USS Hornet wreck found

Interesting stuff, carrier that launched the Doolittle raid. But that site is ******* atrocious. Autoplaying video that doesn't load, so you just get a disembodied voice that you can't ******* mute.
 
Malevolence said:
Interesting stuff, carrier that launched the Doolittle raid. But that site is ******* atrocious. Autoplaying video that doesn't load, so you just get a disembodied voice that you can't ******* mute.
Click to expand...

Yeah its far from the best site setup, I expect there are other sites out there covering it too

EDIT : Here are more, not sure if they are better or not though as Im viewing them on my phone rather than a desktop.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/wre...er-uss-hornet-discovered-in-the-south-pacific

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/uss-hornet-wreckage-world-war-two-warship-discovered/
 
If only the Titanic was in as good condition, amazing state of preservation, I’m assuming differently formulated steels that are less prone to rust compared to the Titanic are the reason why it’s not dissolving like Titanic is?

One thing, to the seaman who secured that tractor to the deck, Sir, you did a fine job!
 
That was fascinating, as others have said the fact it has been so well preserved is quite incredible. Thank you for sharing.
 
Scania said:
If only the Titanic was in as good condition, amazing state of preservation, I’m assuming differently formulated steels that are less prone to rust compared to the Titanic are the reason why it’s not dissolving like Titanic is?

One thing, to the seaman who secured that tractor to the deck, Sir, you did a fine job!
Click to expand...

Is there also some chemical difference between the Atlantic and Pacific ocean maybe? Theres just 30 years or so difference between their sinking times and they are at sort of similar depths yet the Hornet does seem vastly better preserved, though I suppose warships are built of sterner stuff than cruise liners
 
Tombstone said:
Is there also some chemical difference between the Atlantic and Pacific ocean maybe? Theres just 30 years or so difference between their sinking times and they are at sort of similar depths yet the Hornet does seem vastly better preserved, though I suppose warships are built of sterner stuff than cruise liners
Click to expand...
Well,(anorak alert! :o) Titanic was a Royal Mail Steamer (hence RMS Titanic) and such ships were built extremely strongly as they had to cross the Atlantic in all conditions as a guarantee to the both the U.S. and Royal Mail services, RMS ships sailed all year round regardless of weather that kept regular vessels huddled in port.

You have to remember also Titanics Sister ship was rammed by a British warship (HMS Hawke) by accident and despite the warship being designed to ram ships to sink them, it came off far far worse than Olympic did, it’s front section was destroyed by the impact and she nearly capsized, Olympic returning to port under her own power, the Olympic Class Ships (Of which Titanic was one of three) were immensely strong ships built to a far higher standard than pretty much anything in their time.

Whilst the Hornet has both belt and deck armour in other areas the steel used would have been extremely thin to reduce weight but from the photographs it’s not rusted at all.

Maybe different chemistry in the Pacific along with less steel hungry microbes - which are the things eating Titanic - are the answer?
 
So whats the deal here. The article is making out that we didn't really know where it sank just that it did, despite having photographic evidence of it being attacked.
I thought it was more of a case of lack of funds/ability to get to it that was the major obstacle?
 
iamtheoneneo said:
So whats the deal here. The article is making out that we didn't really know where it sank just that it did, despite having photographic evidence of it being attacked.
I thought it was more of a case of lack of funds/ability to get to it that was the major obstacle?
Click to expand...
You have to allow for Daily Fail levels of accurate reporting, it’s a military vessel and they would have known their last position and it would have been reported to other ships in her Battle Group (2 Carriers, 14 Destroyers,6 Cruisers and a Battleship)
prior to sinking, so whilst they might not have known precisely where she was they’d have had a pretty damn good idea.

I think it’s a case of 3 miles down it’s damn hard to find anything, when ships sink they rarely go straight to the bottom, especially over such a depth to sink down to.
 
Scania said:
Well,(anorak alert! :o) Titanic was a Royal Mail Steamer (hence RMS Titanic) and such ships were built extremely strongly as they had to cross the Atlantic in all conditions as a guarantee to the both the U.S. and Royal Mail services, RMS ships sailed all year round regardless of weather that kept regular vessels huddled in port.

You have to remember also Titanics Sister ship was rammed by a British warship (HMS Hawke) by accident and despite the warship being designed to ram ships to sink them, it came off far far worse than Olympic did, it’s front section was destroyed by the impact and she nearly capsized, Olympic returning to port under her own power, the Olympic Class Ships (Of which Titanic was one of three) were immensely strong ships built to a far higher standard than pretty much anything in their time.

Whilst the Hornet has both belt and deck armour in other areas the steel used would have been extremely thin to reduce weight but from the photographs it’s not rusted at all.

Maybe different chemistry in the Pacific along with less steel hungry microbes - which are the things eating Titanic - are the answer?
Click to expand...

The depth probably has something to do with it too, there will be a lot less oxygen 3 miles down.

Titanic is actually being eaten by bacteria.
 
Last edited:
Scania said:
You have to allow for Daily Fail levels of accurate reporting, it’s a military vessel and they would have known their last position and it would have been reported to other ships in her Battle Group (2 Carriers, 14 Destroyers,6 Cruisers and a Battleship)
prior to sinking, so whilst they might not have known precisely where she was they’d have had a pretty damn good idea.

I think it’s a case of 3 miles down it’s damn hard to find anything, when ships sink they rarely go straight to the bottom, especially over such a depth to sink down to.
Click to expand...

Depth adds to the costs of going to those ships. The sea around the Philippines is packed with IJN ships many of which are still intact, yet because of the sheer depth impossible to visit.
 
Nasher said:
The depth probably has something to do with it too, there will be a lot less oxygen 3 miles down.

Titanic is actually being eaten by bacteria.
Click to expand...
Oxygen reaches its lowest saturation point in the ocean around 4900ft and increases markedly at depths greater than this, Titanic is at 12500ft, Hornet is at 17000ft.

Bacteria is a microorganism, or microbe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom