

Best,
David




That's what I said when I actually stepped aboad the Fletcher class U.S.S. Kidd. In tonnage, Yukikaze and Kidd were very similar, but Japanese destroyers had minimal superstructures compared to Fletcher type destroyers, which improved Japanese DD's stability but really increases the perception that the ship is tiiiny.Those ships are tiny!!!
I do! Very interesting; thanks David.David C. Clarke wrote:Please tell me if you like them!![]()
Really? When was that? Sometime after 1947, I take it, but do we know more? Did she see much service? I take it she didn't end up in Chinese Communist hands... or did she?David C. Clarke wrote:By the way, Yukikaze... ...ended up in the Chinese navy as a war reparation.
Your disclaimer about the uncertainty of what happened in the melee notwithstanding, what is your opinion on i) what Yukikaze may have achieved in that battle, and ii), what actually did happen to Barton and Laffey?David C. Clarke wrote:Yukikaze was credited by the Japanese navy with sinking both Barton and Laffey, but these claims are hard to evaluate, as the battle was a melee'. My strictly personal opinion is that these claims are unlikely, but not impossible.
Was about to ask a similar question. In addition to the two that David mentioned (wasn't aware of the Barton credit before btw), didn't Yukikaze have some sort of a claim to sinking DDs Gwin and even Johnston (the latter being the more unlikely)? And at Java Sea, did Yukikaze contribute to any spreads?Zygmunt wrote:Your disclaimer about the uncertainty of what happened in the melee notwithstanding, what is your opinion on i) what Yukikaze may have achieved in that battle, and ii), what actually did happen to Barton and Laffey?