Shipbucket

I always wonder why the Dutch had a somewhat different approach to post-ww2 destroyers then other countries. The British Daring kept its 2 banks of 21in torpedo tubes, as did at least some of the USN ships. The 1947 class’s main ASuW weapon though, were the guns. Those were capable, but the ships main weapons were really the ASW mortars. Taking out enemy ships was just not the role these were designed for, so no torpedo tubes were fitted.


This is an quick what-if about what if the ships were fitted with torpedo tubes. This design is horribly overweight and even less stable than the original (a boat of 2 tons vs 2*4 ton torpedo tubes) and most likely the real ship would have lost at least some of the directors and most if not all of the 40mm guns. I may return with that later on, the above design is just a quick bash to see what would happen.

Another option would be to remove the ASW mortars, going fully towards the ASuW route and keep just the depth charges. That would allow a remodel of the forward superstructure, moving that forward, and gives a weight reserve that could be used to get a more working design then the above.

I hope to return with some more soon, and please comment what you guys think of this concept, the abovementioned ideas or maybe even other ideas.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Interesting.
No technical possibility to have only one set of torpedo launchers, positioned one deck lower?

one set? very possible, even likely, I only went for 2 because I wanted to find the bounds. one deck lower? there's a problem
because the crew would be the same, the accommodation and internal volume would need to be the same. and that would mean, moving the TT lower would require the structure I then remove to be set up somewhere else. that would require an superstructure remodel....... which will be the next step, when I get drawing on this again

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

what if you make the superstructure under the funnel and forward torpedo tubes to a full beam superstructure, there you can lift the davits up on that deck together with the 40 mm's. then you can lower the aft torpedo tubes one deck. this would also give a little space to move the bridge superstructure a little aft (perhaps a few meters) should help a lite on the bow steadiness/stability.

underneath the funnels are the top of the boiler and the uptake and intakes for the aft boiler so making that structure bigger would not actually create much new space. it would create some, but nowwhere near enough to remove part of the aft superstructure. it would give enough to take about half of the for the midship structure, though. let me think on that further

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

One bank of torpedoes would suffice, but I guess the threat of meeting large Soviet cruisers and destroyers meant more rather than less torpedo firepower in this era. Plus the era of guided-torpedoes was thought to be just around the horizon, a promise that never materialised, for the RN at least.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Hood, do you know if the daring class torpedo tubes had the ability to be fitted with (wire) guided torpedos? fitting one bank might be sufficient if it would use guided torps.....

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

If you are going for guided torpedoes (homing or wire ?) do you need them to rotate at all ?

Can you not just save top weight be having them as single tubes fixed along each side ? (I'm sure somewhere I have found somewhere a design where they all point backwards so they enter the water with less force)

JSB

I'll have a look. I suspect they were not designed as such when the Darings were laid down, but I would have thought given the faith the Admiralty had, some kind of retrofit would have been proposed. I need to have a rummage to confirm.

JSB is right that in the end fixed tubes were favoured, such as the Bidder tubes (though twin rotating mounts were tried too) and for the larger 21in Pentane torpedoes (for example on the early County Class designs), but was well into the early-50s.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Friedman gives some good background on the Daring's torpedo armament.
With attention turning to Japan, torpedo armament was thought significant. Reports from the Pacific of Japanese successes with torpedo armament drew attention, and they had fast reload equipment. Admiralty practice had been to favour the full broadside rather than saving torpedoes for a second chance. HMS Vernon (the torpedo establishment) argued with radar it was now possible to fire from longer ranges but longer running times gave the enemy more chance to evade so the more torpedoes that could be fired would increase the chances of a hit.
By this time US DDs had 12-16 tubes whereas RN ships had 4-8. Heavy batteries in the Solomons had proven to be effective and the failure to stop Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during the Channel Dash was attributed to insufficient torpedoes (only 6 per ship). In April 1944, Vernon advocated three centreline pentad mounts. DTSD agreed pointing to the Japanese Shimakaze (they thought this might be a shift from IJN reloads as captured documents showed that reload times varied and could be too long to be effective). The 1943 Battles already had 2 pentad mounts, 3 would not fit on Daring. Reloads proved impossible but power operation for the mounts was added.

On guided torpedoes. the first design considered for them was the 1953 Fast A/S Escort with Bidder ASW torpedoes (Daring was an ancestor). Tubes had to be long enough for the wire dispensers (20ft for 16-17ft long torpedoes). The first layout was 4 fixed tubes on the qauterdeck firing aft, four more below them and superimposed pairs either side of the bow. Enclosed tubes were favoured for NBC protection. Even underwater tubes were considered. Firing over the transom was not possible due to the 'belly flop' so firing from the weather deck was proposed. Free-running ASW topes would be fired in salvos of 4, guided Bidder fired singly. The two types would not be mixed. A 22ft long tube was proposed to fire both types.
The Fancy guided anti-ship torpedo would be 24ft long (so the tube would probably be 26-28ft long), it was not possible to fit on the Fast A/S Escort as 20% more tube and loading space would be required.
By 1924 the proposed layout was 20 tubes at weather deck level, either all in a deckhouse aft firing on both quarters or 16 in the deckhouse and 4 in swivelling mounts on either bow. Later this battery was cut to 12, all in the aft deckhouse.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft