Talk:Sinking of the RMS Lusitania

Sank due to the single torpedo - only ? Never !
The U20 did fire one torpedo, its second last (which made a return journey necessary, the regulations stipulated that one torpedo must be kept for the home journey). The crew and captain of U20 had no intention of sinking the ship (despite of what the German war time propaganda may have written at the time) - the single torpedo wouldn't be enough to sink such a large vessel. But a huge explosion was heard a few seconds after the impact of the torpedo. US customs papers shows that Britain (without the captain's knowlidge) in secret transported tons of ammunition. This made Lusitania a legal target, but much more important - without the ammuniotion as cargo, Lusitania wouldn't have sunk at all. This has been proved even by a BBC documentary. The BBC also made a (very good) film about this sad event, starring John Hannah. Yet this article lead still 100 years afterwards sounds like war time propaganda. Later, the British admirality attempted to blame the surviving captain (who was a good swimmer). Luckelly for him, the sea court had a very thourogh and fairminded judge. I think the lead needs a modern update. Boeing720 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to revert your change, pending discussion, because it is unsuitable as it stands. The lead is there to summarise what is elsewhere in the article, not to introduce new material. Also, for potentially contentious information, you need careful referencing, not just a general reference to a TV documentary and a comment about a docu-drama. I don't know anything at all about the circumstances of the sinking and I am not agreeing with or disagreeing with the information you have added. Thincat (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can appriciate the centance "The lead is there to summarise what is elsewhere in the article, not to introduce new material." - but to me, this proves that a modernisation of other parts of this semi long article also is needed. Reguarding sources - the BBC must be concidered thrusworthy reguarding this matter, or do You not support that idea Yourself ? No other television network are so trusted anywhere in the world. It'a a non commercial network with outstanding rumour already as radio corporation. Sinking of the Lusitania: Terror at Sea (or as labeled at f.i. Danish DR Lusitania: Murder on the Atlantic). The Wikipedia article doesn't cover much of the film. And it was fictional - whith only a starting and finishing comment by John Hannah. But the casting credits reveals that the film was made due to the previuos BBC TV-documentary. I do trust modern day BBC-documentaries. Would it help if I can find out more about the "pure" documentary ? Year (1-2 years before the film), director, executive producer and possible narrator etc ? I also curious what You think about a single 1914-torpedo that in 20 minutes sinks a 300 meter long ship with lots of water tight "walls" (sorry for not knowing even my native language's word for "wall on ships"). Compared with Titanic, which got 7 or 8 water tights "walls" damaged. A single topedo can only affect a maximun of two. Yet the gigantic vessel sunk around 5-6 times faster than what Titanic did. Doesn't that raise any questions (ment as a humble question) ? To me it does. /best reg Boeing720 (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Boeing720, you state that the ship was carrying "1,250 cases of empty 3-inch (76 mm) fragmentation shell casings" yet one of your own sources contradicts you. [Lusitania: Triumph, Tragedy, and the End of the Edwardian Age, by Greg King, Penny Wilson] clearly states "1,248 cases of shrapnel-filled artillery shells from the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, each case containing four 3-inch shells for a total of some fifty tons" with filled being the key word, as in they were live not empty casings, as empty casings would not have weighted fifty tons. Although 3 in artillery shells, also called 17 pounders, where 17 pounds each; 17lbs*(1250 cases*4 shells per case)=42.5 tons, plus the packing material and boxes themselves... 50 tons. Also it states it was carrying "forty-six tons of volatile aluminum powder used to manufacture explosives" yet again you wrote "However, these munitions were classed as small arms ammunition, were non-explosive in bulk, and were clearly marked as such." there is nothing non-explosive about aluminum powder, especially in bulk; also there is nothing "small arms ammunition" about 3 inch artillery shells.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2F04:1400:E996:D019:5BF2:E2D7 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * sources appear to disagree on what those cases had in them. Empty shells for shrapnel, shrapnel for shells, shells filled with shrapnel. Few say they had explosives or propellant. (Hohum @ ) 18:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it may be wise to be careful of original research / synthesis. 3-inch guns could be 12-17 "pounders" (British standard ordnance weights and measurements). Plus the relationship to projectile weight largely died out at the end of the 19th century (Caliber). (Hohum @ ) 18:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, holy thread necro! (Hohum @ ) 18:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to now be covered in the section "Contraband and second explosion", and the intro mentions the controversy. -- Beland (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Actual death toll
An IP editor has just added a note to the effect that the death toll shown for the sinking is inconsistent across the articles here. The infobox on this article says 1,193 of the 1,960 people aboard killed, leaving 761 survivors, yet in the section the text reads By the days' end, 764 passengers and crew from Lusitania had been rescued and landed at Queenstown. The final death toll for the disaster came to a catastrophic number. Of the 1,959 passengers and crew aboard Lusitania at the time of her sinking, 1,195 had been lost with a citation "Robert Ballard, Exploring the Lusitania. This number is cited, probably to include the German spies detained below decks" Yet further, the lead for the RMS Lusitania article reads killing 1,198 passengers and crew. This is cited to ''Ballard, Robert D.; Archbold, Rick; Marshall, Ken (2005). The Lost Ships of Robert Ballard. Toronto: Ontario: Madison Press Books.'' Is there an actual authoritative source for the number of persons aboard, and what number of them died? XAM2175 (T) 12:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing differences between cited sources and  on the number aboard and number who died. I'm guessing the blog is less reliable than the Library of Congress, but I agree it would be good to find one or more sources that go into detail on these numbers and explain the differences. -- Beland (talk) 09:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * actually has stats in very fine-grained categories, and points out some miscounting. -- Beland (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have chosen to edit all the articles to correspond to the stats in that link, because the arguments they use about repetitions and the detailed breakdowns seem convincing and makes me feel that figure is probably the most reliable one at this time. The figure I'm least sure about is the number of American dead (and on board), for that they just quote Hoehling. But right I think picking this one single source is probably the wisest idea. There's contemporary press reports which obviously give different numbers but I'm willing to believe they are probably not the most accurate. If folks think there's a better number to use, be bold. Fangz (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Actual death toll, again
Okay, the remaining question is the number of Americans killed. The source I used for the total death toll just refers to Hoehling, giving 124 lost /159 total. The thing is, this contradicts the passenger manifest the site itself gives, which gives 126 + 1 uncertain + 18 joint citizenship passengers lost! The commonly given number is 128, but again I don't know what the basis is - it might just be taken from contemporary newspapers, and that isn't a great source. So does anyone have a sense on the right number to give here, in terms of the number of americans on board/killed? Fangz (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Bronze Powder
Like many metals, finely powdered bronze is explosive if mixed with air and ignited - such as when a torpedo blasts the containers open and sprays the dust around. Burning bronze powder will also react with water, causing a release of hydrogen which is even more explosive. Mixing bronze dust with escaping steam is even worse. Having 50 tons of it on a ship running a blockade in a war zone, is a bit dangerous. See eg here Wdford (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The listing in that section relates to contraband status, not to danger. Aluminium powder could be (and probably is) used to make certain types of explosives, thus it fits as condemnable conditional contraband under the London Declaration (well, before the British extended it). But there's no obvious bronze powder military uses and no one is saying it was being used for anything military. Its status on the ship would be same as the bacon in the pantries - only contraband if you call basically everything contraband.
 * You could argue that the bronze powder could explode and thus be an explanation for the secondary explosion, or that it is a danger to the passengers and so illegal to carry under then US law, but I don't see any sources claim that. Fangz (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There are various military and civilian uses for bronze, but it is normally used in castings. In that case, they don't need dangerous fine powder, and the bulk metal would normally be shipped in ingots or similar, or else in the form of manufactured products. Bronze is made by melting the components to liquid and then pouring it into castings, so thereafter making bronze into powder is a difficult, dangerous and expensive business - particularly with the technology of 1915. They would not have ground it to powder unless the customer's need was for powder. And there is no use for bronze powder except for explosives. However you are correct that the definition of contraband is a bit ambiguous. The British blockade of Germany defined all foodstuffs as contraband, and they continued to deliberately starve the German people long after the war was over, so powdered bronze would definitely be considered to be contraband - and perhaps even the bacon as well? Wdford (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can find a single source suggesting that the bronze powder in the Lusitania was to be used for military explosives I would be happy to put it in alongside the aluminium powder. (Note that bronze powder is not necessarily related to bronze!) Right now the Wikipedia article for bronze powder does not even mention that it *can*, so please edit the bronze powder article as well if you find anything on it. Believe me, I looked for it and found nothing.
 * I agree that actually the "military munitions" was utterly irrelevant, in fact both sides were trying to starve the other (the Germans more than the British at this point, ironically). But if you want to discuss Lusitania's war cargo as a special category, then there's no real argument for including bronze powder. Even including aluminium powder is kinda tenuous since the Germans didn't make a point of it. Fangz (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I seriously doubt the crew of the U-20 knew or cared about the specifics of the ship's cargo. It certainly did not play any role in Kpt. Schweiger's decision to proceed with the attack. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)