DEPOSITION OF ADMIRAL DAVID W. TAYLOR - Contd.
Q. Is it your opinion that that was the controlling reason when they were first built into war ships?
- No: I think when they were first used on steel war ships they were armored ships, and the protection from the coal was not seriously taken into consideration; when the protected cruiser type was developed somewhat later, the side coal bunkers were regarded as a material element of protection.
Q. Have you ever examined the plans of the Lusitania, Admiral?
- I have examined the plan published in the technical press.
Q. You are familiar, generally, with her internal construction, the disposition of her bunkers and watertight decks, are you not?
- In a very general way, yes.
Q. It is a fact, however, that she has her coal bunkers disposed along outboard of the stokeholds, is it not?
- Yes.
Q. Those compartments, those coal bunkers, are of considerable size, are they not?
- I think they must be, to carry the supply of coal.
Q. The opening of one such compartment I think you have stated would cause a list of the ship, in a ship of that type?
- It undoubtedly would have caused a list.
Q. And that would be aggravated by damage to more than one compartment?
- The more compartments thrown open the greater the list.
Q. Of course it is a matter of common report that the Lusitania was sunk --
Mr. Kinnicutt:
I object
Q. You have heard of the report of the sinking of that vessel, have you not?
- I have.
Q. What damage do you consider was caused the vessel to have caused her to sink in twenty minutes?
Mr. Kinnicutt:
I object, on the ground that the witness has no personal knowledge of these matters.
- I have no reliable information as to the amount of damage done to the vessel at that time, but evidently it was sufficient to allow water to enter in twenty minutes in an amount sufficient to have destroyed her buoyancy.
Q. Can you give any idea, Admiral, of the number of compartments that you think must have been opened to the sea?
Mr. Kinnicutt:
Objected to, for the same reason as above.
- I cannot. I do not know where the damage was.
Q. Assuming that in a ship of that type the damage was in the coal bunkers on the starboard side, how many of those compartments would probably have been opened to the sea to cause her to sink in twenty minutes?
- So far as my inadequate knowledge goes, I doubt if she would have sunk in twenty minutes if all those compartments on the starboard side had been opened to the sea; but that is a matter concerning which, as I have already said, my knowledge is inadequate. Certainly, however, the loss of buoyancy due to those compartments being flooded would not have sunk the ship.
Q. Have you made any calculation to determine that?
- I have not.
Q. Do you recall the sinking of the British battleship Victoria ?
- I do.
Q. Are you familiar with the manner in which she sank?
Mr. Kinnicutt:
I object to this question.
- I read the reports on the subject.
Q. Is it not a fact that she was rammed by the Camperdown ?
Mr. Kinnicutt:
I object.
- Yes, in 1893.
Q. And that she turned turtle, as the expression has been used here?
- My recollection is that she capsized as she went down.
Q. That was due to a heavy list, due to the injury which the Camperdown inflicted, was it not?
Mr. Kinnicutt:
I object, as this is an incident of which the witness has not knowledge.
- She was sunk undoubtedly as the result of the injury inflicted by the Camperdown, but my recollection i that the capsizing was comparatively secondary; that the whole fore part of the vessel was submerged some time before she capsized, and the capsizing was probably due to the loss of stability resulting from the submergence of the fore part of the vessel; there was testimony that water entered a gun port on the starboard side of the superstructure above the main deck; and I believe that the Admiralty officials claimed at the time that if this gun port had been closed the vessel would not have capsized, and would have been saved.
Q. The water entered the gun port by reason of the list of the ship, did it not?
- No, by reason of the change of trim by the head of the ship which buried the whole fore part of the ship. This gun port was not on the side of the ship proper, but was on the forward part of the superstructure. These vessels had a heavy turret forward and a superstructure aft of the turret extending above the deck. I would say as regards this whole Victoria business that I am relying entirely on memory, and would not like to guarantee the accuracy of my recollection.
Q. Do you know whether the Empress of Ireland had longitudinal bulkheads?
- I do not.
Q. You recall she was sunk some time ago in the St. Lawrence River, do you not?
- Yes.
Q. You have no knowledge as to her internal construction?
- I do not remember ever seeing a plan of the ship.
Q. The watertight flats and longitudinal bulkheads are used more in naval vessels than in merchant vessels, are they not?
-
I believe so, yes.
Q. Aside from the vessels you have mentioned, the Lusitania and the Mauretania, you do not recall any others that were built in that way, do you?
- Any large merchant vessels at that time?
Q. Passenger vessels, yes.
-
I am afraid my knowledge of the construction of large passenger vessels is confined practically to the Lusitania and the Mauretania .
Q. You would not undertake, then, to say how many vessels of large size, say over 650 feet in length, were built similar to the Titanic, would you?
- I would not.
Q. Would the subdivision into watertight compartments of merchant ships, as in men of war, that is, as minute subdivision, be practicable commercially, do you think?
- Mechanically it would be practicable, of course. Commercially probably it would be undesirable, and unnecessary from the point of view of safety. Men of war are minutely subdivided to provide against other perils than those of navigation.
Q. A watertight deck or flat built in forward you have testified would be advantageous if it were about one-fourth of the draft above the waterline. The whole question of a watertight deck depends largely on its position with reference to the normal waterline of the ship, does it not?
- The question of its effect upon the safety of the ship depends somewhat on it; I chose that height, a quarter of the draft, because it was a convenient location and a desirable one, but it need not necessarily be restricted to that height.
Q. If the watertight flat is so located as to permit water to flow in above it, in case of accident, it becomes more or less of a danger to the ship, does it not?
- Not necessarily. If the water flows above and not below it, it does diminish to some extent the stability of the ship, but if properly compartmented and has satisfactory initial stability, that would not be dangerous; certainly, if one compartment was flooded, the deck would still save the loss of buoyancy due to the flooding of the space below it.
Q. Water on top of such a flat, with an undamaged compartment below introduces an element of danger, does it not?
- It reduces the stability of the vessel.
Q. And tends to cause the vessel to capsize -- tends to cause her to capsize?
- Well, all reductions of stability tend to cause the vessel to capsize. It does not necessarily follow that that tendency would produce that result.
Q. I simply ask whether or not it had that tendency.
-
Yes.
Q. In the case of damage forward admitting water to the interior of the ship, there is of course a change of trim, is there not?
- Yes; any damage would produce change of trim.
Q. The ship, in other words, would be more down by the head; would she not?
- Yes.
Q. So that whatever the position of a watertight flat might be this change of trim would tend to bring that flat lower down in the water, or toward the water, would it not?
- A change of trim by the head would undoubtedly produce that result. I may say in addition that the loss of buoyancy would lower the ship bodily, also tending to produce the same result.
Q. Therefore, if this watertight deck were anywhere near the waterline this combination of change of trim and bodily lowering of the vessel in the water would produce a more aggravated situation than either acting separately, would it not?
Mr. Brougham:
I object to that, on the ground that it does not define the nature of the injury or the location of it.
- Yes, as already stated, they would be added to each other; the sinkage and the change of trim would work together to lower the deck with reference to the water, assuming any injury.
Q. A collision damage is reasonably to be expected, is it, Admiral, to a vessel, and if forward, would cause a lowering of the vessel in the water as mentioned?
- If it would admit water into the ship, yes.
Q. You do not think vessels can be made unsinkable, do you?
- Yes.
Q. Unsinkable from any kind of possible damage?
- Against any form of damage that we now know of, if you are willing to pay the price.
Q. Of course I am referring to a vessel -- that is, a merchant vessel -- that is commercially practicable.
-
Whether an unsinkable vessel would pay or not I am not prepared to state.
Q. Have you ever made a calculation to determine what the effect would have been in an accident like that which caused the sinking of the Titanic, that is, one which opened up the compartments forward as far aft as at least No. 6 boiler room -- that is, the forward boiler room, on a vessel built to the same lines as the Titanic but having internal arrangements similar to those built in the Lusitania ?
- I have not.
Q. What would you say off hand, if you cared to give your opinion, as to whether a vessel so built and receiving such an injury, would have remained afloat, or have sunk?
- Some years ago -- in 1912, to be exact -- I made an approximate calculation concerning the Titanic on various assumptions, but I am not sufficiently aware of the details of the construction of the Mauretania and the Lusitania forward, to say exactly how my assumed vessels would compare with her; but I came to the conclusion at that time that a vessel like the Titanic, with a watertight deck forward (and I understand the Mauretania and the Lusitania have nearly a complete watertight deck forward) would have remained afloat under the circumstances of damage you mention.
Q. Do you know whether the deck was continuous over No. 3 compartment forward, in the Lusitania ?
- As to the Mauretania and the Lusitania, I do not.
Q. Would you say that the accident to the Titanic, as it has been assumed and stated to you to be, one which opened up all the compartments from the forepeak aft as far as No. 5 boiler room, was a usual accident, one reasonably to be expected?
Mr. Kinnicutt:
I object, as counsel for claimants have never stated that this was the damage to the Titanic ; and counsel further states that the only admissible evidence in the record as to the nature and extent of the damage to the hull of the Titanic shows merely that the hull was injured in boiler room 6 and boiler room 5. How the water got into other compartments, if any, does not thus far appear.
- I think in the direct examination that I declined to express a positive opinion on that point.
Q. You have known of damages to a great many vessels, have you not?
- Not many; I have known of comparatively few cases of damage to merchant vessels.
Q. And of damage to men of war?
- Yes.
Q. What proportion of them have been as serious as this assumed damage to the Titanic ?
- The majority of cases to Men of war, allowing for the size, have been relatively as serious, but I have in mind only serious accidents, such as grounding while under way.
Q. To what vessels?
- The Connecticut, I believe, struck a reef down near Cuba, and opened up a number of compartments; then there was the Brooklyn, which struck a shoal in the Delaware River on her maiden trip and did very extensive damage to her bottom.
Q. Is it not a fact that the damage in both of these cases was within the limits of the double bottom?
- Not entirely, but mainly so; they were both cases of grounding.
Q. In building vessels, such as the Titanic, what is your opinion as to the number of adjacent compartments that could be flooded and the vessel still remain afloat?
- If you mean the number of compartments where flooding should be provided against in the design, I should say, in the light of our present knowledge four or five forward, and three or four aft. This refers to main compartments, not to double bottom compartments.
Mr. Kinnicutt:
Would your answer include the forepeak?
The Witness:
I do not regard the forepeak as a main compartment.
Q. Looking at Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, how many compartments, beginning at the stem, could be flooded and the vessel still remain afloat? (Showing witness Exhibit 6 )
- I make it four, including the forepeak.
Q. Judging by your experience, say at the time the Titanic was built what would you say as to the adequacy of that measure of safety?
- I do not recall that up to the time of the Titanic disaster I had given any particular attention to the question of safety of merchant vessels, and I do not know what I would have said at that time, except that if the problem had been put to me in view of my naval experience I would probably have attempted to approach the safety given naval vessels against dangers of navigation, such as grounding or collision.
Q. That would be the result of your naval experience?
- Yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, Admiral, did you not write or publish a statement with reference to the Titanic, in these words: “The watertight bulkhead are all transverse and all join the outer skin. It is an elementary principle of safety with such an arrangement that bulkheads must be so close together that two adjacent compartments may be flooded at the same time without danger to the vessel"?
- I think I made that statement, with the additional statement that this was a minimum requirement.
Q. Do you recall that you stated that that was a minimum requirement?
- I should have to refresh my recollection.
Q. At all events, you have examined the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, which shows that the four forward compartments might have been flooded and the ship remain afloat; is that so?
- Including the forepeak?
Q. Including the forepeak; that is a fact, is it not?
- Including the forepeak, yes; that is the way I testified.
Q. Now Admiral, you were examined also on the direct concerning the heights of the bulkheads, and you examined Claimants' Exhibit C. Is it not a fact that the heights to which the bulkheads are carried are governed by the change of trim which would occur as the result of the flooding of, say, two adjacent compartments?
- I cannot testify to that of my own knowledge. I understand that the bulkheads were carried to such a height for that reason.
Q. That would be the naval architect's method of arriving at the proper height for the several bulkheads, would it not?
Mr. Kinnicutt:
I object to the question as to form.
- The heights of the bulkheads would be fixed primarily by consideration of the result of given assumed damage to be provided against.
Q. Is that the way that you, as a naval architect, would determine the heights of bulkheads?
- Primarily, considering the question of safety from damage; there are other considerations that would naturally enter into it. In saying this, I refer to the previous answer.
Q. Out of all the damages to naval vessels of which you are aware, where the damage was comparable to that which occurred to the Titanic, there are only the ones that you have mentioned, the Connecticut and the Brooklyn ; is that so?
- It happens that the cases that I recall at the moment were only two; there have been a number of other cases of damage to naval vessels, but those I recall now were all cases of damage to smaller vessels, not large vessels.
Q. With reference to the fact that the aft bulkheads of the Titanic were carried higher than the forward bulkheads, did you consider the fact that the vessel's draft aft would be greater than it was forward?
- They were carried higher above the waterline aft; what slight difference in draft might exist is apparently immaterial in this connection.
Q. Do you think it is a matter of fact that they were carried higher above the waterline aft?
- I do.
Q. And your answer on the direct was based upon that assumption was it?
- It was.