titanic had over 16 bulkheads she be able to sail with just 2 flodded and stay aflot with 4 but 6 she world totaly sink some peple say that the 6 at the back of the ship has to be done manuly to make the ship secure and unsinkable witrch is totaly impossible for a ship to be unsinkable now adays as they have shere size but titanics bulkheads only went ten feet higer then the sea level and what use it be if they made them up to b deck probley the ship be safer but it still sink if it go the same fait and that if they drove the ship into the lifeboat it world have sevved only flodding two compapements instead of the others and it only kill 100 peple withthe shock of the ship forced to stop and it be a totaly right off the ship as she need a total front rebuild to save her from sinking but that what will see in the future

You must be puffed out after that, lil grammar please, not looking for perfect english but tbh that was barely legible.

Still, thanks for that anyway ;)

You really must forgive Titanicboss's poor gramer and spelling Martyn. after all he is a Bleeding Colonial. you know what I mean
mate.

C'mon now, fellow Titanic fans. Let's not make fun of each other. I too screw up on my spelling at times, and I'm sure I make grammar mistakes from time to time. I'm only HUMAN. Eeew! I feel dirty just saying that!

As for Titanic's bulkheads, they would've worked better if they were capped off with a watertight top. As they were, Titanic was just a floating ice-cube tray. If the tops were sealed, then she'd most likely would have stayed afloat, or she would've stayed up long enough for Carpathia to get to her in time.

However, if you look at Britannic's sinking, you might realize that, if your ship is going to sink, nothing will stop it. Titanicboss is right in saying "it's totally impossible for a ship to be unsinkable". Britannic went down in 55 minutes, despite the new safety features installed after the Titanic disaster. A single mine or torpedo of that time would only damage 1 or 2 watertight bulkheads. Britannic should have stayed afloat, but she didn't. Even with less damage than Titanic.

I remember reading somewhere that one of the most "unsinkable" ships ever built was the Great Eastern built by Isenbard Kingdom Brunell (I can't spell his name). Apparently the ship had not only watertight compartments running forward to aft, but also had subdivisions running port to starboard, which gave her a honeycomb like structure.

Has anyone else ever heard of this?

'The Great Eastern was a ship designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel'.

Yea, there's a huge thing about it on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern

For anyone who is interested,

Cya

i heard about that ship i did a bit of researchinto it and found that the ship rammed the ice berg and only floded 2 of her bulkheads and stayed afloat and carred on to new york and she was named unsinkable as her full bow was totaly wrecked all bent and everything but she stayed aflot unlike titanic

interesting program last Sunday on geographic channel.
who is to blame?following this program it would be the makers of
the rivets.the captain of American coastguard who has been
on the subject for ages came to the conclusion.
On the moment of impact there was a pressure of 14000psi which
made the rivets crack and there was a gap over the lenght of 5 or
6 bulkheads,with all the results we all know.
this man came to the conclusion after ordering rivets to be made
and put them on press where they were put under a pressure
and they cracked under a pressure of less than 10.000psi.So I
don't know if anybody of you has seen this program please let us know what you think about it
belgiangiant

Unfortunately, I did not see that program.

Scientist Charles Pellegrino stated that the iceberg hit the Titanic with enough force that could lift up the Washington Monument like ten times. He stated that not even modern day Titanium could stand up to this force.

Therefore, other scientists can analyze the steel plates and rivits all they want, and play the blame game, but when it comes down to it, nothing could have helped the ships hull with that kind of glancing blow.

i think it is silly for scientists to start up about the steel plates and rivits. I saw a program once where they were going to prove the steel plates were weak, they brought up a piece of steel from the wreak, put it in water at 28 degrees then hit it with a steel mallot to prove their point. Of corse it shattered, it had been at the bottom of the ocean for over 90 years, then you bring it up and it is exposed to air will make it weaker. The truth is so much went wrong that night it is hard to put blame in one place.