# Could the Titanic have been saved? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 13, 2004, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907 "2004-07-13T15:50:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/61 "2004-07-18T20:57:34Z")
jjimm writes: \> He was my uncle. You have an uncle who was an adult 92 years ago? Excuse my skepticism, but just how old are you? And if you’re not that old, how can you have an uncle born in the nineteenth century? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/62 "2004-07-18T20:59:50Z")
Not my direct uncle - my great^3 uncle. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/63 "2004-07-18T21:11:32Z")
O.K., it’s just that in my dialect the term “my uncle” can never mean “my great-great-great-uncle.” ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/64 "2004-07-18T21:20:50Z")
Hmm, I would always use this to mean any number of greats removed. I don’t know if that’s cultural, dialectical, peculiar to my upbringing, or whether it’s unique to me (and that therefore I’m uniquely wrong). Perhaps some UK or Irish dopers could help me find out which is right? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/65 "2004-07-18T22:34:57Z")
I’m a genealogist, and I’ve no more heard “my uncle” to mean “my great-great-granduncle” than I’ve heard “my father” to mean “my great-great-grandfather”. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/66 "2004-07-18T23:26:11Z")
> [@Shrinking Violet](#): > > Exactly which “objective measure” are you using here? Number of dead? > > So you categorize the Titanic with other “pissant little incidents” like Challenger, the assassination of JFK, the Oklahoma bombing …? :rolleyes: > > Don’t forget that as well as the huge death toll, the tragedy of the Titanic included the failure of what was _thought_ to be state of the art, safe technology, and had a far wider effect on just this count alone. No, the incidents you mention were all politically or technologically important. The Titanic story just had a number of elements of melodrama that caught the public’s imagination. That’s pretty much it. You want to convince me that it had “a far wider effect” on account of being state of the art etc you are going to have to provide cold hard cites And by that I do not mean cites not written by starry eyed romantics who’ve been caught up in the whole myth. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/67 "2004-07-18T23:29:10Z")
Actually let me correct myself. I expect the Titanic sinking did have _some_ effect on technology, and its high profile of itself made waves. But the profile of the mythology is disproportionate to its source. As Kilt wearin’ Man has outlined. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/68 "2004-07-18T23:51:29Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > I’m a genealogist, and I’ve no more heard “my uncle” to mean “my great-great-granduncle” than I’ve heard “my father” to mean “my great-great-grandfather”. My family uses it that way. Chicago-based extended family. And an ‘uncle’ is an ‘uncle’ regardless of the number of iterations involved. Same goes for aunts. Must be a variant. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2004, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/69 "2004-07-19T16:15:50Z")
It also applies in some Hispanic cultures. “Tio” is any older male relative, except father, grandfather, or brothers. Tio might actually be an uncle, great-uncle, cousin, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/70 "2004-07-19T17:39:30Z")
> [@Kilt-wearin' man](#): > > I found an interesting [resource](http://users.accesscomm.ca/shipwreck/index6.htm) that lists the 20 worst. _Titanic_ and _Empress of Ireland_ don’t even make it to the bottom of the list…but the list is skewed somewhat by torpedoed/bombed troop ships from World War II. Thank you for the link. My god, war is hell. My eyes popped out at this one: > [@](#): > > Junyo Maru - Sept 18th 1944 - **5,620** [deaths] - Japanese steamer 5,065 tons. Torpedoed by British submarine HMS Tradewind off coast of Sumatra. Vessel carrying 2,300 Dutch, British, American and Australian POW’s and 4,200 Javanese slave laborers for work on a railway in Sumatra. How horrifying and unbearable it must have been for the people on the submarine to find you’ve sunk a ship with thousands of innocent people on board! This one’s strange to me: > [@](#): > > Lancastria - June 17th 1940 - 3,000 to 4,500 - British Troopship 16,243 tons. Sunk by German air attack off St Nazaire while engaged in troop evacuation. Site is a designated war grave. Some lists show up to 9,000 on board with up to 7,000 killed. Official British report on loss will not be released until the year 2040. So who or what was on board to warrant a 100 year closed file…(Anyone feel like giving me a call) (color theirs) What’s this crap about keeping records sealed for 100 years?? ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/71 "2004-07-19T23:53:45Z")
It might just be beauraucracy on that 100-year seal. I mean, there are files from the _Lincoln_ administration that are still classified. And…no mention of the [Sultana?](http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Sultana%20Disaster) ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/72 "2004-07-20T00:12:26Z")
wow, jjim. i’ve always had a soft spot for mr andrews. he must have felt so very helpless as the ship went down. i’ve always thought that he must have had thousands of ideas running past his brain, trying to buy more time for the ship or ways to get more people off. esp. buy more time. about the only things i’ve thought of from quite a few years buffer is having a crew of people build rafts from doors or get anything that could float a person up to the boat decks. barrels, bathtubs, anything. ---
**Author:** ![Morbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morbo/32/389_2.png) [@Morbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morbo)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/73 "2004-07-20T01:20:58Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > The iceberg photo-there WAS a photo taken of what was most likely the actual iceberg. Someone on a passing ship took a photo of it-before even having heard of the _Titanic_ sinking, because there was a mysterious streak of red paint on the bottom. It’s included in either _A Night to Remember_, or _The Night Lives On_. (I have a bunch of books on the _Titanic_ and ocean liners, I’ll have to look it up). > [Ah, here we go!](http://www.uscg.mil/lantarea/iip/pics/unberg.jpg) > And according to the book Titanic-_An Illustrated History_: “Photographed on the morning of April 15 in the area of the sinking, it had a telltale smudge of red paint along its base.” > > [It was taken by the chief steward of the _Prinze Adelbert_, on the morning after sinking.](http://www.titanic-titanic.com/icebergs.shtml). And again, it states that they had not even heard of the tragedy yet, but only took the picture because of the red paint on the base If you read the [link](http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/iceberg_pfeifer.shtml) **paperbackwriter** added earlier, their research seems to refute that the red paint smudge really came from the Titanic iceberg. FWIW. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/74 "2004-07-20T01:21:25Z")
From the catalog of the British National Archives: Piece #AIR 2/4593 Covering dates: 1940-1942 Scope and content: SHIPS AND SHIPPING: General (Code B, 73/1): Sinking of S.S. LANCASTRIA Access conditions: Normal Closure 30 [years] Closure status: Open Document, Open Description Held at: The National Archives, Kew Restrictions on use: [None] ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/75 "2004-07-20T02:49:15Z")
> [@Wendell Wagner](#): > > jjimm writes: > > \> He was my uncle. > > You have an uncle who was an adult 92 years ago? Excuse my skepticism, but just how old are you? And if you’re not that old, how can you have an uncle born in the nineteenth century? **Wendell** , my grandfather (my mom’s dad) was an adult 92 years ago. And I’m not all that old (51). So an uncle’s easily conceivable. **Eve** , I can’t help but think of this as an **Eve** thread. First respondent you were to a GQ thread, and, no offense meant, this is a choice bit from what I perceive as your chosen era. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/76 "2004-07-20T03:24:48Z")
Ringo writes: \> Wendell, my grandfather (my mom’s dad) was an adult 92 years ago. And I’m \> not all that old (51). So an uncle’s easily conceivable. You’re adding a generation. I don’t doubt that someone our age (I’m 52) could easily have a grandparent whose was an adult in 1912. All my grandparents were probably adults in 1912. I believe that they were all about 20 at the time. Not many of us though on the SDMB have an uncle who was an adult in 1912. Although you and I aren’t the oldest people on the board, we’re distinctly older than average for the board. I figured then that it was unlikely that jjimm’s uncle could be an adult in 1912. Yes, it took making a couple of assumptions, but in this case my guess turned out to be right. jjimm wasn’t talking about his uncle or his great-uncle or even his great-great-uncle, but his great-great-great-uncle. I hadn’t considered the possibility that he might use the term “uncle” to mean “great-great-great-uncle.” ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/77 "2004-07-20T04:10:13Z")
Someone mentioned the first few lifeboats keeping well away from Titanic, for fear of being sucked down by its impending sinking. Does anyone know just how powerful this suction was? Or was there any at all? Are we talking about “So strong it could drag down large rowboats?” ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/78 "2004-07-20T04:15:26Z")
As it turned out, there was virtually no vortex created by the final sinking. ---
**Author:** ![PookahMacPhellimey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pookahmacphellimey/32/3175_2.png) [@PookahMacPhellimey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PookahMacPhellimey)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/79 "2004-07-20T11:04:58Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > Hmm, I would always use this to mean any number of greats removed. I don’t know if that’s cultural, dialectical, peculiar to my upbringing, or whether it’s unique to me (and that therefore I’m uniquely wrong). Perhaps some UK or Irish dopers could help me find out which is right? Hmmm, might be Irish to play fast and loose with it. There do seem to be a lot of cousins around here who are not actually first cousins so the same might go for uncles and aunts. It might just be though, that this becomes more likely to happen once you actually _like_ the person and therefore want to be associated in that way. I’m quite impressed with this though, **jjimm**! I guess it is a bit iffy to bring That Film into it, but I thought he was the most likeable character in the film by a very long margin. Part of this was due to the good acting (and looks) of Victor Garber, but as far as I have looked into (which admittedly isn’t very far) they don’t seem to have taken quite as many liberties with his character than with some of the other historical facts. Though of course you are the expert now, so you may correct me if you feel differently. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907/80 "2004-07-20T11:42:07Z")
> [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > Someone mentioned the first few lifeboats keeping well away from Titanic, for fear of being sucked down by its impending sinking. > > Does anyone know just how powerful this suction was? Or was there any at all? > Are we talking about “So strong it could drag down large rowboats?” They tried to reproduce this effect in Mythbusters and were unsuccesful. As far as I know, it’s an urban legend. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-titanic-have-been-saved/254907.md?page=5)