Could Cross Flooding have Saved Titanic?

[@EffequalsMA]

Counterflooding capacity was common in warships at the time. It wasn't common at all in passenger or cargo ships, afaik. It would not be practical. I think the Titanic "counterflooded" itself due to the coal being moved to the port side and the injury to the hull on the starboard. Once the open loading door was submerged, a list to port accelerated. Hope I'm remembering things correctly.

[@Occultist_]

Warships has like hundreds of separate compartments, also warships was built to resist damage from shells. Also warships have special emergency teams to fight floods, fires and other problems with ship in battle.

[@timschoenberger242]

That's not counterflooding. That's called trimming. In the days of coal fueled ships, they were done by seaman known as trimmers (I think Titanic had quite a few).

[@EffequalsMA]

@@timschoenberger242 hence the quotes around the word, man....

[@theleastofpilgrims3379]

Counterflooding as a damage control practice was really refined into an art by sailors of the US Navy during WWII, who as the war progressed became more and more skilled at damage control techniques, to the point where spectacularly damaged ships like the aircraft carrier USS Benjamin Franklin were saved (although the Big Ben never saw much in the way of active service after that point and was not one of the Essex class aircraft carriers to be substantially refit in the 1950s for jet fighter operations, with the slanted flight deck, etc, probably because the damage was such that the Navy saw the Big Ben as a source of spare parts at that point.

[@EffequalsMA]

@@theleastofpilgrims3379 i believe cpunterflooding saved Peresvet after the Battle of Shantung in 1905 so, it was well established naval practice long before ww2.

[@joeschouweiler1769]

I watched a documentary about this year's ago. The researchers built models of the ship with normal watertight bulkheads, and another that used cross flooding. The realistic model went down head first. The cross flooding model quickly capsized. End result was that all would have been lost.

[@noahdavidson8733]

Yes; and I believe the cross flooding model capsized at 1:47am ship time, which would’ve given them even less time

[@stoffls]

The Titanic was designed to stay afloat with a maximum of 4 compartments breached. It was a bit of bad luck, that the damage went across the first 6. At that moment the ship was doomed and it is a miracle, that it stayed afloat that long. Look at the sister ship Britannic, with a similar damage it capsized and sank much faster.

[@randomrazr]

britannic would have survived if th women on board CLOSED THE PORT HOLES

[@tinypoolmodelshipyard]

Also Brittanic tried to beach itself. Allowing more water to enter the ship. Without driving the ship towards shore she would have lasted longer than the 55 mins she lasted after the explosion

[@randomrazr]

@@tinypoolmodelshipyard only upside is we ahve a nicely preserved olympic class liner with us still....well its 400 feet underwater but maybe someday it will be raised and restored. one can dream LOL

[@Serial__DesginationN]

In reality it would have been 2 as the water bursted and spiked over the bulkheads.

[@Serial__DesginationN]

impossible. 4-5 com parts breached damaged and uncloseabke water tightdoors?

[@OleJanssen]

I have something to add to the "flood the stern" theory, as I have actually played through this scenario in "sinking simulator" previously. What I found was that that even flooding only the two aftmost compartments was enough to prevent the bow from dipping down to the point that the bulkhead between Boiler room 4 and 5 would overflow, even if just barely. At least in this simulation, the ship didn't sink and stayed intact. However, this would put an enormous amount of stress on the ship's hull, and in fact, when I also flooded the 3rd compartment from the rear in order to see how much of a difference that would make, the ship broke between the 3rd and 4th funnel. Now, of course, "sinking simulator" isn't 100% realistic (after all, it is only a 2D simulation) but I think this does clearly show that this theory is not as outrageous as it is depicted here and I think that this scenario does deserve further research.

[@kavinskysmith4094]

well theres a reason why when they modified the surviving ship and its sister, and its compartments to go above E deck it increased the number of flooded compartments it could take from 4 to 6, the number that would have saved the ship, what you did was simply counter balance it at the fore most point, the main question would be the added strain it put on the hull given what was at the aft of the ship, the gigantic propeller blades which as you saw would have split the ship apart, really the thing that would have saved the ship would have not been doing that, it would have been a proper double hull

[@mikebrown3772]

@@kavinskysmith4094 I think it has been suggested that a double hull would have needed very swift counter flooding to prevent it very quickly listing with such extensive damages to such an extent that the longitudinal bulkhead (which would be even lower than the transverse bulkheads) would be overtopped leading to a quicker capsize sinking than the way she actually sank.

[@kavinskysmith4094]

@@mikebrown3772 I dont know about that, the whole point of the double hull was to keep the water from getting in, if the water could still get in and flood over it it kinda defeats the purpose of it, and what doomed the ship was the lack of this hull to begin with, where only the base was double hulled which was strong enough to pull the stern in after the break up and the ship after the water flooded in righted thanks to the coal fire forcing them to offset the coal to one side with a 3 degree list to port so if anything it would have just held and rebalanced the ship.

[@Ali-po9le]

Ive always been super intrigued with Titanic especially when i was younger, i had a bunch of stuff from the 100 year anniversary including a newspaper announcing what had happened to her and I cherished it. I just wanted to say youve definitely reignited the spark of interest in me, I learned so many new things from your videos when i didn’t think there was anything else left to learn. Thank you so much, for all you do.

[@beeking1792]

Considering that the ship's generators were back more toward the stern, I'm sure the power would go out much faster (I'm no expert on the ship itself that's just somthing I'd assume from the "what if the titanic sank stern first" video)

[@dishsoap1]

I’d rather be alive under candle light

[@BimDaTitanicNerd]

@@dishsoap1 Yeah but like Sam said the ship would still sink no matter what

[@SuperGamefreak18]

if I remember right as well didnt he say before a stern stinking would be so much worse as well

[@DominionSorcerer]

@@SuperGamefreak18 a stern sinking would have been so much worse because all of the Titanic's heavy engines and generators were by the stern of the ship, which would pull the ship under the surface quicker. With the stern not sinking all that weight acted like a kind of counter balance.

[@stephencarey5074]

The auxiliary generators were high in the ship and could exhaust through the auxiliary condenser in the reciprocating engineroom. This is most probably what the engineers did at the time anyway. The problem with aft flooding would be that the auxiliary generators fed the main switchboard, which was in the main generator room. So yes, it would probably have obviated their use unless the switchboard was above the water level.

[@fabiendalmasso]

Hi Sam, thanks for the video. I particularly appreciated the part where you speak about modern ships compartments. I actually find it very hard to find specific explanations on how they have evolved since ocean liner era. If ever you want to make a specific video about it, I would love to hear you talk about it. Have a nice end of the year !

[@timschoenberger242]

Sam, you are spot on with your analysis. What everyone needs to know, there are really is only one way to counterflood the Titanic: open her seacocks in the engine room. Those are the openings in the bottom of the ship that admit seawater to allow cooling of the steam back into water. I don't know how many of them there were, but they aren't big enough to come close in offsetting water ingress from the iceberg damage.

[@jaredpatterson1701]

The way it sank was the best case scenario. But all these what ifs are still cool thought experiments

[@timtnr.6177]

I couldn't agree with you more Jared. The best course of action was taken. In addition Murdoch was actually a hero in spite of how the inquiry affixed blame to him. Murdoch ordered hard to port once Titanic hit the iceberg, if Murdoch had not ordered hard to port, the stern section would have been damaged, Murdoch's action "fishtailed" the ship around the berg bringing the stern out of harms way and ultimately slowed the sinking more lives were saved as a result. Hitting head on would have ruptured more rivets and buckled Titanic's plates further back into the ship at that speed of 22 1/2 kts= 24 M.P.H. would have shattered Titanic's keel causing Titanic to sink in a matter of minutes. Murdoch and Captain Smith took the best course of action. Smith even took Titanic 16 miles southwest of the normal shipping route. Hindsight the ice had drifted unusually far south in April 1912. Adequate precautions were taken to avoid the ice and safety measures followed in fact Titanic exceeded the amount of lifeboats required than mandatory by the outdated British board of Trade regulations. However these were amended and superseded after the disaster. The officers and crew did the very best they could Hindsight and wrong place wrong time were factors here. Affixing blame to any single person is irrelevant

[@HrLBolle]

I remember hearing in a documentary, I think Saving The TITANIC is the name, sometimes back that the engineers of "R.M.S. TITANIC" actually tried and were successful in distributing the incoming water to keep her on even keel, while not being able to eject the incoming water fast enough.

[@JC-bl9bo]

The other thing we have all heard from forever is "open the watertight doors" and have it flood equally but I don't think that's possible because the water was coming in too fast. It was just too much damage no matter how you slice it. Thomas Andrews knew there was no way to save her, he already thought of everything.

[@raven4k998]

well it wouldn't work cause the ship was a little bit top heavy and simulations indicate the ship would have tipped over and flooded faster and sank faster plus then the lifeboats could not have been launched and more people would have died on the ship then actually did die due to the sinking in the first place basically it would have been more of a disaster then it was originally

[@tj79jrfan]

I don't remember what program I was watching but I do remember a program tested that theory using scale models and the ship actually sank in an hour and a half rather than the 2 hours that it took with the doors closed so that was discounted as a solution that they could have taken

[@JC-bl9bo]

@@tj79jrfan I think I remember a program that did that too but can't remember what it was.

[@maxs.3238]

Even if that would've given them more time it would be somewhat like the "hit the iceberg bow on" argument... sounds like a plan in hindsight but nobody in their right mind would do it in that moment

[@lukeportelli2097]

The Titanic's sister ship, Britannic, is a testament of that theory. As someone mentioned here in the comments about a model sinking in an hour, the Britannic sank in 55 minutes. Due to the mine damage, the watertight doors were unable to be lowered, plus portholes left open and the Captains decision to try and save it by beaching the ship also contributed to the Ships unavoidable doom that was coming fast.

[@yankee62521]

So here's an idea for the cross flooding set up. In boiler room 5 (I think it was 5) they were able to pump it to keep it from flooding for a bit until the water started coming over at E deck. With the 32 watertights instead of the 16, would it have been possible to pump the 6 to slow down enough so the Carpathia could reach the Titanic she sank

[@SynchronizorVideos]

The damage from the iceberg was so heavy that all of Titanic’s pumps combined were an order of magnitude too small to keep up with the incoming seawater.

[@Galactipod]

@@SynchronizorVideos Exactly. The Titanic received a massive amount of damage. People like to point to design flaws and say they were the cause, but the Titanic just took too much damage for any ship of her time.

[@kennethferland5579]

A single longitudinal bulkhead through the middle of a ship is of no use cause it just results in a list and capsizing, you need 2 longitudinal bulkheads so that a ship is 3 compartments across, then when an outside compartment is breached you counter flood another outside compartment and retain boyancy in the center and avoid any listing.

[@kaneki-ken96]

Thanks to you, Sam, I've ordered one more book about the Titanic in Amazon. It will be the 17th Titanic book I will possess.

[@stevenwade7466]

I have 18

[@kaneki-ken96]

@@stevenwade7466 Great 😄😄

[@abackroomswanderer9241]

I have 15 currently

[@keithammleter3824]

I bet at least 15 of your books have got at least some important things wrong. At least three books I bet are complete nonsense. Conspiracy theories are not limited to Facebook and Twitter.

[@ChairmanPaulieD]

@@keithammleter3824 yup I’ve read quite a bit of nonsense Titanic novels over the LAST 30+ years reading “EVERYTHING” about Titanic … And I will admit that Walter Lord’s book is STILL my personal favorite ☝🏽👍🏽

[@monprz]

You just answered a question I've been asking since I saw the movie! Thank you for your research, it has made this whole thing more understandable to me! Great job!

[@rich_edwards79]

The sinking of the Andrea Doria is a good illustration of why longitudinal bulkheads are not always a good thing. The empty fuel tank that was punctured by the Stockholm caused the ship to list so quickly that cross-flooding the parallel tank was impossible since the inlets were raised above the level of the surrounding ocean. Had the Doria been of similar construction to Titanic, she'd have likely survived as the incision from the Stockholm's bow, whilst deep, would likely have only breached two compartments, max. As it was, the list compromised the latitudinal bulkheads and caused water to enter via the superstructure. Unlike the Doria, Titanic was well-designed, just *incredibly* unlucky and I'd be surprised if many modern ships could survive the impact she received from the berg - there's no designing for that level of damage.

[@stephenhemingway8218]

Someone pointed out that had the bulkheads also been Horizonal, then the water could not have risen above the vertical bulkheads.

[@dr.adam_bright2601]

This was a fun chat in the discord and I’m glad the video turned out great, thanks for the fantastic content Sam! If you do happen to see this I DM’d you on discord about the piano thing, still researching it but if you still need it it’s in your DMs.

[@nb_cash]

Really good video! This reminded me of the documentary Titanic: Secrets Revealed, which was hosted by Bernard Hill, who played Captain Smith in the movie Titanic. In the documentary, they tested this theory using a scale model of the ship. Two tests were conducted: one with the watertight doors closed, and one with the watertight doors open. In the closed test, the model sank bow first just like the real Titanic. Then things got interesting when they opened the watertight doors for the second test. In that scenario, with the water allowed to flow through the length of the entire ship, the power goes out earlier and the ship takes on a heavy list until she ultimately capsizes, sinking a lot earlier than the real Titanic did, and to make matters worse, not all the lifeboats would have been launched and the death toll would have been higher.

[@robertkelley3437]

I'm glad somebody else remembers the show about the sinking. thank you, NB Cash,

[@djjazzyjeff1232]

This just crossed my mind last night as I was falling asleep listening to your 2-hour Olympic video!

[@HistoricTravels]

great minds think alike.

[@Occultist_]

So, after flooding stern compartments to correct trim to the bow - water still can spill over the bulkheads, but it will make it from both sides.

[@HistoricTravels]

correct.

[@devilchic09]

I wonder if they had built the water-tight bulkheads higher than Deck E would that have allowed the ship to stay afloat with the 6-section flooded?

[@jerw7671]

My take on the cross flooding point: weather the water would spill over depends on if the volume would be enough for the waterline to reach E deck. I am not sure if the volume + list would be enough for this to happen since we would have an equivalent of 3 compartments breached (6 half compartments). Also the titanic could also cross flood some other compartments to ease the list and still have less than the critical sinking volume. I wonder if this could be simulated in a computer though.

[@jonzenrael]

Yeah exactly... calculations need to be done to determine how low the bow would drop with half the volume of water, and whether it would rise above the water tight compartments.

[@Tom--Ace]

I agree, this video is wrong. However - even 6 half compartments flooded could produce a severe list, necessitating pumps and quick and well trained crew to counterflood and manage the list. Something warships are trained for, but not passenger liners. Without a quick and effectively counterflood and pumps to move water about and manage the list, the 6 half compartments on one side would possibly sink the titanic even faster. So it probably wouldn't have helped, but primarily because this was not a warship crew trained extensively in damage control, with appropriate counterflooding equipment.

[@happiestaku6646]

This video is right. It would have sunk. This idea of cross flooding would have just made it happen the same and if it was not done would have been worse and nearly all of the lives on board would have been lost if not all of them.

[@tardisone1930]

Hi Sam can you do a video the history of the White Star Line

[@MagMan4x4]

That is a good idea.

[@jesperhammarlund300]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6anqHygf6qpbbc already been done

[@noname117spore]

So one thought if the Titanic had a longitudinal bulkhead would be to counterflood the opposite side of the stern rather than the opposite side of the bow. With the water being on the other side of the ship there'd be no (well, little) list and given that the stern would be flooded it would even out the flooding. Given the existence of the longitudinal bulkhead the amount of water let in would be the same before any spillover but with the ship at an even keel rather than bow-down or listing. Or basically a similar situation to the option proposed later in the video, except with half the water before spillover. Might that be enough to prevent any spillover? Also on the longitudinal bulkhead scenario, even though Titanic would develop a list it should be mentioned only half the water could enter in as did historically before spillover. I still think she'd sink; being that normally 5 bulkheads being breached would be enough to cause spillover and that the list would further decrease the height of the bulkhead above the waterline at the starboard side, but it might be closer before spillover occurs, but it would require some math to prove.

[@verstraxil..-tajikistan]

Hello Sam. Ive loved your channel since 2019. And ive wondering if you can do a video on the Republic. The Republic was a oceanliner built in 1903 and sank. She was the first ship to send a CQD.

[@FreakingFantasticFilms]

Hm, CQD and SOS were pretty New. Not just SOS.

[@rosshilton]

I did the calculations on this many years ago. From memory (can’t find my work right now) flooding the rear watertight area would have lifted the front section sufficiently that with the use of pumps she would have remained afloat around 35-45 minutes longer - possibly an hour.

[@stevenwade7466]

The flooding on a couple of right hand compartments could possibly be corrected by ballast tanks in the ships bottom . So there would be no need to counter flood the compartments.

[@happiestaku6646]

Except that it would have listed, and spilled over, so ballast tanks wouldn't have helped as you would need enough to try and balance it out and by the the weight might be too much

[@aidanlynn]

There’s a titanic doc from 1998 that did this with a model of the ship. It capsized about an hour earlier than if the ship sank the way it did. It was called Titanic: Secrets Revealed.

[@kyrathedestroyer_]

i swear i was never into the titanic tragedy. but this was recommended to me and since then i’ve been hooked !

[@TheWorld-of7dd]

One more suggestion, what if the crew or could they use anything on the ship to make a makeshift life boat, is it possible to save if not all but most of the people on the Titanic?

[@kevinmalone3210]

A good idea, except what could they build a lifeboat with for large numbers of people, 50 to 60 at a time? Metal, or wood, you'd have to have carpenters, boat builders on the scene, to make them, or welders and iron workers, to cannibalize the metal off the ship to begain building the boats, not enough resources, the skilled labor, and not enough time to get the job done.

[@AndreiPopescu]

The best they could have done is tie some tables, chairs and lifebelts together. Not quite sure how dry those would have kept them but it's still better than being completely wet.

[@thomasackerman5399]

Cross flooding? I believe the proper terminology is "counter-flooding". Counter-flooding is extremely difficult and it takes a very well-trained crew to even attempt such a thing and while officers like Wilde and Murdoch had real military experience, they likely wouldn't have been able to do much with a crew that had almost no training and experience with such damage control procedures, since if it's not done right, you can wind up capsizing the ship. I haven't seen any high-fidelity simulations done by any navel architect firms on whether or not this could've even worked at all. The only thing I've seen is where all the watertight doors are left open to evenly flood the ship, but usually results in the vessel capsizing.

[@Ellerion2]

I doubt that Titanic would even survive the cross-flodding due to the stress on the keel. It might break in two in the middle. If the ship was built to enable port/starboard crossflooding, the only way to save the ship would have been to flood the rear compartments on the opposite side of the ship ( the damage was on the starboard side, so the crossflooding would need to take place on the aft port compartments) With all that being said, though, the only option that would definitly have saved the ship would be to just put the engines to full reverse and ram the iceberg head on. The captain would face some trouble but the ship would be safe.

[@hollywalker3726]

I'm curious what your thoughts are if three factors were to have changed about the sinking: The lifeboat drill had been done on the morning of the sinking, Captain Smith had taken better control of the situation (i.e. ordered people to the correct areas, ordered the evacuation earlier), and there were enough lifeboats for everyone on board. With every other part of the sinking the same, would more people have been saved?

[@BimDaTitanicNerd]

Yeah considering there would be more lifeboats and ship would sink at the same amount of time it did. I think they would just have enough time to get most people off the ship before it splits in half and sinks.

[@arturgrodzicki1209]

@@BimDaTitanicNerd They might have saved more but not all. Even with life boats for half the passengers and crew they still haven't managed to properly launch two. I think they'd just run out of time sadly.

[@KB-bh9hp]

@@arturgrodzicki1209 They could just cut/release the ropes of the boats free and float them off the ship. Not a perfect strategy, but a lot more effective than trying to launch all of them.

[@arturgrodzicki1209]

@@KB-bh9hp float them how? How to fill them in? How to avoid suction caused by ship going down or being swamped by the panicking crowd. Last two collapsibles were floated away. There's a reason why they did it the way they did. Also hindsight is great, you can come up with any strategy, cause you have all the time in the world. They had 1.5 h to coordinate evacuation of hundreds of people before the time of hand radios or speakers to alert the passengers and give instructions

[@patrickrichmond9896]

Hey Sam. According to what I see at 10:43 is true. Only way for a cross flooding to occur is for if the watertight bulkhead doors were left open. And if that would have happened, the water would kill the engine and with the engine dead, the lights would go out, and everybody would be in the dark and there would have been been even more trouble on the ship.

[@ChairmanPaulieD]

Yes the panic would have escalated quickly and the launching of the lifeboats would have been extremely chaotic 😖🥺

[@MarkVrankovich]

What about turning the ship around, and slowly ramming the iceberg head on. Then increasing engine power, to constantly push the ship's bow against the iceberg? With the bow supported by the iceberg, could that have allowed the ship to stay afloat longer until help arrived?

[@davidknowles2491]

In other words, the damage to Titanic was so severe that no matter what you could physically do, the ship was doomed. :( Although I've often wondered if Carpathia could have arrived in time if only 5 compartments were breached.

[@quillmaurer6563]

The only other scenario I could ponder is if the stern could have floated after the forward 2/3 of the ship broke away, if the partially-attached bow hadn't dragged it down past the point it could have stayed afloat?

[@davidknowles2491]

@@quillmaurer6563 Perhaps, but the heavy triple expansion engines it was fitted with may have dragged it down anyway.

[@LordAmerican]

I’m doubtful of that. Recall that boiler room 5 (the sixth breached compartment) was only broken two feet behind the bulkhead. The damage was contained inside the infamous coal fire bunker, and since the bunker door was closed, the water coming in was also contained for the first hour and a half after the collision, so the sixth breached compartment didn’t really even start to flood until that door failed at about 1:05am. That means that for most of the sinking, the ship was effectively being dragged down by only five breached compartments. Had boiler room 5 escaped the iceberg it’s possible that Titanic could have lasted longer, but not two hours longer.

[@KB-bh9hp]

I would love to see an analysis discussing how long the titanic could have stayed afloat if it still hit the iceberg, but none of the other unfortunate events that accelerated the sinking occuring. In other words, if they had stopped the ship immediately rather than moving forward, if the number 6 compartment wasn't compromised, if the port side entrance wasn't left open, the funnels remained attached, and the ship didn't split near the third funnel. I wouldn't be surprised if the ship could stay up for another hour or two if none of those things occurred.

[@Matt..S]

Carpathia arrived around 4 AM, so two hours after the ship was down. It then took them 5 hours to rescue everyone from the water. Many already dead even inside the lifeboats. So considering the length of time the actual boarding took, it would not even have mattered if Carpathia arrived a few hours later or earlier. The ones who fell into the water would have died in minutes. Also, consider that the Carpathia already risked far too much to come to the rescue. They dashed through the huge ice field in pitch black night to reach the Titanic and did not just have to see and evade one iceberg, but countless ones. If Carpathia had struck one as well.... All in all, if the compartment wasn't damaged, it would have maybe saved half an hour or an hour, even if it would have given them two or three hours, the number of survivors would not change. Even if the Titanic was reached before it went down, how would Carpathia approach it without endangering the people in the water or getting hit by debris? The angle would have also prevented a boarding from ship to ship. They would have needed to wait to board the lifeboats anyway. If we are met with the scenario of Carpathia "on stand by" next to Titanic, the 5 hour rescue time would still be the same. And no one survives 5 hours in freezing water.

[@EchoBravoIndia]

I love whenever you post Sam, keep up the great work!!! I might send you some fan mail sometime.

[@ericd2791]

that was common in navy ships at the time, but in a ship like the titanic. but that was something i never would think of.great video never would think of that.

[@ginog5037]

I always wondered about cross flooding Sam, great video and explanation...

[@MegaGeorge1948]

The biggest problem with the Titanic was that the watertight door walls that isolated the compartments were too short on their heights. As one compartment got full the sea water it would overflow into the next compartment with a domino effect sooner. The specifications of the compartment heights were compromised by the designers because they wanted taller grand staircases to satisfy Ismay of the white Star Line. Having taller compartment walls would have delayed the sinking for a rescue ship to save even more lives. Also, flooding the stern to offset the bow would kill the power generation for lights.

[@istvanver9853]

As for the idea of ​​the ship floating longer, I have the following opinion: - the watertight doors had to be closed only for the first four compartments with which the ship could float (something known from the design) and also to the door before the last boiler wich had to be kept in operation to ensure the energy needed to operate the pumps and the lighting. Thus, it was possible to intervene to reduce the penetration of water from compartment 5, where, in my opinion, the penetration of water was also lower, the first compartments taking most of the shock and of course they also having the biggest damages.

[@jasonbrown3925]

The best idea I've heard was to toss mattresses over the side. They would be sucked in and block the holes. It wouldn't be watertight but might slow the flooding to the point where the pumps could keep up.

[@TheTarget1980]

12.00. Added to this is the practical problem of how the crew would have wanted to flood the stern? There weren't any valves that could be opened and if there were, they probably weren't as huge as the iceberg damage at the bow, so the stern could never have been flooded fast enough.

[@martayebio5382]

Great video once again! I would like to give you my first ever request. Did the ballest pumps on the Titanic play a big role during her maiden voyage and the sinking? The reason why I am asking this is because I understand that on April 13th, 1912, the Titanic began to develop a slight list to port, due to the fact that hundreds of tons of coal were moved from her starboard side to port. I also watched your videos from a long time ago, and in a few of them, you mentioned how the Titanic had bilge pumps and ballast pumps. The bilge pumps were meant to pump water out of the ship, and the ballast pumps were meant to pump water into the ship into some tanks on a certain side in order to prevent/help the Titanic from listing to the other side. So what I'm wondering is that when the Titanic developed her slight list to port on her maiden voyage, did the crew ever use the ballest pumps to help with the list? If they did, did it help in any way? And if they didn't, would it have helped? I also want to find out if on the night of the sinking, the Titanic's starboard, then port list was affected in any way by the ballest pumps if they were used. I hope you accept this request, and I wish you happy holidays!🎅

[@nekoboy56]

As far as I can recall, in regards to the list to port, it was so minuscule (9 degrease or less), that they didn't try to balance it out. This did however caused the only injury before the sinking when they were cleaning the grand staircase, a woman slipped and broke her arm due to the list. They did however used the pumps to try to pump the water out during the sinking, but the amount of water coming in was greater then water being pumped out. The "lunge downward" that many survivors recall was when the coal bunkers doors in boiler room 5 burst opened bc that is where part of the damage was in the 6th compartment and that door wasn't meant to hold back water. Ultimately, that list to port before the sinking, did help keep her stable bc if you look at any other ships that are hit on one side or the other and they do sink. The ship eventually capsizes. So that 300 tons of coal or whatever is seen as a hidden angle in the sinking. When James Cameron had those animators create the sinking for Final Word, the 2012 sinking simulation, they found that without that 9 degrease port list, Titanic would have capsized earlier in her sinking.

[@crystalspaceexploration]

Hi Sam,great video as always 😁👍

[@sauter1]

Actually I'd say it's not that cross flooding was not an option, but that it was the only default option. With the bulkheads running atwartships and no longitudinal bulkhead, whether the breach in a compartment happens on the port side or starboard side, the water will fill that compartment evenly across eventually. I agree with your conclusion that intentionally flooding the stern would just have speeded up the process. The total weight of water would still keep the breach below the waterline and water would keep entering until the inevitable end. Enjoying your videos a lot. Keep up the good work. :)

[@MasqueradingDragon]

Very informative! Thanks for another awesome video, Sam!

[@BimDaTitanicNerd]

This was a really interesting idea!

[@akio2589]

Well, yes, capsizing would be a potential problem, but also, from a volume perspective, there would've been only half as much water entering the ship. The equivalent of ~3 compartments. They could've probably cross-flooded two of the port compartments to help keep the list from being overly dramatic, and still been at or under her 4 compartment volume limit. I also wonder if they could've opened up the water-tight compartments, allowing the water to be more evenly distributed to have prevented the bow from going under as quickly as it did and bought themselves some time.

[@samsiklas8088]

If Titanic was equipped with a watertight bulkhead from stem to stern, it would have led to the exact problem of her listing too much to starboard. In May of 1915, Lusitania had a centerline bulkhead which kept water from reaching the port side after the torpedo hit and the explosion that became her death blow. The problem with this was that she quickly listed to starboard as her compartments on that side filled, while the dry air filled port compartments forced that side higher, exacerbating the list. Before long, her entire starboard side was exposed to flooding. She sank in just 18 minutes.

[@rileybridgham1963]

I love your videos Sam, keep up the great work and have a merry christmas and a happy new year.

[@andydufresnefromshawshank5866]

1:30 I’ve been on that shit before one of my favorite vacations I’ve ever ever been on

[@karlkuttup]

an idea put forward by a old ship guy was they could have used the spaire cork life jackets and tarp sheets and wood braceing to plug sections at a time,getting the hole from 300ft down to 180 ft and turned the ship around to head towards land ,it would have sunk due to damaged boiler room ,and the loss of coal but less than 25 miles from a coast line

[@pmsteamrailroading]

The thing I think is missed in all of these discussions, is that the total damage to the Titanic was about 12 ft.² (think about the average door in your house, it’s a little bigger than that) But once the anchor chain openings became submerged it doubles the amount of water that can enter the ship. (Now you have 24 ft.² open to the sea) When the cargo hold submerges, water is essentially allowed in unrestricted. Anything that will delay that, buys the ship a little more time. Could it have bought them enough time for the Carpathia to reach them, I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure. The only thing we really can say, is that once she hit the burg, the ship was doomed. There was no way to prevent the sinking.

[@MrT------5743]

Another thing to think about trying to flood the stern, you would lose electrical power since the engines are there. So not only would it still sink, everyone would be in the dark while it happens.

[@nicholashext474]

All of the different models I've seen of 'what could they have done to slow the sinking', result in her sinking much faster than she eventually did. I think what that tells us is that Titanic's crew did the absolute best they could to buy the ship enough time for passengers to be evacuated and help to arrive. One of the sad ironies of the disaster is that Atlantic sea lanes in April 1912 were much quieter than usual due to a coal strike causing many smaller sailing to be cancelled - so big ships like Titanic and Olympic would have enough fuel. A number of passengers on Titanic, like the Hart family, had received tickets for Titanic as compensation for this. Under normal circumstances there would almost certainly have been one or more vessels close enough to Titanic to render immediate aid - as happened with RMS Republic three years earlier.

[@christopherwilson2606]

I had this thought experiment when I was about 9. I cross-flooded a Bismarck model in the bathtub and it sank rather quickly.

[@matthiaschong9145]

Hi sam😂 love ur vids❤

[@davidrichardson5048]

Nice video Sam. You always explain things very well, I just ordered on a sea of glass and I can’t wait to read it!

[@TeeAiDee]

It's funny, my idea was to just redistribute all of the weight they could to the Titanic's stern, but not necessarily with flooding. However, I do realize that idea is not very realistic or plausible, it was just an idea I had.

[@fredericlepeltier3435]

A few comments : Never heard of cross flooding, but i get the idea that it is the process of letting the next compartment flood. Counter flooding on the other hand is a naval term meaning intentionnaly flooding a compartement on the other side of the ship to correct a list or a heel. Warship have dedicated spaces and pumps to do just that. That is the idea behind flooding the stern compartement. Actually counter flooding was used to produce a list to access the hull to make repair (the WWI german cruiser Emden did it during its final wartime cruise while anchored at diego garcia). Titanic had bildge pumps like any other ships. They were most likely set up in engine room (with auxiliary manual pump in each compartment most likely) and connected to a network of tubes running through the double bottom to every compartement. Instead of sendinf the output water overside as would ordinary be the case it could have been diverted to flood a stern compartement. It would not have help : 1st - every ship has a bouyancy reserve, that is the max load it can carry (goods or water) before its weigth alone would sink it. For Titanic it is said that she could stay aflot with ANY 4 compartement flooded. Meaning its bouyancy reserve was equal to the mass/volume of water equivalent to that of 4 of its watertight compartment. With the damage she received from the impact her whole bouyancy reserve plus more was used. It was only a question of time before she slept beneath the wawes. Counter flooding the stern would only have shorten that time drastically. With less time all the boats might not have been launched and with no apparent heel of the bow to convince the passenger of the immediate danger more people would have died.

[@pgtmr2713]

I had a different idea for saving ships. Fill flooding compartments with polyurethame foam, before it can fill up with water. Sure cleanup would be a mess later. But it would prevent sinking.

[@davinp]

Once the damage was done, their was nothing they could do to save Titanic

[@Sir_Guardus]

Only thing that could have saved her was if she was near port then they could beach titanic but they were nowhere near land

[@coltturner722]

Heres a good question, What if the Titanic struck the iceberg on the port side since it had a slight list to port due the coal, would it have made a difference or could the ship completely capsize and sink in one piece?

[@truthseeker7899]

I think too the efforts of the crew below decks to pump out the water kept the ship fairly level

[@franks471]

Maybe limited counter flooding earlier on might have made a difference but it would have to have been done when Andrews gave his diagnosis way before the flooding spilled over the bulkheads. One or two compartments near the rudder would have put dead weight over the stern, but lightening the bow would have also been needed. I have no idea if it was even possible to open up any of the rear compartments. I have wondered if it were possible to ditch the 3 anchors up front and their chains but I don't know if detaching the chains could even be done at sea. They didn't have anything like a tarp which could be lowered under the ship so it would get sucked into the opening to slow the flooding. I don't know if such an idea was even thought of in that era, but I do remember stories of using mattresses and anything else available to slow flooding on other ships during wartime. I think if anything like this were tried, the ship still would have been lost but the could have delayed the sinking. It would have been a risky thing to try towing it in that condition.

[@Kevvu1989]

what if watertight door were not closed for some time, so water would flood the ship more evenly?

[@rich_edwards79]

Britannic sank without her watertight doors closed and not only went down more quickly, but developed a much more severe list during the later stages of the sinking. I suspect it would have probably made things worse.

[@Kevvu1989]

@@rich_edwards79 i ment more controlled flooding

[@lauratrigger6552]

Another really interesting video, keep them coming ❤

[@sattaku]

Sam i showed one of your videos to my social studies teacher and she loved it

[@positivepatriot1475]

Could the passengers and crew have built makeshift rafts out of interior components of the ship (beds, dressers, trim, etc.) like the crew of the S.S Arctic attempted to do?

[@Wreeeckitralph]

You have to remember that most passengers and crew didn’t even know the ship was sinking until they saw the water for themselves. At that point you are just trying to get off the ship, you aren’t thinking about building a raft; there simply isn’t enough time. Sure, there were pieces of debris floating around, but the amount of people in the water out numbered the amount of debris. A wooden door or cabinet would’ve been swamped by 20 people, no one in the water had a chance.

[@kennethferland5579]

Physically it might be possible, the the social organization to pull it off would have been unachivable. A better use for bedding materials might have been to actually try to lower them over the sides to slow the waters entry. This is an anchient technique where sailors in the age of sail would use the spare sails to slow leaks and breaches.

[@-Bill.]

Personally I'm not sure what was so confusing about it, the front of the boat is getting lower and if you couldn't get into a boat I'd immediately have been thinking of ways to stay out of that water. It might have been a difference in education with people not appreciating the dangers of hypothermia. Old time steamer trunks were very buoyant when empty and rode high enough to likely keep most of your mass out of the water, so lashing a few together with belts could be possible. Doors would be better than nothing, but you would need something buoyant on the underside to keep you out of the water, like life vests or empty containers. You could launch from the submerging bow pretty easily giving yourself more time to balance and slowly paddle away from the ship. Of course, hind sight is 20/20 and people are probably much more fatalistic and rational today.

[@vasilivh]

@@-Bill. what's confusing about the situation is that 1.) you are on a ship that was supposed to be "unsinkable", and that 2.) lifeboats at the time were designed to only evacuate passengers from one ship to another, not be survivable on open seas. It took a long time for even the crew to get a confirmation that too many of the watertight compartments were breached for the ship to survive, leave alone passengers. Given that, the best way to stay out of the water is to stay on the "unsinkable" ship and wait for rescue, that's why many in the beginning flat-out refused to get on the lifeboats, as a dingy wooden boat vs the Atlantic seemed like a bad bet (many had died during evacuations just like this in the previous years, while the ship itself had stayed afloat in the end). By the time your perception shifts from "I'm most safe staying on the big ship" to "I need to get off this thing NOW", it was way too late to start fashioning any impromptu life craft. There were lifeboats left unlaunched, if they didn't have time to launch the actual boats, no chance there would be time to prepare anything from scratch on the spot. So basically, the perception of the situation and what was the best option to survive was so skewed from the beginning, it was impossible to start considering the right course of action before it was too late.

[@TheKeeeks97]

Hey Sam, great video again! I love these little thought experiments. Another interesting scenario, you could discuss: How would it affect the sinking if Titanic struck the iceberg on the port instead in the star board side.

[@larrybremer4930]

The fact is the ship was taking on water below the water line in too many compartments to maintain buoyancy indefinitely. Counter flooding may have bought them some time, perhaps a significant enough amount of time for Carpathia to arrive before Titanic fully foundered. It has been speculated that opening the water tight doors could have allowed water to pass aft making more of the bilge pumps available to discharge water overboard as well as forestalling the foredeck to become awash causing massive water intake. One of the problems was also many open portals were exposed to the sea as Titanic got lower in water increasing its water intake. There have been some attempts to model this but there are too many variable to impact results so some models give virtually no difference in the sinking time while others save the ship depending on parameters used such as the size and depth of the damage area, number and location of open portals and hatches, and many other smaller but significant variables. At some point however the boilers will be flooded giving the ship less and less power to run pumps so the most likely result is that the ship is lost no matter what. If counter flooding, closing portals and hatches, and optimum use of pumps is combined with some other techniques such as trying to discharge debris over the side (things like bedding) in hopes that some of it will get sucked into and stuck in the damage you start getting into a more survivable outcome for the ship to last long enough to evacuate. Such an outcome is at best "possible" with all these actions happening very quickly after the impact. The ships carpenters needed quite a bit of time to even size up the damage so there is no way they could evaluate and come up with a plan in time to do all these actions so any such analysis of what could have been done differently would also need to account for the human factors.

[@michaelandrew677]

The problem I see with flooding the sterm to counterbalance the bow flooding would be you'd have to flood the engineering sections that were supplying power to the ship. I'd have to do some math to determine if there was any way to produce a flooding scenario where the ship settled in the water to a point where E Deck remained above the water line and the ship could remain afloat based on the buoyancy of the unflooded compartments in the middle of the ship. My initial thoughts is that would be highly unlikely. Once the mass of the water and the ship was greater than the mass of the water being displaced then the ship would drop like a rock.

[@matthewwells1470]

I seen a professional video many years ago that questioned not closing the water tight doors. They found the ship would have became very unstable, and probably would have capsized, killing more people. Similarly with bow/stern cross flooding. Another concern I have with bow/stern cross flooding might have split the ship in 1/2 or 1/3, under the stress of high boency in the middle of the ship.

[@waynepayne864]

can we just support how there are no sponsors in this dudes videos

[@AdurianJ]

HMS Ark Royal was lost because an incompetent damage control officer refused to counterflood. When the captain learned it was too late to correct.

[@mortimer6747]

I have an idea I think it's interesting. Could that kind of ships with the compartments stay afloat if you remove an entire part of the ship? If they had place explosives and other mechanism to be able to cut the hull of the ship in half, they may had been able to get rid of the damage front and prevent it from dragging down the rest of the ship. Then they could have really become unsinkable, passengers would just move to the rear before cutting it and that would become a life saving platform until help arrive. Sorry for my english.

[@alstonofalltrades3142]

The Titanic held my attention more as a kid, but it was just a bit bigger than the ship before and so on. What made her famous was the unsinkable slogan to help sales and then she sunk on her first outing brand new. Jeremy Clarkson in Great Britons showed the best way with drawing how massive a leap the Great Eastern was in size. How would the Great Eastern have held up if it took the hit Titanic did? Or better yet how much bigger of a hit could she have took? She had her flaws which I'll list if anyone is interested enough to ask, but she was also ahead in many ways.

[@GlamorousTitanic21]

If she started flooding in the stern I think she would have lost power and sunk much faster. The heaviest objects on the ship (ie the engines, generators, and propeller shafts) were located in the stern. She would have lost power much quicker, thus making any pumping efforts impossible, then the machinery would begin dragging the ship down faster due to its weight. Granted, with how heavy the boilers at the bow were, it’s a miracle that the Titanic stayed afloat as long as she did.

[@nickpaine2767]

Well if the iceberg damage was in the stern, wouldn’t the stern never split up from the bow since most of the mass is in the stern and if that’s already sunken then it less weight for the ship to fracture

[@LuvSubbin]

I think the question is not whether cross flooding would have "saved" the Titanic but whether a different damage control plan could have delayed the sinking enough for the Carpathia to arrive. Specifically, what if all watertight doors had been intentionally left open to allow for even flooding? This would have done two things. First, it would have allowed pumps from all compartments to operate and slow the overall water ingress. Secondly, this would have delayed huge additional areas being opened to the sea such as the anchor hawse pipes as the bow was pulled under. This is why the sinking progressed relatively slowly at first but accelerated more rapidly as all the large openings in the bow we exposed. The Titanic was doomed either way but could a delay in the sinking have saved lives?

[@BigMork]

Hey Sam I have watched you since 2K subscribers and I am happy to see how far you have come!

[@alexh3153]

If she had a longitudinal bulkhead it would be half of the water weight flooding the forward compartments. If you could counter flood the port aft compartments it seems like there might be a chance keep the bow high enough not to spill over the top of the bulkheads. But the way it was it’s hopeless

[@travelwithdebandnick]

it's Christmas day here in Australia :) merry merry Christmas :)

[@christophercripps7639]

I believe the usual naval (military ship) design practice was to avoid centerline bulkheads. Too much asymmetrical flooding can cause a ship to capsize (roll over) before counterflooding might counter the list. In your model the damage control officer might have a compartment(s) on the port side stern flooded to correct the list and and even the keel. In the worst case for a ship that's going to sink one would want an even keel to allow the most lifeboats to be launched.

[@craigolbert4606]

I'm pretty certain nothing could have saved Titanic but I do enjoy thinking about how they could have lasted longer. I'm curious of any theories, etc that could have helped her last until 4am or so when Carpathia showed up.

[@ssgus3682]

It doesn't get you to 0400 but had the Titanic not got underway again for the short period of time it did and had the crew made sure all portholes were and doors not needed for the evacuation were closed you would buy some more time but not enough for Carpathia to arrive.

[@judithlashbrook4684]

my only thought would have been to turn around and put everyone on the iceberg itself, the iceberg wasn't sinking and yes it would have been cold, but not as cold as the water...

[@ssgus3682]

@Judith Lashbrook that wasn't possible. For starters the Titanic grazed the iceberg as it went by. By the team she was fully stopped she was well away from the iceberg. Then the Titanic got underway again for a short period of time.

[@dschehutinefer5627]

I think there is a decent argument to be made about what if the Titanic didn't try to avoid the iceberg and just hit it head on. The SS Kronprinz Wilhelm did just that in 1907 and managed to limp to its destination with only a crushed bow.

[@jcohasset23]

@@dschehutinefer5627 It's theorized that had it hit the iceberg straight on it probably would have survived with just the first two or three compartments crushed but that maneuver would have been against the experience and training the crew had. It would only have been feasible if the crew knew that trying to round the iceberg would inflict enough damage to sink the ship.

[@hagmax1531]

How low it would sink depends on how much of the stern would get flooded. If only 1-2 compartments were flooded on purpose then surely the ship wouldn't be too low and it would still have an effect on the waterline in the bow section. The actual question is: how much can get flooded (without the ship being too low) and how much would that correct the forward list? I was really hoping for a bit more depth in the video, unfortunately it was a bit disappointing!

[@Tono_87]

I’ve been thinking in counter flooding from the rear for years as a potential solution. I’d like would love to see the theory with physics and numbers. But I fully agree on that: flooding the rear of the ship would had switched all electricity off.

[@Octolicia]

0:00 : My guess is no. 10:42 : Also, remember: Moonless night... if there's no power, you're pretty much drowning in the dark.

[@theoncomingstorm7903]

Should do a video analysing what would happen to other ships both from the era and later under the same damage. It'd be interesting to see what'd happen to Mauretania, or post-refit Olympic and/or Britannic or Queen Mary or even Queen Mary 2 if they struck the same iceberg and took the same damage as Titanic did.

[@donj4198]

I wish it was mentioned what counterflooding the stern would have done to the wreck. If it sank equally bow and stern, there would have been no stress to break the ship in half, and it would rest intact on the sea floor. Also, due to the stern not being full of air pockets, and the streamlined nature of the intact ship would mean that the stern wouldn't now look like a bomb had gone off it in.

[@knoxklay11]

I cant remember if we ever discussed whether the ship mightve stayed afloat longer or even survived if the watertight bulkheads reached up to the deck. I feel like maybe they couldve had more time to slow/stop the leaks and the 6th and 5th mightve been saved. Though i dont know if that wouldve done much beyond giving them 10-15 mins longer.

[@johngaltline9933]

Not sure if it's been covered before, but curious on your take had titanic turned to hit the iceberg head on as opposed to from the side. Would she have stopped in the end with damage to fewer compartments that might have left her floating?

[@HistoricTravels]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3unhGeqjrh9f5Y

[@quillmaurer6563]

Oceanliner Designs did a really detailed video exploring that question, and concluded that she would have suffered severe damage - the forward 80 feet crushed - but would have remained afloat and probably been rebuilt.

[@MrT------5743]

Problem is knowing hindsight. Since we know trying to avoid the iceberg sinks the ship, avoiding hitting it would save it would not have been known. First reaction is to avoid hitting it. Imagine being in charge and purposely aim for the iceberg killing the few hundred people in the front when you might have been able to avoid void hitting it altogether? Hindsight is 20:20 for sure.

[@johngaltline9933]

@@HistoricTravels I appreciate the link to the port side video. I don't think it really addresses my question though. I don't think it's very realistic but from a sort of engineering perspective I'm just curious.

[@johngaltline9933]

@@MrT------5743 Oh, I'm not concerned form a realistic perspective, I don't find it at all likely that anyone would have even thought to just hit the thing head on. I'm just curious what would have happened in that case. I expect fairly catastrophic damage, but it just might be possible that only 3 or 4 compartments would have actually been damaged . It likely depends a lot on if the bow 'ran aground' or rode up on the ice or if it would have simply caved in, and what some 52 thousand tons of ship would do at around 24 knots in such an impact. I don't know the math on it nor do I know the physics with the iceberg as opposed to just glancing off the side in passing.

[@roberthuntley1090]

I wondered if the effect of counterflooding could be enhanced by simple damage control - getting all the passengers to move to the back of the ship would shift approx. 100 tonnes, jettisoning the bow anchors and chains would remove a few tens of tonnes from the bow and so on. Filling the steering gear compartment with water would be technically simple to achieve (e.g. fire hoses). To me the real constraint is how far you could go before breaking the ships keel.

[@christophergraham3160]

The height of the watertight bulkheads was such a problem, that Harland and Wolff designed Brittanic with full-height bulkheads. Titanic should have rammed the iceberg head-on. Theoretically, she would've flooded 1 or 2 watertight compartments and remained afloat.

[@harmsway2914]

So I remember reading an article many years ago. It was a 'what if' scenario in regards to the Titanic, for some reason, striking the berg in daylight instead of at night. What I remember reading was Captain Smith potentially organizing a "Bandage" repair job. Basically, it would be this. Crew members would take mattresses from inside the ship. Fit them with metal or something to make them sink. And then place them against the damaged sections on the exterior of the hull to slow down the flooding enough to where the pumps could keep pace with the incoming water. I don't think that anything like this could've even been done in enough time to really do anything. The only chance they'd have is if they started doing that as soon as the ship cleared the berg. And even then, they'd have to somehow secure the mattresses to keep them there. The only way I can really think of doing that would be wrapping chains from the starboard side, potentially from a cabin's porthole on a lower deck. And then going under the keel before coming up the port side to another cabin on the same deck. I don't think they had the capabilities of doing that back in 1912. What do you think of this hypothetical scenario? Do you think it could've saved the ship? Or even delay the sinking long enough for help to arrive and evacuate all passengers?

[@FavioredValkyrie]

With the amount of mattresses on the ship you would think they could have used them to slow the water enough to start repairs or at least until another ship came. Just a thought.

[@caileanseamus1876]

Historically, Leading Stoker Frederick Barrett saw water coming up through the boiler room floor after the collision with the iceberg. It was believed that the Titanic's double-bottomed hull had been breached at the keel. Secondly, there was a failsafe system built into the watertight doors in the bulkheads. If the doors couldn't be closed by a switch from the bridge, once the water level rose high enough, the doors would drop, having been fitted with cork floats connected a mechanism to seal the doors.

[@fredwood1490]

Here's an odd thought: One thing Navy ships did to slow sinking when there was only a small hole, (Titanic stripped rivets and slightly bucked plates and it seems the Captain knew about this), was to lower something to cover the hole, or in this case the plate joins. Something like a number of mattresses, which could be sucked into the gaps slowing the flow. Keeping in mind that the gaps might only be a few inches wide, they were each twenty or more feet long, (the length of the plate). I'm surprised this wasn't tried as Captain Smith was a very experienced Sailor. It wouldn't save the ship but it might buy more time for somebody to row over to the Carpathia and pound on the hull.

[@speed150mph]

While we are on this topic, I wanted to ask you something I put forth to drachinifel a while back. The Olympic class liners were kind of an oddity in coal fired steam ships. They had their coal bunkers located against the transverse bulkheads between the boiler rooms while most ship designs favoured having them placed along the hull. We know that many warships of the period even incorporated the coal bunkers as part of the ships protection, usually as a flood space against torpedo impacts. So I’m curious, do you think it would have made any difference (positively or negatively) on the sinking if titanic had been designed with longitudinal bunkers along the hull?

[@maximvf]

Heard a story that bulkeads on Titanic were 6 feet lower than designed. Original designer resigned on this ground and many other 'corner cuts'. If bulkheads were 6 feet higher, Titanic could have a chance to retain some buoyancy.