| Author |
Message |
    
Gaetano Anania
Member
Username: gaetano_anania
Post Number: 2
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 1:12 am: | 
|
This is an article I realized for ET. I'm an italian student, so I apologize you for possible mistakes of language:
R.M.S. TITANIC VS QUEEN MARY 2:
BATTLE BETWEEN GIANTS!
Copyrights 2004 by Gaetano Anania
The sinking of R.M.S. Titanic was an hard stroke for Naval Engineering of the epoch and the loss of this ship can be considered as the greatest defeat ever happened in this field. After 1912 there was a great revolution in the world of navigation, in order to increase the safety of every ship, of their crews and passengers, and it was based on the lessons taken by Titanic’s tragedy. Particurarly in 1914 the maritime nations adopted the SOLAS Convention (Convention for the Safety Life at Sea) and it was modified and improved several times. That one of 1974 is still in force today. The last important modification on this Convention was done on the 1 July 1998. It deals with design, satellite communications, helicopters, etc. After the 15 April 1912, navigation and ships became day after day more secure. Today the most representative product of this important development of modern Naval Engineering is Queen Mary 2. This is the biggest ship ever built in the mankind’s history and it concentrates in itself all the last knowledges in terms of security. Its dimensions are amazing: it is long more than 300 metres and its tonnage is about 150.000 tons! This article deals with a comparison of technical and security aspects concerning these two ships: Titanic, Lord of past, and QM2, Queen of present.
Communications with others ships:
Before the terrible night of 14 -15 April 1912, R.M.S. Titanic received about seven segnalations of icebergs by others ships. On board the giant the only communication system was the wireless telegraph (Marconi Company), therefore the preservation of communications was very hard. The ship’s position was calculated manually with many mistakes. Furthermore Titanic’s radio had a very limited field of action: about 200 nautical miles.
The modern QM2 communicates with others ships by the global net of satellites. Every moment it is able to know the metereological situation in each part of the world and it can establish its right position on the sea with the help of satellites. Furthermore, more than forty years ago was institued the Ice Patrol which controls the mouvement of icebergs on the sea.
Communications on board:
On board R.M.S. Titanic communications between crew and passengers were very hard, because on this ship did not exist a public address system. So there was a great confusion on all bridges and news passed from a passenger to another very slowly. Titanic’s passengers did not realize immediately the danger of their situation, so at first many of them refused to go on lifeboats. The work of crew was so even more hard.
After SOLAS Convention on all modern ships, like QM2, public address system began compulsory. Furthermore in all cabins there are the instructions to follow during moments of emergency and ship’s evacuation is proved several times by crew, obviously with the partecipation of all passengers, who have several points of meeting on all ship in order to avoid any further possibility of confusion.
Propulsion and hull’s features:
On R.M.S. Titanic the transmission of orders from bridge to rudder was totally mechanical and the propulsion was based on the steam furnished by boilers to a reciprocating machine. Therefore each manoeuvring required much of time. The result was that Titanic crept along the iceberg.
Ships like QM2 have the bottom streghtened and more hydrodynamic respect to the past, therefore each manoueuvring is very fast. The communications of bridge with the rudder and the control room is better thanks to the help of electronics.
Watertight compartiments system and water-scooping pumps:
R.M.S. Titanic crept with iceberg for only 10 seconds but this time was sufficient to tear the first 5 watertight compartiments, though the sheet plates were bolted each one with the other, therefore they were more reinforced than modern weldings. At 1:30 a.m. of 15 April 1912, Titanic had taken on board 31.000 tons of water and water-scooping pumps were not enough to take it out of the hull. Furthermore the watertight bulkheads did not go over the E bridge, so with the ship’s inclination, water stepped over watertight bulkheads with a chain reaction. For Titanic was the end.
QM2 has a greater coefficient of permeability. Like the others modern ships, in time of emergency, projet foresees a complete flooding of all watertight compartiments. Respect to R.M.S. Titanic, QM2 has closer waterthigt compartiments and they are covered by a superior bridge. Chain reaction is not possible on board QM2. Water-scooping pumps are more powerful and efficient than Titanic’s ones and they activate themselves authomatically. Therefore this ship could sink in a longer time.
Reaction of hull’s structure to sinking:
When R.M.S Titanic sank, its structure because of inclination broke in two parts, because it was not projected for that sort of pressure. So the sinking of the ship was more dramatic for all passengers.
Thanks to computers simulations, experts say that modern ships cruise like QM2 could not sink with the immersion of the bow or the stern, but with an upsetting on a side. Furthermore the ship’s structure is very reinforced so it could resist also to anomalous marine wave.
Lifeboats, life preservers and life rafts:
R.M.S. Titanic had on board lifeboats for about 960 passengers. The ship with a total of 20 lifeboats respected the law. It provided for at least 16 lifeboats on board ships with a tonnage superior to 10.000 tons. But Titanic’s tonnage was about of 48.000 tons! Furthermore the night of tragedy, boats were not totally filled with passengers, because Titanic’s officials feared of a possible sagging of the ropes. Unlike they were tested in Belfast with the max weight of 60 persons. Another great problem was the cold of the night. Titanic’s passengers suffered because the lifeboats were not covered.
SOLAS Convention on modern ships like QM2, provided for a great number of lifeboats (about 120% of all passengers) and they have to be closed totally or partially. Furthermore there are also life rafts and each passenger has a life preserver with a position light and a whistle.
By Gaetano Anania - Copyrights 2004
Gaetano Anania
Student of Naval Engineering - University of Genova - Italy
|
Colin W. Montgomery
Member
Username: the_grand_leviathans
Post Number: 117
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 7:26 pm: |
|
The Queen Mary 2, while an extremely impressive vessel, is not greater than Titanic. While I will grant that it is bigger, it is only about 250 feet longer than Titanic, while it weighs 3 times as much that is not a fair representation of size. The Queen Mary 2 is also not the largest ship in the world,as Titanic was. That honor falls upon the giant oil tankers like the Jahre Viking at 1,479 feet long. |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 308
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 9:50 pm: |
|
Hello Gaetano:
I am not sure the word "battle" is appropriate. What I believe you are trying to do is to "contrast" the difference between ships designed almost 100 years apart, and with all the lessons and evolution that has happened in naval architecture and other technologies in between. You may also want to look up the following reference for addition insight:
Comparative Naval Architecture of Passenger Ships by Philip Sims (M), Naval Sea Systems Command, at http://www.skibstekniskselskab.dk/download/WMTC/C8(D29).pdf.
There are no Unsinkable Theories
Sam Halpern
40o24' N 74o14' W
|
Gaetano Anania
Member
Username: gaetano_anania
Post Number: 3
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Thanks very much for your comments about my article.
Hello Colin:
You are perfectly in right when you say QM2 is not the largest ship in the world. In fact enormous oil tankers exist and they are superior to the QM2 dimensions. Yes, Titanic had a great privilege to be the largest moving object ever built. This will remains forever its pride. But when I wrote my article, I referred only to the liner ships. I had to say this, but sorry I forgot. Therefore QM2 is the largest liner ever built. It's no true that QM2 is a little superior in dimension than Titanic. Titanic's dimensions are out of every possible comparing with those of QM2. I speak in metres: about 270 mt the Titanic's lenght, 320 mt QM2's one. 50 mt of difference is not something of little, but it means a great challenge of a ship to the sea, because more long is a ship, more it has to resist to terrible forces of undulation during great marine storms in its barycentre. Furthermore comparing these two ships, is important to no forget the others dimensions. First height: the Titanic's picks funnels don't go over the highets bridge of the QM2. They don't arrive to it. Second width: the height in a ship is directly proportional to her width, and this obviously for a question of balance and stabilty. More high is a ship, more wide it has to be. QM2, because of her great height, is so wide! Very much more than Titanic!For last the tonnage: 150.000 tons versus about 48.000 tons. QM2 is more that 2/3 superior than Titanic in tonnage. These all great difference are witnesses of the great development of Naval Engineering in 92 years. Titanic will remain an unsinkable ship in our memory, respect to others ship already forgotten. However Titanic's dimension will remain the same forever. What you say cannot be proposed because Titanic with her dimensions cannot challenge the QM2. If we had a perfect copy of Titanic, it beside QM2, appeared very inferior in dimension and very much less imposing.
Hello Samuel:
You are in right wheno you say that "battle" is not the appropriate word for my article. "Contrast" should be the right. But I choised "battle" in order to do more winning the article. Thanks very much for your segnalation about that very interesting site.
Regards
Gaetano Anania
Student of Naval Engineering - University of Genova - Italy
|
Colin W. Montgomery
Member
Username: the_grand_leviathans
Post Number: 120
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 12:06 am: |
|
Hi Gaetano,
I disagree when you said Titanic would appear very inferior to QM2. It was nearly 900 ft long QM2 is 1,130 ft right? correct me if i'm wrong. You place them side by side you can definatley tell which is larger, yet I don't think Titanic would be a dingy. Titanic with her mast is just as tall as QM2 as well. Someone please back me up on this for the support of our beloved Titanic! Anyway its a futile battle, QM2 holds the title for now, but for how long? A year? Voyager of the Seas only had it for so long too. We have to remember that in all its not the size of the vessel, but its accomplishments and history and beauty, which Titanic had many of each. Also at what point to you stop calling a ship a ship?
QM2 is a ship, but is an oil tanker? Thanks |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9998
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 3:55 am: |
|
The Titanic's particulars that are a matter of official record can be found by clicking on Description of the Ship, The Steamship Titanic with her overall length being given as 882.5 feet, a breadth of 92.5 feet, and a displacement....the actual weight of the ship...of 52,310 tonnes at a full load navigation draft of 24 feet 7 inches.
By any reckoning, the QM2 is three times as massive.
Colin, your quite right that the Titanic was no dighy, and she would be a large vessel even todays standards, but by the same token, her glories are way overrated. While very comfortable by Edwardian standards and expectations, she would be considered sadly deficient in many respects, and even then, the Germans were building ships which would beat her in terms of size.
Titles such as "Worlds Largest" are nothing if not fleeting, and there's always somebody who will come along who can and will do better.
And yes, a tanker is most certainly a ship.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Gaetano Anania
Member
Username: gaetano_anania
Post Number: 4
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 8:19 pm: |
|
Hi Colin,
I respect your point of view, but I disagree with it.In fact you care only about lenght, forgetting the others dimensions. You speak like lenght was the only important feature to determine a ship's imposing. It's no so, because lenght is important like height and weight. Obviously we have not to forget another important feature:tonnage. A ship is a structure of complex engineering developed in three dimensions, not only in lenght. If there was a raft long 320 mt like QM2 or more than QM2, this would not mean that the raft is imposing like QM2 or more than it, because the raft would not have height, and only a little weight. So also if Titanic is only 50 mt different in lenght from QM2, this doesn't mean that it is only a little less imposing than QM2, because Titanic is very inferior respect to QM2 in the others dimensions: height and weight. And obviously the tonnage.
Gaetano Anania
Student of Naval Engineering - University of Genova - Italy
|
Gaetano Anania
Member
Username: gaetano_anania
Post Number: 5
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 8:31 pm: |
|
Sorry for my mistakes in english!In my precedent post I confused!I wrote "weight", unlike I understand "width". I apologize you.
Regards
Gaetano Anania
Student of Naval Engineering - University of Genova - Italy
|
Jamie Bryant
Member
Username: jp_morgan
Post Number: 98
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 2:23 pm: |
|
I wouldn't call it a queen! Plus if she ever did founder and that's not forget we live in a world of terrorism, her weight would work against her just like Titanic's did.
On which is better, QM2 has no character, Titanic has the greatest looking ship's face in history. Whereas QM2's bridge resembles a cockpit, Titanic's stank of brassol and wood polish. Plus remember that size is not everything after all T-Rex is the most famous dinosaur of all time, not the spinosaurus.
"Well I'm off, maintain speed and heading Mr Lightoller."
|
Gaetano Anania
Member
Username: gaetano_anania
Post Number: 8
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Yes, as you, I think that also if in future ships ever bigger will build, the legend and the celebrity of Titanic will remain insuperable! This is a mathematical certainty!
Cordially
Gaetano Anania
Student of Naval Engineering - University of Genova - Italy
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10056
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 5:40 pm: |
|
>>Plus if she ever did founder and that's not forget we live in a world of terrorism, her weight would work against her just like Titanic's did.<<
It would??? Well, maybe, but that would depend on the nature and extent of the damage. Larger ships tend to be far more resistant to sinking then smaller ones do if only because there all that much more hull volumn that needs to be flooded befor the thing rolls over or tips up and goes under.
That's not to say this is a hard and fast rule. For all her size, the Lusitania sank in 18 minutes after being hit by a single torpedo, and quite rapidly whereas the smaller Carpathia took three torpedoes and two and a half hours to sink. There are a lot of variables at work in a shipping casualty.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Colin W. Montgomery
Member
Username: the_grand_leviathans
Post Number: 121
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Hi everybody I am in school right now. Anyway wasn't it possible that more severe damage on the Lusitania was caused by an explosion of the coal dust by the torpedo? Michael? Help me out here. How would the weight of a a ship work against it? If that were true wouldn't the ship have sunk in the first place? A ship doesn't float because its light, as many laymen believe, but through diffirent principles. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10067
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 5:57 pm: |
|
>>Anyway wasn't it possible that more severe damage on the Lusitania was caused by an explosion of the coal dust by the torpedo?<<
Unlikely. Coal dust needs some very specific conditions of airborne particulate suspension, oxygen levels, and low levels of humidity for this kind of thing to happen which you're not likely to find in the cold and damp spaces of a liners coal bunkers. The condensate would more likely give you a somewhat tarry mess that wouldn't burn if you hit it with a blowtorch.
I don't see how a ship's own weight could work against it, but I can see how extra mass being taken into damaged sections of a ship could. When you're talking about damaged hull plating, you tend also to be talking about damaged framing as well depending on how it all happened in the first place. When the bending loads imposed on an already weakened hull exceed the ability of the structure to support that extra mass, it breaks. In a nutshell, that's exactly what happened to Titanic.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Gaetano Anania
Member
Username: gaetano_anania
Post Number: 9
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 1:04 am: |
|
The sinking of a ship is something of very relative. Each sinking has a different dynamic from another one. Obviously, like Michael already said right, a ship's loss depends from a several number of factors. Overall damages influence a sinking with their substantial seriousness and their distribution along the hull. There a very very great number of dangerous situations in which a ship could stay, and sometime it's hard to foresee, with a total precision, the hull's reaction to all these situation. A great example is obviously the Titanic. Its designers could not imagine, or they considered impossible that kind of situation toward which Titanic went. So the hull was broken in two parts for that sort of inclination because, like you obviously know, it was not projected for that pressure. I don't think weight, therefore the dimensions of a ship, are somethings that work ever against it. Obviously this is depends by situation. ANDREA DORIA was a ship of considerable tonnage, she received serious damages, but she sank in about 10 hours.
Cordially
Gaetano Anania
Student of Naval Engineering - University of Genova - Italy
|
Colin W. Montgomery
Member
Username: the_grand_leviathans
Post Number: 122
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 11:41 pm: |
|
Also I don't just care about length. You could be four miles long and not be impressive. Titanic was tall and wide too. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10091
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 4:18 am: |
|
>>Also I don't just care about length. <<
Interestingly enough, the shipping lines that operated the big passenger steamers did care and quite a bit, even if only for bragging rights. However, for revenue and taxation purposes, what matters is the net tonnage which is a measure of the ships money making capacity.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Colin W. Montgomery
Member
Username: the_grand_leviathans
Post Number: 127
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 10:41 pm: |
|
A lot of people think LOA is cheating. Why? Is the last bits of a ship not part of the vessel? Just because certain areas are not inhabitable doesn't mean they don't count. |
Colin W. Montgomery
Member
Username: the_grand_leviathans
Post Number: 128
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 10:52 pm: |
|
And Gaetano, I don't see the loss of Titanic as a defeat in the field of engineering. I see it as a triumph. What I think happened is that things like the Challenger and Columbia, Hindenburg, they aren't things that you can blame on technological short commings or Human error. I think the real answer is much simpler: They just happen. Rather than think why it happens, maybe the amazing thing is why it doesn't happen more often considering all the millions of variables in life. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10190
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 5:37 pm: |
|
>>A lot of people think LOA is cheating. Why?<<
Well, perhaps not cheating but it can be very misleading. While the parts you mentioned certainly are parts of the vessel overall, from the standpoint of actual displacement...which is the true measure of the sheer bulk of the vessel, and revenue earning ability, some of these things are of little use beyond making a ship look bigger then it really is.
>>Hindenburg, they aren't things that you can blame on technological short commings or Human error.<<
Actually, they can be, and in most cases it is. Sometimes though, as you pointed out, things *just* happen. That's not always human fallibility or the shortcomings of technology, that's just life.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Colin W. Montgomery
Member
Username: the_grand_leviathans
Post Number: 134
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Oh of course usually it is due to human error. but I think a lot of people focus on things like, "Well if those bulkheads had gone up higher!" or "If only it had a complete double hull." My point is That Titanic did not need those safety features to be a safe ship. It wasn't supposed to strike a berg. It was only in the small possiblility of it happening. It did not need those features to be a seaworthy craft. |
John Knight
Member
Username: john_knight
Post Number: 18
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 10:36 pm: |
|
>>" My point is That Titanic did not need those safety features to be a safe ship. It wasn't supposed to strike a berg. It was only in the small possibility of it happening. It did not need those features to be a seaworthy craft.<<
Maybe legally she didn't, but in actual fact, she did. That's why changes were made to law and to designs. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10193
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 2:43 am: |
|
>>Maybe legally she didn't, but in actual fact, she did.<<
Unfortunately, that's not as set in stone as some of us might want to think. Most of the legal and design changes made fall into the catagory of "kneejerk reactions." This is the sort of thing that lawmakers, regulatory authorities, and other agencies do to make it look like they're "doing something" and they only work out if the assumptions and conclusions they're based on are correct. We don't know with 100% non-debatable certainlty that this applies to Titanic, and we probably never will.
There are plenty of issues at work here ranging from flawed design concepts to the exact nature and extant of the damage, the latter of which is not entirely knowable. However, none of it would have mattered were it not for some really ill-advised navigation practices that are at the core of the why the accident occured in the first place.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
John Knight
Member
Username: john_knight
Post Number: 19
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 3:53 am: |
|
My point is that despite the legal requirements of the time, the event proved that the ship could have been better designed and equipped. So, with hindsight maybe, the fact is she was not as seaworthy as could have been desired. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10196
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 9:58 am: |
|
>>My point is that despite the legal requirements of the time, the event proved that the ship could have been better designed and equipped.<<
Anything can be better designed and equipped. This particular event didn't "prove" it per se, just drove this point home in a way that's difficult to ignor. It never would have been an issue in the first place had they steered a course well south of the icefield as just about everybody else had done.
The biggest, the best, the most well equipped vessel in the world can be sent to the bottom by human error and the Titanic was.
I woud also, while I'm at it, take issue with the premise that the Titanic was somehow not as seaworthy as could have been desired. Lifeboat provisioning notwithstanding, would you care to name passenger vessels anywhere that have watertight sectioning and protection that equals much less is superior to that of ny Olympic class liner?
You may be unpleasantly surprised at the answer.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
John Knight
Member
Username: john_knight
Post Number: 20
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 12:14 am: |
|
When anyone decides to use anything man made for whatever purpose, we all hope that it will do the job properly. In the case of the Titanic that she should reach her destination safely whatever she may encounter on the way. Of course it is not possible, at least not yet, to make anything that is infallible. But none the less it is the desire I would think, of most people that all that could be done to prevent loss of life or effects has been done before they use, in this case, the Titanic to travel on. Sometimes the belief is, even of the owners, that all has been done.
Then a disaster occurs and the opposite is proved if only in part. If other ships were or were not better sub-divided I have no idea but it does not mean the Titanic could not have been better designed using the technology then available. An example of this was the almost immediate doubling of some ships hulls to extend higher up the side of the vessel.
So until a ship can be designed that does not sink all we can ask is that a vessel is built using all the possible safety devices without having to wait for disaster. It is this that I would think is the desire of any traveller.
Regards,
John. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10197
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 1:58 am: |
|
>>If other ships were or were not better sub-divided I have no idea <<
By and large, they're not with the notable exception of warships which must be able to survive quite a bit of damage. An Olympic class liner was designed to remain afloat with up to four of it's watertight sections flooded. As far as I know, you won't find a single cruise ship/liner which can meet that standard today. For obvious reasons, shipping lines aren't keen to advertise this fact.
>>but it does not mean the Titanic could not have been better designed using the technology then available.<<
Quite right, they could have been. However, this is far from a gaurantee. Britannic had all of those features you described and sank in less then an hour after striking a mine. The Lusitania had sectioning that would have done any military vessel proud and sank in only 18 minutes. It doesn't help that a lot of the safety features they had weren't even used. The Britannic had portholes open which should have been closed as well as watertight doors which have been found still open going into the engineering spaces.
>>So until a ship can be designed that does not sink all we can ask is that a vessel is built using all the possible safety devices without having to wait for disaster. It is this that I would think is the desire of any traveller.<<
A noble idea in theory, not quite so do-able in practice. Passengers like ships with all the amenities, all the luxuries, and above all, which are easy to get around in even for those with signifigent disablities. Unfortunately, this clashes badly with building ships that have the maximum in subdivision. Such vessels are very difficult to get around in for any but the able-bodied. An unacceptable situation on a passenger vessel where potential travellers vote with their wallets and their feet in favour of the more comfortable vessel.
There are other problems too, not the least of which revolves around crew training and maintainance. Simply put, the crew of a merchent vessel seldom has the sort of time needed to devote to the labour intensive work involved in keeping every single fitting up to snuff, much less the time to train to set everything properly. A military vessel trains in this sort of thing as a matter of routine in their workup cycle prior to deployment and it takes an average of at least a year for them to learn how to do it right. (I'm a retired Navyman...been there done that!)
Seen in this light, it becomes apparant that putting in every conceivable bell and whistle can be and is seen to be more trouble then it's worth, and when you get down to the very bottom line, there is no substitute for good seamanship.
Never has been and never will be.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Noel F.Jones
Member
Username: ver1tas
Post Number: 309
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 2:10 am: |
|
".... would you care to name passenger vessels anywhere that have watertight sectioning and protection that equals much less is superior to that of ny Olympic class liner?"
Without wishing to detract in any way from the point you are making, as a matter of record we should accord exception to Lusitania/Mauretania with their longitudinal augment of subdivision.
Noel |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10199
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 2:39 am: |
|
>>as a matter of record we should accord exception to Lusitania/Mauretania with their longitudinal augment of subdivision.<<
I agree, and perhaps I should have clearified in pointing to modern day vessels. In any event, these features didn't do the Lusitania much good, did they? Unfortunately, that speaks more to the point I was making about how even the best safety features are useless unless they're actually used and properly cared for. The Bailey and Ryan book on the Lusitania makes for some interesting reading in this regard.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Colin W. Montgomery
Member
Username: the_grand_leviathans
Post Number: 136
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 3:54 am: |
|
The Lusitania wasn't designed to withstand a torpedo inflicted breach. The point is that it didn't need to be. It should never have been torpedoed. The Titanic shouldn't have struck an iceberg either. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10200
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 9:37 am: |
|
>>The Lusitania wasn't designed to withstand a torpedo inflicted breach.<<
As a matter of fact, to a point she was. She and her sister, the RMS Mauritania, were designed to be rapidly converted to armed auxilary merchent cruisers in time of war and their watertight subdivision was at least was a partial reflection of that. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, it ain't no good if you don't use what you have or can't keep it up properly.
As to whether or not she should have been torpedoed, that's probably best discussed in one of the Lusitania threads. I can tell you however that had I been a sub driver, I'd have taken the shot.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 335
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 2:24 pm: |
|
The question here regarding the Lusi is whether or not she could have withstood a similar encounter with an iceberg collision along a 300 feet length of her starboard side and underbottom going at her full speed of 26 knots? This would have compromised all her forward compartments as far back into BR #2. And because of the bunker arrangement on the sides of the vessel in the BR areas, one needs to take into account the loss of transverse stability that would also result.
There are no Unsinkable Theories
Sam Halpern
40o24' N 74o14' W
|
Colin W. Montgomery
Member
Username: the_grand_leviathans
Post Number: 137
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 6:55 pm: |
|
Yeah I understand that the Lusitania was able to be used by the British military forces in times of war. Now that I think about it, the damage caused by the torpedo probably wasn't that extreme. She probably would have survived it. Ballard said that the residual coal dust kicked up by the explosion caused a secondary, more powerful explosion and thats what doomed the ship. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10202
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 1:38 am: |
|
>>Ballard said that the residual coal dust kicked up by the explosion caused a secondary, more powerful explosion and thats what doomed the ship.<<
The odds are that Dr. Ballard is mistaken on this point. Coal dust needs some very specific conditions of dryness and density/dispersion which didn't exist on the Lusitania. The bunkers where the coal was stored would have been wet with condensate due to the conditions on the North Atlantic which would have prevented such an explosion. The best evidence would tend to indicate that the boilers were ruptured in the region of the explosion, which would explain the cloud of coal dust and steam that was seen at the point of the explosion.
I wouldn't say that the torpedo's damage wasn't extreme in some sense. These things carry some fairly sizable warheads. Even the reletively small charges used in contemporary warheads would have been enough to blow large holes through the shell plating and any inner bulkheads as well as anything else in the way. Since some of the things in the way included boilers with...so I'm given to understand...operating pressures of 195psi, God help anyone in the way if even one of these things is blown open.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Brent Holt
Member
Username: brent_holt
Post Number: 217
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, December 2, 2007 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Gross Registered Tonnage is NOT weight. It measures enclosed space. Each ton represents 100 cubic feet of space. The QM2 does not "weigh" 150,000 tons.
Comparing ships built 100 years apart is like comparing apples to oranges. |
