yeah nothing could really penetrate the thickness, not the titanic anyway

u have to remember that the bergs were thick for that time of year they werenormly futher north so the path they took was the normal way to avoid the ice but for some odd reason the bergs were still there so by the time they got the frist warning it was to late to not to go that way

indeed yes

If it was up to me I would of put the life boats at the back, if I had to keep the first class pasengers happy. Much like how some of the Britannics life boats where kept.

Now I said this before at a meeting on Titanic and was told this was a stupid idea. But Titanic went down evenly which ment loading life boats and getting them away was easy, but what if it did't go down head first. What if it tipped over then my idea would be just as viable as the one used on the real ship. Many people forget that the Titanic was the perfect sinking ( if u can call it that), when I say that is that evenly sinking and this allowed them to load life boats easily. If u compare that to the Lusitania sinking it was in comparison better. If Titanic went down in 17 mins then it would't matter about life boats would it.

I just was wanting to know also, how did the board of regulations decide how many boats a ship needed. Certainly not on the number of passengers the ship could handel so what was it based on?

I agree. Wether or not passengers wanted a pretty view is a technicality. To not meet saftey standards is blatantly asking for problems. I'm sorry, but I'd rather see a crapload of life boats and know myself and fellow passengers were in good hands than risk hundreds lives lost just to keep first class passengers happy.

In relation to the original post, I'm hard pushed to understand it. What scenec route is there, water is water, I don't see how there can be a scenic route.

Titanic was sailing in a place called the Devils hole, known for ice-bergs. The life boats did't restrict view, they did restrict the deck space for the first class passengers. One other reason for this was because if theyr where lots of life boats, people may feal uncomfortable with them. Titanic and Olympic did not take the nessesary number of life boats, and the fact they did't fooled people into a false sense of security. It was an accident waiting to happen, it could of happened to Olympic or any other ship.

Titanic should of smashed into the berg, think about it, a 46000 ton lump of stell traveling at 25mph, into a block of ice, what do u think will win.

Good day

yea, but different classes had different decks, so it wouldve been in somebody's way, because ive seen that in a documentary.

they had a whole deck for life boats so it would not restrick the veiw

Oh yeah this is my 100rd post

also, they said that the people wouldnt be able to enjoy the sea view and the deck wouldve been too crowded.

In relation to the 'God' reference, it seems very unclear now who started that. It was never the official position of the White Star Line that the ship was unsinkable much less that God couldn't sink it. Although they may have been guilty in their pride of not disputing the belief. The WSL held that the ship had all the most modern safety features rendering it 'virtually' unsinkable. The actual reference is suspected to have come from some person in advertising or even a news reporter not associated with WSL.

Part of the arguement against increasing lifeboat capacity was that launching small boats at sea is an inheriently risky operation and it was felt the water tight bulkheads would ensure the ship stayed afloat long enough for assistance to arrive in an emergency.