Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Titanic
Options
-
26-09-2005 1:19pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Just spotted this thread and thought I'd throw in my two cents
.
All this talk of the ship that really sank was the Olympic is very unfounded I think.
For one, the Olympic, was in a way a test dummy for Titanic, on her sea trials points were noted, such as, on A deck the promiade deck was too open, too breezy and a sea spray, therfore a lot of passengers wouldnt go out on it.
Note: Enclose the forward half of Titanics A deck, and leave the rear open, hence the very different look to both Titanic and Olympic.
Second, Olympic also had an open B deck, this again, like the first point let in too much breeze, wind and sea spray.
Note: Therefore it was enclosed, and devided into 'private promiande' rooms, Mr Ismay owning one, Thomas Andrews owned another. And in the movie 'Titanic' its one of these rooms that 'Rose' owns.
B deck was also used on Titanic for the 'A la Carte' resteraunt, which Olympic did not have! Again, Titanic had a slightly different appearence to its B deck.
The two points above, although they may seem insignifigant actually do make a striking difference to the Olympic and Titanic, and you will often see in old news and film reels the Olympic passed off as Titanic because the producers arent aware of these differences.
After returning from its sea trials the Olympic did have a collision with a Royal Naval warship, the name of which I cant recall at the moment, it cut a large gash in I think the port side by the propellor shaft and tore off the prop. It was brought back to dry dock, and Titanics propellor and propellor shaft were used to repair the Olympic. Nothing suspicious, just the management using there brains, why have new parts made that would take a long time when they were already sitting there waiting to be put on an un finished ship.
I can see nothing suspicious about Titanics sinking. For the most part it is entriely human error, such as:
1. The crew and officers werent familiar with each other.
2. The crew did not have time to become familiar with the ship.
3. A falure with the 'Board of Trade' for allowing a ship of its size to sail with so few lifeboats. Titanic was well within law, in fact it had more lifeboats than it need have carried. Back then the amount of lifeboats a ship carried wasnt calculated by how many passengers the ship could hold, but curiously by the gross tonnage of the ship. Titanic was 65,000 tons, they had never encouters such a ship, the largest the board of trade had listed was 10,000 tons, hence Titanic complied with that and only carried lifeboats for everyone 1 in 3 passengers.
4. Back to point one, the crew werent familiar with each other, hence there was confusion and this resulted in the keys to the officers safe being lost, in which were the lookouts binoculars. I doubth this would have made much of a difference, it was a flat calm, so no water to breeak at the base of the iceberg, no moon to reflect off the iceberg, and still against them the berg was a 'black' berg, it was one that had rolled over in the water thus exposing the clear side of it, not the white icebergs that we'd know.
5. Overconfidence, White Star never claimed that Titanic was unsinkable, however there was confidence in new technology and a desire to prove that Titanic was a marvel and so the officers pushed her to breaking point, thus resulting in travelling too fast through a known ice field even though they had been given repeated warnings from other ships that were stopped in the icefield.
6. When the iceberg was spotted the officer on watch, again I cant recall his name now, Murdoch I think, ordered 'hard a starboard' and 'full reverse', by putting the ship into reverse he stopped the flow of water past the rudder, thus resulting in a weak turn, if he had of kept the ship full ahead the rudder may have had more effect. It has also been said that had they rammed the iceberg things could have been different, but thats speculating.
The berg didnt cut a gash in the ship as folklore would have it, instead it popped the rivets in the area of impact. The steel used at the turn of the centuary was found to become very stressed when subjected to extreme cold, as was to be found in the Atlantic, and with the force of the collision these plates simply buckled and popped there rivets.
7. Such a great loss of life came about as ye all well know, class distinction and sheer snobbery in the face of a deadly situation. Lack of lifeboats, as already mentioned. Titanic had unique davitts, 'Wellins Double Acting Quadrant Davitts', Double acting mean they could swing out, lower a boat and be brought back in to hook up another boat, and the 'quadrant' bit meaning each davitt could hold 4 boats..........they each held 1! But again, Titanic was within the boundry of the law.
Wow, I think I wrote enough by now, but as I say, I dont believe any of this stuff I hear about curses, insurance scams or folklore. It was an age where man thought they could over come mother nature and it was this pigheadness which was to be there downfall. Just a brief look at the Titanics history will make you realise that it was all a tragic accident, one that was waiting to happen.
Take care,
CroppyBoy17980 -
-
-
-
-
-
Intifadah http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI
21-01-2006 22:16
truly spectacular takin of the Pi$$
'see how the ice melts and there is almost no meltin from the metal'
:D:D:D:D
and his scale reproduction was somewhat off in orders of magnitude for the Iceberg:rolleyes:
still tho, is there anything behind these claims, did anyone profit or further advance their cause through the deaths of the people on the ship?
IIRC there were some rather important new york banking families on board.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement