Looks like they found the World War II battleship Musashi in the Sibuyan Sea near the Philippines.
Here's one of the News feeds on it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...ul-allen-says/
Karl
World War II battleship Musashi found
Looks like they found the World War II battleship Musashi in the Sibuyan Sea near the Philippines.
Here's one of the News feeds on it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...ul-allen-says/
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Interesting.
Like the Bismarck the heavy artillery turrets were gone when the ship went down and turned around.
Voilà le soleil d'Austerlitz!
Yes; I found it interesting when that was discovered (the Bismarck) that battleship main gun turrets are not attached to the hull, but depend on their weight not to go anywhere.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Very interesting news indeed, thanks for sharing it, Karl.
"We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."
Thanks for posting the link Karl
good info thanks for posting Karl
We seem to be finding more & more WW2 relics every year.
Very interesting.
It will be even more interesting if they release more photos later after future research.
Meanwhile here is a picture of it in its glory days.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Nice, thanks for sharing.
One of the most fascinating aspects of this find was best summed up by Paul Allen himself: “The Musashi is truly an engineering marvel and, as an engineer at heart, I have a deep appreciation for the technology and effort that went into its construction.”
Fascinating. She was the sister ship to the Yamato and the first of the pair to be sunk.
Thanks for posting!
Aussietonka
Thank you for letting us know.
Don't show Clipper....or Skafloc come to that, though I suspect that it's too late !
Much too late in either case I'm afraid.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Thanks for posting this link.
I don't see why you'd find that surprising -- the ship is never supposed to invert, so why wouldn't gravity be sufficient?Originally Posted by Jager
I'm waiting for the paintings of what the wreck and immediate area look like -- see if the "forensics" remain consistent.
Interesting; just one of those things you never thing about. When you think about them, and the weight of the beasties, it makes sense.
But engineering like this isn't something you normally run into in life.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
In my case, it was far more common than for most....
Now they think she suffered one or more magazine explosions underwater as she sank;-
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/damage-ind...8.html#TkQnxNJ
Doesn't have to be the magazines -- catastrophic flooding will do that kind of damage. Pack a bunch of water into an enclosed space with nowhere for the air to go, and the thing pops like a balloon (see, for ex. the after section of _Titanic_, or several units from Ballard's Guadalcanal expeditions).
In some battleships and battlecruisers yes. In others there were turret retention clips which were designed to prevent "jumping" of the turrets when the main armament was fired, or from underwater explosions. These could be strong enough to prevent the turrets from dropping out when the ship was inverted.
in light structure, possibly, but air effects in sinking ships are usually the other way around, with air filled compartments imploding. I've seen this quite a few times in forensic and the wreck investigations that I've carried out over the years. Implosion and explosion are usually fairly simple to distinguish. It will be interesting to see what a site-wide sonar image of the wreck shows. Interestingly the general style of damage isn't that far removed from that of Yamato herself.
Whoa. Hadn't seen that image before. Thanks for sharing.
Whatever the reason for the debris field, that is a very impressive illustration as to what the forces involved can do to such a mighty structure.
Thanks for posting this Dave.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
I saw this last week when a friend sent it to me. He told me they actually found her 2 years ago but the news is just now getting out.
Implosion, or explosion -- the point is: Catastrophic flooding leads to hull-shattering damage (for ex.: _Titanic_; _Lusitania_; _Yamato_), whereas a slow flooding leaves the hull mostly intact (for ex.: _Andrea Doria_; _Kirishima_; _Bismarck_).
Its more often than not the other way around - catastrophic damage leading to rapid sinking, less severe damage resulting in a longer sinking time. One of my early pieces of work was an analysis of sinking times and causes in WW1 British and US warships and the distribution of sinking times was quite interesting - generally very rapid (just a few minutes) where the ship had suffered overwhelming damage, or quite protracted (several hours) where progressive flooding or fire spread led to the ships loss. There's really not much evidence of hull shattering on Lusitania (plenty of progressive collapse, especially the superstructure but thats not surprising after 100 years), some implosion on Titanic but not much, and thats not really very much of a surprise. Implosion damage tends to be localised, often bounding a compartment or a particular feature (e.g. GRP domes) and is generally very visually distinctive. For really catastrophic damage caused during or sinking you really want a magazine explosion (e.g. Yamato) as the ship goes down, or for the ship to hit a solid bottom.
Of course submarine implosion is a completely different kettle of fish
Its more often than not the other way around - catastrophic damage leading to rapid sinking, less severe damage resulting in a longer sinking time. One of my early pieces of work was an analysis of sinking times and causes in WW1 British and US warships and the distribution of sinking times was quite interesting - generally very rapid (just a few minutes) where the ship had suffered overwhelming damage, or quite protracted (several hours) where progressive flooding or fire spread led to the ships loss. There's really not much evidence of hull shattering on Lusitania (plenty of progressive collapse, especially the superstructure but thats not surprising after 100 years), some implosion on Titanic but not much, and thats not really very much of a surprise. Implosion damage tends to be localised, often bounding a compartment or a particular feature (e.g. GRP domes) and is generally very visually distinctive. For really catastrophic damage caused during or sinking you really want a magazine explosion (e.g. Yamato) as the ship goes down, or for the ship to hit a solid bottom.
Of course submarine implosion is a completely different kettle of fish
Flatfish?Of course submarine implosion is a completely different kettle of fish
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks