Thread: Why did Titanic sink? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020042

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Simple enough question with, what most would consider, a simple answer.

So why then can many books be written, opinions formed and theories extrapolated over one apparently open and shut case? Furthermore when does an historical event become something like a quasi-religion almost in its own right ?

(This possible non-idea came from the Post-truth thread, although I admit to being the one to mention the 'T' word in the first place)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Short answer: because iron is heavier than water.

Longer answer: because it hit an iceberg, go holed, and filled with water.

Much longer answer: because the Captain was going too fast, because the design of the watertight doors was poor, and because the metal of the hull was of poor quality.

Longer answer still: because the company was keen on the prestige that would be given by a high-speed Atlantic crossing, because there were financial incentives involved, because too many people held the popular but erroneous view that the ship was unsinkable, because there was an uncontained fire in the coal bunkers which changed the metallurgical structure of the hull in the vicinity of the collision ...

Even without positing conspiracy theories, one can go a long way back into the realms of "causes" and, ultimately, possible "reasons" for them.

To take a different example: why was there a very bad train crash at Harrow in 1952? Because the driver ran through a "stop" signal.

Why did he do that? Because it was foggy (or, because he lost his sense of bearings,).

Why wasn't he prevented from doing that? Because British Railways was far too slow in developing automatic train control and/or fitting powerful new colour-light signals.

Why was that? Because the Government didn't want to spend the money, or because some folk felt that "what was good enough in the past is good enough for today", or because the scientists weren't yet sure if the safety system was good enough, or because there was rivalry between different departments over which system to use, dating back to the old prewar companies ....

(And that's without going down the line of asking why the carriages weren't anything like as strong as they are today, but crumpled easily).

It's as you get to those "further-back" reasons that supposition and conjecture can play a greater role, ultimately allowing for conspiracy theories to creep in.

[ 08. January 2017, 14:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Short answer: because iron is heavier than water.

Longer answer: because it hit an iceberg, go holed, and filled with water.

And following on from that.
The first short answer is clearly not enough (it was floating before).
Likewise the second order answer isn't really, we don't want ships to get filled with water. And were trying before then to prevent it getting hit or holing or filling water (the sealed bulkheads), and clearly weren't as good at it as we thought we were. So we 'need' the third order explanation.

But once we get to these third order things, it becomes hard to find out, we can't look at the titanic pre-sinking or anything or watch videos in slow motion.
 
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on :
 
When I lived in Stoke-on-Trent, where Captain Smith came from, I was amazed to find out that he was pretty much seen as a hero!
One other point - I enjoy watching TV programs of investigations into plane crashed. The first order cause (e,g. 'a bolt sheared') is relatively easy to spot. But why did the bolt shear? Because the airline were cutting back on maintenance? A design fault? A known problem that hadn't been properly communicated? The third order causes are the most important. (But for the people on the plane, teh sheared bolt is all that matters).
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
There was supposedly some eyewitness account of Smith last seen swimming in the water trying to rescue a baby.
Fairly ridiculous I should imagine and quite typical of the age, something that may well have come from the whitewash of an inquiry.

I suppose the spin-doctoring started from the moment the thing disappeared from sight, when those watching from the boats were the only ones left to bear witness. It continues to this day with new forensics and more detailed record searches.
I refrained from watching the latest documentary re. the fire in the coal store. Having watched ones that tried to claim the whole thing was an insurance scam, I'm just waiting for the one claiming Capt. Smith was on a suicide mission.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Furthermore when does an historical event become something like a quasi-religion almost in its own right ?

When it becomes part of our society's myths and legends.

Which the sinking of the Titanic undoubtedly has, like several other past stories of pride/ambition going too far.

It can get faintly ridiculous. In this country there are still some people seeking a pardon for Breaker Morant. Who died in 1902. Not only is it safe to say he would be long gone even if he hadn't been executed, but his grandchildren would've probably died by now as well.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In this country there are still some people seeking a pardon for Breaker Morant. Who died in 1902. Not only is it safe to say he would be long gone even if he hadn't been executed, but his grandchildren would've probably died by now as well.

Strangely enough if I were an Aussie I'd probably go for that. My only source of data being that brilliant performance by Edward Woodward in the film Breaker Morant.

British hypocrisy making an example of the Outback Spirit when suing for Peace : having previously encouraged it to try and defeat a guerrilla enemy.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
A few years ago I read a book called Titanic's Last Secrets: The Further Adventures of Shadow Divers John Chatterton and Richie Kohler.It's a fascinating book.

They descended to the wreck in a two diving vessels and took many pictures. Their most important discovery was the keel, broken in two, which lay some distances behind the stern of the ship. This means that the keel separated before the ship hit the bottom.

The broken edges were carefully photographed and the photographs examined by experts. The conclusion was that the keel broke in two while the ship was still afloat.

Obviously, there was a major design flaw. I could write several pages on this, but I don't want to take the time.

When this theory was first publicized, an archivist from Harland and Wolff, where the ship had been built, reported that there are records in the archive which support this theory of why the ship sank.

If you can find a second-hand copy of the book, I highly recommend it.

Moo
 
Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :
 
There is also a theory that an unchecked fire in the hull played a large part in the disaster.

I guess there are still things to be learned about this shipwreck.

Odd, though, that the worst shipwreck in history, that of the Wilhelm Gustloff in WWII, which killed over 9,000 people, seems to be forgotten.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hilda of Whitby:
There is also a theory that an unchecked fire in the hull played a large part in the disaster.

I guess there are still things to be learned about this shipwreck.

Odd, though, that the worst shipwreck in history, that of the Wilhelm Gustloff in WWII, which killed over 9,000 people, seems to be forgotten.

Um yes, I know about it when reminded.
I guess the proximate cause of that at least is known. And we've built our own evacuee narrative that would be intruded on by the idea that other nations had one (bit like the blitz).
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hilda of Whitby:
Odd, though, that the worst shipwreck in history, that of the Wilhelm Gustloff in WWII, which killed over 9,000 people, seems to be forgotten.

The Wilhelm Gustloff was not a shipwreck It was sunk by a torpedo in wartime.

I agree this is totally appalling, but it's also totally different from the Titanic

Moo
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
And a huge number of people died on the Senegalese ferry "Jolla" in 2002, but that doesn't count for most people because it was in Africa.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
The wreck of the General Slocum in New York City in 1904 was the deadliest naval disaster in history prior to the Titanic, killing over 1000 people, and the deadliest disaster in NYC until 9/11, yet who remembers it now? Some things stick in public memory, some don't.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The wreck of the General Slocum in New York City in 1904 was the deadliest naval disaster in history prior to the Titanic, killing over 1000 people, and the deadliest disaster in NYC until 9/11, yet who remembers it now? Some things stick in public memory, some don't.

[tangent]Well, me. But that is only because I am a big Myrna Loy fan, and the burning of the General Slocum is a key plot point of Manhattan Melodrama (1934), with Myrna, Clark Gable and William Powell.[/tangent]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It can get faintly ridiculous. In this country there are still some people seeking a pardon for Breaker Morant. Who died in 1902. Not only is it safe to say he would be long gone even if he hadn't been executed, but his grandchildren would've probably died by now as well.

And the C of E apologising to Darwin's descendants for the attacks made 150 years ago on Darwin's teachings. I am still alive and well, waiting for the apology due when there were insufficient ice-creams at the St Andrew's picnic day in 1952 and I missed out.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The wreck of the General Slocum in New York City in 1904 was the deadliest naval disaster in history prior to the Titanic, killing over 1000 people, and the deadliest disaster in NYC until 9/11, yet who remembers it now? Some things stick in public memory, some don't.

How many folk songs were there about it? The Titanic had its own nifty folksong(s). And its story had a certain karma-type moral that religio-moralistic finger-waggers loved to trot out. "Trying to make it unsinkable? The LORD will say what can and can't happen, not man." And so forth.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I think it's just because the Titanic disaster has all the elements of a Greek tragedy, including hubris, fatal flaw, and the inevitable downfall of a very great hero oops ship.

People love that stuff. Sort of like Oedipus.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
It is, I think, a very sobering thought that so often the original cause of so many such disasters is human error.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And a huge number of people died on the Senegalese ferry "Jolla" in 2002, but that doesn't count for most people because it was in Africa.

There is not a great mystery as to why the Joola sank. It was overloaded, as it typically was.
The outrage is that the Senegal government is doing nothing to investigate. Yes, being in Africa does mean it is less likely to generate concern in Europe and America, but the story also lacks the components mousethief mentions.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I agree. But what I meant is that, being an African "these things often happen in the developing world" disaster, it never attracted the attention of the world's media. The "Titanic", however, did precisely that - not only because of the hype surrounding the ship itself, but because First Class was laden with the rich and famous.

A bit like the contrast between a footnote in the news telling us of another 80 people killed in a suicide bomb in Kabul, compared to the blanket coverage of half-a-dozen killed by an ISIS attack in a European city. That's just how the Press works.

[ 09. January 2017, 07:11: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
mousethief:
quote:
its story had a certain karma-type moral that religio-moralistic finger-waggers loved to trot out. "Trying to make it unsinkable? The LORD will say what can and can't happen, not man." And so forth.
I don't think anyone claimed it was unsinkable before it sank, did they? There's no such thing as an unsinkable ship, as any fule kno, any more than there are indestructible aircraft.

Much is made of the fact that Titanic didn't carry enough lifeboats for everyone on board; but the ship was carrying the right number of lifeboats to meet legal requirements. And it was her maiden voyage, so the crew were unfamiliar with her, and nobody had done a lifeboat drill for the passengers (again, not a legal requirement at the time) so there was a lot of confusion which cost more lives.

It is because of the Titanic that ships are now required to carry enough safety equipment for everyone on board and to make sure that everyone knows what to do in the event of an emergency. Nobody cares about 'elf and safety' until something horrible like this happens, a lot of people die, there's a public outcry and the government makes laws to force companies to care about their customers' safety. Otherwise they'd just be trying to make as much profit as possible for the least amount of effort. Hooray for the free market.

Aircraft safety works the same way: see, for example The Tombstone Imperative by Andrew Weir.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Jane--

My understanding is that much was made of its alleged unsinkability, before its first voyage. A selling point, I think.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
This article - which looks reliable in my view - seems to answer the question.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I stand corrected. However, the Titanic was not the only ship built to that design. The Olympic was in service until 1934 when she was retired and broken up. She hit several things in her career without sinking, including U-103 (admittedly, no icebergs). The Britannic, another sister ship, was used as a hospital ship in the First World War and sank after hitting a mine with the loss of 30 lives (over a thousand people survived).

The real tragedy of the Titanic is that most of the people on board could have been saved if the ship had carried enough lifeboats and the crew and passengers had practiced lifeboat drill beforehand. The ship floated for over two hours after hitting the iceberg.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Britannic, another sister ship, was used as a hospital ship in the First World War and sank after hitting a mine with the loss of 30 lives (over a thousand people survived).

And all 30 deaths were because some of the people in the lifeboats panicked and launched without orders - and drifted straight into the still-turning propeller that had been brought to the surface by the ship's list. If they'd stayed calm everyone would have lived.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Much is made of the fact that Titanic didn't carry enough lifeboats for everyone on board; but the ship was carrying the right number of lifeboats to meet legal requirements.

The reason that the legal requirements were so low was the assumption that a damaged ship would stay afloat long enough to allow other ships to come and take off the survivors. The lifeboats were there to ferry passengers to the rescue ships.

The policy was strongly influenced by the sinking of the Republic in 1903. The article cited has this to say
quote:
At the time of Republic's sinking, ocean liners were not required to have a full capacity of lifeboats for their passengers, officers and crew. It was believed that on the busy North Atlantic route assistance from at least one ship would be ever-present, and lifeboats would only be needed to ferry all aboard to their rescue vessels and back until everyone was safely evacuated. Unlike the later RMS Titanic sinking, this scenario fortunately played out flawlessly during the ship's sinking, and the six people who did die were lost in the collision, not the sinking itself.
The important point here is that the Republic stayed afloat for more than twenty-four hours after the collision. The Titanic sank in less than four. If the keel had stayed in place, the ship would not have gone down so fast.

Moo
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I stand corrected. However, the Titanic was not the only ship built to that design.

If you claim a design is unsinkable, then one sinking is sufficient to disprove the claim.

Plus the Olympic was modified after the Titanic sank, and the Britannic was not yet complete at the time and it was also modified.

[ 09. January 2017, 12:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I refrained from watching the latest documentary re. the fire in the coal store. Having watched ones that tried to claim the whole thing was an insurance scam, I'm just waiting for the one claiming Capt. Smith was on a suicide mission.

Which makes me think of the questions surrounding the still-unsolved Moorgate tube train disaster.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It was believed that on the busy North Atlantic route assistance from at least one ship would be ever-present, and lifeboats would only be needed to ferry all aboard to their rescue vessels and back until everyone was safely evacuated.

I was surprised when I read this several years ago. Apparently the route was so busy that ships were seldom out of sight of other ships. And this was also true of the Titanic. Help was available if only signals had not gotten crossed.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
It is, I think, a very sobering thought that so often the original cause of so many such disasters is human error.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

I can't recommend highly enough the work of
Professor Sidney Dekker. Also Professor James Reason.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Actually the marine architect who designed Titanic, Thomas Andrews, had included far more lifeboats in his original design; they were reduced because the customer - White Star Line and specifically its Chairman Lord Ismay - didn't like the look of them: he thought they made the ship look cluttered.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
If the ship had been built the way Andrews originally designed it, it would not have had the structural weaknesses that led to its rapid sinking.

His original plans were overruled because of cost.

Moo
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The real tragedy of the Titanic is that most of the people on board could have been saved if the ship had carried enough lifeboats and the crew and passengers had practiced lifeboat drill beforehand. The ship floated for over two hours after hitting the iceberg.

It's hard to tell how many would have survived if there had been enough lifeboats for all. Many people died of hypothermia in the lifeboats. Almost no one was dressed for the bitter cold.

Moo
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
[QBMany people died of hypothermia in the lifeboats. Almost no one was dressed for the bitter cold.
Moo [/QB]

Can you give the source for this? I'm not aware that there is much evidence of deaths in the lifeboats, except Collapsible Boats A & B. Even for the very small number of people who got into lifeboats from being in the water, more survived than died AFAICT
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Original Sin.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
According to a minister of my acquaintance, the Titanic sank because the crew were all presbyterians. By the time they had agreed on who to appoint to the committee to look into the collision, and the duly appointed committee had agreed on the recommendations for remedial action, they were still sitting around the table at the bottom of the Atlantic.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
They might have been Baptists, keen on total immersion. (Though we do also like to come back out of the water).
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
I was once told by a relative, in all seriousness, that she sank because it was claimed that "not even God" could sink her. This same relative also claimed that the Apollo 13 incident happened because some network played "Age of Aquarius" during their launch coverage.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Or Anglo-Catholics, having tried too hard to get more ice for the gin (reply to BT above).

[ 09. January 2017, 16:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
[Overused]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
A propos of not much besides the general topic...

When I hear someone complain about black humour around tragic news events(eg. Challenger Disaster, 9/11), I often consider that, for as long as I've been aware of the Titanic(I was born in the late 60s, so mid-to-late 1970s), it's been the subject of light-hearted repartee. (eg. "She's marrying THAT guy? Holy cow, the captain of the Titanic made a better decision sailing into the iceberg".)

And I'm pretty sure these jokes were already circulating when there were suriviors, or people who lost loved one, still alive. So, I guess related to the OP's question, I kind of wonder at what point it became totally acceptable to make jokes about this particular tragedy, around the dinner table and on prime-time TV.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
It is, I think, a very sobering thought that so often the original cause of so many such disasters is human error.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

I can't recommend highly enough the work of
Professor Sidney Dekker. Also Professor James Reason.

Thank you - I have had a quick look at both and will read more later as they look interesting. .
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Apparently the route was so busy that ships were seldom out of sight of other ships. And this was also true of the Titanic. Help was available if only signals had not gotten crossed.

The nearest vessel was the California. But crucially it's radio was turned off for the night following a rude and abrupt message from Titanic's radio room. It seems they were more interested in sending passenger's personal requests back home rather than heeding iceberg warnings.

A huge deal was made at the Inquiry regarding the California's failure to offer assistance, it's Captain was demonised and spent the rest of his life trying to clear his name. Even if he had realised the flares were an SOS it would not have been possible to fire up his ship at get to the wreck spot in time.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
I was once told by a relative, in all seriousness, that she sank because it was claimed that "not even God" could sink her. This same relative also claimed that the Apollo 13 incident happened because some network played "Age of Aquarius" during their launch coverage.

So basically your relative has the same vindictive view of God as the Westboro Baptists who link every misfortune to acceptance of homosexuality.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually the marine architect who designed Titanic, Thomas Andrews, had included far more lifeboats in his original design; they were reduced because the customer - White Star Line and specifically its Chairman Lord Ismay - didn't like the look of them: he thought they made the ship look cluttered.

However, also worth noting that, notwithstanding the aesthetics of the ship, the Titanic nevertheless had *more* lifeboats than it was actually legally required to have. The White Star Line didn't break the mould by carrying a lifeboat place for every passenger, but neither did they do the bare minimum. Until the catastrophe, they were in fact better than most in their attention and expenditure on safety...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
I was once told by a relative, in all seriousness, that she sank because it was claimed that "not even God" could sink her. This same relative also claimed that the Apollo 13 incident happened because some network played "Age of Aquarius" during their launch coverage.

I like how in the movie they play "Spirit in the Sky."
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The real tragedy of the Titanic is that most of the people on board could have been saved if the ship had carried enough lifeboats and the crew and passengers had practiced lifeboat drill beforehand. The ship floated for over two hours after hitting the iceberg.

It's hard to tell how many would have survived if there had been enough lifeboats for all. Many people died of hypothermia in the lifeboats. Almost no one was dressed for the bitter cold.

There's also the question of the third-class/steerage passengers. I had in my head that they were trapped or locked in their part of the ship. But I've come across so many varying theories, accounts, and portrayals over the years that I wasn't sure about that. (I only saw tiny bits of "Titanic", when it was on TV, because I knew I was apt to get upset.)

So I poked around online, in the wee hours this morning. Most of the steerage passengers died; but there seems to be a lot of disagreement about why, and whether they were officially held back and/or locked in.


--An excerpt from The Rough Guide to the Titanic addresses: "Were the third-class passengers held back from the lifeboats? Were the gates locked below decks?"

--"Did the third class passengers on the Titanic have a fair chance? When the evidence fits the prejudice." (Independent UK) This addresses confirmation bias, and how views on class differences affect interpreting what happened to the steerage passengers.

--Encyclopedia Titanica may be of help. It even has floor plans and blueprints.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
I was once told by a relative, in all seriousness, that she sank because it was claimed that "not even God" could sink her. This same relative also claimed that the Apollo 13 incident happened because some network played "Age of Aquarius" during their launch coverage.

I like how in the movie they play "Spirit in the Sky."
Which is actually more blasphemous than Age Of Aquarius.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I like how in the movie they play "Spirit in the Sky."

Which is actually more blasphemous than Age Of Aquarius.
I prefer the description I once heard, that it was "theologically inept." It's someone trying to sound Christian who just isn't. Sort of like Paul Ryan.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I like how in the movie they play "Spirit in the Sky."

Which is actually more blasphemous than Age Of Aquarius.
I prefer the description I once heard, that it was "theologically inept." It's someone trying to sound Christian who just isn't. Sort of like Paul Ryan.
"Spirit In The Sky" (Wikipedia):
quote:
He was inspired to write the song after watching Porter Wagoner on TV singing a gospel song. Greenbaum later said: "I thought, 'Yeah, I could do that,' knowing nothing about gospel music, so I sat down and wrote my own gospel song. It came easy. I wrote the words in 15 minutes."[4]

"Spirit in the Sky" contains lyrics about the afterlife, making several references to Jesus, although Greenbaum is Jewish. (In a VH1 episode about famous one-hit wonders, Alice Cooper said that he was surprised to hear someone with a Jewish-sounding last name performing a song that seemed to be about Jesus)."

"Aquarius/Let The Sunshine In" (Wikipedia):
quote:
The lyrics of this song were based on the astrological belief that the world would soon be entering the "Age of Aquarius", an age of love, light, and humanity, unlike the current "Age of Pisces". The exact circumstances for the change are "When the moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars." This change was presumed to occur at the end of the 20th century; however, astrologers differ extremely widely as to when. Their proposed dates range from 2062 to 2680.
I'm usually not big on pronouncing things "blasphemous". I tend to think that only a believer can blaspheme. But I usually don't label that. I worry more about rudeness and offense, and about signs that someone might be in turmoil about their faith.

Anyway, "Spirit" was written by a Jewish man who wanted to write a Gospel song, and didn't have a clue, per the article. "Aquarius" isn't trashing Christianity--it's just looking for peace and harmony in a time of war, in an astrological framework. Kind of like after the 2nd Coming...
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
Another small detail that has always intrigued me, given how comparatively modern the Titanic was:

At 10pm Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee took over lookout duty in the crow's nest. Interestingly, they did not have binoculars, although iceberg sightings had been coming in all day from ships in the vicinity. At 11.30pm, they reported a low-lying mist but did not spot the iceberg. At 11.39 pm, Fleet called the bridge by telephone to report an iceberg right ahead. The Titanic turned hard to starboard but struck the iceberg at 11.40pm, breaching six water-tight compartments.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It has been suggested that, possibly due to things still "bedding down" on a maiden voyage, an officer had inadvertently walked off with the key to the locker n which the binoculars were stored.

But it has also been suggested that the use of binoculars wouldn't have made much, if any, difference in the prevailing conditions.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It has been suggested that, possibly due to things still "bedding down" on a maiden voyage, an officer had inadvertently walked off with the key to the locker n which the binoculars were stored.

But it has also been suggested that the use of binoculars wouldn't have made much, if any, difference in the prevailing conditions.

AIUI both of those things are true.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
Another small detail that has always intrigued me, given how comparatively modern the Titanic was:

At 10pm Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee took over lookout duty in the crow's nest. Interestingly, they did not have binoculars, although iceberg sightings had been coming in all day from ships in the vicinity. At 11.30pm, they reported a low-lying mist but did not spot the iceberg. At 11.39 pm, Fleet called the bridge by telephone to report an iceberg right ahead. The Titanic turned hard to starboard but struck the iceberg at 11.40pm, breaching six water-tight compartments.

IIRC, Walter Lord (A Night To Remember) suggested that if the Titanic had not turned at that moment- if she had hit it on the course she was going when it was spotted- the damage might not have been fatal. I don't know whether this is correct or not.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
Another small detail that has always intrigued me, given how comparatively modern the Titanic was:

At 10pm Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee took over lookout duty in the crow's nest. Interestingly, they did not have binoculars, although iceberg sightings had been coming in all day from ships in the vicinity. At 11.30pm, they reported a low-lying mist but did not spot the iceberg. At 11.39 pm, Fleet called the bridge by telephone to report an iceberg right ahead. The Titanic turned hard to starboard but struck the iceberg at 11.40pm, breaching six water-tight compartments.

IIRC, Walter Lord (A Night To Remember) suggested that if the Titanic had not turned at that moment- if she had hit it on the course she was going when it was spotted- the damage might not have been fatal. I don't know whether this is correct or not.
well, it's *possible* rather than nailed on but he'd got a point. The problem was that the action they took, as it turned out, was the worst they could have done. Arguably if they'd smacked the iceberg head on they'd have done colossal damage to the bows, and probably written the ship off, but not sunk it.

As it was, the attempt to avoid the ice-berg by ordering the helm hard over to starboard* just meant that the impact was distributed for a much longer distance along the side, which breached too many of the watertight compartments, and guaranteed that she'd sink, and quickly.

*and this feels like a decision borne of panic - a competent officer of the watch ought to have known instinctively that trying to steer round the iceberg was a non-starter on the grounds of the speed/time/distance equation alone, before even needing to think about rate of yaw or turning circle. I might not have been the most competent officer of the watch in the world, but I wouldn't have given those orders in those circumstances myself.

Essentially, from the moment the berg became visible, something fairly apocalyptic was a certainty, but the actions of the bridge team probably did make it worse. Having said that, even with modern radar, we certainly didn't cut about at full speed in areas where icebergs were possible.

The speed the ship was travelling at was deeply questionable, even taking into account the weather conditions. Apart from hitting an iceberg, the Titanic went down in pretty well the most benign conditions imaginable for the north Atlantic. It basically slipped beneath a millpond.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Apart from hitting an iceberg, the Titanic went down in pretty well the most benign conditions imaginable for the north Atlantic. It basically slipped beneath a millpond.

Wasn't that one of the aggravating factors? That if the sea had been rougher, the waves breaking against the berg would have made it more visible?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Apart from hitting an iceberg, the Titanic went down in pretty well the most benign conditions imaginable for the north Atlantic. It basically slipped beneath a millpond.

Wasn't that one of the aggravating factors? That if the sea had been rougher, the waves breaking against the berg would have made it more visible?
Potentially - 6 of one and half a dozen of the other though, because rougher seas usually come with less visibility. They might have been going more slowly as a consequence, but they'd likely still have hit it if it was there in front of them to be hit.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
It is a contested issue, Baptist Trainfan and betjemaniac, and always has been, which is why I find it so intriguing. Wide-field prismatic lenses were not developed until 1919, but later that same night Titanic officers used binoculars to watch for approaching ships. Earlier in the voyage the look-outs had used the second officer's binoculars during between Belfast and Southhampton, perhaps because it was a busier shipping lane and lights could be observed at night.

The night in question was moonless but calm and Fleet saw the iceberg as a 'dark shape' right under the bows. (There is disputed evidence that Lee saw it earlier but did nothing.) Some evidence argues that spotting icebergs in the Atlantic took great skill but others point out that these were experienced look-outs and they might have been dozing.

One difficulty I have relates to the transcript of the British Wreck Commissioners'Inquiry of May 1912 where the Marine Superintendant of the White Star Line under questioning says that binoculars are considered essential for Officers but not for look-outs and seamen. There was a difference between 'spotting' and 'identifying' that could only be done with the help of binoculars.


*we each have our own favourite conspiracy theories and time-wasting distractions when deadlines loom*

[ 10. January 2017, 09:59: Message edited by: MaryLouise ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:


Some evidence argues that spotting icebergs in the Atlantic took great skill but others point out that these were experienced look-outs and they might have been dozing.

One difficulty I have relates to the transcript of the British Wreck Commissioners'Inquiry of May 1912 where the Marine Superintendant of the White Star Line under questioning says that binoculars are considered essential for Officers but not for look-outs and seamen. There was a difference between 'spotting' and 'identifying' that could only be done with the help of binoculars.


*we each have our own favourite conspiracy theories and time-wasting distractions when deadlines loom*

Spotting icebergs full stop takes great skill - let alone in the Atlantic. I spent 8 months at sea in Antarctica on an ice breaker as a bridge watchkeeping officer and we didn't always see them until the last moment. They can be enormous and still barely break the surface. I have very little time for too much criticism of the lookouts for what it's worth.

There is still a difference between spotting and identifying when it comes to icebergs. A lookout can tell you "there's something over there" but not if it's a growler, an ice berg, a bergy bit (yes, genuine technical term), etc - unless they're very good, very experienced and very well trained. The RN would not expect lookouts to be able to tell the difference even today* - that's the moment where the officer of the watch steps in.

*I mean, they'd like them to, but they're unlikely to take the report as gospel until they've had a look for themselves.

It's actually quite a good distinction - it's the lookouts job to spot things, not waste time interpreting what those things are or what should be done. Just pass on the fact that there is something worth looking at. Therefore, in the early 20th century it's entirely believable that they'd not think it was worth giving binos to lookouts as a matter of course (in peacetime).
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

... a competent officer of the watch ought to have known instinctively that trying to steer round the iceberg was a non-starter on the grounds of the speed/time/distance equation alone, before even needing to think about rate of yaw or turning circle. I might not have been the most competent officer of the watch in the world, but I wouldn't have given those orders in those circumstances myself...

Out of interest, what do you think he should have done? Cut engines/hard astern (or whatever's the correct expression) in attempt to hit the berg as slowly as possible? I know nothing of the technicalities of these things: could that have made a difference?
OTOH it might've taken a brave and very cool officer to crash a new ship deliberately, with the Chairman of the line on board, rather than try to do *something* however ineffective (and as it turns out catastrophic)to avoid the collision.

[ 10. January 2017, 10:16: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
Interesting, betjemaniac -- I've read reports that suggest it would have been better to have had look-outs on the deck of the Titanic because of the 'invisibility' of icebergs from the crow's nest. What do you think of that, given you've actually had to watch for them?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

... a competent officer of the watch ought to have known instinctively that trying to steer round the iceberg was a non-starter on the grounds of the speed/time/distance equation alone, before even needing to think about rate of yaw or turning circle. I might not have been the most competent officer of the watch in the world, but I wouldn't have given those orders in those circumstances myself...

Out of interest, what do you think he should have done? Cut engines/hard astern (or whatever's the correct expression) in attempt to hit the berg as slowly as possible? I know nothing of the technicalities of these things: could that have made a difference?
If you go back to the Board of Inquiry, the problem is that he put the helm hard over and then the engines full astern. I'd have been tempted to just put the engines astern, but as I said above, that would have been with an acceptance that something bad was coming what ever I did. There's also an argument for just putting the helm over and leaving the engines full ahead.

Unfortunately, doing *both* is what made it as bad as it could be. The helm order brought the bows round a touch as the turn started. Putting the engines full astern meant there was a period where the screws were actually stopped (and the cavitation effect around the propellers was reduced to zero) so steerage way would have come off altogether. Then as the screws engaged astern there would be a period where the cavitation effect was fighting the helm order, which would have taken the turn back off, reduced positional control from the bridge, and, as indeed it turned out, left the ship speeding past the berg at an oblique angle without answering to helm.

If I thought we were going to be in a rescue situation either way, which rationally you'd have had to, then my personal preference would have been for putting the engines astern, crossing my fingers and hoping for the best. Staying full head and putting the helm hard over would have offered no greater guarantees but is the option of dash and panache. As it was, by doing both....

I can second guess a bit because I've done that job, and the tech hasn't moved on greatly. But obviously it's unfair to second guess too much because I wasn't in the mind of the OOW on the night so who knows if I would have done any better. There are simply options which might have offered a better chance, and which he ought to have been aware of. But if there was panic or brain freeze...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Interesting, thank you.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
Interesting, betjemaniac -- I've read reports that suggest it would have been better to have had look-outs on the deck of the Titanic because of the 'invisibility' of icebergs from the crow's nest. What do you think of that, given you've actually had to watch for them?

If they'd been further north then they'd have been mad not to, but then again the berg they hit was a lone specimen a long way south for the time of year. Possibly might have made a difference, but the problem was the speed rather than the visibility.

If they'd had lookouts at deck level but still been steaming about at full speed burning coal like it was going out of fashion then all that would have happened would be the call that there was an iceberg dead ahead would have come from a bloke in the bows with a phone, not a chap in the crows nest.

Did you go to the Titanic exhibition when it was in Cape Town? I did, and it was really worth seeing.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
Unfortunately, I wasn't in Cape Town at that time but regret not seeing it.

Could I ask something else, following on from what you point out?

At the Inquiry, Second Officer Lightoller said he and Smith believed that icebergs reflected starlight and the white outlines of bergs would be visible at enough of a distance for the ship to avoid them. Was he trying to justify the speed at which Titanic was travelling? If he had admitted the near-invisibility of icebergs on a moonless night, he would have had to admit culpability for recklessness, surely?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
Unfortunately, I wasn't in Cape Town at that time but regret not seeing it.

Could I ask something else, following on from what you point out?

At the Inquiry, Second Officer Lightoller said he and Smith believed that icebergs reflected starlight and the white outlines of bergs would be visible at enough of a distance for the ship to avoid them. Was he trying to justify the speed at which Titanic was travelling? If he had admitted the near-invisibility of icebergs on a moonless night, he would have had to admit culpability for recklessness, surely?

Well technically no he wouldn't, because he didn't write the standing orders and neither was he responsible for conduct of the ship - he was simply the most senior survivor. There is always a sense with Lightoller though that he knew there were many things that could/should have been done differently....
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Wasn't that one of the aggravating factors? That if the sea had been rougher, the waves breaking against the berg would have made it more visible?

It always resonates when I watch Titanic and Lightoller is gently trying to advise Bernard Hill (Capt. Smith), re the difficulty of spotting bergs in those unusual conditions.
Whether that line was actually spoken I don't know, but anyone who has ever worked as second in command in any situation will understand the feeling Lightoller had on that occasion.

Either Smith's mind was elsewhere or he genuinely did believe a vessel of that size could dodge whatever unlit object lay in front of it and, more crucially, at whatever distance.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
James Bissett, who later became captain of the Queen Mary was Second Officer on the Carpathia when they went to the rescue of the Titanic.

He said that the captain ordered him to stand on one wing of the bridge and look for pinpoints of light, which would be starlight reflecting off a berg. He spotted quite a few, and the ship took appropriate evasive action.

quote:
Originally posted by Betjemaniac
If they'd been further north then they'd have been mad not to, but then again the berg they hit was a lone specimen a long way south for the time of year.

Bissett said that when they reached the Titanic and it was daylight, he could see many bergs in the area.

Moo
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland did a recreation, using a training simulator for bridge officers, of the Titanic's course of action given the speed of the ship and time to intercept the berg from when it was first spotted.

At 12 knots the ship was fine and carried off a successful avoidance; at 18 knots it collided with the berg.

Smith was going too fast, period.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland did a recreation, using a training simulator for bridge officers, of the Titanic's course of action given the speed of the ship and time to intercept the berg from when it was first spotted.

At 12 knots the ship was fine and carried off a successful avoidance; at 18 knots it collided with the berg.

Smith was going too fast, period.

Or he was in the wrong place. Had the Titanic been a few miles to the south, she wouldn't have needed to avoid an iceberg. Better appreciation of the conditions could have helped but my uncle, who was a master mariner, had a good deal of sympathy for Capt Smith. Having the owner of the line on board, pressing for a fast crossing may have interfered with decision making.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
James Bissett, who later became captain of the Queen Mary was Second Officer on the Carpathia when they went to the rescue of the Titanic.

He said that the captain ordered him to stand on one wing of the bridge and look for pinpoints of light, which would be starlight reflecting off a berg. He spotted quite a few, and the ship took appropriate evasive action.

This was also something that came from the detailed account by Archibald Gracie. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in a somewhat forensic record of the events of that night. He himself had a miraculous escape under the collapsed Funnel and seemed typically unperturbed.

Anyway, he had the foresight to interview survivors aboard the Carpathia and jot down their individual accounts. Each spoke of seeing many big bergs at the break of dawn.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Better appreciation of the conditions could have helped but my uncle, who was a master mariner, had a good deal of sympathy for Capt Smith. Having the owner of the line on board, pressing for a fast crossing may have interfered with decision making.

It is only natural to want to have sympathy for Smith. He had reached the end of a reasonably successful and uneventful career, (other than being involved in a collision with another ship while Captain of the Olympic .
His reputation has, like many from that era, been protected by spin-doctored history of British Imperialism. Unfortunately the bottom line is that he, as an experienced seaman and Supreme Commander, compromised the safety of his vessel and it's occupants by taking it at maximum speed through an Ice field.
Accepted that even this still doesn't fully answer the question 'why did Titanic sink', so I suspect the search for some mystical truth can continue til ad infinitum.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0