• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

OT: Type 42 frigate

Petrus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
623
Reaction score
323
I am currently seeking any information on Type 42 coastal frigate (not to be confused with the later Type 42 i.e. the "Sheffield" class destroyer), which was designed in the early 1950s and was known as the "East Coast Gunboat".

Reportedly its drawing was published in "Warship" 1995 (page 156) in an article by George L. Moore titled "The 1950s Coastal Frigate Designs for the RN".

Hopefully someone in our forum knows details on the project as well as its sketches/drawings. I would be really grateful for you sharing the information.


Best regards,
Piotr
 

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
893
Reaction score
89
Petrus said:
I am currently seeking any information on Type 42 coastal frigate (not to be confused with the later Type 42 i.e. the "Sheffield" class destroyer), which was designed in the early 1950s and was known as the "East Coast Gunboat".

Reportedly its drawing was published in "Warship" 1995 (page 156) in an article by George L. Moore titled "The 1950s Coastal Frigate Designs for the RN".

Hopefully someone in our forum knows details on the project as well as its sketches/drawings. I would be really grateful for you sharing the information.


Best regards,
Piotr

Yes, there is a rather rough line drawing of the Type 42, which apparently is solely based on the recollections of DK Brown. The article is a mess, which probably is why much of the information never made it into "Rebuilding the Royal Navy," and apparently there wasn't really a definitive variant of the Type 42 before this the 1950-53 project died with the realization that there never again would be an E-boat threat. The failure of the second rate Type 14 basically put paid to the third rate Type 17/Type 42, but fortunately the entire failed experience lead to the successful "Common Hull Frigates," which hardly had any commonality at all.

For those who don't know, the Type 42 designation was recycled and this digression has nothing whatsoever to do with the eventual Type 42 destroyers that are now being withdrawn from RN service.

I really don't have a clue as to precisely which design study the drawing depicts, or the even the guns mounted. The last requirement was for a minimum speed of 21 knots with 3 Mk 25 4-inch guns and two 40mm Bofors singles. The design studies range from 250 to 300 feet long, and between 31 and 37.5 feet in beam, with later variants becoming shorter and beamier. There were diesel proposals, but it seems that half of a Y100 steam propulsion plant, much like the Type 14, was a likely solution.

Honestly, I really don't know what to make of the drawing, but I assume that it depict the later 1953 iteration of the Type 42, but that is only a guess. Now if the two forward guns are 4 inch Mk 25s, and the two Bofors are omitted from the drawing what is the aft gun mounting?
 

Attachments

  • Type42_lowres_fairuse.gif
    Type42_lowres_fairuse.gif
    6.8 KB · Views: 232

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,766
Reaction score
2,085
Possibly a notional 3-inch/70 Mk6? It was designed around this time and was often seen as the ideal anti-aircraft gun for such ships. It looks a bit small for that, though. Did the British ever consider the Bofors twin 57mm mount? That would be closer to the right size, and several other navies were adopting it in this period.
 

Petrus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
623
Reaction score
323
Thank you for your input. It has been very interesting.

I have learned about Type 42 from Norman Friedman's "The Postwar Naval Revolution". The author gives the following specifications of the early version of the project, from October 1951:

length (water-line) 275 ft (83.8 m)
beam extreme 31 ft 6 in (9.6 m)
displacement 1050 tons
draft 9 ft 3 in (2.82 m)
engine power 7,500 shp
speed 22 knots
fuel oil 50 tons
endurance 2000 miles at 12 knots
complement 150
armament: two twin 3in/50, two single 40mm Bofors, one singe Squid

Later on, Friedman says, "As the supply of US equipment under MDAP dried up during 1953-54, the gunboat battery changed to three 4in Vickers single automatic guns, each with its own director".
The Vickers' guns were very similar to those that were then mounted on the Chilean "Almirante Riveros" class destroyers (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNCHL_4-62_Vickers.htm). By the way, were the guns designated 4in Mark 25?

Sometime in 1953 the Common Hull Frigate concept appeared, both Type 42 (A/A) and Type 17 (A/S) frigates were to have the same hull and machinery. Work on the common hull frigate began in 1954, its early version would have length of 285 ft (86.9 m) and beam of 38 ft 6 in (11.7 m) and 1662 tons. The gunboat variant would have two twin 4in Mark 19 (i.e. weapons of WW2 vintage), two twin 40mm L70 and one Squid. Then came a little bit smaller design whose armament was halfed as compared to the above-mentioned.

As for the drawing you have posted. It looks very sketchy, but the bow turrets resemble what then became the armament of the Chilean destroyers, the aft one seems to be different. I wouldn't however think that this was the 3in/70, for such a weapon was much more complicated and heavier than the 4in automatic gun (the former weighted 37 tons, the latter "only" about 21 tons). So it's seems higly unlikely that the 3in/70 was to be mounted along the 4in. The aft turret must have then been armed with the 40mm Bofors (perhaps 40mm/70).

So perhaps the drawing shows yet another version of the project, armed with two automatic 4in guns and some Bofors (we don't know if there was a single mounting aft, or there were two side-by-side). It's also possible that the forward turrets are Mk 19 4in/45 mountings, so the drawing may depict the project's version from 1954.


Below there are pictures of the Chilean destroyers and their 4in automatic guns.

Best regards,
Piotr
 

Attachments

  • Almirante_draw.jpg
    Almirante_draw.jpg
    11.4 KB · Views: 237
  • Destructor_01.JPG
    Destructor_01.JPG
    368.3 KB · Views: 225
  • Destructor_02.JPG
    Destructor_02.JPG
    81.3 KB · Views: 201
  • 4in_automatic.jpg
    4in_automatic.jpg
    91.4 KB · Views: 171
  • 4in_automatic_02.jpg
    4in_automatic_02.jpg
    101.4 KB · Views: 59

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
299
That Chilean Destroyer may be the most beautiful ship I have ever seen...

It just looks right. :eek:
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,072
Reaction score
177
I like the 4in gun and turret. Both look like very nice weapons. Does anybody have further info on them? Were the ever used on any other ships?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,766
Reaction score
2,085
Good data on the Vickers 4-inch can be found here.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNCHL_4-62_Vickers.htm

It was only fitted on the Chilean destroyers, but was proposed for several other projects, starting with the proposed rearmament of the training cruiser La Argentina. Other possible buyers included Peru, Israel, and Venezuela. A 105-mm version was also proposed to Argentina--it would have been heavier (53,760 lbs) and would have been rated at 40-46 rds/min.
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
549
Reaction score
43
the proposed rearmament of the training cruiser La Argentina.
Off-topic, but do you have more information on this, please?
Worth a separate thread?
 
Top