Messy1
Master Sergeant
Good story beau! Funny!
Destroyers.....
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My pleasure Ren. To tell the truth, I'd forgotten about most of it. When I was writing that, a lot of memmories came back. When I was on it, she was a very old ship and not as top heavy as when originally designed (took off two 5" mounts and all the 40MM, replaced with ASROC and a hanger for a helicopter in the Fram 2 rework). But she was still pretty top heavy. Probably had something to do with the inch of armor she carried on the main deck. That and the superstructure.
One thing Colin mentioned about in his story was how the ship he heard about practically shook itself to bits on a speed run. It was prety common for the older ships to have troubles when they got to speed. Just too many miles under the bow. Stuff like that was always happening to the ship I was on. We jokingly refered to them as the "sink by themselves" class because they were 38 years old and had things breaking all the time. Had many occasions when we were steaming and the ship just broke. Lights went out, engineering lost steam and the props stopped. No big deal in most cases, but when you do it in the middle of the Delaware River on a weekend in Summer (with tons of guys cruising around you in their speedboads), it gives the scene a weirdness all it's own.
Chicks, Beer, Speedboats, Broken Navy Destroyer-which one of these things is out of place?
One thing Colin mentioned about in his story was how the ship he heard about practically shook itself to bits on a speed run. It was prety common for the older ships to have troubles when they got to speed. Just too many miles under the bow. Stuff like that was always happening to the ship I was on. We jokingly refered to them as the "sink by themselves" class because they were 38 years old and had things breaking all the time. Had many occasions when we were steaming and the ship just broke. Lights went out, engineering lost steam and the props stopped. No big deal in most cases, but when you do it in the middle of the Delaware River on a weekend in Summer (with tons of guys cruising around you in their speedboads), it gives the scene a weirdness all it's own.
Chicks, Beer, Speedboats, Broken Navy Destroyer-which one of these things is out of place?
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
That's a fricken awesome story - lol
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
So I'm not the only one with a soft spot for the "pirate ship" USS Kidd DD-661 then?
Nope, I got a soft spot for the Kidd as well. I have visited her a couple of times, and I enjoy it more and more every time.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
It is very educational to hear accounts of the nitty gritty of naval affairs. Us land lubbers tend to look at performance specs for ships( just like we do with air planes) and take all else for granted. In reading about the British BCs at the Falklands, it was said that the vibration, while steaming at 25 knots, was so bad in the high directors that they could hardly focus on the German armored cruisers. At the Kormondorskis, in WW2, Salt lake City fired the equivalent of 80 ten gun 8 inch salvos. The vibration was so bad that light bulbs all over the ship broke and much of the electronic equipment quit working. Jellicoe, commander of the Grand Fleet in WW1, because the Fleet was steaming outside of Scapa Flow much of the time because of the Flow's poor security, lost whole divisions of dreadnoughts because of breakdowns in machinery. More to it than meets the eye!
I'll drop a war story in hear along the same lines.
Out on the gun line one day, firing the forward and after mount in sequence ('cause everyone knew it was a bad idea to fire a broadside from a Destroyer that old) and I'm up in CIC at battlestations. The Chief of our section is in there and he has a bug up his ass. Starts yelling at us all that we're sloppy and telling us to get it together. In the middle of the speech, the Capt decides to fire a broadside just to see if the old girl could do it. "BANG!" go the guns, whole ship shakes and, predictable, the lights go out due to the vibration, which is also so bad it unhinges a battle lantern (those yellow plastic flashlight things all over the place inside US ships that are designed to come on when the lights go out) right over the Chief's head and drops it squarely on his noggin. He goes down in a head on the deck, out cold.
For a few seconds, we all just sat there with this, "Wow, did you just see that ****!" look on our face. Then we got the Chief back on duty. He was groggy for a while. Forgot to finish his speech.
Out on the gun line one day, firing the forward and after mount in sequence ('cause everyone knew it was a bad idea to fire a broadside from a Destroyer that old) and I'm up in CIC at battlestations. The Chief of our section is in there and he has a bug up his ass. Starts yelling at us all that we're sloppy and telling us to get it together. In the middle of the speech, the Capt decides to fire a broadside just to see if the old girl could do it. "BANG!" go the guns, whole ship shakes and, predictable, the lights go out due to the vibration, which is also so bad it unhinges a battle lantern (those yellow plastic flashlight things all over the place inside US ships that are designed to come on when the lights go out) right over the Chief's head and drops it squarely on his noggin. He goes down in a head on the deck, out cold.
For a few seconds, we all just sat there with this, "Wow, did you just see that ****!" look on our face. Then we got the Chief back on duty. He was groggy for a while. Forgot to finish his speech.
Messy1
Master Sergeant
Like that story Tim!
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Great story! Many thanks.
batcocan
Airman
Hi all,
Although those are some mighty fine ships you've listed I have to suggest the Tribal Class destroyers-Considered to be almost pocket cruisers with their firepower and speed. There is still one in existence "HMCS Haida" check her out at HMCS HAIDA - Intro
I had an uncle who served on her sister HMCS Athabaskan (G07) and my wife's grandfather served on the postwar replacement HMCS Athabaskan (R79)
I'm not a boat person but just my two cents
Cheers,
Matthew
Although those are some mighty fine ships you've listed I have to suggest the Tribal Class destroyers-Considered to be almost pocket cruisers with their firepower and speed. There is still one in existence "HMCS Haida" check her out at HMCS HAIDA - Intro
I had an uncle who served on her sister HMCS Athabaskan (G07) and my wife's grandfather served on the postwar replacement HMCS Athabaskan (R79)
I'm not a boat person but just my two cents
Cheers,
Matthew
Attachments
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Comis, the US was not the only WW2 power that had faulty torpedoes. The Germans had problems also. U boat skippers early in the war were often frustrated with poor torpedo performance. I am not sure if the problems were as great as those encountered with those in the USN, but I think were similar.
parsifal
Colonel
Like all these sorts of discussions, it is very difficult to emphatically say which is best, unless there are some parameters set down as to the mission and the operating conditions that the ships will be operating under
The following is just an example of that problem:
During the war, the Germans built a class of Destroyer which the the British refer to as "the narviks". They were designed with an exceptionally heavy gun armment, and also a very heavy torpedo armement as well. Their main armament was essentially equivalent to that of a cruiser, being 5.9" caliber, in a fully enclosed gun turret.
The design was produced in response to the French Contre torpilleurs being built just before the war, the Mogadors and earlier to that, the Le Fantasque classes. Germany had seen France rather than Britiain as her most likely enemy at that time, and had been designing her navy to counter the capabilities of the French rather than the British navies
Once the war did break out it was soon the case that it was the Royal Navy that was the Kriegsmarines main opponent, and it was found that the waters that the KM was most regularly fighting in were the rougher waters of the Arctic rather than the calmer waters of the Baltic and the moderate latitudes of Europe.
However, at the time these destroyers were being transferred to the north, it was felt that the heavy armament of the Narviks would assist in redressing the numerical balance that the RN enjoyed, and that the larger destroyers of the KM could also take on the numerous british Light Cruisers with some measure of confidence.
As it turned out, the narviks were largely a failure. In the rough conditions of the Polar oceans, the heavy weight of the forward turret caused the ships to plunge heavily, rendering them often unsuitable for operations in conditions that were of only marginal inconvenience to their lighter British cousins. The idea that they could engage British Light cruisers was also a misguided assumption. The destroyers lacked the fire control and gun laying capabilities of the british cruisers, meaning they were not as accurate under rough conditions.
In terms of rate of fire the narviks could not compete as well. I forget the exact ROF of the 5.9 inch, but compared to the 4.7 and 4.5 inch guns of the RN, I vaguely recall it to be about half that of the lighter britisg guns. In rough conditions, a high rate of fire increases the chances of a hit, and any hit has a good chance of knocking out a ship the size of a DD.
The Narviks also enjoyed a theoretical range advantage, about 18000 yds to about 13000 , but again in the arctic this was a theoretical advantage , during the critical years of 1941-3 the narviks had a practical engagement range that was really no greater than that of the british Destroyers.
So, in the finish, the Germans ended up with a lesser number of big destroyers, which in terms of cost were about 2.5 times more expensive than their British counterparts but in my opinion no more effective. On the basis of cost versus effectivebness, the Narviks have to be considered a failure, in my opinion.
The same sorts of arguments can be levelled at every class of warship and every class of DD you care to mention, so, the lesson to be learnt is that it simply depends on the conditions and the mission you find your ships operating in. If the Narviks had been able to fight under the conditions they were originally designed for, they would have been a success, and today we would be arguing about just how brilliant the Germans wereat designing really good destroyers. Instead we tend to write off the narviks as a failuyre, and that is the reult of them having to fight under conditions that they were not suited to
The following is just an example of that problem:
During the war, the Germans built a class of Destroyer which the the British refer to as "the narviks". They were designed with an exceptionally heavy gun armment, and also a very heavy torpedo armement as well. Their main armament was essentially equivalent to that of a cruiser, being 5.9" caliber, in a fully enclosed gun turret.
The design was produced in response to the French Contre torpilleurs being built just before the war, the Mogadors and earlier to that, the Le Fantasque classes. Germany had seen France rather than Britiain as her most likely enemy at that time, and had been designing her navy to counter the capabilities of the French rather than the British navies
Once the war did break out it was soon the case that it was the Royal Navy that was the Kriegsmarines main opponent, and it was found that the waters that the KM was most regularly fighting in were the rougher waters of the Arctic rather than the calmer waters of the Baltic and the moderate latitudes of Europe.
However, at the time these destroyers were being transferred to the north, it was felt that the heavy armament of the Narviks would assist in redressing the numerical balance that the RN enjoyed, and that the larger destroyers of the KM could also take on the numerous british Light Cruisers with some measure of confidence.
As it turned out, the narviks were largely a failure. In the rough conditions of the Polar oceans, the heavy weight of the forward turret caused the ships to plunge heavily, rendering them often unsuitable for operations in conditions that were of only marginal inconvenience to their lighter British cousins. The idea that they could engage British Light cruisers was also a misguided assumption. The destroyers lacked the fire control and gun laying capabilities of the british cruisers, meaning they were not as accurate under rough conditions.
In terms of rate of fire the narviks could not compete as well. I forget the exact ROF of the 5.9 inch, but compared to the 4.7 and 4.5 inch guns of the RN, I vaguely recall it to be about half that of the lighter britisg guns. In rough conditions, a high rate of fire increases the chances of a hit, and any hit has a good chance of knocking out a ship the size of a DD.
The Narviks also enjoyed a theoretical range advantage, about 18000 yds to about 13000 , but again in the arctic this was a theoretical advantage , during the critical years of 1941-3 the narviks had a practical engagement range that was really no greater than that of the british Destroyers.
So, in the finish, the Germans ended up with a lesser number of big destroyers, which in terms of cost were about 2.5 times more expensive than their British counterparts but in my opinion no more effective. On the basis of cost versus effectivebness, the Narviks have to be considered a failure, in my opinion.
The same sorts of arguments can be levelled at every class of warship and every class of DD you care to mention, so, the lesson to be learnt is that it simply depends on the conditions and the mission you find your ships operating in. If the Narviks had been able to fight under the conditions they were originally designed for, they would have been a success, and today we would be arguing about just how brilliant the Germans wereat designing really good destroyers. Instead we tend to write off the narviks as a failuyre, and that is the reult of them having to fight under conditions that they were not suited to
- Thread starter
- #34
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Good post Parsifal!
Hello Parsifal
I'd be more harsh on Narviks, it didn't do well on Biscay either. Nor at the western end of English Channel. And North Sea can be very rough too
The most famous engagement on Biscay was 28 Dec 43 when 5 Narviks and 6 big torpedo boats were engaged by 2 RN light cruisers, a modern Town class and an old E-Class. End result was that one Narvik and 2 of the big torpedo boats were sunk.
Juha
I'd be more harsh on Narviks, it didn't do well on Biscay either. Nor at the western end of English Channel. And North Sea can be very rough too
The most famous engagement on Biscay was 28 Dec 43 when 5 Narviks and 6 big torpedo boats were engaged by 2 RN light cruisers, a modern Town class and an old E-Class. End result was that one Narvik and 2 of the big torpedo boats were sunk.
Juha
stug3
Staff Sergeant
From U-boat Archive - U-581 - Interrogation Report
Royal Navy Destroyer HMS Westcott, rammed U-581 in the straits between the islands of Pico and Fayal, 2nd February, 1942.
Royal Navy Destroyer HMS Westcott, rammed U-581 in the straits between the islands of Pico and Fayal, 2nd February, 1942.
vinnye
Senior Airman
I am pleased someone has mentioned the RN Tribal Class - served with distinction in very inhospitable conditions. Sometimes engaging enemy ships with heavier armament. I like the 8 x 4 inch armament - gives a good chance to fire two salvos - meaning better chance of hitting what your are firing at.
vinnye
Senior Airman
Juha - you are of course correct, the Canadian Tribals had the 8 x 4 inch fitted as standard.
