10 Mistakes That Sank The Titanic | The History of The Titanic | Channel 5  

Yes in 1980

Back in 1911

Yes and it sank

No

Channel 5 no

Yeaaaah wasn’t it ultimately too many chambers were breached and took on water? I’ve heard usually about 2 (forget the word) hull compartments can take on water and still float before it becomes an issue. Another ship made an error on not filling their empty fuel tank with seawater and it ended up listing on its side further than what it was designed to do when it collided with a ship, resulting in it sinking. You’re deffs right though

@@cassoIa And it was the fire in the the coal holds, (that was burning for a week), that weakened the steel.

@@Missditabomb actually the fire might have actually given the titanic almost triple the amount of time before it sank. Because they had to move all of the coal to one side of the ship to stop the fire, the ship was balanced out keeping it from tipping inward and rolling over. Instead that’s why the bow sunk and the stern lifted out of the water which you wouldn’t think would happen with damage to just one side of the ship.

The type of damage "Olympic" suffered was the exact sort of damage that was envisioned when the ships were designed. The watertight compartments acted like they were supposed to.

@@madisonmozingo9983 interesting comment. I hadn't thought about this, nor seen this posted before. Do you know this (source) or just speculation?

@@Xb0x_XR i know why, philips was listening to a distant frequencey and the californian stepped on it surprised philips with the loud noise. Doesnt change the fact they should have listened to any of the previous ice warnings and not been going full speed at night. Buck stops with the captain at the end.

@@alanluscombe8a553 he was right a little rude but right

That's not the way I understood it. It was said that a message had gone to them but one of the workers put it on the desktop with a paperweight on it and was going to take it over to let them know but instead got caught up in worrying more about the passengers messages that were coming in and out and he got sidetracked and never delivered that message.

@@snealon802 Given that they had received several warnings about ice earlier in the day, I'm not sure another warning from the Californian would have made a difference.

@@alanluscombe8a553 the captain went further south than the course was supposed to to try to avoid it and it was common to go full speed back then until the need to slow down

For "could of went wrong" ? read "could have gone wrong"

@@iancrumblish7518 you silly billy.

It could have been a lot worse. Imagine if the ship hit the iceberg at the back of ship with the same number of compartments flooded. It would destroy the power and the engines causing the ship to sink faster as the center of mass of the ship is in the back of the ship. Many more would have died.

Willhelm Gustloff: am I a joke top you?

Murphy's law

This comment aged very well

Unless youre a rich person trying to visit the wreck of the oh wait never mind

Like demented senile Joe Biden.

Trial and Error

Yes when her bigger sister ship brittanic hit a mine and sunk in 55min they managed to evacuate everybody as they learnt from titanics mistakes.

Unfortunately true. Try and learn from others as much as possible, and think outside the box too.

I think they knew everything about the improbable possibilities and they acted upon them

It was William Murdoch not robert

It was first officer William McMaster Murdoch.

Before y’all say he’s a fake there was actually a Albert Horswill but he did make a mistake with the name and position of Murdoch

M

...

You can do a CFD analysis on that and let us know.

True.. And thats why She had a small list to port. Like 9 degrees..

That wouldn’t matter anyway because of the design in the bulkheads especially using iron 3 instead of iron 4. Titanic couldn’t within stand this impact. I don’t think opening the desk D gangway door would’ve mattered. Even if it remained closed, that wouldn’t help the lack of lifeboats and the design of the bulkheads. Not only that, the height of the bulkheads were lowered allowing more water to flood in. It flooded in more than 4 compartments. Titanic was weaker on it’s side, but stronger on the front. I think that’s why it was never mentioned in the documentary... it’s a design flaw rather than opening a door. Hypothetically, even if that saved time, what life boats would they use? Maybe the 44 they cut from the boat? Originally it was suppose to have 64... and they decided to have 20... such a dumb decision.

@@imtherealone.6268 Titanic was doomed the moment boiler room 6 and beyond was opened to sea water I agree, however the rate of the sinking would've been slower if it wasn't for this blunder. By how much, who knows but given the size of the door opening was roughly equal 30ft sq (just over double the total iceberg openings at 12 sq feet), this would've gravely increased the sinking rate. When water reached D deck outside, parts of the ship below was still dry hence reports from crew that water began flooding from above as water poured in through a few open portholes above the squash court and Turkish baths. I do personally think that whilst lifeboat capacity for all is essential, the Titanic wouldn't of had the time to launch all of them given collapsible A and B were practically washed off deck as the bridge submerged. Indeed lifeboats launched earlier on in the sinking were half or less than half full, so more boats would've left probably the same. Given the volume of water coming in Titanic held very well right up to the end, but time and ill judgement was against her passengers and crew that night.

@@tonycypriot9401 And do you know why it opened up the sides like a zipper causing water to flood in? The sinking wouldn't have happened if they didn't use weaker iron and made the sides weaker. Whether bulk heads were high or low, it comes down to what it was made of. The sinking doesn't have anything to do whether it's about Deck D or the boiler room or evacuation procedures. The binoculars being taken limiting the view from the crows nest is debatable, but like I said earlier, it comes down to a design flaw, nothing more given the fact iron 3 is weaker than iron 4. You know, if they made the sides stronger, the boat wouldn't have sinked like it did and more lives would've been saved....

You are thinking in a 2021 mindset and not in 1912. Back in 1912 to nearly everyone Titanic was unsinkable. Also it was common practice for captains to move their ships through ice fields as fast as possible, so to quickly clear the ice field. Captain Smith did exactly as any other captain in 1912 would have done.

@@johnking5174 Captain of Californian did the opposite what you suggest, stopping completely to wait for better visibility in the morning. Cap. Titanic gambling with peoples lives, playing the odds. How does speed improve maneuverability?

@@StillChrist becouse it was in frount of them, titanic was not... yet that’s why they had look outs, they see iceberg ship slows and stops and manoeuvre out of the way, that’s the 1912 standed practice

@aard apel no the operators turned off the telegraph

Titanic was the safest luxury liner in the world, by far surpassing safety features of other Ocean liners. They even had more lifeboats than legally required. Sad thing is that back then you didn't need to have a lifeboat spot for everyone.

Bless him, how's he doing?

Tell him he’s lucky!

OOF

My great grandfather survived as well...because he was black !

@Kolin Mademe stolen

They felt relief not guilt.

They maybe felt a bit guilty months and years later but not then.

@@vmi3463 i dont think its really relieving to see 1500 people dying from the first row. lifelong trauma guaranteed.

@@1no180 I guess to save them the lifelong trauma they should have jumped in the water with them, right? Idiot.

@@vmi3463 Survivors guilt

Davin Peterson If titanic hit the iceberg head on they probably wouldn’t have sunk

if the titanic had hit the iceberg head on there is also just as great a chance that it would have sunk faster and badly injured multiple passengers from the sudden stop of the ship. Bulkheads weren’t designed for ramming into icebergs- the best they could do is survive a collision with another ship and ships are movable and much lighter objects. This means that the entire ship would bear the impact- making it more likely to split apart at the seams. The watertight doors also risk being jammed open. Heading straight for the iceberg at full speed means taking responsibility for numerous deaths even if the ship can still somehow float.

Lavender Skye NO

If they slowed the ship down enough they would have hit the iceberg and fewer rooms would have flooded

And the boiler room would not have flooded

The Titanic was actually the 'sister' ship, OLYMPIC, which was IDENTICAL, and which was SCUTTLED for insurance $hekel$. The OLYMPIC needed many repairs to continue to be a money-maker. The owners decided it was cheaper to bait and switch, then ...SCUTTLE. Of course the media/'history' books are beLIEved by the majority of the dumbed down herd! Most of you cannot discern reality from TV. It was BLOWN UP with explosives in the hold. Many survivors HEARD the explosions before it started to sink.

@@mr.blackhawk142 Yeah that’s not what happened lol. You’re the one who got baited and switched. The Olympic switch theory as well known and been disproven.

The Captain of the Titanic chose speed over safety after the ship received telegrams that warned them of icebergs in the area. Can only imagine what was going through his mind when they determined the ship was doomed and both he and many people were going to die? It was a fool’s folly. This is why so many people are still intrigued by the story of this unsinkable ship. If they would have lowered their speed until daybreak they would have made it.

@@michaelrief4424 Well not only that but had the crows nest watchman had binoculars they may have seen it early enough, had they just rammed it head on, they would’ve been able to seal the front compartments. It was an absolute perfect storm of things, chain of events, that caused her demise. You’re right too, about him going full steam. That’s another of many things that if they were done slightly differently it probably wouldn’t have sunk.

@@djjazzyjeff1232 What a shame radar wasn’t around in that era. If it was they would have been able to steer around the iceberg well ahead of the collision. The other big factor was the iron plate that the ship was built from. It was much more brittle than steel plate. But the whole story is in the History books now and it’s old news. But some folks still don’t get it. I was in New York City a number of years ago at a Florist shop at Chelsea Market and there was a marble bollard out in front of their shop. The shop owner bragged that his father told him it was at the Pier where the Titanic tied up to back when his father worked on the shipping wharfs. You should have seen his face when I told him that the Titanic never made it to NYC.

how completely avoidable is nature?

@@Rand0m0bs3ss10ns he/she wanted a flame thrower on each end of the hull.

@@da_great_mogul how'd that work? I don't actually know how flamethrowers would go on or be used while on a ship

@@Rand0m0bs3ss10ns was a silly joke.

@@da_great_mogul :( i was curioussssss

oh my!

Or climb up to the top of the sideways stern like the head chef

Exactly. The breach due to the coal fire happened WAY after the water was spilling over the top. The ship was doomed before that bulkhead collapsed

There wasn’t any breach of the bulkhead “E” caused by a fire. The door in the coal bunker gave way under the weight of the water that entered it thru the tear in the hull.

Night boat should heave to avoiding floating mines, ship containers accidently falling off containers ships floating, small trees , and slowly melting sheets of ice, flotsam, any buoyant object

true but it probably made everything happen just that little bit faster.

yeah, was only a small opening to v sea finger width but ti was 300 foot long so to many compartnments were compramised, bad rivets was 1 of many reasons she founded.

Noone uses binoculars in complete darkness, only millenials apparently.

Binoculars were used to identify objects, not gazing around.

There were actually a set of lookouts posted on the ship's forecastle that night by either Captain Smith before leaving for dinner or by 1st Officer Murdoch upon taking up his watch at 10:00 PM. Despite myths to the contrary Smith and the bridge were fully cognizant of the fact that ice hazards would be in the general vicinity of the sea they would be navigating through. Two southerly course adjustments to the liner had already been executed by Smith putting the liner's charted course towards New York City to the south of the ice field as they understood it to exist which had been plotted by Smith and either Boxhall or Moody (I forget which one...) in the chart room based on the multiple ice warnings radioed in earlier that day along with their corresponding coordinates. Smith felt fairly confident they were south of the icefield and in the possible event an iceberg lay in the path of the liner the lookouts would of course identify the hazard well early enough to allow for an evasive maneuver with time to spare. Of course they hadn't counted on the unusual atmospheric visual illusions that were present that night.

@@RobbyHouseIV That's really interesting. But then why didn't those forecastle lookouts give the first alarm? Probably Smith should have taken the rather extreme measure of giving them a gun to, say, fire three times if they saw an iceberg ahead.

Yeah I've been on the sea at night, it's terrifying to try and discern where the sky meets the water. I remember only being about to see the water about 50 miles out? The moon was around last quarter I wanna say, def was there but wasn't too bright

LOL so ironic

he didnt tell him to go away when he was told about the iceberg field that message was a long time earlier - he was actually told to be quiet after the radio was just fixed and the operator was going through the mass pile of messages.

NN! I work for International Paint lol

Interesting. But is there a chance that being underwater for a century may have weakened it too?

@@DilanGilluly Possibly, but not very likely as regards to the Charpy impact specimens. These were as close to centered between the inner and outer faces of the hull plate section as possible to minimize the effects of immersion.

An interesting little tidbit of knowledge. However I dont think it has much merit. We've known for a century or more that the total area of hull damaged was about 3sq/ft. Infact if you look closely at the mosaic of the bow section you can just about see an opening just above the mud line on the starboard side before the bow disappears into the mud. This slit/opening is roughly where tje coal bunker of boiler room 5 is. Meaning it could very well be iceberg damage

try test on metallurgical similar section at same temp. from iron sample manufactured in more recent dry years ?

Interior sections of a steamship could get pretty warm and stuffy, even with freezing temperatures outside. It wasn't uncommon on non-military ships for people (especially in the lower decks closer to the boilers) to open port holes and windows to get a little air. It wouldn't likely have made it uncomfortably cold inside, especially for the Scandinavian passengers, which made up a sizable portion of third class. There were regulations against leaving port holes open on military ships, but it happened anyway. Was a factor in the Britannic's sinking a few years later.

@@recklessrex Thanks for the information. It makes me wonder how much longer the ship could have stayed afloat if the port holes were closed.

@@canadianfortrump4057 I'm no physicist or whatever, but my instinct says it's not likely it would have actually bought them enough time to make a difference for most of the people that ended up in water, since it only takes like 15 minutes to freeze to death, but those last two collapsible boats that were basically swept off the deck as the water rushed up would probably have had an easier time of it, maybe launching properly with neither ending up upside down or missing oars, they could even have been able to take on a few more people, but unfortunately we can only wonder

@@canadianfortrump4057 I love your name man

@@thecomedypilot5894 Thanks, I'm guessing you're also a Trump supporter.

Yeah you know that thing that happened? Yeah, you should've just, didn't.

Don’t speed through ice fields!!

@@carolbell8008 That was Cpt Smith's big mistake

HMS Hawk,.." That Captain Smith, why , He CUT ME OFF !!!!!!."

In 1912, radio was still a novelty and there weren't many regulations about it. That's why the Californian operator just turned it off for the night. And according to one version of the movie "S.O.S. Titanic", the Carpathia operator was just about to turn in and only got the message at the last moment by accident; don't know if that's true or not. One of the changes made after the Titanic inquiry was a 24-hour radio watch.

@@williamwingo4740 That is true. Plus California warned Titanic about ice ahead of time.

More than that. Loads of things were at fault. The design, White Star Line, the captain, Murdock. The wireless operator, the Californian. Loads of things cause the boat to sink.

@@LittleImpaler Well the California operator told him multiple times that hey there is ice before going to bed. Because of high frequency the Titanic operator was getting head aches from it so he asked them to stop communicating. Additionally it was rather natural for wireless operators to go to bed and turn of the wireless at the time, today you have 247 people who take calls and listen to other ships. Plus California was a scapegoat for Titanic. In reality they were farther away. But people eat up that drama with a nearby ship that just never came and ignored Titanic.

Glad you were paying attention. The ship’s discovery in 1985 also put to rest the controversy about its final moments. That’s when they found out that Titanic had in fact split apart as she sank.

She was double bottomed not a total double hull design if she was a full double hull she wouldn't have foundered as the inner hull wouldn't have been punctured

The titanic had a double bottom.

@@timothyreed8417 actually Harlan and Wolfe plans show a double bottom on all three sisters. The Olympic and Britainic were retrofitted after the RMS Titanic sank. The Water Tight compartments were raised and capped. The number of lifeboats were increased and other safety measures were done. If the Titanic had a true double hull construction she would have developed a list and needed help and repair but would have sunk.

@@kirkmorrison6131 the same basic hull plans were used for all three ships: “The Olympic” class. Many changes made to Titanic, were things learned from the sailing of Olympic. After titanic sank many changes made to olympic to upgrade. Britannic was an upgrade of olympic. What happened to titanic was the culmination of many small and insignificant events, that taken separately, would have had impact. But taken together……

There were no open portholes. It was freezing that night.

@@captian1000 Did you watch the video? It specifically mentions open portholes!

Britannic had the open portholes. It was cold as anything the night Titanic sank. (Jan Griffiths).

@@captian1000 The middle of the Atlantic, in mid April. And night time. It would have been easily below 0 that night.

D deck gangway door on the port side

People just denied the truth back then.

@@connorericksonmusic Thing is, that is in the written testimony. Every commentator since then has either overlooked or ignored this small but extremely vital detail.

@@nicholasconder4703 captain smith wasnt even around when the berg first hit he was in his quarters

@@TimeMasterOG Yes, but he was on the bridge after the Titanic came to a full stop. After a preliminary cursory check for possible damage had been done, he then ordered the ship to start moving again, around 5-15 minutes after the collision.

@@nicholasconder4703 The Titanic did not sink. It was made to sink and no one died. 3 days after April 15, that is, on April 18, 1912, it was written in all newspapers and other country newspapers that "all the passengers and crew were saved". But this false narrative still continues. The ship remained there for 7 - 8 years and then after repairs and some modifications in Germany, it was given to England.

For a freak accident there were so many things that ensured she'd sink and as many people as possible would die. Years of many human errors pushed her headlong to make history, to make headlines. To rush. The weather earlier in the year caused the icebergs to be further south than normal. Human pride, greed and arrogance did the rest.

yeah sometimes i wonder if they'd seen it just a little bit *later*, they might have hit it head on and caused less damage But equally, if they saw it just a little bit earlier, they may have missed it entirely

When Lightoller told the court "everything was against us" the court was not impressed and the notion persisted that the accident was yes of the 1/1,000,000 variety

I still hear that rockets at sea mean distress period

True no doubt but what happened to the Titanic was preventable

small question to bring up for the speed thing you mentioned. How fast was the Titanic sailing at that night? I heard from somewhere that she was going at a normal speed and she hadn't even had the chance to get one of the boiler rooms up and running before she went down.

yes, aslo if it was ave or poor weather v berg would have been seen as waves breaking on it n v ship wold hve reduced speed 4 paresger comfort. no colision wood hve happend, it was still

The Titanic did not sink. It was made to sink and no one died. 3 days after April 15, that is, on April 18, 1912, it was written in all newspapers and other country newspapers that "all the passengers and crew were saved". But this false narrative still continues. The ship remained there for 7 - 8 years and then after repairs and some modifications in Germany, it was given to England.

@@mehmetdenek5830 How do you explain that some very prominent rich people were not seen again after what you are calling the non-sinking of the Titanic? Were the hundreds of missing (rich and poor) interned somewhere for the rest of their lives? Or assassinated? If the Titanic did not sink, what is the very large ship found at the bottom of the Atlantic in the area where the Titanic (according to you non-sunken) was lost? What about the artifacts brought up from the wreckage? Are they all fake--faked well enough to deceive experts?

@@elainechubb971 1 - It became The RMS Majestic, which they claim was laid down in 1913. Just one year after Titanic " sank " It didn't operate until 1920 though. They sent it to Hamburg port for the war. A few minor changes were made to " disguise " it from Titanic. Then Germany " gave " it to Britain.

The FIRE AND ICE THEORY as it’s called is indeed irrelevant and also incorrect.

@@victormanuelbisbee7449 Are you referring to a scenario where boiler room six somehow remains undamaged, but the coal bunker of BR.5 is still breached? Because if neither of those two compartments are breached then the ship will not sink. She could survive the first four in a row breached. However if you mean that the coal bunker is punctured by the iceberg... I think she might survive long enough for Carpathia to arrive, possibly. All of Titanic's pumps could pump out 1700 tons of water an hour out. I dont know how fast water would flood into the coal bunker from a 2ft opening but I could assume it's less than that, which would be enough to keep her afloat as long as the pumps continue to keep the coal bunker dry.

niki75 well, boiler room 5 was hit by the berg, by only 2 feet, in the coal bunker,m holding back the water for quite some time.

@@SQUAREHEADSAM1912 That is very true. I guess I'm just worried that the weight of the water in the coal bunker, should the pumps prove inadequate to keep it dry, or water to a minimum will cause her to go further down by the head, causing the water to spill into boiler room six once the water had filled them up.

@@niki75 no they said water was pouring in 15x faster than the pumps could pump out so the pumps wouldn’t of worked. The pressure and everything just came threw especially with water it just doesn’t stop it can get into anywhere and fast and them pumps couldn’t keep up . They talked about it in another documentary that the water was coming in way to fast their was no stopping it and the pumps couldn’t catch up .

The ship was on fire when it left belfast and was burning for days

Derrick Laurie that was common on ships back then. The fire did not contribute to the ship sinking in any way. Survivor testimony (3 separate corroborating testimonies) and lab testing on the steel proves the bulkhead didn’t fail. There’s zero evidence to suggest otherwise.

I can read off the internet aswell, you must have missed the testimony of chief fireman fred barret, who witnessed the fire and observed the damage to the bulkhead, and described a wall of water bursting in from boiler room 6 into boiler room 5, 2 hours after the iceberg hit, but im sure you know better than him

@Derrick Laurie Internet? Nope. I've been studying this class of ship for the better part of a decade and a half... You should read his statement more carefully. George Beauchamp said he saw water in the bunker on the aft side of bulkhead E, right after the collision. So that bunker was already perforated by the iceberg. This means water was on the other side of the bulkhead that had the fire. Barret said he never saw a bulkhead fail... he saw the water at 1:10am, then climbed the ladder to Scotland Road, where he also observed water, which means it was over the boiler room by this time. This is also confirmed by Steward Weat just 20 minutes prior, who spotted water flowing from E-Deck to F-Deck when he was helping evacuate the Turkish Bathes. This location is roughly 50-60 feet aft of where Barret was. The rush of water was most likely caused by the coal bunker doors failing... they were not designed to be water-tight. The bulkhead did not fail... basic physics, chemistry, eye witness accounts, and lab testing have already proved it didn't. This theory is dead.

You say tomato, i say potato, im not saying it was the cause of the sinking but it played a part

At less than a minute to impact, the best they could have hoped was to blunt the strike.

Exactly. It could have been worse and they could have had less time to evacuate.

The fire was actually very large, it started when the ship was on its one and only sea trial between Belfast and the Isle of Mann.

@Daniel B Debatable

the bunker fire actually saved the titanic, without it the ship would probably have capsized

Same, I never heard of port holes being left open. It's crazy if that alone really doubled the water intake. So much happened to go wrong on the Titanic.

By that time they were doomed.

That's a very hard "maybe". In any case, they were stopped in order to avoid shearing off the blades if they were to clip the iceberg. This is what the officers were trained to do. Remember that ships turn from the rear, and it would have been a very near miss had they been able to avoid it. There would have been no room for error, so in that case it could easily have been the stern that hit the iceberg rather than the bow, in which case the propellers would have been destroyed.

It definitely would’ve turned quicker but it’s still a maybe if it would’ve hit the ice berg or not. They probably would’ve had a higher chance of not hitting it if they wouldn’t have stopped the propellers

Nope it's not that. When you turn the bow the stern swings right into the berg. They saved the stern so they didnt damage the propellers but the bow was hit. In that situation they would have had to turn way ahead of time. It didn't have anything to do with propellers.

What if titanic stopped it's propellers and just let the titanic slow it's self

@@simonbaker9386 That would take awhile since it doesn't brake so with the theory of motion it would continue on at its speed losing it much much later.

Yeah because theres literally no footage of the hawk hitting olympic :/

lol no

@@wolfy_girl7737 it is. Though not sure what’s scarier the titanic or queen Mary.

YEAH WE KNOW

I've actually been on the Queen Mary! I went to California for one of those out of state field trips with my high school band and orchestra and we stayed inside Queen Mary. Luxurious experience but kind of horrifying because it reminded me of the Titanic!

...and within sight of shore. Thanks for your comment.

And below the waterline where the battering ram penetrated. They did a real job on Olympic, couldn`t have done better if they tried.

most of the damage is below the waterline. Armoured cruisers of the day were built with large rams that were below the waterline and Hawke's ram went straight into Olympic.

I hear that the fact that only 2 compts were affected helped too

In other words, a series of unfortunate events.

A series of events, that by themselves were small and insignificant, but put them all together.

A series of events that stacked up to create the perfect disaster.

They were just all too high and mighty special the captain he even went over our Lord and siad she was unsinkable

@@Johndonvan861 no one said the Titanic was unsinkable……

Yep; William Pirrie end-rounded and overruled Titanic’s original designer, Alexander Carlisle, on lifeboat accommodations (which led to Carlisle resigning from H & W in protest of it), and look what happened; I wonder how Pirrie felt after Carlisle was ultimately proven right

@aard apel Carlisle’s original lifeboat provision was 64, enough for every soul on board, passengers AND crew; Pirrie went over Carlisle’s head and cut the provision from 64 to 16, enough for only HALF the people on board, because he assumed that the passengers would be both frightened by the sight of all the extra lifeboats and annoyed by the lack of deck space because of them; he added the four collapsible boats in an attempt to placate Carlisle, but, it didn’t work and Carlisle still resigned

@StarShyn it would have been enormously expensive and impractical unfortunately. Not to mention the rivets would have still popped under the pressure. That thing said titanium has fantastic heat resistant properties and likely would not have been deformed like the iron did with the coal fire.

@Dean Keepers there were TWENTY lifeboats in total onboard (16 wooden hulls, 4 collapsibles), and yes, Pirrie WAS following the law; all Carlisle was trying to get Pirrie to see was that there was literally nothing wrong with exceeding the BBoT’s regulations and realising, through common sense, that there was no way to get 2200 to 2500 people into just 16 lifeboats. Pirrie did not want to do anything beyond the bare minimum if he believed it to be detrimental to Titanic’s profit-making potential

@Dean Keepers Yes, that was standard procedure, but, like Carlisle told Pirrie, and I completely agree, the first rule of safety is to think of the unthinkable. Carlisle wanted H&W to do everything in THEIR power to account for any eventuality should Titanic experience a vital disaster while at sea, however unlikely to happen that might be. Why did she break in two and sink? Because she encountered a scenario that she literally wasn’t designed to withstand

all my grandparents got thrown out of cinemas warning people about ships. different times.

that was 82 or 83.... doing a refit on the Q.E.2 whilst moving.... none of the engineers were allowed to show their faces with work clothes on....

Okay this is silly. But I like silly. Thanks for the chuckle

@@Rand0m0bs3ss10nsany time lol.

The berg sure did take it very personally

True but if that was the case there really is no excuse for Smith not slowing down

Very interesting

The overall point fits, but on this one I think you're in the picky category rather than profound. I don't know if you've ever had to hurricane-prep your home or been where there are tornadoes, but there was this notion for a long time that you needed to open the windows to help balance out the pressure as a tornado spins through in order to stave off explosive structure failure. However, you are much more likely to be hideously injured or killed while you are fiddling around at windows--the most dangerous exposure in a storm--rather than hitting it to your basement, interior closet, or even the bathtub for shelter, especially since there are so many other ways that damage will become catastrophic that your house and/or you are goners that the pressure thing won't be a worry anymore. Hurricane wisdom goes through similar flip flops. Many people to this day put criss-cross strips of tape across windows, because they think they're preventing b

Did Brunel boats slow at night? 5 or 6 masts on Great Eastern allow a slower speed. There are no Speed Limit signs out in big Lake or Ocean What damage would ocurr at Speed of 1, 2, 3 knots ?

Humans are dumb when they panic. My species is far superior to yours earthling.

The problem is it would have taken a long time to tell everyone on board and run checks. They had no intercom system.

scuttles would b open due to bad smell, lack of oxygen n lots co2, its a steel room wit alot of people in it, no ac in vos days. yes humans r poor visionaries n capos make bad decisions resulting ion bad tings happening.

I think it is

Yes it is.

No

Ya

It most definitely is. I'd recognise that footage anywhere. It's a shame that the documentary speaks about a number of otherwise debunked theories given how hard the THG guys have been trying to put a lot of them to rest.

I did an aerial survey of the area soon after the collision. There were several icebergs within a 50km radius of the collision sight.

@@reganmacneil2578 you did an aerial survey in 1912??

@@reganmacneil2578 How in the world did you do that? xD that was 110 years ago!

@@reganmacneil2578 time travel confirmed: call the cyber police

the "evidence" is the use of lead rivets instead of steel. apparently this must have been documented. what is your evidence this is debunked?

well i think they just included the fire to make it an even 10 things rivets i dont reli know what titanics rivets were made off.... - but it is a fact that iron is more brittle than steel. look it up. this is a fact but everything else ive also heard in other documentaries aswell especially the water mirage. I think you're being really unfair saying this video is very very inaccurate.

@@pierzing.glint1sh76 It was made of steel. I believe

The "RUSH" to get somewhere faster than necessary just because the Captain wanted to. Then he decides to have a seafood platter...the fish get their vengeance.

Yeah I never understood that either. It seems like if they sealed the tops of them once the compartments filled the sinking would at least slow significantly, giving passengers more time to be rescued. Instead they just overflow and the ship sinks like they were not even "water tight" to begin with.

@@bobbygetsbanned6049 The way it's described most often is the "icecube tray" analogy, where you imagine an icecube tray filling with water that spills from one 'compartment' to the next. But this analogy doesn't work very well, because it creates the false idea that the Titanic's hull was a single, long, totally open space with walls that didn't reach the ceiling. In fact, the hull WAS sealed, there were normal decks, walls, and flooring sealing each compartment totally. But the sealing wasn't watertight. The "watertight-ness" is created by ensuring a waterproof sealant is used to cap the joining line where the bulkhead meets the decks below and above it. Remember in the movie, when Jack is handcuffed to the air piping in the Master-at-Arms' office, and water starts coming in? Pay close attention to this scene and you'll notice that the water isn't coming in under a door, it's coming in *under the walls*. That's because these are just normal walls, made with normal dry sealant, which is only airtight. Water can soak it and seep right through, no problem. The sealant along the watertight bulkheads was waterproof. Another issue many may not realize is that the watertight bulkheads had watertight doors that could seal totally closed and stop any flow of water - but the walls above E Deck didn't have watertight doors, only regular doors, which did have small spaces in the frames that held the door. This is another factor that allowed more flooding in the ship

the walls had cork in them for insulation....not watertight at all....

It's to do with the waterline and equilibrium

They would have been watertight if only up to 4 of the front compartments or any other two compartments had been taking up water. They did not need to have a watertight ceiling because the tops of the bulkheads that separated the watertight compartments were well above the waterline. The weight of the water, say only in the first watertight compartments would physically not have been able to push the bow down enough for the ship to tilt enough so that the aft bulkhead of compartment No. 4 would be pushed below the water line, meaning water would not have been able to spill over into compartments No. 5 and then from there to No. 6 and so on. So while the bow would've been pushed down considerably, the ship would've been able to stay afloat pretty much indefinitely.

Don’t come here to make cringe memes

That one iceberg sure took it personally that ships were labeled unsinkable

And the movie of the same name was over 3 hours long.

@@davidharrison3711 obviously, James Cameron wasn’t going to focus entirely on the sinking. He said “if you couldn’t appreciate the ship, then you couldn’t appreciate the sinking.” He wanted to show what life was like onboard in those four days before the collision occurred. So that when it happened, it would have as much of an impact on the audience as the iceberg did on the ship itself.

@@davidharrison3711 LOL

Knew I recognised it!

@@clodaghohanlon2474 too bad this documentary didn’t use any of James Horner’s score from the 1997 film.

Yet a 3rd class woman had a greater chance of survival than a 1st class man due to the expendable male principle.

@@adamlea6339 I mean technically yeah, but like... like I agree with your point but I feel like that example doesn't really accurately express it. Hear me out, okay, so according to the current estimates, 118 first class men died, and 89 third class women died, a difference of 29, but there were also less third class women than first class men in the first place, so the ratio for this particular example isn't really all that helpful to your point on its own. Still favors the women, just not by that much. I think an alternative statistic that demonstrates your point much better is third class women and children combined (244 total, 103 survived, 141 died) compared to *second* class men (168 total, 14 survived, 154 died)

@@adamlea6339 Actually heck just third class women (165 total, 76 survived, 89 died) demonstrates it even better. Almost half versus almost none. I'm not sure why I added the kids in there...

@@adamlea6339 Actually, first-class men died too. I've seen the memorial plaque just inside the side entrance to Macy's on 34th St. in NYC (the flagship store). It's to the two Strauses, members of the family that owned Macy's and Abraham & Straus. They were elderly, and he refused to get into a lifeboat because "women and children first," and she refused to get into one without him, because they had been married so long and she wouldn't leave him. So they both went down with the ship. This incident is in the film "A Night to Remember" (by far the best Titanic film, in my opinion).

They most likely would've given the fact the Titanic nearly avoided the Iceberg and that's why it scratched the side of it. If they had just turned and left it being full speed ahead, they most certainly would've avoided the significant damage that caused the Titanic to sink.

Interesting

A lot of the information in the video is false so if your writing a essay about the Titanic go to Titanic Honor and Glory’s channel they have accurate information

Did they gave one.? RC

There is no such thing.

@@GeorgiosD90 yes, there is a big light in the bow of the Titanic. Look the circle near the top of the pointed front of it. The captain chose not to use it

@@steveyeager6177 That is because you cannot use a light, when there is nothing for the light to reflect on and the distance the light can travel would not be far enough to be able to see an iceberg sooner. If something would be useful, people do not choose not to use it for absolutely no reason. Simple.

@@GeorgiosD90 the captain chose not to use the bow light because he was old and the light on a ship was new. Having the light, comparable to the light on a train, would allow you to see much farther ahead than with no light. That's why cars have them.

This comment needs more likes

#7 too was another amongst many that were lowered less than full. #7 was the first boat lowered and it was the one that took William Thompson Sloper who allegedly got off dressed as a woman. He never did . What happened, he was the first to register at the Waldorf-Astoria and the press totally knew so of course there was tons of reporters waiting and hoping for the scoop of a lifetime. His brother Harald and his dad who were there with him also kept telling reporters no (since William had already scribbled an exclusive for a friend of his) but the reporters being the way they oftentimes are started being more pushy and Harald intervening "perhaps a bit too forcefully" according to Walter Lord. (I wonder if Harald maybe told them to get lost?) Anyway the one reporter there from the New York Herald thought he would use the incident to what he thought was a way of teaching the Slopers more respect for the press. He put a story together which stated - guess what - that William Thompson Sloper left the sinking Titanic dressed as a woman

It is called “tiller” commands...

Tiller commands. EXPLANATION: Hard to Starboard = turn the ship to port. Hard to Port = turn the ship to starboard.

That is one possibility, although it's disputed.

I had read that the helmsman on Titanic had previously (for a long time) been a helmsman on a sailing ship. On sailing ships the helmsman faced the rear, because he couldn't see forward between the sails. So when you want to go to port (left) and you're facing rear, you spin the wheel to the right (which would be to the left if you're facing forward) and when he was told "hard to port" he spun the wheel to the right, which was starboard, out of trained reflex action, and the ship momentarily turned to starboard (right) before the mistake was caught. and then he turned the wheel left. But this was a long-enough delay that the ship hit the iceberg instead of just narrowly missing it, off to its right (starboard). Confusing.? Turn left right here. This scenario is very plausible.

I saw it on tv a while ago, maybe early 2020, on British tv

The Smithsonian has a documentary on the sinking that goes into a lot of detail about what went wrong.

I agree 👍 captain Crunch Smith was an absolute idiot and shouldn't have been allowed to commander a rubber duck in a bathtub filled with lavender soap 🤔 as well as titanic

Yes, Captain Smith made substantial mistakes, and it is amazing he gets a free pass from many people. The buck stops with the captain.

You seem to blame the crew. If they had not been properly trained, surely the blame is for the White Star company, which hadn't trained them properly. Part of the problem is that the ship was brand-new, so none of the crew knew her well. In recent times, a new liner or cruise ship would have a "shake-down" cruise before sailings really began, so everyone could get used to the layout, their duties, etc.

@@elainechubb971 captain Crunch Smith had 40 years of sailing experience he should have had common sense of the dangers that nite. He alone was responsible for blunders of his crew and ship

They did NOT reverse the engines.

@@timothyreed8417 The engine telegraph was set to reverse when we visited the wreck the day after it sank, foolish earthling!

they never reversed

I would bring that idea up with the people at National Geographic. Among them is the man who actually discovered the wreck, Dr. Robert Ballard.

Instead of just using the animation from THG they should also have listened to what the guys from THG have been saying about what they found out about the sinking. THG have actually debunked quite a lot of the things that this video presents as facts.

That's reportedly what sped up the Britannic's sinking too

Attaching any type of crane or anything to pull it up would rip it apart. It’s eroded away to nearly nothing. The stuff I’ve heard is that by 2030 there’ll be nothing left. It’s a great thing that we’ve gotten down there several times and gotten the pictures and video that we have. But I don’t really think it should be moved even if you could. It’d be a little like removing a graveyard. There were over 1,500 people still on the ship when it went down.

They can't because it's been 109 years since titanic sank and even if it is retrieved there's probably alot of bacteria in there built up from it being in the Atlantic Ocean for so long

The ships remains would be destroyed the mass amount of salt in the ocean would decay the remains

They could’ve. Even if they would’ve seen it a few seconds earlier that could’ve possibly saved the ship.

@@silence3314 Go outside in the dark and try using binoculars idiot.

@@silence3314 no it wouldn’t

@@silence3314 If anything, binoculars would have hindered the efforts of the lookouts to locate icebergs because binoculars limit your field of vision.

Maybe not, but Smith should have discussed it with the lookouts and asked if they wanted to borrow his own.

Correct. They almost certainly did not reverse the engines. The only source of this claim is Officer Boxhall, while Lightoller insisted the engines were only ordered "All Stop". Regardless, killing the engines and stopping the props will stop the flow of water over the rudder, which is the only reason a rudder works at all - it must have moving water running across it on both sides in order to provide steerageway. The crew still crippled the ship's steering by stopping the engines. Had they maintained speed, she may have avoided the collision.