Submitted by ChadExtra t3_10iuu73 in todayilearned
> Pitman said that this haunted him throughout his life.
Which would have been very short had they overloaded the boat.
The lifeboats were deliberately underloaded at the davits, because the crew was worried that they would break apart if filled to full.
From the Senate inquiry:
> Sen. Smith: how many persons will a lifeboat the size of No, 5 hold safely, on a clear night and with no sea?
> Mr. LOWE:
Do you mean to ask what she would hold in the water or what would she hold lowering?
> Senator SMITH:
No; I want you to tell me how many she will hold lowering.
> Mr. LOWE:
That depends upon the caliber of the man lowering her.
> Senator SMITH:
Does it not depend upon the gear?
> Mr. LOWE: It depends upon the gear also, sir. You will say to yourself, "I will take the chance with 50 people in this boat." Another man will say, "I am not going to run the risk of 50; "I will take 25 or 30."
> [...]
> Senator SMITH:
I want that understood. Do you wish the committee to understand that a lifeboat whose capacity is 65 under the British regulations could not be lowered with safety, with new tackle and equipment, containing more than 50 people?
> Mr. LOWE: The dangers are that if you overcrowd the boat the first thing that you will have will be that the boat will buckle up like that (indicating) at the two ends, because she is suspended from both ends and there is no support in the middle.
This is fascinating. I’d actually watch a film about the follow up to the disaster.
Honestly I'd do the same. There's been three different movies made about the WWII Wannsee Conference, clearly audiences are not adverse to watching people in a room discussing historically famous events as they happened.
They could've made the final episode of Chernobyl 6 hours long of the trials and I would've watched it in one sitting.
If you’re ever in the UK, Southampton (where the boat set off) sea museum has an interesting exhibit, including a mock-up of the court and various other x-examinations, including whether 3rd class passengers were indeed treated worse. The really interesting bit of that part of the enquiry is where the judges interview various third class passengers. Oh wait, no they didn’t, not a single one…
One of my super nerdy areas in Titanic studies is post sinking inquiry and litigation. The way they shaped the history, and the reason why, will probably never be undone. It’s great stuff!
Any book recommendations?
About this topic specifically? Most of the books are just copies of the testimony which can be found online for free- check out the Titanic Inquiry Project
That being said, any good research book will have a section dedicated to this- try ‘On a Sea of Glass’, ‘The Ship Magnificent’, even ‘The Night lives on’ which is old and now outdated but does have a very broad overview of the controversy and conspiracy surrounding post sinking.
We keep going back to them because more research, more discovery, means we see threads that dont add up, they make no sense, that may just be downright lies. It’s imperative to understand the litigation of Titanic to begin to understand the testimony. They are entwined together- and that effects “history”
I was watching a documentary: lowering lifeboats and releasing them was extremely dangerous and lifeboats have gone through multiple different designs of lowering systems and releases to increase safety for both the passengers and the crew operating them.
One release system was well known (and feared) by crew because it was famous for cutting fingers off if operated incorrectly.
I suppose you can understand skepticism after sinking on the unsinkable ship.
Fun fact, while popularly called "unsinkable", the closest any official publication got was an engineering magazine calling it "Practically unsinkable" referring to the bulkheads built into the structure. Neither the company nor Andrews, the designer, claimed it.
And tbf, it did sink remarkably slowly compared to others of its time.
[deleted]
Numerous reasons. It was cold, and people didn't think the ship was sinking that fast.
What are you responding to?
Or, a few more people could have been saved that instead drowned
I don't think that's as big an issue if you consider that the people in the boat can paddle faster than people in sub freezing water can swim. They could have picked up some stragglers without too much risk I imagine.
Wouldn't the real danger be a panicked person capsizing the boat as they attempt climb over the side? I assume that's what is meant by "swarming the boat."
> They could have picked up some stragglers without too much risk I imagine.
I suspect you are right in they could have moved back in closer and grabbed a couple, or few more, but then been so much closer and connected to the ones they have to turn away.
I think somewhere in the mix was the need of the collective to get far away from the horror of backsliding out of relative safety.
>I think somewhere in the mix was the need of the collective to get far away from the horror of backsliding out of relative safety.
You could just say they were scared and wanted to survive. I know it sounds a lot like running away to save themselves. Would we be more noble in their situation?
The way I see it, there’s (on average) more than 10 people a boat. Hysterics, differences in experience, and generalized fear, is going to make people rationalize that we DID save people. And I agree, if we move closer to save people, we spend more time rowing AWAY from the people we can’t save. I, personally, would rather move out with my group, than tell someone 10 yards away that we have no more space, and leave them as they scream for help.
Do you really see a boat full of people reaching a clear and immediate consensus on when they’ve picked up enough stragglers and should start rowing away from the rest?
They see 30 people swimming like mad towards them, I think the consensus would be amazingly quick.
Like I said, the people aren't going to be putting up a fight in about ten minutes.
[deleted]
Sad but true.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments