Putting lit tar barrels on the deck and using the sound signals would have created panic (the fire that is and the only time I have seen this used is when the ship was stranded and needed to attract attention)not to mention that fire on ships is a bad thing, no matter if it is started intentionally or not and that ships of the pre WW1 era didn't have the ability to readily put out a fire had it gotten out of control, which could have made the situation worse. I don't know a mariner out there who would have used this in Titanic's situation.
The fog signal would have hampered beyond belief the ability evacuate the ship. During earlier events in the night Lightoller had to use hand signals to communicate to the crew (who knew how to understand those signals) due to the steam dump, and the steam dump would have been a lot quieter then a fog horn. Not to mention that enormous (Mark Chirnside would know best) amounts of steam (that was needed to power the lights and pumps) would have been needed to operate those horns, while the ship was both loosing steam (fewer and fewer boilers to produce it) and needed the quiet for peaceful communication to passengers.
The gun could have been used I would guess though wouldn't have been the best thing to do with passengers who have no idea what is going on around them. I am wondering if the term gun is meant in larger form, such as cannon or something.
Ice region: there is no operational distinction between reported ice conditions and known ice conditions.
This has been covered numerous times in other threads. Shipping companies write specific guidelines for Captains to follow, and there is a
HUGE "operational difference". There is a big difference between where something is when reported, and where something is when you enter the area. There is no argument (that I am aware of) that suggests they shouldn't have slowed down, or put up extra lookouts but this is all post disaster debate and on recommendations of what could have been done to prevent the incident. That is not to say that Smith (Niether court found him guilty of this) was negligent in not doing either one.
NOTE: That is not to say that in some situations a warning can not be used as the sole reason for a vessel to detract from its intended course and speed, that decision ultimatly rests with the master and only the master. In the situation being discussed Captain Smith viewed that the information he had received did not warrant any further change in route or plan.
The ocean going business is based solely and completely off money and nothing else. Slowing down for something that is traveling with a current when your reports (the ones that you recieve mind you) are hours if not days old is bad company practice and has never been done, now, nor then. The reason Captain Smith didn't slow down was because in his opinion there was nothing to slow down for. He based this decision (rightly or wrongly) on the information that he had received up to the point he and Second Officer Lightoller had a brief discussion prior to Smith entering the chart room or staying on "the square" as Fourth Officer Boxhall called it up until the moment of the incident.
This is where I believe a relevant debate could be had on how much Captain Smith and other Captains of the era relied to heavily on there experience. As an aside several other line officers and Captains of other liners testified that it was normal procedure to travel at full speed until the ice was sighted. The Titanic disaster changed that.
What Captain Smith received was a warning, that meant that ships passing the general area of the Lat and Long noted ice. At the time all these messages where recieved (with exception of the Californian and Mesaba messages which never made it to the bridge) earlier in day or days earlier. The two most important messages which should have given Smith cause to take more action never made it to his hand.
No two maritime incidents are alike, that is why in the preparation for report writing they are compared to other incidents and in the case of evcuations to other evcuations. Since this debate has evolved and included discussion about panic comparing it to real life situations where documented fact exsists (such as the Ectasy and AL) are very vaulable in comparison.
It is difficult for me to discuss a situation and make blanket statements about it, without having something else to include experience to compare it to. This in my mind is what makes a well rounded opinion.
My statement about Wilde and company, which didn't include "blah blah blah" was intended to show that the men doing the job where not amatuers and had been doing the job they where doing for some time, most of them being promoted at a steady pace. So they knew how to function and do the job they had, or they wouldn't have had it. In the world of MM and especially in the BMM (David Haisman would elaborate best) you usually don't get promoted with our reason. It is based off performance.