“She’s unimplodable!”

Hahaha

And she will.

Down *there* there is nowhere to run.

Carbon fiber is an amazing, versatile material...but I don't know why anyone would think it's a good idea to make a sub that would go 2 miles under the ocean out of it

Agreed.

I like this one too… “I assure you she can… and she will.. it is a mathematical certainty.”

Even though Titanic wasn't made of iron. She was made of steel.

I have to disagree. The line blatantly lies in many ways, such as that Titanic was made primarily of steel, and the line also implies she was made of a faulty material, when in reality the steel she was built with was the highest quality available in 1912.

@@theminingassassin16 Under the circumstances, give him some slack...

Yeah, the scene in 1997 is very intense, but it's the less real of them all. Actually there was not such meeting in which Andrews and the captain explained to the crew what will happen. Just like in the 1958 version, there was a meeting between Andrews and captain Smith (it's possible that Ismay was there too), in which they decided not no cause any panic. They told to very few people that the ship will sink, and to rest of the crew (including some officers) they told them that the ship in "big trouble", that the situation is "very serious", and so on. And the crew had to DEDUCE from their own experience and captain's and Andrews' faces what is going to happen.

@@raynoraynov5651 The real crew made a lot of mistakes from the outset on how to handle the disaster. This includes having a basically untrained and inexperienced crew. In my opinion the decision NOT to tell everyone the ship was going to sink was probably one of the best decisions they could have made. The last thing they needed was a panic. I was in the Atlantic, at midnight, at approximately their location at the same time of the year. I have great vision and I doubt I'd have seen the iceberg.

@@megabittech how did they have an untrained and inexperienced crew? Really, they did not make that many mistakes. probably the biggest one was the gang way door that was left open but its doubtful that would have made much a difference.

​@@MrChickennugget360They weren't properly trained in how to conduct an evacuation. No drills had been conducted. Most of the crew didn't know what their role was supposed to be in an evacuation. Nobody knew how to launch the collapsible lifeboats, so only one of them was able to be used properly. A lot of lifeboats left half full. The crew assigned to row the lifeboats had often never rowed a boat before (being cooks and stewards, not sailors). The evacuation was a complete mess.

It was the maiden voyage. The crew wasn't really untrained or inexperienced, but they were just getting used to Titanic.

And completely removed Captain Obvious.

South Park!!

*VERY* funny... 😖

Well, George C. Scott was not about to have his captain be educated by the shipbuilder... He was kinda notorious for ruling the set.

He was right tho. By putting the engines in reverse, they lost a significant amount of maneuverability. Even if they had struck the iceberg still, it likely would've been only a very slight graze and it would've stayed well afloat. The same has been argued for years if it had hit the iceberg head on. It would've taken significant damage surely, but that damage likely would've been contained only to a small portion of the bow. It would've taken on water no doubt possibly may still have sunk, but it's been suggested it would've taken *FAR* longer to sink, possibly upwards of a day, more than enough time for help to arrive.

⁠@@vincentverona7773 It’s a good scene, a little too calm as you are eluding to. I think the 1997 takes that scene as it’s very similar and adds more urgency to it, which is the best depiction.

@@vincentverona7773 people like him are mentally strong and calm minded. That's why they in that position.

@@haydenmalesky2518 Shame this video cuts most of it out!

1997 is the only believable depiction.

@@VanishedPNW Yeah, but that film also slanders just about all of the crewmen and Bruce Ismay, which ANTR did not. No needless mud flinging or scapegoating in that film.

I think is the best movie, more realistic, even if the didnt have the technology that Cameron have for his movie, the acting, the way the passengers act at first not believing something bad would happened, and I also like that they include both the Californian and the Carpathia, a very good film

@@vincentverona7773 Maybe a Little cold, I hear that he always act very composed, not panic, and the director wanted to transmit that, the only thing I know is that he die where all the movies put him, but before he was helping loading the boats.

​@vincentverona7773 wasn't he an engineer?

These roles were played by actors who had survived the second world war and would have experienced the blitz and tens of thousands of casualties among their countrymen fighting the Nazi war machine. It is understandable that they would have had to act in a restrained and philosophical manner when contemplating mortal danger. @@vincentverona7773

It was so good because they had one of the surviving officers, Boxhall, advise on set. It’s why later films follow the trend of A Night to Remember.

I was thinking the same but then you could imagine the captain going crazy as his first officer says he didn't even attempt to avoid it.

That version is very inaccurate though. Captain Smith did not berate Murdoch after the striking like that, and he would never have suggested ramming an iceberg as a viable course of action, no officer would. Murdoch did not reverse the engine during the attempt to evade the iceberg, and first Officer Murdoch only wore Two braids on his sleeve, not three as shown in that production. They seemed confused about the position of "First Officer" in the White Star hierarchy, Murdoch was third in command after Chief officer Wilde who DID wear three braids.

@@lesigh1749 I agree with you, this scene must be fictional. On the other hand it shows the intention of the screenwriter to put on screen the various theories which have been developed since then regarding both the avoidance of the collision and the reduction of the damage inflicted. He does so via fictitious dialogue between Smith and Murdoch.

If they had hit the ice berg head on though the bow would have smashed killing hundreds of people and Murdoch would have to explain why he intentionally killed people instead of trying to get out of the way. No one could have predicted there would be a side swipe that would do the perfect amount of damage to sink it, especially when they had seconds to react.

This one irritated me. There is no record of Captain Smith berating Murdoch or these tactics being discussed on the night. They were more concerned with what was happening and what they do than what had happened. The debates about a straight on collision or stopping engines altogether on the port around didn’t happen till afterwards. A Night to Remember and James Cameron’s Titanic (essentially a remake of A Night to Remember) are the most accurate depictions of what was truly said.

"I assure you, she can"*

Everything that floats sinks, even a sheet of paper.

I love when the captain asks Murdoch how many is aboard and he replies 2200 souls on bird sir.

Smith is Guilty more than Ismaay...

It does lose a bit of its weight when you realize the line "we must make headlines" was invented specifically for the movie

The absolute definitive line in the entire movie.

It literally WAS NOT. It was literally testified n court b Elizabeth Lindsey, a first class passenger, that she overheard Ismay and Smith speaking about speed. While, it was probabky a more EQUAL conversation, as in them BOTH wanting to push it for glory, it was definitely said ... At afternoon tea non-the less. "The we must make headlines absolutely happened, but it was more likely followed up by a "Oh, I agree" from a retiring smith. All James Cameron did wrong was letting smith off the hook,. Google Elizabeth Lindasey Titanic testimonial" for a read, its quiet interested. Cameron even has someone playing/credited as her setting behind them as the conversation happens.@@TechnologicallyTechnical

He ripped off the idea that the Titanic sinks too

Same exact feelings for me after watching A night to remember. Some of the clips were copied without an edit.

@@Recessio Good one! Is that what happened? 🤣

To be fair a lot of ANTR and Titanic are based on specific eyewitness accounts or the inquiry findings so there will be some scenes that are similar because they’re going off the exact same source material

But the guy explaining the damage in ANTR made horrible smiling facial expressions, as if he was the James Bond and he just decoded his enemies plans. Not to mention the flawed direction of him being in absolutely NO HURRY in his body language.

My vote is the latter. I might be remembering wrong, but I don't think ANTR has a foreshadowing line earlier in the film that would make it more impactful than it already is. The latter had Ismays line that foreshadows Smiths.

@@jenniferhiemstra5228 I agree that is what makes that line so powerful. I still think in ANTR the line is powerful because in the moment it shows how helpless the Captain and Andrews are, how the country’s top experts on boat safety somehow let this scenario slip past them and how 1,500 people are about to pay the ultimate price for their negligence.

I think they were too calm under such situation, the 1997 version did better (I’m only talking about this scene tho)

But what I don’t like about captain Smith in 1997 version is that he let his panic get in the way too much that he couldn’t do anything even though he is a head captain, not so professional.

They had no idea at that point that help was so far away which probably explains the lack of panic

@@m.45 From what I've read, that is exactly what happened with Smith in real life. Officers suggested to him actions to take and he agreed. He was probably in a shock state and probably couldn't think much. So the 1997 depicted that accurately.

I dont mind that Cameron's Titanic incorporated this into the dialog though. It was a great scene and Andrews' beats throughout was so well done ("but not five...NOT five" as an example) that it added to the tension well. In my opinion.

That’s interesting. Thanks

Harland & Wolff almost certainly knew this already. The design specifications included exact measurements, noting material thickness and compartment volumes. Knowing the hull displacement, it's relatively easy to calculate how much water it would take to put the bulkhead tops below sea level. The damage they calculated back then led them to conclude that 300 feet of the ship had been torn open, and we know now that wasn't the case - only 6 openings along 260 feet of the starboard bow actually exist on the hull, none of them any wider than 2 or 3 inches and individually no longer than 5 or 6 feet.

and there was somehow as demonstration when her sister, the Olympic, got crushed by a war ship :o

@@sakuchaoran5985 Lol it wasn't the Olympic that got crushed, you have it the other way round. Olympic survived relatively unscathed but it was Olympic that rammed a German warship, which sank from the damage (the warship, not Olympic)

Mighty effort in representing the engineers and crew. The true hero's of the disaster

It is actually misrepresented that they all died at their posts. They were relieved and made it top side in good time. They, like most of the others on board, didn't survive the cold waters.

Also, the drunk Baker is pure comedy.

@@fredfredburger5150 Yes, that was a nice touch.

Agreed. The best of 'em all.

​@@fredfredburger5150 It may be funny, but it really happened.

lol

All hindsight for sure - let’s say they hit the iceberg head on and dozens died instead of the ship sinking - there still would be hell to pay at the inquiry that would follow -

The problem is an iceberg is much larger underneath, then she is above the surface. With the pore maneuverability of Titanic, the proper answer would have been to take the hit on the bow. One would have to have the time to think that through, however. It is also counter-intuitive.

That's almost a Monty Python sketch! 😂

@@christopherkerr1693 “Captain Smith, how many ships have you lost?” “By the grace of God, every one I’ve ever been on! Because when I see danger, I take it head on. Iceberg? Ram it! Island? Ram it! Another ship? Buoy? Sand bar? Ram it! If you try to go around things, you’ll expose your broadside. This will not do”

I'm quite sure he would have brought up the point about putting the engines in reverse

Sorry, video would have been copyright claimed

Yes. The longer version (I know why it was shortened) shows Andrews explaining it similarly to ANTR. A but more dramatically, but similar lines.

@@CaptainJZHhow would it have been copyright claimed? There’s loads of videos on here showing the full scene from Cameron’s titanic. They’ve been up for years

@@AJediSurvivor idk tell that to youtube it's a crapshoot whether your clip gets blocked or not, the ones that are up are up because the copyright holders allow those specific ones to be up

Fantastic as Patton as well

Which film clip was that? 1996?

Yeah, George C. Scott and his ol' clenched-teeth anger routine. With a voice like that, he sounds like he should be the captain of a pirate ship.

I agree even though the 96 movie has problems (they all do) I think he is the best captain

A Night To Remember is probably one of the greatest British films ever made. Cameron's film is heavily dramatized and has the irritating love-story using the disaster as a backdrop as well as leaning heavily into the myths of the story; Ismay ordering more speed, the Third Class passengers being locked below decks etc. All nonsense. Mr Andrews has his proper accent in A Night To Remember. He was Anglo-Irish and they affected RP British accents. The Cameron film has Victor Garber adopting a Northern Irish accent, mostly to keep with the Brit-bashing present throughout the film.

It's regarded as the most accurate retelling of the story. Only hole in it (pun intended?) is that the ship doesn't break apart, which they didn't have proof of at the time. Fantastic film.

​@@DomWeaselWon 11 Academy Awards, sounds like they did something right

@@zackiej89 Yes, they dumbed it down and pandered to the lowest common denominator.

⁠​⁠​⁠@@DomWeaselhe love story is in the film only because Fox wouldn’t green light the film without it. Cameron’s main goal was always making a big budget Titanic movie and dramatised is the last word I’d use to describe it. Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films are dramatised. Also, A Night to Remember depicted locking the 3rd class passengers below deck and plenty of other myths too. Just fyi.

I was just thinking out of all the films this was an atmospheric masterclass!!

A naval architect, not a designer. A designer designs chairs, sofas and clothes. A naval architect designs vessels.

​@@spiritusIRATUShi. Architect architect here. We're all designers. Designer is a blanket term. But if you mean as a designer in a ranking position. Then no he is an architect and not a designer. But overall, architects are all designers.

@@spiritusIRATUS Architect is synonymous with designer

It was good that he was on board. One, if anyone could figure out a way to save the ship it was Andrews. The second, if he had stayed behind he would of been blamed and spent the rest of his life in disgrace. They would of wanted someone to blame.

@@drutalero2962 Architects are not engineers. You only know some basic structural stuff, most of your modules are abstract design ones. Naval Architects are engineers, most of us marine engineers too.

I disagree, one of the most important keys to creating good film is understanding how to write emotional scenes in a way that feels genuine. ANTR tells a good story, but fails at conveying emotions. That whole "very British" is an excuse for bad writing.

@@keepernod2888 You're forgetting two things....the era this film was made and time period of the event. The 40's and 50s was a very different approach to acting than it is now, but also the Brits very much were more stoic back then than we know them to be now. But you're correct about situational emotions. Which is why I tend to appreciate 1997 in terms of balance. Garber neither underdoes or overdoes it. He's panicking, but doesn't make that the whole scene, he back off and then is stating plain truth. It's a balancing act to convey truth emotions, but you still have to do that in context of time period, social standing, etc. In ANTR he was plainly stating facts but clearly was using that to hide panic. That's a a valid acting choice as well.

They react to hearing the news that Titanic will sink as if they were putting on a garden party and were upset that a sudden rain storm made them cancel it.

That's the thing though. The only reason so many died was the water temperature. Most people expected to simply jump at the last moment and their life vests would keep them afloat until rescue. How many realized how cold the water truly was or what that meant? Not many.

@@jayhemfindsyou I'd say most people knew they would probably die, at least once the ship started sinking at a higher rate. Most people didn't know how to swim, not everyone had a vest on, and also the air temperature was low, it's not like they didn't know it was cold.

The worst maritime disaster was during WW2, the Wilhelm Gustov was trying to evacuate mostly civilians (soldiers as well though, so was a legitimate target) away from advancing soviet soldiers. A soviet subs spotted her and sunk her, about 9,400 people died in the icy waters off the coast of Sweden and Finland.

@@The_Greedy_Orphan Just read the story and it was fascinating, specially about the soviet submarine captain Aleksandr Marinesko, author of that massacre and 10 days after, he sank another german ship killing other 4500 germans, interestingly enough, instead of honoring him as a war hero, the soviets sent him to a concentration camp and ended his days as a homeless person

@@The_Greedy_Orphan Single Ship yes, but overall no... the destruction of entire fleets like the 1274 and 1281 storms killed far more than 9,400 in a single event.

Oh yeah, I was waiting for him to slap that officer for being a foul-up! 🤣

He's a great actor but this is by far the worst depiction of the scene. The whole suggestion of ramming head on being suggested at that moment is daft. Yes, we know today that this would have been a good idea but nobody in their right mind would have considered it in that moment. Also Scott plays Smith as an American, for an American audience. Not meant as an insult to the USA, but what I mean here is that Americans often confuse British stoicism [as depicted brilliantly in A Night to remember] as being too calm, or suggesting a lack of urgency for the situation at hand. However, Scott's Smith is too emotional, for a Brit in 1912, remaining calm in a situation like this was of absolutely paramount importance. The greatest known example of this is demonstrated by the band, who played calmly on deck until it was impossible to do so. This is not exclusively a British thing. Many society Americans on board demonstrated similar stoicism in the face of death. Remaining calm was what a gentleman would do. So for me, Scott's emotion, only detracts from the scene.

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 "Get this damn coward off my bridge, he defiles this place of honor! Get him off now before I shoot him myself!"

I thought he was channeling Ebeneezer Scrooge (best Christmas Carol movie of all time).

Not requiring one lifeboat seat for each passenger Traveling too fast for the conditions Reversing the engines and other miscalculations that cost them time The arrogance of thinking that it was "unsinkable". The arrogance of wealth that they were more deserving of life and thus given preference in lifeboat seating.

None of this is really true. People need to learn to separate myth (no matter HOW much they're repeated in film and media) and reality

​​​​@@tomscott4438None of these points have merit and here's why 1 - Lifeboats were NOT a primary life-saving device in 1912. The previous wrecks of the SS Norge and SS Atlantic, which were still fresh in people's minds back then, are excellent examples - in both cases, lifeboat davits failed and the boats were overturned during launch, spilling passengers into the sea; heavy winds and waves smashed the lifeboats to pieces against the hulls of these big ships; and heavy waves eventually flooded and capsized many of the other lifeboats. The Atlantic ocean is notoriously stormy and NOT a safe place for small, wooden boats. Lifeboats back then had only ONE purpose - ferry the passengers of a sinking liner to the rescue ship that would hopefully be nearby. Law required the Titanic to carry 16 boats. She carried 20. While Alexander Carlisle designed her to carry 48, they would had to have placed the extra boats inside the main outer row. This would clutter the deck and prevent easy access between the bow and stern, requiring passengers to climb over the superstructure to get around the extra boats. While this may seem a mild inconvenience at first, this would be absolutely unacceptable in an emergency where passengers need to evacuate quickly. Also, we didn't have computer simulations back then, so there was no way to know how all that extra weight up top would affect the Titanic's stability, not with precision anyway. They played it safe (in their minds, at the time) for the maiden voyage and opted for the regulatory amount plus 4 extra boats with consideration to add more boats later on 2 - Too fast for what conditions? They were in an open ocean with no known obstructions, clear conditions and no ice. Despite what you may have heard, Smith did NOT ignore ice warnings - in fact he adjusted course and put the Titanic some 60 nautical miles further South, into an area of the shipping lanes where NO icebergs were being reported. It just happened to be bad luck that the Labrador current flowed further South than usual that year, and brought a single, stray iceberg with it and that iceberg travelled directly into the ship's path. A coldwater mirage called the polar inversion (which we didn't even know about until recently) also prevented them from seeing it until they were directly on top of it too, so even binoculars would not have helped the lookouts or the crew on the bridge 3 - They did not reverse the engines, they only stopped them. This idea that the engines were reversed came from 4th Officer Joseph Boxhall, who was NOT on active duty (or on the bridge) during the collision. Every other surviving officer and relevant crewmen asserted the ship's engines had simply been stopped. Had she been reversed, the ship wouldn't have turned at all. The rudder requires rushing water over it in order to redirect the flow to turn the hull. This doesn't work when the reversed props are cancelling out the built-up wake via destructive interference 4 - The Titanic was NEVER heralded as being "unsinkable" and I wish this myth would just go away already, it's one of the most egregious. Another ship had previously struck an iceberg completely head-on and survived, with only her forward compartment flooded. Ships of that day were designed to float even if the first compartment was flooded. White Star opted to design Olympic and Titanic to be able to float with not just one, but FOUR in a row. This was considered massively over-engineered for the time, and compared to any other ship on the water it certainly was 5 - This point is also untrue. Gates that separated the classes were NOT locked (no matter WHAT Cameron claims, this simply did not happen) it's just that 3rd-Class passengers were located further down on lower decks and took longer to reach the boat deck than the 1st Class and 2nd Class passengers, who were generally housed closer up top

​@@tomscott4438lifeboats had different purpose. Incidents like SS Atlantic sinking showed lifeboats were a last resort of escape only. They saw it as a death trap. Incidents like RMS Republic floating long enough for rescue showed lifeboats were best used as ferries to transport passengers from sinking ship to rescue ship. That's why lifeboat numbers were calculated based on ship's size, not passenger capacity. It was not Titanic exclusive, all big ships at the time didn't have enough boats. It was standard practice to pass potential dangerous waters as fast as they could and only stop if they saw something serious. Captains who testified in the inquiries said they would've done what Smith did. It was a passenger ship that had to maintain a schedule. There was no reason to stop unless they had something serious. Titanic didn't reverse engine. The first order given was to Stop. They nearly pulled off a miracle within 37 seconds. Nobody thought she was unsinkable. She was described by Harland and Wolff and publications like shipbuilder magazine as 'practically unsinkable '. The press publicised it as Unsinkable. The RMS Republic floating long enough for rescue and RMS Olympic surviving Hawke collision all reaffirmed this notion among people and things later got exaggerated as Unsinkable. There were no preferences based on money. Stop believing everything the movies say. They aren't the best sources for facts. The accomodations for first class were more close to the boat deck. So they had ease of access. The third class had accomodations far away and the language barriers and maze like corridor designs all contributed to poor navigation. Reluctance to leave life savings was also a problem.They got up late. That's why more casualties were among steerage, and the fact that they were the most in numbers amond the whole passengers.

Also the fact that the keys to the binocular cabinet stayed behind in portsmouth, when the then active officer was replaced, due to his wife giving birth. If the lookouts had the binoculars, they might have spotted the iceberg sooner

Only a lunatic would watch as his liner sails headfirst into an iceberg (or anything for that matter). Had Murdoch gone headfirst into the berg, I guarantee he'd be vilified by the media and the public, possibly even arrested.

but that didnt happent.. also Murdoch maneouver was more complex.. he ordered a reverse of the turn half-contact to steer the rear away from the iceberg after the impact happent..

Picard should have said that to Riker after the Generations Battle.

I was thinking the exact same.

He survived though whilst others perished - woman and children! He should have gone down with the ship!

Nahhhhh. That's easy to say from the comfort of your modern life in 2023. If you were actually on a sinking ship in the North Atlantic in 1912, you would absolutely get in a lifeboat.@@kerraptregolls4929

And the missing binoculars. And the speed. Captain Smith was in charge and had the final say so it was down to him. I still can’t believe safety regulations allowed half the lifeboats. They might as well have said “ yea we’re good if half the people die “ I’ll never understand that.

This is why the movie is a masterpiece. I also think it was the most historically accurate AND most dramatic depiction of the scene.

As a Maintenance Engineer I feel you man, I have to explain why it takes time to fix a machine or in some cases why it wont work anymore no matter what we do.

This video really made me see how perfect this scene is. Andrews is speaking in anger, not because “you failed me” but more “listen to what I’m saying” then you can see every man’s face change as they slowly realize they’re gonna die today

Have seen a number of titanic movies most notably “ A night to remember” but I must say to this day , James Cameron’s movie hit home hard with me , so realistic, the break up of the ship is truly remarkable , phenomenal the cast was great but I was more interested in the break up of the ship , excellent and shows how just tragic that night in April 1912 actually was… RIP to the over 1,500 souls lost that cold April night.

For sure. While he maintained composure… he certainly would be feeling the weight of the situation as he explained to the officers what was going to happen. He played that scene really well.

One of Canada's finest actors.

Yes and I go back and forth with the captain from 1958 version and 1997 version both played the role very well

A night to remember Andrew's is a close second tho

It’s interesting that only one interpretation of this event saw captain smith blaming murdoch for not reacting properly to the danger… a subject which is rarely spoken of when deconstructing the disaster but was very important…

There was certification for deep subs, he refused certification and refused having his hull inspected. We also know carbon fibre delaminates over time under pressure but he ignored the engineers who told him that.

Regulations are written in blood. They’re not there to “impede progress” or whatever buzzwords these people like to use. They’re there because somebody already did it and tragedy struck.

"The number of boats and rafts must always be more than enough for all passengers." Back then there were always other ships around onto which the passengers and crew could be tranferred. The idea being that the rescue ship would send it's boats as well, and the passengers could be ferried over. The Titanic had enough boats. If the captain of the Calfornian wasn't an idiot then most of the Titanic's passengers and crew could have been saved.

And it doomed the Eastland, a badly balanced ship, that through the Extra boats was too topheavy

Ummm... you can't have rules and regulations for a place where rules and regulations literally do not apply... rules and regulations are written by nations A, B, C & D (etc, etc) for ships sailing in their national waters... if you're out in INTERNATIONAL WATERS, no regulations apply because you're not coded by any particular nation... this is EXACTLY how the Titan CEO skirted the law... there was no law (still isn't and never will be) in international waters.

"This first officer is a coward and defiles this place of honor... get him off my bridge before I shoot him myself" [he then proceeds to slap the first officer and kick him in the rear]

True, but at the same time if Smith had been on the bridge when the iceberg was spotted, he probably would have advocated ramming it. I believe that was the standard thing to do during his career.

@@cobbler9113 Depends. Colliding with an iceberg with a full mass 10-20 times what the ship's mass is would mean lots of people would instantly die as the ship decelerates from 25 knots to 0 almost immediately. Remember that around 90% of the mass of an iceberg is BELOW the water line. Trying to avoid a head on collision would always be the first instinct. Kinda like driving. You would run off the road before colliding head on with a semi truck, right?

That's the instinct of a person, not necessarily a sailor. Titanic was not the only RMS to ever encounter an iceberg. Both Arizona and, famously, Montrose in 1928 did so, and in Montrose's case her captain, E. Landy, quite openly said he hadn't wanted to repeat Murdoch's mistake.

​@@jaydowling213 He knew that Murdoch made mistake after Titanic sinking. But the thing is to know that before something happens. No single person on Titanic would know what would happen and they should took different action. Murdoch decisions were perfectly valid in that case. He had no way knowing that hitting iceberg will be better than trying to avoid it. No officer would know that.

it was way too uncalled for.. something a moron who read articles about the mechanics of the colision and so would had writen. The fact is.. the engines in the Olympic class needed nearly a full minute to stop..and then reverse.. Titanic had 40 seconds from the call to the bridge to the impact.. the engiens were still spinning forward when it happent so Murdoch order would be pointless.. Besides... more reliable testimonies seem to indicate his actual order was full stop and all starboard (port) not full reverse.. the reverse thing comes from an officer who said he saw the telemotors on full reverse when he got to the bridge.. but Hitchens (the helsman) said the order was full stop.

Without having been there, that's probably the most accurate depiction of how that conversation went. No panic, just cool, calm professionalism. Even now, we know that was Thomas Andrews's MO.

Even though this information is entirely incorrect. We now know the iceberg didn't tear a gash in the ship (ice can't tear steel, not the way we envision when we use the word "tear"). The iceberg pushed into the hull, causing the steel plates to buckle inward, the stresses popped the rivets out and the steel plating opened up like a zipper. There were numerous small openings, none of them any longer than 5 or 6 feet and no wider than 2 or 3 inches and this damage was enough to cause the ship to take on 400 tons of water per minute. Had a 300-foot gash been torn in the hull, she'd have lasted less than an hour total

I also heard that the rivets should have been twice the size as those actually used which would have mitigated the damage considerably. @@pc_buildyb0i935

@@pc_buildyb0i935 While we can agree on the gash damage, the explanation of the flooding mechanics is sound.

Original designer Alexander Carlisle answered that at the inquiries. "We do a little extra".

Ya, I spit out my coffee when he said that. To be fair, that movie was made in the 70s... everyone was on cocaine.

The saddest thing in your post, you actually had to look it up instead of instantly recognizing George C. Scott. He also played a fabulous Il Duce Mussolini and Ebeneezer Scrooge.

Yes the architect is concentrating on the mechanics, the captain on the lives at stake. Its like Scotty and captain Kirk.

@jameshogan6142 yeah that's a good analogy. Only thing I didn't like about that film was according to survivor reports the captain was incredibly zoned out. Can't be easy thinking you've made it to retirement and the next moment your duty will be to go down with the ship and die. Don't think any of the movies captures that resigned sadnes of his own fate. Totally relatable too.

@@Snizzle_Fizzle It happens to top generals and statesmen too when they are faced with imminent disaster such as invasion or bankruptcy or famine. Cool heads are more likely to prevail in those situations.

@@jameshogan6142 At least he didn't say, 'Ye canna change the laws of physics, captain.'

My favourite Scotty line was "If I give her any more she'll blow captain" in response to Kirk's command to give the engines full throttle to free them selves from some alien gravitational field. "Do it Scotty that's an order." retorted Kirk. @@dovetonsturdee7033

Yes, unavoidable when sailing at top speed in the middle of the night in the middle of an ice field... the Titanic was even warned by the SS Mesaba of the ice field. It was avoidable... a lot of bad decisions led to the collision.

Dude draws a line all the way to boiler room 3!

Well in reality the coal bunker in the sixth compartment was also compromised

I think that the last third of page is hanging off the edge of the table

In the engineering world we call this type of drawing "NTS" (Not To Scale). Don't be so critical.

@@jayhemfindsyou Only was pointing attention to something I found a bit funny. So... sorry that I'm not a fucking engineer like you? Sorry that I'm just a layman who doesn't possess as much knowledge as you on the subject?

If only Obergruppenführer Felix Steiner. had obeyed orders and come to the rescue with the SS Californian, everyone could have been (except for Fegelein of course)

But not accurate he was never mad he was more shocked about things

​@@ryans413not accurate but its interesting to see the captain reacting in another way.

Well it’s more of testimony of what was said that night so it’s taken from real life. I believe Lighthouler told the court what was said on the bridge that night he was there and survived

@@ryans413 Right, right. I noticed that too. Like the woman who was picked up and put in the boat, that actually happened to Molly Brown. The crewman who told her to shut her mouth, that happened to the Countess of Rothes but on another boat. Nice little easter eggs for the gurus to enjoy.

Wow, never knew the 1958 film drew direct quotes from testimony of what happened on the ship in 1912.

George C. F'ing Scott... of COURSE he'd ram the iceberg... it would be out of character for him not to!

There was also a film starring Barbara Stanwyck.

Where can we listen to this? Or you actually that old and heard it yourself? You would have been a child I presume, or a teenager and about 100 or 105.

And Alvin submersible never found a gash in titanic ,, as was explained .. and most passengers claim there was no iceberg ! It was findings that they concluded with not much evidence in the investigation that it was an iceberg it was theorised

​@@iamasmurf1122They did a Sonar scan on the hull,they found the damage. It wasn't a gash, but it was buckled plates. The Titanic side swiped a iceburg and sank

@@iamasmurf1122 it wasnt a gash, it was buckled plates in a dot dot dash pattern , they did a scan through the mud bed titanic is in and found it.

@@jamesricker3997 They did not find anything, it was taken down by a german submarine, do your own research.

Totally agree. The only scene I would consider superior is Victor Gerber's performance in this clip.

Andrews knew that ship inside and out. I'm not surprised he worked it out so well... in fact, the ship's engineering during its sinking exceeded even his expectations.

​@@austin.draudeif im not mistaken a normal ship of the time would have sunk in 30 min or under an hour. Titanic stayed afloat for a very long time. If they only designed the (water tight) doors to not be able to spill water over

He was actually able to estimate the rate of flooding because he assessed the flooding already on board and the amount of time it took for that flooding to occur.

He knew the approximate rate of water influx, he knew the volume capacity of each compartment, he knew how tall the bulkheads were, and he knew where the waterline was. Andrews made a very well-educated guess, and stated the ship could survive for "an hour, perhaps two".

​@@jeepsblackpowderandlights4305Absolutely correct. The ship stayed afloat much longer than it realistically should have, and power stayed on longer than expected as well. Not to mention the overwhelming majority of ships actually roll over and capsize when they sink but the Titanic's design allowed her to remain on a relatively even keel to the point the crew could successfully launch almost every single lifeboat (with the last two not being launched properly because by this point the ship's final plunge had begun and it sank from under them - moreso just a matter of the crew running out of time than anything else) Despite the short-sightedness of not sealing the bulkheads up to the highest decks in each section of the hull, the Titanic was over-engineered and the length of time her sinking took (and the even keel) speak volumes to the success of her design

yeah i forgot how horrible parts of the 96 one were and how filled with unproven myths and theories it was