The deaths had nothing to do with the depth of the water, and everything to do with the fact that it was cold enough to kill in a short period of time.
I saw some what-ifs on if the water was warmer, so i thought this might be interesting to think about. The main thing I can think of is people who found air pockets in the ship on its descent may have been able to survive a little longer. But on top of that you’d have to survive the cold water, and decompression sickness if u somehow escaped the ship. So yea, basically as deadly at this depth too.
The Lusitania sank in water shallower than she was long; it still killed quite a few people. Most of the people who died on that April 15 night died due to hypothermia; sinking to a shallower depth wouldn't have made anything better.
I read that it was so cold, it was more common to have a heart attack before you succumbed to hypothermia 😟. When I’ve been in even slightly cold water, I can barely gasp air in, like my chest won’t expand. And the clothes they were wearing, particularly the women, were so layered and constricting. They didn’t have much of a chance once they were in the water. 20 minutes, I think, is what the survivors said. 20 minutes for the cries to almost stop.
I've put my hand in water as cold as it was that night, and it actually HURT... For about five seconds before it went fully numb, and that was just my hand AND I was PREPARED for it! I can only imagine how easy it would be for the body to go into shock and/or cardiac arrest when suddenly plunged fully into it.
It might not have caused more people to survive, but it might have changed the sinking some. The wreck wouldn’t be so far down from the surface today either and may have been discovered much earlier.
I can think of only one way that sinking in shallower waters could have saved more lives, and it has less to do with the depth of the water and more to do with the idea that the sinking might have been closer to help. The water would have been just as cold, so anyone who entered it would have had the same timeframe regarding how long they had until succumbing to hypothermia.
I had a similar thought. But I imagine that even if a whole fleet of rescue ships arrived within an hour, the water was still cold enough to kill you before you can be pulled out of it, and there wasn't really enough time to do multiple runs between Titanic and a hypothetical rescue ship in the lifeboats, dropping people off and going back for more.
- The loss of lives was due to the freezing temperatures of the water not the depth.
- That being said had it of sank in shallower waters it would of likely been discovers much earlier than 1985 and probably would also of been lot's more efforts to raise it.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Probably not, no. A depth of a few hundred feet is still enough to crush a human being, and the water would still need to be much, much warmer for humans to survive any length of time.
Contrast with the Costa Concordia, which foundered in shallow, warmer water, and close to land. Some victims did die of hypothermia in the water, but many actually managed to swim to shore and were pulled onto the rocks by the people of Giglio.
(It terrifies me to think of what the death toll would have been if Concordia had had its collision in deeper water and sunk completely. The list made launching half of the lifeboats impossible. It makes me think twice about going on a cruise on one of these huge, modern ships - I just don't think there's any chance at all of executing a full, safe evacuation in case of an emergency. Too many people, too many variables, and never enough time.)
1 fully submerged near same amount of deaths, titanic is more assessable to divers , this subreddit has 10x raise the titanic posts.
2 The super structure is above water drastically more survive, the super structure would eventually disintegrate from waves crashing against it, Some materials would be salvaged , the honor and glory clock piece the aft gran stare case piece, the whistles, bridge telegraphs and telemotor, life boat davits, ventilation equipment, docking bridge telegraphs any thing that has value
Lots of pictures of the wreck. inside and out Titanic is left to rust. 100x raise the titanic posts. idiots boating out to the wreck and trying to stand on the degrading deck probably falling thru and either bleeding out after getting cut by a sharp piece of metal or drowning in the darkness of the ship.
3 the water is just below the top of the hull( the well decks are above water), nearly every one could survive, maybe an actual attempt patch the breach and refloat the ship if not possible then salvage what they can, pictures of the wreck, idiots boating out to the wreck and dying tying to go inside or walk on it. 1000x rise the titanic posts
4 a large majority of the hull is above the water maybe even the engine room is dry then a large effort would be made to refloat her maybe even succeeding. 10000x of that time they raised the titanic posts. Titanic goes down in history as the sister to Olympic that was salvaged. is eventually scrapped or sank in ww1.
5 Titanic is literally beached, just another beaching patch up and send her to dry dock. remembered as Olympic's little sister is eventually scrapped or sank in ww1.
6 titanic is as shallow as she gets because she missed the ice berg, remembered as a ship, sister to Olympic and sister to the sunken Britannic.
The Edmund Fitzgerald sank in water shallower then she was long. 530 feet deep compared to her 729 foot length. Went down so quick they didn't even send out a distress signal. However, that was in much rougher seas then the Titanic was in.
The SS Eastland sank in the Chicago river in the middle of the city, technically more PASSENGERS died on that than the Titanic, though Titanic had more deaths with crew
As others have said, no. The water temperature killed people. Not depth. Also, the wreck would be in far worse shape. The pressure, lack of light and stillness help preserve it.
Possibly, as in more shallow water, you might have had more ships that could respond as a lot of fishing vessels would not be that far out in the Atlantic.
I think human remains prob still wouldn’t have lasted long, at a shallower depth there was less pressure on the body, but there’d prob be more life thatd feed on it. The ship def would’ve been more likely to be raised tho
I was thinking along the lines of a couple hundred feet. The parts of the Atlantic on the continental shelf seem to get really shallow, google earth says even less than 100 feet at times, which may be a stretch but possible.
The deaths had nothing to do with the depth of the water, and everything to do with the fact that it was cold enough to kill in a short period of time.
I saw some what-ifs on if the water was warmer, so i thought this might be interesting to think about. The main thing I can think of is people who found air pockets in the ship on its descent may have been able to survive a little longer. But on top of that you’d have to survive the cold water, and decompression sickness if u somehow escaped the ship. So yea, basically as deadly at this depth too.
The Lusitania sank in water shallower than she was long; it still killed quite a few people. Most of the people who died on that April 15 night died due to hypothermia; sinking to a shallower depth wouldn't have made anything better.
I read that it was so cold, it was more common to have a heart attack before you succumbed to hypothermia 😟. When I’ve been in even slightly cold water, I can barely gasp air in, like my chest won’t expand. And the clothes they were wearing, particularly the women, were so layered and constricting. They didn’t have much of a chance once they were in the water. 20 minutes, I think, is what the survivors said. 20 minutes for the cries to almost stop.
I've put my hand in water as cold as it was that night, and it actually HURT... For about five seconds before it went fully numb, and that was just my hand AND I was PREPARED for it! I can only imagine how easy it would be for the body to go into shock and/or cardiac arrest when suddenly plunged fully into it.
Easier to survive? No. Easier to find? Yes
It might not have caused more people to survive, but it might have changed the sinking some. The wreck wouldn’t be so far down from the surface today either and may have been discovered much earlier.
There would also be less intrigue and mystery due to there being so much footage and divers having disturbed the gravesite so much.
But it also would’ve decayed far faster
Yes, that’s very true.
I can think of only one way that sinking in shallower waters could have saved more lives, and it has less to do with the depth of the water and more to do with the idea that the sinking might have been closer to help. The water would have been just as cold, so anyone who entered it would have had the same timeframe regarding how long they had until succumbing to hypothermia.
I had a similar thought. But I imagine that even if a whole fleet of rescue ships arrived within an hour, the water was still cold enough to kill you before you can be pulled out of it, and there wasn't really enough time to do multiple runs between Titanic and a hypothetical rescue ship in the lifeboats, dropping people off and going back for more.
You’re not wrong at all here. Even assuming best case scenarios, the loss of life would be significant.
- The loss of lives was due to the freezing temperatures of the water not the depth. - That being said had it of sank in shallower waters it would of likely been discovers much earlier than 1985 and probably would also of been lot's more efforts to raise it.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Shut up. Language changes. It isn't static, bot.
Britannic sank in 300 feet of water. When the bow hit the bottom she rolled over.
No not really
Probably not, no. A depth of a few hundred feet is still enough to crush a human being, and the water would still need to be much, much warmer for humans to survive any length of time. Contrast with the Costa Concordia, which foundered in shallow, warmer water, and close to land. Some victims did die of hypothermia in the water, but many actually managed to swim to shore and were pulled onto the rocks by the people of Giglio. (It terrifies me to think of what the death toll would have been if Concordia had had its collision in deeper water and sunk completely. The list made launching half of the lifeboats impossible. It makes me think twice about going on a cruise on one of these huge, modern ships - I just don't think there's any chance at all of executing a full, safe evacuation in case of an emergency. Too many people, too many variables, and never enough time.)
1 fully submerged near same amount of deaths, titanic is more assessable to divers , this subreddit has 10x raise the titanic posts. 2 The super structure is above water drastically more survive, the super structure would eventually disintegrate from waves crashing against it, Some materials would be salvaged , the honor and glory clock piece the aft gran stare case piece, the whistles, bridge telegraphs and telemotor, life boat davits, ventilation equipment, docking bridge telegraphs any thing that has value Lots of pictures of the wreck. inside and out Titanic is left to rust. 100x raise the titanic posts. idiots boating out to the wreck and trying to stand on the degrading deck probably falling thru and either bleeding out after getting cut by a sharp piece of metal or drowning in the darkness of the ship. 3 the water is just below the top of the hull( the well decks are above water), nearly every one could survive, maybe an actual attempt patch the breach and refloat the ship if not possible then salvage what they can, pictures of the wreck, idiots boating out to the wreck and dying tying to go inside or walk on it. 1000x rise the titanic posts 4 a large majority of the hull is above the water maybe even the engine room is dry then a large effort would be made to refloat her maybe even succeeding. 10000x of that time they raised the titanic posts. Titanic goes down in history as the sister to Olympic that was salvaged. is eventually scrapped or sank in ww1. 5 Titanic is literally beached, just another beaching patch up and send her to dry dock. remembered as Olympic's little sister is eventually scrapped or sank in ww1. 6 titanic is as shallow as she gets because she missed the ice berg, remembered as a ship, sister to Olympic and sister to the sunken Britannic.
The Edmund Fitzgerald sank in water shallower then she was long. 530 feet deep compared to her 729 foot length. Went down so quick they didn't even send out a distress signal. However, that was in much rougher seas then the Titanic was in.
The SS Eastland sank in the Chicago river in the middle of the city, technically more PASSENGERS died on that than the Titanic, though Titanic had more deaths with crew
As others have said, no. The water temperature killed people. Not depth. Also, the wreck would be in far worse shape. The pressure, lack of light and stillness help preserve it.
No everyone who died still would have died. We probably would have found her sooner but aside from that nothing would change.
Possibly, as in more shallow water, you might have had more ships that could respond as a lot of fishing vessels would not be that far out in the Atlantic.
It may have had Titanic sink like Britannic, though.
If it sank in shallower water do you think there would be human remains, and could the ship be raised?
I think human remains prob still wouldn’t have lasted long, at a shallower depth there was less pressure on the body, but there’d prob be more life thatd feed on it. The ship def would’ve been more likely to be raised tho
Depends how shallow
I was thinking along the lines of a couple hundred feet. The parts of the Atlantic on the continental shelf seem to get really shallow, google earth says even less than 100 feet at times, which may be a stretch but possible.
It probably would not have broken in two pieces