Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "What if Titanic Hit the Iceberg Head-On?" video.

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
Why? By whom?
3
Why not?
2
@jupiterrhotspot2005 White Star was a very profitable company. They had already paid Harland & Wolff for Olympic's repais in late 1911, and this didn't stop them placing an order for Britannic with H & W at the same time.
2
No. The radio on the nearest ship, Californian, was switched off because she only carried one Marconi operator, and he had finished his shift. Titanic followed the usual procedure of the time when in waters where there might have been icebergs. She was not, however, at full speed, and unusual weather conditions prevented earlier detection of the berg.
2
Try this as an alternative scenario :- Minutes of the Court of Inquiry into the damage sustained by RMS Titanic on 14/15 April, 1912. 'Mr. Murdoch, you were Officer of the Watch at the time of collision, were you not? Indeed I was. Did you consider altering course to avoid the iceberg completely? No, I didn't. Thank you Mr. Murdoch. The gentleman standing by the door has a letter from White Star dismissing you from their employment. Criminal charges for negligence will follow shortly.' In other words, you are being wise after the event. No naval officer, then or now, would have allowed a collision to take place when a course alteration might have avoided one completely.
1
@elbryan9 Anyone who suggests that allowing a collision at sea is being wise after the event. People know what happened. Obviously, Officer Murdoch did not have this advantage.
1
No. The RN doesn't!
1
No. 0400 on April 15th.
1
Captain Smith.
1
'it had a massive fire in the aft boiler room.' No, it didn't. A smouldering fire in one of 19 coal bunkers, caused by spontaneous combustion of wet coal, had been extingushed around 24 hours before the collision. Do you seriously believe that Smith would have sailed if there really had been a 'massive fire?' Do try to think for yourself!
1
You seem to have fallen for a myth created in the 1990s. None of the three wealthy financiers aboard Titanic had expressed opposition to the Fed. One, Straus, was a supporter.
1
Extract from the minutes of the Inquiry into the damage sustained by the White Star Liner 'Titanic' on 14 April, 1912. Chairman :- Mr. Murdoch, you were on the bridge of 'Titanic' when the iceberg was sighted, were you not? Murdoch :- Indeed. I had the Watch. Chairman :- When sighting the iceberg, you chose to ram it head on, resulting in serious damage to the ship? Murdoch :- Yes, I did. Chairman :- Did you not consider that altering course to avoid a collision might have been an option? Murdoch :- Oh, er. I never thought of that. Chairman :- Thank you Mr. Murdoch. You may leave now. The gentleman standing at the door has your dismissal letter from the White Star company. You may expect further legal proceedings to follow. In other words, what sea officer would intentionally have allowed a collision? Unlike many of the sage comments on here, Murdoch did not have the benefit of hindsight!!!!!
1
Alas, Murdoch did what any other officer in his situation would have done. Unless the officer in question had remarkable powers of precognition.
1
@johan9428 Extract from the minutes of the Inquiry into the damage sustained by the White Star Liner 'Titanic' on 14 April, 1912. Chairman :- Mr. Murdoch, you were on the bridge of 'Titanic' when the iceberg was sighted, were you not? Murdoch :- Indeed. I had the Watch. Chairman :- When sighting the iceberg, you chose to ram it head on, resulting in serious damage to the ship? Murdoch :- Yes, I did. Chairman :- Did you not consider that altering course to avoid a collision might have been an option? Murdoch :- Oh, er. I never thought of that. Chairman :- Thank you Mr. Murdoch. You may leave now. The gentleman standing at the door has your dismissal letter from the White Star company. You may expect further legal proceedings to follow. In other words, what sea officer would intentionally have allowed a collision? Unlike many of the sage comments on here, Murdoch did not have the benefit of hindsight!!!!!
1
@brch2 So you mean that, with knowledge of what did happen, you would have acted differently than Murdoch did? With similar foreknowledge, the US commanders would have had their defences ready and waiting when Nagumo's fleet arrived. Which is, of course, irrelevant. Just as Pearl Harbor did not have knowledge of the future, neither did Murdoch. He received warning of the iceberg, and acted as his instincts and training told him, by ordering a course correction which might have averted disaster. What, by the way, is this nonsense about people being willing to die to protect history? Murdoch was not protecting history; he was involved in events which were rather more immediate than that.
1
@brch2 Indeed it is. I wonder why you brought it up in the first place.
1
Smith wasn't on the bridge at the time of the collision.
1
Why? Olympic had no problems.
1
@gregrowe1168 Don't be so silly. In 1912 Olympic was the glamorous older sister, widely celebrated and much photographed. Titanic was the almost unknown young sibling. There is only about 40 seconds of newsreel footage of her in existence. Titanic only achieved fame postumously, after her encounter with the iceberg.
1
No one on Titanic had expressed opposition to the Federal Reserve. It is a conspiracist myth.
1
There was a bunker fire which had been extinguished around a day before the collision, which did not damage the structure of the hull, and which was well aft of the collision point in any case.
1
@thetimetraveller6550 Do try to think. Are you seriously suggesting that Joseph Bell, Titanic's Chief Engineer, reported a fire to Captain Smith, and Smith, a Master Mariner since 1887, simply said ' never mind, it is only the North Atlantic in April. What could possibly go wrong?' Do you really believe that the people of 1912 were half-wits? Titanic, by the way, finished fitting out on 31 March, 1912, and carried out sea trials on 2 April, 1912. She had been out of dry dock for at least two weeks, and was subjected to an inspection by Board of Trade officials. Do you think that they are likely to have missed a serious internal fire? The serious fire was a conclusion made by a journalist in 2017, on the basis of a smudge on a photograph. It has no credibility.
1
Why? Olympic was a successful ocean liner until withdrawn in 1934.
1
1). Titanic was switched in Belfast. Nonsense. There is no proof whatsoever. 2). Californian carried a mixed general cargo. The jumpers are simply an invention. 3). Captain Lord was not prosecuted, although he was criticised. 4). Titanic did not speed up. She maintained her existing speed. Well done. Four pieces of nonsense in one paragraph.
1
@stephendavies363 Oh look! Immediate resort to insults, rather than attempting to defend yourself. A sure sign of a lost argument, old chap.
1
Extract from the minutes of the Inquiry into the damage sustained by the White Star Liner 'Titanic' on 14 April, 1912. Chairman :- Mr. Murdoch, you were on the bridge of 'Titanic' when the iceberg was sighted, were you not? Murdoch :- Indeed. I had the Watch. Chairman :- When sighting the iceberg, you chose to ram it head on, resulting in serious damage to the ship? Murdoch :- Yes, I did. Chairman :- Did you not consider that altering course to avoid a collision might have been an option? Murdoch :- Oh, er. I never thought of that. Chairman :- Thank you Mr. Murdoch. You may leave now. The gentleman standing at the door has your dismissal letter from the White Star company. You may expect further legal proceedings to follow. In other words, what sea officer would intentionally have allowed a collision? Unlike many of the sage comments on here, Murdoch did not have the benefit of hindsight!!!!!
1
More likely, had Titanic merely been damaged in such a collision, there would have been a Court of Inquiry, which would have seriously criticised Murdoch for not seeking to avoid the incident by swiftly ordering a change of course. He would certainly have been dismissed by White Star, lost his Watchkeeping certificate, and probably faced criminal charges. All of which is irrelevant, as no sea officer, then or now, would intentionally allow a collision to happen.
1
Don't be silly.
1
Titanic's hull was black.
1
@TheTrueAdept Yes, but it was the area below the waterline which was red. The iceberg had red well above where Titanic's waterline would have been.
1
Sink the ship more quickly, whilst also preventing the launch of lifeboats. Not really a good idea.
1
@SaanichtonMinistries Titanic fired a number of white distress flares with explosive heads, which were spotted by officers aboard Californian, but still ignored by Captain Lord. What are facts are 1. Steaming ahead with the forward section of the starboard hull compromised and already flooding would greatly increase the speed at which the ship sank. 2. It would not have been possible to launch lifeboats had the ship not been stopped. Why do you find the obvious so difficult to accept?
1
@SaanichtonMinistries It is just as well you weren't in Edward Smith's position on 15 April, 1912. Your antics would have killed everyone aboard, if more sensible officers didn't stop you. Did you not read my comment about Californian ignoring distress flares?
1
It is also a seman's rule to seek to avoid a collision if possible.
1
White Star did not have to pay Hawke's repair costs, because the collision was deemed to be the responsibility of a third party, the Solent Pilot actually supervising Olympic's movements at the time. Olympic's repairs had been complete by Harland & Wolff by mid November of 1911, the cost being $120,000
1
You might first ask yourself how a U-boat could even have reached Titanic, given that the first boat with a reliable diesel engine, U19, was not commissioned until mid 1913.
1
@happypapi1903 It would depend on the location of the hit. Olympic, by the way, went through WW1 without being hit, and even sank a U-boat herself. Similarly, both Mauretania & Aquitania survived WW1 & in Aquitania's case WW2 as well.
1