Titanic: 'Unsinkable'
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — A Night to Remember
deeveed — 17 years ago(June 23, 2008 11:58 AM)
Question is did the commanding officers and makers of the Titanic believe that one? In the film, as Andrews notes to Smith that ship is hurt bad, Smith is stunned and remarks that the ship is "unsinkable!". I'm not sure if the filmmakers were utilizing dramatics there but it's apparent that some kind of naivete had roamed around the shipyard when it was built. When you hear it in the context of the film it's kind of ludicrous in lieu of what did happen.
-
arbilab — 17 years ago(June 24, 2008 11:13 AM)
All I know is what the documentaries said. Neither White Star nor Harland and Woolf ever used the term 'unsinkable'. But to an extent, it's evident that they believed it. Titanic was an advanced design. Double bottom hull, which wasn't a standard until after Exxon Valdez ran aground. Remote-controlled watertight doors in vertical bulkheads.
It was designed to survive the maximum credible accident and still float. The miscalculation was in the 'maximum credible' part. That was considered to be a bow strike on another ship, an abeam strike by another ship, or running aground. In a ship-to-ship crash the other ship absorbs half the force. The catch was, an iceberg absorbs nothing.
There is speculation that a head-on collision with the iceberg would have been survivable. Marine engineers are divided on that issue. It would have been double the bow-strike-impact the structure was designed for. But it turns out the maximum credible accident was a hull scrape against an unyielding object, and that's what happened. -
peter-r-odder — 17 years ago(July 02, 2008 04:51 AM)
I also read, that they never advertised the Titanic as being unsinkable. They did tell the media about the design with the watertight compartments, and it was the media that said, the Titanic was practically unsinkable.
I believe the designers and White Star did in their hearts know, that you cannot build an unsinkable ship. They did design the ship to be able to withstand a serious accident and remain afloat. In a collision with another ship, I think the Titanic would have survived. The problem was, that they did not think they were ever going to experience an accident as serious, as the one that happened. -
baran_erik — 10 years ago(February 28, 2016 12:04 AM)
The Titanic and the Olympic were both marketed as unsinkable:
http://www.printwand.com/blog/how-unsinkable-marketing-campaign-led-titanic-disaster -
rwsmith29456 — 17 years ago(September 19, 2008 10:10 PM)
Though some touted the Titanic as 'unsinkable' they were wrong because there was a fatal flaw in the design of the waterproof bulkheads that did not extend high enough when the bow compartment flooded. Practically any leak that the pumps could not keep up with would have sunk her in time.
-
Rasputin_Phoenix — 17 years ago(November 18, 2008 08:04 PM)
"Practically any leak that the pumps could not keep up with would have sunk her in time."
That's not quite right. If only four compartments were flooding, the ship wouldn't flood enough to pull the decks to which the bulkheads didn't extend below the waterline, therefore the water wouldn't have spilled over. The ship would have been crippled, but wouldn't have sunk. -
chimaera1249 — 16 years ago(October 09, 2009 08:01 AM)
- Not necessarily-! If the Titanic had hit the iceberg head-on, only one or two compartments would have flooded and that would have been it. The ship would have sat a little lower in the water, but as long as the flooding was CONTAINED the ship would have survived.
It has been pointed out that the Titanic could have survived the damage that sank the Andrea Doria
Not true. The
Andrea Doria
collided with another ship, not an iceberg, and wasn't moving 46,000 tons at 22 knots. That is a huge difference.
Titanic
was designed to survive a ship-to-ship collision, where the other ship will absorb half the energy. The iceberg, being completely solid, is going to absorb almost none of the energy of the collision, which, given the speed and size of the ship would be immense. If the
Titanic
had collided head-on (which, by the way, is virtually impossible due to the irregularity of the two objects), the damage would almost certainly extend farther than just the first two compartments. Almost all the energy is going to travel back into the ship, which would open seams across the length of the ship, dislodge engine machinery, and break spars from the keel. If the entire forepeak is collapsed, then the foremast would collapse as well, which takes out the wireless. So now you have a ship, likely sinking faster, that cannot call for help (the
Californian
incident shows how ineffective the socket signals and Morse lamp were).
All that aside, there is NO WAY a ship's officer would intentionally ram his ship into an obstruction, especially when he believed he could avoid it.
- Not necessarily-! If the Titanic had hit the iceberg head-on, only one or two compartments would have flooded and that would have been it. The ship would have sat a little lower in the water, but as long as the flooding was CONTAINED the ship would have survived.
-
nelliebell-1 — 14 years ago(December 17, 2011 11:44 AM)
Thats a very clever idea as this was a preventable accident whereby for the most part it is inexcusable to ever hit a stationary object.The Titanic was moving to fast for conditions with the Captain most certainly right behind the eight ball as to the safety for all concerned.It was the Titanic that struck the iceberg with as it were with fewer lifeboats than was necessary to off load all ships passengers.The Titanic was unsafe irregardless of the unsinkable hooey.It also left England with the Captain aware of the fate off all concerned if the unthinkable happened.The Unthinkable did happen with a significant loss of life occurring as a result.The Captain knew it was an unsafe voyage.
-
paul-393 — 14 years ago(July 10, 2011 04:05 PM)
Read this:
http://home.comcast.net/~georgebehe/titanic/page2.htm- then theres the crewman who spoke to Mrs.Caldwell on the day she left Southampton: God himself could not sink this ship:
http://www.paullee.com/titanic/scaldwell.html
- then theres the crewman who spoke to Mrs.Caldwell on the day she left Southampton: God himself could not sink this ship:
-
paul-393 — 14 years ago(July 10, 2011 10:45 PM)
"there is no evidence that the notion of Titanic's unsinkability had entered public consciousness until after the sinking"
And if you read the link that I posted, it is clear that even Captain Smith and Thomas Andrews were sure of the Titanic's invincibility before she foundered. -
deeveed — 14 years ago(July 26, 2011 06:37 AM)
It would have been interesting to speak with the designers on that one. What was it about 4 compartments rather than say 5 or 6 or 7 etc on that issue? Probably had to be cost concerns. From the looks of it Titanic just had real bad luck when it came to those compartments. If those guys on lookout could have seen the berg much sooner say a couple of 1000 yards earlier who knows maybe only 2 compartments would have been sliced.
