Who made the steel

[James Alexander Carlisle]

The steel used to construct Titanic was the best possible material available in 1909. Remember it is the only liner in the world to have sunk an enemy submarine. Or if you want to mention the chappy test, don't forget that test sidn't start until 1948.

Before you mention the rivets, remember the same rivets are still holding in the Thompson Dry Dock in Belfast.

If you want to see the material, have a look at the Queen Mary in Long Beach, by this time the owners of the Steel Manufacters were Harland and Wolff.

 

[Jeremy Lee]

Yeah, I am puzzled why ships still sink today even with better steel!!!

 

[Nathan Robison]

During an AP European History class discussion of the Second Industrial Revolution, a student questioned the relative merits of the Bessemer Process, developed in England, and the Siemens Process, in Germany. Because I have posters of Titanic in my classroom, the discussion naturally moved in that direction.

Can anybody explain the benefits of one method over the other in the production of steamships and naval ships from the First World War era?

Was German steelmaking truly more advanced or of higher quality than British steelmaking? I have always been under the impression that British steelmaking was inferior to German steelmaking. If I am incorrect, will someone with the appropriate knowledge please correct me and explain the differences?

 

[Stanley C Jenkins]

It is surely absurd to suggest that "British steelmaking was inferior to German steelmaking". Is that what they are teaching in schools these days? I think there may be confusion here between steelmaking - a basic industrial process - and the distribution of armour on British and German battleships. It is well known that the German warships used in World War I were more heavily armoured than some of their British counterparts and, in particular, they were much better protected in relation to the effects of plunging fire. The British battlecruisers that blew up at Jutland were built for speed and had less armour - although there was probably little difference between the British and German battleships. None of this has any bearing on the construction of merchant vessels such as the Titanic.

 

[Paul Rogers]

A trawl of t'internet seems to indicate that the Siemens process "complemented" rather than improved on the Bessemer process.

Having said this, one source here states:

quote:

After 1900 the Bessemer process was rapidly replaced by an alternative method, the Siemens-Martin or open hearth process. This allowed precise control of temperatures resulting in better quality steel.

Another document here, (an HTML version of a MS-Word document), states:

quote:

Although Bessemer steel was slow in being adopted, and suffered from poor quality control, [my emphasis] it nevertheless stimulated demand for low phosphor ores. Demand further increased after 1868, and the development of the Siemens open-hearth process. Production of Siemens steel was slower, controllable, and better able to provide a consistent product. [my emphasis] It still required pig iron low in phosphor but, in addition, it could process a high proportion of scrap iron and steel. These were later collectively referred to as the ‘acid’ steel processes.

Given the above, I don't think it's necessarily "absurd" to assume that one country's process is/was potentially superior to another's. Improvements and innovation happen continuously and therefore someone must lead the field at any given point in time. Different manufacturing processes will yield different results after all.

All of the above was the result of a quick 'n' dirty search and I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information linked. Like Mr Robison, I hope that someone with real knowledge of steel-making can add to this potentially fascinating subject.​

 

[Michael H. Standart]

A link or two here which discusses both the history of steelmaking and the problems:

http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/def_en/kap_5/advanced/t5_1_4.html

http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_hearth_furnace

This thread might just be made to order for Tim Foecke since he's an expert metallurgist. in my own opinion, Paul Rogers has a point when he says that it's not neseccerily absurd to consider the possibility that one country's process might be better then anothers. Technology is nothing if not fluid and rapidly changing and todays cutting edge process quickly becomes yesterday's old news as something better comes along.

 

[Stanley C Jenkins]

The reference to "British" steel and "German" steel is perhaps unfortunate. It would be more sensible to pose two separate questions: 1) What were the relative advantages of the Bessemer and Siemens Martin methods of steel production? 2) Did British manufacturers use only the Bessemer process, or were BOTH employed. In reality, I believe that both were employed, according to the types of steel that were being produced, and the uses to which they would be put.

 

[Stanley C Jenkins]

A third question might also be posed - to what extent were German steelmakers using the Gilchrist-Thomas process, circa 1912.

 

[Emanuel Rodriguez]

Ema here,

Very good question! But I've got a question you or anybody can't solve:

1. WHO MADE STEEL?
2. WHEN WAS IT MADE?
3. DO YOU KNOW WHEN TITANIC WAS BUILD?

 

[Tim Foecke]

German and American steelmakers were generally considered to be about 20 years ahead of their British counterparts (ie American 1900 was equivalent to British 1920) around the end of the 19th century. This was the opinion of the board investigating Liberty Ship failures during WW II, when they did a worldwide historical assessment of steel makers.

 

[James Alexander Carlisle]

Emanual,

Please read more here on this site for your answers.

Regarding the steel, Harland and Wolff had to repair a lot of ships during WW2 which were welded. These ships were not built by H&W. All H&W ships were riveted by highly skilled tradesmen. It wasn't until the 1960's that welding was jointly used with riveting, then welding alone took over when higher standards of welding were being used.

 

[Stanley C Jenkins]

Many of these questions have already been answered in this thread. The Titanic's steel plates were made by Colville & Co at the Dalzell Steelworks, Motherwell. However, nobody has yet pointed out that, like most Scottish steel makers, Colvilles employed the Siemens open hearth process. The question of Bessemer versus Siemens is totally irrelevant in this context.

 

[Jim Currie]

As a former employee(when I was doing my engineering bit)of BOC, all the steel works you mention were on 'my patch' Colvilles also used the Bessemer process which involved injecting very large quantities of oxygen directly into the melt. It was an extremely impressive process. Ravenscraig was the biggest user of this process. As is said Dalziell (pronounced De-ell)works used the open hearth method. I also had the hounour of seeing the original Queen Elizabeth being launched at the east yard at John Browns Clydebank and being the newbuilding surveyor on the last vessel launched from the self-same slipway - the Rowan jack-up Barge 'Rowan Gorilla 2". Recently, I used to berth the Waverley on her summer cruises. I even remember sailing on her when she was new in 1947. The old one was sunk during the war. Just a bit of nostalgia for you.