csxman, I advise you to read the other posts on this topic, especially the ones written by Mark C.

I really think all these new documentaries that keep comming out are just to boost ratings.

It all comes down to a ship enduring psysical strain that she or any other ship was never intended to experience.

I think the idea of the expansion joints being her achillies heal is nonsense. They were there to serve a purpose under normal circumstances. And even if they did serve a part in the ship's destruction, the question is really, what does it matter? A ship put to that much stress is going to eventually break her stem.

One time, the Queen Mary ran aground and straddeled the Clyde river. Her bow was in the mud on one side, her stern in the mud on the other. So she had no support under her middle They got her off, but if she stayed there for 30 minutes or so, she whould have broken her back and been a total loss.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is, all ships can be broken with the right amount of strain!

hey i got a new update!!
i was watching this show "TITANIC Acciles Heel" and it said that the expansion joint really cause the start of the break do you believe it!?

How many people survived the sinking of the Lusitania?

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.

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

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!

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

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.

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

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.