Titanic: Allegations & Evidence

Expansion Joints:

• Claim: Britannic’s expansion joints were changed due to Titanic’s sinking.
• Analysis: Expansion joints were designed to protect the superstructure from stress. They did not penetrate the structural hull. Minor fractures near expansion joints were common but did not compromise the ship’s integrity. Changes to Britannic’s design were part of ongoing improvements, not a direct result of Titanic’s sinking.

Panting and Olympic in 1911:

• Claim: Thomas Andrews noted Olympic’s hull panting during sea trials.
• Analysis: No evidence supports this claim. Panting refers to the slight movement of the ship’s sides in heavy seas, which did not occur during calm sea trials. Other large liners experienced panting, but there is no record of Olympic having this issue.

Hull Cracks in 1911:

• Claim: Surveyors found cracks in Olympic’s hull in October 1911.
• Analysis: No documentation supports this claim. Minor changes were made to Titanic’s design based on Olympic’s experience in a severe storm in January 1912. These changes were routine and did not indicate major structural issues.

Panting and the Inner Skin:

• Claim: The inner skin added to Olympic and Britannic was to stiffen the ship.
• Analysis: The inner skin was designed to enhance watertight subdivision, not to strengthen the hull. It was not strongly connected to the outer hull, which would have compromised its watertight integrity. The inner skin proved effective in protecting Olympic during a torpedo strike in 1918.

A-Deck Promenade Enclosure:

• Claim: Enclosing Titanic’s A-deck promenade strengthened the ship.
• Analysis: The enclosure was part of the superstructure and did not contribute to the hull’s strength. The thin plating and large windows in the screen would not have provided significant structural support.

Hull Plating Thickness:

• Claim: Hull plating thickness was reduced at J. Bruce Ismay’s request.
• Analysis: The hull plating was designed to be one inch thick from the start. The claim that the plating was too thin is false. Titanic’s hull plating was comparable to other large liners of the time.

Comparative Strength:

• Analysis: Titanic’s design was similar to other liners built at the same time. The stresses on her hull were within acceptable limits, and she was not weaker than her peers.

Titanic’s Break Up:

• Analysis: Titanic’s hull failed due to extreme stresses during the sinking, which were far beyond what she would have experienced in normal conditions. This does not imply that she was not strong enough.

Summary:

• The claims about Titanic’s structural weaknesses and design flaws do not hold up to scrutiny. The evidence shows that Titanic was designed and built to the highest standards of the time, and her break-up during the sinking was due to extraordinary circumstances.