Best Fleet Destroyer Of WWII

[delcyros]

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]

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]

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

 

[parsifal]

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]

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

 

[JPJones]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!)