MATTHEW JOSEPH COOPER
Guest
How high did Britannic's stern rise out of the water when It was sinking.
How high was Britannic's stern during the sinking
- Thread starter MATTHEW JOSEPH COOPER
- Start date
Michael H. Standart
Member
No way to know really. We know it came out high enough for a boat to be sucked into a still spinning propellor (Talk about Excedrin Headache #666!) but I doubt it would have come up much higher since by then, the bow was already in contact with the bottom.
MATTHEW JOSEPH COOPER
Guest
John A. Fleming said she went perpendicular could It be possible that the water was deep that day than It is now.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>John A. Fleming said she went perpendicular <<
He was wrong.
>>could It be possible that the water was deep that day than It is now.<<
No. The depth of the water in this area is well known and was known back then. To get the sort of shift in depth you're thinking of would take a supermassive earthquake the likes of which hasn't been seen on this planet at any time in recorded history.
UN-recorded may be another matter entirely, but that goes way too far back to be of any relevance here.
He was wrong.
>>could It be possible that the water was deep that day than It is now.<<
No. The depth of the water in this area is well known and was known back then. To get the sort of shift in depth you're thinking of would take a supermassive earthquake the likes of which hasn't been seen on this planet at any time in recorded history.
UN-recorded may be another matter entirely, but that goes way too far back to be of any relevance here.
MATTHEW JOSEPH COOPER
Guest
I think Hospital Ship Britannic website had a sinking timeline that showed it coming in the air really high.
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
She could have not come very high in the air. The ship was a little over 882 feet long and the water about 400 feet deep. Her stem was touching the seabed while her stern was still out on the water.
Also she was rolling to starboard, the stern settled back and sunk under water.
Also she was rolling to starboard, the stern settled back and sunk under water.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>I think Hospital Ship Britannic website had a sinking timeline that showed it coming in the air really high.<<
You think? You don't know?
Be that as it may, what Ioannis speaks to is the depth of the water in the location where the Britannic sank. There's simply no possible way that she could have gone perpendicular.
You think? You don't know?
Be that as it may, what Ioannis speaks to is the depth of the water in the location where the Britannic sank. There's simply no possible way that she could have gone perpendicular.
MATTHEW JOSEPH COOPER
Guest
I remember now Fifth Officer Fielding estimates the stern rising some 150 feet into the air. 9:06 am
http://titanic.wikia.com/wiki/HMHS_Britannic
Don't worry I believe you that she did not go perpendicular.
http://titanic.wikia.com/wiki/HMHS_Britannic
Don't worry I believe you that she did not go perpendicular.
Grant Carman
Member
Just a suggestion Matthew.
Wiki sites are notorious for not being completely accurate. Any site that can be edited by a reader must be taken with a grain of salt.
Wiki sites are notorious for not being completely accurate. Any site that can be edited by a reader must be taken with a grain of salt.
MATTHEW JOSEPH COOPER
Guest
Yes I know that but that I believe was on Hospital Ship Britannic.com website which mentions her stern rising 105 feet in the air.
Shel Cooper
Member
mailsteamer433
Guest
I feel I must write this to clarify the above statements regarding Rev. Fleming's account. His full recollection regarding the stern and its descent:
"The waters moved over the deck still, the bows of the ship dipping deeper and deeper into the sea, until the rudders stood straight up from the surface of the water, and, poised thus for a few moments, dived perpendicularly into the depths, leaving hardly a ripple behind."
He did not mean to say the stern stood and fell perfectly perpendicular to the water. He meant to say that after the stern was observed to be pointing upward a few moments, which may be attributed to the bow striking the seabed, it fell at a perpendicular, or relatively perpendicular, to the water.
I hope the following illustration (Britannic render by Titanic: Honor and Glory) helps my explanation.
"The waters moved over the deck still, the bows of the ship dipping deeper and deeper into the sea, until the rudders stood straight up from the surface of the water, and, poised thus for a few moments, dived perpendicularly into the depths, leaving hardly a ripple behind."
He did not mean to say the stern stood and fell perfectly perpendicular to the water. He meant to say that after the stern was observed to be pointing upward a few moments, which may be attributed to the bow striking the seabed, it fell at a perpendicular, or relatively perpendicular, to the water.
I hope the following illustration (Britannic render by Titanic: Honor and Glory) helps my explanation.
Kyle Naber
Member
I don't believe this is what was meant by this statement. I think it was most likely a natural exaggeration of angle as Titanic survivors mentioned the height of the stern. Yes, Titanic's stern did almost reach that angle, but not perfectly.
mailsteamer433
Guest
Regarding the direction of the stern's plunge, I will concede that interpretation of the account will vary, Lost Liners also follows that the description indicated the stern plunged straight down. However, if Rev. Fleming wanted to indicate that the stern dived straight down, there were better words to use instead of "perpendicular", which, to me, is more indicative that the stern fell to the side rather than straight down, even if it did not trace out a complete or perfect right angle before fully submerging.
Similar threads
