Main Menu
Recent News
Latest Articles
Random photos


Titanic.com - Titanic News, Photos, Articles & Research | Forum Index
   Titanic TV documentaries
  The Iceberg That Sank Titanic

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users

 

 Bottom   Previous Topic   Next Topic
2

  •  Rate Thread
      Rate this Thread
      Excellent
      Good
      Average
      Bad
      Terrible
Poster Thread Rated:  8 Votes
  •  Anonymous
      Anonymous
Re: The Iceberg That Sank Titanic
#11
Guest_Anonymous
titanic was atv her crusing speed of 21 knots and it would take almost 1 mile two turn compelety turned round and the titanic could not stop the perpelers and start them back in reverse it would take toime for the perpellers to kick in and turn the huge 30 meter high bronze blades ata turning speed that i cant rember lol
Posted on: 2006/10/12 11:03
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  yankeesfan#8
      yankeesfan#8
Re: The Iceberg That Sank Titanic
#12

Joined: 2006/10/15
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
yes but it didn't have to turn around completly
Posted on: 2006/10/15 6:10
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  Anonymous
      Anonymous
Re: The Iceberg That Sank Titanic
#13
Guest_Anonymous
if titanic hit the iceberg head on all that woukld happern to her would be that her front end be crused in and a few people would of being killed but not alas meny as the original accident would of sdone soi wiooud tryed slowing the ship down and hitting the iceberg head on
Posted on: 2006/10/16 11:36
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  Anonymous
      Anonymous
Re: The Iceberg That Sank Titanic
#14
Guest_Anonymous
am I right in thinking that the titanic was going to fast to reverse?

I rember someone telling me but I can't quite rember.
Posted on: 2006/10/16 12:22
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  Anonymous
      Anonymous
Re: The Iceberg That Sank Titanic
#15
Guest_Anonymous
that documentry was really good and it said that the titanics rivits were way to week and all this made it the the ship was really weak and delacuit which madre the voyage evnj more dangers but if the rivoits were weak how comes olympin never sank and made it to the scrappers



Attached file: jpg  olympic 1935 at the scrapers.JPG (21.37 KB)


12893_45336d4b02cd3.jpg 500X253 px
Posted on: 2006/10/16 12:30
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  MGY Friend
      MGY Friend
Re: The Iceberg That Sank Titanic
#16

Joined: 2006/7/7
From New Mexico, USA
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Quote:

titanicboss-disabled wrote:
that documentry was really good and it said that the titanics rivits were way to week and all this made it the the ship was really weak and delacuit which madre the voyage evnj more dangers but if the rivoits were weak how comes olympin never sank and made it to the scrappers


I agree with your last statement. I get tired of pointing the finger of blame at Titanic's rivits and hullplates. People today I think blame the methods that were used back then and not take into consideration that this is what they knew; meaning, that it was not faulty by their standards, just our standards, 94 years later.

Its as if saying that the Confederates lost the battle of Gettysburg because they had muzzel loaders instead of M1 grands. If their guns were made better with modern technology, they might have won!

I guess that I find this discussion irrelovent because no matter how strong her rivits would have been, that iceberg would have opened her up. The forces of physics were just too much.

Good statement about Olympic. Although she did not hit an iceberg like her sister, she did get hit by the Hawk, and the ship rammed a German U-boat and I think she rammed and sank a Nantucket light ship. Her rivits did not cause her doom!
_________________
"Why is it the ship beats the waves
when the waves are so many and
the ship is one?
The reason is that ship
has a purpose".

Sir Winston Churchill


www.mrmarshall.proboards62.com
Posted on: 2006/10/17 14:42
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
Re: The Iceberg That Sank Titanic
#17

Joined: 2005/1/2
From United Kingdom
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
This is the widely belived real ice berg that brought the ship down, ofcourse we can never know if it was, but this was taken in the morning of april 15th 1912 and with no other berg's within mile's of it, it is a good bet that this was indeed the fatal berg. Doesnt seem like much huh?



Attached file: jpg  theberg.jpg (46.53 KB)


4326_4536acb6ddf8b.jpg 593X316 px
_________________
Where the hell did my 1800 posts GO!!!!????? :P
Posted on: 2006/10/18 23:37
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
Re: The Iceberg That Sank Titanic
#18

Joined: 2005/1/2
From United Kingdom
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Quote:

MGY Friend wrote:
Quote:

titanicboss-disabled wrote:
that documentry was really good and it said that the titanics rivits were way to week and all this made it the the ship was really weak and delacuit which madre the voyage evnj more dangers but if the rivoits were weak how comes olympin never sank and made it to the scrappers


I agree with your last statement. I get tired of pointing the finger of blame at Titanic's rivits and hullplates. People today I think blame the methods that were used back then and not take into consideration that this is what they knew; meaning, that it was not faulty by their standards, just our standards, 94 years later.

Its as if saying that the Confederates lost the battle of Gettysburg because they had muzzel loaders instead of M1 grands. If their guns were made better with modern technology, they might have won!

I guess that I find this discussion irrelovent because no matter how strong her rivits would have been, that iceberg would have opened her up. The forces of physics were just too much.

Good statement about Olympic. Although she did not hit an iceberg like her sister, she did get hit by the Hawk, and the ship rammed a German U-boat and I think she rammed and sank a Nantucket light ship. Her rivits did not cause her doom!


Actually, after a study by an American naval accident researcher, the Titanic's rivet mixture (slag) was wrong meaning they perished under less pressure than they should of. For those who don't know, slag is a mixture that is I guess supposed to make the metal stronger, however getting it wrong can make them weaker in the 1st place. Lot's and lot's of tiny fractures in the metal of the rivet's meant it they just gave way to the pressure of the berg. Bursting basically, leaving a good inch wide hole for water to come in. If we take into consideration, lot's and lot's of these rivet's did this, it would explain how the water was gettin it. The documentary also went into explain about how water was actually coming in from the bottom. Will have a look for it and tell you the name, it was a great documentary. Very scientific experiment, couldnt see a flaw in what the guy said really.
_________________
Where the hell did my 1800 posts GO!!!!????? :P
Posted on: 2006/10/18 23:42
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  MGY Friend
      MGY Friend
Re: The Iceberg That Sank Titanic
#19

Joined: 2006/7/7
From New Mexico, USA
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Interesting Martyn. I wish I could have seen that documentary.

Although this scientific study of the mixtures in the iron is interesting, I still seem to think it is somewhat irrelovent to an extent.

I remember Charles Pellegrino in "Ghosts of the Titanic" stating that he saw puncture wounds in the side of the ship near the bottom hull, as if a bazooka had been fired at the ship.

He also stated that a (research ship?) he was on hit a small berg or growler, and it produced a similar puncture (this was modern day steel mind you).

I guess maybe the difference in metal quality could have produced more flooding, but I seems to me if the iceberg could punch a hole the size of a coffee mug in the middle of a hullplate, not many rivits on earth (no matter how they are made) could stand against that force. I don't know!

Do you know if they ran tests to see if modern day steel could stand up the the same damage (other than hitting a chunk of steel with a hammer as they did on previous documentaries?)

Its topics like this that really make me wish they could really see that iceberg damage under the mud!
_________________
"Why is it the ship beats the waves
when the waves are so many and
the ship is one?
The reason is that ship
has a purpose".

Sir Winston Churchill


www.mrmarshall.proboards62.com
Posted on: 2006/10/19 14:50
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
Re: The Iceberg That Sank Titanic
#20

Joined: 2005/1/2
From United Kingdom
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Pretty sure there is all sort's of data on under the mud damage using sonar but I don't have that info to hand so think we can leave that as a discussion for further on.

To my recollection they did not run the test on modern steel, I remember they employed an english firm to remake steel to the exact specification's of the original ship. Then put it in a sort of clamp and tested it, it perished well under the estimate that would rule such an idea out, so basically the outcome of the documentary was that the rivet's did have a major role in how the ship sank, if not the biggest, still there must have been all sort's of gashes from the berg to aid the sinking process. The metal sample used was then compaired to the real titanic steel (sample taken from the big piece) and both suffered the same sort of problems with the small crack's formed by the slag mixture. Although they did not test for the difference in today's steel, I am fairly sure there was a mention that today's steel is at the very least 30% stronger. Plus the fact today our ship's (modern ones from like the 80s onwards) are double if not triple hulled so it's a bit unfair to compare the two in that respect. So therefor I would agree somewhat to you'r statement,

'I still seem to think it is somewhat irrelovent to an extent'

The experiment was a bit more scientific as you can read from up there than hittin a chunk of iron with a hammr lol!

The documentary also went into great detail about who was to blame for the sinking, I bet hardly any of you would point the fingure at the calafornian's operator, when infact it was he who did not encode the message properly (as in saying it is an urgent important message) so the Titanic operator's were justified to an extent in not bothering, they had work to do. Still you cant blame him, he was only trying to do his job, but you see, smll error like that contributed to the sinking.

So much fuss is also made about how the lookout's did not have binocular's so they could not see. Irrelvant, back then spotter's used there eyes and only used the binocular's to confirm a sighting, so if anything having them would of slowed the message getting to the bridge as they would check first with the binocular's. Also in a pitch black night like that with no moon or wave's binocualr's would make no differnece really, and the fact it was so cold impeeds your eye sight anyway.

I could go on and on, so Instead I will go find out the name of this documentary and tell you all when I find it .

Good day,

Martyn
_________________
Where the hell did my 1800 posts GO!!!!????? :P
Posted on: 2006/10/19 15:51
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
 Top   Previous Topic   Next Topic
2


 


 You cannot start a new topic.
 You can view topic.
 You cannot reply to posts.
 You cannot edit your posts.
 You cannot delete your posts.
 You cannot add new polls.
 You cannot vote in polls.
 You cannot attach files to posts.
 You cannot post without approval.



Copyright © 2006-2012 Titanic.com
Home Photos Advertise Link to us