Lusitania's Secret Cargo

[RMLI_SGT]

The nearly century-old debate about whether the passenger liner Lusitania was transporting British war munitions when torpedoed by a German U-boat is over.

www.archaeology.org/0901/trenches/lusitania.html

[oskar2ndchev]

I wonder if the Germans were fully aware that there were munitions on board the Lusitania or if they just sank the ship not knowing.

Guess I'll have to do some reading up here.

[rmli]

I saw a program about this the other night. Small arms ammunition was on the cargo manifest. However, she had to have been carrying other munitions (explosives) not listed in order to blow a massive hole in her starboard bow.

[rsm2ndbtnlf]

That wasn't explosives that blew the ships hull out, it was the gas from the ships stokers who were playing cards and drinking beer in their mess. Someone lit-up a fag.. thus igniting the dangerous and highly inflamable gasses emmited!

Seph

[goldeagle1939]

Very interesting. However, the "ammuntion" in the picture, I can't tell if it is .303 or not. If it is, then they have done nothing more than prove what the shipping manifest said it had been carrying. I don't mean to side with any side just my observation that is all. but good find on the article.

[oskar2ndchev]

This is going to be a real dumb question but I'm sure the experts here will help me out:

Just how volatile is small-arms ammunition if it's blown up- i.e., if a torpedo hits the ship and that hit happens to occur where the ammunition is stored, would that explosion be enough to set off a secondary explosion of the small arms ammunition?

If the torpedo detonated away from where the small-arms ammunition is stored, then it would simply go down with the ship. Judging from the samples, the cases looks intact.

I've read about situations during the Vietnam War where it was almost impossible to destroy captured stockpiles of small-arms ammuntion with explosives because the explosive blast would tend to scatter the rounds rather than destroy them.

If the ammunition was of higher caliber (i.e. artillery shells), perhaps the case would be different.

Just some thoughts...

[goldeagle1939]

Yeah adam that went through my mind too....Ummm?

[oskar2ndchev]

It's interesting one way or the other. The one thing that can be safely said is that no matter what was the case, it was a propaganda victory for the British and they would have been fools to let it pass.

[rsm2ndbtnlf]

OK.. seriously..

The ammo in the pic is .303.inch, however, I'm rather sceptical of any info regarding the ammunitions previous location.. unless I see it sitting in situ in the Lucitania. Whoever these so called professional divers were, they certainly don't uphold the international laws of safety which state that any live ordnance found should be left in situ. The rounds are wet and muddy.. so what? Anyone can set that up. Also, due to the rounds being somewhat corroded.. these could well have come from a find in Flanders, or one of the thousands of finds each year from WW1 battlefields.

My opinnions are still open until firm and conclusive evidence is produced.

Seph

[rmli]

Just a thought, maybe the torpedo could have hit an empty coal bunker. She was near completing her voyage and probably had some empty coal bunkers. Coal dust is extremely explosive. BTW, a coal bunker explosion is what sank the USS Maine.

[rsm2ndbtnlf]

Thats a very valid point that you make Phil.

Personally, I don't care if the Lusitania was carrying nothing more than Mills grenades.... the ship was torpedoed... historical fact. The Germans threatened to sink the ship even before she left port... historical fact. Germanys threat was published on the same page in the newspaper, and by the side of the announcement of the ships sailing and destination... historical fact.

Whats done is done, so why are there always some self appointed saviours of history, trying to make themselves a name by changing history, announcing that they have proved an unprovable fact... just to get their names in the papers???

The ship was sunk, torpedoed by the Imperial German Navy.. and that fact has been proven by the Germans themselves through investigation of the U.Boat commanders logbook.

By highlighting the .303rds that they may or may not have found onboard the wreck, what have they achieved? Nothing really, as the ships load manifest states quite clearly that small arms ammunition was on board. Every civilian ship has to declare ammunition, even if they are only carrying one round. So.. whats all the hullaballoo about?

Now then.. if they were to find a part of a label which has the ammunitions batch number, and that could not be matched to the ships maniifest.. thats when I would start to listen. A batch number can tell you where, when, how much, and by whom.

Seph

[goldeagle1939]

Good point Seph.

It is like the Titanic. every couple of years they come up with a new theory as to how she "really" sank and then go on an expedition to prove it.

It's doesn't matter if the titanic ran aground on the Ice berg, or she hit it, side on just as was described in the final reports, She sank either way.

Like I said I thought those were the .303 rounds they found in the wreck but the picture was so close up, to me they could have been light field gun ammunition.

Here is something though someone might be able to help me with. I think it was three years ago that I went to a lecture on WWI at my local museum. ( I knew the guys puting it on) They talked briefly about the Lusitania and from what I remember, they said that the only way a German boat was permitted to fire on a passenger ship was if she had mounts for deck guns. I don't belive the Lusitania had deck gun mounts, did she?

I am still fairly knew to WWI as a whole and I am in the process of learning about all the causes and effects that lead to, happened durring, and lead to the end of the war. So if what I heard was wrong, please by all means set me straight.

[rsm2ndbtnlf]

Mike, The Lusitania was an ocean going liner of top class, the holder of the Blue Ribbon (fastest liner to cross the Atlantic), and sported no deck gun, mounts for deck guns, or ordnance of any kind to make herself a visible target.

The U-Boat responcible is the U-20, and the Lucitania lies approx 8-miles of the Irish Coast in the Irish Sea, at an approximate depth of 250.feet. Its been dived on continuosly since 1940. Her propellers are gone for salvage... and so it goes on! The liner lies on the opposite side to where it was hit, and has neraly collapsed upon itself. The last recorded dive is 2008, and that researcher noted that it was vertually impossible to make any valuable arceologcal research upon the vessel, due to the vandalism caused by the amout of sports divers and souviner hunters.

Supposedly, the present owner of the wrech has stated in a press release that his (ahem!) professional divers have found over 2-million rounds of ammunition! What??.. have they taken their lives in their hands and counted every one? I don't think so!!

Seph

[goldeagle1939]

Thank you Seph for clearing that up for me. I didn't think the Lusitania had deck guns or mounts for such.

Your right though. When I first read this article, it sounded a little strange. To me some diver wanting to make his name.

[oskar2ndchev]

I hate to have to throw this in...

The Lusitania, like many British ocean liners of the period were built with the aid of government subsidies with the understanding that they were subject to being called up during wartime as auxiliary cruisers. In the Lusitania and Mautetanias' case, the British overnment agreed to a 2.6 million pound loan to build the two plus operating subsidies and contracts to carry the Royal Mail. The Lusitania's sister ship the Mauretania was called up as a troop transport but the Lusitania was never called up for formal war service (although the Cunard Line had been put on notice that this would be eventually happening). Also, as part of the deal, the Lusitania and Mauretania were fitted with deck gun mountings but in the Lusitania's case no deck guns were ever mounted.

Kind of moot at this point since the Lusitania was operating as a civilian ocean liner and had not been formally called up and converted. Had she been operating as a troop transport, things would have been different.

Also, I seriously doubt if the Germans were torpedoing her for whatever munitions might be on board (or if they were even aware of what was on board)- a freighter would have made for a better expenditure of a torpedo if munitions had been the target.

Basically, this was part of Germany's unrestricted submarine campaign which basically meant anything flying a British or other Allied flag was subject to attack, no matter what it was. This was pretty much escalation and Germany was playing for high stakes. At the same time, bear in mind that not all of Germany's military leadership was convinced that unrestructed submarine warfare was a good idea. However, in the face of a very negative American reaction, for a time the Kaiser ordered a reverse in policy, much to the dismay of Tirpitz and the rest of the admirals.