New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
zerrakk
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 22 Dec 2004, 19:30
Location: usa

New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#1

Post by zerrakk » 17 Dec 2008, 19:18

News article on divers finding ammunition...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 49&sc=emaf

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#2

Post by Terry Duncan » 19 Dec 2008, 23:20

Its intersting to see them finding things at last, but rifle ammo could not explain the explosion, that would need something far larger. The description of the explosions also does not match exactly then known pattern of explosions. It isnt quite right for a coal dust explosion, it isnt right for a cordite explosion either though. With the wreck laing on the side that was struck, its going to be a long hard job to find out much that is conclusive now.

Lusitania was however a legitimate target, something that often escapes notice when the sinking is discussed.


User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#3

Post by Tim Smith » 20 Dec 2008, 01:23

The British said at the time that there was no ammunition at all on the Lusitania. They obviously lied - that photo is proof.

And if there were rifle bullets on board, then there may have been other types of ammunition. Grenades? Artillery shells?

Where's there's smoke, there's generally fire.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#4

Post by Terry Duncan » 20 Dec 2008, 02:36

I believe the manifest shows small arms ammo as being loaded in some quantity on the orders of Churchill from some time earlier. Grenades and the shells are not likely to spontaneously detonate in a way that would lead to sinking a liner of this size so fast, and it is the speed of the sinking that gives an idea of the size of the explosion.

Not too sure if the possibility of a coaldust explosion set off by the initial torpedo explosion has ever been fully investigated, but whatever sank the ship was capable of a single large explosion which is not likely from small arms or the artillry shells that were likely to be onboard.

User avatar
pablo287
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 14 Aug 2005, 10:29
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#5

Post by pablo287 » 20 Dec 2008, 07:00

Funny, I thought this was a known? I had seen a documentary years ago that stated the Lustitania was carrying ammunition. Perhaps there had been no physical evidence found at the time of this T.V. show.

Paul

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#6

Post by Terry Duncan » 20 Dec 2008, 16:32

Pablo,

As I said, the loading manifest shows small arms munitions and components being loaded, so there has been little doubt the Luisitania was risking attack for this alone. There has never been actual materiel evidence from the wreck as far as I know. As a state sponsored AMC that had never been taken of the service list by the government she had been a legitimate target from the start, even though the decision to fit the 4" guns had been recinded.

chronos20th
Member
Posts: 849
Joined: 24 Jan 2004, 19:44
Location: UK.

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#7

Post by chronos20th » 26 Dec 2008, 14:59

The manifest of the Lusitania's last journeyturnedp in the White House papers. Wilson had sent for it and was horrified to discover it consisted of "almost entirely contraband".

What did cause the second and catastophic explosion which caused the ship to go down in 40 minutes with fhorrifying scenes as lifeboats slide down the boat deck crushing passengers?

Either explosives in the cargo exploded - there were those suspicious "bales of cheese" or more likely the 6in. magazine exploded.

This was located directly under the bridge where the torpedo struck.

This is shown on the plans and the ship had been built with 2 magazines fore and aft and with concealed ammunition hoists.

She was designed to Admiralty specifications as an armed blockade runner to fight her way past blockading cruisers with her speed and her armament would have been greater, with 12 six inch guns, and 4in as well, than most cruisers.

The six inch guns were reduced in number and the 4 inch not proceeded with, but the six inch are known to have been fitted and the ship entering the cunard dock in liverpool to have them fitted in July 1914.

8-) 8-) :roll: :roll:

JamesL
Member
Posts: 1649
Joined: 28 Oct 2004, 01:03
Location: NJ USA

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#8

Post by JamesL » 27 Dec 2008, 07:11

The LUSITANIA was a legitimate target.

A snip from The New York Times of May 9, 1915

"The Lusitania's manifest showed she carried for Liverpool 260,000 pounds of brass; 60,000 pounds of copper; 189 cases of military goods; 1,271 cases of ammunition, and for London, 4,200 cases of cartridges."

The media of the day reported Remington small arms ammunition was carried. That may be true but what were in the 189 cases of military goods and 1,271 cases of ammunition?

There were also numerous claims by Cunard that the LUSITANIA was not carrying any guns on deck. Over and over they claimed no guns on deck. With these protestations, I can't help but wonder what they had BELOW decks.

US law at the time allowed foreign passenger/freighter ships to carry guns no larger than 6 inches.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#9

Post by Terry Duncan » 27 Dec 2008, 22:43

Luisitania was not fitted with any guns, the decision she would not be required in this role was taken prior to any intended refit. The myth she had guns fitted has persisted due to her status on the navy reserve list with many liners that had been armed. She never served in this role, but was also never removed from the list, thereby making her a perfectly legitimate target regardless of an cargo carried.

Wilson may have said things about the cargo, but the actual munitions content is minimal. The magazines themselves would not have exploded, no shells or propellent being loaded due to the lack of guns to use them. As far as I am aware, only one auther has ever made such a claim for six inch guns being fitted. This is highly unreliable, both from any evidence to support it and the mounting points needed to support such guns. There were hardpoints to support the intended 4" guns, but these would be incapable of supporting the 6" guns, even very old short calibre guns, due to the weight, recoil, and blast effects. In WWII an AMC did carry 12 x 6" guns as well as radar and fire control and it could be a confusion stemming from this, if you wish a charitable explanation.

The case for six inch guns being fitted relies upon three very dubious witnesses, and cannot explain how such guns were never noticed by the crew or passengers, or indeed the harbour staff in New York. The following is from the only link I can find on the subject of Lusitania being armed;
Colin Simpson claims, though, that LUSITANIA received a secret modification as well--the installation of twelve 6-inch guns. His principal sources for this are three witnesses of extremely dubious credibility.
A German named Curt Thummel served briefly as a steward on LUSITANIA while secretly in the employ of the German military attache in the United States, Franz von Papen [note 1]. Thummel reported to the German consulate in New York that he had seen four guns on LUSITANIA.
Another German, Gustav Stahl, filed an affidavit after the sinking claiming that while helping a friend load baggage on LUSITANIA he had seen concealed guns. Stahl later pleaded guilty to perjury for making this statement.
Finally, we have a mysterious "lady whose family to this day forbid her name to be mentioned, possibly because one of them in due course became a President of the United States." Her letter, allegedly found in Secretary Lansing's private papers, claims that while she was having tea in London with Clementine Churchill, Admiral Fisher stopped in. She asked the Admiral for help in getting a passage to New York. Fisher told her that she should travel on LUSITANIA or OLYMPIC, because both had a concealed armament. She took LUSITANIA and inquired of a steward about the concealed guns. "The steward, realizing her connections, showed her how the decks could be lifted to reveal the gun rings and confided that it would take about twenty minutes to 'wheel the guns into position.'" While in Simpson's book this woman's story is only one of several on LUSITANIA's armament, in a letter to Life magazine, quoted by Bailey and Ryan, this becomes his accepted version: the guns "were stored in the forward part of the shelter deck, which was sealed off from the rest of the ship by the Admiralty. If the need arose, the guns could be wheeled out of their hiding place and mounted on their rings in 20 minutes.'"
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika03.htm

Below decks guns of this sort would be impossible on a liner, they are rather too big for such things. The nature of the explosions rather rules out the explosion of propellents as shipped, the components being seperate to remove this risk and also to allow the claim they were not directly war materiels. When propellent is ignited, the result is a very visible flame, sometimes with no smoke, as seen in the explosions of several warships from the losses at Jutland to Hood in WWII where good descriptions of this are available.

The 'military goods' were possibly artillery shells, but again, these being detonated would not result in a single large explosion, rather a series of explosions, far from what was reported by anyone.

Terry

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#10

Post by redcoat » 28 Dec 2008, 00:41

The fact that the Lusitania was carrying non-explosive* munitions is no secret, it was on the cargo manifest given to the US Customs before she sailed.
In fact, British passenger ships had carried war materials from the start of the war, it was common practice and perfectly legal.

Also, the fact she was carrying these munitions made no difference to her status, as under the then existing naval rules, any passenger or merchant ship no matter what the cargo was, had to be given a warning by an enemy warship before she could be fired on, in order that the crew and passengers would have time to take to the boats before she was sank.

This is what the captain of the U-20 failed on do, he fired on her without warning, this is what so outraged the USA.

* passenger ships in US water couldn't carry explosive munitions due to late 19th century US health and safety laws

ps; Churchill in his book on WW1, "The World Crisis" published in 1923, mentioned that the Lusitania was carrying non explosive munitions
Last edited by redcoat on 28 Dec 2008, 01:05, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#11

Post by redcoat » 28 Dec 2008, 00:55

Terry Duncan wrote:Luisitania was not fitted with any guns, the decision she would not be required in this role was taken prior to any intended refit. The myth she had guns fitted has persisted due to her status on the navy reserve list with many liners that had been armed. She never served in this role, but was also never removed from the list, thereby making her a perfectly legitimate target regardless of an cargo carried.
No. To be classed as an Armed Merchant Cruiser, she would have to have been commissioned into the Royal Navy and crewed by a Royal Navy crew, flying the Royal Navy flag, none of this occured.

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#12

Post by redcoat » 28 Dec 2008, 01:30

chronos20th wrote:What did cause the second and catastophic explosion which caused the ship to go down in 40 minutes with fhorrifying scenes as lifeboats slide down the boat deck crushing passengers?
Coal dust.
In a recent underwater expedition it was found that there was a massive damage in the area of the coal bunkers, while there was no notable damage in the cargo hold area

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#13

Post by Terry Duncan » 28 Dec 2008, 01:58

Redcoat,

At the outbreak of war the admiralty served notice of all merchant ships with reserve status, including Lusitania, that were required for military service. From that moment Luisitania became an official naval vessel and remained there as nobody thought to remove her from the duty list. The government gives notice of this to avoid any confusion with ships that will be operating under standard duties and are therefore non-combatant ships still. Having an RN crew is not required, merchant ships in both wars flew the Red Ensign with their standard crews still onboard, it is the nature of the tasks undertaken and the body the ships is under orders from that matters. No merchant ship can fly the White Ensign, only vessels built specifically for war fly this, all others fly the Red Ensign.

The captain of U20 was not required to give any warning to a warship, regular or reserve, and this was the status of Lusitania at the time of her loss. There is some disagreement over what was understood at the time of the sinking by the crew of U20, she was a legitimate target and certain people at the German admiralty knew this and accepted it before the US made a fuss about the incident.

The coal dust as a cause of the explosion would be the most likely in my mind (as mentioned above), but some sources have claimed that the explosion took place away from the empty bunkers where this is most likly to happen. However, the description does fit what is told of the explosion by the majority of survivors. Sadly this is simply too easy and lacks the conspiricy nonsense that some feel must apply to any notable incident. From memory, Lusitania lays on the side the torpedo hit, so it has not been easy to gauge the extent of the damage directly in previous dives. Has a recent dive gone deep enough into the hull itself to examine the insides properly now?

Terry

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#14

Post by redcoat » 28 Dec 2008, 03:30

Terry Duncan wrote:Redcoat,

At the outbreak of war the admiralty served notice of all merchant ships with reserve status, including Lusitania, that were required for military service. From that moment Luisitania became an official naval vessel and remained there as nobody thought to remove her from the duty list. The government gives notice of this to avoid any confusion with ships that will be operating under standard duties and are therefore non-combatant ships still. Having an RN crew is not required, merchant ships in both wars flew the Red Ensign with their standard crews still onboard, it is the nature of the tasks undertaken and the body the ships is under orders from that matters. No merchant ship can fly the White Ensign, only vessels built specifically for war fly this, all others fly the Red Ensign.

The captain of U20 was not required to give any warning to a warship, regular or reserve,

Terry
The Lusitania was not a warship. To be classed as a warship she would have to be commissioned in the RN, crewed by an RN crew, and fly the White Ensign, she didn't, she had a civilian crew and flew the Red Ensign.
If she had been classed as a warship she wouldn't have been allowed to load in a US port

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: New Clues In Lusitania's Sinking

#15

Post by Terry Duncan » 28 Dec 2008, 04:40

If you do not wish to believe me what is classed as an auxiliary warship, I would suggest you contact the British Admiralty for their classification of auxiliary warships, as Lusitania became one from the outset of the war after they listed her as such. There are also the following;
The outbreak of World War One meant that the role of the ship was about to change. Upon arrival in the Mersey the Admiralty decided that they did not need the ship as an armed merchant cruiser but they paid for the ship to remain at Liverpool at their disposal. The Lusitania made two trips between Liverpool and New York during October 1914 and then began a monthly service on this route.
http://www.ocean-liners.com/ships/lusitania.asp
The government would also contribute with an annual operating subsidy of £150,000. In return, Cunard promised to keep the company British and that the two new ships would be constructed so that they in the event of war easily could be converted into armed merchant cruisers
Almost immediately, plans were underway to convert the great ocean liners into armed merchant cruisers. But this concept was soon abandoned. The British Admiralty's coalbunkers were quickly depleted, because of the great amounts of fuel required by these giant vessels when on patrol. Instead, many of the liners would come to serve their respective countries as either hospital ships or troop transports.
During the first months of the conflict, the Mauretania was confiscated by the Admiralty and stripped of her peacetime interiors. Then she simply would have to wait for a task to be given to her by her new masters. Meanwhile, the Lusitania continued her regular service across the North Atlantic as a non-combatant. It was in this guise that she would eventually meet her fate.
http://www.greatoceanliners.net/lusitania.html
Although the British Admiralty decided against using Lusitania as an armed merchant cruiser at the outbreak of World War One, they retained her at Liverpool for their convenience. The Admiralty allowed Lusitania to be used on two trips as a passenger ship between Liverpool and New York in October 1914.
http://www.ayrshirescotland.com/ships/lusitania.html

I believe the subject is covered in Massie or Marder, possibly both, regarding the service status, as I tend to find the internet unreliable, even if it is useful.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”