Great mother of God. This is 100% the stupidest f-cking ignorant crap I have EVER read, and that's saying something.

We’ve all become familiar with the phrase “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” yet no one is mentioning the obvious: ice bergs can’t cut through hardened steel hulls.

Equating the Titanic to an icebreaker based on their steel thickness seems logical. After all, they're both large, steel-constructed ships, right? However, this comparison is oversimplified and ignores key differences between these two kinds of vessels.

Purpose and Design: The Titanic was a luxury liner designed to cross the Atlantic in style and comfort, not to plow through ice fields. Icebreakers, on the other hand, are explicitly designed to navigate through ice-covered waters. Their hulls are reinforced and shaped in a specific way to ride up onto the ice and break it with the ship's weight, a technique the Titanic's hull design was not intended for.

Steel Quality: The type of steel used matters immensely. The Titanic was built using what we now know was low-quality steel (by modern standards), especially vulnerable to the brittle fracturing at cold temperatures. The steel in icebreakers is not only thicker but also of much higher quality, designed to withstand both the immense pressure and the cold temperatures associated with breaking ice.

Impact Force: It's also crucial to consider the force of impact. When an icebreaker engages with ice, it's at relatively slow speeds, using the ship's weight more than its speed to break the ice. The Titanic, however, struck the iceberg at high speed, which would significantly increase the damage.

The Iceberg: The iceberg that the Titanic hit wasn't just a floating chunk of ice; it was a massive, irregularly shaped object, likely with sharp and jagged underwater protrusions. This is quite different from the flat, predictable ice that icebreakers are designed to deal with.

Regarding the explosion claims, it's well documented that when the Titanic hit the iceberg, it caused the ship's hull plates to buckle inwards, which opened seams in the hull and allowed water to flood in. That could very easily be perceived as an "explosion" by terrified passengers, especially those unfamiliar with the sounds of a ship in distress.

For anyone interested, here's a "deeper dive" into the matter of the Titanic's absolutely crap steel quality.

The Titanic was constructed from a type of steel often referred to as "ship plate steel" or simply "mild steel." During the time of the Titanic's construction in the early 20th century, steelmaking technology was not as advanced as today, and as a result, the quality of the steel produced was not as high. The steel for the Titanic was made by the open hearth process, a method which, though revolutionary at the time, didn't allow the same level of control over impurities as modern techniques do.

One of the main concerns with the Titanic's steel was its high sulfur content, which can make the steel more brittle, particularly under the frigid conditions of the North Atlantic. High sulfur content in steel increases the steel's tendency to fracture instead of deform under stress, a phenomenon known as brittle fracture.

In addition to the sulfur issue, the steel also had a relatively high concentration of phosphorous, which can also contribute to overall brittleness and reduce the steel's toughness, particularly at low temperatures.

It's also important to mention that the "rivets" used in the Titanic's construction were made from "wrought iron," not steel. The quality of these iron rivets varied, and some had even higher sulfur content, making them more likely to fail under stress. In fact, it's been suggested that many of the rivets failed upon impact with the iceberg, causing the hull plates to separate and allow water to flood in.

Absolutely embarrassing

Great mother of God. This is 100% the stupidest f-ckingignorant crap I have EVER read, and that's saying something.

We’ve all become familiar with the phrase “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” yet no one is mentioning the obvious: ice bergs can’t cut through hardened steel hulls.

Equating the Titanic to an icebreaker based on their steel thickness seems logical. After all, they're both large, steel-constructed ships, right? However, this comparison is oversimplified and ignores key differences between these two kinds of vessels.

Purpose and Design: The Titanic was a luxury liner designed to cross the Atlantic in style and comfort, not to plow through ice fields. Icebreakers, on the other hand, are explicitly designed to navigate through ice-covered waters. Their hulls are reinforced and shaped in a specific way to ride up onto the ice and break it with the ship's weight, a technique the Titanic's hull design was not intended for.

Steel Quality: The type of steel used matters immensely. The Titanic was built using what we now know was low-quality steel (by modern standards), especially vulnerable to the brittle fracturing at cold temperatures. The steel in icebreakers is not only thicker but also of much higher quality, designed to withstand both the immense pressure and the cold temperatures associated with breaking ice.

Impact Force: It's also crucial to consider the force of impact. When an icebreaker engages with ice, it's at relatively slow speeds, using the ship's weight more than its speed to break the ice. The Titanic, however, struck the iceberg at high speed, which would significantly increase the damage.

The Iceberg: The iceberg that the Titanic hit wasn't just a floating chunk of ice; it was a massive, irregularly shaped object, likely with sharp and jagged underwater protrusions. This is quite different from the flat, predictable ice that icebreakers are designed to deal with.

Regarding the explosion claims, it's well documented that when the Titanic hit the iceberg, it caused the ship's hull plates to buckle inwards, which opened seams in the hull and allowed water to flood in. That could very easily be perceived as an "explosion" by terrified passengers, especially those unfamiliar with the sounds of a ship in distress.

For anyone interested, here's a "deeper dive" into the matter of the Titanic's absolutely crap steel quality.

The Titanic was constructed from a type of steel often referred to as "ship plate steel" or simply "mild steel." During the time of the Titanic's construction in the early 20th century, steelmaking technology was not as advanced as today, and as a result, the quality of the steel produced was not as high. The steel for the Titanic was made by the open hearth process, a method which, though revolutionary at the time, didn't allow the same level of control over impurities as modern techniques do.

One of the main concerns with the Titanic's steel was its high sulfur content, which can make the steel more brittle, particularly under the frigid conditions of the North Atlantic. High sulfur content in steel increases the steel's tendency to fracture instead of deform under stress, a phenomenon known as brittle fracture.

In addition to the sulfur issue, the steel also had a relatively high concentration of phosphorous, which can also contribute to overall brittleness and reduce the steel's toughness, particularly at low temperatures.

It's also important to mention that the "rivets" used in the Titanic's construction were made from "wrought iron," not steel. The quality of these iron rivets varied, and some had even higher sulfur content, making them more likely to fail under stress. In fact, it's been suggested that many of the rivets failed upon impact with the iceberg, causing the hull plates to separate and allow water to flood in.

Absolutely embarrassing

Great mother of God. This is 100% the stupidest f-cking thing I have EVER read.

We’ve all become familiar with the phrase “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” yet no one is mentioning the obvious: ice bergs can’t cut through hardened steel hulls.

Equating the Titanic to an icebreaker based on their steel thickness seems logical. After all, they're both large, steel-constructed ships, right? However, this comparison is oversimplified and ignores key differences between these two kinds of vessels.

Purpose and Design: The Titanic was a luxury liner designed to cross the Atlantic in style and comfort, not to plow through ice fields. Icebreakers, on the other hand, are explicitly designed to navigate through ice-covered waters. Their hulls are reinforced and shaped in a specific way to ride up onto the ice and break it with the ship's weight, a technique the Titanic's hull design was not intended for.

Steel Quality: The type of steel used matters immensely. The Titanic was built using what we now know was low-quality steel (by modern standards), especially vulnerable to the brittle fracturing at cold temperatures. The steel in icebreakers is not only thicker but also of much higher quality, designed to withstand both the immense pressure and the cold temperatures associated with breaking ice.

Impact Force: It's also crucial to consider the force of impact. When an icebreaker engages with ice, it's at relatively slow speeds, using the ship's weight more than its speed to break the ice. The Titanic, however, struck the iceberg at high speed, which would significantly increase the damage.

The Iceberg: The iceberg that the Titanic hit wasn't just a floating chunk of ice; it was a massive, irregularly shaped object, likely with sharp and jagged underwater protrusions. This is quite different from the flat, predictable ice that icebreakers are designed to deal with.

Regarding the explosion claims, it's well documented that when the Titanic hit the iceberg, it caused the ship's hull plates to buckle inwards, which opened seams in the hull and allowed water to flood in. That could very easily be perceived as an "explosion" by terrified passengers, especially those unfamiliar with the sounds of a ship in distress.