Lusitania - How the Disaster Could Have Been Avoided
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2024
- The sinking of Cunard Line's RMS Lusitania has fascinated and horrified ocean liner and history enthusiasts for decades. In this video we'll examine the 5 key factors that led up to the sinking, and consider that if any one of these things had not happened - then Lusitania may have survived into the 1920s.
Support us on Patreon! / oceanlinerdesigns
Oceanliner Designs explores the design, construction, engineering and operation of history’s great ocean liners - from Titanic to Queen Mary but not forgetting the likes of Empress of Ireland or Chusan. Join Mike Brady as he uncovers the myths, explains the timelines, logistics and deep dives into the lives of the people and ocean liner ships that we all know and love.
0:00 Introduction
1:11 1. Mid-war Sailing
4:58 2. Dangerous Cargo
8:07 3. Speed vs Profit
09:44 4. Captain Turner
13:55 Coincidence - บันเทิง
Not sure if it was intentional or coincidence, but the fact that the ship sank in the time it took to watch this video from start to finish is kinda mind blowing.
Wow Nick that is a really spooky thought - good point!
@@OceanlinerDesigns Yeah!
Well, when the torpedo exploded, it may have set off the contraband munitions aboard the ship. That was essentially hitting a tiny version of a powder magazine on a combat ship.
@@Sacto1654 either it was munitions that exploded or it was a possible boiler explosion
@@OceanlinerDesigns Hol’ up, wait a minute- somethin’ ain’t right...
It's always fascinating when you add up the amount of events that stack together to make a tragedy. Of course the Titanic is one of the most famous examples, but it is also one of the strangest - from the transfer of the 2nd officer taking the keys to the binoculars cabinet, the decision to build the watertight bulkheads only half as high as the hull, to the coal strike that delayed the sailing.
I feel like this when watching plane disasters as well. A lot of people will say it gives them fear of flying/sailing, but I find it gives me a sense of security to know that it takes like 300 different things going wrong just to cause such an event. And then the loopholes all get closed.
Edit: ...oh, he mentioned Air Crash Investigation at the start.
Mainly Captain Smith's suicidal full speed ahead into an iceberg field. Titanic didn't stand a chance.
Not to mention the fire going on the whole time in the boiler rooms for days on end!
@@godfreyberry1599 You realize that was standard practice at the time. It wasn't suicidal if everyone did it
@@godfreyberry1599 The Captain actually course corrected when he first got an ice warning and steered the ship south. It’s actually a huge historical misconception that he charged the ship blindly ahead. I swear I even saw this fact mentioned in one of James Cameron’s documentaries about the actual Titanic.
Hello, have you heard about the battle between SS Carmania and the SS Cap Trafalgar in 1914. The German liner disguised herself as the Carmania until the real Carmania came around and sunk her. One of the craziest coincidences in history. You should make a video about these ships. they deserve some recognition.
I've heard about it and I recently finally watched a video about it. All I have to say is that that was one of the most memeable moments I've ever seen in maritime history and history altogether. XD
I used the Carmania to destroy the Carmania.
Yes
Was it laserpig
I have heard of it. And I think it would have been a hilarious radio chat
"This is the Carmania"
"You uh, sure you wanna go with that story?"
Sorry, but I can understand why Captain Turner was doing the things he was doing. In those days there was no radar, no ECDIS, and no modern navigational tools. So when the Lusitania entered the fog bank it would have been dangerous to travel at high speed without sounding the foghorn. Through reckless but necessary one to prevent a collision which could have been far more disastrous.
The second point with no EDCIS the only way for Turner to know exactly where his ship was at that moment in time was to sail closer to shore and conduct a four-point bearing. Again this was done so he could know where he was, and not sail blind.
Even though Captain Turner has sailed that route numerous times he still needed to know where he was. A case in point is the sinking of the Florizel in 1918.
Thanks Aaron, you're right. I will revisit Turner at some stage and I have pinned a comment of mine linking to the inquiries along with some of his reasoning.
Cheers!
As safe as he was being, Im sure he double checked in his head if he was doing this right....
But if you Fast Forward.. to when he was hung out to dry in the Inquiries.... he asked himself "did I really do the right thing?" So even though he thought he did his best... he was still left holding the bag = guilty.
Also... Captain Smith and Captain Turner... are not like that Shitball in charge of the Costa Concordia. Both Captains sailed by trhe seat of their pants.. and did the best they knew how.
Having technology... (radar and other bs) doesnt make you do better it only makes you more lax.
Concordia Captain knew every damn thing about everything around him.. yet screwed up his ship on known obstacles.. and left his passengers high and dry.
I fail to see how a collision with another ship would be far more disastrous. The Lusitania would have damage only to her front bow, flooding only the first watertight compartment and thus not sinking her. And the ship or boat she hit would most assuredly NOT have nearly as many people on board (and oh the irony it such boat happened to be the U-20). I also recall there are other ways to accurately pinpoint one's location at sea which do NOT require either close contact with land nor a long time at a set course & speed. Captain Turner, for whatever reason, but probably habit, didn't use them.
@@gordonherring2055 Its not just a collision with another ship but also a collision with Ireland that was the issue in the fog - remember he was overdue for a navigational check (that's why he did one as soon as possible after the fog). Just the same his judgement of the relative risks (hitting rocks versus wearing a torpedo) was wrong, though that is maybe not surprising given how novel submarine warfare was in 1915.
@@kenoliver8913 But the lifting of the fog enabled a sun bearing check, which requires neither close contact with land nor a time consuming straight course run, both of which placed the ship in danger from a U-boat. And if collision with Ireland was a concern, Captain Turner could've (should've, would've) altered course a bit to the south; he wasn't THAT lost on his position. And, of course, he had heard reports of U-boat activity off Ireland's southern coast, but incorrectly inferred the U-boat would continue east.
Thanks for giving a shout out to my favorite warship: the Derfflinger, aka the "Iron Dog."
REGARDING CAPTAIN TURNER:
It is easy to sit back here with 100+ years of hindsight and criticise decisions. Especially since I am essentially a landlubber with only a little bit of ocean-going experience. Some interesting insight can be gleaned from reading Turner's testimony at subsequent inquiries, where he seems to have answers for all of the 'blunders' I highlighted in my video. What do you think?
I'd like to go more into depth on this in a subsequent video;
1. Regarding his navigational manoeuvre
What I want to ask you first is why, with that information before you, did you come so close to Old Kinsale Head?
Turner: "To get a fix. We were not quite sure what land it was; we were so far off."
Is that all you have to say? You say you were warned specially to avoid the headlands and to stay in mid-channel; those were the two instructions which were given?
-Turner: "Yes, but I wanted to find out where I was."
Do you mean to say you had no idea where you were?
Turner: "Yes, I had an approximate idea, but I wanted to be sure."
The Commissioner:
Why?
Turner: "Well, my Lord, I do not navigate a ship on guess-work. "
2. Regarding zig-zagging
Now, tell me this. Did you zigzag the boat?
Turner: "No."
You were told to do that?
Turner: "I understood it was only when you saw a submarine that you should zigzag."
Why?
Turner: "Because I did not think it was necessary until I saw a submarine."
You were told zigzagging was a safeguard; you were told submarines were infesting the southern part of the Irish coast; you had plenty of time in hand, and you did not obey the orders?
Turner: "I did not."
3. Regarding speed reduction
You had all this time in hand, and you were purposely going slow?
Turner: "Not slow - 18 knots."
Well, not your best speed; passing ten miles from a headland instead of going at full speed up the channel?
Turner: "Yes."
Did you do that deliberately?
Turner: "I did."
Was that not against your instructions?
Turner: "Well, yes."
Turner goes on to explain that he reduced speed to 18 knots so as to arrive at such a time that he could enter Liverpool Harbour without waiting for a pilot to come aboard - he explains that he did this, instead of going out to sea in order to waste time zig-zagging at 21 knots, as he thought that would increase the risk of exposure to submarines.
SOURCE: www.titanicinquiry.org/Lusitania/01turner3.php
I think it was Turner having that peacetime mindset which led to tragedy
I have also heard it suggested that Turner slowed the ship off the Irish coast because he was trying to "time the tide" for his arrival at Liverpool; if he ran at 21 kn., he would have arrived off the Liverpool Bar at low tide and had to bring the ship to a full stop until he could take aboard a pilot to navigate the tricky channels thru the Bar (and/or wait for high tide). In Turner's mind, this would have made the Lusitania a sitting duck if there were any U-Boats operating in the Irish Sea. However, if he slowed for the last stretch he could arrive at high tide, cross the bar himself at-speed, and pick up the pilot at the last possible moment before entering the harbour proper. In other words, he was trading the risk of being torpedoed off the Bar for the (hopefully lesser) risk of being torpedoed off the Irish coast. This is also why he wanted the four-point check - he was going to be approaching Liverpool at speed in the dark, so he needed the start of his dead-reckoning run to be as accurate as possible.
Whether this counts as _another_ mistake by Capt. Turner, or mitigates/explains the decisions he took is something we can debate. It's somewhat like Captain Stanley Lord of the SS Californian on the night of April 14/15, 1912 - what he considered prudent seamanship at the time turns out to be tragic when viewed after-the-fact.
Nice man you know a lot about ships
churchill and his henchmen are to blame for lusitania, by purposely exposing it and not sending warships to guard it with the objectives being turning the world against germany but most importantly, bringing the us into the war.
interesting. do you know a good source on how they navigated at the time? how could they make sure where they are? and account for wind and such?
I also read that the U-boat was on it's way home to refit, having only one torpedo left. Decided to hang around one last day. Tragic series of chance events, Turner did what he deemed prudent given the circumstances. There was also a rumour that her designated cruiser escort, HMSJuno, was withdrawn at the last moment, leaving Lucy to fend for herself.
Also worth noting that the sole reason Captain Turner was left to judge for himself whether to risk being attacked at the Mersey Delta vs near Cobh was because the British Imperial Navy Intelligence Office had refused to provide him with accurate reports on known submarine activity.
It even came out at trial that one of Churchill's lackeys had tried to falsify the internal records of the bulletins they had sent to ships in the Irish Sea that morning once it was discovered that their lack of transparency had gotten hundreds of civilians killed.
Most important factor that would have saved the Lusitania: If the wrong turn that placed the Royal Couple, Franz Ferdinand and Sophie, squarely in the path of an assassin's gun had never occurred..... Thanks to Mike for another fine watch.
There are any number of moments like that through history, "What if this one particular seemingly-minor decision had been different?".
I remember seeing a Titanic game where you could obtain three items on the sinking ship that would prevent the Russian Revolution, avoid the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and turn Adolf Hitler into a renowned artist, so WWI and WWII were both avoided.
@@browncoatkevin Stranger Things....
Or the unification of German never happens...
@@frenchguitarguy1091 Then there would have been a big war between Britain and Russia, and who knows where France would have come down
I'm surprised you didn't bring up Room 40 and the questionable actions taken by the British Admiralty in the lead up to the Lusitania's sinking. For one, the message they sent Captain Turner warning him about German U-boats was extremely unhelpful as they essentially told him something along the lines of "there are submarines in front of you and behind you" instead of anything remotely specific.
There is also a lot of suspicion (but no evidence) that the Admiralty wanted something to happen to the Lusitania, with the intent of turning American public opinion against the Central Powers.
The British operated very sinisterly in WW1. They knowingly transported munitions on passenger vessels, making them valid wartime targets. On one hand they got to covertly transport munitions to replenish themselves, and on the other, they had an easy scapegoat to lure the US into the war on their side.
@@gooblaka US Government knew what was going on honestly and got their profits from it, USA was making bank out of this war.
I think Erik Larson hit on this. Room 40 of the Admiralty was reading German Codes and the battleship HMS Orion was undergoing a refit. In order to protect the Orion they ordered it and its escort to take a more northerly route to Scappa Flow and then around Ireland to open ocean to avoid U-boats that it knew were operating in the Irish Sea. If they had sent a flotilla to the Irish Sea to protect Lusitania or go hunting for the U-20, the Germans would have caught on to the fact the British were reading their radio chatter, and would have changed their codes.
As if the Admiralty really knew where the U-20 was. Yes, as U-20 made attacks along the Irish coast, the Admiralty warned him about those attacks. Captain Turner then constructed a picture of the U-Boat progressing ahead of him and didn't consider the possibility it could u-turn, which it in fact did when Kapitänleutnant Schweiger concluded he did not have enough fuel to make it to his assigned patrol area via the assigned route. There was NEVER a report suggesting a U-boat behind.
@@theoddstrokesswimmingvideo1314 With the number of times Erik Larson is mentioned in this comment section, I've realised that I really need to read 'Dead Wake' again! Thanks for the reminder!
I'm fairly certain that severe rationing of coal resulted in RMS Lusitania being limited to 20 or so knots. This is far below her top speed of 25-26 knots, and left her quite vulnerable.
Hey Mike,
Great work as always, but I do feel you were a little harsh on Captain Turner. As many have mentioned he slowed for the fog and the bearing check, but there was another major reason why he lowered speed. In his book, Dead Wake, Erik Larson, postulates that Turner, who was well experienced with entering the port of Liverpool, knew that there was the dangerous sand bar at the mouth of the Mersey ( The Mersey Bar) that Lusitania could only clear at high tide. If he continued at 21 knots he would be forced to circle the St. George's Channel which now he knew a submarine was operating in keeping his ship in danger. He made the decision to slow to arrive at Liverpool at high tide, to avoid having to steam around the narrower section of the Irish Sea where Lusitania, in his opinion, would not have been as free to maneuver out of danger. Granted even at a "slow" 18 knots Turner still had a speed advantage over the German Subs. ( Larson 230-231.)
I am surprised though that in the coincidence section that the section where the torpedo hit was not mentioned. Captain Schwieger's torpedo managed to hit Lusitania in just the right spot, either causing a coal dust explosion, or detonating one of Lusitania's boilers, which caused the loss of electrical power, controls, and communication between the bridge and engineering staff. This seemed to have the largest effect on how the ship sank so fast and with such a large loss of life, as the watertight doors could not be closed, the engines could not be slowed until the turbines lost pressure, the ship could not be turned to shore to be grounded, nor could deck crew needed for lowering the lifeboats brought up in a timely fashion.
Where the torpedo struck also had a big bearing on the evacuation because many of the crew who would have been in charge of launching the lifeboats were below deck preparing the baggage to be unloaded at port and were killed in the explosion. The Lusitania only managed to get six boats launched properly and several others capsized because they fouled their lines or were improperly prepped. The British navy had a policy of not sending aid to a ship attacked by a submarine (because it too would likely be attacked) and as a result many who survived the initial sinking succumbed to hypothermia while waiting for rescue. She sank so fast that there was only so much that could be done but if even one or two more of the lifeboats had been able to get away it would have made a difference
I'm sure that the RMS Lusitania wouldn't have been torpedoed if the liner steamed out of New York at 10am on time. Unfortunately the liner was two hours late in leaving Pier 54 because of the delay due to a last-minute transfer of the forty-one Canadian passengers and crew from the recently requisitioned Cameronia onto the RMS Lusitania. Also I agree with you on the subject of Captain Turner and some of his errors in navigating the liner through the danger zone off the coast of Ireland.
If you haven’t read it, *Dead Wake: The Last Crossing of the Lusitania* by Erik Larson is an excellent book.
It really is. And now I've been reminded yet again how badly I need to give it a reread!
I notice you make no mention of the myriad conspiracy theories accusing the Royal Navy of deliberately putting Lusitania into harm's way for the purpose of outraging the US into war against Germany. For this omission - I sincerely thank you! What a relief to find something on YT regarding this tragedy which explores the dull facts and not the spicy fiction.
It was transporting munitions back and forth. German spies most likely figured this out. And because Germans were the largest immigrant group in America, there were many sympathizers for the German effort so it’s not crazy to think word got out
I absolutely agree that history's major events (esepcially disasters) typically happen for multiple reason. In fact, it's been one of my most important realizations in studying history, even if it isn't a unique insight. I've always wanted to do a series of documentary features on major disasters of all kinds (including, for example, Titanic) under the title of "When Everything Went Wrong."
You might be interested in Well There's Your Problem podcast (with slides!) in which nearly every topic involves multiple things that went wrong leading to the disaster. ✌️🍍
@@PFMediaServices Plainly Difficult here on TH-cam also does excellent disaster analysis videos, highlighting the multiple failures necessary for a major disaster to occur.
@@neuralmute Thank you! Love getting my favorite TH-camrs recommended to me! Plainly Difficult is an integral part of my Saturday routine, and I hope someone who hasn't found it yet does so based on your comment. ✌🍍
Another excellent and meticulously researched video. I love to watch or read anything about the Lusitania. I've read that the reason Turner did not bring her back up to full speed after the fog had lifted was because Turner wanted to arrive at the mouth of the Mersey at high tide. Had he sailed at full speed he would have arrived too early, hence 18 knots. He also thought sailing in a zigzag was only to be done if a submarine was actually sighted. He didn't realize that if he ordered the zigzag course, he could have both sailed at full speed and still arrived at the entrance to Liverpool harbour at his desired time. Tragic.
P.S. Mr. B., What about a video about if the Lusitania had survived the war?
I seem to recall all roads led back to Winston Churchill, his idea being to bring America into WW1 if the Germans sank a passenger ship , he knew there were Americans on board the Lusitania AND he also knew of U Boat activity in that area , word on the street is Lusitania wasn't warned but rerouted by the admiralty and as per usual Churchill covered his tracks and blamed Capt Turner, the man died in shame his last words were My longitudinal bulkheads have given out. The Lusitania had longitudinal bulkheads that ran the length of the ship, put a hole in her side and the whole length of the ship fills up. Its been some 50 years since i read that book but i do remember there was a very strong case against Churchill and the actual design of the ship.
Yes, of course Churchill was responsible. After all, hasn't he been blamed for everything since the Black Death by some folk?
No credible case has ever been made against Churchill, in other words.
It’s always interesting to look back on disasters and talk about the various failures that caused them. Great video as always.
Back in the early 1990's I worked in Red Cross Blood Services here in the U.S. and I remember talking to an elderly volunteer lady name Inez. She knew of my interest in ocean liners and told me that though the loss of the Titanic was of course terrible, what really had an effect on her parents was "...the sinking of the Lusitania". I suppose it was because the sinking of the Cunard liner was done intentionally while the Titanic disaster was an accident.
This guy is a legend. Love your content.
0:22 What you described is called the "Swiss Cheese Model" of accident causation.
Imagine many slices of swiss cheese stacked in a row, each slice representing training, safeguards, and barriers. For a disaster to occur, all the holes in the slices must line up. Even one slice in the way can prevent it.
I'm surprised that Captain Turner isn't more infamous for all his blunders that led to the sinking of the Lusitania, and then SURVIVING! I'm surprised he hasn't been completely vilified in films and pop culture, moreso than a certain chairman of a certain line which shall remain nameless.
Can't agree that Turner is somehow a villain for surviving. Surviving to face the court of inquiry seems far more difficult. Going down with the ship to avoid the scrutiny, like Admiral Tryon, is the chicken way out.
He was not a villain for surviving! He stayed on the ship for as long as he could to help as many people as possible safely evacuate the sinking ship and eventually just got blasted out of the ship which knocked him out cold and was still unconscious in the water when the HMS Bluebell found him about 3 hours later. It all sounds honorable to me.
Her wreck today is a very sad sight. The hedgehogs dropped on her to hide any “munitions” didn’t help.
Hey Mike, thanks so much for this amazing video. Just wanted to say thank you for this channel - your content is amazing. I struggle hugely with my mental health, and almost always find myself coming back to your channel when I’m struggling. Thanks for always being here! Can’t wait for the next video!
I love and appreciate how delicately you handle these events with full awareness that, yes, it is easy for a civilian (or anyone, for that matter) to armchair critique the Captain over a century later, but also acknowledge that you cannot ignore the possibility of how his decisions (and the decisions of others) may have/likely contributed to her sinking. And like you said, any tragic event is multifaceted and I genuinely praise how well you handle, consider, and deliver the information. You do it so thoughtfully, respectfully, and humbly, and know how to craft your videos and explanations to hold our interest and attention.
Gorgeous animation, honestly the quality of your videos are extremely good.
"not the William Turner from Pirates of the Caribbean"
Finally someone other than me has talked about the Captain of Lusitania having the same name as a character from my favourite movie series! Also great video!
It makes my day knowing that you love making these videos, it always puts a smile on everyone’s faces.
Another nice job, Mike. Your videos provide lots of detailed information, and thereby, opportunity for spirited discussion. It’s impressive, the amount of knowledge you and some of the other commenters have on these maritime subjects, even after all these decades…there’s still so much to consider. Thanks for your well researched and thought-out presentation!
Cracking video as always. The quality of your content really is second to none. You should be really proud of your work. Greetings from Hull, UK.
Each video topping the other! Unbelievable effort mate!
Can't believe I never thought about some of the thing you discussed in this video. Great job and keep it up!!
Great work Oceanliner Designs. Thank you for the insightful uploads!
Mike, great work! Thank you for producing and sharing!
A great video ! Well developed, narrated and produced. Very informative ! Looking forward to your new works in 2023.
Your knowledge, research, presentation, and performance are first class.
Another great video, Mike. Lusitania has always been a liner I felt the most pity for. Her fate was not deserved, nor those onboard her. Too many errors in judgement and even a little greed brought her to a watery grave.
Thank you for posting these amazing videos!!
What’s interesting to me is that, if the ship was designed with potential military service in mind, there weren’t specially armored magazine spaces that, in peacetime, could be used as any other cargo hold, but would be particularly suited to munitions stores should the ship ever see the need.
Perhaps they saw the liners more of troop ships, aka stuck as many people on top of one another as possible sort of ship
@@HyperVegitoDBZ
Nah the Royal Navy attempted to use them as armed merchant cruisers at first. That was until they realized they weren't suited for that role, so decided to use them for what they do best. Carry passengers (troops).
That would not have made economic sense. The amount of weight necessary to adequately armor a magazine would have detracted from cargo capacity. In other words, wasted deadweight for the vast majority of voyages.
In any case, there are still no compelling facts that point toward the carried ammunition contributing to her sinking. Ships designed in that era were extremely vulnerable to underwater damage. The battleship HMS Audacious, modern for its time, was sunk by a single mine. Another battleship, the SMS Szent Istvan, fell to two torpedoes from an Italian torpedo boat.
@@finsfan90 One of the main reasons the Lusitania and Mauretainia were not used by the Royal Nave is simply because their engine control thus their manoevrabilty, was unreliable.
Great video as always Mike!
I found this channel a few days ago and to say I'm impressed is a huge understatement. I've been passionate about these early 20th century liners for over a decade now, but every video from you I've watched has taught me a new fascinating fact. For example I had no idea about the order to zig-zag, that's just another huge blow that it wasn't followed. Zigzagging even at the reduced speed she was sailing at would very possibly have saved her even though she was that close to the submarine. It leads me even more to wonder what captain Turner was thinking leaving her that vulnerable. You'd think someone with the experience he had would have put two-and-two together.
Thanks so much and welcome aboard! I recall reading a snippet where - and it was either Cunard Commodore Bisset or White Star's Commodore Hayes - tried to exonerate him for the zigzag misunderstanding. I'll go try digging that up again because it may be content for a future video :)
Thanks for watching!
Experienced uboat captains could still make accurate shots with zig zaging. Hell give yourself some practice on a uboat sim and u can in a few hours if your a little good with math
Thanks for this detailed video! Very interesting!
Those pictures of Lusitania in the fitting out dry-dock are awesome and give a whole different reference for what made her and Mauritania such fast ships. When you look at Lusitania’s bow stem compared to an Olympic class liner that photo makes it very easy to see how extremely much narrower she was at the front than Olympic. A true knifes’ edge bow for sure.
One thing that I'd like to say, is that William Turner had decreased speed and shut down boiler rooms due to Cunard's efforts to conserve coal for the war effort, also Lusitania, as it approached the coast of Ireland, encountered a heavy fog (which is very common) and you clearly know this, but Captain Turner had approached the Old Head of Kinsale to get a four point fix in order to get his bearings and his mistake was to slow the ship to 18 knots and just like you pointed out, Captain Turner had turned his ship directly into the path of U-20 captained by Walther Schweiger. Schweiger fired one torpedo and to his amazement Lusitania was hit...fatally. Lusitania sank in 18 minutes...but how? There was a secondary explosion (which Bob Ballard contributed to the shaking up of coal dust due to Lusitania having been at the end of her voyage, and Germany had contributed to her having been carrying armaments), and whatever the reason for that secondary explosion just sped up the rapid sinking of such a large ship. I am not attempting to argue with anyone because I literally just agreed and repeated everything that Mike said, but it never hurts to have more information and further elaboration of the facts of the sinking. As per the New York Times on August 3rd, 2017...
"The ship's manifest made no secret that it carried weapons in its hold, including 4,200 cases of Remington rifle cartridges and 1,250 cases of shrapnel shells and fuses."
However, we ALL know that a ship's manifest can be altered in time of war...history can only tell what exactly was in the holds of Lusitania. Bob Ballard found the shell casings in his dives...
There is NOTHING in the official cargo manifest or in the debris field that would account for the second explosion.
Part of the problem is we're past the time to examine the ship's hull to get any more clues DIRECTLY from the shipwreck. The Irish government (which has legal jurisdiction over the wreck) dragged its feet too long and didn't allow the necessary exploration in the timeframe they COULD have done this investigation (far) more safely. It's just not safe to do any internal exploration of the wreck; it's collapsed too much. They can't do scans with sonar equipment with a collapsed hull lying on its side, either. It won't work, and even with the Titanic sonar soundings, they couldn't differentiate between iceberg damage and damage done to that ship's hull when it landed on the ocean bottom!
I think the Lusitania had a fatal design flaw but nobody's sorted it out.
I'm sorry but rifle ammunition, fuses, and what we know of the coal bunkers would not have sunk the ship like that.
There may be an issue with the boilers, heat transfer pipes, or some other part of the propulsion system that was vulnerable. I don't know enough about ship mechanics to do more than speculate.
I think debating "illegal cargo" is a dead end. They didn't have anything like the bombs we saw in World War II -- and I'm speaking of just conventional bombs. This was the infancy of submarine and aerial warfare.
The problem has to be something in the design of the Lusitania.
@@AvengerII Everything that you said is exactly my feelings as well. The secondary explosion was clearly NOT from a war-time cargo. It was most likely from a thermal explosion due to cold water hitting a fully pressurized boiler. That's what I was trying to say in a roundabout way.
@@Brock_Landers Well, we'll probably never know for sure unless all the conditions can be simulated. Even then, there will always be questions with virtual or practical recreations because of materials used and conditions.
It'd be nice to have an example of the boiler system (for accuracy and having the right metal consistency) used but those were all scrapped.
If only the government had let Gregg Bemis do his explorations. Even 20 years ago when the hull was more intact and safer to explore they might have found out. The guy's dead now and they're limited to exploring the outside of the hull and the ocean bed around the wreck.
They'll never know for sure.
@@Brock_Landers Can you give me a single example of a boiler actually exploding when cold water hits it during sinking? It seems to me that it's something that people speak about, but there are no or very few real examples of this happening. My guess is that this idea comes from an exposed crown sheet in a locomotive boiler exploding when the injector is turned on and introduces water into the boiler that flash boils and increased the pressure almost immediately. But that's an entirely different thing from water getting to the outside, or to the firebox of a boiler. Boiler explosions were increadibly rare by this point anyway, especially on ships, and I don't know of any other ship that had it's boilers explode as it sank.
As a metallurgist, a steel, (or especially iron) boiler just weakening from a quench from a temperature barely above 200°C is also just not a thing. You need at least austenitic temperatures for this to happen.
@@AvengerII aerial bombardment was in its infantcy yes. But your forgetting the millions of tonnes of tnt used in blowing up trenches. The thousands and thousands of 100+ mm rounds of pure he. Rifle rounds going off is one thing but a nice stack of 100mm will make a pronounced explosion. Its know lusitania had ammunition on board and its reasonably found that the germans knew it was carrying weapons too. A second large explosion can easily be reasoned to be ammunition. Just bc the guns werent as high velocity as ww2 doesnt mean they didnt hurt. And they still used big calibres. And as i said. Look up the movie beneath hill 60. There were many points in the war were thousands and thousands of tonnes of tnt was stacked to send 1km if trench 1km high.
Another great video, thank you sir!
I love this Chanel man i listen to this at work and it keeps me happy
Absolutely love these videos these videos, they’ve rekindled my love for war history and naval history I had as a teenager
I very much enjoyed this video. Good job 👍
Mike, excellent presentation.
Another great video, and I appreciate the reference to the ‘Swiss cheese’ model that is so common to disasters. I know that originally there should have been the remaining British government files about the ship declassified in 2015 but haven’t ever heard anything come of that.
Good vídeo👏👏
Excellent video!!
Oceanliner Designs - What you're describing as "a number of things that had to fail for a disaster to happen" is colloquially known as an accident chain. Brake one link in the chain, and you stop the incident or accident from happening. That is the reason why advanced systems that, if a number of them fail, have built in redundancy in hopes of breaking the chain. Preflight, Inflight, Taxi and Parking Checklists on Passenger, Cargo, Military and Leisure Aircraft is one example, where especially important items are mentioned several times, so that the Pilot or Crew have multiple chances at discovering an erroneous setting. Aircraft Systems necessary for a safe flight also have inbuilt redundancy, so that if one system fails, there are extra layers of system backups to fall back on. All these redundancies requires Proper Training & Maintenance to work.
There are examples of redundancy actually giving a false sense of security. This is especially clear in the world of Aviation. Numerous crashes have happened because flight crews have forgotten the Basic Rule of flying, in order of importance: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Pilots or Crews have become so preoccupied with troubleshooting an error, that they have forgotten that backup systems would enable the plane's continued operation and that to Aviate is the primary mission of at least one of the Crew. So, even with multiple redundancies, sometimes Human Error breaks all redundancies, and clicks through every Link in an Accident Chain, making the accident that "never could happen" a reality.
thank you with your great content you make me love ships more
Good job,Mike!
Really good video, have thought about the events leading up to the sinking a lot and fully agree with your list. Couple more points I feel that didn't help after the torpedo hit was that three years on from the Titanic sinking the Lusitania still had Radial Davits, those would have been worth replacing with Welin Davits on both the Lusitania and the Mauretania when the lifeboat arrangements had to be increased anyway, that could have saved a lot more lives. The main issue I feel that doomed the Lusitania though was the second explosion, a ship that size built to navy standard with both transverse and longitudinal bulkheads should have been able to shake off a single torpedo hit. Athough I guess we may never know for sure I reckon the coal dust explosion was the main culprit and it probably blasted out rivet seams in on all sides around the hull. Don't know if the Lusitania surviving could have come down to something as simple as a directive to sweep out the empty coal bunkers during wartime and throw the dross into the boilers. Even with a big hole in her side without that second explosion I imagine the Lusitania could have beached herself at Cobh not unlike the RMS Celtic a couple of decades later and possibly have been salvageable. Either that or she could have limped back to liverpool on her own. Reckon 'What if Lusitania never sank' would be a great addition to your channel, your version of that for the Titanic was fascinating.
they have a new theory about the 2nd explosion and they feel it was a boiler that blew up. that would do a lot of damage to any ship. just something I ran across a few years ago. great video.
The British Admiralty _admited_ mid last decade that the Lusitania was illegally carrying war material that day, and had since the incident tried to 'scrub' the evidence. With that in mind, it's the sad reality that the second explosion was a cookoff.
It should also be noted that the Germans _did_ know that the Lusitania was doing this and put into the papers that Americans should avoid British liners at all costs, especially the Lusitania... a warning that was _purpousfully buried_ by the papers.
Ironic that Titanic was sunk, because she was too fast and Lusitania sunk, because she was too slow. Who knows for time travelers it might be as simple as making sure White Star Line hires Turner and Cunard hires Smith to prevent both disasters (I know it's not nearly as simple as that).
So nicely done! Your my favorite Oceanliner ChanneI!
Thanks for all you do. Keep up the great work. Cheers from CANADA..
Thanks so much!!
Your very welcome 👍
Very well done
Great video
Excellent video debating argument. I feel smarter. Thanks
Fantastic video, as always! At 5:11, Where did you find that book at? It looks interesting and it may be a good read.
I'm telling you, I missed my calling as a TH-camr. I do have an automotive channel for import cars, but I rarely update it or show my actual mechanical skills because alot of my builds are on again off again due to work. However, I have been a maritime historian for the last 33 years and I know alot about ships, particularly ocean liners. If only I had capitalized on my knowledge and put together a channel like you and many others have, then maybe I wouldn't have to do so much dang physical work...lol Great channel bud. I say it every time I watch your videos. You certainly do your research.
Do it. There are many channels. But what makes them different is the opinions and theroies and the interpretation
I really Like this Video!
Great content as always Mr Mike. The same story as Titanic. Once the chain of events starts the result is inevitable sadly and tragically. Perhaps if Lusitania had not been torpedoed on this day, it would have been on another. Sooner or late I think time would have run out for Lucy if they had continued to operate her this way. Wasnt the thinking as well if she was torpedoed in the war zone, there would be plenty of time to save all onboard and that Lucy herself would not sink.....Was it Winston Churchill who said if Lucy were to get into trouble "better still ?" I dont think he thought Lucy getting into trouble though would end so disastrously or tragically.
Its sad to think the same human arrogance that creates is usually the same human arrogance that destroys. At the end of the day the blood of the Lusitania rests on the hands of those who made the very decisions you have so eloquently explained and the enemy that lurked in Lucy's shadow.
And we still have not learnt from history.
mike will always be my favourite host
Great stuff ! Can you share your souces - very interested in turners logs
I was unaware about some of her boilers being shut off, that's very fascinating.
Makes sense, but still a new fact to me, as well as all the coal.
I also was unaware about auxiliary cruisers in the Boer War, and that Lusitania was designed with guns in mind. That really changes how I look at ships of the era, because, without that, it seemed to me that ocean liners as warships was moreso theory than practice.
However, I do think this video kinda lacks some looks at the ship's design; I had expected that. Saying "This particular design element failed and contributed to the sinking" was what I thought this video would be.
But I like what the video is. Thanks! Always a delight to see your uploads.
Thanks HylianBatman!
The design features and their impact on Lusitania's sinking are an interesting topic. To me the biggest that stands out is the impact of her longitudinal bulkheads on the vessel's list as she sank; this meant lowering lifeboats on both sides of the ship became extremely difficult and, in some cases, impossible.
Worthy of a future video!
@@OceanlinerDesigns I'd love to see it when it comes! Thank you!
In “Dead Wake” Eric Larson talks about the passengers thinking they were traveling at the full advertised speed, but it started to dawn on them that they weren’t when the “distance traveled” betting pool was showing they were covering significant fewer distance in a day than anticipated.
I know two more reasons making RMS Lusitania vulnerable.
1. The hull was built for speed, rendering her vulnerable for torpedoing if first one struck. The Admiralty and Cunard Lines knew this, some months
before another but far smaller merchant however of similiar construction, RMS Bacchante, had been lost. Indeed, like RMS Lusitania she went
down in mere minutes. Putting a huge oceanliner with a known Achilles' heel through waters crawling with subs, that was foolhardy in my book.
2. The Admiralty was well aware that the southern coast of Ireland was risky. A cruiser, HMS Juno, was on station and constantly hunting for
German subs. But now the bad luck was that HMS Juno was low on coal just as RMS Lusitania came steaming, it had to go back to home base
Cork to coal up. Captain Turner was aware of this, it should have made him double eager of put all muscle in to get to the station of next cruiser,
the name of this cruiser at station at the southern entrance to the Celtic Sea is unknown to me.
The idea has been floated to make a disaster move, like "Titanic" by James Cameron, but it will never be. The fault was squarely on American and British side, the two main movie-producing nations. The German embassy in Washington DC had even put in an ad in the newspaper, side by of the ad announcing the departure of RMS Lusitania, warning that this vessel was a legitimate target for submarine attack.
It’s the cargo that’s the problem. ships carrying military aid, such as the ammunition on board, makes the vessel a valid target under the rules of war.
Hey! Great video, very interesting! Now I wonder what would have happened if the RMS Lusitania never sank...
If you are into conspiracy theories there is still one more consideration that surrounds the loss of the Lusitania. At the time of her loss Britain was at a critical point in terms of shipping losses to German submarines on vital supply routes which Britain depended upon for their very survival. Germanys U-boat strategy as in the Second World War was to strangle supplies and thereby force Britain into submission in which they came very close to succeeding. This was of serious concern to the British Government. The international outrage at the loss of the Lusitania forced Kaiser Wilhelm to suspend the “no holds barred severity” of this U-boat strategy, which gave Britain a desperately needed reprieve to overcome the U-boat problem…..it makes one think that there may have been more on the Lusitania agenda than just attempting to bring America into the war. One also tends to think that Germany only really threatened the North Atlantic seriously during the Second World War, but in reality a similar strategy proved as effective during the First World War, and the Lusitania almost single handedly stopped German U-boat operations long enough to change the tables….for those who suspect Churchill’s motives with respect to the Lusitania this is another consideration. I understand that British Admiralty documents relating to events surrounding the Lusitania are still classified even though many top secret British First World War documents have now become declassified….makes one wonder…..
Thanks!
Thanks so much David :)
I remember stories my Grandmother told me about her Mother would go down and talk to interred crews of German Ocean Liners and a few submarines, and even wrote letters for a few of them! The family is from Baltimore Maryland and I believe 4 large Ocean liners were confined in Chesapeake Bay. Her last name was Grauling, and German was if not her native language, certainly well known to her. Unfortunately there is only one family member older than me, and she has no knowledge of this. My Grandmother also told me about her parents going to great a gigantic German submarine at Baltimore harbor, which was mere city blocks from the family home, and cheering for the brave crew! This is a well documented instance as I believe the submarine Deutschland made that trip several times carrying cargo vital to both sides. I wish I could ask her more, but that opportunity ended in the late 1990’s and she passed in 2003
I enjoyed your video very much, Thank You. The only I question is your criticism of continuing ocean liner service in the middle of a war. It's important to remember that economics plays a huge role in determining victory. Thus, it was imperative for the British, in particular because of their reliance on trade, to do anything possible to keep their economy going. The Lusitania was very important to that effort.
A fine video as usual Mike, and very enjoyable. There's only one thing I can add, a saying among submariners:
"There's only two kinds of ships, subs and targets!"
Well-said! Although HMT Olympic would have a few words to say about that :)
@@OceanlinerDesigns Ah yes!
"Try to torpedo me eh? I'll show YOU!"
Mike, I love your content and I'd like to encourage you to read about SS Principessa Mafalda. She was on her last trip to South America when sank in the Atlantic, and I think it is a pretty interesting history to be told.
New Lusitania video let's go, and ironically, it's on pretty much the exact topic I've been wanting to cover for quite some time, on what could've been done to prevent her sinking. I won't say much as I already know of all these details you listed, but I will add two points.
First, my two cents on the matter. If she were allowed to run at full speed rather than roughly 3/4s power - after all she was only running like a few crossings per month rather than per week, so coal consumption wouldn't have been as bad otherwise - she almost certainly would've made it to Liverpool safely. Getting to that exact point where she would meet U-20 several hours earlier would've made all the difference, especially if she also got there before the fog bank rolled in.
Second, in regards to Captain Turner. While some of the decisions he made were questionable, I wouldn't fully blame him for the sinking, if at all. As I'm sure you also know, there is a lot of controversy surrounding the Lusitania and whether or not it really was an unfortunate coincidence, or a set-up. I'll point you and others to Eric Flounders' "The Story of Cunard's 175 Years" for reference. Solid late-night watch to end the day. :)
Quite right Kaivara, I didn't mean to come across too harshly on Turner. In his defence a number of the decisions he made were explained in more detail during the inquiries. I think I will need to revisit this in a future video to set the record straight.
Thanks for watching!
Epic vid
Schweiger got off a lucky torpedo, he didn't expect to sink Lusitania, just damage some hull plating, so the story goes. I'm glad you brought up the issue of the 3-point or 4-point bearing. (*maybe you could do a video explaing to the audience 3-point bearings.)🙂 Turner HAD been warned to zigzag once entering the Irish sea but slowed or stopped to take his bearings so that he could get the ship into Liverpool dock on tide. As with Southampton, Liverpool probably should've been dredged deeper to accommodate these larger ships, else why would Turner need to make a specific tide. Cunard made similar troop ship sailings with Queens in WW2 but instead of sailing up the Irish Channel they traveled north over Ireland and down to Gourock, probably a direct result of Lusitania being sunk in WW1.
I told my friend I had stumbled upon this channel recently and was obsessed with it and she said ‘thats very on brand for you because you love aircrash investigation, it’s sounds like that but about ships’ and then you literally mention the show on this video 😂 she was right I guess
Love this video. The what ifs. I think had speed not been compromised the “coincidence” with U 20 would have been minimized or negated all together. I also wonder if the decision to not zig zag was predicated on avoiding passenger discomfort ?
A video on Lusitania vs Titanic's watertight bulkheads could be very interesting!
Many know Titanic's 16 compartments (bulkheads between, water flowed one over the other, etc.). What fascinates me to this day is: Titanic took 'punches' along seams totaling 300 feet of ship length, and she sank with barely any list (some attribute this to a coal fire having forced the transfer of coal to bulkheads opposite the iceberg's damage).
Lusitania DID have a longitudinal bulkhead that separated port and starboard along the vessel's spine. She was 5 years older than Titanic. And yet, the Torpedo (plus secondary explosion...coal dust or munitions 🤔) put her on the bottom in ~20 minutes. One would think great compartmentalization would have enabled reserve buoyancy for longer
Whoa, a heart!
A number of factors contributed to Lusitania sinking much quicker than the Titanic.
1.) Movement. Lusitania was, for the majority of her sinking, still in motion. Whereas Titanic was completely still, aside from the first portion where her engines were put back in use. Lusitania couldn't stop herself due to steam pressure dropping nearly immediately after the second explosion. So with the ship still moving, water was being forced in much quicker.
2.) The damage itself. Titanic's damage was nowhere near the damage Lusitania had. Yes Titanic had more compartments flooding than Lusitania did at first. But they were from seams that the iceberg opened up thanks to rivets failing and plates bending. Thus not letting in water as fast. Lusitania, on the other hand, had a gaping hole blown open in her side that allowed much more water into the hull at a faster rate.
3.) Uneven flooding. Those longitudinal bulkheads that the Lusitania had in her hull may have hurt her more than helped her. With the starboard compartments flooding, that dragged that side of the ship down. Titanic, on the other hand, didn't have this issue. The water flowed relatively evenly. Though she did later develop a list to port. That was due in part to the amount of coal on that side as well as the D deck gangway door being open on that side as well during the sinking.
4.) The watertight doors. It's possible that a number of the watertight doors on Lusitania were open at the time of the torpedo strike. Some may have even been jammed in the 'open' position by the force of the explosion. Just like what happened to Britannic after she hit the mine. Titanic's watertight doors were all closed after hitting the iceberg, thus delaying the flooding until it was able to spill over the bulkhead.
It's for these reasons, and probably more that I didn't list, that Lusitania didn't stay afloat for as long as Titanic did.
@@harmsway2914 You got the upvote for thoroughness and referencing the D deck gangway!
I can recommend the book Seven Days to Disaster: The Sinking of the Lusitania by Des Hickey and Gus Smith. It's an excellent eyewitness account and also covers the events in the days leading up to the sinking as well as the aftermath and political fallout.
Could you do a video with more detail about this sinking? Why were the passengers not rescued in time? Is the wreck still at the bottom of the ocean?
The wreck sure is still at the bottom of ocean and scuba divers have found remains of the military hardware the Lusitania was transporting to Europe for World War I. The main reason why so many people died in that disaster was because of the Lusitania sinking so fast. She completely sank in only 18 minutes and thus only 6 of her 48 lifeboats were successfully launched properly while the others ended up either going down the ship or falling into the water and fatally hitting people who had already fallen off the ship after just being detached from their ropes. Also, the Lusitania’s fast sinking had caused her to lose power so fast that many people literally got trapped inside due to getting lost in the darkness and trapped in the elevators that got stuck between decks and wouldn’t open.
Some fun facts related to the sinking of the Lusitania:
It has been estimated that about 60-70% of the cargo the Lusitania was carrying; beyond the passenger's luggage and ordinary mail, was considered war contraband; and this is by the British rules of what constituted contraband. These rules had been set up to justify the stopping (blockade) of shipping to Germany during the war. So, it wasn't just the bullets and shrapnel shells that were being sent to help the British war effort. If you look at Lusitania's cargo manifest you see things like brass sheeting, copper, copper wire, a number of different items for manufacturing that are listed as steel, copper, brass, iron mnfs. packages and leather; plus, aluminum powder and bronze powder, and those are only the most obvious items on the list.
J.P (Jack) Morgan Jr., the man who negotiated with the British government for all arms shipments from American manufacturers to Britain during WW1, negotiated a sweet-heart deal for the American firms, which made the sinking of the Lusitania; and all other ships sunk that were carrying war materials from the U.S. to Britain, a win-win for the American companies. Once the goods had left the factory the British government was on the hook for any loss that occurred afterwards. So, in the case of the Lusitania, Remington Arms sold those 4.2 million rounds of .303 rifle ammunition twice. They sold the first 4.2 million rounds which went down with the Lusitania, but the British Army still needed that ammunition so they would have purchased the same amount of ammunition a second time, which was sent on other ships.
What German spies did and did not discover. That is a tricky issue, because at the lowest level, German spies; often German expatriates living in the U.S., were paid a base salary of $3 a day, but they were rewarded with much more money when they produced important information. This led to some of these men making up information that just wasn't true. At least one spy reported seeing 6 inch naval guns; hidden by leather canvas, on board the Lusitania the night before she sailed on her last voyage. He would later repeat this story in a court of law and be convicted of perjury. Other spies reported that the Lusitania had carried rifle ammo hidden in barrels of flour during some of her previous voyages. If that crazy report had been true, imagine the time and effort that would have been needed to clean those bullets after they arrived. No one would be so stupid as to ship bullets packed in a foreign substance, even something as seemingly benign as flour.
On the other hand, when the German ambassador; Johann von Bernstorff, met with President Wilson following the sinking of the Lusitania, he had copies of the invoices for the rifle ammunition and shrapnel shells. This was reported in a New York Times article only a week or two or three weeks after the sinking. So, maybe Germany knew what the Lusitania was carrying or only dug up that information after the sinking.
Another German U-boat had waited to attack the Lusitania in the Saint George's Channel two months and a few days prior to her sinking. This information is from the war diary of that U-boat. The commander of that boat gave up waiting about a day before the Lusitania passed through the area. He passed up taking shots at several cargo ships that crossed his path, hoping for the big kill. He may have miscalculated Luci's time of arrival thinking the big ship would be travelling at 25 knots.
Captain Wilhelm Bauer; who was the Commander of U-Boats, High Seas Fleet, sent out a broadcast to all U-boats putting to sea around the time of the Lusitania's final sailing from New York, announcing her date of sailing and expected arrival date in Liverpool. He may have done this for previous sailings of the Lusitania.
After the war, several German naval officers claimed the inspiration for the campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare was a short story written in 1914 by Arthur Conan Doyle, titled "Danger! The Log of Captain John Sirius." In this story a fictional European country that is militarily weaker than Britain, is still able to force a British surrender through a naval blockade using a force of only eight submarines. The highlight of the story occurs when Captain Sirius makes an attack; without warning, on the White Star's Olympic, sinking her. Seeing as the high command of the Kaiserliche Marine didn't actually have any strategic plan for how to best use their submarines when the war started, nine months prior to the sinking of the Lusitania, these officer's story might have a slight degree of truth to it.
The Royal Navy had made an attempt on a previous voyage to have an escort meet the Lusitania to protect her on the final leg of her voyage, but it was totally screwed up. The would-be escort destroyers didn't know the Lusitania's exact position. The Lusitania didn't have the naval codes to communicate with Royal Navy ships and the RN destroyers didn't have the merchant ship code. The commander of the escort ships tried to get the Lusitania's captain "to hint" (his words) in open Morris code; where she was so the destroyers could find her. The Lusitania's captain refused any communication and sailed into port without an escort. This may be the reason why the Royal Navy didn't try to provide an escort on the Lusitania's final voyage. After this failed attempt they didn't see sending an escort to meet the Lusitania as a practical thing to do.
Hi I’m a HUGE fan of the channel and just for the channel and you I’ve built a 4ft Titanic and the Carthpia and the Olympic and Britannic
Awesome video!
Quick question - do you have a video of a summary of maritime law that’s been created or changed because of these ships going down?
The captain was doing the correct thing, he was adhering to the Collision Regulations for restricted visibility, these are rules followed by all at sea, especially civil shipping. You can hardly blame him for following rules, which, if you remember the Empress of Ireland sinking, which would have only happened in recent time as well. The same rules, or failure to follow them, doomed the Empress, and I don't think you can use that to critique the Captain's actions during the restricted visibility he encountered.
That life boat flying off when the torpedo hit, really gives my nostalgia of Silent Hunter
Great analysis. One thing you missed, though, is the RN escort ships stationed at Queenstown were not ordered out to escort the Lusitania. The Admiralty thought her speed was sufficient protection - wrongly, as you point out. Well done and thanks.
I thought it was due to lack of ships and wanting to hold them to guard vital cargo carriers only.
Next video idea: The history of RMS Lancastria where over 4,000 to 7,000 (?) people died
Since almost every famous ship has been talked about, From the Olympic-class to the Lusitania-class ships, some ships like Lancastria is somewhat below the radar of many infamous shipwrecks.
Nice, maybe you could also do a video on the utter failure of Lusitania’s lifeboats?
This is a great distillation of the reasons for the sinking. I hope you won't mind if I use this for my American History class?
I think it's worthy to point out a couple of mistakes here. 1) Captain Turner didn't exactly ignore the order of the Admiralty to keep at top speed of 21 knots. He was actually forced to reduce speed because had he maintained top speed, he would have arrived at Liverpool at low tide and thus be forced to anchor outside of port, making his ship a stationary target. 2) He did in fact receive warnings by the Admiralty of a German U-boat in the Irish sea, but they didn't tell him when or where that U-boat sighting took place. So from Turner's point of view, that sub could have been anywhere. 3) The German U-boat commander knew in fact which ship he was looking at. The German Navy High Command informed him of the Lusitania arriving in his patrol zone. 4) U-20 was the ONLY German U-boat in the area at the time. There was a second boat in the Irish sea, but it was forced to turn back for home due to a lack of fuel and provisions. 5) Due to the lack of coal, at that time a strategic war material, he was under orders by the Cunard line to run his ship in the most efficient way possible and since he had no information as to the location of the German U-boat, he decided not to run a zigzag course in order to preserve coal. Additionally, fog rolled in, making a zigzag course not only unnecessary but also dangerous because of the presence of other vessels in the area. In the inquiry that followed the sinking, Captain Turner was cleared of all charges and by the head of the inquiry lauded a very capable and good captain. Also, it is noteworthy that in the German Flottenhandbuch (German fleet reference handbook) the Lusitania was listed as an armed merchant cruiser and thus a legit target of war.
I just thought I'd mention these little discrepancies. Otherwise a great video!!!
You give passing mention to the British Admiralty. I want to know what was crossing the desks of Churchill and a few more of these "Rule Britannia" types who knew well that getting the US into the Great War might have been the only way to spare the British a lot of suffering. I do not have the shimmering outlook that so many have about the 1940 model Churchill. The 1914-18 version was a manipulator par excellence who had also given the UK such nice gifts as Gallipoli , and whose own blunders in the Boer War almost got him killed. I have to wonder about how much and what sort of information might be "stacked away" not to be seen for another 50 years or so about what went on to send Lusitania to her doom. Wilson and Lansing knew about her cargo. What else did they know, and when? And how much of that got to the crew and passengers, who had been warned that they were crossing (rightly) at their own risk. I hate to say this, but her clandestine cargo made Lusitania a legitimate target for her tragic fate, which was none of her own doing. The true tragedy of Lusitania came after the torpedo, and not before.
What 'blunders' in the Boer war? He was a war correspondent in his 20s.
I enjoy reading the comments of fools whose knowledge of history is minimal, but who are absolutely convinced that Churchill must be blamed for everything since the Black Death.
Lusitania was not carrying a 'clandestine' cargo. Nothing has ever been found in the wreck which was not on the manifest handed to the US authorities. Perhaps you aren't aware that Germany had a policy of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare in force at the time, which meant that any allied ship was, in their terms, a legitimate target?
In the late 1950s the Lusitania was finally located approximately 10 miles off the lighthouse of KInsale. Ireland. As soon the admiralty found out, they began a bazar sudden decision to start depth charging the wreck and continued to do so for weeks. Claiming that it was navel practice. Do remember that this was a recognised War Grave of nearly two thousand men, Women and children. Are You Kidding me. Talk about destroying the evidance of her cargo. She is now a total pile of steel and iron and barely recognisable. What a coincidence. all nice and neat.
Churchill - war criminal
I love history and I love this page!!!! I. Hooked!!!!
Lusitania is my favorite ship of all time and it’s heart breaking that she sank
I knew a guy who had been working on the Seas since the mid 40s and some of the ships he worked on in his early days were in service in the 1890's aswell as crewmen he worked alongside (Infact some of the ship's engines held some of Rudolf Diesel's original patents) and were sister ships to some of the boats discussed on this very channel. But he firmly believed that even if you could hit a liner like the Queen Mary doing 32 knots with a deflection shot, the bow wave would have caused the Torpedo to do a figure 8 in the air and explode harmlessly or the inner workings would be rattled enough that it would sink or cease to function.