Old destroyers in early WWII

[Ivan Otterstrom]

Britain rented or bought some old USN destroyers early in WWII to make up its own shortfall, especially during the early days of convoy traffic to and from USA. Apparantly these destroyers were old USN 4-stack destroyers, and must have been totally obsolete.

Does anyone know what class of destroyers these belonged to? How many got sunk? What was the fate of these?

Yours sincerely,

Ivan Otterstrom

 

[gf0012-aust]

They were Town Class.

http://uboat.net/allies/warships/class.html?ID=24

 

[ajay_ijn]

Britain rented or bought some old USN destroyers early in WWII to make up its own shortfall, especially during the early days of convoy traffic to and from USA. Apparantly these destroyers were old USN 4-stack destroyers, and must have been totally obsolete.

Does anyone know what class of destroyers these belonged to? How many got sunk? What was the fate of these?

Yours sincerely,

Ivan Otterstrom

I think RN Bought 50 or so destroyers,they were vital to RN Convoys.
RN was facing huge shortage of destroyers,they had to operate in multiple theatres at same time.
Mediterrenean threatre,North Atlantic,Norway,Indian Ocean etc.
On the top of it RN lost some destroyers in battles with german,japanese.

To make situation even worse,U-Boat deployment rate was increasing and there was no protection for some convoys.

So RN Immediately had get destroyers,no matter how old are they.
Atleast something is better than nothing.
But Even after deployment of these Destroyers,U-Boats still continued their sucess.

I don't know how many of them survived the war,but they did give some confidence to RN.

 

[tatra]

You may want to look here:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ww2/town/
http://www.hazegray.org/features/flushdeck/
http://www.hazegray.org/features/bota/rn/index.html

[font=Times New Roman, Times]Destroyers, given to Britain form the US, in return for a 99 year lease of Bases in West Indies and British Guiana. These old destroyers were used by the Royal Navy, in various rolls, including HMS Campbletown, in Operation Chariot.[/font]
Ships Name Launched History
HMS Bath (ex USS Hopewell) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Lost in 1941.
HMS Belmont (ex USS Satterlee) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Lost in 1942.
HMS Beverley (ex USS Branch) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Lost in 1943.
HMS Bradford (ex USS McLanahan) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1946.
HMS Brighton (ex USS Cowell) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Transferred to USSR in 1944. Broken up in 1949.
HMS Broadwater (ex USS Mason) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Lost in 1941.
HMS Burnham (ex USS Aulick) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1947.
HMS Burwell (ex USS Laub) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1947.
HMS Buxton ( ex USS Edwards) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1946.
HMS Cameron (ex USS Welles) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Lost in 1940.
HMS Campbeltown (ex USS Buchanan) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Lost in 1942.
HMS Caldwell (ex USS Hale) Between 1917 & 1920 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1944.
HMS Castleton (ex USS Aaron Ward) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1947.
HMS Charlestown (ex USS Abbot) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1947.
HMS Chelsea (ex USS Crowninshield) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Transferred to USSR in 1944. Broken up in 1949.
HMS Georgetown (ex USS Maddox) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Transferred to USSR in 1944. Broken up in 1949.
HMS Lancaster (ex USS Philip) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1947.
HMS Leamington (ex USS Twiggs) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Transferred to USSR in 1944. Broken up in 1951.
HMS Leeds (ex USS Conner) Between 1917-18 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1947.
HMS Lincoln (ex USS Yarnall) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Transferred to USSR in 1944. Broken up in 1952.
HMS Ludlow (EX USS Stockton) Between 1917-18 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1945.
HMS Mansfield (ex USS Evans) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1945.
HMS Montgomery (ex USS Wickes ) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1945.
HMS Newark (ex USS Ringold) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1947.
HMS Newmarket (ex USS Robinson) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1945.
HMS Newport (ex USS Sigourney) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1947.
HMS Ramsey (ex USS Meade) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1947.
HMS Reading (ex USS Bailey) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1945.
HMS Richmond (ex USS Fairfax) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Transferred to USSR in 1944. Broken up in 1949.
HMS Ripley (ex USS Shubrick) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1945.
HMS Rockingham (ex USS Swasey) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Lost in 1944.
HMS Roxburgh (ex USS Foote) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Transferred to USSR in 1944. Broken up in 1952.
HMS St Albans (ex USS Thomas) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Transferred to USSR in 1944. Broken up in 1949.
HMS St Mary's (ex USS Doran, USS Bagley) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1945.
HMS Salisbury (ex USS Claxton ) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1944.
HMS Sherwood (ex USS Rodgers ) Between 1917 & 1920 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1945.
HMS Stanley (ex USS McCalla) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Lost in 1941.
HMS Broadway (ex USS Hunt) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1947.
HMS Chesterfield (ex USS Welborn C Wood ) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1947.
HMS Churchill (ex USS Herndon) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Transferred to USSR in 1944. Lost in 1945.
HMS Clare (ex USS Abel P Upshur) Between 1918-21 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1945.
HMS Wells (ex USS Tillman) Between 1917-19 Transferred to Britain in 1940. Broken up in 1945.
Source: http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/lend_lease_destroyers.htm

 

[Ivan Otterstrom]

Thanks again for quick and precise information.

It is a pleasure to be among such knowledgeable people.

Yours sincerely,

Ivan Otterstrom

 

[Ivan Otterstrom]

Amazing what you can get of the net when knowing where to look.

Those old destroyers looked pretty useless, but I imagine that something is better than nothing as said below. However, it looks as though the best part of them got torpedoed by the German uboats.

Pretty nasty stuff.

Yours,

 

[tatra]

Amazing what you can get of the net when knowing where to look.

Those old destroyers looked pretty useless, but I imagine that something is better than nothing as said below. However, it looks as though the best part of them got torpedoed by the German uboats.

Pretty nasty stuff.

Yours,

It's just a mattor of Googling it

Only eight out of the above list were lost, the remainder mostly scrapped postwar. On a total of 50 this may look like a lot (16%) but consider that they are actively going in harms way and most were lost early in the war, when there was not always air superiority for the allies, which makes me think at least some were lost due to air strike rather than due to U-Boats.
:coffee

 

[gf0012-aust]

On the top of it RN lost some destroyers in battles with german,japanese.

None of the lendlease destroyers were used in the pacific theatre - they were used only in the ETO

To make situation even worse,U-Boat deployment rate was increasing and there was no protection for some convoys.

Not true, the RN's persistence - especially their tempo and new systems applied to even the old boats resulted in bringing about Black September. The trend against U Boat successes is a very clear graph.

So RN Immediately had get destroyers,no matter how old are they.
Atleast something is better than nothing.

Hence the lendlease request...:coffee

I don't know how many of them survived the war,but they did give some confidence to RN.

They gave more than confidence, they actually did what they were tasked to do.

 

[Pendekar]

Not true, the RN's persistence - especially their tempo and new systems applied to even the old boats resulted in bringing about Black September. The trend against U Boat successes is a very clear graph.

yeah, but before that can happen, U boats sure have some happy time. fortunately the new type xxi came to late and to few. it might be able to tip the favor back to the kriegsmarine.

the succes of the allied was contributed mostly by several new technical innovations (ASDIC, shipborne radio direction finder, etc) and ultimately, the breaking of ENIGMA code. it is quite strange that german high command can't believe the fact that their code have been broken. talk about overconfidence.

 

[Pendekar]

British have to get a destroyers from USA? what happen to the largest navy in the world?

 

[gf0012-aust]

yeah, but before that can happen, U boats sure have some happy time. fortunately the new type xxi came to late and to few. it might be able to tip the favor back to the kriegsmarine.

Unless the type XX1's were floated in 1943 - then they would have had minimal impact. The Allies weren't as dependant on convoy carriage circa 1944. Black September killed any chances of them recovering to reasonable threat levels. Couple that with allied day and night bombing - the germans were on a downhill rapid slippery slide. Thats the irony of it all, the Type XX1 was a generation ahead of all other subs - and is the basis of design for all modern subs, inlcuding some nukes.

the succes of the allied was contributed mostly by several new technical innovations (ASDIC, shipborne radio direction finder, etc) and ultimately, the breaking of ENIGMA code. it is quite strange that german high command can't believe the fact that their code have been broken. talk about overconfidence.

it was also the effect of allied day and night bombing that enabled to the allies to sink subs faster than they were being built. They started to lose the logistics war, the war on attrition. From that point on, it didn't matter what new technologies or capabilities the Germans rolled out as they were unable to alter the tempo of attrition.

 

[gf0012-aust]

British have to get a destroyers from USA? what happen to the largest navy in the world?

More support vessels were needed for convoy duty. Gt Britain was still the largest navy as they had rigidly adhered to Fishers "2 Powers" philosophy.

No navy had ever planned their fleet around such high convoy rates (they were dealing with Russian support as well). So it was a new war fighting/support paradigm.

 

[Ivan Otterstrom]

Corporal,

I believe that the RN was over-extended at that time. They had to dispatch to Singapore, ensure that the Channel stayed open, ensure that the Africa route was not harmed (german raiders), etc. etc. I bellieve that the need for destroyers came about as these were the optimal defence against German U-Boats. However, RN did not have enough; hence the rental agreement.

It was also at that time RN re-called its older "colonial" battleships and cruisers, i.e. the one's from Australia, etc. The defence of the colonies had to be born by the colony itself, a task they could hardly manage.

That decision also had the little consequence that Australia by and large was defended by USA. Australia started to lok towards USA rather than Britain as its natural mother country. Australia is (regardless of rugby and the queen) more influenced by Asia and USA (West Coast) than Britain, a direct result of the war. Comments?

Yours,

Ivan Otterstrom

 

[Pendekar]

It was also at that time RN re-called its older "colonial" battleships and cruisers, i.e. the one's from Australia, etc. The defence of the colonies had to be born by the colony itself, a task they could hardly manage.

and left the far east with only 2 battleships, Prince Of Wales and Repulse and several destroyers. both were sunk by japanese off the coast of kuantan, among the first clue that the battleship is about to become obsolete.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That decision also had the little consequence that Australia by and large was defended by USA. Australia started to lok towards USA rather than Britain as its natural mother country. Australia is (regardless of rugby and the queen) more influenced by Asia and USA (West Coast) than Britain, a direct result of the war. Comments?

Not sure I'd go that far Ivan . Australia operates very closely to UK processes, at the US level, we're certainly closer in operational standards to the way the USMC operates, but at an overall level I'd say we definitely are closer to UK op procedures overall.

Politically there is a greater push to have acceptance and visibility with the region, but that has been something that has also been a consious political decision for the last 15 years. Political and economic influence with the UK has subsided ever since the Common Market days.

 

[Ivan Otterstrom]

Fair enough. I think somehow the process may have started very early, specifically WWII, with the Japanese threat of invasion, beaten off by both Nimitz and MacArthur. Comments?


Yours,

PS: This is a bit further away from my original topic, but I truly enjoy the exchange of opinions.

Ivan

 

[gf0012-aust]

Fair enough. I think somehow the process may have started very early, specifically WWII, with the Japanese threat of invasion, beaten off by both Nimitz and MacArthur. Comments?Yours,

Australia established very early on in the piece that Gt Britain was unable and to some extent unwilling to support our own interests. This manifested itself particularly after Churchill attempted to bully our PM into not bringing the Australian 9th Division home from Nth Africa. He wanted to use them with General Slim to hold off the Japanese in Burma/India/Indo-China etc... we felt (understandably, considering recent chains of events) that the greater priority was to be home to defend Australia.

This is also due to the fact that the 9th was regarded as one of the most combat effective and efficient Divisions then in service. Funnily enough, Churchills aide commented on "D Day" that he wished that they had the "magnificent 9th with us".

From that point on it was realised that the US was the only other power capable of bringing sufficient forces to bear on the Japanese - so all military planning from that point on was governed by how and what US interaction was possible.

The relationship with the US has always been closer since then, but I'd still argue that culturally we're closer to the UK across a broad spectrum. Thats not to say that we're not close to the US - we clearly are - but the cultural links are much more defined and embedded to our heritage with the Brits.

 

[Ivan Otterstrom]

Well said.

You are probably right in saying that the cultural links are stronger towards Britain and the English speaking countries (as in English). South Africa can to a certain degree be counted in that camp.

When will it change? The cultural pressure must be more strongly felt in Australia than in Say South Africa. A good measure is typically where you send your kids for University. Britain or USA?

Comments?

Yours,

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well said.

You are probably right in saying that the cultural links are stronger towards Britain and the English speaking countries (as in English). South Africa can to a certain degree be counted in that camp.

When will it change? The cultural pressure must be more strongly felt in Australia than in Say South Africa. A good measure is typically where you send your kids for University. Britain or USA?

Comments?

Yours,

the last major census data showed that almost half of the Australian diaspora reside in European Union (EU) nations and nearly half of these are resident in the United Kingdom. The second largest group of Australian citizens overseas resides in Greece, and the third largest Australian expatriate community is based in the United States. Smaller expatriate communities are located in New Zealand and Hong Kong. Hong Kong is the largest of a number of expatriate communities in Asia, based in Indonesia, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia.

at last count I think they estimated that over 300,000 australians lived and worked in the UK. (approx 890,000 australians are "ex-pats".

You could lay serious claim to the notion that a lot of those overseas aussies in the UK are dual citizenship holders and are making the "pilgrimage" to the old country. That notion still gets generated from great grandfathers, grandfathers, fathers, uncles aunts etc who served in Empire events.

Bear in mind that in 1947 Australia was still sending food and clothing to the UK as they were relatively destitiute and still under ration systems - so there was still a strong bond as a result of the effects of war.

All of the 3 services have very strong UK ties in operational, training, philosophical areas. You make sure that you stand when you toast the queen in an Ozzie mess hall - they're still fiercely loyal to the notion of respect to the monarchy in some (a lot of) quarters.

aussie digger could give you a perspective as he served "king/queen and country" more recently.

The UK influence is still very strong in our military training - our approach in Iraq is similar to the UK's. Cross training and exchanges becomes so much easier under shared philosophies and systems. On the US side of the ledger, I'd argue that there is closer operational philosophy/sympathy with the USMC than there is with reg US Army.

/partial hijack off

 

[Ivan Otterstrom]

Fair. I thought there were a lot more ex-pats in US. Learned that much.

See you at the rugby.

yours,