WWII Destroyers?

[Lucky13]

How did each country's destroyers compare at the outbreak of the war, was there any that had unorthodox solutions and others which had solved problems in a clever way?

German destroyer Z20 Karl Galster....

Starboard quarter view of the N Class Destroyer HMAS Nepal (ex Norseman) which was one of five ships of this class commissioned into the Royal Australian Navy in the period 1941-1942, and served throughout the Second World War....

The destroyer Carabiniere then in service with the Regia Marina....

The Imperial Japanese Navy destroyer Yamakaze underway before the Second World War....

USS Mustin DD413, at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on 14 June 1942....

 

[Wurger]

IMHO the appearance of the DD413 at the outbreak of the war should be like that rather ...

the source: warships, submarines, uboats, passenger liners, sailing ships, fishing vessels, cargo ships, merchant ships, ship database

 

[SaparotRob]

Easy, except for RN and USN destroyers, they all sucked.

 

[Lucky13]

IMHO the appearance of the DD413 at the outbreak of the war should be like that rather ...

View attachment 806208
the source: warships, submarines, uboats, passenger liners, sailing ships, fishing vessels, cargo ships, merchant ships, ship database

The only thing missing, is me on the bridge heading out for some piracy! There's styrene to be had on them seas!

 

[SaparotRob]

The only thing missing, is me on the bridge heading out for some piracy! There's styrene to be had on them seas!

Aaaarrrr.

 

[fubar57]

Aaaarrrr.

Save that for Sept. 19, matey

 

[Shortround6]

Everybodies AA sucked, some just sucked more than others.
Japanese had the best torpedoes.
British may have been second.
The big French ship was fast, it was big (2570 tons standard) but that means it was expensive and built in small numbers and they had to build 1770 ton Le Hardis to make up numbers.

Which didn't work that well either. The main guns only elevated 30 degrees, the mounts were unreliable and both AA and A/S (eight 100kg depth charges) were inadequate.

The US destroyers don't get the credit that they should. The 5in/38 was the best (by far) DP gun of it's time. They had a good director. The machinery was reliable (something that could not be said of some of the other more "impressive" ships.)

 

[swampyankee]

Overall, I think the German's were the worst values for money, between machinery issues, poorly thought out main guns (the 155 mm just didn't work), and mediocre seakeeping, having to run for harbor when RN destroyers stayed on the job. The USN's were very good, but suffered from crappy torpedoes; they were easily the most advanced ships technologically. The IJN's were decent, boosted by good torpedoes. France had some wonderful individual units, but the emphasis on raw speed was misplaced ( see LCS for the same error) and the 140 mm gun never worked as well as needed. Italy's were probably just okay. In the scheme of things, nobody else really counted. The RN's may have been the best value, especially in the Med, the North Sea, and the Atlantic.

The absolute best hybrid may have been a USN destroyer with RN torpedoes.

 

[MIflyer]

The USN Fletcher Class destroyers were remarkably capable ships, having integrated fire control systems. Many remained in service for over 20 years after the war and more, not only with the USN but allied navies as well.

The USN Destroyer Escorts were much less capable but still impressive warships. I think the Rudderow Class were the most attractive of these, but then that might be because a Lindberg Rudderow Class was the first model I can recall building without adult assistance. The book "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" describes combat in these ships very well.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

US DDs at the beginning of the war had serious issues with topweight, to the point that some had to remove turrets. The Japanese suffered similar issues but because the ocean slapped them in the face in 1934 they got on the program a bit quicker. And their torpedoes were great, not just the Type 93 for this matter. They could sail in fast, launch good fish, and get the FOOD.

German destroyers needing to retain fuel as ballast meant getting them to the point of contact required aux support; they had big guns but the hulls too had troubles pointing them. Questionable torpedoes too.

The Brits had smaller guns, but better hulls and still reliable torpedoes. They also had, I think, better doctrine.

Drachinifel says that French DDs had a hard time shooting main battery at full speed, which I can understand, but I don't know how square it is as a fact.

The Italians had decent DDs but short range and middling armament meant they got caught in situations they couldn't handle ... not that that didn't happen to Brits or Americans.

Overall, by 1939, I'd say the Brits and the Japanese had great destroyers, Americans had okay ships. Heavy gun armament, torps good for the first two. Not sold on the others.

 

[Shortround6]

Drachinifel says that French DDs had a hard time shooting main battery at full speed, which I can understand, but I don't know how square it is as a fact.

A lot can depend on sea state. Destroyers rolled and pitched more than larger ships. A fast moving ship may have faster vertical movement (pitching) than a slower ship in the same wave conditions (sea state)? This is one reason that destroyers could not maintain high speed in bad weather, they started pounding.

Extreme but kind of illustrates the point? Even in a much calmer sea the higher speed ship may have the gun mounts moving at higher vertical accelerations even though the total pitch change is almost the same?

Overall, by 1939, I'd say the Brits and the Japanese had great destroyers, Americans had okay ships. Heavy gun armament, torps good for the first two. Not sold on the others.

Some of the Japanese ships looked better on paper than they really were but so did some of the others.
The Japanese 5in DP guns were actually pretty poor DP guns. The rate of fire was on the low side even for surface action and they had to lowered to 10 degrees for loading which really screwed up AA gunnery. The Japanese 12.7cm/50 could be pointed up at a high angle but it really wasn't very good at shooting at high angles. Of course it may have been good enough in the late 20s when it came out, but it was no longer good enough for the faster planes of 1941 and later.

Another thing the US doesn't credit for is ammo capacity. Even the Farragut and Sims classes had 300rpg. Many of the Axis destroyers only had around 150-180rpg. Germans had less?
With guns that can fire 10rpm running out of ammo in 15-20 minutes means you have to choose shots more carefully.
The British Tribals a later had 250rpg + star shell?
Fletchers and later had well over 400rpg.
The Japanese DDs had rather small depth charge capacity at the start of the war. 14-18 charges depending on class. Later increased to 36 in most ships. Most Japanese DDs did not have sonar/asdic at the time of Pearl Harbor.
They were basically one trick ponies, surface attack. They may have been the best in the world at that one trick, but they were near useless at just about anything else.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A lot can depend on sea state. Destroyers rolled and pitched more than larger ships. A fast moving ship may have faster vertical movement (pitching) than a slower ship in the same wave conditions (sea state)? This is one reason that destroyers could not maintain high speed in bad weather, they started pounding.
View attachment 806222
Extreme but kind of illustrates the point? Even in a much calmer sea the higher speed ship may have the gun mounts moving at higher vertical accelerations even though the total pitch change is almost the same?

Right. Even a 3000t Mogador (light load, 4000t heavy) is still going to have serious issues while doing, oh, 38kts or so and firing guns accurately.

Some of the Japanese ships looked better on paper than they really were but so did some of the others.
The Japanese 5in DP guns were actually pretty poor DP guns. The rate of fire was on the low side even for surface action and they had to lowered to 10 degrees for loading which really screwed up AA gunnery. The Japanese 12.7cm/50 could be pointed up at a high angle but it really wasn't very good at shooting at high angles. Of course it may have been good enough in the late 20s when it came out, but it was no longer good enough for the faster planes of 1941 and later.

I think what made them really good was 1) decent high speed and 2) really good torpedoes. Of course their guns were nothing to write home about wrt AA. They were good gunnery ships -- as shown in the Solomons -- and very good torpedo-delivery systems (.cf)

Another thing the US doesn't credit for is ammo capacity. Even the Farragut and Sims classes had 300rpg. Many of the Axis destroyers only had around 150-180rpg. Germans had less?
With guns that can fire 10rpm running out of ammo in 15-20 minutes means you have to choose shots more carefully.
The British Tribals a later had 250rpg + star shell?
Fletchers and later had well over 400rpg.
The Japanese DDs had rather small depth charge capacity at the start of the war. 14-18 charges depending on class. Later increased to 36 in most ships. Most Japanese DDs did not have sonar/asdic at the time of Pearl Harbor.
They were basically one trick ponies, surface attack. They may have been the best in the world at that one trick, but they were near useless at just about anything else.

That's kind of doctrinal, but yeah, Japanese DDs weren't good at ASW in general for the most part. But they definitely used their ships in the Solomons according to design and doctrine: get in, drop fish, turn and scoot, and use the guns if cornered. Tanaka showed this at Tassafaronga, didn't need to use his guns much at all.

What do you want to use DDs for? Escort? ASW? And so on.

But in 1939, American and Japanese destroyers as groups both had topweight issues, aside from any fighting qualities. I think the Japanese had better fighting qualities for small, fast ships. A destroyer in a gunfight has probably already screwed up.

 

[ThomasP]

D.K.Brown and some of the other Admiralty higher-ups considered the Japanese DDs (depending on the class) to have superior or equal seakeeping to the Royal Navy types. The USN Bureau of ships considered the Royal Navy DDs to have better seakeeping than their own.

That's all I got.

Note that comparing ships of significantly different displacements skews the curve somewhat.

 

[SaparotRob]

D.K.Brown and some of the other Admiralty higher-ups considered the Japanese DDs (depending on the class) to have superior or equal seakeeping to the Royal Navy types.

I can see how the USN could compare DDs with the RN. How did the RN form their positive opinion of the IJN DDs? Rhetorical question. I did start thinking about the Fubukis operating in the North Sea, though.

 

[ThomasP]

Unfortunately, I have never run across an explanation for the opinion. But I have read the opinion in 2 different papers making the same comment - one of them was by D.K.Brown, while the other was a post-war summary in a British naval architecture magazine article. It is possible the 2 opinions were based on the same source - I have no way of knowing - but the author of the naval architecture magazine article was not D.K.Brown.

I will see if I can find the article.

 

[EwenS]

As always with these discussions you need to go back to 1922 and the Washington Naval Treaty.

WNT was focussed on battleships, carriers & large cruisers. It left destroyers alone. Britain (Admiralty S & T, V, W,Mod W and their equivalent Leader classes) and the US (4 stackers) had plenty of destroyers left over from WW1 so that new construction wasn't needed immediately. Japan built a series of equivalent destroyers. Japan continued with developing its line of WW1 through to the mid-1920s. France & Italy need to be considered separately and I'll return to them in later.

Britain started planning renewal of its destroyer fleet in 1923 with orders for 2 prototypes in 1924/25, followed by a flotilla of 8 plus a slightly larger Leader each year from the 1927 Programme through to the 1935 Programme (the A-I classes. The 1930 C class saw only a leader and 4 ships). These showed incremental improvements year by year with some fitted out with minesweeping gear or ASDIC and some for minelaying. Effectively slightly larger developments from V & W class. The last of these was completed in Jan 1938.

Japan rocked the boat in 1926 with the development of the "Special Type", the Fubuki class, 1,750 tons standard, with 6x5" in enclosed twin gunhouses & 3 triple 24" TT. 24 ships laid down between June 1926 and March 1930 for completion June 1928 to March 1933, followed by 4 Akatsuki class.

London naval Treaty 1930 signed April 1930 Part III (to which only the US, Britain & Japan were signitories).

This sought to limit the size & number of destroyers for the first time, both in terms of size of individual ships and overall destroyer tonnage. So Britain & the US had 150,000 tons of destroyer standard tonnage and Japan 105,500 tons. While individual ship size was limited to 1,850 tons standard, they could only devote 16% of their tonnage to ships of 1,500-1,850 tons (24,000 tons for Britain & the US or 13 ships while Japan was entitled to 16,800 which it was already exceeding so couldn't build any more over 1,500 tons in the short term.)

Japan.
Tried to squeeze a quart into a pint pot with its next class cutting the 5" armament to 5 guns (2x2 & 1x1) and taking out a set of TT. 6 ships built. And then they ran into stability problems as highlighted in the Tomozuru incident causing them to be redesigned, as were the following class (10 ships) so that they slightly exceeded the 1,500 ton limit.

By the time Japan got round to laying down the next class, it had already given notice in Dec 1934 that it would be leaving the Treaty system on 31 Dec 1936 and the next destroyer class, the Asashio class, wouldn't be completing until 1937-39 so they built them bigger (c2,000 tons standard), along with the following Kagero class. Everything after that was laid down after the outbreak of WW2 in Sept 1939.

USA
Was late to the game of building new destroyers. It began in 1932 with the Farragut class, the first of the so called "Goldplaters", of 1,365 tons standard. Subsequent classes built on that, switching to a single funnel design in 1935 with the Gridley class and increasing the TT armament to 16 tubes. The last of these were the Sims class (12 ships) laid down in 1937-38 only 3 of which completed before the outbreak of WW2. The Sims were the first US destroyers to be fitted with the Mark 37 director system, but only carried 12 TT as designed. There were 73 of these "Goldplaters"

In parallel to those 1,500 tonners the USN built the Porter (4 twin 5" & 8TT) & Somers (4 twin 5" & 12 TT) class destroyer leaders of 1,850 tons standard. But note the guns fitted in these were single purpose low angle mounts. That was the cost of increasing the number of guns. There were 13 of these ships laid down 1933-36, a number that met the requirements of the 1930 Treaty.

The last pre-war designed destroyers wer the Benson-Gleaves class, where the tonnage increased slightly over the Sims to allow a unit machnery arrangement. While the first of these were authorised pre-war, only 14 had been laid down prior to WW2. with the first completions from mid-1940. Repeat orders were made from 1940 due to delays with the Fletcher programme. These completed with a reduced armament due to topweight issues.

It was the need to rapidly renew the USN destroyer fleet that caused the USN to persist with developments of the Treaty limited classes through the Sims & Benson-Gleaves classes.

The Fletcher class therefore represents the first of the Treaty unlimited destroyers. Evolution of this class began in Autumn 1939, after the outbreak of WW2.

Britain
Faced with the prospect of fighting the Japanese Fubuki class, the RN examined its destroyer needs in early 1935. Out of that came the big 1,854 ton standard Tribal class, which traded torpedo armament (1 quad set) for more guns (4 twin 4.7") and a quad pom-pom to improve its AA armament. The first 7 were ordered in March 1936 and another 9 in June under the 1935 & 1936 Programmes. These completed between April 1938 & March 1939. But they were seen as a special type initially, the flotillas being referred to as the 1st & 2nd Tribal Destroyer Flotillas before being renumbered as ordinary destroyer flotillas in 1939. There was no separate larger leader for this or subsequent classes.

But the reduction in torpedo armament wasn't well regarded, so the succeeding J class (1936 Programme) was for a smaller ship 1,690 tons with 3 twin 4.7" but 2 quintuple TT. These completed from April 1939, with the last on 12 Sept that year.

The 1937 Programme saw the K class as a repeat of the Js (completed Aug-Dec 1939) and a new design in the L class with a new model of 4.7" gun (firing a heavier 62lb shell) in a fully enclosed gunhouse (with awkward ammunition supply and still low angle although increased to 55 degrees).

The next destroyers were ordered under the 1939 Programme. Here cost was becoming an issue. The M class were ordered as a repeat of the L class and, rather than a new class of even larger ships, the N class were ordered as J/K design for speed of construction, all being laid down July-Sept 1940 before any of the M class and the last of the L class.

France
From Washington the French built two types of vessel normally thought of as destroyers, with the role of the Contre-torpilleur not being that of a traditional destroyer.

Firstly the 1,300-1,400 ton Bourassque & Adroit classes laid down 1923-26 and completed up to 1930. The 1,800 ton Le Hardi class laid down from 1936 should be considered the successors to these, built to be faster to allow escort of the new capital ships.

Secondly the various Contre-torpilleur classes. Their role was more akin to that of British light cruisers in WW1 - supporting the fleet with tactical scouting and screening and anti-destroyer work. Designed for a war in the Med where speed (35.5-39 knots depending on class) and hitting power (5x5.1" in the first class then 5x5.5" in subsequent classes and finally 4 twin 5.5" in the Mogadors) were seen to be more important than endurance & staying power. They would work in divisions of 3 to tackle any enemy cruisers that they might encounter.

Italy
As I've noted on other threads, the French and Italians had their own little naval race inter-war. So the Italians responded to the French with the large Esploratori if the Navigatore and other classes and light cruisers. They also built small 1,000-1,200 ton torpedo boats. But again stability problems forced a move to larger sized vessels of the Maestrale, Oriani & Soldati classes of 1,600-1,850 tons with main armament of 2 twin 4.7" plus a couple of single 4.7" starshell guns and two triple TT.

 

[special ed]

Regarding WW2 destroyers, a high school coach told us, "You have never been cold until you have been on a destroyer in the North Atlantic in the winter."

 

[MIflyer]

How did the RN form their positive opinion of the IJN DDs?

Prewar the IJN greatly admired the RN and tried to emulate it, including the use of English in giving orders aboard ship. There must have been some contact between the two navies to enable the IJN to slavishly copy the RN and that would have enabled the RN to assess IJN capabilities.

 

[EwenS]

Prewar the IJN greatly admired the RN and tried to emulate it, including the use of English in giving orders aboard ship. There must have been some contact between the two navies to enable the IJN to slavishly copy the RN and that would have enabled the RN to assess IJN capabilities.

Britain, and the Royal Navy, had a very close relationship with Japan between 1902 and 1923 thanks to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. The RN trained some Japanese officers and Japanese liaison officers served with the RN.

Anglo-Japanese Alliance - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Japanese warships were designed and built in Britain, mostly in the pre-dreadnought era, but the last was the battlecruiser Kongo laid down in 1911. Japanese warships served in the Med alongside the RN in WW1. Britain helped to create the IJNAF in the early 1920s. See Semphill Mission.

Sempill Mission - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That only changed after the WNT of 1922, as Britain diplomatically moved closer to the USA and away from Japan.