The truth about the Titanic sinking

The Star ^ | Sep 21 2010 | Amy Dempsey

[Petruchio]

Jamie Brockett explained all this 40 years ago.

Legend of the USS Titanic (part 1)

Legend of the USS Titanic (part 2)

links to YouTube

[Mad Dawgg]

The real secret and underlying cause for the Titanic sinking is and always has been...

GRAVITY

[DuncanWaring]

...rivets made of inferior-quality metal...

I remember seeing a TV documentary on that many years ago - PBS, History Channel, something like that.

They got hold of some rivets made from the same batch of metal used on the Titanic, turns out that in very cold water they got brittle so the seams between the hull plates separated rather than stretching.

[Oztrich Boy]

When sailing vessels got large enough that the simple tiller was too hard to hold under human power, wheel steering evolved. The rudder had a tiller attached but it was below decks and a block and tackle system was used to exert the force needed. The wheel would turn in the direction intended by pulling the end of the tiller the opposite direct. So if you wanted to make a left, your turned the wheel left. Makes sense but under the deck the tiller was being pulled right.

Since crews were used to the terms from the tiller days they just stuck, especially in the British navy. “hard to starboard” turns you left, “hard to port” turns you right.

It doesn't matter which way the below deck tiller moves.

(And this is why the "tiller to wheel" claim is crap) The tiller was moved by a whipstaff pivoted at deck level, so moving it in one direction yurned both the rudder and the ship in that direction

If the correct order for an emergency turn to left was given, the muscle memory response of the steersman would be to move either the wheel or the whipstaff to the left.

Confusion would only occur from "hard a starboard" if they had a raw landsman steering the Tinanic

[Oztrich Boy]

1) Apparently the Titanic used the older design, where “putting the helm to starboard caused the ship to turn to port.”

No (see my 64). When wheels where introduced they were arranged to operate in the same way as the older whipstaff (logical). Moving either in one direction was the direction the ship would move (the unseen tiller below deck would move in the opposite directiom)

[Who is John Galt?]

No (see my 64). When wheels where introduced they were arranged to operate in the same way as the older whipstaff (logical). Moving either in one direction was the direction the ship would move (the unseen tiller below deck would move in the opposite directiom)

Can you reference anything in print to support that? I have seen multiple written references (including the one I cited) that directly contradict your statement.

Thanks!

;>)

[Oztrich Boy]

http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/wheel.html

From around 1450, a new means of steering was often used. The deck had become so high above the rudder that the helmsman needed a remote way of turning the tiller, if he was to be on the deck and able to see the sails. The answer was the whipstaff, which was a stout piece of timber, passing through a hole in the deck to a pivot and from there to the end of the tiller. A mechanical advantage of about 4 to 1 was obtained at the cost of limited rudder movement. The helmsman stood with the whipstaff roughly vertical in front of or beside him. Americans can find a fine example of this on Mayflower. The whipstaff was pushed in the direction in which the ship was to turn. The orders continued to be given with reference to the tiller. With some practice, helmsmen got used to this.

By the early eighteenth century, the ship's wheel was introduced on larger ships. Like the whipstaff, the wheel was pushed in the direction in which the ship was to turn. Again the orders remained unchanged

~~~~~

Harland and Wolff were not in the habit of building ships with trick steering wheels and neither was anybody else

[Who is John Galt?]

Thanks - it's amazing what kind of errors slip into history books. Norman Friedman's U.S. warship design history series (from Naval Institute Press) is one example: the first books I read were pretty much flawless, but at some point he decided to use a computerized spell checker, rather than a professional proofreader. The end result was a monumental increase in errors, including a reference to "Real Admiral Normal Scott." Those two errors were made even more humorous (or tragic - Scott was killed in action) because the reference occurred on page 323, but the index listed it as being on page 332 (Norman Friedman, U.S. Cruisers, third printing 1989).

Just goes to show that you can't trust everything you read, even from a reputable source...

;>)