Did Titanic Have a Strengthened Bow?
- Thread starter abrogard
- Start date
Astride can help you out with this.
I really don't think titanic had a stronger bow from the rest of her. If any ships did, the germans would've had it done.
He made us aware that in 1912 Olympic class liners were a little bit behind in safety and technical construction. He has images on another thread of the emperator's (built in 1912 1913) bow, safety water tight doors (full lenthgh) and her (full lenghth double hull).
At the time of titanics madian voyage, titanic had half water tight doors, and a double hull not the full lenghth of the bow from etc.. Waterline to only F deck ect... Olympic class liners already were lacking behind.
In regards to bow construction, it were the French who first designed an sleeky angled bow for more speed.
On the QM2, she has a bow thruster. A big giant steel knob. I'm not sure if it for ice but it would've saved titanic in a head on collision.
Moderator's note: Edited to correct formatting. MAB
I really don't think titanic had a stronger bow from the rest of her. If any ships did, the germans would've had it done.
He made us aware that in 1912 Olympic class liners were a little bit behind in safety and technical construction. He has images on another thread of the emperator's (built in 1912 1913) bow, safety water tight doors (full lenthgh) and her (full lenghth double hull).
At the time of titanics madian voyage, titanic had half water tight doors, and a double hull not the full lenghth of the bow from etc.. Waterline to only F deck ect... Olympic class liners already were lacking behind.
In regards to bow construction, it were the French who first designed an sleeky angled bow for more speed.
On the QM2, she has a bow thruster. A big giant steel knob. I'm not sure if it for ice but it would've saved titanic in a head on collision.
Moderator's note: Edited to correct formatting. MAB
Last edited by a moderator:
The only passenger ship with a strengthened bow that was involved in a major marine incident was the Stockholm when it collided with the Andrea Doria in 1956.
Actually, the Titanic did not, sail in normally Ice Prone seas.
The bergs in the Atlantic were unheard of previously.
Due to freak, high tides that year, massive ice flows broke loose from Greenland and traveled South in the Labrador currents.
In normal years bergs would have melted or been very small and no threat by the time they reached the Titanic's route across the Atlantic.
1912 was a "Perfect Storm" regarding Titanic and Ice......
The 'bow thruster' you refer to on QM2 is a 'bulbous bow' which is there to smooth the water flow around the bow area and give improved fuel consumption and less pitching. A 'bow thruster' is the sideways mounted small propellers that allow a ship to maneuver during docking without using tugs. They are a relatively modern development.
Actually Titanic was designed to withstand a head on collision. She didn't have a strengthened bow so much as have front bulkhead that wasn't lowered which would have made it so that Titanic would likely still have been seaworthy in the event of a head on collision.
This was what Edward Wilding had to say about this:
20267. I gather to resist such a contact as that you could not build any plates strong enough, as plates?
- It depends, of course, on the severity of the contact. This contact seems to have been a particularly light one.
20268. Light?
- Yes, light, because we have heard the evidence that lots of people scarcely felt it.
20269. You mean it did not strike a fair blow?
- If she struck it a fair blow I think we should have heard a great deal more about the severity of it, and probably the ship would have come into harbour if she had struck it a fair blow, instead of going to the bottom.
20270. You think that?
- I am quite sure of it.
20271. (The Commissioner.) I am rather interested about that. Do you mean to say that if this ship had driven on to the iceberg stem on she would have been saved?
- I am quite sure she would, My Lord. I am afraid she would have killed every firemen down in the firemen's quarters, but I feel sure the ship would have come in.
20272. And the passengers would not have been lost?
- The passengers would have come in.
20273. Then do you think it was an error of judgment - I do not by any means say it was a negligent act at all - to starboard the helm?
- It is very difficult to pass judgment on what would go through an Officer's mind, My Lord.
20274. An error of judgment and negligence are two different things altogether. A man may make a mistake and be very far from being negligent?
- Yes.
20275. Do you think that if the helm had not been starboarded there would have been a chance of the ship being saved?
- I believe the ship would have been saved, and I am strengthened in that belief by the case which your Lordship will remember where one large North Atlantic steamer, some 34 years ago, did go stem on into an iceberg and did come into port, and she was going fast?
- I am old enough to remember that case, but I am afraid my memory is not good enough.
Mr. Laing:
The "Arizona" - I remember it.
The Witness:
The "Arizona," my Lord.
20276. (Mr. Rowlatt.) You said it would have killed all the firemen?
- I am afraid she would have crumpled up in stopping herself. The momentum of the ship would have crushed in the bows for 80 or perhaps 100 feet.
20277. You mean the firemen in their quarters?
- Yes, down below. We know two watches were down there.
20278. Do you mean at the boilers?
- Oh, no, they would scarcely have felt the shock.
20267. I gather to resist such a contact as that you could not build any plates strong enough, as plates?
- It depends, of course, on the severity of the contact. This contact seems to have been a particularly light one.
20268. Light?
- Yes, light, because we have heard the evidence that lots of people scarcely felt it.
20269. You mean it did not strike a fair blow?
- If she struck it a fair blow I think we should have heard a great deal more about the severity of it, and probably the ship would have come into harbour if she had struck it a fair blow, instead of going to the bottom.
20270. You think that?
- I am quite sure of it.
20271. (The Commissioner.) I am rather interested about that. Do you mean to say that if this ship had driven on to the iceberg stem on she would have been saved?
- I am quite sure she would, My Lord. I am afraid she would have killed every firemen down in the firemen's quarters, but I feel sure the ship would have come in.
20272. And the passengers would not have been lost?
- The passengers would have come in.
20273. Then do you think it was an error of judgment - I do not by any means say it was a negligent act at all - to starboard the helm?
- It is very difficult to pass judgment on what would go through an Officer's mind, My Lord.
20274. An error of judgment and negligence are two different things altogether. A man may make a mistake and be very far from being negligent?
- Yes.
20275. Do you think that if the helm had not been starboarded there would have been a chance of the ship being saved?
- I believe the ship would have been saved, and I am strengthened in that belief by the case which your Lordship will remember where one large North Atlantic steamer, some 34 years ago, did go stem on into an iceberg and did come into port, and she was going fast?
- I am old enough to remember that case, but I am afraid my memory is not good enough.
Mr. Laing:
The "Arizona" - I remember it.
The Witness:
The "Arizona," my Lord.
20276. (Mr. Rowlatt.) You said it would have killed all the firemen?
- I am afraid she would have crumpled up in stopping herself. The momentum of the ship would have crushed in the bows for 80 or perhaps 100 feet.
20277. You mean the firemen in their quarters?
- Yes, down below. We know two watches were down there.
20278. Do you mean at the boilers?
- Oh, no, they would scarcely have felt the shock.
None of the bulkheads were lowered. This is one of the most false claims ever published. Bulkheads high was specified by the BOT.
