Wonderful piece . In 1972 I was writing my undergraduate theseis on submarine warfare. I was comparing the Lusitania and Titanic inquiries sice they were both run by Lord Mersey I was well aware of the discrepancy in testimony bwteeen lay and expert witnesses on the break up. I also noted where lord Mersey firmly put his thumb on the scale while Wilding was testifying
20261. And to a certain extent is every deck?
- It is a member of the girder.
The Commissioner:
The evidence about this breaking of the ship in two immediately before she founders and the righting of the afterend is unsatisfactory.
Mr. Rowlatt:
Very well, My Lord, then I will not examine in detail upon it.
The Witness:
It might perhaps interest my Lord to know the rough calculation I was able to make as to the probable stress arising when the ship foundered as she got her stern out of the water. I can only do it very roughly, of course. It showed the stress in the ship was probably not greater than she would encounter in a severe Atlantic storm. The ship was made to go through an Atlantic storm, and therefore would be capable of meeting that stress.
To me this was unbelievable but the intent was clear Cover up any possible failure in British shipbuilding
The ship may have been designed to go through a storm. but that did not prove it could do it. As we know it could not meet the stress in 28F water. . So WIlding who was a very talented engineer either made a tremendous mistake or lied through his teeth.
No tests were made of the steel at low temperature
As the phrase goes you don't see it until you believe it. Instead of the TITANIC disaster sparking a thorough scientific inquiry into ship builidng practice, it was used to cover up any potential failure
