Loss of the Rudder Wasn't Main Cause of Sinking of Endurance?

Maritime News Marine Incidents
1

According to this Cambridge professor, the loss of the rudder wasn’t the main cause of the Endurance sinking?

___________________

From the below linked journal:

“Conclusions

Why did Endurance sink? The popular explanation, given most often since the sinking in 1915, is that the rudder was the Achilles’ heel, and when ice tore it off, the ship was doomed. Another part of the popular narrative tells us that Endurance was an exceptionally strong wooden ship, maybe the strongest ever built. However, this narrative of Endurance as a particularly strong ship that sank due to a single point failure of the rudder is not supported by diaries of the expedition members, other written documents of the time, or structural comparison with other early polar ships. Endurance did lose its rudder, but that did not sink the ship. Endurance would have sunk even if it did not have a rudder at all. If just one simple reason must be given for the loss of Endurance, it was tearing of the keel, which broke the ship into two halves, which was fatal. Nor was the rudder the weakest part of the ship. The weakest part was the engine room area, which lacked beams and thus strength against compression from the ice. A more correct explanation would be that Endurance was crushed by ice – simply annihilated, as Shackleton (Reference Shackleton1920, p. 76) put it – without naming a single reason for the sinking.”

1 Like
2

From what little I know of “Endurance”, I always assumed she was crushed. Never read any of her history.

2 Likes
3

Read the Shackleton book “South” and the Tom Crean book. I don’t recall anyone blaming loss of the rudder for loss of the ship.

[P.S. At the time of the “Boaty McBoatface” stupidity, I voted many times in many places in the naming game for the new Antarctic vessel - for Tom Crean every time.
Would a 21st century Deep South crewmember (or family) prefer the new ship to be imbued with the spirit of e.g. Scott/Shackleton who went south and died; or of a man who went south 3 times, with both, came back, went to war, came back, then retired to run an Irish country pub?
Easy choice!]

1 Like
4

I’ve always thought being crushed, then being let go is what caused the sinking as well. But I’ve heard a couple of people mention the rudder then the sinking. I think the professor at Cambridge spent time studying the obvious but it implies he’s heard the same false reasoning about the loss of the rudder playing some part of the cause.