Could Titanic's double bottom have been torn open by the iceberg


Jan 7, 2002
2,446
36
243
No 300 foot gash was found on Titanic's starboard side, and the " loosened plates and popped rivets" were found on both starboard and port sides..

Perhaps the damage from the iceberg is along Titanic's bottom....
Does anyone here ascribe to the belief that the iceberg may have torn open a length of Titanic's double bottom?
Obviously, such damage would not be visible on the wreck, as the damage would be on the wreck's underside.



regards

Tarn Stephanos
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,619
740
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Does anyone here ascribe to the belief that the iceberg may have torn open a length of Titanic's double bottom?<<

Yes. In fact, this is something that some of us have been saying for several years now. Tarn, you may also wish to read The Grounding of the Titanic which was the White Paper that David Brown and Parks Stephenson collaborated on. Beyond that, you may wish to parse some of the discussions in this folder. As research into this is an ongoing affair, all I can say in addition to any of that is "Stay tuned for further developments."
 
Jan 7, 2002
2,446
36
243
Superb article....
It is unfortunate there is no way to view the damage along the underside of Titanic's hull....
The 'door sized' hole, theorized in 1998 just doesnt add up......
Interpreting the sinking mathamatically, given the volume of water that entered the ship, and the rate and time at which she sank, there should be an equation with which one could determine the area opened to the sea....And I refuse to beleive it was 12 square feet......
Im sure Titanic scraped along a spur along her underside, and the dameage probrolly extended most of her length- though i'm sure there were no breaches past boiler room # 4 (though hull paint was no doubt scraped free).

Perhaps if keel sections from amidships could be found in the debris field, there might be tell tale traces of iceberg scraping damage(assuming the rusticle growth hasnt obscured everything)

regards


Tarn Stephanos
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
254
358
Tarn,

What article are you talking about? I did a quick check and couldn't find anything.

I, of course, am interested in reading someone else's take on potential bottom damage.

Parks
 
Jan 7, 2002
2,446
36
243
Hi Parks
I was refering to your 'White Paper' that you and David Brown put together.
Very well done!
In my post i just went off on a tangent by pondering on other aspects of the idea of the underside of the ship having been breached by the ice...
One should be able to determine the size of the hole(s) through the joy of matmatics..
As math is my weak subject, I'd have better luck interpreting the Toltek language...
12 square feet, as interpreted by Paul Mathias's team, just can't be right...
If there is ever another expedition to the wreck, I do hope the area where the iceberg was supposed to have breached (most notibly near boiler room #5) can be searched for any damage....
(this was done in 1998, but i hope it can be done again)
Im certain the damage is along her keel....
I assumed her double bottom was honeycombed with independent compartments, but such apparently wasnt the case..

regards


Tarn Stephanos
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,619
740
563
Easley South Carolina
>>I assumed her double bottom was honeycombed with independent compartments, but such apparently wasnt the case.. <<

Actually, it was, but when you run across an ice shelf and rip yourself a new one, it doesn't really do you a world of good unless you can confine the damage to that area. Titanic couldn't. For the arrangement of the double bottom, I recommend reading Samuel Halpern's excellant Titanic's Hidden Deck. (Adobe PDF Acrobat needed to open this one.)
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
254
358
Oh, OK. One of these days, Dave and I need to get back together and refine that White Paper. I've had some more thought on the subject since it was submitted and with his active mind, I'm sure Dave has, too.

One thing that I've recently come to realise is that I don't believe that BR#6 suffered the type of catastrophic flooding that I've always assumed in the past. I would like to pursue this more, but right now I have more pressing matters to which I must first attend.

Parks
 

Erik Wood

Member
Aug 24, 2000
3,519
15
313
Claiming that Dave has an "active" mind is the grandest of understatements. I of course say this with upmost respect.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
254
358
Michael,

That's actually what I meant. There's no sense in re-writing the original White Paper that's already been hung out to dry. Dave and I should get together again at some point to write a completely new Paper that will stand on its own merits, especially if it makes the old Paper obsolete.

However, with my schedule, I don't see when I would have time for such an effort until after I get my Marconi project out the door in 2006. There should be no rush, though...the story has been around for nearly a century already.

Parks
 

Adam Usher

Member
Oct 26, 2004
47
0
156
I dont have any scientific evidence to back up my theory, but i personally dont think that the berg wripped a whole along her side.

I do think however, that the berg smashed the bottom of the ship at the bow area. If the ship had been wripped open along her side, then i think that the ship would have listed to one side like the lusitania and would have reached the ocean floor on her side
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
254
358
Jesse,

Thank you for your interest. My "project" is a book that I started writing back in 1999/2000. I had to essentially throw out most of my previous research and start anew after Cameron explored the interior of the Marconi rooms in 2001 and discovered details about Titanic's configuration that ran counter to everything that I had culled from the Marconi historical archives. The book was again delayed while I took time to teach myself how to use computer-generated imagery (CGI) software, after seeing its potential while working on "Ghosts of the Abyss." The introduction of CGI into my book meant that a greater emphasis would be given to illustrations, whereas before it had been given to dry, technically-oriented text. I am still working on my CG models of the Marconi rooms, which are far more mature and detailed than what was seen in the GotA companion book. Meanwhile, expeditions to the wreck in 2003 and 2004 returned additional relevant information which I will incorporate into the book. My publisher, who has shown infinite patience in the face of all these delays, recommended that I broaden the scope of my work to include the Marconi operators, so I invited Jemma Hyder to merge her research into their personal lives with my research into the wireless apparatus and industry. This simple book, originally intended to be a technical handbook of sorts on Titanic's Marconi apparatus, is now much more ambitious than originally conceived. Right now, though, my work on the book is on hold while I deal with other, more pressing, priorities. I do intend to hold to my current publication deadline, though, which is now Spring 2006.

Parks
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,619
740
563
Easley South Carolina
>>the ship had been wripped open along her side, then i think that the ship would have listed to one side like the lusitania and would have reached the ocean floor on her side<<

Quite right, she would have been. The sort of injury the Titanic would have suffered in a sideswipe would have sliced her open from stem to stern and sent he plunging to the bottom in minutes, not hours. A minor correction however, the ship would not have reached the bottom on her side. In waters that deep, unless the hull completely disintigrates for some reason, a flooded solid hull always rights itself on the way down and lands in an upright position.

On matters of evidence, you have some very compelling evidence in the form of the wreck itself. The wreck shows no evidence of the 300 foot gash (Which BTW, was not what the inquiries said was there.) that the media contrived and which has been entrenched in the Titanic mythos ever since. What's there are the split seams, popped rivits and buckled plates that was expected in the first place. Some of that damage beyond any real question is from impact with the bottom, but some would also be from the iceberg.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,235
26
243
Quote:
In waters that deep, unless the hull completely disintigrates for some reason, a flooded solid hull always rights itself on the way down and lands in an upright position.
Unquote

Unlike the HMS Hood, for instance.

Paul

 
Jan 6, 2005
276
7
183
Iowa, USA
Hi:

As a newbie here who has not yet passed his finals for Rivet Counting 101 ;-) , I expect to take a lot of heat for what I'm about to say. But here goes, anyway:

I personally have a lot of trouble with the idea that Titanic's double bottom was breached by an underwater shelf of the iceberg. The reason is that the "12-square-foot" theory was arrived at just after the sinking, and around 12 square feet of breaches have indeed been found by modern equipment.

The fact that we can't see the bottom of the ship does not mean a great deal to me, for this reason: when the "12-square-foot" figure was first discussed at the British inquiry, the figure was the result of mathematical calculation. The dimensions of each compartment were known; simple math would yield the volume of each, in cubic feet. The rate of flooding was known, meaning the time from the iceberg was struck until a compartment filled. With those figures in hand, it was then possible to work backwards and figure what size breach was needed to fill such a volume in the time recorded. You need a certain rate of water entry to fill X amount of space in X amount of time. "What size hole would permit that amount of water to enter in that length of time?" is the question that the mathematics applied in 1912 attempted to answer.

With those things in mind, it seems to me that the available data rather strongly militate against a major breach of the double bottom. We have accounted for hull breaches that match the data: if there was a larger breach, then it seems reasonable to assume that Titanic would have filled- and sunk- even faster than the appalling rapidity with which she did fill and sink.

I have no doubt that someone here will find a major flaw in my reasoning, but I've never understood how anyone came to suspect that more damage might have been done than just the buckled hull plates and popped rivets. One thing most people forget about a ship: the sea wants in. It takes very little for her to get her way in the matter.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads