Incony

Member
Mar 11, 2020
105
47
73
i don't think anyone has really considered the iceberg and its effect on the hull. the bulk of an iceberg ( 90%) is below the water, yet that particular iceberg was high enough out of the water to deposit ice on the decks.. and folks looked up at the iceberg. For me it says the stress on the titanic's hull, was likely to be much more than the parts that gave way and let water in, and there is supposition that the titanic just grazed it. i don't suggest that the water coming in, was anymore than what is known, but i do think much more of the iceberg was in contact with the titanic , simply because the amount of the iceberg whatever its underwater shape might have been was so large it simply wasn't just pushed out of the way by the titanic.. it was equal or more than it.? How that collision affected the hull, isn't easily researched now, but i do think the iceberg may well have effected stress damage, - flexing, sideways if not upwards as well, that did the titanic no favours.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,166
643
188
21
There’s always a possibility, but computer-simulated projections that only replicate the openings in the hull (and do not take into account any additional stress on the hull) show the break occurring at a stage that matches up with many survivor accounts with about half of the ship being gone at ~25°.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

chrismireya

Member
Apr 7, 2019
51
26
48
Palo Alto, CA
One thing that I am looking forward to once Titanic: Honor and Glory is released is the ability to freeze frame and position myself at the various positions of the survivors. This will give us a good idea at what they were seeing (in accordance with their testimonies).

Given what we know since the discovery of the wreckage, some testimonies are certainly more reliable than others. However, the game itself will (hopefully) allow us to see what the survivors saw from where they were (or claimed to be) at various moments of the timeline during the sinking.

Our eyes can certainly deceive us -- especially during the "fog" of a rapidly developing catastrophe. This is why I think walking in the (virtual) footsteps of the survivors can be helpful in understanding what they interpreted having seen.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,660
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Chris,
What survivors said they saw after the lights went out depended on the ability of a normal human eye to see in complete darkness immediately after seeing blazing lights. Always keep that in mind when considering survivor visual evidence. A pitch-dark night in mid ocean is a sight to see (or not to).;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,166
643
188
21
Chris,
What survivors said they saw after the lights went out depended on the ability of a normal human eye to see in complete darkness immediately after seeing blazing lights. Always keep that in mind when considering survivor visual evidence. A pitch-dark night in mid ocean is a sight to see (or not to).;)

I was under the impression that the lights were growing dimmer and dimmer until most of them were distinguished from the break. I think those close enough definitely would have seen the stern bob back without the bow.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,660
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I was under the impression that the lights were growing dimmer and dimmer until most of them were distinguished from the break. I think those close enough definitely would have seen the stern bob back without the bow.
I don't doubt that those in the water did see the stern come upright again before the lights went out. In fact, if you read the evidence of Trimmer Dillon, he perfectly describes the moment that happened because he was still on Titanic at the time. I was referring to the visual evidence given regarding the time after the lights went out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

chrismireya

Member
Apr 7, 2019
51
26
48
Palo Alto, CA
Exactly. I think that these things explain the discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies. Still, I am glad that Titanic: Honor and Glory will allow us to be in the footsteps of those eyewitnesses.

I do hope that they position the lifeboats accurately too (so that we can see what they saw). Some of the eyewitnesses describe remarkably "detailed" testimony for someone in a lifeboat a half-mile from a sinking ship just after the lights went out.

BTW, I appreciate what "Titanic Animations" (a YouTube channel) attempted in this regard. He did this very thing by showing what survivors saw from their perspectives and distance from the ship in their lifeboats (at sea level) accompanied by their documented testimony. However, TA didn't account for darkness in his computer simulations. It was a very good effort though.
 

Mdaw

Member
Apr 10, 2020
14
2
3
The intact decks in the debris field (pantry, base 3rd funnel, uptake for light & air shaft main engine room) proof the "V" break to be wrong.
View attachment 41754


Regarding the damage to the double bottom pieces, they did not indicate a "V" break. It had been show in "Titanic At 100" how that damage was created (top down break) also Roy Mengot explained it well (bottom up break).
View attachment 41753
Breakup
I have always been a fan of the to down and bottom up break. And don’t mean to different scenarios but the idea that she simultaneously crushed (compressed the bottom) and tore (stretched) and the same time. Tha would result in a hinge effect around C deck, as the stern rapidly ( and I mean really quickly) began to flood it would push the aft of the bow section down (bow not being completely flooded) would bob up (a little bit. Not like the famous sketch but more of a level off a little as felt by passengers)
With the hinge effect happening it would crush the upper decks some giving the illusion of a v break ( as reported by some) and actually accounts for all the data.

bottom compresses and fold up as seen on the keel plates And other keel/hull bottom sections visible. The sudden drop of the stern and aft bow sections would shred, peel and tear hull panels from the ribs as they compress and stretch respectively. The as the stern would sink quickly due to damage and high angle it would sit (ish) on aft bow causing the extreme destruction in this area, with the list to port the bow would pull away peel hull plates along port creating the curled metal and lose playing we see blown out in a curtain on the stern wreck.
This would also give the leveling to the bow to allow her to fall as she did on the ocean floor. In a full top down the bow would have fallen more sharply effecting faceplanting on the floor (which we know she didn’t) and the v break would have had her land on the aft bow section (again we kno this didn’t happen as this part is not buried but more “sat” down after the bow contacted the floor. The angle of the dislodging matter as titanic would have fallen at near the same angle as the final separation.

the remainder of the stern damage of courses come from her corkscrew descent and implosion.
The hinge theory also works to explain how the aft tower and galley became separate and very mangled pieces. And why there is a v shaped section “missing” -found in debris field, where in a purely top down or bottom up fracture the two piece would almost simply fit back together.

I hope my rambling makes some sense. Also to all please note, I am not an engineer, expert etc. I am a Reno carpenter and simply understand the fundamentals of the forces and strains that would be exerted on the ship as the bow sank and stern lifted (I use similar models when doing house lifts, steel installation etc, though surely not he the extent of a master ship builder or proper engineer lol)
 

Mdaw

Member
Apr 10, 2020
14
2
3
The V break scenario is very possible.


When the forward decks flooded and reached E-deck it moved aft and down (witnessed by Mr. Wheat). As the ship settled lower the water rushed into many open portholes (witnessed by Mrs Ryerson) on the port side. The ship was settling down bodily broadside (witnessed by Boxhall and Pearcey), and listing heavily to port, with a very slight trim towards the bow. As the water approached the forward boat deck there came deep explosive sounds inside the ship which some survivors believed were bulkhead walls, and doors collapsing. What would be the result of such a collapse. An enormous volume of water that was bottled up forward would now rush aft, coupled with the water rushing into the open portholes amidships. The ship buckled and breaks. The bow moves forward by the momentum of water rushing from her bow through the collapsed walls and doors and into the middle. Resulting in the bow becoming lighter and rising up as she sank heavily in the middle. e.g.


Rough example. (blue - water) (red - heavy engines)

View attachment 41749

View attachment 41750


Mr. Thayer saw the bow moving forwards and break, so I believe it makes sense that the bow disconnected and as it moved forward it did not have to touch or compress into the stern in any hard physical way when she broke and moved forwards, so both sections did not have to compress together in order for the bow and stern to rise up together.


Although there does appear to be a large piece of metal bent upwards which could have been caused when the stern buckled upwards and pushed against the middle piece and bent the metal upwards as the stern listed heavily and rolled over to port when she broke.


View attachment 41751


Lifeboat 4 was very close to the ship when she broke. Those who were facing the ship would have an ideal view when she broke.


Mrs. Hippach - Lifeboat 4
"The boat listed so much to one side (port list) that I felt sure we would be swamped. When we had rowed about 150 yards away from the Titanic we heard a fearful explosion. I saw the ship split open. At the same time the ship's bow rose up in the air as the steamer sank towards the center."

Mrs. Chaffee - Lifeboat 4
"The ship sank steadily until just at the last, when it plunged rapidly. Just before going down it seemed to writhe (twist), breaking into the three parts into which it was divided. First the middle seemed to go down, lifting bow and stern into the air. Then it twisted the other way, throwing the middle up. Finally the bow went under, and it plunged, stern last."

After the destructive sounds below decks were heard Mr. Mellors and Mr. Daly were both on the forward boat deck and they described how the bow dipped and then rose upwards which allowed them the opportunity to free the collapsible.

Mr. Thayer also heard the destructive sounds below decks and felt her moving forwards. He entered the water and saw the ship continue to move forwards as she broke apart. He outlined a famous sketch of the ship breaking in two with the description stating that the bow had floated for a moment after she broke with her bow sticking upwards and then sank.


The broken keel that separated between the two sections is currently upside down on the seafloor. The keel strip is bent down sharply. This means right side up they must have separated in a V position. The middle section that was above the keel broke off and fell over the side in junks as the bow and stern separated from each other with a large gap in the middle which made it very apparent that she had broken into two large sections, before each section sank independently.



View attachment 41745


View attachment 41746

View attachment 41748

View attachment 41747


I believe the V break position is a very likely scenario.



.
I must ask, if it broke in a V break (physics doesn’t allow this with the added water in the bow btw) why is the keel bent in an S? Would it not have stretched and snapped with more gentle curve as the plates pulled apart? That S is indicative of a buckle which supports the top down or hing break hypothesis.
For the ship to break in a V ther must be buoyancy and both stern and bow. IAW near all testimonies the bow was under as the stern raised. This is because the bow had water and was losing her buoyancy while the stern wasn’t. This would produce a snap. The only way she could have broke in a V was if the primary flooding and loss of buoyancy was nearest the fracture which it was not. V breaks are only common in situ where the ship flexed, bottomed out on a reef, centre impact. Centre impact of course including collision Or wartime strikes.
There is literally no scientific rationale to support titanic would have floundered in a V. That all said a hinge break would have produce and effect resembling a V break. Particularly if the hinge was around C deck. This would allow for all accounts to be as they experienced and as the wreck indicates. Including the two pieces of bounce hull and why they broke as they did.
 

Mdaw

Member
Apr 10, 2020
14
2
3
The diagram on Mengot's website shows the bow significantly below the water with her forward boiler rooms flooded. Have to wonder what evidence this was based off.



View attachment 41854



The survivors saw her settling down bodily deck by deck with a downward tilt that was so slight that some did not even notice it. The increasing list to port and the open portholes along her port side would also greatly affect the angle in which she settled down and broke.



Here is my analysis based on what the survivors saw.




View attachment 41855


First the forward compartments begin to flood and there is a noticeable list to starboard.



View attachment 41856


The ship settles down to E-deck and the water moves aft and down into the turkish bath area amidships. She now settles down bodily as the water follows that direction. Open portholes further aft accelerate the bodily sinking. Survivors now watch her decks dip below the water in unison. Mrs. Candee see's two lines of lights underneath the water. "I could see two lines of portholes under water, brightly lighted." This tells us that the waterline outside the ship was not equal to the water inside the ship.



View attachment 41857

Survivors watch the ship settling very low and listing over to port. The downward tilt is now so slight that some do not even notice it. Each line continues to drop below the water, primarily on the port side.


The water spills over the forward well deck on the port side. The water rushes down at a terrific rate. The ship now begins to list heavily to port. Orders are yelled out "All passengers to the starboard side to keep the ship up as long as possible!" Mr. Collins - "There were hundreds on the starboard side."



View attachment 41858


Owing to the strong list to port the starboard side is now several decks higher. Colonel Gracie believes the ship is about to "topple over".


View attachment 41859

Attempts are now made to push the starboard collapsible 'uphill' towards the edge and lower it down in the traditional manner to the deck below. Mr. Thayer hears a noise that resembles a train rushing overhead. Other survivors hear loud reports that sound like bulkhead walls failing. Mr. Mellors thinks the water tight doors have burst open. The ship suddenly begins to move forwards and the port list rolls back to normal. What has happened!

The ship was settling down so low that the water pressures must have been terrific. If the walls between compartments had burst open by the volume and pressure of water building up and rushing in then the water inside the bow would immediately burst through and rush through the breaches and move aft. This would cause the port list to ease back to normal as the water rushed aft and rolled her port list away.

If the pressures were tremendous then the water would push aft against the walls with increasing force and break them in a domino effect.

Lightoller thinks the weight of people have shifted the ship's position and have given her a "righting movement". Mr. Prentice is on the poop deck and also feels the ship has righted itself. Mr. Thayer also feels the ship has righted and also heard a roar like a train going over a bridge and feels the bow starting to move forwards. She is breaking apart!


View attachment 41860


The ship is buckling as the bow rolls back to starboard and the delayed reaction from the stern causes her hull to twist in the middle. The occupants in lifeboat 4 watch the ship twist and start to break apart. Owing to the delay in the stern rolling back with the bow, it instead resists and breaches the hull as it wants to roll over to port owing to the weight of the engines already heeling down to port. Her hull fractures and the bow takes a violent lurch forwards and downwards.

The survivors in the various lifeboats hear the explosive sounds as she breaks apart and turn around to see the bow lurch downwards as she breaks and the two forward funnels lean forward. A moment later the bow lights extinguish. Those who were quick to focus could see it, others could not.

The middle section partially holds onto the bow and breaks free as the bow moves forward. Mrs. Chaffree is in lifeboat 4 (one of the closest) and watches her break into three.


View attachment 41861


Mr. Daly and Mr. Mellors are close to the starboard collapsible. They feel the bow lurch down as she breaks. They are now in the water up to their waist.

Hippach and Chaffree are in lifeboat 4 and both watch the middle of the ship rapidly sinking down. The third funnel now falls over which causes an enormous wave of water to push forwards and washes almost everyone off the boat deck and pushes them forwards and onto the forward well deck.



View attachment 41862


Mr. Brown is now washed in front of the first funnel and tries to keep out of the crowd of people in the water. He turns and see's the ship has broken. Lightoller panics and tries to swim towards the crows nest. Mr. Dillon is on the stern and looks forward and notices the bow has broken off. Right before the bow had lurched forwards there were explosive sounds deep below which some of the survivors believed were bulkheads failing. This means the water down below would rush aft and through the breaches and therefore lighten the bow and make the middle much heavier. The bow now rises upwards and there is a horrible scene on the forward well deck.

Daly and Mellors feel the bow rising up and are able to free the collapsible as the rings that secured it in place on the deck are now visible once again. Mr. Dillon is on the stern and see's the bow break off and bob back up like a carrot bobbing on the water.

Cecil Fitzpatrick was also trying to free the starboard collapsible. He gave an interview in the 1950's and said:



View attachment 41863


The crowds of people are now caught in a whirlpool as the water rushes into the hollow sections of the bow as the water inside had filtered down and aft via the breached walls.

Mr. Brown is in the water in front of the first funnel. He turns around and see's the stern sticking up in the air with lights blazing.


View attachment 41864



The stern is still ablaze with light and almost everyone's attention is now focused on it. Meanwhile Hippach and Chaffree are both in lifeboat 4 which is very close to the ship. They both watch the bow rising up as she sinks rapidly down in the middle. Mr. Thayer is now in the water and continues to hear the wrenching and tearing sounds as the ship buckles upwards.

Here is a sketch he drew with the added inscription stating the forward end floated after she broke and then sank afterwards. The sketch was later shaded in by a passenger on the Carpathia.


View attachment 41865



The stern now rolls over to port. The bow is sinking fast.


View attachment 41866


Lightoller is sucked away from the crows nest and is pushed against the shaft that leads down to boiler room 6 which is now mostly dry owing to the breached walls inside her which is causing the water inside the bow to roar down and aft. The water is rushing down the empty shaft into the hollow of the ship. He is pulled back twice against the shaft as the water continues to rush into the hollow decks below. The second funnel now falls over to starboard. Thayer is sucked towards it but escapes. The collapsible is also sucked towards it. Lightoller reaches the surface and holds onto a broken piece of wood with a funnel guy wire attached to it. Possibly a broken guy wire that ripped out part of the deck when the second funnel collapsed. He is pulled down again and holds onto the broken piece of wood with all his strength but lets go and is drawn back against the shaft as the water continues to rush in.


View attachment 41867


Finally he feels an enormous release of hot air deep inside the bow which pushes him to the surface with such terrific force that the release of air causes the grating of the shaft to bend outwards. That was a terrific volume of water rushing down that shaft and a terrific expulsion of air coming out!


Lightoller rises to the surface and finds the collapsible boat close by as it was pulled towards the ship by the suction of the collapsing second funnel. The stern is turning around. Her propellers are hovering right above the collapsible. Lightoller holds on and now witnesses the first funnel falling and he estimates that the collapse of the first funnel had pushed the collapsible "half a mile" away from the crowds of people in the water.


View attachment 41868

View attachment 41869


The stern turns around and her lights go out. She settles back slightly and slides down into the sea. The Titanic is gone.

The diagram at the very top from Mengot's website just doesn't agree with the survivors accounts.


.
The only problem here is there was already not enough buoyancy to keep the bow up. The aft of the bow section even as it would have flooded quickly would not have had the weight to lift the forecastle up from below the surface. As the bow had already lost power it would have been harder to see. The bow coming up could have been any part of the boat deck. The mass of water would have been most concentrated in the bow. Was the bow went under it would have stayed under.
If it had enough air in it to regain bouyancy then we have have seen the bow imploded like the stern.
Then only way for the bow to have maintained the preservation it did was if she was flooded already and had nothing to crush (implode).
The lifting of the bow (only a few feet) as described by some testimonies of those trying to launch the collapsible is more in line with a hinged fracture (where a deck held on not the keel) which would allow the rapidly flooding stern to push the aft of the bow section down forcing the bow a little more even before she fully broke away and dove. This also would provide a sheering force that would fracture the structure below the aft tower and funnel 3 giving the forces to allow them to separate. The two pieces of dbl hull found better support a heave than a bottom up or top down alone break instead perhaps indicating that she in fact had both and with the list and angle of the stern as she began her plummet rocked and peel like you while bending a butter knife and twisting at the same time. It would also explain why so much damage occurred to break area. And why some saw a v break, some saw a top down snap etc. With a hinge break and an area like c deck being the hinge it would allows for all types of breaks and the accounts to been seen felt etc.
With a bottom up and top down hinge the damage to the stern would allow it to flood quickly and go down as claimed.
In a clean top down the stern in theory should have maintained her buoyancy at least for longer than just a few minutes. She filled quickly with oh would indicate massive damage while she was still afloat.
As I have said before I am no expert and could be batsh** crazy here lol.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,166
643
188
21
This should clear up most of the confusion around this:

The bow would have absolutely no ability to rise even an inch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mdaw

Member
Apr 10, 2020
14
2
3
My general understanding after reviewing Mengot's breakup map and analysis paper and also what I'm going to be portraying in my real-time animation:

  • The keel begins to fail and bend upwards.
  • The hull plates from the tank top to F/E-deck in this area are bulged outwards and become separated from the internal deck structure.
  • A crack forms following the path of least resistance from the aft-end of Boiler Rm.2 all the way up to B-deck shell plating under/in-front of the No.3 funnel
  • The stern begins to pull itself backward and downward due to the keel failing, which puts additional stress on B-deck and causes it to snap. The crack continues now up to the Boat Deck and the bow and stern are now partially separated.
  • As the stern begins to fall back, the bow begins to increase its angle downward and go under. The forward "missing" keel section in the debris field detaches from the bow. Boilers from Rm.1 tumble out of the ship and head to the sea floor straight down.
  • Due to the aft "missing" keel section attached to the stern also bending upward, and the hull plates in that area and above it being separated from the internal deck structure, 2 things happen. 1) the internal decks (due from weight of all the decks up above) begin to snap themselves apart and break and move downward out of the ship. The galley section, part of D-deck, E-deck, F-deck, and G-deck are all pulverized and fall out of the ship as do the forward cylinders of the reciprocating engines. 2) all of this debris moving downward snaps the aft "missing" keel section off and both keel sections go to the sea bed.
  • The stern settles back in the water but not completely, so as to not create a huge wave while doing so which nobody reported seeing.
  • Due to the pulverized areas leaving the stern, there is now a huge overhang on the stern section near the breakup line in front of the No.3 funnel. About 50-60ft of decking below C-deck is just gone, which puts stress on both the forward hull plates and the decking.
  • A 2nd crack begins to form from this stress and pulls enough that the Boat Deck, A-Deck, B-deck, C-deck in front of the No.3 funnel to the aft expansion joint is separated from the stern and falls as a mostly complete "tower" to the sea bed.
  • The stern now begins to rise vertically in the water because of the hull plates being separated from the internal decking, allowing water to not only fill the Engine Rm. compartment, but also the Turbine Rm. and possibly others as well.
  • The stern reaches a near vertical angle and halts its descent, remaining upright pointing to the sky for maybe 20 seconds - 1 minute before moving "sliding" down and under the surface at 2:20am
  • A few hundred feet under the surface the stern begins imploding, ripping part of the Boat Deck, A-deck, and B-deck port-side off of the stern as another "tower" of debris, this leaves even more decking exposed and possibly compromises the port side hull plates as well.
  • As the stern continues its plummet to the bottom, decking is peeled back and over itself, the hull is separated even further from the internal decking.
  • The stern slams into the sea floor, with almost all of the upper decks collapsing down to D-deck. Effectively flattening itself as the Port-side hull bulges completely outward and away from the ship, and the Starboard-side hull is either detached from the stern here, or completely peeled off during its descent.

    **editing** formatting and grammar
This is the hinge theory I have used in a few of my posts and in my understanding of bend, moment and sheer forces makes the most sense and accounts for literally everything everyone saw from the ship and the rafts. The wreck also indicates this hypothesis the best.
 

Mdaw

Member
Apr 10, 2020
14
2
3
I'm a mechanic, not a scientist, but given the angle the ship was at, air going from boiler rooms 3 and/or 4 to 5 & 6 seems to violate some laws of physics. I've bled air out a lot of cooling systems in my career and I've never seen an air bubble go down.


Statements regarding ships mechanical stuff are, pretty much, bollocks if they're from passengers. Have any of those people ever heard a sinking ship's bulkheads and/or doors failing? If there's a rational comparison of "A sound like a cannon going off." or something similar the person may have actually heard in their lives, I'd give their statement more weight. The message sent by Jack Phillips "...engine room flooded up to the boilers." tells me that Jack Phillips had no clue what a ship's machinery spaces looked like.
I was thinking the same. I can surely say I have no clue what a failing bulkhead sounds like. Nor would I know if that’s what I heard were I there. I do know what explosions should like though lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,166
643
188
21
The hinge theory you describe seems to reflect simply a lessening of the downward slope of the bow due to flooding in the break area. However, no amount of water in that break area could achieve even that. Once the stern had broken away, the bow would have gone plunging down, most likely in the configuration it was in when the separation occured (about 25 degrees down by the head). Eye witnesses saw the broken end of the stern swing up as it broke away and this was the main indication that the breakup had happened. If C deck was a lasting connection until the stern was about to take its final plunge, we wouldn't be able to see the break bob up from under the surface.
 

Mdaw

Member
Apr 10, 2020
14
2
3
I thought it was obvious.


H&G - Their theory of the angle the Titanic obtained just before she broke.

View attachment 41941

H&G - Britannic angle as she suspends in the air slowly for about 5 minutes and then slides down into the sea.


The simulation shows the Britannic listing heavily to starboard with her stern rising high into the air with no signs of explosive reports or breaking on the surface despite having her stern suspended into the air with excessive weight and stress pushing down at one corner (like the south tower of the world trade center). One witness even used his walking cane and pointed it vertical to show how the stern pointed upwards. The Titanic simulation shows the ship listing to port with her stern rising into the air and then breaking apart. Either one ship was far more superior than the other, or a more plausible answer is that the old theory of the Titanic's break up can easily be debunked by examining her sister's sinking and also the survivor accounts who witnessed and heard each ship's sinking.


.
I believe the biggest difference would be that brittanic was list starboard then port applying a twisting to structure. She sank smoothly and maintained a plane of descent. Whereby titanic was know to have listed to starboard, then eventually to port even if minute in nature the rolling effect with have applied thousands of not millions of pounds of force along the titanic structure ultimately weakening her overall.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads