Was The Titanic Destroyed By A German Submarine?

Here's some pics of torpedos from the late 1800's.

Some had time delayed 2nd charges after a penetrating explosion.

Easily controlled.



A History of the Torpedo The Early Days

British Torpedoes Enter Service

In the autumn of 1869 Royal Navy representatives visited Fiume and reported favourably on the weapons being tested. As a result Whitehead was invited to England to demonstrate the ability of his weapons. He brought two types of torpedo with him, a 16 in. by 14 ft. carrying 67 lbs. of wet gun-cotton and a second weapon of 14 in. diameter and a little under 14 ft. in length. This latter weapon carried a warhead of dynamite weighing 18 lbs. Table 5 summarises the main characteristics of these and later weapons.

The weapons were fired either from the surface or from a submerged tube built by Whitehead into Oberon. Over 100 firings were made during September and October of 1870, the average weapon performance being seven knots to a range of 600 yards.

As a grand finale a wooden coal hulk was moored off Cockleshell Hard and surrounded with protective nets. A 16 in. weapon with its warhead charged by Professor F. A. Abel was fired from a range of 134 yards. The weapon, determined to demonstrate its potency, went around the net and blew a hole measuring 20 ft. by 10 ft. in the old corvette and it sank at once. Faced with such conclusive evidence of the weapon's capability the Royal Navy ordered a batch of Whitehead torpedoes which were received in 1870.

It was most appropriate therefore that one century later a new torpedo trials ship should have been launched with the name E.T.V. Whitehead.

Two types of weapon were received from Whitehead's works at Fiume; these being 14 in. and 16 in. diameter. In 1871 the Admiralty bought the manufacturing rights for £15,000 and production was started at the Royal Laboratories, Woolwich the following year. This sum of money seems very small for such an important weapon especially when only a decade later a certain Mr. Brennan was paid nearly 10 times as much for the rights of an inferior type of torpedo.

The example of the Royal Navy was quickly followed by the French, Germans and Chinese and soon Whitehead was exporting his torpedoes around the world. Several countries started building their own pirated copies of the Whitehead but these were notably unsuccessful. The stringent specifications laid down by foreign navies caused Whitehead to give consideration to the improvement of performance. He appears to have regarded the weapon as primarily for use in harbours against moored ships. Under these circumstances a speed of only seven knots is acceptable and the main areas for improvements lie with the accuracy of steering and the reliable operation of the impact fuse. However, the Germans specified a weapon performance of 16 knots to 550 yards. Whitehead carried out various improvements including the replacement of the twin cylinder Vee engine by a three-cylinder engine built by Peter Brother-hood, Ltd., of Peterborough. Thus by 1875 a 14 in. weapon was produced having a performance of 18 knots to a range of 550 yards.

In 1872 Whitehead bought the firm and re-named it Silurifico Whitehead. A remarkable feature of this story is the instant success of the novel weapon. The very first experimental torpedo worked well and was being mass produced for export within four years. An envious record for any new product!

With the introduction of the new engine and contrarotating propellers (this latter by a foreman mechanic at Woolwich) no significant improvements were then made until the introduction of the gyroscope for azimuthal steering in 1895. Fig. 5 shows the transitional form of the weapon in about 1875. The extended fins thereafter were not needed because of the lack of roll forces. Fig. 5 shows typical Fiume built torpedoes of the 1880s period with their pointed noses and small control fins with the control surfaces placed aft of the propellers. This latter feature distinguished Fiume weapons from the Woolwich types (Fig. 6) which carried the surfaces ahead of the screws. The latter practice persists (unfortunately) to the present time.

The Germans, in addition to ordering Whitehead torpedoes in 1873, began building their own on the Whitehead principle. The firm of L. Schwartzkopf-later the Berliner Maschinenbau A.G.-began making excellent torpedoes in phosphor-bronze. The firm was soon exporting weapons to Russia, Japan and Spain. In 1885 Britain ordered 50 of these weapons because the output at home and at Fiume could not satisfy the demand. These weapons cost £450 each which was £120 more than the corresponding Fiume type (the 14 in. Mk. II).

reply to post by xuenchen

Nice work there. Do you have anything about the silencer system used?

reply to post by xuenchen


Thank you for the link, which contains some fascinating info on the early torpedo development. I really did enjoy learning this stuff.

Now, what does it have to do with the topi of thi thread?

Sadly,

ZERO.

reply to post by xuenchen
We here and now are not as technologically advanced as we like to think we are and thanx for adding a lot of vital credence to this threads theory...

why stop at the germans sinking titanic ?

wasn't it the olympic anyway ? sunk for insurance reasons ?


weren't the nazi's using alien tech ?

so you could make the argument;

"the olympic was sunk by aliens" !!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

The passenger liner Titanic,with a length of 882 feet,sank on April-14th 1912 with 1,503 lives lost...

The passenger liner Lusitania,which entered service in 1907 and had a length of 787 feet,was sunk by a single torpedo launched from a German U-boat on May 7th 1915 with 1,198 lives lost...

Hmmmm? anyone else noticing any extraordinary similarities between those two tragic events?

edit on 17-6-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)

I give up.....they were both at the botom of the ocean floor? They both had a salad bar?

The Lusitania was sunk by a U Boat true, the Germans even warned the US that it was gonna happen via a story in the newspaper a full couple weeks before it happened. They were warned.....and it happened.

The Titanic completely ignored the radio message that there was ice flow further south than previously expected. And because the guy minding the store (radio man) was a pompous ass and had a attitude problem, he completely played off the message as garbage and ignored it. he didn't even notify the Captain that it had come through on the wire..they were warned...so they hit ice...and it happened......

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by xuenchen

 

We here and now are not as technologically advanced as we like to think we are and thanx for adding a lot of vital credence to this threads theory...

edit on 17-6-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)

????? Eh? Your theory is still 100% rubbish I'm afraid.

reply to post by GrandHeretic
A dire warning for everyone and it just goes to show us how ruthless and heartless tptb actually are and how meaningless the mainstream public is to them,that in order to keep the wheels of their perpetual war machine turning,they would still try sending large amounts of ammunition to britain onboard the passenger liner lusitania,filled with multitudes of innocent people,even though the germans openly warned that they would attack and try to sink any ship that did so and instead of being angry at germany for doing so,the american people should have screamed for vengeance against president wilson and his war mongering military high command,for knowingly allowing an invitation for disaster...evil bastards...

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by GrandHeretic

 

A dire warning for everyone and it just goes to show us how ruthless and heartless tptb actually are and how meaningless the mainstream public is to them,that in order to keep the wheels of their perpetual war machine turning,they would still try sending large amounts of ammunition to britain onboard the passenger liner lusitania,filled with multitudes of innocent people,even though the germans openly warned that they would attack and try to sink any ship that did so and instead of being angry at germany for doing so,the american people should have screamed for vengeance against president wilson and his war mongering military high command,for knowingly allowing an invitation for disaster...evil bastards...

edit on 23-6-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)

What a long sentence. It also once shows a staggering lack of knowledge. The ammunition was small arms ammunition and as such was perfectly legal. There wasn't even that much of it. Do try and keep up Blocula!
By the way, why would the American people have blamed Wilson for the Lusitania? It was, after all, the Germans who sank a passenger liner.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg

By the way, why would the American people have blamed Wilson for the Lusitania? It was, after all, the Germans who sank a passenger liner.

That's just what we've been force fed. Apparently all we know for sure is that the Germans didn't do it because we're told they did. Wilson ordered the Lusitania hit to get the U.S. into the war and blamed the Germans. There you go bloc, you're next thread.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

By the way, why would the American people have blamed Wilson for the Lusitania? It was, after all, the Germans who sank a passenger liner.

That's just what we've been force fed. Apparently all we know for sure is that the Germans didn't do it because we're told they did. Wilson ordered the Lusitania hit to get the U.S. into the war and blamed the Germans. There you go bloc, you're next thread.

Plus space monkeys. Don't forget the space monkeys.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg
Hmmmm? were the vast majority of those doomed passengers allowed onboard the lusitania told anything at all about the ammunition and war arms that were intentionally stored within the ship?

I seriously doubt it and thats why the american and british public should have been enraged at their own war mongering leaders and not misdirected their anger at germany for sinking that ship, something the germans openly warned they would do and did...

reply to post by blocula


Since when were passengers informed of the cargo that is carried on a ship? That ship had every right to carry war supplies, along with passengers. They KNEW they were sailing into a war zone, and that there was a chance their ship would be sunk. They CHOSE to sail on that ship. They took their chances, and lost.

reply to post by Zaphod58
Was it legal to carry war arms within a public passenger ship? and not inform those paying passengers about it? and was it morally correct for america and britain to incite a disaster at sea,killing well over a thousand people,in order to gain massive public support for americas entry into another war?

reply to post by blocula


Yes it was perfectly legal. People CHOSE to travel to a war zone, knowing full well that ships had been sunk in the area, and that they were taking a risk. They thought that the Germans would leave them alone because they were a passenger liner, and were wrong. They took their chances, and they lost.

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Hmmmm? were the vast majority of those doomed passengers allowed onboard the lusitania told anything at all about the ammunition and war arms that were intentionally stored within the ship?

I seriously doubt it and thats why the american and british public should have been enraged at their own war mongering leaders and not misdirected their anger at germany for sinking that ship, something the germans openly warned they would do and did...

edit on 28-6-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)

Erm, small arms don't blow holes in the side of a ship. And they were on the manifest. Which was a matter of public recored. Oh and the Lusitania was a passenger ship. How very noble (translation: cowardly) of the Germans to attack all those civilians!
Would you like to try again, or have you quite finished making yourself look like an idiot?

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Was it legal to carry war arms within a public passenger ship? and not inform those paying passengers about it? and was it morally correct for america and britain to incite a disaster at sea,killing well over a thousand people,in order to gain massive public support for americas entry into another war?

edit on 28-6-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)

By the way the sinking of the Lusitania did not lead to the entry of the USA into the war. It took the Zimmermann Telegram to do that. Have you heard of that, or do you think that that was yet another conspiracy?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg
America and britain purposefully and nefariously allowed the ocean liner lusitania,filled with well over a thousand innocent civilians,to sail directly into and through a previously declared war zone far out at sea,while knowing that both countries were previously warned that any of their ships doing so would be attacked...

and to add more fuel to their fire,america and britain intentionally permitted the lusitania to carry a large cargo of ammunition and who knows what else,to aide britain in their war against germany and tptb didnt bother informing those paying passengers anything at all about those war arms...

maybe if all those innocent people were told,tptb would have lost a lot of ticket money and or perhaps if they were informed,most people would have demanded refunds and never even went onboard and then there would have never been enough americans and britains killed to incite anger and vengeance amongst the mainstream of both countries and ensure vast public support for another war as well...

wow,unbelievable and so it comes as no surprise to realize why the germans sank the lusitania and yet the vast majority of americans and britains were enraged at germany and not at their own war mongering,saber rattling leaders!?!?

because its not politically correct and its not socially acceptable to speak out and stand up against your own countries evil war machine...

sorry guys but the titanic was indeed sunk due to and iceberg skittering along the starboard hull and punching in the hull plates so the rivets popped out opening a gash that was no wider than a few inches in most places although a few hundred feet long.

The explosions heard were the boilers (super hot) coming in contact with very frigid water. Metal tends to explode when cooled too suddenly.

The rivets popped out allowing the hull to buckle in at the hull plates where the iceberg scraped alongside because the metal was later found to be not the highest quality.

They've been down there. they have seen the hole in the side of the ship. the evidence is conclusive. an iceberg sank the titanic. Not a torpedo or any other form of explosion.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
sorry guys but the titanic was indeed sunk due to and iceberg skittering along the starboard hull and punching in the hull plates so the rivets popped out opening a gash that was no wider than a few inches in most places although a few hundred feet long.

The explosions heard were the boilers (super hot) coming in contact with very frigid water. Metal tends to explode when cooled too suddenly.

The rivets popped out allowing the hull to buckle in at the hull plates where the iceberg scraped alongside because the metal was later found to be not the highest quality.

They've been down there. they have seen the hole in the side of the ship. the evidence is conclusive. an iceberg sank the titanic. Not a torpedo or any other form of explosion.

Perhaps the titanic struck against and scraped alongside an iceberg as a result of losing its steering and veering off course after being hit by a german submarine launched torpedo?

Who exactly heard those boilers exploding? anyone who may have been near them most likely never lived to tell about what they saw and heard and anyone else,hundreds of feet away,most likely would not have known what the explosion of giant boilers sounded like,having never heard such sounds before and so how would they know for sure thats what they heard?

People and remote submersibles have been down there to view the titanic,only after many decades had passed, the first time after over seventy years of salt water corrosion and decay had taken their irreversible toll and severely altered the ships wreckage...

Sea water originally entered into the ship through a small hole in the hull that was only about three by four feet across and theres no way that an iceberg would have been able to punch itself inwards and outwards really fast against the side of the moving ship,which is exactly what it would have had to do in order for it to have created a hole that size...

But a german submarine launched torpedo,preset to a specific explosive charge,would have easily been able to inflict that kind of original small sized damage,just like what happened to the similar sized passenger liner lusitania only three years later...

The Myth Of The 300ft Gash > www.rmstitanic.net...