Destroyers.....

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Fletchers were not good sea boats in heavy seas because of their flush deck configuration. A raised forecastle is necessary in rough waters, if you want to move through that ocean at any speed. The design of the bow is also important as it can affect the direction and severity of sea spray, and if the sea spray is too much out of control it can affect range finiding and visual communication gear,. it also makes the bridge commanders job much harder. so its not a trivial issue.

Im not being too critical of the Elbings. I like them as a class, and agree with nearly everything yove said. the one issue I am taking you to task over, is this comparison of temperate waters operations to arctic area operations. German destroyers had some difficulties in the arctic because of the problems with their machinery, their heavy forecastle weight (for the Narviks at least, but even the 5" armed ships had some issues), and the amount of spray that they tended to throw up in heavy seas. They were not comparable ships to some British classes of destroyers (but to be fair, some British ships were poor performers in heavy seas too). I think the Elbings, as a generalization would be better in heavy seas than most other German ships, but the question is, how suitable were they. If they were suitable, or more suitable than the bigger Zerstorers, why werent they sent there (assuming they werent sent to the Arctic).
 

The Tribals, JKN and L-M class destroyers had DP 4.7in guns with on-mount AA fuze setters, that were controlled with the FKC HA FC system. It is true that elevation was limited to 40 or 50 degs, but they were not SP guns, as per the 5"/38 guns on the USN Porter and Somer class, which had no capability for predicted fire against aircraft. The overall AA power of a Tribal or JKLMN class was probably better than the early USN destroyers with 4 or 5 x 5"/38 DP guns, because the RN destroyers had a CIWS of a quad pom-pom and 2 quad .5in mounts versus only 4 x.5in mgs on the USN destroyers.
 
Information on changes made to Battle class during WW" from Wiki ;
Experiences in the Pacific, in operations against the Japanese, pointed to the limited usefulness of the 4 inch gun abaft the funnel and only the first ships completed, Barfleur, Armada, Trafalgar, Camperdown, Hogue and Lagos were fitted with the gun. In all other ships the gun was replaced by two single 40/60 mm Mk VII giving a total of 14 Bofors, the heaviest light AA armament of any British destroyer and heavier than that carried in many cruisers. In time, all the ships fitted with the 4 inch gun had them removed and replaced with the two single 40/60 mm Mk VII Bofors.

I had not realised that they had so much AA on board!
 
British E and F classes, which were c. 1400 tons standard/ c. 1940 tons full load and which were widely used in Arctic water
Click to expand...
They widely suffered weather related damage in the Arctic too and one has to question combat effectiveness of a ship whose crew were sea sick and half frozen much of the time.
 
I am not surprised they suffered weather related damage in the Artic - but they continued to be there and do their job. To be combat effective, you first have to be there, then deal with the conditions as best you can and be as ready as you can to face whatever opposition shows itself. That is if they can survive the weather.
 
davebender said:
They widely suffered weather related damage in the Arctic too and one has to question combat effectiveness of a ship whose crew were sea sick and half frozen much of the time.
Click to expand...

Name a ship that didnt suffer weather damage in the Arctic. Even Aircaft carriers got battered when operating above the Arctic circle one escort carrier had its deck peeled back like a sardine can and a fleet carrier lost its boats and crane.
 
Aircraft carrier flight decks and aircraft are exceptionally vulnerable to Arctic gales. I wouldn't operate a CV that far north unless I had no choice.
 
The Elbings were sort of in between the WW I V W and the between wars A-I classes. They may have been good for their size but if built "like hot rolls" from the mid 30s on instead of the bigger destroyers the German Navy would still have been in trouble. The fact that the big destroyers were far from perfect does not automatically mean the the Elbings were great. And by 1942 some of their "concept" was outdated. Many Navy's (including the British) in the 20s and 30s thought that torpedo "craft" should have low silhouettes for low visibility, especial night attacks. Some British officers criticized the A-I classes because of their high bows and high bridges. However by 1942 the idea that 1000 tons ships could "sneak" up on radar equipped ships at night to deliver torpedo attacks was fast going away (Japanese used longer ranged torpedoes and their danger was not fully appreciated). The Elbings did not have the gun power to fight their way through an opposing destroyer screen to get to a firing position although they did have a fair rearward firepower to cover their withdrawal.

The British do claim that the A-I class were some of the best sea boats of their size but this may be a pre-war assessment and may not include the Elbings or some of their own later sloops.

A flotilla of Elbings that ran into/against a flotilla of A-Is might be in trouble or it might succeed. A Flotilla of Elbings against a flotilla of J,K,L, Tribals and such would be in big trouble. The Germans needed bigger destroyers than the Elbings.

Wither they should have been the 1936 Mob A design is another story.
 
Last edited:
davebender said:
Aircraft carrier flight decks and aircraft are exceptionally vulnerable to Arctic gales. I wouldn't operate a CV that far north unless I had no choice.
Click to expand...
CVL's operated that far north, with considerable success. You have to take your hats off to the crews that manned those vessels, I wouldn't fancy it.

People often comment on the ineffective AA fire of the RN but the german losses against convoys such as PQ18 were very heavy. The only aircover was 10 Sea Hurricanes
 
Would you rather land on Bear Island or a CV steaming in the vicinity of Bear Island? Same weather but the island isn't pitching and rolling.
 
Its not so much the wind as the 10/10 cloud Bear Island is covered in regulary.

edit Just done a bit of googling and Bear Island is fogbound up to 40% of days in summer. Weather in winter isnt too bad for the Arctic circle but theres no sun between Nov 8th and Feb 5th.
 
Last edited:
davebender said:
Would you rather land on Bear Island or a CV steaming in the vicinity of Bear Island? Same weather but the island isn't pitching and rolling.
Click to expand...

wrong question really. from the pov of the pilot, a land base is much preferred. from an operational pov, a carrier based aircraft is far more useful. Its right thre where its needed. morover,at those time when the carrier aircraft cannot fly, enemy aircraft will also be ineffective.

Moreover, whilst both sides had aircraft types that could handle rough weather, German training had abandoned blind flying for most crews after 1942. this meant that British aircrews could fly at times that most of the Luftwaffe was grounded.

Laslty RN CVs and their aircrews developed techniques and skills that enabled their a/c to get off the deck and back down again, at a wider range of weather types than most of their adversaries, and even their allies. What USN carriers ever operated above the arctic circle....none, which is still the case today.
 
The Tribals, JKN and L-M class destroyers had DP 4.7in guns with on-mount AA fuze setters, that were controlled with the FKC HA FC system.
Click to expand...

Ill have to check, but i think that meant the gun had be depressed below a certain elevation in order to allow it to fire. If correct, thats not a very convincing argument that it was an effective DP mount. Theres a lot more to designing an effective DP mount than simply being able to load and elevate above a certain angle. Ill stand corrected, if you have the details on the design of these mounts.


It is true that elevation was limited to 40 or 50 degs, but they were not SP guns, as per the 5"/38 guns on the USN Porter and Somer class, which had no capability for predicted fire against aircraft.
Click to expand...

What arrangements did they have built into the mount to allow predicted fire at aircraft. further, what practical rof did they have whilst firing above 45 degrees? What practical or operational evidence is there of this ever being effective

Also, only being able to fire up to 50 degrees is just not enough. At that angle, for aircraft at a typical approach altitude of say 15-20000 feet, (say 5-7000m) they will only be able to be fired at beyond 7000m horizaontal range. That will help, but the shells at that range will not be all that accurate at that altitude, and the firing window so limited as to be of not much use at all.

If youve got operational information to show effective AA fire from these mounts , I genuinely would like to see it. But Ive always been led to believe they were not a practical or effective AA mount.



Your comparison is not completely valid. You are comparing either the weapons fit of later RN types, or the war upgrades, to the pre-war fits for some USN types. We should really compare apples to apples, by comparing ships of contemporary design to each other


For example

"A to E" classes to the Farraguts
The "A B" were designed with 2 x pom poms , and 4 x QF MkIXs. The MkIXs had shielding to the deckline, limiting elevation to 30 degrees maximum. Bulldog had an experimental aMk XII mounting with 60 degree elevation fitted, but it was a failure. Those that survived to the midwar period were rearmed....bulldog for example receiving 2 x 4.7 and 6 x 20mm.

The "C D" classes were similar, but as built had a 3" HA fitted. In 1935-6 Crusader had a quad pom pom tried out, which was successful.

The "E F" classes had 5 x 4.7 but no light AA. the mounting of the 4.7 in this class was slightlly modified to allow 40 deg elevation. It decribed by Campbell has having a theoretical AA value only, because elevation was only to 40 degrees, and also needed well covers removed in order to fire. No special prediction equipment was carried, which is a real giveaway about what the RN thought about their real AA potential.

Farraguts were fitted with 4x 5/38 and 4 x 0.5 in MG. Mk 33 directors were fitted, from the beginning, which gave theiur HAA a potent AA potential. War mods saw the MGs replaced by a pair of 40mm Bofors and 5 x 20mm

Displacement of the RN types was slightly higher than the farraguts.

If you want to compare the JKNs then you would need to look at the Bensons to make fair comparison. and a JKN does not match up well to a benson in terms of AA capacity. Either designed or actual.
 
Last edited:
"No special prediction equipment was carried, which is a real giveaway about what the RN thought about their real AA potential>"

Or the mounting of a single 12pdr or 4 in gun on a high angle mount in place of one torpedo mount showed what was thought of the four-six 4.7 in guns on 40 degree mounts. And the 12pdr/4in was darn near useless. The ships would have been better served with a few single 2pdr or 20mm or even multiple .5 in MGs.
 

You should start by reading the Wikipedia article on the MK XIX 4.7in twin mount:

4.7 inch QF Mark IX XII - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 4.7in twin had on mount fuze setters where the time fuze setting as determined by the AA FC computer, was set by the guns crews. The wiki article states 12rpm as the practical maximum rof (navweaps.com states 10rpm in AA fire) and that's a lot of metal being directed against an aircraft.

As for 40 degs not being enough, well that's not true; it all depends on the altitude of the attacking aircraft, obviously against a torpedo bomber or a low altitude level bomber, 40degs is plently, and against dive bombers attacking other ships, the same gun could place a barrage over the ship being attacked. If you read the accounts of the IJNAF attacks on the USN carrier task forces in 1942, you will see that the destroyers could have performed as AA escorts even with 40deg elevation. The key factor is that the guns be controlled in AA mode by a computer that can predict the movement of the target and direct the gun to the correct elevation and deflection while also providing fuze timing, and every RN destroyer from the Tribal class onward could do this. Here's the firecontrol schematic of the Tribal class (this also shows type 285 radar which was being fitted to RN destroyers from mid 1941):

The big problem for RN destroyers and 40 deg elevation guns, came when they had to operate alone or where they became the target of attacking aircraft, and then really only when they faced dive bombers. High altitude level bombing was not very effective against ships anyways, and the RN would have preferred to add an extra quad pom-pom when the dive bombing threat was realized in 1940, but these simply didn't exist so they added (spare) 3in and 4in single HA mount guns on some destroyers to allow for engaging high altitude and divebombers and a twin 4in in lieu of the after upper 4.7in mount on the Tribal class.. Here's an example of HMS Tarter engaging aircraft with computer controlled 4.7in AA fire:

Controlled fire is the RN term for AA fire directed by the FC computer.

The A class was commission from 1930 and the Farraguts from 1934, but the Farraguts didn't receive their Mk 33 directors until 1936 - Hardly a fair comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

WWII Destroyers?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
2K
z42
Z
Namesakes of the WWII Fletcher Class Destroyers....
Replies
0
Views
613
Lucky13
Up-armored M-10 and M- 36 tank destroyers: how much is too much?
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
carriers and destroyers.
Replies
10
Views
3K
parsifal
PT boats and Destroyers of WWII?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
30K
zardoz121
Z
Menu
Log in
Register