How badly damaged is Titanics lower forward bow beneath the mud?

[MMacleod]

Hi, I was having a discussion in regard to how badly damaged is the Titanics lower bow, specifically the area that's obscured by the surrounding piled up mud?
I was always under the assumption that the lower bow is heavily crushed back due to the forces exterted on it when it ploughed through 18 metres of mud and the decks in that area would be compacted together. Someone else felt that the bow was likely to be completely intact and simply pushed the mud out of its way upon the liners impact with the sea bed.

To try and get more information I looked at Ken Marschalls renderings of Titanics contemporaries the Britannic and the Lusitania and both of them look to have sustained massive bow damage in their sinkings although I know they were both subjected to twisting forces as the bows hit the ocean floor and the ships then rolled over onto their side pirouetting all their weight on the lower bow. I'm guessing there might be some geological factors in play too with the sea floor being possibly harder in those cases?

I've heard some penetrative scans were taken of the area of the Titanic where the iceberg damage was but unsure if those scans extended to the rest of the bow?

I also don't know how far into the bow an ROV has ever got or if its possible to explore parts of the ships bow interior below the level of the mud outside?

Would be interested if anyone has any concrete scientific information about this. I've attached an illustration of the two scenarios A being no bow damage with B being extensive bow damage.

All the best, Michael

 

[SSNormandie1935]

It would make sense that that it would be crushed.

 

[Titanicmaster]

Hi, I was having a discussion in regard to how badly damaged is the Titanics lower bow, specifically the area that's obscured by the surrounding piled up mud?
I was always under the assumption that the lower bow is heavily crushed back due to the forces exterted on it when it ploughed through 18 metres of mud and the decks in that area would be compacted together. Someone else felt that the bow was likely to be completely intact and simply pushed the mud out of its way upon the liners impact with the sea bed.

To try and get more information I looked at Ken Marschalls renderings of Titanics contemporaries the Britannic and the Lusitania and both of them look to have sustained massive bow damage in their sinkings although I know they were both subjected to twisting forces as the bows hit the ocean floor and the ships then rolled over onto their side pirouetting all their weight on the lower bow. I'm guessing there might be some geological factors in play too with the sea floor being possibly harder in those cases?

I've heard some penetrative scans were taken of the area of the Titanic where the iceberg damage was but unsure if those scans extended to the rest of the bow?

I also don't know how far into the bow an ROV has ever got or if its possible to explore parts of the ships bow interior below the level of the mud outside?

Would be interested if anyone has any concrete scientific information about this. I've attached an illustration of the two scenarios A being no bow damage with B being extensive bow damage.

All the best, Michael

Michael,

Here is a Titanic historians perspective.
Of course, you are asking the 64 million dollar question that every serious Titanic person wants to know.

There is no one that has any hard evidence on an engineering basis for exactly what the bow looks like under the silt/mud

Your two drawings make sense visually but may or may not be truly reflective of what the actual damage looks like…truth be told, the reality is probably somewhere between the two.

Keep in mind, there is no gaping hole 300 feet long. The berg bumped and may have pierced the hull at a couple of locations. We know this because it only took 1 mine to put a single hole in Britannic that allowed it to sink in 45 mins!

Obviously Titanic was able to have pumps slow the inevitable sinking, and bought precious time. Remember…Andrews told Smith based on his engineering calculations the ship had an hour maybe an hour and a half afloat.

Perhaps, one day we may be able to create exact specific (down to a mm) 3D engineering quality visual of how the bow looks under the mud… but don’t hold your breath (pun intended)

Thanks for your great question and visuals!

 

[MMacleod]

Michael,

Here is a Titanic historians perspective.
Of course, you are asking the 64 million dollar question that every serious Titanic person wants to know.

There is no one that has any hard evidence on an engineering basis for exactly what the bow looks like under the silt/mud

Your two drawings make sense visually but may or may not be truly reflective of what the actual damage looks like…truth be told, the reality is probably somewhere between the two.

Keep in mind, there is no gaping hole 300 feet long. The berg bumped and may have pierced the hull at a couple of locations. We know this because it only took 1 mine to put a single hole in Britannic that allowed it to sink in 45 mins!

Obviously Titanic was able to have pumps slow the inevitable sinking, and bought precious time. Remember…Andrews told Smith based on his engineering calculations the ship had an hour maybe an hour and a half afloat.

Perhaps, one day we may be able to create exact specific (down to a mm) 3D engineering quality visual of how the bow looks under the mud… but don’t hold your breath (pun intended)

Thanks for your great question and visuals!

Hi, thanks for replying to this. I had a look online before writing this post and I couldn't find much detail about the scanning technology that was used to detect the iceberg pierces in the hull. With that amazing 3D capture technology that was just released last month maybe in the next few years a 'deep matter scan' version will become available. Bet there's all kinds of other wrecks, ancient ruins, etc that kind of penetrative scanning technique would start to find.

Looking at the ripples in Britannics bow steel I have to imagine the Titanics gone through something similar, those ripples look like initial impact crushing to me, not later twisting damage. Have a feeling your comment about the real damage being somewhere in the middle of the two illustration examples is probably on the money.

 

[PRR5406]

I think it depends on the depth of the mud before we hit bedrock, which would likely be granite. Considering her bow was built to cleave the ocean, I am going with mostly intact and retaining its designed shape. I've wondered if an ROV could be sent into the bow and manuevered into the forward baggage hold and mail room to identify where the holes have admitted mud.

 

[IanMcD]

If I had to guess Scenario B would be more likely. Though I have a question about the mud on the seafloor there. Is it soft mud? Harder and more like clay? Quite possible the bottom of the bow was already damaged if the Titanic did in fact grounded over the iceberg.

 

[PRR5406]

I have yet to see any evidence to support the theory that "Titanic" ran up and onto a shelf of ice. It's possible the underside of the ship was damaged, but nothing reported by those aboard, nor any forensics, have yet shown that as probable. I think such a condition would have caused the vessel to founder much more rapidly. With the ship slightly listing to one side as starboard flooded, I think the bow remained structurally intact. On impact with the seabed, the immediate resistance of the mud might deform the bow plating. If one looks at the photo of the ship standing in the cradle prior to launch, there appears a pretty streamlined cut-water and underside.

 

[SSNormandie1935]

I was looking at the scans of the wreck, and it appears that the bow has been crushed in underneath the mud.

 

[Ian Donaldson]

"Titanic" film director James Cameron, himself a noted oceanographer who has made more than thirty dives to the wreck site in a submersible, stated:
"The ship hit the bottom approximately at the same speed it was travelling when it hit the iceberg. The bow did not accordion. The ship's structure failed 200 or so feet aft, in front of the bridge. If the ship struck dead on, it would have failed at the same point, right in front of the bridge, and it would have sunk in less than 15 minutes, like the Lusitania, killing almost everyone."
(Titanic-James Cameron's Illustrated Screenplay; by James Cameron, Harper Collins, 1997.)
I have taken this from my forthcoming book, which I have included a link below;

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0C4GZ3Z9Y/?tag=encyclopediat-21

Please forgive my shameless self-promotion!

 

[Scott Mills]

I have yet to see any evidence to support the theory that "Titanic" ran up and onto a shelf of ice. It's possible the underside of the ship was damaged, but nothing reported by those aboard, nor any forensics, have yet shown that as probable. I think such a condition would have caused the vessel to founder much more rapidly. With the ship slightly listing to one side as starboard flooded, I think the bow remained structurally intact. On impact with the seabed, the immediate resistance of the mud might deform the bow plating. If one looks at the photo of the ship standing in the cradle prior to launch, there appears a pretty streamlined cut-water and underside.

There is tons of evidence depending on how much weight you give testimony. There is no physical evidence, of course, because it would be a little difficult to collect at present.

 

[Scott Mills]

"Titanic" film director James Cameron, himself a noted oceanographer who has made more than thirty dives to the wreck site in a submersible, stated:
"The ship hit the bottom approximately at the same speed it was travelling when it hit the iceberg. The bow did not accordion. The ship's structure failed 200 or so feet aft, in front of the bridge. If the ship struck dead on, it would have failed at the same point, right in front of the bridge, and it would have sunk in less than 15 minutes, like the Lusitania, killing almost everyone."
(Titanic-James Cameron's Illustrated Screenplay; by James Cameron, Harper Collins, 1997.)
I have taken this from my forthcoming book, which I have included a link below;

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0C4GZ3Z9Y/?tag=encyclopediat-21

Please forgive my shameless self-promotion!

All well and good; however, I do not think Jim Cameron is accounting for the hardness of the mud on the sea floor versus the hardness of ice, nor do I think he is accounting for the fact that Titanic impacted the sea floor at an angle, then the portion of the bow that impacted the sea floor had to briefly "hold the weight" of the part of bow that had not impacted the sea floor, which I imagine would have put a different type of stress altogether on the keel and the structure of the bow than a head on collision with ice at speed would have.

 

[marina_irc]

All well and good; however, I do not think Jim Cameron is accounting for the hardness of the mud on the sea floor versus the hardness of ice, nor do I think he is accounting for the fact that Titanic impacted the sea floor at an angle, then the portion of the bow that impacted the sea floor had to briefly "hold the weight" of the part of bow that had not impacted the sea floor, which I imagine would have put a different type of stress altogether on the keel and the structure of the bow than a head on collision with ice at speed would have.

The expedition to the wreck by the team aboard the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh in 1991 took core samples of the bottom around Titanic, so it would be possible with those data to model the likely condition of the bow below the seafloor level.

 

[PRR5406]

Until the mud embracing the bow of the ship is either excavated or blown away using water jets,
I have seen no evidence to believe the ship's bow was damaged by running onto a shelf of ice.
Rather, I have seen evidence the first five compartments were ruptured by creasing a wall of ice
resulting in the flooding as described by witnesses. The visuals I've seen show the bottom plowed
bilaterally as the mass was driven forward at speed.
Prove me wrong.

 

[Zirnitra]

all depend how titanic impacted ocean floor,if it was "landing" like airplane,there would be no serious damage to bottom,of course there could be some crumpling but rest would stay undamaged,probably forepeak tank and bottom of cargohold 1 2 will be warped,crushed or something but rest of hull will be in good condition... thats for the bow,most likely we wont see any extremal damage after impacting the bottom..bow dived to ocean floor like bullet and climbed at end,if it was impact at 90 degrees the bow would be crushed like accordeon,at angle 45 still bow would be crumpled seriously that we would not see anchor and sush,it would be pile of garbage so angle had to be around 20-30 when impacting bottom.

as for stern, well poor stern,it circled around when approaching ocean floor,the hull imploded around 75 meters below water but edge of stern does not have signs of implosion,only majority of stern so air had to find other way to exit the edge of stern,impact with ocean floor caused serious damage to the bottom, decks just sandwiched on each other and shell plating was peeled off but we cant see turbine room electric engine room still even with the shell plating gone,its all huge mess after hitting ocean floor....propeller shafts got buckled upwards suggesting that stern hit ocean floors propellers and rudder first then rest.

im naval architect and know metalurgy,

ohh dont uise waterjets,hull condition is poor and we dont know how it will stand when we remove the mud,the bow would open like bird beak (the left side tears off right side) best would be there devices that could look throught the mud,perhaps georadar? removing the mud from bow would be worst thing we could do;.

 

[PRR5406]

Agreed, 100%