WWII Destroyers?

[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.

 

[EwenS]

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.

View attachment 807112

The Akizuki class were originally intended as a new Type B destroyer (the c2,000 ton classes being Type A). They were intended as fast AA escorts for the carriers. Originally the design lacked any TT, but a single set was added to the design before it was finalised. They were ordered and built in parallel with the last of the Type A Kagero class and the following Yagumo class from 1940 onwards.

Instead of 5in guns they received 4 twin 3.9in DP in enclosed turrets (same weapon as fitted in the carrier Taiho, cruiser Oyodo and intended for the second pair of Yamato class battleships planned at the same time) described as a "superb" weapon. They were also intended to have two fire control systems, as in the photo, but equipment shortages meant later ships only received one.

Japan 10 cm/65 (3.9") Type 98 - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

Their size and single funnelled design often led to their being mis-identified as cruisers. But it also made them useful as squadron flagships if light cruisers were unavailable. An enlarged derivative of c2,900 was planned in 1942 but never left the drawing board.

 

[MIflyer]

It is interesting that we brought back Frigates.

Frigates originally were sailing ships used as communications relays before the advent of radio. Frigates could be spaced just far enough apart so they could read the signal flags of the ships on each side of them and thus relay messages between fleets. Obviously, we no longer need to do that, but we still got Frigates. It appears that post-WW2 Frigates are essentially Destroyer Escorts, which raises the question of what was wrong with that designation.

Of course, Destroyers are not what they once were, by a long shot. We no longer have Battleships and the USS Zumwalt is a "Destroyer" but it is only 7 ft shorter than the USS Arizona.

 

[SaparotRob]

It does seem that designations are a bit skewed. There are corvettes out there as well as frigates. To me it seems those two classes are interchangeable, depending on the navy.
More importantly, let's get back to naming aircraft carriers after ships and battles.
Forgive my American provincialism.

 

[z42]

The USN switched the classification system in 1975, bringing it more in line with other navies. United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification - Wikipedia

Prior to that, a USN destroyer escort was roughly what was called a frigate in e.g. the RN. And then there were escort destroyers (ED), of course a different class of ship than a DE.

Since WWII there has been a lot of inflation in ship sizes. A modern destroyer such as a Arleigh Burke is tonnage wise closer to a WWII era light cruiser than a WWII destroyer.

 

[EwenS]

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.

The size of the Battle design from Spring 1941 was driven by war experience to date which indicated a requirement for a DP main armament with a minimum of 4 guns (for which the preference was that four should be carried forward of the bridge) plus 4 twin Bofors, two twin & 2 single 20mm, 2 quad TT and the standard 2 rails and 2 DC throwers. To get the best from the main armament the big Mk.VI HA/LA DCT was required. As the design developed and the two twin 4.5" forward turret set up settled on, a 4in "starshell" gun was added abaft the funnel so that the main armament need not be diverted to that task (this was replaced by more single Bofors in 1945 after the first 5 ships completed). The sketch design for the class was signed off in Oct 1941, before the war with Japan broke out, the reason often cited for their design.

Not everyone in the RN, or Govt, liked the greater size of the design though. Churchill for example in Aug 1942 wanted to cancel them and build more smaller ships that could be built quicker. The First Lord (the political head of the RN) wasn't happy with them either. Because of their size, relative to previous classes, they were given distinctive Battle names, a repeat of what had happened with the Tribals against the A-I classes. It had been planned to give the 1942 ships A & B names. They also caused issues amongst the smaller destroyer builders due to the extra 4 ft of beam rather than the length. As a result the RN had to adopt a "hi-low" mix in destroyer production until the end of WW2

1942 Programme
This saw 8 Battles ordered on 27 April 1942 following War Cabinet approval the previous week & another 8 in Aug. Laid down Oct 1942 - Nov 1943 and completed Sept 1944 - Dec 1946. Although Barfleur was commissioned in Sept 1944, she was without her Mk.VI director (development and manufacturing issues) and was laid up on a Care & Maintenance basis until it was available & fitted. Accordingly it was 24 Jan 1945 before she sailed for first of class trials out of Malta before moving on to Sydney where she arrived at the end of May. The next 4 ships also had their service entry delayed when 4 Mk.VI directors were used to refit the battleship Anson. On 15 Aug 1945 Barfleur was at sea off Japan with the BPF and the next 3 ships were in the Med working up. By Christmas 1945 there were 6 of the class in service with the 19th DF in the Pacific and another pair working up in Home or Med waters.

The other part of the 1942 "Hi-Low" mix were the Ch, Co & Cr flotillas (plus another 2 ships of the Ce group that were transferred to the 1943 Weapon order)

1943 Programme
There was an ongoing debate about the design of the 1943 ships, until eventually it was decided to work with a modifed version of the 1942 Battle. The 4in "starshell" gun abaft the funnel was replaced with a 55 degree 4.5in gun that served both as a "starshell" gun and provide some surface gunnery astern. The US Mk 37 director replaced the British Mk.VI. Quintuple TT replaced the quad sets. one twin Bofors was dropped (but 2 were of the much heavier self contained STAAG variety) and the DC armament was deleted in favour of a single Squid.

26 of these ships were ordered between March & June 1943, a number determined by the number of slips expected to be available. Two were later transferred to the 1944 Battle class (later renamed the Daring class). All remaining 24 were laid down Sept 1943 - June 1945. 17 were launched (4 after cancellation to clear the slips). But only 8 were completed Nov 1946 - May 1948.

The "Lo" part of the mix in the 1943 Programme emerged as the Weapon class. Design began in Spring 1942 with various options proposed (including several with a main armament of 40mm guns as a fast AS/AA carrier escort!). After much debate the design settled on was based on the smaller Emergency destroyer hull with an extra 2 ft of beam and unit machinery. Armament was to be 3 twin 4in, 2 twin Bofors & 4 twin 20mm, 2 quad TT, & 2 DC rails and 2 throwers with 50 DC (the DC arrangements were replaced in Jan 1946, before completion, with double Squid.

17 ships were ordered April / May 1943 plus the 2 Ce reordered from 1942 (see above). 3 ordered from Scotts at Greenock were cancelled in Dec 1944 as the yard was having trouble progressing existing cruiser, destroyer & submarine orders. 13 were laid down, 7 were launched (3 after cancellation to clear the slips) and just 4 were completed 1947/48.

1944 Programme
The fleet destroyer, the "Hi" element, was to be a modified Battle fitted with lightweight twin Mk.VI 4.5in turrets (which were at one point proposed for the last flotilla of 1943 Battles). A third turret was to be mounted aft and unit machinery adopted. Two sets quintuple TT to be fitted. The DC outfit was to be replaced with a single Squid. Initially 14 ships planned in Aug 1944 but in Nov it was decided to build 2 of the 1943 Battles to this new design, for a total of 16, with 8 cancelled at the end of the war. The remainder became the Daring class. Laid down Sept 1945 - Mar 1949. Completed Feb 1952 -Mar 1954. Designed at 2,610 tons standard displacement. They had topweight issues from completion.

The "Lo" part of the 1944 Programme was to be a single flotilla of G class destroyers which were ordered July / Aug 1944. Basically a Weapon with 2ft more beam and 2 twin 4.5in in place of the 4in main armament. These were weight critical from the earlist design stages and a variety of weight saving measures applied to the design did not help much. As a result the design was much criticised and quickly got the chop in the Dec 1945 round of cancellations.

 

[EwenS]

It is interesting that we brought back Frigates.

Frigates originally were sailing ships used as communications relays before the advent of radio. Frigates could be spaced just far enough apart so they could read the signal flags of the ships on each side of them and thus relay messages between fleets. Obviously, we no longer need to do that, be we still got Frigates. It appears that post-WW2 Frigates are essentially Destroyer Escorts, which raises the question of what was wrong with that designation.

Of course, Destroyers are not what they once were, by a long shot. We no longer have Battleships and the USS Zumwalt is a "Destroyer" but it is only 7 ft shorter than the USS Arizona.

It does seem that designations are a bit skewed. There are corvettes out there as well as frigates. To me it seems those two classes are interchangeable, depending on the navy.
More importantly, let's get back to naming aircraft carriers after ships and battles.
Forgive my American provincialism.

Blame the Canadians!

It goes back to 1940 and the Flower class corvettes and the early stages of the River class design. I posted this on another site a few months ago when the same subject came up.

"The Flowers were originally known as A/S Whalers. Officially the name was changed to corvette on 3 Jan 1941 ( Friedman - British Destroyers and Frigates). But the term had been floating around (pardon the pun!) For a few months prior to that in relation the River class.

Design of the River class dated back to Oct/Nov 1940 when it was a"twin-screw corvette", a generally clumsy title.

As for the term "frigate" seems like we have the RCN to blame/thank for setting the ball rolling. They began to use the term in relation to their River class in March 1942 while their early ships were still under construction. The Admiralty didn't like it and wrote to the RCN in April, to the effect that the "Twin-Screw Corvette" Rivers and the "British Destroyer Escorts" on order from the USA were essentially A/S ships (differing only in size, speed and endurance from the existing Flowers) and that

"It is, therefore, considered insufficient justification for the use of the term frigate and it is therefore, intended that all ships shall be designated corvettes"
The correspondence is I believe in the ship's cover.

Somehow the name caught on (maybe that was where WSC came in) and the Admiralty, seemingly faced with a fait accompli, had the First Lord make the following announcement in the House of Commons on 25 Feb 1943.

"The special new, faster type of corvette with greater armament, some of which are already in use, is being given a new name, to distinguish it from the previous corvette, and I hope that the House will approve it. We propose to call it the frigate."

That then led to one MP asking "what is a corvette?"

Of course the term "frigate" was well known to the public at that time, and WSC, because it featured in the CS Forester "Hornblower" novels, publication of which had begun in 1937, with new titles appearing during the early war years.

Taken from Brian Lavery's "River-class Frigates and the Battle of the Atlantic. A Technical and Social History"

 

[MIflyer]

There are corvettes out there as well as frigates.

How come nobody ever named a sports car "Frigate"?

Chevrolet could have made a diesel Corvette and named it Frigate.

 

[SaparotRob]

Or something that sounds close to it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

There are corvettes out there as well as frigates.

Then we have the avisos and sloops, like the French Bougainville-class aviso (shown below) and the British sloop HMS Wellington. These ships are not quite a frigate, not quite a destroyer and more expensive than a corvette. Unlike sloops, interwar avisos are intended to operate on distant colonial duty, hence the large accommodation space.