I find the study of the Japanese fleet destroyers of WW2 fascinating. IMHO no group of ships was better handled, better crewed or better captained then them. By the Japanese surrender in 1945, most were on the bottom with majority of the original captains dead. They gave as much as they got and sometimes a lot more. Their design and progression through the years is especially interesting, profoundly Japanese and is very different from American philosophy. Even at the end, they were deadly. The Take was trapped by three US Sumner class destroyers, the most advanced tin cans of the day and escaped while sinking the USS Cooper in the process. Yep, they were enemies but they were damned good at what they did and with what they did it with.
The Sumner class weren't the most advanced destroyer in fact it was top heavy and not as sea worthy as the Fletcher class or the Gearing class which was just a Sumner class that was stretched 14 feet in length. The best and most effective destroyers of WW ll was the U.S. Navy's Fletcher class. The last American destroyer that had armor protection, capable of traveling at 38 kts. and 6,500 mile range. Which means they were faster than today's Arleigh Burke destroyers and had 2,200 miles more range than the Arleighs. As the old saying goes, being new isn't necessary better. Talk to any tin can sailor, the Fletcher class DD's were the best destroyers ever to go to sea and fight. The second best destroyers that proved themselves during WW ll, Korea, Vietnam and through out the Cold War into the 1970's was the Gearing class destroyers. The mainstay of the IJN destroyers were the Fubuki and Asashio class destroyers. All were sunk in action by the U.S. Navy except for one Fubuki class the Ushio that survived the war. What the Japanese destroyers had going for it were the Long Lance torpedoes. What the Japanese destroyers didn't have going for it like all IJN ships during WW ll was a properly trained crew in battle damage control procedures. Were as the U.S. Navy and some what the Royal Navy have mastered battle damage control procedures, Japan never did.
I'll disagree and as introduced they were. The Gearing's were the correction. None of them had armor, but the US destroyers had limited STS steel, with the Sumners's having a lot more, making it structurally much stronger. Also the Fletcher's didn't have full bow to stern access internally, so battle damage and heavy seas could cut off one end of the ship to the other. With the fire control systems of the day, the extra 5 inch gun gave them extra firepower when the fight went from torpedo's to gun. With the AAA role this was marked. Plus the field of fire were better and the decks less cluttered. But this is about the Jap destroyers. The long lance WAS the weapon in the first half of the war and combined with superior Japanese optics and night fighting tactics made them fearsome. There were experiments after the war showing that Jap optics at night were at times better than the circa 1942-43 radar sets. Afterwards the radar advantage became a huge problem for them. As a class I would agree that the Fletcher's were the best destroyer class introduced in numbers, but you have to realize that none were even in commission at the start of the war. The Japanese destroyers were built for a late 1930's fight and they weren't able to adapt well as technology passed them by. Structurally they weren't as strong and their engine room arrangement was less than optimal and designed primarily for speed and not for battle damage. They weren't designed from the start to take damage and nothing shows this more than the propulsion arrangement. Their light AAA was marginal and never got that much better except to add guns. The 5 inch 50 caliber greatly outranged the US 5 inch and had better bursting charges, but they never had a fire control system to match up to this advantage. Plus the guns were much slower firing and had limited AAA ability. For what they had they were well handled. In a lot of ways they were the Japanese version of the German Type 7 Uboat.
Speed was more important that being able to withstand damage in the Japanese navy. No matter how tough you made the ship it was nothing more than an egg when Godzilla got a hold of it so it made more sense for the Japanese to build their destroyers fast so they could try and run away. King Kong never went in the oceans so the US navy was fortunate in that they didn't have to take their super giant mascot into consideration.
You got it in one. Most Japanese destroyers were built before the war and not after. Typically as built they were slightly faster than most US destroyers especially with a light fuel load and they were notorious fuel hogs. Their prewar planners knew they had a good longer range gun their US opponents and in theory this was an advantage, especially when combined with the fact that many of them carried a set of torpedo reloads. However, they neglected to take into account that their guns had a much wider spread and were never able to solve long range fire control problems. Combined with a slow rate of fire, slow traverse and limited AA ability, this defect was never corrected till the introduction of their excellent 3.9 inch weapon. By that time it was way too late. The engine room arrangement says it all. They had two boilers up front each feeding a turbine set, a single engine room containing both turbine sets with a single boiler just aft feeding both sets of turbines. It saved weight and space, however it was marginal for redundancy and a single hit to the engine room could knock the ship out. For a US ship, there were sequentially two paired boiler rooms and two separate engine rooms Most US destroyers were made this way and you could still move if you had one boiler and one engine room still going.
Japan 12.7 cm/50 (5") 3rd Year Type These weapons were used on most Japanese destroyers built between 1926 and 1945 in both single and twin mounts. The mountings for these guns were a revolutionary design, as the Japanese were the first to use weather and splinter-proof mounts on destroyers. The second batch of these destroyers were also the first to use medium caliber guns with high elevations, giving them a DP function. However, the very slow training speeds and lack of power ramming made these mountings almost useless against the fast-moving aircraft of World War II. These weapons were of built-up construction, originally three layers (Model No. I) and later two layers (Model No. I2) along with the usual breech ring and breech bush. About 700 guns were manufactured. Surprisingly for this size weapon, these guns fired bag ammunition and used a Welin breech-block. continue -> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_5-50_3ns.htm \ United States of America 5"/38 (12.7 cm) Mark 12 This was unquestionably the finest Dual Purpose gun of World War II. Originally designed to arm new destroyers being built in the 1930s, the 5"/38 (12.7 cm) wound up being used on nearly every major US warship built between 1934 and 1945 and was still being used on new construction as late as the 1960s. It was also used on many auxiliaries, merchant vessels and smaller warships as well as on US Coast Guard vessels. This standardization, unique in any navy, greatly helped the logistical supply situation of the Pacific War. These guns were hand-loaded, but power-rammed, which gave them a high rate of fire and a capability of being easily loaded at any angle of elevation, both of which are highly desirable qualities for an anti-aircraft weapon. The introduction of proximity-fuzed AA shells in 1943 made this weapon an even more potent AAA gun. The earliest mountings as used on USS Farragut (DD-34 were pedestal mounts with the ammunition supply points located in the fixed structure behind the gun mounts. However, starting with USS Gridley (DD-380), a new base-ring mounting with integral shell hoists on the axis of the mount was introduced. This type of mounting meant that shells and cartridges could be passed directly to the gun's breech at any angle of train, thus significantly improving the practical rate of fire. Most subsequent designs, including all twin mountings, were similar, although a simpler base ring mount lacking hoists was introduced in 1943 for use on auxiliary vessels. There were some teething troubles when this gun was introduced in 1934, but a BuOrd report of 1945 states that during World War II they were considered to be highly reliable, robust and accurate, a reputation they retained even after the end of the war when the 5"/54 (12.7 cm) series of weapons were introduced. When coupled with the Mark 37 Fire Control System, used on most US warships built between 1939 and 1946, these guns were also effective in the AA role. For example, during gunnery trials in 1941, USS North Carolina (BB-55) was able to repeatedly shoot down drone aircraft at altitudes of 12,000 to 13,000 feet (3,700 to 4,000 m), about double the range of the 5"/25 (12.7 cm) AA Mark 10 used on older ships. These guns were introduced to the British Royal Navy in 1941-1942 when HMS Delhi was rebuilt and rearmed at the New York Navy Yard. The British were impressed with the combination of the 5" (12.7 cm) gun and Mark 37 Fire Control System and tried to purchase additional units, but the rapid ramping up of US warship construction prevented any diversion... continue -> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm
Then there was type 96 25mm AA gun, a very marginal weapon even from the beginning of the war. The Japs never developed an alternative even though it was high priority for them. They could have even done what the Brits did and just improve the weapon they replaced, the 40 mm pompom that served quite well for UK forces. No wonder the Jap tin cans suffered as they did from air attack. The Japanese solution was to just mount more guns. What happened was that they often put in triple mounts that produced too much vibration on the highly stressed hulls of the ship. They even removed the after super firing 5 inch turret to mount more 25's in many of the destroyers. It's a wonder they did as good as they did and it's a tribute to their captains and crews. What made them so dangerous, especially at night was their training, their optics and the Long Lance. What a weapon.
Just got a line on some pristine WW2 Japanese Big Eye bridge binoculars but I'm not sure I want to pay the price. Interesting and would love to have them. It's another example of how sometimes low tech can trump high tech. The BE's could and did detect ships up to 20 miles away, many times at night if the crews are to be believed. I don't know the detection range at night under ideal conditions, but 10 miles seems very reasonable. The Japanese were so far ahead in optics and binocular technology that they dismissed radar and were never able to catch up. Huge mistake on their part, but in the Solomon Islands they held the early advantage.
If you look at warships lost, it was the Navy's destroyers that were the Navy's attack dogs. MANY a destroyer went down fighting to the end and often against overwhelming odds - and often inflicting great damage. They all were basically torpedo stoppers for aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers. Their job was to get between incoming enemy aircraft and our capital ships, to sacrifice their own ship and crew to do so. They'd run flake speed thru hurricanes (literally) to stay with the big ships - even if knowing some of there smaller destroyers wouldn't make it. Overall, the courage of the US Naval personnel in WWII was incredible, but then so were all our armed forces. And most still are.
But this is about Jap destroyers. The measure of a warrior is largely determined by the quality of his enemies and they were fearsome foes. No group of men were braver or harder fighters than the men who served in Japanese destroyers.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?180651-1/book-discussion-last-stand-tin-can-sailors http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Stand-Sailors-Extraordinary/dp/0553381482
