Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Big Old Boats" channel.

  1. What possibly might Andrews have been grilled about? The Titanic carried motre lifeboats than Board of Trade regulations required.
    2
  2. No, it wasn't.
    2
  3. There were 20 lifeboats, and the last two floated away from the sinking ship.
    2
  4. No.
    2
  5.  @Mr.Grimsdale  But you were, I presume? I don't need to have been there to know that the first U-Boat with a diesel engine, and even the theoretical range to reach Newfoundland, was U-19, which commissioned on 6 July, 1913.
    2
  6.  @Mr.Grimsdale  Very good. Your search on Wikipedia has not been wasted. Even if your rationale is rather tenuous. Particularly since an RN 'D' had a surfaced speed of ten knots, and a submerged speed of five. Titanic, by the way, was steaming at twenty-one knots when she hit the iceberg. In the pitch dark. Now tell me why a British 'D' class boat should even be sent to torpedo Titanic?
    2
  7. Let's assume that Californian left Royal Albert Dock at 1200 on 5 April. By late on 14 April, she would have been at sea some 216 hours. Her position was some 2400 sea miles from Liverpool. Now divide 2400 by 216. That gives an average speed of just over 11.1 knots. Californian's maximum service speed when new was 12 knots, although an economical cruising speed would certainly be less. She was actually making good time. She didn't drop anchor. Ships did not have anchor chains 13,000 feet long. She simply stopped. Quite why Lord acted, or rather, didn't act, as he did, will never be known, but it seems you are implying that Californian was there to act as a rescue ship (she wasn't, by the way) but then claiming it to be equally suspicious that Lord didn't seem to know that that was his role. Make your mind up. 'Futility' is a total Red Herring. Did you know that the second edition was extensively re-written, interestingly, in 1912? The only weirdness is that invented by conspiracists.
    2
  8. Whatever language you posted that comment in, it is still nonsense. No-one reported an 'explosion.' No-one, English or anything else, ever suggested the presence of a German sub. There was no gold aboard. Ballard has never suggested that the wreck is anything other than Titanic.
    2
  9.  @merafirewing6591  Official Lloyd's and Icelandic records claim that the Samson docked in Isafjordur on 6 April and 20 April 1912, making it impossible for her to have encountered the Titanic given her speed.
    2
  10. What 'shoddy inspections' might they have been? Titanic carried more lifeboats than Board of Trade regulations required. There was no legal reason to stop her from sailing. Olympic had the same rivets, and was a successful liner for 23 years. Ismay didn't have the bulkheads lowered. The minimum height was dictated by Board of Trade regulations, and it was comfortably exceeded by Titanic's designers. It always puzzles me that people with no knowledge of any correct facts post inane comments like yours.
    2
  11.  @specialnewb9821  No-one was 'stuck' with inferior rivets. Tests on Titanic rivets in recent years have demonstrated that , whilst they were inferior to more recent rivets, they were more than adequate for the purpose. Moreover, you haven't addressed the case of Olympic, a successful liner for 23 years, with the same rivets. You say 'corners were cut.' What corners? Titanic actually took longer to build than Olympic. Look it up. Alexander Carlisle, designer of the Olympics, who retired in 1910, gave evidence at the British Inquiry. There was never any suggestion that bulkhead height was reduced, nor that the suggestion was ever put to him to reduce it. Perhaps you would consider that 'corners were cut' by Leonard Peskett, with the Mauretanias, because he did not include anti-torpedo bulges against the possibility that a war might break out some years later, and one of them be torpedoed? The Olympics were well designed and well built ships. Titanic sank simply because she was subjected to damage which was entirely unforeseeable, and far beyond anything with which her design was intended to cope.
    2
  12. Really? Who, for example?
    2
  13.  @Tconcept  Just as you need to read the minutes of the US Inquiry. A number of third class survivors were asked if they had been locked below decks. None made such a claim. Indeed, one even complained that he was not allowed back below decks in order to fetch his overcoat. It might make sense to you, but it isn't borne out by the evidence.
    2
  14.  @Tconcept  So, you believe that because it was 'in the film' it must be true? Even though survivors in a position to know stated that it didn't? I enjoyed the 'Lord of the Rings' films, but I never believed them to be historical documents. Neither was 'Titanic.'
    2
  15.  @Tconcept  As you don't seem willing to accept eye-witness accounts if they conflict with your prejudices, further conversation would seem to be superfluous. I have a background in senior management in the logistics industry. I do, however, freely admit that I have never been in a position of authority aboard a sinking ocean liner.
    2
  16.  @Tconcept  Then clearly you don't even read replies from other people.
    2
  17.  @duelde-consulting6403  What is an 'ice hull refrigerator coil ship?'
    2
  18. Californian was not a 'Rescue Ship' she was a small, fully laden freighter. There was no rule about flare colours at the time. Titanic carried 36 state-of- the art Socket Signals, which were white with explosive heads. Which 'court documents' say the captain of Californian was waiting for any signal? Stop making things up. Mount Temple was owned by The Canadian Pacific Railway, not by IMM. Why do you people insist upon posting when you are ignorant of even the most basic of facts?
    2
  19.  @Blackfoxparadox  Whereever did you get that idea from? The crew knew nothing of the sort, although the fact that Carpathia was on her way certainly was known. As was the fact that she would not arrive in time.
    2
  20.  @Blackfoxparadox  Refer me to these videos, then. Or even tell me the names of the passengers or the passenger who made the claim. If it is easily searchable, why haven't you done that already to prove your point? You must have watched Senan Molony's claims about the Mount Temple, and swallowed them whole. The fact is that Californian's officers saw Titanic's flares, and alerted their captain. Mount Temple did not see any flares, because she was further away.
    2
  21.  @Blackfoxparadox  If Californian was nowhere near Titanic, where did the flares which Californian's watchkeepers reported to Captain Lord come from? Exactly how many large liners do you think were in the area at thr time, merrily firing off rockets? I don't recall ever mentioning any 'Norwegian Tramp.' I have read the eyewitness accounts from survivors, as well as minutes of both Inquiries. Nowhere is there any reference to 'explosions.' The best you will find is 'rumblings' doubtless due to heavy machinery breaking loose as the ship began to sink. There are, however, numerous references to the iceberg. I have also read the accounts of Californian's crew as well. I thought you said she was nowhere near? 'You do the searching if you want it's not hard to find.' If it isn't hard to find, why haven't you found it, as you are the one making the claim, not me? In short, put up or shut up.
    2
  22.  @Borninthe80s.  Californian might well have got there before Carpathia. In any case, does that justify not even bothering to try?
    2
  23.  @fmyoung  As he had commanded Olympic since her maiden voyage, and taken her on eight Atlantic round trips, and Titanic was her sister ship, I suggest that Captain Smith knew rather a lot about the class.
    2
  24. When you ship is going down by the bow, steaming into the sea is really not all that good an idea.
    2
  25. 'Countless sinkings?' Which were they?
    2
  26.  @oriraykai3610  Very good. Now explain which of those sinkings had shortage of lifeboats as the prime cause of the deaths aboard. Good luck with that.
    2
  27. There were four movies based (very loosely) on the sinking, which predated the 1943 propaganda effort.
    2
  28. A pity for your fantasy that the Titanic and the Fed. were not connected.
    2
  29.  @jamiegaskins3687  Definitely a sure thing. The first suggestion of any actual connection appeared in the 1990s, and made totally false claims about Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus. Didn't you know that?
    2
  30. He was a lifelong teetotaller, so he wasn't drunk. Captains do not spend 24 hours of each day on the bridges of their ships. What do you think warchkeeping officers are for?
    2
  31.  @johnfoster7626  Your hindsight is a wonderful thing. Only with the benefit of it could Titanic be claimed to be entering the 'crucial stage' of anything.
    2
  32. 'What was California suppose to do?' What was Californian supposed to do? Nothing. But her captain should have done something. After being informed by his officers of their concerns about a large steamer firing rockets, Captain Lord did precisely nothing, not even getting his wireless operator to check for any alarms on the radio. Lord was vilified for inactivity. Fortunately, Rostron of Carpathia had more undertstanding of the Tradition of the Sea, and made strenous efforts to reach Titanic. Whether Lord could have reached Titanic is was not the issue. What did condemn him was his apparent determination not to try. By the way, Titanic's crew were not seeking any record. Hardly possible, given that the turbine driven Mauretanias were some four to five knots faster.
    2
  33. Perhaps you would name a design of submarine which could even get to Newfoundland in 1912, let alone catch a 21 knot liner and torpedo it in pitch darkness?
    2
  34. Lord was vilified not for failing to rescue anyone, but for failing to show any interest in investigating the concerns of his officers.
    2
  35.  @codysnider7017  Unfortunately, there are strange obsessives who comment on sites like this who insist that their fantasies are real. Sadly, facts mean nothing to them, although they do seem to annoy them.
    2
  36. Odd, then, that many people reported an iceberg, but no one seems to have heard any bomb, isn't it?
    2
  37.  @RmsTitanic1912.  You should always make allowances for people who watch a switcher video, swallow if hook line & sinker, and conclude that they are 'experts' as a result.
    2
  38.  @samiirai  'I really don't know anything about that.' You have already made that abundantly clear.
    2
  39.  @Tindometari  It seems that the 'visceral consciousness' of the ice did not extend all that far into the minds of Lord's officers, who were concerned enough about the activities of the 'large steamer' to make their captain aware of them. Moreover, the attempts Lord made to contact the steamer by signal lamp do not really make sense, when he had a shiny new Marconi set at his disposal which could have resolved any doubts in a matter of a few minutes. I disagree with your assessment of how Rostron would have been viewed had Carpathia hit ice. He would have, at worst, been seen as a tragic hero, who tried his best to save lives.
    2
  40. Er. Nobody. J. P. Morgan had already announced in March that he would not be sailing in Titanic. An article about what he intended to do instead had already appeared in the New York Times. Would you like further details? Do a bit more googling. Look up Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus, and read what their actual views about the Fed. were, before swallowing whole a myth created in the mid 1990s.
    2
  41.  @nosferatut9084  Actually, as she was a British registered ship insured with a British company, White Star received £1 million from Lloyds. Or, two thirds of her building costs. It was in all the papers in 1912. Perhaps you missed it?
    2
  42. No one reported a 'sailing ship.'
    2
  43.  @spudskie3907  Perhaps they actually saw Der fliegende Holländer? Certainly the alleged vessel.Samson, was nowhere near the area, as Lloyds records, and the records of the port of Isafjordur have proven. You do know it was pitch dark, and in the middle of the night, do you?
    2
  44. Oh yes. There were lots of long range submarines wandering the seas off Newfoundland in 1912, of course.
    2
  45. Nonsense. Conspiracy Theory silliness.
    2
  46.  @JoboGamezzz  Yes, my mistake. Correct.
    1
  47. 'New evidence?' Actually spurious claims that were proven false, by reference to Lloyds' records, and those of the port of Isafjordur, years ago.
    1
  48.  @boohoo4416  The drill did not involve passengers, only crew members. Of course the capacity of the lifeboats was known. There was, however, concerns that the davits could cope with the lowering of a fully laden boat. The concern was probably unfounded, but it did exist.
    1
  49. Because in the middle of the Great Depression, there wasn't the money to spare on luxuries. He old rival Mauretania went the same way at the same time.
    1
  50. Scapegoat for what? His officers told him of their concerns about a lage steamer firing rockets, yet he chose not to investigate.
    1