The Titanic's Hidden Weakness | Disaster Documentary
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- With new evidence as to why the ‘unsinkable’ Titanic sank, uncover the real truth behind the biggest maritime disaster of our time. Discover the untold story of the Titanic's demise and the lessons learned to prevent future tragedies.
Subscribe to WONDER to watch more documentaries: / wonderdocs
Follow us on Facebook: / thewonderchannel
WONDER is packed with binge worthy reality documentaries for hours of entertainment. Check out our hub of diverse and empowering stories which explore the extreme side of life!
#wonder #documentary #titanic
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video, very educational and informative. The subject of the ship's rivets failing is very interesting and obviously played a crucial part. I also think the criticism of White Star Lines, its senior directors and the ship's poor command and navigation are all factors contributing to the disaster and to the tragic and unnecessary loss of life of all those poor souls.
"from the very day that she was designed she was almost doomed"? Except there were two other identical sister ships, one was sunk by a sea mine during WW1, the other was scrapped after a long career. Hardly doomed from their conception, especially since the Olympic was older than Titanic by at least a year and had no issues until she was scrapped.
Yes. Just another asinine quotable made for generating interest in the crapumentary.
In a way she was. The Titanic's troubles begin with her very name; Titanic is the adjective for Titan, and the Titans in Greek mythology were a race who waged war against Zeus, the so-called "god of gods." This is the part of the story that seems familiar to quite a few. The part that seems unknown to most, shipowners at the time included, is that - guess what - the Titans lost. So, the Titanic was eventually defeated by her very name, as it were - and during her maiden voyage, at that .
Exactly, I was thinking the same thing. "Doomed from the beginning", what a load of rubbish!
End of the day an arrogant captain ignored Information and advice, that's the real and ultimate demise.
EXACTLY.
Thanks!
Ismay is often portrayed as a greedy coward but there are accounts of him helping women and children into the lifeboats and only boarding one when the deck was cleared and the not full lifeboat was being lowered. There was no reason not to get in at that point and spent his entire fortune after taking care of the families of as many lost employees as he was able, he died a broken man.
Indeed! Well said.
Ismay was a good man his story gets sadder the more you learn about it
Doesn't cut it I'm afraid. It was he who requested the structural modifications which ultimately doomed the ship. If the captain was to go down with the ship, Ismay should've done so as well. He actually went on to have a more than cushty life with residences both in England and Ireland. The property in Ireland even came with its own private fishing rights ONLY for Ismay. He spent the rest of his days fishing and doing whatever he wanted. Luxuries well in excess of 1,500 didn't live to enjoy.
Which structural changes are you even talking about?
Not putting more lifeboats on her?Titanic already carrier more than required,and more boats would not have helped anyway(and in hindsight,the requirement for enough lifeboats for every person on board never did prevent large losses of life in itself,and probably caused more harm than good@@Baresi-Unico-Capitano
@@Baresi-Unico-CapitanoOther than that,the Olympic class was designed really well for the time...and in some situations was designed to stay afloat with more compartments flooded than even todays passenger ships(which still follow a 2 compartment rule)
The titanic build quality was very good for the time and although she sank, she fought to the very end and even snap her back in half trying to stay afloat. The greatest disaster was the USS Californian not waking up the wireless operator after seeing the distress rockets and a ship on the horizon which wasn't moving. The titanic crew should be commended for their bravery and dedication.
The problem with the Californian is that they didn't knew what was happening with the ship, even further from their perspective what they saw was perfectly normal for anyone who sailed those waters at the time. To make the long story short:
For a rocket barrage of any kind to be considered an "distress signal" it had to be launched by a 5 minutes interval between each rocket. Otherwise it would be accepted as "company signals" since most ships didn't had Marconi communication onboard and they used this rocket system to communicate with other vessels far in the distance. The crew of the Titanic fired the rocket at an interval of about 12 to 15 minutes.
During the night the Californian notified to the Titanic that they were forced to stop due to a wall of ice in front of them. By the time they saw the Titanic sitting cold far away, they assumed the ship did the same for the night, and with the rockets the crew thought they were sending signals to other ships around who might not have communication equipment aside from Morse lamps, again a standard practice of the time.
As for those Morse lamps, the Californian did sent many signals to Titanic but they never got a reply.
Finally, due to the cold mirage in the horizon, the very same one that cloaked the iceberg for the Titanic, it was impossible to see the ship with clarity from Californian's perspective, the light was very distorted so much in fact that the light signals sent back and fort between the Californian and Titanic never reached their destinations. Titanic never knew the Californian was sending Morse code thru the lamp at the bridge, nor the Californian knew the Titanic was doing the same to them.
Maybe as a final point: The Californian stopped and vented most of its steam if not turned down its boilers, so there is a possibility that even if they wanted to go for a rescue, it would require them an hour or so just to have enough steam for movement, then maybe 30 or more minutes to navigate the wall of ice around them (with the danger of a catastrophic collision) and ONLY THEN steam towards the sinking ship. For the record, during the early lights of the morning when the Marconi operator at the Californian returned to his station and notified the captain that the Titanic had sunk, it took the Californian more than an hour and half in open daylight to restart the boilers and navigate the ice in order to reach the Titanic's last position. Of course this last part, the Marconi operator, is the only real BLAME we can put over the captain's shoulders, he should have asked for the operator to be waken up, but then again, from the crew's perspective in the bridge, the Titanic was just a ship sending company rockets into the sky, dead in the water due to the wall of ice (as them), therefore from their perspective there was no indication of a disaster happening over there in the distance.
I know this is one hell of a wall of text, in a "long story short" arc, but still I hope it served you well.
No it wasn't. The build quality sucked did you not watch the video? 🙄 Idio t
I understand that the color of the rockets were the wrong color, and signal something other than RESCUE US!!!
The ss californian was actually 19 nautical miles away from the distress signal given my the titanic (which was actually wrong) she wouldn't have made it in time to save anyone as she was approximately 3hrs away as well. There were closer ships like the Samson, mount temple, parisian were all closer,
😅@@BMJ0877
Despite opening up six watertight bulkheads, Titanic took a couple hours or so to go down. Lusitania, built to Admiralty specifications, sunk in fifteen minutes.
For a real hoot check out the British R-100 vs. R-101 competition. Why the goobs even initiated the whole thing. So the R-100 was to be commercial and the R-101 goobs.
Spoiler alert.
The ending could not be more symbolic. The R-100 on time, on budget and passed it's transatlantic round trip to Canada, with passengers, with flying colors.
The R-101 well past schedule, well over budget. You're not going to believe the level of symbolism here folks. The R-101 on it's maiden passenger flight to India made it across the channel and within a few minutes CRASHED AND BURNED!!!!!!!! LITERALLY!!!!!! IN COASTAL FRANCE FER CRYIN' OUT LOUD!!!
Now those in the know will say it crashed in a thunderstorm something it was highly vulnerable to. That is true but see the R-101 having had their faced shoved in it by the R-100 and being far past schedule and overbudget was under severe pressure by the political leadership to make it happen. Well they made something happen.
FYI both Barnes Wallis (I love that guy. Britain's version of the Mad Scientist) and Neville Shute worked on the R-100.
The much more modern Costa Concordia also sank in less time. That proves the design of the Titanic was not so bad as some people say, considering the time she was built, when a lot of things that are common knowledge in engineering now, were unknown.
@@chezsnailez Titanic did not develop a list, so all lifeboats could be launched. It has been suggested that if there had been forty lifeboats, rather than twenty, there would not have been sufficient time to launch all forty, however, if there had been onboard lifeboats, these could have been unlashed and would probably have floated free. There were no rafts. The designers thought them old fashioned and dangerous, since they had to be thrown into the water after which the passengers would have to climb down rope ladders.
@@jmrodas9
Although according to this documentary there were a few issues with subpar rivets in the forward compartment, I believe that it was clearly human error and pure bad luck that caused the sinking over any single design flaw.
Watch the documentary on Tubi and you’ll think more differently about why she sank.
What struck me the most about this tragedy is how much it mirrored the most serious airline crashes. What I learned is that it is RARELY as the result of just ONE issue, but a terrible confluence of negative coincidences that add up to one, terrible disaster. I must have counted at least 20 such incidences that ultimately ended in this catastrophe.
There is a thing in airline safety that recognises these cumulative events . I'm not sure what the name is but they use it in the airline industry to mitigate disasters .
I wish I could recall what the strategy is called .
@@lifesahobby
Yes, it's called "travel insurance."
I watch Mentor Pilot… he’s used the Swiss cheese effect, when all the holes in the cheese line up for tragedy, missing all the safeguards. It’s called by some scientists name, but I can’t remember who.
@@richdeering9580
Thanks .. it's a good method of recognising cascading events that culminate .
Maybe some day we will get an answer
I’ve heard the image of the holes in the Swiss cheese all lining up, too.
Are you thinking of Murphy’s Law? It seems that every possible thing that could have gone wrong did go wrong.
Including the very specific atmospheric conditions (a cold air mass overtaking a warm one) which can cause optical illusions and a false horizon, which obscured the iceberg, and acc. to one scholar, kept the Californian and Titanic from seeing each other’s Morse lamps signaling the other.
And so many other things went wrong.
Murphy’s Law, perhaps. 😞
Edit to add: James Reason proposed the “Swiss cheese model” to explain system failures. It’s fully explained if you do a search of James Reason and “Swiss cheese model.”
In my opinion for those times no ship could have survived such a massive iceberg
Not at 23 knots anyway
This story will captivate many generations of people. Many coincidental occurrences plus unfortunate decisions and human hubris make this tragedy so eternally interesting AND pertinent.
Hats off to the Carpathia, it outdid the top speed, coming in despite the ice field, furnaces red hot. The old girl gave her all. Her crew wasn't even sure she would make the journey.
Except, of course, Titanic was never at full speed, as five boilers were never connected.
'Her crew wasn't even sure she would make the journey.' Where did you get that nonsensical comment from?
@dovetonsturdee7033 Carpathia was an old, slow ship--but with a smarter, more ice field savvy captain than the Titanic. They put lookouts on the bow of the ship as well as in the masthead, plus gave them all binoculars. Its max speed was only 16 knots and it went far faster than the engines could safely go through the dangerous ice field to rescue the Titanic survivors.
@@egm8602 Carpathia was only nine years old at the time, and not slow by any standards other than the Mauretanias of the Olympics.
Are you sure about the lookouts and their binoculars? I have not seen any reference to Carpathia's lookouts being issued with these items.
@@dovetonsturdee7033all ships would have multiple pairs of binoculars. But binoculars can make scanning more difficult. If you're speeding through an ice field you would want people scanning with and without binoculars and an alert Bridge crew ready to respond.
@@jice7074 In accordance with the practice of the time, Titanic's lookouts had already been alerted of the need for particular vigilance, and the Bridge crew were were they were because of their ability to respond to any situation.
The purpose of lookouts was to alert the Watchkeeping Officers of any sightings. Those officers, who had binoculars, would then identify the object and determine a course of action.
The unusually calm sea, and the abnormal weather conditions, resulted in the iceberg not being seen until too late.
Thank you kindly for sharing this documentary.
What a gripping documentary / drama. Superb
Oh the wonders of hindsight! The materials were probably the best of their day as was the knowledge of the effects of the cold on sheet iron. And it not the worse maratime disaster, but probably the most well known.
@@declanoleary1 Thanks for the information
RMS Olympic was built with the same materials, but because it wasn't driven so as to keep crashing into stuff, it sailed on until 1935 (24 years)..
In other words, Titanic had no 'hidden weakness' but was simply the victim of a circumstance far beyong anything which could have been predicted, or for which she had been designed.
there was a rumour that the 2 ships had been swapped...so that the titanic that sunk was really the olympic...while the titanic continued to operate as the olympic until 1935...
@@libbychang413 No there wasn't. There was, however, a book written by an amateur historian and professional plasterer, one Robin Gardiner, called 'Titanic - The Ship That Never Sank,' in the late 1990s, which made the claim that Titanic and her sister Olympic had been secretly switched after Olympic had been crippled beyond repair following a collision with a Royal Navy cruiser in the Solent in September, 1911.
Mr Gardiner had an inspired method of proving this, in that he ignored the vast quantity of contemporary evidence which disproved the idea, choosing instead to invent his own supporting evidence.
The late Mr. Gardiner has latterly acquired a host of disciples, who have since invented all sorts of further nonsense involving wealthy American financiers, in particular one J. P. Morgan, the US Financial Reserve, planted explosives, imaginary rescue ships, porthole patterns on the two ships, secret U-boats, and vast and evil cunning plans orchestrated by 'them.'
These conspiracy fantasists view the issue simply as a matter of faith. Sadly, facts and proof mean precisely nothing to them. A bit like a mate of mine who, though in most things totally rational, is absolutely certain that there is a Plesiosaur inhabiting Loch Ness.
@@libbychang413this would have been confirmed after the sinking if it was true and not remained a rumour
@@7577ia they would still deny
and not menton it at all
How old is this documentary? The design and materials were impressive, having survived over 100 years in saltwater. The first ship of the same design was the Olympic. Titanic should have had taller watertight compartments.
All should be water tight, if u really want floatation
I first remember buying this documentary around 2010; as far as why the bulkheads were not taller, they designed the Titanic from the most EXPENSIVE hotels at the time. They didn’t want people to believe they were on a ship, except a high end hotel. Naturally, that illusion was gone after this incident and they literally rebuilt the Olympic and Britanic from the flaws of the Titanic. Taller bulkheads and double skin around the waterline. Ocean Liner Designs explored this evolution of Ships quite thoroughly and a channel I would heavily recommend.
What is called the "titanic" is in reality the "olympic", ol EJ Smith carried out his jesuit handlers plans, olympic was damaged badly from previous crashes and no longer insurable, white star line would take a complete loss on that ship so they changed her name over to an insured ships name and sunk her deep so they would for sure collect on the insurance, for one they should have hit the ice berg head on, the ship likely would have not sunk but they went full speed through an ice field, that's like you driving in the snow and ice with your foot all the way down on the go pedal, of course you will hit something, and EJ always intended to hit a berg, he was ordered to do so.
They said the titanic sank 96 years ago, so simple maths would mean this doco was made in 2008. In other words 16 years ago.
@@darrellhicks360 What?! Titanic had the same design as Olympic. 100% the same. Except for the lux.
Most of the statements about the Titanic's unsinkability included qualifiers such as "practically" or "nearly," but the public naturally ignored them, "unsinkable" (like "impossible" or "pregnant") being a word that didn't lend itself to qualification. And even as reports of the Titanic disaster began to reach America early in the morning of 15 April 1912, the Vice-President of the White Star Line in New York stated, without qualification, "We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe that the boat is unsinkable."
Correct, and to endeavour to propagate the narrative that WSL didn't promote the vessel as 'unsinkable ' is being disingenuous and
irresponsible and insulting to the memories of the many souls lost and to their families.
The binoculars was not the issue. There was a small thermal inversion, just above the water. The night was clear and cold, calm, no wind, however, the water while colder than the Gulf Stream, was still warmer than the ambient air. If the water would have been from the Gulf Stream, it would have generated fog. But like it was, the temperature difference between the water and the air, created a small thermal layer, the air just above the ocean, was warmer than the main air mass. This creates a thermal layer light refraction, which lifts the horizon, because you can't see through the thermal layer. It acts like a mirror. Thus the part of the Iceberg where you would expect breakers, could not be seen at a distance. The Iceberg seemed to come out of nowhere once this effect vanished at a closer distance. The rest is history.
Exactly, the word you're looking for is it created a mirage. The watchmen testified as much saying the night was weird, clear and "hazy/foggy" at the same time. Because they all properly believed they should have seen the iceberg in time given the clear weather conditions, yet somehow they didn't. The thermal differences also made the attempts for the nearby ships to communicate via light signals/flares to fail as well as it disrupted those lights as well.
Interesting
Well said, that's my understanding as well. Strange they didn't mention it.
Above your reply reads like a chinese fire drill...tooo goofee...
Not to mention Binoculars were not standard issue for Lookouts,and are not used to "look out" in general...Because the limit the field of view,and in case of handheld binoculars even to this day,are utterly useless at night anyway,because they do not let enough light in.
Pretty much every 30 Buck Binocular or Rifle scope is basically on par with the top of the notch stuff in the 1910s
Where did this artistic profession go? Homes too! Even some of your city dwellings have from eras gone by are full of design and superb craftsmanship. Homes now are slapped up so fast that the lumber isn’t even dry yet.
For the time it was cutting edge. In 1912 steel works was still new, they didn't know all the proprieties of steel and how it reacts to cold or heat, they didn't know about mixing metals to make them stronger. For it's time it was the strongest it could be. Olympic proved it
Steel was made during the classical eras of Ancient China, India, and Rome.
@@allyedowd yes, but that is Sword smithing, engineering steels are quite different
They used wrought iron for the rivets.....
@@PatrickBaptist That is only on a tiny area of the ship where the machinery couldn't reach and they had to manually place them. They used steel everywhere else. And the wrought iron was for it's time good as far as they knew how it worked
@@allyedowd Steel wasn't used in ships until 20 or so years prior to Titanic...
Thanks for posting this wonderful video. Of course I cry at the end.
The greatest weakness of the Titanic was a captain that sailed through an ice field at too high a speed. If your ship and the lives of your passengers requires luck to make it through the ice field you slow down or stop. Let everybody enjoy themselves an extra day.
Problem was that she was on fire in the coal bunkers
@@andyb.1026 No, she wasn't. Stoker survivors testified that a fire in one of 19 bunkers had been dealt with at least a day before the collision, and that the only damage was to paintwork in the affected bunker.
Of course, you haven't read the minutes of either Inquiry, have you?
The procedure at the time was to maintain course and speed, but to alert lookouts of the need for extra vigilance. Which Smith did.
In fact several Master Mariners & Liner Captains testified that, in a similar situation, they would have acted as Captain Smith did.
But, of course, you probably haven't read the Inquiry Minutes, have you?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 No I have not read them. The procedure at the time was to slow or stop if you get ice warnings. Plus the lookouts did not even have binoculars. It was just a perfect storm of bad luck.
@@richardmcdowell534 The procedure in 1912 was to get through possible hazards as quickly as possible. Seems ridiculous now, but that's how it was.
PSA: if you already know how Titanic sank, skip to 37:45. Spoiler below if you want to save yourself an hour. Edit, they continue to talk about how she sank even after 37:45, and there is very little about the title of the video (Titanic's hidden weakness). There is maybe 5 mins. about the title, the rest of the video is about how she sank.
Spoiler: Titanic had no. 3 iron rivets instead of no. 4 iron rivets. The no. 3 iron rivets were too weak to hold the iron plates of the hull. There, I saved you an hour. You're welcome. 🙂
Thanks
Thanks, I saw the info about cheaper, inferior rivets being used in another, older documentary - this appears to be a rip off of that. I'd like to know what year this show was made.
Thanks legend
@@glamdolly302008
Many thanks, heard rivet theory before. But how come Olympic built with same rivets survived for decades?
The footage of the ship leaving port in the beginning is the Olympic. There is no footage of Titanic setting off on her maiden voyage. 😔
The titanic is really the olympic and visa versa, they changed the names to protect the insured.
@@PatrickBaptistthey was not the same they was a bit different from each other but you never know
@@adriantowe278 Yeah we don't really know, most of us were not even there, but who would want to eat that kinda loss? Companies sure won't, they were already bad off in the money department, as even with the loss covered that still didn't stop white star from burning as a company, they would have much sooner with the insured loss, hey I'd want to keep my homies at work with me, insurance would be the first thing most any of us wouldn't care to let suffer rather than us, insurance companies have it coming anyways, specially today.
When you learn about the occult cults that run our countries and world, it all starts making more sense why things happen the way they do. It was all planned out before the boat set sail, answers why anyone you take off in a boat with a fire in coal hold, fire at sea is a sailors worst nightmare.
@@PatrickBaptist thanks for your comment I appreciate it take care mate
I dont think that's the real Capt Smith either!
The true test of a persons mettle is how they perform under EXTREME adversity, and Captain Smith’s mettle was sorely wanting. If he kept his cool and did his job many more lives could have been saved! Although under those circumstances the guy should have been loading people in until it was full, but he didn’t die in the freezing cold North Atlantic. Those poor lost souls never had a chance. I hope that every person involved in making the decisions that led to such a tragedy woke up screaming in terror with the faces of the victims haunting them every time they closed their eyes!
*Bruce Ismay's* conscience and mental state suffered greatly for the rest of his life. He signed off on the number of Lifeboats on the Titanic. He also said to Capt Smith on the evening of 13th April 1012 - ''we'll have a better run tomorrow''. The rest is history.
She had two sisters ships that survived a lot more time, the design and materials were good.
One of them, the Britannic, didn't really last that long; she began service in December 1915 and she sank in November 1916. Like the Titanic she lasted less than a year (if slightly) .
@@totalmichel Thanks for the information
They should have welded the ship together instead of rivets.
Galvanized iron to prevent rust,
The technology did not exist in 1910. At least, not technology advanced enough to weld an entire 50,000 ton ship.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 But human brains existed, especially when speeding through Ice fields.
a BIG What IF here. IF the Olympic was never caught in the accident with the HMAS Hawke, TITANIC's maiden voyage would never have been delayd and she would've sailed at her original date and never encountered the weird weather that made them not able to see the iceberg and also Never hit the iceberg
The date for her 2nd departure from Southampton was 10th April, so her sinking would have happened during that voyage instead.
Fate sank Titanic.
Pity about those Rivets.
Just when I think a NEW Documentary on the Titanic 🤗 I get cozy in my bed, lights out and prepare to drift off to sleep when it suddenly dawns on me, I'm literally narrating along with this documentary, this documentary that I've seen A MILLION TIMES!!! BAM!! Disappointment hits me like a massive iceberg as I sadly sink below my blankets. (No pun intended 😉)
Then take a sleeping pill, Doofus . . .
@@quietguy1948I would love a sleeping pill I struggle to get to sleep
Not all of us refer to drugs to solve our issues. But to each their own. @@quietguy1948
Every time we start our steam, I always think about the ships that sailed before me going full ahead with no radar. Crazy
Man, are we so spoiled
Titanic was 1 of the worse Maritime disasters, but it wasn't the worst. That goes to the MV Wilhelm Gustloff that history Has all But forgotten.
The story of that ship gives me chills. Titanic and Lusitania were terrible tragedies but man that one was really rough
Actually, Titanic was not the largest loss of life in"modern history. " that dubious honor goes to the Wilhelm Gustloff, with 6,000 - 9,000 lives lost on Jan 30, 1945. It was severely overload as it was taking Getmans from a conflict zone as the Russians advanced, and no one kept an accurate (or any) passenger list.
Peace time. Peace time.
Isnt Titanic surpassed by Dona Paz aswell?
And in Terms of passenger deaths,even by a small steamer on the great lakes
I hope Ismay can live with himself
Unlikely, as he died in October, 1937.
However, what do you think he did for which he should reproach himself?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Regardless of the BOTs scapegoat regulations at the time, he agreed to insufficient Lifeboats for his unsinkable ship, how's that?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 True, but his descendants are living with themselves instead.
I wonder what the odds of hitting an ice berg, that broke free 2 years earlier, in the middle of the ocean are, taking into account that only a small percentage survives the journey through Baffin Bay + all the other circumstances. And then compare it to the odds of winning the lottery
A primitive long disproved nonsense. Titanic wasn't "doomed from the first day" just like her sister ship Olympic wasn't. There wasn't any "hidden design flaw". Their steel was top notch for its time, just like Lusitania's and Mauretania's.
The only ones who responsible for her sinking were the captain and the officers, who just like most of maritime officers of that time took unacceptable risk and with infuriating hubris demonstrated by Lightoller during both the American and British inquiry thought that they have the North Atlantic "all figured out" and could cut corners.
Thankyou
The titanic was the safest ship of its time. The sinking whas not due to a design error.
yes it was , weak riverts
@@CristinaSimonsen nah, the rivets they had at the time were the highest quality
It was all because of faulty design; the watertight bulkheads weren't capped off with watertight tops so the Titanic sank like an ordinary ice cube tray. No one imagined anything worse than two breached compartments
@@fmyoung there was also a coal fire going on during the final fueling process, witch weakened the hull at the spot of impact , there's pictures they found years later that shows a darker location were the ice burg hit from scorching marks and the bulkhead near the fire was warped, the photos were found in an attic of an old person that took them as the ship was leaving harbor, i know some people say that the fire wouldn't have done enough damage but imo it probably made it easier for the burg to pernitrate the hull
@@albiedam33122nd highest quality, they talk about it in this documentary. They shouldve had number 4 rivets but opted instead for number 3 which were a poorer quality
If the design was 'doomed' how do you explain the longevity of RMS Olympic?
yeah Britannic hit a mine, lasted twice as long as Lusitania.
Concordia got a few dings and was ferked almost right away.
Titanic exposed 1/3rd of her length to the ocean, took almost 3 hours, could have got all passengers and crew off with good enough training & lifeboats, nothing wrong with the design lol
Thank you for this
It seems so gross to say “over 1500 ppl died” … every person went through hell.. and every person deserves to be recognized.
You need to take a time out.
Are you suggesting the names of all 1512 that perished should have been named instead? Don't know what that would do to the run time of the documentary.
great dialog
captain smith "its cold"
officer Murdoch "yes it is sir"
That was the kind of dialog Cpt Smith and Lightoller had too when they discussed ice precautions. They both talked like teens.
@@fmyoung Source? None, I assume.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 "Highlighted reply" here too "Source? None, I assume"
I know right Just like teens really As Walter Lord puts it in "The Night Lives On" at the end of ch. 6 "Everything was against us? The wonder is that [the Titanic] lasted as long as she did"
@@fmyoung Thank you for confirming that you read my last message.
Even if, evidently, you are unable to provide an answer to it.
How the crew wasn’t held responsible for cruising at full speed through an ice field? The White Star line got out of paying any of the victims for this wonderful passage
The ship wasn't at full speed, and White Star did pay compensation. Apart from that, good points!
WS did pay for damages but the amount was whittled down to quite a bit, and then it doesn't help that in an effort to avoid lawsuits White Star sent representatives to hospitals where victims were recovering and tricked them into signing declarations that they wouldn't sue for damages in exchange for 25 pounds. That's downright obscene
Oh and they weren't quite going full-speed but they were super-close .
I remember reading how the White Star line representives showed up at the hospitals to have the victims of a unsinkable ship, sign their rights away (pretty much)
@@fmyoung 'That's downright obscene' It would have been had it been true, but the only supposed evidence was a single unsubstantiated allegation made by one person, Annie Kelly, in the Chicago Daily Journal. The allegation said $25, by the way, not £25. Of course, if you have actual evidence to the contrary, you could always present it?
Yes, of course the Company, as any other company would, defended itself in court and sought to limit the damages it was required to pay. When the cases were resolved, White Star abided by the judgements handed down.
so it looks like officer Blair
didn't have much to pack
only his pyjamas 😂😂😂
He must've been super-glad about the turn of events that prevented him from ever boarding the ship. That reminds me of Alfred, Bertram and Thomas Slade, along with trimmer Alfred Penney and stokers Alfred Podesta and William Nutbean who missed the Titanic after lingering at this pub, the Grapes, a bit too long. Five days later they too must've been super-glad about this totally unexpected turn in their luck .
Why didn't they break into the locker to get the binoculars? Since when does not having a key keep people from this very important safety measure?
These binoculars were a precious tool 😂. Safety was mostly just a word back then.
The binoculars were an irrelevant red herring. Lookouts rarely used them.
From what we've read, the White Star's binoculars weren't very good...
Good thing that Frederick Fleet instantly knew what that bump on the horizon was, binocs or no
@@dovetonsturdee7033 exactly, there's another docu on youtube that answered how Titanic missed seeing the iceberg in time and was the real cause. Yes, there was no moon, but the stars in the clear sky provided ample light to see it in time. The iceberg was inside a very cold front which created a mirage - unlike a heat mirage that forces the skyline to go down and objects float, cold forces it up and reduces your viewing distance. The watches testimony said as much, the sky was clear yet hazy - the hazy part was the mirage of the water being raised. This would hide the iceberg from being seen in time. Passengers commented on how fast it got very cold that night. The cold pocket would also disrupt the light messages/flares from the ships nearby making it impossible to communicate afterwards for help. This person found the logs of the ships near Titanic before/after the sinking and they all captured temperature data and he was able to map out the cold pocket that would create the mirage.
Watching this documentary is just yet another reminder as to how this country somehow continues with the same nonsensical pride driven practices even to this day! Present a ship as unsinkable, but it actually turns out that it was structurally weak due to inferior materials used! Makes total sense! It is British smoke and mirrors personified! We always exaggerate the cost of building structures or major projects, costing far more money than they should, and then when catastrophe happens, the reality is a whole other type of truth! Everything from cover ups to poor industrial practices and god knows what! Anything to save money, fill the coffers of rich businesses and ultimately it is always the poor and innocent people who end up paying for it! Both of the enquirers into the disaster was a complete whitewash and titanic even had a huge payout from Lloyd's! It basically meant that the families of those who lost breadwinners on the ship ended up with almost nothing as compensation! That's the Uk for you im afraid! HS2 and grenfell as the latest examples!
The ship was never described as 'unsinkable' except by a small circulation engineering periodical and in a much later movie. The materials used were not 'inferior.' If they were, how do you explain the fact that her older sister, Olympic, built of the same materials in the same yard at the same time, had such a wonderful career?
There was no 'huge' payout from Lloyds. The Olympics cost £1.5 million each to build, and were each insured for £1 million, which is what Lloyds paid out.
Why do you believe that both Inquiries were 'whitewashes?' What facts did they conceal?
The rest of your post is largely irrelevant but, given your obvious lack of actual knowledge, I wonder why you even bothered to post at all?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 you have no idea what you're talking about! White star line received 12.5m payout from Lloyd's post the enquiry! You've spewed utter drivel in the face of facts and common knowledge so it really isn't worth it to say much more.
@@Baresi-Unico-Capitano Nonsense, little chap. You shouldn't believe everything you stumble across in conspiracy videos, as it makes you look rather silly.
Ismay went on public record at the April 1912 United States Senate Hearings and also it was reported in the official public findings that the value of Titanic was "$7.5million" a figure independently verified by the New York Times and The Spectator ("$8 million") while insured at only "$5 million" (as reported at the Senate Inquiry, The New York Times and Lloyds itself). If indeed Titanic had been insured at the last minute at "$12.5 million," as is alleged by conspiracy theorists, would this not have raised serious alarm bells in the minds of the insurers at the time, especially if it was part of the public record that the value was "$7.5million"?
Perhaps you haven't read the minutes of either the US or the British Inquiry?
Sorry. I am wrong. There is clearly no 'perhaps' about it.
You are so right, the Grenfell Tower block is a prime example, and that was just seven years ago.
@@SamanthaDavies1536 It will never change. We don't have the mentality of just building something for purpose. It always has to be flagship, overpriced, over the top and taking a long time to complete. I suppose the only exception being the channel tunnel. Without a doubt the greatest construction project of my lifetime. But then again, we didn't do it alone so maybe that's why it works. Look at Wembley - cost like a billion pound. it is one of the most bereft of soul stadiums I've ever been in.
alot of mistakes.......but they should of paid attention to the ice warnings
RIP To all those who perished on the morning of April 15th1912 , Thank God tragedies like this are basically a thing of the past and we have Health and Safety standards now to ensure this doesn't happen again. Both enquiries where a white wash in my opinion .
_Thank God tragedies like this are basically a thing of the past and we have Health and Safety standards now to ensure this doesn't happen again. Both enquiries where a white wash in my opinion_
• _snirks in Costa Concordian_ •
0:37 “The greatest maritime loss in human history”.. That should be enough to know that this so called documentary is a load of bull..!
It is often said that the Titanic sank because so many compartments were flooded and that if only one or two compartments had been flooded, she might have remained afloat. This is not, necessarily, the case. Consider the case of the Oceanos. A small leak developed in a valve in one of the compartments, causing sea water to enter. All of the watertight doors were closed. However, as it happened, fuel had not been drawn out of the oil tanks evenly. The oil tank on the other side to the side where the leak developed was empty and the tank on the side where the leak developed was full. So, the vessel was already quite unstable. The small quantity of sea water entering one compartment only caused the vessel to list, to the point where sea water was then able to enter through open port holes over the whole length of the vessel. She developed so severe a list that it was impossible to launch life boats from the high side. Fortunately, she was close to the coast and the passengers were able to be evacuated by means of helicopters from the shore before she finally went under. Most ships are inherently unstable and will sink very easily even if the damage is limited to one or two compartments. Something similar happened with the Andrea Doria - she was holed on one (or, possibly, two) compartments but rapidly developed a list, causing sea water to enter the whole length of the vessel. Fortunately, the Stockholm, which collided with her, was on hand to assist in evacuating the passengers and the Isle de France also arrived in time to assist with the rescue.
Two compartments were compromised when RMS Olympic collided with HMS Hawke. She was never in danger of sinking as a result.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 The Andrea Doria was struck in a similar way and foundered, for the same reason as the Oceanos, because she developed a list. It seems to depend very much on the trim of the vessel when it is struck. Possibly, by chance, the Olympic was more in ballast on the side opposite to the side which was struck. Or, it may depend upon how the water flowing in is able to settle. If the water is not able to settle evenly, because of the existence of bulkheads or other barriers running fore and aft, then the vessel will begin to list and once the list becomes severe enough, if there are open portholes, the ingress of water along the length of the vessel will exacerbate the list.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 On the other hand, Six compartments were compromised on the Titanic and she was very much in danger of sinking as a result. What's your point, Albert?
What year was this documentary made?
2008
1912
@@NikkaMunda-c2i that’s when ship sunk not when doc made
@@CristinaSimonsen the documentary is from 1912
@@Wildrover82 The disaster is from 1912, this doc is from 2008
They keep going on about the life boats.. but even if they had 48 or 100, or 17. They BARLEY had time to fill 15 out of the 16. So it doesn't make sense to go on about that. Time wasn't on their side to fill them. Most didn't even believe it was sinking up until the end. Or last half hour.
Yes, she did have enough time. Had the lunatics aboard that ship actually done the lifeboat drill, atleast half of people there would've survived. Had the Californian been online that day, all people would've survived. Around halfway through the sinking, all the lifeboats have been taken. Many of them less than halway full. One life boat was filled up with a mere 12 1st class passengers, who weren't allowing others in.
@Cekkkko21212 You are so right, I agree.
This was not the largest sea disaster during world war two at the very end of it a russian sank a passenger ship which are taking people away from that area and they figure between 678 ten thousand people died on that boat
I don’t understand why they didn’t just break into the locker to get the binoculars.
Perhaps because the binoculars are a total Red Herring?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Strange, on another thread you said officers on the bridge had binoculars - were they just for decoration purposes?
Because just like the ice field, the excessive speed and the several Marconi warnings, they just couldn't be arsed, especially with a practically unsinkable ship.
@@jeanie6936 Hello Alex. Returning to an earlier incarnation, I observe.
Actually, I said that lookouts did not usually use binoculars, as their role was to survey the whole of the horizon, rather than selected parts of it. They would then report any sightings to the bridge officers, who would make use of the binoculars which they certainly did have, in order to determine what the object was, and act accordingly.
I have written that as simply as I can. I hope it isn't too difficult?
Having broken my rule once, I will now return to ignoring you.
@dovetonsturdee7033
Hi Albert, that's a Red Herring, and I sense you're somewhat upset because you got rumbled over your inaccuracies again.
I don’t think hitting it head on would have mattered at that speed. No ship to this day had ever hit anything so solid and survived. It would have sheared plats off farther down than the damage believed it would have sustained.. there were the 3 ships during ww2 that hit cliffs,
The were welded and still sunk off the shallows. Even ruined the fuel tank 1/2 the id ship and ruptured them. This ship was always going to have a bad night
That's simply not true. The liner wasn't so rigid that all the hull's rivets would have instantly sheered off upon impact. The whole vessel would have absorbed the collision with the first two maybe three compartments flooding. That's not suggesting First Officer Murdock shouldn't have tried porting around the offending iceberg. He did everything he could have done, there simply wasn't enough ocean between Titanic and the berg.
@@RobbyHouseIV well considering they have done 3-D modeling. Because of the bulkheads being lower than most ships even to date. That it had a profounding effect on the way it absorbed energy. And it still sunk
After the strike head on.
But there are people that want to believe there theory that if they were in charge that the outcome would have been different. And been a silent hero in history.
But you are wrong brother. They was a firm in Japan that held the program for assignment
Where's the new info? All of this has been know for a long time
As a Titanic researcher I can tell you that Titanic didn't have design flaws. She was built by one of the world's top shipyards in that day, and what probably doomed her were two things: Since being docked at Southampton Titanic had an ongoing coal fire in one of the coal cribs on the forward starboard side. At the time of her sailing, the fire was still going, although contained. This would have weakended the steel of the hull plates on the forward starboard side. Because she hit the ice berg at that spot, a collision that she normally would have survived doomed the ship because hull rivets were blown out that connect the overlaping hull plates, thus letting in thousands of tons of water. The second thing that doomed Titanic was the ridiculous speed she was going at through a known ice field. Captain Smith was probably pressured by White Star LIne head Bruce Ismay to go fast because Ismay was under the delusion that Titanic could beat RMS Mauretania's crossing speed. The three Olympic class liners were not designed for speed, just consistent sailing for her wealthy passengers to enjoy. Mauretania and her sister Lusitania were build for speed and were about a hundred feet shorter than Titanic. For a captain with a lifetime of experience, Smith should have automatically known to go slow and easy through that ice field.
The stoker survivors who later testified said that the fire had been dealt with around 24 hours before the collision, and damaged nothing more than the paintwork inside the affected bunker. The bunker itself, by the way, was not part of the bulkhead system.
The fire, by the way, was well aft of the iceberg impact point.
Five of Titanic's boilers were never connected, and the idea that Ismay, or anyone else, thought that Titanic could beat the record of the ( four to five knots faster, turbine driven ) Mauretania is simply absurd.
As someone who supposedly researched about Titanic...your knowledge appears to not even be superficial,rather,it is on clickbait level
Ehhhh The Titanic had less than half the lifeboats required to evacuate everyone on board, I would call that a massive design flaw, among others.
@@mmtot The British Board of Trade stated the number of lifeboats required, and the Olympics exceeded that number. Lifeboats at the time were not considered to be places of safety, largely because they were not, but as a means of transferring passengers from a damaged to others nearby.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Except for the fact that you're so ignorant and uneducated to know that those five auxiliary boilers had little or nothing to do with the ship's engine propulsion 🤡and their main purpose was for the ship's heat, light and ventilation. Your entire comment is absurd. But I have since read that you have admitted to your poor technical knowledge. Well, well, what a surprise, I guess you had little choice after being checkmated. Is that why other commenters refer to you as the resident Chimp?
The bulkheads should have water tight lids so flow over was impossible
You do understand that people need to be able to move around in liners do you? The bulkheads were higher than Board of Trade regulations required, by the way, but if you can name any liner with sealed bulkheads from the time, feel free to do so.
@dovetonsturdee7033 yes I do understand all large vessel have sealed compartments now and people can move about just fine
@@ElectronicMechanic50 Perhaps you should ask yourself whether if is possible that ship design in 2024 have evolved somewhat from that of 1912? You might then answer the question I asked, which was :-
'By the way, but if you can name any liner with sealed bulkheads from the time, feel free to do so.'
Perhaps Titanic should have had radar as well, do you think?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Your old ''Board of Trade regulations'' cop-out card again?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Maybe they should have had GPS
I usually like the documentaries on Wonder, and I have studied the Titanic since I was a kid, but this one just isn't very good.
You might not think this is very good, but it has a lot of truth to it. They were far too complacent They should have broke the lock on the locker to get the binoculars and not steamed full speed ahead during the middle of the night. Captain Smith sounds like he was senile and just coasting in his role as captain.
Rubbish, it's well done.
My heart goes out to the poor victims 💔 it's heartbreaking 💔😢😢😢😢
There are ships that lost 5x more people than this ship. It’s not the greatest loss of people.
Not even in the top 5.. but what ever it takes to sell a story.
The worst part of this story is the had enough time to get everyone on life boats. But not enough boats to do so
True
Took an hour an half to load 13 boats. The last 1 or 2 collapsible boats were wasted because it was just too late in the sinking process.
How long would it take to load 48?
@@seanharper8488 I hear they would've been able to load 48 boats if (a) they had realized the seriousness of the situation sooner (as opposed to thinking she was unsinkable) and (b) if the crew had been more organized and both crew and passengers had lifeboat assignments (so no one lost time wondering where to go)
The greatest maritime loss of modern time was the Wilhelm Gustloff with 9000 passengers. (Min. 0:40 ca.)
I was thinking the same thing….. but a normal maritime loss is different than a war time loss due to torpedos … at least that’s what I believe the reason is…the Gustioff was terrible tragedy…. So many people. I believe it sank in less than 25 minutes…. I could be wrong about the timing.
titanic was well built people looking to make a story when there is not one her sister the Olympic was built the same way with the same materials and rivets she rammed and sunk the u boat u-103 and a collision with h.m.s hawke and stayed afloat she stayed in service up until she was scrapped in 1935
Once you say Unsinkable your Tempting Fate!
The greatest maratime loss in modern history was the Wilhelm Gustloff... not the freaking titanic. 30 seconds in and already total bs information
Exactly. I'm not even gonna watch the rest.
Sidenote: I've also heard the Titanic being called the worst maritime peace-time disaster, which is also not true. People keep forgetting about the Doña Paz with 4300 deaths.
@@echoplots8058 I stopped watching after 2 minutes. Couldn't stand the ammount of bs
@@AR_119 i recall a different scientist investigating the rivets not this woman.. back in the 90s
@@robert-h2x YES! I saw that original documentary too, this is a rip off.
Yeah and there was another one also..but i.m not sure of the name ..was it the empress of Ireland maybe...I feel my memory at 70 rusting away like the ships...😮😮
0:58 baffled experts for “almost half a century”? Haven’t experts pondered the possible materiel issues for 112 years now?
No, they haven't. The supposed 'material issues' claims originated in the 1990s, with the rise of social media, where all and sundry found themselves in a position where they could comment on a subject, despite actually knowing little or nothing about it.
This was a godsend for the conspiracy fantasists.
Albert here, 🤡aka @dovetonsturdee7033 has all the answers 😂
This was a terrible disaster, but it was caused by many small things that went wrong that night. They all added up and are a reminder, no ship is unsinkable, and it pays to take precautions. Had the ship been sailing slower, she could have avoided hitting the iceberg. Had she carried enoght lifeboats, all would have been saved and only the ship itself would have been lost.
It’s funny how only folks not on board Titanic at the time of the collision were the ones blamed for the collision….Blair was blamed for the binoculars not being available (why not, when it is realized the binocular locker is locked, break into the locker & have it repaired later) & Capt Lord of the California for not responding quickly when the Titanic’s Marconi operator Jack Phillips told the California’s Marconi operator to “shut up you bloody idiot” when he tried to send them what would have been their last ice warning. They even try blaming the Masaba for not putting the “MSG” prefix on an ice warning. No matter the prefix, you always send messages containing warnings of hazards to navigation to the Captain. And never you mind the fact that Capt Smith drove the Whitestar ships like sports cars. He had 2-3 accidents while he was the captain of the Olympic. I wouldn’t let Capt Smith command a rowboat on a dried up pond.
It’s a wonder they haven’t tried to blame the dock workers in New York who were waiting on the Titanic’s arrival for not rowing mooring lines out to the ship & pulling her in before she could sink.
All the actions that caused the sinking of Titanic, aside from the use of inferior materials in the construction of her hull, were committed onboard the ship and are the direct responsibility of the Captain & crew of the Titanic including the Marconi wireless operators. Without the collision, the inferior rivets would probably never have been revealed and the Titanic would have sailed incident free for years. And, when speaking of a ship at sea, all actions are the responsibility of the Captain so Capt Smith is to blame for the collision and sinking of the Titanic, period.
Lord was never blamed for the collision, but was rightly vilified for his lack of action to the flares reported to him.
Phillips did not send any 'shut up' message to Cyril Evans. At least, not according to Evans.
Masaba was not criticised for the lack of MSG. It was simply stated as a fact.
Smith had had no accidents when in command of Olympic, although the ship had been involved in a collision when a Solent Pilot was in charge.
Inferior metals were not used in the construction. Olympic used the same materials and had a long, successful career.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 So you're claiming Capt Smith was not in charge of the Olympic or of the Titanic? mnnn, interesting.
@@SamanthaDavies1536During the Hawke collision Smith was on the bridge and in fact had warned the solent pilot in command of Olympic, George Bowyer, that he was drawing near to HMS Hawke and the pilot either did not heed his warnings or it was too late by that point. Either way he was not in command of Olympic at time of collision and actively tried to prevent it from happening.
As for Titanic, Smith had handed command of Titanic's bridge over to Murdoch and had retired for the night. He was in bed asleep at the time of the collision so no he was not in command at that moment. His orders prior to bed however may have contributed to decisions made by Murdoch that night, then again they had around 25 seconds to react after the berg was spotted.
@@Tozzpot500 Where did you get that story about Smith's exchange with Bowyer while on the Olympic? I have yet to come across such an alleged verbal exchange anywhere. Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a link?
@@Tozzpot500 Your 2nd Para - ''Smith handed command of Titanic's bridge over to Murdoch''. Yes, you're correct, he did, with his own specific orders to maintain speed and course in the knowledge of ice warnings and poor visibility.
If I recall this one was from around 2009. So take it as it is I guess.
What has always stuck out to me that if they would have hit the ice on the same exact heading they were on and not turned at all they most likely would have survived. They would have gotten a horrible rep from it slaming the brand new ship into ice and causing major discomfort to the pasengers, but most likely would have made it to New York.
An interesting informative new take on the matter.
Olympic and Britannic looking at each other like eh? 35:30 i thought he was gonna say, "Well you shoulda gone to Specsavers!"
The moment someone said unsinkable.
👍🏻
Human hubris at its absolute finest.
Actually there was only one ad that had the "unsinkable" claim.
@@lisaw8741: That may be true but it has been made clear over the century since the sinking occurred that many people actually bought into that particular piece of propaganda - including those responsible for building and operating her.
@@lisaw8741 fascinating 🤨
Most excellent documentary. I enjoyed it. Better than others
Basically once one rivet popped it was like unbuttoning a shirt it all just came apart
The rivets didn't pop, they were sheared off by the density of the ice and on a side note thousands upon thousands of the rivets were flush set rivets and thoroughly painted to make the steel appear smooth.
The Titanic was not one of the most famous disasters It is the most famous disaster By far
How many times does the Titanic need to be rehashed ?
the very minute the pencils were put to paper she was doomed
Explain RMS Olympic then.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Wasn't far off it when she collided with Hawke, was she? Is that explanation enough?
This is a waste of time there weren't any weaknesses of the titanic she was bult with the best materials of her time it was a combination of bad timing and luck
She really was. Aside from enough lifeboats. Look how well she still looks. Obviously she's being eaten and eroded away but the fact that the ship looked this good for so long is a testament to her builders
People forget that materials used compared to today would be inferior. But for her time, the iron used WAS good. It's just now we know how to find impurities.
That isn’t true. There are multiple documentaries about how they used weaker iron for the rivets.
@@brynnharris-hamm1321 and theyre called conspiracy theorists
Why is it everyone talks about the hit and damage it caused but no one really talks about the speed TITANIC hit the iceberg? Why and how did the Titanic stay stable while it sank rather than tipping over?
Because the leak was really small(not even 2 square meters overall),meaning limited speed of flooding,and because she did not have longitudinal bulkheads,meaning the water could flood the ship relatively even.
Of course,she had an innitial slight.list to starboard,which later settled to a port side list,thanks to the asymetric layout of her interior
Ismay was not a coward at all he was actually helping passengers onto lifeboats and was essentially thrown into the boat as it was being lowered by a crew member he didn't jump into a place he was pushed into one only after helping several women and children off the ship
The main accusations against Ismay is not cowardice. I am not talking about media. I don't care about media and neither should you. I am talking about the inquiries which is all I care about.
He is accused of;
(1) making a decision to reduce the proposed number of lifeboats from 48 to 16 (plus 4 collapsibles) according to the TESTIMONY at the British inquiry by the chief designer Carlisle. And lowering the proposed bulkheads.
Yes this was on point in relation to the Board of Trade regulations. But having enough davits on the ship to carry 48 lifeboats (3 per davit) strongly suggests that the White Star Line believed that the regulations would be changed during the lifetime of the Titanic. This was all about money. Having less lifeboats made the ship more hotel like. More attractive to 1st class passengers. While having enough davits to carry 48 lifeboats means no refit necessary when the BOT rules change.
(2) Giving hostile and inaccurate testimony to the US inquiry. He claimed to be a private passenger despite getting a free ticket and giving direct orders to officers (by his own testimony). He claimed to know nothing about ice despite having an ice warning in his pocket. He claimed to never having talked to Captain Smith about the speed of the ship despite giving detailed information about the speed at each stage/day of the voyage.
This is what he is accused of. Ismay crybabies always try to deflect by claiming he wasn't coward or that he helped women into lifeboats. I repeat, he was never accused of cowardice by the inquiries.
@@fiachramaccana280 I don’t really care what your opinion is you’re free to it I was stating an opinion of my own plain and simple take it or leave it
Well he along with other shipowners knew deep down that it was wrong to not supply boats for all and shipowners at the time talked Board of Trade members into not mandating boats for all in favor of certain 1st-class amenities. He lied at the Senate hearings; he said he had no knowledge about the ice warnings and that he didn't know about the Titanic's speed. Plus on the Carpathia he sent a message to White Star in New York asking them to hold this ship, the Cedric, until he and the crew came so they could go back home to England as soon as possible. That message in itself already looked like an effort to evade US authorities. He made it all look worse by signing it "Yamsi" his last name spelled backwards. And then it didn't help his image that in an effort to avoid lawsuits White Star sent representatives to hospitals where victims were recovering and tricked them into signing declarations that they wouldn't sue for damages in exchange for 25 pounds. That's downright obscene
@@fmyoung they actually met the safety standard of the time yes it was wrong to not have enough boats but it actually met the standard so maybe some blame lies with maritime rules and those who make them if they had stated that the number of boats has to match everyone on board they would’ve followed them but they didn’t say that
@@MrDannyboyhall Hmm yes I guess then that some blame also lies with Board of Trade members for allowing shipowners to talk them into not mandating full lifeboat capacity
Just one question for those who called Ismey a coward for boarding the boat in those terrible conditions: "What would you have done in those same conditions?"
Because it is very easy to be brave when you are comfortably sitting at a desk writing a newspaper about the cowardice of someone who is slowly being surrounded by water and wants to save his life.
Very enjoyable, but it missed out the long term fire in the coal bunker, which severely damaged the bulkhead in the area which grazed the iceberg, causing it to fail.
No, it didn't. The fire in a coal bunker, arising from spontaneous combustion, had been dealt with around 24 hours before the collision. According to the testimony of stoker survivors, the only damage was to paintwork in the bunker.
I went from one documentary, but I have researched further and am now happy to agree with you.
@@Chris-mv5yg Good for you. I am delighted that you did a little more research, as so many refuse.
I commend you for your honesty & integrity. There really isn't much of either around these days!
wrong 123 damaged
no 5 was at the fire
@@raypitts4880 What do you actually mean by that comment?
A head on collision may or may not have had a bearing on the outcome of this disaster. For example, a car travelling at 100km an hour is going to sustain more damage than a car travelling at 30km an hour. There are many factors that would determine whether the titanic would have survived a head on collision. Now, I'm not an engineer so I'm submitting my view on the basis of practicality. If I'm wrong, I'll wear it.
you never call a ship unsinkable. Nature will take that as a challenge
The iceberg - or, for that matter, nature - took it personally that the ship was labeled unsinkable
I found this comment here too on the other doc "If you think your ship is unsinkable, what will happen is the unthinkable."
I found this comment here on the other doc "If you think your ship is unsinkable, what will happen is the unthinkable."
God/Allah takes it personally also..
I think we found a new documentary for Historic Travels since Sam is done torturing himself with Bright Side videos 😂
Just no common sense.. no critical thinking.. just incompetence over and over and over.. Not enough training.. not enough diligence.. so much carelessness.. from start to finish.
A bit nebulous, but what realistic variable would you choose to adjust so as to mitigate matters?
God: "Unsinkable? Hold my beer"
What a fool captain smith was.. saying women and children and not being clear.. sentencing so many men to death and separating families.. and he didn’t make sure the frickin lifeboats were full.. Just makes me so angry. What a buffoon.
it was just before ww1 remember when you were a man that died for country, homeless ans jobless people were treated like less than human, slavery in ww2 was a thing, polpot happened in the 70s, so humanity can be trash even until recently, 1980s in Tiananmen square
Read up on the 'Birkenhead Drill.'
There are some fault’s here. The lookout’s never said they would have seen the Berg if they had binoq’s. Second: it is proven that there was a cold water mirrage that night witch would have helped hide the Berg within the raised horizon until your’e close enough to see it. So basicly binoq’s would not done any good… Logs of the sea and air temperature taken from ships around the same day shows a clear picture of that happening. But i would not expect a non seafearer to know this…
And the riverts at fault? Im sorry but no, a wielded ship would have sunk aswell. The impact force when two heavy objects like the Titanic and the Berg collide is massive. Its like a massive hydraulic press or dynamite.
Bruce Ismay. A name synonymous with cowardice.
Human nature to want to live. We all can say sitting safe at home he's a coward but I know alot of us would do anything to live.
And what of the other men that survived? When Ismay got in the lifeboat, there weren't other women nearby. He actually helped convince people to get in. His name got a bad rep that's not really deserved.
It's very easy to sit behind a computer screen over 110 years later, criticising someone for obeying a basic human biological imperitive - survival. And ultimately, his cowardice was the least of his crimes. His part in the decision to carry too few lifeboats and his pressuring the Captain to maintain an unrealistic schedule should have gotten more attention and ire than his "deserting rat" tendencies.
Deep down everyone involved in shipping at the time knew it was wrong to not supply enough lifeboats whether the law allowed for that or not
@@fmyoung: Exactly. It's basic maths that when you have 2000+ people on a ship, you need enough lifeboats for 2000+ people. People excuse it with things like "But the laws at that time..." There really is no excuse that absolves anyone in this regard. The law is the minimum but there was nothing stopping the Titanic from having better standards than the bare minimum.
This appears to be completely bogus. For one thing, none would have raised the lifeboat issue because Titanic had more life boats onboard than current maritime law required, and was therefore well above requirements (ask the couldn't blame anyone in that basis). Pretty pictures, though, if factually deficient.
Alexander Carlisle expected the Board of Trade regulations to be amended to take account of the much larger ships entering service, and designed the Olympics to be capable of carrying more lifeboats.
Of course, when the BoT didn't act, the number of lifeboats remained unchanged.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 And the board of WSL which included Ismay went against his advice. Nice one.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Carlisle, who designed Titanic, walked out on the job after a disagreement over the same issues.
Today this event would be blamed on Global Warming!
Don't forget trump...
@@catface3473not everything is about you Americans 😒
RMS Titanic ! Now where have I heard that name before ?.🤔
1. The amount of Lifeboats on the Titanic was actually more than what was required at that time. By then, the amount of lifeboats were based on weight not capacity, and these Boards of Registration were too slow to keep up with the large ships being built.
2. The theory of the binoculars might’ve changed things if the Titanic was in a different place and time. The reality was that night had no moon and waves were calm, it would’ve been impossible to spot an iceberg in that situation.
If you can't see what's ahead why then keep going all ahead full this is the insanity of some poor decisions by those in charge that come out fatal
@@KoireGerald Quite correct, couldn't agree more.
1:33 how could they have known exactly
How heavy the iceberg was? I think there a video talking about how they were tracking that iceberg or something like that.
Were those same rivets used in the Bow sections of Olympic and Brittanic? or were they changed after?. I think not, it would have taken too long, Olympic had to keep on sailing to earn money for the White Star Line to continue building the Britanic, which sadly hit a mine and sank. She was never used as a ship to sail across the Atlantic as it was converted into a Hospital Ship.by1918. The First World War.
Interesting to hear about the science surrounding the Titanic sinking and possibly why more clearly in the modern world today.
If you are found of this channel spend the time and watch it. There are other documentaries, that are more topic oriented and contain less movie scenes.
Titanic was unsinkable, if head on she wouldn't sink, if 4 chambers filled with water wouldn't sink but it was the 5 th chamber leaked, the captain was told to to have a set speed to cross, he ignored it and have full speed to cross, error 1, the messager told to cut communication, error 2, no binoculars for the nest, error 3, all human errors
1). Smith was not 'told' what speed Titanic must maintain.
2). Cyril Evans closed down at the end of his shift. He subsequently testified that no offence had been taken by him. Wireless operators in their 20s were not the kind of shrinking violets you seem to believe.
3). Binoculars were irrelevant. Look outs at the time rarely used them.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 *BS. you lie. A duty lookout Frederick Fleet testified that with Binoculars 'we could have seen it [the iceberg] a bit sooner'. Asked how much sooner, he added: 'Well, enough to get out of the way. ' So, explain that, Einstein? 🤡and the Binoculars which were locked away and inaccessible when asked for when Blair left the ship with the keys in his pocket? Pull the the other one, Albert* 😂
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Were Binoculars relevant or irrelevant?
Make up your mind, laddie, as you stated previously the officers on the bridge would take the correct course of action with Binoculars but opposingly maintained that the lookouts in the Crows Nest wouldn't as Binoculars were irrelevant. Very odd. Did you really attend university? Tell us you're joking? 🤡😅
Hey! I’ve been to the cemetery!
No doubt, the blame belongs to the wachers that should be opened eyes during boat is sailing. They saw the iceberg first, and if they were hurry, Titanic was out of danger.
It isn't easy to see something which isn't visible.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 You're bang on there, Albert, Capt Smith removed his specs before hitting the sack after dinner and brandies.