This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips Military history: Maritime / South Pacific / British / European / World War II / Cold War C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force British military history task force European military history task force World War II task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) New Zealand Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 400 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

This recent glossy NZ publication (2018) republishes various published and unpublished works on the Royalist including part of the wiki article in its 2017 state Wrights editorial view is the Royalist was an ill advised and poor investment given its poor hull condition and cramped crew conditions which had hardly been improved from WW2. Wright claims that there no other ships using the RN DP 5.25 gun, although the RN still had 5 battleships in reserve when Royalist recommissioned in 1956 and it was the following years 1957 Sandys defense review which led to the RN deciding to scrap the last four Dido cruisers it had in reserve HMS Euralyus, Cleopatra, Dido and Bellona and the final RN shore emplacement 5.25 battery remained operational until 1980 with four new single 5.25 mounts for AA and anti ship action being installed as late as 1955 Gibraltar. On 25 March 1955, NZ National MP, Sid Holland was considering purchasing HMS Royalist or HMS Diadem (which was instead sold to Pakistan and transferred after in Mid 1957). Diadem renamed, Babur was given a 18mth refit which far exceeded the estimated cost of 1.5 million dollars (1 million dollars provided by Pakistan and 0.25 million by the UK and 0.25 million US from the MPDA) The huge actual cost of the refit enraged opposition parties in Pakistan . Diadem received a thorough overhaul, a new bridge and light 40mm Mk 5 (3x2) and Mk 7 (8 X1) armament and served in a number of wars with India 1962, 1965 and 1971 the third encounter providing an interesting alternative view to the Falklands and Gulf of how 1950s UK frigates, cruisers and RAF and RN carrier borne aircraft would fare in conflict. It is generally recorded that Diadem was reduced to a training ship in 1961. However Mountbatten (Record Society), RAN CNS correspondence with First Sea Lord) fought with everything to have Diadem enter IPN service as a surface counter to the UK reconstructed Mysore (HMS Nigeria rebuilt to the std if Newfoundland 1952). The Dido AD cruisers were something of the first 'hot' ships and could not really be turned off and like the Royalist could only be briefly refitted and and it had to be half manned, in 1958-61 untilreturned to service as an operational warship. Retired Australian Admiral James Goldrick wrote extensively about the Diadem in his book on the Indian, Pakistan, Ceylon and Bengal Navies and the In terms of warship raiders, it appears the post war Soviet Chapevs and Sverdlovs were partly intended to play a similar role to the WW2 Kreigsmarine, battlecruisers and armoured cruisers like Graf Spee, given the Sverdlov were near 20,000 displacement and had 6 inch armour on their 6 inch triple turrets and belt, no cruiser may have been the answer. The RN view post war however was the expected standard of the Soviet fleet would be low and a pair of 4.5 gunned Daring Destroyers or even a pair of Type 41 diesels with two twin 4.5 inch would have been adequate. Part of the justification for the Royalist was actually that it might be more of a counter to the Sverdlov transferred to Indonesia , INS Irain than British destroyers or the County GMD unarmoured and with only 4.5 guns. The Indonesians did not seem interested in maintaining the Sverdlov in combat capable condition, but it known that in 1964 the Russian Navy did take the cruiser back to Russia for a refit. Royalists modernisation was only expected to cover a lifespan of 6 years. A RN reconstruction, entailed a high grade short remaining life reequipping to fight in WW3 in 1956-1963 with area defence, AA and surface fighting capability. Reconstruction did not necessarily involve reboilering, new drive train and engines, if the existing boilers, hull and engine would last to the ships, planned 20 year life. A 'Life extension extended refit' was a renewal and replacement of a cruisers worn out or obsolete power and weapon systems, and might involve a physical life extension of 5-20 years for lower level patrol and colonial duties, but without more than point defence AA weapons for the ships own self defence. with L60 twin water cooled bofor, effective with 262 radar to 2 miles. The expected lifespan of a war built Dido or Colony cruiser was no more than 20 years the usual age of their withdrawal and it was to be expected the accuracy of the AA gun alignment in Royalists Mk 6 275 directors would deteriorate from mid 1963 as they did. The real question would have to be why the Holyoake government did not take out another interim lease of a Daring destroyer known to have been recently refitted. Royalist at least looked like a cruiser and was safer than a long low Daring, with an excessive turning circle.

The triple Mk 6 inch and twin 4 inch cruiser weapons used by other RN cruisers in the 1950s saw only a few more years service in the RN. The 5.25 turrets were more modern and accurate and required 60 crew per turret cf with 90 for a Mk 23 triple 6. The twin 4inch X1X was obsolete and inaccurate

The Royalist and Dido conversions were considered prototype cruiser destroyers by the RN in 1949 and the late 1940s view in Britain was that anti sub frigates and minesweepers should be all the Navy required. Given the immediate requirements of the Korean war and the UK Treasury restricting any cruiser to 370O ton dimensions of he USS Mitcher the HMS Royalist conversion was a rare major surface warship that could go forward after the success of the similar update of USS Juneau in a unique and rather too succesful USN conversion in 1951 with modern AA radar for 12 5inch guns and 14 twin 3/50 the Juneau outshooting the USS Worchester and early Terrier ships. The decade of problems with Sea Slug and Terrier/Tartar in the USA meant the AA success on test against Jet drones of the Royalist/ Juneau made them a very unwanted development which the RN & USN wanted out of the way. The Royalist was successful against multiple meteor jet drones while Seaslug managed comparable performance tests against slower Firefly drones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.175.44 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you break it down into short specific issues with room to discuss each. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has essentially been written by me since 2011. The issue over the Royalist in NZ is was the cruiser a terrible outdated piece of junk as claimed by Phipps and diplomat Frank Corner who argued the Type 12 frigate was the obvious choice to provide job and social skills development for the large portion of recalcitrant and reluctant RNZN recruits who had essentially signed for Queen and country duty due to court mandates to join the Navy or be detained in borstals or prisons, Similarly in NZ terms the issue about Bellona and Black Prince is the 1947 mutiny not the slight variance from RN specifications. Again in NZ historical, naval and political terms the story of HMNZS Otago and Canterbury is essentially about the 1973 Muroroa deployment into the French tests and the French and US reaction to the RAN and RNZN Naval activity. In terms of the wargamer Mr Ish I see no evidence he posses the academic, naval, legal or historical skills to edit or interfere with my articles. I regard it as a serious insult and slander his view that I use sources accurately and distort the real truth about 1950s RN RNZN development. In fact my wiki articles are a straight non biased interpretation In terms of Mr Leggett I assume he is now effectively in the employ of the Mahuta led NZMFAT a seriously PLN alligned body at very least like ANUs former strategic advisors dedicated to at the very least appeasing the regional takeover of the south pacific by the Chinese military. Given that I have serious academic qualification two postfraduate degrees and a BCom in accountancy and serious academic publications on the RNZN for NZ International Review under the editorship of Ian MCGibbon,'NBR under Colin James and Fran O Sullivan and as a leader writer for the Timaru Herald working at their offices ( ie I was more than a contract employee in 1984-5 and the leaders on the Anzus, nuclear ship and political issues at the time are written by yours truly RFM not Appelby or M.Vance who would have taken a more libieral and less critical view of David Lange, than myself My decision to write and edit of the RN/RNZN cold war ship articles followed the development of the Key government and their review of the new OPV class, cut in naval officer pay rates and fuel allocation. There were also the speeches of Mike Moore and Tim Grosser as NZ ambassadors to the USA. Moore and Tim Grosser asserted in speeches in the USA that 'Royalist' was not even in the Med at the time of the Suez crisis. In many senses the Royalist was the last RN cruiser, and the RNZN should have been honoured to run her. Mr Leggat and Gerry Wright, two edition magnus opus on Royalist, the first largely stolen from my various Royalist wiki articles, the second edition largely removing my contribution except for a badly edited section, The reedit removed the fact that Royalist was still on active service with the RN fleet at least of the first day of Muskeeter. I had to counter this complete destruction of historical truth. Essentially the Key government had decided to violate the basic requirement post ANZUS of maintaining any credible relationship with the US and chance of resumption of Anzus lay in maintaining a credible officer core which was essentially destroyed by the pay, conditions and equipment decisions of the Key government and his unqualified Defense Minister Wayne Mapp, now protesting against that vital, national asset and tech advance of Becks rocket lab. I attended TBHS 1970-74, Otago and Victoria University 1975-8 and worked for the post office 1975-6, Waterside Commission 77-8, Waimate CC and OUP 1982 (on the planning of the proposed hydro scheme) and as largely full time editorial writer, at the Timaru Herald 1984-5. I have wrote on RNZN issues for the NZIIA under Ian McGibbon and was interviewed for several MOD A0 positions, 1980/84. Met RNZN planning officers Ian Bradley, Robert Martin, Dick Ryan and was interviewed, in 1984 by MOD. I entered journalism after getting a 2/2 MA (1982 Cant) was the state of the railways and the lack of a defense policy under Muldoon. I was opposed to the Navy and Railways being used as an employment sink for the unemployable and regarded anarchy and lack of discipline in the Navy as a defence problem in 1983. Simply reducing crew numbers from 250 on a T12 Leander to 170 on an Anzac or Type 21, did not resolve the problem. My view was the RNZAF was a more viable organisation, better able to cover the NZ area of responsibility and with bases all round NZ. Smaller navy crews were effective and controllable with less discipline, so max 100 high quality crews. . My father Alan Miles and Fred Miles, were normal Kiwis and Australians of their generation, Cpt FF Miles (Gloucester Regiment) slandered beyond belief in SJ Harper, book. A tall sportsman, non military he served 4 yrs in France and Salonika. Both actually attended Balliol in 1913-13,19-20 and 49-50 and served as officers in WW1 and WW2 in the Gloucester Regiment and in Alan Miles case presumably as a RNZN/RN War service Reserve Officer on HMS Kledive, Hunt destroyers and in New York on prep planning of the Sth France invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.67.34 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC) . I do actually have 4 university degrees and serious academic publications. My trust was just a rich boys trust, asked for by me. In terms of my family. It is not difficult to confirm that Alan Miles was at Balliol in 1949-50 was nominated for a Rhodes Scholarship (1946) and a lecturer, Vic Uni, Wellington, 1948-49. My mother was one of his Hons students. On my fathers death in 1981, I examined his papers, re the offer of a permanent commission in the RNZN and the offer of Balliol in 1950, to return to the college for 3 weeks to compile a bibl, to complete a B.Lit.[reply]

I did leave a note on the IP editors talk page User talk:115.188.67.34 offering solutions to any issues they had with my editing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, you need to read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Especially taking note of instructions against editing other users comments.

Also Wikipedia:No legal threats to make sure you don't misrepresent your intent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]