Naval History Forums

Gentlemen,
At the risk of sounding gruesome, one of the explorers that went down to the wreck said that he saw a huge number of seaboots lying on the seabed where bodies had been. What puzzles me is why. Bismarck came to rest a long way from where she first hit the bottom, so why were there so many bodies around the ship? Pesumably most of the bodies that were left would have been deep inside the ship and those that were not would have fallen off during her slide down the underwater mountain. Any ideas?

I would suggest that many of the bodies (boots) found near the wreck were pulled under by the current that Bismarck made as she sank. By the time they reached the bottom they would have been crushed and devoid of any air or gases that would tend to make them buoyant.

One of the things you do when you abandon ship is remove your shoes. They fill with water and make it hard to swim.

Having served in the US Navy, I've seen first hand what the sea can do and how quickly it can do it. There would be little left at this point. Perhaps just a few of the larger bones...if that. Many of the bodies would have drifted away, only to gradually sink to the bottom (without getting to graphic). The Bismarck is now their collective tomb as is the Hood's for those brave British sailors.

when i watch the cameron documentation, i always get the chills when the steer their camera through the hangar. for just 2 seconds, one can see a piece which remarkably resembles a skull. of course it can be a trick to the eye, given the poor resolution and short duration, but i wonder if anybody else has the same impression?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... a3w#t=583s

at 9:50

I looked at that segment a few times and even paused it. Yes, in my opinion, that is a skull and it looks like some other bones around it (perhaps thigh and forearm bones. I remember years ago, watching a documentary on the sunken Japanesse ships at the Turk Island. They panned a shot of a sunken troop carrier and there were dozens of skulls and other bones.

While these sites should be treated as memorial sites, they are also historial sites. And with any history of war, there will be the remains of men and women who fought and died there. Perhaps the sight of these bones will serve as a gentle reminder that these were real events with real flesh and blood people who died, in some cases, the most horrible of deaths, and in that, their remains can serve as a very real warning to the present and future generations. I am a disabled US Navy veteran and I also had a distant relative die on the Battleship Bismarck. If his death can have a meaning, then let it be as a warning.

Hosse wrote: If his death can have a meaning, then let it be as a warning.

Agree 100% !! I guess, most people here, like me, are somehow fascinated by navy ships and the battles they fought. But we should never forget that this fascination is just one side, which also (for most of us) is looked at from safe distance. People who fought in wars, and who lost relatives and friends, most likely have experienced the other side too. We should always be aware that war and every type of war machinery also means senseless cruelty and pain.

Hi,

bones (apatite) will be dissolved in the sea water, basically similar to calcite below the CCD (calcite compensation depth). Normally around 3500 to 5000m depth.

Bye,

Bernd.

Bernd Willmer wrote:Hi,

bones (apatite) will be dissolved in the sea water, basically similar to calcite below the CCD (calcite compensation depth). Normally around 3500 to 5000m depth.

Bye,

Bernd.

That's interesting, presumably that is why bones are found on shipwrecks that are a lot older but in shallower water?

Yes, and no shells (calcite or aragonite) of mollusks etc in the deep sea. :-)

It has been known for some time that any dead animal whose body makes it to the bottom of very deep oceans is quickly consumed by various creatures that scavenge on the bottom. Only very large animal like whales leave any observable remains and what is.left of other smaller bodies soon dissolves in the sea water due to micro organisms.

What I always been interested in is the survival numbers at the point of sinking. Latest figure I read varied from 800 dead bodies found by German searchers after 4 days to about 2,000 men reported in the water by a survivor accounts.Which means in all probabilities about 500 to 700 men killed or trapped in hull.

It is almost a ritual formula to call war time wrecks a grave site; more out of respect of how and where they died and not where their bodies or remains now or in the past lay.

Classic case is the USS Arizona. Very fitting to referred as she is as a war grave, but in actuality a majority remains of those killed on board would have, and going on body recovery records of unidentified body parts being recovered from the harbour waters, were most likely blown over board with most of the shredded forward hull sections.

I think any penetration of the wreck should be for battle analysis proposes only as too allow for more accurate historical records based on known facts and not assumptions based in propaganda thereby having a more respectful account of the history of War.

sineatimorar wrote: I think any penetration of the wreck should be for battle analysis proposes only as too allow for more accurate historical records based on known facts and not assumptions based in propaganda thereby having a more respectful account of the history of War.

I would concur completely with this.

RF wrote:

sineatimorar wrote: I think any penetration of the wreck should be for battle analysis proposes only as too allow for more accurate historical records based on known facts and not assumptions based in propaganda thereby having a more respectful account of the history of War.

I would concur completely with this.

Look, but don't touch should be the only rule regarding all ships considered war graves.
Regards
Richard

Concur completely. Non intrusive penetration by small robotic units only. Considering the positions the main turrets are located, physical access is impossible. Maybe development of something akin to ground penetrating radar could be developed to gain a non intrusive 'picture' / outline will be our only chance for any limited analysis.

sineatimorar wrote: Maybe development of something akin to ground penetrating radar could be developed to gain a non intrusive 'picture' / outline will be our only chance for any limited analysis.

No. Ground penetrating radar, or any similar device based on reflected waves, will always suffer from complicated 3D structures. Reflections come from all sides, and in particular ground penetrating radar (GPR) is based on a simple survey geometry which is not well suited for 3D structures. Also, GPR performs poorly to not at all for materials with high electric conductivity (steel, salt water). All the nice pictures you see in the CSI TV are pure fantasy. I can't think of any non-invasive method which provides clear and high 3D resolution images for this type of scenario.