I've also read that the point of the breakup was also where the loungesand smoking rooms were. With the big open spaces, it was a weak point in the ship and at that angle with many other factors the structure couldn't hold up.
The ship reahed it's breaking point, ripped and the bow sank while the stern with air still in it, filled with water, pushing the air pocket to the poop deck. Finally the pressure was to much and the poop deck blew out, explaining some of the major damage to the stern section of the ship.
This is what I've been led to believe.

Hi Rowan.

Quote:

The superstructure does not really impart any structural strength for the hull girder, so the open spaces of the first class lounge and smoke room didn't really influence the structural strength of the ship. The superstructure essentially sits on top of the structural hull proper, and being constructed of far lighter scantling is provided with expansion joints to allow it to flex and dissipate excessive stress.

In terms of open spaces such as the reciprocating engine room, to an extent this is compensated for by way of additional and stronger pillars within the hull structure. Yet if you look at a cross section of the ship this reinforcement is evident. Olympic and Britannic never showed any weakness here. In Titanic's case her hull was merely compromised by the excessive strain it endured a long period. I don't believe any ship of the time could have withstood that sort of strain.

Best wishes,

Mark.

Where exactly were her weak spots? As you have said the rooms that were wide open didn't chance matters too much. It does make sense that no ship would be able to uphold that strain on the hull. Especially with that weight pulling her down.

Hi Mac,

Thanks for your reponse.

Quote:

In general, I believe Titanic's hull structure was staunchly constructed and -- had she not sunk -- could have served for the ship's commercial lifespan. I understand that compensation was added (such as additional and/or stronger pillars) where there were open spaces such as the reciprocating engine room, but whether this entirely compensated is for someone more knowledgable than me to answer. Olympic served for twenty-four years with no signs of weakness in this area.

However, some parts of the ship need to be stronger than others: amidships the frames were spaced 36 inches apart, and the plating doubled along the sheerstrake, turn of the bilge and so forth.

In comparison, towards the bow (for instance) the hull plating becomes gradually thinner, yet the frames are spaced closer together. The forward part of the ship would not be subjected to the same stresses as the middle of the hull girder.

Best wishes,

Mark.

Perhaps weak spots is the wrong word. Ships are not uniformly strong, and for their intended purposes, they don't need to be. Had Titanic not had her stern up out of the water, we'd likely not be having this discussion at all.

As you pointed out Mark, if she hadn't sunk, she would have served her commercial life. Olympic did just that.

Sadly, had she not sunk, we wouldn't even be talking about her. It seems that the most talked about ships are those who met with tragic ends. Nobody I know personally had ever heard of the Olympic before I mentioned it. Nor the Mauretania. But everyone has heard of Titanic and Lusitania.

Had Titanic not sunk, she would still be worthy of the fame she currently has. The Olympic is worthy of the same fame, but does not receive it.

Daniel

Old Reliable was a damn good ship! haha. I don't know much about the Mauritania, other than she was faster. The Titanic and Lusitania would be much more popular. You have a said to be unsinkable ship, sink on her first voyage with over 1,500 souls on board. Probably one of the most well known marine disaster in history. Then you have to Lusitania, which was one of the causes of World War I which was widely talked about and taught to Global Studies students. I do believe there was a high degree of life lost on it too.

What year did the Lusitania sink? I want to say 1915?

Lusitania sunk on May 7, 1915 off the Old Head Kinsale, Ireland if I remember correctly.

Mac G, have you ever seen "Last Voyage of the Lusitania" (National Geographic) ? If not, check it out. It is very good!

MGY--Nah man, never seen it. Where can I find it?

Yes the Lusitania recieved a lot of attention as she went down in 15 minutes with 1,198 souls on board, 123 of them Americans. The french used it as an enlistment tool. Also the captain who was supposed to be zig-zagging because of u-boat threats, was not and he survived, he became very notorious for that. You can say he was the Bruce Ismay of the Lusitania.