Size of the Iceberg

[Aaron_2016]

Not necessarily. An iceberg is an irregular 3 dimensional object and just one measurement - height - will not give an idea of its true size. Width and especially depth, the latter not being obvious till the berg was seen "side-on" in relation to the ship would be major considerations. And of course, the fact that it was 9 times larger underwater.

Was it really nine times larger underneath the water? I was thinking that If the iceberg was very similar to the one shown in the video above, then it's size would appear almost the same on both sides. In fact it rolled over in the video because it appeared to be top heavy. There was a lot of discussion at the Inquiry that the iceberg may have recently capsized. Would this suggest it was a much smaller iceberg? Boxhall said it was:

"It seemed to me to be just a small black mass not rising very high out of the water.....it seemed to me to be very, very low lying.....It looked to me to be very, very low in the water......I do not think the thing extended above the ship's rail.....I fancied seeing this long-lying growler.....It looked to me as if it was very, very low."


.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Was it really nine times larger underneath the water? I was thinking that If the iceberg was very similar to the one shown in the video above, then it's size would appear almost the same on both sides.

.

An iceberg always floats showing only about 1/9 of its bulk above the water level.
As for the berg being "very low", it must have been high enough for some ice chunks to fall onto the well deck forward after impact.

 

[Jack Dawson]

An iceberg always floats showing only about 1/9 of its bulk above the water level.
As for the berg being "very low", it must have been high enough for some ice chunks to fall onto the well deck forward after impact.

Hi, I've never really understood exactly where the forward well deck ice came from. I guess it either collided with the superstructure of A/B/C decks, the impact was violent enough it was actually thrown from the berg as pieces shattered, or the berg listed a bit and dumped some slushy ice onto the deck?

If it had hit the upper decks and that caused the pieces to break, then it would have surely smashed the ship up - which it didn't?

 

[Aaron_2016]

Hi, I've never really understood exactly where the forward well deck ice came from. I guess it either collided with the superstructure of A/B/C decks, the impact was violent enough it was actually thrown from the berg as pieces shattered, or the berg listed a bit and dumped some slushy ice onto the deck?

If it had hit the upper decks and that caused the pieces to break, then it would have surely smashed the ship up - which it didn't?

First class survivor Edith Rosenbaum said she went onto the forward Promenade deck and grabbed some of the ice and how "We played snowballs. We thought it was fun." There were stairs on the promenade deck which led down to the lower Promenade deck. Perhaps that is where she got the ice? This does however suggest the iceberg had a large piece which extended over the deck and possibly broke off when it struck the forward promenade. Survivors said it was like soft ice and when it passed their portholes the soft ice pushed against their portholes and stuck against it.





I noticed in the video above that the ice on the top appears very soft after it rolls over and chunks of ice seem to fall off by the motion of the iceberg rocking back and forth after it has overturned.


.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Edith Rosenbaum also said it looked like a great big building floating by, so possibly it was level with her on the promenade deck and as it passed by it became more unsettled and more pieces broke off, so that when Boxhall looked over the side it would appear much smaller after the collision.

.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

We know very little about the berg, except that it was around 20 metres tall.

I did a quick check of every decent source of information that I could get and the iceberg's height visible above the seal level seems to be something like 60 to 65 feet....or about 20 metres as mentioned by Mr Gittins. But it was a very bulky solid object too and considering the probable mean width and depth, it seems to me that around half-a-million tons would be a reasonable estimate.

 

[Jim Currie]

The iceberg was described by AB Scarrott as being like Gibraltar as seen when approaching Europa Point. Those of you who know that pat of the world will know that what he was describing was very similar to what you see 48 seconds into Aaron's video.

An iceberg is the same as any other floating body. it has a center of buoyancy and a center of gravity.
The C of B is the exact geometric center of the underwater mass. It is the point through which the force of buoyancy pushes upward.
The C of G is the point though which the entire weight of the iceberg acts vertically downward due to gravity.
When these two are separated in a vertical line, the iceberg will be stable.
As an iceberg melts, it loses weight (Oh I wish!) above and below the surface. It's above water shape does not matter too much but the loss of weight above and below the surface causes the iceberg to lose draft and it rises. However, the changing shape of the underwater volume is a problem. As the volume under water reduces, the C of B rises. If the melt is uneven, the C of B will also move away from the greatest loss of volume. When it does this the C of G moves to be directly above the C of B once again. There is another element which enters the problem...the iceberg may also rotate.
It is quite possible that although the exposed part of Titanic's iceberg had a peak at one end, there might well have been a similar underwater peak to the northward of the visible peak. In other words, the underwater part might have been a mirror image of the bit above the water.

 

[Aaron_2016]

I noticed that most documentaries show the iceberg as being relatively small in length when compared to the Titanic. Is it possible that the iceberg was equally long or even longer than the Titanic? Reading reports of icebergs being sighted after the disaster and it appears they were quite long. Do we have any evidence of the length of the iceberg that sank the Titanic?


May 13th 1912.

Captain Moore of the Mount Temple said that icebergs can have long spurs - "In some cases you may get close to them. In others they have long spurs running underneath the water. In daytime in clear water you can see the spurs, because they show quite green under the water. Of course, my orders to my officers are to give them a wide berth; not take any chances whatever." Survivor Abraham Hyman was reported to have said - "I heard some of the sailors talking and heard them say that the ship had struck a spur of the iceberg that jutted out a long distance, and had slid upon it, hurting her keel."

4th officer Boxhall only saw a "very, very low in the water" "long-lying growler." Could this have been a spur which broke off the iceberg when the ship slipped over it and when it broke it floated up and away from the ship's side as the Titanic swung her stern away and off the broken spur which would float out and away from the side. Could this be what Boxhall had seen?

.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

 

[Aaron_2016]

Pretty big then! Up to 400 feet long. Perhaps the forward compartments were damaged simultaneously instead of one after the other, and if there was a long spur the ship may have slid upon it before striking the berg which made her helm not answer?

.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

There are an infinite number of possibilities regarding the exact shape and dimensions of the berg Aaron, but we can only state what we know with high probability. The shape was non-tabular, probably pinnacle, and the peak was a little higher than the boat deck, or about 65 ft above water making it a medium sized berg.