BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking

Subject: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 01:05 AM

At disastercity.com there is a very interesting article suggesting that the cold water temperatures caused the steel in Titanic's hull to be brittle, causing many glass-like cracks and fractures when the ship struck the iceberg...and so the steel's sensitivity to low temperatures was the fatal factor.

There is also evidence of this happening in many other cases later, especially with Liberty ships in WWII.

Check it out at: http://disastercity.com/titanic/index.shtml

And see what you think...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 05:33 AM

Given a Sea tempreture of just below freezing for freshwater, some grades of steel become brittle and will fracture. This may have happened with the "Titanic" It is in disputable that the welds on some liberty ships failed under exteream tempreatures.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 07:26 AM

Well, if this was a significant factor, it is surprising there was no scandal about it. The properties of steel at freesing temperatures were known at that time and only incompetence of the first order, or some sort of criminal scam involving suppliers, would account for it.

Once the hole was torn in her, which may or may not have involved sub-specification plates and welds, the key fact in the loss was the design of the thwartship bulwarks which failed to compartment the vessel's sections completely.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 07:51 AM

Still took over two hours to sink....

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Bernard
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 12:09 PM

Interesting that Titanic's sister ship, Olympic, didn't suffer a similar fate... and the third ship, Gigantic, was never built. They were planned to be structurally identical Royal Mail Steamships, although Titanic was the most luxurious.

As Les Barker put it 'Is there any news of the iceberg?!'

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 12:19 PM

There was also the question of impurities in the steel used, which may have increased the brittleness factor.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 12:32 PM

I discovered a similar thing with my soft plastic toy soldiers back in the sixties. I had lots of those soldiers made by Marx in 1/32 scale (Americans, Japanese, Germans, Mexicans, Indians, Texans, etc...). They were made of a strong but flexible, shiny plastic, and I used to set them up outdoors in trenches, bunkers, weeds, and so on, and fight battles between them with a BB gun. This was no problem during warm weather. The BB's would sometimes leave a noticeable dent in the soldier, but that was all.

In the winter, however, hits would often cause them to fracture into pieces, as the plastic had grown brittle in the cold.

Due to this, I gave up shooting at my toy soldiers on cold days.

I also discovered that one had to be quite careful with plastic ships in cold water for the same reasom. If you happened to run into a rock, the bow was likely to shatter.

Apparently the survival rate of torpedoed tankers was MUCH higher in the warm waters of the South Pacific than it was in the colder waters of the North Atlantic.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: GUEST,Gareth
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 12:44 PM

The "Gigantic" was built, but named the "Britannic" - And yes she had a full complement of Lifeboats. Requesitioned and equiped as a hospital ship in 1915 the "Britannic" sstruck a mine in the Aegean Sea 21st November 1916, and ank within 50 minutes - fortunately with little (21 souls) loss of life.

Interestingly a Ms Violet Jessup, who had been a stewardess on the "Titanic", and survived, was serving as a Nurse on the "Britannic". She survived this loss as well.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 12:59 PM

You'd get a bit nervous shipping out with Violet after that wouldn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 01:32 PM

The Olympic was a more fortunate ship, and did not happen to collide with any large objects or get torpedoed either during her lengthy career.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 02:35 PM

Huh!! I often wondered about cousin Violet!! :>) She always did have a contrary streak about her!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: selby
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 02:45 PM

This is intresting I work in the power industry and have seen welds break through extremes of temperature change.
Sorry but to quote Les Barker "Have you got any news of the iceberg me family where on it you see"
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: SINSULL
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 03:11 PM

I saw a TV documentary a few years back which claimed that coal fires were common on large ships of the time since it was almost impossible to keep the fuel dry. As moisture evaporated, the coals would ignite starting smouldering fires. According to their story, Titanic left with a KNOWN fire on board. This created heated steel which fractured when the icy water hit it. They theorized that disaster could have been avoided without the additional factor of the fire.

Came across to me as the overenthusiastic musings of a college thesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Megan L
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 06:19 PM

As a young child i remeber being told that a sister ship the oceanic sank of shetland.

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 07:12 PM

Yes - Bunker fires on coal fired ships were not uncommon - thru spontaneous combustion or a trimmers ciggarete end. There is some thought ( and I'll look the references up later) that the explosion on the USS Maine ( cause ?? of the Spanish American war) was due to a bunker fire "cooking" off a magazine.

If Gardner & Van Der Vat's factual book "The Riddle of the Titanic" ISBN 0 75280 167 8 WEIDENFIELD 1995 is correct the "Titanic left Belfast with a fire in #10 bunker. Nothing remarkable in this - You had a gang of trimmers and stokers clear the bunker and load any glowing coals into the furnace. This fire would have been against #5 watertight bulkhead, and could have altered the tensile properties of the steel. The loss of #5 Bulkhead would have made no difference to the fate of the "Titanic", water was already lapping over the top, due to the lack of height or a watertight top from #1 collision bulkhead onwards.

What might have saved the "Titanic" could have been "counter flooding" - I E let water into the stern compartments to restore an equilibrium, tho with an overall lowered freeboard and metracentric height. This essential bit of damage control was not really appreciated till the US Navy did some deep research from 1941 onwards as a result of surveys post 'Pearl Harbour'.

In retrospect the loss of "Ark Royal" off Gibraltar was down to lack of counter flooding resulting in the boiler uptakes being sealed by water and a complete loss of power to the pumps as the "Ark" listed. Bluntly ONE torpedo should not have sunk her. Counter flooding would have restored the equilibtium and it is probable that the "Ark" would have made Gibraltar, under her own power.

Interestingly "White Star Line", owners of the "Titanic" was American Owned, the ultimate owner being J P Morgan Trust.

The Cunard vessels, "Mauretania" etc. were built to a different specification. The Admiratly gave a subsidy with the object of taking them up in war as either "Fast Troopships" or " Armed Merchant Cruisers", These specifications included a midships (Bow to Stern) water tight bulkhead, and a watertight deck to eliminate the lapping over of water from one compartment to another. The decks were also reinforced in places to take gun mountings.

But this is a music forum - Click Here for the mathematics of the loss of the "Titanic" and Click 'Ere for the stoke hold views on fireing the big liners.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 25 Nov 02 - 12:22 PM

Actually, they did a counter flooding theory exercise for the Titanic at the David Taylor Model Basin, just outside of DC. Seems the leveling effect of the counter flooding was such that due to the intake of water, she would have sunk in almost the same time, but level. It was filmed several years ago, and is periodically shown on TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 02 - 05:55 PM

The counterflooding would have been well worth a try, and even if the ship had sunk anyway it might have saved some lives in the case of the two collapsible lifeboats, which could probably have been launched safely under those conditions (sinking on a level keel).

It would not have made nearly so dramatic an end, however, as sinking by the bow did. Not good for the movies...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Gareth
Date: 25 Nov 02 - 06:41 PM

Ah Well - bang goes that theory !!!!

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Nov 02 - 08:15 PM

The steel question has been debated for quite some time now and as was pointed out, with Titanic there was also some question as to the impurities in the steel and particularly with the rivets. Although fracturing due to temperature was known, the process used in making steel up until the 30's made it difficult to not have fracturing at freezing temperatures.

Great Lakes freighters have a lot longer life expectancy than salt water ships and a similar steel fracturing occurred on the Carl Bradley which sank in a late storm on Lake Michigan in 1958 (I think it was'58). The Bradley was well over 30 years old at the time and though still thought of as a good boat, the older steel process came into play.

BTW, as far as Violet goes, there are a number of Titanic survivors who had additional problems as well. I don't recall the name of the engineman, but he was on Titanic and survived. A few years later he was aboard the Eastland when she capsized in the Chicago River. He survived that one too.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 25 Nov 02 - 08:34 PM

An interesting novel by Sterling Hayden, "Voyage, a novel of 1896," traces the voyage of a steel-hulled square rigger around Cape Horn, loaded with coal, and a fire in the coal. Fictional, but well-researched.

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Hrothgar
Date: 26 Nov 02 - 02:26 AM

Titanic was riveted, not welded, wasn't she?

One of the stories I've heard is that the ship wasn't actually ripped open by the iceberg - it just made too many of the rivets pop, causing plate separation.

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 02 - 06:24 AM

On the sinking of the "Ark Royal" - I remember it used to be used as a model exercise at HMS Pheonix (Royal Navy NBCD school). From dim memory the instructor put one of the major causes of her ultimate loss down to the poor control of the fire-fighting parties who managed to put the ship into a state of loll, his (the instructor) comment was that 4 inches of free surface water sank the Ark, much the same happened to the Normandie in New York harbour.

One programme I watched on the Titanic mentioned the steel and the rivets - I suppose that quality control and NDE inspection techniques were not up to the mark at the time she was built.

The Liberty ship problem, I thought was one of inadequate stress relief at the hatch corners which caused the cracks to appear and propogate.

Subject: RE: BS: Interesting theory about Titanic sinking
From: HuwG
Date: 26 Nov 02 - 08:55 AM

Fascinating technical subject this, and I am not too well versed in the details, but I believe that beyond a certain point, counterflooding is catastrophic. As the ship gets lower in the water, the metacentric height gets lower and eventually the ship will roll over, with little warning. I have no idea at what point that might have occurred with Titanic, but I suspect that it would be sooner than two hours, given the amount of counterflooding necessary to counter the weight of the five flooded forward compartments.

In any case, such counterflooding could well have "hogged" the ship; with the ends flooded and the midships section buoyant, the bow and stern could have started to break off.

As regards "Ark Royal" etc. RN damage control in World War II was patchy. Most losses were due to failure of electrical power, preventing pumping, firefighting etc. "Ark Royal" lost power, so did "Prince of Wales" (where an engine room flooded because of a hit on the 'A' frame supporting a propellor shaft).

Several ships which should have been goners made it home, some of them still fighting, if the electric systems still worked.