Author Topic: Tribal Class Destroyer  (Read 5143 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Tribal Class Destroyer
« on: January 13, 2013, 08:54:18 PM »
I have always wondered if the UK Tribal Class Destroyer would have been a superior / more successful design had they shipped a uniform armament of DP 4" instead of 4.7" guns.  I would even go so far as to replace the Quad Pom Pom with an additional twin 4" and maybe see if there was space and weight to work in another in C position with A and B moved forward.

Thiel

  • Guest
Re: Tribal Class Destroyer
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2013, 11:12:12 PM »
If you're going to replace the Pom-Pom, replace it with 40mm Bofors guns. Similarly, I'd spend as much of the weight

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Tribal Class Destroyer
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2013, 05:41:02 PM »
Welcome Thiel.

The Bofors would come later, I was thinking about as designed. i.e. 5 or 6 twin 4" HA DP, all on the centerline along with 1 or 2 quin torpedo tubes.  As war experience dictated 4" and torps could be suppressed in favour of Bofors although if you look at the layout of the Tribals (and the later Battle Class) there are numerous positions single and twin Bofors, let alone 20mms could be fitted.  Remember the 4" is a DP gun that formed the primary AA defence of most RN cruisers.

Lets look at weights:
4"/45 (10.2 cm) QF HA Twin HA/LA Mount Mark XIX:  37,072 lbs. (16,816 kg) http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_4-45_mk16.htm

4.7"/45 (12 cm) QF Mark XII Twin Mounting CPXIX:  25.09 tons (25.50 mt) http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_47-45_mk9.htm

This is a difference of 8,684kg or more than half the weight of the 4"/45 (10.2 cm) QF HA Twin HA/LA Mount Mark XIX, or six mounts for the weight of four, discounting the weight saving of dropping the Pom Pom.

Looking at other characteristics there is a similar (very slightly higher) muzzle velocity, much higher (almost double) rate of fire (per gun) and in powered variants much faster traverse and elevation. 

Issues, maybe armour penetration?

Just an idea I have been toying with, trying to decide if it would value add or not had it been done in the real world.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Tribal Class Destroyer
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2013, 08:30:35 PM »
With hindsight, I'd have replaced the 4.7" with 4" DPs in a heartbeat. Destroyers spent most of the war acting as AAW/ASW escorts for fleets or convoys and the 4"DP was far more use in that role. When they did engage other surface ships, they were usually destroyer-sized or smaller, with negligable armour, so the smaller round of the 4" wouldn't have mattered. As for range, well most destroyer guns over 4" calibre had a ballistic range that exceeded the practical accurate range, given the limitations imposed on their fire-control by low directors and excessive movement in any seaway. Under those circumstances, the higher fire rate of the 4" was probably more useful for getting a hit than the longer range of the 4.7".

Not sure about dumping the Pom-poms though, even with a late-30's mindset. They were there because even the RN was waking up to the idea that short-range AAA was going to matter, so the trend would have been to add more rather than less. The really useless light AAA mounting from that period were things like the quad 0.5" Vickers (not sure if the Tribals had them or not), that just didn't have enough useful range to deter anything before it released it's weapon.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Tribal Class Destroyer
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2014, 02:09:54 AM »
Tribals had two quad .50cal Vickers port and starboard between the funnels.  Maybe replace these with a pair of quad pom poms.  There is a Canadian Tribal, preserved as a museum ship that was converted to a DDE with 2x4" twins and 4 single Bofors in place of the pom pom and the .50" quads.

I have a Trumpeter HMS Eskimo and have ordered some Niko 4" twins, quad pom poms and MkIII Bofors singles and I have found some 20mm singles on some of my weapons spues in the spares box.  Thinking RAN Improved Tribal 1944/45 5x4" twin in A,B,Q,X,Y and Quad Pom Poms P&S between the funnels but will try the Bofors and 20mms as well to see what seems to fit the best.  The Battles had single Bofors sited in all sorts of places so I may play around and see where they look like they could safely be operated.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Tribal Class Destroyer
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2014, 08:10:28 PM »
An observation on RN WWII warships was that on average they could have done with a calibre reduction.  Basically from cruisers down each class would likely have been better balanced and more effective in their intended roles with lighter calibre armament.  The County Class heavy cruiser would likely have been better with 4 triple 6" over 4 twin 8", the various 6" cruisers would have been much better off with large batteries 5.25" twin DPs and the Dido class CLAA with 4.5" twin DPs.  Most destroyers would have been much better off with twin 4" twin DP over the heavier 4.7" twins.  It comes down to volume of fire providing more hits against surface targets than the larger calibres and also lighter calibres being dual purpose providing better volume AA fire as well.  I wonder if the problem was the RN were to ambitious with their gunnery and missed out on perfectly good enough platforms by trying to squeeze too much out of them.

It will be interesting to see how many kits I can get in my preferred ship scale, 1/700, but I will start with my Tribal class destroyer and see where things take me, a Leander with 5 or 6 5.25" may be interesting as would a 12, 15, or even 18 6" or 5.25" gun County.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Tribal Class Destroyer
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2014, 09:12:21 PM »
Some of the Didos actually were delivered with 4x2 4" DP due to delays with the 5.25" mountings, and they were found to be highly successful. Not only did they provide better practical protection for convoys and task forces, but the increased space meant they were useful flotilla leaders for the escort DDs and FFs.

The Black Princes started life as later Didos but were redesigned as a result of early experience, trading C turret for an extra quad pom-pom and a lower bridge, all in the name of improved seakeeping. That says to me that going for three twin 4" DP at the bow of a small hull is probably a mistake, although you might get away with it at the stern where everything's one deck lower (assuming a normal-for-period forcastle break).
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Tribal Class Destroyer
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2014, 10:48:04 PM »
The fifth 4" is in place of the quad pom-pom in Q position and I'm putting a deck house between the funnels so I can have a quad pom-pom there, one port, one starboard.  Will have either a single Oerlikon or Bofors on each bridge wing (aft) and each side of the aft deck house between Q and X turrets.  Basically I am reducing the caliber of the main battery and significantly up gunning the existing AA battery.

The weights seem to work out as the reduction to 4" from 4.7" saves a lot of weight.  I could keep a pom-pom at Q but want to see how the 4" looks.  Thought about a 6x4" with a 4" at C and Q but decided it would mean too much surgery and I'd never get it finished.

Yes I am aware of the two 4.5" Dido's and think they were the way to go also would like to have seen a six, eight or ten turret 4.5" or 5.25" CL on a Leander, Town or Crown Colony class hull.  I do have a Revell HMS Tiger and a stack of 5.25" from a Duke of York, maybe a post war 5" version of the 5.25"?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Tribal Class Destroyer
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2014, 01:33:52 AM »
My long lost copy of Friedman's British Destroyers finally turned up and it was interesting to read the development history of the Tribals.  I never realised they were designed to replace the WWI fleet cruisers as the various arms limitation treaties had left the RN with insufficient tonnage for the number of trade protection cruisers they needed, let alone those they needed for fleet work. The different configurations considered were also interesting with four and give turreted versions considered, including some with three forward and others with a Q turretaft.  4" twins were also considered instead of the 4.7" twins but rejected as although they would stop a destroyer they may not have been able to easily sink it.  Single and twin quad pompoms were considered as was a single octuple.

Of most interest to me, besides the fact that most of the armament option I have looked at were considered in reality, is that the RAN first chose the type in February 1936 but the government delayed order until October 1938 and various numbers were considered before only three were built.  At one point four were planned to fill a quasi cruiser role with another four proposed as escorts for a new capital ship (battleship?) for the RAN that never came about.