Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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
[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
Hmm, against Bismarck the Tribals failed to score a single hit, on a much larger unmanouvering target...
Dont know, cant confirm either way, but I do know thqat ther are plenty of examples of British DDs being present at battles, having a crucial role to play in those battles, and scoring important hits in those battles
Its not about equal terms, its about having the gun that can actually put a armored light cruiser in a world of hurt.[/I]
There are not many examples of that happening. The German DDs could only close to engage at night or i poor weather, because in clear conditions they would be at too great a risk of air attack. In the circumstances that they could engage in a surface combat, their approach speed was too badly affected for them to close with a british cruiser. The sea speed advntage in poor weather was with the British cruisers, not the german DDs. The only instance that they might be able to close to effective range was at night, in calm conditions, and then they are still operating at a disadvantage, because the british ships are armoured, have radar, and still have superior target acquisition and gunlaying technology. What was needed was a heavy ship in support, to keep the British busy, whilst the German DDs worked in closer to launch torpedoes. Trying to design a DD that could operate without heavy ship support was the wrong decision. Destroyers dont work that way.
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.
Your restriction on optimal calibre is far too arbitrary and not based on any statistical facts. facts are that that optimal armament varied much more widely, than that. The most successful Japanese gun was their 3.9", whilst the Americans were working on a 6" DP weapon at the end of the war, that was being considered for a post Gearing design (but never came to anything). The key to successful armament selection is firstly about having a true DP capability, in the second instance its about marrying that design to a ship design that was able to exploit those armament characteristics. The German Narviks dilsyed neither of those characteristics. The armament was not a true DP weapon, and was not well suited to the hull on which it was placed. Add to that an apparent fault in tactical doctrine (as reported by yourself, when you say they were designed to fight British cruisers), and you have an absolute dog of a design