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