HMS M22

HMS M22 was a First World War Royal Navy M15-class monitor. Later converted to a minelayer and renamed HMS Medea , she was wrecked whilst being towed for breaking up on 2 January 1939.

History
United Kingdom
Name: HMS M22
Builder: Sir Raylton Dixon & Co.
Laid down: 1 March 1915
Launched: 10 June 1915
Fate: Sold December 1938 and wrecked 2 January 1939
General characteristics
Class and type: M15-class monitor
Displacement: 540 tons
Length: 177 ft 3 in (54.03 m)
Beam: 31 ft (9.4 m)
Draught: 6 ft 9 in (2.06 m)
Propulsion:
  • 2 shaft
  • Triple Expansion steam engines
  • 650 ihp
Speed: 11 knots
Complement: 69
Armament:
  • As built
  • 1 × BL 9.2 inch Mk VI gun
  • 1 × 12pdr (76mm) QF Mk 1 gun
  • 1 × 6 pdr (57mm) QF MK 1 AA gun
  • 1918
  • 1 × BL 9.2 inch Mk VI gun
  • 1 × QF 3-inch (76.20 mm) AA gun
  • 1 × 6 pdr (57mm) QF MK 1 AA gun

Design

Intended as a shore bombardment vessel, M22's primary armament was a single 9.2 inch Mk VI gun removed from the Edgar-class cruiser HMS Gibraltar.[1] In addition to her 9.2 inch gun she also possessed one 12 pounder and one six pound anti-aircraft gun. Due to the shortage of Bolinder diesel engines that equipped her sisters, she was fitted with 2 shaft triple expansion steam engines that allowed a top speed of eleven knots. The monitor's crew consisted of sixty nine officers and men.

Construction

HMS M22 ordered in March, 1915, as part of the War Emergency Programme of ship construction. She was laid down at the Sir Raylton Dixon & Co. Ltd shipyard at Govan in March 1915, launched on 10 June 1915, and completed in August 1915.

World War 1

M22 served within the Mediterranean from September 1915 to December 1918.

Interwar service

After service in the Black Sea from June to September 1919, M22 was towed home and converted to a minelayer in 1920. Renamed HMS Medea on 1 December 1925, she became a training ship in January 1937.

Citations
  1. Randal Gray (ed). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1906–1921. Conway Maritime Press. p. 48. ISBN 0-85177-245-5.CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)
gollark: Your criticism², while interesting, ultimately fails. Consider: you have *responded* to my criticism [see screenshot], despite claiming that this would not occur. This is an evident contradiction.It is also clear that, contra to your original claim #2, gollariosity has *increased* as a result of your actions.
gollark: I wholeheartedly disagree with removal of apioderivative words.1. This is dubious. Current research suggests nonlinear apioformic effects, where high use of apio-derived words leads to increased use due to memetic contamination, rather than a conserved/fixed level of apiodensity.2. I am, in any case, inevitable. Additionally, I do not consider this good.3. This appears to contradict #1 somewhat. We have also proven unable to displace the "apioform"/"bee" meme, despite previous attempts. If you want to remove it, come up with better memetics.
gollark: Wrong.
gollark: Did you know? There have been many incidents in the past where improper apiary safety protocols have lead to unbounded tetrational apiogenesis, also referred to as a VK-class "universal apiary" scenario. Often, the fallout from this needs to be cleaned up by moving all sentient entities into identical simulated universes, save for the incident occurring. This is known as "retroactive continuity", and modern apiaries' safety systems provide this functionality automatically.
gollark: I am not in any way a pizza, related to pizza, or advertising pizzas. I have had no commercial or personal relations with pizza companies, and do not, in fact, regularly eat pizza. I am not engaged in any form of pizza advertising, subliminal or otherwise. Any claims to the contrary will be considered wrong and bad, and should not be promulgated.

References
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.