I know this can only be speculation but is it possible that Britannic's Starboard side is in a similar condition as the day she sank? i.e. still retain a lot of white paint, maybe even her green strip and red crosses as opposed to the exposed Port side covered with marine growth. I know we'll probably never have the definitive answer of seeing this part of the ship but i was curious since the Starboard side isn't exposed. Apologies if this topic has been asked before.
Condition of Britannic's Starboard side
- Thread starter Sean Hankins
- Start date
-
- Tags
- britannic
I wouldn't rule it out. Mud is a remarkably good preservative. We have examples of ships such as the Mary Rose and the Vasa which bear that out.
I was wondering the same thing. I would think the starboard side is in relatively good condition. I If it is, than we can assume Titanic's bow is in good condition as well.
I would think that just about anything below the mudline would be in better shape then the rest of the ship, impact with the bottom notwithstanding. Another example of a vessel preserved by mud would be the Confederate submarine CSS Hunley.
Brittanic looks to be in relatively sturdy shape, so maybe someday the technology would be at hand to tilt her back on an even keel? Even if the technology were there, the cost might still be prohibitive. Maybe just a piece of the bow section.
I have another question - how is it that two ships sunk in the same time frame, the Britannic and Lusitania, are in such different states of decay? The Britannic looks to be in rather good condition, while the Lusitania is hardly recognizable. Did the WWII depth charging really do that much damage?
I have another question - how is it that two ships sunk in the same time frame, the Britannic and Lusitania, are in such different states of decay? The Britannic looks to be in rather good condition, while the Lusitania is hardly recognizable. Did the WWII depth charging really do that much damage?
>>Did the WWII depth charging really do that much damage?<<
So it would seem, but there are always other factors which come into play. Temperature and salinity of the water, human molestation of the wreck, biological activity and the like. The Rusticles which are all over the Titanic, are also appearing on the battleship Bismarck and the unfortunate HMS Hood if some recent wreck photos I've seen are any indication, yet in the Pacific Ocean, they hardly seem to be in evidence on the wreck of the USS Yorktown. With Britannic, there's also an encrustation of barnacles and other marine life all over the hull which is doing a remarkable job of protecting the wreck.
Contrast all of that with the rapidly disintigrating Andrea Doria, the superstructure of which has literally fallen off into the mud.
So it would seem, but there are always other factors which come into play. Temperature and salinity of the water, human molestation of the wreck, biological activity and the like. The Rusticles which are all over the Titanic, are also appearing on the battleship Bismarck and the unfortunate HMS Hood if some recent wreck photos I've seen are any indication, yet in the Pacific Ocean, they hardly seem to be in evidence on the wreck of the USS Yorktown. With Britannic, there's also an encrustation of barnacles and other marine life all over the hull which is doing a remarkable job of protecting the wreck.
Contrast all of that with the rapidly disintigrating Andrea Doria, the superstructure of which has literally fallen off into the mud.
Don't want to wander too far off into the wrong thread but I had recently read that the Andrea Doria was in pretty good shape. A drawing done by Ken Marschall seemed to depict that as well. Are there more recent photos or images of the wreck? Just curious.
Just to back up my statement, here is the website I saw the painting on:
http://www.greatoceanliners.net/index2.html
Click on "Ship Histories" and select "Andrea Doria".
http://www.greatoceanliners.net/index2.html
Click on "Ship Histories" and select "Andrea Doria".
>>Don't want to wander too far off into the wrong thread but I had recently read that the Andrea Doria was in pretty good shape.<<
Unfortunately, quite a bit has changed since that painting was done back in, IIRC, 1990. Ken will have to speak to that if he drops by. FWIW, that painting was the one that Ken made revisions to for Deep Sea Detectives, and portrayed the condition of the wreck as she is in 2003. Regretably, most of the superstructure has now fallen off and divers to the wreck describe her as "noisy" which speaks to on-going collapse. Diving on this ship is not for the faint hearted or for amatures.
Unfortunately, quite a bit has changed since that painting was done back in, IIRC, 1990. Ken will have to speak to that if he drops by. FWIW, that painting was the one that Ken made revisions to for Deep Sea Detectives, and portrayed the condition of the wreck as she is in 2003. Regretably, most of the superstructure has now fallen off and divers to the wreck describe her as "noisy" which speaks to on-going collapse. Diving on this ship is not for the faint hearted or for amatures.
J
Joshua McCracken
Guest
interesting that you bring this up, I built a model of the sunken britannic a few years ago and created a kind of exhibit out of it by placing it in a fishtank. whenever the water got really dirty I cleaned it out and placed the model back in before the sand had the chance to settle. when I moved I threw away the tank but kept the model. right now the port side is completely crusted with sand, while the starboard side is extremely well preserved with the exception of a little smeared paint. not the greatest basis for comparison, but I imagine that the actual britannic looks a great deal like it.
I don't think the paint would still be on the starboard side. But I do definitely think the starboard side is in much better condition than the exposed port side.
Similar threads
-
-
Niqula Nasrallah-Condition of the Body And Possible Misidentification as JJ Astor
- Started by Kas01
- Replies: 9
-
-
-
