100% found this document useful (9 votes)
2K views320 pagesWarship VI
A yearly publication dedicated to Warships. This one includes articles on: German Naval Radar, War service of Soviet M Class submarine, Colonial Cruiser, US Fast Gunboat, Last Austro-Hungarian Destroyer, British Naval Guns, Architect of Victory, Steam Engine and the Royal Navy, Dolphins & Brass Funnels, Fleet Air Arm, The Last Destroyer, Acheron & Avernus, Akagi & Kaga and more.
Uploaded by
SaskJackCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (9 votes)
2K views320 pagesWarship VI
A yearly publication dedicated to Warships. This one includes articles on: German Naval Radar, War service of Soviet M Class submarine, Colonial Cruiser, US Fast Gunboat, Last Austro-Hungarian Destroyer, British Naval Guns, Architect of Victory, Steam Engine and the Royal Navy, Dolphins & Brass Funnels, Fleet Air Arm, The Last Destroyer, Acheron & Avernus, Akagi & Kaga and more.
Uploaded by
SaskJackCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 320
Contributors to this
volume
Itis the policy of WARSHIP to acquire the
services of the world’s finest warship
historians. Therefore most of the
contributors to this volume are established
authors and recognised authorities in their
fields. Some of these are listed below:
DK Brownisa senior member of the Royal
Corps of Naval Constructors; he is the
author of their definitive history, A Century
of Naval Construction, which was published
in 1983.
Przemystaw Budzbon is a Polish naval
architect and writer. A frequent contributor
to Western and Polish technical journals, he
isalso a fine draughtsman, having produced
many of the line drawings for the Conway's
All the World’s Fighting Ships series.
Norman Friedman isa naval analyst
working for the Hudson Institute in New
York. He is the author of a series of highly
acclaimed books interpreting the
complexities of naval technology for the
layman, His latest work, US Naval
Weapons, was published in 1983.
Ross Gillett, Australia’s leading authority, is
the editor of the RAN magazine The Navy,
and the author of a number of books on
Australian naval history.
René Greger is a well-known Czech writer,
who specialises in the navies of
Austria-Hungary and Tsarist Russia,
Pierre Hervieux, a French naval enthusiast,
writes about lesser-known naval operations
of the Second World War.
Hans Lengerer is a German authority on the
Japanese Navy, about which he has
published many articles in German and
English.
John M Maber is a retired Royal Navy
engineering officer. He is particularly
interested in the early days of the steam
navy, but has written widely on other naval
topics.
Norman Polmar is one of America’s best
known naval experts. He is a full time
consultant, strategic analyst, and historian,
and has a large number of books and articles
tohis credit.
Erwin Sieche is an Austrian naval historian
and translator. He is one of the editors of
Marine-Gestern, Heute, and has contributed
to the Conway's All the World's Fighting
Ships series.
Michael Wilson, a retired Royal Navy
submariner, now works for the Naval
Historical Branch. His own research is
mostly devoted to British submarines. WARSHIP
VOLUME VI
Edited by John Roberts
Conway Maritime Press |
Naval Institute Press WARSHIP Volume VI
Managing Editor Robert Gardiner
Editor John Roberts
Art Editor Mark Stevens
Frontispiece: Two views of the unsuccessful
British eruiser submarine X1, whichis
described by D K Brown inthis volume.
CPL
© Conway Maritime Press Lid 1982
Al articles published in WARSHIP are
‘strictly copyright and may not be reproduced
Without the written consent ofthe publisher
Published in the UK by
Conway Maritime Press Limited
2a Bride Lane
Fleet Street
London ECAY 8DR
Published and distributed inthe
United States of Ameviean and Canada by
the Naval Institute Press
‘Annapolis Maryland 21402
Library of Congress Catalog Card No 78-55455
UKISBN 0 85177 265 X
USA ISBN 0-87021-981-2
‘Manufactured in the United Kingdom Contents
aitorial (No 21)
‘German Naval Radar to 1945 Part 1: by ERWIN SIECHE,
A’sand A’s
‘The War Service ofthe Soviet M Class Submarines by PIERRE HERV|
‘Warship Details No I: by JOHN ROBERTS,
Colonial Cruiser by ROSS GILLETT
The US Fast Gunboat by NORMAN FRIEDMAN
Centrespread Drawing: HMS Apollo by JOHN ROBERTS.
‘The Last Austro-Hungarian Destroyer Projects by RENE GREGER
British Naval Guns 1880-1945 No 5: by NJ M CAMPBELL
Warship Pictorial: Breaking-up HIM Ships Part 2: by 11. BUXTON
Book Reviews
Attack and Defence Part 2: by D K BROWN
‘Warship Wings No 1: Fairey Albacore by ROGER CHESNEAU
Eaitorial (No 22)
MARITIME ENGLAND GUIDE
Places to Vist
Brents
‘The Architect of Victory by ROBERT GARDINER
Seppings Survivor by W RODERICK STEWART
Warship Pictorial: HMS Warrior
‘The Steam Engine & the Royal Navy by JOHN M MABER
Dolphins & Brass Funnels by PETER HOLLINS
‘The Fleet Air Arm by ROGER CHESNEAU.
‘The Last Fleet Destroyer by ANTONY PRESTON
Into the 2st Century by D'K BROWN, RCNC
Acheron & Avernus by ROSS GILLETT.
‘Akagi & Kaga Part 1: by HANS LENGERER
‘The Bad Weather Flotilla
Part |: by PRZEMYSEAW BUDZBON and BORIS LEMACHKO,
German Naval Radar to 1945 Part 2: by ERWIN SIECHE
[he "3-1? Programme Part I: by NORMAN FRIEDMAN
Editorial (No 23)
‘Akay! & Kaga Port 2: by HANS LENGERER
‘Warship Wings No 2: The Lockiced S-3A Viking by ROGER CHESNEAU
‘The 1" Programme Part 2: by NORMAN FRIEDMAN
‘The RN's 196b Cruiser Design by ANTONY PRESTON
Dutch Leanders: The Van Spek Class by THOMAS A ADAMS
Warship Dtals No : The US Mk 37 Director by JOHN ROBERTS
‘The Bad Weather Flo,
Parra: by BRZEMYSEAW BUDZBON and BORIS LEMACHKO
Aisand A's
‘Warship Pictorial: USS North Carolina by KENNETH L EAGLE
Brith Naval Guns 1880-1945 No & by NM CAMPBELL.
Thelron Screw Frigate Greenock Part 1b JOHN M MABER,
Amphibious Command Ship: Past, Present and Future
Bart by NORMAN POL MAR and JOHN PATRICK
X1--Crulser Submarine y D K BROWN RENC
{Leser Known Warships ofthe Kriegsmarine
Nol The Light Cruser Narmberg by Ml WHITLEY
Baitorial (No 24)
‘Theron Screw Frigate Greenock Part 2: by JOHN M MABER
Lesser Known Warships of the Kriegsmarine
No 2: The Light Cruiser Nurnberg by MJ WHITLEY
‘Amphibious Command Ships: Past, Present and Future
Part: by NORMAN POLMAR and JOHN J PATRICK
The First Submarines forthe Royal Navy by MICHAEL WILSON
Warship Pictorial: Richelieu and Jean Bart
Exocet = the World's First Sea Skimmer by ANTONY PRESTON
British Naval Guns 1880-1945 No 7: by NJ M CAMPBELL
‘Attack and Defence Part 3: by D K BROWN RCNC
‘The Bad Weather Flotilla
Part 3: by PRZEMYSEAW BUDZBON and BORIS LEMACHKO
‘Warship Wings No 3: MeDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk by ROGER CHESNEAU,
[Notes ahd Comments on the 4.Sin, Sewt gun by GEOFFREY HUDSON
‘Akagh and Kaga Part 3: by HANS LENGERER
170
178
181
186
192
196
198
206
214
218
m
232
a
21
247
250
256
2m
25
285
2
300
302
305 ditorial
eer ets
r
This issue of Warship, the first of the journal’s sixth year,
brings a change of style with the introduction of a two
column text. This will give an advantage in space (and we
hope readability) for both additional text and/or illustration,
area. As with warships themselves, itis a matter of ‘bak.
ance’, and although the three column system had advan-
tages in magazine layout it is hoped that the increased
content of the new arrangement will outweigh any loss in
artistic merit. We also introduce two new long running
features with this issue, Warship Wings and Warship
Details.
Warship Wings is aimed at warship enthusiasts rather
than aircraft enthusiasts, and is intended to give a detailed,
appraisal of individual aircraft, with particular reference to
their importance or otherwise to naval aircraft develop-
ment and to show the interaction between ship and aircraft,
requirements, Usually, for example, naval aircraft designs
are arranged to fit existing ships so aircraft carrier hanger
space and lift dimensions restrict aircraft dimensions, whi
flight deck arrangements place certain limitations on take-
off and landing characteristics. These restrictions have tobe
balanced with purely aircraft features which, like those of
ships, represents a compromise of conflicting requirements
tthe same time, however, the increasing limitations of old,
ships eventually leads to excessive restrictions of aircraft
development so new generations of, invariably larger, ships,
John Roberts
are naturally designed with future aircraft development in
‘mind. The real problem is, of course, that, the operational
life of a ship isso much longer than that normally expected
of an aircraft, Atleast ithas been, fort seems unlikely that
any future aircraft carriers will exceed the present size of
the US attack carriers
Warship Details will concentrate on providing drawings
of parts of warships and details of various items of their
equipment and, although this would normally be regarded,
as a modelmakers’ feature, such information can be of
value in understanding certain aspects of both technical
history and, in some cases, operational history. I have
always taken an interest in the widest possible aspects of
‘warship development, from overall strategic requirements
and background politcal history to the minutiae of ship
construction and equipment, and itis surprising how often a
degree of knowledge in one helps in the understanding of
the other.
In fact I dislike the dismissal of certain subjects as of no
importance because some find them of no interest ~ the
lack of interest is reasonable, the dismissal isnot. Criticism
is often made of detail studies, sometimes accompanied by
‘one phrase I particularly dislike — rivet counter ~ one of
those demoralising catch phrases without basisin truth and
‘without any strength of argument behind it.
John Roberts G
to 1945
by Erwin Sieche
The story of detecting and ranging on metallic objects by
‘means of reflected high-frequency radio impulses dates
back to 30 April 1904, when the German engineer Christ-
ian Hilsmeyer registered German and foreign patents for
an apparatus he called the Telemobiloscope. The basis for
his invention was not, however, new; as far back as 1886
Heinrich Herz, then working at the University of Karl
sruhe, had shown, in indoor demonstrations, that elec
tromagnetic waves are reflected by other electric inductors.
Nevertheless, Hiilsmeyer was too far ahead of his contem-
poraries for them to appreciate the potential of his inven-
tion; even Telefunken rejected an offer to buy his patents.
During the First World War the son of the newspaper-
publisher August Scherl, Richard Scher, also hit on the
idea of using radio echoesfor detection, without knowledge
of Halsmeyer’s previous work. Together with a well-known
contemporary science-fiction writer, Hans Dominik, he
designed the Raypointer (Strahlenzieler) and successfully
produced an experimental set working on a 10cm
wavelength. He sent details of his apparatus to the Imperial
German Navy in February 1916, but his suggestions were
erman Naval
Part 1
rejected as ‘not being of importance to the war effort’
Again, the inventor was ahead of his time; technology
would in fact need decades to provide the necessary opera-
tional reliability to match the farsighted ideas of HUls-
‘meyer and Scherl
In the summer of 1926, the Americans Breit and Tuve
‘became the first to use the principles of radar to measure
the returning echo of the earth’s ionosphere. Also in the
1920s an international army of enthusiastic radio amateurs
discovered, and brought to general attention, the field of
high-frequency electromagnetic waves, and thus opened
way for realisation of the potential of radar, the idea
ing taken up almost simultaneously in France,
Britain, the USA and Germany.
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT
In Germany it was the Reichsmarine which showed interest
in the development of this new ranging device, which could
‘see behind the clouds’, although they entered the field of.
electromagneticecho-ranging from a totally different diree-
tion. As early as 1929 the Nachrichten-Versuchsabieilung From lft to right, the German destroyers 239, Zand 26
“Pasodor Riedl), the torpede, boat 723 (or T38), and the
eeopets 235 and 220, at lek on 22 May 1948. The antenna
2 Save thelr ridges ate for MO 21 in 239, andthe
Sepeco boat for FuMO 24/25 in 234, 236 and 225; and for
Fak 25 nZ20. 225 also has a FuMB 6 Palau antenna above
Se Ss antenna; the very small dambbell-shaped antennas on
Se Soper yards of 299,24 (starboard sie) and 220 (port side)
Se the FUMB 3 Bal
mm
OXVA: Communications trials department) at Kiel were
‘=crking on a horizontal sound-plummet capable of detect-
Se submerged targets by measuring returning, sound-
=S0es; this was the German forerunner of sonar. NVA’s
sSeotifie ditector, Dr Rudolf Kihnhold, decided to use the
some basic principles above water by employing elec
‘omagnetic waves, and in 1933 NVA managed to pick up
Capital ships
FuMO 2425 368 815 8 300 1520 70 03 Capital ships,
destroyers
Foor 3881S 00 22s 70 025 opt ships
FuMo3% 368, 815 8 500 68 10 5 Submarines
FuMosl 556 efi 30 750 840 150 3 Submarines
‘Hohentwiel-U
FuMO@, — 5560 ~ 30 750t01200 12-20 15802 Cruisers,
destroyers
HohentwietK 567
Fumosi, = 33000 = 15 600 20-30 100s Surv set,
Prinz Eugen,
Bertin destroyers,
E-boats
FuMo213, 560 536 8 500 4060 35° LIS AA gunnery
Warebarg-D
Source: F Trenckle: Die Deutschen Funkmessverfuhren, bis 1945 (see Bibliography), 8
any of the German heavy units. It was situated at the
highest point in the ship, and the foremast was removed,
and replaced by a short pole mast, to provide completely
unobstructed all-round coverage. Note in the drawings the
enclosed battle-observers’ post on top of the tower, above
which is lattice construction for the anemometers and the
toplights. Admiral Scheer was similarly equipped before
the removal of her top-heavy pyramidal armoured mast.
Alter that she had a 2m x 4m FuMO 27 mattress antenna
and a Timor frame, bearing in opposite directions, on the
forward rangefinder tower. Three of the fourfixed Sumatra
antennas, spaced 90° apart, were fitted on small horizontal
lattice constructions. Scheer also had @ FuMO 27 antenna
on the aft rangefinder tower.
SCHARNHORST AND GNEISENAU
In November 1939 both these vessels were equipped with
an 81.5em (368MH2) FuMO 22 situated in an additional
tower above the forward rangefinder tower. The 2m x 6m
‘mattress antenna on the front of the tower rotated withthe
10.5m rangefinder so the results from the two instruments
could be compared. During their stay at Brest in the sum-
mer of 1941 they were fitted with a FuMO 27 on the after
rangefinder tower and for their ‘Channel dash’ in 1942
both were probably equipped with a passive Palau antenna
on a small frame at the back of their rangefinder tower,
which thus operated in the reciprocal direction to. the
rangefinder and the active FuMO set. During a refit in
Germany Scharnhorst received a new FuMO 26 or 27 set,
1 Lutzow inthe summer of 1944 ater the removal of her Timor
antenna, leaving the FuMO 22 on her foretop as her only radar
Driippel
2 The wreck of the Graf Spee inthe estuary ofthe River Plate after
her cutting of 17 December 1939.
Driippet
ADMIRAL GRAF SPEE, LUTZOW (ex-Deutschland) and
ADMIRAL SCHEER
‘A’The foretop of Spee wit the rangefinder tower topped by a
radar hut for the prototype set FMG 39 (g0)—later designated
FuMO 22~and is 1.8m % 0.8m mattress antennas fited in 1939.
B The foretop of Latzow with the radar hut and 2m x 6m,
antenna of FUMO 22 added above the rangefinder tower in 1939.
The lower drawing shows the Samos antenna for FuMB 4, added
tothe back ofthe tower in January 1942, and carried until March
1944. Note the battle observers post above the radar hut and that
hherforetop rangefinder is 2m higher, above the watetine, than
those of her sisters. Lizzow was never fitted with radar on her
after rangefinder tower.
The after rangetinder of Scheer withthe:
the FUMO 27 set added in 1941
D The forward conning tower of Scheer ns modified in the
‘summer of 1940. The [Om-tangefinder tower caries the radar
hhutand antenna for the FuMO 27 which replaced the FuMO 22
(@s shown in B)fited on the original, Spee-type, bridge. Note the
absence ofa battl-observer's post. She also caries four Sumatra
Antennas (forward aft and at the ses ofthe tower), three being
‘on lattice extensions, The passive Timor antenna was fitted on the
back of the radar hut/rangefinder tower in 1942,
n < 4m antenna of 10
1 Lizow at Kielin April or May 1941. She carried her FuMO 22
radar set throughout her wartime career.
Author's Collection
2 The bridge of Admiral Scheer seen from forward, in about 1945,
‘The rangefinder tower, whichis rained to pont has an FMB 7
Timor antenna on its back and the FuMO 27 anenina on its ace.
Abo visible are the shor lattice projections, to pot, starboard
and forward of the screens below the rangefinder, carrying the
FUMB 4 Sumatra antennas.
Drippet
with a 2m X 4m mattress antenna, under which was a
smaller frame for the two rows of vertical and horizontal
Timor dipoles serving the passive FuMB 4 Samos set.
‘To follow standard German practice there should also
have been passive Sumatra antennas somewhere on the
screen around the foretop rangefinder platform; however,
they cannot be traced in any photography. It can also be
assumed that they carried the small omni-directional
round-dipole FuMB 3 Bali, but the antenna for this set is
too small to be clearly identified. It would have been fitted
on top of the foremast or on a yardarm,
To be continued.
Readers interested in warship electronics may like to learn
that the first real study of the subject was published in
November 1981. Entitled Warship Radar, by Norman
Friedman itis available from Conway Maritime Press (or in,
North America from The Naval Institute Press). AS&A®
BRITISH RADAR from T H Maskell, Bath, Avon
Concerning the radar outfits mentioned in Warship 18, 1
make the following remarks after inspection of various
documents at my disposal. Type 288, while listed as for use
in AMCs and OBYs, as you remark, was recommended to
bephased out as early as January 1941, and. litte later was
shown in fitting lists as used only for A/S and A/A shore
‘zations and batteries, and then only in very small numbers.
Itwould appear to have been little used. Type 289 was used
only by Isaac Sweers (two sets) as a close range set. Type
287 is described as the only shore-mounted set of Naval
design and as being an observation minefield set (one of the
stations shown as using this set was the Coal House,
Llanelly!). The very brief details given state it was a 50cm
set of 580-620Mds, to be used to give precision ranging
against surface vessels attempting to pass over the
minefields, and to be installed at eight ports in the UK.
Type 277 is shown to have had a reliable range of
80,000yds on aircraft. While there is a great deal of infor-
‘mation available in various areas on naval radar, regrett-
ably itis inclined to be fragmentary inthe 1940-41 periods.
Indeed this could be said to apply to the appearance of
ships in general, especially regarding camouflage and col
BRITISH TORPEDOES from Antony Preston, London
Since my article on torpedoes appeared in Warship 19,
Martin Douglas has provided me with some additional
material on the Mk 20 and Mk 30 torpedoes. There were, it
appears, three variants of the Mk 20:
1, Mk 20(E), which was withdrawn very shortly after com-
ing into service, except in the New Zealand frigates
Taranaki and Otago, which had it in service for longer.
2. Mk 20(8), originally Staff Requirements TASW 118
dating rom June 1950, which ran at 20k for 12,000y¢s. Tt
was eventually accepted into service as Mk 20(S) Mod 1.
3. Mk 20(C), originally Staff Requirement USW 357 dat-
ing from February 1961, which ran at 23kts for 7000yds
‘This was intended to be the submarine version of the
torpedo.
“The main criticism of the Mk 30 was thatitwas too heavy
and too big — 630, 8ft long - whereas the US-pattern Mk
32, on the same length, weighed only 260Ib. The Mk 43
Mod 1 of which 75 were purchased ran at only 15kts for
4000s and could go down to SOOit. Later 500 of the Mod
3 versions were purchased, running at 20kts for 4000yds,
and capable of going down to 100i. The urgent need at
this time was fora light torpedo capable of being carried by
the MATCH helicopter (Westland Wasp), which was not
possile with the Mk 30.
HMS WARRIOR from Captain J G Wells, Research
Director, High Firs House, Liss, Hampshire
Although the wrought iron hull of the ironclad Warrior, at
present under restoration in Hartlepool, is amazingly
sound and the majority of her compartments intact, there
remains much research to be done in order to bring the ship
once more alive, particularly as regards fittings, furniture
and equipment, both above and below decks. While official
records and original ship's drawings provide valuable infor-
‘mation there is lacking the personal recollection and
records about life in the Victorian Navy. For this reason T
‘would be grateful to hear from anyone able to assist resto-
ration with the loan of photographs or drawings depicting,
scenes on board Warrior ot another ironclad of her period.
Tt would also be useful to learn about the possession of
Uniforms, accoutrements, ete, likely to be foundin the ship,
as well as letters, news cuttings or documents relating to
those wiio served in Warrior, including the time when she
was serving as Vernon III (1904-1923),
‘Correspondence should be addressed to the Research
Director, HMS Warrior (1860), at the above address. Con-
tributions will be gratefully acknowledged and returned. T he War Service of the
Soviet M Class
SUDMALINES 15 rere Hervieux
‘The Soviet ‘M’ class were small, single-hull coastal sub-
marines, with excellent submerged manoeuvrability and
good rapid diving characteristics, which proved of great
value in operations in the shallow and restricted waters of
the Baltic and northern Black Sea, They were designed for
‘construction in sections, the ultimate aim being mass pro-
duction, but wartime demands on available material pre
vented this being put into practice, To suit the widely
spread coastal waters of the Soviet Union they were also,
designed so that they could be dismantled and transported
from one operational area to another by rail
‘The design was inspired by the Soviet ‘Holland’ type
boats of the ‘AG’ class built in 1916-24, The prototype,
M32 of Series XIIbis, which were improved
‘versions of Series XI with streamlined
‘conning towers and inereased endurance
‘MI, was laid down by the Ural Machine Works at Sverd-
Jovsk on 29 August 1932, and after running her trials in the
Baltic in 1933 she was dismantled and transported to the
Pacific by rail in December 1933. She was followed by a
further 29 boats, collectively known as the Series VI, all of
which were launched in 1933-34. A further four sub-
groups were subsequently produced — Series VIbis
(launched 1934-35), Series XII (launched 1936-37),
Seriés XIlbis (launched 1937-41) and Series XV
(launched 1940, 1946 and 1947). Each group incorporated
important improvements which included increases in
armament and speed. Naturally the dimensions also
increased, initially to improve on the inadequate sea- ‘MI72 in the Arctic,
Meister
B
keeping of the first series, The boats of the first two series
‘were constructed in four sections, the Series XIand XIIbis,
boats in six sections, and the Series XV boats in seven
sections. The sections were mainly builtin yards along the
inland rivers and assembled at either Leningrad, Nikolayey
or Viadivostok. The first use of welding in Russian sub-
‘marines was made in the ‘M class; limited initially to the
superstructure and bow and stem casings, it was later
extended to the pressure hull
‘THE ‘M? CLASS
Series VI: MI-M28, M51, M52 (commissioned 1934-35),
Series VIbis: M29 (ex-MS7), M41 (ex-M82), M44 (ex-
MBS), M54, M55, M56, M58 (ex-MB4), M59 (ex-MBO),
'M71-MB1, M83 (commissioned 1935-36).
Series XII: M90, MI71 (ex-M87), M172 (ex-M88), M173
(ex-MB9) (commissioned 1937-38).
Series XUlbis: M30-M36, M42 (ex-M61), M43 (ex-M63),
(MAS (ex-M100), M46 (ex-M101), M60, M62, M94-M99,
‘MI02-M108, MLI1-M122, MI74-M176, M401 (com-
missioned 1939-44).
Series XV: M200-M203 (commissioned 1943-44).
By the end of 1944, 100 °M’ Series boats had been
commissioned, while M204-M206, laid down in 1940-41,
were commissioned after the war. In addition,
M207-M213 and M254-M283 were built postwar. The
Series XII boat M92, laid down in 1936, was used for
‘experiments in the running of diesel engines under water
and was not officially commissioned until after ther war,
OPERATIONAL HISTORY
‘The following isin chronological order. The abbreviations
after the date refer to the area of operation, A being Arctic,
B Baltic and BS Black Sea.
June 1941 (B): M72 possibly badly damaged by a mine in
the Gulf of Finland and subsequently scrapped.
23 June 1941 (B): M78 torpedoed and sunk by U144 (Capt,
Von Mittelstidt) west of Windau. rT)
24 June 1941 (By: M71 and M80 scuttled at Libau to
prevent capture.
25 June 1941 (B): M83 scuttled off Libau while returning to
port, possibly in a damaged condition.
26 June 1941 (B): M76 (probably she did not survive the
war) torpedoed and sunk by U149 (Capt Holtring) off the
Gulf of Finland (59°20/21°12B),
1 July 1941 (B): M81 sunk by mine near Laine Bank.
5 July 1941 (B): M99 sunk by mine north-west of Worms.
21 July 1941 (B): M94 torpedoed and sunk by U140 (Capt
Heliriegel) off Dago Island (58°51'N/22°00B).
21 August 1941 (A): M172 (Capt Fisanovich) made unsuc-
cessful attacks on a steamer in Petsamofjord, at
Lamahamaari, and on the hospital ship Alexander Von
Humbolt (686 tons) off Petsamofjord
End August 1941 (B): M103 probably sunk by a mine in the
Gulf of Finland.
13 September 1941 (A): M172 torpedoed and sank the
Norwegian coaster Renoy (287 tons) in Varangerfjord.
14 September 1941 (A): M172 made unsuccessful attack on
the steamer Ornudf in Petsamo harbour.
18 September 1941 (BS): M34 made unsuccessful attack on
the Italian steamer Tampico (5000 tons) off Verna.
23 September 1941 (B): M74 sunk by German aircraft at
Kronstadt, She was later refloated and scrapped.
26 September 1941 (A): M174 (Capt Egorov) made unsuc-
‘cessful attack on a steamer in Petsamofjord,
2 October 1941 (A): M171 (Capt Starvkov) depth-charged
by patrol vessel NT05 (Togo, ex-Norwegian minesweeper
(Orra), after unsuccessful attack on a steamer in Petsamo-
fjord, but survived.
3 and 8 October 1941 (A): M176 and M175 made unsue-
cessful attacks on ships in. Varangerfjord,
27 October 1941 (BS): M35 (Capt Greshilov) made unsuc-
cessful attack on subchaser Schiff 19 (Lola) off Sulma,
November 1941 (By: M98 probably sunk by mine in western
section of Gulf of Finland.
17 November 1941 (A): M171 made unsuccessful attack on
a tanker in Varangerfjord.
December 1941 (BS): 34 was depth-charged and sunk by
Rumanian destroyer Regele Ferdinand off the Rumanian
coast. (Note: this is sometimes reported as M54, which
survived the war, the confusion arising from German inter-
rogation of prisoners who were mistaken as to the sub-
rarine’s identity)
21 December 1941 (A): MI74 torpedoed the German
steamer Emshomn (4301 tons) off Vando at 13.06, the
rifting wreck being sunk by German artillery
10 January 1942 (A): M175 torpedoed and sunk by US84
(Capt Deecke) at 07.22 in position 70°09N/32°50°E
north-west of Fisherman's Peninsula
End January 1942 (A): M771 made unsuccessful attack on
convoy off the Norwegian polar coast.
19 February 1942 (A): M171 made unsuccessful attacks on
German cargo ships Oldendorf (1953 tons) andJ Johanne
(1202 tons) in Persfjord, and was subsequently depth-
charged by sub-chasers Uj1205 and Ujl214.
Mareh 1942 (A): MI7I and M173-made’ unsuccessful
attacks on shipping in Varangerfjord
13 Mareh 1942 (BS): M58 sunk by German aireraft off the
Crimea,
‘The submarine M107,
J Meister
Early April 1942 (A): M171 made unsuccessful attack on
shipping in Varangerfjord
15 April 1942 (A): MI72 made unsuccessful attacks on the
cargo ships Oleam (475 tons), Nogat (1339 tor’) and
Lowas (1891 tons). The three escorts dropped 22 depth
charges but M172 was not damaged.
20 April 1942 (A): M172 made unsuccessful attack on
minesweeper M251, which counter-attacked with 14 depth
charges, south of Vardio.
22 April 1942 (A): at 08.15, MI73 (Capt Terekhin) tor-
ppedoed and sank the German cargo ship Blankenese (ex-
French Ange Schiaffino, 3236 tons) off the Varanger
Peninsula in position 70°32'N/30°47'E, The German
escorts counter-attacked unsuccessfully with 35 depth
charges.
29 April 1942 (A): At 18.30, MI7I (Capt Starikov) tor-
pedoed and sank the German cargo ship Curityba (4969
tons) off the Varanger Peninsular in. position
TOOTN/30°33'E,
Mid Apri-end May 1942 (A): M176 (Capt Bondarevich)
made five unsuccessful attacks on shipping off the Var-
anger Peninsula 15
M72 laid up at Leningrad in 1946,
J Meister
15 May 1942 (A): M172 made unsuccessful attacks on the
hospital ship Birka (1000 tons) and the tanker Gerdmoor
(751 tons). There were five escorts including Uj 104 and
Uj1108, and during an eight-hour pursuit 136 depth
charges were dropped and 38 shells fied by the German
ships. However, they had to tum back when they came
under fire from the Soviet shore batteries on Fisherman’s
Peninsula and M172 escaped,
19 May 1942 (A): M176 unsuccessfully attacked the hospi-
tal ship Birka, escorted by four German sub-chasers which
dropped 13 depth charges, off Makkaur.
23 May 1942 (A): M171 unsuccessfully attacked the Nor-
wegian cargo ship Vardo (860 tons) off Varanger. The
three escort vessels counter-attacked with 166 depth
charges.
15 June 1942 (B): M95 sunk by mine east of Suursaari
Island,
3 July 1942 (A): M176 was stationed off Varangerfjord to
cover the passage of convoy PQI7. No further report was
heard from her and she was presumed lost in a German
minefield
12 July 1942 (BS): M59 sunk by German aircraft off Sochii.
14 August 1942 (B): M97 sunk by mine off Lavansaari
Island,
5-23 August 1942 (BS): M36 (Capt Kamarov), M62 (Capt
Malyshev), MIZZ (Capt Josseliani) and MII8 (Capt
Savin) carried out several attacks on convoys in the Bay of
‘Odessa, off the Rumanian coast, but the only success was
the sinking of the German tug Ankara (112 tons) by M36.
24 August 1942 (BS): M33 sunk by mine off Odessa
24 August 1942 (A): MI73 attacked a convoy off Kyberg
consisting of the steamers Irmsiraud (2843 tons), Orels-
burg (1309 tons) and Lysaker (909 tons) escorted by seven
vessels including V6105, Uj1101, Uj1108 and UjI112. In
counter-attacks 179 depth charges were dropped and
M179 was sunk by UjIL12 off Baasfjord,
Mid August 1942-end September 1942 (By: M96 (Capt
Marinesko) operated in the area of Parkkala making only
one attack, which was unsuccessful
September 1942 (BS): M35 and MII made unsuccessful
attacks.
October 1942 (B): M102 made unsuccessful attacks in
western section of the Gulf of Finland,
27 September 1942 (BS): M60 sunk by mine off Odessa,
1 October 1942 (BS): M178 (Capt Savin) attacked a Ruma-
‘Commander I Fsanovich aboard his submarine MI72 (ex
‘The gun isa 4Smm/46 on an AA mounting which wast
standard gun armament in all the*M' class submarines.
WM
nian convoy, sinking the German cargo ship Salzburg
(1742 tons), but she was herself sunk by the Rumanian
gunboat Ghigulescu off Budaki. On board the Salzburg
were 2300 Russian prisoners of war, only 200 of whom
were rescued,
14 October 1942 (BS): At 13.44 M32 (Capt Kaltypin)
unsuccessfully attacked the Rumanian torpedo-boat
Sborul, between Odessa and Sulina, which depth-charged
and seriously damaged the submarine.
21 October 1942 (BS): At 13.05 M35 (Capt Greshilov)
torpedoed and sank the Panamanian tanker Le Progres
(SIL tons) off Salina. The escorts dropped 32 depth
charges but the submarine was only slightly damaged,
October 1942 (BS): The Rumanian tug Oituz was probably
torpedoed and sunk by MII (Capt Josseliani)
[November 1942 (B): 196 was the last boat ofthe yeartosail
‘on patrol in the Gulf of Finland before it began to ice up.
November 1942 (A): MI21 sunk by a mine off the Nor-
werian coast.
14 December 1942 (A): M171 unsuccessfully attacked a
convoy of four steamers, Dessau (5933 tons), Welleim
(5455 tons), Poseidon (3910 tons) and Uiviker (3502
tons), with three escorts, off Ekeray.
22 January 1943 (A): at 19.45 M172 (Capt Fisanovich) 16
attacked a convoy consisting of two cargo vessels escorted
by a destroyer and a patrol vessel, west of Nord Kyn. She
missed the destroyer with a torpedo,
29 January 1943 (A): MI71 (Capt Starikov) torpedoed and
‘damaged the transport lona Siemers (3243 tons), escorted
by the patrol boat V5906, off Kangafjord
1 February 1943 (A): At'8.10, MI72 (Capt Fisanovich)
torpedoed and sank the patrol boat V5909 off Kyberg.
February 1943 (A): M179, M122, M171 and M172 made
several unsuccessful attacks on vessels in the area of Var-
‘angerfjord, On several occasions they appeared on the
surface so close to the shore that they were fired on by the
coastal batteries at Kiberg and Petsamo.
‘March 1943 (BS): A Soviet submarine was sunk in error by
1 Soviet surface vessel, off the Caucasus coast. It has been
stated that this was M720, but this boat was sent to the
Caspian Sea in 1942, so the vessel sunk was probably M36.
11 Mareh 1943 (A): At 09.10M774 (Captain Egorov) hit a
‘mine in one of the defensive fields off Kirkenesfjord but
succeeded in returning to her base.
16 March 1943 (A): M104 (Capt Lykyanov) torpedoed and,
damaged the steamer Johannisberger (4533 tons), which
was beached in Narangerfjord.
22 March 1943 (BS): M117 attacked a German supply
‘convoy between Feodosia and Anapa but the torpedoes
fired passed under their targets which were flat-bottomed
MEPs,
April 1943 (BS): M35 and M112 carried out open sea
patrols
{A Series XV submarine in service with the Polish Navy in 1957,
“Six ofthis type, M100-M105, were transferred from the Soviet
=Navyin 1956-57,
BE oe
Oe eee
Early-mid April 1943 (A): M177 operated off Varanger-
fjord.
22 April 1943 (BS): M111 operated without success against
MEP convoys between Feodosia and Anapa.
‘April-May 1943 (A): M104, M105, M106, M122, M171,
‘M172 and MI74 operated in Varangerfjord and off Vardo
but although they carried out many attacks achieved no
‘success.
14 May 1943 (A): M122 sunk by aircraft off the Rybachi
peninsula while returning from patrol.
‘June-July 1943 (BS): M71, M112 and M117, operating
‘between Feodosia and Anapa, made several unsuccessful
attacks on German shallow-draught ferry barges supplying
the Kuban bridgehead.
June-July 1943 (A): M05 (Capt Khruley) made two
‘unsuccessful attacks on convoys off the Polar coast.
5 July 1943 (A): M706 sunk by depth charges and ramming
near Vardo, by escort vessels Uj1206 and.Uj1217.
17 July 1943 (BS): Mi11 (Capt Tosseliani) attacked a
‘convoy running from Feodosia to Tainan. She hit the small
A series XIIbis boat inthe Arctic,
me
— ‘German motor tanker Adelheid (506 tons) but the torpedo
did not detonate.
18 July 1943 (BS): M111 torpedoed and sank the Ruma-
nian lighter Dunarea I (505 tons) off Feodosia
End July-early August 1943 (BS): MII7 and M35
‘deployed against expected arrival of German tanker Firuz
(7327 tons) but this vessel was torpedoed and damaged by
another submarine,
Summer 1943 (BS): M37 mined and sunk off Poti while
running speed trials (this is a recent Soviet claim).
28 August 1943 (BS): M11 torpedoed and sank the Ger-
man lighter Hainburg off Cape Lukall
1 September 1943 (A): M104 torpedoed and damaged the
steamer Rudesheimer (2036 tons) off the Norwegian polar
coast
11 September 1943 (A): M107 (Capt Kofanoy) torpedoed
and sank the escort vessel Uj1217 off Syltefjor.
28 September 1943 (BS): M173 hit a mine west of the
Crimea but reached her base ina badly damaged condition,
13 October 1943 (A): M172 made an unsuccessful attack on
a convoy off Verdo.
25-26 October 1943 (A): M173 reported in for the last time
“itscems that M174 and MI72 were probably lost on the
imine barrages laid by the German minelayers Brummer I,
Ostmark, Kaiser and Roland in the summer and autumn,
Captain Fisanovich was not aboard his former command,
‘M172, when she was lost. He went to Britain in April 1944
to take over command of the BY (ex-HMS Sunfish) in
which he lost his life on 27 July 1944 when his submarine
was sunk with all hands by a Liberator aireraft of Coastal
‘Command. At the time BY was proceeding on the surface
‘well outside the area temporarily allotted as an attack-free
zone. She should have stayed on the surface during her
passage to Russia but when the aircraft approached she
dived so the aircraft assumed she was German—anassump-
tion reinforced by the fact the BY fired no recognition
signal
25 October 1934 (BS): M112 (Capt Khakhanov) torpedoed
and sank the lighter Tyra 5 off Ak Mechet.
2 November 1943 (BS): M35 (Capt Prokofev) torpedoed
and sank lighter No 1293 off Ak Mechet.
12 November 1943 (BS): M111 (Capt Josseliani) torpedoed
and sank the steamer Theoderich (3409 tons) off Burpas
15 November 1943 (BS): M117 (Capt Kesaev) sank the
naval ferry barge F592 (200 tons)
‘Noverber-December 1943 (A): M19 and M200 patrolled
off the Varanger Peninsula
December 1943 (BS): M117 made unsuccessful attacks on
convoys. The following ships were sunk by unknown sub-
marines in the Black Sea (‘M’ boats may have been
responsible for some or all of them): the Turkish steamers
Tayyari on 22 July 1943, Yilmaz on 25 August 1943,
Verviske on 26 August 1943 and Kalkavan on 16
December 1943; and the German naval ferry barge F474
(200 tons).
End December 1943-carly January 1944 (A): M05 and
‘M201 patrolled in Varangerfjord.
19 Jamuary 1944 (A): M104, M105 (Capt Khralev), M119
(Capt Kolosov) and M20/ (Capt Balin) deployed against
enemy convoy traffic off the Polar coast without success.
April 1944 (BS): M62 and M117 operated without success
7
against German ships evacuating troops and supplies from
Odessa,
14 April 1944 (BS): M52 (Capt Matveyev) sighted convoy
of five naval ferry barges, escorted by three sub-chasers off
the San Georghe canal entrance. She attacked but missed
Yj306 and was counter-attacked with 61 depth charges,
also without result,
17 April 1944 (BS): M111 (Capt Khomiakov) attacked a
convoy of two cargo ships, with six escorts, off Sevastopol.
She missed the merchantman Helga and was counter-
attacked, unsuccessfully, with 72 depth charges.
18 April 1944 (BS): M172 attempted to attack the steamer
Alba Julia (5700 tons), previously set on fie during an air
‘attack, but was driven off by the escort.
21 April 1944 (BS): 62 (Capt Malyshev) and MIT made
‘unsuceessful attacks on the Rumanian cargo vessel Ardeal
(5695 tons) off Sevastopol
22 April 1944 (BS): M35 (Capt Prokofev) torpedoed and
sank the German tanker Ossag (2793 tons), previously
damaged by aircraft, off Sevastopol.
April 1944 (A): M708 failed to return from patrol off the
Norwegian coast ~ she was probably sunk by a mine.
3-4 May 1944 (BS): M62 and MI1I made unsuccessful
attacks on two convoys between Sevastopol and Con-
stanza,
11 May 1944 (BS): M62 attacked a convoy (one cargo
vessel, one naval ferry barge and five escort vessels) off
Sevastopol but was unsuccessful due to the heavy sea.
May 1944 (BS): M35 sank a barge off Sevastopol.
26 May 1944 (A): M201 (Capt Balin) unsuccessfully
deployed against a convoy off Makkaur.
June 1944 (A): M200 and M201 deployed unsuccessfully
‘against convoy traffic off the Polar coast
17 June 1944 (A): M200 (Capt Gladkov) approached a
convoy east of North Cape (reported earlier as being in
Svaetholthavet by a reconnaissance aircraft) but was driven
off by the escort vessels M35, Uj1120 and Ujl209.
20 June 1944 (A): M201 made an unsuccessful attack on a
‘convoy south of Vardo and was seen by an He 115 flying
boat as she fired her torpedoes. Forced to dive and depth
charged by the escorts Ujl209, Ujl219, Ujl120 and
{Yj222, she eventually escaped.
15 July 1944 (A): M200 made an unsuccessful attack on a
convoy near Cape Harbaken (she launched four torpedoes
and reported sinking a $000-ton steamer but none was in
fact sunk).
July 1944 (BS): M111 operated without success off
Cautanza.
End July 1944 (BS): M171 relieved by M113 and M117.
28 July 1944 (BS): M113 (Capt Volkov) attempted to
attack a convoy inside the mine barrages off Cautanza,
18 August 1944 (A): M201 (Capt Balin) attacked a convoy
off Persfjord and torpedoed and sunk the patrol coast
Vou12.
End August 1944 (BS): M62, M111 and M113 deployed off
the Rumanian/Bulgarian coast without success.
10 September 1944 (B): M96 sunk by mine off Narva.
October 1944 (A): A small Norwegian cutter was sunk by a
mine laid off the Norwegian Polar coast by MI71 against
the expected sea evacuation of German mountain troops
from the Murmansk front. by John Roberts
‘These two drawings show the bridge structure of HMS
Hood asitwas after her 1929-31 refit. Illustrates the final
development of the tier arrangement in British ships and
helps to show why these were abandoned in favour of the
block structure introduced in the Royal Navy's next capital
ships, Nelson and Rodney. Despite its size, ithad compara-
tively little enclosed space and the large open platforms
were subject to the assault of wind and weather ~ which
involved loss of efficiency among those operating open fire
control instruments and signal gear. The entire structure
‘was built around the tripod foremast but, with the ever
increasing weights of fire control equipment, it was an
Warship Deiails No.1
arrangement in which rigidity was difficult to achieve and
Hood's foretop, like those in other capital ships, suffered
froma degree of vibration which did not mix well with fire
control gear. In fact, the entire system was the result of a
gradual development during the initial dreadnought
Period, in which expanding technology made increasing
demands on bridge space. The block bridge, which fol
lowed, resulted largely from a complete reappraisal of
control postion requirements and although it did not com-
pletely solve the conflicting requirements of bridge struc-
{ures it was a substantial improvement.
Drawings selected from the 320 published in The Batle-
aruiser Hood by John Roberts, the first of the new
“Anatomy of the Ship’ series from Conway Maritime Press
(anuary, 1982, £8.50). Available in North America from
the Naval Institute Press
LOWER SECTION OF BRIDGE STRUCTURE
1 24nsignalling searchlight (shutter on fae portable);2 Scupper;
3 Voice pipe sina deck to upper bridges); Upper tactical
Plotting postion; § Conning tower platform; 6. Acmiras signal
Pltfont;7 Cleats on guardralforsigalhalyards; 8. Sounding,
Tachine;9 Bowiight-10 Faglocker; 11 Plumber's werkshors
1 Liftforsoundingboom; 18: Davt socket; If Sigal lamp
5 Faglocker 16. Boilerroom ven; 17 Submarine lookout;
18 Gustdtoseoond bowlght, 19 5Sindizector contol owe
20 Voice pipe (director to 5 Sinspoiting op); 2, Electiceables,
2 Adiniafsiadge 33 Admictockurneces 24. Fake root
35 Admira’ssignal house,26 Foremast;27 ilars supporting
forebridge;28 Mast struts 39. Cable casingon tut FOREBRIDGE AND CONTROL TOP
1 Main W/Taerials:2. Navgatonlghts;3 1Sitrangefinderin
Alidtesorconteltoward Ancmonsters Windvane:
6 Sinspotingtop; 7 Jackstay;8 Hammock irines
5 Forward concentrating position; 10 Seareijght manipulating
Dttorn; 1 Signal yard braces; 12 Searchlight platform:
13 (Chart table; 14. Torpedo contol postion 1 Compass
Paton (rot omits) 16 Door to compas platforms 17 Teak
Datfonm 8 Forebrdge; 19 Door toremotecontol fie;
Jo Note pneeabintst Upper atl pling poston,
‘Admiral cbndge; 22 Sing door to navigating ofier'ssea cabins
3) Lagzedstem pps tose 2 Spal yard
35 Manocuvring hits; 26 Pompom directory
fitted in starboard postion only): 27 5 Singun, 1
tover,portandstarboards 28.5 Sinspottag op,
Starboard;29' Site, port and starboard
(director
rangefinder
and 2
Colonial Cru
oo by Ross Gillett
The naval history of Australia is generally assumed to have
begun on 25 March 1859, when Commodore Loring,
Commanding Officer of HMS Iris, raised his pendant as
jot Officer of Her Majesty's Ships on the Australian
Station. Throughout the years up to 10 July 1911, when the
Royal Australian Navy formally came into existence, the
Royal Navy provided the majority of seaward defence,
supported by the odd collection of gunboats and torpedo”
boats operated by five of the Australian colonies,
‘The navy of the colony of Victoria was, by the late 1880s,
the largest local naval force; it comprised the monitor
Cerberus, gunboats Albert and Victoria and torpedo-boats,
Childers, Lonsdale, Nepean and Gordon, as well asa dozen
auxiliaries, including the training ship, ex-armoured
cruiser, HMVS Nelson. It was realised at this time that
there was need for a new, improved gunboat-type vessel 10,
augment the unsuccessful Albert and Vietoria, and during,
1887 the Victorian Colonial Government began investiga-
tions into the feasability of constructing a cruiser for their
Colonial Naval Forces. Sir G Armstrong & Co, of
Neweastle-upon-Tyne, were invited to prepare suitable
designs for the vessel, and on 26 October 1888 the Com-
mander of the Victorian forces commented on the resultant
tender.
The letter, addressed to the Honorable Minister of
‘The armoured eraser Nelson which served as Commodore's ship,
and later flagship, of the Australian station from 1881 to 1889.
MoD, by courtesy of RA Burt
Defence, suggested that the designs offered would undoub-
tedly be a valuable addition to the defences as they posses-
sed a powerful armament, considerable speed and light,