Hi Folks I am new to this forum but have been interested in the story of the Titanic since I was a kid in the fifties, last year I wrote the article printed below and distributed it on various forums and various organisations with a Titanic interest. I have to admit that I have had no one come forward to support my theory but then neither has anyone been able to demolished it. I can see why my view would be unpopular, if my theory was correct then rather the terrible disaster of epic proportions which unfolded with all it's human interest stories, my outcome would be that of a once proud ship limping into port or turning circles awaiting rescue, though with all lives intact. Hardly an ending which would shock and excite the world and initiate many books and films.
My theory right or wrong should in no way be taken as criticism of Capt. Smith as it took years for the idea to come to me rather than the short time available to him.
I would be grateful if you could find the time to run a critical eye over the attached text as it is my intention eventually, if the theory is still holding up, to place it on YouTube so it can reach a wider audience.
Regards
John Bennett Portsmouth UK
Did the Titanic have to sink?
An alternative view.
For the purpose of this article the Titanic has hit the iceberg as history recorded. My alternative view on the tragedy is that once the iceberg was hit and it was known the vessel was seriously damaged and taking on water, the order should have been given for full speed astern and astern propulsion should have been maintained for a long as possible. I suggest that this course of action may have saved the ship and in any event would have bought time, allowing the lifeboats to be better organised and passengers to have spent less or no time in the freezing water before rescue.
It has been well documented that the design criteria of the vessel was that she would remain afloat with four compartment ruptured, the damage inflicted by the iceberg ruptured 5, however, these compartments did not fill with water immediately and it is this time just after the collision whilst water was pouring in which presented a window of opportunity in my view to save the ship or at least prolong her survivability.
During her sea trials in the Irish Sea the Titanic performed an emergency stop from 20 knots in less than half a mile (ref: The last log of the Titanic By David G. Brown). At the time of the collision she was doing a little over 22 knots so we can guesstimate that if the order had been given after the collision that within 10-15 minutes she would be moving only slowly forward or building up speed going backwards in the water, time is critical as we know that her propellers were coming visible within 50 minutes as she took on water and all effective propulsion ahead or astern was lost.
However, in my scenario this time would be extended as the vessel slowed and the intake of water was lessened. Two of her three engines were capable of reverse thrust; the centre one was forward thrust only. By going astern the more (by now) buoyant stern end would have the effect of trying to draw the sinking bow out of the water to a more level angle and reducing the huge inflow of water. By going astern with the rudder over to starboard would result in the vessel’s stern turning to starboard on a circuitous course. This would have the effect of increasing the water pressure on the undamaged side and reducing the pressure on the damaged side further lessening the ingress of water.
As an interesting sidenote Charles Lightoller, the second mate on board the RMS Titanic, survived the tragedy and went on to command, the destroyer Garry in WW1 and on 19 July 1918 rammed and sank the German submarine UB-110. The ramming damaged the bows of the Garry so badly that she had to steam 100 miles to port for repairs in reverse to relieve the strain on the forward bulkheads.
John Bennett
Below are some comments I received on Titanic-Titanic.com forum, I have only included those which have some relevance to the subject.
Re: Did the Titanic have to sink?
by Michael » Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:36 pm
I don't believe the propellers started coming out of the water until about 12:30 am and weren't fully out until around 2:10 am. The scenario you proposed wouldn't have delayed the sinking, but might have actually hastened it and it would have made it impossible to launch any lifeboats. The rate at which the water came in was connected to the displacement of the ship, not completely, but to a large degree. Reversing the ship wouldn't have made it any lighter, but it could have increased the pressure around the hull by the water flowing past and might have increased the rate at which it entered the ship.
Reply by John Bennett
Thanks for the response and the correction in time as regards the propellers being exposed, do you know how long the emergency stop had taken in the Irish Sea?
Regarding your view that going in reverse would hasten the sinking of the Titanic, I disagree, the 6 slits of damage were all on the curved area of the hull. Going forward, water would be forced in not only by sea pressure but also the forward movement of the vessel, when stationary the sea pressure would ensure that water poured in, however, in reverse the shape of the hull would increase the Venturi effect and reduce the pressure in that area. As regards launching the lifeboat the vessel could come to an emergency stop quicker than normal as she would only have two of the three propellers working plus the stern of the vessel is very much less streamlined then the stem. As regards displacement of the ship the effect I was trying to describe is that of an object with a positive angle of attack and given sufficient momentum will rise, perhaps a rather inappropriate example would be a submarine, which uses it’s sail planes to ascend and descend. I have been unable to find out what the astern speed of Titanic was but I would guess between 8 — 12 knots, it’s hull was at an angle as the bow filled but whether the speed of the vessel going astern could have provided enough lift to reduce the ingress of water I don’t know.
by samhalpern » Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:29 am
A moving ship creates a positive pressure field beginning about 1/6 aft of bow and forward, a negative pressure field between about 1/6 aft of the bow to 1/6 ahead of the stern, and another positive pressure field from 1/6 ahead of the stern and aft of that. The actual field itself and the exact neutral points depends on the hull shape. Unfortunately, the change in pressure due to movement compared to the static pressure at a depth of 25 ft below the waterline where most of the damage was in any event would be relatively small, and would not change the inflow flooding rate by an amount that could possibly have saved the ship.
Sam
Reply by John
Thanks for the comments regarding the pressure zone, which I agree exist in the area surrounding a normal undamaged vessel under way on an even keel. Your final comment ‘and would not change the inflow flooding rate by an amount that could possibly have saved the ship.’ Seems to indicate that you consider that even if the course of action I had suggested had been taken that the Titanic traveling at some speed at an abnormal stem to stern angle and going astern would have made little difference to the outcome either in the sinking of the vessel or the time it took for this to happen.
I am not an expert on any maritime subject but it seems that such a dramatic alternative action not affecting the time frame (positive or negative) would be surprising. My original theory revolves around the angle of the hull and the effective transfer of damage from the starboard front bow and an area beyond to the aft area, (as the vessel would now be moving in the opposite direction).
We know that objects heavier than water such as water skiers, windsurfers using sinker boards, swimmers and submarines (depending on ballast) all use an angle of attack and forward movement all at very low speeds initially to make a difference to their apparent buoyancy. Though there is a colossal difference in their size and that of the Titanic, I am not aware that this principal breaks down because of this, plus the fact that the Titanic was still buoyant. If the Titanic was going astern at sufficient speed and angle of attack she would not sink. What this speed is and if it were possible to achieve I have not got a clue, my premise is that whilst she had astern propulsion and was higher aft than forward it must have made some difference and I am still convinced that this action could have extended the time frame and thus have saved more lives if not the survivability of the ship.
Lady Pattern's book, Good as Gold, reveals that and I quote; “for ten minutes, Titanic went 'Slow Ahead' through the sea, which added enormously to the pressure of water flooding through the damaged hull. The instruction lead to the sinking of the Titanic many hours earlier than she otherwise would have done by forcing it up and over the watertight bulkheads. Ismay insisted on keeping going, no doubt fearful of losing his investment and damaging his company’s reputation,' said Lady Patten. 'The nearest ship was four hours away. Had she remained at "Stop", it’s probable that Titanic would have floated until help arrived."I don't who done the analysis but I have included it to show that there are other views on the sinking.Surly someone must have replicated the situation using a large model and gone through all the alternatives, if anyone has any information I would be grateful if they would pass it on. Failing that I will have to try and do it myself just to put some sought of closure on it for my own curiosity as regarding my reverse theory.
John Bennett
.
My theory right or wrong should in no way be taken as criticism of Capt. Smith as it took years for the idea to come to me rather than the short time available to him.
I would be grateful if you could find the time to run a critical eye over the attached text as it is my intention eventually, if the theory is still holding up, to place it on YouTube so it can reach a wider audience.
Regards
John Bennett Portsmouth UK
Did the Titanic have to sink?
An alternative view.
For the purpose of this article the Titanic has hit the iceberg as history recorded. My alternative view on the tragedy is that once the iceberg was hit and it was known the vessel was seriously damaged and taking on water, the order should have been given for full speed astern and astern propulsion should have been maintained for a long as possible. I suggest that this course of action may have saved the ship and in any event would have bought time, allowing the lifeboats to be better organised and passengers to have spent less or no time in the freezing water before rescue.
It has been well documented that the design criteria of the vessel was that she would remain afloat with four compartment ruptured, the damage inflicted by the iceberg ruptured 5, however, these compartments did not fill with water immediately and it is this time just after the collision whilst water was pouring in which presented a window of opportunity in my view to save the ship or at least prolong her survivability.
During her sea trials in the Irish Sea the Titanic performed an emergency stop from 20 knots in less than half a mile (ref: The last log of the Titanic By David G. Brown). At the time of the collision she was doing a little over 22 knots so we can guesstimate that if the order had been given after the collision that within 10-15 minutes she would be moving only slowly forward or building up speed going backwards in the water, time is critical as we know that her propellers were coming visible within 50 minutes as she took on water and all effective propulsion ahead or astern was lost.
However, in my scenario this time would be extended as the vessel slowed and the intake of water was lessened. Two of her three engines were capable of reverse thrust; the centre one was forward thrust only. By going astern the more (by now) buoyant stern end would have the effect of trying to draw the sinking bow out of the water to a more level angle and reducing the huge inflow of water. By going astern with the rudder over to starboard would result in the vessel’s stern turning to starboard on a circuitous course. This would have the effect of increasing the water pressure on the undamaged side and reducing the pressure on the damaged side further lessening the ingress of water.
As an interesting sidenote Charles Lightoller, the second mate on board the RMS Titanic, survived the tragedy and went on to command, the destroyer Garry in WW1 and on 19 July 1918 rammed and sank the German submarine UB-110. The ramming damaged the bows of the Garry so badly that she had to steam 100 miles to port for repairs in reverse to relieve the strain on the forward bulkheads.
John Bennett
Below are some comments I received on Titanic-Titanic.com forum, I have only included those which have some relevance to the subject.
Re: Did the Titanic have to sink?
by Michael » Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:36 pm
I don't believe the propellers started coming out of the water until about 12:30 am and weren't fully out until around 2:10 am. The scenario you proposed wouldn't have delayed the sinking, but might have actually hastened it and it would have made it impossible to launch any lifeboats. The rate at which the water came in was connected to the displacement of the ship, not completely, but to a large degree. Reversing the ship wouldn't have made it any lighter, but it could have increased the pressure around the hull by the water flowing past and might have increased the rate at which it entered the ship.
Reply by John Bennett
Thanks for the response and the correction in time as regards the propellers being exposed, do you know how long the emergency stop had taken in the Irish Sea?
Regarding your view that going in reverse would hasten the sinking of the Titanic, I disagree, the 6 slits of damage were all on the curved area of the hull. Going forward, water would be forced in not only by sea pressure but also the forward movement of the vessel, when stationary the sea pressure would ensure that water poured in, however, in reverse the shape of the hull would increase the Venturi effect and reduce the pressure in that area. As regards launching the lifeboat the vessel could come to an emergency stop quicker than normal as she would only have two of the three propellers working plus the stern of the vessel is very much less streamlined then the stem. As regards displacement of the ship the effect I was trying to describe is that of an object with a positive angle of attack and given sufficient momentum will rise, perhaps a rather inappropriate example would be a submarine, which uses it’s sail planes to ascend and descend. I have been unable to find out what the astern speed of Titanic was but I would guess between 8 — 12 knots, it’s hull was at an angle as the bow filled but whether the speed of the vessel going astern could have provided enough lift to reduce the ingress of water I don’t know.
by samhalpern » Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:29 am
A moving ship creates a positive pressure field beginning about 1/6 aft of bow and forward, a negative pressure field between about 1/6 aft of the bow to 1/6 ahead of the stern, and another positive pressure field from 1/6 ahead of the stern and aft of that. The actual field itself and the exact neutral points depends on the hull shape. Unfortunately, the change in pressure due to movement compared to the static pressure at a depth of 25 ft below the waterline where most of the damage was in any event would be relatively small, and would not change the inflow flooding rate by an amount that could possibly have saved the ship.
Sam
Reply by John
Thanks for the comments regarding the pressure zone, which I agree exist in the area surrounding a normal undamaged vessel under way on an even keel. Your final comment ‘and would not change the inflow flooding rate by an amount that could possibly have saved the ship.’ Seems to indicate that you consider that even if the course of action I had suggested had been taken that the Titanic traveling at some speed at an abnormal stem to stern angle and going astern would have made little difference to the outcome either in the sinking of the vessel or the time it took for this to happen.
I am not an expert on any maritime subject but it seems that such a dramatic alternative action not affecting the time frame (positive or negative) would be surprising. My original theory revolves around the angle of the hull and the effective transfer of damage from the starboard front bow and an area beyond to the aft area, (as the vessel would now be moving in the opposite direction).
We know that objects heavier than water such as water skiers, windsurfers using sinker boards, swimmers and submarines (depending on ballast) all use an angle of attack and forward movement all at very low speeds initially to make a difference to their apparent buoyancy. Though there is a colossal difference in their size and that of the Titanic, I am not aware that this principal breaks down because of this, plus the fact that the Titanic was still buoyant. If the Titanic was going astern at sufficient speed and angle of attack she would not sink. What this speed is and if it were possible to achieve I have not got a clue, my premise is that whilst she had astern propulsion and was higher aft than forward it must have made some difference and I am still convinced that this action could have extended the time frame and thus have saved more lives if not the survivability of the ship.
Lady Pattern's book, Good as Gold, reveals that and I quote; “for ten minutes, Titanic went 'Slow Ahead' through the sea, which added enormously to the pressure of water flooding through the damaged hull. The instruction lead to the sinking of the Titanic many hours earlier than she otherwise would have done by forcing it up and over the watertight bulkheads. Ismay insisted on keeping going, no doubt fearful of losing his investment and damaging his company’s reputation,' said Lady Patten. 'The nearest ship was four hours away. Had she remained at "Stop", it’s probable that Titanic would have floated until help arrived."I don't who done the analysis but I have included it to show that there are other views on the sinking.Surly someone must have replicated the situation using a large model and gone through all the alternatives, if anyone has any information I would be grateful if they would pass it on. Failing that I will have to try and do it myself just to put some sought of closure on it for my own curiosity as regarding my reverse theory.
John Bennett
.
