Download Year 2 Report Appendix

Wessex Archaeology
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund
Marine Aggregates and the Historic Environment
Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Assessment, Evaluation and Recording
Appendix C: Archaeological Results
Ref: 57454.03
January 2007
AGGREGATE LEVY SUSTAINABILITY FUND
MARINE AGGREGATES AND THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
WRECKS ON THE SEABED R2:
ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND RECORDING
APPENDIX C: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS
Prepared for:
English Heritage
By:
Wessex Archaeology
Portway House
Old Sarum Park
Salisbury
SP4 6EB
Ref: 57454.03
January 2007
©Wessex Archaeology Limited 2007
Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No.287786
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
WRECKS ON THE SEABED R2:
ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND RECORDING
Appendix C: Archaeological Results
Ref: 57454.03
Contents
1
Site WA 1001.........................................................................................................................1
1.1
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
Location..................................................................................................................................1
Site Conditions and Environment ...........................................................................................1
Investigation: Survey history and results of previous work....................................................1
1.2
Methodology..........................................................................................................................1
1.3
Results....................................................................................................................................2
Survival: Site layout and extent ..............................................................................................2
1.4
Analysis..................................................................................................................................3
Archaeological Evidence ........................................................................................................3
Build: Construction, Fittings and Machinery..........................................................................3
Use: Artefacts .........................................................................................................................4
Use: The development of the B-24 bomber............................................................................5
Use: Technical Specifications.................................................................................................5
Use: B-24 Liberator bombers in the European war theatre.....................................................5
Loss: B-24 bomber losses during WWII ................................................................................8
Scope for identification of the bomber ...................................................................................9
1.5
Significance of effects and mitigation................................................................................10
Baseline summary.................................................................................................................10
Previous Disturbance ............................................................................................................10
Importance............................................................................................................................10
Impacts .................................................................................................................................11
Effects...................................................................................................................................11
Mitigation .............................................................................................................................11
2
Site WA 1002.......................................................................................................................11
2.1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................11
Location................................................................................................................................11
Site Conditions and Environment .........................................................................................11
Investigation: Survey history and results of previous work..................................................12
2.2
Methodology........................................................................................................................12
2.3
Results..................................................................................................................................12
Survival: Site layout and extent ............................................................................................12
Build: Construction...............................................................................................................12
Build: Fittings and Machinery ..............................................................................................13
Use: Artefacts .......................................................................................................................13
2.4
Analysis................................................................................................................................13
Archaeological Evidence ......................................................................................................13
Documentary Sources...........................................................................................................14
ii
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
Use and Loss: An attempt to identify wreck WA 1002 ........................................................14
2.5
Significance of effects and mitigation................................................................................15
Baseline summary.................................................................................................................16
Previous Disturbance ............................................................................................................16
Importance............................................................................................................................16
Impacts .................................................................................................................................16
Effects...................................................................................................................................16
Mitigation .............................................................................................................................16
3
Site WA 1003.......................................................................................................................17
3.1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................17
Location................................................................................................................................17
Site Conditions and Environment .........................................................................................17
Investigation: Survey history and results of previous work..................................................17
3.2
Methodology........................................................................................................................17
3.3
Results..................................................................................................................................17
Archaeological Evidence ......................................................................................................17
Survival: Site layout and extent ............................................................................................18
Build: Construction...............................................................................................................19
Build: Fittings and Machinery ..............................................................................................19
3.4
Analysis................................................................................................................................20
Build: The MS-type uboats...................................................................................................20
Build: The Germania shipyard..............................................................................................21
Use: U-86 Technical Specifications .....................................................................................22
Use: The history of U-86 ......................................................................................................22
Loss: The sinking of U-86 ....................................................................................................24
3.5
Significance of effects and mitigation................................................................................24
Baseline summary.................................................................................................................24
Previous Disturbance ............................................................................................................24
Importance............................................................................................................................25
Impacts .................................................................................................................................25
Effects...................................................................................................................................25
Mitigation .............................................................................................................................25
4
References ...........................................................................................................................26
iii
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
WRECKS ON THE SEABED R2:
ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND RECORDING
Appendix C: Archaeological Results
Ref: 57454.03
List of Figures
Figure 01:
Location of site WA 1001.
Figure 02:
Preliminary site plan of WA 1001.
Figure 03:
Wing structure of a Consolidated Liberator and leading edge of a wing on the seabed.
Figure 04:
Engine assembly and mounting of a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp on a
Consolidated Liberator.
Figure 05:
Details of the Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp engine.
Figure 06:
Consolidated Liberator flattened tube intercooler.
Figure 07:
Consolidated Liberator type B-2 turbosupercharger.
Figure 08:
Consolidated Liberator engine oiltank.
Figure 09:
Consolidated Liberator hydromatic propeller assembly.
Figure 10:
Clothing from site WA 1001
Plate 1: Leather strap in structure.
Plate 2: Scarf or shirt with floral pattern.
Plate 3: Snorkel parka on engine 1.
Plate 4: Detail of label on parka.
Figure 11:
Details of the Consolidated B-24 Liberator.
Figure 12:
Location of site WA 1002.
Figure 13:
Site plan of WA 1002.
Figure 14:
Location of site WA 1003.
Figure 15:
Site plan of WA 1003 based on multibeam data and dockyard plans of the U-63 type
U-boat.
Figure 16:
Details of bow section of U-86.
Figure 17:
Details of conning tower section of U-86.
Figure 18:
Details forward of the conning tower of U-86.
Figure 19:
Details on the back deck of U-86.
Figure 20:
Details at the stern of U-86.
Figure 21:
Dockyard plan of U-86 and photo showing the U-boat surfaced.
iv
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
WRECKS ON THE SEABED R2:
ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND RECORDING
Appendix C
Ref: 57454.03
1
SITE WA 1001
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Location
1.1.1
Site WA 1001 is located 18.7nm south east of St. Catherine’s Point on the
Isle of Wight.
Site Conditions and Environment
1.1.2
The wreck lies at a general depth of 56m.
1.1.3
The seabed on the site consists of sand and silty sand over chalk. According
to the geophysical fieldwork report (Wessex Archaeology 2006), the area is
covered by NW-SE orientated sandwaves, which implies that the prevailing
current is running perpendicular to this. Very little marine growth was
observed on the aluminium body of the wreck (Figure 1).
Investigation: Survey history and results of previous work
1.1.4
Wreck WA 1001 was first located by the UKHO in 1983. The site was then
re-surveyed and positioned in 2003. The UKHO describes the site as a small,
possibly intact wooden wreck without debris field.
1.1.5
In 2005 the wreck was located and surveyed with sidescan sonar, multibeam
sonar and magnetometer by WA as part of the ‘Wrecks on the Seabed’
project. The results are presented in the geophysical fieldwork report
(Wessex Archaeology 2006). Based on the geophysical data, the UKHO
interpretation of the site as a small, intact wooden wreck was confirmed.
1.2
METHODOLOGY
1.2.1
In May 2006 site WA 1001 was surveyed to a partial Level 2 with a Seaeye
Falcon ROV. Two dives with a combined bottom time of 99 minutes were
conducted on 16 May. No further ROV dives were possible due to a long
spell of bad weather and strong winds. This has meant that only a portion of
the site was surveyed and while site character, date and importance could be
established, the site extents remain unknown. The general survey approach is
outlined in section 3.1 of the methodological report.
1.2.2
The ROV survey identified WA 1001 as the remains of a four-engined,
propeller driven aircraft, probably of World War II vintage.
1
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
1.3
Year 2 Report
RESULTS
Survival: Site layout and extent
1.3.1
The geophysical data for site WA 1001 shows two main anomalies. The
largest, termed WA 6100 in the geophysical fieldwork report (Wessex
Archaeology 2006), measures 25m x 10m. A number of smaller anomalies
were detected in a range of 25m-50m around WA 6100. The other large
anomaly, measuring 6m x 1m is located approximately 180m NE of WA
6100. The resolution of the data is not high enough to discern individual
features or define the exact shape and nature of the anomalies.
1.3.2
As a result of the constraints placed on the fieldwork by weather conditions
only the main anomaly, WA 6100, could be dived and investigated. In
addition, the poor underwater visibility made it difficult to gain a clear
overview of the site and understanding of the wreck layout.
1.3.3
The most prominent features noted on the site are the remains of four aircraft
engines attached to the wings or sections of the wings. Wing 1 lies in a NWSE orientation in the east of the site and the engines designated Engine 1 and
Engine 2 are still attached to the wing structure, spaced about 3m apart
(Figure 2).
1.3.4
Wing 2 appears to be less coherent and lies in a NE-SW orientation about
11m to the west of Wing 1. Engine 3 is in situ on the wing, but Engine 4
could not be positioned accurately.
1.3.5
The main hull structure of the plane seems to lie in a W-E orientation just
north of the wings and appears to be fairly broken up. Most of the surviving
structure is partially or fully buried and was probably only recently
uncovered. This fact is reinforced by the presence of numerous textiles items,
including clothing of American origin, on and around the site.
1.3.6
Due to the limited survey time it was not possible to fully define the site
extents or examine any of the outlying anomalies noted around WA 6100.
1.3.7
No bombs, machine guns, small arms or ammunition were observed on the
site. However, ordnance may be present and the potentially dangerous
character of the site should be noted.
1.3.8
No human remains were observed during the two ROV dives, but the
presence of well-preserved clothing on the site suggests the potential for the
survival of human remains on the site (see 1.4.9-13).
1.3.9
As the remains of military aircraft, WA 1001 are automatically protected by
the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. The Royal Air Force Personnel
Management Agency (PMA) at RAF Innsworth has been informed of the
discovery. Because of the likelihood that the aircraft was an American
casualty contact was also made with the US Joint POW/ MIA Accounting
Command (JPAC) in Hawaii to seek information that could identify the site.
In September 2006 a member of JPAC visited Wessex Archaeology to
discuss the wreck. Based on the archaeological evidence gathered during the
2
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
ROV survey, JPAC has started a Stage 2 investigation, which involves a
review of Missing Aircraft Reports (MACRs) and other documentary sources
in the US with the aim of identifying the aircraft and establishing its loss was
accompanied by any loss of life.
1.4
ANALYSIS
Archaeological Evidence
1.4.1
The archaeological evidence available indicated that wreck WA 1001 is the
remains of a four-engined aircraft, probably of WWII vintage. The presence
of American clothing on site made a US origin for the aircraft likely. As the
B-17 Flying Fortress and the B-24 Liberator were the two most common four
engine bombers used by the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) during
the Second World War, the aircraft was presumed to be one of the two types.
1.4.2
Preliminary research has shown that the B-17 “My Day” of the 388th Bomber
Group crashed into the sea off the Isle of Wight in 1943 (Leal 1987). The
388th Bomber Group association was contacted to find out more about this
accident and possibly identify the wreck. Some of the ROV video footage
was sent to David Sarson, the curator of the 388th Bomber Group collection
to verify whether the wreck could indeed be the remains of a B-17. After a
first review of the footage, Mr. Sarson was certain that the remains on the
seabed were not part of a B-17 bomber, but could represent either a British
four-engined bomber or an American B-24. Full copies of the survey footage
were then sent to Mr. Sarson and to Darran Cowd, assistant curator at the
RAF Museum in Hendon for more detailed review.
1.4.3
Based on this detailed review of the survey footage, both Mr. Cowd and Mr.
Sarson agree that the remains on the seabed are those of a Consolidated B-24
Liberator, lying upside down. The following description of the construction
and machinery on the seabed has been compiled with the kind help of Mr.
Cowd and Mr. Sarson.
Build: Construction, Fittings and Machinery
1.4.4
Most of the wreckage surveyed on site WA 1001 relates to the aircraft wings.
At least the centre sections of both wings are fully preserved and lying upside
down on the seabed. In both cases the majority of the wing structure is still
covered with the aluminium outer skin. Along the leading edges the outer
skin is missing. Further wreckage between the two wings and to the north of
the preserved wing sections could either relate to the outer wing panels or the
fuselage (Figure 3).
1.4.5
The four Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp engines are in situ on the
wings and their cowlings are missing. The engine mount assemblies are still
attached to the rear of the engines and the inboard and outboard engine
mount supports have collapsed onto the underside of the wings (Figure 4).
While Engine 1 and 2 on Wing 1 as well as Engine 3 on Wing 2 could be
positioned with the help of the USBL system technical problems prevented
the accurate positioning of Engine 4. The engine blocks with their 14 twin
3
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
row cylinders are surrounded by the exhaust collector rings. The cylinders
are 15cm in diameter (Figure 5).
1.4.6
Each of the engines is associated with a rectangular Harrison or Airsearch
flattened tube intercooler. The intercoolers serve to cool the hot compressed
air delivered by the superchargers (Figure 6). They are situated behind the
firewall at the back of each engine. Loose Type B-2 turbosuperchargers were
observed on the seabed in the vicinity of Engine 1 and Engine 2. The
superchargers were originally located below and at the rear of the engines
(Figure 7).
1.4.7
A round oil tank was observed east of Engine 1 (Figure 8).
1.4.8
Engine 1 and Engine 2 are both associated with hydromatic propellers. On
Engine 1, the propeller is lying upside down with the dome buried in the
seabed and the nose section facing upwards. The propeller on Engine 2 is
lying upright on the seabed south of the engine with the dome facing west
and the nose section facing east (Figure 9).
Use: Artefacts
1.4.9
Several items made of textile were observed in different areas on the site.
Some items were half-buried, while others were entangled in and around
wreckage. The generally good state of preservation suggests that the majority
of this material was buried until very recently.
1.4.10
Most of the items on site were difficult to recognise. Strips of olive drab
material were observed entangled around fuselage. White fabric, possibly
parachute silk, was seen in several areas around the wreckage. A leather strap
with buckle attached to olive or khaki fabric was stuck in a piece of
aluminium fuselage on Wing 2 (Figure 10, Plate 1).
1.4.11
To the west of the wreckage, thin blue fabric with a white floral pattern was
seen half buried in a debris field. This could be the remains of either a shirt
or possibly a scarf (Figure 10, Plate 2).
1.4.12
The most diagnostic item on the site was the orange lining of an olive flying
parka, which was wrapped around Engine 1. A label attached to the lining is
decorated with a floral border and reads ‘Original Snorkel Parka’. This type
of parka was not a standard military issue item during the Second World
War, but looks very similar to the standard issue N-3 snorkel parka
introduced with the formation of the USAF in 1947 (Figure 10, Plate 3,
Plate 4).
1.4.13
The N-3 Snorkel Parka or heavy flying jacket was based on prototypes tested
between 1942 and 1945. It was also very common for soldiers to supplement
issued clothing with privately bought items. The Snorkel Parka on the site
could thus either be one of the prototypes issued for testing, although the
non-military label makes this less likely, or a private item bought by a
crewman for protection against the cold at high altitudes in the unpressurised
and unheated aircraft.
4
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
Use: The development of the B-24 bomber
1.4.14
The development of the B-24 long range bomber started with a request to the
Consolidated Aircraft Corporation to set up a second source production line
for B-17 bombers in 1938. The Consolidated chief engineer suggested a
different design instead, based around a new wing patent with less drag than
the existing B-17 wings.
1.4.15
On 30th March 1939 Consolidated received a contract to build the first
prototype of the new bomber designated XB-24. The development went
ahead quickly and a number of first production models, called YB-24, were
delivered to the RAF in 1940. The B-24D was the first mass produced
variant of the Consolidated ‘Liberator’ which was delivered to the USAAF
from 1941. Altogether, 2,738 B-24Ds were built. Wartime development then
continued through to model B-24M. Most of the later B-24 models were
based on the B-24D, with changes in mainly the armament and equipment, as
well as attempts to make the bomber lighter to increase performance. A total
of 19,203 B-24s of 15 different variants were constructed during the war
(392nd BG Association 2006).
1.4.16
Together with the B-17, the B-24 became the most used heavy long range
bomber of WWII.
Use: Technical Specifications
1.4.17
The technical specifications quoted below are for the B-24D Liberator
(National Museum of the United States Air Force 2006) (Figure 11):
Span
Length
Height
Wing Area
Weight (empty)
Weight (max take off)
Armament
Powerplant
Max. Speed
Range (5,000lb bomb load)
Crew
33.52 m
20.22 m
5.46 m
97.36 m²
15,413 kg
27,216 kg
One (usually three) 0.5-in (12.7-mm) nose gun,
two in dorsal turret, two in tail turret, two in
retractable ball turret and two in waist
positions; plus a maximum internal bomb load
of 8,000 lb (3,629 kg)
Four 1200 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-43 Twin
Wasp radial piston engines
488 km/h
1730 km
10
Use: B-24 Liberator bombers in the European war theatre
1.4.18
The first Liberators to enter the European war theatre were YB-24s, also
called Mark I models, delivered to Britain in March 1941. These were used
for trans-Atlantic transport duties and later also for long range antisubmarine patrols in the Battle of the Atlantic by RAF Coastal Command.
Mark II models delivered later in 1941 were also used by the RAF Bomber
Command. The first bombing raids employing Liberator Mark II’s were
carried out by RAF squadrons in the Middle East.
5
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
1.4.19
After the United States declared war on Germany and Italy on 11 December,
1941, the US Army Air Force entered combat on 11 June, 1942 with an
attack on the Romanian oilfields at Ploieúti, carried out by 13 B-24
Liberators (Craven et al. 1983). In August 1942 the first strategic bombing
raids on Germany were carried out by units of the 8th Air Force flying from
British airfields. The so-called Combined Bomber Offensive, which started
in June 1943, involved massive bombing of German occupied areas and
plants and factories in Germany by the RAF and the USAAF.
1.4.20
The heavy bombers used by the 8th Air Force were either B-17 Flying
Fortresses or B-24 Liberators. The following table gives a breakdown of all
British based USAAF units that used Liberator bombers:
USAAF 8th Air Force
1.4.21
25th Bombardment Group
446th Bombardment Group
486th Bombardment Group
Watton
9/8/1944 – 23/7/1945
Flixton
c. 4/11/1943 - c. 7/1945
Sudbury
3/1944 – 8/1945
34th Bombardment Group
448th Bombardment Group
487th Bombardment Group
Mendlesham
c. 26/4/1944 - c. 25/7/1945
Seething
c. 1/12/1943 - c. 7/1945
Lavenham
5/4/1944 – 26/8/1945
44th Bombardment Group
453rd Bombardment Group
489th Bombardment Group
Shipham
10/1942 - c. 15/6/1945
Old Buckenham
23/12/1943 – 9/5/1945
Halesworth
c. 1/5/1944 – 11/1944
93rd Bombardment Group
458th Bombardment Group
490th Bombardment Group
Alconbury
7/9/1942 Hardwick
6/12/1942 – 19/5/1945
Horsham St Faith
1/1944 – 14/6/1945
Eye
c. 1/5/1944 – 8/1945
389th Bombardment Group
466th Bombardment Group
491st Bombardment Group
Hethel
11/6/1943 – 30/5/1945
Attlebridge
7/3/1944 – 6/7/1945
North Pickenham
2/1944
Metfield
3/1944
North Pickenham
15/8/1944 – 6/1945
392nd Bombardment Group
467th Bombardment Group
492nd Bombardment Group
Wendling
7/1943 – 15/6/1945
Rackheath
11/3/1944 – 12/6/1945
North Pickenham
18/4/1944
Harrington
5/8/1944 – 8/7/1945
445th Bombardment Group
482nd Bombardment Group
493rd Bombardment Group
Tibenham
4/11/1943 – 28/5/1945
Alconbury
20/8/1943 – 21/5/1945
Elveden Hall
1/1/1944
Debach
4/1944 – 6/8/1945
The following RAF units used Liberator bombers in Europe during the
Second World War:
6
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
RAF
RAF Coastal Command
120 Squadron
RAF Bomber Command
223 Squadron
Group: 15, Nutts Corner, County Antrim. Reformed. Liberator I, 06/41. 01/06/41-
Group: 100 Oulton, Norfolk. Reformed. Liberator
IV, 08/44. 23/08/44- 29/07/45
th
rd
Group: 15, Ballykelly, Londonderry. Liberator
II, 11/41. Liberator III, 07/42. 21/07/41Group: 1, Ballykelly, Londonderry. Liberator
VIII, 12/44. Liberator VI, 12/44. 24/03/4404/06/45.
Group: 15, Aldergrove, County Antrim.
14/02/43-13/04/43.
Group: 18, Tain, Caithness. 01/04/4404/06/45.
206th Squadron
Group: 19, St. Eval, Cornwall. Liberator VI,
03/44. Liberator VIII, 03/45. 01/04/44Group: 18, Leuchars, Fife. 01/07/44Group: 16, Oakington, Cambridgeshire.
01/07/45Group: 15, Carew Cheriton, Pembrokeshire.
01/10/39- 07/41.
Group: 15, Hooton Park, Cheshire. 01/10/3907/41.
Group: 16. Detling, Kent. 03/06/40- 10/06/40.
Group: 15, Aldergrove, County Antrim.
01/04/41- 07/41.
Group: 15, St. Eval, Cornwall. 01/04/4107/41.
Group: 19, St. Eval Cornwall.01/08/41- 10/43.
Group: 15, Stornoway.01/08/41- 07/42.
Group: 19, Chivenor, Devon. 01/12/41- 07/42.
Group: 18 Wick, Caithness. 01/12/41- 07/42.
Group: 16 Thorney Island, Hampshire.
01/07/42- 10/43.
Group: 18, Tain, Caithness. 01/04/44- 07/45.
224th Squadron
Group: 16, Beaulieu, Hampshire. Liberator
IIIa, 09/42. Liberator II, 11/42. Liberator V.
01/09/42- 03/43.
Group: 19, St. Eval Cornwall. Liberator VI,
12/44. Liberator VIII. 01/04/43- 02/45.
Group: 15, Milltown, Cumbria. 01/09/44-
7
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
Group: 19, St. Eval , Cornwall. 01/07/45Group: 18, Thornaby, Yorkshire. 05/09/3904/41.
Group: 15, Aldergrove, County Antrim.
13/09/39- 13/12/40.
Group: 18, Wick, Caithness. 14/10/39- 04/41.
Group: 16, Bircham Newton, Norfolk.
28/10/39- 11/39.
Group: 16, Bircham Newton, Norfolk.
19/05/40- 20/05/40.
Group: 15, Stornoway, Outer Hebrides.
01/02/42- 04/42.
Group: 16, North Coates, Lincolnshire.
01/04/42- 09/42.
Group: 19, St. Eval, Cornwall. 01/09/4204/43.
Loss: B-24 bomber losses during WWII
1.4.22
While good records of aircraft losses for the USAAF in the Second World
War are available, it was difficult to obtain accurate loss records for the RAF.
Altogether, the 8th Air Force lost 2,112 B-24 Liberators on operational
flights in the European war theatre (Philo 2006).
1.4.23
The following table provides a breakdown of B-24 losses by Bombardment
Group, as far as known (Philo 2006):
Unit
25th Bombardment Group
34th Bombardment Group
44th Bombardment Group
93rd Bombardment Group
389th Bombardment Group
392nd Bombardment Group
445th Bombardment Group
446th Bombardment Group
448th Bombardment Group
453rd Bombardment Group
458th Bombardment Group
466th Bombardment Group
467th Bombardment Group
482nd Bombardment Group
486th Bombardment Group
487th Bombardment Group
489th Bombardment Group
490th Bombardment Group
491st Bombardment Group
492nd Bombardment Group
493rd Bombardment Group
Aircraft lost
153
100
116
127
95
58
101
58
47
47
29
29
47
12
-
8
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
1.4.24
Year 2 Report
RAF Coastal Command is known to have lost 1,579 aircraft in total during
the war. It is not known how many of these were Liberators. RAF Bomber
Command lost a total of 9,163 aircraft. Again no further details on aircraft
types are available (Gustin 2006).
Scope for identification of the bomber
1.4.25
With the limited information available, it is difficult to identify Wreck 1001
or even to narrow down the number of possible candidates. Assuming it is a
wartime loss, the plane could have crashed between 1941 and 1945 if it was
part of the RAF Bomber Command or Coastal Command, and between 1942
and 1945 if it belonged to the US 8th Air Force.
1.4.26
Although the presence of American clothing on the site suggests a US origin
for the plane, this can not be counted as conclusive evidence, as a number of
US pilots joined the RAF via Canada before the official involvement of the
United States in the war.
1.4.27
RAF Bomber Command losses have been published in an accessible format
and can thus easily be checked, although generally very little detail about the
crash location is available. In many cases crash locations are given as “MIA,
English Channel”. RAF Coastal Command losses have only been published
for the period 1939-1941. In this period only one single B-24 crashed on a
flight between Scotland and Northern Ireland (McNeill 2003).
1.4.28
Records for the USAAF are more easily accessible at a number of locations
on the internet. However, these records are listed by aircraft serial number
and cannot be searched by crash location. This means that records for all B24s built would have to be checked to narrow down the number of possible
planes.
1.4.29
Another approach would be to check the loss records of individual
Bombardment Groups that used B-24s. This is easy for some groups, where
veteran associations and researchers have published extensive aircraft lists,
but difficult for other groups where such work has not been done. In many
cases, the loss information available is not detailed, and many crash records
refer to large geographical areas rather than specific positions, especially at
sea.
1.4.30
The easiest way to identify the aircraft remains on the seabed would be to
obtain serial numbers of either engine parts or the wings and then start a
search for those numbers. This would however require further survey work
on the site. In the interim, the archaeological evidence gathered during the
ROV survey has allowed JPAC to start a Stage 2 investigation, which
involves a review of Missing Aircraft Reports (MACRs) and other
documentary sources in the US with the aim of identifying the aircraft and
establishing its loss was accompanied by any loss of life. Depending on the
results of this research further investigation of the wrecks may be proposed
by JPAC in future to obtain serial numbers that would positively identify the
wreck.
9
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
1.5
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION
1.5.1
The following section is based on the assessment that is normally carried out
during an archaeological desk-based study as part of an aggregate dredging
license application.
1.5.2
It assumes that site WA 1001 has been encountered in an aggregate
extraction area and based on the information above identifies significant
effects and proposes mitigation.
Baseline summary
1.5.3
The study area contains the wreck of a Consolidated B-24 Liberator aircraft
which was identified by means of a ROV survey.
1.5.4
Based on the result of the geophysical surveys carried out, the site consists of
a number of anomalies, the largest of which (WA 6100) could be measured
as 25m x 10m. Smaller anomalies are spread in a range of 25m to 50m
around WA 6100. Another large anomaly measuring 6m x 1m was detected
approximately 180m NE of WA 6100.
1.5.5
Anomaly WA 6100 was surveyed by ROV. It consists of two well preserved
aircraft wings and the possible remains of fuselage (Figure 2). Due to the
limited bottom time available, no further anomalies could be examined.
1.5.6
No bombs or ammunition were observed during the ROV survey, but
ordnance may be present and the potentially hazardous character of the site
should be noted. No human remains were seen, but the presence of items of
clothing on the site makes the existence and survival of human remains
highly likely.
1.5.7
Any crashed military aircraft is automatically protected under the Protection
of Military Remains Act 1986. Because the wreck site was previously
unknown, the PMA at RAF Innsworth has been informed of the discovery.
Previous Disturbance
1.5.8
The preservation of organic material on the site and the relative absence of
marine growth indicate that the wreck was covered by sediment until
recently.
1.5.9
Fishing gear and the remains of a trawl net indicate that the site has been
affected by trawling
Importance
1.5.10
As the crash site of one of the most common long range bombers employed
by the Allied air forces during WWII, site WA 1001 is of medium
archaeological importance. The remains of the aircraft are not rare as a
number of B-24 bombers are preserved in museums around the world.
1.5.11
However, as a crashed military aircraft the site is automatically protected
under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. In addition, the evidence
10
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
for the possible presence of human remains on the site gives the site
additional value and status as a war grave (Campbell 2002).
Impacts
1.5.12
If this site were located within a proposed aggregate dredging area, possible
impacts include direct damage to the wreck structure and contents,
disturbance of archaeological contexts, disturbance of human remains that
may be present and the destabilisation of the site leading to increased
deterioration.
1.5.13
The possible presence of ordnance makes any direct damage to the site
potentially hazardous. Furthermore, as wreck material may damage the
suction gear of the dredger, it is in the interest of the dredging company to
avoid contact with such material.
Effects
1.5.14
Dredging within the immediate vicinity of the wreck would have an adverse
effect on the archaeological remains and disturb a potential war grave.
Dredging might also interfere with live ammunition or bombs that could be
present on the site.
Mitigation
1.5.15
In general the preferred means of mitigation is the preservation in situ of
archaeological material, and in the case of WA 1001 the implementation of
an exclusion zone around would be proposed.
1.5.16
Although the ROV survey established the character, date and importance of
the site, its full extent could not be defined. To cover all outlying anomalies
therefore, a 250m circular exclusion zone around anomaly WA 6100 is
proposed. Further ROV surveys of the site extent could be used to refine the
size of the exclusion zone.
2
SITE WA 1002
2.1
INTRODUCTION
Location
2.1.1
Site WA 1002 is located 13.5nm south of Shoreham on the English South
Coast.
Site Conditions and Environment
2.1.2
The wreck lies at a general depth of 49m (Figure 12).
2.1.3
The seabed on the site consists of fine sand. The upper deck and side of the
wreck are completely covered in marine growth, so that it is difficult to
discern individual features. Areas of the wreck that are close to the seabed
show little marine growth, and only a few dead-mans-fingers were noted.
11
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
Investigation: Survey history and results of previous work
2.1.4
WA 1002 was located by the UKHO in 1974 and surveyed again in 1980. It
was described as a fairly large vessel lying on its starboard side in a dip on
the seabed with its bow to the SW. Two masts were noted alongside on the
seabed, and two holds were observed.
2.1.5
The wreck was located and surveyed by WA in 2005 as part of the ‘Wrecks
on the Seabed’ project. Multibeam sonar data, sidescan sonar data and
magnetometer data were collected and interpreted. The results are published
in the 2006 geophysical fieldwork report (Wessex Archaeology 2006) and
verified the UKHO interpretation of the site as a fairly large wreck lying on
its starboard side.
2.2
METHODOLOGY
2.2.1
WA 1002 was surveyed to a partial Level 2a using an ROV in 2006.
Altogether five dives with a total bottom time of 262 minutes were
conducted on the site using the survey strategy outlined in section 3.1 of the
Methodological Report.
2.2.2
It was possible to determine the site extent, general character and its
approximate date. However, the importance of the wreck could not be
established, in large part due to poor visibility and abundant marine growth
which prevented detailed recording on the site.
2.3
RESULTS
Survival: Site layout and extent
2.3.1
As described in the UKHO records, the wreck is lying on its starboard side
with its bow facing SW. The total length of the vessel is about 63m, but the
stern area seems to be damaged so that the original vessel length could have
been longer. The beam is ca. 8-10m and the depth in hold ca. 5-6m. The site
appears to be coherent with outlying debris only in an area just off the stern
in the NE.
2.3.2
No superstructure is preserved, but the upper deck structure seems intact and
a number of deck fittings were observed. The upper deck is vertical and
facing NW. At least two cargo hatches are visible. The hull appears to be
fairly intact with the exception of a large area of damage on the port side
20m from the stern. Here a 6m x 6m hole was seen in the side of the vessel.
Inward bent metal plating around the edges of the hole suggests an impact
from the outside. As mentioned above, the stern also seems to be damaged.
2.3.3
Due to strong currents and low visibility it was not possible to explore the
seabed on the NW side of the shipwreck. The intact upper deck prevented
access to the inside of the vessel, so no internal machinery, cargo or ballast
could be observed (Figure 13).
Build: Construction
2.3.4
Little can be said about the general construction of the vessel, as most areas
were covered by dense marine growth. What is clear is that the vessel was
12
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
built from riveted iron or steel plates. One section of hull plating could be
surveyed in more detail. It was fastened by two/three rows of 30mm rivets. It
was not possible to obtain measurements of the hull plates themselves, the
frames or the beams (Figure 13).
Build: Fittings and Machinery
2.3.5
Even though the ship’s hull survives almost intact, only a few fittings could
be observed and recorded on site WA 1002. This was mainly due to the
dense cover of marine growth and the very low visibility.
2.3.6
At the bow, a Hall’s patent stockless anchor was observed secured in the
hawsehole. One of the anchor flukes was measured with the ISS scaling
camera as being 48cm long and 24cm wide. The distance between the flukes
is 42cm (Figure 13).
2.3.7
On the now vertical foredeck, an anchor windlass is still secured to the deck.
It is heavily concreted, but a 6cm wide spur wheel and the 7cm wide brake
could be recorded. Chain runs from the windlass towards the hawsers. An
individual chain link was measured as being 23cm long and 6cm wide
(Figure 13).
2.3.8
A 5cm wide iron fitting with a block was attached to the side of the foredeck.
This could have been part of the rigging or a davit.
2.3.9
Further aft towards midships, two fairleads were observed. Both have an
overall length of 65cm and are 22cm wide. The first is situated just aft of the
foredeck. The second fairlead is located just aft of midships. It is associated
with a set of bollards which measure 32cm across (Figure 13).
2.3.10
No further fittings or machinery could be observed on the site. As no
evidence relating to the propulsion of the vessel could be found, it is unclear
whether the wreck represents a steamship or a sailing vessel.
Use: Artefacts
2.3.11
With the exception of a single piece of coal noted adjacent to the SE side of
the hull, no small finds or artefacts were observed on the site. Although it is
possible that the coal represents remains of the cargo or was used as fuel, it
could also be intrusive material.
2.4
ANALYSIS
Archaeological Evidence
2.4.1
Limited archaeological evidence could be collected during the 2006 ROV
survey. WA 1002 represents the remains of a riveted iron or steel steam or
sailing vessel which was built at the end of the 19th century or the beginning
of the 20th century. The Hall’s patent stockless anchor was first used in 1886
and thus provides a terminus post quem for the construction of the vessel.
The general vessel dimensions are: LOA (length overall) 63m, BOA (breadth
overall) 8-10m and D (depth in hold) around 5-6m.
13
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
2.4.2
Although difficult to determine from the available evidence, the general hull
shape suggests a steamship rather than a sailing vessel.
2.4.3
The extensive damage to the hull amidships on the port side could have been
the cause for the sinking of the vessel. The inward bent hull plating in this
area suggests an impact from the outside, such as would be caused by shells,
a torpedo or a collision with another ship.
Documentary Sources
2.4.4
Because only limited archaeological evidence is available, the only possible
approach to identifying wreck WA 1002 is to search lists of lost vessels for
the general area such as Richard Larn’s Shipwreck Index (Larn et al. 1995)
or George Maw’s book on WW1 Channel wrecks (Maw 1999).
2.4.5
Any lost vessels found which match WA 1002 in dimensions and date can
then be checked against the UKHO shipwreck database to see whether they
have been identified before. In addition dive guides and the National
Monuments Record (NMR) can be checked.
2.4.6
This process leaves a small number of unidentified possible vessels.
2.4.7
The presence of a Hall’s patent anchor on the site indicates that the ship
could not have been lost before 1886. As the loss is not recorded, it is highly
likely that the vessel sank in either of the two World Wars, when the amount
of shipping being sunk made accurate record keeping very difficult.
Use and Loss: An attempt to identify wreck WA 1002
2.4.8
2.4.9
Using the method outlined above, the following vessels were identified as
possible candidates for wreck WA 1002:
Vessel Name
Vessel type
Vessel dimensions
(m)
Date of
sinking
Recorded Sinking
Location/ Position
Peter der
Grosse
Gotthard
Steamship
03/ 1893
Polpedn
Steamship
LBD 60.65 x
8.65 x 6.33
LBD 73.24 x
10.72 x 6.22
LBD 78.57 x
11.06 x 5.15
Houlgate
Steamship
LBD ?, 929t net
22.11.1916
Beachy Head Offshore,
not known
Beachy Head Offshore,
45nm or 25nm SW
Littlehampton Offshore,
20nm S, 50.27.30N,
00.30W
Beachy Head Offshore,
24nm WSW?
Steamship
03.09.1916
14.11.1916
The Russian steamship Peter der Grosse sank following a collision with the
German Preussen when en route from Hamburg to Greenock in Scotland.
The vessel was registered in St. Petersburg and owned by the St. Petersburg
Dampfschiff Gesellschaft (Steamship Company). The vessel had been built
in 1872 by the Norddeutsche Schiffbau Aktiengesellschaft in Kiel. The iron
steamship was equipped with two boilers and a two cylinder compound
steam engine. No further details about the position of the collision could be
found (Larn et al. 1995).
14
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
2.4.10
The Norwegian steamer Gotthard was torpedoed by UB-25 when en route
from Middlesbrough to Rouen with a cargo of cast iron pigs and sulphate.
The Gotthard was built in Christiania in 1906. She was equipped with a
single boiler and a three cylinder triple expansion steam engine. Two
different positions of sinking are recorded for the Gotthard. The English
position would put the wreck much further to the South than WA 1002.
However, the second position stated in Norwegian sources, would put the
wreck in approximately the right area. The Gotthard is 10m longer than the
length of WA 1002 measured on the multibeam data, but this could be
explained by the apparent damage to the stern area (Larn et al. 1995).
2.4.11
The Polpedn, a steel steamer owned by Farrar, Groves & Co Ltd., London,
was sailing from Dunkirk to Ayr in ballast when she was attacked by UB-38.
The vessel was torpedoed amidships on the port side and sank within five
minutes. The Polpedn was an Admiralty prize (ex Thor), equipped with a
three cylinder triple expansion steam engine and a single boiler. Although the
recorded sinking position is a fair distance from the position of WA 1002,
this could be explained by inaccurate positioning due to the rush in which the
vessel was left by the crew. As with the Gotthard, a difference in length
between the Polpedn and WA 1002 could be due to the damaged stern on
WA 1002. The damaged midship section observed on the wreck would be
consistent with the torpedo damage sustained by the Polpedn (Larn et al.
1995, Maw 1999).
2.4.12
The Houlgate was a Canadian steamer of 929 tons net, owned by a French
company at the time of sinking. The vessel was en route from Montreal to Le
Havre with a cargo of coal, when she was shelled by a German submarine.
The crew abandoned the ship and watched it sinking after an explosion in the
boiler room. However, there are conflicting reports about the vessel in the
British records. A patrol vessel reported finding the ship deserted and afloat
the next morning. According to the British reports the vessel sank shortly
after it was found. The vessel dimensions are given as 73m x 12m x 4.5m
(Maw 1999).
2.4.13
It is difficult to narrow down the search any further and securely identify
wreck WA 1002 without additional archaeological evidence. All four vessels
above are roughly consistent with wreck WA 1002 in terms of size and date
and are reported to have sunk in the approximate area of WA 1002. In
addition all were subject to damage of some sort, which could be consistent
with the damage observed on the wreck.
2.5
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION
2.5.1
The following section is based on the assessment that is normally carried out
during an archaeological desk-based study as part of an aggregate dredging
license application.
2.5.2
It assumes that site WA 1002 has been encountered in an aggregate
extraction area and based on the information above identifies significant
effects and proposes mitigation.
15
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
Baseline summary
2.5.3
The study area contains the wreck of an unidentified steamship dating to the
period between 1886 and 1945. An ROV survey was carried out to establish
site character, date and importance as well as the extent of the wreck site.
2.5.4
Previously obtained sidescan and multibeam data served as a basis for the
ROV survey. Based on the geophysical data, the site measures 60m x 6m and
is 8-10m upstanding. A small artefact scatter was observed around the stern
of the vessel in the NE.
2.5.5
Although the general character and date of the site could be established, the
identity of the wreck remains unknown. Further archaeological fieldwork
would be necessary to allow an identification of the site and a full assessment
of it significance.
2.5.6
The damage to the wreck noted in the geophysical data and by the ROV
survey suggests that WA 1002 may be a casualty of war. It is currently not
known however, whether the sinking of the vessel was associated with loss
of life.
Previous Disturbance
2.5.7
The wreck is structurally fairly coherent, with only the superstructure
missing. The damage to the port side of the hull is likely to be associated
with the loss of the vessel rather than with post-depositional processes.
2.5.8
Fishing nets and a trawl observed around the site indicate that the wreck has
been affected by trawling.
Importance
2.5.9
WA 1002 appears to be the remains of a modern steamship, dating to the
period between 1886 and 1945. Wrecks of cargo vessels of this date are
common around the British Isles and are generally fairly well documented.
As the wreck could not be identified however, a more definitive assessment
of its archaeological importance is not currently possible.
Impacts
2.5.10
Possible impacts include direct damage to the wreck structure and contents,
disturbance of archaeological contexts, disturbance of any human remains
that may be present and the destabilisation of the site leading to deterioration
and corrosion.
Effects
2.5.11
Dredging within the immediate vicinity of the wreck would have an adverse
effect on the archaeological remains.
Mitigation
2.5.12
In general the preferred means of mitigation is the preservation in situ of
archaeological material, and in the case of WA 1002 the implementation of
an exclusion zone around is proposed.
16
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
2.5.13
The ROV survey allowed establishing the extents of the site so that the limits
of the exclusion zone can be accurately defined. To cover all outlying
anomalies, an 80m long and 30m wide oval exclusion zone around WA 1002
would be proposed.
3
SITE WA 1003
3.1
INTRODUCTION
Location
3.1.1
WA 1003 is located 25nm south south east of Shoreham.
Site Conditions and Environment
3.1.2
The wreck lies at a general depth of 46m (Figure 14).
3.1.3
The seabed on site WA 1003 consists of shelly, fine gravel aggregate which
overlies clay. Relatively little marine growth was noted on the site.
3.1.4
The marine life noted on the site included fish species such as conger eel
(conger conger), crustacea, gastropods and bi-valves.
Investigation: Survey history and results of previous work
3.1.5
The wreck site was originally located by the UKHO in 2003 and described as
a largely intact wreck with a moderate magnetic signature. Two possible
masts were thought to be present on the site.
3.1.6
In 2005 the wreck was located and surveyed by WA as part of the ‘Wrecks
on the Seabed’ project. The survey methodology and interpretation is
outlined in the geophysical fieldwork report (Wessex Archaeology 2006).
3.2
METHODOLOGY
3.2.1
Site WA 1003 was surveyed with an ROV to a partial Level 3 in 2006.
Altogether five dives with a total bottom time of 291 minutes were
conducted in three days on the site. The site was surveyed following the
survey strategy outlined in section 3.1 of the Methodological Report.
3.2.2
It was possible to produce a general site record sufficient to establish site
extent, character and date as well as to record selected elements on the site in
detail. Using the ROV survey data in combination with documentary sources
it subsequently proved possible to positively identify the site.
3.3
RESULTS
Archaeological Evidence
3.3.1
The ROV survey immediately identified wreck WA 1003 as the remains of a
naval submarine or U-boat. The vessel is between 58m and 70m long (the
exact length is difficult to determine due to the damaged bow and stern
section) and has a beam of ca. 6.5m. It stands 3m proud of the seabed, but is
partly buried. The submarine is armed with four torpedo tubes, two bow
tubes and two stern tubes. Two deck guns, consistent with guns used on
17
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
German U-boats during WWI were observed. No evidence of mine launching
chutes could be found.
3.3.2
The size of the vessel, the absence of mine launching equipment and the
general layout suggested that WA 1003 was the wreck of an ocean-going
German attack U-boat dating to the First World War.
3.3.3
The ROV survey was informed by the availability on site of the construction
and general layout plan of U-63 to U-65, and allowed features observed on
the seabed to be compared immediately to this plan. Apart from a number of
details on the conning tower, all fittings and machinery were consistent with
the plan. It could thus be concluded on site that the U-boat was of the so
called Ms, or “Mobilmachungs” (mobilisation) type. Ms boats were built by
a number of different shipyards and were constantly improved. This led to a
variety of subtypes, all built with slight variations. Each subtype was named
after the first boat built to the type specifications (Rößler 1997).
3.3.4
Further studies following the survey season showed that the appearance of
the wreck was consistent with the subtype U-81. This type of U-boat was
built at the Germania Werft in Kiel between 1915 and 1916. The U-81 type
included six boats, U-81 to U-86. Out of these, four were sunk during the war
around Ireland or in the Atlantic and one was broken up (Helgason 2006).
Only U-86 is stated to have sunk or been sunk in the Channel off the South
Coast after having been used by the British Navy in 1921 (McCartney 2003).
WA 1003 has thus been identified as the German Ms-type U-boat U-86.
3.3.5
The following description of the wreck was compiled using archaeological
evidence in combination with documentary information available for U-86.
Survival: Site layout and extent
3.3.6
The vessel is lying on even keel with a slight list to port on the fairly flat
seabed in NNW-SSE orientation with the bow in the SSE. The 2005
multibeam survey gives dimensions of 58m x 5m x 3m for the wreck site.
Dimensions taken off the sidescan data suggest a length of 66m, a breadth of
6.5m and a height off the seabed of 3.5m for the wreck itself.
3.3.7
The outer hull of the vessel has largely disappeared, but the internal pressure
hull is fairly intact. Bow and stern are heavily damaged and broken up from
the bow bulkhead forward and the stern bulkhead aft. While the bow has
collapsed and is lying partly buried in line with the vessel, the stern section
has broken off and is lying at a 90 degree angle to the main hull, pointing
westwards.
3.3.8
Apart from the features associated with the damaged bow and stern sections,
outlying debris noted around the site consisted mainly of pressure cylinders
that have fallen off the pressure hull. A large seabed scour was noted on the
eastern side of the wreck (Figure 15).
18
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
Build: Construction
3.3.9
The wreck shows the twin hull construction typical of a U-boat: a pressure
resistant inner hull and free flooding outer casing. Documentary sources
indicate that the cylindrical pressure hull is built from riveted 12mm nickelsteel plates with external steel frames. According to the same sources the
inside of the pressure hull is separated into compartments by a number of
bulkheads made from 16-21mm thick steel. The forward and aft collision
bulkheads are visible where bow and stern are damaged (Figure 16).
3.3.10
The pressure hull would have been enclosed within a steel outer casing
which would have protected it. The rigid connection of outer casing and
pressure hull enhances the strength of the pressure hull. On the wreck the
outer casing is only partially preserved and the pressure hull is generally
well-preserved and clearly visible in the upper deck area.
3.3.11
The conning tower is riveted onto the pressure hull and is fully preserved
with only the protective casing and armour missing. Recesses for the
navigation lights and maintenance access hatches were observed on both
sides of the tower. The main conning tower hatch is situated aft of the
periscope mountings and was found slightly ajar (Figure 17).
3.3.12
Two torpedo loading hatches were observed at bow and stern, aft and
forward of the torpedo rooms. At the stern of the vessel, the engine room
escape hatch is wide open. The forward escape hatch is sealed (Figure 18,
19).
3.3.13
At the bow of the U-boat, the two bow torpedo tubes are split at the forward
collision bulkhead. The scaling camera recorded an internal diameter of ca.
58cm for these tubes. The tube construction with outer reinforcement rings
and bolted segments is clearly visible (Figure 16). The two stern tubes are
heavily damaged and lie at a 90 degree angle to the hull within the stern
wreckage. The outer torpedo tube door is visible on one of the aft tubes
(Figure 20).
Build: Fittings and Machinery
3.3.14
Most of the fittings that were originally located on the upper deck of the Uboat are preserved in situ. The patent anchor is secured in the hawsehole in a
recess on the side of the damaged bow section. Using the ISS camera, it was
possible to obtain some measurements: The anchor shaft is 13cm wide. The
anchor fluke measures 24cm x 20cm. The electrical anchor windlass and
capstan is still in situ just aft of the anchor. The opening for the windlass
drive shaft can be seen in the collision bulkhead above the two torpedo tubes
(Figure 16).
3.3.15
A number of compressed air cylinders were observed on top of the pressure
hull along the length of the upper deck. These formed part of the U-boat’s
compressed air system which was used to blow air into the dive- and ballast
tanks. All cylinders were connected to a compressor in the control room and
could be centrally recharged when the U-boat was on the surface. The width
of individual air cylinders was measured as 46cm.
19
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
3.3.16
The U-boat was armed with two upper deck guns forward and aft of the
conning tower. The forward gun is still attached to its mounting and trained
upward. It is well preserved with a small amount of fishing gear snagged
around the barrel. Due to the low visibility and strong currents it proved
difficult to obtain accurate measurements with the ISS camera. However it
appears that the calibre of the gun is larger than 10cm. The gun is fitted with
a horizontally sliding breech block and top-mounted recoil cylinders. A
comparison with all small calibre naval guns in use during WWI shows that
it might be a German 10.5 cm/45 (4.1") Ubts L/45. This gun was in service
from 1907. It was used to arm cruisers, but during World War I was also
fitted on destroyers and submarines. A 10.5cm Ubts L/45 gun from U-98 is
preserved in the Imperial War Museum, London (D. 2006) (Figure 18).
3.3.17
The aft gun is also attached to its mounting but has fallen over to the port
side. This gun appears to be the standard German U-boat gun of WWI, the
8.8 cm/30 (3.46") Ubts L/30. The gun is attached to a circular mounting
rather than the collapsible mounting used on some U-boats. The 8.8cm L/30
Schnelladekanone was originally developed for river and coastal gunboats by
Krupp in 1898. During WWI it became the standard U-boat armament. An
8.8cm L/30 gun which has been lifted off the wreck of UB-61 is on display
in the Bavarian Army Museum in Ingolstadt (Thuro 2006) (Figure 19).
3.3.18
On the conning tower, the mountings for three periscopes are visible. The
two main periscope mountings are situated on top of the conning tower,
forward of the escape hatch. Both periscopes were operated from the conning
tower. The mountings seem to be empty and the periscopes could not be
seen. The mounting for the emergency periscope is situated just forward of
the conning tower. The emergency periscope was operated from the control
room (Figure 17).
3.3.19
The column for the bridge steering wheel is situated forward of the two main
periscopes. The main steering controls were located in the conning tower, but
additional steering wheels were situated on the bridge, in the control room
and aft in the torpedo room. Figure 17 shows the bridge steering column in
use in 1916.
3.3.20
The U-boat’s ventilation system has collapsed onto the upper deck and is
lying across the hull aft of the conning tower (Figure 19).
3.3.21
At the stern the two propellers are still attached to the shafts. The port
propeller is missing one of its blades. An intact blade could be measured with
the scaling camera. The blade is 75cm long and 40cm wide (Figure 20).
3.4
ANALYSIS
Build: The MS-type uboats
3.4.1
The Ms (Mobilmachungs/ mobilisation) type U-boats were part of the
general German mobilisation plan for World War I. The construction of 17
U-boats had been anticipated for the war. Five boats based on U-43 were to
be built by the KW Danzig shipyard and another 12 boats, based on U-19,
were to be built by the Weser shipyard in Bremen and the Germania shipyard
20
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
in Kiel. These boats were U-51 to 56, U-60 to 62 and U-81 to 91 (Rößler
1997).
3.4.2
Originally, all Ms-boats were to be built without changes according to the
plans of the types they were based on. However, the first few months of the
war showed that some radical changes were necessary to improve the
performance of existing designs. The dive time was reduced from three or
four minutes to one minute, all boats were equipped with two deck guns, and
the hydroplanes were improved. The Germania shipyard in Kiel also changed
the general shape of the hull to improve speed and handling of the boats
(Rößler 1997).
3.4.3
The Ms-type U-boats U-81 to U-86 were ordered from the Germania
shipyard in Kiel in June 1915, when it was becoming apparent that losses of
oceangoing U-boats was affecting the operational capabilities of the German
U-boat force. The very short intended construction time of 11 to 12 months
necessitated a change of engine. All U-81 type boats were equipped with
MAN diesel engines rather than the original GW engines. This meant that
while the general appearance and layout of the boats was very similar to the
U-63 type boats, the engine room layout was copied from the originally
MAN equipped U-51 type (Rößler 1997).
Build: The Germania shipyard
3.4.4
In 1863 the shipbuilder Theodor Christian Bruhn founded a shipyard in
Gaarden near Kiel. The yard was sold in 1864 and became the
“Norddeutsche Schiffbaugesellschaft Berlin”. When this company went
bankrupt in 1879, the yard was taken over and renamed to “Schiff- und
Maschinenbau AG Germania” in 1882. The Germania shipyard built
warships as well as merchantmen, but specialised in torpedo boats. In 1902
the yard was taken over by the large German steel manufacturer Krupp and
renamed to “Friedr. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft Germaniawerft”. Krupp
modernised and enlarged the yard.
3.4.5
Encouraged by the Spanish engineer Rymondo Lorenzo d’EquevilleyMontjustin, Krupp started building an experimental U-boat, the so called
“Forelle” in 1902. Although no further boats of this type were built, the
Forelle proved to be very successful and was used to advertise the U-boat
building capabilities of the Germania shipyard. In March 1904 the Russian
Navy ordered three large U-boats based on the Forelle design, the Karp,
Karass and Kambala, and also bought the original Forelle (Rössler 1990).
3.4.6
The success of Germania shipyard U-boats also convinced the German Navy
to look into U-boat construction. In 1904 the first German Navy U-boat, U-1
was ordered from the Germania yard. This boat is still preserved in the
German Museum in Munich. Throughout the pre-war period and the First
World War the Germania yard built a total of 100 U-boats including eight
large merchant U-boats/U-cruisers of the Deutschland class.
21
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
Use: U-86 Technical Specifications
3.4.7
U-86 (Construction No 256) was ordered at the Germania shipyard in Kiel on
the 23 June 1915. The keel was laid on 5 November 1915. The boat was
launched on 7 November 1916. (Rößler 1997) (Figure 21).
3.4.8
The boat had the following technical specifications:
Displacement (m³) surfaced
Displacement (m³) submerged
Length (m)
Beam (m)
Draught (m)
Propulsion Main (no. x hp)
Propulsion EL (no. x hp)
Fuel Capacity
Speed surfaced (kn)
Speed submerged (kn)
Range surfaced (nm/kn)
Range submerged (nm/kn)
Armament
Crew
808
946
70.1
6.3
4.0
2x 1200 Diesel MAN
2x 600 EM
81+38
16.8
9.1
11200/8
56/5
2 bowtubes, 2 sterntubes, 8 torpedoes (50cm),
originally 2 x 8.8cm guns, archaeological
evidence for U-86 shows that the bow gun has
been replaced by a 10.5cm gun
35
Use: The history of U-86
3.4.9
U-86 was commissioned on 30 November, 1916. Its first commander was
Kapitänleutnant Friedrich Crüsemann, who was in charge of the boat until 22
June, 1917. On 23 June, 1917 Kapitänleutnant Alfred Götze took over as
commander. Oberleutnant zur See Helmut Patzig was the last commander of
U-86. He was appointed on 26 January, 1918 and served on the boat until it
was surrendered at the end of the war on 11 November, 1918.
3.4.10
In 1917 and 1918 U-86 was assigned to the 4th U-Flotilla. Altogether the boat
conducted 12 patrols (Helgason 2006) and sank a total of 33 ships (125,580
tons), warships excluded.
3.4.11
As an example for the general activity of U-86, information for the year 1918
has been extracted from the German naval war diary. During that year U-86
conducted operations in the Skagerrak, the Irish Sea, the North Sea and the
Bristol Channel. The following ships were sunk:
-
Kafue (6044grt), British steamer, on 1 May;
-
Medora (5135grt), British steamer, on 3 May;
-
Leeds City (4298grt), British steamer, on 7 May;
-
San Andres (1656grt), Norwegian steamer on 12 May;
22
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
-
Atlantian (9399grt), British steamer, on 26 June; and
-
Covington (16,339grt), US troop transport, on 1 July.
Year 2 Report
(Admiralstab der Marine: Abteilung A, 1917-1918).
3.4.12
In 1918 U-86 was involved in one of the worst war crimes committed by a uboat commander during the First World War, the sinking of the British
hospital ship Llandovery Castle and the subsequent murder of surviving crew
members in the water.
3.4.13
Detailed information on the sinking of the Llandovery Castle and the
subsequent trial of U-86’s officers in 1920 has been extracted from the book
The Leipzig Trials (Mullins, 1921).
3.4.14
The Llandovery Castle, clearly marked as a hospital ship and known to the
German government as such, was en route from England to Halifax with
nurses, officers and men of the Canadian Medical Corps on board when she
was torpedoed by U-86 in the evening of June 27 1918, about 116nm southwest of Fastnet. Of the 258 persons on board only 24 survived.
3.4.15
According to witness statements at the Leipzig war crime trial the
commander of U-86, Oberleutnant zur See Patzig, gave the order to torpedo
the Llandovery Castle even though he knew that she was a hospital ship, the
sinking of which was illegal under international law and the Hague
convention.
3.4.16
After the war Patzig fled the country and only the first and second officer of
U-86, Dithmar and Boldt could be arrested and tried for their action in the
incident.
3.4.17
Even though the Llandovery Castle sank within ten minutes, a number of
boats were lowered successfully and the ship was abandoned in a calm and
efficient manner. Three boats ultimately survived the sinking of the vessel
undamaged and proceeded to rescue survivors from the water. They were
interrupted by Patzig, who intercepted the boats and started interrogating
crew members to obtain proof of the misuse of the hospital ship as an
ammunition carrier. When no proof could be obtained, Patzig gave the
command “Ready for Submerging” and ordered the crew below deck. Only
himself, the two accused officers and the boatswain’s mate Meissner stayed
on deck.
3.4.18
However the U-boat did not dive, but started firing at and sinking the life
boats to kill all witnesses and cover up what had happened. To conceal this
event, Patzig extracted promises of secrecy from the crew, and faked the
course of U-86 in the logbook so that nothing would connect U-86 with the
sinking of the Llandovery Castle.
3.4.19
As a result of the Leipzig trial, both Dithmar and Boldt were sentenced to
four years of hard labour. Patzig, with whom the responsibility for the
incident rested, was never found and prosecuted. Dithmar and Boldt were
23
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
both released from prison after a few months due to the political changes in
Germany.
3.4.20
U-86 was in the first group of U-boats that were handed over to the allies as
part of the armistice treaty at the end of the war. She was taken from
Brunsbüttel to Harwich on November 20, 1918 (Rößler 1997). From
September 1919 to March 1920, U-86 was commissioned into the Royal
Navy to test her design and make comparisons with other classes and later
designs (McCartney 2003).
Loss: The sinking of U-86
3.4.21
After decommissioning, U-86 was dumped at sea at the end of June 1921.
The wreck of U-86 was found within 2nm of the historic dumping position.
The damage at bow and stern of the U-boat suggests that in addition to
flooding the tanks, charges were used to blow off the bow and stern sections.
This indicates that rather than sinking due to a parted tow as suggested in
Innes McCartney’s book on submarine wrecks in the English Channel
(McCartney 2003), U-86 was intentionally scuttled at the position it was
found.
3.5
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION
3.5.1
The following section is based on the assessment that is normally carried out
during an archaeological desk-based study as part of an aggregate dredging
license application.
3.5.2
It assumes that site WA 1003 has been encountered in an aggregate
extraction area and based on the information above identifies significant
effects and proposes mitigation.
Baseline summary
3.5.3
The wreck of a previously unknown submarine was found in the study area.
The general site extents could be established by means of sidescan sonar and
multibeam survey. Including all outlying debris, the site measures 80m x
50m.
3.5.4
During an extensive ROV survey the site was identified as the German MStype ocean-going WW1 U-boat. Subsequent documentary research has
identified the wreck as U-86, which was scuttled in 1921. The wreck is well
preserved apart from damage at bow and stern which appears to have been
caused during the scuttling of the vessel. Much of the U-boat’s protective
outer casing has corroded away or been damaged by trawling, but the
pressure hull of the vessel is largely intact.
3.5.5
The U-boat was scuttled without loss of life and it is unlikely that the wreck
contains live ammunition.
Previous Disturbance
3.5.6
Site WA 1003 has been affected by trawl fishing. Trawl nets were observed
around the superstructure of the U-boat. The collapsed stern gun and exhaust
24
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
system aft of the conning tower are also likely to be a result of trawl or net
snags.
3.5.7
The survival of large non-ferrous items such as the propeller and torpedo
tubes suggest that the site has not been subject to salvage or other types of
human interference.
Importance
3.5.8
There are no preserved examples of WWI German U-boats anywhere in the
world, and these vessels only survive as wrecks on the seabed. U-86 is a
particularly well preserved example of a U-boat and is also the only one of
the six U-81 series U-boats to have been located and identified. Although
construction plans for a number of different German U-boat types survive in
the German archives and in private collections, no detailed plans are
available for U-86.
3.5.9
The link to the sinking of the Llandovery Castle adds a historical significance
to the wreck of U-86.
3.5.10
Due to the rarity of survival and its association with a historical event, WA
1003 can be considered of high archaeological importance.
Impacts
3.5.11
Possible impacts include direct damage to the wreck structure and contents,
disturbance of archaeological contexts and destabilisation of the site leading
to increased decay and corrosion.
Effects
3.5.12
Dredging within the immediate vicinity of the wreck would have an adverse
effect on the archaeological remains.
Mitigation
3.5.13
In general the preferred means of mitigation is the preservation in situ of
archaeological material, and in the case of WA 1003 the implementation of
an exclusion zone around is proposed.
3.5.14
The ROV survey allowed the establishing of the extents of the site so that the
limits of the exclusion zone can be accurately defined.
3.5.15
An exclusion zone measuring 100m in length and 50m in width would be
proposed for site WA 1003.
25
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
4
Year 2 Report
REFERENCES
392nd BG Association, 2006, 'WWW.b24.NET: Second Generation Research',
www.b24.net.
Admiralstab der Marine: Abteilung A, 1917-1918, Kriegstagebuch Band 2: U-86 der
IV U-Flottille.
Craven, W. F. and Cate, J. L. (ed.), The Army Air Forces in World War II, Vol I-VI,
Washington DC: Office of Air Force History, 1983.
D., T., 2006, 'Navweaps', http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_4145_skc06.htm.
Campbell, Adele (ed), Military Aircraft Crash Sites: Archaeological guidance on
their significance and future management, Swindon: English Heritage, 2002.
Gustin, E., 2006, 'Aircraft Strength and Losses',
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/strength.html.
Helgason, G., 2006, 'WW1 U-boats: U-86',
http://uboat.net/wwi/boats/index.html?boat=86.
Larn, R. and Larn, B., 1995, Shipwreck Index of the British Isles. Volume 2:
Hampshire Isle of Wight Sussex Kent(Mainland) Kent (Downs) Goodwin Sands
Thames, London.
Leal, H. J. T., 1987, The History of Air Attack 1939-1945: Battle in the Skies over the
Isle of Wight, Newport.
Maw, N., 1999, World War One Channel wrecks: Vessels lost in the English Channel
1914-1918, Teddington.
McCartney, I., 2003, Lost Patrols. Submarine Wrecks of the English Channel,
Penzance.
McNeill, R., 2003, ROYAL AIR FORCE COASTAL COMMAND LOSSES of the
Second World War Vol.1: Aircraft and Crew Losses 1939-1941, Hersham.
Mullins, C., 1921, The Leipzig Trials, London.
National Museum of the United Staes Air Force, 2006, 'Consolidated B-24D
''Liberator''', http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b2-38.htm.
Philo, T., 2006, '8th AF Combat Losses in World War II',
http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml.
Rössler, E., 1990, Die deutschen Uboote und ihre Werften: eine Bilddokumentation
über den deutschen Ubootbau von 1935 bis heute, Bonn.
26
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund: Wrecks on the Seabed R2
Year 2 Report
Rössler, E., 1997, Die Unterseeboote der Kaiserlichen Marine, Bonn.
Thuro, J., 2006, 'U-boot Museen in Deutschland',
http://www.juergenthuro.de/html/8_8_wki.html.
Wessex Archaeology, 2006, 'Wrecks on the Seabed R2: Assessment, Evaluation and
Recording. Geophysical Report', Unpublished Report, 57452.
27
1001
1001
Seazone Licence Number 102003.005
NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
Digital data reproduced from Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Reference Number: 100020449.
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
Date:
Wessex
Archaeology
Location of site WA 1001.
Scale:
Path:
15_01_07
1:2,500
Revision Number:
Illustrator:
1
KMN
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2
Figure 1
Site plan of WA 1001 based on available data.
Wessex
Archaeology
Possible fuselage
Scarf/shirt
Exhaust
Leather strap
Engine 3
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
Possible wing
g2
Curved pipe
Intake
Engine 4 ?
Metal boxes
Possible fuselage
Engine 2
Tube
Illustrator:
Revision Number:
KMN
0
Figure 2
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\FieldworkRepVol_2\06_08_04
1:100
Path:
09/08/06
Date:
Wing 1
upside down
Scale:
Engine 1
Snorkel parka
Brac
Brackets
Plate A: Leading edge on wing 1, front view.
Plate B: Leading edge on wing 1 top view.
Plate C: Leading edge on wing 1 top view.
Wessex
Archaeology
Date:
04/08/06
Path:
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\Drawing Office\Report Figures\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Illustrator:
Wing structure of a Consolidated Liberator and leading edge of a wing on the seabed.
KMN
Figure 3
Turbosupercharger
Engine mount assembly
Reproduced from Consolidator
B-24 Liberator technical manual.
Engine
Plate A: Side view of engine assembly and mounting
of engine 1.
Wessex
Archaeology
Date:
04/08/06
Path:
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\Drawing Office\Report Figures\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Illustrator:
KMN
Engine assembly and mounting of a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp on a Consolidated Liberator.
Figure 4
Details of the Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp engine.
Wessex
Archaeology
Plate B: Close-up view of twin row cylinders on engine 1.
Plate A: Photographs of a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp engine.
Figure 5
Path:
KMN
04/08/06
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Date:
Illustrator:
Plate C: Details of cylinders and exhaust collector ring on engine 2.
Consolidated Liberator flattened tube intercooler.
Wessex
Archaeology
Plate B: Close-up view of flattened tube intercooler on wing 1.
Reproduced from Consolidated
B-24 Liberator technical manual.
KMN
Figure 6
07/08/06
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Path:
Illustrator:
Reproduced from Consolidated
B-24 Liberator technical manual.
Date:
Plate C: Position of intercooler in engine arrangment.
Plate A: Top view of flattened tube intercooler on wing 1.
Consolidated Liberator type B-2 turbosupercharger.
Wessex
Archaeology
Plate C: Photograph of supercharger on existing B-24.
Plate A: Turbosupercharger on engine 2.
Figure 7
Path:
KMN
07/08/06
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Date:
Illustrator:
Plate D: Detailed technical drawing of supercharger reproduced from Consolidated B-24 Liberator technical manual.
Plate B: Turbosupercharger on engine 1.
Plate A: Top view of oiltank on wing 1.
Plate B: Side view of oiltank on wing 1.
Oiltank
Engine
Turbosupercharger
Plate C: Oiltank arrangement reproduced from Consolidated B-24 Liberator technical manual.
Wessex
Archaeology
Consolidated Liberator engine oiltank.
Date:
07/08/06
Path:
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\Drawing Office\Report Figures\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Illustrator:
KMN
Figure 8
Plate A: Propeller on engine 2.
Distributor valve
spring housing
Dome breather
hole-nut
Dome
Lock screw dome
retaining nut
Piston
Stationary cam
Barrel-front half
Rotating cam
Cam slot roller
Stop locating
plate
Dome retaining nut
Limit stop rings
Rotating cam
bevel gear
Chevron packing
Blade butt
gear segments
Propeller
retaining nut
Plate B: Propeller on engine 1.
Blade
Packing nut
Barrel bolt
Barrel-rear
half
Thrust washer
Propeller
drive shaft
Governor
Engine nose
section
Plate C: Illustration of propeller
reproduced from Consolidated
B-24 Liberator technical manual.
Wessex
Archaeology
Date:
07/08/06
Path:
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\Drawing Office\Report Figures\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Consolidated Liberator hydromatic propeller assembly.
Illustrator:
KMN
Figure 9
Plate 4: Detail of label on parka.
Plate 2: Scarf or shirt with floral pattern.
Clothing from the Consolidated Liberator.
Wessex
Archaeology
Plate 3: Snorkel parka on engine 1.
Plate 1: Leather strap in structure.
Figure 10
Path:
KMN
04/08/06
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Date:
Illustrator:
Reproduced from History Preservation
Association, http://historypreservation.com.
Details of the Consolidated B-24 Liberator.
Wessex
Archaeology
Pilot tube
Truss
Power plant
(engine)
Wing centre section
Forward section
Reproduced from Consolidated B-24 Liberator technical manual.
Element recognised on seabed
Nose landing gear
Bottom panel assembly
Bomber's enclosure
Radio operator's floor
Pilots' floor
Main landing gear
Nose section
upper flight deck
Pilots' enclosure
Floor
Fuselage top deck
Deck
assembly
Power turret
Door bulkhead
Leading edge
Engine mount support
Turbosupercharger
Flap
Stabilizer vertical
Wing tip
Outer panel
trailing edge
KMN
Figure 11
04/08/06
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Path:
Illustrator:
Leading edge
Outer wing panel
Aileron
Centre section trailing edge
Stabilizer horizontal
Rudder
Date:
Engine mount assembly
Bomb bay doors
Bomb rack
Power turret
Tail bumper gear
Fuselage
Tail turret
Elevator assembly
1002
1002
Seazone Licence Number 102003.005
NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
Digital data reproduced from Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Reference Number: 100020449.
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
Date:
Wessex
Archaeology
Location of site WA 1002.
Scale:
Path:
15_01_07
1:5000
Revision Number:
Illustrator:
1
KMN
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2
Figure 12
Site plan of WA 1002.
Wessex
Archaeology
Anchor fluke.
Riveted plating.
Rigging fastening.
Patent anchor
Anchor shank in hawser hole
Seabed
Bow in section
Sketch plan
Hull
Bow
Anchor in
hawser hole
Rigging
fastening
Anchor windlass
Deck beams
Forward cargo hatch
Bollards
Split metal tube
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
Riveted hull plating
Anchor windlass.
Anchor chain.
Bollards.
Hole in hull
Illustrator:
Revision Number:
Fairlead.
Dense marine
growth on hull
KMN
0
Scour
Figure 13
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\FieldworkRepVol_2\06_08_04
1:200
Path:
09/08/06
Date:
Scale:
Piece of coal
Buckled metal planking
in portside
Upper deck
Scour
Stern
1003
1003
Seazone Licence Number 102003.005
NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
Digital data reproduced from Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Reference Number: 100020449.
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
Date:
Wessex
Archaeology
Location of site WA 1003.
Scale:
Path:
15_01_07
1:5000
Revision Number:
Illustrator:
1
KMN
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2
Figure 14
ss
dl
a
in
rly
ai
lf
H
ul
ct
ta
in
o
ed
rp
To
ng
di
lo
a
en
op
Ai
r
de Fo
r o rw
n ard
de g
ck un
cy
lin
e
Es
ca
p
Detail plan
ch
ha
t
ck
de
ris
eb
D
n
ro
de
in
yl
rc
Ai
on
ck
de
H
Es
Scale 1:500
(v Co
en ll
Af
til ap
Pi
at se
tg
ng
pe
ol
io d
un
d
s
n p
to
a
l
an ip
yi
ly
w
ja
n
in
e
er
d s
r
g
g
ex o
on
on
ha n d
d
si
us ec
ec
de
t) k
k
ni
on
C
U-63 section (reversed) is courtesy of Tony Lovell of www.dreadnoughtproject.org
U-86 plan from Bibliothek für Zeitgeschichte in der Würtembergischen Landesbibliothek, Marinearchiv
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
se
d
cl
o
Bow
Anchor
Bow broken at bulkhead
Anchor windlass
Torpedo loading hatch
Forward gun
Escape hatch
Pipes
Conning tower
Pipes
Aft gun lying on side
Escape hatch open
Torpedo loading hatch
Stern broken at bulkhead
Propeller
Site plan of WA 1003 based on multibeam data and dockyard plans of the U-63 type u-boat.
Wessex
Archaeology
h
tc
ha
Longitudal section (reversed) based on U-63 type sub
bl
e
vi
si
rw
ch
o
An
rly
le
a
rc
ch
o
An
Outline base U-86 type sub
Damaged torpedo tube
Stern
ca
pe
ha
tc
h
op
en
do
To
rp
e
h
tc
ha
rp
e
do
tu
Bu
be
lk
he
Pr
op
ad
le
el
r
Illustrator:
Revision Number:
KMN
0
Scale 1:200
Metal casing corroded
Damaged hull
Figure 15
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\FieldworkRepVol_2\06_08_04
to
1:500 plan 1:200 elevation
ed
Path:
09/08/06
am
ag
Scale 1:50
Scale:
Date:
g
in
ad
lo
D
Bow section angled towards seabed
Torpedo tube fully exposed
Portside broken up
Anchor windlass
Bow broken at bulkhead
Wessex
Archaeology
Details of bow section of U-86.
D
Plate A: Anchor.
A
B
C
Plate D: Hull structure at the bow.
Plate B: Windlass.
U-63 plan is courtesy of Tony Lovell of www.dreadnoughtproject.org
KMN
Figure 16
Path:
Illustrator:
04/08/06
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Date:
Plate C: Torpedo tube in forward collision bulkhead.
The windlass driveshaft is visible above the torpedo tube.
Details of conning tower section of U-86.
Wessex
Archaeology
Plate C: Conning tower.
Plate B: Periscope mountings with steering column in foreground.
Plate A: Steering column forward of periscope mountings.
Plate D: Conning tower hatch open.
C
A
Figure 17
Path:
Illustrator:
04/08/06
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Date:
KMN
Plate F: Front view of U-86 conning tower, 1917.
Plate E: Conning tower of U-86 in 1916. The steering column and periscope
mountings are clearly visible. The metal casing visible in the photograph has corroded away.
D
U-63 plan is courtesy of Tony Lovell of www.dreadnoughtproject.org
Archive U-boat photographs from www.juergenthuro.de
Archive photographs from the Bibliothek fuer Zeitgeschichte in
der Wuertembergischen Landesbibliothek, Marinearchiv.
B
Details forward of the conning tower of U-86.
Wessex
Archaeology
Plate C: Forward 10.5cm Ubts L/45 gun.
Plate A: Forward escape hatch.
Plate B: Forward torpedo loading hatch.
B
U-63 plan is courtesy of Tony Lovell of www.dreadnoughtproject.org
Archive U-boat photographs from www.juergenthuro.de
Archive photographs from the Bibliothek fuer Zeitgeschichte in
der Wuertembergischen Landesbibliothek, Marinearchiv.
C
KMN
Figure 18
04/08/06
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Path:
Illustrator:
Plate D: Engineer leaning against gun on the
fore-deck of a U-86 in June 1917.
Date:
A
Details of the rear gun of U-86.
Wessex
Archaeology
Plate A: 8,8cm U-Boot Schnelladekone L/30
on its side on the back deck of U-86.
U-63 plan is courtesy of Tony Lovell of www.dreadnoughtproject.org
Archive U-boat photographs from www.juergenthuro.de
Archive photographs from the Bibliothek fuer Zeitgeschichte in
der Wuertembergischen Landesbibliothek, Marinearchiv.
KMN
Figure 19
Path:
Illustrator:
04/08/06
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Date:
Plate C: Back deck of a U-86 in Bristol 1919.
Plate B: 8,8cm U-Boot Schnelladekone L/30
preserved in the Bayrisches Armeemuseum, Ingolstadt.
Details on the back deck of U-86.
Wessex
Archaeology
Plate A: Debris of exhaust system aft of conning tower.
Plate B: Debris on back deck.
U-63 plan is courtesy of Tony Lovell of www.dreadnoughtproject.org
Archive U-boat photographs from www.juergenthuro.de
A
Path:
Date:
B
Illustrator:
KMN
C
Figure 20
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\DO\RepFigs\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
04/08/06
Plate C: Aft torpedo loading hatch.
Plate A:Damaged torpedo tube.
A
B
Plate B: Propeller.
U-63 plan is courtesy of Tony Lovell of www.dreadnoughtproject.org
Wessex
Archaeology
Details at the stern of U-86.
Date:
09/08/06
Path:
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\Drawing Office\Report Figures\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Illustrator:
KMN
Figure 21
0
15 m
Plan reversed
A: Plan of U-86 (Roessler 1997).
B: U-86 surfaced under British flag as H.M. Submarine U-86, photograph from the Bibliothek fuer Zeitgeschichte in
der Würtembergischen Landesbibliothek, Marinearchiv.
Wessex
Archaeology
Date:
04/08/06
Path:
S:\Wrecks_on_the _Seabed\57454E\Drawing Office\Report Figures\Fieldwork report Vol_2\06_08_04
Dockyard plan of U-86 and photo showing the u-boat surfaced.
Illustrator:
KMN
Figure 22
WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED.
Head Office: Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 6EB.
Tel: 01722 326867 Fax: 01722 337562 [email protected] www.wessexarch.co.uk
London Office: Unit 113, The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7QY.
Tel: 020 7953 7494 Fax: 020 7953 7499 [email protected] www.wessexarch.co.uk
Registered Charity No. 287786. A company with limited liability registered in England No. 1712772.