Cutting into the hull

D

Dave Tuttle

Guest
> The wreck isn't as smashed up as Titanic for several reasons. Among them is the fact that she sank and fell as a single unit, and fell only 300 feet (only one third of her length), and therefore settled to the bottom far more gently. It is conceivable that the bow was already resting on the bottom, supporting her weight, even before the stern sank from sight at the surface.

Dave Tuttle
 

Jeremy Lee

Member
Jun 12, 2003
1,374
1
106
Strange that there wasn't any 'stress point' like the Titanic when she was sinking on the surface.

300+ feet is pretty dangerous for a wreck to lie, funnily enough, there are no fishing nets on it, isn't it?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,588
378
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Strange that there wasn't any 'stress point' like the Titanic when she was sinking on the surface.<<

Mmmmmmmm...why would there be? The ship sank in 300 feet of water and the bow was already resting on the bottom befor the wreck had completely submerged. The stern never had a chance to rise up the way the Titanic's did so the points under stress would never have had the chance to go so far as to cause the same break-up as happened with the Titanic. (You'll notice that the bow is nearly broken off anyway.)
 

Jeremy Lee

Member
Jun 12, 2003
1,374
1
106
>>You'll notice that the bow is nearly broken off anyway<<

Because of stress or the explosion (or both?)
 

Jeremy Lee

Member
Jun 12, 2003
1,374
1
106
Hmm... So I see. The weight of the stern almost detached the bow which was already weakened from the explosion.....

Thanks Michael!
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,588
378
283
Easley South Carolina
No. Not really. Since the Titanic sank in 12,500 feet of water, the hull was completely submerged long befor the bow ever touched bottom. The problem here in this case was the lack of any support for the weight of the stern once it reared itself up out of the water. When the bending loads on the unsupported hull girder...particularly the keel...exceeded the loads the ship was designed to survive, it broke.

If you wish to understand the technical dynamics at work, I can think of few other sites that cover it more thoroughly then Roy Mengot's The Wreck Of The RMS Titanic

Check it out!
 

Jeremy Lee

Member
Jun 12, 2003
1,374
1
106
Hey, thanks for the link, I get it now!

BTW, The background of the website makes it difficult to read!
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,588
378
283
Easley South Carolina
Really??? I never had a problem with it. Maybe you just need my older eyes. (HINT: It's a sucker deal! You really, really, really don't want my older eyes!)
wink.gif


Seriously, Roy Mengot's goot a lot of good information on that site regarding the forensics of the sinking. You could find most of it elsewhere, but he's the man who's collected it all in one place which makes it a useful place to keep bookmarked.