I remember being fascinated by the story of RMS Titanic's sinking thanks to Robert Ballard and James Cameron. I've seen the movie a couple of times; but I don't remember how the after-collision was portrayed in the film. Reuter's article now claims that the ship was sunk by steering mistake and sped up by owner's decision to continue sailing.
I found one of the comments to the article to be interesting and worth posting here:
joseph said:The part of her theory about Quartermaster Hitchens not knowing left from right is pretty ridiculous (you think they're going to hire a guy to steer the company's newest and most expensive boat when he doesn't know right from left?)
However, the second part of her theory is supported by evidence. There are numerous reports from surviving crew and passengers that Titanic started moving again after the collision. We also know that owner Bruce Ismay was on the bridge very early after the collision, and that he spoke directly to both Captain Smith and Chief Engineer Bell before Titanic began moving again. He also had a reputation for getting directly involved in the operation of his company's ships, often in a pushy way.
The theory (which has been around for years, not like this bird dreamed it up herself) is that because the very first reports coming onto the bridge were that Titanic had suffered only minimal damage, Ismay convinced Smith to start moving the ship again- probably to Halifax, which was closer than New York and had repair facilities.
Unfortunately it's possible that by moving the ship even slowly forward, more water was forced into the hull. At the time Titanic had five compartments flooded (she was designed to float with four flooded). Moving forward may have caused or contributed to the collapse of the bulkhead between Boiler Rooms 5 and 6. After this happened there were 6 flooded compartments and Titanic began to sink more quickly. If that bulkhead had held up, it's possible that Titanic would have stayed afloat until help arrived.