Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
100 Years Ago...  
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 541 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2060 times:

Titanic has just struck the iceberg. She has two hours and 40 minutes to remain afloat. The Destiny for over 1500 souls has been set in stone.

[Edited 2012-04-14 18:44:12]


Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2642 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2050 times:

Not cool.

Among the numerous stabs at Monday morning quarterbacking that have taken place re the Titanic, I've read that the ship actually would have survived if Captain Smith had intentionally barrelled straight into the iceberg. That way, only the foremost compartment would have flooded; instead of multiple ones.



Pancakes are delicious.
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 541 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2038 times:

Quoting Airstud (Reply 1):


airstud, is that you from Aces High?

Ive been watching a lot of the tv stuff that has been showed this past week on the accident and a lot of it was been made this year and there was a lot of interesting stuff talked about that previously never was before.

One of the things that partly complicated things was that after it struck the iceberg, it stopped, but then again was put underway which caused a massive surge of flooding until machinists called to the bridge to tell them to stop. James Cameron had a special as well and one of the things he said he would have tried was to back her up to the other ship which was only 6nm away.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13042 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2009 times:

There is no doubt that the loss of the Titanic fascinates us even 100 years after it happened. You had a series of events, circumstances and people involved that somehow came together to use the cliche 'a perfect storm', much like we have seen with aircraft accidents.

For over 25 years since the remains of the Titanic were found, a number of various theories have been discussed adding factors that led to the ships loss. You had the hubris of the ships operators that it was 'unsinkable' in it's design. You had the failure to spot the iceberg in time, in part possibly caused by a recently developed theory that there was a false horizon due to temperature differences in the region. You had the presence of the ice flows or small icebergs, possible an affect of weather for up to 2 months causing a breaking off from larger and coastal based sources of icebergs and into the shipping lanes. Then there are theories of flaws in the steel and construction of the ship perhaps making things worse. You had pressure on and by the Captain of the ship to go faster than perhaps should have. While it did have wireless radio, that was still limited in it's use and information it could get quickly and accurately. Then you have, much like today, of regulations not keeping up with technology like the lack of sufficient lifeboat spaces leading to the doom of many lives.

Then you have the range of passengers from some of the richest persons in the world then to near penniless immigrants, that being a victim didn't matter what class you were.

One point made recently as to sinking of the Titanic was how it sank. In almost all major ship wrecks - recall the Costa Concordia earlier this year for example - most ships sink by them rolling to one side. In the case of the Titanic, it went nose down with almost no rolling to one side.

So RIP to all those lost that night.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2002 times:

Tragic as this was can we please just get over it? I am so sick and tired of hearing about Titanic every 2 minutes. It was tragic and Godspeed to those who lost their lives that night, but get a grip.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1982 times:

Quoting Airstud (Reply 1):
Captain Smith had intentionally barrelled straight into the iceberg.

Smith had gone to bed for the night shortly before the collision. I think Murdoch had the watch at the time, but I could be mistaken. That said, I believe that there were many things that led to the sinking, most being design flaws (ie - watertight compartments not being sealed at the top) that the crew had no control over.

I'd like to hope that we learned from Titanic, and that an incident like that won't happen again.

May all the souls that were aboard Titanic rest in peace (as there are no survivors left).

Marc


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3355 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

Quoting Airstud (Reply 1):
Among the numerous stabs at Monday morning quarterbacking that have taken place re the Titanic, I've read that the ship actually would have survived if Captain Smith had intentionally barrelled straight into the iceberg. That way, only the foremost compartment would have flooded; instead of multiple ones.

They say that, also the ship had too small a rudder to turn effectively especially with the fact that they put the engines in reverse which further reduced turning efficiency. There also have been numerous investigations into the metallurgy of the rivets on the hull (which were very brittle IIRC) which is why the hull broke apart so easy.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 5):
Smith had gone to bed for the night shortly before the collision. I think Murdoch had the watch at the time, but I could be mistaken. That said, I believe that there were many things that led to the sinking, most being design flaws (ie - watertight compartments not being sealed at the top) that the crew had no control over.

There were many human factors, ignoring the countless iceberg warnings given to them from other ships and the fact is was going too fast for avoidance. Also with the watertight compartments too many were breached which lowered the ship to the point that water was going to spill over anyways.

I remember watching a documentary that suggested that the ship would have sunk faster and capsized had the watertight compartment were not sealed or left open.

Quoting flightsimer (Thread starter):
The Destiny for over 1500 souls has been set in stone.

Human arrogance was the reason behind that as their simply were not enough lifeboats making half the passengers and crew doomed from the start.

Today there is a lifeboat for every soul on the ship if they even had that then there would have been maybe a few dozen deaths (those below the waterline at the point of impact).



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently onlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2642 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 3):
While it did have wireless radio, that was still limited in it's use and information it could get quickly and accurately.

Actually, the technology onboard the Titanic was the most advanced available, and they were able to contact other ships and relay stations. But, again with the hubris:

The wireless had broken on April 14th, and the operators spent the whole day repairing it, so there was a backlog of a whole day's worth of outgoing messages that they were busy getting those messages out when the Californian telegraphed them, warning of ice fields. "I say old man, we are stopped and surrounded by ice," Californian telegraph dude Cyril Evans tapped out. Titanic radio operator Jack Philips, who needed maybe some help in the stress management department, telegraphed back, "Shut up! Shut up! I'm working Cape Race" (a relay station in Newfoundland).

I wonder what was in those backlogged messages that Philips was so frenetic about that an ice warning struck him as unimportant. Or I wonder if he was thinking, screw ice warnings, we're the TITANIC, baby!!!!

('Cause that would be the hubris, see.)



Pancakes are delicious.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3003 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

Quoting Airstud (Reply 1):
I've read that the ship actually would have survived if Captain Smith had intentionally barrelled straight into the iceberg. That way, only the foremost compartment would have flooded; instead of multiple ones.

Your are correct. Perhaps one or two compartments might have been damaged and certainly the bow would have sustained heavy damage, but she would have remained afloat.
One correction:
Smith had turned in at the time leaving Murdoch and Lightoller in charge.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 4):
Tragic as this was can we please just get over it? I am so sick and tired of hearing about Titanic every 2 minutes. It was tragic and Godspeed to those who lost their lives that night, but get a grip.

Well, from the title it was obvious what was going to be discussed. No one forced you to click and read it. To many of us, Titanic still fascinates us like aviation fascinates you. The ship is more than the mushy love story Cameron released in 1997. Going back and examining what went wrong, what could have been corrected, and what were the consequences of that is still a great subject to debate.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 5):
Smith had gone to bed for the night shortly before the collision. I think Murdoch had the watch at the time, but I could be mistaken. That said, I believe that there were many things that led to the sinking, most being design flaws (ie - watertight compartments not being sealed at the top) that the crew had no control over.

Well Murdoch was in the wheelhouse as was Lightoller.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 6):
Quoting flightsimer (Thread starter):
The Destiny for over 1500 souls has been set in stone.

Human arrogance was the reason behind that as their simply were not enough lifeboats making half the passengers and crew doomed from the start.

It was also more than arrogance. Remember that you were making a ship not just for the emigrant, but for the rich elite as well. White Star Line thought that having too many lifeboats:
1. Made the ship seem unsafe. Since it met the minimum required +4 lifeboats and since its design was revolutionary at the time, it wasn't necessary to add additional lifeboats. Thomas Andrew himself had suggested additional lifeboats but he was overruled.
2. Would take away the ingenious design of an unsinkable ship. Andrews was also overruled when he had requested that the watertight bulkheads went up to B deck (which might have bought some more time for Titanic as she sank).
3. Would take away the luxury part. The boat deck was principally for First Class passengers. Your top paying customers wouldn't have been too happy to walk around a deck full of lifeboats.

Let's not forget that numerous warnings had come in through the day reporting a thick pack of ice in their direction. Each message was noted as received and nothing else came out of them.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 6):
They say that, also the ship had too small a rudder to turn effectively especially with the fact that they put the engines in reverse which further reduced turning efficiency. There also have been numerous investigations into the metallurgy of the rivets on the hull (which were very brittle IIRC) which is why the hull broke apart so easy.

I don't know whether the reversing of the engines was made right. The ship had 3 engines: two outer engines (one would always run in opposite direction of the other) and the central one (which could not be reversed).At any rate, the port engine should not have been reversed (assuming it was used to go forward) and the central engine should not have been stopped. The drag induced by stopping the engines effectively sealed her fate.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1929 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Thread starter):

Titanic has just struck the iceberg. She has two hours and 40 minutes to remain afloat. The Destiny for over 1500 souls has been set in stone.

And it was all Obama's fault.  
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
Your are correct. Perhaps one or two compartments might have been damaged and certainly the bow would have sustained heavy damage, but she would have remained afloat.
One correction:
Smith had turned in at the time leaving Murdoch and Lightoller in charge.

To be fair, we don't know that. We can only guess.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3003 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
To be fair, we don't know that. We can only guess.

Well, it's what experts today would have done, but that's because we know what happened by scrapping the side. Deaths would certainly have happened and that would not have helped Titanic nor the White Star Line in terms of publicity. But I really doubt a head-on collision would have damaged over 4 compartments.

Now, I just discovered a very interesting piece of evidence which suggests that Titanic's sinking was a conspiracy. I, myself, was shocked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 6):
There were many human factors, ignoring the countless iceberg warnings given to them from other ships and the fact is was going too fast for avoidance. Also with the watertight compartments too many were breached which lowered the ship to the point that water was going to spill over anyways.

I hate to reference the movie, but is there any historical accuracy to the idea that Ismay pressured Smith to light the extra boilers to make a grand ending to his career?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
Well Murdoch was in the wheelhouse as was Lightoller.

They were following the orders left by Smith, as far as I understand the events of the night. Smith had them continue at full speed. That, accompanied by the crystal clear night and calm seas made the iceberg invisible until it was too late. I do agree that if she had hit the iceberg head on, there would have been less damage, and even if the ship was to sink, it would have probably taken much longer - ie, perhaps long enough for the Carpathia to arrive on scene.

I must say though...I'm surprised that the 1997 film isn't on any cable channels this weekend. There were a bunch of documentaries on today, ABC started a two night mini-series, and there were a bunch of documentaries regarding Titanic.

Marc


User currently offlinedc9northwest From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2269 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

There are a few problems with knowing what happened to the Titanic:

1) Haven't found the black boxes yet
1a) No Ship Data Recorder
1b) No Cockpit Voice Recorder

As such, we cannot determine the exact causes of the crash.

Anyway, not having enough lifeboats for everyone on board? This is because it would inconvenience 1st class passengers? Really? If so, I have to say, it's a very conservative ship and, in fact,

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
it was all Obama's fault.  

Indeed.

[Edited 2012-04-14 23:32:18]

User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4477 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 11):
I must say though...I'm surprised that the 1997 film isn't on any cable channels this weekend. There were a bunch of documentaries on today, ABC started a two night mini-series, and there were a bunch of documentaries regarding Titanic.

Actually, and unfortunately, this is deliberate. With the 3D film in theatres, the movie was pulled from retail shelves and from cable so as to encourage people to see the film. I found this out the other day while trying to buy the original film locally, and no stores anywhere had it. Even Amazon is supplying it from a 3rd party seller that wants nearly $60 for it. What I'm hearing is that a new DVD/BluRay will be released in a month or more.


Back on topic: I noted the time of the Titanic striking the iceberg and the time she sank, adjusting for time zones, at work tonight, and posted a small tribute on our company bulletin board. I had a moment of silence at 11:40pm, and another at 2:20am, ship time (GMT -3) today. I've seen the 3D film and will likely go back a couple more times to see it again.

Titanic is a very big deal for me, and a passion that I've had most of my life. I even own a small piece wreckwood from the ship, recovered the morning of April 15, 1912. It's close to me.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2331 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1812 times:

After the Costa Concordia accident I trawled the Wikipedia for all things Titanic.

What struck me is that this disaster probably isn't anyones guilt. The regulations provided for "enough" lifeboats, the ship's design wasn't extraordinary for itself – it was approved by the maritime offices, the radio stations weren't manned all the time, as was it normal at this time; and it was even normal to give the passenger's personal messages priority.

And it was even normal to steam at full speed in known icing conditions. And I very much suppose that "iceberg ahead" wasn't a topic in the captain's training. Make it up as you go because because we count on your experience, Captain Smith...

So the blame falls on the Titanic being the biggest and most luxurious ship at her time... human hubris.



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1150 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

Today I've been following a live twitter feed of the events exactly a century after they occurred. Quite interesting, actually.
https://twitter.com/#!/titanic_live

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 3):
There is no doubt that the loss of the Titanic fascinates us even 100 years after it happened.

I find it amazing how everyone knows the name Titanic yet hardly anyone knows about the Dona Paz whose collision and sinking killed nearly three times as many people.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
Now, I just discovered a very interesting piece of evidence which suggests that Titanic's sinking was a conspiracy. I, myself, was shocked.

A more serious one that states that the Olympic (Titanic's older sister-ship) was disguised as the Titanic and White Star Line tried to sink it for insurance fraud. Like 99% of conspiracy theories it is complete rubbish. Still interesting to read about though.



Someone repaint ZK-PBG!
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1757 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 3):
There is no doubt that the loss of the Titanic fascinates us even 100 years after it happened.

But why? It is not even the worst maritime disaster of all time.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineLONGisland89 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 731 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1742 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
Smith had turned in at the time leaving Murdoch and Lightoller in charge.
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
Well Murdoch was in the wheelhouse as was Lightoller.

Sorry to be nit-picky but only three men were on the bridge at the time of the collision; Murdoch, Moody, and Hichens (quartermaster). Smith and Lightoller were in their cabins.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3355 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1733 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 16):
But why? It is not even the worst maritime disaster of all time.

No but I think it is so fascinating because of the fact that it sank on its Madien Voyage. Had it happened after 2 years in service it wouldn't be nearly as fascinating and probably forgotten.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
from the title it was obvious what was going to be discussed. No one forced you to click and read it.

Every time I have turned on the TV or read the newspaper in the past two weeks, that is all I have heard and seen. Like it is the only thing going on. I had no place else to vent, so I thought I would do it here.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3003 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1721 times:

Quoting LONGisland89 (Reply 17):
Sorry to be nit-picky but only three men were on the bridge at the time of the collision; Murdoch, Moody, and Hichens (quartermaster). Smith and Lightoller were in their cabins.

My bad. But at the time Smith retired, he placed Lightoller in charge. A bit later (according to the movie) Lightoller went for his rounds and Murdoch was placed in charge.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 16):
But why? It is not even the worst maritime disaster of all time.

No but I think it is so fascinating because of the fact that it sank on its Madien Voyage. Had it happened after 2 years in service it wouldn't be nearly as fascinating and probably forgotten.

Not only that, all the fanfare about an unsinkable ship and revolutionary engineering and to be sunk by an iceberg...heck, not even Britannic had such coverage, though when she sank way fewer lives were lost and all the press was talking about was the war.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13042 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1698 times:

Indeed there have been greater losses life involving boats/ships due to accidents (not from acts of war) than the Titanic. One occurred in NY City about 10 year before Titanic's loss on an day steamer that had a fire on board in the East River that drifted to near a small island and another occurred in the Mississippi River just after the conclusion of the USA's Civil War due to a boiler explosion on a steam paddle-wheeler filled with Union soldiers trying to get home.

As with the investigation of aircraft crashes, the one as to Titanic led to major changes in ship safety. From redoing the formulas for amounts of lifeboats required, to better navigation rules in risky areas, improvements in the structures of ships, the loss of Titanic was while very tragic, did lead to changes to save lives later.

What happened to the Costa Concordia just a few months ago points out that we still have a long ways to go to improve ship safety from the course decisions of the Captain, to the set up of lifeboats the training of ship staff and when to give safety instructions to passengers. If the Costa Concordia didn't drift to a small island, close to a town and sunk maybe as little as 500 meters away in very deep water, 100's of lives could have been lost.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3882 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 20):

The unsinkable fanfare is one of the myths that has popped up surrounding Titanic - no one, not even the White Star Line, claimed she was unsinkable prior to the sinking, it was something the media blew up after the event.

Also, the captain was never urged to increase speed by the owners.


User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

Question for those of you who are more nautical than I. Titanic had a hard time spotting the iceberg partly due to the weather conditions. What are ships doing today to avoid a repeat of this disaster? For example...I know there was one cruise company that had two cruises out to the actual location of the sinking. I'd like to think that we've come a very long way in being able to spot icebergs in 100 years. Have we?

User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3882 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1663 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 23):

Radar  

Here's a link about the mythical side of Titanic http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17515305


25 Cadet985 : I didn't know radar could detect icebergs. I learn something new everyday.
26 moo : If they can detect clouds, they can detect icebergs.
27 727LOVER : Is it true that WSJ was the only paper to accurately report that the ship had sunk? Others saying it was being towed to port.
28 727LOVER : REALLY???????!!!!! A murder in Forida ring a bell????
29 einsteinboricua : Radar and constant vigilance from the International Ice Patrol, set up after the sinking.
30 DocLightning : Was the Doña Paz the largest and most glamorous ship in the world making its maiden voyage?
31 windy95 : Was not Titanic's sister ship and namesake for the the class the Olympic already in Service a year earlier? Far worse maritime disasters have occured
32 Post contains links einsteinboricua : You know, I find it funny that when it comes to non-political threads, anything that's being discussed by the media and Joe Average should NOT be post
33 Airstud : Just one more note about why Titanic's sinkage is a bigger deal to the public, is that there were many notables onboard; like Denver socialite Molly
34 garpd : Amongst all the small links in the chain that led to Titanics sinking, it's the small ones I find so dreadfully tragic. Smith had heard about Icebergs
35 moo : Didn't happen until after the sinking - see my earlier link. Titanic carried more capacity in its lifeboats than regulations required at the time.
36 Airstud : Hey do we have any Haligonians on the boards here? Did The Chronicle-Herald do a big ol' commemorative edition Sunday for the sinking's centennial? I
37 einsteinboricua : Only 4 over. I believe regulations stipulated that ships over 10,000 tons were to carry 16 lifeboats as a minimum. The logic of this was that the lif
38 StarAC17 : I assume you mean the turn days before to take a more southerly course. If I assume that then using that logic you could say had the earth been creat
39 garpd : You missed the point, completely.
40 moo : I don't think he did, hes just using reducto ad absurdum to make his point - you could change *anything* about Titanics voyage or situation and it wo
41 Aloha717200 : I'm with garpd on this one though. Yes, you could change any number of things from the significant to the insignificant and things would have been co
42 ANITIX87 : This is an issue I'm slightly confused about. Didn't Titanic turn hard to port? Along similar lines, both the Hollywood movie and the 2012 Miniseries
43 Aloha717200 : A very common misconception. The movie actually got it right. Titanic DID turn to port, but the order given was "hard to starboard". Back then, the w
44 type-rated : Actually it was a newspaper reporter who reported that with all the safety features the ship had, it was practically unsinkable. Repitition has dropp
45 einsteinboricua : Also due to Captain Smith since he was in charge of Olympic when it collided with the HMS Hawke.
46 GBLKD : No mention in all of the coverage and documentaries of Violet Constance Jessop so far. For those of you who don't know, she served on all 3 Olympic cl
47 zkojq : As Windy95 said; the nearly Identical Olympic was already in service. Not to mention that the lifeboats were not filled to capacity. Additionally, on
48 Post contains links EA CO AS : NatGeo's "Titanic : The Final Word with James Cameron" was on this weekend, and it was, in a word, AWESOME. He and his team of Naval engineers, Titani
49 Post contains links windy95 : Wilhelm Gustloff - The Greatest Marine Disaster in History http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...wwii/articles/wilhelmgustloff.aspx It is said that t
50 Post contains images zkojq : That is truly terrible, as many as 9,000 estimated to have died. That certainly puts things in perspective compared to the Titanic and Lusitania. Edi
51 na : Captain Smith was not on the bridge at the time of disaster. It was his first officer who made the fatal decision. But how could he know? No one can
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Freddy Mercury - 19 Years Ago, Today posted Fri Nov 26 2010 07:08:49 by varigb707
35 Years Ago Today... posted Wed Nov 10 2010 17:53:25 by UNCRDU
Canada A Few Years Ago, Now Aus posted Fri Oct 15 2010 07:56:06 by Baroque
Piper Alpha - 22 Years Ago Today (6th July 1988) posted Tue Jul 6 2010 10:46:11 by nighthawk
Movie 'Airplane' Released 30 Years Ago posted Sun Jul 4 2010 07:20:28 by Ltbewr
D-Day - 66 Years Ago Today posted Sat Jun 5 2010 21:39:57 by FlyDeltaJets87
65 Years Ago Today: V-E Day posted Sat May 8 2010 08:16:28 by Dreadnought
Nelson Mandela Released 20 Years Ago Today posted Wed Feb 10 2010 20:02:05 by Andz
Desert Situation In 100+ Years Time posted Wed Aug 12 2009 01:16:21 by Flyingfox27
15 Years Ago Today... posted Wed Jun 17 2009 19:39:55 by STT757