Iceberg as life raft


L

Lloyd Omphroy

Guest
It is known that Titanic hit a HUGE iceberg and the ship eventually came to a stop. Even though the ship carried such a huge mass, I would assume that the ship finally stopped less than a mile away from the berg' after the collision. This would be due the avoidance maneuvers, the friction of the actual iceberg contact slowing the ship down as well as the extra weight of water it was taking on.
After realizing that the ship was sinking, why didn't the Captain back the ship up (or turn around) and go back to the iceberg that he just hit. This way most of the passengers could have used the iceberg itself as a floatation device until help came.
The iceberg itself had to have a large enough mass to hold many people (it sank the Titanic!).
If The ship could not move, then the life boats could have headed that way. They could have left a load of passengers on the berg' and went back to get some more. Granted the iceberg was cold, and of course it's ice, but that would have been enough to keep people out of the water and somewhat dry until help came.

Your thoughts???
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
6
183
Believe it or not, this has been brought up before, and has been thoroughly debunked.

A few problems:

-We don't know how far Titanic had stopped from the 'berg, let alone any 'berg. There is even a sound theory that suggests the ship headed north towards the shipping lanes, so using the original iceberg wouldn't help.
-No sane seaman would risk bringing his ship next to an overgrown ice cube. There is a lot of mass under the waterline, and a lot of it juts out from the sides. You can hit the 'berg long before you reach the part that is above the surface.
-Very slippery and steep surface. No way can you get people up onto the iceberg. And even if you did, exposure would still be a problem.

I first heard about this on a Dateline NBC special, when a 9th grade class brought this up as a way to save the ship. They also asked the opinion of a former skipper of the QE2, who said their ideas were rubbish. ::shrug::

Welcome to the board.


Adam
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
In 1912, this proposal was examined by a joint British/American committee, chaired by Lord Lovis and Senator Mileoff.

The committee recommended that, with effect from the next ice season, all liners should carry a supply of ropes, pitons, crampons, ice axes and other climbing gear. The exact quantity was based on a scale drawn up by the Board of Trade.

Proposals for ships to carry Inuit guides to provide expertise in emergencies were not put into effect. An Inuit spokesman issued a statement to the effect that the committee had blubber for brains and suggested that its members chill out on an iceberg for a few days.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
Lloyd, Adam Leet pretty much covered the ground here. A few other points to consider;

• Icebergs are notoriously unstable due to melt off and can turn turtle on you at any second with no warning.
• Icebergs also break up without warning. Either of these would be very bad news for anybody trapped on same.
• Actually finding an iceberg in the dead of the night where visibility is extremely poor under the best of conditions. IOW, good luck finding one that would be suitable
• In order to transfer people from the ship to an icefloe would involve using the boats to ferry people from the ship to the icefloe. This would be an extremely time and labour intensive exercise. Chances of getting everybody off; Zero!
• The time lost in searching for an icefloe to put people off on an icefloe would result in a delay in evacuating the ship which would have cost more lives
• As Adam pointed out, no sane skipper would risk approaching an iceberg because of what could and would be waiting submerged to do further damage to the hull. This is the last thing you want when uncontrollable flooding is a problem.
• The icefield was a very extensive one so this would make searching out the "right" iceberg a formidable problem for any rescue vessels coming to the scene.
• The iceberg observed by winesses on the Titanic was a rather mountainous and craggy mass. One that would have been difficult in the extreme if not impossible for even the most able bodied to climb on.
• With seas picking up in the morning, there is the risk that any boats used to get anyone off would be dashed and broken up against the ice.
• With nothing to secure the boats to the berg, they would have been lost fairly early on, leaving anyone on the ice stranded.

I could go on for ever about this, but I think you get the picture. This idea is a non-starter.
 
R

Richard Coplen

Guest
Hey all,
As absurd an idea as using an iceberg as a life-raft may sound - it has been done. I recall reading a book years back about the emigrant ships that left here in Ireland for the U.S during the devastating famine that ravaged our country between the years 1845-'49. The book told the stories of the voyages aboard these "coffin-ships" as they were called and the perils the passengers aboard faced. Death by disease and hunger was the biggest killer. However many more people died when these un-sea-worthy ships went to the bottom during storms. There was also the story of one ship in particular (I can't recall the name just now), which struck an iceberg and sank. All aboard managed to make it onto the iceberg before the ship sank. Something like 300 people stood on the berg for something like 5 days before they managed to flag down a passing ship. I think only 12 people died from exposure - but these were the most vulnerable - either the very young or the very old. The 300-odd survivors were taken aboard the rescue ship and brought the rest of the way to the States. This event definitely happened - it was'nt some myth - i'll just have to research it a little more by digging up that book i read it in. Regards, Richie.
 

Allan Clarke

Member
Feb 27, 2002
150
2
183
Hello Everyone,
I was thinking that it was too bad that they were unaware of the ice that was all around that area.
The morning of April 15, 1912 revealed a lot of field ice. One could surmise that people could have been put on this ice as a last ditch life-saving effort, assuming that it was thick enough. However, given the fact that Lightoller and the other officers had the devil's own time of it trying to convince people to get into the lifeboats, I would guess it would have been down right impossible to convince anyone to get on ice pans.
Cheers,
Allan
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
If Richard can come up with an identifiable source for that story, I'd love to see it. The one thing you can be sure of is that if this happened, it was a last ditch effort bourne of desperation. When you're in a position where you have no options and nothing left to lose, just about anything is worth a try.

In any event, the problems I mentioned above still remain. You cannot with a large vessel simply pull up to and moor to an iceberg much less an icefloe. Had the Titanic found an icefloe in the dead and dark of the night that would have been useful, the people would have to be ferried to same by way of the boats. Considering that they only had time to properly launch 18 of 20 in the time they had, I strongly doubt that a single additional life could have been saved this way, and if they had taken the additional time to do a search, that would have cost them what time that was available to evacuate those who could be saved.
 

Allan Clarke

Member
Feb 27, 2002
150
2
183
Hi Again,

Yes, Michael, I agree with you. In fact, even if the ship had carried all of the lifeboats she could have, there is still that time factor. If they could barely get away 18 of the 20, how would they have handled the remaining boats? I have seen some shows that suggest that most people would have been saved if there were more lifeboats. I'm not sure I'd agree, given the window of opportunity they had to get them away. Another big problem was the lack of training the crew had in lowering lifeboats.
Cheers,
Allan
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
The lack of training was certainly a problem, and it didn't help that a lot of these people had no idea where they were to go. In spite of that, they did pretty damned good launching the boats that they did in the time they had.

As to lifeboats themselves, you've hit on a problem that several of us have discussed at length on this forum. The notion existed then and still does now that lifeboats for all gaurantees survival for all.

Experienced sailors know better.

With few exceptions, when you have an accident at sea, people are going to die. The trick is to take the course of action which produces the lowest numbers of corpses. Had the Titanic had lifeboats for all, I think there would have been much less reluctance to fill them, but in the time available, there's just no way they could have saved everybody.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
Hallo Jerry, and welcome to the board
happy.gif


Unfortunately, an iceberg is not something upon which one can easily land passengers, if at all - had it been close to, visible and stable enough to support passengers, the crew would have attempted this. Photographs of the icebergs in the vicinity, however, show them to have been sheer-sided. The iceberg that they actually collided with was soon lost in the darkness astern - it would have been near impossible for Smith to have 'moved his doomed ship' near the iceberg. He couldn't simply 'back her up', and attempting to manouevre his fatally damaged vessel in this way could have hastened the flooding and sunk the ship quicker.

Even if were physically possible to load passengers onto an iceberg, they would still have to load the boats, row them over (bearing in mind that bergs are not motionless, but were also drifting), disembark them, row back, be hoisted aboard again, reload and repeat the process. This would not have been possible in the time available to them. In the few cases where ferrying passengers with a limited number of lifeboats to a nearby waiting vessel, e.g. the Republic collision, more time has been available to transfer passengers and crew, with the crew of the waiting vessel available to assist operations.
quote:

The second possibility would be for the ship to strike something in the open sea. Since the open sea is by definition "open" it does not seem unreasonable to think that the "something" that a great passenger liner would hit would be another ship. What else would there be out there? Moby Dick's whale? Sea Dragons? Icebergs?
Collisions with whales were known to have occured. Another problem were the derelict hulks that were in the area - Frank Bullen wrote in 1900 of the very real dangers these posed to shipping. Icebergs were a very real and recognised hazard.
quote:

The most likely possibility would be a foundering of the ship after running aground on some reef or shoal. This obviously would happen only through serious navigation error of the crew.
Not necessarily through navigational error on the part of the crew - weather conditions can be responsible for driving ships off course.
quote:

No other sinking scenario seemed reasonable to the knowledgeable seaman of 1912.
While collisions and groundings were (and largely still are) the two most immediate causes for large ships to founder, extreme weather conditions can also be a cause. The Yongala, for example, sank in 1911 in a cyclone with the loss of all 121 lives aboard. Even today on large liners, rogue waves are known to be a hazard...more so, recent research suggests, than has previous been thought.

The BOT was considerably slower than the maritime officials of New South Wales in recognising the need for safety devices, including lifeboats, to keep pace with increasing passenger numbers. When the Keilawarra collided with the Helen Nicholl in 1886, the Helen Nicholl remained afloat, although badly damaged, but was still not able to rescue all those aboard the other vessel. As a result of the tragedy, all NSW steamers were required to carry lifebelts and lifeboat spaces for all on board.
quote:

Had it been Captain Haynes instead of Captain Smith on the Titanic that night the Captain would have moved his doomed ship near the iceberg and at least tried to transfer his passenger to the object he had struck.
How can you know this? There is no evidence to suggest Hayes would have tried a different approach to the evacuation (and I assume you mean Bertram Hayes), let alone that he would have followed the course of action you advocate. This is pure conjecture on your part, and it is quite concievable that Hayes, like Smith, would not have seen your concept of the evacuation as feasible.

In the aftermath of the disaster many experienced merchant mariners expressed their opinions on the disaster, its causes and the conduct of Captain Smith. I've never come across any Captain who suggested that loading people onto icebergs would have been remotely feasible, let alone the correct course of action to take.​
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
Believe it or not, about five or six years ago, someone brought to my attention a story from one of the tabloids. As the story goes, that same year the story came out, the discovery of passenger Charles Franklin's remains was made on an iceberg in an undisclosed location. First, icebergs from that time, near where the Titanic sank, would no doubt be non-existent now. Secondly, not even on a cold iceberg could the remains of a body remain for 90 years so that enough could be discovered (constant exposure to air would expedite the deterioration process), and finally, this was a story in a tabloid, hehe. Sorry, I just wanted to share the story, as it fell right in line with this discussion. Talk about some of the wild stories that pop up about Titanic. The only correct thing about the story was that there was a passenger named Charles Franklin who did, in fact, perish (or is that two things?).

By the way, Inger, did you get my second email a couple of days ago? Sometimes the larger ones don't go through on my computer. I just wanted to make sure it received it, as I haven't heard from you.
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
548
388
Jerry is undoubtedly sincere in his posting and I do not want to discourage his enthusiasm. However, wishful thinking does not change reality.

Captain Smith had lifeboats being prepared even before he knew the total extent of the flooding. He started launching boats even before it was an agreed certainty that Titanic would sink.

If we assume that a convenient iceberg was located to port and another equally convenient berg to starboard; and if we assume that using these conveneient bergs was the plan from the beginning; there was still not enough time to save everyone. Reality is that the ship sank at a rate which matched the time required to launch 18 of the ship's 20 boats. There was no additional time left to Titanic for the arduous and time-consuming job of rowing to the bergs, discharging passengers, and rowing back to the mother ship for another load.

If such a plan had been followed, it would have been necessary to place a minimum of 10 trained crew in each lifeboat. One skilled oarsman per or times eight, plus a coxwain, plus a bowman to jump onto the berg at landing and handle the painter. The need for trained crew for a transfer (unappreciated by 1912 regulations) means that the capacity of passengers per transfer drops from 65 to 55 per large lifeboat. And, since there were fewer than 50 trained seamen in the crew, only about five lifeboats could have been properly manned.

"Properly manned" is a more telling expression than it might seem. Almost anyone of adult size can swing a lifeboat oar. But, rowing with skill is quite a different matter. It takes some practice for a crew to work together so as not to "catch a crab" or tangle oars. Then, some skilled maneuvers such as backing oars on one side of the boat while simultaneously "tossing" oars on the other would have been required to get alongside the berg. All of this had to be done in the dark of night.

Five boats properly manned could cary 250 survivors per trip. To complete the evacuation would have taken 9 round trips of the fleet. Loading, rowing, unloading, and rowing back to the ship would have been time consuming. At 30 minutes per cycle, the total evacuation would have taken 270 minutes, or four and a half hours. The last passengers thus rescued would have been loaded around 5 a.m. after treading water (cold water!) for more than two hours.

Icebergs are not the most stable of platforms. A 1909 (predating Titanic) publication of the U.S. Hydrologic Office stated, "Often the bergs are so nicely balanced that the slightest melting of their surfaces causes a shifting of the center of gravity and a consequent turning over of the mass into a new position..." If a little melting can upset an iceberg, what might be the effect of landing multipule tons of human "beef" on top of one?

So, while initially attractive, the concept of transferring passengers to nearby icebergs would not have worked. It would have taken longer than the time allotted and would have raised the threat of a cold and wet death due to capsize of the supposed safe haven.

The whole concept of lifeboats is questionable even today. Ask Captain Erik about the "safety" of these supposed life-saving devices. Putting people into a container and then swaying that container down to the sea on cables is not exactly the safetst of endeavors. That it was done so successfully by Titanic's crew speaks to both the high level of seamanship and the calmness of the ocean that night.

And, history has shown that providing 100% lifeboat seating is not the same as ensuring 100% survival of everone on board. The sinking of Andrea Doria (cited as an example in an earlier post) proved this. Due to an immediate list of Doria, none of the boats on the port side could be launched. Doria passengers found themselves in exactly the same situation as passengers on Titanic--half enough boats for everyone aboard.

Which comes full circle back to Captain Erik's well-stated premise (on another thread) that the only sure way to have "saved" everyone on boars would have been total avoidance of the iceberg. The harsh reality of life at sea is that people die when things go wrong. Or, more precisely in the case of passenger vessels, the more people there are on the ship, the more people who die when things go wrong.

-- David G. Brown
 

Jerry Gregg

Member
Oct 11, 2004
3
0
131
Again, I acknowledge that the likelihood of success in transferring the passengers to the iceberg is an unknown and may not be that high. My points boil down to two, first it is something that should have come up as an alternative given that the primary purpose of the lifeboats was to transfer passengers. Second, the fact that the Captain never even took a single step to explore this option tells me that he was not truly in command after the accident.
What if, the iceberg was a 1/2 mile away from the ship and it had a flat open shelf on the side opposite the twin peaks? All the lifeboats had to do was be loaded once, be emptied and return to pick up sinking survivors in the water even if the ship had foundered. My point again is this, it should have been something that was explored given the transfer logic of the lifeboats. The fact that it didn't, to our knowledge, indicates a lack of effort when the trained for options (no ship nearby to transfer to) didn't materialize. The key to leadership is in part the ability to take lemons and make lemonade.
 

Jerry Gregg

Member
Oct 11, 2004
3
0
131
To respond to a couple of Mr. Brown's points on the reasonableness of the transfer task, I would first point out that the iceberg in question had been struck by the largest passenger liner of the day and had stayed erect keeping its twin peak profile before and after the hit. I for one would be will to risk climbing up on it as an alternative to staying in the water.
Second, every passenger transferred to the iceberg meant another empty seat to pick up someone in the water. Even if the lifeboats were loaded and launched exactly the same as they were on the fateful night, what would have been the harm in instructing the crew to row for the iceberg instead of just loitering nearby and watching people freeze to death. Again, it is a course of action that should have occurred to the Captain given the lifeboat transfer logic of the day.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
Hallo again, Jerry -

quote:

My points boil down to two, first it is something that should have come up as an alternative given that the primary purpose of the lifeboats was to transfer passengers. Second, the fact that the Captain never even took a single step to explore this option tells me that he was not truly in command after the accident.
Jerry, how do you know that Smith didn't consider a range of options, including some extreme ones, during the course of the evacuation? Smith didn't survive to give evidence on his own behalf, and provide testimony on what options he may have considered and discarded.
quote:

What if, the iceberg was a 1/2 mile away from the ship and it had a flat open shelf on the side opposite the twin peaks? All the lifeboats had to do was be loaded once, be emptied and return to pick up sinking survivors in the water even if the ship had foundered.
The Titanic continued to make progress for a brief time following the collision, and the iceberg was soon lost astern in the darkness. It was not visible during the evacuation. Smith would have had to have sent the boats away to find the iceberg and hope that they could make a sort of landfall on it. Ice is not something one can easily scramble up upon, even with crampons and grappling hooks - these were passengers, including women in hobble skirts and heels. If there had been a convenient flat berg that could be seen it would have been noted by those in the boats - no such report exists.
quote:

Again, it is a course of action that should have occurred to the Captain given the lifeboat transfer logic of the day.
And perhaps it did occur to him - only to be rejected given the factors outlined above: no berg in sight, difficulty or even impossibility of clambering onto a berg, instability of a berg, lack of time to transfer passengers. Even if it had been a ship standing by, they would have been hard-pressed to get everyone transferred over in the time available to them.

Even Shackleton - that great Antarctic explorer, who knew a good deal about the nature of icebergs - didn't fault Smith for not trying to land people on a berg.​
 
T

Trevor William Sturdy

Guest
Jerry, A couple of points to consider.

1) Very minimal chance of locating, let alone offloading people onto the berg they hit. It was gone, disappeared astern after impact. No radar or GPS to assist, backtracking using compass bearings was they only option and would have wasted far to much time with little chance of success.

2) I doubt that an experienced captain would have wasted time on some untested,hairbrained idea of offloading passengers onto ice, providing they find some. Smith knew he had very little time to save as many lives as possible and the one option he had available to achieve this was getting people in the boats and getting as many of those boats safely away in the time permitted.

3) To state that Smith was "not truly in command" after the accident is pretty harsh. He had to maintain order while evacuating his ship, and probably at the same time putting some consideration into how history would remember what was unfolding. I think he did alright.
 

Jerry Gregg

Member
Oct 11, 2004
3
0
131
If in fact Smith did consider the iceberg as a transfer location then are then any obvious courses of action that he would have taken? To me a next move would be to simply move forward on the same circular course upon which you started prior to the ship coasting to a stop. Completing this tight circle carried a high likelihood of bringing you back to a point near the original collision point. I don’t know what the figures are on turning radius but I would imagine that within a few minutes you could complete the circle. You could also determine the ship’s condition under way and permit your lookouts to spot anything in the area of interest (Californian?). I suppose this does carry the risk of a second collision, but if such action is taken at the point where Mr. Andrews has informed Smith that the ship is doomed it seems no more risky than steaming toward the sea lane.
To label the idea “untested and harebrained” is unfair. I still state that transfer to the iceberg is a logical and naturally implied solution to the lifeboat transfer scenario. Such scenario is what supported the BOT logic in letting the Titanic go to sea with lifeboats for only half its passengers. When the chips were down how could Smith simply not think of or out of hand reject a logical train of thought that he accepted when he put to sea in either Olympic or Titanic. Is an Iceberg an inconceivable transfer risk but a rocky, wind whipped shore a reasonable risk?
What are your options, you have a ship with lifeboat capacity scaled for a transfer to shore or another ship. When you left port you knew that the lifeboats were intended as a method of moving the passengers from the ship to the nearest safety. The iceberg when last seen was still afloat and is the nearest safety.
If the Captain consciously rejected this idea, I am very curious what he viewed as the more viable alternative for himself and the other 1500 souls that couldn’t get to the lifeboats. Why put lifeboats in the water for only half the passengers immediately if you can come up with a way to give everyone a hope by finding the iceberg? My guess is that the Captain simply decided that his best hope was to wait for Carpathia and pray that Titanic would stay afloat long enough for a practical transfer option to arrive. He chose the safe conservative approach that avoids “harebrained” ideas but dooms 1500 souls
Any other thoughts on obvious actions that would be taken if one were considering a transfer to the object you just hit? Maybe there exists some way to establish that Smith eliminated this option for good reason. Maybe his only option was to launch the transfer boats loaded with half the passengers and let the other half drown. If not, and if Smith simply rejected the Iceberg transfer out of hand as a "non-starter" then I stick to my original premise that failure to pursue this obvious option was negligence on the Captains part.

I recognize that my arguments that the iceberg transfer option is logically obvious is counter factual since I have yet to see any 1912 discussion of it quoted by anyone on this board or in any historical materials.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
quote:

To me a next move would be to simply move forward on the same circular course upon which you started prior to the ship coasting to a stop. Completing this tight circle carried a high likelihood of bringing you back to a point near the original collision point. I don’t know what the figures are on turning radius but I would imagine that within a few minutes you could complete the circle.
You may want to look into some of the discussion on this point - these ships did not have tight turning circles. Manouverability was not their strong point. Going hunting for the iceberg that had just damaged them was clearly not going to be an object, and restarting the engines (as may, indeed, have happened) and moving the vessel could increase damage already done. Rather than work on an untested theory that the iceberg might have had some point upon which to embark passengers, and risking loss of time and further damage to his vessel in hunting for the berg, Smith had to work to get away what boats he could in the time available.
quote:

I still state that transfer to the iceberg is a logical and naturally implied solution to the lifeboat transfer scenario. Such scenario is what supported the BOT logic in letting the Titanic go to sea with lifeboats for only half its passengers. When the chips were down how could Smith simply not think of or out of hand reject a logical train of thought that he accepted when he put to sea in either Olympic or Titanic. Is an Iceberg an inconceivable transfer risk but a rocky, wind whipped shore a reasonable risk?
I don't think it's a logical solution at all to the transfer problem, for the reasons already discussed in this thread. And there are many instances in shipwrecks where landfall at the closest possible point to a wreck has proved impossible due to prevailing conditions - the General Grant wreck springs to mind as one of the more notorious.

Smith was attempting to save the largest number of lives in the uncertain time he had before the ship finally foundered. He had inadequate equipment - and, arguably, an inadequately trained crew - to save the full complement of souls on board. Whatever happened, people were going to die. He did endeavour to signal the 'mystery ship' and even instructed at least one boat to row for it and disembark passengers before returning.

The brutal fact is that once the collision had occured, Smith did not have too many options available to him. He had too many people on board (even if there had been sufficient lifeboats, it is doubtful if everyone could have embarked safely), no public annoucement system, and a limited time in which to act.

I think it would have been negligant for him to go hunting in the dark for an iceberg and try to land people on board it rather than turn his attention to getting those boats in the water as soon as possible once it was determined that the vessel would founder.

As for arguments that the BOT was not responsible for the inadequate supply of lifeboats due to suggestions that they were intended merely to ferry passengers to a nearby ship or shore, I have to disagree. The potential for a large-scale disastrous sinking had been recognised for some time - Lightoller noted it after the event, and it was recognised in several sources published pre-1912. Frank Bullen, an experienced mariner and maritime commentator, thought it next to miraculous that one hadn't already occured by 1900. Given the size of vessels and the pressure to keep to time tables, he felt it was astonishing. Even laypeople such as Stead had already written fictional stories highlighting the problems of inadequate lifesaving equipment on large ships. Charles Hayes is reported to have brought up the inevitability of disaster in a conversation on board the Titanic. Collisions and groundings weren't the only possibilities for disaster either - even outside weather conditions, there was also the threat of fire that, in spite of advancements in firefighting equipment, could also necessitate evacuation of a ship at sea. The shipping industry was anticipating changes to the lifeboat regulations to keep pace with the exponential increases in vessel size in the first decade of the 20th century - thre was some belief that these would be passed before construction of the Olympic class vessels.

I'm not suggesting that adequate provision of lifeboats would have meant everyone on board could be saved, but that does not excuse inadequate provision.​
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
Most of Jerry's arguements have been addressed in some fashion, but I admit to some surprise that nobody caught this one in the initial posting;
quote:

Captain Smith, not the BOT should be held responsible for the lifeboat "issue".
To which I have to ask; "Why?"

Captain Smith had no say whatever in the number of boats the ship was provided with. This decision was made at the corperate level by White Star and Harland & Wolff simply gave the customer what they wanted.

>>I still state that transfer to the iceberg is a logical and naturally implied solution to the lifeboat transfer scenario.<<

Sorry, it isn't. Even if such an option was considered the fact remains that lifeboat transfers are extremely time consuming and time was the one commodity the Titanic needed but which she didn't have. Remember that in the time they had, they got 18 out of 20 away with the last two floating off as the ship plunged.

>>Such scenario is what supported the BOT logic in letting the Titanic go to sea with lifeboats for only half its passengers.<<

Really? Got any primary source documents at hand to back that one up?

>>Why put lifeboats in the water for only half the passengers immediately if you can come up with a way to give everyone a hope by finding the iceberg?<<

And if you can't find the iceberg in the first place, what then? You've just wasted a lot of time and doomed far more then 1500 people to an icey and watery grave. Searching for something out at sea in the dead of the night with nothing more then the Mark I Eyeball is not one of the easiest things to do. I know. I've done that.

Another point to consider is that moving a ship with a busted nose isn't one of the brightest moves in the world from the standpoint of damage control. Even if one doesn't aggravate the damage, one is still forcing more water in through the holes by way of the pressure from hydrodynamic flow. While there is evidence that the ship was moved post collision, testimony offered by Fireman Dillon tend to indicate that it wasn't for very long. From his testimony;
quote:

3715. Did you feel the shock when the ship struck? - Slightly.

3716. And shortly before that had the telegraph rung? - Yes.

3717. Can you say at all how long before she struck that was? - Two seconds.

3718. What was the order given by the telegraph? - I could not tell you.

3719. You just heard it ring. Then a few seconds after that you felt a slight shock? - Yes.

3720. Was anything done to the engines? Did they stop or did they go on? - They stopped.

3721. Was that immediately after you felt the shock or some little time after? - About a minute and a half.

3722. Did they continue stopped or did they go on again after that? - They went slow astern.

3723. How long were they stopped for before they began to go slow astern? - About half a minute.

3724. For how long did they go slow astern? - About two minutes.

3725. Two or three did you say? - Two minutes.

3726. And then did they stop again? - Yes.

3727. And did they go on again after that? - They went ahead again.

3728. For how long? - For about two minutes.

3729. Then did they stop the boat after that? - Yes.

>>I recognize that my arguments that the iceberg transfer option is logically obvious is counter factual since I have yet to see any 1912 discussion of it quoted by anyone on this board or in any historical materials.<<

Have you checked the Inquiry Transcripts themselves? There were all kinds of scenerios discussed during these investigations. Might want to give it a shot.​
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,487
1,758
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Just a few comments. The turning circle of the Titanic was about 4000 ft in diameter. But the Titanic did not continue in a circle after the collision. Why should they? They had collided with an iceberg and the first thing to do was to stop and assess damage. Nobody in their right mind would continue in a circle to come back to the object that caused the ship harm in the first place, even if they could find it again in the dark, which itself is questionable.

Secondly, the full extent and seriousness of the damage was not known until much later on. Even after the initial reports of flooding came in, the ship was not expected to founder. As a contingency, and to his credit, Capt. Smith ordered the boats to be uncovered about 20-25 minutes after the collision, worked out an initial position report and gave a heads up to the Marconi operators for the possible need to call for assistance, and agreed that passengers be woken up and to come on deck with lifebelts on while damage was still being assessed. It was only after a complete inspection was made of the vessel, which included Thomas Andrews from H&W, that the full extent of damage showed that the ship could not survive. It was about 45 minutes after the collision that the order was given to load the boats with women and children.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads