If any what kind damage occured to the ships double bottom

Michael

I agree w/ you that the damage was not limited to the double bottom, and this was my opinion beforehand, I was just curious if a would be at all possible on the double bottom. from what I have read, I don't think so.
 
>>I agree w/ you that the damage was not limited to the double bottom<<

Would have been nice if it had been. The ship in all likelihood would have made it to New York. Whether or not the damage would have been economically repairable is another matter but at least she would have survived.

In broadly general terms, I'm inclined to agree with David's opinion on the complexity of the event. it wasn't any one thing which did Titanic in, but a complicated and interelated chain of events all happening at the same time. My own crystal ball is every bit as cloudy as David's on the details but there you are. A few years ago, we discussed the possibility of the Titanic being a "Bent ship" at the Topeka gathering and it makes sense. What he said about the consequences of improperly placed blocks in a drydock is no joke. The sort of uneven lifting David described can do an amazing amount of damage as shipfitters have learned through hard experience.

If you can get that kind of severe structural damage under carefully controlled conditions, imagine the conseqences of the same thing happening where Sir Issac Newton is in the driver's seat and you're just along for the ride!
 
>>it wasn't any one thing which did Titanic in, but a complicated and interelated chain of events all happening at the same time.<<

As the commentary on the "Titanic" (1997) movie remarked, "If, if, if ..... !"

"The terrible 'if's' accumulate !" - Winston Churchill.
 
Hi David. Finally a chance to respond to all this. My point was quite simple, the term "struck" did not have exclusive meaning. It appears to have meaning within the context of its usage just as you said. As in the case of the Olympic, it was used to describe a collision event.

On a separate note, as I have written to you before, the contact with the iceberg could not have been a side contact only. The ship had to have gone up on an ice spur for Fleet and Lee to have noticed that slight heel to port as the berg passed by. If it were pure side contact, the ship would have leaned into he berg, not away from it. And that, I believe, is documented observational proof of a major component of the contact as being from under the starboard side.
 
I know I am late to the subject but I am going to ignore the rest of the content posted here, and deal solely with the word "struck".

I am not of English decent, nor have I ever been in the Royal Navy, but I have sailed British owned and crewed vessels. I also was not on earth in 1912. All that said, the use of the work "struck" has been used in the context above mentioned by every NTSB accident investigator I have ever worked with (when use of such a phrase was warranted). It has also been used by the sailors in my family going back at least 3 generations (those where sea stories mind you) to include me.

The use of the phrase can be found in MMO 1946 addition which uses the phrase rather loosly. To include both grounding and collision (both strike and struck). It can also be found in a current version (not sure if I have the most recent addition) of the "Rules of the Road" in referrence to day shapes and lights, and it is specific to grounding.

I am not sure why it is of such high debate here, but it is worth noting that strictly in a seafaring world that word has been used as published by Capt Brown for at least 3 generations (again to include mine) that I can account for.

The phrase "to strike" or the word "struck" can mean many things but it's basic concept is to hit something that isn't moving. A few phone calls to some "old timers" reveals a large vareity of definitions, some to be specific to include a grounding type event, others any type of collision or grounding.

Does that offer any help?? Or....as I always do did I confuse the issue further.
 
"Does that offer any help??" Well, maybe. What you said is the words "strike" and "struck" have been used to mean "to hit something that isn't moving." It is obviously not exclusively used to mean a grounding. But I would question the "not moving" part. A collision between two moving ships has been described and recorded as being "Struck by..." So if one ship hits another ship that is also moving, then it is still acceptable to say that ship A struck ship B. I think we all agree here that it is in the context of how the term is used that is important. What I don't think is correct is to say that the use of that term by seamen to describe the contact that took place with the iceberg means that they meant to say it grounded on the berg. Since less than a handful of people actually saw what happened, the others could only describe what they felt and heard. What they knew was that the ship hit something (on its bottom perhaps, on its side perhaps, maybe both along its side and bottom) that they later found out (after coming up on deck) to have been contact with an ice berg. I personally don't see the use of the term as supporting either grounding or sideswiping theories. I rather look to evidence that is far more telling like the heeling action that Fleet and Lee reported as the berg swept by.
 
From an investigative point of view, it is important to look at the whole package:

It is an extension (via word usage interpretation) of the testimony of the recollection of a witness describing his interpretation of a physical feeling. Far from eyewitness testimony of the damage to the ship, but it should be thrown into the mix nonetheless.
 
has anybody seen the documentary "titanics final moments: missing pieces?" the premise of that one is the grounding theory. they found an entire cross section of the double bottom quite a distance from the rest of the wreck. The documentary never did say if that was from grounding or not. They did offer another theory on just how the ship broke, but out of curiosity, what do you all make of the section of double bottom that is seperate from the rest?
 
Yep...we saw it.

Since the portions of double bottom were from the midsection of the wreck, they wouldn't show any evidence of grounding damage as the grounding itself would have involved the forward third of the vessel and ending around the region of Boiler Room Six.
 
I have been persuaded by the grounding scenario speculation. I have wondered if the ice shelf was less than 50 feet from the berg's waterline, because after the Titanic hit the berg and stopped, she listed 5 degrees to starboard. That made me wonder if the damage to holds 2 and 3 were from the centerline to starboard only, the ship not getting to an even keel until the water spilled over the firemen's tunnel and filled up the holds an equal amount on the port side of the tunnel. Robert Williams dived on Titanic in 2003 (he has a website) and they saw steel plates sticking straight up from the mud 800-900 meters south of the stern and an indeterminate distance east. He believes they're from the bottom of the Titanic AT THE COLLISION POINT.
 
>>He believes they're from the bottom of the Titanic AT THE COLLISION POINT.<<

Interesting. Since the forward third of the ship is buried deeply in the mud...effectively concealing any grounding damage at the only point where it's likely to have occured...I'd like to see what data he has to support that.
 

Similar threads

A
What caused the damage to the stern?
4 5
Replies
62
Views
15K
Samuel Halpern
Samuel Halpern
R
Damage to stern
Replies
4
Views
1K
Daniel Dieter Abt
D
A
Implosion damage
Replies
6
Views
4K
Cam Houseman
Cam Houseman
A
Titanic - Damage to her Keel?
3 4
Replies
50
Views
24K
Kareen Healey
Kareen Healey
Scott Mills
Damage Control
6 7
Replies
94
Views
19K
Kiku
K
Back
Top