Hull and Watertight doors

>>The cordite came from a torpedo. Its exact model number and warhead mass is not central to my point...<<

Since you went to some trouble to cite a number not supported by the sources available, I have to wonder about that. Why bother with an inflated number if it doesn't serve to make a point?

>>viz., that Titanic's sinking was not comparable to Lusitania's.<<

Really??? Care to explain that to Bedford and Hackett since they seemed to find it worth noting in their own position paper on the subject.

>> References to the minutiae of submarine weapons systems deliberately avoids that issue.<<

No it doesn't Tom. It speaks directly to the issue of whether or not longitudinal bilkheads would have had any value in saving the ship. The Lusitania was an example where it didn't. If you read Bedford and Hackett's "The Sinking of Titanic-Investigated by Modern Techniques" you'll see that they have quite a bit to say about the matter of the utility of longitudidinal subdivision in general, and they don't want for references to the Lustiania.

If you have some special insights on this that would show where qualified Naval Architects are wrong (It is possible after all) don't keep it a secret.

Now if you want a couple of numbers, Bedford and Hackett do offer some. I still haven't found any information on the righting moment but if I do, I'll get it back to you. In Table 1 on page 6, they offer the block coefficient as 0.684 and the prismatic co-efficiant as 0.705.

>>Michael, by contrast, feels it would be necessary to measure the wreckage to arrive at a useful approximation. Q.E.D.<<

While this certainly wouldn't be a bad idea on some level, you'll note that I never said that. Be so kind as to refrain from putting words into my mouth that I never said. Strawman arguements are as pointless as they are dishonest.
 
quote:

While [measuring the wreckage] certainly wouldn't be a bad idea on some level, you'll note that I never said that.
Click to expand...
Your exact words were
quote:

Unless somebody can get down there in
a)an armoured suit designed for diving to 12,500 feet,
b)get to and examine the actual damage and
c)find some way to differentiate between damage caused by the berg as opposed to damage caused by impact with the bottom...
Click to expand...
Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to without taking a tape measure along.
quote:

If you have some special insights on this that would show where qualified Naval Architects are wrong (It is possible after all) don't keep it a secret.
Click to expand...
Lusitania's watertight integrity was destroyed by a torpedo strike (the model number of the ordnance is irrelevant) and a devastating secondary explosion. Any comparison of that catastrophic event with Titanic's few leaky compartments would have to presume that the bulkheads of both ships were affected to a similar degree, and I don't see how that would be possible.

So yes, I think B&H are way off base. The damage to Lusitania was sustained in compartments much wider than that suffered by Titanic. This means that the induced rolling moment would be about twice as great, as the residual buoyancy of the undamaged portside compartments operated over a moment arm twice as long. This isn't special insight - it's high-school physics.​
 
Samuel Halpern,

With respect, the launching of lifeboats with a list would not cause a problem to a professional seaman as long as the list is not too pronounced.
Assuming there is a 5 degree list to port, bowsing-in lines would be used to ensure safe disembarkation of passengers, even in Titanic's day.
On the starboard side, the high side, lifeboats would slowly be ''skated down'' the ships side with great attention being paid to warding the boat off with the use of oars and boat hooks from any ship side protrusions such as port lugs and shell door hinges.
In later years ''skates'' were designed for lifeboats to ensure an easy ride down the ''high'' side and on entering the water, could be easily discarded. The list would have little effect on the davits as long as the ship had not heeled over too far.
Unfortunately, far too much attention is being paid to Hollywood boat deck scenes and the real scenario is not always appreciated.
Sincerely,

David Haisman
 
Tom, in response to "if you don't know the answer, why don't you just say "I don't know"?

The whole of what I said was "Sorry, but "probably not" is as close as anybody can get you to that. Unless somebody can get down there in
a)an armoured suit designed for diving to 12,500 feet,
b)get to and examine the actual damage and
c)find some way to differentiate between damage caused by the berg as opposed to damage caused by impact with the bottom, were wading around in too many unknowns to offer a definative and non-debatable answer."

This speaks to forensic examination in order to satisfy your original concerns and while you seem to enjoy heaping sarcasm and scorn on the notion, you haven't refuted a single word of it.

>>So yes, I think B&H are way off base.<<

Maybe. Some would argue that it wouldn't be the first time either. However, I'll give each point they make it's due consideration befor I heave it on the dustheap. Have you taken the trouble to read what they have to say on the matter? I have. Aside from the Lusitania, they do cover the question of whether longitudinal bulkheads would have helped and came to the conclusion that they wouldn't. If you don't have a copy, you might want to get one to find out why.

>>Lusitania's watertight integrity was destroyed by a torpedo strike (the model number of the ordnance is irrelevant) <<

Then why bother to cite a bogus warhead weight and a model number which is also not supported by the sources???

>> The damage to Lusitania was sustained in compartments much wider than that suffered by Titanic. This means that the induced rolling moment would be about twice as great, as the residual buoyancy of the undamaged portside compartments operated over a moment arm twice as long. This isn't special insight - it's high-school physics.<<

It's also longitudinal bulkheads which the Lucy had...and the value of which you're wondering about. And the "massive explosion" doesn't take away from that.
 
This speaks to forensic examination in order to satisfy your original concerns... Mikey, my original concerns had to do with the condition of the vessel after it was injured, but before it broke apart and hit the bottom. It is possible to calculate the heeling and righting moments entirely without reference to the heap of iron on the seabed. To reiterate: there is no point in measuring the wreckage.

The most relevant part of the RINA paper is found in §2.9, where Hackett & Bedford state (speaking of Mauretania's subdivision),
quote:

Effectively [Wilding] pointed out that with damage extending less far aft than occurred to Titanic is was [sic] only by adopting all available cross-flooding that the heel of Mauretania could be reduced to 15 to 20 degrees, a condition which would have made it impossible to lower the boats on the high side. This was really equivalent to 4 compartment damage on Titanic, which, of course, she also would have survived without significant heel [emphasis added]. If the damage had extended to the second boiler room (the equivalent of 5 compartment damage on Titanic) capsize must have been inevitable and beyond the power of any cross-flooding to prevent, as was proved by the loss of Lusitania.
Click to expand...
I simply don't see any similarity between flooding Lusitania's two forward boiler rooms and Titanic's forward compartments, because although the flooded areas of the two ships are approximately equivalent in total length, the former are much further back and therefore twice the width and twice the volume, making their heeling moment massively greater. We know that Titanic probably would not have sunk with four compartments flooded, so it is difficult to imagine how she would have sunk with (the equivalent of) two and one-half compartments open to the sea, unless the heel was sufficient to reach the bulkhead deck. This is the only question that your ripostes need address.​
 
>>Mikey, my original concerns had to do with the condition of the vessel after it was injured, but before it broke apart and hit the bottom.<<

And in order to know that, you would have to know the full nature and extant of the actual damge. That's why you need to have a look see. No matter how one tries to tapdance around this, it doesn't go away. You can hardly speak to the condition of the ship if you don't know exactly what it was and can differentiate between iceberg damage and impact damage with the bottom. A moot point I suspect as it ain't likely to happen. The technology to give everything the thorough examination needed for any proper forensics examination...vis a vis examining the wreck in the detail needed...either doesn't exist or hasn't been cobbled to gether in a usable system.

No matter, we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

Since you seem to have the Bedford and Hackett paper, I'd suggest you check out some of the graphs on pages 26 and 27 as the speak to righting levers in various scenerios. You may be able to work something out from that that will be of some use to you.

I think for a baseline however, you need to know what the righting moment of the ship was in an undamaged condition. I'm aware that an inclining experiment was done with the Titanic in late March after the Ismay Screen was installed. Bedford and Hackett had to have something to work from to do their own calculations, so I'm betting that the results of the test still exist on record somewhere. If I happen to find it, I'll post it for you.

"Nuff said.
 
David Haisman wrote: "... with great attention being paid to warding the boat off with the use of oars and boat hooks from any ship side protrusions such as port lugs and shell door hinges."

A 65 person loaded boat weighs more than 10,000 lbs. At an angle of 5 deg it would take a force of about 900 lbs or more to push it off the side of the ship's hull. On a ship the size of the Titanic, that action would have to be carried out for the last 35 ft or so of drop. A 10 deg list would double the required force to ward the boat off the side, and extend for a longer drop. So how far is "too far heeled over" before it becomes no longer possible to launch the high side boats?
 
Samuel Halpern,

I'll keep this brief as I feel we are off topic here somewhat.
As a retired Skipper, Mate, Top Rate Able Seaman and certificated Lifeboatman( I won't include Quartermaster as that is non other than a glorified AB) I wouldn't have to know how many pounds were loaded in my lifeboat on abandoning ship. I would know it's limitations just by looking at it and it's carrying capacity branded inside the gunwales or cleadings.
Action by seamen relating to disembarkation for a 5 degree list or greater would be decided purely by their professionalism and one would have to know what ''skating'' down a ship's side entails despite the drop involved.
Being heeled over too far also comes into the realms of judgement and experience and it's unwise to use slide rules and mathematical calculations when discussing good basic seamanship procedures.
When a lifeboat fouls the boat deck after the davits have been fully extended, the use of fitted ''skates'' come into their own when lowering. However, in Titanic's day they never had the ''luxury'' and seamen would have kept the boat ''floating'' on it's falls and pushed it out manually whilst other crew would have used a levering action with oars between the ships side and lifeboat gunwales.
The lifeboat should be empty until lowered to boat deck level.
Once clear, the boats crew would continue to use the blades of two oars at least, between gunwale and ships side to help ''skate'' the boat down to the water, clearing all protrusions as afore mentioned.
Never forget that good basic seamanship was applied by Titanic's merchantmen as well and perhaps had quite a few more tricks up their sleeves.
Seamanship is practical along with good common sense most of the time and you will rarely find that in text books.
I have myself, gone down the ''high side'' of a listing vessel on some occasions(not the sinking kind)using both of the above procedures.
There are many reasons and advantages for crew whilst a ship is in port, especially when she's heeling over and should you wish to know more, contact me on the ''Lifeboat'' section on this web site.

Sincerely,
David
 
And in order to know that, you would have to know the full nature and extant of the actual damge.

No, you wouldn't. All the accident data you would need in order to construct a hypothetical model is whether or not water was entering the port side in such a quantity as to affect buoyancy to a significant degree.

To determine if Titanic would have survived had her forward compartments been divided into port and starboard halves, you need two pieces of design information (i.e., the heeling and righting moments at the load condition) and one piece of forensic data: whether or not the port side would be dry.

The former can be derived from existing archives, and the latter can be inferred from testimony that the ship took on an immediate starboard list due to asymmetric flooding. This list was canceled when water flowed over the firemens' tunnel to the port side. If holes in the port side were admitting water in anything approaching the same quantity, both halves would have flooded equally, and there would have been no list.

Neither of these prerequisites will be found on the sea floor.

Q.E.D.
 
Re-read the whole of the statement in it's proper context:

quote:

YOU: Mikey, my original concerns had to do with the condition of the vessel after it was injured, but before it broke apart and hit the bottom.<<

ME: And in order to know that, you would have to know the full nature and extant of the actual damge. That's why you need to have a look see. No matter how one tries to tapdance around this, it doesn't go away.
Click to expand...

So yes, you would need to know that and repeated protestations to the contrary won't change that. To assert otherwise is like asking the coroner to make a judgement on the cause of death without examining the body.

And still a moot point for reasons already specified. The technology needed to do the iudeal examination doesn't exist or hasn't been put together. The best you can hope for is a close approximation using the resources you already named.​
 
I don't see what additional light the rest of your whole statement sheds on the question. All it does is to tell me that I'm wrong without one scintilla of proof.

As Parks pointed out here, the moments can be computed and compared. Making a reasonable assumption about the crew's ability to control the inflow into the port side completes the required information. If this has failed to sink in, I can't help you further.
 
I don't need your help, Tom. I'm quite capable of making my own judgements and in doing so, I like to see as complete a picture as possible. Strangely enough, so do people who do forensics investigations of any kind. Small wonder since incomplete data tends to render a lot of findings worthless or at the very least of dubious value.

As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree and move on. (And yes, I'll still keep an eye out for the data on the righting moment and put it up here if I ever find it.)
 
Tom -- I challeng you: instead of arguing, why don't you get the appropriate infomration and do the numbers?

To all -- if Tom does the calculations correctly, using the proper flooding data, he will discover something that confounded Wilding and Mersey in 1912.

Titanic did not sink because of ice damage. The ingress of water was not sufficient to cause the "ice cube tray" overtopping of the bulkheads. That's the dirty little secret which was carefully hidden for so many years. Wilding plainly admitted he adjusted the location and rate of flooding until his calculations allowed the ship to sink. In other words, he worked backwards from a sinking condition to come up with his damage estimate.

Scientifically, Wilding's 12 square foot hole is nothing more than a smoke ring.

The argument over whether a longitudinal bulkhead would have saved the ship is meaningless. The bulkheads installed were sufficient to have kept the ship afloat with the damage inflicted. To find out why Titanic sank you must look elsewhere.

To repeat myself--the one thing that the BOT did not want to become public knowledge was that Titanic broke apart.

But, it was not just the final breaking into two large pieces that had to be hidden. It was the earliest stages of that breakup which were the most troubling. No one with an engineering background would be surprised by the final breaking apart. But, why did the firemen's tunnel and boiler room #6 flood? Why did boiler room #4 have water rise a foot above the stoker plates before boiler room #5 flooded? Why did funnel #1 fall? Why did the expansion forward expansion joint open so far so early? Why are there no eyewitness reports of water overtopping the bulkheads?

If Tom will just do the math, he will discover what stunned Wilding in 1912: Titanic should still be afloat.

--David G. Brown
 
David,

You mean I don't have to go down and measure anything?
wink.gif


If Wilding found it necessary to work the numbers backward because the result didn't match the testimony, then perhaps the testimony was incomplete, incorrect, and/or ambiguous, and the initial condition he extrapolated was correct.

Mersey's presumed desire to keep the dreaded Hun in the dark about the quality of British steel aside, isn't that the most likely explanation?
 
This morning when I woke up I was told the darn dish was working, so I hopped on to discover this conversation had gotten out of hand.

Trying to figure out how a ship sank without knowing the extent of damage that was inflicted is impossible. So is (in Titanic's case) accurately predicting how much water it would take to right the ship from a certain peril (i.e. a list). Because none of us, nor anybody else that I am aware of has the exact content of each compartment/hold where water is said to have entered when the ship struck, all the numbers in the world don't mean a darn thing. The best you could come up with is a guess, which will be at least 25% wrong and no matter what the guess, it will go against some degree of physical or testimonial evidence.

Suggesting that you don't need to look at what is left of the evidence which in Titanic's case is both in paper and physical form (and let me say it needs to a combination of both) to come to somewhat accurate conclusion is not to have any knowledge of how maritime investigations work. That is like my Chief Engineer coming to me and saying the raw water feed is out, and I ask if he looked at it, and he says no. He is making a guess based off an assumption. Which is what a large percentage of the technical research revolving around Titanic is. There where three men who had this technical information that night, and all didn't make it, to pass it on to Wilding.

Dave is hinting at research that he and I have done for the better part of 4 years. This "new" research in some respects is no different then the endavours of RINA and SNAME. What Dave is hinting at to some degree is that in some sinkings, water isn't the culprit something else is, and out of what is left, stability makes up half, but the other half....well the other half is a combination of a lot of things.

I think Tom's suggestion (if I read it right) that the testimony was not exactly the best regarding the technical aspects of the sinking, Wilding wasn't with much to go on. But when you put the pieces that Boxhall, Lightoller, Barrett, Oliver and Hitchens testify to, you can't put them into a picture that makes any sense given the time frame that we are talking about.

Before I loose reception on the dish I am sending this off.

Cheers from the Mid-Atlantic
 

Similar threads

A
Bulkheads and the hull
Replies
8
Views
6K
ADeblois
A
D
Titanic Hull
4 5
Replies
62
Views
18K
ParkwayDrive006
P
Kyle Fisher
Titanic's hull
2 3
Replies
32
Views
6K
Scott R. Andrews
S
S
Sealant between hull plates
Replies
7
Views
13K
CourtneyDMSutherland
C
A
Titanic's Watertight Subdivision
Replies
10
Views
7K
Jim Currie
Jim Currie
Back
Top