Hi all,
This is a question that’s been nagging away at me for a few weeks now, since news first broke of the double recovery taking place in Norway of the Heinkel 111 and Junkers 88.
As we now know, both aircraft had been force landed onto a frozen lake, parts salvaged from them, and then left to sink to the lake bed when the surface thawed during the spring. For over sixty years their locations and identities have been known (although understandably after sixty years, the knowledge wasn’t widespread), yet during most of that time any recovery plans had been blocked as the local authorities were concerned about recovery operations resulting in further damage to the airframes and subsequent pollution of the local water supply.
Yet now, as the sunken airframes had started to show signs of releasing their fuel and oil loads into the lake, the time has been deemed right to raise them, thereby removing the possibility of further future pollution.
Sounds like a nice easy equation doesn’t it? Leave it down there for fear of ruining the environment, until it starts to leak, and then we’ll lift it up and get rid of it elsewhere. Except no sunken airframe is the same as the next one. These two were known types, in known locations, in fresh water, with parts and possibly some of the potential pollutants already removed prior to their sinking. And no crew members aboard.
But what happens in other instances? A four engined British heavy bomber is said to be lying on the bottom of a lake in Norway; it’s location and type are known, and again the lake is said to be the source of local drinking water. So surely this airframe will soon start to leak, therefore will have to come up. But there are complications; it still carries it’s unexploded bomb load, and possibly the remains of some crew members. What happens here? The situation has numerous factors; environmental, moral, and safety. Can the aircraft be raised, the crew members identified and repatriated and the ordnance made safe? Or will the local water supply and ecosystem have to suffer the contamination?
And what of aircraft lying in salt water, in coastal fjords? We all know that salt water corrodes faster than fresh; look at the USS Arizona, lying in Pearl Harbor. She leaks fuel oil from her bunkers daily, which is a cause of great concern for the Hawaiian authorities. Okay, a battleship is a far larger object than an aircraft, with a far higher impact upon the environment, but sunken aircraft will eventually corrode and release their pollutants. To go back to the cookie-laden bomber, what will happen when the bomb casing corrodes? Could the weapon still detonate after sixty-plus years underwater?
As I say, it’s an area which has nagged away at me for a few weeks. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts…
Steve
By: Flood - 15th September 2004 at 20:06
Setter – thanks, but what I was refering to was ordnance going off whilst being dug up, ie, from crash sites. I believe the Belgian army frequently has to deal with unexploded mustard gas shells from WWI – without them inadvertantly going off (apparently, in the highly unlikely event that they have managed to keep it very quiet): that is the sort of thing I mean.
Flood
By: TEXANTOMCAT - 15th September 2004 at 17:48
We deal with EOD all the time at The Museum and the worst culprets are British and American 20 mils – as well as phosporus tipped (silver paint) .50 cals – be warned guys……even if they look good, they probably ain’t
We did a P-38 dig a few years back when a developer was building new houses on a known crash site – we warned em, they mangled the wreckage and spread it over the site. EOD closed the site down for six months, cost the developer thousands – and even now, people are digging up 20mm ammo in their back gardens….profit over safety…
By: Denis - 15th September 2004 at 17:41
On a side note to the USS Montgomery tale one of the most fascinating places I have been to was Fauld in Staffordshire. This was the site of the largest Explosion in the UK when I think thousands of tons of Bombs detonated while in underground storage in the former Gypsum mines in 1944. it broke windows 40 miles away, the farm on top of the hill and its occupants dissapeared without trace.read from the link below.
http://www.carolyn.topmum.net/tutbury/fauld/fauldcrater.htm
Nuthampstead near Royston , home of the 398th BG had its Bomb dump in Scales Park during the war, ordnance was still present and had to be dealt with as late as the mid sixties, nearly twenty years after the airfield was closed.
Dengie Marshes off the Essex coast and near to RAF Bradwell was used as a live firing and bombing target, the Royal Navy still maintain a constant presence there dealing with all manner of items that regulary emerge from the mud.
Heres a true tale with a twist, Some years ago I was loading a truck in Hamburg, one of my collections involved going off to a small industrial estate on the outskirts of the city, when I arrived there were police everywhere, after failing to gain entry I asked one of the police officers what was going on and he told me that they had just dug up an unexploded bomb, I replied by saying that they still found bombs in London from the war, Bombs in London? he asked, yes I said, who’s bombs he replied, well er …your bombs, German bombs he said?, well I replied, I dont think anyone else dropped bombs on London (trying to be diplomatic) again he said German Bombs? How could they have possibly failed to go off! 🙂 .
By: setter - 15th September 2004 at 15:36
Hi Phillip
chances are that the bombs aren’t “armed” because the fuses haven’t “spun down” – they need to have the pins pulled and then the prop spins the fuse to arm it – as in being dropped – That doesn’t mean they aren’t unstable but probably not armed.
Regards
John P
PS I’m busy that weekend
By: Phillip Rhodes - 15th September 2004 at 15:25
It is said that there is a Halifax BIII bomber lying at the bottom of a lake near Berlin. No crew remains, but a full bomb load, which is scattered around the virtually complete wreck. The locals know about it and no one is allowed to dive on her. The bomb load is the real problem – said to be very unstable. My opinion is that until such time as someone can prove this airframe is a danger, she should remain. I also don’t believe that you should recover any airframe until you have a fully funded recovery and restoration schedule in place and a covered home. In these cases the best preservation plan is one that involves leaving her alone.
By: setter - 15th September 2004 at 11:47
Hi Flood
Trust me stuff goes off every day
It depends on it’s state and if it was armed or not and what state the fuse /trigger is but stuff does go off every day.
An example is a current UN contract to remove 5 million WW11 landmines in Africa etc – most of these are armed and about 30% are perfectly functional. Same goes for bombs – depending on state of preservation so two out of three times you CAN wack it with a hammer and third time you won’t worry about it anyway.
Regards
John
By: Flood - 15th September 2004 at 11:39
Look at the problem with the USS Montgomery in the Thames Estuary, its cargo of Bombs has now become front line news again.
Interesting that this info was apparently taken from The Wrecker’s Guide To South West Devon – Part One – you’d think there was more than enough bits of rusting metal in the oggin down there without importing tales from the other side of the country…
I believe that there is an HMS Hood used in the building of the breakwaters at the former Portland Naval Base – this could be what Arm Waver was confusing with the Royal Oaks war grave/eco hot-spot designation.
Has any ordnance ever gone off whilst being dug up (there was something in Germany a couple of years ago, I believe) or even dredged up? I can understand the concerns but if the old ‘don’t hit it with a hammer and it won’t bite back’ adage has worked then what disproves that idea?
Flood
By: JDK - 15th September 2004 at 09:47
To pick up on the ‘war grave’ and moral question Steve asked, the over-riding factor for the UK (and many other governments) is that they simply can’t afford to bring back and bury the war dead. So leaving things undisturbed, where possible, is a ‘best compromise’ in the circumstances. When other factors (new dangers, contamanants etc) come into play, then a different decision can be made. We are very aware of the losses of W.W.II, but when you consider the number of wars the British Empire was involved in, and the Commonwealth, it makes one realise that while the Commonwealth war Graves Commission does a splendid job, it is but a fraction of those lost.
By: setter - 15th September 2004 at 08:48
Hi as a former ordinance officer let me say that the military perspective would always be from a safety perspective – unfortunately that usually means we would have exploded the ordinance.
There are safe ways of doing this without destruction such as steaming and where possible physical removal of stable material but only if it is possible or if the location doesn’t permit explosive destruction.
Unfortunately I have witnessed the destruction of several Warbirds through explosive detonation of ordinance and it is not a happy job to do or watch knowing the destruction and carnage that will result.
Given I am stupid and reckless I have taken risks on occasion to remove ammunition and shells that were “fairly stable” DUMB but at least the machines are still with us and so am I – older but not wiser – I did not see many bombs on Warbirds in PNG or other places – ammo yes but not bombs – one B17 in PNG being the exception – a full load!!! – I ran from that one as they were really unstable- It is still there (very Banged up) and no it wasn’t Swamp Ghost.
Anyway the point is that if you find ordinance stay away and get professional help before you need spiritual help!
Regards
John P
By: Arm Waver - 15th September 2004 at 08:43
Cheers I didn’t think I was right but brain fade hit me…
By: Manonthefence - 15th September 2004 at 08:33
Its not HMS Hood its the Royal Oak.
Whatever is left of Hood is in very small pieces and very deep.
Off to the USS Arizona in a couple of weeks, will post piccies on my return. Now back to the topic in hand…….
By: Arm Waver - 15th September 2004 at 07:50
The MoD have been engaged in defuelling – IIRC – HMS Hood. A designated war grave and yet full of fuel that is over time leaking and in increasing amounts. They have been working hard in consultation with appropriate parties to drain the fuel in a safe and yet totally respectful way – i.e. not entering the actual ship – the grave site.
When it comes to an airframes I personally think that if safe to do so they should be raised and any remains treated with the approriate respect and given a proper funeral/repatriation.
The condition of any bomb load should also be tackled. The Navy are still exploding mines and other ordanence after moving it to safe areas so maybe they could be treated the same way as mines etc.
Wouldn’t blowing these wrecks up just polute the waters anyway?
OAW
By: Denis - 15th September 2004 at 06:05
The bombs will still be potent. In fact even more so as the filling breaks down into its various chemical components, if the ordnance is accessible probably not too much of a problem but if the bombs are still on the racks in the bomb bay with the aircraft the right way up then it will be a downright dangerous task .
Look at the problem with the USS Montgomery in the Thames Estuary, its cargo of Bombs has now become front line news again.
By: crazymainer - 15th September 2004 at 00:23
Hi Steve,
Great topic,
Lets see if I can put this into a Yank view. Reguadless of what the US Navy says they must also follow US DEP regs. with this in mind there is an effort to recover three F4F and atleast one corsair because of the problem you have brought up.
The problem with any recovery is and those of us who have done them can tell you is $$$$$ and time . I was involved with the Qusuant Air Musuems F6F recovery and we were working against the clock that the US Coast guard had given the Musuem. In this case they basically said remove it or we are going to blow it up. the plane was a Hazard to Navagation. If you wouldlike to find out more about QAM recovery feel free to contact me off line becasue their is alot of Politics involved.
As for the USS Ariziona the main problem is it listed on the United States Historical Preservation List, this limits what the US Park Service can and can’t do with her. there is some talk of drilling a small hole into the main oil bunkers and drain the oil. but like I said its a rather sticky subject.
I know that I was on a survey of a FAA/RN Corsair that had Live ammo on it and we decide that is was not worth are lives to try to recover or even procede with the operations. I guess when it comes down to live ammo on board I would rather have the Military experts to come in and tell me what they think if they say the best thing to do is to blow it up then I might not agree with it, but I have to look at the over all safety part. I know of three recoverys were the ammo was remove with out any Hitchs. but your right how much longer will some of these Bombs remain stable. Its just a matter of time till one leaks and the right counditions happen and the thing goes off. Lets hope its in deep water .
I don’t know if this helps or just lead to new questions.
Cheers Crazymainer
Sign In
September 14, 2004 at 11:36 pm