Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
The Military

Finnish Diver Finds German WWII Submarine Near Estonia 53

jones_supa writes: A wreck of a German submarine, presumed lost more than 70 years ago, has been discovered near the Estonian coast. The submarine, which dates back to the Second World War, was found by Finnish diver Immi Wallin in July. The U-679 was apparently the last lost German u-boat in the Gulf of Finland. It was presumed destroyed by depth charges in January, 1945. However, the wreck was found in its own patrol zone, sunk by an underwater mine. After the wreck was discovered, the first dive down to its 90-metre grave was undertaken by a six-person group on September 10. The mission was to investigate the condition of the submarine and photograph it. Wallin says that she believes the submarine had remained lost due to the great depth at which it was destroyed.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Finnish Diver Finds German WWII Submarine Near Estonia

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    nuff said

  • Depth (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kiaser Zohsay ( 20134 ) on Thursday September 17, 2015 @10:05AM (#50540335)

    For reference, recreational diving is usually limited to 30 to 40 meters (90 to 120 feet). I've only been past 90 feet a couple of times myself, so this is pretty hard core.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      yes, that's nuts. I went to ~140 in Belize at the blue hole, and bottom time was limited to ~8 minutes. You can't do nitrox at this depth either, so it was some serious tech diving that they had to be doing.

    • by pz ( 113803 )

      It goes to show how vastly different water is from air. I mean, yes, obviously there are differences, but we take them largely for granted except for those like the parent who intentionally explore them. 90 meters vertical difference is less than the height of many buildings (its, very roughly, 30 floors). In air, we barely think about that sort of altitude change.

      But in water, where every 10 m or so is an additional atmosphere of pressure, going down the same distance is a Big Frelling Deal. We may exi

      • by phayes ( 202222 )

        Given the present state of the Calypso, you'd be better of using "was" instead of "is" when referring to it. After having sunk after a collision almost 20 years ago & then being abandoned for about 10 years, It was taken apart for a near total restoration over 5 years ago after. Should the funds ever be found to pay for the dismantlement and reconstruct it will have very little in common with the boat as Cousteau knew it.

      • If you put two Calypsos end-to-end vertically, that wouldn't quite reach the newly-discovered submarine.

        Looking at it a slightly different way, the length of submarines in that period was roughly equal to their normal maximum diving depth.

        I'm fond of pointing out that there really is no such thing as a "WW2 submarine". We had something we called submarines, but they were surface vessels that could submerge, once in a while, for a little while. The first real submarine hit the water in 1954.

        • It's not about whether they can submerge; it's about whether they can re-emerge again. ;)
        • by lokedhs ( 672255 )
          Well, arguably the German type XXI submarine was the first "real" submarine in war. That said, only two ever went on combat patrols before the war ended.
        • So, was the Wright Flyer not a real airplane because it could only travel very slowly over short distances? By that logic, the first "real" airplane would perhaps be the first operational jet-powered aircraft, like the Messerschmidt ME 262. Or maybe we'd choose the first all-metal monoplane, like the Junkers J 1?

          I'm pretty sure most people agree on the basic definition of a "submarine" (a watercraft capable of independent operation underwater.), and even much earlier and more primitive vehicles quality by

          • So, was the Wright Flyer not a real airplane because it could only travel very slowly over short distances?

            Of course not: it spent its entire operational career in flight, never doing anything on the ground. If it putt-putted down roads most of the time and lifted off once in a while, you'd have a comparison.

      • "But in water, where every 10 m or so is an additional atmosphere of pressure, going down the same distance is a Big Frelling Deal."

        It is not the pressure itself. The body has no problem going down to 100 or even 200 meters -in fact, it is the first 10 meters the only ones that you will notice, it is everything else: coldness, oxygen toxicity, nitrogen narcosis, air consumption speed... that makes it a technical challenge -of course, all of them are related to pressure, but still, it is not pressure as in

  • I doubt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordWabbit2 ( 2440804 ) on Thursday September 17, 2015 @10:59AM (#50540721)
    I doubt that it was destroyed at that depth, that depth is just where it ended up AFTER it was damaged and could not surface.
  • 734 U-boats were sunk during the war. Seems like it would be pretty easy to find one.

"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"