# Best Fleet Destroyer Of WWII



## parsifal (May 11, 2008)

What are your opinions of the best WWII Fleet Destroyer

Fletcher
Allen M Sumner
Gearing
Battle
Daring
Yugumo
Shimakaze
Z-17
Z-23
Z-35
Mogador
Le Hardi
Comandanti
Ognevoi

```

```


----------



## renrich (May 11, 2008)

Fletcher class but unfortunately, I think we already had this discussion earlier. I liked your thought of best BB before WW2 began. How about best BB commisioned before Sept. 1, 1939?


----------



## parsifal (May 11, 2008)

I was thinking of doing it, wasnt sure how it might be received. I didnt know this topic had already been disscussed.

Hard to go past any of the US DDs, but I was the one who voted for the Shimakaze. Had a broadside of 15 Long lances, and a design speed of over 39 knots, which she could easily exceed.


----------



## SeaSkua (May 11, 2008)

What were the British DD's? Was that the TRIBAL class? Shouldn't they at least be in the poll?


----------



## parsifal (May 11, 2008)

I listed the two late war Brit DDs, the battles and the Darings, which incorporated all the wartime experiences.

British DDs prior to the war were very much the compromise, and in my opinion were the correct decision. Britiain did not generally opt for the "superddestroyer" 9perhaps with the exception of the Tribals). The british realized that at some point numbers were important, and hence their DDs were not designed to be the "biggest" or the "meanest".

The really big failings of the early Brit DDs was the poor AA fitout. The 4.7" was a good gun, but it offered only very limited AA capability. The 4.5" was a vary satisfactory AA gun Without a satisfactory AA weapon, the brit DDs could not provide effective escort for the bigger ships, and in fact were even hard pressed to defend themselves. Torpedoes could, for example can be launched outside the effective range of a 20mm gun. There was a saying in the allied navies, which roughly says "if the 20's start firing, its time to hit the deck"


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 12, 2008)

I know pratically nothing about WWII destroyers, but it's a good poll.


----------



## Glider (May 12, 2008)

If you had to pick a british DD for the Poll the L+M class would be a good option instead of the Darings. There were two versions one with 6 x 4.7in DP and one with 8 x 4in DP.
Darings were post war vessels.


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2008)

Its true that the Darings were not completed until 1952-4, but the drawings were sealed in February 1945. 

I thought the Darings would make a very interesting comparison to the gearings, but there has been surprisingly little debate so far. Fully enclosed turrets, full DP main armament, unitised machinery, secondary armament on biaxial mounts. I would have thought this would generate considerable debate, since the gearings were more heavily armed on paper, but lacked these greater refinements.

The problems with the L&Ms were basically twofold, firstly the machinery spaces were no unitised, making them somewhat vulnerable, secondly the mountings only allowed a maximum of 50 degrees elevation, which limited their effctiveness in the AA role. The 4 in guns were not true DP weapons either, placing such vessels at a disadvantage ina full surface engagement, particualrly against the 5.9 in German DDs, which were their main adversaries. They were good British DDs, but not the best of the bunch in my opinion


----------



## Glider (May 12, 2008)

parsifal said:


> The problems with the L&Ms were basically twofold, firstly the machinery spaces were no unitised, making them somewhat vulnerable, secondly the mountings only allowed a maximum of 50 degrees elevation, which limited their effctiveness in the AA role. The 4 in guns were not true DP weapons either, placing such vessels at a disadvantage ina full surface engagement, particualrly against the 5.9 in German DDs, which were their main adversaries. They were good British DDs, but not the best of the bunch in my opinion



I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. I just mentioned the L+M class as they were the best of the British WW2 destroyers.

I wouldn't be be too concerned about facing the German DD's with 5.9 in an L+M with 8 x 4in. It sounds odd I know but the range is the same in practical terms, the ROF of the 4in and the lack of armour on destroyers makes the armour penetration of the 5.9in of limited benefit and the 5.9in is basically to big for hand loading on a pitching, bucking destroyer. Its worth remembering that the Germans went back to the 5in for their last destroyers.


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2008)

Hi Glider

You are right that in practical terms the 4in was not so much of a problem. This was because the instances that the germans could have taken advantage of their heavier armament just never presented themselves. Still theoretically, the British ships would have operated at some disadvantage if those conditions had arisen (basically, a day action in calm seas). Under those circumstances, the Germans would have held a range advantage of 23000 metres, to the british 18000. The german Broadside (per minute) would have been 1280 kg , to the british 1524 kg, so despite the lighter caliber, the british ships were the more heavily armed. Moreover the severe weight penalty paid by the German Narvik class DDs was such that any kind of sea, and they had to slow down, if they wanted to have any channce of hitting anything (common faalacy was that the german ships could not operate in heavy seas. Post war tresting revealed that they could operate in rough weather, but the amount of spray thrown up by the extra weight in the bow, and the poor forecastle design, meant that they threw up an enormopus amount of spray, which prevented them from using their guns effectively, unless they slowed right down).


----------



## Glider (May 12, 2008)

I wouldn't mind betting that even in flat calm conditions, either side would be lucky to hit anything outside 16000 yards.


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2008)

Ah yes that is true too. The record hit of any ship in WWII is held by the Warspite, which hit the Cesare on a fine sunny day in the mediterranean in 1940, at the extreme range of 26000 yds, whilst the Scharnhorst hit the Glorious at 26,500 yds. So hitting a target with a DD rangefinder at 23000 yds is not going to happen. However, hitting a destroyer with a 4" gun at 18000 is also not going to happen. But it is more likley that the 5.9" German ship is going to start hitting at 18000, because this is within the practical performance arc of the german ships. If the German ships are effective at 18000 yds, then by extrapolation, the L&Ms are going to start being effective at ranges of about 13000 yds.

By applying practical ranges to the equation the odds only get worse for the British DDs.

Of course, one should not forget that compared to the 5in/38 equipped USN DDs, these ranges of even 13000 yds are quite unnattainable. The US paid for their DP capability by reducing the effective ranges of their DD main armament in a surface engagement to essentially paltry numbers


----------



## timshatz (May 12, 2008)

Going with the Gearings. Served on one and heard it was derived from the Fletchers. Lessons learned and all that. Might've even been true!


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2008)

Gearings are IMO the best wartime US DD, and also arguably the best DD overall of the war. Like all the US DDs, though they suffered some weaknesses, if you could call them a weakness. Because they used a DP weapon as main armament, and because their torps until late in the war were very ordinary, in a surface engagement US DDs were not the equal of their foreign opponents or even the RN allies. In comparison to the Japanese 5", for example, the Japanese gun in surface engagements was something like 25-30% better than the US 5". The performance of the Long Lance is legendary. Effectively, the Japanese could fire their torps at ranges of 16000 yds (which is whee they did at Java sea, and elswhere), whilst the effective range of US torps was no more than 5000 yds. Torp speed and warhead size were also massively outclassed.

Brit torps were, IMO the next best torps after the japanese. They had an effective range of about 7000 yds. the Brit torps were not usually wakeless like the Japs, but the warhead size was bigger than the US types. I also believe that in the early war period, Brit torps were superior to German types, although the margin of superiority was more to do with reliability than anything.


----------



## Kurfürst (May 13, 2008)

Glider said:


> I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. I just mentioned the L+M class as they were the best of the British WW2 destroyers.
> 
> I wouldn't be be too concerned about facing the German DD's with 5.9 in an L+M with 8 x 4in. It sounds odd I know but the range is the same in practical terms, the ROF of the 4in and the lack of armour on destroyers makes the armour penetration of the 5.9in of limited benefit and the 5.9in is basically to big for hand loading on a pitching, bucking destroyer. Its worth remembering that the Germans went back to the 5in for their last destroyers.



The German decision to go with 5,9 in/15cm guns on their wartime destroyer designs was inspered by the fact that RN destroyers had the annoying tendency to show up accompanied by light cruiser(s). Since CLs are armored to an extent and are often sporting larger calibers, German DDs needed to have some measure against them. Also - and this cannot be stressed enough, being so often neglected, with a 20/20 hindsight the RN being seen as a main rival - in the pre-war years they had their eye on French naval developments, and were in a naval arms race with the French, and not the British. And the French were increasing the caliber of their naval armament.

In DD vs DD terms, the 12,8cm gun was undoubtedly a more practical weapon for the German fleet destroyers.


----------



## parsifal (May 17, 2008)

The decision by the Germans to mount 5.9" guns was a very badly thought out choice of armament. With an extra 50 tons on the bow, German destroyers became extremely wet and heavy ships, with the result that they were barely seaworthy in any kind of seaway. Moreover, whilst they had a distinct range advantage over the more lightly armed British Destroyers, in the sorts of close in battles that DDs inevitably caught up in, the higher rates of fire, and number of guns per hull, meant that in actual firepower, nearly all the later British DDs were able to deliver higher weights of shell onto the target, than were the 5.9 armed german Zerstorers. 

As for the Heavy armament being some sort of ability to counter British Light cruisers, well, maybe, but if true, it is a very poor choice, since the German Destroyers were not properly armoured to take any British cruiser on on anything like equal terms, lacked the rangefinding abilty that the larger brit ships possessed, and worst of all lacked any sort of comaparable fire control and surface search radar that the British cruisers possessed from a very early point in the war


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2008)

Re the decision about arming the German destroyers with 5.9 because the British destroyers tended to be teamed with light cruisers. It certainly could have been the reason but I would be suprised. A number of navies built small cruisers to work with the destroyer units but the British didn't. One destroyer in each flotilla was nominated the destroyer leader. In the earlier A-I class the destroyer was a little bigger with an extra 4.7in. In later designs they had additional accomadation and the Germans would have been aware of this.

Re the chances of a DD against a light cruiser there was on moment when a Dido class with 8 x 4.5in gun, not the 10 x 5.25in was sent to intercept a heavy German DD. Consideration was given about the differing weapons but it was decided that the additional stability and fire control of the CL would be more than sufficient. In the end they didn't meet
I will try and dig out the details


----------



## Kurfürst (May 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> The decision by the Germans to mount 5.9" guns was a very badly thought out choice of armament.



Keep in mind the 15cm guns were only used on a wartime destroyer class. The rest had the more balanced and effective 12.8cm guns.



parsifal said:


> With an extra 50 tons on the bow, German destroyers became extremely wet and heavy ships, with the result that they were barely seaworthy in any kind of seaway.



I feel this is a bit of an exaggrevation. Lets keep in mind the destoyers themselves were quite a bit larger than the competion, and possessed better seakeeping qualities to start with by the virtue of their hull size.



> Moreover, whilst they had a distinct range advantage over the more lightly armed British Destroyers, in the sorts of close in battles that DDs inevitably caught up in, the higher rates of fire, and number of guns per hull, meant that in actual firepower, nearly all the later British DDs were able to deliver higher weights of shell onto the target, than were the 5.9 armed german Zerstorers.



Hmm, against Bismarck the Tribals failed to score a single hit, on a much larger unmanouvering target...



> As for the Heavy armament being some sort of ability to counter British Light cruisers, well, maybe, but if true, it is a very poor choice, since the German Destroyers were not properly armoured to take any British cruiser on on anything like equal terms, lacked the rangefinding abilty that the larger brit ships possessed, and worst of all lacked any sort of comaparable fire control and surface search radar that the British cruisers possessed from a very early point in the war



Its not about equal terms, its about having the gun that can actually put a _armored_ light cruiser in a world of hurt.

The optimal armament size was probably around the size of 5"; anything below that lacked range and punch, larger stuff was probably an overkill, although in the case of the Kriegsmarine`s operational enviroment it made sense.


----------



## parsifal (May 17, 2008)

[I said:


> Kurfürst;354574]*Keep in mind the 15cm guns were only used on a wartime destroyer class. The rest had the more balanced and effective 12.8cm guns.[/I]*Agreed, and the germans were working on a revised 128 mm calibre DP weapon that would vastly improve their DDs AA performance and bring them up to the same standard as the late war Allied DDs
> 
> _*I feel this is a bit of an exaggrevation. Lets keep in mind the destoyers themselves were quite a bit larger than the competion, and possessed better seakeeping qualities to start with by the virtue of their hull size*_.
> It may be an exaggeration to say "barely seaworthy", but the German DDs suffered greatly degraded seaworthiness, and combat effectiveness because of the extra weight of these turrets. Basically the extra weight of the turret, combined with a poor hull design meant that the ships were prone to heavy plunging in a seaway, and a lot of seawater and spray that severely affected rate of fire and effective range. Spray was so bad that the rangefinders (which I believe were mounted near the bridge) were cotinually fouled, preventing accuracy at long range (or even short range). Since the only advantage these heavier weapons had over the lighter DD armaments was their range, this was a serious problem for them. If you look at their service histories, incidentally, you will sea that they were affected more accutely by poor weather than their more lightly armed British contemporaries. The best example i can think of is the Battle Of North Cape...whereas the German DDs were forced to turn back to port due to the bad weather, the british DDs wre still present at the battle
> ...


_


This is why the "Narviks" are not included in the shortlist. I agree that the 5.9 gave a theoretical advantage to the Narviks, but only a theoreticsal. In practical tems they were a liability, as evidenced by the germans returning to a 5" calibre in their subsequent designs_


----------



## Juha (May 17, 2008)

Its true that the main or at least one of main reasons to choose 5,9 in main armament to the 1938 ordered KM DDs was to try to outgun the French contre-torpilleurs with 138mm guns but that was probably not very bright idea.

Quote: The German decision to go with 5,9 in/15cm guns on their wartime destroyer designs was inspered by the fact that RN destroyers had the annoying tendency to show up accompanied by light cruiser(s).

Now in fact the 5,9 in DDs (Z23 onwards) were ordered before the war, so it had nothing to do with WWII combat experiences. And Germans made the decision in spite of that they had not so good experience with late WWI 5,9 in armed S 113 and V 116.

Quote: Since CLs are armored to an extent and are often sporting larger calibers, German DDs needed to have some measure against them.

The idea of gunnery duel with CLs wasn’t very bright. That was best shown at the last days of 1943 when 5 large Zs (5,9 in guns) and 6 Ts (4,1 in guns) fought against one new and one old RN CL. Germans lost one Z and two Ts without being able to inflict any significant damage to CLs (HMS Glasgow suffered one hit).


----------



## delcyros (Jun 14, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Moreover, whilst they had a distinct range advantage over the more lightly armed British Destroyers, in the sorts of close in battles that DDs inevitably caught up in, the higher rates of fire, and number of guns per hull, meant that in actual firepower, nearly all the later British DDs were able to deliver higher weights of shell onto the target, than were the 5.9 armed german Zerstorers.



Correct and this put the german DD´s armed with 5.91" at a distinct diadvantage versus british destroyers, esspeccially in the most common conditions of engament.



> and worst of all lacked any sort of comaparable fire control and surface search radar that the British cruisers possessed from a very early point in the war


There is no doubt that Firecontroll of british CL was better but it´s not that the german DD´s lacked any sort of radar. Esspeccially from 43 onwards, german DD´s received numerous active and passive radar sets.



> The best example i can think of is the Battle Of North Cape...whereas the German DDs were forced to turn back to port due to the bad weather, the british DDs wre still present at the battle


This explenation with the relationship of weather and forced return is wrong.
The DD´s were detached because they didn´t found the convoi and Bey then send them to another U-boat reported convoi position. The radio signal send by Scharnhorst to the DD´s is pretty clear that weather was not considered a factor.




> Hmm, against Bismarck the Tribals failed to score a single hit, on a much larger unmanouvering target...


Kurfürst, the DD´s achieved one hit -with illum rounds. Not directed to hit but it happened as a random event.
Engagement distance was mostly 8000 yards.


----------



## JPJones (Oct 11, 2008)

> Of course, one should not forget that compared to the 5in/38 equipped USN DDs, these ranges of even 13000 yds are quite unnattainable. The US paid for their DP capability by reducing the effective ranges of their DD main armament in a surface engagement to essentially paltry numbers



Where do you get this rubbish? Perhaps you could reference some citations that support this erroneous assertion?

According to Russell Crenshaw (who served as gunnery officer aboard the USS Maury during WW II) in "_South Pacific Destroyer_", US destroyers could, and did, open fire at 17,000 yards and frequently obtained hits at that range. There is nothing about the 5"/38 DP gun and excellent Mark 37 FC system that would limit the combination's surface range to 13,000 yards or less, as you assert. 



> In comparison to the Japanese 5", for example, the Japanese gun in surface engagements was something like 25-30% better than the US 5".



More rubbish! The Japanese 5"/50 was a pathetic surface gun compared to the 5"/38; It's rate of fire, at 5-10 RPM, was HALF that of the 5"/38, while it's slew rate was very sluggish, and represented a definite liability in the fast paced night battles of the South Pacific. Unlike the US 5"/38 the Japanese gun did not have RPC which made it almost hopeless in the rapidly changing tactical environment. Combined with the rather primitive Japanese FC system, it was no match for the US 5"/38 - Mark 37 combination.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 11, 2008)

Damn, John "I have not yet begun to fight!" Paul Jones is in da house!


----------



## parsifal (Oct 12, 2008)

Welcome JP Jones, sorry if my rather outrageous statement upset you....it was intended to start some discussion, and it appears that I have achieved that

I should start by saying the 5in/38 was a very good gun. The Americans got things right by making it a DP weapon. This greatly enghanced the ability of USN DDs to act in both the air defence role and the fleet role

Now, as the name of this thread suggests, the aime is to find the best "fleet destroyer" If you wanted to interpret that literally, the fleet destroyer was the protector of the gunline. WWII rendered the gunline largely obsolete, so the concept of a "pure" fleet destroyer also became superfluous. However Destroyers evolved, so as to provide protection from submarines, and from aircraft, as well as retaining some anti-surface protection

However, make no mistake, in a purely anti-surface role, the 5"in/38 had a few advantages, and a whole host of disadvantages. its chief advantage was its high rate of fire. Another big advantage was that the majority of naval engagements in WWII involving destroyers were undertaken at ranges below 12000 metres, where the shortcomings of the 5/38 were not apparent. 

So in essence I agree with what you are saying....the 5/38 was not at a disadvantage in a gunfight against Japanese destroyers. However you have taken your position one step further and said two things that will need corroboration
The first is that US Destroyers were able to effectively engage out to 17000 yards and beyond, and that this is recorded in a book that you have. I would very much like to know the circumstances of those hits....were they on training, or in an actual comabt. i know of NO hits obtained by ANY DD at that range during WWII. i'm not saying it is necessarily impossible, but it would be very difficult.

It would be particulalry difficult for a USN DD to hit anything moving at that range, because of the elevation needed to be put into the gun, in order to reach that range. to hit out to 17000 yards. the 5/38 needs to be elevated to 45 degrees. That makes hitting a moving target very difficult. no longer, with that required elevation, is it sufficient to get the right bearing to hit, one must also be very accurate with the range. The flatter the trajectory of the gun, the less accurate one has to be in determining the range. Put another way, the closer to a dead flat trajectory a gun can get the less important getting the range to target is...I will readily concee however, that a plunging fire hit is more likley to do a lot of damage, because it is going to be a deck penetration for sure

By comparison the IJNs 5/50 Type 3 needed an elevation of less than 30 degrees to reach to the same range. If you want to assume the guns are of similar base accuracy (which is not completely true, I will concede, because the twin mounts of the IJN DDs had a minor problem with dispersion) , then the Japanese gun is going to hit its target something like 50% more often than the US DD. Not that either of them have much chance of hitting anything at that range, and as you say the USN may have had better Fire Control to compensate for this inherent problem.

In terms of armour penetration, the 5/38 was completely outclassed. Over 90% of the ammunition loadout for USN DDs was ammunition termed AAC, sometimes just referred to as common. At all ranges it was significnatly less able to penetrate armour than the Type 3, overall I have calculated it to be about 73% as effective as the equivalent Japanese gun. 

Finally, you asked me for sources. i use Nathan Okuns and Tony Gs site a lot, along with the following print refernces

"Naval Weapons Of WWII John Campbell, Conway Maritime Press 1985

Destroyers of WWII MJ Whitley, Cassell Co 1988

As well as the standard Conways and a feww other references

Incidentally I am ex-Navy, and have fired 5" myself, admittedly 40 years after the war. i can tell you from first hand experience that hitting a target, stationary or moving, at 18000 yards is not at all easy, and that was with radar assisted "modern" fire control


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 12, 2008)

Don't see the French destroyer Le Triomphant which was a Le Fantasque class destroyer on the list..!?


----------



## JPJones (Oct 12, 2008)

> WWII rendered the gunline largely obsolete, so the concept of a "pure" fleet destroyer also became superfluous. However Destroyers evolved, so as to provide protection from submarines, and from aircraft, as well as retaining some anti-surface protection



I would argue that the "fleet destroyer" didn't stop being a "fleet destroyer" during WW II simply because the gunline lost it's former supremacy in fleet tactics. It was still necessary to protect the fleet against a number of threats and perform several new functions (such as plane guard duty) when the aircraft carrier came to be the primary capitol ship. The fleet destroyer simply evolved from one armed with surface guns and torpedoes to to one armed with DP guns, torpedoes, and ASW sensors and weapons such as depth charges and hedgehog. So no, the fleet destroyer didn't become superfluous, as you claim, it evolved to meet changing threats and requirements. In fact, the "true" fleet destroyer was no longer one armed with only torpedoes and surface guns as that kind of ship could no longer adequately protect the fleet; it became the multi-role destroyer.



> However, make no mistake, in a purely anti-surface role, the 5"in/38 had a few advantages, and a whole host of disadvantages. its chief advantage was its high rate of fire. Another big advantage was that the majority of naval engagements in WWII involving destroyers were undertaken at ranges below 12000 metres, where the shortcomings of the 5/38 were not apparent.



In fact, the 5"/38 had few practical disadvantages. lets dispose of the range issue; You admit that the range of most destroyer engagements in WW II was 12,000 meters (about 13,200 yards) or so. At that range, the 5"/38 is in it's element. The gun elevation of which you make such an issue is about 19 degrees. BTW, At 17,000 yards, the 5"/38 gun elevation (with the Mark 46 round) is 35 degrees not 45 degrees, as you claim. Incidentally, I'm not limiting the claims made for the 5"/38 to strictly destroyer armament; it was used very successfully as secondary armament on both battleships and cruisers.



> The first is that US Destroyers were able to effectively engage out to 17000 yards and beyond, and that this is recorded in a book that you have. I would very much like to know the circumstances of those hits....were they on training, or in an actual comabt. i know of NO hits obtained by ANY DD at that range during WWII. i'm not saying it is necessarily impossible, but it would be very difficult.



Please don't try to put words in my mouth in order to make your arguments seem more reasonable. I did not say US destroyers were able to _"effectively engage out to 17000 yards and beyond,"_ What I said was that Crenshaw, a former destroyer gunnery officer, mentioned that US destroyers in the South Pacific *could, and did, open fire at 17,000 yards* and frequently made hits at that range. Crenshaw does not give details of these hits and mentions the feat only in passing. I believe there were hits at similar ranges by 5"/38 batteries, but possibly not those mounted on destroyers.



> By comparison the IJNs 5/50 Type 3 needed an elevation of less than 30 degrees to reach to the same range. If you want to assume the guns are of similar base accuracy (which is not completely true, I will concede, because the twin mounts of the IJN DDs had a minor problem with dispersion) , then the Japanese gun is going to hit its target something like 50% more often than the US DD. Not that either of them have much chance of hitting anything at that range, and as you say the USN may have had better Fire Control to compensate for this inherent problem.



A difference in trajectory of 5 degrees does not translate into a much more effective gun, especially when you consider a whole host of problems with which the Japanese 5"/50 was plagued, and which you conveniently fail to mention. First, the Japanese gun fired a bagged charge which, along with it's ammunition delivery mechanism, limited it's rate of fire to something like 5-10 rounds per minute, less than half the sustained rate of fire for the 5"/38. So while The Japanese gun might enjoy a marginally flatter trajectory, it is putting out only half as many shells to hit the target. Second, the Japanese gun had no RPC capability and the fuses had to be set by hand before loading. This introduced a long time delay between achieving the firing solution and actually firing the gun. Combined with the much less capable Japanese FC system, these problems rendered the Japanese gun far less accurate than the 5"/38-Mark 37 FC system. So not only were 50 % fewer Japanese shells being fired in any given period, those that were put in the air had far less chance of actually impacting a target. 

Furthermore, the slew rate of the Japanese 5"/50 was very slow compared to the 5"/38, which along with the pathetic ROF of the Japanese gun, not much better than the US 8"/55 heavy cruiser gun, meant Japanese destroyers were at a marked disadvantage in gunfights with US destroyers. If it had not been for their superior torpedoes, they would have been slaughtered in the South Pacific. 



> In terms of armour penetration, the 5/38 was completely outclassed. Over 90% of the ammunition loadout for USN DDs was ammunition termed AAC, sometimes just referred to as common. At all ranges it was significnatly less able to penetrate armour than the Type 3, overall I have calculated it to be about 73% as effective as the equivalent Japanese gun.



Which, of course, was almost totally irrelevant. The 5"/38, as were almost all destroyer guns, was designed to counter other destroyers, not armored ships. The armor penetration of the US 5" shell was more than adequate for it's intended role. Your calculation that the Japanese Type 3 shell was 73% more effective against armor is pretty meaningless since Japanese destroyers seldom engaged US armored ships with gunfire. As for ammo loadouts, these varied during WW II and commonly reflected the anticipated needs of a destroyer for any given period. It doesn't make much sense to fill a destroyer's magazines with armor piercing shells when the IJN will be attacking the US fleet mainly with aircraft.

In summary, you seem to be trying to make your case by slanting the definitions and requirements of a fleet destroyer to suit your arguments. The Fletcher/Gearing/Somers series of fleet destroyers were far and away the best developed during WW II. They had what was without dispute the best main armament, best FC system, adequate ASW capability, adequate (barely) range, best ASW and AAW sensors, excellent AAW armament, adequate habitability, and good sea-keeping. They were capable of being built in large numbers, rugged, with adequate speed. Other destroyers may have been superior in one area or another, but none were better balanced for the role of multi-purpose fleet destroyer in the threat environment in which they found themselves.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 12, 2008)

_I would argue that the "fleet destroyer" didn't stop being a "fleet destroyer" during WW II simply because the gunline lost it's former supremacy in fleet tactics. It was still necessary to protect the fleet against a number of threats and perform several new functions (such as plane guard duty) when the aircraft carrier came to be the primary capitol ship. The fleet destroyer simply evolved from one armed with surface guns and torpedoes to to one armed with DP guns, torpedoes, and ASW sensors and weapons such as depth charges and hedgehog. So no, the fleet destroyer didn't become superfluous, as you claim, it evolved to meet changing threats and requirements. In fact, the "true" fleet destroyer was no longer one armed with only torpedoes and surface guns as that kind of ship could no longer adequately protect the fleet; it became the multi-role destroyer._

Basically I agree with you that the role of the destroyer changed...nevertheless it is no longer strictly a "fleet destroer, is it.....

_In fact, the 5"/38 had few practical disadvantages. lets dispose of the range issue; You admit that the range of most destroyer engagements in WW II was 12,000 meters (about 13,200 yards) or so. At that range, the 5"/38 is in it's element. The gun elevation of which you make such an issue is about 19 degrees. BTW, At 17,000 yards, the 5"/38 gun elevation (with the Mark 46 round) is 35 degrees not 45 degrees, as you claim. Incidentally, I'm not limiting the claims made for the 5"/38 to strictly destroyer armament; it was used very successfully as secondary armament on both battleships and cruisers._

Your assertion about it being 35 degrees is only true for less than 10% of the usual ammunition load out of a USN DD. The overwhelming majority of the ammunition did not have the characteristics you describe. Both the AAC and the "Common" with solid fuse cap required elevations in excess of 45 degrees to achieve the ranges of 18000 yards

Whilst we are "disposing" of superfluous issues, we might as well get rid of the rate of fire issue. In theory the 5/38 had a practical rate of fire of 25 rounds per minute, however, with a total ammunition availabiliuty of about 150 rounds, this could not be sustained in a typical surface (or air) engagement.

Reference to battleshiop and cruiser fitouts has no relevance to this thread. The same arguments could be mounted to the german 5.9 guns (or any guns really) which were very successful in cruiser deployments

_Please don't try to put words in my mouth in order to make your arguments seem more reasonable. I did not say US destroyers were able to "effectively engage out to 17000 yards and beyond," What I said was that Crenshaw, a former destroyer gunnery officer, mentioned that US destroyers in the South Pacific *could, and did, open fire at 17,000 yards* and frequently made hits at that range. Crenshaw does not give details of these hits and mentions the feat only in passing. I believe there were hits at similar ranges by 5"/38 batteries, but possibly not those mounted on destroyers._

I dont need to put words into your mouth, you are doing that quite well by yourself. Effectively engage, means being able to register hits in my opinion, and here you are, saying that " hits are ferequently being made at that range" If that is not arguing that the 5/38 was effective at that range i dont know what is.... If you are going to claim hits at that range, in action, please give some examples and we will have a look at them. i know of none, and i suspect neither do you.

_A difference in trajectory of 5 degrees does not translate into a much more effective gun, especially when you consider a whole host of problems with which the Japanese 5"/50 was plagued, and which you conveniently fail to mention. ......... these problems rendered the Japanese gun far less accurate than the 5"/38-Mark 37 FC system. So not only were 50 % fewer Japanese shells being fired in any given period, those that were put in the air had far less chance of actually impacting a target. _

Would be true except the trajectory is 45 degres at 18000 yards (and you did say 17K +). Moreover, whilst the 5/38 could fire at that rate, it could not sustain such a rate, due to the limited supplies of ammunition carried. 

The Japanese demonstrated their adequate gunnery skills time and again in Pacific battles. The gunnery was sufficient to keep the American destroyers at bay, whilst the Long Lances went to work. Or are you going to try and argue that the Japanese were not more effective than the USN DDs during surface engagements (until the very end of the war). 

_Furthermore, the slew rate of the Japanese 5"/50 was very slow compared to the 5"/38, which along with the pathetic ROF of the Japanese gun, not much better than the US 8"/55 heavy cruiser gun, meant Japanese destroyers were at a marked disadvantage in gunfights with US destroyers. If it had not been for their superior torpedoes, they would have been slaughtered in the South Pacific. _

Slew Rate was 6 deg/sec. i know of no competent technical assessment that finds either the rate of fire, or the slew rate being too slow in a surface battle. The effective ROF is variously given as 6-12 rounds per minute, depending on the details of the turret type. 

At 12000 yards, Jap turrets are able to traverse 628 yards/sec of distance. Your DDs need to be travelling at over 1100 knots to outpace the Japanese turret, at that range. if the distance is halved , to 6000 yds, the turret is tracking at 314 yards per second, still the target needs to exceed 600 knots to get away from the turret. the japanese had no difficulty in tracking surface targets with these turrets, and i again know of no balanced assessment that supports you on this issue.

With regard to your observation about the japanese being at a marked disadvantage against US DDs in a gunfight, I have to disagree with that opinion, and rely on the comments made by Campbell ..." _During WWII there were instances of very good and very bad gunnery Japanese gunnery against surface targets. Such variations occur in all navies and Japanese shooting was on the whole similar to British and American..."_ Campbell also gives a description of the Japanese Surface Fire Control, and nowhere does he say that the system was notably deficient. 

I am not saying thet the 5/38 was not much faster, or that the FC system in the US ships were not better, although I dont agree that the japanse ROFs were "not much better than US Heavy cruisers, in fact they were 2-3 times as fast.... 

_Which, of course, was almost totally irrelevant. The 5"/38, as were almost all destroyer guns, was designed to counter other destroyers, not armored ships. The armor penetration of the US 5" shell was more than adequate for it's intended role. Your calculation that the Japanese Type 3 shell was 73% more effective against armor is pretty meaningless since Japanese destroyers seldom engaged US armored ships with gunfire. As for ammo loadouts, these varied during WW II and commonly reflected the anticipated needs of a destroyer for any given period. It doesn't make much sense to fill a destroyer's magazines with armor piercing shells when the IJN will be attacking the US fleet mainly with aircraft_.

Ah, the loadout could vary, but the the two most common, the AAC, and what I refer to as the "Common" were by far the most commonly used, accounting for over 90% of ammunition used, and loaded. Commons and AAC were the most common ammuniotn used in all of the 1942 battles.

I also suggest you study some of the battles a little more closely....the Japanese nearly always engaged Allied ships with their 5 in guns....if they were not effective, the US (and allies) could have closed the range with impunity....Japanese tactics were to close as quickly as possible, so as to be outside effective US torp range, but within Long Lance Range, launch their own torps (effective out to 16000 yards), retire, reload, and go back to do it all again. 

_In summary, you seem to be trying to make your case by slanting the definitions and requirements of a fleet destroyer to suit your arguments. The Fletcher/Gearing/Somers series of fleet destroyers were far and away the best developed during WW II. They had what was without dispute the best main armament, best FC system, adequate ASW capability, adequate (barely) range, best ASW and AAW sensors, excellent AAW armament, adequate habitability, and good sea-keeping. They were capable of being built in large numbers, rugged, with adequate speed. Other destroyers may have been superior in one area or another, but none were better balanced for the role of multi-purpose fleet destroyer in the threat environment in which they found themselves._

Your argument relies on the idea of "fleet destroyer" being the same as "multi-purpose" destroyer". You are saying that I am slanting the argument, yet, the definition is what it is, nothing you or I can do about that 

Some would argue that the ASW capability of USN DDs was not "the best", their torpedo armament was terrible, and their surface gunnery somewhat hampered by the Dual Purpose nature of the 5/38. HOWEVER, the 5/38 conferred other advantages to the American DD forces that far outweighed the disbenfits of the weapon


----------



## parsifal (Oct 12, 2008)

Jp

I do need to make a further clarification. The Japanese type 3 needs an elevation of 30 deg to reach out to 18000 yards, not 17000. At 17000 yards you are right, the elevation for the 5/38 using "common" ammunition is 35 deg. However, it (the type 3) was down to about 24 degrees at that range of 17000 yards for the Type 3.

I dont think this makes any difference to the substantive argument....At the ame range, whether that be 18000 or 17000, the elevation differnce between the 5/38 and the Type 3 was substantial

Moreover, at all ranges down to 10000, the elevation needed for the 5/38 was substantially more than that of the Type 3. This means the Type 3 is firing flatter, and hence more accurately at all ranges (down to 10000). For example, from the table you can see that the 5/38 needed an elevation of about 10-12 degrees. By comparison, the Japanese gun needed an elevation of about 8 degrees. This may mean that the accuracy of the 5/38 compared to the Type 3 (treating all other issues as constant) was only 2/3 that of the japanese gun. HOWEVER, I concede that there are other factors at work, the FC, the dispersion issue, all of which will have an effect, which I have not looked at. But the gun itself is a major factor in determining accuracy


----------



## Glider (Oct 13, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Don't see the French destroyer Le Triomphant which was a Le Fantasque class destroyer on the list..!?



Your right its a worthy contender but it my view it lacked AA weapons. It is I feel unfair to critisise its A/S and Radar as at the beginning of the war almost all nations lacked these.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 13, 2008)

I thought the Mogadors were more representative of the french Contre Torpilleurs in place of the Le Fantasques.....but am open to suggestion if you believe otherwise


----------



## delcyros (Oct 13, 2008)

The 5"/38 (new gun, 2500 fps) using AAC rounds needed ca. 38 deg. elevation to reach out to 17.000 yards and 45 deg for 17.400 yards. With illum (WP) and 2600 fps it required only 35 deg for 17.000 yards. An illum round isn´t going to hurt anything...
Btw, I am also failing to find a single, confirmed hit from 5"/38 at 15.000 to 17.000 yards in my books.
The US 5"/38 was a pretty good close range gun and an excellent AA-gun but hardly very impressive in the dedicated anti surface role when fired from a more stable platform (as a secondary gun).


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

Again...just how did a boat poll get into an aircraft section of this forum???

Ah well, Akitsuki for me. Look at the stats, especially the range and the deep thinking behind the choice of armament. (Range is a frequently overlooked characteristic is destroyer effectiveness estimates, but in the PTO, it's crucial!)


----------

