An excellent documentary from Channel 4 and what an unfortunate list of 'if onlys'.
If only those two guys on lookout had a pair of binoculars they would have seen the iceberg in time to avoid collision. What a terrible cold job that must have been, standing for hours at the front of a ship getting the full force of the wind.
Disgraceful also that the wireless operators had to supplement their income sending greeting messages. If they did not have to do that the ship would have steered a course clear of the iceberg.
Watched an hour and 'enjoyed' it, if that's the right word. Couldn't face the final sinking bit.
Interesting facts about the weaker wrought iron rivets used in the bow. :eek: They just didn't have a clue in those days.:mad:
Also the 'wireless ' operators who were employed by Marconi not White Star so they had the wrong set of priorities, along with a few others on that ship.
16 lifeboats not the 48 suggested ! I'm glad I didn't live in those times.
Earlier in this thread the question of 'why another programme on the Titanic' was posed. And there is something in the comment about the sinking of the Titanic still being of public interest.
Maybe, this event has become a significant event because over 1,500 people died what was probably a horrible death. And in these situations, people ask the questions why, especially if there is the suggestion that these deaths needn't have happened.
Indeed, in the case of the Titanic and even the circumstances surrounding the Great Escape, which was mentioned above (see my comments below), it is part of the human condition for many of us, not just the family, friends and aquaintances of the bereaved, to think along the lines of the phrase, 'there but for the grace of god go I' And if so, perhaps, how might I have dealt with it etc etc.
Indeed there may be any number of reasons why people were and still are interested in such major events, probably too many to mention here, assuming I knew them all, if no more than that when we go on public conveyances, we don't expect to die.
Finding out what actually happened may just give us some form of rational justification for those events, however harrowing that truth might be, frankly to stop us going completely barmy. Finding out those facts may just help us prevent similar tradegies happening again.
The interesting challenge is that the documentary is a piece of art/entertainment first and a piece of history second. But, in as much as it has some role to play in defining the historical side of things, the way the documentary concluded with a list of all the factors which historical analysis has helped us now conclude, I thought was very good.
And it was fascinating how small pieces of communication and interpretation lead to an increase in the death toll; e.g. the instruction to put women and children into the boats and how this was intepreted as women and children only, thereby allowing boats to enter the water with spaces in them and thereby albeit in a small way increasing the death toll.
Also, the use of humour in relation to disaster and death is an interesting topic. On the one hand, I have found myself doing an impresion of Donald Pleasance in the Great Escape when his character realises he is blind and says, 'I can't see a bloody thing'. On the other hand being in that camp was in many ways, no laughing matter at all. I have just discovered that my Uncle, having been shot down on his 30th and last sortie flying a Halifax in Bomber Command was a POW in Stalag 3, the Camp shown in the film. Where in the film, we are shown the principal characters being shot, in real life. 50 officers within the Camp were selected by lot and shot. My Uncle lived to tell the tale, although actually he would never talk about it and sadly, he died recently.
So, I will continue to watch documentaries on the Titanic and other disasters becasue I'm interested and maybe in some tiny way I might be able to prevent such events, even smaller catstrophies taking place in my little world.
And this Sunday, I may do my Donald Peasance impression but I'll definately take a moment to think about my Uncle and all the others from Stalag 3.
Watched an hour and 'enjoyed' it, if that's the right word. Couldn't face the final sinking bit.
Interesting facts about the weaker wrought iron rivets used in the bow. :eek: They just didn't have a clue in those days.:mad:
Also the 'wireless ' operators who were employed by Marconi not White Star so they had the wrong set of priorities, along with a few others on that ship.
16 lifeboats not the 48 suggested ! I'm glad I didn't live in those times.
I think it's a bit off to say the builder's didn't have a clue. You are speaking about people who lived over 100 years ago and science knowledge and access to instruments to judge the quality of metals was much less than it is now.
On a seperate point it is almost as though the moment that iceburg broke away and before they had even laid down the keel of the Titanic, the whole chain of events was set in motion and nothing and no-one chould change them.
I think it's a bit off to say the builder's didn't have a clue. You are speaking about people who lived over 100 years ago and science knowledge and access to instruments to judge the quality of metals was much less than it is now.
I agree, I mean we still manage to make aeroplanes that fail and fall out of the sky due entirely to mechanical defects. So we are not infallible even nowadays leave alone 100s ago.
...but the bosses of SOME companies are still as willing to compromise safety as they were back then, so some things don't change.
so they employed their own staff to operate their radios to maintain a bit of a monopoly on the market?
That puts a sinister spin on it, I think it was just a speedier and more efficient way to get it into distribution quickly, this was in in its infancy and the wireless radio telegraph was no use to anyone unless it came with a trained operator - they not only had to be able to read morse code but to maintain, repair and fiddle with the technology. It was more functional for Marconi's business to rent it our or sell in the equipment with highly skilled operators.
It was the sinking of the Titanic that spelt out just how crucial radio could be in saving lives and ships and after this it went on to become compulsory.
I have to disagree with the last 2 ( not you #33 ). A ships strength is in the bow and the keel and she was suspect in both. Putting in wrought iron there was a compromise.
Another surprise was the amount of ice warnings they had failed to heed, the way the warnings were dealt with were bordering on the reckless; clearly she was racing to New York in hazardous conditions. If I was going on a cruise I'd think twice about it if it was the captains last voyage !
That puts a sinister spin on it, I think it was just a speedier and more efficient way to get it into distribution quickly, this was in in its infancy and the wireless radio telegraph was no use to anyone unless it came with a trained operator - they not only had to be able to read morse code but to maintain, repair and fiddle with the technology. It was more functional for Marconi's business to rent it our or sell in the equipment with highly skilled operators.
It was the sinking of the Titanic that spelt out just how crucial radio could be in saving lives and ships and after this it went on to become compulsory.
That puts a sinister spin on it, I think it was just a speedier and more efficient way to get it into distribution quickly, this was in in its infancy and the wireless radio telegraph was no use to anyone unless it came with a trained operator - they not only had to be able to read morse code but to maintain, repair and fiddle with the technology. It was more functional for Marconi's business to rent it our or sell in the equipment with highly skilled operators.
It was the sinking of the Titanic that spelt out just how crucial radio could be in saving lives and ships and after this it went on to become compulsory.
The sinister part was the radio operator was more worried about sending out his messages from the rich passengers then paying attention to the iceberg warnings coming from neighbouring ships.
Before I watched last night's documentary I'd always thought the wireless operators were responsible for saving the lifes of 100s of passengers by staying at their post until the very last moment. But if the account given last night was accurate then they could just as equally be held responsible for the deaths of many. Apparently, not all the ice warnings they received were delivered to the captain ~ no-one on the bridge even remembers one message they claimed to have delivered ~ and it was only as a result of a rebuke from one of the Titanic's wireless operators that The Californian turned off her radio, an act that resulted in them not being aware of the disaster until it was too late.
Wasn't there some mention about knowing 5 bulkheads being damaged - where 4 might have stopped her sinking so quickly.
The ship had 16 watertight compartments. She could stay afloat with four of them flooded (don't ask me how, perhaps it's something to do with the weight of the water). However, if five were flooded, she was doomed.
And, of course, five were breached when the ship hit the iceberg. The fifth one wasn't breached a huge amount, but enough to make the difference between staying afloat and sinking
The calculations about the time it would take for the ship to sink were done by Thomas Andrews, the ship's designer, who was on board for the maiden voyage. If anyone would know how long she'd last, it was he.
Personally, I'd have rammed the iceberg head on. You'd probably kill a couple of hundred people from the front of the boat and subject WSL to a huge lawsuit, but the boat wouldn't have sunk and we'd never have had that dreadful Cameron movie.
The sinister part was the radio operator was more worried about sending out his messages from the rich passengers then paying attention to the iceberg warnings coming from neighbouring ships.
The show tried to blame as many people as possible for the failures that lead to the sinking. It came across as very pointy figurey. Blaming Ismay, Captain Smith, the second in command (for turning port hard, and for misinterpreting the Captain's request of women and children first) the radio operator, the radio operator of the California, the Shipbuilders, the lookout post for not having bincoulars, the weather conditions, the people making the ship, the regulators (going so far as to call the British Board of Trade's enquiry a "whitewash") ...
There were systematic failures all over the place, and the show seemed to have its head spinning trying to finger everyone for it, which really let it down to be honest. I don't want a 96 year old witch hunt like the one I saw last night, I'd much rather prefer the facts.
I don't like this docu-drama style. I'd much prefer a straight documentary.... No straight documentary evidence? Don't reconstruct it. Don't put words in the mouths of people you couldn't possibly know, as they died on the ship, and second hand testimony after the traumas some of them suffered aren't likely to be either trustable or accurate. Recreating the enquries is fine, but what happened on the ship itself, is, well, debatable.
You imagine being the Captain of that ship, advertised as being unsinkable, and on its maiden voyage.. You've been given the most prestigious cruiser of all time, and you are woken by a shudder to find out that you're hit by an iceberg and are going down... and then you try and not have a nervous breakdown in the middle of it all.
I would also say that the Radio operator wasn't that sinister, as he was paid very lowly, and paid by each message he sent. When you force motivations on people, and tell everyone that this ship is "unsinkable" they can make some curious decisions!
Whilst I kind of enjoyed it, as I already knew the facts behind what happened (including the rivet revelation at the end, the only real new information they could add since the glut of information we got around the movie in 1997), if I were new to the Titanic story, I'd have felt let down by it.
One thing I did learn that I never knew, the iceberg underwater being honeycombed... was this artistic license (as I know honeycomb ice does exist), or do all icebergs have this honeycomb effect underwater?
The ship had 16 watertight compartments. She could stay afloat with four of them flooded (don't ask me how, perhaps it's something to do with the weight of the water). However, if five were flooded, she was doomed.
The weight of the water basically....
Five compartments flooded dragged the bow of the boat down, allowing the water to move over the top of the bulkheads and fill each compartment after it. It wouldn't have happened if the ship had full size bulkheads from the top deck to the bottom, and wouldn't have happened if they'd have hit head on because only one compartment would have filled.
If only four compartments had flooded (and here comes some Newtonian science that I can't really explain) the water couldn't have entered in the way it did, as the water couldn't have risen above the sea level of the ocean outside, and then rose over the top of each bulk head, which were above the sea level, and would have continued to have been if only four compartments had filled.
She was married - ring plus the US double surname!
The ship was put hard to starboard and he engines into reverse. Hence why the ship scraped her starboard side, as she still had forward momentum. I thought the prog was interesting in drawing together the threwads and ignoring Cameron's wretched film - you forget the whole picture when there are a series of progs on a specific cause.
The higher bulkheads would not have prevented sinking, but would have delayed it, as once the fifth space was pierced, it was doomed.
The sinister part was the radio operator was more worried about sending out his messages from the rich passengers then paying attention to the iceberg warnings coming from neighbouring ships.
"sinister"? It was the way they got paid. The only way they made money. Again if there was anything "sinister" then it was the usual corporate problem of putting money before safety and that was the Marconi company's problem not the employees. If they wanted safety, then they should have paid the radio operators a wage.
It's too easy to blame the plebes at the bottom instead of the corporate penny pinching over safety. That was what the White Star line owners were very guilty of as well.
Comments
Well I did put if it sank, so it could end differently to the way you imagine...
...just as long as the way you imagine is that it didn't sink.
If only those two guys on lookout had a pair of binoculars they would have seen the iceberg in time to avoid collision. What a terrible cold job that must have been, standing for hours at the front of a ship getting the full force of the wind.
Disgraceful also that the wireless operators had to supplement their income sending greeting messages. If they did not have to do that the ship would have steered a course clear of the iceberg.
Interesting facts about the weaker wrought iron rivets used in the bow. :eek: They just didn't have a clue in those days.:mad:
Also the 'wireless ' operators who were employed by Marconi not White Star so they had the wrong set of priorities, along with a few others on that ship.
16 lifeboats not the 48 suggested ! I'm glad I didn't live in those times.
Maybe, this event has become a significant event because over 1,500 people died what was probably a horrible death. And in these situations, people ask the questions why, especially if there is the suggestion that these deaths needn't have happened.
Indeed, in the case of the Titanic and even the circumstances surrounding the Great Escape, which was mentioned above (see my comments below), it is part of the human condition for many of us, not just the family, friends and aquaintances of the bereaved, to think along the lines of the phrase, 'there but for the grace of god go I' And if so, perhaps, how might I have dealt with it etc etc.
Indeed there may be any number of reasons why people were and still are interested in such major events, probably too many to mention here, assuming I knew them all, if no more than that when we go on public conveyances, we don't expect to die.
Finding out what actually happened may just give us some form of rational justification for those events, however harrowing that truth might be, frankly to stop us going completely barmy. Finding out those facts may just help us prevent similar tradegies happening again.
The interesting challenge is that the documentary is a piece of art/entertainment first and a piece of history second. But, in as much as it has some role to play in defining the historical side of things, the way the documentary concluded with a list of all the factors which historical analysis has helped us now conclude, I thought was very good.
And it was fascinating how small pieces of communication and interpretation lead to an increase in the death toll; e.g. the instruction to put women and children into the boats and how this was intepreted as women and children only, thereby allowing boats to enter the water with spaces in them and thereby albeit in a small way increasing the death toll.
Also, the use of humour in relation to disaster and death is an interesting topic. On the one hand, I have found myself doing an impresion of Donald Pleasance in the Great Escape when his character realises he is blind and says, 'I can't see a bloody thing'. On the other hand being in that camp was in many ways, no laughing matter at all. I have just discovered that my Uncle, having been shot down on his 30th and last sortie flying a Halifax in Bomber Command was a POW in Stalag 3, the Camp shown in the film. Where in the film, we are shown the principal characters being shot, in real life. 50 officers within the Camp were selected by lot and shot. My Uncle lived to tell the tale, although actually he would never talk about it and sadly, he died recently.
So, I will continue to watch documentaries on the Titanic and other disasters becasue I'm interested and maybe in some tiny way I might be able to prevent such events, even smaller catstrophies taking place in my little world.
And this Sunday, I may do my Donald Peasance impression but I'll definately take a moment to think about my Uncle and all the others from Stalag 3.
I think it's a bit off to say the builder's didn't have a clue. You are speaking about people who lived over 100 years ago and science knowledge and access to instruments to judge the quality of metals was much less than it is now.
On a seperate point it is almost as though the moment that iceburg broke away and before they had even laid down the keel of the Titanic, the whole chain of events was set in motion and nothing and no-one chould change them.
Pre-destiny really.
I agree, I mean we still manage to make aeroplanes that fail and fall out of the sky due entirely to mechanical defects. So we are not infallible even nowadays leave alone 100s ago.
...but the bosses of SOME companies are still as willing to compromise safety as they were back then, so some things don't change.
That puts a sinister spin on it, I think it was just a speedier and more efficient way to get it into distribution quickly, this was in in its infancy and the wireless radio telegraph was no use to anyone unless it came with a trained operator - they not only had to be able to read morse code but to maintain, repair and fiddle with the technology. It was more functional for Marconi's business to rent it our or sell in the equipment with highly skilled operators.
It was the sinking of the Titanic that spelt out just how crucial radio could be in saving lives and ships and after this it went on to become compulsory.
Another surprise was the amount of ice warnings they had failed to heed, the way the warnings were dealt with were bordering on the reckless; clearly she was racing to New York in hazardous conditions.
~Thanks for the explanation
The sinister part was the radio operator was more worried about sending out his messages from the rich passengers then paying attention to the iceberg warnings coming from neighbouring ships.
It really did seem like destiny for the ship to sink
So many things seemed to be wrong
Wrong rivits, change of crew, missing key, unusual iceburg, hitting side instead of head on the list is endless
The ship had 16 watertight compartments. She could stay afloat with four of them flooded (don't ask me how, perhaps it's something to do with the weight of the water). However, if five were flooded, she was doomed.
And, of course, five were breached when the ship hit the iceberg. The fifth one wasn't breached a huge amount, but enough to make the difference between staying afloat and sinking
The calculations about the time it would take for the ship to sink were done by Thomas Andrews, the ship's designer, who was on board for the maiden voyage. If anyone would know how long she'd last, it was he.
Personally, I'd have rammed the iceberg head on. You'd probably kill a couple of hundred people from the front of the boat and subject WSL to a huge lawsuit, but the boat wouldn't have sunk and we'd never have had that dreadful Cameron movie.
The show tried to blame as many people as possible for the failures that lead to the sinking. It came across as very pointy figurey. Blaming Ismay, Captain Smith, the second in command (for turning port hard, and for misinterpreting the Captain's request of women and children first) the radio operator, the radio operator of the California, the Shipbuilders, the lookout post for not having bincoulars, the weather conditions, the people making the ship, the regulators (going so far as to call the British Board of Trade's enquiry a "whitewash") ...
There were systematic failures all over the place, and the show seemed to have its head spinning trying to finger everyone for it, which really let it down to be honest. I don't want a 96 year old witch hunt like the one I saw last night, I'd much rather prefer the facts.
I don't like this docu-drama style. I'd much prefer a straight documentary.... No straight documentary evidence? Don't reconstruct it. Don't put words in the mouths of people you couldn't possibly know, as they died on the ship, and second hand testimony after the traumas some of them suffered aren't likely to be either trustable or accurate. Recreating the enquries is fine, but what happened on the ship itself, is, well, debatable.
You imagine being the Captain of that ship, advertised as being unsinkable, and on its maiden voyage.. You've been given the most prestigious cruiser of all time, and you are woken by a shudder to find out that you're hit by an iceberg and are going down... and then you try and not have a nervous breakdown in the middle of it all.
I would also say that the Radio operator wasn't that sinister, as he was paid very lowly, and paid by each message he sent. When you force motivations on people, and tell everyone that this ship is "unsinkable" they can make some curious decisions!
Whilst I kind of enjoyed it, as I already knew the facts behind what happened (including the rivet revelation at the end, the only real new information they could add since the glut of information we got around the movie in 1997), if I were new to the Titanic story, I'd have felt let down by it.
One thing I did learn that I never knew, the iceberg underwater being honeycombed... was this artistic license (as I know honeycomb ice does exist), or do all icebergs have this honeycomb effect underwater?
The weight of the water basically....
Five compartments flooded dragged the bow of the boat down, allowing the water to move over the top of the bulkheads and fill each compartment after it. It wouldn't have happened if the ship had full size bulkheads from the top deck to the bottom, and wouldn't have happened if they'd have hit head on because only one compartment would have filled.
If only four compartments had flooded (and here comes some Newtonian science that I can't really explain) the water couldn't have entered in the way it did, as the water couldn't have risen above the sea level of the ocean outside, and then rose over the top of each bulk head, which were above the sea level, and would have continued to have been if only four compartments had filled.
The ship was put hard to starboard and he engines into reverse. Hence why the ship scraped her starboard side, as she still had forward momentum. I thought the prog was interesting in drawing together the threwads and ignoring Cameron's wretched film - you forget the whole picture when there are a series of progs on a specific cause.
The higher bulkheads would not have prevented sinking, but would have delayed it, as once the fifth space was pierced, it was doomed.
Seriously-- I thought it was an interesting programme.
"sinister"? It was the way they got paid. The only way they made money. Again if there was anything "sinister" then it was the usual corporate problem of putting money before safety and that was the Marconi company's problem not the employees. If they wanted safety, then they should have paid the radio operators a wage.
It's too easy to blame the plebes at the bottom instead of the corporate penny pinching over safety. That was what the White Star line owners were very guilty of as well.
Corporate manslaughter.