Which was the larger Britannic or Aquitania?


Jul 9, 2000
58,649
830
563
Easley South Carolina
>>the britannic was suppose to sink in about 55 minutes ,so it went down faster than the titanic<<

Ad the Gieco Cavemen said...uhhhhhh....what?

The Britannic wasn't designed to sink at all, and in fact, she should have survived the damage she took. The problem here is that a lot of the watertight doors were left wide open, and then there were the portholes left open on E-Deck that shouldn't have been but were. All the watertight protection in the world doesn't do you an awful lot of good unless you properly use what's there.

They didn't.
 
L

Lori Ann Troutman

Guest
Hello everyone, I am new to the forum here but I am not new to working with the Olympic Class Liners and I was just reading through the posts and saw the specs given for Britannic and they are incorrect.
They are:

Length: 903 ft.
Beam: 94 ft.
Weight: 48,158 GRT

Specifications are almost identical for Olympic and Titanic, but not for Britannic.

Getting into talking about whether Britannic was unsinkable, unfortunately there is no such thing, if it can float, it can sink and studying maritime history and looking at the demise of all these different ship, you can see there is no such thing as an unsinkable ship, even today.

The changes incorporated to Britannic made her superior to her sisters, but I agree with Michael, safety features work only if they are used. It was common practice to open the portholes on hospital ships to air out the wards. Old habits die hard.

It was a violation of the Geneva Convention to attack a hospital ship and the commander of U-73 knew that.

Britannic sustained massive damage from the mine blast and isn't coincidental that it is in the region of boiler room #6 on the starboard side. The sisters are like in many ways.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,649
830
563
Easley South Carolina
Actually, the 903 foot length is incorrect. At 882 feet 9 inches long and 94 feet wide at her widest point, the Britannic was a slightly larger version of her earlier sisters. As to the tonnage, the 48,158 gross registered tonnage is not a measure of weight but the ship's enclosed volumn which was a measure of her taxable revenue earning capacity. For more on this often confusing subject, see Hospital Ship Britannic FAQ Database - A Bravenet.com Faq for the details on Britannic and Terminology and Traditions at Sea for an explaination of tonnage.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
338
433
"It was a violation of the Geneva Convention to attack a hospital ship and the commander of U-73 knew that."

But it wasn't a violation to lay mines in a war zone. They might sink a hospital ship or a battleship, depending on luck.

What I've never understood is why Britannic went through the shallow Kea Channel in the first place. Why not keep to deep water, where mines are less likely?

Michael is right about the dimensions. The 903' is repeatedly found in websites and books, but it's not found in the primary sources from H & W.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,649
830
563
Easley South Carolina
>>What I've never understood is why Britannic went through the shallow Kea Channel in the first place. Why not keep to deep water, where mines are less likely?<<

Brain death on the part of the people running the ship perhaps? They may have thought of it as an economical shortcut. What I wonder at is that even with the knowladge of hostile submarines operating there a known fact, why they had the watertight doors open along with the portholes on E-Deck in the first place.
 
C

christopher marshall

Guest
Some of the water tight doors were left open because at the time the engernering crew were changing watch were all the water tight doors are open between the engine room and the mine went off which proberly jamed the bulkhead's tracks so the bulkheads coudnt be shut. In regard's to the portholes the nurses opend these up to air off the ward's ready for the wounded to come onboard. In regards to taking the kea channel they had to as it was there orders by the admiral to take that lane
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Jul 4, 2000
6,352
368
433
As several people noted earlier in this thread, when used in connection with merchant ships, the relative sizes of ships were determined by their gross tonnage, not their length. Yes, Aquitania was longer, but Britannic was bigger
 

Severin Vogt

Member
Apr 12, 2017
17
1
13
Yes, that is true but the person who made this thread said that they went by how long the ship is by big, not the tonnage. Same with me. I don't even know what tonnage means...I'm only eleven years old. But I know a ton.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads