Was The Titanic Destroyed By A German Submarine?

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
The 1906 German U-1 Submarine had a range of 2,000 miles and was often "refueled at sea" and could have easily done it...




posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


you have yet to provide any cradible evidence or motive for a submarine attack



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


U-1 only had a range of 1,500 miles, so it's round trip would be 750 miles each way, just about enough to get it to Ireland from Wilhemshaven or, as it was actually built and based in Kiel, would probably only manage to get round Denmark before needing fuel.

I would also LOVE you to furnish me with proof that any German sub in 1912, let alone WW1 was refueled at Sea. Because I can find no such reference.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


"Though the damage in the hull was 220 to 245 feet long, the most recent evidence shows that there was only a 12 square foot opening,the size of a refrigerator,in the hull allowing water inside the ship"... www.eszlinger.com...

The Titanics damage consisted of relatively small holes and the 12ft hole i mentioned,which is the original hole that allowed water into the ship,was a 12ft square hole,which is around 3ftx4ft big on the side, hull, of the ship.The Titanic supposedly slid and grinded along the iceberg,scraping along against the hull as the "moving" Titanic sailed by.So how is a 3x4ft hole going to be created into the hull of the ship? The titanic was'nt sailing sideways,it was moving forward...A hole that small can only be made by an object thats moving straight against the hull,not sliding against it sideways...The ice did'nt punch in and then pull itself out real fast,which is what it would have had to do...unless something was shot at the hull a little below the water line and then through it...
edit on 25-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
The very design of the Titanic takes away any possibility of this being a torpedo strike. The way the compartments were layed out would have meant that a torpedo strike, had it penetrated even 2-3 of the compartments, it would have stayed afloat.

No conspiracy here people, move along home now.
From what i have read, none of the Titanics hull compartments were water tight and as "one" filled up, it spilled over into the next one and so on until it became too much for the ship to handle...

"The "watertight" compartments of the Titanic's hull were not actually watertight. They were open at the tops, which aided in her demise." > www.eszlinger.com...

edit on 25-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
.
edit on 25-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
www.submarine-history.com... < Thats the most informative link i could find on early submarines...1870-1914...and as you'll notice for the dates 1906 and 1912, Germanys Submarines were easily capable of causing the sinking in 1912 with one or more strategically placed torpedos...
edit on 25-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


I assume then that your going to ignore the multitude of reasons why a German sub couldn't even make the trip, let alone why would they do so and just keep repeating this bollocks about the hole?

Until you can come up with evidence that a German u-boat could even make the trip, then come up with a reason why they would sink it, anything else you say is pointless.

You are also ignoring the massive amounts of eye witness testimony in TWO enquiries (one US and one British) that proves an Iceberg hiit the ship, plus the reams of Naval engineers that concur with said fact.

Merely repeating what you have said over and over is not going to change the fact the Titanic was sunk by an Iceberg.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Another thing,every countries "true level" of its technology is always kept secret and is not made common knowledge,just like the USA right now,we do not know the true extent of the USA's present military technology and so in 1912,Germanys actual level and extent of submarine knowledge would have remained secret...



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
Another thing,every countries "true level" of its technology is always kept secret and is not made common knowledge,just like the USA right now,we do not know the true extent of the USA's present military technology and so in 1912,Germanys actual level and extent of submarine knowledge would have remained secret...


So Germany has been keeping the capabilities of their subs of 1912 classified for 100 years?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
the best candidate that i could find for a German submarine to have sank the Titanic in april,1912 was the SM U-12 ,a German Submarine,built in 1911 and sunk off Scotland in 1915.It was the first submarine to launch a plane at sea.U-12 was a Type U 9 U-boat built for the Kaiserliche Marine.Her construction was ordered on 15 July 1908 and her keel was laid down by Kaiserliche Werft in Danzig.U-12 was launched on 6 May 1910 and commissioned on 13 August 1911 and had a nautical range of 3,356 miles,enough to have reached or to have been waiting for the Titanic and then return to Germany...

edit on 25-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
The Imperial German Navy did have submarine tenders though I am unable to find if any were in commission in 1912 so it is possible that they were able to refuel/resupply U-1 at sea.

That being said I think we would have discovered by now that the Titanic was sunk by a submarine. This whole theory is about as absurd as the claim that the USS Arizona was sunk by a IJN midget submarine during the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th 1941 - it's more or less proven fact that the USS Arizona was blown apart by a bomb launched from an airplane ... nevertheless the torpedo theory remains persistent even as we approach the 70th anniversary of the raid.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Yes, it spilled over to the next one, because the iceberg had ripped a hole across 5 compartments, which then flooded making the front heavy.....that is why it started to spill over to the other compartments. A torpedo might have made a hole across two compartments at the most, which wouldn't have caused it to sink forward, and would have prevented the overspill into the other compartments.

I explained this in my previous posts, you have obviously chose to ignore this as you obviously cannot be convinced that what really happened that night with an iceberg, despite numerous witness reports and scientific (and physical) evidence, is the truth.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Couldn't have been this sub as she was offered to several navies before the Germans got her. She was commissioned as U-12 in August 1914.

Snippet from source:

Although provisionally assigned the designation U-7, the submarine was commissioned as SM U-12 on 21 August 1914,[5] with Linienschiffsleutnant Egon Lerch in command.[3] U-12's activities over the early part of the war are not reported, but the boat's armament was augmented by a 3.7 cm/23 (1.5 in) quick-firing (QF) deck gun in November 1914. Sister boat U-5 had her first radio receiver installed at the same time her deck gun was added, but it is not reported whether U-12 did as well.[2]

Built on speculation by Whitehead & Co. of Fiume, the submarine was launched as SS-3 and featured improvements in the electrical and mechanical systems from the design by the American John Philip Holland, to which her older sister boats, SM U-5 and U-6, had been built.

SS-3 was laid down in 1909 and launched in March 1911. The double-hulled submarine was just over 105 feet (32 m) long and displaced between 240 and 273 tonnes (260 and 301 short tons), depending on whether surfaced or submerged. Whitehead's tried selling SS-3 to several different navies, but she was finally bought by the Austro-Hungarian Navy after the outbreak of World War I, despite having been rejected by them twice before. She was commissioned as U-12 in August 1914.

source: en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 25-11-2011 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


If the German Navy sent a Submarine on a Secret Mission to sink the Titanic, the U-9,U-10,U-11,U-12,U-13,U-14,U-15 and U-16 were all built and launched before 1912 and all had ranges of around 3,356 miles and if needed, any one of them could have easily been fitted with an extra fuel tank,or installed with a larger one...

1912 was'nt so long ago and military technology was not as primitive as some people might think...
edit on 25-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Have you ever seen video or photos of a torpedo strike? There would be NO confusion from the survivors if it had been a torpedo!

Video
Photo



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


You're missing the point though, at that point in history a single torpedo strike would have been insufficient to sink the Titanic!

Plus WWI hadn't even started then......why would they even try?
edit on 25/11/11 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


U-12 had a range of 3300 miles, not enough to make the round trip from Germany, to the Titanic sinking and back.

As far as I can tell, the German Imperial Navy did not have any sub tenders in 1912 and, as far as I can tell, didn't have any in WW1. In fact, prior to the US entry into the War, U-boats used to refuel in US ports, such as in Rhode Island.

So, for your theory to even begin to gain traction, you have to prove that the U-12 was in the US at the same time.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Montana
reply to post by blocula
 


Have you ever seen video or photos of a torpedo strike? There would be NO confusion from the survivors if it had been a torpedo!

Video
Photo
Yes i have,from a WW-2 era torpedo,not a WW-1 torpedo,although they are probably similar...

If a torpedo hit the titanic,it would have taken about 1/5th of a second for it to explode...i dont think anyones first comment or thought would have been,"Listen to that sound,a torpedo just hit us"...even if it was a torpedo...

They still would have thought it was something else and this happened around midnight in the dark and it was cold outside and i dont think many people were standing around on the outside decks then and those that may have been,could have been 200 or 300 feet away from the point of impact,or even further...

How many people on the Titanic would have known what a torpedo exploding into metal sounded like anyways?
edit on 25-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


See, now you're having to invent even more things to have your theory even begin to stand up, such as we're now looking at "extra fuel tanks" being fitted.





 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join