WWII Destroyers? (4 Viewers)

[Shortround6]

Germans had some design experience with large destroyers in WW I but no practical experience (feed back).
The S 113 was running trials when the war ended

And wound up in French hands as reparations. 2060 tons, 346ft long, 4 15cm guns and 4 23.6in torpedoes. 2 sisters broken up incomplete.
a class of 6 near sisters from a different yard saw one ship (V 116) going to Italy and the other scrapped in various stages of completion. A further group of 3 ships from another yard were all broken up incomplete. These were all oil fired and the Germans had been using oil firing since the 1913 year classes. Early ships had used mixed firing but all oil allowed for a a number of improvements including a large reduction in machinery personnel.
The S 113 had poor sea keeping even in the North Sea.

 

[Shortround6]

The US made some mistakes of their own in the 1930s.

Somers class. Sounded good on paper.
8 5in/38s in twin mounts.
2 quad 1.1 AA mounts.
2 0.5in AA guns
12 21 torpedo tubes, all on the center line.

However.
Extremely top-heavy.
The 5in twins would only elevate to 35 degrees. Not dual purpose.
The 1.1s may have been late (?) but in any case, they were troublesome in service.
To solve the top-heaviness they took off the 3rd gun mount and one set of torpedo tubes.
In fact the last two ships got 1st and 4th mounts replaced by the later twin mount hi elevation guns and got a single gun in the 3rd mount location and given a scattering of 40mm (3 twin mounts) and 20mm guns leaving them with about the same fire power as a Fetcher. These two also got a late war emergency AA refit which traded all the torpedoes for extra AA guns.
They were just a few feet off the length of a Fletcher and just about 3 ft narrower. Kind of shows what the DP battery costs in a small ship.

 

[SaparotRob]

But they looked mahvelous!

 

[GreenKnight121]

But in 1939, American and Japanese destroyers as groups both had topweight issues, aside from any fighting qualities.

You seem to be applying the problems of 13 4x2 5" gunned ships designed as destroyer leaders (the 8 Porter class and the 5 Somers class) to all USN destroyers - when the 1930s & early 1940s 4x1 5" & 5x1 5" gunned destroyers (which made up the majority of USN destroyers) had no such issues.

 

[EwenS]

You seem to be applying the problems of 13 4x2 5" gunned ships designed as destroyer leaders (the 8 Porter class and the 5 Somers class) to all USN destroyers - when the 1930s & early 1940s 4x1 5" & 5x1 5" gunned destroyers (which made up the majority of USN destroyers) had no such issues.

Well that is not entirely true.

Reading Friedman's US Destroyers all the Goldplater classes after the Mahans had come out overweight and that became a real issue with the Sims class. At light displacement the lead ship Anderson was reported to be nearly 120 tons overweight and top heavy, so affecting their stability (GM at light weight was 1.68ft compared to 2.68ft as designed). So the design had to be modified before most of them entered service. The Sec of the Navy approved the changes on 25 Sept 1939. Having been designed around a TT armament of 3 quad TT (1 centreline & one on each side) they sacrificed one of the side sets and had the other placed on the centreline on a new deckhouse.. Other changes authorised included 60 tons of fixed ballast, and elimination of the splinter protection around the director, director tube and pilot house

Sims running builders trials in July 1939 with all 3 sets of TT in place. Note the missing Mark 37 director at this point.

Sims in Nov 1940 having lost both sets of sided TT and with the director now in place.

Sims in May 1940 with the new deckhouse in place and a second centreline quad TT and the boats relocated from the shelter deck alongside No 3 5"/38 to the main deck.

The changes were approved in time to allow the later completions in the class to emerge with the modified armament.

Elsewhere I've read that these interwar classes, while not necessarily unstable when completed, had little stability margin for the changes that began to take place when WW2 broke out. Firstly depth charge armament & then light AA had to be increased. Those changes required sacrifices elsewhere - guns, TT etc varying by class. Similar effects can be seen in other navies to a greater or lesser extent depending on the design, but the USN seems to have been affected more than some others. One indication of the lack of stability margin in some of the US 1,500 tonners can be seen in the Gridley class. These 4 ships were the only group that were not refitted with any Bofors guns during WW2. Not only that but they still ahd to sacrifice their two aft sets of TT in 1945 when relegated to the Atlantic Fleet in the first few months of that year. Any work on an Emergency AA refit for them in 1945 was considered a very low priority and was never carried out.

 

[Shortround6]

Just about everybody was trying to put more than a quart in a pint pot when it came to destroyers.
This was not helped with the London naval treaty.
AS warfare was not only a 'hidden' cost it was a real, rapidly escalating cost once war broke out.
Some navies had designed for two different weight limits, the treaty limit which was sometimes called "peace limit" and the actual designed weight or "war limit". The US did this a lot.
This also meant that the ships would be slower in service with full ammo, fuel and extra 'stuff'. than the speed on trials.
The British 'standard' destroyers were small. They needed a lot of destroyers and the Washington treaty had no real limits on destroyer size but the limit was total tonnage so the British just enlarged the WW I W & V class a bit to around 1400 tons to keep numbers up.
Some other navies were trying to use large destroyers as junior cruisers and those got rather large quickly. The US spent the 20s sitting back and building nothing as they had built so many destroyers at the end of WW I that over 1/2 were out of commission at any given time. This was both good and bad. The early 'gold platers' got see a lot of what everybody else was doing, but they came up with new designs faster than they could be built let alone tested so any bad ideas/problems went through a number of classes before being straightened out.
The AA problem took everyone by surprise. Planes got a lot faster, stronger and carried much more armament very quickly. A couple of Lewis guns on posts were no longer enough

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

USN doctrine was to let sea water into the fuel tanks as fuel was used, it kept displacement about the same, which is why USN ships are generally quoted as having one top speed. The RN allowed the tanks to empty, which is why people like HT Lenton quote top speed and top speed full load. In *theory* it generally gave RN ships a slightly better stability, given the fuel still on board. It took a while to pump out the tanks, the US destroyers lost to the typhoon in 1944 had been emptying their tanks expecting to refuel soon as well as trying to stay in formation instead of riding the weather.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You seem to be applying the problems of 13 4x2 5" gunned ships designed as destroyer leaders (the 8 Porter class and the 5 Somers class) to all USN destroyers - when the 1930s & early 1940s 4x1 5" & 5x1 5" gunned destroyers (which made up the majority of USN destroyers) had no such issues.

They had stability issues as well. Forgive the quick Wiki, but re: Farragut:


Two of the destroyers, Hull and Monaghan, sank as a result of the December 1944 typhoon. One of the survivors stated

"The only thing I could complain about is ever since we left [Seattle] the ship seemed top heavy. I was on there for two years. Ever since we left [the shipyard] in October 1944, she seemed to roll worse than she ever did. Even in the calmest weather and even when anchored, she seemed to roll lots more than she used to."

A court of inquiry after the loss concluded that [the] basic stability of the Farragut-class ships "is materially less than other destroyers."

Farragut-class destroyer (1934) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'll bring more and better sources when I get the time, but even the 4- and 5-gun DDs were notably top-heavy even before the addition of radar, extra AA, and other topweight. Indeed, some of those destroyers were four-gun precisely because five gun-mounts made them unsafe. I can't remember the class right now but one of them went into refit just after construction because of topweight issues.

 

[BEAR VMF257]

DM-28 USS Tolman was a mid war build my dad was a plank owner on. Served on it till war ended. Was taken out of action during the Okinawa invasion. Credited with a number of aircraft & PT boat kills.

Had a opportunity to board the USS Laffey DD-724 a class mate of DM-28 (started as DD740) at Patriots Point Naval & Maritime Museum & stand at my dads battle station. Was a good day.

 

[Shortround6]

A lot of the pre WW II US destroyers had top weight issues.
A lot did not carry depth charges (or not very many) in peace time configuration.
Standard rack was for Five 600lb charges (actual weight 720lbs) and two racks were standard if fitted.
Provisions were made for storage of extra depth charges in the locker used to hold torpedo warheads in peacetime.
Jan 1942 saw many Benson-Livermores with two 12 charge stern racks (plus stowage for 16 more charges) and a Y gun with 10 300lbs charges (actual weight 420lbs).
Orders had been given for the fitting of eight K-guns in late 1941 but this a bit too much for most ships.
The standard of 30 600lb charges + 32 300lbs charges for the K guns was not really practical, both due to weight and lack of actual space on the deck.
The 12 charge stern racks took up too much length and on the Fletchers and Summers were changed to two 8 charge racks and two 5 charge racks between them (total of 26 charges).
The Fletchers and Summers had been designed without reloads/magazine storage.
By 1944 there were different 'fits' for Atlantic and Pacific service. And the different classes had different amounts of depth charges for the throwers even if the number of throwers was nearly standardized. Atlantic destroyers had 6 throwers and many Pacific ships had 4, all in addition to stern racks.
This added weight of depth charges and racks was in competition with the added weight of AA guns.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Additional sources:

Farragut class

Due to their long service life from 1935-36 to 1946-48 these destroyers generated tons of reports and their advantages soon turned in part into more controversial issues as new classes were introduced. In particular, they were found considered unstable in heavy weather, and while turning.

Farragut class destroyers (1934)

The Farragut class destroyers were the first class built since the emergency WW2 four-pipers, inaugurating a forecastle and many innovations.

naval-encyclopedia.com

Bensons

The Benson class was still essentially a prewar design, but lessons had been digested so far: It was tried to negate stability issues and in the end, the Bensons became a improved version of the Sims class.

[...]

The apparition of the Fletcher class no doubt was regarded with envy by the "old salts" which served on the Benson-Gleaves, which looked cramped, unstable, slow and vulnerable in comparison.

Benson class destroyers (1939)

The Bensons were the last US prewar destroyers, launched 1939-43, totalling 170 battle stars between the Atlantic, Med. and Pacific

naval-encyclopedia.com

The Bagleys

They reached 341 ft 8 in (104.14 m) overall, versus 340 ft 10 in (103.89 m) so about the same lenght than the Gridleys, but were slightly less beamer, at 35 ft 6 in (10.82 m) versus 35 ft 10 in (10.92 m) but with higher draft, at 10 ft 4 in (3.15 m) light and 12 ft 10 in (3.91 m) fully loaded, versus 12 ft 9 in (3.89 m) and fuller hull forms, as well a reinforcements. They were less plagued by stability issues than the Gridleys overall.

Bagley class destroyers (1936)

The four Bagley class destroyers were a follow-up of the Gridleys, with the same single funnel and 16 torpedo tubes, but revised machinery.

naval-encyclopedia.com

 

[EwenS]

The RN destroyers built in WW2 also suffered with topweight increases, which eventually could not be absorbed without sacrifices elsewhere. For example:-

The Destroyer DCT and Rangefinder Director Mk II(W) as fitted in the Q-V classes weighed 3.5 tons. The 'K' Director fitted in the Z & Ca classes weighed 6 tons. The Mk VI fitted in the Ch, Co & Cr classes (as well as the 1942 Battles) weighed 10 tons.

Adding Remote Power Control to the 4.5in gun mounts in the Ch,Co & Cr classes cost 1.5 tons per mount. That was necessary to benefit from the full blind fire capabilities of the Mk.VI director.

The fitting of permanent ballast was steadily increased as the war went on. The Z & Ca classes completed without the searchlight and it's associated pedestal and directors to compensate for the K director

But there was a cost in moving from the Ca to the 3 later C class groups and changes to the design began in Dec 1942. The first change wss that the Ch, Co & Cr groups lost a set of quad TT. Then in 1944 the depth charge armament was reduced, from the standard 10 charge pattern delivered from 2 rails and 4 throwers with 70 DC, to just 2 rails and 2 throwers with 35 DC. The 44in searchlight etc was again not fitted. And finally the light AA had to be reduced with single, instead of twin, 20mm Oerlikons in the bridge wings.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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?

One issue the USN did differently was enclosed bridges.

Why closed bridges on USN DDs?

I'm watching Greyhound… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QvGHvJ-Oe1Q&pp=ygUWZ3JleWhvdW5kIGJhdHRsZSBzY2VuZQ%3D%3D … and wondering why the USN Fletcher-class destroyer has a closed bridge when His Majesty's destroyers, like HMCS Cayuga below, made for the North Atlantic have open bridges. Was it...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Admiral Beez]

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

The French Le Fantasque-class were interesting. Capable of burst speeds of 45 knots.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The French Le Fantasque-class were interesting. Capable of burst speeds of 45 knots.

I wonder what the hull looks like after that mad dash.

 

[SaparotRob]

The French Le Fantasque-class were interesting. Capable of burst speeds of 45 knots.

Yup, they were fast. What else can they do? How's the range on 'em? What else they got, DD-wise?

 

[Shortround6]

A lot on the ships shown in the opening post are one trick ponies.
They are very good at one thing, not very good at much else.

Granted the US had 10 years to come up with the Gearing class but it is interesting.

............................................Le Fantasque....................................Gearing...................................German Z-28.........................................British H class

Displacement (S)....................2,569 t............................................2,658 t.....................................2,638 t.......................................................1,370 t
Length....................................434 ft 5 in.........................................390.5 ft...................................416 ft 8 in..................................................323 ft
Beam........................................39 ft 4 in...........................................40.9 ft......................................39 ft 4 in.....................................................33 ft
SHP..........................................73,000...............................................60,000 shp.............................69,000 .....................................................34,000 shp
Speed (?)................................37kts.................................................36.8 kts......................................36 kts........................................................35.5 kts
Range(?)......................2,900 nmi /15 knots .........................4,500 nmi/20kts........................2500nmi/19kts.....................................5530nmi/15kts
main guns......................5 × single (5.5 in).............................3 X twin 5in...................................4(5) X 15cm...........................................4 X 4.7in
2nd guns........................2 x single 37mm SA.......................12 x 40mm................................... 2 X twin 37mm SA................................2 X quad .5
Tertiary guns................ 2 x twin 13.2 mg..............................11 X single 20mm.......................6 X single 20mm....................................X
Torpedoes......................3 x triple 21in....................................2 X quint 21in................................2 X quint 21in....................................2 X quad 21in
Depth charges.............2 chutes=28.......................................... 2racks..........................................????.............................................................1 rack
Depth charges B...................X..........................................................6 X K-guns.................................X....................................................2 X K-gun 20 charges total
Mines.......................................40...........................................................X..................................................60.................................................................X

A few notes.
Design speed often varied considerably from trial speed. the Fantasques were very fast but they gave up a lot.
The French and German main guns only elevated to 30 degrees, were slow training and elevating and slow firing for AA use.
The French and German 37mm guns were Semi-Automatic. Rates of fire were around 20rpm per barrel unless conditions were very, very good.
French had one torpedo launcher on each side and one that could fire to either side 6 tube broadside. Maybe the Fantasques were not as top heavy as the other two?
The Fantasques spent a lot of tonnage going fast and having a strong surface gun armament and not much else.
Added the British H class to show what speed and heavy guns cost in terms of size/tonnage.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yup, they were fast. What else can they do? How's the range on 'em?

Flee from the Germans. You just need enough fuel to make it to Martinique. Meanwhile look at the valiant fight of the small Dutch destroyers at Java Sea, like HNLMS Kortenaer below.

And having to face off against much larger IJN destroyers, like Japanese destroyer Asagumo (1937) - Wikipedia

 

[EwenS]

One issue the USN did differently was enclosed bridges.

Why closed bridges on USN DDs?

I'm watching Greyhound… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QvGHvJ-Oe1Q&pp=ygUWZ3JleWhvdW5kIGJhdHRsZSBzY2VuZQ%3D%3D … and wondering why the USN Fletcher-class destroyer has a closed bridge when His Majesty's destroyers, like HMCS Cayuga below, made for the North Atlantic have open bridges. Was it...

ww2aircraft.net

Until they got some war experience, when it was found that when under air attack it was good to be able to see an incoming dive bomber to be able to manoeuvre the ship.

The first 58 Fletchers received the original rounded bridge.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0551402.jpg

Then the bridge and director was squared off & lowered and made open around its forward end as in Hoel completed in 1943. One of the later 117 Fletchers.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/0553321.jpg

And they had another go at a closed bridge with the Sumners that was quickly changed.

Ingram in March 1944

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0569418.jpg

Lowry in July 1944 as she was completing.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0577026.jpg

The earliest Sumners in Desron 60 first saw service off Normandy where Meredith was sunk. The others had their bridges modified to the open type before going to the Pacific.

 

[z42]

Wrt high pressure steam, there was a discussion recently where the argument was made that while the USN got it to work reliably, the plants were quite manpower heavy, and the expected fuel savings didn't materialize.

Thus, in retrospect maybe they could've been a bit more conservative?


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0MIRyN-pLuQ&list=PL8r1iVstL70LreMmvgs6Seu5HkBbU3vFf&index=1&pp=iAQB