Hacker News Reader

Comment by foldr | Hacker News Reader

This theory comes from a TV documentary broadcast in 2017 that's been pretty thoroughly debunked:

http://wormstedt.com/Titanic/TITANIC-FIRE-AND-ICE-Article.pd...

From the article's conclusion:

Hypothesis: The fire played one final, deadly role in the disaster: the fire-damaged bulkhead gave way, causing the ship to sink, and the enormous loss of life.

Actually: Since the ship was doomed from the moment of the collision, whether or not the bulkhead collapsed was more or less immaterial to the timing of the disaster. Lives were not lost because it allegedly collapsed early.

How long it stayed afloat was a critical matter. The RMS Carpathia arrived two hours after the Titanic sank.

"Andrews knew about three-quarters of an hour before that rush of water in Boiler Room No. 5 that the ship was doomed. Once the forward compartments had filled, the ship’s bow would have been so low in the water that the flooding of the next compartment aft, Boiler Room No. 5, would have been a certainty. Whether or not the bulkhead held was of no major consequence in the eventual sinking, or how quickly the ship sank."

The article goes on to show that it's far from clear that the bulkhead did in fact fail, and that it's unlikely that the fire would have been intense enough to damage it significantly.

This article is a criticism of a particular documentary (which admittedly seems to have a number of false and dubious claims), and in some places seems more determined to debunk the claims made in that documentary than to consider whether a bunker fire could nevertheless have played any role.

If the documentary claims the ship was only doomed by the failure of the bulkhead in question, then it is in error, but timing of the essence here: if the ship stayed afloat for one more hour, it probably would have made little difference, but an extra two hours probably would have.

The metallurgical discussion of the effect of fire on the bulkhead looks well-grounded to me (though I know little about the matter), but it might be somewhat moot if, as this article seems to acknowledge, the bulkhead may have been deformed beforehand, as a consequence of a bunker fire at some point. I am curious as to whether the strain on the hull, from having the stern lifted out of the water, could have led to (further) damage to the bulkhead, creating the reported rush of water.

I was confused why the author called it a "new" documentary. It's 2 years old.

Also the link in the article to the documentary is incorrect. Here's the correct link for "Titanic: The New Evidence": https://vimeo.com/198568091

This should be the top comment. Providing a well balanced source, context and clear counter point. Also, the document love nked is one really great read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com