Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "What happened to Olympic after Titanic sank? | Analysis of the White Star Sister Ships" video.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
@michaelnarramore3415 You obviously care, or you wouldn't have posted such nonsense.
The Report on the extent of Olympic's damage, published on 10 November, 1911, was confirmed by teams from the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and White Star. It made no reference to keel damage at all, only to 'two flooded compartments, a 6-8 feet deep gash in the hull, and a damaged propeller shaft.'
Perhaps you don't know that the first ever suggestion of keel damage occurred in 1995, when it was invented precisely to justify the ludicrous switch claim?
4
-
3
-
@jimcrawford3185 Olympic's keel was not broken. Indeed, it was not even touched. The ram of HMS Hawke penetrated about 6-8 feet into Olympic's side. Olympic had a beam of 92 feet. The collision was at slow speed. Hawke's captain, at the court case, testified that her speed was not more than eight knots. Hawke, though an old lady by 1911, was capable of 20 knots.
The Admiralty report, issued on 10 November, 1911, and supported by separate teams of inspectors from White Star and the Board of Trade, summarised the total extent of the damage as “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.”
The claims about keel damage only began to appear in the 1990s when Gardiner wrote his entertaining but silly book. Just as the switchers found it necessary to make the false claim that a propeller from Titanic was fitted to Olympic to justify the presence of Titanic's 401 number on a blade photographed on the wreck.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@svenschildhauer9139 1). You are correct that Titanic had 14 portholes when launched. However a ship at the time of launch is still very much a work in progress. After Olympic's first voyages, a number of recommendations for improvements were made, which included the fitting of two extra portholes, which Titanic received late in 1911. In November, I believe. Similar retrospective modifications were later made to Olympic as well. Photographs of the completed Titanic clearly show 16 portholes.
2). The propeller swap in a claim of comparatively modern origin. The Admiralty report into Olympic's damage from the Hawke collision, supported by teams from the Board of Trade and White Star, refers only to damage to Olympic's propeller SHAFT, not to her propeller. In view of the location of the damage, it is difficult to see how damage could have been done to the propeller itself. H & W only ever claimed to have used parts from the incomplete Tirtanic's propeller shaft, in order to get Olympic back to sea ASAP. Actually, by late November, 1911. The propeller swap claim was created by dedicated switchers as a fairly desperate means of explaining away why a Titanic (401) propeller was on the wreck, which they still insisted was Olympic, No. 400.
3). Again, this was a recommendation from Olympic's early voyages. Additional first class cabins and a cafe were added to the modified forward end of Titanic during the final stages of her build, giving her a pattern of uneven, rectangular, windows, when compared to the more regular square, even, pattern of her older sister, seen in photographs from the same period Again, this window pattern, clearly visible on the wreck, matches Titanic, but is different from Olympic, in 1912.
3
-
3
-
2
-
@TheRunereaper I believe that in the UK, Commonwealth, and Ireland, the change to ‘direct’ steering orders occurred on Jan 1 1933 in both RN and Merchant Navy. As far as merchant vessels were concerned this was in accordance with Clause 29 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety And Load Line Conventions) Act 1932, which was implementing a suggestion made in 1929, at the International Convention for Safety at Sea.
The relevant clauses read:
29. (1) No person on any British ship registered in the United Kingdom shall give a helm order containing the word “starboard” or “right” or any equivalent of “starboard” or “right”, unless he intends that the head of the ship shall move to the right, or give a helm order containing the word “port’, or “left” or any equivalent of “port” or “left”, unless he intends that the head of the ship shall move to the left.
(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall for each offence be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
It does seem to have been introduced rather late in the day. The United States Navy had changed the regulations 20 years earlier :-
General Order 30 read:
NAVY DEPARTMENT Washington, D. C., May 5, 1913
ORDERS GOVERNING THE MOVEMENTS OF THE RUDDER.
1. On and after July 1, 1913, the present designations “starboard” and “port” governing movements of a ship’s helm are hereby ordered discontinued in orders or directions to the steersman, and the terms “right” and “left,” referring to movement of the ship’s head, shall thereafter be used instead.
2. The orders as to rudder angle shall be given in such terms as “Ten degrees rudder; half-rudder; standard rudder; full rudder;” etc., so that a complete order would be “Right–Half-rudder,” etc.
3. Commanders-in-chief and commanding officers acting independently may, in their discretion, institute the above changes at an earlier date.
F. D. ROOSEVELT
Acting Secretary of the Navy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jazzanaught Edward Smith was indeed captain of Olympic at the time, but, because she was leaving Southampton and in the enclosed, restricted, waters of the Solent, she was in the charge of a Solent Pilot, who, indeed, and taken her into and out of Southampton on several previous occasions. Many restricted waterways in Britain have similar pilotages, the Mersey and the Thames being examples.
Were you actually to read the verdict of the Court Case which followed, you would learn that the conclusion was that, whilst Olympic's movements were primarily rresponsible for her being rammed by Hawke, and thus White Star were not able to claim on insurance, neither were White Star required to pay for the repairs to HMS Hawke, because the movements of Olympic were directed by George Bowyer, a Pilot not employed by White Star.
The court also exonerated Smith of any responsibility for the incident.
Perhaps you are unaware of the duties and responsibilities of a Pilot. You might look them up?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PeterPete Perhaps because the alleged 'information' you claim to have shown is actually nothing of the sort?
Have you considered that, if you stopped posting inane comments to me, you would have more free time available actually to look up the facts surrounding the sinking in greater depth, instead of adhering limpet-like to something you probably saw on a switcher video, and swallowed hook; line, and sinker?
If you believe that anything which disagrees with your fixation cannot, ipso facto, be of 'substance,' even when if comes direct from contemporary archives, then clearly rational discussion is impossible.
In short, I won't waste any further time upon you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheLoneWolf_andCoyote Please don't be an idiot. I have read the findings of the Report produced by the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and White Star, all of whom appointed teams to look into the extent of the damage. Their agreed summary was “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged."
Do you see what is missing here? Any reference to keel damage, perhaps? Not surprising really, as the collision was at slow speed, eight knots according to Hawke's commander. Hawke was 20 years at the time of the collision, but still capable of 18 knots. Hawke penetrated 6-8 feet into Olympic's side. Olympic had a beam of 92 feet. Odd that none of this is ever mentioned by 'switchers' I suggest.
Oh, and the propeller was never transferred from Titanic to Olympic, only parts of the shaft. Or, at least, so Harland & Wolff's archives state.
The same archives which also confirm that the costs of repairs carried out to Olympic, in US dollars, was $125,000. Harland & Wolff completed the work in two months, although this did necessitate taking men off Titanic and delaying her completion.
The problem is, when the actual facts are investigated, the myth of of the crippled Olympic with the bent keel is exposed for what it is, and the whole reason for the switch drops away into irrelevance.
Switchers do rely on people reading or watching their products, and being either too gullible to question them, or too lazy, or lacking in interest, to bother. I suggest that you must fall into one of these categories.
1
-
1
-
1
-
If that is what you heard, then your hearing is defective. Apart from you apparently, mishearing the name of the ship (actually, Olympic) the cruiser involved in the collision, HMS Hawke, did not have a 'bow designed for ramming' but simply a ram style bow. Look up 'Edgar class cruiser' for further information. The term applied to the shape of the bow, not the purpose of the bow.
Next, the Inspection Report, issued by the Admiralty in late 1911, and supported by teams from the Board of Trade and White Star, summarised Olympic's damage as “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.” No reference, you observe, to any damaged propeller, only to a shaft, which was indeed replaced by one waiting to be installed in Titanic. The propeller swap claim was invented by switcher fanatics, as they sought to explain away the inconvenient Titanic (401) number on a propeller blade at the wrecksite.
Olympic was repaired by Harland & Wolff, and returned to sea in late November, 1911, with full Board of Trade certification, and her £1 million insurance, in place. Indeed, she had made several more Atlantic crossings before Titanic sailed in April 1912.
Swapping of namplates would not have been possible, as White Star ships had their names engraved into the hull, then painted in.
Any connection with the creation of the Federal Reserve was a fictional invention from the rise of social media in the 1990s, when actual knowledge of a subject was not necessary should fantasists wish to make bizarre claims about it. For example, the supposed three men who opposed the Fed., Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus, can be proven to have been nothing of the sort. The first two never expressed their opinions, and the third had actually spoken in favour of the Fed. in October, 1911. His comments can still be read in the archives of the New York Times, by the way.
A word of advice. Don't simply swallow whole any conspiracy fantasy video you stumble across. It makes you look such a berk when you repeat it!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeterPete 'Olympic returned to service in Nov 1911 after her repair, she would have under gone a B of Trade inspection then to establish her seaworthiness.
how do you know this to be true?'
Because at the time, Olympic, along with Cunarders Lusitania & Mauretania, was one of the most famous ships in the world. Don't you think that the Board of Trade might have noticed had she sailed when still uncertified? or that her insurers, Lloyds of London, might have done more than simply raised a quizzical eyebrow?
Any such action by White Star would have led to huge financial punishment, probable imprisonment, and total loss of credibility for the White Star brand. Cunard would have thought all their Christmases had arrived early.
just possibly, a dodgy small company operating a few small tramps might have chanced it. One of the most prestigious shipping companies in the world, NEVER. Please don't be so silly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeterPete Unfortunately for your argument, no Titanic propeller was ever transferred to Olympic. Or, at least, if one was it must have happened when Harland and Wolff weren't looking. Their archives detail the work carried out to repair Olympic, and confirm that parts of the partially completed Titanic's propeller SHAFT were used, but there is no suggestion that the propeller itself was removed.
As the pitches of the propeller blades of the two ships were different, one from Titanic would not have worked efficiently on Olympic, and vice versa. Indeed, had the blades been identical, there would have been no need for them to be specifically numbered in the first place.
The report issued by the Admiralty following an inspection of Olympic carried out jointly by them, the Board of Trade, and the White Star Line, summarised the damage to Olympic as “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.”
There was no reference to propeller damage or, come to that, to the mythical keel damage so beloved of switchers. Indeed, contemporary reports remarked on the robust nature of the Olympic design.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeterPete Reading back through the myriad posts, mainly between you and 'Cornelius,' a number of facts may be observed.
1). It took you a month to correct your lightship error, and only then after being told about it.
2). Your response to everything critical of your fantasy seems to be 'How do you know? You weren't there.' This statement usually falls out of fashion with people once they get past fourteen years or so of ager.
3). You get rather aggressive and insulting when challenged.
4). You demand evidence from others, but haven't produced a single credible piece yourself.
Incidentally, when/if you reply, don't simply send a reference to a book or two, but send an actual, credible, argument which I can examine.
I don't mind trying to educate you on this subject, but don't feel inclined to undertake all the work myself.
1
-
1
-
@PeterPete How is this relevant to any of my previous posts? However, as I have read H & W records on the matter, and you obviously have not, I will correct you. H & W, and White Star, by the way, only record the loss of a blade once in 1912.
Olympic lost a blade from her port wing propeller on 24 February, 1912, on her way from New York to Southampton. She completed the voyage, vibrating somewhat, on 29 February, returning to Belfast on 1 March. and completing repairs on 5 March.
The blades on the wing propellers of the Olympics, by the way, were bolted on, unlike the centre propeller, which was a one piece casting, three bladed in the case of Titanic, and four bladed, at the time, on Olympic. There is, by the way, a photograph of the dry docked Olympic, clearly showing the damaged, or rather, missing, blade. Oddly, in view of your convictions, this photograph doesn't seem to show any keel damage, by the way!
As Olympic had left the yard, some of the team working to complete Titanic had to be transferred back to Olympic to repair her as quickly as they did.
This, by the way, doesn't seem to be relevant to my earlier posts, and certainly isn't my unsupported 'opinion.'
1
-
1
-
@PeterPete I see. You cannot argue reasonably, so you resort to the old 'the sources have been doctored' argument, the classic last refuge of the conspiracy theorist who has no actual evidence of his own.
Why would anyone bother to 'doctor' such a record? Whether Olympic lost one blade or two in 1912, what possible relevance might that have? There is no record of Olympic returning to Belfast after her departure in early March, 1912 in any newspaper archive known to me, nor in H & W's records, until 9 October, 1912, when she was docked for a refit to incorporate lessons learned from the Titanic sinking.
The refit involved increasing the number of lifeboats carried by Olympic from twenty to sixty four, and extra davits were installed along the boat deck to accommodate them. Also, an inner watertight skin was constructed in the boiler and engine rooms. Five of the Watertight Bulkheads were extended up to B-deck, and an extra bulkhead was added to subdivide the electrical dynamo room, bringing the total number of watertight compartments to 17. These modifications now meant that the Olympic could survive a collision similar to that of the Titanic in that her first six compartments could be breached and the ship could remain afloat.
At the same time, Olympic's B Deck was refitted with extra cabins and public rooms, this necessitated deleting her B-Deck promenades – one of the few features that separated her from her sister ship. With these changes, Olympic's gross tonnage rose to 46,359 tons, 31 tons more than Titanic's. All this is documented by H & W.
She returned to sea in March, 1913.
Still, enlightening to observe that you have abandoned attempting to argue on the basis of facts, and now choose to restrict yourself to vague generalities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1