The back half stern area

AL Glover

Member
Apr 15, 2005
70
0
76
I am just wondering,curious,seems like EVERYTIME a sub goes down to "look",explore, take picts of the Big T,there are plenty of picts,film of the front half of the titanic,but has anyone tried to send (example "jason junior")into & take pictres of the rear section, even though it was-is severly damaged in the breakup, fall-hitting the bottom ??(there must be some intack area awy from where the ship broke apart toward the stern,
 
Apr 22, 2012
1,190
3
68
I believe the R.O.V.'s looked at the remains of some of the engines in the stern section. Since the stern imploded, there really isn't much left to see; everything basically collapsed in upon itself. Someone with a better knowledge of the wreck might be able to give you more in-depth information, but this is my two cents.


Cheers,
happy.gif


-B.W.
 
J

Jeremy Watson

Guest
They dont explore the stern section because of all the things there are to get tangled in, and all the things that could collapse on them.

-Titanic1912
 

Erik Wood

Member
Apr 10, 2001
3,519
4
168
I also think that in general the bow is more appealing as most of the good stuff happened on the pointy part rather then the round part.

Erik
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
1
148
It's been my understanding that most expeditions have tried to cover both sections evenly, though probably with somewhat more emphasis on the bow. The problem I see is that documentary producers seem to think all their audience wants to see is more footage of the forepeak area.


Adam
 
T

Timothy Brandsoy

Guest
LOL. Thank you Erik for that fine forensic explanation!

Tim B
 
Jan 29, 2001
1,282
0
166
Actually Charles Pelligrino, in his *controversial* work..."Ghosts of the Titanic" goes into detail on a precarious visit by "ROBIN" (NAUTILE'S R.O.V.) into the crushed mass of the stern at the refrigeration area.

So many years I had pondered at a video glimpse (SEE: A & E pt. II, "The Legend Lives On" closing segments) of "ROBIN" being deployed into an area of the wreck undetermined...even by Roy Mengot if you can believe that! Owing to the release of Pelligrino's second work, I can now unabated,
and after ten years, determine that the aforementioned video glimpse was into the ravaged stern.

BTW, Mr. Pelligrino was a member of this particular RMSTI (Tulloch's tenure) expedition.
So of course this comes first hand.

Michaeel Cundiff
USA
 
Jan 29, 2001
1,282
0
166
Late Evening:

A more exact explanation is in order on my behalf. What follows is a direct extract from Dr. Pelligrino's "Ghost's of the Titanic" -

"No one had dreamed it would be like this: the starboard side of the stern ruptured wide open, and the hull-plating, though once an inch thick, peeled back like the skin of an orange, exposing the rooms within. Down there, near the starboard peel, is where Matt Tulloch discovered the rippled, seemingly out-jetted serving platters. When he and Captain Paul Henry(sic) Nargeolet sent the robot ROBIN into the bakery and pantry compartments, they found the rooms squashed and entirely empty. Even the bakery door was missing, torn from it's iron frame and squirted out through the rupture in the stern's side".

END EXTRACT

Michael Cundif
USA
 
Jul 21, 2004
24
0
71
Im not sure I can buy the imploading, if the ship was watertight then I do, the fact is it was fully flooded with the same water pressure on the inside as the outside, I believe the rupture on the starboard side was caused by the weight of the vessel mostly landing towards that side, plus thats the side that hit the iceburg where the side impact on that lousy metal, stiff hard plating and rivets causing the rivet heads to shear off! this leaves me to think the port side of the ship below decks could still very well be intact, see my post unclutered rov access through the massive air vents located on the aft poop deck.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,584
376
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Im not sure I can buy the imploading, if the ship was watertight then I do, the fact is it was fully flooded with the same water pressure on the inside as the outside,<<

Not in the stern section it wasn't. Floodwaters don't percolate that easily into some spaces...like the reefers...and would be slow getting into other spaces as well depending on what's in the way. The stern was still heavy enough to achieve negetive boyuancy, but not all of the air was forced out evenly or all at once.

And what lousy metal? The steel used for Titanic's hull was the very best available at the time and held up surprisingly well. I'll offer a few links here so you can read up on the subject;

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9801/Felkins-9801.html

http://www.metallurgy.nist.gov/webpages/TFoecke/titanic/titanic.html

Also, click on Steel
 
Jul 21, 2004
24
0
71
I beg to differ :And what lousy metal? The steel used for Titanic's hull was the very best available at the time and held up surprisingly well. I'll offer a few links here so you can read up on the subject;

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9801/Felkins-9801.html

http://www.metallurgy.nist.gov/webpages/TFoecke/titanic/titanic.html

If the truth were known at the time Harland and wolf would not be in business today.
The steel may have been the best of its type at the time, but it was the wrong type! it was proberbly more ready available and cheaper but it was the wrong type, H&W had to know this, plus they were under pressure to get the job done.Other large ships built by H&W at that time like large ferris and british warships made of the A36 type steel would have taken the side impact, bounced off the ice berge because the hull plating would have bent, not cracked and fractured. Her two sister ships the olimpic and the britanic suffered from the same hull plating, one sank in 18 min.from a single torpedo she should have survived, but when the rivet heads pop off due to percushion of the impact and the seams open up on the hull plates, its all over! one from a collision that other ships could have survived. in both instances the hull plating cracked fractured and shattered, the other culprit was the rivets they were even more britlle, in all three cases on inpact the rivet heads poped off, the plate seams opened and the water ran in, end of story.check out the photo of the collision, you will see the hull plate shattered like a plate glass window!

"The steel used for Titanic's hull was the very best available at the time and held up surprisingly well."

In reality it dident hold up at all! Even more chilling is the fact when the rivet holes were punched in the plate, the plate was so brittle it cracked the sides of the punched holes, plus this type of plate was subject to cracking under 40% H&W should have known this and I believe they did, but the mistake was so far along it was too late to change, they would have gone broke, plus this was their emergance into building large ships, they practically rebuilt their shipyard to accomerdate this. Note the first link felkins is totally flawed,comparing Titanic steel with steel from a lock ? but I suppose its good enough to give to Ins co. like the Iceberg cut a gash in the hull, well people believed that too dident they!
 

Paul Rogers

Member
Nov 30, 2000
1,244
2
168
56
West Sussex, UK
Hello Malcolm.
quote:

The steel may have been the best of its type at the time, but it was the wrong type! it was proberbly more ready available and cheaper but it was the wrong type, H&W had to know this, plus they were under pressure to get the job done.Other large ships built by H&W at that time like large ferris and british warships made of the A36 type steel would have taken the side impact, bounced off the ice berge because the hull plating would have bent, not cracked and fractured.
May I ask from where you obtained this information?
quote:

...in all three cases on inpact the rivet heads poped off, the plate seams opened and the water ran in, end of story.check out the photo of the collision, you will see the hull plate shattered like a plate glass window!
Um, what photo of the collision? If you have one of Titanic striking the 'berg, then you have an extremely valuable image.

My understanding is that the steel used for Titanic and Britannic was the best available at the time. It certainly didn't hurt Olympic, which held up in wonderful shape until her (premature) scrapping.

Mark Chirnside may have more to add to this discussion. Got your ears on, Mark?​
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,584
376
283
Easley South Carolina
>>The steel may have been the best of its type at the time, but it was the wrong type! it was proberbly more ready available and cheaper but it was the wrong type, H&W had to know this, plus they were under pressure to get the job done.<<

Malcolm, not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm afraid you have no earthly idea what you're talking about. There was nothing inhearantly wrong with Titanic's steel, and steel of the same quality and formula from Dalzell and D. Colvilles & Co and other manufacturers was widely used in numerous other vessels from the Olympic and Queen Mary to Great Britain's warships. (This is why it was sometimes referred to as "Battleship Steel.")

>>Other large ships built by H&W at that time like large ferris and british warships made of the A36 type steel would have taken the side impact, bounced off the ice berge because the hull plating would have bent, not cracked and fractured.<<

No it wouldn't have. Ships do not "bounce" off of icebergs. Not without some kind of damage. Especially when they clip one with 50,000+ tonnes of their own mass at 21+ knots. When that sort of thing happens, there is a lot of energy involved and it's all working against you. No matter what else happens, you get sheered rivets, split seams, and buckled plates.

What you do not see in any evidence of cracked or shattered steel plates in the wreck itself. You actually see is tearing, you see buckling, and you see wreckage that is bent and twisted. You do not see anything which shattered like ice or glass.

>>Her two sister ships the olimpic and the britanic suffered from the same hull plating, one sank in 18 min.from a single torpedo she should have survived,<<

Wrong again. The ship that ate a torpedo was the Lusitania and given the sort of problems with ships that have extensive side compartments and assymetric flooding, the only surprise was in how fast the ship sank. The loss of the Britannic was due to an encounter with a mine. It didn't help that many of the watertight doors which should have been closed were wide open, probably to facilitate the change of the watch. Had it been otherwise, there's a reasonable chance the ship would have survived.

>>one from a collision that other ships could have survived.<<

Other ships would have survived having a third of their length open to the sea after crunching over and alongside an iceberg in a grounding-allision event? I don't think so.

>>in both instances the hull plating cracked fractured and shattered, the other culprit was the rivets they were even more britlle,<<

Malcolm, you better start checking your facts from first hand sources rather then a questionable reading of what was presented on the Discovery Channel. I'm well aware of the thing with the rivets. I'm also aware that the sampling was done using 33 rivets that were found in the debris field. Not one was taken directly out of the hull, and we do not know the provanance of what's lying in the debris field. 33 out of over 3 million of uncertain origin is not a scientifically useful sampling. Further, if you take a look at the wreck itself, you'll notice that even today, the vast majority of the rivets are still in the hull, right where the builders put them.
 
Jul 21, 2004
24
0
71
Im a member of the sname new york section they did an extensive investigation and study on the steel plating and rivits that is available, the photo is infact in this section, its not of the T but of her sister ship Britanic made by H&W of the same type plating. Note this type of hull plate was a disaster I dont believe it was ever used again, even the surviving pasengers in the long boats said when the T finally broke intwo it sounded like huge china dinner plates breaking! the only part of the hull to not to use this type steel was the massive engine plate bed, as the bow broke away and the engines and boilers slipped out of her belly this engine plate bent like a tongue, if it had been made of the same hull steel it would have fractured and snapped off.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,584
376
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Im a member of the sname new york section<<

Oh really? Would you care to go to the SNAME Website and show us where this group can be found and a list of it's members? I ran a search on your name using the websites search function and couldn't find it in any context.

>>the photo is infact in this section, its not of the T but of her sister ship Britanic made by H&W of the same type plating<<

I beg to differ again. The steel samples used in the testing that was accomplished on the Discovery Channel in fact came from the Titanic herself. The conclusions drawn from the tests were questionable, but there was no question of the provenance of the materials tested.

>>as the bow broke away and the engines and boilers slipped out of her belly this engine plate bent like a tongue,<<

Please present photos of the wreck to prove that. If you take a good look, you'll notice that except for the forward cylinders on each...which did in fact break off...the engines are still right where the builders left them.
 
Jul 21, 2004
24
0
71
Thank you for your corrections on the ships name however I will stand on the wrong type of steel plate and rivits, as far as the rivits still being in the hull your talking almost top sides Im talking at the damaged area below the water line that is about 40ft down in the mud!what you call a rip in metal has to start with a crack, some sections will bend to a point before cracking and breaking, but emurssed in 40% water or below freezing temps it will shatter or break on impact.
As far as bouncing I was a little flippent on that, what I should have said since the ship was not traveling at 21knots at time of contact in was much less, engines were in full reverse with full starboard rudder that would have moved the starboard bow away from the burg while slowing forward motion, that thickness off plating should have cushened the blow at that low speed plus the berg was not like crashing into something static it does move, infact they even tow them dont they! thanks M.
 
Jul 21, 2004
24
0
71
Michael my membership # is 4292 since 1995 My name is Malcolm G.Chapman, my Co. is called phoenix barge Corp. the forensic analysis of the sinking of the T is in book form now and available through the society. by the way who are you besides being a moderator?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,584
376
283
Easley South Carolina
>>by the way who are you besides being a moderator?<<

A retired sailor who is questioning your premise because thus far, none of the actual science that I've seen even supports it.

>>however I will stand on the wrong type of steel plate and rivits, as far as the rivits still being in the hull your talking almost top sides Im talking at the damaged area below the water line that is about 40ft down in the mud!<<

Stand by it all you want. That doesn't make it so. There is no evidence of any kind which irrefutably demonstrates that the rivets that were actually tested came from the area that was in contact with the iceberg, and none whatever which demonstrates that the steel used in the construction of the Titanic was the wrong kind. This same quality of steel was used in a number of other ships with no problems at all.

>>what you call a rip in metal has to start with a crack, some sections will bend to a point before cracking and breaking, but emurssed in 40% water or below freezing temps it will shatter or break on impact.<<

Well, there's that shatter thing again. Where on the Titanic can you find evidence that any of the metal shattered on impact with anything? There are bends and buckles, especially from impact with the bottom, but nothing that points to anything being shattereed. Those tests done for that Discovery Channel documentary at best demonstrate that on some level, it's possible. They do not demonstrate that in fact that's what actually happened.

>> engines were in full reverse<<

Don't bet the farm on that one. Better check the testimony. Boxhall states that the order was given, but the survivors from the engine room point to the engines being reversed after the accident itself, not befor.

>>with full starboard rudder that would have moved the starboard bow away from the burg while slowing forward motion, that thickness off plating should have cushened the blow at that low speed plus the berg was not like crashing into something static it does move, infact they even tow them dont they! thanks M.<<

That might even work if Titanic was moving at slow speed. Unfortunately, she wasn't. And don't get to caught up in the thickness of the plates. The Titanic was no icebreaker, and did not have an ice reinforced structure. Further, if you were to build a scale model of the ship that you could fit on the mantle of your fireplace, the plates would have the preportionate thickness of tissue paper.

The real facts are pretty basic. When you run a mass like a ship up against an even larger mass that's going nowhere when they try to, the ship loses every time. A welded hull with modern steels that took the sort of damage Titanic the Titanic is understood to have suffered would do no better.