Seems like a plausible scenario. Can explain the visible damage on the bridge of the Titanic wreck.
Last edited:
-
Let's stay in touch! Sign up for our occasional (but interesting) newsletter.
Discover new research on all aspects of the sinking, interesting Titanic facts, and learn more about the Titanic's passengers and crew.
Reports of Flooding in Aft Section
- Thread starter Aaron_2016
- Start date
-
- Tags
- flooding
Seems like a plausible scenario. Can explain the visible damage on the bridge of the Titanic wreck.
Kyle Naber
Member
I think the main focus of the 2012 animation was to show the hull's movements and not the other details like the lights.
Even so, they did get a few details wrong. They didn't include the Titanic's correction of her port list when the bridge began to plunge - an event observed and mentioned by several eyewitnesses like Jack Thayer, and the stern was way too high when she broke from the bow. And I still believe they should've extended the electrical lifespan of their Titanic model in the animation much longer.
Kyle Naber
Member
The angle is based on a flooding program with a Titanic that has 6 breached compartments and the rest was calculated. There are also multiple witnesses that claimed the break took place at a considerable height.
Depending on who you ask, yes. But I still think the [initial] break-up began at a much shallower angle.
Jaden Maxwell
Guest
The ventilation shafts in front of the 2nd funnel appear to be untouched. I think that would mean the 2nd funnel did not fall forwards. I think there is evidence that it fell backwards.
Park Stephenson said the grating shaft in front of the 1st funnel was intact and bent outwards. If the 1st funnel had fallen forwards it would have squashed the grating inwards, but it was untouched and bent outwards by what Lightoller speculated was a rush of imprisoned air coming rapidly out of the bow. I think Paul Lee and Aaron both made suggestions that the funnels fell backwards when the bow broke away and the back of the bow sank down quickly. Paul Lee showed an account by Percy Keen. I don't know if the word he put in brackets is part of the account or something Paul Lee added.
Percy Keen - the Southern Daily Echo of 29th April:
"We saw the lights go out and through the darkness we could faintly hear shouts for help mingled with cries of agony and despair. The ship seemed to break in two forward of the first funnel, which crashed down on passengers and crew [abaft?]. There was a terrible rumbling sound, which we believed was the machinery breaking and tearing through the hull, and this was the end of it. The Titanic and all remaining on board her were swallowed up in the ocean."
Last edited by a moderator:
Jaden Maxwell
Guest
The Titanic appeared to some to break into three. I think it must have broken twice on the surface, with the bow first twisting and detaching, and sinking with a heavy plume of black smoke behind it, followed by the stern rising high into the air, and the engines crashing out, and the release of that weight making the stern ease back. What people thought was the bow and stern breaking at a high angle could have been the middle and the stern breaking away from each other with a heavy plume of black smoke covering the spot where the bow had been and ha broken off and sank earlier on and out of their view because of the smoke.
I demonstrate where the smokestacks fell in this graph. Funnels #1 and #2 both fell on the starboard side and crushed the starboard wing and the gymnasium, which is supported by the wreckage and by numerous eyewitness accounts. This fact implies that the Titanic shifted her port list to starboard around the time the bridge began to plunge into the ocean.
What do you think?
Last edited:
Seems plausible.
Kyle Naber
Member
I just personally don’t think it’s a coincidence that a computer-driven simulation matches up with some accounts (in terms of break height).
Maybe, but I don't think any computer simulation, no matter who does it, is to be taken at face value. It can only give the viewer an idea of what might've happened, but not necessarily show us how it really happened. This is not to say that the 2012 animation is absolutely inaccurate - since it is true to a degree, but considering all the other factors, I don't believe it is the best representation of the Titanic sinking to date. We will never know how it actually sank, but we can speculate how it most likely sank.
Kyle Naber
Member
100%. It's a general idea to me. I just think that there aren't sufficient forces to break the ship in two while the downward trim wasn't severe (with all four funnels standing).
Jaden Maxwell
Guest
You need to google oil tankers and container ships that broke apart. Ballast weight and cargo weight is calculated and positioned very carefully inside long subdivided ships. If it isn't done then strong waves and rough seas can put excess stress on the structure and break the hull. The Titanic was like a long subdivided oil tanker and container ship. Compartments here, there, and everywhere were flooding. I think cabins on E, D, C deck were filling up with water all over the ship and when the boilers further aft had flooded the bow settled evenly and rolled to starboard and twisted the hull in the middle. I think everyone would need to ask themselves if that was happening to a long subdivided oil tanker would she really stay in one piece, or break apart into sections on the surface before going down.
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps, but I don't think the breakup of the Titanic had so much to do with how steep the ship's trim was as it had to do with the forces acting on the hull of the Titanic - water compression, air pockets trapped between decks, unbalanced ballast, etc. - all of which, I believe, played a much greater role in the break-up than how high the stern was. For example, the Britannic sank at a relatively high angle, yet she didn't split on the surface. I understand that the physics in the Britannic's case was different in many respects to the Titanic's, but the point I am making is there is much more to the story of how and why she sank than what any computer simulation or any scientific or mathematical calculation by "experts" in their fields of expertise and research would let on. It is far nuanced than that.
Jim Currie
Member
By the looks of the wreck, it seems that the foremast forestay parted on the way down and the mast fell aft onto the bridge then finally over on the port side, clearing the bridge as it did o.
