Marko, this is, to my understanding, quite a common problem with sunken vessels in shallow areas which happen to be used as fisheries. The nets get entangled in the wreckage and can't be freed so they have to be cut away if they are not torn away.
As salvage would require carefull going through the local debris field or going into the wreck itself with the proper equipment, fishing nets are pretty useless for salvage.
Not to mention that these nets are a potential death trap for divers. The Andrea Doria is also covered in nets, and if memory serves they have been the cause of more than one death amongst divers working the wreck.
What sea did the Britannic sink in? The Mediterranean or the Adriatic? Whas there anyone saved on there? What was the life loss? Also, is there any pictures of her hull underwater? anyone ever take photos? I'd like to see.
Try my signature link to Michail's Britannic site.
In brief answer, Aegean Sea, thirty lives lost immediately, but several more due to after - effects of the sinking. There are pictures of the sunken ship on websites that can be accessed via Michail's site.
Britannic struck a mine in the Aegean Sea, off Kea Island, on 21 November 1916 and sank 55 minutes later. Various sources give the number of deaths as between 21 and 41; they occurred when two lifeboats were shredded by the ship's still turning propellers. Fortunately, no patients were aboard; the balance of the 1,125 medical staff and crew were rescued.
Sources: Mills' HMHS Britannic: The Last Titan; Anderson's White Star; Haws' Merchant Fleets; Eaton & Haas' Falling Star.
Yes, i was reading about that today. Wow, i guess this muct have all happened so fast. On the underwater photo the whole fron is like bend, and broken off. If she sank in something like 100-120M of water, and she is 270? M long, didn't she touch the bottom nose first and then the rest kinda just fell in? Is this why the props caught the boats? i mean if it was deep she would have just went straight in? In what matter did she sink in? to the side?
Yes, it did happen fast. As Mark pointed out, the disaster took fifty-five minutes to unfold. She listed heavily to her starboard side, and yes, the bow was driven into the bottom before the rest of the ship was fully submerged. That is why it is so bent out of wack. The propellars were sticking out of the water and were still rotating because there was an attempt to beach the ship, and the lifeboats...and their passengers...were drawn into them.
Wow, that explains everything, thanks Brandon. yeesh, you guys are really experts.
So about this attemp to make it to beach, did they even move at all towards the beach, or was there absolutelly no chance? Does anyone know about this mine that she hit? I've read on a few web sites that she could have sustained that kinda damage? Is that possible? For a ship to withstand an explosion blast? and the titanic couldnt take the Ice. hmmm.
You're welcome, Marko. Expert!? Not me; maybe these other guys! LOL
I have heard that it has never really been confirmed what the source of the explosion on the Britannic was. The mine theory is the most-accepted.
Is it possible for a ship to withstand an explosive blast? Absolutely; if the damage isn't too great, that is. In the case of the Britannic, of course, it was. All those open portholes didn't help much, either! The same thing applies to the Titanic and the damage sustained by the iceberg.
In theory she could/should have stayed afloat with the explosion damage she had, the 6 forward compartments were open to the sea.
She was designed to handle that.
The open portholes were the problem, portholes which weren't even allowed to be open during a voyage in wartime.
These allowed water to enter the ship behind the bulkhead between boilerrooms 4 and 5.
You might want to read this website, if you already hadn't, it's full with interesting Britannic info:
On the subject of fishing nets, several wrecks have been located after searchers asked local fishermen about those areas where their nets got snagged or lost. All trawlers will have these areas carefully plotted. Many are rock outcrops etc - but many are wrecks. The team who found Carthpathia used this technique in conjunction with their sonar search, and it was the main clue that led to the discovery of MV Gaul - a ship the UK Government said would never be found.
There is a report on the loss of the Gaul available on a web-site that I shall try to locate the address off - I found it via Yahoo by simply inputing ' loss of the gaul' in the search engine.
One of the things the report states is that at the end of the Seventies, after the initial fuss of her loss had died away and she was no longer hot news, the Ministry of Defence had actually located her, pretty much.
However, in the way of such things, folks had moved on, up and out, so that when the story resurfaced, so to speak, the people who HAD known where she was were no longer in that department, and the new folks had no idea where she was- whilst the older folks were constrained by the Official Secrets Act. So they had to go through all the rigmarole of a new search.
Goes to show that, sometimes, one should never posit a conspiracy when the more likely explanation is that the people who did know are simply no longer in a position to tell you.
Mind you - that's not always the case... sometimes they are out to get us.
Why did they say that the Gual was impossible to locate? Any more info on this ship?
The sinking of the Britannic, is more interesting than that of the Titanics. At least we know more about it.
That movie, Britannic, has anyone seen it? is it good at all?
Actually, I would say at least as much is known about Britannic's sinking as there is Titanic's. Of course, more attention has been paid to the latter, but then again, there wasn't anything tremendously significant about Britannic's demise: she hit a mine/torpedo, some compartments were ruptured, portholes let water through, and she sank.
As for the movie, I wouldn't recommend it at all. It's one of the more tasteless examples of Titanica in the media, and isn't very accurate, to top that.
Footage from Britannic's wreckage can be seen during the end titles of the film.Since "Titanic's Lost Sister" two more documentaries were made.The first was produced by the members of the 1998 expedition (Periscope Publishing,aprox.30mins).The second was broadcasted last year in Greece by ALPHA TV,but never produced on videotape (some clips from the latter are currently available at the "Britannic' website).
In my opinion the sinking of the Titanic is the most examined disaster in maritime history.This website is the perfect example.
On the other hand Britannic's demise is still obscure to say the least:we still don't know the cause of the explosion,the exact nature of the damage and the number of the victims.Not to mention the fact that the British Admiralty still considers many files regarding the Britannic "Top Secret".Britannic's loss is significant being the evolution of the Titanic after the sinking of the latter and the definition of what went wrong with the original design.As a result,Britannic was far more safer and she should have survived the explosion.The fact that she sank even more rapidly remains one of the greatest enigmas of the sea.