'Best' destroyer of WW 2

Battleships have repeatedly been done on this idea. Destroyers represent the workhorses of most navies. So, who had the best DD?
Some categories for consideration:
1. At the beginning of the war in 1939?

2. In 1942?

3. In 1945?

4. For Anti-submarine Warfare?

5. For Anti-air warfare?

My choices are (subject to change):
1. The Japanese Fubuki to Kagero classes
2. The US Fletcher class
3. The US Sumner / Gearing class
4. Virtually any British fleet DD.
5. The Japanese Fubuki to Kagero classes
6. The US Fletcher and Sumner classes

 

Sorry, I am a little confused (I know nothing about the destroyers in question which may have something to do with it) but you gave 5 'catagories' but 6 choices (I am guessing they are supposed to be grouped that way because some are repeated). This should be an interesting debate...

 

Well, definitely NOT those four-funnelled things the Royal Navy had on Lend-lease ( although one of them - HMS Campbeltown? - was I think used to blow up the drydock gates at St. Nazaire....

 

Probable by far the best single class of destroyers of the war was the US Fletchers. these were easy to construct, over 170 were built, and very seaworthy. they served as excellent escort for the US in the pacific camapaign.

 

The allied superiority at the radar technology was a very important factor when comparing the WWII destroyers.
However some of my "favourites":
2.& 5. Japanese Terutsuki-class: large(2800t) 8x100mm, 40x25mm
2. Japanese Shimakaze 2600t 6x127mm 12x610mm (deadly)torpedoes 39knots

Regards, Juha

 

not sure if there is really a defence for the German boyz on this as most were destroyed early in the war at Narvik. They did play an important role though in the battle for Ost Preussia and are quite overshadowed by the movements and actions of the Hipper, Scheer, P. Eugen and other larger ships. The late Zerstörers did their best to protect the larger ships during bombardments by running anti-sub duties, mine clearing and lending a hand at AA defences and also with the heavier weapons the shellings of Soviet batteries and dug in placements. As with all smaller ships the evacuation of thousands of refugees/personell

~E

 

Sorry for leaving #6 off. Best overall category.

Aside from that, while the Shimakaze was interesting, she had infinite problems with her high pressure steam plant. That's a major reason she remained a one-off variant. For the Japanese she was also alot more DD than they could readily afford in quantity.
In electronics, true, the Allies had everyone else beat. In the Japanese case it was more a lack of production and research capacity than doing poorly with what they had. The Germans started off pretty good but quickly let the ball slip so to speak.
Unfortunately for the Germans they went for big heavily armed DD's rather than something that could be produced in quantity. That led to dual problems of numbers and, with those 5.9" guns gunnery problems. In a DD those were just too much gun and shell to allow easy loading in any kind of sea that was more than calm.
As for those ubiquitious US 4 pipers, they were great in for the First World War. You do have to give them credit for hanging around and making themselves useful all the way through WW 2 and beyond. For a crash production vessel they were certainly long lived.

 

I was always under the impression that the British Tribal Class destroyers were excellent, someone in another forum however informed me that they had several glaring defects. Anyone know the truth?

 

Yes, they did have several problems. First, the original armament was inadequite for AA defense. The main battery was found to be worthless for this purpose (4.7" with max elevation of 40 degrees). The torpedo battery was reduced to 4 tubes on one mount leaving them short on the most effective anti-ship weapon a destroyer has.
They had hull weakness problems initially at the 'step' resulting in cracks and overworked hulls very early in their careers.
The additional guns mounted did not prove worth the trouble. DD gunfire of the time was often erratic in performance, especially until better director systems came into use.

 

Gotta go with the Fletchers. They were there when needed, stongly constructed, fast, reliable, able to absorb tremendous punishment, well armed, good range, equally good in a surface fight or anti-air. They also served on for years after the war.

 

Is any category other than category 4 at all important though? The primary role of the destroyer was in ASW, at least in the Atlantic. Whatever e.g. the Tribal's deficiencies in torpedos and anti-air, it didn't really matter because the german surface fleet and air force barely got involved in any naval actions at all. Even in the Pacific, destroyers were mostly there to be an anti-submarine screen, and ocassionally fight other destroyers. (In that respect, the US probably has the best record.)

 

Category 4?
DD's performed many other mission and important ones. Scouting and AA defence being a couple of them. Look at what they did at Leyte for instance. Or any of the numerous invasions in the Pacific or the ones in the Atlantic and Med.