Ship Simulator
English forum => Ship Simulator 2008 => General discussions => Topic started by: RMS Canada on September 16, 2008, 17:03:29
-
I'm going to recreate the fatual collision between Titanic and the iceberg using the mission editor, and I'm going to make it as accurate as possible! Maybe I'll toss in "Hard to Starboard" from the soundtrack of Titanic.
I have studied the ship for a long time and now I'm putting my research to the test. ;D
EDIT: this project will have to wait a while as I'm very busy.
-
It can't be that realistic though - the Titanic in Ship Simulator 2008 has too quick a ROT to replicate like the movie. Same with the engines. The telemotor issues a command, and the engine room responds very quickly in the game - it would take a while, like in the movie.
-
I hate to break the news to you TTE, but it has been attempted many times. The CMMs often get idiotic missions involving Titanic and icebergs—often as many as six icebergs.
Nathan is correct that any meaningful re-creation of the disaster is not possible—for many reasons.
Her ROT is too high, but also increases too quickly. The model’s rudder goes hard over much quicker than the 30 seconds it took Titanic.
The engine response is quicker, but engine response played virtually no part in the real disaster. It would have made no difference whatever Murdoch did. Theoretically, it would have lessened rudder effectiveness by stopping the center, turbine driven, screw. However, in the 40 seconds before impact it is doubtful that the turbine had stopped.
Although Titanic will sink from impact below the water line if you hit the berg correctly, she will not sink in a satisfactory manner, and will go down in about a minute.
The whole thing is about as satisfactory as flying through the WTC in an earlier MSFS.
If you attempt this, or any mission, you should first study the Mission Editor Tutorial. Whatever you do, do not Upload your attempt to the CMMs unless you want your name added to our idiot list.
-
If they had just collided head on, would that have made any difference?
-
If they had just collided head on, would that have made any difference?
I really do not see how that could work..i think it's just a myth. Plus who is going to stamd there and say "Ah it's ok, we;ll survive if we ram it". It's a natural reaction to try and avoid it.
-
Well it works for lumpy water (big waves) so how about giant spikey frozen water?
-
Hitting water head on is not the same as hitting ice.
Ice = Solid
Water = Liquid.
-
I know that, I'm not completely stupid, I was just wondering whether it would have helped but obviously not
-
I know that, I'm not completely stupid, I was just wondering whether it would have helped but obviously not
Well, i thought it would be obvious :P
Icebergs are very hard. Waves are easy to cut through with the bow of a ship. If a ship wants to cut through ice, it needs a special icebreaker bow. But even then, we're only talking about thin ice, not icebergs which tower over a ship.
-
OK, also, another silly question but I read somewhere on this forum that the gash down the side of the ship wasn't real, is that true?
-
OK, also, another silly question but I read somewhere on this forum that the gash down the side of the ship wasn't real, is that true?
No, i think that's another myth too. The 'berg punctured down the side of Titanics hull.
-
But didn't carry on for long?
-
Moved to General Discussions, which is where it belongs. Please ytry to post in the corrrect thread. The ShipSimulator 2008 area is almost never appropriate.
General Discussions is suitable for things to do with Ship Simulator and Small Talk is supposed to be for other things about ship-related topics.
Thanks.
-
What is the ship sim 2008 area used for then?
-
As I've said many times, nothing, pretty much.
There are sections that are suitable for virtually every possible topic. The ONLY thing that is acceptable in the Ship Simulator 20088 area is requests for technical support relating to the demo version of the game.
Most of the time, posts seem to go into the area because people can't make the effort to post it in the relevant section.
I gave warning a month ago that I would start to delete such posts without warning. Kind person that I am, these are now the warnings. But they won't be for much longer....
-
Cue sinister music
-
I really do not see how that could work..i think it's just a myth. Plus who is going to stamd there and say "Ah it's ok, we;ll survive if we ram it". It's a natural reaction to try and avoid it.
You are right about that, Nathan.
(I hate it when that happens!)
The Idea that the Titanic would have survived had she hit the berg square on the bow was first floated by Bruce Ismay during the US inquiry as a way of placing the blame on the bridge. Titanic might have survived, but few of her passengers and crew would have.
Arithmetic problem: Take the distance from the bow to whichever bulkhead you choose to remain intact. That is the distance in which Titanic had to stop from 21.5 knots. You might add a few feet for crushing of the ice. From the stopping distance and the speed you can calculate how many Gs of deceleration were involved. From that you can estimate what things—like the engines—may have come loose and gone crashing into other things—like people.
The people, tableware, etc. keep on moving at 21.5 knots until they hit something solid. That would be real hard on the china.
Even if your favorite WT bulkhead survived, most likely plates would have buckled along the sides. She would probably have sunk anyway.
Did I mention the fires and steam resulting from the engines going through the boiler rooms?
Marty
-
RMS Gigantic will laugh when he see's this topic..... ;D :D
-
RMS Gigantic will laugh when he see's this topic..... ;D :D
*Yawns* I'm getting a little bored of Titanic discussions now ::)
-
Me too, Nathan,
I’m getting less amused by the self-proclaimed Titanic Experts who have read one book or seen one movie and can do little more than parrot the same tired myths. The word “research†does not seem to be in the vocabulary of many of these experts.
Regards,
Marty
-
Me too, i'm starting to get bored of these Titanic threads, if any new person came here they would think this forum is called "Titanic Simulator 2008" ::) And, like you said mvsmith, people should make sure they know what they are talking about, before they actually open their mouth about the subject. I just want rid of these constant Titanic threads, its really starting to get boring and annoying.
Jack :-\
-
As I've said many times, nothing, pretty much.
There are sections that are suitable for virtually every possible topic. The ONLY thing that is acceptable in the Ship Simulator 20088 area is requests for technical support relating to the demo version of the game.
Most of the time, posts seem to go into the area because people can't make the effort to post it in the relevant section.
I gave warning a month ago that I would start to delete such posts without warning. Kind person that I am, these are now the warnings. But they won't be for much longer....
Then which sections can I post?
-
It can't be that realistic though - the Titanic in Ship Simulator 2008 has too quick a ROT to replicate like the movie. Same with the engines. The telemotor issues a command, and the engine room responds very quickly in the game - it would take a while, like in the movie.
Okay, so maybe I can't make it as accurate as I thought I could. But I'll try my best.
-
I hate to break the news to you TTE, but it has been attempted many times. The CMMs often get idiotic missions involving Titanic and icebergs—often as many as six icebergs.
Nathan is correct that any meaningful re-creation of the disaster is not possible—for many reasons.
Her ROT is too high, but also increases too quickly. The model’s rudder goes hard over much quicker than the 30 seconds it took Titanic.
The engine response is quicker, but engine response played virtually no part in the real disaster. It would have made no difference whatever Murdoch did. Theoretically, it would have lessened rudder effectiveness by stopping the center, turbine driven, screw. However, in the 40 seconds before impact it is doubtful that the turbine had stopped.
Although Titanic will sink from impact below the water line if you hit the berg correctly, she will not sink in a satisfactory manner, and will go down in about a minute.
The whole thing is about as satisfactory as flying through the WTC in an earlier MSFS.
If you attempt this, or any mission, you should first study the Mission Editor Tutorial. Whatever you do, do not Upload your attempt to the CMMs unless you want your name added to our idiot list.
Well, I am still going to attemp to.
-
Me too, Nathan,
I’m getting less amused by the self-proclaimed Titanic Experts who have read one book or seen one movie and can do little more than parrot the same tired myths. The word “research†does not seem to be in the vocabulary of many of these experts.
Regards,
Marty
I have been studying the ship for years.
-
You are right about that, Nathan.
(I hate it when that happens!)
The Idea that the Titanic would have survived had she hit the berg square on the bow was first floated by Bruce Ismay during the US inquiry as a way of placing the blame on the bridge. Titanic might have survived, but few of her passengers and crew would have.
Arithmetic problem: Take the distance from the bow to whichever bulkhead you choose to remain intact. That is the distance in which Titanic had to stop from 21.5 knots. You might add a few feet for crushing of the ice. From the stopping distance and the speed you can calculate how many Gs of deceleration were involved. From that you can estimate what things—like the engines—may have come loose and gone crashing into other things—like people.
The people, tableware, etc. keep on moving at 21.5 knots until they hit something solid. That would be real hard on the china.
Even if your favorite WT bulkhead survived, most likely plates would have buckled along the sides. She would probably have sunk anyway.
Did I mention the fires and steam resulting from the engines going through the boiler rooms?
Marty
Oh, please don't remind me of Mr. Ismay. I do not like him because of what he did.
-
Oh, please don't remind me of Mr. Ismay. I do not like him because of what he did.
How can you judge somebody by their actions? I bet if you were an officer on that bridge at that time during the incident you would be wetting yourself wondering what you should do.....Don't judge people that you have never met.
-
Moved to General Discussions, which is where it belongs. Please ytry to post in the corrrect thread. The ShipSimulator 2008 area is almost never appropriate.
General Discussions is suitable for things to do with Ship Simulator and Small Talk is supposed to be for other things about ship-related topics.
Thanks.
Where is small talk?
-
How can you judge somebody by their actions? I bet if you were an officer on that bridge at that time during the incident you would be wetting yourself wondering what you should do.....Don't judge people that you have never met.
Ismay is a jerk! I bet he lied at the inquiry!
-
Ismay is a jerk! I bet he lied at the inquiry!
There you go again, you don't even know if he did and now you could be accusing a man that is innocent, again, you "Bet" he lied at the inquiry, but you don't know.....if you give me evidence then i will believe you.
-
One should not bandy the word “jerk†about so freely. After all, it could be applied to one who calls himself “The Titanic Expert†but does not seem to know squat.
-
It could be applied to one who calls himself “The Titanic Expert†but does not seem to know squat.
Yes, i've found that to be quite honest.....
-
Titanic expert, you have just broken the record for most multiple posts. Please try to edit one post if you want to add something.
By the way, in my eyes Ismay did nothing wrong - It was the Captains decision to go ahead full, and i really don't understand anyone who says he should of stayed on the ship - i highly doubt the c/o of P&O would stay aboard his sinking ferry.
-
Then which sections can I post?
It's pretty obvious from most of the titles, I think.
But for clarity:
1. Technical Support questions may ONLY go in the relevant Technical Support area, except for technical support questions about the demo version. These are the ONLY posts that should go in the Ship Simulator 2008 section.
2. Media is for things to do with photos, videos and so on.
3. Missions is for things to do with missions (yes, really!), including Custom Missions.
4. You should ONLY post in the vessel design sections if you are part of an "official" design team, and then ONLY about vessels for Ship Simulator.
5. Multiplayer is for things to do with multiplayer (suprised huh?)
6. General Discussions is for things to do with Ship Simulator not covered elsewhere.
7. Small Talk is for other things that have some relevance to Ship Simulator, e.g. releated maritime discussions and so on. It isn't really for discussions about people's mobile phones, and so on. But we are reasonably tolerant about other things creeping in so long as some self-control is exercised by posters in that area.
The other useful thing to know is how to use that search button. There must be dozens of other "I worship some sunken ship that I only know of from a novel about an imaginary set of people sailing on it, that became a Hollywood theatre event" threads around...
-
I agree, Nathan, that Ismay was a tragic figure betrayed by the technology in which he had such faith. As head of White Star he was shaken by a feeling of responsibility for the deaths and at the same time felt a duty to the company, and to J.P. Morgan, to defend its interests.
He may have acted less than heroically, but he had no duty to go down with the ship—that’s what he hired Smith for.
The public was looking for a villain, and he was the only good candidate left alive.
If it were not for the vision of Ismay, and Pirie, we would not have any Olympic class ships to argue about.
How much, if at all, he pressured Smith to put the pedal to the metal is not known, but if he did, the onus was entirely on Smith to resist the pressure.
-
RMS Gigantic will laugh when he see's this topic..... ;D :D
That I did ;D
-
The exisiting Titanic threads could make a new board for heavens sake... As if VSTEP has nothing else to do :)
-
We need a new board for Titanic! Someone contact Wout! ;D
-
if i may just mention for the record that in the case of ice bergs, 1/3 of them are visible above the water line while the remainder are below the water line and are invisble or so they seem.and to this end i'm afraid that only partialy that she sank.p.s ...by the way just for info's sake today in our local brisbane newspaper, the last and sole survivor of the titanic has auctioned off some of her effects,letters etc and the suitcase which was on loan to her from the people of relief effort of the era.
-
Sorry to disagree, but at about 0oC (32oF), only 1/10 of the iceberg is above water, if I read my coefficient of expansion of water tables correctly.
-
It can't be that realistic though - the Titanic in Ship Simulator 2008 has too quick a ROT to replicate like the movie. Same with the engines. The telemotor issues a command, and the engine room responds very quickly in the game - it would take a while, like in the movie.
The telemotor has nothing to do with the engine room, it is a hydraulic steering mechanism typically controlling a quadrant steam engine in the steering flat to turn the ship's rudder. One of the ship's I worked on the Paddle Steamer "Waverley" has the same system to this day, made by the same company that made the Titanic steering gear (Browns of Edinburgh). The transmission of helm commands by hydraulic means is actually very quick. The reason Titanic turned slowly is probably more to do with simple physics & ship construction i.e. the length of the hull vs the size of the rudder.
As to a telegraph which is the device used to transmit orders from bridge to engine room, an engineer will typically be at the controls in the engine room awaiting orders from the bridge and will push the engine control levers as soon as he receives said orders from the telegraph. The telegraph is not a hydraulic system but rather a simple mechanical system of pulleys rods and bicycle-like chains. In this video (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GkTrRC4GReA&feature=related) of Waverley's engine you can see the engineer respond to bridge commands again very quickly
-
As sonarman points out, the engineer would answer the ring immediately while ordering his crew to stop the engines—which takes a while to accomplish. If he did not acknowledge until the engines were stopped, the bridge would wonder if there was anyone awake in the engine room.
-
The iceberg that sank the Titanic was believed to be 65 feet tall above the water line, with 6/7 of its height underwater, according to what I have read.
As for the engine thing, with Titanic, if only the main engine telegraphs are used, the order is to be carried out in 15 minutes to a half hour. The order is to be acted out promptly if an emergency mid-ocean manuever is signaled (the main engine AND emergency telegraphs both give the signal)
-
Murdoch rang “full astern†and then “stop†to signal that it was an emergency maneuver.
-
What he did was, as you can see in the movie (the movie gets this right) is move both the regular (with indicator on the back) and emergency (without indicator) engine telegraphs to full astern, as they have different corrosponding telegraphs in the engine room.
So when the engineer looked, he saw 4 telegraphs move back (the port and starboard commands were indicated on separate telegraphs in the engine room)
-
That's somewhat semi-circular reasoning, isn't it? It's in the movie so it must be right. And it must be right because it's in the movie. Hmm.... doesn't work, sorry.
If the movie got anything right (and there is so much that it didn't), it was
(a) the fact that vessel was called Titanic
(b) it head-butted an iceberg and sank in the Atlantic
Everything else is likely to be a fiction. Remember, this was not a historical documentary. It was a love story written around the two facts above. Virtually everything else was adjusted or fabricated to meet the requirements of a Hollywood glossy fiction movie.
Don't assume anything is "a fact" because you saw it in this fictional movie. Do your research using documentary evidence from the time. And even then, remember that everyone writing that evidence is likely to have had a vested interest.
-
The reason for the “emergency†telegraphs is for backup in case the wire snaps on the regular telegraphs. They are not special telegraphs “for use in emergenciesâ€.
What are now called “hand brakes†or “parking brakes†on autos, were once called “emergency brakes†because they were for use if the new-fangled hydraulics failed.
This does not mean that they should be the first choice for avoiding an imminent collision with a bridge abutment.
-
That's somewhat semi-circular reasoning, isn't it? It's in the movie so it must be right. And it must be right because it's in the movie. Hmm.... doesn't work, sorry.
If the movie got anything right (and there is so much that it didn't), it was
(a) the fact that vessel was called Titanic
(b) it head-butted an iceberg and sank in the Atlantic
Everything else is likely to be a fiction. Remember, this was not a historical documentary. It was a love story written around the two facts above. Virtually everything else was adjusted or fabricated to meet the requirements of a Hollywood glossy fiction movie.
Don't assume anything is "a fact" because you saw it in this fictional movie. Do your research using documentary evidence from the time. And even then, remember that everyone writing that evidence is likely to have had a vested interest.
Terry.
I hate that movie.
I assume all things in that movie were wrong unless other research proves otherwise.
That was proven true in the TRMA article on Titanic's propulsion, if memory serves (http://titanic-model.com/articles/tech/TechFeatureAugust2005.htm) (http://titanic-model.com/articles/tech/TechFeatureAugust2005.htm)).
Terry, remember who you're speaking to.
-
Sorry for the double post, but it seems I may have misread something.
I'm fairly sure this passage from my link was the one I was referring to:
The boiler room telegraphs were used to announce, usually well in advance, what steaming conditions the engine room would be expecting within a relatively short period of time, say, within the next fifteen minutes to half hour. They weren't intended to be used like the engine order telegraphs, which were intended to communicate very specific orders which were intended to be carried out immediately.
So it seems I mixed up telegraghs.
Don't we all hate when we misread? ;D
-
If they had just collided head on, would that have made any difference?
If RMS Titanic had collided head-on with the iceberg, there was a very good chance the ship would have continued on to New York.
Now don't jump all over me for this, I know these are different ships from different eras, different build quality and different grades of steel....
That being said, here is a picture of the Stockholm after cutting open the side of the Andrea Dorea.
-
Motor Vessel Smith pointed this one out a while ago;
If a Ship is doing 23kn, like Titanic was, and hits something, the ship will slow down so quickly and so violently that the passengers on the ship will continue to travel at 23kn for the second or so after the collision, possibly killing them.....
It's a very stupid theory...
-
Yes a general rule of thumb, always listen to mvsmith, and it's usually best to ignore what i am saying.
But don't ignore this, this is a special occasion (Children In Need)
-
If RMS Titanic had collided head-on with the iceberg, there was a very good chance the ship would have continued on to New York.
Jumping:
http://www.shipsim.com/ShipSimForum/index.php/topic,10503.msg122749.html#msg122749 (http://www.shipsim.com/ShipSimForum/index.php/topic,10503.msg122749.html#msg122749)
-
You are right about that, Nathan.
(I hate it when that happens!)
The Idea that the Titanic would have survived had she hit the berg square on the bow was first floated by Bruce Ismay during the US inquiry as a way of placing the blame on the bridge. Titanic might have survived, but few of her passengers and crew would have.
The number of "what if" theories surrounding the sinking of the RMS Titanic are staggering.
No matter what, I place the blame of the incident, fully, on the bridge. Specifically, Captain Smith. He ignored the ice warnings and sped through the night at full speed while more prudent Captains in the near vicinity were slowing down and using due caution for the situation.
I understand the calculations made regarding a head on collision with the iceberg. There are many other factors to consider. Naturally any officer would make an effort to avoid a collision with an iceberg, but lets just say they knew she wouldn't turn and just decided to run all three engines full astern to try to slow the vessel's forward momentum a bit. Right off the bat, she wouldn't be hitting the berg at 21 or 22 knots. Even if she hit the berg at 18 knots, this would cause things to fly forward, there would be deaths and severe injuries. I do not think the boilers and triple-expansion engines would come loose and fly forward. One also has to consider the disbursement of the kinetic energy, some of which would be absorbed by the accordion like compacting of the steel at the bow of the ship. This is similar to crumple-zones on modern automobiles. The iceberg, not being a stationary object, would also recoil in an opposite direction to absorb some of the shock.
Most calculations I have read have stated that she would lose two or three compartments forward, but would have remain afloat longer.
One more thing to consider. Again, two different ships from two different eras. The severe damage caused to the bow of the Stockholm was not caused by a collision with an object at 18 or 20 knots.
Here is the quote:
"As the two ships approached each other, at a combined speed of 40 knots (74 km/h), each was aware of the presence of another ship but was guided only by radar; they apparently misinterpreted each others' courses. There was no radio communication between the two ships."
The Stockholm still sails today as the Valtur Prima.
Again, these are all just theories. We all know what happened.
Thanks for the link to your post, it got me thinking.
Seaton
-
Why Smith? He never had a collision in 40 years! He wasn't even awake when the berg was hit! He was doing exactly as he was taught, and that was to stick with the schedule.
To slow down and potentially arrive late would be odd at that time. The rule to slow down in case of ice was not in place until after Titanic sank.
If you are going to blame the bridge, blame Murdoch, but what happens happans, so I blame nothing but the berg.
-
I believe that the titanic could have kept sailing, but the ice punctured both hulls and ripped it off of the steel ribbing. (I think I have no proof but I have heard)
Most of the damage is usually under the water line anyway..
-
I believe that the titanic could have kept sailing, but the ice punctured both hulls and ripped it off of the steel ribbing. (I think I have no proof but I have heard)
Where did you get that nonsense? Titanic was not double-hulled. The two sections of double-bottom that separated on either side of the crack landed upside down and could be inspected for damage. There was none.
The ship hit the berg just below the waterline. Plates were bent, rivets were popped, and seams were opened. She suffered many small wounds. There was no mythical “long gash sliced through the hull by the icebergâ€.
-
only the bottm hull the hull was double hulled
-
Well I know nothing about titanic it was just a guess.
-
It has been over twenty years since Bob Ballard located the Titanic, video of her became available, and submarine archaeology began. Yet, there is so much myth and misinformation still being thrown about not only on this forum, but in books and on TV.
Speculation and rumors that began in 1912 are still quoted and accepted as gospel long after they have been refuted by knowledge acquired in the past few decades.
Many do not want to believe that Titanic sank because of arrogance on the part of her Captain, and incompetent navigation by her officers. Or that she was constructed of inferior metal held together by rivets of an inferior grade.
Driving that ship at high speed through a known ice field in disregard of at least six ice warnings—only one of which was ever plotted—cannot be excused by saying it was “accepted practice of that timeâ€.
The fact that there was only 40 seconds from the sighting of the berg until impact—during which no action could have saved her—is clear evidence that she was operated in a reckless manner.
-
Driving that ship at high speed through a known ice field in disregard of at least six ice warnings—only one of which was ever plotted—cannot be excused by saying it was “accepted practice of that timeâ€.
The fact that there was only 40 seconds from the sighting of the berg until impact—during which no action could have saved her—is clear evidence that she was operated in a reckless manner.
I second this notion.
My quote from above:
"No matter what, I place the blame of the incident, fully, on the bridge. Specifically, Captain Smith. He ignored the ice warnings and sped through the night at full speed while more prudent Captains in the near vicinity were slowing down and using due caution for the situation."
-
I second this notion.
My quote from above:
"No matter what, I place the blame of the incident, fully, on the bridge. Specifically, Captain Smith. He ignored the ice warnings and sped through the night at full speed while more prudent Captains in the near vicinity were slowing down and using due caution for the situation."
Captain Smith was sleeping at the time.
-
He was either in his cabin or the chartroom, he was not asleep. Not that it matters, he was in command and ordered that speed. You really ought to learn the facts about Titanic, rather than simply parrot what you “heardâ€.
-
Well, I am still going to attemp to.
Well, OK Have fun but please don't post it - I'd hate to have to sit looking at my screen for two hours while the thing sinks.
-
Since when is following what you were taught arrogance?
Pre-Titanic captains were always taught to keep to the schedule, and not to slow down for anything.
The idea of slowing down for ice was not enforced until after Titanic's sinking.
Also, action WAS taken for the ice, which was turning the course further south by a number of degrees. If you mean they should have known exactly where bergs were, that would be the job of the International Ice Patrol, which, once again, was not founded until after Titanic sank!
And there was NO WAY that the look outs could have seen that berg any sooner, even if they DID have their binoculars! Binoculars are only used AFTER something is sighted, because if used before then they restrict the lookouts' field of vision.
If you just spotted this text, you are 40 seconds away from a collision with this iceberg. This is how invisible that berg was! Tell me if you found this.
-
Why Smith? He never had a collision in 40 years! He wasn't even awake when the berg was hit! He was doing exactly as he was taught, and that was to stick with the schedule.
To slow down and potentially arrive late would be odd at that time. The rule to slow down in case of ice was not in place until after Titanic sank.
If you are going to blame the bridge, blame Murdoch, but what happens happans, so I blame nothing but the berg.
A Captain is Responsible for the Crew and all Passengers on his vessel...he is responsible for the Speed and Manouvers it makes while travelling. In short, it was Smiths fault, even if he wasn't in control when the Berg was spotted.
-
This Thread is turning into rather:
(http://www.rainfall.com/posters/images/Movie/03769u.jpg)
Facts.. ppl died, what's to blaim? luxury.
if it weren't for luxuries, ppl wouldn't die suddenly.
Regards,
Steiny
-
Pre-Titanic captains were always taught to keep to the schedule, and not to slow down for anything.
The idea of slowing down for ice was not enforced until after Titanic's sinking.
Also, action WAS taken for the ice, which was turning the course further south by a number of degrees. If you mean they should have known exactly where bergs were, that would be the job of the International Ice Patrol, which, once again, was not founded until after Titanic sank!
And there was NO WAY that the look outs could have seen that berg any sooner, even if they DID have their binoculars! Binoculars are only used AFTER something is sighted, because if used before then they restrict the lookouts' field of vision.
That first statement is ridiculous. Captains are not “taught†to do reckless or stupid things. He is, or should be, taught to use judgment in situations, not to blindly follow “traditionâ€.
As for knowing where the ice was, Titanic received many radio reports of ice. If they had been plotted, as a competent officer should have done, he would know that he was entering an ice field.
Your last paragraph stands as an indictment of his poor judgment. By what silly reasoning do you say that not being able to see a berg in time to avoid it is an excuse for running at a speed that makes it impossible to see a berg in time?
You really should make an effort to actually learn something about the Titanic disaster.
-
The captain had the last word on the ship. No matther what the white star line wanted, if the Captain didn't want it, it wouldn't happen. Smith however thought he had time enough to avoid an iceberg when they see one. But the rutther was too small for the size of the ship. the ship couldn't turn fast enough. And besides that, till even today it is extremley rear the way the Titanic hitted the iceberg. They where just not lucky enough.
Slowing down was common in those day's. The carpathia had slowed down, untill the distress call of the Titanic and the californian had even stopped!
The captain knew there was ice ahead. But how many is not certain. Due to the stress of the work on the telegraph officers, many of the ice warnings didn't make it to the bridge.
The lookouts could have seen the icebergs when they had binoculars. They should have had them and they had them on the bridge. The binoculars where hidden in a cabinet. Smith switched some officers and one of those officers, Mr. David Blair (picture beneath), forgot to turn in the key. That is why they hadn't those Binoculars. The key was sold on an oction in 2008.
(http://www.harmhuinink.nl/sub/keytitanicblair.jpg)
Mr. David Blair and the key.
By the way. If you want to blame someone you can begin with the builder and work your way trough the whitestar line to the captain. Evreyone could have done something. In my opinion; yes, there has been a lot of mistakes and it cost a lot of lives that could be saved. But it was a series of human error's that let to the event with the main error of thinkin that we can control evreything. And on that last was even the general public responsible. They could have known that there wherent enough lifeboats and they could have taken action. like they later did on the olympic. So please stop about discussing who was to blame and start learning from mistakes made back then. That is the only reason why we should discuss what happend.
-
The captain had the last word on the ship. No matther what the white star line wanted, if the Captain didn't want it, it wouldn't happen. Smith however thought he had time enough to avoid an iceberg when they see one. But the rutther was too small for the size of the ship. the ship couldn't turn fast enough. And besides that, till even today it is extremley rear the way the Titanic hitted the iceberg. They where just not lucky enough.
Slowing down was common in those day's. The carpathia had slowed down, untill the distress call of the Titanic and the californian had even stopped!
The captain knew there was ice ahead. But how many is not certain. Due to the stress of the work on the telegraph officers, many of the ice warnings didn't make it to the bridge.
The lookouts could have seen the icebergs when they had binoculars. They should have had them and they had them on the bridge. The binoculars where hidden in a cabinet. Smith switched some officers and one of those officers, Mr. David Blair (picture beneath), forgot to turn in the key. That is why they hadn't those Binoculars. The key was sold on an oction in 2008.
(http://www.harmhuinink.nl/sub/keytitanicblair.jpg)
Mr. David Blair and the key.
By the way. If you want to blame someone you can begin with the builder and work your way trough the whitestar line to the captain. Evreyone could have done something. In my opinion; yes, there has been a lot of mistakes and it cost a lot of lives that could be saved. But it was a series of human error's that let to the event with the main error of thinkin that we can control evreything. And on that last was even the general public responsible. They could have known that there wherent enough lifeboats and they could have taken action. like they later did on the olympic. So please stop about discussing who was to blame and start learning from mistakes made back then. That is the only reason why we should discuss what happend.
You can't blame the Captain too much-he was asleep when they hit the berg! And you cant blame one single person either. When a ship sinks, It is not because of one event. It is actually a series of many events that all work together to bring the ship down. Water is very powerful, It weighs 64 lbs per Cubic foot!
-
"You can't blame the captain he was asleep when they hit the iceberg"
- A Captain takes responsibility for everything that happens on the ship, Conscious or not.
-
Hi Winnetou,
You’ve obviously given more thought and research to this subject than most.
The story of the binoculars is a fascinating one that few seem to have seen. Here is a small amplification from a while back:
http://www.shipsim.com/ShipSimForum/index.php/topic,4859.msg49428.html#msg49428 (http://www.shipsim.com/ShipSimForum/index.php/topic,4859.msg49428.html#msg49428)
I’m not sure that having binoculars would have bought them enough time. More important than the size of the rudder was the fact that the steering engine required at least 30 seconds to put the rudder hard over. To complete a port-around would have needed an additional 60 seconds to put the rudder over. Even if the bow missed the berg, the stern would most likely have struck.
Regards,
Marty
Firestar,
It is not true that Captain Smith was asleep. He was in a chartroom just aft of the bridge, and joined the watch officers right after impact.
-
Officially yes, and the captain did take the blame. However. In Holland there is a rule that when you hit a bycicle with a car the car driver is responsible becouse the he is better protected. Now, that does NOT mean that it is always his fault. The Titanic tradegy was NOT pureley the captain's fault and he is therefor not the only one to blame.
-
thnks msvsmith. I agree with you. The benoculars could have save the Titanic. It doesn't mean they would have save the ship if they where availeble for the lookouts.
-
What did I JUST say?
Binoculars were not used until AFTER an object was sighted, as they narrow the field of vision!
Binoculars would be little help in spotting the berg early.
-
The point that comes out time and time again in theseTitanic discussions is that it a fallacy to judge the actions taken almost a century ago from the viewpoint of rules that are based on the lessons learnt from such ancient incidents.
-
Exactly! It's like saying they should have listened to the International Ice Patrol!
-
The ice patrol is founded after the disaster with the Titanic yes, however, They had some kind of icepatrol trough other ships that where spotting the ice and Captain Smith recieved some off those messages. He knew there was ice ahaed, and he could have been better informed. I do not thing the icepatrol would have made mutch diffrence if it was founded before the Titanic.
I disagree RMS Gigantic. It was cold that night and the eyes of the lookouts would have teared. The conditions where far from ideal. Now, they won't sound the alarm with evrey little sighting. They had to be sure. So when they saw something thy look carefully about what they see. There you have a loss of a few seconds. With benoculars they where able to grab that when they see something and saw that there was an iceberg. a few seconds less. Now the Titanic bareley hit the iceberg so those seconds could have made a diffrence. But yet again. They COULD have. I don't say they would. They where of little help, but it could be enough. But that we'll never know.
-
Gigantic is correct in that binoculars, if used by the lookouts, would probably have delayed the spotting of the berg. This is not a case where an object at a distance is revealed by the magnification of the binocs.
The night was dark, with only starlight.
The sea was calm, so no bright surf line was generated on the berg.
The berg had recently flipped; it presented a dark blue ice face rather than the usual white.
The lookout noticed the berg only by the void it created in the stars low on the horizon.
Binoculars would, because of the narrow field of view, probably have made it impossible to notice the void. The lookout would have lost the horizon reference.
A few seconds, or tens of seconds, would probably have made no difference in the outcome. If her bow missed the berg, her after section would surely have hit.
-
You forget that the titanic could stay afloat with a 4 compartment breach anywhere on the ship. Hitting the berg on the stern would not have neccecary fatel injured the Titanic. But again; this is all speculation. We do not know if the benoculars would have saved the Titanic. What i do know is that the safety of a ship should not depend on some benoculars. There where more things that could have saved her.
-
You forget that the titanic could stay afloat with a 4 compartment breach anywhere on the ship. Hitting the berg on the stern would not have neccecary fatel injured the Titanic. But again; this is all speculation. We do not know if the benoculars would have saved the Titanic. What i do know is that the safety of a ship should not depend on some benoculars. There where more things that could have saved her.
But a hit at the stern would probably have left her with no starboard side propeller blades, as those blades were designed to give out before it took out something more important!
-
Well, but the passengers would be save. seems to me that that is more important then if the ship could sale or not
-
But a hit at the stern would probably have left her with no starboard side propeller blades, as those blades were designed to give out before it took out something more important!
How is that possible when the deck hangs further over than the Propellor blade (see image)
-
I have tried to keep out of this discussion but, maybe unwisely, I put forward my thoughts:
The captain accepted his responsibility by staying on the bridge until the ship went down. There were other responsibilities which were not accepted by the perpetrators but were at least partly involved in the loss of life.
1. The acceptance of "best" rivets in place of "best best" in the construction of the hull - this meant that many of the rivets "popped" and negated the watertight compartments theory so a hit on the stern might well have still been fatal.
2. The pressure put on the captain by the company's representative to keep up to speed. (Captain could have ignored this - with difficulty)
3. The behaviour of the radio operators - ultimately the captain's responsibilty even though they were actually employed by Marconi?
4. The shortage of lifeboats because "it would spoil the overall lines of the ship and detract from the claim that the ship was unsinkable" - this was not on the grounds of cost; an extra smoke stack was added just to improve the look of the vessel.
5. The inefficient loading of the lifeboats (note that the wretched company representative managed to get into a boat)
6. The locking of gates ensuring that lower class passengers did not interfere with the saving of their "betters" (presumably this was company policy?)
The Board of Trade inquiry seems to have been very superficial and much of the evidence only came to light much later.
-
and there are mutch more you can name what coses the great loss of life. And Nathan, the iceberg is mostley bigger under water then above.
-
The assertion that Titanic could stay afloat with “any four compartments flooded†is untrue, and ridiculous. Massive flooding of the boiler rooms, for instance, could have blown her apart.
-
i am sorry, but the Titanic was designed that way. I am sure they had calculated that. And then again. They could let out the steam you would get when the water rushes in. And then again, why didn't they expload in boilerroom no6? the water rushed in there. That the ship would explode is a myth.
-
Titanic could stay afloat with the first 4, any large 2, or any small 4 compartments flooded, not any 4.
-
The fact that Titanic went down would tend to disprove the assertion that she could survive a 4-compartment breach.
That the designers carefully designed her is also disproved by history.
-
Mvsmith, the ship sank because the first FIVE compartments flooded. She could stay afloat with the first FOUR.
Also remember this: she was built to be a passenger ship, not a warship.
-
It was a 5 compartment breach that sank the Titanic. The front peak, firts three cargo holds and boiler room no6.
The Titanic was carfully designed. It was better designed then most ships back then. The only thing is that they don't took into a count the way the titanic was hit. The thing the where not carfully about was the number of lifeboats. And yes, after Titanic the put some new design features, whitch are better, but that does not mean it was not carfully designed.
-
Most of what you guys say are just assumptions..
It was not designed better than most ships of those days.. That's not really proven anywhere in what I have read.. In fact I think it's the opposite, when she was finished, she was allready somewhat outdated.
Everything is 'carefully designed' btw, designers are not just slapping some lines on a piece of paper and let the workers start welding.. But carefull doesn't mean good. ;D
It might have even sunk if one compartment was flooded, it all depends on how fast, how much, and where.. And if there might be some secondary effects to worsen the matter, like exploding boilers, and that 's no myth, there are cases in which this has happened. Just because it didn't on the Titanic, doesn't make it impossible... And no one knows for sure what would happen if it were only 4, that's pure speculation, to say that she could no doubt take 4 flooded compartments. She might well not have. 'Designed to' is not '100% guaranteed to'.
Even the real experts constantly debate each other about a lot of this stuff, and there's just about as much conflicting evidence than there is coroborating evidence on many of these invalualbe bits of knowledge that the rivet counters always throw around.. How can the wanna be experts know for sure if the real experts, the ones that actually did fieldwork and wrote the stuff you guys get your knowledge from, can't even agree, I wonder... ;D
Fact is, I reckon 80% of the bold remarks about the so called 'greatest ship ever' are just nostalgic remarks, not realistic ones, and things get a bit over rated in that context, most of the times. And a lot of the bold assumptions about what the ship could do or handle, did not see the light untill AFTER the disaster.. To spice up things, no doubt.. after all, disasters sell... Stories to sell to papers.. books to be written.. money to be made. Even back then, they were not afraid to turn tragedy into fortune..
I't was just a badly designed, badly outfitted, badly run ship that had a terrible accident, ending in disaster. Nothing special or unique in the history of sea travel, apart from the tragedy. And there have been much worse tragedies at sea, in war time for example.. but they don't turn those into these mythical, romantic stories, it seems..
And no.. I don't hate the Titanic.. I love her looks, she's a beautiful ship, I'm glad she's in the game for all those who adore her.. I enjoyed walking around on it to get a feel for the scale and all and enjoyed spending a few hours sailing her.. but other than that.. it's nothing special to me. Had she not sunk, you guys would possibly not even know about her today. So how special can that be? :P ;D
Fred
-
There are even ships that sank that few know of!
RMS Campania, a Cunard liner that sank in 1908, for instance.
I know of her because she is the most likely candidate for Jason DeDonno to model after completing Titanic. ;D
The reason Titanic is so well known is that the circumstances of her demise are so rare, they sound more like a myth or legend! And that's just what the wreck is: material proof of a famous legend.
-
May i note that evreything i said about the design of the ship is of the knowlage of those days. When you design something you design it for then known things. Titanic was designed to stay afloat with a 4 compartment breatch. That is why the bulkhead doors could close automaticly. That is a fact.
Titanic took a few years to build so about the fact that there was newer equipment when she was finished......... duh........
After the ship was sunk there came new lights about how the titanic was build and how it could be better. Why else should they rebuild the olympic for millions of dollars?????
But untill she did she was carefully designed and she was revelutionary. But the way she hit the iceberg is still rare till even today!!!
Now, there has been some faults in her design. But that is treu with evrey new design on anything.
-
Indeed. Let's fire 10 or so torpedoes into QM2's side and see what happens
--Later--
I DIDN'T MEAN IT! I DIDN'T MEAN IT! I WASN'T SAYING TO ACTUALLY DO IT, IT WAS ONLY TO PROVE A POINT! PLEASE DON'T TAKE ME TO COURT, CUNARD! PLEASE DON'T!
-
Yup Winnetou, that's what I meant.
It is a fact that she was designed like that, to be able to take 4 flooded compartments.. but it's not a fact that she could actually do it too, that's what I mean. But that is what is being presented as factual, often. And that would be speculation. A lot of vehicles, structures, etc, are designed to withstand certain catastrophies, but they don't always do so in reality.
And well.. with hindsight, and it always is, it turns out it's not a great design perhaps. And of course you design stuff with the knowledge of the day. But when you look back, they made some mistakes. Not having that knowledge back then, does not chance the facts. Lack of knowledge can lead to bad design, even though at the time it might seem like the best thing around.
Carefull designing, and revolutionairy features, do not equal her being good, or even the greatest, as some keep saying. A lot of revolutionairy inventions fail miserably, but we would not have made any progress as the human race, without massive faillures along the way.
It's a rare accident indeed, though far from it being myth or legend (check the dictionary RMS! hehe), and that's also what I meant. It's a REAL event, yet some see it as some legendary thing. And that's what I think is silly, to be treating it like some 'magical, mythical' thing, and to go and claim stuff that can only ever assumed to be so, in the best of cases.
Nothing less, nothing more..
Fred.
-
most things are assumings. But we assume on facts. The Titanic was designed to stay afloat with four rooms breatched so we assume that she would stay afloat if it did happen. If we couldn't do that we should trough away a lot of things we know today. It is just not realistic to think of those things too couse nothing would be possible. We can't take in account evreything and so they couldn't with the design eigther. If they did the costs would be so high that it would be impossible to build the ship.
Ships today are ten times (if not more) safer then Titanic. But that does not mean that ppl don't die on disasters. They do even today. One mistake they made with Titanic is that they went beyond that point and they werent.
Saying the way you do will say that nothing is good and in a sense it is treu. However. I think good is relative. We call Titanic a good ship not becouse it could not sink but becouse they did a good job on designing her. Evrey ship can sink and the fact that they do today proofs that.
-
Actually, an ultrasound survey of the starboard bow area—which is buried in mud—shows that six compartments were breached, although the damage to the two boiler rooms was slight.
However, modern stability analysis has shown that the flooding of just the first four compartments would have put the bow down sufficiently for water to overtop the WT bulked between 4 and 5, because that bulkhead extended only up to E deck. Flooding of boiler rooms would have happened even if they had not been breached by the berg.
-
How can they do a good stability test when all the original drawings where lost on the maiden voyage of the ship?
-
mvsmith, there were 6 slits covering 120 sq feet across the first 5 compartments, according to the scan.
-
How can they do a good stability test when all the original drawings where lost on the maiden voyage of the ship?
Yes, it is common practice to pack the only drawings of a ship aboard her when sending her off on her maiden voyage! I may criticize H & W for their design methods, but I never said they were stupid.
In your fixation over Titanic, you might not have noticed that two sister ships were built, or abuilding.
Assertions like that cause me to wonder how much rational thought people apply to what they may read on see in movies.
-
That is correct, but the brittanic was still sicnifficant diffrent then the Titanic, especcially in the design of the watertight bulkheads (it was built after the Titanic). And the titanic had some changes too. We can know a lot from those ships but the actual drawings of the titanic where lost with the ship. Thomas andrews brought them with him on board.
or how do you explain that is is still up to today not certain hoe some of the rooms looked like on the titanic?
-
This discussion is getting silly. Has it not occurred to you to ask how the modified drawings for the other sisters were generated?
-
Yes there where from the drawings of the Olympic, they did exist. But there where some changes whitch changed the weight of the ship. I am talking about those changes. the general drawings where there yes. My argument is that you cannot research those things properly unless you know the actual weight and things of the ship. The weight of the ship changed becouse of those changes. And many drawings where lost. that is a fact.
Look, Titanic was designed to stay afloat with a 4 compartement breach, simple as that. I don't beleve they can prove it would sink with that. They just don't have enough data for that.
-
Here is an excerpt from a note on the making of Titanic:
Harland and Wolff, the RMS Titanic's builders, opened their private archives to the crew, sharing blueprints that were thought lost. For the ship's interiors, production designer Peter Lamont's team looked for artifacts from the era, though the newness of the ship meant every prop had to be made from scratch. Twentieth Century Fox acquired forty acres of waterfront south of Playas de Rosarito, and building of a new studio began on May 31 1996. A seventeen-million gallon tank was built for the exterior of the reconstructed ship, providing 270 degrees of ocean view. The ship was built to full scale, but Lamont removed redundant sections on the superstructure and forward well deck for the ship to fit in the tank, with the remaining sections filled with digital models. The lifeboats and funnels were shrunk by ten percent. The boat deck and A-deck were working sets, but the rest of the ship was just steel plating.
----
How can you know what data was available to the naval architects that ran the analysis?
How can you know how thorough or accurate the H&W design process was? There are other areas—failure to provide a crack stop on the vertical expansion joint—where they were not on the ball.
-
I have several plans that I can thank H&W and the TRMA for ;D ;)
-
Hi Wiinnetou.
If I had to risk my life based on anyone's techncal knowledge, I'd get on Mvsmith's ship. Of all the people on this forum he is one of the few who are capable of truly understanding and being fluent with vessel hydrodynamics. I can number the others on the fingers of one hand.
If he says it sinks, then it sinks. If he says it floats, it floats. :police:
-
I have several plans that I can thank H&W and the TRMA for ;D ;)
Over the past four decades, I’ve always found the H&W archivists to be extremely helpful—at least to those with professional credentials.
When deluged with requests from the merely curious, I’m not surprised that all the plans “went down with the shipâ€.
-
You got help mvsmith :-) I think i need to do a bit more research on this subject. And i will so we can get back on topic. Lets see, what was it again?
-
A “fatual collisionâ€, whatever that is.
-
Fatal + Factual = Fatual?
-
Ismay is a jerk! I bet he lied at the inquiry!
I think your name just became an oxymoron, my friend.
Like mentioned, Ismay was ENTIRELY innocent. He did absolutely nothing wrong. If you want to read the real story, then do read the rest of my post.
At the time of the collision, Ismay knew that he had to get all of the people off as soon as humanly possible to avoid the worst possible outcome of the situation. Ismay helped to load AND lower lifeboats 3, 5, 7 & 9 on the starboard side of the ship. Bruce was very anxious to get as many people off as possible. Knowing what little time was left, Ismay went to a lifeboat a started shouting "lower away! Lower away!" Officer Lowe who was loading the lifeboat at the time didn't recognize Ismay at first, and admonished him by saying, "if you'll get the Hell out of the way, we can get on with the job." Ismay, of course, walked away and let Lowe and the other officers do their job. However, this shows just how important getting people off the ship was to him.
Ismay escaped the ship on Collapsible C, which was on the starboard side. Chief Officer Wilde was in charge, and was assisted by Ismay and a Mr. Carter. With no other people on the deck, Ismay and Carter were both ordered into the boat by Wilde himself. He apparently sat in the lifeboat with his back to Titanic; he did not want to see the end.
When he arrived on the Carpathia, he was sent to the doctor's office to be treated (at the time he was a complete wreck and traumatized). When Ismay found out that there were still Spambot on the ship when he escaped to safety, he was devastated and collapsed. He stayed there for the rest of the voyage, not eating any solids. Knowing that his secretary and butler were also missing, it made matters far worse for him.
According to Officer Lightoller, Ismay kept on repeating that he should have gone down with the ship, knowing that some Spambot didn't make it to safety.
When Ismay returned to England, he made sure that all of the widows received an annuity for life.
As for the whole stupid rumor, it was mainly started by two first class Spambot who had lost their husbands in the disaster.
In result, Ismay was entirely innocent and did nothing wrong whatsoever. I personally find it sad that a person who dubs himself a Titanic "expert" doesn't know this. If you're basing your facts from James Cameron's pitiful excuse for a movie about Titanic, then I advise you get out some books now.
Oh, and good luck on that custom mission.
-BB
-
Hi Beau Brown.
Welcome to the Forum.
It's good to see a well reasoned post here on the subject of Titanic.
Out of interest could I ask if you could identify your sources of that information? It would be useful for the "experts" here to be able to improve their level of knowledge and not have to rely on emotional outburts instead of actual facts.
Thanks!
-
Hi Beau Brown.
Welcome to the Forum.
It's good to see a well reasoned post here on the subject of Titanic.
Out of interest could I ask if you could identify your sources of that information? It would be useful for the "experts" here to be able to improve their level of knowledge and not have to rely on emotional outburts instead of actual facts.
Thanks!
Hello there!
Thank you for the welcome; this is certainly a nice community of fellow ship enthusiasts.
As for my sources, I actually acquired this information from the Ismay Family Website (http://www.geocities.com/ismayfamily/), where the family has acquired vast historical information about their past family members. They are very interested in researching the history of their family (seeing that it's so well known), and they provide great information about Mr. Ismay and his conduct on board the ship, which can be seen in this article (http://www.geocities.com/ismayfamily/maidenvoyage_3.htm).
The information on that page was gathered by several witnesses who happened to experience Mr. Ismay's conduct that evening.
Thanks for the warm welcome!
-BB
-
Excellent!
The serious members of the forum will always be grateful for links to sources of information. They may disagree with the source or the conclusion, but then we can have an objective discussion based on researched information, rather than a subjective argument as to whether Ismay was a jerk or not. :police:
Many thanks.
-
Not a problem.
I also had some doubt that people would believe the source, seeing that they could possibly consider it biased, seeing that it is from a family member. But from what I've read, it's entirely legitimate.
-
Don't worry.
I am not one of those who will get involved in discussions about the legitimacy of the information or the conclusions based upon it. I don't really have much interest in Titanic. (Sorry). I just try to keep the peace in areas where I know people get very emotional. ;)
-
The best picture you get from something or someone is to have many sources. Evreyone write's from their own vieuw. This is one part of a vieuw of Ismay. Of course there is still some things to tell of the mistakes ismay made but, what there was told of him by Beau Brown is treu. Ismay did a lot during the crash and if he didn't jumped into a lifeboat he woud do one thing and that is the he only added his name to the list of victims. There is no evidence against that or against the story of Beau Brown. When you look in the deleted scenes of the movie you see a scene where ismay got on board of the Carpathia. I think that scene illustrates very good the condision Ismay was in. The Titanic disaster costs ismay, allthough he was found not guilty by the inquiry of the disaster, evreything. His career and his reputation.
The way the Titanic hit the iceberg was very unlikeley in those day's If Ismay, and evreyone involved, had known what we know today i am sure things would be diffrent. I think that is one of the things that keeps us fasinated by the Titanic.
When Titanic was build we where in the center of the industrial revelution. You could travel arround the world in matter of day's and the first people had even managed to fly!!! This ship was bigger then anything else and the ppl actually thought that they had conquerd nature. Nothing could defeat them. Not to mention that Titanic had the worlds famoust ppl on board. What could possibly go wrong!!!!
When Titanic sank it was the end of an era. They found out that it wasn't going so well and things could still go wrong. Afterwards we got 2 world wars and the stock crash of '29 That is a period we humans learned that we could never stand on top of evreything and that we need to think the unthinkeble. That is in my opinion the biggest lesson we should learn from the Titanic.
I am fascinated by the Titanic and i have read and saw many things about her and her passengers. I do not consider myself an expert but i do think that i know enough to get involved in these kind of discussions. However. I do not know evreything and i do make mistaked or say things that is not intirly correct. I ask forgiveness for that. After all, these kind of discussions give us the oppertunity to learn from eatch other an an oppertunity to get a complete picture of what happend that night.
A night we should remember.
-
I really dislike the 1997 movie because it ruins the reputation of William McMaster Murdoch and Joseph Bruce Ismay, then goes on to give a nearly permanent identity crisis to Joseph Dawson.
-
My favorite quotation about the Titanic is from Robert Ballard—locator of her wreck:
“It hit an iceberg and it sank. Get over it.â€
There is, of course, more to it: Why did she sink in two hours and forty minutes, when she should have floated for nearly twice that time?
Testimony from crew members and passengers indicates that the collision seemed to be only a glancing blow. Sub-bottom profiling of the damage to the starboard bow area indicated a few separate holes rather the “long gash†of myth. Interestingly, a scan of the port side showed similar damage. This would indicate that some of the damage occurred when the bow section hit the bottom at about 35 mph and buried itself in the mud.
Study of the metal edges of the bow and stern section and of the two sections of double bottom in recent years shows that Titanic broke up on the surface when her stern was elevated only slightly more than thirteen degrees. Sections of her bottom fell away and her midsection flooded quickly.
Documents from the archives of Harland & Wolff show that the upper echelons of H&W and White Star suspected that in 1912. The archives also show that H&W knew, before Titanic left for New York, that she was not as strong as they had intended.
During Olympic’s trials, Andrews had noticed that her shell plates were panting, and that cracks were forming around windows, portholes, and other stress points. Hull plating on Olympic and Britannic was doubled up in some areas, but not on Titanic.
Enclosing the promenade deck on Titanic was a last-minute attempt to strengthen her, not for looks or passenger convenience.
Andrews had specified a thickness of 1-1/4†for the hull plates, but Ismay, acting for White Star, insisted that it be reduced to 1â€, along with a reduction in the number of rivets, in order to reduce her weight.
Poor design, inferior steel and wrought iron in plates and rivets, and a decision to send a ship suspected of being weak on a transatlantic voyage, doomed 1504 people to death.
-
At first to RMS Gigantic, It seems to me that identety crisis isn't that bad. It was from the beginning clear that Rose and Jack and their closest friends and famely where fictional. And besides that. How many ppl would have heard of Joseph Dawson if the film was never made. In the matther of Murdoch and Ismay, they have done their best to protrai them closest to what happend. But from that night we have to go from the eyewitness accounts from a small group of people. We can never know what exactley happend, who was a hero and who was the opposite. Should they therefor leave that out of a movie is a matter of opinion.
On the breakingpoint where mvsmith talks about is in fact a very intersting theory whitch i believe comes closer to the truth then what the film portraits. How it really happend, we never know, but it is intresting. The following movie explains that theory a bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsVx6jn7qVs
The closing of the promenade deck was alsow for the passengers. When the Olympic was in bad weather ppl couldn't use it becouse of the spray of the sea.
For the hull strength and the rivits strength is not that surprising. They where indeed not as strong as modern day ship. They came close to the strength of ships of that period. But Titanic and Olympic where a lot bigger so you get other forces working on the ship. And, of course, the tecniecs they had back then is not the same as modern day ships. Is that a reason to say that the ship was poreley designed? For that period no. Of course they could have been better with tecniecs of those day's, but these where the first ships in their class. We people can't do evreything right the first things we make. And may i add that the Olympic sailed till 1929!!! That is a lifetime for a ship. Titanic was doomed when she hit an iceberg in a way no one imagined in those day's. What do you think ppl would say over a hundred years over ships today. The same, poor designed. Simply becouse they have better tecniecs. Saying Titanic had a poor design simply becouse of what we know today is not fair.
And on the matter of Bruce ismay i would like to know where you got that information from. - Never mind that. I looked it up and you right. It is done becouse of the weight and reduction of the fuel costs. If else they couldn't get a profit out of it. This is actually something they would deside to with the knowlage they have today. It is very commen compagnies today make that kind of desision which reduses safety to make more mony. We could make things safer but would make things unafortable. And they thought Titanic was practicly unsinkeble
Oh, and about that doubled up, With the olympic they did that after the titanic sank. Becouse something happend they thought that could never happen, meaning the damage the iceberg created.
-
How much imagination does it take to envision a ship hitting an iceberg? It had happened before. In case you missed the point, H&W knew she was weaker than expected. They let her sail anyway.
The information on Ismay’s and H&W’s actions comes from internal company documents in the H&W archives that became available after the new manager appointed by Fred Olsen treated the archivist so badly that he presented them to a group of investigators at Woods Hole.
We who were privy to that information had agreed to refrain from publicizing it until a book on the findings hit the stores.
The bogus reason given for enclosing the promenade deck was part of the massive cover-up by H&W and White Star. That included the addition of a crack stop to the expansion joints on O and B which was only discovered through a dive on HMHS Britannic.
I don’t fault Ismay for his actions during or after the disaster, but as White Star’s CEO he was partly responsible for Titanic being a deathtrap.
-
Poor design, inferior steel and wrought iron in plates and rivets, and a decision to send a ship suspected of being weak on a transatlantic voyage, doomed 1504 people to death.
That's all there is to it.. you cannot really compare it to modern days, Winnetou, they had what they had, and you have to compare it to that time and her peers. ;D
They made mistakes.. and they knew it. They were aware of the shortcommings before her maiden voyage. And thus it was poorly designed.. That's the very defenition of it. Design flaws resulting in bad quality. Also partially because of the raw material of course, which they cannot really help, unless they knew.
As I said before, just because they didn't have what WE have today, doesn't mean it was a good job, it's not like they didn't build ships before. Scale alone does not make the process unique. Those guys were just as smart as we are today, it's not like they were just winging it. But sometimes people make mistakes. And here, some were made. :)
I really think, had she not hit the berg, and just done her job for a few years, she would have been scrapped 'before her time', and no one here would give her any second thought. Just an average - but once record breaking - ship, that didn't come out very good unfortunatly. And as records are broken all the time, she'd have been forgotten to all but the sailing enthusiasts.
And as far as I know, it wasn't the first time they ever saw an iceberg.. nor was it the first time a ship ever hit one.
There was a Canadian ship, I think the 'Islander', that sunk in 1900 or 1901 after hitting one that tore a big hole in her forward port quarter. And if memory serves me, there was also another case in the late 1800's, but I don't recall the details. So they could have known about the potential dangers, if they had wanted.
We can't just go around callng a ship a great design, because she 'might have done pretty good if she hadn't sunk'. That berg probably would have sunk 95% of ships in those days, had they been so carelessly 'driven into it'. So that's really a 'freak occurance' indeed. Granted. But that has no bearing on the actual quality of the design either.
So yeah, I really think that she would not have had a long service life, had she never sunk. And that's just based on what - as mvsmith said - they allready found out themselves, when she was built and when trials were done on her sister, and so on. They themselves allready found out about some of the flaws, before they went and make money with it despite needed changes. (I agree on that, money often rules out safety, and always has.)
I don't have any interest on any of the people that are involved, so who has done what, and who is to blame for what, I can't say anything about that. Although there seem to be just as many versions of the stories as there were human lives lost that night. (with 2 or 3 believable versions that I usually go for) :-\
Fred
-
"How much imagination does it take to envision a ship hitting an iceberg? It had happened before."
Yeah, it did. But not in the way the Titanic hit it. Ripping open 5 compartment. That is even rare up to today. With most accidents 2 or 3 compartments where damaged and Titanic could even stay afloat with 4!! (what they knew back then!!) That is why she was called by her builders; "practicly unsinkable" But now there where 5 compartments damaged. And that is rare even till today. So they didn't take that in account.
"The bogus reason given for enclosing the promenade deck was part of the massive cover-up by H&W and White Star. That included the addition of a crack "
Nonsense, when they talked about a cover up I hardley believe them and if it would. How mutch would it strengeth the ship and why didn't they ajusted that on the olympic while they where ajusting her after the disaster with the Titanic.
They made a great ship, even a bit better then the olympic. And i am talking about the time befor the disaster. If the disaster never happend she would have served her time just like the Olympic did. In fact, the Olimpic whas even called "the old relaible". Up to the disaster the Titanic was a great ship and FOR THAT PERIOD well designed.
However. As with EVREY design there are events happening where we have to revieuw things. And that is what happend with the titanic. Olypmpic had a major rebuild costing thousends of dollars and the building of the brittanic was stopped to ajust the original design. From then on the design would not have been great. And if we would have build a ship today with the same design it would have been a poor design. I agree on that. But that is is becouse we learned more and we know more. Don't accuse the designers for doing a poor job couse they didn't.
And for Mad_Fred. What i am trying to say is just that. We cannot judge the design on what we know today, couse then evrey design in hystory was poor. We have to look at what they knew in the period it was build. If they look back at our desings over a hundred years it would be poor too.
-
You completely missed my point and you still look at it from the 'now versus then' perspective, mate. :-\
Look at it from a 'then only' perspective. And then, compared to what we know was wrong - from their own accounts at that time even - and compared to other ships of the era, she was a poorly designed ship, amongst better designs in her time.
Easy as that. Not a great ship, not destined for great things at all.. But sadly though, she did become a ship of 'legend'. Which has everything to do with the loss of life, and nothing with her quality as a vessel. But Titanic 'buffs' seem to be unable to look at those things seperatly.
So I'm not talking 'any old design is poor compared to what we have/know nowadays' I am talking 'she was poor THEN, among her peers'. Don't take modern times into account at all, that was my point. In fact, I even think the opposite is true, they used to make some things in the 'old days', that we can hardly do better these days. Old is not bad by default, to me.. On the contrary.
They knew themselves that they made mistakes, and that the ship was not as safe as it was 'designed' to be. They recorded it even, and how can their own records be nonesense, and someone's unsubstantiated thoughts be factual?
It has nothing to do with the iceberg or the disaster. That's after the fact. Some measures were taken to right some of the wrongs (design flaws, POOR desing) but nothing could have prevented the iceberg taking her down, the way she was sailed at that moment. And again, that event has NOTHING to do with the design being poor to begin with. One does not exclude the other. Had she not sunk, it would have been obvious within years.. Or did all great ships of that time have that same, inadequate steel? I suspect not.
Oh, and the incident with the Islander was pretty similar, in general terms. Something like it HAD happened, more than once too even. The details about holes and compartments is just talk after the fact and does not change the fact that they could have known there could be icebergs in those regions, and they could have known what those could do, as ships had sunk before. It was not as if no one had ever thought about icebergs before, as some make it seem. That's simply not true.
And to say that they didn't take it into account as she was 'unsinkable' anyway (like some do), then I can only say that the unsinkable myth came into life after the disaster.
Also as said before, that 4 compartment idea, that is not backed up by any fact. The water rushed in so quick, that it soon reached levels that could not be blocked anyway. If their design was poor on some area's, then I don't put much faith into the 'thought' that 4 flooded compartments would keep her afloat. It might, it might not. No way to tell that for sure, they didn't KNOW that, they ASSUMED that.. they didn't go and flood her to find out...
You almost make it sound as if EVERY ship then had similar problems, since they were all doing 'new stuff', but that's not what I was saying at all. Some were better than others, and that's always the case, in any era. And Titanic was just not as good as other ships. Not good, not great. Average and flawed at best. ;D
Fred
-
And then, compared to what we know was wrong - from their own accounts at that time even - and compared to other ships of the era, she was a poorly designed ship, amongst better designs in her time.
Easy as that. Not a great ship, not destined for great things at all.. But sadly though, she did become a ship of 'legend'. Which has everything to do with the loss of life, and nothing with her quality as a vessel. But Titanic 'buffs' seem to be unable to look at those things seperatly.
I agree completely. In the past on this forum i've tried to say that in an understandable way, but i couldn;t of put it better than that ;)
-
Wow... Thomas Andrews certainly knew what he was talking about!
as far as Titanic goes:
Andrews: 2
Ismay: 0
So, first the 32 lifeboat design, then the 1¼ inch hull steel... did White Star EVER listen to him? ;D
-
I think you are missing my point. I am talking from a perspective from then. Titanic was back then State of the art. The steel that was used was similar to evrey vessel that floated in 1912. The rivets no diffrent. Watertight compartments where installed on other ships too, but the one's from Titanic could be closed automaticley from the bridge. Those are facts. And yes, more sips had ran into icebergs, but how many did sink costing that mutch lives?
and about the icelander; "she struck what was reported to be an iceberg that stove a large hole in her forward port quarter." Titanic had never a big hole in her, so she had more time to close the watertight doors. "within five minutes, the tremendous weight of the water filling the ship's forward compartments had forced her bow underwater and her stern, rudder and propellers completely out of the water." Titanic had a lot more time. If it was going that fast with the titanic all the passengers and crew where dead. Seems to me that story is a bit diffrent.
source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Islander
And the loss of life isn't that great. There where more incedents with even a greater loss of life. (not nessesary with icebergs)
And about those recordings.... I like to hear them And if that all was a fact, in what books and documentaries are they telling that? Becouse i have seen and read a lot but this is the first time i hear about those accusations.
And in generaly therms pretty similar?? What do you mean, run into an iceberg? Yeah, there where a lot more ships. But how many ships would survided a 5 compartment crash?? NONE.
Here a small database of collisions with iceberg. Count the ships that sank....
http://researchers.imd.nrc.ca/~hillb/icedb/ice/bergs2_01e.html
Olympic had the same steel as Titanic and she did her time, even survived several collisions and a world war!!
About the unsinkeble myth came before the disaster. And if you know so mutch about the Titanic you should know that. The builders, whitestar line and captain Smith called her Practicly unsinkeble. Becouse she was a state of the art ship. Captain Smith even told that he could not think of a way that the Titanic could sink. engeneering was simply beyond that point. These are facts. Evrey Titanic hystorian will confirm that. Now this prooves that the Titanic was in fact well designed and her builders said so. Now, the press left the word Practicly out soon enough and the ordenary ppl started to call her unsinkeble. That is where the "myth" starts.
-
I'm sorry, I kinda dozed off after reading that every steelmill in the world back then, regardless of raw material, produces the same material all the time, so I didn't think the rest was much more factual. And I didn't really bother.
Some people just want her to be the greatest, and in that respect, I think nothing I can add to what I said will make you look at her in any other way. State of the Art? Best of the Best? Great Design? Sure, if you like that, I'll agree with you. ;)
I'll stop being factual, and take your word for it. It's no use discussing it further I reckon. ;D
Kind Regards,
Fred
-
I didn't say evrey steelmill made the same steel evrey time. Now they make better steel for sure. I said the steel was similar to steel used on ships in those day's. Of course there was a diffrence in qualities, but it is not treu that Titanic had mutch worse steel then other ships in those day's. You make it sound like they deliberatley made a ship that was so bad in design that it should never sail. Now, I can tell on facts that Titanic was one of the best ships afloat in april 1912. If it is not treu give me some evidence of it.
Here an article from the Titanic Historical Society about the steel.
TITANIC's "BRITTLE" STEEL?
Olympic and Titanic were built using Siemens-Martin formula steel plating throughout the shell and upper works. This type of steel was first used in the armed merchant cruisers, Teutonic and Majestic in 1889/90. This steel was high quality with good elastic properties, ideal for conventional riveting as well as the modern method (in 1912) of hydraulic riveting. Each plate was milled and rolled to exact tolerances and presented a huge material cost to both yard and ship owner. The steel was not a new type, as already stated, but shows that yard and owner only put material and equipment into these two giants that was tried and tested. Reports of Teutonic's and Majestic's hull condition 20 years after they entered service showed that both were in remarkable condition. The excellent properties of this steel and resistance to corrosion made it the natural choice for the new sisters.
Yard workers at the time referred to this steel as "battleship quality." I had several conversations with retired shipbuilders at Harland and Wolff and they confirm this. Harland and Wolff used larger sized plates to reduce the amount of butts and overlaps. The shells themselves were generally 6 feet wide and 30 feet long weighing between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 tons depending on thickness. The double bottom plating was 1 1/2 inches thick and hydraulically riveted up to the bilge. Some of the largest plates were 6 feet wide and 36 feet long and weighed 4 1/2 tons.
White Star gave Harland and Wolff complete freedom to build the very best ships they could, adding a percentage profit to the final cost of the building. The so-called "cost-plus" arrangement was used on all but one of the company's ships. From 1869 until 1919, it was said that there was never a single day that Harland and Wolff was not working on one of the White Star Line's ships. White Star was Harland and Wolff's best customer and they undertook to build Olympic and Titanic on the same basis as before, cost-plus. The ships were the largest in the world and would require numerous calculations as to the strength of hull required at this size. Much of the ships' arrangement was tried and tested basic shipbuilding design -- just larger with greater added strength. The strength was entirely provided by the ship's shell plating and rivets. Hydraulic riveting was used for much of the 3 million rivets, in some places the hull quadruply riveted.
Titanic's impact with an iceberg caused the rippling and springing of the joints between plates. Rivet heads ripped off would not cause massive flooding, rather the long leaking that is recorded to have happened in her forward compartments. Science tells us that in order for steel of this quality to fracture due to cold and impact would mean the steel being brought down to below the temperature of liquid nitrogen. As the water in Titanic's ballast tanks had not frozen on the night she struck the iceberg, it's safe to say the steel was above the freezing point of ordinary seawater.
We discovered on the Arabic (White Star liner of 1903) dive the ship's shell plating was in remarkable condition, but the rivets had "let go." That is to say, sprung -- allowing the plates to come apart. In places the ship was like a stack of playing cards not relating to any structure. I have some of these and I'm organizing a scientific study of them and will keep you apprised of the results.
I think -- and this is just a theory -- the rivets were heated so they could be riveted into place by hand or by hydraulic riveter. The steel would have to be capable of easy heating, malleable, and perhaps weaker by design. Is this the Achilles' heel of the Titanic? So much time is spent looking at the steel but I think these 3 million mild steel rivets might hold the secret.
-
Actually, all that I have said, and more, is documented in a book that is now, or should soon be, in stores. I’ve just received my complimentary copy from the author:
Titanic’s Last Secrets — Brad Matsen — © 2008 Titanic Partners LLC and Brad Matsen
Twelve, Hachette Book Group USA ISBN-13: 978-0-446-58205-6
-
Only the rivets in the middle three fifths of the hull were steel, and hydraulically set. Rivets in bow and stern were of wrought Iron and set by hand.
The rivets were heated on forges by children — some as young as thirteen. There was an acute shortage both of material and of skilled riveters. The latter were paid by the rivet and had incentive to stress quantity over quality.
The Board of Trade, in 1900, had stopped requiring that wrought iron rivet rod be tested.
Metallurgical testing of recovered rivets has shown the material to be substandard in ways that could not be caused by prolonged immersion.
-
I am sorry, but this book sounds like one conspiricy theory. The Titanic's rivets failed when the Titanic scraped alongside an iceberg. They dived up one of the rivets and made exactley the same and tested it. It was the rivits that failed and not the steel plates. That is proven. The Olympic had the same steel and served her time. Brittanic's design was changed after the sinking.
Perhaps i will read it but now i am not sure. For now i stay with my opinion that the "poor design" wasn't that poor. But first i want to know what ppl have to say about this who are really Titanic experts.
-
Well.. that's a bit presumptious.. ::)
And conspiracy? Against what? To undermine Titanic's popularity? What would be in it, and for who? These are scientists... The do research and publish that, sometimes in book form.
Why not just read it. As a keen enthusiast, new material should be welcome, right?
The people begind the book áre experts as far as I know.. they even visited the wreck and conducted their own research, from what I've read... The fact that they also looked at recent studies and that there might be new 'evidence' to ruin long standing popular anecdotes would make some people set against it, but that's a different story. ;D
Fred
-
Britannic’s design was changed after Titanic sank because it was obvious to H&W that Titanic’s design was faulty. A case in point is the addition to Britannic of the crack stoppers on her expansion joints.
The fact that Titanic used the same steel that other ships of that time used indicates that it was used less intelligently by Titanic’s designer.
Your lengthy copying of an article on the “Brittle Steel Theory†is a poor substitute for reading it, understanding it, and then summarizing it.
It is irrelevant because that theory has been discarded years ago and plays no part in the current analysis.
There is more to research than searching the web and watching movies.
-
The publishers of Brad Matsen's book (Hachette Book Group) were formerly known as Time Warner Books.
They have an excellent technical team who meticulously review submitted materials for accurracy before they ever get published.
Brad Matsen is of course a well-respected author who is not known to delve into fantasy, unlike some of the claims in this thread...
Oh Dear! I said I wasn't going to get interested. Well, I'm not interested in Titanic, only in facts. (or factuals)
-
That the forward flooding was due to rivet failure is not in dispute here. That the flooding due to that failure should have caused Titanic to sink as quickly as she did, had she not broken up on the surface, is the issue.
The wrought iron rivets used in the bow section had very high slag content—evidence of having been puddle at too low a temperature for too short a time. Again H&W archives show a shortage of rivet rod, which required H&W to obtain rod from many different sources.
One can say either that the plate steel was substandard for the way it was stressed by the design, or one can say that the design was faulty in the way it stressed steel that met the standards of the day. The result was the same—a weak ship.
-
Those things you name now came at light After the sinking of Titanic. Harland and Wolff realized that the design could be better and changed both the olympic and the Brittanic. With great costs.
What say say about the rivets is discoverd when they dived one up and researched and tested it.
The steel only buckeld under the presure of the iceberg and the rivits gave way. All to be discovered after the Titanic was found.
Titanic design was not perfect i know that, but what my problem is, is that you are saying that the design was poor and that Harland and Wolff knew about it. That way sending over 2200 ppl to danger, delibreratley.
This is something that i can't believe and i won't believe just becouse one book said so. I am not puttin the death of 1500 ppl on the shoulders of the designers of the Titanic just becouse one book sais so. I need more evidence. Perhaps i will read the book to get a better picture of what it sais. But for now i do believe that Harland and Wolff did create a great ship till the disaster happend. Then something happend they never thought would happen. A collision that couses a damage to 6 compartments. And then they knew that the design had to change a lot. They found it out the hard way.
I hope you'll understand that that is going a bit to far for me and that i think that Titanic deserves a littlebit more credit then you gave it. For now this is the last thing i will say about this subject.
-
I think it's more a case that like all modes of transport, the owners need to make a profit.
Making ships safer adds to the development and manufacturing costs. Most improvements will add weight to the ship.
Now,making a ship safer in one respect may well worsen it in another. For instance, adding thicker plates, better rivets etc will increase the weight and therefore deepen the draft. This of itself will reduce safety in some situations, and will make some major harbours unusable.
It also makes the vessel more expensive to operate. Having extra staff to handle circumstances that are deemed unlikely will add to costs. So will extra staff training.
Inevitably there is a balance to be struck. So, the designers have to balance the probabilities of any set of circumstances against ways to reduce manufacturing and operating costs while maintaining an "acceptable" level of safety. Sometimes, in aspecific set of circumstances, that level isn't enough.
But major accidents rarely happen as a result of one mishap. Usually there is a catalogue of errors that overwhelm the capabilities of craft (air or sea or land).
-
After Titanic was lost, the public was surprised to learn that neither her builder nor her owner had sought classification by Lloyd’s Register of Shipping.
In fact, the assumption that she had been so registered was so widely reported that Lloyd’s Register made a public statement in The Times that, contrary to assertions that Titanic was built considerably in excess of Lloyd’s requirements, in important parts of her structure the vessel as built did not come up to the requirements of Lloyd’s Register for a vessel of her dimensions.
The full text of that disclaimer is in this information sheet from L.R.:
http://www.lr.org/NR/rdonlyres/11C0DACF-69BF-4FB7-898A-A494FFFE0B54/56319/Info18Titanic1.pd (http://www.lr.org/NR/rdonlyres/11C0DACF-69BF-4FB7-898A-A494FFFE0B54/56319/Info18Titanic1.pd)
-
Thanks for the link, Marty.
Regarding the list of reference books at the end of the document, there is another excellent document:
"Titanic. Nothing left".
It is a short document with very understandable conclusions.
You can read it for free from this url "http://217.45.209.217/titanicwhocares.html"
-
I think you are missing my point. I am talking from a perspective from then. Titanic was back then State of the art. The steel that was used was similar to evrey vessel that floated in 1912. The rivets no diffrent. Watertight compartments where installed on other ships too, but the one's from Titanic could be closed automaticley from the bridge. Those are facts. And yes, more sips had ran into icebergs, but how many did sink costing that mutch lives?
and about the icelander; "she struck what was reported to be an iceberg that stove a large hole in her forward port quarter." Titanic had never a big hole in her, so she had more time to close the watertight doors. "within five minutes, the tremendous weight of the water filling the ship's forward compartments had forced her bow underwater and her stern, rudder and propellers completely out of the water." Titanic had a lot more time. If it was going that fast with the titanic all the passengers and crew where dead. Seems to me that story is a bit diffrent.
source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Islander
And the loss of life isn't that great. There where more incedents with even a greater loss of life. (not nessesary with icebergs)
And about those recordings.... I like to hear them And if that all was a fact, in what books and documentaries are they telling that? Becouse i have seen and read a lot but this is the first time i hear about those accusations.
And in generaly therms pretty similar?? What do you mean, run into an iceberg? Yeah, there where a lot more ships. But how many ships would survided a 5 compartment crash?? NONE.
Here a small database of collisions with iceberg. Count the ships that sank....
http://researchers.imd.nrc.ca/~hillb/icedb/ice/bergs2_01e.html
Olympic had the same steel as Titanic and she did her time, even survived several collisions and a world war!!
About the unsinkeble myth came before the disaster. And if you know so mutch about the Titanic you should know that. The builders, whitestar line and captain Smith called her Practicly unsinkeble. Becouse she was a state of the art ship. Captain Smith even told that he could not think of a way that the Titanic could sink. engeneering was simply beyond that point. These are facts. Evrey Titanic hystorian will confirm that. Now this prooves that the Titanic was in fact well designed and her builders said so. Now, the press left the word Practicly out soon enough and the ordenary ppl started to call her unsinkeble. That is where the "myth" starts.
QUEEN MARY used the exact same steel as TITANIC. The Brittleness issue was noted in 1943 when a T3 Tanker ready for launching, but with her stern unsupported broke in half! This was during a very cold winter on the Great lakes
-
Could somebody, purely as a matter of interest that is, :P tell me is the title here meant to be:- "Titanic's FACTUAL collision" or "Titanic's FATAL collision" ??? The only word I can find in the Oxford dictionary which even resembles "fatual" is "Fatuous" which means silly or without reality. Is there any significance in that description :-\ ???
-
Fatal + Factual = Fatual?
Perhaps this helps :-)
-
Hi CathyH,
What is your documentation that open hearth steel made in 1933 was exactly the same as open hearth steel made in 1911?
Marty
Many T3 tankers and Liberty ships broke apart at the welds. Many that had their lives extended by welding on parts of other ships that had broken killed more seamen.
Shell plates failed because of fatigue rather than low temperature brittleness.
-
My previous employers had a number of Liberty ships after 1945. The Company ships were all named after trades or professions, such as "Trader", "Interpreter", "Student" & "Specialist". There was a Master in the Company who was a good cartoonist and I remember one of his works showing a Liberty ship in the Company colours breaking in half :o. The caption below the picture said "S.S. Bisector", Ex "Sam Splitz". The joke was, of course, that a number of Liberty ships did just that.
-
I remember reading a fairly lengthy set of articles about how carrying some cargoes, such as bitumous coal and others would rot the I beams. Unfortunately, this tended to be in locations that were difficult to inspect.
Now, this wouldn't have affected Titanic, I know, but it has been a cause of many vessel losses where the vessel simply snapped iwhen the wave crests roled past at a certain wavelength (about 0.75 - 1.25 ship's length) and the vessel then sank like a stone with almost no time for anyone to escape.