wizofwas added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip my own testimony]
And then, we can discuss the primative and dangerous safety
standards of the day wrt life boats, etc. Thank God, though, at
least for wireless. Now, for many aspects of the Titanic sinking,
Bouler, you're into MY areas of expertise, especially those of
engineering and amateur historian, but NOT those of a nautical
nature per se.

Interesting read so far. And as far as I know nothing said is
incorrect. But I'd like to add another reason why the Titanic sunk.
The water tight bulkheads were only water tight to 8 feet and the
ceilings in those bulk- heads were 10 feet high (I am probably wrong
about the height, but you get the idea). Once one of the bulkheads
started overflowing to another, they all started to fill, and then
the ship was doomed. And another little side note about the steel.
Even if the steel had passed the standards for the day, it was never
tested for the cold waters of the North Atlantic. And the cold makes
the steel much more brittle.

Thank you for the vote of confidence on my recollections, wiz. You are
obviously correct about the height of the bulkheads guarded by water
tight doors as well as the number of doors themselves. The designers
simply couldn't imagine a situation where so much water would rush in
as to begin to sink the ship by the bow enough to go over the top of
the bulkheads, which is precisely what DID happen. I glossed over this
as part of a very short statement on the standards of the day for ship
construction that led to the belief whether correct or what turned out
to be totally incorrect that Titanic was "unsinkable."

Another much more recent example is the 1955 or so sinking of the
Italian liner, Andrea Dorea hit by the Swedish ship Stockholm about 1/3
of the way aft right into the side of the hull. The ice-breaker bow of
the Stockholm literally cut a swath almost from top to bottom of the
Doria and likewise overwhelmed her much improved watertight bulkheads,
even in warm temperatures and with far stronger steels. But, and this
is extremely important, only around 50 lives were lost, all I believe
directly in the path of the initial hit. The ship stayed afloat for
many hours, my recollection is perhaps 8 hours or so, well enough time
to evacuate the passengers to life boats now mandated to be sufficient
for all aboard. So, there wasn't an "unsinkable" ship in 1912, not in
1955, and none in 2008, but a LOT more so these day, I should think.

Of course it goes without saying that a double bottomed hull would
have saved the ship anyway.

Yes, 'tis also quite true. For strictly financial reasons, a double-
bottom was omitted from Titanic and even still so today except perhaps
in cases where a sinking or partial sinking causes environmental
damage, e.g., an oil tanker. But, it is also tragic that for financial
reasons, a decision was made by Titanic's builders to limit the
thickness of the hull plates in order to save the cost of steel, cost
of assembly time and labor, and weight which in turn would have
required either much larger and expensive engines or slower speeds or
both. And, that isn't what you want to to do if you're the CEO of White
Star Lines!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"