sad really to think about it, how long did they see the iceberg before they hit it

I don't know off the top of my head but they were fairly close. There were several reasons given for that. The crowsnest watch crew did not have binoculars, they were left accidentally in port. I always wondered why the didn't give them a pair from the bridge since in their place I'd rather have my bridge officer inconvienced than limit the visiability of my lookouts. The sea was calm so there were no telltale signs of water breaking against the berg sides. There is also speculation that under the right conditions one side of a berg will not be very reflective. I forget what the reason for that is but it is possiable that the berg they approached was like this which combined with the other factors made it very difficult to see.

I agree that if Murdoch ordered her turned at full-speed,she
would have missed the iceberg. The head-on theory I don't agree
with though. Even "if" she would have stayed afloat,the argument
would have been whether or not that call would have been ethical.
You think Ismay had a tough time? Try explaining why you
deliberately crashed head-on into an iceberg;knowing there are
innocent lives on board. If Titanic hit the iceberg head on,she
would have either capsized,or she would have sank quicker.
I strongly believe Mr. Murdoch did the right thing.

Thanks everyone.

This clears the rudder theory up a bit. Amazing to think that a 101 ton rudder could be too small. Just reminds us all about the size of this magnificent ship.

Thanks everyone

I wouldn't go so far as to say she would have missed the berg because we don't know how far out the spur reached but chances were greater and the damage if she did hit probably less. As for striking head-on, she almost certainly could have survived that collision since that was exactly the type of collision the designers had planned for. She might not have been navigable afterwards and might have even eventually foundered but she would have stayed afloat long enough for rescue to arrive. Remember the difference that doomed her was just one compartment. If they could have contained the flooding in just one of those five she would not have foundered.

I agree that Mr. Murdoch did exactly what he was supposed to do, exactly the right thing by the book, just in this case it produced exactly the wrong result. If he did anything different the ship probably wouldn't have sunk, most of the passengers and crew would have made it to New York alive and well and Mr. Murdock would have been keelhauled in the investigation and lost his rank and standing probably for life. Life is funny that way sometimes.

Quote:

There was no stoping the ship whatsoever

and your right, binoculars would have spotted it out

True. True.

Quote:


Let's clear this small bit up, many people say that the rudder on the Titanic was too small for her size, but from data that exists from Olympic's sea trials the time in which it took her to change direction to another, is fine even today it's more than acceptable. So if Olympic's ruder was fine for her size so was Titanic's

Well then that leaves the question remaining for discussion: Was Titanic's rudder big enough?

Yes it was.