Talk:HMS Erin

Arms and armour
The infobox includes
 * "6 × 6 pdr in (57 mm) guns"

Should this be
 * 6 × 6 pdr guns
 * 6 × 6 pdr, 2.2 in (57 mm) guns

or something else?

Likewise, should
 * "10 to 3 in (203 to 305 mm) over turrets"

be
 * 3 to 10 in (75–254 mm) over turrets
 * 8 to 12 in (203–305 mm) over turrets

or something else? —WWoods (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone competent needs to read the article and decide which ship was to be named "Sultan Osman I" At present the information is logically inconsistent, and therefore WRONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.190.49 (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Erin
HMS Erin was not a 'King George V' class battleship as stated in the opening. The 'King George V' class were designed as 35,000-ton Washington Treaty battleships well after World War I. Because the Erin was designed with 5 main-armament turrets, it probably belonged to the class prior to the 'Queen Elizabeth' series of battleships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.174.81 (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh ? The paragraph is linked to the KGV class of 1911, and states "modified contemporary of". Definitely not a Treaty class. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Formatting Comment
Hi ed17, I don't see a reason to add a formatting comment, could you please explain? --91.10.34.239 (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't understand
Does this sentence make any sense?

Four 1–2 in (25.4–50.8 mm)21 inch (533 mm)) torpedo tubes were installed

I have read like 300 articles about ships and i dont believe that 1-2 in is the diameter of torpedo =D — Preceding unsigned comment added by JK FIN vehicles (talk • contribs) 06:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

CE
Checked for typos, tidied prose, isbn-13'd the references, auto ed and Briteng, checked for due wikilinks. Rv as desired.Keith-264 (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Speculated
I'm looking at the "despite this" clause in the below blockquote—is that sentence also speculation from Fromkin? If not, I'd suggest changing that to "Regardless, the Ottoman government ..."

"Although there is no evidence that the seizure played any part in the Ottoman government declaring war on Britain and the Triple Entente,[19] historian David Fromkin has speculated that the Turks promised to transfer Sultan Osman I to the Germans in exchange for signing a secret defensive alliance on 1 August. Despite this, the Ottoman government was intent on remaining neutral until Russian disasters during the invasion of East Prussia in September persuaded Enver Pasha and Djemal Pasha, the Ministers of War and of the Marine, respectively, that the time was ripe to exploit Russian weakness."

Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that that's probably a better wording.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Seizure date
I have seen conflicting sources on this date. In John Keegans book The First World War pg 216, he says they were seized two days after the ottoman-german alliance was signed, which would mean it was seized on august 4. However Eugene Rogans book The Great War the fall of the ottomans pg 39 he says that they were seized august 1, the day before the ottomans signed the treaty and he cites Enver Pasha’s letters. All of the other sources I have found simply say it happened in early august. Also this page is conflicting in of itself because the opening paragraph says that it was in august and then further goes on later to say 29 July. Lukeferg96 (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)