This shock wave theory has been soundly debunked. You're using a very poor understanding of physics. The 1999 paper on the mechanics of ship collisions by Shengming Zhang covers this well. In a nutshell: The very method of construction and material used make ships makes this "shock wave" idea not possible. These ships were made of steel with giant forming ribs (also known as frames) and frames with steel plating. Steel is relatively soft and has a good deal of elasticity and plasticity. The way the ships were made, the hull forming frames, bulkheads and longitudinal frames would telescope, thus absorbing a lot of the energy. This happened to two ships and both hit an iceberg head on, suffered telescoping, but ultimately survived the impact, we repaired and continued plying the waters thereafter. SS Arizona - 1879. SS Grampian - 1919. With Titanic being much bigger than these two other liners, she would stand just as good a chance of survival if not more. It essentially boils down to the fact that the more steel there is, the more force is absorbed.

@Alexius01

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you! Someone gets it!

@TitanicAnimations

2 жыл бұрын

I'm interested in your reply. So you're saying a 45,000 ton vessel running into essentially a solid wall, can withstand the force of a full impact? Even when a well-known and researched historian has stated otherwise? To provide the full quote, "They point to the SS Arizona that hit an iceberg in 1871 or something, I forget, and she hit the iceberg and it collapsed her entire bows up to her collision bulkhead but that bulkhead held and she limped back into port and was not lost...and they say, Well that's precedent! Titanic would have done the same. But, I say no. The reason why is, Arizona was a 5,000 ton vessel. 5,147 gross registered tons, something like that. And she was going at most 15 knots. Titanic was 45,000 tons going 22.5 knots. The physics are entirely different. Yes, she's a bigger ship. That doesn't mean she can absorb a proportional amount of damage. As I've seen in my computer simulation, the flooding models...I didn't run this particular scenario because, that wasn't the point at the time but if I were to run it today I could predict that the model would say that if she rammed head on...let's say the iceberg presented a wall-face to her. Let's give her the optimal conditions for ramming head-on. Even under optimal conditions of running into a wall of ice head-on at 22.5 knots, you have to take into account the momentum of 45,000 tons coming to (just) a dead stop within a few feet... I did the calculations on this one year and the energy generated by that collision was 16 times (if I remember correctly) 16 times the yield strength of the (Titanic's) steel. We're talking about a complete collapse of the ship's structure. We're talking about affecting bulkheads, watertight doors that are in tracks mounted to bulkheads that have to fall by gravity, they would suffer shock damage of a magnitude well-beyond what I could predict. I don't think there is any way the Titanic could survive a head-on collision with the iceberg. I think that the physics are against it. You can't use these smaller slower ships as a precedent." - Parks Stephenson, The Titanic Channel. Season 2, Episode 42. 2018

@bmused55

2 жыл бұрын

@@TitanicAnimations historians are not physicists. I will take the word and calculations from one of those over the opinion of a historian all day long Zheng calculated that a ship about 150 thousand tonnes, so MUCH larger than Titanic, would suffer a severely crushed bow, but would survive.

@TitanicAnimations

2 жыл бұрын

@@bmused55 so we have one person running calculations saying, “complete catastrophic failure” and another person running calculations saying, “it’d be alright” Seems like we’ve reached an impasse.

@angelocorradino8720

2 жыл бұрын

@@TitanicAnimations Ocean Liner Designs actually just uploaded a similar video. He also came to the conclusion that titanic would have survived. I think what these people are saying is that a Shockwave like the one you are describing would not have happened because steel isn't perfectly rigid like glass. It can and will bend. Again, assuming I understand correctly, the larger a ship is and the more steel there is, the impact it can survive is also larger because there is more steel. I'm not taking a side though. I'm not a physicist and what I am describing could be totally wrong. Like I said, I would recommend the video by ocean liner designs. He does a much better job of explaining.

I never liked the "they should've hit head on" argument. Simply put, why would Murdoch just stand there and not turn to try to avoid the iceberg entirely. He wasn't going for a side swipe instead of head on crash, he thought he could avoid a collision entirely.

@NCMA29

3 ай бұрын

You're quite right - no Merchant Navy officer in his right mind would have allowed his ship to deliberately ram an iceberg. Saving the ship was Murdoch's number one priority and no one could ever suggest he should have aimed right for the iceberg. The fact that the glancing blow would leave a long fatal gash as opposed to just mashing in her bows is hindsight, so not even worth debating in terms of any actions that should have been taken. The fact the TITANIC would likely have survived a direct impact is a matter of engineering interest, but it should have no bearing on the conduct of the ship's officers.

I've never given this "theory" too much thought really -- the idea that Murdoch would be standing on the bridge of the Titanic and decide that the best course of action is to willingly drive her straight into a iceberg is absolutely ridiculous.

@iananderson8363

2 жыл бұрын

I’ve never heard “that” theory before! You are the first person I’ve heard suggest that they see the iceberg and deliberately steer into it. All the times I’ve heard this brought up it’s been: if they didn’t see the berg and hit it head on, they tried to turn but she didn’t turn in time, or just a hypothetical thought if she hit head on and what would happen. I’ve never heard someone come to the conclusion that “Murdock (sic) would be standing on the bridge of the Titanic and decide that the best course of action is to willingly drive her straight into an iceberg” because that is “absolutely ridiculous!” It really is, and in 25+years of learning about this ship I’ve never considered your scenario… Yer a cynical feller ain’t ya? Mmhm

@jonathanp89

2 жыл бұрын

@@iananderson8363 it's Murdoch...

@iananderson8363

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanp89 it’s a quote, you don’t revise a quote. But I will ad a (sic) since I didn’t catch it, thank you.

@Kaidhicksii

Жыл бұрын

The only way such a thing would make sense is that, in addition to the flat calm, pitch black and mirage that night, there would be fog to further hamper vision. In that case, no one would see the berg until the ship was right on top of it.

@Xer405

Жыл бұрын

He was a fool. Head on collisions are far more survivable than side collisions. Especially when you have only seconds to turn and were steaming ahead. Why he didn't just reverse to slow and just take it head on is a mystery.

As someone pointed out, the video by Ocean Liner Designs explains this theory very well. It talks about the plasticity and elasticity properties of steel and why it would have probably survived the hit or at the very least buy more time for Carpathia to arrive. I do agree though that no one in their right mind would think to strike an iceberg head on, so Murdoch did the expected, try to avoid the collision

All cgi footage was created by me, other sources are provided when they could be obtained. I have a Pond5 account now where you can license footage and audio for projects: www.pond5.com/artist/titanicanimation Thank you for watching, and your support!

@titanicandothershipstudies4202

2 жыл бұрын

This theory is always a think about theory, and that’s why I love it!

Walter Lord dryly points out in "The Night Lives On" that had Murdoch chosen instead to ram the iceberg, we would all then be ironically second-guessing why he just didn't merely try to steer around it.

@NCMA29

3 ай бұрын

Good point!

If Titanic hit the iceberg head on maybe the V-break theory would make sense

@TitanicAnimations

2 жыл бұрын

Gave me a chuckle, have a thumbs up

@notjebbutstillakerbal

2 жыл бұрын

@@TitanicAnimations me too, take your like

@rmsolympic438

Жыл бұрын

Probably no because the impact force would be on the bow, not on the hull and the keel. Anyway the hull was very strong, aswell as the keel. But anyway nice thinking.

@griffith2995

Жыл бұрын

@@rmsolympic438 I'm gonna rephrase it to "even if the Titanic hit the iceberg head on the V-break theory would not make sense" lol

@rmsolympic438

Жыл бұрын

@@griffith2995 Yes.

Good point. The designers designed Titanic to survive a collision with another ship, not an iceberg. Also note that only the tip of the iceberg appears above water, meaning a majority of the iceberg is underwater

@claian12

2 жыл бұрын

This. The iceberg was easily several times the mass of the Titanic. Like a car hitting a truck, the iceberg isn't the object that's going to be pulverized.

@livetotell100

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. around 2/3 of an iceberg is underwater.

@rmsolympic438

Жыл бұрын

@@livetotell100 Actually no. 9/10 of the iceberg is underwater. It is proven because ice has 9/10 of the density of the water so only 1/10 is above the water. It was proven anyway by the scientists. So it means that the officers only saw a small part of the iceberg.

@naysayer1238

Жыл бұрын

@@livetotell100 I thought it was 9/10.

@NCMA29

5 ай бұрын

I doubt very much whether the designers were differentiating between solid object and other ships. They were merely concerned with the ship surviving a collision. Period.

Interesting since Ocean Liner Designs put out a video about a week ago which said that it would have withstood a head-on collision… would be good if somebody did a scale model real life simulation to see exactly what would likely have happened

@navarroboi

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I seen it and now I don’t know what to believe. We just simply don’t know unless it was tested accurately

@trevormacewan

2 жыл бұрын

His video was at least informative in terms of physics and newtons law. That said, experts and during the inquiries it was determined if she hit head on she'd survive or at least survive long enough till the Carpathia arrived. Still some third class and sleeping fireman would've been instantly killed from the collision and the damage would've spanned 100 or so feet maybe going as far as the crows nest.

@houseofaction

8 ай бұрын

only a small percentage of experts have said it might have survivved, keyword MIGHT HAVE the majority disagree@@trevormacewan

@NCMA29

5 ай бұрын

@@navarroboi Ocean Liner Designs is the correct scenario. They arguments here are faulty and not backed up by real-life examples. HMCS COLUMBIA ran into a cliff head on at high speed, yet nothing described in this video occurred. She merely lost her bow and was towed into port.

@GoshaEve

3 ай бұрын

​@@NCMA29HMCS Columbia displacement = 2 800 tonns, Titanic displacement = 52 310 tonns. So during the head-on collision, there would be 19 times more cinetic energy in Titanic's case. Titanic's hull was made of steel plates connected by rivits, not by welding. As you know, they did fail even by slight collision. What would happen if there were 19 times more energy? You should also consider that watertight doors were not meant to operate under such loads, so probably they would just stuck at upright position. So yes, it would be really much worse.

I won't even pretend to agree or disagree with my understanding of physics. All I can say is your animations are magnificent. Well done.

What I see a lot is that people assume that the iceberg is a solid wall, when it is in fact a free-floating body. I see estimates that the iceberg that night was around 2x-4x the mass of Titanic. So it's not so much a car vs. immovable wall or a parked semi-truck (easily 10x the mass), but car vs. a parked SUV or larger van. Surely, over the course of a 22mph collision, the iceberg would absorb some of the energy and be pushed along a little bit, effectively yielding a tiny bit and causing less damage than an actual solid wall or a rocky cliff coastline.

@TitanicAnimations

Жыл бұрын

It varies from iceberg-to-iceberg, and how long that berg has been shedding mass through it's lifespan; but generally the largest bulk of an iceberg is not above water but underneath. The estimates of 2x-4x the mass of Titanic cannot be confirmed. To this day the only general idea of the iceberg that we have are the descriptions of those who survived the disaster and witnessed it with their own eyes. A few passengers described it as being the general shape of the Rock of Gibralter, and one portion of it was just a bit taller than the Boat Deck, which itself was about 65-70 feet above the waterline. General estimates are around 50-70 feet tall, 70-150 feet wide, and about 170-225 feet in length. And again, that's just for the portion of the berg that was above water. We have no confirmation of what the mass underneath the water was like.

the Titanic at full speed and hit the iceberg head on just like a car everybody would want to move forward toward the the iceberg people would be injured no seat belts on the Titanic

Its also possible that the bow would fold into itself up to the well deck, but in the end we don't fully know because a ship of titanic's size and speed never done this.

@trevormacewan

2 жыл бұрын

I think other experts and the Inquires determined that a head on collision would've saved Titanic. But the damage would've crushed a 100 feet inwards killing mostly sleeping fireman and damaging one to two compartments. Even Captain Smith claimed you could cut Titanic in pieces and she'd still float due to her design.

@trevormacewan

2 жыл бұрын

@Bonka That's true.

These liners were closer to ships of the age of sail than to modern ships in structure. They handled shockwaves like a tuning fork, as in Britannic's case the mine that she struck bent her hull temporarily to snap her wireless arerials and jam her watertight doors. With Lusitania, the torpedo that struck her is thought to be responsible for causing a secondary explosion, theories about the nature of the secondary explosion are up for debate. But its largely acknowledged that these ships did not transfer sudden shockwave energy very well.

I'd wonder if a proper debate between yourself and Oceanliner Designs would be worth having, seeing as you both have released video in the Head-on theoy in a relitivly short period of time. I would watch that. Maybe even get Casual Navigation involved.

@ssgus3682

Жыл бұрын

Historical Travels has also said hitting the Iceberg dead on might have worked.

@ThatWolfFromHyruleGaming

Жыл бұрын

Recently in his latest livestream he said the titanic would not have survived. Nobody takes into account that the iceberg the ship encountered was 5 times the mass of the ship, if not more. It would be like driving into a solid concrete wall going 60. You’d be dead and your car would be a trash pile. Also take inertia into account. 52,000 tons coming to a complete stop in a few seconds would not be pretty, if the ship survived. As Titanic Animations described, everything not bolted down to the structure and decks would get shoved forward. Not to mention the crew and passengers in the front of the ship would pretty much be dead on impact.

@samwecerinvictus

Жыл бұрын

@the5x5x5x Casual Navigation is a really poor quality content creator. Barely does the bare minimum amount of research and his videos are fraught with misinformation.

@wolfie54321

Жыл бұрын

@@ThatWolfFromHyruleGaming The question is just how long the "crumple zone" is and whether the general structure of the hull can survive that energy. If you're in a car going 40km/h (roughly the speed of the titanic) and hit something solid, that energy is absorbed over 1 or so metres of crumple zone and you might survive it (in a modern car with airbags and whatnot good chance it'd be survivable). If the titanic crumples by 20 or so metres, the deceleration rate will actually be much much lower. People would be falling over and maybe some of the furniture would slide forward, but it wouldn't be terrible, maybe a bit like being on a bus that hit the brakes unexpectedly. There's a lot more mass behind it, but that's mainly a consideration in how much damage is done to the hull (how many compartments get crumpled and if there's any damage aft of the crumple zone).

@ThatWolfFromHyruleGaming

Жыл бұрын

@@wolfie54321 that we don't know. a ship like Titanic never had a head-on collision so we don't definitively know what would happen or how the ship would react in such a scenario. sure, the crumple zone in a car can protect you so much but with a full speed impact, its much worse. Titanic was full speed ahead and even with the engines full reverse to slow her down, the impact would still be like trying to slow down a fully loaded freight train or a train . i still believe TA's explanation. they had about 30 seconds to move the ship out of the way before impact. again, ship was going full speed with all its 52,000GRT. all that stopping in a few seconds? whole ship would be devastated. if you want to see what happens to a car in a full speed crash, load up beamng, pick a car, and drive as fast as you can into a solid wall, then tell me Titanic would survive.

Yes Philip I couldn’t agree more hitting the iceberg head on would have killed everyone sleeping in the forward bow. And would have warped the ships frames leaving the water tight doors inoperable

@trevormacewan

2 жыл бұрын

From my knowledge they shut the doors well in advance of hitting the berg or just slightly after impact but even that wasn't enough to save her.

@Unhinged_Pegasus69

2 жыл бұрын

If they decided to hit the berg head-on, the officers on the bridge would know that the resulting breach in the hull would definitely sink the ship if the doors were left open. They would’ve closed the doors in advance, as in, *before* the collision. It’s the first thing they would’ve done, meaning that if the hull was warped and the doors inoperable, they would be stuck in their closed position. Thus preventing any flooding of undamaged compartments. Your argument is invalid.

@thelittleredhairedgirlfrom6527

Жыл бұрын

@@Unhinged_Pegasus69 you didn’t address the part of the argument where there are people in the parts of the ship that would’ve been crumpled

@Unhinged_Pegasus69

Жыл бұрын

@@thelittleredhairedgirlfrom6527 it would’ve been mostly crew who perished, and on top of that only 200-400 people would’ve died, which is much better than the 1500 irl.

I’m glad someone understands that this is impossible!

I find this very plausible. It is ludicrous to begin with to expect a maritime officer to willingly collide with an object instead of attempting to evade it, but with an iceberg, that can only come from people who fail to understand the forces involved of a 52.000 ton steel vessel racing into a massive, basically immovable mountain of ice with the estimated mass of about 2 megatons. I completely agree that she would have been so ripped apart, she would have gone down incredibly fast, perhaps within 10 minutes even. And no one would have survived. If this would have happened, it is almost safe to assume that the radio equipment, very sensitive, would have been damaged or destroyed and there would have been no way to even call for help. In such a short time, no life boats could have been let to water either - and by whom anyways? Most of the crew would be wounded or worse. The ship and every soul on board would have vanished with hardly a trace and she might have never been found in consequence. Other ships would have found floating debris over the next days and perhaps weeks, like deck chairs, perhaps a lifeboat that came loose etc. but aside from that? Nothing, not even bodies as no one would have worn lifebelts and went down to almost 4km depth with the ship. While decomposing bodies float, this does not happen in extreme depths. The deep does not give up its dead. Very eerie thoughts.

I don't know why, but this theory just reminds me of the Titan from the book "Futility/Wreck of the Titan" where the ship slams into a wall of ice, climbs up it and splashes back down, sinking in under 5 minutes. Not saying Titanic would have done that, but it just reminds me of the Titan.

@tomemeornottomeme1864

Жыл бұрын

Something to note is that the iceberg probably would not have provided a flat cliff-face to crash into for Titanic, and if the iceberg did have enough of a slope, Titanic could have done that same exact thing; running aground and having the bow coming out of the water onto the iceberg. Best case scenario, ship gets beached. Worst case scenario, ship pulls a Wreck of the Titan and slides back into the water horribly damaged and sinks immediately.

Especially considering they were so close in nearly missing the berg entirely...Give or take an extra five to ten seconds and impact would have been avoided entirely. Thanks for putting this ludicrous theory to bed, Newton's second law states Force=MassxAcceleration (ΔV )the mass of the berg roughly 300,000 tonnes and the rapid deceleration as Titanic impacted her would have ripped the ship to absolute shreds. Great video as always 👍 Annotation: On further research, it appears the deceleration would not be rapid, which greatly alters the calculations: instead of the less than one second to get to 0kts I presumed, from multiple studies it actually transpires that it would be as long as 5 seconds, this would dramatically alter the ΔV used, in favor of the ship surviving the impact.

No officer in their right mind would drive directly into an iceberg - it defies training, and human instinct and logic. Yes, I tend to agree with you... It would’ve been even more catastrophic. And imagine the officer defending such actions later in a court, - if they survived it.

I always figured that since the iceberg is several times the size of Titanic and completely solid all the way through, a collision would send a shockwave through the ship which would damage everything along the way. The time between spotting the iceberg and colliding with it was mere minutes, her fate was already sealed. But thanks to the crew's quick reactions, they prevented something that was already a disaster in the making from becoming a worst case scenario.

@MLaak86

Жыл бұрын

Most unlikely, steel at those speeds and forces is nowhere near as stiff as you'd imagine. The bow would be crushed for sure but it wouldn't send a shockwave through the whole ship that'd make her disassemble herself.

I honestly absolutely agree, a head on collision would mean all crew sleeping forward would be killed in the collision, warping the ships bulkheads, and since the wtd were still open, they warped bulkhead would make it nearly impossible for the doors to close, and allow water to flow freely.

@Andrew28b

2 жыл бұрын

Same thing happened when Britannic struck the mine, it warped her bulk heads and frame.

@SQUAREHEADSAM1912

2 жыл бұрын

@@Andrew28b true, I often use that as an example as why titanic wouldn’t have survived a head on collision, though a sea mine in a little different from a giant 100 foot tall blob of ice.

@harryvlogs7833

2 жыл бұрын

Water type doors were shut before the collision as Mr. Murdoch says

@SQUAREHEADSAM1912

2 жыл бұрын

@@harryvlogs7833 correct me I’m wrong, if I’m not mistaken the doors where closed immediately after the collision, not moments before it.

@Sprunged

2 жыл бұрын

bro you are eberywhere

The funniest part was that a head-on collision might've been enough time for the Carpathia to save everyone, but..... No seaman deliberately crashes a ship. Wilde tried to avoid the iceberg entirely....but fate....had other plans....

@Titanic Animations This was very informative to watch Phillip, thank you. I think had Titanic's engines been put in reverse when the lookout officers first spotted the iceberg, perhaps the ship wouldn’t have hit it head on with as much impact, like think of the ship beginning to go backwards just as it hits, resulting in a much less damaging collision. But perhaps that theory is also implausible. Sometimes I just wish it hadn’t sank or at least a better outcome in which mostly everyone survived.

I have seen reports Titanic would have survived with serious damage if she hit head on as the intact compartments (aft) would have kept her afloat. This can be argued about forever, has no-one done a computer modelling test as used by air crash investigators and NASA to see what the likely outcome might be. Thank you for the amazing animation.

I mean I don’t blame Murdoch for what he did tho. Why risk doing a whole lot of damage to the ship when he had a chance to avoid the iceberg. I’d imagine he’d have fallen under tons of scrutiny too for intentionally putting the lives of his passenger and crew in harm’s way…and over 300 people in that bow that were crushed to oblivion. I mean if you were him and knew there were that many people that were gonna receive the full blunt of the impact and potentially killed outright would you even consider ramming the iceberg head on an option at all?

I AM SO GLAD YOU COVERED THIS! I wondered this for a while and wanted to hear your take on it!!!

This doesn't take into effect that steel does not work like this. Hell, even the videos of the cars show how soft steel is and there would be no bow to stern shockwave as if it were made out of glass. The differences is speed is only 10 knots which is nothing when talking about thousands of tons of mass. The animation of this channel is great but the understanding of basic physics and metallurgical properties are not taught in art school me thinks. If engineering isn't easy to get, lets go with History: H&W Engineer stated by name, when asked about a head on collision with an iceberg in the Titanic's hearing, stated that the outcome would have been that of the Arizona (not the BB...), which had also hit an iceberg head on at full speed and survived with only bow damage, and that the Titanic would have survived.

@dark_messenger

2 жыл бұрын

How much Arizona's weight compared to Titanic? And her top speed?

@boogts

2 жыл бұрын

@@dark_messenger no relevant difference compared to the mass of a iceberg.

Great insight into the tragedy and what could have been even a more disastrous event had the ship hit the berg head-on! EXCITED to see your finished masterpiece...again, hope it may be transferred into DVD format at a late date! :-) AWESOME WORK FOR SURE!!!

@TitanicAnimations

2 жыл бұрын

I am hoping to release it on physical copies somehow, but I'm working on the logistics of it at the moment.

@alwillcoxen1515

2 жыл бұрын

@@TitanicAnimations That would be awesome!!! I would probably wear the DVD out upon watching it so many times...tee hee! Just like the re-mastered version here on KZread, can't watch it enough! It brings the sinking to life!!! Thanks so much for your reply...I'll be one of the first to buy!!!

@alwillcoxen1515

Жыл бұрын

@@TitanicAnimations That would be awesome! Like your previous animation, I would probably watch it every night...it is so well done! You are truly gifted!!! Can't wait to get my hands on a copy... :-) Thank you. Al

Coming off of the heels of watching Mike from Oceanliner Designs' video covering this same topic a few weeks ago, in which he provided the case for the ship surviving the impact, this was a nice video to go over the other side of the argument, in which she doesn't. For me, perhaps the biggest issue with the idea of her surviving hitting the iceberg head-on is the comparison to other ships which have done the same. The first problem is that those ships were far smaller and traveling much slower than the Titanic was. The second is that those are only the instances we have heard of. How many more shipwrecks could be out there where the vessel slammed full force into a berg and went down without a trace? Maybe Titanic could have survived the impact, but then again, maybe she wouldn't have. This uncertainty is the biggest reason why Murdoch made the right decision to try to avoid the berg in my book. Not to mention that it would've been insane on his part, to put it lightly. I am currently in college pursuing a degree in Physics. First my Bachelor's, then I'll move on to graduate school to try for my Master's, and maybe beyond that I'll go for a PhD. The whole point is to one day take up a career in naval architecture: maybe then I'll be able to answer the question once and for all. Who knows what would have happened, but two things are for sure. One, I'm glad we never found out. Two, that would be a lot of damage. 🤣🤣

@CJODell12

Жыл бұрын

Not even Flex Tape would be able to fix that amount of damage.

I also thought that the keel might have been bent causing WTD's to be stuck open

The only ways we would ever know what would happen if Titanic collided with an iceberg head-on are to either: Run a super-accurate supercomputer simulation of Titanic hitting the iceberg head-on, or : Build a real life replica of Titanic, down to the last detail, then crash it head on into an iceberg similar to the iceberg that the real Titanic hit at a speed of 22 knots in broad daylight.

Fantastic vid, I never considered the coal fires as well in this theory.

Murdock would have been given full blame had the ship struck headon

"Should the Titanic Have Hit The Iceberg Head On"? Yes I think so she would've then been able to still limp into NY Harbour

The ship would have took 4 or 5 seconds to stop. The bow would have buckled up like a concertina. Huge loss of life for anything fore of the crows nest. Murdoch would have been imprisoned for negligence. But the ship wouldn't have sank. Put yourself in this alternative scenario, an "unsinkable" ship should have never rammed the berg head on. The families of the firemen killed would have wanted answers. Titanics reputation would have been tarnished forever. Total sinking wasn't even considered a possibility. So Murdoch did the "right" thing, even if it wasn't correct.

This idea would make for a great alternative romance fantasy adventure movie, in which Jack and Rose die of hypothermia

I honestly don't know what to think of this theory anymore. I Hava watched this video and the video made by Oceanliner Designs and he says that Titanic wouldn't have sunk if it had hit the iceberg headon.

@NCMA29

5 ай бұрын

Ocean Liner Designs is the correct scenario. They arguments here are faulty and not back up by real-life examples. HMCS COLUMBIA ran into a cliff head on at high speed, yet nothing described in this video occurred. She merely lost her bow and was towed into port.

@Jacobmoyer2005

10 күн бұрын

@@NCMA29Oceanliner designs also used the ss arizona which hit a iceberg right before and survived which is definitely quite a bit of proof that this was survivable

Glad to see someone FINALLY bring up these points!

If this somehow did happen, I still believe that the wireless operators would have sent out an SOS. They're not stupid. After feeling a shockwave that strong, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have waited for an order and would have immediatley sent out an SOS (if the power was still going). So, all and all, it wouldn't have been a "complete mystery" asto what happened to the ship in this hypothetical timeline.

there are ships that have collided with islands at almost full speed and have not had this problem so im curious if this is a guess of what the physical properties of metal and rivots can uphold individuals as appose to what types of energy absorption properties the structure can handle

@TitanicAnimations

2 жыл бұрын

Island and beaches, yes. Cliff walls? No

@seanpruitt6801

2 жыл бұрын

@@TitanicAnimations incorrect. Many ships have ran (at speed) into ice. In fact the SS kronprinz Wilhelm rammed an iceberg at 22 knots. She didn’t sink.

@thejagotishow

Жыл бұрын

@@seanpruitt6801 Kronprinz didn’t “ram” the iceberg, it was more of a glancing blow rather.

@abolishthemonarchy4848

Жыл бұрын

this was 1912

@floseatyard8063

Жыл бұрын

​@@TitanicAnimations iceberg was mostly underwater so hitting it would be like hitting a small volcano island. The bow would crumple.

A quite interesting story I've heard about Ismay is that around the time "A Night to Remember" was released in November 1955 Walter Lord got a letter from someone in England about the remarkable finish at the 1913 Derby in Epsom Downs. Craganour, the favourite, crossed the line first and was escorted to the winners' circle. Then, without a protest from anyone, it was placed second to Aboyeur. Craganour, Lord's correspondent said, was owned by Bruce Ismay, and I guess it doesn't really need saying that the horse racing establishment would never let his horse win the hallowed Derby after what happened. Walter Lord then went to check the story. Everything turned out to be accurate except for one important detail. Joseph Bruce Ismay didn't own Craganour. His brother, Charles Bower Ismay, did. Still, Craganour remained placed second to Aboyeur. The reason? Craganour's original jockey had been replaced by an American one, Johnny Reiff. I don't know why that was but the move was regarded as immensely unpopular, and at the end of the race during discussions the judges had a golden opportunity to discredit Reiff. Walter Lord, though, said that he still got letters afterwards still linking Bruce Ismay and Craganour together

The head on would have to have been done VERY slowly in order for the damage to not be that great

Great analysis! This theory gets spouted all the time and it's annoying to me. Thank you for highlighting its absurdity. Why would Murdoch willingly choose to steer a virtually unsinkable ship into the berg when there's a *chance* to avoid it completely?

@randy4903

2 жыл бұрын

And he very nearly did avoid it too.

@trevormacewan

2 жыл бұрын

@@randy4903 By all technicality it was a glancing blow.

@ssgus3682

Жыл бұрын

This theory is backed up by historical precedent. Look no further than the SS Grampian which was built around the same time as the RMS Titanic using the same methods. I am not going to go as far to say SS Grampian and SS Arizona prove that the RMS Titanic should have rammed the iceberg. What I am saying is we honestly don't know for sure. What we do know is she was going to fast for the conditions that night.

Odds are the shockwave would knock out the electric engine dynamos (flanked by the freshwater tanks) so lights out. It would also knock out the emergency dynamos on D-Deck meaning no emergency lights. Nobody can find their way to the boat deck and there would be no SOS call from the wireless

Probably the best analysis of this theory. I never really considered the shockwave, and my brain just automatically assumed the iceberg would shift....but in reality, this iceberg didn't budge much in the actual collision. Thanks for this breakdown.

@disabledbiscuit1351

2 жыл бұрын

The size and shape of the iceberg arent known. But we know it was at least as tall as Titanic, because in the collision, ice fell on to the deck. So even if the berg did shift, it could have rolled down onto the Titanic itself, forcing her below the water. But thats just a hypothesis i've heard somewhere else, dont know how likely it is.

@Vuk3

Жыл бұрын

It is estimated that iceberg was about 75 million tons heavy and about 500 meters tall ( most of it underwater ) Titanic was only in comparison 53 meters in height and 52 000 tons in weight Titanic was tiny compared to that mountain of ice, that berg would probably not even move in this case

I can’t see Titanic surviving a full on collision with the iceberg. It actually would’ve sank it much faster than when it did. Few know how fast the ship was actually going the night Murdock saw the iceberg.

Nonsense. A collision with an immobile iceberg would impart the same damage as a collision with another ship of the same size. This is why car crash tests simply use a wall instead of another vehicle. Also, the elasticity of the Titanic would make it act like a spring if it had struck head-on. The notion that everything in the ship would go flying is based on the perception that the ship was glass-like in stiffness; it was not. The people near the bow would have had quite a jolt and some would have perished, but the people near the stern would have experienced a fairly quick but not deadly stop, as the ship compressed like an accordion at the front. A true study using finite element analysis would be necessary to establish the survivability of a head-on collision.

@gagalover2k10

2 жыл бұрын

No.

iv thought about it a whole lot myself and even after the titanic broadsided the iceberg, if they would have just kept going but towards Newfoundland Labrador they could have just made it to warmer waters before the ship sank. the distance they were to warmer waters was around 75 nautical miles and the titanic could travel at 23 knots which would put them right at the border of the warmer waters and arctic waters. they also would have been 75 miles closer to help from a continent that had more random fishing boats than anywhere in the world. also when your going full speed on a ship you'll notice the bow raises up out of the water which reduces the water pressure being closer to the surface of the water meaning the ship would be taking on less water while going forwards since only the front portion of the right side of the ship took a hit.

An iceberg is not the same thing as a stationary wall. An Iceberg floats in water and therefore has "give" when something the size of Titanic hits it. Head on plus engines in full reverse plus iceberg floating equals survivable impact. There certainly would have been casualties but not 1,500.

The physics evoking people, who say it would have survived a head-on collision, remind me of the survivors who said: "The Titanic did NOT break in two." If many people could not believe the ship was ripped into two pieces why would many people believe it would stay together after hitting a solid wall while traveling at 26 knots?

3:58 Im not sure if such a Shockwave would happen, if we look at examples of other ocean liners that accidentally rammed head on at full speed into a ice burg the ships bow absorbed all of the energy. And in some cases the bow just bent in multiple areas like a pancake keeping the ship safe. Even multiple calculations by Titanic's own designers said that the ship would have survived the Ice burg collision, but it would compromise her forward 2 compartments and leave Compartment 3 flooded. Head on ice burg collisions happend so much that Ship buildings actually designed the bows of ocean liners to deal with it. The most famous photos of ships that suffered from this are the: Knight Bachelor, SS Arizona, SS Grampian, (And a large German Ocean Liner which was 20.000 GRT), but I forgot the name) And non of the ships reported any shock waves going through the entire ship, it was only reported in the Second to 3rd compartment (Mind you compartment 1 would be gone)

@kathleenwelch7780

Жыл бұрын

yes

@tomemeornottomeme1864

Жыл бұрын

You mean calculations made by the same people who determined that Titanic could not have possibly broken apart during its sinking?

@MLaak86

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, we've got multiple examples of such a collision obliterating the bow but the ship not sinking. To suggest it'd be different for Titanic doesn't seem logical.

@Johndoe-mv5ii

Жыл бұрын

​@@MLaak86did you do any research though

@MLaak86

Жыл бұрын

@@Johndoe-mv5ii yes

I wonder if the propeller was disengaged the moment they spotted the iceberg and then head on collision. Wouldn't that make difference? In your analysis you have considered head on collision with full speed.

This subject is constantly on the titanic reddit. this video should be a pinned thread there.

head on would have not been as bad as steering ,Titanic was 50k tons and the iceberg was a floating object so is similar 2 a ship in some aspects . The iceberg would have deff been pushed backward and downwards and the Titanic would have lift up as iceberg have the shape of a cone where the top is smaller then the base , So all this factors would deff help on reducing the impact.

I mean if you really wanna want a good idea of what would happen if the Titanic hit the iceberg head on just look at the bow section after hitting the ocean floor.

Your argument makes no sense . The iceberg is floating and not fixed to the ground.

The damage to the bow would be bad, but the ship would remain afloat. Also they could try evacuating everyone from the bow before the iceberg is hit. Unfortunately the officers had no time too think about what could happen.

I always wondered why the sailors thought it was better not to hit it head on and ordered “hard to starboard”. It made more sense to hit it from the side if they had to hit it after watching this. Thanks for explaining.

@jasonmurawski5877

Жыл бұрын

Think about a car. Would you hit a wall going full speed or would you try and steer around it? No officer in their right mind would order a helmsman to plow into an obstacle

@realnapster1522

Жыл бұрын

@@jasonmurawski5877a car and sheep and built very differently.

If Titanic ended up having to be towed, most likely destination would have been Halifax which was the nearest major port.

This is a theory if they hit it head on without reversing the engines but what if they did reverse the engines and still hit the burg head on?

@timtnr.6177

6 ай бұрын

Engines were never reversed, They were ordered FULL STOP, She turned at FULL speed, in 37 seconds the collision had already occurred, there was NO time to STOP or REVERSE the engines this is a myth, The order was given to STOP, but no time to even barely reduce the speed of her engines, she hit, it was too late

So I’m curious about your opinion the head on collision that the Arizona had with an Iceberg in 1879.

There have been several other ships that have collided straight-on into an iceberg and survived. You make the assumption that a vessel the size of titanic is inflexible and extremely ridged, when in reality, it bends with heavy seas. It’s completely designed to flex, bend, roll, etc. with it’s environment. You’re absolutely correct it would a horrific crash for the people inside, but the structure of Titanic was designed to absorb. Even the collision with another ship at 20 knots would cause Titanic to stop in seconds, with the design of the ship being so that the bow would crumple with any impact (in order to replace only a small section of ship, instead of the ship being a total loss).

It was “made of Iron sir I assure you”

Why didn't they have a "telescope" at the front of the titanic to monitor the passage of the ship. They don't think about the first safety of running?

The key words are "and at full steam". In a head-on collision scenario, the Titanic would be slowing down as the order to go full astern would still have been given.

It would had been so easy to embed to powerful light on the bow to be used during nights like these; by turning them on alternatively every 10 to 15 minutes any obstacle would be seen with time enough to take action.

I don't think that the shockwave would have been sufficient to cause enough hull breaches and popped rivets/seams to sink it, but the forward water tight doors would more than likely have been jammed and misaligned as they were on the Britannic after it hit a mine. Either way same result, the ship sinks. It also would have been harder to evacuate as many of the interior doors and gates would have jammed, displaced furniture and hardware would block doors and escape routes, people would have suffered injuries rendering them immobile, injured crew would be unable to assist in evacuation causing more chaos, telegraph antennas might have snapped preventing calls for help, and lifeboat davits might be deformed making it harder to launch lifeboats. Internal systems would also suffer significant damage such as pumps being rendered inoperable due to broken piping, generators being damaged resulting in a quicker loss of power, injured crew would hinder safety measures such as venting excess steam resulting boiler explosions, and many portholes might have shattered increasing the rate of flooding.

Just ine point: Titanic was traveling at 21,5 knots, but it would have not hit that Iceberg at full steam, they started to decelerate the ship by reversing the engine so it would have been less than the traveling speed.

Had the titanic hit the berg head on- most people would never have heard of the Titanic. She would have made it to port and repaired. End of .

In the end she should never have been traveling at her near top speed through a reported ice field. Ismay was almost entirely to blame for that because he wanted to make it to New York ahead of schedule, even though Smith told him they were making good time already. He wanted everyone to think that his ships were just as fast as Cunard‘s liners, but reality is that they could do at best 23 knots vs the max 28 knots the Cunard ships could make. It was all about personal ego. Smith warned him of the dangers but I guess the chairman will always have the last say since he’s at the top of the totem pole.

@tomemeornottomeme1864

Жыл бұрын

There is literally no evidence this conversation ever happened.

@ErwinGreven

Ай бұрын

The White Star Liners were all about Luxury. Not speed. Ismay may have never told Smith to speed up the Titanic, there is no evidence of that.

Let me ask you all a question, if this video states that the titanic would have sunk if she hit the iceberg head on, then why ships before titanic, still hit icebergs head on, but dinnt sink, i dont even know wicht side to belive this is a really good explanation but at the same time ships is the past before titanic dint sink, now heres some explanation from me, ships smaller then titanic in the past had hit iceberg and some had survived, know do you remember that shockhave in this video, now someone try to explaim to me, WHY THE SHOCKHAVES DINT EFECT THE OTHER SHIPS , I MEAN CMON A SMALLER SHIP THEN TITANIC WOULD HAVE SUNK 1 MINUTE IF THE SHOCKHWAVE THEORY WAS CORRECT BUT THERE ARE SHIPS THAT SURVIVED HEAD ON COLLISION WITH ICEBERGS , HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!??????!??!!?!!!!😡😡 , appoligice me for my rude behavior and not to be mean, but i just dont personally belive this theory because smaller ships survived collisons with icebergs in the past :/

@TitanicAnimations

Жыл бұрын

"Allow me to be rude, but sorry for being rude." lol. But thanks for watching :)

At this point we need a simulation with some hardcore physics and calculations to figure this out once and for all lmao You make the shockwave rivet argument, Oceanliner Designs makes the other case

They would put engine in reverse and the speed wouldn't have been 22 knots more like 10....

Very Interesting. Didn't know that the ship would turn in to a pile of scrap metal after she would hit head on with the iceberg.

@tomemeornottomeme1864

Жыл бұрын

I mean, we don't know that *for sure*. This is just a video arguing that it would. A lot of people argue that the headon collision would have actually saved it; it's like 50-50 at this point. It's just that it, overall, feels a bit more realistic given what actually happened to the Titanic and the nature of the original pro-head-collision-calculations (the first people to propose the idea were the same ones who lied through their teeth the entire disaster inquiry, saying the ship couldn't have ever broken apart. Spoiler alert it did.) to say that the ship would have been obliterated and sunk.

If Titanic hit the iceberg head-on, she would not have sunk, but passengers whose rooms were in the front part of the ship would have been injured or killed. Of course, the officers on duty were not going to delibertly hit the iceberg head on

I feel like it would have been nice to mention that the shockwave you describe in this video did affect a ship of the Olympic class. Of course the terms of the force were different, but survivor testimony from the Britannic states that after the mine detonated, a "shockwave" reverberated from the ship's bow to her stern and back again for a few minutes. Now imagine instead of the force being a naval mine with 2.3 gigajoules of energy, it is between 20 and 50 gigajoules. (Do note these are armature estimates that only took me twenty minutes to draft out). If the mine was capable of sinking the Britannic with 2.3 Gigajoules, then to imagine 50 would sink her older sister may not be entirely out of reach. Just thought that could be a cool thing to have added.

@MLaak86

Жыл бұрын

Anti-ship mine vs iceberg... these are not the same.

@johnathanjohnjohnston4667

Жыл бұрын

@@MLaak86 I said this. 50% of my comment is explaining how much more force is involved with an iceberg impacts. o.o

@MLaak86

Жыл бұрын

@@johnathanjohnjohnston4667 A mine is designed to break the back of a ship. This is an inaccurate comparison.

@johnathanjohnjohnston4667

Жыл бұрын

​@@MLaak86 Some mines are yes, but the particular mine that sank Britannic was not one such mine. This was a contact detonated mine made to sink ships by, well, blowing holes in them. I'd agree that the forces involved with an instantaneous explosion and an iceberg impact are different, but still comparable due to the simple fact that what I am comparing is a shared trait. An iceberg collision is simply Force/Time, and a contact mine detonation is also Force/Time just a whole lot faster. To say that these cannot be compared because they have some differences is void when the thing we are comparing between the two is a common trait. That would be like saying the speed of a car is not comparable to the speed of a plane just because the plane is not touching the ground. They are different, but we can still say the plane is going faster than the car, or work out the difference in fuel usage, or the running costs etc. To rephrase, the simple fact that we know Britannic experienced such a vibration as described by passengers from her mine impact, means that realistically Titanic could have the very same experience if exposed to a similar amount of force, such as in a head on collision with the iceberg.

@MLaak86

Жыл бұрын

Mines discharge all their energy in an instant, a collision allows more time for that energy to be dissipated.

It's often claimed that Titanic wouldn't have sunk if a head on collision had occurred, however the likelihood of interior damage going to mid ships is unlikely, the impact from a head on collision with an iceberg like the one Titanic struck would possibly telescope the bow up to the crows nest mast due to the brittle steel that Titanic had. That amount of damage would likely cause enough force to snap the rivets that had heavy amounts of slag in them up to and between the first and second funnels. At full speed, and depending on the shape of the iceberg underwater the iceberg could have rolled in a fashion that could have forced the berg to roll into the ship which could cause more damage than to just the bow. The Titanic wouldn't have hit the berg square on as it may have tried to maneuver in what reverse speed they could achieve before impact and they weren't aiming for the berg to start with. While hitting a berg would have been like a car slamming into granite side of a cliff, the ship had massive amounts of what we would we deem significant design flaws for today. Several university test show that the steel that was used while high quality for the day was brittle steel. Was Titanic designed for safety, yes for the day, but other factors could have occurred in a head on collision that still would have had Titanic sink maybe not quicker but still sink.

The shock wave story outcome is 100% against the rules of physics and would never have worked out like that. The force of titanics weight + speed would be split between both objects, the weight of the iceberg dosn't count into it at all. It's more compareable to falling to the ground and in that case, everyone just falling from 1 feet high must die instant b.c. the crash force (following your idea of physic) would be the weight of the person and the panet earth + speed. SS Arizona (1879) and SS Grampian (1919) are a proove -.-

Whether or not you subscribe to the try and avoid the iceberg which the ships officers tried to do or hit it straight on the one thing we should be able to agree on is the Titanic was going way to fast that night considering the conditions

It is an interesting video with an equally interesting and lively discussion. You certainly provided some food for thought on whether or not the Titanic could have survived a head on collision. I do agree that it would have been irresponsible for Murdoch to have deliberately hit the iceberg head on. However, you did make two glaring mistakes. In your animation you show the Titanic continuing on in a straight line after hitting the iceberg. When Murdoch realized they were going to hit the berg he immediately ordered the ship hard a port to swing the stern away in ordered to preserve the propellers. The other mistake was saying that the Titanic was going 22.5 knots when it hit. It was going at least a knot slower, perhaps 2 knots slower. This is based on the position of the wreck versus where it should have been based on the position given in the distress calls.

I totally disagree with this. All of the energy would be concentrated in the area of impact. maybe with some plate separation but it's not like a bomb going off with a "shockwave."

What if they had reversed the engines sooner, thereby slowing down more and lessening the impact force on the bow?

have you ever considered doing a segment on the Hindenburg?

Well I do think it wouldn't have been travelling full steam ahead. They still would have reversed the engines as they did on the night, but Murdock wouldn't have given the hard to starboard instruction. Might have gotten the ship down to half the speed it was going full steam. Who knows really? I still think it would've suffered catastrophic damage in any case.

The shockwave theory has been debunked. The force of the impact would have crumpled the bow past the collision bulkhead, so it probably would have breached around 4 or less compartments. Now I am not saying she would not have sunk, a 5th compartment would have probably been breached. If you want more information, please look at Oceanliner Design's video on this topic, if you have not at the moment. I really do not mean to disrespect you in any way, I really love your work.

I disagree I believe she would have survived a head in collision, the hull was designed to withstand that the bow itself was built taking a head on collision into account and other ships have survived head in collisions with icebergs

Tragic just tragic this disaster was. the thing I want to know is. what if Titanic got sunk in world war 1 by a torpedo, and what kind of damage could that cause to her? Just curious on this kind of idea. Sorry for sounding kind of stupid

Here's an idea there's a theory Headed for New York or Belfast for Belfast right after the collision but hag man the docking bridge and went and when on their way at full steam in reverse Then the water in the forward 66 compartments with the doors open could have forced all the water outhe water out of the ship using PSI basically So literally you would use the same openings in the ship to empty the ship of water I'd like to see a study done on this

The titanic would have PERFECTLY survived!

@SQUAREHEADSAM1912

Жыл бұрын

Not likely…

@NPC_-mf4dw

2 ай бұрын

Source: "Trust me bro!" Man at least make an argument of some sort.

I do understand, even if the ship wouldn't have sunk, it would have been damaged beyond repair and the loss of life would've been huge. The crew would be judged for not trying to change course. Hindsight is 20/20.

With all due respect, this is just rubbish. Edward Wilding, one the designers of the ship, said that the ship would survive the head on collision. And he knew what he was talking about, since he calculated exactly how big was the damaged area after the real collision. You keep on repeating that the iceberg was many times bigger than the ship. But you know, there are examples of other ships colliding with icebergs (which also were way bigger than the ships), and these ships survived. The Titanic was not built in a different way, with different technology or materials, she was just like the older ships, just bigger.

olympic: *2 ships collided on me* titanic: 0:48 *worse than that*

It's only natural that somebody would offer an opposing theory about a popular hypothetical question regarding quite possibly *the* most over-romanticized shipwreck in history. Having seen this whole presentation, I feel a need to respond, via refutation. I'm sure my contributions to refute this claim have already been touched on, but I feel a need to post them as well, anyway. 1. Comparison of a ship hitting a stationary object (and icebergs are not really all that stationary, not like, say, an ocean floor) to that of a modern car hitting a stationary object is like comparing an airplane crash to a kite crash. And given the established speed of just under 26 mph that Titanic was going, *assuming* it kept going at that speed, and knowing that it is feasible for a car to survive a sudden stop from that speed, that debunks the whole idea of a total-length distortion, being that a ship is far more massive and therefore far more capable of withstanding a sudden stop from 26 mph. 2. Titanic would *not* have hit at full speed. When the iceberg was spotted, the bridge crew immediately threw the engines into reverse...and it was more than a mere two or three seconds before impact. Although impossible to come to a stop without "help," Titanic's speed would have still slowed down enough to mitigate collision damage even more. Has anyone been in an auto collision doing 20 mph? What happened? Did you and your car survive, albeit with some damage? The house odds say yes. So would have Titanic. 3. The whole premise of this argument fails to factor in other historical collisions of the same kind. Bmused55 indicated two ship/iceberg collisions, one before Titanic and one after. Though an advocate of this video's topic will argue that the 1879 collision of SS Arizona is irrelevant because ships of that century could not travel nearly as fast as Titanic, there is another ship/iceberg collision that happened just *5 years before* Titanic: A modern German super-steamer named SS Kronprinz Wilhelm, which was close to Lusitania's size and speed. There isn't very much about this ship on the web, but there is enough to bolster the theory this video tries to (poorly) refute. The Kronprinz Wilhelm actually met its accident at or near the same spot as Titanic, just a few hundred miles from the Canadian coast, when it slammed into an iceberg, head-on, outright front-ending. Result: The bow was wrecked...but the ship withstood the impact and continued its trip to New York *under its own power.* This happened in 1907. It was this incident, as well as a few others involving other iron-hull steamers, that contributed to the then-popular presumption that ships of the 20th Century would make tragic sinkings a thing of the past. I therefore refute this video's premise, holding that Titanic would have withstood front-ending the iceberg and, if the worst-case scenario prevailed that it could not move without risking flooding out too many compartments, it still would have stayed afloat long enough for other ships at sea, to include her older sister Olympic, a chance to get everyone off safely (another presumption made about tragic sinkings being a thing of the past). 4. This video fails to analyze the actual impact damage the bow of the ship sustained by impacting the ocean floor, going at nearly twice the speed it was doing that night before the collision. Factoring this in, that will at least challenge, if not outright refute, the whole premise to this video. These factoids in refutation established, I will not go on record saying that a front-ending of the iceberg would have been uneventful or inconsequential. There would certainly have been injuries, possibly some deaths among the lower crew; and a lot of haughty, arrogant, obnoxious richie-riches would have been complaining, threatening to sue because their beauty-sleeps were interrupted...but there would certainly not have been anywhere near the 1,502 who actually died by the bridge crew's vain and foolish attempt to veer around the iceberg far, far too late.

We're assuming it continued onward Now let's see one on the fact that the ship was thrown in full reverse as the We're still slowing....

Realistically Titanic would've survived OR had a better chance at surviving. The damage she sustained on the night was impossible for her to sustain as she wasn't built to withstand that level of damage despite the new safety features implemented. Using car crash simulations is a poor, almost dishonest comparison to justify damage to a ship on the scale of the Titanic for a few reasons 1. Cars travel MUCH faster than Ships, especially a Cruise Liner from 100+ years ago. assuming Titanic was travelling at her full speed (even though she wasn't on the night as not all furnaces were ignited as shown on the wreck), it would still be less than 30mph, insignificant to the speed of modern cars when discussing damage on this scale. 2. Cars are constructed of far weaker, less dense materials such as plastic, aluminium, glass, rubber and SOME steel, whereas Titanic was almost entirely comprised of durable dense materials (Steel / Iron) 3. Cars simply aren't designed to withstand the level of damage that Titanic was designed to withstand. They are built with thin layers of material designed to minimise weight, to improve handling, fuel economy, speed and comfort, with only a few safety features such as airbags, crumple zones and seatbelts. Meanwhile titanics hull wasn't just individual sheets of steel and rivets as you seem to imply. the hull was constructed as a "box girder" a huge complicated latice structure of steel beams, with the soul functionality of telescoping under the events of an impact. There is simply no comparison between the 2. We saw that with Arizona and Grampian, 2 other ships involved in collisions, that despite taking a head on impact, they still survived and could return to port under their own power for repairs. Yes, the energy yield Titanic would've released in the impact would've been enormous. However this would work in its favour as the box girders spanning the length of the ship would've been in greater quantity compared to those smaller ships "More Steel = More energy absorbed" due to plasticity and the forces at work. One of the chief designers of Titanic Edmund Wilding, stated in an enquiry that a head on collision for Titanic would've telescoped the first 80-100 feet of her hull, destroying the first 2 watertight compartments and killing anyone inside, causing damage to the 3rd and even 4th, yet it wouldn't have been sufficient to affect the rest of the ship. Ultimately 2 ships smaller than Titanic in similar circumstances, were able to survive. Titanic with FAR more steel to absorb more energy in addition to the "modern" at the time safety features such as the bulkheads, float planks, double bottom keel etc would've almost certainly survived. Also in this hypothetical situation, Murdock would've used those 30 or so seconds he had to put the engines in reverse to slow the Titanic as much as possible in the short window they had to further reduce the energy yield. Even if this reduced the energy yield by MAYBE 1-5% at most, it would still contribute in saving the ship

does it still matter ?

If the ship broke in 2 while the bow was gone the stern would've been afloat for a period of time

Show your work man,