Welcome aboard, Jason.
Jason Jr. wrote:I think the design did it in, as its the one of the first 800ft+ vessels ever made. Other ships held a similar 90ft width and likely the near full additional of 100ft added more strain to the keel and joint regions.
Titanic's proportions were by no means unusual. There is no problem in having a longer ship, provided that is borne in mind during construction and adequate compensation is provided within the design. In terms of the length to breadth ratio, it was 9.58 to 1 in Titanic's case, slightly less than Adriatic's. The second Majestic, built as Bismarck prior to the war, was 956 ft long and 100 ft breadth, giving a neat 9.56 to 1 ratio. If memory serves, Oceanic (1899) was more than 10 to 1. Other White Star liners built by Harland & Wolff were similarly constructed and enjoyed decades of reliable service. Titanic was not, in proportion, exceptionally long for a ship of her width.
Jason Jr. wrote:The joints of her sister ships were re-enforced by then, so they probably wouldn't have problems in sinking by the forward or aft-end intact under the same conditions.
Ships aren't designed to founder. In that sense, it makes no difference whether one founders intact or not.
It isn't the case that either Olympic or Britannic's expansion joints were reinforced. The original expansion joint configuration served Olympic fairly well over a period of a quarter of a century. Yes, improvements were made to future ships as a normal part of progressive marine engineering, but in that Harland & Wolff were aware of improvements that could be made in March 1912, in all likelihood this was one of Britannic's chanegs that originated from experience with Olympic in 1911 and early 1912. See:http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/Olympic- ... _myth.html