I read recently that had Murdoch opened the watertight doors sometime after they were closed, that the ship would have started to flood more evenly and would have taken much longer to sink. They might have had as much as 4-6hrs more before she finally went down. Has anybody else heard about this? and if so could you explain in alittle more detail about why this would have been a good thing to do.

I have also hear simmilar information but am in the dark as to how it would have made a big difference.

Brittanic (Titanic's sister) sank in under an hour due a few forward watertight doors not being shut resulting in water flooding quicker through the fireman's passage.

Titanic might not have broken in two if she flooded evenly, but I am not sure if she would have sunk any slower or quicker due to open watertight doors. I guess we'll have inquire a naval architect about this.

Yeah I saw a documentary on about 5 years ago. To my recolection they took a 1:48 scale model but it was transparent and filled it with red stained water so they could see what happened and it was weighed in relation to Titanics original weight including all its features so it was scientific.

The theroy goes that Titanic may have lasted longer and sank more evenly. So first they re-did what happened that night all to a timer so it all worked. Then they tried it with all the water tight doors open and the ship lasted twice as long however it fell on its side. To make sure it was't a fluke they re did it 7 times and similar things happened.

They then tried shutting the doors then half way through opening them but that experiment was non conclusive.

However the model used was that of Olympic so it may not be right however both ships where similar so.......

Now this doesn't sound like the normal chit-chad this morning
A few months ago I spent several days researching this topic with several friends in relation to some testimonies given to the United States Senate Inquiry Board and the British Wreck Commissioners Inquiry Board, there where several other factors you might want to evaluate also. In the U.S. Inquirey Board I believe you will find reference in Mr. Lightoller's answers an interesting statement which jumped out when I read it also some additional info at a websight of Dr. Pellegrino's. Mr. Lightoller stated that Thomas Andrews had formed a group of men to search the rooms for open seaport holes. It's interesting that the Titanic's designer had the immediate foresight during the confusion and hurry to think about the water level raising and entering into opened port holes. I found the following lines at Dr. Charles Pellegrino's website http://charlespellegrino.com/charles_lightoller.htm

" "While Thomas Andrews and a small team toiled throughout the bow section, seeking out open portholes and closing them against the rising waters (for each porthole potentially opened an additional square foot to the ocean, whereas the total surface area of the bullet-hole-sized splits and punctures along a 300-foot length of the starboard bow, inflicted by the iceberg, added up to approximately twelve square feet)" "

The reference to twelve square feet is very important because that is the "same" total sum of damage inflicted by the iceberg. It was calculated that all the seperated plates and damage receive on the Titanic to be approx. 12 square feet of breached hull space. So in essence the open ports doubled the amount of water by X2. These portholes acted as vents to allow the ship to release

Have a good day.

Yeah that sounds about right. In regards to what a wrote earlier maybe a was mistaking. I doubt it but five years well it is a while. I heard something about how the port holes on Britannic increased it speed of sinking so the fact they are sister ships, this too would be the case for titanic. I suppose the only way too know exactley what happened that night was to be there, we these nearly 93 years later can only give informed guesses. This is true of all the stories of Titanic. Am sure everyone will agree with that.

Am off to bed got a big exam tomorrow wish me luck, Bell

Hope your exam went well.

Hello Bell, some of the replys I received there were only two that took me seriously. I really never took into account the porthole problem,Britannic did go down extremely fast when she should have stayed up longer. The info I heard about came from a book I am reading by Charles Pelligrino on what really happened that night. It said if yhey were opened shortly after they were closed after the bow started to settle, the water would have had a much harder time finding it's way through all the passages along the bottom of the ship, she would most likely setteled more evenly and there was only 12 sq ft of space originally for water to get in, so I am not talking about her staying afloat too much longer but i think they would have had alittle better chance, and more would have survived. don't you think??? I guess we will never really know thanks for the reply. Ernie

Sundance, Thanks for the reply, I forgot to take into accont the porthole problem. Charles Pelligrino's book was where I found that info. Only 12 sq ft, not much huh. It just seems to me if the doors were opened the water coming in would have caused her to counterflood so to speak, the bow never would have risen up that high so she never would have broken in half. I guess we will never really know. I would think gaining even 1 or 2 hrs would have saved alot of people. Thanks for the reply Ernie.

Clinton, remember Britannic had a huge hole blasted in her side, more damage that Titanic had remember 12 sq ft? Britannics port holes didn't help things either. She started to settle to starboard immediatly after the explosion, so there was not much chance for the port life boats to help. Plus add to it all the panic, most people knew there was a serious problem cause of her list. But again we will never know will we?

I also believe from another theory that there was much more damage than suspected. I feel that the Titanic had to ride up onto the body of the iceberg with the bottom of the ship ripping open the belly and unable to be seen as Titanic sits on the floor. To have ice land on the deck while scrapping along the deck railing against the surface ice, the Titanic would have had to pasted over the submurged body of the iceberg. The weight of Titanic pushing down on the iceberg while it forced it'self to float would have been greater in resistance than Titanic merely pushing the iceberg sideways from only side contact. Check out my post "An alternate iceberg damage theory"