Why Titanic sank

Ok everyone knows it hit an iceberg, but it did not have to happen. I'm sure most people would agree that steaming full speed on I think it was a foggy day in seas where icebergs are commonplace is lunacy. That said many reasons for the disaster have been put forward. My favorite was the rudder was too small.

The ship could do a crash stop in 850yds in 3.25 mins but still hit the iceberg, therefore is the iceberg could not be seen soon enough to stop turning out of the way is the other alternative. From the dimensions of the rudder and allowing that much of it was out of the water I estimate about 680 sq ft of effective rudder. Recently I found a formula to estimate required rudder size. Now I know formulas are not everyone cup of tea but the results were interesting. required rudder 1552sq ft. With a bigger rudder it might never have happened.

 

With better seamanship it may have never happened.

The Capt. and crew of any vessel must operate it safely within the limits of it's capability.

The TITANIC sank because it had a hole in it.

 

one of a critical but little known contributing factor, among many, was the hull material was more brittle than specified. The new type alloy that was specified was tough and strong (allowing a larger hull to be safely built), but the steel supplier could not deliver the quantities in time, so they substituted another type of steel that had the same strength, but was not as tough. when the brittle hull side swiped the ice burg it shattered a long breech in the hull rather than bending it, flooding multiple compartments, and than the hull also broke in half as it sank. Using the specified alloy alone could have stopped the sinking. I read about this in a engineering magazine, it was not discovered until the wreck was was found and samples of the hull were brought up and studied in a lab. Apparently the question never came up during the inquiry, and I am sure the supplier was not going to volunteer this information.

Steerage is an interesting theory, but the recent sinking of the Concordia demonstrates the the crew needs to know how much room is needed to clear an obstetrical. So even in a modern design you could argue that the rudder was too small, it was crew error that sank both Titanic and Concordia. And lot of other issues that added up to make a really costly event.

 

Actually it was the moon that sank the titanic wasn't it Wasn't it a king tide that floated a lot of grounded bergs off the Newfoundland coast.

Whatever the cause of the ice field other ships slowed down, the Californian stopped and tried to warn Titanic's wireless operator who told her to shut up because he was sending personal telelgrams for important passengers.....and so it goes on.

I don't think you should start blaming the designers. Turning circles of 2 Nautical Miles are just as common today as they were then. Remember ship design is about juggling the compromises for the best result given intended use(SOR). Destroyer type maneuverability was not in the Titanics SOR any more than Costa concordia's.


As for formula not a boat designers cup of tea ! Maybe we should just read the entrails of a sacrificed goat for rudder design

 

It was the captain's baby, and he didn't look after it too well ! Oh well, he did go down with it, I s'pose.

 

it sank primarily because of arrogance,
and because the watertight bulkheads were not full height watertight bulkheads,
its interesting to read about the inferior quality of steel,
a brittle scottish train bridge collapsed for similar reasons

 

My first thought.

 

Really from any modern SOLAS perspective the watertight bulkheads did their job admirably. There was ample time to get everyone off had there been the capacity to do so. But regulation by the board of trade required an inadequate number of life boats and the designers just gave her the required number, that was the tradgedy. When the sister ship HMHS Brittanic sank not so long she carried sufficient life boats.

The steel wasn't inadequate it was just open hearth steel and they didn't know about ductility and temperature effects then. That wasn't known until the 1940's It's doubtful that stronger steels would have made any difference anyway.

The Scottish bridges were Dee and Tay. Dee was Stephensons cast iron not steel and suffered brittle failure. Tay was abysmally designed for wind loads.

 

It sank because it was made by man and everything man does is a disater !! aske any women !!

 

Y A A A A A W N

Shall we next discuss OneAustralia, or why the Dinosaurs disappeared?

 

OneAustralia ? Huh ?

 

OneAustralia? Is that like Mexamericanada?

 

Good old John Howard. I get it now.

 

Y A A A A A W N Yeah thats probably what the captain said !!!

Why did the dinosaurs leave home any way ??

 

I think he might have been refering to the 1995 America's Cup boat "oneAustralia" that snapped in half going "down under" in double quick time, and not to little Johnny Howard's immigration policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yau9A7XDHs