AS we all know, the Titanic sank because the collision with the iceberg started massive leaks in the forward portion of the hull.
Because the watertight bulkheads did not extend to the upper decks, the ship tiltled forward as the water spilled into the compartments. As the ship tilted down, the stresses on the hull became immense, and the ship broke in two. If the aft atertight doors were shut, why didn’t the aft portion stay afloat?
Survivors heard loud noises as the ship pitched forward-these were said to be caused by the engines and boilers breaking loose and falling down-did these breach the bulkheads? Or did the boilers explode, and cause the hull to open up?
In any case, had the rear part of the ship stayed afloat, would most of the passengers have survived?
Front fell off.
… which severely compromised the structural integrity of the aft part.
I laughed.
Submarines have a large pocket of air in them but they still sink, in their case sinking is by design.
The air pockets on the titanic were not sufficient to keep any part of it afloat. Also the locking bulkheads were not sealed completely they were open on the top. More like an ice cube tray. If they water got high enough it spilled over filling the next until all of them were full.
Answer here. The front Fell Off (as mentioned above).
Curiously, I just read something about this today.
Seems that the front fifth and the rear fifth of the hull were assembled with manually installed “best” rivets, while the middle sections were assembled with “best best” rivets.
The difference (other than, presumably, price) is that the material in the “best” rivets had greater levels of impurities (particularly slag) than the “best best” rivets. The consequence was that these “best” rivets were far more prone to shearing their heads. Thus, under high stress, the seams on the ship would basically “unzip”.
This, it is said, is why the ship sank so quickly. Presumably, the same effect would ensure the stern section sank even if the watertight doors were all closed.