Or that the coal bunker fire so weakened the bulkhead behind that it gave way under pressure, etc.
Or, you know, it
hit a freaking iceberg and the hull opened along a third of its length.
In professional circles, the idea that brittle rivets, coal bunker fires, or any such thing had any significant effect on the sinking is given very little credence. The TITANIC went down because water got in. It went down quickly because the water got in quickly. The rate of sinking is adequately explained by the size of the holes.
All of which was correctly identified by the ship's designer within months of the sinking. The only significant difference between what's been observed at the wreck site and Wilding's assessment is that the seams opened rather than the shell plating being punctured. If the rivets hadn't given way, then the shell plating would have done.
Bottom line, hitting icebergs does not do ships any good. The
MV EXPLORER sank in 2007 after being holed. It struck ice, opened a 3.6 metre hole, and sank. The
MS HANS HEDTOFT sank in 1958 with all hands after striking an iceberg. Not so long before the TITANIC, in 1901, the
SS ISLANDER hit ice and sank. No substandard rivets or coal bunker fires were necessary to explain any of these. Two of the three sank very quickly. There's no reason why TITANIC should be expected to have survived, nor to have foundered slowly.
For that matter, the designer of the QUEEN MARY 2 stated at a lecture I attended, marking the centenary of the TITANIC sinking, that no modern ship could be expected to survive the accident. The risk mitigation is
not to hit icebergs, because doing so
will sink your ship. But, that doesn't sell books. Conspiracy theories do.
