Destroyers - the coolest ships on the sea

kenjitak wrote:

The ship losses weren't all from the air. Don't forget the Argentina lost the Belgrano to a couple of torpedoes from a nuclear sub.

It took THREE Mk 8 torpedoes to sink the Belgrano... But the point I was trying to make is that BATTLESHIPS can take torpedo hits and still keep going (Musashi took 20 torpedoes before sinking!).  Which is why I said (way back in this thread) that destroyers are fine to serve on in peacetime, but they are sharkbait in time of war (along with MOST modern, unarmored warships).  See my posts above!

Also, the ARA was unable to use their carrier 'Veinticinco De Mayo' the ex HMS Venerable, because of the presence of RN submarines, which meant that their attack aircraft and in particular the Super Etendards had to operate from land much further to the west at Rio Grande, which was a dramatic change. Also, although unprotected, Atlantic Conveyor was killed by a missile, as could have been the QE2 if that had been the target. I'd really fear those things, myself.

 

Yeah all those new Burke class destroyers are all steel too ...look at the Cole a guy in a alum boat with C4 came by and  boom.......Gary

To your point, Searat, I hadn't thought about the Falklands in a while. That was a tough one on destroyers: Ardent, Sheffield and Coventry all sunk. I'm with you on the BB!

Sheet steel isn't much better than aluminum, but at least it doesn't burn!  Last I heard about the Sheffield, most of the fire was due to electrical wiring, which wouldn't have caught on fre in the first place if it had been behind ARMOR!  As I pointed out, the delivery system doesn't matter, the bang is just the same!

searat, after the falklands did the british revert back to steel as did the americans after the belknap collision & fire that destroyed most of her super structure. the sheffield was destroyed not by the missile's warhead but by it's rocket motor. if correct, all ships except sheffield were sunk by dumb bombs not missiles. the uss stark took 2 missile hits but still survived. they put kevlar armor on the ffg7 series ships & above.

And I guess I should have mentioned TORPEDOES all day as well!  How many torpedo hits did Musashi take before going down?  Twenty?  Even the old battlecruiser HMS Repulse took a half dozen plus bomb hits before sinking, and even the old light cruiser USS Phoenix (emphasis on 'light!') in its guise as 'General Belgrano' STILL took three torpedo hits, from modern Mk 8 torpedoes before going down....... I think basically, all I am saying is it really doesn't matter what the delivery system is, whether it is a bomb, a missile, a torpedo, or a slingshot, for that matter.  Might just be an A-rab with a dinghy full of C4!  At the end of the day, it is 1000 Lbs of explosive hitting the ship at speed, and if yer ship is going to be hit with that sort of payload, it's sure nice to have say, 12" or 16" of armor plate between you and the bang!

searat12 wrote:

That's true... The only naval battle of any significance that I can think of since WW2 was in the Falklands.... And boy howdy, them modern ships burn and sink with just one good hit (no armor, built of aluminum).  One day, there WILL be a naval battle, perhaps many years in the future, and a lot of people are going to suddenly wish they were on one of the old BATTLESHIPS that could take hits from Exocet missiles and their like all day long.....

Those were all missile and bombs, but ship-to-ship, the good old ex. CL-46 USS Phoenix was sunk by the old fashioned way. I remember going on a tour of a DE, and asking the guide what the tactical use of the ship was. "To be a screen for the Admiral". I love Destroyers too, haven't modeled one in quite a while.

That's true... The only naval battle of any significance that I can think of since WW2 was in the Falklands.... And boy howdy, them modern ships burn and sink with just one good hit (no armor, built of aluminum).  One day, there WILL be a naval battle, perhaps many years in the future, and a lot of people are going to suddenly wish they were on one of the old BATTLESHIPS that could take hits from Exocet missiles and their like all day long.....

searat12 wrote:

My uncle served on a destroyer as a Purser in WW2, but I didn't get the idea from him that it was particularly fun, especially on picket duty at Iwo Jima, or Okinawa, and having the bow blown off by a torpedo at Guadalcanal in the middle of a firefight between Japanese battleships and American cruisers wasn't too cool either.... They had to sit there and hope no-one would notice them while the shells flew back and forth over their heads..... Probably a lot better in peacetime!

that is why the call them TIN CANS

hanging out on ANY boat is cool in modern times .  we have had very very few navel battles since wwii and as these yrs go by the use of ships  with the exception of a-c and subs is disappearing

Indeed. There's that ultra high tech I was talking about.

searat12 wrote:

I'm not much on modern ships, but the Sovremeny and Udaloy are interesting....

I just like the looks of the modern destroyers like the Spruance class ...I'm working on one in 1/350th now.....see pix(if it posts that is)  Gary

 

 

I'm not much on modern ships, but the Sovremeny and Udaloy are interesting....

Tough choice for my next model. I'm starting to look at modern era destroyers, which are "cool" for very different reasons. For me, I like the ultra high tech aspect, and missile launchers are very neat! Although I prefer the exposed turret kind of launcher rather than the "big box with tubes" kind.

So, although my current project is the very old Revell Campletown, my next ship may be almost 100 years its junior!

Welcome to the Forum, sir and thanks for your service. Knowledge is good to have around here.

Bill

navybt3 wrote:

As an old destroyerman let me chime in on what I feel was the best of all the classes of tin cans, that was the Forrest Sherman's. I spent three years on the Turner Joy (DD951) the last of the gunships and wouldn't want to be on any other type. Sure we rolled in any sea other than drydock, but you got used to it. What made it great was the fact that our guns could spit out up to 15 to 20 rounds a minute per gun, and what with six torpedo tubs and our depth charges, hedgehogs, and 3"50's we were a ship to be considered. I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the old TJ.

COOL!

navybt3 wrote:

As an old destroyerman let me chime in on what I feel was the best of all the classes of tin cans, that was the Forrest Sherman's. I spent three years on the Turner Joy (DD951) the last of the gunships and wouldn't want to be on any other type. Sure we rolled in any sea other than drydock, but you got used to it. What made it great was the fact that our guns could spit out up to 15 to 20 rounds a minute per gun, and what with six torpedo tubs and our depth charges, hedgehogs, and 3"50's we were a ship to be considered. I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the old TJ.

What years did you serve on Turner Joy? She was our plane guard (Ranger, CVA-61) back in the early seventies.

As an old destroyerman let me chime in on what I feel was the best of all the classes of tin cans, that was the Forrest Sherman's. I spent three years on the Turner Joy (DD951) the last of the gunships and wouldn't want to be on any other type. Sure we rolled in any sea other than drydock, but you got used to it. What made it great was the fact that our guns could spit out up to 15 to 20 rounds a minute per gun, and what with six torpedo tubs and our depth charges, hedgehogs, and 3"50's we were a ship to be considered. I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the old TJ.

My Dad served on the Rooks and the Steinaker during Korea, but he says if you REALLY want to feel the motion of the ocean, try crossing the Pacific in an LSM.  He was a comm specialist from the LSMs Brooklyn Navy Yard launching all the way to Manilla in 1945.  It just bobbed like a cork no matter what the sea was! 

Me, I've always liked the look of the Fletchers. The Sullivans was the second model I ever built back in the mid 60s. Arizona was the first!

'......And then I woke up!!'

Spotty wrote:

tankerbuilder wrote: spotty    I wish I could invite you to 8 months of sea duty on a tin can .the gearings are those (which i spent most of my time on - both f.r.a.m. and pre f.r.a.m. ). I guarantee you that it would be many months before you decided to even look at the ocean . Even the gearings ,their primary rule was one hand for the ship one for yourself . What appears to be a moderate sea on a c.v.a. can be a spot of a challenge for the tin can sailor ..... As I indicated before, I live in a fantasy world when it comes to this and never claimed the real thing was fun, cool, easy or anything else enjoyable.

Last night I sank a Tribal class Destroyer in the North Sea...we heaved to a lifeboat to give the survivors compass directions and some water...they confirmed that riding in destroyers was like riding in a washing machine..

tankerbuilder wrote:

spotty    I wish I could invite you to 8 months of sea duty on a tin can .the gearings are those (which i spent most of my time on - both f.r.a.m. and pre f.r.a.m. ). I guarantee you that it would be many months before you decided to even look at the ocean . Even the gearings ,their primary rule was one hand for the ship one for yourself . What appears to be a moderate sea on a c.v.a. can be a spot of a challenge for the tin can sailor .....

As I indicated before, I live in a fantasy world when it comes to this and never claimed the real thing was fun, cool, easy or anything else enjoyable.

You've got to go pretty deep to escape the effects of bad surface weather.

This,

still, the north atlantic was the devil for a destroyerman ....

combined with this,

One thing I always appreciated about submarine duty. . . we would dive under the rough weather!

Brought a laugh, Destroyermen all know about "diving under the rough weather".....we spent enough time "under water"!! :) :) 

One thing I always appreciated about submarine duty . . . we would dive under the rough weather!

Bill Morrison

spotty    I wish I could invite you to 8 months of sea duty on a tin can .the gearings are those (which i spent most of my time on - both f.r.a.m. and pre f.r.a.m. ). I guarantee you that it would be many months before you decided to even look at the ocean . Even the gearings ,their primary rule was one hand for the ship one for yourself . What appears to be a moderate sea on a c.v.a. can be a spot of a challenge for the tin can sailor . I will grant that as aesthetics go my faves would in order be fletchers , gearings ,buckley class d.e. and the ubiqiutus four stack like the campbelltown , I did have a chance (4 mos.) to ride the U.S.S. john paul jones ,the last of the classical looking destroyers and it wasn,t too bad ,but the atlantic never was my cup of tea . I do believe even in moderate seas it was better duty in the pacific . the cold in the atlantic (especially north atlantic ) was enough to make most wish they had never heard of sea duty .... by the way , most of my tanker commands were so big i couldn,t use the panama canal . still, the north atlantic was the devil for a destroyerman ....   tankerbuilder

I'm a CV guy, but I have to admit, that the DDG 51s are sexy looking ships.


Mike

Agreed, the Japanese ones have a particular distinctive "knife edge" to them.