raising the U-166 ?
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: June 16, 2001 11:46AM
<HTML>I guess I don\'t have any angst about disturbing the U-166 to raise it if the purpose is scholarly and due respect is given to the remains of the crew, a la CSS Hunley.
After all, ships have been raised all the time with their dead crews aboard - the Squalus is but one example - I gave some others back in the I-52/war graves discussion a few weeks back. On land, war dead are moved all the time if they are discovered in the process of construction or \'progress\'.
However, the logistical considerations for raising the U-166 are enormous. I doubt a shattered hulk could be raised from a mile down - the technology just is not here. Remember the U-166 is probably not structurally sound - fatal war damage, a rocketing ride to the ocean floor and bone shatrering crash into the seabed, and 60 years of rot (Many think that if a wreck is below the lighted \'biosphere \' of the ocean it will not rot, but note that the Titanic is almost near collapse from iron eating bacteria: cold dark seawater is not a preservative!)
Plus whatever unexploded shells and torpedoes are still on it would pose a hazard and possible destruction of the wreck..
Similarly, I doubt any museum would be interested in such a rotted hulk that lacked the unique historical value of, say, the CSS Hunley.
The best thing to do is to let it rest.....</HTML>
After all, ships have been raised all the time with their dead crews aboard - the Squalus is but one example - I gave some others back in the I-52/war graves discussion a few weeks back. On land, war dead are moved all the time if they are discovered in the process of construction or \'progress\'.
However, the logistical considerations for raising the U-166 are enormous. I doubt a shattered hulk could be raised from a mile down - the technology just is not here. Remember the U-166 is probably not structurally sound - fatal war damage, a rocketing ride to the ocean floor and bone shatrering crash into the seabed, and 60 years of rot (Many think that if a wreck is below the lighted \'biosphere \' of the ocean it will not rot, but note that the Titanic is almost near collapse from iron eating bacteria: cold dark seawater is not a preservative!)
Plus whatever unexploded shells and torpedoes are still on it would pose a hazard and possible destruction of the wreck..
Similarly, I doubt any museum would be interested in such a rotted hulk that lacked the unique historical value of, say, the CSS Hunley.
The best thing to do is to let it rest.....</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
U-166
|
Walter Gallant | 06/13/2001 06:00PM |
|
RE: U-166
|
Michael Lowrey | 06/13/2001 08:51PM |
|
RE: U-166
|
Walter Gallant | 06/14/2001 12:45PM |
|
RE: U-166 & answer for Marc Singleton
|
Robert Church | 06/15/2001 11:47AM |
|
RE: U-166 & answer for Marc Singleton
|
Jim | 06/15/2001 02:29PM |
|
RE: U-166 & answer for Marc Singleton
|
Tim | 06/16/2001 02:54AM |
|
RE: U-166 & answer for Marc Singleton
|
Jay Baker | 06/17/2001 03:23PM |
|
Human remains & other possible U-boat discover
|
David E. Brown | 06/18/2001 02:16PM |
|
raising the U-166 ?
|
kurt | 06/16/2001 11:46AM |