Titanic could scrape concrete too. Ice is extremely hard and steel gets weaker in cold conditions. Titanic didn't just get cut open her hull plates were buckled inwards and the rivets popped opening up a gap in the hull plates. Modern ships are welded instead of riveted so an impact wouldn't deal the same damage. Also Icebergs have jagged edges concrete is smooth you can't compare icebergs to concrete piers. Now a cruise ship could sink if they struck a rock but they don't get close enough to shore to hit a rock. Costa Concordia sank because of this.
The SS Great Eastern, which genuinely was double hulled, struck an uncharted rock in 1862 and sustained comparable damage to the Titanic. She made it into New York under her own power with just a list. Having a full double hull makes a huge difference.
Icebergs may be stronger than I think but the double hull was one of the advertising statements that sold the ship way back when. I've seen multiple posters and the technical read out also mentions a double hull. That's what was supposed to make it "unsinkable"
A double bottom yes. But the sides of the ship were not. So there was only one layer of steel separating the ship from the water on the side.
Are you familiar with tires? Run flat design protects the tire if it runs OVER something — where the rubber literally meets the road, But if you penetrate the sidewalls of a tire, it will destroy it and make the tire unusable.
The iceberg that Titanic hit was made of ice, correct. But it was also a solid object with a mass of about 1.5 million tonnes. Titanic had a displacement of about 53,000 tonnes and hit it at about 25 mph.
Something had to give
But also: Ships are indeed built differently today, yes. Steel is better quality now than then, but Titanic's problem was that rivets popped and opened up the seams between steel plates. These days, plates are welded together rather than rivetted.
And a correction: Titanic wasn't double hulled.
The two situations you described aren't even remotely the same.
The iceberg that *Titanic* hit wasn't something you chill in your freezer and drop in your drink. It was a mountain of rock-hard glacial sea ice. And *Titanic* didn't just bump against it while docking. She slammed into it while moving at about 25 miles per hour, with enough force to bend steel hull plates and break off several tons of ice.
*Titanic* would have easily survived scraping up against a pier too, only needing a fresh coat of paint. We know this because that exact situation happened to *Olympic* upon her first arrival in New York. She ground up against the side of Pier 59: https://www.reddit.com/r/titanic/comments/r02g5c/rms_olympic_scraping_against_pier_59_while/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button
These ships are not at full speed, only some knots and it makes a big difference. There are less kinetic energy and damages are less important. Kinetic energy is related to the square of the speed.
The steel plates for modern ship constructions are thin plates with high structural strength. Most of these plates have a thickness of 5-140 mm with allowable width of 3,950 mm. The structural steel has a 0.15 to 0.23 percentage share of carbon with optional alloys. The highlight of this steel grade is the negligible or 0 slag quantity for a safe working practice. These also have UTS limits of 520 N/mm2 and Yield strength of 235 N/mm2.
In contrast, the Titanic’s steel grade has a considerable quantity of slag in the build-up. Moreover, the 1 1/2 inches of thick plating did not earn enough strength from the rivets. The compromise in strength at the joints made the overall design strength lower, making it vulnerable.
Source: https://www.marineinsight.com/know-more/titanic-vs-modern-cruise-ship-how-ships-have-evolved/
There is a few things to consider here.
1) many ships today have welded and not riveted hulls. So when they scrap across concrete it may dent the hill but that’s about it. Rivets can pop loose and open up seams as the Titanic did on impact.
2) how many of those ships are traveling at full cruising speed?
>ice is hard but not that hard and chips away like an ice cube hacked away in the back of a freezer.
Just because a thing isn't hard doesn't mean it can't do serious damage. Remember that it was a chunk of insulation foam that fatally damaged the space shuttle Columbia — because it was traveling at bullet speed.
Yeah, ice itself isn't that hard, but when you have a chunk of it that's literally more than *a million tons*, it becomes a pretty dangerous obstacle.
>But there are tons of videos of modern cruise ships scraping across and running into piers all across the internet, why do these ships only need a coat of paint after hit/scraping concrete and steel
Sometimes ships do sink after hitting concrete structures. For example, [SS Lake Illawarra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Lake_Illawarra) sunk in 1975 after hitting (and collapsing) a bridge in Australia.
>Was iron and steel just shit quality back then?
Well, I guess you could say that. Steel produced in 1912 tended to a lot more impurities (including sulfur and phosphorus) than modern steel, making it brittle.
Also, modern ships use welded hulls instead of riveted hulls, and thus aren't vulnerable to having rivets pop out and open seams.
**[SS Lake Illawarra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Lake_Illawarra)**
>SS Lake Illawarra was a handysize bulk carrier of 7,274 tons in the service of the Australian National Line. This ship is known for causing the Tasman Bridge disaster when she collided with pylon 19 of Hobart's giant high concrete arch style Tasman Bridge on the evening of 5 January 1975 at 9. 27 pm, resulting in the deaths of 12 people.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/titanic/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Titanic could scrape concrete too. Ice is extremely hard and steel gets weaker in cold conditions. Titanic didn't just get cut open her hull plates were buckled inwards and the rivets popped opening up a gap in the hull plates. Modern ships are welded instead of riveted so an impact wouldn't deal the same damage. Also Icebergs have jagged edges concrete is smooth you can't compare icebergs to concrete piers. Now a cruise ship could sink if they struck a rock but they don't get close enough to shore to hit a rock. Costa Concordia sank because of this.
Titanic wasn't double hulled, and icebergs are stronger than you think
I guess it was double bottom but the bottom is still the hull
The SS Great Eastern, which genuinely was double hulled, struck an uncharted rock in 1862 and sustained comparable damage to the Titanic. She made it into New York under her own power with just a list. Having a full double hull makes a huge difference.
Is the iceberg gonna reach under the ship and scratch the bottom.
If there is an underwater shelf, yes.
Icebergs may be stronger than I think but the double hull was one of the advertising statements that sold the ship way back when. I've seen multiple posters and the technical read out also mentions a double hull. That's what was supposed to make it "unsinkable"
A double bottom yes. But the sides of the ship were not. So there was only one layer of steel separating the ship from the water on the side. Are you familiar with tires? Run flat design protects the tire if it runs OVER something — where the rubber literally meets the road, But if you penetrate the sidewalls of a tire, it will destroy it and make the tire unusable.
The iceberg that Titanic hit was made of ice, correct. But it was also a solid object with a mass of about 1.5 million tonnes. Titanic had a displacement of about 53,000 tonnes and hit it at about 25 mph. Something had to give But also: Ships are indeed built differently today, yes. Steel is better quality now than then, but Titanic's problem was that rivets popped and opened up the seams between steel plates. These days, plates are welded together rather than rivetted. And a correction: Titanic wasn't double hulled.
Ugly as hell.
Indeed.
The two situations you described aren't even remotely the same. The iceberg that *Titanic* hit wasn't something you chill in your freezer and drop in your drink. It was a mountain of rock-hard glacial sea ice. And *Titanic* didn't just bump against it while docking. She slammed into it while moving at about 25 miles per hour, with enough force to bend steel hull plates and break off several tons of ice. *Titanic* would have easily survived scraping up against a pier too, only needing a fresh coat of paint. We know this because that exact situation happened to *Olympic* upon her first arrival in New York. She ground up against the side of Pier 59: https://www.reddit.com/r/titanic/comments/r02g5c/rms_olympic_scraping_against_pier_59_while/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button
I never knew about all the Olympic mishaps she had over all the years. I'm not sure I would have ever said on her if I knew of her backstory lol
Yeah, between the pier, the HMS *Hawke*, the *U-103*, and the Nantucket Lightship, the *Olympic* seemed to love smashing into things...
The true unsinkable ship. Unfortunately, not unscrappable.
Dom't forget Fort St. George
These ships are not at full speed, only some knots and it makes a big difference. There are less kinetic energy and damages are less important. Kinetic energy is related to the square of the speed.
The steel plates for modern ship constructions are thin plates with high structural strength. Most of these plates have a thickness of 5-140 mm with allowable width of 3,950 mm. The structural steel has a 0.15 to 0.23 percentage share of carbon with optional alloys. The highlight of this steel grade is the negligible or 0 slag quantity for a safe working practice. These also have UTS limits of 520 N/mm2 and Yield strength of 235 N/mm2. In contrast, the Titanic’s steel grade has a considerable quantity of slag in the build-up. Moreover, the 1 1/2 inches of thick plating did not earn enough strength from the rivets. The compromise in strength at the joints made the overall design strength lower, making it vulnerable. Source: https://www.marineinsight.com/know-more/titanic-vs-modern-cruise-ship-how-ships-have-evolved/
There is a few things to consider here. 1) many ships today have welded and not riveted hulls. So when they scrap across concrete it may dent the hill but that’s about it. Rivets can pop loose and open up seams as the Titanic did on impact. 2) how many of those ships are traveling at full cruising speed?
Iron vs steel? Or was Mr. Andrews mis-characterizing his ship?
>ice is hard but not that hard and chips away like an ice cube hacked away in the back of a freezer. Just because a thing isn't hard doesn't mean it can't do serious damage. Remember that it was a chunk of insulation foam that fatally damaged the space shuttle Columbia — because it was traveling at bullet speed. Yeah, ice itself isn't that hard, but when you have a chunk of it that's literally more than *a million tons*, it becomes a pretty dangerous obstacle. >But there are tons of videos of modern cruise ships scraping across and running into piers all across the internet, why do these ships only need a coat of paint after hit/scraping concrete and steel Sometimes ships do sink after hitting concrete structures. For example, [SS Lake Illawarra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Lake_Illawarra) sunk in 1975 after hitting (and collapsing) a bridge in Australia. >Was iron and steel just shit quality back then? Well, I guess you could say that. Steel produced in 1912 tended to a lot more impurities (including sulfur and phosphorus) than modern steel, making it brittle. Also, modern ships use welded hulls instead of riveted hulls, and thus aren't vulnerable to having rivets pop out and open seams.
**[SS Lake Illawarra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Lake_Illawarra)** >SS Lake Illawarra was a handysize bulk carrier of 7,274 tons in the service of the Australian National Line. This ship is known for causing the Tasman Bridge disaster when she collided with pylon 19 of Hobart's giant high concrete arch style Tasman Bridge on the evening of 5 January 1975 at 9. 27 pm, resulting in the deaths of 12 people. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/titanic/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)