tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4093295897241438289.post6666282824248442793..comments2024-03-01T09:53:41.683+02:00Comments on Naval Analyses: WARSHIPS OF THE PAST: Tiger class cruisers of the Royal NavyD-Mitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13958151042890362933noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4093295897241438289.post-12175585263593761172016-11-21T20:30:03.620+02:002016-11-21T20:30:03.620+02:00Thank you sir for your comment. No, there is no re...Thank you sir for your comment. No, there is no relation between me and Mr. Mutch, I am not British. If you have personal photos of HMS Lion, I would be glad to post them here with your signature ( I can add it for you). You can contact me in the form at the right side-bar.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />MitchD-Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13958151042890362933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4093295897241438289.post-72789345988040844472016-11-14T20:26:35.513+02:002016-11-14T20:26:35.513+02:00I served on HMS Lion 64/65 when she was Flagship o...I served on HMS Lion 64/65 when she was Flagship on the Home Fleet. Although Lion was cramped and noisy and the food inedible, she was air conditioned on the mess decks and we had bunks. Lion looked the part sleek, fast with real cruiser lines. The photo of Lion shown here was when we attended the Independance of Malta in 1964. Can I ask a question is D Mutch - David Mutch ex Com Mutch RN, also my boss in DML Devonport if so greeting fm Charles Davis 62-90 RN.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17615410441842955625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4093295897241438289.post-45259895217825811312016-10-07T13:12:27.226+03:002016-10-07T13:12:27.226+03:00So many details, so much information! Thank you fo...So many details, so much information! Thank you for your comments Frederick, you really enriched my article about the Tigers. A nice book which I used for the above article, is the British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After (you can read parts of it at https://books.google.gr/books?id=kzs5CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA319&lpg=PA319&dq=ua-8/9+esm&source=bl&ots=twsSq2ikLD&sig=qh94VPZULHNj3Ui2NOh7RjWBv9k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjiq4uew93NAhVJOxoKHVW-CLcQ6AEIMDAF#v=onepage&q=ua-8%2F9%20esm&f=false).<br /><br />Please complete the contact form located at the right slide bar so we can discuss via email. Thank you again! D-Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13958151042890362933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4093295897241438289.post-71108944081844965132016-10-07T05:37:21.602+03:002016-10-07T05:37:21.602+03:00At every stage of their evolution the Tiger class ...At every stage of their evolution the Tiger class seemed very close to cancellation and they seemed remarkably unsuited to any of their intended post WW2 roles of surface action, AA protection for carriers and amphibious landings or as AS ships. The large 6 inch gun marks considered and fitted to these cruisers Mk 23,24 and eventually Mk 26 all seem to occupy too much space and weight above and below the deck for postwar use- and the alternative generally favoured between 1944-1950 for N2 cruisers and Colony cruiser modernisation was limiting turrets to the 100 ton 5.25 (alternatively, I would favour a ligtweight twin Mk 22 or Mk 24 mod electric of the same weight).<br />In the surface role postwar the RN faced heavily armed Chinese and Russian coastal Naval batteries with 6- 12 inch guns and RN heaviest gunned and armoured cruiser, HMS London was a write off after his last fight up River Yangtzee, due to hits from Chinese heavy artillery. The main potential adversary the Soviet Union cruisers had 6-7 inch guns but had far heavier armour and speed and power in Northern and Artic waters. The RN victory in the battle of the North Cape in late 1983 and was achieved due to communication intercepts and a lucky hit by the 8 inch cruiser Norfolk in the opening exchange with took out the Schnarnhorst surface radar gun fire directors. It was clear in the battle than the large German battlecruiser had superior speed in the Northern waters and only the larger hulled Belfast and Norfolk could hold her and that the lightly armoured Brtish cruisers were often slowed with by hits to their increased amounts of electronic and electrical equipment and such compontents neeed much heavier armouring and protection in future. The Fiji class ( the basis of the Tiger) were a war emergency design too small to sustain the chase in the Bismark and Schnarhorst operations despite the magnificent fight of HMS Jamaica. If you look of the video of HMS Tiger on trials in 1959 one is staggered how little modernised it is beyond the late 1930s Fiji model. The real operating speed of a Tiger was probably about 29 knots max and only medium range at carrier task force speed.<br />The anti aircraft role of the tigers could more effectively be carried out by smaller targets such as the T41 frigate which offered 992/965 radar and the ability to engage 3 simultaneous targets. By 1960 the Brtish Daring destroyer with MRS3 fire control fitted was a possible alternative and Winston Churchill saw that type of cruiser destroyer as the RNs future and both the Venezuela 3 turret Battle class and particularly the Chilean destroyers built by Vickers with 4 single automatic 4 inch 45rpm fire and 6 40mm L70 singles seemed ideal in slightly stretched form with an improved stabalised 4 inch still probably being lighter than the Tigers win 3/70 AA guns. Some RNZN and RCN officers did see the twin 3 inch as an outstanding weapon, a view forcefully emphasised by Ian Bradley. a brilliant RNZN/RN AS officer of the Admiral, John Coward generation. The view of Ian Bradely was the twin 3/70 should have armed the Leanders. My own view is a single 3/70 was the better option.<br />Most of all the Tiger seemed to replicate the ideas that were known to have failed in USS Worchester in 1950, USS Northhampton in 1954 and USS Norfolk in 1955. Which indicated a comprehensive failure for fully automatic 5 and 6 inch guns to achieve reliable fire at more 10-17rpm. The USS Juneau (2) CLAA 119 a USN equivalent of the Didos was modernised in 1950-1 with the latest DC/AW 14 3/50 and 12 5 inch and massively outpreformed the new Worchester class with its 6 inch automatic guns. The money spent on the Tigers could certainly have been better spent of the alternative of 1954 off 2/35,000 ton carriers and modest furthur modernisation of the later Colony and Minotaur class with 992/965 and replacement of usless old twin 4 inch mounts with US 3/50s, which would have fitted easily into the space for the existing turrrets. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12440177797614373201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4093295897241438289.post-59809619001985961622016-10-04T06:47:28.795+03:002016-10-04T06:47:28.795+03:00I have eeen very few photos of the Tiger class und...I have eeen very few photos of the Tiger class under reconstruction. The Lion was shot in a famous photo moored in a Scottish Loch in the 1940s but little work was done on it after launching in mid 1944 and one would expect quite a lot of deterioration laid up in those waters for 8/10 years. You show one picture of HMS BLake apparently being laucnched in 1945 with little detail and there are also a few pictures published of the late stages of Blake fitting out in 1961. The only other relevant photo is the famous picture of the half sister Swiftsure largely reconstructed to Tiger rebuilt shape in Chatham dockyard in March 1960 with the Mk 23 triple 6 inch turrets apparently reinstalled significantly its show a Tiger not a Belfast bridge.<br />It appears the Sandys 1957 Defense Review approved the continued reconstruction of the 3 Tigers and Suberb and Swiftsure as anti aircraft flak ships.<br />Much of the available evidence is that the Tiger class was effectively cancelled in mid 1944 to give priority to escort carriers and destroyers and the orders transferred to # 15,00o0 Neptunes for which construction of 12 triple Mk 24 turrets continued to the end of the war.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12440177797614373201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4093295897241438289.post-47615253761760178392016-09-02T00:07:51.801+03:002016-09-02T00:07:51.801+03:00Thank you for your comment! I doubt if their react...Thank you for your comment! I doubt if their reactivation would have made any difference. With their unreliable armament, weak CIWS, absence of long-range SAM, large crew and size would have been easy target for the Argentinian subs (Type 209, if..) and aircrafts. The British would have to protect these ships with a large number of surface combatants at all cost complicating in that way the operations. The key to the operations was the air supremacy and in that role Tigers could not contribute by carrying just a pair of Harriers with reduced armament. In regard to the helicopters, the Royal Navy had about 23-25 surface combatants that could carry a helicopter in contrast with the Argentinians that had only 5-6. So, also there the Tigers' contribution would have been insignificant. Finally, for sure the Royal Navy could not afford a loss similar to Belgrano's.D-Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13958151042890362933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4093295897241438289.post-29148374404943109812016-08-31T23:14:42.860+03:002016-08-31T23:14:42.860+03:00Excellent post on a ship I didn't know anythin...Excellent post on a ship I didn't know anything about! I recently finished a larger book on the Falklands War. Wonder if it would have made any difference had the cruisers been reactivated in time to join that one ... Ulrikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13201955178511979110noreply@blogger.com