Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucme!keith From: keith@uiucme.UUCP Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: The Gash??? on the Titanic??? Message-ID: <900005@uiucme> Date: Thu, 14-Aug-86 14:17:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucme.900005 Posted: Thu Aug 14 14:17:00 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 17-Aug-86 08:12:09 EDT References: <263@petrus.UUCP> Lines: 37 Nf-ID: #R:petrus.UUCP:263:uiucme:900005:000:1535 Nf-From: uiucme.UUCP!keith Aug 14 13:17:00 1986 As probably the only net reader with a background in naval architecture I feel it is my duty to add to the confusion. The TITANIC was among the first ships to have been subdivided into little compartments. If I recall it was a "three-compartment" ship, which means it was still floating and stable with any three compartments in a row floooded (that's a typo, but it has some whimiscal appeal). The problem was the builders and owners and officers were all so gung-ho about the "unsinkable" ship, the crew got the idea it was truly unsinkable and arrived at what we call a lack of discipline about watertight integrity. The watertight doors through the subdivision bulkheads got left open! Flooding was slowed down but was inevitable. You may recall the next famous unsinkable ship was the BISMARK. It was built with the lessons from the TITANIC in mind - there were no doors below the waterline. All well and good for the designers, but this generated lousy living conditions. A team of naval architects from the Admiralty worked for a long time on the strategy for dealing with this class of ship, I think it was six or maybe seven compartments floodable length. They sank it by putting enough holes in enough places to flood most of the ship. The EAGLE, by the way (U.S. Coast Guard training ship, my alma mater) was a zero-compartment ship until a fairly extensive rehab a few years ago. Ahh, the old days. . . . men of iron, ships of wood . . . . keith U of Illinois Mech Eng seismo!ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucme!keith