WWII Destroyers? (1 Viewer)

[EwenS]

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

See my post #16

They were designed with an eye on tackling the Italian Fleet in the Western Med basin. With France having bases on the southern Metropolitan French coast at Toulon and at Oran in Algeria and Bizerte in Tunisia, range was less of an issue than for the USN looking to the extended distances of the Pacific. Sea conditions are generally less rough in the Med than the North Sea or Atlantic.

Their role was more akin to a light cruiser than a destroyer in those pre-radar days.

As always. Horses for courses. You build what you believe your navy needs to fight the war it expects.

 

[SaparotRob]

See my post #16

They were designed with an eye on tackling the Italian Fleet in the Western Med basin. With France having bases on the southern Metropolitan French coast at Toulon and at Oran in Algeria and Bizerte in Tunisia, range was less of an issue than for the USN looking to the extended distances of the Pacific. Sea conditions are generally less rough in the Med than the North Sea or Atlantic.

Their role was more akin to a light cruiser than a destroyer in those pre-radar days.

As always. Horses for courses. You build what you believe your navy needs to fight the war it expects.

No argument there, brother.

 

[Shortround6]

See my post #16

They were designed with an eye on tackling the Italian Fleet in the Western Med basin. With France having bases on the southern Metropolitan French coast at Toulon and at Oran in Algeria and Bizerte in Tunisia, range was less of an issue than for the USN looking to the extended distances of the Pacific. Sea conditions are generally less rough in the Med than the North Sea or Atlantic.

Their role was more akin to a light cruiser than a destroyer in those pre-radar days.

As always. Horses for courses. You build what you believe your navy needs to fight the war it expects.

There is certainly large element of truth there.
There was also the old "They have got one of these widgets, we need a bigger, faster widget to counter it or we will be left behind" theory.

British often (not always) just said "fine, you have your large widget, we will just use 2 junior widgets instead of one large one"
And when the British started with a super destroyer they built the 8 gun Tribals of 1880tons instead of 2600 ton destroyers
But they had to go down to a single quad torpedo launcher to do it, While the AA was better than the French and Germans that was damning with faint praise and they had to give up a main gun twin mount to get any improvement in AA.

 

[SaparotRob]

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.

View attachment 807045

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

View attachment 807046

I forgot about the Dutch. My bad.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I forgot about the Dutch. My bad.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcUs5X9glCc

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm reminded of the Battle of Narvik, where in a day's work more than a third of the entire German destroyer fleet was destroyed.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOeCine2Rqs

When HMS Warspite shows up, you know you're done for.

 

[EwenS]

There is certainly large element of truth there.
There was also the old "They have got one of these widgets, we need a bigger, faster widget to counter it or we will be left behind" theory.

British often (not always) just said "fine, you have your large widget, we will just use 2 junior widgets instead of one large one"
And when the British started with a super destroyer they built the 8 gun Tribals of 1880tons instead of 2600 ton destroyers
But they had to go down to a single quad torpedo launcher to do it, While the AA was better than the French and Germans that was damning with faint praise and they had to give up a main gun twin mount to get any improvement in AA.

Changed circumstances.

Britain was constrained by the terms of the 1930 London Treaty which took effect in March 1930. So when they got round to building a response to the big Japanese destroyers in 1935 they couldn't build bigger than the Tribals. Without the threat of the Japanese "Special Type" the RN wouldn't have built that big so soon.

The French Contre-Torpilleurs were laid down between Aug 1922 and Dec 1934, with the Mogadors. The Mogadors were the only 2 laid down after The London Treaty came into effect. The next class were the Le Hardis from May 1936 at 1,800 tons.

Part III of the London Treaty which controlled cruiser, destroyer & submarine size and tonnage only applied to the US, Britain & Japan. The French & Italians refused to sign up to it. That Treaty expired on 31 Dec 1936 and a new set of restrictions applied from 1 Jan 1937.

Edit:- the French planned 6 Mogadors (For two 3 ship divisions) but, while not signatories to Part III, sought to follow the 1930 Treaty terms so far as possible to suit their needs. But only 2 were laid down and completed.

 

[Shortround6]

yes there were different circumstance and the British were somewhat constrained in their wartime construction by size of slipways and the need maximize production by not changing ships too much between classes.
The British did not get into the 2600-2800 ton destroyer class until the post war Darings. Granted they used 10-15 years more advanced machinery, weapons and sensors but they do show lack of balance in some of the super destroyers of the 1920s/30s.
The Super destroyers rarely (never?) had the fire control, powered mounts to actually use the long range fire they had paid so much for and at short ranges the faster firing smaller guns turned out to be deadlier than they were given credit for in peace time.
Many British destroyers did quite well with 6-8 4in guns that would would have been considered weak in the the 1930s.

 

[GreenKnight121]

The British did not get into the 2600-2800 ton destroyer class until the post war Darings. Granted they used 10-15 years more advanced machinery, weapons and sensors but they do show lack of balance in some of the super destroyers of the 1920s/30s.

But they got well past the WNT/LNT limits with the Battles:

• 1942 ships: 2,315 tons standard / 3,290 tons full load
• 1943 ships: 2,480 tons standard / 3,430 tons full load

True that only Barfleur (commissioned 1944) saw action in WW2, but all 26 were laid down in 1942 or 1943.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But they got well past the WNT/LNT limits...

Did the Japanese? They were outside of any treaty limits, but their largest seems to be the Akizuki-class, shown below. Japan's destroyers look daintily built, even this 2,700 ton class.