Why Titanic started moving again

[B-rad]

During Boxhall's 1962 interview he would state, “He [Murdoch] said, 'I am going full speed astern, on the port engine.' He swung her head around towards port.” A 1912 publication would also state, “The first officer did what other unstartled and alert commanders would have done under similar circumstances- that is, he made an effort by going full speed ahead on his starboard propeller and reversing his port propeller, simultaneously throwing his helm over, to make a rapid turn and clear the berg.” This publication does not state its source, and its writer is even uncredited, so it should not truly be considered tangible. There is also evidence that a passenger on board the Carpathia claimed to have overheard such a scenario, though there is no name given to this passenger, or from whom they heard it.
So, is it possible that Murdoch actually ordered the port engine astern, and left the starboard forward? In doing so, did he order the helm to port, and then to make a more rapid turn to free the stern, order it to starboard? Of course the biggest problem this theory faces, is that Boxhall states it 50 years after the disaster. As seems to be a common thing [Boxhall's cup of tea, Lord's port maneuver, Fleet telling Lee to leave the crow's nest], lots of details are either added or omitted as the witnesses get older. This does not necessarily mean that these accounts are not credible, as some info could have been added or left out do to stress, pressure, or fear of being persecuted, but there should also be a tinge of doubt when looking at evidence some years later do to age, tainted memories due to any other stories heard or read years afterwords, or other numerous reasons. All evidence that supports this 'port engine' theory, thus far is also very circumstantial at best.

Looking at all the testimony from the bridge, via Hichens, we have:

Hichen states in all that, three bells were rung, which agrees with both Olliver and Boxhall. A thirty second delay occurred before any order for evasive maneuver. This is not mentioned by Boxhall, and is only supported by where Olliver claims he was. The telegraph rings and the order hard-a-starboard given. This is supported by Boxhall, but he is the only one who states the telegraph order, and that is 'full astern'. The ship turns about two points. This is supported by no one else. This 'about two points', would have taken anywhere from 20 to 37 seconds, which means Boxhall would have been on the bridge, which he claims himself, he was not, thus we can already conclude, perhaps, Boxhall's want to cram events in an implausible time frame.
After the collision a second telegraph order is made. Hichens is the only witness to this. Hichen never claims to have seen Murdoch at the watertight door lever, while both Boxhall and Olliver do. It is commonly believed now that the lever to close the doors was actually outside the wheelhouse. The only thing Hichens knows about the doors, is when Smith came to the bridge and ordered them closed, Murdoch said they were. Hichen puts the Captains arrival sometime after the impact, and after the doors are set to close; for why would the Captain inquire about them, if Murdoch was at the lever? Olliver states that the Captain arrived after the doors were shut. Boxhall claims Smith was already on the bridge, or arrived at the same time he arrived on the bridge. Hichen and Olliver claim that Smith ordered the doors shut, while Boxhall state that Murdoch reported them shut, without having been asked. Boxhall would claim that the only question of the doors would be about the warning bell. Neither Olliver or Hichen say anything about the warning bell. Had Murdoch still been at the 'lever' to close the doors, when Smith arrived on the bridge, or if there was a light indicator showing the position of the doors, Smith would only have to inquire about the warning bell. Olliver however states there was no light indicator.
Hichens also claims, that before Smith entered the bridge, Murdoch ordered the other quartermaster [Olliver] to note the time, and that the junior officer [Moody or Boxhall- but most definitely Moody] to note the event in the log. Neither Olliver or Boxhall state this, but being common and expected ship practice, we can say it did occur.
Smith, once on the bridge then sends Olliver to find the carpenter and looks at the commutator. Boxhall states none of this. Olliver did go find the carpenter. However, Olliver, claims that there was a 'hard-a-port' order at some point in all this, though neither Boxhall nor Hichens states such. Boxhall also tells of Murdoch debriefing the Captain as to what all took place. Hichens and Olliver do not. Like the ship's log, though, and as can be read above, this was a common and expected ships practice, so again, we can say it did occur. Olliver would also state an order for 'half speed ahead', though no other witness states this.
So overall, what can been seen is there are a lot of discrepancies and commonness amongst all three testimonies. To try and place one persons testimony above the other, while excepting some parts of some testimony, and totally dismissing other parts, makes it a jumble mess, that quite frankly may never be favorably solved.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

There was no light indicator for the watertight doors.

Hichens did mention that Murdoch closed the watertight doors. And Hichens did mentioned that (aboard Carpathia) he got the "Hard-a-port" order and that he carried it out during the collision which would agree with what Olliver stated.

We know from Hichens, Dillon and Scott that Murdoch did gave the stop order. Barrett seems to confirm this as the Boiler Rooms received the order stop from the engine room. If the order was full astern as claimed by Boxhall, the Boiler Rooms would not have got a stop order which cut off the steam. To go full astern they would need steam!
Murdoch used the main engine telegraphs and also the emergency telegraphs to signal stop.

After the collision Captain Smith signalled down "half ahead" according to Olliver. It might have been "slow ahead" or the engine room could only give slow speed ahead instead of half speed which is confirmed by Dillon and Scott (Scott either saw it if the WTD was raised again by that time or was told by someone).

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>The first point of impact in the forepeak tank proved this [that she could have turned 2 points in that time].<<
Impack in the forepeak proves nothing about how far the ship turned beforehand.

>>The ship turns about two points. This is supported by no one else. <<
Actually such a turn was supported by Fleet who said that the ship change her course from a direct line "a little over a point, or two points" when she struck.

Brad, the pivot point referred to in my article is defined as: "A point on the ship’s centerline where the intersection of a line from the center of the ship’s turning circle to the ship’s centerline forms a right angle." That is not the same as the Apparent Pivot Point (APP) that some people refer to which, for a rudder steered ship, appears to be about 1/3 aft of the bow when moving ahead. When the rudder is first applied, the ship seems to rotate about its APP which continues to move in the same forward direction as before the start of the turn until the hydrodynamic forces on the hull start to push the ship toward the center of the developing turn. Sorry for any misunderstanding about that.

 

[B-rad]

Thanks Sam for that bit on the pivot point. Forever learning Did you see my picture on post #84? Ur insite would be greatly appreciated. I'm curious how far the stern would have fish tailed out. I am also confused about the drift angle thing.

Yes fleet does say that. My previous post was merely based on evidence by those who were on the bridge, so only Hichen, Boxhall and Olliver. Guess I could have made that clearer.

Ioannis: You're right on the light indicator. Both Olliver and Pitman make reference for it not being there, but thought I'd just write that bit, just to cover all bases. yes Hichens did mention Murdoch saying the doors were closed, I was just saying he didn't see them being closed, as he had no way to. As far as what was said aboard Carpathia, this evidence is sketchy, as there are many rumors, mis understandings, and such that cicrulated aboard the Carpathia. This is not surprising by any means. Unfortantly no one actually 'quotes' Hichens as saying this. Though this does not mean that he didn't. However, he clearly states that such an order did not happen in the British inqury. Always more questions than answers. The world may never know. Wish I could have been aboard the Carpathia and listened in.

 

[B-rad]

I've updated my drawings with a pivot point 1/3rd the ships length. Hope its better!??

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Ioannis: You're right on the light indicator. Both Olliver and Pitman make reference for it not being there, but thought I'd just write that bit, just to cover all bases.

Actually there would be no Need to mention them as the fact is that Olympic and Titanic did not have such an indicator. Olympic got one after the 1912/13 refit.

yes Hichens did mention Murdoch saying the doors were closed, I was just saying he didn't see them being closed, as he had no way to. As far as what was said aboard Carpathia, this evidence is sketchy, as there are many rumors, mis understandings, and such that cicrulated aboard the Carpathia. This is not surprising by any means. Unfortantly no one actually 'quotes' Hichens as saying this.

Howard Chapin quoted him.

 

[Jim Currie]

I will answer you first Ioannis. You ask: "Which is the first part?"

The first part I refer to is the first part of the whole conversation between Captain Smith and First Officer Murdoch.

"Hichens was clear that the "hard-a-port" order was given during the collision."

Where exactly does he make this clear? You need to read the evidence carefully.. not some second or third snippet of information that might have been published by someone at a later date looking for associated glory.
In fact, QM Hichens made no mention whatsoever about a hard-a-port helm order before or after impact.. not in the US nor in the UK. He very clearly states that the only order he received before impact was Hard-a-starboard.

The first suggestion that a hard-a-port being might have been used during the avoidance manoeuvre was made by Senator Smith on Day 5 of the US Inquiry. Then, it is clear that the questioner was confused as to the meaning of Hard-a-starboard in 1912.
The first and only positive mention of a hard-a-port order being given at any time came from QM Olliver. That came on Day 5 of the US Inquiry. Then, Olliver said it came when he was on the bridge, not when he arrived on the bridge for the first time. He is also reported to have said "The iceberg was away up stern...... That is when the order "hard aport" was given; yes, sir.way up stern"
Since you seem to have a problem with 'experience', don't take my word for it.. ask around. You will find that the expression "up-stern" is not an expression which would be used by an experienced seaman, RN and/or MN, in 1912 or even today. I suggest it was a mis-interpretation by the court stenographer and should read "Way a- (not up)stern." In fact if you read his evidence fully, you will see that he clearly stated that he had no idea where the ice berg went after he saw it. His idea of when the second helm order was given is pure guesswork on his part.

"But it is clear why you do not like to have it to be true."

Really? Explain to other readers who might not be as clear-sighted as you.

I observed "How do you know the full astern order was never given?"

You replied: Do we really need to go over this again?!

We most certainly do. You are the one who made the sweeping statement "the full astern order of which we know was never given.". Ioannis, you made that statement without any proof.

"Your "experience" is no proof for anything which might have happened aboard Titanic"

I agree with you. But sharing it with you and others might just help you and other inexperienced people better understand what you are reading in the way of evidence given by similarly experienced people.

Let me assure you that I appreciate that you are not replying in your first language. For that I admire and envy your linguistic skills. However, I remind you that it is not a good idea to make unfounded insinuations. Nor is it constructive argument to use inflammatory remarks in response to the posts of others.

Hello B-rad!

I do my best.

Yes, the pivot point would have remained in the usual position right up until the moment of impact. Thereafter, the dynamic would dramatically change. The ship would behave more or less in the same way as she would have done when hitting another vessel or if the berg was really a big one (which I doubt).. in the same way as contacting the quay in way of the starboard shoulder.

Your observations regarding Wilding's test are sensible. The test carried out on Olympic simply showed that when travelling at 22 knots and the helm is put over hard left and the engines ordered emergency full astern; when the bow direction of an Olympic class vessel has altered by 22.5 degrees, she will have travelled on her original course a distance 1320 feet/402.44 metres. The test did not allow for the effect of impact and used the wrong speed. Evidence suggests Titanic was making 22.5 knots before impact. As for the 37 seconds time to turn 2 points? At 22 knots, it would have taken 35.6 seconds to advance 1320 in a straight line but Olympic travelled further during her curving turn... probably another 50 feet or so. Hence the 37 seconds.

The bottom line though is QM Hichens's evidence. he said impact occurred just as he had the wheel hard over. That would take him 6 seconds. A ship does not immediately respond to hard over helm. When she does, she does so slowly at first but with gathering speed until she attains maximum speed of turn. If impact took place as described by QM Hichens then there is no way the bow swung 2 degrees before impact. Similarly: the position of the first point of underwater contact at about 50 feet from the bow where the ship is very narrow, shows that the bow had hardly moved off the original course before impact came.

Hello David.

I am aware of your theory that Titanic turned into the iceberg with that second hard-a-port helm order and it would hold water but it is contrary to the evidence of Fleet, Lee, Hichens and Leading Fireman Barrett which neatly dove-tails.
Think about this: if, as you suggest, Smith decided to go left at around midnight and go further south; why would he give an emergency hard-a-starboard helm order to do so? Titanic would not have turned hard-a-starboard at 5-50pm that evening when she turned The Corner
The use of hard over helm in a big ship is confined to pilotage, narrow channels and to avoid immediate danger. Under normal circumstances, it is never used in the open ocean.

As for the evidence of Scarrott? When asked about the time of the three bells he replied "Do you know what time that was? He answered: "Not to be exact I do not". To the question: "How soon did you feel this vibration after you heard the three strikes on the gong? He answered: A: As I did not take much notice of the three strikes on the gong, I could hardly recollect the time"
David, you are basing your theory on the evidence of a guy who was not sure of the exact time he heard the three bells; a guy who did not even take much notice of them. A guy who was relating an isolated minor incident among much greater traumatic happenings which took place 19 days previously.

The use of twin engines you describe is confined to turn short round manoeuvre while in confined spaces or as you point out while negotiating sharp bends in narrow channels. It is done with the rudder mid-ship and while the engine room is fully manned and the engineers are at their manoeuvering stations. In Murdochs' case, it would have been a waste of time to play with the engines.
For optimum turning effect using rudder and engines, Murdoch would leave the rudder hard left and stop the port engine. However, in the real world, an experienced First Officer when confronted with an obstruction which his vessel might collide with will first try to avoid it. If he thinks he has the sea-room, he will not touch the engines and rely on speed and maximum rudder effect. If he cannot do so, he will attempt to limit damage to his vessel. His first thoughts at the moment of impact would/will be propeller(s) and rudder(s)! With that in mind he would/will ring down STOP in the hope that the prop or props would/will have stopped spinning with the potential of sucking-in potentially damaging material.

In the case of Titanic, I suspect that Murdoch knowing that the turbine would stop very quickly, would hope that the throttle valves were closed by the time the ice berg came close to the stern. In any case, the moment contact was made, he would know that the ship would require to be quickly brought to a stand-still

Sam. I'm slow to catch-up. Just saw your input.

Fleet was guessing as to the amount the bow swung.

During an uncomplicated turn, the pivot point will behave more or less as you describe. However, when you factor-in what amounted to a heavy 'push' to the shoulder of a moving vessel, things changed very quickly.

You may remember that some time ago, I suggested how the pivot point would behave during the collision. I dug this from my archives: (B-rad might find this of interest)



The heavy arrows show how the transverse hull pressure behaves. The thin ones show how the bow and stern swing and the little green thing is the position of the iceberg relative to the ship's side.

Jim C.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

"Hichens was clear that the "hard-a-port" order was given during the collision."

Where exactly does he make this clear? You need to read the evidence carefully.. not some second or third snippet of information that might have been published by someone at a later date looking for associated glory.
In fact, QM Hichens made no mention whatsoever about a hard-a-port helm order before or after impact.. not in the US nor in the UK. He very clearly states that the only order he received before impact was Hard-a-starboard.

The first suggestion that a hard-a-port being might have been used during the avoidance manoeuvre was made by Senator Smith on Day 5 of the US Inquiry. Then, it is clear that the questioner was confused as to the meaning of Hard-a-starboard in 1912.

It has been already mentioned several times that Hichens did mentioned it aboard Carpathia. He was quoted and this was not done for any "glory". Only because you did not know it or does not like this does not mean he did not say that!

I observed "How do you know the full astern order was never given?"

You replied: Do we really need to go over this again?!

We most certainly do. You are the one who made the sweeping statement "the full astern order of which we know was never given.". Ioannis, you made that statement without any proof.

Really? Did I do that? So I guess my post No. 92 above is only for fun.
We already had this in several discussions here and in another forum "Titanic-Titanic.com". Everybody can read though them if he wants or go though the original source.

"Your "experience" is no proof for anything which might have happened aboard Titanic"

I agree with you. But sharing it with you and others might just help you and other inexperienced people better understand what you are reading in the way of evidence given by similarly experienced people.

Ah I see, you mean "experienced" people like Captain L.M. Collins or Captain David G. Brown....

I decided to leave some points out.
Feel free to believe in whatever you like. Time for me to continue with other more important stuff.

 

[B-rad]

Thanks Jim. I did find you're post interesting! There's a snipbit from Boxhall, that I'm looking into about Titanic's turn/collision, (thought about it last night), that may be of interest, but I don't know yet if my mind was just messing with me. I'll have to do a bit of research.

Ioannis: I've searched my records & have come up with direct quotes from Hichens and things that people wrote that Hichens said. I'm sure you know 99% of these. If there is more I would love to learn about them! I'm am posting these to neither to discourage or encourage anyone's thoughts or views, but to look at all the evidence as a whole in one spot.

US Inquiry Day 5

“I heard the bell ring; also give the order ‘Hard-a-starboard,’ with the sixth officer standing by me to see the duty carried out and the quartermaster standing by my left side, repeated the order, ‘Hard-a-starboard. The helm is hard over, sir.’.”

British Iquiry:

948. Had you had any instructions before she struck? Had you been told to do anything with your helm before she struck?

Just as she struck I had the order "Hard-a-starboard" when she struck.

1316. (Mr. Holmes.) It is Question 354. (To the Witness.) She never was under a port helm?

She did not come on the port helm, Sir - on the starboard helm.

Howard Chapin:

The quartermaster jammed the wheel over as he repeated, “Hard to starboard,” and the sixth officer, Mr. Moody, who was at the compass to oversee the ship's course, answered: “Helm hard a-starboard,” thus reporting that the order had been carried out.

A light crash followed in two or three seconds, and immediately First Officer Murdoch shouted: “Hard a-port.” The quartermaster twirled the wheel as he repeated “hard a-port,” and the sixth officer answered “Helm hard a-port,” showing that the order had been carried out.

Carlos Hurd:

At 11:45 three gongs sounded from the crow's nest, the signal for 'something right ahead.' At the same time one of the men in the nest telephoned to the bridge that there was a large iceberg right ahead. As Officer Murdoch's hand was on the lever to stop the engines the crash came. He stopped the engines, then immediately, by another lever, closed the watertight doors. The skipper (Cap. Smith) came from the chartroom onto the bridge.

The New York Herald, April 19th, 1912:

Told to Watch for Ice, Says Man at the Wheel

Almost instantly, it could not have been more than four or five seconds, when the lookout men called down on the telephone: - 'Iceberg ahead!' Hardly had the words come to me when there was a crash.

I ain't likely to forget, sir, how the crash came. There was a light grating on the port bow, then a heavy crash on the starboard side. I could hear the engines stop, and the lever closing the water tight emergency doors.

Mr. Murdock [sic] was the senior officer of the watch, and with him on the bridge were Mr. Buxtell [sic], the fourth officer, and Mr. Moody, the sixth officer. The Titanic listed five degrees to the starboard, and then began to settle in the water. I stood attention at the wheel from the time of the crash until twenty minutes after twelve, and had no chance to see what the captain did.

The Bangor Daily Commercial, Friday April 19th, 1912:

This was the statement made Thursday night by J.H. Moody, a quartermaster and the helmsmen on the night of the disaster. He said the ship was making 21 knots an hour and the officers were striving to live up to the orders to smash a record.

“It was close to midnight,” said Moody, “and I was on the bridge with the second officer, who was in command. Suddenly he shouted, 'Port your helm'.' I did so but it was too late. We struck the submerged portion of the berg.”

Bruce Ismay, US Inquiry Day 11:

Senator SMITH: You remember, I think, the statement of the wheelman, Hichens, that the last thing he did before striking the iceberg was to so turn his wheel as to avoid contact directly with the bow, the extreme bow?

ISMAY: Yes, sir.

Senator SMITH: Do you recall that?

Mr. ISMAY: I think he said he was told "Hard aport," and then "Hard astarboard," if I remember rightly.

Senator SMITH: And then that threw the vessel -

ISMAY: (interposing) He wanted to throw his quarter up.


My only concern about people aboard Carpathia and how they related what they heard, is how much would they have known of ship operations. For instance, it is of my opinion (this is where I go wrong, mind you... lol) that most of the people who claimed the lookout's warned the bridge 3 times before hitting the berg, are misinterpreting the striking of 3 bells to indicate something ahead. Could they have done the same about how Titanic turned? Did they know that the commands were of the 'tiller' and not the direction of the helm? So if Hichen said (a bit of role playing here... I'm in no way saying this is what happened.), “I got the order 'hard-a-starboard', and the ship turned port.” Could a landlubber interpret this as being a call to starboard and then to port? (I feel like I'm sounding like Giorgio from ancient aliens, “Could Titanic be misinterpreted technology?”)

 

[Jim Currie]

He was quoted and this was not done for any "glory".

So you know that for certain?

[I]Only because you did not know it or does not like this does not mean he did not say that![/I]


I neither like or dislike it. By making that remark, you only illustrate your limited knowledge of things maritime Ioannis.

Do you consider any kind of experience to be something kept hidden from you and the rest of the world? If so, I'm sorry to disappoint you once again.
You obviously do not know how British Merchant Seamen regarded Government officials acting on behalf of the Board of Trade - particularly HM Commissioner of Wrecks. For Hichens or any other member of Titanic's surviving crew to attempt to mislead Lord Mersey or the Attorney General by lying or concealing facts would be gross stupidity of the highest nature. These two men had huge power over seamen. They could prevent them from ever sailing again, have them imprisoned or even worse. In fact, they let Fleet and Lee off lightly concerning impaired visibility due to mist.

Really? Did I do that? So I guess my post No. 92 above is only for fun.

No, you post No.92 once again illustrates the limitation of your knowledge.

Only Scott claimed that he saw the STOP order on the main engine room telegraph. The STOP order received in the Stoke Holds simply told the leading hands that the engines were stopping so they had to stop stoking and close the dampers. They would never have known what direction the engines were turning in.
For your information, it was not considered proper practice by the Chief Engineer for those on the bridge to ring from FULL AHEAD to FULL ASTERN without ringing down STOP. ( If you don't believe me, do a bit of research and then come back and tell me I'm wrong). This being the case, Murdoch most probably rang down STOP then continued with a double ring FULL ASTERN.


Ah I see, you mean "experienced" people like Captain L.M. Collins or Captain David G. Brown....

I am tempted not to dignify that question with a reply but heck, why not?

I am not aware of the qualifications of Captains Collins or Brown. However, if they are properly certified and experienced seamen, they will have squeezed more salt water out of their socks than you have ever sailed over and forgotten more about matters-marine than you'll ever know. But I stoop to a level. My apologies.

Actually, the experience I refer to is my own gained over 55 years in the Marine Business. From a 15 year old Cadet to a fully qualified Master (FG) Mariner. Then for 25 years as a Marine Surveyor and Accident Investigator acting on behalf of British and American Underwriters. Following this, 6 years as a Harbour Master and latterly as an independent Marine Surveyor. Oh, and somewhere in between, I was trained as an LPG and Atmospheric Gases engineer. I approach my 80s without apologies to you or anyone else.

I finish with a few of your own words?: Feel free to believe in whatever you like. I say a few because I differ from you in that I can think of nothing more important than to be courteous and considerate to everyone I have the pleasure of encountering on this web site and anywhere else in life.

Jim C.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

I neither like or dislike it. By making that remark, you only illustrate your limited knowledge of things maritime Ioannis.

Do you consider any kind of experience to be something kept hidden from you and the rest of the world? If so, I'm sorry to disappoint you once again.
You obviously do not know how British Merchant Seamen regarded Government officials acting on behalf of the Board of Trade - particularly HM Commissioner of Wrecks.

No, you post No.92 once again illustrates the limitation of your knowledge.

You do not know me and also has no idea about what knowledge I have or not. I see no point to waste my time with discussing things with you were you already did your mind and we have already discussed endless in the past.

 

[Mark Baber]

Moderator's hat on:

Ad hominem attacks are not permitted here. Keep the discussion focused on the merits and not on the perceived qualities of other message board members.

Moderator's hat off.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Just trying to catch up with some of these later postings and answer a few questions asked.

Brad, the drift angle is the angle between the ship’s centerline and the direction of ship movement at any instant of time during a turn. Think of it as an angle of skid. It's analogous to the angle of attack of an airplane wing. On a ship like Titanic, with the rudder hard over, the maximum drift angle is about 8 degrees. Unfortunately, the diagram you drew is not quite correct. The maximum amount that the stern swings out relative to the original course line on a ship like Titanic is less than 80 feet before the ship starts to move off her original courseline. The angle of swing is no greater than the drift angle. As that builds up, the hydrodynamic forces on the hull will start to push the vessel laterally while the vessel is moving ahead. The net result is that the vessel moves off her original courseline and starts turning in a circle. (See diagram below that shows the forces acting on a vessel once the turn is fully developed. As a result of all that, the ship's stern would always appear to be to the outside of the circle drawn from the amidships point.


Jim said:
>>the position of the first point of underwater contact at about 50 feet from the bow where the ship is very narrow, shows that the bow had hardly moved off the original course before impact came.<<

As I stated once before, it does not. Contact in that part of the bow only shows that the ship made initial contact with the berg on its starboard side in the vicinity of the peak tank. It has nothing to do with how far the bow had moved off the original course line. (See attached image2.)


Jim also said:
>>Fleet was guessing as to the amount the bow swung.<<

No he wasn't. Fleet and Lee were the only surviving eyewitnesses who actually saw the ship strike the berg. Fleet wasn’t guessing about anything. He gave an estimate of how far the ship veered to port before she struck. Lee also testified that the ship went to port before striking, but unlike Fleet he did not quantify the amount. But the amount she veered to port was enough for him to say that he thought "she might clear it." Lee only guessed that the helm must have been put hard-astarboard or close to it after they told Fleet 'thank you' on the phone. According to Hichens, that is exactly what was done.

 

[B-rad]

Thanks very much Sam. That clears it up. I had a feeling that, that would be the case, as my drawing does not take into account any forward movement, but more like a ship at anchor... Thanks again!

 

[Bosgood90]

I’m curious of the weight of 2,000 people and if they were all clustered in the far stern of the ship, could that weight of the fifth watertight compartment been displaced and allowed them to maintain afloat until a rescue could arrive. I assume the boilers were all compromised and continued movement was unlikely.