r/AskHistorians • u/AutoModerator • Aug 03 '24
Showcase Saturday Showcase | August 03, 2024
Today:
AskHistorians is filled with questions seeking an answer. Saturday Spotlight is for answers seeking a question! It’s a place to post your original and in-depth investigation of a focused historical topic.
Posts here will be held to the same high standard as regular answers, and should mention sources or recommended reading. If you’d like to share shorter findings or discuss work in progress, Thursday Reading & Research or Friday Free-for-All are great places to do that.
So if you’re tired of waiting for someone to ask about how imperialism led to “Surfin’ Safari;” if you’ve given up hope of getting to share your complete history of the Bichon Frise in art and drama; this is your chance to shine!
7
u/thefourthmaninaboat Moderator | 20th Century Royal Navy Aug 03 '24 edited Aug 03 '24
A couple of years ago, /u/pokepax asked 'Before WWI the British were locked in a hideously expensive naval arms race trying to outbuild the German Empire. Yet at the same time the British Parsons company was constructing powerplants for German warships. Why?' and didn't really get a conclusive answer. I was looking back at old questions and this one grabbed me for some reason, so here's my try at an answer.
Turbines were a key part in the technological shift that Dreadnought embodied, offering higher speeds with greater reliability than the older compound steam engines could. The Parsons Company, established by Charles Parsons (inventor of the first maritime steam turbine), was a key contractor for the Royal Navy, building turbines for a number of ships including Dreadnought herself. The German Navy began to build ships using turbines, starting with the cruiser Lübeck in 1905. Many German designs are described as using Parsons turbines, implying a contradiction - since Parsons was a major RN contractor, were they really producing engines for the German Navy?
To unravel this, we need to understand that the term Parsons Turbine is ambiguous, with three possible meanings. The first is straightforward; it refers to turbines produced by the Parsons Company. The second meaning refers to those produced by other companies who licensed the design from Parsons. While Parsons was a key company in the development of the turbine, they were relatively unsuccessful in bidding for Royal Navy contract. In part, this was because they were a relatively small concern compared to other engine manufacturers; they only produced turbines and so had to subcontract out for boilers and other machinery, increasing the cost of their bids. Parsons would only provide the complete machinery sets for two British capital ships between 1906 and 1914 (King George V in 1910 and Royal Sovereign in 1913). Their main income came from selling licences for the technology they had developed to other firms; the main British engine builders of Vickers and John Brown both purchased long-running licences.
Understanding the third meaning means digging a bit into the mechanics of turbines (in what will be a simplified picture). A turbine has two key components, the rotor and stator. The rotor extracts energy from the steam and converts it into rotational motion, while the stator directs steam into the rotor. Each consists of a series of disks with vanes, with rotor and stator disks alternating. These vanes come in two types: nozzles, which increase the velocity of steam passing through them but reduce the pressure, and blades, which reduce the velocity without affecting the pressure. In an 'impulse turbine', the stator disks have nozzles, while the rotor disks have blades. This works like a waterwheel or wind turbine, with the high-speed steam passing through the nozzles pushing the blades on the rotor round. In a 'reaction turbine', this is reversed; the blades are on the stator, directing the steam into the nozzles on the rotor which drive the rotor round. These two designs, especially in the context of marine engineering, are often named for their initial designers. The impulse turbine was developed by the American Curtis company, so is called the Curtis turbine; it was later improved by John Brown, so is sometimes called the Curtis-Brown turbine. The reaction turbine, meanwhile, was Parsons' invention, and is named after him.
This gives us three possibilities for the German Parsons turbines: they could be either built by Parsons, built by a German company under licence from Parsons, or built to the Parsons design. We can instantly rule out the first by looking at who built the turbines for the German Navy. These were universally German companies. The first German capital ship with turbines was the Von der Tann; her turbines were built by Blohm & Voss in Hamburg. Blohm & Voss would go on to develop something of a monopoly over German turbine manufacturing, building the majority of turbines used by German battlecruisers - though other German companies produced their own designs. We can also mostly rule out the second option. The Parsons licence was hugely expensive, costing up to £1,000,000 per ship. While the German Naval Office had purchased a licence for the patent in 1908, they did so mostly to regulate prices; German companies were encouraged to develop their own variations, which would be cheaper in the long run. The German Navy delayed a full roll-out of turbines in their battleships, in part to allow this process to take place. This suggests that the majority of the German ships that used 'Parsons Turbines' had nothing to do with the Parsons Company. Instead, they were using various designs of reaction turbines, built by German yards. We can confirm this through the reports of British naval attachés. In April 1910, the British naval attaché, Herbert Heath, visited a number of shipyards in Bremen and Hamburg. At one of these yards, the Weser yard in Bremen, a new turbine factory was under construction; according to Heath, "the turbines are stated to be 'on the Parsons principle'".