by Dick J » Fri May 28, 2010 8:37 pm
I only picked up on this thread today, but I do have a few observations.
1. The Benson/Gleaves class as "sea control ships": The class was officially divided into two funcional groups (as opposed to the design division based on powerplant, ie Benson vs. Gleaves). The first 24 were officially "fleet" DD's". That is why their "ultimate battery" retained all 10 tubes. The 72 "repeats" were eventually (shortly after the first few were delivered) designated for "sea control", sacrificing 5 tubes for more 20MM and more depth charges. However, operationally, the two groups were used interchangeably - as sea control types, since there was no real US "battlefleet" in the Atlantic. Continued construction of the class as sea control units was proposed, but was rejected on the grounds that it would put too many different DD/DE types in production at the same time, slowing the cumulative output.
2. Which DE's were designed for 5" guns: Technically, ALL of the WW-II types were designed for 5" guns. However, production of the guns couldn't ramp-up in time and all of the new DD's (as well as CV's) were needing single 5" so the first DE's received 3" mounts as an "interim" armament. Later in the war, a few of the earlier types were upgunned to 5", including at least one diesel boat. But for the most part, a mass upgunning wasn't undertaken because the gain wasn't enough to justify the diversion of weapons and shipyard capacity. (The Dealy's probably reverted to 3" mounts because of fire control concerns. The twin 3" had blind-fire capability with on-board radar and a DE-type director, while the available "low-tech" single 5" of the time did not.)
3. The single-funnel design with 50,000 HP: Technically feasible, and in fact, was used on the Benham and Sims classes of DD's. However, they had concentrated boiler plants, which allowed the single funnel. Reversion to the single funnel would probably come at the cost the alternating machinery, making your new ships more vulnerable to a single torpedo hit.
4. Larger hedgehog patterns: Again, technically feasible, but this would come at a cost - magazine space. History shows that the existing hedgehog, well handled, could be lethal consistently. (ie. USS England) Increasing the size of the pattern would deplete the magazines more quickly. Increasing the magazine size to compensate would increase the size of the ships, making them more expensive and less maneuverable.
5. The need for increased DE AA in convoy defense: Actually, totally unnecessary. If a convoy were to necessarily stray into a hot enemy aircraft zone, it would have been defended accordingly. The Benson/Gleaves units would have joined the convoy, and probably have brought in at least one CVE for fighter cover. (Increased AA for anti-kamikaze measures is a different topic.)
Once you increase the escort size to 350' and at least 3 5" guns, you might as well save the design resources and build more Benson/Gleaves units. Perhaps you might improve them a bit with twin rudders, or other detail improvements, but the size and capability parameters of the units you proposed were already being matched by the existing DD's. That alone would have killed the proposal on production grounds. In fact, as I mentioned, ships of that category were proposed (the sea-control Benson/Gleaves type) and were themselves rejected for just that production reason.
I only picked up on this thread today, but I do have a few observations.
1. The Benson/Gleaves class as "sea control ships": The class was officially divided into two funcional groups (as opposed to the design division based on powerplant, ie Benson vs. Gleaves). The first 24 were officially "fleet" DD's". That is why their "ultimate battery" retained all 10 tubes. The 72 "repeats" were eventually (shortly after the first few were delivered) designated for "sea control", sacrificing 5 tubes for more 20MM and more depth charges. However, operationally, the two groups were used interchangeably - as [i]sea control [/i]types, since there was no real US "battlefleet" in the Atlantic. Continued construction of the class as sea control units was proposed, but was rejected on the grounds that it would put too many different DD/DE types in production at the same time, slowing the cumulative output.
2. Which DE's were designed for 5" guns: Technically, [i]ALL[/i] of the WW-II types were designed for 5" guns. However, production of the guns couldn't ramp-up in time and all of the new DD's (as well as CV's) were needing single 5" so the first DE's received 3" mounts as an "interim" armament. Later in the war, a few of the earlier types were upgunned to 5", including at least one diesel boat. But for the most part, a mass upgunning wasn't undertaken because the gain wasn't enough to justify the diversion of weapons and shipyard capacity. (The Dealy's probably reverted to 3" mounts because of fire control concerns. The twin 3" had blind-fire capability with on-board radar and a DE-type director, while the available "low-tech" single 5" of the time did not.)
3. The single-funnel design with 50,000 HP: Technically feasible, and in fact, was used on the Benham and Sims classes of DD's. However, they had concentrated boiler plants, which allowed the single funnel. Reversion to the single funnel would probably come at the cost the alternating machinery, making your new ships more vulnerable to a single torpedo hit.
4. Larger hedgehog patterns: Again, technically feasible, but this would come at a cost - magazine space. History shows that the existing hedgehog, well handled, could be lethal consistently. (ie. USS England) Increasing the size of the pattern would deplete the magazines more quickly. Increasing the magazine size to compensate would increase the size of the ships, making them more expensive and less maneuverable.
5. The need for increased DE AA in convoy defense: Actually, totally unnecessary. If a convoy were to necessarily stray into a hot enemy aircraft zone, it would have been defended accordingly. The Benson/Gleaves units would have joined the convoy, and probably have brought in at least one CVE for fighter cover. (Increased AA for anti-kamikaze measures is a different topic.)
Once you increase the escort size to 350' and at least 3 5" guns, you might as well save the design resources and build more Benson/Gleaves units. Perhaps you might improve them a bit with twin rudders, or other detail improvements, but the size and capability parameters of the units you proposed were already being matched by the existing DD's. That alone would have killed the proposal on production grounds. In fact, as I mentioned, ships of that category were proposed (the sea-control Benson/Gleaves type) and were themselves rejected for just that production reason.