you never stop posting do you?

Quote:

Yes the watch officer was just following the prevailing logic of the time. As I said somewhere this was a great example of how you can do all the right things and still be wrong.

Its often misunderstood that Titanic and her sister's did not have big enough ruders. But The ships turning rate is perfectly acceptible by todays standards.

I was under the impression Red rockets where used for distress signals. and that Titanic did not have any.

I dont think reversing the engines helped things either.

One thing I dont get is why did Titanic or Olympic have the water tight bulheads all the way up, a mean it's like an ice cube tray how they spill over, so why did andrews not feel it nessesary to extend them all the way up?

mmm smith was eager to crash it

Why did Andrews not extend the bulkheads all the way up. Not doing that meant the water spilled over. No point in them, if they did not go all the way up.

One of the many mystery's.

They probably didn't think that a ship of its size back then could possibly sink. They thought that steel, the only strong material back then for building ships was strong enough so that nothing could penetrate it.

The man was an enginere, he must of known if such an insodent took place, the ship would founder. That said, he may of been over ruled.

yeah he should have done his job better

Quote:


When desigining things you can only anticipate realistic things. Exceptional damage can't be predicted.

But, anyhow, even if the watertight compartments had tops to them, the weight of the water alone would pull the ship down.

but if they overflowed from one into another, the ship would still be heavy with the water and maybe sink, it wouldn't make much difference.