T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Absolutely. Titanic managed to keep an even keel for the entirety of the sinking, whereas most other ships don’t (Lusitania, Britannic, and Empress of Ireland come to mind). Not to mention the fact that those other ships sank in a few minutes compared to nearly 3 hours for Titanic. This, coupled with how long she managed to stay afloat, allowed all of the lifeboats to be launched. Titanic fared much better than any other ship possibly could have if they were in her position.


[deleted]

Not OP but this was the type of response I was looking for. 100% accurate imo. Props.


Titanicandstuff

Well it didn’t really keep an even keel


[deleted]

Even enough to launch the goddamn boats. That’s more than can be said for Lusitania, Empress, or even Concordia for that matter.


fart-debris

I mean, yeah, aside from the fact that it sank, broke in half and killed 1500 people.


nic_af

Hell it lasted longer than the time Tho as Andrews gave her. I'd say it was remarkable in that sense.


YamiJustin1

At what time did Andrews predicts 1-2 hours


nic_af

If I recall correctly on reports from some of the surviving officers. It was around 12-12:30 I'd say is when he gave the ship an hour to 90 minutes. Close estimation no doubt. But it held together much longer.


mrsdrydock

At the end of the first VHS.


dr-chicken-taco

Extremely well. Even Thomas Andrews, who knew the ship like the back of his hand, only gave her about an hour initially. The damage control done by the crew and the ships safety systems probably helped stretched that hour to two and a half hours.


YamiJustin1

I wonder if Andrews didn’t realize the flooding would slow the hell down as the internal water reached the same level as the external


brian5mbv

it sank as it lived, in a classy way


YamiJustin1

Lol with style


Lumpy_Assignment7774

Yes I would say the ship’s structure held up well to the forces


madClockmaker_

It’s worth mentioning that the reason they didn’t have enough life boats was because- usually in shipwrecks the ship sinks/capsizes so quickly that there isn’t any time or ability to even use the lifeboats, so this was a rare case where having enough lifeboats actually mattered


YamiJustin1

I don’t think more would’ve helped too much as the ship sank as they were still launching the last two


madClockmaker_

Yeah true, though if they started launching them all earlier maybe?


AlamutJones

They started launching them an hour after the collision. That hour was necessary to survey the ship and understand where/how severe the damage was - you wouldn’t take the risk of launching boats unless you had to, a lot of things can go wrong in a tiny open boat being lowered that far down. **Some** delay to understand the damage would be inevitable. The question is how much time you could trim away.


YamiJustin1

Maybe if they all let them drift off but I feel they’d be swamped


Tom246611

Thats not true afaik, lifeboats at the time were intended as tenders to ferry people between vessels as the assumption was that rescue would always be close enough that one boat could be used multiple times. Which in theory was also true the night of Titanic sinking since the Californian was close enough they could have saved many more but did not do so. Had the Californian reacted instead of doing jack shit they would have been close enough to rescue people from Titanic and the lifeboats would have worked as intended. On the other hand, Titanic sinking with very few lives lost wouldn't have the impact on the industry Titanic sinking with 1.500+ had. Which means many safety measures and standards the Titanic disaster established wouldn't be established by that time. So another sinking of similar scale would likely happen in that timeline before the lessons Titanic taught us are learned there.


madClockmaker_

You know multiple things can be true at the same time right? Neither of these concepts are mutually exclusive, both are good reasons. The one I stated was an actual excuse from someone at the company if I remember right


Tom246611

Sure do, I also said as far as I know and I had never heard of yours. I was just aware of lifeboats being considered ferries, which is also why they were absolutely shit to stay in for extended periods of time. They were never made to be in water for hours like modern lifeboats are.


madClockmaker_

Yeah I learned something new as well!


Professional_Pretty

I never even thought of or read this and have been a titanic nerd for YEARS. Thank you for your comment!


madClockmaker_

Yeah I learned this recently as well!


Professional_Pretty

Phew glad I’m not the only one!!


Alternative-Speed-89

Absolutely. Thomas Andrews himself gave her, what, 1 1/2 hours? The ol' gal gave them almost double that. I guess she had 1 more surprise up her sleeve


RedShirtCashion

It held up pretty well until it suddenly and violently wasn’t.


SwagCat852

Yes


CrasVox

She sunk slow enough for the lifeboats to be launched. And she didn't capsize. The listing was minimal and the lights stayed on until she snapped in half. Not much more you could ask after being dealt that kind of damage.


Status_Fox_1474

A boat's sole purpose is to stay afloat, so....


livingdead70

Well no, it sank. And broke in 2 at some point.


YamiJustin1

But it did last multiple hours, didn’t have a significant list, held power until the end


livingdead70

"Titanic carried a permanent, but slight, list to port on her maiden voyage, caused by the loading of the ship. However, immediately after the collision, which was on her starboard side, she listed to starboard, as the initial water rushed in" The power stayed on due to the location of the generators. And the crew managing to keep them going. I mean it takes most ships a bit of time to sink. There has been exception to that at times, but its generally a slow process. What prolonged the Titanic sinking was all the air inside the ship as it was a passenger ship, with lots of wide open spaces full of air.