[HPFGU-OTChatter] Titanic (was Re: Nineteen Things.....)

[Sister Mary Lunatic]

What if the Titanic had hit the iceberg dead-on instead of sideswiping it?
I wonder if people would have been killed by the sudden impact?  Would the
ship have been able to stay afloat if only the bow was crumpled?

SML

=======================================
Resentment is like taking poison
and expecting the other person to die.
=======================================

-----Original Message-----
From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no [mailto:pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 4:38 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Titanic (was Re: Nineteen Things.....)

<Professor Binns-mode>

Wherefore it is a good thing that the Ark ran in temperate waters,
free of icebergs.  The Titanic wasn't that bad (it even had more
lifeboats than required by regulations, though I'll concede that the
number *was* to have been greater but was reduced due to financial
constraints), and the ark most likely would have gone down just as
fast, if not much faster, when presented with the same level of
damage (be it nominal or relative).  Most civilian ships built today
are probably less survivable than the Titanic.

The fact that the Titanic did not capsize (which would have resulted
in a far greater death-toll), but stayed on an even keel is in itself
quite a miracle, not accomplished particularly often today.  Most
recent passenger-ship catastrophes have involved the ship capsizing,
with great loss of life (M/F Estonia (1994), M/F Herald of Free
Enterprise (1986?), M/F Jan Hewelius (1991, uncertain about the name
there).

The Titanic-disaster was, IMNSHO, brought about by gross negligence
and incompetence on the part of the bridge-staff, particularly
Captain Smith, in disregarding ice-warnings and running the ship
during the night as if there had been no icebergs in the area.

The effects of this incompetence were increased by the use of
substandard steel in the construction of the ship - the steel had a
high content of sulphur, making it very brittle.  The hull-plating
probably shattered as if it had been glass when subjected to pressure
from the ice-berg.  I suspect that a better quality of steel (i.e. a
quality equal to that common on other contemporary ships) would not
actually have saved the ship (the damage done being to the same
watertight compartments), but the ship would have taken longer time
to sink, as the damage would have been smaller.  The S/S Carpathia
and other ships steaming to the rescue might then have arrived before
the Titanic sank, making it possible to evacuate passengers and crew
directly from the liner.

The great loss of life was in a great part due to the low lifeboat-
capacity (though still well in excess of the then valid regulations),
but it was compounded by inefficient filling of what life-boats there
were (so much so that three times the actual number of lifeboats
might not have been enough to save everyone).  Reputedly the failure
of some ships to maintain a round-the-clock radio-watch might also
have contributed.

</Professor Binns-mode>

(I'm studying to become a naval architect, if you can't tell)

Best regards
Christian Stub