Torpedoing of the Carpathia
- Thread starter Jeremy Lee
- Start date
-
- Tags
- carpathia
Michael H. Standart
Member
Well, among other things, the Carpathia didn't suffer from a secondary explosion whereas the Lusitania did. Something else that occurs to me is that they might have had their watertight doors closed properly at the time. If this is the case, then a merchent vessel can be a surprisingly tough nut to crack.
While I have no way of knowing it or not, it doesn't stand to reason that the same may have applied to the Lusitania. A couple of doors open here, some portlights open there (Like on the Britannic) can make all the difference.
While I have no way of knowing it or not, it doesn't stand to reason that the same may have applied to the Lusitania. A couple of doors open here, some portlights open there (Like on the Britannic) can make all the difference.
Jeremy Lee
Member
What caused the second explosion then? Was the ship really carrying munitions or the result of a coal dust explosion? BTW, a coal dust explosion could also happen on the Carpathia so was the Lusitania plain UNLUCKY or was it something else? It also seems stupid for the crew not to order portholes shut in the war zone when they have the sense to put out lights and swing the lifeboats out. Looking at things, it seems funny that such a small single-stacker like the Carpathia can be so tough while a grand four-stacker sank like a stone with 2 less torpedoes.
Brian R Peterson
Guest
Hi Jeremy
There are a number of reasons as to why the Lusitania sank in 18 minutes and being "unlucky" wasn't one of them and neither is the idea she was it by two torpedoes.
I have long heard that there were two torpedoes fired at the Lusi, however I don’t buy into the second torpedo theory because Lt. Schweiger himself reported he did not fire one, though he does describe fire breaking out on the Lusi during sinking - this was never explained and doesn’t register to me.
In the case of the Lusitania, portholes being closed and lifeboats being swung out would have made little overall difference to the outcome of the disaster.
The primary reason is that the first torpedo ruptured the hull and the boiler room near which it hit began to flood. The not so warm Atlantic made contact with the super heated boilers resulting in a massive rapid temperature difference and the boilers most likely exploded as a result.
Now taking into consideration that a pinhole leak in a steam line has enough pressure behind it to slice a person in half, consider the massive amount of force suddenly released from one or more boilers exploding - I would safely venture it could easily blast a rather large hole in the side of ship.
Best Regards,
Brian
There are a number of reasons as to why the Lusitania sank in 18 minutes and being "unlucky" wasn't one of them and neither is the idea she was it by two torpedoes.
I have long heard that there were two torpedoes fired at the Lusi, however I don’t buy into the second torpedo theory because Lt. Schweiger himself reported he did not fire one, though he does describe fire breaking out on the Lusi during sinking - this was never explained and doesn’t register to me.
In the case of the Lusitania, portholes being closed and lifeboats being swung out would have made little overall difference to the outcome of the disaster.
The primary reason is that the first torpedo ruptured the hull and the boiler room near which it hit began to flood. The not so warm Atlantic made contact with the super heated boilers resulting in a massive rapid temperature difference and the boilers most likely exploded as a result.
Now taking into consideration that a pinhole leak in a steam line has enough pressure behind it to slice a person in half, consider the massive amount of force suddenly released from one or more boilers exploding - I would safely venture it could easily blast a rather large hole in the side of ship.
Best Regards,
Brian
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>What caused the second explosion then?<<
Good question. Nobody knows. Ammunition doesn't seem to hold water, and coal dust doesn't hold up well either. I suspect a boiler may have been ruptured, but nobody really knows that as an irrefutable fact as either. The problem with the boiler theory as understood is that nobody can seem to find any examples of a Scotch Marine boiler exploding in such circumstances. I suspect if one blew, it was as a consequence of torpedo damage.
>>BTW, a coal dust explosion could also happen on the Carpathia...<<
Only it didn't.
>>so was the Lusitania plain UNLUCKY or was it something else?<<
More like something else. See what follows.
>>It also seems stupid for the crew not to order portholes shut in the war zone when they have the sense to put out lights and swing the lifeboats out...<<
Or have watertight doors set properly perhaps? This might seem elementary and in some respects it is. If you go cruising through a war zone, it makes sense to have things buttoned up as far as possible. The catch is that while this makes perfect sense to a Navy guy like myself, the message doesn't always sink home with a merchent crew. They don't have the day to day experience in setting watertight protection conditions that the crew of a warship does and wouldn't always think much of opening a door, and then forgetting to close it thereafter.
A door open here, a door open there...for want of the nail, the horse, message, and war were lost and all that. Those little things which ones doesn't think of on a daily basis can come back and bite. The ship wasn't killed by the mysterious or any grand conspiracies.
She was killed in the end by mundane carelessness, and it happens a lot more often then a lot of people know.
Nothing inexplicable about that.
(And yes, I could be wrong.)
Good question. Nobody knows. Ammunition doesn't seem to hold water, and coal dust doesn't hold up well either. I suspect a boiler may have been ruptured, but nobody really knows that as an irrefutable fact as either. The problem with the boiler theory as understood is that nobody can seem to find any examples of a Scotch Marine boiler exploding in such circumstances. I suspect if one blew, it was as a consequence of torpedo damage.
>>BTW, a coal dust explosion could also happen on the Carpathia...<<
Only it didn't.
>>so was the Lusitania plain UNLUCKY or was it something else?<<
More like something else. See what follows.
>>It also seems stupid for the crew not to order portholes shut in the war zone when they have the sense to put out lights and swing the lifeboats out...<<
Or have watertight doors set properly perhaps? This might seem elementary and in some respects it is. If you go cruising through a war zone, it makes sense to have things buttoned up as far as possible. The catch is that while this makes perfect sense to a Navy guy like myself, the message doesn't always sink home with a merchent crew. They don't have the day to day experience in setting watertight protection conditions that the crew of a warship does and wouldn't always think much of opening a door, and then forgetting to close it thereafter.
A door open here, a door open there...for want of the nail, the horse, message, and war were lost and all that. Those little things which ones doesn't think of on a daily basis can come back and bite. The ship wasn't killed by the mysterious or any grand conspiracies.
She was killed in the end by mundane carelessness, and it happens a lot more often then a lot of people know.
Nothing inexplicable about that.
(And yes, I could be wrong.)
Martin Owen Cahill
Member
On the Lusi's WTDs,
The Captain had ordered all doors closed when the ship entered the war zone.
The exception to this being those required open forthe working of the ship. This means specicifly the doors connecting all the engine and boiler spaces.
testimony at the inquiry indicates the following
A) The remaining doors were closed from the
bridge by the officer of the watch as soon as
a warning was heard. They would have had about
30 seconds to close before impact.
B) Thomas Madden in the fwd boiler tried to
escape via a wtd at the rear of that space
but was unable to operate the override system
due to dooeframe/track distortion.
Consequently he went up throught the vent
shaft to escape.
As for the ports they had been ordered closed by the Captain but passengers had reopened them. it seems to me the captain failed to impress upon the relevant staff to ensure that passengers do not tamper with them.
just my own observations from transcript.
Martin
The Captain had ordered all doors closed when the ship entered the war zone.
The exception to this being those required open forthe working of the ship. This means specicifly the doors connecting all the engine and boiler spaces.
testimony at the inquiry indicates the following
A) The remaining doors were closed from the
bridge by the officer of the watch as soon as
a warning was heard. They would have had about
30 seconds to close before impact.
B) Thomas Madden in the fwd boiler tried to
escape via a wtd at the rear of that space
but was unable to operate the override system
due to dooeframe/track distortion.
Consequently he went up throught the vent
shaft to escape.
As for the ports they had been ordered closed by the Captain but passengers had reopened them. it seems to me the captain failed to impress upon the relevant staff to ensure that passengers do not tamper with them.
just my own observations from transcript.
Martin
Jeremy Lee
Member
>>As for the ports they had been ordered closed by the Captain but passengers had reopened them. it seems to me the captain failed to impress upon the relevant staff to ensure that passengers do not tamper with them<<
The stewards should have checked the portholes every now and then to make sure all were closed!
The stewards should have checked the portholes every now and then to make sure all were closed!
Michael H. Standart
Member
I wouldn't be surprised if they did. However, trying to keep ahead of that game when a thousand or so passengers don't take the submarine threat seriously or who just want "fresh air" can be the Devils own game. You only have so many stewards to go around with a full plate of work to do, and they're not omnipotant.
