Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/22/2005 1:31:01 AM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

The following are fifty US flush deck destroyers transferred to Great Britain in 1940 under the Lend-Lease program. I don't think there is a need to change any graphics on these from what people are currently using for flush deck. For modders these could show up in Karachi, having been somehow relased from duty chasing German U-Boats in the Atlantic. Unfortunately I'm not sure if the British changed armament of these ships or not.

Another possibility for modders would be to keep them in the US navy in a "what if" they had never been transferred scenario. Of course having them all show up in the Pacific might be a little far fetched. many would probably have served ASW patrol in the Atlantic even if they were never transferred to Britain.

Information courtesy of http://www.ww2pacific.com/llnames.html

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/22/2005 1:53:48 AM

Tiornu

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline

What happened to Canada?
The destroyer transfers were not part of Lend-Lease but a separate program that gave base rights to the US.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 2

RE: Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/22/2005 1:55:04 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Are these classes already present in game? If not what is armament?

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 3

RE: Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/22/2005 2:12:44 AM

11Bravo

Posts: 2082
Joined: 4/5/2001
Status: offline

Here are a few of them. Incidentally, that is probably a typical ASW patrol in WITP.

_____________________________

Squatting in the bush and marking it on a map.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 4

RE: Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/22/2005 2:30:42 AM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Are these classes already present in game? If not what is armament?

The classes are already in the game. WitP treats all three classes under the class "Flush Deck". The armament of all three classes is pretty close to identical with some variation in number of torpedo tubes verses extra 3" guns installed. However for convenience WitP treats them all as one class.

Basically there were four classes of "Flush Deck" destroyers commisioned between 1917 and 1922. Allen class comprised only one ship, the USS Allen. Next came the Caldwell class, 4 ships total, three of which were transferred to Brittain. The Wickes Class 73 ships. Clemson class 76 ships.

Many of these ships were converted into the AVDs, DMs, DMSs and APDs which appear throughout the game on the Allied side. I can compile a list of conversions also but it will take a little more time as I might have to browse Morison's "supplement" volume for the info, unless I can find the info easily on the web.

Gary

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 5

RE: Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/22/2005 2:33:53 AM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

What happened to Canada?
The destroyer transfers were not part of Lend-Lease but a separate program that gave base rights to the US.

You're right. I'm confusing Lend Lease with the Destroyers for Bases trade. When Britain ran out of bases to trade for warships the US created the Lend Lease program I think it went.

Gary

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 8/22/2005 2:40:30 AM >

(in reply to Tiornu)

Post #: 6

RE: Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/22/2005 3:53:19 AM

Monter_Trismegistos

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline

They were rearmed in Royal Navy from original 4x102 1x76aa 2-3x13aa 12tt533 2dcr to destroyer escort variant:
3(some of them later 2)x102 1-2x76aa ?(some of them had 2)x13aa 6tt533 4dct 2dcr
and some of them were later rearmed into two different patterns:
1x102 3x76aa 2x20aa 6tt533 4dct 2dcr
3x76aa 4x20aa 6tt533 4dct 2dcr
and some of those tho variants were rearmed to:
1x102 1x76aa 4x20aa 3tt533 4dct 2dcr (sometimes also hedgehog)
And probably there were many more patterns...

dct - DC throwers ; dcr - DC rails

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 8/22/2005 3:59:08 AM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 7

RE: Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/22/2005 5:11:58 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

They were rearmed in Royal Navy from original 4x102 1x76aa 2-3x13aa 12tt533 2dcr to destroyer escort variant:
3(some of them later 2)x102 1-2x76aa ?(some of them had 2)x13aa 6tt533 4dct 2dcr
and some of them were later rearmed into two different patterns:
1x102 3x76aa 2x20aa 6tt533 4dct 2dcr
3x76aa 4x20aa 6tt533 4dct 2dcr
and some of those tho variants were rearmed to:
1x102 1x76aa 4x20aa 3tt533 4dct 2dcr (sometimes also hedgehog)
And probably there were many more patterns...

dct - DC throwers ; dcr - DC rails

They generally also had half their boilers removed (reducing speed to about 25 kts) and replaced by an additional fuel tank to extend their range as escorts.
They ge

_____________________________

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)

Post #: 8

RE: Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/22/2005 5:12:29 AM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

I'm not sure myself why the Flush Deckers have such a high ASW rating compared to many later, pre-war Allied DDs. In WitP they rate a 4 in ASW firepower whereas a Bagley class, for instance, only rates a 2. I see they have twice the number of DC mounts than the Bagley but I find that surprising. Why would the Navy upgrade the Flush Decks with 2 DCTs but not say the Bagley class? That seems a little odd.

Gary

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)

Post #: 9

RE: Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/22/2005 5:16:22 AM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

They were rearmed in Royal Navy from original 4x102 1x76aa 2-3x13aa 12tt533 2dcr to destroyer escort variant:
3(some of them later 2)x102 1-2x76aa ?(some of them had 2)x13aa 6tt533 4dct 2dcr
and some of them were later rearmed into two different patterns:
1x102 3x76aa 2x20aa 6tt533 4dct 2dcr
3x76aa 4x20aa 6tt533 4dct 2dcr
and some of those tho variants were rearmed to:
1x102 1x76aa 4x20aa 3tt533 4dct 2dcr (sometimes also hedgehog)
And probably there were many more patterns...

dct - DC throwers ; dcr - DC rails

They generally also had half their boilers removed (reducing speed to about 25 kts) and replaced by an additional fuel tank to extend their range as escorts.
They ge

It might be interesting to introduce some Flush Deck variants to the game on the British side with varying armaments, speed, and range.

Gary

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 10

RE: Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/22/2005 7:10:21 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

RN ASW and escort vessels are many and varied:

From Conway's:

The flush deckers: "typical armament of surviving ships in 1945" was 1 x 4"/50 QF USN Mk 9, 1-12pdr/12cwt HA, 3 or 4 20mm, 3 - 21" TT with MkII torpedos, and 60 or 80 DC. Also has 7 units in the RCN.

Conways lists them all as "Escort Destroyers", ie DE, and deals with them in the same section as the Hunt classes, which made 25-28 knots. Compare the RN "sloops" (in the game, PCs) such as the Grimsby class which includes the RAN Warrego as an example of a 17kt ship but otherwise of similar displacement and armament, except the Hunts have more 4" main guns.

Conways treats as a seperate section again the "frigates" including the River and Loch classes which have about 150% of the displacement of a Hunt, 2/3 of the speed, less guns, and in later ships about twice as much fuel oil stowage for greater ocean going range.

The corvettes of the Flower class and similar (in the game, eg the Genista and Cyclamen) are another sperate section, these are a little bit larger in displacement than a Hunt DE, but make only about 17kts, carry similar quantities of fuel, and are less well armed. They were built from a modified whale catcher design, instead of a "warship" design template. They only ever had 1 x 4" DP gun, and later in the war a few light AAA weapons. However they carried initially 40DC, as much as many DD at the time. Later this was increased to 72DC and Hedgehog. In practice they were a much more cost effective way to carry the same ASW as a DD or DE along with the convoys, but are probably at best equivalent to a surfaced U-Boat in gun power.

Incidentally the Kiwi, Moa and Tui (which in my current game are doing sterling work escorting slow convoys all over the South Pacific) were actually trawlers, but carried as much fuel as a Hunt-1 and could stow 40 DC.

In the game, unless the IJN sub fleet adopts a mercantile strategy, its hard to imagine the RN deploying the flush decker DE conversions to the Pacific. (And despite the premise of the novel "The Burning Mountain")

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 11

RE: Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/22/2005 12:17:29 PM

Tiornu

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline

We can divide British escorts into two categories, those which derived from naval construction and those which were more mercantile.
The Hunts and the sloops were naval, and expensive. Even though we often associate the sloops with Walker and his ASW expertise, these naval types were ultimately inferior to other vessels as sub killers because they were not well suited to the new ahead-throwing weapons. However, from the viewpoint of a career RN officer, they were seen as prestige commands.
The mercantile vessels were numerous, and almost any yard could build some of them. Only the largest trawlers were designated for ASW because the typical trawler had a top speed of c10 knots. (The Kiwis were blazing fast with their 14 knots.) The Flowers were not far removed, being developed from a whaler design. They had barely enough speed and barely enough seakeeping to do the midocean work that was forced on them, but subsequent corvettes of the Castle type were more specialized and much superior. Corvettes displaced about as much as a Hunt.
The frigates were larger than corvettes, and they rate as the best ASW craft of the war. For some reason, the transferred DEs were rated as frigates despite their thoroughly naval nature. The DEs' only disadvantage as ASW vessels was that they never mounted Squid.

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 12

RE: Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers - 8/23/2005 6:06:01 AM

eMonticello

Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

What happened to Canada?
The destroyer transfers were not part of Lend-Lease but a separate program that gave base rights to the US.

You're right. I'm confusing Lend Lease with the Destroyers for Bases trade. When Britain ran out of bases to trade for warships the US created the Lend Lease program I think it went.

Actually, the Lend-Lease Act was in response to Britain's inability to pay for war materials by 1941. The Destroyers for Bases was Roosevelt's idea of getting around the Neutrality Act of 1939 in response to Churchill's request for destroyers.

In response to Germany's invasion of Poland, Congress amended the Neutrality Act in November 1939 to allow the purchase of war materials to approved belligerent nations, but only on a "cash and carry" basis (in other words, no credit could be extended nor could American merchant ships be used to carry the goods). The Neutrality Act of 1939 also prohibited the transfer of government military equipment to belligerent nations as well. When Roosevelt finally agreed to Churchill's request for destroyers in late 1940, Roosevelt conceived the idea of Great Britain agreeing to lease the bases free of rent for 99 years in exchange for US defense of the Western Hemisphere. Of course, for the British generosity, the US granted an exchange gift of 50 destroyers.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq59-24.htm

After the winning another term in 1940, Roosevelt announced in a press conference that he "wanted to eliminate the dollar sign" from the aid provided to nations fighting Hitler. He elaborated in his State of the Union address to Congress and legislation was introduced soon after. In March 1941, HR 1776, also known as the Lend-Lease Act, was signed into law and not a moment too soon. The British coffers were nearly bare.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWlendlease.htm

http://www.ku.edu/carrie/specoll/AFS/4/c/lendlease.html

_____________________________

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 13

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Lend Lease Flush Deck Destroyers

Page: [1]