If any what kind damage occured to the ships double bottom

[Jesse D O'Neill]

If any, what kind damage occurred to the ships double bottom? Was it simply Torn Open? or was it a series of holes punched here and there? or some buckled plates? or some other way? and besides that would the interior of the double bottom also be damaged and if so how?

 

[Erik Wood]

I don't think that anybody knows, there is a lot of speculation but I don't know that there is any direct evidence that sheds light.

 

[Jesse D O'Neill]

Good Point. I should've pointed out that I wanted opinions, as we might never know due to the probable current condition of the double bottom

 

[Carl Ireton]

I've read that not only did she strike a glancing blow to the iceberg, that she possibly 'ran aground' temporarily, which of course, could have opened punctures into her double bottom. Carl Ireton

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Carl, what your referring to is known these days as an "Allision" which defines a ship bottoming out on something without coming to a stop. The grounding/allision theory was first made public by David Brown in Last Log of the Titanic 5 years ago, even though both he and Parks Stephenson came to much the same conclusions independantly. Both this gentlemen collaborated to write a white paper on the subject which was presented to the Marine Forensics Panal and which you can read for yourself at https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/1511/

 

[Samuel Halpern]

If it were a pure grounding with damage confined to just the double bottom the ship would not have sunk. The double bottom was designed to protect against grounding on a flat bottom. It extended from as far forward as the forepeak tank and to within 20 ft of the aftpeak tank. However, in the compartments ahead of the boiler rooms and aft of the engine rooms, the double bottom was not extended up around the bilge. The iceberg spur that did most of the damage must not have been a flat shelf but a somewhat sloping shelf which caused damaged the the hull plates on the starboard side of the ship as well as the outer plates of the double bottom allowing massive flooding into the cargo holds.

 

[Miguel Alfonso De Guzman]

Jesse, It's a double BOTTOM, not a double HULL.

 

[Jesse D O'Neill]

Miguel

If you go through my Post on this thread you'll see that I never once referred to Titanic's Double Bottom as a Double Hull, all References by me said Double Bottom.

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

Michael H. Standart Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 3:49 pm:

quote:

Carl, what your referring to is known these days as an "Allision" which defines a ship bottoming out on something without coming to a stop

The correct definition of "Allision" is: Law. the striking of one ship by another.​

 

[Paul Rogers]

"The correct definition of "Allision" is: Law. the striking of one ship by another."

Mmm.. according to this Maritime Terms website, 'allision' is defined as: "The act of striking or collision of a moving vessel against a stationary object".

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Two definitions for the same word. Nothing new there so I won't sweat it.

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

quote:

Mmm.. according to this Maritime Terms website, 'allision' is defined as: "The act of striking or collision of a moving vessel against a stationary object".

Maritime Terms website definition is ambiguous; therefore, unreliable as a source of information.

(a) If a moving vessel strikes another moving vessel is it an allision or a collision?

(b) If a moving vessel strikes a moored vessel is it an allision or a collision?

(c) If a moving vessel strikes an iceberg, that is not aground, is it an allision or a collision?​

 

[Paul Rogers]

I guess any ambiguity perceived depends on how one would define the word: 'object' (and, possibly, the word 'stationary'). Personally, and based on the context of the definition quoted, I wouldn't include any vessel - moored or underway - within the definition of the word 'object'. (I would however class a submerged or semi-submerged wreck as an 'object'.) But then I'm not a seaman so I'll bow to your judgement on this one.

FWIW, my answers to your questions - based on my above comments - would be as follows:

(a) Collision
(b) Collision
(c) Allision



PS: Did I pass? ;-)

 

[Samuel Halpern]

According to this site: http://www.m-i-link.com/dictionary/default.asp

allision -- striking of a moving vessel against a stationary vessel that is at anchor, aground, etc. or fixed object such as piers, wharves, etc.

collision -- striking of two vessels that are in motion.

But is a drifting iceberg considered a fixed object? It certainly is not a vessel and not really fixed. However, with reference to the water most people would say it is practically a fixed object moving with the water, not through it. My understanding is that the term "allision" is commonly used in place of "collision" to distinguish that one of the objects was fixed.

So to answer your questions Capt. Collins, I would say the answers are:

a) collision
b) allision
c) allision

On a related note, I think the term used most often with regard to the Titanic accident was "struck," as in "she struck an iceberg."

Any maritime lawyers out there?

 

[Paul Rogers]

On a related note, I think the term used most often with regard to the Titanic accident was "struck," as in "she struck an iceberg."

Hello Sam. I seem to recall it being discussed on this Board that, in 1912 (and later?), the verb 'strike' was used specifically to describe a grounding event. Didn't David Brown and Parks Stephenson suggest that the use of that particular word in testimony supported their grounding theory?