Kyle Fisher
Member
Do you think that the Britannic and Lustiania sank in the same way? Cause Im guessing that they did. And both got hit in the same side.
Britannic and Lustainia
- Thread starter Kyle Fisher
- Start date
-
- Tags
- britannic
Michael H. Standart
Member
Not really.
Other then the fact that they had some massive holes punched into their hulls with high explosives, they both behaved rather differently, starting with the fact that Britannic took longer to sink. There was also the fact that Britannic was controllable for part of this time. No boilers or steam lines ruptured and the ship was responsive to both helm and engine orders whereas Lusitania was not.
Other then the fact that they had some massive holes punched into their hulls with high explosives, they both behaved rather differently, starting with the fact that Britannic took longer to sink. There was also the fact that Britannic was controllable for part of this time. No boilers or steam lines ruptured and the ship was responsive to both helm and engine orders whereas Lusitania was not.
Kyle Fisher
Member
I meant was that they sank in the same direction like going onto its side.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>I meant was that they sank in the same direction like going onto its side.<<
That would be about the only simililarity but I wouldn't read too much into that. More often then not, ships tend to roll to one side or another as they go down, and Titanic stands as odd man out that she didn't do that. For whatever it may be worth...and that may not be much...I suspect that the Britannic could have survived the damage she suffered had her watertight doors been shut at the time of the explosion and the portholes on E-deck not been open allowing for uncontrolled secondary flooding. As it was, she lasted around 55 minutes which was enough time to evacuate the ship.
Lusitania was a horror story which lasted 18 minutes and with a much higher death toll to go along with the deal.
That would be about the only simililarity but I wouldn't read too much into that. More often then not, ships tend to roll to one side or another as they go down, and Titanic stands as odd man out that she didn't do that. For whatever it may be worth...and that may not be much...I suspect that the Britannic could have survived the damage she suffered had her watertight doors been shut at the time of the explosion and the portholes on E-deck not been open allowing for uncontrolled secondary flooding. As it was, she lasted around 55 minutes which was enough time to evacuate the ship.
Lusitania was a horror story which lasted 18 minutes and with a much higher death toll to go along with the deal.
Phillip Ivey II
Guest
No because the Britannic was sunk because of a mine, and the Lusitania was sunk directly by a torpedo. Also, it has never been ruled out that the Britannic also suffered a coal dust explosion when she struck the mine. But in that sense we must not forget that both ships were sunk during war time and that international patrol laws prohibited the sinking of passenger ships unless they were sure the ship was carrying contraband. In agreement with Mr. Standart, the Lusitania is in far worse condition that the Britannic is which suggests that she did not recieve the same amount of structural damage as the Lusitania.
Michael lowe
Member
DONT argue with Mr standart. i believe that he is one of the most knowledgeable on the liners of the 20th century. he knows a lot more about them than most people.
Take her to sea Murdoch-lets stretch her legs
Take her to sea Murdoch-lets stretch her legs
monica e. hall
Member
Do argue with Mr. Standart. He wouldn't want you to do otherwise. He may know a lot, but he doesn't think he knows everything.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>he knows a lot more about them than most people.<<
But as Monica said, I don't know everything.
Getting back to the Britannic and the Lusitania, it helps to know that both vessels sank in reletively shallow water. When they rolled over, neither was able to go down far enough to right themselves before hitting the bottom.
I seem to have missed Phillip Ivey's post from last year. I think he may have been thinking about the Lusitania in connection with an asserted coal dust explosion. To my knowladge, no such connection has ever been made for the Britannic and the evidence from the wreck doesn't support it in any event. The break in the bow comes from the enormous bending loads imposed on the structure when it hit bottom before the ship was even completely submerged. Had the watertight doors down below and the portlights on E-Deck been closed as required for wartime cruising in waters known to be mined and infested with hostile submarines (They weren't)I'm of the opinion that the Britannic would have survived.
The Lusitania is a whole 'nother smoke. While the coal dust explosion theory has never been absolutely ruled out, it's never been confirmed, nor it it really likely. The North Atlantic is fairly cold even in the summer time and Lusitania was crossing in early May. What this would have meant was that in all likelihood, the bunkers would have been dripping with condensate and turned any coal dust into a nice tarry goo, not the fine cloud of dust needed for an explosion.
But as Monica said, I don't know everything.
Getting back to the Britannic and the Lusitania, it helps to know that both vessels sank in reletively shallow water. When they rolled over, neither was able to go down far enough to right themselves before hitting the bottom.
I seem to have missed Phillip Ivey's post from last year. I think he may have been thinking about the Lusitania in connection with an asserted coal dust explosion. To my knowladge, no such connection has ever been made for the Britannic and the evidence from the wreck doesn't support it in any event. The break in the bow comes from the enormous bending loads imposed on the structure when it hit bottom before the ship was even completely submerged. Had the watertight doors down below and the portlights on E-Deck been closed as required for wartime cruising in waters known to be mined and infested with hostile submarines (They weren't)I'm of the opinion that the Britannic would have survived.
The Lusitania is a whole 'nother smoke. While the coal dust explosion theory has never been absolutely ruled out, it's never been confirmed, nor it it really likely. The North Atlantic is fairly cold even in the summer time and Lusitania was crossing in early May. What this would have meant was that in all likelihood, the bunkers would have been dripping with condensate and turned any coal dust into a nice tarry goo, not the fine cloud of dust needed for an explosion.
Mindy Deckard
Member
Furthermore, one must take into account the ships themselves, meaning the actual makeup of the ship. One had transverse bulkheads while the other was longitudinal. That assuredly had to make a difference in the sinking of the ships.
Okay, I am going back into my hole now.
Okay, I am going back into my hole now.
