Natural World "The iceberg that sank the Titanic"

[Ernie Luck]

A programme at 8.00pm on UK channel BBC2 on Wed.1 March. 'An insight into the origins of the iceberg that sank the Titanic'

Might be interesting - more about icebergs than Titanic I believe.

 

[Paul Lee]

I missed half this show, but it seemed interesting although it did use the usual mislabelled film footage (Lusitania et al). It had some interesting points about the iceberg, such as the ever changing shape of the iceberg due to melting effects causing the centre of mass to change, speculating why no one really knows what the fatal iceberg looked like, and that she may have melted away a week or two after the disaster.

The show made the poetic point that both the iceberg was only intended to travel on its maiden voyage. Just like the Titanic.

 

[Paul Wilkinson]

Hi Paul

It was a good show on the whole, the iceberg stuff (and especially the bits about its stability) were very interesting. I thought it was a bit odd that the iceberg expert tried to present himself as something of a Titanic expert too (spouting the old saws about having too small a rudder and what a great idea it would have been to ram the iceberg head-on). But I guess the Titanic angle was a good one to get a TV prog made about his research. The overdramatization that goes into these things grates though (eg "someone has *finally* tracked down where the iceberg came from". Please! I think Greenland has been known to be the most likely source for a wee while now!). It felt similar to all those Horizon programs featuring a lone maverick scientist predicting doom!

Cheers

Paul

 

[Ernie Luck]

Hi Paul & Paul,

It was interesting and spectacular. One or two facts stuck in my mind, that only 10% of the iceberg was above water - god knows what the 90% underneath must have been like, a veritable mountain. Also the constant turning of the iceberg which would soon have eliminated any paint marks.

Another thing I picked up on was when the commentator said that it was such a dark still night that the brightest object would have been the Titanic.This would have made it difficult for the lookouts to see any object. [t would be like driving a car at night on an unlit road with no headlights and with the interior lights on].

Worth watching, even if the constant reference to the 'Titanic Iceberg' grated a bit.

 

[Iain Stuart Yardley]

I forgot it was on until 15 minutes in but I don't think I missed a great deal. What I thought was interesting, aside from the constant turning of the berg (didn't someone say the Titanic berg would have been even harder to spot had it been showing it's blue, just-from-under-the-water, side?) was that the berg, when breaking away from Greenland, could have caused casualties even before the Titanic? It showed a clip of an actualy berg breaking away and the tidal wave it caused. Purely speculative but interesting.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

It would have been great to have seen this show here in the States. Not having seen the show I was wondering what the expert said about the changing CG and the berg constantly turning over. From what I have read this tends to occur when the bergs come down and meet the warmer waters of the Gulf Steam. The bergs that were in the region where the Titanic struck were not encountering warmer waters. If anything they were still Labrador water with temps in the high 20s (F) noted for an extensive region stretching across a very large area that particular year.

 

[Paul Lee]

Hi Sam, One thing the doc. didn't show was the huge ice field across the Titanic's path. The graphics made it look like one or two isolated bergs.

 

[Noel F. Jones]

This programme was uniquely distinguished in that it did not adduce the term "unsinkable".

Otherwise it was distinguished by a particularly cavalier mismatch of 'historical' film footage. Gravity davits; in 1912. I ask you!

Noel

 

[Ernie Luck]

I would not dismiss this programme in such a 'cavalier' fashion, Noel. It was after all primarily about icebergs.

I would rather see programmes with a few historical inaccuracies than not have them made for fear of upsetting a few rivet counters.

 

[Noel F. Jones]

My first comment was actually a commendation of sorts, but I do appreciate the point you make Ernie.

Noel

[Moderator's notes: 1. This post and the eight others immediately above were in a separate thread in this topic, but have been moved to the pre-existing one on the same subject. 2. Do not start another thread when there is already an existing one. JDT]

 

[Omar Schehab]

I saw this documentary about a month ago.

i found the comparison between both the titanic and the iceberg as if they were on a production line rather fascinating..having never looked at it in this aspect.

There were good scenic shots of iccebergs and the greenland ice sheets and the science behind the formation , travels and ultimate demise of icebergs in general and the titamic's iceberg in particular....

<although>

something that i find really annoying, passing of any footage of turn-of-the-century liners as Titanic..Grrrr