by running the engines full astern was not enough ship was to big and heavy to stop all of a sudden.

some say if the ship turned to her right she would have cleared the iceberg. others say she would have been better off if she just rammed into the iceberg head-on.
it's a mystery. ...there seems to be a lot of those surrounding the titanic.
*juliet*

Hydrodynamically speaking, the larger the rudder, the faster the rate of turn the ship can move upon. This causes the stern to swing faster and pivot usually somewhere amidships.

More importantly, the faster the screws(propellers) turn in their respective directions, the faster the ship can move to the port or starboard. As the props make for faster revolutions, more water becomes displaced up and over the blades making for better control of any vessel. Nevertheless, like any large vessel, they turn slowly, but experienced seaman know that faster speeds allow for better control, depending on such things as the current and her waterline draft.

When 1st Officer Murdoch rushed over to the engine order telegraph to bring the vessel to "Full astern," he took off all the headway of the ship. This is now known to especially effect how fast the vessel turned away from the iceberg.
Keep in mind that it takes a few minutes for the engineers in the engine room to make their efforts so as to reverese the direct of the screws and begin a opposite direction. Not also that, but her forward moment is further lost as the props in the water must now begin their movement in the opposite direction. Back wash can be seen on the surface of the water as this is happening. A very good illustration on most of this was seen in James Cameron's 1997 [i:2d671e1122]Titanic[/i:2d671e1122].

As Juliet mentions, the vessel would have perhaps remained afloat if the doomed ship rammed it's destiny head on. Forcing the steel inward would puncturing no holes in the hull since naval architects design ships to withstand such a impact. Although this can only be assumed, it's not a guarantee, but its' still accepted theory in the maritime field.

Obviously we cannot be too sure but on the film, they seemed to have had no idea what to do once being on course with the iceberg. Is this correct? Anyway, maybe if they turned right instantly they would have cleared the iceberg by some considerable distance.

If they did go on directly at it the iceburg, it would still have most likely crushed the bow where most the Crews Quarters were; If they chose to do that, I think they would have tried to evacuate that area if it was possible. But if they didn't they would lose a load of crew members and maybe some Third Class passengers . If [i:41a9525bf1]Fleet[/i:41a9525bf1] would have had his [i:41a9525bf1]"Binocs"[/i:41a9525bf1] as he nick-named them on that night, then the she may have been able to dodge it.

[i:41a9525bf1]3rd Officer Morris [/i:41a9525bf1]was right when he said on the night, [i:41a9525bf1]"It's as pale as death,"[/i:41a9525bf1] :?

an iceberg only shows one eighth of its size on the surface of the water, quite a few of the survivors claim it was about 100ft tall, so that means there would have been another 700 ft under the surface of the water.
if titanic had rammed straight into the iceberg, its highly likely that she would have still got punctred by the ice shelves below the waterline, and with the bow crushed also she would have sank alot quicker, resulting in even more deaths than there already was.

Mr. Titanic,
You said, ...
'More importantly, the faster the screws(propellers) turn in their respective directions, the faster the ship can move to the port or starboard. As the props make for faster revolutions, more water becomes displaced up and over the blades making for better control of any vessel. Nevertheless, like any large vessel, they turn slowly, but experienced seaman know that faster speeds allow for better control, depending on such things as the current and her waterline draft.

When 1st Officer Murdoch rushed over to the engine order telegraph to bring the vessel to "Full astern," he took off all the headway of the ship. This is now known to especially effect how fast the vessel turned away from the iceberg.
Keep in mind that it takes a few minutes for the engineers in the engine room to make their efforts so as to reverese the direct of the screws and begin a opposite direction. Not also that, but her forward moment is further lost as the props in the water must now begin their movement in the opposite direction. Back wash can be seen on the surface of the water as this is happening. A very good illustration on most of this was seen in James Cameron's 1997 Titanic.' ...
and while this is true for the most part, when engines are reversed or even run at high speeds, an effect called cavitation comes into play, which would decrease the effective thrust from one or more screws, thereby causing even more loss of directional control. There just doesn't seem to be a definitive answer to this question. Hindsight typically is a lot better than anything available at the time of the emergengy, and second guessing the orders given that night will only lead to more questions, but as a famous Admiral once said, 'Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!'
Let not my ramblings sway your opinions until you have tried and proved my assertions, meanwhile, keep an open and inquiring mind.
Will

At a Titanic exhibition I went to, they claimed it a fact that if she would've hit head on it would not have sunk.

hmmmmmm........ :?
think think......
no nothings coming to me!

if she would have hit the iceburg head on they would have stayed aflot and alot less lives would have been lost