Did the Titanic have to sink?

Cam Houseman · Jan 31, 2021

I think she just had a case of bad luck.

Michael H. Standart · Feb 8, 2021

Ted Charlton NZ said:
An interesting initial theory in which with all due respect to the writer JohnBen, instinct would prevail which would be to stop any movement, bearing mind Capt. Smith nor any others on the bridge had a true understanding of Titanic's fatal damage as is known now.

In all reality the reason Titanic sunk was solely on the pride filled Captain. His last voyage and wanting to make a huge impression by arriving in NY early.
Even if it can be said it was safe enough to continue during the night, at that speed was seriously stupid, he wasn't a greenhorn and wasn't it Lightoller who suggested "no moon and ocean like a mill pond will make the bergs hard to spot"?

The 2nd error is the Crows Nest sailors having no binoculars, obviously due diligence and due process was lacking. Their fault, or their senior officers including Captain?
If the captain had continued at half speed and Crows Nest sailors were painstakingly conscientious the infamous iceberg may have been dodged, or at the least far less damage

Ted. have you ever stood an underway lookout watch of any kind?"
I have, and under adverse conditions of extreme low visibility.
The last thing I ever use binoculars for was searching because of the extreme tunnel vision which the instruments imposed. Binoculars were for identifying a target after you've seen it. Searching was done with the naked eye.

As to pride, exactly what pride would you be referring to?

The Titanic was not operated any differently from any of the crack mail boats on the North Atlantic run. They officers, crew and some of the passengers with money in the betting pool would have been gratified that the ship was doing a little better than the Olympic and a Tuesday evening arrival was a possibility but It wasn't something they were going out of their way to make happen.

Mike Spooner · Feb 8, 2021

Michael H. Standart said:
Ted. have you ever stood an underway lookout watch of any kind?"
I have, and under adverse conditions of extreme low visibility.
The last thing I ever use binoculars for was searching because of the extreme tunnel vision which the instruments imposed. Binoculars were for identifying a target after you've seen it. Searching was done with the naked eye.

As to pride, exactly what pride would you be referring to?

The Titanic was not operated any differently from any of the crack mail boats on the North Atlantic run. They officers, crew and some of the passengers with money in the betting pool would have been gratified that the ship was doing a little better than the Olympic and a Tuesday evening arrival was a possibility but It wasn't something they were going out of their way to make happen.

Hi Michael. I am glad to hear you have experience as a lookout man. I don't know if you have the experience in dealing with temperatures of - 2 centigrade and the time you added on the wind chilled factor Titanic speed of 22 knots at -16 centigrade been blasted into your warm eye balls. How does one cope with a watery eye situation giving you a blurred vision? Would you think using binoculars might of giving some protection against watery eyes?

george harris · Feb 8, 2021

Mike Spooner said:
Hi Michael. I am glad to hear you have experience as a lookout man. I don't know if you have the experience in dealing with temperatures of - 2 centigrade and the time you added on the wind chilled factor Titanic speed of 22 knots at -16 centigrade been blasted into your warm eye balls. How does one cope with a watery eye situation giving you a blurred vision? Would you think using binoculars might of giving some protection against watery eyes?

The lookouts would have been looking for anything that could have damaged the ship. In general, any large object, like another ship or an iceberg. Also, “small ice and growlers” which could have caused minor damage to the hull of the ship, but more importantly, could have possibly caused major damage if they bumped into the rudder or propellers.

So yes, use your eyes to scan ahead, but take a few breaks occasionally so that your eyes don’t lose focus in the cold, dry wind. That’s one reason why there were two lookouts, so they could give each other a break once in a while.

However, if a large, blurry, unidentifiable object is seen on the horizon ahead of you, get your binoculars and focus in on it. You would clearly see and identify it earlier than if using your own eyes, unaided by magnification. The lookouts did not have this option available on the Titanic. If they had, they may have seen (and reported) the iceberg earlier and maybe, just maybe, the Titanic would have had the few extra seconds it needed.

George

Jim Currie · Feb 8, 2021

Ted Charlton NZ said:
An interesting initial theory in which with all due respect to the writer JohnBen, instinct would prevail which would be to stop any movement, bearing mind Capt. Smith nor any others on the bridge had a true understanding of Titanic's fatal damage as is known now.

In all reality the reason Titanic sunk was solely on the pride filled Captain. His last voyage and wanting to make a huge impression by arriving in NY early.
Even if it can be said it was safe enough to continue during the night, at that speed was seriously stupid, he wasn't a greenhorn and wasn't it Lightoller who suggested "no moon and ocean like a mill pond will make the bergs hard to spot"?

The 2nd error is the Crows Nest sailors having no binoculars, obviously due diligence and due process was lacking. Their fault, or their senior officers including Captain?
If the captain had continued at half speed and Crows Nest sailors were painstakingly conscientious the infamous iceberg may have been dodged, or at the least far less damage

Hello Ted,

There is a very simple indicator which tell us that Smith did not intend any record, and that is the number of minutes of the intended clock change - 47 .
To determine that number, Smith would have to calculate where he thought his ship was going to be at Noon on April 15. In fact, that number of 47 shows that he did not expect Titanic to travel any greater distance between Noon April 14 and Noon April 15 than she did between Noon April 13 and Noon April 14. All of which also tells us that he did not intend to icrease engine revolutions during the next 24 hours.
Another practical consideration missed by those promoting a record. and one that would have to have been prominent in considering such a voyage plan was the fact that at that time of the year there was a better then even chance that Titanic would be late anyway because April in that part of the ocean is a fog month and if any record had been intended, Smith would need lots of extra mileage up his sleeve , accrued prior to Noon, April16.

Binoculars in the crow;s nest was an exception rather than a normal practice They were (wrongly) considered by many to encourage laziness on the part of a lookout . Besides which, the lookout was up there to see at a greater distance - not for danger at close proximity. His job was to report a sighting then let the OOW decide what to do with it. Under normal circumstances, there was always plenty of time to avoid danger.
In fact, on the Carpathia, they were on full alert for known ice presence and all of them had binocuars. They were on a much slower vessel yet almost hit the very same berg that did for Titanic.

Mike Spooner · Feb 9, 2021

george harris said:
The lookouts would have been looking for anything that could have damaged the ship. In general, any large object, like another ship or an iceberg. Also, “small ice and growlers” which could have caused minor damage to the hull of the ship, but more importantly, could have possibly caused major damage if they bumped into the rudder or propellers.

So yes, use your eyes to scan ahead, but take a few breaks occasionally so that your eyes don’t lose focus in the cold, dry wind. That’s one reason why there were two lookouts, so they could give each other a break once in a while.

However, if a large, blurry, unidentifiable object is seen on the horizon ahead of you, get your binoculars and focus in on it. You would clearly see and identify it earlier than if using your own eyes, unaided by magnification. The lookouts did not have this option available on the Titanic. If they had, they may have seen (and reported) the iceberg earlier and maybe, just maybe, the Titanic would have had the few extra seconds it needed.

George

Hi George,
With the respect to you where you a lookout man? As I am trying to get a point of view from a person who had the face the same problem with very low temperature as the two lookout men had to put up whilst on the Titanic? Wither the binocular might of given some protection against watery eye.
It's the old story there is a difference between the theories and practice!
As the classic evidence that Fleet gave in the US Inquiry. WE could have seen it a bit sooner. followed by Well enough to get out of the way!

Michael H. Standart · Feb 19, 2021

Mike Spooner said:
Hi Michael. I am glad to hear you have experience as a lookout man. I don't know if you have the experience in dealing with temperatures of - 2 centigrade and the time you added on the wind chilled factor Titanic speed of 22 knots at -16 centigrade been blasted into your warm eye balls. How does one cope with a watery eye situation giving you a blurred vision? Would you think using binoculars might of giving some protection against watery eyes?

I don't think binoculars would have made any real difference. When I used them, even briefly, it was in a ship induced headwind up in the Pacific Northwest in the winter time off of the coast of Canada. I watched the hot chocolate which had been sent to keep us warm freeze in the cup. At the time, I wore eyeglasses and they barely helped. The wind just whipped around the body of the binoculars and eddied in behind the lenses of my eyeglasses.

Oh, and to sweeten the pot, people in the supply ratings were used in the low visibility watches, so not only was it bone chillingly cold, it was under adverse conditions of near non-existent visibility in a pea soup of a fog.

NOT my idea of a good time.

Jim Currie · Feb 19, 2021

Michael H. Standart said:
I don't think binoculars would have made any real difference. When I used them, even briefly, it was in a ship induced headwind up in the Pacific Northwest in the winter time off of the coast of Canada. I watched the hot chocolate which had been sent to keep us warm freeze in the cup. At the time, I wore eyeglasses and they barely helped. The wind just whipped around the body of the binoculars and eddied in behind the lenses of my eyeglasses.

Oh, and to sweeten the pot, people in the supply ratings were used in the low visibility watches, so not only was it bone chillingly cold, it was under adverse conditions of near non-existent visibility in a pea soup of a fog.

NOT my idea of a good time.

Know exactly what you mean. Michael. When I went to sea at first as an Apprentice, I was on the Narvik run. We did not have a crow's nest, all lookout duties were performed at the bow or in bad weather, on the bridge wing. The, we had 3 man Watches on deck...An Apprentice (The lowest form of animal life on board) an AB and either a EDH or SOS. During the Middle Watch, our duties were
A. 1st Wheel to 2 am.. standby to 3 am then Lookout to 4 am
B. 1st Lookout to 1 am, standby to 2 am then 2nd wheel to 4 am.
C. Was what we termed the "farmer". No wheel standby first and last hour and Lookout 1 to 3 am.
The "farmer duty up north was as you describe it without the coco or coffee. We would wrap ourselves in a blanket then put on our oilskin and sou'westers. Sometimes even an old newspaper if we had one.
MN Deck crew had to have 50/50 vision and not be colour blind therefore we were not allowed to wear glasses nor use binoculars. In those days, the North Sea was still heavily mined from WW2 so we had to be very vigilant.

Mike Spooner · Feb 19, 2021

Michael. It sounds like no bundle of fun indeed. The luxury of hot chocolate wow! Came to think about it, did Fleet and Lee get offered a hot drink in those days?

Michael H. Standart · Feb 19, 2021

>>In those days, the North Sea was still heavily mined from WW2 so we had to be very vigilant.<<

My last overseas deployment on the USS Comstock was to the Persian Gulf right after the first Gulf War. It was essentially an unswept minefield, only our was broiling hot instead of bitingly cold.

>>Michael. It sounds like no bundle of fun indeed. The luxury of hot chocolate wow!<<

Uh....we watched it freeze. Next time, we bolted it down while it was still tepid.

>> Came to think about it, did Fleet and Lee get offered a hot drink in those days?<<

Not as far as I know. They stood two hour watches and if they didn't bring something with them, that was just their tough luck!

Mike Spooner · Feb 20, 2021

Michael H. Standart said:
>>In those days, the North Sea was still heavily mined from WW2 so we had to be very vigilant.<<

My last overseas deployment on the USS Comstock was to the Persian Gulf right after the first Gulf War. It was essentially an unswept minefield, only our was broiling hot instead of bitingly cold.

>>Michael. It sounds like no bundle of fun indeed. The luxury of hot chocolate wow!<<

Uh....we watched it freeze. Next time, we bolted it down while it was still tepid.

>> Came to think about it, did Fleet and Lee get offered a hot drink in those days?<<

Not as far as I know. They stood two hour watches and if they didn't bring something with them, that was just their tough luck!

Indeed what a heartless bunch they where in those days!

Michael H. Standart · Feb 21, 2021

Mike Spooner said:
Indeed what a heartless bunch they where in those days!

I don't know about heartless so much as "Not given a moments thought." The lookouts did their thing without much fanfare.

Cam Houseman · Feb 21, 2021

Michael H. Standart said:
I don't know about heartless so much as "Not given a moments thought." The lookouts did their thing without much fanfare.

Nature was simply against them that night

Mike Spooner · Feb 21, 2021