Tell me, did a single lifeboat spill out the people inside, as a result of these imperfect, uneven rates? I don't believe one did. Not one.///
He would have been a raving lunatic!
To fill every lifeboat to capacity at the onset would have been gross negligence and exhibit a dire lack of seamanship knowledge. The reason for this is very simple. Unlike modern lifeboats which use a single drum controlling two special steel wires to lower both end of the boat simultaneously, the ends of Titanic's lifeboats were lowered separately using individual manila ropes. This meant that boats would be lowered in jerks and at uneven rates.
An empty boat could get "hung-up," could it not? Lifesaving procedures need not be perfect in order to be quite effective. The alternative is certain death. Does nobody here but me recognize the simplicity of doing something, trying something, as opposed to going down to certain death?There was also a possibility that one end could get "hung-up".
1. Virtually all the lifeboats were lowered, without losing passengers. Why do you insist on trying to rewrite events as cynically as possible?You must bear in mind that control of the lowering depended on clear, precise communication between those on the boat in darkness and those 50 or 60 feet above them. You should try it some time.
2. The next time I am on a sinking ship, with manila ropes for lowering life rafts, I will indeed do that. Your wisdom is notable.
To deprive everyone of a life jacket assumes that the weather will stay calm until a rescue vessel arrives and more to the point, finds all the lifeboats. Not a good idea. "I'll be keeping mine thank you!"
The life jackets on passengers in life rafts were not used, and therefore worthless. Storms do not typically arise in an hour or so. The captain knew the Carpathia was on its way. Nor was daylight far off. Your lack of chivalry is compounded by a false sense of security, that the jacket would somehow have helped. It wouldn't.
"IF" that gale arrived...Bad thinking Bat Man! For all the same reasons above. In addition: sure it was calm but that was abnormal for that part of the world. Believe me, if boats were loaded as you suggest and the usual South Westerly force 10 or 12 gale arrived, we would now be talking about close to 100% casualties.
Bad reasoning, Rude Man.
Mob mentality seems to rule here. Condescension seems to be universal among critics, even those who claim to be so tolerant and patient.
1. There were several decks, not just the main deck.Let's say for the sake of argument, your system used up another 15 minutes, That means you would have 15 minutes left to construct rafts. How many such raft would be constructed by untrained hands on a ship with a main deck tilted down by the head and heeled to port?
2. No doubt many of the third class passengers were adept with tools and woodwork.
3. Is there absolutely no optimism by anyone else here except me? Has nobody else read books on survival at sea?
It doesn't have to be easy.
ard rafts to remain seated at all times, for stability.[/COLOR]
Says you. In fact every single life raft would have been a useful adjunct to saving lives. Every single one.The foregoing needs not an answer since it is totally impracticable.
You and all your friends blithely dismiss creative ideas in a manner that I find offensive.
Look, a compliment! Amidst volumes of criticism and negative assumptions, it is virtually lost.I admire your imagination John.
I have been at sea many hundreds of hours, and underwater in pitch darkness one or two hundred hours. You never know what can be done without trying.Have you ever been at sea in pitch darkness? I don't think so. It would make an excellent book though. It would need however to be categorised as science fiction.
This forum abounds with armchair know-it-alls, pooh poohing ideas and analyses without considering the possibilities, the alternative of which was certain death. What was to lose by searching for the iceberg and checking for a landing site? Nothing. What was to lose by filling life boats? Only more lives.
In fact it HAS BEEN your intention to belittle my effort. You and Samuel Halpern fly in here in your own little superman costumes and huff and puff with supreme arrogance. For your information, Smith proceeded at almost full speed, even as another ship nearby had cut its engines for the night, for obvious reasons of safety.I have been very patient John and tried to be as constructive as possible but you must allow me this question: Would the officer in question have changed into a blue, skin-tight suit with a cape and the letter "S" emblazoned on his chest? Sorry John, I couldn't resist it.
I leave comment on that last bit to wiser men than me.
It has not been my intention to belittle your effort but I draw the line at your observation that Captain Smith was an idiot; he most certainly was not and I doubt very much if you are qualified to judge him or any of the lads on that ship. For your information, that evacuation was almost text book for 1912. It is highly unlikely that given the same circumstances, another crew would have done equally as well.
Smith failed to break open containers with binoculars inside. Smith failed to properly supervise evacuation. And on and on. Your excuses for a man who sank his ship, killing 1,517 or so people are just that - excuses, and nothing more. He was responsible, and he failed miserably.