snip~
The wreck of a Nazi submarine sunk during World War II has been found off the coast of North Carolina, maritime authorities announced Tuesday. U-boat 576 was found just 240 yards from another wreck: the American freight ship, Bluefields, which it torpedoed in the Battle of the Atlantic in 1942. The twin wrecks were found just 30 miles off the North Carolina coast, the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration said.
more @
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wreck-nazi-u-boat-576-u-s-freighter-found-north-n231301 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wreck-nazi-u-boat-576-u-s-freighter-found-north-n231301)
A sonar image of the wreck of U-576, which has been found just 30 miles off the North Carolina coast.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.s-nbcnews.com%2Fj%2Fnewscms%2F2014_43%2F728366%2F141022-u-boat-576-15-hr_e582c412e6570650f08c58328a6091d4.nbcnews-ux-480-240.jpg&hash=c11989876512c2cc5c1e55d84d17be4d0285788e)
Quote from: walkstall on October 22, 2014, 07:22:10 AM
snip~
The wreck of a Nazi submarine sunk during World War II has been found off the coast of North Carolina, maritime authorities announced Tuesday. U-boat 576 was found just 240 yards from another wreck: the American freight ship, Bluefields, which it torpedoed in the Battle of the Atlantic in 1942. The twin wrecks were found just 30 miles off the North Carolina coast, the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration said.
more @
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wreck-nazi-u-boat-576-u-s-freighter-found-north-n231301 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wreck-nazi-u-boat-576-u-s-freighter-found-north-n231301)
A sonar image of the wreck of U-576, which has been found just 30 miles off the North Carolina coast.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.s-nbcnews.com%2Fj%2Fnewscms%2F2014_43%2F728366%2F141022-u-boat-576-15-hr_e582c412e6570650f08c58328a6091d4.nbcnews-ux-480-240.jpg&hash=c11989876512c2cc5c1e55d84d17be4d0285788e)
Cool. Looks to be in remarkably intact condition!
I always love how these journalistic pukes dive for that "Nazi" tag every time they can. "Wreck of Nazi U-Boat 576," as if the submarine has political leanings. The
Kriegsmarine was certainly the least politicized branch of the German military during the Nazi years, but in any case, I always marvel at the willingness of talking head types to characterize pieces of machinery as "Nazi."
QuoteGermany's foreign ministry said in a statement to the NOAA that the wreck "should, if possible, remain at their site and location to allow the dead to rest in peace.
Uh, no!!! Lets pull it up and see whats inside, then send the remains back to the families they left behind.
Could it be, Germany is hiding a dirty little secret? We won't know till we bring it top the surface.
Quote from: Solar on October 22, 2014, 08:30:44 AM
Uh, no!!! Lets pull it up and see whats inside, then send the remains back to the families they left behind.
Could it be, Germany is hiding a dirty little secret? We won't know till we bring it top the surface.
Leaving sunken warships in place to be graves of those KIA is pretty common - if not normal - practice. German U-boats had had an utter field day off the US coast earlier in 1942, so this boat was probably just on ordinary war patrol and sunk as a consequence of the US finally changing over to escorted convoys.
Quote from: SVPete on October 22, 2014, 09:33:55 AM
Leaving sunken warships in place to be graves of those KIA is pretty common - if not normal - practice. German U-boats had had an utter field day off the US coast earlier in 1942, so this boat was probably just on ordinary war patrol and sunk as a consequence of the US finally changing over to escorted convoys.
Yeah. Think USS Arizona, with the remains of 1,177 sailors still entombed. U-576 was indeed just one of many plying the eastern seaboard in 1942.
IIRC, some of the waters off the Pacific island of Truk are almost like a warships' and merchant ships' graveyard. Truk was a large Japanese base until USN carrier task forces attacked, sinking many warships and merchant ships. They are being left there, with the remains of of men killed, as graveyards.
Looking over U576's Wikipedia article, she was sunk on her second patrol in the Germans' operations off the US East Coast ("Drumbeat"), and had sunk two ships in her first patrol off the US. Her first patrol was probably before the US woke up to the serious losses when merchant ships were still allowed to sail individually, unconvoyed and unescorted. The ship she sunk before herself being sunk was in convoy, and the presence of the Kingfishers that started her end indicates an escort capable of carrying and launching seaplanes.
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 22, 2014, 07:45:37 AM
Cool. Looks to be in remarkably intact condition!
I always love how these journalistic pukes dive for that "Nazi" tag every time they can. "Wreck of Nazi U-Boat 576," as if the submarine has political leanings. The Kriegsmarine was certainly the least politicized branch of the German military during the Nazi years, but in any case, I always marvel at the willingness of talking head types to characterize pieces of machinery as "Nazi."
To the liberals the war is still going on :tounge:
It's pretty funny Karl Dönitz knew they would fail and said something to the effect of
"well, let us at least try our best..." upon hearing the news of the war, he wasn't even part of the inner circle of Hitler at that time. Of course he later became the Fuhrer. He was expecting at least 5 more years of military buildup and knew the kriegsmarine would be ineffective due to lack of numbers/wolfpacks.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHnyQXyuTGY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHnyQXyuTGY)
Quote from: SVPete on October 22, 2014, 09:33:55 AM
Leaving sunken warships in place to be graves of those KIA is pretty common - if not normal - practice. German U-boats had had an utter field day off the US coast earlier in 1942, so this boat was probably just on ordinary war patrol and sunk as a consequence of the US finally changing over to escorted convoys.
Sure, that's a nice sentiment, but don't kid yourself, no one follows the rules, not even us.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cia-soviet-submarine-sunken/2010/02/13/id/349826/ (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cia-soviet-submarine-sunken/2010/02/13/id/349826/)
Or this, where a nation raises their own dead. Keep in mind, there was a time when a ship was untouchable, so it became a graveyard in it's own rite.
The only way to insure they remain untouched, is to pass a worldwide ban on all salvage of any kind.
QuoteSeoul, South Korea (CNN) -- South Korea raised a naval ship from the floor of the Yellow Sea that sank under mysterious circumstances last month, Korea's Yonhap news agency reported Thursday.
The bodies of at least 25 of the 45 missing sailors believed to be in the hull of the navy corvette Cheonan were found in the hours after it was raised, Yonhap reported.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/04/15/south.korea.ship/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/04/15/south.korea.ship/index.html)
Quote from: Solar on October 24, 2014, 06:24:54 AM
Sure, that's a nice sentiment, but don't kid yourself, no one follows the rules, not even us.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cia-soviet-submarine-sunken/2010/02/13/id/349826/ (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cia-soviet-submarine-sunken/2010/02/13/id/349826/)
As I posted above,
QuoteLooking over U576's Wikipedia article, she was sunk on her second patrol in the Germans' operations off the US East Coast ("Drumbeat"), and had sunk two ships in her first patrol off the US. Her first patrol was probably before the US woke up to the serious losses when merchant ships were still allowed to sail individually, unconvoyed and unescorted. The ship she sunk before herself being sunk was in convoy, and the presence of the Kingfishers that started her end indicates an escort capable of carrying and launching seaplanes.
I don't see U576 as having been on any sort of special mission. She would not have risked such a mission by attacking the convoy which sunk her.
U576 was a Type VIIC U-Boat, nothing particularly special at the time, produced in large numbers. She has no technological secrets - strong points or weaknesses - that we would need to know of now, >70 years later.
Several Type VIIC U-Boats were captured at the end of the war. There is a Type VIIC U-Boat in a museum in Chicago. So there is no archaeological interest in U576.
There is simply no significant reason to expend the considerable $$ and effort that would be necessary to raise U576.
Quote from: SVPete on October 24, 2014, 06:35:48 AM
As I posted above,
I don't see U576 as having been on any sort of special mission. She would not have risked such a mission by attacking the convoy which sunk her.
U576 was a Type VIIC U-Boat, nothing particularly special at the time, produced in large numbers. She has no technological secrets - strong points or weaknesses - that we would need to know of now, >70 years later.
Several Type VIIC U-Boats were captured at the end of the war. There is a Type VIIC U-Boat in a museum in Chicago. So there is no archaeological interest in U576.
There is simply no significant reason to expend the considerable $$ and effort that would be necessary to raise U576.
Irrelevant regardless, the point is, no nation honors the fallen, not even ours.
And Wiki is a lousy source for anything but propaganda. We only know what the powers that be, want us to know, it's what we don't know that drives one to seek answers to question not yet asked.
I'd guarantee this ship does not go untouched.
Solar, I only referred to Wikipedia for convenience, but there's no conspiracy or cover-up there. U576's history can be found easily elsewhere. Hitler's "Drumbeat" (Paukenschlag) U-boat campaign is well-known history. The initially foolishly ineffective US response to U-boats in early 1942 is well-known history. And "Drumbeat" was U576's last two patrols. Type VIIC U-boats are no mystery.
Other than reflexive, almost conspiracy-theory-grade, assumption of a decades-long cover-up, where's the reason to raise a very ordinary U-Boat from its grave at the bottom of the Atlantic?
On another sub-topic, that Type VIIC U-boats were used of the US East Coast evidences how unready the U-boat force was. Type VIICs' range made for very brief patrols on station. The Type IX wasn't wonderful, but it had much better range. Just fewer numbers.
Quote from: SVPete on October 24, 2014, 12:28:41 PM
Solar, I only referred to Wikipedia for convenience, but there's no conspiracy or cover-up there. U576's history can be found easily elsewhere. Hitler's "Drumbeat" (Paukenschlag) U-boat campaign is well-known history. The initially foolishly ineffective US response to U-boats in early 1942 is well-known history. And "Drumbeat" was U576's last two patrols. Type VIIC U-boats are no mystery.
Other than reflexive, almost conspiracy-theory-grade, assumption of a decades-long cover-up, where's the reason to raise a very ordinary U-Boat from its grave at the bottom of the Atlantic?
On another sub-topic, that Type VIIC U-boats were used of the US East Coast evidences how unready the U-boat force was. Type VIICs' range made for very brief patrols on station. The Type IX wasn't wonderful, but it had much better range. Just fewer numbers.
Won't know for certain till we look, and you can be certain, we will enter the ship, that's basic human nature of curiosity..
But you're probably right, assuming we honor Germany's request.
QuoteThe German Foreign Office told NOAA that it's not interested in recovering the remains but asked the U.S. to view the wreck as a war grave. "As such, they are under special protection and should, if possible, remain at their site and location to allow the dead to rest in peace," the foreign office said in a statement provided by NOAA.
Quote from: Solar on October 24, 2014, 06:45:18 AM
Irrelevant regardless, the point is, no nation honors the fallen, not even ours.
And Wiki is a lousy source for anything but propaganda. We only know what the powers that be, want us to know, it's what we don't know that drives one to seek answers to question not yet asked.
I'd guarantee this ship does not go untouched.
Not sure why you beat on Wikipedia so hard. It is indisputable fact that Wikepedia is the best all-around online source for general encyclopedic information. Actually, there's nothing else even close. Yes, there are Wikipedia "editors" who lean to the left, but there are also plenty who lean to the right. (I'm one of those, and have been for years.) Pissing on the site this way is like saying you hate Wrigley Field because leftists and White Sox fans sometimes sit in some of the seats.
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 24, 2014, 04:52:52 PM
Not sure why you beat on Wikipedia so hard. It is indisputable fact that Wikepedia is the best all-around online source for general encyclopedic information. Actually, there's nothing else even close. Yes, there are Wikipedia "editors" who lean to the left, but there are also plenty who lean to the right. (I'm one of those, and have been for years.) Pissing on the site this way is like saying you hate Wrigley Field because leftists and White Sox fans sometimes sit in some of the seats.
Orr, you could simply click on a good encyclopedia site and get the real info, not second hand.
But to think Wiki is a good source for anything is fooling ones self.
Sure, I use it for weights and measure, that sort off thing, but I'd never bet my life on any of it's information.
Check these out.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/wikipedia-losing-contributors-fatal-flaw-the-community-editors/54144 (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/wikipedia-losing-contributors-fatal-flaw-the-community-editors/54144)
http://www.dailypundit.com/?p=27261 (http://www.dailypundit.com/?p=27261)
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia (http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia)
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 24, 2014, 04:52:52 PM
Not sure why you beat on Wikipedia so hard. It is indisputable fact that Wikepedia is the best all-around online source for general encyclopedic information. Actually, there's nothing else even close. Yes, there are Wikipedia "editors" who lean to the left, but there are also plenty who lean to the right. (I'm one of those, and have been for years.) Pissing on the site this way is like saying you hate Wrigley Field because leftists and White Sox fans sometimes sit in some of the seats.
Pretty much anything on Wikipedia that has to do with current and recent political doing and people has to be taken with a block of salt - except for DOB, college attended kind of data. Similarly, historical matters that are of political interest have to be taken with a similar block of salt.
With non-political matters, Wikipedia can be very handy as a quick reference on all kinds of topics, and as a good starting point for something you want to study up on some. For the latter usage, it's a good way to put together an outline or skeleton for your study to identify and give some starting points for key sub-topics (many articles are heavily footnoted, linking to online sources).
For one-stop shopping with some depth, you usually need to look elsewhere. For example, one online resource on U-boats that looks pretty is http://uboat.net/ (http://uboat.net/). Or for USN warships,
DANFS (http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/) is a good resource for warships into the 1960s or so.
Like a search engine or a new site, you have to use Wikipedia intelligently if you find its convenience handy.
Fellas, I agree with you. On many subjects, there are better references available, though even now, the bulk of them are not yet on the internet. But what I said was, Wikipedia is "the best all-around online source for general encyclopedic information." I stand by what I said. I chose those adjectives carefully.
Many of us here are old enough to remember the prevalence of printed encyclopedias as primary reference sources. When I was a kid, we had a set of (fairly rare) American Peoples' Encyclopedia volumes at home, and of course the school libraries always had Compton's or the nearly useless World Book. None of them were be-all, tell-all reference sources on any given subject. But if you wanted to know a bit about something quickly and efficiently, you walked over to the bookshelf and snagged a volume for a look-see.
That's what Wikipedia is, and that's what it does.
Anyone who posts here should know better than to trust Wikipedia for straightforward discourse on political matters. In some cases, though it's not the rule, Wikipedia's historical information is a bit skewed. It should be obvious that, because Wikipedia is so undemanding when it comes to who is allowed to write and edit its articles, it deserves especially careful scrutiny in subject areas that are confrontational. That includes politics and things political to be sure, but also subjects like religion, philosophy, and yes, sometimes history.
But as a source of general information, especially when depth is not a requirement, nothing else on the internet even comes close to offering the breadth -- if not depth -- of knowledge.
The elementary school I attended and our home had a set of World Book, early 60s editions.
Like I said, if you use Wikipedia, you have to use it knowing its potential biases. And that's not peculiar to Wikipedia.
My Google-Fu is pretty decent, but it would have to be Olympic-class to be able to do a cold search for any and every thing I want to check out (actually, I use Duck Duck Go, but that name doesn't work for a brief alliterative term for search engine usage skills).
Quote from: SVPete on October 24, 2014, 08:24:04 PM
Pretty much anything on Wikipedia that has to do with current and recent political doing and people has to be taken with a block of salt - except for DOB, college attended kind of data. Similarly, historical matters that are of political interest have to be taken with a similar block of salt.
With non-political matters, Wikipedia can be very handy as a quick reference on all kinds of topics, and as a good starting point for something you want to study up on some. For the latter usage, it's a good way to put together an outline or skeleton for your study to identify and give some starting points for key sub-topics (many articles are heavily footnoted, linking to online sources).
For one-stop shopping with some depth, you usually need to look elsewhere. For example, one online resource on U-boats that looks pretty is http://uboat.net/ (http://uboat.net/). Or for USN warships, DANFS (http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/) is a good resource for warships into the 1960s or so.
Like a search engine or a new site, you have to use Wikipedia intelligently if you find its convenience handy.
I agree Pete, wiki can be a good source for links to what you're searching for, especially if your own search is not bearing fruit.
Otherwise the article posted in Wiki will most likely be stained with bias, and maybe not intentional bias, but bias, none the less, it's human nature, and virtually impossible to escape in present day.
Even science, hard science at that, has been stained with the bloody fingerprints of Marxists.
Before when writing a historical article or commentary it meant reading 10-20 history books on the subject before even starting to tackle the theory or supposition. Now it's 4 clicks with a mouse button and type the topic read about 5-10 pages worth of information and that's it. A Wikipedia page is great for fast summarized information, especially for natural science, but it can't compare to the real thing when it comes to history, economics and philosophy which is the books themselves, dozens of them.
And it's not only that Wikipedia is biased, governments have their own dedicated staff to edit Wikipedia pages all day, left wing NGO's that are dedicated to removal of information and spreading disinformation. Kudos to you conservatives out there who fight it though. But the argument that that children are just as well off reading Wikipedia or internet instead of books will be detrimental, but that's what the public education has come too. I used to work in a high school for some time, 100% of the projects the students did was just copy paste wikipedia page to microsoft office word and that's it. At least books required actual reading as well.