1. Welcome to Encyclopedia Titanica
    or subscribe for unlimited access to ET! You can also login with , or !
    Dismiss Notice
  2. We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information you’ve provided to them or they’ve collected from your use of their services. More information
    Dismiss Notice


Discussion in 'Collision / Sinking Theories' started by Paul Rogers, Apr 11, 2001.

  1. Smith Mize

    Smith Mize Member

    Yeah I checked on the mine and things. I saw a TV show on the Discovery channel that say that it could've been a German mine or torpedo. It does seem kind of stupid that they would plant a bomb by an iceberg! One more thing- how do y'all make those little smiley things- lol?!

    - Smith sammith77@msn.com
  2. Adam Leet

    Adam Leet Member

    I really can't help but wonder how this theory came about. U-Boats? Explosions? How did this get connected to the Titanic sinking?

  3. John Meeks

    John Meeks Guest

    Ask Smith...


    John M
  4. Smith Mize

    Smith Mize Member

  5. Tom Pappas

    Tom Pappas Guest

    You guys are all way off base. It was a German saboteur who set off the bomb...
  6. Now, Adam, really! Please pay attention. You too, John. Have you never heard of UB-1's super-sekret Top Secret maiden mission to sink Titanic? Er, thought not. Probably because it was top secret. happy.gif

    Would anyone be surprised to learn that there's a (rather dire) novel on the u-boat scenario? Now, there's your 'explosion' for you:


    I think that's sufficient to give you the idea. And if Tom's right and it was a German saboteur, we can be pretty sure that Colonel Zeitel managed to get into a lifeboat safely - hence the historical veracity of 'Adventure Out of Time'.

    Nuff said. :p
  7. Smith, if you do some checking, I think you'll find that the ship Discovery was talking about was the HMHS Britannic. I've seen just about everything Discovery has on the Titanic, and not once did they ever mention anything about U-Boats, torpedos or mines.
  8. Karen Christl

    Karen Christl Member

    don't forget that the german ship frankfurt did offer some kind of assistance to the titanic. i doubt they would have if the germans were trying to sink her!! plus as said before ww1 started in 1914, not 1912
    happy.gif kaz happy.gif
  9. Smith Mize

    Smith Mize Member

    No don't watch the Britannic or Olympic or any other shows besides the shows on Titanic, I'm POSITIVE that they were talking about the Titanic, they even had a digital movie made showing the name on it. I don't actually know if it was on discovery channel, that's just the first network that springs to mind...

    - Smith sammith77@msn.com
  10. Tom Pappas

    Tom Pappas Guest

    FN: I hoped the reference wasn't too obscure!
  11. John Meeks

    John Meeks Guest


    Scary revelation indeed!

    Especially when you consider that, from my sources, UB1, a small coastal boat, was built in 1914 and had a range of 1600 miles at 5 knots.

    But..damn! Those Germans could be devious fiends, couldn't they! I wouldn't put it past them to have pulled a fast one there!


    John M
  12. Smith, with all due respect, I think you got the two confused. While there are a lot of theories and ideas out there regarding the forensics of the sinking, mines and torpedos have never been offered up, and there is nothing in any evidence to support it. They were however, mooted for the Britannic.

    Remember that Titanic's scrape with the iceberg was such a non event, that most of the passengers and crew slept right trough it, and those who were awake barely noticed much more then a shudder.

    Mines and torpedoes create much more then a mild shudder, and the people who sleep through such an event are the ones who are so close that they never wake up. Recall also that there were people on the bridge and the two lookouts who saw the thing go down. If there had been an explosion from a torpedo, I think Fleet and Lee would have noticed it. wink.gif
  13. Haowei Shi

    Haowei Shi Member

    The dampers has shut so there is no way for a BANG.If they report any,it would be from sounds of escaping steam from the broken steam lines.

  14. >>The dampers has shut so there is no way for a BANG.<<

    Not entirely accurate I'm afraid. Shutting the dampers simply cut off the air supply to the fires to such a degree that they weren't burning as hot as possible. There would still be a profound risk of the boilers bursting from overpressure if the excess steam wasn't vented out.

    Fortunately, the safeties worked as designed. No boilers exploded and no steam lines burst.
  15. Kyle Naber

    Kyle Naber Member

    I forget who mentioned this at the inquiries, but I recall a survivor describing how four underwater explosions occured as the plunge began. They snapped their fingers to indicate how far apart in time they sounded. Does anyone have an idea of what these explosions were? The Titanic: Honor and Glory team incorporated them into their viral real time sinking video:


    I don't believe it was the breakup itself as it would have been much louder with the boat deck splitting open and all. I wonder if they had something to do with the boilers or a coal bunker door?
  16. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Member

    I found several accounts from the Inquiry that mention four explosions being heard. Unsure exactly when they took place but it appears to be a result of the break up.

    Mrs. White
    "In my opinion the ship when it went down was broken in two. I think very probably it broke in two. I heard four distinct explosions, which we supposed were the boilers. Of course, we did not know anything about it."
    Q - How loud were those explosions?
    A - They were tremendous.

    Mr. Scarrott
    Q - How soon after you saw the bridge level with the water did the ship disappear?
    A - Well, I cannot say as regards the time, but when it got there the ship went with a rush, and you could hear the breaking up of things in the ship, and then followed four explosions. To the best of my recollection that is the number of the explosions.

    Mr. Stengel
    "She was going down by the bow most all the time, and all of a sudden there were four sharp explosions about that far apart, just like this (the witness indicating by snapping his fingers four times), and then she dipped and the stern stood up in the air, and then the cries began for help. I should think that the people who were left on the boat began to jump over. There was an awful wail like."
    Q - Could you see the people?
    A - No, sir; I could not see any of the people, but I could hear them.
    Q - What was the character of these explosions?
    A - I do not know, but I should judge it would be a battery of boilers going.
    Q - Might it have been bulkheads giving way?
    A - I do not know. I have never been familiar with bulkheads giving way; but they were quite hard explosions. She dipped, then, forward, and all you could see was the stern sticking up. When I heard the cries I turned my back. I said, "I can not look any longer."

    The above would suggest that the explosions were a result of the Titanic breaking apart and separating. Pitman however denied the ship broke (no surprise) and said the explosions occurred after the ship had completely sunk.

    3rd officer Pitman
    Q - Did she seem to be broken in two.
    A - Oh, no.
    Q - Or was she entirely intact? Did you hear any explosions?
    A - Yes; four reports.
    Q - What kind of reports?
    A - They sounded like the reports of a big gun in the distance.
    Q - What did you assume they were?
    A - I assumed it was bulkheads going, myself.
    Q - Did you hear anything like boiler explosions?
    A - Yes; I heard a lot of people say that; but I have my doubts about that. I do not see why the boilers should burst because there was no steam there. They should have been stopped about two hours and a half. The fires had not been fed, so there was very little steam there.
    Q - Are we to understand that you do not believe that boilers exploded?
    A - I do not believe it.
    Q - And from the distance you were from the ship, you would have known it if that had occurred?
    A - I think so.
    Q - How long before going down were there explosions or noises?
    A - Not until she was submerged.
    Q - Not until she was entirely submerged?
    A - Yes.
    Q - The after part of the ship as well as the forward part?
    A - Yes; the whole of her.
    Q - She had gone under water before these explosions were heard?
    A - Yes, sir.
    Q - And you are quite sure that the explosions you heard came from the ship?
    A - Oh, yes; perfectly sure.
    Q - You said you heard noises like explosions. I would like to know whether you heard any reports that indicated any collapse of the bulkheads?
    A - Yes; four reports.
    Q - I think you said the reports indicated that?
    A - There were four reports that I heard that appertained to the bulkheads carrying away.

    and again at the UK Inquiry:

    Q - Did you hear anything in the nature of explosions before she went down?
    A - Yes, I heard four reports.
    Q - What do you estimate they were?
    A - Boilers leaving the bedplates and crashing through the bulkheads.

    Depending on how far Pitman was, he may have heard the delayed sound of the explosions as he would see the ship sink or more likely just disappear and the noise would take a second or two to travel towards his boat. Then again, he said the noise "sounded like the reports of a big gun in the distance" and he was certain this happened after the ship had sunk. Perhaps he was hearing the loud echo of gunshots that came from 5th officer Lowe's gun? After the Titanic sank he fired it four times when he approached one of the collapsible boats as Mr. Evans described:

    Mr. Evans
    "He fired four shots when we went to this boat that was in distress. She was half full of water, and they were up to their ankles in water."

    Four shots on a clear calm water might echo across towards Pitman and sound like this x 4.

    There are reports of another survivor who fired his gun in a lifeboat. Perhaps that made people think there were four explosions coming from the ship? Mr. Stengel indicated the noise to the Inquiry by snapping his fingers four times. This might have been the result of the gun user pressing the trigger four times and the echo of the bang travelling towards the other lifeboats.

    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
  17. Kyle Naber

    Kyle Naber Member

    There were reports of explosions after the stern was pulled under. Most likely the result of refrigeration units exploding or the superstructure imploding.
  18. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Member

    Reading an account from survivor Frank Dymond it appears the ship broke perhaps half an hour before the final plunge. He said there were two explosions and the first one occurred at 1.45am. Several watches stopped around that time.


    Survivor Mr. Weikman also heard two explosions and his watch stopped at 1.50am when the first one occurred.

    Mr. Brice said the two explosions were - "8 to 10 minutes" apart.

    Mr. Clench said they were "10 minutes" apart.

    Mr. Olliver heard several explosions and said they occurred - "Before she sank and while she was sinking."

    Mr. Archer said: "I should say they would be about 20 minutes between each explosion. From the time I heard the first one until I heard the second one it would be about 20 minutes."

    Other survivors said the stern settled back and stayed afloat for 5 minutes before it sank. This would place the timing as follows:

    1.45am - First explosion - Ship slowly begins to buckle and cant upwards.
    2.15am - Second explosion - Ship breaks completely and settles back.
    2.20am - Stern sinks.

    Then we come to Frank Dymond's account. When he arrived in England he gave a lengthy interview to a reporter. Here is part of it:


    Is it possible that the break up took a much longer time than originally believed and was not an instant clean break but a slow bending and buckling movement below the surface that eventually spread up the sides and over the top until she broke completely in two?

    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
  19. Kyle Naber

    Kyle Naber Member

    I highly doubt it. I believe that the stern had a maximum of 3-5 minutes above the surface after the breakup. It's important to remember that the breakup was in set in place the very moment the ship hit the iceberg and there was no avoiding it. Of course the ship was flexing as other ships do when they sink, but breaking over an extended period of time? I don't think so. I think that was instantaneous and shocking to those in the boats.

  20. Honestly, It sort of depends of what your definition of what you would consider a long time. I guess technically the moment the stern started to rise out of the water, the break up began. Its interesting to note that in that testimony of Frank Dymond, he mentions the bow giving a sort of a jump. This sort of fits in with some other survivors who mentioned the bow rising back up, slightly.
    sir john adams likes this.