RN Tiger class options

[uk 75]

The three Tiger class had very short in service times.
As gun ships they covered the period from 1959 to 1965 when the County class destroyers were only available in small numbers and offered an escort to an aircraft or commando carrier. The confrontation with Indonesia was going on.
The 1970s saw Blake and Tiger filling the escort helicopter cruiser role. With only Ark, Hermes and Bulwark available for Task Groups the two helicopter cruisers were often used as CVS substitutes with their three Seakings.
The RN like other W European navies lagged behind the US Navy in introducing air defence missiles so the Tigers were forced to act as an interim capability
Unlike France (Jean D) and Italy (Doria) the RN never got a missile cruiser with an aft helo deck (Jean was supposed to get Masurca).

 

[williamjpellas]

I know he is not a naval historian, but Max Hastings in his most recent book Pedestal says that for all navies the light cruiser proved a disappointment, if not a waste, given that few of them ever really performed their intended roles and more often than not became victims to aerial and submarine attack.

It's hard to argue against this hypothesis given their war records. After the bulk buy of Fijis was there really any pressing need for more 6in cruisers to be built post-1942? I don't think that there was and the mind-boggling switching of names and slips and lack of resources makes you wonder why they bothered with the Tiger-class at all. They would have been better off building another batch of War Programme Didos or going for N2s instead. Neptune was a fine looking 12-gun 6in cruiser but realistically an anachronism even for 1944.
Now I'm not saying those resources should necessarily have been funneled into the Light Fleet Carriers - unless they could be built in 18-24 months flat it doesn't matter how much effort you put in they won't be ready in time (3 or even 5 Colossus in the BPF is chickenfeed compared to a US task force in 1945).

Dilandu raises a good point. To combat a Sverdlov needed either Red Beard to shatter it or rapid-fire automatic guns. The only ships that could realistically take such weapons were the uncompleted Tiger hulls. But the snag was that it took until 1954 to approved the planned 1949 design with auto guns and that 6in auto and 3/70 auto development took so long that its 1960 before they are ready and by then they are obsolete - KS-1, Sea Slug, Terrier, Regulus, Rb08 et al are already the new game in town and yes even by then Sverdlov is old hat with a bunch of them rusting on slipways uncompleted. If you could complete 3 Tigers with auto weapons by 1954 then its maybe worth it.

A Dido fitted as FADE proved a tight fit for all the kit needed so a conversion was never done, a Tiger FADE might be possibility but its expensive to run and man and perhaps a tad too slow.

So my choice is, 1942 stop messing about and forget about 6in cruisers. 1960 "oooh a dozen shiny missile destroyers".

The USN Cleveland class "light" cruisers gave sterling service in WWII, and even afterward when a few were converted to launch SAMs. I put "light" in parentheses because they were sizable ships with a very heavy main battery of twelve 6 inch (155mm) guns in four triple turrets. Their full load displacement was more than 14,000 tons and yes, they did see combat and were effective against the Imperial Japanese Navy, particularly at the Battle of Empress Augusta Bay.



The Battle of Empress Augusta Bay

Hastings' point may have been directed more at the RN and the European Theater, where the kriegsmarine surface fleet had been battered and mostly reduced to e-boats and Q-ships by the midpoint of the war. It was an entirely different matter with the IJN in the Pacific.

 

[Dilandu]

The Cruiser Destroyer was 3 single rapid fire guns and intended to work in groups when needed.

Three 4-inch guns per ship. Not one 6-inch per ship. That's the point. The concept was to spray Sverdlov with large amount of very quick fire, and hope that "superior gunnery of Royal Navy" would work. On practice, it would most likely not.

So no Sverdlov would have to independently target 3+ such ships coming on different bearings.

Actually it probably could; the main battery have two directors, so two targets could be engaged simultaneously. And unless the combat distance was more than 24.000 meters - and you would probably agree, that firing from such distance, cruiser-destroyers could not hope for more than a few accidental hits before their magazines run out - "Sverdlov" could also bring its powerful 100-mm DP battery into combat.

The SM-5-1bis dual mounts have max ballistic range about 24.200 meters. "Sverdlov" carried six of them, three per broadside.

 

[Tony Williams]

The Cruiser Destroyer was 3 single rapid fire guns and intended to work in groups when needed.

Three 4-inch guns per ship. Not one 6-inch per ship. That's the point. The concept was to spray Sverdlov with large amount of very quick fire, and hope that "superior gunnery of Royal Navy" would work. On practice, it would most likely not.

So no Sverdlov would have to independently target 3+ such ships coming on different bearings.

Actually it probably could; the main battery have two directors, so two targets could be engaged simultaneously. And unless the combat distance was more than 24.000 meters - and you would probably agree, that firing from such distance, cruiser-destroyers could not hope for more than a few accidental hits before their magazines run out - "Sverdlov" could also bring its powerful 100-mm DP battery into combat.

The SM-5-1bis dual mounts have max ballistic range about 24.200 meters. "Sverdlov" carried six of them, three per broadside.

So, a 15,000 ton Sverdlov could beat a 3,000 ton destroyer? No great surprise regardless of the armament carried.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The three Tiger class had very short in service times.
As gun ships they covered the period from 1959 to 1965 when the County class destroyers were only available in small numbers and offered an escort to an aircraft or commando carrier. The confrontation with Indonesia was going on.

For what it's worth:

1959-66 Tiger (Completed 18.03.59 and Paid off December 1966)​

1966-68 in Reserve (the book doesn't say where)​

1968-72 Conversion to a Helicopter Cruiser at Devonport​

1972-78 General Sea Service until paid off in April 1978​

1978-79 in Reserve at Portsmouth​

1980 for Disposal​

1986 sold to Desguaces Varela and broken up in Spain​

​

1960-64 Lion (Completed 20.07.60 and only says 1964 for the paying off date)​

1964-72 in Reserve at Devonport​

1972-75 for Disposal - stripped at Rosyth and cannibalised to provide parts for Tiger.​

1975 Broken up, Ward, Inverkeithing.​

​

1961-63 Blake (Completed 18.03.61 and only says 1963 for the paying off date)​

1963-65 in Reserve (the book doesn't say where)​

1965-69 Conversion to a Helicopter Cruiser at Portsmouth​

1969-79 General Sea Service until paid off in December 1979​

1980-81 in the Standby Squadron at Chatham​

1981 for Disposal​

1982 Broken up by Shipbreaking (Queenborough) Ltd, Cairnryan.​

Source: Cruisers of the Royal and Commonwealth Navies by Douglas Morris.

The 1970s saw Blake and Tiger filling the escort helicopter cruiser role. With only Ark, Hermes and Bulwark available for Task Groups the two helicopter cruisers were often used as CVS substitutes with their three Sea Kings.

It's somewhat more complicated than that. I'll have to write a separate post to explain why. (Please forgive me if you already knew and were summarising.)

The RN like other W European navies lagged behind the US Navy in introducing air defence missiles so the Tigers were forced to act as an interim capability.

Fortunately it was very interim because the Devonshire the first County was completed in November 1962 only 20 months after Blake and the other three Batch 1 Counties were completed by November 1963.

Unlike France (Jean D) and Italy (Doria) the RN never got a missile cruiser with an aft helo deck (Jean was supposed to get Masurca).

As I understand it the British did study missile cruisers with aft helicopter decks but decided that the through-deck arrangement was better and that's why we eventually got the Invincible class.

The Italians seem to have come to the same conclusion, because they stopped building large ships with aft helicopter decks in favour of through-deck ships. See below.

Apologies if you were summarising, but the Italians had 3 missile cruisers with aft helicopter decks. The others were Caio Duilio (sister of Andrea Doria) and the one-off Vittorio Veneto. They had plans for a fourth ship of this type (to be named Trieste) but in the end they built the through-deck cruiser/small aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi instead. That's why I think they also decided that through-deck ships were better and ships with aft helicopter decks.

Incidentally, Garibaldi's pennant number was C 551 (C for cruiser) and Jeanne d'Arc's was R 97 (R for aircraft carrier).

According to this website Jeanne d' Arc didn't receive MASURCA because the system wasn't ready in time.

Masurca

 

[Dilandu]

So, a 15,000 ton Sverdlov could beat a 3,000 ton destroyer? No great surprise regardless of the armament carried.

That's kinda my point - that installing a single 6-inch QF on destroyer would not turn it into surface combatant, capable of challenging Sverdlov.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth the reason that Morris gives for their short service as conventional cruisers was:

In service, their demands for technical manpower created manning problems, causing Blake to be paid off only two years after commissioning.

He wrote that the ships had a crew of 716 as conventional cruisers and 885 in their helicopter cruisers.

 

[Hood]

The Cruiser-Destroyer certainly it started out as a post-war equivalent to the WW1 C-class to be an impressive flag shower in peacetime and be capable of taking on most likely surface threats in wartime. Tackling a Kirov as originally planned in 1949 was one thing, I am not sure whether Sverdlov was an actual stated written requirement target - one appears in the background of the official painting of the 1952 FADE version with 2 Type 984s but that is art.
The Admiralty in 1954 thought that two Darings could deal with one Sverdlov. so they felt that rapid-fire could wreck a cruiser's capacity to fight (presumably torpedoes delivering the coup de grace).

Friedman quotes a 1958 edition of The Fighting Instructions which stated "In the majority of firings that have been reported on, rates of fire have been slow... If these firings are typical of the Soviet Navy as a whole.... Soviet ships are unlikely to develop an early and high rate of hitting." It was clear the RN saw rate of fire as the key issue and that if they could hit accurately with multiple hits they would be able to knock out a cruiser before it could inflict any critical damage on the destroyers.


The Cruiser-Destroyer began circa 1949, when it was thought it would carry US 5in/54 either two twins or four singles which the DGD reckoned was almost on par with the planned Tiger then being redesigned for two 6in twins. It was thought that two Cruiser-Destroyers could handle a Kirov.
This was refined as three singles when it was found the twin mount was too heavy. But each would have its own 4-channel GDS director plus Limbo and 8 torpedo tubes.
50 Cruiser-Destroyers would be built at half the unit cost of the planned '1960 Cruiser' (12,000-14,000 tons 8x2 5in & 8x2 3in) and less than twice the unit cost of a destroyer. The only interim choice was a refitted Dido with new fire-control (later fitting 4x2 4.5in Mk VI was also considered). The 1951 Mobilisation Plan even included four new modernised Didos as the only available option.
In 1951 the gun was to be a 5in/62. Displacement was 4,600-4,700 tons, speed 30.5kts, each gun would have 360 arcs at all elevations plus there would be three single 3in/50 DP mounts with their own fire-control. Keeping the weight to 4,750 tons was a problem but even so a FADE version with two (!) Type 984 was proposed.
By the summer of 1952 two twin mounts were back in contention. But weight was a problem, an almost 5,000 ton 30kt unprotected ship was seen as vulnerable. By then the MoS had stopped work on the 5in/62 and it was cancelled in 1953 and the Cruiser-Destroyer morphed into the 'Super Daring' studies.
Plans for four ships were changed to one guided weapons ships - it could be said the first batch of Counties were the result (the Counties growing out of the Super Daring studies).


The 6in Mk XXVI in 1948 was estimated to be ready in 1953, 5in/70 in 1957, 3in/70 in 1957 with LRS1 and MRS3 also being ready in 1953. Sea Slug would be ready in 1958. Clearly in reality these dates slipped a lot.
The 1949 plan for two '1960 Cruisers' to be laid down by 1957 never happened, ultimately they were overtaken by the Guided Missile Cruiser (two twin 6in Mk XXVI and two or four 3in/70 plus Sea Slug), the 1955-56 New Construction Programme had two cruisers, then upped to three (the GW96A) but then cancelled in 1957.

In this light the three Tigers were very much the only modern anti-ship game in town. Unfortunately three twin mounts wouldn't fit. Another challenge was that each turret needed 500kW of power, so four 750kW AC generators were required. Luckily the RN was switching to AC anyway but it required more redesign. The Korea programme resulted in deferment of the Mk XXVI development. Ultimately the delay made the Tiger rebuilds pointless in their planned role by the time they completed in 1959-60 - though saying that the three Mk XXVI-equipped GW96A wouldn't' have completed until the mid-60s...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth another cruiser that had a lot of money spent on it in the late 1950s and only served for a short period afterwards was HMS Belfast. Her 1955-59 refit at Devonport cost £5½ million but she was only in commission from 12th May 1959 until December 1963 when she paid off.

 

[Dilandu]

For what it's worth another cruiser that had a lot of money spent on it in the late 1950s and only served for a short period afterwards was HMS Belfast. Her 1955-59 refit at Devonport cost £5½ million but she was only in commission from 12th May 1959 until December 1963 when she paid off.

Well, four and half years of active service isn't bad for old cruiser.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is the current version of my Post-War RN Cruisers spreadsheet.



Please note that:

• The deployment of the cruisers in commission may not be 100% accurate. E.g. I've put the Tiger class were on General Sea Service according to Morris, which is my source, but I've put them in the Home Fleet.
• The Cadet Training Ships in the period covered by the spreadsheet were:
  • Frobisher 1945-47
  • Devonshire 1947-53.
  • Triumph (aircraft carrier) 1953-55
  • The Dartmouth Training Squadron/17th Frigate Squadron 1955-72. It initially had a destroyer and 2 frigates, but for most of its existence it had 3 frigates.
  • Fearless and Intrepid (amphibious assault ships) 1972-81. They served in rotation, with the other ship in full commission until 1976 and from then on in refit/reserve.
  • The list doesn't include Triumph, the Frigate Squadron or the Amphibious Assault Ships.
• This trials ship was Cumberland.
• Some of the ships that the list shows as being in Reserve will have been on the Disposal List.

 

[Tony Williams]

So, a 15,000 ton Sverdlov could beat a 3,000 ton destroyer? No great surprise regardless of the armament carried.

That's kinda my point - that installing a single 6-inch QF on destroyer would not turn it into surface combatant, capable of challenging Sverdlov.

Nothing much less than a 15,000 ton cruiser would be capable of beating a Sverdlov, other things being equal. Weight rules...

In planning the escorts to replace the Leanders and Counties the RN decided that for most warship types (original T22 excluded) one large-calibre gun was worth having. I'm just suggesting that a single 6" would have been better than the 4.5" Mk 8, particularly for shore bombardment (which is what these guns are in practice mainly used for).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 48 with the section in brackets underlined by me.

The Admiralty in 1954 thought that two Darings could deal with one Sverdlov. so they felt that rapid-fire could wreck a cruiser's capacity to fight (presumably torpedoes delivering the coup de grace).

If I remember correctly from reading Friedman's books...

Anti-ship torpedoes were though of as "equalisers" for destroyers fighting cruisers. The Barents Sea was given as an example of when it had worked in the past. Which was why British destroyers retained anti-ship torpedoes for as long as they did.

Have I remembered correctly?

 

[EwenS]

Part of Post 48 with the section in brackets underlined by me.

The Admiralty in 1954 thought that two Darings could deal with one Sverdlov. so they felt that rapid-fire could wreck a cruiser's capacity to fight (presumably torpedoes delivering the coup de grace).

If I remember correctly from reading Friedman's books...

Anti-ship torpedoes were though of as "equalisers" for destroyers fighting cruisers. The Barents Sea was given as an example of when it had worked in the past. Which was why British destroyers retained anti-ship torpedoes for as long as they did.

Have I remembered correctly?

At Barents Sea the advantage was retained by the RN destroyers keeping the torpedoes in the tubes and maintaining the the threat rather than expending them.

The last destroyer action of WW2 was the 26th Destroyer Flotilla sinking the IJN cruiser Haguro on 16 May 1945 in the Malacca Strait.

Battle of the Malacca Strait - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth another cruiser that had a lot of money spent on it in the late 1950s and only served for a short period afterwards was HMS Belfast. Her 1955-59 refit at Devonport cost £5½ million but she was only in commission from 12th May 1959 until December 1963 when she paid off.

Well, four and half years of active service isn't bad for old cruiser.

Well, that's over a million Pounds for each of those four-and-a-half years. A million Pounds was a lot of money in those days.

Also there were several newer Colony class cruisers that could have been run on until 1963. E.g. the Newfoundland which was paid off in June 1959.

Once again you miss my point. That is (in common with the Tiger class) her demands for technical manpower meant she was paid off prematurely. I don't know, but suspect that her 1955-59 refit was intended to extend her service live from a nominal 20 years to a nominal 30 years.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth another cruiser that had a lot of money spent on it in the late 1950s and only served for a short period afterwards was HMS Belfast. Her 1955-59 refit at Devonport cost £5½ million but she was only in commission from 12th May 1959 until December 1963 when she paid off.

Is it true that Belfast was to have had her existing 6in turrets replaced with twin 6in Mk 26 turrets but the cost meant that the original armament had to be retained?

Is it also true that the Admiralty wanted the twin 4" gun mountings replaced by twin 3" turrets, but that the ship's internal arrangements prevented this? It might have been because the magazines were in the wrong place. I think they weren't directly under the guns and were fed by a conveyor belt. Or it could all be another case of false memory syndrome.

 

[EwenS]

For what it's worth another cruiser that had a lot of money spent on it in the late 1950s and only served for a short period afterwards was HMS Belfast. Her 1955-59 refit at Devonport cost £5½ million but she was only in commission from 12th May 1959 until December 1963 when she paid off.

Is it true that Belfast was to have had her existing 6in turrets replaced with twin 6in Mk 26 turrets but the cost meant that the original armament had to be retained?

Is it also true that the Admiralty wanted the twin 4" gun mountings replaced by twin 3" turrets, but that the ship's internal arrangements prevented this? It might have been because the magazines were in the wrong place. I think they weren't directly under the guns and were fed by a conveyor belt. Or it could all be another case of false memory syndrome.

When the modernisation of the Town class was first being considered in the late 1940s there was some discussion about fitting 6" Mk 26 and twin 3"/70 mounts (3). But as these were not expected to be available until the mid-1950s along with expected delays in providing the necessary generators for the extra generating capacity to run them, they were quickly dropped from the plans. The 3"/70 mounts magazine layout would have required horizontal transfer of ammunition to these guns.

At that stage the RN was looking at having 18 cruisers in 1957:-
3 Tigers
3 modernised Towns (Belfast, Glasgow & Liverpool which would retain existing main & secondary armament)
3 Towns with "large repairs" (Sheffield Newcastle & Birmingham)
3 Colony/Minotaur with large repairs (Newfoundland, Superb & Swiftsure)
4 modernised Dido (incl Diadem, Royalist and Sirius)
2 Dido with large repair

The only elements of this plan to be realised were:-

3 Tigers
Full modernisation - Royalist
Large repairs - Sheffield, Birmingham, Newcastle and Newfoundland plus Belfast downgraded from modernisation to large repair.

Glasgow & Liverpool were cancelled n late 1952 "...as the financial largesse engendered by the Korean War hit the economic buffers." At that point it was decided to extend the lives of some of the newer Colony class "as the Town class's advantages in size & space were of less relevance given the more limited extent of the work then envisaged."

From "British Town Class Cruisers" by Conrad Waters.

Belfast might have had a longer life if she had been given the helicopter carrier conversion proposed in 1961.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/hms-belfast-helicopter-conversion.26853/

 

[Foo Fighter]

Turning this around a bit, I know. Instead of anti aircraft or anti surface targets, why not anti submarine cruisers? Helicopters with torpedo's and lots of torpedo's and other anti submarine kit? I know, left field.

 

[Dilandu]

In planning the escorts to replace the Leanders and Counties the RN decided that for most warship types (original T22 excluded) one large-calibre gun was worth having. I'm just suggesting that a single 6" would have been better than the 4.5" Mk 8, particularly for shore bombardment (which is what these guns are in practice mainly used for).

Ah, then I misunderstood your post. My apologies.

 

[Archibald]

Gosh, post-WWII RN was not only an aircraft carrier nightmare: it was also a cruiser nightmare.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 45

The 1970s saw Blake and Tiger filling the escort helicopter cruiser role. With only Ark, Hermes and Bulwark available for Task Groups the two helicopter cruisers were often used as CVS substitutes with their three Sea Kings.

It's somewhat more complicated than that. I'll have to write a separate post to explain why. (Please forgive me if you already knew and were summarising.)

And this is the separate post to explain why. Once again please forgive me if you already knew and were summarising.

Tiger and Blake became flagships of the two surface warship flotillas that were formed in 1972.

• Tiger was flagship of the Second Flotilla from May 1972 until April 1978 when was she paid off.
• Blake was flagship of the First Flotilla from November 1972 to December 1979 when she was paid off.
• Initially each flotilla had half the County class Guided Missile Destroyers and four Frigate Squadrons of mixed composition.
• Source: https://www.naval-history.net/xGW-RNOrganisation1947-2013.htm#4

The Commando Carriers Albion & Bulwark and the Amphibious Assault Ships Fearless & Intrepid continued to serve in those roles. These ships and Ark Royal were under the Flag Officer Carriers & Amphibious Ships (FOCAS) who was re-titled Flag Officer Third Flotilla (FO3F) in December 1979.

• Hermes paid off as a Strike Carrier in 1970 was converted to a Commando Carrier 1971-73 and upon re-commissioning replaced Albion which was paid off and scrapped.
• Fearless became the Cadet Training Ship in 1972 with Fearless taking over when she was refitting.
  • Fearless replaced the frigates in the Dartmouth Training Squadron/17th Frigate Squadron.
  • The frigate squadron had in turn replaced the aircraft carrier Triumph in 1955.
• Intrepid remained in commission as an Amphibious Assault Ship except for periods when she was Cadet Training Ship while Fearless was refitting.

Then the Yom Kippur War and Oil Crisis happened which precipitated the Mason Defence Review of 1974-75. As a result.

• The Fearless class (according to Pages 105 and 106 of Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990 by Leo Marriott).
  • Intrepid was laid up in 1976 pending a two-year refit which was completed at the end of 1978.
  • Fearless remained in service until late 1978 when she paid off for a refit that was completed at the end of 1981.
  • Intrepid was brought back into service in 1978 and replaced Fearless as Cadet Training Ship.
  • Fearless returned to service in late 1981 and Fearless went back into reserve.
• Bulwark according to Jane's 1980-81...
  • "... was placed in reserve in April 1976 as a result of the 1975 Defence Review. In late 1977 it was decided to reactivate Bulwark to cover the period after Ark Royal's deletion. She re-commissioned at Portsmouth after a considerable refit 23 February 1979 for a 5-year period."
  • The version of that entry in Jane's 1978-79 included this sentence... "Due to manpower shortages her commissioning will have to await the availability of Ark Royal's complement." In other words she couldn't be re-commissioned until after Ark Royal was paid off.
  • So she was a Commando Carrier until in 1976 and didn't become an Anti-Submarine Carrier until 1979.
  • However, the Second Oil Crisis of 1979 started another recession and she was paid off on 27th March 1981 three years earlier than planned.
• Hermes according to Jane's 1980-81...
  • "In 1976, as a result of the Defence Review and pressure from NATO countries, Hermes' role was altered to that of A/S carrier with the retention of capability for commando support. As a result she underwent yet another conversion at Devonport which was completed Jan 1977. How long she continues in this role depends on how much extra delay is experienced on the "Invinclible" class, but it seems likely that she will continue to run until at least 1984-85. When the Harriers are eventually in naval service they will fly from this ship amongst others. The first operational squadron is due for embarkation in Hermes in 1980."
  • So she was a Commando Carrier until January 1977 when completed her conversion into an Anti-Submarine Carrier.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth I thought that Bulwark and Hermes were to be paid off in 1976 as part of the Mason Defence Review. Fortunately, I checked my transcript of the 1975 Defence Review and discovered that I was wrong. In fact Hermes was converted into an Anti-Submarine Carrier as part of the review.

This is Paragraph 27a. of the the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1975 - Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Defence" dated 23rd February 1975.

a. The Amphibious Force. At present our amphibious capability consists of a Royal Marines brigade headquarters, four commando groups, a logistic regiment and Army support units, two squadrons of Royal Navy support helicopters, two commando ships (HMS Hermes and HMS Bulwark), two assault ships, (HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid), and afloat support. HMS Bulwark will be paid off in 1976, earlier than previously planned, and her Wessex helicopter squadron will be disbanded. HMS Hermes will be declared to NATO as an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) carrier but will retain a secondary role as a commando ship. HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid will remain in service as previously planned throughout the 1980s, but only one ship will be kept at immediate operational readiness, the second being in care and maintenance or refit. Plans to order two purpose-built amphibious ships have been abandoned and detailed studies of alternative means of movement in the longer term are in hand.

Source: National Archives File CAB.129.181.c21

 

[uk 75]

NOMISYRRUC I am indeed grateful to you for your detailed accounts.
My aim as ever is to tease out information and opinions.
Looking at a Janes for say 1961 it is notable how only the USN has a number of modern looking ships in service.
Sweden had two large Gota Lejon/Tre Kronor cruisers.

HSwMS Göta Lejon - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Tre Kronor-class cruiser - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Sweden built no air defence ships after this class prefering to revert to smaller units and minelayers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Bulwark was completed with a Direct Current electrical system. Does anyone know if she was converted to AC? And if she was, when?

 

[starviking]

Part of Post 48 with the section in brackets underlined by me.

The Admiralty in 1954 thought that two Darings could deal with one Sverdlov. so they felt that rapid-fire could wreck a cruiser's capacity to fight (presumably torpedoes delivering the coup de grace).

If I remember correctly from reading Friedman's books...

Anti-ship torpedoes were though of as "equalisers" for destroyers fighting cruisers. The Barents Sea was given as an example of when it had worked in the past. Which was why British destroyers retained anti-ship torpedoes for as long as they did.

Have I remembered correctly?

Friedman’s Postwar Naval Revolution’s extensive section on the cruiser-destroyer mentions that the guns were to be used at full RoF at the most effective range to damage the lightly-armoured parts of the Sverdlov - effectively aiming for a mission kill. Then the anti-ship torps would deliver the coup-de-grace.

The cruiser-destroyers would have had to rapidly close the distance between the Sverdlov’s effective range and the CD’s effective range, which might seem risky - but absent a few lucky hits it seems a reasonable tactic.

 

[EwenS]

Bulwark was completed with a Direct Current electrical system. Does anyone know if she was converted to AC? And if she was, when?

I don’t believe she ever was so converted. It would have meant substantial rewiring and when examined in 1982 her wiring was described as being in a “poor material state”. That would have been unlikely if rewired.

 

[Hood]

I do feel that while the Admiralty may have been convinced that the main battery RoF might be lower than the design maximum rate of fire, the radar-guided 100mm secondary battery would have been a danger even at 5in effective ranges.

But if we flip the coin, the new Project 30bis Skory-class were very similar to the Cruiser-Destroyer in armament - 2x2 130mm (5.1in) plus 1x2 85mm (3.3in) and 10 torpedo tubes. But only displaced 2,300 tons and had a speed of 36.5kts. The Super Daring would probably have been closer to the Pr.30bis but heavier and slower. But it shows that perhaps a smaller more traditional design might have taken two 5in/54 twins (/62 might have been a push).

And conversely did the RN consider that two Skorys could deal with a Town/Minotaur/Tiger? On paper they should have been able to, especially since most of the older ships were still essentially stock WW2 batteries with some fire-control upgrading but no improvement on RoF.

 

[Volkodav]

The Cruiser Destroyer was 3 single rapid fire guns and intended to work in groups when needed.

Three 4-inch guns per ship. Not one 6-inch per ship. That's the point. The concept was to spray Sverdlov with large amount of very quick fire, and hope that "superior gunnery of Royal Navy" would work. On practice, it would most likely not.

So no Sverdlov would have to independently target 3+ such ships coming on different bearings.

Actually it probably could; the main battery have two directors, so two targets could be engaged simultaneously. And unless the combat distance was more than 24.000 meters - and you would probably agree, that firing from such distance, cruiser-destroyers could not hope for more than a few accidental hits before their magazines run out - "Sverdlov" could also bring its powerful 100-mm DP battery into combat.

The SM-5-1bis dual mounts have max ballistic range about 24.200 meters. "Sverdlov" carried six of them, three per broadside.

Rapid fire, fully automatic 5" 70 calibre, not 4" and a very high speed. In many ways they would have been the spiritual successor to the Tribal Class destroyers where gun power had precedence, and more along the lines of the USN DL/Frigates of the post war era. They were to have progressively replaced all cruisers and destroyers and able to serve in either role.

 

[zen]

My understanding of the system installed in the Tigers was that it would correct shot by radar tracking what it already fired. Resulting in very accurate fire.

I'm not sure that a Destroyer would be so unstable as to degrade performance.
Especially as this is the era of much improved stabilisation systems for both ship and gun.

 

[exkiwiforces]

I’m currently modified a what if Tiger Class as a Commando/Command Cruiser. This build is going to be a part of the African/ Cape Colony SQN based out of the Simonstown Dockyard during the late 70’s early 80’s as a party of the Commonwealth Defence Organisation which spun out of the Commonwealth Common Market which was formed by Clement Attlee after winning the 51 Snap Election.

Anyway the 3 Cruisers were built as actually how they were in the real life as the WW2 Cruisers were paid off after the Korean War. Initially they served as a Flagship for Independent SQN’s that didn’t require Aircraft Carriers or the Commando Carriers.

Later as the a Commonwealth Defence Organisation evolve in particular with the heavy fleet units were streamlined to 4 Malta’s (3 in service/ 1refit), 3 Audacious renamed as Ark Royal Class (2 service/ 1refit) with 6 Centaurs in service with the RAN/ RNZN, RCN & INS. The 3 Tiger Cruisers were permanently deployed to Simonstown when Cape Colony secede from the Union after a referendum against the Apartheid Laws in 1960.

The Tigers were re-role as a Command/ Commando during the respective rebuilds, during the decolonisation of the 60’s & as most of the newer independent African join the Commonwealth Common Market the Cruisers are in hot demand as the older Commando Carriers struggle to maintain the Operational demands.

This current fit out, represents its last configuration of the late 70’s- early 80’s before they are replaced along with the Ark Royal & the Centaur Class Carriers are replaced by the new Escort/ Commando Carriers equip with the big wing Harriers, COD/ Tanker Do 31’s, & the various Helicopters.

 

[PMN1]

HMS Belfast as an Amphious ship...think the drawing came from this site.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Bulwark was completed with a Direct Current electrical system. Does anyone know if she was converted to AC? And if she was, when?

I don’t believe she ever was so converted. It would have meant substantial rewiring and when examined in 1982 her wiring was described as being in a “poor material state”. That would have been unlikely if rewired.

I thought conversion from DC to AC might have been done as part of the refit she had before re-commissioning in 1979.

As far as I know she would have been the only DC ship in service and it would have made sense to convert her to AC in the name of standardisation. The money required to convert the ship would have been offset by the money saved by reduced maintenance costs over the five years that she was intended to be in service.

I have no evidence to support that opinion and agree with your conclusion that she hadn't been rewired.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Post 56 in its entirety.

For what it's worth another cruiser that had a lot of money spent on it in the late 1950s and only served for a short period afterwards was HMS Belfast. Her 1955-59 refit at Devonport cost £5½ million but she was only in commission from 12th May 1959 until December 1963 when she paid off.

Is it true that Belfast was to have had her existing 6in turrets replaced with twin 6in Mk 26 turrets but the cost meant that the original armament had to be retained?

Is it also true that the Admiralty wanted the twin 4" gun mountings replaced by twin 3" turrets, but that the ship's internal arrangements prevented this? It might have been because the magazines were in the wrong place. I think they weren't directly under the guns and were fed by a conveyor belt. Or it could all be another case of false memory syndrome.

From Page 116 in Chapter Five "Cruisers" of Norman Friedman's "The Postwar Naval Revolution".

In 1953, at the outset of the Radical Review, fuller modernisation was planned for the big Belfast and for the two newest pre-Tiger cruisers, Swiftsure and Superb. Belfast would have retained her 4in secondary battery (but with six rather than four twin mounts with two MRS 3, and six twin 40mm L/70). She could not take the new 3in/70 for structural reasons. The other two ships would have been rearmed with three twin 3in/70. In each case, the object of modernization was for the ship to be able, not only to defend herself but also to protect a consort under blind-fire conditions. This was far too expensive, and less expensive refits on the lines of the earlier ships were considered. There was also an intermediate standard, in which the ship could be defend a consort in some limited fashion (MRS 3 installed for existing anti-aircraft weapons, L70 Bofors installed). Only Belfast was actually modernized, and she was not fitted with the panned Mark 26 mounts. Swiftsure was included in the program because she had recently been damaged. Work began in February 1954, but stopped before completion in August 1959. She was later considered as a potential single-ended missile cruiser or helicopter cruiser. However, she was broken up instead.

Please note that Friedman had italicised the ship's names and I have added the underlining to make them stand out better.

Part of Post 56

Is it true that Belfast was to have had her existing 6in turrets replaced with twin 6in Mk 26 turrets but the cost meant that the original armament had to be retained?

I was right. Viz.

Only Belfast was actually modernized, and she was not fitted with the panned Mark 26 mounts.

Another Part of Post 56

Is it also true that the Admiralty wanted the twin 4" gun mountings replaced by twin 3" turrets, but that the ship's internal arrangements prevented this? It might have been because the magazines were in the wrong place. I think they weren't directly under the guns and were fed by a conveyor belt. Or it could all be another case of false memory syndrome.

I was half-right. Yes it did want to replace the twin 4in gun mountings with twin 3in turrets, but the reason that I gave was wrong. Viz.

She could not take the new 3in/70 for structural reasons.

 

[Hood]

"Structural reasons" is a vague term that can hide a multitude of sins. It could well include magazine issues. Another issue with the 6in Mk 26 and 3in/70 was arcs, a lot of work went into the Tiger layout to make sure all the mounts had as wide arcs at all elevations as possible. Like the Cruiser-Destroyer, 360 degree arcs were wanted for the 6in guns but this was impossible to achieve on Tiger due to the superstructure size and location and magazine location. Belfast being relatively roomy probably would have taken three twin Mk 26 turrets (though probably with some reduction in arc for 'B' turret compared to the Tiger layout - which had a 3/70 in 'B' position).

Belfast would have retained her 4in secondary battery (but with six rather than four twin mounts

Surely this is a typo by Friedman? Belfast already had six twin mounts so he must mean "four rather than six twin mounts". This would make more sense given the need to free topweight for MRS-3 and more radars etc.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

"Structural reasons" is a vague term that can hide a multitude of sins. It could well include magazine issues. Another issue with the 6in Mk 26 and 3in/70 was arcs, a lot of work went into the Tiger layout to make sure all the mounts had as wide arcs at all elevations as possible. Like the Cruiser-Destroyer, 360 degree arcs were wanted for the 6in guns but this was impossible to achieve on Tiger due to the superstructure size and location and magazine location. Belfast being relatively roomy probably would have taken three twin Mk 26 turrets (though probably with some reduction in arc for 'B' turret compared to the Tiger layout - which had a 3/70 in 'B' position).

For what it's worth I think its more likely that a fully modernised Belfast would have had a twin 3in turret in B position like the Tigers and fourth twin 3in turret in X position for a total of two twin 6in and four twin 3in turrets.

Belfast would have retained her 4in secondary battery (but with six rather than four twin mounts...

Surely this is a typo by Friedman? Belfast already had six twin mounts so he must mean "four rather than six twin mounts". This would make more sense given the need to free topweight for MRS-3 and more radars etc.

His books aren't immune from typos, but this isn't one of them. Belfast had two of her six twin 4" gun mountings removed when the mine damage was repaired.

Correction: Two of the six twin gun mountings were removed 1944/45. See Post 78 by @EwenS.

 

[Hood]

His books aren't immune from typos, but this isn't one of them. Belfast had two of her six twin 4" gun mountings removed when the mine damage was repaired.

My bad then (in my defence I'm not next to my copy of Friedman).

Well they wanted three twins on Tiger but it couldn't be done. Belfast of course was designed as a 12-gun ship originally and had the greater internal space and topweight margin and the Swiftsures were always cramped from their inception (the Newfoundlands and Swiftsures never really ironed out the Crown Colonies drawbacks even after sacrificing a turret and adding beam). I'd say if any ship could have been rebuilt with three twins, Belfast was the only one. Two would definitely be doable but then it's a lot of ship for just four 6in guns. Tiger was seen as a disappointment in this regard given her displacement for her fighter power (equal to two Cruiser-Destroyers or Darings if we believe their Lordship's estimations).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

These are the Dimensions of the Cruisers built for the Royal and Commonwealth Navies 1924-61
Plus the Dimensions of the unbuilt Neptune, GW25, GW58 and GW96 Designs

​

The sources are:

1. Cruisers of the Royal and Commonwealth Navies by Douglas Morris for the Kent to Neptune classes.
2. Rebuilding the Royal Navy by D K Brown and George Moore for GW25, GW58 and GW58.

Also please note:

• Exeter and York aren't in the list because both were sunk during World War II.
• According to Morris Belfast had four feet added to her beam 1939-42. He didn't say what her draught was after her rebuilding so I've assumed it was still 17¼ feet.
• However, according to Jane's 1960-61 her dimensions were: Length 679ft (pp.) 613½ft (o.a.); beam 66⅓ft; and draught 17ft.
• Morris didn't provide a pp length for Neptune.
• The overall lengths for GW25, GW58 and GW96 are their waterline lengths (because Brown and Moore did not provide the pp and overall lengths) so they are not directly comparable to the lengths of the other ships in the table.

Finally, please inform me by Private Message if you see any mistakes (which there shouldn't be because the table's been checked thrice at the time of writing) or have information to add so that I can make the necessary amendments.

 

[EwenS]

Belfast would have retained her 4in secondary battery (but with six rather than four twin mounts

Surely this is a typo by Friedman? Belfast already had six twin mounts so he must mean "four rather than six twin mounts". This would make more sense given the need to free topweight for MRS-3 and more radars etc.

Not a typo. After her rebuilding 1939-42 she still had 6 twin 4". But in 1944/45 Belfast was refitted before going to join the BPF. As part of upgrading her light AA armament she lost the aftermost pair of twin 4" guns.



The initial plans for her modernisation in 1953 called for 6 twin 4" with RPC with 2xMRS3 with "ended" directors and secondary control by CRBFDs. By Jan 1955 the approved modernisation plans were for 4 twin 4" with RP51 , 2xMRS3 with "sided" directors and secondary control by CRBFDs. It finally came out with 4 twin 4" with RP51, MRS8 (4xCRBFDs)
"British Town Class Cruisers" by Conrad Waters.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth another cruiser that had a lot of money spent on it in the late 1950s and only served for a short period afterwards was HMS Belfast. Her 1955-59 refit at Devonport cost £5½ million but she was only in commission from 12th May 1959 until December 1963 when she paid off.

Well, four and half years of active service isn't bad for old cruiser.

Well, that's over a million Pounds for each of those four-and-a-half years. A million Pounds was a lot of money in those days.

Also there were several newer Colony class cruisers that could have been run on until 1963. E.g. the Newfoundland which was paid off in June 1959.

Once again you miss my point. That is (in common with the Tiger class) her demands for technical manpower meant she was paid off prematurely. I don't know, but suspect that her 1955-59 refit was intended to extend her service live from a nominal 20 years to a nominal 30 years.

A quote from Page 743 and 744 of Scribd's copy of British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After by Norman Friedman with the relevant section emboldened and underlined by me.

As the largest surviving British cruiser, and the ship with the greatest reserve of stability, Belfast was well worth modernising even after modernisation plans had been abandoned for other cruisers. Her 1959 refit was intended to extend her hull and machinery life by a decade (parallel refits were planned for the two newest large cruisers, Superb and Swiftsure, but neither was completed). Belfast lasted longer than projected. Note that she was not fitted with Mk 6 directors for her 4in guns; instead she had eight of the new MRS 8 systems, controlling both her 4in and her 40mm guns. MRS 8 was essentially an expanded Bofors director, using the Type 262 radar originally developed for the integrated STAAG radar-gun combination. Belfast is shown in June 1959, newly refitted.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 84 in the Royal Navy Destroyers and Frigates post 1966 thread

Stupid question in passing, could a Tiger get a Sea Slug system ? France did that to Colbert, it got a MASURCA just like the Suffren brothers.

From Pages 800 and 801 of Scribd's copy of British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After by Norman Friedman

​

A Fiji class cruiser converted to a missile ship, as sketched in October 1954. This design can be compared to roughly contemporary US conversions of Cleveland class cruisers. The Fiji would have retained ‘A’ turret. She would also have had three twin Mk 5 Bofors, the type then replacing pompoms on board such ships, and twenty-four Sea Slugs. Deep displacement would have been 10,950 tons (draft 20ft 3in), and her 80,000shp powerplant would have driven her at 30.5kts deep and clean (29.5kts deep and dirty, i.e., six months out of dock, but in temperate waters). Operational endurance would have been 4,900nm at 20kts. She would have had two missile-guidance radars (Type 901), but no big three-dimensional Type 984, leaving her somewhat inadequately equipped. Search radars would have matched those on board a ‘County’ class destroyer: Type 960 for long-range air search, Type 992 for target indication, Type 277Q for limited height-finding, and Type 974 for navigation. The 6in turret would have retained its existing DCT, with its Type 274 radar; the Bofors guns would have had local directors (STDs). Protection would have been that existing before the refit (it is not clear how much extra protection was planned for the missiles). Maximum accommodation at existing standards (not current ones) would be 790. The file does not include any modified designs showing conversion of Swiftsure or Superb or a Tiger. (Norman Friedman)

The illustration shows four twin 40mm but the text says three twin 40mm.