Hi!

I don342200231t think it342200231s a silly question!

I think the main problem centres around the ship342200231s speed. It342200231s my personal opinion that by the time of the collision Titanic was moving through the water at a speed of 22 302275 to 23 knots. She had not slowed much before the collision, which means that [i:e317900550]the[/i:e317900550] iceberg fell behind the ship before she stopped completely. We also have Captain Smith ordering 342200230slow ahead342200231 and 342200230slow astern342200231 before midnight, which would have altered the ship342200231s position further. So no-one could have climbed off the ship onto the iceberg because by the time the ship stopped the iceberg may have been a mile or two away. Another problem would have been the 342200230berg342200231s slipperyness. I suppose it342200231s likely that anyone could have just slipped off.

It342200231s a good idea with regard to the flattish iceberg, and finding one nearby, but even if the ship had not been damaged it would have taken time to find one 342200223 perhaps all night. If the ship had initially been estimated to sink in 1-1 302275 hours according to Thomas Andrews, then it would have been known that there was little time, and that moving the ship would accelerate the flooding. Even then, transferring people is very difficult at sea 342200223 it342200231s bad enough from one ship to another, not to mention an iceberg.

That342200231s my opinion anyway. I am sure others might disagree.

Kindest regards,

Mark.

I thought that the collision would have stopped the ship with in feet of the berg but if your correct then that would explain it.

Hi!

It's been debated. Even if the engines had been reversed prior to the collision, which I don't believe, then it would have taken the ship some time to stop.

Kindest regards,

Mark.

she was going pretty fast. but i heard somewhere, i think it was national geographic, that if she was going a little bit slower or a little bit faster, the collusion wouldntve have happened like it is now, or if murdoch was a second faster or slower it wouldve made a big difference. but thats what i heard and mike, i have to agree with you on that.

Ok, first of all, yes, it is true that if the Titanic had gone full speed ahead towards the Carpathia, then they would've taken on more water at a faster speed. Even if the Titanic got closer,the Carpathia would not have been able to see it, because the crew had already turned in for the night. Secondly, the iceburg that the ship hit was above AND below water. The top of the iceburg sticks out of the water, creating an allusion that the burg is that big, but really, it is massive underneatht the surface. Rarely will you find "flat" iceburgs. Even if they had thought about getting of the ship and onto the burg, they couldn't have. They couldn't have, because at the speed the ship was going, they would have been miles from the iceburg by the time all the passengers got blankets and matresses. And even if the ship did stop at the iceburg, once they got on the burg, how would they be able to communicate with ships? If the the people froze in the water and were getting hypothermia, then why wouldn't they get hypothermia on the iceburg? They would all get frostbite and more people would've died than if they abandoned ship. And lastly, Dr. Robert Ballard and his team of experts concluded that had the titanic hit at a different angle, there would not have been nearly as much damage. Also, the speed would not have mattered, it would have been the closness of the burg and the ship. The closer together they were, the bigger the amount of pressure, thus the deeper the insition in the ship.

ookay. first of all, i have to say that the crew of the carpathia hadnt turn in. some people on board were still awake, and thats how they got the message. the iceberg does stick out of the water and about 2/3 of it is under water if not more, (it could be 7/8, im not sure). there would be no point in leaving the ship and getting onto the iceberg, if the ship did get on the iceberg. it is true that if they had hit the iceberg in a differetn angle then the impact wouldnt have been this big and probably not fatal, but the speed and the time and the distance were the facts that were fatal to the titanic.

P.S. i might have misunderstood you, titanicsmart, and please correct me if i did.

no, you were right u made a good point

thank you, sorry if i was rude, though.

Titanic could have avoided the icebergs completly. The ship could have gone around the south way instead of the north way. You know...How ships and planes travel in semi circles to travel faster? Well if they went the other way then they could have avoided the icebergs. The chose scenary over saftey.

My understanding is the watch crew on the Californian saw rockets but they thought they were 'company signals' not party rockets. The various sources I've read on it never really explain that but I have to assume that ships of the same company would signal each other with rocket signals.

I know there has been a discussion of various things Captain Smith may have done to include getting underway again. I don't know answer as to whether that would have impacted the rate of flood or not. I think the probable answer is that by time the Captain realized that the Californian was not going to respond to his various signal attempts Titanic was no longer navigable. The boilers had dumped most of their steam load, would have taken hours to rebuild and she was listing badly towards the bow. They also had no way of know the extent of the damage to bow, so they had no way of knowing what would happen if they started the engines again.