Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But they weren't 6" were they?
8)
Picky picky.
So the British Dido and American Atlanta cruisers with 5.25in and 5in forgetting the Japanese cruisers with 5.5in, are now destroyers.
And the German Destroyers with 5.9in are now cruisers, or are the German Cruisers with 5.9in now Destroyers.
I surrender, my Brain is Full.
Fractions of an inch, when you are talking guns in the 5" range, is a lot. German 5.9" shells were double the weight the 4.7" shells used on British DD. Not to mention, 5.9" guns, nor the French 5.5" are 5" guns.4" to 5" guns. You are arguing mm's when my point is destroyers didnt carry anything larger than 5".
I specifically referred to the USN usage of the term, not RN, which I do not think was used by the US Navy at the time."The term "frigate" passed out of use in the mid-19th century and was readopted during World War II by the British Royal Navy to describe a new type of anti-submarine escort vessel that was larger than a corvette, but smaller than a destroyer. The frigate was introduced to remedy some of the shortcomings inherent in the corvette design, namely limited armament, a hull form not suited to open ocean work, a single shaft which limited speed and manoeuverability, and a lack of range."
DE are a wholly different class than DD. You just said all ships w/ 5" or less were DD, which is not true by any account. Furthermore, you have Torpedo boats, which were used by the Germans as DD substitutes, since they did not have an adequate number of DD for their operations. Later german TB were actually pushing the size of current DD. They were fleet ships, despite the term "torpedo boat." I think you might still be confusing these with motor boats.It is completely accurate because ships that mounted guns less than 6" were DD's and DE's. We are talking about fleet ships, not coastal types unsuited for operations on the high seas.
I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Are you referring to pre-dreadnought BB? WWI era dreadnoughts, many included in the list above, were still very active in all the major navies throughout the world. Many of them received refits throughout the 1930s to modernize them. That list only included those with guns smaller than 14" and if you include 14" WWI dreadnoughts, it gets even larger. The only active pre-dreadnoughts I can think of off the top of my head are the KM's old Deutschland class. By the way, the US offered to buy the WWI dreadnought Almirante Latorre from Chile - I don't think they would have made that offer if they saw no use in it. It's interesting to note that the British argued at London in 1930 for 12" guns and 25,000 ton limits for new BB construction. Lastly, there was also new construction in the 1930s of BB with sub 14" guns including the KMs Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with 11.1", as well as the French Dunkerque and Strasbourg with 13" guns.Again, I state that the older warships in use prior to WW1 were obsolete or obsolescent by the 1930's and didnt scare anyone. They simply did not fit the definitions of warships that was pretty much accepted by everyone in that decade.
Again, a mis-statement. I'm actually very interested as to what source are you drawing these from, because they are just flat our incorrect. See below for an example.Of course you can find exceptions to anything, but the size of the gun, not the armour is what dictates the type of ship.
Again, not true. The BC class was created to carry the guns of dreadnoughts and sacrifice armor in order to attain higher speeds. Armor is what separates the BB type from BC, not gun size, for they carried the the same gun size. You stated above 10"-12" guns were for BC, which is not true. HMS Renown and Repulse carried 15" guns, Hood as well (although her armor was about 32% displacement and in proportion with QE class and can be argued to be a BB). Japan's Kongos carried 14" guns and were BC until they received refits which increased their armor to 32%, and were reclassified as BB.Remember, the larger guns naturally needed ships that had higher displacements and the structural strength to handle their use. Thus as gun caliber increased, so did armor, by default.
Fractions of an inch, when you are talking guns in the 5" range, is a lot. German 5.9" shells were double the weight the 4.7" shells used on British DD. Not to mention, 5.9" guns, nor the French 5.5" are 5" guns.
DE are a wholly different class than DD. You just said all ships w/ 5" or less were DD, which is not true by any account.To simplfy things for you, any ship mounting a gun with a bore of less than 5.999" is either a destroyer of frigate (destroyer escort).
Furthermore, you have Torpedo boats, which were used by the Germans as DD substitutes, since they did not have an adequate number of DD for their operations. Later german TB were actually pushing the size of current DD.
If the ship was not designed for fleet use on the high sea's, it wasn't part of the classification. And if the TB was pushing the size of a DD, then it was a DD. Theres no mixing of words here.
They were fleet ships, despite the term "torpedo boat." I think you might still be confusing these with motor boats.
I'm not. The TB's were small destroyers in all aspects.
I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Are you referring to pre-dreadnought BB? WWI era dreadnoughts, many included in the list above, were still very active in all the major navies throughout the world.
And few of them played a significant role in the conflict. In the 30's, they were all nearing the end of their lifetimes, and no amount of refits could change that fact. Everyone knew it and werent bothered by it.
.... 1930 for 12" guns and 25,000 ton limits for new BB construction. Lastly, there was also new construction in the 1930s BB of sub 14" guns included the KMs Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with 11.1", as well as the French Dunkerque and Strasbourg with 13" guns.
The Brits didnt want to get into an expensive ship building program, therefore wanted to impose an irrational and unacceptable limit on the designs on the new BB's being designed.
Again, a mis-statement. I'm actually very interested as to what source are you drawing these from, because they are just flat our incorrect. See below for an example.
Why is that incorrect? The early US carriers had a pair of 8" turrets on them. Did that make them a cruiser? And your examples are suspect, and again deal with exemptions. They were modernizations of old warships that moved them from one type of classifications to another. The main effort of the treaty was to deal with new warships that would have been built from the keel up to carry specific calibers of guns with armor protection consistent with displacement. The Alaska class BC's are an example of that. All capital ships launched in the 30's carried specific sized guns that put them exactly in the sorting classification that designated them as cruisers, battle cruisers of battleships.
If its less than 6", then its a destroyer.
The Atlanta class "cruisers" were "class types" dead ends.
The exception.
The standard on what constitutes a destroyer-cruiser-battle cruiser-battleship was set by the USN in WW2. We built so many of them, by default we set the standards.
So the Dido is a destroyer. Interesting as I have never read that in any book, description, or any other reference anywhere, ever.
And the Jap 5.5 in cruisers are also destroyers, similar comments to the Dido.
The standards for definitions were set by the USN. Where on earth did you get that one from?
The British built the first Battleship and the first Battlecruiser setting the definition.
Heavy and Light Cruisers were a definition set by treaties signed by many nations.
The British also built the first Destroyer, a term originally known as the Torpedo Boat Destroyer and then shortened to destroyer.
Can I ask where you got your information?
Well I am going to go and get an old destroyer and I am going to heavily modify it and structurally strengthen it and put a 14 in Cannon on it. Just one 14 in Cannon and call it a BB.
I can do that because gun size determines the classification of the ship, right syscom?
1.) Battleship: USS West Virginia
3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser: USS San Francisco
8.) Aircraft Carrier: USS Yorktown CV-5
Better than the North Carolina class? S Dakota class, Iowa class......?
Better than the Baltimore class?
Better than the Essex class?