Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As far as the high-lighted section goes, there was very little that was unorthodox or novel except for 3 things?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
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.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.
It seems like the idea of the inexpensive, quick to produce and willing to lose blue water escort warships is over.Destroyers are not what they once were, by a long shot.
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).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?
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.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.
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.when all 15 River-class "destroyers" (Type 26 frigates to everyone else) are completed Canada will have the 2nd largest destroyer force in NATO.
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
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.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 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.Operational Security concerns re the technology & technical information involved were the main reason.
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."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.
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.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.
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
View attachment 807754
View attachment 807755