Raise the Britannic

Remco Hillen

Member
Jan 6, 2001
322
0
146
Hello Micheal,

Nice idea about the book, but my writing it not too good I'm afraid.
sad.gif

And, I don't know much of the details of Britannic's story.
I know more of how she looked, and I'm not sure if the general public is interested in that.
I anxiously await Mark's book
happy.gif


Indeed, I also wonder why some people see Britannic as a chance to see something of 'Titanic'.
Britannic is Britannic, and not Titanic.
The designers really did there best to make the ship into the 'Crown on the Olympic-class', and quite a lot was changed!
Designers usually change things between liners of 1 class; to give them all a separate 'look'.
And, she wasn't even a passengerliner yet...not all the things were installed yet.

Yes, if anyone wants to know more details about Titanic, check out that artical or the upcoming documentary..
Besides, more is know about Titanic then Britannic!

Regards,
Remco
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
1
148
There were 33 who died, most of whom when their boats were drawn into the moving propellers.


Adam
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,109
176
223
Different sources give different numbers for Britannic's fatalities---I've seen figures ranging from 21 to 41. Only Simon Mills' HMHS Britannic: The Last Titan gives any further detail---he lists by name and job 21 crew members who died, in addition to 9 Royal Army Medical Corps members. Given that Mills' book is devoted solely to Britannic, seems to be well-researched and names the fatalities, that appears to me to be the most reliable of the various numbers appearing in the secondary sources.
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
Although Mills' figures are correct as far as they go, twenty-one crew members dying and nine R.A.M.C. members, a total of thirty people dying during the sinking, the real figure seems higher. In May 1917, Steward Genn died following injuries from the sinking, bringing the list to thirty-one, and two further deaths in the years following the sinking, one in 1920, apparently takes the total number of Britannic-related casualties to thirty-three.

In recent discussions with Michail Michailakis, who helped with my casualty list for my Olympic class work, that seems to be correct. I agree that many sources give different numbers -- many are just guesses, I think. So the number of thirty dying during the actual sinking is correct, but thirty-three seems right if we include people dying through sinking-related injuries. (My memory on the latter two casualties.)

Michail could post further info. if he sees this, I'm pushed for time at the minute, so my apologies.

Best regards,

Mark.
 
Jan 14, 2001
226
2
146
Hello,

According to the official report 21 crew members and 9 RAMC men lost their lives during the sinking of HMHS Britannic.

There is also one name that appears in the archives of the Commonwealth War Graves Comission (CWGC)but not in the official report.According to those archives there is one identified Britannic grave in England:S.Genn(Stewa rd).However it's not confirmed that he was on the ship that day.


Of the 30 dead of the official report:

-18 crew members are listed in a memorial in London (Tower Hill),8 RAMC men are listed in a memorial in Greece(Mikra).

-Only 5 were buried.

4 graves (3 crew members + 1 RAMC) are located at Pireaus,Greece.

The fifth victim (RAMC)was buried on Kea but the exact location of the grave is not known.The archives of the community of Korissia (the small port where the wounded were taken)were destroyed by a fire.

That's all.
For photos of the memorials and the graves take a visit to my Britannic site (see below).

Regards,
Michail
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
This may sound a little farfetched, but probably doable over raising the ship: setting it upright so that tours can be taken through it (I hear that it's considered for becoming an underwater museum). That's what makes the Titanic easy, despite the extreme depth and pressure. This way, it wouldn't have to me moved or exposed to air. Then again, could it be gently moved (underwater) out of shipping lanes into a more remote area where water conditions and depth are the same? That was one idea regarding the Titanic, but, weak metal aside, the fact that it was in multiple pieces made moving it, even underwater, very risky. Any compromise on these possibilities for the Britannic? Just letting my imagination run away with me tonight, hehe.

Take care
 
J

Janet E Baillie

Guest
AS the granddaughter of a survivor who would not talk about his experiences of the disaster, I say leave her where she is to remind everyone of the futility of war. She was a HOSPITAL SHIP,and as such supposedly untouchable by the machinations of war, and no-one knew of (or warned her of) the mines. Does anyone know if the minelayer expressed any regret at her sinking????
 

Adam Usher

Member
Oct 26, 2004
47
0
76
The titanics sister ship, Brittanic, i believe is not very far down in the water at all. I cant see any major reason why the ship would be raised, but does anyone think that it is possible? The ship is intact isnt it?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
>>I cant see any major reason why the ship would be raised,<<

I can think of several not the least of which the vessel is a protected war grave. And no, she's not intact. The bow is fairly well broken off from impact with the bottom. Beyond that, the same problems of technical know how and conservation apply. While it's technically possible given lavish resources and lotsa money, the only way that ship would come up is in pieces. What's left would make a one way trip to the scrapyard.
 

Raymond Leggs

Member
Apr 3, 2003
84
0
76
Actuall it could be accounted to people
fighting unprevoke and useless wars with no real enemys instead of doing something benificeal or sensible like raising the britannic
i'd rather blow money on something like this where no onw has a risk of being blown to bits
rather than fighting a long over ended war what we're still figting the war is over for gos sake and people are still getting blasted

Raymond Leggs
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
Raising the Britannic would be a technical feat of the first order, and I'm not about to question that. What I don't see it being is either sensible or beneficial when all you could do with what's left would be to melt it down into home appliances and automobiles. The costs would be astronomical by any reckoning and the return would be reckoned in red ink

It's really a moot point since the legal hurdles alone are enough to assure us that the ship will never be brought back up.
 

Sean Hankins

Member
May 15, 2004
110
0
86
Right on point Mr. Standart.

For a lot of us the "idea" of raising the ship is a lot more glamorous than it would actually be. The bow would fall off. No question about it. Now for those that are already aware of this, some may or may not be aware of just how bad something that big with that much marine growth would smell once it hits air. The smell of decaying marine life over something as big as a ship is not the kind of working condition most folks would want to be a part of ;-)
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
Oh, I'm just plain "Mike"

My read of the wreck suggests to me that the bow itself is barely attached if at all, and if somebody were to try and raise the wreck for God knows what reason, it would have to be completely severed and dealt with seperately. As to the smell you mentioned, I don't think I'd want to be downwind of it. Phew!