Georges Guay

Member
Feb 26, 2017
722
161
88
1. When a ship is stationary in a body of water and a current is acting uniformly along one side of it, it will align at approximately right angles to the current. The ship will drift down current at the rate of the current.
When that same ship starts to move, an additional current called a wake current is set up. This effects steering and is noticeable by the helmsman. If a helm order is given to turn the ship into the current, then the bow will attempt to push against the current, again, the helmsman will require to carry extra helm in the opposite direction to the current. The steering of Titanic does not indicate she was steaming across a current. here';s the proof:
"942. Was she a good steering ship? A: - Fairly well, yes.
943. 943. Up to the time of the collision did she vary from her course at all? A: - Not that I am aware of, not more than a degree on either side.".

If there had been a south setting 1.2 current, her head would be swinging and she would have been carrying port helm (in 1912 parlance).

Not so sure about that Jim. If a vessel proceeds into a calm body of ocean water where a beam current exists, there will be absolutely no effect on the steering. If the rudder is perfectly positioned to compensate the propeller transverse thrust, you can let her go and she will steer straight as long as the elements still the same. The vessel will just drift with the current and the heading will the course over the water. But it will be another matter if the wind increases. A turning moment will be created between the center of gravity and the wind impact on the center of the sail area, which will have to be compensated at the wheel. A passenger vessel tends to beam the wind.

But if you want to follow a course over the ground, you will have to adjust the heading accordingly. But still, there will be no effect on the steering if the weather is calm.
 

Georges Guay

Member
Feb 26, 2017
722
161
88
In the case of Titanic, she was turning left. The wash of the left prop was playing on the face of the hard over rudder, causing the stern to be pushed to the right and consequently the bow to the left. At the same time, the thrust of the starboard prop was assisting the turn by also pushing the bow to the left. When the efficiency of the starboard prop, was reduced, the left turning action would suffer and the bow would not swing as fast as desired.

The lateral outward turning propellers were way off the center line. They virtually made no thrust on the center rudder. What made the vessel turning was the center propeller thrust on the rudder. When the vessel was proceeding at harbor speed the center prop stopped, the vessel was steering like a tall ship. Actually the rudder design was much closer to a tall ship one than a motor vessel. Furthermore, they were still giving tall ship tiller orders !
 

B-rad

Member
Jul 1, 2015
609
214
108
39
Tacoma, WA
The port propeller is half buried in the mud and the base for the third blade is hidden below the mud. The area is greatly disturbed by the effects of the third blade digging deep into the mud and driving the mud upwards around the base of the propeller. However this is not the case with the starboard propeller. The mud around the base of the propeller is not unsettled, so nothing has been pushed down forcing the mud up around the base, and there is a huge hole where the third blade would have been mounted, and the bolts that held it in place are also missing.
View attachment 2828
.


I believe at least one of the bolts. I outlined it in the purple circle

prop bolt.jpg
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Thanks. Survivors said the ship broke the iceberg and when they looked over the side they saw a "veritable sea of ice" as the iceberg broke apart as it passed by. At least nine survivors believed she had dropped a blade, including several who were aboard the Olympic when she dropped a blade and the vibration they felt was in their minds was the same thing happening again, including survivors near the stern who felt the ice passing underneath them. QM Rowe believed she was going full speed astern immediately after the collision and instinctively pulled up the log line. Perhaps the vibration he felt was the effects of the lost blade which soon subsided as the ship was in the process of stopping. Survivors believed the ship later went slow ahead. I believe Captain Smith (who experienced a lost blade aboard the Olympic) may have thought what the others had thought and believed she had lost a blade owing to the vibration from bow to stern, and wanted to check to see if the propellers were safe by moving ahead again, but understandably did not want to steam ahead too much on account of the presence of ice. Mr. Stengel said, "They started again just slightly; just started to move again. I do not know why; whether they were backing off, or not. I do not know. I hardly thought they were backing off, because there was not much vibration of the ship." This slight vibration may have been the effects of the lost blade on the starboard propeller. It may even have helped to turn the ship northwards as the port propeller had better thrust, and was aided by the helm still being hard over after the collision, helping the stern to swing further away until it was 2 ships' lengths away and abaft of the engine room.


Imagine the starboard propeller beating against a growler or possibly a large amount of broken ice from the iceberg. e.g. Skip to 2:16




.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 2, 2017
10
1
13
Gentlemen, hold onto your seats. Has anyone considered that the Titanic never hit an iceberg? After all of these years and explanations, the explanations for this grand steel ship just coming apart does not do justice to hot rolled 1/2" plate steel. The British knew how to make steel and place rivets. Don't give me the cold theory, the temperature of liquid seawater is not even near the minus 60 F you need to make steel brittle. Maybe she was blown apart. Has anyone stopped to wonder why she broke up while she was in the act of sinking on a calm ocean? What caused so many parts of the Titanic to come completely dislodged such that there is a debris field on the bottom which measures 3 x 5 miles. Isn't it a lot more likely that the Titanic was deliberately demolished? The bottom of the hull failed in three places, right? That goes against the conservation of energy: a structure only fails in one place. Not three simultaneously. Check out titanic-and-hindenburg.weebly.com Thanks for reading and always remain curious. The search for the real truth never stops.
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,594
722
188
Firstly, Welcome to ET!

Secondly be warmed, ET has some of the Titanic's top historians and experts here and many conspiracy theories like "The Olympic Switch" or "Coal Fire Damage" have been quickly explained and debunked. What your suggesting is quite a claim that has a a lot of evidence that does not support it.

Has anyone considered that the Titanic never hit an iceberg?

There are hundreds of eyewitness accounts by both Passengers AND Crew who saw the iceberg passing by on deck and and their cabins. The Forward Shelter deck was even seen covered in Ice which fell when ice was cut off by the rigging. Also while it might have been possible to bribe and slience the crew (and then hope they didn't immediately confess it to paying reporters or family members) trying to silence the Passengers many of who were some of the most wealthiest and well known people in the world would be impossible.

Maybe she was blown apart.

Thanks to the Mauritania, we have a copy of Titanic's Cargo manifest here: Cargo Manifest so we know no gunpowder was being carried on board. However what reason would their for an explosion to occur? White Star had no need to deliberately sink their new ship (which many have proved wasn't Olympic). trying to blow a hole in the hull would have caused the ship to heave up and down as if mined which would have been oblivious to everyone on board while many passengers slept though the collision or thought simply the ship had shed a propeller blade.
Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 23.00.24.png

(Still of HMHS Britannic being mined on November 21st 1916. Note how the high the bow has jumped. Had Titanic a) been blown up and b) suddenly heaved upwards, the force and sudden movement would have been noticed thought out the whole ship. Taken from "HMHS BRITANNIC SINKS - REAL TIME DOCUMENTARY" by Titanic: Honor & Glory)

Has anyone stopped to wonder why she broke up while she was in the act of sinking on a calm ocean?

Titanic broke up because she had never been designed to have half her weight of 46,328 tons hanging in the air out of the water with her bow weighted down with water. Others can explain it better than me but it's been proven she actually exceed her believed integrity.

What caused so many parts of the Titanic to come completely dislodged such that there is a debris field on the bottom which measures 3 x 5 miles.

When the stern sank, unlike the bow which was already filled with water from the collision / breakup. The Stern was full of air pockets and Cork and at reaching a certain depth imploded which shredded the stern and put her into a corkscrew route to the ocean floor causing debris to fly off and fall out.

See this example: "Titanic 2013 sinking theory (History Channel simulation)"

Also the 3rd section disintegrated and flaked across the seafloor.


PS: Looking at this later, I realised I might have been a bit harsh to you Kenneth M. Price Jr. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Pac0master

Member
Nov 29, 2017
41
25
48
It's an interesting question which I'd rather leave to the experts, (Naval architects, Engineers)
Though I wanted to provide my thought on it.


Interestingly enough, I never managed to get the ship to break at the base first.


Another very interesting observation came in the Simulation, from times to time, if the Titanic takes too much water quickly, it fails to lean forward enough for the stern to break away.
water pushes the Ship downward faster than it leans forward.
I'll try to record a failed attempt some day. (I have no way to know if it will fail or not beforehand)

It basically sinks in a similar manner as the Britannic. (excepts its 2D so it can't lean on its sides)

Of course, the Simulator isn't meant to account for every detail, So it's by no mean a scientific simulation.
though it's a fun tool to mess around and visualize what might have happened.

TL;DR
I'm in favor of the breaking point starting at the top.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,668
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>After all of these years and explanations, the explanations for this grand steel ship just coming apart does not do justice to hot rolled 1/2" plate steel.<<

Better check your facts as the hull plating averaged an inch thick. If you think that's impressive, try building say a 1:144 scale model of the ship using metal plating on the hull which would be scaled down to 1/144th of an inch. That's barely the thickness of tissue paper. Hardly an armoured juggernaut.

The strength of the hull came from all the framework inside so that what you had was a very light but also very tough box girder.

That said, as tough as the hull girder was, it wasn't impervious to anything. Steel ships had been having run ins with icebergs ever since ships were built of iron and steel and in any such contest, the iceberg was OBSERVED to have won out every single time.

Likewise, the Titanic's allision with the iceberg is an observed and well attested fact. Whatever theories you come up with have to be consistent with observed fact or they are worthless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Dec 13, 2016
149
54
73
31
Personally, and this has to be taken with a grain of salt because I'm not a physicist or an engineer, but I think the answer to the OP's question is both. I think most simulations tend to simplify the break up, as if one breaks a pencil or cracks an egg. I think its possible that the break up may have began at both the top of the ship and the bottom. The entire ship may have came apart in one massive undoing, as opposed to the simplified single point failure that begins at the bottom or the top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Dec 23, 2017
1,128
744
188
I remember seeing something interesting footage in the Titanic At 100 on the History channel (Sorry if this has already been brought up) but they showed some brief footage of the in the word's of park "A pile of crap on the ocean floor" of the deck house from under the third funnel. What i found interesting is that you can see for the few seconds of footage (again the full footage is not available to the public so i might be wrong) That the brass casing of the aft expansion joint intertwined with the wreckage and a sliver (to me) of the expansion joint itself. Unless the full footage shows that im seeing it wrong but it almost seems that the expansion joint actually survived the break up. Again i might be totally wrong but i thought it was an interesting thought
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,167
643
188
21
The aft expansion joint had absolutely nothing to do with the breakup. It probably would have opened up, but the actual break of the ship was on the other side of the third funnel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Dec 23, 2017
1,128
744
188
Thats was basically what i was trying to say, but you did it better :) If anything the expansion joints helped delaying the breakup with allowing some extra breathing room before peak stress where reached
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,662
1,399
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Like most ships, Titanic was built like a girder...strong along the top and bottom. The keel and plates on each side were the base of the "girder" and the sheer strake... the continuous heavy plating running along the entire length on each side of C deck was the top of the "girder".
The hull would stay in one continuous length as long as these strength members were intact. The moment one side of the sheer strake parted was the beginning of the end. I suspect the loud reports heard my many was the main strength members failing suddenly... possibly due to a twist being imposed into the hull as she lurched to one side. As Kyle wrote, the expansion joint had nothing to do with the failure. I've seen this suggested before. What would be the point of having such a weak point in a structure which was subjected to all kinds of pitching rolling and gyrating in a heavy sea?:eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Dec 23, 2017
1,128
744
188
Exactly! the reason i brought it up is because i myself have never believed it caused the break up, i simply brought the wreck footage up is for proof to the nay sayers that the expansion point caused the failure. If anything caused the break up to start at the bottom it only be like (and its really wrong to cite it but it shows it quite well for what im trying to explaining) is in the 97 film when the first scene of the break up starting at the waterline you see that as the structure changes shape the hull just above the double bottom bows out slightly like squishing a balloon. Its hard to explain but i think you get my idea
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,167
643
188
21
Yup. A two and a half year naval architectural study even proved that the keel buckled upwards before the shell plating and decking failed. This was probably the first of the two “BOOM”s survivors heard during the breakup.
 

Bully2323

Member
Dec 29, 2017
16
7
13
Hello everyone! Maybe my question was asked (but I don't understand all the messages you wrote 'cause I'm french) but what do you think about the fact that the front part has emerged again when the ship broken up?
As some eyewitnesses tolds:

This could explain why the decks are collapsed on the rear of the front part?
Have a nice day !
 

Similar threads

Similar threads