The Iceberg

>>What about that iceberg with the large red stripe near the waterline? <<

Well now when you think about it, that all too neat line is one of the problems...especially since it appears in a depression in the berg and with no accompanying evidence of any sort of impact damage. Real collisions just aren't that tidy.
 
I'm also just a teensy bit suspicious of the Prinz Adalbert's claim not to have heard about the Titanic's sinking if they were so close to the scene.

Excerpts from the testimony of Mr. Gilbert William Balfour (Marconi Company; Re: RMS Baltic) before Senator Smith at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, May 4, 1912:

10.30 a. m. - Californian still monopolizing the air with his remarks. Carrying on conversations with every station. Carpathia is trying to send me a message but communication is out of the question of owing to Californian.

11 a. m. - Still impossible to work Carpathia owing to Californian and Prinz Adalbert.


Roy
 
Hi Roy!

quote:

I don't think we really know where the Prinz Adalbert was either, do we?

Not that I know of. It's posted been on here that she was in the vicinity, but I don't believe the actual position is known. I could be wrong though.

quote:

No, the Titanic was far from being the only ship that came to grief because of all that darned ice - just the biggest.

Exactly. She wasn't the first and she wouldn't be the last.

quote:

I'm also just a teensy bit suspicious of the Prinz Adalbert's claim not to have heard about the Titanic's sinking if they were so close to the scene.

Well if they did, they were being mighty quiet about it.

My apologies for not getting back to you, regarding your request. I haven't forgotten it, so I will get to it soon.

Best regards,

Jason
happy.gif
 
>>I don't think we really know where the Prinz Adalbert was either, do we? Just that it was "in the area" or "near the scene." <<

That's about it. Perhaps Dave Gittins may be able to shed some light on this. He's done quite a bit of homework on that sort of thing with a few other ships.

>>Just that it was "in the area" or "near the scene." And even if the reddish smear did turn out to be paint, there's no way of telling - short of wishful thinking - if it was the Titanic's paint.<<

The Devil is always in the details. The Titanic's hull form was variable, as was the craggy form of the iceberg. If a ship were to have collided with that particular berg, you would expect to see the traces spread out in random locations, not a nice neat line.

>>I'm also just a teensy bit suspicious of the Prinz Adalbert's claim not to have heard about the Titanic's sinking if they were so close to the scene.<<

Did they have a radio aboard? If they did, was it up and running when all of this was going down? If not, then they could have been cruising on in blissful ignorance until the operator came in duty in the morning.
 
"If a ship were to have collided with that particular berg, you would expect to see the traces spread out in random locations, not a nice neat line."

That is true in some senses, Michael, but if the paint were lighter than water (I'm no expert on anti-spoiling paint), then any red paint scraped off in the collision that did not adhere to the ice at the strike will have floated to the surface and been drawn towards the larger object in the water (the canal effect) leaving a neat red line on the iceberg.

Before anyone has a do at me, I'm not saying this is fact.

Ryan
 
>>but if the paint were lighter than water (I'm no expert on anti-spoiling paint), then any red paint scraped off in the collision that did not adhere to the ice at the strike will have floated to the surface and been drawn towards the larger object in the water (the canal effect) leaving a neat red line on the iceberg.<<

Not quite. the paints used in that day had some heavy metal as their bases, in the case of the paint and that included lead. While some of the other solids might be lighter then water, and may float as a consequence, that still doesn't point to a nice neat line to the *exclusion* of other parts where the paint wouuld still be clinging. If the issue is constant meltoff, and the iceberg constantly rolling over as the centre of gravity changes, then this stuff you would expect it to be spread out all over the place if and paint debris on the water was in fact coming along for the ride.
 
It is curious that everyone talks about what the iceberg did to Titanic. But, ice being about 10% the strength of steel, there is also the question, "What did Titanic do to the iceberg?"

-- David G. Brown
 
One thing is for certain, the iceberg stayed afloat until it melted away. The Titanic sank within hours.
happy.gif
But you are absolutely right. It did not escape undamaged.
 
'Titanic' suffered no known damage whatsoever above waterline: no denting of its starboard railing; no disablement of davits or rigging. I am led to believe, therefore, that - apart from superficial surface ice catapulted aboard due to 'Titanic' running over its invisible shoreline - neither did the iceberg. The iceberg seen was avoided.
 
Fleet called it a "narrow shave." Scarrott saw the stern turning away from the ice. Rowe thought the berg was going to hit the bridge, but it didn't - and he also said that the propellers would have been smashed IF the ship was turning away under starboard helm - which they weren't because it wasn't.

One of the early Ballard discoveries that most got my attention was that they couldn't see any conclusive evidence of ice damage along the wreck's starboard side. Granted, the bow is buried in the bottom to about the well deck, but the damage went further back than that. All they found were buckled plates and popped rivets, which is consistent with David's claim that the keel and starboard bottom were accordioned upward against the mass of the ship itself.

Okay, so if Fleet saw the bow miss the iceberg (barely) and the stern was obviously turning away by the time Scarrott got out to the well deck, and Rowe had those same impressions from the stern, when did Titanic's side come into contact with the berg long enough to leave a red scar of paint? And where should such a scar be visible, considering the iceberg's loss of mass/weight from the collision?

PS.--Another question that continues to mystify me is how Boxhall, alone among those who actually saw the iceberg, said it was only 20-30 feet high, or not quite as high as B Deck. By the time he, Smith and Murdoch trooped out onto the starboard wing, he'd been outside in the dark long enough for his eyes to have done *some* adjusting.

PPS.--If, according to Olliver, Murdoch ordered HARD A-PORT *after* the berg had passed the bridge, what was Murdoch trying to protect - given the length of time it would have taken for the steering mechanism to respond??

Roy
 
Fleet called it a "narrow shave." Scarrott saw the stern turning away from the ice. Rowe thought the berg was going to hit the bridge, but it didn't - and he also said that the propellers would have been smashed IF the ship was turning away under starboard helm - which they weren't and it wasn't.

Just to be clear, the bridge Rowe was referring to was the afterbridge on the poop deck, not the forebridge where Murdoch was. QM Rowe also estimated that the berg came less than 20 ft of the poop.

Fleet said she appeared to have struck "just about in front of the foremast." It does not mean he saw it actually scrape the side but it obviously was close enough that ice did fall in on the well deck as it went by. If the vibration of the encounter was felt throughout the ship, the vibration of the encounter would also impact the iceberg causing any loose ice to topple down. The peak of the berg was close to the side near the ship and visible by Olliver as he entered the forebridge as it was passing aft.

Scarrott saw the stern swing away after the berg was well past the stern. The ship was definitely turning on port helm (right rudder) at that time.

Ice was reported to have come through some passenger portholes on E deck. Also the ports in the Cafe Parisien on B deck were wet after the berg past by. It was very close.

One of the early Ballard discoveries that most got my attention was that they couldn't see any conclusive evidence of ice damage along the wreck's starboard side. Granted, the bow is buried in the bottom to about the well deck, but the damage went further back than that. All they found were buckled plates and popped rivets, which is consistent with David's claim that the keel and starboard bottom were accordioned upward against the mass of the ship itself.

All known damage was about 25 ft below waterline or deeper.

Okay, so if Fleet saw the bow miss the iceberg (barely) and the stern was obviously turning away by the time Scarrott got out to the well deck, and Rowe had those same impressions from the stern, when did Titanic's side come into contact with the berg long enough to leave a red scar of paint? And where should such a scar be visible, considering the iceberg's loss of mass/weight from the collision?

If any of the red paint found its way onto the berg it was deep down. If the berg lost anything it was a small fraction of its total mass, assuming a berg that was as high as the boat deck. But icebergs do change their angles as they melt, sometimes capsizing completely. So any underwater damage may show up on the surface sometime. However, I don't believe paint would stick.

PS.--Another question that continues to mystify me is how Boxhall, alone among those who actually saw the iceberg, said it was only 20-30 feet high, or not quite as high as B Deck. By the time he, Smith and Murdoch trooped out on the starboard wing, he'd been outside in the dark long enough for his eyes to have done *some* adjusting.

No mystery here at all. "Mr. BOXHALL. I am not sure of seeing it; that is what I say, I would not swear to seeing it. But I fancied seeing this long-lying growler."

PPS.--If, according to Olliver, Murdoch ordered HARD A-PORT *after* the berg had passed the bridge, what was Murdoch trying to protect - given the length of time it would have taken for the steering mechanism to respond?

This is my guess. Murdoch didn't initially think it would actually strike until it got real close. Then he rang the engine telegraphs in quick sequence and went immediately to the WTD switch, getting there seconds after she started to make contact. That's when Olliver entered the scene. As Murdoch noticed the berg go past the bridge he called out for a hard-aport while still at the WTD switch and bell alarm. He needed to get the pivot point ahead of the berg before swinging the stern, otherwise guess what happens to the contact pressure on the bow? On a ship like the Titanic the pivot point would be just aft of the foremast, about 1/6th back from the bow. It takes only about 2 seconds to get from there to alongside bridge at 38 ft/sec. You are correct in saying that Olliver heard the order just after seeing the berg go past the bridge. That means it was at least 1/3 back from the bow when the order was heard. My guess is that the rudder could easily swing its 40 degrees from center under 10 seconds, so it was already acting to push the stern away by time the berg was passing Rowe. (Takes only 22.5 seconds to travel down the length of the vessel at that speed.)
 
One begs to wonder all the 'what if's' had a different set of officers been on the bridge at the time the Titanic's lookouts sighted the iceberg. I mean this in no disrespect towards First Officer Murdoch or Sixth Officer Moody. They were both courageous men, but even courageous men make mistakes. And a different set of officers on the bridge might have made different evasive maneuvers, thus possibly saving the ship, howbeit damaged.
 
>>And a different set of officers on the bridge might have made different evasive maneuvers,<<

Maybe, but in the situation as we understand it to be, a deck officer regardless of who it is would have three options:

a) Hold his speed and try to steer around it. This lets you put some distance between yourself and the danger.
b)Slow down, which buys you a bit more time to make a decision.
c)Try to stop. This is the least preferred of the options as it often means that by this time, you're so close to the obstruction that a collision is inevitable.

The problem here is that for all that we know, there are a lot of unknowns and it doesn't stand to reason that those who survived either told the whole story or for that matter, even got all the details right. That's one of the reasons yoiu see such anomolies as, for example, Boxhall relating turn to port and reverse engines thing he says he heard Murdoch relate to the Captain, while those who were in the engine room testify that the engines were not reversed until after the collision with the iceberg.
 
I dont understand something,I'd like to know what damage did the iceberg do to the hull,because she was designed to remain afloat with any four compartments flooded, possibly five, enabling her to withstand a collision at the joint of two compartments.
And if Titanic struck on an underwater shelf of the iceberg,as Lookout Reginald Lee said "...It seemed almost as if she might clear it, but I suppose there was ice under water."
what was the damage of Titanic's grounding ?
Did ice underwater rip Titanic's bottom open?

[Moderator's note: This post, which was in another thread in this topic has been moved to here, which is discussing the same subject. JDT]
 
Back
Top