Quality of steel in Titanic's hull

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
894
370
73
18
I had experiences with people who look up Titanic on Google search on their Mobile phones and immediately proclaim themselves ''Experts" while my word and experience would automatically mean nothing!

Them: "Titanic was powered by a car engine!"
Me: No it wasn't...it was powered by 29 triple scott boi....
Them: (Insert explicit crude language) ...Martin!, my phone says so (holds up Google Images photo of Mauritania as prove).
Me: :mad: (Internal Screaming).

Thank goodness those days are over!
Who else still gets a tiny bit frustrated when someone blindly buys into the coal fire theory or the head on collision?
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,490
525
123
You don't know how Internally enraged I get when:

A) documentary or someone will show footage of the Lusitania or Olympic departing New York and then expect me (and other Titanic experts) to not notice this!

B) Titanic is illsturtated with RED Funnels or The Lusitania or Maruetania is incorrectly named as Titanic

C) See examples in attachments below:

(Insert enraged screaming) :mad:

Back To Topic (and quickly)!

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 09.14.24.png


Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 09.23.40.png
 
Last edited:

robert warren

Member
Feb 19, 2016
172
53
38
Are those days ever really over??? I just read a post some time ago by a guy talking about all the Model T's stowed in Titanic's cargo hold!!What??? Of course I had to set the record straight on THAT one.Where or from who did that come from????!!!!!! Where do people get this stuff??
 
Last edited:

robert warren

Member
Feb 19, 2016
172
53
38
Yes I get frustrated with the coal fire thing. Like it was a version of The Towering Inferno down there!!!!!! I have to ask people, since when does a smoldering coal bunker make a 882 ship plunge to the bottom????
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,490
525
123
Are those days ever really over??? I just read a post some time ago by a guy talking about all the Model T's stowed in Titanic's cargo hold!!What??? Of course I had to set the record straight on THAT one.Where or from who did that come from????!!!!!! Where do people get this stuff??
Yes I get frustrated with the coal fire thing. Like it was a version of The Towering Inferno down there!!!!!! I have to ask people, since when does a smoldering coal bunker make a 882 ship plunge to the bottom????
Don't worry everyone, I set up a thead to vent your anger at naive Titanic experts and mistakes Titanic Basic Mistakes and Amateur Errors: What's Your Experience (and Internally Enraged Reaction)?

Selfish promoting aside, Back To Topic!

I swear the ''Weak Metal" idea is just an excuse for TV shows possibly to increase airtime, I seen at least several shows where they test metal either 100 years old or made using the same technique to just discover it' functioned past expectations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Aldrich

robert warren

Member
Feb 19, 2016
172
53
38
Yes I do enjoy a good laugh over that one. It's like punching a brick wall bare fisted, then someone saying "well the reason your hand is so jacked up is because the skin and bones in it are inferior quality naaaahhh!"Ha ha !!!
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
We should ask ourselves "How did the rivets found near the wreck become detached from their original locations?"
They were most certainly nothing to do with the original impact which took place at least half to three quarters of a mile north and east of the wreck site.

Ship's rivets do not 'pop out'. Nor do they fall out. In all the years I have sailed, worked in ship-building and repair yards and as a Marine Accident Investigator, I have never come across a case where rivets were either pushed out or popped out.
Rivet holes were not parallel sided but slightly conical in shape. This happened during the 'punching' process. Likewise, rivets were slightly conical under the head to fill the wide end of the punch hole. The only way a rivet could 'pop' or drop out would be if it sheared mid-shank as when the faces of the plated to be joined slid in relation to each other. I could imagine such an event when one of two plates riveted together was suddenly stopped moving by a solid resistance and the other plate was free to continue moving. i.e., falling from a height onto a ledge. However, such a situation could never have happened on the sided of Titanic. The internal framing gave massive rigidity.

Jim C.
I think you are giving the internal framing at the Titanic too much credit. I looked at the design of the Keel and correct me if I'm wrong but the whole garters were attached to the top of the double bottom. If the ship ran aground then the Keel would ask for like a foundation of a building and would be structurally compromised like the foundation of a building or a house would be compromised if the ground underneath it shifted.

I have read a lot of your post David and I will take your opinion highly so I'm going to pose this question to you as a forensic expert. Is it possible that the condition of the Bow wreck it's in actuality how it would have appeared on the surface or near the surface? Is it possible that I have deeper into the ocean that the underwater pressure would have slowed the shift down to a point so that she would gently touch the bottom? If that were so then a reevaluation of the wreck is in order because I firmly believe that's erect as it lies tell the entire story of The Break-Up.

Also if you look at the Olympic's 1913 refit I am under the impression that Harland and Wolff realized that their ships were not strengthened enough and that is why the bulkheads were raised in certain locations, such as between Boiler Room 6 and hold 3, at an angle between boiler rooms 3 + 4 and the first expansion joint, the bulkhead between Boiler Room one and the reciprocating engine room and another one that split the electrical rooms. The four ball cats that I indicated all went straight to the strength deck.

Another reason why I theorize that the wreck on the seafloor is how the Titanic broke up is because when you look at the Britannic and how she hit the ocean floor and her bow wrinkled right up into herself and also happen to break off in front of Bulkhead D in a clean up and down line.

As I asked before please look over my post and see if any of it could make any sense. I do not believe in any impact damage because if there was then the Titanic would be unrecognizable for she would have broken up on impact to the sea floor because her ceiling framing had been weakened from The Break-Up would have been caused the outer skin to completely Blow Away much like the stern.

I read an article by Joe Combs where he theorize with the ship partially broke on the surface but that the stern was dragged Down By The Bell until the pressure got so great that the stern imploded and finally separated which also blew away the forward sections of the reciprocating engine and the third funnel tower up take.

It would all work within the Survivor testimony especially when Lightoller said that the Crow's Nest was even with the bridge while still being relatively flat on the surface as related to the testimony of other survivors. The only way those two testimonies could work together is if the bow hogged then broke as indicated on the wreck by the separation of the plates and the downward turn of the bow as we see it on the bottom.

If that is the case then that would lead to a catastrophic keel failure and it would all happen so fast that what people thought was a stable sinking ship with a 10 degree list to port to turn into a dramatic breaking up sequence and final death that was over in less than 20 minutes.

I based my theory on the idea that the center of the ship is like a rectangular box with two tapered and attached to each end of said box.

Olympic was later known as a strong ship and that has everything to do with her bulkheads being raised and the addition of her double bottom up to the waterline. It further strengthen the ship so that when she ran and sank a submarine and then later cut through the Nantucket Lightship that she suffered relatively minor damage. If you look at the length and width of the keel compared to the upper works of the bow section it is plainly obvious that the keyless affording more weight in that section forward of boil or 6 then it could hope to ever support through Keel and girders alone.

These are my thoughts and maybe someone will understand where I am coming from and explain to me where I am wrong and show proof to me. Many have asked what Harland and Wolff knew about the design of the Titanic and her supposed weaknesses and I think you will find out what Harland and Wolff knew has been in front of us the entire time.

Travis
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
Also if you look at the Olympic's 1913 refit I am under the impression that Harland and Wolff realized that their ships were not strengthened enough.
There's no evidence that was the case, Travis, despite all sorts of misinformation and sensationalised claims on the subject that many of us will have seen.

It further strengthen the ship so that when she ran and sank a submarine and then later cut through the Nantucket Lightship that she suffered relatively minor damage.
Olympic's bow was the same in all relevant respects to her 1911 configuration.

Best wishes

Mark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Currie
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
I haven't read anything in regards to what I hypothesized. I came up with that on my own and maybe I wasn't clear but I never said that the Olympic's bow was ever rebuilt. I hypothesized that the raising of D bulkhead to the strength deck was an attempt to shore up the entire hull along with the other three bulkheads that I referenced as well. If you compare where those bulkheads were raised in relation to the Titanic wreck and The Break-Up it is oddly that all the bulkheads that were lifted to the strength has deck in areas of weakness that you can see on the bow and at the break up site.

I know there are many naval Architects and Engineers that have looked at the design of the Olympic class liners and said that they are very strong ships in the Olympic in particular was known to be a very strong ship right before she was sent to The Breakers in 1935. Is it that far out of the realm of possibility that the Olympic was able to garner that reputation after her 1913 refit and not before?

Taking bulkheads that were originally only to E deck and raising them all the way to the strength deck has to have a stiffening effect on the hull along with the addition of the double bottom all the way up to the waterline.

By raising those bulkheads to the strength deck it takes a lot of structural stress off of the ribs and plates by dividing the ship into four strengthened parts.

For Titanic to survive and suffer what she suffered does show that she was a well-built ship but that does not excuse the fact that the design itself could have been a contributing factor to the Titanic sinking/breakup and I'm not talking bulkhead heights I'm talking about actual strength of the hull and the stresses she was put under. Those kind of stresses we're never envisioned at the time of her designing but came to light after her loss.

I have not read my view from any source except for what I have read here especially in relation to her building and her breakup and it seems to me that if we evaluate the wreck on the seafloor as a picture Frozen in time of the Titanic right on the surface before she hit bottom then I think there is some credence to what I have observed versus what happened. I know it is easy to dismiss what my opinion is and in your dismissal Mark you kind of waved to hand at it and stuck your nose up without actually offering any form of proof yourself to show where I could be wrong. I know I have recognized your name before and you have written many books on the Titanic and the Olympic so what you have to say does have a great impression on me but is it really that hard to Fathom cir that there might be something to what I am mentioning if you treat the wreck site as a forensic study on the design of the ship itself? It might be a radical new idea of but I am not putting the blame on bad steel or bad rivets, I am simply postulating that the designers didn't realize at the Olympic class liners we're not quite strong enough until after the results of how the Titanic sank came in. I am not a naval architect or an engineer but I have done enough reading on this subject to understand that no matter what you do to change a hall certain things will not keep it afloat and raising bulkhead Heights won't do anything because it is a mathematical principle that it's a ship takes on more water then it can handle it will sink regardless. I am asking you to take a second look at my thought and if you would like to talk about it further I would love to and I'll even show you the line drawings of the differences Olympics refit. If the information that I am looking at is flawed then I would hope you would tell me so and others who have been studying the Titanic and have been writing books their entire lives.

When I made the claim that Harland and Wolff knew their ships were structurally not as sound as they should have been I hadn't read that anywhere but it seems to me that when you see a builder radically redesign their ship it is not always just about safety because if you actually look at where those bulkheads came up and the double skin was added amidships it was like a strengthening maneuver more than a safety maneuver. Raising the bulkheads to the strength deck does not make the ship be able to take on more water before foundering because that doesn't change buoyancy mathematics at all. No company would ever do that much refit to a ship just so they can say the ship is safer, that is a heck of a lot of money to blow on a PR campaign.

Edward Wilding had to have known something when he was sitting at the inquiries and testifying. I think what he and the other engineers at Harland and Wolff figured out was how the ship sank and broke up. Unfortunately the archival notes on what the builder's knew of the Olympic class liners were destroyed when Harland and Wolff was nationalized in the 70s but we have the results of their study on the Titanic disaster in the Olympic and in the Britannic. If the hull was strong enough to weather the vibrating effects as designed and didn't have an effect on the ship itself then no strengthening maneuvers of raising the bulkheads and adding a double skin along the side would have been necessary. I think based upon the flooding table that Edward Wilding was hearing at the inquiry he knew something had to have gone.

In no way am I claiming that the Olympic class liners were pieces of junk waiting to die but I am only postulating that maybe the builders were playing with math a little too much and they were allowing the ships to flex and bend too much and maybe put too much emphasis on the rib cage of the Olympic class liners to act as structural supports. This ship's remind me of buildings more than anything else and the way they were built the Keel acts more like a soundation with the ribs of the ship being the walls. Why else would you raise those bulkheads and then a double skin to the side of the hull?

I have made a coherent argument and if someone wants to detract from my argument please post facts that back up your claims against mine. Everything that I am citing for evidence is right in front of you guys. Look at the Britannic wreck, plans regarding the refit of the Olympic and finally the Titanic wreck itself. The idea of impact damage causing the decks after funnel to to collapse in the wrinkle and forward bend in the bow is unsubstantiated. Impact damage on the Britannic is evident because the bow is wrinkled up like it's been crushed like a soda can. The Titanic's bow did No Such Thing upon impact with the seafloor as evidenced by the underwater sonar scan that was done to penetrate through the mud to see if they could find the iceberg damage.

I believe Parks Stevenson and another author penned a paper that suggested the Titanic grounded herself on the iceberg and didn't actually side swipe it. Their theory works very well with survivor testimony of what they felt of the collision and that is where my hypothesis derived from about how the Titanic broke up and took on water. If the seams that were found to have been broken through that radar scanner true then it is quite possible that those plates are bulging out words not in words from Impact damage which would be evidence of a grounding which means the teal was compromised and the vibrating effects ran all the way down the ship which would then compromised the Titanic sides and put added stress on the strength deck which led to the collapse of the middle and finally The Break-Up. Also the bulging of the hall plates in the twisting and bending of them shows that the riveted design of the Titanic skin and the overlapping of plates was what kept her together. Sure there is evidence of plate in Rivet failure but that was already at the point where the structural Integrity of the hall was far beyond its limits.

I was kind of wondering if an actual Naval architect would read my theory and put it to the test someday utilizing the flooding that was observed by the survivors and also Survivor accounts of the ship sinking nearly on a level keel safe for the 10 degree list to port.

Travis
 
Last edited:
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
Travis,

I never said that the Olympic's bow was ever rebuilt.
Nor did I state that you had.

You attributed the relatively minor damage to Olympic’s stem and bow plates in both collisions to broader modifications made in the 1912-13 refit. The problem with that is that there were no changes to the area identified.

I know it is easy to dismiss what my opinion is and in your dismissal Mark you kind of waved to hand at it and stuck your nose up without actually offering any form of proof yourself to show where I could be wrong
You’re mistaken.

I didn’t stick my ‘nose up’ or wave it away in the manner you implied, at all. What I did was highlight a fundamental issue.

Any historical discussion needs to be fact-based. You’re not alone in speculating. The basic issue is that for such theories to be considered seriously then there needs to be some supporting documentation or evidence. Nobody has been able to produce any which would support what you have suggested. Ultimately, if someone is making a claim or putting forward a theory then the obligation is upon them to support it. It is not incumbent upon others to disprove them, even if some may chose to do so.

I’ve covered the issues you raised previously – in regard to the watertight bulkheads and inner skin, in particular – in postings on various forums, public discussions and research papers. If I have time later, I’ll put it together in a single posting and address some of the additional inaccuracies in your earlier posting.

Best wishes


Mark.
 
Last edited:
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
I apologize for any offense and I tried to clarify myself through editing my post in an attempt to do so. I have read your work and I will be more than happy to substantiate my thoughts right now so you can analyze where I am gaining and garnering my opinion.

My first hypothesis about Harland and Wolff came from reading an excerpt from a book about Andrew McCluskie who was an archivist for the company who built Titanic and lent assistance to the Richie Kohler dive on the wreck in 2007. He worked alongside Rodger long and he told Rodger long in an interview that the Titanic broke off at a shallow angle which Roger Long had postulated. McCluskie also had heard that in Thomas Andrew's personal notebook that he had noticed during the Olympics sea trials in 1911 that the hull panted. That is all I have gotten from those conversations because I do not own the book I was reading an excerpt.

I based my analysis of the rec when I compared it to how the Britannic sank. When her Bell hit the seafloor it crumpled like a soda can and the bow section broke very cleanly in front of Bulkhead D. On the Olympic post 1913 and the Britannic bulkhead D went from the bottom of the ship to the strength deck at C. I firmly believe that is why along with the other bulkheads that were raised why the Britannic didn't break or have noticeable kell damage when she hit the bottom because those for bulkheads stiffen the hall and allowed the forces to be dispersed more efficiently then what happened in the Titanic's case.

It has long been postulated that a portion of the condition of the wreck of the bow of the Titanic is in part due to impact damage with the seafloor. I began to doubt this but I remembered the 1997 INFREMER dive where they use sonar to penetrate the mud to see if they could discover the Titanic's Iceberg damage. As far as I understand that discovery has not been doubted. So naturally what I looked at the Titanic bow and then compare it to the Britannic bow and how the Titanic was postulated to have hit the bottom at 35 miles an hour then why is the bow and remarkably good condition whereas the Britannic style that hit the bottom at 22 miles an hour crumpled like a soda can? The only thing I could come up with was that the Titanic did not hit the bottom as hard as experts theorize which led me to the Discovery or the Epiphany if you will that what we are seeing of the rec could possibly be the final snapshot in time of the Titanic before she went down or when she was close to the surface.

Then that reminded me of the Olympic 1913 refit. To me that is the most telling and seems to sum up why the Britannic hit the bottom and remarkably excellent condition, the Olympic Ram two ships without major kill damage why all the Titanic literally Twisted itself apart as she went down and broke up on the surface. When I see the bow hogging down on the Titanic I no longer look at that impact damage but I look at that as the weight of the water in the Bal caused the structure to fail that's opening up scenes which word by then underwater already and had gone unnoticed by survivors which in turn caused the cataclysmic failure of the keel which led to the collapse of the structure between funnels 2 and 3 but not enough to tear the ship apart yet because the steel and the framing bent and twisted thus pushing the stresses for their ass to where she finally broke up cleanly so to speak right after funnel 3. Taking all of that into consideration then it really makes sense to why the third funnel update Tower was separated from the ship.

I believe that's a third funnel uptake and the missing kill where the final break up of the ship for as she was being pulled down the stern was still connected to the bow and that while having broken up on the surface she hadn't completely broken through and as the bow pulled the stern down it fits properly with how the survivors saw it up until they said the CERN settled and seems like it would float and it did that for 5 minutes.

That is the only digress that I have because in my personal experience when I'm sitting there watching something it feels like it is much longer than it truly is so back to my sinking Theory that the stern was pulled down by the bow and was still connected partially by the kilo plates and as they were being pulled down together the water finally put enough pressure on the air still trapped inside which caused the implosion of the stern and the skin separated at the keel.

According to Survivor testimony the ship sank relatively flat up until the very end with a 10° list to port. If that was the case then that might explain why the starboard side of the Stearns plating was completely blown away while the port side still hung from the strength deck down and curled away from the ship itself almost like a child's tent where the blanket was attached to the wall and pulled away at the bottom.

Now someone once wrote that the Titanic had to have been further down by the nose because of Lightoller's testimony that The Crows Nest was even with the bridge. If the bow of the ship hogged in front of Bulkhead D and what we see on the bottom is what the ship was doing near the surface then his testimony would fit with the rest of the survivors not really noticing that the ship was going down by the head.

Now comes my biggest leap where I feel that the side by side comparison of Titanic's bulkheads and Olympic's 1913 refit comes into play to substantiate my hypothesis. This also works in tandem with Parks Stephenson's hypothetical grounding versus grazing the iceberg. Because the bulkheads did not extend to the strength deck in key locations like was later outfitted to the Olympic and the Britannic that the force of the grounding went along the entire keel does Breaking the Titanic's back and showing us the wreck as we see it today. My hypothesis that the builders understood this was an issue was how they raised the bulkheads on the Olympic. By raising bulkhead D to the strength deck that would allow any impact force that the bow is taking to be reverberated up in through the bulkhead and out the sides of the ship thus keeping the Keel from bending too much and breaking like in Titanic.

During the inquiry all Edward Wilding had to go on was Survivor accounts and those were reported to his superiors at Harland and Wolff. Andrew McCluskie knew this and said so in his interview in 2007 when he was assisting Roger Long during the Richie Kohler Expedition. This is where I had pasta sides at the answers to the strength of the Olympic class design has been in front of us all along and how the Olympic was refitted and how the Britannic design was modified while she was still on the slip ways being built.
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
Also if you look at the construction of the Olympic class ships I believe the longitudinal girders were attached on top of the edges of the keel which is more akin to how a building is built which means they kill has to Bear the brunt of stress when struck on the bottom and by raising the bulkheads especially bulkhead d then that allows the structure to better absorb impact damage by spreading it up and around the hull like it was supposed to do in the first place. Evidence of such would be when the Britannic hit the bottom in the Kea Channel in the forces that act it on the valve reverberated through bulkhead d enforce the structure to split cleanly right before the same bulkhead.

I think it would benefit us all if a model of the 1913 Olympic were to be placed under the same scenario as the Titanic and see if she would still break up. If she doesn't then my hypothesis is true.
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
Travis

I was not offended and I appreciate the sentiment.

My first hypothesis about Harland and Wolff came from reading an excerpt from a book about Andrew McCluskie who was an archivist for the company who built Titanic and lent assistance to the Richie Kohler dive on the wreck in 2007. He worked alongside Rodger long and he told Rodger long in an interview that the Titanic broke off at a shallow angle which Roger Long had postulated. McCluskie also had heard that in Thomas Andrew's personal notebook that he had noticed during the Olympics sea trials in 1911 that the hull panted. That is all I have gotten from those conversations because I do not own the book I was reading an excerpt.
It’s Tom McCluskie.

Despite what was claimed in that book (and elsewhere) there is no such documentation to support what was said and none has ever been produced. Further, Tom himself subsequently disputed publicly much of what he was quoted as saying.

Every substantive claim Matsen made that could be cross-checked by referring to other sources turned out to be incorrect. I covered all this at length.

Then that reminded me of the Olympic 1913 refit… the Olympic Ram two ships without major kill damage why [recte: when] all the Titanic literally Twisted itself apart as she went down and broke up on the surface…
It’s a nonsensical comparison and not one to draw any valid conclusions from, IMHO.

Olympic experienced two relatively minor collisions during ordinary service conditions, which caused slight damage to her bow plating and did not hurt her seaworthiness.

Titanic underwent extensive and progressive flooding to such an extent that her stern lifted clear of the water and her hull was subjected to stresses more than twice as great as she would have experienced in the most severe North Atlantic storm.

Best wishes


Mark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ioannis Georgiou

B-rad

Member
Jul 1, 2015
474
109
53
37
Tacoma, WA
Did Harland & Wolff know how Titanic sank? Both inquiries and common beliefs before the wreck was found was the ship sank intact. Why would they feel to strengthen the Olympic when there was no indication that it needed to be? They did not have the wreck to study. The raising of the bulkheads I believe was the knee jerk reaction to the sinking and not much more. I can believe that such renovations could reinforce the hull, as there is more steel, but I find it hard to think that was the reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle Naber

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
894
370
73
18
Titanic was a well-built ship. I don’t think any amount of steel reinforcement could guarantee an intact sinking. The stresses put on the hull were unique to Titanic, which is why we rarely see other ships fracture in such a way that this one did.
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
I do remember reading that about Tom McCluskey as well and while I apologize for getting his name wrong I think he probably publicly denied his own interview because he was put under pressure to do so but we would never know that and that is more speculation but it is reasonable considering who he worked for.

Anyways here is the image that I would like you to dissect for me and also would it be possible to run the 1913 Olympic through the same conditions of Titanic and see how she would behave? I think the refit to the Olympic was in response to the Titanic disaster but I think it goes beyond what was publicly claims because why else would those bulkheads be raised to the strength deck if it wasn't going to do anything to increase buoyancy? Here is the image in question and if you would like to look it over and talk about it with a naval architect that you may know maybe just maybe there could be some validity in my opinion.

Picture: I acknowledge the files are very small but it gives you an idea of the pictures that I am trying to reference and if you look at the Olympics refit to bulkhead d as well as section 25 by the after funnel and the other two subsequent raising of the bulkheads by the stern and the forward expansion joint I think you will understand where I am coming from.

images.jpg


downloadfile.jpg
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
Why would they feel to strengthen the Olympic when there was no indication that it needed to be?
This goes to the core of the matter. Titanic broke up because she was experienced to stresses that were far beyond what she would encounter in normal service.

The relative strength of Olympic/Titanic and other liners of the period is very well documented and they were all built to a similar standard of strength, able to cope with the most severe North Atlantic storms. In fact, Olympic was used as an example of a strong ship on more than one occasion and used as a benchmark against which one of her peers was measured.

Best wishes

Mark.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,210
511
183
Germany
Britannic's bow hit the sea floor while her stern was still out of the water and also had a list to starboard. Nothing to do with the bulkheads.
At Titanic's wreck it is simply damage and bending from hitting the sea floor and came to rest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Chirnside
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
I think he probably publicly denied his own interview because he was put under pressure to do so but we would never know that and that is more speculation but it is reasonable considering who he worked for.
'Put under pressure to do so'? You're sounding very much like a conspiracy theorist! By the way, Tom hasn't been employed by H&W for years.

why else would those bulkheads be raised?
This has been addressed previously. I think the issue for you is the answer doesn't support your theory.

Best wishes


Mark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael H. Standart
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
Titanic was a well-built ship. I don’t think any amount of steel reinforcement could guarantee an intact sinking. The stresses put on the hull were unique to Titanic, which is why we rarely see other ships fracture in such a way that this one did.
Kyle, that is why I'm asking if it is possible for someone to run a scenario on the 1913 Olympic to the exact same scenario that happened to Titanic and see what the ship would do under a simulation as has been done numerous times for Titanic. I think it would only be fair to put this to rest don't you agree? If I am wrong I would be glad to see it and I hope someday somebody would compare the two ships under the exact same circumstances to see if my hypothesis that Harland and Wolff new what had happened and had modified their ships to prevent it from happening again. I get the impression that the builders were afraid that their reputation would be ruined if another one of their liners broke up again on the surface if they ever struck anything quite like the Titanic did. It also stands to reason that the Britannic did not break up and that was a result of their strengthening and heavy modifications.