Tiger class cruisers opinions

However the case for Green Mace is such weapons be dual purpose and remain valid in the AA role for longer. Just as they retain greater range.
 
Here's an opinion, if 1 of these ships conducted a shore bombardment in one of Britain's small wars of the late 50s-early 60s all would be forgiven. This would be doubly so if said bombardment was outside the range of the 4 5" gun or destroyed something that had withstood a 4.5" gun.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I don't think there's much stopping that. The big step would be making a 6" brass case to hold the powder. But I'd say that fitting them with multiple Green Mace guns would have been easier and faster.
Click to expand...
Green Mace is a little late for me. To my mind there's roughly a 15 year window between 1950 when the Korean War starts/the UK still needs to show the flag and 1965 when nuclear armed Buccaneers are operational/decolonisation is well underway where cruisers make sense with what they knew at the time.

What made me consider the Des Moines-class was the idea of the Royal Navy scrapping more of the uncommissioned ships post-war. Still wanting cruisers they start designing brand new ones incorporating various improvement – high pressure/temperature boilers, improved crew accommodation, air conditioning, excess electricity generation capability, top weight capacity, modern bridge and CIC etc. – and decide to modify a system that already works in service to avoid prolonged development.
 
Siberia said:
Green Mace is a little late for me. To my mind there's roughly a 15 year window between 1950 when the Korean War starts/the UK still needs to show the flag and 1965 when nuclear armed Buccaneers are operational/decolonisation is well underway where cruisers make sense with what they knew at the time.

What made me consider the Des Moines-class was the idea of the Royal Navy scrapping more of the uncommissioned ships post-war. Still wanting cruisers they start designing brand new ones incorporating various improvement – high pressure/temperature boilers, improved crew accommodation, air conditioning, excess electricity generation capability, top weight capacity, modern bridge and CIC etc. – and decide to modify a system that already works in service to avoid prolonged development.
Click to expand...
What the RN traditionally did was order its new generation or post war ships while the war was still being fought. They knew the money would be turned off so got in while they could.

WWII probably ended too early for their plans, Maltas hadn't been laid down, nor had the Neptunes or Minotaurs. They got their Battle and Darin Class Destroyers, but not the new bigger wartime experience cruisers.

Imagine completing a Neptune or Minotaur to an upgraded design?
 
Volkodav said:
What the RN traditionally did was order its new generation or post war ships while the war was still being fought. They knew the money would be turned off so got in while they could.

WWII probably ended too early for their plans, Maltas hadn't been laid down, nor had the Neptunes or Minotaurs. They got their Battle and Darin Class Destroyers, but not the new bigger wartime experience cruisers.

Imagine completing a Neptune or Minotaur to an upgraded design?
Click to expand...
Impressive point!!
 
Rule of cool said:
Here's an opinion, if 1 of these ships conducted a shore bombardment in one of Britain's small wars of the late 50s-early 60s all would be forgiven. This would be doubly so if said bombardment was outside the range of the 4 5" gun or destroyed something that had withstood a 4.5" gun.
Click to expand...
It seemed to be an artist of faith amongst assorted British naval thinkers and commentators during the 60s through the 70s that the Royal Navy would never have to do shore bombardment ever again. So therefore if you follow that thought to logical conclusion the naval gun was obsolete.
And then along came the Falklands.
Now picture if you will what might have happened if Tiger and Blake had been available.
 
GK Dundas said:
Now picture if you will what might have happened if Tiger and Blake had been available.
Click to expand...
They clearly would be very useful in coastal support. Their 6-inch guns were much more powerful than all other guns available to RN, and their large helicopter facilities would make possible very active gunship operations. The main problem would be to protect them against Argentinean air attacks; while Tiger's were armored, their armor wasn't exactly... impressive.
 
Rule of cool said:
This is the beauty of the Type 988/SPS-01, it combined a long range 2D search radar with a 3D Target Indicator Radar capable of 40 sweeps per minute. much better than the 2D Type 992's 30 rpm. The Tromps could track 100 targets at a time, the RN really lost out when it withdrew from this project.
Click to expand...
Type 992 as originally fitted to the Tigers rotated at 90rpm (with that update rate you probably wouldn't need MTI). Later variants like Type 992M for missile ships (whether armed with Sea Slug or Sea Dart) reduced this down to 30rpm, which is where I would want the better 3D radars.
 
zen said:
However the case for Green Mace is such weapons be dual purpose and remain valid in the AA role for longer. Just as they retain greater range.
Click to expand...
Green Mace was single purpose, anti-aircraft only, firing a Fin-Stabilised Discarding Sabot round which could not easily be adapted to other purposes, not a gun chambering easily fire other types of ammunition. 5-inch MCDP for the Cruiser Destroyers fired full calibre rounds (although squeeze-bore and FSDS rounds were investigated) and was unrelated as far as I can tell (although both it and Green Mace were born around the same time as a result of firing trials at Fort Halstead in 1949).
 
Last edited:
GK Dundas said:
It seemed to be an artist of faith amongst assorted British naval thinkers and commentators during the 60s through the 70s that the Royal Navy would never have to do shore bombardment ever again. So therefore if you follow that thought to logical conclusion the naval gun was obsolete.
And then along came the Falklands.
Now picture if you will what might have happened if Tiger and Blake had been available.
Click to expand...

I think it was a bit later, but yes. I seem to recall someone said in Parliament that the RN was arming ships with guns to fight the Hodmadods (or something like that) when the threat was the Russians against whom guns were useless.
 
Dilandu said:
They clearly would be very useful in coastal support. Their 6-inch guns were much more powerful than all other guns available to RN, and their large helicopter facilities would make possible very active gunship operations. The main problem would be to protect them against Argentinean air attacks; while Tiger's were armored, their armor wasn't exactly... impressive.
Click to expand...
But if the 3-inchers are working, the Argie aircraft will be hitting a wall of lead flying in.
 
starviking said:
But if the 3-inchers are working, the Argie aircraft will be hitting a wall of lead flying in.
Click to expand...
But after conversion as helicopter cruisers they only had 1 twin 6" and 1 twin 3" turret, both mounted forward. Let's hope they detect the enemy in time to bring those turrets to bear!
 
starviking said:
Well, they’ll have whirligig Sea Cats to dodge too!
Click to expand...
Not that Sea Cat was especially great, too. I suppose, if Tiger & Blake were in service by 1982, they probably would get some additional refit - or at very least, some 40-mm guns hastily strapped to hangar roof, to provide at least some rearward air defense.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Seacat II was a great loss indeed.
Click to expand...

Only if it was a straight swap for SeaCat, so it can be seamlessly incorporated into the general SeaCat upgrade evolution like from GWS20 to GWS21 and GWS22.

The minute the scope creeps, you need to change this and that, then it's thrown in the same pile as Sea Mauler, the budding Sea Wolf concept and whatever else is on the horizon.
 
Rule of cool said:
Only if it was a straight swap for SeaCat, so it can be seamlessly incorporated into the general SeaCat upgrade evolution like from GWS20 to GWS21 and GWS22.

The minute the scope creeps, you need to change this and that, then it's thrown in the same pile as Sea Mauler, the budding Sea Wolf concept and whatever else is on the horizon.
Click to expand...
Sea Rapier might be an interesting swap for Sea Cat.
 
Dilandu said:
Sea Rapier might be an interesting swap for Sea Cat.
Click to expand...

Is a minimum change Rapier suitable for Navy requirements? IIUC the early 60s Mauler SAM had to deal with conflicting Army and Navy requirements, which is why when it fell over the US Army went Sidewinder/Vulcan and the US Navy went Sparrow. Again, the minute you go from a seamless fitment change from SeaCat you start a development programme that has to compete with all the other development progammes.
 
So can a a 76" long SeaCat 2 fit into the magazines and launchers of the 58" SeaCat? Presumably the decrease in span from 28" to 20" isn't a problem.

Can the GWS 20/21/22 guide the SeaCat2?
 
GK Dundas said:
It seemed to be an artist of faith amongst assorted British naval thinkers and commentators during the 60s through the 70s that the Royal Navy would never have to do shore bombardment ever again. So therefore if you follow that thought to logical conclusion the naval gun was obsolete.
And then along came the Falklands.
Now picture if you will what might have happened if Tiger and Blake had been available.
Click to expand...
They were apparently surveyed and found to be in quite good condition and suitable to be returned to service in a timely manner. Albion or Bulwark (whichever had been most recently in service was also surveyed and found to be in a poor material state.

It was however, determined that there were not enough suitably qualified stokers available to crew them.
 
Volkodav said:
They were apparently surveyed and found to be in quite good condition and suitable to be returned to service in a timely manner. Albion or Bulwark (whichever had been most recently in service was also surveyed and found to be in a poor material state.

It was however, determined that there were not enough suitably qualified stokers available to crew them.
Click to expand...
Albion had been sold in 1972 with plans to convert her for use in the North Sea oil industry falling through leading to her being scrapped in 1973.

Bulwark had suffered an engine room fire in early 1980, destroying a boiler which was never repaired. Another fire in Nov 1980 saw hangar & accommodation damage which, while patched up, was never fully repaired. She went into unmaintained reserve in March 1981 at which point Invincible was on the verge of becoming operational.
 
We need a thread where (by some miracle, admittedly) the RN gets all the cool warships out of storage in time for service in the Falklands. Anybody has a short list of them ?
 
Archibald said:
We need a thread where (by some miracle, admittedly) the RN gets all the cool warships out of storage in time for service in the Falklands. Anybody has a short list of them ?
Click to expand...
Following immediately come to mind:-
Tiger, Blake & Bulwark
Devonshire, Kent & London (sold to Pakistan Mar 1982) with Seaslug Mk.1.
Norfolk (Seaslug Mk.2 sold to Chile 6 April 1982)
Fife was in refit from 1980 to Dec 1982.
 
EwenS said:
Following immediately come to mind:-
Tiger, Blake & Bulwark
Devonshire, Kent & London (sold to Pakistan Mar 1982) with Seaslug Mk.1.
Norfolk (Seaslug Mk.2 sold to Chile 6 April 1982)
Fife was in refit from 1980 to Dec 1982.
Click to expand...

Thank you. The County class, notably the Batch 2, were pretty useful ships as shown by Glamorgan and Antrim impeccable service during the war. Norfolk and Fife would have been welcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County-class_destroyer#Ships_of_the_class
Could Sea Slug Mk.2 made itself more useful during the Falkland war ?
 
Archibald said:
Could Sea Slug Mk.2 made itself more useful during the Falkland war ?
Click to expand...
Used for shore bombardment of all things; apparently the Counties were kept in a safer place and Sea Dart ships took up most of the air defence mission. Seaslug was never fired in anger against an aircraft, but the command/beam rider system worked well for use against land targets. With two or three more of them around, that might change - but not by much. One might hypothetically imagine one of them picking up the Exocet shot that killed Sheffield and throwing a couple of Seaslugs its way, but whether it hits is a whole different kettle of fish.

Dilandu said:
What would Argentina get to compensate?
Click to expand...
A pair of balls for its navy.
 
Fire support mentioned a lot but would there have been the ammunition for this?

The main role of the three cruisers with their twin 6" was to have been anti Soviet surface vessel so wouldn't armor piercing be most likely to be stashed away somewhere?
 
pathology_doc said:
Used for shore bombardment of all things; apparently the Counties were kept in a safer place and Sea Dart ships took up most of the air defence mission. Seaslug was never fired in anger against an aircraft, but the command/beam rider system worked well for use against land targets. With two or three more of them around, that might change - but not by much. One might hypothetically imagine one of them picking up the Exocet shot that killed Sheffield and throwing a couple of Seaslugs its way, but whether it hits is a whole different kettle of fish.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, Sea Slug was hold as reserve measure - in case Sea Dart would fail. British officers were quite worried that Argentina have Sea Dart also (simplified version without "lock on jamming" feature, but still generally the same as Royal Navy have); there was a possibility that Argentinean engineers might found some kind of unforeseen weakness in the system. In that case, the Sea Slug was a fallback option.
 
PMN1 said:
Fire support mentioned a lot but would there have been the ammunition for this?

The main role of the three cruisers with their twin 6" was to have been anti Soviet surface vessel so wouldn't armor piercing be most likely to be stashed away somewhere?
Click to expand...
If the specific mission is reactivation for the Falklands, your primary load-out is going to be HE. It's not that hard to make shells quickly.
 
PMN1 said:
Fire support mentioned a lot but would there have been the ammunition for this?

The main role of the three cruisers with their twin 6" was to have been anti Soviet surface vessel so wouldn't armor piercing be most likely to be stashed away somewhere?
Click to expand...
The Mark 5 QF guns were designed as dual-purpose guns, the HE shells were their main ammunition.
 
pathology_doc said:
If the specific mission is reactivation for the Falklands, your primary load-out is going to be HE. It's not that hard to make shells quickly.
Click to expand...
I kinda suspect there were still thousands of 6-inch shells stored. The guns were finally commissioned only in 1959, and it's unlikely shells would be all gone in 20+ years.
 
Dilandu said:
I kinda suspect there were still thousands of 6-inch shells stored. The guns were finally commissioned only in 1959, and it's unlikely shells would be all gone in 20+ years.
Click to expand...
Without a doubt, but artillery support eats shells at a massive rate and not all of your reserve stock is going to be suitable for that.
 
EwenS said:
Following immediately come to mind:-
Tiger, Blake & Bulwark
Devonshire, Kent & London (sold to Pakistan Mar 1982) with Seaslug Mk.1.
Norfolk (Seaslug Mk.2 sold to Chile 6 April 1982)
Fife was in refit from 1980 to Dec 1982.
Click to expand...
Not 'cool' but exceptionally useful would have been TRIUMPH. I believe efforts to get it back from the scrapyard were made, but they had already started work.
 
That one ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Triumph_(R16)

Yes it is cool. Albeit no longer a carrier, it is still a Colossus class hull in the Falklands. In your face, 25 de Mayo !

476136292_1129132112335068_975047266123565382_n.jpg
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom