Jesse D O'Neill
Member
Which was the larger Britannic or Aquitania?
Gabriel Gerard Scotto
Member
Britannic was certainly the larger one! Ive done research, and it appears as though the heaviest ship in the world, is the biggest! At that time, when Brit sunk, it was the Third heaviest ship, after Imperator and Vaterland(Bismark was unfinished).
Andrew Neel
Guest
the britannic was suppose to sink in about 55 minutes ,so it went down faster than the titanic
Timothy Trower
Guest
Um, well, the Britannic did indeed sink in 55 minutes (the Titanic took 2 hours, 40 minutes). But it sure wasn't designed to sink faster!
(Sorry, but that's what your statement/question sounded like to me.)
(Sorry, but that's what your statement/question sounded like to me.)
Jeremy Aufderheide
Member
I'd expect different sinking scenarios given the damage was different to each ship. An enormous hole blown into the side is going to take a ship to the bottom faster than small holes amounting to about 12 square feet.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>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.
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.
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.
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.
Michael H. Standart
Member
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
"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.
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.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>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.
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.
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
Severin Vogt
Member
The HMHS Britannic was 882 ft, 9 in. The RMS Aquitania was 901 ft, thus making her bigger.
Mark Baber
RIP
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
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.
Titanicfan1912
Member
Hello there! I need to tell you that both Olympic Class liners and R.M.S Aquitania were massive and large ocean liners. Cunard's R.M.S Aquitania was actually longer and wider than the Olympic, Titanic and Britannic. See, the Olympic Class dimensions are we follows,
Olympic and Titanic: 882 FT, 9 IN (269 M) Width, 92 FT, 9 IN (28.19 M) and 45,327 (Olympic) and 46, 328 (Titanic) GRT. There speeds were also 21-23 knots.
Britannic: 885 FT, 0IN, (269.3 M) Width, 94 FT, 2 IN (28.7 M) and 48,157 GRT. Speed, 21.5-24.1 knots.
Now as you can clearly see, there massive ships, very luxurious as well. They may have not been as fast as Cunard's Lusitania and Mauretania, but they were still fast. Now Cunard's Aquitania, is longer. Her dimensions are as follows,
Length, 901 FT, 1IN (274.6 M), Width, 97 FT, 0IN (29.6 M), 45,647 GRT and speeds of between 22-24, maybe 25.3 knots. So in terms of GRT (Gross Registered Tonnes), the Olympic Class is larger, but with length, width and speed, Aquitania is clearly longer, faster and wider - I sometimes nickname her, "Cunard's Olympic" as both ships had similar GRT and in some (not all places) the interior was somewhat similar. So it's fully accurate to say that Cunard's Aquitania is longer/wider and having a slightly nicer/more attractive interior and Britannic was larger in GRT (by approximately 3,000 GRT).
Please note - I am simply not a fill time expert in ocean liners, I am simply a fan and if likely 'an ocean liner nerd'. This was not comparing apples and oranges since all four ships were about 2-3 years older (except Britannic, she is 1 year older) than Aquitania, and people belive Aquitania's exterior is big and boxy, well it isn't, I actually prefer it (at certain angles) than Olympic, Titanic and Britannic's.
I hope this helped you.
