River class as minesweepers

[Graham Boak]

The first Rivers were fitted for minesweeping, but only once were they called upon to do any, when seven were collected in support of Operation Torch.  Does anyone know which ships these were?  Also, what was the gun fit?  Supposedly the requirement called for only the forward 4" and three multiple light AA, presumably twin Oerlikons, but what was actually carried?  Almost certainly it's too much to ask for the camouflage of each ship, but what's the harm in trying?

 

  I've just been looking at the wide variety of LAA provided with the Seal kit, but to my surprise there are only three single Oerlikons per hull.  Definitely not enough, especially when the set provides three twin 4" - which River ever had such a heavy armament?  Wasted space on sprue where more Oerlikons could have gone.  I'm sure I have lots of spare Oerlikons from various kits, but they'll all be either too large to go with the neat Seal tooling, or the frightening White Ensign etch.  If all else fails, there are enough of those to allow for getting lots wrong!

[EwenS]

Graham

According to Brian Lavery's book "River-class frigates and the Battle of the Atlantic" the first 23 were intended to be fitted for minesweeping. He refers to an Admiralty meeting in March 1943 that confirms these numbers (17 completed by that date and 6 to follow in the following 3 months, which would be sent out without the equipment. The 24th ship would have no provision at all)

 

So from the completion dates that would make the 17 Exe*#, Itchen, Jed*, Kale*, Lagan, Ness*, Nith*, Rother*, Spey, Swale, Tay, Test, Teviot, Waveney#, Wear*, Deveron (completed 2/3/43) and Moyola.

And the next 6 would then be Nene, Mourne, Tweed, Dart*, Plym and Bann*. But this has a problem in that Balinderry and Chelmer (completed 9/43) clearly had the M/S gear aft, or at the very least the M/S davits. The latter was ordered in June 1941 from John Brown's at Clydebank and her build seems to heve been held up. Also Ettrick. Similarly Test & Moyola don't seem to have carried the M/S gear in any of the photos that I can find. Also possibly Ribble (not sure if davits are M/S or not)

 

I've marked those that I've confirmed with photos with an * and those from drawings with a # (either in Lavery's book or Peter Elliot's Allied Escort Ships of WWII). Elliot also notes Tay as an M/S ship.

 

Lavery notes that 5 ships (unnamed) formed the 10th Minesweeping Flotilla in preparation for Torch but were not used in that role.  These could not include Jed, Kale, Lagan, Ness, Nith, Test, Teviot, Wear and Deveron due to completion dates and allowance for work ups etc.

 

You also need to be careful to ensure that the photo matches the period you are looking at.  The M/S gear was supposed to be removed from later in 1943 but some ships carried the M/S davits on the aft corners of the quarterdeck until they were scrapped postwar but may have lost the winches etc. Others (Wear for example) lost everything.

 

As for the armament this is a real can of worms. The design was 2 single 4" fore and aft but shortages meant that some got a 12pdr aft. As for light AA the most common fit on the early ships was 4*20mm singles (1 in each bridge wing and 1 each side on bandstands at the break fo the focsle deck. But again fits vary. Rother had the after 2 20mm replaced with single 2pdr. Wear (and some other River class) carried 10*20mm singles (the usual 4 plus 1 in the eyes of the ship, 2 abreast the Hedgehog 1 on the centreline on the aft gun crew shelter and 2 on the quarterdeck along with the M/S gear and 8 DC throwers). Later completions got twin 20mm aft in place of singles.

 

As for the twin 4", these were only carried by the Canadian ships (1 mount forward in later ships) and the final Australian ships which were more akin to our Bay class.  There were plans, never carried out, for various conversions for the Pacific war that would have involved up to 2 mounts.

 

Best advice as always find a photo of the ship for the period you are interested in.

A couple of sites to take a look at are

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/theflowerclasscorvetteforums/other-wwii-royal-navy-and-allied-ships-images-f76/

http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/WW11 Convoy Escort Frigate Sloops etc/webpages/index19.htm

 

As for the camouflage well you need a ship first. Malcolm Wright's book on warship camouflage may be of help with colour patterns.

 

I hope that this helps.

 

Ewen

[EwenS]

Graham

Just had another thought and another ref source. British Invasion Fleets The Med and Beyond lists the following 4 Rivers (and only these 4) as taking part in the Torch landings in Algeria.

Exe

Rother

Spey

Swale

All sailed from the UK on 26th Oct 1942 as part of the escort for convoy KMF1. Exe & Swale were assigned to Oran (Arzeu Z beachhead) and Rother Algiers A beach. Spey was involved in rescuing the troops from the American attack transport Thomas Stone. No mention of any minesweeping. Arnold Hague's Convoy Database also lists Tay as an escort for this convoy but this is not supported by Naval-History.net

I think it is unlikely that any others would have been involved in the Casablanca landings as this was a US operation that staged direct from the USA and not the UK as in the case of the Oran and Algiers landings.

I've also now found a photo of Teviot with M/S equipment. 

Ewen

[Graham Boak]

Thanks for trying, Ewen.  I already have Lavery (excellent but not on specific ship fit and alterations), Wright (considered doubtful in many ways, but not specifically so with relation to the Rivers?),  Raven's four camouflage books, Friedman's British Destroyers, Brown's Atlantic Escorts but not the Elliot (how did I miss that?).  I would have preferred to do Wear and Jed because of my North-Eastern origins, but the schemes I have for these are both similar WA schemes from the same period (though apparently indistinct to missing on the photos of Wear) and both are excessively sprinkled with single oerlikons - at least by the standards of the kit.  Ideally I would do one ship in early fit with MS gear and the other in late fit without, but I accept that this would probably mean making at least one substitution.  This would also provide a difference in colours.  Probably.   Combining this with a shortage of oerlikons drove me to an interest in the Torch operation, and I should have been more precise in asking for identification of these ones in particular, rather than just the MS-equipped examples.  Sorry about that, but your answer was informative in several ways, not least in ruling out my favoured choice of ships!  I've not seen any comment as to what their actual fit was (if they got as far as changing it), although Friedman does quote the original intentions we know how reliable that would be.

 

One problem with relying on photos are that they do tend to be indistinct when it comes to identifying the LAA, and even the camouflage is often unclear - and not always interpretable from the print alone.  Witness the photos of Wear appearing to show an ship in overall white.  I do however promise to go carefully through the links you've included.

 

Tay is an obvious choice for a late ship because of the available photos, but I was hoping to strip the four Bofors for a DE conversion, or perhaps even some for a Cavalier.  A more interesting scheme than Tay's would make a good alternative if the weapon fit wasn't too much like Wear/Jed - Nith at Normandy would be spectacular but there's not enough Bofors for that!  I have found a source of nice Oerlikons in the Dragon Laffey kit(s), which for some reason provide a surplus - I've counted 22 for each of the two kits in the box (which need six each),  which should give me enough even if that spare total is over-estimated. However although finer than the parts in any earlier offerings, they are still made to look clumsy by the Seal offerings.  Enough so not to mix them on one vessel.

 

I've seen Wear quoted as seven, and assuming two twins that'd be OK, even ten, but apparently not.

 

PS  It seems I overlooked actually posting this.  Three cheers to the website for retaining  it.  Considering your follow-up, thanks for the Torch details.   I like the picture of Teviot (good Borders choice) but have the typical problems in using it as a guide to the LAA.   I can see the basic two amidships and two on the signal bridge.  Is that one on the extreme bow?  Is that another (assume a pair) in the A position?  There isn't one on the crew gun shelter nor any one on the quarterdeck - or are there?

Edited June 1, 2018 by Graham Boak

[EwenS]

Graham

Not surprised you missed Elliot. It was published in the late 1970s and has never been republished.

I’ll have a think about anything unusual. I have a poor quality photo of Nith (or Waveney) in 1945 in the Far East somewhere. If memory serves that the would be about 5 or 7 20mm and the same number of 40mm.

Monnow might be interesting as it had a split hedgehog on sponsons at the level of the 4” gun forward. Postwar Helmsdale with Squid forward of the bridge (might have got them late in the war as a training ship if the grey cells are working) and a helicopter deck aft. If you were to go Canadian then you have got twin 4” and the postwar conversions as AS ships with squid or limbo and a built up stern. Aussie ships are also interesting with single 4” AA and single bofors late in the war.

Anyway I’ll give it some thought

Ewen

[Graham Boak]

There's always the Colonies.... I've lots of spare weapon sprues from Skywave US kits.  No no, that way madness lies.  I only have two hulls - such variations would be much more interesting had I six.  (Which is why I ended up with so many O/P and DE kits.)  The French ones are quite tempting - didn't the Canadian ones has different davits?

 

From your Far East comment I suspect Waveney rather than Nith.  Once Nith had been converted to an invasion HQ ship with seven Bofors, there'd be no incentive to convert her back.

 

I think that I can rule out even the existence of the "pure" minesweeper.  At the moment I'm tending to Teviot in early fit because of her distinctive camouflage.  The colours hopefully will be found (I haven't looked yet), but if not then Wear or Jed in Western Approaches.  For a later ship then Tay in Far East colours or post-war Wear.  As Wear will have been one of the ships I saw in Hartlepool docks in the mid-fifties, one of them really has to be Wear.  Just which one?  For variation in armament and colours then Teviot and Tay might have it,  I know that Tay isn't really geographically close enough, but such a good clear photo!  However the Wear was my local river, so having Wear as one of my Rivers is rather compulsory.  Which leaves Jed out as too similar in fit and colours.   Maybe Ettrick?

[Tony C]

Can’t add anything to the conversation other than to say that my father served on HMS Jed in the Radio Room, though I haven't yet discovered where he sailed when aboard!

[Graham Boak]

Wright's book has a colour profile for Jed, said to be at Normandy 1944 but looking just like she did when first set out in 1942.    So maybe ...

[EwenS]

Graham

Both Nith and Waveney made it to the Far East as LSH(S) and took part in Operation Zipper. In fact Nith retained this configuration until she was sold to the Egyptians and probably until she was sunk in the Suez crisis.

Ewen

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 10:38 PM, Graham Boak said:

Wright's book has a colour profile for Jed, said to be at Normandy 1944 but looking just like she did when first set out in 1942.    So maybe ...

 

Hi Graham,

 

As Western Approaches Blue and Western Approaches Green were consolidated into a single pale greenish blue shade, B55, in April 1943 that would require her camouflage paint to be at least 14 months old by D-Day in 1944 for it to look the same as in 1942.

[Graham Boak]

That clarifies why these ships are sometimes shown with 3-colour WA schemes and sometimes with 2-colour, but also why care should be taken over the dates suggested by the captions.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

That is true, however the WA Green wasn't always used. There are plenty examples of Western Approaches designs in CAFO 679/42 (which I really must get on to reproducing) which only use white and Peter Scott / Western Approaches blue. Peter Scott blue / Western Approaches Blue was white with a dash of ultramarine only, so it's one of the ones we've had to change to make a "pure" blue not a greenish one. WA green appears as a slightly darker tone than WA blue. If it has 3 distinct tones in a reference photo, it's definitely pre-B&G series (April 1943), however if it's only 2 distinct tones it's necessary to nail down the date because it could just as easily be WA Blue and White versus B55 and White. B55 was similar in tone to WA blue and similarly made mostly of white and ultramarine, only it had enough of a dollop of green (likely Brunswick / chome green) added in to distinctly change if from a pale blue to a pale greenish-blue.

 

I was looking at Corvettes online this weekend actually whilst pondering building my 1/72 Flower class as a simple r/c for my children to play with, and as I browsed the many images of models online it struck me that the ratio of models painted very, very wrong to about right was rather unfavourable with many modellers choosing waaaaaaaaaaaaay too dark and intense blues and strong, dark olives. The entire premise of Western Approaches camouflage was based on Thayer's principles of natural, pale, low saturation colours to blend in to an overcast low-light horizon some distance away. The threat it was designed to camouflage from was submarines. Off-white with electric blue and dark olive triangles doesn't quite capture the essence of the technique 🤐

 

I have just last night made a start on another paper discussing the B&G series. I think I need to do one more after that covering Peter Scott's paints then move on to other time periods. There's only so many pre-Jutland era Dreadnought models I can see painted light grey before wishing to scratch my eyeballs!