[cratermoon]

The most fascinating aspect of the incident to me is that the Edmund Fitzgerald was 728' long and sank in 535 feet of water. One video I saw analyzing the sinking showed that it was possible the ship's bow was forced down hit the bottom with 200' or so still above the surface.

[bell-cot]

IANANE (not a Naval Engineer), but that scenario sounds wildly implausible. It's easy to "do" it with a scale model toy, or simplistic geometry - but out in real life, at the size of a lake freighter, the square-cube law is absolutely merciless. Below (very optimistic guess) ~120' depth, the ship's hull can no longer hold air, to provide buoyancy. Recall that the water pressure a few hundred feet down is enough to crush a WWI submarine like an empty beer can in your fist. And lake freighters hulls are not built to anything remotely resembling WWI military submarine standards.

[swearwolf]

Can you imagine the horror of being on the bridge, thinking that the bow has just submerged into a wave, and only realizing it’s not going to come back up when you feel the ship slam into the lake floor?

[jcranmer]

For reference, that would be at least a 47° incline, or about 108% grade. You'd probably realize the ship isn't going to come back when you reach 20%-ish grade.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Lakers usually have their bridge at the bow.

[dredmorbius]

As did the Fitz herself.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald#/media/Fi...>

[michaelcampbell]

If memory serves, the Russian Kursk sank in water less deep than it was long, too. And in one piece.

[ubermonkey]

It's not exactly comforting, but in truth the ship broke in two, so that scenario is unlikely.