HMS Erin 1914 .... for a change.

[flogger]

OK .... here goes an attempt at something .... non Iowa.

It always surprises me how the private yard Vickers managed to come up with what is in my view probably a superior design to the Admiralty Iron Duke class or the USS Texas of the same year (1914) but on some 3,300 tons less displacement Erin (ex Turkish Reshad V sequestered for the RN) comes in at 22,780 tons load but Iron Duke is some 26,100 tons load and Texas was even heavier . Erin has some other practical advantages too in that her secondary battery is better placed and more unlikely to be washed out in a seaway with higher gun elevations . Her center turret main armament is mounted one deck higher with greater command. Her slightly greater beam must have made her steadier too. Protection wise Erin also had a full continuous Torpedo Bulkhead where Iron Duke only had screens protecting the main battery Magazines and Texas had none at all and her citadel length was also shorter. Erin also had the more flared bow that one can see in some later British ships of the period and that must have aided spray suppression in head seas.

In terms of speed armament and protection theres little else to pick between the two designs yet Vickers seem to have done as much as the Admiralty on much lesser displacement and with some notable advantages in Erin.

Clearly there was evidence of Battlecruiser design inefficiency (see Jutland for details) but does this also hint at design inefficiency within the Admiralty at this time viz thier dreadnaughts in that they could have been doing more with less in thier dreadnaught designs as evidenced by the privately designed much lighter Erin ? HMS Marlborough certainly suffered from her lack of a TBD at Jutland after her torpedo hit.

[Parihaka]

[flogger]

Excellent pictures Parihaka. I've seen the first one but havent seen the second.

For my American Friends please compare the 23k ton Erin with her contemporary 27k ton Texas class and tell me which is best ?
I'm trying my best here to spark debate so c' mon guys. You put me down and show me I'm wrong and that this forum really is worthwhile ?

Dreadnaught et al you claim the expertise so go thrill me .... I cant wait !

[gunnut]

Hey look, I don't know much about this subject nor do I care. I could have chosen not to read it or post in it. But somehow I just can't stop myself. I must read something that I care nothing about and admonish others for caring about a subject that I have no interest in. So there.

[flogger]

Hey Gunnut thanks for that I'm sure all us BB gurus will stand humbled at your inciteful acumen here. Thanks for dropping by.

HMS Erin ..... pah what does she matter after all ... tsk. Shes only the subject of this thread.

[Gun Grape]

OK .... here goes an attempt at something .... non Iowa.

It always surprises me how the private yard Vickers managed to come up with what is in my view probably a superior design to the Admiralty Iron Duke class or the USS Texas of the same year (1914) but on some 3,300 tons less displacement Erin (ex Turkish Reshad V sequestered for the RN) comes in at 22,780 tons load but Iron Duke is some 26,100 tons load and Texas was even heavier .

What strikes me is that during the time the British seemed to be building better ships for other countries (Turkey,Chili,Brazil) then they were building for the RN.

[flogger]

What strikes me is that during the time the British seemed to be building better ships for other countries (Turkey,Chili,Brazil) then they were building for the RN.

Thats not universally true Gun Grape.

HMS Erin was a good design no doubt but HMS Canada (Ex Almirante Latorre for Chile ) and HMS Agincourt (Ex Brazilian Rio De Janiero) were considerably INFERIOR (as per the Admiralty) private designs from the same year. I've often thought that HMS Erin was amongst the most underrated designs of the pre WW1 era being perhaps the best comprmise of her time.

[TopHatter]

Personally I've always been rather fond of the RN dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts. They possessed an elegance and gracefulness of design (ultimately resulting in HMS Hood, regardless of her official classification) that was somewhat lacking on the broad-shouldered USN "Big Five" preceding and succeeding.

Although, the North Carolina and post-Pearl Harbor refits were second to none. IMHO of course.

[flogger]

Personally I've always been rather fond of the RN dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts. They possessed an elegance and gracefulness of design (ultimately resulting in HMS Hood, regardless of her official classification) that was somewhat lacking on the broad-shouldered USN "Big Five" preceding and succeeding.

Cant fault you there. I have a weakness for the New Mexicos myself.

But what about Erin ? I think if they had trunked her two closely spaced narrow funnels into one she might have been a real looker irrespective of her fighting qualities. But I'm drifting into the aesthetic here and I've started another thread for that already !

[SteaminDemon]

The Erin was only one foot wider than the Iron Duke flogger, the difference would be miniscule. The Iron Duke was also longer. If I am not mistaken the range of the erin was around 5,000+ NM vs the Iron Duke's 14,000 nm range. Clearly Iron Duke has the advantage in range. As far as two stacks, Iron Duke did have 18 boilers vs the 15 of the erin. She could have had one stack, but it would have to be larger than that of the Erin. Anyone have any machinery space layout plans of both of the ships they can post?

Flogger, good threads by the way. I am replying here before I replied about the Iowa Class Battleships ;) That's coming though, so look out :)) .

[flogger]

Good to hear from you Steamindemon. This is the kind of stuff I'm after.

The Erin was only one foot wider than the Iron Duke flogger, the difference would be miniscule.

Well 18" actually but on a much shorter hull.

The Iron Duke was also longer.

Unless that contributes to increased speed it actually represents a disadvantage.... more hittable area.

If I am not mistaken the range of the Erin was around 5,000+ NM vs the Iron Duke's 14,000 nm range.

Given the North Sea arena that hardly matters. In this respect she was certainly at least on a par with the German Konigs but with greater habitability and seakeeping.

Erin had a number of advantages over the Admiralty designs and foreign contemporaries and she was considerably superior to the other privately designed (and also sequestered) HMS Canada (ex Chilean Almirante Latorre) and HMS Agincourt (Ex Rio De Janeiro ex Redhadieh) in Britsh shipyards in 1914 in my view. Hence my admiration for this design. Just compare her with the even larger USS Texas of her time to see where I'm coming from here. In the context of North Sea operations she was perfectly suited it seems.

[SteaminDemon]

"Given the North Sea arena that hardly matters. In this respect she was certainly at least on a par with the German Konigs but with greater habitability."

Somewhat true, but, if you're running, range matters. If the collier was sunk or broken down, the extra range matters.

As far as quality of machinery, I do not know, other than the make of the boilers, what kind of other machinery was installed aboard, so one can not say which one was built with what, unless someone is privy to that info. Would really like to get the details.

From what I have gathered, the Iron Duke ships had either B&W boilers, or Yarrow boilers. The Yarrow was a ship building company, while B&W's specialty was boilers. Both makes were used on the ID ship class, but not together. As far as the boilers, B&W churned out great boilers in its history (and still does) B&W boilers were better than the Yarrows. The Erin used only B&W while as mentioned above the Iron Duke's used either B&W or Yarrow. So, maybe the erin has the advantage over the ID class that had the Yarrow's. Don get me wrong the Yarrow's were a good boiler, but remember Babcock and Wilcox wrote the book on steam:))

"Unless that contributes to increased speed it actually represents a disadvantage."

Supposedly the Iron Duke was .25 knots faster. You could technically say that is an advantage. Could either have gone faster? It all depends on the circumstances. Iron Duke could generate more PPH (lbs per hour) of steam with 18 boilers than could the Erin with her 15 boilers. This does make a difference. Who knows if either was designed for overload also, as there are limiting factors that come into play. Were there overload nozzles to allow more steam to the parsons turbines? Don't know. If that did come into play the ID would be able to supply more steam to the turbines than the Erin would be able to, which in fact they did, which shows with the extra 2,500 SHP over the erin. I hope that wasn't too technical. I try to explain these things in an easier to understand manner.
If you want to go further, who had the better chief engineers, stokers, leading fireman and engine room crews:)) ?

There are more ways to get more steam to the turbines besides overload, cutting down on the electrical load helps and also anything else that utilizes steam. Even, (provided the bus could support it) taking a generator or two off the line. So many variable factors...hehehe. There is a difference between a full power run and a full speed run as well. With a full speed run the things mentioned in the begining of the paragraph are done. Other things (will keep this short...woops too late) like hotel steam are cut out, Forced draft blower (if utilized, the other way would be natural draft) speed reduced slightly, and other things. Shut off the fans down the hole though and the heat and humidity would increase substantially therefore making for less productive and really angry snipes.

OK, done. :))

[flogger]

Somewhat true, but, if you're running, range matters. If the collier was sunk or broken down, the extra range matters.

Not really relevant in the context of the North Sea and I'd think it unlikely this ship would have been used elsewhere given her range.

Supposedly the Iron Duke was .25 knots faster

Hardly enough to warrant any kind of tactical advantage I'd say and certainly not indicative of an extra 3300 tons at load displacement ,even empty Erin was still 2400 tons lighter than Iron Duke. I do appreciate that this was due to lesser coal bunkerage, but that doesnt explain her better protection and superior armament layout especially as regards her full length torpedo bulkhead. Erins speed made her fit in perfectly with the British battle line at Jutland so it was clearly never an issue whatever her make of boiler.

Given that because it was wartime no full power deep water speed trials were ever done for Erin we will never know her full capabilities in this regard. Also the ships 'books' were lost postwar and so we will never really know the minutae of Erins boiler/plant operation its all a bit speculative there really.

It is interesting that when you look at the hull design of both vessels they are quite different and in some ways hydrodynamically Erin seems more akin to German practice than British.

Keep it comin SteaminDemon I love it !

[SteaminDemon]

Erins speed made her fit in perfectly with the British battle line at Jutland so it was clearly never an issue whatever her make of boiler.

Erin had the B&W's only, no Yarrows, could have been an advantage over the Iron Dukes class with the Yarrow's.

Who knows, Erin with B&W's running side by side with an Iron Duke class that had her Yarrow's, here's the play by play: they're running neck and neck, oh no the ID is slowing for some reason and the Erin pulls ahead, wait fans, we just got word the Iron Duke lost all her boilers due to leaky tubes..........the erin is way ahead and.......AWWWWW, the Erin is out of coal. Until next time NASbattleship fans.;)

[Stan]

Brilliant pictures, If I could go back to any time It would be to 1914 and scappa flow.