Would the Titanic really have been better off hitting the iceberg head on?

[Fanghur]

Does anyone know whether the common claim that, had the Titanic have simply put the engines in full reverse and then hit the iceberg head on, that it either wouldn't have sank at all or else would have taken much longer to sink? At first glance, this seems like a fairly likely conclusion, considering that the iceberg essentially sliced open the entire side of the ship's hull, and I can't help but wonder whether it could have simply plowed right through that iceberg if it was going fast enough. But on the other hand, the kinetic energy behind the ship when it struck head on would likely have been gargantuan, so might this have in fact made the situation even worse rather than better?

[Janus]

I remember a while back a theory that is was weak rivets that caused seams to pop that led to the quicker sinking. If that was the case, I don't think a head-on collision would have made any difference. The shock would have still popped rivets and opened seams.

[Fanghur]

On the other hand, though, and if I'm mistaken about this then someone please correct me, the Titanic's size, and by extension its mass would have dwarfed the iceberg that it hit (at least that is what I read), and that the only reason the iceberg was able to sink it was because of a jagged knife-like protruding section that literally ended up being dragged across the entire left side of the ship like a knife. So if that is true, and if the ship really was so much bigger and heavier than the iceberg, and that certainly appears to be the case in the film, than wouldn't the ship's much larger mass have simply demolished the iceberg like a steam engine plowing through a car unfortunate enough to have stalled on the tracks?

 

If I've been hugely misinformed of the various measurement involved here, can someone please set me straight?

[Janus]

Estimates of the iceberg put it at ~50-100 high and ~200-400 ft long. However, remember, that represents only ~1/8 of the mass of the total iceberg.

[ACG52]

I remember a while back a theory that is was weak rivets that caused seams to pop that led to the quicker sinking. If that was the case, I don't think a head-on collision would have made any difference. The shock would have still popped rivets and opened seams.

 

 

The last documentary on Titanic which I saw about 2 month ago recreated the rivets and the plating, using the original specs and material. They they subjected them to various strains and impacts, and they didn't pop.

[Fanghur]

OK, so I freely admit that I was misinformed about the dimensions of the iceberg that the ship hit. But still,that doesn't answer the question of whether the ship would have ultimately been better off with a head-on collision.

[jonnyquest]

only 10% of icebergs are above the water line. given that information, its highly unlikely that the titanic was bigger or heavier than the iceberg. additionally, you can't just throw a ship in reverse like you can with a car or small boat, larger ships like that can take miles to come to a complete stop

[Fanghur]

only 10% of icebergs are above the water line. given that information, its highly unlikely that the titanic was bigger or heavier than the iceberg. additionally, you can't just throw a ship in reverse like you can with a car or small boat, larger ships like that can take miles to come to a complete stop

 

Obviously. But then again, if they were going to take the gambit of hitting the iceberg head on rather than trying to avoid it, throwing the engines into reverse would by definition have lessened the impact, even if only by a very minuscule amount. I wasn't suggesting that the ship could reverse quickly, but in that situation ANY amount of deceleration is better than none at all.