Naval Trivia - Destroyers

[Felix/FFDS]

Weren't developed to hunt and kill submarines, although that would become possibly their main purpose, but to hunt and destroy torpedo boats.

With Britain's supremacy in its Fleet, other nations developed the torpedo boat as a means of striking fast and hard - at the British Fleet.

The British - or rather, the head of the Naval Armaments Adm. "Jacky" Fisher, had the "destroyer" developed to combat the torpedo boat threat at the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th.

Intersting reading "Dreadnought...

[Woodlouse2002]

Actually, a Destroyers main purpose has never been to hunt and kill submarines. Although they've had that job tacked on to them the main Submarine killers of any fleet are the Frigates. Destroyers are more an anti air anti surface skirmish vessel primarily used, as you say for anti MTB defence of the Grand Fleet.

If you look at how the convoys were made up in WWII you'll find that Frigates were the main defence as they were basically developed for the anti submarine role. This may be different in America but in England Destroyers are not anti submarine weapons.

[Felix/FFDS]

When my son was in a Navy JROTC unit in high school, we had the opportunity to take a mini-cruise (a few hours at "sea"  to shoot off guns and run practice helicopter recovery) from Jacksonville on a "Fast Frigate" (FFG).  One of the officers, when asked what was the main task of the frigates simply answered, "We're targets for whatever gets shot at a carrier."

[Craig.]

as good a description as any i have seen:)

[Woodlouse2002]

Well, like I said it may be different in America. But in the Falklands war the Carriers were defended by Destroyers. And Frigates were used for Anti Submarine roles.

[FLYING_TRUCKER]

Interesting topic

So what would you classify a Corvette as?

It is described as a highly maneuverable escort warship,
smaller than a destroyer.

That I would think would be the sub-hunter killer.

Not being Navy I am not sure...however I would think a Corvette would be better able to handle the following:
German E Boat
American PT Boat
British Motor Gun Boat (MGB)
British Motor Torpedo Boat (MTB)
Or any bloody Submarine that comes along.

I was also told that the only thing that could replace a Corvette was another Corvette.

Cheers...Happy Sailing....Doug

[Felix/FFDS]

Well, like I said it may be different in America. But in the Falklands war the Carriers were defended by Destroyers. And Frigates were used for Anti Submarine roles.

In a carrier battlegroup - anything that isn't the carrier serves to defend the carrier - from a cruiser to a frigate and a submarine.

[Smoke2much]

The full title of the pre WW1 destroyer was the "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" as Felix states.  The role of the class developed over time and at the time of Jutland part of their role was to attack the capital ships of the enemy fleet head on with torpedoes.  Early Hunt Class destroyers had multiple torpedo tubes but by the end of the war these had been dispensed with.

Corvettes were small and cheap single screw "Mini Destroyers" that were developed to counter the U-Boat threat.  The Class was given the designation "Frigate" towards the end of WW2.  The RN would have been much happier to build and man more destroyers but the cost was prohibitive both in terms of experienced seamen and the ships themselves.  It was deemed that a simple, single screw ship could be handled and used effectively by a crew made entirely of reservists and hostilities only men.

It is as pointless to compare the roles of ships in the 1940's with that of today as it is to compare the ships of 1812 with those of the 1940's.  Roles, names and techniques change and evolve over time.  The most effective seem to be those that are born from a reaction to an actual threat rather than those created to exploit a theoretical concept.

Today the British navy is apparently made of three small fishing boats....

Will

[Hagar]

Today the British navy is apparently made of three small fishing boats....

Will

Sadly there does seem to be some truth in that.

Not being an expert on naval matters I consulted the oracle. In this case the Royal Navy official site.

Question: What is the difference between a Frigate and a Destroyer?
 
Answer: The primary role of a destroyer is to defend against airborne attack; by aircraft or missile. A frigate's primary task is to defend against submarine or surface threats.

This is of course the modern definition. In WWII a RN frigate had no torpedo tubes.

The Captain-class was designed in the United States as destroyer escorts (DEs) and ordered in 1940, before the States entered the war.

Royal Navy ships were ordered without torpedo tubes, so by definition they were frigates, while their identical American sisters were destroyers.

The Admiralty provided an outline specification for key criteria such as length and speed - giving the ships the capability of outrunning a U-boat on the surface and with the range and endurance to remain at sea for several weeks, often in the harshest of conditions - while the Americans did the detailed design work.

The original definition of the the word frigate.

frigate
1. originally, a vessel of the mediterranean propelled by sails and by oars. the french, about 1650, transferred the name to larger vessels, and by 1750 it had been appropriated for a class of war vessels intermediate between corvettes and ships of the line. frigates, from about 1750 to 1850, had one full battery deck and, often, a spar deck with a lighter battery. they carried sometimes as many as fifty guns. after the application of steam to navigation steam frigates of largely increased size and power were built, and formed the main part of the navies of the world till about 1870, when the introduction of ironclads superseded them.

[Craig.]

3? i thought it was just a ship in a bottle on some commanders desk. Well, learn something new every day.

[Woodlouse2002]

At last count I thought it was six armoured rowing boats and a rubber duck.

Early Hunt Class destroyers had multiple torpedo tubes but by the end of the war these had been dispensed with.

I thought that pretty much all Royal Navy ships from Destroyers up were armed with torpedo's. Even the Hood had six torpedo tubes. But maybe this was an addition in the 30's.


And Hagars quote seems to pretty much repeat what I said at the beginning.

[Hagar]

Joking aside this is the current state of the RN fleet.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2204.html

A far cry from what I saw at the the Spithead Review in 1953. http://members.lycos.co.uk/brisray/dad/shead531.htm
Or even the Silver Jubilee Review in 1977. http://battleshiphmsvanguard.homestead.com/JubileeReview1977.html
This was when the Royal Navy was still a force to be reckoned with.

[Craig.]

with the new type 45's coming in and if they can get the pennies out their pockets for the new carriers. The navy will once again be a force to be reckoned with.

[Woodlouse2002]

I was quite ticked off when they cancelled the Spithead review last year. But alas the Royal Navy had other engagements.


I must say though, a review of the Fleet in 1914 would have been a sight to behold. When Britannia really did rule the waves.

[flyboy 28]

According to my dad, who was on a destroyer in 'Nam, says that a destroyers main purpose is to direct ASW aircraft and give full fleet protection, second-in-line from the battleships... Which are no longer around... Duh...

Here's the ship he served on- The USS Laffey (DD 724)

Now she's all tied up next to the USS Yorktown...