Jump to content

Tribal-class Destroyer (1905)


Admiral_Aruon
 Share

Should the Tribal-class (1905) be added to WT Naval Forces  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. should any/multiple Tribal-class (1905/1907) models be added to the UK Naval Forces?

    • yes, but only one of the original five, and prior to any refits (ex. HMS Cossack as of 1908)
      2
    • yes, but only one of the original five, at peak performance after any/all known refits (ex. HMS Afridi as of 1917)
      0
    • yes, but only one of the later models prior to refits (ex. HMS Viking as of 1910)
      0
    • yes, but only one of the later models at peak performance after any/all known refits (ex. HMS Zubian, as of 1917)
      5
    • yes, to 2 or three (specify which in the comments)
      2
    • yes to all
      23
    • no to all
      2


explanation for why i'm suggesting such an old design near the bottom, above the sources cited section

 

So now that the naval OBT has launched, it's time to do some suggesting. so I'm suggesting the Tribal-class line of destroyers laid down from 1905-1908 and launched from 1907-1910...

 

HMS_Cossack_(1907)_IWM_Q_021123.jpg

(HMS Cossack, 1907)

 

...as well as a quirky one from 1917 featured near the bottom.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HISTORY:

 

the Tribal-class (not to be mistaken for the Tribal-class of 1936) (also F-class as the UK for a time kind of mixed names and letters when the Tribals were redesignated F-class DDs in 1913... ((also not to be mistaken for the F-class of 1934))) was a pre-WWI design of destroyer meant to supplement the turn-of-the-century design River-class (itself redesignated the E-class in 1913) Torpedo Boat Destroyer with a slightly more up to date model. these Tribal-class DDs all seeing a varied mix of active duty, life, death, and one frankenstein resurrection (more on that in a minute) throughout the Great War as part of the 6th flotilla and part of the Dover Patrols

 

The origin of the Tribal-class comes from November of 1904, when First Sea Lord John "Jackie" Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher, (fun fact, he's considered the 2nd most important person in British naval history- only behind Admiral Nelson of Trafalgar fame) made the proposition of a new class of destroyer with a top speed of at least 61 km/h (33 knots) with the usage of oil-fired boilers and steam turbines as opposed to the older steam engine and steam turbine engine of the River-class.

 

This requirement had its ups and downs, and the result was a large ship for its size to fit the engines that provided for far higher amount of horsepower of 12,500 shp (9300 kW) vs the late model River-class's 7,700 shp (5,700 kW), but at the dangerous cost of pushing the design to its limits by installing what was then bleeding edge technology in a vessel that wasn't quite designed with it in mind.

The result of this was an impressively fast and high-tech design but debateably a step back compared to the earlier River-class as the Tribal-class was comparatively lightly built, later being proven to be somewhat fragile during the war.

the biggest downside (fortunately it has no real bearing in WT but worth noting anyway) to the Tribal-class was that it was just an absolute PIG of a gas-guzzler. provided with only 90 tons of bunkerage (ship-speak for fuel capacity... and yes i did have to look that up)  AND with a very high rate of fuel consumption, the Tribal-class was shown to be kind of ridiculously uneconomical and saddled with a a severely limited effective range.

to put this into perspective, here's a direct quote from wikipedia on the topic:

 

More alarmingly however, they were only provided with 90 tons of bunkerage, and with high fuel consumption resulting from the unheard of power of 12,500 shp (9,300 kW), they were very uneconomical and had a severely limited radius of action; Afridi and Amazon once used 9.5 tons of oil each simply to raise steam for a three-mile (5 km) return journey to a fuel depot.

 

In addition to being a bit large for coastal defense, the use of the Large Tribal-class DDs resulted in the simultaneous need for need for a smaller, more purpose-built destroyer type that resulted in the Cricket-class (1905) Coastal Destroyer (later 1st class Torpedo Boat).

in the long run, this experiment proved to be not ideal and for the following class of destroyer, the Beagle-class (1908) (later renamed G-class), the admiralty reverted to a single, more uniform design for the 1908-9 programme.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

OVERALL DESIGN:

 

 

at this time, the Royal Navy had a strange practice with its DDs, and that was to just let the companies designing each ship work out the little details. as a result, no two Tribal-class DDs were alike and the details and appearance could be completely different in some areas. some examples:

 

Most noticeably the number of funnels varied from three, in Cossack and Ghurka, to six in Viking; the latter, with two single and two pairs of funnels becoming the only six-funneled destroyer ever built. additionally, the Tribals were the first British DDs to have two masts, with a second, light mainmast near the back of the ship.

HMS_Viking_1910.jpg

HMS Viking, 1910.

and yes as you can see it actually had 6 funnels... because reasons.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARMAMENT:

 

Originally the first 5 ships of the series (Afridi, Cossack, Gurkha, Mohawk, Tartar)(1907) had an armament of three, 3-inch (76.2mm) QF 12-pounder 12 cwt cannons, and two single 18-inch (450mm) torpedo tubes carrying the 18-inch Mark V Torpedo that seems to have been uniquely used on the River and first 5 Tribal class DDs.

 

(stats on the Mark V torpedo below)

 

after that, the 2nd programme from 1906-1907 (Saracen, Amazon) and 3rd programme of 1908-1909 (Crusader, Maori, Nubian, Viking, Zulu) replaced the 76mm 12-pounders with a pair of BL 4-inch 102mm cannons, with one mounted forwards, and the other on the quarterdeck. additionally they switched from the Mark V torpedo to the Mark VII and apparently quickly updated VII* (stats spoilered below)

 

Spoiler

(Introduced on the 1908 members of the 1905 Tribal class destroyers. Used by torpedo boats built before the First World War and destroyers. Used by RAF flying boats in the 1920s.

 

additionally, the original 5 ships (Afridi, Cossack, Gurkha, Mohawk, Tartar)(refitted 1908) were; after October 1908; were modified by adding another pair of 12-pounder guns, making for five 76mm cannons plus the two single torpedo tubes. 

 

at this point i should point out that  there ARE discrepancies so just know that the various wikipedia pages figures are above and dreadnoughtproject figures are below. and dreadnoughtproject seems to be more reliable in this regard as they are more detailed in general)

 

 

 

to save time and sanity, i'm just going to copypaste what dreadnoughtproject states about armament in a spoiler below because it does not only give specifics of placement, but on specific armaments on specific ships just before and even DURING World War 1:

Spoiler

Armament

The diversity of this class certainly extended to the armament.[8]

In late September, 1914, the Admiralty ordered that the guns on this and later classes were to be given loading lights, initially on temporary circuits.[9]

12-pdr Guns

The five ships of the 1905-1906 programme, Afridi, Cossack, Ghurka, Mohawk and Tartar originally carried three 12-pdr guns carried two in tandem on the bridge and one right aft. [10]

The weapons were 12-pdr 12 cwt Q.F. guns on P. I or P. I* mountings with 100 steel common shells per gun.[11] The mountings could elevate to 20 degrees and depress to 10.

In 1909, two more were added, presumably "one each side, in the waist" as approved in October of 1908, though Afridi was going to require special packing rings due to her uniquely rounded gunwale. By December, it had been approved to give the ships seven more men to work the guns and to allot the same 100 round storage for them as the other guns enjoyed.[12]

The sights were gear-worked with a range gearing constant of 54 and range dials for 2225, 2200 and 2175 fps, 1-in and .303-in aiming rifles. They could elevate to 20 degrees but their graduations ended at 19.25 degrees (8100 yards full charge). There was no means of applying M.V. correction.

Deflection gearing constant was 50.76, with 1 knot equalling 3.76 arc minutes, corresponding to a M.V. of 2197 fps at 2000 yards.

Drift was corrected by inclining the sight carrier arm 2 degrees.

There was only one sight with sighting lines 10 inches above the bore and 12 inches left. Open sights were provided (for the layer at least), but there is no sign of temperature correctors. A telescope was provided from 1906. Prior to that, it must have only had an open sight.[Inference]

In late-1913, the P. I mountings (at least) were equipped with percussion firing gear.[13]

By 1920, the ships with 4-in guns had three 12-pdr 8 cwt guns on G. I* mountings recoiling 13.25 inches and elevating to 30 degrees though the sights only went to 25 degrees (4000 yards). Those with only 12-pdrs were listed as having P. I mountings recoiling 12 inches and able to elevate 25 degrees with sights to 30 degrees (8100/9500 yards).[14]

Also by 1920, these ships carried one Q.F. 2-pdr pom-pom.[14]

4-in Guns

The seven later ships abandoned the use of 12-pdr guns to ship two 4-in guns, fore and aft. [15]

They were 4-in B.L. Mark VIII guns on P. III mountings with 120 rounds per gun, half lyddite, half common.[16] This combination was also to serve aboard the successive "G" and "H" classes.

The mounting could elevate to 20 degrees and depress to 10 degrees, but though its sight could match the 20 degree elevation, the range dial was only graduated to 9,300 yards (14 degrees 44 arc minutes) at 2,225 fps.

The gear-worked sight had a range gearing contant of 54 and spiral-reading range dials were provided for 2225 fps, 1-in aiming rifle and .303-in aiming rifle. M.V. could be corrected by adjustable pointer to +/- 75 fps.

The deflection gearing constant was 50.69 with 1 knot equal to 3.05 arc minutes, corresponding to 2275 fps at 2000 yards. Drift was corrected by inclining the sight 2 degrees.

Sight lines were 10 inches above the bore, and 16 inches left and 15 inches right. Open sights and temperature correctors were provided.

Percussion firing gear to be fitted as soon as conveniently possible in dockyard was ordered for these guns in April, 1914.[17]

By 1920, the mounting is described as a P. III* recoiling 38 inches.[14]

Other Guns

To address the discovery in July 1916 that German destroyer guns outranged British 4-in weapons, Viking (in parallel with flotilla leader Swift) replaced her forward 4-in gun with a 6-in Mark VII on a P. III mounting, adding 16.5 tons in weight. The destroyer was quickly found too small to accomodate the weapon, and a 4-in Q.F. Mark V gun was swapped in on a P. X mounting capable of 25 degree elevation. Ships also were then equipped with two 2-pdr pom poms.[18] In 1920, some or all of the ships retained a single Q.F. 2-pdr pom-pom.[19]

Also in the same timeframe, Afridi landed her 12-pdr guns in exchange for two 4.7-in Q.F. Mark III to VI guns on a P. VI mounting. These proved workable, at an appreciable cost in reduced stability and radius of action. They were kept, but no other Tribals were so modified in light of the penalties.[20]

Around late 1916, Amazon had two 4-in guns, one 2pdr pom-pom, one .303 Maxim, four Lewis machine guns, eight depth charges and two throwers. Crusader was similar, with eight type D charges. Saracen had two depth charge chutes. Afridi two 4.7-in guns, a pompom, a Maxim, four depth charger and two throwers.[21]

Torpedoes

  • two single 18-in tubes on the centre line.

The 1905-1906 programme ships had "light type" single tubes; the later ships may have had a different type.

In 1909, as heater torpedo supplies were still growing, these ships were to receive a handsome allotment of six each: Mark VII, Mark VII* or Weymouth Mark Is.[22] In this class, the Mark VII seems to have been chosen, with settings for 41 knots to 3,00 yards and 30 knots to 6-7,000 yards.[23] In 1912, the torpedo Marks ranged from VII to VII**.[24] In 1916, those weapons were still in use.[25]

Some of the ships were equipped with Fore Bridge Firing Gear, either upon completion or prior to 1911.[26]

In September, 1918, two 14-in torpedo tubes surrendered by "P" boats were added to at least some and perhaps all Tribals for use in night action.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Featured ship: HMS Zubian

HMS_Zubian.jpg

 

the HMS Zubian (1917) is a wartime tale that is just insane in how long the odds were that resulted in its commissioning.

 

so it is 1916. WWI is halfway through. the nightmarish slog of trench warfare on land are known and it is in full effect, despite the presence of tanks. but on the naval side of things, the situation is still fluid. amongst all this are British efforts to keep the germans confined to their home waters and as far away from the English Channel as possible... which is hard since the germans control Belgian ports.

 

and now here comes the 1916 Battle of Dover Strait where two and a half german flotillas of MTBs show up looking to cause some havoc around the Dover Barrage, an emplacement of mines to make navigation for British shipping a nightmare.

as expected, a battle ensued... that went perfectly for the germans, who only suffered a single damaged torpedo boat while the Brits lost the HMS Flirt, a transport, some drifters; and in the case of the HMS Nubian, a torpedo hit that nearly blew the entire bow off after detonating right under the bridge. the Nubian then was towed for a short time before the tow rope broke. it then managed to limp aground before the bow fell off completely- of which both of these happened in quick succession. hence, the Nubian had no bow, but was otherwise still functional.

HMSNubian.jpg

 

meanwhile with the HMS Zulu... well... it hit a mine in November. not nearly the heroic near-death of the Nubian... but it is what it is. at any rate the mine went off just beneath the Zulu's engine room, gutting the ship, and breaking off the stern which then sunk. the rest of the ship however was towed to Calais.

 

and then, in 1917, instead of scrapping the two hulls at the height of WWI, The admiralty had the Zulu and Nubian frankensteined back together, creating the Zubian. which funnily enough confused the hell out of the german admiralty since there was no ship of that name having been built, but here it was.

 

and the Zubian was no token effort. after its commissioning in 1917, it joined (well, technically rejoined) the 6th flotilla in hunting U-boats. on February 4th, 1918, she encountered a minelayer U-boat named UC-50. Zubian then attempted to RAM A FREAKING SUBMARINE. sadly it dove before Zubian could hit though. Zubian then dropped depth charges that were later confirmed to have killed UC-50.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OVERALL STATS ON AVERAGE:

 

Displacement:

between

865 long tons (879 t) normal

950 long tons (970 t) deep load

and

880 long tons (890 t) normal

990 long tons (1,010 t) deep load

 

Length: (yes even the size of the ships is unique for each!)

between

260 ft 6 in (79.40 m)

Beam: 25 ft 6 in (7.77 m)

Draught: 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m)

and

Length:

270 ft (82.3 m) pp

277 ft (84.4 m) oa

Beam: 26 ft (7.9 m)

Draught: 8 ft 7 in (2.62 m)

 

Propulsion:

2 or 3 shaft steam turbines, 12,500 shp (9,300 kW) to 14,500 shp 10,800 kW)

 

Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h; 38 mph)

 

Armament:

5 × QF 12 pdr 12 cwt Mark I, mounting P Mark I

2 × single tubes for 18-inch (450-mm) torpedoes

OR

2 × BL 4 in L/40 Mark VIII, mounting P Mark V

2 × single tubes for 18-inch (450-mm) torpedoes

 

as well as assorted extra armament ranging from .30 caliber Maxim guns to 40mm QF 2-pounders to depth charges depending on the ship and time period.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PICTURES GALORE:

Spoiler

HMS_Zubian.jpg

HMS Zubian, circa 1917-1918

HMS_Crusader_WWI_IWM_Q_018253.jpg

HMS Crusader (1909)

300px-HMS_Zulu.jpg

HMS Zulu

HMS_Amazon_IWM_Q_020942.jpg

HMS Amazon

Afridi-1909.jpg

HMS Afridi

HMS_Ghurka_1907.jpg

HMS Gurkha

HMS_Ghurka_at_sea_(15826921482).jpg

Also HMS Gurkha

HMSNubian.jpg

HMS Nubian 1916, post-stern

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHY SUGGEST SUCH AN OLD SHIP CLASS?

 

so about a year ago, as I was seeing videos that really began to pique my interest in WT naval forces. i got to taking a look at ships that were years away, like Heavy Cruisers and the like, when i saw a link to Pre-dreadnoughts, the early battleships made obsolete by the introduction of HMS Dreadnought in 1906. so i got to thinking, what were ships that old like? could they stack up against more modern ships in a way that tanks and planes of the WWI and post-WWI era simply couldn't with their late 30s counterparts?

 

Well as it turns out... yes! and not only is it much more than the naval equivalent of pitting a Mark IV vs a Panzer IV F2, it's more like pitting a Panzer IV C vs a Panzer IV F2- always an underdog, but never an idle threat.

 

WWI-era ships like these have perfectly suitable for naval forces as they can provide a Battle Rating buffer between the various PT boats, gunboats, sub-chasers, and the like, and high tier ships like the 1.83-release selection of top-of-the-line destroyers and especially the light cruisers who are currently somewhat useless as they're just too far away to make an impact on capture points since they're somewhat shoehorned into the game currently and have to coexist with both destroyers and PT boats without being able to seal club them both at the same time.

 

WWI ships can be the buffer zone where you transition from boat and gunboat to a true SHIP, while making it less like playing two matches at once with having to keep boats and ships separate until the outcome is clear.

being able to engage more modern PT boat to corvette-size ships with generally older or more sparse weaponry, generally slower (definitely not in this case though!) movement, and overall less durable ship design, while still packing enough armament to fight similarly aged ships, and support attacks against much younger ships.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES:

 

individual ships (from wikipedia so some pages are kind of useless:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Afridi_(1907)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Cossack_(1907)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ghurka_(1907)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Mohawk_(1907)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Amazon_(1908)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Saracen_(1908)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Crusader_(1909)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Maori_(1909)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Nubian_(1909)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Viking_(1909)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Zulu_(1909)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Zubian

 

source sites:

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Tribal%2Dclass-destroyer-(1905)

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Tribal-class_destroyer_(1905)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal-class_destroyer_(1905)

(these 3 all have the same info, just copied from wikipedia)

 

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Tribal_Class_Destroyer_(1907) this actually has quite a lot of useful, original, and especially detailed information.

 

literary sources:

 

Chesneau, Roger and Kolesnik, Eugene M. Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1860–1905. London: Conway Maritime Press, 1979. ISBN 0-85177-133-5.

 

Cocker, Maurice. Destroyers of the Royal Navy, 1893-1981. Ian Allan, 1983. ISBN 0-7110-1075-7

 

Friedman, Norman. British Destroyers: From Earliest Days to the Second World War. Barnsley, UK: Seaforth Publishing, 2009. ISBN 978-1-84832-049-9.

 

Gardiner, Robert and Gray, Randal. Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921. London: Conway Maritime Press, 1985. ISBN 0-85177-245-5.

 

Preston, Anthony. Destroyers. Bison Books, 1977. ISBN 0-86124-057-X

 

Gray, Randal (editor) (1985). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921. London: Conway Maritime Press..

 

March, Edgar J. (1966). British Destroyers: A History of Development, 1892-1953. London: Seeley Service & Co. Limited.

 

Admiralty, Technical History Section (1920). The Technical History and Index: Alteration in Armaments of H.M. Ships during the War. Vol. 4, Part 34. C.B. 1515 (34) now O.U. 6171/20. At The National Archives, Kew, United Kingdom.

 

Edited by Admiral_Aruon
poll, typo edits, why WWI?
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/10/2018 at 02:19, Admiral_Aruon said:

explanation for why i'm suggesting such an old design near the bottom, above the sources cited section

 

So now that the naval OBT has launched, it's time to do some suggesting. so I'm suggesting the Tribal-class line of destroyers laid down from 1905-1908 and launched from 1907-1910...

 

HMS_Cossack_(1907)_IWM_Q_021123.jpg

(HMS Cossack, 1907)

 

...

I do believe that is HMS Swift.  A wonderful addition on its own but not a Tribal.

+1 for HMS Zubian.  Such an amazing story behind that ship.  

 

Though having HMS Zulu and HMS Nubian would not be bad either.

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Valcour said:

I do believe that is HMS Swift.  A wonderful addition on its own but not a Tribal.

Certainly seems like its the HMS Cossack

Spoiler

002448.jpg

 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but the photo caption is wrong.  HMS Cossack did 

6 hours ago, Mercedes4321 said:

Certainly seems like its the HMS Cossack

  Hide contents

002448.jpg

 

And here is HMS Swift.  Built in the same yard and in the same year.  They could be twins if HMS Swift did not have twice the displacement.   

HMS_Swift_(1907).JPG

The only differences (apart from size) is that Swift has a main mast and Cossack does not.

 

Edited by Valcour
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Valcour said:

Yes but the photo caption is wrong.  HMS Cossack did 

And here is HMS Swift.  Built in the same yard and in the same year.  They could be twins if HMS Swift did not have twice the displacement.   

HMS_Swift_(1907).JPG

The only differences (apart from size) is that Swift has a main mast and Cossack does not.

 

I think it is pretty easy to notice the difference between the 2. Here is HMS Swift

Spoiler

g05187_1024x1024.jpg?v=1527620892

And this is the Cossack

Spoiler

HMS_Cossack_(1907)_IWM_Q_021123.jpg

 

The main give away is the masts, the Swift has two of similar size while the Cossack only has one prominent one.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keep in mind that each Tribal-class was basically a semi-unique ship under an umbrella classification due to each company working out the details on their own- which is basically the same difference to the HMS Swift, which was a unique (later destined to be a one-off) prototype/flotilla leader design made with Admiral Fisher's high-speed requirements in mind (and likewise extreme fuel consumption drawbacks), in the same vein as the Tribal-class.

 

17 minutes ago, Valcour said:

And here is HMS Swift.  Built in the same yard and in the same year.  They could be twins if HMS Swift did not have twice the displacement.

 

2 minutes ago, Mercedes4321 said:

The main give away is the masts, the Swift has two of similar size while the Cossack only has one prominent one.

 

in addition to these, wikipedia lists 13 November 1905, as the date that HMS Cossack was laid down by Cammell Laird- only about a month before the design of HMS Swift was finalized and laid down. so it IS entirely possible if not flat out likely that significant outside elements of the Cossack were copied to the Swift blueprints and upscaled to save time.

 

 

now i'm tempted to do a suggestion of the HMS Swift. at least it won't take 3 1/2 hours like this did XD

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

now i'm tempted to do a suggestion of the HMS Swift. at least it won't take 3 1/2 hours like this did XD

It took me a few hours to track down good sources for my Insect class gunboat suggestion thread, though that was mainly looking for good info on the armament refits that they went through.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mercedes4321 said:

It took me a few hours to track down good sources for my Insect class gunboat suggestion thread, though that was mainly looking for good info on the armament refits that they went through.

 

can't say i'm shocked with that. aside from the sometimes spotty record keeping when it comes to refits, warships that small rarely have more characters in their own articles than their own footnotes.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

 

 

now i'm tempted to do a suggestion of the HMS Swift. at least it won't take 3 1/2 hours like this did XD

+ 1 For HMS Swift!  It would need to be a premium though.  :)

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...

I voted yes to two or three, and since you asked us to specify which, I'd like to see one of the originals as built, one of the refitted originals, and one of the refitted later Tribals. HMS Zubian is an absolute must and if I had to pick one it would be that wonder of the high seas.

Edited by Zombificus
Zubian!
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Suggestion passed to the developers for consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...