Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > History in Films and on Television
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

History in Films and on Television History in Films and on TV - Documentary Films, Historical Dramas, and history programs on PBS and the History Channel


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 2nd, 2017, 10:14 AM   #1
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 130
Titanic: The new evidence


'Titanic: The new evidence' had it's premier on UK tv last night. What did you think of it?
JenniferHJohnstone is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 8th, 2017, 08:27 PM   #2

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,378

I haven't seen it, but blaming the coal bunker fire isn't new, that theory has been around for a couple decades. Modern testing has shown the force of the collision was enough to buckle even unweakened metal. The bulkhead door which may have been weakened by the fire was between the 5th and 6th compartments, but the ship was doomed regardless - all five compartments in front of that bulkhead were flooding, and the ship could only stay afloat if four of them flooded.
Fiver is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 09:04 PM   #3
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: uk
Posts: 1,195

I think the argument was twofold; if there hadn't been a fire then the ship wouldn't have been travelling so quickly (the only way to deal with the fire was to shovel coal in to the furnace as quickly as possible). At a lower speed the impact may not have been so great or there may have been none at all. Secondly the weakened bulkhead wouldn't have saved the ship, but it probably wouldn't have sunk before a rescue ship saved the passengers.
paranoid marvin is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 10:41 PM   #4
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Woodside, Perthshire
Posts: 518

Quote:
Originally Posted by paranoid marvin View Post
I think the argument was twofold; if there hadn't been a fire then the ship wouldn't have been travelling so quickly (the only way to deal with the fire was to shovel coal in to the furnace as quickly as possible). At a lower speed the impact may not have been so great or there may have been none at all. Secondly the weakened bulkhead wouldn't have saved the ship, but it probably wouldn't have sunk before a rescue ship saved the passengers.
That's my reading of it as well - also I never could understand why Captain Smith neither reduced speed nor diverted - now I do.
Mike
Michael Rolls is offline  
Old January 9th, 2017, 06:23 AM   #5

Matthew Amt's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: MD, USA
Posts: 1,687

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Rolls View Post
That's my reading of it as well - also I never could understand why Captain Smith neither reduced speed nor diverted - now I do.
Mike
Wasn't it mentioned in the other thread that Smith didn't even know about the fire? Might have been the first officer. I got the impression that no one at the time of the sinking thought the bunker fire was even worth discussing, it was such a routine non-issue. They just used that coal first, standard procedure. The heat was barely enough to scorch the paint.

Smith was going full speed because he had a fast new ship that was supposed to be fast, right?

Matthew
Matthew Amt is offline  
Old January 9th, 2017, 07:12 AM   #6
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Woodside, Perthshire
Posts: 518

Not just that - did you see the programme? According to it, the high speed was because of the need to get the burning coal out of the bunker and into the furnaces ASAP. The decision not to change course was because the vessel didn't carry enough coal to reach her destination if she diverted - she had not fully filled her bunkers because of shortages and potential delays due to possible industrial action by miners.
I find it very hard to believe that the captain of Titanic - or of any other vessel, would not be aware of a bunker fire - by all accounts he was a highly competent and experienced officer.
Also, to my mind, indicative of the potential seriousness of the fire is that of a boiler room crew of over a hundred, only 8 signed on for the final leg to America - the rest presumably had doubts!
Mike
Michael Rolls is offline  
Old January 9th, 2017, 09:34 AM   #7

Matthew Amt's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: MD, USA
Posts: 1,687

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Rolls View Post
Not just that - did you see the programme? According to it, the high speed was because of the need to get the burning coal out of the bunker and into the furnaces ASAP. The decision not to change course was because the vessel didn't carry enough coal to reach her destination if she diverted - she had not fully filled her bunkers because of shortages and potential delays due to possible industrial action by miners.
I find it very hard to believe that the captain of Titanic - or of any other vessel, would not be aware of a bunker fire - by all accounts he was a highly competent and experienced officer.
Also, to my mind, indicative of the potential seriousness of the fire is that of a boiler room crew of over a hundred, only 8 signed on for the final leg to America - the rest presumably had doubts!
Mike
Sorry, no, I didn't see the show, and I don't know nearly as much about the situation as some. I was just puzzled that this thread was even started, since Sculptingman seems to have explained it all in the thread on Raising the Titanic, post #26:

TITANIC: Raising the wreck

According to his post, and presumably according to the official records, the bunker with the fire was empty well before the collision, so there was no reason to keep speeding if coal were the reason.

Oh, and I did get something wrong--it appears that the bulkhead was slightly warped by the heat. No idea if that was near any of the watertight doors. Is there any evidence that any of the doors failed to close?

Well, it's another one of those theories that seems to fly in the face of most of the known facts, which means it will be widely accepted as fact. And apparently it already is.

Matthew
Matthew Amt is offline  
Old January 9th, 2017, 10:38 AM   #8
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: uk
Posts: 1,195

The problem with a lot of documentaries that come up with new theories or revelations is that facts are sometimes presented (and other facts not mentioned at all) in a way that matches the theory. What was presented did seem to make sense though.
paranoid marvin is offline  
Old January 9th, 2017, 11:02 AM   #9
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 2,899

I just finished a crappy Netflix documentary and it just showed the Titanic pulling hard to port and reversing engines but I could have sworn it was more complicated than that. Can someone explain in detail the evasive maneuvers the Titanic actually took upon seeing the iceberg, and whether or not they were usual, and why it didn't work?
aggienation is offline  
Old January 9th, 2017, 08:22 PM   #10

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,378

*Deleting duplicate post.*

Last edited by Fiver; January 9th, 2017 at 08:56 PM.
Fiver is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > History in Films and on Television

Tags
evidence, titanic



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Titanic! wittgenstein General History 43 March 16th, 2013 03:06 PM
Titanic fans HERE??? Titanic 2 movie is here! Heidi XX History in Films and on Television 37 October 4th, 2012 09:50 AM
The Titanic Cavanboy General History 8 July 6th, 2012 09:47 AM
Titanic Clemmie General History 0 April 4th, 2012 03:25 AM
MGY CQD SOS TITANIC CQD SOS...Titanic's wireless odyssey Richard Stanbery General History 4 June 18th, 2009 03:00 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.