View Full Version : The Titanic - Anniversary

14th Apr 2005, 22:34
93 years ago tonight the Titanic struck an iceberg, foundered and sank at 0220 hours on the morning of 15th April 1912.

The Titanic (http://search.eb.com/titanic/01_01.html)

Editted to correct date error

Astra driver
14th Apr 2005, 22:54
I thought the Jews were responsible for sinking the Titanic.

Oh that's right it was an Iceberg, not Goldberg, sorry!

15th Apr 2005, 00:53
I see that website you linked to perpetuates the myth that more might have been saved if there had been more lifeboats.

I don't think so; Titanic went down very fast and the crew were still lowering boats as it took the final plunge. Two lifeboats floated off, one of them empty and upside down. If there had been enough lifeboats for everyone aboard, half those boats would have gone down with the ship, still in their davits.

Carley Floats, now they might have made a difference; but we'll never know.

Onan the Clumsy
15th Apr 2005, 01:17
I read about Captain Smith standing on the bridge and going down with the ship and I always thought that he ended up playing a role that a small part of him had wanted to play all his life. Stiff upper lip and everything for tradition and honour. I think we all probably have this role instide us somewhere. It was almost as if once the liner was holed he became ineffectual even to the point where he would have resented any form of resuce.

I might be way off with this and it's a terrible thing to say, especially as I really don't have anything to back it up, but I wonder if anyone else feels the same.

15th Apr 2005, 06:43
Am I missing something? 1912 - 2005 - 93 years?

tall and tasty
15th Apr 2005, 08:47
Titanic went down very fast and the crew were still lowering boats as it took the final plunge.

Blacksheep for a boat of her size I suppose she may have gone down fast. But the main problem was that very few wanted to leave the confines of the boat that was "unsinkable" and showed no listing in the first hours as she took on water! Those in the lower decks if they had been allowed to leave their posts and come up I think would have convinced more that it was time to go. But accounts of the night by those that survived mention that very little panic or understanding that the situation was grave was apparent.

But by this accident the life saving drills that are now in place may never have been insitgated.


15th Apr 2005, 09:37
Two hours from collision is pretty damned quick - and Captain Smith was advised by Andrews, the chief designer that the ship would sink within two hours just twenty minutes after the collision, when he calculated the rate of flooding. His estimate proved tragically correct. Smith immediately gave the order to abandon ship and no time was lost - the lifeboats were prepared for lowering in good order and the first boats were being lowered within twenty minutes of the order to abandon ship. Just over an hour later she went under.

Try and imagine the logistics of waking up 1,700 people at one in the morning and shepherding them onto a boat deck in good order. If the QE2 went down in the middle of the night, would everyone get off by lifeboat with only 95 minutes notice? Quite possibly, but then modern ships have powered lifeboat davits and a PA system by which all the passengers can be roused. In 1912, lifeboat davits were not powered and the boats were lowered entirely by hand. There was no PA system. The warning to abandon ship was passed person to person by word of mouth via the night staff, who then went round their decks and passage ways knocking on doors.

I still don't believe the shortage of boats had much to do with the casualty rate. It owed more to the lack of technology. A lack that was addressed by the board of enquiry who did much more than recommend the carriage of more lifeboats. They called for emergency alarm systems, compulsory lifeboat drills, powered lifeboat davits, 24 hour radio watchkeeping and so on.

Tonic Please
15th Apr 2005, 09:46
Yes you are missing something. It says 95 not 93.

Devlin Carnet
15th Apr 2005, 10:00
Yes but it isnt 2007.....:ok: