You have to admit, they were kinda funny : ) Seriously, though, Titanic was hollw and had (at least at the time she sailed) no holes under the waterline. Because of this large underwater air pocket she floated. A good example is a balloon. If you blow a balloon up and tie the top, it will float because there's air in it. This is called displacement.
LOL. Ok, we need to post a message about how to do the smiley faces.
Hope dat helped,
I'm not sure if this is the proper place to post a message such as this, but it will probably turn this thread to more technical aspects regarding speculation that I am about to mention. As most of us know, the OLYMPIC had a series of mishaps that occured well before the maiden voyage of the TITANIC. First, the mishap on her ( OLYMPIC'S ) maiden voyage, in which she trapped and almost snak the tug O.L. HALENBECK under her stern, with only superficial damage. Second, the collision with the Navy cruiser HMS HAWKE. This resulted in two holes in the OLYMPIC'S hull, meaning she had to return to Southampton for temporary, and then onto Belfast for more permamnent repairs. While under repair, TITANIC had to be moved out of the way to make way for her distressed sister. All the while Cunard was racking up passenger trade on the North Atlantic while White Star and the Royal Navy were battling it out in court, in favor oof the Royal Navy. Then on 24 FEB 1912, the OLYMPIC had yet another mishap. She ran over an obstruction, and shed one of her port propellers. The speculation here is, how damaged was the OLYMPIC? The two sisters were together for a while in Belfast while Olympic was being repaired, and hardly anyone could tell them apart. It could be speculated that the OLYMPIC was mortally wounded, and sent to sea as her sister, while the TITANIC..... the wounded, renamed OLYMPIC sailed sailed into a known icefield at increased speeds, sank, with the reassurance that other IMM ships would be close at hand to rescue everyone on board. The OLYMPIC is written off on the TITANIC'S insurance, while the real TITANIC sails on as the OLYMPIC for 23 years. I, myself, highly doubt this, but it does make one ponder. There are other anomalies that point things in that direction, as well, such as the fire that burned in one of the bunkers since Belfast, as was allowed to go unreported to the B.O.T. officials on sailing day. Any responses in the form of opinions or otherwise would be greatly appreciated.
here's my opinion in a nutshell about the Olympic-Titanic 'switch'. It could not have happened. It does make for a compelling bit of fiction, but it was simply impossible.
The differences between Olympic and Titanic were far more numerous than the average person knows. A few of the most noted are:
1. Vent configuration
2. stateroom and interiors
3. porthole configuration
4. Bridge wing cabs on Olympic in 1911-13 were consistently belayed at the window supports to A-deck below. Titanic's protruded several inches beyond the A-deck supports since the end of 1911, long before Olympic's subsequent mishaps.
How do you, in three week's time, completely reconfigure interiors, vents, etc. all in the full view of the public, AND keep all the shipyard workers silent?
Olympic and Titanic were together for a short time in the beginning of March, in full public view, and it took everything the workers could do to get Olympic's prop shaft and gear fixed. Completely redo two ships in a short period of time? Can't be done. It was the third week of March before they could get the fore windows torn out of A-deck and the enclosed screen in place in time for her trials April 1 (postponed to April 2). The workers were struggling just to finish the Titanic, something still being done as the ship sailed from Belfast to Southampton.
If you want me to go into more detail, I can, but I will let someone else chime in for now...
Woody, I have to agree with Dan. The two ships were sufficiently different externally, and especially internally that there was no way they could both be reconfigured in only a week or two to pass one off for another. And certainly it could not be done without hundreds of people knowing about it. I know about this thanks to my own experience in shipyards, one on a new construction project for the Navy and two overhauls involving aircraft carriers.
That ship switch theory was offered up by two men, one named Gardiner (I can't remember the other bloke's name at the moment) who asserted it was part of an insurance scam. The problem is that the Titanic was underinsured (See the U.S. Senate report for particulars) by $2,500,000! White Star would be ripping itself off with such a scam as the deficit was underwritten by the corperate insurance fund.
Really when you get down to it, this one does not make one ponder, and there are no anomolies which point in this direction. That coal bunker fire was more of an irritant then a threat. While not an everyday occurance, coal bunker fires were hardly unknown, and don't point to ship switches.
The final nail in this one's coffin was that the Titanic's yard number, 401, was found on the ships propeller when the wreck was examined. With evidence like that, Gardiner himself had to admit the ship switch theory was nonsense befor his book was even completed.
Thank you for your posts. I wasn't saying that I personally thought that this could've happened, but, having never had any experience in shipyards, I could not know either way. I did find out this info from Gardiner's book about 4 years ago, when i picked it up, and was recently re-reading it. I have learned, over time, to tell the difference between the two sisters before the "Ismay Screens" were installed on TITANIC'S A deck. Like Dan said, the irregularly space portholes give each ship her own signature, with or without the enclosed screens. As for the propellers, I read Gardiners admission that his speculation was far-fetched, seeing the 401 on the propeller itself. I do have one question, could it have not been possible to switch the actuall propellers? Not saying it did happen, just me wanting to know if it could've happened. Also, I have read somewhere that a propeller shaft was robbed from the TITANIC before installation, and placed promptly inside the OLYMPIC. Does this make any sense to you? I merely want to know if the statement that I read could be true, seeing that it was there, and the OLYMPIC needeed it. Please respond..... I was just curious as to what others might say of Gardiner's speculations.
yes, the propeller parts from Titanic were put on Olympic, hence one of two reasons why Titanic's maiden voyage was pushed from March 20 to April 10. Olympic needed the part, one was already manufactured (but on Titanic). The second reason for the voyage delay was the outfitters for Titanic were pulled over to Olympic to get that ship back into service; Titanic then sat stripped of one shaft and workers.
There is a book in the works by two people I know putting Gardiner's 'theories' to rest, to prove beyond all doubt that Titanic was Titanic and Olympic was Olympic, all day, all night, all the time...