Statement by Capt Smith

  • Thread starter Joseph R. Jasso
  • Start date
J

Joseph R. Jasso

Guest
I read somewhere that Captain Smith had made a statement with regard to the Olympic that went something like this: "These ships could strike a submerged object, like an iceberg, and they could sink with a great loss of life due to not having enough lifeboats," I had to paraphrase here. This, I know, sounds like the opposite of what we normally hear about him saying. Does anybody know about this statement and where in the literature I could find it?
 
I can't say I've heard of anything like that, Joseph.
The only Smith quotation I can think of at the minute is the old I cannot forsee... I'm sure you know the rest, and that statement is one that preaches the opposite.
 
I have a feeling I've seen something about Smith saying that fogs and storms are no longer feared, but submerged objects remain dangerous.

Anybody recall the remarks?
 
I remember reading about a discussion between Captain Smith and Glen Marston, where Smith said there should be enough lifeboats to carry all crew and passengers, but I can not find the source.

There is also this:
"...the big icebergs that drift into warmer water melt much more rapidly under water than on the surface, and sometimes a sharp, low reef extending two or three hundred feet beneath the sea is formed....If a vessel should run on one of these reefs half her bottom might be torn away....Some of us would go to the bottom with the ship."
Captain E.J. Smith, as quoted in The New York Times, April 18, 1912
 
I found the NYT article:
The quote is from 1912-04-19 'SMITH SPOKE OF ICE PERIL/Captain Also Realized the Inadequacy of the Lifeboats', it is not from 1912-04-18.
 
It seems, by the postings above, that there is something to the question I posed about Captain Smith making a wise & cautionary statement before the Titanic wreck. Maybe he made a number of such public statements that his employers should have listened to... but didn't. If true, this would put Smith into an entirely different light. That is, what if Captain Smith was really a very competent seaman? But didn't get his way? A victim of corporate politics??? (The whole J. Bruce Ismay thing, et cetera). Anyway this question of Smith actually knowing the odds so flys-in-the-face of conventional wisdom that it is worth trying to get an answer to.
 
The full TNYT quotation is----

"A friend of Smith's, Dr. Williams, related a conversation with Captain Smith when he commanded the Adriatic. The Captain had said "We do not care anything for the heaviest storms in these big ships. It is fog that we fear. The big icebergs that drift into warmer water melt much more rapidly under water than on the surface, and sometimes a sharp, low reef extending two or three hundred feet beneath the sea is formed. If a vessel should run on one of these reefs half her bottom might be torn away."

According to Williams, he pointed out the inadequacy of the Adriatic's lifeboats and asked Captain Smith what would happen if the Adriatic struck a concealed reef of ice and was badly damaged. "Some of us would go to the bottom with the ship." was the captain's whimsical reply."

Love the "whimsical"!

Various other extravagant comments were attributed to Smith. He is supposed to have said that Titanic could break in two and still float. Another version is that she would still float if her boilers fell through her bottom.

Now, where's my salt shaker?
 
>>The big icebergs that drift into warmer water melt much more rapidly under water than on the surface, and sometimes a sharp, low reef extending two or three hundred feet beneath the sea is formed. If a vessel should run on one of these reefs half her bottom might be torn away." <<

So much for any notion that the hazards of underwater extensions and rams of icebergs were not understood in 1912. Captain Smith's comments are pretty clear evidence that it was.
 
Joseph: Smith once stated that at a dinner party (Olympic was already in service,Titanic was not yet)quote:" Even if the boilers fell out of the Olympic,she would still stay afloat,and that would be the same situation when the Titanic comes into service" Also Smith mentions about the lack of life boats on one ship,Smith never mention that the Titanic would ever founder,he was thinking the other way about the Titanic.
 
Anna---

Please note that you're responding to a message that's almost three years old, the author of which has not visited this board in more than two years. It's therefore not likely that he'll see your message or answer it.
 
Is it against forum rules too answer older un-active threads? Would you like me to stick too the active threads?
 
It is considered poor form. But it does not appear to be a violation of the actual text of the rules (as opposed to, say, posting under a false name--which is specifically prohibited).

--Jim
 
>>Is it against forum rules too answer older un-active threads?<<

No, but if the specific member who's attention you're trying to get is no longer with us, you may be wasting your time trying to get a response from him.
 
James: What do you mean by "Poor Forum"?

Ok,I see what you and mark are saying now,but on the other hand, if I wanted to post something related about an older un-active thread topic,do I have to start a new thread up in this case?
 
Anna - James said "poor form"...not "forum".

Everyone is saying that if you're going to address Joseph, as in a conversation, he's not going to answer you because he no longer posts to this board.

In other words, you're having a conversation with yourself.
 
Back
Top