Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "HMS Erin - Guide 268" video.

Aye. Even as a rather bookish kid (pre-YouTube & even pre-Interweb in part) I pondered why Erin got so little attention.
8
@topsecret1837 Some of them did ;-) . A~and technically the same could be said of the Tirpitz, which only ever used her secondary battery against an enemy vessel once (a midget sub') and only fired her main battery at a small island; yet she is very well known.
6
Hopefully an ammount to be dwarfed, by what hath yet to come :D .
5
Aye, or a floating battery left over from the 1800's.
5
Entirely legal. The Turks had planned to join the Germans anyway, so were acting in extreme bad faith. If they weren't refunded, they got what they deserved, which wasn't two modern Super-Dreadnoughts that would've been pointed against their nation of origin.
3
Only Grog could top the national staple that is a Cuppa Tea :D
3
And SHIPS!!
2
@TheRandCrews Much appreciated :D
2
Certainly an apt name, given how consistent a characteristic that is in the RN XD . (and long may it be so: stubborn ships tend to beat the odds)
2
^ I smell Heresy
2
@llllib Nope. That's a long disproved myth. Diplomatic traffic and records prove that the Turks were going to join the war on the German side anyway, thus the UK was wise to postpone the delivery, albeit by accident as the reason for delaying - not cancelling at that time - the delivery was out of wartime need for as many ships as possible. With the power of hindsight: it's clear why the Turks were the only ones to object to the retention of the ordered ships, as they'd planned to get them before going to war. (a bit like buying a gun from a shop, then shooting up the shop and the clerk who sold it to you)
2
@VultureSausage Aye. I think decades of documentaries trying to big up the germans & their kit - because a victory over a smaller or less organized enemy is less interesting to viewers I suppose - is another factor.
2
@stupitdog9686 Last time I checked: British ships didn't get Cockroaches as a going concern, rather just the global norm that is Rats & Barnacles.
1
@stupitdog9686 Fair enough. The ones I see / hear & read of in the RN's case have till now - besides Rats & marine growth on the hull - were Bedbugs, Lice, Weevils (age of sail) & Ship Worms. Active ships that've been well kept & mantained though seem to have only had two of those (at worst) at the same time.
1
^ Not really. Turkey lost the war hard, with Gallipoli postponing that outcome, yet at a vast cost for the defenders as much as their opponent. If anything Gallipoli proved how vastly inferior the Turks were militarily, as a single Super-Dreadnought obliterated the [original] defensive fortifications around the peninsula, while unable to reply. The Army nor Royal Marines being prepared however to exploit this achievement on yhe day - or even the same week - would prove costly, as by the time a landing was made the Turks had re-fortified the destroyed emplacements, and only older ships were available for shore bombardment. A generation later though the lessons of how not to co-ordinate forces had been learned, with the British & Canadian forces at D Day prevailing against a vastly more potent foe than the Turks had ever been.
1
@philvanderlaan5942 Amen to that :D
1
^×3 Turkish how?. The ship was designed & built entirely in the UK, from British steel, by British workers and with British technical skill, and were both derived in design from existing classes of RN Battleships. The Turks only came into it by being the end customer. The UK Gov' had every right to block the sale / appropriate the ship. The Turks refused monetary reinbursement and [as it later became known] were already conspiring with the Central Powers. Actually carrying the latter out gave the UK no need to refund the Turks, as they were by then a wartime enemy combattent, and post-WWI the Ottoman state surrendered and then officially ceased to exist, it's territories mostly taken as war conquests by the victors, with only postwar apathy toward breaking up the rest preventing a Turkish rump state from emerging. In short: The Turks lost the ships thrice over. Quite a feat really, when the Germans lost basically their entire [indigenous] navy in 1918 to a ceasefire agreement.
1
^ As nonsensical an argument as its SPaG is lacking. If I was seen to order military hardware from abroad as a civilian, my home nation would [quite reasonably] have concerns long before I would over delivery XD. As for what I assume your metaphor was aiming for: nope. the PRC's companies really doesn't give a damn about honouring deals with individuals abroad, as the latter can do nothing about it. (same thing with IP Infringement, which the PRC ignores all the time, with even wealthy corperations like BMW getting nowhere legally) Within the legal framework of the 1910's, Turkey lost the ships thrice over, by: • Reacting in bad faith to the building nation stating they would temporarily be appropriating the ships for national defence (as is the right of any nation re' stuff in her shipyards), but would reimburse the Turks and re-offer them for sale at a later date. • Later going to war with the building nation, ensuring all agreements with the latter no longer had to be honoured at all, as no sane goverent supplies completed weapon systems to the enemy, during nor after a war therewith. • Losing the war they'd started with the building nation (enough in itself to invalidate any prewar arms deals) and then ceasing to exist as a state. By contrast no other nations the UK was building ships for behaved so, and got their orders after the war, with Chile being compensated in cash after one of the 'Admirale Cochrane' couldn't be delivered, and political disagreement in Chile itself over what to buy instead led to cash being chosen instead. A~and as such; only the Turks hold any blame for the collapse of the deal, and paid the price for it too, as the Greeks and [pre-revolution] Russians foisted any naval ambitions they may have had during the war.
1