Cursed boats, naval supperstitions?

[Lt West]

(I forgot something) you know when the titanic sank smith didnt go on the bridge and go down with the ship like in the movie which was a wonderfull movie but was very inaccurate in several areas. Smith came up to the life boat with the officers on it and said "room for one more." and they turned him away it was dark and they didnt know it was smith. but the wireless officer who knew his voice because he always gave him the messages said "We just turned away smith".
And when the iceberg was spotted mourdock ordered back emergency and full starboard rudder but that was a mistake. because the engines were in reverse they drew water away from the screws and cut her turning speed if he wouyld have ordered ahead full they might have cleared the berg.

P.S. I realize he had to think fast but still....)

[Kapitan]

Not always the case, they would have been better off to hit the berg head on, remember you cant see most of it so even if they did exactly what you said and turned faster they still may have hit the burg but a submerged part of it.

and reversing the propellors doesnt mean your throwing water away it means your changing the direction the water is coming from and going out to.

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by Lt West

(I forgot something) you know when the titanic sank smith didnt go on the bridge and go down with the ship like in the movie which was a wonderfull movie but was very inaccurate in several areas.

There are many theories as to what happened to Smith, and they all conflict. No one knows for sure what he did.

Originally Posted by Lt West

And when the iceberg was spotted mourdock ordered back emergency and full starboard rudder but that was a mistake. because the engines were in reverse they drew water away from the screws and cut her turning speed if he wouyld have ordered ahead full they might have cleared the berg.

No, what happened is that when he ordered back emergency, the engineers stopped the centerline propeller, as it couldn't be reversed. Having a propeller in front of your rudder makes manoeuvring a ship a completly different game. Having a reversed flow of water over the rudder while the ship still has headway is also a major malnus to rudder efficiency, but since Titanic didn't have a reversing center propeller, it probably didn't create a void around the rudder.

If he'd just reduced speed, it could have worked. If he'd stopped center, reversed one side prop and turned with the engines, it could have worked. Might not have, either, they were awfully close by the time they started manoeuvring.

And while I don't know how officers were trained back then, but modern day OOWs would probably do the same thing in that situation. Imminent collision = Crash astern. You don't even think about it. (The idea is to break the ship's momentum as much as possible, as it's assumed that once you get to that point, there just isn't room to get out of the way)

As for the Britannic sinking - There was a WAR, remember? Before you can say there was an higher chance of shipping casualty due to the lack of christening, you'd have to check how many unchristened ship didn't sink versus how many were unlucky. I'm pretty sure the guys in Alaung don't go "See, that boat wasn't christened!" - But the guys who make "Disaster at Sea" or whatever those shows are called sure bring it up whenever they can.

Finally, the Bermuda triangle has a higher rate of maritime occurence (Although a lot of it is just overeporting) simply due to a higher traffic level. A couple of other factors make it worst, like the weather system and the fact that all the islands look the same (Plus, the caribean sea is SHALLOW once you're west of Puerto Rico. Seriously, it amazed me), and everybody's screaming ghost.

[Lt West]

Well etienne i admire your knowledge and logic on this matter you make a good debate and i didnt know the titanics central screw didnt reverse that changes the issue and yo uhave a point with the britanic There was a war indeed I did overlook that a little i suppose. and the titanic wouldnt hit a submereged part of the berg that berg in that region they were all broken off of the artic continent and were big but not that big.

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by Lt West

Well etienne i admire your knowledge and logic on this matter you make a good debate

Thanks, but I have little merit, I work in the shipping industry. I have to know most of that stuff for work.

Originally Posted by Lt West

and the titanic wouldnt hit a submereged part of the berg that berg in that region they were all broken off of the artic continent and were big but not that big.

There's a picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Titanic_iceberg.jpg) that is considered likely to be the iceberg Titanic hit - It was in the area at the right time, anyway. It's hard to guess the size of an iceberg from a picture, since we don't have any element to compare... But I'd guess it's average. You can tell it's old, tho, since its surface is relatively smooth.

No matter the size of the berg, 9/10 of it is underwater, simply because of the relative density of ice to salt water. So it could have it the submerged part - it probably did.

Smaller bergs are actually considered more dangerous, as they are harder to spot (And they don't reflect radar waves nearly as well)

[RickC Sniper]

Sailors in general have a history of being a superstitious bunch.

It's much superstition! There are no such things as cursed, ghost or monsters for that matter!

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by AdlerGrosmann

It's much superstition! There are no such things as cursed, ghost or monsters for that matter!

Scottish believe they have one at Loch Ness

[Kapitan]

Its not that i have strong feelings for the matter in hand titanic but from what i know you can be 300 feet from the visable part of the iceberg and yet still hit it from its submersible part.

there is nunaimous agreement that if the titanic had hit head on she would have survived whats more people cant throw around facts saying she was hulled by the visible part of the berg, for one they werent there two any evedence supporting it is either buried or in such a state it cant be recognised.

But my main issue is how does a visible portion which is above water hit the ship below the waterline and sink it? it would have to hit the ship in a visible place above the waterline, which would have ment she wouldnt have sank.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Its not that i have strong feelings for the matter in hand titanic but from what i know you can be 300 feet from the visable part of the iceberg and yet still hit it from its submersible part.

Agreed, Kapitan. Of course, that's a given. Because your username is 50% of mine, thus we're kind of..brothers.

:rotfl::rotfl:

[Blacklight]

If you look at the vast number of ships out there that weren't christened, you'd find that the number that sink are actually pretty low.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Etienne

Finally, the Bermuda triangle has a higher rate of maritime occurence (Although a lot of it is just overeporting) simply due to a higher traffic level. A couple of other factors make it worst, like the weather system and the fact that all the islands look the same (Plus, the caribean sea is SHALLOW once you're west of Puerto Rico. Seriously, it amazed me), and everybody's screaming ghost.

Go ahead, ruin it for me!!
Logic has no business in the Triangle.

[Lt West]

bradclark1 ruin what for you i mean really the bermuda triangles full of death!!!!
with out logic what would be the no explaination for the triangle clearly you have no idea what oyur talking about