This article is a criticism of a particular documentary (which admittedly seems to have a number of false and dubious claims), and in some places seems more det

This article is a criticism of a particular documentary (which admittedly seems to have a number of false and dubious claims), and in some places seems more determined to debunk the claims made in that documentary than to consider whether a bunker fire could nevertheless have played any role. If the documentary claims the ship was only doomed by the failure of the bulkhead in question, then it is in error, but timing of the essence here: if the ship stayed afloat for one more hour, it probably would have made little difference, but an extra two hours probably would have. The metallurgical discussion of the effect of fire on the bulkhead looks well-grounded to me (though I know little about the matter), but it might be somewhat moot if, as this article seems to acknowledge, the bulkhead may have been deformed beforehand, as a consequence of a bunker fire at some point. I am curious as to whether the strain on the hull, from having the stern lifted out of the water, could have led to (further) damage to the bulkhead, creating the reported rush of water.