Titanic collides head on

Titanic History

I have seen simulation results that showed a head on collision would have resulted in catastrophic hull failures along the length of the hull, with sinking occuring quite rapidly.

I am new here - forgive my jumping into the "deep" end, but this is an area of interest for me. Some related and semi-related trivia...

Despite the clear picture painted of events on that night, there are a lot of things that were viewed for a long time as fact that are somewhat questionable.

(1) There is no data, believe it or not, of water overtopping the bulkheads. Flooding appears to have come from damage below, and from bulkheads giving way.

(2) Helm and engine orders have a very murky path to us through history. One thing is clear though - the engines were more than likely never reversed. The reversal process required a large number of people to all be in the right places - which was not true late at night in mid-ocean - in perfect conditions, reversal took a couple of minutes. Engine orders after the collision are even murkier.

(3) The whole timeline of the collision is still bitterly debated among historians.

There are some superb historians over at the Encyclopedia Titanica website - I encourage the curious to check it out.

Wayne
 
I have seen simulation results that showed a head on collision would have resulted in catastrophic hull failures along the length of the hull, with sinking occuring quite rapidly.

I am new here - forgive my jumping into the "deep" end, but this is an area of interest for me. Some related and semi-related trivia...

Despite the clear picture painted of events on that night, there are a lot of things that were viewed for a long time as fact that are somewhat questionable.

(1) There is no data, believe it or not, of water overtopping the bulkheads. Flooding appears to have come from damage below, and from bulkheads giving way.

(2) Helm and engine orders have a very murky path to us through history. One thing is clear though - the engines were more than likely never reversed. The reversal process required a large number of people to all be in the right places - which was not true late at night in mid-ocean - in perfect conditions, reversal took a couple of minutes. Engine orders after the collision are even murkier.

(3) The whole timeline of the collision is still bitterly debated among historians.

There are some superb historians over at the Encyclopedia Titanica website - I encourage the curious to check it out.

Wayne

Welcome to AH!
 
I have been reading and lurking for a couple of months.

Fascinating website.

Note that the Brittanic was designed to survive with even more compartments flooded than her younger sisters, but she was done in by a mine (probably) in the Agean, and went down quite a bit faster than the Titanic. She took a lot more damage to be sure, but her death was hastened by open bulkhead doors at change of watch, and open portholes.

On a tangential note, how many people do you think know much of the
later history of the Olympic and Mauretania? Both served well for years after the deaths of their more famous sisters.

Wayne
 
but imagine the impact on the mountings holding these in place as they lurch forward, possibly smashing bulkheads.

Then you've got whatever heavy cargo isn't secured to withstand lurching fore and aft in a very violent manner.
The boilers & engines would strain their mountings, probably, even break 'em, but they probably wouldn't "lurch forward". They'd be designed to withstand grounding (more/less the same kind of shock), which would be expected due to (for instance) unexpected sandbars, mistaken charts, or bad piloting (distinct from this situation, bad Master's decision... Honestly, running at full speed, at night, in known iceberg waters?:eek: Did they fire this maniac?). The cargo would be well secured, too, in case of heavy weather.

What you would see is unsecured items being thrown around: cutlery, crockery, dishes, passengers... I'd expect 1-2 broken necks &/or fractured skulls in falls from bunks, a half-dozen or dozen fatal scalds from broken steam lines among the black gang, maybe a dozen or so more severe scalds the same, & a 30-40 broken bones among passengers, maybe not even that bad.

If she popped her rivets in the impact, I'd want to flood her aft & transfer cargo aft as best I could, to keep her from going down by the head (& recall the transverse bulkheads aren't full height, so this is pretty important...). I don't know if this is possible in a civvie, tho; I'd bet her Master'd think of something. She'd probably be immobilized. You can't really risk flooding (when she's underway) with the bow not tight, & there's a pretty good chance her propshafts have sprung their bearings, if they're not so bent they won't turn at all. If you can keep her leaks above water, & you've got at least one screw (of her, what, 3, maybe 1 still in operation), she can get way on & make Newfoundland under her own power. The Riband is out of the question on this trip, tho.:p
 
Counterflooding

Counterflooding is something that has shown up in a number of "What-ifs" over the years.

One problem that pops up with this is stability. Simulations of counterflooding frequently show the shipcapsizing or sinking faster.

One thing that can be unappreciated about how the Titanic was more or less on an even keel through the sinking. Ships frequently don't sink that way.

Wayne
 

burmafrd

Banned
Progressive flooding from the bow on brought the ship down by the head.
That is about the only thing we know absolutely for sure.
She sank bow first until she broke in two. Now if the water came in from the side or below really does not matter. Its clear the damage was too much for the ship. Now a head on hit certainly limits the damage to the length of the hull that they got from sliding on by. SO you have to figure the only real flooding is in the forecastle and maybe the compartment after it. The pumps should be able to handle anything else. She was designed to have the first two compartments completely flooded without bringing the head down far enough for the over lap to begin. And even if that began to be a problem possible counter flooding, ligthning the ship by cutting the anchors away or moving weight aft could all delay the sinking enough for the carpathia to arrive. I have always wondered why Capt Smith did not head towards the California which could be seen- they could have kept steaming for at least 1/2 hour more and gotten close enough for eh California to see that something was wrong.
 
Not sure

Edward Wilding's testimony was that he "thought" the Titanic would have survived a head on. He estimated that the crumple zone would be on the order of 80 to 100 feet.

Note though that the crumple zone *may* not the whole problem. In some of my discussions with folks in the field, there is a body of thought that says that plates would buckle and leak - perhaps down the length of the ship, giving flooding that would be more like the Brittanic, and would not be survivable.

This is by no means the "majority opinion", and may quite well be wrong.

Wayne
 
Top