Ship Statistics:
Overall Length	787'
Length B. P.	760'
Maximum Width	87' 6"
Moulded Depth	60' 4.5"
Draught	33' 6"
Tonnage	31,550.47 (Registered)
Displacement	44,060 (Registered)
Engines	6 turbines (4 ahead, 2 astern)
Shaft Horsepower	68,000 nominal
Service Career	Sept. 7, 1907 - May 7, 1915
Carrying Capacity, Maiden Voyage	1st Class - 552 (260 rooms)
	2nd Class - 460 (145 rooms)
	3rd Class - 1,186 (302 rooms)
Crew, Designed	Total: 827
Total Carrying Capacity, Maiden Voyage	3,025

Click Here for Lusitania FAQ's

The History of the R.M.S. Lusitania - A Brief Look:

The keel of the Lusitania was laid down on June 16, 1904, and she was launched on Thursday, June 7, 1906. She was the largest and fastest ship in the world when she entered service in 1907. She served the Cunard Line with distinction between that summer and the spring of 1915. After the outbreak of World War One, all of the other Atlantic liners were either tapped for Government service or were laid up, and in short order, the Lusitania was the only crack liner left on the Liverpool-New York route. Her operation was economized during this period by closing one of her four Boiler Rooms down; this caused a reduction in her top speed from 25+ knots to 21, but at the time, this was not considered a threat to the ship's safety; all German naval forces and converted merchant marine auxiliaries had either been bottled up in German waters or had been removed from action by the Royal Navy in the early days of the conflict.

At the time, submarines had not really been proven as a strong force in naval warfare. However, with its primary force bottled up, the German Navy quickly learned how to use these vessels effectively. Following the old-fashioned "cruiser rules", the submarines commenced a "gentleman's" campaign against the British merchant shipping. A "War Zone" was declared in the waters surrounding the British Isles in early 1915, and British and neutral merchant vessels were warned against sailing into this "War Zone", but the traffic continued and ships like the Lusitania continued to ply the waters between England and America .

As the number of merchant ships sunk by the U-boats began to rise sharply, concern grew for their safety among those in the Admiralty and Parliament. Anti-submarine tactics were in their infancy and were highly ineffective. The Admiralty began to issue a series of orders and advices to the Captains of British merchant vessels like the Lusitania , in an effort to steer them clear of U-boats. Coded transmissions were also sent out via wireless with the latest updates to all ships inbound to the "War Zone". It was hoped that these measures, when combined with the good leadership of merchant skippers, would cut down on the losses. Tactics like steaming at full speed through the "War Zone", avoiding headlands - where U-boats lurked - and steering a zigzag course came into practice. (Indeed, in August of 1914, Captain Haddock of the Olympic implemented such tactics while she was inbound to Liverpool.)

On May 1, 1915, the R.M.S. Lusitania departed New York on her 202nd crossing of the Atlantic under the command of Captain William Turner. The crossing would end in disaster on May 7 off the south coast of Ireland ...

---

"Lusitania: An Illustrated Biography of the Ship of Splendor" -- Now Available!
	Follow this link to find out more about this volume's unprecedented and exciting content, and for links to purchase your copy.

---

Related Pages:

• Lusitania Gallery
• Pier 54, Lusitania's New York Home
• Liverpool's Canada Drydock
• The Wreck of the Lusitania

---

Centennial Anniversary of the Lusitania's Maiden Voyage: In honor of the 100th anniversary of the Lusitania's maiden voyage, September 7-13, 1907, these early photographs of the liner, taken in Liverpool, have been kindly supplied by Richard Smye. Further details on the maiden voyage itself -- as well as on the complete career of the ship -- can be found in my book about the liner. Above: Two photographs of the Lusitania at Liverpool. Photo Courtesy Richard Smye; not for reproduction without written permission. The Stokes Family - Aboard for the Last Crossing

Recently, Mr. & Mrs. Troy White contacted me with information regarding the Stokes family (Mr. George Edward "Ted" Stokes, Mrs. Mabel - nee Elliott - Stokes, and Master William "Billy" Stokes). First of all, my sincerest thanks to the Whites for forwarding this information and photograph. Second, I must apologize for the delay that it took for me to make the information public; a filing error led to its temporary misplacement. Along with the photograph, reproduced at left, Mrs. White provided the following information: "The stokes had planned to travel to England, to see Mr. Stokes' family. Their son was approximately 2 yrs. old and they were expecting another child. The family in Victoria cautioned them against the journey, but they young couple were fearless. "Mabel Stokes wrote a series of letters to her family in Victoria, as they journeyed by train to New York. The letters, of course, arrived after the sinking of the Lusitania. Sadly, the last words of the last letter were: 'Now I must say goodbye for a little while. With lots of love from us all. xxxx - From Billie: Take care of yourselves and don't worry about us. Goodbye again & God bless you all. From Mabel, Ted & Billie.' The Daily Colonist of May 8, 1915, headlined the loss of the Lusitania on its front page with the headline: "Submarine Gets Over 1,400 Victims". Under the article, "Victorians Who Were Aboard," the following information is included: "Mr. George E. Stokes, who was a builder in a small way in the city, was accompanied by Mrs. Stokes and son, on a visit to their old home in England, having given up business here. They resided at 2846 Grahame Street."

---

Did you enjoy this account of passengers who were aboard the Lusitania during her fateful voyage? If so, then you will certainly want to read the two part series, "Lest We Forget," written by Jim Kalafus and Mike Poirier. Follow these hyperlinks to the two articles:

Lest We Forget - Part 1
Lest We Forget - Part 2

---

Saturday, May 12, 2007:

This evening, a docu-drama on the Lusitania disaster aired on the Discovery Channel. (Terror at Sea: Sinking of the Lusitania.) Make sure to compare the portrayal onscreen with the facts found both on this site and in the book, "Lusitania: An Illustrated Biography of the Ship of Splendor."

---

Lusitania FAQ:

Q: Wasn't the length of the Lusitania 785 feet?
A: No. Her length between perpendiculars was 760’ 0”; from the forward perpendicular to the furthest point forward of the stem was 2.2’; from the after perpendicular to the taff rail was 25’. 760’ + 25’ + 2.2’ = 787.2’. A direct measurement of the ship's original blueprints confirms the ship's overall length to be 787 feet.

The Mauretania shared the same length b.p., and the same 2.2 feet of length from the forward perpendicular to the tip of the stem; her overall length, however, was 790 feet, with the extra length being carried aft of her after perpendicular.

Interestingly, a very early post card of the Mauretania, held in the author's collection, extrapolates the overall length of the Mauretania based on the overall length of her sister Lusitania. Although incorrect for the Mauretania, the figure lends weight to the concept that 787 feet was not an unknown figure, even in 1907, for the overall length of the Cunarders:

Q: What was the actual date that the Lusitania was launched? I've read conflicting information on this.
A: The actual launch date of the Lusitania is confirmed as Thursday, June 7, 1906, not the frequently mentioned "June 6". The June 7 date is shown in numerous sources, including The New York Times of the following day. The June 6 error has been perpetuated from some books on the subject, and is repeated in various online encyclopedias like Wikipedia.

Q: Were the Lusitania and the Mauretania really sister ships?
A: The answer to this depends on how strictly you would define the term, “sister ships.” Some have tartly pointed out that because the two vessels were of differing lengths, were built in different yards, and had variations in their overall designs, they were in no way “sisters.” However, one is forced to wonder: if the two vessels were not sisters, what, indeed, were they?

The Olympic and Titanic, by comparison, are always called “sister ships,” even though they were non-identical in finished form. Even more interesting is the fact that the third of that trio, Britannic, is also included as a “sister” to the first two White Star giants, despite her enormous alterations from her predecessors.

Looking at the Cunard pair, although the Lusitania and Mauretania were built at separate shipyards, they were drawn up from one original concept, just like the Olympic and Titanic. They were also designed to complement each other in a sister-like service, running the Liverpool- New York run. Additionally, they were constructed nearly simultaneously, and entered service within months of each other.

So were the Lusitania and Mauretania sisters? Unless you are going to follow the most stringent of technical interpretations, the answer to this question seems logical enough to grasp. They would never, however, be called "twin" sisters, just as the Olympic and Titanic were not "twin" sisters.

Q: Was the Lusitania carrying contraband on her last crossing?
A: Yes. A cursory glance at her cargo manifest shows that almost everything in her cargo holds was absolute contraband under the British definition of such by the early spring of 1915. As a British merchant vessel, carrying contraband (including non-explosive munitions), through a formally declared War Zone, the Lusitania became a blockade-runner, a legitimate target of war for any prowling German U-boat.

Q: Did the Lusitania 's contraband cargo cause the mysterious second explosion, which hastened the ship's demise?
A: No. The ammunition aboard almost certainly did not cause the blast, because it had been proven long before the sinking that this type of war material would not explode en masse even if exposed to an open fire for extended periods - about the worst that would happen is the individual shells might "cook off", but without even damaging the outer containers. There have been allegations about "secret" cargo disguised as furs, but these allegations are baseless because furs washed up on the Irish coast after the sinking. Aluminum fine powder has also been pointed to as a possibility for this blast; however, the conditions needed to induce this powder - even if it was aboard - to explode were not present at the time. The cargo holds where these items were stored have been inspected by numerous impartial expeditions, and there is no evidence of large explosions having occurred within them. The theory of a coal-dust explosion is also an unlikely explanation, for similar reasons to those that weigh against the theory of aluminum fine powder.

There is another alternative, however: a catastrophic failure in the ship's steam-generating plant. Steam pressure from the three operating Boiler Rooms was recorded as dropping steadily and significantly in the first few minutes after the torpedo detonation. Although eyewitness testimony is admittedly thin about what was going on in the forward Boiler Room, simply because there were so few survivors, the survivors did say that there was no explosion of the boilers themselves. Far more likely is an explosive failure of the ship's inflexible high-pressure steam lines leading to the Engine Room.

Q: Did Captain Turner receive unfair blame for the sinking?
A: Many have sought to defend Captain Turner and make him out as some sort of scapegoat in the Lusitania affair. Captain Turner was, without question, a good seaman with a previously untarnished reputation. However, at sea one rule stands out above the rest: a Captain is responsible for the safety of his ship. At the time that the Lusitania was torpedoed, Captain Turner was in clear violation of numerous Admiralty directives that he is known to have had in hand. These included:

1. To avoid headlands, where U-boats typically hunted
2. To steer a mid-channel course
3. To operate at full speed off harbors
4. To preserve wireless silence within 100 miles of land, save for an emergency
5. To post extra lookouts
6. To maintain lifeboats ready for lowering and provisioned
7. To keep on the move outside ports and harbors
8. To steer a zigzag course

At the time of the sinking, Turner was following some of these - he was preserving wireless silence, he had posted extra lookouts, had swung out and prepared the lifeboats, and was continuing to move as he approached and passed the harbor of Queenstown. Any of the rest of these advices, if properly implemented, would most likely have spared the Lusitania her fateful encounter. The last item in this list, steering a zigzag course, was a directive that Captain Turner admitted to receiving (admissions he made at both the Mersey Inquiry and the New York Liability Hearings); although a relatively new practice, the Captain of the Olympic is known to have carried out the procedure the previous fall, so it was by no means an unknown tactic in May of 1915. More information on this was found and included in the book, Lusitania: An Illustrated Biography.

Despite these poor decisions, Captain Turner was cleared of all responsibility for the sinking at both the British Inquiry and the American Liability Hearings. He did not lose his Master’s License, and even though he was quite close to retirement age, Cunard kept him in their employ. Despite the shortage in crack merchant vessels to command during wartime, Turner even managed to take out two other ships, the Ultonia and Ivernia. In the former he had a narrow miss with a U-boat, and in the latter, he was again torpedoed, again his ship sank, and again he survived the disaster. Once he reached Cunard’s mandatory retirement age in November of 1919, he permanently tied up to shore. In reality the loss of the Lusitania had less effect on his career than is commonly supposed.

Q: Was the British Government, including First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill, involved in a plot to have the Lusitania sunk in order to bring the United States into the war on their side?
A: No, this is an astoundingly unlikely scenario.

Much of this “conspiracy theory” is based on a letter that Churchill sent to Walter Runciman, the President of the British Board of Trade, some time before the sinking. Within this letter, speaking specifically of neutral shipping (which the Lusitania was not), Churchill told Runciman that they wanted to continue attracting neutral shipping to British waters, in the hopes of “embroiling” the United States with Germany; if some of this neutral traffic got into trouble, he offered, “better still.”

Taken in context, this letter is not evidence of a conspiracy to bring the United States into the war, nor is it evidence of a conspiracy to sink the Lusitania to bring about that result. At the time, the United States was not equipped to fight a war – this was well known by the British, the Germans, and the Americans. Instead, their munitions factories were then trying to keep up with British orders, since the British were running short of war supplies; in fact, the United States Government had approved a “bending of the rules” in order to allow the British to buy these munitions without paying cash, something that was also in short supply at the time. This, as well as other dealings with the Europeans, had left the United States Government in a pro-Ally status, something that sat well with the Allies and kept the munitions flowing in their direction. So naturally, Churchill would want to keep the neutral shipping coming their way – it was keeping them afloat in the war. And naturally if there were incidents of “trouble” with this neutral shipping, it would keep American sentiments in their corner, lest some more neutral politicians and citizens in the United States convince the Government to put a stop to their non-neutral behavior.

However, if the Americans had been provoked somehow to enter the war in 1915, then the results would have been catastrophic to the British, not to the Germans. This point can not be emphasized enough. If the U.S. had entered the conflict, the munitions that were equipping the British in the “here and now” would have been diverted to equip American Expeditionary Forces – which needed to be raised and trained before they could even be sent out. While all of this was going on, it would have been quite possible that the British could have been running out of ammunition.

Additionally, this letter did not even apply to the Lusitania , since she was a British (and hence belligerent) merchant vessel. She was carrying contraband through a declared War Zone. Even if American citizens were killed on the Lusitania – which is exactly what happened – there was no reason for Churchill to expect the Americans to declare war on the Germans over her loss, if that had indeed been, for some convoluted pro-German reason, his desire. Any such conspiracy would have been pointless and detrimental to the British, and hence there is no reason to believe one existed to begin with.

Stay tuned for updates and further information on the Lusitania here at Atlantic Liners.

This Site Designed & Maintained by our Virtual Partner

Please Note:
This website, including the name "Atlantic Liners": © 2004 - 2006, J. Kent Layton
Home Atlantic Navigator Cunard White Star Hapag Links Atlantic Liners Book Books Contact