Could the Titanic's stern have remained afloat after the breakup?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this video we take a look at the question of if its possible that the stern section of the RMS Titanic could have remained afloat after the ship broke apart.
Check out Inner History youtube channel
• Video
Support Historic Travels on patreon
/ historictravels
“The stern was trying to keep the bow section from sinking...” it’s almost like the ship was trying to save itself. 😢
Well you have to visualize how buoyancy of the ship worked... in a "perfect" case, the weight of the vessel is evenly distributed along its length, and the ships hull displaces water evenly around the entire hull, the weight of the displaced water is equal to the total weight of the ship, which is why ships are measured in "tons of displacement" (the weight of the displaced water). This is an easy to replicate experiment-- fill a cup completely full to the brim with water, and weigh it. Then place something which will float in the water in the cup, say a cork or weighted fishing bobber that will fit in the cup. Some of the water will come out the top of the cup. If you catch this water in another cup or bowl below it, and weigh the displaced water, the weight of the displaced water will be the same as that of the floating object and any weight it supports.
Now, in reality, weight is NOT evenly spread throughout the vessel... heavy structures like engines, cargo, coal or other fuel, etc all act to create concentrations of mass within the hull, but the structure of the ship is designed to take that... some areas of the hull are under compression, some under tension, and the structure has to be heavy enough to withstand those forces. The ship has expansion joints built into the structure, as steel, no matter HOW STRONGLY it's designed and constructed, will flex slightly under the loads and over the ships length this can add up to be several inches of flex of the structure, more about this later. The ship's displacement, if she's on an even keel and not listing to either side, means the displacement and therefore the force of buoyancy holding the ship up in the water is evenly distributed around the hull. We can think of this force of buoyancy acting through the ship as a "center of buoyancy", basically a line running down the center of the ship through which the forces of buoyancy act. Excess weight to either side of this line has to be counterbalanced by extra buoyancy, created by extra displacement on that side, which can only be created by the ship sitting lower in the water to that side, which is what causes a ship to list to the heavier side. Thus why Titanic was riding lower in the water on the port side due to the extra 700 tons of coal transferred to that side in putting out the bunker fire. The extra water displaced by the ship running lower in the water on that side creates extra buoyancy to offset the weight of the transferred coal.
To be continued... OL J R :)
Continued...
Now, as the ship starts taking on water, it starts losing buoyancy. Once a compartment is FILLED with water is has ZERO buoyancy, and is DEAD WEIGHT. If it were cut loose at that moment it would be just like a rock dropped in water-- literally sink like a stone... BUT it's still attached to the ship, so that dead weight has to be supported by the buoyancy of the rest of the ship. Its weight also has to be supported by the ship's structure. This places a large bending load on the keel and supporting structures which gradually builds up, causing the heavy bow of the ship to flex downward more and more under it's own weight since it's no longer being supported by the force of buoyancy due to being filled with water, and no longer displacing water. What this does is, gradually the loss of buoyancy in the bow causes the "line of buoyancy" in the ship to be pushed further and further back, and as the stern rises out of the water, it's no longer displacing water EITHER since it's rising up OUT of the water, which means it's becoming DEAD WEIGHT too, pulling down on the center of the ship... the "center of buoyancy" becomes, instead of a line running the length of the ship, it gets shorter and shorter until finally it's a single POINT where the weight of the stern above the water and the weight of the bow under the water are concentrated, both pulling in opposite directions. It's as if the ship is resting in a drydock on a SINGLE SUPPORT right under the center of mass of the ship, it's "center of gravity", with the long bow and long stern unsupported in midair... NO force of buoyancy is acting on EITHER, as the stern is in the air, held up by the weight of the bow which is under water with no displacement, so the only force holding the ship up is the buoyancy force concentrated right in the middle caused by the displacement of the center of the ship from the water rushing in. The expansion joints in the structure had expanded probably over 2 feet wide at that point, where they normally would have been only a few inches wide (so they could flex in compression as well as tension), we know this because this enormous force actually permanently bent the structure of Titanic, and the expansion joints had to bend enough to pass the "modulus of elasticity", which can be shown by an easy experiment at home... take a thin but flexible piece of metal... bend it a little bit, hold it, you can see the bend in the metal, the FLEX, then release it... it will straighten out once the force is removed and return to its original shape (straight) because the "modulus of elasticity" has not been exceeded. Now bend that piece of metal the same amount, only now apply MORE force and bend it even further... then release the force on the metal. The point at which SO MUCH force is applied and the metal bends and DOES NOT RETURN to the same shape (remains bent when force is removed, not straight) is when the force has exceeded the modulus of elasticity. Now if you MEASURE how much it's bent BEFORE the force is released, you'll find that the metal DOES return PARTIALLY to the original shape, but not completely... it "bends back" once the force is released, but it's bent too far to return to the original shape, this is the "modulus of elasticity"-- how much force and how far the metal can bend before it's permanently deformed from the original shape and will not return to the original shape once the force is removed. Titanic's expansion joints are stretched out to between 12-18 inches, where they were ORIGINALLY made about 4-5 inches IIRC, meansing the structure bent FURTHER than those 12-18 inches under the forces acting on the ship due to the concentration of buoyancy forces near the center before it broke, and then after the break when the forces were released, the metal "straightened out" back toward its original shape, but had been permanently deformed from the 4-5 inch gap to 12-18 inch gap when the metal was relaxed. All this force of buoyancy concentrated to support the ship at one point was simply too much, just as it would be if the ship were balanced on a single support in drydock, and the ship simply broke in two... the weight of the unsupported stern up in the air and the unsupported flooded unbuoyed bow exceeded the strength of the steel structure, which simple broke apart, either rivets failing and shearing or steel plates cracking apart, or beams bending beyond their ability to hold and breaking... in the keel there would have been enormous compressional forces that buckled and broke the bottom of the ship and in fact they found a 3 foot section of the bottom of the ship in the debris field, which likely popped out and broke off during the Titanic breaking in half.
Once the ship broke in half, the bow, being dead weight, sank like a stone... The question is, how long did it remain "connected" to the stern of the ship and contribute to its sinking? The stern settled back toward horizontal, but not completely... which contributed to the conflicting reports of some people saying it broke in half and some not. The forward half of the ship would have dropped down nearly vertically, having nothing supporting it any more, and as the rear section dropped back, this would have severely bent and broken any remaining structures holding the two halves together, ripping apart or breaking the remaining connections, allowing the bow to plunge down to the seafloor 2.5 miles below. The stern kept flooding, the massive weight of the engines near the front of the stern section would have pushed it lower in the water and thus accelerated the flooding, pushing the stern ever lower as it flooded and buoyancy was lost in the stern section, the same phenomenon of the center of buoyancy moving to a single point where the unsupported mass of the flooded structure was equaled by the unsupported mass of the structure up in the air would be equal, as water continued flooding in and the structure settling further and further into the water, until eventually the stern was pulled almost upright... eventually, the mass of the engines pulled the thing nearly upright and eventually the flooding continued until the unsupported flooded mass of the ship exceeded the force of buoyancy, and the stern took her final plunge into the deep. There still would have been air trapped within the hull, but the displacement would have been less than the weight of the stern section, causing it to sink. Due to the severe damage on the rear portion of the ship, it is believed that the rapidly increasing pressure of seawater against these air-filled areas of the ship caused them to implode, crushing and deforming the stern of the ship into the mess it is on the floor of the ocean today. Seawater doesn't compress appreciably, but air does, so flooded compartments do not implode, but air filled ones pulled deeply underwater certainly can and do.
Now IF either by chance or design the Titanic's keel had been weaker and her break had been relatively "clean", could the aft compartments not flooded and kept the stern afloat, at least for a couple of hours until help could arrive?? We'll never know for sure, but it's POSSIBLE IMHO. If it were designed that way, the engines would likely have to be in front of the break point, and the propeller shafts and other structures DESIGNED to break away cleanly, and not keep the two halves connected. OR the displacement of the stern section of the ship would have to be constructed in such a way to account for the weight of the engines and keep the stern on a somewhat even keel, to prevent the weight of the engines from dragging the stern down too low in the water to continued flooding of the stern. As it was the "natural" break in the structure simply wasn't clean enough or the mass distribution and center of buoyancy sufficiently evenly distributed to allow the stern to remain afloat more or less intact after the ship broke in two...
Later! OL J R:)
Imagine the awsome photographs we could’ve had, had this senario been a reality.
4:00 AM in the morning of April 15th when the Carpathia arrived. Not only we’d still have the same photos of the survivors on the life boats but also what remains of the Titanic with the people still on it waving at the old cameras that some people in the Carpathia carries.
If Sam had been my teacher I would have passed history with flying colors
If Sam was my teacher I would have passed LIFE with flying colors. LOL
True, but I’m glad he’s not a teacher because he can reach a lot more people this way
Same best teacher ever
I’d of loved him as my teacher, instead I had a grumpy sod who clearly hated teaching and was more focused on making the subject as boring as possible.
@@holliewheeler5233 it makes a lot of Sense to me because when it hit down back on the water it broke a hole or the propellers off
Slowly becoming one of my favorite channels
It's already my favorite.
@@Plsgetmetosubscribers-rq9hy same
Me too a new subscriber
I’m of the opinion that even if the watertight doors were closed the hull would have warped and caused tears that would lead to air escaping the stern, thus causing it to lose any of its buoyancy.
I agree. In theory, the stern should have remained afloat had the bulkhead doors been firmly closed but the sheer power of all the forces upon the entire vessel as a result of the breakup would have evaporated any chance of structural integrity.
Shell plating ripped away from the stern's inner structure for 160 feet after of the tear line, possibly all the way into the generator room. There was no way the stern could have remained afloat with that much shell plating compromised during the break up. That is why most of the starboard side shell plate blew off upon impact with the seabed, and the port shell plating for 120 feet is barely attached to the wrecked stern section. Now the reciprocating engine, turbine engine room, and generator room are now exposed and open to the sea, and so are all the other compartments above to the main deck. The weight of the engines at the forward end of the severed stern, plus the thousands of tons of water that flooded in pushed the forward end down, enough for water to over spill the bulkhead between the reciprocating and the turbine engine room.
Can't argue with the physics in this case. In a different scenario it might have slowed the sinking of the stern, but certainly not stopped it.
It isn't air escaping that loses buoyancy, it's water entering. Theoretically if Titanic's stern had separated rather cleanly from the bow, its possible she could have remained afloat for another hour or two, which could have allowed many more people to be saved. OL J R :)
*lose
Hey Sam, I notice that this is the second small TH-camr that you’ve shouted out. I just wanted to say it’s awesome that you’re using your fan base for good and to help others grow, it’s a great thing to see. Great video too, keep up the good work!
I appreciate that!
That is so nice
@@HistoricTravels so buddy you should do a video about the ss Arctic disaster. There was women and children last fir that tragedy.
Also, take into consideration that the ship's hull started to break in half through the steel plates of the ship's sides and decks that were riveted together and popped open. As the two pieces start to separate, they are creating an angled opening, but the keel of the ship was much stronger than the hull sides and didn't break apart at first. The keel kept the bow section and the stern section connected until the weight of the bow just pulled the stern down. I believe that the complete separation occured thereafter.
Actually i heard that potentially B deck was reinforced likely being the last section to break. Another titanic channel forgot the name embarrassingly
There are also scientist who believe the that the Keel was holding the Ship very much longer together than everyone think, they scientist of Titanic: Answers from the Abyss (1999) believed that the Breakup occured with Bow and Stern submerged, meaning that the Bow and Keel pulled the Stern into the Water and then finally after a few Secounds the Keel breaking as the last Part of the Ship. I believe thats how it happend, because the Steel of the Keel was very stable and the Breaking of Titanic was a very slow Process, the Titanic Movie is Bullshit about this, the Keel was the most stable thing on Titanic, the Keel breaking in half just in a few secounds makes no sense with a Steel that could hold a Ship together with a Tilt of of more then 15 Degrees.
You didn’t mention anything about the double bottom that pulled the stern down with the bow, I feel that this was one of the main reasons why the stern sank as fast/at all.
When the bow and stern split from each other, the double bottom didn’t quite break fully away from each section and this is what dragged the stern down. There was a documentary I saw a few years ago talking about the double bottom and the pieces they found in the debris field.
I feel like this had a massive part to play with the final moments of the stern, it would have still sunk, but could’ve been slower if the double bottom had broken off fully.
Idea for a video: what was the hygiene like aboard Titanic? It could include: differences between 1st, 2nd and 3rd class; parallel with hygiene standards of that time; the drinking water distribution system; and waste collection and disposal.
Could you possibly do the HMS Victoria and how when it sank it landed vertically?
victoria had poor design and poor handling... titanic fate would be identical if they would keep titanic going after impact. she would just go down like bullet.
I never thought I’d be so interested in the titanic before I discovered your channel! Anyone else excited for what he’s gonna post for the anniversary of the sinking this year?
Can't wait for another awesome video!!! I would love to see you do a video on the history of 1) ideas of how the Titanic could be found, as ideas began to be talked about almost immediately after she sank and 2) the unsuccessful expeditions that searched for the Titanic, such as the 1981 search by Jack Grimm.
Also, that the Royal Navy found the wreck in 1977 accidently whilst doing classified sonar work in the area.
Sam has that video on how that found the titanic.
Would you ever consider doing a video on the Chernobyl disaster?? I would love your take on the event
Also!! Maybe a video on how the ship got stuck in the Suez Canal!!
Fascinating. Thank you.
I will be interesting to see you eventually cover the great Airships of the 1920s and 30s.
I’m such a history buff. Thank you for your posts
I'm always impressed by the amount of research you put into these videos, and how concisely you present the information. Keep up the good work!
I love how u say divided and I like how u said our good old friends the water tight compartments
Loving the videos bro, I can’t stop watching:)
thanks for noticing me you made my night i was sad at school im british btw im love the olyimpic class liners good day mate
can i get a shout out my name is connor btw
Yeah me to u post just after 2pm
In Britain
You might want to do one on the Ever Given and put it ahead of your Estonia one, seems very timely right now.
I've been learning about this ship and the story for the better half of 10 years now, in this video i learned something new, its so exciting knowing there is always more to learn!
Sam, you sure have a gift for telling a story! I enjoy your videos very much, thanks!
Hi sam just wanted to tell you i love your titanic content. I binge watch them every night before I go to bed. Its very educational and the way u explain things keep me highly engaged.
This is my Fav. Channel. Ty Sam another good one
I think this goes back to that other video about the ship sinking stern first. Had the ship broken more evenly then and the bow had remained above water, it wouldn't have had those heavy engines to pull it under and might have stayed afloat long enough for rescue.
I always love your videos Sam. I'm sort of obsessed with the Titanic and your videos answer some of the questions that I always have, like what if? Keep it up sir.
I'm from Belfast and I visit the Titanic docks every week. We have a building which was built in 2012 at the docks, 100 year anniversary and the building is exactly the same size as Titanic when she was in the water.
This is an interesting question I've always considered we now know the answer for why the stern sank she could have stayed afloat if she had a broke cleanly off from the bow, but it wasn't a clean break by the way there are other examples of ships breaking in half and the stern stayed afloat (few years earlier a White Star Line ship ran aground and the bow sunk on rocks and they brought a demolition crew blow the bow off the ship, towed the stern back to Harlem and wolf and rebuilt the bow back onto the hull) it is possible buoyancy is buoyancy!!! it doesn't matter where it is on the ship by the way the Disney movie the "finest Hour" was based on a real Coast Guard rescue of a tanker ship that actually broke in half and the stern stayed afloat long enough for the men to be rescued by the Coast Guard rescue. there are pieces of ships that have broken apart where the stern stayed afloat so long that they actually had to intentionally sink it so that it wouldn't be a hazard to other vessels-what Doom the stern of the Titanic was that her double bottom Hull remain attached even after the two pieces broke apart!!! her double bottom Hull was the last to fail-the bow literally drug the stern underneath the sea because they were still attached, they even found that piece of double bottom Hull that eventually failed they found it in the debris field far away from the wreckage if the double bottom Hall had failed and made a clean break I believe the stern would have stayed afloat maybe not forever but maybe long enough for people to be rescued?
I love you Sam!
I am so glad I can know more about the Titanic with you!
Me too!!
This channel is top quality!
I always thought it was 5 compartments that was damaged. One to many...
I've always wondered this, thanks for the thorough explanation!!
My favorite video of yours so far!
Brilliant, as always! Perfect video!
I love these “What If Theories”
Another great video,great job as always
Honestly me finding this channel was a blessing for I have always been fascinated in the titanic and other ships
Thanks Sam
Love your Titanic videos. You give the real stuff about characters like Murdoch being swept off by an unexpected (in his part) wave rather than committing suicide and Captain Smith and Andrews jumping off the ship rather than simply giving up. Makes the story so much better (if that possible). More please!
Absolutely correct on all counts and one thing the last movie did show well was the violent destruction at the separation point. With regard the engines and other heavy machinery in the aft section, there is of course one other factor as well as the buoyancy that came into play as that section was rising - gravity. With all that weight there was no way the stern could have stayed in situ, something had to give and it did.
Very interesting stuff! Appreciate the post.
That's really interesting.
Thx for your dedication 💜
Thanks for the answer to the question I asked you that was really informative Sam.
I Love your videos Keep up The Good Work!
Hi! I discovered your channel today. You make such great content! I was wondering if you could someday make a video about The Vasa Ship? 😊
doors from engine room to turbine room were opened at time of breakup.. they closed after water triggered float mechanism that closes the doors,.
also stern had some portholes open and hull plating was ripped open at engine room,also break up was behind watertight door so engine room filled up instantly.
the steam pipes of boiler room 2 for odd reasons are twisted and screwed like serpentine. maybe once bow went under water still attached to stern,the bottom piece gave up,bow rolled over so steam pipes got twisted around,theres no other way to make steam pipes look like that
also when stern broke off there was many open cabins so water got quickly there so it could not last longer. also engines weight pulled stern down so some ripped areas got under and filled up quickly..
to cut off any speculation of lights after breakup the emergency dynamos had very little load with just those lights,the dynamo had also huge momentum so even after steam pressure was ZERO the flywheel spinned for around minute providing lights,but once water got into switchboard room and triggered all fuses,lights went out. so yes lights must have stayed on stern to very last few moments..i did study the titanic main and auxiliary dynamo machines characteristics and their capability,lights would just start to be weaker and weaker untill they disappear (when flywheel stops) or when water reach the fuses panel,switchboards then lights would go out quicker..
also stopping water flow after impact was not possible with their materials,yes they could stuff the cargoholds 1 2 3 with chairs,tables,carpets and other stuff just to make less room for water,but that would not stop it.. water would just find way above stuffed compartments and continue forward flooding...there was one short living theory of making diving bell effect on titanic....just partially close the doors in cargoholds 1 2 3 and seal up compartments on other areas so they would not let air escape out,water would fill as much as air compresses and not more. but again,water would find other way to flood the ship... their way to stop flooding would be requiring to patch up all leaks in boiler room 6 and atleast cargohold 3. titanic would then survive but for how long nobody knows..
the myth about titanic and 4 compartments was busted... titanic could survive only if flooding happens in cargo hold 1 and 2 and 3 and boiler room 6 but notthing else.. because water filled up forepeak tank and part of boiler room 5 and water was entering boiler room 4 it was eoungh to send ship to bottom.. despite the things forepeak as whole compartment was dry untill very late of sinking,it was just only ballast tank flooding because it was holed by iceberg... titanic had 7 compartments affected by water.. thats way too much....even with 4 compartments breached,titanic would stay for around 4-5 hours,eoungh to get help and get people out but salvaging ship was not really possible. because water was coming to 7 compartments,it was still 2hour and 40minute sinking....
there is only one misunderstanding,some people clocks did not stop at 2:20 because there was some watches picked up from INSIDE wreck and some were around 2:30 so maybe stern stayed for longer time than we thought.
You are the best! Enjoy your vids too too much!!
Yes!! Thank you, I thought you might have forgotten about my what if question, thank you for answering it 😊
I'm somewhat surprised you didn't mention the Morrell, a lake freighter that broke in half and whose stern actually sailed for another 5 miles.
I was literally thinking about this and you post a video about it!
Great video. I've watched a few now and when discussing the break up you might want to add the effect of an "uneven split" of the ship, i.e. breaking at the upper-most decks, not at the keel as described by Gary Sanford and J.A. Bristol's comments.
This uneven split occurs because the strain on the hull is strongest at a point near the boat deck and directly forward of the third funnel. Imagine the weight of the fully-water-filled bow pulling down one way and the weight of the now-airborne stern pulling down the other way. This would produce an immense coupling moment at the point where it eventually splits.
This split would start at the boat deck and travel downwards. While it is splitting, though, imagine that the strain is being relieved; the stern is descending back into the water, being restored by its positive buoyancy while the non-buoyant bow is now pulling away. Thus, the split isn't clean and the lower portion near the keel stays connected. The stern is no longer producing a downward force of gravity, it is now producing an upward force of buoyancy.
This means that as the ship is breaking apart, the predominant "splitting" force is no longer a moment close to the boat deck, but now tension closer to the still-connected keel since the bouyant stern is resisting the fully-submerged, fully-inundated bow.
To me, this is the single greatest contributor to the stern sinking as fast as it did. Not only is it structurally-compromised, it is literally dragged under water by the bow section until that portion of keel snaps from tension and the stern is freed. Too much of the stern was pulled under and flooded during that time though, so it only bobs for a minute or so. That piece of double bottom keel, which spans the entire width of Titanic, lay today in the debris field, curiously separated from both bow and stern, and curiously uncrushed.
Though it would never have stayed afloat, because as you mentioned, the weight of the engines would make for an improperly-ballasted load, I believe that if not for this dragging-under effect, i.e. a clean break, it may have sunk more slowly, less violently and with fewer implosions after.
With the lower maximum angle of strain in the THG simulation than the James Cameron movie, you can better see the effect of this phased split.
Gary Sanford: th-cam.com/channels/dDsDye9M1bggWZnAqrbPJA.html
J.A. Bristol: th-cam.com/channels/w-yZD0Sbdd6gg34u0m7AtA.html
Great job, Sam!
Love your videos
Another interesting video to make me think. Thanks :)
History is actually very interesting, but it sure wasnt in my high school
Great vid!
Another great installment!
Hi Sam, I am new to the channel and I love learning about Titanic. I like the way you present the information, easy to follow and understand. I love history and the Titanic is one of the most famous ships there is. In 2019 I took a trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, on my city tour I learned that there are 3 cemetaries dedicated to those lost that night. 2 are open for the public to visit and pay their respects while the third is not open to the public. I do not know why but I do know that the 3rd cemetary is for the Jewish people lost that night. Also on my city tour I learned about the Halifax explosion. I also learned that I was about 400 nautical miles from Titanic. There is a museum in Halifax and I have personally seen artifacts that have been excavated. I even held in my hands the crew and passenger manifest. While I love learning more about what happened and some of the personal stories you have uncovered however, I would be interested in learning about the aftermath. Im sure there were hearings, court cases, firings, I am sure someone had to be held accountable. The ship sank in international waters so how did that play out? Which government was tasked with finding the truth? Was it Canada? U.S.A? Was it the U.K? What were some of the newspaper headlines of that day? What did the White Star Line company tell the public? Were there any cover ups? One thing I am definitley curious about is; is that iceberg, the exact one that took down the ship that could never sink, is it still there? Have any other ships met this iceberg and has that iceberg claimed anymore lives since 1912?
I think the ice melted
Icebergs melt rather quickly... it was probably gone within a few days to week or two after the disaster... warm water is 800 times denser than air, so it transfers warmth much faster than air does. Only a very few (1% or so) of icebergs even make it into the Atlantic, and even fewer ever get that far south... there's vids about these topics on YT... Later! OL J R :)
Great and interesting video! Subbed
Great video as always Sam, keep them coming. Watched the video you recommended thanks for sharing. Idea for a video, if another ship could have reached Titanic before she sunk, how close could the other ship have got to her? Also how long would it have taken on average to row back and fourth etc.
If there was time, they technically could have gotten VERY close and extended gangplanks for people to cross over on, rather than having to transfer by boat. Of course the sooner help could have arrived, the better. Which is what makes the case of the Californian so much more tragic... OL J R :)
@@lukestrawwalker Indeed thanks for the reply and info.
Hey, Sam. Would it be possible to do a video on the Empress of Ireland or perhaps the Andrea Doria?
Hell of a video sam
Apparently when titanic broke, the spot it happened was at the front end of the reciprocating engine room, the intial bend/flex broke the forward most cylinders from the crankshaft and shoved them up into the higher decks. I think one of the piston engines sits in the debris field. Would be cool if it could be recovered someday. Or even one of the propellers or the parsons turbine engine still buried inside the stern. Great video Sam!
I was recently watching a video of the wreck and was struggling to make out where in the ship I was looking at! So I thought of a cool idea for a video. You could show some footage of the wreck and line it up with a reconstruction like the honour and glory game, and give a bit of analysis of things and how they've deteriorated. Just an idea, but i think it would be really cool!
7:00 when the ship is complete, the mass is evenly spread throughout the entire ship. If you're saying that Titanic's center of mass was in the engine room then why the ship never had a list to stern? The ships are being built in that way so that the mass will be evenly spread through the entire construction, and in case of Titanic there were 29 boilers to counter the weight of the engines in the stern, so that the ship never had any head trim or aft trim before the sinking. If you will cut the ship then yes, the center of mass of the stern alone will be close to the front where the engines are, but not when the ship is intact.
Center of mass not centre of gravity. Also, loading will adjust the trim, for example the coal bunkers, stores etc - even passengers.
So illuminating and interesting.
Awesome show!
I love the flooding cross-section we see about 1:37 in, I'd be really fascinated to see more of how the Titanic would have flooded on the inside relative to what we're used to seeing on the outside.
Great video, as always!
I made a video covering how the flooding proceeded inside the ship during the sinking
@@HistoricTravels I am ALL over that! Thanks!
@@HistoricTravels, love your work!! I'm trying to decide on another subject to do, apart from my Royal Navy found the wreck in 1977 rant!! Perhaps how Jack Grimm failed in his attempt to find it, as well as his "propeller" photo.
Holy smokes can u imagine if they knew this all before hand the way it was sinkin and somehow removed those engines threw them off the ship for the stern to remain afloat after it broke in half so ppl could stay on ship til rescue came & today maybe there could have been the stern in a museum darn!!
Another homerun!!! This video perfectly explains the strain that caused the ship to break in half! And the way the watertight compartments were supposedly designed to operate. I am of the opinion that the wrought iron rivets also played a part in how ample the gashes on the hull upon impact got to be.. but don't quote me! The ship was definitely strong and managed to stay afloat for much longer than estimated. The whole disaster, from stubborn Iceberg "surviving" after detaching off Greenland and drifting further south, to weather and sky conditions (I also believe the "mirage" theory, combined with the berg being dark and blending with the ocean due to lack of moonlight therefore not being in sight until the last moment before impact... As unprecedented and certainly unfortunate... it all was just meant to go down way it did :(
Hey Sam, just found your channel and really love it, I've always wondered what would happen if they had intentionally flooded the back compartments in the stern, would the extra weight of water at the back combined with the engine weight slow the sinking of the bow and the speed of the water spilling over the E deck bulkheads
The ship would have sunk faster, not slower... simply because you're taking on MORE WATER per second (something like 300 tons of a second of seawater IIRC?) and thus losing buoyancy faster. The ship would likely have not split in two, though, as she would have settled on an even keel until her decks were awash and the final flooding of all compartments occurred basically at once.
IF *ALL* the watertight doors were left open or jammed open or whatever, and she flooded evenly from bow to stern, much the same would have happened as your scenario. Later! OL J R :)
That was indeed interesting. Thank you.
Hi Sam! Have you considered making a video about the SS Naronic? It was a small White Star steamer which disappeared in February 1893. Not a huge amount of info about it but at least for me, the mystery is really fascinating! Bottled messages were even discovered on European and North American shores claiming to be from Naronic's crew.
Great Video! By the way, could you do the theoretical future of the titanic had it missed the iceberg on her maiden voyage. Keep up the good work!
Enjoying the series, 2 things, I've heard you mention a few things, but how close to being historically accurate was the Cameron movie to the actual ship, people and sinking? Also, where do I find the ratio of survivors among 1st, 2nd and 3rd class? You may cover these, I'm still combing through your past videos. Thanks.
Nice video!
What are your thoughts on the ship breaking up further down?
I watched a documentary that noted that if the ship broke in half at the surface, or close to, then the debris field would be much larger than it actually is on the seabed.
I assume you are referring to "Titanic: The New Evidence". Correct me if I'm wrong. There are a lot of problems with that documentary. In any case, the theory that the ship didn't break apart on the surface is not convincing.
One of the main problems is that it dismisses the eyewitness accounts. It is not alone in that, as it was generally accepted that Titanic didn't break apart before the wreck was found in 1985. Of more than a dozen eyewitnesses asked about it in the days after the disaster, all but one had seen the ship split in two. Unfortunately, the one who disagreed was the highest ranking surviving officer of the ship, and the investigators believed him because of his rank. His accounts are now accepted to be inaccurate in many ways, including (but not limited to) the breakup. If you want more details, Tim Maltin's "Titanic broke in half as she sank" gives all the relevant eyewitness accounts, and discusses them in more detail than I could here.
The theory also contradicts the position of the two halves on the sea floor, the state in which they are, and the way in which they hit the sea floor. None of the claims about the debris field, on the other hand, have been supported by reputable studies.
All in all, the "documentary" makes a lot of claims that contradict the evidence, disregards the majority of eye witness accounts, and does not back up with evidence any of the bold claims it makes. I'd put it in the same category as documentaries that try to prove that the Moon landings were fake.
(Comment reposted; in the previous version I had referred to the documentary by a wrong title.)
@@renerpho True, PLUS the overwhelming piece of evidence provided by physics-- the ENORMOUS FORCE required to break the ship in two was only present on the surface, caused the shifting of the center of buoyancy to a single point in the middle of the hull, which was holding up the enormous weight of the non-buoyant flooded bow section not displacing any water (thus not creating a force of buoyancy which is why it had sunk underwater, which was pulling down on the ship, lifting the stern end out of the water, and concentrating its weight being supported in the middle-- after all if it's up in the air and not settled down into the sea, it's not displacing water EITHER and thus it's DEAD WEIGHT just hanging up there in the air, held aloft of the sea by the strength of the structure, which was being held up by the force of buoyancy pushing up and around the center of the ship where it WAS displacing seawater... Same thing as if the ship was in drydock, supported by only a single support the width of the ship right in the middle with the bow and stern just hanging up in the air-- she would break in two under her own weight! Once the ship had sunk, there obviously is no more force of buoyancy which is why it's not still afloat. Oh, there's some force from trapped air within the hull creating pockets of buoyancy, but it's far less than the mass of the ship. At that point, if Titanic had survived the colossal forces of the bow and stern unsupported underwater and in midair at the surface, it's infathomable that she would break apart when the forces on the who halves were essentially gone while the ship was in freefall to the bottom of the ocean floor. Later! OL J R :)
Your golden retriever energy is what I am here for
hay sam i love your vids.
Great Video! Something I’ve always wondered is why didn’t anybody take the time to make a small floatation device they can stay on? Like a deck chair with a few life jackets strapped to it, as example.
Very nice, thanks a lot. As for another suggestion, since you brought up the weight of the machinery, what about looking at the sinking angles throught the whole sinking? Most animations do show the stern/propellors/rudder rising above the water surface very early, as if there is a magical pivot point about midships, meaning, when the bow goes down by 1 degree, the stern rises by the same amount. In my opinion, this (IMHO) would not be possible because of the weight of the machinery. You need a hell lot of water in the bow to make that working. In my wishful thinking I like the idea of the propellors just surfacing at the time the nameplate or the f'c'sle went under. If there was a pivot point, I believe it was more aft or moved aft during the sinking. Otherwise I would have no idea how a) propellers surfacing early and b) low breaking angle of 15 to 23 degrees can be combined. But I have no idea about the weight of the machinery and about the amount of water inside the forward half at specific times.
I loved to come and listen to titanic history by favorite moment of titanic was the movie that my Nana got for me for my birthday in 2017 and i loved it i watch that movie once a mouth because my Nana died and i miss her and that makes me feel she is watching with me
I subbed to liner history
Hi Sam, I really enjoy your channel, keep up the good work.
I would just like to make a small point, if I may respectfully do so, about buoyancy. Forgive me if someone else already pointed this out.
To be clear, the buoyancy of water in water is neutral, barring temperature gradients.
A ship displacing water will displace the same mass of *ship*. So for every 231 cubic inches of water (a gallon) a ship displaces, it will lift 10 pounds of ship.
So when a compartment floods, the buoyancy stops lifting the *ship* (not the water in the ship unless that water is above sea level).
"A ship will remain afloat so long as the buoyancy within the ship outweighs the mass of the ship itself" would have been a better statement (*not the water in the ship as was said in the video, since the weight of the water in the ship has no net effect).
You can demonstrate this yourself. Take a *cylindrical* glass and float it in a full kitchen sink. Even as you add more water to the glass, it'll sit deeper in the water but the difference from the water level in the glass to the waterline will remain the same. (Note: the glass has to be cylindrical in shape so that the volume of water the glass displaces as it sits lower is constant. If the glass is wider at the top it will displace (enclose) more volume the deeper it sits).
Also, as the stern section rose out of the water, its mass is still pushing down on the ship, while not having any benefit of buoyancy. The stern out of the water isn't displacing water; therefore has no buoyancy. The only thing, in Titanic's case, that was floating the ship was the unflooded sections underwater amidships below the waterline.
A minor technicality; but that's why all of a sudden the stern floated after it broke.in half ... because it shed the mass of the front end while it gained displacement of the stern being in the water. Until it flooded, of course.
Please take this in the amiable way it was written.
Warmest regards.
Hey Sam @ historic travels can you do a what if video if they used the docking bridge sail Titanic backwards. Would the sinking still accure or would it have stopped all together giving Titanic enough time to get to Halifax.
Personally I think if you could have cut the stern cleanly off half way, the engines would not necessarily pull the ship down at an angle, because there would not be that much buoyancy at the very stern due to the ship being rather narrow at that end. I think the engines being in the widest part would have pulled the stern down near level, as that wider area displaces a lot more water so would be a lot more buoyant.
interesting, i didnt expect that subject to come up.
I like how he explains and thinks about stuff exactly how I do
hey Sam, you might be interested in doing videos on the Valencia tragedy(1906), the Dakota sinking at Yokohama(1907) or the Republic, White Star liner(1909). Just some suggestions off the top of my head.
The car in the hold.......would be good , watched it on another channel, but would love to hear your take on it
hey - love you're video's and commentary about titanic and other ship histories (sorry - i don't 'subscribe' to anyone's 'account' BUT i do follow & i do "hit like" - it's just my hang-up) anyway - i was wondering if you have anything special planned to either view or follow for the 109th anniversary in april of the disaster & then in july is the 65th anniversary of the andrea doria disaster - btw: both ships had very famous cars on board that sank with the ship - you've covered the one on the titanic (thanks!) but the one on the andrea doria doesn't get a lot of attention - it was a 1956 chrysler norseman - then for an unheard of $150,000.00 - a futuristic concept car made in italy - just wondering if there is anything on the drawing board to watch out for - 109 years in april - 65 years in july - thanks and keep up the good work - also your sisters recreation of the titanic's last meal was pretty cool - thanks! :)
I'd still like to see a video about why it was originally determined that titanic sank in one piece.
Because it best suited White Star. It would look very bad for the company at the time if one of their state of the art liners broke up in two (despite this being the case). They suffered enough with the loss of the Titanic, now they needed to maintain their reputation for Olympic and later Britannic.
@@Lucky-O-One I’ve read a lot of Titanic stuff and I’ve never heard this. It was bad enough that the “unsinkable” Titanic sank and so many died; would it really make any difference to White Star’s reputation whether or not it broke in two while sinking?
@@Sashazur I've heard of it. Yes it's true. At the court case they had the officers that survived the sinking said it sunk in one piece so they went with that. Most likely white star line told them to say that because if they said it did break in half then people would be afraid to get on Olympic and Britannic
Can you do a video about the sinking of the MTS Oceanos? I want to know more about it.
I love your house it looks so modern!😎
Bruh I was the 100th subscriber of inner history
hahaha nice man!!!!
I think what’s throwing a lot of people off about this is that the keel wasn’t the last to fail, it was FIRST. I had read about the keel first failure theory but it didn’t really set in for me, until I started looking at the actual wreckage, in particular from the midsection. In a nutshell, when the stern was up in the air at its final angle, with the bow going down, the keel failed violently by compression with B (strength deck) holding on. This happened right after the lights went out and I believe is the explosion that was heard at this time. At this point, the stern came back down into the water, still connected by the b deck, but only for a moment as the sinking bow then pulled the stern immediately back up in the air, again for only a moment at which point the B deck connection snapped, allowing the bow to finally make her way to the bottom of the ocean and the stern to settle horizontally for awhile as described. There is some dissonance in a couple couple of witnesses that I won’t get into here but one in particular did make it clear that the stern came back down as soon as it went up and was horizontal for about five minutes before tilting to the side and finally sinking. I believe his exact words were “the after part came down as quickly as it went up”. Now, there are a few people that also wonder if the stern could’ve stayed afloat indefinitely and it’s an interesting debate, but one thing that is certain from the eyewitness accounts, the stern DID float for five minutes after being detached from the bow. Finally, in most interestingly, one witness said that the Stern did not go down until right after an explosion. Feel free to comment on this and debate as I am so fascinated with it and trying to figure it out as much as I can.
Finally an explanation of why Titanic broke in half!!
Could you make a video about what happened to the H.M.H.S Britannic's Grand staircase after she went down?
One thing to think about is how long would a cleanly cut stern take to sink. It's possible it may last enough time for the Carpathia to arrive and rescue everyone from the stern.
Hey Sam, firstly loving your videos. The analysis and visuals are brilliant, keep it up!
In this video when you mentioned one half of the ship losing buoyancy vs the fully buoyant stern. This got me wondering:
What if the ship was made out of modern materials? Is it possible the ship could have kept structural integrity (as in, not break) for longer than with the iron and rivet construction?
The stresses on the structure of the ship would have likely doomed it either way, but is it possible that the ship could have stayed on the surface for longer, and possibly long enough for the Carpathia to get to it?
To clarify I don’t mean modern bulkheads or technology. Purely the construction material, everything else happening exactly the same.
Some of that depends on whether by modern materials you also mean the ship would have had a double hull (which became a requirement after the sinking for American and British ships) or still a single but the answer is probably yes as the collision is believed to been less of the iceberg ripping holes in the hull and more of buckling the plating that caused the rivets to fail in the damaged sections.
The stern section had the advantage of having the wtb go up to the floor of D deck, in the forward section, the most of wtb didn't go up that far (only to the floor of E deck). Especially faward midship with Scotland road.
I’m glad this video was made because I remember when I first saw this movie I was like “If the ship just broke in half cleanly the stern could’ve floated and those people wouldn’t have died.”
Now I know why that wasn’t possible.