Topic: Titanic sunk by steering blunder, new book claims! (Read 32709 times)

J3nsen · « **on:** September 22, 2010, 13:15:37 »

It was always thought the Titanic sank because its crew were sailing too fast and failed to see the iceberg before it was too late.

The Titanic sinking, portrayed on a postcard
According to a new book, the Titanic had plenty of time to miss the iceberg but the helmsman panicked and turned the wrong way Photo: REX

But now it has been revealed they spotted it well in advance but still steamed straight into it because of a basic steering blunder.

According to a new book, the ship had plenty of time to miss the iceberg but the helmsman panicked and turned the wrong way.

More:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/8016752/Titanic-sunk-by-steering-blunder-new-book-claims.html

lolmax123 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 22, 2010, 13:24:15 »

yes turned the wrong way true if they turned to port they would have missed it comleatly even in reverse

larsdehaan · « **Reply #2 on:** September 22, 2010, 14:08:40 »

didnt the one in command(not the captain he was sleeping or something) slam one engine into full reverse? wich was an huge mistake

lolmax123 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 22, 2010, 23:08:14 »

Quote from: larsdehaan on September 22, 2010, 14:08:40

didnt the one in command(not the captain he was sleeping or something) slam one engine into full reverse? wich was an huge mistake

yes not one tho all he calld the workers and said FULL IN REVERSE then went to starborad that screwed it up if they turned to port the woud miss it compleatly even in reverse if they turned to port they would have mis it also a slim chancxe with a head on crash a head on crash would puncher the first watertight door and be finde if the ship went to fast shed go over the berg and pucher every one but the double bottem may help so its his fault that so many lives died but he was in a panic so we cant blame him

saltydog · « **Reply #4 on:** September 22, 2010, 23:34:38 »

If Shipsim is any guide, we should know how long it takes for Titanic to turn..
In 20/20 hindsight, it may have been better to hit the iceberg head-on..

lolmax123 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 22, 2010, 23:36:41 »

Quote from: saltydog on September 22, 2010, 23:34:38

If Shipsim is any guide, we should know how long it takes for Titanic to turn..
In 20/20 hindsight, it may have been better to hit the iceberg head-on..

'

lol i know but it only turned slow because it was in reverse thats why its so damn slo gtg ive ot a youtube to go visit

Mad_Fred · « **Reply #6 on:** September 23, 2010, 01:31:39 »

I'm confused..

How is any of this going to change the outcome of the actual disaster, again?

freeciv · « **Reply #7 on:** September 23, 2010, 02:27:07 »

Quote from: Mad_Fred on September 23, 2010, 01:31:39

I'm confused..

How is any of this going to change the outcome of the actual disaster, again?

It just will Fred, It just will.

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #8 on:** September 23, 2010, 03:37:42 »

Don't believe a word of the new claims. She has her facts mixed up, and is most likely only trying to produce hype for her book. The fact that the media is eating this story up is upsetting a lot of Titanic buffs: http://titanic-model.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=100&topic_id=38260&mode=full (http://titanic-model.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=100&topic_id=38260&mode=full)

Mad_Fred · « **Reply #9 on:** September 23, 2010, 03:43:13 »

What??? Upset Titanic buffs?? Surely not!! Well I never have seen the likes of it!!

Though, to be fair, most of the 'buffs' support theories that once were said to be 'nonesene' by previous other buffs too.

'New claims' ..hehe.. as if there is really some dispute still ongoing that might change the outcome of anything.. With so many conflicting stories, even in 'reliable reports', there will be no chance the full truth of all the facts ever comes to light.

My theory? 'Time travels but in one way. Nothing will change, the people are still dead, the ship is still gone.'

lolmax123 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 23, 2010, 12:28:00 »

Quote from: Mad_Fred on September 23, 2010, 01:31:39

I'm confused..

How is any of this going to change the outcome of the actual disaster, again?

from the grandaughter of lightroller ( i think its lightroller i didint spell right ) hench put her in reverse and hard a starbord then murdoch notice that they were turning the wrong way but it was to late

mvsmith · « **Reply #11 on:** September 23, 2010, 14:28:06 »

The iceberg was spotted about 40 seconds before collision.
Titanicâ€™s steering engine took 30 seconds to put the rudder hard over.
No possible action could have avoided the collision.
Had the bow been moved to port enough to miss the berg, the after part of the ship would have hit.
In steering a ship like Titanic, it is the stern that moves laterally, not the bow.

Ballast · « **Reply #12 on:** September 23, 2010, 14:50:07 »

Wouldn't it helped if they altered course towards the iceberg and collided with it dead ahead? You would have less compartiments that would take water in. Same reason why ships steer head-on-head if they can't prevent a collision. i'm not sure about the Titannic's case since i've never read up on that subject but i was just wondering.

--tractorman-- · « **Reply #13 on:** September 23, 2010, 16:03:54 »

Well if they just hit the bloody thing head on they'd of been fine

The Ferry Man · « **Reply #14 on:** September 23, 2010, 21:28:22 »

Quote from: --tractorman-- on September 23, 2010, 16:03:54

Well if they just hit the bloody thing head on they'd of been fine

Not nessecarily - I mean if you scrape a car at 30 mile per hour you get less damage then colliding head on at 30 mph...

laganviking · « **Reply #15 on:** September 23, 2010, 21:33:14 »

In theory....

but when your car is parked and minding its own business and a granny reverses into it at 20mph, the damage is really rather surprising..... $:-\$

Ballast · « **Reply #16 on:** September 23, 2010, 21:34:42 »

Quote from: The Ferry Man on September 23, 2010, 21:28:22

Not nessecarily - I mean if you scrape a car at 30 mile per hour you get less damage then colliding head on at 30 mph...

If you scrape the hull alongside an iceberg, you damage alot more compartments compared when you hit it head on. It that case you would only damage the forepeak and a few ballasttanks

saltydog · « **Reply #17 on:** September 23, 2010, 21:39:05 »

Quote from: The Ferry Man on September 23, 2010, 21:28:22

Not nessecarily - I mean if you scrape a car at 30 mile per hour you get less damage then colliding head on at 30 mph...

Yes, in one case you get a ship with a damaged bow and passengers falling over and spilling their drinks..
In the other case, it's a matter of one flooded compartment too many, and a sinking ship..

The Ferry Man · « **Reply #18 on:** September 23, 2010, 21:43:40 »

It might not be that simple though

She wouldn't have instantly stopped, the force would have buckled a lot of metal...

saltydog · « **Reply #19 on:** September 23, 2010, 21:45:06 »

In a car that would be called a crumple zone..
I think ships have plenty of that..

The Ferry Man · « **Reply #20 on:** September 23, 2010, 21:46:24 »

Quote from: saltydog on September 23, 2010, 21:45:06

In a car that would be called a crumple zone..
I think ships have plenty of that..

Depends what sort of stress the ship was designed for - I doubt the boilers would have liked it...

--tractorman-- · « **Reply #21 on:** September 23, 2010, 21:51:29 »

meh, personally i don't care, they turned, what ever way, and sank, nothing can be done now

Ballast · « **Reply #22 on:** September 23, 2010, 21:51:58 »

Quote from: The Ferry Man on September 23, 2010, 21:46:24

Depends what sort of stress the ship was designed for - I doubt the boilers would have liked it...

If you could save the ship you're surviving possibilties are increased by 100%

Ralphy · « **Reply #23 on:** September 23, 2010, 21:54:50 »

not exactly... someone could have fallen and hit their head and died

Ballast · « **Reply #24 on:** September 23, 2010, 22:15:14 »

You don't need an iceberg for that..

Author Topic: Titanic sunk by steering blunder, new book claims! (Read 32709 times)

larsdehaan

mvsmith