Was The Titanic Destroyed By A German Submarine?

reply to post by ChrisF231


are you serious ???????????

why would you not expect massive developments in submarine technology in the 6 years - including 4 years of war ??????

look at all the other technology that was developed soley as a consequence of WWI


as a example of the absurdity of your point

alcock and brown made a none stop powered transatlantic flight in 1919 - would you relalistically as why they could not have done it in 1913 ?

war spurs innovation

every beligerant had tenchnology in 1918 that was only dreamed of in 1914

the best example is the depth charge - as this is a thread involving submarines - in 1914 no beligerants had depth charges to engage submerged subs - in 1918 all had

reply to post by ChrisF231

Here's another question. If the Imperial German Navy did not have submarine tenders then how did U-156 manage to sink the armored cruiser USS San Diego (ACR-6) off of Long Island on July 19th 1918. Obviously they were able to go across the Atlantic Ocean in 1918 ... why not in 1912?

Why don't you and blocula never compare the specs of the earlier coastal type U-boats like U-17, to the later ocean going prototypes like you have quoted ( types 151), and the even larger type 139 in one of my previos posts...and the dates of construction. In 1912 Germany had no U-cruisers. I'm not bothering sending anymore links they never get read.
You completely fail to comprehend the technical requirements for an ocean going U-boat, even though the information is freely available. Blocula is as bad quoting the specifactions for SM U-17. Are these specifications anything near to the more advanced ocean going U cruiser?

What blocula is trying to tell us is if that sardine tin U-17 was that good at crossing thousands of miles of open ocean (based on it's very limited specifications), and sinking a passenger liner, then Germany would have had little reason to develop the U-cruiser,...true?

Odds of the Germans doing it are low. If we want to examine more extreme possibilities, we could speculate on JP Morgan buying a sub from the Germans. Or JP Morgan using a Tesla weapon, as Morgan had been funding Tesla. Tesla would never be involved, he had morals. JP, not so sure. Once we get into the realm of Reptilians anything is possible.
For any conspiracy theory, we need facts to support the theory. Then the theory can become reality with a sufficient number of facts. For the Germans to even have located the Titanic would have required extreme random good luck, not very likely. Not impossible, but not likely. We need eyewitness testimony that they saw a sub in the general area, at the very least. It would have required a special crew, as the typical German officer would never sink a boat during peacetime. It is possible the Germans could find people to do the deed, but again, not likely.
This has been a very interesting discussion by all, so I thank the OP for the thread.

reply to post by FLaKK
Germany has always been about "quality" not "quantity",like the Tiger Tank of WW-2 for one example and Germans are still the same now,they dont build 50 million low quality cars,they make low volume amounts of high quality cars like Mercedes and BMW's and others...

reply to post by FLaKK
I certainly would'nt use the term "small" for a 204 foot long Submarine built in 1911-1912...

reply to post by ignorant_ape
I wouldnt say that,i'll bet that almost every major invention and innovation built during WW-1 had their origins before the war even started,like the battleship for one example...

reply to post by blocula

I certainly would'nt use the term "small" for a 204 foot long Submarine built in 1911-1912...

It wasn't an ocean going type U-boat, in 1912 Germany didn't have any.

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by blocula

 

As I recall from the video of a few years ago of the ship, that mere "gash" was over a hundred feet long. No torpedo or interior explosion will leave that type of evidence. Unless you want to invent a conspiracy of coverup for this event, you gotta go with the evidence.

The reason it was more than a 100 feet long is because of the iceberg that everyone on board felt scrape along the side of the ship. You don't need a torpedo when you have several thousand tonnes of ice knocking on your hull. The U-boat idea is ridiculous anyway - why would the Germans risk a war over a ship, no matter who was on board? Besides, I'm not even sure that the Kaisermarine even had a long-range U-boat at that time. If I recall correctly they only launched their first diesel-engined boat in October 1212.

reply to post by FLaKK


then what was it made for? floating in really big bath tubs filled with water?

and what was its 6,700 mile range for? floating around that bath tub again and again and again?

"From the start the German Navy used double hull,twin propeller designs,except for some subsequent small coastal submarines.Two more,larger boats U-3 and U-4 entered service in 1909.Displacing 421 tons and 168 feet in length,the boats "were no longer experimental" and carried the same amount and arrangement of torpedo tubes but added a 37mm deck gun" > From link > www.steelnavy.com...


And those were made "3 years" before the Titanic went down,mysteriously,on its maiden voyage...

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by FLaKK

 

then what was it made for? floating in really big bath tubs filled with water?

and what was its 6,700 mile range for? floating around that bath tub again and again and again?

Oh boy... Range is the capacity of fuel tank divided by gas mileage under best conditions (and p!ss-poor speed). The sub needs fuel to recharge its batteries before it dives, many times over, so it needs to carry a lot of fuel to operate efficiently and be able to dive many times over its mission. And the number 6700 is not either relevant or sufficient as has been demonstrated many times over in this thread.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg

You don't need a torpedo when you have several thousand tonnes of ice knocking on your hull. The U-boat idea is ridiculous anyway - why would the Germans risk a war over a ship, no matter who was on board? Besides, I'm not even sure that the Kaisermarine even had a long-range U-boat at that time.

Aaahh someone who can see sense. Yes indeed, the scene for Titanic to meet with disaster was already set. I mensioned this in a little more detail in an earlier post on this thread. Was it set by design or just coincidence however? that's the real conspiracy,.. and your quite right who in their right mind would want to attempt to cross the Atlantic at 8 knots in a sardine tin?

Been away for a week...

Is this thread still alive?

Why? Oh dear lord, why?

Originally posted by stumason
Been away for a week...

Is this thread still alive?

Why? Oh dear lord, why?

Dude, there are threads here where the content of the OP is a lot more ridiculous than this one. One example is "free energy" threads. They go on forever. Then there is Bob Lazar.

reply to post by buddhasystem


True, but at least in those threads no-one can 100% disprove them due to their nature.

This outlandish concept is simply impossible and has been shown as such, yet he persists....

reply to post by blocula

then what was it made for? floating in really big bath tubs filled with water? and what was its 6,700 mile range for? floating around that bath tub again and again and again?

You just keep chugging along trying to reach your 6.700nm theoretical range limit,.. on the surface,.. in your sardine tin,.. doing 8 knots,.. and making lots of smoke for all to see,.. with your single Korting heavy oil engine. lol

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

True, but at least in those threads no-one can 100% disprove them due to their nature.

Oh yes one can. There are stupendous claims being made like someone made a black hole in their lab. There is no evidence. But some folks are debating this ad aeternum as if it were real.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Well, maybe for that it can be easily disproved! I was thinking more along ther lines of Bob Lazarr...Lots of evidence he did bugger all, but no-one can be 100%..

Anyhoo, best catch up on the latest nonsense from blocula in here...

Originally posted by blocula
"From the start the German Navy used double hull,twin propeller designs,except for some subsequent small coastal submarines.Two more,larger boats U-3 and U-4 entered service in 1909.Displacing 421 tons and 168 feet in length,the boats "were no longer experimental" and carried the same amount and arrangement of torpedo tubes but added a 37mm deck gun" > From link > www.steelnavy.com...


And those were made "3 years" before the Titanic went down,mysteriously,on its maiden voyage...

edit on 9-12-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

Another link you post and still, you cannot grasp the insanity of your allegations about U-17 and the Titanic. I'll post from your modelling link, yes it's about building models of U-boats,.. but at least they use sources of information that is credible.

In May 1917 the seven big U-Kreuzers became part of a new offensive. This one was directed at the eastern seaboard of the United States to south of the equator. In November 1917 three of the U-Kreuzers, U-151, U-152 and U-156 operated together as a pack. In December Gassner with the U-156 entered the port of Funchal and shelled the town. The U-156 continued to operate in the area of the Azores and after cutting five Atlantic cables went on a spree of merchantman destruction.

impressive range eh?

why is that?......

Come on you like quoting specifications, i'll make it simple,.. think U-cruisers,...so think 'big',... think faster,...think better engines maybe?,... think better fuel capacity,... think better fuel even, like maybe gasoline more refined so less smoke, less sparks at night etc and, better surface speed maybe?,...BIG means spacious, more room for more provisions maybe?,...more room bigger crew so less demands on individuals,...so a less stressful shift rotation,.. bigger pressure hull,... better diving and trim characteristics,.. hm...

So whats this all about blocula?.... could it have something to do with designing a submarine that can cross oceans?,...i'll let you work it out.

reply to post by stumason

True, but at least in those threads no-one can 100% disprove them due to their nature. This outlandish concept is simply impossible and has been shown as such, yet he persists....

I don't mind a conspiracy as long as it is plausible i've said this all along on this thread. Titanic's fate was already sealed when she left the coast of Ireland for the open sea. A U-boat attack in 1912 could have easily been carried out while she was still on her coastal passage way, taking onboard more steerage passengers around inland waters but,.....it didn't happen. I think it possible that there may have been a conspiracy to sink her for whatever political/financial reasons. Her maiden voyage did coincide with the unusual passage of ice flows much further south that year than was ever recorded before.

Captain smith, a veteran of maritime oceaneering due to retire, failed to re-enforce his concern regarding warnings he had personally read from the radio room, of potential ice warnings. When told by the chairman of whitestar line Bruice Issmay to steam faster through this region why did he give in to his requests when he knew full well the hazard placing peoples lives at risk?. Marconi wireless operators Jack Phillips and Harold Bride continously 'shelved' further warnings of ice in favour of first class passengers personal telegrams. Even messages sent from the German based line, 'Hambourg'. the ship Amerika that was in the vicinity were ignored.

Titanic's wireless was at the time, the most powerful available by Marconi, a 5KW motor generator fed from the ship's lighting circuit. The signal radiated from a 4 wire array, suspended between the top of the two masts some 250 feet above the sea. However, half an hour after the collision this power had reduced to 0.4KW, (Leo Marriot TITANIC),...quote:- despite the lighting feeds having more power, because the boilers outfeeds were venting steam the fans had been turned off by the orders of chief engineer Joseph Bell.quote from engineer George Beauchamp (boiler room No 6) telegraph order to STOP! flooding. It was only 20 minutes later that Thomas Ranger who was in the electrical workshop above the turbine room, and 2 minutes after hearing the order to close the fans. noticed a sudden spike in the amperes of the ships turbines and felt' greatly relieved'.. unquote.

The design also may contribute to the Edwadian's belief of ocean supremacy but why was Titanic fitted with too few lifeboats?. At the time Titanic met the safety regulations but even so, for the evacuation of only half the paassangers incase of dire emergency?. Do we blame Thomas Andrews the ships designer? Do we believe that it was felt that if two rows of boats would make it it feel that the boat deck felt 'cluttered'.

Titanic was cruising at a speed of 21.5knots when the iceberg was first spotted by the lookouts. Could Titanic such a massive ship with, (relative to her size a very small rudder), cleared the iceberg.? You'll have to read the following link and make your assumtions.

Titanic and the Iceberg.

It was a moonless night, the 2 point turn could not be achieved unless!... there was a conspiracy. Lightoller the only ships surviving senior officer never mensioned once that anything was to blame regarding the manouvering and control of Titanic: quote: the ship hit the iceberg and i did my duty : unquote. The Mersey enquirey asked him to quote from a passanger Henry Blank regarding the splitting of the ship.

No,... quoted Lightoller, the ship sank intact.

I've rested my case and still people on here flaunt and make mockery of all those innocent men women and children that died on the night of 14 April 1912. There will be idiots who will continue to believe that other forces were at work, despite what history tells us. Believe in History and what it tells us,.. there is a lesson to be learned by all. If there was a conspiracy to sink the Titanic ultimately it was done that night by the men on watch.

This conspiracy, if it did happen... was done by them and them alone, and it died with them when the Titanic sank. As for those who keep going on about torpedo holes,...,... Titanic will develop more holes believe me, as time goes on and the deterioration continues she will degrade further and collapse into a heap of unrecognisable rubble until she finally releases herself once and foreall to the natural elements of this earth.