Titanic's designer...Is he partially to blame?
Titanic's designer...Thomas Andrews...has always been an interesting study in regards to the Titanic disaster. Most people consider Joseph Bruce Ismay to be the primary source of blame when it comes to the sinking of the Titanic but I submit to you that Thomas Andrews should share an equal amount of blame due to his own unique form of incompetence.
For the most part he is a fairly respected figure from history but let us examine a few details. It is no secret that the Titanic was a structural nightmare. Bruce Ismay was far more concerned with how luxurious this sea-going leviathan was than any considerations as to how safe the vessel was. The fact that she only carried twenty lifeboats attests to this.
I have often said "Had the Titanic not sank on her maiden voyage she would have sank within a year or two anyway". What makes this an accurate statement? It is at this point that we must question certain decisions that Thomas Andrews made.
Our primary concern is the Olympic class expansion joints that were used on the Titanic and how Andrew's could have ever approved their use. The final decision would have been his and not Ismay's. Of course, it goes without saying that the White Star Line was probably applying considerable pressure on Andrews to keep certain costs down but there simply is no justifiable reason to make such a cut and take a risk which ended the lives of more than 1500 people.
The primary problem with the expansion joints on the Titanic is the fact that they did not flex or expand far enough. I am certain that most of you have saw representations of the Titanic's stern rising up out of the water to an unbelievable forty-five degrees before it snapped and came crashing down into the water.
Well it simply did not happen like that. An examination of the hull plates and how they tore proves this. So at what angle was the vessel at when it broke in two? This will shock you. The Titanic came apart between nine and eleven degrees! I know that this seems impossible to believe but there is a lot of evidence to support this conclusion.
The low angle break also explains why many people felt that she went under intact. Had she really rose to forty-five degrees there would have been little doubt about whether or not she went down in two pieces.
So what we have now is a vessel nearly nine-hundred feet long that can not withstand an angle exceeding eleven degrees. What does this mean? There is little doubt as to the implications of this "fact".
The first time the Titanic encountered a hurricane she would not have been able to sufficiently flex as the rough sea rolled. She would have either snapped in two or suffered severe structural damage. If it had been the latter I doubt she would have stayed afloat long enough for help to arrive unless she had been in port.
This is not theory...we are discussing physics on a very fundamental level. While many would feel the need to argue and attempt to disregard these facts there is simply no basis by which to mount an adequate defense that a high angle break actually occurred.
This brings us to our focus...does Thomas Andrews bear at least as much blame for the disaster as Bruse Ismay? I feel that the facts speak for themselves. He must have known of these shortcomings. He should have never agreed to build a ship that was nothing more than a very luxurious coffin. He should have pointed out these faults and stood firm. That was his job.
Sandman
