RN Cruisers: Tiger Class - HMS Tiger, Blake & Lion World Naval Ships Forums Archive

Naval History by Country :

ROYAL
NAVY

US
NAVY

GERMAN
NAVY

FRENCH
NAVY

*VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT ART SPECIAL OFFERS ON ONE PAGE HERE*
NAVAL ART	AVIATION ART	MILITARY ART	SPORT ART

ALWAYS GREAT OFFERS :

20% FURTHER PRICE REDUCTIONS ON HUNDREDS OF LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS

BUY ONE GET ONE HALF PRICE ON THOUSANDS OF PAINTINGS AND PRINTS

FOR MORE OFFERS SIGN UP TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

RN Cruisers: Tiger Class - HMS Tiger, Blake & Lion World Naval Ships Forums Archive

RN Cruisers: Tiger Class - HMS Tiger, Blake & Lion

Posts 1 to 50

Have enclosed a cutting from Lions first commission which confirms the faults and if memory serves me correctly we had civilians onboard for quite some time working on the 6". I am not sure they ever managed their top rate of 20 rounds per minute per barrel. The 3" seemed to give fewer problems. Regards Gerry
Attachments :

Tiger's 6" were finally proved effective, when, on the 1oth August 1966 a dockyard crane was put out of action. The milk bottle system for loading 3" ammunition , after a break in the link, rapidly filled up the loading bay with 3" shells which were returned to magazine by hand. After a successful shoot you could'nt hear yourself think in the wardroom for the sound of backslapping and loud well dones, we showed 'em.

I was reading on the internet that HMS Bulwark was considered for reactivation during the Falklands conflict but was found to be to far gone due to her overall condition and damage recieved from 2 previous fires and the idea was abandoned... Was any consideration given to recommissioning HMS Blake (which I believe was part of the stand-by squadron at the time) or HMS Tiger?

One question. was the Blake and Tiger FFO fuelled? Where as, I imagine by 1982 all the ships were diesel fuelled. I would think that, Logistically, although not impossible, it would be awkward to have to fuel these two ships and would be expensive, unless in extreme emergency. Perhaps they came to the the conclusion that they weren't required. If they were diesel fuelled. Then I can't think of anything else

Is "FFO" fuel oil??The thing is I would have thought that as HMS Hermes and a number of the older frigates present at the Falklands (Type 12's and "Leanders") were powered by steam turbines Tiger and Blake wouldnt have been that different? (Im assuming that Tiger and Blake had conventional steam turbines)

FFO = Furnace Fuel Oil If I remember rightly Hermes was diesel fuelled Being a Dabtoe. I know very little about the engines/boilers. I was just making a suggestion (stab in the dark). I am sure that some member will give you a more authoritative answer Dave

[quote=qprdave;61170]FFO = Furnace Fuel Oil If I remember rightly Hermes was diesel fuelled Being a Dabtoe. I know very little about the engines/boilers. I was just making a suggestion (stab in the dark). I am sure that some member will give you a more authoritative answer Dave[/quote] Authoritative????? Not sure about that however, many ships that originally burnt FFO were converted to burn Deiso.....with as far as I know, little difficulty. The FFO heaters (normally steam heaters) were isolated and retired, as Dieso did not require to be pre-heated. Some changes may have had to be made to the swirl plates/atomisers in the sprayer heads, however, grey cells are letting me down again. The first ship I served on was a type 14 Frigate and it burnt FFO then (1964) as did most steam ships of the day (Whitby's, Leander's, Type 15's/16's etc). As far as I am aware they all changed over to Dieso eventually. As always...I am more than happy to stand corrected....(my auto-disclaimer:p)

Well Mac. It's certainly a better answer than I could give.

All the sources I have read say that Hermes was not coverted from FFO to Diesel during her service with the RN. This was probably deliberate so the government would have another excuse for getting rid of her early. Being an FFO ship would have been no impediment to sailing with the Task Force in 82. I suspect that by 82 both the Tigers had been stripped for parts, Tiger had been in 'reserve' for four years and Blake for two years by 82. Reactivating a cruiser would have been a more complicated process than say a frigate and finding a crew (900+) at short notice would also have been problematic. The MOD probably thought it was more cost effective to reactivate several frigates instead (Rothesays and Tribals) to cover NATO deployments whilst the Task Force was deployed down South rather than the two cruisers, though their helicopter capacity and 6" guns would have been welcome certainly.

Obi, IMHO Tiger Blake and Lion should never have had helicopters, I believe they should have been kept in service or first line reserve for re-activation if/when needed (1982) .... and the Bulwark and Albion should have been kept in service, then we would not have had to take up so many STUFTT vessels! Little h

The discussion on Dieso/FFO, may I say that merchant motor ships use heavy oil (FFO) at sea & Diesel when manoeuvring. The Admiralty 3 drum boiler I think was never able to burn diesel, the newer boilers fitted in Leanders burnt diesel oil, in the early days of the change over to diesel there were several furnace explosions.

[quote=oldsalt;61357]The discussion on Dieso/FFO, may I say that merchant motor ships use heavy oil (FFO) at sea & Diesel when manoeuvring. The Admiralty 3 drum boiler I think was never able to burn diesel, the newer boilers fitted in Leanders burnt diesel oil, in the early days of the change over to diesel there were several furnace explosions.[/quote] Yes, you probably have the rights of it. The Grey cells again. Memory tends to indicate that on (Type 15 with Admiralty Three drums)in the early 70's, we burnt F.F.O....and on a Leander (Y101 Boilers) we burnt Dieso....On the Eagle too (also Admiralty three drums) , in the late 60's, FFO was used. As to furnace explosions,we had to take great care to ensure no unburned deiso or fumes were present in the furnace prior to 'flashing up'....or that in the case of a 'flame out', rare but it happened occasionally, usually water in the fuel, ....that the boiler casing/furnace was fully vented and free of fumes/fuel before relighting......

Tiger was taken out of service almost intact just boiler bricks and she could have sailed, she wasnt stripped before going up the trots, she was de-stored of ammo but not stripped. if crewing and lack of 6 inch shells hadnt been a problem she'd have been ready to sail in 6-8 weeks in 82, according to a dockie charge hand who inspected her, Bulwark and Kent, even her internal batteries had charge in them for lighting

I was 17 in 1982 and remember my dad telling me that they were going to get HMS Bulwark ready for the Falklands war. They were stood down soon after but it was certainly planned. Kevin.

Hadn't HMS Bulwark suffered a couple of big fires,one in boiler room and another in the forward hanger?.What suprises me is that she was still around in 1984.Would she have been used for spares for HMS Hermes? In regards to HMS Tiger and Blake how many shells were left by 1982?When the ship was destored was the ammunition dumped?Its always made me wonder why these two never sailed down to the South Atlantic rather than say some of the older type 12's.I would have thought they would have been ideal.

Bulwark suffered a fire in the forward boiler room and mess deck very repairable (smacks of victourious in 67) she was considered for reactivation in such a serious way that her boiler was being re built, she even went to the breakers complete with new boiler bricks and insulation. Tiger would have gone if we had not got rid of remaining 6 inch shells in January 82 and Kent didnt have the sea slug for her, plus the crewing was a massive problem for these 3 ships but all in all Tiger was the more likely to sail due to her condition.

I have just come across two aged press cuttings which have been stowed away in my dittybox for many years. Headlined "The Royal Navy is up to the mark" How times have changed.This was in the daily Mail Tuesday February 24th 1959. Bob.
Attachments :

I've always thought this class of cruiser to be one of the finest designs for a light cruiser ever, and a most beautiful ship. British designers have always seemed to have a hand up in making warships that have grace and style. Can anyone explain to me why these ships were "uglified" by the decision to provide a helicopter deck/hanger and whatever other fittings went with that terrible mess they made? The RN had reserve aircraft carrier hulls that could have done the job and not ruined a perfectly good gunship.

I'm probably alone in this, but I thought the helicopter conversions were good looking.

I think you are alone with this judging from what members have said here in the forum!! :eek:

[B][I]I've always thought this class of cruiser to be one of the finest designs for a light cruiser ever, and a most beautiful ship. British designers have always seemed to have a hand up in making warships that have grace and style.[/I][/B] Yes Don, I totally agree, these three ships are a design of cruiser which as well as exhibiting the 6" and 3" gunnery systems, were so pleasing to the eye, (that is before conversion of course). The three vessels rank alongside my other favourites ie the Daring Class (especially the Australian A/D? conversions like HMAS Vampire) and HMS Victorious as converted to accommodate the 984 radar fit and angled deck. Little h

Krieg 1981 also owns an Edsel...watch out. little h: The Darings are at the top of my list as well. Victorious was without doubt one of the better looking carrier conversions, although carriers in general just have a hard time "looking good" in comparison to the sleek cruisers and destroyers. Still wonder what purpose was served in butchering the Tigers simply to accommodate helicopters, particularly with purpose-built flight decks available.

Let's put it this way: Mogami with a flight deck still looked pretty good, but these poor (formerly handsome) RN CLs were butchered....visually. The Italians did a nice job converting the Garibaldi to a CLG, too....IMhO as an Industrial Designer. DFO :eek:

Confession time............ I actually quite like the look of the "Tiger" class when converted,no seriously! I always thought though that they would have looked "better" if they had carried the hanger further back towards the aft funnel. Re HMS Victorious,I think that she was the most beautiful post war carrier in the RN,she just looked "right".A real shame that she wasnt saved- she had the providence and would have made a great museum ship.

[quote=VirtualF;88709]Confession time............ I actually quite like the look of the "Tiger" class when converted,no seriously! I always thought though that they would have looked "better" if they had carried the hanger further back towards the aft funnel. Re HMS Victorious,I think that she was the most beautiful post war carrier in the RN,she just looked "right".A real shame that she wasnt saved- she had the providence and would have made a great museum ship.[/quote] I was fortunate enough to spend three years on the Victorious, 57-60 and eighteen months on the Tiger 65 - 67, pre helicopter conversion.

IMHO I believe the class were the smartest looking warships of their time, pre conversion. I was very dissapointed with the way they looked afterwards, bit of a hotchpotch.

They were quite handsome cruisers, BEFORE the[I] barn [/I]was stuck on the stern. IIRC, I read someplace-long ago-that both the 6" and 3" automatic mounts were not overly reliable. Any truth to that? DFO :)

[quote=designeraccd;91489]They were quite handsome cruisers, BEFORE the[I] barn [/I]was stuck on the stern. IIRC, I read someplace-long ago-that both the 6" and 3" automatic mounts were not overly reliable. Any truth to that? DFO :)[/quote] The Gunnery Officer on the Tiger, when I was on her in 1965/6, said his ambition was to press the trigger until the magazine emptied. In truth the pipe was made, " A turret will commence firing in one minute's time ", they pressed the trigger, BANG, BANG, silence, pipe, " Duty Jack Dusty report to the Stores Office".

Originally Posted by designeraccd They were quite handsome cruisers, BEFORE the barn was stuck on the stern. IIRC, I read someplace-long ago-that both the 6" and 3" automatic mounts were not overly reliable. Any truth to that? DFO The guns were to prove unreliable way back in the first commission, note the date on the JAK cartoon, in fact the first commission was brought to an abrupt end so that she could get back to Guzz to try and rectify the problems. I am also attaching a couple more pics from that commission. Cheers, Bob.
Attachments :

Were the guns' problems resolved so they were reliable? Interesting stuff! The salute for IKE is really amazing now: a highly UNDER rated President-who was really quite effective, versus what we have now....rather the exact OPPOSITE, IMhO! DFO :) I did find this about the conversion, but nothing about the gun problems: During the 1960s there was a requirement for fast helicopter carrying ships to accompany the fleet and supplement the aircraft carriers. To fulfil this role Tiger and Blake underwent major conversions into Helicopter Cruisers equipped for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations. The conversion involved the reconstruction of the stern: the aft twin 6-inch gun turret was removed and hanger and flight deck facilities were added for four Wessex or Sea King helicopters. Below the flight deck offices, workshops, a briefing room, mess decks and cabins were added. Provision was also made onboard for a detachment of Royal Marine Commandos, who could be transferred ashore by helicopter, and hence Tiger and Blake also had a role as ‘Commando Cruisers’. Other modifications included the installation of SeaCat anti-aircraft missile launchers amidships in place of the two twin 3-inch gun turrets, which meant Blake and Tiger were the Royal Navy’s first, and last, guided missile cruisers. Finally, extensive command and control facilities were added, giving Tiger and Blake flagship capabilities suited to leading task groups on world-wide deployments. Tiger demonstrated the flagship capability in 1977 when she led a world wide deployment of a nuclear submarine, six frigates and three RFAs to South America (see picture). The conversions left Tiger and Blake some 380 tons heavier with a full displacement of 12,080 tons and their complements increased by 169 to 885. During conversion they had lost their much loved sleek cruiser lines and their new appearance was criticised for being an ungainly and inelegant ‘push me-pull me’ design, and both vessels were soon nicknamed ‘Ugly Ducklings’. Originally Lion was also to have been converted, although this never materialised: Blake’s conversion had been more expensive than envisaged (£5.5 million) and so funds were no longer available. Ironically Tiger’s conversion coast even more (£13.25 million), such was the level of inflation at the time. Lion was subsequently sold for breaking up. With Ark Royal’s entry into reserve, Tiger and Blake were the only major Royal Navy vessels capable of performing the fundamental anti-submarine warfare (ASW) role. The conversion had given Tiger and Blake between fifteen and twenty years further service, but by the late 1970s the Royal Navy was suffering a major manpower crisis. With the recommissioning of Hermes and Bulwark as ASW Carriers, Tiger and Blake entered reserve. When Blake decommissioned in 1979 she had the distinction of being the last cruiser to serve the Royal Navy and her passing was marked on December 6th 1979, when she ceremonially fired her 6-inch guns for the last time in the English Channel. Blake was then sold for breaking up in 1982, followed by Tiger in 1986

Thank you for that, most interesting. Bob.

Further "digging" turned this up @ the 6". Any comments from former crew??? In the early 1950s, these weapons were selected to arm the Tiger class cruisers, which had lain incomplete since the end of World War II. These ships were then completely redesigned and work was resumed in 1954 with HMS Tiger being completed in 1959, nearly two decades after she had first been laid down. There are many reports that these weapons were unreliable in service, but that does not seem to be the case. The initial problems found during development at Shoeburyness and with the prototype on HMS Cumberland were rectified during trials, one major breakthrough being the choice and filtration of the oil in the oily servos fitted to the turrets. "A normal days' firing would be 150 to 200 shells every day. Lion would be engaged in doing a shoot, usually at both air and surface targets. The problem with the turrets was not reliability, but with the inordinate amount of highly skilled technical staff required to keep the guns operational (ordnance artificers, weapons mechanics and seaman armourers). That said, on Lion the maintenance team on A turret used to muster at 1330 on Q1 gundeck with umbrellas, before disappearing into the dripping oily wastes of A turret. We had two misfires that I remember, the shell eventually falling out into the sea after about 20 minutes. Lion at least twice changed all its barrels (the last time from Hong Kong when an emergency flared up and only one gun was operational the other three barrels were changed at sea on the way). [COLOR=Red]The joke round the fleet never was reliability, the joke always was that the ships could fire all ammo off within 20 minutes. [/COLOR] Of course, this was never true as you would only fire so many seconds and then change targets. In normal practice shoots against AA targets, the first shell would hit the target. On NGS shoots, two or three targeting rounds would be fired to hit the target and then a twenty second burst with both barrels would destroy the target." - Peter Parkinson, who served on HMS Lion during her second commission. These weapons were controlled by the Gun Direction System (GDS1) using the Type 992 radar. This system enabled the ships to engage multiple targets within a few seconds of each other and was technically very advanced for its time. HMS Blake was the last cruiser in commission in the Royal Navy. In December 1979, a few days before she was decommissioned, she enjoyed the distinction of firing the Royal Navy's last 6" (15.2 cm) gun salvo. Constructed of a loose barrel with hydraulically operated horizontal sliding breech block. [I]Based on the cartoon and caption with the 6" firing; seems to be some DIFFERENCE of opinion![/I]DFO :eek::)

In 1966 we were taking part in an Exercise off Gib, the 6" proved to be so far off target, we had to leave the exercise and sail to Malta to blast the little Rock Island until, the guns were back on taget.

RN certainly wasn't worried about RADAR SIGNATURES now were they??! What a graceless barn back there! DFO :eek::D

What on earth are those intestine looking things attached to the funnels? Bob.

I presume they are some type of uptakes. They can also be seen on both funnels on all three of the class pre-conversion. We need a Stoker to find out the full SP.

I can't see anything here Jim, or is it that I can't see the wood for the trees? Bob.
Attachments :

H.M.S. Blake was burning diesel fuel in the mid-seventies.

That was obviously before these pictures were taken. Bob.
Attachments :

Hermes did have diesel gennies, but as far as I know, she remained a fuel burner until transfer to India, and beyond. I doubt that diesel would have given her the speed required for flying operations.

Bob Batstiger ... gee that 'plumbing' really does look offensive nay horrendous doesn't it, I remember you referring to it with regard to an earlier pic, don't know what thread though. Little h

[quote=harry.gibbon;99873]Bob Batstiger ... gee that 'plumbing' really does look offensive nay horrendous doesn't it, I remember you referring to it with regard to an earlier pic, don't know what thread though. Little h[/quote] Yes I did query the layout as I can't for the love of me remember The Tiger having it. Memory does play some nasty tricks on us though!! Bob.

Bob its another case of where's the stoker branch when you need em:D Calling John O'Callaghan - where are you now when you're needed mate:confused: Little h

Sorry to keep on harping about this but isn't this picture proof of "No ugly plumbing"? Bob.
Attachments :

Bob, agreed!! thats the one we like to see!!! Little h

[quote=TrotOneLower;99860]Hermes did have diesel gennies, but as far as I know, she remained a fuel burner until transfer to India, and beyond. I doubt that diesel would have given her the speed required for flying operations.[/quote] All big ships have diesel generators. These produce electrical power, but do not power the main engines. They had diesel storage tanks, and FFO tanks. FFO was solely used for the main boilers. The power of a ship, and therefore its top speed is determined by the steam pressure and superheat temperature to the turbines. Once this is at the normal working levels and with the throttles fully opened, the ship will be at the maximum speed. This is not affected by the type of fuel used to release the heat energy in the boilers. The calorific value of a fuel determines the amount of heat available from a unit mass of fuel. Diesel has a higher calorific value than FFO. This means diesel would release more heat energy than the same mass of FFO. Diesel is less viscous than FFO, so is easily sprayed and atomised in the furnace. It is also more refined, it contains less waxes and inert solids than FFO. It doesn't need to be pre-heated; also mentioned in an earlier post, by Macadian. These are advatages in boiler operation. Most people fail to understand that Nuclear Submarines are steam turbine driven, just like the Hermes, Eagle, Tiger, type 15's and the rest of them were. The only difference basically is the Nuclear 'boiler' and fuel used therein. So, I'm afraid TrotOneLower, diesel would have been able to get the Hermes to maximum speed, with slightly less fuel to boot, should it ever have been converted for such use! Hope this helps.

There were advantages in burning Dieso under boilers, its higher calorific value ,cleaner burning making boiler external cleaning easier eg water washing. There were also hazards, late lighting of sprayers allowing build up of gases in furnace resulting in likely furnace explosions. The criterior of observing funnel smoke for correct combustion resulting in not having enough air which caused after burning in the furnace uptakes. In the 60's the following ships converted to Dieso fuel for boilers :-HMS Bristol, County Class destroyers, Ashanti, Blackwood, Whitby & Rothesay class frigates,Leander class frigates (except Y100 types), Fearless & Intrepid. I may be wrong but I don't recall Dieso being used in Admiralty three drum boilers.

Just an after thought, a Nuclear submariner would know, the steam engines in those boats would be saturated steam turbines, similar to the turbines in Tyne , the depot ship.

[quote=kkbuk;99845]H.M.S. Blake was burning diesel fuel in the mid-seventies.[/quote] In the 60's Tiger was burning FFO, a lot of it used to finish up in the Senior Engineer's cabin. I can't speak for Blake, but it seems unlikely to me.

Hey! Hold on! I was in the DB party on Tiger in the middle 60's. Peddler Palmer was the chief of the DB party. During RAS's He insisted we flooded the Marines and Maltese messes with equal amounts of FFO, just the same as the engineers flat! I remember some of the Maltese men chucking their old clothes and gear into the oil sloshing about their messdeck, thinking they could claim new. No smiling faces when they were told improperly stowed gear was a no-no, and almost ended their being put on a charge!

More Posts

Everything we obtain for this site is shown on the site, we do not have any more photos, crew lists or further information on any of the ships.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE. ALL IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW, AND ARE OWNED BY CRANSTON FINE ARTS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS. NO REPRODUCTION OR COPYING ALLOWED ON OTHER WEBSITES, BOOKS OR ARTICLES WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Contact Details
Shipping Info
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Sign Up To Our Newsletter!

Stay up to date with all our latest offers, deals and events as well as new releases and exclusive subscriber content!

This website is owned by Cranston Fine Arts. Torwood House, Torwoodhill Road, Rhu, Helensburgh, Scotland, G848LE

Contact: Tel: (+44) (0) 1436 820269. Email: cranstonorders -at- outlook.com

Return to Home Page