Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Oceanliner Designs" channel.

  1. Yes. Over three years later.
    3
  2.  @MacAdvisor  Just as Olympic had a 24 year career until, at the same time as Mauretania, she was withdrawn from service when still, also like Mauretania, in good condition. Just as, without the intervention of unforseeable events, the other three, Lusitania, Titanic, & Britannic, might be expected to have had equally long careers.
    3
  3.  @MacAdvisor  If the steel & rivets used to build Titanic were 'not suitable for the cold North Atlantic' how was it that her sister was able to sail those same waters without problem for 23 years, when she had been built of the same materials? The compartments were higher than Board of Trade regulations required. The designers of the Olympics intended her to be able to survive with four of them compromised. The loss of six was totally unpredictable, and unsurvivable. Can you name any ship of the period with portholes which automatically closed?
    3
  4.  @fred6319  Didn't you even watch the video?
    3
  5.  @gjustg1540  Which ships 'sat waiting?' Don't you think that both the Manhattan Project & Bletchley Park involved issues of far greater import than the sailing of an ocean liner? Or that things like the Official Secrets Act, or the US equivalents, may have been relevant? Furthermore, many of Harland & Wolff's staff were made redundant after the end of WW1, only six and a half years later. What induced them to keep silent, and, anyway, what was 'compartmentalised' about the work they did? Moreover, those crew members who escaped Titanic's sinking never, for the rest of their lives, made any suggestions about anything suspicious about either the ship or the sinking. Indeed, no one at all did, until an amateur historian, Robin Gardiner, wrote a largely fact-free book about it in the 1990s.
    3
  6.  @gokulgopan4397  Give the lad time! I am sure that he will have an unimpeachable source which has been lost to everyone else since 1913.
    3
  7.  @craigpeter4794  The scrapping took place after the merger of White Star and Cunard, both of whom were in financial difficulties. Another Grand Old Lady, Cunard's Mauretania, was scrapped at the same time. Put simply, at the time there were too many liners competing for too little traffic.
    3
  8. Of course, the British should have simply sat back and allowed Germany to conquer the rest of Europe. Firstly when Germany simply chose to march into Belgium in WW1, and secondly when Germany embarked on a policy of rampant military expansion in WW2. After all, why should any decent person object to Germany, without any declarations of war, invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium? Twice, in the case of Belgium. I appreciate that you are still annoyed after all these years, herr obergruppenfuhrer, but please address two matters. 1). How would seeking to prevent a general European war have expanded Britain's 'Colonial Empire?' 2). Why do you believe that US involvement in WW2 was simply to aid Britain, when in fact it was primarily because of Pearl Harbor and the subsequent German declaration of war?
    3
  9. Only if you swallow whole a myth created in the 1990s.
    3
  10.  @StandWithRussia  But the ship was far from a write off. She was repaired by Harland & Wolff and returned to sea on 20 November, 1911, when Titanic was several months short of completion. By the time Titanic left Southampton on 10 April, 1912, Olympic had completed five Atlantic round trips since returning to sea, and was in New York harbor, half way through her sixth. Not bad, I suggest, for a eritted off cripple. The fact is, without the false 'broken keel' claim, the whole idea of any switch collapses. Have you considered looking at Olympic's actual service record yourself, or have you simply not got the integrity? You might also look in more detail at HMS Hawke. She did not have a reinforced. ram, bow, but had simply a ram style bow. By the time she was built, ramming was no longer a feasible method of naval warfare. Indeed, her repairs saw her fitted with a more modern, straight, bow. The collision, by the way, was at low speed (eight knots), and despite your convction to the contrary, Hawke's damage was nor severe, as the bow was not even crushed as far back as the hawse hole.
    3
  11. The H & W workforce was almost entirely Protestant. Indeed, in 1911, it was probably 100% Protestant. Not, of course, that that makes the idea of any switch any less barking mad.
    3
  12. If any moderators are checking this site, I urge them to have a really good look, as some of the comments currently appearing fall well below the standard we have come to accept.
    3
  13. No. Australia is an independent member of the Commonwealth. Just like Canada.
    3
  14. Jellicoe had no say in warship design, & Hood's deck was on a par with a Queen Elizabeth class battleship.
    3
  15.  @SteepSix  There are no such letters. It is simply a poor quality CGI image which suddenly emerged from nowhere in the year 2000 or thereabouts. No exploration team has ever claimed the images, nor even commented upon them. Even the inventor of the Switch myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced them as fakes.
    3
  16. Brilliant! The first U-Boat with a diesel engine and anything like the range even to get to Newfoundland was U19, commissioned in 1913. Even in WW2, by the way, U-Boats struggled to get anywhere near to any ship steaming at 21 knots or more. Next, the three men to whom you refer were Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus. The first two had never expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst the third had spoken openly in favour. A word of advice. Don't watch conspiracy fantasy videos and swallow them whole. It really does make you look rather silly when you do.
    3
  17.  @doctoremil2678  So, you believe that savings a few dozen more people really wasn't worth the effort. Clearly, you weren't Captain Rostron in an earlier life!
    3
  18. How many of you are out there who have swallowed without question a myth invented in the 1990s?
    3
  19.  @Goaner89  He has covered it in almost forensic detail, and had thoroughly destroyed the entire nonsensical idea.
    3
  20. 'the insurance job version.' Do you mean the one where a ship costing £1.5 milllion to build in 1911-12 was scuttled in order to claim £1 million back in insurance, which destroying White Star's reputation for safety at the same time? It would have been cheaper to shovel pound notes rather than coal into the boilers.
    3
  21.  @grahamcampbell400  The collision was with a protected cruiser, at low speed (8 knots). Olympic's starboard quarter was damaged. Two compartments were breached, and a propeller shaft bent. Repairs were completed in seven weeks.
    3
  22. Careful. The berks out there will believe you.
    3
  23.  @lewis7315  Your 'experts' were wrong. Hood's design was altered during her construction. A typical battlecruiser, such as Tiger, ot the Lions, had a 9 inch belt and a 2.5 inch deck. Hood had a 12 inch belt and a 3 inch deck. The much later US North Carolina class fast battleships had 12.1 inch belts and 3.6 inch decks. Hood was really a fast battleship, although her deck armour was lacking by the standards of 1939, which was why Holland sought to reduce the range as quickly as he did.
    3
  24. The propellers actually had blades bolted on on all three Olympics. The only number found on a propeller at the Wrecksite is 401. The hull number Harland & Wolff gave to Titanic. Quad erat demonstrandum.
    3
  25. Oh dear, not another! You mean the video which appeared, from nowhere and without provenance, in the year 2000 or thereabouts? The one which no exploration team has claimed, or even commented about? The video which even Robin Gardiner, the founding father of the switch myth, denounced as fake? That video? Didn't you stop to ask yourself why, if this was such conclusive proof, not one credible Titanic researcher or historian has even given it the time of day?
    3
  26. Why have you referenced a video which borders upon rampant insanity?
    3
  27. Are you suggesting that women are less intelligent than men? If my wife was able to read this, she would be annoyed. Were large numbers of the crew, and most of the officers, really all that keen to kill themselves at the behest of 'THEM?' Women and children first was the tradition. Read up on the 'Birkenhead Drill.'
    3
  28. Given the number of half baked and idiotic videos which appear fairly regularly about Titanic, claiming switches, Federal Reserve Plots, and all sorts of nonsense, a video like this, which shows actual knowledge and understanding of the subject, is truly a breath of fresh air.
    3
  29. Not really valid comparisons. Curacoa and Voyager were much smaller than the ships with which they collided. The iceberg was hugely larger than Titanic.
    3
  30. Why comment when you have nothing to say?
    3
  31.  @shahmanz  Yes, I have seen, and responded, to them elsewhere. Your blind unquestioning belief in the Switch, the Federal Reserve Conspiracy, and the vast all embracing plot orchestrated by 'them' in total defiance of any supporting evidence, would be amusing were it not so sad. Still, I imagine you enjoy any Conspiracy Fantasy videos you stumble across? Much easier than thinking, I suppose.
    3
  32.  @shahmanz  I don't make videos, but I do study histories, archives, records, and eye witness accounts. You should try it, instead of simply posting meaningless comments.
    3
  33. I will keep this as simple as I can. The tone of your post suggests it would be pointless to write anything more complicated. The Home Fleet had four capital ships with sufficient speed and firepower to catch Bismarck. There were two exit points into the wider Atlantic. The British needed to prevent Bismarck & Prinz Eugen reaching the wider Atlantic, as they would then be harder to chase down, and could become a threat to convoys. Admiral Tovey, therefore, sent his second and third best ships, Hood & Prince of Wales, to one exit, the Denmark Strait, and positioned his strongest and weakest assets, King George V and Repulse, in the second, the Iceland-Faroes Gap. The reasoning was that each unit, individually, would be capable of preventing the breakout, and each had cruiser support in the area. Guess what? It worked. Despite the loss of Hood (an aging ship, but with a heavier broadside than that of Bismarck, and armour on a par with a Queen Elizabeth class battleship) Prince of Wales was able to damage Bismarck sufficiently to force her commander to abandon his raiding mission and run for St. Nazaire for repairs. I hope that this was not too difficult for you to grasp, and I hope that great-granddad did not get bored sitting in Tirpitz at the end of a Fjord for many months betweem 1942 & November, 1944.
    3
  34. No, it doesn't.
    3
  35.  @Tozzpot500  Just a small point. The repairs cost $125,000 not £125,000 At 1911 rates of exchange, (4.86) that came to around £25,700 Which, of course, makes your argument even more valid.
    3
  36. White Star could not claim from Lloyds for the repair, because a court deemed that Olympic was at fault for the collision. However, repairs were carried out by Harland and Wolff in around 6 - 7 weeks, and she was back at sea by late November. The cost was some £25,700 which equated to around 1.85% of her building cost of £1,500,000 For a Company which had shown profits of over £1million in the last financial year, that was a minor inconvenience at most. Indeed, in the same month that Olympic returned to sea, White Star placed an order with Harland & Wolff for the third Olympic class liner. As to the imaginary insurance scam, Olympic was insured with Lloyds for £1 million, which would mean that White Star would lose £500,000 their safety record, and a major asset. Perhaps the Board of Cunard suggested the 'scam' to White Star? You might perhaps fill in the gaps yourself, instead of simply swallowing whole a switcher video?
    3
  37.  @Tozzpot500  No problem. As I said, the reduction in the amount actually strengthens your comment. Not that any switcher or conspiracist will take the slightest bit of notice of a mere fact, anyway.
    3
  38. Stop annoying the conspiracy theorists. Sensible questions upset them and they are easily angered.
    3
  39. Didn't you actually watch the video. Titanic had 19 large bunkers. There was a smouldering fire in one. It was never uncontrolled, never a threat to the ship, and had been extinguished around 24 hours before the collision.
    3
  40.  @dezmondw7927  You have watched three videos? Good for you. I have read countless books on the subject, as well as examining documents and archives from the period. I also have copies of the minutes of both the American & British Inquiries. Actually, 20th century naval & maritime history is what I have done since leaving university.
    3
  41.  @dezmondw7927  The point I am making, mon vieux, is that I have far more, and wider, knowledge than could possibly be gained by watching one or two unnamed videos. Sorry if my correcting of your obvious and egregious errors has annoyed you, by the way.
    3
  42. Tell your friend that the allegation that the sinking was deliberate, to get rid of opponents of the Federal Reserve, is a conspiracist fantasy invented in the 1990s. The three supposed opponents were Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus. The first two never expressed any opinions about the Fed., whilst the third had spoken in favour of the idea in October, 1911. Simply do a search for them yourself, or tell your friend to do such a search.
    3
  43.  @DaveDench  Most people who refute the imaginings of Conspiracy Fantasists actually do so on the basis of provable facts. 'The fact the white star line and other wealthy components involved, irregardless of 90% of eyewhitness statements saying she broke up but had it recorded as sinking of the ship as whole alone reeks or corruption. And is in fact insurance fraud! And that cant be argued.' In fact, 90% of eye witnesses did not make such a claim. 13 did, 4 did not, and the remaining witnesses were unsure. Moreover, from an insurance viewpoint it was irrelevant. Titanic was insured for £1 million against total loss, not against 'total loss only if she sinks in one piece.' The salient fact as far as Lloyds were concerned was that she sank.
    3
  44.  @robiandolo  Don't rely on videos, as a fair number are made by conspiracy fantasists who tend to make things up as they go along. Try instead to find documentary records from the period. The minutes of the two Inquiries are useful as a start point. You could also look at some of the many books written by actual Titanic historians and researchers, who do tend to provide supporting evidence for their conclusions.
    3
  45.  @sologamer3122  I wasn't criticising, just adding to the strength of the point you made.
    3
  46.  @zillahwells4063  'The article quotes transcripts from the inquiry.' Sorry to be pedantic, but the US Inquiry only ended on 25 May, 1912. Moreover, Barrett gave his evidence on the 18th, and last, day, from RMS Olympic. His statement is headed :- 'Testimony of Frederick Barrett BY SENATOR WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, ON SATURDAY, MAY 25, IN THE FIREROOM ON BOARD S. S. "OLYMPIC," NEW YORK.' His statement was a very short one, with no reference to fire damage. Congratulations to the DuPage County Register, having access to a time-travelling reporter in 1912!
    3
  47. You wouldn't even need to do that. Assuming H & W were in on the plot, a sad but devastating fire could have been arranged in the shipyard, with no-one at all dying! But then, of course, all the unintentionally comic conspiracy fantasy videos would never have happened, and in times like these there would have been many less things about which to laugh. Read my book, 'How the Federal Reserve came into being through a staged dockyard fire.' Available soon in all charity chops, price 50 pence.
    3
  48. Equally, had only four compartments been compromised, she wouldn't have sunk.
    3
  49.  @alexandros4703  Oh dear, more insults instead of debate. Show me any evidence at all that either White Star or Harland & Wolff promoted the Olympics as 'unsinkable?'
    3
  50.  @Tozzpot500  Sorry that you are getting this abuse. It seems to be the default response from certain quarters. I have resolved to ignore Alexandros' insults from now on, in whatever of his incarnations he chooses to send them. Call it an early New Year's Resolution which, unlike the others involving visits to Health Centres, I am determined to keep!
    3