Wes Frank
Masters in American History from Northwestern University
Updated July 16, 2020

What was the best destroyer in WW2?

The quality of a ship class depends very much on what it is supposed to
be doing on a given assignment. Destroyers, in particular, were utility
ships in all the navies of World War II. They had a lot of different
jobs. Some destroyers were superior at some jobs, but inferior at others.

Many of us with a causal interest in naval warfare are familiar with the
more dramatic characteristics of a good destroyer: guns, torpedoes,
speed, ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) sensors and weapons, and AA
(Anti-Aircraft) weaponry. Richard Worth, in his excellent compact guide,
Fleets Of World War II, notes two other characteristics of a good naval
vessel to consider: expendability, the ship being cost-effective enough
that it could be risked in operations in dangerous waters, such as
patrolling the English Channel; and seaworthiness, which determined how
a vessel could do its job in rough waters, like the North Sea.

When I was a kid, I watched American movies and read American books and
comics featuring brave American submariners being hunted by Japanese
destroyers. It wasn’t until I was an adult that I realized that this
standard trope revealed a catastrophic failure of Japanese war planning.
The IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy) placed little value on anti-submarine
warfare. The Royal Navy, from its experience in the Great War,
understood that ASW was a vital task, and also that it required large
number of small, cheap, expendable ships, vessels much smaller and
cheaper to construct then destroyers. The tasks of escorting oceanic
convoys and patrolling inshore waters to protect local traffic was most
often, and more efficiently, handled by British corvettes and sloops
and, by the Americans, destroyer escorts. The most successful of these
escort ships were the British Flower class corvette . . .

.. . . And the USS Buckley class destroyer escort . . .

Of course, full-sized British and American destroyers, known
collectively as “fleet destroyers,” were also excellent at escort
duties. They would always be assigned to protect valuable surface ships
(the “fleet”) and were also assigned to reinforce convoy escorts against
U-Boat “wolfpacks.”

The British and Americans shared sensor technology—sonar, radar,
radio-direction finders, etc.—from 1940 on, along with anti-submarine
weaponry, tactics, patrol aircraft, and their first-rate command and
intelligence facilities ashore. The Canadian and other Commonwealth
navies shared this technology, as did the Dutch, Polish, and Norwegian
vessels serving with the British under their governments-in-exile.

In the Pacific, the Japanese never built the hundreds of small escort
vessels they needed to protect their merchant marine. Their sonar and
depth charge systems were primitive by Western standards. Consequently,
the American submarines routinely engaged convoys with few or no
escorts. Most attacks on American submarines were by destroyers diverted
reluctantly from fleet duties. In 1944 and 1945, the American submarine
fleet sank almost the entire Japanese merchant marine, and, later in the
campaign, deliberately attacked Japanese destroyers, sinking more of
them then the Allied surface navy.

Questions like this usually concern “fleet destroyers.” These are
typically the largest and newest destroyers in any navy. Their duty, per
doctrine, was to scout for, escort, and screen larger fleet units. They
would protect aircraft carriers, battleships, and cruisers against
submarine attacks and attacks by other surface vessels, attack the enemy
screen and fleet with guns and torpedoes, defend the fleet against air
attack, and support their own damaged or sinking ships.

The American, British, and Japanese navies all built fine fleet
destroyers. Italy’s destroyers were inferior in construction and
doctrine to the Royal Navy vessels they faced in the Mediterranean.
German destroyers were markedly inferior to those of the other navies
operating in the North Sea and the Arctic, as they lacked seaworthiness.
They were notably absent in most of the surface engagements after the
Norwegian conquest in 1940. They could not keep up with other German
ships in heavy seas and either fell behind or were left home.

British naval guns and torpedoes were excellent and British destroyer
captains utterly fearless in taking on any opponent, up to and including
battleships. However, their AA guns were not as good as they needed to
be and cost-cutting in construction left a lot of British destroyers
terribly vulnerable to bomb damage.

The Japanese fleet destroyers, powerfully built and with magnificently
trained crews, armed with the famous Long Lance torpedo, were among the
most dangerous surface opponents any nation could face. They inflicted
many devastating defeats on British, Dutch, and American cruiser task
forces in 1942 and 1943.

American destroyers were hampered by faulty torpedo designs in 1942, but
they mounted the finest destroyer gun of the war, the 5″ x 38 DP (Dual
Purpose). Combined with the latest allied investments in radar and
central fire control, no other destroyers came close to them in their
ability to destroy attacking aircraft.

All that said, my nominations for the best fleet destroyers of the war
would be, for a surface action, the Japanese Kagerō and Yūgumo class
destroyers . . .

Anyone facing that deadly combination of eight Long Lance tubes, six 5″
guns, Japanese night optics, and experienced Japanese crews was in dire
danger. Richard B. Frank, in Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the
Landmark Battle, concluded that a claim that one American ship suffered
an internal explosion rather than a Long Lance hit had to be true, as
“no one who was struck by a Long Lance ever mistook it for something else.”

And we have this statement from a American sailor on board USS New
Orleans in 1942:

I had to see. I walked alongside the silent turret two and was stopped
by a lifeline stretched from the outboard port lifeline to the side of
the turret. Thank God it was there, for one more step and I would have
pitched head first into the dark water thirty feet below. The bow was
gone. One hundred and twenty five feet of ship and number one main
battery turret with three 8 inch guns were gone. Eighteen hundred tons
of ship were gone. Oh my God, all those guys I went through boot camp
with - all gone.

All that said, for the full range of duties of a fleet destroyer, the
American Fletcher class destroyers were good enough to engage the best
Japanese ships and certainly in the same league as the British in
surface gunnery and ASW. They had excellent machinery and rugged
construction. In several cases Fletcher-class ships, pounded by shells
and bombs down to the point of their main decks just being above the
water, still refused to sink. And, of course, in a war eventually
dominated by air power, they were far, far better then their
contemporaries at AA defense. A Fletcher mounted five of the 5″ x 38
caliber DP guns noted above, along with ten 40 mm Bofers (Swedish
design) and 7 Oerlikon 20 mm (Swiss) cannon for close-in work. Fletchers
could chew through attacking aircraft as fast as most cruisers.

Along with their traditional fleet duties, Fletchers were also excellent
fire support vessels. The Americans took great care in linking both army
and Marine units to their supporting ships. At Sicily, Normandy, Tarawa,
and dozens of other landings, Fletchers would move in until they were
nearly aground and pour 5″ shells on enemy fortifications and
concentrations.

While the Fletchers were, as I noted, hampered by poor torpedoes in the
1942 surface battles, they fought well regardless. They scored several
victories with their guns and torpedoes in 1943, and were present in
every major naval operation of the United States navy for the rest of
the war.

31.5K viewsView 187 upvotesView shares
29 comments from
Eric Sprague
and more
includes:

Eric Sprague
January 11, 2018
Out of curiosity, how do you think the Sumners and Gearings stack up
against the Fletchers?

Wes Frank
January 12, 2018
I’ve only read a few pieces about them, but they appear to have
benefited from wartime experience. Which is to say, they had all the
good points of the Fletchers, plus a few improvements. The Aaron Ward
and Laffey, of course, had epic battles against the Japanese, each
absorbing a half dozen kamikazes without sinking.

The Fletchers were the ships that were around in 1942 and 1943 before
American strength became overwhelming, so they carried more of the
burden then the two newer classes.

Jonson Chin
March 24, 2020
From what I’ve read, the Fletchers were the most “satisfactory” US
destroyers of World War II. Reports stated that while the additional 5”
gun was welcome, that the Fletcher’s single 5” mounts were more “handy”.
In addition, I believe the Sumners lost a bit of performance in
comparison to the Fletchers.

The Gearings, being “stretched” Sumners, saw brief action if any late in
the war. Their greater length gave them more range.

On 6/08/21 4:44 am, a425couple wrote:
>
> Wes Frank
> Masters in American History from Northwestern University
> Updated July 16, 2020
>
> What was the best destroyer in WW2?
>
> The quality of a ship class depends very much on what it is supposed to
> be doing on a given assignment. Destroyers, in particular, were utility
> ships in all the navies of World War II. They had a lot of different
> jobs. Some destroyers were superior at some jobs, but inferior at others.
>
> Many of us with a causal interest in naval warfare are familiar with the
> more dramatic characteristics of a good destroyer: guns, torpedoes,
> speed, ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) sensors and weapons, and AA
> (Anti-Aircraft) weaponry. Richard Worth, in his excellent compact guide,
> Fleets Of World War II, notes two other characteristics of a good naval
> vessel to consider: expendability, the ship being cost-effective enough
> that it could be risked in operations in dangerous waters, such as
> patrolling the English Channel; and seaworthiness, which determined how
> a vessel could do its job in rough waters, like the North Sea.
>
> When I was a kid, I watched American movies and read American books and
> comics featuring brave American submariners being hunted by Japanese
> destroyers. It wasn’t until I was an adult that I realized that this
> standard trope revealed a catastrophic failure of Japanese war planning.
> The IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy) placed little value on anti-submarine
> warfare. The Royal Navy, from its experience in the Great War,
> understood that ASW was a vital task, and also that it required large
> number of small, cheap, expendable ships, vessels much smaller and
> cheaper to construct then destroyers. The tasks of escorting oceanic
> convoys and patrolling inshore waters to protect local traffic was most
> often, and more efficiently, handled by British corvettes and sloops
> and, by the Americans, destroyer escorts. The most successful of these
> escort ships were the British Flower class corvette . . .
>
>
> . . . And the USS Buckley class destroyer escort . . .
>
>
> Of course, full-sized British and American destroyers, known
> collectively as “fleet destroyers,” were also excellent at escort
> duties. They would always be assigned to protect valuable surface ships
> (the “fleet”) and were also assigned to reinforce convoy escorts against
> U-Boat “wolfpacks.”
>
> The British and Americans shared sensor technology—sonar, radar,
> radio-direction finders, etc.—from 1940 on, along with anti-submarine
> weaponry, tactics, patrol aircraft, and their first-rate command and
> intelligence facilities ashore. The Canadian and other Commonwealth
> navies shared this technology, as did the Dutch, Polish, and Norwegian
> vessels serving with the British under their governments-in-exile.
>
> In the Pacific, the Japanese never built the hundreds of small escort
> vessels they needed to protect their merchant marine. Their sonar and
> depth charge systems were primitive by Western standards. Consequently,
> the American submarines routinely engaged convoys with few or no
> escorts. Most attacks on American submarines were by destroyers diverted
> reluctantly from fleet duties. In 1944 and 1945, the American submarine
> fleet sank almost the entire Japanese merchant marine, and, later in the
> campaign, deliberately attacked Japanese destroyers, sinking more of
> them then the Allied surface navy.
>
> Questions like this usually concern “fleet destroyers.” These are
> typically the largest and newest destroyers in any navy. Their duty, per
> doctrine, was to scout for, escort, and screen larger fleet units. They
> would protect aircraft carriers, battleships, and cruisers against
> submarine attacks and attacks by other surface vessels, attack the enemy
> screen and fleet with guns and torpedoes, defend the fleet against air
> attack, and support their own damaged or sinking ships.
>
> The American, British, and Japanese navies all built fine fleet
> destroyers. Italy’s destroyers were inferior in construction and
> doctrine to the Royal Navy vessels they faced in the Mediterranean.
> German destroyers were markedly inferior to those of the other navies
> operating in the North Sea and the Arctic, as they lacked seaworthiness.
> They were notably absent in most of the surface engagements after the
> Norwegian conquest in 1940. They could not keep up with other German
> ships in heavy seas and either fell behind or were left home.
>
> British naval guns and torpedoes were excellent and British destroyer
> captains utterly fearless in taking on any opponent, up to and including
> battleships. However, their AA guns were not as good as they needed to
> be and cost-cutting in construction left a lot of British destroyers
> terribly vulnerable to bomb damage.
>
> The Japanese fleet destroyers, powerfully built and with magnificently
> trained crews, armed with the famous Long Lance torpedo, were among the
> most dangerous surface opponents any nation could face. They inflicted
> many devastating defeats on British, Dutch, and American cruiser task
> forces in 1942 and 1943.
>
> American destroyers were hampered by faulty torpedo designs in 1942, but
> they mounted the finest destroyer gun of the war, the 5″ x 38 DP (Dual
> Purpose). Combined with the latest allied investments in radar and
> central fire control, no other destroyers came close to them in their
> ability to destroy attacking aircraft.
>
> All that said, my nominations for the best fleet destroyers of the war
> would be, for a surface action, the Japanese Kagerō and Yūgumo class
> destroyers . . .
>
>
>
> Anyone facing that deadly combination of eight Long Lance tubes, six 5″
> guns, Japanese night optics, and experienced Japanese crews was in dire
> danger. Richard B. Frank, in Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the
> Landmark Battle, concluded that a claim that one American ship suffered
> an internal explosion rather than a Long Lance hit had to be true, as
> “no one who was struck by a Long Lance ever mistook it for something else.”
>
> And we have this statement from a American sailor on board USS New
> Orleans in 1942:
>
> I had to see. I walked alongside the silent turret two and was stopped
> by a lifeline stretched from the outboard port lifeline to the side of
> the turret. Thank God it was there, for one more step and I would have
> pitched head first into the dark water thirty feet below. The bow was
> gone. One hundred and twenty five feet of ship and number one main
> battery turret with three 8 inch guns were gone. Eighteen hundred tons
> of ship were gone. Oh my God, all those guys I went through boot camp
> with - all gone.
>
> All that said, for the full range of duties of a fleet destroyer, the
> American Fletcher class destroyers were good enough to engage the best
> Japanese ships and certainly in the same league as the British in
> surface gunnery and ASW. They had excellent machinery and rugged
> construction. In several cases Fletcher-class ships, pounded by shells
> and bombs down to the point of their main decks just being above the
> water, still refused to sink. And, of course, in a war eventually
> dominated by air power, they were far, far better then their
> contemporaries at AA defense. A Fletcher mounted five of the 5″ x 38
> caliber DP guns noted above, along with ten 40 mm Bofers (Swedish
> design) and 7 Oerlikon 20 mm (Swiss) cannon for close-in work. Fletchers
> could chew through attacking aircraft as fast as most cruisers.
>
>
> Along with their traditional fleet duties, Fletchers were also excellent
> fire support vessels. The Americans took great care in linking both army
> and Marine units to their supporting ships. At Sicily, Normandy, Tarawa,
> and dozens of other landings, Fletchers would move in until they were
> nearly aground and pour 5″ shells on enemy fortifications and
> concentrations.
>
> While the Fletchers were, as I noted, hampered by poor torpedoes in the
> 1942 surface battles, they fought well regardless. They scored several
> victories with their guns and torpedoes in 1943, and were present in
> every major naval operation of the United States navy for the rest of
> the war.
>
> 31.5K viewsView 187 upvotesView shares
> 29 comments from
> Eric Sprague
>  and more
> includes:
>
> Eric Sprague
> January 11, 2018
> Out of curiosity, how do you think the Sumners and Gearings stack up
> against the Fletchers?
>
> Wes Frank
> January 12, 2018
> I’ve only read a few pieces about them, but they appear to have
> benefited from wartime experience. Which is to say, they had all the
> good points of the Fletchers, plus a few improvements. The Aaron Ward
> and Laffey, of course, had epic battles against the Japanese, each
> absorbing a half dozen kamikazes without sinking.
>
> The Fletchers were the ships that were around in 1942 and 1943 before
> American strength became overwhelming, so they carried more of the
> burden then the two newer classes.
>
> Jonson Chin
> March 24, 2020
> From what I’ve read, the Fletchers were the most “satisfactory” US
> destroyers of World War II. Reports stated that while the additional 5”
> gun was welcome, that the Fletcher’s single 5” mounts were more “handy”.
> In addition, I believe the Sumners lost a bit of performance in
> comparison to the Fletchers.
>
> The Gearings, being “stretched” Sumners, saw brief action if any late in
> the war. Their greater length gave them more range.
>
> The three wartime USN destroyer classes: Fletcher, Sumner and Gearing,
> gave excellent World War II service and with FRAM updates, saw service
> with the US Navy and other countries into the ‘70s.
>
> Katya Aleksandra Hodgson
> January 9, 2018
> The Soviets also had good destroyers such as the Project 7U Gnevny class
> destroyers
>
>
> And the largest and fastest destroyer of the war, the Destroyer Leader
> Tashkent
>
>
> The Soviets had an excellent 130mm gun which was mounted as the standard
> armament of their destroyers in both single and twin mounts.
>
> Wes Frank
> January 12, 2018
> Competent designs, hampered, like most of the Soviet navy during the
> war, by underfunded shore support and facilities. I understand that
> their main guns had some punch, but also that they could not be fired
> against aircraft. The ships lacked good anti-aircraft weaponry and many
> took on a 3″ DP gun to augment it.
>
> Steve Adams
> February 12, 2020
> It's debatable which British escort was the most successful. The Flowers
> didn't have the range to cross the Atlantic but they were quick and
> cheap to build. They were superseded by the River class frigates which,
> individually, were no better at sinking U-boats but they were faster,
> more seaworthy, and had the range to escort a convoy all the way across.
> The Loch class, with Squid and depth finding Asdic (Sonar) had the most
> succes sinking U-boats but they were only available from 1944. There was
> also the Black Swan class sloops, as used by Walker, but they tended to
> be used as AA escorts.
>
>
> Allen Jones
> October 23, 2018
> Great answer!
>
>
> Eric Brammer
> April 30
> My take, is that, despite it’s torpedoes, the Fletcher was the best
> all-around ship. They served well into the late 70’s upon many Allied
> navies. Rugged-enough, reliable, and had decent guns with Radar. For
> 1943, they were formidable escorts.
>
>
> Malcolm Keen
> May 7
> Some mention might be made of the US Coast Guard cutters which were
> noted for their seaworthiness and range.
>
>
> Michael Warburton
> May 26
> A personal comment, certainly based on emotion rather than any study of
> capability. The V & W Class destroyers. In 1940, they were 20 years old.
> They lifted an army from the beaches of Dunkirk, they held the Channel
> secure from invasion, and they fought the Atlantic convoys through until
> new construction arrived. Now, of course, they are almost entirely
> forgotten.
>
> Profile photo for Stephen Round
> Stephen Round
> January 9, 2018
> The 1000 ton Royal Navy Hunt Class were superb utility destroyers built
> initially as Anti Aircraft destroyers to patrol and do escort duties in
> the North Sea and The Meditterranean Sea.
>
> They were equipped with the excellent quick firing 4 inch high angle gun
> and this gun actually outranged and outpunched the 5 inch American
> destroyer gun by some considerable margin.
>
> These ships were in production all the way through the Second World War…
>
> Wes Frank
> January 12, 2018
> Fine ships, about half the size of a Fletcher, very good at convoy
> escort in dangerous waters where German and Italian aircraft might
> appear. That 4″ DP gun was something the rest of the destroyers in the
> British navy could have used a lot more of. At the request of the Royal
> Navy, the Americans provided the 5/38 to reequip two of their
> anti-aircraft cruisers. They asked for more of the weapons, but
> production could barely keep up with American construction.
>
>
> Stephen Round
> January 12, 2018
> The water was clouded by the debate between the automatic 4.7inch with
> the 60 pound shell and the manual model which was obviously lighter.
> Neither of them offered good protection against aircraft. The 4 inch got
> overlooked for a while but not for long. We always seem to have some
> very good guns and they are always doing the wrong job The related 3.7
> anti aircraft gun was a marvel the Germans captured some of them at
> Dunkirk they were very popular with the Germans. they would have been
> perfect for the anti tank role..
>
> It’s a great shame that the R.N didn’t use their noggin and adapt just
> one forward turret on the R class and Queen Elizabeth class 15 inch
> battleships for high angle long distance work. They might have been able
> to afford to modernise all the Battleships antiquated Steam Engines. Our
> ships should have been updated so they could do something like 30 knots
> instead of being 20 knot cripples waiting for a Uboat to intercept them
> like the poor Barham.
>
> They should never have bothered with building the Nelson and the Rodney
> my old workmate served on the Rodney on the Malta run while he was
> supposed to be getting over his hellish experience having his ship blown
> out of the water and dodging the German Army for a week when serving in
> HMS Hardy at Narvick.
>
> The poor man was almost deaf from shellfire he was in constant seabourne
> conflict from start to finish from 1939 to 1945 he finished off his
> wartime off the coast of Japan. Later because his paybook was missing in
> action he didnt’t get any compensation for his hearing injuries it was
> ridiculous..
>
>
This series of articles is why I come in here.
Who ever mentioned Walker thank you

On 8/5/2021 12:57 PM, George Black wrote:
> On 6/08/21 4:44 am, a425couple wrote:
>>
>> Wes Frank
>> Masters in American History from Northwestern University
>> Updated July 16, 2020
>>
>> What was the best destroyer in WW2?
>>
>> The quality of a ship class depends very much on what it is supposed
>> to be doing on a given assignment. Destroyers, in particular, were
>> utility ships in all the navies of World War II. They had a lot of
>> different jobs. Some destroyers were superior at some jobs, but
>> inferior at others.
>>
>> Many of us with a causal interest in naval warfare are familiar with
>> the more dramatic characteristics of a good destroyer: guns,
>> torpedoes, speed, ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) sensors and weapons,
>> and AA (Anti-Aircraft) weaponry. -------
>>
>>
> This series of articles is why I come in here.
> Who ever mentioned Walker  thank you
>
I do not know what 'mention' you are referring to.

Which "Walker" are you wanting to talk about?

Johnnie Walker the sub killer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_John_Walker
https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/stories/captain-johnnie-walker-hero-of-second-world-war

or

John Walker the US naval turncoat spy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker
https://news.usni.org/2014/09/02/john-walker-spy-ring-u-s-navys-biggest-betrayal

or another?

On 8/08/21 5:55 am, a425couple wrote:
> On 8/5/2021 12:57 PM, George Black wrote:
>> On 6/08/21 4:44 am, a425couple wrote:
>>>
>>> Wes Frank
>>> Masters in American History from Northwestern University
>>> Updated July 16, 2020
>>>
>>> What was the best destroyer in WW2?
>>>
>>> The quality of a ship class depends very much on what it is supposed
>>> to be doing on a given assignment. Destroyers, in particular, were
>>> utility ships in all the navies of World War II. They had a lot of
>>> different jobs. Some destroyers were superior at some jobs, but
>>> inferior at others.
>>>
>>> Many of us with a causal interest in naval warfare are familiar with
>>> the more dramatic characteristics of a good destroyer: guns,
>>> torpedoes, speed, ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) sensors and weapons,
>>> and AA (Anti-Aircraft) weaponry. -------
>>>
>>>
>> This series of articles is why I come in here.
>> Who ever mentioned Walker  thank you
>>
> I do not know what 'mention' you are referring to.
>
> Which "Walker" are you wanting to talk about?
>
> Johnnie Walker the sub killer
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_John_Walker
> https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/stories/captain-johnnie-walker-hero-of-second-world-war
>

Walker RN of course.
He's rather well known