Thanks.
On the issue of list and fire there was an interesting titbit I found out about recently. The Titanic had been suffering from a coal room fire since she had reached Southhampton from Belfast. This was evidently not an uncommon event for coal fired ships. The fire raged throughout the voyage, until a few hours before the collision. To put it out, the crew had shifted the unburnt coal in the affected boiler room (No 6 IIRC) to the Port side on the ship and then dealt with the fire. Said moving of unburnt coal led to a list of about 2 degrees to port side.Which was noted by passengers as well as in the log. Surviving officers stated that a few minutes after the collision, a list of 5 degrees to starboard was noted.
Wonder if the ship would have sunk more quickly if they had not already had a list of 2 degrees to the opposite side.
One thing I wonder is to what degree the Titanic would have ridden up onto the iceberg in question.
The supposed pictures of that very iceberg show something rather different to a slab-sided wall of ice that many like to imagine, so would a lot of energy be dissipated by the ship riding up onto it rather than just coming to a shuddering halt.
Of course, regardless, major damage is likely and AK84’s hypothetical is interesting to explore.
ETA: partly ninja’d; shoulda refreshed before posting.
@Novelty Bobble: OTOH, ships do very poorly when not supported uniformly along their keel.
If the berg’s edge had been a shallow slope (like a giant launching ramp for trailered boats) then Titanic’s bow may well have ridden up onto it aways, then the ship promptly breaks into two parts at the unsupported middle. If that happens, it probably hastens the sinking of at least the aft section.
You mean these pictures? It doesn’t look like a gentle slope that a ship could rid up onto. Also, Titanic had a fairly steep bow. Only icebreakers have shallowly sloped hulls that can ride up onto ice.
I wasn’t thinking of it riding up to a huge extent, I can certainly see that leading to a bad outcome (where bad=disastrous). In my mind I picture a wall of ice with the Titanic smashing straight into it and all the energy dissapating through the crumpling of the hull and superstructure. Then I think of the hull riding up just a little, perhaps 20 or 30 feet and wondering how that slightly more glancing impact changes that energy dissipation profile and improves the survivability
Popular Science had an article after the movie came out which I can’t find online but it had several interesting points. Hitting the iceberg head on would’ve caused more injuries but ultimately would’ve been more survivable. The stem is reinforced. The watertight feature of the bulkheads made the situation worse because the flooding was confined to the the first four compartments and dragged the bow down. Otherwise the water would’ve spread evenly in the lower decks, the ship would’ve stayed level long enough to launch more lifeboats. That’s as much as I remember.
This is a featured article on Wiki today, about a steamship which hit an iceberg but stayed afloat, just seven years after RMS Titanic’s loss: SS Grampian - Wikipedia
Take a look at what Darren Garrison wrote. In many respects, hitting an iceberg is like hitting a mountain. The vast majority of an iceberg’s mass is underwater, so it’s not like you’re just plowing into the above ground mass. There is a huge difference between hitting another ship which 1) has a crushable hull that can give way somewhat just as your ship’s hull gives way, and 2) has less mass to throw around.
In both cases it’s going to be something like an inelastic collision, but in one case the two masses of roughly equal size will move together at about half speed, in the other you’ve got a much smaller mass slamming into a bigger one (as DG as, about 1500 times bigger) causing the smaller mass to dropping it’s speed down to near zero (what I’m assuming the ice bergs would be as it slowly drifts into the Atlantic) in a matter of a few seconds. That’s a much greater shock than traveling on at half speed with the roughly equal sized mass, and that’s even ignoring the relative ductility of a ship’s hull compared to ice.
For comparison, sprinting head first into a pedestrian standing on a street corner vs. into a brick wall. You can’t tell me those two collisions would end the same.
So, would the Titanic have survived going 20 knots into an ice berg? Don’t know. But I wouldn’t shrug it off as a certainty just based on dissimilar incidents involving one ship ramming into another.
But, critically, that ship’s max speed was 15 knots (the Titanic was going 20 in the scenario presented by the OP). And, while the wiki doesn’t say explicitly what speed Grampian was going, it does note that they made a conscious choice to hit head on. I would imagine they would have at least ordered a lower bell, even a backing bell, since they knew at some point prior to the collision that it was coming.
The way I heard it, the US bankrolled Ballard’s Titanic search after he took some shots of the Scorpion and Thresher. Their locations were known, but there ere few photos. And the hulls are in pieces, with the very dense reactor vessels sunk in the muck. I don’t think recovery of more than bits & pieces is feasible.
If the bow strikes the berg sufficiently straight-on, and crumples a lot as has been suggested, the ship might become somewhat embedded in the ice. Ice is pretty hard, but so is steel, and it gets all pointy when you crumple it. So, ultimately, the iceberg might actually help keep the ship afloat, because there is no reason to expect them to bounce apart.
The point too, is that this isn’t a hitting a brick wall scenario except for the front of the boat. Some part of the bow becomes a crumple zone, so the deceleration will be somewhat less than abrupt. I think LSLguy has it best. The more that crumples, the lesser the shock of deceleration. Using a skid calculator online, going 26mph you would stop in 32.3 feet if you jammed on the brakes. This is not a catastrophic amount of deceleration. The only real question is how effective crumpling the bow is at stopping the rest of the ship, how much needs to crumple. That’s the key question we’re arguing about.
There was something a while ago that mentioned the metallurgy of the rivets made them very brittle in cold water, which explained how the iceberg made such a big gash. However, the ship did not break in half until it raised at least 30 degrees out of the water, so I’m inclined to disregard that possibility of cascading hull damage in a head-on collision.
But it IS still like running into a brick wall. Whether the bow gives way and crumples or not (and I’m sure it does somewhat), the iceberg still doesn’t move appreciably as a result of the impact. Brick wall.
And keep in mind one of the problems Titanic had was that it’s hull was only water-tight up to, what, five decks from the keel up? If the bow gets obliterated, even if you don’t get as many gaps in the hull as compared to a glancing blow, with or without rivets popping, that still leaves open the possibility of progressive flooding, depending on just how far back that crumpling effect goes.
Why? It’s not just about the strength of the hull, it’s about how many gaps/seems/holes/whatever open up. The idea is the plates don’t need to have separated completely, just that some of the bolts on some of the plates (not even all of the bolts on some of the plates) sheered, exposing gaps. Even if those plates remained attached to the hull.
Also, plates are not primarily what hold the ship together in a way that keeps it from snapping in half. That would be the keel. Which may also be damaged (forget may, would) more severely in a head-on collision.
