How do we know the exact place of tears in hull of the Titanic ?


Tigrou

Member
Mar 13, 2017
4
2
3
I have found several pictures on the web which show the supposed exact places where the Titanic hull was lacerated by the iceberg (and they all seems to match):
http://i.imgur.com/18DLMzW.gif (from here : Causes and Effects of the Rapid Sinking of the Titanic)
http://i.imgur.com/EUPLWd7.png (from wikipedia)

I could imagine this information was gathered during the expeditions but I am not sure how. AFAIK the bow penetrated very deep into the sea bed (approx. 18m) so those tears (if they exist) should not be visible.

Also : I thought that the hull fractured upon impact with the iceberg because of the low temperature of the sea (-1 C degees) make it brittle. Here it show tears which is something different.
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,582
682
188
I think they used sonar to scan the hull and thus saw what damage was created.

One interesting thing from the images is that the tears in the hull extend in length the further away from the bow they get, suggesting Titanic drifted or rammed the iceberg as she passed.
 

Tigrou

Member
Mar 13, 2017
4
2
3
I think you are right about the sonar : this is indeed explained in the wikipedia article :

Sinking of the RMS Titanic - Wikipedia (see ultrasound, first paragraph)
Also according to wikipedia those are not actually tears per se but rather narrow openings due do the deformation of the plates :
arrach10.jpg
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Curious to know what the port side looks like. I recall someone (possibly here) had successfully contacted the team who carried out the expedition and they were told that the damage seen on the starboard side was also seen on the port side. So the damage may very well not have been from the iceberg, and was quite possibly the result of the ship hitting the seabed.



bowseabed.PNG


.
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,582
682
188
Oh.

Did they find out if their were any marks on the Double Bottom (proving Titanic also ran-over a part of the Iceberg).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
No scans of the keel have been done owing to the fact the bow is resting on the seabed and her keel is buried deep. Even if they managed to push the wreck onto her side to have a look underneath the damage would still be inconclusive as this could be damage caused by the ship hitting the seabed.


.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,522
952
248
Germany
The sonar scans did show a damage about 45 feet long running the length of BR 6 crossed over WTB E into the forward coal bunker of BR 5. Maybe that was the one you thought about (as Barrett describes). However there is some dispute as they also found "similar" damage on the port side (what they mean with "similar" is unknown) and there had been also the statement they they might have manipulate the data for the show.
What is interesting however is that the damage are close to the 12sq feet (it was 11.35 sq feet) mentioned by Wilding in 1912 (he did not believe it was a gash) and is also at the position as described by survivors (like Barrett).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Did they only scan the edges of the double bottom? I was referring above that no scans of the entire bottom keel in the bow could be achieved. Was it achieved? How did they manage to get scanners to look at her keel underneath the ship? Looking at the port and starboard sides of the double bottom is certainly one thing, but actually being able to see a scan of her entire bottom plating and keel, has that been achieved?

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Similar threads