Best Fleet Destroyer Of WWII

[parsifal]

The decision by the Germans to mount 5.9" guns was a very badly thought out choice of armament. With an extra 50 tons on the bow, German destroyers became extremely wet and heavy ships, with the result that they were barely seaworthy in any kind of seaway. Moreover, whilst they had a distinct range advantage over the more lightly armed British Destroyers, in the sorts of close in battles that DDs inevitably caught up in, the higher rates of fire, and number of guns per hull, meant that in actual firepower, nearly all the later British DDs were able to deliver higher weights of shell onto the target, than were the 5.9 armed german Zerstorers.

As for the Heavy armament being some sort of ability to counter British Light cruisers, well, maybe, but if true, it is a very poor choice, since the German Destroyers were not properly armoured to take any British cruiser on on anything like equal terms, lacked the rangefinding abilty that the larger brit ships possessed, and worst of all lacked any sort of comaparable fire control and surface search radar that the British cruisers possessed from a very early point in the war

[Glider]

Re the decision about arming the German destroyers with 5.9 because the British destroyers tended to be teamed with light cruisers. It certainly could have been the reason but I would be suprised. A number of navies built small cruisers to work with the destroyer units but the British didn't. One destroyer in each flotilla was nominated the destroyer leader. In the earlier A-I class the destroyer was a little bigger with an extra 4.7in. In later designs they had additional accomadation and the Germans would have been aware of this.

Re the chances of a DD against a light cruiser there was on moment when a Dido class with 8 x 4.5in gun, not the 10 x 5.25in was sent to intercept a heavy German DD. Consideration was given about the differing weapons but it was decided that the additional stability and fire control of the CL would be more than sufficient. In the end they didn't meet
I will try and dig out the details

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by parsifal

The decision by the Germans to mount 5.9" guns was a very badly thought out choice of armament.

Keep in mind the 15cm guns were only used on a wartime destroyer class. The rest had the more balanced and effective 12.8cm guns.

Originally Posted by parsifal

With an extra 50 tons on the bow, German destroyers became extremely wet and heavy ships, with the result that they were barely seaworthy in any kind of seaway.

I feel this is a bit of an exaggrevation. Lets keep in mind the destoyers themselves were quite a bit larger than the competion, and possessed better seakeeping qualities to start with by the virtue of their hull size.

Moreover, whilst they had a distinct range advantage over the more lightly armed British Destroyers, in the sorts of close in battles that DDs inevitably caught up in, the higher rates of fire, and number of guns per hull, meant that in actual firepower, nearly all the later British DDs were able to deliver higher weights of shell onto the target, than were the 5.9 armed german Zerstorers.

Hmm, against Bismarck the Tribals failed to score a single hit, on a much larger unmanouvering target...

As for the Heavy armament being some sort of ability to counter British Light cruisers, well, maybe, but if true, it is a very poor choice, since the German Destroyers were not properly armoured to take any British cruiser on on anything like equal terms, lacked the rangefinding abilty that the larger brit ships possessed, and worst of all lacked any sort of comaparable fire control and surface search radar that the British cruisers possessed from a very early point in the war

Its not about equal terms, its about having the gun that can actually put a armored light cruiser in a world of hurt.

The optimal armament size was probably around the size of 5"; anything below that lacked range and punch, larger stuff was probably an overkill, although in the case of the Kriegsmarine`s operational enviroment it made sense.

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by [I

Kurfürst;354574]Keep in mind the 15cm guns were only used on a wartime destroyer class. The rest had the more balanced and effective 12.8cm guns.[/i]Agreed, and the germans were working on a revised 128 mm calibre DP weapon that would vastly improve their DDs AA performance and bring them up to the same standard as the late war Allied DDs

I feel this is a bit of an exaggrevation. Lets keep in mind the destoyers themselves were quite a bit larger than the competion, and possessed better seakeeping qualities to start with by the virtue of their hull size.
It may be an exaggeration to say "barely seaworthy", but the German DDs suffered greatly degraded seaworthiness, and combat effectiveness because of the extra weight of these turrets. Basically the extra weight of the turret, combined with a poor hull design meant that the ships were prone to heavy plunging in a seaway, and a lot of seawater and spray that severely affected rate of fire and effective range. Spray was so bad that the rangefinders (which I believe were mounted near the bridge) were cotinually fouled, preventing accuracy at long range (or even short range). Since the only advantage these heavier weapons had over the lighter DD armaments was their range, this was a serious problem for them. If you look at their service histories, incidentally, you will sea that they were affected more accutely by poor weather than their more lightly armed British contemporaries. The best example i can think of is the Battle Of North Cape...whereas the German DDs were forced to turn back to port due to the bad weather, the british DDs wre still present at the battle

Hmm, against Bismarck the Tribals failed to score a single hit, on a much larger unmanouvering target...

Dont know, cant confirm either way, but I do know thqat ther are plenty of examples of British DDs being present at battles, having a crucial role to play in those battles, and scoring important hits in those battles


[i]Its not about equal terms, its about having the gun that can actually put a armored light cruiser in a world of hurt.[/I]

There are not many examples of that happening. The German DDs could only close to engage at night or i poor weather, because in clear conditions they would be at too great a risk of air attack. In the circumstances that they could engage in a surface combat, their approach speed was too badly affected for them to close with a british cruiser. The sea speed advntage in poor weather was with the British cruisers, not the german DDs. The only instance that they might be able to close to effective range was at night, in calm conditions, and then they are still operating at a disadvantage, because the british ships are armoured, have radar, and still have superior target acquisition and gunlaying technology. What was needed was a heavy ship in support, to keep the British busy, whilst the German DDs worked in closer to launch torpedoes. Trying to design a DD that could operate without heavy ship support was the wrong decision. Destroyers dont work that way.


The optimal armament size was probably around the size of 5"; anything below that lacked range and punch, larger stuff was probably an overkill, although in the case of the Kriegsmarine`s operational enviroment it made sense.
Your restriction on optimal calibre is far too arbitrary and not based on any statistical facts. facts are that that optimal armament varied much more widely, than that. The most successful Japanese gun was their 3.9", whilst the Americans were working on a 6" DP weapon at the end of the war, that was being considered for a post Gearing design (but never came to anything). The key to successful armament selection is firstly about having a true DP capability, in the second instance its about marrying that design to a ship design that was able to exploit those armament characteristics. The German Narviks dilsyed neither of those characteristics. The armament was not a true DP weapon, and was not well suited to the hull on which it was placed. Add to that an apparent fault in tactical doctrine (as reported by yourself, when you say they were designed to fight British cruisers), and you have an absolute dog of a design

This is why the "Narviks" are not included in the shortlist. I agree that the 5.9 gave a theoretical advantage to the Narviks, but only a theoreticsal. In practical tems they were a liability, as evidenced by the germans returning to a 5" calibre in their subsequent designs

[Juha]

Its true that the main or at least one of main reasons to choose 5,9 in main armament to the 1938 ordered KM DDs was to try to outgun the French contre-torpilleurs with 138mm guns but that was probably not very bright idea.

Quote: The German decision to go with 5,9 in/15cm guns on their wartime destroyer designs was inspered by the fact that RN destroyers had the annoying tendency to show up accompanied by light cruiser(s).

Now in fact the 5,9 in DDs (Z23 onwards) were ordered before the war, so it had nothing to do with WWII combat experiences. And Germans made the decision in spite of that they had not so good experience with late WWI 5,9 in armed S 113 and V 116.

Quote: Since CLs are armored to an extent and are often sporting larger calibers, German DDs needed to have some measure against them.

The idea of gunnery duel with CLs wasn’t very bright. That was best shown at the last days of 1943 when 5 large Zs (5,9 in guns) and 6 Ts (4,1 in guns) fought against one new and one old RN CL. Germans lost one Z and two Ts without being able to inflict any significant damage to CLs (HMS Glasgow suffered one hit).

[delcyros]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Moreover, whilst they had a distinct range advantage over the more lightly armed British Destroyers, in the sorts of close in battles that DDs inevitably caught up in, the higher rates of fire, and number of guns per hull, meant that in actual firepower, nearly all the later British DDs were able to deliver higher weights of shell onto the target, than were the 5.9 armed german Zerstorers.

Correct and this put the german DD´s armed with 5.91" at a distinct diadvantage versus british destroyers, esspeccially in the most common conditions of engament.

and worst of all lacked any sort of comaparable fire control and surface search radar that the British cruisers possessed from a very early point in the war

There is no doubt that Firecontroll of british CL was better but it´s not that the german DD´s lacked any sort of radar. Esspeccially from 43 onwards, german DD´s received numerous active and passive radar sets.

The best example i can think of is the Battle Of North Cape...whereas the German DDs were forced to turn back to port due to the bad weather, the british DDs wre still present at the battle

This explenation with the relationship of weather and forced return is wrong.
The DD´s were detached because they didn´t found the convoi and Bey then send them to another U-boat reported convoi position. The radio signal send by Scharnhorst to the DD´s is pretty clear that weather was not considered a factor.

Hmm, against Bismarck the Tribals failed to score a single hit, on a much larger unmanouvering target...

Kurfürst, the DD´s achieved one hit -with illum rounds. Not directed to hit but it happened as a random event.
Engagement distance was mostly 8000 yards.