Hi Drew,
Yes, that's right.
We agree to disagree on the 109.
But, then again, we CAN agree that she was rammed and sunk by the IJN AMIGIRI on the night of August 1/2, 1943.
Ballard contends the wreck is intact under the sand, except for a gash in her side. Hogwash people. The crew had always said (from day one) that she was cut in half, the pilot of that PBY reported half of an upturned boat on a reef, Evans reported wreckage on a reef that was approximately 40 feet in length (1/2 of 80 feet).
But, Ballard says she lies intact in deep water, UNDER the sand? No debris field except for one torpedo tube, ... one torpedo tube does not constitute an entire wrecksite. I suspect if someone would search for that reef that pilot and Evans saw wreckage on, that they might find more conclusive debris, possibly even something that identifies it from the 109.
I do not believe and have not believed that Ballard found her. I am sorry but everything about that expedition bothered me to no end. It flies in the face of everything I was taught to do in Archaeology! Oh .... I found a single torpedo tube, it's from the 109. Oh, ... it has wood on its bases, that means the entire intact wreck lies beneath it ... but I can't disturb the sand because it's a war grave and I must call the Senator to get permission to blow a little sand away from the base to confirm my theory about the wreck being intact? WTF people?
A welded steel tube with a 2,000 pound torpedo in it would not pull away pieces of decking as it was torn away from the impact of a Destroyer smashing into a mahogany hull going at 35 knots and the wooden boat was going at the most, 5 knots and it was only a glancing blow? Yeah, OK. Well, if that's true, then that dream I had with Jessica Simpson, Britany Spears, Jolene Blalock and I last night must be true too.
Garth