I go with Titanic
2007-12-11 09:28:10 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cars & Transportation ➔ Boats & Boating
There has been more exploration to the Titanic and there was more deaths and Titanic did not sink on its own the stupid owner Ismay and captain let her go for top speed and hit the Iceberg
2007-12-11 11:13:30 · update #1
I don't think it matters, they are both on the bottom.
2007-12-11 11:30:21 · answer #1 · answered by market inve$tor 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In basic terms the Titanic. The Lusitania and Mauretania were built to give Cunard the edge over the White Star Line's "Big 4" which over the course of a few years were each the biggest ship in the world when launched. The Lusitania gave Cunard both the biggest and fastest ships on the ocean. So White Star struck back with their Olympic class ships which were over 100 feet longer and almost 14,000 tons heavier. The Lusitania and her sister were also built with government funds which meant while their luxury was grand and couldn't be surpassed at the time, the Olympic and Titanic were built with private funds and Harland and Wolff and White Star had always had a very special relationship so they were decked out to the max with luxury. The Lusitania/Mauretania were by far quicker though, the Muaretania held the speed record for near 28 years.
Also, the Titanic was not going at full speed when it hit, it was going at 21 1/2 knots, at flank speed the Titanic could probably creep up to 23 1/2 knots, but it would make no sense, if the Titanic reached NYC Tuesday night, the ship would have had to wait all night in harbor before it could be docked, also Captain Smith had retired at 10pm that night, if they were going to do a full speed test run the next day it would've been waited till the following morning,.
2007-12-14 03:25:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Two things......First, the Titanic's engines were never run at full speed. Ismay later stated the Titanic's full-speed test was scheduled for Monday, April 15th. Second, the sinking of the Lusitania has been at least partially ascribed to human error. Captain Turner didn't take the usual precautions while approaching the Irish coast, and it was later found she was carrying contraband, which made her a legitimate target. Besides, Kapitanleutnant Schweiger of the U-20 thought the Lusitania was her sister ship Mauretania, which by then had been converted to a troop transport, so considerable human error was involved.
2007-12-11 21:37:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
well, since they both SANK, I don't think I'd consider either of them as a "better ship".
The truth of the titanic is that it was built of an inferior metal ( I saw a test run on a sample of the steel from the titanic and it was more brittle than it should have been) but in the end, it was the captains fault for allowing himself to be badgered by the company into attempting a record speed crossing just so they would have bragging rights. He ignored the ice warnings and endangered ( and killed many of) the passengers.
2007-12-13 13:52:14 · answer #4 · answered by randy 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As far as luxuary goes titanic wins, but thats about where it stops!
Lusitania Had more powerful engines, could go faster, and was far safer and better constructed, since she was a Canarder! They both sank, with lots of people on board, though.
2007-12-12 00:29:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well the Titanic "sank on it's own", the Lucitania was torpedoed by a German "U" boat! One thing we know,- there was no"pilot error" by caprain of Lucitania!
2007-12-11 17:35:11 · answer #6 · answered by guess78624 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
YEAH
QUEEN MARY 2
2007-12-11 17:35:27 · answer #7 · answered by fifamonkey 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋