Titanic VS. Icon of the Seas! 🤯

Поділитися
Вставка

КОМЕНТАРІ • 2,4 тис.

  • @eoghantheuntamed9613
    @eoghantheuntamed9613 10 місяців тому +4857

    Correction, RMS Titanic is an OCEAN LINER, totally different from a cruise ship.

    • @Swevill
      @Swevill 10 місяців тому +97

      Beat me to it 😂

    • @Cat-tu9oy
      @Cat-tu9oy 10 місяців тому +47

      Thank you😊

    • @myspleenisbursting4825
      @myspleenisbursting4825 10 місяців тому

      this nigga really called the titanic a cruise ship

    • @Nemy360
      @Nemy360 10 місяців тому +58

      And?? A ship is a ship bruh tomatos tumatus same shit

    • @eoghantheuntamed9613
      @eoghantheuntamed9613 10 місяців тому +236

      @@Nemy360 To you maybe, but for some of us, it's better to point out the difference between two things that appears to have the same purpose. Not everything that looks the same necessarily functions the same way.

  • @tuipaopao
    @tuipaopao 5 місяців тому +100

    Titanic is not a cruise ship. She was an ocean liner. Her purpose was to take people from point A to point B as fast as possible, no matter the weather.

    • @nogods_nomasters
      @nogods_nomasters 5 місяців тому

      No, not really.

    • @user-co3qr1wr8f
      @user-co3qr1wr8f 3 місяці тому +2

      @@nogods_nomasters what do u mean he’s right

    • @nogods_nomasters
      @nogods_nomasters 3 місяці тому +2

      @@user-co3qr1wr8f her purpose was not no matter the weather, ocean liners diverged from their paths a lot especially later into their history because companies realised sinking and crashing wasn’t good for business

  • @GlamorousTitanic21
    @GlamorousTitanic21 9 місяців тому +49

    Titanic was an ocean liner.
    A cruise ship is like a limo. The destination is not the main attraction. It’s about all the fun activities you can do onboard.
    An ocean liner is more like a bus. It runs between two locations on a very strict schedule; as a result of this, liners have to be able to push through the toughest weather conditions, not divert to a port like a cruise ship does.

    • @Oqweisha
      @Oqweisha 3 місяці тому

      The point is is that titanic and the icon are very different not when it comes to what they do but how safe they are and things like that

    • @miamibitch305fl
      @miamibitch305fl 3 місяці тому

      What’s the difference genius?

    • @GlamorousTitanic21
      @GlamorousTitanic21 3 місяці тому +1

      @@miamibitch305fl -_- I tried to use an analogy that dumb 21st generation minds like yours will maybe understand. I guess I was wrong on that.

  • @lizard869
    @lizard869 9 місяців тому +42

    You were able to piss off Mike Brody in less than 5 seconds

    • @shasame.3679
      @shasame.3679 7 місяців тому +2

      So fucking true.

    • @kaycee_kat
      @kaycee_kat 4 місяці тому +3

      Mike brady?

    • @user-co3qr1wr8f
      @user-co3qr1wr8f 3 місяці тому +5

      Not just him every ocean liner enthusiast

    • @FlaminwheelsYT
      @FlaminwheelsYT 3 місяці тому

      Mike brady reference in the comments😂

    • @henrykernodle
      @henrykernodle 3 місяці тому

      Right? I was pissed from the start! I’ve just watched a great video about old ocean liners, just to watch this shit! 💩

  • @simsandsurgery1
    @simsandsurgery1 10 місяців тому +606

    Not to mention that Titanic was an ocean liner, crossing the rough, dangerous, iceberg-laden seas of the North Atlantic whereas this new ship is a cruise ship which will spend 98% of its time in calm, shallow waters and warm weather.

    • @eduardofindlay4518
      @eduardofindlay4518 10 місяців тому +20

      Not true, sir if you do really know about this, this cruises , not just this one all mayor cruises do go across the Atlantic to do western cruises, and also the technology in this modern day cruises to navigate seas is nothing comparable to the titanic , titanic had to relay on men on the top of the ship, pictured that.

    • @the_monstah6378
      @the_monstah6378 10 місяців тому +27

      @@eduardofindlay4518titanic did not have to “ rely “ on the men in the crows nest, they were just there as another precautionary measure. I understand how much has advanced in 111 years, but do not be fooled, titanic was the most technologically advanced ship in the world at the time of its maiden voyage. If conditions had been a little different that night, the ship never would’ve sunk.

    • @alfredonegrette6775
      @alfredonegrette6775 10 місяців тому +8

      Except ships in 1912 then didn’t have the use of rader technology until it was invented in 1935 back then the guy in the crows nest of the titanic didn’t see the iceberg in time was because the pair of binoculars were locked up by a crewman who was fired and took the only pairs of keys with him before the ships maiden voyage

    • @simsandsurgery1
      @simsandsurgery1 10 місяців тому +25

      @@alfredonegrette6775 You’re technically right but Titanic was equipped with state of the art systems for her time, like that underwater listening device to listen for obstacles close to the shore in fog.
      I also want to impress upon you the rarity of the night that Titanic sank on. You’re correct that they didn’t have binoculars because they were locked away. But… It was a moonless night, meaning it was incredibly dark as there wasn’t even any moon light to reflect off the berg. This is not dark like it was in the movie, this was dead of night dark. Go into a room with no windows and turn off all the lights and close the door. That is how dark it was. The only light was the light of the stars above which don’t really generate enough light to see by. It was a waveless night, meaning there was no water sloshing around at the base to be noticed. There was, if I recall correctly, nearly double the amount of ice in the North Atlantic as was typical for that time of year and the ice had been carried much further south than it usually was. They also theorize that were was a optical illusion going on because of the water temperature and the air temperature which artificially raised the horizon. All in all with Titanic it was a perfect storm of coincidences, mistakes, and errors in judgement.

    • @francisgomes9976
      @francisgomes9976 10 місяців тому +2

      Not shallow water.. cruise ship stills sails to destination. Its not like they hug the shoreline as they are sailing to Bahamas

  • @JJW419
    @JJW419 10 місяців тому +234

    Titanic isnt a cruise ship, it's an ocean liner. And 112 years ago, the Titanic was absolutely stunning especially without computer technology. Just brilliant men who had exceptional engineering skills.

    • @ummmbye1228
      @ummmbye1228 9 місяців тому +5

      People like you fit this emoji 🤓

    • @ThePlushBrosProductions
      @ThePlushBrosProductions 9 місяців тому +11

      @@ummmbye1228Ok? Is there a problem with that?

    • @ummmbye1228
      @ummmbye1228 9 місяців тому

      @@ThePlushBrosProductions yes

    • @ThePlushBrosProductions
      @ThePlushBrosProductions 9 місяців тому +5

      @@ummmbye1228 So, being smart annoys you?

    • @ummmbye1228
      @ummmbye1228 9 місяців тому +1

      @@ThePlushBrosProductions no it’s literally pointing out the smallest things

  • @TheGreatLake
    @TheGreatLake 9 місяців тому +9

    That part about having enough life boats is especially important.

    • @LanTheWarder
      @LanTheWarder 3 місяці тому

      I mean, Estonia had enough life boats but that really doesn't matter if the ship capsizes in the span of an hour in the middle of the night on the open sea.

    • @MatchitMax
      @MatchitMax 3 місяці тому +1

      R.M.S Titanic had enough lifeboats at the time she sank, It waa people refusing to get into the boats for whatever reasoning. Btw back then it was thought that there would always be a ship nearby so you could ferry lifeboats from the damaged ship to the rescue ship.

    • @AMTGContent
      @AMTGContent 2 місяці тому

      ​@@MatchitMax Titanic only had 20 lifeboats, which could carry only half the maximum capacity.

  • @jasonmethot9573
    @jasonmethot9573 10 місяців тому +12

    The new cruise ships have thrust-vectoring impellers that can act like 4 way steering. They are incredibly maneuverable

  • @CtrlAtlDel
    @CtrlAtlDel 10 місяців тому +804

    With the technology nowadays it's unlikely that it will collide with anything.
    -Costa Concordia 2012

    • @hotdogman8271
      @hotdogman8271 10 місяців тому +60

      Unlikely means that there is still a small chance it can happen. It doesnt mean it wont happen.

    • @Dantinus
      @Dantinus 10 місяців тому

      The Captain is an idiot.

    • @Themostuselesssofa
      @Themostuselesssofa 10 місяців тому +91

      The Costa Concordia was solely the captain's fault

    • @somethingsomething404
      @somethingsomething404 10 місяців тому +31

      Wasn’t he drunk and with a mistress? Way different

    • @Astro_Lugia
      @Astro_Lugia 10 місяців тому

      Costa Concordia was 10000% the captains fault. He was an idiot and killed many people.

  • @seeks252
    @seeks252 10 місяців тому +2346

    Another huge difference... Titanic wasn't a cruise ship. It was a luxury liner. 😊

    • @ItZLukeOfficial1508
      @ItZLukeOfficial1508 10 місяців тому +11

      ok

    • @Ravioli119
      @Ravioli119 10 місяців тому +120

      No. It was a ocean liner.

    • @reuploadify
      @reuploadify 10 місяців тому +70

      ​@@Ravioli119luxury ocean liner.

    • @matteufo
      @matteufo 10 місяців тому +25

      @@reuploadifyit wasn’t luxury, the majority of passengers had bad living conditions

    • @calibos3329
      @calibos3329 10 місяців тому +42

      ​@@matteufoI don't understand how you think that disqualified it from being labeled as luxury. After all, the crew's quarters in even the most luxurious ships are far from luxury - does that disqualify them from being considered luxury also? 🤦

  • @deathclaw8961
    @deathclaw8961 9 місяців тому +7

    "the cruise ship is unsinkable"
    Poseidon: lemme introduce myself.

    • @tyler93539
      @tyler93539 4 місяці тому +1

      Poseidon a fake ship -.-

    • @deathclaw8961
      @deathclaw8961 4 місяці тому +1

      @@tyler93539 c'mon man... Lemme have my fun moment 🥺

    • @DoritosChill
      @DoritosChill 4 місяці тому +1

      Costa Concordia:what about me

    • @natehill8069
      @natehill8069 3 місяці тому

      Poseidon didnt sink

    • @maddoxrodriguez6362
      @maddoxrodriguez6362 3 місяці тому +1

      Costa Concordia: I'm sinkable
      RMS Lusitania: me to
      HMHS Britannic: me three
      RMS Carpathia: at least I helped Titanic's passengers before I sunk
      SS Californian: I didn't help titanic because she's annoying.
      RMS Titanic: well I'm glad you sunk that's what you get!
      RMS express of Ireland: just stop Titanic for me it's RMS storstads fault
      Because he sunk me.

  • @pansexuallmao
    @pansexuallmao 10 місяців тому +9

    he really called the titanic a cruise ship

    • @reupsvideos
      @reupsvideos 7 місяців тому

      Stop trying to be smart and theres already loads of comments saying this

    • @coffeelink943
      @coffeelink943 4 місяці тому +1

      @@reupsvideosThat’s literally common knowledge that almost every school should have taught everyone about the Titanic, The moment I saw this clip I was utterly shaking my head the entire time

    • @user-co3qr1wr8f
      @user-co3qr1wr8f 2 місяці тому

      @@coffeelink943 my school did but I literally went home and raged coz they got everything wrong I love learning about it but they didn’t do research and just blamed ismay for everything I hate that school I dropped out coz it was so bad 1 week before graduation

  • @TheGlobePark
    @TheGlobePark 10 місяців тому +299

    If clickbait had a voice, it’d sound like this guy

    • @triopical6884
      @triopical6884 10 місяців тому +6

      lol

    • @seaspeaktome9167
      @seaspeaktome9167 10 місяців тому +3

      Thank you! Glad I’m not the only one who feels that way 😅

    • @halomultiplayermoments3651
      @halomultiplayermoments3651 10 місяців тому

      😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    • @jus10lewissr
      @jus10lewissr 10 місяців тому +2

      Exactly. Your comment deserves far more likes!

    • @vedran9819
      @vedran9819 9 місяців тому

      Gay?

  • @mr.prince1730
    @mr.prince1730 10 місяців тому +61

    Here is a big difference, Titanic was a Ocean Liner, it’s purpose was not to go to tourist destinations and take guests on vacation, it was like a airplane, to get passengers from one point to another. The Icon, is a cruise ship, these are what do vacations and such, and they don’t act as transport vessels. Big difference.

    • @ethanaerni8938
      @ethanaerni8938 10 місяців тому

      was about to comment about that.

  • @GhostofZae
    @GhostofZae 10 місяців тому +9

    There's no way of knowing it would sink slowly if anything happened. No matter how big the ship, the sea is always a LOT more powerful.

    • @WorldTradeCenterNerd
      @WorldTradeCenterNerd 9 місяців тому

      Correct Costa Concordia took less than 30 minutes to capsize and don’t get me started on the Estonia

    • @tyler93539
      @tyler93539 4 місяці тому

      @@WorldTradeCenterNerd you mean 3 hours??? google is free bubba, took the captain over an hour to even admit anything was wrong

  • @Skys111
    @Skys111 9 місяців тому +4

    "It will sink slow enough for everyone to evacuate" What About Costa Concordia

    • @ELECTRICFAN120
      @ELECTRICFAN120 5 місяців тому

      Costa Concordia was 11 years ago, 😂

    • @tyler93539
      @tyler93539 4 місяці тому

      only 40 people died on costa and it took over an hour for the worst captain in history to even admit anything was wrong

  • @kv1648
    @kv1648 10 місяців тому +190

    Here's the difference: Titanic was an ocean liner, Icon is a cruise ship.

    • @reupsvideos
      @reupsvideos 7 місяців тому

      Stop trying to be smart

    • @kv1648
      @kv1648 7 місяців тому +11

      @@reupsvideos Being correct is never a fault.

    • @Clean-ql5jy
      @Clean-ql5jy 6 місяців тому +2

      ​@@reupsvideosWhat's bad about trying to be smart?

    • @dibble1331
      @dibble1331 5 місяців тому

      @@reupsvideosthey’re not smart. you’re just stupid.

    • @MsPatYou
      @MsPatYou 5 місяців тому +2

      @@reupsvideos So? He’s right.

  • @hhproductions8254
    @hhproductions8254 10 місяців тому +734

    Bro called the Titanic a ‘cruise ship’

    • @chrisd798
      @chrisd798 10 місяців тому +4

      💀

    • @Historicaleducation-pm1li
      @Historicaleducation-pm1li 10 місяців тому +3

      Yeah and it could hold almost 3000 people

    • @ryans413
      @ryans413 10 місяців тому +10

      Titanic could hold 3500 but when it sailed it was not completely full many rooms reminded empty

    • @Historicaleducation-pm1li
      @Historicaleducation-pm1li 10 місяців тому +8

      @@ryans413Yes because everyone wanted to travel on the Olympic, Witch was the ship that was most famous before the titanic sank, The titanic had a massive under booking for the voyage so they had to transfer passengers from other ships.

    • @kv1648
      @kv1648 10 місяців тому +8

      @@Historicaleducation-pm1li Thank you for writing that. Today, everyone believes Titanic was THE most famous ship of its era, but that honor actually went to Olympic. Titanic was just the second of the Olympic-class of shipsm and was nothing the public hadn't already seen on the Olympic.

  • @jamesgroccia644
    @jamesgroccia644 8 місяців тому +2

    I thought it was crazy when I first heard it, but Titanic actually did kinda have enough boats. According to BBoT regulations at the time, every vessel over 10,000 tons needed capacity equal to 16 lifeboats. Titanic had the required number as well as 2 collapsibles and two emergency cutters, which put her total capacity *above* regulation. Ships were advancing just too fast for the laws to keep up.

  • @user-qe6qf1eb2z
    @user-qe6qf1eb2z 6 місяців тому +3

    Remember The icon is a cruise ship! (Made to satisfy guest to a luxurious extent) while the RMS Titanic (Royal mail ship) is used to transfer mail while the main purpose of it was to be an ocean liner( a ship made to transfer passenger to a long area) and it is not made to be a cruise some people say that because they only know the attractions of 1st class passenger not the 2nd and 3rd

  • @BabyScatha
    @BabyScatha 10 місяців тому +299

    Also Titanic was actually a beautiful ship.

    • @cellocat-sm8lx
      @cellocat-sm8lx 10 місяців тому +19

      Yes, the most beautiful ship ever 👑💐

    • @robertallen5531
      @robertallen5531 10 місяців тому +37

      Yes Titanic was beautiful and icon of the seas is a eye sore.

    • @-_deploy_-
      @-_deploy_- 10 місяців тому +12

      For real bro. It was the perfect design for a ship. Nothing tops her. Even her sister ships don't have the same beauty as her.

    • @hanslanda336
      @hanslanda336 10 місяців тому +6

      Olympic looked way better to me tbh

    • @scorm3088
      @scorm3088 10 місяців тому +8

      ​@hanslanda336 Olympic and Titanic basically look the same. In my opinion, Britannic actually looked the most intriguing

  • @crazynachos4230
    @crazynachos4230 10 місяців тому +181

    Bro just called the Titanic a cruise ship

    • @ryans413
      @ryans413 10 місяців тому +5

      So many people do ugh I wish they do some research before making a video

    • @ryans413
      @ryans413 7 місяців тому +3

      @@tigerblox6655 because it’s not get it right. Titanic was a fancy ocean liner that transported people from point A to point B. Cruise ships just sail around islands and everyone comes back to where they boarded.

    • @cbjueueiwyru7472
      @cbjueueiwyru7472 7 місяців тому

      People commenting on his videos did. He just responded

    • @ryans413
      @ryans413 7 місяців тому +1

      @@tigerblox6655 but ocean liners transport more then just people like Titanic it transported lots of mail and cargo other then just the passengers belongings. It was a hotel on water. A cruise ship is just strictly for entertainment no one goes on a cruise ship to go places they get on to enjoy some entertainment and everyone comes right back where they started. Ocean liners drop you off it’s a one way trip.

    • @macgyversmacbook1861
      @macgyversmacbook1861 7 місяців тому

      @@tigerblox6655 ocean liners are/were built for transportation and to not stop in a storm, cruise ships are meant for leisure and if a storm pops up they have to stop in a nearby port. Calling a liner a “cruise” is like calling a plane a Zeppelin

  • @Libroerina
    @Libroerina 10 місяців тому +3

    A visual size comparison seems in order…

  • @honey1284
    @honey1284 2 місяці тому +1

    I'm currently on icon of the seas as this video popped up, very cool!

  • @user-hl7wm2dj8k
    @user-hl7wm2dj8k 10 місяців тому +47

    Costa Concordia: are you sure about that?

    • @tyler93539
      @tyler93539 10 місяців тому +8

      it took the captain over a hour to even admit anything was wrong so add that to the time

    • @solomonkirby7493
      @solomonkirby7493 9 місяців тому +2

      Well the Costa concordia was a disaster that happened because of the captains own idiocy, the situation ocean liners were put in were way different

  • @StrategicChicken
    @StrategicChicken 10 місяців тому +230

    "The cruise ship titanic" 💀

    • @flake1445
      @flake1445 9 місяців тому

      💀💀💀💀

    • @MXLLOLL
      @MXLLOLL 9 місяців тому

      the titanic is a cruise ship lol

    • @jjblocks
      @jjblocks 9 місяців тому +4

      ​@youlikeboysdontcha It's literally a ocean liner, not a cruise ship. In 1912 cruise ships barely even existed 😂

    • @zhackiethedog
      @zhackiethedog 9 місяців тому

      ​@@MXLLOLLcruise ships tend to be in calm waters most of the time, while ocean liners go to the destination in the shortest amount of time possible, like a bus.

    • @Indy_Yt
      @Indy_Yt 9 місяців тому +1

      ​@@MXLLOLLI can tell you 10 things different from a cruise ship and ocean liner

  • @collinlampkins
    @collinlampkins 10 місяців тому +1

    "cruise ships sink slowly" my torpedo has something to say about that...

  • @cloudnine4187
    @cloudnine4187 9 місяців тому +1

    "no cruise ship is unsinkable" gotta throw that in there to be safe.

  • @mrjakeg9971
    @mrjakeg9971 10 місяців тому +59

    Back in 1912 the regulations were you didn’t have to have more than 16 life boats. The Titanic actually carried 22 boats 2 wooden cutters, 14 standard wooden lifeboats and 4 collapsible canvas lifeboats. This was more than what was regulated at the time. Lifeboats wasn’t meant to be in the water for hours. Lifeboats at the time was supposed to act as a ferrying service from one ship to another.
    the law at that time based the number of lifeboats required on the gross register tonnage of a ship, not her passenger capacity. So at the time of The Titanic’s completion she was classified as the safest ship ever built up until that point.

    • @reactive435
      @reactive435 10 місяців тому +12

      That regulation probably wouldnt even exist today if it werent for the titanic sinking.

    • @Boileryard
      @Boileryard 10 місяців тому +3

      ​@@reactive435I'm pretty sure it would've just been common sense to have enough lifeboats for everyone on board, regardless if Titanic sunk or not

    • @reactive435
      @reactive435 10 місяців тому +3

      @@Boileryard It was complying with safety regulations at the time. The sinking knocked sense into those making the regulations and got them to increase.

    • @Boileryard
      @Boileryard 10 місяців тому +1

      @@reactive435 That's true

    • @WilleJamesHuff
      @WilleJamesHuff 10 місяців тому +6

      That’s right on the ferrying part. They figured nothing would be big enough to take it out without enough time to do that and get everyone out.

  • @PDRstudiosSHIPSandMAPS
    @PDRstudiosSHIPSandMAPS 10 місяців тому +122

    As an oceanliner enthusiast, I nearly died as you said titanic was a cruiseship

  • @quinncondon2926
    @quinncondon2926 9 місяців тому +1

    Lifeboats weren't supposed to save people back in 1912. They were for getting passengers to a different "rescue" ship.

  • @hk._.
    @hk._. 9 місяців тому +1

    The captain of this cruise ship must feel like a fucking boss

  • @Gabriel_Strelow
    @Gabriel_Strelow 10 місяців тому +216

    Titanic was an ocean liner, not a cruise ship. The easiest way to understand the difference is: Titanic was like a bus, it was meant only to transport passengers from continent to continent; while Icon of the Seas or any other cruise ship is like a limousine, it is meant to also transport passengers but not necessarily from continent to continent, and the biggest part of the reason for you to book a ticket is the ship itself, not only the destination

    • @jamesbali1300
      @jamesbali1300 10 місяців тому +10

      I know where you got that definition but i wont tell on you, haha :3 I literally watched that very video today :P

    • @Ravioli119
      @Ravioli119 10 місяців тому +3

      Finnaly someone else who knows.

    • @Gabriel_Strelow
      @Gabriel_Strelow 10 місяців тому +4

      @@jamesbali1300 What a coincidence, I really like his channel. That's something that I really wasn't expecting at all lol

    • @jamesbali1300
      @jamesbali1300 10 місяців тому +9

      ​@@Gabriel_Strelow The learning curve on his channel is super steep, he is a gem really. The minute this channel called TITANIC a cruise ship, i was going to pull an OceanlinerDesigns card, but i found that you already had the honor 😎

    • @sunky-
      @sunky- 10 місяців тому +2

      this comment^^^^^

  • @darius_alex2043
    @darius_alex2043 10 місяців тому +32

    Titanic was not a Cruise Ship. It was an Ocean Liner. Totally different.

    • @notcharlie7107
      @notcharlie7107 10 місяців тому

      not really that different

    • @darius_alex2043
      @darius_alex2043 10 місяців тому +3

      @@notcharlie7107 It is. A Cruise Ship is a place were you go on vacation to have fun. An Ocean Liner is a ship with the purpose of getting passengers from one place to another. Like instead of taking an airplane from the UK to the US you can take a ship.

    • @notcharlie7107
      @notcharlie7107 10 місяців тому

      @@darius_alex2043 the ships themselves aren't that different though, just the itineraries. So no they aren't that different

    • @solomonkirby7493
      @solomonkirby7493 9 місяців тому

      @@notcharlie7107yeah kinda, a cruise ship is a vacation and a place to enjoy yourself, the top priority of the cruise is to comfort and fun, an ocean liners top priority was getting its passengers from point a to point B as fast as it could which often meant travelling through bad weather and dangerous waters which is why they were so much more dangerous and sunk much more frequently

    • @WorldTradeCenterNerd
      @WorldTradeCenterNerd 9 місяців тому

      @@notcharlie7107they are extremely different

  • @JBRAI22
    @JBRAI22 9 місяців тому +2

    Ive been on the Mariner of the Seas, I loved it. If you can manage to go you should

  • @everythinghistory6770
    @everythinghistory6770 10 місяців тому +3

    The footage of Titanic in this video is actually of her sister Olympic.

    • @lukasakesson2024
      @lukasakesson2024 6 місяців тому +1

      true

    • @h1gh_end134
      @h1gh_end134 3 місяці тому +1

      They look exactly the same so please explain how you know it’s not the titanic

    • @everythinghistory6770
      @everythinghistory6770 3 місяці тому

      ​@@h1gh_end134 its easy to mistake the two ships because they are externally identical to each other, but you can tell the difference between them by looking at the window layout just beneath the lifeboats. On Titanic, towards the back half, the windows are open and the front half are smaller windows. On Olympic, these smaller windows were completely opened. The clips shown in the video are of Olympic in New York in the 1920s, almost a decade after Titanic sank

  • @nomadictraveller8580
    @nomadictraveller8580 10 місяців тому +147

    Titanic is an ocean liner not a cruise ship

    • @Elena14204
      @Elena14204 10 місяців тому

      Yep
      Uncultured swines are just trying to capitalize on the recent interest in Titanic.

    • @reuploadify
      @reuploadify 10 місяців тому +3

      Underrated comment.

    • @invisibleguy8191
      @invisibleguy8191 10 місяців тому +2

      @@reuploadifyWellrated comment

    • @hezigege2.045
      @hezigege2.045 10 місяців тому +1

      What are difference between cruse vs ocean liners

    • @nomadictraveller8580
      @nomadictraveller8580 10 місяців тому +14

      @@hezigege2.045 ocean liners are like a bus. They were the only way to get to America on the Atlantic until the 50's cruise ships are built for pleasure kind of like a limo. They take people on pleasure cruises and there is no fixed destination

  • @Derelflint
    @Derelflint 10 місяців тому +22

    Bro should’ve seen the comments coming after calling the Titanic a cruise ship 💀

  • @eivoMSeb
    @eivoMSeb 10 місяців тому +1

    One major difference.
    Titanic was a transatlantic liner.
    Icon is a cruise ship.
    Also no other ship in history will ever recreated the beauty, class and luxury of the Titanic.

  • @drexl8326
    @drexl8326 10 місяців тому +1

    Would be pretty cool to make a true replica titanic and set it up for cruising.

    • @frederickwilt5541
      @frederickwilt5541 9 місяців тому

      One is/was planned. But crossing the ocean in a ship that size is not for the faint of heart.

  • @justsomeguywholikesnoodles732
    @justsomeguywholikesnoodles732 10 місяців тому +30

    Pov: you're looking for a comment not talking about Titanic being an ocean liner.

  • @Flightgenic
    @Flightgenic 10 місяців тому +117

    This video proves that doing your research is important! Words cannot describe how much the inaccuracy pissed me off.

    • @triple_play_games
      @triple_play_games 8 місяців тому +2

      RMS Titanic = Ocean liner
      Icon = Cruise ship

    • @h1gh_end134
      @h1gh_end134 3 місяці тому

      Legit one mistake and everyone on his ass like bruh it’s not that deep smh

  • @chrisspbacon_
    @chrisspbacon_ 3 місяці тому

    The fact of the matter is how many life boats these ships have now, which makes it a winner since they have enough to actually accommodate everyone on board

  • @k2fuego863
    @k2fuego863 3 місяці тому

    Saw the icon in Miami last week when I went of carnival celebration. That ship was shocking up close. Doesn’t do it justice

  • @salbyleon8951
    @salbyleon8951 10 місяців тому +21

    If someone makes that small Titanic again it will still fetch more attention than any cruise ship

    • @vipvip-tf9rw
      @vipvip-tf9rw 10 місяців тому

      OceanGate: hold my beer

    • @frederickwilt5541
      @frederickwilt5541 9 місяців тому

      There are cruise ships of all shapes and sizes. Some that make the T look large.

    • @Skirbiy
      @Skirbiy 9 місяців тому

      The titanic is very massive, not even the icon of the seas is double its length!

    • @frederickwilt5541
      @frederickwilt5541 9 місяців тому

      @@SkirbiyYou need to consider all three dimensions. The gross tonnage of the Icon class is some 5x that of the T. The T's GT was some 46,000 which was significant for it's day but is on the rather small side for today.

    • @Skirbiy
      @Skirbiy 9 місяців тому +2

      @@frederickwilt5541 True, but the titanic did look much better, the icon of the seas is literally an eyesore from the outside, but is very nice from the inside.

  • @Justinsauls56
    @Justinsauls56 10 місяців тому +34

    The worlds biggest OCEAN LINER Titanic from 112 years ago! No offense I’m just a history nerd.

    • @ryans413
      @ryans413 10 місяців тому +5

      Yep Titanic , Olympic and Britannic where the biggest ships in the world at the time

    • @jonathanmcginley8128
      @jonathanmcginley8128 9 місяців тому

      Well, titanic and Olympic at least, another ship that was built to be larger than the Olympic class ships set sail I believe a couple of months after titanic’s sinking, long before Britannic set sail in WWI.

    • @ummmbye1228
      @ummmbye1228 9 місяців тому

      Shut up

    • @Flightgenic
      @Flightgenic 9 місяців тому

      It’s 111 years ago 💀

    • @WorldTradeCenterNerd
      @WorldTradeCenterNerd 9 місяців тому

      The world’s biggest ocean liner Titanic from 111 years ago

  • @kettlecornstationwagon8129
    @kettlecornstationwagon8129 10 місяців тому +1

    “If in the event it does sink it will sink slowly enough for everyone to be evacuated” that’s the same thing they thought about titanic 100 years ago

    • @frederickwilt5541
      @frederickwilt5541 9 місяців тому

      The Titanic had a structural flaw as we all know.

    • @h1gh_end134
      @h1gh_end134 3 місяці тому

      Are you so dense that you can’t realize that technology has advanced a lot since the last 100 years?

  • @allentan2312
    @allentan2312 9 місяців тому +1

    The titanic had a very safe hull as there was many sections of the hull so they thought it would be safe enough to not have much lifeboats

    • @flake1445
      @flake1445 9 місяців тому +1

      The bigger your hull is the better |battleships|

  • @Majikfish
    @Majikfish 10 місяців тому +30

    “Stop comparing…”
    After doing a comparison video 😁

  • @YourVideoIsFakAndGay
    @YourVideoIsFakAndGay 10 місяців тому +50

    titanic didn't have enough boats for everyone yes but it's because back then life boats would usually be used as ferries to ferry passengers away from a sinking vessel to a nearby vessel sense the most common place ship would sink were at ports and harbors

  • @dannydeez2810
    @dannydeez2810 10 місяців тому +1

    This sounds like something a non maritime historian would say

  • @jacksonbenin8191
    @jacksonbenin8191 6 місяців тому +1

    This is mostly true but
    1. Titanic is an ocean liner not a cruise ship
    2. The rate at which a cruise ship can sink isn’t always going to be slow enough for everyone to evacuate (for example the costa Concordia)
    3. While yes the amount of lifeboats is definitely an improvement, if a ship lists to much to one side during its sinking half of them would be deemed unusable

  • @CertifiedGrimlockFan
    @CertifiedGrimlockFan 10 місяців тому +6

    Titanic isn’t a cruise a ship, she’s an ocean liner, major difference.

  • @Thedurrburger
    @Thedurrburger 10 місяців тому +4

    Fun fact people tried to sue white star line over dead family members because of the claims that the ship was “unsinkable” however t white star line never really said this it was newspapers that said it and it was the newspaper company’s that got sued in the end over the unsinkable thing

    • @macgyversmacbook1861
      @macgyversmacbook1861 7 місяців тому

      Exactly! It was Hearst who started that whole debacle. They said she was NEARLY unsinkable, as in it took a lot to sink her. And seeing how it took her nearly three hours to sink with a literal gaping hole in her side and bottom Harland and Wolff were absolutely right

  • @erodanoitcerideno3030
    @erodanoitcerideno3030 4 місяці тому +1

    The second and third class on the Titanic didn't had access to the area of the first class. They can't use the pool, gym or dining room of wealthy people, they had another area for them. There were gates that don't allow those people to go to the beautiful and luxurious part of the ship. Their rooms looked like a jail with bunk beds. The gates were always closed for them. At modern cruises and ships, all the people can access all areas. Millionaires and working middle class people are mixed into the crowd of people and you can't tell who is who, because all passengers can share together the same attractions at the same time. The rooms don't had bathrooms. They have to share showers and toilets with other passengers. There were very few showers and toilets for too many people. Modern ships has bathrooms in every room. Imagine if you ate too much and need to go running for a toilet! 😂

  • @steelcomrade6871
    @steelcomrade6871 3 місяці тому

    Both of them are beautiful and are icons of the seas.

  • @FlamingTacos10
    @FlamingTacos10 10 місяців тому +582

    “With the technology nowadays it’s very unlikely that it will collide with anything”
    -RMS Titanic 1912
    (Edit : it’s not hard to take a joke people)

    • @blakel1
      @blakel1 10 місяців тому +45

      There wasn’t much technology 112 years ago 😂

    • @Boileryard
      @Boileryard 10 місяців тому +70

      ​@@blakel1Considering that the Titanic had a high range Marconi set, complex engine and electrical systems, watertight doors, efficient lifeboat davits, a double hull, many cranes on the deck to assist with loading cargo, microphones in the hull to listen for sounds which effectively acted as sonar, and several telemotors which activated hydraulics to move the ships rudder, I woukd argue that were was quite a lot of technology back in 1912

    • @archiesawesomegames1930
      @archiesawesomegames1930 10 місяців тому +2

      @@Boileryard ever heard of laziness

    • @Boileryard
      @Boileryard 10 місяців тому +18

      @@archiesawesomegames1930 What has that got anything to do with this conversation

    • @isaacmccormick7124
      @isaacmccormick7124 10 місяців тому

      @@archiesawesomegames1930yea I just have it cuz u didn’t no none of that

  • @AdityaKaul-dm8fk
    @AdityaKaul-dm8fk 10 місяців тому +32

    Stay humble or the ocean will humble you.

    • @351clevelandmodifiedmotor4
      @351clevelandmodifiedmotor4 10 місяців тому

      beware of america fake ice burg tracked entire journey back in 1912????? nope u.s submarine torpedo enter news media cover ups, 911👈👉😷😷😷😷🤒💀🗣️BS🤯🙇😑🤦🤦🤦🤦

  • @FinlagganYT
    @FinlagganYT 5 місяців тому +2

    Firstly, Titanic is not a cruise ship it’s a luxury ocean liner.
    Secondly, Icon of the Seas has a lot more advanced nautical technology which ensures no crashes and sinking would happen, it’s more computer controlled and electronic these days whilst with Titanic this modern technology didn’t exist, they never had satellite controlled digital maps with real time tracking. Both these vessels are completely different, methods and thinking has changed since the last few centuries.
    And it is very possible to make sure a ship never sinks, and yes if you can make it buoyant and hydrodynamic enough, yes it can be unsinkable, Shipbuilding and nautical sciences and physics is my thing so I can confirm all this.

  • @unnamedvisitor1649
    @unnamedvisitor1649 10 місяців тому +1

    Just a reminder that a cruise ship (not this one) got in a scuffle with a military patrol boat and won despite being unarmed because the patrol boat tried ramming it to get it to follow it back to a port, only to suffer critical damage to itself and only cause minor damage to the cruise ship.

  • @ELCAyoutube
    @ELCAyoutube 10 місяців тому +9

    Titanic didn’t have enough lifeboats because they weren’t thought of in the same way as they are now, lifeboats were used back then to transport passengers from the sinking ship to the rescue ship that had come to assist. Although they obviously didnt think about the unlikely occurrence when there was no ship close enough to save them

    • @thomasmaloney843
      @thomasmaloney843 10 місяців тому

      well, the California was close enough to rescue the Titanic passengers before it sank.

    • @dzimi9281
      @dzimi9281 9 місяців тому

      ​finally someone commented this thing.

    • @dzimi9281
      @dzimi9281 9 місяців тому

      ​@@thomasmaloney843yeah, tho crew of Californian wasn't aware that titanic was sinking due to the cold water mirage. All the captain later reported he saw was a ship that "acted weird"

    • @thomasmaloney843
      @thomasmaloney843 9 місяців тому

      @@dzimi9281 so that's why they were shooting off emergency flares and rockets because it was a celebration?

    • @dzimi9281
      @dzimi9281 9 місяців тому

      @@thomasmaloney843 they knew that titanic was sending off emergency flares, tho Titanic's crew launched them every 5 minutes, while launching a flare every minute was the distress signal

  • @gavin8240
    @gavin8240 10 місяців тому +57

    Bro calling Titanic a Cruise Ship hurt me inside.

    • @Evan-rj7gn
      @Evan-rj7gn 8 місяців тому +2

      Is it that serious bro lol

  • @colinptak8207
    @colinptak8207 10 місяців тому +2

    Bro called titanic a cruise ship 💀

  • @uniquely.mediocre1865
    @uniquely.mediocre1865 9 місяців тому +1

    Imagine calling Titanic a cruise ship

  • @lovetodocoolstuff9309
    @lovetodocoolstuff9309 10 місяців тому +60

    The titanic is still one of the most beautiful ships ever made

    • @amyg0729
      @amyg0729 7 місяців тому

      No Only At It’s Time But I Don’t Call It Royal

    • @user-yv8yi2bj8e
      @user-yv8yi2bj8e 6 місяців тому +1

      But not strong enough 😂

    • @siuuu226
      @siuuu226 6 місяців тому

      ​@@user-yv8yi2bj8eGoofy Emoji

    • @lukasakesson2024
      @lukasakesson2024 6 місяців тому

      @@user-yv8yi2bj8e the titanic is much stronger than almost any modern ship including those giant bathub with apartment buildings on them looking cruise ships and thats bc ocean liners are built for the roughest weather that the atlantic can posess and to withstand accidents while the titanic could stay afloat with 4 watertight compartments flooded (most cruise ships can stay afloat with 2) the hole was 300 feet long which resulted in 5 or six compartments flooding which made it sink a cruise ship however would capsize bc those ballast tanks are only too reduce rolling and wouldnt do shit if it started flooding which would result in it capsizing and a cruise ship dosent have enough ballast to stay upright in that situation if u wonder why titanic didint capsize

    • @user-yv8yi2bj8e
      @user-yv8yi2bj8e 6 місяців тому

      @@lukasakesson2024 ok what makes the old ships stronger

  • @AtlanticPOG
    @AtlanticPOG 10 місяців тому +18

    Fun fact most ocean liners of the 20th century have stronger hulls than new cruise ships because of the harsh climate of the atlantic ocean

    • @tyler93539
      @tyler93539 10 місяців тому +3

      fun fact thats not true they used rivets back then the whole reason the titanic sank is because the rivets popped, modern WELDED steel is way stronger

    • @AtlanticPOG
      @AtlanticPOG 10 місяців тому +1

      @@tyler93539 it didnt sink the titanic because the rivets popped out it literally broke the steel along side the ship and the the cracks were relatively small thats why it sank in 2 hours and any new cruise liner would suffer the same fate as the titanic since ocean liners have thicker hulls as to withstand the atlantic ocean they were literally meant to ride through storms while cruise ships avoid it

    • @tyler93539
      @tyler93539 10 місяців тому +2

      @@AtlanticPOG titanics rivets did pop and it was made of iron not steel, steel is WAY stronger than iron

    • @AtlanticPOG
      @AtlanticPOG 10 місяців тому

      @@tyler93539 the titanic use steel

    • @Steamtrain44388
      @Steamtrain44388 10 місяців тому

      ​@@tyler93539yeah modern but welding during ww2 of ship are dangerous because they could buckel in the north altantic in a strong gale

  • @gsoup7850
    @gsoup7850 9 місяців тому

    If I were trapped on either of those ships with that voice barking at me I'd glady throw myself overboard

  • @Frankie433
    @Frankie433 7 місяців тому

    Thank goodness for the 3 vertical dots on the top right.

  • @JonathanLukeAvery
    @JonathanLukeAvery 10 місяців тому +5

    “With all the technology these modern cruise ships are equipped with it’s very unlikely…”
    Costa Concordia has entered the chat

    • @jokivaltsunen1492
      @jokivaltsunen1492 7 місяців тому

      It was the captains fault. Plus it was launched in 2005 and sank somewhat 11 years ago

    • @JonathanLukeAvery
      @JonathanLukeAvery 6 місяців тому

      @jokivaltsunen1492 so you’re saying human error was involved? Kinda like how it was the captain’s fault on the Titanic over 100 years ago? As far as I’m aware humans are still at the helm sailing these ships so as long as that is the case then they will always be susceptible to human error, no matter how small the chances.

  • @thebluesmurfdude
    @thebluesmurfdude 10 місяців тому +11

    To be fair to the Titanic, anything weighing over 10,000 GRT needed to have 16 lifeboats. Titanic prided itself on being better than competitors and so had 20. When the Titanic sank, two lifeboats still had not been launched. So I’ve never gotten the “Titanic didn’t have enough lifeboats” argument because it wouldn’t have helped in this case. The Titanic could have had the required 63 (Someone fact check me the number, I’m too lazy to look it up!) lifeboats and it wouldn’t have mattered due to not having enough time.
    We also need to look at the methodology around what the lifeboats purpose was in 1912. Was the lifeboat suppose to hold passengers for a week until they were pushed to shore or a boat found them? No! In short, lifeboats were suppose to ferry passengers, mail, and supplies from the sinking ship to the new ship. This is because the Marconi Wireless was being installed on many ships. This new device allowing ships to communicate to each other; plus the better standards and inventions to help prevent ships sinking fast meant that it was believed another ship could reach a damaged ship in time. We have to remember that in 1912, people traveling from continent to continent had to do so by boat. They mostly followed the same general path. The Carpathia, Californian and Olympic were all within wireless, along with 3 or 4 more who I can’t remember the names of right now.
    So, if my ship is sinking, the idea is that another passenger liner will swing along side me, they use all their lifeboats, I use all my lifeboats. And together, we have enough to get everyone transferred safely.
    Of course, as we see with Titanic; this was not a great methodology. This is due to many factors including but not limited to:
    1.) The Carpathia having to slow to a crawl to avoid the minefield that was icebergs in the surrounding area.
    2.) The Californian only having one Marconi operator, who went to bed shortly before the sinking.
    3.) The passengers feeling safer on Titanic than in lifeboats.
    We should note why passengers felt safer on a big ship rather than a small lifeboat. Another White Star Ship is a good example. The SS Atlantic sank in the late 1800’s. The ship attempted to launch nine or ten lifeboats but all of them smashed against rocks killing everyone on them. While everyone who stayed on the ship was eventually rescued with far less casualties.
    During the mid 1800’s the SS Artic launched six lifeboats and several makeshift rafts during its sinking, plus a lifeboat from the other ship it had collided with. Only three lifeboats made it. While the ship that collided with the SS Artic was able to make it back to port because of the watertight compartments.
    There are a bunch of other stories but these are the two that come to mind, that show within 50 years of the Titanic’s sinking that lifeboats were a worse decision than simply staying on the ship. This no doubt had to be going through the passengers minds when they weighed getting into a lifeboat or staying on the ship.
    Also, this was not a factor on the Titanic as she sank bow to stern, but remember the Empress of Ireland? She was hit on her starboard side. Meaning that if we want to say “every ship needs enough lifeboats.” Then you need to believe that the ship needs enough lifeboats for every passenger on each side of the ship. The Empress of Ireland attempted to launch a lifeboat on the port side of the ship, and that lifeboat flipped while being lowered due to the lifeboat catching the hull, killing everyone aboard. This means that Empress of Ireland theoretically needed enough lifeboats for everyone on starboard to launch safely.
    The Titanic is a huge tragedy that we should study and learn from. But I truly believe that the lifeboats were a non factor in this instance. Let’s talk about changing routes when icebergs are in the area. Lets consider having an agency funded to monitor iceberg movement. Let’s talk about having enough crew to man the Marconi Wireless 24/7 for every ship. Let’s talk about slowing down when we are in iceberg territory.
    Am I arguing that the Titanic shouldn’t have had more lifeboats? No, I think every ship should be required to have enough lifeboats for every soul on board, but we can just look to the two lifeboats that never got launched to know it wouldn’t have helped in this scenario. Other factors were at play.
    Also. I know others have said it, but I want to say it too. Titanic was an Ocean Liner, not a Cruise ship ;)
    Edit: Edited to change 1812 to 1912 to reflect correct year the Titanic sank. I’ve been doing research into an ancestor who fought in the war of 1812, and had that on the brain. :P

    • @Nemy360
      @Nemy360 10 місяців тому

      A huge excuse of bla bla bla, so other words the shipnwas useless and a big piece of shit

    • @belmontcountry
      @belmontcountry 10 місяців тому +4

      Yes this is true and some good points. Just to follow up too yours to say that the last two collapsible lifeboats did get launched but they weren't easily accessible making it hard for them to be launch quickly, that's how one got turned upside down.
      They actually did form the International Ice Patrol and radios are now required to be monitored around the clock as a direct result from the Titanic.
      I find all the little and big issues and circumstances surrounding the Titanic and how and why it sank and so many people died to be fascinating as there are so many if-that-didn't-happen scenarios they could've actually ended up with everyone being saved.

    • @warrenash5370
      @warrenash5370 10 місяців тому

      Not enough time? Not enough people wanting to get in the boats.

    • @eugeneeasthon5906
      @eugeneeasthon5906 9 місяців тому

      ​​@@warrenash5370both. They didn't wait for full life boats at first. Some of them were almost empty. They started dropping boats almost immediately. The final collapsible boat was being launched as the waterline reached the boat deck. They didn't even have to drop it. An additional 43 boats (which is what would have been required for everyone on board that night), never would have even had a chance to launch.

  • @Xenon_117
    @Xenon_117 9 місяців тому

    “It would sink slow enough for all guests and crew to evacuate”They said the same thing about Lusitania…

  • @KhalidKhan-khankhalid
    @KhalidKhan-khankhalid 10 місяців тому

    Great Evolution of unsinkable to not unsinkable.

  • @MicahTheShortie
    @MicahTheShortie 10 місяців тому +4

    “ it will sink slow enough for all guest and crew to get off safely” What if the ship capsizes…

    • @Gizz101
      @Gizz101 10 місяців тому +1

      Death but that's unlikely

    • @ChristieAdamsKangoo
      @ChristieAdamsKangoo 10 місяців тому

      There were passengers on the Titanic who insisted the ship wouldn't sink for at least another two days, so they weren't getting on a lifeboat until a rescue ship arrived.🤦‍♀️

  • @barbecuecat
    @barbecuecat 10 місяців тому +7

    Actually, at 46 seconds, that video is of the Titanic's sister ship, the Olympic. And Titanic was an Ocean Liner. Can't really compare the two if you can't even get the right ship

    • @Jerram89
      @Jerram89 10 місяців тому

      A lot of the video was the render of Clive Palmer’s Titanic 2…

  • @Batch00
    @Batch00 10 місяців тому +11

    The Titanic had fewer lifeboats because, the theory was, that the ship itself would be a lifeboat. The watertight compartments were designed to prevent the ship from sinking in the most common accidents (collisions with other ships, groundings, head on collisions, short side swipes) so even if it wasn't able to move, it could still keep people out of the water. It only sank because of poor decision making from the captain (sailing at max speed into an ice field like a moron) and incredibly bad luck that the damage it received was exactly the type of damage that counteracted the safety design of the ship. It's similar to how every plane doesn't have parachutes as the plane is designed to be safe enough to not need them. Still doesn't prevent some deaths but they tend to only happen when safety protocols arent followed.
    Oh and if you look at many maritime disasters, you'll see that tons of people died despite adequate numbers of lifeboats or even as a direct result of being on a lifeboat (capsizing when launching was pretty common, especially in rough weather). They're a nice to have but cruise ships nowadays have shown that modern navigation equipment and safety features are more than enough to keep people safe. Only 32 of over 4000 people died on the Costa Concordia. Still a tragedy that shouldn't have happened but if it occurred 100 years ago that death toll would be significantly higher, irregardless of lifeboats.

    • @K-ir6uo
      @K-ir6uo 4 місяці тому

      Cruise ships only are required to have 75 Percent of life boats

  • @jamesmccarthy4777
    @jamesmccarthy4777 10 місяців тому

    The main flaw with cruise ships today some will sway aggressively if the engines stall.

  • @Blue_Horizon_
    @Blue_Horizon_ 10 місяців тому +15

    CORRECTION The RMS Titanic was a OCEAN LINER not a cruise ship

  • @EricLatios
    @EricLatios 10 місяців тому +26

    What about the costa Concordia? It sank pretty fast

    • @someguy9778
      @someguy9778 10 місяців тому

      Dumb captain and crew.

    • @tyler93539
      @tyler93539 10 місяців тому +7

      the captain rammed the side up on some rocks ripping a massive hole in the ship then he took over an hour to admit anything was wrong the he started the evacuation and was the first one in a lifeboat

    • @IvorEyess
      @IvorEyess 10 місяців тому +1

      Plus, the Costa Concordia isn’t really modern, judging by the fact that it sank over a decade ago

    • @ummmbye1228
      @ummmbye1228 9 місяців тому

      ⁠@@IvorEyessthe Concordia is related to a lot and of carnival cruise ships. Most of those are up to date with constant refreshes
      Also fun fact the Concordia has its own class of ships and a little subclass. It’s class is also related to the sunshine (destiny) class and the conquest class

  • @_zoeyshaa_
    @_zoeyshaa_ 8 місяців тому

    I died a little inside when he called Titanic a cruise ship💀

  • @partiallyfrozen3425
    @partiallyfrozen3425 10 місяців тому +1

    It's unlikely your cruise ship even has enough lifeboats anyway. I forgot the exact value, but i remember they only, by law, need to have enough for about 3/4 of the crew and passenger compliment. The rest have to survive in inflatables, or lifeboats that take more than being lowered to the water to be set up.

  • @skoo00
    @skoo00 10 місяців тому +3

    They probably said the same thing when Titanic was introduced

  • @my_Lord_please_note_that
    @my_Lord_please_note_that 10 місяців тому +10

    The main difference: Titanic wasn't ugly

    • @vipvip-tf9rw
      @vipvip-tf9rw 10 місяців тому

      It was, as all coal ships were

    • @WorldTradeCenterNerd
      @WorldTradeCenterNerd 9 місяців тому

      @@vipvip-tf9rwTitanic was a PASSENGER OCEAN LINER Duh.

    • @Skirbiy
      @Skirbiy 9 місяців тому

      @@vipvip-tf9rw Shut yo environmentalist ass up.

    • @Truikkonen
      @Truikkonen 7 місяців тому

      Fr

    • @lukasakesson2024
      @lukasakesson2024 6 місяців тому

      @@vipvip-tf9rw nah the superstructure hull and funnels looked very good and please call it an ocean liner not just a coal ship

  • @Monkersvr
    @Monkersvr 2 місяці тому

    Hey, a passenger from icons maiden voyage here! Just so you know, the ship is completely safe and it is way different from the titanic. There was no incidents that might have made it even close to sinking when we were there.

  • @iillestrs2153
    @iillestrs2153 10 місяців тому +2

    If you nerd out over the history of the titanic, it wouldn’t have made a difference had the titanic had enough life boats for everyone. It took too long to lower them. They never got all the lifeboats they did have into the water before it sank due to this

    • @flake1445
      @flake1445 9 місяців тому +1

      Titanic had half of enough life boats

    • @iillestrs2153
      @iillestrs2153 9 місяців тому +1

      @@flake1445 and they still didn’t come close to getting them in the water, literally test have been done showing the average time to get one into the water at the most efficient rate possible, it still wasn’t enough time till the ship sank, so realistically, it could have had enough life boats and it still wouldn’t have mattered. Talking 1912, it was a Manual process to get the lifeboats in the water that took about 30 min at the most Efficient rate, they physically could never have gotten all the lifeboats in the water had they even had all the lifeboats needed….

    • @flake1445
      @flake1445 9 місяців тому +1

      ​@@iillestrs2153because a lifeboat launched in to the water a hour later because they were preparing them and checking if they had been taking in water

    • @iillestrs2153
      @iillestrs2153 9 місяців тому

      @@flake1445 do you have a point? They got 16 in the water in 2 hours ish, 20 was enough for half, so like I said, how exactly are they getting the other 26 lifeboats in the water in that extra hour when they barely got 16 in the water in 2????

  • @rymoats6460
    @rymoats6460 10 місяців тому +3

    Titanic was NOT A CRUISE SHIP. It was an OCEAN LINER. Huge difference. Cruises are for pleasure and fun. Liners transport passengers from one place to another. 😊

  • @adrianwillis2874
    @adrianwillis2874 10 місяців тому +22

    After Titanic, the ship would have to have lifeboats to fit everyone was put into effect. Before Titanic, there was nothing about lifeboats

    • @matrix-5466
      @matrix-5466 10 місяців тому

      Also if a ship is cruising around the Atlantic or near Alaska where ice bergs and small land islands are common, they will usually scout out nearby obstacles either by helicopter or scouting boat.

    • @Boileryard
      @Boileryard 10 місяців тому +3

      There were rules about lifeboats. Any vessel over 10,000 tons had to have at least 16 lifeboats. This is a pretty stupid rule considering that Titanic weighed over 50,000 tons and thus needed a lot more than 16 lifeboats to carry all it's occupants

  • @moyeromaha
    @moyeromaha 10 місяців тому

    Thank you for doing this video!!!!

  • @lee4171
    @lee4171 3 місяці тому +2

    One was pure class and the other one is tacky as fuck.

  • @PATROITICWAYS1776
    @PATROITICWAYS1776 10 місяців тому +13

    Thank you. I am sick of people comparing modern ships to Titanic

  • @fulumukwevho4744
    @fulumukwevho4744 10 місяців тому +4

    Cool, I’ll just hold off on it for at least 3 voyages.

  • @mikemancini313
    @mikemancini313 8 місяців тому

    Bro was so great, he used footage of Olympic and claimed it was Titanic...

  • @jlelias5080
    @jlelias5080 9 місяців тому +1

    Ocean liners like titanic take you from point a to point b like a airplane but cruise ship leave and cruise for a week or so and then return to the same port

  • @-_deploy_-
    @-_deploy_- 10 місяців тому +18

    OCEAN LINER. TITANIC WAS AN OCEAN LINEEEERRRRRR

  • @DouglasGibsonjr-zn6mm
    @DouglasGibsonjr-zn6mm 10 місяців тому +3

    The RMS Titanic was not a cruise ship it was an ocean lighter yes there is a difference One was designed across the ocean The other was designed to be a vacation on the sea Track there was only one ship that is Class as an ocean liner today

    • @tyler93539
      @tyler93539 4 місяці тому

      ocean lighter LMAO

  • @scharftalicous
    @scharftalicous 9 місяців тому

    I think the biggest difference is that one is made to steam straight through storms to make it to a destination punctuality. Cruise ships these days are made to navigate around a storm because it doesn't really matter how punctual they are.

  • @wheat14349
    @wheat14349 2 місяці тому

    That last line “And the ship will sink fast enough as to where all passengers can safely evacuate” Was exactly the mindset that the Nautical community had at the time of Titanic’s Sinking in 1912. The main reason that Titanic didn’t carry enough Lifeboats for all of its occupants (Which could be up to over 3000) was the idea that due to the technology jump in shipbuilding that was occurring at the time, and the installment of new Morse Code Wireless radios (Called Marconi Wireless after the man who invented the machines) on numerous Oceangoing vessels, That That Titanic would sink slow enough as its Watertight compartments held back the flooding and the ship could send out a message and have ships arrive using the few lifeboats to Ferry passengers from ship to ship before the Titanic could sink.
    Unfortunately, The idea that a ship could sink slow enough to where all the lifeboats could be launched, but fast enough as to where there wouldn’t be a ship to arrive in time was unfathomable, And only 20 Lifeboats total where installed onboard Titanic.
    All 20 where used when the ship sank, But there was no ship to row to and transfer passengers off onboard. Infact, rescue wouldn’t arrive for 2 hours after Titanic sank. It wasn’t considered that Lifeboats would have to be used in a scenario where there where no ships around and the population of the entire vessel would have to be transferred onto the boats at sea, But it happened, And due in part to that attitude 1500 People where killed.

  • @anetawelsh6026
    @anetawelsh6026 10 місяців тому +3

    Ok so icon is a small country😂we need check out their economy

  • @idxluaviation
    @idxluaviation 10 місяців тому +3

    Titanic isn’t a cruise ship, it was an ocean liner which is a hugely different category and market

  • @nicholireyes5533
    @nicholireyes5533 10 місяців тому +1

    people finally stopped milking the "titanic vs oasis of the seas" thing.... so now were doing icon of the seas.

  • @MaleSwiftie13
    @MaleSwiftie13 10 місяців тому +9

    Titanic has 10 decks while icon has 20 decks