Why Was The Wreck Used For Depth Charge Practice?
- Thread starter Itsstillthinking
- Start date
-
- Tags
- titanic wreck wreck
Aaron_2016
Guest
There were plans to blow up the wreck and salvage her treasure throughout the 1920's and 1930's. Would it have been possible to achieve this?
Found many articles about it. Here are a few. Does the wreck show any signs of nitro-glycerine detonation?
.
Found many articles about it. Here are a few. Does the wreck show any signs of nitro-glycerine detonation?
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Itsstillthinking
Member
In all of my research iv never heard of that kind of damage, my guess the Hedgehogs is what destroyed any remains of the super structure
Itsstillthinking
Member
A bunch of copper Ingots and thats about it
synchromystic
Member
Incorrect. from 2009:
"This past September, Bemis's team used a remotely operated vehicle to penetrate the wreck. They were able to clearly identify a vast amount of ammunition in an area of Lusitania not believed to have carried cargo. The Remington .303 caliber bullets the team discovered on the ship had been used by the British military during World War I. Ten of the bullets were brought to the surface. "
Just like Germanys false flag against poland.
Just like Americans false flag against Vietnam.
Just the iranian coup false flag op.
Just like the operation northwoods and proceeding bay of pigs op.
Just like FDR prior knowledge of pearl harbour.
Just like the false flag psyop of WMDs in iraq.
Just like the sept 11 false flag op.
An event needs to take place for one country to declare war on another, regardless if said country perpetrated the event for ones own gain.
THOSE WHO DONT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.
Steven Christian
Member
The U.S. hasn't formaly declared a war since 1942. Probably won't ever again because that comes with legal obligations like actually winning it.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Incorrect. from 2009:<<
No it's not incorrect.
You really need to pick up the book and actually read it. The existance of the rifle ammunition has been known since 1915 and is a matter of record in the amended manifest which was filed with the U.S. port authorities right after the ship sailed. It was a perfectly routine shipment and the cartridges would not sufficient to last more than a couple of hours in actual combat.
>>An event needs to take place for one country to declare war on another, regardless if said country perpetrated the event for ones own gain.<<
Too bad the Lusitania wasn't it. There was a lot of diplomatic huffing and puffing but after awhile, it went away.
>>THOSE WHO DONT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.<<
Then you better practice what you preach and start reading it. The casus belli for the American Entry into World War One was The Zimmerman Telegram in 1917. Two years after the sinking of the Lusitania.
Oh...point of order: I do NOT indulge conspiracy theories.
No it's not incorrect.
You really need to pick up the book and actually read it. The existance of the rifle ammunition has been known since 1915 and is a matter of record in the amended manifest which was filed with the U.S. port authorities right after the ship sailed. It was a perfectly routine shipment and the cartridges would not sufficient to last more than a couple of hours in actual combat.
>>An event needs to take place for one country to declare war on another, regardless if said country perpetrated the event for ones own gain.<<
Too bad the Lusitania wasn't it. There was a lot of diplomatic huffing and puffing but after awhile, it went away.
>>THOSE WHO DONT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.<<
Then you better practice what you preach and start reading it. The casus belli for the American Entry into World War One was The Zimmerman Telegram in 1917. Two years after the sinking of the Lusitania.
Oh...point of order: I do NOT indulge conspiracy theories.
PRR5406
Member
It's true, unspent bullets have been found in great numbers inside the wreckage. The remains of hedgehog bombs have been found around the "Lusitania" as well. Documentation of the shipping manifest has pretty much concluded the presence of some materials aboard which might have been directed to munitions production. I have never seen any evidence, either hard or in documentation, showing weapons in the hold of the ship.
Why the British bombed the wreckage is a bit of a mystery. It is the last resting place of over one-thousand innocent victims. The wreck is well below the hull depth of approaching ships. No submarine from that era would risk entanglement in a sunken ocean liner. Further destroying the liner would be totally unnecessary in any event. It might have been some loony higher-up officer who felt it was a measure he could order, and therefore did it.
I am one of those shipwreck heretics who believe in retrieval of artifacts from lost ships, particularly a ship like "Lusitania", for historical documentation and display. The beauty of the era and the horrific destruction of pointless armed conflict, should be contrasted in a respectful, educational setting. I think the dead would approve if given a voice.
Why the British bombed the wreckage is a bit of a mystery. It is the last resting place of over one-thousand innocent victims. The wreck is well below the hull depth of approaching ships. No submarine from that era would risk entanglement in a sunken ocean liner. Further destroying the liner would be totally unnecessary in any event. It might have been some loony higher-up officer who felt it was a measure he could order, and therefore did it.
I am one of those shipwreck heretics who believe in retrieval of artifacts from lost ships, particularly a ship like "Lusitania", for historical documentation and display. The beauty of the era and the horrific destruction of pointless armed conflict, should be contrasted in a respectful, educational setting. I think the dead would approve if given a voice.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Why the British bombed the wreckage is a bit of a mystery.<<
Well, no, it really isn't.
It was a huge honking hunk of metal which made for an easy target for practice, and realistic or not, there were concerns that enemy submarines would use it as a hiding spot. In light of that, it's not surprising at all that the Royal Navy wanted to turn the wreck site into a health hazard.
Well, no, it really isn't.
It was a huge honking hunk of metal which made for an easy target for practice, and realistic or not, there were concerns that enemy submarines would use it as a hiding spot. In light of that, it's not surprising at all that the Royal Navy wanted to turn the wreck site into a health hazard.
PRR5406
Member
Michael, that does make rational sense, but I would argue the "Lusitania" was still a very real symbol of German aggression, and probably an unlikely shadow for a U-Boat, considering how much cabling and broken steel was draped over it. I cannot think of a better reason, yet I don't completely accept the shadow strategy.
Steven Christian
Member
According to article below she was depth charged during WW2 having been mistaken for a U-boat. But it doesn't say what kind of charges were used.
RMS Lusitania
Lusitania is in terrible shape. She hit the bottom of the sea floor very hard, causing a break amidships. Further trouble has been caused by strong currents in the area, depth charging by the Royal Navy in World War II (mistaking Lusitania for a German
www.shipwreckworld.com
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>but I would argue the "Lusitania" was still a very real symbol of German aggression...<<
Which would have been a matter of no concern to a U-boat driver. Avoiding detection by any means until he was ready to strike would have taken pride of place over sentimentality.
>>...and probably an unlikely shadow for a U-Boat, considering how much cabling and broken steel was draped over it.<<
THIS would be a valid concern, but if you were a Royal Navy officer, would you bet the safety of your ship and those under your protection on that assumption?
I wouldn't.
Which would have been a matter of no concern to a U-boat driver. Avoiding detection by any means until he was ready to strike would have taken pride of place over sentimentality.
>>...and probably an unlikely shadow for a U-Boat, considering how much cabling and broken steel was draped over it.<<
THIS would be a valid concern, but if you were a Royal Navy officer, would you bet the safety of your ship and those under your protection on that assumption?
I wouldn't.
Steven Christian
Member
No argument there. She was as evidenced by the propaganda posters of the time. The navy and army used her as a recruiting tool. U.S. Navy poster from 1917.
Hubert Leoszewski
Member
Lusitania wasn’t depth charged as there’s no solid evidence to support it. The depth charges seen in what people claim is of Lusitania’s wreck are actually of other shipwrecks. There’s just no good reason why it would be bombed, considering it was a massive war grave. If Lusitania really was depth charged, I doubt the condition of her wreck would look this good in the 1960s when John Light made several dives and expeditions to it, after the supposed depth charging.
Attachments
Similar threads
