Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Guns, torpedoes, mines, bombs, missiles, ammunition, fire control, radars, and electronic warfare.
Fatboy Coxy
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:18 am

Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by Fatboy Coxy »

Hi all, destroyers, the glamor boys of the Navy, what everyone wanted to be in, with their dashing high speed attacks, their torpedo suites, a serious threat to even the biggest of battleships, and present at just about any and every sea battle. So dangerous were they that you had to have a destroyer screen to protect yourself against enemy destroyers, their sleek low shapes, at speed of 30 plus knots, very hard to hit, speed being their defence against the big ship’s guns.

But what of destroyer verses destroyer battles, how were these fought. Against the big ships, it was race in at top speed, get close (5-10 kms) fire off your torpedoes and race out again. Against other destroyers, you might want to save the torpedoes, in case a big ship came along, but also using them against another destroyer wasn’t so good, their ability to twist and turn, making them hard to hit.

So maybe, against other destroyers, you would want to use your main armament, normally guns from between 4 and 5 inches. Until late in WW2, these guns were manually loaded, and gun control by optical equipment. Their ranges were from about 11,000 yds on old WWI 4-inch guns, up to 20,000 yds on most WWII guns around the 5-inch calibre. But what of their accuracy, on a mill pond, all fine and dandy I’m sure, however in heavy seas, crewmen man handling shells, gunnery officers trying to judge ranges, while the ship must have been pitching and rolling about, it couldn’t have been good.

I’ve often read the expression ‘knife fights’ suggesting they had to get close to do real damage to each other, and because they had very little protection against incoming fire, I can only conclude they got that close because of a lack of gun accuracy. So, my question is this, was it not a sensible idea to moderate the speed in a higher sea state, to try and maintain a decent level of accuracy, and not have to get close in for a ‘knife fight’. And what might a moderate speed be, 25 knots, maybe as slow as 20 knots, or is this suicide, given it takes time to build up these speeds.
Regards
Fatboy Coxy

Currently writing https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/ ... if.521982/
OpanaPointer
Senior Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by OpanaPointer »

"Knife fights" usually resulted from accidental proximity to the other force.

The term "Speed is life" applies to surface actions as often as aerial combat. The insanely heroic charges of Taffy 3's escorts were done at the best possible speed, and so they lived a little longer. Sometimes.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by paul.mercer »

OpanaPointer wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:19 pm "Knife fights" usually resulted from accidental proximity to the other force.

The term "Speed is life" applies to surface actions as often as aerial combat. The insanely heroic charges of Taffy 3's escorts were done at the best possible speed, and so they lived a little longer. Sometimes.
I would agree with OpanaPointer about the knife fights, I also would think that moving a destroyer at 25 knots in a really heavy sea is likely to do more damage to the ship and endanger the gun crew and any hit on the opponent is likely to be at very close range - with a certain amount of luck thrown in!
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by Byron Angel »

"But what of their accuracy, on a mill pond, all fine and dandy I’m sure, however in heavy seas, crewmen man handling shells, gunnery officers trying to judge ranges, while the ship must have been pitching and rolling about, it couldn’t have been good."

Accuracy would have been all over the landscape, mostly relating to the age of the destroyer. US four-stackers of WW1 vintage were small - about a 1,000 tons - and could roll you right out of you bunk in any sort of weather; these ships had only the most rudimentary FC - barely better than local control. After a fifteen year building hiatus, there came a succession of DD classes rapidly growing in both size and capability -

Class
1934: Farragut - 1350t
1935-1936: Mahan - 1500t
1936-1939: Craven - 1500t
1938-1939: Sims - 1570t
1939-1942: Benson-Livermore - 1620t
1942-1944: Fletcher - 2050t
1943-1944: Sumner - 2200t
1944-1945: Gearing - 2425t

In about ten years, the new construction US DDs almost doubled in design displacement tonnage. With the introduction of the Sims class, the main battery had radar FC, gyro-stabilized remote power control, and semi-automatic 5-inch guns whose standard (as opposed to maximum) RoF in action was 15 rpmpg (yes, that RoF is correct - right out of the tactical manuals).

My dad served on a "Tin Can" (USN nickname for a destroyer) in WW2. Apologies if I sound like a 'fan-boi'.

Byron
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by paul.mercer »

Thanks Byron,
How did the later destroyers compare with the Japanese ones?
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by Byron Angel »

paul.mercer wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:08 am Thanks Byron,
How did the later destroyers compare with the Japanese ones?

Happy holidays, Paul.
What follows is one man's opinion -

Compared to USN destroyer production programs year by year, here is what the IJN was building for fleet destroyers -
1928-1931 - Fubuki Class @ 1750t.
1932 - Akatsuki Class @ 1680t.
1933-1935 - Hatsuharu Class @ 1490t.
1936-1937 - Shiratsuyu Class @ 1685t.
1937-1939 - Asashio Class @ 1961t.
1939-1941 - Kagero Class @ 2033t.
1941-1944 - Yugumo/Hayanami Class @ 2077t.
1942-1945 - Akitsuki Class @ 2700t.

These were big, fast, heavily armed warships. The USN did not really catch up until the introduction of the Fletcher Class in numbers in 1943.

IJN destroyers of the early war period proved demonstrably superior in several important respects (crew quality, night fighting tactics, torpedoes, number of main battery guns). The USN ultimately caught up in those areas, while also winning the technology race - radar, true dual-purpose main batteries and fire control, plus medium AA (the IJN never fielded an equivalent to the 40mm).

IJN destroyers were nothing to sneeze at in 1942 and early 1943. Read the account of the Battle of Tassafaronga as an example.

BRgds / Byron
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by Byron Angel »

..... And, needless to say, the US decisively won the production numbers race as well.

B
OpanaPointer
Senior Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by OpanaPointer »

When qualifying as a coxswain on an LHA I learned of one maneuver, "Hog On Ice", that the "small boys" considered fun. My observation was that the entire crew was drunk.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by dunmunro »

Byron Angel wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:01 am "But what of their accuracy, on a mill pond, all fine and dandy I’m sure, however in heavy seas, crewmen man handling shells, gunnery officers trying to judge ranges, while the ship must have been pitching and rolling about, it couldn’t have been good."

Accuracy would have been all over the landscape, mostly relating to the age of the destroyer. US four-stackers of WW1 vintage were small - about a 1,000 tons - and could roll you right out of you bunk in any sort of weather; these ships had only the most rudimentary FC - barely better than local control. After a fifteen year building hiatus, there came a succession of DD classes rapidly growing in both size and capability -

Class
1934: Farragut - 1350t
1935-1936: Mahan - 1500t
1936-1939: Craven - 1500t
1938-1939: Sims - 1570t
1939-1942: Benson-Livermore - 1620t
1942-1944: Fletcher - 2050t
1943-1944: Sumner - 2200t
1944-1945: Gearing - 2425t

In about ten years, the new construction US DDs almost doubled in design displacement tonnage. With the introduction of the Sims class, the main battery had radar FC, gyro-stabilized remote power control, and semi-automatic 5-inch guns whose standard (as opposed to maximum) RoF in action was 15 rpmpg (yes, that RoF is correct - right out of the tactical manuals).

My dad served on a "Tin Can" (USN nickname for a destroyer) in WW2. Apologies if I sound like a 'fan-boi'.

Byron
USN destroyers didn't start getting FC radar until early 1942. All USN destroyers with Mk33 onward had RPC and gyro stable elements.
HvKleist
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2016 2:45 pm

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by HvKleist »

The idea that destroyers would slow down in order (ostensibly) to gain stability for gunfire during a battle while under shellfire is not to be taken seriously. (Just re-visit the horrendous slaughter of Pillsbury south of Java...Calm seas and low speeds didn't help her much then.)
No C.O. of a tincan wanted to be under fire any longer than he absolutely had to be...Our DDs did train under adverse conditions at times. But they weren't built to operate only in calm WX, obviously.
One should bear in mind that gunfire was a secondary decision in close range battles; torpedoes were always to be used first, in particular at night.

Many examples of very fine, courageous shiphandling in combat under poor WX conditions by Royal Navy destroyers during WWII.

When properly prepared, US fourpipers' gunnery at close range in the Java Campaign wasn't really great, but it wasn't too bad. The damage they inflicted on Michishio & others at Badoeng Strait shows that they could shoot. And, strange to say, our people wanted more open sights for their guns, as their primitive FC systems on the flushdeckers [especially the RF] were considered fairly useless at night, and they preferred local control.

But, the US torpedo issue in combat was another matter. NOT because of the infamous problems our subs experienced, but in general due to the old age & weak performance characteristics of the MK8 torpedo.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by Byron Angel »

dunmunro wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 7:39 am
Byron Angel wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:01 am "But what of their accuracy, on a mill pond, all fine and dandy I’m sure, however in heavy seas, crewmen man handling shells, gunnery officers trying to judge ranges, while the ship must have been pitching and rolling about, it couldn’t have been good."

Accuracy would have been all over the landscape, mostly relating to the age of the destroyer. US four-stackers of WW1 vintage were small - about a 1,000 tons - and could roll you right out of you bunk in any sort of weather; these ships had only the most rudimentary FC - barely better than local control. After a fifteen year building hiatus, there came a succession of DD classes rapidly growing in both size and capability -

Class
1934: Farragut - 1350t
1935-1936: Mahan - 1500t
1936-1939: Craven - 1500t
1938-1939: Sims - 1570t
1939-1942: Benson-Livermore - 1620t
1942-1944: Fletcher - 2050t
1943-1944: Sumner - 2200t
1944-1945: Gearing - 2425t

In about ten years, the new construction US DDs almost doubled in design displacement tonnage. With the introduction of the Sims class, the main battery had radar FC, gyro-stabilized remote power control, and semi-automatic 5-inch guns whose standard (as opposed to maximum) RoF in action was 15 rpmpg (yes, that RoF is correct - right out of the tactical manuals).

My dad served on a "Tin Can" (USN nickname for a destroyer) in WW2. Apologies if I sound like a 'fan-boi'.

Byron
USN destroyers didn't start getting FC radar until early 1942. All USN destroyers with Mk33 onward had RPC and gyro stable elements.

Thanks, dunmunro.
You are spot on correct. Gyro-stabilization and remote power control (RPC) for the main battery was indeed introduced with the Mk33 director, itself an update of the Mk28, featuring power traverse and elevation for the director in place of the Mk28's manual control. I was too focused upon the Mk37, which was a dramatically improved director design based upon the new Computer Mark 1, with the computation function removed from the aloft director to a compartment below decks (the considerable growth in weight of the Mk37 system having posed topweight concerns in the case of mounting in destroyers).

I looked into Friedman's book "Naval Radar" re USN outfitting of early FC radars.
> Mark 1 (CXAS) also referred to as FA - a hybrid search/gunnery radar first installed aboard USS Wichita in June 1941; ten sets ultimately built for use with Mk34 directors.

> Mark 2 - a Mark 1 with magnetron power tube; prototype only, superseded by better design and never produced.

> Mark 3 - first important USN FC radar. First installed aboard USS Philadelphia in October 1941

> Mark 4 - improved Mark 3, with more capable antenna configuration intended for use with Mk37 GFCS; also installed in conjunction with Mk33 directors. First installed aboard destroyer USS Roe in September 1941.

If anyone can point to any good references on pace of 1942 radar production versus new ship launchings, I'd be keenly interested. I have never studied the very earliest surface actions in the Pacific (ABDAFLOAT for example), but presume that the old US ships on Far East station had no radar. I also consider it quite possible that at least some destroyers of early 1930s classes (Farraguts, for example) may have seen action without radar aboard. Some early Benson-Livermore class destroyers were launched without radar aboard, but have no idea whether they were dispatched for actual war service in that state - I tend to doubt it. By the time of Guadalcanal, I can only recall reading of one US destroyer (at 2nd Guadalcanal IIRC) seeing action without a fire control radar aboard.

As mentioned, I'd be really interested to learn more on the radar outfitting issue. Examination of photos is unreliable, as many of these images were altered to conceal radar antennae, etc for wartime security reasons.

FWIW & Happy Holidays to all.

Byron
OpanaPointer
Senior Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by OpanaPointer »

With more than a dozen contributors to Hyperwar I have no idea what's online there, but I did regularly ship copies of USN radar manuals to Brazil, they're still keeping that gear running down there. So a poke through might turn up a nugget or two.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by dunmunro »

The Mk4 on USS Roe was a prototype which may have been removed. AFAIK no production variants were installed on destroyers until after 7 Dec 1941:
Initially, from want of experience against an enemy attacking with the persistence demonstrated by the Japanese, our antiaircraft batteries were inadequate. Particularly was this true in the case of automatic weapon batteries, consisting at that time of the .50-caliber and 1.1-inch machine guns. The main antiaircraft batteries in the fleet, consisting of 5-inch and 3-inch main batteries were controlled by directors employing optical range information. Although antiaircraft fire-control radar was under development, no installations were operative in the fleet.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN ... -3.html#VI
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by Byron Angel »

dunmunro wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:09 am The Mk4 on USS Roe was a prototype which may have been removed. AFAIK no production variants were installed on destroyers until after 7 Dec 1941:
Initially, from want of experience against an enemy attacking with the persistence demonstrated by the Japanese, our antiaircraft batteries were inadequate. Particularly was this true in the case of automatic weapon batteries, consisting at that time of the .50-caliber and 1.1-inch machine guns. The main antiaircraft batteries in the fleet, consisting of 5-inch and 3-inch main batteries were controlled by directors employing optical range information. Although antiaircraft fire-control radar was under development, no installations were operative in the fleet.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN ... -3.html#VI
Hi dunmunro,
It is impossible to say whether or when USS Roe surrendered her first Mk4. But I am convinced that some number, probably a very considerable number, of US DDs of the pre-war commissioned Farragut through Sims classes fought without some or all of their radar suites aboard in the first half of 1942. Your excerpt from ibiblio is consistent with an account I have read by a US destroyer FC officer discussing problems he and his director team faced in trying to acquire and range on enemy a/c with their optical range-finder.

I intend to dig a bit deeper into this. Will advise.

B
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Optimum speeds for destroyers in gun battles

Post by Byron Angel »

Some more material turned up -

According to the book “Engineering and Science in the Bell System” -
Development of the Mk3 surface FC radar had been completed in Oct 1941 and that of the Mk4 dual purpose air/surface FC radar in Sep 1941. Production of the two systems commenced prior to Pearl Harbor, with approximately 900 total units delivered over the following two years.

And a fragmentary extract from the Pearl Harbor dockyard diary (Dec 41 through Feb 42 are apparently lost) -

02 Mar 42
USS REID DD369 – Arrived for installation 20mm guns and SC and FD radar.

05 Mar 42
USS BENHAM DDXXX – Arrived for installation SC radar.

06 Mar 1942
USS ELLIOTT DDXXX – Departed after completion of installation sound gear, SC radar, W.T. hatch covers, escape scuttles and miscellaneous repairs.
USS BENHAM DDXXX – Departed after completion installation SC radar.
USS REID DD369 – departed after completion installation machine guns, SC and FD radar, depth charge throwers, removal 24” searchlight, relocation 36” searchlight, blank off air port, miscellaneous urgent repairs.

08 Mar 42
USS ELLETT dd398 – Departed after completion installation A.A. guns, SC and FD radar, NJ-3 sound equipment and miscellaneous repairs.

10 Mar 1942
USS BALCH DDXXX – Arrived for installation FC radar, ballast, topside changes, etc.
USS MAURY DDXXX – Arrived for installation SC radar, topside changes, etc.
USS McCALL DDXXX - Arrived for installation SC radar, topside changes, etc.

18 Mar 42
USS DUNLAP DDXXX – Arrived and departed after installation radar antenna.

22 Mar 42
USS GRIDLEY DDXXX – Departed after completion of repairs and alterations.
USS FANNING DDXXX – Departed after completion of repairs and alterations.
USS BALCH DDXXX – Departed after completion of installation FC

26 Mar 42
USS DEWEY DDXXX – Arrived Berth 16 for docking, improve AA defense SC radar.

USS PHELPS DDXXX – Arrived Berth 16 for docking, additional AA guns, radar, sound domes.

06 Apr 42
USS CUMMINGS DD365 – Arrived Berth 21 for radar repairs.

07 Apr 42
USS CUMMINGS DD365 – Work completed and ship departed, radar repairs.

01 July 42
USS MAURY DDXXX – Arrived Berth 18 for FD radar.

02 July 42
USS MAURY DDXXX – Completed and departed.

- - -

What remains to be seen (and represents a fair amount of research) is what percentage of the old destroyers were committed to operations without radar fitted versus having being fitted with radar beforehand.

B
Post Reply