Model Boat Mayhem

Mess Deck: General Section => Full Scale Ships => Topic started by: cos918 on April 24, 2008, 10:42:33 pm

Title: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: cos918 on April 24, 2008, 10:42:33 pm
found these links. And after reading them makes intresting thinking.

john

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/titanic-doomed-by-fire-raging-below-deckssays-new-theory-808472.html
Title: Re: one idear
Post by: Bryan Young on April 25, 2008, 06:18:10 pm
found these links. And after reading them makes intresting thinking.

john

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/titanic-doomed-by-fire-raging-below-deckssays-new-theory-808472.html
Re. the rivets: makes one wonder if other, less publicised, sinkings could be blamed on the rivets. "Titanic" and her sisters were obviously not the only large ships being built at the time....otherwise why the shortage of material. If that is the case, then I do wonder how many more lives were lost from the same cause. Ref. the bunker fire, the subject of coal-bunker (and coal cargo) fires was always given a lot of time at Marine College. I also seem to recall that putting water in to douse a fire would only exacerbate the problem as the water would turn into steam and perhaps blow the whole shebang into little bits. The only solution was to dig it out..."inert gasses" were unknown then. (in this sense). One has only to check on how many closed coal mines or spoil heaps have had fires raging for donkeys years.
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Bunkerbarge on April 27, 2008, 08:37:35 pm
There remains to this day split opinions on how to deal with a scavenge fire.  If the fire is hot enough admitting steam smothering can flash off, break down into hydrogen and oxygen and significantly feed the fire.  How do you know whether it is hot enough?  I hope I never have to make the decision!
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Colin Bishop on April 27, 2008, 08:59:06 pm
The rivets issue seems to be an offshoot of the "brittle steel" theory. However I would have thought that contact between a ship the size and speed of Titanic with hard unyielding ice would inevitably have "popped" rivets and opened seams regardles of their "quality". If Titanic had rammed the iceberg head on she would probably have survived. As it was, the lacerating broadside contact simply opened up too many seams and compartments for the water ingress to be controlled. Not rocket science really and no special theories are required to explain the consequences.

In those days bunker fires were not uncommon and it is unlikely that this one materially affected the loss of the ship.

Colin
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Martin [Admin] on April 27, 2008, 09:12:45 pm
I always thought it was the quality of the iceburg that caused the sinking of the Titanic....  ::)
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Bunkerbarge on April 27, 2008, 09:31:02 pm
I must admit over the years the various theories put forward as regards the Titanic sinking have more to do with advancing individual carers rather than sound naval architectural or engineering thinking.

As Colin says the ship hit a very large and relativelty imoveable object and gashed a hole along the side thus breaching a number of vertical compartments.  Why rocket science is required to prove why it sunk completely escapes me.  If you did exacly the same with a modern ship the same would happen, whether it was welded, riveted or held together with chewing gum!  It was the fact that it breached a number of compartments that did it and nothing to do with steel quality or riveted construction. 

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if shell construction is quite a bit thinner nowadays, I have been involved with corrosion through hull steel a couple of times and believe me it wouldn't take much to puncture a hole through it.
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Colin Bishop on April 27, 2008, 09:46:33 pm
Bunkerbarge,

I think you are right about shell plating thickness. I understand it is typically quite a bit thinner than it used to be at the turn of the last century. on the other hand I suspect the quality of steel these days is rather better!

The basic sitiation is that, in a collision, you have umpteen thousand tons bearing down on plating which is less than an inch thick. The result is inevitable. It will rupture. The critical issue is restricting the flooding to a limited number of compartments so that the ship remains afloat.

Colin
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Martin [Admin] on April 28, 2008, 11:05:34 am
Due to Titanic's "poor handling", where any of her sisters re ruddered or changed in any way?
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Colin Bishop on April 28, 2008, 11:30:19 am
I don't think so Martin. Remember, in those days large ships weren't expected to be especially maneuverable. On leaving port there would be a fleet of tugs to chivvy them and point them in the right direction and another fleet of tugs to receive and dock them at the other end. They weren't expected to do body swerves in mid ocean!

In the case of the Titanic the officer of the watch was faced with a bit of a dilemma. He chose to put the engines astern to slow the ship but that reduced the propwash over the rudder and reduced its effect. He could have continued ahead to maximise the rudder response but he would then have reached the iceberg sooner so he was probably caught either way. With hindsight, if he'd just hit it head on the ship would probably have stayed afloat, albeit a bit shorter, but that would hardly gave been a natural reaction.

The basic problem was that the ship was going too fast for the conditions. The absence of binoculars in the crows nest probably didn't help either.

Colin
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Martin [Admin] on April 28, 2008, 11:41:02 am

Is it documented anywhere how long between spotting the iceburg and the collision?
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Colin Bishop on April 28, 2008, 01:20:56 pm
37 seconds apparently. Not enough time to change their trousers...

Some interesting info here: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/man_collins.pdf
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Bryan Young on April 29, 2008, 05:58:28 pm
Due to Titanic's "poor handling", where any of her sisters re ruddered or changed in any way?
Why would you want to "re-rudder"? Please do not let me think you have fallen into the "trap" postulated in the "Titanic" film. All of the so-called "experts" were so quick to say that "in the old days" turning to port meant turning the wheel to starboard. Stuff and nonsense. OK if you are using a tiller (as in a yacht), but not on a ship. All of this "crap" came about because the film maker only made one half of the ship and reversed the images to make one side of the ship look like the other. So the actors buttoned their jackets the "wrong" way around etc. and made it all look quite presentable. Until it came to the crunch (as it were), when the guy on the wheel when given the order "hard-a-port" did so. But when the film was reversed he was, of course, shown to be turning the wheel to starboard. A serious lapse in continuity that has led to all sorts of arguements that had no basis in fact, just a lapse in the film making process. Stupid, really. BY.
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Martin [Admin] on April 29, 2008, 06:53:22 pm

No, I just thought someone may have decided to fit bigger rudders to similar ships in case of similar emergencies.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: dougal99 on April 30, 2008, 11:46:19 am
Bryan

You should get out more  ;D  I watched Titanic and remember it as a film about some girl in a wet blouse, oh and something about a ship sinking.  O0

Doug
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Bunkerbarge on May 07, 2008, 11:34:53 pm
Bunkerbarge,

I think you are right about shell plating thickness. I understand it is typically quite a bit thinner than it used to be at the turn of the last century. on the other hand I suspect the quality of steel these days is rather better!

The basic sitiation is that, in a collision, you have umpteen thousand tons bearing down on plating which is less than an inch thick. The result is inevitable. It will rupture. The critical issue is restricting the flooding to a limited number of compartments so that the ship remains afloat.

Colin

Colin, Interestingly enough I share the views of a number of sea going engineers who actually believe that steel quality is considerably lower than it was a hundred years ago.  The reasoning for this thinking is that traditionally steel was smetled from raw ore of a considerably higher quality than it is now.  Chemical testing was crude to say the least and it was certainly open to chance but basically you got what the ore gave you.

Nowadays the chemists have got it all down to a fine art and although there are pre-set requirements and limits to manufacture to the industry nowadays is more than capable of taking the quality right to the edge.  The problems come from all the other elements that modern steel contains which are not regulated and which come from the very high percentages of recycled steel which modern products contain.  The origins of these recycled steels is always questionable but as long as the defined parameters are met the smelted steel is OK for use.

I have personally experienced rates of corrosion in modern steel plating that was quite alarming and to me indicate a quality that is not comparable with much older steels.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on May 08, 2008, 06:10:16 pm
That's interesting Bunkerbarge, I hadn't thought of it like that. Maybe I should have as the "iron" keel of my 1:1 yacht is in fact made up of anything available that was thrown in the pot when melting down the material to put in the mould. As a result there are lots of busy little reactions going on which lead to continuing outbreaks of surface rust which it's impossible to stop altogether although the thickness of the keel means that the effect is just cosmetic in practice.

What you say rather confirms the concern felt in many quarters that sending bog standard cruise ships down to the Antarctic is an accident waiting to happen.

Colin
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Bryan Young on May 08, 2008, 07:38:59 pm
There remains to this day split opinions on how to deal with a scavenge fire.  If the fire is hot enough admitting steam smothering can flash off, break down into hydrogen and oxygen and significantly feed the fire.  How do you know whether it is hot enough?  I hope I never have to make the decision!
Have you read the report on the hydrogen fire that "Bulwark" had? To tell the truth, I cannot remember exactly which carrier it was...may even have been "Hermes"....but I did see the huge "clinker" that was recovered. Horrifying. Better than anything a car crusher could do.
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Bryan Young on May 08, 2008, 07:51:08 pm
Bunkerbarge,

I think you are right about shell plating thickness. I understand it is typically quite a bit thinner than it used to be at the turn of the last century. on the other hand I suspect the quality of steel these days is rather better!

The basic sitiation is that, in a collision, you have umpteen thousand tons bearing down on plating which is less than an inch thick. The result is inevitable. It will rupture. The critical issue is restricting the flooding to a limited number of compartments so that the ship remains afloat.

Colin

Colin, Interestingly enough I share the views of a number of sea going engineers who actually believe that steel quality is considerably lower than it was a hundred years ago.  The reasoning for this thinking is that traditionally steel was smetled from raw ore of a considerably higher quality than it is now.  Chemical testing was crude to say the least and it was certainly open to chance but basically you got what the ore gave you.

Nowadays the chemists have got it all down to a fine art and although there are pre-set requirements and limits to manufacture to the industry nowadays is more than capable of taking the quality right to the edge.  The problems come from all the other elements that modern steel contains which are not regulated and which come from the very high percentages of recycled steel which modern products contain.  The origins of these recycled steels is always questionable but as long as the defined parameters are met the smelted steel is OK for use.

I have personally experienced rates of corrosion in modern steel plating that was quite alarming and to me indicate a quality that is not comparable with much older steels.
As most of the "big" ships ploughing the oceans these days tend to be "crude" carriers,...I will ask one question. Is it still true that plate thickness can be reduced by 10% per year (depending on the crude being carried) and that is why old tankers have most problems?
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Ghost in the shell on May 08, 2008, 08:41:46 pm
if the helmsman had simply ordered the centre engine to idle and the outer engines to full astern, (centre engine is a turbine - non reversing engine), and simply rammed the iceberg, rather than to swerve and try to avoid, I think Titanic would have made new york, albeit 50 to feet or so shorter!
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on May 08, 2008, 08:47:26 pm
Yes Ghost, you are probably right but helmsmen don't give orders, it's down to the officer of the watch!
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Ghost in the shell on May 08, 2008, 08:48:42 pm
and instinct would be to swerve.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on May 12, 2008, 05:02:29 pm
Some time ago there was a programme about Titanic sinking and the theory of brittle steel in cold weather arose, as apparently such knowledge was not known when she was built. To test the theory a plate of steel recovered from the wreck site was set up for a shear test at the temperature known in those waters for that time of year, as a comparison a new piece of steel plate produced to go in cold waters was also set up in the same manner. The swinging weight of the force expected was swung and the Titanic plate sheared immediately, the other modern test piece mearly buckled. From this test a theory was put forward that Titanic plates below the waterline shattered and critically the forward collision bulkhead also failed for the same reason.
It is not possible to check this theory on the wreck as I believe the seabed is nigh upto her waterline. But she did break into three pieces on the surface as she started to dive???
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on May 12, 2008, 05:22:46 pm
My impression was that she broke in two as she sank. The bow section was waterlogged while the stern section was sticking in the air. No ship is designed to take that sort of stress with a large part of the hull entirely unsupported so I don't thik that was necessarily to do with the quality of the steel.

There seem to be conflicting theories about the brittleness of the steel at low temperatures but I think somebody demonstrated that simply splitting the seams from contacting the iceberg would have been sufficient to account for the degree of flooding, especially as it opened several compartments to the sea.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: The long Build on May 12, 2008, 05:38:29 pm
. But she did break into three pieces on the surface as she started to dive???

She did break into 3 pieces , this has been proved with the finding of a large section of hull  a distance away , from the main 2 pieces of wreckage.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on May 12, 2008, 06:31:03 pm
I thought it was a third debris field together with large sections of plating That isn't inconsistent with the ship splitting basically in two either at or just below the surface. A couple of interesting sites:

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/breakup-of-titanic.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJy6X2noABs There are some entertaining model sinkings associated with this one!

Ships do seem to break up when sinking, many of the larger German surface warships lost their sterns and the bow of the Ark Royal apparently broke away on her way to the bottom.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: The long Build on May 12, 2008, 07:37:08 pm
Re the U tube video , this was the established thought on the way in which it broke up ,
it is now reckoned that the ship actually took water further in nearer the boilers which is backed up by testimony that engineers saw water comming through from under the plates in the boiler room , or at least more centrally . But Basically the ship went into a slight v shape which cracked open the hull in that area , this also apparently is what caused  the upper area of the decks to be crushed inwards and not ripped apart , this caused one of the splits in the hull , the ship then leveled out and then started to buckle as  per the u tube video but this created a second rip in the hull which in turn created  effectively 2 splits so 3 areas of wreakage. The area of hull found had sections of the stabilisers on both the starboard and port side showing it was a complete section.

As far as I am aware no engineers survived so it was only here-say that the water coming in was true or not,  however a picture by a  surviver showing the ship sinking was dismissed as Artistic licence at the time, however his picture is now also being given more credibility.

When I watched the video It was quite interesting as it basically re wrote the way she sank.  I have the dvd somewhere and will try to find it and post further details..
I find the whole story about the Titanic a fascinating Topic and have done since I was about 12 and far before James Cameron's film came out, although I did like the Idea in the film "Raise The Titanic"

At the end of the day we will probably never really know what really happened  , but it keeps the story alive.

Larry
Title: Re: One idea.....
Post by: Bunkerbarge on May 12, 2008, 07:41:21 pm
There remains to this day split opinions on how to deal with a scavenge fire.  If the fire is hot enough admitting steam smothering can flash off, break down into hydrogen and oxygen and significantly feed the fire.  How do you know whether it is hot enough?  I hope I never have to make the decision!
Have you read the report on the hydrogen fire that "Bulwark" had? To tell the truth, I cannot remember exactly which carrier it was...may even have been "Hermes"....but I did see the huge "clinker" that was recovered. Horrifying. Better than anything a car crusher could do.

Bryan,  Have a look at the atached souvenier from one of my very early trips to sea.  Although it looks like a stalagmite it is in fact the remains of superheater tubes from an exhaust gas boiler fire.  The curved section at the bottom is where the molten metal fell over the steam sootblowing lance at the bottom of the superheater.  I pulled this piece out from the side door just after we opened it and have kept it ever since.  You can only imagine the temperatures required to reduce boiler tubes to liquid metal like this.

By the way there is no allowance for shell plating annual reduction, only a percentage allowance for absolute reduction.  I can't tell you the details because it varies from one part of the hull to another and it may well vary between classification societies but there certainly is not an annual allowance.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: The long Build on May 12, 2008, 07:49:33 pm
Here is a link to the film I watched.

It better shows what i try to describe , but you clearly see the large area of the bottom of the hull breaking away.

Goto to Breakup

www.titanic2006.com
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on May 12, 2008, 08:27:01 pm
Quote
The area of hull found had sections of the stabilisers

Titanic was not fitted with stabilisers, they hadn't been invented. Do you mean bilge keels?
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: The long Build on May 12, 2008, 08:39:05 pm
yes
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: polaris on May 14, 2008, 07:28:33 pm

Dear All,

One of the problems about who did what on the Bridge before the iceberg was hit, is that everybody wanted to miss it! - mind you a natural instinct for us all really... whether car, ship, or anything else. In those days hitting things with ships was frowned upon and considered 'bad form' - partic. on a maiden voyage - (and anyone involved would most probably never get any significant sea job again), so, even though hitting it head on would have been a better solution, it's a case of damned if you did and damned if you didn't.

If all engines were indeed placed full astern, it was not the best move, but, however, it is understandable. There were so many parameters with this event, and indeed the voyage as a whole obviously.

The heating of coal in bunkers is well known, and is caused by numerous things. As to the Titanic, this theory has been known for a long while, and was brought to the fore at the Enquiry. The adding of water to such a fire can indeed make things far worse, leading to a gas explosion of significant proportions. The bunker in effect becoming a very large example of a gas producer. This theory had led to an inspection of as much hull as was possible, with the view to seeing if there were tell tale indicators of hull rupturing in the vicinity of the bunkers by a gas explosion. They did find indicators - a TV prog. that I taped quite a while ago but I will see if I can find it again!

As to rivets etc., well, I agree with what someone else on here said, that any modern ship of similar size, belting a similar sized immovable object in the same way would go the same way. As to old iron and steel versus modern iron & steel, there is good argument that the 'old' was better in quite a few ways/uses. I have an 1880's 5' long 'jumper' (a hand bar rock drilling tool for slate quarries), I have never been able to damage it despite lot's of heavy use - and it doesn't seem to rust either! It bends only slightly under very heavy load (and I mean heavy), but it always returns to straight. It has a lovely ring, and the chances of getting anything of similar quality today of the same dia. is very remote.

An interesting subject all in all.

Regards, Bernard
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Martin [Admin] on May 14, 2008, 07:33:53 pm
Have there been many documented case of coal bunker 'heating' or fires?
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Bryan Young on May 14, 2008, 07:55:28 pm
Have there been many documented case of coal bunker 'heating' or fires?
I expect there is a heck of a lot of documentation on colliers in particular having cargo fires, and subsequent water dousing just either blew the hatch covers off or shattered the ship. When I was a pre-sea cadet the subject was well and truly drummed into us...but alas, that was 1956 and the drumming has muted. But I will quote from my ancient Nicholls Seamanship :- Keep the surface area well ventilated by taking off some of the hatch boards when weather permits. Also, the temperature in different parts of the hold should be taken daily and entered into the log. If it exceeds 77*F there is a risk of the coal being on fire.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: polaris on May 15, 2008, 01:32:45 pm

Dear Martin,
 
In general, heating (&/or spontaneous combustion), is prone in anything organic; viz., grain, hay, straw, muck heaps, and even sawdust and the like if in sufficient quantity - we all know that even a small compost heap can heat up to surprising temps.. Moisture content triggering/causing decomposition being the prime cause with the latter, but with coal the sulphur content (iron pyrites), is a factor, and quite a bit depends on coal size as well of course. In coal mines, what are called 'gob fires' can start by themselves (this is areas of backfilling, and areas allowed to collapse behind the face), and in many cases in the past the only way to stop them was to flood the mine sufficient to cover that particular seam. India has some major underground seam fires that have been burning out of control for more than 20 yrs.! - they are constantly working on ways/methods of putting them out since huge amounts of coal are being wasted as the fires have spread to the seams themselves - little of which are in any was accessible. A little off Topic, but gives gnrl. background,
 
As to your question re documented cases (whether gnrl. Industrial storage or shipping), it doesn't happen very often these days, so little is heard about them. Occasionally there are colliery tip 'fires', but these are quite quickly dealt with by digging them out. The Blue Bell Railway had a slight prob. with this a few years ago when one of their embankments that had been built out of ash and waste coal took to smoldering. There are not many embankments built out of breeze today as many were used up during the late 60's and during the 70's for breeze blocks and the like - and since for road ballast.

Getting back to Titanic, I think the bunker in question held a couple of hundred tons, so no small quantity. Not sure what the screen size would have been for her boiler feed, but must have been three inch. down to 1" or so? Assuming this the 'packing' would have been quite 'tight', and the weight on the burning/smoldering zone would have allowed for quite a bit of compaction/concentration. I would not like to have been involved with emptying such a bunker!

Must get back to what I am supposed to be doing!

Regards, Bernard
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on May 19, 2008, 06:02:02 pm
There has already been an in depth programme on this subject, where they actually recovered a piece of the Titanic shell plating. The plate was analysed and given a sheer test. The plate was found to be metallurgy incorrect for cold waters and very brittle in comparasion to modern steel produced for cold areas. In fact the original plate sheered immediately while the newer plate bent.
The accepted theory is now the forward area  below the waterline and crucially the collision bulkhead all failed on contact.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Martin [Admin] on November 03, 2008, 09:00:34 pm
The Unsinkable Titanic.

    Channel 4 -     Mon, Nov 03 2008 - 21:00

    Drama-documentary which argues that a complicated sequence of events - rather than just an iceberg - sealed the0
    fate of the Titanic in 1912. Drawing from eyewitness testimonies and the latest research, the film contends that a
    series of misjudgments, human errors and misfortunes contributed to the demise of the seemingly unsinkable liner.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on November 03, 2008, 10:30:52 pm
Another c**p contribution to the Titanic saga. Pathetic!
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: gingyer on November 03, 2008, 11:24:38 pm
Another c**p contribution to the Titanic saga. Pathetic!

Thats it colin don't sit on the fence :-))

I never saw it but I get fed up with all the theories about the sinking and what happened.
IT sank..................end of story
any lessons learned..........Yes all ship have enough lifeboats for those on board

Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Martin [Admin] on November 04, 2008, 07:56:56 am

Part of the program was that the builders used wrought iron rivets in steel plating instead of steel....
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: banjo on November 04, 2008, 08:46:33 am
 O0

Am I naive?

I thought that the programme was a clear exposition of the chain of events which led to the calamity; and also to the drowning of the sister of my Grandmother.

Whatever conclusions one can draw from evidence, dramatically produced for TV, is an individual thing.   I have firmly believed, all my life, that it was criminal negligence by the ship builders, owners and crew.  The time past since the event no way lessens that blame.

Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: BarryM on November 04, 2008, 09:01:21 am
If Titanic was of such a sub-standard construction, how come her sisters and other vessels produced by H&W at the same time did not meet an early fate? (Ignoring those who were wartime losses.)

Barry M
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on November 04, 2008, 09:37:44 am
Her sister ship Olympic, built at the same time and in the same way, lasted to 1935 and became known as "Old Reliable". During her career she rammed and sunk both a U boat and the Nantucket lightship and survived a collision with HMS Hawke.

I don't really think it mattered very much what the rivets were made of, if a ship displacing around 52,000 tons hits an iceberg of 300,000 tons plus and the point of contact is a steel plate around one inch thick something is going to give. The weakest point on a riveted hull will always be the seam between two plates if only because there are a lot of holes drilled very closely together.

The programme was poorly made and the "special effects" risible. If my memory of the official documentation serves me correctly, quite a bit of it was incorrect. Also, where was Thomas Andrews? He actually designed the ship and went down with her. There was nothing new in the programme and it was inaccurate as well. 0/10 Channel 4.

Colin
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: das boot on November 04, 2008, 08:50:06 pm
I'll have a look later on when I pops me clogs...it's been a long term ambition of mine when I have to attend that appointment with the Grim Reaper to be buried at sea at the spot where Titanic went down.
I've been putting money away each week since I was a mere sprog and first started work, my solicitor has a copy of my burial wishes and he holds the money I've been saving...if it's at all possible then that's where I shall be going.

I have a large collection of Titanic memoribilia stored away, and also I have the keel made for a 'sinking' model of her, that's how I got into submarines, trying to make a model of her that I could hit an iceberg, sink the ship, then raise her later on. I did build an iceberg (radio controlled, just in case I missed it..)it's in storage with my memoibilia bits and pieces. The proposed Titanic model would have been 14' 4" oal...Bernie Wood nearly had kittens when he saw it.


Rich
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: amdaylight on November 04, 2008, 09:39:49 pm
What surprised me is there was no attempt at damage control other than closing the water tight doors. When I was going through school one of the classes was on damage control, and one thing they kept pounding into our heads was until the vessel goes under for the third time shove any thing you can find into any hole you can find that is admitting water. One of the programs that I have watched on the Titanic said that one of the builders engineers was able to look at the damage from the inside and came bake to the bridge and told them that she was going to sink. Even in Nelson's time the ships carpenter had plugs ready to shove in shot holes so this is not a new idea. Maybe this is the difference between a Naval crew and a Civilian crew. The other thing I am not sure about is, were the water tight compartments open at the top or were they closed? Some how I think I saw a computer animation showing the water cascading from one compartment to the next.

Andre
over yonder in Portland Oregon

Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on November 04, 2008, 09:57:57 pm
Yes, but the hull didn't have holes as such. The seams between the plates split well below the waterline (20 feet down or more) and the pressure would absolutely have precluded any attempts to stem the flow. Shot holes in Nelson's time tended to be "twixt wind and water", in other words along the waterline where the pressure was much less or only intermittent as the ship rolled. Also the holes tended to be round! This an entirely different situation. For deeper hull damage such as when grounding, the accepted damage control method was to "fother" the breach in the hull from the outside using a sail or something similar - not really a practical option for the Titanic!

The "builder's engineer" who assessed the damage was Thomas Andrews who was responsible for designing and building the ship.

Colin
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: amdaylight on November 04, 2008, 10:33:46 pm
Colin

We were showed how to take blankets and such and drive them in to cracks like shoving oakum into seams and I have friends that were bubble heads (served in subs) and they went through the same kind of school to do the same kind of thing at depth.

Andre
over yonder in Portland Oregon
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: BarryM on November 04, 2008, 10:48:35 pm
Andre,
Given the speed with which water was coming in, these were far more than cracks and a warehouse of duvets would not be enough.

Cheers,

Barry M
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: pobolycwm on November 04, 2008, 11:04:40 pm
i thought it sunk because of a ruddy great hole

didnt dirk pitt document his raising of the titanic in a classic book
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on November 04, 2008, 11:07:00 pm
There have been two very good programmes recently on this subject. One was recently the curse of the Titanic, which was about all three ships in the class. An basically they where compared to other large liners of the day, very old inefficient designed hulls(just jumboised version of sailing ship hulls), also the rivetting was different to other building yard practice, ie they used cold rivets made out of mild steel. Also there was a programme some time ago where they recovered a piece of her hull plating, which they analysed and stress tested. The plate was of the wrong material for cold water and easily sheered cleanly in the test where a modern piece of steel designed for cold water just buckled. At the end of the day she was a very badly designed vessel, badly built with inferior material and lacked the necessary safety requirements such as sufficient lifeboats. Her sistership the last built with enhanced safety features went down in 27minutes, where as Titanic took 2.5 to3 hours.
On Monday night there was a 1.5 hour programme investigating this event, I have yet to watch the it as I have recorded it, my wife watched the summing up and she said they where going on about her rivets.
But in those days a ship her size doing over20 knots hitting a bloody great iceberg would be enough to sink any ship and I expect even the QE2 would be a questionable survivor.
David
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on November 04, 2008, 11:31:35 pm
Trying to stop a leak 25 feet below the waterline would be like trying to stop a firehose by sticking a marble in it! Also, the location of the split in the hull meant that it was below water level within a few minutes in the affected compartments so the affected area would have been under several feet of ice cold water. Furthermore, I think that some of the split plates were in coal bunker areas and therefore inaccessible.

I think there were three main reasons for the sinking and loss of life.

A misjudgement was made in allowing the ship to steam at full speed through an icefield.
Incompetence in not providing the lookouts with binoculars
The Board of Trade was culpable in not updating the lifeboat provision regulations to reflect the rapidly increasing size of ships.

Colin
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on November 05, 2008, 08:57:30 am
Did you see that programme, Colin. It would appear the reason she sunk so quick was 1- The officer of the watch went hard over with the wheel on seeing the berg, so that it was a glancing blow rather than a full head on. When I was at college , I was taught if you are going to hit , steer head on, as the stem and collision bulkhead are the strongest part of the ship and the damage is better contained. 2- The area in the flare and round of the vessel forward and aft where riveted with wrought iron rivets, though the plating was 1.5 inch steel. Under tests the heads pop after 5mm deflection of the plate. The reason for this is that the pneumatic riveting machine was too bulky to work on round and awkward shape plates. On top of this they used No 3 (best bar) instead of No 4 (best best bar) to save money.
So they reckon when she hit , she pop the rivet heads from No 3 stoke hold to forward, she literally busted her seams. Coupled with White Stars M.D, wanting to lower water tight bulkheads to obtain a bigger and grander central staircase plus reduce the number of lifeboats by 66% because it spoilt the view from the boatdeck. It was a recipe for disaster.
But unfortunately disasters like this will always attract attention and speculation for ever. The point is where man kind is concerned there always will be occasional disasters like this, because it is the nature of mankind to push the envelope for all kinds of reason. Though the biggest disasterwas the liner coming back from Dunkirk with all kinds of refugees which was dive bombed with far greater loss of live than the Titanic, so much so that no one knows for sure as she was overloaded. But one thing is for sure to drown or freeze to death at sea is a terrible fate.
David
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: BarryM on November 05, 2008, 09:03:58 am
There have been two very good programmes recently on this subject. One was recently the curse of the Titanic, which was about all three ships in the class. An basically they where compared to other large liners of the day, very old inefficient designed hulls(just jumboised version of sailing ship hulls), also the rivetting was different to other building yard practice, ie they used cold rivets made out of mild steel. Also there was a programme some time ago where they recovered a piece of her hull plating, which they analysed and stress tested. The plate was of the wrong material for cold water and easily sheered cleanly in the test where a modern piece of steel designed for cold water just buckled. At the end of the day she was a very badly designed vessel, badly built with inferior material and lacked the necessary safety requirements such as sufficient lifeboats. Her sistership the last built with enhanced safety features went down in 27minutes, where as Titanic took 2.5 to3 hours.
On Monday night there was a 1.5 hour programme investigating this event, I have yet to watch the it as I have recorded it, my wife watched the summing up and she said they where going on about her rivets.
But in those days a ship her size doing over20 knots hitting a *horrible* great iceberg would be enough to sink any ship and I expect even the QE2 would be a questionable survivor.
David

I assume you are referring to the Britannic as sinking in 27 minutes? As she was mined/torpedoed, it's hardly a fair comparison. The Olympic went on to a successful career and acquired the nickname of 'Old Reliable' and survived ramming a submarine. (No rivet problems?)

Given the size of impact and its direction, it wouldn't have mattered a damn whether the rivets were wrought iron, steel or green cheese - she was always going to tear open and the lack of adequate sub-division (nobody has mentioned yet the lack of longitudinal w/t bulkheads) did the rest.

The Board of Trade Inquiry was always going to be a whitewash; it was sitting in judgement on itself and turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Barry M
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Garabaldy on November 05, 2008, 12:58:04 pm
i love that - "turkeys don't vote for christmas"  :}
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: polaris on November 05, 2008, 07:29:29 pm

Dear All,

As I think has already been said on this Thread, there was one other factor that is important.

It was particularly very very bad form to ram anything in those days, and, had the Bridge kept course and rammed head on there is no doubt the Titanic would not have sunk. However, the maneuver of endeavouring to avoid the berg at all costs meant grazing it rather than hitting it. Head on would obviously have dented the ship badly, but it would only have affected the front one or two bulkheads, but, running along side the berg resulted in what happened obviously.

Regards, Bernard
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Martin [Admin] on November 05, 2008, 08:09:24 pm
Very true. Hindsight  is always 20/20.
Did the bridge have any other choice given the imposed circumstances?

Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: polaris on November 05, 2008, 09:07:01 pm

Dear Martin,

None at all. Damned if you did and damned if you didn't... in this instance anyway.

We can only put ourselves in the imaginary position of the Officer of the watch. It is instinct to try and avoid an accident just as it was to avoid the berg... doubly so for the Bridge of the Titanic... not only a brand new ship but it's maiden voyage... what officer would like it on his record that he deliberately allowed the continuation of a course taking an unsinkable ship straight into a berg to protect the ship... one can only imagine the recrimination at the 'alternative' inquiry of "Why didn't you make all effort to avoid the collision"! A no win situation - for Captain or the Bridge Crew - and one that would have left all the latter with no chance of 'senior' work on any ship again!

As someone else very correctly pointed out, the rivet matter is irrelevant. The bulkhead situation is however more important I feel.

Regards, Bernard

As you say
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on November 06, 2008, 10:37:37 am
I disagree the rivet problem plays a major part in the tragedy, it is well documented that there was no heavy impact or shuddering felt on the ship, it was like a gentle cuff. If the rivets had held, as they should have done the ship may have survived or at least floated long enough for help to arrive. Other riveted vessels have survived collisions with allsorts and survived, even old riveted ww1 destroyers in ww2 rammed and road over U-boats and survived the war. If the hull plating flex's then the rivets should hold, one would expect the rivets to give if there is catastrophic failure of the hull plating and frames in the initial area, not a flexing along 25% of the hull where the hull structure did not suffer major damage.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: polaris on November 06, 2008, 12:09:42 pm

To generalise: Had the bulkheads been sufficiently high (or dare it be said as high as they should have been), the rush of water over bulkheads from compartment to compartment would not have happened, or at least water ingress would have been considerably slower (undamaged Fwd. compartments were catastrophically flooded). It must not be forgotten that warships by necessity of purpose have significant bulkhead provision. Whilst saying that other riveted ships have survived serious collision, there are indeed many, however, they were not all of the weight/momentum of Titanic and the circumstances were different - ramming and being rammed is one thing, a long and heavy 'glancing' blow with an 'immovable object' is another! - the stresses would have been very considerable. Some very large WW1 & 2 capital ships were lost with less causative damage.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: dreadnought72 on November 06, 2008, 01:03:49 pm
Would flooding one (or more) rear compartment(s) have aided the Titanic's survival? Levelling the ship off would have stopped that section-by-section flooding which took 'er down, no?

Andy
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: polaris on November 06, 2008, 01:21:00 pm

Dear Andy,

It might have delayed things a bit, but don't forget it was a passenger liner and deliberately flooding compartments would not have been as 'straight forward' (for want of better words), than other types of ships. The other factor is that the ship was supposed to be unsinkable, so this mindset didn't help matters I feel. As Martin correctly said, all of what we are saying is all well and good in hindsight... things were just different in those days.

At the end of the day the biggest 'mistake/error' of all was not having enough lifeboats on board. In this respect (& in today's world), I would find the then Board of Trade culpable 'for knowingly permitting and licensing a vessel to sail without proper safety provision for it's passengers'.

Regards, Bernard
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: BarryM on November 06, 2008, 01:23:52 pm
Andy,

In a word - No. Levelling her off by removing even more buoyancy from aft (if at all possible) may have temporarily reduced the flooding but then as water inflow continued, the bow would have gone down again and you would have been in an even worse position, i.e. you had even less reserve buoyancy. The Grey Funnel Line has a saying to the effect that reducing buoyancy should always be left to the enemy and it is very true.

The impact may have been "like a gentle cuff" but given the high mass and thus high inertia of the ship and the direction of impact would you expect anything else? If an elephant sits on you he may do it ever so slowly and gently but the end result is the same.

Barry M
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: victorian on November 06, 2008, 05:20:12 pm
Brian said:

Quote
All of the so-called "experts" were so quick to say that "in the old days" turning to port meant turning the wheel to starboard. Stuff and nonsense

I'd really like to know the truth of this. Years ago, a letter writer to the 'Times' recalled that his father had been a sea captain in the 20's or 30's when by a rare universal international convention, all the ships in the world were converted to the 'modern' sense of steering. The writer recalled that while his father had coped successfully with this change, he never learned to drive the little car that he bought at around the same time! So this chap was quite convinced that ship's steering was 'reversed' after WW1 and that his father was unable to learn to drive as a result of the car's steering being the 'wrong' way.

I can't find any reference to this alleged international change on t'internet and the Times letter search doesn't come up with the letter either. Does anyone know?

Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on November 06, 2008, 05:28:10 pm
Victorian,

This is a reference to what you were looking for: http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/wheel.html

Colin
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: victorian on November 06, 2008, 08:09:23 pm
Thanks for that link Colin. It led me to this Wikipedia piece:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiller).

So it seems fairly clear that it was the tiller orders, not the wheel direction, that were reversed in 1933. Maybe the letter writer omitted to mention that his father's car came with a chauffeur and that is where the problem lay!
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on November 06, 2008, 09:10:42 pm
Gentlemen, let us all remember this incident happened a long time ago, there have been more qualified people than us have pondered and pronounced on the subject. The fact is a ship in a time and era which we all including professional seamen as myself are completely unfamiliar with and have great difficulty trying to get my head round to understand the, a - the unwritten rules as well as the written codes of conduct aboard these ships, b- the total lack navigation equipment that we now take for granted, c - the type of construction of these ships and type of damaged they will take and a plethora of other things we are ignorant of. We are all now looking back with modern 20/20 vision and we cannot really judge individuals, nor will we know the real truth as most of the educated people who did know and could give witness went down with the ship with all her logs and documentations. Those that did survive where problay economical with the truth to cover their backsides, plus the authorities wanted a whitewash to cover their failures(which still happens today). So in this vain was Princess Diana murdered, is Elvis really dead !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way a very large loaded bulkier hit a large jetty in the Mississippi a few years back a glancing blow and survived it very well.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Martin [Admin] on November 06, 2008, 11:20:33 pm

You know, this would make a good plot for a Hollywood film!

......... in bad taste?   I'll get my coat.  :embarrassed:
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on November 10, 2008, 12:56:04 pm
An I will get my hat and gloves, bye all.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on November 10, 2008, 01:12:15 pm
You're both wrong! Grab your lifejackets!  ;)
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: wombat on November 11, 2008, 09:23:44 pm
Only problem with making a film about the Titanic - what do you do to fill the time until the boat sinks.

Trying to remember a good documentary I saw on the subject of the Titanic - think it was Nat-Geo. They picked up on the sub-standard rivet material which would have cause the seams to spring at a much lower force than designed, however this should have not caused the boat to sink - the watertight compartments would have coped.

However there was a weak point on the vessel - the expansion joint. This had been problematic during the design and build of the vessel. At the water flooded the ship, the extra strain on the expansion joint caused it to fail which would account for the way the ship sank.

Wom
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on November 11, 2008, 09:42:35 pm
Not too sure about that Wom. Titanic had two expansion joints and they were confined to the superstructure, allowing it to flex on top of the hull which was constructed as a more rigid girder. Therefore it's hard to understand how the flooding of the hull could have been affected by movement of the lightweight superstructure well above the waterline. Some more info here:
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/Olympic-Titanic_expansionjoints-achillesheel-_myth.html

Most of what you hear/see/read about the Titanic is rubbish. There's even a book which suggests that the Titanic never sank at all as she swapped names with the Olympic just before the "maiden voyage".

Colin
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: wombat on November 11, 2008, 09:46:35 pm
Well it is another theory - no-one is ever going to know for sure.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: The long Build on November 11, 2008, 09:55:21 pm

Most of what you hear/see/read about the Titanic is rubbish. There's even a book which suggests that the Titanic never sank at all as she swapped names with the Olympic just before the "maiden voyage".
Colin

Good read though..
Larry
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on November 11, 2008, 10:34:58 pm
Quote
Well it is another theory - no-one is ever going to know for sure. 

Certainly true and I have to admit that it's always fun to speculate.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on November 11, 2008, 11:05:11 pm
More pros and cons re the expansion joints here: http://titanic-model.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=100&topic_id=22594&mode=full
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on November 15, 2008, 11:11:29 pm
When built, the builders said she would survive if four compartments flooded. Unfortunately she flooded in at least five compartments, as stated by various survivors, this trim allowed the water to overflow the following w/t bulkheads in succession till she nosed dive. Why did she flood because of busted shell plating seams and w/t bulkheads built too low. This subject will go on for ever as everyone will try to find another angle on the tragedy, just like the Hood!!!!
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: polaris on November 16, 2008, 12:51:06 am

Dear rmasmaster,

To use the Hood as an example is unfair in the case of Titanic.

Titanic's plans exist for all to see - likewise Hoods. In the case of Titanic, the bulkhead situation is plain to see. The plans show much in contrast to current marine engineering, however, the principals remain the same - except for the flaws in the principal of an 'unsinkable' vessel (we must not forget that numerous warships were proported to be the same - British and Japanese... and they were sunk). As you say, the bulkheads allowed overflow... this should not have happened. As far as the bulkheads and what the builders said, they however did not forsee such a cataclismic accident (rightly or wrongly) - that she would hit something as massive as she did and in such a way. Yes a bump hear and there, or indeed a 'normal' collision, but not such a heavy 'side-swipe' that involved the bulk of her deadweight.

This subject will not go on forever for four reasons (the loss of the vessel is irrelevant in comparison to the lives lost - whilst the loss of the vessel is major, I consider the loss of life paramount above all else). Firstly, the extensive loss of life was solely due to the lack of lifeboats: Secondly, due to bulkhead design the sinking speed was considerably enhanced: Thirdly, due to the strange circumstances, the vessel 'close by' did 'not see'. Forthly: had the bulkheads been sufficient, she """Might""" have survived. The latter is the key question. Yes, there was a bunker fire, yes this could well have played a part in a possible gas explosion, but again, if bulkheads had been sufficent, this would have been of little consequence in a vessel of such size. However...........

The Hood - whilst an unfair comparison to Titanic - was a very massive loss at a very vital time of WW2 for Britain, it is considered it was a 'magazine problem'... some of which originated from 'slight difficulties' experienced at Jutland. From first hand evidence from the few survivors, the midships section blew up 'silently' in a flare of flame, and this can only be interpreted by a direct hit/Cordite flash-over to one of the main HE/shell magazines - which, by it's magnitude of detonation, triggered in series other magazines. Explosives - and their history - which I am a little familiar with - plays a major part in this, and the sympatetic linear wave detonation, combined with possible security short falls (old design principals, and possible lack of procedure), may well have played a part. However, whatever be the case, a catastrophic hit at the right place, with the right timing, made sure that this poor ship and 99% of her unfortunate crew sadly blew up - don't forget Jutland.

So, both in the same vein, a considerable unnecessary loss of life... nought else matters. With respect to those who died, I feel this subject heading should also.Technicalities are one thing, but when they involve such massive loss of life it's another, and all should be better left to rest in peace - rightly or wrongly.

Regards, Bernard
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: BarryM on November 16, 2008, 09:09:36 am
Large man-made object strikes even larger natural object at speed such that a "glancing blow" still represents massive force. This opens seams/plates which would be unable to resist impact whether riveted, welded or superglued. Inadequate longitudinal sub-division and non-existant transverse sub-division finished matters. It was nothing to do with materials, helm orders, Russian submarines or Little Green Men. End of story.

Now will the conspiracy theorists who have been doing this subject to death find another bone to chew on? - and I don't mean the Hood.

I second Bernard and the proposal contained in his last paragraph; let it rest here.

Barry M
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: The long Build on November 16, 2008, 09:26:01 am

I second Bernard and the proposal contained in his last paragraph; let it rest here.

Barry M

Well I Don't , I find all aspects of the Titanic fascinating and just because you may feel that it has been done to death is just your opinion, which I respect, however if that is how you feel just ignore the thread..At the end of the day the mystery will go on, new programmes will be broadcast , irrelevant of the fact that they probably will come up with no further information.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: BarryM on November 16, 2008, 10:01:09 am
Read my first paragraph. There  is   no  mystery.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: The long Build on November 16, 2008, 10:09:54 am
I did..
Ok "Mystery"  possibly wrong word to use, as at the end of the day it just hit an Iceburg, it sank. Try fascination.

and it will never rest due to Human nature.


Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: BarryM on November 16, 2008, 10:26:34 am
Then let it rest here. We've all had our say. Time to move on and get back to modelling.

Barry M
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on November 17, 2008, 10:44:24 pm
Polaris, I mentioned Hood as this article seems to go on forever, I was expressing my feelings that where ever a man is involved Human error usually creeps in and everyone and their dog get on the bandwagon as what went wrong. To get back to the original thread, the Titanic sank through human error, i.e she was travelling at an unsafe speed in a known ice area. It was a bad night to see icebergs because of no moon and a flat sea, close by the California hove too for the night because of this reason, unfortunately the Titanic crew seemed more interested in getting the blue ribband on her maiden voyage. That is why she collided and what happened afterwards is the consequence of it.
The Hood was an old out dated design built to take on cruisers, a hare brain scheme of Admiral Fisher and when he tried to take the idea further he was quietly removed, but unfortunately not before some of his creations where built. Unfortunately a RN Admiral thought he was on a death star ship and tried to take on a modern battleship and heavy cruiser which both outclassed his vessel and now that is history.
I personally think that the old Titanic should now be left to rot gently away, as all the lessons learnt from this tragedy have been taken on board by the necessary authorities. Suffice to say it would be highly illegal to build an identical vessel and attempt to trade her in todays current regulations.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on November 17, 2008, 10:48:39 pm
Bernard,
I forgot to mention that according to witnesses and the controller of the navy, the explosion was amidships not her main mags, the Admiralty official enquiry board overuled the controller and presumed a main mag failure?????????
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: polaris on November 18, 2008, 11:56:29 am

Dear rmasmaster,

It would be impolite for me not to reply to your two posts, but, if you don't mind, on Hood only.

As I previously mentioned re HMS Hood, the hit did indeed seem to be midships, and there was a very significant 'flare-up' at that point, which, to the one survivor on the bridge, appeared to be 'a noiseless sheet of flame' (as opposed to a massive explosion). Strange things can happen with and within explosions sometimes (& explosive devices) - some can be silent very nearby in one direction, but earth shattering in another: someone can be vaporised next to a detonation, but another can be unharmed. I sometimes go back over the sinking of poor HMS Barham and view the footage in very slow motion - and think about it. Hood does lie on the seabed in bit's and pieces, so whatever be the case there was a catastrophic explosion... or... a significant series of explosions - possibly in rapid succession. There is no doubt that magazines exploded, it's just a matter of why/how... were propellants laid out for ready use where they should not have been, was flash-over protection over looked in the heat of battle, were large quantities of propellants in the process of being moved to RU storage temp. or otherwise (likewise shells) - hurriedly and in various ways. The ship would have been in a very high state of activity, with all crew working extremely hard to ensure the guns were fed with everything they needed for what was assumed would/might be a long slog. To ensure ready availability and quick supply, propellants might just have been where they shouldn't have been, and one lucky hit might have been sufficient to trigger a flash-over to all sorts of things/places - and lead back to a magazine, which in turn went to others. This is all conjecture, possibilities, ifs, calculated guesswork and open thinking, but at the end of the day no-one knows and no-one will ever know. No 'blame' can be placed anywhere: everybody thought they were doing the right thing at the right time, but, with effectively a WW1 design battleship, coming up against one of the most modern warships of the day... they could have been lucky of course - given just a bit more time - but sadly things did not work out.

I must get back to doing some work now!!!

Regards, Bernard
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Bryan Young on November 18, 2008, 05:32:52 pm
Not a lot to do with "Titanic" as such....but there seems to be a misconception about the build and function of "expansion joints".
For the life of me I cannot visualise an expansion joint built into the hull of a ship. The only (so-called) expansion joints I have ever come across were employed on the RAS deck of the "OL" class RFAs. All ships flex and bend a bit (or a lot) in a seaway, but lighter structures above the hull can fracture due to the constant push-pull of the hull flexing. The "joints" as I saw them were simply 2 plates that were allowed to slide over each other (assuming they weren't rusted up). Imagine this built into a hull! The thing would sink 10 minutes after launching....and it would be no good trying to tie the whole thing together with rubber sheet either!
This post sent with tongue partially in cheek. BY.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on November 18, 2008, 07:21:31 pm
Interesting analysis of the Hood and Bismarck wrecks here: http://www.sname.org/committees/design/mfp/website/recent/research/hood_bismarck_1.pdf
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on November 18, 2008, 10:18:26 pm
My father watched the hood go up from the Norfolk using high powered watch keeping glasses, he described her as being on fire from head to stern for some time before she went up, he counted at least 12 major fire out of control all this amount of fire and heat would set of all the mags amidships which would roll out through a ship, especially cordite bags.
My uncle was a captain overseer of ordinance for the Admiralty, he told me that after her sinking three major instructions came out, 1 - No oil based paints to be used below deck, apparently because she did so much showing the flag visits pre war, in places the paint was extremely thick and was considered a major cause in her fire problems. 2 - all magazines were to have steel protective tops, apparently some of he smaller weapon ready use mags had wooden decks above. The third I cannot remember at the moment although it was a critical matter, if I remember I will pass it on. Unfortunately my great uncle is long dead but he knew things which have never been released and knowing the MoD never will if not all ready shredded.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Martin [Admin] on December 06, 2008, 10:14:08 pm
That channel 4 mockcumentury is on again tonight...

What blame was apportioned for the collision and where any charges levied or posthumous demotions made
 in the aftermath of the sinking?
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: polaris on December 09, 2008, 10:24:16 am

Dear Martin,

Some interesting reading. Last Link just for gnrl. interest.

Regards, Bernard

http://www.titanicinquiry.org/

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/RdLeaflet.asp?sLeafletID=96

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/TITANIC-ENQUIRY-REPORT-1912-FROM-H-COTTAM-CARPATHIA_W0QQitemZ200280951549QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20081127?IMSfp=TL081127114001r19442
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on January 28, 2009, 11:41:47 pm
Just out of interest, I visited the touring Titanic exhibition today at the Milestones Museum at Basingstoke. There is nothing raised from the wreck on display although there is a watch taken from the recovered body of one of the passengers. There is a general and fairly accurate description of the tragedy with various visual aids plus quite a lot of actual material from the Titanic's sister ship Olympic plus some from the Britannic. They also have various items from the Titanic film including the costumes worn by Kate Winslett and Leonardo DiCaprio. Website: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/milestones

The Titanic exhibition is on until 22nd February 2009.

Colin

Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: tobyker on January 30, 2009, 12:53:07 am
I thought the loss of HMS Hood was due to insufficient flash screens in the cordite lifts from the magazines to the turrets. It was said that in the German designs each batch of charges going up the lifts was isolated from the turrets and magazines so that a fire in a turret could not spread down to the magazines - but in British ships there was no such isolation so if a turret was hit and the charges therein exploded, the fire could go all the way down. Alternatively it was insufficient deck armour to resist plunging fire at long range. (Neither is my pet theory - just things I've heard in the past.)
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on January 30, 2009, 08:38:59 am
Tobyker, I think in relation to your first point you are thinking of the situation at Jutland. There were in fact fireproof screens between the gunhouses and the magazines but they were left open to secure a higher rate of fire from the guns. There were also ready use cartridges held in or adjacent to the gunhouse which increased the fire risk. These arrangements were tightened up after Jutland and would not have been a factor in Hood's loss as she was redesigned after Jutland to take into account the lessons of the battle. The redesign gave Hood side armour and general protection on a similar scale to the Queen Elizabeth class battleships but at that time the requirement for deck protection to guard against plunging fire and bombs was not so well appreciated.

The German ships at Jutland were safer because at the earlier Dogger Bank battle, the battlecruiser Seydlitz took a hit aft which wiped out both after turrets due to insufficient flash protection. The ship did not blow up because German propellant burned more slowly than British Cordite. The Germans learned their lesson, otherwise they might also have suffered at Jutland as did the British.

Had war not intervened, Hood would have been reconstructed in a similar manner to Renown which, among other things, would have beefed up the deck armour. The general consensus seems to be that one of Bismark's shells penetrated the deck aft and set off the after magazines either directly or indirectly which blew the ship in half.

Colin
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on January 30, 2009, 10:55:57 pm
Read the book "Battle Cruisers" by John Roberts, it quite literary puts the Hoods armour system as old hat, a half way house between the old pre war armour system and the newer 1930's citadel system, which the Yanks used before WW1. Her system was on a principle of anti splinters, which was the British view in using Lyditte APM shells, in that they could not penetrate  properly into a ship but when they go off in the upper works the gas released and the numerous small splinters immobilised the crew.
It makes interesting reading, her armour system was poor and the Torpedoes mag amidships 3" harden steel not armoured steel, most of the decks 1 to 3 inch hardened steel decks not armoured. The side 12" armoured belt went from the waterline to just clear of her bulge, then then half way up herside 7" armour reducing to 5" armour. She was basically and old out of date warship that was in the wrong place at the wrong time, they should have up her AA weapons which were very poor and used her as a close escort for carriers, not send her to take on a brand new battleship and heavy cruiser which could outrange her and have superior fire control.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Colin Bishop on January 30, 2009, 11:53:57 pm
I quite agree that Hood was semi obsolescent at the time she encountered the Bismarck. Her design was 1919 thinking and outclassed by later ships such as Rodney and Nelson although they both had a very shallow belt. Basically she was a marginal improvement on the Queen Elizabeth which was a 1913 design. Later ships, including the American ones, tended towards the "all or nothing" principle whereby the vitals of the ship were protected by thick armour and the rest left unarmoured.

However Bismarck was not as hot as she has been made out to be, being based upon the late WW1 Bayern/Baden design in many respects. Much of her fire control cabling ran above the main armour protection and was quickly put out of action in her final battle.  She also appeared to suffer from a common German characteristic in having a weak stern which broke off during her sinking. Bismarck (and Tirpitz) did however have the benefit of great size and subdivision which made her resistant to action damage.

German fire control benefited from superior optics and a system which enabled them to register on target quicker than British ships. But the system was vulnerable in extended action conditions when accuracy could be lost. Of course, if you had sunk your opponent by then it didn't matter too much!

I too have John Roberts' book plus quite a few others on the subject of capital ships from 1900 to 1945. All the designs were compromises of one sort or another including the US Navy ships. However the Americans made great advances in propulsion machinery during the 1930s which resulted in more lightweight power plants giving them more tonnage to devote to armour and gunpower on a given displacement. Curiously, German machinery was comparatively unreliable, particularly in their big destroyers, cruisers and the diesel powered pocket battleships.

Deck armour was always a problem as it is much heavier pro rata than belt armour due to the greater area involved. The armouring systems of the various navies between 1900 and 1945 make a very interesting study. D K Brown's various books do shed a lot of light on this and refute a lot of common fallacies.

Colin
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Bryan Young on January 31, 2009, 07:42:45 pm
Large man-made object strikes even larger natural object at speed such that a "glancing blow" still represents massive force. This opens seams/plates which would be unable to resist impact whether riveted, welded or superglued. Inadequate longitudinal sub-division and non-existant transverse sub-division finished matters. It was nothing to do with materials, helm orders, Russian submarines or Little Green Men. End of story.

Now will the conspiracy theorists who have been doing this subject to death find another bone to chew on? - and I don't mean the Hood.

I second Bernard and the proposal contained in his last paragraph; let it rest here.

Barry M
Concur. Too many people who just want to air a falacy. BY.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on January 31, 2009, 08:11:36 pm
Yes I concur too, it is all history and like all history can be viewwed as you like. Now did you know the RMAS Newton had a bunny burner for female scientist, the exhaust came out of the top abaft the bridge. Every now and again it was used her first captain used to comment that they have not yet chosen a new pope. How is that for a change of subject.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: The long Build on January 31, 2009, 08:52:06 pm
Really can not see the problem, if people want to have a friendly chat about conspiracy's, whats the problem , if your not interested then don't read it. Now was it really the Titanic which sank , or was it really the Olympic.. %%  But in all seriousness the topic is harmless unlike some recent news articles which have given course for great debate and moderation.. 
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: BarryM on January 31, 2009, 09:26:19 pm
Yes I concur too, it is all history and like all history can be viewwed as you like. Now did you know the RMAS Newton had a bunny burner for female scientist, the exhaust came out of the top abaft the bridge. Every now and again it was used her first captain used to comment that they have not yet chosen a new pope. How is that for a change of subject.

It's certainly a change of subject. After the first sentence you totally lost me! Que?   {:-{
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Turbulent on February 23, 2009, 06:57:55 pm
Really can not see the problem, if people want to have a friendly chat about conspiracy's, whats the problem , if your not interested then don't read it. Now was it really the Titanic which sank , or was it really the Olympic.. %%  But in all seriousness the topic is harmless unlike some recent news articles which have given course for great debate and moderation.. 

Maybe it was hit by a French Submarine!!! {-) {-) {-) {-) {-) {-) {-) {-) {-) {-)
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: farrow on February 25, 2009, 08:45:51 pm
I was reading the book "Nelso to Vanguard", a very interesting read and the bit on the Hood had an interesting note from the pre war DNC notes, ref conversion of Hood and Repulse to carriers. If they had been converted in the 1930's, I wonder what they would have ended up looking like, an interesting subject for someone to research.
Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: Tug-Kenny RIP on January 06, 2011, 12:50:18 pm

                  Friday  7th January  2010

          Channel 5   UK Television   20.00hrs

                   Titanic:  The true story. 

A series that promises to reveal the real life events behind the well known feature films.

This documentary analyses where the film departs from the facts. I shall be glued to my seat and clutching my Titanic Kit that I had for Xmas.    ok2


Ken


Title: Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
Post by: tony52 on January 06, 2011, 02:23:01 pm
Oh No - not another Titanic documentary on TV.

On a more serious note - might be worth watching.