Titanic Olympic similarities


Dec 2, 2000
58,654
581
483
Easley South Carolina
Marko, I think you'll find that the watertight doors on the Titanic worked just fine. The problem was that the damage was severe enough so that the flooding couldn't be confined to the watertight sections of the ship.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Apr 23, 2002
546
0
171
''Pity how the Americans took over their boats like that''

Marko, are you referring to the German Liners being taken over after WW1?
If so, then it was all in fairness.
'Imperator' was given to Cunard to replace the lost 'Lusitania'
'vaterland' was unofficially impounded in NY Docks by the US and taken over by them as the 'Leviathan'.
The World's largest Liner, 'Bismark' was handed over to White Star to replace their lost 'Britannic'.

It was a terrible blow to Germany yet I think fair following the destruction and loss of life caused in the First World War.
 

Adam McGuirk

Member
May 19, 2002
567
1
171
Marko if your still interested in what the Millionaire suites were like on Titanic then just look at Cal's suite in the movie. He occupied the port side suite in the movie.
Adam
 
Apr 22, 2012
1,190
15
123
Yes, that will give you an idea of what they looked like. However, take what you see with an open mind; the movie sets were not exact replicas of the suites. I have read in past threads (I will add links to them) that the decoration and color was different, etc.


Cheers,
happy.gif


-B.W.
 
M

Marko

Guest
I guess it is really hard to recreate something to 100% especially when it happened a while ago. I'll look into it whenever i can, the movie you guys are reffering to is Titanic, correct?
 
R

Raymond John Mulhall

Guest
I heard rumors thet it was the olimpic that sunk and white star line said it was the titanic so they would get more money <insurence>
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
110
233
You're not the only one to have suffered this verbal abuse.

Isn't it amazing that this rubbish keeps popping up?

Robin Gardiner's bank account must be bulging.

Best regards,

Mark.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,654
581
483
Easley South Carolina
Raymond, given the known differences between the two ships and the effort and expence that it would take to make each look like the other, you would be very hard pressed to explain how such a switch could be done without hundreds of crew and thousands of shipyard workers knowing what was going on. Secrets don't keep well in shipyards or on the waterfront, and the more bizzaar, the greater the likelihood that it'll get out.

Also, one would have to explain to me why White Star would deliberately sink a ship in an insurance fraud scheme when the ship itself was insured for only $5,000,000 of it's actual $7,500,000 value. They would be ripping themselves off to the tune of $2,500,000 at a time when this was real money! Granted, the people who ran White Star may not have ben the most ethical people on the face of the Earth, (Few large businesses were then or now.) but they weren't brain dead.

There are much easier ways of doing this sort of thing that don't involve costly and expensive makeovers to hulls, don't risk public ill will by killing passengers and crew, and which don't depend on co-operative icebergs being where you need them in the dead of the night.
 
R

Raymond John Mulhall

Guest
What I ment is The Titanic was not ready so they swaped her for the olimpic in her sea trials.
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
110
233
Nonetheless, whatever rumours along these lines you have heard, you would do best to tell the person who mentioned them that they are ridiculous.

I for one know that two experts have completed a book completely debunking the theory -- in every respect.

Best regards,

Mark.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,654
581
483
Easley South Carolina
Raymond said; "What I ment is The Titanic was not ready so they swaped her for the olimpic in her sea trials."

Raymond, see my post above. The same still applies. The "When" of any potential switch has no real relevance to the utter impossibility of it happening in the first place. If White Star wanted to pull off an insurance scam, there are far easier ways of doing it that are far more discreet.

The basic problem with the elaborate ship switch scenerio is the fact that it's elaborate. There are just too many things that can go wrong. Since secrecy would be a paramount concern, I can't see anyone trying to pull off a complicated stunt where secrecy would go out the window the very first day that somebody tried to alter the hulls.

And do you really believe that anyone in White Star would be so incredibly stupid as to try and pull off a scam where they would take a $2,500,000 loss? (Not even counting the cost of trying to convert one vessel to look like the other!) In 1912, this was not chump change.

All you need to collect on insurance is the constructive total loss of the vessel, and that's simple enough to arrange without ever leaving the dock.
 

Jeremy Lee

Member
Jun 12, 2003
1,374
5
161
I think the Brittanic was also heavier than the Titanic and Olympic. I read from one Southampton paper of 1914 that the Brittanic was a "50,000 tonner"
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
110
233
Hi!

Jeremy, *Britannic* was heavier -- she displaced 'over 53,000 tons' (Shipbuilder, 1914) at a draft of 34 feet 7 inches compared to Titanic's 52,310 tons. Exact figures vary depending on loading. However, I should clarify: you seem to mistakenly attribute the '50,000 ton' figure -- that was Britannic's *projected gross tonnage* as of her launch in 1914, yet it has nothing to do with weight/displacement.

Best regards.

Mark.
 
R

robert s hauser

Guest
I remember reading somewhere that Britanic was 889 feet by 94 feet. Unfortunately, I can't remember what book it was, and I have no idea if it is actually true. I think I was standing in a bookstore skimming some large book about WWI era ships. In the same book, I also read that Britanic was fitted with a larger 19,000hp turbine, which was claimed to be the largest marine turbine at the time. Again, I'm in no way sure or the veracity of that factoid. Oh well, food for thought. Rob H
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,033
289
353
Jeremy, there were many funny numbers in papers and books, but Britannic was the same length as her sisters. Her beam was increased a bit for added stability. It's not true that it was done on account of the extra skin added to her hull. H & W had decided on increased beam from the atart.
 

James Smith

Member
Dec 5, 2001
490
1
171
Here's a question based on Michael Standart's post way up at the top of the page: What was the advantage of a flat-faced wheelhouse as opposed to the curved-faced wheelhouse Olympic initially had?

Thanks,

Jim
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,033
289
353
James, at a guess, it may have been done to reduce the wind speed in the area around the bridge. I remember reading that on a certain ship a curved bridge caused the airflow to accelerate to 50 knots or more and a barrier had to be put up to prevent passengers from wandering into it.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads