Was there any way to avert the disaster of the famous vessel TITANIC?

Question

and save those precious soles.........

There's a spelling mistake from my side, it's not sole, i mean souls......

Answer 1

Sure there was! They could have had more life boats, but they didn't think they'd need so many. Several of the lifeboats weren't even full before they were launched.

The captain had warnings about ice, but he persisted full ahead towards them, wanting to make good time and show off the power of the new ship.

There were other things that could have been done differently, but I can't remember what they were. I saw it in a documentary several years ago.

By the way, I think you meant "souls". Soles are fish.

To the guy who said the Titanic was not short on lifeboats: You are dead wrong! There was a passenger capacity of 2,435 but lifeboat capacity for only 1,178! That means they were 1,257 short, and that's with full lifeboats. Because of the Titanic disaster, they changed the laws on lifeboats, among other things.

Why didn't Titanic carry enough lifeboats?
http://www.cincymuseum.org/explore_our_sites/special_exhibits_events/current_exhibits/titanic_faqs.asp

The Titanic’s lifeboat capacity was governed by the British Board of Trade’s rules, which were drafted in 1894. By 1912, these regulations were badly out of date. The Titanic was four times larger than the largest legal classification considered under the 18-year-old rules and so by law was not required to carry more than 16 lifeboats. When she left Southampton, the Titanic actually carried four additional collapsible boats. The shipping industry was aware that the lifeboat regulations were going to be changed and Titanic was designed for the anticipated "boats for all" policy, but until the law actually changed, White Star was not going to install them. In 1912, the attitude toward accident prevention was much different. Ship owners were reluctant to exceed the legal minimum because lifeboats took up most of the space on first- and second-class decks. Boats were expensive to purchase, maintain and affected a ship’s stability. Finally, in the years before the Titanic disaster, it was felt that the very presence of large numbers of lifeboats suggested that the vessel was unsafe.

Answer 2

Yes, it could have been averted if the chemical make up of the surface was modified at the same time, the element components of the metal should have been checked...

here are a few facts about it...

The Titanic was considered practically unsinkable because its hull was divided into 16 watertight compartments. The ship was designed to stay afloat with any two adjacent compartments or the front four compartments (which were smaller in volume) flooded. As a result, many authors of books on the disaster thought that only a huge tear, perhaps 90 m (300 ft) long, could have caused the 269 m (882 ft) ship to sink. But Edward Wilding, a naval architect, testified in the wake of the disaster that the total area damaged by the iceberg was small and probably did not exceed 1 sq m (about 12 sq ft). Others, however, did not believe that so large a ship could be undone by so little damage, and so the myth of the huge gash began. Previous expeditions found no sign of a gash, however, and the latest sonar findings confirmed Wilding's belief that the damage was slight: six thin breaches spread out along a 35 m (110 ft) section of the hull with a total surface area of about 1 sq m (about 12 sq ft). The ruptures punctured six watertight compartments and were spread strategically along riveted seams.

A 1991 expedition had also retrieved samples of the Titanic's steel for analysis. Tests determined that the steel's poor resistance to impact, a quality known as impact strength, combined with its chemical makeup, made the steel brittle. This problem was compounded by the fact that the Titanic was operating in unusually cold waters for that time of year. When exposed to near-freezing temperatures, tests showed that the steel became extremely brittle. The August 1996 expedition confirmed these findings and applied them to the question of whether the Titanic broke apart before sinking.

At the time of the Titanic's sinking there were conflicting reports as to whether the ship broke up at the surface or sank intact. All of the ship's surviving officers said the Titanic sank intact. A number of passengers, however, said that the ship broke up at the surface. Earlier expeditions established that the ship was in two pieces on the ocean floor, but some experts had theorized that the ship broke up on its way to the bottom. There was even a claim that there might be a third piece.

Based on the new findings about the nature of the damage sustained by the Titanic and the quality of the steel used in the hull, naval architects set out to determine the stresses that might have prevailed as the ship sank. The architects used a computer simulation of stresses in the hull, known as a finite element model. The simulation showed that the weight of the waterlogged bow would have generated enough stress to cause failures in the Titanic's steel plates as the ship sank, confirming reports that the ship broke apart before sinking. Also, the 1996 expedition located a third piece of the ship, indicating that the ship broke in two places.

Another series of tests performed in 1998 on some iron rivets brought back from the site found excess amounts of slag, a metal waste product added in small amounts to give iron strength. However, too much slag makes iron brittle, and there is evidence that weak rivets may have also contributed to the ruptures.

Great forces conspired to sink the Titanic, but scientists found that tiny ones will cause it to collapse and eventually disappear. In the 85 years since the Titanic sank, iron-eating microbes have slowly sapped the strength from the Titanic's structure. Eventually the wreck will no longer be able to support its own weight.

Answer 3

Absolutely it could've been avoided! Aside from slowing down and heeding the ice warnings, not to mention having enough lifeboats, had Murdoch NOT panicked, had he simply said 'full steam ahead' and rammed the iceberg head on (instead of trying to avoid collision), then only approximately two or three watertight compartments would've been flooded, and the ship would've stayed afloat long enough for help to arrive. The Titanic was designed to withstand collision under those circumstances; by trying to avoid the berg, 5 compartments were ripped open and flooded, making the safety mechanisms useless.
Had Captain Smith been on duty, we can only hope that he wouldn't have mucked up the way Murdoch did.

Oh, and btw: the Captain had no say in how many lifeboats were on the ship. That decision was made by Thomas Andrews and the White Star Line.

Answer 4

It was 100% the captain's fault for ordering the ship to proceed at full speed with insufficient visibility to be safe.

Many other things could have averted the disaster, like a stronger hull, higher watertight bulkheads, less pride in the ship's speed, or a different route. Some things could have reduced the loss of life, like more lifeboats, or more orderly use of them. But the captain was the last one to make the bad choice which doomed the ship, and he had enough information to know that it was a bad choice.

(BTW, Tejus PM, it was 30 years too early to have radar.)

Answer 5

Despite the writings of previous respondents, very little could have been done to save the Titanic save the moving of the iceberg which she hit.

The Titanic was not short on lifeboats. In fact, it actually carried more lifeboats than required by law.

The ship had very little time to avoid the collision, and even less time to try and take a head-on hit rather than a broadside one. This was not due to excessive speed, however, but to the terrible fog which made it nearly impossible to see. Slowing down would not have made much difference, only coming to a dead stop would have avoided collision. However, a ship dead in the water is even more vulnerable to the vagaries of the sea than one on a possible collision course.

The ship was NOT purposely built with inferior materials. Why would it have been? Some of the Titanic's owners were aboard when she sank, do you really think they would have scrimped on safety? Besides, a passenger liner company wouldn't get many customers if it had a reputation for drowning passengers.

The only way the Titanic could have averted disaster would have been to not sail at all. Fewer lives may have been lost if another ship had been close enough to respond to the SOS quickly, but any ship that close may have collided with her, resulting in losses on two ships rather than one.

Answer 6

Because the iceberg was spotted so late, there was no way to avert the disaster ahead of them.
There were no thoughts given to how an 850+ ft. ship could turn in case of an emergency or avoid a collision. It was more important for the builders of the ship to make a gorgeous ship rather than a safe ship (part of the reason why there were so few lifeboats).

I guess though, if proper precautions had been made then more parts of a shoe could have been saved.

Answer 7

Yes, she was going too fast for the conditions as her master was under pressure to keep to her schedule. The pressure was from her owners, but ultimately she was his responsibility. Obviously plenty of other vessels have traveled through ice and fog prior to radar, but they kept a good lookout and reduced speed.

Once collision became inevitable, she could have been steered straight into the iceberg and thus only breached one bulkhead. However her master did not realized just how unmaneuverable she was and felt the collision could have been avoided. A fore-aft bulkhead like warships have could have contained the flooding as well.

Answer 8

Yes, two principal things.
First; design fault. The watertight bulkheads did not extend up to the deck-head and so were not in fact watertight.
Second; The southern rhumb route could have been selected in preference to the northern one and so avoid the ice altogether.

Answer 9

you're questioning of the RMS Lusitania which grew to become into torpedoed by using German U-boat U-20 on 7 might 1915 and sank in eighteen minutes, 11 miles (19 km) off the previous Head of Kinsale, eire, killing a million,198 of the a million,959 human beings aboard. RMS Empress of eire together as steaming on the St. Lawrence River in fog, the Empress grew to become into struck amidships by using the Norwegian collier (coal freighter) SS Storstad; and the fatally broken vessel sank very quickly in the early morning of 29 might 1914. This accident claimed a million,073 lives, making it the deadliest maritime disaster in Canadian historic past

Answer 10

Yes there was a way.If the captain had placed more life boats many people would be saved. The crew could have spotted the iceberg using a radar.