Shipbucket

you CAN NOT compare an warship to the titanic. heck, even modern watertight compartiments are open on the top, just like the ones on the titanic. if more then 2 were filled on the titanic, the water would flow over and the ship would be lost. and that is exactly what happened. (look at my previous posts in this thread, they have been concluded from lessons about the titanic from my shipbuilding teachers

modern watertight compartiments..... looks at costa concordia...... yeah those work soooo much better!

_________________
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

Makes me glad I sail on tankers. 28 watertight compartments of which 22 are fully enclosed and we'd stay afloat so long as five of them remains unbreached. Oh and a four meter crumple zone all around. And enough pumping capacity to make any three dozen firebrigades envious.

I have a picture somewhere of a tanker that's floating vertically with only its bow poking out.

_________________
“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.

fully double hulled as well, I suppose? (well maybe not the engine room, that depends on the size)

_________________
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

That's were the crumple zone comes from.
Anyway, like Carthaginian said any single factor or even a dozen to blame the sinking on is impossible and anyone who tells you otherwise is either grossly misinformed or just stupid. (Or a conspiracy nut, in which case he both stupid and deliberately misinformed)

_________________
“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.

Did you now that all watertight compartments on ships build in Norway are enclosed. the only way for the water to get out is trough the doors.

also on top? and on passenger ships?
have to admit that my education has not looked at the rules for passenger liners, we are still at general cargo ships mainly..... so I can only go for what my teachers told me, I have nothing written to control it, so I might have made mistakes on that

_________________
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 believe what klagldsf was trying to say is that if the Titanic's stern section had watertight compartments similar to what was found in USN 1940s cruisers, it could have ended up still floating for a while longer. This is a major if factor in that while the stern could have floated had there been a clean break, resulting in the flooded forward section breaking off completely and heading to the bottom, the stern could have had a slight chance of remaining afloat. However, as models of the sinking show (along with recent discoveries of the two sections of double bottom hull) Titanic's upper section split, while the double bottom held the ship together. Final separation of the two haves likely did not occur until the forward section had dragged the stern partially down and flooding it. In which case, even with better watertight compartments, the stern would still end up sinking. Recall the improvements made to Britannic and how she still sank in half the time of Titanic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
Ian,

Do you even know what that goddamn word means? Because the answer looks like a firm "no."

Anyway, I was just trying to point out that the whole analysis that the Titanic sunk because its a flawed ship is equally flawed. Perhaps trying to pin blame on a single guy was a bit much.

No, I wasn't referring to you.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Yes, and an equally succinct and precise answer as to why the Titanic sank is:


What you tried to say by saying that the 'irresponsible radio operator' was just as short-sighted as trying to blame the lead engineer on the WTC complex for the collapse of the buildings resulting from the 9/11 attack! He knew that planes could run into buildings in New York- after all, it had happened before- so why didn't he build his buildings to withstand that danger?

The Californian's radioman had done everything a reasonable man could have possibly considered good and proper in the situation. After doing so, he was rebuffed by the object of his concern (or the representative thereof) and he- like any reasonable man- decided that there comes a time when someone must, as my Grandfather used to say, 'butt with their own head.' Satisfied he had made every effort, he shut off his set and rested in order to do his job for his own shipmates the next day.

The designers of the Titanic had also done their best to make the ship as survivable as possible. They went above and beyond the call of contemporary merchant vessel construction in her design. They actually supplied more lifeboats than the British Board of Trade required for a passenger ship- a standard which had become woefully inadequate in the face of bureaucratic failure to keep up with the growth of ships.

White Star Line assigned the most experienced command crew they possessed to the vessel. There was roughly 200 years of combined experience on the North Atlantic standing on the bridge of Titanic on the day shift!

What sank Titanic was no deliberate failure on the part of any one man, nor will I be convinced that anything that happened save the decision to maintain speed in the face of the iceberg warning was a deliberate decision to endanger the ship... and this was quietly contested, though unsuccessfully.