Relatively Recent Theory - Titanic Running Aground

[ShamelessAngels]

According to Titanic's Final Moments: Missing Pieces, an expedition to explore the wreckage made an interesting discovery south of the stern's debris field. They said they found "long strips of metal." Unfortunately, the submersible's camera equipment malfunctioned and they had no proof of what they saw, but this set in motion a new theory. Maybe these long strips were from the bottom of the ship. If so, then Titanic just didn't graze the side of the iceberg, but actually ran over part of the iceberg too. In the documentary, we learn that an iceberg does not go straight down. Instead, the water causes it to form a shelf below the water line. Hence, it's theorized in this documentary that Titanic ran aground on the iceberg. If so, in addition to the damage to her side, maybe there was also significant damage on her bottom, explaining how she sank in less than three hours. What does everyone think about this?

[Shuimulung]

I suspect the the metal strips, if they exist, are part of the debris from the breakup as she sank. It is quite possible that there was some damage to the underside of the hull but remember the underside is the one portion of the hull that had a double bottom. All the intial reports indicate that water was entering from the side and not the bottom. It is also extremely unlikely that the impact could actually have torn off any hull plating-ice could pop rivets and bend hull plates but it would break away as it did so.

Also, the Titanic actually sank quite slowly. Two hours and forty minutes may sound quick to someone unfamiliar with maritime history, but in fact it's a long time. Some comparisons: Lusitania-18 minutes after being torpedoed in 1915, Titanic's sister ship Brittanic went \went down in less than an hour after she either struck a mine (as the Germans claimed) or was torpedoed (as the British claimed) in the Agean in 1916. The Empress of Ireland sank in 14 minutes after being rammed by the collier Storstad in the St. Lawrence River in 1914. To me the fact that it took nearly three hours for Titanic to sink is a good indication that the damage, while severe, was not beyond repair had Smith and the crew made any attempt to do so (see my article at the Steamship Historical Society of America's website: http://www.sshsa.org)

[Michael H. Standart]

>>What does everyone think about this?<<

It's not really all that new. Both David G. Brown and Parks Stephenson advanced this theory almost 12 years ago, well before "Missing Pieces" was even conceived. There is also a period drawing dating to 1912 which presents the Titanic as running over an iceshelf.

My own take is that it shows that the accident was a lot more dynamic then a spur ripping the side open and it's also a lot more credible. However, I don't think it hastened the ship's demise. There is little if any evidence which suggests that the tank top itself was compromised, and the side damage which we know occured was more then enough to do the ship in.

[ShamelessAngels]

Very cool! I am learning so much about one of my favorite subjects on this forum. Thanks so much to both of you for your expertise!

[Aly Jones]

maybe there was also significant damage on her bottom, explaining how she sank in less than three hours. What does everyone think about this?

I personalty think 2 hrs and 40 minutes for a ship to stay afloat Is a good amount of time. Say Titanic ran aground more passengers would had felt the collision,In reality and history some passengers never felt a thing. The significant amount of damage and a big gash were the first thing people had thought what had happen to the Titanic and with more research It turns out It were little punchers like morse-code along side Titanic's hull that open small amount of holes.

Say Titanic foundered with a 300 meter foot gash,I doubt Titanic's bow would still be attach the the main body. The fall and crashed to the sea bed caused her bow to buckle (as we see her today) say her bow were to have a 300 feet gash,free falling to the seabed, It won't be In the position as we see her today.

[Shuimulung]

Very true Aly. I remember when they found what is probably the buckled plating from the collision. It was estimated to be about twelve square feet in total (but spread out over several hundred feet) and the narrator's comment was something like "it's amazing that such a small opening could sink such a large ship."

Let's face it, you can get a LOT of water through twelve square feet especially when it's under pressure the way it was on Titanic.

[David G. Brown]

Parks Stephenson and I apparently came up with what is now known as the "grounding theory" separately, but simultaneously. I published my version in my book, "The Last Log Of The Titanic." Parks contacted me and explained his ideas. To avoid any arguments over who came up with the idea, we mutually published a white paper which is available in full on his web site, "Marconigraph."

-- David G. Brown

[Aly Jones]

Hello David,

Why do you think Titanic had a much bigger damage Impact than previous thought and why do you think Titanic run aground on the berg? I should by your book, so don't give to much away.

[Titanic_Malaysia]

Good day David, if I'm not wrong, while an iceberg may look small above the water, the portion underwater is just huge (at least 10x the size!)... As such, even though it may look like Titanic merely scraped the iceberg, the part of the ship below the water suffered the brunt of the collision when it hit the bottom part of the 'berg... It must have been this heavy impact that caused the steel plates to give way and allow tons of water to flood the ship!

[Titanic_Malaysia]

To further express my point, this picture shows the contrast between the above-water and underwater portions of an iceberg:

[Aly Jones]

How can Titanic run aground on an berg? Rocks are stationary' bergs float and move.
I can see that Titanic may had hit the Berg with higher force creating more heavey flooding by TM's Image---- the berg sticks out undernieth more than the top' though does not prove that Titanic ran aground. There Is no solid base for Titanics hull to rest on.

[ShamelessAngels]

How can Titanic run aground on an berg? Rocks are stationary' bergs float and move.
I can see that Titanic may had hit the Berg with higher force creating more heavey flooding by TM's Image---- the berg sticks out undernieth more than the top' though does not prove that Titanic ran aground. There Is no solid base for Titanics hull to rest on.

When the water laps on the iceberg, it melts some of it away, thereby creating a "shelf" of ice below the water line. Titanic would have run aground on that shelf of ice in this theory.

[pat toms]

shameless angels,my godfather told me about this theory over 60 years ago,he came from near ditchling common in Sussex and his daughter was a hairdresser on the Olympic,his name was charles Guy.He was an inventor a racing car driver who drove on a racetrack Brooklyns in the south of England,an electrical and mechanical engineer,and the manager of the Westover garage in Bournemouth.However he told me that the Titanic might have run onto an ice shelve. Pat

[Titanic_Malaysia]

Kristen, by "shelf of ice", I'm assuming you're talking about this, am I correct?

Notice the base of the iceberg, with those protruding ends which can still be seen, but what about the underwater ones, which can be more deadly?

[Aly Jones]

But nobody saw what the what Titanics berg looks like underneath. So it is just a theories like all other stories out there.