What of the iceberg

[John M. Feeney]

Mike: Maybe I'm just missing the underlying logic in what you're saying. But the fact that the Californian remained afloat, while the Titanic sank, has as much to do (and possibly far more) in my mind with the relative *speeds* achievable by the two ships. (And perhaps even a little good old-fashioned "dumb luck".)

Californian was a 13-knot boat, tops. Titanic was conceivably a 23-knot boat, without even breaking a sweat. Big difference!

Titanic didn't sink because the watch didn't SEE the berg; Titanic sank because they couldn't AVOID the berg. If Captain Lord's own ship had been capable of those speeds, the same exact thing might have happened to him. (It very nearly did, anyway -- at *half* that.)

Did Lord slow down? Nope. Did Lord alter to the south? Nope. He just added a lookout to the forecastle -- something that *no* other ship characteristically did in clear visibility. (Read the British Inquiry! Were all those other Captains supposedly idiots?) Let's be real here -- Titanic *normally* had more "eyes" than the Californian ever did, without increasing its watch. And Carpathia is hardly a reasonable parallel -- they had direct information of a ship that was *sinking* as the result of the perilous conditions in that vicinity. (AND they were steaming at top speed into it.)

If I follow your logic here, the inevitable implication -- absurd as it seems to me -- is that if Titanic had increased its watch, it would have been able to stop in time. (HUH??)

Let me repeat, so there's no misunderstanding. Lord's souped-up watch didn't see the ice any sooner than *he* did, according to Lord himself. (Actually, his precise claim was that he was already responding *before* those warnings came.) So how is it that this basically superfluous addition -- if we're to believe some fairly formidable nautical names from the 1912 era -- directly accounts in any way for the safe passage of Lord's ship? What is there about this that's so difficult to grasp?

Incidentally, nobody's beating anyone over the head here. And I resent the insinuation. Disagree if you will, but don't put words in my mouth. *Nobody's* "criticizing" Lord for being overly cautious. But when all is said and done, that addition didn't make *any* discernible difference to the safety of his ship! If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do so.

If you feel you can, I'd strongly suggest "Ships that May have Stood Still", rather than this thread, which has nothing to do with the Californian. (Otherwise, I'm done with this.)

 

[Michael H. Standart]

It's not so much that increasing the watch would have made a difference on the Titanic in and of itself as it would have if they had actually been paying attention at the crucial moment. Clearly enough, everyone else was paying attention by whatever means possible. That's why they lived to sail another day when all the Titanic did was sink. At the end of the day, that's what matters!

From what I'm reading, I'm inclined to agree that Dave Brown is correct that they were distracted by something, otherwise they surely would have reacted a lot more quickly when the lookout rang that bell three times. So what happened? Fleet gave the signal, then ended up phoning down to the bridge. Not a routine happening. Normally, it was the other way around. The phone was there so the bridge could call the crows nest.

So what's going on here?

Seems the lights were on, but for the time that might have made all the difference, nobody was home. Admittedly, the jury is out on this one, but it looks mighty hinkey to me. I'll be giving it a much closer look.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Allan Clarke]

John: I am sorry if I was not clear on the haze (no pun intended). I didn't mean to imply that, generally speaking, haze could not be present in that area. I should qualify that to say that at that particular time in that particular area, the Titanic would not have encountered haze. As David says, Lee and Fleet saw haze, which couldn't have existed and this would strongly suggest that what they saw was ice.
As to the turn to port bringing the stern into contact with an iceberg, Captain Collins spends some time about how a ship under steam turns around the pivot point. To avoid the berg, Murdoch should have turned her to starboard to swing the stern away from it. It is Murdoch's behaviour that puzzles Captain Collins. He should have seen the ice before the lookouts and would have if he had kept the sharp eye that Lightoller had done on the last half hour of his watch. Correct me if I am wrong, but the "grounding theory" on the iceberg shelf has Murdoch turning the ship to starboard. The problem I have with this is that it contradicts the testimony of Hichens, Boxhall, Fleet and Lee, who all said she was turning to port. If one had it wrong, maybe so, but all four?
Allan

 

[Maureen Zottoli]

Still agree with Mike's view.

And John thanks for the translation. (SMILE)

Maureen.