Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: F22RaptorDude on March 21, 2011, 08:32:07 PM

Title: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 21, 2011, 08:32:07 PM
Felt like watching it again, its been on my DVR for the past 3 years. I watch it every few months. But seriously who honestly cried at the end?   :lol
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: B-17 on March 21, 2011, 08:38:12 PM
ME--> it was so freaking inaccurate :bhead my girlfriend somehow found it in hersellf to laugh though :bolt
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: EskimoJoe on March 21, 2011, 08:40:41 PM
I've never been able to sit past the first ten minutes.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 21, 2011, 08:41:17 PM
ME--> it was so freaking inaccurate :bhead my girlfriend somehow found it in hersellf to laugh though :bolt
Getting down to the mechanics they got it sorta right. Like when they did full stop and reverse the middle prop stopped in real life and in the movie. Plus the power outages and struggle. I just pay attention to the titanic not the love part.
  Personal Joke: When the scouters are watching for ice burgs they stop and watch Jack and Rose make out n stuff, so ina  way they doomed the titanic  :rofl
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Tupac on March 21, 2011, 08:43:17 PM
I loathe James Cameron.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: PFactorDave on March 21, 2011, 08:44:20 PM
That movie was a farce.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: B-17 on March 21, 2011, 08:46:07 PM
Getting down to the mechanics they got it sorta right. Like when they did full stop and reverse the middle prop stopped in real life and in the movie. Plus the power outages and struggle. I just pay attention to the titanic not the love part.
  Personal Joke: When the scouters are watching for ice burgs they stop and watch Jack and Rose make out n stuff, so ina  way they doomed the titanic  :rofl

yeah, me either. :lol. but beyond the mechanical events, very inaccurate-->passengers not allowed on fo'csle, couldnt get a first-class down to 3rd, and vice versa, stuff like that. sure, some was necessary for the plot, but i guess if you want realism, just watch/read the various accounts of the nights events *COUGH COUGH**NIGHT TO REMEMBER *COUGH**hack-PTOOEY*
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 21, 2011, 09:01:44 PM
yeah, me either. :lol. but beyond the mechanical events, very inaccurate-->passengers not allowed on fo'csle, couldnt get a first-class down to 3rd, and vice versa, stuff like that. sure, some was necessary for the plot, but i guess if you want realism, just watch/read the various accounts of the nights events *COUGH COUGH**NIGHT TO REMEMBER *COUGH**hack-PTOOEY*
Grandpa got me into that movie when i was young, or else i'd be like ewww black and white, which isn't true. I think black and white films are the best. :aok
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Masherbrum on March 21, 2011, 09:37:59 PM
Felt like watching it again, its been on my DVR for the past 3 years. I watch it every few months. But seriously who honestly cried at the end?   :lol

Maybe recreate it.   Just substitute the Titanic for your Dad's truck and the Iceberg for the Mailbox.     Wait I forgot......"you're a great driver".     
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: B-17 on March 21, 2011, 09:42:23 PM
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: -tronski- on March 22, 2011, 01:07:09 AM
I loathe James Cameron.

The Terminator & Aliens were awesome

 Tronsky
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: AAJagerX on March 22, 2011, 01:23:34 AM
Maybe recreate it.   Just substitute the Titanic for your Dad's truck and the Iceberg for the Mailbox.     Wait I forgot......"you're a great driver".     

Ooooh, SNAP!
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Rob52240 on March 22, 2011, 01:45:00 AM
(http://i972.photobucket.com/albums/ae209/thedevilsbrigade1/Titanic.jpg)
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Plawranc on March 22, 2011, 05:49:30 AM
 :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

Jack started his rap career afterwards, Ice cube.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Dichotomy on March 22, 2011, 08:33:28 AM
I maintain to this day that Jack died because he wanted to.  Imagine spending the rest of your life with that whinebag Rose... EWWW...
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Shuffler on March 22, 2011, 09:54:24 AM
I have never seen the movie and have no inclination to see it.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: gyrene81 on March 22, 2011, 10:17:59 AM
it's not bad for a chick flick...the movie was obviously not really about the titanic and its fate...have to look at it for what it was, a superficial love story...takes a real man to enjoy a chick flick at the appropriate time.......


after a marathon session of shoot'em up blood and guts bombs and babes action movies...  :D
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: AKH on March 22, 2011, 10:44:30 AM
My favourite bit is when Jack dies.

Jack... Rose... Jack... Rose... Jack... Rose... <gurgle> Jack... Rose... <goes blue> and so on, until the tediously obvious conclusion.

Chick flick best avoided unless I'm riffing it for the wife.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Dichotomy on March 22, 2011, 10:57:23 AM
I stand by my statement.  Jack was a pretty bright guy.  Climb up on the rubble and pull Rose up with you.  Simple... but NOOOOOOO.... gurgle gurgle fade to blue  :devil
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Delirium on March 22, 2011, 12:16:20 PM
the movie was obviously not really about the titanic and its fate...have to look at it for what it was, a superficial love story

Bingo... they took a great story and turned it into a Love Story, a la Pearl Harbor.

If you get a chance, take a look at Sinking of the Lusitania: Terror at Sea, it was a low budget film that chronicles one man's experience through the event.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: flight17 on March 23, 2011, 01:59:07 PM
well just wait till this summer when Titanic 2 comes out straight to DVD...

not joking either, there is a Titanic 2 coming out...
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 23, 2011, 02:03:13 PM
well just wait till this summer when Titanic 2 comes out straight to DVD...

not joking either, there is a Titanic 2 coming out...
  :rofl oh god
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Delirium on March 23, 2011, 02:20:44 PM
not joking either, there is a Titanic 2 coming out...

I didn't believe you, I had to do a search for it.

(http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2010/06/08/titanic-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Muzzy on March 23, 2011, 02:56:53 PM
Okay, I'll admit I got a bit mushy inside at the end, and they did a good job of re-creating the scope of the disaster based on what we knew back then.  But watching it years later I can't help but think I was had. It's like being manipulated into thinking something is good when in fact it's all shallow stupidity.

That's why I didn't like Avatar.  It had FEEL THIS, SUCKERS!!!! written all over it.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 23, 2011, 03:02:09 PM
I heard they made a movie called raising the titanic, got no stars i think. Really sucked, then there was this parody or teaser trailer of jack being frozen and revived in like 2000 and Rose was dead and he wouldn't let anything stop him from getting the truth, i thought it was pretty funny.  :lol
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Yeager on March 23, 2011, 03:10:06 PM
I'm one of those odd people.  The ones you never hear about......who actually enjoyed the movie.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: B-17 on March 23, 2011, 03:17:21 PM
I didn't believe you, I had to do a search for it.

(http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2010/06/08/titanic-2.jpg)

oh dear... how can there be a sequel to titanic?! it was a one time thing!!
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Muzzy on March 23, 2011, 03:30:53 PM
Apparently they rebuilt it so they could have a disaster again.

Actually, the best Titanic reboot was for the Doctor Who Christmas Special a while back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omQmblmbG9Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaiqrLzK2VY&feature=fvst

Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 23, 2011, 03:40:41 PM
Felt like watching it again, its been on my DVR for the past 3 years. I watch it every few months. But seriously who honestly cried at the end?   :lol

Only chicks and dudes that like other dudes watch Titanic.

ack-ack
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Ardy123 on March 23, 2011, 03:43:40 PM
Only chicks and dudes and like other dudes watch Titanic.

ack-ack

Or dudes who are 'encouraged' to see it by the chicks they are with.... :uhoh

but no I thought it was worse than being forced to read a Jane Austen book.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Plawranc on March 23, 2011, 04:09:59 PM
I never actually thought I would ever say this sentence.

Well said Ack-Ack  :lol
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Beefcake on March 23, 2011, 05:38:50 PM
I only liked the technical aspects of the movie, I just simply fast forward though all the love scene stuff.


Here's a random question. Why didn't they stop the center engine, run the starboard engine full ahead, and run the port engine full astern? Seems to me the ship would've turned harder.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: TinmanX on March 23, 2011, 06:12:19 PM
I was honestly thrilled that Yosser Hughes finally found a job.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: B-17 on March 23, 2011, 06:51:03 PM
I only liked the technical aspects of the movie, I just simply fast forward though all the love scene stuff.


Here's a random question. Why didn't they stop the center engine, run the starboard engine full ahead, and run the port engine full astern? Seems to me the ship would've turned harder.

that makes sense, after all, they did themselves in kinda by stopping/reversing-->takes longer to turn--> that help with the engines would probably help...but are you sure the screwshafts could rotate independently?
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Masherbrum on March 23, 2011, 06:55:47 PM
I only liked the technical aspects of the movie, I just simply fast forward though all the love scene stuff.


Here's a random question. Why didn't they stop the center engine, run the starboard engine full ahead, and run the port engine full astern? Seems to me the ship would've turned harder.

Why did Capt. Smith try to get to NY a day in advance?   
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: B-17 on March 23, 2011, 07:04:20 PM
Why did Capt. Smith try to get to NY a day in advance?   

one word: reputation
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Masherbrum on March 23, 2011, 07:08:46 PM
one word: reputation

Better word: Negligence.

Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 23, 2011, 07:14:56 PM
Why did Capt. Smith try to get to NY a day in advance?   
He was pressured to numb the engines full.
I only liked the technical aspects of the movie, I just simply fast forward though all the love scene stuff.


Here's a random question. Why didn't they stop the center engine, run the starboard engine full ahead, and run the port engine full astern? Seems to me the ship would've turned harder.
The middle prop doesn't turn when the engines are revered, I think they got that bit right. But if it had been able to turn they could have turned sharper missing the iceberg.
But here's what i'm thinking, if they had rammed the front of the ship into the iceberg, it wouldn't have sunk right? Cause it might have been 1-2 compartments flooded, thus hundreds if not thousands would have been saved.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Masherbrum on March 23, 2011, 07:18:40 PM
He was pressured to numb the engines full. The middle prop doesn't turn when the engines are revered, I think they got that bit right. But if it had been able to turn they could have turned sharper missing the iceberg.
But here's what i'm thinking, if they had rammed the front of the ship into the iceberg, it wouldn't have sunk right? Cause it might have been 1-2 compartments flooded, thus hundreds if not thousands would have been saved.

Hit another mailbox, because you haven't a clue of what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 23, 2011, 07:33:57 PM
No i heard he was pressured to speed the engines
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Penguin on March 23, 2011, 07:38:08 PM
Hit another mailbox, because you haven't a clue of what you're talking about.

Relax.  No need to be snappy.  :)

:salute
-Penguin
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 23, 2011, 07:44:28 PM
Relax.  No need to be snappy.  :)

:salute
-Penguin
Thanks mate  :salute
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: minke on March 23, 2011, 08:03:48 PM
There was loads of room on the door rose got on to. Selfish mare could have moved over.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 23, 2011, 08:05:54 PM
There was loads of room on the door rose got on to. Selfish mare could have moved over.
haha I know right!
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: B-17 on March 23, 2011, 08:34:16 PM
Hit another mailbox, because you haven't a clue of what you're talking about.

actually, F-22 is correct. if the ship had steamed straight into the iceberg, there would not have been nearly the catastrophe that there was--straight on, and the prow of the ship would have simply folded in on itself, effectively sealing off most if not all holes/leaks, giving the Titanic time to wait for outside help.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Penguin on March 23, 2011, 08:36:49 PM
The only problem was that it was too late for Jack to get on.  In his adrenaline rush, he forgot that he was freezing to death.  By the time the rush ended, his body was already hypothermic.

-Penguin
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 23, 2011, 09:00:03 PM
actually, F-22 is correct. if the ship had steamed straight into the iceberg, there would not have been nearly the catastrophe that there was--straight on, and the prow of the ship would have simply folded in on itself, effectively sealing off most if not all holes/leaks, giving the Titanic time to wait for outside help.
Or not sink at all, it would have only gotten maybe 1-3 compartments destroyed, so it could stay afloat, tho i bet alot of people would have been extremely crossed about it.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 23, 2011, 09:00:59 PM
actually, F-22 is correct. if the ship had steamed straight into the iceberg, there would not have been nearly the catastrophe that there was--straight on, and the prow of the ship would have simply folded in on itself, effectively sealing off most if not all holes/leaks, giving the Titanic time to wait for outside help.

The theory is that with a head on collision, the Titanic may have been able to stay afloat with only 4 of the foward compartments being flooded, not that the bow would have folded on itself and "sealing off most if not all holes/leaks".  However, because of the questions about the construction and metallurgy, one cannot say for 100% certain that the Titanic would have stayed afloat if it rammed the iceberg head on.  Especially when it was discovered that the iceberg didn't create a gash on the side of the side of the Titanic.  The collision caused the hull to buckle and the seawater entered the compartments between her steel plates.

ack-ack
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 23, 2011, 09:04:45 PM
The theory is that with a head on collision, the Titanic may have been able to stay afloat with only 4 of the foward compartments being flooded, not that the bow would have folded on itself and "sealing off most if not all holes/leaks".  However, because of the questions about the construction and metallurgy, one cannot say for 100% certain that the Titanic would have stayed afloat if it rammed the iceberg head on.  Especially when it was discovered that the iceberg didn't create a gash on the side of the side of the Titanic.  The collision caused the hull to buckle and the seawater entered the compartments between her steel plates.

ack-ack
The iceberg scraped all the bolt heads off and the plates came apart and let water seep in, there was no gashing.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: flight17 on March 23, 2011, 11:20:28 PM
Titanic 2, Would i lie about something so stupid?

So some info i know from watching History Channel Specials on it.


Per middle screw...

The middle screw of the titanic was not run by the same type of engine as the outer screws were. The Middle screw was run off a Steam turbine using extra steam from the steam driven engines for the left and right screws. Because of being a turbine engine, it could not be reversed.

However reversing the engines was one of factors of the crash. Had they been kept full forward, it would have actually turned away in time because the center screw gave all the thrust to the rudder. Now some say the rudder was too small (myself included) but it was designed for high speeds, which the Titanic was deffinately doing. I went to check wiki on some of my info because i havent watched any titanic stuff for a while now, and i actually read that in WWI Olympic which had the same rudder was able to turn on a dime to avoid a collision with a sub and then subsequently was able to run it down and sink it. 

As for ramming it, it could have gone either way i believe. the bulkheads only went up 10ft above the waterline. So with 4 forward compartments full, would the nose have sunk less than 10ft? if the answer is yes, then it would have floated, if no, then it would have had the same fate because water would have just went over the bulkheads into the other compartments.

Titanic's radio man caused the massive loss of life though. Previously in the day, he had been using the radio system to send messages for passengers to NYC through. A nearby ship had heard them and turned off their radio because they didnt want to listen to them. At the time of the sinking, it was only 12 miles away and saw the rockets being fired buy thought they were just for fun. Because they turned off the radio, they also missed Titanic's SoS calls.

Alot of things came together that night to cause what happened to happen. There were many places were the situation could have been avioded, but wasnt. It seemed like the ship was ment to sink before it was even launched and/or set sail.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: B-17 on March 23, 2011, 11:25:14 PM
Titanic 2, Would i lie about something so stupid?

So some info i know from watching History Channel Specials on it.


Per middle screw...

The middle screw of the titanic was not run by the same type of engine as the outer screws were. The Middle screw was run off a Steam turbine using extra steam from the steam driven engines for the left and right screws. Because of being a turbine engine, it could not be reversed.

However reversing the engines was one of factors of the crash. Had they been kept full forward, it would have actually turned away in time because the center screw gave all the thrust to the rudder. Now some say the rudder was too small (myself included) but it was designed for high speeds, which the Titanic was deffinately doing. I went to check wiki on some of my info because i havent watched any titanic stuff for a while now, and i actually read that in WWI Olympic which had the same rudder was able to turn on a dime to avoid a collision with a sub and then subsequently was able to run it down and sink it. 

As for ramming it, it could have gone either way i believe. the bulkheads only went up 10ft above the waterline. So with 4 forward compartments full, would the nose have sunk less than 10ft? if the answer is yes, then it would have floated, if no, then it would have had the same fate because water would have just went over the bulkheads into the other compartments.

Titanic's radio man caused the massive loss of life though. Previously in the day, he had been using the radio system to send messages for passengers to NYC through. A nearby ship had heard them and turned off their radio because they didnt want to listen to them. At the time of the sinking, it was only 12 miles away and saw the rockets being fired buy thought they were just for fun. Because they turned off the radio, they also missed Titanic's SoS calls.

Alot of things came together that night to cause what happened to happen. There were many places were the situation could have been avioded, but wasnt. It seemed like the ship was ment to sink before it was even launched and/or set sail.

excellently said, and all valid arguments. i believe the radio operator had said "Shut up, shut up. Im busy" at one point. as for the screws, thats what i had been trying to get at in my earlier post.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 23, 2011, 11:31:13 PM
The iceberg scraped all the bolt heads off and the plates came apart and let water seep in, there was no gashing.

It was originally believed that the Titanic suffered a gash to the side that allowed 6 compartments to flood, it wasn't until an underwater sonar survey a few years ago of the debris field that it was discovered the metal plates had buckled, not come apart like you stated.  The bow would have buckled the same way if the Titanic had collided head on, which also casts doubt on whether or not the Titanic would have survived a head on collision long enough to prevent the large loss of human life.  It also didn't help that metal losses some of its strength and it's often over looked but steel used to construct the Titanic was unsuitable for low temperatures. 

ack-ack
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: B-17 on March 23, 2011, 11:35:53 PM
It was originally believed that the Titanic suffered a gash to the side that allowed 6 compartments to flood, it wasn't until an underwater sonar survey a few years ago of the debris field that it was discovered the metal plates had buckled, not come apart like you stated.  The bow would have buckled the same way if the Titanic had collided head on, which also casts doubt on whether or not the Titanic would have survived a head on collision long enough to prevent the large loss of human life.  It also didn't help that metal losses some of its strength and it's often over looked but steel used to construct the Titanic was unsuitable for low temperatures. 

ack-ack

didnt the quality/condition of the steel on the Hood, coupled with her age, bring her down, as they were just off the ice shelf, no?
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Muzzy on March 24, 2011, 12:41:24 AM
Regarding Hood: It may have been a factor in the ship sinking so quickly, but when the powder magazines go off there's not much that's going to save you. 
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Masherbrum on March 24, 2011, 06:59:16 AM
The iceberg scraped all the bolt heads off and the plates came apart and let water seep in, there was no gashing.

The shoddy steel had more to do with it than anything else.    Rivets are not that effective under those tolerances.    But the Metallurgical content sealed her fate if they had even struck it head on.    What Ack-Ack said I agree with as I've read a lot on this ship and filtered out the BS on shows.    But the "slag steel flaw" rings true.   

Again, had he made it ON TIME and slower, it would have been a different story.   Also remember that Rudders were on the low end of the "mandate that all rudders had to be anywhere from 1.5% to 5% of the Hull's Underwater Profile".   RMS Titanic's rudder was 1.9%.   Coupled with the fact that when Murdoch ordered "Engines Reverse", the center propeller (right behind the center propeller) was operated by a steam turbine and not the same reciprocating steam as each outboard propeller.  When the turbine was shut down, they believe the dead prop affected the rudder effectiveness.

Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: flight17 on March 24, 2011, 01:58:36 PM
The shoddy steel had more to do with it than anything else.    Rivets are not that effective under those tolerances.    But the Metallurgical content sealed her fate if they had even struck it head on.    What Ack-Ack said I agree with as I've read a lot on this ship and filtered out the BS on shows.    But the "slag steel flaw" rings true.    

Again, had he made it ON TIME and slower, it would have been a different story.   Also remember that Rudders were on the low end of the "mandate that all rudders had to be anywhere from 1.5% to 5% of the Hull's Underwater Profile".   RMS Titanic's rudder was 1.9%.   Coupled with the fact that when Murdoch ordered "Engines Reverse", the center propeller (right behind the center propeller) was operated by a steam turbine and not the same reciprocating steam as each outboard propeller.  When the turbine was shut down, they believe the dead prop affected the rudder effectiveness.


lol way to copy/paste wiki... i at least reworded it  :lol

everyone watch History/Discovery/Science/etc channel over the next three weeks. they will be showing titanic sunk as its coming up on the 99th anniversary.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Masherbrum on March 24, 2011, 02:17:30 PM
lol way to copy/paste wiki... i at least reworded it  :lol

everyone watch History/Discovery/Science/etc channel over the next three weeks. they will be showing titanic sunk as its coming up on the 99th anniversary.

Sorry cupcake, I copied nothing, nor did I paste anything.    It was my own wording from reading this book no less than 10 times cover to cover, when I was younger.   It's currently residing in my basement.

http://www.amazon.com/Titanic-Her-Sisters-Olympic-Britannic/dp/1571451757 (http://www.amazon.com/Titanic-Her-Sisters-Olympic-Britannic/dp/1571451757)

If you haven't read it, see if you can afford a copy, then worry about "laughing".    
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Babalonian on March 24, 2011, 05:33:09 PM
actually, F-22 is correct. if the ship had steamed straight into the iceberg, there would not have been nearly the catastrophe that there was--straight on, and the prow of the ship would have simply folded in on itself, effectively sealing off most if not all holes/leaks, giving the Titanic time to wait for outside help.

The steel I believe they used back then would of been too britle in the artic waters, definetley would of been some compromise.


Nevermind, see AA beat me to it.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 24, 2011, 09:23:20 PM
The steel I believe they used back then would of been too britle in the artic waters, definetley would of been some compromise.


Nevermind, see AA beat me to it.
I think the ow would have been completely destroyed, but no physical material is worth almost 2,500 lives. I think they should have rammed it while numming the engines full astern, but then again you have to keep in mind that they were thinking rationally, They would rather avoid it, but either way, history books cannot be rewritten.  :(
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Masherbrum on March 24, 2011, 09:44:44 PM
I think the ow would have been completely destroyed, but no physical material is worth almost 2,500 lives. I think they should have rammed it while numming the engines full astern, but then again you have to keep in mind that they were thinking rationally, They would rather avoid it, but either way, history books cannot be rewritten.  :(

Ramming an Iceberg would have saved them?    The Titanic nor most ships....(I did NOT say "all") could ram an Iceberg and be in a "good condition" to limp home.    Engines don't "numb" so stop using that term please.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 24, 2011, 09:58:33 PM
Ramming an Iceberg would have saved them?    The Titanic nor most ships....(I did NOT say "all") could ram an Iceberg and be in a "good condition" to limp home.    Engines don't "numb" so stop using that term please.
I mean stay afloat long enough to have most of the passengers saved. and my bad
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Masherbrum on March 24, 2011, 10:05:52 PM
I mean stay afloat long enough to have most of the passengers saved. and my bad

With the already weakened steel prior to grazing the Iceberg, explain how ramming same the Iceberg would have been less catastrophic?   Because now the Bow is crushed and torn like a soda can.   Do you understand that 90-95% of the Iceberg is/was underwater so it's not like the "bottom separates" once struck.

Please regale us with your description.   I'll pick this up in the morning.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Guppy35 on March 25, 2011, 01:43:07 AM
Always thought it amazing that the surviving senior officer of Titanic, C.H. Lightoller pulled 130 men off the beach at Dunkirk in his 60 foot Yacht "Sundowner".   His second son was a Lt. in the British Army and had been rescued 48 hours earlier.  His youngest son was killed flying Blenheims on the first raid to Wilhelmshaven and his oldest son was with him packing in the troops below deck.

As with anything history related, the story of Titanic's people fascinates me more then the techical what ifs.    Didn't have much time for the movie
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Masherbrum on March 25, 2011, 05:36:35 AM
Always thought it amazing that the surviving senior officer of Titanic, C.H. Lightoller pulled 130 men off the beach at Dunkirk in his 60 foot Yacht "Sundowner".   His second son was a Lt. in the British Army and had been rescued 48 hours earlier.  His youngest son was killed flying Blenheims on the first raid to Wilhelmshaven and his oldest son was with him packing in the troops below deck.

As with anything history related, the story of Titanic's people fascinates me more then the techical what ifs.    Didn't have much time for the movie

Never knew that Dan.    None of the books I have read mentioned that correlation.    That is something to behold, especially more than likely under fire.     Thanks for sharing that.    :rock
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 25, 2011, 12:17:37 PM
I mean stay afloat long enough to have most of the passengers saved. and my bad

The loss of life from ramming the iceberg head on would possibly have been rather large itself and it's pure speculation as to whether or not ramming the iceberg would have only flooded 4 water tight chambers.  Given the fact that the steel buckled, I don't think ramming the iceberg would have prevented the tragedy that happened.

ack-ack
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: flight17 on March 25, 2011, 02:15:29 PM
Always thought it amazing that the surviving senior officer of Titanic, C.H. Lightoller pulled 130 men off the beach at Dunkirk in his 60 foot Yacht "Sundowner".   His second son was a Lt. in the British Army and had been rescued 48 hours earlier.  His youngest son was killed flying Blenheims on the first raid to Wilhelmshaven and his oldest son was with him packing in the troops below deck.

As with anything history related, the story of Titanic's people fascinates me more then the techical what ifs.    Didn't have much time for the movie
there was also a Stewardess, Violet Jessop, that served on all three ships and survived both the titantic sinking and the britannic sinking after surviving the Olympic's collision at sea with a british warship.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: F22RaptorDude on March 25, 2011, 03:09:51 PM
The loss of life from ramming the iceberg head on would possibly have been rather large itself and it's pure speculation as to whether or not ramming the iceberg would have only flooded 4 water tight chambers.  Given the fact that the steel buckled, I don't think ramming the iceberg would have prevented the tragedy that happened.

ack-ack
Then would keeping the speed at full have helped? That would have kept water running over the rudder :headscratch:
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: flight17 on March 25, 2011, 05:08:27 PM
Then would keeping the speed at full have helped? That would have kept water running over the rudder :headscratch:
yes, i already said that two nights ago. While the rudder was small for the size of the ship, it could still turn the ship on a dime at speed. Referenced Olympic doin this in WWI to misss a collision with a Sub. Had they kept full ahead, they might have missed it.
Title: Re: Titanic
Post by: Masherbrum on March 25, 2011, 05:14:36 PM
yes, i already said that two nights ago. While the rudder was small for the size of the ship, it could still turn the ship on a dime at speed. Referenced Olympic doin this in WWI to misss a collision with a Sub. Had they kept full ahead, they might have missed it.

Correct.