The Titan Tragedy

[Stefan Fredriksson]

James Cameron being interviewed by Anderson Cooper is good for us on the tech curve not knowing our bathtubs from our breeches.

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Again, more media character assasination. See here: https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-victim/edward-john-smith.html

"On the night of April 14, however, he attended a dinner party held in his honour by George Widener and his family. The party was attended by the cream of 1912 society as it was represented on the Titanic. However, Smith was possibly concerned that the ship was entering the ice zone about which he had received ample warnings during the weekend. He excused himself early and went to the bridge.

Charles Lightoller was keeping watch and discussed the temperature with Smith for a while. Smith told Lightoller to alert him immediately if he was at all concerned."

Because the top chain of command of the Titanic died, it is assumed they dallied about doing nothing, but that could be hardly the case as the evacuation was as orderly as it was possible given the circumstances. There was nothing they could do to save the ship, all measures were taken to call for help, and they went down with the ship trying to save more souls. Just what more can be asked from them?

 

Keep watch. Not 'If you receive any more ice warnings let me know'. Lets not forget, in this environment, at night, seeing an iceberg meant running right into the bugger. Because they were running too fast.

Its not character assassination, its a simple fact. They were going too fact for the conditions. We can speculate about why they were running so far (I find it absurd the claim they were running out of coal). But he was the captain. He was the only one who could have stopped the ship and waited till morning. But he didnt, because he was asleep and didnt issue any orders specific to the conditions. Every book on the Titanic from 'A Night to Remember' on down has come to that conclusion, and im not going to disagree with them.

Orderly in that they didnt allow the third class passengers out until most of the boats had gone, yes. Orderly in that the captain noted the lifeboats were going out half full only AFTER they were casting off. Yes, some of it was orderly. Most (including a lifeboat full of crewmen whom were then threatened by a revolver) certainly was not.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[RETAC21]

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Keep watch. Not 'If you receive any more ice warnings let me know'. Lets not forget, in this environment, at night, seeing an iceberg meant running right into the bugger. Because they were running too fast.

Its not character assassination, its a simple fact. They were going too fact for the conditions. We can speculate about why they were running so far (I find it absurd the claim they were running out of coal). But he was the captain. He was the only one who could have stopped the ship and waited till morning. But he didnt, because he was asleep and didnt issue any orders specific to the conditions. Every book on the Titanic from 'A Night to Remember' on down has come to that conclusion, and im not going to disagree with them.

Orderly in that they didnt allow the third class passengers out until most of the boats had gone, yes. Orderly in that the captain noted the lifeboats were going out half full only AFTER they were casting off. Yes, some of it was orderly. Most (including a lifeboat full of crewmen whom were then threatened by a revolver) certainly was not.

Let me point out that the "too fast for the conditions" was determined after the fact that the ship had sunk, which was kind of convenient.

For a professional opinion, please read: https://www.grijalvo.com/Batracius/Batracius_Titanic.htm

You will need to google translate it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

Let me point out that the "too fast for the conditions" was determined after the fact that the ship had sunk, which was kind of convenient.

For a professional opinion, please read: https://www.grijalvo.com/Batracius/Batracius_Titanic.htm

You will need to google translate it.

By that argument we need to disregard all air accident reports, because we could only know things would go bad after they crash. Yet still we study the accidents, learn what individuals did wrong, and train other individuals to learn from their mistakes. Smiths actions were reckless, and we know they were reckless, because nobody else that night (and seldom before or since) collided with ice and lost their ship as a consequence.

Yes, there were other things that might have helped. The US helped introduce an international ice patrol as a consequence. Full watertight integrity might have been useful. Full lifeboat fit, certainly. But in the end, Smith was too fast for the road, and as his peers thought so, I dont think there is much to add to that.

I thank you for the link though, and I will read it.

[shep854]

In this video, it's proposed that Titanic may have run across an underwater piece of the iceberg some distance from the visible portion, ripping open the bottom, rather than the side.  This is significant because the crew may have thought they were actually avoiding the iceberg.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

In Ballards 1980's book on the Titanic, he identified something near the split at the well deck on the right hand side that deserves study. There is a tear there. Its entirely possible as Ballard admitted that its 'just' the buckling damage from when she hit the sea bed. But there is definately a tear there, and it might be the sole part of the iceberg damage thats visible. Short of an excavation (good luck with that) or ground penetrating radar (might be viable one day) we will probably never know.

Tore the underside? Its possible. Im not aware the actual location of the damage was ever identified, other than how many compartments were flooding.  Ill say this, Ive read the ship was close enough to the iceberg for some of the snow and ice to be deposited on the deck as she scraped. Some individuals who didnt quite comprehend what had happened proposed sending someone down to the deck to go and get ice for their drinks...

Good effort by somebody to make a viable VR model of the Titanic as she was built which you can explore. Going to be on my buy list when they finally get it finished.

https://titanichg.com/project-401

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But in the end, Smith was too fast for the road, and as his peers thought so,

No, that's what you get wrong. Titanic was not running blindly in an area where other ships were going slow. See for example:

SS Californian: was making 11 knots until it stopped due to ice. Top speed 12 knots

RMS Carpathia: ran to the Titanic position at 14 knots. Top speed: 14 knots.

RMS Olympic, she was too far away, but "Haddock calculated a new course, ordered the ship's engines to be set to full power and headed to assist in the rescue."

So definitely his peers didn't think so and he was cleared by the British commission of wrongdoing.

[DB]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

By that argument we need to disregard all air accident reports, because we could only know things would go bad after they crash. Yet still we study the accidents, learn what individuals did wrong, and train other individuals to learn from their mistakes. Smiths actions were reckless, and we know they were reckless, because nobody else that night (and seldom before or since) collided with ice and lost their ship as a consequence.

Yes, there were other things that might have helped. The US helped introduce an international ice patrol as a consequence. Full watertight integrity might have been useful. Full lifeboat fit, certainly. But in the end, Smith was too fast for the road, and as his peers thought so, I dont think there is much to add to that.

I thank you for the link though, and I will read it.

Reductio ad absurdum is generally a tedious form of logical fallacy. Try harder, or just for once in your life give up on an argument where, even after pages and pages of drivel all of which has been successfully rebutted, you're still typing at full speed.

You've holed far more than five compartments' worth so far, and yet you accuse the officers of the Titanic of being reckless.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 minutes ago, DB said:

Reductio ad absurdum is generally a tedious form of logical fallacy. Try harder, or just for once in your life give up on an argument where, even after pages and pages of drivel all of which has been successfully rebutted, you're still typing at full speed.

You've holed far more than five compartments' worth so far, and yet you accuse the officers of the Titanic of being reckless.

For once, try not being a condescending git and recognise ive had a lifelong interest in this ship. Not least because my family were probably involved in building it. Ive about 8 books on the shelf all about it. Ive been reading about it on and off for the past 40 years. In short, I believe know what im talking about at least a much as anyone on this site does.

Fact, the crew knew there was ice ahead. Fact, Smith was informed of it. Fact, Chairman of the White Star Line Bruce Ismay was overheard by the passengers encouraging Smith to go as fast as he could to try and reach New York in Record Time, despite said Ice warning (that came out in the US congressional inquiry) Fact, the ice warnings kept coming in and were never passed onto the captain who had pissed off to bed. Fact, bridge crew didnt act on them either, despite clearly being able to if they wanted to. Fact, the crew didnt fill the lifeboats, despite being encouraged to do so. Fact, a 40000 ton ship which was perfectly serviceable when it left Belfast sank, purely due to a series of poor decisions make by the senior members of the crew.  It wasnt faulty boilers, it wasnt a coal fire, it wasnt bad steel, it wasnt poor riveting, it wasnt a leak, it wasnt insurance fraud, it wasnt even bad luck. A crew ran a perfectly good ship into an iceberg at full tilt, and thats incompetence however you might want to dress it up.

One more point. If you dont like reading my drivel, then I respectfully suggest you fuck off and dont read it. It will save me writing rebuttals to what you post, which has contributed absolutely zero to this discussion other than clearing your sinus to have a good sneer. Bog off.

11 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

No, that's what you get wrong. Titanic was not running blindly in an area where other ships were going slow. See for example:

SS Californian: was making 11 knots until it stopped due to ice. Top speed 12 knots

RMS Carpathia: ran to the Titanic position at 14 knots. Top speed: 14 knots.

RMS Olympic, she was too far away, but "Haddock calculated a new course, ordered the ship's engines to be set to full power and headed to assist in the rescue."

So definitely his peers didn't think so and he was cleared by the British commission of wrongdoing.

 

Yes, and what speed was Titanic doing when she hit the Iceberg? 22 knots! Only 2 knots off her best speed. In fact I idly wonder if the only reason why she wasnt doing 24 knots is because she was so heavily laden.

She was also considerably bigger than Californian and Carpathian, and with a rudder that by some sources did not suit well for a ship her size.  So she is running faster, she cant stop as fast, and cant turn as well.  A significant difference from those other vessels. Then at the last minute they do the two worst things they can, throw her in reverse, then throw her rudder over, which further compromised her turning ability. He could have reversed, or he could have thrown the rudder over. Both made the accident probably inevitable.

Basically, Smith was driving the ship like one half her size and half her speed.

 

 

[sunday]

Perhaps moderation could divert some posts into a new "Stuart's Monday morning quarterbacking on a 111-years old maritime disaster" thread 

Edited June 23, 2023 by sunday

[RETAC21]

4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, and what speed was Titanic doing when she hit the Iceberg? 22 knots! Only 2 knots off her best speed. In fact I idly wonder if the only reason why she wasnt doing 24 knots is because she was so heavily laden.

She was also considerably bigger than Californian and Carpathian, and with a rudder that by some sources did not suit well for a ship her size.  So she is running faster, she cant stop as fast, and cant turn as well.  A significant difference from those other vessels. Then at the last minute they do the two worst things they can, throw her in reverse, then throw her rudder over, which further compromised her turning ability. He could have reversed, or he could have thrown the rudder over. Both made the accident probably inevitable.

Basically, Smith was driving the ship like one half her size and half her speed.

I don't know what books you have on that bookshelf, but I'd suggest you throw them away and start anew.

First, irrespective of what Ismay may want or say, he had no executive authority on board, the ship was not trying to speed up (much less break records which she couldn't in any case...) but going through its trials, that was the reason why Thomas Andrews was on board, from the wiki:

"Andrews headed a group of Harland and Wolff workers called the guarantee group, who went on the maiden voyages of their ships in order to observe ship operations and spot any necessary improvements. Titanic was no exception, so Andrews and the rest of his Harland and Wolff group travelled from Belfast to Southampton on Titanic for the beginning of her maiden voyage on 10 April 1912. During the voyage, Andrews took notes on various improvements he felt were needed, primarily cosmetic changes to various facilities. However, on 14 April, Andrews remarked to a friend that Titanic was "as nearly perfect as human brains can make her."

She was bigger than other ships in the vicinity indeed, yet this ships would recklessly go into the ice field at full speed to rescue survivors, Olympic included.

You also assume that if Titanic was doing 10 knots she would have avoided the ice. Not at all, go through this. First, the iceberg was spotted as the ship was right on top, and second, a lower speed means a less responsive rudder and a sluggish ship.

[Stuart Galbraith]

22 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

I don't know what books you have on that bookshelf, but I'd suggest you throw them away and start anew.

First, irrespective of what Ismay may want or say, he had no executive authority on board, the ship was not trying to speed up (much less break records which she couldn't in any case...) but going through its trials, that was the reason why Thomas Andrews was on board, from the wiki:

"Andrews headed a group of Harland and Wolff workers called the guarantee group, who went on the maiden voyages of their ships in order to observe ship operations and spot any necessary improvements. Titanic was no exception, so Andrews and the rest of his Harland and Wolff group travelled from Belfast to Southampton on Titanic for the beginning of her maiden voyage on 10 April 1912. During the voyage, Andrews took notes on various improvements he felt were needed, primarily cosmetic changes to various facilities. However, on 14 April, Andrews remarked to a friend that Titanic was "as nearly perfect as human brains can make her."

She was bigger than other ships in the vicinity indeed, yet this ships would recklessly go into the ice field at full speed to rescue survivors, Olympic included.

You also assume that if Titanic was doing 10 knots she would have avoided the ice. Not at all, go through this. First, the iceberg was spotted as the ship was right on top, and second, a lower speed means a less responsive rudder and a sluggish ship.

 

I dont believe they were planning to beat an all time record, just set a high speed record for Titanic which would impress the passengers.

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2012/spring/titanic.html

 

Though the White Star Line filed its petition in October 1912 and individual claims were due by April 1913, hearings were not held in the Southern District of New York until June 1915. Depositions filed with the court throughout 1913 and 1914 provide conflicting reports on blame for the disaster.

In June 1914, White Star Line's Ismay was questioned about the speed of the Titanic, its lifeboats, the lookout, and other issues that may have contributed to the disaster. Throughout his testimony, Ismay restated many of the same opinions given during the congressional hearing—that all decisions were made by Capt. Edward Smith and he was onboard to consider passenger accommodation improvements for the White Star Line's next ship, the Britannic.

Statements by two of the survivors, Elizabeth Lines and Emily Ryerson, seemed to contradict Ismay's statements. Lines declared that she overheard parts of a two-hour conversation between Captain Smith and Ismay on Saturday, April 13. Sticking in her mind was Ismay's statement, "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday," meaning they would arrive one day earlier than originally planned. The following day, Ryerson recalled Ismay holding a message and stating to her that "We are in among the icebergs." Despite this, he told her that they would be starting up extra boilers that evening to surprise everyone with an early arrival.

 

Of course, they might have been lying to make a claim. It all comes down to what you believe. Ive never heard a better explanation of what she was doing at 22 knots.

 

Yes, well Olympic doing that just highlights what I say about White Star Line being reckless. I admire their bravery and willingness to save friends, I dont admire putting another 45000 ship full of near 2000 people at risk to do it, which is what it amounted to. Credit to them, they had a good reason to do it. Titanic did not.

Quote

You also assume that if Titanic was doing 10 knots she would have avoided the ice. Not at all, go through this. First, the iceberg was spotted as the ship was right on top, and second, a lower speed means a less responsive rudder and a sluggish ship.

 

When Titanic threw into reverse, the middle screw which washed over the rudder disrupted the rudders effectiveness, which probably clinched the collision. Yes, I can agree with power on there was adequate steering. RMS Olympic proved that when she sank U103 deliberately by ramming. But it was still by sources ive read, a small rudder for her size, certainly when you compare it to the later Normandie or the Queen Mary. 

Secondly, if she was travelling slower, she has the option of reversing to a stop. The very worse that would have happened would have been a head on collision at reduced speed, which she would undoubtedly have survived. But more likely she would have given herself more time to have seen the iceberg, and simply stopped as the other ships had done when they saw ice.

Or alternatively, she could have just stopped and waited for morning, as Californian did. But she didnt.

 

[RETAC21]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

I dont believe they were planning to beat an all time record, just set a high speed record for Titanic which would impress the passengers.

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2012/spring/titanic.html

 

Though the White Star Line filed its petition in October 1912 and individual claims were due by April 1913, hearings were not held in the Southern District of New York until June 1915. Depositions filed with the court throughout 1913 and 1914 provide conflicting reports on blame for the disaster.

In June 1914, White Star Line's Ismay was questioned about the speed of the Titanic, its lifeboats, the lookout, and other issues that may have contributed to the disaster. Throughout his testimony, Ismay restated many of the same opinions given during the congressional hearing—that all decisions were made by Capt. Edward Smith and he was onboard to consider passenger accommodation improvements for the White Star Line's next ship, the Britannic.

Statements by two of the survivors, Elizabeth Lines and Emily Ryerson, seemed to contradict Ismay's statements. Lines declared that she overheard parts of a two-hour conversation between Captain Smith and Ismay on Saturday, April 13. Sticking in her mind was Ismay's statement, "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday," meaning they would arrive one day earlier than originally planned. The following day, Ryerson recalled Ismay holding a message and stating to her that "We are in among the icebergs." Despite this, he told her that they would be starting up extra boilers that evening to surprise everyone with an early arrival.

 

Of course, they might have been lying to make a claim. It all comes down to what you believe. Ive never heard a better explanation of what she was doing at 22 knots.

 

Yes, well Olympic doing that just highlights what I say about White Star Line being reckless. I admire their bravery and willingness to save friends, I dont admire putting another 45000 ship full of near 2000 people at risk to do it, which is what it amounted to. Credit to them, they had a good reason to do it. Titanic did not.

 

When Titanic threw into reverse, the middle screw which washed over the rudder disrupted the rudders effectiveness, which probably clinched the collision. Yes, I can agree with power on there was adequate steering. RMS Olympic proved that when she sank U103 deliberately by ramming. But it was still by sources ive read, a small rudder for her size, certainly when you compare it to the later Normandie or the Queen Mary. 

Secondly, if she was travelling slower, she has the option of reversing to a stop. The very worse that would have happened would have been a head on collision at reduced speed, which she would undoubtedly have survived. But more likely she would have given herself more time to have seen the iceberg, and simply stopped as the other ships had done when they saw ice.

Or alternatively, she could have just stopped and waited for morning, as Californian did. But she didnt.

 

Ah, so with hindsight...

Again, Ismay had no executive power, he even reckons that and you quote him, but hearsay is more powerful against a dead man, so let's give credit to it, because, why not??

The time between detection of the iceberg and the collision was insufficient to get the engines stopped, much less reversed, as is pointed out in the article I linked, so you are still going by movies.

Even at half speed, she wouldn't be able to stop without a collision. By accident, it may have helped because she may not have turned so much and the collision be head on.. or not, as she could still be hit in the side, and of course, the comment would be: "if she had gone full speed she would have avoided the iceberg!"

Rudder size is kind of a moot point also, a bigger rudder takes more time to turn, leading to a collision.

Finally, she could have stopped if a sea full of flows was spotted, but it wasn't so there was no reason to stop - or to use your analogy: you don't land an airliner at an alternate airport just because there may be storms at destination.

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Ah, so with hindsight...

Again, Ismay had no executive power, he even reckons that and you quote him, but hearsay is more powerful against a dead man, so let's give credit to it, because, why not??

The time between detection of the iceberg and the collision was insufficient to get the engines stopped, much less reversed, as is pointed out in the article I linked, so you are still going by movies.

Even at half speed, she wouldn't be able to stop without a collision. By accident, it may have helped because she may not have turned so much and the collision be head on.. or not, as she could still be hit in the side, and of course, the comment would be: "if she had gone full speed she would have avoided the iceberg!"

Rudder size is kind of a moot point also, a bigger rudder takes more time to turn, leading to a collision.

Finally, she could have stopped if a sea full of flows was spotted, but it wasn't so there was no reason to stop - or to use your analogy: you don't land an airliner at an alternate airport just because there may be storms at destination.

He was Captain Smiths boss. And whilst you may say he had no executive power, it seems reasonable that Smith would have wanted to please his boss. He spent his life doing just that I would think. That and the British class system was at work.

Yes, but  you still have to explain how no other ship that night ran into Ice, yet Titanic did. Or for that matter, why no other liner foundered in such dramatic fashion before or since. I submit that all the other ships were running at half the speed had a considerable amount to do with this. Speed clearly was a factor in the accident, both in the amount of warning time, and the ability to stop. Yes, Im sure it did take time to throw an engine into reverse to bring to a stop. yet everyone else seems to have managed it perfectly well when sighting ice, and she did not. Why? Could it be she only had half the time to do it, compared to a ship running at 12 knots?

Lets put it this way, if an airliner receives a message that an airport is fogged in, he doesnt try it to see if its true, he accepts it and plans accordingly. I see absolutely no reason, even from hindsight, why Smith could not have done the same knowing there was ice ahead, or at the very least, slow the hell down.You dont need hindsight for that when you have 2000 people you are responsible for. Its common sense, common sense everyone else showed that night but he didnt. Because he wanted to please his boss. They have a word for this in aircraft accidents, its called Getthereitis.

If she hadnt turned a damn, gone straight into the iceberg, she would have survived. If she had thrown into reverse (which you insist was not possible) she would have hit slower and survived. If she had kept full power on and thrown the wheel, there is a good chance she would have completely missed the iceberg. Dont take my word for it, its all right there in Dr Ballards book.

Ultimately if there was nothing wrong with the ship, then the answer must be the crew. I dont believe it was pure blind luck, particularly when nobody else was having bad luck that night.

Ok, you have my perspective. In your view if its not the reasons I describe, why did it occur? Dont tell me to read the article, tell me, why did it happen?

[Steven P Allen]

Rudder design is a complex system; even the USN was having trouble with getting things just right decades later, which is why the Iowas could turn inside the Fletchers.

Saw an interview with Cameron and Bob Ballard:  both essentially said (to the company) that it was not going to work.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah I saw the Cameron interview, it was very interesting.

Iowas IIRC had Twin Rudders, this one had just tne. Its also interesting to note that none of the later liners had an inline propeller with the Rudder. Almost as if they could see it was going to be trouble.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

SS Californian: was making 11 knots until it stopped due to ice. Top speed 12 knots

RMS Carpathia: ran to the Titanic position at 14 knots. Top speed: 14 knots.

Had Titanic slowed to 11kt prior to the incident then this would have for many alleviated if not altogether eliminated the conclusion that the officers of Titanic took unacceptable risks.

Carpathia was taking risks due to an emergency situation, and would no doubt have pushed to 23kt if she could have.   Pretty sure it had something to do with 1,500 people about to die if she came in slower.  Californian thought that 11kt was too dangerous for conditions and came to a full stop.

Edited June 23, 2023 by glenn239

[R011]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

2 No, I said collisions and accidents, I didnt say sinkings. They had a reputation for being fast and loose in operation, and it was apparently well known at the time. Annoyingly I cant find the quote now, but as an operation, White Star seemingly had a safety culture akin to a Philipines airline.

3 Come on, thats not a strong argument. The officers were generally experienced on other ships, and If they cannot be faulted for not being in a sinking before, they can be blamed for not acting intelligently when presented with a simple problem. Not enough boats? Thats ok, we will send them only out half loaded! The chief designer Thomas Andrews chided Murdoch on this, and this again is a failing. HE shouldnt have had to. That was the Captains job. So where was the Captain, when he could have been supervising the evaculation?

Ice warnings werent Ignored? So when the marconi operator received a warning of pack ice ahead, what did he do? He blasted back 'Shut Up, Shut Up, im working cape race!' That was just a couple of hours before the collision. That warning never was passed on to the wheelhouse or the captain.

So they didnt have an adequate Ice warning (the captain could of course have asked the radio operator to keep an ear open for such warnings) they were running at full tilt into an area that time of year was full of ice, they had an inadquate watch out (who didnt even have Binoculars because someone lost the key to the cabinet they were stored in). You know, the real tragedy is they saw it at the last moment. If they hadnt seen the bugger at all, they would have run smack into it and the ship would have been saved. Even better the crew would have been sacked.

The only one I respect is Lightoller, not least beause he seemed to be the only one capable of thinking on his feet, but he also went to Dunkirk. If atonement for mistakes had to be made, he more than made up for it. But against him, he was a White Star apologist at the public inquiry. Not that it did him much good.

You really should have put an uppercase "M" on "marconi".  The radio operator was a Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company employee, not a White Star one.  Different company, different culture.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, of course.

[RETAC21]

56 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

1)He was Captain Smiths boss. ..

2)  why no other liner foundered in such dramatic fashion before or since.

3) If she hadnt turned a damn, gone straight into the iceberg, she would have survived. If she had thrown into reverse (which you insist was not possible) she would have hit slower and survived. If she had kept full power on and thrown the wheel, there is a good chance she would have completely missed the iceberg.

4) Ok, you have my perspective. In your view if its not the reasons I describe, why did it occur? Dont tell me to read the article, tell me, why did it happen?

1) No, he wasn't, he was a figurehead at the top of a company he didn't own anymore. The Captain knew he was the man responsible for the safety of the ship and acted in consequence, taking a longer route rather than try his luck with a more Northern, but shorter one - which would contradict the "order" to reach NY a day earlier. A day that would have thrown its passenger's schedules out of kilter, BTW. 

2) You want dramatic? I give you the Costa Concordia, not good enough? see Lakonia. Icebergs? another Titanic, this one smaller, modern, properly equipped... which disappeared into thin air. "Hasn't happened again" caught on camera

So it's not that it hasn't happened, it's that you don't know about them

2) If, if, if. What if there wasn't an iceberg in the first place? Titanic is the Southernmost sinking, remember? ever heard of the Swiss cheese model? which leads to...

4) Since you can't be bothered to read and learn for some reason, it happened for multiple reasons, a particularly dark night, a calm sea, a warmer year that saw icebergs south of the usual routes, a reasonable maneuver that unfortunately damaged the ship to a wider extent than imagined. An inability to repair damage or pump water fast enough, insufficient life boats for everyone on the basis of unrealistic expectations. Change one factor and the Titanic makes it to NY undamaged or everyone lives.

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah I saw the Cameron interview, it was very interesting.

Iowas IIRC had Twin Rudders, this one had just tne. Its also interesting to note that none of the later liners had an inline propeller with the Rudder. Almost as if they could see it was going to be trouble.

Mebbe because they used 4 rather than 3 lines? a propeller in line with the rudder? madness for sure:

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

 

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

1) No, he wasn't, he was a figurehead at the top of a company he didn't own anymore. The Captain knew he was the man responsible for the safety of the ship and acted in consequence, taking a longer route rather than try his luck with a more Northern, but shorter one - which would contradict the "order" to reach NY a day earlier. A day that would have thrown its passenger's schedules out of kilter, BTW. 

2) You want dramatic? I give you the Costa Concordia, not good enough? see Lakonia. Icebergs? another Titanic, this one smaller, modern, properly equipped... which disappeared into thin air. "Hasn't happened again" caught on camera

So it's not that it hasn't happened, it's that you don't know about them

2) If, if, if. What if there wasn't an iceberg in the first place? Titanic is the Southernmost sinking, remember? ever heard of the Swiss cheese model? which leads to...

4) Since you can't be bothered to read and learn for some reason, it happened for multiple reasons, a particularly dark night, a calm sea, a warmer year that saw icebergs south of the usual routes, a reasonable maneuver that unfortunately damaged the ship to a wider extent than imagined. An inability to repair damage or pump water fast enough, insufficient life boats for everyone on the basis of unrealistic expectations. Change one factor and the Titanic makes it to NY undamaged or everyone lives.

2 I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing icebergs. If I knew you going to bring a lot of random shit out of left field I would have just dropped the USS Cyclops and the SS Waratah on you.

3 come on, this is horseshit. Save it for Glenn, he might find it amusing.

4 Then why did it not happen to any of the other ships that night, whom were just that vulnerable if the incident was as wholly arbitrary as you claim? Because they reconciled the latest ice reports, and because they were not going into an area of ice they already knew was there at 22 knots.

We can argue about this all week, and its boring. Let's take a look at the conclusion of the British inquiry if you won't take my word for it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Wreck_Commissioner's_inquiry_into_the_sinking_of_the_Titanic

 

The final report was published on 30 July 1912. The lines of questioning at the inquiry had resulted in a detailed description of the ship, an account of the ship's journey, a description of the damage caused by the iceberg, an account of the evacuation and rescue. There was also a special section devoted to the circumstances of Californian.^[31]

The report found that Titanic's sinking was solely the result of colliding with the iceberg, not due to any inherent flaws with the ship, and that the collision had been brought about by a dangerously fast speed in icy waters:

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons appearing in the annex hereto, that the loss of the said ship was due to collision with an iceberg, brought about by the excessive speed at which the ship was being navigated.

 

It also found that the lookout being kept was inadequate given the navigational hazards Titanic faced, and that the ship's officers had been complacent. There were too few lifeboats available and they had not been properly filled or manned with trained seamen, though they had been lowered correctly.

 

 

However the British report cleared Captain Smith of negligence. The American one was slightly more scathing.

 

The final report was presented to the United States Senate on May 28, 1912. It was nineteen pages long, with 44 pages of exhibits, and summarised 1,145 pages of testimony and affidavits.^[24] Its recommendations, along with those of the British inquiry that concluded on 3 July 1912, led to many changes in safety practices following the disaster. The report's key findings were:

• A lack of emergency preparations had left Titanic's passengers and crew in "a state of absolute unpreparedness", and the evacuation had been chaotic: "No general alarm was given, no ship's officers formally assembled, no orderly routine was attempted or organized system of safety begun."
• The ship's safety and life-saving equipment had not been properly tested.
• Titanic's Captain Edward Smith had shown an "indifference to danger [that] was one of the direct and contributing causes of this unnecessary tragedy."
• The lack of lifeboats was the fault of the British Board of Trade, "to whose laxity of regulation and hasty inspection the world is largely indebted for this awful tragedy."
• The SS Californian had been "much nearer [to Titanic] than the captain is willing to admit" and the British Government should take "drastic action" against him for his actions.
• J. Bruce Ismay had not ordered Captain Smith to put on extra speed, but Ismay's presence on board may have contributed to the captain's decision to do so.

Now we come to the interesting bit.

 

The report was strongly critical of established seafaring practices and the roles that Titanic's builders, owners, officers and crew had played in contributing to the disaster. It highlighted the arrogance and complacency that had been prevalent aboard the ship and more generally in the shipping industry and the British Board of Trade.^[26] However, it did not find IMM or the White Star Line negligent under existing maritime laws, as they had merely followed standard practice, and the disaster could thus only be categorised as an "act of God".^[27]

 

^{Act of God is a legal term, meaning nobody is to blame. Which was curious after finding Smith and the crew were at least partially responsible for the disaster through complacency.}

^{Why do I think they gave that result? Its just my opinion, but I think British and American investors  wanted to avoid picking up the tab.}

 

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[RETAC21]

A wall of text that misses the important part: 

The report found that although Smith was at fault for not changing course or slowing down, he had not been negligent because he had followed long-standing practice which had not previously been shown to be unsafe[34] (the inquiry noted that British ships alone had carried 3.5 million passengers over the previous decade with the loss of just 10 lives[35]). It concluded that Smith had merely done "only that which other skilled men would have done in the same position."[citation needed] However, the practice itself was faulty and "it is to be hoped that the last has been heard of this practice. What was a mistake in the case of the Titanic would without doubt be negligence in any similar case in the future."

So, what you were saying about the competence of the crew?

The American inquiry? was it not an Act of God? you want to have your cake and eat it too. It doesn't work that way.

Also, since you have the time to drop a wall of text, I'd suggest you devote that time to read the links I provided which will enlighten you much more than I can hope to do.

Also, you asked examples of "dramatic wrecks", you got them, and now it's "random shit". Mebbe you should try ot read on the last sample: liner, iceberg, wreck, you know, as you requested?

Finally, the one pulling "what ifs" out of its third point of contact was you. You don't want to be treated as the average Glenn?, don't act as one.

[sunday]

 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

for my part I believe the Titanic tragedy stirs so much emotion because the whole thing from start to finish was and is so damn sad.  So much had to go wrong for it to end this way and yet in retrospect disaster was almost inevitable.

It's not about the Titanic sinking but the Lusitania sinking that I heard a passage that has always stuck with me.  A survivor was recounting his participation in the ordeal.  He states that "as I was in the water I was aware of the nearby floating baby baskets, each with a crying baby. One by one they sank and the cries were silenced.  There was nothing I could do"

The sinking of a passenger ship is a visceral thing.  It stirs some pretty strong feelings in all but the hardest souls.

What happened to the Titan is an entirely different thing in many regards but yet in some ways the same.  Tha passengers on the Titanic could reasonably expect a safe passage.  Their level of risk was an order of magnitude lower than the passengers on the Titan.  Even so, hubris ruled the day.

It's much harder for me to feel badly for today's victims compared to 1912.