Collapsible A

  • Thread starter Magda Natalia Piotrowska
  • Start date
Dec 4, 2000
3,234
480
213
One thought-- collapsibles A and B could only have been close to the bow section, and specifically to the front of the superstructure. They would necessarily have been hundreds of feet away from the stern as it upended and disappeared. So, the question is not "how far from Titanic," but properly, "how far from the stern (or bow)?"

-- David G. Brown
 
Apr 24, 2003
84
0
76
Andrew, I don´t think that ”žTitanic“ is a reliable source for my question.
David, I wondered myself , but the position of “B”￾ was not near the bow, it was nearby the stern when it sunks. Think about Jack Thayers statement, that, when he reached Collapsible B, the propellers of the ship were directly over him and the boat. I think the suction of the ship sucked the collapsible in the direction of the stern.
My question refers to some survivor statements about position of A in relation to the stern, I haven´t found some.

Best regards

Manuel
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 31, 2005
579
1
86
As Bill and David have said, Collapsible A does appear to have been in front of the superstructure, as was Collapsible B initially. I'm not sure how or why, because the accounts I have seen do not describe this part, but according to Jack Thayer and Eugene Daly, Collapsible B ended up under the stern, and Daly remarked that he believed the stern and propellers were going to come down right on top of them. I tend to think that this was after the break-up, when the stern rotated around though. Certainly, both collapsibles must have been forward or off the line of the superstructure when that section of the ship submerged.

Kind regards,
Tad
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,234
480
213
The front of the boat deck is hundreds of feet from the locus of the break, and even farther to the fantail. Collapsible B had no means of propulsion. To move it several hundred feet would have required some motive force. To some extent, that force could have been the wash of water when funnel #2 fell. However, even that event should not have caused an overturned hull to "shoot" many hundreds of feet.

The distance collapsible B moved and the amount or rotation of the stern are not scientifically documented, so can be debated without result. Still, the forces available do not seem sufficient to overcome the distance between forward boat deck and even a 180-degree rotated stern.

My conclusion is that Thayer and Daly were speaking more about their perceptions than physical reality. In that sense, they told 100% the truth as they experienced it. The human mind can "zoom in" on a portion of its field of vision, sort of like digital cameras have electronic zooming capabilities. The horror of the situation probably magnified the men's perceptions of closeness.

-- David G. Brown
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
2
108
Don't forget August Wennestrom's recollections as reported in "End of a Dream". He saw someone lowering himself down to the water beside the rudder. I don't know how he could have seen that unless he was in the vicinity
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,234
480
213
Paul-- On what did this person lower himself down? Serious question. A ship Titanic's size doesn't have coils of line suitable for the purpose just lying about like an old Spanish galleon. Again, not to question August Wennestrom's desire to tell the truth, just to point out there is something within his story that requires explanation before the story can be used as proof of anything.

-- David G. Brown
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 31, 2005
579
1
86
I don't know what to make of the accounts from those on Collapsible B, they could very well have been telling the truth as they saw it, regarding the stern looming overhead, or they may have been intentionally, or unintentionally exaggerating as David suggested.

Either way, we really only have their accounts to go on given the lack of data and gaps in the forensic evidence, so this would be worth a closer look, just for curiosity's sake. I do know that Daly gave at least one public account and a couple of private ones mentioning this detail and that he thought the stern would fall down on top of them, so he at least believed it to be what really happened. Whether he was correct is subject to interpretation.

Take care guys,
Tad
 

Mike Poirier

Member
Dec 31, 2004
1,472
0
106
I am not sure if the boats would have been specifically to the front of the superstructure. They were in and about the vicinity of the davits for 2 and 1. I don't think the wash of the Titanic taking a dive would send the boats out ahead of it. I am not saying it sent the boats all the way to the stern, but the initial wave sent them outwards. With the ship diving forward, I imagine the boats having already drifted out, watched the Titanic sink past them, rather like a car driving by.
 
J

João Carlos Pereira Martins

Guest
I completely agree with Michael! I don't think that a semi-flooded collapsible would get so far away from his original point, and you should remember the confusion, the ropes and pieces of wreckage which were already in the water, making difficult to boat A to drift away from the ship, even more to get close to the stern... it just wouldn't have enough propulsion for it, and in my opinion neither the collapse of funnel 1 or 2 or the waves or the "rough" waters would send the boat to such a distance.

Regards, João
 

John Paul

Member
Jun 1, 2009
8
0
31
I read that Collapsible A was swamped and half-flooded and some passengers managed to get into Collapsible A(one of them is Rosa Abbott, the only woman to survive after Collapsible D was lowered.) Collapsible D was the last lifeboat to be lowered.
 

Bob_Read

Member
May 9, 2019
243
90
28
USA
I have written an article which examines the technical aspects of launching collapsibles A and B stowed on the roof of the officers’ quarters. In the accounts I have read, they attached collapsible A to davit falls to try to pull it to the davits. What is missing from these accounts is which davit pair they attached collapsible A to. Did they attach it to the davits for lifeboat #1 or #3? In examining the possible ways of launching collapsible A, it became clear that launching it from davits for lifeboat #3 would have been considerably easier. But I don’t know if that’s what they tried. Anybody know? Here’s my article: http://www.titanic-cad-plans.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Collapsible-boat-article-1.pdf
 

Dan Parkes

Member
Jul 1, 2010
46
6
38
Hi Bob. What a fascinating and detailed article, I enjoyed reading it. Many thanks for posting it.

Did they attach it to the davits for lifeboat #1 or #3?
There might be something that helps answer this..... the No. 1 davit on the wreck is in the upright (retracted) position and is the only davit on the wreck found to be in this position, which according to James Cameron/Parks Stephenson means the davit was brought back to an upright position to receive another boat (i.e. collapsible A).
 

Bob_Read

Member
May 9, 2019
243
90
28
USA
Hi Dan: That sounds like a possibility but there were a lot of obstacles to getting that boat over to #1 davit. The one which would have taken the most time would have been unbolting the sounding machine from the deck. Time was the one commodity they were really short of.