"Super destroyers" were they worth it?

I really wanted to post this as a poll but don't know how :-(.

Many navies built classes of large destroyers, optimized for surface action, alongside the standard fleet designs, was it a good idea?

I've tried to do a list of "match-ups" with contemporary standard designs
(The displacements figures are mostly "standard" unless stated otherwise but sources differ a bit and I haven't done conversions from metric to imperial tonns)
FRANCE:
With the Contre-Torpilleurs was probably the biggest proponent of the high-low mix.
Jaguar and Bison (2660 - 2800t normal)with Bourrasque (1378t)
Fantasque (2800t) with Le Hardi (1982t)
The Mogador (3600t) with their "buggy" twin mounts are probably out of scope
COMMONWEALTH
The Tribals (1854t) with the H and I classes (1375t)
USA
Porter and Somers (1850t design) classes with the Mahan (1500t)
GERMANY
The type 36 really belong amongst the "super destroyers" even if there were no contemporary "light" designs, the earlier Type 34 were already larger than the Tribals.
ITALY
The Navigatori (2125t) vs the Maestrale (1700t)
JAPAN
..... comparing Fubuki to Momi is a bit unfair IMO Japan went the "all large destroyer"s way with the "specials" not a hi-low mix.
A more reasonable match (we are looking for cost-effectiveness in contemporary designs) would be Arashi (2110t) with Matsu (1262t) but the latter was closer to a Hunt/DE than a full fleet destroyer.
YOUGOSLAVIA
Dubrovnik (2100t) vs Ljubjana (1210t)

By the end of the war most new destroyer classes (Gearing, Battle, Akitsuki, type 1945, Medaglie d'oro) were well over 2000t, had 2 to 4 DP twin turrets and a reduced torpedo armament and would be classed "super destroyers" by 1939 standards, so the idea obviously had it's merit.

 

I would better compare Arashi to Akizuki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akizuki_class_destroyer_(1942)

Regards,

 

Don't forget the Italian Navigatori class destroyer as one of the "supers"
Navigatori class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It seems they were mentioned.
Nevertheless, speaking about Italian Navy, may be we should consider Capitani Romani as "super-superdestroyers"?
Capitani Romani class cruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards,

 

The Capitani Romani are really hard to classify, they were initially called Esploratori (scouts) that in the Regia Marina could be anything from a leader to a full blown light cruiser, served as cruisers in WW2 and as destroyers post war in both the French and Italian navies.
I didn't include them as there was never an issue whether to build them or conventional fleet destroyers and they could never have served as such, the same probably goes for the Mogador.
One interesting matchup for them would be Wellshman and her sisters though I immagine that at 40 knots both ships would vibrate too much for accurate gunnery.
I don't agree with comparing Arashi ad Akitsuki in this context, the latter was going to be the new "standard" fleet destroyer, the step from one to the other is more like the one from the British I to the K or from the Fletcher to the Allen M Sumner than a "super destroyer" to be built alongside a smaller "standard" fleet type.
The question behind this thread is whether the larger ships were worth the additional cost, IMO that is true for the Navigatori that, partly thanks to the less cramped design that resulted in much better "ships" than the Maestrale, logged more sailing time than any other Italian ships in in WW2, and possibly for the Fantasque but not for the others.

EDIT: I forgot the Tashkent, possibly the best of the lot, her sisters (Project 48) were never built, she did sterling service while she lasted but was she that much better tharn the more economical Project 7 with two less guns ?

 

Speaking about Tashkent in comparison to project 7, it should be taken into account that, firstly, she had stronger light AA artillery (6 37 mm. 70-K, although they were positioned not very effectively), secondly, three torpedo tubes more, and thridly, which is more important, she had higher exploitation speed which allowed her to successfully breakthrough to besieged Sevastopol in 1942 when other Soviet ships were unable to do this.

Regards,

 

For fast resupply runs Tashkent also enjoyed a larger load carring capability than the type 7, while she could not compare to Welshman in this capacity she, like the other ships designed with secondary mine laying capability, was certainly better than the "packed to gills with weapons" fleet destroyes in the fast transport role.

 

I'd say they were worth it for for nations that had large, ocean-going fleets. Take for example the sinking of Scharnhorst. Lighter destroyers would not have been able to follow it in that weather. Often even the large German destroyers were too small for the North Atlantic/Arctic conditions. As Germany lost its heavies their need for super-destroyers diminished.

Personally I put much value in the torpedo, well used. I am a little surprised that acoustic torpedoes were not adapted to destroyers in the end of the war. Were they?​

 

I thought many German destroyers were noted for their poor sea-keeping ability. So just because a large German DD mught have a problem handling the conditions it doesn't necessarily translate over to the fleet designs of her protagonists.

As for the U.S. Porter class destroyers they didn't really distinguish themselves but I don't think it is actually accurate to call them "Super destroyers". They were designed and built to be leaders of destroyer floatillas which would be composed of old Wickes and Clemson class DD's. The navy had a lot of destroyers left over from WWI and Congress really wasn't interested in building anymore. The Navy wanted to try out the new high pressure, high temperature steam machinery in the propulsion unit of a new ship. When money is short it's often easier to get funding through Congress to meet a threat, real or perceived. The Navy used the large destroyers the Japanese and French were builing as rationalization. The Mahan's were actually better fighting ships, four more torpedo tubes and the main battery was in dual purpose mounts from the get-go. ​

 

As Germans lacked light cruisers during WW2 they had to arm part of their destroyers (so called Narvik class) with 150 mm. guns, thus making them overloaded and less sea-going.

Regards,

 

If we are looking at "super destroyers" I think the most extreme such ships might well be the US Atlanta class CL's. While they were rated CL's they had essentially no armor, torpedoes as built (which no modern US cruisers had) and 5" guns (although a lot of them) and destroyer like speeds.

 

Then what about HMS Dido and her sisters? They had similar concept, although not that high speed (in line with British shipbuilding tradition).

Regards,

 

In reality, the US Atlanta class was really more of a super destroyer than a cruiser. Optimized for AA action to be certain.

 

IIRC Dido had quite decent armour for 13.3% of their displacement and the Atlanta had thicker plates than the British ships though with a shorter belt, IMO both are true cruisers, AFAIK the 33 knots of the Atlanta does not differ that much from the 32 1/2 of the Dido at light load (31 full load) and is a far cry from the nearly 40 of the "destroyer killers" like Mogador and Capitani Romani that carried practically no armour, both would be unable to catch a 35+ knots DD that decided to run. IMO one characteristic of fleet destroyerts is their relative "expendability", you are likely to loose some ships when closing to torpedo range against a battleline, the "super destroyers" partly mantained this characteristic but ships over 3500t with largish crews do not qualify for that use so no Mogador, far less Dido or Atlanta.

 

Aren't they sometimes listed as DDs? Certainly seem to be in the same grouping.

My understanding was that originally they were suppose to be used as DD killers. I think they were a bit shy of directors as built to be considered optimized for AA action.

 

"Super destroyers" were they worth it?

IMO not at all. I prefer my DD in large numbers, not in a large size as history already showed you could never have enough of them. I also doubt the size was needed. The British certainly new a thing or two about designing destroyers and from the mid-20´s to the late 30´s they built nothing but repeat classes of 1,500-tonners. The Germans would have been better of with twice the number of FTB 39, which was ap. half as big as their DD.

 

Personally I put much value in the torpedo, well used. I am a little surprised that acoustic torpedoes were not adapted to destroyers in the end of the war. Were they?

I'm not aware of acoustic torpedos ever being used in a surface-to-surface mode, presumably because of the "own goal" danger. In WWII they were used in two ways: by aircraft against submarines and by submarines against escort ships, firing from a safe depth.

Surface ship acoustic torpedos are antisubmarine weapons. I'm not aware of them being used in WWII but they were available shortly thereafter. When I was in the US Navy (1977-83) surface, tube-launched Mark 46 torpedos had a 50' minimum depth setting, air-dropped ones were 20'.

 

One type I've thought of would feature eight dual-purpose guns around 5" (four twin mounts), with two directors, and a good 40mm battery, say a superfiring quad aft and two twins forward or amidships. That would give an excellent AA capability, both for self-defense and force defense. It would make for a large ship, but that would have benefits in seakeeping and range. In particular it might be a useful escort for carrier task forces.

 

Well, this gives us something like smaller version of USS Atlanta and her luckier sisters.

Regards,

 

something like....thanks, you reminded me of something I omitted. The Atlantas had armor comparable to other cruisers in the 7000-ton weight class. Even smaller cruisers like the Dido or Agano were armored. I'm thinking of a definite destroyer type, unarmored but solidly constructed and with a unit machinery arrangement, one of the most valuable survivability features IMO. Large destroyers along these lines, notably the wartime US classes, proved remarkably durable.