Well thank you for telling me that. I appreciate it. You could have been a liitle bit more rude though.

Thats why I gave a direct way to get to an answer, by showing "Unkeptsoul40" an exact series of posts directed to perhaps an answer. Because this is a new member I thought perhaps doing this would enable them to just find what they were looking for. Obviously by their posting about the matter on this thread they didn't see the recently discussed one about the same subject. So I thought i'd send them on over to read what we were talking about. Just trying to help them get answers to their qestions.

I would like to take this opportunity to illustrate to you my friend that new members almost never look at old posts to see if a question has been discussed. Am not saying unkeptsoul40 is like that but the vast bulk do. Notice there are many topics debating the same subject, 2 or 3 on the switch theory etc. Could we please look at older threads please and see if your question is answered. Case in point if I wanted to find the answer to this thread I would look at the 'what if she hit head on', because common since dictates the ships speed and turning rate may be discussed there. Thank you

Hey unkeptsoul40, take a look at my two posts in the Titanic Historic section under "what if she hit head on?". This may shed some light on your puzzling questions.

Yes it is very probable that the ship would have missed the ice-berg

If the Titanic were to continue running at its speed before they ordered the engines to be thrown into reverse, would it have actually hit the Iceberg?