Question Conditions of the buried part of the Titanic's bow

[Titanic Spanish Stuff]

Could the conditions of the buried portion beneath the marine sediment of the Titanic's bow be potentially better compared to the rest of the ship? In such case, to what extent could it be in better preservation?

 

[MMacleod]

Could the conditions of the buried portion beneath the marine sediment of the Titanic's bow be potentially better compared to the rest of the ship? In such case, to what extent could it be in better preservation?

Hi, I asked a question somewhat similar to this a while ago but I don't think anyone knows for sure. I imagine the mud may well be protecting the red paint from water current erosion and the iron from rustiles so the material condition of the buried prow may be quite good. I am thoroughly convinced though that the form of the prow was obliterated on contact with the sea floor and the mud piled up on either side is concealing a mashed hull structure with several decks compacted together. I just don't believe the hull would have withstood the incredible frictional forces exerted on it when slamming into the mud at speed and dislodging 18m or a five story building worth of dense mud out of the way without complete structural failure. When looking Ken Marshalls forensic drawings of Lusitania and Britannics bows, both have destroyed prows and the Britannics especially shows ripples in the hull plating extending away from the point of impact. I don't think those ripples would have been caused by twisting damage as the ship rolled over with the prow stuck on the sea floor but more so crumpling created by the prows initial landing. I imagine Titanics prow under the mud pile is very similar. Hope this helps out. There's a lot of dispute over this with others believing the prow is still completely intact so I could very well be wrong about the damage. Its something almost impossible to prove one way or the other without setting up extensive scanning equipment down at the wreck site.

 

[Question_asker]

This is interesting and I suppose so long as we never know either way, then both theories are possible. Personally, with absolutely no qualifications or experience in such matters, I tend to think scenario B is more likely.

I suppose the first question to be answered is how hard is the sea bed?

 

[MMacleod]

I don't have much information on how hard is the sea bed, I'd assume the sheer weight of the water would compress it into a very dense clay like substance but I don't know if that's how it works or what causes the ROVs and subs to kick up so much loose silt throughout the wreck?

Something that did occur to me that I think strongly supports the prow being crushed under the mud is that the forward hatch cover was blown about 50m forward from the bow. With the large cover flying through water resistance this must have required a collosal amount of sudden upward force. This would make a lot of sense if the bow got badly crushed into the mud and half the water inside with nowhere to go violently launched upwards through the cargo hatchway. If this wasn't caused by the internal volume of the cargo hold suddenly drastically decreasing then there would be ceiling blowouts consistently seen throughout the Titanic wreck and on all other deep sea shipwrecks.

 

[Richard C Elliott]

I don't have much information on how hard is the sea bed, I'd assume the sheer weight of the water would compress it into a very dense clay like substance but I don't know if that's how it works or what causes the ROVs and subs to kick up so much loose silt throughout the wreck?

No, that is not how it works. The sediment contains water between the mud or sediment grains and that water is at the same pressure as the water immediately above, so there isn't any net downward compressive force. Sediment on the deep sea bed isn't any more compressed than sediment on a lake or river bed. That is why it is easily stirred up by the ROVs.

 

[Dustin thewind]

That's really good to know. Thank you sir