Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Titanic II: Now it's the iceberg's turn to feel the pain!

Generally when you believe a naval vessel to be "unsinkable" you tend to start taking unjustifiable risks because you believe that your vessel is indestructible.

Physics, of course, disagrees with that notion.

 Pouncey wrote:
Generally when you believe a naval vessel to be "unsinkable" you tend to start taking unjustifiable risks because you believe that your vessel is indestructible.

Physics, of course, disagrees with that notion.

Depends. Matter, after all, cannot be destroyed, so in a sense all ships are indestructible.

 Pouncey wrote:
Generally when you believe a naval vessel to be "unsinkable" you tend to start taking unjustifiable risks because you believe that your vessel is indestructible.

Physics, of course, disagrees with that notion.

Or maybe they had a coal fire and so were shovelling more fire in to the engine which has the inevitable effect of going faster, at least that's one possible theory.

From my understanding the idea that the Titanic was "unsinkable" is something that was perpetuated more AFTER it sunk, apparently The Shipbuilder magazine described it as "practically unsinkable" while it was being built, but White Star never described it as such and it's more an after-the-event myth that has been perpetuated.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Generally when you believe a naval vessel to be "unsinkable" you tend to start taking unjustifiable risks because you believe that your vessel is indestructible.

Physics, of course, disagrees with that notion.

Depends. Matter, after all, cannot be destroyed, so in a sense all ships are indestructible.

You can easily apply that same logic to anything else made of matter.

For example, the human body.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Generally when you believe a naval vessel to be "unsinkable" you tend to start taking unjustifiable risks because you believe that your vessel is indestructible.

Physics, of course, disagrees with that notion.

Or maybe they had a coal fire and so were shovelling more fire in to the engine which has the inevitable effect of going faster, at least that's one possible theory.

From my understanding the idea that the Titanic was "unsinkable" is something that was perpetuated more AFTER it sunk, apparently The Shipbuilder magazine described it as "practically unsinkable" while it was being built, but White Star never described it as such and it's more an after-the-event myth that has been perpetuated.

Well, I learned something today, and that's good.

However, I don't think I understand the concept of a "coal fire" properly.

I've heard that the fire went on for three weeks before the ship docked in New York, and they purposefully parked it so that the damaged side of the ship faced away from the pier.

A fire that goes on for three weeks escaping the notice of passengers is not a concept I understand properly.

How does a coal fire work, exactly?

Very slowly. Imagine less massive sheets of flame and more a constant glow plus smoke.

 Pouncey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Generally when you believe a naval vessel to be "unsinkable" you tend to start taking unjustifiable risks because you believe that your vessel is indestructible.

Physics, of course, disagrees with that notion.

Depends. Matter, after all, cannot be destroyed, so in a sense all ships are indestructible.

You can easily apply that same logic to anything else made of matter.

For example, the human body.

That's why my parents always told me to go play in the street.

My mom told me alligators liked to be hugged.

text removed.
Reds8n

 Pouncey wrote:
Well, I learned something today, and that's good.

However, I don't think I understand the concept of a "coal fire" properly.

I've heard that the fire went on for three weeks before the ship docked in New York, and they purposefully parked it so that the damaged side of the ship faced away from the pier.

A fire that goes on for three weeks escaping the notice of passengers is not a concept I understand properly.

How does a coal fire work, exactly?

In huge piles of coal you can get fires starting in the middle of them. They just slowly smoulder (I guess because they don't have a huge amount of oxygen), burning through maybe and inch or so of coal every hour. You can control them by digging down to them and then just shovelling the burning coals directly in to the engine.

I've heard of a coal fire that supposedly was burning before the Titanic set sail (which is the one that might have weakened the hull) and one that was burning while the Titanic was actually sailing which might explain the high speed. I'm not sure if they're one and the same fire or two separate events though.

This quote is from an article I linked previously...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108020906.htm

First of all, says Essenhigh, it’s important to rule out the reason for speed put forth in the movies: to set a speed record or impress other sailors. The crew of the Titanic couldn’t have been trying to break any records crossing the North Atlantic Ocean, says Essenhigh, because according to the published records the Titanic was built for comfort, not speed.

“There was a further problem that because of a miners strike, there wasn’t originally enough coal on the ship for sailing at full speed and the original plan was to sail at half-speed and take it easy,” Essenhigh said. “It wasn’t designed as the fastest ship.”

Yeah, White star knew that the Titanic was a good few knots slower than the Mauritania. They just put that into the movies to make the British captain seem more of an idiot than he actually was.


In fact, a lot of the parts of the most famous version, Cameron's Titanic, were taken from the Joseph Goebbels version from the 1940s.


Also for all the joking, there is actually a Titanic II film.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_II_(film)

Did you really just godwin a thread about the Titanic?

O.o

Shots of the Goebbel's film were recycled into A Night to Remember.

The first Titanic film was released just a month after the sinking, starring an actress who was a survivor of the sinking, effectively playing herself in the account and wore the same clothes to add authenticity. Reliving the disaster led to her having a breakdown. No prints of the film exist today.

 Breotan wrote:
Did you really just godwin a thread about the Titanic?

O.o

I did Nazi that coming. Did you?

Sorry, Wasn't aware that was actually a thing.

Obligatory XKCD: