Distance Between Bow & Stern After Break

[Aaron_2016]

How far do you believe the bow and stern had drifted apart after they broke on the surface? Lightoller believed the screams were "half a mile" away from his boat. Jack Thayer saw the bow moving forwards and presumably away from the stern as she separated, and survivors estimated the stern was afloat for about 5 minutes and may have been carried away by the currents towards the south, or pushed away by the expulsion of air that pushed out of the bow as it went down. Do you believe there was a significant distance between the bow and stern before she part sank? Is it possible that both sections on the sea floor are actually resting near the spot where each sections sank i.e. They sank a considerable distance apart?


Here is the moment Brown saw the stern break and rise up with lights blazing as the bow moved forwards and away from the stern. The bow sinks and the stern rotates around and is possibly pushed further away by the currents and possibly the air escaping the bow.

Jack Thayer
"Occasionally there had been a muffled thud or deadened explosion within the ship. Now, without warning, she seemed to start forward, moving forward and into the water at an angle of about 15 degrees. This movement, with the water rushing up toward us was accompanied by a rumbling roar, mixed with more muffled explosions. It was like standing under a steel railway bridge while an express train passes overhead, mingled with the noise of a pressed steel factory and wholesale breakage of china"......(He swims away and looks back at the ship.)......."She continued to make the same forward progress as when I left her. The water was over the base of the first funnel. The mass of people on board were surging back, always back toward the floating stern. The rumble and roar continued, with even louder distinct wrenchings and tearings of boilers and engines from their beds. Suddenly the whole superstructure of the ship appeared to split, well forward to midship, and blow or buckle upwards. The second funnel, large enough for two automobiles to pass through abreast, seemed to be lifted off, emitting a cloud of sparks................It seemed as though hours had passed since I left the ship, yet it was probably not more than four minutes, if that long. There was the gigantic mass, about 50 or 60 yards away. The forward motion had stopped. She was pivoting on a point just abaft of midship. Her stern was gradually rising into the air, seemingly in no hurry, just slowly and deliberately. The last funnel was about on the surface of the water. It was the dummy funnel, and I do not believe it fell."

Lightoller was sucked down as the bow went under and the second funnel fell. He held onto a broken guy wire and reached the surface. Twice more he was sucked down and blown to the surface and he believed there was an explosion occurring inside the ship. When he reached the surface he found the stern was facing the opposite way. He refused to say the ship had broken, but it is easy to see she was broken as Jack Thayer had already witnessed it and saw the stern corkscrew around, which is the moment Lightoller likely reached the surface. Lightoller then reached the collapsible with Jack Thayer aboard it, and witnessed the first funnel fall down which he said pushed the collapsible a considerable distance away and when he heard the screams he judged their boat was "half a mile" away from the immediate scene.

Do you believe the bow moved far away from the stern, or did the stern move far away from the bow?


.

 

[David G. Brown]

Research comes before speculation both in the dictionary and in Titanica.

The geographic coordinates of "the wreck" are generally given for neither the bow nor the stern, but five large and distinctive pieces of wreckage. What are they? Why are they used for defining the wreck's location? Which piece of wreckage lies closest to the five distinctive pieces of the wreck? Which piece is farther away? Rather simple research will yield answers to these questions and lead to a conclusion -- not pure speculation.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Aaron_2016]

.....The geographic coordinates of "the wreck" are generally given for neither the bow nor the stern, but five large and distinctive pieces of wreckage....
-- David G. Brown

So the bow and stern could have drifted far apart on the surface as both sections are far apart on the seafloor?

If the stern remained afloat for 5 minutes and drifted south with the current could that explain why it rests so far from the bow on the seafloor? Did the bow move forwards as the water rushed in and blew out the air at the back which propelled it forwards and away from the stern before it submerged? Did both sections move independently away from each other before they completely sank or after they sank? The wreck doesn't tell us as we don't know what happened before and during the descent.

I recall a documentary which claimed the debris field should have been much larger if the ship had broken completely on the surface and they claimed the middle section remained attached to the stern and broke away much closer to the seafloor and they believed that explains why the debris is spread around a small area next to the stern rather than all over the wreck site. With the break up process inconclusive and descent inconclusive I think the seafloor does not tells us exactly what happened on the surface, and if the ship did or did not drift apart on the surface or during the descent.


.

 

[David G. Brown]

Research.

Not documentaries and animations. They are all second to thirty-seventh hand concepts and conclusions. Not necessarily facts.

Study the available photos and reliable wreck data. What is the size of a debris "cone" that's 12,500 feet high? Look up "venturi effect." How uniform is the column of water from the wreck upward to the surface? Any differences in current set or drift? Do the actions of the stern match what would be expected of a free-floating body? Or, are they those of a body being pulled down by connection with another?

My point is simple...that making an accurate description of chaos on a dark night is anything but simple. It may be impossible due to lack of necessary data. The engineer or first class lady who saw a single critical detail -- but did not live to report it -- may be the stopping point of research. We all know that cliche from American western movies, "Dead men don't talk."

Which brings up the topic of survivor bias...but that's for another thread.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Rennette Marston]

I believe there was a long distance between the bow and the stern after the break up. I might be wrong, but I think it is possible.

 

[Jaden Maxwell]

I believe there was a long distance between the bow and the stern after the break up. I might be wrong, but I think it is possible.

From Paul Lee's Titanic website.

Survivor Thomas Oxenham ("The Hudson Observer", 23/4/12)
"When the big ship parted and the hulks drifted apart before going under we all sat still shivering and afraid. It was the most wonderful and at the same time awful thing I ever saw. The halves seemed to rise out of the water, gaining impetus for the great trip to the bottom 2,000 fathoms deep."

 

[Jaden Maxwell]

I believe there was a long distance between the bow and the stern after the break up. I might be wrong, but I think it is possible.

From Paul Lee's Titanic website.

Survivor Thomas Oxenham ("The Hudson Observer", 23/4/12)
"When the big ship parted and the hulks drifted apart before going under we all sat still shivering and afraid. It was the most wonderful and at the same time awful thing I ever saw. The halves seemed to rise out of the water, gaining impetus for the great trip to the bottom 2,000 fathoms deep."

 

[Rennette Marston]

Interesting tidbit. Though I do not believe the bow could've literally resurfaced after separating from the stern. Perhaps he meant the bow corrected her list to port after it twisted and broke free from the aft section. But I digress.