2nd best WWII DD design

[John Lansford]

The 76mm gun on later versions of the Sherman, and the 17 lb gun the British mounted in some of their Shermans, could kill Tigers through the frontal armor.  Late war versions of the Sherman had 6" armor on their front as well, more than the Tiger. 
 
Now, if you're talking about the first models of the Sherman, with the fairly low velocity 75mm gun it had, yes, that's a mismatch with the Tiger.  But later models with the 76mm and 17 lb guns made them much more dangerous to nearly any German tank.

[hosho]

By mid-war, tanks were designed for specific missions, and in that mission they were usually very effective. The M4 was designed for mobile operations. Sure, it couldn't defeat a Panther or Tiger II in a hull-down position, but it was mobile enough to move around to the flanks and fight from there.

Well imho flanking isn´t so easy as you make it sound. It is rather deadly if you get caught in the open. And if you want mobility and power in a single pack = t-34. Sherman was a undergunned tin.





Sherman
vs. Tiger I
(75 mm M3)


Front: Turret 0 m
Mantlet 0 m
DFP* 0 m
Nose 0 m
Side: Turret 100 m
Superstructure 100 m
Hull 900 m
Rear: Turret 100 m
Hull 0 m
* DFP = Drivers Front Plate

Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6

[hosho]

Note that this is the A4 version! M3 is more vunerable!




Tiger I
vs. Sherman A4
(88 mm KwK)



Front: Turret 1800 m
Mantlet 200 m
DFP* 0 m
Nose 2100 m
Side: Turret 3500 m
Superstructure 3500 m
Hull 3500 m
Rear: Turret 3500 m
Hull 3500 m

* DFP = Drivers Front Plate

Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6

[borner]

if US tanks did not outnumber the Germans by 5/1+, they would not have been nearly as succseeful

[DuckofTindalos]

So, we go from "2nd best USN destroyer design" (Livermore class, IMHO) to another stupid US tank vs German tank thread. Will you people NEVER LEARN???[:@]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

So, we go from "2nd best USN destroyer design" (Livermore class, IMHO) to another stupid US tank vs German tank thread. Will you people NEVER LEARN???[:@]

Actually, I did a study of this question for a government customer back in 1976, and I was responding based on that work.

[Yamato hugger]

Sherman was an infantry support vehicle. M-36 was a tank killer. Saying a Sherman wasnt good at killing Tigers is like saying mk IVs werent good at killing KV-1s. Of course they werent good at it, they werent designed for it.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Sherman was an infantry support vehicle. M-36 was a tank killer. Saying a Sherman wasnt good at killing Tigers is like saying mk IVs werent good at killing KV-1s. Of course they werent good at it, they werent designed for it.

Exactly. The M4 was also designed for mobile warfare--it had a reliable engine, powertrain, and suspension, and wasn't limited to good routes like the Panther and Tiger. Sure it had problems if it encountered a cat in a hull-down position, but the cat tended to break down and had to stick close to the road.

We used to say that the Chieftain was the finest tank in the world if it broke down in a good firing position.

One of the reasons we weren't that paranoid about the Warsaw Pact back in the 1970-80s was that their tanks were optimised for offensive operations over road nets. The T62 and its successors found it very difficult to enter a hull-down position and were unable to climb a 20+ degree slope. That meant WP armoured and motorised forces were road-bound and that the Soviets had to use NBC warfare from the beginning to maintain their advance rate. So the defence of Europe during that decade was basically dependent on keeping the Soviets convinced that they couldn't win if they used weapons of mass destruction. The introduction of the Air-Land Battle Doctrine then defined a way for us to go on the offensive, and the Soviets found they couldn't afford to stay in the game.

[John Lansford]

There were a lot more M-10's then there were M-36's.  The M-10 had the 76mm AT gun that some later Shermans had and were as successful in dealing with German tanks.  The M-36 and its 90mm gun weren't all that common.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

There were a lot more M-10's then there were M-36's.  The M-10 had the 76mm AT gun that some later Shermans had and were as successful in dealing with German tanks.  The M-36 and its 90mm gun weren't all that common.

Neither were Tigers or Panthers. By far the most numerous of German tanks were mk IIIs - which the Sherman didnt have a problem with.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

There were a lot more M-10's then there were M-36's.  The M-10 had the 76mm AT gun that some later Shermans had and were as successful in dealing with German tanks.  The M-36 and its 90mm gun weren't all that common.

Neither were Tigers or Panthers. By far the most numerous of German tanks were mk IIIs - which the Sherman didnt have a problem with.

By 1944, the Pz III chassis was being used for the StuG III. The Pz IV had been upgraded with a 75 L48 gun, giving it the ability to kill T34s, but the resulting design was overloaded and at the end of its development potential. The M-4 could handle Pz IVF2s, IVGs, and IVHs.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Actually based on the numbers a single US 5" L38 mount was almost the equal of a dual RN 4.7" mount in AA.

Herwin, I appologize for being picky, but doesn't this undermine your argument on the BC thread that Renown's AA was twice that of Alaska?
Post refit, Renown had 20-4.7s while Alaska had 12-5s. Alaska also had a much greater quantity of 40mms, although fewer 20mms after Renown's 44 refit.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: herwin

Actually based on the numbers a single US 5" L38 mount was almost the equal of a dual RN 4.7" mount in AA.

Herwin, I appologize for being picky, but doesn't this undermine your argument on the BC thread that Renown's AA was twice that of Alaska?
Post refit, Renown had 20-4.7s while Alaska had 12-5s. Alaska also had a much greater quantity of 40mms, although fewer 20mms after Renown's 44 refit.

Renown's heavy AA was 4.5" in caliber. The 4.5" AA was almost as rapid as the US 5" L38 in hand-fed burst mode (18 RPM versus 22 RPM), and the burst radius was about 90%, so the barrage the Renown could put up was about equivalent to that produced by 15 5" L38s.

[vettim89]

To get this thread back on track, I don't think calling the Fletchers the best DD is necessarily wrong. The reason I would call them that is that they were "good" at so many things even if not "great" at any one thing.

In terms of detection, AAA, and fire control, they were probably the best. They were above average ASW platforms. Their torpedoes were substandard but that was a BNO problem more than a ship design problem. I would say by late 1944 this problem was fixed (about the time it became irrelevant excepting poor Fuso)

The British destroyers had superior ASW gear but were weaker in AAA. The Japanese DD's had the Type 93 but we all know about the 23 mm AAA mount. Th Japanese DP guns were not on par of the Mk38 5" and couldn't compare with the Mk42 (IIRC) that some of the later Sumners had fitted. A cursory look at the Battles in the Central Solomons in 1943 would support the premise that Japanese DD's lost most battles where they did not bring the Type 93 to bear.

I am sure there were a number of other good DD's out but IHO, the Fletcher is not the naval eqivalent of the M4 Sherman. As has already been pointed out, a M4 could not stand toe to toe with the best of the world's tanks. IMO, this is not true of the Fletcher - I give you the battles of Cape St George and Vella LaVella as my evidence

[Dora09]

Why so little consideration for the Japanese Destroyers?  And no mention of the Shimakaze?  Sure there was only one built but that thing was awesome.  If you are talking one on one I'd take the Shimakaze against a Fletcher any day.  Also the Yugumo class was very modern, and could give the Fletcher a fight.  Even the Kagero class was close in capability to the Fletcher.

[John Lansford]

Once the USN DD's got reliable radar and experience in how to use it, the IJN's prowess in night surface fighting vanished.  The USN's ships didn't get any better wrt guns or torpedoes, but knowing where the other side is and being able to set up the engagement to maximize your advantages while minimizing your opponent's is paramount.
 
The 1943 surface fights all start off with "the USN ships detected the enemy ships on radar..." and usually ended with "the IJN ships suffered badly, losing x ships...". 

[Long Lance]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

There were a lot more M-10's then there were M-36's.  The M-10 had the 76mm AT gun that some later Shermans had and were as successful in dealing with German tanks.  The M-36 and its 90mm gun weren't all that common.

Neither were Tigers or Panthers. By far the most numerous of German tanks were mk IIIs - which the Sherman didnt have a problem with.

Most numerous was the PzKpfW IV, roundabout 8000 built. The number of PzKpfW III-Chassis' may be higher, because the were plenty of StuGs built.

[Long Lance]

ORIGINAL: Dora09

Why so little consideration for the Japanese Destroyers?  And no mention of the Shimakaze?  Sure there was only one built but that thing was awesome.  If you are talking one on one I'd take the Shimakaze against a Fletcher any day.  Also the Yugumo class was very modern, and could give the Fletcher a fight.  Even the Kagero class was close in capability to the Fletcher.

The high rate of fire of the 5 in gives Fletcher virtually double the main armament (or more?) of a Kagero.
And the 5 in was further the perhaps best Naval AAA of the war, wheras the main armament of Kagero could elevate to 70 degree, but was not rather well suited for AA-Tasks if at all (IIRC).

While I agree that there's perhaps a tendency to overrate Allied and esp. US-weapons at this forum, i think the more advanced US DDs are a class of its own, mainly because of the formidable 5/38.

[niceguy2005]

Who cares about tanks anyway?  They're naught but ground targets with tread...[;)]

I can't entirely agree with the above post that one has to consider a nations naval doctrine.  I think the IJN's doctrine was well outdated by the beginning of WWII and failed to ever really catch up.  Destroyers in WWII were generalized escorts facing surface, air and sub threats. 

IMO the best DDs of the war were the Tribal class, followed by L&M classes for overall speed and performance, then I would rank most of the US DDs a close second.  IJN DDs were never really up to the sub or AA challenge.  

One of my personal favorites, for no other reason than fascination were the Porter's. 

[vettim89]

I do not want to come across as having my AFBship biasing my opinion. I really do beleive the Fletcher was the best DD of WWII. That doesn't mean the other DD's were all dog's or didn't have some good points. It doesn't mean it was head and shoulders better than it's cohorts. It also doesn't mean that other ships weren't better in some aspects. It just means that overall it was a superior ship. When this thread got turned into a tank thread, it seemed that the Fletcher got thrown into the "the USA had a material superiority that allowed them to just outproduce the Axis". I 100% agree with the M4 Sherman being in that category .

The Fletcher had the best DP gun of the war, the best AAA suite of any DD except the Sumners, an excellant sensor suite, a reliable power plant, etc. For those of you who might say that the US Radar advantage negated the advantages of superior Japanese design, I would say exactly. The Fletcher was better BECAUSE it had radar. The Japanese ships did not until late '44 and by then the Fletchers were being upgraded to 3rd and 4th generation sets.

Some one said I'd take a Japanese DD of such and such a class over a Fletcher anytime. Really? You would rather be probing around on a dark night in SoPac with no radar hoping you might get lucky and get off the first shot? Look at your history books. The last US ship hit by a Type 93 was in mid-1943. No Japanese torpedoes hit the Battles of Empress Augusta Bay or Cape St. George. I would need to check my references but I thik the USN won every DD vs DD exclusive engagement from 1943 on. I'll take a radar equipped Fletcher with 5"/38's anyday.