# Another Titanic question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 2, 2015, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811 "2015-01-02T22:43:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/61 "2015-01-16T17:36:23Z")
> [@MacLir](#): > > This is a good place to bring up some of the physics behind “flank speed.” > > A displacement hull has an upper limit to speed determined by the length at the waterline. It is exactly equal to the speed at which the wavelength of the bow wave equals the length of the ship. Attempts to exceed this speed cause power consumption to rise asymptotically with little, if any, speed increase. You are essentially trying to push the ship uphill onto the wave. > > . There is a formula for determining “flank speed”. Sorry I do not remember it but the relationship between the hull length and with are the major variables. ---
**Author:** ![Daylate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Daylate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daylate)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/62 "2015-01-16T19:36:36Z")
For a displacement hull, the formula for hull speed (essentially, “flank speed”) is: Speed in Kts = 1.3 times the square root of the waterline length in feet. For instance, a hull length of 49 feet results in a hull speed of 9.1 kts. Any power used that is above the amount necessary for this speed is essentially wasted. And even getting up to the hull speed takes a lot of power. For example, a WW1 four-stacker destroyer could do 26 knots at half power, but only 32 kts at full power. ---
**Author:** ![Dahu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dahu/32/3416_2.png) [@Dahu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dahu)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2015, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/63 "2015-01-17T13:25:07Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > He also ordered that they proceed at full speed for several minutes after striking the iceberg; no one has ever been able to explain why. Have you got a cite for this? I can’t see this mentioned in the wiki article. Other sites seem to suggest dead slow or half speed. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2015, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/64 "2015-01-17T14:11:54Z")
> [@Dahu](#): > > Have you got a cite for this? I can’t see this mentioned in the wiki article. Other sites seem to suggest dead slow or half speed. This book: > **[The Titanic](https://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Titanic.html?id=8HUs-VsW_icC&redir_esc=y&hl=en)** > > On that fatal April night in 1912, the world's largest moving object disappeared beneath the waters of the North Atlantic in less than three hours. Why was the ship sailing through waters well known to be a "mass of floating ice"? Why were there too... You may be right about the speed; I don’t have my copy of the book handy. But he did order that they proceed for several minutes, which only made the situation worse by driving water into the hull. My impression is that it was not dead slow, though. It would have taken some time for them to accelerate back to 24 knots in any case. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/65 "2015-01-17T14:17:09Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Nit Pick warning. > Captain Smith would not have had the authority to “order another boiler to be put on line”. He would have had the authority to order enough turns to make 24 knots. The Chief Engineer would then make the decision if another boiler would be necessary. I see. In the US Senate investigation, however, Senator Wm. Smith determined that another boiler was indeed brought on line that night. IIRC, he traveled to New York and boarded the _Olympic_ where he interviewed a crewman who was on duty on board the _Titanic_ the night of 14–15 April. This is also mentioned in Wyn Craig’s book. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2015, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/66 "2015-01-17T20:39:28Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > I see. > > In the US Senate investigation, however, Senator Wm. Smith determined that another boiler was indeed brought on line that night. IIRC, he traveled to New York and boarded the _Olympic_ where he interviewed a crewman who was on duty on board the _Titanic_ the night of 14–15 April. > > This is also mentioned in Wyn Craig’s book. Another boiler may have been brought on line, but the Captain did not order it. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2015, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/67 "2015-01-17T23:27:52Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > In the US Senate investigation, however, Senator Wm. Smith determined that another boiler was indeed brought on line that night. IIRC, he traveled to New York and boarded the _Olympic_ where he interviewed a crewman who was on duty on board the _Titanic_ the night of 14–15 April… Ah, [“Watertight Smith”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Alden_Smith) 😛 ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/68 "2015-02-03T19:23:59Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > The \*Titanic \*officers’ failure to supply the lookouts in the crow’s nest with binoculars was never satisfactorily explained. Apparently, it has been now: > **[6 Tiny Mistakes That Shaped Huge Parts of Modern History](https://www.cracked.com/article_22044_6-tiny-mistakes-that-changed-course-history.html)** > > The shaping of history is a lot less Illuminati and a lot more the 3 Stooges. Number Six, right at the top of the countdown. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/69 "2015-02-03T19:26:32Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Ah, [“Watertight Smith”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Alden_Smith) 😛 Also discussed in Wyn Craig’s book, a large portion of which is in fact a biography of the senator. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/71 "2015-02-03T20:28:07Z")
Reported ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/72 "2016-02-11T19:29:54Z")
Bumped. There are further delays in building _Titanic II_: [http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/travel/titanic-ii-feat/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/travel/titanic-ii-feat/index.html). By now I doubt it will ever happen - 2012 would’ve been the year to make money on it, if ever. ---
**Author:** ![Jrubas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/278dde/32.png) [@Jrubas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jrubas)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/73 "2016-02-15T05:17:33Z")
I remember seeing a test done with a model. The Titanic sank an hour earlier than it did in real life, having lost power about forty five minutes beforehand. Had Smith left the watertight doors open, it wouldn’t have been a tragedy, it would have been a holocaust. > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > The “even keel” theory has been debunked more than once. At most it would have delayed sinking by a half hour, IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/74 "2016-02-16T19:17:51Z")
The binoculars: Were not for spotting icebergs on such a night, and it is generally accepted that scanning with the eyes was proper. Binoculars were great for fully identifying things that were already spotted > **[Welcome | National Museums NI](https://www.nationalmuseumsni.org)** > > Welcome to the National Museums Northern Ireland. > **[Titanic Myths, Legends, Truths And Facts - Titanic-Titanic.com](https://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic-myths-legends-truths-and-facts/)** > > The legend of fireman Frank Tower would have you believe that not only did he survive the sinking of the Titanic, but was also aboard the Empress of Ireland when she collided with the Storstad > **[Were there binoculars aboard the Titanic?](https://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/binoculars-aboard-titanic.htm)** > > Imagine that one vital piece of equipment could've saved the Titanic ... if only one person hadn't forgotten to pass along the key to where it was stored. ---
**Author:** ![Daylate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Daylate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daylate)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/75 "2016-02-16T19:29:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Were not for spotting icebergs on such a night, and it is generally accepted that scanning with the eyes was proper. > > Binoculars were great for fully identifying things that were already spotted Kinda doubt that. 7X50 binoculars are specifically designed as “night glasses” and as such definitely give better night vision than the naked eye. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/76 "2016-02-16T19:45:10Z")
Stephen Colbert mentioned the Titanic replica on his show last night, noting that it was delayed but that by then there wouldn’t be any icebergs (due to global warming, presumably). ---
**Author:** ![Dahu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dahu/32/3416_2.png) [@Dahu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dahu)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/77 "2016-02-16T20:33:15Z")
> [@Daylate](#): > > 7X50 binoculars are specifically designed as “night glasses” and as such definitely give better night vision than the naked eye. :dubious: Have you got a cite for that? ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/78 "2016-02-16T20:44:42Z")
> [@Dahu](#): > > :dubious: Have you got a cite for that? My sight is my cite. 🙂 Whether they were “specifically” designed as such, 7X50 binoculars have a noticeably increased light-gathering ability. It is quite striking how much brighter things are at night when you look through them. Speaking of which, Titanic and similar ships of the day should have had “headlights”. The power was available, the tech was available. Locomotives have them, and they have even less ability to swerve out of the way of things in their path. Why the blindness, as it were, to shining a light ahead in ships? ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/79 "2016-02-16T21:21:56Z")
> [@Daylate](#): > > Kinda doubt that. 7X50 binoculars are specifically designed as “night glasses” and as such definitely give better night vision than the naked eye. I’ve cited references; I’ve not invoked my opinion. I’ve read time and time again about the practices used by those on lookout in that era, and it was naked eye scanning. It was not expected that they’d use the binoculars (per various sources, some of which have been cited). If you cite something, please make it specific to the Titanic and practices of peer ships at the time. . ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/80 "2016-02-16T21:31:37Z")
The _Titanic_ lookouts were indeed supposed to have binoculars: [Key that could have saved the Titanic](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561604/Key-that-could-have-saved-the-Titanic.html) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811/81 "2016-02-16T22:42:38Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The _Californian_ had stopped in the ice field at dark. (Smarter than the _Titanic_’s officers, at least.) They were close enough to see the distress flares\* that the Titanic sent up, but Captain Lord decided that they meant nothing and dd not even have his radio operator awakened to try to contact the ship firing flares. IIRC the _California_ had an iceberg some many miles long in front of her. That’s why she stopped. As someone else mentioned the _Titanic’s_ radio operator barked at the _California’s_ radio operator for bugging him so yeah…they were done talking. Also, not that it matters when it comes to rendering aid, but I think the _California’s_ captain did not identify the _Titanic_ as the _Titanic_. He thought it was a much smaller ship. There is speculation there was a[type of mirage occurring](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-the-titanic-sink-because-of-an-optical-illusion-102040309/?no-ist)\* at sea at that time. Indeed the _Titanic_ was trying desperately to signal the _California_ with its signal light but despite the fact the _California’s_ captain was watching (as were others) they did not see the signal again likely due to the unusual mirage that was occurring. In short, he had little reason to think something was amiss. > [@](#): > > \*Shortly before the collision, the Titanic sailed into the Californian’s view—but it appeared too near and small to be the great ocean liner. Californian captain Stanley Lord knew the Titanic was the only other ship in the area with a radio, and so concluded this ship did not have one. > > Read more: [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-the-titanic-sink-because-of-an-optical-illusion-102040309/#WcGufXz2I7s6XADa.99](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-the-titanic-sink-because-of-an-optical-illusion-102040309/#WcGufXz2I7s6XADa.99) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-titanic-question/708811.md?page=5)