Ice on Deck
Titanic Research
Further analysis of the iceberg impact.
My first article about the newly discovered Bremen Iceberg that appeared in Encyclopedia Titanica in July 2001 (The Iceberg — resurfaced? BELOW) was about the photograph itself. This second article concerns another part of the fateful moment of collision: this iceberg picture provides us with a possible answer to the question, why chunks of ice were thrown onto the deck but no damage was caused to Titanic’s upper decks. The conclusion: chunks of ice did not fall from the top of the berg straight down onto the deck – they were thrown upwards then rebounded at the overhang of the iceberg and finally fell onto the ship.
The common view is that the top of the iceberg threw chunks of ice straight down onto the deck
1. It is also the common view that there was no extreme overhang at the berg which has reached over to the ship straight above the deck. Regarding both aspects it is hardly possible that ice was thrown from an icebergs top which was NOT hanging over the deck: furthermore it is widely known that the upper decks did not even touch the berg. According to these points, this must mean that the berg would have thrown its ice some way horizontally over to the ship. And we can furthermore assume that the size of the berg maybe did not reach up to the upper deck2. The witnesses reported very different sizes and even Rehoreks photograph doesn´t give any clue to that question.
How much ice was fallen onto the deck? The Able Bodied Seamen William Lucas has been examined at the British Enquiry (Day 3) by Mr. Rowlatt:
3Rowlatt: ”Where did you see the ice on the deck?”
Lucas: ”On the fore-well on the starboard side.”(...)Rowlatt: ”How much ice was there on the deck there?” Lucas: ”I suppose, about a couple of tons.”
However we have very different witnesses reports. Fourth Officer Joseph Groves Boxhall was examined from the British Enquiry to this point as well (Day 13):
Mr. Raymond Asquith: ”Did you then go up again through the other decks as far as C deck?”
Boxhall: ”I came up the same way as I went down.”Asquith: ”Without noticing any damage?”Boxhall: ”I did not see any damage whatever.”Asquith: ”When you got to C deck did you see some ice there on the deck?” Boxhall: ”Yes, I took a piece of ice out of a man's hand, a small piece about as large as a small basin, I suppose; very small, anyhow; about that size (Describing.) He was going down again to the passenger accommodation, and I took it from him and walked across the deck to see where he got it. I found just a little ice in the well deck covering a space of about three or four feet from the bulwarks right along the well deck, small stuff.”
Boxhall was the only witness who described a bit more precisely the quantity of ice he saw on deck. Not a ”couple of tons” as Lucas said, but ”small stuff”. The Able Bodied Seaman Thomas Jones testified before the US Inquiry (Day 7), that he went on deck and could see ”some ice”. The Able Bodied Seaman Edward John Buley also reported ”a couple of tons of block ice” to the British Inquiry (Day 16). The Leading Fireman Charles Hendrickson saw ”a lot of ice...on the deck” (British Inquiry, Day 5). But none of these accounts was as precise as Boxhall´s one.
Another interesting statement was given by Lookout Reginald Lee at the British Inquiry (Day 4) after a short talk between the Commissioner and the Attorney-General:
The Commissioner: ”What is supposed to have caused the ice to fall on the deck? Was it some part of the ship, the Titanic, striking the berg above the waterline, or was it something that fell from the iceberg without the iceberg being struck.”The Attorney-General: ”I should have thought myself that it followed that the vessel must have struck the iceberg, and brought the ice on to the deck.”
The Commissioner: ”So I should have thought, but I was wondering what part of the Titanic would strike the iceberg.”The Attorney-General: ”I do not think there is any such suggestion.” (To the Witness.) ”You have told us that you saw some ice fall on to the forewell deck?”
Reginald Lee: ”It must have been overhanging from the berg as she struck, otherwise it could not have come there, because there were no yards on the mast or anything of that sort. It must have been.”The Attorney-General: ”It must have been either the head or the side?” Reginald Lee: ”It caused it to fall inboard. This is where it landed, just on that forewell deck.” (Showing on the model.)The Attorney-General: ”You did not notice that, did you. Did you notice whether there was any overhanging part?”Reginald Lee: ”No, I cannot say what was overhanging; I cannot say the size.”
If we try to get a precise quantity of ice on deck we cannot get a clear result: some witnesses said ”a lot”, some said ”some” ice. But Boxhalls description was the most precise one. Lee´s report is very interesting because he spoke of an overhang he did not see. Was the iceberg somewhat higher than the guard rail or not? Boxhall spoke of an iceberg which was floating very low in the water and probably did not extend above the level of the guard rail. Other witnesses said that the iceberg did. As mentioned above Rehorek´s iceberg photograph doesn´t give any clue about its size. If we assume the iceberg did not reach up to the upper decks, how did the chunks of ice then get onto the ship? As Charles H. Lightoller, Second Officer, explained at the US-Hearing (Day 1):
Senator Smith: ”Was the vessel broken in two in any manner (i.e.: as a result of the collision) or intact?”Lightoller: ”Absolutely intact.”Smith: ”And the decks?” Lightoller: ”Intact.”
Boxhall’s report to the same hearing, after having inspected the ship’s interior, was similar (Day3):
”... I went on the bridge and reported to the captain that I could not see any damage.”
Boxhall repeated this at the British Inquiry (Day 13).
If the Titanic had chipped chunks of ice off the iceberg at the forecastle level, then Lightoller and Boxhall would certainly have spotted some visible damage. But there are no reports from any other witnesses either of any damage suffered by the Titanic above the water line. This is also confirmed by the report of the British court of inquiry:
4”The collision with the iceberg, which took place at 11.40 p.m., caused damage to the bottom of the starboard side of the vessel at about 10 feet above the keel, but there was no damage above this height.”
This must mean that the Titanic did not come into contact with the iceberg in the area of the upper forecastle – but, nevertheless, chunks of ice were thrown onto the deck assuming that there was an overhang, but which did not reach over up the deck? This inevitably raises the question as to how they could have got there. In the Cameron film, in which the collision was reconstructed as accurately as possible, this moment is cleverly disguised: the Hollywood iceberg rises straight up out of the water well above the height of the guard rail, and chunks of ice break away high up and plummet straight (!) down onto the forecastle deck. If the collision had happened as it is portrayed in the film, then the Titanic would most certainly have shown signs of damage in the upper area. After all, the ship’s hull becomes a bit broader as it rises out of the water accordingly some damage caused by the perpendicular face of the iceberg must have been visible higher up as well. In reality, however, in 1912 this was not the case.
Looking at Rehoreks iceberg photograph, that has shown up in the year 2000
5, we now can state that chunks of ice could still get onto the deck even when the iceberg did not reach the height of the guard rail. On this photograph the face of the iceberg is slightly (not extremely) overhanging above the point of initial impact. Let us just visualize the collision again: the 50,000 ton ship rams the iceberg at full speed. The force of the impact causes chunks of the iceberg to be split away and projected some ice into the air. The smashed edge at the berg is clearly to be seen on the photograph, of course the bigger damage we cannot see on the picture was below the water line.
We can therefore assume that only a few chunks of ice were thrown onto the deck. As we mentioned earlier, Lightoller and Boxhall reported that above and below deck everything was ”intact”, which corresponded to the findings of the British court of inquiry, too. This is also an indication that only the lower sections of the Titanic hull struck the iceberg and that ice was thrown upwards then rebounded from the upper overhang of the iceberg and finally deflected onto the deck. Of course a bigger part of these chunks fell back into the water.
This theory - by the way - does not depend on the size of the iceberg: the rebound effect works with an iceberg that was or was not extending the upper decks.
(December 2001)
Please note: This article is protected by copyright. Any duplication of the pictures for commercial or journalistic purposes or for publication in the press, TV, Internet (also on private homepages) or in any other media is forbidden without the explicit consent of the author. This also applies to enlargements or graphic alterations of parts or all of any images. Duplication for private use is, of course, permitted.
1. I did not find a detailed description in a book, but in some films, specially in the Cameron film it is shown that the chunks just fell down on the deck, as it seems from the top of the berg.
2. Please see former ET article ”The Iceberg – resurfaced”.”The Iceberg – resurfaced”.
3. All witnesses accounts are taken from the ”Inquiry project”.
4. Report on the Loss of the S.S. Titanic, Reprint, New York 1998, Pg. 32.
5. Please see former ET article ”The Iceberg – resurfaced”.
2. Please see former ET article ”The Iceberg – resurfaced”.”The Iceberg – resurfaced”.
3. All witnesses accounts are taken from the ”Inquiry project”.
4. Report on the Loss of the S.S. Titanic, Reprint, New York 1998, Pg. 32.
5. Please see former ET article ”The Iceberg – resurfaced”.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Iceberg — Resurfaced?
Titanic Research
Icebergs photographed after the sinking bear the hallmarks of a collision.
Nearly nine decades after the Titanic went down in the Atlantic, probably the first authentic photograph of the iceberg has come to light. It lay unpublished in private ownership until it was rediscovered in April 2000. The photograph shows scars of damage to the iceberg. Combining all indications as described in this report it can be claimed that this new iceberg photograph indeed shows the "real" iceberg. The original print now is kept in a bank safe in Munich.
1. The Rehorek Iceberg
A Bohemian named Stephan Rehorek was on board the German steamer Bremen 1. This ship sailed past the scene of the accident on its way from Bremerhaven to New York. This event is described in detail in Logan Marshall’s book: 2 on 20th April the Bremen sailed into the area of the disaster, the people on board could see wreckage and the bodies of more than a hundred victims floating on the water. What is more, according to Marshall, an iceberg was sighted "in the vicinity" which fitted precisely the description of the Titanic iceberg 3. A plan by the Bremen to pick up the dead bodies was finally not implemented when it was heard that the Mackay-Bennett, chartered for that purpose, was only two hours away.Stephan Rehorek, too, was witness to the horrifying consequences of the tragedy and he took a photograph of the iceberg. After his arrival in New York he sent a first postcard home, postmarked 25th April. On the front of this card was a picture of the Titanic:
"Dear Mother and Father, Best wishes from New York. I am sending you a picture of a dutch
4 fast ocean liner which sank on its maiden voyage. It was the biggest in the world. Two days away from New York it collided with an iceberg and the ship was severely damaged on one side. Almost 1,600 people drowned and about 670 were rescued. I have a photograph of the iceberg and will send it to you (...) I also saw the bodies of the drowned and the wreckage from the ship. It was a dreadful sight."
5 he had the photographs of the icebergs printed onto postcards and from Cherbourg sent one of it to his parents, and wrote:"Dear Mother and Father, (...) This card is a view of the iceberg that collided with and sank the Titanic liner. I will send a card to Josef, too."
The postcard sent to his brother Josef has also survived, but it shows a souvenir picture of the "Titanic". From the message on the card it seems that Stephan Rehorek only had one single print made of the iceberg photograph, because he tells his brother:
"Dear Josef, I am sending you, too, a postcard of the ship that sank (...) We were following about a thousand miles behind it.(...) Next time you come home our brother will show you pictures of the icebergs which were photographed from our ship."
Stephan Rehorek kept two other existing photographs, which show another iceberg. One of the pictures shows part of the steamer from which Rehorek took the photographs. Obviously Rehorek did not sent the pictures with that iceberg floating in the background, nor the photograph showing the iceberg at closer quarters, as postcards because he did not think the iceberg depicted was the famous one that sank theTitanic.
6. The iceberg card shows the place where the ice was chipped away: on the photograph a severed edge is discernible exactly on the side scraped along by the Titanic. It is clear that the damage to the iceberg was greatest below the water line but this is not visible on Rehorek’s photograph. Although we now have the shape of the fateful iceberg depicted in a photograph, we still cannot deduce with any certainty how large it was. We do not have any recognizable reference objects.2. Eye-witness reports
A few days after the tragedy the Senate Investigation Committee convened in New York to discover the details of exactly what happened. One after another, witnesses were asked to describe what happened during the collision. Most of them had been asleep at the time and only very few had actually seen the iceberg. The fateful collision itself lasted only a few seconds and, what is more, it was a black, moonless night. So the descriptions of the iceberg were all very different from each other. It was Frederick Fleet, the lookout positioned in the crow’s nest at the foremast who caught sight of the iceberg first and, therefore, had the best view of it, but he failed miserably when he was asked to describe it to the investigation committee. He was unable to provide satisfactory answers to the majority of Senator Smith’s questions:
7Smith: "How long before the collision or accident did you report ‘Ice ahead’?"
Fleet: "I have no idea."
Smith: "About how long?"
Fleet: "I could not say at the rate she was going."
Smith: "How fast was she going?"
Fleet: "I have no idea."
(...)
Smith: "How large an object was this when you first saw it?"
Fleet: "It was not very large when I first saw it."
Smith: "How large was it?"
Fleet: "I have no idea of distances or spaces."
Smith: "Was it the size of an ordinary house? Was it as large as this room appears to be?"
Fleet: "No, no. It did not appear very large at all."
Smith :"Was it as large as the table at which I am sitting?"
Fleet: "It would be as large as those two tables put together when I saw it at first."
8This last answer partly is still being misinterpreted today. First of all, what Fleet says is usually held to be his own description but, in fact, the idea of comparing it with the size of a table was suggested to him by Senator Smith; the words were more or less put into his mouth. And the second misinterpretation which persists is that the quotation has always been understood as if Fleet, when he spoke of "two tables put together", was describing the shape of the iceberg. In fact, the sailor was referring to the apparent size of the iceberg. Fleet said absolutely nothing about its shape.
Senator Smith wanted to know the exact size of the iceberg and persevered:
Smith: "How large did it get to be, finally when it struck the ship?"
Fleet: "When we were alongside, it was a little bit higher than the forecastle head."
Smith: "The forecastle head is how high above the water line?"
Fleet: "50 feet I should say."
Smith: "So that black mass, when it finally struck the ship, turned out to be about 50 feet above the water?"
Fleet: "About 50 or 60."
Some others also saw the iceberg go by and described their impressions to the investigation committee. Joseph G. Boxhall, the Fourth Officer on the Titanic was questioned by Senator Smith:
Smith: "Did you see it? (i.e.: the iceberg)"
Boxhall: "I was not very sure of seeing it. It seemed to me to be just a small black mass rising not very high out of the water, just a little at the starboard quarter."
Smith: "How far do you think, should you judge? (...) Did it extend up to B deck?"
Boxhall: "Oh no; the ship was past it then. It looked to me to be very, very low in the water."
Smith: "How far do you think it was above the water?(...) Above the ship’s rail?"
Boxhall: "No."
Smith: "And how far was this rail above the water´s edge?"
Boxhall: "Probably about 30 feet."
One remarkable account was given to the British Commission. Titanic seaman Joseph Scarrott had seen the iceberg in that fateful night:
Mr. Butler Aspinall: " What was the shape of this iceberg?"
Scarrott: " Well, it struck me at the time that it resembled the Rock of Gibraltar looking at it from Europa Point. It looked very much the same shape as that, only much smaller."
The Commissioner: "Like a lion couchant?"
Scarrott: "As you approach Gibraltar - it seemed that shape. The highest point would be on my right, as it appeared to me."
Scarrott first described the view as from the "Europa Point". But the commissioner asked for another point of view - the "lion couchant". The widely known shape of the Rock of Gibraltar (with the highest point on theleft side) usually was compared with a "lion couchant". It is the view that ships get right after they have entered the Bay of Gibraltar heading for the harbour. It is remarkable that Scarrott resembled the Rock with the highest point on the right side. That means: Scarrott saw an iceberg that looked like the Rock but inverted. Fortunately the steamer Bremen had the same position to the iceberg as the Titanic has had some days before: so Rehorek took his iceberg picture from the same point of view as the eye-witness Scarrott has had on board the Titanic a few seconds after the collision. For this reason we can create a direct comparison between both views: the shape of the Rock (as to be seen as a "lion couchant" from the Bay) and the shape of the iceberg. Indeed the Rehorek iceberg matches the Rock - with the highest point on the right side, as Scarrott has said.
Not far from the scene of the tragedy, on April 15th the German steamship Prinz Adalbert passed by an iceberg with signs of red paint on it. A photograph was taken of it merely out of curiosity at the unusual red paint marks. As it is told, it was only later that the crew learned that the Titanic, whose keel had been painted red, had collided with an iceberg. This meant that this iceberg must have been one of the "chief suspects". Even though the puzzle of the red paint cannot be solved, this can hardly have been the iceberg which the Titanic collided with: it is known that the Titanic ripped great chunks out of the iceberg and did not simply leave a few scars of red paint. We cannot say anything of the real origin of the red color. Maybe it was from a ship, maybe it was a colored layer. Icebergs with layers in different colors (mostly brownish) are not scarce. But there is nothing in the Prinz Adalbert iceberg photograph which suggests the impact of violent forces. Another question is not answered yet: How is it possible, that from this wireless equipped steamer (with a range of 250 nautical miles) a daylight picture of the "suspicious" iceberg has been taken the day after the disaster without any knowledge of the catastrophe? Unfortunately the picture is black and white and further studies about this color are not possible. Of course a dark layer crossing the berg is clearly to be seen.
The cable ship Mackay-Bennett was chartered to pick up the bodies of the dead. Another iceberg was photographed from this ship but here again there is no recognisable scraping damage nor is there any resemblance with the witness’ drawings or Scarrotts account. The same is true of all the previously known photographs of icebergs taken in the vicinity of the scene of the tragedy.
How many icebergs were there in the area? It is well known that the Titanic sank near a large field of icebergs. Arthur Rostron, Captain of the rescue ship Carpathia, reported to the US investigation committee:
"By the time we had the first boat´s people it was breaking day, and then I could see the remaining boats all around within an area of about 4 miles. I also saw icebergs all around me. There were about 20 icebergs that would be anywhere from about 150 to 200 feet high and numerous smaller bergs."
This statement only appears to be in contradiction to the pictures we have of the rescue operation: on some pictures showing life-boats and survivors shortly before their rescue by the Carpathia there are no signs of any icebergs or even crawlers at all. It must simply have been that the photographer had his back to the field of icebergs which means they must have been on the other side of the Carpathia. In this context it is worth mentioning an observation made by the German steamship Rhein: the ship crossed the area a few days after the catastrophe and reported not only of bodies and wreckage drifting in the water but also of only three larger icebergs in the immediate vicinity of the disaster
94. Drawings
Two drawings show the basic shape of the iceberg that was rammed as it was seen by eye-witnesses. One of them is a quick sketch from memory by Joseph Scarrott. What is characteristic of the iceberg are the two clear peaks as well as a slight rise in the middle. At either end the iceberg falls steeply into the water. It is not really possible to identify any further details from the drawing but the basic shape depicted in this drawing closely matches that in one of the others: 10 on the morning after the tragedy Colin Campbell Cooper, a passenger on the rescue ship Carpathia, made a drawing of the iceberg with its two peaks (see inset picture). The rise in the middle, recorded by Scarrott, can be identified in Cooper’s drawing to the right of the foremost peak. As Cooper was one of America’s most well known painters and, apart from having a well-trained eye, he also had a talent for form and structure, his picture can be taken to be an accurate depiction of the shape of the iceberg. Not only are the two peaks clearly recognisable in his drawing – as in Scarrott’s drawing, too – but also a further, as yet, little noticed detail: at the lower edge Cooper sketches an area where part of the iceberg has been chipped away. One can imagine, once the surviving eye-witnesses of the Titanic disaster were safely on board the Carpathia, that news of a close-hand re-encounter with the fatal iceberg, identified by some of the surviving eye-witnesses, would have spread around the ship like wildfire. Cooper would have grabbed his drawing materials and captured this moment in his drawing. Consequently, a photograph resembling Cooper’s drawing of the iceberg must be a picture of the iceberg that rammed the Titanic. And this is precisely the case with the photograph taken by Stephan Rehorek.5. Summary
So, does this mean with absolute certainty that we are looking at the most famous iceberg in the history of Christian seafaring, or is there still cause for doubt? Each clue taken on its own would not be sufficient evidence, but the sum of all the clues does point very strongly to the conclusion that the Rehorek photograph really shows the fateful iceberg:
1. The photograph was taken shortly after the tragedy in a certain vicinity to the place where the dead bodies and the wreckage of the ship were drifting in the water. This is also true for the other, well known, photographs claiming to show the fateful iceberg, but this is the only link they can claim except the red color of the Prinz-Adalbert iceberg .
2. The shape and details of the Rehorek iceberg match the drawings made by eye-witnesses. And the shape perfectly match the Rock of Gibraltar that had been compared with the iceberg by the eye-witness Joseph Scarrott.
3. The otherwise undamaged iceberg displays only one place where ice has been chipped off.
4. The damage to the Rehorek iceberg is at exactly the spot at which the Titanic would have hit it
11.It can therefore be claimed that this recently recovered photograph which has been taken in April 1912 from the Bohemian Stephan Rehorek probably shows the iceberg that was rammed by the Titanic.
Notes
1. Rehorek does not, in fact, say that he was on board the steamer "Bremen" owned by the "Norddeutscher Lloyd" shipping company. There are, however, a lot of indications that this was so: 1. What he writes about the situation in the text on the postcard corresponds exactly to Logan Marshall’s description of the trip made by the Bremen. 2. One of Rehorek’s postcards carries a "Bremerhaven" postmark, which is where the "Norddeutscher Lloyd" company was based, 3. An earlier card sent by Rehorek shows a picture of the Bremen. 4. Rehorek says himself that he was travelling "1000 miles" behind the Titanic, and so he must have passed by the scene of the tragedy around 20th April. According to Logan Marshall this is the date on which the Bremenreached the area.
3. Marshall quotes a Bremen passenger: "The officers told us that was probably the berg hit by the Titanic..."
4. We will never know why Rehorek wrote of a "dutch" liner. According to all informations about Rehorek that are available yet he could have been a seaman. But if he was, he probably should know that the Titanicwas not dutch. Reading several other postcards he sent home he seems to have travelled many times over the Atlantic. In another card he wrote that he is "looking forward to join a royal maneuver" of the german fleet. Was he a seaman or not? We cannot say yet for sure.
6. As a collector of Titanic documents, I use the Internet a great deal. This is how a Czech collector of postcards obtained my e-mail address and offered me a total of seven of Stephan Rehorek’s postcards, among them the pictures of the icebergs. It transpired only later that one of them probably was the very first photograph of the iceberg showing the place where it had been rammed by the Titanic.
11. I asked a glaciologist from a renowned research institute to provide an expert report on the point of impact on the ice. However, quite understandably, on the basis of only one photograph he was not able to draw any definitive conclusions. The damage to the iceberg could be an indication of natural decomposition – but it could equally be the result of external impact. Consequently the damage to the iceberg should not be seen as evidence, but rather as a clue.
Please note: This article is protected by copyright! Any duplication of the iceberg photographs for commercial or journalistic purposes or for publication in the press, TV, Internet (also on private homepages) or in any other media is forbidden without the explicit consent of the author. This also applies to enlargements or graphic alterations of parts or all of any photographs. Duplication for private use is, of course, permitted.
|
The author: Henning Pfeifer (*1962) is member of the Titanic Verein Schweiz (Swiss Titanic Society) and is working as a journalist in Germany.
Text and Images © Henning Pfeifer, Germany
No comments:
Post a Comment