Royal Navy Destroyers

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 14:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Royal Navy Destroyers

Post by mescal » 03 May 2010 11:48

An finally,here are the data on th 3rd batch

There are only two charts because none of the ship was active in 39-41.
So the building time are not completely visible here - if you're interested, let me know as I have the data available and can post them.
RN_DE_32.jpg
RN_DE_33.jpg

I soon will post a table with the number of ships by area on a monthly basis.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Olivier

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 14:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Royal Navy Destroyers

Post by mescal » 11 May 2010 08:51

Hello,

You will find in the tables below the number of Hunt-class escort destroyers sorted by geographic location on a monthly basis.
It's a sum by column of the charts in the three posts above.

Note also that the number of "withdrawn" ships (line "W" in the table) includes the ships that were deemed 'Complete Total Loss'.
That is, this line has not the same meaning as in the DD tables I made previously.
UK_DE_Stats_1.jpg
UK_DE_Stats_2.jpg
UK_DE_Stats_3.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Olivier

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 14995
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Royal Navy Destroyers

Post by Andy H » 11 May 2010 12:02

Again Mescal thank you for your sterling efforts in this area

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 14:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Royal Navy Destroyers

Post by mescal » 27 May 2010 21:12

Hello,

I've done a bit of data mining to sort the damages suffered by the Royal Navy (and RCN, RAN...) destroyers listed above.

So I'm now able to provide a first glimpse at the causes of damages suffered by those ships.

I kept a sample of 484 major hits - those cells colored in yellow, orange or red in the charts above and which generated one month or more of unavailable time.
There are some discrepancies with the charts above, as I made some corrections as I got new data since I first began this work, but I hope this should not change the overall picture.

Please note that I consider the tables below as a preliminary draft and in no way as a finished work.
I upload them because 1) I do not know when (and if) I will be able to finish, and 2) It may give me some feedback.

In the tables below, the ships listed as CTL (complete total loss) or beyond economic repair are listed as 'sunk'. The accidental damage cover weather damage, collisions, grounding, accidental explosions (incl. damage by one's own depth charges), but not the mechanical failures (whereas many of them appear in my previous charts, especially with regards to Towns).


The first table is a simple breakdown by causes of the sinkings and damages :
RN_DD_hits_1.jpg
The second table shows the hits made by year and enemy. The "??" entry are Italian or German aircraft in the Mediterranean.
Note that all ships damaged by enemy mines in the Mediterranean are listed as victims of Italian mines. In may cases I could not check who had sown these mines, and I made such categorization simply because there were more Italian than German mines in the Med. (I fully acknowledge that it's quite arbitrary.)
RN_DD_hits_2.jpg
The third table gives the number of hits by year and theater.
Red Sea is in the 'Med' generic area, russian convoys are under the 'Europe' header. Gibraltar convoys are theoretically in the Atlantic, but there may remain errors here with some accounted for in the Mediterranean or Europe.
RN_DD_hits_3.jpg
Hope it's of interest...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Olivier

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 8439
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 11:48
Location: Argentina

Re: Royal Navy Destroyers

Post by tigre » 09 Aug 2015 21:12

Hello Olivier :D; thank you very much for this great effort :thumbsup:. A little query..................

The Ex-US Destroyers.

Seeing the large number of U and purple color in the post of 13 May 2009, what has been published below sounds much like propaganda.....or not?

The British-American Agreement regarding United States destroyers and naval and air facilities for the United States in British transatlantic territories.

'' These ships are not only very practical symbols of American sympathy, but their good condition has been a most agreeable surprise to the British naval officers who took charge of them".1 " Daily Telegraph," 15th October, 1940.

Source: The Naval Review. November 1940.

Cheers. Raúl M 8-).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 14:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Royal Navy Destroyers

Post by mescal » 10 Aug 2015 11:58

Hello Raul,

The availability rate of the Town class is indeed quite a perplexing problem.

On the one hand, there are publication from the era like the one you quoted which go from 'it's a nice gift' to 'those ships saved England'. I usually treat it with a large grain of salt

On the other hand, we have the actual availability figures, which tell a different story. Actually, as I often used rounded dates in the figures posted above, I made a partial (less ships) but deeper investigation. I have not posted the result here because from a statistical point of view there may well be many biases. But for the record, I get a ~30% unavailability rate for the Town versus ~20% for the other destroyers.

And on the third hand ;-) when looking at the unavailability figures for the four pipers which remained in the USN, we do not find this large 'extra unavailability'.


As for now I have two possible explanations (which are not necessarily exclusive) :
- the USN kept its best four pipers and sent the worn-down ones to UK
- the RN did not have the dedicated skills and spare parts to deal with foreign ships

But that's not something I can prove or disprove.


From memory, D.K. Brown partly deals with such questions in Atlantic Escorts, but being on holiday I do not have the book at hand.
Olivier

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 14995
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Royal Navy Destroyers

Post by Andy H » 10 Aug 2015 15:01

mescal wrote: From memory, D.K. Brown partly deals with such questions in Atlantic Escorts, but being on holiday I do not have the book at hand.
Hi

Yes, Brown discusses the issue on Pg62-62.
Without retyping it verbatim, he basically states that "the hull and main machinery was generally in good condition, but auxiliaries, piping and wiring were in poor shape". He goes on to identify the two major problems, firstly the corroded rivets on the the shell plating and secondly the steering linkages for the rudder. He finally states that it wasn't till the spring of 1941 before most ships were operational.

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 8439
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 11:48
Location: Argentina

Re: Royal Navy Destroyers

Post by tigre » 10 Aug 2015 15:35

Very clear. Olivier and Andy thanks to both of you :wink:. Cheers. Raúl M 8-).

Hoist40
Member
Posts: 215
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 16:59

Re: Royal Navy Destroyers

Post by Hoist40 » 10 Aug 2015 20:10

Didn’t the British do a lot of modifications to the US destroyers, taking out some boilers, changing armament, changing berthing etc. Wouldn’t that explain some of the out of service time? Even new US ships took time to get modified to British standards.

Also most seem to have been taken out of service in late 44 and 45 which could be explained by a combination of British manpower shortages and US/Canada/British escort building creating enough new ships that old ships had to be decommissioned to man them. Old, not standard British parts, with marginal conversions to escorts would be first to go

Dupplin Muir
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 18 Jun 2010 13:13

Re: Royal Navy Destroyers

Post by Dupplin Muir » 11 Aug 2015 16:07

Hi mescal

Congratulations on your work. I scanned through the 'Hunt' listings and couldn't see Brecon and Brissenden, though I find the display difficult to read on my (rather small) tablet so I may have missed them!

Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: 18 Jun 2011 18:42

Re: Royal Navy Destroyers

Post by Orwell1984 » 11 Aug 2015 17:13

The best book on the subject is probably Destroyers for Great Britain: A History of the 50 Town Class Ships Transferred from the United States to Great Britain in 1940 by Arnold Hague
Here is his summary of what the Inspecting Officer noted in Halifax (Hague p 11)
The Inspecting Officer reported that, generally, the hulls and main machinery were in good condition, but that the auxiliaries, piping and wiring were poor. All ships suffered from water in the fuel, leading to complete loss of power on several trials. This was though to have been cured by pumping out, tank cleaning and careful fueling. In fact, the problem was more severe in that the contamination arose due to loose corroded rivets in the shell plating, so the danger of contaminated fuel remained with the ships throughout their operational lives. The problem was not isolated in Halifax as dry docking was not carried out.
The attached picture is a graphic depiction of the problem, uncovered after drydocking of Burnham ( ex-Aulick)

As to the changes the British made there were two general programs most of the vessels went through
Stage One done mostly in Devonport comprised of the following
1. removal of the main mast and shortening of the foremast
2. shortening the three after funnels by several feet
3. removing the after 4" and 3" guns and shipping a British 12pdr HA in lieu mounted in X position
4. removal of the two after sets of torpedo tubes
5. fitting British depth charge throwers
6. fitting ASDIC where the equivalent US gear had not been fitted and fitting British trace recorders in all

Stage two condition happened as the war progressed and at different times for different vessels
1. removing the beam 4"guns and fitting single manual 20 mm Oerlikon in lieu
2.removing the remaining (forward) torpedo tubes and installing one triple British mounting on the centre line aft of the funnels
3. fitting type 286 radar at the masthead
4.fitting type 271 radar atop the bridge structure

(Hague p 12-3)

Three of the vessels, Bradford, Clare and Stanley were modified even further into Long Range Escort types. The two forward boilers and funnels were removed and tanks holding 80 extra tons of fuel installed. They also had new British type bridges installed as well as having ASDIC updated.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 14:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Royal Navy Destroyers

Post by mescal » 13 Aug 2015 16:09

@ Andy :
Thank you for quick quote.

@ Hoist :
IIRC (I don't have the data at hand right now), I excluded the initial unavailability due to modifications when computing my unavailability ratio, and given my classification system, ships decommissioned do not appear as "unavailable" (Purple in the tables above) but "withdrawn" (brown) and are counted separately.

@Dupplin Muir :
You're entirely correct, I miss those two ships. I will post the data as soon as possible.

@Orwell :
Thank you for the reference.
The "stage two" is not cancelled for the Towns when I compute my U-ratio as is the "initial" or "stage one" of modification. But I'm not sure it should : most of the pre-war and early war British escort also had such dead time (but admittedly not the new construction from 1942/43)
Olivier

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”