Question on the Hunt DD's.

Tazzie · 03-13-06, 03:36 AM

Were all of the Hunt type ships DE's or just the type I. :hmm:

AntEater · 03-13-06, 05:33 AM

Hunts were build BEFORE the DEs.
They were planned as fast escorts, more with focus on AA and shallow water combat than on ASW.
Basically:
Type I: Planned with 3 4" twin mounts, but a terrible calculating mistake jeopardized the stability of the ship, so one gun mount had to be removed.
Type II: Stability corrected, but 3rd gun mount replaced by torpedoes.
Type III. Three gun mounts
Type IV: much improved with different hull shape, 3 gun mounts and torpedoes.

Tazzie · 03-13-06, 05:44 AM

So are the Hunts destroyers or destroyer escorts? :hmm:

JScones · 03-13-06, 06:59 AM

They're all Destroyers. Although to be technically correct they are Escort Destroyers. They are not Destroyer Escorts (there is a difference).

It's an example of naming differences between the RN and USN. For instance, in the RN Frigates undertook essentially the same role as USN Destroyer Escorts (indeed, DEs delivered to the RN were classified as Frigates, in addition to having the luxury items stripped). For some reason the USN didn't like the term Frigate, hence the name Destroyer Escort. Eventually though (well after the war), Destroyer Escorts were reclassified as Frigates, to bring them back into line with international naming conventions.

AntEater · 03-13-06, 08:12 AM

I suppose you could say they were "coastal destroyers", a term the RN used in WW1 for the S-Class...
The RN had another very different class of destroyers, the Tribals, which were not the usual fleet destroyers, but rather Artillery destroyers, yet they were still called destroyers as well. Other nations (France, Italy) had similar vessels but put them in a seperate class from normal destroyers.
I think the RN just called them "Hunt destroyers".
Btw, Clay Blair claims that the Hunt design was originally thought as an ocean escort for convoys, but could not be used in that role due to the stability problems (which were solved in Type II).
However, Hunts were not used in that role, in contrary to SH3 campaigns, their operational area was the Med and the Channel.
Also the focus on AA armament doesnt really fit to an ocean escort.
Does anyone know the original purpose of the Hunt design?
Btw, my signature has some connection to a Hunt class vessel, HMS Albrighton.
Albrighton, a veteran of many channel battles, was given to the Bundesmarine in 1956, renamed Raule (a dutch 16th century privateer in service of Brandenburg) and used as a training ship.
In 1956, the "smadding" (coxwain) of Raule said this to english shipyard workers who were lazing on the deck instead of working.
You can't find more classic germlish
Translation (signature is german spelling of "english")
"I zhink I see not right, all man sit here an look in zhe Sun and no man works? Zhis give it not!"

03-13-06, 03:36 AM	#1
Tazzie Helmsman Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: NSW, Australia Posts: 101 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Question on the Hunt DD's. Were all of the Hunt type ships DE's or just the type I. :hmm: __________________ \"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place.\" - Douglas Adams

03-13-06, 05:33 AM	#2
AntEater Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 936 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Hunts were build BEFORE the DEs. They were planned as fast escorts, more with focus on AA and shallow water combat than on ASW. Basically: Type I: Planned with 3 4" twin mounts, but a terrible calculating mistake jeopardized the stability of the ship, so one gun mount had to be removed. Type II: Stability corrected, but 3rd gun mount replaced by torpedoes. Type III. Three gun mounts Type IV: much improved with different hull shape, 3 gun mounts and torpedoes. __________________

03-13-06, 05:44 AM	#3
Tazzie Helmsman Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: NSW, Australia Posts: 101 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	So are the Hunts destroyers or destroyer escorts? :hmm: __________________ \"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place.\" - Douglas Adams

03-13-06, 08:12 AM	#5
AntEater Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 936 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I suppose you could say they were "coastal destroyers", a term the RN used in WW1 for the S-Class... The RN had another very different class of destroyers, the Tribals, which were not the usual fleet destroyers, but rather Artillery destroyers, yet they were still called destroyers as well. Other nations (France, Italy) had similar vessels but put them in a seperate class from normal destroyers. I think the RN just called them "Hunt destroyers". Btw, Clay Blair claims that the Hunt design was originally thought as an ocean escort for convoys, but could not be used in that role due to the stability problems (which were solved in Type II). However, Hunts were not used in that role, in contrary to SH3 campaigns, their operational area was the Med and the Channel. Also the focus on AA armament doesnt really fit to an ocean escort. Does anyone know the original purpose of the Hunt design? Btw, my signature has some connection to a Hunt class vessel, HMS Albrighton. Albrighton, a veteran of many channel battles, was given to the Bundesmarine in 1956, renamed Raule (a dutch 16th century privateer in service of Brandenburg) and used as a training ship. In 1956, the "smadding" (coxwain) of Raule said this to english shipyard workers who were lazing on the deck instead of working. You can't find more classic germlish Translation (signature is german spelling of "english") "I zhink I see not right, all man sit here an look in zhe Sun and no man works? Zhis give it not!" __________________

03-13-06, 06:59 AM	#4
JScones Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,501 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	They're all Destroyers. Although to be technically correct they are Escort Destroyers. They are not Destroyer Escorts (there is a difference). It's an example of naming differences between the RN and USN. For instance, in the RN Frigates undertook essentially the same role as USN Destroyer Escorts (indeed, DEs delivered to the RN were classified as Frigates, in addition to having the luxury items stripped). For some reason the USN didn't like the term Frigate, hence the name Destroyer Escort. Eventually though (well after the war), Destroyer Escorts were reclassified as Frigates, to bring them back into line with international naming conventions.