Was The Titanic Destroyed By A German Submarine?

Originally posted by blocula
Makes no sense to me at all that the designers and owners of the titanic would allow the use of brittle steel for the ships hull and wherever else,to save money? but then build the titanics interior so lavishly and expensively...

In which case congratulations! You've learnt something new!

Are there any photos of the Titanic wreckage that show the tear in the hull from the ice berg? Isn't it impossible for ice to tear through metal?

Maybe the reason they won't raise the Titanic is because they don't want the true cause of the damage to be seen?

Or it could have been an Illuminati sacrifice ritual and so needs to remain underwater. Is that the reason they won't raise the USS Arizona out of Pearl Harbor too?

It seems that every 30 years, the Illuminati needs to do a sacrifice ritual.

1912 - Titanic disaster

1941 - Pearl Harbor

1970's - Vietnam War

2001 - 9/11

Is that a coincidence or pattern?

reply to post by Eurofile007


It didn't tear through the metal, it ripped the seams open when the rivets failed.

reply to post by Eurofile007


Enough of the damage has been seen to make an assessment about what the iceberg did. This thread was a joke from start to finish. The idea behind it was just ludicrous and the OP had 0% proof.

Originally posted by SonoftheSun
It is a theory like any other...and I would say...why not?

There are witness testimony. But let's not forget that witnesses were under shock. Heavy duty shock. The "Unsinkable was sinking"...an impossibility.

There are eye witnesses that saw the iceberg. Some saw it go by. So what they saw wasn't necessarily an iceberg gashing the ship. They saw an iceberg go by.

There have always been rumors of cover up. Rumors that some people wanted that ship to sink. No need to mention that it was speeding (at night) in iceberg infested waters while other ships in the area were either stopped or had slowed down. The Titanic wasn't a racing ship "ordered" to break a speed record as some claim. It was speeding for other reasons but the Captain went down with the ship. Case closed.

Yes but they did find the Titanic. But what did it reveal? A long gash along its side as claimed?

No.

Interesting article that states:

Confusion about the condition of the ship itself remained until the wreck was discovered. Most experts thought that a large gash had been torn in the side. Some eyewitnesses reported that the ship broke apart as it sank, but most shipbuilders dismissed that as impossible. The wreckage revealed that the ship did break apart, and there does not seem to be a gash after all, only small holes.

only small holes

Food for thought.

Source

Are there any photos or videos from the Titanic wreckage of the tear in the hull?

Wouldn't a sub need more than one torpedo to sink the Titanic? I remember that one sub needed 20 torpedoes to sink a big ship during WWI.

How did the Titanic break in half? I never understood that part.

Anyone can say anything, but I'd like to see the Titanic sinking replicated under controlled conditions with miniature models.

Originally posted by Eurofile007

Are there any photos or videos from the Titanic wreckage of the tear in the hull?

Wouldn't a sub need more than one torpedo to sink the Titanic? I remember that one sub needed 20 torpedoes to sink a big ship during WWI.

How did the Titanic break in half? I never understood that part.

Anyone can say anything, but I'd like to see the Titanic sinking replicated under controlled conditions with miniature models.

There was no evidence, at all, of an explosion. All the eyewitnesses agreed that the ship hit an iceberg - some of the passengers were even seen playing football on the main deck with ice that come off it. The 'berg itself damaged the hull, pupping rivets and tearing the occasional hole along the side of the ship, opening the first five compartments of the ship to flooding. She could have floated with two or even three compartments flooded, but not all five - the weight of the water dragged the bow of the ship down, so that the flooding spilled over into the next compartment, and so on. She didn't sink on an even keel therefore - the water pulled her bow down and her stern up, subjecting the keel to stresses that it wasn't designed to withstand. That's why she broke in half.

Ok, it's official. I'm calling time on this thread and declaring victory. The Titanic was NOT sunk by a German U-boat. ROMA VICTOR!!!

a reply to: AngryCymraeg



I'd forgotten about this one and how ludicrous it was!

originally posted by: blocula
the Japanese Navy devastated the Russian Navy in 1905 with torpedos fired from submarines,

No Japanese submarines were involved in the Battle of Tsushima....

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

But wait, what if this particular U-boat's torpedoes were made out of ice! And were real big, say, the size of an iceberg! And the U-boat didn't fire their projecticle, but just pushed the massive ice torpedo out of the torpedo hatch real slow, setting it adrift in the path of the Titanic. A dastardly plan.

My face aches from too many face palms on this site...
Let me see...hmmm Iceberg spotted, check...ship collides with iceberg, check...ice showers deck, check, ....damage later confirmed where iceberg struck, check, no explosion reported, just a juddering bump, check....ship sinks due to combinations of complacency, incompetence..oh and water, check.... definitely a submarine. (sits back and waits for the alien theory...takes asprin).

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: blocula
the Japanese Navy devastated the Russian Navy in 1905 with torpedos fired from submarines,

No Japanese submarines were involved in the Battle of Tsushima....

Yes, but the OP saw no reason for actual facts to get in the way of what he seems to have regarded as a plausible theory.

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

But wait, what if this particular U-boat's torpedoes were made out of ice! And were real big, say, the size of an iceberg! And the U-boat didn't fire their projecticle, but just pushed the massive ice torpedo out of the torpedo hatch real slow, setting it adrift in the path of the Titanic. A dastardly plan.

A masterly and dastardly plan! (Sorry for taking so long to notice your post!)

I know folks. This premise by the OP is incredibly dumb.

First off...How good were the WW1 German submarines. Were they capable of operating that far out to sea...and maintain in Iceberg filled north Atlantic waters.

Would not an Iceberg be just as deadly if not more so to a submarine as it would to a surface ship?

Remember in WW1 the German U boats were operating from Germany..not from the coast of France as was the case in WW2. I do not believe the German U Boats had the range to operate that far out into the Atlantic as was the case in WW2 with the later German U boats at the zenith of diesel submarine development.

But my main reason for not believing this theory is that German War Strategy and conduct was often more honorable in it's conduct than the Allies in both WW1 and WW2.

That combined with knowing some of the technological development of these boats at that time tells me it was more dangerous for a U boat to be operating in an Iceberg field than a surface boat...particularly that far out into the North Atlantic...that far from it's home port.


Orangetom

This has to be the most ludicrous thread I have ever seen. Was the OP mentally ill?

originally posted by: Darkmind
This has to be the most ludicrous thread I have ever seen. Was the OP mentally ill?

No idea. He hasn't posted any rebuttals to all the facts that have been deployed to show up how idiotic his 'theory' was.

It has been awhile since I've posted on this but to my knowledge...albeit limited...did not the U boats back then often fire their torpedos from a surfaced position. Meaning the periscopes and launching systems were not that highly developed as they were to become in the WW2 boats.

In spite of all this ..even in WW2...when possible..the weapons were often delivered from a boat riding mostly on the surface..not submerged per se.

My point in all this is that even a U boat is in grave peril when riding on the surface at night...in an iceberg field.

Really dumb...even today. Submarines do not travel surfaced ..particularly near icebergs. If any of the diving or sterring planes get damaged by striking an iceberg..a u boat is in great danger...today..right now. They cannot well maneuver and may make noise if they try. Sonar arrays up foreward can be damaged as well.

The OP seems not well versed in this kind of thinking.

One of the most dangerous maneuvers the Navy does in a submarine is to sneak into certain areas like the straight of Hormuz...while hiding in the shadow of a tanker..at night...with no running lights. You don't want anyone to know you have entered and in that manner...are hiding in the shadow of a much larger more dangerous surface ship.
If you make a mistake and miscalculate you can get sucked into the wake..propeller of the surface ship....collision. One of the big tankers...a small love tap or collision can be disastrous to a submarine. Remember what one of these tankers weigh.
This requires very strict and disciplined maneuvering of ones boat.

This would be no different and no less dangerous in entering and navigating an ice pack.

Just some food for thought...amongst those not sufficiently thinking it through.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Has anyone even seen the OP at all recently? I almost miss his ludicrous theories based on 'What if...?'