Scouts/Super DD for the RN in the 1920s

[AdA]

The RN didn't develop "Super Destroyers" to counter the French ships. Had the RN decided to do so, what would British equivalents of the large French DD of the Jaguar/Guépard/Vauquelin classes look like?
They would use, like the french, an heavier gun than contemporary DD (They could use more DD caliber guns, but that would just lead to earlier Tribals or to an analogue to the italian Leone and Navigatori classes, which are essencially large destroyers and not wanna be light cruisers like the French ships). Being British, they would probably have better seakeeping and more range at the cost of less speed and a large displacement. My sugestion for specifics would be:
3500t (standard) tons ships with 5 140mm guns (as used in the Hood secondary battery) in a 5x1 disposition like the French ships, 2 sets of triple TT with (to give them extra fighting power) 622mm torpedoes derived from those used in the Nelson BB.
Speed would be 33knots and range would be 7000nm.
Would this ships be doable in the mid 20s? And would they be useful?

 

[Some Bloke]

Maybe a good basis for a fleet AA escort in the 30s with a decent dual purpose gun. What would the RN call the type? A Frigate?

 

[hipper]

The RN didn't develop "Super Destroyers" to counter the French ships. Had the RN decided to do so, what would British equivalents of the large French DD of the Jaguar/Guépard/Vauquelin classes look like?
They would use, like the french, an heavier gun than contemporary DD (They could use more DD caliber guns, but that would just lead to earlier Tribals or to an analogue to the italian Leone and Navigatori classes, which are essencially large destroyers and not wanna be light cruisers like the French ships). Being British, they would probably have better seakeeping and more range at the cost of less speed and a large displacement. My sugestion for specifics would be:
3500t (standard) tons ships with 5 140mm guns (as used in the Hood secondary battery) in a 5x1 disposition like the French ships, 2 sets of triple TT with (to give them extra fighting power) 622mm torpedoes derived from those used in the Nelson BB.
Speed would be 33knots and range would be 7000nm.
Would this ships be doable in the mid 20s? And would they be useful?

too many C class light Cruisers to bother with such things to be honest
3750 tonnes 4 x 6” guns 2. x 3” aa guns 4 * 21” torpedos

speed 28 knots 3 inch belt

 

[jsb]

The RN didn't develop "Super Destroyers" to counter the French ships. Had the RN decided to do so, what would British equivalents of the large French DD of the Jaguar/Guépard/Vauquelin classes look like?

Why both pre LNT anything under 10,000t is unlimited and you might as well build a light cruiser?

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Maybe a good basis for a fleet AA escort in the 30s with a decent dual purpose gun. What would the RN call the type? A Frigate?

"Destroyer Leader" or "Flotilla Leader" most likely. In RN parlance, a frigate would be an ASW ship that is bigger than a corvette but with lighter armament than a sloop-of-war.

 

[eltf177]

The RN did develop the "Tribal's" specifically against the IJN's "Fubuki's", the only time the RN deliberately designed against a foreign development.

Most ships lost "X" 4.7-inch twin mount for a twin 4-inch AA gun, so a good DP armament from the beginning (say 4.5-inch) would have helped. Then the single 4-inch AA gun could have been replaced with a quad 40mm and more light AA...

 

[fastmongrel]

It would look like this

 

[Not James Stockdale]

An actual 12 cm DP gun with single and twin mounts would have been nice. The 4.5-inch was really a touch too small compared to foreign 5-inch guns. A good 4.7-inch gun might have had a comparable shell weight and therefore ROF to the US 5"/38 (if the mount is mechanically functional and reliable), and could have a slightly longer barrel for the same gun weight, which would increase muzzle velocity and therefore AA ceiling. Compared to the US 5"/38 firing 55 lbs shells and the US 5"/54 firing 70 lbs shells, the British 4.7"/45 fired 50 lbs shells and the 4.7"/50 fired 62 lbs shells.

 

[fourthmaninaboat]

An actual 12 cm DP gun with single and twin mounts would have been nice. The 4.5-inch was really a touch too small compared to foreign 5-inch guns. A good 4.7-inch gun might have had a comparable shell weight and therefore ROF to the US 5"/38 (if the mount is mechanically functional and reliable), and could have a slightly longer barrel for the same gun weight, which would increase muzzle velocity and therefore AA ceiling. Compared to the US 5"/38 firing 55 lbs shells and the US 5"/54 firing 70 lbs shells, the British 4.7"/45 fired 50 lbs shells and the 4.7"/50 fired 62 lbs shells.

The 4.5in compared well to the USN's 5in/38 - the 4.5in fired a 55lb HE shell or a 58.25 lb SAP shell, while pretty much all 5in/38 rounds were 55lbs. If it had been adopted as a destroyer weapon earlier than 1944, it would have been very successful, though it did need a proper DP single mount.

 

[Schlock]

Don't see why the 4.5in is seen as inferior. The 4.5in HE shell is the same weight as the USN 5in weapon.

 

[Some Bloke]

"Destroyer Leader" or "Flotilla Leader" most likely. In RN parlance, a frigate would be an ASW ship that is bigger than a corvette but with lighter armament than a sloop-of-war.

Wasn't Frigate in the modern context first used during WWII? In fact IIRC they initially proposed calling Tribals Corvettes rather than Destroyers.

 

[Jellico]

Didn't the RN try a super destroyers pre-WWI and found them wanting as a concept?

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Wasn't Frigate in the modern context first used during WWII? In fact IIRC they initially proposed calling Tribals Corvettes rather than Destroyers.

You're correct on the modern origin of frigiate. The Tribals were originally conceived of as "light fleet cruisers".

"Frigate" has also changed meaning a whole bunch of times. Originally, a frigate was any warship built for speed, then it became applied to a 5th and 6th rate man o' war, then it became any single gun deck warship that mounted 20+ guns (bigger than a sloop, which somehow became smaller than a sloop)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The RN did develop the "Tribal's" specifically against the IJN's "Fubuki's",

According to Friedman, not true.

According to him they were intended to be scouts.

The 1930 LNT only gave the RN enough tonnage for 50 cruisers when it wanted 70.

The 1930 LNT also limited the RN to 150,000 tons of destroyers. Furthermore...

"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 16% was sufficient to build 13 destroyers of 1,850 tons, which the RN planned to use as scouts to supplement the reduced cruiser force.

The first 7 Tribals were ordered in the 1935-36 Estimates and the plan was to order another 6 in the 1936-37 Estimates. However, the tonnage quotas were abolished by the 1936 LNT which came into effect on 1st January 1937. Therefore it was possible to order 9 Tribals in the 1936-37 Estimates so that there were 2 full flotillas of 8 ships each.

 

[AdA]

I placed the POD in the 20s to avoid the LNT. The French Super Destroyers could, in theory, outrun any WW1 CL (except maybe the E on a heavy sea) and outgunned all existing destroyers except the surviving ex German S-113. Had their guns been properly designed (they had a poor rate of fire) they would have had a great tactical potencial.
My idea was that the RN would build a response to this ships, without the flaws. The 140mm gun was praised at the time as having a good balance btw rate of fire and shell weight, and the use of heavier torpedoes would also allow this ships to outrange oposing DD. Simply putting more 120mm guns on a DD would not be a direct counter to the French ships.

 

[steamboy]

The RN did look at a big destroyer and it went in two directions. One resulted in the Dido class cruiser, the other was the Tribal class destroyer.

 

[AdA]

The RN did look at a big destroyer and it went in two directions. One resulted in the Dido class cruiser, the other was the Tribal class destroyer.

Both ten years later. In the 20s, the super destroyers posed a different question. The IJN, for example built the Yubari which, despite being classed as a (very) light cruiser, was in fact a super destroyer.

 

[steamboy]

True but the RN still basically didn't need a counter for them as it could drown them in cruisers. Plus, with the French being an ally and finances being tight, there wasn't a need to counter a threat that wasn't there. Its also a different doctrinal approach. The MN's large destroyers were built for the Med and were short legged almost to a class. The French also had precisely zero light cruisers at the end of WW1, they never built them and with a complete dearth of scouts the contre torpelluers would have doubled as fleet scouts and destroyers with guns big enough to deal with hostile destroyers and worry an opponents (so Italian) cruisers.

The RN was swimming in light cruisers and destroyers and didn't need a destroyer-cum-light cruiser wannabe.

 

[steamboy]

Didn't the RN try a super destroyers pre-WWI and found them wanting as a concept?

They did, you're talking about HMS Swift, a one off Destroyer Leader that also had a 6-inch gun. She had a lively life but the design was seen as a bit too big and seems to have been viewed as little more than an interesting thought idea but a bit too extravagant and not what the RN needed.

 

[Some Bloke]

Maybe bigger production of the 5.2 inchers the Hood used for secondaries. One role they could have been conceived for might be hunting merchant cruiser raiders. Perhaps bigger production/demand means the Nelson Class gets these as secondaries and maybe another knot of knot of speed from the weight savings.