Posted on Apr 21, 2016
What oft-repeated historical innaccuracy bugs you most?
6.96K
66
50
8
8
0
We've all seen it at least once; somebody who probably should know better says something we know to be demonstrably false. I've got several of these; the Bismarck was the most powerful battleship ever, the Nazis weren't socialist, etc. But the one that I saw yesterday ticks me off the most; the watertight bulkheads on the Titanic were a design flaw. Nope, they were fine for the design.
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
1
1
0
A number of factors contributed to the sinking in which "watertight" compartments aren't sealed on top is just one. They were open on top because it was a cruise ship with crew needing rapid access. When the ship pitched forward, the water overflowed forward into others, making the ship tip down much faster. Brittle steel plates on the hull, problematical rivets, and the list goes on. However, at the time the fabrication was pretty much state of the art. Titanic sank because nobody was figuring a ship would be driven into an iceberg for a glancing blow at speed. So the ship was operated outside of it's unknown limits and Murphy's Law applied. Like airliners, it typically takes a series of specific things going wrong in a specific sequence to bring one down. BTW, there's an interesting history on the Liberty Ships splitting their spines. The HMS Hood had a well know vulnerability to plunging fire in which it's last turn was started about 30 seconds too late and a low odds shot ended it all.
(1)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
Don't get me wrong, there were problems with the design but the compartments not being sealed or higher weren't amongst them. A double hull with compartments sealed on top probably would've helped though they likely wouldn't have extended all the way through the fore and aft ends of the ship; the Lusitania and Mauretania were built to government standards that required a double hull and their front 3 compartments didn't have double hulls. The lack of enough lifeboats was tragic but at least somewhat justifiable given knowledge and presumptions at the time. I wrote a fairly long comment on why the bulkheads as designed weren't the issue.
(0)
(0)
MCPO (Join to see)
The "problem" wasn't the bulkheads - it was the decking/overheads. As a compartment filled with water, the bulkheads did their job and held the water in place... but with several compartments holed, the water topped the bulkheads and ran into subsequent compartments.
Oh, and the fact that they had liferafts for fewer than 50% of the passengers and crew REALLY helped matters...
Oh, and the fact that they had liferafts for fewer than 50% of the passengers and crew REALLY helped matters...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I was limited in the amount of what I could write in the question itself so I thought I'd add to why the bulkheads were NOT a design flaw. ANY hollow object whose material is heavier than water that floats has a limit of the amount of weight that can be added before the weight exceeds its buoyancy and causes it to sink. The engineers who designed the Titanic knew this as well as the weight and volume of the ship, the weight of a given amount of water and how much that weight would cause the waterline of the ship to lower. They also knew that flooding will stop when the level of the water in a flooded compartment equalizes with the surrounding ocean.
Titanic had 15 watertight bulkheads dividing the ship into 16 compartments. Any two compartments or the front four compartments could be flooded without the ship sinking. It would obviously settle lower in the water but the reserve buoyancy from the rest of the ship would keep it afloat. However, if more than the front 4 compartments were breached, the weight of the water would exceed the reserve buoyancy and cause the ship to sink.
Much of the criticism of the Titanic's bulkheads revolves around the idea that they weren't high enough nor were they sealed from the top. The 'problem', so the story goes, is that the compartments not being sealed from the top allowed water to top the bulkheads and flood the next compartment aft, which was only exacerbated by the bulkheads being too low allowing this to happen more quickly than otherwise. These are false criticism as neither would've changed the outcome given the damage that the Titanic sustained.
As the front 5 compartments flooded, the weight of the water pulled the ship down by the bow. No matter how high the bulkheads were, they couldn't stop this and even if the bulkheads extended all the way to the very top of the vessel, the flooding would continue and cause the ship to sink. The same would apply even if the bulkheads could be sealed from the top; the weight of the water already within the front five compartments would've dragged the ship under by the bow and caused the interior of the ship to flood from above once the bow itself was dragged under water.
The men who designed the Titanic weren't foolish nor did they shirk their duty to the safety of the ship's passengers and crew, at least as far as the bulkheads go. Titanic's bulkheads were high enough that the water would NEVER top the bulkheads provided that the ship didn't have enough compartments opened to the sea to cause her to sink. If, however, enough compartments were opened and the pumps not able to keep ahead of the flooding, she would've sank no matter what else happened. Plenty of military vessels, with far more comprehensive subdivision and higher bulkheads sealable from above have sunk when the amount of hull opened to the sea was too much. Titanic was no different and to criticize the designers for not wasting resources on what would've amounted to polishing the brass on their ship as she sank is a disservice to them and their profession.
Titanic had 15 watertight bulkheads dividing the ship into 16 compartments. Any two compartments or the front four compartments could be flooded without the ship sinking. It would obviously settle lower in the water but the reserve buoyancy from the rest of the ship would keep it afloat. However, if more than the front 4 compartments were breached, the weight of the water would exceed the reserve buoyancy and cause the ship to sink.
Much of the criticism of the Titanic's bulkheads revolves around the idea that they weren't high enough nor were they sealed from the top. The 'problem', so the story goes, is that the compartments not being sealed from the top allowed water to top the bulkheads and flood the next compartment aft, which was only exacerbated by the bulkheads being too low allowing this to happen more quickly than otherwise. These are false criticism as neither would've changed the outcome given the damage that the Titanic sustained.
As the front 5 compartments flooded, the weight of the water pulled the ship down by the bow. No matter how high the bulkheads were, they couldn't stop this and even if the bulkheads extended all the way to the very top of the vessel, the flooding would continue and cause the ship to sink. The same would apply even if the bulkheads could be sealed from the top; the weight of the water already within the front five compartments would've dragged the ship under by the bow and caused the interior of the ship to flood from above once the bow itself was dragged under water.
The men who designed the Titanic weren't foolish nor did they shirk their duty to the safety of the ship's passengers and crew, at least as far as the bulkheads go. Titanic's bulkheads were high enough that the water would NEVER top the bulkheads provided that the ship didn't have enough compartments opened to the sea to cause her to sink. If, however, enough compartments were opened and the pumps not able to keep ahead of the flooding, she would've sank no matter what else happened. Plenty of military vessels, with far more comprehensive subdivision and higher bulkheads sealable from above have sunk when the amount of hull opened to the sea was too much. Titanic was no different and to criticize the designers for not wasting resources on what would've amounted to polishing the brass on their ship as she sank is a disservice to them and their profession.
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
1LT Aaron Barr "They also knew that flooding will stop when the level of the water in a flooded compartment equalizes with the surrounding ocean."
The term for this is hydro-static ballasting. Since the Valdez spill, all oil and chemical tankers (with the exception of LNG's, which are compressed gas) entering or leaving US ports are required to be hydro-statically loaded -- either the load must be calculated to end up even with the waterline on it's own, or ballasting must be accomplished to get it there. While this isn't a perfect fix for possible spills, given the difference in densities, it is still much less catastrophic to hole a tanker that's loaded like that, than one that isn't (such as the Valdez).
Forgive me for going off-topic, slightly.
The term for this is hydro-static ballasting. Since the Valdez spill, all oil and chemical tankers (with the exception of LNG's, which are compressed gas) entering or leaving US ports are required to be hydro-statically loaded -- either the load must be calculated to end up even with the waterline on it's own, or ballasting must be accomplished to get it there. While this isn't a perfect fix for possible spills, given the difference in densities, it is still much less catastrophic to hole a tanker that's loaded like that, than one that isn't (such as the Valdez).
Forgive me for going off-topic, slightly.
(1)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
SN Greg Wright - Not at all! I'm not a maritime engineer or a scientist of any sort but the technical minute' of that type of thing is fascinating.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
The requirements for more life boats were one of the factors that resulted in the Eastland sinking. http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=1,7,1,1,12
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google