Destroyers.....

davebender said:

Apples and oranges.

Hunt class were ASW vessels for convoy escort. FTB1939 were designed for coast defense. That's why Hunt class carry depth charges and FTB1939 class carry mines.

Click to expand...

err nope. They were rated as escort destroyers. They were intended to have sufficient speed to work with the fleet, and were intended to operate in the coastal waters around Europe. They did not have the range or the sea keeping capbilities to work as ASW escorts. They also were not optimized for ASW, with only a limited number of DCs throwers and rails fitted to the class.

As coastal destroyers, I would think they had exactly the same role as the Elbings

Laying mines to keep Soviet ships out of the Baltic? I don't think so. Were Hunt class ships ever employed as high speed mine layers?

Not sure. I dont see why they copuldnt, then again a ZDD of this size would not be an optimal minlelayer, limited numbers of mines being the main problem.


Converting a ship to lay mines does not entail a large modification for any ship, especially ships already configured to carry DCs.


There was an operational need for the KM to lay a mine barrier in the gulf of Bothnia and elsewhere to botle up the Soviet Navy. The heavy losses suffred by the Baltic Fleet in 1941-2 more than vindicates that approach. The allies had at their disposal vasatly greater and better resources for minelaying, principally dedicated minelaying ships and aircraft, that were able to lay approximately ten times the number of mines compared to the Axis, In the baltic and the North Sea that effort accounted for about a million tons of shipping. But the need to risk Destroyers laying mines was not as great for the RN as it was for the KM because of those other resources

They didn't need to be. The RN had other ships that could do that job. Although with some of them carrying up to 110 depth charges there seems to be some capacity to swap that weight/space for mines.

The Elbings were about 23% heavier than the Hunts standard displacement and 22% heavier full load they should have more capability than a Hunt.

Try comparing the Elbings to the British war emergency destroyers which were about 19-30% heavier standard displacement to see how much difference it can make.

The Elbings were a continuation of the German ideas of torpedo craft. Their main offensive weapon was the torpedo battery. They were low silhouette (which wasn't quite as important with radar becoming more prevalent) for low visibility. They may have been a fit for what the Germans needed but if they had been the standard German destroyer the Germans would have been in big trouble.

Many of the between wars British destroyers could be fitted for mine laying should the need arise. 1 or 2 of the 4.7 in guns and the torpedo tubes were landed and 60-72 mines carried. I believe the intention was that alternating flotillas would be fitted as either high speed mine sweepers or as mine layers.

They may have been a fit for what the Germans needed but if they had been the standard German destroyer the Germans would have been in big trouble.

Click to expand...

Why?

They had better seakeeping abilitys, a better AA capacity, better engines and also more range then the Fleet destroyers of the germans.
I can't see the throuble.......

DonL how did the Elbings fare in the arctic waters? That is the acid test for me regarding seakeeping. You seem well aware of the p[roblems the KM fleet destroyers had in rough arctic seas. I dont have information on the performance of the elbings in those conditions, but they could hardly have been any worse than the big DDs

What were these ships like for topweight? They look pretty good to me....

The Germans mucked up the sea keeping of the bigger destroyers. They got it up to pretty good with the Z 17 but then blew it with the twin 15cm turret.

You also have to try and figure out what good sea keeping was, and it usually varied with the size of the ship. People expected 2800 ton ships to have better sea keeping than 1400 ton ships. Just like light cruisers had better sea keeping than even big destroyers. And does sea keeping mean the ability to maintain speed in a head sea? does it mean being able to fight the forward guns at speed in a head sea? Does it mean being able to keep up a decent rate of fire even with the aft guns or is the ship pitching and rolling too much?

The only advantage the Elbings had for AA was the higher elevation of the main guns. If built earlier they would have had the same crap 37mm as the early destroyers. Did the Elbings have a high angle director for the 10.5 cm guns? without a high angle director the actual usefulness of the 10.5 cm guns for AA work is greatly diminished. (British fitting of a single 12dpr of 4 in AA gun on destroyers was as much for morale as it was for actual effect).

I am not sure were the better engines come from. they used boilers operating at 70 atmospheres.

Sources are all over the place on range although it does seem the Elbings were better. Question is was 20% better or 100% better?

Trouble comes in the form of low gun power, four 4.1 in guns is no better than what the British had on the WW I V&W destroyers except they had an A-B-X-Y gun arrangement rather than A-Q-X-Y. The British B gun being workable in seas that prevented the use of A gun ( although practical accuracy in such seas is very low). The limited firing arcs of the Q gun counts against it. Practical range of the 4in guns are lower than the 4.7in-5in guns of other navies. Forget the listed max range of the gun.

I know that the hunts were used in the Arctic Convoys, but lacked the endurance to undertake the full run. they could only undertake escort for part of the way. For example JW51A.....the target of the Battle of Barents Sea was escorted by three Hunts, HMS Blankney, HMS Ledbury, and HMS Chiddingford. They were present with the convoy on the day of the battle. earlier 5 hunts had been used to escort PQ18. The Hunts were particularly favoured in the arctic escort because of their good AA fits. but they dont seem to have had much issue being effective in poor weather, or potentially poor weather.

I simply dont know if the Elbings had similar capability.......I expect that they could, but im unaware of them actually being used above the Arctic Circle

I suspect that its true to say that the range of a destroyers guns is limited by the ability of the destroyer to provide a good gun platform at sea. The nominal effective range of the gun is not a factor. I don't see the 4in as being that much worse than a 4.7 despite the smaller shell as they normally had a faster rate of fire and a 4in can do quite a lot of damage vs a destroyer.

I see the main difference being the torpedos the two ships carried. Hunts normally had either 6 x 4in or 4 x 4in and 3 x TT. This would give the edge to the German vessel that had 6 x TT. The last two units did have the originally designed 6 x 4in and 3 x TT but were a little bigger

As for sea keeping I would give the edge to the Hunts but only because the RN designed these ships for the N Atlantic and didn't concentrate on speed. Its worth noting that the Hunts were equipped with stabalisers which would have helped. I think was the first time these were fitted to any warship. These were often removed so that additional fuel could be carried for escort work

Maybe an interesting tidbit: in Russian nomenclature, the destroyer is 'mine carrier' (mino-nosets), literary. The fleet destroyers (Эскадренные миноносцы - eskadreny minonostsy) carry the same name, even when armed with Mach 3 anti ship missiles.

Glider said:

I suspect that its true to say that the range of a destroyers guns is limited by the ability of the destroyer to provide a good gun platform at sea. The nominal effective range of the gun is not a factor. I don't see the 4in as being that much worse than a 4.7 despite the smaller shell as they normally had a faster rate of fire and a 4in can do quite a lot of damage vs a destroyer.

Click to expand...

It is not only the need for a good gun platform, it is the ability to spot the shell splashes at long range. The smaller shells don't make a big enough splash to be spotted well at longer ranges. There is one source that says the early French super destroyers with 5.5in guns had a theoretical range of 19,000 meters but with their 3 meter range finder spotting of the splashes was almost impossible over 13,000 meters.

Part of it is the distance to the horizon which varies with the observers height above the surface. at 10 meters height the observer can see 11,300 meters. Granted you many not need to see the targets water line but trying to "aim" ( range take and figure course) on just bridge and funnel/s may be a bit chancy.

This all assumes perfect weather, the 4in guns coming into their own at night, in haze, rain or snow squalls.

However even at moderate ranges the 4.7/5 in guns have a bit of an advantage over 4 in guns in rough and ready shooting. Their heavier shells loose velocity slower and they have a larger danger space. More important when in local control or on ships with simple fire control equipment.

tomo pauk said:

Maybe an interesting tidbit: in Russian nomenclature, the destroyer is 'mine carrier' (mino-nosets), literary. The fleet destroyers (Эскадренные миноносцы - eskadreny minonostsy) carry the same name, even when armed with Mach 3 anti ship missiles.

Click to expand...

i thinked that in this case "mino" was for torpedo

The early (23 ships) Hunts had a stability problem fixed by 50t of permanent ballast and replacing X turret with a multibarrel pom-pom. The nexy 53 ships had the beam increased by 12".

Man o' War #4

Vincenzo said:

i thinked that in this case "mino" was for torpedo

Click to expand...

You might be somewhat right there. The 'mina' ('mine' in English), in this context, was at 1st the explosive attached into a pole that would be rammed at enemy ship, at least Wikipedia says so.
The term is still very much in use even today, when the torpedo outfit is of maybe tertiary importance, despite the calibre of 533mm on the ships.

Milosh said:

The early (23 ships) Hunts had a stability problem fixed by 50t of permanent ballast and replacing X turret with a multibarrel pom-pom. The nexy 53 ships had the beam increased by 12".

Man o' War #4

Click to expand...

Thats right. I think it was the first four ships were built to the original 6 x 4in and 3 x TT and this was quickly stripped down. The last two built had the original weapons but were made larger to cater for the original weight

Compare to the Fleet destroyers, the Elbing's were flush-decker with buckling ribs at the bow.

No Elbing was at ther artic sea but they were stationed at the Biscaya and english channel to escort merchant ships and U-Boats and I think the rough seas are equal.
From all primary sources, this ships were very good seakeeping ships and not top heavy, also they were permanent in action, much more then their larger Fleet destroyer colleagues.

Also to the engines.

Shortround 6 permantley claimed that all german vessels used boilers operating at 70 atmospheres even the Battleships!

That's wrong!

There is much bogus in secondary sources about the german high pressure steam turbines.
For startes:

The were three different boiler systems at major german vessels.

Wagner Boilers: Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau operating on 50-55 atmospheres
Wagner La Mont Boiler: Hipper Class operating on 70 atmospheres.
Benson Boilers: Graf Zeppelin and much of the Zerstörer 34 and 34a operating on 70 atmospheres.
Later Wagner Boilers: Zerstörer 1936, 1936a, 1936 mobA, 1936 mobB and Flottentorpedoboat 1939 operating on 50-60 atmospheres.

All boilers had troubles at the beginnings, but the Benson and Wagner La Mont Boilers were much worser.
The Wagner Boilers were much more stable and at the Battleships (accept Scharnhorst) were reliable, also at the later destroyer classes, which changed from Benson to Wagner boilers.

The Fleet destroyers since the 1936a Class had much more problems with their sea keeping performances and instabilities, then with their machinary.
For example all Fleet destroyers since 1934 class had fuel bunkers up to 700ts, but could only consume 70% of this, because of their instabilities.
THe Elbings hat 516ts max bunker and had no problems to consume till 90-95%.

Also I could not understand this claimimgs about range finders and AA capacity!

The Elbings had a normal 3m range finder above their superstructure, similar to the destroyers, also they had the same FC AA controls as the destroyers and also were fitted with AA radar.

They had numerous battles with allied vessels and could stand their man for two years alone at the Biscaya and the Channel, could sink light cruisers and Fleet destroyers.
They were tough fighting ships from realife action.

Why would anyone operate such small destroyers in the Arctic when larger destroyers were available?

FTB1939 had good sea keeping for a 1,700 ton ship but size does matter when operating in an Arctic gale.

Hi DonL

Having never been on a ship in the Arctic waters, I cant comment about the comparison of conditions to the Bay of Biscay. However, i have served in the southern Oceans. There is no comparison in the roughness of the seas in the latitudes 50 degeees or below to those above 50. From 40 degree latitudes, there are constants winds that generally have the potential to whip the oceans up to 2 or 3 times that which are encountered in lower latitudes. Of course in the tropical latitudes you can get tropical storms, but they are not as frequent as in the high latitudes, Moreover, from about 50 degrees, you start to get icing issues, which, combined with the winds, and cold produce difficult conditions not seen further north (north for us is closer to the equator, maybe south for you guys).

I stood watches in ships where for 6 or 8 days straight the winds have been above 100kmh and the seas are in the storm category. It is very common to have rollers in excess of 60 feet high in those higher latitudes. I was on ships fully stabilzed and in excess of 6000 tons (there were two ships, one was the Nella Dan (which was later wrecked off Macquarie island in 1987) , which I volunteered to crew whilst still a serving officer, and later in 1987 on a similar ship the Icebird (but as a civilian), when we picked up the recued crew of the Dan from Macquarie island in 1987). I also spent time in the Antarctic waters on Training Ship Jervis Bay (a converted vehicle ferry, about 10000 tons and stabilized), earlier still on a modified Daring Class (the Vampire), an Adamas class DDG and an 18000 ton light fleet carrier. These various ships handled the conditions to diferent standards of proficiency. By far the worst was the American ship, far too top heavy to handle the conditions, and not good at deicing at all) without a doubt the re-supply ships were most suited.

So, getting back to the ships we are meant to be talking about, being of such small size, and if lacking stabilizers and/ or de-icing equipment (which I dont think was all that common back then) it would be critically important to make sure top weight was well down to maximise stability. Milosh has already pointed out that the earlier Hunts needed to lose a lot of fire power and have permanent ballast fitted to solve their stability issues. i bet that was because they were expected to operate in the rougher northern waters. it also explains why so many were sent to the med (along with their good AA capabilities). If the allied experiences are anything to go by, the Elbings would not have been suitable, unless changes were made to their upper deck configuration and top weight. If there was any reliability issues whatever with the engines, real or perceived, the crews would not have been confident to take into rough arctic conditions .

Finally, from research i have done, by 1942 the amount of Axis shipping in the channel and Biscay areas fell right away in the latter part of 1941. The elbings were not commissioned until 1942, so Im a bit perplexed or curious about how much escort work they were actually doing. They did a lot of good work in these areas, dont get me wrong, but you seem to be painting a picture of "business as usual" in the channel and French coast for Axis shipping, which was not the case even for warships by 1942.

As I said the Elbings had no problems with their top weight and their supertructure, which comes through the construction as a flush-decker with buckling ribs at the bow. THe layout is very similar to the Fletcher Class.

Anyway I think and agree that they were perhaps to small for the artic sea, but were much better seakeeping ships at the north sea and north atlantic as the german Fleet destroyers, that was mentioned in many primary sources.
Also the Bay of Biscay and the Channel are famous for their rough seas and often bad weather conditions.

The main duty of the Elbings from 1942-1944 at the Bay of Biscay and the Channel was to escort all blockade breakers and all merchant ships that needed escort, also they escort incomming and outgoing U-Boats.
Several sources claim, that they were permanent at missions, because they were next with the E-Boats the only warships from germany at this region and they were only 8 ships.

Anyway my intention is and was, that I think the german would had much more benefits, if they had begun to built such a balanced destroyer class (or something like Bremse) at 1934 to practise destroyer building, and get experience with a smal- to mid destroyer classes.
Such destroyers are cheaper and it isn't this worse, if a construction isn't that good, as you blow up a whole fleet destroyer class.
They could built fleet destroyers later, after experience with smal- to mid destroyer classes. (from 1937).

Also what is totaly incomprehensible, is the fact, that all fleet destroyers were built from shipyard with no experience in destroyer construction.
Schichau/Elbing had this experience through their destroyer building at the WWI.
SMS S113 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- and they built the much better and balanced design at WWII with the Elbing class destroyer.

I can't understand why this way was gone, because for example, all E-Boats were built from Lürssen, which had the most experience with E-Boats and the german E-Boats were the best at WWII.

Elbings were not much smaller than the British E and F classes, which were c. 1400 tons standard/ c. 1940 tons full load and which were widely used in Arctic water.

Juha