Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.  (Read 26825 times)

polaris

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #75 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
Logged

BarryM

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,692
  • Location: West Lothian
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #76 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
Logged

The long Build

  • Guest
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #77 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.
Logged

BarryM

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,692
  • Location: West Lothian
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #78 on: November 16, 2008, 10:01:09 am »

Read my first paragraph. There  is   no  mystery.
Logged

The long Build

  • Guest
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #79 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.


Logged

BarryM

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,692
  • Location: West Lothian
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #80 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
Logged

farrow

  • Guest
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #81 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.
Logged

farrow

  • Guest
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #82 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?????????
Logged

polaris

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #83 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
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #84 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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,850
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #85 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
Logged

farrow

  • Guest
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #86 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.
Logged

Martin [Admin]

  • Administrator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20,312
  • Location: Peterborough, UK
    • Model Boat Mayhem
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #87 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?
Logged
"This is my firm opinion, but what do I know?!"    -   Mayhem FaceBook Group!

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,850
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #89 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

Logged

tobyker

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,316
  • Location: Scotland - West Coast
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #90 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.)
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,850
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #91 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
Logged

farrow

  • Guest
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #92 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.
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,850
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #93 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
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #94 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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

farrow

  • Guest
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #95 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.
Logged

The long Build

  • Guest
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #96 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.. 
Logged

BarryM

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,692
  • Location: West Lothian
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #97 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?   {:-{
Logged

Turbulent

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 402
  • Location: Norfolk
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #98 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!!! {-) {-) {-) {-) {-) {-) {-) {-) {-) {-)

farrow

  • Guest
Re: One idea..... Why did the Titanic sink.
« Reply #99 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up