What if Titanic Hit the Iceberg Head-On?

Yes - Titanic probably could have survived an impact with the iceberg if she hit head-on! The wild stories of other ships - like the Arizona, Grampian, Florida and many more demonstrate how ships behave when they hit icebergs - and it may not happen the way that you expect!
Here is 'The Mechanics of Ship Collisions' by Zhang;
backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/porta...
Other papers that support this;
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/...
orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @oceanlinerdesigns
Support us on Patreon! / oceanlinerdesigns
Oceanliner Designs explores the design, construction, engineering and operation of history’s great ocean liners - from Titanic to Queen Mary but not forgetting the likes of Empress of Ireland or Chusan. Join Mike Brady as he uncovers the myths, explains the timelines, logistics and deep dives into the lives of the people and ocean liner ships that we all know and love.
#titanic #history #engineering #documentary #steering #ships #oceanliners #sinking

[@OceanlinerDesigns]

DID YOU ENJOY THIS VIDEO? :) Why not support my work on Patreon at; www.patreon.com/oceanlinerdesigns OR join as a KZbin member for cool badges and emojis!; kzbin.info/door/sE8PTncfn2Vga48jH46HnQjoin Supporters on Patreon and KZbin enjoy perks like early access and behind the scenes and bloopers! ▶MORE OCEANLINER DESIGNS; Were People Trapped Inside the Titanic When it Sank?: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oYKzhq2Oa6-Gerc 5 Ship Design Fails: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h6Suf4p7qNJnqJo How Did They Steer the Titanic?: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYvIXpiuqpeFeLc

[@Shauma_llama]

This is something I'd wondered about. 😉

[@TheRoadburner99]

Hey Oceanliner Designs can you make a video based on what might have happened if a us navy nimitz class aircraft carrier and her task force were also in the area of titanic including battleships, guided missle destroyers and crusiers and modern frigates how might the evacuation look and what might the general quarters alarm announcements have sounded like?

[@BrettonFerguson]

This is one of only 2 channels I've seen that get the iceberg sighting correct. On a moonless night they saw a dark starless area on the horizon. Not a bright white iceberg on the horizon.

[@BrettonFerguson]

The mailroom people would have been buggered.

[@glike2]

Thank you for this great analysis and reference to a perfect engineering paper about the subject!

[@jormungandr8936]

What’s funny to think about is that if this did happen and it did collide head on, then most of us would have never heard of the titanic.

[@mistergamerguy]

Not only did that thought just give me pause, CHILLS. Yeah, I never heard of the USS Arizona he mentioned in the video or even the one after that.

[@Darkkfated]

Something similar would have happened in a few years' time to a different ship, and then THAT vessel would the famous one inspiring movies and sticking in people's minds for 100 years, and the Titanic would be largely forgotten except by historians and turn-of-the-century ship enthusiasts. Kind of mind-bending to think about, honestly.

[@dfresh93086]

@@mistergamerguygood point. The first I ever heard of a USS Arizona was because of Pearl Harbor. I’m sure about 99% of y’all in here can agree w me on that.

[@BjorgenEatinger]

Or...the Titan.

[@TheRealMjb2k]

@@Darkkfatedtitanic is so unique though I don’t think this would be true. Titanic was the biggest ship in the world and was the opulence of luxury for its time and considered “unsinkable” only for it to sink in its maiden voyage and some 60-70% of its crew and passengers killed. That’s such a unique set of circumstances that I think it’s highly unlikely they would have occurred in a few years time.

[@eriktruedson5658]

a front end collision would have felt like a complete disaster without them ever realizing how bad the alternative was

[@bethanyhait6880]

We may have spent the past century wondering what would have happened if she had side-swiped the berg instead…

[@moseszero3281]

​@@bethanyhait6880 Realistically few would wonder because few would know her name. There would NOT be a big movie about it. Titanic is remembered because it has a good story. It was declared unsinkable then it sank quickly, on its first voyage. A crash that only killed some low level workers... ship/history enthusiasts would remember but it would not be a cultural touchstone. There are several other ships that went down with more people lost. And I doubt any of them have 5% of the name recognition of the Titanic.

[@Missingnoleader]

@@moseszero3281 It'd have been notable purely for all the rich people that was on board at the time.

[@tappajaav]

@@moseszero3281 S/S Estonia comes to mind

[@stevenwharrier3727]

Exactly this. They’d have pretty much needed the impossible benefit of seeing ‘what could have been’. If they’d hit the iceberg head on and the ship had stayed afloat, heads would have rolled.

[@GlutenEruption]

It’s crazy to think just how bad their luck was - if they had been a few seconds slower spotting the iceberg, they’d have his head on and survived, and if they had been a few seconds quicker, they’d have missed it entirely…

[@PTFS_Player72]

When you put it like that, youre not wrong

[@davravidumn183]

Ah, fate. Cruel fate...

[@matthewsweitzer4261]

almost like it was meant to happen

[@alferdjuhimovich9037]

The sea doesn't tolerate foolishness. Had titanic survived it would have been drowned in the next sail or it would have happened to another ship, for the safe boat standards were really bad comparing to the times. Sad but true, nobody listens to precautions before something bad happens. And nobody cares for people who they don't know unless it's their family or friends or beloved ones. So the "good" part is that titanic saved lot's of other ships from meeting icebergs like that and saved their lives. But the bad thing is that you never play fool with the mother nature.

[@GlutenEruption]

@@alferdjuhimovich9037 in aviation it’s known as the tombstone mentality - only heeding warnings and taking proper precautions after it’s already claimed lives

[@attackoramic8361]

just imagine how badass it would be seeing the titanic with an annihilated bow cruising into the new york harbour.

[@jelitejbzzz]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@sixbases6793]

That would have perpetuated her reputation of "unsinkable"

​@@sixbases6793fkin indeed😆

[@AaronCross760]

If they hit it straight on it wouldn't have sunk but they'ed probably be stuck, melded with it.

[@midnighttrucker19]

Baddass with hundreds dead? Ok

[@Brock_Landers]

It's sad to think that this could've been a reality. Titanic would've lived on to become a troop transport or possibly a hospital ship like her sisters. She could've possibly have lived a full life like Olympic did, but there are things that the sinking brought to light that we might've never had without the loss of Titanic, like the International Ice Patrol or the provision of lifeboats for all on board (which should've been commonplace regardless). With mankind we have to have disasters so that we can learn from our mistakes. I'm not saying that Titanic sinking taking 1500 souls with her was a good thing, FAR from it, but it brought around some much needed changes in maritime history that might have never happened without her loss.

[@oliverbatt3559]

It's unlikely having a sufficient number of lifeboats for all passengers and crew would have made a significant difference to the death toll, and it was understandable why this wasn't a requirement when the Titanic was lost.

[@vale.antoni]

The reforms brought in after the Titanic likely would have been all implemented, but they would probably have been one by one, after other ships would meet disaster, to try and prevent such event from unfolding in the future. As they do in the airline industry: Each and every aircraft incident, regardless of the number of deaths and/or injuries (yes, even the ones where everyone walks off the plane without a scratch) is investigated to the tiniest possible detail, and when they find the cause, they make sure to implement rules which prevent anything like that from happening again.

[@michaelrmurphy2734]

And scrapped in the 1930s as an old, obsolete ship. Long out of use then.

[@randomentertainment8927]

Even if this played out, it would've been a huge scare like "Holy shit, if we had sunk, there wouldn't have been enough lifeboats, most of these people would've died

[@cardiffgiant9406]

@@randomentertainment8927 I would argue it may have done the opposite, just like wireless did when the Republic sank. It may have given even more false confidence. Then again, who knows?

[@infidelheretic923]

This makes a lot of sense. The only real downside would have been that people might have taken this kind of incident as proof that ships with water tight doors were “unsinkable”. Which could have lulled people into complacency, and ultimately caused more deaths in the future.

[@hoodagooboy5981]

The Titanic's great loss of life is what made them change and enforce life boat laws. You're right, it may have lead to a worse accident somewhere.

[@mauriceosullivan6832]

​@@hoodagooboy5981and especially as a lot of the dead, were the bigwigs of their day.

[@joes.4149]

@@hoodagooboy5981supposedly the titanic sinking led to both world wars 😂 these conspiracy guys

[@zephyr8072]

Of course it did, Hitler was the iceberg all along.

[@knrdvmmlbkkn]

@@hoodagooboy5981"The Titanic's great (...) enforce life boat law" So... those laws weren't enforced at that point?

[@jamiecarter9357]

After 28 years building ships in my former career at Bath Iron Works, I'd say this is spot on. Ships can take one hell of a lot of abuse and stay afloat. The Samuel B. Roberts, FFG 58 hit a mine in 1988 and was taken back to BIW with her entire middle blown out, where we repaired her and sent her back into harms way.

[@blankearth5840]

I tend to feel that trying to maneuver around the iceberg wasn’t a good move nor a smart one

[@louisn1368]

Hey I’ve got a question wouldn’t the wider width of the lower under water part of the iceberg still ripped up the lowest part of the hull filling the other bulkheads?

[@codykrueger796]

​@@louisn1368ask this in the main part of the chat, I wonder this also

[@codykrueger796]

So do you think the lower quality steel they used in the titanic would have made a difference - in the same way that some said... if she was made of better steel, it would not have fractured, just bent and not sunk. I was curious if this would have made a difference here. Like that, the fractured steel would have caused flooding sufficient to sink her anyways?

[@louisn1368]

@@codykrueger796 you do it man you worded your last comment perfectly use that plus my comment and I’ll comment under it because I’d like an answer too

[@stevenbrown3249]

Seeing the animation of the titanic damaged like that, yet still afloat, is so eerie and fascinating

[@joelove1987]

I really like how this KZbinr explains everything about the titanic in a simple yet in depth way. There would have been a lot of casualties with a head on collision but the ship would have stayed afloat with many more years of service

[@davravidumn183]

A lot of casualties, but certainly fewer than 1,500.

[@ArronHawken]

It’s an opinion. An opinion that is wrong. The titanic would have sank so much faster. There is literally the Britannic which supports this evidence. It’s well thought out but it’s also wrong. she would have sank faster

[@ryancraig9352]

It would literally wouldn't but okay.

[@tappajaav]

@@ryancraig9352 "would literally wouldn't" wat

[@shelbycoffey7441]

I appreciate you making sure to clear up that despite it likely surviving a head on collision, it was still the right call to try to turn the ship. I cannot imagine what Murdock felt in that moment when he knew the ship was heading right for an iceberg, his quick reaction and effort to avoid it entirely is very honorable. He deserves to remembered with respect. He was handed an impossible situation.

[@GameOn4Jesus]

No, unfortunately it was EXACTLY THE WRONG CALL to try to steer Titanic around the berg. She didn’t have enough time to make an effective turn. Read my comment referring to the 1910 Knight’s Modern Seamanship, which says that the surest way to sink the ship is to try to steer around the berg AND cut back on power (which Murdoch did). He should have slowed down and hit the berg at 90 degrees.

[@SeattlePioneer]

> He made the wrong decision, probably because of inadequate training. If he had had enough training on the siruation that confronted him that night, he would have steered to hit the iceberg head on. That might have taken courage to do, but presumably he would have been armed with the training that would have directed his actions. And presumably, any review of his decision would have confronted the training he had received as well. I wonder what training the officer on ships receive today about such situations?

[@squonk86]

​@SeattlePioneer Totally disagree and should have hit the iceberg head on and the ship would of survived along with all the passengers

[@RonBest]

It definitely was the right call to try turn the ship. Without him we would not have gotten the Titanic movie :)

[@bunniemunch123]

@@RonBesti would have rather people had lived

[@charlesgoff7181]

During a collision, the SS Vesta smashed it's bow directly into the side of the SS Arctic. Part of the bow was ripped completely off. Everyone thought the much smaller Vesta sank, but it somehow limped home, while the larger Arctic had it's side ripped open, and it sank a couple hours later. Collisions that hit the bow head on are still awful, but less likely to sink a ship than a side collision.

[@pearl571]

Vesta didnt go nearly as fast as titanic and titanic is much much much heavier

[@bethanyhait6880]

This happened with the collision between the Stockholm and the Andrea Doria, too. The AD had her side ripped up and sank within hours. But the Stockholm, despite having her bow smashed in, was able to take on some of the AD’s passengers and get to port safely.

[@dalentoews3418]

Vesta was a steel hulled vessel with water tight bulkheads. Arctic was wooden hulled with no bulkheads.

[@Orly90]

Titanic is heavier, moving at a greater speed and also the iceberg itself is a stationary mass that is much larger than Titanic. Hitting an iceberg would be very disastrous.

[@matthewq4b]

@@derektaylor2941 No this exactly how it would play out. Many ships have done exactly that hit an ice berg head on and survive. You failed to grasp with the increased mass comes increased material to absorb the impact. ALSO ships even then were designed to SPECIFICALLY survive those sorts of collisions. Even the designers said it would have stayed afloat in a head on collision.

[@tavi9598]

What it boils down to is the exact moment that the iceberg was spotted. A little sooner? The turn might have gotten her far enough to either avoid completely, or perhaps only damage a compartment or two. A little later? A terrible head-on collision that would have been survivable.

[@TruckingTendencies]

i wonder if the men on look out tower where truly distracted.

[@Spooky1862]

@@TruckingTendencies We’ll never know for sure, but the conditions were lousy for spotting icebergs that night. I personally doubt they were distracted because they were expecting to encounter ice-2nd Officer Lightoller had specifically told the lookouts to watch for it.

[@aircraftcarrierwo-class]

@@TruckingTendencies It's well reported that the circumstances of that night were all stacked against the lookouts. Dead calm, no moon, very cold, no binoculars available (they were asking for those), the Captain refusing to slow down despite ice warnings... There were a lot of "what if" levers you can pull in the Titanic's final night that would change the outcome.

[@pbsgph]

@@aircraftcarrierwo-class and other thing titanic sucks at making ''turns''

[@SephirothRyu]

@@pbsgph There is another speculation, whereby the Titanic could have missed the iceburg if it tried to turn as it had and at the time it had, but did not reverse the engines, since this apparently interfered with its already rather large turning circle. Having its propulsion right next to the big old board that it uses to turn and all.

[@AlashiaTuol]

That opening and the reveal cut to Titanic still afloat next to Carpathia hurt my heart in a good way 💯

[@charlesyoung7436]

Have often wondered if Titanic could have missed the iceberg had just the portside screw been reversed. Wouldn't this have made the ship turn faster?

[@AlashiaTuol]

​@charlesyoung7436 Maybe? But I don't know if it'd actually change her trajectory when moving that fast. I'll start this off by saying I've only operated rowboats, kayaks, and small motor boats, and am in no way familiar with the nuances of larger vessels. That said, if a large ship like the Titanic acted anything like a smaller vessel (which isn't a given), then in my experience sudden drag on one side could potentially turn the bow in the direction of that drag and slow her down. Which unfortunately... could still lead to a collision with the iceberg. As much as reversing one of the propellers could potentially help move the bow away, it could also potentially swing the stern further into the path of the iceberg. If the Titanic pushes water behind her on one side and pushes it forward on the other, she could (hypothetically) begin to pivot instead of change her direction of movement. I imagine it's possible Titanic could have missed the iceberg doing this... but I can also imagine that the momentum could have just carried her into hitting the iceberg more broad-side. The third central propeller might help add force and truly make the ship turn instead of pivot, but I don't know whether it'd be enough to counteract the momentum of the ship in time given how fast she was moving and how close she already was to the iceberg. It depends on the location of the hypothetical pivot point relative to the ship's length, and the force of their momentum relative to the force of the central propeller (assuming the port and starboard propellers are equal in force and reversing one even has enough time to affect anything). Whether she sank in that hypothetical would probably depend on how big the iceberg was and how wide the collision site would be. But then again, I've heard repeatedly that the Titanic wasn't capable of fast turns, so I don't even know if this hypothetical is possible.

[@luca9850]

I’ve had this ongoing hyperfixation with boats (specifically sinking disasters) but not enough so to do research cuz it’s overwhelming, your videos make it so much more accessible and easier to digest information!

[@andrewvogel5344]

As a welder for over 20 years I still find instances where I am actually shocked at how much steel can deform and still be structurally sound and how much of an impact it can take and manage to consolidate the damage to a minimal area. I would say that the idea of the Titanic being able to withstand a head-on collision into an iceberg is not unrealistic or surprising even in the least bit. Great video as always

[@Bassalicious]

9:48 Did some quick napkin maths for anyone interested: 21 knots is roughly 11 m/s which has to dissipated in let's say 20 metres worth of bow crushing. That means 1.8 seconds of deceleration from 11 m/s to 0 m/s which comes out to ~6.1 m/s^2 or 0.62 G. Basically you'd have to hold a glass of water at ~30° for it to stay level during deceleration. Actually not that bad at all, especially considering that an iceberg isn't an immovable object for a ship like Titanic, which would add some more distance and soften the deceleration further.

[@killian5570]

"especially considering that an iceberg isn't an immovable object" Do you mean that the strength of the shock would be enough to push back the iceberg? I would have guessed that the iceberg would have a massive inerrtia compared to the ship given the weight difference. If the iceberg is say a thousand time heavier than the ship does that mean that it is pushed back a thousand time less or is it more complicated than that?

[@Bassalicious]

@@killian5570 For perfectly inelastic collisions (no bounce) that's basically it, yeah. Momentum is mass times acceleration. If the ship is going 21 knots and perfectly shares momentum with the stationary iceberg, then both would be going (21*1 + 0*1000) / (1000+1) ~= 0.02098 knots afterwards - given no losses to causing either object to spin, rise up or down, deform etc. and that mass difference of 1000x you've given as an example. Imagine throwing a ball of clay at a curling stone on ice from side on for instance. In the real world I'd be shocked if a collision of a ship and an iceberg was more efficient than 50% though. Deforming 20 meters worth of Titanic bow takes quite a bit of work away from that momentum transfer. The real world is almost never perfect. Edit: Forgot to make my actual point; If the iceberg was only the weight of Titanic itself, both of them would be going in Titanic's direction at 10.5 knots. Titanic would only decelerate 10.5 knots, making the deceleration last twice as long and thus be half as strong if we ignore the extra distance the iceberg moves during collision for a second. Imagine rear ending a car parked in neutral vs a car that's bolted to the ground... We only know (guesstimated) how much her bow would've crushed and how fast she was, not how much she would've moved the iceberg as its mass is unknown. It's likely a negligible effect but the iceberg doesn't have infinite mass, so it has to move and any motion will reduce Titanic's velocity delta, which is deceleration. The distance delta relative to the iceberg stays constant; 20 meters have to be crushed. The distance the berg moves during the collision is added to the total distance to decelerate from Titanic's POV, which softens the collision more - on top of not decelerating to a completely dead stop. Hope that makes sense. Edit2: I'm just a humble nerd, not a physicist, so keep that in mind. Pinch of salt and all that.

[@GeoHvl]

I served in the US Navy, and as part of the Damage Control, we studied Water Tight Integrity. US Navy ships do have watertight compartments that are sealed like huge boxes. With water-tight hatches that are dogged shut when needed. The Titanic's water-tight compartments were open at the top so water could spill over each compartment; they were not really water-tight at all.

[@andydrew105]

not an engineer, but my understanding was the pumps would prevent it from overfilling. "The total capacity from all 8 pumps running together was 1700 tons an hour." thats why 4 could flood, cause the pumps and the hull together could take the stress and flooding.

[@franzfanz]

He explains in another video but if four of the watertight compartments were flooded then the ship would still have remained afloat as the freeboard of the fifth compartment would still have been above the waterline. The fact that the fifth compartment flooded meant that the freeboard of the sixth compartment was below the waterline and that allowed the flooding to proceed further aft.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

@@franzfanz Exactly. With enough remaining buoyancy, the open tops are in fact like water tight compartments. I don't know how much closing the tops would have helped compared to making the open tops taller, but the cost and space issues made this a downward trend compared to the original Great Eastern, which was hugely overbuilt and literally unsinkable... I am pretty sure GE had a full double hull, not just a double bottom like Titanic... And it got ripped and put to the test quite a few times. Too bad it ruined its creator, as it subsequently had fairly long and fruitful service life laying down telegraph cables.

[@frederiknielsen6038]

@@wrathofatlantis2316 Isembart Kingdom Brunell was an absolute mad lad. Great Eastern also suffered a boiler explosion, which is a significant emotional event for a ship, and at the time usually resulted in the ship blowing in halfs. The Great Eastern mearly had to stop for a while before returning to port. There was also at least one guy in the Royal Navy who wanted to buy the ship and use it as a ram ( a tactic that was making a bit of a comeback at the time), but no part of this proposal involved refitting the ship, as it was regarded as so large and heavily build, that it could probably ram any warship in existense and be quite alright.

[@ChaplainDMK]

Everything is designed to be just good enough, not the best. During construction possible damage to the ship was evaluated and likely based on that the design of the safety measures was based. The kind of damage TItanic suffered was simply not assumed reasonable. Sure you could make Titanic triple bottomed, double hulled, with watertight bulkheads extending up to the main deck etc., but the ship also needs to be reasonable in price to build. Even warships are subject to this calculus - they never have all the protective and safety measures imaginable - the most common US warship now, the Arleigh Burke, was selected precisely because it was seen as the more efficient for it's price compared to Ticonderoga cruisers.

[@stewarthandte5406]

Mike, you are so spot on with the what if …if Titanic had struck that berg head on….if they had not ignored the iceberg warnings….if they had slowed their speed….if they had enough lifeboats….etc etc etc

[@wutrudoin5431]

More lifeboats wouldn't help as they wouldn't have had enough time to lunch all of them.

[@Lifeofalexp1]

A lot of the passengers didn’t even want to get on the lifeboat

[@silentgamer2434]

What's really eerie about the scene at 13:12 is this is what most passengers imagined would happen during the early stages of the sinking: they thought the Titanic would sink to a certain point, th but would still be afloat by the next morning.

[@paulheenan9098]

A lot of passengers didn't believe (or even know) that the ship was sinking, and those that did didn't see what all the fuss was about anyway. Help was on the way and they didn't fancy getting into a little lifeboat to float about in the freezing cold ocean when they could just wait aboard the warm and deceivingly safe appearing Titanic and be ferried across to their rescue ship. The lack of communication and proper co-ordination between the crew and the arrogant stubbornness of the passengers resulted in a very poorly executed evacuation of the ship that cost an extra 500 more lives than needed.

[@elrjames7799]

Deliberately driving Titanic onto the Berg (without any attempt to avoid it) would probably have struck Murdock as being reckless in the extreme and maybe criminal; any subsequent Inquiry may well have reached a similar conclusion. Would it have been sensible for Murdock to release Titanic’s destructive kinetic energy (estimated at some 2,070,000,000 ft lbs) when he had no way to determine if resulting catastrophic and unquantifiable damage (whilst simultaneously condemning several hundred people in the bow to immediate and certain death or horrific injury) would actually save the Ship? Yes (in extremis) it's a 'rule of the sea' to present the strongest part of the ship (the prow) to danger whilst simultaneously applying all power to stop, but the obviously preferable option is to turn away from an obstacle with maximum thrust. Murdock chose this most sensible second option, but It seems from the evidence he gave orders for power to come off. instead of acting forcefully to manoeuvre out of danger, 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, this would most likely have been considered a brilliant piece of seamanship.

[@jeb156]

but then again, so would not sinking the titanic after ramming a huge iceberg head-on.

[@jeb156]

He would likely get demoted, and possibly even fired, but that's a world i want to live in: Where the Titanic had a life.

[@DucknCoverin]

@@jeb156 Hindsight isn’t a luxury you have in the moment you’re trying not to hit something. No time to stop and play through “what if” scenarios. His decision was rational.

[@jeb156]

@@DucknCoverin i never said it was his fault, he did the best move

[@Genius_at_Work]

The Casualties in the Bow would have been 3rd Class Passengers, thus killing them wouldn't have been a Problem because that's how the World worked in 1912.

[@awuma]

The M/V "Stockholm", built in 1948 and shown after colliding with and sinking the "Andrea Doria" in 1956, still exists as the cruise ship "Astoria". It was laid up by Covid-19 and is for sale, but as many cruise ships, probably is destined for the breakers. It's longevity is astonishing.

[@dillonpierce7869]

Somebody better buy it.... Be a good museum ship even with it's own history.

[@Antonio-ui2mh]

Didn’t the Stockholm have a reinforced ice breaker bow ?

[@Boomakcake]

She's possibly been purchased with plans to send her to dry dock for two months, same company also bought a 1961 ship and converted her to a floating hotel, docked on Lisbon

[@davidrickert4752]

@@dillonpierce7869 Mr.Pierce I agree with u&others that ships&other artifacts of our history are too often'' scrapped"instead of preserved as the treasures they are!Titanics sister ship Olympic is one of the most sad&dispicable example of this sort of thing?!I mean really;after the other 2 sisters she should have been saved.,don't we think?

[@colinschaeffer3940]

@@Antonio-ui2mh Hardened. Not full ice breaker rated.

[@milesdodson3510]

The picture of the boy holding the sign saying "titanic disaster great loss of life" always sends chills down my spine.

[@BrianRP1209]

I just read about that boy recently. He was killed in action during the last days of WWI.

[@MrCcragg27]

i feel nothing at the boy holding the titanic loss of life sign, yet thinking about watching titanic lift up and sink under the midnight stars, yea that thought is trippy. lets go swimming under a submarine at 3am.

[@cantstanddogs4776]

​@@BrianRP1209looks too young..ww1 ended in 1918

[@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground]

@@cantstanddogs4776 he was killed on 28th October 1918. Confirmed

[@ExtraJohnson]

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/titanic/stories/ned-parfett.htm#:~:text=The%20newsboy%20was%20Ned%20Parfett,He%20was%2022.

[@d.bruckner3459]

Being a now retired career structural steel fabricator and knowing just about everything there is to know about steel and "bolts" this video clip is telling the world exactly how Titanic would have "indeed" survived ! They are right on target ! (I have been saying this for decades !) Great video !

[@OceanlinerDesigns]

Thanks for the professional input!

[@billsmith5109]

The question is how does the design team communicate information like this to operations staff. The initial operations staff may not come on until most design professionals have moved on to new projects. A complicated industrial operation, or ship, lasting for years, may be operated by persons in pre-school during construction. Contemplating perils, and prevention or best mitigation of their occurrence, is only part of the problem. How do you communicate and educate into the future the people who as operators will become decision makers during an incident as to response choices, with benefits and downsides. It’s not easy.

[@jessecrump3014]

Except Studies have shown time and again that Titanic was not designed as an icebreaker. She was not going to survive the impact if she had hit the iceberg head on. Her bow was not reinforced. The only part of her body that was reinforced was the keel. The only way for Titanic to have survived the Collision is to never have had it.

[@sultanabran1]

you are a steel fabricator. in other words, you cut and fix steel together. not a metology expert, or a structural engineer who designs structures. whilst you know all there is to know about putting steel together, it doesn't mean you know happens when a ship hits an iceberg. are you a naval structural steel fabricator?

[@jessecrump3014]

@@sultanabran1 are you sure you didn't mean the word metallurgist?

[@philsurtees]

To me, the tragic thing about this information s that it means they would have most likely survived if they'd seen the iceberg _just slightly_ before, or _just slightly_ after, the moment when they actually did see it. A bit earlier and they might have made it around, or a bit later and they would have hit head on. All in all, I guess it's all of the things which could have happened _just slightly_ differently, that make Titanic such a great example of hubris, and certainly taught humanity a lesson...

[@djmindcrasher]

Or if they took hard to starboard OR full astern, not hard to starboard AND full astern.

[@ErinMott09]

Incredible

[@georginaellison6280]

@@djmindcrasher I don't think that hard starboard or full astern would have helped as because of the speed the momentum would have drove into the iceberg. I've read that the watch out didn't have any binoculars to see properly ahead in time. The binoculars were locked up in a safe?

[@chuckschafer942]

15 SECONDS EITHER WAY

[@official_commanderhale965]

@@georginaellison6280he binoculars weren’t even on the trip if I remember correctly, but the crew members assumed it would be ok. The theory was going full astern prevented the flow of water from the screws to flow against the rudder and thus it actually slowed the turning process for the ship.

[@jfmezei]

Couple years ago, listened to some of audio tapes of the surviving passengers and crewmembers. One of them explained the lifeboat situation: it was felt the ship could stay afloat long ehough for rescue ship to come and use the lifeboats as shuttles between the 2 ship. With the trans-atlantic traffic at the time, there was usually some ships nearby.

[@BNuts]

Such as her captain ordering a more direct course at a faster speed?

[@lauratrigger6552]

That sounds really interesting. Was it on KZbin?

[@jfmezei]

@@lauratrigger6552 Yes it was on youtube. However, I won't post links anymore because KZbin has now blocked me twoice for posting extensioce replies with lilnks. There are a number of historical recollections and interviews with crews and survivors.

[@jeremywj]

Yep, this is why so many of the lifeboats launched at less than half capacity. People felt safer staying on the ship. Sadly, by the time it became evident that the ship was not safe, it was too late.

[@jimwiskus8862]

Titanic was designed to carry 64 life boats. The maritime board at that time stated ships need only carry 12. Harland & Wolff added 4 collapsable canvas bottom boats and used those as bragging rights. I really am not 100% sure Titanic would have stayed afloat hitting the berg head on. The watertight compartments, which supposedly made the ship unsinkable, were only watertight horizontally. Since The liner was built with 16 watertight compartments to keep her from sinking, but they had no tops. Like an ice cube tray, they filled with water and began spilling over into the next compartment. Titanic's bow began to sink and her stern began to rise.

[@korn111685]

There’s no way the titanic’s captian and the men taking orders would have been free men if they hit it straight on, killing 100+ people. Heads would have to roll because no one would have known the absolute tragedy that actually took place. Sad.

[@eccentrikhat3863]

I'm glad you take the time at the start to defend Murdoch's actions. Far too many people who posit that Titanic could have survived a head on collision do so with the suggestion Murdoch should have rammed the iceberg and that he was somehow in the wrong for trying to avoid it.

[@jackasshomey]

well how exactly can "trying to save his own asses reputation" be considered "the right course of action" he took a risk trying to avoid it while keeping his reputation intact instead of just bracing for impact and dealing with the ass chewing he would have received afterwards

[@jackasshomey]

like murdoch definitely would have gotten his ass chewed out by the brass for causing the damage but after the fumes cleared he probably would have been awarded a medal for saving the majority of passengers. and im not just guessing here... like if people like John Jacob Astor IV survived cause of the decision murdoch made you can damn well be sure he would be thanking him for it.

[@MajoradeMayhem]

@@jackasshomey They would have had no idea how bad the alternative was because they never experienced it. Murdoch would be chewed out for not trying to evade the iceberg. We only know what we know precisely because Titanic hit the berg and for over a century afterward people have been asking why the heck they didn't bring enough lifeboats.

[@donh8833]

This collapse pattern is known as Sinusodal buckling. It's a well known behavior in engineering and often used to figure out if rockets will collapse from stresses at Max-Q.

[@concept5631]

Interesting

[@tatronhox8711]

hey don. what does Max -Q mean.

[@donh8833]

@@tatronhox8711 Max dynamic force pushing down on rocket as it flies. Rockets need to reduce thrust to reduce acceleration. F=ma. What complicates this is some rockets get their structural integrity from the fuel in the tanks, which are emptying out. (Harder to crush a full soda can as opposed to empty one)

[@tatronhox8711]

@@donh8833 ah now I understand. thank you. do you work in this field?

[@donh8833]

@@tatronhox8711 aerospace and computer science. Mainly comp sci these days. But the engineering principals are the same and we are required to do at least a couple labs for marine engineering to demonstrate principals like drag using fluid dynamics.

[@lalaLAX219]

Nice video! The physics you talked about here reminds me of how cars today are built with “crumple zones” that crush like an accordion to better absorb the impact energy of a collision.

[@cassoIa]

I’ve never seen a ship with a crushed bow before - those images were absolutely harrowing to look at, wow! 😳

[@gordalot]

If this one big event didn’t happen, it’s possible that several smaller events may have killed more people over time. All due to the fact that ship owners had to rethink the number of life boats they carried

[@dfuher968]

Not just lifeboats. Almost all of the safety rules of the sea, we have today, came as a result of the Titanic.

[@Frankie5Angels150]

Remember, the first lifeboats were sent out only half full. More lifeboats probably wouldn’t have mattered.

[@iamhungey12345]

@@Frankie5Angels150 Not to mention they barely had enough time to launch the last one.

[@davidhudson3534]

As I understand, the Board of Trade regulations were expected to be updated within a few years and would have required more boats, that’s why Olympic’s and Titanic’s davits were designed to accommodate 48+ boats (to be added eventually).

[@germanshepherdlover2613]

Absolutely, the board of trade may not have made the necessary safety changes until years later with more lives lost!

[@jamespurs]

During WW2, ships had their bow removed or destroyed in collisions or shell and torps. There are some incredible examples of particularly U.S ships with no bow and still afloat. USS Pittsburgh lost her bow caused by a typhoon in 1945. In the Battle of Tassafaronga, the USS New Orleans lost her bow after being hit by a torpedo in 1942. The engineering that goes into these ships is extraordinary.

[@jessecrump3014]

Unfortunately most of the ships during World War II were welded together. Welding was in its infancy when Titanic was built. Which is why she was built with over 3 million rivets. Which admittedly seems a little low given the size of the ship but then again math was never my strong suit in school

[@jessecrump3014]

And it's been proven that welding provides a stronger seal against impacts than riveting. If welding had been more advanced when the Titanic was constructed odds are that she would have survived the Collision with pretty much only a scratch of the paint. MAYBE one or two compartments open to the ocean. But no more she still would have survived if she had been welded together.

[@user-lv7ph7hs7l]

@@jessecrump3014 Haha 46000 t slam into an immovable object and only scratches the paint? That's some damn good paint! Costa Concordia could have used some of that (on her welded steel hull).

[@jessecrump3014]

@@user-lv7ph7hs7l clearly you did not read ALL of my post and just skimmed it for shit to try(and fail) and ridicule me about.

[@tommeakin1732]

US ships seem to have been particularly prone to losing their bows seemingly for some quirks of thier welding and the designs on the finer bows. German ships were also prone to losing their sterns for some reason

[@roberttaylor6295]

Mike your professional and well researched presentations, like this, are easily followed and hugely enjoyed. Thank you for enlightening me, not as some boring didactic lecturer, but as you say 'Your friend' and thus easily understood, even by a 78 year-old codger like me! Thanks Rob

[@PolBertran]

Great video mate!! you do an amazing job 💙

[@darthixion957]

You actually took up my suggestion! Thank you so much! Yeah, I agree it'd been criminally negligent (not to say asinine) for Murdoch to deliberately ram the iceberg instead of trying to dodge it. I don't blame him for making such decisions. No matter what Murdoch and company did, lives were going to be lost that night; matter of how, not if.

[@raven4k998]

get a DeLorean time machine and try first off cancelling the order for hard reverse see if that's enough to miss the ice berg cause it will increase Titanic's turn rate if that fails then ram that mother fucking iceberg like a boss

[@thatguyontheright1]

right, what's one career to hundreds of lives lost in a sinking ship.

[@dfuher968]

@@thatguyontheright1 Thats not the point. He did, what he was supposed to do in that situation, based on common practice from the experience of the time. Its easy blaming him with hindsight, but there was no way, he couldve known, he followed his training, just as we expect our ship captains and pilots etc to do today. Much was learned by the Titanic disaster, and much was changed. Then as today we do our best based on the information and knowledge, we have at the time, and we change, when we learn something new.

[@thatguyontheright1]

@@dfuher968 I wasn't blaming him. He did do his job, what he was supposed to do. He could not have known the possibilities and consequences of his actions. He also made a decision to swing the stern out, which allowed the ship to stay afloat for longer.

[@julius6889]

@@thatguyontheright1 The theory is honestly so dumb. What officer would deliberately crash his ship, when there's a chance he can completely avoid the iceberg...

[@Chronocrits]

This idea has always fascinated me. But thank you for being the one content creator saying “But for Murdoch to order the head on collision would have been seen as madness”. Of course it would! Without the sinking and the 1500 deaths to compare it to, the hundreds of deaths below would be seen as grossly inadequate operation by Murdoch, and he’d have never seen daylight again. People believed the ship was unsinkable, and his actions would have berated to say the very least. Because again, nobody ever considered the side of an iceberg gashing over 300ft of hull (yes, I know that’s not what happened, but that’s what they THOUGHT happened) It’s a bit of a freak incident even by today’s standards.

[@robertbruce1887]

Thank you for doing a video on the Titanic hitting the iceberg head-on scenario that almost all of us have thought of as, a what if thought. Always enjoy your presentations, cheers mate.

[@mb5970]

This is exactly the question I was pondering!! - nice vid!

[@jaredpatterson1701]

So many things had to go wrong for that ship to sink, but it's amazing looking back (like I'm sure all of us have experienced at some point) how one little change could make such a huge difference in the outcome

[@DMDvideo10]

Honestly it was setup to fail. And boy did it...

[@AverageAlien]

I mean, plowing full speed into an iceberg field at night sort of sealed its fate

[@therailfanman2078]

To think that even a slight change could either save the ship or cause it to sink in minutes is amazing

[@fanofeverything30465]

I've experienced it a depressing number of times

[@richardwich3492]

Try and stay away from those(one)little changes- Can be dead right: "BUT" ! Still wrong...

[@nadrewod999]

The problem with hitting an iceberg dead-on is that, while it MAY be better than scraping against the side, you can't be sure because you don't know how much of the iceberg's mass is hidden underwater, and in either case, you KNOW that completely missing the iceberg is far better than any form of ramming into the only piece of ship-wrecking detritus for dozens of miles, and if the crew do precisely nothing to avoid the collision, then even if the ship survives the crash, their careers on an ocean liner will all end as soon as they arrive at port and get chewed out by the company brass stationed there. We're looking back with near-perfect knowledge and an underestimation of the skill/knowledge required to accomplish the more complex sailing/navigating tasks back in those days. We've had decades to plan out how to avoid the iceberg, the captain only had ~60 seconds.

[@KaienKuran]

Exactly. Also it's just human (or any living things) nature to avoid a head on collision as seen everyday when people drive into ditches because a deer jumped onto the road. Why would you ram an iceberg when there's (in theory) enough room to avoid it.

[@allanfifield8256]

@@KaienKuran Hitting a deer head on at a non-trivial speed is amazing destructive to a car.

[@feoltmanns7624]

@@KaienKuranthat actually happened to me. I was doing 40 mph approaching a curve and a deer casually walked out in front of my car. I never saw it before it walked out into my lane. I followed my instincts and hit it head on, totaling my car but was unhurt, and pulled off the road. What pissed me off was there was another driver right behind me and that person didn’t bother to stop to see if I was ok. That deer rolled up on my hood, hit the windshield and flew off to my left across the highway into a ditch. At the time I thought I was going to break through the window and give me a kiss. Lol. I lost a car, but was relieved that was all.

[@Markus65o2]

Excellent video. Well done and fascinating to hear how things could've played out.

[@kamilapodolak9289]

I remember watching the 1997 movie with my dad for the first time at the age of 8-9. He told me then that the ship wouldn't have sunk if it had hit the iceberg head on. I was fascinated by that possibility, thank you for such a comprehensible explanation.

[@largo6644]

This topic was analized in 1912, two or three weeks after Titanic sunks. Joseph Conrad (the writer, and also a former merchant marine captain) wrote a couple of critical articles about the "new" (and ridiculous) proposal of the "new experts", experts who have suggested the next time you encounter an iceberg you must drive right into it. I have these articles in a book, but I think you could find it for free in internet (the articles were written 110 years ago: I think copyright were expired). Titanic's loss has a simple reason I dind't found still published: In 1912 they were no radars, ok, but they were good and powerfull electric searchlights. Titanic had not head-on mast searchlights to help find icebergs in a dark night, a tragic and unexplainable lack, and the real reason of the (fatal) delay to spot the iceberg. With a head-on mast searchlight, the white iceberg could have been spoted at 3NM at least (and maybe at 5NM), and easily avoided. Greetings from Argentina !!! 🇦🇷

[@jessecrump3014]

Unfortunately most ships in 1912 did not even have those kind of spotlights. Not to mention there was a cold water Mirage on the night of April 14th 1912 which helped disguise the iceberg until it was too late to avoid it. Frankly it's nothing short of a miracle that Frederick Fleet on Reginald Lee spotted the iceberg when they did.

[@jessecrump3014]

Plus in 1912 it was standard operating procedure for every light ahead of the bridge be shut off at night so that it gives the crew the best chance to spot any threat to the ship.

[@largo6644]

@@jessecrump3014 A good practice in sailing boats, even in a typical slow cargo ship, but a bad one in 20 knotters ...

[@victorsamsung2921]

@@jessecrump3014 Perhaps it was best to have slowed down the speed of the Titanic, keeping the moonless night and cold-water mirage as you said in mind. Knowing you're going through a minefield ... it is automatic suicide going with 20 knots(40km/h) as Captain Smith did. When instead after many ice warnings ... it should have been 15 or 12 knots (30 or 25km/h), which would have given Fleet and Lee more time to spot it.

[@jessecrump3014]

@@victorsamsung2921 unfortunately, Ismay wanted the press to marvel at her speed since they knew the size was the biggest in the world at that time.

[@Titanic_401]

SS Arizona isn't a good comparison to Titanic. She was travelling much slower and was a tiny ship, Titanic's coal weighed more than her.

[@waverleyjournalise5757]

And the only way this argument holds up is if we ignore the fact Titanic was much more strongly built than said Arizona. As Mike says, she was designed to punch through the waves of the Atlantic head on. The equation scales quite neatly.

[@samwecerinvictus]

@@waverleyjournalise5757 What? The equation from 5,100 going at 15 knots tons to 48,000 tons going at 21 knots scales as nicely as apples to oranges. Seriously.

[@hawkmoon419]

Yet another one of your consistently informative and entertaining videos.

[@Borolad116]

Good video and food for thought! Thanks for posting.

[@nigelbond4056]

I’ve heard this said several times before but never with so much clarity of explanation. Great video Mike 👌

[@grenvillebamford1205]

I got a book on the sinking of Titanic sixty years ago when I was twelve. The head on collision question was something I remembered discussing when I joined the Royal Navy at sixteen. Great to watch this video thanks.

[@scottmoore1614]

I’ve heard about this theory and it is fascinating to think about. But sadly, the first instinct would have been to try and MISS the iceberg. They wouldn’t have been inclined to ram this brand new ship directly into a solid mountain of ice.

[@zainmudassir2964]

I would have tried to miss too

[@WWESVRPLAYER]

You’re the coolest channel on the topic of Ocean Liners. Great channel 🤟

[@wayne9914]

Just think. If the Titanic had survived, how different the the future would have been. Like the butterfly effect, right now would be completely different.

[@DiGiTyDarKMaN]

So glad I found this channel. I've been obsessed with this ship since I was a kid. These videos are fantastic.

[@AndyTheGabbyCabby]

The Titanic has been of interest to me for more years than I care to remember. Your channel is so informative, thankyou for these videos

[@astaraoneill9166]

Very well done and interesting video!!

[@skodakatie7341]

I always thought Titanic could have survived the impact with the iceberg if she had collided with it head on. I didn’t know the exact physics or mechanics of this alternative scenario until now, great video Mike, I enjoyed watching it❤.

[@JB-od1pi]

Excellent video! Some alternate history mixed with real history and physics, which makes for an amazing combo.

[@andreferro4618]

Your approach is very smart about the collision and also very respectful, to the memory of those envolved in the sinking. Makes a lot of sense what you said and of course we know it's not the first time such a theory is mentioned about the Titanic sinking, but the elements you brought to the discussion were quite unique. As always you produced a very good content with a lot of technical support. I agree when you mention the shock absorber effect. My only suggestion is to talk about the speed Titanic was sailing when hit the iceberg and what might have caused in terms of upscaled damage to Titanic's bow structure. I wish you more and more success on your enterprise, Michael! Greetings from Brazil.

[@_timetravels4528]

lmaaoo this is crazy. I was rewatching the scene and I was wondering EXACTLY this, I refresh YT to look for something else to watch and your video is here.

[@joecarpenter4522]

Great video! Thank you! I have thought many times over that perhaps the Titanic, with her engines in reverse, could have survived a head on collision with the iceberg.

[@pikachoo1]

You are one of the best speakers on YT no holds barred. Excellent research and presentation. Well done.

[@tomsmith3045]

This and your other videos on this ship are fascinating. Nice work on the historical evidence to support survival of a head-on collision. My take away is that if the ship were going slower, the timing would have been different, and she might have avoided the ice or at least reduced the damage. As others have posted in the comments, 20 knots on a dark night, roughly 30 years before radar was developed, is pretty fast.

[@codykrueger796]

You wonder, why was she traveling so fast? Why risk it? Hmmm

[@tappajaav]

@@codykrueger796 Gotta go fast

[@astaraoneill9166]

It was unconscionable.

[@ryann7786]

Fantastic video and details. Seeing the overhead views makes me wish someone with good engineering/simulation understanding could produce Titanic iceberg evasion scenarios, with variables I've always wondered about- like stopping the port screw only during the turn. At a minimum, it seems like we have enough statistical understanding of the event's physics to "reverse engineer" the approach to the iceberg and figure out when it was actually spotted by the lookouts.

[@bluemarlin8138]

Not an engineer, but any steering attempts that were less aggressive than the historical one (hard to port, reverse port screw) would probably result in Titanic turning more slowly and therefore hitting the iceberg nearer to head-on and possibly surviving. I’m not sure there’s really a plausible evasion scenario assuming the iceberg was spotted when it was. Titanic just wasn’t built to be maneuverable. It’s very hard to steer with the screws with a three-screw arrangement and the screws close to the centerline. Just ask Bismarck! Titanic also had a single, relatively small rudder, which didn’t help matters. These features would be seen as poor design choices on a large warship, but for a civilian liner, designers just didn’t see the need for high-speed maneuverability. Most big cruise ships still don’t maneuver well at high speed (although it’s less of an issue with radar).

[@ryann7786]

@@bluemarlin8138 Agreed on the poor maneuverability. But it's my understanding that reversing (historically BOTH engines) actually decreased the effectiveness of an already small rudder. Encyclopedia Titanica discusses it at length with citations from the inquiries. Being that the ship grazed the iceberg, even small variables might have made a difference on the night. I feel like a concerted effort to simulate and engineer this out could yield some exciting insights.

[@frederiknielsen6038]

@@ryann7786 the effectiveness of a rudder is proportional to the amount of water flowing past it, so putting the engines in reverse will absoloutely reduce rate of turn. (and from my own experiences, quite dramatically).

[@AndrasMihalyi]

@@ryann7786 I understand, that there is no evidence for reversing engines on the Titanic. Murdock ordered stop the engines, that turns a red light on in the engine room, and by the time this red light was noticed, the collision already happened. And in 37 seconds, the engines couldn't have been reversed anyway.

[@libbyhobbs4637]

@Frederik Nielsen and cause a head--on.

[@williamfoulkes8716]

Most informative, thank you for sharing.

[@7071t6]

Mate your u tube channel is the best for titanic issues and information, so sad about the tourists who went down just at the start of the week on monday 19/6/23, keep up the great work mate cheers. 🙌🙌👌👌👍👍✌✌😎😎

[@theminingassassin16]

Steel is a material that people tend to underestimate. To help people get a better understanding of how great it is, take a look at the sword known as the Scottish Claymore. This sword was about 55 in. (140 cm.) in length, with a 42 in. (107 cm.) blade. When forged correctly, the blade would have been able to strike shields and armor without breaking, because the blade was just soft enough to absorb the blow yet hard enough to not deform. Also, to prevent breaking, the blade would be able to flex and come back to true (the blade would be straight after flexing). I know it may sound weird to compare a boat to a sword, but keep in mind, this is about steel.

[@Scriptorsilentum]

i thought titanic in 1912 was iron-plated with iron rivets. please correct me...

[@theminingassassin16]

@@Scriptorsilentum Sorry for the late reply. I thought I had replied to you, but I guess not. Any way, according to my research, the Titanic was made of what is known as "mild steel", which is steel with a lower carbon content. Steel is basically iron with a very small amount of carbon mixed in, along with another material, like chromium, which is what "chrome steel" is. The thing is, the more carbon you add to the mix, the harder, yet more brittle, the steel becomes. So for a large ship like Titanic, you want the softer stuff. The rivets were made of "wrought iron", which is mild steel but with even less carbon, less than 0.1% according to my research. I think that's where the misconception, that Titanic was made of raw iron, comes from. Basically, people mixing up mild steel with wrought iron, and people not knowing what wrought iron is and/or confusing it with raw iron.

[@trabant3060]

You can still buy claymores made from 1065 steel (grade not year)

[@theminingassassin16]

@@trabant3060 I know. I've seen Forged in Fire.

[@trabant3060]

@@theminingassassin16 I know a British company that sells them not your reality TV

[@SAOS451316]

Perhaps the misconception about seam-ripping the rivets comes from experiences with modern steels on more normal human scales. A hard knife shatters if you try to stab a rock, but people don't experience multiple centimeters of mild steel going 22 knots being torn through on a regular basis. It's a difficult thing to simulate and there are some variables we don't know, such as how big the berg actually was and what shape it had. If it was a big enough cube it would do as suggested and bring Titanic to a dead stop, causing it to lose two compartments to crushing and two to flooding. What we do know is that it wasn't the biggest of icebergs above water because it could hide in the false horizon. If it was smaller than suggested it may have in real life rolled around the ship somewhat rather than statically scraping it like protruding rocks. To me that's what the scrapes on the wreck look like. If such a berg was hit dead-on it could flip. Since most of a berg's mass is below the waterline it'd be more likely to roll prograde with the ship rather than retrograde, and part of the berg could strike the keel or very low on the hull depending on its shape. If that happened it would probably deform the watertight compartment doors if not make another puncture, and there would have been a slow flooding of the fifth compartment rather than the slow flooding of the sixth behind the coal bunker. In short if the berg was on the smaller side or shaped weirdly a head-on collision may still sink Titanic, but more slowly. Losing the front of the ship would sure make people take the sinking more seriously from the moment of impact. It may have taken Mr Andrews less time to figure out the ship was going to sink, and the power would remain on possibly until dawn. There would be less panic, and maybe that would cause more consistency with the distress call and the rockets, and maybe the Californian would have braved the ice to come help. There still might be a couple more deaths though after the impact from lifeboat trouble. There are hundreds of alternate sinking timelines to concoct.

[@quillmaurer6563]

All the depictions I've seen - not sure if accurate - show the iceberg towering over Titanic, the above-water portion overall at least as big as the ship, overall mass probably hundreds of times more. If that's accurate then I doubt the iceberg would have moved much at all, probably not rolled over. But I see what you're saying, if it were to roll over - something they sometimes do spontaneously anyway, so if it were on the verge of that the little nudge from a little (relative to the iceberg) ship hitting it might be enough to initiate that. So unlikely but not impossible. Then it would have been the ship sort of rolling up onto the iceberg rather than smashing straight into it. As well as damaging the keel, she could have also been lifted only on one side and flipped onto her side, which would be a really bad situation.

[@SAOS451316]

@@quillmaurer6563 When you consider just how dark it was no one is really going to have gotten a good look at its entirely above water. If it was that big you're right, the Titanic may have beached or capsized! There's a famous video of two people climbing a berg that was probably ten meters high and they alone caused it to flip, so a huge ocean liner probably would flip a good size one indeed. It's part of the mystery of the sinking that endures even now with all the information we have. The dramatization doesn't help. People wouldn't be as impressed with the ship hitting an iceberg that looks small so it's gotta be big in all the films. Small ones are still quite dangerous but the average person isn't going to know that. I think it helps sell the great tragedy of it too because the berg is this big immovable unseen threat. It would seem less futile to have a berg smaller than the ship, you know? In reality we know that people could see it from the deck and it was too small to see at ~4km away, but those bounds are the only measure we have. It's interesting to speculate though.

[@quillmaurer6563]

@@SAOS451316 True, good points. I've seen the same video you describe, was thinking about that. I don't think they alone caused it to flip, but might have triggered one that was on the verge of doing so anyway. That's what I was thinking of, most likely the iceberg wouldn't roll from the ship hitting it, but if on the verge of doing so anyway the impact could trigger it to do so. Thinking of the size of the iceberg, even if they couldn't see it from a distance they might have been able to see at least enough of it up close, lit up by the ship, to get a sense of how big it was relative to the ship - smaller than the ship, similar size, or vastly larger. Possible they might have also been able to see it the next morning when Carpathia arrived, in fact I recall that she almost hit an iceberg herself - don't know if it was the same one though, I believe the area was full of them. Thus also possible that they'd not know which was the one Titanic hit. That they saw it at all from that distance indicates it must have been quite large, as all they could see was an area where the stars weren't visible, it had to be looming quite large in front of them for that.

[@SAOS451316]

@@quillmaurer6563 Yes it would be more likely to flip if it was already nearing a flip. If it was the same berg the Carpathia saw it might have had hull paint on it but they may not have seen it either way. It would be quite an unlucky berg if they also hit it! The reason why I say the size is no bigger than what could be hidden is because of the ship's sea trials. They performed a turn at full speed and so the ship has a known turn radius (which I forget but might be 2,000-odd feet?). It was a remarkably dark, clear, and still night so if you calculate the eye height from the crow's nest, the known heading and star positions, and account for the mirage and eye processing time you should be able to calculate a maximum height of the berg as it eclipes a given star! The couple thousand feet to turn is a lot smaller than the distance to the horizon. At 20ish knots even with a minute delay to turn to port and send the warning down to the engines they should not have hit it unless it was already very close. I haven't personally done the math but there should be a formula there and it should work out to a rough measurement of the iceberg. Perhaps twenty meters?

[@basil9973]

It is important to point out that if the iceberg was light enough to be pushed by Titanic, she wouldn't of sank in the sideswipe. Titanic wasn't cut, she was dented. The dent folded inwards her plates due to the speed she was at and allowed water to slip through. A common estimate of the weight of the iceberg is upwards of 200.000 GRT.

[@tubularfrog]

When I heard the voice, I looked up at the screen, and said, "Hey, It's the Titanic guy." I've heard this possibility before (about a direct on collision), but never have had it explained in this fashion with the historical examples. Thanks for this fascinating explanation.

[@robmillerjr.4375]

Outstanding video!! After seeing the Titanic display in St. Pete, FL. I purchased a book or two that I read about the sinking. I also did some online research into the story. Now I knew some things about it, who hasn't at my age (72). All of a sudden I 1 realized that the ship could have come out of the collission damaged but not sunk. I did not know the particulures that you explained, but I knew it would survive. Thank you for posting this video I letting me know I was right! Great job!

[@ToreDL87]

As for head-on collision, I'm calling it a no bueno, because the iceberg scraped the hull in such a way people onboard FELT it. That's solid mass. How much mass? Well, It was big enough for the look-outs to see it from way up in the crows nest in the dark (no moonlight, stars reflection of water only), with almost a minute to spare (damn good look-outs if you ask me). The Titanic made 21 knots, which is almost 40km/h, which means that about a minute away they were about 4000 meters/yards away, and pieces of the iceberg littered the deck upon impact, that's easily an iceberg the size of many millions of tons (metric or imperial, take your pick). And the Titanic wasn't some little fishing boat, it was 52k tons, vs a heavy iceberg, we're talking solid mass vs solid mass at 40km/h. So you're Murdoch, you get the "iceberg ahead" you then proceed to SMASH into it head-on, destroying the first two compartments outright, killing hundreds in the steerage compartments IMMEDIATELY (and this is BEST case scenario), and possibly knocking many more watertight doors out of position? This would sink nie on ANY modern civilian ship, Titanic would have sunk outright, and even if he had rammed it on purpose he would have lost his job 🤣🤣 If anything, Murdoch should have trusted his lookouts (exhibit #1: Lookout to Bridge = "Iceberg, dead ahead!") and immediately turned, but he didn't because earlier on his career he avoided a ship on ship collision by waiting to confirm whether or not there would be a collision at all. Why? Because he didn't trust his lookouts, who weren't just some cheap chumps, they were elite crew transferred from other ships, same as Murdoch. As a result, he delayed maneuvers for half a minute, and when he finally realized thing were about to go flipflop, he ironically stopped engines, denying rudder vital water flow it needed to steer the ship clear of danger, in what little time there was left. Then there's Phillips who should have brought ice-field warnings to his captain, even if they weren't affixed "MSG", Evans (radioman @ Californian) was slammed for omitting "MSG" in the inquiries. Fair enough, but when Phillips himself said CQD (which was so vague literally nobody knew Titanic was even in serious trouble) to Cottam (radioman @Carpathia), he omitted "MSG", to the point that Cottam had to ASK. Phillips didn't fix the primary radio strictly to save the day and be a typical "tech hero", he fixed the primary radio namely so he could send more messages for paying passengers, he stood to earn 12 shillings per message, and there were 200 backlogged messages = Why he shut up Evans, exhibit #1: As he told Evans , "I'm working". And before anyone brings it up, yeah Bride said Phillips messaged DDD, Bride also IDOLIZED Phillips to the point he stuck with him until the final plunge, I don't trust his bitter testimony any more than I could have thrown him, and THAT ain't far 😂 Evan's stayed 30 mins longer on watch than he was legally obliged to, and the Californian had inferior radio that basically destroyed operators ears, so, yes, he was knackered and the Californian's bridge watch, who couldnt make heads or tails of Titanic's plight through the mirage and moonless night, let him sleep. Then there's Smith who omitted lifeboat drill between Cherbourg and South Hampton, so his crew didn't only NOT know quite how to launch the lifeboats effectively (new davit system), they didn't know the boats could be launched at full capacity. Exhibit A: Only one lifeboat was loaded to capacity in the latter part of the sinking, in fact BEYOND capacity, it nearly flooded, but it didn't break into pieces along the hull as it was lowered. They could have saved 1400 people (twice as many as they did) if they had. Then there's the "bosses" aboard namely ALL the lifeboats that didn't take on more passengers at the gangway doors, as they were instructed and as was indeed prepared for (Exhibit A: Testimony + Said doors are open on the wreck), and if they had, perhaps north of 1000 people might have been saved.

[@ToyotaTrucks9]

You deserve more likes.

[@ToreDL87]

@@ToyotaTrucks9 Sadly not many know of the whole radio debacle, and I'm not saying it to discredit Phillips, he did the darndest he could given the circumstances. It's not a new revelation or anything, but it ruins the picture-perfect hero image painted about Jack Phillips by all the Titanicubers, he was a human with flaws like everybody else.

[@suran396]

Thank you for all this.

[@bobcole612]

Just look at what happened 50 years later, when the Andrea Doria was rammed broadside by the Stockholm. The Stockholm's bow was crushed, but she stayed afloat, and the Andrea Doria sunk in a few hours. Lessons learned from Titanic included a lifeboat seat for EVERY soul on board, but half the lifeboats couldn't launch because of the severe list on the Doria (further lesson learned, lifeboat davits must be able to launch with up to a 20⁰ list). However, the Stockholm, Il de France and other vessels were able to rescue all passengers and crew from the Doria, the only loss of life (around 40 on Andrea Doria and 11 from Stockholm) was in the initial collision. But yes, most ships can handle a bow on collision (and naval architecture wasn't VASTLY different from 1910 and 1950). PS, The Stockholm remained in service under various ownership, finally retiring as the MS Astoria in 2020.

[@msa4548]

This is a fascinating video. One thing about the sinking is that it caused the rules for ships like this to be changed and updated to prevent it from happening again. There were multiple military ships that lost their bow in attacks and were still able to sail back to Port.

[@davidhess6561]

Thanks for the great video. 👍 It is a great topic to think about 🤔🤔🤔.

[@Hornbyhenry]

I’ve always found it fascinating how ‘ramming it head on’ is actually not as insane of an idea as it sounds. Great video

[@raven4k998]

well that or maintaining all ahead full as that also makes titanic turn faster but the problem is it's already happened to late to fix it unless you can make me a time machine so I can go back in time and prevent it and become a hero🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@wolfbyte3171]

The thing I consider is the speed difference. Arizona was going at about 15 knots when she hit the berg. It didn't say how fast Grampian was going, but Titanic was at full speed at 21 knots. I don't know the math involved about how much greater a force those 7 knots would make, but it would probably not be insignificant. The other thing is the size of Titanic compared to the Arizona and Grampian, 4,500 and 9,000 tons respectively. Titanic weighed in over ten times bigger than the Arizona. That much mass moving that fast has considerable momentum. I don't know much of the bow would crumple, and if any effects would be seen further down the ship. This all said and done, no one would purposely ram the iceberg. But I suppose better a big embarrassment for White Star rather than a tragedy.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

The impact energy is easy to calculate - half the mass times velocity squared. The crumpling of the bow is less easy to work out as it depends on the structure and materials involved. Add to this the weight of the iceberg impacted and how much the Titanic pushed the iceberg, remember the iceberg isn't a fixed object - it's drifting on the water and would have bounced slightly off the Titanic.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@Milepost93Productions now try running the car or truck into a moving object and you'll find the impact damage is reduced slightly. The iceberg was free to move and taking the laws of physics that cover impacts would have rebounded slightly from the Titanic unlike a fixed object that a truck might hit.

[@ralphe5842]

It’s all proportional the bow simply don’t have the strength to cause damage further down as it fails it absorbs energy the percent of damage could be rather effectively modeled from the damage on a smaller ship titanic was also bigger so more steel to crush which absorbs more energy the speed would cause a longer area of damage but not as much as some would think ships are not trucks as the cab of a truck is mostly non structural and the load moving load cause the damage

[@wolfbyte3171]

@@neiloflongbeck5705 Yes but the iceberg was much more dense than Titanic. Modern estimates place it around 75,000,000 tons (75 million) vs Titanic's 45,000. It would be much more resistant to movement than a ship traveling at speed on top of the water.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@wolfbyte3171 the physics remains the same both the iceberg and the Titanic obey Newton's Laws of Motion and would rebound from the collision. The Titanic would show the bigger amount of rebound, but not a very significant amount whildt the iceberg an unmeasureable amount but still greater than that of an unmovable object like a truck would hit.

[@mnhoss2100]

Great video as always

[@marcbarling2649]

i have fascinated about this ship for as long as i can remember and always wondered if she hit head on if she would of survived thanks for doing this video now i know

[@SQUAREHEADSAM1912]

As much as I love this this channel and how accurate it is, I politely beg to differ, that she could’ve survived a head on collision. Still an amazing video however.

[@TheModelBoatGuy]

Great video as always. I like how you explained how the energy would have been dissipated throughout the hull. Because our day to day experience of materials like steel is on small objects it’s hard to believe steel can be relatively elastic. It’s only really when things get scaled up that we can see these properties. Same with ice really, I think a lot of peoples experience of ice is as an ice cube, or snow, and it’s difficult to imagine such materials cutting open a ship!

[@derekheeps1244]

Those crushed ships looked very much like a Timishenko girder

[@magnemoe1]

Think crumble zone on an car but scaled up a lot.

[@outlet6989]

Steel can be relatively elastic. I've watched KZbin videos showing how rails are moved when laid on ties. The rails do a lot of bending but don't break.

[@dalekinthewater4708]

Thanks for the Film Studies Practical Project idea

[@driverpr21]

i really enjoy your content thanks

[@jeffwalker7185]

I recall reading that the reason ships like Titanic did not have enough life boats to accommodate all passengers was, as she was regarded as practically unsinkable, she would have remained afloat after a collision and the life boats would just be used to ferry passengers and non-essential crew to a rescue ship or ships. Indeed, Titanic actually had more life boats than the law required at the time.

[@GCarty80]

It was more that the regulations were written in an era before radio, when the only situations where lifeboats would be useful would be if running into trouble in sight of either shore (to which lifeboats could ferry passengers a bit at a time) or of another ship (in which case it would be the two ships' combined complement of lifeboats that would be important).

[@ailbecoleman5752]

As always, a meticulously researched, highly informative and elegantly presented video. Bravo Maestro!

[@samwecerinvictus]

Lol no.

[@recruitmentch]

Even on the road, when you encounter an obstacle in front it is natural human reaction to either hit the breaks or try and swerve left or right. The possibility of hitting something head on usually only happens when you have no time to react. Also. We can only speculate just how gigantic the iceberg might've looked to the person on the lookout and then those who were charged with turning the ship away from it. Even if it had hit it straight on, questions would've been asked as to why effort wasn't made to swerve away from it.

[@wlanejr106b]

I always wondered about this topic. Thank you for the explanation and the hard work you put into this.

[@shipbuilding1000]

Agree. Without the disaster in the books as we know it today, it would have ended very badly for Murdoch in this scenario, no way to explain the thinking behind ramming a berg straight on and causing loss of life in an inquiry. Great video!

[@raven4k998]

shame no ones simulated the ships turn rate with the engines all ahead full that could have made her just clear the iceberg not hitting it or maybe at least preventing the hull breach's to some of the same number of compartments saving the ship

[@HarrisonGoldfarb]

I think he would end up being proven correct should he have reasoned he didnt believe that Titanic could have avoided it, and knowing from the previously mentioned ships that did ram icebergs, he thought that would be the best idea. This would have been right when shown that the Olympic was tested with the same time span of 20ish seconds at at the same speed wouldn't have been able to clear the iceberg.

[@occamsrazor6830]

@@raven4k998 They have factored that into many different studies.

[@raven4k998]

@@occamsrazor6830 yeah but the thing is no one really knows how much more she would have turned with the center propellor spinning how ever even if she still hit the turning difference may have made the impact less significant so that fewer compartment had breached and flooded if she took only the first four or less flooding she never would have sank according to what they say she could handle for flood damage due to a hull breach it's sad how these thing were never told to the command staff had Murdock knew to keep the center propellor spinning they may have had a chance but what's done is done and cannot be undone sadly

[@kerotomas1]

Also the Titanic's hull was riveted and not welded, the force of the impact of hitting that huge iceberg would have shattered rivets all around the hull. And it's safe to assume that at the very least the watertight doors would have been broken, on the Britannic a simple naval mine broke all of the watertight doors, imagine the force of a village sized iceberg.

[@clairecelestin8437]

acceleration = (final velocity^2 - initial velocity^2) / (2 * stopping distance). He's absolutely right; crumpling over 80-100 feet really brings down the acceleration felt on the rest of the ship. And that's why cars have crumple zones, and that's why the protection from helmets depends on their thickness.

[@quillmaurer6563]

Good point - he should have done the calculation for actual acceleration, would have really sold the point. Looking at it one way, stopping from 21 knots - about 40 km/hr or 25mph over a distance of 80-100 feet is a relatively gentle stop in a car. Or another, using your equation, assuming 21 knots and 90 feet (easy average), I get 2.1m/s^2, or about 0.2g. That's not insubstantial, but not like a car crash (stopping from higher speed in much less distance). Someone in the stern sitting probably wouldn't have been thrown out of their chair. Someone standing would have stumbled and needed to catch themselves, but wouldn't have been chucked against a wall or anything.

[@lisaborsella5412]

By the way, the knowledge you have and the way you explain it is amazing

[@ismayb754]

I'm glad you pointed out that Murdoch's actions were correct in the moment and that he couldn't have possibly known to sail straight into the berg. Even if he did, what would happen to the Berg next? It might still have drifted round the side causing the same damage anyway. I also like that you point out, had Murdoch sailed straight into the berg, he would have had tough questions to answer later. But I was wondering, would the same be true today? Or would the Titanic "example" be seen as an acceptable reason should a similar ship today face a similar situation, and the steward decided to sail straight into it?

[@TorontoJediMaster]

The main question I have with your theory is *how* the head-on collision could occur if Murdoch still took the same evasive action. Would it be a case of the lookouts sighting the berg several seconds later, and thus the ship hadn't begun to turn when it made contact with the ice? One other question is, just how would they make repairs in Halifax (or in the United States, for that matter)? "Titanic" was the biggest ship in the world and, supposedly, the only drydocks that she could fit into were at Harland & Wolff. Best guess is a navy yard and a drydock that could accommodate a battleship.

[@applejacks971]

If the lookouts seen the berg too late, notified Murdoch much later, it mighta been a 'welp, too late to turn, lets hit the brakes and try to back up...'. He coulda done a full reverse to slow the momentum knowing it was going to be a head on hit. Even if he had time to turn but not avoid a collision, he woulda very quickly ran through the option of 'turning too late a hitting the berg broadside at current speed' vs 'reversing the props to slow down and hitting head on'.

[@SynchronizorVideos]

The repairs in North America probably would have been temporary ones; enough to get the Titanic seaworthy so it could cross back to H&W with a limited crew for full repairs.

[@mickys8065]

The sister ship Olympic had already received repairs in America beforehand, so we know the shipyards needed to work on them were available.

[@cruisingaltitude2976]

This channel is seriously underrated, this guys stories and interesting short-documentaries make me look forward to my next cruise so much! It’s all about cruising, both good and bad. Both past and present. And always dressed in Sunday best. I feel like he’s gonna be the new director of Cunard 😆👌

[@kevingreen9283]

Mike, thanks for sharing this information. Fascinating, but sad it didn't happen this way. Keep up the great content!

[@jamesgroccia644]

(excerpt from an original story, "SOS MGY: The Tragedy of Anna Lantic") The forecastle had been torn away, the hull plates crumpled and folded. Several hundred teak planks had splintered their ends as the ship telescoped close toward her fore mast. Her front sat low in the water, but she did not sink further. A small steamer chugged her way into view to help evacuate the passengers while the grand liner’s crew inspected the damage. Several hundred men painted steel jaws crimson with their splattered bodies, and dripped away to the ocean as the wreckage was cleared. Anna was visibly distraught at the losses incurred, but thankful this was the worst that happened. Cara spoke comfortingly to Anna, assuring her that it could’ve been far, far worse. Once all the passengers had been safely evacuated, and the crew finished their inspection, the two steamers parted ways. Another large steamer came alongside to help ease the burden on the small heroine. Anna’s sister Olivia had come on the scene after hearing word on the wireless her sister was in peril, and rushed to give assistance. Seeing all was well, Olivia hitched strong cables to Anna’s side and helped the battered girl to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Here, temporary repairs were made so she could return to Belfast. Anna had much to think about on this outcome. What would her life have been like had she struck head-on? If she had slowed down at the first ice warning, would the damage have not been as severe? She had lost track of how long she’d been down here, surrounded by darkness. Weeks? Months? Years? She couldn’t tell apart from some of her rusted fittings falling off or crumbling to dust. Soon she would suffer a similar fate, her body wasn’t meant to spend such long spells beneath the waves, especially this far down.

[@alicjawrzesinska7518]

I live close to Belfast where Titanic was built. Last July I went to Greenland , we were sailing along the Disco Bay I had no idea then ( only discovered when I returned) that the iceberg that Titanic hit came from exactly the ice fjords we were sailing along! Unbelievable by the way I love the story of Titanic ❤ and the music from the’97 film is just magical ❤

[@BlueSevenOFFICAL]

Did you see marks 🤗

[@alicjawrzesinska7518]

@@BlueSevenOFFICAL marks of what ?:)

[@RebuttalRecords]

A very interesting "what if" scenario. Thanks for sharing.

[@alertscpi7898]

I had asked the same question if Titanic could have survived if they did a full engine stop and hit the iceberg head on. This video found its way to my KZbin feeds. Thank you for the video. It was well researched and make logical sense. I am convinced that Titanic would have survived, though some lives would still be lost, but the ship would have stayed afloat and majority of its passengers would have been rescued as well.

[@grindupBaker]

That head-on (with whatever time was available for any way of stop engines & full astern) is what I wondered a few years ago. Note that you can't see the iceberg in the cartoon at 3:10. You're only seeing the top 10% of the iceberg so the ship is already either floating just above the iceberg or its keel is scraping on the iceberg as it approaches the tiny bit above water that's shown.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

Another well-done video Mike! And you're right about Mr. Murdoch, if there was a chance to avoid the collision he had to take it. In my opinion throwing the engines into reverse was his mistake, the ship would have turned quicker if forward speed had been kept up. Also people should remember Titanic was designed with the main maritime hazard of the time in mind, that is, collisions with other ships, the biggest worry in those pre-radar days especially in heavily-trafficed harbor areas. No-one could forsee a situation where 300 feet of a ships side could be damaged in the way Titanic's was. MAYBE as an act of war, but even then that was problematic.

[@quillmaurer6563]

The Titanic hitting the iceberg in that way was a stroke of bad luck - any less impact and she would have been fine, any more impact and she would have stopped or been pushed away. An exact right circumstance engineers couldn't have protected her from.

[@Kaidhicksii]

Apparently Titanic's engines weren't reversed: the order was all stop. There was only one coal worker who claimed that to have been the order, but the rest all said it was all stop. Some guy on Quora explained this as well as why reversing the engines would only make matters worse. If I can find the link again, I'll share it.

[@thepessimistictitan2655]

He didn't throw the engines into reverse. Most modern Titanic historians agree he set the engine order telegraph to All Stop based in testimony of the stokers and common sense (If Titanic went into reverse, the cavitation would have woken everyone on the ship up with the massive vibrations). Regardless it makes little difference since there was little time for the engineering crew to actually stop the engines let alone reverse them. In 30 - 20 seconds Titanic hit the berg at full speed with maximum turning power.

[@danfannon1707]

Murdoch was faced with an impossible situation. (1) He could have put the engines in reverse to slow the ship's speed and hit the berg head-on, but hitting head-on ON PURPOSE was unthinkable to a master of the British maritime elite, and therefore, only an option for us armchair navigators after the fact. (2) The first inclination in any situation where a collision is emminent is to throw the engines in reverse, or in the case of a car, to step on the brakes hard. But of course, since it was impossible for the Titanic to stop in time to avoid hitting the berg, she would naturally keep plowing forward no matter the engines. The decision to not reverse would then be how to best use that forward motion. (3) the rudder of a ship only really works when there's water flowing over it from the props, so in reversing the engines, the Titanic cut her ability to turn hard to port very, very substantially which didn't allow her to clear the berg. (3) Had Murdoch kept the engines at full throttle forward -- there were two possible outcomes: either it might have given the rudder greater purchase to turn the ship to port and to (just) miss the berg, or the ship would have run against the berg at a higher speed and greater impact, and perhaps more dangerously at midships than the bow. In other words, the only good answers to the horrible problem Murdoch faced can come from those of us who weren't unlucky enough to be at the Titanic's helm that night.

[@MB-uu3mu]

Thank you, very well done!