 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
MurdochsAid
Lady of the Sea
Posts: 1970
Rivets: 15 (+21/-6)
|
 | 
|
|
Re: Whose fault?
I really hate to keep rubbing more salt into Will's wounds, but...
Even in Hugh Brewster's and Laurie Coulter's "882 1/2 Amazing Answers to your Questions about the TITANIC" book, on pages 42 & 43 ...they also said same thing about what we discussed in our above posts, re: a head on collision with the berg.
Quote:
#415 - Would it have been better if Titanic had hit the iceberg straight on?
Yes. Most people think that if the ship's bow had crashed straight into the iceberg, the Titanic and most of her passengers would have survived. If only a small part of the bow had hit the iceberg, much less water would have entered the ship. With its watertight compartments closed, the Titanic might have stayed afloat until help arrived.
Do you happen to have this book too?
MA
|
|
Aug/21/2005, 8:02 am
|
|
Mr Titanic
Spirit of the Night
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 1356
Rivets: 13 (+13/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Whose fault?
No but I have read it. And, as we all know from my previous posts I am aware of that fact. It's true a head on collison would have faired better than a flank encounter. Clearly the ship sank from it. Could it be possible that the Captain was going full speed in order to dodge Icebergs more effectivley? I suppose it is a possiblity.
|
|
Aug/21/2005, 10:53 am
|
|
MurdochsAid
Lady of the Sea
Posts: 1970
Rivets: 15 (+21/-6)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Whose fault?
Quote:
Mr Titanic Wrote:
No but I have read it. And, as we all know from my previous posts I am aware of that fact. It's true a head on collison would have faired better than a flank encounter. Clearly the ship sank from it. Could it be possible that the Captain was going full speed in order to dodge Icebergs more effectivley? I suppose it is a possiblity.
True. And therefore--Will does not deserve the whole entire blame for the accident, when it was a combination of factors that eventually led up to the disaster. When it was air-apparent, that Captain Smith, himself, may have been heavily pressured by Bruce Ismay, to order the remaining boilers lit. Hence, the ship's speed may also been the contributing factor...:sailor:
MA
|
|
Aug/21/2005, 5:53 pm
|
|
Mr Titanic
Spirit of the Night
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 1356
Rivets: 13 (+13/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Whose fault?
Yes indeed. However Captain Smith takes much of the blame when not being present at the Bridge. The ships speed is in a category of it's own, check my first reply. Although it is a large contributing factor.
|
|
Aug/21/2005, 5:58 pm
|
|
MurdochsAid
Lady of the Sea
Posts: 1970
Rivets: 15 (+21/-6)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Whose fault?
Today, on Pat Robertson's The 700 club on a local channel 37 (it will also be seen on the TBN channel at around noontime too), he had as guests a father-son explorer team, Michael Harris and his 13-year-old, son Sebastian.
They told of their recent visit to the wreck of our favorite and most loved ship, Titanic, from the Keldysh (same ship JC & Robert Ballard dove from).
At any rate, they found a debris field south of where Titanic broke up, and sank. They discovered that the real reason why she sank, was due to her bottom keel riding up and scrapping up on that iceberg below the surface of the water. Hence, causing her double plates to break in to, and causing the seepage. Below the surface that Murdoch didn't see, was that the berg is "much" larger than it is seen above the surface of the water. :sailor: :titanic:
In other words, Murdoch is in the clear, and he isn't to blame for Titanic's sinking. He did the best he could to get her to turn, so she could be headed back towards the iceberg free shipping lane.
MA
|
|
Sep/23/2005, 11:22 am
|
|
The Foxes
Deck Officer
Location: Somewhere in the world
Posts: 115
Rivets: 3 (+3/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Whose fault?
I can't see the point in blaming anybody for the fate of Titanic. What happened on board with regards to navigation, was normal for the time. If somebody subsequently carries on in the same manner and an accident occurred to another ship, then it means they have not learnt and in my opinion can be blamed. As with many things it becomes obvious after the event as to what should and should not have been done.
Regarding it being better to have had a head on collision with the iceberg. That is a matter of conjecture, it has not been proved one way or the other. For example it has been argued that a head on with a berg as large as the one that was hit by Titanic at the speed the ship was going, may well have resulted in a massive rupturing and buckling of plates and frames that could have opened just as many compartments to the sea as the actual collision did.
Also unless I've misread the books, the possibility that the Titanic rode up on an under water ice shelf, is just that, a possibility and not fact. I can see why some may think it happened though, because of the flooding seen in the crew passage shortly after the accident, it seems that should not have have been the case unless damage had been done under the keel as well as to the sides. I guess we'll never know for sure. 
Cheers all,
GF.
|
|
Sep/23/2005, 5:36 pm
|
|
bess
Deck Officer
Posts: 268
Rivets: 7 (+7/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Whose fault?
.
Last edited by bess, Sep/25/2005, 5:41 pm
|
|
Sep/23/2005, 7:28 pm
|
|
The Foxes
Deck Officer
Location: Somewhere in the world
Posts: 115
Rivets: 3 (+3/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Whose fault?
I could add some more too when I have time.
I do want to say now though, that I agree with Bess. None of us are trained in maritime matters such as navigation. We have no idea of what it would have been like on board as an officer having to make split second decisions.
GF.
|
|
Sep/23/2005, 8:21 pm
|
|
bess
Deck Officer
Posts: 268
Rivets: 7 (+7/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Whose fault?
.
Last edited by bess, Sep/25/2005, 5:42 pm
|
|
Sep/23/2005, 8:31 pm
|
|
Mr Titanic
Spirit of the Night
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 1356
Rivets: 13 (+13/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Whose fault?
Well to begin, there is no way of blaming any sole person on the tradgedy of the Titanic. And as stated in my first reply, there were many contributing factors of the disaster, from nature, not all from those who controlled the Titanic (an example would be lack of moonlight). As for navigation, Titanic took a more southernly route than expected and the spring of 1912 was recoreded as hotter than average (causing more bergs to break off glaciers) so there was no true issue with navigation. Other than the Ice field known to lie ahead. And that's just it, a ship had not sunk in over 40 years before Titanic, mankind started to believe technology had pulled through, so much faith was settled into it. As for a head on collision, there are examples such as the ship Arizonia who hit an iceberg head on and survived under her own steam. So there is support for the statement, however there are indeed other ways around the berg, some effective in ways others are not. Keep in mind that the Titanic was also built to withstand head on collisons with minimal damage, as other ships before her have, with only half her technology and improvements. The Arizonia was a much smaller ship. As for the riding up on the ice, it is a possiblity providing witness accounts from the inquiry stating that water was seen raising from beneth the plates. There grows more suspicion about this topic as more information is gathered, and as the berg did jet out further than expected, it is quite possible. Damage was believed to have been done to the keel, however the Titanic is embedded in much sediment and it is difficult to regard it as fact at the current momment.
As for the decision, it's a difficult position Murdoch was in no doubt. However his actions not only slowed the Titanic's recation time (reversing the engines) but also exposed the weakest part of the ship, the Flank to the Iceberg. And although there were people in the bow (third class and firemen) I don't know if lives were taken into consideration, they certainly were not when the lifeboats were being installed to seat only a fraction of the passengers. And for someone with Murdoch's experience I'd say it was a mistake to judge possible damage by only the tip of the iceberg, however any way you put it there was not enough time to turn so Murdoch is not entirly mistaken. Based on an object in his path, the first reaction that would come to mind is to get out of it's way. And certainly there is no blame set on Officer Murdoch, it was a whole network of events that lead to the fate of the ship, every decision was fatal when plugged into the equation of wether or not the ship was to hit the berg. (Such as why Captain Smith had not placed lookouts at the Prow as Captain Robinson did. That would have provided the Titanic with a few extra minutes (Dr. Pellegrino of Ghosts of the Titanic likes to think so as well). The blame was never set on Murdoch alone, only the aspects of his decisions. As information is analyzed and provided in texts and thories, we are able to
Lets all also keep in mind that these details of the Titanic are being discussed, and not pinned on any inidvidual involved. And I do not recall any judging of them either. This is simply what we have been taught by the Titanic, her construction and sinking, those who are not aware of history are bound to repeat it. Simply put, an oppruntunity to understand what happened that night, and to do so involves a discussion where all opinions, veiws and facts are accepted so that we may receive different point of views - supported by facts.
As for the Titanic, when she was pulling out of port she nearly collided with the New York. The experience required was enough to control a ship of the Titanic's size, which was much larger than any ship in her time. Lets not forget the Olympic's collision with the HMS Hawke as well, which was under Captain Smiths command. When it all comes down to it, the crew had not been trained properly to handle the ship as she should have been handled according to manuvering, distance and nagvigation.
|
|
Sep/23/2005, 10:02 pm
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
 TSOLD's time is: Nov/27/2009, 2:29 pm
|
|
|
Topic 