How the break-up occurred

[Kyle Naber]

I think we also talk about the breakup from a present-day point of view. If you think about it: who in the water is expecting the ship to break apart and then remember all the details? This wasn’t even a possibility to anyone watching, so when it happened it must have been absolutely stunning and/or confusing.

 

[Zirnitra]

i was thinking about something,when ship started to break up,hull gave but shear strakes not yet so they acted like hinges and stern could move up down while filling with water,same with bow but one thing makes me wonder,why one of steam pipes on wrecks is spiralled? did stern make barrel roll under water or what? when ship broke none of parts of ship rolled over.

oh! if breakup process was not so rapid,did people on board could see signs of breakup before it actually occured? metal grinding sound is one of signs but hull bending,bulging? were there any accounts that reported hull structure failure sush corridors buckling/bulging or something like that?

 

[Scott Mills]

I agree totally. As you might recall, in other post I have said myself that survivors in (or 'on') the last few lifeboats to leave the Titanic would have been more concerned with their survival chances. I just said the above as a possible explanation for Lightoller believing that the Titanic went down completely intact.

I agree and in his testimony, Lightoller seemed fairly certain that the Titanic had not broken-up but gone down intact. There was no hint of uncertainty in his response and so I considered the possibility that he was looking at the ship as the lights went out and it started to break-up. But if Collapsible B was at a narrow angle to the ship's longitudinal axis at the time, he might not have realized that it had brokn before sinking, which explains his statement.

I may be in the minority here, but I take the testimony of the surviving officers with a large grain of salt. They more than anyone else had a tremendous incentive to minimize the culpability of Titanic's officers and White Star Line, and had every incentive to make Titanic seem like an unquestionably engineered vessel whose loss was an act of the gods. This includes either refusing to believe the information their senses may have given them about Titanic breaking up, being less than honest about whether or not they thought Titanic had broken up, or outright lie about what they potentially knew to be the case vis-a-vis the breakup.

None of that is to say it is not entirely possible Lightoller was being completely honest about his perceptions, just that those perceptions could have been colored by what he wanted to believe; AND it is not outside of the realm of the reasonably possible that he (and the other surviving officers) told some fibs in what Lightoller later admitted was "somewhat of a whitewash" during the official inquiries into Titanic's foundering.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

You have something there and Lightoller IMO is a good example. He was a good "Company Man" and while I don't think he told any blatant lies like Boxhall did, Lightoller almost certainly kept mum about things he knew....or at least suspected. I agree with you about Lightoller's perceptions being coloured to the extent that he believed what he wanted to believe; if he felt that admitting to something would have reflected badly upon WSL while making no material gains to the investigation, he kept quiet about it. Whether the Titanic breaking-up at the end was one of them is however hard to say; it is possible that Lightoller genuinely missed it.

Now 4/O Boxhall.......he was something else IMO.

 

[Scott Mills]

He was a good "Company Man."

Indeed; and there in is the problem.

I know enough about Lightoller to think that he was the an authentically good person. When I read his interviews--and his book--I so reminded of my grandfather who was a mariner (USN engineer) for almost 40 years it is uncanny, and my grandfather was probably the best human being I have ever known in my 46 years.

My grandfather was present for a lot of things both during the Second World War and later during the atomic bomb tests during Operation Crossroads he was ordered to outright lie about, which he did (though he freely shared with my dad and I many years later); and while I know you might think this is an apples to oranges comparison given the fact that my grandfather's orders potentially involved national security, and telling the truth about those things might have run him afoul of both the USN and US law, I tend to feel a man like Lightoller would have felt tremendous pressure to obey any instruction from White Star and White Star's attorneys about what what was permissible to say, what should not be mentioned at all, and what must be said regardless of truth.

During that time period there were no whistleblower laws in the United States or the United Kingdom that would have protected the officers of Titanic from retaliation from White Star had they revealed anything that could harm the company. On top of that, merchant officers of the time tended to "stick" to one company their entire lives--as evidenced by the fact that the most of the surviving officers continued at White Star despite never receiving their own commands.

In other words, during both the US Senate and British Board of Trade investigations the Lightoller's livelihood was on the line in a way that is hard to imagine today. It is easy to imagine, however, that under such circumstances a "company man" would put the needs of the company above all else, as failing to do so and testifying to anything that challenged the company narrative would put their whole livelihood at risk--one could end up never being able to apply their chosen trade again. I guess what I am saying is that I have less faith than you do that good or honest people in Lightoller's position would not lie at the behest of their employer, particularly if one can convince themselves that the lie, or lie by omission, does no real harm.

To be clear though, none of this is meant to be an accusation against Lightoller. Frankly, I am not accusing him about lying about anything--although his latter admission to have engaged in a "white wash" does raise serious questions. Instead, I consider it reasonably possible that lying and omission of critical facts occurred during the testimonies of Titanic's officers; and if it is a reasonable possibility those officers' testimonies contained fabrications, outright lies, or omitted critical information, then I must (as the saying goes) take that testimony with a grain of salt.

And by that, of course, I mean not that this testimony should be discarded, ignored, or assumed to be inaccurate. Rather I mean that I feel like one needs to be open to the fact that the testimony may be inaccurate.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Good post.

It is easy to imagine, however, that under such circumstances a "company man" would put the needs of the company above all else, as failing to do so and testifying to anything that challenged the company narrative would put their whole livelihood at risk--one could end up never being able to apply their chosen trade again. I guess what I am saying is that I have less faith than you do that good or honest people in Lightoller's position would not lie at the behest of their employer, particularly if one can convince themselves that the lie, or lie by omission, does no real harm.

Yes I agree, particularly in those hardnosed days of cutthroat business. Lightoller would not want to find himself in bad books of someone like J P Morgan, for example. A lot of people who could otherwise be described as "good and honest" would probably have kept mum about what they knew - or thought they knew - like Ligtholler did, if they felt that it would not have made any difference. Specifically with reference to Titanic's officers, in my opinion (and just that) only Murdoch would have been forthright enough the testify his genuine beliefs about a tragedy of that scale, even if it meant putting his career at risk. And I might be doing Moody an injustice if I didn't say he might have also been completely up front had he survived.

I consider it reasonably possible that lying and omission of critical facts occurred during the testimonies of Titanic's officers; and if it is a reasonable possibility those officers' testimonies contained fabrications, outright lies, or omitted critical information, then I must (as the saying goes) take that testimony with a grain of salt. And by that, of course, I mean not that this testimony should be discarded, ignored, or assumed to be inaccurate. Rather I mean that I feel like one needs to be open to the fact that the testimony may be inaccurate.

Again, I agree. The officers approached the Inquiries somewhat differently even though self-preservation was uppermost in their minds by then. Lowe, whom I believe had as much instinct for self preservation as Lightoller, tried to bluster it out and got away with it....and to a large extent has done so posthumously to this day. Boxhall on the other hand, was ambiguous, inconsistent and at times downright dishonest; although he also appeared to have come out of the Inquiries quite intact, over time his lack of veracity has got increasingly exposed.

Getting back to Lightoller and the break-up, I used to think that it was inconceivable that he missed it from a vantage point so close, but am now prepared to give him the benefit of doubt. As Sam says, someone wet, cold, shivering and balancing precariously on top of an overturned lifeboat might not have been concentrating on the death throes of the ship itself. There is also the angle of view when one conisders how huge the Titanic was; if Lightoller was looking at it from a very acute angle, he mght have missed the break-up in the sudden darkness after the lights failed completely. Having said all that, I remain 50:50 if Lightoller knew - or suspected - that the Titanic had broken-up before sinking. If he knew and had considered the implications on the long trip to New York on the overcrowded and uncomfortable Carpathia, he might conceivably have decided that there was no material gain to be made to the investigation by admitting that the Titanic had broken in two a minute before the sinking. On the other hand, such an admission might have reflected badly upon the reputation of White Star Line; the ordinary public would not understand or even be interested in the physics involved as much as they would have been with the spectre of the world's largest and most luxurious ship breaking in two.

 

[Incony]

bias of opinion is a curious thing, it hovers around benefit, and consequence of things. It colours your choice, and amplifies or excludes your voice, The truth in your mind is altered in time, and what you share, is yours, not mine. i can see what is shared, and reflect what is there, but in truth i cannot say what you saw, is clear.

 

[Ted Charlton. NZ - Edward Jon]

My 83 yr old Dad is still alive, fit & healthy. As I've been a Titanic fan from very young due to a childhood mate, (he grew up with his old grandmother,

she missed the sailing by 4 days due to family death); I asked Dad if ok to go to "Raise the Titanic", yeah... Now y'all know now i was born about 1968ish

He laughed and said, "so they think it's in one piece? (rhetorical) Pass me that pencil."
He used the table as sea level.
"She went down bow first?" (rhetorical, could tell by his tone, even back then)
Yep.
"When she got to about here (stern was out at about 25°) she'd snap due to her own weight"...
Dad snapped the pencil and dropped both bits to the lino "sea floor".
"She'll be in two pieces about half a mile apart down there"...

That was my practical dairy farming Dad's view half a decade or so before Ballard discovered her.

So, i never went and never watched one of biggest flops in history when it came out. It did fire up my Titanic fervour again though, libraries, book shops, bric-a-brac shops i would spend hours searching.
Prior to Titanic's discovery i came across John B Thayer's lifeboat drawings of her splitting. That second hand 1975 Reader's Digest "Strange Phenomenon" special edition sits in my Titanic book collection.

 

[Ted Charlton. NZ - Edward Jon]

Separate comment.
Was there not quite a bit of information about the strength/brittleness of the steel used in the day? Higher manganese or magnesium?
Wonder if all of that is taken into account in all the modeling?
Would have thought by now someone would have constructed a fairly sizeable "mini Titanic" and "crashed" her into an "iceberg" in something like a Olympic sized pool (pun intended).

 

[Seumas]

Separate comment.
Was there not quite a bit of information about the strength/brittleness of the steel used in the day? Higher manganese or magnesium?
Wonder if all of that is taken into account in all the modeling?
Would have thought by now someone would have constructed a fairly sizeable "mini Titanic" and "crashed" her into an "iceberg" in something like a Olympic sized pool (pun intended).

The "brittle steel" theory was debunked years ago.

Samples of steel and rivets recovered from the wreck were subjected to lab tests in the mid nineties. Put under pressure until they failed.

They proved to be much stronger than expected. Withstanding incredible force applied to them for an extended period.

One of the Discovery Channel documentaries from the nineties features footage of the experiment and interviews the scientists involved.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

If brittle steel was what it's proponents make it out to be, you would see a hull shattered almost like glass on the bottom.

You don't.

You DO see the tearing and impact damage you would expect to see with the failure of the hull girder and impact with the bottom after a 12,500 foot decent.

Except for the region of the break up and the damage done by the ships decent through the water column, the hull is relatively intact.

The steel for the Titanic was made at the Dalzell works by David Colville & Sons LTD. You can still see their trademark on some of the pieces such is in this photo of the Big Piece. This was battleship steel, and as good as any you could find anywhere at the time. (NOTE: This photo of The Big Piece, with the steel makers name on the frame comes courtesy of Joanna Lee Strassburg with my thanks.)

Likewise with the rivets. A few failed and out of 3,500,000 it would be remarkable if they hadn't, but most of them are still right where the builders left them over a century ago.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I know enough about Lightoller to think that he was the an authentically good person. When I read his interviews--and his book--I so reminded of my grandfather who was a mariner (USN engineer) for almost 40 years it is uncanny, and my grandfather was probably the best human being I have ever known in my 46 years.

I agree with that assessment. I'm hyperaware of problems with the testimony they offered. That Boxhall was troublesome is something I've been aware of for years. We've discussed it here and also at a number of gatherings I've attended.

I don't believe their "Loose spin on the facts" was in anyway borne out of malice. As pointed out, there were no protections in that day for whistleblowers and you won't find a career sailor anywhere who is unaware of the fact that the Inquiry Board is not your friend.

aside from trying to protect themselves, which is entirely understandable, I think Lightoller and Boxhall were trying to protect their shipmates who would never be able to do it for themselves.

As a sailor, that is something I understand very well.

 

[Scott Mills]

The "brittle steel" theory was debunked years ago.

Samples of steel and rivets recovered from the wreck were subjected to lab tests in the mid nineties. Put under pressure until they failed.

They proved to be much stronger than expected. Withstanding incredible force applied to them for an extended period.

One of the Discovery Channel documentaries from the nineties features footage of the experiment and interviews the scientists involved.

What about the USN's metallurgical analysis of Titanic's steel? Didn't they find that Titanic's steel was brittle under conditions where the water was at freezing temperatures or below? Just quoting the abstract here:

It was found that the steel possessed a ductile-to-brittle transition temperature that was very high with respect to the service temperature, making the material brittle at ice-water temperatures. This has been attributed to both chemical and microstructural factors. It has also been found that the wrought iron rivets used in the construction of Titanic contained an elevated amount of incorporated slag, and that the orientation of the slag within the rivets may hold an explanation for how the ship accumulated damage during its encounter with the iceberg.

You can find the whole report here. It is a bit too technical for me in all honesty.

 

[Seumas]

What about the USN's metallurgical analysis of Titanic's steel? Didn't they find that Titanic's steel was brittle under conditions where the water was at freezing temperatures or below? Just quoting the abstract here:

It was found that the steel possessed a ductile-to-brittle transition temperature that was very high with respect to the service temperature, making the material brittle at ice-water temperatures. This has been attributed to both chemical and microstructural factors. It has also been found that the wrought iron rivets used in the construction of Titanic contained an elevated amount of incorporated slag, and that the orientation of the slag within the rivets may hold an explanation for how the ship accumulated damage during its encounter with the iceberg.

You can find the whole report here. It is a bit too technical for me in all honesty.

The experiment I alluded to above was conducted precisely because they found significant amounts of slag in the steel samples they had analysed. The metallurgists really thought they were on the verge of a massive discovery.

They also submerged their samples of steel and rivets from the wreck in freezing water beforehand.

However, they were rather lost for words at just how well it lasted under crippling pressures tests in the lab, they had fully expected it to fail quickly whilst under modest pressure.

See Michael's excellent reply above for more detailed information.

"Brittle steel and rivets" were not a factor in the Titanic's loss. Anyone pursuing it is just wasting their time.

 

[Scott Mills]

"Brittle steel and rivets" were not a factor in the Titanic's loss. Anyone pursuing it is just wasting their time.

Honestly, I was not operating on the assumption that they played a role in Titanic's loss (unless there is something to the bulkhead collapse theory to describe the sudden flooding of BR6). I feel that any riveted ship would have suffered the same sort of failure from Titanic's impact with ice.

What I found more probable is that the composition of the steel in combination with the conditions present on that evening--specifically the temperature of the water--may have played a role in the failure of the hull during the breakup. Incidentally, I think the report itself acknowledges this. See (emphasis mine):

It is possible that brittle steel contributed to the damage at the bow due to the impact wit hthe iceberg, but much more likely that the brittle steel was a factor in the breakup of the ship at the surface. This is discussed in much more detail in the full Forensics Panel report [7].

They have a lot of comparative evidence that tends to support this with hull failures in other vessels, but again I am not really qualified enough to have a true understanding of the weaknesses, or lack there of, in the analysis the USN put forward.