quote:

Originally posted by maxman:
Stop bumping your posts. Of the 18 posts, only 6 are from other people; the rest are from you. And don't rate your own thread.

This topic is not merely a statement of my own opinions of the Titanic disaster. It is a method of discovering answers to various mysteries. To do that it is necessary for others to post that information. I have left as many mysteries as possible without a conclusion, to facilitate other people adding what they think. I leave each mystery for an amount of time to give everyone an opportunity to read it and reply if they want to. Then it is time to post the next mystery to see if that will extract any new facts. I do not accept opinions as fact without properly set out proof. I have access to a number of books on the subject, together with television programmes, so my posts are based on secondhand mysteries, not personal experience. That does restrict me to looking for proof in other people's research. This forum is ideal for this research to be added to by anyone.
Please be aware that unusually bad reviews or feedback can actually attract more attention as people may want to view it to see what all the fuss is about. Comments can give a lot of impressions about their authors. That is often why not everyone votes, writes reviews and/or gives feedback. Once you post comments, they cannot be retracted, because others may already have seen them.
If you are not happy with my research methods on this forum, you do not have to read and/or contribute to this topic.

Ok, sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Warlike Poet:

quote:

Originally posted by Myth_Man71:
A. There was NOT enough lifeboats in the 1st place
B. The passengers and Crew most of them beleived that the ship was unsinkable and thus there was no rush at 1st and thus why so many boats were launched so slowly and not full.
C. back then the launching of a Life Boat took longer because they had to MANUALLY lower the boats. Today;s moderne ships have machanical lowering devices that make launching much faster.

Thanks for your response, which is much appreciated. Please note the following to clarify my original posting.
(A) I did state that there were not enough lifeboats. Nobody disputes this fact.
(B) Yes, you are correct that everyone on the ship did not panic initially, but you did not mention that many of the boats were lowered away not full, because the officers believed that the listing of the ship would cause full boats to catch on the side of the ship and tip the people into the water. Many experts believe that this was a mistaken belief.
(C) In 1912 a properly trained and experienced crew could have realised the true seriousness of their situation, especially as Captain Smith had ordered a damage report, which was one of the reasons why it took so long to send the first distress call and start launching the lifeboats. I don't believe they could have started the evacuation much sooner than they did, experienced or not. The issue was that an experienced crew would have known how many people were required to operate the davits, how many people could fit safely in each boat and that it was safe to lower the boats full to their legal capacity. Maximum allowed for the normal lifeboats was 65, but survivors say they couldn't fit that many in on the night. Collapsible A to D were only allowed to carry about 40-45 people, because they were utility boats not meant for use as lifeboats. Lightoller was the last officer into the water as he was trying to launch the last lifeboat (collapsible D). He said he did not have time to prepare it for use, so he simply released it from the davit and a wave washed it overboard. This demostrates how little time they had. The calculation of 16 lifeboats times 65 plus 4 collapsibles times 45 (I know the collapsibles didn't all hold 45 people, but I can't find a definitive number for this right here and now) equals a lifeboat capacity of only 1220, which is, of course inadequate to save all 2200 on board, but I just want to find out how many people could have been saved if the crew had been experienced? Maybe you are right. Maybe it would make no difference for the very valid reasons you gave, but I do things as scientifically as I can. Therefore, I do hope that somebody will, one day, discover how many people could have been saved if there had been enough lifeboats.

Since I wrote this reply, I found a copy of an entry in the Communications Log of the S.S. Birma, which said that their British radio operator received the first distress call from Titanic at 11.45 p.m. It made clear that Titanic was sinking. This proves that Captain Smith and the officers knew very soon after the collision that the ship was definitely going to sink. Therefore, they would not have launched the lifeboats slowly due to ignorance of the situation. It is more likely that any delay was caused by the absence of a public address system (forcing crew to wake passengers individually), the difficult route through the ship for the Steerage Class passengers to get to the boat deck, the crew's inexperience with the davits AND the amount of physical effort required to operate the davits. Of course, the passengers' belief that the ship was unsinkable DID have a considerable effect on increasing the delay in the evacuation, but I think tht it was many things together, which made the operation much slower than it should have been on the night.

Perhaps the strangest part of the Titanic disaster is that Reginald Lee, one of the 2 lookouts on duty at the time the iceberg was sighted, gave evidence to the inquiries and then disappeared so completely that numerous investigations have failed to find any trace of him whatsoever!
Was he spirited away from media scrutiny to prevent embarrassing information being revealed? Was he paid to keep quiet for an unknown reason? Did something happen to him that somebody doesn't want us to know about?
I would love someone to clear up this mystery. Please post any theories you have heard about or any proven facts that I am not aware of about it!

I have discovered an allegation that the 2 lookouts, Fred Fleet and Reginald Lee, spotted the iceberg at about 11.30p.m. (which was around 10 minutes before Fred Fleet actually reported first sighting it). They allegedly informed the officers, but there is no record of any response. Is it really true? Which officer received the warning? Were the officers aware of this report? If they were, why didn't they take evasive action immediately? Did they think it was a false alarm? What could they see, with their binoculars, from the Bridge? Could the Titanic have avoided the collision if it had changed course at this point?
I am still looking into it, but, for now, can anyone confirm or disprove this?

When the part of one of Titanic's steel plates called, "the Big Piece", was brought to the surface, it was tested for strength to see if it could have been the strongest that was possible at the time of construction.
Impurities were found, which were routinely added to increase the strength, but, if there are too many of these impurities, it could have weakened the side of the ship.
The results were clear. The steel COULD have been stronger, because it was not the highest quality available in 1912.
This leads me to speculate that maybe, if the steel plates that made up the side of the ship had been the strongest possible steel (i.e. the highest quality), could the Titanic have avoided any holes resulting from the otherwise relatively slight collision described by the survivors?
I don't know if the tests were done by the same team to find this out for sure, but I would be grateful to anyone who can say whenther or not someone has done this experiment already. For now I will try to find out if any evidence does exist. In the meantime, please tell me what you know. If nobody has this information, it would be an important addition to the facts of the disaster if the experiment was done to resolve this mystery...

One television show alleged that the Titanic's rudder was unusually small for a ship of that size. They said this may have resulted in the ship being unable to avoid the collision with the iceberg. In their opinion, maybe a bigger rudder could have allowed a smaller turning circle. Although the iceberg was about 37 miles across, perhaps the disaster would have been avoided altogether, because we do know that the impact speed was very low and there was only a slight contact with the ice.
This is yet another Titanic myth that cannot be properly solved without a reconstruction!
What do you believe about the rudder size? Could a bigger one have saved the ship? Were they already too close at 21.5 knots to steer away to safety? Let me know what you think!

quote:

Although the iceberg was about 37 miles across, perhaps the disaster would have been avoided altogether, because we do know that the impact speed was very low

I am not sure either of these is true. The iceberg was only hundreds of feet across the exposed part. http://www.titanic-nautical.com/RMS-Titanic-Iceberg-FAQ.php
Underwater it would be wider, but certainly not enough to translate to "miles".
And the Titanic was at high speed (you yourself indicated 21.5 knots!) - that would be the impact speed. (possibly you mean it was a glancing blow?)

(1)The words I should have used were, "ice field", being approximately 37 miles wide, not, "iceberg". Sorry for any confusion!
However, Millvina Dean, who is the last British survivor still alive, gave film of the actual ice field to the British media recently, and I have seen the actual iceberg, in the footage, which sank 60,000 tons of ship. I suggest you watch it yourself before coming to any conclusion about the accuracy of my posting.
(2) The ice field being about 37 miles wide was an estimate by many of the rescue ships and media boats that were there and actually saw it for themselves. Of course, I have to take their opinion as true, because I wasn't there myself to prove or disprove it.
(3) We know the Titanic's recorded speed, at about 9.30p.m., was 22.5 knots (not 21.5 knots as I originally stated. Sorry!), because it was in the Captain's Log, which survived the disaster and we know that the impact speed was much lower, because First Officer Murdoch ordered engines full astern (thus reducing speed significantly). Further proof is that hitting millions of tons of ice at 22.5 knots would have resulted in extensive damage, but the actual damage was relatively minimal. Only 6 small slits were found in the bow initially, by the first expedition who discovered the wreck site. The rest of the damage to the side of the ship was caused by buckled plates, and rivets breaking under the massive stress on them during the sinking.
(4) Apart from the minimal damage, the survivors said the impact was so slight that none of the passengers realised the ship was in danger of sinking. There are many published accounts from them to prove this.
(5) One of the television investigations said the iceberg had been at sea for 3 years and weighed potentially millions of tons. If it wasn't very big, it would have melted completely, just like many of the other ones did as they floated into Spring and Summer.
(6) Titanic was turning, so any collision would have been a glancing blow at any speed.
(7) We will never know how big the iceberg was underwater, except that the average is estimated at around 90% submerged for icebergs in general. Titanic was described as being as tall as a building with 11 floors. The iceberg was said to tower above it. This indicates a considerable amount of hidden ice under the surface.
(8) Thank you for taking the trouble to contribute to this topic and for the link in your reply. I do not mean to appear to be rejecting everything anyone posts. I know I have made a number of mistakes, which I have identified, investigated and posted corrections as soon as possible. Please continue to read and add new information whenever you like! More Titanic mysteries to follow...!

The film of the iceberg that was taken by various ships participating in the rescue show it not especially tall, and less than a thousand feet in any direction, actually estimated at less than 100 feet tall and less than 500 feet in the longest dimension. The photographs were published in the official reports and in the newspapers at the time.
They could certainly be wrong, but it seems odd that the last survivor should wait until now to report something different.
That it was not especially big does not prove that it would have melted completely... who knows how bit it start out.
An "ice field" is much different from an iceberg. This is the area that contains ice. Some of the ice would be small blocks, some larger, and some bergs. It does not hurt a ship to go through an ice field unless it hit the large stuff. See http://www.jurassic.ru/images/Svalbard07_40.JPG for a photo of an ice field.

A ship of the Titanic's size does not stop on a dime or can turn on a dime. It needed space to do either manouver.

Further the collision was sideswipe, not a head on and with its tonnage, I'm not surprised it wasn't necessarily felt as anything big.

quote:

Originally posted by garycarroll:
The film of the iceberg that was taken by various ships participating in the rescue show it not especially tall, and less than a thousand feet in any direction, actually estimated at less than 100 feet tall and less than 500 feet in the longest dimension. The photographs were published in the official reports and in the newspapers at the time.
They could certainly be wrong, but it seems odd that the last survivor should wait until now to report something different.
That it was not especially big does not prove that it would have melted completely... who knows how bit it start out.
An "ice field" is much different from an iceberg. This is the area that contains ice. Some of the ice would be small blocks, some larger, and some bergs. It does not hurt a ship to go through an ice field unless it hit the large stuff. See http://www.jurassic.ru/images/Svalbard07_40.JPG for a photo of an ice field.

Don't forget that icebergs are estimated at around 90% below the surface. This means we don't know how big it really was or what shape the submeged part was.
We only know that it broke off from an ice shelf (which is where ALL the icebergs in the North Atlantic originate) and was travelling at about 1 knot for approximately 3 years. The size it was when it first started will never be known, but it had plenty of time to melt.
Due to the water temperature being different from the air temperature, generally, the base of the ice will melt before the top. This causes bergs to rotate, making the base become the top. Then the melting process causes another rotation etc.
The age of the ice is confirmed by the survivors saying about the smell of the air (which experts say was consistent with ice that had many different things frozen inside it over many years on the ice shelf).

quote:

Originally posted by cdgman:
A ship of the Titanic's size does not stop on a dime or can turn on a dime. It needed space to do either manouver.

Further the collision was sideswipe, not a head on and with its tonnage, I'm not surprised it wasn't necessarily felt as anything big.

During the Titanic's sea trials the stopping distance at 20 knots was about 850 yards. Bearing in mind the last known speed of 22.5 knots and the time between sighting the iceberg and hitting it (around 37 seconds), this gives a good idea of the distances involved and the performance of the ship to slow down or stop.
Nobody disputes that the ship suffered only a slight impact on just one side of the bow. The problem appears to be that when 60,000 tons of ship hits millions of tons of ice, at any speed, something has to give. The steel plates were not able to withstand that situation, especially as the sea temperature was recorded, in the Captain's Log, as being at the level where the steel would have been at its weakest. Plus the fact that the, "big piece", was found to be not the best quality steel available in 1912.

quote:

Due to the water temperature being different from the air temperature, generally, the base of the ice will melt before the top.

This is not why ice in salt water melts faster than ice in air. The ice in water will melt fast even if the air is the same temperature or somewhat colder.

quote:

The age of the ice is confirmed by the survivors saying about the smell of the air (which experts say was consistent with ice that had many different things frozen inside it over many years on the ice shelf).

This is utter nonsense. Can you name a few of those "many experts" who claim this?

quote:

This means we don't know how big it really was or what shape the submeged part was.

Actually, if we know the size above the surface and we know what percentage is submerged, we have a very good idea of how large the total berg is. We do not know is it's shape.

quote:

We only know that it broke off from an ice shelf (which is where ALL the icebergs in the North Atlantic originate)

Also false. Most icebergs in the north calve from glaciers. Glaciers do not form on ice shelves.

quote:

During the Titanic's sea trials the stopping distance at 20 knots was about 850 yards. Bearing in mind the last known speed of 22.5 knots and the time between sighting the iceberg and hitting it (around 37 seconds), this gives a good idea of the distances involved and the performance of the ship to slow down or stop.

Your logic is faulty.
a) We know from sea trials that in perfect conditions with crew alerted to a maneuvering test the titanic could stop in 850 yards. But the iceberg when sighted was only 450 yards ahead. Now take into account relaying the information to the bridge, making decisions in the bridge, the bridge relaying orders to the engine room, then...
b) We do not know how much time elapsed between orders given by the bridge and the engines actually reversing, and in all likelihood they never did. In those days the order to reverse was passed to the engine room via a "telegraph" (mechanical indicator). The engine room personnel had to observe the request, then move to the engines to initiate this. The engines could not instantly change from full ahead to reverse without very serious damage; they had to be slowed to a stop, then reversed. This took many seconds... not surprising since the outer propellers weighed close to 40 tons each, not even counting the huge drive shafts! The engine room personnel were not expecting an emergency maneuver command in the middle of the night in the middle of the ocean, and their response time would have been significantly slower than ideal.
There is eyewitness testimony from the survivors in the engine room (Greaser Frederick Scott and Leading Stoker Frederick Barrett) that the engines had stopped but not reversed at the time of collision.

(1) I said the water temperature is different, not specifically higher or lower, than the air temperature. The information comes from a tv investigation. They said the icebergs rotate, because the base generally melts before the top. Also, sea water takes all day to warm up and all night to cool down again, so is usually warmer at night than during the day. The air temperature changes much faster than that. Ask a Meteorologist for further details.
(2) If you find fossils in ice, that is a clear indication that a dinosaur or anything else fossilised) did not get buried in the ice and then get carried out into the Atlantic in only a number of days! The debris and/or fossils DO indicate the age of the ice. There are American and British scientists (workng in separate places) permanently based in the area, who can confirm anything you would like to know about this issue.
(3) You stated a size for the iceberg on the surface, but you didn't say anything about the underwater dimensions, which cannot be accurately confirmed (shape as well as size). That is the point I was making. Actual percentage is not strictly relevant to that, because hidden shape cannot be estimated accurately that way. The point remains that we don't know precisely how big the iceberg was or its submerged shape - we can only estimate it based on experience and guesswork, because nobody actually measured it under the surface. Nowadays it is easy to find out this information with sonar and other methods that weren't available in 1912. Even a slight difference in the size or shape could have allowed the Titanic to miss the collision altogether.
(4) I have to concede this point, because I did use the wrong words to describe where icebergs come from in that area. The words, "ALL", and "ice shelf", should not have been used by me!
(5) I'm sorry, but my logic is correct, bearing in mind that many things remain unconfirmed, so I can only give the information drawn from research by many different people and the statements from survivors (any lawyer will tell you that witnesses often have conflicting accounts of what happened).
(a) I only gave the sea trial results as an indication of the Titanic's stopping distance at 20 knots in a straight line. It wasn't meant to be an indication of the stopping distance when turning. It was meant to show how effective the evasive action taken by the crew was. The fact that the ship was travelling at 22.5 knots, and was turning, would not give the same stopping distance. I did see an estimate of the iceberg being only 450 yards away, but that was only an estimate , which I have no reason to reject. The reality was that the actions of the crew came extremely close to saving the ship.
Fred Fleet (the lookout who sighted the iceberg), rang the Crow's Nest bell (which itself was a universally known warning of danger ahead and would have instantly alerted the Bridge), then he picked up the phone receiver connected to the Bridge and turned the ringer handle. Alerted by the bell, 6th Officer James Moody picked up the phone and heard the words, "Iceberg right ahead!"
Moody passed on the report to First Officer Murdoch, who rang down, "Stop", then, "Full Astern". Simultaneously, he ordered helmsman Quartermaster Robert Hitchins to turn the wheel, "Hard-a-starboard". The difference between the direction of the order (starboard) and the ship turning to port is explained by ships of that time using orders meant for older ships, which had tiller type steering (e.g. move the tiller to starboard and the ship goes to port and vice versa). The modern logical system started in 1928. As the ship began to turn, Murdoch pressed the warning bell for 10 seconds to tell everybody that the watertight doors were about to close. The ship had only turned about 20 degrees to port before impact. All the actions in this paragraph would not take much time at all. The sequence of events I mentioned are detailed in the book, "Titanic", by Leo Marriott, first published in the U.K. in 1997 by PRC Publishing Ltd., and reprinted 1998. The officers would have reacted instinctively in accordance with their training. What would they have needed to think about? If I see anything on the road, I don't need any further prompting to hit the brakes and swerve away from it! Yes I know a car is not a ship, but in terms of principles, the officers were actually looking for the icebergs they had been warned about by other ships. No debate as to what to do would have been necessary.
(b) Quartermaster Hitchins and the other officers on the Bridge would have been able to estimate the time between sighting the iceberg and hitting it a glancing blow. Why not do the calculation yourself? 450 yards at 22.5 knots on full power astern and turning hard to port. You should be able to get a reasonable estimate from these details. Or ask an expert. My account is not in any way definitive. It is merely taken from the book I specified.
I think you have mistaken the boiler rooms for the engine room. Stokers were not in the engine room at all, so could not see the control orders being received. No one in the engine room at the time the disaster occurred survived, because they stayed at their posts right up to the end to keep the radio and lights on as long as possible. This increased the chances of rescue. I saw a telegram sent to the family of 2 firemen, who were father and son. The son was off duty. He was woken by his father and sent up to the boat deck. He never saw his father again. The family received the following telegram:- "Wally safe dad gone".
As I said earlier, the stokers were not in the engine room, so Leading Stoker Frederick Barrett would not have been able to see the orders received from the Bridge or the position of the controls. If the stokers were in the engine room, who was putting the coal in the boilers in the boiler rooms? Maybe his memory was faulty or he only saw the controls after the collision. As for Greaser Frederick Scott, I will look into that further before I make any comment.

As I have said before in this topic, I DO make mistakes. This happens for many reasons, including other people's research being disproved by later discoveries, my misreading or misunderstanding the evidence and conflicting statements from different sources. Thank you for your posting, which is precisely what I want to encourage everybody to contribute. That way, I can increase, correct, update and/or confirm my knowledge of this fascinating subject. I am not trying to disprove anything. I just state what my interpretation of the facts is, so that anyone reading this can advise me of corrections and updated research. It would be more effective if you could always state your sources of information to justify your replies. I don't do that, because I want to know what others think about it. For me to include full proof with every posting would take too much time to dig up, so I leave it up to anyone else to comment. That could be why you thought my logic was faulty. Some of what I wrote WAS wrong, but my research will continue. Please feel free to keep contributing your facts and opinions! I do appreciate it. Without your input, this topic would be stagnant...

quote:

Originally posted by garycarroll:

quote:

Due to the water temperature being different from the air temperature, generally, the base of the ice will melt before the top.

This is not why ice in salt water melts faster than ice in air. The ice in water will melt fast even if the air is the same temperature or somewhat colder.

quote:

The age of the ice is confirmed by the survivors saying about the smell of the air (which experts say was consistent with ice that had many different things frozen inside it over many years on the ice shelf).

This is utter nonsense. Can you name a few of those "many experts" who claim this?

quote:

This means we don't know how big it really was or what shape the submeged part was.

Actually, if we know the size above the surface and we know what percentage is submerged, we have a very good idea of how large the total berg is. We do not know is it's shape.

quote:

We only know that it broke off from an ice shelf (which is where ALL the icebergs in the North Atlantic originate)

Also false. Most icebergs in the north calve from glaciers. Glaciers do not form on ice shelves.

quote:

During the Titanic's sea trials the stopping distance at 20 knots was about 850 yards. Bearing in mind the last known speed of 22.5 knots and the time between sighting the iceberg and hitting it (around 37 seconds), this gives a good idea of the distances involved and the performance of the ship to slow down or stop.

Your logic is faulty.
a) We know from sea trials that in perfect conditions with crew alerted to a maneuvering test the titanic could stop in 850 yards. But the iceberg when sighted was only 450 yards ahead. Now take into account relaying the information to the bridge, making decisions in the bridge, the bridge relaying orders to the engine room, then...
b) We do not know how much time elapsed between orders given by the bridge and the engines actually reversing, and in all likelihood they never did. In those days the order to reverse was passed to the engine room via a "telegraph" (mechanical indicator). The engine room personnel had to observe the request, then move to the engines to initiate this. The engines could not instantly change from full ahead to reverse without very serious damage; they had to be slowed to a stop, then reversed. This took many seconds... not surprising since the outer propellers weighed close to 40 tons each, not even counting the huge drive shafts! The engine room personnel were not expecting an emergency maneuver command in the middle of the night in the middle of the ocean, and their response time would have been significantly slower than ideal.
There is eyewitness testimony from the survivors in the engine room (Greaser Frederick Scott and Leading Stoker Frederick Barrett) that the engines had stopped but not reversed at the time of collision.

Where does the ice from glaciers go when it reaches the sea? Does it form ice shelves, icebergs or just disappear?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (9th Edition) an iceberg is defined as:- "a large floating mass of ice detached from a glacier or ice sheet and carried out to sea."
Ice shelf is defined as:- "a floating sheet of ice permanently attached to a landmass."
Glacier is defined as:- "a slowly-moving mass or river of ice formed by the accumulation and compaction of snow on mountains or near the poles."
It is an undisputable fact that each summer the ice retreats further and further, making the polar bears increasingly unable to travel as far as they need to, on the ice, to hunt for food to survive. It is allegedly due to global warming.
In April 1912, the icebergs encountered by the Titanic were further south than usual. Captain Smith delayed changing course from southwest to west for 30 minutes to avoid the average distance the icebergs usually travel south, but, apart from the ice warnings from other ships, he does not seem to have realised that the icebergs could go further south than usual. This is proved by his failure to go further south to avoid the icebergs' clearly stated positions.
If you need experts to your own satisfaction, you can refer to Meteorologists for weather records in 1912 of the area the Titanic sank. These records may be available somewhere on the 'net. Both the British and American Governments have scientists permanently working in the area of the North and South Poles. You are free to check with them or anyone else suitably qualified.
I am not an expert and I have already said I am only using other people's research, so accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Maybe one day I will supply a list of the books I am using, but the television programmes will take a considerable amount of research for me to find each one and list all the facts they revealed.
Before rejecting anything I say, please remember to include proof in your postings. That way can shed new light on the Titanic mysteries. Many people have conflicting opinions. This topic was meant to investigate the many mysteries about this disaster, not simply to be an opportunity for me to give my opinions. I would like anyone who reads this topic to post THEIR knowledge of the facts and proven research that I don't know about...

I have just seen a tv programme called, "The Unsinkable Titanic", which is a docu-drama reconstructing the disaster, examining the misfortunes and mistakes resulting in the loss of the ship.
They looked at the statement of Fireman Barrett, who was one of the small number of crew who witnessed the water entering through the damaged side of the ship and survived to give a first hand account. The Metallurgists on the programme said that his description of what he saw was not steel plates rupturing. They believe he was describing the rivets failing domino style - one after another. As one rivet broke, the one next to it would have had to take increased stress. That would have caused THAT rivet to fail. This would have caused the, "unzipping", of the side of the ship as each rivet in turn gave way, allowing more and more water to cascade in.
They tested the rivets, some of which were cast iron and some were steel, to see how much stress they could take before breaking. It is known from the plans that the rivets ordered were, "best", quality, instead of the stronger, "best best", quality. I believe that this was a serious error of judgement not to use the strongest rivets.
The programme's conclusion was that, although it is not absolutely certain that, "best best", quality rivets would have been strong enough to save the ship, it would have significantly increased the chances of the ship staying afloat. It is my opinion that the sinking might have, at least, been made slower, thus allowing Carpathia to get closer before the passengers and crew ended up in the water. Perhaps this would have saved more lives.
They also said that a head on collision by another ship hitting an iceberg resulted in considerable damage to the bow, but the ship stayed afloat. This, together with the design of Titanic's Number One watertight bulkhead, indicates that a head on impact could have prevented the ship sinking. This does match the conclusions of another tv investigation I saw, which used model boats and calculation. I can't remember what it was called, but I will post an update if I do ever find it again.
My conclusion is that the myth about a head on collision preventing the ship sinking is, at least, plausible, because it might be hard (and expensive) to scientifically prove conclusively. That leaves us with the evidence that already exists from survivors like Fireman Barrett, Metallurgists, other ships' iceberg head on collisions and the original plans used to build the ship. They all make it, at least, very likely.
What do YOU think...?

I inadvertantly used the words, "cast iron", for the rivets. In actual fact, I think THAT material would have been far too soft for use in ship building! I meant to say that a number of the rivets were made of steel and the rest were made of WROUGHT iron. I do try very hard to ensure as near to 100% accuracy as possible. I'm sorry for any confusion this error may have caused! Thanks to everyone for drawing my other mistakes to my attention. I do value your input to this investigation of one of the most famous disasters of all time.

quote:

Originally posted by Myth_Man71:
A. There was NOT enough lifeboats in the 1st place
B. The passengers and Crew most of them beleived that the ship was unsinkable and thus there was no rush at 1st and thus why so many boats were launched so slowly and not full.
C. back then the launching of a Life Boat took longer because they had to MANUALLY lower the boats. Today;s moderne ships have machanical lowering devices that make launching much faster.

I have found another potential reason for the delay in the evacuation. In the book, "Titanic Voices Memories from the Fateful Voyage", by Donald Hislop, Alastair Forsyth and Sheila Jemima (first published by Southampton City Council, Hampshire, U.K. in 1994. Published in 1997 by Sutton Publishing Limited. This edition published in 1999 by Budding Books, an imprint of Sutton Publishing Limited), Second Officer Lightoller is quoted as saying (words to the effect) the noise during the sinking was so loud that orders had to be shouted from point blank range or hand signals had to be used. I believe that this could have been responsible for some of the delay in launching the lifeboats. It would have been necessary for officers to walk around the ship to pass on orders or go to a position where the intended recipient could see the hand signals. Orders could not be shouted from any great distance at all.

quote:

Originally posted by garycarroll:

quote:

Due to the water temperature being different from the air temperature, generally, the base of the ice will melt before the top.

This is not why ice in salt water melts faster than ice in air. The ice in water will melt fast even if the air is the same temperature or somewhat colder.

quote:

The age of the ice is confirmed by the survivors saying about the smell of the air (which experts say was consistent with ice that had many different things frozen inside it over many years on the ice shelf).

This is utter nonsense. Can you name a few of those "many experts" who claim this?

quote:

This means we don't know how big it really was or what shape the submeged part was.

Actually, if we know the size above the surface and we know what percentage is submerged, we have a very good idea of how large the total berg is. We do not know is it's shape.

quote:

We only know that it broke off from an ice shelf (which is where ALL the icebergs in the North Atlantic originate)

Also false. Most icebergs in the north calve from glaciers. Glaciers do not form on ice shelves.

quote:

During the Titanic's sea trials the stopping distance at 20 knots was about 850 yards. Bearing in mind the last known speed of 22.5 knots and the time between sighting the iceberg and hitting it (around 37 seconds), this gives a good idea of the distances involved and the performance of the ship to slow down or stop.

Your logic is faulty.
a) We know from sea trials that in perfect conditions with crew alerted to a maneuvering test the titanic could stop in 850 yards. But the iceberg when sighted was only 450 yards ahead. Now take into account relaying the information to the bridge, making decisions in the bridge, the bridge relaying orders to the engine room, then...
b) We do not know how much time elapsed between orders given by the bridge and the engines actually reversing, and in all likelihood they never did. In those days the order to reverse was passed to the engine room via a "telegraph" (mechanical indicator). The engine room personnel had to observe the request, then move to the engines to initiate this. The engines could not instantly change from full ahead to reverse without very serious damage; they had to be slowed to a stop, then reversed. This took many seconds... not surprising since the outer propellers weighed close to 40 tons each, not even counting the huge drive shafts! The engine room personnel were not expecting an emergency maneuver command in the middle of the night in the middle of the ocean, and their response time would have been significantly slower than ideal.
There is eyewitness testimony from the survivors in the engine room (Greaser Frederick Scott and Leading Stoker Frederick Barrett) that the engines had stopped but not reversed at the time of collision.

Since I answered this reply, I discovered that First Officer Murdoch DID ring down to the Engine Room, "Stop", then, "Full Astern". Not just, "Full Astern", as I thought originally. I did not realise, initially, what the standard procedure was (but I do now!). There is no indication how long there was in between stopping the engines and reversing. I only know that 2 engines were for forward and the third engine was only for reversing. Check out the plans used to build the ship for further details. I saw a report, a long time ago, that the plans had been destroyed in a Second World War air raid, but I have since discovered that at least one copy (or maybe the original) still exists.