The Titanic (not the movie)

[WorldsGreatestMK]

Anyone understand me! Don't think I am too religious, but everyone thought the Titanic was "unsinkable", but then it sank. I was guessing why, and I thought up a possible answer. Maybe "God", thought, "oh they think I can't" and then with all might he had he sunk it.

[colinmom71]

The *real* answer however would be that Harland and Wolff, the ship builder who made Titanic (and her sister ships the Olympic and the Britannic), used a cheaper, inferior grade steel on the hull plating in order to cut construction costs. In the severe cold of the northern Atlantic Ocean, the weaker grade steel became brittle and more easily sheared when the ship made contact with the iceberg's undersea jutting.

The other problem was that the ship was turning it's side into the iceberg due to the captain's decision to try to turn around the berg. This allowed a more critical surface area of the hull to be vulnerable to damage than had the ship rammed head-on into the iceberg. Had it rammed straight into the iceberg, likely only one or two the the forward cargo holds would have been compromised and taken in water, preventing the ship from sinking. Unfortunately, when the ship was abruptly turned to try to navigate around the berg, it exposed the inferior hulling barrier towards boiler rooms #5 and #6 and their neighboring bulkhead to damage. Less than 12 square feet of damage would be the critical wound that set Titanic's fate.

The Titanic was designed with the potential for accidents causing sinking in mind. It was always known to be a possibility. Unfortunately, the design of creating sealable compartments in bulkheads was not yet in use in 1912. Had that been available, Titanic could have been saved.

The Titanic's "unsinkable" marketing was precisely that - marketing designed to make passengers feel safe, not an arrogant call against God. And frankly, I refuse to believe that God is so petty that he'd kill over 1500 souls because of a silly marketing ploy... I find that idea utterly repugnant.

[Skatekwan6]

The Titanic's "unsinkable" marketing was precisely that - marketing designed to make passengers feel safe, not an arrogant call against God. And frankly, I refuse to believe that God is so petty that he'd kill over 1500 souls because of a silly marketing ploy... I find that idea utterly repugnant.

I completely agree. MichelleFan, are you bored?

[angelofmine]

Thanks, colinmom71.

I've always thought it amazing that the Titanic's watertight compartments were sealed on the sides, but not on top (!!).

I find the Titanic's story fascinating. So many crazy little things that could go wrong did, from what you mentioned to Captain Smith ordering the ship to go (what ended up being) too fast, to nobody thinking to wake up the Californian's radio operator (!!) after the hit, to that mystery ship that never responded to the Titanic's distress flares.

[WorldsGreatestMK]

Skatekwan6, I am BORED.

[KeithB]

Any ship will sink if it takes on enough water faster than it can be pumped out.

In a TV documentary a couple of years ago the builders were quoted as saying that the ship was as nearly unsinkable as was practical. I interpreted that as meaning that it could stay afloat with one compartment flooded, and thus would not be sunk by one hole in the bottom. Naturally the PR people got carried away and hyped "unsinkable" without the qualifiers. Anyone who denied the possibility of more extensive damage had to be a dreamer.

The watertight bulkheads did not extend very far above the water line. When the sideswiping impact punctured several compartments from the side, the incoming water eventually pulled the tops of those bulkheads below the surface and it was all over. Making the bulkheads higher and equipping the decks with watertight hatches, as was done on Navy ships, would have meant greater weight and expense, and more inconvenience for the passengers.

Perhaps better steel would have bent instead of suffering the cracks and popped rivets that actually happened.

[angelofmine]

In a TV documentary a couple of years ago the builders were quoted as saying that the ship was as nearly unsinkable as was practical. I interpreted that as meaning that it could stay afloat with one compartment flooded, and thus would not be sunk by one hole in the bottom.
As I recall, the Titanic could still float if any combination of four consecutive watertight compartments were flooded. But again, since they weren't sealed at the top, the water just spilled into each new compartment until they all flooded.

Edited to remove sig.

[babyoscar]

It is actually more than the grade of steel. It also has to do with the steel microstructure, which I won't go into. There were several things contributed to the sinking, the steel he used was just one of them.

here is someone's paper
www.pitt.edu/~jay7/paper.htm (http://www.pitt.edu/~jay7/paper.htm)

i didn't read all if it, just parts of it, which seemed correct to what I have learned in school.