I read somewhere that had she hit the iceberg head on a few compartments in the bow would have flooded but she most likely would have stayed afloat. Kind of ironic that trying to avoid it was the wrong choice.
Well, there are plenty of ironic things when it comes to the Titanic, but that’s just another of them.
I think dracoi’s point was that putting it that way (“why did it sink?”) kind of sets the expectation that it floating is the natural state for a huge multi-ton metal object, and you need some crazy explanation for why it sank. If instead you ask “How did this multi-ton metal object float for so long when there were huge holes destroying any structural or water-tight integrity?”, then just plain physics seems like enough explanation.
I haven’t seen anyone offer a design that could have been engineered to withstand a collision with an iceberg at the given speed and angle within the limits of basic liner design and construction.
Icebergs are hard. Even if the ship was better engineered and there were better ways to do things and better materials in the hull (rivets, etc), and this would have resulted in a 10% improvement is fracture resistance, etc… I think the consensus is that the iceberg was still taking 'er down.
In other words, missing from all analysis (meaningful, creditable analysis) is someone saying that simulations demonstrate that these rivets and this steel and this compartment layout would have stopped this from happening.
Maybe I missed that over the years.
But the expectation in the case of the Titanic or any other ship is that it wouldn’t sink without some additional cause. The mysteries stories imply there was more reason needed than hitting an iceberg.
I’d also like to point out at this point that blaming rivet holes is literally blaming nothing.
Kinda impressive what “nothing” can do, eh?
Didn’t Shakespeare write something on this subject? I wonder if it was about the Titanic.