Britannic Poll

[Mark Chirnside]

Hi!

If I may, I'd like to conduct a brief poll on Britannic's sinking.

Who believes that, for number 1:
a] Britannic was sunk by a mine;
b] Britannic was sunk by an internal explosion;
c] Britannic was torpedoed once;
d] Britannic was torpedoed twice?

And, secondly:
a] Do you believe that the German Government would deny sinking Britannic by torpedo if a U-boat had done so?
b] Do you believe that the German Government would admit to torpedoing the ship, yet at the same time state that the act was justified since the ship was 'transporting' troops?

Some interesting answers came to Michail's website, and the online poll which covers a wider area of the ship's history. I have my own views on the topics, but it would be interesting to hear others.

No Fuehrer Directive, but could answers follow the 1 A, 2 B type of format?

Best regards,

Mark.

 

[Nicolas Roughol]

1 A, 2 B
I do believe Britannic was struck by a mine, it is to me the most likely to have happened, although being hit on the starboard side and the starboard side being now in the mud at her final resting place, we'll never know it through wreck examination I guess, so it probably won't find an answer.

If she had been hit by a torpedo, my guess is the German government would have acknowledged it. They did acknowledge the torpedoing of Lusitania did they not?

Who knows, maybe your forthcoming book, Mark, will cover that subject, hence giving us some sort of an answer

 

[Trent Pheifer]

I would have to agree with both of you.

I believe it was a mine. Didn't the Germans (or whoever) lay mines in that region only days beforehand? I think you would have heard more accounts of passengers seeing a torpedo coming at the ship, i.e. Lusitania.

As for the German government, I think they would state that they did. It was after all carrying troops. I believe they acknowledged that they sunk the Lusitania, which was far more catastrophic. What would their reason be for denying it? Just my 2 cents

-Trent

 

[Paul Rogers]

1. [a]
2. [a]

Torpedoing a white liner with big red crosses on the side is a bit more iffy than torpedoing one with no markings.* JMHO.

*PS: Especially as the Lusitania was noted in German U-Boat records as an armed merchant cruiser.

 

[Mark Chirnside]

Hi!

Thanks for the replies. If I may summarize -- three-thirds think a mine sank the ship; two-thirds believe Germany would have admitted a torpedoing if accompanied by a justification, and one-third believe that Germany would deny the sinking.

Hi Nicolas!

I believe that the German Government acknowledged Lusitania's sinking, as you say. As far as I know there was never any suggestion of a mine, but I know much less about her.

'Who knows, maybe your forthcoming book, Mark, will cover that subject, hence giving us some sort of an answer..'

'Some sort' of answer, yes. I present a reasonable summary of evidence. My problem with the mine theory is that three/four people saw: a periscope; a torpedo aft (missing the rudder); a torpedo forward. Captain Bartlett himself admitted that the evidence of a torpedoing was 'good' -- yet the apparent lack of a water column is the major problem. At the same time the major problem with the mine theory is the number of sightings pointing to a torpedo.

Hi Trent!

With regard to mines, they had been laid in the area prior to the sinking, yet the channel was also mineswept. That is by no means accurate and if I remember correctly several were unaccounted for.

Hi Paul!

I certainly agree with your statement regarding Britannic's markings, and at the stage of the war she was sunk. At the same time I wonder if reports that the U-boats would *'never'* torpedo a hospital ship are credible.

Thanks for your responses!

Best regards,

Mark.

 

[Michail Michailakis]

1 [c]
2 [a]

Regarding the first question, I'll stick with the opinion of the large majority of the survivors.I wouldn't underestimate the accounts of those who claimed to have seen torpedo tracks and a periscope.Some years earlier some other survivors claimed to have seen the Titanic breaking in two and few took them seriously.

Yes, there are some quite serious conflicts but remember that very few crew members have actually been examined during the official inquiry. In addition, the lack of a water collumn visible from the bridge (still the strongest argument against the torpedo theory) could be explained if the site of the explosion was at a very low point of the ships's hull (the damage seen at the wreck and the significant upward movement of the bow section observed during the explosion seem to confirm it).

Regarding the second question:
The Germans had attacked hospital ships even before Britannic's loss.U33 sank HS "Portugal" with the loss of 90 lives -including 15 nurses (I'm not certain about the nationality of this ship).The same submarine also sank a small Russian hospital ship, the "Vperyed", on July 19,1916. In the first case the commander of the U-boat (Kapitan-Leutnant Gansser) described the "Portugal" as not properly marked as a hospital ship and stated that the ship was not officialy registered as one.It seems really strange that a ship with nurses onboard had no proper markings.

Anyway,I believe that the "Britannic" was far too big and far too well-marked for similar excuses, so I wouldn't admit anything in public.

Best regards,
Michail

 

[Mark Chirnside]

Hi Michail!

Thanks for bringing our attention to that new book in the other thread!

You do mention some good points with regard to the torpedo theory. I agree wholeheartedly about the water column, and the factors you highlighted such as the lifting of Britannic's bow are important. The explosion seems to have been unusually strong and devastating.

I do attach importance to the witnesses cited, yet at the same time -- as you point out -- it is unfortunate that much of the evidence is contradictory. Several years ago I felt that the mine theory was much more likely, and although it's still a strong possibility my belief is also strengthened with regard to a torpedo. That boiler room account which I recently found supports a torpedo, for instance.

I found that a number of vessels were sunk or damaged by torpedo in the Aegean Sea around the time of October-November 1916. That highlights the possibility of submarines in the area capable of torpedoeing the ship, while there are the island sightings of a submarine in the area.

Thanks also for your comments on the other hospital ship attacks, in addition to the well-known Austurias.

Best regards,

Mark.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I'm inclined to believe it was a mine, but I'm open to evidence of the contrary. Since either one can really spoil your day, it's a moot point as whatever it was, the ship still sank in 55 minutes.

As to whether or not the Germans would acknowladge it, I think they would if it happened that way, adding in the accusation that the ship would be carrying contraband munitions or soldiers in violation of the treaties and accepted international law at the time. If my memory serves, they made exactly that sort of accusation anyway at the time all this happened.

 

[Mark Baber]

1 A, 2 ?

 

[Mark Chirnside]

Hi!

Thanks to you both, Michael and Mark, for your replies. This thread is yielding some interesting data.

If my memory serves, they made exactly that sort of accusation anyway at the time all this happened.

They certainly did -- on at least one occasion. I remember the Keiler Zeitung's article.

Best regards,

Mark.

 

[Remco Hillen]

Hello,

I'll go for 1. C and 2. A.

I don't think the Germans would have acknowledged it if they'd torpedoed Britannic. Mostly because of the outcome of the small investigation afterwards; which wasn't sure if it was a mine or torpedo. Ideal opportunity to get away with the torpedoing of one of the largest (hospital) ships in the world which is in the hands of the enemy.

It would be different if the British were 100% sure of a torpedoing; in that case I think the Germans would have admitted it, but they would also have come up with all sorts of stories of weapons, troops etc.

Regards,
Remco

 

[Mark Chirnside]

Hi Remco!

Thanks for your reply. (Now, what was that name I said I'd look up?)

Best regards,

Mark.

 

[Remco Hillen]

Hello Mark!

I was just going through a Commutator; and a newspaper clipping in it states that the Germans even blamed the Turkish for the sinking!

"The vessel is believed to have been sunk by one of the Turkish submarines recently sold by Germany to the Turkish Admirality."


I wanted to check the name of the 3rd Officer for Britannic's final voyage. I have 2 names: David W. Laws or Francis(Frank) W. Laws.

Regards,
Remco

 

[Michael Shetina]

ONE - A
TWO - B
The Germans would definetly make it known that a uboat had sunk the Britannic. It would be good for German morale to know that they had scored such a victory!

 

[Janet Orpen]

I believe the Britannic hit a mine, it has pretty much been proven. The documentary where DIR divers went all over the ship, into the coal bunkers and the cargo bays and there was absolutely no sign of a secondary explosion. and the damage was big, all signs pointed to a mine.
The documentary is called Inside the Britannic it airs occasionally on History Channel.