Jennifer Jones
Guest
What other factors or measures could have been made to prevent the sinking of the Titanic?
Factors That Could Have Prevented Sinking
- Thread starter Jennifer Jones
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sinking
Michael H. Standart
Member
Well, it would have been a nice start if they hadn't hit the iceberg in the first place.
Having said that much, the rest falls into the realm of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. We know what the mistakes made were because we have the evidence of the survivors given at the inquiries and in the books and interviews that quite a few wrote or gave.
We know that ice warnings were handled in a rather cavalier manner and they shouldn't have been.
We know the ship was going too fast for existing conditions, but it's questionable as to whether the principles involved understood this at the time. So long as they could see what they were doing and saw no ice barring the way, there was no reason not to maintain course and speed, and every reason to keep to it in order to meet their schedule.
We know that going south by an additional 10 or so miles to avoid expected ice was not enough, but all they had to go on were the reports that they had recieved.
We can speculate, as was done at the inquiries in 1912, that if they had hit the berg head on that the ship may have survived, but could Murdoch take that chance at the time? Hardly. If the chance existed to avoid the danger, he had to take it, and would have been crucified if he hadn't.
The trouble with all of this is we have the advantage of knowladge that they did not and could not have had at the time. They had to play the hand they were dealt.
Interesting topic for a debate though. Do you have any ideas you might wish to discuss?
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Having said that much, the rest falls into the realm of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. We know what the mistakes made were because we have the evidence of the survivors given at the inquiries and in the books and interviews that quite a few wrote or gave.
We know that ice warnings were handled in a rather cavalier manner and they shouldn't have been.
We know the ship was going too fast for existing conditions, but it's questionable as to whether the principles involved understood this at the time. So long as they could see what they were doing and saw no ice barring the way, there was no reason not to maintain course and speed, and every reason to keep to it in order to meet their schedule.
We know that going south by an additional 10 or so miles to avoid expected ice was not enough, but all they had to go on were the reports that they had recieved.
We can speculate, as was done at the inquiries in 1912, that if they had hit the berg head on that the ship may have survived, but could Murdoch take that chance at the time? Hardly. If the chance existed to avoid the danger, he had to take it, and would have been crucified if he hadn't.
The trouble with all of this is we have the advantage of knowladge that they did not and could not have had at the time. They had to play the hand they were dealt.
Interesting topic for a debate though. Do you have any ideas you might wish to discuss?
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Nicholas Westmarland
Guest
Jennifer,
Absolutely fantastic topic for discussion as I think there are loads of things that we could mention.
The first thing I would like to start off with although it may sound a bit trivial is that her hull could have been manufactured of a tougher steel.I am led to believe but stop me anyone if they think I am wrong is that the hull became brittle in excessively cold seawater temperatures causing the hull rivets to move.Therefore on a strong impact the hull would become brittle and break away.Furthermore,the Titanic was sailing at a time of year particularly when the Atlantic was producing some very excessively cold temperatures and this I think attributed as a key factor to the hull becoming fragile.
Nick.
Absolutely fantastic topic for discussion as I think there are loads of things that we could mention.
The first thing I would like to start off with although it may sound a bit trivial is that her hull could have been manufactured of a tougher steel.I am led to believe but stop me anyone if they think I am wrong is that the hull became brittle in excessively cold seawater temperatures causing the hull rivets to move.Therefore on a strong impact the hull would become brittle and break away.Furthermore,the Titanic was sailing at a time of year particularly when the Atlantic was producing some very excessively cold temperatures and this I think attributed as a key factor to the hull becoming fragile.
Nick.
Michael H. Standart
Member
I'm afraid the "Brittle Steel" theory is rather soundly debunked. The Olympics were built using what was known as battleship steel, which was the best available at the time. Ships continued to be built with this material for a long time afterwards. The Queen Mary is one example.
While the brittle nature of the steel might have been a factor, the cause was a collsion with an iceberg at high speed and I daresay that even the best steels today could not survive stresses like that.
Roy Mengot has some interesting insights on this which you can read on his website at http://www.flash.net /~rfm/SINKING/sank.h tml
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
While the brittle nature of the steel might have been a factor, the cause was a collsion with an iceberg at high speed and I daresay that even the best steels today could not survive stresses like that.
Roy Mengot has some interesting insights on this which you can read on his website at http://www.flash.net /~rfm/SINKING/sank.h tml
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Mark Chirnside
Member
It's amazing how many of these theories keep coming up.
Best regards,
Mark.
Best regards,
Mark.
Shane Thomas Doherty
Member
1. Speed
2. Ignoring Californian Warning
3. Manhandling of ice messages.
4. Postponement of trip due to Olympic/Hawke incident.
5. Lack of binoculars.
6. Eerily calm weather.
Just MHO
2. Ignoring Californian Warning
3. Manhandling of ice messages.
4. Postponement of trip due to Olympic/Hawke incident.
5. Lack of binoculars.
6. Eerily calm weather.
Just MHO
Michael H. Standart
Member
Well, I can comment on the binoculars due to first hand experience on low visibility watches. To wit; this one is a red herring. Binoculars, while useful for identifying a target after it's sighted are next to useless for an actual search and can in fact be a liability. If you're using them, your field of vision is extremely restricted and scanning with the things takes a high degree of training that precious few people have.
I always did my searching with the good old Mark I Mod 0 eyeball. I could see a lot more that way.
IMO, had Fleet and Lee been using binoculars, this may well have prevented them from seeing the iceberg at all.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
I always did my searching with the good old Mark I Mod 0 eyeball. I could see a lot more that way.
IMO, had Fleet and Lee been using binoculars, this may well have prevented them from seeing the iceberg at all.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Well, my opinions go as follows:
1. Speed was way too high in icy waters.
2. Flat "Mill pond" sea effect.
3. Captain Smith and Crew's ignoring of ice messages and warnings.
4. The ships construction. The watertight compartments should have been sealed in the first place, and should have went higher than E deck if possible.
1. Speed was way too high in icy waters.
2. Flat "Mill pond" sea effect.
3. Captain Smith and Crew's ignoring of ice messages and warnings.
4. The ships construction. The watertight compartments should have been sealed in the first place, and should have went higher than E deck if possible.
Christina Ward
Member
Okay, for all the research that I have done, speed was not a factor. I was common practice to not slow down until they saw an obstacle in the way. So speed had nothing to do with it.
Captain Smith and the Wireless Operators combined ignored at least 9 ice warnings, most coming from their direct path.
The missing Binoculars really wern't an issue either, because they only limit your visiblity.
When the officer ordered the ship to be put into reverse, he was basically sealing Titanic's fate because a ship of her size can maneuver better the fast it is going in the forward direction.
The biggest thing was the lack of lifeboat spaces. Even if all of the lifeboats went out filled to capacity, only half of the passengers would have survived.. but we all know that didn't happen.
also, i agree with Aaron C that the bulkheads should have extended all the way up the ship because that is what caused the major flooding, the water just kept flowing over the doors.. so they should have been taken all the way up the ship.
Captain Smith and the Wireless Operators combined ignored at least 9 ice warnings, most coming from their direct path.
The missing Binoculars really wern't an issue either, because they only limit your visiblity.
When the officer ordered the ship to be put into reverse, he was basically sealing Titanic's fate because a ship of her size can maneuver better the fast it is going in the forward direction.
The biggest thing was the lack of lifeboat spaces. Even if all of the lifeboats went out filled to capacity, only half of the passengers would have survived.. but we all know that didn't happen.
also, i agree with Aaron C that the bulkheads should have extended all the way up the ship because that is what caused the major flooding, the water just kept flowing over the doors.. so they should have been taken all the way up the ship.
Samuel Halpern
Member
Hi Christina.
I think speed was a factor. You are correct in that it was the practice among these fast mail steamers not to slow down when visibility was good until danger was actually seen. But the damage done to the ship during a collision has everything to do with its speed because the energy of the collision goes up as the square of the speed. In other words, if the ship was travelling half as fast the energy of collision would have been only 1/4 as great, and the amount of damage would most likely have been far less, probably not enough to sink the ship.
When you mentioned about ice warnings being ignored I assume you mean that the ship's course was not changed to stay well clear of the region reported. I agree.
I also agree about the issue of binoculars for the lookouts. But what could have been done was to increase the number of lookouts knowing that they were entering a region of ice. There were two up in the nest, but nobody stationed on the forecastle head where they had a telephone connection to the bridge, and at the time of the collision, only one officer was out on the bridge looking out.
As far as putting the engines in reverse, there is only indirect evidence that that is what really happened. The evidence from down in the engine rooms from at least 3 different sources say that the ship never went into reverse before the collision took place.
Lifeboats, well that rule was of course obsolete.
As far as the bulkhead heights go, the ship was not designed to have 5 compartments opened up to the sea. What most people don't know is that the Titanic could have stayed afloat if only the first 4 compartments were compromised. In a sense, it was better designed than some ship of today. Nobody ever thought there would be an accident where the first 5 compartments would be damaged. But even so, her design was such that she managed to remain mostly stable for 2 1/2 hours. That is something you rarely see even on modern ships that get damaged below the waterline. A sharp list in either direction could easily negate having enough lifeboats for all. Maybe for modern cruise ships the requirement should be lifeboats for all on both sides just in case.
By the way, if you ever go on a modern cruise ship and walk fore and aft along any deck open to passengers, just ask yourself (or crew member) where are all those high watertight bulkheads with watertight doors? And while you're at it, just hope the ship doesn't run into an uncharted submerged volcanic reef, say off the the Hawaiian Islands or in Alaskan waters, while running at full ahead speed.
I think speed was a factor. You are correct in that it was the practice among these fast mail steamers not to slow down when visibility was good until danger was actually seen. But the damage done to the ship during a collision has everything to do with its speed because the energy of the collision goes up as the square of the speed. In other words, if the ship was travelling half as fast the energy of collision would have been only 1/4 as great, and the amount of damage would most likely have been far less, probably not enough to sink the ship.
When you mentioned about ice warnings being ignored I assume you mean that the ship's course was not changed to stay well clear of the region reported. I agree.
I also agree about the issue of binoculars for the lookouts. But what could have been done was to increase the number of lookouts knowing that they were entering a region of ice. There were two up in the nest, but nobody stationed on the forecastle head where they had a telephone connection to the bridge, and at the time of the collision, only one officer was out on the bridge looking out.
As far as putting the engines in reverse, there is only indirect evidence that that is what really happened. The evidence from down in the engine rooms from at least 3 different sources say that the ship never went into reverse before the collision took place.
Lifeboats, well that rule was of course obsolete.
As far as the bulkhead heights go, the ship was not designed to have 5 compartments opened up to the sea. What most people don't know is that the Titanic could have stayed afloat if only the first 4 compartments were compromised. In a sense, it was better designed than some ship of today. Nobody ever thought there would be an accident where the first 5 compartments would be damaged. But even so, her design was such that she managed to remain mostly stable for 2 1/2 hours. That is something you rarely see even on modern ships that get damaged below the waterline. A sharp list in either direction could easily negate having enough lifeboats for all. Maybe for modern cruise ships the requirement should be lifeboats for all on both sides just in case.
By the way, if you ever go on a modern cruise ship and walk fore and aft along any deck open to passengers, just ask yourself (or crew member) where are all those high watertight bulkheads with watertight doors? And while you're at it, just hope the ship doesn't run into an uncharted submerged volcanic reef, say off the the Hawaiian Islands or in Alaskan waters, while running at full ahead speed.
Parks Stephenson
Member
From my research:
Proceeding at full speed in the vicinity of ice even under clear conditions was an excuse offered up by the passenger steamship industry to justify their economic need to keep to schedule. That practice was not as widely accepted as some of the testimony offered during the BOT Enquiry would have us believe. The Titanic disaster exposed the risk behind that practice, but didn't stop steamship companies from quietly continuing with the practice (history would repeat itself later in the airline industry).
The ice warnings were not ignored by either the Captain or the Wireless Operators. Captain Smith briefed the region of ice -- the very same region of ice reported by other steamers and in which his ship would later founder -- to his deck officers 9 hours before the disaster. The Mesaba message is assumed to have been ignored because both the receiver and recipient of the message perished in the disaster. Absence of information about the processing of the message does not necessarily mean that nothing was done with the message. All we know is that it was not acknowledged, but that doesn't mean that the message was ignored or even that Smith didn't see it. Besides, by the time the Mesaba message was received, Titanic was already within the region reported.
The issue concerning the binoculars is a red herring, for the reasons already discussed.
The evidence, in my mind, points to the ship never having been ordered to ASTERN by the First Officer.
Lifeboats, in 1912, were considered primarily as conveyances between a sinking ship and a rescue vessel. There was no intention -- and certainly no requirement or provision -- to provide for a seat for every soul on board for an extended period of time. That mindset was not unique to the White Star Line and changed across the industry only after the Titanic disaster. Today, we take "Boats for all!" for granted, which makes it difficult to see things from a 1912 perspective. And yes, this attitude may have just been another excuse to justify industry-common practice, just like the full-speed-through-ice-field attitude described above.
The key bulkheads in Britannic were raised and she sank in less than half the time as Titanic from a mortal wound on her starboard bow. But even with Britannic, there are bulkheads that simply cannot be raised (think boiler updrafts) without a major re-design of the vessel.
Parks
Proceeding at full speed in the vicinity of ice even under clear conditions was an excuse offered up by the passenger steamship industry to justify their economic need to keep to schedule. That practice was not as widely accepted as some of the testimony offered during the BOT Enquiry would have us believe. The Titanic disaster exposed the risk behind that practice, but didn't stop steamship companies from quietly continuing with the practice (history would repeat itself later in the airline industry).
The ice warnings were not ignored by either the Captain or the Wireless Operators. Captain Smith briefed the region of ice -- the very same region of ice reported by other steamers and in which his ship would later founder -- to his deck officers 9 hours before the disaster. The Mesaba message is assumed to have been ignored because both the receiver and recipient of the message perished in the disaster. Absence of information about the processing of the message does not necessarily mean that nothing was done with the message. All we know is that it was not acknowledged, but that doesn't mean that the message was ignored or even that Smith didn't see it. Besides, by the time the Mesaba message was received, Titanic was already within the region reported.
The issue concerning the binoculars is a red herring, for the reasons already discussed.
The evidence, in my mind, points to the ship never having been ordered to ASTERN by the First Officer.
Lifeboats, in 1912, were considered primarily as conveyances between a sinking ship and a rescue vessel. There was no intention -- and certainly no requirement or provision -- to provide for a seat for every soul on board for an extended period of time. That mindset was not unique to the White Star Line and changed across the industry only after the Titanic disaster. Today, we take "Boats for all!" for granted, which makes it difficult to see things from a 1912 perspective. And yes, this attitude may have just been another excuse to justify industry-common practice, just like the full-speed-through-ice-field attitude described above.
The key bulkheads in Britannic were raised and she sank in less than half the time as Titanic from a mortal wound on her starboard bow. But even with Britannic, there are bulkheads that simply cannot be raised (think boiler updrafts) without a major re-design of the vessel.
Parks
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Okay, for all the research that I have done, speed was not a factor. I was common practice to not slow down until they saw an obstacle in the way.<<
I'd have to disagree that speed was not a factor. Even given that this was a routine practice, the fact is that on a ship that was generally twice as fast as nearly anything out there, this gives you half the time to react to a threat then you would have had otherwise.
Raising the bulkheads as per what Parks pointed out is no gaurantee of survival. It might have worked in this case, but could also have backfired for any number of reasons unforseen even to this day.
There was nothing fundementally wrong with the Titanic's subdivision and as Sam pointed out, was superior in a lot of respects to what's done today, and I would challange anyone to show me a modern passenger vessel that could survive having even four watertight sections in open communication with the sea. There may be some out there but I'll wager I can count them on one hand with fingers to spare.
What nobody forsaw was somebody using an iceberg as The World's Largest Can Opener.
I'd have to disagree that speed was not a factor. Even given that this was a routine practice, the fact is that on a ship that was generally twice as fast as nearly anything out there, this gives you half the time to react to a threat then you would have had otherwise.
Raising the bulkheads as per what Parks pointed out is no gaurantee of survival. It might have worked in this case, but could also have backfired for any number of reasons unforseen even to this day.
There was nothing fundementally wrong with the Titanic's subdivision and as Sam pointed out, was superior in a lot of respects to what's done today, and I would challange anyone to show me a modern passenger vessel that could survive having even four watertight sections in open communication with the sea. There may be some out there but I'll wager I can count them on one hand with fingers to spare.
What nobody forsaw was somebody using an iceberg as The World's Largest Can Opener.
Matt Pereira
Guest
Correct Michael. For instance if the bulkheads were moved up two decks and that would have enabled her to stay afloat with the compartments that were damaged. The thing that would have caused a backfire as you put it would be first of all, the port holes being left open would have helped those compartments already damaged to flood faster, but that would also enable portholes open flood decks that would eventually find its way into dry compartments and still fill up more compartments than the ship could handle. Plus the D-Deck gangway door that was open by Lightoller`s order, when that door went submerged it would have allowed water to fill up the 6th compartment or Boiler Room #5 even with the bulkheads 2 decks higher. Means that for sure the first 5 compartments would fill and the 6th compartment would have been slow due to the damage being only in the coal bunker of that boiler room. But the D Deck gangway door would have allowed this compartment to flood quicker than the pumps could handle. Would also allow water to find its way down scotland road aft and down the ladders into the other boiler rooms. Even with the wtd closed on scotland road at the foreward engine room bulkhead water would have flowed aft all the way to the engine room on this deck.
Parks Stephenson
Member
Matt,
Please explain how water can enter the D-deck gangway door if BR#6 is not already flooded. If BR#6 is not flooded, then there is not enough loss of buoyancy to raise the waterline to the level of the D-deck accommodation door and water can't pour into the ship above the waterline.
Which of the damaged compartments had portholes?
Given Titanic's situation, what is the key bulkhead -- the one that makes the difference between a serious and fatal accident? Once you have identified that, tell me why it cannot be raised in height (I already gave you a hint).
Parks
Please explain how water can enter the D-deck gangway door if BR#6 is not already flooded. If BR#6 is not flooded, then there is not enough loss of buoyancy to raise the waterline to the level of the D-deck accommodation door and water can't pour into the ship above the waterline.
Which of the damaged compartments had portholes?
Given Titanic's situation, what is the key bulkhead -- the one that makes the difference between a serious and fatal accident? Once you have identified that, tell me why it cannot be raised in height (I already gave you a hint).
Parks
Similar threads
