Royal Navy chooses different size for Destroyer Flotillas

So it seems post WW 1 the Royal Navy settled on a Class of destroyers being a Flotilla of 8 ships and a leader .

I'm not sure how this number was arrived at . Maybe the decision was financial .

How about they selected a different number . Say Flotillas of 6 plus a leader or 10 plus a leader . Obviously this would have altered number of destroyers available .

I wonder where 8 ships plus a leader came from as an optimum size .whether it was driven by tactics or by cost considerations?
 
Tactics, control, and allowing the unit to be split up.
Since it was the size they were happy with after WW1 experience, I don't see why they'd change it.
They went to 8 when destroyers got larger and they didn't build a larger destroyer leader type
 
I know that Squadrons of 4 Battleships were chosen to ensure that at least 3 were active - as each BB would spend at least 2 months of the year in refit (later on with the QE and Revenge class this went to 5 but that may be more down to the funding issues of the day as both classes might have been only 4 or as many as 8)

So perhaps the numbers were intended to ensure that a minimum squadron size was always available to take into account refits?

Again I have no data to say how long the ships would be unavailable on average
 
I know that Squadrons of 4 Battleships were chosen to ensure that at least 3 were active - as each BB would spend at least 2 months of the year in refit (later on with the QE and Revenge class this went to 5 but that may be more down to the funding issues of the day as both classes might have been only 4 or as many as 8)

So perhaps the numbers were intended to ensure that a minimum squadron size was always available to take into account refits?

Again I have no data to say how long the ships would be unavailable on average

As I understand it, four QE's were ordered with Malaya being gifted to the RN and it was hoped that the Canadians would build another three to make a full squadron of four and with the Revenge class, three were cancelled.
 
As I understand it, four QE's were ordered with Malaya being gifted to the RN and it was hoped that the Canadians would build another three to make a full squadron of four and with the Revenge class, three were cancelled.

So maybe 4 is the magic number?

The D leader ensuring that 2 x 4 DDs would be available
 
The RN did seem to split the flotilla into 2 parts quite readily.
So the leader would stay with one group (depending on who was tasked with what).
Four was also the usual escort size for a single capital ship (in peacetime, anyway).
There was the issue with destroyers before about 1937 that they weren't big enough to handle the additional staff the flotilla leader carried easily.
 
Up to the end of World War One a flotilla consisted of 20 destroyers in five divisions of four boats plus a leader, which was either a light cruiser or an enlarged destroyer. However, one division would always be refitting to the theoretical maximum strength was 16 destroyers plus the leader.

However, practical experience in World War One revealed that formations of this size were unwieldly because it took too long to pass messages around the flotilla.

Therefore, it was decided to reduce flotillas to 8 destroyers in two divisions of four boats plus a leader. However, the number of destroyers required was still the same, i.e. instead of
16 destroyers in one flotilla the requirement was now 16 destroyers in 2 flotillas.

By the time the Tribal and Javelin classes were built there was no need to build flotilla leaders because the standard destroyers were now large enough to accommodate the Captain (D) and his staff. Therefore, flotillas were reduced to 8 destroyers in 2 divisions of 4 (with one acting as leader) instead of 8 destroyers in 2 divisions of 4 plus a leader.

Also, if I remember the Encylopaedia of the Navies of World War II by Anthony Preston correctly interwar exercises had revealed that instead of operating as a flotilla, it was better for each division of 4 destroyers to operate independently.
 
I know that Squadrons of 4 Battleships were chosen to ensure that at least 3 were active - as each BB would spend at least 2 months of the year in refit (later on with the QE and Revenge class this went to 5 but that may be more down to the funding issues of the day as both classes might have been only 4 or as many as 8)

So perhaps the numbers were intended to ensure that a minimum squadron size was always available to take into account refits?

Again I have no data to say how long the ships would be unavailable on average
AIUI the pre-World War One formula for capital ships was to build the same number of units as the Germans plus 2 so that the average state of readiness of the RN was always superior to the maximum state of readiness of the KM.

I haven't checked, but my guess is that the Germans ordered 2 battleships and a battle cruisers (i.e. 3 capital ships) in their equivalent to the British 1912-13 financial year, which led to the British ordering 5 capital ships.

IIRC what happened that year is that 5 Queen Elizabeths were planned in reply to the 3 German capital ships, but the Germany and the UK agreed to delete one capital ship each from their 1912-13 programmes, which reduced the British total to four. However, the Federated Malay States then offered to pay for a battleship as an Imperial Gift, which led to the British reinstating the fifth ship which became HMS Malaya.
 
Up to the end of World War One a flotilla consisted of 20 destroyers in five divisions of four boats plus a leader, which was either a light cruiser or an enlarged destroyer. However, one division would always be refitting to the theoretical maximum strength was 16 destroyers plus the leader.

However, practical experience in World War One revealed that formations of this size were unwieldly because it took too long to pass messages around the flotilla.

Therefore, it was decided to reduce flotillas to 8 destroyers in two divisions of four boats plus a leader. However, the number of destroyers required was still the same, i.e. instead of
16 destroyers in one flotilla the requirement was now 16 destroyers in 2 flotillas.

By the time the Tribal and Javelin classes were built there was no need to build flotilla leaders because the standard destroyers were now large enough to accommodate the Captain (D) and his staff. Therefore, flotillas were reduced to 8 destroyers in 2 divisions of 4 (with one acting as leader) instead of 8 destroyers in 2 divisions of 4 plus a leader.

Also, if I remember the Encylopaedia of the Navies of World War II by Anthony Preston correctly interwar exercises had revealed that instead of operating as a flotilla, it was better for each division of 4 destroyers to operate independently.

I have Prestons 1976 (1985 print) An illustrated History of the Navies of WW2 - and in it he talks of the Tribals (and follow on Javelins which I think are a better DD despite both being armed with the low angle twin 4.7s) being a response to large French, Italian and Japanese designs as well as the dropping of the Flotilla leader as well as divisions of 4 vessels as the larger flotilla was too unwieldy.
 
AIUI the pre-World War One formula for capital ships was to build the same number of units as the Germans plus 2 so that the average state of readiness of the RN was always superior to the maximum state of readiness of the KM.

The Dover Patrol could have 5 or 6 of it's 11 (1906 model) Tribals available for action each night.
 
I have Prestons 1976 (1985 print) An illustrated History of the Navies of WW2 - and in it he talks of the Tribals (and follow on Javelins which I think are a better DD despite both being armed with the low angle twin 4.7s) being a response to large French, Italian and Japanese designs as well as the dropping of the Flotilla leader as well as divisions of 4 vessels as the larger flotilla was too unwieldy.
The story that the Tribals were intended to counter other navies' large destroyers seems to be a myth.

The RN had a requirement for 70 cruisers, but it's tonnage quota in the First London Naval Treaty was sufficient for 50.

The plan was to make up some of the difference with 13 scouts displacing 1,850 tons. The result was the Tribal class and that's why they had a much heavier gun armament and a much weaker torpedo armament than the A to I classes.

The first 13 exploited this clause in the First London Naval Treaty.
4. In the destroyer category not more than sixteen percent of the allowed total tonnage shall be employed in vessels of over 1,500 tons (1,524 metric tons) standard displacement. Destroyers completed or under construction on 1 April 1930 in excess of this percentage may be retained, but no other destroyers exceeding 1,500 tons (1,524 metric tons) standard displacement shall be constructed or acquired until a reduction to such sixteen percent has been effected.
 
The Dover Patrol could have 5 or 6 of it's 11 (1906 model) Tribals available for action each night.
There were 12 Tribal class (1906 model) or are you counting Nubian and Zulu as one ship?

Programme
1905-06 - 18 - Swift, 5 Tribal or F class and 12 coastal destroyers
1906-07 - 14 - 2 Tribal or F class and 12 coastal destroyers
1907-08 - 17 - 5 Tribal or F class and 12 coastal destroyers
1908-09 - 20 - 16 Beagle or G class and 16 "stock boats"
1909-10 - 20 - all Acorn or H class
1910-11 - 20 - all Archeron or I class plus 3 specials
1911-12 - 20 - all Acasta or K class
1912-13 - 20 - all Lightfoot or L class
1913-14 - 13 - all M class
1914-15 - none ordered but 12 TBDs were planned which if built would have been the N class

The normal 20 weren't in the 1913-14 and 1914-15 programmes for budgetary reasons.
 
The story that the Tribals were intended to counter other navies' large destroyers seems to be a myth.

The RN had a requirement for 70 cruisers, but it's tonnage quota in the First London Naval Treaty was sufficient for 50.

The plan was to make up some of the difference with 13 scouts displacing 1,850 tons. The result was the Tribal class and that's why they had a much heavier gun armament and a much weaker torpedo armament than the A to I classes.

The first 13 exploited this clause in the First London Naval Treaty.

Well I was only repeating what Preston said

It appears that the design may have resulted from a light fleet cruiser design but from what I have managed to read it was intended to enable British DDs to match larger DDs in other navies.

Just saying
 
A post WW1 review found that guns were more likely to be used than torpedoes so that influenced the design of RN Destroyers. There was also the problem of the leaders being longer and having different tactical diameters.
 
Top