It has never been explained to me this way before: so clearly, simplified, but yet accurate, and straightforwards. I loved how clearly and easy the laws of physics felt when you were explaining how the water got inside the ship.
This was made in 2022. There was no way that the ship could just break very fast. I swear, I think it happened to be the stern only being attached to the double keel while the ship actually split in half. And hey, this is just what I think it is.
no, it really doesn't. since the front half is full of water, it is 10x more heavy than the back half, which would cause a teeter totter effect, breaking the ship in 2. The front half sinks immediately due to being already full of water. the back half has a only a few flooded compartments, weighing that half down where the ship broke off. due to the compartments that didnt flood yet, it creates an air pocket causing the rear end to rise, while simultaneously sinking where it originally broke off.
This is as good as it gets. I am in awe of the diligent and careful work done. To think that this is available to the world wide audience is a gift of knowledge. Thanks.
This video is something else I will record this video and save to my desktop library thank you so much for doing this For a Titanic lover I love this ship like crazy I can't explain in words how I feel about Titanic this ship always takes me to the golden age of 1900s .
Cherry on the top being that Olympic herself also had a 3 bladed central propeller. Albeit for a short time, finishing the experiment Titanic obviously couldn't. If only there were pictures of that refit that everyone could confuse for being Titanic and the circle would be complete. ;)
@@CitizenMioProbably was one but it's lost. Most likely a picture would have been taken just to document the experiment but most images didn't survive including video of the launch of Titanic (and Britannic). Olympic luckily is preserved as you probably know.
It is, but the armchair experts of course know more about the ship than H&W 🙄 absolutely irritating they still try to claim it's four bladed with absolutely zero evidence to support their claim.
@@The-Marshmallow-Cookie it's more of a familiarity bias. All these years, everyone thought it was 4 bladed one like Olympic. It must be hard to change that belief.
I think yellow funnels are more common... But the real colour is Khaki. I remember there is the Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth(forgot) and the RMS Olympic's picture. All people know that Olympic is so similar with Titanic. So, that picture can be an example. Sorry I can't found the picture for you... 🤣😅
3:06 correction: the earlier design for titanic did not contain more lifeboats, in fact it had less as there were only 2 collapsible boats instead of 4.
It wasn't a design per se: Thomas Andrews did originally specify twice the number of lifeboats, but this was discarded in favour of allowing the passengers more deck space. The original idea called for the lifeboats to be stacked across their width, which would take up twice the amount of space and removing the famous 'Atlantic promenades' on the boat deck.
the early design by Alexander, the original designer of Titanic and Olympic (Thomas Andrews was only his replacement) had 68 lifeboats... after Ismay and others rejected the idea that a ship must have enough lifeboats for everyone Alexander left the project... and Andrews continued... Andrews was a "Yes-Man" and by being so he sealed his own doom as well
Great video, very informative. I have learned quite a lot of things about Titanic during the last year on TH-cam, but there is always still so much to learn. In this case, e.g. the antenna for the Marconi Room. It was part of the "rope" or wire connecting the forward and aft mast, as it seems. Also, the sinking process with the water exceeding the bulkheads on E deck is visualized very clearly.
what angle do you put the Titanic at when it split? looking at the animations that seems like 30+ angle which is incorrect if you follow James Cameron Titanic "1997" version.
Hard to believe the stacks on top just sit on top. I would imagine some portion of the diameter goes down to the lowest level to the engines. The furthest rear stack, in my understanding, does NOT contain engine smoke/exaust, just there for looks?
It's because Titanic in the movie is 10% shorter and her funnels are less tall so to people used to the movie the actual Titanic looks too long and the funnels seem huge or thinner..
I dont understand why they didn't build the compartments in the hull to the ceiling? To the top? Once water enters the ship, its pretty much guaranteed to fill everything in a serious scenario. Im not well versed in engineering however how did someone not say - "Hey this just wont work as the ship angle will automatically change with more water and we will sink" If this potential reinactment is fairly accurate, It would suggest the ship would have definitely survived had tje design in the hull been different. Also no binoculars for the watcher? It is pitch black out there more often than not at night so maybe the impact would still have happened anyway Rest in peace to all those that were on the ship that day.
@@bogdanflo1212 not cutting costs. It's a passenger ship, not a battleship. It needs passenger space. The coal fire didn't affect anything. It was a smouldering fire. They don't burn to a temperature that melts mild steel.
The height of watertight bulkheads were based on board of Trade regulations. The watertight bulkheads should've been 3 meters above waterline. That height was sufficient for scenarios they had in mind, their experiences. Nobody envisioned iceberg side scraping and opening up 6 compartments instead of 4. Binoculars wouldn't have made much difference. It limits field of view. To spot something, lookouts need wide view and that against the horizon. Binoculars only give an enlarged view which prevents judging the distance and size of the obstacle.
The middle propelar was 3 bladed. There is no picture of it. Allen Gibsons book 'unsinkable titanic' has the photo on the cover. But the picture is of the Olympic. An identical ship.
Cool video, however when it broke in two it didn't snap in half right away there were to panels of the bottom that held it together until about 1/3 of the way down then the two halves separated
The front half of the flooded ship wants to head downward so the ship goes into a vertical position since the stern section is not yet flooded and still very buoyant. Then suddenly the weight and stress of all the flooded bow weight becomes so great that the ship tares itself apart . The front or bow section then plunges downward while the stern still contains residule bouyancy and will for a time return to a fairly level position until it also fills and sinks . Even that section tends to tilt downward as it floods so the very rear or stern rail is the last to go under . Even with no one aboard , it's a rather sad experience to watch . Hope my explanation helped you .
Beautifully done. (One thing though: I'm pretty ancient but stopped thinking in American units many years ago. Would you cut some slack for the majority in future and give metric equivalents?)
They’re NOT American Units. The RMS Titanic was a British designed ship. All units were, and still should be, Imperial Units! These units were adopted by the Americans from the British Standard Imperial Measurements! Example, a thou. is a far more accurate measurement than mm! Virtually everything built in the U.K. was still in imperial into the late 1980’s. It should be brought back, and I’ve heard that they are going to start teaching it in schools again. They tried to get rid of yards, utter fail that was! We didn’t want metres or kilometres on our road signs, nor on the football pitch! Nor, and the most important of all, we didn’t want our pint removed! There would have been a war had that happened! Everybody but everybody in the U.K. talks about their height in Feet and Inches, even the youngsters do, that’s because we can all understand that, we say there’s a Foot of snow, not 300mm or what ever the hell it is!
@@pikachu6031 Hush now. I was just suggesting that a 2022 vid could be improved by including units that the rest of the world understands. I didn't suggest removing units used mostly in USA
@@dalereed3950 MIne weigh in kg. Ditto throughout the medical profession, which is pretty much the only other context for measuring human weight. I remember stones, but they're just as obsolete as lbs.
I think you should redo this video MM Podcast, because it's almost fantastic!!! I read a lot of valid criticisms(too many mistakes) but, nothing that couldnt be readily fixed and re-released/uploaded. Example: 2:00 You say they didnt have electronic communication. Easy fix! Example: There is a funnel lying on the wreck at the end. Best of Luck. Remember: Posterity is watching!!
1534 ppl? Where did that number come from. It is commonly accepted that 1490 people perished however maximum number suggested by US commision was 1517. So its between 1490-1517
100,000 people turned out to the launch?. is that referring to her maiden voyage or the launch at Belfast on the 31st May 1911?. If it's the 31st May then 100,000 people is incorrect, there were around 40,000 people watching her enter the river Lagan. I doubt there were 100,000 people at Southampton either. Also Titanic hit the iceberg on the 14th not the 15th, she sank in the early hours of 15th April. Do people actually research these things?.
I have no idea why so many are praising this guy? He’s got just about everything Wrong! Dates, times, centre prop was a 4 blade not 3, lifeboat numbers, and also tells us the Titanic was a Prototype? What? The Second of three Olympic Class Liners launched after the Olympic! So, how can Titanic be a prototype? Poor all round! There is so much information online about Titanic, that I thought how can you possibly get this so wrong? Unbelievable!
@@DerpyPossum Quite clearly documented. Really?? Try researching the FACTS about Titanic and look at some pictures of its propellers, which are also online, instead of believing this idiot, and you’ll be surprised you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried!
Wouldnt it have made sense to simply put a spotlight on t he crowsnest so the lookout could shine it ahead like a headlight? Also, if they had driven head on into the 'berg, she would have floated and not sunk, instead it ripped a huge gash in the side and too many compartments flooded.
Yes, a powerful spotlight is very helpful in spotting 'growlers' - old small icebergs, that usually have 'turned turtle' with their smooth & rounded underside now on top. Even though 'small', nevertheless, could still easily weigh 50 to 100+ tonnes, and only riding 6-8 feet (2-3 metres) above the sea. When we used to run to the high Arctic, at night, in the autumn of the year, radar would not detect growlers on account the radar waves bouncing-off the smooth and rounded surface, we would use powerful spotlights port & starboard. Using this method, we could spot growlers at night at a range about 1-1.5 nm (nautical miles; 1nm = 6080 feet) ahead, yet never observe a return echo on the radar screen. Icebergs did give good echo returns on radar screen. All in all - we were a young crew and had a great time together. The high Canadian Arctic, in summer, is an absolutely stupendous, magnificent and magical place! That was almost 45 years ago now - made some life-long friends on the ship, and now, semi-retired from sailing, know I will miss the high seas once am 'fully retired'...
If you are going to do a study on Titanic at least get the facts right . The crows nest was occupied by crewmen who it was rightly stated did not have binoculors . That is in some minds one of the reasons for the disaster . It is not ! All crows nest lookouts unlike Cunard , had to have regular eye tests at opticians and those that are aware will say that any object in the ships path is firstly spotted by the naked eye , Only then can the binoculors be used as the motion of the ship through the binoculors can lead to massive eye strain . My own binoculors on my boat are hardly ever used for that reason and are only 8 x 50 strength . Binoculors on the fateful voyage would not have been the slightest use whatsoever .
It was more dangerous to reach because it was a well known spot for icebergs and Titanic sank for the same reason. Not a coincidence so much as a disregard for warnings.
@@gruznik2119 it's still dangerous to this day to actually reach the wreck because of depth and a specific pattern of alternating currents at the bottom
I wonder if stopping the starboard and central propellers, leaving the port prop in full speed into the rudder; could have bought Titanic just a few inches to avoid most of the collision.
It would, but at what cost, we don't even know if the engines could be controlled independently as that could cause a lot of vibration and would be inconvenient unless you were to crash on your mayden voyage.
@@timothyreed8417 I have heard so many theories about the engines. Many accounts contradict each other. Was there an order to the engine room telegraph to reverse engines? Were they put into 'full speed astern'? Did they ever start spinning backwards BEFORE the collision? We did an RC test many years ago, with a boat with semi-similar rudder to Titanic. When spinning the props in reverse while the ship moved forward, the steering was dramatically reduced, possibly because of the vortex around the rudder? I would LOVE to know if this happened before the Titanic struck the berg. Never really can get a straight answer!! Cheers
Plus they did have them aboard. Just no one knew who had the key to the cabinet. A different crew sailed her to Southampton than the main crew for the voyage. The captain went on to Olympic they gave him Titanic to fet familiarised with an Olympic class. Smith had previously commanded Olympic so he was already familiar with the ship.
@@221b-l3tthere were 5 other pairs of binoculars available onboard. Lightoller's testimony. He said if it was deemed necessary they would've issued it to the lookouts.
@@skyline3344 Yes, that's right. It is one of the things that makes Titanic cast its spell on us all. A lot of the horror is in that gradual dawning awareness of what was going to happen. Those poor people.
It was.... 3 - 4 - 3 .... drive....and direction through the rudder.... rudder should have been bigger....need a big car park to turn this round in....
@@5.56pete No Suevic grounded, they cut the entire bow off, sailed the midsection and stern to Southampton, built a new bow in Belfast and reattached. She sailed many years. You cut out the damaged part and make a new bow. Some ships hit dead on. They "telescoped", crushed. BTW Suevic was also White Star and Harland and Wolff made those repairs. Titanic would have lost about 80 feet. Crushed... so not able to hold water and pull her down. About 200 would have been in that area, mostly crew and some third class single men. Families where in the stern as where single women (old ships kept those groups seperated, which reduced complaints by female passengers and workload for security).
Here's a question for the Titanic "experts". Why were Titanic's stern portholes spaced out differently to that of Olympic and Britannic?. Both Olympic's and Britannic's stern portholes (both starboard and portside) where arranged exactly the same, but Titanic's weren't. The 3 forwardest portholes on Olympic and Britannic were spaced more evenly (equally), but on Titanic these portholes were unevenly spaced. Also, anyone know why some interior photos of Olympic's A deck open prom show a long white pipe attached to the ceiling, yet other photos from a different view point and further along A deck show no pipe running along the interior of B deck?. No idea if the photos are taken from the port or starboard side.
I think it was an extra room for the postmen? I forget but Oceanliner Designs has a video where he talks about why they made the extra portholes. It was some extra room that got a window as a larger compartment was divided. I forget if the video was specifically about Titanic vs Olympic or if its in his "details of Titanic" or something. I can look for it if you want.
@@221b-l3t Thanks for that. would be good Are you meaning the portholes on the stern?. I don't know how they added an extra porthole for an extra room as that section of the stern where those portholes where placed is the same length on both ships, it's just the spacing of the portholes that is different (from what I can see anyway). I should do a side by side comparison of both ships to see if there is any difference. That's the biggest issue I have with the switch theory, if they switched them then how did they swap over portholes so they matched.
@@Embracing01 And yes Switch Theory requires impossible things. Like moving Titanic and Olympic from their births without anyone noticing, the portholes, every item from furniture to coffee cups has the hull Nr or name, the name itself is actually engraved in the steel. It's not letters attached the name is engraved in the hull plate, so you need to also switch the bow hull plated, fill in a porthole, cut them out on Olympic, remove and add promenade enclosure, extend Parisian Cafe, add millionaires suites to Olympic etc... It become more ridiculous the more you look into it, it's why only people with surface knowledge find it even plausible. I can link some debunking vids or websites if you want, I just avoid the Switch Theorists now. I list my top 5 reasons it's BS and move on... The time could be spent explaining why QE was better than QM or why Normandie was supeior to both:)
Excellent presentation. However, as some people might know there's no consensus on how the Titanic hit the iceberg. If the order was simply to steer to port to try to go left of the iceberg, the theory is that the Titanic would have pivoted and it would have been the midship and stern that would have hit the iceberg leading to much more considerable damage. It's been suggested that Murdoch instead gave two successive commands in an effort to port around the iceberg, and the ship hit the iceberg at the point when they in fact turning to starboard.
@@JokerScribe Uhm... yes. They wouldn't have made any difference. The missing MSG in that California ice warning potentially made a much bigger difference. There's much less talk about that than about the binoculars.
That's how big ships move, turning the rudder at full speed will swing the bow but it's still mostly moving in the same direction, so Murdoch ordered hard to port (non tiller) and once the bow swung clear of the berg he ordered hard to starboard to swing the stern out of the way, at that point Titanic was already in contact with the iceberg and stern moved out of the way just a second too late. The animation shows the 6 gashes. You can see the last one is really the only problematic one. She could float with the first 4 gone but the sixth gash opened compartments 5 and 6 (Boiler Rooms 6 and 5, seen from the bow). That's what sank Titanic. Boiler Room 6 besides that gash only had a very very small opening and the pumps where quite powerful, they could have dealt with Boiler Room 6 and Nr.5 would have been completely dry. So she would have easily floated for many hours and once Carpathia got there she would have run hoses from her own pumps while the passengers would be transferred. And once a bunch of ships show up they could have pumped out some more, shore up the worst of it and very slowly sail to Halifax for basic repairs and then back to Belfast. Basically what happened with Olympic. The last incision was 36 feet long by far the largest and at 10 m/s it happened in the last second of the collision. So if the Berg had been spotted 1 second earlier there is a good chance Titanic would have survived and at 3 s she would have certainly survived. Likely able to sail on at reduced speed with 2-3 compartments open. The entire impact sequence would have been around 8 s.
@@221b-l3t Interesting details, thanks. It's mindboggling to think that so much can depend on just mere seconds, or inches, thinking in terms of the iceberg.
@@Katoshi_Takagumi That's how it often goes. You probably came within a second of dying and never noticed. Some guy realised it's a red light at the last second and slammed onto the brakes instead of killing you. You could have been in an aircraft that missed a Cessna by 20 m and no one on board ever found out. Cessna pilot just got told to not fly over a busy airport unannounced.
Yes, you are absolutely right - shd would have faired better hitting the berg head-on. All ships have a 'collision bulkhead' aft of the stem (its location is governed by the classification society, the ship's use, the naval architdct, etc.).
I can't 8magine hitting it head on being "better"..30 m8kes per hour is 10 yards or 30 feet a second and l would imagine so much more damage would have occurred!
Paint scheme’s wrong, window layouts are wrong, information is wrong on multiple levels, sinking sequence is dead wrong, death toll is wrong. *”…Allows us to explore the Titanic with great accuracy”* ain’t lookin’ so true right now.
It has never been explained to me this way before: so clearly, simplified, but yet accurate, and straightforwards. I loved how clearly and easy the laws of physics felt when you were explaining how the water got inside the ship.
Titanic honor and glory has been working on their model for years, this reminded me of them
😢😢😢😢😢
4:50 it defies physics right there
You wern't there! Maybe physics were different back then!
👻
@@ccrider3435 yeah just like colors were just white, black and grey
This was made in 2022. There was no way that the ship could just break very fast. I swear, I think it happened to be the stern only being attached to the double keel while the ship actually split in half.
And hey, this is just what I think it is.
no, it really doesn't.
since the front half is full of water, it is 10x more heavy than the back half, which would cause a teeter totter effect, breaking the ship in 2.
The front half sinks immediately due to being already full of water.
the back half has a only a few flooded compartments, weighing that half down where the ship broke off.
due to the compartments that didnt flood yet, it creates an air pocket causing the rear end to rise, while simultaneously sinking where it originally broke off.
@@ccrider3435yeah really happy the devs patched the physic glitch’s.
This is as good as it gets. I am in awe of the diligent and careful work done. To think that this is available to the world wide audience is a gift of knowledge. Thanks.
Titanic radiation reactor
Very incredible The Titanic 3D Model, great video sharing
Outstanding assembly animation. This is such a clear way to understand how building a behemoth like that even is started.
No words to appreciate you. Such an excellent video
This video is something else I will record this video and save to my desktop library thank you so much for doing this
For a Titanic lover I love this ship like crazy I can't explain in words how I feel about Titanic this ship always takes me to the golden age of 1900s .
This was an amazing undertaking. So we’ll done!
Thank you!
😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
I like how everyone is telling you that she had a 4 bladed central propeller, then links a picture of Olympic's propellers.
Cherry on the top being that Olympic herself also had a 3 bladed central propeller. Albeit for a short time, finishing the experiment Titanic obviously couldn't. If only there were pictures of that refit that everyone could confuse for being Titanic and the circle would be complete. ;)
There is some evidence that when Titanic sailed she had three bladed props in all three positions.
Coal fired steamship Titanic
@@CitizenMio Yes, now that you mention it I seem to remember them experimenting with a 4 blade propeller, but I think it produced too much vibration.
@@CitizenMioProbably was one but it's lost. Most likely a picture would have been taken just to document the experiment but most images didn't survive including video of the launch of Titanic (and Britannic). Olympic luckily is preserved as you probably know.
Finally good to see models made are fixing the center props with 3 bladed.
But it does have the wing propellers turning in the wrong direction.
@@jaswmclark ah... Didn't notice that
It is, but the armchair experts of course know more about the ship than H&W 🙄 absolutely irritating they still try to claim it's four bladed with absolutely zero evidence to support their claim.
@@The-Marshmallow-Cookie it's more of a familiarity bias. All these years, everyone thought it was 4 bladed one like Olympic. It must be hard to change that belief.
5:06 is that a funnel on the wreck?
Yup. The actual wreck doesn't show a single trace of a funnel on the decks of the ship.
Greetings From Super Extremes- Sri Lanka
💚 💛 ❤ 💙 💜
Wow that was vivid 😮
Awesome animation too..👌
The last few seconds is incredible
Titanic 3D Model Very Instersting Video . Good Job
More than 20 years after watching the movie I just got to understand 100%. Thanks for this. So simple, yet so clear and detailed.
00:23 ah yes cheeseburger per donut unit scale
One common thing about Titanic models is that they make the funnels yellow? The funnels were buff but closer to orange than yellow.
I think yellow funnels are more common... But the real colour is Khaki. I remember there is the Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth(forgot) and the RMS Olympic's picture. All people know that Olympic is so similar with Titanic. So, that picture can be an example. Sorry I can't found the picture for you... 🤣😅
Forgive me but Titanic’s funnel colour was actually called buff. Khaki is a dark green colour
Oh sorry I found this bright yellow but the system said that is Khaki.
“What a Grreat Forensic Analysis” ;]
Building this ship , now that was GRAFT !
3:06 correction: the earlier design for titanic did not contain more lifeboats, in fact it had less as there were only 2 collapsible boats instead of 4.
It wasn't a design per se: Thomas Andrews did originally specify twice the number of lifeboats, but this was discarded in favour of allowing the passengers more deck space. The original idea called for the lifeboats to be stacked across their width, which would take up twice the amount of space and removing the famous 'Atlantic promenades' on the boat deck.
@@waverleyjournalise5757 there was no need for more boats, titanic by law had enough
the early design by Alexander, the original designer of Titanic and Olympic (Thomas Andrews was only his replacement)
had 68 lifeboats... after Ismay and others rejected the idea that a ship must have enough lifeboats for everyone
Alexander left the project... and Andrews continued... Andrews was a "Yes-Man" and by being so he sealed his own doom as well
@@jaguar4u2012 That isn’t exactly true.
@@DerpyPossum what tickles you?
Very nicely narrated wiht amazing animation.
Thank you for this recap 👍
2:18 Weirdly (strangely? Oddly?), insects have "antennae" but the plural of a radio antenna is "antennas" :)
Man I really enjoyed this.
Amazing Animation & Explanation!! ❤❤
Thanks for sharing.
Great video, very informative. I have learned quite a lot of things about Titanic during the last year on TH-cam, but there is always still so much to learn. In this case, e.g. the antenna for the Marconi Room. It was part of the "rope" or wire connecting the forward and aft mast, as it seems. Also, the sinking process with the water exceeding the bulkheads on E deck is visualized very clearly.
4:38 didn't agree snap in half over two hours into the sinking, not 45 minutes? Or am I misunderstanding
Nice explanation, i learned more about titanic in 5 mins
Excellent ...and grate video...
this is good information... ❤❤❤
Good observation through the 3d model of the Titanic
Hi, Awesome 3D model. Would it be possible to obtain the files of this model?
Didn’t even need to get in a sub to get this wonderful look at the titanic… I’m here dry as fuck!
Brilliant video.
Great video. Really enjoyed the video. Keep up the great content!
what angle do you put the Titanic at when it split? looking at the animations that seems like 30+ angle which is incorrect if you follow James Cameron Titanic "1997" version.
Hard to believe the stacks on top just sit on top.
I would imagine some portion of the diameter goes down to the lowest level to the engines.
The furthest rear stack, in my understanding, does NOT contain engine smoke/exaust, just there for looks?
Wow, as i have never seen her before- like that
Good explanation
Why are imperial measurements still used? I don’t understand the length or weight figures given in the video at all.
Nice video!
4:49 That's not how physics works lol... the completely detached back end of a ship, not even full of water, doesn't just bounce up into the air...
Great video.. Do more.
I like how he keeps referring Titanic as "she", because she's a beautiful ship.
Last mans comment aside,,smoke didn't come out of the forth funnel,,impressed ,,!!,,
Super.....❤❤❤
The model looks funky like a stylized Titanic but not just regular Titanic
Titanic wooden pineapple titanic museum in Orlando Florida jen
It's because Titanic in the movie is 10% shorter and her funnels are less tall so to people used to the movie the actual Titanic looks too long and the funnels seem huge or thinner..
I dont understand why they didn't build the compartments in the hull to the ceiling? To the top? Once water enters the ship, its pretty much guaranteed to fill everything in a serious scenario. Im not well versed in engineering however how did someone not say - "Hey this just wont work as the ship angle will automatically change with more water and we will sink"
If this potential reinactment is fairly accurate, It would suggest the ship would have definitely survived had tje design in the hull been different.
Also no binoculars for the watcher? It is pitch black out there more often than not at night so maybe the impact would still have happened anyway
Rest in peace to all those that were on the ship that day.
They were cutting costs .... there are speculations that there was a fire in the coal bunker and the ship still sailed
@@bogdanflo1212 not cutting costs. It's a passenger ship, not a battleship. It needs passenger space.
The coal fire didn't affect anything. It was a smouldering fire. They don't burn to a temperature that melts mild steel.
The height of watertight bulkheads were based on board of Trade regulations. The watertight bulkheads should've been 3 meters above waterline. That height was sufficient for scenarios they had in mind, their experiences. Nobody envisioned iceberg side scraping and opening up 6 compartments instead of 4.
Binoculars wouldn't have made much difference. It limits field of view. To spot something, lookouts need wide view and that against the horizon. Binoculars only give an enlarged view which prevents judging the distance and size of the obstacle.
It was over 2½ hrs before she snapped in half - not 45 minutes as mentioned at 4:40 - great video though!
what is that song used throughout this video?
A really cool an amazing video!
The middle propelar was 3 bladed. There is no picture of it. Allen Gibsons book 'unsinkable titanic' has the photo on the cover. But the picture is of the Olympic. An identical ship.
Cool video, however when it broke in two it didn't snap in half right away there were to panels of the bottom that held it together until about 1/3 of the way down then the two halves separated
Give us 3d model plz
Why does the back of the ship pop up into a vertical position at 4:50?
The front half of the flooded ship wants to head downward so the ship goes into a vertical position since the stern section is not yet flooded and still very buoyant. Then suddenly the weight and stress of all the flooded bow weight becomes so great that the ship tares itself apart . The front or bow section then plunges downward while the stern still contains residule bouyancy and will for a time return to a fairly level position until it also fills and sinks . Even that section tends to tilt downward as it floods so the very rear or stern rail is the last to go under . Even with no one aboard , it's a rather sad experience to watch . Hope my explanation helped you .
@@paulwieben4948 I don't think that explains why at exactly 4:50 the back of the ship shoots up into the sky after resting on the water for a moment.
Can we get this model?❤
Great stuff . Thank you .
Can we download the model?
タイタニックの４本目の煙突から煙が上がってないあたり、リアルだなあと思います（４本目の煙突はダミーで、ボイラー室と繋がっていません）。
It did have some smoke. It was used for ventilation mainly from engine room, smoking room and first class galley.
Beautiful
Beautifully done.
(One thing though: I'm pretty ancient but stopped thinking in American units many years ago. Would you cut some slack for the majority in future and give metric equivalents?)
They’re NOT American Units. The RMS Titanic was a British designed ship. All units were, and still should be, Imperial Units! These units were adopted by the Americans from the British Standard Imperial Measurements! Example, a thou. is a far more accurate measurement than mm! Virtually everything built in the U.K. was still in imperial into the late 1980’s. It should be brought back, and I’ve heard that they are going to start teaching it in schools again. They tried to get rid of yards, utter fail that was! We didn’t want metres or kilometres on our road signs, nor on the football pitch! Nor, and the most important of all, we didn’t want our pint removed! There would have been a war had that happened! Everybody but everybody in the U.K. talks about their height in Feet and Inches, even the youngsters do, that’s because we can all understand that, we say there’s a Foot of snow, not 300mm or what ever the hell it is!
@@pikachu6031 Hush now. I was just suggesting that a 2022 vid could be improved by including units that the rest of the world understands. I didn't suggest removing units used mostly in USA
Just convert metric to imp no big deal ya wanker
So, are people still weighed in stones? Explain your weight scales.
@@dalereed3950 MIne weigh in kg. Ditto throughout the medical profession, which is pretty much the only other context for measuring human weight. I remember stones, but they're just as obsolete as lbs.
Available for download? In Step file or sokidworks?
So realistic! How you get it? I want one!!! 😊
Where do l get this 3D file?!😢
The sinking is pretty inaccurate. It may be from the ‘97 movie, but she split just in front of the 3rd funnel and at a lower angle than is shown.
Good animation.
I think you should redo this video MM Podcast, because it's almost fantastic!!! I read a lot of valid criticisms(too many mistakes) but, nothing that couldnt be readily fixed and re-released/uploaded.
Example: 2:00 You say they didnt have electronic communication. Easy fix! Example: There is a funnel lying on the wreck at the end.
Best of Luck. Remember: Posterity is watching!!
11:40 p.m. on Sunday, April 14, 1912 - when the Titanic contacted the iceberg (*not "15th").
No, he rang and rang and rang then said “Pick up you bastard!”
awesome!
Owow its an amazing animation
Thanks
Wait, was it her first voyage?
1534 ppl? Where did that number come from. It is commonly accepted that 1490 people perished however maximum number suggested by US commision was 1517. So its between 1490-1517
The exact number was 1,496, so he was off by quiet a few people lol.
Titanic Radioactive ☣️☢️☣️☣️☣️☢️☣️☣️
100,000 people turned out to the launch?. is that referring to her maiden voyage or the launch at Belfast on the 31st May 1911?. If it's the 31st May then 100,000 people is incorrect, there were around 40,000 people watching her enter the river Lagan. I doubt there were 100,000 people at Southampton either. Also Titanic hit the iceberg on the 14th not the 15th, she sank in the early hours of 15th April. Do people actually research these things?.
if that was the case...should differentiate the vessel wall into inner and outer wall with something in between as a filler
Interesting graphics nice effort but you got the date wrong, 1140 PM was the night of the 14th, not the 15th.
I have no idea why so many are praising this guy? He’s got just about everything Wrong! Dates, times, centre prop was a 4 blade not 3, lifeboat numbers, and also tells us the Titanic was a Prototype? What? The Second of three Olympic Class Liners launched after the Olympic! So, how can Titanic be a prototype? Poor all round! There is so much information online about Titanic, that I thought how can you possibly get this so wrong? Unbelievable!
@@pikachu6031 not everything online is accurate if that was the case....... v-brake.... coalfire Theory and switch Theory...... So much pain....
@@cats2927 People who can’t accept Reality and Facts, need to see a Psychiatrist!
@@pikachu6031 I agree.
Although it’s documented quite clearly that Titanic’s central prop was indeed 3 bladed.
@@DerpyPossum Quite clearly documented. Really?? Try researching the FACTS about Titanic and look at some pictures of its propellers, which are also online, instead of believing this idiot, and you’ll be surprised you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried!
Wouldnt it have made sense to simply put a spotlight on t he crowsnest so the lookout could shine it ahead like a headlight? Also, if they had driven head on into the 'berg, she would have floated and not sunk, instead it ripped a huge gash in the side and too many compartments flooded.
Yes, a powerful spotlight is very helpful in spotting 'growlers' - old small icebergs, that usually have 'turned turtle' with their smooth & rounded underside now on top. Even though 'small', nevertheless, could still easily weigh 50 to 100+ tonnes, and only riding 6-8 feet (2-3 metres) above the sea. When we used to run to the high Arctic, at night, in the autumn of the year, radar would not detect growlers on account the radar waves bouncing-off the smooth and rounded surface, we would use powerful spotlights port & starboard.
Using this method, we could spot growlers at night at a range about 1-1.5 nm (nautical miles; 1nm = 6080 feet) ahead, yet never observe a return echo on the radar screen.
Icebergs did give good echo returns on radar screen.
All in all - we were a young crew and had a great time together. The high Canadian Arctic, in summer, is an absolutely stupendous, magnificent and magical place!
That was almost 45 years ago now - made some life-long friends on the ship, and now, semi-retired from sailing, know I will miss the high seas once am 'fully retired'...
The most referenced disaster and shipwreck in history.
If you are going to do a study on Titanic at least get the facts right . The crows nest was occupied by crewmen who it was rightly stated did not have binoculors . That is in some minds one of the reasons for the disaster . It is not ! All crows nest lookouts unlike Cunard , had to have regular eye tests at opticians and those that are aware will say that any object in the ships path is firstly spotted by the naked eye , Only then can the binoculors be used as the motion of the ship through the binoculors can lead to massive eye strain . My own binoculors on my boat are hardly ever used for that reason and are only 8 x 50 strength . Binoculors on the fateful voyage would not have been the slightest use whatsoever .
Crazy how one of the most historically famous shipwreck happened over one of the most hard to reach points in the ocean. Weirdly coincidental
It was more dangerous to reach because it was a well known spot for icebergs and Titanic sank for the same reason. Not a coincidence so much as a disregard for warnings.
@@gruznik2119 it's still dangerous to this day to actually reach the wreck because of depth and a specific pattern of alternating currents at the bottom
Excellent and useful!
HMS titanic
I wonder if stopping the starboard and central propellers, leaving the port prop in full speed into the rudder; could have bought Titanic just a few inches to avoid most of the collision.
It would, but at what cost, we don't even know if the engines could be controlled independently as that could cause a lot of vibration and would be inconvenient unless you were to crash on your mayden voyage.
It would take more than 30 seconds to stop an engine and put it into reverse and more time before it had any affect…
@@timothyreed8417 I have heard so many theories about the engines. Many accounts contradict each other.
Was there an order to the engine room telegraph to reverse engines? Were they put into 'full speed astern'? Did they ever start spinning backwards BEFORE the collision?
We did an RC test many years ago, with a boat with semi-similar rudder to Titanic. When spinning the props in reverse while the ship moved forward, the steering was dramatically reduced, possibly because of the vortex around the rudder?
I would LOVE to know if this happened before the Titanic struck the berg. Never really can get a straight answer!!
Cheers
@@ccrider3435 was the RC boat powered by steam engines? Or electric?
In fairness it would have been very difficult to have seen ice with binoculars during the night time in pitch black.
Plus they did have them aboard. Just no one knew who had the key to the cabinet. A different crew sailed her to Southampton than the main crew for the voyage. The captain went on to Olympic they gave him Titanic to fet familiarised with an Olympic class. Smith had previously commanded Olympic so he was already familiar with the ship.
@@221b-l3tthere were 5 other pairs of binoculars available onboard. Lightoller's testimony. He said if it was deemed necessary they would've issued it to the lookouts.
4:48 love how the water breaks the laws of physics in the stern 😂. Titanic muppets keeping life in the official myth.
When you consider just how fast the water was pouring in, it's absolutely amazing she stayed afloat for 45 minutes.
The collision was around 11:40 pm and she finally sank at 2:20 am, a good bit longer than 45 mins
what do you mean? the ship stayed afloat for over 2 hours
@@skyline3344 Not if you watch the 1997 movie at 2x speed.
@@skyline3344 Yes, that's right. It is one of the things that makes Titanic cast its spell on us all. A lot of the horror is in that gradual dawning awareness of what was going to happen. Those poor people.
its so amazing
I thought the central propeller was a 4-blades one?
The Olympic’s was 4 bladed. According to actual written documentation from Harland & Wolff, Titanic’s was fitted with 3 blades.
It was.... 3 - 4 - 3 ....
drive....and direction through the rudder....
rudder should have been bigger....need a big car park to turn this round in....
@@DerpyPossum
TITANIC was 3 - 4 - 3 blades....
@@volpeverde6441 According only to assumptions based off Olympic.
@@volpeverde6441 all three propellers were three bladed per H & W specs.
Why is this all over you tube and in the news again? Because of that sub? What are we being distracted from this time?
I remember an article saying that if she had run straight into the iceberg she would have survived the collision with just a dented bow.
Probably frame damage too expensive to repair, but yes lives would've been possibly saved.
@@5.56pete No Suevic grounded, they cut the entire bow off, sailed the midsection and stern to Southampton, built a new bow in Belfast and reattached. She sailed many years. You cut out the damaged part and make a new bow. Some ships hit dead on. They "telescoped", crushed.
BTW Suevic was also White Star and Harland and Wolff made those repairs.
Titanic would have lost about 80 feet. Crushed... so not able to hold water and pull her down. About 200 would have been in that area, mostly crew and some third class single men. Families where in the stern as where single women (old ships kept those groups seperated, which reduced complaints by female passengers and workload for security).
Well thought out. Design error also played a role.
Here's a question for the Titanic "experts". Why were Titanic's stern portholes spaced out differently to that of Olympic and Britannic?. Both Olympic's and Britannic's stern portholes (both starboard and portside) where arranged exactly the same, but Titanic's weren't. The 3 forwardest portholes on Olympic and Britannic were spaced more evenly (equally), but on Titanic these portholes were unevenly spaced.
Also, anyone know why some interior photos of Olympic's A deck open prom show a long white pipe attached to the ceiling, yet other photos from a different view point and further along A deck show no pipe running along the interior of B deck?. No idea if the photos are taken from the port or starboard side.
Assuming you havent heard the conspirifact that titanic was swapped for Olympic and sunk on purpose in a insurance scam?
Explains the differences...
I think it was an extra room for the postmen? I forget but Oceanliner Designs has a video where he talks about why they made the extra portholes. It was some extra room that got a window as a larger compartment was divided. I forget if the video was specifically about Titanic vs Olympic or if its in his "details of Titanic" or something. I can look for it if you want.
@@221b-l3t Thanks for that. would be good Are you meaning the portholes on the stern?. I don't know how they added an extra porthole for an extra room as that section of the stern where those portholes where placed is the same length on both ships, it's just the spacing of the portholes that is different (from what I can see anyway). I should do a side by side comparison of both ships to see if there is any difference. That's the biggest issue I have with the switch theory, if they switched them then how did they swap over portholes so they matched.
@@Embracing01 Oh no I mean at the bow, forecastle B deck, the white part has one or two extra over Olympic. Not sure about the stern.
@@Embracing01 And yes Switch Theory requires impossible things. Like moving Titanic and Olympic from their births without anyone noticing, the portholes, every item from furniture to coffee cups has the hull Nr or name, the name itself is actually engraved in the steel. It's not letters attached the name is engraved in the hull plate, so you need to also switch the bow hull plated, fill in a porthole, cut them out on Olympic, remove and add promenade enclosure, extend Parisian Cafe, add millionaires suites to Olympic etc...
It become more ridiculous the more you look into it, it's why only people with surface knowledge find it even plausible.
I can link some debunking vids or websites if you want, I just avoid the Switch Theorists now. I list my top 5 reasons it's BS and move on...
The time could be spent explaining why QE was better than QM or why Normandie was supeior to both:)
Post the plans on the internet.
Excellent presentation. However, as some people might know there's no consensus on how the Titanic hit the iceberg. If the order was simply to steer to port to try to go left of the iceberg, the theory is that the Titanic would have pivoted and it would have been the midship and stern that would have hit the iceberg leading to much more considerable damage. It's been suggested that Murdoch instead gave two successive commands in an effort to port around the iceberg, and the ship hit the iceberg at the point when they in fact turning to starboard.
Well, binoculars would have been pretty useless, in the middle of the Atlantic, in pitch black at night and early morning.
@@JokerScribe Uhm... yes. They wouldn't have made any difference. The missing MSG in that California ice warning potentially made a much bigger difference. There's much less talk about that than about the binoculars.
That's how big ships move, turning the rudder at full speed will swing the bow but it's still mostly moving in the same direction, so Murdoch ordered hard to port (non tiller) and once the bow swung clear of the berg he ordered hard to starboard to swing the stern out of the way, at that point Titanic was already in contact with the iceberg and stern moved out of the way just a second too late.
The animation shows the 6 gashes. You can see the last one is really the only problematic one. She could float with the first 4 gone but the sixth gash opened compartments 5 and 6 (Boiler Rooms 6 and 5, seen from the bow).
That's what sank Titanic. Boiler Room 6 besides that gash only had a very very small opening and the pumps where quite powerful, they could have dealt with Boiler Room 6 and Nr.5 would have been completely dry. So she would have easily floated for many hours and once Carpathia got there she would have run hoses from her own pumps while the passengers would be transferred. And once a bunch of ships show up they could have pumped out some more, shore up the worst of it and very slowly sail to Halifax for basic repairs and then back to Belfast. Basically what happened with Olympic.
The last incision was 36 feet long by far the largest and at 10 m/s it happened in the last second of the collision. So if the Berg had been spotted 1 second earlier there is a good chance Titanic would have survived and at 3 s she would have certainly survived. Likely able to sail on at reduced speed with 2-3 compartments open. The entire impact sequence would have been around 8 s.
@@221b-l3t Interesting details, thanks. It's mindboggling to think that so much can depend on just mere seconds, or inches, thinking in terms of the iceberg.
@@Katoshi_Takagumi That's how it often goes. You probably came within a second of dying and never noticed. Some guy realised it's a red light at the last second and slammed onto the brakes instead of killing you. You could have been in an aircraft that missed a Cessna by 20 m and no one on board ever found out. Cessna pilot just got told to not fly over a busy airport unannounced.
Nice job but I think that the propeller rotation is incorrect at 0.17. Port prop. spun anti clockwise and centre and right prop's spun clockwise. 😉
The Centre Propeller was in fact, a Four Bladed Propeller and Not a three blade. But try telling this fool that!
@@pikachu6031 prove it.
@@eat_a_dick_trudeau Try researching it for yourself! I don’t need to prove it because it’s a Fact! Try learning and accepting Reality, now Get Lost!!
@@pikachu6031 great logic, kid.
Its past your bed time.
@@pikachu6031 but since you told me to get lost, guess what...
This channel is meant to be subscribed
Seeing those rivets being shorn off, I wonder if it would have fared better just meeting it head-on.
Yes, you are absolutely right - shd would have faired better hitting the berg head-on. All ships have a 'collision bulkhead' aft of the stem (its location is governed by the classification society, the ship's use, the naval architdct, etc.).
I can't 8magine hitting it head on being "better"..30 m8kes per hour is 10 yards or 30 feet a second and l would imagine so much more damage would have occurred!
The fast shock wave will shatter the hull of the ship
Paint scheme’s wrong, window layouts are wrong, information is wrong on multiple levels, sinking sequence is dead wrong, death toll is wrong.
*”…Allows us to explore the Titanic with great accuracy”* ain’t lookin’ so true right now.
Your video has it splitting in the wrong area.