Shipbucket

you are correct in that she would have stayed afloat. what thiel means though, is: who are you to say you would have done different? you will always try to avoid an obstacle. nobody on board knew if the ship would make it. she didn't. of course not. but you don't ruin a ship for the sake of 'if I try to avoid, I might have more damage then when I do nothing.

again, murphy's law, as I refer to above: when something goes wrong, there are always several reasons for that, and the people who make the decisions have very good reasons to do the decision that they make.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I do not think it would be so good for the Titanic to do. Since you have to think of the mass the ship is carrying, combined with the speed it has, that means that she would not just hit with its own weight but also the weight of the water she moves.

So I think the entire bow section and about 20 to 50 meter of it can be destroyed if she hits the iceberg on a sweet spot, and also is the question about the keel, can it sustain a direct hit of about 60,000-80,000tonns (taken out from the air.).

And how god was the quality of the metals and bolts in her.

I spoke about this with my teachers recently.... they said that the titanic would most likely stay afloat, but severely damaged. she would not be able to make another trip again, being cheaper to scrap and replace then to rebuild, but she would have survived as only 2 compartiments would have been cracked

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I found this I think you could have repaired the ship with this kind of damage.

and what do you know about the damage on the keel? the shock damage? bended propeller shafts? crushed rigging due to the loss of the forward wires? bend brackets and constructions?
not to say that the speed of this 'crash' looks to have happened about 7-12 knots, while the titanic would have hit the iceberg with 15-20 knots? and of course the larger size of the titanic, and the fact that the above ship was hit mostly above the waterline?

you are now trying to proof shipbuilding engineers with 20 years of experience or more wrong with one pic. and I can explain you that that is wrong with your reasoning just by what they told me in about .... half an hour speaking of the titanic and 9 months talking about ship constructions and what happends when damage occurs.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

APDAF: Titanic is has 10 times the wight of SS Arizona and almost twice as long, and more than twice the beam. Trawling at a speed of about 15-20 (From then until the time of her sinking she travelled another 258 nautical miles (297 mi; 478 km), averaging about 21 knots (24 mph; 39 km/h))

SS Arizona hit i iceberg with its 5000 tons of boat at 7 knots (a number from the air) hiting the Iceberg with a force of (shall we say) 6-7000 tons, steal can sustain that.

but a ship as titanic wit it's displacement of 52,310 tons, would hit the iceberg with a force more that 70-100,000 tons. Yes she will survive. but the keel will be destroyed, and when the keel is destroyed the ship is totally useless.

Very interesting.You can build all the safety features money can buy into a ship and still leave incompetent humans aboard to screw things up.Sailing with the bow doors open-Herald of Free Enterprise.Going too fast in treacherous conditions-Titanic and trying to impress a woman-Concordia.All tradgedies that could have been avoided with a little bit of common sense.

First off, the SS Arizona could do 13kts on a good day with a following wind. Titanic were doing about 21kts when she hit the iceberg
Secondly, the SS Arizona was hit above the waterline, Titanic was hit below.
Thirdly, the SS Arizona displaced some 8000 tons, Titanic displaced 52310 tons. That's more than 6.5 times as much as the Arizona.
The difference in sheer scale makes the comparison irrelevant.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

As I am trying to explaining him, but you put it up the simple way.

I just did some basic math and it turns out that a head-on collision between the Titanic and an Iceberg would involve more than 17 times as much energy as the Arizona collision.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.