Quality of steel in Titanic's hull

Jul 26, 2017
6
1
3
The iceberg which the Titanic hit was rock hard as well. Some experts have calculated the thing as weighing as much as 500,000 tons. I've been saying this for a long time- if a 46,000 ton ship made of rivets and steel hits a 500,000 ton iceberg at full speed, which do you think is gonna come out the winner here?? If the said ship then sinks and has nowhere to go but down and down since the ocean floor is two miles away--what kind of damage do you suppose is going to happen???It slays me that with the scientific data and experiments that have been done (some using actual steel from the ship) that people STILL continue to buy into this hokum about rivet and steel quality.Look folks there are two documentaries,one is Titanic Mystery From The Abyss, the other Titanic 100 Mystery solved, that have soundly debunked these myths.These people did the aforementioned tests and all concluded the steel was very good quality,and the rivets didn't massively pop away upon impact like a zipper being opened. The Titanic broke and suffered the damage she did because she was put under stresses that no ship could withstand.Other things to consider, Titanic's sister ship Olympic was built with same materials and she had a 25 year long career.She even plowed into a German u boat, guess what the Olympic didn't break apart and sink.Also every shipwreck afterward involved liners that were supposedly safer and better built--they all ended on their sides and three of them were on the bottom 15 to 50 minutes after being opened up to the sea.The Titanic sank for 2 hours 40 minutes on a practically even keel.So she actually outperformed the other ships. Faulty steel and rivets do not allow a ship to slowly sink for about three hours.
Thanks!! I see that this case is rather clear cut. So I take it that there aren't that many 'faulty rivet' theorists currently activge on this forum?:D
 
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
458
106
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
877
366
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.
 

robert warren

Member
Feb 19, 2016
168
49
38
It's actually been my experience that most people who buy into the faulty workmanship theory either( A) have never read anything on the Titanic, but listen to talking points put out by people who don't know what they themselves are saying..or( B) watch JC's movie and 3 hours later are total experts on all things Titanic!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harland Duzen
Mar 18, 2008
2,194
501
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

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,478
512
123
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!
 
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.
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
'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.



This has been addressed previously. I think the issue for you is the answer doesn't support your theory.

Best wishes


Mark.
Mark I acknowledged that I was going on a limb with that first paragraph. Can you show me and concerns to the second highlight about the raising of the bulkheads please? I am always in the pursuit of knowledge and if you can reference me to somewhere that explains it I'll be more than happy to read it.

Thank you
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
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?
There's no question about that, Travis.

Unless they doubled her strength, which they didn't, Olympic would have broken up too.

It also stands to reason that the Britannic did not break up and that was a result of their strengthening and heavy modifications.
A more logical explanation is that Britannic did not sink in precisely the same way as Titanic or in the same conditions, nor did she experience stresses over the same length of time. Note that she largely capsized while sinking, too.

Best wishes

Mark.
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
I am a firm believer in The Pursuit Of Truth and I also know from my own experiences that certain details that could be a Smoking Gun have been covered up in the past and not just in regards to the Titanic.

When I asked for the literature about the bulkheads on the Olympics in the Britannic I wasn't saying that to be snarky or sarcastic but to be honest I have never heard of why they were raised outside of to increase safety. I would love to read any information pertaining to that design change that explains why they did what they did.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
877
366
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?
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
Britannic sunk completely different from Titanic. The break up on Titanic started most likely in the double bottom (the so called bottom up theory).
Yes the Britannic sank quite differently in that it sank in 1/3 the time so the stresses on the hull would not be there in the same fashion as the Titanic that I am not disputing. If there were stress is put on the Hall of the Britannic then the wreck would mummify that so to speak.

The Titanic break up started at the Double bottom because the double bottom was built more like a foundation to a house then it was to a ship and the way the structure was attached to the top of it hence the further addition of the double bottom up the sides along the rectangular portion of the hall in the raising of those for critical bulkheads and it seems kind of odd that one of the bulkhead that was raised also happens to be right where the Titanic broke.

I find that interesting to say the least but if there is documentation out there that shows that those refits were anything but strengthening exercises I want to read them.

In response to Marc you do not need to double the rigidity in the strength of the hull to prevent a fracture. According to the paper I read the Halls stresses did not double the capacity as much as exceed the capacity. By further strengthening the hall through bulkheads extending to the strength deck and the double bottom being raised up the girders to the waterline does give the cheel a more homogeneous design and it gives it more strength overall reducing flexing and fluctuating of the hull.

I still feel strongly that someone should take the 1913 Olympic and put it into the same situation that the Titanic faced the night she sank.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
877
366
73
18
I'd still put my money on the Olympic breaking up. Perhaps the maximum peak stress might be a higher angle, but I still think that an unsuported weight as massive as 1/3 of a ship would be enough to break itself apart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajmal Dar