|
22 Sep 10 - 03:22 PM (#2991643) Subject: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: beardedbruce Titanic sunk by steering mistake, author says Wed Sep 22, 11:50 am ET LONDON (Reuters) – The Titanic hit an iceberg in 1912 because of a basic steering error, and only sank as fast as it did because an official persuaded the captain to continue sailing, an author said in an interview published on Wednesday. Louise Patten, a writer and granddaughter of Titanic second officer Charles Lightoller, said the truth about what happened nearly 100 years ago had been hidden for fear of tarnishing the reputation of her grandfather, who later became a war hero. Lightoller, the most senior officer to have survived the disaster, covered up the error in two inquiries on both sides of the Atlantic because he was worried it would bankrupt the ill-fated liner's owners and put his colleagues out of a job. "They could easily have avoided the iceberg if it wasn't for the blunder," Patten told the Daily Telegraph. "Instead of steering Titanic safely round to the left of the iceberg, once it had been spotted dead ahead, the steersman, Robert Hitchins, had panicked and turned it the wrong way." Patten, who made the revelations to coincide with the publication of her new novel "Good as Gold" into which her account of events are woven, said that the conversion from sail ships to steam meant there were two different steering systems. Crucially, one system meant turning the wheel one way and the other in completely the opposite direction. Once the mistake had been made, Patten added, "they only had four minutes to change course and by the time (first officer William) Murdoch spotted Hitchins' mistake and then tried to rectify it, it was too late." Patten's grandfather was not on watch at the time of the collision, but he was present at a final meeting of the ship's officers before the Titanic went down. There he heard not only about the fatal mistake but also the fact that J. Bruce Ismay, chairman of Titanic's owner the White Star Line persuaded the captain to continue sailing, sinking the ship hours faster than would otherwise have happened. "If Titanic had stood still, she would have survived at least until the rescue ship came and no one need have died," Patten said. The RMS Titanic was the world's biggest passenger liner when it left Southampton, England, for New York on its maiden voyage on April 10, 1912. Four days into the trip, the ship hit an iceberg and sank, taking more than 1,500 passengers with it. |
|
22 Sep 10 - 03:50 PM (#2991655) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Charley Noble Interesting theory but it has taken a long time to surface. Charley Noble |
|
22 Sep 10 - 03:59 PM (#2991666) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Bobert Hmmmmmmmm??? I always heard it had something to do with that 297 feet of rope that the 1st mate brought on board with him??? B;~) |
|
22 Sep 10 - 04:13 PM (#2991677) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Greg F. Of course this couldn't be total bullshit intended to increase the sales of Patten's novel, could it? Steamships had been around for about a hundred years by the time the Titanic was launched - expect they'd have learned how to steer 'em in that interval. Lets see some corroboration. |
|
22 Sep 10 - 04:18 PM (#2991679) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Naemanson I think the steering claim has been disproved by the analysis of the ship's rudder. It was too small and the Titanic was too large to allow for rapid course changes. There is a good reason for tugboats. Also, icebergs are very large below the water. The part you see is not the part that will get you. I think that at the officer's meeting they describe they could have put forward the idea that they might have changed course to avoid the impact but... On site, and without complete information, we humans tend to underestimate the extent of an accident. Usually it takes an in depth investigation to uncover the actual events that led up to the accident. I am sure that Mr. Lightoller really believed what he wrote down but that does not mean he can be relied on to dismiss all those years of investigations. |
|
22 Sep 10 - 04:19 PM (#2991680) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Rapparee Well, I hardly think that they would have sunk it intentionally! |
|
22 Sep 10 - 04:29 PM (#2991693) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: McGrath of Harlow I think Gref F may have it right. Excellent publicity for Mrs Patten's book. And it's as well to note that she is married to a retired Conservative Cabinet Minister... |
|
22 Sep 10 - 04:45 PM (#2991702) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity McGrath of Harlow: "And it's as well to note that she is married to a retired Conservative Cabinet Minister..." Oh come on, get real!!...Do you actually think a wife married to a retired Conservative Cabinet Minister, would actually fib???? Are you suggesting we have dishonest people in government?? How dare you!! Wink, GfS |
|
22 Sep 10 - 06:44 PM (#2991795) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: gnu I contend the grassy shoal was the cause of the sinking. |
|
22 Sep 10 - 07:00 PM (#2991803) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Mrrzy LOL!!! Gnu, that's rich, can I use it? Yeah, I heard about this. At least he wasn't drunk and letting his son pilot it, or something, he just didn't know how to drive a stick. Or something. |
|
22 Sep 10 - 07:03 PM (#2991805) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Ed T It is amazing just how long writers will profit buoyed by those who buy each new book and "new" (and often somewhat shallow) theories on what happened to this ship so long ago? It is more surprising that the news media get sucked into hyping up each book, as if something new is going to be uncovered. Is there really new in this so called news, or is it merely "s". |
|
22 Sep 10 - 07:23 PM (#2991818) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: gnu Feel free Mrrzy. Of course, you will have to cite any all references to same as my publishers are sharks. As evidenced by their defense of my work in progress, "Sharks Ate Jack Dawson", based on a claim by Rose Dewitt Bukater that she accidentally let Jack die by not letting him climb up on the piece of wood she was saved by because she felt unchaste after their liason. It was not murder because Jack did not drown or freeze to death but, rather, was eaten by rarely seen Arctic Sharks which showed up out of the deep blue sea after an impromtu casting call. |
|
22 Sep 10 - 07:33 PM (#2991830) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Little Hawk Feeling unchaste can lead a young woman to all sorts of hasty and ill thought out decisions... |
|
22 Sep 10 - 07:46 PM (#2991842) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Rapparee I think it was either Jack the Ripper or someone else, maybe Snidely Whiplash. |
|
22 Sep 10 - 08:03 PM (#2991856) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Wesley S The Titanic was an inside job..... |
|
22 Sep 10 - 08:08 PM (#2991860) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: MarkS Actually if they had not tried to steer out and just collided with the iceberg head on, the damage would probably been huge, but not fatal. |
|
22 Sep 10 - 08:10 PM (#2991861) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Don Firth Didn't see the movie. It was my understanding that they thought they had cleared the iceberg when the shup suddenly lurched and there was a gawdawful scraping sound. An underwater section of the berg had sliced a long gash along the Titanic's hull below the waterline. One of the things that made folks feel confident in the idea that the Titanic was unsinkable was that bulkheads divided the ship into five presumably watertight segments. If they struck a reef or some such thing and one of the segments was punctured, the other four would easily keep it afloat. But a whole string of the compartments were sliced. The ones that were still intact, could have kept her afloat (but tilting a lot). But the compartments were not closed off at the top, and when water filled the ruptured compartments, water spilled over the top into the intact ones. What sank the presumably "unsinkable" ship was a whole unforeseen domino effect. Or so I've heard. Your mileage may vary. Don Firth |
|
22 Sep 10 - 08:10 PM (#2991862) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: catspaw49 Nothing new there though.......I'm not going to go back and look as I don't recall which book it was in, but I read a long piece describing the difference in steering commands but that didn't factor in as much as the fact they were trying a "breast about" maneuver that was no longer believed to be the right thing to do......and indeed it wasn't! Spaw |
|
22 Sep 10 - 08:26 PM (#2991874) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Bee-dubya-ell A "breast about" maneuver? I thought that was the one where guys lean over the railing holding signs that say "Show Us Your Tits!" No, wait... That's the breast OUT maneuver, isn't it? |
|
23 Sep 10 - 10:23 AM (#2992223) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: GUEST,Neil D I think Naemanson got it right when he wrote "I think the steering claim has been disproved by the analysis of the ship's rudder. It was too small and the Titanic was too large to allow for rapid course changes. There is a good reason for tugboats". I'm more interested in the second claim, that the ship could have stayed afloat long enough for rescuers to save everyone if Bruce Ismay hadn't ordered it to keep going. Does anyone have anything further on that claim? |
|
23 Sep 10 - 10:28 AM (#2992227) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Little Hawk It is true that a moving ship that has been holed will take on water quite a bit faster than a stationary ship in the same condition. |
|
23 Sep 10 - 11:20 AM (#2992277) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: GUEST,Grishka A conspiracy from Hollywood sank the Titanic to promote the movie. |
|
23 Sep 10 - 12:52 PM (#2992351) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: katlaughing LOL, Grishka! gnudarlin'...I want an autographed copy of your book when it comes out! I wish they'd all just leave the puir old Titanic alone. Sheesh...it's like digging up a cemetery to confirm exactly of what each and every person buried there died, with a myriad of opinions. |
|
23 Sep 10 - 02:06 PM (#2992393) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: McGrath of Harlow ...digging up a cemetery to confirm exactly of what each and every person buried there died... They do that often enough - though they normally wait a few more centuries before they do it. |
|
23 Sep 10 - 04:32 PM (#2992484) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: JHW There's this Titanic theory which I was assailed with at the Steam Fair at Hunton, North Yorks, unsuspectingly looking at the model boats. It does involve selling another book. |
|
23 Sep 10 - 11:29 PM (#2992672) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: mousethief You guys. Everybody knows it was the Trilateral Jesuits Templar that sank the Titanic. |
|
24 Sep 10 - 12:25 AM (#2992700) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: The Fooles Troupe JHQ - saw that in a TV doco a while ago .... |
|
24 Sep 10 - 12:58 AM (#2992704) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: EBarnacle I read a book, not too long ago, in which an AB on the helm in the Suez canal misunderstood the instructions of the pilot who told him to larboard his helm, which he heard as starboard, which put him into the bank of the canal. Fortunately for him and the ship's owners, one of the engineers below realized what was happening and reversed the engines immediately, hauling them back into the channel. If this had not occurrec, the vessel may have had to be dynamited out in order to keep the canal clear. Seems there was the early phases of WW II on and nothing was allowed to interfere with the flow of cargo. A similar scenario may have occurred in the Titanic situation. Not as implausible as some might think. |
|
24 Sep 10 - 01:37 AM (#2992708) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: GUEST,...on and on Might have to get one of my favourite T-shirt out again. It reads: Titanic It sank It's over Get a life....
-Joe Offer- |
|
24 Sep 10 - 04:06 AM (#2992737) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: GUEST,Patsy And then there was the inadequate number of lifeboats to make matters worse. |
|
24 Sep 10 - 04:52 AM (#2992762) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Micca As anyone who as ever done a "trick" at the wheel of a large ship could tell you, even if he put some "wrong way" wheel on, and then they realised he was steering into the danger and not away, putting oppposite wheel on would not instantly stop the movement of the ships head, in fact with large ships if you start the head moving (for instance) to Starboard, even putting on a lot of Port lock it could take a substantial amount of time to halt and reverse the movement of the ships head. That is why big ships are difficult to handle in in or near port, unlike a car which respond instantly a ship 882.75 feet long 92.5 feet wide and weighing 46000 tons and with a top speed of 23 knots might take a little longer to respond. So maybe the story is true but not relevent much, except to sell books. |
|
24 Sep 10 - 06:46 AM (#2992804) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Amergin And here I thought it was going to be Obama's fault.... |
|
24 Sep 10 - 08:13 AM (#2992823) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: bubblyrat My next-door neighbour is related to the actor who played the slimy bodyguard who tries to shoot Jack in the film. For those of you who saw the film,and wondered if you'd seen that particular actor before; well, he played the lead in "Morgan; A suitable case for treatment", and he was the nasty "Mr Bliffil" in "Tom Jones" . As for the Titanic ; well, according to at least one book,there is compelling evidence to suggest that it wasn't Titanic at all, but a sister-ship of similar appearance,deliberately put in harms way in the hope of being involved in some mishap (which indeed it was !!) as an insurance fraud perpetrated by the financially embarrassed shipping company.Apparently, Titanic herself soldiered on for many more years,under a different name !! |
|
24 Sep 10 - 08:50 AM (#2992833) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Charley Noble "But is there any news of the iceberg?" Cheerily, Charley Noble, for Les Baxter |
|
24 Sep 10 - 10:26 AM (#2992891) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: frogprince Other than that, Mrs. Astor, did you enjoy the cruise? |
|
24 Sep 10 - 07:24 PM (#2993207) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: bubblyrat Apart from that ,Herr Kapitain Langsdorff, was it a successful voyage? |
|
25 Sep 10 - 12:36 AM (#2993303) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: NOMADMan Les Baxter?? |
|
25 Sep 10 - 06:03 AM (#2993366) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Backwoodsman Sounds like someone's latched on to the hard-a-port v. hard-a-starboard debate again, which was more than amply covered during the enquiries that followed the disaster. The need was to prevent damage to the props, reduce the vessel's way, and turn to port (i.e. away from the iceberg). The engines were ordered stopped (to prevent damage), then reversed (to reduce the ship's way). The helm was ordered hard-a-starboard (towards the iceberg). The effect of reversing engines is to reverse the effect of the rudder, therefore hard-a-starboard with the engines reversed will produce the effect of full port rudder (away from the iceberg). Good seamanship. Whether someone in 2010 (by which time the witnesses at the enquiries are all long-dead) thinks Lightoller lied is completely inconsequential. The evidence, indicating good seamanship once the hazard was sighted, was given and accepted at the enquiries. End of, IMHO. What some people will resort to in order to try to sell a book is beyond belief. |
|
25 Sep 10 - 01:20 PM (#2993529) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Micca Thank you Bacwoodsman for that clear exposition of the behaviour of a vessel under power!! Charley, Thanks for the smile, Les Baxter!! LOL "Tarzan saves the Titanic" !!!! |
|
25 Sep 10 - 01:32 PM (#2993533) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: gnu I'll second that... thanks Backwoodsman. Perhaps it has been stated and I missed or forgot it... was there any account given of the speed of the ship at the time the berg was sighted? |
|
25 Sep 10 - 07:45 PM (#2993696) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: The Fooles Troupe Thanks Backswoodsman - many people without actual related practical experience do not understand that 'driving a ship' is nothing like 'driving a car', 'driving a motorcycle', 'driving an aeroplane', 'driving a helicopter', 'driving a horse and cart', 'driving a swamp boat', 'driving a steam locomotive', etc, all of which operate by totally different mechanisms. Experience with the current socially most common (car) really does not help one to understand any of the others.... :-) |
|
26 Sep 10 - 05:31 AM (#2993853) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Bonzo3legs If Kenneth Moore had been captain, Titanic would not have sunk! |
|
26 Sep 10 - 10:10 PM (#2994251) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: The Fooles Troupe Left hand Down a Bit! Ah the days of the good old Navy Lark! :-) |
|
27 Sep 10 - 06:01 AM (#2994341) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: GUEST,Patsy Disasters like the sinking of the Titanic was bound to happen at some point and unfortunately incidents like this helps prevent mistakes being made again. Now if a woman had been driving we might not be having this conversation! |
|
27 Sep 10 - 11:48 AM (#2994531) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: The Fooles Troupe ... would we have finished packing and left the port yet? :-P |
|
27 Sep 10 - 11:23 PM (#2994934) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Skivee My knowledge of hydrodynamics is a bit sketchier than aerodynamics. That being said. Several years ago I saw a large scale model of RMS Titanic at the National Geographic Explorers Hall several years back. My first thought on seeing how small the rudder was in relation to the hull, was that it was about 1/4th what I expected. It may not have been the cause of the sinking, but my gut tells me that it didn't help a lick. The "wrong way turn" thing seems unlikely to me, but I don't have a dog in this fight either way. |
|
27 Sep 10 - 11:27 PM (#2994937) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Skivee Sorry for the poor editing skills above. |
|
28 Sep 10 - 12:33 AM (#2994955) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: The Fooles Troupe While a rudder is essential on a ship that uses screws, the rudder by itself (irrespective of size) doesn't do much, depending on the speed the ship is traveling. The screws run at high or low speed, in forward or reverse, and occasionally one run forward and one run in reverse will have a lot more turning effect, especially when the ship is almost stationary. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 04:04 PM (#3006303) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: JHW Just remembered at an early age I wrote a song about the Titanic and (crossthreading a bit) sang it on the pier ballroom stage at Cleethorpes, my first festival. Pete Betts used to sing it. I see (searching) that it got a mention on Mudcat this year:- Subject: RE: Lyr/Chords Req: Sinking of the Titanic From: folkypaul - PM Date: 31 May 10 - 07:03 AM A lot of years ago Pete Betts (Betsy) used to sing a song about the Titanic which doesn't appear to be in the DT the chorus went something like: Pull ahead pull around, We're bound for New York town, Titanic is unsinkable Tonight she will go down. PaulO (its actually Full ahead... JHW) |
|
14 Oct 10 - 09:32 AM (#3006812) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: bubblyrat The science of the "Damage Control" aspect of Ship Husbandry and Handling was probably at a relatively unsophisticated level in those days, otherwise ,when it became obvious that the ship was going down by the head,then they would have brought everyone up fom aft,and "counter- flooded" enough stern compartments to correct the trim. The ship would have ended up lying much lower in the water,but LEVEL, and would almost certainly have remained afloat for much,much longer ,barring any sudden drastic deterioration of the prevailing sea state/ weather conditions. But.....nobody seems to have thought of it !! |
|
10 Apr 12 - 08:28 AM (#3336218) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: GUEST,Bluesman There was an interesting story about the Titanic on Radio 4 this morning. I didn't realise 67 Catholics were murdered in Belfast Shipyard during a 75 year period. These ranged from "accidental falls into the deep water" to brutal beatings in store rooms. It seems Belfast shipyard was extremely protestant, and they resented the company employing Catholics. They formed their own Orange Lodge, had their own battalion with the 36th Ulster Division during World War One, and workers from the yard closed down East Belfast on twelve occasions between 1920 - 85 to protest about British government policy favouring equality for Catholics living here. A group from Belfast are presenting an exhibition to highlight the bigotry within Belfast Shipyard to coincide with the anniversary of the sinking. |
|
10 Apr 12 - 02:06 PM (#3336352) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Bonzo3legs Go to the Spanish Inquistion museum in Cordoba and you may change your view! |
|
10 Apr 12 - 07:46 PM (#3336518) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: GUEST,mark s (on the road) bigotry in the Belfast shipyards? I thought all the giant redwoods were in California. |
|
11 Apr 12 - 12:46 PM (#3336773) Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake! From: Little Hawk Chongo says you're ALL wrong about the Titanic, every last one of you! He did polish off about a quart of whisky in the last hour, though, so I think his judgement might be a bit impaired...he keeps going on and on about "Skull Island". |