Feb-Mar-Apr, May-June-July 1972 - Navy League of Australia

V\ Uh ihc Complimcnls of:
DILLINGHAM
SHIPYARDS
(W.A.)
Pty. Ltd.
•SHIPBUILDERS
•SHIP REPAIRERS
• ENGINEERS
9CORKHILL STREET
NORTH FREMANTLE
I
P.O. Box 50
North Fremantle 6159
I
Telex Address:
"DILSHIP"
Telex AA 92655
Phone: 35 4622
DILINGHAM
The Shipyard on the West Coast
THINK R.A.C.
FOR MAXIMUM
PROTECTION
An R.A.C. policy protects you in
every way. Find out now.
Phone or call Today.
RAC. INSURANCE PTY. LTD.
228 Adelaide Terrace. Perth Phone 25-0551
LETTERS TO THE
EDITOR
The photograph of the battleship
"Tsesarevitch" on Page 9
(not Page 8) has been incorrectly
captioned. I freely admit that the
figures given in the caption for her
armour-belt dimensions are inexplicable.
however if Mr Jones had
examined my article more
thoroughly, he would have found
the correct information in the
first column of Page 15 and at the
top o* column 3 on Page 20. To
clarify the details of the Tsesarevitch
s armour, her main belt was
10" thick. 4" on the ends and her
mam armoured deck was also 4" in
thickness. Total weight of armour
4.000 tons.
The photograph of Retvizan at
the foot of Page 15 has been
captioned fairly accurately. The
after-most 12" turret has been
trained on the starboard beam
and its two guns are plainly visible
in the original photograph. Her
secondary casement weapons are
also visible. It is not necessary to
actually remove the guns from a
ship of war in order that she might
be disarmed. Removal of the
breech-blocks, together with the
dismantling of the firing mechanisms
would effectively incapacitate
her. In the photograph
under discussion she is still in
Russian hands.
The upper illustration on Page
15 is an original unretouched
photograph of the Retvizan in
tropical light-grey livery. This
reproduction is undesirably dark
otherwise the buff colouring of
the funnels would have been
plainly visible After capture and
reconstruction by the Japanese
her appearance was altered and
her name changed to Hizen. Her
thick military masts and fighting
tops were replaced by lighter pole
masts without prominent platforms
and her funnels were
shortened. Lastly her colour
changed to overall medium-grey
I can understand Mr Jones' confusion
concerning the disposition
of vessels in the upper picture
on Page 17. The photograph
is not clear, however, the vessels
as listed are in fact in the picture.
Bearing in mind that the caption
should read from right to left, and
not vice versa: the vessels would
then appear in their correct order.
Mr Jones' criticism of the photograph
at the foot of Page 17 is partially
correct. The vessel lying to
port of the Variag is not the gunboat
Korietz, which was a three
masted 1.500 ton gunboat with
one funnel and the bridge abaft the
foremast and featuring a very
prominent extended ram bow. The
vessel was square-rigged on the
foremast only and was rigged with
two old type 8 inch guns, one old
type 6 inch, four old type 4 inch
and six small quick firers. At the
time of her demise her machinery
was in poor condition and she was
capable of a sustained speed of
only approximately 4-4knots
under power. Unfortunately copyright
restrictions prevent me
from orinting an illustration of
this interesting old vessel. She was
a near-sister of the gunboat Mandjur
which appears in the upper
photograph on this page. I cannot
identify the vessel lying to port of
the Variag in this photograph.
Adnittedly her outline does
resemble that of a British scout
cruiser of the pre-dreadnought
era. however this resemblance
alone cannot serve to identify a
unit of the Royal Navy.
Assuming for the moment that
she was at least British built, it
should be recalled that much international
warship tonnage was.
and still is. constructed in British
shipyards: for example, some
South American navies have
always been good customers of
Britain.
One could take the extreme view
and assume that this is a photograph
of the Variag after capture
and repair by the Japanese and is
shown moored in company with a
Japanese light cruiser. I am
inclined to doubt this for two
reasons. Firstly the Variag is flying
the Russian naval ensign, and
secondly, the only twin funnel
cruisers in the Japanese navy
which bear any resemblance to
the vessel in the illustration could
only be the Kasagi or the Chitose,
both of which were launched from
American shipyards in January.
1898
If Mr Jones is able to discover
the true identity of this cruiser. I
would greatly appreciate being
informed of the results of his
efforts.
The illus ation on Page 21 is
included so that a possible method
of deployment of moored sea
mines could be appreciated by
those not fa -niltar with this
weapon. Whilst it is indeed true
that three maior Japanese units
were destroyed in the space of a
few minutes by mines like these,
the caption is unfortunate in its
implication. The drawing is Russian
and the vessel depicted is
almost certainly the armoured
cruiser Rossia.
Armoured crulsar Rossia Black hull Indicates ship Is serving In northern waters,
protruding 'bow-chaser' gun and ornamental scroM-worfc on tha stem.
Pig. Forty-.tght
THE NAVY
May/June/July THE NAVY Page Forty-nine