WesWorld

Quoted

Penn was in blue waters.

Quoted

The forecastle was a mess and THAT was of some concern.

Quoted

Note description of PoW near miss effects?

Quoted

Tell the rest of it.

Quoted

A devastating hit is a hit is a hit.

Quoted

Kevin Denlay
Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 106
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:28 am Post subject: HMS Prince of Wales wreck gives up a long held secret!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pardon the delay in posting this update regards the outer port prop shaft on (the wreck of) HMS Prince of Wales.

As a follow up to information gathered on our May 2007 survey (see report of Expedition 'Job 74' http://www.explorers.org/...%20Job_74_web_version.pdf) two divers were recently tasked to confirm an observation UK author/historian John Roberts made after viewing video footage shot of POW's outer port prop shaft on said expedition.

Now, given the delay in posting this info, and the 'disconnect' from an earlier thread, I'll start, more or less at the 'beginning' so the context is in order for any 'latecomers'. So please forgive the long drawn out explanation/description. If ever there was an instance where a picture would be worth a thousand (or more) words, this would be it, but................................words will just have to suffice for now.

It all 'started' when John Roberts noticed what appeared to be (and actually was) a flange on the exposed end of the outer port propeller shaft in the 2007 video we sent him. Now to us mere mortal survey divers it was just the stub of the shaft at the point where the prop and A bracket attachment had sheared off. But John knew right away that there should be no flange in this position and that the nearest flange was, or should have been, inside the shaft tunnel. So, as far as he was concerned, the only way a flange could be seen in the position it is now in (i.e. outside the shaft tunnel) was that the shaft itself must have broken or parted somewhere inside the tunnel and the now exposed shaft 'pulled out' aftwards.

So with some friends upcoming South China Sea dive trip imminent (which only included one days diving on PoW I might add) and no way to get back out there myself until next year, I persuaded two of the group, both very experienced deep wreck divers (Craig Challen and Paul Garske), whose observations/measurements I could trust implicitly, to take certain exterior measurements that would confirm (or refute) Johns observation. However, knowing that one of the divers was also a very experienced cave diver used to squeezing into tight places, I figured he just might stick his head - and body - 'down the shaft tunnel' should the opportunity arise and the tunnel itself be accessible.

And just as I had hoped my expectations were exceeded, as not only did he stick his head in the tunnel, he made it all the way up the shaft tunnel to the bulkhead separating the shaft tunnel from the Y Action Machinery Room! Now to anyone without access to the ships plans, or one of the books that display the plans, this may not mean a lot, but believe me it does. And what he saw along the way is quite a revelation.

But first to state the basics, although no doubt most of you already know, a prop shaft is not just one continuous circular 'tube' so to speak, but is made up of various tubular lengths, joined at intervals by a flange, so just keep that in mind as you read on.

Upon entering the now torn and jagged entry point of the shaft tunnel to take what would have been the last of one of his measurements, Craig found that the damage caused by the flailing shaft had opened up the passageway enough to allow him to just squeeze past the next flange and into a space where the tunnel widened up considerably. In the process he noted that the length of shaft that protrudes out from the hull was still solidly attached at the flange (that he squeezed past) to another shaft length that continued on up further inside the shaft tunnel. So far so good and nothing odd there, right? But, when he got to the end of this second section of shaft (that is, two lengths of shaft joined by one flange) the shaft simply ended at the next flange! And by 'ended' I mean there was no continuation of shaft but a huge gap of about ten meters (30 odd feet) before the next section of shaft could be 'seen'. However, that next section and the next, were no longer supported up in the tunnel but lay separated on the roof (now the 'floor' as it were, as the ship is upturned) of the shaft tunnel! Swimming further in over both of those sections he then came to the intact bulkhead at the aft end of the Y Action Machinery Room (which blocked further inward travel), from which a short length of shaft protruded slightly, in its rightful place as it were, with a flange on the end. (How did he know it was the bulkhead to Y Action Machinery Room you might ask? Shining his dive light through a small gap between the shaft and the bulkhead he could see the next room had machinery in it, so it was not just a further extension of the shaft tunnel, so this could only be the aft bulkhead to Y Action Machinery Room.)

So all told the port outer shaft has sheared at four separate flanges! One just inside the shaft gland, one two lengths up the tunnel, one at the end of next length of shaft and one at end of the next length where it abuts Y Action Machinery Room.

Or traveling in the other direction as it were, i.e. leaving the aft bulkhead of Y Action Machinery Room, we have one length of shaft separated from another length of shaft (both laying on the 'floor' of the tunnel) then a big gap of about 10m/30 odd feet, then two lengths of shaft still attached together, with one of those lengths now protruding well out through the ripped open end of the shaft tunnel where the gland once was. What this all implies is that when the port outer prop and A bracket broke off and pulled away it took with it the complete length of shaft that extended from the prop / A bracket itself all the way to the first flange (which sheared) just inside the shaft gland, tearing away the gland and hull around same in the process. And that further up the tunnel the shaft continued to 'disintegrate' at several more flanges also.

Now an astute reader will also have realized that although the diver penetrated all the way to Y Action Machinery Room bulkhead there is no mention whatsoever of the other bulkheads that separated sections of the shaft tunnel. That is because they are no longer there! When John Roberts was sent the measurements and diagrams from this recent dive he said "It would seem from your descriptions that the shaft did even greater damage than anyone, including me, ever suspected, tearing up not only the bulkhead seals but ripping large sections out of the transverse bulkheads themselves. It seems likely that other damage was done to the side structure in the shaft tunnels causing side flooding as well as that fore and aft. I suppose, given the amount of power in the shaft when running at high speed this is not so surprising if the outboard end of the shaft was flaying about unsupported by its A bracket - certainly seems to have destroyed its plummer blocks."

And if discovering the separated shaft wasn't enough, the diver found something else. On his way out he examined more closely what is now the floor of the shaft tunnel (which in 'real life' was actually the roof or 'ceiling' as it were under the deck above). What he found in the area where the second (going out) of the two separated pieces of shaft lay, was at least one (and he 'thinks' he saw more) of the hatches along there to be open, whether by human failure to close or by inrushing water pressure forcing open is of course hard to say. Sadly, with his allotted dive time running out and already an extensive decompression obligation ahead of him - and a long way back to the up-line to boot - he did not have the time, nor the inclination, to investigate the area more thoroughly.

Needless to say, if several of the hatches there are found to be open, and from John Robert's belief of other possible damage, it is no wonder that the compartments inboard and above the shaft tunnel flooded so quickly. Unsurprisingly then, given the incredible noise created by that shaft tearing itself apart as it did, and the inrush of water up the shaft tunnel and through those open hatches, etc, it is no wonder that seamen in that general area erroneously thought that another torpedo had hit abaft the rear funnel.

So now, for the first time since the sinking (see following 'note'), it can be 100% confirmed that the port outer shaft did break internally (i.e. 'shear' at flanges to be more precise) and one long section of shaft was actually carried away with the prop and A bracket. (Note: At the time of PoW's sinking a Y Action Machinery Room sailor is said to have reported that the outer shaft had broken - see page 198 of Battleships: Allied Battleships in WW11 by Garzke and Dulin - but his 'report' seems to have been discounted over the years as there appears to be no other mention of it anywhere else in the numerous accounts of the event written over the years.)

So there you have it. If it wasn't for the sharp and practiced eye of John Roberts (and the inquisitive nature of some divers) none of this may have come to light.

Oh, and as an aside, in my humble opinion, given what has now been found, the disintegration of the shaft would have happened immediately after the torp first hit (between the A bracket and where the shaft entered the hull at the gland) when the A bracket itself pulled away - with a now flailing and unsupported prop spinning at high speed - not later when the shaft was restarted.

Regards,
Kevin

PS. Re the unresolved 'debate' about the long concave indentations we found/recorded on both sides of PoW's hull just below the amour belt described in our summary report; there is still no explanation from the experts on that one. It's got everyone stumped!

Quoted

Kevin Denlay wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales wreck gives up a long held secret!

Gents,

Pardon dragging this old thread back up but I would like to make a correction with regards the above 'conclusion' from my initial post that started the thread.

It is now the opinion of several naval architects / experts who have since studied our survey data in detail and compared it to the actual builders plans of PoW, that the diver penetrated further along the shaft than at first thought. Taking into account the number of shaft segments the diver reported seeing (a 'segment' being from one flange to the next), the length of the shaft section he measured that protrudes out aft from the torn open shaft tunnel, and his description of the "short length of shaft that protruded slightly" from the bulkhead that stopped his further inward progress, they have come to the firm conclusion that he actually reached the aft bulkhead of the Diesel Dynamo Room, not 'just' to the aft bulkhead of Y Action Machinery Room.

Since my initial post I myself have also acquired a (half size) copy of the actual builder's plans of PoW (as opposed to the dimensionally/compartmentally accurate but much less detailed 'builders plans' published in several books; i.e. Battleships by Garzke and Dulin and British Battleships by Raven and Roberts). As one might expect, the actual builders plans are so detailed that they show the individual shaft segments and the flanges where they join. From these plans one can ascertain the actual lengths of individual segments of shaft, and how many 'segments' (i.e. shaft length flange to flange) there are between the A Bracket and the aft bulkhead of the Diesel Dynamo Room. And when the diver's measurement/description is correlated with these plans it unequivocally equates with him reaching the aft bulkhead of the Diesel Dynamo Room. Given that fact it now means that along with all the other damage to the bulkheads/plummer blocks in the shaft tunnel itself, the aft bulkhead to Y action Machinery Room is also destroyed.

One oddity remains and that is why the diver did not report seeing machinery in what he originally thought was the last section of the 'shaft tunnel' (but proves to be Y Action Machinery Room). He/we have no real explanation for this except that he was focused on / orientated towards what was below him - where the shaft lay - while whatever machinery may have been in Y Action Machinery Room would have been suspended above him as it were. Given also that it was an 'unplanned' penetration - his original task had been to only measure the length of shaft protruding from the wreck, but when he found he could squeeze past the next flange he made an on the spot decision and continued on in to the tunnel - it is not surprising given the circumstance that a diver would simply focus on the original task, observing the shaft, at the expense of all else.

In retrospect, without the aid of the detailed builders plans showing the actual shaft segments, our initial conclusion (as to him 'only' reaching the aft bulkhead of Y Action Machinery Room) was primarily influenced by his not noticing any machinery in the vicinity of the last separated segment of shaft he saw. But as I said above, when one compares what he observed regards the shaft with the actual builders plans, i.e. the number of shaft segments the plan shows prior to reaching the aft bulkhead of the Diesel Dynamo Room, and the 'unique' short length of shaft with a flange protruding from that bulkhead, then what he reported seeing and the plans are a perfect match up to that bulkhead. (Note well: Prior to his penetration up the shaft tunnel the diver had never seen any plans of PoW/KGV before, so what he reported was in no way influenced by what he may have 'expected to see'.)

So to recap. On the builders plans of PoW there are five segments of shaft and five flange joints between the A Bracket itself and the aft bulkhead of the Diesel Dynamo Room (there is no flange at/near the A Bracket). Of these five flanges four have separated and one remains intact. When the port outer prop broke off it not only carried away the A Bracket enclosure itself but approximately 17m/56ft of shaft i.e. the complete length of shaft from the A Bracket to the first shaft flange, which was forward of the gland inside the shaft tunnel. The shaft also 'broke' - or more factually 'separated' - at three more flanges, the innermost separation being at the flange just aft of where the shaft exits the bulkhead of the Diesel Dynamo Room. Over this distance only one length of shaft remains 'intact' - i.e. two segments of shaft still joined at a flange - and this is the length which now can be seen exiting the ripped open hull - while two segments of shaft lay separated further inside the wreck. In the process of breaking apart the shaft not only ripped open the hull in the vicinity of where the shaft exited at the gland but it also destroyed all the bulkheads and plummer blocks up to the aft bulkhead of the Diesel Dynamo Room.

So, allowing for this new 'correction', if one were to reread my initial post in this thread, the words "Diesel Dynamo Room" should actually be substituted wherever the words "Y Action Machinery Room" appear.

My apologies for any confusion this 'update' may cause but thought it best I attempt to at least correct in words our earlier erroneous 'conclusion'. I had hoped to have a recently produced PDF report extensively detailing the stern survey with pics, diagrams and excerpts from the builder's plans (for direct comparison) available to link this post to, but alas it is not up on the web yet.

Regards,
Kevin

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
The Japanese BUILT Kirishima themselves, and then strengthened her in a rebuild as extensive as the Italian Cavours. Calling her a slightly larger Tiger is inaccurate.

And, if you'll review what I said, I did not claim she was "larger" than Tiger... I stated "like a stronger, uglier Tiger." Please don't misquote me to make me say something I didn't say.

Quoted

Hm, more like a stronger, uglier Tiger than the Hood...

Like a Tiger- a stronger uglier Tiger. You made the direct comparison there; Brock.

KONGO was FIRST Brock. Tiger was redesigned on the weigh in response to HER and was actually nothing like her.



That was why I pointed out the Kirishima was KONGO class.

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
You want me to bring up the USS Saratoga? She definitely was a battle cruiser hull that was multiply torpedoed and bombed. She took a PoW type beating several times under weigh [Wake Island, Guadalcanal, and Iwo Jima and DID NOT SINK..

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
WHY then didn't the RN implement? Why was PACFlt teaching the BPF damage control off Ceylon in 1944 [Sri Lanka?]-specifically the USS Saratoga to the likes of the HMS Illustrious, the HMS Renown, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, the HMS Valiant, and the MdG Richileu?

Notice what was missing? No KGVs present. WHY?

Answerr. NDG.

Quoted

Nevada was in no danger of sinking

Quoted

Note description of PoW near miss effects? Our Navy was not impressed by this near miss result.

Quoted

It wouldn't matter if it was spinning or NOT. SNAP.

Quoted

You want me to bring up the USS Saratoga?

Quoted

She took a PoW type beating several times under weigh [Wake Island, Guadalcanal, and Iwo Jima and DID NOT SINK.

Quoted

I guess British battlecruisers like the Queens and Tigers were not bomb resistant . Their barbette roofs were no where near as tough as German or American ones.

Quoted

Tiger was redesigned on the weigh in response to HER and was actually nothing like her.

Quoted

You could pin your hand to a fence post with six nails from a nailgun, ow, ow, ow, ow ow, ow, but wont kill you.

Quoted

Originally posted by Tiornu

Quoted

You could pin your hand to a fence post with six nails from a nailgun, ow, ow, ow, ow ow, ow, but wont kill you.

I remain unconvinced. You don't know what a wimp I am.

Quoted

Originally posted by Tiornu

Quoted

You could pin your hand to a fence post with six nails from a nailgun, ow, ow, ow, ow ow, ow, but wont kill you.

I remain unconvinced. You don't know what a wimp I am.

Quoted

Originally posted by Tiornu
Thanks. I'm sure I'll have more to say if I can detach myself from the fence.

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
I would admit what the data admits. I don't deal in MYTHS.

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
Sorry, but distant cover is navalese for RISK AVERSION.

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
The rest of it is physics, but hey what do I know about Japanese plate armor which was very good and British which wasn't?

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
Or that the Lexington took more hits than you stated?

Two torpedoes, three bombs. Sher hung on for seven hours afterwards and was SCUTTLED by two more torpedoes to prevent capture.

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
I've already discussed shaft alley physics. I don't intend to repeat it.

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
PS. Its not a question a about "RIGHT". Its about "ACCURATE". I get ticked off when people bash Italian tech or Russian tech of the era or overrate the German stuff when they buy into the myths.

The KGVs and most of the British carriers of the era were compromises in design. They were built on the cheap and they suffered qualitatively for it. FACT.