|
|
Post by chadhill on Apr 16, 2012 4:42:41 GMT 8
Here we go. Remember that La Monja is nearly due west of the searchlights:  |
|
|
|
Post by okla on Apr 16, 2012 4:49:01 GMT 8
Hey Chad....Many thanks for the prompt reply. This little riddle is one of the most intriguing ones we have had reason to ponder. Maybe Karl, being an ex USN Diver, would consent to take one more "dip" and furnish us with an answer. One thing that does puzzle me (how many more will appear to "puzzle") is labeling a wreck as an "obstruction", if, indeed, this is the case. If it is a wreck, you would think that is what the chart would indicate when several others are so labeled. I see there are a couple of "wks" in the North Channel with the distinctive dotted circle symbol. There are a couple more (one being Pres Quezon's Yacht???) and another in the Bay between Mills and Hughes that aren't encircled by the dotted circles. Wonder why the difference between the latter two and the couple in the Channel??? I keep swearing I will cease and desist from getting all "hung up" on trivial crap like this, but it seems to be in my DNA. My Oka-san continues to think I am crazy and maybe she is correct. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadhill on Apr 16, 2012 5:10:31 GMT 8
Okla, I think the dotted lines around shipwrecks means the masts are above water. Not sure about the dotted "Wks" with depth numbers. Yes, I would greatly welcome some input from Karl, too. Since there aren't any shipwrecks or "Wks" shown in the vicinity of La Monja, I'm just wondering if the "Obstr" shown is actually the site of the sunken SS Corregidor. It could be a natural obstruction of some sort, but if it is the ship I'm suggesting that maybe it was purposely mislabled on charts for a time to discourage scavengers and grave looters. Just a SWAG and I could be 180 degrees off my rocker, old bud-  |
|
|
|
Post by okla on Apr 16, 2012 5:31:36 GMT 8
Hey Chad....Your SWAG makes sense to me. Not designating the site as a wreck, but as an obstruction accomplishes both aims...beware of underwater peril and "nuthin" here to dive/explore. Methinks, your suggestion ain't too WAed. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnEakin on Apr 16, 2012 6:27:45 GMT 8
If the following is correct, my speculation that the ship sailed late was wrong: On Dec.17, 1941 he [James Strong] started back to Manila to board the SS Corregidor scheduled to leave at midnight. They had to make repeated stops on the road and take shelter due to Japanese air activity. On arrival at the pier at about 10:00 PM they were told the ship had sailed ahead of schedule shortly before they arrived. The Captain of the SS Corregidor fearing for the safety of his ship from the air raids decided to leave early with out the escort thru the mine fields of Manila Bay. At 11:00 PM she struck a mine just south of Corregidor Island, split in two and sunk within minutes. www.cnac.org/emilscott/jamesstrong01.htmWikipedia had another bit of SS Corregidor trivia which indicated that it had a draft of 16'. According to the map, the Army mines were laid at a depth of 15', except in the channel where they were at 45'. So what type of mines were they? Contact, command, magnetic, etc? And what was the state of the tide? Was it really necessary for the mines to be deactivated as long as the ship stayed in the channel? Could this have emboldened the captain (and others) to take his chances? All indications are that civilian craft regularly ran the minefield without permission or an escort or at an unscheduled time (which is why Bunker was thought to have his shorts in a wad). Could Bunker have been thinking that he would just let them take their chances (as apparently was the routine) rather than deactivate the mines? That would put a slightly different face on Bunker's actions. Also, remember the comment about the ship taking a right turn? Could that have happened just at the outer line of mines rather than prior to entering the outer or Western minefield? Perhaps the skipper thought he was clear of the mines and in his haste make a premature right turn to the open sea just in time to hit one of the last mines at a depth of 15'. |
|
|
|
Post by The Phantom on Apr 16, 2012 6:44:18 GMT 8
This information is from www.wrecksites.eu. Further information requires membership. Note information under orientation.............. SS Corregidor (+1941) details general nationality: philippines purpose: transport type: ocean liner propulsion: steam date built: 1911 is nickname: no status: unknown details weight (tons): 1617 grt dimensions : 96,3 x 12,5 x 4,8 m engine: 3 steam turbines, triple screws power: 6000 s.h.p. speed: 21 knots about the loss cause lost: mine date lost: 17/12/1941 [dd/mm/yyyy] casualties: † 918 rank: 79 about people builder: Denny W. & Bros. Ltd., Dumbarton last owner: [1] Fernandos Hermanos, Manila SS Corregidor period 1933 ~ 1941 prev. owners: [2] South Eastern & Chatham Railway Co., London Engadine period 1911 ~ 1933 captain: no. of passengers: 1200 about the wreck depth (m.): orientation: protected: war grave: updates entered by: Vleggeert Nico entered: 22/07/2009 last update: Vleggeert Nico last update: 05/04/2010 Position Vleggeert Nico22/07/2009 latitude: hydro member longitude: hydro member AIS: check AIS mark add position to my marks (+/-5miles) dist. homeport: dist. homeport ref. used: show neighbour. wrecks: members only |
|
|
|
Post by xray on Apr 16, 2012 14:06:10 GMT 8
Interesting topic.
From what I have read, I don't think that [the actions of] "Col. Bunker directly resulted in the loss of many innocent lives".
I think that onus goes on the captain of the ship, who appears to have flouted standard procedures in a [perhaps] mad dash for safety. He had to have been well aware of the dangers involved in running a highly alert fortress in wartime distress. I don't think that his direct responsibility should be so easily dismissed, irrespective of what Bunker did, did not or could have done.
|
|
|
|
Post by fots2 on Apr 17, 2012 1:18:03 GMT 8
Hi Xray, I agree with your comments. I did not intend to dismiss the actions of the captain although it does read that way. My mistake. I will modify my statement a bit. In my humble opinion only one person, the captain of the ship, started the chain of events that night which resulted in a disaster. However, there are two people who could have prevented it, the captain AND Col. Bunker. There is plenty of blame to be shared between them. Hi chadhill, The SL #1 post was just a speedbump on the road to truth. (In other words, a waste of time). I’ll leave it there in case I ever need proof of a disability due to insanity.  Thanks for posting the chart. Although obviously I cannot say for sure, the obstruction is quite possibly the wreck of the SS Corregidor. The sinking of this ship was not a secret and it is not shown to be lying at any other location. The reasons for it being labeled as an “Obstruction” sounds reasonable too. This should keep okla awake tonight… Hi johneakin, The description of the Army Mine Field Settings (on map a few posts up) is cut-off a bit so I will type it here for you. SAFE: All power ‘off’ on ‘Channel’ mines and other mines on ‘Supervisary’ 110 volts. SUPERVISARY: Mines on 110 volts do not detonate on contact but warn Casemate. CONTACT: Mine detonates on contact by ship. That is a good suggestion about the sudden right turn near the outer line of mines resulting in this disaster. Hi phantom, I sent a message to the gentleman who entered that data asking if he would be willing to share the co-ordinates of the SS Corregidor’s wreck. I also requested the source of his information. I’ll let you know if any information arrives. Finally, here are a few seconds of video taken for you guys this morning from the western tip of Corregidor Island (Battery Hanna) looking north then panning to the west. It shows the area we have been discussing. It is very hot here now so the air is quite hazy as you will see. I have no idea how to put labels on a video so here is a quick description of it. The video starts with me looking to the right (north). The vertical cliff you see for a moment is Corregidor. Across the North Channel is Bataan. Mount Mariveles is half obscured by clouds on the horizon. The small island down below me is Conchita Island. Over the top of it in the distance is Mariveles and “The Points”. Near the end, you see open ocean (South China Sea) with a small white speck near the horizon in the distant water. This speck is La Monja Island. Use the Pause button to see areas as long as you want. I wish the view was clearer today but since we are talking about this now, here it is. |
|
|
|
Post by EXO on Apr 17, 2012 1:54:26 GMT 8
...only one person, the captain of the ship, started the chain of events that night which resulted in a disaster. However, there are two people who could have prevented it, the captain AND Col. Bunker. There is plenty of blame to be shared between them. I concur with Fots. Many people prefer their solutions yes or no, black or white, but that's not the way life serves them up. This was not an issue of negligence, it was a tragedy caused by conscious and deliberate decisions of two actors, either of whom could have prevented the deaths of approximately 1000 persons, and the gutting of a generation of the best and brightest students that the central Philippines had. It is as much a disservice to the victims, as it is to history to cease looking at this incident in a facile and simplistic “well it was the Captain and he’s dead, so let’s not investigate any further.” Fortunately, that is not the way accident investigations are done these days, and any attitude not in accord with those principles needs to be re-examined. |
|
|
|
Post by xray on Apr 17, 2012 2:55:59 GMT 8
Hi Xray, I agree with your comments. I did not intend to dismiss the actions of the captain although it does read that way. My mistake. I will modify my statement a bit. In my humble opinion only one person, the captain of the ship, started the chain of events that night which resulted in a disaster. However, there are two people who could have prevented it, the captain AND Col. Bunker. There is plenty of blame to be shared between them. I cannot quite think that way. Bunker had a large responsibility for the safety of a famous fortress, and the 1,000's of men who ran it. Decisions he made involved national military prestige, and were subject to judgement in the highest quarters, both military and civilian. At that early time in the war, things certainly looked grim, but hopeful. Corregidor was obviously the lynchpin of the USA's entire southwest pacific strategy & order of battle ,,, If all else failed, the Rock will still be standing ! The efforts of 10,000's, and the hopes of 1,000,000's, were devoted to its survival at all costs. The Philippines itself had a vested interest in its continued existence, if it didn't want to become a vassal colony of the Japanese empire. In those circumstances, its hard to see the fate of a single civilian ship looming large in a responsible commanders calculations, cold as that may sound 70 years later. Especially a ship which apparently came charging in without warning, with no clearance or communications, and ignored a gunboats efforts to stop it. Perhaps Bunker thought it could be an enemy subterfuge ,,, But in any case, I don't see many commanders playing nice, and taking a gamble with the safety of such an important fortress and switching off the mines on a whim. We should not, especially at this date, under-rate the heavy burden that the men charged with maintaining the safety of this fortress must have felt ,, Or their own personal instincts of survival. They made tough, cold decisions that may seem callous and incomprehensible looking back on events decades later, with all the leisure time in the world to study and debate what their best options really may have been. |
|
