Difference between Ham and Ton class minesweepers?

STURM

Well-Known Member
Does anyone know why there was a need, within the same period, for both the Ham and Ton class minesweepers to be constructed for the RN? The Ham class has been referred to as an inshore mineseeper, whilst the Ton class has been referred as a coastal minesweeper. Granted, the Ton had a larger displacement and was probably, despite being classed as a coastal minesweeper, better suited for ops in deeper waters than the Ham but couldn't a single class have been constructed to fulfil the minesweeping role, whether in coastal, inshore or deep waters?

Picked this up from another site from a former-Royal Malaysian Navy [RMN] Ham class XO, describing the use of the minesweeping gear. The RMN received 6 former RN Ham class and later 6 Ton class [which saw service in East Malaysia during the Confrontation] from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s.

First on the agenda was to Calibrate the ‘Otters’ and the ‘Kites’. These are equipments or ‘paravanes’ — to use the correct technical name — used during Mine Sweeping operations. They were rigged with slings and with Three (3) slings it became a ‘Kite’ and applying Four (4) slings made it an Otter. The Otter was for taking the ‘sweep’ wires out and kept at a certain depth, away from the Ship to either the Port or the Starboard quarter. The Kite was for keeping the inner section of the ‘sweep’ wire down to a certain depth. This calibrating exercise is pains taking and dangerous. We repeatedly went ahead and stopped because it’s adjustments were not correct and from the Bridge we could see the Otter or Kite ‘leaping’ out of the water. This is frightening !!!! The wires would be recovered, the Otter winched on board and the settings readjusted. After many trials, the X.O. is happy — these equipment are now calibrated. Now we can practice putting our ‘Wire Sweeps’ out. We would start with just one Sweep to either Port or to Starboard and when confident, both Sweeps to either side would be streamed. Then, another date would be marked for practicing streaming ‘the loop’. The team have to be completely clued up for all these Sweeps and each person must know his particular task. When streaming any of the Sweeps, there are many smaller events happening there all simultaneously and no one can dream or switch off. Your mate could be seriously injured. You would have ‘steel wire ropes’ in tension and have to be watchful all the time. Again, step by step we follow the Instructions from the Manual and when it is all streaming astern correctly, the Electrician makes sure that the Generator works correctly sending the right current and pulse through the thick cables. With success, the boys on the Sweep Deck all receive a ‘Bravo Zulu’ from the Bridge.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
couldn't a single class have been constructed to fulfil the minesweeping role, whether in coastal, inshore or deep waters?
In order to use a ship inshore it generally needs less than 2 meters draught. Any ship with that little draught is pretty much hopeless away from the shore in the sea states the Northern Sea seas.

Besides, the Ton class was basically just the British version of the Bluebird unitary NATO minesweeper concept, of which the RN fielded like half the numbers built. The Ham were intended for more national purposes and built to domestic requirements.
 

Dodger67

Member
The South African Navy found their Tons to be "very uncomfortable" in South Atlantic winter storms, but they were sturdy reliable ships nontheless, which is fortunate as they had to operate them far longer than most other operators of the type.
 
Last edited:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The ham class were specifically designed by the RN for operations in rivers and estuaries. I quick glance at a chart of all the UK's major ports will clearly illustrate the logic for the build.
The Ton class were designed for coastal and focal area clearance.
I never had the pleasure to serve in a Ton and the RAN only had 2 x Hams in commission, converted to Diving tenders.
I spent several weeks in one off the NSW coast in some pretty foul weather and they were, at 32.5 mtrs, a very good little seaboat compared with the Attack class PB's (33mtrs) which were absolute dogs.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
The RMN found that the amount of fresh water that could be carried aboard the Ham class was limited, so on patrols water would be collected from the rain. Was there a big difference between the mine hunting gear carried on the Hams and the Tons? Been trying to find an online source that gives a detail list of the mine hunting and other gear fitted on the Hams and Tons, can't seem to find one. Also, does anyone know which RN squadrons operated the Hams and Tons in Singapore in the 1950's? After retirement, some of the RN Tons were broken up in Singapore.

A Ham in excellent condition for sale.

http://london.boatshed.com/ham_class_minesweeper-boat-117473.html
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The RMN found that the amount of fresh water that could be carried aboard the Ham class was limited, so on patrols water would be collected from the rain. Was there a big difference between the mine hunting gear carried on the Hams and the Tons? Been trying to find an online source that gives a detail list of the mine hunting and other gear fitted on the Hams and Tons, can't seem to find one. Also, does anyone know which RN squadrons operated the Hams and Tons in Singapore in the 1950's? After retirement, some of the RN Tons were broken up in Singapore.

A Ham in excellent condition for sale.

HAM Class minesweeper
They were never pretty but this sure takes the cake for fugliness:haha
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
I'm very confused and clueless so I'm hoping someone might be able to 'decipher' this for me :) .
From the the Jan/Feb 2006 (Vol 9 No 9) issue of Warship World -

''In the 1950s, the Oropesa Mk 2 mechanical sweep was followed by the Wire Sweep Mk 3 (WS 3) fitted in the new Ton Class Coastal Minesweeper (MSC). This sweep was streamed as a single Oropesa from one quarter or as a double Oropesa from both quarters. It was also deployed as an Armed Team Sweep (ATS) using two or more sweepers linked together and a Deep Armed Team Sweep (DATS) was achieved using the larger 'Algerine' kite to depress the sweep. Influence sweeping was performed with the Combined Towed Acoustic Sweep Mk 1 (CTAS 1) and Loop. This comprised an Acoustic Hammer (AH), an Acoustic Displacer (AD) and a pipe noisemaker, each producing different acoustic frequencies, towed in combination with the Magnetic Minesweep Mk 11(L) loop. Various configurations or 'rigs' were used depending on the type of mine expected.''

The account from a former RMN man who served onboard a Ton in the 1960's, which I had posted earlier, describing how the paravane was calibrated.

First on the agenda was to Calibrate the ‘Otters’ and the ‘Kites’. These are equipments or ‘paravanes’ — to use the correct technical name — used during Mine Sweeping operations. They were rigged with slings and with Three (3) slings it became a ‘Kite’ and applying Four (4) slings made it an Otter. The Otter was for taking the ‘sweep’ wires out and kept at a certain depth, away from the Ship to either the Port or the Starboard quarter. The Kite was for keeping the inner section of the ‘sweep’ wire down to a certain depth. This calibrating exercise is pains taking and dangerous. We repeatedly went ahead and stopped because it’s adjustments were not correct and from the Bridge we could see the Otter or Kite ‘leaping’ out of the water. This is frightening !!!! The wires would be recovered, the Otter winched on board and the settings readjusted. After many trials, the X.O. is happy — these equipment are now calibrated. Now we can practice putting our ‘Wire Sweeps’ out.

1. Why was it neccassary to calibrate the paravane before the wire sweeps were deployed?

2. Would the paravanes have to be calibrated every time the ship put to sea, before sweeping could commence?

3. How many paravanes were carried on the Tons and were they also used on the Hams?

The whole process, from the calibration of the paravane, to the wire sweeps to sweep moored and influence mines, was very complex and confusing!!
 
Last edited:

salthorse

New Member
Served in Tons & Ham as a diving tender. To answer your questions:
1. Why was it necessary to calibrate the paravane before the wire sweeps were deployed?
A1. If the slings on the kite & otter boards were out of calibration i.e., the bottlescrew was not let out the correct number of turns or the shackles had stretched from the large hydrodynamic forces, the kite would throw itself around sweep wires or magnetic loop, or the otters would not 'bite' and jump out of the water. This was very dangerous on deployment or recovery because you can have a couple of hundred kg jump back in over the transom or back over the quarter onto the sweep deck....not to mention trying to undo the tangles it created. So, yes, if there was any indication that the sweep was not calibrated upon deployment, or you had replaced any equipment in the sweep, you would recalibrate it.

2. Would the paravanes have to be calibrated every time the ship put to sea, before sweeping could commence?
A2. Not every time as explained above, but a prudent step was to calibrate when training etc or prior to a sweeping mission.

3. How many paravanes were carried on the Tons and were they also used on the Hams?
A3. On Tons we carried two + one spare kite and usually one spare otter; also spare slings and penants for the oropesa floats. We were also very good at 'rabbiting' any spare sweep components we could from the MCM base as the evolution took a great toll on equipment, especially if you inadvertently bottomed or snagged a sweep....nothing worse than trying to drag the seabed 3 degrees east!
 
Top