been trying to use the argument that they should be conserved due to the interests of marine conservation.

They run a general Facebook group 'Berscherm Een Wrak '/ 'Protect A Wreck'

http://www.facebook.com/messages/?action=read&tid=vHi0lXwtcDyJrqbye8Xyuw#!/BeschermEenWrak

Regards

Michael Bully

[Guest exuser1]

The diffrence i would say between as you say tramping around Verdun and diveing a wreck such as HMS Cressy is that no one will be removeing windows or fittings from fort Vaux ,but try stopping a fair amount of divers from removeing THAT porthole ect .

[ph0ebus]

At 25 Metres, torch and shaped charges

Grant

How about at 100 or more metres?

-Daniel

[ph0ebus]

The diffrence i would say between as you say tramping around Verdun and diveing a wreck such as HMS Cressy is that no one will be removeing windows or fittings from fort Vaux ,but try stopping a fair amount of divers from removeing THAT porthole ect .

I beg to differ. People on land will steal anything they can get their hands on, if they are so inclined. There are countless threads on this and other forums that speak to that. I think wreck divers as a community have been saddled with a reputation they largely do not deserve, based on the acts of a few unscrupulous people. I would recommend reading books like Shadow Divers to get a better sense of the spectrum of folks in the wreck diving community.

-Daniel

[grantowi]

The diffrence i would say between as you say tramping around Verdun and diveing a wreck such as HMS Cressy is that no one will be removeing windows or fittings from fort Vaux ,but try stopping a fair amount of divers from removeing THAT porthole ect .

Guessing that your not a diver

Have you really had a close look at how a port hole is secured to a ship ?

If the wreck had rusted and the port hole is lying on the seabed, where is the diffrence between the diver who picks it up and the battlefield walker picking up name badges ?

Apart from the fact that the diver will report his find to the reciever of wrecks (part of the HM Customs)

Grant

Ps - How many War memorials have been stolen for their scrap value ?

[grantowi]

How about at 100 or more metres?

On the HMS Edinburgh (at 800 odd feet deep) it was again torch's and shaped charges, mainly due to the amount of munition on board

Grant

[MichaelBully]

Agree Grant, I am not a diver, and have no objection to divers on wrecks who are there to observe. And from a more pragmatic point of view, the Dutch divers are the ones who really stand the best chance of having an impact in this matter. Michael Bully

This question (nearly always raised by a non diver) really baffles me

It seems that on land we can trapse all over any battle field, even those where human remains lie just beneath the surface and enter forts and fortifications where men have died. We can even wander over sites on conflict and pick objects up and no one raised any objection

Yet when you transfer the site to underwater - where there are no bodies as the sea's critters are good at removing any evidence of humoid existance - and people (again normally non divers) raise the "It's a war grave site and shouldn't be entered" placards

The majority of divers operate on a "look, but don't touch" basis. There will be those who break the rules, but they are a lot less in number than those collection stuff from battle fields.

Maybe some one could explain the diffrence why it's Ok to trapse around say one of the Verdun forts and not Ok to dive the HMS Cressy. Men died in both places, yet their remains have long gone either with human of sea critter help

Grant

[grantowi]

Agree Grant, I am not a diver, and have no objection to divers on wrecks who are there to observe. And from a more pragmatic point of view, the Dutch divers are the ones who really stand the best chance of having an impact in this matter.

Plus they are the ones who started the Anti salvage campaign

Not sure if the WFA had anything to say at the time of the sale

Grant

[MichaelBully]

Hello Grant, the sale of the wrecks of the ships was in 1954 from what I can work out. The Western Front Association was formed in 1981. So there was no WFA to object to the sale in 1954. Besides World War II may well have overshadowed the Great War in the early 1950's. It would be interesting to know the background to the decision, whether it was actually debated or agreed behind closed doors in the MOD.

Michael Bully

Plus they are the ones who started the Anti salvage campaign

Not sure if the WFA had anything to say at the time of the sale

Grant

[ph0ebus]

If you have been following this thread and want to lose some more sleep, read "Wealth from the Sea" by Allan Crothall.

-Daniel

[Simon Mills]

It might assist us to know whether or not the Dutch government agreed to the UNESCO protocol on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. If they have, so much the better for our case. If they haven't, I am not sure what we can do...

Michael,

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that the Dutch Government have signed the UNESCO protocol. Even so, even if they had signed it they still cannot interfere with any company's legitimate right to exploit its own property -- otherwise they could leave themselves open to a very large claim for compensation that is potentially considerably larger than the cost of the money paid by a salvage company to acquire title to a specific wreck.

My gut instinct is that in spite of the best of intentions there is little or nothing that anyone can now do insofar as Aboukir, Hogue and Cressy are concerned. Realistically all that may possibly be done is agree a future structure to ensure that any government wrecks that are sold -- or possibly those that may have been sold after the 1986 Act came into force, although that could still potentially leave the purchaser with strong grounds for a legal case -- are given better protection.

S.