Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Lert

Lert's ADLA attempt: G and H class destroyers

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

39,289
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,734 posts
26,570 battles

Hello and welcome to another thread in which I pretend to know what I'm talking about. It's been a while since I last did one of these. This time, I'll discuss the Royal Navy's G and H class destroyers.

 

8vrcro.jpg

HMS Galland at sea, 1938

 

"G and H? What kind of name is that for a class?"

 

The Royal Navy used a naming scheme for their smaller ships where a class was named after a letter, and each ship in the class had a name starting with that letter. Subsequent classes had subsequent letters in the alphabet. As such the G and H class were preceded by the E and F class, and succeeded by the I class.

 

The ships in the G class were: Galland, Garland, Gypsy, Glowworm, Grafton, Grenade, Grenville, Greyhound and Griffin.

The ships in the H class were: Hardy, Hasty, Havock, Hereward, Hero, Hostile, Hotspur, Hunter and Hyperion.

 

There were a further six ships built to the G and H pattern, ordered by the Brazilian navy but requisitioned by the Royal Navy at the outbreak of WWII. These ships are counted among the H class: Harvester, Harvant, Havelock, Hesperus, Highlander and Hurricane.

 

Grenville and Hardy were completed as destroyer leaders, and built to a slightly different spec as the other G and H ships. They were larger, heavier and had a heavier armament. More powerful machinery meant that they could still keep up with their lighter classmates. Beyond that there were some variations among the G and H classes in terms of design and armament, as the class was used as a testbed for several new types of armaments. For example, Glowworm carried experimental quintuple torpedo launchers where her sisters carried quads, and Hereward for some time carried a double 4.7" gun mount in place of the B turret where her sisters carried only single gun mounts.

 

During the war many G and H class ships had their aft torpedo launcher removed and replaced with a 3" / 12pdr AA mount, with additional AA mounts installed in various locations on the ships.

 

For the purpose of this thread I will discuss the G and H class as-built, with their original armament. I will not go into too much detail where Hardy and Grenville are concerned, as those are different hulls entirely.

 

3493odt.jpg

HMS Grafton, date unknown

 

Tonnage:

 

1370 tons standard load, 1890 tons full load.

 

According to Fr05ty and dseehafer's formulas this would give us roughly 9600 HP for the stock hull and 12000 HP fully upgraded. These are small ships and their tonnage and hitpoint values reflect that.

 

Armor:

 

These are destroyers. They don't have armor. Just plating with an arbitrary thickness which depends on tiering.

 

Main armament:

 

4x 4.7" QF Mk IX

 

These ships were built with four 120mm guns in single mounts, fitted in two superfiring pairs fore and aft. These are effectively the same guns as mounted on the Błyskawica, except where the latter fires sngle-piece cased ammunition these fire separate projectile-and-bag ammunition. Ballistically they are the same weapons, though.

 

Between January and March 1937 Hereward carried a single 4.7" twin mount in place of the B mount. These twin mounts were a test bed for the main armament of what would become the Tribal class destroyers.

 

Torpedoes:

 

2x 4 21" (533mm) tubes

 

Ah, now we come to the heart of the matter. As built, the G and H class were torpedo boats first and foremost. This is reflected in a rather heavy torpedo armament of eight tubes firing the Mk IX, Mk IX* or Mk IX** fish. There were several revisions of the Mk IX, with ranges between 9600m and 13700m, at speeds in between 30 and 41 knots though I'm sure these could be tuned for shorter ranges at higher speed if necessary.

 

These torpedoes are found in game starting with the Mk IX on Emerald and Leander up to the Mk IX** on Edinburgh and Neptune. These torpedoes have the following in-game stats:

 

Mk IX: 8km range @ 61 knots, 15433 damage

Mk IX*: 8km range @ 61 knots, 15867 damage

Mk IX**: 10km range @ 62 knots, 15533 damage

 

Tiering would depend on which torpedoes WG fits to these ships, but even the Mk IX option already makes them a rather powerful torpedo boat.

 

HMS Glowworm served as a testbed for experimental quintuple tubes, thus giving her an even heavier torpedo armament of 10, rather than the 8 her sisters had.

 

Anti-aircraft armament:

 

As-built the G and H class destroyers had two 12.7mm machine guns. This was later upgraded when the aft torpedo mount was replaced by a single 3" AA gun, and the addition of four to eight 20mm Oerlikon mounts. Even in this 'upgraded' state you won't shoot down many planes with what amounts to a token AA suite, and you'd be giving up half your torpedo armament. Not worth it.

 

Speed:

 

35.5 knots

 

These aren't very fast ships by any standard. At higher tiers you'll start running into cruisers that go faster. Still, with speed flag and speed boost you should be able to make almost 40 knots, which isn't particularly slow either. It's just too bad you'll be fighting destroyers that can do 40 knots without flag or boost.

 

Concealment:

 

This is where the good news happens. These are tiny ships, about the size of Umikaze. I suspect their concealment ratings would be very similar to the sneaky Japanese ninja.

 

21j8v7n.jpg

HMS Hostile in 1936

 

Conclusion:

 

We are very likely to see these ships in game when the British destroyers land. At which tier though I can only guess. I can see a base G / H class destroyer post-refit at tier 5, with 4x 120mm guns and a single quad torpedo launcher dropping Mk IXs, but I can also see a pre-refit G / H class based on Glowworm at tier 8 with 2x quintuple tubes firing Mk IX**s. It all depends on which plan WG introduces and what soft stats they're going to give her.

 

Thoughts?

  • Cool 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125
[WOLFB]
[WOLFB]
Members
375 posts
9,884 battles

Thank you Lert (and all others who do the research)!

 

+1, a pleasure to see history behind the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,113
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
23,323 battles

I want one of each, with LOTS of spare parts!

(lovin that size comparison, these will be BEAUTIFUL in-game!! GREAT JOB LERT!!)

actually, seeing the 5 tube varieties as great premiums like Lert said, so I probably want all FOUR!! LOL!!

Edited by Umikami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,228 posts
6,330 battles

These ships could have a very interesting play style. The low concealment and good torps mean they could play stealth torp like the IJN, while a strong gun armamnet means they could harass BB's and be a real threat to DD's. With the low speed and HP you need to pick your engagements. You don't want to be brawling it out over cap points alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,110 battles

My opinion.  SOLD. now here's a question. To make life interesting, do they do a repeat of the UK cruisers and have fast fuse AP only on these ships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,289
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,734 posts
26,570 battles

To make life interesting, do they do a repeat of the UK cruisers and have fast fuse AP only on these ships?

 

And / or the single torpedo launch capability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
307 posts
1,695 battles

Thanks for the write-up Lert.  I can't wait to sail one of those destroyers in the game (when they eventually are introduced).

 

Edit:  I think, as you already mentioned before this post, that single-fire torpedoes could be a "flavor" for the RN destroyers (as it already is for the cruisers).

Edited by traxxonraider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,110 battles

 

And / or the single torpedo launch capability?

 

Which is something else to consider too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,169
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,312 posts
18,907 battles

Nice one, fingers crossed for 2017.

 

Regarding the 4.7in/45 these ships mounted, although they're the same 120mm size as the Blyskawica, that's really where the similarities end. They can do 10-12 RPM vs. Blyska's historic ~10 RPM (9.2 in game) but they only throw a 50lb projectile at 808m/s rather than Blyskawica's slightly heavier and 900m/s projectile.

 

I think gun wise they'll handle like the VMF/Blyska in traverse, VMF in ROF, with arcs of the USN and relatively poor hitting power. Not a match made in heaven.

 

That looks like self defense armament on a torpedo-boat in game. Torpedo quality and concealment may usurp the IJN as the stealth ninja torpedo boat. I think around T6, ideally with the Pentad tubes of a Glowworm, Fubuki gets lots of HP, better guns and 9 tubes at T6, that's the new benchmark.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,921
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,461 posts
1,963 battles

You seem to be confusing QF 4.7"/45 Mk IX and the guns found on the Admiralens. 

Said gun, on the mounts found on the Interwar Standards, Os and Q&Rs, has the same RoF of up to 10 rpm. 

The MV is only 808mps, however, and the shells are quite blunt as well. 

The as built AA battery is made up of two quadruple 12.7mm MGs, however these are only given 2 dps each by WG.

Whilst mediocre weapons, they do probably deserve a little more than that, especially as the single 2pdr Mk II they replaced have 5.5dps each. 

 

The Havants are slightly weaker than the Hs, having inferior fire control systems (export rulings). 

Nice premium option, however. 

 

As for the class itself, I would say tier VI is a good bet, but the hulls, aside from the A hull being "What if" rather than historical. 

Nobody wants to drive a convoy escort if there aren't any submarines. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Always found most classes of Royal navy destroyers to be quite handsome and the G and H class boats are no exception! You mentioned the E class destroyers, I hope we get an example of them too since one of the first (of many) naval models I ever built was of the HMS Echo. You could say she's got a special place in my heart.

 

 

As always a superb write up Mr. Lert! :medal:

Edited by dseehafer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,921
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,461 posts
1,963 battles

Sounds like something that can be used in game, maybe Tier 5 or 6 of the British destroyer line.

In true RN style things get quite bulky quite quickly in the tier 5-6-7 area. 

 

For example:

 II: Admiralty M

III: V class

IV: "Modified W" class

V: A&B class

VI: G, H & I classes

VII: Z class

VIII: Weapon class

IX: Battle class

X: Daring class

 

Apart from the tier X, there is at least one built alternative to the class listed, for example the A&[edited]could be easily replaced by the C&Ds, the Z by the Ca, etc. whilst Battle itself represents the three sub classes of the type.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
5,072 posts
1,514 battles

Hard to say where to put this, as noted the guns are interestingly capable, but the torpedoes aren't bad either. I suspect T6 is probably right, but also likely with a fictional AAA rebuild much as many RN CL's got. The rest of the UK DD line is going to be very interesting too, they had worryingly weak AAA until the switch to 4.5" guns, a few used 4" instead but that has all kinds of issues as it's basically black swan guns. Which admittedly aren't bad for shooting up other DD's at close range, but they probably won't work too well at high tiers. Allthough seeing BFT buffed 4 twin 4" designs at work, maybe with module buffing it too and adrenaline rush would be, funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×