Re: DDEs vs. DDs

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but some list-ite of inestimable worth
> indicated that he or she figured the FB destroyer designs were really
> DDE designs. Which makes sense if you look at the weapons loadout.

Well not really. It depends on which navy you are talking about.

The NAC Ticonderoga is a gereral purpose DD. It works well in union with

other DDs and a Cruiser to act as a Leader. 

The ESU escorts are more of the line of the recent Russian/Soviet navy. 
Some ships that were really one shot rocket carriers. 

In WWII escorts were generally slower and fitted with light weapons. 
During WWII the escorts were mostly corvettes and smaller DDE's. The DD 

Remember the term Frigate didn't mean what it does now until 1975.
Before 
then the USN had Frigates that were larger than cruisers. 

> As a consequence, FB destroyers do have trouble engaging caps - since
> the cap can pound them before they even enter their RB. If one wanted
> to design destroyers to menace the big boys, it seems to me SMRs, dual

A group of DD's fitted with Pulse torps or SMs that fire them in groups 
would more than make a bit of trouble for a capital ship. 

Just like the ESU craft. 

> The type of destroyers I'm talking about are less DDE and more
> DD(Torpedo). Travelling in packs, they can really rip up their
> targets. And with thrust 6, they can insure that the BBs and BCs don't

Yep. 

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------