Could the Titanic have been saved?

[Bill Radigan]

Or could the sinking have been delayed 2 hours when help arrived?
Or could rescue have arrived earlier? Or at least, could more people
have been saved.

Some suggestions .....
1. Jettison the ground tackle and cut away weight forward.
2. Improvise a bulkhead above the level of the critical one.
3. Counterflood aft.
4. Jettison coal.
5. The ship Californian is in sight 10-15 miles away. Steam in reverse
towards it at maximum speed.
6. Californian misinterprets distress rockets as fireworks. Set a large
fire on the forecastle. (It's always better to yell "Fire!" than
"Help!")
7. The ship contains thousands of "steamer trunks". Not watertight
exactly but they will take a while to fill. Dump the contents and jam
them in corrodors and cabins as far forward as possible.
8. Overload the lifeboats.
9. Use steamer trunks, deck planking, and lifejackets to improvise
rafts. (This is desperate, I know, but hey.)

What would a USN damage conrol team have done? Any other ideas?

[Eugene Griessel]

Bill Radigan <radi...@communique.net> wrote:

You raise some good questions. Its years since I studied the Titanic
disaster but I seem to recall that nobody did much of anything until
it was far too late. I seem to recall that a sort of lethargy set in
with everybody merely standing around saying: "She cannot be sunk".
I have always felt, though this is backed up by very scant factual
evidence, that vigorous damage control possibly could have saved her -
or delayed her sinking for some considerable time. Collision mats
would have slowed the inrush of water ( if they were carried?). I
was raised on the maxim that the best lifeboat was always the ship -
and I certainly would have have thought that more could have been
done by the crew. I seem to recall that there was adefinite lack of
communications - we hear of crew members turning in *after* the
collision, even though a definite list had by that time begun to
develop.

A total irrelevance here: I once attended DC school in Haifa (just
one of the NBCD courses I did) and they had the usual bit of ship
built on land for the class to do DC in. Six of us gathered in the
compartment, there was a hell of a bang, the lights went out and
within a minute we were virtually face up against the deckhead - there
was no way in hell you could possibly fight all the water off. They
made us do this over and over - we nearly getting drowned each time -
and we were no more successful at the last attempt than the first at
stemming the flood. And that was it - we progressed on. I have
always wondered if the idea was to scare the shit out of us rather
than teach actual damage control - they certainly succeeded in the
latter!

Eugene L Griessel eug...@dynagen.co.za

www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat Page - www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/eug3.htm

Thought for the day .......

I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it.

[Andrew Toppan]

Bill Radigan (radi...@communique.net) was seen to write:

> 1. Jettison the ground tackle and cut away weight forward.
> 2. Improvise a bulkhead above the level of the critical one.
> 3. Counterflood aft.
> 4. Jettison coal.

> 7. The ship contains thousands of "steamer trunks". Not watertight
> exactly but they will take a while to fill. Dump the contents and jam
> them in corrodors and cabins as far forward as possible.

> 9. Use steamer trunks, deck planking, and lifejackets to improvise
> rafts. (This is desperate, I know, but hey.)

All of these things require a well-organized crew, trained in damage
control procedures. TITANIC did not have such. Things like jettisoning
coal and using trunks for floatation also require a large number of
able-bodied people working in organized work parties - another thing that
was absolutely impossible.

> 5. The ship Californian is in sight 10-15 miles away. Steam in reverse
> towards it at maximum speed.

Probably impossible due to the props lifing out of the water, and the
engine room crews taking leave of their posts.

> 6. Californian misinterprets distress rockets as fireworks. Set a large
> fire on the forecastle. (It's always better to yell "Fire!" than
> "Help!")

Unless CALIFORNIAN was really farther away, as some claim...

> 8. Overload the lifeboats.

It wasn't possible to control who went into the boats - most boats went
un-filled. How do you propose to regain control of the unruly mob?

---
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- "I speak only for myself"
U.S. Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online @ http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
Railroad Rosters & Photo Features --- http://membrane.com/~elmer/rail/

[Eugene Griessel]

el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) wrote:

>Probably impossible due to the props lifing out of the water, and the
>engine room crews taking leave of their posts.

Shame on you Andrew, casting aspersions on the bravery of the engine
room crews! Fact is little is known of what went on in the engine
rooms - not a single engine room/boiler room crew member survived to
tell the tale. Some say not one stoker deserted his post, others say
that some tried and were driven back - First Officer Lowe's testimony
was that they stayed below till the last.

I thought it might be an idea to give some statistics here:

Percentages of lives saved:

1st class 63% (202)

men 34% (58)
women 97% (139)
children 100% (5)

2 nd class 42% (115)

men 8% (13)
women 84% (78)
children 100% (24)

3rd class 23% (176)

men 12% (55)
women 55% (98)
children 30% (23)

crew 23% (210)

Total 32% (703)

Eugene L Griessel eug...@dynagen.co.za

www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat Page - www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/eug3.htm

Thought for the day .......

Intuition (n): an uncanny sixth sense which tells people
that they are right, whether they are or not.

[Tom]

I have wondered about this myself so here are my two cents:

Andrew Toppan wrote:
>
> Bill Radigan (radi...@communique.net) was seen to write:
>
> > 1. Jettison the ground tackle and cut away weight forward.

I doubt that this would have any real effect, also if you really are
trying to save the ship (or delay the sinking) you may want the stuff.

> > 2. Improvise a bulkhead above the level of the critical one.

I really wonder about this one. There are a lot of mattresses on board
It doesn't require a lot of labor to move them and you don't actually
need to save all five compartments either. Even slowing the rate of
sinking by 3 hours saves a lot fo lives.

> > 3. Counterflood aft.
Depends on the localtion of the sea cocks and what is in the after part
of the ship. Boilers are amidships, engines aft, you can't afford to
lose all your engines because you need power to run lights and pumps.

> > 4. Jettison coal.

Not reall possible and even if it was it would not help. The ship
splits in half once a certain amount of water enters the forward third
of the vessel. (unless you counterflood aft)

> > 7. The ship contains thousands of "steamer trunks". Not watertight
> > exactly but they will take a while to fill. Dump the contents and jam
> > them in corrodors and cabins as far forward as possible.

I like the matresses better, they have a track record. Also its
quicker.

> > 9. Use steamer trunks, deck planking, and lifejackets to improvise
> > rafts. (This is desperate, I know, but hey.)

I think this is a better idea than using them to float the ship. YOu
might even save some lives, but only because of the very calm
conditions.

>
> All of these things require a well-organized crew, trained in damage
> control procedures.

Firstly White star crew were pretty well organized but I agree they were
not trained in damage control. I doubt the idea of trying to save the
ship occurred to anyone.

That said some countermeasures could have been undertaken. The captain
actually did nothing (at least that I am aware of) he could have opened
sea cocks to keep the ship level. That would have delayed sinking for
some time because she would not have broken in two.

Stuffing matresses into companionways might have been physically
possible given the quality of crew. I don't know if it would have made
any difference but if your all going to die you might as well give it a
shot.

>TITANIC did not have such. Things like jettisoning
> coal and using trunks for floatation also require a large number of
> able-bodied people working in organized work parties - another thing that
> was absolutely impossible.
>
> > 5. The ship Californian is in sight 10-15 miles away. Steam in reverse
> > towards it at maximum speed.
>

> Probably impossible due to the props lifing out of the water, and the
> engine room crews taking leave of their posts.

The engine room crew did not leave their posts for a very long while.
The rising screws are a big problem though. When did Titanic become
aware of the location of California? I have an article from the Boston
Globe (today Sunday the 11th) that shows a picture (ledgible) of a
radiomans log from Cape Race. The guy's family just donated it to the
Maritime Museum of the Atlantic in the last few months. It clearly
shows "10:43 (Cape Race time, Titanic is 90 minutes later) Titanic gives
same (as given to Carpathia) information to California giving Titanics
position. Titanic new California was out there but she may not have
known where.

The contents of the log are not new or unknown so I'm not discussing a
late breaking mystery.

>
> > 6. Californian misinterprets distress rockets as fireworks. Set a large
> > fire on the forecastle. (It's always better to yell "Fire!" than
> > "Help!")
>
> Unless CALIFORNIAN was really farther away, as some claim...

I don't know if California's Captain and crew testified that they saw
rockets or not but I am sure its in the investigation testemony. But
setting your ship on fire is never very wise.

>
> > 8. Overload the lifeboats.
>
> It wasn't possible to control who went into the boats - most boats went
> un-filled. How do you propose to regain control of the unruly mob?

Unruly mob was not the only issue. At times the mob was very much under
control and more people could have been found to put in the lifeboats.
Lightoller followed a policy of women and children only, when he did not
have enough of them to fill the lifeboat he sent it off partially filled
leaving men on deck.

Again the crucial issue (as we agree) is training but I don't think it
is saying to much to ask that the captain of a ship make sure that
lifeboats leave full.

Tom Hunter

[Andrew Toppan]

Tom (zub...@shore.net) was seen to write:

> I really wonder about this one. There are a lot of mattresses on board
> It doesn't require a lot of labor to move them and you don't actually
> need to save all five compartments either. Even slowing the rate of

Matresses are great for stuffing holes, but build a bulkhead out of 'em?
I don't think so.

> Firstly White star crew were pretty well organized but I agree they were
> not trained in damage control. I doubt the idea of trying to save the

Well organized for the normall operation of the ship, yes. Well organized
for the evacuation of the ship, maybe. Well organized for damage
control? Definately not.

[Bill M]

Andrew Toppan wrote:
>
> Tom (zub...@shore.net) was seen to write:
>
> > I really wonder about this one. There are a lot of mattresses on board
> > It doesn't require a lot of labor to move them and you don't actually
> > need to save all five compartments either. Even slowing the rate of
>
> Matresses are great for stuffing holes, but build a bulkhead out of 'em?
> I don't think so.
>
> > Firstly White star crew were pretty well organized but I agree they were
> > not trained in damage control. I doubt the idea of trying to save the
>
> Well organized for the normall operation of the ship, yes. Well organized
> for the evacuation of the ship, maybe. Well organized for damage
> control? Definately not.

And let's take advantage of hindsight. If, as Bob Ballard has asserted,
the 'gash' was really a series of pushed-in plates and popped rivets,
how many mats would the Titanic have to have carried to stem that amount
of damage? Would the crew have had the time needed, much less the
training?

I'm still more inclined to go along with Walter Lord's assessment that
the "Californian" was the salvation that never materialized.

And how many of us read this back in 1955 (or thereabouts) and have had
the bug ever since?

Bill Morlitz

[Tom]

Andrew Toppan wrote:
>
> Tom (zub...@shore.net) was seen to write:
>
> > I really wonder about this one. There are a lot of mattresses on board
> > It doesn't require a lot of labor to move them and you don't actually
> > need to save all five compartments either. Even slowing the rate of
>
> Matresses are great for stuffing holes, but build a bulkhead out of 'em?
> I don't think so.

You did notice my ringing endorsement of this idea "I don't know if it
will work but if your all going to die any way why not give it a shot?"

certainly you cannot build a practical bulkhead but you might (note the
very important qualifyer) be able to slow the leaking long enough to
have effect.

>
> > Firstly White star crew were pretty well organized but I agree they were
> > not trained in damage control. I doubt the idea of trying to save the
>
> Well organized for the normall operation of the ship, yes. Well organized
> for the evacuation of the ship, maybe. Well organized for damage
> control? Definately not.

Agreed, twice now.

[Ben Lanson]

Bill M wrote:

> And let's take advantage of hindsight. If, as Bob Ballard has
> asserted, the 'gash' was really a series of pushed-in plates and
> popped rivets, how many mats would the Titanic have to have carried to > stem that amount of damage? Would the crew have had the time needed, > much less the training?
>
> I'm still more inclined to go along with Walter Lord's assessment that
> the "Californian" was the salvation that never materialized.
>
> And how many of us read this back in 1955 (or thereabouts) and have
> had the bug ever since?
>
> Bill Morlitz

I recall reading that the Titanic might have been saved had she stayed her
course, attempted a crash stop and taken the iceberg head on. IIRC, the first
compartment was in fact watertight, and the buckling which would have inevitable
occurred elsewhere would likely have been more manageable than the gash which
occurred. Any comments?

Ben

[Bill M]

Ben Lanson wrote:

> I recall reading that the Titanic might have been saved had she stayed her
> course, attempted a crash stop and taken the iceberg head on. IIRC, the
>first compartment was in fact watertight,

I agree completely. I had posted that last week to another thread in
this newsgroup. Hindsights wonderful, isn't it? <G>

>and the buckling which would have inevitable occurred elsewhere would >likely have been more manageable than the gash which occurred. Any comments?
>
> Ben

Again, no arguement.

Of course, we'd have to take into consideration the quality of the steel
used. The latest writings indicate that it was of extremely low
quality. What effect a collision at 21 knots head-on can only be
speculated.

Of course, if I were a Professor of Physics or Naval Architecture at
some University, this would have been an assignment years ago. Or has
it been done?

Bill Morlitz

[Nightshdw3]

>I recall reading that the Titanic might have been saved had she stayed her
>course, attempted a crash stop and taken the iceberg head on. IIRC, the
>first

>compartment was in fact watertight, and the buckling which would have

>inevitable
>occurred elsewhere would likely have been more manageable than the gash which
>occurred. Any comments?
>
>Ben
>
>

I have heard this also. The fact is, trying to turn a ship as big as the
Titanic, as fast as they needed to, was not possible. The momentum simply
ground the ship against the iceburg. Keeping their course would probably of
saved them. I agree that the best option was the Californian. Image being the
captain and crew of Californian, and having to live with that...

Ethan T. 40degrees37'09.1" North 111degrees49'01.6" West

For to win a hundred victories in a hundred battles
is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without
fighting is the acme of skill----------Sun Tzu

[Andrew Toppan]

Ben Lanson (lan...@less-spam.fas.harvard.edu) was seen to write:
> I recall reading that the Titanic might have been saved had she stayed her
> course, attempted a crash stop and taken the iceberg head on. IIRC,

This was a popular theory before the ship was located, but has since
fallen into disfavor, since the huge gashes supposedly caused by the
sideswipe do not exist.

[William J Bollinger]

el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) wrote:

>Ben Lanson (lan...@less-spam.fas.harvard.edu) was seen to write:
>> I recall reading that the Titanic might have been saved had she stayed her
>> course, attempted a crash stop and taken the iceberg head on. IIRC,
>
>This was a popular theory before the ship was located, but has since
>fallen into disfavor, since the huge gashes supposedly caused by the
>sideswipe do not exist.
>

IIRC, the gashes, if they are there, would be buried in the mud where
bow dug in. How can we know if they exist or not? Also, in his book,
didn't Ballard show possible gashes near the bottom starbord side of
the hull aft of the piled up mud?

Support the American Academy of Industry in their effort to save the aircraft carrier Cabot and the cruiser Des Moines.
For information contact <mjhe...@aol.com>

My address has been modified to avoid spam.
If you have something to say, lose the "A".

[Ian Burrell]

In article <69dcuv$fkb$3...@bigboote.WPI.EDU>,

Andrew Toppan <el...@WPI.EDU> wrote:
>Ben Lanson (lan...@less-spam.fas.harvard.edu) was seen to write:
>> I recall reading that the Titanic might have been saved had she stayed her
>> course, attempted a crash stop and taken the iceberg head on. IIRC,
>
>This was a popular theory before the ship was located, but has since
>fallen into disfavor, since the huge gashes supposedly caused by the
>sideswipe do not exist.
>

A dead on hit could possibly have saved the Titanic. Current theory
doesn't have giant gashes from sideswiping the iceberg but the small
cracks and fractures produced let in enough water to sink the ship.
If the steel was that brittle, a head on hit might have buckled or
cracked a plates farther down the sides and flooded compartments away
from the bow.

- Ian

--
Ian Burrell ibur...@leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~iburrell/
Never settle with words what you can accomplish with a flame thrower.

[Cheng Tseng]

In article <34B9689E...@less-spam.fas.harvard.edu> Ben Lanson <lan...@less-spam.fas.harvard.edu> writes:

>I recall reading that the Titanic might have been saved had she stayed her

>course, attempted a crash stop and taken the iceberg head on. IIRC, the first
>compartment was in fact watertight, and the buckling which would have inevitable
>occurred elsewhere would likely have been more manageable than the gash which
>occurred. Any comments?

IIRC, John Maxtone-Graham(?) in his book "The Only Way to Cross" stated that
it was preferable ramming an iceberg head-on if the only other alternative was
side-swiping it. Moreover, it was known by those steaming the North Atlantic
route at the time Titanic went down, and the book gave two examples of ships
that did that and survived.

But in my estimate, for the Titanic to survive ramming an iceberg head-on, it
would have need a bit more watertight integrity then just the first
compartment.

Just my $0.02.

C.T.

[Sandy McClearn]

William J Bollinger wrote:

> IIRC, the gashes, if they are there, would be buried in the mud where
> bow dug in. How can we know if they exist or not? Also, in his book,
> didn't Ballard show possible gashes near the bottom starbord side of
> the hull aft of the piled up mud?

Yup. There is the tail end of a wrinkle running lengthwise along the
hull just visible behind the pile-up of mud. Ballard guessed that this
might have been caused by the ice-berg, although it seems to me it might
have been from the impact with the bottom. I doubt we will know short of
digging her up.

--
Sandy McClearn [/] mccl...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca ____.____ %
Civil Engineering -) [\] | ...__ | _ c[@@]O=+/
TUNS __O_|_| \_ | [### \ |-$_______8__ " `
[*|*| \___ -_|-[ __\ | |____|_/ ]
|\........-@.....[........|.|.].[....|.|H|..|........]............_____|
\CDN Navy, Yesterday & Today: http://www.uss-salem.org/navhist/canada |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Confederation Bridge Const. Tour & Stuff: http://www.tuns.ca/~mccleaae

[William H. Ivey]

In <34B8EF...@communique.net> Bill Radigan

<radi...@communique.net> writes:
>
>Or could the sinking have been delayed 2 hours when help arrived?
>Or could rescue have arrived earlier? Or at least, could more people
>have been saved.
>
>Some suggestions .....

[...]
>8. Overload the lifeboats.

>9. Use steamer trunks, deck planking, and lifejackets to improvise
>rafts. (This is desperate, I know, but hey.)
>

Might be more useful to throw the trunks overboard where they could be
strapped to the lifeboats allowing them to carry more passengers.
Additionally, anything floating gives people in the water a better
chance to survive - getting as much of your body out of the water as
possible is important. Wet clothes in air can provide insulation, in
water they just conduct heat away.

Pity they didn't have sails to strap over the holes. (Of course, I'd
hate to be one of the guys assigned to swim a rope under that keel :-)
-Wm

[iac...@earthlink.net]

On 13 Jan 1998 05:09:01 GMT, wi...@ix.netcom.com(William H. Ivey)
wrote:

>>8. Overload the lifeboats.
Fully loading the lifeboats would have helped too...

[Hemang Yadav]

I think that this is a very difficult question to answer because we have
the benifit of hindsight. Also we weren't there. Its pretty hard to try
and control 2000 odd auristocrats, with also the question of young
children etc. to consider.
It can be said that more lifeboats should have been put on the ship
itself. Also I heard something a while back about the Titanic being made
of inferior steel. Something on the Discovery channel I think.

In article <34B8EF...@communique.net>, Bill Radigan

<radi...@communique.net> writes
>Or could the sinking have been delayed 2 hours when help arrived?
>Or could rescue have arrived earlier? Or at least, could more people
>have been saved.
>
>Some suggestions .....

>1. Jettison the ground tackle and cut away weight forward.

>2. Improvise a bulkhead above the level of the critical one.

>3. Counterflood aft.
>4. Jettison coal.

>5. The ship Californian is in sight 10-15 miles away. Steam in reverse
>towards it at maximum speed.

>6. Californian misinterprets distress rockets as fireworks. Set a large
>fire on the forecastle. (It's always better to yell "Fire!" than
>"Help!")

>7. The ship contains thousands of "steamer trunks". Not watertight
>exactly but they will take a while to fill. Dump the contents and jam
>them in corrodors and cabins as far forward as possible.

>8. Overload the lifeboats.
>9. Use steamer trunks, deck planking, and lifejackets to improvise
>rafts. (This is desperate, I know, but hey.)
>

[Chris Thompson]

Just a little....
Chris Thompson

iac...@earthlink.net wrote in article
<34bb9a7...@news.earthlink.net>...

[William J Bollinger]

Sandy McClearn <mccl...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca> wrote:

>William J Bollinger wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the gashes, if they are there, would be buried in the mud where
>> bow dug in. How can we know if they exist or not? Also, in his book,
>> didn't Ballard show possible gashes near the bottom starbord side of
>> the hull aft of the piled up mud?
>
>Yup. There is the tail end of a wrinkle running lengthwise along the
>hull just visible behind the pile-up of mud. Ballard guessed that this
>might have been caused by the ice-berg, although it seems to me it might
>have been from the impact with the bottom. I doubt we will know short of
>digging her up.
>

Probably not even then. I doubt that the bow is actually intact under
the mud. It's probably a mass of crumpled scrap metal, pushed back
into the cargo hold.

[Mike Ramsey]

Regarding a crash stop/head-on collision, I wouldn't be sure they are
synonymous. On a visit to a cruise ship bridge I saw the procedure and a
diagram for an emergency stop mounted to the back wall. I took this to be
"how do we stop this thing in the shortest distance from where we begin
stopping". I don't know what the engines/screws were doing, but the path
of the ship was a skidding turn. I.e. turn the broadside of the ship into
the path and use the drag to slow you down.

'Course, this procedure could be different for every ship.

Mike Ramsey

[Ben Lanson]

It was my impression that the intention was not necessarily avoidance in the
hypothetical crash stop/head on collision situation, but that the primary
concern was contacting the iceberg with the bow, and that slowing the ship was a
secondary concern. Note that this also assumes that the bridge crew realizes
that a collision is unavoidable.

Ben

[Eugene Griessel]

std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell) wrote:

>Mike Ramsey (c...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
>: Regarding a crash stop/head-on collision, I wouldn't be sure they are
>: synonymous. On a visit to a cruise ship bridge I saw the procedure and a
>: diagram for an emergency stop mounted to the back wall. I took this to be
>: "how do we stop this thing in the shortest distance from where we begin
>: stopping". I don't know what the engines/screws were doing, but the path
>: of the ship was a skidding turn. I.e. turn the broadside of the ship into
>: the path and use the drag to slow you down.

>Stupid question: On a ship with twin rudders, could they be used to
>slow the ship more if they were individually swung outboard or
>inboard? As in, port rudder full left, starboard rudder full right?
>Or would this be.... uh... bad?

Mostly impossible. The rudders are linked by hydraulic rams. You
would have to take a wrench to it to achieve this.

Eugene L Griessel eug...@dynagen.co.za

www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat Page - www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/eug3.htm

Thought for the day .......

Engage the enemy on all sides. - US jargon for "Get ambushed".

[Steve Ewert]

In article <69jdr4$50$1...@unx1.shsu.edu>, std...@unx1.shsu.edu says...

>Stupid question: On a ship with twin rudders, could they be used to
>slow the ship more if they were individually swung outboard or
>inboard? As in, port rudder full left, starboard rudder full right?
>Or would this be.... uh... bad?

More like impossible.....The rudders work in tandem...meaning if one turns one
way the other turns the same way...at the same angle....I can see the point you
are trying to make....if the ship was say twin screws reverse one engine and put
the wheel hard over ....
then the ship will swing broadside.... if you wanna stop real quick... reverse both
engines keeping the wheel midships...

SE

[Andy Ashworth]

On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:05:36 -0500, Bill M <prr...@op.net> wrote:

>Ben Lanson wrote:
>
>Of course, we'd have to take into consideration the quality of the steel
>used. The latest writings indicate that it was of extremely low
>quality. What effect a collision at 21 knots head-on can only be
>speculated.

I saw a Discovery Channel special the other week looking into this and
other issues around the Titanic sinking. Using side scan sonar
through the mud the location of the holes along the starboard side
were investigated. This technique identified that the majority of the
water came in through popped rivets and small rips in the steel -
total area letting in water was estimated to be in region of 1 square
metre. The problem with plugging the leaks was not the size of the
leaks but the sheer number and the difficulties of getting to them in
time. Some computer modelling was carried out by 2 Naval Architects
from Harland & Wolff who agreed that such leakage across a large
number of locations would fit with eye witness reports of the sinking,
i.e. timings, etc.

>
>Of course, if I were a Professor of Physics or Naval Architecture at
>some University, this would have been an assignment years ago. Or has
>it been done?

The same programme also showed the recovery of a piece of plating for
metallurgical analysis; the quality of the steel was poor compared to
today's standards and at low temperatures would have been
exceptionally brittle. It was actually predicted that the mid-ships
section of the ship (i.e. the bit not apparent on the sea-bed) would
have literally shattered due to the stresses brought on immediately
after the sinking with a still air-filled stern section being dragged
down by water-logged bows. This was used as a explanation for the
reported sounds like "breaking glass" reported by some survivors.

Andy Ashworth

[Steve Osmanski]

std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell) wrote:

>Mike Ramsey (c...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
>: Regarding a crash stop/head-on collision, I wouldn't be sure they are
>: synonymous. On a visit to a cruise ship bridge I saw the procedure and a
>: diagram for an emergency stop mounted to the back wall. I took this to be
>: "how do we stop this thing in the shortest distance from where we begin
>: stopping". I don't know what the engines/screws were doing, but the path
>: of the ship was a skidding turn. I.e. turn the broadside of the ship into
>: the path and use the drag to slow you down.
>

>Stupid question: On a ship with twin rudders, could they be used to
>slow the ship more if they were individually swung outboard or
>inboard? As in, port rudder full left, starboard rudder full right?
>Or would this be.... uh... bad?

Actually, this is possible and has been done at least once with a
warship.

The story was in Proceedings (IIRC) and concerned the battleship USS
Wisconsin, after World War II. They wanted to see if they could stop
the ship any faster, when someone noticed that if you took the two
rudders into manual local control, you could indeed swing them in
opposing directions and form a speedbrake out of them. The command for
doing this was to be "close the barn doors."

So they did this, as an experiment. From ahead flank (about 30 knots)
they went to all stop, then all back full, and then "closed the barn
doors."

Every loose object on the ship flew forwards..... The narrator of the
story was on the bridge at the time, and remembered seeing a chief,
walking along the main deck near the #1 turret, backpedalling all the
way to the 20mm mounts at the very tip of the bow.

According to the story, they'd tossed a bouy from the bows when they
began the operation. After they stopped, the bouy was found floating
by the #3 turret!!!! They'd stopped the ship (a 52,000 ton
battleship!) in 600 feet!!!!! From ahead flank!!!

They'd also put a lot of strain on the steering gear, and other damage
to things and people throughout the ship (men were tossed from their
racks, etc).

This operation would still be possible with modern twin-rudder
warships, but about the only ones left are carriers, and I don't like
to think what might happen to the planes if a CVN did this.

And with modern homing torpedoes, stopping isn't a very good idea
anyway.

[Thomas Buell]

Andy Ashworth (an...@praxis-cs.co.uk) wrote:
: This technique identified that the majority of the

: water came in through popped rivets and small rips in the steel -
: total area letting in water was estimated to be in region of 1 square
: metre. The problem with plugging the leaks was not the size of the
: leaks but the sheer number and the difficulties of getting to them in
: time.

This sounds as though leak sails (term?) would have helped a lot.
(Don't know the English term: Large sheets of strong canvas with
long ropes on the corners for handling them. They are lowered in
front of the bows, moved to the damaged area and get pressed on the
leak by the water flowing in. Or are these the same as the "collision
mats", mentioned before?)

AFAIK, this is a rather oldfashioned method, did Titanic carry such
equipment or anything else that could have been used that way?
From my experience from DC school handling a leak sail is not that
easy, but placed properly it greatly reduces the inrush of water. So
it may become possible to pump the water out of a damaged compartment
again and work on the leak from inside.

I've read on the web that Titanic had some sophisticated DC facilities,
such as remote controlled or automatic watertight doors, smoke detectors
etc.
Does anyone know the capacity of her pumps? Would it have been possible
to reduce the amount of water entering the ship below what the pumps
could hanlde? 1 m^2 isn't very large an area, is it? And draining
one damaged compartment would have been enough.

regards,
Thomas

[Andy Ashworth]

On 15 Jan 1998 14:14:18 GMT, Thomas...@diesel.heim1.tu-clausthal.de
(Thomas Buell) wrote:

>I've read on the web that Titanic had some sophisticated DC facilities,
>such as remote controlled or automatic watertight doors, smoke detectors
>etc.

>Does anyone know the capacity of her pumps? Would it have been possible
>to reduce the amount of water entering the ship below what the pumps
>could hanlde? 1 m^2 isn't very large an area, is it? And draining
>one damaged compartment would have been enough.

One other thing I found interesting/horrifying, the Harland & Wolf
computer model showed that the water tight compartments were not full
height, i.e. once a water tight section was full it overflowed into
the adjacent section(s). This was apparently another reason for the
sinking - if the compartments had extended the full height of the
ship's hull, there would have been a much greater chance of saving
her.

Andy

[Andrew Toppan]

Steve Osmanski (osma...@cvn.net) was seen to write:
> Actually, this is possible and has been done at least once with a
> warship.

[story snipped]

> by the #3 turret!!!! They'd stopped the ship (a 52,000 ton
> battleship!) in 600 feet!!!!! From ahead flank!!!

Ummm...does "physically impossible" mean anything to you? This has got to
be a "sea story". Turning the rudders sideways - even if it was phyically
possible to force them around at such high speed - would surely result in
them being ripped clear out of the ship. The forces involved here are
*huge*.

It is quite well known that the fastest way to avoid running into
"something" in front of you is back full the starboard shafts and gp ahead
flank on the port (or the other way 'round), thereby twisting the ship
'round. Crash-stopping something like a BB just doesn't work.

[Andrew Toppan]

William S. Rowell (std...@unx1.shsu.edu) was seen to write:
> Stupid question: On a ship with twin rudders, could they be used to
> slow the ship more if they were individually swung outboard or
> inboard? As in, port rudder full left, starboard rudder full right?
> Or would this be.... uh... bad?

Impossible. The rudders are phyically connected by a very large
mechanical linkage. Disassembling said linkage would require much time
and work, heavy tools, etc. And it would render both rudders un-usable
as they would no longer be connected to *anything*.

[Andrew Toppan]

Andy Ashworth (an...@praxis-cs.co.uk) was seen to write:
> One other thing I found interesting/horrifying, the Harland & Wolf
> computer model showed that the water tight compartments were not full
> height, i.e. once a water tight section was full it overflowed into
> the adjacent section(s). This was apparently another reason for the

This new is as old as the disaster itself.

[Eugene Griessel]

el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) wrote:

>Steve Osmanski (osma...@cvn.net) was seen to write:
>> Actually, this is possible and has been done at least once with a
>> warship.

>[story snipped]

>> by the #3 turret!!!! They'd stopped the ship (a 52,000 ton
>> battleship!) in 600 feet!!!!! From ahead flank!!!

>Ummm...does "physically impossible" mean anything to you? This has got to
>be a "sea story". Turning the rudders sideways - even if it was phyically
>possible to force them around at such high speed - would surely result in
>them being ripped clear out of the ship. The forces involved here are
>*huge*.

>It is quite well known that the fastest way to avoid running into
>"something" in front of you is back full the starboard shafts and gp ahead
>flank on the port (or the other way 'round), thereby twisting the ship
>'round. Crash-stopping something like a BB just doesn't work.

I don't know if this is the place to raise the issue but a few years
ago a Greek professor working at MIT was very involved with the design
theory of a vessel to be propelled by two lateral "fins" a la a
penguin. I believe some trial models were made and showed great
promise and vast advantages over the propellor were being mooted.
Then silence. Anyone know anything more about this? I recall MIT had
a website covering this 2 or three years ago - I have lost the URL
however. Anybody heard anything new?

Eugene L Griessel eug...@dynagen.co.za

www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat Page - www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/eug3.htm

Thought for the day .......

Whatever their faults, the Communists never created canned laughter.

[Random]

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:52:05 GMT, eug...@dynagen.co.za (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

>el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) wrote:
>
>>Steve Osmanski (osma...@cvn.net) was seen to write:
>>> Actually, this is possible and has been done at least once with a
>>> warship.
>
>>[story snipped]
>
>>> by the #3 turret!!!! They'd stopped the ship (a 52,000 ton
>>> battleship!) in 600 feet!!!!! From ahead flank!!!
>
>>Ummm...does "physically impossible" mean anything to you? This has got to
>>be a "sea story". Turning the rudders sideways - even if it was phyically
>>possible to force them around at such high speed - would surely result in
>>them being ripped clear out of the ship. The forces involved here are
>>*huge*.
>
>>It is quite well known that the fastest way to avoid running into
>>"something" in front of you is back full the starboard shafts and gp ahead
>>flank on the port (or the other way 'round), thereby twisting the ship
>>'round. Crash-stopping something like a BB just doesn't work.

With CRP systems on modern warships, crash stops are routine and
there's no need to fishtail away. CRP ships routinely test their
crash stop/CRP systems after yard periods.

Crash stopping larger ships is accomplished by sounding the collision
alarm and ramming Panamanian tankers or Spanish colliers anchored in
the roadstead. <g>

>
>I don't know if this is the place to raise the issue but a few years
>ago a Greek professor working at MIT was very involved with the design
>theory of a vessel to be propelled by two lateral "fins" a la a
>penguin. I believe some trial models were made and showed great
>promise and vast advantages over the propellor were being mooted.
>Then silence. Anyone know anything more about this? I recall MIT had
>a website covering this 2 or three years ago - I have lost the URL
>however. Anybody heard anything new?

Are you referring to the cycloidal propulsion system?

[Ian Burrell]

In article <34be1f65.20473397@leibniz>,

Andy Ashworth <an...@praxis-cs.co.uk> wrote:
>
>One other thing I found interesting/horrifying, the Harland & Wolf
>computer model showed that the water tight compartments were not full
>height, i.e. once a water tight section was full it overflowed into
>the adjacent section(s). This was apparently another reason for the

>sinking - if the compartments had extended the full height of the
>ship's hull, there would have been a much greater chance of saving
>her.
>

This was the reason Titanic was only supposed to be able to survive
flooding in four bow compartments. Five compartments were flooded on
Titanic which dragged the bow down far enough that water spilled over
the top of the watertight bulkheads.

After Titanic, her sister ships, Olympic and Britannic, were refitted
and redesigned with some of the bulkheads extended all the way to the
deck. They were supposed to be able to survive the flooding of six
bow compartments. However, Britannic struck a mine in the Aegean
during WWI and sunk in less than an hour. The reason was that the
watertight doors weren't closed because of a change in shift and that
a row of portholes were open.

- Ian

--
Ian Burrell ibur...@leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~iburrell/

The meek shall inherit the earth, the bold shall get the stars. - IB

[Steve Osmanski]

el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) wrote:

>Ummm...does "physically impossible" mean anything to you? This has got to
>be a "sea story". Turning the rudders sideways - even if it was phyically
>possible to force them around at such high speed - would surely result in
>them being ripped clear out of the ship. The forces involved here are
>*huge*.
>

You can call it a sea story if you want: after all, I wasn't there, so
I can't testify of my own personal knowledge. I suppose that
Proceedings might publish such a sea story without checking it, after
all, Proceedings is only the #1 professional naval journal in the USA.

I suspect that the claim of stopping the ship in 600 feet is
inaccurate. Any number of factors could have resulted in that bouy
being incorrectly placed: it could have been thrown over the side
late; it might have been washed forward by the ships' bow wave, lots
of things.

[Steve Osmanski]

el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) wrote:

>Impossible. The rudders are phyically connected by a very large
>mechanical linkage. Disassembling said linkage would require much time
>and work, heavy tools, etc. And it would render both rudders un-usable
>as they would no longer be connected to *anything*.
>

This is not the case on Nimitz-class carrier, at the least. The
steering gear rooms are well-separated, totally independent of each
other.

It is true that under normal operation, the rudders are =electrically=
linked so they swing the same way and degree. However, in emergency
manual operation, the rudders are controlled from the individual
steering gear rooms, and could be swung opposite, if the steering gear
watchstanders messed up. In all such evolutions, the steering gear
rooms and the bridge are linked by phones, to allow proper
coordination.

[William H. Roberts]

>> by the #3 turret!!!! They'd stopped the ship (a 52,000 ton
>> battleship!) in 600 feet!!!!! From ahead flank!!!

>Ummm...does "physically impossible" mean anything to you?

Physically impossible to stop in 600 feet, yes--that's clearly
exaggeration--but an opposed-rudder maneuver was in fact used by the
Iowa-class battleships. There was a battleship shiphandling article in (IIRC)
the Proceedings a few years back that mentioned it as being commonly employed.

>Turning the rudders sideways - even if it was phyically
>possible to force them around at such high speed - would surely result in
>them being ripped clear out of the ship. The forces involved here are
>*huge*.

The method was not to "turn them sideways"--they don't go that far--but
instead to turn each rudder to the hard rudder position inboard -- i.e.,
starboard rudder to hard left rudder, port rudder to hard right rudder --
which the steering gear is stressed to take and which the independent
steering gear on the BB makes possible. The slowing effect was quite dramatic,
according to the author, who wrote that the conning orders for the maneuver
were, "After steering take control, shut the barn door."

Perhaps somebody with a better filing system than mine can locate the article
for us?

Bill Roberts

[Eugene Griessel]

Ran...@ix.netcom.com (Random) wrote:

No. I went and searched the web and rediscovered the article. I post
it here under the "fair usage" principle if anyone is interested. It
is from MIT News:

MIT 'Penguin Boat' Takes Maiden Voyage Down Charles River

New propulsion system could lead to more efficient ships

April 3, 1997

CAMBRIDGE, Mass--Zipping along through the water, the penguin uses two
flippers to propel its rigid body quickly and
efficiently. Now MIT engineers have applied that "technology" to a
man-made vehicle that recently took its maiden voyage
down a short stretch of the Charles River.

Introducing Proteus the Penguin Boat, a 12-foot craft with two
"oscillating foils," or flippers, attached to its stern. Named after
the son of the sea god Poseidon, Proteus could lead to full-scale
ships that move more efficiently--and consume less fuel--than
those using traditional propellers. (An experimental model, Proteus is
too narrow to fit even a single passenger.)

The boat is the first of its kind. In the past researchers have
performed theoretical computations for propelling a boat with
flippers, but until now no-one had built one.

Preliminary tests are promising. The new propulsion system when tested
in the laboratory reached up to 87 percent efficiency.
The system as implemented on the boat "is still being evaluated since
many of the components are novel and require further
development," said Michael S. Triantafyllou, a professor in the
Department of Ocean Engineering who leads the research team.
Professor Triantafyllou noted that the average efficiency of existing
ships is at or below about 70 percent.

According to 1992 US Fuel and Shipping Statistics, "converting only
three percent of the United States shipping fleet to a
propulsor with 10 percent higher efficiency would mean an [annual]
monetary savings of $15 million and 120 million fewer liters
of petroleum fuel being burned," wrote James T. Czarnowski, a graduate
student in the Departments of Ocean Engineering and
Mechanical Engineering, in a paper he and two MIT undergraduates will
be presenting on the work at the May 1997
International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
conference.

FISH-LIKE PREDECESSOR

Proteus is a direct descendant of robotuna, another biologically
inspired MIT creation. This four-foot-long robotic fish,
patterned after a bluefin tuna, was designed to test the efficiency of
a single oscillating foil--a fish's tail. That efficiency proved to
be about 85 percent, under conditions of developing the amount of
force required normally by marine vehicles, and in 1995
MIT was awarded a patent on the propulsion mechanism.

"The experimental work on the robotuna foil showed high efficiency and
high promise. So the next focus was to give it a
real-life application," said Professor Triantafyllou.

But ships patterned after the robotuna itself, whose entire body
swishes back and forth as it moves through the water, aren't
practical. "We thought that if we could remove the body and just keep
the tail, we could take a lot of the good from the tuna
without the need to have the undulating body," Mr. Czarnowski said.

As with the robotuna, Nature also helped the engineers with the new
design. "Penguins and sea turtles are the biological
analogies to what we were looking for," Mr. Czarnowski explained.
"Both have rigid bodies like a boat, and propulsion is
achieved through oscillation of pectoral flippers."

After videotaping penguins at the New England Aquarium and conducting
a feasibility study, Mr. Czarnowski spent six months
building a six-foot prototype. The device showed enough promise that
Professor Triantafyllou gave the go-ahead to develop a
more advanced version.

Among other things, when the engineers studied the wake of the
prototype they found that it closely resembled the wakes of
the robotuna and of living tropical fish (Danios). "That was important
because it showed us that with two flippers we were
producing the same hydrodynamics that a fish tail produces and
therefore we should see similar efficiencies," Mr. Czarnowski
said.

So a little over a year later, Mr. Czarnowski, Professor
Triantafyllou, and colleagues produced Proteus. The multidisciplinary
team included three undergraduates: Timothy R. Cleary, a senior in the
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics; William
R. Kreamer, a junior in the Department of Ocean Engineering, and
Michael C. Murphy, a senior in the Department of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science. Czarnowski, Cleary, and Kreamer will
be presenting the work at the ISOPE conference.

Proteus allows the researchers to study a wider range of flipper
motions than the prototype was capable of, and also allows
them to more accurately measure the propulsion mechanism's efficiency.
"The prototype was entirely mechanical and was built
using 19th-century technology," Mr. Czarnowski explained, "whereas
Proteus uses state-of-the-art robotics. It's also twice as
big, so we can measure larger forces and have a wake that's easier to
visualize."

The boat, which is about 1 1/2 feet wide by 12 feet long, is a scale
model of a fast ship. Packed inside are two car batteries, a
486 desktop computer, a power-sensing circuit, and a voltage converter
that changes the battery power into the power used
by the computer and by the four motors that control the motion of the
flippers. Two large motors allow the flippers to move
toward and away from each other; two smaller motors allow them to
twist slightly as they do so.

Before the researchers send the boat for a run down the Charles River,
they program it for a specific "flapping motion" of the
flippers. These commands are relayed to the onboard computer via a
monitor and keyboard that are then disconnected from
the computer and remain on the shore. Once Proteus begins moving
through the water it is controlled by a remote control. The
same remote control also allows the researchers to start recording
(via the onboard computer) how much power the motors
are using. That data, in turn, allows them to calculate the efficiency
of each run.

"Once we determine the most efficient flapping motion on the Charles,"
said Mr. Czarnowski, "we want to bring the boat back
to the MIT Testing Tank to study the wake so we know what an efficient
wake looks like."

Future work includes designing a flipper system that allows for
maneuvering as well as propulsion. Currently Proteus can only
move in a straight line. As a result, for tests on the Charles the
boat is attached via two guides on its left to a long string of
fishing line that in turn is strung between two piers. Once it has
completed a run from one pier to the other, one of the
researchers hauls it back to the "start" with a fishing pole.

A LOVE FOR BOATS

Jim Czarnowski has always loved boats. "I've been building strange
little boats like this since I was eight years old," he said.
"My first one was a papier-mache paddle-wheel boat with a small
electric motor that powered a popsicle-stick paddle wheel.
Now that I'm at MIT I can build more advanced models."

What's been the best part of the Proteus project? "Finally seeing it
work, and having everyone who's worked so hard on it
enjoying that success as well," Mr. Czarnowski said.

He also likes sharing the excitement with others. Every test on the
Charles has drawn an audience, even though those tests at
the MIT Sailing Pavilion begin at about 5:30 in the morning to take
advantage of the calm conditions on the river. "Seeing their
curiosity and explaining to them what we are doing is very rewarding,"
he said.

The work is supported by the Office of Naval Research and the MIT Sea
Grant College Program.

--END--

CONTACT:
Elizabeth Thomson
MIT News Office
(617) 258-5402
tho...@mit.edu

Eugene L Griessel eug...@dynagen.co.za

www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat Page - www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/eug3.htm

Thought for the day .......

There were 500 couples enjoying themselves on the dance floor.
Then the MC made them get up and dance.

[MEMullen]

>osma...@cvn.net (Steve Osmanski) writes
<snips>

>They'd stopped the ship (a 52,000 ton
>battleship!) in 600 feet!!!!! From ahead flank!!!
>

>They'd also put a lot of strain on the steering gear, and other damage
>to things and people throughout the ship (men were tossed from their
>racks, etc).
>
>

Nice story, and I would suspect the effects on the steering gear would be bad
-- not designed for this sort of thing -- but...
the acceleration of stopping a 40mph ship in 600 feet is the same as that of
stopping a 40mph car in 600 feet. If this causes any gear to be tossed about,
I would hate to see what would happen in a storm. Was your informant a
chief...?

Mike Mullen, ETN2, USNR(Ret)

[Andrew Toppan]

Steve Osmanski (osma...@cvn.net) was seen to write:

> I can't testify of my own personal knowledge. I suppose that
> Proceedings might publish such a sea story without checking it, after
> all, Proceedings is only the #1 professional naval journal in the USA.

I am quite aware of what Proceedings is, but I refuse to fall down and
worship at their feet, believing everything they publish. The fact that
it was published in Proceedings doesn't mean it's true. If everything
published in Proceedings was true, the Russian GORSHKOV would be in Bombay
now.

[TMOliver]

Andrew Toppan wrote:
>
> Steve Osmanski (osma...@cvn.net) was seen to write:
> > I can't testify of my own personal knowledge. I suppose that
> > Proceedings might publish such a sea story without checking it, after
> > all, Proceedings is only the #1 professional naval journal in the USA.
>
> I am quite aware of what Proceedings is, but I refuse to fall down and
> worship at their feet, believing everything they publish. The fact that
> it was published in Proceedings doesn't mean it's true. If everything
> published in Proceedings was true, the Russian GORSHKOV would be in Bombay
> now.
>

Good on ya', A.T.

Aside from the ridiculousness of the claim, it might be well to consider
the physical aspects of "speed brakes" which the tale makes out of twin
rudders....

Take big ship, 900+/- long, 100'+/- beam. Pedal mightily to reach 24
kts, hurling through water like a veritable juggernaut.

Look upon rudders for a moment, their surface area miniscule in
comparison to the amount of water thundering and gurgling by. Crank
them independently outboard in unison. Predict "braking effect". Not
much...(and realize that reversing the screws will counteract a
substantial portion of that which you intended while playing with the
rudders, the reversed flow of water actually diminished by the rudders
which are acting to reduce/alter flow over the screws).

SEA STORY FOLLOWS:

Reminds me of a brown shoe commander making his trek to the Bridge to
gain ship-handling skills to qualify for deep draft command. It's his
day for the big evolution, the approach to come alongside an oiler.

Skipper looks at me. I look at the Skipper. We know this CDR, and
peerless, dauntless aviator/avatar he may be, but destined for deep
draft command? Unlikely in this world or a 6000 ship Navy. Oh well,
it's his day to drive (and my day in the barrel).

Romeo Corpen is head on into a good wind and a rough sea, so the RG has
cranked up 15 for easier station keeping. The Old Chancre comes roaring
up at 27, our planes guards YW in the deep wake, their masthead lights
going like trick yo-yo's....

CDR Hotburner's got the conn and we're closing fast. He calls for 24 as
gray oiler fantail fills the 1 oclock. With it drifting toward 3
o'clock, he decides to slow to 15. Quickly, he realizes that parallel
parking was never like this and cries out for the world to hear: "SPEED
BRAKES, NOW!". Either he imagines that he's airborne in his thundering
Spad or he was there the day of the Proceedings anecdote. Captain says;
"Do something, OOD" "ALL BACK BENDIX" is the cry, screams from Main
Control is the response, soon followed by the Chief Snipe thundering up
the bridge ladder, sputtering and growling as Chief Snipes are want to
do. We got down to 15 as our island passed the oiler's bow, and kinda
slipped back into station with games on the rev.counter. One of the DDs
remarked on CIC primary (so as not to be heard on the Bridge) that the
knuckle we stirred up looked like a full pattern of DCs. Fortunately,
no flags were present and the oiler's skipper, junior to ours, was the
RG's boss.

It were embarassing....

Panic stop from 24 kts in 600 feet?

Try it and a couple of things would happen...A Division would bail out
over the fantail, sure that large pieces of steering engines, rams and
hydraulic fluid would be following them up the escape trunk and the
Chief Engineer's last set of white coveralls would gain a brown
hashmark.

Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.

--
"A little learning is a dangerous thing,
But more is inevitably catastrophic!"
****************************************************************
TMOliver/8225 Shadow Wood/Woodway/TX/76712/254-772-2859/776-3332
****************************************************************
"The road to Hell is paved with pleasurable chugholes."

[Jeff Crowell]

Steve Osmanski (osma...@cvn.net) wrote:
: This operation would still be possible with modern twin-rudder

: warships, but about the only ones left are carriers, and I don't like
: to think what might happen to the planes if a CVN did this.

Actually, it's not possible in most twin-rudder vessels, judging by the
installation found in Kidd-class DDGs (and most likely therefore also
Sprucans and Ticos, as a minimum). While the Kidds had two independent
rudder actuators, there was a huge crossbar that connected the rudder posts
together. It would take hours of work to disconnect, and then could
only have been controlled locally. Much faster to back 'er down full.

Come to think of it, with the demise of the OHP Figs, are there any combatants
that _don't_ have twin rudders?

Jeff

--
Jeff Crowell | |
jcrow at hpbs3354.boi.hp.com | _ |
_________|__( )__|_________
BLD Materials Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x
(208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x
O x x O

It's always darkest just before it gets pitch black.

[iastate.edu]

Jeff Crowell wrote:
>
> Steve Osmanski (osma...@cvn.net) wrote:
> : This operation would still be possible with modern twin-rudder
> : warships, but about the only ones left are carriers, and I don't like
> : to think what might happen to the planes if a CVN did this.
>
> Actually, it's not possible in most twin-rudder vessels, judging by the
> installation found in Kidd-class DDGs (and most likely therefore also
> Sprucans and Ticos, as a minimum). While the Kidds had two independent
> rudder actuators, there was a huge crossbar that connected the rudder posts
> together. It would take hours of work to disconnect, and then could
> only have been controlled locally. Much faster to back 'er down full.
>
> Come to think of it, with the demise of the OHP Figs, are there any combatants
> that _don't_ have twin rudders?
>
> Jeff

Actually, OHP aren't 'demised' yet, though their trying hard.
Amphibs (Combatants?)
Cyclone PC's
Subs (well at least not quite twin tailed)

The other Jeff

[J.D. Baldwin]

In article <34B8EF...@communique.net>, Bill Radigan
<radi...@communique.net> wrote:
> Or could the sinking have been delayed 2 hours when help arrived?
> Or could rescue have arrived earlier? Or at least, could more people
> have been saved.
>
> Some suggestions .....
> 1. Jettison the ground tackle and cut away weight forward.

You know that old joke about "re-arranging the deck chairs on the
Titanic"?

> 2. Improvise a bulkhead above the level of the critical one.

A LOT of work to be done in very little time.

> 3. Counterflood aft.

It's been [mumble] years since my last Naval Architecture class, but
I'm guessing that this would buy nowhere near 2 hours, and it's damned
risky in and of itself.

> 4. Jettison coal.

You already threw the deck chairs overboard to save weight. What's
the point? Seriously, there just wouldn't be enough time and manpower
to jettison a significant fraction of the ship's displacement.

> 5. The ship Californian is in sight 10-15 miles away. Steam in
> reverse towards it at maximum speed.

"Toward *her* at maximum speed," please. I wonder whether this would
have helped, and pulling backward through the water might well have
made things worse by drawing more water on board.

> 6. Californian misinterprets distress rockets as fireworks. Set a large
> fire on the forecastle. (It's always better to yell "Fire!" than
> "Help!")

This is a good one. If you're really in distress, you'd better be
sending every form of goddam distress signal known to man, plus a few
you make up yourself. "Open flames on deck" is an internationally
recognized distress signal (if intentionally set, and even more so if
unintentional!) and pretty much always has been.

> 7. The ship contains thousands of "steamer trunks". Not watertight
> exactly but they will take a while to fill. Dump the contents and jam
> them in corrodors and cabins as far forward as possible.

Or you could just stick your finger in the hole. Nothing you could
improvise with stuff like this could withstand even a small fraction of
the water pressures involved.

> 8. Overload the lifeboats.

Hell, *loading* the lifeboats would have been a good idea! Yes, the
lifeboats should have been overloaded -- the seas were calm, and help
was expected quite soon.

> 9. Use steamer trunks, deck planking, and lifejackets to improvise
> rafts. (This is desperate, I know, but hey.)

Some have suggested that improvisation of rafts was a fairly basic
seamanship skill back then. In benefit of hindsight, this is probably
where efforts should have been concentrated. A few passengers could
have been pressed into service to organize the loading of the
lifeboats while deck seamen lashed various materials into rafts.
Better than standing around and listening to the band, anyway.

> What would a USN damage conrol team have done? Any other ideas?

A USN DC team would have patched and shored up the hole. I've always
wondered just how well-equipped modern cruise liner crews are for
handling serious structural casualties to their vessels.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Joshua Turner]

> > 7. The ship contains thousands of "steamer trunks". Not watertight
> > exactly but they will take a while to fill. Dump the contents and jam
> > them in corrodors and cabins as far forward as possible.
>
> Or you could just stick your finger in the hole. Nothing you could
> improvise with stuff like this could withstand even a small fraction of
> the water pressures involved.
>
> > 8. Overload the lifeboats.
>
> Hell, *loading* the lifeboats would have been a good idea! Yes, the
> lifeboats should have been overloaded -- the seas were calm, and help
> was expected quite soon.
>
> > 9. Use steamer trunks, deck planking, and lifejackets to improvise
> > rafts. (This is desperate, I know, but hey.)
>
> Some have suggested that improvisation of rafts was a fairly basic
> seamanship skill back then. In benefit of hindsight, this is probably
> where efforts should have been concentrated. A few passengers could
> have been pressed into service to organize the loading of the
> lifeboats while deck seamen lashed various materials into rafts.
> Better than standing around and listening to the band, anyway.
>

This last exchange illustrates what was probably the real tradegy of the
Titanic disaster. The lack of lifeboat drills, combined with the
perception that the ship was 'unsinkable', made it almost impossible to
get the lifeboats that were available loaded efficiently and correctly.
The above suggestion, while interesting, fails to take this into
account--if the crew was unable to get passengers to climb into
perfectly serviceable boats, how were they to convince the passengers to
stand around building life rafts?

[Windancer]

TMOliver wrote in message <34BFE0...@iamerica.net>...

Great story TM'

But don't be suprised if a good third of the NG ask for a translation.
Regards to the CHENG!

--
-H King, EWC, USN (ret.)
Windancer@mindspring<DOT>com
**************
Send Lawyers, Guns and Money,
The Shit has hit the Fan!
"Something in my wife's office"

[Chris Wright]

In article <19980116130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, MEMullen
<memu...@aol.com> writes

>Nice story, and I would suspect the effects on the steering gear would be bad
>-- not designed for this sort of thing -- but...

Not to add any weight to the original story, but surely the steering
gear *would* be designed to withstand full rudder at the ship's maximum
speed? OK so the rudders are going in opposite directions, but would
the force on each rudder be much greater than if the rudders were
parallel?

--
Chris Wright
ch...@cgwright.demon.co.uk

[Ron Van Zanten]

On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 04:18:24 GMT, bal...@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
wrote:

>In article <34C11E...@umich.edu>, Joshua Turner <sh...@umich.edu>
>wrote, quoting me:

>> > Some have suggested that improvisation of rafts was a fairly basic
>> > seamanship skill back then. In benefit of hindsight, this is probably
>> > where efforts should have been concentrated. A few passengers could
>> > have been pressed into service to organize the loading of the
>> > lifeboats while deck seamen lashed various materials into rafts.
>> > Better than standing around and listening to the band, anyway.
>>
>> This last exchange illustrates what was probably the real tradegy of
>> the Titanic disaster. The lack of lifeboat drills, combined with the
>> perception that the ship was 'unsinkable', made it almost impossible
>> to get the lifeboats that were available loaded efficiently and
>> correctly. The above suggestion, while interesting, fails to take
>> this into account--if the crew was unable to get passengers to climb
>> into perfectly serviceable boats, how were they to convince the
>> passengers to stand around building life rafts?
>

>Good point. In truth, I had actually sort of forgotten just how
>wildly unorganized and panicky the situation aboard Titanic had
>been. But this provides an insight that goes a long way toward
>answering the original question: "How would a Navy DC crew have
>handled matters?"
>
>The main reason a Navy crew would have been so much more effective is
>due to one simple factor: discipline. Even a substantially below-
>average U.S. Navy warship crew wouldn't degenerate into complete
>confusion and panic. This is not to say that confusion and panic are
>unknown in the annals of Navy damage control efforts, of course, but
>the value of even a little occasional practice is immeasurable. A
>solid, well-trained crew might well have saved 90% or more of
>Titanic's passengers, mainly by overloading the available lifeboats,
>instead of grossly *under*-loading them (!), but also by improvising
>damage control measures and ad hoc liferafts as described above.
>
>The main lesson of Titanic, as with so many other historical events
>("Challenger" springs to mind) is that stupidity + complacency + more
>stupidity is a deadly combination, whose effects are unfortunately not
>confined to the perpetrators of the stupidity. How natural selection
>ever got us *this* far, given this state of affairs, is beyond me.

I think that if I would have been the captain of the Titanic I would
have tried to find that iceberg again. Maybe it would have been
possible to 'beach' the Titanic on the iceberg until such time the
passengers could have been unloaded. It seems that there was time for
the ship to move before the bow would have been too waterladen to
move. It seems and obviously I wasn't there that they knew soon after
the collision that the ship was doomed. It had small holes going
along the side of the ship for 5 compartments and it was understood
that would be fatal. It 'might' have been possible to use the
buoyancy of the iceberg to keep the bow from sinking into the water to
the point that the entire ship would have been flooded. 60-70% of the
ship was intact and those unaffected areas could have been kept dry I
am speculating that the ship's life could have been prolonged. I am
not entirely sure that even at that point the ship could have been
salvaged but the passengers and cargo could have been saved.

Or,

They could have offloaded the passengers onto the iceberg. I am
positive in that situation as a passenger I would take my chances
there opposed to in the water. On icebergs you can even have a
campfire to stay warm (assuming you have something to burn).

It would be nice to speculate that damage control could have saved
the ship but I doubt it in 1912. I don't know of anybody that would
have been equipped to handle such a task in freezing water 2.5 miles
deep. It seems that the hull had damage such that it would have been
quite an undertaking.

I understand the situation that the crew was under was very difficult.
I had the luxury of sitting in living room and pondering this
situation. But I believe that there could have been things done that
would have either bought time or at least saved lives.

I am sure somebody will correct me if I am wrong.

[Ron Van Zanten]

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 01:13:51 -0500, Joshua Turner <sh...@umich.edu>
wrote:

>True. It's also important to note that the typical Navy vessel doesn't
>carry civilians (or passengers of any kind). Those that do, are usually
>hauling servicemen, who are at least trained not to panic and to follow
>orders.

>
>
>
>> >The main lesson of Titanic, as with so many other historical events
>> >("Challenger" springs to mind) is that stupidity + complacency + more
>> >stupidity is a deadly combination, whose effects are unfortunately not
>> >confined to the perpetrators of the stupidity. How natural selection
>> >ever got us *this* far, given this state of affairs, is beyond me.
>>
>> I think that if I would have been the captain of the Titanic I would
>> have tried to find that iceberg again. Maybe it would have been
>> possible to 'beach' the Titanic on the iceberg until such time the
>> passengers could have been unloaded. It seems that there was time for
>> the ship to move before the bow would have been too waterladen to
>> move. It seems and obviously I wasn't there that they knew soon after
>> the collision that the ship was doomed. It had small holes going
>> along the side of the ship for 5 compartments and it was understood
>> that would be fatal. It 'might' have been possible to use the
>> buoyancy of the iceberg to keep the bow from sinking into the water to
>> the point that the entire ship would have been flooded.
>

>Highly unlikely, for several reasons.
>
>First, keep in mind that the ship struck the berg head on, and, with
no sideswiped. If it would have hit head on it probably would have
survived.
>momentum, traveled past it, before eventually coming to a stop. In order
>to 'beach' the ship on the berg, the Titanic (which, as we know, was not
>the most maneuverable of vessels) would have had to execute a 360.
maybe 180
>Second, trying to make headway in a ship with that many holes in the bow
>seems suicidal--forward speed can only increase the amount of water
>flowing in.
true, it would have decreased time to sinking
>Third, finding an iceberg with a 'beach' on it may be a neat trick--my
>impression is that most have pretty sheer sides, and running into sheer
>sides is what got you into trouble in the first place.
so dont try. 90-95% of the ice is underwater. That was the portion
that got the Titanic in trouble to begin with.
>Fourth, moving the ship at all once the seriousness of the situation
>became known would have done more harm than good, as the Titanic's
>sister Britannic showed some years later. On the Britannic, the captain
>attempted to beach his holed ship on an island nearby, *after lifeboat
>loading and launching had commenced*. The immense suction of the props
>sucked at least one lifeboat in, and dashed it to pieces. In short,
>moving the ship at all would have greatly complicated lifesaving
>procedures.
not happening here, At this point no liferafts were in the water.
>Fifth, if memory serves, one of the first things that the crew did when
>the ship stopped was vent the steam from the boilers, to prevent an
>explosion. And, of course, the boiler rooms themselves (not to mention
>the coal bunkers) were rapidly filling with water, making re-stoking
>impossible. By shortly after the collision, the Titanic was not only
>holed, but also without any steam to drive her engines. Dead in the
>water.
again I am assuming the boilers were opened after it was discovered
they will be comprimised. Because they didnt explode meant they were
initially dry.

>
> 60-70% of the
>> ship was intact and those unaffected areas could have been kept dry I
>> am speculating that the ship's life could have been prolonged. I am
>> not entirely sure that even at that point the ship could have been
>> salvaged but the passengers and cargo could have been saved.
>>
>> Or,
>> They could have offloaded the passengers onto the iceberg. I am
>> positive in that situation as a passenger I would take my chances
>> there opposed to in the water. On icebergs you can even have a
>> campfire to stay warm (assuming you have something to burn).
>

>This is where I thought you were going at first, and it's a more
>plausible suggestion. The most likely route for this would have been to
>use the lifeboats to ferry passengers to the ice (if not the particular
>berg that the ship struck, then a different one--there were plenty
>around that night). I haven't read any reasons given for why those on
>the boats did not seek the ice, but just brainstorming, I can come up
>with a few. One, the icebergs might have been hard to spot (well, OK,
>they were definitely hard to spot). Two, see the sheer sides problem
>mentioned above. Three, ice can be very unstable--if I remember my
>oceangraphy, icebergs roll with some regularity. Four, maybe no one in
>1912 was thinking quite that far "out of the box".

>
>
>> It would be nice to speculate that damage control could have saved
>> the ship but I doubt it in 1912. I don't know of anybody that would
>> have been equipped to handle such a task in freezing water 2.5 miles
>> deep. It seems that the hull had damage such that it would have been
>> quite an undertaking.
>

>Damage control *might* have bought enough time to save more passengers,
>had their been a really crack crew on board. But again remember the
>Britannic--she went down rather quickly, despite all of the improvements
>made to her after the Titanic wreck, even while in service to the RN in
>WWI. The only reasons that disaster wasn't bigger than it was stemmed
>from the greater quantity of boats she carried and the fact that she was
>empty save for the crew.

>
>
>>
>> I understand the situation that the crew was under was very difficult.
>> I had the luxury of sitting in living room and pondering this
>> situation. But I believe that there could have been things done that
>> would have either bought time or at least saved lives.
>

>IMHO, there were many hundreds of things that could have been done to
>save many or all of the souls on the Titanic. However, few if any were
>under the control of the crew once the ship struck the berg. By that
>time, it was too late. The Titanic was doomed from the moment it
>collided with the ice, by virtue of bad steel, a poorly designed
>compartmentalization system, crew and passengers that had never
>undergone a lifeboat drill, lack of enough lifeboats, a captain who
>didn't understand how much of a slug his ship was when it came to
>turning, a lack of 24 hour wireless coverage by other ships in the area,
>bad luck, and a whole lot of other factors which can be debated from
>here to eternity. We can call the crew stupid, or incompetent, or lay
>the blame at the feet of Ismay and Morgan, or the British and American
>governments if we want; there's plenty of blame to go around. But in a
>broader sense, the Titanic disaster was not caused by the negligence of
>any one party, but instead by a failure to understand the ramifications
>of a technological advance. Everyone assumed that 40K ton, 25kt.
>passenger ships could be governed by the same laws and principles as 10K
>ton, 15 kt. ships. Everyone was wrong, and it unfortunately cost the
>lives of 1,500 people to show us that.

[J.D. Baldwin]

In article <19980116130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

MEMullen <memu...@aol.com> wrote:
> >They'd also put a lot of strain on the steering gear, and other damage
> >to things and people throughout the ship (men were tossed from their
> >racks, etc).
>

> Nice story, and I would suspect the effects on the steering gear would
> be bad -- not designed for this sort of thing --

I don't see why the rudders would be particularly strained. They
ought to be able to be thrown over to "full" (but not "hard") at full
speed. I've been on ships that have done this pretty much just for
fun. (Yes, it's cool.) I fail to see why the forces on the
individual rudders themselves should be any stronger just because
they're being thrown in opposite directions. (See below about
this.)

> but... the acceleration of stopping a 40mph ship in 600 feet is the
> same as that of stopping a 40mph car in 600 feet. If this causes
> any gear to be tossed about, I would hate to see what would happen
> in a storm. Was your informant a chief...?

Well, "stowed for sea" is one of those things that falls on a
spectrum, and one never really reaches the "completely stowed" end.
*Something* is always going to fall out of a rack or something when
the ship hits heavy seas. Also, most stuff is secured against
movement during heavy rolls. No one ever really thinks about strong
fore and aft acceleration/deceleration.

You're right that 40-0 in 600' would pretty much be no big deal from a
"people and things thrown about" perspective, with the exception of a
few things falling over and off of racks. I join other posters in
thinking the above story is probably bullshit, mainly on the grounds
that rudders just aren't set up this way. But gas turbine ships can
use their controllable-pitch screws to stop *very* quickly. I have
heard that Tico/Leahy class ships can stop from flank in under two
ship lengths, which isn't far off the figures given above.

[J.D. Baldwin]

The main lesson of Titanic, as with so many other historical events

("Challenger" springs to mind) is that stupidity + complacency + more
stupidity is a deadly combination, whose effects are unfortunately not
confined to the perpetrators of the stupidity. How natural selection
ever got us *this* far, given this state of affairs, is beyond me.

[Jeff Crowell]

Windancer" .com> (windancer@mindspring<NOSPAM) wrote:
: Great story TM'

: But don't be suprised if a good third of the NG ask for a translation.
: Regards to the CHENG!

Sheez, Chief, whatcha think the famous Slang FAQ is for?

Speaking of, last chance for inputs is rapidly approaching, as I'm about
to update.

Jeff
Keeper of the Slang flame

--
Jeff Crowell | |
jcrow at hpbs3354.boi.hp.com | _ |
_________|__( )__|_________
BLD Materials Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x
(208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x
O x x O

Clothes *do* make the man. Naked people have little or no influence
on society.

[Gregg Germain]

J.D. Baldwin (bal...@netcom.com) wrote:

: A USN DC team would have patched and shored up the hole. I've always

: wondered just how well-equipped modern cruise liner crews are for
: handling serious structural casualties to their vessels.
: --

Latest data indicates there wasn't "a hole" to patch. Rather, there
were zillions of sprung rivet caulking and hundreds of feet of failed
plate seams. No hole.

--- Gregg
"I don't want to die, baby.
gr...@head-cfa.harvard.edu but if I gotta die......
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics I'm gonna die last."
Phone: (617) 496-7237 Robert Mitchum

[Peter H. Granzeau]

On 20 Jan 98 20:50:42 GMT, gr...@clark.harvard.edu (Gregg Germain)
wrote:

>: A USN DC team would have patched and shored up the hole. I've always
>: wondered just how well-equipped modern cruise liner crews are for
>: handling serious structural casualties to their vessels.
>: --
> Latest data indicates there wasn't "a hole" to patch. Rather, there
>were zillions of sprung rivet caulking and hundreds of feet of failed
>plate seams. No hole.

It appears that as late as the 1950s, a single large hole would still
sink a ship. At least, that's what happened to the Andrea Doria.

[Joshua Turner]

Ron Van Zanten wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 04:18:24 GMT, bal...@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
> wrote:
>

True. It's also important to note that the typical Navy vessel doesn't

carry civilians (or passengers of any kind). Those that do, are usually
hauling servicemen, who are at least trained not to panic and to follow
orders.

> >The main lesson of Titanic, as with so many other historical events

> >("Challenger" springs to mind) is that stupidity + complacency + more
> >stupidity is a deadly combination, whose effects are unfortunately not
> >confined to the perpetrators of the stupidity. How natural selection
> >ever got us *this* far, given this state of affairs, is beyond me.
>

> I think that if I would have been the captain of the Titanic I would
> have tried to find that iceberg again. Maybe it would have been
> possible to 'beach' the Titanic on the iceberg until such time the
> passengers could have been unloaded. It seems that there was time for
> the ship to move before the bow would have been too waterladen to
> move. It seems and obviously I wasn't there that they knew soon after
> the collision that the ship was doomed. It had small holes going
> along the side of the ship for 5 compartments and it was understood
> that would be fatal. It 'might' have been possible to use the
> buoyancy of the iceberg to keep the bow from sinking into the water to
> the point that the entire ship would have been flooded.

Highly unlikely, for several reasons.

First, keep in mind that the ship struck the berg head on, and, with

momentum, traveled past it, before eventually coming to a stop. In order
to 'beach' the ship on the berg, the Titanic (which, as we know, was not
the most maneuverable of vessels) would have had to execute a 360.

Second, trying to make headway in a ship with that many holes in the bow

seems suicidal--forward speed can only increase the amount of water
flowing in.

Third, finding an iceberg with a 'beach' on it may be a neat trick--my

impression is that most have pretty sheer sides, and running into sheer
sides is what got you into trouble in the first place.

Fourth, moving the ship at all once the seriousness of the situation

became known would have done more harm than good, as the Titanic's
sister Britannic showed some years later. On the Britannic, the captain
attempted to beach his holed ship on an island nearby, *after lifeboat
loading and launching had commenced*. The immense suction of the props
sucked at least one lifeboat in, and dashed it to pieces. In short,
moving the ship at all would have greatly complicated lifesaving
procedures.

Fifth, if memory serves, one of the first things that the crew did when

the ship stopped was vent the steam from the boilers, to prevent an
explosion. And, of course, the boiler rooms themselves (not to mention
the coal bunkers) were rapidly filling with water, making re-stoking
impossible. By shortly after the collision, the Titanic was not only
holed, but also without any steam to drive her engines. Dead in the
water.

[Ian Mac Lure]

Andy Ashworth (an...@praxis-cs.co.uk) wrote:
: On 15 Jan 1998 14:14:18 GMT, Thomas...@diesel.heim1.tu-clausthal.de
: (Thomas Buell) wrote:

: >I've read on the web that Titanic had some sophisticated DC facilities,
: >such as remote controlled or automatic watertight doors, smoke detectors
: >etc.

: >Does anyone know the capacity of her pumps? Would it have been possible
: >to reduce the amount of water entering the ship below what the pumps
: >could hanlde? 1 m^2 isn't very large an area, is it? And draining
: >one damaged compartment would have been enough.

Trouble was the hull breech spanned a couple of compartments.

: One other thing I found interesting/horrifying, the Harland & Wolf

: computer model showed that the water tight compartments were not full
: height, i.e. once a water tight section was full it overflowed into
: the adjacent section(s). This was apparently another reason for the
: sinking - if the compartments had extended the full height of the
: ship's hull, there would have been a much greater chance of saving
: her.

And indeed the later sister ships ( or at least one of them ) was rebuilt
( at considerable expense ) in exactly this way.

--
*******************************************************************
***** Ian B MacLure ***** Sunnyvale, CA ***** Engineer/Archer *****
* No Times Like The Maritimes *************************************
*******************************************************************
* Opinions Expressed Here Are Mine. That's Mine , Mine, MINE ******
*******************************************************************

[Peter Skelton]

i...@svpal.svpal.org (Ian Mac Lure) wrote:

>Andy Ashworth (an...@praxis-cs.co.uk) wrote:
>: On 15 Jan 1998 14:14:18 GMT, Thomas...@diesel.heim1.tu-clausthal.de
>: (Thomas Buell) wrote:
>
>
>: >I've read on the web that Titanic had some sophisticated DC facilities,
>: >such as remote controlled or automatic watertight doors, smoke detectors
>: >etc.
>
>: >Does anyone know the capacity of her pumps? Would it have been possible
>: >to reduce the amount of water entering the ship below what the pumps
>: >could hanlde? 1 m^2 isn't very large an area, is it? And draining
>: >one damaged compartment would have been enough.
>
>Trouble was the hull breech spanned a couple of compartments.
>
>: One other thing I found interesting/horrifying, the Harland & Wolf
>: computer model showed that the water tight compartments were not full
>: height, i.e. once a water tight section was full it overflowed into
>: the adjacent section(s). This was apparently another reason for the
>: sinking - if the compartments had extended the full height of the
>: ship's hull, there would have been a much greater chance of saving
>: her.
>
>And indeed the later sister ships ( or at least one of them ) was rebuilt
>( at considerable expense ) in exactly this way.

Building watertight bulkheads the full height of the hull interferes
excessively with the operation of the ship. It also produces an inferior
result as there can be no bouyancy contribution from the area above the
damage.

Early WT bulkheads reached well above the waterline and relied on height to
keep water from coming over the top. This is hardly startling - the sides
of the vessel itself were designed in more or less the same way. This
appled to both merchant construction, like Titanic, and naval, like
Dreadnought. Titanic's subdivision was more advanced than that of most
naval ships of her size and era.

Later WT bulkheads came up to the main deck, which is usually the strength
deck of the ship (there are exceptions - the strength deck of British
aircraft carriers fron Ark Royal on is the flight deck for example.) and
sealing them there. For this to be effective, the deck has to be completely
watertight and proof against any reasonable immersion. In warships this is
only a minor inconvenience because the main deck is generally strong with
few penetrations, to provide protection to te engineering spaces and
magazines. (Even so, some large WWII warships sank with about the hull
damage Titanic took.)

In a cargo ship, it is a royal pain because wide access to the whole hold
is necessary. Even modern bulk carriers are not as well subdivided as
Titanic. They sink rapidly from more minor insults too.

In a liiner, free and quick movement through the pasenger and service
spaces is needed. Watertight barriers, in these areas affect passenge
comfort directly. For example, an elevator could not penetrate a WT deck.

I have a lot of sympathy for the designer of Titanic. From what I know of
the state of the art at the time and the design of the ship, it was a very
astute combination of engineering compromises. The stress it was subjected
to was much more than it was designed to survive.

Would anybody bet that a modern cruise ship or even a CVN would survive
sideswiping an iceberg at twenty plus knots?

--
Peter Skelton
Skelton & Associates
613/634-0230
p...@adan.kingston.net

[J.D. Baldwin]

In article <34C592...@umich.edu>, Joshua Turner <sh...@umich.edu>
wrote:

> IMHO, there were many hundreds of things that could have been done
> to save many or all of the souls on the Titanic. However, few if any
> were under the control of the crew once the ship struck the berg. By
> that time, it was too late. The Titanic was doomed from the moment
> it collided with the ice, by virtue of bad steel, a poorly designed
> compartmentalization system, crew and passengers that had never
> undergone a lifeboat drill, lack of enough lifeboats, a captain who
> didn't understand how much of a slug his ship was when it came to
> turning, a lack of 24 hour wireless coverage by other ships in the
> area, bad luck, and a whole lot of other factors which can be
> debated from here to eternity. We can call the crew stupid, or
> incompetent, or lay the blame at the feet of Ismay and Morgan, or
> the British and American governments if we want; there's plenty of
> blame to go around. But in a broader sense, the Titanic disaster was
> not caused by the negligence of any one party, but instead by a
> failure to understand the ramifications of a technological advance.

For purposes of "root causes" you're right, and it's easy to call
people from another time "stupid" when you've benefitted from 86 years
of re-hashing and hindsight on hindsight on the incident -- the
*basic* problem here is exactly what you say: people just expected
"Titanic" to be safe by virtue of her sheer size. Nature, however,
is unimpressed by "size" on the scales in which humans deal.

There are, however, two elements of the tragedy that are, even
correcting for historical context and "20/20 hindsight,"
incomprehensibly stupid. The first *was* in the control of Titanic's
crew; the second was not.

1. Failure to overload lifeboats, or for that matter to *load* the
lifeboats to capacity. Come *on*. Any sailor knows that a lifeboat
is "rated" for a capacity based on "most likely" conditions -- the
rating is a "best guess" as to the safe capacity. If you're looking
around at what we today call "sea state zero" waters, it's what we
today call a "no-brainer" to figure out that the boats could safely
hold even more than that. And still they put 65-man boats to sea with
1/4 or less of capacity? Inexcusable.

2. Californian's failure to respond to a distress flare. Assisting
others who signal distress (in peacetime) is a mariner's duty that
goes back about as far as seaborne travel itself. It has been
codified in international law since well before Titanic sailed, and
was part of tradition-with-force-of-law since the time of Sir Francis
Drake. I don't care *what* they thought or guessed might have been
Titanic's intent in firing the flare -- if there is the *slightest*
bit of doubt (and I've read that the question came up aboard
Californian), you respond to the call, and sort it out later if it
turns out to be a false alarm.

Non-watertight "watertight" bulkheads, too-ambitious speed for icy
waters, poor steel (maybe true, maybe not), communication deficiencies
-- all of these are gray areas, but I simply can't understand or
justify the above elements of this disaster.

[J.D. Baldwin]

In article <34c64055...@news.supernews.net>, Peter Skelton

<p...@adan.kingston.net> wrote:
> Would anybody bet that a modern cruise ship or even a CVN would survive
> sideswiping an iceberg at twenty plus knots?

A CVN? Survive? "Sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms."

[Gregg Germain]

Peter H. Granzeau (pgr...@exis.net) wrote:
: On 20 Jan 98 20:50:42 GMT, gr...@clark.harvard.edu (Gregg Germain)
: wrote:

Errr I don't disagree with you. But then, where did I say a
large hole would not sink a ship? The statement was that if a Navy DC
team was on Titanic they would have "patched and shored up the
hole". (see above) I merely said there was no hole to patch.

[Peter Skelton]

bal...@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:

>In article <34c64055...@news.supernews.net>, Peter Skelton
><p...@adan.kingston.net> wrote:
>> Would anybody bet that a modern cruise ship or even a CVN would survive
>> sideswiping an iceberg at twenty plus knots?
>
>A CVN? Survive? "Sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms."
>--

Iceberg crews don't have sweepers, they just wait for the stain to melt
off.

[Dale Hillier]

osma...@cvn.net (Steve Osmanski) writes:

>According to the story, they'd tossed a bouy from the bows when they
>began the operation. After they stopped, the bouy was found floating
>by the #3 turret!!!! They'd stopped the ship (a 52,000 ton

>battleship!) in 600 feet!!!!! From ahead flank!!!

I bet it was re-fit time anyway. A 60kT BB?

>They'd also put a lot of strain on the steering gear, and other damage
>to things and people throughout the ship (men were tossed from their
>racks, etc).

We did this once after re-fit. Mind you that I was in a civilian tanker with
about 200 engineers on board. The whole place shook like a baby's rattle.
We stopped from 21 kts to 0 in about three minutes. Naturally, we don't do that
often.

Later
D

--
>Dale Hillier |"Time is the only excuse that keeps<
>Professional Merchant Mariner |everything from happening at once."<
>I note the Difference | <
>http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~hillier/index.htm |Phillip Hiller, Rigel Shipping <

[Dale Hillier]

el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) writes:

>It is quite well known that the fastest way to avoid running into
>"something" in front of you is back full the starboard shafts and gp ahead
>flank on the port (or the other way 'round), thereby twisting the ship
>'round. Crash-stopping something like a BB just doesn't work.

Just a note here.

The fastest method of avoiding a collision (given that action wasn't taken in
adequate time) is to put the wheel hard over. The best turning ability is gained
when there is adequate water flow over the rudders from the screws. There is a
loss in turning ability when the pitch is set to 0 or the screws are stopped.

There is no turning ability when going astern. The rudder directs the water flow
from the screws into the direction the rudder is facing. Therefore water must
flow over the rudder.

There IS fancy rudder designs that allow strange things to happen. I know of
container ships that have rudder designs that deflect the water in such a way as
to allow the vessel to go astern while the ships is set to verying 'ahead'
settings. This system has twin rudders fitting together to in fact create a barn
door. I can explain in detail if anyone wants.

I am not saying that the BB test is possible, I am just commenting on the
dynamics of the situtation.

[Dale Hillier]

std...@unx1.shsu.edu (will) writes:

In article <6a8cu4$4av$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca> Dale Hillier wrote:

>>There IS fancy rudder designs that allow strange things to happen. I know of
>>container ships that have rudder designs that deflect the water in such a way
>>as to allow the vessel to go astern while the ships is set to verying 'ahead'
>>settings. This system has twin rudders fitting together to in fact create a
>>barn door. I can explain in detail if anyone wants.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Please do! I was the one who opened this can of worms and I'd
>be interested. I seem to recall reading that some ships,
>depending on design, do some _very_ unpredictable things
>while backing.

This is going to take a while:

Merchant ships (I am unaware of navy designs) generally use a single rudder
behind the screw for the reasons I posted earlier. Some vessels with twin screws
have twin rudders but I don't know many like that.

The design I was refering to has (IIRC) a kort nozzle (a propeller with a collar
around it) and twin rudders. The design of the rudders is such that they act
similar to the way a jet ski works. On a jet ski, the water passes through a
directional tube and this allows the thing to steer.

Here the rudders act together to direct the water in the same manner. The water
can be deflected 90 degrees off the centerline so that the ship can turn while
stopped. The rudders can also fit together so that the water is deflected in
this manner:

Shitty ASCII graphics, sorry

|
\ | /
\ | /
\ | /
\X /
=

The X is the screw and the '=' is the rudder. The angled lines represent the
direction of the water flow. This kind of system is useful in very confined
spaces.

There is also several modells of directional propellers that remove the need for
rudders on ships. This system is common on offshore supply vessles and vessels
with a dynamic positioning capability. Apparently, Canada's new Kingston class
of MCM vessels uses this.

A class of tugs built in the UK, uses a type of 'eggbeater' arrangement that
allow them to travel in any direction regardless of the direction of the bow. I
once saw a tug heading toward us in Liverpool/Birkenhead. The tug was facing
away from us but was still on a direct course. His AOA was something like 150
degrees or so.

| <- my ship

\ <- tug

Where the top of my ship is the bow and the bottom of the tug was HIS bow. And
he was heading stright for us. Fool wasn't watching the wire later on and we
nearly capsized him when the strain came on.......

Hold on while I try to remember anything else......

There is also bow and stern thrusters buy they only work at very slow speeds.

That's all I can remember off hand. Any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Later
D

[Chris Wright]

In article <6aaj92$vpv$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>, Dale Hillier
<hil...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> writes

>
>A class of tugs built in the UK, uses a type of 'eggbeater' arrangement that
>allow them to travel in any direction regardless of the direction of the bow. I
>once saw a tug heading toward us in Liverpool/Birkenhead. The tug was facing
>away from us but was still on a direct course. His AOA was something like 150
>degrees or so.
>

Is this similar to the system used by (amongst others) the Isle of Wight
car ferries? These are called "Voith" propellors or something similar
IIRC. Apparently these are horizontal propellors, with variable pitch
blades - they vary as the blade turns, like a helicopter rotor, and are
thus able to produce thrust in any direction, whilst the prop shaft just
rotates constantly.

--
Chris Wright
ch...@cgwright.demon.co.uk

[Eugene Griessel]

Chris Wright <ch...@cgwright.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Voith-Schneider propulsion is almost universal in modern harbour tugs
where agility is needed above all else. Basically it consists of four
downward-pointing variable pitch blades on a horizontal turntable.
Thought this might clear up the somewhat unclear description Chris
gave (I know its hell to describe or understand unless you have seen
it!). On some water-tractors this sits plumb in the centre of the
hull. There is no rudder. These puppies go astern as easily as they
do ahead (or sideways even). To watch a tugmaster who really knows
what he is doing handle one of these is poetry in motion. We used to
have, in Durban harbour, a "team" of these tugs who would put on
"water ballets" at festivals and the like.

Eugene L Griessel eug...@dynagen.co.za

www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat Page - www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/eug3.htm

Thought for the day .......

I have a great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it.

[Felix Morley Finch]

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:52:54 GMT, J.D. Baldwin <bal...@netcom.com> scrawled:

>In article <34C592...@umich.edu>, Joshua Turner <sh...@umich.edu>
>wrote:

>2. Californian's failure to respond to a distress flare. Assisting

>others who signal distress (in peacetime) is a mariner's duty that
>goes back about as far as seaborne travel itself. It has been
>codified in international law since well before Titanic sailed, and
>was part of tradition-with-force-of-law since the time of Sir Francis
>Drake. I don't care *what* they thought or guessed might have been
>Titanic's intent in firing the flare -- if there is the *slightest*
>bit of doubt (and I've read that the question came up aboard
>Californian), you respond to the call, and sort it out later if it
>turns out to be a false alarm.

It's not that clear cut. Both the Californian and the Titanic
reported that the other was moving while they were not. Also,
Californian reported the fireworks low, as if they were coming from
behind the other ship. From what I've read, it most likely was not
Californian, but some third ship which would have been in trouble if
known to be in the area (fishing out of bounds for instance).

--
... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._.
Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon / fe...@crowfix.com
PGP = 91 B3 94 7C E9 E8 76 2D E1 63 51 AA A0 48 89 2F
I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o

[Dale Hillier]

eug...@dynagen.co.za (Eugene Griessel) writes:

>Voith-Schneider propulsion is almost universal in modern harbour tugs
>where agility is needed above all else. Basically it consists of four
>downward-pointing variable pitch blades on a horizontal turntable.
>Thought this might clear up the somewhat unclear description Chris
>gave (I know its hell to describe or understand unless you have seen
>it!). On some water-tractors this sits plumb in the centre of the
>hull. There is no rudder. These puppies go astern as easily as they
>do ahead (or sideways even). To watch a tugmaster who really knows
>what he is doing handle one of these is poetry in motion. We used to
>have, in Durban harbour, a "team" of these tugs who would put on
>"water ballets" at festivals and the like.

Not the guy that we had going into the lock in Birkenhead. He came in at some
obscene angle and he was broad side to us when the strain came on the stern wire.
I'm on the bow, skipper asks if we are ready, I say yes. Skipper asks if the
tug is ready, they say yes, ship goes slow ahead.

Then the strain comes on the wire because the tug moves a little toward the
stern. The wire snaps tight, the tug heels over to about fifty degrees of
normal. And it wasn't no slow snap over either. Word was that one guy brokehis
leg and another suffered a concussion. Wasn't watching.....

[Dale Hillier]

Chris Wright <ch...@cgwright.demon.co.uk> writes:

>Is this similar to the system used by (amongst others) the Isle of Wight
>car ferries? These are called "Voith" propellors or something similar
>IIRC. Apparently these are horizontal propellors, with variable pitch
>blades - they vary as the blade turns, like a helicopter rotor, and are
>thus able to produce thrust in any direction, whilst the prop shaft just
>rotates constantly.

No, this isn't what I was describing.

The system that I am thinking about uses two sets of three or four vertical
blades. Each set of blades are protected by a metal band cage. The two sets of
blades are mounted roughly amidships on the centerline of the tug.

Apparently, (though I have never seen it) the tug is able to make a 180 degree
turn while still travelling in the same direction. i.e. turning on a dime while
traveling on course at 10 kts......

You are talking (I think) about an advanced form of variable pritch propellers.

[m.lee]

Joshua Turner (sh...@umich.edu) wrote:

| True. It's also important to note that the typical Navy vessel doesn't
| carry civilians (or passengers of any kind). Those that do, are usually
| hauling servicemen, who are at least trained not to panic and to follow
| orders.

Shux, does this mean this Army Brat had to have stowed away SIX times to
cross the Pacific twice and the Atlantic four times? All military
dependents who took a MSTS cruise hold up your hands!

ml

[Peter H. Granzeau]

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 02:07:20 GMT, mika...@netcom.com (m.lee) wrote:

>| True. It's also important to note that the typical Navy vessel doesn't
>| carry civilians (or passengers of any kind). Those that do, are usually
>| hauling servicemen, who are at least trained not to panic and to follow
>| orders.
>

>Shux, does this mean this Army Brat had to have stowed away SIX times to
>cross the Pacific twice and the Atlantic four times? All military
>dependents who took a MSTS cruise hold up your hands!

MSTS ships were (1) not commissioned ships of the Navy and (2) had
civilian crews, did they not?

[Jeff Crowell]

Felix Morley Finch (fe...@crowfix.com) wrote:
: It's not that clear cut. Both the Californian and the Titanic

: reported that the other was moving while they were not. Also,
: Californian reported the fireworks low, as if they were coming from
: behind the other ship. From what I've read, it most likely was not
: Californian, but some third ship which would have been in trouble if
: known to be in the area (fishing out of bounds for instance).

What boggles my mind is the lack of a 24-hour listening watch on the
radio (a common non-practice of the time, I guess). Was Californian not
equipped with a wireless?

I watched the movie last Friday, and a documentary yesterday (Sunday).
The doc said that the skipper of the Californian was criticized heavily
by the inquests. Hindsight and all that, but I still have a hard time
believing he didn't check it out. There just ain't that much traffic out
there. Fireworks!?????!!

Interestingly enough, no mention whatsoever of Californian in the movie...

Jeff

--
Jeff Crowell | |
jcrow at hpbs3354.boi.hp.com | _ |
_________|__( )__|_________
BLD Materials Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x
(208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x
O x x O

Two's company, three's..........the Musketeers.

[Andy Ashworth]

On 26 Jan 1998 14:32:55 GMT, jcrow...@boi.hp.com (Jeff Crowell)
wrote:

>What boggles my mind is the lack of a 24-hour listening watch on the
>radio (a common non-practice of the time, I guess). Was Californian not
>equipped with a wireless?

Silly question, but.....wasn't Titanic one of the first ships to carry
this new-fangled wireless thingy? :)

Andy

[Peter Skelton]

an...@praxis-cs.co.uk (Andy Ashworth) wrote:

MarconI's trial transatlantic wireless message was sent in 1901 IIRC. The
first commercial transatlantic wireless service began in 1907 (from
reference). Spark gap technology was not new in 1912. The "useful" vacuum
tube was invented in 1913. (The VT was one of the progressive inventions,
developed in bits and refined by several researchers. I don't think it was
robust enough for shipboard use until somewhat later.)

Certainly by 1912 all major passenger ships, and many others had wireless,
in fact the first distress call (CQD, for come quick danger, I think) was
being replaced by SOS (for save our souls).

The two serious benchmark dates are that of the beginning of the Marconi
school, and the requirement of wireless for insurance. I have neither
handy, sorry.

[Vanguard]

In article <6ad5l5$tsk$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>, hil...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
says...

> Chris Wright <ch...@cgwright.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >Is this similar to the system used by (amongst others) the Isle of Wight
> >car ferries? These are called "Voith" propellors or something similar
> >IIRC. Apparently these are horizontal propellors, with variable pitch
> >blades - they vary as the blade turns, like a helicopter rotor, and are
> >thus able to produce thrust in any direction, whilst the prop shaft just
> >rotates constantly.
>
> No, this isn't what I was describing.
>
> The system that I am thinking about uses two sets of three or four vertical
> blades. Each set of blades are protected by a metal band cage. The two sets of
> blades are mounted roughly amidships on the centerline of the tug.
>
> Apparently, (though I have never seen it) the tug is able to make a 180 degree
> turn while still travelling in the same direction. i.e. turning on a dime while
> traveling on course at 10 kts......
>
> You are talking (I think) about an advanced form of variable pritch propellers.

Sounds similar (so much that it's probably the same system) to the Tugs
used to manhandle Trident Subs. They really don't care which way they are
pointing, They go in any direction.....

Vanguard

[Johan Broman]

Dale Hillier (hil...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca) wrote:

: The design I was refering to has (IIRC) a kort nozzle (a propeller with

: a collar around it) and twin rudders. The design of the rudders is
: such that they act similar to the way a jet ski works. On a jet ski,
: the water passes through a directional tube and this allows the thing to
: steer.

One of the ships that I served in had Kort nozzles, the thing was that at
certain speeds you couldn't go past 20 degrees of helm without
overrevving (or was that underrevving) the engines and having them cut
out. Very annoying when doing a manoverboard drill and losing complete
power.
I guess there might be a form of kort nozzles that act like the reverse
thrust of an aircraft engine, where the two halfs come together to direct
the force of the blast forwards (ie towards the bow).

: There is also several modells of directional propellers that remove

: the need for rudders on ships. This system is common on offshore supply
: vessles and vessels with a dynamic positioning capability. Apparently,
: Canada's new Kingston class of MCM vessels uses this.

: A class of tugs built in the UK, uses a type of 'eggbeater' arrangement that

: allow them to travel in any direction regardless of the direction of
: the bow.

Canada's new Kingston class (MCDV) of MM vessels does indeed use two
directional thrusters (not propellers), also known as Z-drive. They are
^^^^^^^^^
diesel electric and can swivel around 360 degrees. The MCDVs do not
have rudders, but uses the direction of the thrusters to turn the ship.
It is possible with this type of drive to move in almost any direction
except for directly sideways, without the need for bow thrusters. To
move sideways you need either bow thrusters or have the Z-drive located
in the middle of the vessel, this is due to the large amount of hull
located forward of the pivot point.
Z-drive has also been known to be called eggbeaters.

Johan
Slt
RCNR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johan H. Broman
Finance and Operations Director
Family and Consumer Studies - Students' Administrative Council
University of Guelph, Bachelor of Commerce, Marketing Management
email: jbr...@uoguelph.ca
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Dale Hillier]

jbr...@uoguelph.ca (Johan Broman) writes:

>One of the ships that I served in had Kort nozzles, the thing was that at
>certain speeds you couldn't go past 20 degrees of helm without
>overrevving (or was that underrevving) the engines and having them cut
>out. Very annoying when doing a manoverboard drill and losing complete
>power.

Hmmmm, intresting.

Did both props turn to the same angle? I suppose prop wash/cavitation from one
would disturb the preformance of the other.

[Johan Broman]

Dale Hillier (hil...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca) wrote:
: jbr...@uoguelph.ca (Johan Broman) writes:

: >One of the ships that I served in had Kort nozzles, the thing was that at
: >certain speeds you couldn't go past 20 degrees of helm without
: >overrevving (or was that underrevving) the engines and having them cut
: >out. Very annoying when doing a manoverboard drill and losing complete
: >power.

: Hmmmm, intresting.

: Did both props turn to the same angle? I suppose prop wash/cavitation from one
: would disturb the preformance of the other.

Yes, both nozzles would turn to the same angle. I guess that the nozzles
surrounding the props would affect the props performance.
It was explained to me that the flow of water over the props was reduced
to the extent that the props would have more resistance to fight and
would cut out.

Johan

--

[Jason Herring]

Jeff Crowell wrote:

> I watched the movie last Friday, and a documentary yesterday (Sunday).
> The doc said that the skipper of the Californian was criticized heavily
> by the inquests. Hindsight and all that, but I still have a hard time
> believing he didn't check it out. There just ain't that much traffic out
> there. Fireworks!?????!!
>
> Interestingly enough, no mention whatsoever of Californian in the movie...

Or of the lights of the "mystery ship" that was sighted by crew and
passengers for several minutes near the horizon before Titanic sank.

Jason

[Tim Johnson]

Could the Titanic have counter flooded aft to prevent or slow further flooding
forward over the watertight bulkheads? She surely would have rode very low in
the water and may have sunk anyway. But by keeping an even keel, could the
inevitable been delayed long enough to save more passengers and crew?

Tim Johnson

[M. Jakt]

Hi,

Well, how much time might this have bought? If not in the region of
hours, you're still going to succcumb to the icy water after what,
10-15 minutes?

OK, on a differewnt note, always wanted to hear what people
might think of this idea...-)

The Titanic struck an iceberg, right? And there may well have
been a few other 'bergs around. So, how about having ferried
passengers to and fro icebergs, in the absence of sufficient
lifeboats? Now I realise that there might well not have been
sufficient time or organisational competence to mount such
an operation in time before she went under, but still the idea
has always intrigued me... After all, as long as you're out of
the water, you aren't going to freeze to death for quite some
time (in fact not before rescuers have enough time to arrive).
Realise the idea is a bit whacky, but any comments as to the
unfeasibility of this...?

Regards,
M. Jakt

[Dale Hillier]

>Tim Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Could the Titanic have counter flooded aft to prevent or slow further flooding
>> forward over the watertight bulkheads? She surely would have rode very low in
>> the water and may have sunk anyway. But by keeping an even keel, could the
>> inevitable been delayed long enough to save more passengers and crew?

Counter-flooding. I donno, I'm not an NA but at least it would have slowed the
flooding some. Of course:

By the time that the situtations was assesed and the decision was made to
counter-flood, it might have been too late anyway.

[Chris Thompson]

Hi,
Interesting idea. I bet it would have been a lot better than sitting in
freezing water and dying. I don't remember hearing any info about other big
bergs though. That is what is funny. Come to think of it, I don't think
there were any in the movie besides the one(historical inaccuracy)?
That could have worked though. Also hitting the berg head on would have
saved the ship as well.
Chris Thompson

[Bill]

Chris Thompson wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Interesting idea. I bet it would have been a lot better than sitting in
> freezing water and dying. I don't remember hearing any info about other big
> bergs though. That is what is funny. Come to think of it, I don't think
> there were any in the movie besides the one(historical inaccuracy)?
> That could have worked though. Also hitting the berg head on would have
> saved the ship as well.
> Chris Thompson

IMHO, given the brittleness of the Titanic's steel, the resulting
popping of the rivets, and the probable shifting/bending/breaking of the
watertight bulkheads, I doubt if the Titanic would have survived even a
head-on collision.

Bill Morlitz

[Bloody Viking]

M. Jakt (jm...@ic.ac.uk) wrote:

: The Titanic struck an iceberg, right? And there may well have

: been a few other 'bergs around. So, how about having ferried
: passengers to and fro icebergs, in the absence of sufficient
: lifeboats? Now I realise that there might well not have been
: sufficient time or organisational competence to mount such
: an operation in time before she went under, but still the idea
: has always intrigued me... After all, as long as you're out of
: the water, you aren't going to freeze to death for quite some
: time (in fact not before rescuers have enough time to arrive).
: Realise the idea is a bit whacky, but any comments as to the
: unfeasibility of this...?

You would need only one berg as the "rescue ship" - the berg the Titanic
hit. No danger of it sinking, eh? It's easy to understand people in the
water not thinking to swim to the berg, as they are going to be
panic-stricken and numbed from the water. Since the ship sank so fast, the
attempt probably would not have worked. Nice idea though. Next time I'm
ever on a cruise ship that hits a berg, I'm jumping onto the berg!

Would anyone know if any survivors were found onboard the berg?

--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
"A man's car is his battleship"

1869835 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/

[Chris Wright]

In article <34DA5F...@op.net>, Bill <prr...@op.net> writes

I don't know. Titanic was designed to stay afloat with four
compartments flooded - that's a hell of a long way back from the bow.
It would take an enormous amount of damage to crush her longitudinally
back that far. Remember that she would have been very strong in that
direction. Roll up some paper - you will find it much more difficult to
collapse endways than sideways.

Even though the steel *was* more brittle at low temperatures than it
might have been, it wasn't like glass. Her sister ship, the Olympic,
was made from the same steel, and plied back and forth across the
Atlantic for many years, so they can't have been that weak. I'm not
sure of Olympic's history, but I'm pretty sure she lasted until after
WW2.

However, let's not get into the strength of her steel, or we'll set
Vince off again!

--
Chris Wright
ch...@cgwright.demon.co.uk

[Joshua Turner]

> Even though the steel *was* more brittle at low temperatures than it
> might have been, it wasn't like glass. Her sister ship, the Olympic,
> was made from the same steel, and plied back and forth across the
> Atlantic for many years, so they can't have been that weak. I'm not
> sure of Olympic's history, but I'm pretty sure she lasted until after
> WW2.

Nope. Olympic was scrapped in the 30s, after she became uneconomical to
run on the transatlantic ferry route. Your point about Olympic's steel
is taken though--she survived a world war, 25 years of steaming, and two
fairly serious collisions (one with the Hawke, one with a light ship)
before being overcome by the great equalizer, economic reality. OTOH,
she never hit an iceberg head-on at full chat, either.

[SKishler]

good point!

[Chris Wright]

In article <34E1BD...@umail.umd.edu>, "Prof. Vincent Brannigan"
<vb...@umail.umd.edu> writes
>
>OLYMPIC suffered a brittle fracture in the collision with HAWKE
>most of the steel structure that would "crush" was internal e.g. the top
>of the double bottom etc.
>That steel was not at the cold teperature of the lower plates.
>
How do you know it was brittle fracture? IIRC the collision took place
in Southampton Water. The water temperature would have been much warmer
than in the North Atlantic.

If the internal steel was warmer, as you suggest, would this not have
applied to Titanic as well? If she had carried straight on into the
ice, with full astern engines, a lot of the steel that would have had to
have crumpled would have been internal too.

--
Chris Wright
ch...@cgwright.demon.co.uk

[Dave Powell]

Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote in message <34E1BD...@umail.umd.edu>...

>Chris Wright wrote:
>
>> I don't know. Titanic was designed to stay afloat with four
>> compartments flooded - that's a hell of a long way back from the bow.
>> It would take an enormous amount of damage to crush her longitudinally
>> back that far. Remember that she would have been very strong in that
>> direction. Roll up some paper - you will find it much more difficult to
>> collapse endways than sideways.
>>

>> Even though the steel *was* more brittle at low temperatures than it
>> might have been, it wasn't like glass. Her sister ship, the Olympic,
>> was made from the same steel, and plied back and forth across the
>> Atlantic for many years, so they can't have been that weak. I'm not
>> sure of Olympic's history, but I'm pretty sure she lasted until after
>> WW2.
>>

>> However, let's not get into the strength of her steel, or we'll set
>> Vince off again!
>>
>

>Gee, with a lead in like that:

>
>OLYMPIC suffered a brittle fracture in the collision with HAWKE
>most of the steel structure that would "crush" was internal e.g. the top
>of the double bottom etc.
>That steel was not at the cold teperature of the lower plates.
>
>

>Vince

Hm.... wasn't one of the large liners (Britannic?) taken out by a mine in
WW1? She only took damage forward IIRC....

David Powell

David_Po...@msn.com

[Adam Howarter]

Nightshdw3 wrote:
>
> >Hm.... wasn't one of the large liners (Britannic?) taken out by a mine in
> >WW1? She only took damage forward IIRC....
>

> The damage taken by Britannic was relativly similar to that taken by Titanic.
> Britannic however had several changes made on her after Titanic sank. The
> watertight bulkheads were extended past E deck, and she was given a double
> hull. The interesting thing about Britannic, is that even after all the safety
> improvments they made on her, she still sunk faster than Titanic.
>
Ballard just did a search for Britannic. He came to the conclussion she
sank so fast because when hit (torpedoed or mined ????) she wasn't water
tight. The portals were even open!!

[Nightshdw3]

>Hm.... wasn't one of the large liners (Britannic?) taken out by a mine in
>WW1? She only took damage forward IIRC....

The damage taken by Britannic was relativly similar to that taken by Titanic.
Britannic however had several changes made on her after Titanic sank. The
watertight bulkheads were extended past E deck, and she was given a double
hull. The interesting thing about Britannic, is that even after all the safety
improvments they made on her, she still sunk faster than Titanic.

Ethan T. 40degrees37'09.1" North 111degrees49'01.6" West

For to win a hundred victories in a hundred battles
is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without
fighting is the acme of skill----------Sun Tzu

[Nightshdw3]

>Ballard just did a search for Britannic. He came to the conclussion she
>sank so fast because when hit (torpedoed or mined ????) she wasn't water
>tight. The portals were even open!!
>
>
>

Yeah, I read something about that. Well, that would definetly do it!

[a...@dustdevil.com]

>Vince

>
>Hm.... wasn't one of the large liners (Britannic?) taken out by a mine in
>WW1? She only took damage forward IIRC....
>
>
>

There was a secondary explosion on Britannic. Coal dust I believe.
Catastrophic loss of electrical power made some watertight doors
inopperable. Another case of Murphy's Law.

About hitting the burg head on, can you imagine explaining that
course of action to a review board? Only God would think you a
genius. I can only imagine the canage on board. Boilers breaking
free even, if you can visualise that! The California would have heard
AND felt the colision. That might have been good.

[Peter Skelton]

a...@dustdevil.com wrote:

There were head on collisions with icebergs before Titanic which much worse
designed ships survived. I can't recall any at twenty plus knots but
Arizona's collision with an Iceberg in 1879 was at fifteen knots, which
must have been near her full speed. IIRC she got home under her own steam
about twenty-five feet shorter than she set out.

(There were also head on collisions in which the ship sank very quickly.)

[Dave Powell]

Depends.. would the "Crumple Effect" of the forepeak muffle the collision
somewhat, like "Crumple Zones" in cars today? I don't know if those big
boilers would have come loose, took the Titanic going near vertical to do
that....

David Powell

David_Po...@msn.com

P.S. What was up with the California? I heard somewhere that the other ship
might have been an illegal whaler which scooted instead of helping, and not
been California at all... but maybe that's just BS...

"Insanity is part of the times." - Londo Mollari, "Knives." Babylon 5,
Season 2.
a...@dustdevil.com wrote in message <34f508f2....@cnews.newsguy.com>...

[Joshua Turner]

a...@dustdevil.com wrote:
>
> >Vince
> >
> >Hm.... wasn't one of the large liners (Britannic?) taken out by a mine in
> >WW1? She only took damage forward IIRC....
> >
> >
> >
> There was a secondary explosion on Britannic. Coal dust I believe.
> Catastrophic loss of electrical power made some watertight doors
> inopperable. Another case of Murphy's Law.
>
> About hitting the burg head on, can you imagine explaining that
> course of action to a review board? Only God would think you a
> genius. I can only imagine the canage on board. Boilers breaking
> free even, if you can visualise that! The California would have heard
> AND felt the colision. That might have been good.

Actually, it was both accepted and recommended procedure at the time
that if a collision was imminent, the ship should strike object head on,
rather than on either side. According to Wade's "Titanic: Death of a
Dream", the Knight's Modern Seamanship reference manual published in
1910 said:

"...so far as other considerations of law and seamanship permit,
any vessel in danger of collsion...should present her stem to the
danger rather than her broadside." Wade, TDOAD, at 183.

Murdoch probably would have had some explaining to do, and there would
have been a lot of criticism of the decision, but he probably would have
been alright, as long as the loss of life wasn't too great. If he had,
it is quite possible that few of us would have ever heard of the great
ship, and that she would have faded into obscurity like the Imperator,
the Berengaria, or even her sister, the Olympic.

[Alexander McClearn]

Dave Powell wrote:

> P.S. What was up with the California? I heard somewhere that the other ship

nitpick: Californian

> might have been an illegal whaler which scooted instead of helping, and not
> been California at all... but maybe that's just BS...

May be apochryphal, but: the three-masted ship City of New York, which was one
of Admiral Byrd's ships (preceding the Bear, IIRC) was once a sealing vessel
named the Samsom. Apparently in 1963, a former skipper let it be known that she
was sealing on the Grand Banks. He believed that the ban against pelagic sealing
applied not only to the Pacific, but to the Atlantic as well (he was wrong).
Thus, the crew was alert for signs of a warship coming to apprehend them. When a
large ship appeared in the night and started firing rockets, they scooted, not
knowing what they saw, but expected the worst. It was only when they reached
Iceland that they discovered that the ship they saw was the Titanic. You can
read up on the City of New York on the USNSM site:

http://www.uss-salem.org/features/cityofny/

Don't take this site as confirmation of this story; I got the information from a
book and sent it to Andrew, and I don't think he has any other sources for it.

Incidentally, both City and Bear sank off Nova Scotia.

--
Sandy McClearn [/] mccl...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca ____.____ %
Civil Engineering -) [\] | ...__ | _ c[@@]O=+/
TUNS __O_|_| \_ | [### \ |-$_______8__ " `
[*|*| \___ -_|-[ __\ | |____|_/ ]
|\........-@.....[........|.|.].[....|.|H|..|........]............_____|
\CDN Navy, Yesterday & Today: http://www.uss-salem.org/navhist/canada |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Confederation Bridge Const. Tour & Stuff: http://www.tuns.ca/~mccleaae

[Jay Adan]

Britannic and Titanic were sisters. Britannic was the much "improved" version.

Arthur

Peter Skelton wrote:

> a...@dustdevil.com wrote:
>
> >>Vince
> >>
> >>Hm.... wasn't one of the large liners (Britannic?) taken out by a mine in
> >>WW1? She only took damage forward IIRC....
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >There was a secondary explosion on Britannic. Coal dust I believe.
> >Catastrophic loss of electrical power made some watertight doors
> >inopperable. Another case of Murphy's Law.
> >
> >About hitting the burg head on, can you imagine explaining that
> >course of action to a review board? Only God would think you a
> >genius. I can only imagine the canage on board. Boilers breaking
> >free even, if you can visualise that! The California would have heard
> >AND felt the colision. That might have been good.
>

> There were head on collisions with icebergs before Titanic which much worse
> designed ships survived. I can't recall any at twenty plus knots but
> Arizona's collision with an Iceberg in 1879 was at fifteen knots, which
> must have been near her full speed. IIRC she got home under her own steam
> about twenty-five feet shorter than she set out.
>
> (There were also head on collisions in which the ship sank very quickly.)
>
> --
> Peter Skelton
> Skelton & Associates
> 613/634-0230
> p...@adan.kingston.net

--
T A N G E N T S
Your US Source for:
Sci-Fi & Fantasy Models Magazine
&
Science Fiction Modeller
http://tangents-sf.com

Be Sure to check out the new SF modeling Newsgroup - alt.sf.scale-models