WWII Sub USS Lagato wreck and a P-38 discovered!

[airnutz]

After reading the material yet again, I now see what OP was referring to in
trying to explain Brian's reference! I was thinking,"doesn't Brian realize
P-38's don't have brass running lights"? No worries...

As for all the speculation about the images represent...remember they
originally went to determine why there were so many fishing net snags.
Living on the salt-shore, as I do..leave a crab trap in the water for a
month and see how much barnacles and stuff attach themselves to it.
Imagine Lagarto snagging the later synthetic nets..which take ages to rot
in addition to all the biologics growth and the image that mess might
return? What may look interesting to a salvor, may look like crap to us.

This is an image of the S-5(SS-110) which went down off Delaware in 1920
after a failed salvage tow after a near-sinking(crew survived)..this is what
we're looking for expecting to "see" Lagarto...
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0811004.jpg

Now, here is another image of a scan of S-5, but check out the shadow
trick of a destroyer or a destroyer escort...
www.navsource.org/archives/08/0811002.jpg
Weird, huh? How did that happen? The S-Boats had sleek unencumbered
superstructures and hulls! Also, it appears that the way the sidescan 'wave
or beam' strikes the target so obliquely that a serious distortion develops
as a result in the "shadow"?

Here is an image I dug up of a Balao-class conning tower with crew and
40mm,20mm, & 5" deck-guns for size reference(sisterboat USS Billfish)
www.navsource.org/archives/08/0828605.jpg
Coool Guns..I want one of each!

I was going to use the previous pic to show RickH that the conning tower
appearing image would be wrong for the Balao type..but now I think I
see it as he sees it. But I would expect to see one of the deck-guns.
McLeod says it's all there intact. It'll be interesting to see what he means
by intact.

They did state that are revisiting the P-38 to cut away the netting and
investigate and photo it..as well as the Lagarto.... this month. So we may
not have long to wait for photos of either!

ps
Looked like a Privateer to me too the moment the image gelled!

pps
Sorry Scott about the Boat-talk....I've been asked what it was like to be
on a sub and I reply..It's like being in an airplane, which flys thru really
thick air..and if you jump out, you hope you fall up! (I know it's tenuous...
at best, I had to try the hovercraft defense.)

[Originalboxcar]

Quote from the USSLagato.org discussion forum on, ahem , DON-NHC policy regarding ship/aircraft wrecks.

This would be a great artifact to add to the Pearl Harbor Sub memorial as well as return 85 vets home, but its doubtful that the navy will allow it, much less foot the bill -- unless we ACT!

regards,

t~

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060

Underwater Archaeology Branch
Do I Need a Permit?
Related Resources:

Application Guidelines for Archeological Research Permits on Ship and Aircraft Wrecks Under the Jurisdicition of the Department of the Navy (36 CFR 4 Part 767)
Policy Fact Sheet on Sunken Naval Vessels and Naval Aircraft
Legal Agreements Regarding the Navy's Historic Wrecks

Generally, Department of Navy (DON) ship and aircraft wrecks will be left in place unless artifact removal or site disturbance is justified and necessary to protect DON ship aircraft wrecks, to conduct research, or provide public education and information. While the Naval Historical center (NHC) prefers non-destructive, in situ research on DON ship and aircraft wrecks, it recognizes that site disturbance and/or artifact recovery is sometimes necessary. At such times, site disturbance and/or archaeological recovery may be permitted, subject to conditions specified by NHC. The diving public is strongly encouraged to report Navy sites to the NHC.

Situations where a permit would be required:

Any plans to disturb a wreck site, in any way, using any means.
Removing or moving sediment is considered disturbing a wreck site.
Removing or moving artifacts or any portion of a wreck site is considered disturbing a wreck site.
Removing the entire wreck is considered disturbing a wreck site
Photographing human remains on a war grave site
Archaeological study of a shipwreck site.
Situations where a permit would not be required.

Sport diving on a site as long as nothing about the site is disturbed.
Remote sensing over a site as long as nothing about the site is disturbed.
Photographing a site as long as human remains are not depicted.
Federal law prohibits the theft or damage of government property. To avoid unintentional infractions, or for clarification of policies and procedures, please contact the Underwater Archaeology Branch of the Naval Historical Center for more information.

Underwater Archaeology Branch
Naval Historical Center
805 Kidder Breese Street, SE
Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374
202-433-2210

[RareBear]

I'm going to have to cast a vote with Dan on the aircraft looking like a B-24.

Walt

[george]

Could it be a B-32, thats what I see. Or a Privateer, maybe?

[RickH]

Rob,the link is on page one , Original Box Car's post, ninth one down. See what you think.

[Originalboxcar]

Now I know this forum is primarily for WARBIRDS and so at this point I would divert anyone who desire to discuss this topic further over to the following site:

http://s7.invisionfree.com/USS_Lagarto/ ... hp?act=idx

regards,

t~