What was the time when Titanic broke in two

T

Tarn Stephanos

Member
In the final hour of Titanic's life, people later wrote having heard cracking and popping sounds....The break up had already begun, and it may have taken an hour until that final snap that tore the ship asunder.
Whe she broke, the area of the breakup litterally decintigrated- the hollow areas of the aft Grand Staircase and Reciprocating Engine room shaft and adjoing galleys and rooms tore apart,creating what would later become the 'debris field.'
I think its likly that the starboard shell plating held for a mement, then tore away from the adjoining decks, which is why the stern section pivoted around......
What I have long wondered is if Titanic's stern went under at 220, when did the ship break in two? Im guessing 216.....
And once waves closed over Titanic's stern, the bow section was still on its freefall to the sea floor. How long would it have taken to reach the bottom?
10 minutes?

Tarn Stephanos
 
T

Tom Pappas

Guest
Terminal velocity for large irregularly-shaped objects in water is about 30 mph. Since the bow went nearly straight down (it's only a few hundred feet from the boilers, which did), it would traverse the 2½ mile vertical distance in almost exactly 5 minutes.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
Tarn, all I can say at this point is that the forces which tore the ship apart started practically from the time water started rushing in. When we studied the flooding patterns and the stesses they imposed on the structure at the Topeka event last year, we were quite honestly amazed that the bow didn't fall off.

Check out the uneven flooding patterns up forward, think of the stresses the weight of the water would have imposed and consider the consequences of the damage from running over the berg's ram and you'll see what I mean.

The Titanic was a very ruggedly built ship though...fortunately for those who survived. Had it been any other way, I would opine that they wouldn't have even managed to launch 18 out of twenty boats befor the ship went down.
 
L

L. Marmaduke Collins

Member
There is no conclusive evidence, nor is there any reason to believe, that the Titanic broke in two before she sank. Although several witnesses later claimed that the ship had been severed and that her after-part had settled on the water, others, including Second Officer Lightoller, emphatically denied it. "It is utterly untrue," Lightoller told the British enquiry, "The ship did not and could not have broken in two." The second officer was definitely in a position to know: only feet away from the sinking ship, he watched her descent "keenly the whole time." In this, Lightoller's testimony was corroborated by Third Officer Pitman. He, too, denied that the after-part broke off, he was "barely 100 yards away," he testified, and kept his eyes upon her as she went down. There was no reason for the hull, which was subjected only to progressive flooding, to break in two.

Harland and Wolff Naval Architect Edward Wilding did not believe she broke in two. To the British enquiry in answer to question 20258, "Do you believe that happened" he said, "Not in the lease, I feel quite sure it did not happen"

Titanic impacted the ice, and sustained the fatal damage, in a position 13 miles west of the position of the wreck site discovered by the Dr. Ballard expedition. It is quite conceivable that she drifted, underwater, for considerable time before coming to rest on the ocean floor.
 
T

Tom Pappas

Guest
First of all, it was pitch dark, and the survivors' eyesight had not had a chance to become dark-adapted. Lightoller was a) a company man, and b) not in a good vantage point to see anything that was happening to the blunt end of the ship at all. I just don't believe him.

Unless there are some extraordinary currents below the surface, Titanic couldn't have hit the bottom very far from where she left the surface. Any residual air inside would have been compressed to zero buoyancy before she got a hundred feet down, at which time she would have gone down like a curling stone. In the five minutes it took to get to the bottom, a two-knot current would have carried her 1/6 of a nautical mile.
 
B

Bill Wormstedt

Member
I'd like to point out that quite a few more than "several witnesses" claimed the ship broke in half.

Just looking at some numbers I cranked out a while back for part of the US Inquiry, I have 8 people who said the ship broke apart (Olliver, Osman, Moore, Buley, Crowe, Evans, Bright and White). Only 3 claimed she sank intact - Lightoller (who was trying to survive when the supposed breakup occured), Pitman and Hugh Woolner. 34 people either were not asked whether she broke up, or when asked, did not know if she broke apart.

And this says nothing about all the news reports of survivors who mentioned a break-up. Gut level, I think well over 1/2 of the accounts I've read mention a breakup.

I don't doubt for a minute the Titanic broke up on the surface, or very close to it.
 
L

L. Marmaduke Collins

Member
Tom Pappas-Unless there are some extraordinary currents below the surface, Titanic couldn't have hit the bottom very far from where she left the surface.

What explanation do you offer for the 13 miles difference between the CQD position 41° 46'N, 50° 14'W and wreck site position 41° 44'N, 49° 57'W ?

--Collins
 
T

Tom Pappas

Guest
Hi Cap'n Duke -

Titanic had been influenced by a 2-knot ESE current (both under power and dead in the water) for the 7 hours from the evening star sight to the moment she encountered the bottom. Two knots times seven hours yields - - class? Anyone?

The CQD position was affected by about four hours of this current, and the rest of the distance was traversed between the collision and the sinking.
 
T

Tarn Stephanos

Member
Proof of the breakup for me was the fact the stern settled back, nearly to an even keel position, albiet with a heavy list to port-
Had the bow section remained attached, I dont see how that would have been physically possible...

There are enough witnesses who saw the ship break in half, and the fact she is indeed broken in two suggests thats the proof in the pudding..

Plus the deafening roar people heard moments before then end certainly wasnt the sound of the boilers ripping from their beds- the boilers in boiler room # 2 are still visibly in place..

More likely, it was the sound of the break up.
Plus the distance between the bow and stern sections and the debris field in between implies she broke apart at, or very near to the surface..


Tarn Stephanos
 
T

Tom Pappas

Guest
Yo, Duke!

I read your article when it was first published, and then again before I wrote this morning. I do not find any explanation in it for the 13-mile difference in CQD and wreck positions with which your discussion begins. To me, the demonstration doesn't acquit Boxhall because (speaking as an armchair navigator) it fails to address the central issue.
 
T

Tom Pappas

Guest
I'll wait until it hits the "left overs" counter. Why don't you give me a quick synopsis right now?
 
L

L. Marmaduke Collins

Member
It would not help my sales. But you are true to your listed Occupation: Swindler
 
T

Tom Pappas

Guest
If Boxhall's computations are, as you so rigorously demonstrate, correct, then what mechanism accounts for Titanic's present position?

Your E-T article does not once mention the word "current." Mr. Boxhall's recollection of the ship's course and distance covered does not once mention the word "current." Your response to my question does not once mention the word "current."

TRUE: If you plot Titanic's track for four hours, dead reckoning on course 266º from Mr. Boxhall's recollection of the evening sight, you arrive at the CQD position at (about) 11:30. But if you factor in a two-knot current on the starboard bow, the ship encounters the ice(berg) eight miles east, and a little south, of the location broadcast by Phillips. In the next (nearly) three hours, the ship drifted six miles from where the encounter took place. That places the wreckage 13 miles from the CQD position, which was, after all the computation, incorrect. Arithmetic, however precise, doesn't yield correct answers if the methodology is flawed.

If you require any further elaboration, you will have to purchase my book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top