So its confirmed Full Astern was not ordered?


Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,077
146
128
15
Maryland, USA
I have seen people say the Ship would have been in more danger had Titanic had her engines put in reverse. I think the iceberg was too close, and Murdoch being an experianced sailor, would know this. Thoughts?
 
May 3, 2005
2,599
278
278
Hi Jim -
What would be your answer to Cam's question as to reversing the engines causing the ship to be in more danger ?
There seems to be another thread, somewhat on the same line as this one , entitled "Reversing The Engines, Unfair Criticism Of Officer Murdoch" ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,077
146
128
15
Maryland, USA
Hi Jim -
What would be your answer to Cam's question as to reversing the engines causing the ship to be in more danger ?
There seems to be another thread, somewhat on the same line as this one , entitled "Reversing The Engines, Unfair Criticism Of Officer Murdoch" ?
there is. So, reversing the engines would cause a ship to be in more danger, like, for example, would it drift forwards, then begin to reverse?
 
May 3, 2005
2,599
278
278
there is. So, reversing the engines would cause a ship to be in more danger, like, for example, would it drift forwards, then begin to reverse?
Hi Cam-
Thanks much
I thought maybe you might find your answer in that other thread.

Incidentally......... I've explained this before , but I will explain it one more time for the old salts and landlubbers on these forums.
I was only in the U.S. Navy for only one four year enlistment.
And only about two and a half years of that was active sea duty....On a ship at sea , that is.
But sometimes, when a subject like this comes up in conversation, someone might ask " You were in the Navy
and you didn't know that !!!!!! ?????.
My excuse is that most of the enlisted persons in the Navy are in what are called "specialty ratings."
Each person is expected to know all what his job in that "rating" is.
These are in sort of an alphabet soup - "AB" is an "Aviation Boatswain Mate" and "YN" is a "Yeoman".
(You can find the long list on the Internet. )
Mine and was as an "ET2- Electronic Technician" and my rank was a Second Class Petty Officer - about equivalent to a Sergeant in the Army.
I was just expected to know all about the Electronic equipment on the ship - radio transmitters and receivers,
radar, sonar .....and things like that.....nothing more.
So, if you asked me what happens if you reversed the engines on a ship ?
My answer would be " Well ? ......I guess the ship would go backwards ?"
Any way that's my excuse.
Luckily, we have persons like Jim Currie and Samuel Halpearn on this website to answer our questions....like
persons like me.

Incidentally.....also.....
I was always under the impression that the Captain all the other Commissioned Officers knew all about running the ship, but they also knew all about everything else on the ship....Including all the radios and radars .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

B-rad

Member
Jul 1, 2015
584
191
108
39
Tacoma, WA
There are two ways of looking at evasive maneuvers:

1: To prevent damage
2: To mitigate damage

If the idea was to prevent damage to Titanic, keeping the ship at speed with helm would be the quickest way to maneuver the ship.

Based on Murdoch's actions, I do not believe Murdoch thought Titanic was far enough from the berg to prevent damage. Rather one believes he went 'Full Astern' or 'Stopped' the engines, his orders do not reflect a 'prevent damage' scenario - unless he thought doing a crash stop the ship would loose way enough to actually start reversing before impact (doubtful) but again, for a stationary object like an iceberg one would assume turning around the berg would be better.

Not to say that is always the case. When people are driving they tend to slam on the brakes rather than maneuvering around something, but ships handle much differently.

So this brings us to mitigating damage, aka, there was a large possibility that Titanic would strike the berg so try to lessen the impact/damage, with maybe with a prayer of avoiding it all together.

Based on what we know Murdoch did, it sounds more like he was trying to mitigate the damage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,077
146
128
15
Maryland, USA
Hi Cam-
Thanks much
I thought maybe you might find your answer in that other thread.

Incidentally......... I've explained this before , but I will explain it one more time for the old salts and landlubbers on these forums.
I was only in the U.S. Navy for only one four year enlistment.
And only about two and a half years of that was active sea duty....On a ship at sea , that is.
But sometimes, when a subject like this comes up in conversation, someone might ask " You were in the Navy
and you didn't know that !!!!!! ?????.
My excuse is that most of the enlisted persons in the Navy are in what are called "specialty ratings."
Each person is expected to know all what his job in that "rating" is.
These are in sort of an alphabet soup - "AB" is an "Aviation Boatswain Mate" and "YN" is a "Yeoman".
(You can find the long list on the Internet. )
Mine and was as an "ET2- Electronic Technician" and my rank was a Second Class Petty Officer - about equivalent to a Sergeant in the Army.
I was just expected to know all about the Electronic equipment on the ship - radio transmitters and receivers,
radar, sonar .....and things like that.....nothing more.
So, if you asked me what happens if you reversed the engines on a ship ?
My answer would be " Well ? ......I guess the ship would go backwards ?"
Any way that's my excuse.
Luckily, we have persons like Jim Currie and Samuel Halpearn on this website to answer our questions....like
persons like me.

Incidentally.....also.....
I was always under the impression that the Captain all the other Commissioned Officers knew all about running the ship, but they also knew all about everything else on the ship....Including all the radios and radars .
thanks Robert! You're so smart haha
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,077
146
128
15
Maryland, USA
There are two ways of looking at evasive maneuvers:

1: To prevent damage
2: To mitigate damage

If the idea was to prevent damage to Titanic, keeping the ship at speed with helm would be the quickest way to maneuver the ship.

Based on Murdoch's actions, I do not believe Murdoch thought Titanic was far enough from the berg to prevent damage. Rather one believes he went 'Full Astern' or 'Stopped' the engines, his orders do not reflect a 'prevent damage' scenario - unless he thought doing a crash stop the ship would loose way enough to actually start reversing before impact (doubtful) but again, for a stationary object like an iceberg one would assume turning around the berg would be better.

Not to say that is always the case. When people are driving they tend to slam on the brakes rather than maneuvering around something, but ships handle much differently.

So this brings us to mitigating damage, aka, there was a large possibility that Titanic would strike the berg so try to lessen the impact/damage, with maybe with a prayer of avoiding it all together.

Based on what we know Murdoch did, it sounds more like he was trying to mitigate the damage.
ohh ok, thank you as well!
 
May 3, 2005
2,599
278
278
thanks Robert! You're so smart haha
Not really. HaHa
I was just pointing out how ignorant I am when it comes to naval things even though I was in the navy and the reason why I am so ignorant of those things.LOL

Here is just one example how ignorant I was and how I learned something on this website.:
I did know that the distance that I could see to the horizon depended on how high I was above the level of the sea. And the same for the surface search radar on the ship.
But one thing I liked to during off duty hours was to watch ships and land as we passed them at sea.
But I had no idea just from my visual sighting how far away they were.
So , having access to the radar , I would check the range to those ships and land.
Then I found on this website there was a simple equation for estimating the distance to the horizon .
If I had known that back in my Navy days it would have been fun to compare my visual sighting estimations with the actual radar.
Somehow it didn't occur to me to check available charts for my radar for various heights for range limitations and find that there was a simple way to estimate the distance to the horizon.
That is just one thing I didn't know and one thing I did learn on the Encyclopedia Titanica a website.
Soooo,?.....,...The moral to this story is....There are a lot of things of which I am not so smart......Especially when it comes to naval things :-( And a lot of things you can learn on this website. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,077
146
128
15
Maryland, USA
Not really. HaHa
I was just pointing out how ignorant I am when it comes to naval things even though I was in the navy and the reason why I am so ignorant of those things.LOL

Here is just one example how ignorant I was and how I learned something on this website.:
I did know that the distance that I could see to the horizon depended on how high I was above the level of the sea. And the same for the surface search radar on the ship.
But one thing I liked to during off duty hours was to watch ships and land as we passed them at sea.
But I had no idea just from my visual sighting how far away they were.
So , having access to the radar , I would check the range to those ships and land.
Then I found on this website there was a simple equation for estimating the distance to the horizon .
If I had known that back in my Navy days it would have been fun to compare my visual sighting estimations with the actual radar.
Somehow it didn't occur to me to check available charts for my radar for various heights for range limitations and find that there was a simple way to estimate the distance to the horizon.
That is just one thing I didn't know and one thing I did learn on the Encyclopedia Titanica a website.
Soooo,?.....,...The moral to this story is....There are a lot of things of which I am not so smart......Especially when it comes to naval things :-( And a lot of things you can learn on this website. :)
wow.. I know right, you learn soo much here. I never knew "forecastle" was pronounced "Foc'sle"
You were in the navy? How many years were you in service?
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,077
146
128
15
Maryland, USA
Interesting!

So you would agree that the events were more or less as depicted in James Cameron's film?
I believe she did break between the third and fourth funnels, as multiple survivors reported it, as well as the stern going 90 degrees. I also believe the break-up was top down and occurred at 2:18. Does it mean I'm 100%? no
 
May 3, 2005
2,599
278
278
wow.. I know right, you learn soo much here. I never knew "forecastle" was pronounced "Foc'sle"
You were in the navy? How many years were you in service?
I was officially on active duty (I counted it up one time) for 3 years, 10 months, 17 days.
The Navy had a surplus of personnel and they were doing "early separation for the convenience of the government" . You still had a total of 8 years obligation before you got your final discharge. You could serve 4 years active duty and 4 years in some Naval Reserve Unit.

I was in contact with a British author several years ago. He was in the Army during the Korean Conflict. He said the British rule was " five and seven" - 5 years active duty plus 7 years in the Reserves.

There are some other words besides Forecastle and Boatswain that aren't pronounced the way that they are spelled. I don't remember what they are. One other thing .....How about a Yeoman....A Yee-Oh-Man ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Similar threads

Similar threads