Lusitania only had enough lifeboats cause Titanic proved that their reliance on the Telegraph and heavily trafficked shipping routes could fail. Before Titanic no ship of the time carried enough lifeboats for everyone onboard.

​@Andy Wehrle I agree and they could save much more life if they filled the boats to its capacity. At least 500 souls. The crew had no training and was practically useless. Even if they had +2 hours and 20 more lifeboats they would still manage to kill more than half of the passengers.

I think they need to add more bulkheads aka water tight doors into big ships............. RIP

Me over 100 years later: I might watch reenactments of these ships sinking in real time on my phone 🙏

1 hour 40 minutes is not a lot of time

Woah I'm doing the math. Your great grandmother was over 100 years old.

What

They said Great Grandmother's father.

My Great Grand mother’s Friend Died on Lusitania

Bless them

You think the props were still turning once she completely went under?

@@instapizzabmx4206 That's what witnesses reported, that when the props came out of the water, they were still "lazily turning."

New Carpathia That be a sight to see

@@newcarpathia9422 wow... I never knew that. If the props were still turning while she was going down, would there be like a situation like in Britannic were people got chopped up by the props?

@@ThisIsNotAhnJieRen I'd have to check my book, wherever that is, but I don't think there's a definitive indication of speed. From the sound of things, it was too slow to suck boats in and chop them up. To hazard a guess, I'd say it was just an expression of the last bits of steam going through the turbines before the engine rooms flooded.

Lol

I guess you could say that. I mean the first class passengers probably did say, the sausages were...to die for.

Grand Master Yoda blood sausages...

....Marian Moesinger no apostrophe needed on word ..butcher...one would read who belongs to the butcher.?

@@jinajoejet3366 Whats so funny clown

I don’t think you can imagine all the horrible feelings for the people on the Titanic

PlushyMario64 Yeah, this video isn’t about the Titanic though so

But we All know titanic was worse than this,,,.sadly

There was no panic during most of the Lusitania’s sinking until the lifeboat situation

@@kevinbone5902 Titanic had survivors sooooo

I know but titanic hit an iceberg and it could sunk fast titanic but it didn’t leave a lot of holes

And this was a torpedo so it left a big hile

Lusitania and Mauretania had something of a design flaw, and the way their watertight compartments were laid out was different to Titanic's. In short, Lusitania / Mauretania's layout made severe listing to one side much more probable, which is exactly what happened. They were very lucky Lusitania didn't capsize. Titanic's design was more balanced and so rapid flooding was less likely. Having said that, Lusitania had much more catastrophic damage - and the second mysterious explosion didn't help.

@@th8257 well the bulkhead layout on Lusitania was designed to prevent a iceberg collision like Titanic

2h 22m

an mlg slug productions my condolences.

May he Rest In Peace ❤️

Condolence😭🙏

I just reseacrhed your grandfather and he was a second class passenger

I’m sorry

yea sounds like the eerie movie from the PHILIPPINES

Chilling to me

it probably means it could split any time

BrazerFolf Games titanic is what you call a slow sinking ship, she sank in 2 hours and 45 minutes i think

So darn true.

And oceanos sank in 11 hours

Titanic took just over two hours to sink in an act of God. Absolutely right you are, especially with a ship this size.

@Britannic Titanic Olympic RMS RMS HMHS no atleast 1,100 but max 1,200

Carnival Triumph

Boeing 7:47

Nowadays people have great flashlights on their phones. People back then didnt have phones

@@jesper9622 True. I'm old school so I just carry a flashlight. Nothing huge. Flashlight is easier to handle as well in a stressful situation. You can hold a flashlight in your mouth if you need both hands. Can't do that with a phone. ;)

​@@zombieshoot4318 Mm, but is your flashlight waterproof? :p If i was in a sinking ship and i didnt have diving googles with me and a waterproof flashlight, i would feel pretty much fucked. To not be able to see under water is bad.

Watch Titanic sink in real time....

@@philipanderson4673 ahahhaahahahaa! Watch Britannic sink IRT and watch the boats get chewed up by propellers!

Yeah, it's only an animation with no animation people and it had me pretty scared. The creeping water, I think.

@Bread Sandwich you would not.

@Bread Sandwich Dona Paz would like to know your location

@Bread Sandwich hell no

Gas chamber.. being impaled on stake, having your skin peeled off 1 cm at the time.. etc.. there are options if you are into all that morbid shit...

@Bread Sandwich You really wouldn't. Burning to death is one of the most (if not THE most) physically excruciating things you could possibly experience.

Yes it is

Susan, yes, war is indeed very horrible.

*king

@@miracbeyza1253 no queen

War is great!

Not for me

@ina daly so?

Cave sounds joined the chat

@@someguywithhair6439 subnautica sounds have joined the chat

I know right

The more recent MS Estonia is very much the same, people were panicking and in shock, not being able to move, since it happened so fast.

@@pho3nix- Made worse by the fact that it happened at night in really bad weather.

Another great Lusitania book to read is "dead Wake" by Erik Larson

@@maximilianeissner4759 The weather was horrible that night. But it certainly didn't help, either.

We need a trilogy called a ???? To remember.

Don’t try to cheer me up.

R.I.P

Wait what

@@MothaLuva r/HolUp

“F**K F**K AAAAAAAAAAAA”

And don't fill the holds with arms and ammunition during a world war.

Better yet, take a bus.

I’d ride the Olympic That ship is truly a Legend

Nova Typhoon She is !!

With insurance if the ship sinks you are covered

Yes

Yep

Well that's kind of obvious isn't it?

Especially at night

Pretty much

@Phil Failla Amazing isn't it, even with all his ineptitude he still accomplished his goal.

Yeah. That is also what happened with the Empress of Ireland in May 1914. She was hit by another ship while travelling through heavy fog and she went down in just 14 minutes. Most of her dead never had a chance to get out of their cabins. (The sinking of the Empress of Ireland happened in the early morning hours when most people were asleep in their cabins)

I know right...

And having the lights go out on you so fast that just as the movie shows.

True, the cargo of small arms ammunition was a war cargo (but pretty small-time stuff compared to what would be on actual cargo ships). It wasn't even a secret, being listed on the US customs documentation. Various conspiracy theories (most of which were probably started by Germany) suggested Lusitania was carrying explosives but there remains zero evidence of that, even after diving expeditions. But even if Lusitania had not had a war cargo onboard, U-20 would STILL have sunk it regardless which makes the cargo argument seem very hollow. Schwieger decided it was a target upon seeing the vessel. It could have been the German High Command onboard for all the difference it would have made to his decision. However, it was a safe assumption that given it was a huge passenger liner, it was bound to be full of women and children - many of whom were going to be Americans and other neutral foreign nationals. Shooting first and asking questions later may or may not have furthered Germany's war aims - that couldn't be foreseen. It was however 100% guaranteed to be mass murder and a PR disaster for a country already widely accused of war crimes. I still find it unfathomable why Schwieger didn't signal the Lusitania to stop and abandon ship before proceeding to sink her. Of all the vessels it should have been common sense not to destroy without allowing innocent lives to escape - she was surely the one!

There is the same rumor for MS Estonia, that's why they wanted to seal it with concrete, and there is even a law, who forbids to go dive near the ship. They even managed to dump a lot of ballast in the sea, just to cover the big 4m hole made potentially by a submarin, spying the MS Estonia.

@GunslingerXXI Thanks for your well reasoned points, even if I disagree with some of them. If blockades were supposed to be illegal, then what do you think the Germans were trying to do to Britain with submarine warfare if not to starve the nation out? It was well known to Germany that Britain couldn't feed itself so was dependent on food imports. Restricting the enemies' access to resources is one of the fundamental aspects of warfare. Blaming the disintegration of Cruiser Rules on the British is a bit much. Both sides still tended to obey the rules with surface vessels. Arming merchant ships isn't against those rules either. Submarine warfare by its very nature was what obsoleted cruiser rules (not that any side had quite figured that out). Unlike a traditional commerce raider which could shrug off or outrun any belligerent action by a merchant ship, submarines were extremely vulnerable even to basic naval weapons. This meant those worthless little guns on merchant shipping that would barely scratch an armoured cruiser's paintwork were suddenly vital defences. The British were hardly alone in that realisation either. Germany also created armed merchant ships for the purpose of fending off raiders or doing some raiding. (there was even a weird incident where two fought with each other. Look up the SMS Cap Trafalgar for a very weird naval battle). One area I do absolutely agree with you is that something bad was bound to happen as a result of this messy new system of warfare. I'm not saying Schwieger had to stick to cruiser rules all the time, if ever (as stated, if you have a U-boat then it's foolish to do so). He could silently hunt cargo shipping until his heart was content. That's just the ruthless cost of war. What I am saying is that the Lusitania was an ultra high-profile vessel bound to have innocent civilians from neutral nations onboard. Even if we sanction those civilian murders, it's still a REALLY dumb target to choose. The PR fallout was so bad that here we are STILL debating it a century later! The legitimacy of the target isn't the point I'd debate, as before stated - it was a target, and the British were undoubtedly walking a morally dubious line with placing war cargoes onboard liners. But the U-20's decision to fire flung morality out the window and would mean a diplomatic disaster for Germany. Hell, had U-20 just let it sail by, the US may never have joined the war. Without Lusitania's sinking beginning a 2 year build up of ever increasing anti-German sentiment, the situation for the US may never have become so intolerable as to make them take up arms. One historian I've read goes so far as to label the Lusitania as the event that ended any chance Germany had of victory. I don't go that far myself. I think Germany did plenty more to provoke the US, but the negative impact was undeniable. It was compounded further by Germany's own response to the sinking which was to essentially thumb it up as a success even as neutral nations published horrified headlines around the globe. As I said previously. Of all the ships in U-20's cross-hairs, The Lusitania was the one to play it by the book and warn before sinking. That done, Lusitania would still be on the Ocean floor, and nobody would be having debates over the morality of it being there. But Schwieger fired. Knowingly sinking a cruise liner full of non-combatants. Unknowingly kneecapping Germany's war objectives.

@@CountScarlioni the sinking of the Lusitania did not bring the amaricans into the first world war. They joined 2 years after the Lusitania sank. The amaricans would have still joined the war as the germans sent a telegram to Mexico inviting them to invade amarica.

The secret wasn't that Lusitania had munitions on board, that wasn't hidden, just not publicized. The scandalous secret was that the Admiralty knew the U-20 was in the immediate area and did not warn Lusitania and did not provide naval escort even though there were numerous Royal Navy warships close enough to do so standing idle. The British WANTED Lusitania to be attacked in hope of drawing the United States into the war. She was BAIT. The British government killed all those people.

good god........

Cal. What a jerk

He didn’t “remarry”

@Frederick Kellett Titanic

Cal was a jerk

I woundint sleep on a life boat if your a heavy sleeper and then ropes holding the boat snap your gona end up in the ocean and probably get sucked it two the moving props

@@Grape-Juice Yeah. Ropes snapping sounds like something that never happens. Considering they are inspected in every port. On the other hand the Germans sank 5000 ships during WWI. I'll take my chances with the rope.

@@dflatt1783 lifeboats failing is very common actually. in ww2 it was just as common as it was in ww1. even with the more recent modern day cruise ship sinking of the costa concordia, some lifeboats were slipping due to the ships listing.

@@dflatt1783: 5000?

I don't think they allow you to do that..

There was also fire and explosions on board, everyone is forgetting two explosive torpedoes struck and exploded inside a very combustible ship, below the water line, in the engine and coal compartments. The smoke, fire, twisted steel and carnage in the ship with loss of power and lights within a few minutes would have been horrific. Probably most of the survivors were on the upper decks.

I read where the reasons for shutting down the forward most boiler room was the lack of available stokers due to the war. Her speed was still adequate enough to outrun a U Boat but she had slowed to go around the Old Head of Kinsale when she was torpedoed. The torpedo ignited coal dust in the empty forward bunkers blowing out the bottom of the ship just ahead of the bridge. Many folks thought the coal dust exploding was a second torpedo.

@@allegheny48 The problems with getting enough personnel was mostly centered around experienced deck hands and able bodied seamen who knew how to do all the things necessary to help with the day to day functioning of the ship. So, Cunard simply hired inexperienced deck hands (and I am sure the same held for the black crew - the stokers). Regarding the second explosion, you can ditch the idea of coal dust igniting. It was too long after the torpedo strike to be coal dust, and the environment of the wing coal bunkers in the North Atlantic weren’t conducive to coal dust being particulate air matter. Why? Because first of all, coal dust is rather heavy and sticky. It likes to cling to stuff and isn’t especially easy to get into a cloud-like state. Does this rule out all coal dust explosions? No, but onboard that ship (or most any ship, for that matter) sailing through the cold waters fo the Irish Sea, there was something interesting going on. The difference between the temperature in the water outside the hull and the temp inside the wing bunkers (and especially the boiler rooms adjacent to the wing bunkers) was vastly different, by close to fifty degrees (about 50 or 51 degrees Fahrenheit water and around 100 or more inside the boiler rooms). The temperature difference cause lots and lots of condensation in the wing bunkers as a result, with the bulkheads dripping - even streaming - water. Add to that the typical minor leaking in a iron plate ship (lots of puddles in the bunkers as a result) and you have an environment where coal dust won’t make it into cloud form, will cling to every surface, and will act more like sludge than dust. See Diana Preston’s “Lusitania - An Epic Tragedy” to learn more, specifically in appendix B, where she writes “Even if we ignore the almost instantaneous spray of seawater that accompanied the rapid flooding of the bunkers after the torpedo detonated, the coal dust would almost certainly not have ignited. The dampness of the compartments would have prevented the dust from being shaken uniformly into the air to create an explosive aerosol.” The best explanation for the second explosion several seconds after the torpedo strike was a ruptured steam line. See the same appendix in her book for an explanation of it and how it likely took place.

Are you possibly ignoring the ship's change of course INTO the range of the U-Boat's torpedoes?

Murder on The High Sea yet they claim they were only following orders ... what makes men so low?

@@alphalunamare the Lusitania did have 4 million rounds of artillery shells on board so the real monsters are the ones who lied to the passengers who said it was just a passenger liner

And it was a bad idea

Captain smith for whatever reason said not to fill the lifeboat to full capacity

Serious question.. how would the ship be moving if they vented all the steam?

Dadul Ludad She would have been moving under her own momentum from the moment she lost engine power.

A 700 ft long liner like Lusitania takes time to stop time that passengers and crew just didn't have

18 minutes

@@robertyoung3992 yes.

I Have A Titanic Profile Picture. Imo a real time sinking video is very appropriate for the anniversary of the sinking of a ship

I Have A Titanic Profile Picture. I have seen you on spammals his channel

@I Have A Titanic Profile Picture. Yes you do

Yeah by making it sink again lol

today.... 106th.

Wow...

Lucky

No you don't

@Ralph Dougherty, he could be lying but who knows? Maybe he is telling the truth.

Wooah

But was the Hindenburg a Nazi?

So they still ended up going down with the ship.

It's on Amazon prime video. I love that show too !

The shells were more forward of where the torpedo struck, it struck the boiler room and not the cargo holds which already completely debunks the whole thing

Yeah I love metal but this type of video isn't the place for it. I want to HEAR the ship sink as well as see it

Ikr, like the famous britannic sleeping sun edit some idiot made

@@tripwire3992 honestly, i think sleeping sun is fitting for a sinking ship. I dunno why, but especially the refrain sorta fits the horrifying yet majestic aesthetic of sinking ships

The music as the captions read "Lusitania is gone in just 18 minutes" captures the tragedy so perfectly, disbelief and grief

same with the HMHS Britannic she was 883 feet long and sank in 400 feet of water and one a bit more modern the SS Edmund Fitzgerald was 729 feet long and sank in 530 feet of water

Yea next thing you knew it's all dark and water rushes in, pretty horrible

@@bagel4944 how can you say "pretty terrible" its actually the worst thing that can happend

I never knew there was a Lucy connection to Wyoming. Thank you for this!

This sinking isn't very accurate. The propellers didn't remain on the entire time, the funnels didn't collapse, and it listed much more to the starboard side.

I made that comment 2 years ago@@DutchyImWithYou

@@RobloxianX ah.

Cold water, where did this happen

@@willbrown423 right off the coast of ireland

The water wasnt cold, it was more warm than cold.

Im pretty sure no funnels collapsed, and she didn't list hard enough for people to be crushed by her funnel.

Liverpool is just it's home port

i like pools

Why it was war time?

Although horrible what happened I think that's very interesting although very sad 😔

@@tripwire3992 me to

Thanks for the feedback. Who knows, I may re do it sometime

You can see what's happening, the decks flood, everything slowly starts flooding

I'm reading Dead Wake, by Erik Larson. An incredibly detailed account of the Lusitania's last crossing. He uses survivor's accounts to reconstruct the entire voyage, and in particular the last 18 minutes. It is quite haunting to read. This animation is a nice account of the ship listing and sinking, but recreating the horror and frantic disbelief on the decks would certainly make for difficult viewing. Check out the book. It is well written.

Titanic ruptured further towards the bow therefore it sunk at a different angle out of the water to the Lusitania.

Why are you talking about the titanic? This video isn't about it

@@joshuarivet4752 Due to similarities of design, I think people compare it to the Titanic quite often.

But titanic is white star line and Lusitania is Cunard line.

@@pho3nix- Basically, yes. They both had the same number of funnels and similar design style. But overall, technically and virtually, completely different breeds of ocean liners.

There were plenty of disasters that happened in broad daylight that were much worse than the Titanic’s sinking.

lol it would have to be a short film

@@bacdimane two words. Slow motion

there are lusitania movie in 2007 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i8-Gd7KHvM3TXYE.html

Titanic creators: Hell no we don't wanna make another ship for 3 years

It would be drawn out to 4 hours

the Andrea Doria took 11 hours to sink

Have you ever seen the movie about the Lusitania? It did great job showing how terrifying its sinking really was.

Wait what

That's a.good way to respect those who died there

My father remembered being shewn the newspaper headlines for the 1912 sinking of that other liner and then after the Great War he spoke to the lighthouse keeper who was on watch at the Old Head of Kinsale when the Lusitania went down.

They actually believe it was a boiler exploding but...sure

That's a theory which, to my knowledge, has never been confirmed. Much more likely, it was a coal dust explosion. Nearly-empty bunkers, after a transatlantic crossing, would be full of dust - essentially a huge fuel-air bomb. All it would have needed was a source of ignition.

@@stephenp448 it was confirmed by the UK MoD

@@arthurmead5341 The MOD is hardly an unbiased source.

Toon Van den broeck, the reason it sank so fast were... 1. The watertight doors weren’t closed. 2. The Torpedo that sank the ship, hit an area with high amounts of gunpowder in it causing a second explosion. 3. Passengers were all going to the lifeboats which caused uneven weight of both sides of the ship. 4. Most of the port holes were left open.

It was believed to be coal dust that caused the secondary explosion because she was near the end of her crossing and the coal bunker was almost empty

@@BigBravesFan1331 oh

@@caseyjr296 sorry to hear that

Ireland

I believe God made this ship sink just so this this video would be made just so this one person could see it and make this banger of a joke

Godspeed

• Swxxtener • 18

Eeewwww your so ugly

@@TomJerry-dl5xs no need to be an asshole

@@TomJerry-dl5xs that's Ren from Ren and Stimpy

German. What did you expect.

Kapitan Tomek heart*

Absolutely.

Yes this notice was published by CUNARD in newspapers before Lusitania's voyage

And now it's known that there was indeed ammunition and war materials on board. It was a legitimate military target after all.

And did your teachers show you the US newspapers were the german embassy warned travellers to go to europe ( On the same page above is the article about Lusitania going to Europe.) Did they tell you about the Q-Ships ? Or why the Lusitania had to go south of Ireland instead going north ( to sink a ship with americans is a clever way to get the US into the war).And did they tell you about the mystery of the exploding 37 tons white cheese ?

@@michaelpielorz9283 there was De Brie everywhere!

I just woke up so an hour to go

Presuming that everything you say here is correct, the Germans still could have given warning, opportunity for the innocent people aboard to abandon ship before firing. No, they were not right to do it.

@@johnboehmer6683 well yes and no. It would’ve been an easy chance for them to radio in the U-boats coordinates…

@@johnboehmer6683 the germans did try to warn people no to board these ships as they were carrying "war material" and so they would be considered targets, using full pages on newspapers and everything, but then you have 2 things, first the allies believed that a ship as fast as Lusitania couldnt be targeted by a much slower U-boat, and second, they were expecting that these civilians would be a good shield against attacks. In the end, the germans did kill a lot of innocent people in this ship, but given the circustances, seems that people are going "too hard" on the germans and not hard enough on the allies who had also a great part on this deaths by knowingly using innocent people as meat shields.

@@13dg I would agree with you on all that except for one thing, that it's never been confirmed that they actually did stow war materials aboard. I've read the arguments for and against whether they actually did or not, and it remains inconclusive. But yeah, if they did, it would seem all involved had some blame.

Who started the war? IMO that's where the majority of blame would be for everything that happened during it. There is no cheating on rules of a war that is never started.

@Luca Yates I suppose that the current over the years moves shipwrecks?

Shut up he was a 100ft smaller than the Titanic

DARK SLANKER so was your brain, but compared to a fly.

@@sirankleknocker3122 abe sale tujhe jhws?

Titanic had an entirely different deck lay out

@@sirankleknocker3122 r/rareinsults

That would explain the second explosion and how fast it sunk.

@@rtlstien Nah id chuck that last part up to the fact that the ship was heavily loaded and also a civilian cruise liner that wasnt built to handle the type of damage a torpedo causes.

They actually believe a boiler exploded but...you know...sure...why not... btw, what is an "artillery grenade"?

@@ralphdougherty1844 I dont think it was one of the shells that went off. Had it done so, that wouldve caused a chain reaction that wouldve shredded the ship. For reference, look at what happened to the japanese carriers sunk at Midway. If thats what happens to an aircraft carrier, a ship thats designed to survive punishment like interior explosions from a dropping bomb, what do you think would happen to a 1900s cruise liner?

Coal dust explosion. Coal is highly flammable in its own right, dust even more so. Coal dust floating around in the bunkers would be like a fuel-air bomb. Add in a source of ignition - like a torpedo going off - and it's going to ruin anyone's day.

gabriel alvarado it took 18 minutes for Lusitania to sink.

Too fast? She went down in only 18 minutes, for real.