I find it interesting how some are harsher than other on smith and his action

[Aurélien WOLFF]

I've been going through the appendixes of "on a sea of glass" and it seems the book isn't as harsh on smith while other on the forum are harsher with him being claimed to have ignored the ice warning while other say he didn't. I find this to be an interesting debate and it shows how good authors can have verry different intereptation of the ship history/sinking. In my views, smith was a good but not perfect captain and he seems to have been active during the sinking too.

 

[Richard C Elliott]

I agree. He did everything pretty much as any competent captain of that era would have done.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I believe part of the answer to the OP might be in my post #75 of the currently active Baltic message thread.

We are all part of this open discussion forum about everything related to the Titanic but 112 years down the line. So, things like hindsight, contemporary views on health & safety and even our own personal backgrounds play a part in forming opinions. For example, I am an almost contemporary (I retired in 2019) British NHS doctor and the way I was trained and worked would influence my opinions on some matters, which to others might understandably seem inflexible.

 

[Aurélien WOLFF]

Smith actions can also be tied to the context of the time (this is partly what happened with the number of lifeboat, I noticed people tend to blame ismay while not being as harsh towardthe board of trade or the other company and forgot thedavits made titanic "future proof" in a way). On a sea of glass does designsmith as responsible for the ship since he's the captain.

 

[William Oakes]

Smith was a successful and competent Captain.
A landslide of subsequent small things occurred, in a short time, which resulted in a big disaster.
It is human nature for us to want to blame someone....
112 years later we are still searching for someone to blame.
Sadly, sometimes bad things just happen and no one person is completely to blame.
That is how I have always viewed the Titanic tragedy.
Just my two cents.

 

[lobo]

.....A landslide of subsequent small things occurred, in a short time, which resulted in a big disaster.
It is human nature for us to want to blame someone....

Well said!
Today accident Investigation is a science!
Breaking down the Titanic disaster, (albeit simply) comes down to a few factors.
The most significant factor was the speed she was travelling at. Ultimately, that was the unsafe act that doomed the ship! The unsafe conditions were many...most notably the fact that growlers were known to be in the area. Those unsafe conditions did not doom the ship, the unsafe act of travelling at a rate of speed not appropriate for those conditions is what did!

If you accept the above as being the root cause of the disaster, next would be to ask "who was at fault for this"?
It comes down to only two people who would be responsible for the speed the ship was travelling....Capt. Smith (ultimately) & Bruce Ismay!

Did Ismay exert pressure on Capt. Smith for a record breaking run? Did Capt. Smith acquiesce to Ismay's desire and attempt this task despite the conditions present?
If so, then Capt. Smith is at fault for the disaster...caused by the high rate of speed the ship was travelling at under the unsafe conditions he was fully aware of, and of which Ismay may not have comprehended the consequence of.

I believe Capt. Smith took the onus upon himself for the tragedy, and had time to reflect on this error as the events unfolded, but we will never know. I just feel with all his experience he would have come to the conclusion that the ship was travelling too fast!
I agree, after the collision, he did every thing as right as he could. It was what he failed to do before nightfall that that takes us to this discussion today!

Forget the lifeboats, Marconi miscommunication with Californian, watertight compartment engineering, etc. etc.
Those factors exasperated the horrific loss of life as a result of the disaster, but had no part in causing the disaster itself!

Had the ship been travelling at a lower rate of speed, and all else being equal, collision damage may not have been so fatal to the ship.
Had this been the case, and the ship had been able to stay afloat, or even take on water at a lower rate of volume, all may have been saved.

In closing..I wonder, had Capt. Smith been plucked from the icy waters alive onto a nearby lifeboat, how would the inquiry have treated him?
I cannot fathom what Ismays testimony coupled with Capt. Smith's would have been like!

 

[Jean-Claude]

Well said!
Today accident Investigation is a science!
Breaking down the Titanic disaster, (albeit simply) comes down to a few factors.
The most significant factor was the speed she was travelling at. Ultimately, that was the unsafe act that doomed the ship! The unsafe conditions were many...most notably the fact that growlers were known to be in the area. Those unsafe conditions did not doom the ship, the unsafe act of travelling at a rate of speed not appropriate for those conditions is what did!

If you accept the above as being the root cause of the disaster, next would be to ask "who was at fault for this"?
It comes down to only two people who would be responsible for the speed the ship was travelling....Capt. Smith (ultimately) & Bruce Ismay!

Did Ismay exert pressure on Capt. Smith for a record breaking run? Did Capt. Smith acquiesce to Ismay's desire and attempt this task despite the conditions present?
If so, then Capt. Smith is at fault for the disaster...caused by the high rate of speed the ship was travelling at under the unsafe conditions he was fully aware of, and of which Ismay may not have comprehended the consequence of.

I believe Capt. Smith took the onus upon himself for the tragedy, and had time to reflect on this error as the events unfolded, but we will never know. I just feel with all his experience he would have come to the conclusion that the ship was travelling too fast!
I agree, after the collision, he did every thing as right as he could. It was what he failed to do before nightfall that that takes us to this discussion today!

Forget the lifeboats, Marconi miscommunication with Californian, watertight compartment engineering, etc. etc.
Those factors exasperated the horrific loss of life as a result of the disaster, but had no part in causing the disaster itself!

Had the ship been travelling at a lower rate of speed, and all else being equal, collision damage may not have been so fatal to the ship.
Had this been the case, and the ship had been able to stay afloat, or even take on water at a lower rate of volume, all may have been saved.

In closing..I wonder, had Capt. Smith been plucked from the icy waters alive onto a nearby lifeboat, how would the inquiry have treated him?
I cannot fathom what Ismays testimony coupled with Capt. Smith's would have been like!

I read that before this tragic shipwreck, the usual practice on the North Atlantic was, after getting messages about the presence of ice in or near the track the ship, to continue going on full speed ahead, day or night, until the ice was reported by the look-outs, . It was only if the weather was not perfectly clear that captains would slow down their ships accordingly. Almost every captain on the North Atlantic run were following this practice because they thought that it was safe. This tragedy proved they were all wrong, but Captain Smith learnt it the hard way and paid the ultimate price.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

The most significant factor was the speed she was travelling at.

Not really. You can go as fast as you like so long as you can see whatever danger is ahead of you in enough time for you to avoid it. The problem in1912 was that they over estimated how far ahead an iceberg can be expected to be seen on a calm, clear and dark moonless night.

 

[Milos Grkovic]

To add to that that even at the time of Collins Line, ships also had to stick to the speed procedure. I know I'm diverging from the topic about Smith, but the similar thing about ships travelling at full speed happened to S.S. Atlantic in the morning of 1st April 1873.