Could Titanic Still Sink With 4 Compartments Flooded?

[Harland Duzen]

A "What If" scenario...

It's aways been stated that Titanic could stay afloat with any 4 compartments and had the iceberg only breached the front 4, she would have floated and the only damage would be some lost Cargo and some very angry 3rd Class Passengers and Crew.

However, would the weight of the 4 flooded compartments cause the bow to dip low enough that the C-Deck forecastle deck could flood, fill the bow and then sink the ship?

This scenario has all windows and gangway doors locked and the forecastle deck the only way water could enter apart from the damage below.

Note: I just noticed I put this in the wrong thread. Sorry.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

No, she would have been down to G or at last F Deck but not further.

 

[Chung Rex]

A "What If" scenario...

It's aways been stated that Titanic could stay afloat with any 4 compartments and had the iceberg only breached the front 4, she would have floated and the only damage would be some lost Cargo and some very angry 3rd Class Passengers and Crew.

However, would the weight of the 4 flooded compartments cause the bow to dip low enough that the C-Deck forecastle deck could flood, fill the bow and then sink the ship?

This scenario has all windows and gangway doors locked and the forecastle deck the only way water could enter apart from the damage below.
View attachment 3781

Note: I just noticed I put this in the wrong thread. Sorry.

I am sorry that you have some misconception(s) of your question. Titanic is stated to be afloat with ANY TWO of all compartments flooded; titanic can still be afloat for most (but not all unfortunately) configurations if THREE [neighboring] of all compartments were flooded. There is only ONE stable configuration for four compartments flooded: the foremost four watertight compartments. For all other configurations, the ship was still doomed.

 

[coal eater]

which configuration flooded four could give ship chance to not sink

 

[Harland Duzen]

FloodingByCompartment

Hope this helps.

 

[coal eater]

titanic could stay afloat with minimal risk of sinking as long as boiler room 5 was dry,when it was flooded titanic had no chance.

with three cargo holds and one boiler room flooded titanic had only 6000 tons of boyance remaining,dont forget that there was some free space above forepeak tank,the forepeak compartment was yet dry and probably when BR5 flooded the forepeak space also started to flood?

in my opinion loss of those first four compartments was not real cause of titanic sinking,it could stay on water as long as one more compartment was not flooded,if br 5 was still dry then risk of sinking would be atleast delayed in hours in worst case.in best case ship would not sink at all?

 

[Mike Spooner]

FloodingByCompartment View attachment 40886
Hope this helps.

Harland you have a good diagrams borrowed from Sam Halpern. The real issue is the bulkheads were not capped off. This was not a design fault. In fact the height of the bulkheads were well in the Board of Trade regulations base on ship of 10,000 tons. Which was 10 bulkheads and three and half above the waterline. The Titanic seven middle bulkheads were 10 feet above the waterline. Bulkheads front and back of the ship better still between 15-20 feet above the waterline but not capped off too. If anybody at fault here one has to question the Board of Trade failing to move with the times as the ships were ever increasing in size. Regulation set in 1894!
Just matter of interested are you any relative of Mr E Harland from H&W?

 

[Harland Duzen]

Harland you have a good diagrams borrowed from Sam Halpern. The real issue is the bulkheads were not capped off. This was not a design fault. In fact the height of the bulkheads were well in the Board of Trade regulations base on ship of 10,000 tons. Which was 10 bulkheads and three and half above the waterline. The Titanic seven middle bulkheads were 10 feet above the waterline. Bulkheads front and back of the ship better still between 15-20 feet above the waterline but not capped off too. If anybody at fault here one has to question the Board of Trade failing to move with the times as the ships were ever increasing in size. Regulation set in 1894!

Thank you for the reply. I admit when I made this thread, I had a lapse of common sense. I just thought what would happen if water managed to pour down from above (i.e. waves or heavy rain) or the Shelter Deck doors if they were left unopened (a bit like the Estonia's loading ramp being left opened).

Just matter of interested are you any relative of Mr E Harland from H&W?

No but for personal reasons, I decided I would change my first name and got the idea to name myself after Edward Harland.

 

[Mike Spooner]

Hi Harland Duzen,
I am glad you said I change my name to E Harland. As I a lot of respect for the man to the point must of been a genius to get his shipyard up and running with such fierce competition from England & Scotland shipyards. Not to mention draw backs building ships in Belfast with no raw materials having to be imported from mainland extra shipping costs hitting the bottom line in profits! How he did it is quite amazing story and no walk in the park too?

 

[Harland Duzen]

Off topic here but thank you! although Gustav Wolff also deserves credit.

Funny fact, but when I was researching it, the name Harland has French / English origins meaning "Meadow-of-the-hares" and can mean "To be good at building things"!

Back to Topic!

 

[Mike Spooner]

Certainly a true word could not be said for Mr E Harland "To be good at building things"! Yes Mr Gustav Wolff deserve credit too and also his uncle Mr Gustav Shawbe a shrewd business man who would invested his money with Mr Harland to get him going as a shipyard were the banks would not! Business men do not through money away.That's why they are well off! He could see Harland was the right man to run a business. It thanks to him again with his money he would divert H&W from building cargo ships to luxury liners for White Star Line. First ship Oceanic would set the standards on how future luxury liners were to be built.
Just unfortune that Mr Harland & Mr Wolff had nothing to do with Titanic. If so I think they would of done a better job by using more up to date engines and steering gear!

 

[coal eater]

titanic did not need bigger steerign gear or engines,just needed some artillery to shoot the iceberg from long distance.

 

[Mike Spooner]

artillery to shoot the iceberg from long distance! How about better navigation too?

 

[Harland Duzen]

artillery to shoot the iceberg from long distance!

I image that would result in large chunks of ice crashing around and onto the Titanic causing untold damage, injury, death, an almighty loud BOOM! and about 2,000 angry sleepy passengers!

 

[Mark Baber]

It thanks to him again with his money he would divert H&W from building cargo ships to luxury liners for White Star Line.

Mike, H&W built plenty of cargo carriers for White Star and other lines over the years.