Was the concept of a PT boat carrier ever considered? As in a ship that carries several PT boats that are launched in a strike and then return to the mothership.
My uncle, William McArthur was one of the crew that sadly lost their lives when HMS Blean (L47) was sunk by torpedo on 11 December 1942 in the Mediterranean sea off Algeria. RIP William, you're not forgotten.
My father was on HMS Belvoir and named the House I grew up in after her. Regular Navy before the War, a graduate of HMS Shotley, he described D-Day on Board HMS Belvoir as the quietest day of his war. They had nipped out the Med to somewhere in the entrance of the English channel and shut down the machinery and drifted to make their asdic more effective. They were a picket Boat listening with their asdic for Germany U-Boats etc. The Crew spend much time on, or as close to being on, deck as possible; being a sitting ducks for any U-Boat that saw them. Once completed they headed back to the Med. Dad spent his time between drinking tea and listen on the asdic. These ships were Terriers of the Sea. No matter how big or small you were, you did not want to get near their teeth when angered.
My Grandad served on HMS Wensleydale Hunt Class Destroyer during WW2 on Radar and relief gunner when needed, sunk a couple of u boats off the uk coast. Also many missions including support for the Americans on D Day going onto Omaha Beach. I’m lucky enough to have photos and even most of his naval uniform. After the war he pinched the ensign from the ship and kept it until the mid 1990’s then presented it to the Church in Hawes, Wensleydale in Yorkshire in a special service where it still hangs today at the front of the church with a plaque :)
Thank you for that history. (I went to school in Wensleydale and my grandfather served on a Hunt (Type 2) during WW2.) I wonder if the rope maker is still there?
didnt know the Wensleydale made it to the end of the war, thought it was written off in 44 after a collision. that is Wikipedia for you though it conflicts itself XD
My dad sailed on L69, from commissioning to handover at the end of the war to the Greek Navy. Glad to see a picture of the ship here. A nice video on a great little set of ships.
Anyone who played Silent Hunter 3 will still be having nightmares about one of these things trying to depth charge you back into the Stone Age *shudder*
Yes. This is also why the Hunt class is my second most favourite class of RN destroyers. Being a common and dangerous foe does tend to make you respect them a hell of a lot. And it certainly does help that they have this no-nonsense look to them, not exactly ugly, just very functional. I really do like them a lot.
Dropping speed had another important advantage: actual maneuverability and controllability at medium speeds. Dashing even at 20-25kn was already good enough in most cases. Especially since you won't hear anything at high speed anyways. Depth charges as a weapon require considerable precision. Engaging small yet strongly built german boats required even more of it.
Thank you for this video. I know destroyer escorts probably aren't a big audience draw, but I'm glad to know more about them. I find these engineering and building solutions to an immediate problem fascinating. And of course a heck of a lot of servicemen took to the seas in them. That (perhaps less glamorous) service deserves to be remembered.
Yaleling Oz Personally I find the everyday warships of the Battle of the Atlantic (on both sides) far, far more interesting career-wise than any of their contemporary big-gun capital ships. Mostly because the corvettes, DEs, CVEs (for the Allies) and the U-Boats and AMCs (for Germany) were far more important and achieved far more damage (to each other and each other’s nations) than every Allied and Axis battleship combined.
Although a hurried war design, these gave excellent service. A tribute to the people who built and crewed them. Britain certainly seems to have made a habit of producing great designs that worked well despite the way they were rushed through the design stage and put into production.
Great to see this, my Dad served on L12 HMS Albrighton throughout most of the war as an AA gunner. I've got its service record along with his badges and some great pics.
Hi, My late father served in HMS Bicester (L34), from about operation Pedestal (1942) until 1947 and was flotilla leader along with HMS Cowdray, in your video, He was very proud of his service and I Have a signal book form the ship with photos, Thanks for the video
Seems like the British version of the USN destroyer escorts, although they were about three knots faster. Many also gave the same good postwar service. An unremarkable class that did remarkable work far beyond their modest displacement and weaponry.
Believe so. There is the USN Slater of the Cannon class docked as a museum ship in Albany N.Y. I visited it a couple years ago and plan to return again this fall.
@@fastmongrel My comment had nothing to do with which class launched first, only that both type of ships had the same kind of utility to their respective navies.
Might I suggest that your next subject is the HMS Cambletown..a brilliant story !! An obsolete lend lease destroyer, an audacious plan and reckless courage..A real Boys Own story !
@@bkjeong4302 Wasn't the Bismarck heading to Brest when it was sunk ?..And St. Nazaire was the only dock large enough to dry dock major capital ships in need of repair. They might have had no plans to use the docks , but how would the Brits know this ? ..Plans can change..and a piece was taken off the chessboard. And it's still a cracking story !
@@bkjeong4302 And the other German Capital Ships ? They were never going to break out into the Atlantic ? Tirpitz and Scharnhorst would not have headed there had they broken into the Atlantic and been damaged as the Bismarck was ???. British intelligence was excellent...but they didn't have a crystal ball. How could the Royal Navy know what the Germans' intentions were ?
You actually missed something quite small in there, which is that around 1954, 2 type 1s, HMS Quantock and HMS Meynell were sold to the Ecuadorian Navy and renamed Presidente Alfaro and Presidente Velasco respectively, these ships would live all the way until the 1970s, when they were sold for scrapping,
In the light of startling news historical revelations from America concerning potential air operations in the America War of Independence please can you shed any light on carrier operations in that era.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Yes, I’m surprised Drachs didn’t cover it in his Victory biog. Her masts were unshipped and a flight deck installed and Sponsions installed with Puckle guns for AA defence for the commission. Her main broadside cannons were all off loaded and wide sweeps installed in their stead thus transforming her into the world’s first flattop trireme. The Montgolfier balloons were each equipped with multiple Puckle guns and manned by Royal Marines with grenades. They were also equipped with Marine microlights powered by miniature steam engines, hand gliders and a half platoon of soaring batmarines.
Fascinating class of ship. Seemed to be a constant evolution of "design by committee" but just almost a faster Black Swan or River Class? I guess a better option for the job than older Destroyers, they seemed to be a Swiss Army knife.
My dad was a seaman radar on HMS Zetland (L59) in the Med. He always thought it strange that Leander class frigates were much larger than WW2 destroyers and slower.
Good as ever Drach, but the photo sequence being out of step with the version descriptions could be more than a little confusing if someone didn't already know what a type 4 Hunt looked like...? :)
Great video as always. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the evolution of the British aircraft carrier. It seems to me that they were the natural successor to the battlecruiser (a ship of strategic significance, but not a battleship), indeed, several of the early carriers were built on post-Jutland battlecruiser hulls, which highlighted the value of being large and fast.
The vessels of the Battle of the Atlantic need far, far more attention than they’re usually given, especially compared to the huge numbers of flashier warships that didn’t face such a long and crucial battle.
Two Hunt Class destroyers HMS Bichester and HMS Zetland were attacked by a squadron of US operated Spitfires off Tunisia 9th May1943 during Operation Retribution.
Pity the Type IV photo din't accompany the mentioning of same As a kid I was annoyed by the apparent mediocrity of the Soviet Riga class, before realizing those little ships very neatly & economically filled several roles. Same w/ the Hunts, who went on 2 serve second-hand in many navies, including AGI ('radio training') service. Very attractive little ships, as Brit single-stackers tend 2 B; I love the pompom up on the eyes 4 welcoming E-boats.
Would you be able to think about the ton class minesweepers? Speaking as a former CO, they were wonderful little ships, and saw service all over the world, in and out of action, Steve
About 1960 I visited a frigate called Hms Wizard. I believe it was an uprated destroyer that had been kept on post war. There were a few of these I believe. Any info? I remember seeing an open gun on the front 4" (?)
another great video thanks, think i did ask this before but hey lets go again. The e class cruisers of the royal navy and hms adventure please. thanks in anticipation
Thanks for a great video (again)! I always thought that the Hunts were underrated with a good armament for their size and probably with the best anti aircraft suite for a British destroyer in 1940/41. Only the 4 inch L's (Lance Legion etc ) were better. I would love to hear your views on the armament selection of British destroyers. I had a view that the twin 4 inch high angle mounting was one of the best in the service and I understand that it was due to a lack of availability that it was not more widely used. Do you have any more information on that?
My understanding is that they were not in particularly short supply, but the 4” shell was not considered an adequate anti-destroyer armament by the RN. And if you are fighting Narvik Class DDs armed with 5.9” guns, there is some merit in that argument. The RN developed the 5.25” gun as the preferred dual purpose weapon for BB-CLs, and 4.5” for CV - DDs and as a lighter alternative, but the supply of these was certainly limited until quite late in the war (and also there was a shortage of the associated guns Director equipment) and twin 4” were often used as the only available substitute e.g. Scylla and Charybdis, Lance Legion etc, Aylnbank and other AA ships. In fact the twin 4” had been in production since the 1930’s, had been removed from some BBs, and must have been relatively plentiful as it armed very many war-built ship such as the Black Swan class minesweepers and Loch and Bay class frigates (all of which had very limited gun director requirements).
@@glennsimpson7659 Thanks for your comments. You bring up a good point point about directors and guidance systems. This was a fundamental failing for all Royal Navy warships in total particularity in the years before radar guidance was adopted. I wold like to hear more about this point in simple language so I can understand it. My point on shortage of the dual 4 inch mount was made with the emergency war classes in mind (o through to the end of the alphabet). There was (when the ships were on the drawing board) a definite view that the 4.7 was required but by the time production was started the threat of aircraft was fully appreciated and the lack of a true dual purpose mount led to the continued use of the 4.7 and single 4 inch (in the case of some ships O's and P's) for the want of anything better. Even though there was an appreciation that this was not helping in the case of air defense. That was what led me to believe that there was a shortage or probably better described as an abundance of competing demands (as you rightly point out) or the available dual 4 inch mounts. The Hunts and then the modified black swans being prime examples. I suppose that the interesting point to bear in mind is the failure of the Royal Navy to develop a dual purpose gun with the appropriate guidance systems for destroyers. It is very interesting to share these thoughts with a fellow traveler.
H.M.S. Badsworth was the premier star performer Hunt class destroyer it's playground was the English channel . It sank and downed a lot of the opposition who were mainly eboats and messerschmitts while escorting convoys through the wreck studded minefields. winter and summer..
I looked at the issue of war emergency escorts year's ago... simply ordering 50 Black Swan style units straight off.. followed by progressively optimised batches would have had a better effect.... the first hunts were so rubbish that they needed major surgery to be of any use at all
Back in the late war, yes. What the US would label A Destroyer Escort was Small warship focused on Anti-Air and Anti-Submarine duties, acting a fleet screen. In the post war period as electronic warfare and communication interception and such became a thing, those duties fell to these kinds of ships as well. Eventually the USN rolled up all those these duties into the Role of a Frigate.
USN DE.s were sub killers. Battle of Samar taken into consideration. Hunts needed to be better AA in their waters, and were. A friendly neighborhood CVE was another answer.
I'm a bit confused: "not expected to make oceanic crossings" , "not enough destroyers to do escort jobs" and "ships supposed to escort convoys"? Didn't convoys make "oceanic crossings"?
Considering the majority of Britain's resources were from her empire, convoy protection is a very vital job. So, it is logical that the British didn't have enough destroyers to guard every convoy. However, it may be offset by the fact that, in the Atlantic, USN vessels were also escorting convoys along their strech of coast, so escort vessels are not required to cross an entire ocean as long as they have somewhere to resupply themselves with.
There were lots of convoys that didn't go to Canada or the U.S. In the early years of the war Malta convoys were being constantly shot up, later after the Soviets and then Americans joined the war, there were the Arctic convoys to Murmansk and lots of long distance convoys to places like Australia and India.
He said the Mediterranean, British coastal waters and the Artic. The Med being amongst the most important campaigns of WW2, if Britain lost the Suez canal zone it was basically the end.
Pre-war it was expected that convoys, including convoys originating in America or coming round the Cape of Good Hope, would be escorted only in British coastal waters. This was based on WW1 experience. Escort all the way to and from North America was forced on the RN by German Wolfpack tactics. Likewise the Flower class corvettes were designed as coastal escorts, and the crews suffered greatly when the were sent all the way to Halifax and back.
Am I missing something - If they were convoy escorts why were they not expected to make oceanic crossings - surely going back and forth across the Atlantic would be the main job?
The convoys were often protected by other classes of escort more suited for ocean voyages. As the ocean convoy neared its destination, the ocean escorts would hand over to the coastal escorts. The coastal escorts would take the convoy to its destination port and the ocean escorts would often pick up an outgoing convoy for the return trip.
There were lots of convoys that didn't go to Canada or the U.S. In the early years of the war Malta convoys were being constantly shot up, later after the Soviets and then Americans joined the war, there were the Arctic convoys to Murmansk and lots of long distance convoys to places like Australia and India.
Hunts were not intended as Atlantic escorts, but were used extensively as East Coast escorts, in the Mediterranean, and on Russian convoys. Many of those allocated to East Coast convoys had a 2 pounder pom-pom fitted right forward in the bows for use against E-boats.
The Hunt class destroyers look very simiar to the River class frigates. According to the QLD maritime museum, the River class was actually slightly heavier, and from what I've seen more or less comparatively armed. What makes the Hunt class a destroyer and the River class a frigate then? Speed? Range?
@@73North265 Thanks. That kinda makes sense. I do know the HMAS Diamantina was built by a commercial shipyard in Australia. It's just weird that designations can be so arbitrary.
The line between a small Destroyer and a Frigate is indeed a somewhat arbitrary one in practice, but clear in theory. While both had similar gun armament, generally speaking, Destroyers were steam turbine driven fleet escorts built to naval standards and armed with torpedoes; while Frigates (and Sloops and Corvettes) were steam reciprocating engined convoy escorts built to commercial standards and whose primary armament was depth charges. The Admiralty added torpedoes to the Hunt class design as soon as they could, but no WW2 Frigate ever carried torpedoes. Diamantina and her sisters represent an optimised anti-submarine design that could be built in commercial yards, but because of the RAN’s wide commitments and limited resources, they were used for a wide variety of other roles. The USN perhaps had the most practical outlook and designed one class (the Destroyer Escort - Buckley and Rudderow classes) to serve all purposes - escort destroyer, convoy escort, minesweeper, even as infantry assault ships. They Thought Big in a way the RN could not, as the RN’s shipbuilding resources were much more limited and many British (and Australian) yards could not build ships bigger than Diamantina, and could only build to commercial standards with reciprocating triple expansion steam engines and commercial boilers.
@@glennsimpson7659 Thanks 👍Great response. Much appreciated. I was always fascinated and kind of attached to the Diamantina because it was the first real wwii Navy ship I ever saw.
Me too. I can remember sitting in the twin bofors mounting when she was still in Commission and moored at Howard Smith wharf under the Story Bridge in the 1950s. Never quite got over the joy of training the mounting to shoot at the Eagle Street ferry!
Drach, I noticed on the description at the beginning it is referred to as a boat. What differentiates a boat from a ship? (According to Google:- A ship is any vessel or conveyance that floats on or operates on the water and is equal to or larger than 197 feet (60 meters) length overall).
My father served on the USS John D. Ford, Dd228, a Clemson class of the Asiatic Fleet during World War two. There is a lady, Ramona , the daughter of one of my father's shipmatesx. Who is writing a book about the old John D. Ford. Wit would make a great post about the ship and Ramona's book. Please feel free to contact me id you would like to do a post on it.
The Brits built ships that could handle the North Atlantic and North Sea gales USN ships were by Brit standards a tad flimsy as it was thought that they would spend most of their time in the Pacific. The big German destroyers were almost useless in a heavy sea. Those escorting the Scharnhorst were sent home by Bey as they couldn't keep up in the heavy seas. In the battle of the Barents Sea the smaller S clas destroyers handled the bigger and more heavily armed Z class very well.
A very modest anti-aircraft capability as this ship was designed to hunt submarines. Compared to the American veiw, which reminds me of the bird hunting scene in The Merry Christian, there's nothing like massive overkill to bring down your bird!
I have a question that doesn't warrant a spot on a Q&A but I still am confused about. You say merchant ships were slower than many warships. But I hear of passenger ships like the Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Maurtania, Olympic, Aquitania etc that were so fast that they traveled alone. Although these ships are technically super liners for their day and are faster than many other merchant ships. Do you mean cargo ships? I understand them being slow. Also can you do a video on the funny looking WW1 aircraft carrier HMS Campania? I said it before but don't see it in the list.
Yeah I mean cargo ships, a few merchant ships like liners were fast, but the vast majority were very slow compared to warships. As for Campania, she's on my master list, the list in the video descriptions is only about 1/6th of the total.
@@baronvonjo1929 Wide variations in speed were common in cargo ships of that time. Depending on the age and type, variation from say 7 to 12 knots wouldn't be uncommon, but of course the convoy would be obliged to travel at the speep of the slowest ships.
The vast majority of British merchantmen of the period would struggle to maintain 10 knots at best. Refrigerated cargo ships were faster, often capable of 15 knots or more, which is why such vessels were used on fleet action convoys such as 'Pedestal.'
It's little wonder they were decommissioned as soon as the war was over, with all those limitations placed on them because "we only need them to escort convoys, so they won't have to be able to do anything else". I suppose the Royal Navy was thinking "they're only destroyers, not capital ships", which is true enough, but part of me still cringes at investing resources in such an inflexibly niche-specific way.
Originally, they were known as 'fast escort vessels.' The name change to 'escort destroyer' came later. At 25 knots, they were really too slow for fleet operations, but were often pressed into use. The problems of trying to keep a Hunt in company with fleet destroyers feature prominently in Roger Hill's autobiography, ' Destroyer Captain.' Hill was captain of HMS Ledbury during PQ17, and Pedestal, and his ship was one of the three destroyers which managed to get Ohio to Malta. The others were Penn (a fleet) and Bramham (a Hunt.)
Hunt class, small with no big ambitions and requiring rapid modification to correct inefficiency and then only useful for a short time...quickly discarded. Boris class, lots of holes in its design, expectations massively over egged, rolled over and sank in dry dock after fibbing about its water tightness... Enough politics, great vid Drac an interesting take on a workhorse class.
Gee... Us Yanks did trade some bases for a variety of Caldwell, Wickes and Clemson class destroyers from WWI that had already proven to not roll over in high seas back in 1940. Why the hell didn't you Brits build something better than the crap we traded?
Wonder why? Could it be that the Americans could watch and see for two years what was truly needed in a modern escort vessel. Whereas the British had to quickly design an escort with their last experience in anti-submarine warfare 20 previously.
I do know that the PF's we're based on the British river class, but were a bit of a disappointment because by the time they were completed the u-boat menace was pretty much finished by the use of CVE based hunter-killer groups, and the design was not really suited to the war in the Pacific.
The DEs were built by a nation with vast unused industrial resources using mostly new greenfield shipyards and prefabrication and mass production of similar parts. Britain (and the Empire) was not so fortunate. In addition there were many British & Empire shipyards that could build small ships to commercial standards with steam reciprocating machinery but could not build ships like the USN DEs that were built to navy standards and used high pressure boilers and steam turbines, or diesels. These shipyards were used to build Frigates and Corvettes, and just as well!
I was playing U-Boat and made the mistake of getting the attention of one of these things. They're very fast, faster than a U-Boat surfaced at full engines - at least in-game that is. She followed me all the way back to Italy, waited outside port for me until some German destroyers and frigates put her under, I could see the flames really well since it was night. I think the AI may be a little too aggressive :P
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Could you please do another ship v ship special?
What is your opinion of the game Rule the Waves 2? I love your videos by the way.
Was the concept of a PT boat carrier ever considered? As in a ship that carries several PT boats that are launched in a strike and then return to the mothership.
Please review the excellent 1953 British film 'The Cruel Sea' and, perhaps also reference the novel, by a RN escort ship officer it is based on?
one thing that always bug me is where the east german navy gone after the reunification?do they merge with the western counterpart or not?
My uncle, William McArthur was one of the crew that sadly lost their lives when HMS Blean (L47) was sunk by torpedo on 11 December 1942 in the Mediterranean sea off Algeria.
RIP William, you're not forgotten.
My father was on HMS Belvoir and named the House I grew up in after her. Regular Navy before the War, a graduate of HMS Shotley, he described D-Day on Board HMS Belvoir as the quietest day of his war. They had nipped out the Med to somewhere in the entrance of the English channel and shut down the machinery and drifted to make their asdic more effective. They were a picket Boat listening with their asdic for Germany U-Boats etc. The Crew spend much time on, or as close to being on, deck as possible; being a sitting ducks for any U-Boat that saw them. Once completed they headed back to the Med. Dad spent his time between drinking tea and listen on the asdic. These ships were Terriers of the Sea. No matter how big or small you were, you did not want to get near their teeth when angered.
My Grandad served on HMS Wensleydale Hunt Class Destroyer during WW2 on Radar and relief gunner when needed, sunk a couple of u boats off the uk coast. Also many missions including support for the Americans on D Day going onto Omaha Beach. I’m lucky enough to have photos and even most of his naval uniform. After the war he pinched the ensign from the ship and kept it until the mid 1990’s then presented it to the Church in Hawes, Wensleydale in Yorkshire in a special service where it still hangs today at the front of the church with a plaque :)
Thank you for that history. (I went to school in Wensleydale and my grandfather served on a Hunt (Type 2) during WW2.) I wonder if the rope maker is still there?
didnt know the Wensleydale made it to the end of the war, thought it was written off in 44 after a collision. that is Wikipedia for you though it conflicts itself XD
Wensleydale - Makes me think of cheese. LOL.
My dad sailed on L69, from commissioning to handover at the end of the war to the Greek Navy. Glad to see a picture of the ship here. A nice video on a great little set of ships.
Funny number
Anyone who played Silent Hunter 3 will still be having nightmares about one of these things trying to depth charge you back into the Stone Age *shudder*
Or worse, three of them... :)
Yes holy shit! I once spent 12 hours at 200m near the Rockall bank trying to avoid Hunts and Black Swans.
Hunt class destroyer: My destroyer sense are tingling
Yes. This is also why the Hunt class is my second most favourite class of RN destroyers. Being a common and dangerous foe does tend to make you respect them a hell of a lot. And it certainly does help that they have this no-nonsense look to them, not exactly ugly, just very functional. I really do like them a lot.
I got the Warship mod. It turns those dangerous buggers into metal canoes to the guns of the Bismarck. Unfair but great fun.
I like the fact Drach nearly said Bofors out of habit.
The Hunt class! One of the most well optimised ships for their roles to come out out of the Royal navy's dockyards!
Dropping speed had another important advantage: actual maneuverability and controllability at medium speeds. Dashing even at 20-25kn was already good enough in most cases. Especially since you won't hear anything at high speed anyways.
Depth charges as a weapon require considerable precision. Engaging small yet strongly built german boats required even more of it.
Thank you for this video. I know destroyer escorts probably aren't a big audience draw, but I'm glad to know more about them. I find these engineering and building solutions to an immediate problem fascinating. And of course a heck of a lot of servicemen took to the seas in them. That (perhaps less glamorous) service deserves to be remembered.
Yaleling Oz
Personally I find the everyday warships of the Battle of the Atlantic (on both sides) far, far more interesting career-wise than any of their contemporary big-gun capital ships.
Mostly because the corvettes, DEs, CVEs (for the Allies) and the U-Boats and AMCs (for Germany) were far more important and achieved far more damage (to each other and each other’s nations) than every Allied and Axis battleship combined.
Although a hurried war design, these gave excellent service. A tribute to the people who built and crewed them.
Britain certainly seems to have made a habit of producing great designs that worked well despite the way they were rushed through the design stage and put into production.
Great to see this, my Dad served on L12 HMS Albrighton throughout most of the war as an AA gunner. I've got its service record along with his badges and some great pics.
Hi, My late father served in HMS Bicester (L34), from about operation Pedestal (1942) until 1947 and was flotilla leader along with HMS Cowdray, in your video, He was very proud of his service and I Have a signal book form the ship with photos, Thanks for the video
My Dad was on HMS Bicester
@@jeremynorman1330 Hello, pops was a bridge signal man. (Bunting Tosser), do you have any photos of the boat and crew?
@@philparr2724 Phil, my Dad was a bunts as well. I will sort what I have.
I like the short, information-rich videos! Also, I like the long, winding battle descriptions. Heck, just keep doing what you want.
Seems like the British version of the USN destroyer escorts, although they were about three knots faster. Many also gave the same good postwar service. An unremarkable class that did remarkable work far beyond their modest displacement and weaponry.
Believe so. There is the USN Slater of the Cannon class docked as a museum ship in Albany N.Y. I visited it a couple years ago and plan to return again this fall.
As the first Hunt class was launched 2 years before the first Destroyer Escorts shouldnt it be the DEs were a US version of the Hunt class
@@fastmongrel My comment had nothing to do with which class launched first, only that both type of ships had the same kind of utility to their respective navies.
Might I suggest that your next subject is the HMS Cambletown..a brilliant story !! An obsolete lend lease destroyer, an audacious plan and reckless courage..A real Boys Own story !
Eric Grace
Arguably a pointless mission though given that Germany had no intention of actually sending its biggest naval asset to St. Nazaire.
@@bkjeong4302 Wasn't the Bismarck heading to Brest when it was sunk ?..And St. Nazaire was the only dock large enough to dry dock major capital ships in need of repair. They might have had no plans to use the docks , but how would the Brits know this ? ..Plans can change..and a piece was taken off the chessboard.
And it's still a cracking story !
This and the Zeebrugge raid of WW1.
Eric Grace
Bismarck was sunk way before the raid.....
And no point getting rid of that dock when that dock was never going to be used anyways.
@@bkjeong4302 And the other German Capital Ships ? They were never going to break out into the Atlantic ? Tirpitz and Scharnhorst would not have headed there had they broken into the Atlantic and been damaged as the Bismarck was ???. British intelligence was excellent...but they didn't have a crystal ball. How could the Royal Navy know what the Germans' intentions were ?
You actually missed something quite small in there, which is that around 1954, 2 type 1s, HMS Quantock and HMS Meynell were sold to the Ecuadorian Navy and renamed Presidente Alfaro and Presidente Velasco respectively, these ships would live all the way until the 1970s, when they were sold for scrapping,
L73 HMS Melbreak. Thank you for this, my late grandfather served on this ship and I've been searching everywhere for information.
Raised in San Diego, love ships and you got um. Thanks
Good video. My father served aboard one on the type 3s, HMS Talybont. Nice to see that these little ships are not forgotten.
In the light of startling news historical revelations from America concerning potential air operations in the America War of Independence please can you shed any light on carrier operations in that era.
A cunning plan to re-arm HMS Victory with 24 Montgolfier Balloons has recently been discovered in the National Archives at Kew.
I believe this is scheduled for April.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Yes, I’m surprised Drachs didn’t cover it in his Victory biog. Her masts were unshipped and a flight deck installed and Sponsions installed with Puckle guns for AA defence for the commission. Her main broadside cannons were all off loaded and wide sweeps installed in their stead thus transforming her into the world’s first flattop trireme.
The Montgolfier balloons were each equipped with multiple Puckle guns and manned by Royal Marines with grenades. They were also equipped with Marine microlights powered by miniature steam engines, hand gliders and a half platoon of soaring batmarines.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 HMS Baldrick being the first of the class.
Fascinating class of ship. Seemed to be a constant evolution of "design by committee" but just almost a faster Black Swan or River Class? I guess a better option for the job than older Destroyers, they seemed to be a Swiss Army knife.
My dad was a seaman radar on HMS Zetland (L59) in the Med. He always thought it strange that Leander class frigates were much larger than WW2 destroyers and slower.
My great grandfather served on Type 2 Hunt class destroyer HMS Hurworth. He was on board when she hit a mine in the Aegean Sea.
Could you do an episode on World War 2 conversions of World War 1 V/W class destroyer conversions? Epic work by the way, love your channel.
Thank you very much for these short documentaries. I have enjoyed them very much . A superb job of research and instruction.
Good as ever Drach, but the photo sequence being out of step with the version descriptions could be more than a little confusing if someone didn't already know what a type 4 Hunt looked like...? :)
Like the Black Swans, underrated and under-appreciated, but beautiful ships.
Good morning Drach!🌅
Just seen this. My grandfather served on HMS Bleasdale in WW2, which I believe is L50 shown in this video.
I would like to see a guide episode on the sloop HMS Starling.
I was on the Brocklesby in 1960 she had been converted to underwater weapon trials
based in Portland. Think she was broken up about 1967
I just noticed you said the turret layout was two forward one aft, when it really was one forward two aft :)
Great video as always. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the evolution of the British aircraft carrier. It seems to me that they were the natural successor to the battlecruiser (a ship of strategic significance, but not a battleship), indeed, several of the early carriers were built on post-Jutland battlecruiser hulls, which highlighted the value of being large and fast.
A ship to review though not a WWII ship are the Canadian Helicopter DDE built in the fifties and sixties.
Good-looking ship!
The vessels of the Battle of the Atlantic need far, far more attention than they’re usually given, especially compared to the huge numbers of flashier warships that didn’t face such a long and crucial battle.
Thank you. Your descriptions seem complete, interesting yet quite short (the latter probably a must for a RUclips video).
Two Hunt Class destroyers HMS Bichester and HMS Zetland were attacked by a squadron of US operated Spitfires off Tunisia 9th May1943 during Operation Retribution.
I believe a bomb went to the after hatch of Bicester.
Pity the Type IV photo din't accompany the mentioning of same
As a kid I was annoyed by the apparent mediocrity of the Soviet Riga class, before realizing those little ships very neatly & economically filled several roles. Same w/ the Hunts, who went on 2 serve second-hand in many navies, including AGI ('radio training') service. Very attractive little ships, as Brit single-stackers tend 2 B; I love the pompom up on the eyes 4 welcoming E-boats.
Would you be able to think about the ton class minesweepers? Speaking as a former CO, they were wonderful little ships, and saw service all over the world, in and out of action, Steve
5:24 thats HMS Eridge a type II not a type IV. None of the following images look like a type IV, the type IV fo'c'sle ran 3/4 along the length
Time well sent.... as usual.
Oh hey I’m early, I guess waking up at 6am works
About 1960 I visited a frigate called Hms Wizard. I believe it was an uprated destroyer that had been kept on post war. There were a few of these I believe. Any info? I remember seeing an open gun on the front 4" (?)
another great video thanks, think i did ask this before but hey lets go again. The e class cruisers of the royal navy and hms adventure please. thanks in anticipation
Good Day to you Drachinifel, and a pleasant weekend! By chance could you do a video on the submarine USS Tang? Thanks for reading!
Thanks for a great video (again)! I always thought that the Hunts were underrated with a good armament for their size and probably with the best anti aircraft suite for a British destroyer in 1940/41. Only the 4 inch L's (Lance Legion etc ) were better. I would love to hear your views on the armament selection of British destroyers. I had a view that the twin 4 inch high angle mounting was one of the best in the service and I understand that it was due to a lack of availability that it was not more widely used. Do you have any more information on that?
My understanding is that they were not in particularly short supply, but the 4” shell was not considered an adequate anti-destroyer armament by the RN. And if you are fighting Narvik Class DDs armed with 5.9” guns, there is some merit in that argument. The RN developed the 5.25” gun as the preferred dual purpose weapon for BB-CLs, and 4.5” for CV - DDs and as a lighter alternative, but the supply of these was certainly limited until quite late in the war (and also there was a shortage of the associated guns Director equipment) and twin 4” were often used as the only available substitute e.g. Scylla and Charybdis, Lance Legion etc, Aylnbank and other AA ships. In fact the twin 4” had been in production since the 1930’s, had been removed from some BBs, and must have been relatively plentiful as it armed very many war-built ship such as the Black Swan class minesweepers and Loch and Bay class frigates (all of which had very limited gun director requirements).
P.S. I entirely agree with you that an 8x4” gun armament would have been a better bet than 4x4.7” for the war that the RN DDs actually fought.
@@glennsimpson7659 Thanks for your comments. You bring up a good point point about directors and guidance systems. This was a fundamental failing for all Royal Navy warships in total particularity in the years before radar guidance was adopted. I wold like to hear more about this point in simple language so I can understand it.
My point on shortage of the dual 4 inch mount was made with the emergency war classes in mind (o through to the end of the alphabet). There was (when the ships were on the drawing board) a definite view that the 4.7 was required but by the time production was started the threat of aircraft was fully appreciated and the lack of a true dual purpose mount led to the continued use of the 4.7 and single 4 inch (in the case of some ships O's and P's) for the want of anything better. Even though there was an appreciation that this was not helping in the case of air defense. That was what led me to believe that there was a shortage or probably better described as an abundance of competing demands (as you rightly point out) or the available dual 4 inch mounts. The Hunts and then the modified black swans being prime examples.
I suppose that the interesting point to bear in mind is the failure of the Royal Navy to develop a dual purpose gun with the appropriate guidance systems for destroyers.
It is very interesting to share these thoughts with a fellow traveler.
H.M.S. Badsworth was the premier star performer Hunt class destroyer it's playground was the English channel . It sank and downed a lot of the opposition who were mainly eboats and messerschmitts while escorting convoys through the wreck studded minefields. winter and summer..
One look at the thumbnail I thought of Flowers. Class that is.
Love to hear about the W class destroyer s. My father was on HMS WAGER during the war.
I looked at the issue of war emergency escorts year's ago... simply ordering 50 Black Swan style units straight off.. followed by progressively optimised batches would have had a better effect.... the first hunts were so rubbish that they needed major surgery to be of any use at all
Excellent video, as always. Is it correct that these ships would be what the USN would call Destroyer Escorts?
Back in the late war, yes. What the US would label A Destroyer Escort was Small warship focused on Anti-Air and Anti-Submarine duties, acting a fleet screen. In the post war period as electronic warfare and communication interception and such became a thing, those duties fell to these kinds of ships as well. Eventually the USN rolled up all those these duties into the Role of a Frigate.
@@reverendrico5631 Thank you.
USN DE.s were sub killers. Battle of Samar taken into consideration. Hunts needed to be better AA in their waters, and were. A friendly neighborhood CVE was another answer.
In the Pacific, they were convoy or distant cover / hunter-killers. USS England. Escorts for CVE.s
The Americans called them destroyer escorts, the British called them escort destroyers. Same thing.
Served in HMS Cowdray 1949
Fascinating
The 4" twin appear on RN ships from frigates to battleships - how was it seen - as an emergency solution or actually a good weapon system?
Was there an American equivalent to the Hunt class?
The DDEs if I had to guess.
Tossing out requests for USS Silversides (SS-236) and USS Edson (DD-946). Michigan museum ships represent, yo!
Here is an odd question. I have the old WW2, British movie, " In Which We Serve". What type of destroyer was that ship?
HMS Torrin was based on the K class leader HMS Kelly, just as Noel Coward based the captain on his friend Mountbatten.
I'm a bit confused: "not expected to make oceanic crossings" , "not enough destroyers to do escort jobs" and "ships supposed to escort convoys"? Didn't convoys make "oceanic crossings"?
Not all convoys were trans-atlantic.
Considering the majority of Britain's resources were from her empire, convoy protection is a very vital job. So, it is logical that the British didn't have enough destroyers to guard every convoy. However, it may be offset by the fact that, in the Atlantic, USN vessels were also escorting convoys along their strech of coast, so escort vessels are not required to cross an entire ocean as long as they have somewhere to resupply themselves with.
There were lots of convoys that didn't go to Canada or the U.S. In the early years of the war Malta convoys were being constantly shot up, later after the Soviets and then Americans joined the war, there were the Arctic convoys to Murmansk and lots of long distance convoys to places like Australia and India.
He said the Mediterranean, British coastal waters and the Artic. The Med being amongst the most important campaigns of WW2, if Britain lost the Suez canal zone it was basically the end.
Pre-war it was expected that convoys, including convoys originating in America or coming round the Cape of Good Hope, would be escorted only in British coastal waters. This was based on WW1 experience. Escort all the way to and from North America was forced on the RN by German Wolfpack tactics. Likewise the Flower class corvettes were designed as coastal escorts, and the crews suffered greatly when the were sent all the way to Halifax and back.
My dad served on L34, HMS Bicester
The bow mounted 6 pounder seems like a useful weapon against E boats. I don’t think the US had anything equivalent.
Am I missing something - If they were convoy escorts why were they not expected to make oceanic crossings - surely going back and forth across the Atlantic would be the main job?
Plus - what more modern ships:-)?
The convoys were often protected by other classes of escort more suited for ocean voyages. As the ocean convoy neared its destination, the ocean escorts would hand over to the coastal escorts. The coastal escorts would take the convoy to its destination port and the ocean escorts would often pick up an outgoing convoy for the return trip.
There were lots of convoys that didn't go to Canada or the U.S. In the early years of the war Malta convoys were being constantly shot up, later after the Soviets and then Americans joined the war, there were the Arctic convoys to Murmansk and lots of long distance convoys to places like Australia and India.
Hunts were not intended as Atlantic escorts, but were used extensively as East Coast escorts, in the Mediterranean, and on Russian convoys. Many of those allocated to East Coast convoys had a 2 pounder pom-pom fitted right forward in the bows for use against E-boats.
Were the Hunts roughly equivalent to US destroyer escorts?
The Hunt class destroyers look very simiar to the River class frigates. According to the QLD maritime museum, the River class was actually slightly heavier, and from what I've seen more or less comparatively armed. What makes the Hunt class a destroyer and the River class a frigate then? Speed? Range?
Sophie Paterson i think the frigates were generally built to commercial rather than RN standards for cost (much like the recent HMS Ocean)
@@73North265 Thanks. That kinda makes sense. I do know the HMAS Diamantina was built by a commercial shipyard in Australia. It's just weird that designations can be so arbitrary.
The line between a small Destroyer and a Frigate is indeed a somewhat arbitrary one in practice, but clear in theory. While both had similar gun armament, generally speaking, Destroyers were steam turbine driven fleet escorts built to naval standards and armed with torpedoes; while Frigates (and Sloops and Corvettes) were steam reciprocating engined convoy escorts built to commercial standards and whose primary armament was depth charges. The Admiralty added torpedoes to the Hunt class design as soon as they could, but no WW2 Frigate ever carried torpedoes. Diamantina and her sisters represent an optimised anti-submarine design that could be built in commercial yards, but because of the RAN’s wide commitments and limited resources, they were used for a wide variety of other roles. The USN perhaps had the most practical outlook and designed one class (the Destroyer Escort - Buckley and Rudderow classes) to serve all purposes - escort destroyer, convoy escort, minesweeper, even as infantry assault ships. They Thought Big in a way the RN could not, as the RN’s shipbuilding resources were much more limited and many British (and Australian) yards could not build ships bigger than Diamantina, and could only build to commercial standards with reciprocating triple expansion steam engines and commercial boilers.
@@glennsimpson7659 Thanks 👍Great response. Much appreciated. I was always fascinated and kind of attached to the Diamantina because it was the first real wwii Navy ship I ever saw.
Me too. I can remember sitting in the twin bofors mounting when she was still in Commission and moored at Howard Smith wharf under the Story Bridge in the 1950s. Never quite got over the joy of training the mounting to shoot at the Eagle Street ferry!
Drach, I noticed on the description at the beginning it is referred to as a boat. What differentiates a boat from a ship? (According to Google:- A ship is any vessel or conveyance that floats on or operates on the water and is equal to or larger than 197 feet (60 meters) length overall).
A ship can have boats, but a boat can't have ships!
"Ah fuck it. They're Hunts."
Drachinifel
2019
I'd love to see a video on the Dardanelles campaign.
I always shit my pants when I see a Hunt III in SH3
What is that gun on the absolute bow of the ship for?!
I'd guess to suppress anything on the surface at close range, eg a surfaced U-boat
It was a bow chaser, installed to increase AA Firepower but was very vulnerable in heavy weather when they were often damaged.
It is a two pounder pom pom. Most East Coast escorts were fitted with them for use against S Boats.
I would love to hear more about the U.S.S. forestall C.V.A.-59
Looks like the last one was scrapped by Ecuador in 1978. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Meynell_(L82)
My father served on the USS John D. Ford, Dd228, a Clemson class of the Asiatic Fleet during World War two. There is a lady, Ramona , the daughter of one of my father's shipmatesx. Who is writing a book about the old John D. Ford. Wit would make a great post about the ship and Ramona's book. Please feel free to contact me id you would like to do a post on it.
Would have been nice to add how many successful U boat kills this class accounted for.
Hunts were involved in the sinking of 21 boats.
Hate to be on the bow AA
hey should video about Sloop class
Most of the ships from ww2 look like a good storm would sink most of them. Being so low to the water.
The Brits built ships that could handle the North Atlantic and North Sea gales USN ships were by Brit standards a tad flimsy as it was thought that they would spend most of their time in the Pacific. The big German destroyers were almost useless in a heavy sea. Those escorting the Scharnhorst were sent home by Bey as they couldn't keep up in the heavy seas. In the battle of the Barents Sea the smaller S clas destroyers handled the bigger and more heavily armed Z class very well.
The other 2 could be called hunt mark 2 cause they come from the same deisgn comp, thus a runner up design
Make a video on the type 7 U boat
im looking for build plans of a HUNT CLASS DESTROYER TYPE 3 . can any body help me at all, My Dad served on HMS AIRDALE, LO7 UNTILL IT WAS SUNK.
My grand father served on L16.
赞美！
A very modest anti-aircraft capability as this ship was designed to hunt submarines. Compared to the American veiw, which reminds me of the bird hunting scene in The Merry Christian, there's nothing like massive overkill to bring down your bird!
It's in the Constitution..2nd Amendment. Every American sailor gets their own AA gun...
@@ericgrace9995 Yes, happyness is a warm gun!
@@ericgrace9995 If you really wanted one, one was for sale two years ago:
ruclips.net/video/6yCxITYzW-0/видео.html
Overkill is under rated!!!!!
@@CSSVirginia Never enough overkill! If nuclear anti-aircraft shells were possible, we'd have them!
Boo yah tyvm
I have a question that doesn't warrant a spot on a Q&A but I still am confused about. You say merchant ships were slower than many warships. But I hear of passenger ships like the Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Maurtania, Olympic, Aquitania etc that were so fast that they traveled alone. Although these ships are technically super liners for their day and are faster than many other merchant ships. Do you mean cargo ships? I understand them being slow. Also can you do a video on the funny looking WW1 aircraft carrier HMS Campania? I said it before but don't see it in the list.
Yeah I mean cargo ships, a few merchant ships like liners were fast, but the vast majority were very slow compared to warships.
As for Campania, she's on my master list, the list in the video descriptions is only about 1/6th of the total.
@@DrachinifelOkay, thank you!
@@baronvonjo1929 Wide variations in speed were common in cargo ships of that time. Depending on the age and type, variation from say 7 to 12 knots wouldn't be uncommon, but of course the convoy would be obliged to travel at the speep of the slowest ships.
The vast majority of British merchantmen of the period would struggle to maintain 10 knots at best. Refrigerated cargo ships were faster, often capable of 15 knots or more, which is why such vessels were used on fleet action convoys such as 'Pedestal.'
Never make a ship C class and Hunt class combination...
.
Sea Hunt was the title of an American TV series in the 1950’s starring Lloyd Bridges. A more innocent time...
Worse was the Killer Hunt class, or K-Hunts. The whole reason they're now called hunter killer.
It's little wonder they were decommissioned as soon as the war was over, with all those limitations placed on them because "we only need them to escort convoys, so they won't have to be able to do anything else". I suppose the Royal Navy was thinking "they're only destroyers, not capital ships", which is true enough, but part of me still cringes at investing resources in such an inflexibly niche-specific way.
They all weren't. When I was in the 2nd FS in Portland in 1961 FOST worked up Brocklesby.
Originally, they were known as 'fast escort vessels.' The name change to 'escort destroyer' came later. At 25 knots, they were really too slow for fleet operations, but were often pressed into use. The problems of trying to keep a Hunt in company with fleet destroyers feature prominently in Roger Hill's autobiography, ' Destroyer Captain.' Hill was captain of HMS Ledbury during PQ17, and Pedestal, and his ship was one of the three destroyers which managed to get Ohio to Malta. The others were Penn (a fleet) and Bramham (a Hunt.)
These ships still turned out to be far better investments of money than some others (coughVanguardcough)
considering the rumblings in the UK picking the Hunt Class is either by design or coincidence announcing support for Jeremy Hunt
I just can't see the " Boris" class working that well.
Hunt class, small with no big ambitions and requiring rapid modification to correct inefficiency and then only useful for a short time...quickly discarded.
Boris class, lots of holes in its design, expectations massively over egged, rolled over and sank in dry dock after fibbing about its water tightness...
Enough politics, great vid Drac an interesting take on a workhorse class.
@@keptinjack what use his first name? cause Johnston as far as ships is concerned is beyond reprouch due to a certain captain evens?
Dick jokes are too easy...
Enslaved to the EU-Class was just a bit too obvious.
Sadly now too old. RUclips is good for things I can no longer do.
Gee... Us Yanks did trade some bases for a variety of Caldwell, Wickes and Clemson class destroyers from WWI that had already proven to not roll over in high seas back in 1940. Why the hell didn't you Brits build something better than the crap we traded?
We needed hulls ASAP :)
Time factor.
Not nearly enough escorts to do escort jobs.
I guess they should have recruited more in Singapore.
USN DE’s were a better design
Because, of course, everything Murican is better.
Wonder why? Could it be that the Americans could watch and see for two years what was truly needed in a modern escort vessel. Whereas the British had to quickly design an escort with their last experience in anti-submarine warfare 20 previously.
The USN Cannon DE class were based on the Hunt design, but incorporated wartime developments, and even more AA.
I do know that the PF's we're based on the British river class, but were a bit of a disappointment because by the time they were completed the u-boat menace was pretty much finished by the use of CVE based hunter-killer groups, and the design was not really suited to the war in the Pacific.
The DEs were built by a nation with vast unused industrial resources using mostly new greenfield shipyards and prefabrication and mass production of similar parts. Britain (and the Empire) was not so fortunate. In addition there were many British & Empire shipyards that could build small ships to commercial standards with steam reciprocating machinery but could not build ships like the USN DEs that were built to navy standards and used high pressure boilers and steam turbines, or diesels. These shipyards were used to build Frigates and Corvettes, and just as well!
I was playing U-Boat and made the mistake of getting the attention of one of these things. They're very fast, faster than a U-Boat surfaced at full engines - at least in-game that is. She followed me all the way back to Italy, waited outside port for me until some German destroyers and frigates put her under, I could see the flames really well since it was night. I think the AI may be a little too aggressive :P
1 forward 2 aft.