Did Titanic Need To Sink?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Join our Exclusive Community over on Patreon: / casualnavigation
In this video, we take a look at the longitudinal stability of the RMS Titanic after it struck the iceberg.
--------------JOIN OUR COMMUNITY---------------
We have launched a new community of maritime enthusiasts over on Patreon.
★ / casualnavigation
When you join, you will become part of an Exclusive Community, gain Early Access to our UA-cam videos*, receive Exclusive Content* and have influence over Community Videos*
*Everyone becomes a part of our community, but additional rewards will depend on the tier you select.
------------------------DISCLAIMER-------------------------
All content on this channel is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although every effort has been made to ensure the content is accurate and up to date, it remains the responsibility of the viewer to determine its accuracy and validity. The content should never be used to substitute professional advice or education.
Thank you all for the feedback on this video so far. I am now aware that there is an issue with the audio for some devices.
Audio editing is still my weakest skill, so I am going to work on it as a priority for future uploads.
In the mean time, if anyone any tips or recommendations, it would be great to hear them.
Audio's fine. If someone experiences an issue, it's on their end or UA-cam's end.
You miss the point , intentional or not Titanic was a sacrifice that HAD to happen because if 1496 die a larger number of people is saved , human error or not many more lives were saved because of Titanic's sinking I'm not saying it's good I mean people died and I don't say that people HAD to does it's a sacrifice no one asked for but a sacrifice we got anyhow
The audio is very good, a beet heavy on the bass
Would Titanic even be able to survive such a collision?
@@AndyHappyGuy she could but had that happened we would mourn more pepple than we did on the disaster's aftermath because a low amount of boats would be on every vessel i believe its a grey thing that Titanic sank , not black or white
lookout: "Iceberg straight ahead"
captain casual navigation: "Ram it!"
"Prepare for ramming speed!"
- Cmdr Worf
The front fell off strategy
@@firepowerg "Today IS a good day to die!"
ah yes, star trek references
“All stop, rudder amidships”
Not hitting the iceberg at all would've been optimal.
Exactly - they thought they could miss it entirely, and they very nearly did. I once heard that had they been a mere two feet further away (further to port) they would have suffered minimal damage. Not sure the accuracy of that though. Had they known they'd graze it and damage six compartments, they probably would have instead chosen to ram the iceberg head on. Everything about that disaster was so many things going wrong in just the wrong ways, had anything gone even a tiny bit differently it would have been far less bad, likely never sank, or much smaller death toll. And Titanic would have had a long career before being scrapped in the '30s and totally and completely forgotten, like Olympic.
@@quillmaurer6563 Also we wouldnt have the safety standard we have today because of the sinking of the titanic
@@wolf310ii True - had the Titanic disaster not happened, I could imagine another mass-casualty maritime accident would have happened sooner or later, one that was prevented due to safety regulations inspired by Titanic. One that would have received similar publicity and fame, and caused similar regulatory changes. One of those things that would happen to someone at some point, Titanic just had the bad luck. We could hope that by chance it would be a close call, with far fewer deaths, but people see what could have happened leading to better regulations, but unfortunately I suspect regulations only result from people actually dying, not a situation where they clearly could have. Thus in short I suspect we would have the same safety regulations now, as a later disaster would have brought them about.
You could look at it like that I suppose
Yes clearly ships were not designed to have their front fall off. It's most certainly not supposed to happen.
For anyone wondering, while in Titanic's case getting rid of the bow would have been impossible, that scenario wasn't just theoretical. During WW2 many ships had their bow or stern blown off and still managed to remain afloat, with some even making it back to port and being successfully repaired. One such example is the USS New Orleans.
@CipiRipi00 With the exception of better trained damage control crews there wasn't much difference between US navy ships (which used the all-or-nothing armor scheme) and Titanic
@CipiRipi00
No, theres not, actually.
@CipiRipi00 >Military Grade
>Better quality
Pick one, you can't have both.
The IJN Suzutsuki had her bow blown off and steamed home in reverse!
@CipiRipi00 lol military grade means built by the lowest bidder, doesn’t mean it’s any good
I love this channel, I've learnt so much about ships that I never needed to know
Wait, are you me? :)
Glad you enjoyed it!
Same
No, you mean "that I didn't know I needed to know"
@@joebuckley2180 That I hope I never have to use.
One thing you didn't touch on, if they intentionally flooded the rear compartments, it would've still sunk, but slow enough to let everybody aboard into a lifeboat
Very true. It might have kept the ship more level and gave time to properly fill all the lifeboats.
maybe over flood it to lift the bow up?
but there wasn't enough room in the lifeboats for everyone on board. Assuming they could have convinced everyone to get into a lifeboat in the first place. Most lifeboats early on left more then half empty as people just refused to get in them. Slowing the rate of sinking might have helped her stay float till at least 4 am when the Carpathia arrived then the majority of people could have been saved
Actually I dare say the ship would have sank quicker, the rear compartments are where the engines and generators are located, if they are flooded then powers goes out and it becomes a lot harder to get people off the ship panic will erupt. And well the ship is heavier in the stern due to the engines and such.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD True, but it sunk mostly because of the rotation of the ship. It would've decended quicker, but more evenly. Don't forget, the angle of descent meant half of the lifeboats couldn't've been used
I love that the last funnel doesn't have any smoke in the animation. If you know, you know 😁
Fun fact, it actually had smoke just not from boilers but smoking rooms and kitchens
@@erikzidan2601 Yeah, but that would've been more along the lines of some light steam.
@@PrivateMemo there are some pictures of Olympic with smoke on the 4th funnel
I don't know. Can you enlighten me?
@@Timooooooooooooooo the 4th funnel was not neccesary for smoke from boiler rooms but was added to look more powerfull than Lusitania and Mauretania, it wasnt completly fake and was used for ventilation
One thing i will point out, Titanic did not reverse its engines, officer Murdoch knew that it would make the rudder less efficient
Thanks for clearing that up Erik; when I heard the narrator say they reversed the engines I thought "why would they do that?"; on a conventional vessel with stern rudder and propellers, to turn sharply you surely want full FORWARD power to push the stern round as hard as possible (though apparently they tried that on the Ever Given.......)
I thought that, too. And I only know this stuff from youtube channels (I believe even this one). :D
Even if he wanted to reverse, there was not enough time for that
If it had reversed and stayed straight it would have had a much lower speed and impacted at a much more favorable angle and would have had a much higher chance of being okay, although that is easier said then done considering that if they had just started turning a couple of minutes earlier they would have been completely fine, the captain probably thought that was a much more favorable choice.
@@NudelKungen. nope, the ship would slow down half a knot at maximum, they had 37 seconds, it took 8 seconds to give signals and another 25 seconds for the engines to reverse, reversing the engines would be a terrible idea as you lose all controll of a ship
Great attention to detail, only having the smoke coming from the first three funnels because the fourth was there primarily for aesthetic effect and wasn't functional as a funnel...
Actually, according to Historic Travels, it was not only an exit ventilation shaft, but also used for the smoke from the coal burning ovens and stoves in the Titanic... It was also able to be climbed inside. The shipbuilders did not "waste space" on the ship, they just used it for something other than the ship's boilers.
Actually that an amateur mistake. it was used for ventilation
That “ramming the iceberg head on” was a common practice if they couldn’t move out of the way fast enough. This was actually done by SS Kronprinz Wilhelm in 1907 when it rammed an iceberg head on. It suffered a crushed bow section, but it crucially survived to limp back to safety.
It was also SMALLER and going SLOWER so the conditions are NOT the same. It's like comparing running into a wall or walking into a wall, one would hurt more and now make the wall a mountain of 10,000+ years of compact ice. Plus the majority of people try to NOT hit things in front of them, you know unless they are terrorists, criminals, or suicidal.
@@1993digifan I know that the instinct is to "get out of the way" when an iceberg is coming into the way.
The thing is, I read some autopsies by shipbuilders who said that the Titanic was built with a special horizontal crumple bulkhead in the first compartment, specifically to absorb this type of head on collisions.
What I am saying is, the wisdom of the time dictated to steer the ship out of the way, but if there is not enough time, the unconventional wisdom is to ram it head on. What Murdoch did was to miscalculate the distance required to turn (understandable, seeing that it was his first trip on that liner), thought he could make it, but couldn't make it. It was a mistake which you could not totally blame him for, seeing that years of experience had taught him the instincts to act.
One option would be to chop off the bow.
AKA “the front fell off.”
Fortunately it's not in the environment
🇦🇺👍
It is really refreshing to look at Titanic through the stability lense. I already knew that a head-on collision might have saved her, but examining the principles of why that is, especially with your visuals has helped me understand the 'how' better - thanks!
Thanks Bailey. I'd been wanting to cover Titanic for a while, but was waiting until I could do it in a different way to everyone else. The stability perspective was fascinating to make.
Okay yeah, but can you imagine explaining to your boss that "oh yeah I intentionally rammed an iceberg"?
I'd assume he'd definitely have been fired, if nothing else...
There is no glory in prevention
The humiliation of steaming into New York with a crumpled bow as well might have been a lot to bear.
What an excellent video! I teach basic ship stability to boatmaster students and this examination of the importance of the centres of balance and buoyancy is excellent. Thanks very much
Thanks Rob. Glad it will prove to be useful for explanations.
You may know this, but the Titanic has another great example of stability. if it hadnt been for a coal bunker fire, the ship would have capsized and sunk within an hour!
Wow!! This video is worth more than 2 hours long Discovery Channel Documentary!! Learnt alot...so thanks alot!!
Thanks StarLord
Its always a good day when Casual Nav uploads!
Thanks stank
It has been well-established that the first officer stopped the engines he did not put them in Full reverse.
ye as i heard that they went full reverse, i immediately thought about the left and right handed video which i watched couple of days ago. maybe titanic was a right handed and so full reverse would ve lower the turn speed to port?🤔 😅
@@Nightmare17022000 Right Handed?
There is also evidence to suggest that the order couldn't even be fully carried out between the initial telegraph order, and the impact. Even IF the engineers responded quick enough (remember, they were in the middle of the Atlantic. Why would the engineers expect a sudden "all stop" order?) Titanic's engines, shafts, and propellers constitute an immense bit of rotational mass that you can't just slam from "full ahead" to a stop like a modern diesel engine. Titanic was likely still traveling above 20 knots when she struck the iceberg.
@@angieroxy7550 ships are either right or left handed. See the video on that.
@having a goodtime! Yes! Exactly my point!
I literally had the thought yesterday: if the smartest people were there, post collision, could it have been saved? I’d say that answer is probably no, but maybe it could’ve been slowed and more ‘lifeboats’ could’ve been fashioned.
Was cool to see the balance of moments, hadn’t ever thought of it like that. Helps visualize how it ripped in half
It was slowed and very much. Alot of information you find online seldom mentions the incredible amount of hard work put in to saving the ship by the crew on board. Communications worked hard staying in their quarters to send SOS messages until no power was available, engineers tried to keep auxiliary generators and batteries clear of condensation as well as keeping generators going with the constantly declining generation of steam so lights could be kept on as long as possible, and they worked using manpower and electricity to constantly pump out the endless water that would soon cause the ship to sink.
@@supertrinigamer Oh definitely. It took the ship an incredibly amount of time before the situation became critical. Frankly, had they just realised it wasn't going to survive sooner (and had more lifeboats), there would have been ample time and resources to minimise the loss of life.
@@MrJoeyWheeler They knew pretty early on, that the damage was leathal. The general approach to lower life boats with few persons and hope for them to stay near the ship was stupid.
@@henricomonterosa4534 While they knew fairly quickly the ship couldnt be saved, the lifeboats were more confusing. there was very little organization there, and many passengers did not want to get on the lifeboats. It was also common ideas at the time that it was safer to wait for a rescuing ship onboard your sinking vessel than in an open top lifeboat on the cold ocean.
To quote Bill Nye the Science Guy, “Don’t go calling a ship unsinkable if it’s built like an ice cube tray.”
But I like the idea of watertight compartments that prevent the other areas of the ship from flooding. Yes, Olympic and Britannic improved upon the design a bit better for the hull areas though.
All the analysis I've read about the "head-on collision hypothesis" conclude that the impact would have likely popped rivets all across the ship creating hundreds of small leaks in all compartments. Therefore, the ship would've maybe remained more level, but would've sinked anyway and probably a lot faster.
That said, I don't know how all those experts have come to that conclusion and I would love to see a computer simulation of the collision one day for good measure.
Anyway, what might have really saved the Titanic was to keep the turbine running at full speed while turning: They stopped it because it could not be reversed but its propeller was right in front of the only rudder they had. Had it been running it would've greatly improved the turning radius by blowing a huge quantity of water right on the rudder.
The turbine was not independently controllable to that extent. It operated only with exhaust steam from the main engines. Arguably not the best design, but White Star was slow to adopt steam turbine technology, as opposed to Cunard.
Sinked?? Do you mean sunk?
@@ryano.5149 From what I've understood of the state of the art, her setup was the most efficient available at the time, as turbines were not yet as efficient over the pressure ranges that triple expansion engines worked over - but a turbine could more utilise the very low pressure steam that reciprocating engines couldn't efficiently extract energy from. Lusitania and Mauretania were built for speed, where turbine's high power to weight/volume ratio was invaluable, but not for efficiency.
But I could very well be wrong, and I'd love to learn more!
@@chalichaligha3234 Well, yes, overall, there's nothing inherently wrong with the overall design, but the option of having the turbine independently controllable...and reversible, even as just an emergency measure, would arguably have been a decent idea, where the implementation could have been a matter of piping. It certainly wouldn't have had any bearing on the events of the sinking, but just in terms of designing for redundancy it could have been a good idea. ...but that's just my opinion.
Just looking at her sister ship Britannic we know that ramming her into the iceberg would sink her much faster. No need for the rivets to pop, the hull would warp and the bulkheads would be rendered not-watertight :D doors wouldnt be able to close even manually because the frame or even the whole bulkhead is warped.
Love this channel. Having spent some 16 years deliberately sinking. ( In a diesel sub). It is fascinating to learn these lessons on bouncy and stability and the such with out the complicated math.( It helps to stay awake). Thanks!!
I don't think the bow scene from the movie would have been as impactful with it crunched up like an empty soda can 😂
Super video yet again.
I remember watching the Titanic: 20 Years Later with James Cameron(2017) special on National Geographic channel and how they revisited the movie and updated the conclusions from 1997.
And one thing they commented on, that really stuck with me, is that, nearly ALL sinkings result in a capsize, EXCEPT, the Titanic. She went down level on the axis of rotation, she didn't roll. They speculated that the engineers below deck deliberately flooded certain sections, on the port side, to keep her level, but couldn't do anything about her bow pitching down.
There is a different cause for Titanic not rolling over: she had a coal bunker fire that was extinguished hours earlier. The solution for these fires was to take the coal out of the affected bunker, douse it, and put it on the other side of the ship. so over the course of her voyage, at least 15 tons of coal was moved to port, giving her a 3 degree list to port. after striking the iceberg, she developed a 7 degree list to starboard which leveled out over the course of the sink. this fire probably bought Titanic almost 2 hours extra thanks to her not capsizing.
The 'Titanic should have rammed the iceberg' theory has always fascinated and frustrated me, because no Officer with half a brain in command of a state-of-the-art passenger liner is ever going to see an iceberg ahead and decide "We better ram it head on, just in case."
Edit: And this is assuming the ship could have even survived a head on collision with an enormous iceberg magnitudes heavier than the ship. Who knows how many rivets would pop and plates would buckle.
That is what a tough decision is…
Any pilot of a multi-million dollar passenger jet won’t decide “We better crash this in the Hudson” but one guy did in 2009 and it saved all souls on board.
Even on the 15Jan09 case, everybody acknowledges your part of the concern on paper; that’s why it is an incredible event. But following that concern like a robot would’ve killed everyone on that day…
@@alphamineron Well given how the other options was the plane crashing into buildings in the attempt to either of the airports since they didn't have a high enough altitude to safely reach either airport without hitting a building, at least in the Hudson in a worst-case it would just be the people on the plane and not dozens or hundreds more from the building.
As a pilot I love watching this channel to see how similar aircraft and ships are. So much of what the shipping industry pioneered has been copied by aviation and its fascinating to learn about.
Watchman: Iceberg, straight ahead!
Captain: LEEEERROOOOOYYYYYY JEEENNNNKKKIINNNNSSSSS!!!
Your videos are constant reminder of how fast a whole month passes without me even noticing it 😂
"Most of the crossing was pretty uneventful" I mean one of her coal storage locations was on fire the entire time.
It was smoldering not a real fire. Smoldering was a common occurrence on coal powered ships. Coal is after all an organic product subject to oxidation.
In the age of steam, a smoldering coal fire would in fact be considered uneventful
Imagine still thinking this completely normal occurrence had anything to do with the sinking. Titanic sank because she hit an iceberg, the coal bunker "fire" had nothing to do with anything.
Which at the time wasn’t that uncommon in coal powered steamships at all. Hence, uneventful
Which was common in the era, so nothing to talk about, unless your a conspiracy nut who thinks a smolder could be hot enough to weaken steel while at the same time cool enough to go unnoticed by the people in the pool ONE DECK ABOVE.
I believe if Titanic had collided head-on with the iceberg, the kinetic energy released at that moment when a 45000+ tons object travelling with 18-20 knots at the time of the collision comes to an abrupt stop, would had caused catastrophic damage. The shockwave from the released energy would had travelled along the hull, popping rivets, collapsing the bases of the funnels, masts etc. The ship would had sunken much faster.
The energy involved would be enormous. Its so hard to know whether it would have led to immediate loss as you describe, or whether it could be absorbed by buckling the hull like the crumple zone in a car.
true but in a best case scenario where the crew makes the decision to ram the ice berg, i think they would slow down a lot more so it would be less than 18 knots. But still with so much mass it would still cause major damage, possibly sinking
If they were going to ram it head on, they could have slowed down more. Applying reverse thrust could not be done when turning because it makes the rudder less effective, but if you don't turn you can use it slow down.
Decades ago a maritime engineer stated a head on collision, especially with engines in full reverse, would have been much safer. Plenty of ships collide head on without such dramatic ending. Many ships have lost their bow and stayed afloat to return to port.
@@CasualNavigation the crumple zone analogy is correct, but it also highlights a misperception in what a crumble zone fully is. In the case of low mass cars, it’s usually enough to dissipate the bulk of kinetic energy.
But for the masses involved in this collision, it’s not so clear. The bow would crumple yes, but, here’s the key: that would not absorb all the kinetic energy involved. Equal and opposite reaction. If there’s insufficient force to crumple the entire hull, but enough to crumple a portion of and and rebound the the ship from impact, then it’s the very fact it rebounds that does the damage to the remaining intact structural elements. That energy has to go somewhere since the momentum has to be conserved aka flipped since the inertial forces would have dramatically reversed in a extremely dangerously short interval of time.
Very nice detail not making the forth and last steam exhaust not showing any smoke because it was built just to have four of them, to make the ship more formidable, not because it was needed,a detail showing a video of high quality, and a knowledgeable and thoughtful creator. Thank you sir!
If I remember correctly, the Titanic was considered unsinkable in a head-on collision. They were well aware of icebergs,, and head-on collisions occurring as a possibility..
I What sank her was the rip that traversed down the length of the ship, opening up too many compartments to water.
I've seen people say a head-on collision would have sunk the ship even faster, popping every rivet along the ship, but if that was the case; How could the Titanic be considered unsinkable?
The problem with the "ram it head on" plan is that if you look back at the timeline, it is VERY likely the "all stop" order didn't even have enough time to be carried out before the impact. Therefore, we can say she was travelling at the very least, over 20 knots. Titanic's displacement at the time was around 50,000 tons, give or take. Ram 50,000 tons head-on into what is practically a solid concrete wall at over 20 knots and you are going to have a bad day. Ships just aren't designed to survive that type of collision.
Titanic was neither the first, nor the last ship to be sunk in a collision with an iceberg. The most recent case being 2007. All things considered, I think the crew did the best they could given the knowledge they had available at the time. Also, all things considered, she stayed afloat and stable for nearly three hours. She did not capsize. She did not sink with lifeboats left hanging in their davits. I don't believe any of her smaller, older, contemporaries would have faired nearly as well.
What she should've done is listen to the California and shut down for the night.
@@firingallcylinders2949 Coulda, shoulda, woulda. We have the benefit of 110ish years of hindsight and experience with operating large vessels. It is easy to forget that the Olympic class was unprecedented. They were not just the largest ships, but the largest moving man-made objects ever built up to that point in history. The procedures and standards had not yet caught up with the size of the ships, because no one had significant experience operating ships of that scale. There were only a handful of ships that even approached the scale of the Olympic class, but the vast majority were significantly smaller. Just 6 years prior to the disaster, the largest passenger vessel was roughly half the size of the Olympic class.
I love this concept. Of course if they didn’t enter the ice field and stopped for the night like every other ship then everything would have been just fine
I've always wondered if a head-on collision of Titanic with the iceberg might not have been the better choice. Thanks for answering that question!
Very interesting information. About the head-on collision though, I don't know if it would have worked. Basically because, Titanic was a riveted ship, and the shockwaves from the force of the collision on the hull, would definitely pop out a few hundred rivets, and start floods in a few compartments. Also, there is the fact that Murdoch by not choosing to turn the ship, he would doom a lot of crewmen and 3rd class passengers who had their bunks in the bow, so, even if the ship survived, this would be a very hard choice to bear.
In my opinion, Titanic was doomed the moment the ship got too close to the iceberg and the lookouts failed to notice it - until it was too late. Nothing could be done to save her.
Well looking at the weather conditions I wouldn’t say the lookouts failed more like couldn’t see it sure it was clear but there was no moonlight to help light up the horizon so the iceberg was hiding in the dark horizon
A bunch of popped rivets might have had slow enough leakage that pumps could keep up with it. All about the extent of the damage, the size of the hole. But missing the iceberg entirely is a much better option, and they very nearly missed it.
A German liner (I forget which) rammed an iceberg head just a few years earlier and survived. I think titanic would have had a better chance.
I think it's doubtful that the ship would have survived. She was going almost full speed ahead, which is around 40km/h compared to a car. Just watch a crash test of a car to see the effects of such a collision with a solid object. Nevertheless, Murdoch could never take a decision to just kill a few hundred people, when he could at least attempt a maneuver
@@zeddeka It was a smaller, slower ship. The forces involved in a head-on collision with the Titanic would have been much greater.
Iceberg in collision course
Google: Try to avoid it and balance the weight.
Bing: Go head first.
I had a book from 1912 that discussed this very point, ramming the iceberg was probably the best option if you are going to hit one. In this case the case the command to the engine room would be full astern and to helmsman to keep the bow pointed directly at the berg.
I don't know why but your videos are far more enjoyable to watch than the Great big moves ones. Keep it up.
Maybe you could order everyone on the ship to pick up the heaviest thing they can carry and head to the back? I mean I know it would only be a few hundred tons max, but if it's far enough to the back that could have a significant impact on the COG. Bonus points if you can get the people up front to throw a bunch of stuff off before they head back
Was eagerly awaiting the next video. Your content is top notch, I learn a lot and I could listen to you all day long. Fascinating channel. Thank you for the quality of the content you offer us. Warm regards
Thanks billy bill. Production is going well, so I may be able to publish more frequently next year...
But the real question is: would a rivited ship survive the imense shock of hitting the iceberg head on? Would only the front deform?
Striking the berg head on would've been a catastrophe. I'm very glad someone else thinks the same
@@niki75 But would it have been worse than what actually happened?
@@yusufkhan-ig7dv Oh much MUCH worse. She was doing 21 knots when the berg was spotted and while the engines were NOT ordered full astern Murdoch did order rhem to be stopped.
Remember that up to 90% of the iceberg's mass is underwater. And would've been almost still, or slightly adrift.
A 46 thousand gross register ton ship, traveling upwards of 20 knots (23miles per hour/37kilometers per hour) slams bow first into an iceberg... Best (and least likely) scenario is that she manages to break through the ice. Damaging the bow and the double bottom, but stays afloat...
In a more likely scebario it'll be like slamming into a wall. And the force of impact *has* to go somewhere... And the only places it can go are the iceberg, and the ship's hull. Likely popping rivets all along her length, rupruring steam pipes and possibly injuring/killing people all throughout the ship in the abrupt stop.
With the hull compromised all along her length she loses power in minutes, capsizes and sinks waaay faster than she did. Bringing the death toll closer to 100% of passengers and crew, some 2200 souls.
Lots of heads on collisions in naval history. Usually the ship's survive those kind of accidents. Take Stockholm/Andrea Doria as the most famous example
@@johanbjorklund2815 That is true but do note that the Stockholm was only a 14 gross register ton ship. And even her bow was badly damaged upon impact with the Andrea Doria, a 29 gross register ton ship.
Notice how the GRT of both ships is still less than the Titanic. And neither come even remotely close to the mass of the Iceberg. Hell I doubt even the Titanic's weight compared to the iceberg's.
This channel is underrated, it made me hooked into maritime content
4:22 This being said, I can think of a couple of cases (most of them involving warships but there has to be a few civilian vessels as well) of ships having their bows torn off and returning to port, for mostly this reason.
I mean... I feel like just NOT hitting the iceberg at all would have been the best option...
But that's boring, and boring history doesn't get talked about much at all. 😀
Excellent explanation. Just to inform you that in fact the helm was turned the opposite way as shown. In the good old days a ships helm turned clockwise to turn the ship to port/left.
Interesting - I assume a carryover from usage of tillers that are pushed the opposite direction from where the ship intends to go?
@@quillmaurer6563 yes, that's exactly what it was! It was only around the time, just after of Titanic that they started to change direction of the helm. Must have been a very confusing time to be at sea...
@@julianneale6128 That would have been super confusing, having to adapt to the helm being rigged opposite. Wonder if any accidents resulted? I know of other situations where changing a convention caused accidents, such as when Air Canada switched from measuring fuel in pounds to measuring it in kilograms, resulted in a Boeing 767 earning the name "Gimli Glider."
@@quillmaurer6563 I'm sure accidents must have happened regarding confusion in which way to turn the vessel. Also I'm aware of the 767 emergency dead stick landing you talk of. Lucky escape really.
@@julianneale6128 I had understood that it was because (historically, when ships were much much smaller) the wheel was physically pulling the rudder round by ropes which came up from both sides of the rudder then round the top of a spindle connected directly to the wheel - to pull the rudder to port you had to pull the left-hand rope and that required a clockwise movement of the spindle.
1:04 Hard a starboard, not port. In 1912, helm orders were still based on the old sailing-ship tiller movements, so hard-a-starboard meant ‘put the tiller to starboard (right)’, thus turning the rudder, and therefore the ship, to port (left).
Ah yes, the captain who on his last voyage before he retires, crashed a brand new boat ("the best boat in the world" at the time) square into the smack dab center of an iceberg.
~ Captain Edward Smith
I find it extremely eerie that this video shows up in my recommended immediately after watching Titanic
This video is great but i think one of the issues with videos like this is the fact that we have the knowledge they didn't completely have back then the Britannic's upgrades after the titanics sinking is proof of that alone, even with the irony of it sinking too.
An alternative strategy, order the engines All Astern Full/Flank. Theoretically, the torque vector of the propellers would lift the bow and dip the stern. But, as the bow took on water and sank, the keel would become a lifting body with a positive angle of attack in reverse. The water flowing under the keel would create lift on the flooded bow.
Additionally, ordering a turn hard starboard towards the damage would accomplish three beneficial tasks. First, ships don't turn like we intuitively think, they actually rotate on the center of gravity. So a ship the size of Titanic would actually kick her stern out towards port, and her bow out to starboard, out of line with the flow of water. So, water would be pushing on the Port side, but on the starboard side there'd be a slight suction or venturi effect on the holes in the hull. Secondly, because the water is hitting the port side in a turn towards Starboard, the ship will roll to the outside of the turn. This would lift the starboard side a few feet, decreasing the water depth of the holes in the ship, decreasing the pressure/rate of water flowing into the ship. Third, as the ship took on water, that water would very eagerly run to the port side(outside of the turn), due to the centrifugal force of the turn. This would quickly cause the ship to list profoundly to the port side, and it's possible that the damaged section of the ship would lift clear of the water before the port side listed low enough to capsize the ship.
Using these two methods, I think it may have been possible to keep the ship afloat indefinitely by running full speed in circles, at least until help could arrive.
titanic is not a speedboat, it's a huge cruiser
ya ain't gonna plane it
the turning idea maybe could work if executed by experienced captain, tho it'd be hard to either prove or disprove in youtube comment section
@@krolon9786 Going flank in reverse wouldn't be to try hydroplane it like a boat, even if that were possible it would lift the screws out of the water and then she'd have no propulsion to keep it up. But, being as long as she is, there'd definitely be measurable lift on the bow. As with other things, she'd counterintuitively rotate around the center of gravity, so the force of water hitting the keel along the bow would create a huge amount of torque to lift the bow and drop the stern. In reverse, with the trailing bow sitting lower and a long smooth keel, she'd want to level out from the water's force on the hull.
@@krolon9786 Going flank in reverse wouldn't be to try hydroplane it like a boat, even if that were possible it would lift the screws out of the water and then she'd have no propulsion to keep it up. But, being as long as she is, there'd definitely be measurable lift on the bow. As with other things, she'd counterintuitively rotate around the center of gravity, so the force of water hitting the keel along the bow would create a huge amount of torque to lift the bow and drop the stern. In reverse, with the trailing bow sitting lower and a long smooth keel, she'd want to level out from the water's force on the hull.
When this first came on I thought you might suggest longitudinal counterflooding in the stern, or moving anything like water in tanks, coal, or even furnishings like a piano for example that can be moved aft.
Also the added weight of the compound engines and turbine would’ve helped with counterweight too. And the aft boiler rooms
The collision bulkhead was designed to take the impact of ramming another ship, not a much larger iceberg. The ship was also traveling at over 20 knots. Many speculate there would have been more substantial damage than what your diagram shown. Going from a sudden stop at those speeds probably had the potential to knock machinery throughout the ship off balance and lead to possible loss of power. No power means no water tight doors. I believe she still would have foundered regardless. The best survival scenario would have been having the added safety features Britannic recieved after her sisters sinking. Only 30 souls were lost and I think that was due to a lifeboat meeting up with a propeller (please correct me if I'm wrong :) )
The watertight door worked even without power
I always marvel at how our world is built to encourage the facing of some challenges head-on instead of avoiding it.
Captain, we've got a load of holes in the front of the boat. "Well, make some holes at the back too! We don't want to be all unbalanced!"
2:19 that area of boyance your showing after the ship hit the iceberg is exactly where the engines are located, literally her heaviest spot, and where the ship broke apart after the forces of the front dragged the boat down till the hull could take no more, also the ship had a coal fire that had happened a few days earlier that had forced all the coal to one side, which offset the flooding and helped keep the ship from rolling over
as the designer said they barely had an hour and a quarter before she sank and would have capsized, as when the water came in, the coal actually offset the list to port, so these calculations dont take that into account
as it turns out, the titanic did have some luck after all, mixed in with a damn good crew and some damn good firemen down below that kept the lights and power on for as long as possible
and they just barely had enough time to get all the lifeboats off because of it, as the thinking back then was the ship would act as the lifeboat till help arrived, problem was that the safety net beyond that failed, hence all the changes that came afterwards to avoid either of those situations coming again
as idealy what would have happened if the safety net wouldnt have failed would have been an andrea doria type situation, where the ship is lost but the crew and passengers are safe
and to put it into perspective the britannic got what would have been the entire complement of the ship off in 45 minutes thanks to those changes as a direct result of this after striking a mine that broke her back while trying to make it to shore, and for all we know ramming that thing head on might have done the same
although I do agree it might have been better just to ram the damn thing head on, however god only knows how that would have tweaked the ship and how well she would have held
chances are it would have bent it sideways and pierced three of the water tights just from the sheer compacting force or broke its back like that mine did to the brittanic.
Often when i chill in the car with my gf on the coast of the Danube river in Belgrade, when I see a cargo ship i remember your channel 😁
Realistically, hitting the iceberg head on would’ve made her sink faster. The force of the collision likely would have warped the ship’s structure, making it impossible to close the watertight doors. Something very similar happened to her sister ship, the HMHS Britannic when she struck a mine during WW1. Had titanic hit the iceberg head on, she would’ve likely sank in half an hour, similar to her younger sister.
Britannic sunk quickly because not only were 5 watertight compartments breached, but the nursing staff had left many lower deck portholes open to keep the lower decks cool. This ship was not designed for Mediterranean cruises lol, so it got hot.
@@alexapplegate619 Even then, how much could those portholes have added to the sinking speed when there is a massive gap 40x the size at the bottom of the ship? That water coming into the porthole is coming in a at MUCH lower speed, than the water directly displaced by the ships hull.
Maybe, maybe not. There are examples of ships, both military and civil that took massive damage to the front without sinking. The USS minneapolis as an example
@@SImrobert2001 Also the Britannic capsized about an hour after striking the mine, the predicted fate of Titanic by the chief engineer who forgot to account for several tons of coal being moved to the port side..
Your wrong if Titanic hit the iceberg head on she would not sunk there were stories where Passenger Ships That Hit Icebergs Head on but survived S.S Arizona Was An Ocean Liner Built For The Guion Line in 1879 the ship was sailing at 20 30 40 or 50 miles when it hit an iceberg head on it survived and sailed to Halifax to get its bow repaired the bow was rebuilt and the ship went to have an almost 50 year long career
The Stockholm vs Andrea Doria collision is a perfect real life argument for the head on hypothesis.
So the Stockholm DELIBERATELY hit Andrea Doria? They never made an attempt to avoid hitting the other ship? They saw her and went "God take the helm, I won't even try to NOT hit the ship". Also there is a massive difference between hitting a ship and iceberg, just like there is a difference between hitting another vehicle and hitting a canyon wall.
The whole video I thought you would talk about counterflooding rear compartments. Wonder if that would've worked.
Casual Navigation makes sensible observations, quite rightly making a distinction between mathematics and practicability. Deliberately driving Titanic onto the Berg would’ve released a kinetic energy of terrible destructive force (estimated at some 2,070,000,000 ft lbs), resulting in serious damage (probably a lot more than merely crumpling the prow.) and in all likelihood condemning several hundred people in the bow to immediate and certain death or serious injury. Any Inquiry could easily have found criminal negligence and / or manslaughter. Was that a sensible option for Murdock whilst the collision was still avoidable? As it was, he tried to 'hard-a-port' around the berg and came within inches of doing so, thus demonstrating a good case for attempting it. Had he succeeded, the manoeuvre would probably be considered to have been a brilliant piece of seamanship.
The people riding in the front of the ship probably would see no benefit in your plan
Still probably more people would have survived 🙄 And beeing hurt is still better than dead... in most cases
Most people in that section were lower level crew for example the fireman
@@TheJoeSwanon yeah they were expendable lol
@@marquisdehoto1638 I understand, just saying the people who would die in front wouldn't agree with this.
@bruh yeah. There were some survivors tho everyone didn't die. Just saying
It's been 84 years, and I can still smell the fresh paint. The china had never been used. The sheets had never been slept in. Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It *really* was...
Well the captain gambled and lost. It is a hard decision but he should’ve known that the ship is going too fast for a treacherous area and he already had reports from previous ships that there area icebergs in the area. Plus he should’ve known the turning capability of the ship as well. So ultimately this is a captain’s failure and he knew it and that’s why he didn’t leave the ship and had a honorable death.
Captain Smith did change the course further south to avoid icebergs, and during the night he was asleep, the officers decided on going full speed becouse the weather was very clear and they though they could see miles into the sea
The captain wasn’t even on the bridge at the time of collision, he was off duty
I knew that door could hold them both.
USS Minneapolis and HMS Eskimo, nothing wrong with losing a bow we keep going with out one.
Yep. Plenty of ships have lost their bow and made it back to port.
@@grondhero did they rammed things at full speed
One problem: Murdoch believed (or maybe hoped) they could avoid the berg. Had he understood there wasn't enough time to avoid collision, he could have given the order to run straight ahead. But then he'd likely be arrested for the deaths of the firemen who bunked between bulkheads A and B. Best case, he'd be fired from White Star and never work on a bridge for another shipping line. In hindsight for us, he'd have saved far more people to ram the bow. But if he had, we may look at him a lot differently as a terrible first officer and an embarrassment to shipping history for destroying the Titanic on its maiden voyage and killing hundreds of its crew.
Interesting, though the head-on scenario has long been debated. The absorbtion of impact would probably not be enough to avoid damage to the rest of the structures and to the people on board. It would have been an impact of slightly less 20 knots (considering the little time and attempt to slow down). It's not as for today's vehicles where real sacrificial structures are designed to absorb most of the impact, this was old school big, sturdy and unbreakeable kind of logic (of course they designed something about front hit, but they also thought that all in all the average circumstances would have allowed more margin of prevention and action). So, would many wounded people, a few fatalities and secondary structural damage (possibly very crippling, but let's say salvageable) be better than the original disaster? Maybe, but then in this parallel universe you have to go defend what the public would consider an act of insanity, endangering ship, passangers, crew and cargo head on against a mountain of ice, with an ill prepared watch-crew and going full speed disregarding Ice warnings.
Everyone: Hard to starboard!
Full full astern!
Close the watertight compartments!
Meanwhile at casual navigation:
*Chop of the bow*
Suprised that the Suevic wasnt mentioned regarding chopping off the bow! Great video!
Super kudos to not animating smoke coming from the 4th stack. Glad to see someone making a video and doing research on it to make it as accurate as possible.
The question is, was it the additional weight of water impossed forward of the centre of gravity or was it the reduction in bouyancy?
I think it was more a loss of bouyancy as the holes meant that the seawater Ingression was below the waterline . They may have been able to counter the loss of forward bouyancy by reducing the bouyancy aft to balance the vessel, partial flooding of the aft may have helped but given what we now know of the keel and hull strength, it may have broken it's back by trying to lever the ship level, but this is hypothetical as we'd be asking the ships hull to do something it was never designed to do.
Yeah, also the ship would have relieved pressure across its expansion joints if more weight was displaced aft due to water intake which could’ve caused excessive flex which would’ve just put more stress on the ships overall structure
Buoyancy = displaced water weight.
So loss of buoyancy is equivalent to add water into the hull.
Ship’s designer is on board and he told the captain the ship can withstand ANY of 4 water compartments flooded, not 5. Adding water aft will not save the ship.
I wish I found this channel sooner, the only things I have to add is, the theory for the head on is all dependant on the Collision Bulkhead holding (which there is the possibility of it not doing so) a ship as big and heavy as Titanic sailing around 21 knots suddenly smashing head first into a solid lump of immovable ice would put a lot of stress on the hull and iirc the collision bulkhead is mainly with ship on ship collisions in mind which is likely more survivable than a berg, taking into consideration the fact that merely side swiping was enough to puncture the hull which was by no means thin, one thing is sure attempting to go around was the desired outcome, im sure missing it entirely and not having to spend months and a lot of money on essentially rebuilding the forward end of the bow would have been appreciated by WSL's wallet & the H&W builders, which were at that time some of the best ship builders around, they knew what they were doing and did it very well, if you want an example of a surviving H&W built ship - HMS Belfast (C35) on the River Thames is a good one, she even survived a magnetic mine going off underneath her keel which bent her keel up and essentially bent the entire ship, yet she was repairable despite the cost and being out of action for almost 3 ish years, you can even see on her what was boat deck the extra steel plates used to strengthen her hull as well as walk above the area where the mine hit.
Plus counter flooding aft while levelling her out and possibly slowing her sinking it wouldn't have stopped it, being breached fully in 5 compartments and a slight bit into a 6th was fatal damage, only by design being able to survive 4 breached and full, despite this she managed to stay on a relatively even keel for most of the sinking - iirc around a 9 degree port list, and had she had more boats the outcome wouldn't have been much different as only around 18 successfully launched the others simply floated off the deck, although she was originally designed with enough, around 64 the Board of Trade told the H&W designers to reduce it so they did to about 32, (which would still have been enough for all on board that night as with a capacity of 70 that would have given space for 2,240, the accepted total number on board that night crew and passengers combined was 2.208, wouldn't be enough at max passenger capacity which was about 3,320) they were again told to reduce it, they went to 20 (4 more than legal limit for a ship of Titanic's weight because for some genius reason the BoT thought lifeboats numbers should be based on tonnage not by how many people the ship can carry... you know what the lifeboats are meant to be tailored to accommodate) and they weren't going to go lower.
On the flip side of the tragedy it is important to remember that the ship's loss and all those that lost their lives wasn't in vein, here are some things that came about due to the loss:
- 24 hour constant radio presence
- The Iceberg patrol
- Ships must by law carry enough life boats for all on aboard (I.e Wonder of the Seas the largest cruise ship in the world with a combined max crew and passenger capacity of 9,288 and 18 lifeboats each with a capacity of 370 enough to evacuate 6,660 which while is not enough on their own, it is likely that like Oasis of the Seas she also carries Inflatable life rafts to provide for the additional passengers and crew, taking into consideration 9,288 is the ship at max capacity, at standard crew & double passenger occupancy her capacity is 8,034. 5,734 of which are passengers which the lifeboats can accommodate for in entirety)
But im waffling now.
If they had pulled the pins on the anchor chains and jettisoned them they would have saved tons of weight. They could have also blocked the vents to the chain lockers and entrapped air. Giving more buoyancy to the bow. How's that CN? If we are floating we are fighting?
Titanic video: meh
Titanic video with only three out of four smokestacks belching smoke: thumbs up
Whoever wants to try out different scenarios: there are several free programs out there like 'ship sinking simulator' that allow you let your God complex loose, uhm, I mean simulate variations of hull damage
Wow! What an analysis. I love your videos and your voice is super soothing.
I’ve a few issues with this video. The easiest inaccuracy is that engines where not reversed. And theory of hitting the iceberg straight on, has a few issues not mentioned. Like that the iceberg weighs a whole lot more that Titanic. It’s like when lay down and you hit a wall feet’s first at high speed. Sure, your feet’s and legs who’ll be crumbled, but the shockwave who’ll travel also to your back and cause damage.
Your second point is pretty much irrelevant to the issue. He's talking about _mitigating_ damage and you're stating "but you'll take damage." *_Obviously._*
Plenty of ships have lost their bow and made it back to port. Had the _Titanic_ rammed the iceberg head on and just crumpled the bow, then the ship would have been more stable for longer and more people could have been rescued.
@@grondhero Your not understanding the issue here hitting the iceberg head on would not just crumple the bow the whole riveting across the ship would buckle out, the iceberg would be like a car hitting a brick wall and with the speed and weight of titanic the impact would flatten the bow alright and rip the rivets off the rest of the plating across the vessel.
@@grondhero I see your point to minimise damage. I was referring to the video title at the moment I saw the video (could Titanic be saved).
To reply on your point: I know few accidents where ships stayed a float with damaged bows. However, all the accidents I know, non of them where caused by icebergs. All of them was by other ships/walls or at a lower speed. Hitting a heavy iceberg on cruise speed is like hitting a wall with a car. Like, everyone and everything not tight to the ship will be thrown forward, hard.
Edit: And there are more issues I’m leaving out. If you like to know more about this, look up online.
@@grondhero Yeah but many of those ships - and correct me if I am wrong here - either lost their bow in battle/mines, so a wholly different situation - or by ramming another ship which could lessen the impact (since if you ram something close to yourself in weight, momentum will mean that you also push the other ship a bit, even if not much, not so much with an iceberg where it might as well be running against a wall). As well, we need to look at momentum, a destroyer coming in at maybe 3000 tons displacement (and most of the ships I know off that survived without bow were indeed destroyers or cruisers) will have less momentum ramming something than a 46000 ton ocean liner. The destroyer, likely then (assuming of course they didn't kamikaze something at close to 40 knots) will receive less overall damage - meaning there is a higher chance that they might survive the collision.
@@sergeysmirnov1062 There's a lot of "what if" scenarios, but simply reversing would be the equivalent of slamming on the brakes (ratio to ships taking forever to stop). The issue with the _Titanic_ is that so many compartments flooded so quickly. If that flooding had been lessened, then more people could have been rescued by the _Carpathia_ and other ships in the vicinity. This isn't about having the _Titanic_ come out smelling like a rose.
How to save the Titanic, summarized in one simple 21st century advertising:
*Head-On! Apply directly to the forehead!*
Hey, there's a thing on UA-cam called team seas, what it is exactly you can find by watching pretty much any video with #teamseas, but in principle it's about removing trash from the ocean. Since this is a topic related to your videos, I thought you might mention it in a video. Have a nice day :)
Decades ago I heard a maritime engineer state the _Titanic_ would have been much better off if it had just hit the iceberg head on. That was my first thought when you started the possible scenarios. And in case anyone is wondering, there are _plenty_ of stories of ships losing their bow and making it back to port, a lot just from WW2. Most of the captains just put their ship in reverse and returned that way.
Yes but that is normally with collisions with other ships, hitting an iceberg will be like hitting a brick wall and at the speed they are going the energy is only got one way to go and Titanic is going buckle before the iceberg does.
Let me put it this way:
"Had titanic (the largest moving object of his time) completely shattered her keel by ramming the iceberg head on, and had the impact caused enough stress on the hull to jam the watertight doors open (like what happened with britannic), AND had the force of the sudden deceleration trown everyone out of their beds (and most likely disconnetcted machinery from their mounting points), she would have sunk in minutes, in complete darkness (it was a moonless night), killing almost everyone on board"
Now, I immensely respect this channel for the great content it produces... But this video (wich explained the concept of stability really well) was absolutely ruined by mentioning the "head on collision" teory, wich is, I'm afraid, complete and utter bs.
It's also very disrespectful of the struggle of the officers and crew.
(Source: I've studied naval engineering)
could you elaborate on what exactly he was wrong about
I find it also disrespectful on the way the head on collision was projected in this video. I don’t mind people challenging different opinions, but I hope nobody forget that more then 1 500 people lost their lives. And those who survived, had to deal with this for the rest of their life.
Edit: Clarification.
I don't understand how it's disrespectful or any different to any other video about the Titianic.
all he did was talk about the physics and engineering involved in the sinking and how it could have gone different.
You’re the ultimate soy boy. Ya it’s disrespectful to study events and discuss what could’ve been done differently. “I’ve studied naval engineering” =couldn’t join the service. Can’t imagine why.
@@ieuanhunt552
Yup, should have been clearer: discussing the head on theory isn't disrespectful itself, but not adressing the fact that said theory has no place in reality often leads to people acting in disrespectful ways, often depicting the crew as incompetent (I think you've probably watched it allready, but there is a fantastic video about Lightoller's career, and it does show how experienced these men were). You usually find this theory on more clickbaty channels out there and finding it here (not debunked but endorsed) kinda dissonates with the competence showed in his usal uploads... I was also very much in the middle of a pure triggering when I initially wrote the comment, but I don't want to change it for sincerity's sake
Today I learned that when driving a ship, being crazy enough to play chicken with icebergs pays off.
Although a head-on collision with the iceberg seems like it would have been the best option in a bad situation, I'm not convinced that the rivets and hull plates wouldn't pop or buckle at least a significant way down the hull, opening seams in potentially more compartments. 46,000+ tons moving at 21-22 knots is a helluva lot of inertia. Especially when considering some of the steel used was sub-par, and the damage/weakening of the steel from the fire in the coal bunker.
It's an interesting thought experiment, but apart from your suggestion of cutting off the entire bow, I don't think there was much else that could have been done to save her.
I appreciated the detail of having smoke only coming from the first three stacks.
After nailing the iceberg, they should have backed up, dropped anchor next to the iceberg, and unloaded people onto it. Or try to anchor to it and use it as additional bouyancy some how
It's a fact.
They rammed that thing just for fun
The captain lost a dare and had to do it
He couldn't just chicken out! His bros were watching
"The Titanic sank because the Iceberg did not do enough damage"
I like that argument.
Very good attention to detail with the smoke coming out of 3/4 chimneys 👌
I've sometimes wondered about this same thing, and had come to a similar conclusion as you - order full astern but keep heading straight, crumple the bow, flood only one compartment, ship crippled but remains afloat, complete evacuation could have been achieved if necessary.
The other scenario I wondered about was hard to port but keep engines forward. Going astern would have compromised the effectiveness of the rudder. I used to think that keeping engines forward might have resulted in missing the iceberg completely, but now I'm not so sure. After watching a video about Costa Concordia I learned that Captain Schettino ordered more speed and hard to starboard, but the increased speed led to understeer because there was too much momentum in the original direction to effect a turn quickly enough. The ship turned, but it's direction of travel did not change much. Sideswipe.
Any order on the bridge for the engines wouldnt have change anything.
A Ship like the titanic is not a car where you have immediate control of the engine, you cant just push down a pedal to rev up the engine or let of the pedal to slow the engine down.
There is a huge delay between the order and the reaction.
@@wolf310ii that is correct, it's because the ship is thousands of tons and has a heck of a lot of momentum
@@mericet39 Yes, but i meant only the reaction time of the engine room.
You forget that the Titanic’s hull was riveted and not welded. The force of hitting the iceberg head on could have ripped rivets apart random places around the whole ship making the ship sink much faster. Remember this way the ship needed 2 hours to sink which is one of the longest time in history.
Also since Britannic’s watertight doors jammed after a mine hit, it’s safe to say the same would have happened with a iceberg hit. - a much higher force
seeing your attention to details in previous videos made me impressed enough, but may I add that Titanic's fourth funnel should output some thin white smoke because it vents the galley space?
Also, there was a story when I was learning about ship handling is that to reverse back to port when sacrificing the bow is inevitable, a certain ship (perhaps the Olympic) did that and sailed backwards all the way to port after striking a mine
If WW2 American damage control practice had been applied the ship probably would've been saved, shoring the non-watertight doors and bulkheads with timbers and plugging ventilation shafts and such with mattresses, jettisoning any excess weight at the bow - coal bunkers, cargo, etc - counterflooding aft, immediately closing all the deadlights to keep the forward portholes from shattering, and running bucket brigades to help the pumps keep up in the more rearward compartments that had smaller breaches, etc. The amount of damage ships can sustain and still limp to the nearest port, if given proper damage control, is kinda insane.
slowing down when they received the sea ice warning would have been effective to avoid sinking
The problem is even if titanic survived straight on head collision, captain would never prove that it was actually better than hitting it with a side.
Hit the iceberg harder so they fuse and become a steam powered ship-berg
Dump the anchors to remove weight at the extreme nose, then have all hands available take every single deck chair, everything made of wood, panelling off the wallet, etc and stuff them into every forward compartment that wasn't already flooded. Lighten the nose, reducing moment, and displace water.
If it is true, as I've heard more than once, that ships of this vintage carried an emergency sail, then one option that would have dramatically slowed the flooding is a technique called "fathering" (most famously used on the HMS Endeavour off the coast of Australia) wherein you tie the corners of a sail to long sheets and drop it over the bow, then pull aft until the sail is extended beneath the front of the ship, and pull all four corners up like a diaper. This would not have stopped flooding altogether but remember that they only needed partial buoyancy for a total of four hours in order for the California to arrive on station and render assistance.
While many early steamships had backup sails in case the engine failed, by this point the size of ships like the Titanic had far exceeded the practicality of sails. The two masts on the Titanic were primarily for holding up the antennae of the wireless telegraph, so unfortunately this wouldn't have been an option.
Captain Smith: Attention passengers, EVERYONE RUN AFT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE!!!
The ship Californian was a mere 12 miles away when Titanic sank. In fact, Californian ignored distress signals in the belief it was just revelers celebrating...
Audio is fine. I look forward to your uploads each month.