2nd best WWII DD design

[borner]

Of the classes available 1/1/42. I am starting this thread with the assumption that the Fletcher takes the gold. So, what, in the opinion of the gallery, is the best non-US design at this time?

[JeffroK]

Thats a broad, and typically American view, that they have the best of everything. What makes you so confidently arrogant about it?

PLUS, the Fletcher class didnt go into service until June 42, so they don't (edited a little)even rate your competition.

I'd put in the best British class as being the "Tribal" class

[borner]

HMMMMM   lets see here....
 
BB's Iowa
CA's Baltimore
CL's Clevelands
Subs  Gato - once the torps worked.
Carriers Essex
 
No, the US did not have the best of everything, but in ship design, more often than not we did.
 
 
Actually, I was thinking a couple of types from Japan would be a close second and draw the most fire. So what makes you so sure about the Tribal?
 
I will take 5 single US 5" mounts over the 4 twin 4.7" mounts. Not by the numbers, but in how effective they were when being used. I would also argue the US fire control was better and the Fletcher was a more stable platform. Now if we are talking 1940, the story is quite different.
 
Actually, if the Germans had used something other than the unreliable high-presure steam system, you could give serious consideration to them as well.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Thats a broad, and typically American view, that they have the best of everything. What makes you so confidently arrogant about it?

A little ironic, because the USN General Board did not try and produce hyper-optimized designs--just competent ones that could be built in overwhelming quantities. The Germans and the Japanese generally went for superior individual designs. The French also appeared to produce superb ships, but it is hard to tell how good they really were.

I happen to like the French Le Fantasque and Mogadors and the awesome IJN Akitsukis if I were limited to just a handful of ships. Of course, all three classes were very large destroyers. The Tribals were superb for their tonnage, but I like the larger 'L' and 'M's.

[borner]

Le Fantasque is a great class.

[Wirraway_Ace]

The Mogadors were even better, if they had ever been able to fix the problems with the turrets before the German Army began parading through Paris.

[Wirraway_Ace]

The Akitsukis were beatiful ships. Only 4 longlance tubes and a bit on the slow side, but great CV TF escorts.

[Pistachio]

Apples and Oranges. Agree that Tribal was a fine class but agree more with Wirraway_Ace about things overall. The U.S. priority was to make 'good' models (of anything - whether it was a plane or a SMG) in mass quantity and deliver those mass quantities to theater. There's the well-known story about the captured German who knew the war was over when he saw an American eating chocolate cake sent from home....

So for the sake of argument, the best class of anything was the U.S.S. Industrial Production. The Tiger may have been a better tank, but there were lots and lots and lots of Shermans, even if they could be killed with one pop. This happened within the U.S. services as well. For example, the Thompson .45 sub-machine gun was an excellent weapon, but there were far more "grease guns" fielded because they were cheaper and easier to produce than the Thompson.

Sorry for going a little off-topic. Sure, love the Tribal.[:)]

[JeffroK]

Apologies for blowing up at Americans, I'm sure they are not all the same as the lot I deal with via work, but you all pay for it.
 
1.    Fletcher class wasnt in service for your competition. Its great to compare a mid 42 design against 1941 or earlier ships.
What makes up your definition of the best design, AA, ASW, All round.
 
2.    How do you rate pre-Fletcher class DD?
 
3.    As the Wirraway-Ace explains, the US didnt go in for a small number of super ships-planes-tank but produced a large number of very good designs. This is why the Allies managed to whip the Axis forces despite Bismarks & Me262s & Panthers etc.
 
4.    US ships had the advantage of being part of a massive machine, they were outclassed in the DEI. It  might be interesting to see them in the numbers and situations forced upon other Navies.

[jwilkerson]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that these "best of" threads usually wind up being political slugging matches. Why should I not be surprised? Well one reason is because "best" is an ill-defined term. It might really just be called "my favorite" with less hint of objectivity.

I'm not allowed to move such threads to the garbage dump but I can move them here where they will receive more scrutiny!
[:)]

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: JeffK


2.    How do you rate pre-Fletcher class DD?

The Benson/Gleaves, the last of the pre-war class, were competent (good range and armament, except AA weakness that all DDs suffered) and there were a lot of them.

4.    US ships had the advantage of being part of a massive machine, they were outclassed in the DEI. 

True, but the Asiatic Fleet got the dregs of the USN.

It  might be interesting to see them in the numbers and situations forced upon other Navies.

They were badly outnumbered in the DEI and at approximate parity in the Pacific until early 43. They lost a number of battles in spectacular fashion but still turned the tables on the very competent IJN before the overwhelming numbers really began to arrive.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that these "best of" threads usually wind up being political slugging matches. Why should I not be surprised? Well one reason is because "best" is an ill-defined term. It might really just be called "my favorite" with less hint of objectivity.

I'm not allowed to move such threads to the garbage dump but I can move them here where they will receive more scrutiny!
[:)]

I appreciate you not moving "best of" threads automatically to the garbage dump. There is almost always a valuable "nugget" in the pile of responses that helps me keep learning.

[Commander Stormwolf]

in 1942, In terms of defence of Capital Ships, the British Destroyers are possibly best

British Destroyer --> Submarine Destroyer

USN Destroyer --> Aircraft Destroyer

IJN Destroyer --> Battleship Destroyer


The definition of best is associated with fleet doctrine
The IJN destroyers would be the best of World War I.


From late 1942 onwards -->

For the modern battlefield with emphasis on aircraft,
and to defend naval aviation forces from such threats,
the Sumner and Fletcher classes may be considered best.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: borner

HMMMMM   lets see here....

BB's Iowa
CA's Baltimore
CL's Clevelands
Subs  Gato - once the torps worked.
Carriers Essex

No, the US did not have the best of everything, but in ship design, more often than not we did.


Actually, I was thinking a couple of types from Japan would be a close second and draw the most fire. So what makes you so sure about the Tribal?

I will take 5 single US 5" mounts over the 4 twin 4.7" mounts. Not by the numbers, but in how effective they were when being used. I would also argue the US fire control was better and the Fletcher was a more stable platform. Now if we are talking 1940, the story is quite different.

Actually, if the Germans had used something other than the unreliable high-presure steam system, you could give serious consideration to them as well.

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

[hosho]

ORIGINAL: Pistachio


So for the sake of argument, the best class of anything was the U.S.S. Industrial Production. The Tiger may have been a better tank, but there were lots and lots and lots of Shermans, even if they could be killed with one pop. This happened within the U.S. services as well. For example, the Thompson .45 sub-machine gun was an excellent weapon, but there were far more "grease guns" fielded because they were cheaper and easier to produce than the Thompson.

Sorry for going a little off-topic. Sure, love the Tribal.[:)]

Hi there,
not many Tigers or even Panthers were destroyed by Sherman tanks. They could destroy a Panther only by shooting from a very very colose range at a side or back armor. There is a reason why am. infantry called the supporting aircraft "angels on our shoulders" or something like that. Sorry but Sherman was a piece of shit even comapared to panzer IV, not to mention the german or russian heavies. If there hadn`t been for the USAAF .... not to go in the details, already got carried away...

Always liked the french ships, Mogador, Richelieu ( I know, I know, a bit larger then a destroyer :- ). Akitsuki was a fine ship too.

[hosho]

in 1942, In terms of defence of Capital Ships, the British Destroyers are possibly best

British Destroyer --> Submarine Destroyer

USN Destroyer --> Aircraft Destroyer

IJN Destroyer --> Battleship Destroyer


The definition of best is associated with fleet doctrine
The IJN destroyers would be the best of World War I.


From late 1942 onwards -->

For the modern battlefield with emphasis on aircraft,
and to defend naval aviation forces from such threats,
the Sumner and Fletcher classes may be considered best.

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf


agree with this completely! [&o]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: hosho

ORIGINAL: Pistachio


So for the sake of argument, the best class of anything was the U.S.S. Industrial Production. The Tiger may have been a better tank, but there were lots and lots and lots of Shermans, even if they could be killed with one pop. This happened within the U.S. services as well. For example, the Thompson .45 sub-machine gun was an excellent weapon, but there were far more "grease guns" fielded because they were cheaper and easier to produce than the Thompson.

Sorry for going a little off-topic. Sure, love the Tribal.[:)]

Hi there,
not many Tigers or even Panthers were destroyed by Sherman tanks. They could destroy a Panther only by shooting from a very very colose range at a side or back armor. There is a reason why am. infantry called the supporting aircraft "angels on our shoulders" or something like that. Sorry but Sherman was a piece of shit even comapared to panzer IV, not to mention the german or russian heavies. If there hadn`t been for the USAAF .... not to go in the details, already got carried away...

Always liked the french ships, Mogador, Richelieu ( I know, I know, a bit larger then a destroyer :- ). Akitsuki was a fine ship too.

Almost any tank is hard to kill if it is hull-down. Otherwise, a tank's frontal arc is fairly small (about 30 degrees) and it remains vulnerable from other directions.

[hosho]

Almost any tank is hard to kill if it is hull-down. Otherwise, a tank's frontal arc is fairly small (about 30 degrees) and it remains vulnerable from other directions.

Agree,

but, tanks have turrets that can rotate :- ) No seriously, one of the most important crew members of a tiger was the driver because if he could keep the frontal armor towards the enemy.... well you know what happened. The problem is that sherman couldn´t penetrate even side armor from a distance. I don´t think that tank that can defeat the opponents tanks only from an ambush can be called a good tank.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: hosho

Almost any tank is hard to kill if it is hull-down. Otherwise, a tank's frontal arc is fairly small (about 30 degrees) and it remains vulnerable from other directions.

Agree,

but, tanks have turrets that can rotate :- ) No seriously, one of the most important crew members of a tiger was the driver because if he could keep the frontal armor towards the enemy.... well you know what happened. The problem is that sherman couldn´t penetrate even side armor from a distance. I don´t think that tank that can defeat the opponents tanks only from an ambush can be called a good tank.

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.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: hosho

ORIGINAL: Pistachio


So for the sake of argument, the best class of anything was the U.S.S. Industrial Production. The Tiger may have been a better tank, but there were lots and lots and lots of Shermans, even if they could be killed with one pop. This happened within the U.S. services as well. For example, the Thompson .45 sub-machine gun was an excellent weapon, but there were far more "grease guns" fielded because they were cheaper and easier to produce than the Thompson.

Sorry for going a little off-topic. Sure, love the Tribal.[:)]

Hi there,
not many Tigers or even Panthers were destroyed by Sherman tanks. They could destroy a Panther only by shooting from a very very colose range at a side or back armor. There is a reason why am. infantry called the supporting aircraft "angels on our shoulders" or something like that. Sorry but Sherman was a piece of shit even comapared to panzer IV, not to mention the german or russian heavies. If there hadn`t been for the USAAF .... not to go in the details, already got carried away...

Always liked the french ships, Mogador, Richelieu ( I know, I know, a bit larger then a destroyer :- ). Akitsuki was a fine ship too.

Almost any tank is hard to kill if it is hull-down. Otherwise, a tank's frontal arc is fairly small (about 30 degrees) and it remains vulnerable from other directions.

at what distance had a German tank (Panther, Tiger, Pzkw IV) problems to penetrate a Sherman´s frontal armor in mid 44? That´s not a cynical question, I´m just interested.