Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "How the Titanic Disaster Was Almost Much Deadlier." video.

  1.  @browncoatkevin  Murdoch reacted as any other naval officer would have done. He altered course with the intention of avoiding any collision at all. Why do people assume that Murdoch should have known from the outset that collision was inevitable?
    3
  2.  @DerpyPossum  Don't you know that all the people who post things like this on here are retired Master Mariners with 40 years experience? You should be ashamed to seek to correct them!
    2
  3. The coal strike had ended, and Titanic carried as many passengers on he maiden voyage as Olympic did on hers.
    2
  4. Isn't hindsight wonderful!!!
    2
  5. That is with the benefit of hindsight. Murdoch at the time attempted to avoid a collision completely. What naval officer in the same situation would have chose to initiate a deliberate collision?
    2
  6. If Murdoch had rammed the berg head on, the subsequent Inquiry would have found him guilty of negligence, resulting in serious damage to Titanic. He would have been dismissed by White Star, and probably have faced further charges. As to the idea that there was a serious internal fire, how stupid do you think people were in 1912, if you seriously think that sailors would happily set out across the Atlantic in a ship which had a serious internal fire and a compromised hull? There was a bunker fire, which was well aft of the supposed mark on the hull, and always under control. In fact, it had been extinguished by the morning of 14 April.
    2
  7. If he had done that, the subsequent Inquiry would have found him guilty of negligence, resulting in serious damage to Titanic. He would have been dismissed by White Star, and probably have faced further charges.
    2
  8.  @johnking5174  How exactly could he be expected to know the outcome in advance. He did exactly what any other officer in the same situation would have done.
    2
  9.  @jamesgroccia644  How much damage would Titanic have sustained if Murdoch's actions had been successful, and Titanic had avoided the iceberg completely? A collision was only inevitable in retrospect.
    2
  10. This is alarming! A US Navy sailor who thinks it would be a better idea to ram something head on than to seek to avoid a collision. Remind me to steer clear (forgive the pun!) of US Navy warships!
    2
  11. You are probably ignorant of the brotherhood of the sea. Or perhaps you are simply a fool?
    1
  12.  @frankmarkovcijr5459  Titanic was actually ahead of schedule. Perhaps you should read the minutes of the British Inquiry, where several Master Mariners and liner captains stated that the usual procedure in the conditions where there was a possibility of ice was to mantain course and speed, and to instruct look outs to be particularly vigilant. None of them questioned Smith's actions on the night of 14/15 April.
    1
  13.  @thesimslover82884  True, but the idea that Murdoch should simply have allowed Titanic to ram the iceberg head on is too foolish to contemplate.
    1
  14.  @kevinswinyer3176  The bunker fire was well aft of the mark seen on a photograph. No-one reported any heat forward of the bunker, and even areas close to the bunker, such as the swimming pool, were not affected. Do you really think that Smith would have set sail in a ship with a damaged hull, still less one where you claim that the fire 'played a part in the overall weakening of the starboard side of the hull, due to the fact that the heat would have still weakened the entire area of the hull forward of the Bunker that had the fire.' Do you actually know how much heat would need to be generated? Sorry, no one seriously suggested that at the Inquiry, or for 80 years afterwards, until a journalist invented the idea. Oh, and striking the iceberg head on would have caused far more damage than the alternative Murdoch intended, which was to avoid any collision at all.
    1
  15.  @JB-od1pi  An excellent, well worded and well reasoned post. Congratulations! Some of the people who post on here won't like it, I fear!
    1
  16.  @JB-od1pi  I thought it was the morning of the 14th, but in view of your other post, I bow to your greater knowledge. Especially since my original statement is not affected!
    1
  17.  @johnking5174  I didn't say you did. I was simply pointing out a fact. Please don't feel the need to be defensive.
    1