Modernization of US Flush Deck destroyers

[ptdockyard]

I believe this drawing is from one of HT Lenton's books on US Destroyers published in the early 1970's. I made a 1/1200 model of this but heve never been able to find any corroborating data on the proposed design. Can anyone shed any light on this one?

Dave G
The PT Dockyard

 

[YourChair]

Reviving this: Friedman doesn't say anything about this, and I'm also very interested in hearing if anyone has any leads

 

[PMN1]

They would look better than the 4 funnel versions.

Was there anything proposed that could have made the steering more reliable or cut down the turning circle?

 

[Dilandu]

Was there anything proposed that could have made the steering more reliable or cut down the turning circle?

I recall something about bigger rudder installed on some units, but the results were, apparently, inconclusive.

 

[Hardrada55]

4 inch guns still? Or something else?

 

[johnpjones1775]

Honestly for me, to modernize flush deckers that weren’t refitted for very specific roles, they should have had the 4” guns removed, fore and aft locations replaced with modern 3” guns, wing mounts replaced with single 40mm mounts, aft old 3” replaced by a single 40mm. Replace one torpedo mount on each side with 1.1” mounts. If there weren’t enough 40mm guns available at the time, then just load them down with 1.1” guns aft and on the wings.

 

[Dilandu]

Honestly for me, to modernize flush deckers that weren’t refitted for very specific roles, they should have had the 4” guns removed, fore and aft locations replaced with modern 3” guns,

The 3-inch guns were way below what was assumed to be sufficient for destroyer and even ocean-going torpedo boat. The range and explosive power of 3-inch shells was considered inadequate to seriously damage modern destroyers even before World War I. By 1930s, the idea of destroyer armed with 3-inch guns was plainly "no go"; no matter how good those guns would be against warplanes, they would be almost useless in surface action (and destroyers were supposed to fight such)

 

[johnpjones1775]

The 3-inch guns were way below what was assumed to be sufficient for destroyer and even ocean-going torpedo boat. The range and explosive power of 3-inch shells was considered inadequate to seriously damage modern destroyers even before World War I. By 1930s, the idea of destroyer armed with 3-inch guns was plainly "no go"; no matter how good those guns would be against warplanes, they would be almost useless in surface action (and destroyers were supposed to fight such)

Not intended for major surface action.
AAA and torpedo boat escort…feel like that should have been obvious…

 

[Dilandu]

Not intended for major surface action.

They were still too numerous to merely relegate them to escort duty alltogether.

AAA and torpedo boat escort…feel like that should have been obvious…

As AAA ships they would be significantly less capable than modern destroyers - due to the lack of automatic fire control system. And what exactly is "torpedo boats escort"? The USN didn't exactly consider enemy torpedo boats as major problem between the wars (they aren't ocean-capable)

 

[TomS]

Honestly for me, to modernize flush deckers that weren’t refitted for very specific roles, they should have had the 4” guns removed, fore and aft locations replaced with modern 3” guns, wing mounts replaced with single 40mm mounts, aft old 3” replaced by a single 40mm. Replace one torpedo mount on each side with 1.1” mounts. If there weren’t enough 40mm guns available at the time, then just load them down with 1.1” guns aft and on the wings.

When are we talking about here? The drawing @ptdockyard posted is labeled 1919. If that was the time of the proposed modernization, there were no 40mm Bofors or 1.1" to install.

 

[ptdockyard]

I have been researching this on and off for years ever since a customer sent it. So far nothing but I figure Lenton had to get it from somewhere back in the late 60's or early 70's. I labeled the drawing 1919 when I saved it in 2010 but that was because the same customer sent me another drawing from the same book of a US destroyer leader from 1919 I am attaching here.



This four stack conversion may have come from the since destroyed book 2 of Springstyles from the mid 1920's to the late 1930's.

 

[johnpjones1775]

When are we talking about here? The drawing @ptdockyard posted is labeled 1919. If that was the time of the proposed modernization, there were no 40mm Bofors or 1.1" to install.

i'm talking about around the outbreak of war

 

[johnpjones1775]

They were still too numerous to merely relegate them to escort duty alltogether.


As AAA ships they would be significantly less capable than modern destroyers - due to the lack of automatic fire control system. And what exactly is "torpedo boats escort"? The USN didn't exactly consider enemy torpedo boats as major problem between the wars (they aren't ocean-capable)

they were completely out classed by modern destroyers in all aspects of warfare (except maybe torpedo warfare), having smaller guns, with a smaller broadside, almost no AAA.
massive refits would have taken them out of the war way too long.

my solution isn't really worse than the APD conversions, and tbh would have been excellent compliments to the APDs many of which were wickes or clemson class DDs at one point.

the removal of the 4" guns would allow those weapons to be deployed either onboard cargo ships to help fend off surface raiders, or to help fortify shore installations.
as I would do it, would bring a pretty significant level of AAA protection on a small hull and for relatively cheap, especially since the 1.1" guns had their early issues resolved not too long after it was replaced by the 40mm.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I have been researching this on and off for years ever since a customer sent it. So far nothing but I figure Lenton had to get it from somewhere back in the late 60's or early 70's. I labeled the drawing 1919 when I saved it in 2010 but that was because the same customer sent me another drawing from the same book of a US destroyer leader from 1919 I am attaching here.

View attachment 740034

This four stack conversion may have come from the since destroyed book 2 of Springstyles from the mid 1920's to the late 1930's.

is that a broadside of 5 torpedo mounts? even if it's only triple tubes thats almost as crazy as the kitakami lol

 

[Brickmuppet]

is that a broadside of 5 torpedo mounts? even if it's only triple tubes thats almost as crazy as the kitakami lol

If I remember correctly, that particular design's forward broadside tubes were small, short-ranged 14 or 18 inch weapons for anti-destroyer use during night-action "knife fights". This was very likely based on U.K. experience with the Dover patrol.

 

[TomS]

This four stack conversion may have come from the since destroyed book 2 of Springstyles from the mid 1920's to the late 1930's.

i'm talking about around the outbreak of war

So two different eras entirely.

In the 20s-30s, there were few options for improved AA capacity, since neither Bofors nor 1.1" were available yet.

By the outbreak of WW2, the big question would be whether it was worth the time and effort to aggressively modernize the flush-deckers. They were clearly stopgaps and any yard labor spent on the was labor not available for building the new and much better DEs and DDs.

I could see a case for maybe trying to swap in some 40mm light AA for the single non-director 3"/50 (though there were shortages of the Bofors guns) and tearing off some of the torpedoes in favor of depth charge racks and throwers, befitting their main role as ASW escorts. You would need one or two high-velocity ASuW guns to counter surfaced submarines and their deck guns, but the 4" was probably good enough for that. Certainly better than the early 3"/50, though I'd really prefer the 5"/51 that was the norm on many other ships.

But all of that is a distraction from churning out as many DEs and DDs as possible.

 

[PMN1]

What is there to stop the OTL destroyers being more like the proposed modernised design or the 1919 design from the start?

 

[SSgtC]

What is there to stop the OTL destroyers being more like the proposed modernised design or the 1919 design from the start?

AIUI, the USN made a host of modernization plans for their existing fleet post WWI taking in their own and their ally's experiences during the war. To the best of my knowledge, these plans would be part of that.

 

[TomS]

What is there to stop the OTL destroyers being more like the proposed modernised design or the 1919 design from the start?

I think that trunking the stacks together isn't a totally trivial undertaking. There has to be a reason that boilers generally each had their own stack until later designs.

 

[Firefinder]

I think that trunking the stacks together isn't a totally trivial undertaking. There has to be a reason that boilers generally each had their own stack until later designs.

Believe it was an expediency thing.

Remember these were built in like...

A month? I think it was.

The Wickes and Clemsom were very much a wartime OH FUCK WE NEED AN TON OF DDs type of design. Bare minimum basic designs that had the simplest of everything.

Cheap fast and zero thrills.

4 straight pipes, which they basically were are far easier to make then a trunk funnel.

Add in that the prior 4 classes also had truck funnels you also now had a case of if it works dont break it that the navy was infamous for.

A Clemson class, USS Stewart did receive a trunking of her forward two funnels and by all accounts there was no drafting or similar issues from that despite its hasty nature.

 

[Dilandu]

I think that trunking the stacks together isn't a totally trivial undertaking. There has to be a reason that boilers generally each had their own stack until later designs.

Well, Japanese done that on "their" four-stacker: