Introduction
Before 1982, passenger steamships were the sole way for travelers and mail to travel between Europe and North America. The Cunard Steamship Company’s Lusitania and Mauritania were the fastest and largest, with a gross weight of 31000 tons and a top speed of 26 knots (Felkins et al., 1998). When Harland & Wolf and White Star Line merged, the directors decided to build three massive white star ships (the RMS Olympic, the RMS Titanic, and eventually the RMS Britannic) to compete with the Lusitania and Mauritania (Brittle steel in the hull may have doomed titanic, 1993). The Titanic set sail for New York for the first time on April 10, 1912, and hit an iceberg heavier than its mass. This caused damage to the hull that led to rupturing of the forward compartments. Flooding followed the compartments that led to the ship’s sinking within two hours and forty minutes, killing more than 1500 lives (Broad, 1997). The crew’s arrogance, the brittle steel in the hull, and six 300-foot gash openings are thought to be the causes of the RMS Titanic’s sinking.
The Arrogance of the Crew
Reports have shown that the crew had neglected the warning that there were many ice fields on their way to New York City. The French liner La Touraine provided radio advice in the steamship lanes in the early afternoon of April 12, which was unusual for the April trip (Basset, 2016). About 60 hours before the deadly crash, this proposal was sent. The number of ice warnings received by radio from other ships grew as the expedition progressed. With time, these signals provided more accurate information on the location of the icefields, and it was clear that the ship was approaching a major icefield. It was possible to avoid the ice fields since the reports through radio had such precision. Such reports and warnings could have aided the crew to change their course for their safety however, the crew chose to ignore them since they believed that the ship was unsinkable. Primarily, the Titanic ship hitting the iceberg that was 120 kilometers long was the start of faulty issues.
Even though the crew had previously received a radio warning, the ship resumed its journey at a speed of roughly 21.5 knots. Since the iceberg was entirely invisible, the ship was struck by the iceberg near the bow on the starboard about four meters above the keel (Basset, 2016). This caused the hull and rivets to break into two parts and sink faster than expected. Otherwise, this is one of the most likely reasons that led to that fatal collision, and if the iceberg was apparent, then the RMS Titanic would exist up to date.
The Broken Brittle Steel in the Hull
The brittle steel in the hull is believed to have caused the RMS Titanic to sink faster than expected after the calamity. The builders had predicted that it would take one to three days to sink in case the ship developed faults in the middle of its journey (Zappas, 2008). However, the ship only took less than three hours to sink, and it could nowhere to be seen. Precisely, reports have shown that the ship sank after two hours and forty minutes only after hitting the iceberg (Brittle steel in the hull may have doomed the titanic, 1993) The iceberg slammed into the hull, shattering hull plates and breaking rivets, allowing the first six compartments to open. Marine geophysicist Steve Blasco and a mechanical engineer, Duncan Ferguson, argued that the hull plates were so brittle and thus shattered on impact with an iceberg (Zappas, 2008). They said that the steel used in 1912 was significantly more brittle than today’s steel and that the ship’s two-centimeter-thick plates may have shattered like plate glass when it slammed into the iceberg at 22 knots.
Furthermore, the quality of the material used in the manufacture of the ship was questionable. The brittleness of the steel used was subject to research done on the wreck that was discovered back in 1985. However, if the steel was today’s type, it could not have saved the ship, but at least the ship could take one to three days before it sank, which could allow sufficient time to save lives. The extent of loss of lives could have been managed since passengers could have been saved and the lives lost could be less than 1500. Similarly, the rivets could have helped hold the ship longer than three hours, saving more lives (Zappas, 2008). Probably, the use of less brittle steel would lower the chances of an accident.
The Opening of a 300-Foot Gash in the 900-Foot-Long Luxury Liner
Similarly, the impact of the iceberg was suspected of having caused an opening of a 300-foot gash in the 900-foot luxury liner. Hitting the iceberg being the primary cause, the openings contributed to the faster sinking of the RMS Titanic (Zappas, 2008). The report scientists compiled upon research done on wreck collected from the sea in 1985 indicated a small series of six thin openings across the Titanic’s starboard hull (Broad, 1997). The estimated damage area was between twelve and thirteen square feet, or less than two sidewalk squares (The sinking of the RMS Titanic, 2017). The six wounds on the starboard hull were one of the blows believed to have doomed the famous Titanic ship.
Conclusion
Generally, the RMS Titanic was meant to ease the transport sector to New York City, but it was destined to be a letdown. Ignorance of crew, the broken brittle steel in the hull, and the opening of the 300-foot gash in the 900-foot luxury linerurporting were the major faults subject to the crisis. Assuming that the ship had been constructed using today’s steel, then the hull plates could have been broken easily by the iceberg, and possibly the Titanic could not have sunk. Otherwise, the safety team would have had sufficient time to save the lives and property since the ship could have taken one to three before sinking.
References
Bassett, V. (2016). Causes and Effects of the Rapid Sinking of the Titanic. Vicki Bassett College of Engineering University of Wisconsin.
Brittle steel in hull may have doomed titanic: [final edition]. (1993). Kitchener – Waterloo Record. Web.
Broad, W. J. (1997). Toppling Theories, Scientists Find 6 Slits, Not Big Gash, Sank Titanic: [Chronology]. New York Times. Web.
Felkins, K., Leighly, H. P., & Jankovic, A. (1998). The royal mail ship Titanic: Did a metallurgical failure cause a night to remember JOM-WARRENDALE-, 50, 12-17.
Zappas, K. R. (2008). What really sank the titanic? A materials science investigation. Jom, 60(7), 96.
Gannon, R. (1995). What really sank the Titanic: why did the “unsinkable” ship go down only three hours after hitting an iceberg? A new scientific investigation answers an 80-year-old mystery. Popular Science, 246(2), 49+.
Unknown (director), (2017). The sinking of the RMS Titanic [Film; online video]. Youtube.