What is the difference between a destroyer, destroyer escort, frigate, and corvette?
Tim Martin
and corvette? I am of course speaking in WWI - WWII terms, not frigates
and corvettes as sailing ships. It is terms of class, like the Flower
class? It is size, armanment, country that manufactures them? Thanks.
Also, how do torpedo boats and PT boats fit into the scheme of things?
Thanks
Tim Martin
Andrew C. Toppan
> What is the difference between a destroyer, destroyer escort, frigate,
> and corvette? I am of course speaking in WWI - WWII terms, not frigates
In WWII terms:
A destroyer is a fast, multi-role *battlefleet* escort - anti-sub,
anti-surface, anti-air, etc.
A destroyer escort is a slow, ASW-oriented *convoy* escort.
A frigate is a destroyer escort in British service.
A corvette is a cheaper, smaller escort craft with an ASW-only mission.
(And a big smack to the first person who says "you're wrong" based on
current-day usage...I'm talking WWII here!)
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
=====>NEW ADDRESS ==> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <== NEW ADDRESS <======
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
GLof815619
ship.
>From: acto...@gwi.net (Andrew C. Toppan)
>
>Tim Martin ("tf_m...@bellsouth.net"@bellsouth.net) was seen to write:
>> What is the difference between a destroyer, destroyer escort, frigate,
>> and corvette? I am of course speaking in WWI - WWII terms, not frigates
>
>In WWII terms:
>
>A destroyer is a fast, multi-role *battlefleet* escort - anti-sub,
>anti-surface, anti-air, etc.
These are the fast ones, all able to do over 30 knots, carried torpedo at one
time (as a class) and wieght over 1200 tons.
>
>A destroyer escort is a slow, ASW-oriented *convoy* escort.
Made my U.S.(DEs) and Britian (Hunts) can do between 20 and 28 knots), some had
torpedoes, and wiegh between 1200 and 2100 tons. Their were mostly
anti-submarines ships, but carried heavy AA guns also.these where the heavies
of escort vessels
>
>A frigate is a destroyer escort in British service.
These were also built by the U.S. and Canadians. And they were not destroyer
escorts. These were cheap escort vessel, built to merchant standards, design
for anti-submarine duties. They were design for quick construction by shipyard
not able to build warships. They were large than corvettes.
>
>A corvette is a cheaper, smaller escort craft with an ASW-only mission.
These were the first escort vessel built during the war by the Britsh and
Canadians, Small ship design to quick construction, also to merchant ship
standard. Most carried one 4in guns, hedgehog and some light AA.
There was also Sloops, Trawlers, Minesweepers, and Sub chaser used for escort
vessels. I suggest finding the book
"Allied Escort Ships of World War II"
>
>
>(And a big smack to the first person who says "you're wrong" based on
>current-day usage...I'm talking WWII here!)
>
>
>--
>Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
>=
G Lof
Engineer
ANDREW BREEN
Tim Martin <"tf_m...@bellsouth.net"@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>What is the difference between a destroyer, destroyer escort, frigate,
>and corvette? I am of course speaking in WWI - WWII terms, not frigates
>class? It is size, armanment, country that manufactures them? Thanks.
>Also, how do torpedo boats and PT boats fit into the scheme of things?
>Thanks
>Tim Martin
OK, I'll bite..
(Fleet) Destroyer: ~1700-3000 tons, ~35 knots, heavy torpedo armament,
main guns range from 4.1" to 5.9", but typically 4.5"-5" by WW2.
Earlier ships had low-angle guns, later ones DP.
Intended to operate with the main fleet as an escort screen. Not
effective convoy escorts as not optimised for ASW warfare.
Early ships were primarily ASuW platforms, later ones better
optimised for AAW.
(Escort)Destroyer: Either an old fleet destroyer converted for
convoy escort work with greater range, less speed, all-AA gun
armament, enhanced ASW armament (e.g. V/W escort conversions)
_or_ a smaller, slower mini-destroyer designed as a coastal
escort (e.g. RN Hunt class). Typically 1000-1200 tons.
Sloop (RN only): Ship smaller than a destroyer and with speed
of ~18-20 knots, but optimised for long-range convoy escort.
All-AA main battery (up to 8x4"), heavy ASW armament. No
torpedoes. Typically 1100-1300 tons.
Torpedo boat: species of mini-destroyer. Coastal ASuW platform,
with heavy torpedo armament and defensive gun armament. Old
and small destroyers were somtimes re-classified as torpedo
boats. Germans were biggest users of TBs in europe.
The RNs steam gunsboats (SGBs) might be considered a small
version of a torpedo boat.
Corvette: In RN (and RCN, USN) a simple, cheap convoy escort
derived from a Whale Catcher design. Single-shaft reciprocating
steam engine (all ships listed above had 2-shaft turbines),
light AA armament for self defence only (no area AAW ability),
good ASW armament and good range. ~15 knots, ~800 tons.
Also used for ships which were a smaller version of the
escort destroyer and for torpedo-boat like vessels which were
converted/optimised for convoy defence (e.g. Italian 'Ape'
class, RN 'Puffin' class).
Frigate: Originally the 'twin-screw corvette'. Larger ship
than corvette (~1300-1500 tons) with better gun armament
(including AA main armament), better ASW armament and better
speed (18-25 knots, depending on type). US destroyer escorts
were nuch the same thing, in fact US-design destroyer escorts
served in the RN (lend-lease) as Frigates. Not sure what the
USN classed their RN-design frigates (reverse lend-lease)
as.
RN reclassified all sloops and escort destroyer conversions
as Frigates after WW2.
Motor torpedo boat/PT boat/S boat/MAS boat:
respecitvely the British, US, German and Italian names for
the much the same thing: a high-speed boat, powered by IC
engines which launches its attack with torpedoes and then
uses its speed to escape. S-boats were larger than most
of the others. Typically 60'-140' length, 30-45 knots.
Armament might begin with a pair of 0.3" MGs on the smaller
and earlier boats and go up to 1x4.5", 2x6lbr + smaller
on the large RN 'D' type MTBs
Motor gunboat: similar to MTB, but favouring gun armament
over torpedoes. Intended as an anti-MTB escort, proved
an effective attack craft in its own right. Later MGBs
added torpedoes and the type merged with the MTB.
Motor Launch: general purpose coastal ASW type, but also
used for coastal patrol, ASR, support of troops, supply
work, communications, minelaying, minesweeping... British
MLs and German R-boats played similar roles. Slower but
better seaboats than MTB/MGB/S-boats. 15-20 knots, ~120'.
Britain also used smaller Harbour Defence Motor Launches
(HDMLs), which in spite of their name also carried out
all the above roles, as well as acting as leaders for
groups of landing craft.
Above definitions are primarily from the british perspective.
Other countries used different names, had types of ships
which don't fit the catagories well, terms get distorted in
translation..
--
Andy Breen ~ Max-Planck Institut fur Aeronomie, Katlenburg-Lindau
breen-sleepysnail-helene-dot-mpae-dot-gwdg-dot-de
"When you see reference to a new paradigm, you should always,
under all circumstances, take cover." J.K. Galbraith, 1998
Peter Skelton
>Just a little bit more information on the differences between these class of
>ship.
>
>>From: acto...@gwi.net (Andrew C. Toppan)
>>
>>Tim Martin ("tf_m...@bellsouth.net"@bellsouth.net) was seen to write:
>>> What is the difference between a destroyer, destroyer escort, frigate,
>>> and corvette? I am of course speaking in WWI - WWII terms, not frigates
>>
>>In WWII terms:
>>
>>A destroyer is a fast, multi-role *battlefleet* escort - anti-sub,
>>anti-surface, anti-air, etc.
>These are the fast ones, all able to do over 30 knots, carried torpedo at one
>time (as a class) and wieght over 1200 tons.
There were well over a hundred WWII destroyers between 1000 and 1200 tons
(V&W's, S's and some of the four pipers).
>>
>>A destroyer escort is a slow, ASW-oriented *convoy* escort.
>Made my U.S.(DEs) and Britian (Hunts) can do between 20 and 28 knots), some had
>torpedoes, and wiegh between 1200 and 2100 tons. Their were mostly
>anti-submarines ships, but carried heavy AA guns also.these where the heavies
>of escort vessels
>
Hunts were not primarily ASW ships.
In British nomenclature a 20-30 knot ASW ship was likely to be a sloop,
converted DD or, at the slow end, a frigate. (Sloops were generally warship
construction, frigates merchant.)
>>A frigate is a destroyer escort in British service.
>These were also built by the U.S. and Canadians. And they were not destroyer
>escorts. These were cheap escort vessel, built to merchant standards, design
>for anti-submarine duties. They were design for quick construction by shipyard
>not able to build warships. They were large than corvettes.
>
>>
>>A corvette is a cheaper, smaller escort craft with an ASW-only mission.
>
>These were the first escort vessel built during the war by the Britsh and
>Canadians, Small ship design to quick construction, also to merchant ship
>standard. Most carried one 4in guns, hedgehog and some light AA.
>
>There was also Sloops, Trawlers, Minesweepers, and Sub chaser used for escort
>vessels. I suggest finding the book
>"Allied Escort Ships of World War II"
>>
>>
>>(And a big smack to the first person who says "you're wrong" based on
>>current-day usage...I'm talking WWII here!)
>>
>
>>
>>--
>>Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
>>=
>
>G Lof
>Engineer
--
Peter Skelton
Skelton & Associates
613/634-0230
p...@kingston.net
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
aka:
Nevada Dan Hannah., BVD, MSRP, APR, BFD, NIMBY
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in article
<6q5p2c$poc$2...@noc1.gwi.net>...
> Tim Martin ("tf_m...@bellsouth.net"@bellsouth.net) was seen to write:
> > What is the difference between a destroyer, destroyer escort, frigate,
> > and corvette? I am of course speaking in WWI - WWII terms, not frigates
>
> In WWII terms:
>
> A destroyer is a fast, multi-role *battlefleet* escort - anti-sub,
> anti-surface, anti-air, etc.
>
> A destroyer escort is a slow, ASW-oriented *convoy* escort.
>
> A frigate is a destroyer escort in British service.
>
> A corvette is a cheaper, smaller escort craft with an ASW-only mission.
>
>
> (And a big smack to the first person who says "you're wrong" based on
> current-day usage...I'm talking WWII here!)
Pretty good. I tend to use the following:
Destroyer (from Torpedo Boat Destroyer) a ship to protect the "Capital
Ships" from other lethal non-Capital ships.
DE, a ship to protect Destroyers from other non-capital ships.
Frigate, a ship to protect DEs from...
Well, you get the idea!
Dna Dan
> Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
Andrew C. Toppan
> DE, a ship to protect Destroyers from other non-capital ships.
...except for the not-so-minor fact that DEs were intended as
*substitutes* for destroyers, not as "escorts" for destroyers.
--
ANDREW BREEN
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote:
>Hannah Family (kha...@pyramid.net) was seen to write:
>> DE, a ship to protect Destroyers from other non-capital ships.
>
>...except for the not-so-minor fact that DEs were intended as
>*substitutes* for destroyers, not as "escorts" for destroyers.
And for doing jobs that destroyers weren't that good at. An
early WW2 destroyer, with its (primarily) low-angle main
armament, limited AS fit, and large engines (which didn't take
kindly to the crawling pace of convoy work) was _not_ a good
escort for merchant ships. Frigates/DEs were the solution to
the problem.
B F Lake
>Destroyer (from Torpedo Boat Destroyer) a ship to protect the "Capital
Ships" from other lethal non-Capital ships.
Barry
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
aka:
Nevada Dan Hannah., BVD, MSRP, APR, BFD, NIMBY
B F Lake <bfl...@coastnet.com> wrote in article
<01bdc14b$6fa78740$LocalHost@bflake>...
Obviously, the end player is a single guy in a revved up raft on the outer
edge of the task group, doing hand to hand with the guy in the raft from
the other side...
Dna Dan
S. Evans
Snipped-
> But who will escort the escorts? This is supposed to be in Latin.
> Barry
You must really add some destroyer leaders in there some place.
Steve Evans
Andy Breen
The Destroyer Leader, as such, had almost vanished by WW2. There were a
few
old flotilla leaders in Italian service, but they were employed as
escorts
in WW2.
The last British destroyer leaders (as a distincct type) that I can find
any reference to were the Scott/Shakespeare type, built at the end of
WW1 - oncew again, by WW2 these were employed as escorts rather than
operating with flotillas. We did continue to build one enlarged
destroyer
per class up to ~1938 or so, when the last of the I-class were
comissioned,
but after that destroyer-leaders were simply destroyers with extra
deskhouses
(e.g. K-class). By the end of the war even that distinction had gone,
and
Captain (D)s were forced to pig it like everyone else...
As far as I can tell the USN never did go for the destroyer leader
concept,
using light cruisers as group leaders in the early days, and finding the
accomodation available in their large DDs adequate towards the end.
The Destroyer Leader type merged into the ordinary Destroyer very
quickly
after about 1915 or so..
--
Andy ('Doc') Breen, on campaign at EISCAT 69.6 N, 19.2 E
Spammers will be hunted down and electronically killed.
Ragnar F. Süberkrüp
ANDREW BREEN schrieb:
>
>
> And for doing jobs that destroyers weren't that good at. An
> early WW2 destroyer, with its (primarily) low-angle main
> armament, limited AS fit, and large engines (which didn't take
> kindly to the crawling pace of convoy work) was _not_ a good
> escort for merchant ships. Frigates/DEs were the solution to
> the problem.
>
> --
Has anybody think on the Flottenbegleiter (Escort Boats) F1-F10?
I think you can call them DE.
They displacement was over 700 ts, they had a speed up to 28 kn, 2x 10,5
cm with protection shields and 4x3,7 cm AA.
Ok, if this ships had been brit. ones, they had been also called HMS
Refitt/ HMS repair, cause they were (badly) designed as fast escort
boat, Minesweeper and ASW.
Because they get not much sucess, they never came on service in her
official task.
RFS
B F Lake
>Captain (D)s were forced to pig it like everyone else...
tiller flat, while the Squadron Commander and his multitude grab all the
cabins! Anyway, what's the proper quote English and Latin (or was it
Greek?) for "Who will escort the escorts?" (Sorry, I did not go to the
"right" schools <G>)
Thanks,
Barry
Malcolm
<a...@eiscat.uit.no> writes
>S. Evans wrote:
>>
>> B F Lake wrote:
>> Snipped-
>> > But who will escort the escorts? This is supposed to be in Latin.
>> > Barry
>>
>> You must really add some destroyer leaders in there some place.
>>
>> Steve Evans
>
>The Destroyer Leader, as such, had almost vanished by WW2. There were a
>few
>old flotilla leaders in Italian service, but they were employed as
>escorts
>in WW2.
>The last British destroyer leaders (as a distincct type) that I can find
>any reference to were the Scott/Shakespeare type, built at the end of
>WW1 - oncew again, by WW2 these were employed as escorts rather than
>operating with flotillas. We did continue to build one enlarged
>destroyer
>per class up to ~1938 or so, when the last of the I-class were
>comissioned,
completed in the thirties).
>but after that destroyer-leaders were simply destroyers with extra
>deskhouses
>(e.g. K-class). By the end of the war even that distinction had gone,
>and
Of the 21 Battles completed between 44-47, 7 were fitted as leaders,
although the differences were largely below decks with extra
accommodation crammed in for the squadron staff.
--
Regards, Malcolm
I love to cook with wine - sometimes I even put it in the food.
ANDREW BREEN
Ragnar F. Süberkrüp <ra...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>Has anybody think on the Flottenbegleiter (Escort Boats) F1-F10?
>
>I think you can call them DE.
>
>They displacement was over 700 ts, they had a speed up to 28 kn, 2x 10,5
>cm with protection shields and 4x3,7 cm AA.
They're a difficult type to fit into the Destroyer/Frigate/Corvette
scheme, as the DFC catagorisation is based on RN (RCN, RAN, RNZN,
RSAN) and USN ships and these are substantially different. They seem
to me to fall into the same class as the Italian 'corvettes' - a
fast, shallow draught, coastal escort. They seem to stand to torpedo
boats as DEs did to DDs. In the British scheme of things they'd have
fitted somewhere between the Hunts (Escort Destroyers) and the
Puffins (Coastal Corvettes). In the WW2 scheme they're probably best
thought of as an escort destroyer/destroyer escort, albeit a
small one.
>
>Ok, if this ships had been brit. ones, they had been also called HMS
>Refitt/ HMS repair, cause they were (badly) designed as fast escort
>boat, Minesweeper and ASW.
>
Yes. Ultra-high-pressure machinery is _not_ a good idea in a
small ship. Even the (much more conservatively stressed) admiralty
3-drum boiler was a troublesome beast in Escorts - the most reliable
machinery (by a long way) was the Whaler-type machery of the corvettes
and Frigates. There's a lot to be said for simplicity when things
are getting difficult.
>Because they get not much sucess, they never came on service in her
>official task.
Not at good investment, in the circumstances..
--
Andy Breen ~ Max-Planck Institut fur Aeronomie, Katlenburg-Lindau
breen-sleepysnail-helene-dot-mpae-dot-gwdg-dot-de
"The day Microsoft make something which doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners" (Ernst Jan Plugge)
S. Evans
In the early fifties there were at least two classes of destroyer
leaders in the US Navy, hence the DL in DL-1,2,3,4,5 ( of the Norflok
class) and of course the DLG 55-60.. Their designation was changed to
frigate at some period shortly there after, even though the DLs were
larger than regular destroyers, and frigates in other navies were
generally smaller than DDs. Even when the US Navy decided to call them
firgates, they kept the DL.
Steve Evans
ANDREW BREEN
S. Evans <ev...@nospamlarscom.com> wrote:
>Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> In article <35CA05FD...@eiscat.uit.no>, Andy Breen
>> <a...@eiscat.uit.no> writes
>> >operating with flotillas. We did continue to build one enlarged
>> >destroyer per class up to ~1938 or so, when the last of the I-class were
>> >comissioned,
>> Don't forget the Admiralty Leader class (DUNCAN and FAULKNER, both
>> completed in the thirties).
<OFF-TOPIC>
First, can I apologise about the formatting of some of these messages.
Owing to system problems I've been forced into using Nets(r)ape
instead of a real newsreader. I'd not realised how badly it sucked
before now...
</OFF-TOPIC>
Surely _Duncan_ and _Faulknor_ were simply stretched D and F class
destroyers, with 15'-odd let in, an extra 4.7" and more accomodation
for Captain (D). Certainly significantly different from the other
ships in their class, but not an entirely separate design, as the
Scotts had been to the Admiralty S-class or the V/Ws.
On the other hand I did forget all about _Codrington_, the leader
for the A-class, which differed much more from the As than the
later leaders did from their classes. I'd also forgotten the
V-leaders of WW1, which were simply Vs with a long deckhouse.
>> >but after that destroyer-leaders were simply destroyers with extra
>> >deskhouses
>> >(e.g. K-class). By the end of the war even that distinction had gone,
>> >and
>> >Captain (D)s were forced to pig it like everyone else...
>>
>> Of the 21 Battles completed between 44-47, 7 were fitted as leaders,
>> although the differences were largely below decks with extra
>> accommodation crammed in for the squadron staff.
I'd forgotten about them, but I think it still supports my point
that, within the RN at least, the difference between a destroyer
leader and a normal destroyer (with Captain (D) in command) was
gradually eroded from about 1917 onwards.
>
>In the early fifties there were at least two classes of destroyer
>leaders in the US Navy, hence the DL in DL-1,2,3,4,5 ( of the Norflok
>class) and of course the DLG 55-60.. Their designation was changed to
>frigate at some period shortly there after, even though the DLs were
>larger than regular destroyers, and frigates in other navies were
>generally smaller than DDs. Even when the US Navy decided to call them
>firgates, they kept the DL.
Now I didn't know about these ships. That's _very_ interesting..
--
Andy Breen ~ Max-Planck Institut fur Aeronomie, Katlenburg-Lindau
"McLachtie was no Demosthenes, but what he said on that occasion
seems to have put an effective stop to any further records in
that direction" (David L. Smith)
ANDREW BREEN
Peter Skelton <p...@kingston.net> wrote:
>In British nomenclature a 20-30 knot ASW ship was likely to be a sloop,
>converted DD or, at the slow end, a frigate. (Sloops were generally warship
>construction, frigates merchant.)
Just to muddy the waters even more: all 'tween wars and WW2 sloops
were constructed to warship standards and used normal warship
machinery - but the surviving WW1 sloops were built to merchant
standards and had merchant-type machinery. Furthermore, the turbine-
powered frigates were faster than most of the sloops....
And the _Puffin_ class of coastal escort (turbines, warship
construction) ended up classed as corvettes (all the rest of
which had recips and were built to merchant standards).
Confused? You will be.
--
Andy Breen ~ Max-Planck Institut fur Aeronomie, Katlenburg-Lindau
gws
the Navy wanted light cruisers but the Congress would not authorize them, so
the Navy then asked for basically the same ships, but called them "Destroyer
Leaders," which, for reasons unknown to me, the Congress authorized and
funded. Andrew, what are the details of this story?
Grey Sattterfield
S. Evans wrote in message <35CB1B...@nospamlarscom.com>...
. . .
>In the early fifties there were at least two classes of destroyer
>leaders in the US Navy, hence the DL in DL-1,2,3,4,5 ( of the Norflok
>class) and of course the DLG 55-60.. Their designation was changed to
>frigate at some period shortly there after, even though the DLs were
>larger than regular destroyers, and frigates in other navies were
>generally smaller than DDs. Even when the US Navy decided to call them
>firgates, they kept the DL.
>
>Steve Evans
ANDREW BREEN
gws <g...@sct.state.ok.us> wrote:
>There is an interesting story surrounding the DLs from the '50s. Supposedly
>the Navy wanted light cruisers but the Congress would not authorize them, so
>the Navy then asked for basically the same ships, but called them "Destroyer
>Leaders," which, for reasons unknown to me, the Congress authorized and
>funded. Andrew, what are the details of this story?
I've heard the same story about the RN "County" class "destroyers"
of the early 1960s - the RN wanted guided missile cruisers, the
design put forward was very much your RN light cruiser - everything
straight up and down, bridge/fore-tripod/fore-funnel ... long gap
.. after=tripod, hanger, sea-slug. It got turned down. The same
design was put forward, wrapped in Mountbatten tinfoil (Mounbatten
liked ships to look "pretty", and it helped with decontamination
anyway) as a destroyer and was passed..
Now, this is based on a degree of hearsay, but it's hearsay from
those involved in fleet planning at the time (a couple of
my father's comrades from the atlantic had their flags by the
mid-50s). It's stupid enough to have happened. Just because
it's similar to the story about the US destroyer leaders doesn't
mean they're both not true. Both the US DLs and the Counties were
functionally light cruisers.
--
Andy Breen ~ Max-Planck Institut fur Aeronomie, Katlenburg-Lindau
B F Lake
>There is an interesting story surrounding the DLs from the '50s.
Supposedly
the Navy wanted light cruisers but the Congress would not authorize them,
so
the Navy then asked for basically the same ships, but called them
"Destroyer
Leaders," which, for reasons unknown to me, the Congress authorized and
funded. <
Hunter Killer Ships CLK authorized in 1947, but only one built, completed
1953. Re-rated as Destroyer Leader DL in 1951 and then Frigate DL in 1955.
Meanwhile, the 4 MITSCHERs authorized in Feb 48, were begun as Destroyers
DD, but re-rated as Destroyer Leaders DL in 1951 and Frigates DL in 1955 .
These were completed 53-54.
The next batch were the Guided Missile Frigates DLG authorized 56-57 and
completed 59-61 as the COONTZ class, designed as improved MITSCHERs.
To make the story fit, perhaps the MITSCHERS were called DDs vice CLK and
then all were changed to DL in 1951. 1948 was an election year, and Korean
War started in 1950, so???
Barry
Ragnar F. Süberkrüp
ANDREW BREEN schrieb:
> Not at good investment, in the circumstances..
>
I think the, not official, idea was to test the Ultra-High-Pressure-Machines
for the destroyers.
The F-Class was constructed 1933, the destroyers 1934.
But you are right, they wasen´t a good investment, ´cause they were only used
as small tenders and other aux.ships.
RFS
gws
scam for us. When I was on active duty in the '50s the conventional wisdom
was as I described in my post apended below, that the DLs were curisers by
any other name, and I think that I remember reading someting confirming the
story later. Maybe Andrew Toppan can introduce some order to the mix.
Grey Satterfield
ANDREW BREEN wrote in message <6qfjm1$eef$1...@osfa.aber.ac.uk>...
>In article <pGHy1.368$3c.604...@news.randori.com>,
>gws <g...@sct.state.ok.us> wrote:
>>There is an interesting story surrounding the DLs from the '50s.
Supposedly
>>the Navy wanted light cruisers but the Congress would not authorize them,
so
>>the Navy then asked for basically the same ships, but called them
"Destroyer
>>Leaders," which, for reasons unknown to me, the Congress authorized and
Malcolm
<a...@aber.ac.uk> writes
>In article <pGHy1.368$3c.604...@news.randori.com>,
>gws <g...@sct.state.ok.us> wrote:
>>There is an interesting story surrounding the DLs from the '50s. Supposedly
>>the Navy wanted light cruisers but the Congress would not authorize them, so
>>the Navy then asked for basically the same ships, but called them "Destroyer
>>Leaders," which, for reasons unknown to me, the Congress authorized and
>>funded. Andrew, what are the details of this story?
>
>I've heard the same story about the RN "County" class "destroyers"
>of the early 1960s - the RN wanted guided missile cruisers, the
>design put forward was very much your RN light cruiser - everything
>straight up and down, bridge/fore-tripod/fore-funnel ... long gap
>.. after=tripod, hanger, sea-slug. It got turned down. The same
>design was put forward, wrapped in Mountbatten tinfoil (Mounbatten
>liked ships to look "pretty", and it helped with decontamination
>anyway) as a destroyer and was passed..
>Now, this is based on a degree of hearsay, but it's hearsay from
>those involved in fleet planning at the time (a couple of
>my father's comrades from the atlantic had their flags by the
>mid-50s). It's stupid enough to have happened. Just because
>it's similar to the story about the US destroyer leaders doesn't
>mean they're both not true. Both the US DLs and the Counties were
>functionally light cruisers.
>
Mountbatten himself lent so credence to the story, during a visit to RNB
Portsmouth in the 60's. I was present when someone asked him why the
new cruiser sized ships were called GM Destroyers, and he said that it
was because they realised that getting approval for a destroyer class
would be easier than getting approval for cruisers.
--
Regards
Malcolm
Clarke Associates Limited
tel: +44 (0)117 9268864
fax: +44 (0)117 9226437
Malcolm
<a...@aber.ac.uk> writes
>In article <35CB1B...@nospamlarscom.com>,
>S. Evans <ev...@nospamlarscom.com> wrote:
>>Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <35CA05FD...@eiscat.uit.no>, Andy Breen
>>> <a...@eiscat.uit.no> writes
>>>> WW1 - oncew again, by WW2 these were employed as escorts rather than
>>> >operating with flotillas. We did continue to build one enlarged
>>> >destroyer per class up to ~1938 or so, when the last of the I-class were
>>> >comissioned,
>>> Don't forget the Admiralty Leader class (DUNCAN and FAULKNER, both
>>> completed in the thirties).
>
>
><OFF-TOPIC>
>First, can I apologise about the formatting of some of these messages.
>Owing to system problems I've been forced into using Nets(r)ape
>instead of a real newsreader. I'd not realised how badly it sucked
>before now...
></OFF-TOPIC>
>
>Surely _Duncan_ and _Faulknor_ were simply stretched D and F class
>destroyers, with 15'-odd let in, an extra 4.7" and more accomodation
>for Captain (D). Certainly significantly different from the other
>ships in their class, but not an entirely separate design, as the
>Scotts had been to the Admiralty S-class or the V/Ws.
Fair point. .
[snipped]
>>>
>>> Of the 21 Battles completed between 44-47, 7 were fitted as leaders,
>>> although the differences were largely below decks with extra
>>> accommodation crammed in for the squadron staff.
>
>I'd forgotten about them, but I think it still supports my point
>that, within the RN at least, the difference between a destroyer
>leader and a normal destroyer (with Captain (D) in command) was
>gradually eroded from about 1917 onwards.
>
There was certainly no significant difference other than a few extra
cabins for officers. In fact the extra accommodation was inadequate,
and staff officers were often spread among other ships of the squadron
which caused a certain amount of irritation.
--
Regards, MALCOLM CLARKE
HMS SOLEBAY ASSOCIATION Tel: 0117 9268864 (O)
(www.tods.demon.co.uk) Tel: 0117 9426139 (H)
Andrew C. Toppan
> In the early fifties there were at least two classes of destroyer
> leaders in the US Navy, hence the DL in DL-1,2,3,4,5 ( of the Norflok
> class)
NORFOLK was DL-1; she was unique (and had originally been a cruiser, CLK1).
DL 2-5 were ex-DDs (MITSCHER class).
> and of course the DLG 55-60..
DLG designations never went above 41 (DLGN 41, later CGN 41). What in heck
ships are you talking about here?
Andrew C. Toppan
> There is an interesting story surrounding the DLs from the '50s. Supposedly
> the Navy wanted light cruisers but the Congress would not authorize them, so
> the Navy then asked for basically the same ships, but called them "Destroyer
> Leaders," which, for reasons unknown to me, the Congress authorized and
> funded. Andrew, what are the details of this story?
Never heard that story before - and it's impossible at best.
DL 1 was authorized as CLK 1, a "hunter killer" CRUISER.
DL 2-5 were authorized as DESTROYERS (DD 927-930).
Thus none of the original DLs were authorized as DLs, so the story is
baseless.
Andy Breen
> >>> Of the 21 Battles completed between 44-47, 7 were fitted as leaders,
> >>> although the differences were largely below decks with extra
> >>> accommodation crammed in for the squadron staff.
> >
> >I'd forgotten about them, but I think it still supports my point
> >that, within the RN at least, the difference between a destroyer
> >leader and a normal destroyer (with Captain (D) in command) was
> >gradually eroded from about 1917 onwards.
> >
>
> There was certainly no significant difference other than a few extra
> cabins for officers. In fact the extra accommodation was inadequate,
> and staff officers were often spread among other ships of the squadron
> which caused a certain amount of irritation.
Thanks. It's nice to get info from someone who knew the beasts.
I do, occasionally, wonder if there had been some idea of using the
_Darings_ as flotilla leaders if the pacific war had lasted long
enough for them to come into service. They'd have been good in the
role - and certainly they'd reached the stage where there was little
use in deploying them as flotilla ships[1] - I seem to remember that the
RN classed them as "Daring-type" ships for several years, rather than
as destroyers - certainly, in the 1950s and early 60s when my brother
was in _Decoy_, they were employed as 3rd-class cruisers, rather than
as destroyers.
And where did the _Weapon_ class (a type about which I know next-to
-nothing) and the G-boats fit into it all?
[1] Yes, I know the Frence _Mogador_ class at the end of the 30s were
_much_ bigger and were deployed as flotilla craft. This doesn't mean
it was a good idea.
--
Andy 'Doc' Breen, on campaign at EISCAT (European Incoherent Scatter
Radar network) at 69.6 north, 19.2 east
+ No spam , under any circumstances +
Andy Breen
> Mountbatten himself lent so credence to the story, during a visit to RNB
> Portsmouth in the 60's.
That makes sense, though I doubt if it made anyone love Mountbatten more
- my father has the lovely story of being at Greenwich ~ 1951 and diving
into
the gents to avoid shaing hands with Mounbatten. The gents was packed.
Four-ring Captains, Admirals, you name it. Mountbatten was _not_ a
popular
man with his generation of officers. I remeber being quite shocked at
the
comments I overheard after the INLA blew him up....
--
Andy Breen, still on campaign at EISCAT
69.6 N, 19.2 E
Andrew C. Toppan
> To make the story fit, perhaps the MITSCHERS were called DDs vice CLK
The MITSCHERs were meant for a totally different role than NORFOLK; their
separate classifications (DD, CLK) made perfect sense until missions
started changing - hence DL.
Ken Young
wrote:
> or the V/Ws.
The original V class was intended as a leader for the R class however
they served as divisional or half leaders as more powerful ships followed
them into service.
Ken Young
Ken Young
Breen) wrote:
> As far as I can tell the USN never did go for the destroyer leader
> concept,
They did build some destroyer leaders between the wars, mainly I think as
it was the only way they could get new construction past Congress. These
were unique in mounting SP 5 inch guns.
Ken Young
B F Lake
>The original V class was intended as a leader for the R class however
they served as divisional or half leaders as more powerful ships followed
them into service. <
,"The first five ships were Leaders during the war and for some years
after. Later the Vs were given triple tubes and the Ws 4-4in guns and the
two classes became one."
Barry
Ragnar F. Süberkrüp
> I found another french Class:
The Le-Fantasque-Class (6 ships)
3231-3434 t (full-load-displacement)
lenght: 132,6 m
86443-93802 WPS
40-43 kn!!!!!
5x13,8 cm
2x3,7 cm
4x1,32 cm
9x55 cm torpedos
40 mines
crew: 210
build 1931-1936
RFS
Andy ('Doc') Breen
>
> > I found another french Class:
>
> The Le-Fantasque-Class (6 ships)
> 3231-3434 t (full-load-displacement)
The French built some mosters at the end of the 30s, culminating in the
Modagors - 8x5.5" semi-automatics (LA only, but in turrets), 10x21" torpedo
tubes, somewhere on the far side of 40 knots and close of the order of 4000
tons full load.
The French claimed they were destroyers. The RN classed them as light
cruisers, which seems much more like it (note: The Washington treaty
put an upper limit of 2000t and 6.1" guns on destroyers...)
--
+ Andy Breen, on campaign at EISCAT 69.6 N, 19.2 E
+ The stick says "Spam Not"
Black ICE
To wit, the PORTER class, armed with 8 5" guns in 4 twin mounts.
"Designed as squdron leaders; introduced the twin 5" mount." [_US
Warships of World War II_, Silverstone, pg. 114] 8 were built, along
with 5 SOMERS (improved PORTER) class DDs.
--
------
| | Reply to wombat_at_premier_dot_net
|JOLT|
|COLA| Visit my Web site at:
| |
------ http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9776/
Peter Skelton
>Ken Young wrote:
>>
>> In article <35CA05FD...@eiscat.uit.no>, a...@eiscat.uit.no (Andy
>> Breen) wrote:
>>
>> > As far as I can tell the USN never did go for the destroyer leader
>> > concept,
>> They did build some destroyer leaders between the wars, mainly I think as
>> it was the only way they could get new construction past Congress. These
>> were unique in mounting SP 5 inch guns.
>>
>> Ken Young
>
>To wit, the PORTER class, armed with 8 5" guns in 4 twin mounts.
>"Designed as squdron leaders; introduced the twin 5" mount." [_US
>Warships of World War II_, Silverstone, pg. 114] 8 were built, along
>with 5 SOMERS (improved PORTER) class DDs.
>
The Porters were replies to the big super destroyers being built elsewhere.
To get the eight 5" into a tonnage similar to other USN DD'S of the period,
they had to go for LA mounts and probably other compromises.
Although I've seen the squadron leader statement before, I haven't come
accross any evidence of extra accomodations or better communication
facilities that would support it. Do you have any details?
--
Peter Skelton
Skelton & Associates
613/634-0230
p...@kingston.net
Ken Young
> The French claimed they were destroyers. The RN classed them as light
> cruisers, which seems much more like it (note: The Washington treaty
> put an upper limit of 2000t and 6.1" guns on destroyers...)
The nearly identical Italian Capito Romani were classified as light
cruisers.
Ken Young
Ken Young
Skelton) wrote:
> Do you have any details?
Only what is in Friedman. The ships were built using the same clause in
the Treaties as the Tribal class. Conway gives the impression that they
were substitutes for light cruisers.
Ken Young
GLof815619
Picture I have seen in several books, including Silverstone, Conway, and
"United States Navy Destroyers of ...) by John Reilly shows the Porter where
build with a strong cruiser type superstucture. These larger ship with their
larger crew would be useful for a squadron leader even if there were no special
quarters for ranking officers.
My guess is that these ships where built as replacement for the light cruisers
scrapped duriing the 30's. They were curtainly armed much like these ships.
Does anyone have access to old U.S.N.I. Proceedings that might shead some light
on this matter?
G Lof
Engineer
Herbert Sebranek
Ragnar F. Süberkrüp
> The French claimed they were destroyers. The RN classed them as light
> cruisers, which seems much more like it (note: The Washington treaty
> put an upper limit of 2000t and 6.1" guns on destroyers...)
>
>
I have one question mustn´t a ship that was called "light cruiser" has
any
protection/amour?
The last unprotected cruisers I know was the german Bussard-Class
(Kleiner
(ungeschützter) Kreuzer).
I don´t know the whole texte of the treaty, so i´m not sure.
Ragnar F. Süberkrüp
Paul J. Adam
Sebranek <bra...@webtv.net> writes
> "Sed quis custodet ipsos custodes?" But who will guard the guards?
> Usually heard these days as part of a lame apology for various
>journalist types.
It's originally Juvenal, from his 'Satires', and a fuller version is
"'Pone seram, cohibe.' Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Cauta est et
ab illis incipit uxor."
"'Bolt her in, keep her indoors.' But who is to guard the guards
themselves? Your wife arranges accordingly and begins with them."
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
ran...@ix.netcom.com
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <25489-35D...@newsd-172.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Herbert
>Sebranek <bra...@webtv.net> writes
>> "Sed quis custodet ipsos custodes?" But who will guard the guards?
>> Usually heard these days as part of a lame apology for various
>>journalist types.
>
>It's originally Juvenal, from his 'Satires', and a fuller version is
>"'Pone seram, cohibe.' Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Cauta est et
>ab illis incipit uxor."
>
>"'Bolt her in, keep her indoors.' But who is to guard the guards
>themselves? Your wife arranges accordingly and begins with them."
Was this the guy who penned,
"Galla swears the hair she wears
Is hers, and true she swears for I know where she bought it."
Maybe it was Martial. Those Romans had some great poets.
random
Andrew C. Toppan
> I have one question mustn´t a ship that was called "light cruiser" has
> any protection/amour?
> I don´t know the whole texte of the treaty, so i´m not sure.
The Treaties (Washington, London) don't care about armor, only guns.
Ken Young
Süberkrüp) wrote:
> I don´t know the whole texte of the treaty, so i´m not sure.
There were three or four classes defined and the definitions were made as
broad as possible. This is from memory as I don't have the full treaty
text myself only extracts from books on the various classes.
Battleships minimum displacement 17,500 maximum 35,000 guns between 12
and 16 inches (reduced to 14 inches by the London Treaty)
Cruisers maximum displacement 10,000 maximum gun 8 inches later changed
to separate heavy cruisers mounting 8 in from light cruisers mounting up
to 6.1 in. Note light cruisers could displace the full 10,000 tons.
Maximum displacement was reduced to 8,000 tons by a later treaty.
Destroyers originally 1,550 tons with a ten percent allowance for ships
of 1850 tons mounting guns up to 5 inches. This was changed in 1936.
Unlimited sloops of up to 2,000 tons with speed up to 20 knots and up to
6.1 inch guns (London Treaty of 1930 which put total tonnage limits on
everything else)
As far as I can tell there is no mention at all of armour in the treaties
classification was solely by displacement and guns.
Ken Young
Paul Krenske
It really is these treaties that defined what class ships were,
(especially cruisers) as during WW1 just about everything was built.
For cruisers in WW1 9.7 inch etc were carried by numerous navies and I
seem to recall (books are at home) 10 inch and larger. these were
normally 'armoured', 'heavy' or 'large' cruisers. 'Normal' cruisers
really included everything below 9 inch with lots or no armour and
could be slow or fast. Most navies had light cruisers or destroyer
leaders or scouts that had speed and light guns with little armour.
The treaties forced 2 standards upon the world that seem to fit the
general desire to reduce costs of nw builds (No new guns to be
researched simplified logistics etc.)
If the treaties had not happened then the escalation in battleship
armament would have been followed by upscaled cruisers (An obvious
example is the Alaska class with 9x12inch) The cruisers would have
developed into lots of different types.
Battle Cruiser Massive battleship variants
Fleet/Armoured/large/heavy bigger and bigger
Scout/light/leader super heavy destoyer size
Raider/station/patrol large long range limited guns
The artificial heavy and light classes would never have happened. The
treaties did limit spending on these costly and and growing ships.
Some speculatve cruiser designs in 1921 were starting to look like the
original dreadnought with 12 x 10 inch and secondary batteries of 7
inch guns etc. Mind you some navies were discussing 20 and 21 inch
guns for some battleship desins by then.
Paul Krenske
Remove the characters "nospam." to email
gws
the capability of warships in the prologue to Clay Blair's "Hitler's U-Boat
War."
Grey Satterfield
Paul Krenske wrote in message <35d38abc.9614104@news>...
Ragnar F. Süberkrüp
I found an interesting cruiser-class in the Marine-Arsenal 27
(ISBN3-7909-0506-2).
The chinese NING HAI -class (2 ships)
Construction Datas:
standard displacement: 2500 ts
lenghts over all: 109,73 m
beam (max): 11,89 m
draught: 3,96 m
propulsin plant: 2 shafts, 2 turbines mech. gears, 4 boiler
9500 WPS (trials: 10500 WPS
22,25 kn 24 kn)
armament: 6 x 14 cm, 5,5 " (3x2 turrets)
6 x 7,6 cm, 3 " (AA)
4x 53,3 cm torpedos (2x2 launcher)
amour: 25 mm protected deck
25 mm turrets
crew: 340