WWII Destroyers?

[Shortround6]

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

As far as the high-lighted section goes, there was very little that was unorthodox or novel except for 3 things?
1. The Japanese use of oxygen fuel torpedoes. But they used the same torpedoes in Cruisers.
2. The use of high pressure steam in the German and American navies. But again, in each navy the use of high pressure steam was navy wide, not destroyer specific.
3. The use of high angle main guns in the American and Japanese destroyers, but again the Americans were using the same gun in every ship that was big enough.
The Japanese used a different 5in gun on their battleships and cruisers. The 'declared' DP guns used in most of the Japanese destroyers were sometimes replaced by the some 5in guns used by the Japanese on the large ships. Much like some British Tribal's replaced one twin 4.7in mount with a twin 4in mount to improve AA the Japanese replaced one twin 5in/50 mount with the twin 5in/40 mount for better AA, which should tell us all we need to know about the AA capabilities of the Japanese 5in/50 gun and mounts.

The use of specialized AA weapons or the dedication of destroyers to a single role (AS for example) came after the outbreak of the war.

 

[EwenS]

As far as the high-lighted section goes, there was very little that was unorthodox or novel except for 3 things?
1. The Japanese use of oxygen fuel torpedoes. But they used the same torpedoes in Cruisers.
2. The use of high pressure steam in the German and American navies. But again, in each navy the use of high pressure steam was navy wide, not destroyer specific.
3. The use of high angle main guns in the American and Japanese destroyers, but again the Americans were using the same gun in every ship that was big enough.
The Japanese used a different 5in gun on their battleships and cruisers. The 'declared' DP guns used in most of the Japanese destroyers were sometimes replaced by the some 5in guns used by the Japanese on the large ships. Much like some British Tribal's replaced one twin 4.7in mount with a twin 4in mount to improve AA the Japanese replaced one twin 5in/50 mount with the twin 5in/40 mount for better AA, which should tell us all we need to know about the AA capabilities of the Japanese 5in/50 gun and mounts.

The use of specialized AA weapons or the dedication of destroyers to a single role (AS for example) came after the outbreak of the war.

Firstly the Japanese 5in/50 gun gun mountings came in a variety of types, on which the elevation varied from 40 degrees through 55 degrees to 75 degrees depending on the destroyer class and the particular mount concerned. They all however shared one factor in common - they had to be loaded at +5 to +10 degrees elevation. Accordingly their rate of fire was slow, making them ill suited for AA work. By 1944 their use seems to have been confined to providing barrage fire.

When it came to increasing the AA armament of their big Type A fleet destroyers, the after superfiring twin 5in/50 was replaced with a pair of triple 25mm (amongst the addition of many more single, twin or triple 25mm). See "Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy 1869-1945". Friedman also notes that in his "Naval Anti-Aircraft Guns and Gunnery" book.

When the Japanese needed to produce a smaller escort destroyer for mass production from 1942, the Matsu & Tachibana classes, they were given a single 5in/40 forward and a twin aft, both types having an elevation range of -7 to +85 or90 degrees. This is Take completed in June 1944. These were the Japanese equivalent of a US Destroyer Escort. 1,260 tons standard displacement, speed 27.8 knots. As designed 24x25mm (4x3, 12x1), one quad set of TT, 36DC. MOre 25mm and DC were added as the war went into its final year.

The replacement of X 4.7in mount in the Tribals from 1940 was just part of an attempt to upgrade the AA firepower of RN destroyers generally at that point using whatever was to hand. The Tribals were lucky getting the twin 4in. Other classes sacrificed a set of TT for a 3in gun (generally the older classes up to the I class) or a single 4in Mk.V (J and later classes). The survivors in the fleet destroyer role, generally had the gun, which was pretty much useless anyway, replaced in 1944 with a set of TT again.

 

[Shortround6]

You are quite correct. The British were scrambling. I am just using it point out that the Japanese DP destroyers guns....................weren't.
In the late 30s or 1940/41 only the US had actual DP destroyer guns.
Now they did need better fire control and that showed up after the guns/mounts and even then it is hard to say if the US would have gotten a large benefit in AA capability without proximity fuse which did not exist until well after the US Navy planned for and ordered the 5in/38 and the associated fire control.
A flotilla of US Destroyers at Dunkirk may not have done much better than the RN destroyers did given the US actual weapons fit of the time. The 5in/38 can aim up but but the rate of fire and firing time to engage either dive bombers or the low flying aircraft coming out from over land might not show a big difference although the bursting 5in shells may throw off the attacking pilots aim.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Destroyers are not what they once were, by a long shot.

It seems like the idea of the inexpensive, quick to produce and willing to lose blue water escort warships is over.

But what is a destroyer to a frigate? Interestingly, with everyone else operating mostly frigates, when all 15 River-class "destroyers" (Type 26 frigates to everyone else) are completed Canada will have the 2nd largest destroyer force in NATO. Excluding the USN's seventy-five destroyers, the entirety of NATO operates ten destroyers (UK: 6 x Type 45, France/Italy: 4 x Horizon-class).

Considering it's been almost ten years since we operated a single one, who would have guessed that Canada would soon field the 2nd largest destroyer force in NATO? Meanwhile to the USN this 16,000 ton (full load) beast is a destroyer DDG(X) - Wikipedia.

 

[z42]

It seems like the idea of the inexpensive, quick to produce and willing to lose blue water escort warships is over.

But what is a destroyer to a frigate?

My understanding is that the modern classification is roughly that a destroyer is a multi-role fleet defense ship, whereas frigates tend to be more ASW focused (they have AA obviously, but mostly for self defense).

 

[Admiral Beez]

whereas frigates tend to be more ASW focused (they have AA obviously, but mostly for self defense).

Things are changing on that front too. The new Constellation-class frigates will be armed with 32 x VLS cells to fire a mix of Tomahawk cruise missiles and Standard ERAM, 16 × canister launched Naval Strike Missiles and 21 x Rolling Airframe Missiles. That's a lot of firepower and over the horizon reach to protect solely one's self.

 

[z42]

Things are changing on that front too. The new Constellation-class frigates will be armed with 32 x VLS cells to fire a mix of Tomahawk cruise missiles and Standard ERAM, 16 × canister launched Naval Strike Missiles and 21 x Rolling Airframe Missiles. That's a lot of firepower and over the horizon reach to protect solely one's self.

Yeah, that's true. I guess after the collapse of the Soviet union things have been relatively quiet on the ASW front, so maybe other things are increasingly emphasized? And threats are getting increasingly long-legged as well, so defensive weapons have to become longer ranged to compensate.

And of course, a general inflation in size and capabilities of ships. Once we get to the Star Wars universe, the (Super) Star Destroyer is the biggest class of capital ship!

 

[MIflyer]

when all 15 River-class "destroyers" (Type 26 frigates to everyone else) are completed Canada will have the 2nd largest destroyer force in NATO.

I've never understood why the US Govt opposed Canada buying nuclear powered subs back in the 1980's. Seemed like a good idea to me, given Canada's extensive shoreline and Arctic areas.

 

[B25Nut]

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.

View attachment 806220

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.

View attachment 806221

Last Stand is still my favorite book. The author, James Hornfischer, was the best and I have all his books. Since many here, like me, love destroyers, you may be interested in this USS Fletcher, a 62" model by Motion RC. Its quality is good enough to meet the standards of the best naval museums. Bancroft USS Fletcher 1/72 Scale 1580mm (62") USA Destroyer - RTR [BNC1003-003] Motion RC

 

[swampyankee]

I've never understood why the US Govt opposed Canada buying nuclear powered subs back in the 1980's. Seemed like a good idea to me, given Canada's extensive shoreline and Arctic areas.

I suspect that there were a couple of reasons. One is that USN naval reactors are designed with highly enriched uranium. Letting this outside of US control was not considered a good plan. A second may be that the US decided that the Canadians didn't need them -- it was not unknown for the US to have a rather patronizing view of other countries' determinations of their own defense needs.

 

[ThomasP]

Operational Security concerns re the technology & technical information involved were the main reason. This was not meant as an insult to Canada's loyalties or any such thing - it was simply that the US and UK considered the nuclear submarine program technology and associated information so critically important that they were not willing to provide such information without clear cause. The US, via the size of its submarine fleet, effectively ensured the northern security of North America (at least as much as was practical). There were actually some ruffled feathers during the original decision making process, but - for various reasons - all parties agreed that it was probably for the best at the time. Canada's primary reasons were the high cost of the program(s) and the US agreement to patrol the northern waters - something the US would have to do anyway (at least to a very large degree) since Canada could not have afforded a large enough nuclear powered submarine fleet to do so. Keep in mind, even today Canada has only about 40M people (about 1/8 the US population), and only about 1/13 the US GDP, while in 1960 their population was only 18M with a proportionately smaller economy. Even the UK with its significantly larger population and economic base - today at about 1.7x and 1.5x that of Canada respectively - had a difficult time affording a significant Army, Air Force, and Navy, with its nuclear submarine force shrinking over the years - despite the extreme importance of maritime protection relative to the UK's way of life.

Access to enriched uranium by Canada was never the problem. Canada has been the source of a very large percentage of the Uranium used by the US and UK since WWII (including some of the ore used in the Manhattan Project), and Canada was part of the Manhattan Project almost from the beginning, as well as part of the first Quebec Conference. Canada could have been enriching their own uranium from at least the late-1970s (they have been operating their own nuclear reactor/electricity generating plants since the early-1970s).

 

[z42]

To the extent HEU is a sticking issue, Canada could have bought French nuclear submarines, or at least the propulsion plant tech of it. French naval reactors run on LEU, about 7-8% max enrichment IIRC.

That being said, as T ThomasP said, it's probably more about the size of the Canadian economy in general, and the huge expense of a nuclear submarine program, regardless of the fuel enrichment.

 

[MIflyer]

Operational Security concerns re the technology & technical information involved were the main reason.

I tended toward that explanation as well. There was a US satellite in the late 70's that downlinked its data in an unclassified manner and methods were developed to use that data in very interesting ways. I was told that Canada allowed that processed data to get out into the open. When we were expecting some Canadian visitors I and my boss saw no problem with giving them a tour of our booster assembly and processing facility. There was a booster for a classified mission in there, and that did not seem to pose any security risks. But one of our people had done some air-to-air missile development work and objected, saying the Canadians had shown an inadequate concern for security of the data, so we did not let them in.

 

[swampyankee]

I tended toward that explanation as well. There was a US satellite in the late 70's that downlinked its data in an unclassified manner and methods were developed to use that data in very interesting ways. I was told that Canada allowed that processed data to get out into the open. When we were expecting some Canadian visitors I and my boss saw no problem with giving them a tour of our booster assembly and processing facility. There was a booster for a classified mission in there, and that did not seem to pose any security risks. But one of our people had done some air-to-air missile development work and objected, saying the Canadians had shown an inadequate concern for security of the data, so we did not let them in.

If somebody is downloading unencrypted data, they're certainly implying that they do not care if somebody else collects and processes it. "Unencrypted over radio" = "it's public."

Regarding the booster? The only secrets one could garner from seeing a booster would be a very rough estimate of the satellite's size and a somewhere less rough estimate of the launch date.

In any case, if you want to get secrets from people, the best method is to suborn insiders. I don't know how Aldrich Ames, Michael Pollard, or Robert Hanson (or hundreds of other cases) were convinced to betray the country (I suspect in some cases it was simply money, but I suspect others were ideology -- not necessarily pro-USSR or pro-China or what have you, but active antipathy to issues viewed as signs of US degeneracy, like civil rights). A visitor walking through a shop floor won't get much.

 

[MIflyer]

Regarding the booster? The only secrets one could garner from seeing a booster would be a very rough estimate of the satellite's size and a somewhere less rough estimate of the launch date.

The issue was that we had a variant of the Atlas in our facility that ONLY was used for classified missions. It would take an informed expert to recognize the differences between the two, and since not all the boosters there had even been completed, that was especially difficult to do.

Subsequent satellites equipped with that sensing technology used encrypted downlinks.

 

[Lucky13]

View: https://youtu.be/SN8osGHBUqs?si=wNZjZU9eoyvHhu4b

 

[SaparotRob]

View: https://youtu.be/SN8osGHBUqs?si=wNZjZU9eoyvHhu4b

Just watched it.