Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,156
632
188
20
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.
While that may not have helped Titanic, I think it ultimately was the force of the stern being lifted out of the air unsupported (and this is backed by forensic analysis and one or two witness hypotheses).
 

Mdaw

Member
Apr 10, 2020
14
2
3
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.
Yes. Totally agree and I’m sorry if that didn’t come through in my post. At no time do I think the bow came back up. Physics doesn’t allow for that. The bow would have been far to heavy. Being as the boat deck wouldn’t have been terribly deep yet (where they were launching collapsible 13) it would have appeared to come back up where in reality the bow would have leveled off. Perhaps raise a mere couple feet but certainly not back up. Just a level off.

you would see the stern come back up at the break. (I wish I could illustrate as it would save so many words. I’m sorry for that.
The stern went in the air - yes.
the ship then fractured and the stern return to near even keel - yes
The stern then began her final plunge - at this time I believe a couple decks were still attached not the keel at the rigid keel would have been to weak to keep the bow attached at all where as the decks were less rigid and able to flex and and bend as well as the plates of the ship. As the stern begins he descent I believe she began to twist (as indicate is testimonies) this twist would have sheered the section nearest the aft of the “missing” section allowing to weaken sufficiently to separate. At this time the bow falls away. At a nearly 25 degree angle. Planing off a little of descent but never fully (as been by the bows impact.
With the stern and weaken after tower sections now sinking the after towers weight breaks her free (this accounts why some saw titanic in three pieces as the bow fell away) the tower falls to the floor rapidly as it is small and easily flooded.
As the stern continues to flood with her plates ripped off the ribs from the twisting as the bow fell away she stands near end up and holds as the air compresses (not straight up as in the movies but at a sharp angle as testimonies gave) as the air compresses and escapes the stern begins her plunge and ultimately shreds and implodes.
I hope I was able to better describe my idea.
By no means to I think the bow ever broke surface after she flooded and dropped below the water line.
 

Mdaw

Member
Apr 10, 2020
14
2
3
While that may not have helped Titanic, I think it ultimately was the force of the stern being lifted out of the air unsupported (and this is backed by forensic analysis and one or two witness hypotheses).
If it was merely the stern lift brittanic would have behaved similarly. There were not identical but they were similar enough. The largest difference between the two was titanics rolling where brittanic listed and continued to list in the same direction as her stern also broke the water and slid under.

the twist is really the only difference. Both had catasteopic injuries to the starboard bow, both went bow first with a stern In the air, Britannic didn’t twist titanic did.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,156
632
188
20
Yes. Totally agree and I’m sorry if that didn’t come through in my post. At no time do I think the bow came back up. Physics doesn’t allow for that. The bow would have been far to heavy. Being as the boat deck wouldn’t have been terribly deep yet (where they were launching collapsible 13) it would have appeared to come back up where in reality the bow would have leveled off. Perhaps raise a mere couple feet but certainly not back up. Just a level off.

you would see the stern come back up at the break. (I wish I could illustrate as it would save so many words. I’m sorry for that.
The stern went in the air - yes.
the ship then fractured and the stern return to near even keel - yes
The stern then began her final plunge - at this time I believe a couple decks were still attached not the keel at the rigid keel would have been to weak to keep the bow attached at all where as the decks were less rigid and able to flex and and bend as well as the plates of the ship. As the stern begins he descent I believe she began to twist (as indicate is testimonies) this twist would have sheered the section nearest the aft of the “missing” section allowing to weaken sufficiently to separate. At this time the bow falls away. At a nearly 25 degree angle. Planing off a little of descent but never fully (as been by the bows impact.
With the stern and weaken after tower sections now sinking the after towers weight breaks her free (this accounts why some saw titanic in three pieces as the bow fell away) the tower falls to the floor rapidly as it is small and easily flooded.
As the stern continues to flood with her plates ripped off the ribs from the twisting as the bow fell away she stands near end up and holds as the air compresses (not straight up as in the movies but at a sharp angle as testimonies gave) as the air compresses and escapes the stern begins her plunge and ultimately shreds and implodes.
I hope I was able to better describe my idea.
By no means to I think the bow ever broke surface after she flooded and dropped below the water line.

I definetly understand the difficulty of reading and interpreting these types of complicated descriptions, lol! Here's what I mean by the stern swinging up during the break:

(exactly at 10:48)

I don't think this would have been possible if C deck were acting as a hinge (also notice how the end of the bow slightly raises). Survivor accounts seem to indicate that it was a fairly clean break, and nothing quite attached afterwards, as it was reported that the stern bobbed there for a minute or two. If there were any major connections like in the hinge theory, I don't think the stern would be able to "float" as long as it was remembered to. To some, the missing bow was the indication that the ship broke apart, not the settling stern.

As for Britannic vs Titanic, Britannic had a much stronger starboard list than Titanic's port list during the plunge. Computer simulations from the Navy also show that it would have broken at an angle of about 25 degrees down by the head regardless (which matches with survivors who saw half of the ship engulfed when the stern settled). They definetly sank very differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mdaw

Member
Apr 10, 2020
14
2
3
I agree the rivets do seem to have held together pretty well in some parts of the wreck. e.g. Here is a section of hull that has bent around 180 degrees.


View attachment 41946






I don't recall any indepth exploration of the wreck that searched for breaches to her bulkhead walls. The breaches between each compartment could have been only a matter of inches and not a total collapse of the entire wall that divided each compartment. The stern of the Britannic was suspended high in the air for a long time before sliding down, yet she did not buckle and break on the surface, so this is why I believe the Titanic theory that her stern was also suspended in the air and then broke does not in my opinion make sense because her sister did the same thing and remained intact. There were accounts that the stern first broke and then rose up afterwards and then settled back. This all ties in with the accounts who saw her stern lights remain on and corkscrew around and presented her keel towards the lifeboats as she turned around. This is why I believe all available accounts need to be examined and integrated together.


.
Brittanic had been twisting as titanic did. Any twisting of the steel would apply further forces then simply tension and compression. Brittanic listed to starboard and stayed there. Titanic did not. That twisting even if slow would apply an empire is amount of axial forces the already stressed tension and compression zones.

not saying I’m right, simply say the two are very different in how they went down.
We can also assume from testimonies brittanic filled faster and more evenly along her side as the nurses had many of not most of the port holes open. While titanic had a sustained natural flooding which would have applied the strains for a much longer period.

watch metal bending videos. The bend starts slow but once it starts it’s accelerates. Brittanic simply was at the surface long enough to have to forces applied for as long.
 

Mdaw

Member
Apr 10, 2020
14
2
3
I definetly understand the difficulty of reading and interpreting these types of complicated descriptions, lol! Here's what I mean by the stern swinging up during the break:

(exactly at 10:48)

I don't think this would have been possible if C deck were acting as a hinge (also notice how the end of the bow slightly raises). Survivor accounts seem to indicate that it was a fairly clean break, and nothing quite attached afterwards, as it was reported that the stern bobbed there for a minute or two. If there were any major connections like in the hinge theory, I don't think the stern would be able to "float" as long as it was remembered to. To some, the missing bow was the indication that the ship broke apart, not the settling stern.

As for Britannic vs Titanic, Britannic had a much stronger starboard list than Titanic's port list during the plunge. Computer simulations from the Navy also show that it would have broken at an angle of about 25 degrees down by the head regardless (which matches with survivors who saw half of the ship engulfed when the stern settled). They definetly sank very differently.
With the hinge theory ... were talking seconds. It simply give account for compression pressures running upward as well as the tension opening up the top as the bow swings down, she pulls the c decking applying a second strain to the hull structure. This literally would have occurred quickly. As the stern tear resurfaces the bow continues to separate and peel the double hull and plating off of the stern opening up the stern and giving the stern the signature roll to port as she brings her descent. I don’t think the bow “hung onto the stern and pulled the stern down as in the banana peel idea. I more so think the falling stern used the c deck structure to push the aft bow down giving it the leveling sensation noticed by some on board as the bow immediately began her death plunge tearing away from the stern. Not slowly but remarkably quickly. So quickly I belive by the time the stern bobbed up the bow had already levelled and detached and was progressing forward and down as witnesses claimed.
There are too many accounts of the bow moving forward as she sank for the banana peel theory to work. For that to happen the bow would have been nearly if not entirely gone from the surface and at an angle closer to 60 degrees down. Due to the shape of the bow this would have resulted in more of a drill into the bottom as opposed to the settling seen from a descent of about 25 degrees.
 

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
285
75
63
49
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Here's my idea of how the Titanic may have broken up and sunk. The bow separated from the stern and corrected her list and sank. The "resurfacing prow" was probably the detached first funnel sinking perpendicularly.

A 3D presentation via screenshots:

1.PNG

2.PNG

3.PNG

4.PNG

5.PNG


What are your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
285
75
63
49
Halifax, Nova Scotia
I was moving a rather heavy model of a ship the other day and I noticed that when not lifting it evenly at the bow or stern the model (just like a real ship) began to hog. What was interesting though is that this model, which was made up of several pieces put together, started to come apart from where the superstructure would be on Titanic. This got me thinking about the break up and rather it occurred not from the top down or the down up but from beneath the superstructure, so I threw this together. Hope it makes sense; it’s a word vomit of the idea so anyone feel free to mess around with it.
  1. The stern wants to go down, this creates an upwards pressure on the hull, and this causes a separation that begins at the superstructure. The stress is centered between the forward and aft towers. The double bottom is also compressed upwards.
  2. Either individually or at the same time the forward edge of the forward tower and aft edge of the aft tower begin, and the forward edge of the forward double bottom piece and the aft edge of the aft double bottom piece give in.
  3. The superstructure breaks allowing the stern to fall.
  4. The two superstructure tower pieces come off, with the forward probably going first and the forward one disconnecting as soon as its submerged due the water pushing it upwards but the sinking of the hull forward pushing it downwards allowing the hinge that was created on its aft side to break. (This could also indicate what some may have thought was the ‘bow’ resurfacing.) It is also possible that the aft tower piece is connected to the forward tower piece and they eventually break apart.
  5. The forward edge of the double bottom is bent downwards as the stern lands on an even keel, but as the stern rises it is again compressed upwards, this edge gives and the bow section floats away.
  6. The boilers and coals spill out. Possibly the forward engine as well or this engine stays until the double bottom tears off.
  7. As the stern begins to sink the double bottom pieces flips aft (maybe even folding back on itself).
  8. The double bottom comes off as a whole, hardly holding together, but they eventually break apart close to the ocean floor. The large wreckage next to the double bottom also comes off.

Attached is a rough pictorial of the above.View attachment 44612
This is very plausible. And this (I believe caused by the massive hot boilers imploding after interacting with icy cold water) may've made the ship's superstructure to break apart and twist into different directions (the bow correcting her list and sinking first, the stern listing even more heavily to port and breaking again around the area of the aft grand staircase) giving the impression to survivors that the Titanic's bow "rose again." I think you'll agree.
 
B

Bob_Read

Guest
Pick your break-up theory. There’s one for anyone’s taste. And they all have the advantage that they can’t be proved right or wrong. What could be better?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
285
75
63
49
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Something close to that. The bow would've lurched forward after she broke from the stern and disappeared. Also, the front section would be listing to starboard at this point.

breaking.png


bow.png


What do you think?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
285
75
63
49
Halifax, Nova Scotia
I think the air trapped inside the bow wanted to escape - this exerted force caused the bow to break free from the stern and lurch forward.

Major Peuchen said, "I imagined that the decks had blown up with the pressure, pulling the boat down, bow on, this heavyweight, and the air between the decks; that is my theory of the explosion... I think it was the pressure, that heavy weight shoving that down, the water rushing up, and the air coming between the decks; something had to go."
 
Last edited:
J

Jaden Maxwell

Guest
I think the air trapped inside the bow wanted to escape - this exerted force caused the bow to break free and lurch forward.


This video of a boat sinking at 0:45 shows the air escaping and the boat being pushed forwards. That was only a small boat in rough seas. Can you imagine the force released from the Titanic when she broke and sank in the middle on a flat calm sea. Maybe that's why Jack Thayer felt the ship moving forwards when he was still on it, and later when he was in the water he could see the bow still moving forwards. Thomas Oxenham said "When the big ship parted and the hulks drifted apart before going under we all sat still shivering and afraid."




There were some passengers who thought the trapped air inside the ship had burst out. That would tie in with the passengers who saw sparks and smoke and steam hissing out of the ship. If the pipes were burst open when the ship broke then maybe the steam had exploded out like this scene in New York. If the pipes connecting the bow and stern had severed would the force of the steam and air push the bow and stern away from each other?


 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rennette Marston

Rennette Marston
Member
May 23, 2020
285
75
63
49
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Just today, I made a video about the Titanic break-up and sinking on YT. It is on my other channel. I hope you'll enjoy it and perhaps add more insight so I'll make better Titanic-related videos in the future.


What do you think?
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,153
497
158
16
Maryland, USA
According to the thoughtful study «Flooding and Structural Forensic Analysis of the Sinking of the RMS Titanic» by J.W. Stettler (M) and B.S. Thomas (M), the maximum peak Bending Moment Hogging Stress appeared at surface, when the trim reached 22-23 degrees and in the area of the after expansion joint.

View attachment 37625
Login Required
yea doesn't the computer physics sim confirm a top-down break? so we know a v-break or bottom first break didn't happen?
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,153
497
158
16
Maryland, USA
Simulations put the breaking in two far too late in the sinking. Survivors saw all 4 funnels intact when she broke in two. Even survivors on the boat deck described the ship breaking in two when all 4 funnels were intact. e.g.


Edward Brown

"With the first report of that explosion I saw the afterpart of the ship giving a tremble like this (showing), and I thought by the afterpart going up like this (showing), and giving a bit of a tremble that the bow had fallen off. I might be wrong."

Q - When the afterpart gave this tremble, where were you then?
A - In the water; right before the forward funnel.
Q - Did you notice whether the lights of this afterpart were still lighted or not?
A - There were lights burning then.


The bow broke away from the stern and the stern canted upwards with its lights still on. This is when survivors who did not believe she broke in two saw the stern high in the air with its lights still on. The stern settled back afterwards and rose up again before going down.


Survivors heard two distinct explosions. One before she sank and the second during.


QM Rowe - "It was not an ordinary explosion, you understand; more like distant thunder."
Q - Was that before or after the ship sank?
A - Before she sank, sir.




Mr. Clench
Q - Did you hear any explosion?
A - I heard two explosions, sir.
Q - Immediately preceding the sinking of the ship?
A - Yes. Well, before the ship had sunk there was one explosion.
Q - How long before the ship sank?
A - I should say a matter of 10 minutes before she went under.
Q - There was?
A - Yes, sir.
Q - What did you think that was, one of the boilers bursting?
A - I figured that the water got up around one of the boilers, sir.
Q - Then in about 10 minutes there was another explosion?
A - There was another explosion, but I could not say how long from one to the other.
Q - Then did the ship disappear?
A - The lights went out after the second explosion. Then she gradually sank down into the water very slowly.
Q - How long a time would you say it was after the second explosion before she sank out of sight?
A - I should say a matter of about 20 minutes.



This was the ship starting to breaking in two and the bridge taking a sudden plunge, the sea rushing into the broken decks, the weight of the water and the stern pushing hard down against it, forcing enormous amounts of water and air to expel and rush out of the ship and the bridge to come up again as the stern cants upwards and then settles back.


I came to this understanding by reading the following accounts.


William Mellors

"At this time it was almost impossible to walk on the deck without you caught hold of something owing to the ship heeling right over. (port list) We were trying to fix up a collapsible boat when she gave the first signs of going under. There seemed to be a tremble run through the whole of the ship and the next thing we heard were loud reports inside which I think were the water-tight doors giving way (ship breaking in two) and before you could say Jack Robinson there seemed to be mountains of water rushing through the doors, (the bow being pushed down by the broken stern and forcing water out) and I was swept away from where I was right against the collapsible boat, and I simply clung on for all I was worth, whilst all this was going on she was going under water and it seemed as if thousands of men were dragging me under with her, when suddenly her nose (forward boat deck) on which I was seemed to suddenly rise from underneath the water (stern pushing down on bow) and I and a few more that were close by cut the ropes that held the boat to the falls (davits). There was suddenly an explosion (the larger explosion that broke the bow off) and I found myself whizzing through the water at an awful pace, having been blown away by the explosion. When I came to my senses a few minutes after I looked round and suddenly saw the ship part in the middle with the stern standing several hundred feet out of the water (stern sticking up, at this time I was trying to swim away from her, but could not get more than a few yards away and I had as much as I could do to hold myself up from being dragged down with her. But the suction was not so great as I imagined it would be.



Eugene Daly

“I reached a collapsible boat that was fastened to the deck by two rings. It could not be moved. During that brief time that I worked on cutting one of those ropes, the collapsible was crowded with people hanging upon the edges. The Titanic gave a lurch downward and we were in the water up to our hips. She rose again slightly, and I succeeded in cutting the second rope which held her stern. Another lurch threw this boat and myself off and away from the ship into the water."


August Weikman

"The ship was at an angle that it was impossible for anybody to remain on deck. (port list) After I was washed overboard I started to swim, when there was a pile of ropes fell upon me, and I managed to get clear of these and started to swim for some dark object in the water. It was dark. This was about 1.50 a.m. toward the stern......My watch was stopped at that time by the water. I was about 15 feet away from the ship when I heard a second explosion. I think the boilers blew up about in the middle of the ship. The explosion blew me along with a wall of water toward the dark object I was swimming to......There was a great number of people killed by the explosion, and there was a great number that managed to get far enough away that the explosion did not injure them, and these are the people that I think could have been saved had the lifeboats been close."


Lightoller was not in a position to see the ship break in two, and was adamant that the Titanic sank "absolutely intact" and yet he admitted the ship exploded twice and that the ship had already turned around when he reached the surface. For all of that to happen before he even reached the surface is a strong indication that the ship broke much earlier and caused the bow to take its temporary plunge before it flooded properly, and looking at the above accounts we can see the survivors who witnessed all 4 funnels intact when she broke is much more likely.


.
hmm... but survivors in Collapsible B say the first funnel falling washed them away from the ship. That'd be my first problem, among others..
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,153
497
158
16
Maryland, USA
Jim,

· Who is talking about the rivets inferiority?
· For the longitudinal toughness as per the previous figures, what is the difference between 0°c and 20°c? Virtually nada zero!
· Where was that outside freezing temperature coming from … the Golf Stream? The wind blowing over the freezing Labrador Current?
· If a freezing air temperature was blowing over a warmer sea temperature, you would have to admit that super-refraction existed and that all the calculations to estimate the distances between the vessels on the scene, would have to be recalculated taking due account of that abnormal propagation.
· Did the SS Olympic allided with an iceberg? Was she rammed in the center by a vessel of her class progressing at 21½ knots through haze?
· SS Britannic sank like a stone upon hitting a single mine and that, after refit. She plunged into only 400 feet of water and broke in two pieces.
· If the 1912 marine steel quality was good, that means that his modern counterpart grade is armor indestructible and rust free.

If you observe ship side fragments that were salvaged from the abyss, one can notice that the ruptures are as neat as brittle glass fractures. There are the same brittle steel fragments all over the ocean floor. The stern section which was subject to much more water resistance than the bow section seems like having going through an atomic explosion. If the steel was that good, the main structure would have been found in much better condition, like the modern ones discovered.
but if it was inferior steel, wouldn't Titanic have been found in a worse state than she was? I may be misunderstanding, sorry if so, but in 1985, only the end where the ship broke in two and the raised roof was collapsed. To me, 73 years and only that damage to the Bow seems amazing. And,
Jim,

· Who is talking about the rivets inferiority?
· For the longitudinal toughness as per the previous figures, what is the difference between 0°c and 20°c? Virtually nada zero!
· Where was that outside freezing temperature coming from … the Golf Stream? The wind blowing over the freezing Labrador Current?
· If a freezing air temperature was blowing over a warmer sea temperature, you would have to admit that super-refraction existed and that all the calculations to estimate the distances between the vessels on the scene, would have to be recalculated taking due account of that abnormal propagation.
· Did the SS Olympic allided with an iceberg? Was she rammed in the center by a vessel of her class progressing at 21½ knots through haze?
· SS Britannic sank like a stone upon hitting a single mine and that, after refit. She plunged into only 400 feet of water and broke in two pieces.
· If the 1912 marine steel quality was good, that means that his modern counterpart grade is armor indestructible and rust free.

If you observe ship side fragments that were salvaged from the abyss, one can notice that the ruptures are as neat as brittle glass fractures. There are the same brittle steel fragments all over the ocean floor. The stern section which was subject to much more water resistance than the bow section seems like having going through an atomic explosion. If the steel was that good, the main structure would have been found in much better condition, like the modern ones discover
 

Similar threads

Similar threads