Mark Baber
RIP
TitanicNerd, it wasn't the iceberg (which was essentially an immoveable object in this regard) that provided the force, it was the ship. Sorta like running a car into the side of a cliff.
Not named until after the launch?/"Weak rivets," redux
- Thread starter TitanicNerd
- Start date
-
- Tags
- launch
TitanicNerd
Member
Oh, thanks. I guess I understand.
Hi all,
We've known for some time now that the damage the Titanic sustained wasn't some gigantic 300-foot gash along her starboard side as was the popular depiction in the aftermath of the sinking. Rather it was a series of smaller punctures, most of them not more than a few feet long. It was simply the distance which the damage covered that decided the fate of the ship, rather than the damage itself in its entirety.
So the rivets didn't necessarily have to be badly damaged - the force of the iceberg only needed to make small puncture wounds along an extended portion of the ship for the damage to be fatal. The safety features of the ship like the watertight bulkheads didn't foresee such a method of being damaged.
Cheers,
Adam.
We've known for some time now that the damage the Titanic sustained wasn't some gigantic 300-foot gash along her starboard side as was the popular depiction in the aftermath of the sinking. Rather it was a series of smaller punctures, most of them not more than a few feet long. It was simply the distance which the damage covered that decided the fate of the ship, rather than the damage itself in its entirety.
So the rivets didn't necessarily have to be badly damaged - the force of the iceberg only needed to make small puncture wounds along an extended portion of the ship for the damage to be fatal. The safety features of the ship like the watertight bulkheads didn't foresee such a method of being damaged.
Cheers,
Adam.
TitanicNerd
Member
6 little slits flooded 6 compartments.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>6 little slits flooded 6 compartments.<<
That is NOT what Adam was saying. Let me clearify. What you had was a series of small punctures, cracks split seams and separations spread out OVER six compartments. The effective size of the openings amounted to no more then 12 square feet, but as 15 or more feet BELOW the waterline and at twice atmospheric pressure, it was enough to cause an initial rate of flooding of about 1200 tons per minute. At lessened as the ship reached equilibrium, but before that happened, flood waters were over topping one section to work it's way down into the one behind.
That is NOT what Adam was saying. Let me clearify. What you had was a series of small punctures, cracks split seams and separations spread out OVER six compartments. The effective size of the openings amounted to no more then 12 square feet, but as 15 or more feet BELOW the waterline and at twice atmospheric pressure, it was enough to cause an initial rate of flooding of about 1200 tons per minute. At lessened as the ship reached equilibrium, but before that happened, flood waters were over topping one section to work it's way down into the one behind.
Ioannis Georgiou
Member
I am not sure if I would agree with that. We had some damage of different length spread over the first 6 Compartments (possibly also a 7th). The length are different, while there are a few trace we also had a damage of about 45ft length. The total area about 11.7 sq. ft.
TitanicNerd
Member
Oh ok, sorry.
Hi all,
Yes, Michael is correct, and thanks for clarifying that Michael.
The popular notion in 1912 was that the Titanic was unsinkable. So, when she sunk, it was thought by many - especially those of the press who printed illustrated depictions of the "damage" - that it must only be a colossal wound which could sink her. Indeed this notion was widespread even after the wreck was discovered because of course the damaged area was covered by the ocean floor. It's only through advancements in technology that scientists have been able to prove otherwise.
My understanding is that Boiler Room #5 was pivotal in keeping Titanic afloat, and when that flooded, it was for want of a better term, game over.
Ioannis, yes there is a couple of larger wounds but the vast majority of the damage, and ultimately the cause of the sinking, was the distance of the damage, rather than the amount of the damage.
Cheers,
Adam.
Yes, Michael is correct, and thanks for clarifying that Michael.
The popular notion in 1912 was that the Titanic was unsinkable. So, when she sunk, it was thought by many - especially those of the press who printed illustrated depictions of the "damage" - that it must only be a colossal wound which could sink her. Indeed this notion was widespread even after the wreck was discovered because of course the damaged area was covered by the ocean floor. It's only through advancements in technology that scientists have been able to prove otherwise.
My understanding is that Boiler Room #5 was pivotal in keeping Titanic afloat, and when that flooded, it was for want of a better term, game over.
Ioannis, yes there is a couple of larger wounds but the vast majority of the damage, and ultimately the cause of the sinking, was the distance of the damage, rather than the amount of the damage.
Cheers,
Adam.
TitanicNerd
Member
Practically Unsinkable, from The Shipbuilder Magazine. 
Doug Criner
Member
So? ...............................
TitanicNerd
Member
So? I was just helping Adam out, because he said: "The notion back in 1912 was that the Titanic was unsinkable" and in reality Shipbuilder Magazine said she was "Practically Unsinkable"
Thanks TitanicNerd, "Shipbuilder" was indeed the magazine which claimed the Titanic was unsinkable - however, it was widely believed to be the case just in general society as well. If you take a look at most of the survivor accounts, they all relate a similar tale: that they were not alarmed in the immediate aftermath of the collision with the iceberg - and in some cases, not alarmed for a very long time afterward, even when it was plain that Titanic was sinking - because invariably they believed that the mammoth Titanic could not and would not sink, and in any case, they prefered to take their chances with her than to be launched onto the ocean in a relatively tiny lifeboat. Hence why many of the lifeboats left with only a fraction of the capacity aboard them.
Just goes to show the power of the press, and of popular public beliefs.
Cheers,
Adam.
Just goes to show the power of the press, and of popular public beliefs.
Cheers,
Adam.
Michael H. Standart
Member
The caveat "Practically" in the phrase "Practically Unsinkable" is key here. No first hand source (i.e. White Star or Harland & Wolff) ever claimed the ship was totally unsinkable.
