I personally don't like the tonnage of a vessel being used as the measure of a vessel size. I know of many ships that have smaller dimensions like height and length yet are heavier than Titanic because they are wider. I think it was a Harland and Wolff tradition to make "long ships"
or ships that while their lengths increased their widths did not. Titanic may have been very very long and that in itself is massive, but she was a slim ship. You can eaisily see that in her photographs, so beautiful, yet she was also rather slim with a ratio of 1:9. If you look at the Great Eastern with a length of 693 ft, 200 ft shorter than Titanic, was almost as wide as Titanic at 83 feet. Titanic's height was also very impressive as you no doubt know.
or ships that while their lengths increased their widths did not. Titanic may have been very very long and that in itself is massive, but she was a slim ship. You can eaisily see that in her photographs, so beautiful, yet she was also rather slim with a ratio of 1:9. If you look at the Great Eastern with a length of 693 ft, 200 ft shorter than Titanic, was almost as wide as Titanic at 83 feet. Titanic's height was also very impressive as you no doubt know.