Wrong and Missing Ships: How to correct them ALL

[Axe99]

By the time they were actually laid down the class did make use of several technological improvements, but most of it was rather unsubstantial. It's only real improvement was adding a fifth turret (which was later removed making it even less of meaningful difference).

Farraguts were designed and allocated before back in WWI, but weren't actually built until the 1930's.

Have you got a source that supports this view anywhere? I've never seen any source (beyond yourself) suggest that there wasn't a substantial leap between the Clemsons and the Farraguts. While originally authorised in WW1, their design was anything but WW1-era. According to Whitley's Destroyers of World War (p. 260), there were several projects at the beginning of the 1930s that looked into different options for a new destroyer design, while adhering to the terms of the London Naval Treaty, which then formed the basis of the design. Given the wide range of new technologies they included (their main armament hadn't been developed when they were authorised, nor its ammunition supply, nor the boilers, nor the scope of electrical plant, nor the integration of a fully-fledged AA director for AA fire) and the treaty restrictions, a WW1 design seems implausible, and inconsistent with any source I've seen.

As best I can tell, technologically, their armament, fire-control, propulsion, hull-form, electric plant and ammunition supply arrangements were closer to their 'children' than their 'parents'. I may well be wrong, but given the weight of evidence supporting it being a more modern design, your case would be much more convincing if you had a source that could explain the somewhat odd situation.

 

[Snagletooth]

Have you got a source that supports this view anywhere? I've never seen any source (beyond yourself) suggest that there wasn't a substantial leap between the Clemsons and the Farraguts. While originally authorised in WW1, their design was anything but WW1-era. According to Whitley's Destroyers of World War (p. 260), there were several projects at the beginning of the 1930s that looked into different options for a new destroyer design, while adhering to the terms of the London Naval Treaty, which then formed the basis of the design. Given the wide range of new technologies they included (their main armament hadn't been developed when they were authorised, nor its ammunition supply, nor the boilers, nor the scope of electrical plant, nor the integration of a fully-fledged AA director for AA fire) and the treaty restrictions, a WW1 design seems implausible, and inconsistent with any source I've seen.

As best I can tell, technologically, their armament, fire-control, propulsion, hull-form, electric plant and ammunition supply arrangements were closer to their 'children' than their 'parents'. I may well be wrong, but given the weight of evidence supporting it being a more modern design, your case would be much more convincing if you had a source that could explain the somewhat odd situation.

According to Norman Freidman.
Approved in 1916 but never funded.
Navy revisited the two ships again in 1920/21 and approved upgraded power plants. Congress still wouldn't fund them.

It wasn't until the 1930 London treaty and the fact the Clemsons and Wilkes were starting to show their age, and the US was quickly losing the DD race that Congress finally put up the money.

These ships were already on the drawing board and had been for for almost two decades with some revisions here and there. You dont get approval from the Navy and from Congress without having something on paper and a general cost estimate.

If this the Farragut was designed in 1930 why wasn't it a 15 tonner like the rest? Why didn't it have the latest technology in boiler design instead of designs common in the 1920's? Because it was designed in 1916 and revised in 1921 (power plant) and again in 1931 (armament).

Neither the Farragut or the Porters had double reduction gearing (available by at least 1918) nor cruising turbines (around 1915-1917). If these ships were designed from the ground up in the 1930's they would have both of those as all 15 tonners did (with the exception of the 4 Gridleys, which seems to be an issue with Bethlehem, as the Gridleys were laid down while still building their lot of Porters and Farraguts. There were only 4 Gridleys, all Bethlehem and a sister company. They didn't get another DD contract until the Bensons of 1938. Sounds like Bethlehem cut some corners with surplus machinery they already had left over from the Farragut/Porter contract. Whther that was intentional request by the US Navy to get the 4 out the door quickly or if Bethlehem pulled a fast one I dont know. Interestingly the Gridleys were the first non- DL's that pushed 16 tons.), and Farraguts themselves would have been actually 15 tonners and not 13.

 

[valisk]

The devs are inconsistant. Most ships are already launched, but some of the launched ones are missing as well.


It seems the number of shipyards is supposed to simulate this. otherwise the game would need at least 2 type of dockyards, one for small ships like screens and subs and another one for capital ships and cariers.
But the finish dates for almost all ships in the initial queue seems too late.

Over the course of the war, GER can do it easily (I've tested it in the past), but this requires at least building a bunch of new NIC. There are issues for all navies when it comes to building their pre-war fleets on time, because of the difference between the way HoI4 manages the ramp-up of military production, versus how it actually ramped up historically (which was generally far more sudden, but involved more transfer of capacity between production rather than the snowballing mechanics in-game).

It all comes down to what is it reasonable of the devs to expect from us as players. Do we get all we need on day one or given that dockyards cost build slots would that basically lock in what you are going to have to do too much. And yes we need to take the snowball effect into account.

Here's my general thinking based on current gameplay as I've adapted the past couple of months. (opens the secret cupboard takes out Jackie Fisher's devious ship building maximisation cap and puts it on)

If I roughly double my shipbuilding capacity as the UK from 19 to 40 shipyards as a priority, (I could build more but the Army need some love too) and hit every focus I can that will give me naval bonuses (and radar) down to Expand the Shipyards (With Battleship Focus of course, as I am having my Vanguard Focus no matter what else may happen ) and I use my XP to create intermediate stage designs for my QE refits and KGVs that are just below the 10000 pt Treaty limit and then treat building large ships as a two stage process from that point on.

Intermediate Design in the QE Refit program

Stage II Rearmament of the QE Class once the escalator clause is in effect

Then I can take three further steps to get me where I want to be. I can use my industrial focus bonuses (2x100%) to get concentrated or dispersed to IV by early 39 giving a 40% increase in output. I can also have a focus holiday at this point and put my focus on increasing shipbuilding, and I can also when free PP is available switch, perhaps counter intuitively to free trade (a way to maximise this for the UK, is to go free trade and take steel from the Colonies and Dominions, whilst you build infra in the steel heavy provinces) for an extra 5% on top. So my yards in early 39 once the Escalator clause is activated become absolute hives of activity.
Also as productivity increases I can move shipyards to other projects and allow the refits to coast along on 2 or 3 yards as long as they finish by August or not long after.

Doing this I am able to lay down the KGVs in 37/38 2nd refitting for the QEs in 39, 1st Refit for pair of big gunned Oil Tankers in '39, 1st Refit on Hood in '39 and just around when the war start refits to put Radar on the R's and BC R's as time and capability allows.

Nelson and Rodney's usual first Refit, sometimes Radar III & AA III are available sometimes not, making me have to juggle points a little.

The KGVs will exit build in late '39-late '40 depending on how many yards I put on them and then need another three or four months on their first refit to properly arm them. And I will have Ark Royal complete with Illustrious either built or about to exit build.

As the final run in to the war starting begins I am faced with the same sort of choices that Admiralty DNC and the Government did, do I build Lion and her Sisters or do I start mass production of T1 & T3 destroyers and T3 cruisers, and throw in carriers (often my old CAs will get converted at this point). I may start Lion & Co with a couple of yards a piece and then play it by ear depending on my needs vs submarines.

It's a little harder work than perhaps it ought to be, and I have to compromise on getting the army fully equipped to thrash Gerry & Co but I seem to come out about where I ought to as long as I focus on the problems at hand.

 

[Denkt]

Wasn't aware of that, but that would definitely be an advantage....assuming the accuracy was there. I've seen many debates on Yamato vs Iowa where it generally boils down to, that while the Yamato had a bigger punch and could easily out-range the Iowa, the Yamato was reportedly lost it's accuracy well below the range that the Iowa could engage with deadly accuracy.

Essentially, if the Iowa could maintain 15-16K distance while being able avoiding a critical hit (luck is damnest thing that superior agility just can't compensate for), it could over time overwhelm the Yamato...but then the debate rolls into whether the Iowa could even carry enough munitions to take advantage of that and the likelihood that the Yamato would even stay engaged that long if it was clearly taking more damage then it was dishing out and unable to close the accuracy gap., lol.

Range is only an advantage if the accuracy is there.

Öland class have two Twin turrets while the Fletcher class have 5 turrets which is a huge advantage, consider a single hit can take out half the Öland's firepower. Also since you mention Iowa vs Yamato it should be mentioned that Sweden hardly had any domestic radars Worth talking about so the Fletcher class have a huge advantage here. Furthermore Öland had 6 torpedoes vs Fletcher 10. 6-7 40mm (sister ship Uppland had 7 and Öland was quickly refitted to 7) vs Fletcher 10 40mm, 8 20mm bofors vs Fletcher 7 20mm oerlikon. (The 20mm bofors on Öland may actually been 25mm as some say 20mm and others 25mm).

Fletcher is also a bit faster, have access to much more modern torpedoes (1947-48) while Sweden still use old prewar torpedoes at that Point if I'm not wrong, also it have access to proximity fuse which Sweden only got in like 1949-50.

I think it is quite obvious that Fletcher is by quite far the more powerful ship but alot of its advantage come being an american ship and thus being supported by a very powerful domestic industry which Öland lacks. Obviously this may be quite unfair as for example Fletchers short and medium AA armament is foreign designs and arugbly american radars and proximity fuse own alot from the British. Meanwhile Öland class armament is completely domestic designs from what I can tell. However a real war situation between those ships in like 1948 would probably favor the Fletcher class by alot.

Obviously Sweden should probably have very strong naval gun research and maybe start with 1940 AA gun researched in 1936 but it should not have good Electronic research and such.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

It didn't end with commissioning. After commissioning you had speed trails, then drydock. Then shakedown cruise, then drydock again, then often a short training/gunnery period..then sometimes another drydock after that.
In peacetime it could take up to a year before a commissioned ship finally joined it's division. Wartime version in most navies had it down to around 6-8 months.

In general yes, but occasionally ships were send into battle immediately after commissioning (HMS Prince of Wales hunting the Bismarck, Taiho in the Battle of the Philippines Sea). There were probably more similar cases). A few ships (like the HNLMS Willem van der Zaan in 39 scenario) appear as part of the fleet although they were commissioned later in that month.

Your comment makes a good case to leave all the DD and SS that are scheduled to be finished a couple of months later than IRL as they are.
But for capital ships, delays by several years can't be explained by trials, shakedown etc.

The Farraguts, while made in the early thirties were built on a design from the early 1920's that they sat on for over a decade and were simply an improved version the Clemsons. It was nice when Paradox used the Clemson hull and gave the Farraguts a 3+ buff all around and made it a separate class. That was about right for what it was. From there on though, once DD construction restarted in the 1930's, the new classes were designed differently. they were different ships. They weren't even flush deckers. Porter, Mahan, Gridley, Bagley, Somers, Benham. The question becomes, what about Sims? Sims is is kinda hwre the type took leap forward, but remained a the same basic type. But it was actually more related to the Benson the to the previous ships.

The Farraguts had a different hull form (transom stern, forecastle), different weapons, different weapon layout, and more advanced machinery (as one would hope). They were in many ways closer to the British V/Ws than they were the Clemsons (they had a similar weapon layout and more similar hull form). I'd need to hit the books to be sure, but I'd wager the Farragut's had more in common with the Bensons than the Clemsons (I'm quite sure they do in hull form, and 100% confident they do in armament, but as I'm fairly sure the Bensons were after the revolution in US DD machinery so their machinery may have more in common with the Clemsons).

Our group has overwhelimingly shares the opinon @Axe99 expressed. It's based on multiple sources.

I. Opinon of Rear Admiral Emory S. Land according to Wikipedia:

- The Farragut class was 3.3 knots faster.

- The class had double the GM height (resulting in greater stability).

- They had 25% more armament—5 main guns rather than 4—and about 35% greater firepower, mounting 5 in (127.0 mm)/38 caliber guns (Mark 12) as opposed to the 4 in (102 mm)/50 caliber gun (Mark 9) mounted on most previous destroyers.

- All 8 torpedo tubes were on the preferred centerline position.

- The guns were fed by power hoist from the magazines.

- Being high-freeboard vessels, sea-keeping was much improved over the flush deckers that preceded it.

- The radius of action increased by 450 nautical miles (830 km; 520 mi).

- This had all been accomplished on a displacement rise of only 22%.[9]

While some of these points are referring to armament or engine, many of them are represented by the Tier II hull.

II. Destroyer History Foundation groups the 1930s classes (From Farragut to Sims) together drawing a clear line between them and the Flush deckers (in-game Clemson class).

III. According to Navypedia the Farragut design process began in 1928 and was finished in March 1931.

They were NOT a WWI design. (Similar to the British interwar standard classes and derivate classes in other navies).

Currently, all these classes are spread across T1 and T2 hulls. We decided that making them all tier II should reflect that they were generally newer and more advanced than actual WW1 ships. We think there should be an In-game distinction between their hulls least min-maxing players upgrade all their old WW1 DD to Sims class. (or play with Sims-class as a upgunned WW1 hull)

Some newer classes of small DD, DE, large TB and MM build in the 20s, 30s and 40s should also be Tier I but this certainly doesn’t include the Farragut to Sims classes. In the late 30s they were up-to date ships.

The Bensons, while still a prewar ships and technically a treaty 15 tonner,was actually pushing that line and were 16 tons. they were significantly improved from the previous ships. Benson's are strange, because they have two official sub classes (Benson and Gleaves), and some break it into even 4 subclasses (Benson, Gleaves, Livermore and Bristol) There were differences, but nothing significant, especially in game terms.

So you have the T1 Clemsons, the 36 T2 Sims, 40 T3 Fletcher, and the 44 T4 Allen M Sumner. Thats doesn't really fit well. The T3 would be the Benson's, because you can easily start having them drop from the docks in 41 before the war even starts...which was just when the Benson's starting dropping in real life. Fletcher's didnt make it to the front line until very late in 42..but they weren't Benson's They returned to the flush deck design and so were much larger, faster and longer range.

We have actually argued internally if the Benson & Gleaves class should be downgraded from tier III to tier II but decided to propose this.
The reasons why:

- We unanimously agreed that the Fletcher class (not exisitng in the 39 scenario but it's relevant for anyone who wants to build a historical US Navy for roleplay) is an obvious step upward and should have a hull tier above the Benson & Gleaves class. If they are T3, Fletcher would have to be T4.

- This would mean that an US player would need to rush 1944 light ship hull to get it in late 1941. If they start in 1936, they would need to rush the 1940 hull for the Benson class (laid down in 1938) as well.

- AI-conrolled US would almost certainly not rush these techs.

- As the Japanese DD (Fubuki and later classes) would be Tier II (a minority suggested improving them to level III, but the community is also agains this (see @Paul.Ketcham 's post expalining this on page 10, he got multiple agree and no objections.) If Fletcher is tier IV, it would outclass the Japanese too much.

- newer hulls consume more ressources and NIC, T3 Bensom and T4 Fletcher would make it harder for the US to produce the historical number of DD.

- We agreed that Tier IV hulls should be reserved for ships designed from actual war experience. The Fletcher class was still a pre-war design.

Here are the arguments from the minority who suggested leaving Benson & Gleaves at Tier III

- This would align hull tier with destroyer generations according to John Reilly

image from destroyerhistory.org

- Fletcher class is more similar to the Summer and Gearing classes than to the Bensom (and subclasses). The line should be drawn between Fletcher (Level IV) and Benson (Level III) class.

- USA has more research slots than anyone else, they can rush techs.

- Historical US AI can be programmed to rush hulls.

- Fletcher class remained in service untile the 70s in the US Navy and the 90s in other navies.

- Fletcher class didn't exist in 39 scenario and can therefore be ignored (singular opinion, most of us care about it.)

IMPORTANT QUESTION for the community:

Should we revert the suggestion to downgrade Bensom & Gleaves class to Tier II?
This would necessarily imply that an accurate Fletcher class should have a Tier IV hull.

Porter and Somers were designed as Destroyer Leaders (Porters were actually Flotilla Leaders, but Omaha's were also supposed to the Porters successor until the Navy Brass pulled a Bradley on them and bloated them up to cruisers). As such they needed more room for the Flag, hence their longer hulls. Otherwise no real difference over the other standard classes built alongside them. Porter is kinda on the border. It was also designed alongside the Farraguts and as such are just longer versions of it. The Mahan was the first true post war Treaty era designed ships that the starts the 15 tonner line (despite several classes actually going well over that).

They had more guns (8 vs 4 or 5 on other DD classes). Similar to the Mogador and Navigatori classes. otherwise they were similar to them. We proposed to add a second light battery module and upgrade the torpedo module to reflect this.

(Somewhat off-topic, having effectively only two hull tiers for light ship hulls in the 1936 scenario makes things more difficult, having either an intermediate stage like @balmung60
suggested or a Destroyer leader hull type for DL and Scouts would help to represent the differences better.)

South Dakota's weren't significantly different then the proceeding North Carolina class. Skimped a bit on the armor and shortened the hull for more speed (something like a whole 3 knots..oooh), and a larger castle to act as Flag (eliminating a couple of 5' DP's), but otherwise a very similar ship. Both classes were a compromise between the Fast Battleship design of the Iowa's and the slow but heavily armored "Shotgun to the face" bruisers that were the Colorado's.

We think South Dakota should have Tier III armor. ( although their torpedo protection turned out to be worse than on the North Carolina class). As the US lack that tech in 1939 and the ships were lais down a few months ago, we thint it's resonable to leave them out, but we are open for suggestions from the community. (The difference in AA seems negligible)

Tambor's were significant improvement on the preceding Porpoise/Salmon/Sargo classes (which were all pretty much the same, and frankly were more subclasses of the Porpoise. Nothing signifignat enough that would matter in the game).

Salmon and Sargo classes had two more aft torpedo tubes and carried 24 torpedos. (Porpoise had 16). We concluded that the in-game difference (1xTier I torpedos on Porpoise, 2x Tier II on Salmon) seems right to reflect this, but would like to know what the community thinks.

Tambor had 10 tubes, but still carried 24 torpedos. Should we perhaps keep the current Salmon design for them and propose to downgrade one of the torpedo modules on Salmon class to Tier I?

But then you have the Ranger. Man that ship triggers my OCD so bad. Lexington's are T1's but the Ranger is a T2? Really? Sure the Lexington's are older and built on converted hulls, but the Ranger was such a small ship, so slow and a smaller air group it was restricted from the Pacific Fleet. So much that Nimitz would rather engage the entire Japanese navy in '42 with one CV in a wheel chair in a 6 on 1 fight then bring over the Ranger. Why the hell is that a T2 ship?

We agree with you, but unfortunately the tier I engine is the slowest the USS Ranger can have and she's still too fast. There is just no way to make her slower (29 knots IRL).
Her overall wing size was slightly smaller than the Lexington and Yorktown classes(both have far too small wings in the game) The problem was that until the 1941 refit she was unable to carry Torpedo bombers. As in the game any carrier plane can be used on any CV, this can't be depicted without a larger overhaul.

It all comes down to what is it reasonable of the devs to expect from us as players. Do we get all we need on day one or given that dockyards cost build slots would that basically lock in what you are going to have to do too much. And yes we need to take the snowball effect into account.

Here's my general thinking based on current gameplay as I've adapted the past couple of months. (opens the secret cupboard takes out Jackie Fisher's devious ship building maximisation cap and puts it on)

If I roughly double my shipbuilding capacity as the UK from 19 to 40 shipyards as a priority, (I could build more but the Army need some love too) and hit every focus I can that will give me naval bonuses (and radar) down to Expand the Shipyards (With Battleship Focus of course, as I am having my Vanguard Focus no matter what else may happen ) and I use my XP to create intermediate stage designs for my QE refits and KGVs that are just below the 10000 pt Treaty limit and then treat building large ships as a two stage process from that point on.

View attachment 563799
Intermediate Design in the QE Refit program

View attachment 563812
Stage II Rearmament of the QE Class once the escalator clause is in effect

Then I can take three further steps to get me where I want to be. I can use my industrial focus bonuses (2x100%) to get concentrated or dispersed to IV by early 39 giving a 40% increase in output. I can also have a focus holiday at this point and put my focus on increasing shipbuilding, and I can also when free PP is available switch, perhaps counter intuitively to free trade (a way to maximise this for the UK, is to go free trade and take steel from the Colonies and Dominions, whilst you build infra in the steel heavy provinces) for an extra 5% on top. So my yards in early 39 once the Escalator clause is activated become absolute hives of activity.
Also as productivity increases I can move shipyards to other projects and allow the refits to coast along on 2 or 3 yards as long as they finish by August or not long after.

Doing this I am able to lay down the KGVs in 37/38 2nd refitting for the QEs in 39, 1st Refit for pair of big gunned Oil Tankers in '39, 1st Refit on Hood in '39 and just around when the war start refits to put Radar on the R's and BC R's as time and capability allows.

View attachment 563801
Nelson and Rodney's usual first Refit, sometimes Radar III & AA III are available sometimes not, making me have to juggle points a little.

The KGVs will exit build in late '39-late '40 depending on how many yards I put on them and then need another three or four months on their first refit to properly arm them. And I will have Ark Royal complete with Illustrious either built or about to exit build.

As the final run in to the war starting begins I am faced with the same sort of choices that Admiralty DNC and the Government did, do I build Lion and her Sisters or do I start mass production of T1 & T3 destroyers and T3 cruisers, and throw in carriers (often my old CAs will get converted at this point). I may start Lion & Co with a couple of yards a piece and then play it by ear depending on my needs vs submarines.

It's a little harder work than perhaps it ought to be, and I have to compromise on getting the army fully equipped to thrash Gerry & Co but I seem to come out about where I ought to as long as I focus on the problems at hand.

Great info.
But is this really that unrealistic?
Before WW1 British shipyards were building multiple BB every year, wouldn't they be able to do so again in the late 30s with the political will and funding?

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Great info.
But is this really that unrealistic?
Before WW1 British shipyards were building multiple BB every year, wouldn't they be able to do so again in the late 30s with the political will and funding?

I'd like to point out that in the 1910s, Britain had three things going for them when it came to large capital ships:
1.) Very strong economy, and foreign purchases for ships from other strong minor economies (i.e. Brazil, Greece).
2.) Battleships were both considerably-smaller (~25,000 tons until the last few designs) and far simpler in their design, making the ships a lot cheaper.
3.) Carriers didn't exist, destroyers and light cruisers weighted typically half as much or less, and the air force didn't exist.

Britain could make a lot of capital ships if they had more funding and more will, but realistically their actual WWII numbers when you dump carriers into the battleship category were still pretty big. They built 6 treaty battleships and laid down 3 (?) more Lion-class BBs, as well as 7 fleet carriers and 7 light carriers (not counting smaller escort carriers). This may only be 20 finished ships in 9 years as opposed to the 36 in the pre-WWI arms race, but account for the increased complexity of these ships and Britain really didn't do half-bad for a practically-bankrupt nation. This is considering that Britain had prioritized the construction of minesweepers, escorts, merchant shipping, landing craft, destroyers, and escort carriers over capital ships to begin with, plus continued production of far-larger cruisers than the pre-WWI period.

 

[valisk]

...

Great info.
But is this really that unrealistic?
Before WW1 British shipyards were building multiple BB every year, wouldn't they be able to do so again in the late 30s with the political will and funding?

Some great stuff on destroyers there

With the UK Shipbuilding, no, not unrealistic, but the UK did face serious challenges in the 1930s during Naval Rearmament, as several big manufacturers went bankrupt in the mid 20s due to empty order books after the Washington Naval Conference, Armstrong-Whitworth the most famous, and in part these were bought out by competitors like Vickers. But a lot of capacity and capability was lost in the 15 years before rearmament started at a frantic pace due to lower numbers of trained workers being retained which actually became the bottleneck in the 30s and early 40s.

The number of yards devoted to foreign military orders had also naturally reduced, and the UK would not touch Treaty breaking ships (such as Chile's desires in '36/37 for 8" armed Heavy cruisers) but they did still produce other nations ships*, from '34 onwards the admiralty began to try to control and limit the types and numbers being built to make sure capability was there for their own expected programs, as they were beginning to plan against a conflict with Japan.
Ideally private yards would be building ships that if the requirement arose could be directly purchased by the RN and taken straight into service and not cluttering up the bigger dry docks unless absolutely necessary. And avoiding the very non standard oddities taken into service in the Great war.

If I build upto 50 yards pre-war, (which is actually a little more than I need to deal with the AI unless I fall asleep and wake up 2 game years later to see something unusual occurred whilst I wasn't there....not that such a thing has ever happened to me of course ) then I can probably be very close in matching the build program fully if I take the productivity steps noted above, I could speed things further with a Coastal designer, but the idea doesn't amuse me for some reason.

I'm feeling mostly satisfied from a UK perspective in the '36 scenario aside from the inaccuracies you and your group are striving to minimise, obviously I'm much less so with the '39 start, but as I prefer to steer my own ship, so to speak, I generally go for the '36 scenario regardless and having to rebuild my industry in order to achieve my rebuild and build program is not a hardship really and I enjoy seeing how much I can squeeze out of my yards and factories by the time the Axis come to play.

*The new ships for Portugal missions seem a little one sided and just too good, giving 1CIC for agreeing to build a ship, but I haven't noticed I lose any dockyards in taking these decisions and I also get some free (but usually lacking useful techs) templates when Portugal picks Cruisers and destroyers. Seems all upside, and clearly they are being built by the private sector

 

[Axe99]

If this the Farragut was designed in 1930 why wasn't it a 15 tonner like the rest? Why didn't it have the latest technology in boiler design instead of designs common in the 1920's? Because it was designed in 1916 and revised in 1921 (power plant) and again in 1931 (armament).

As per my above post, I'm looking for a (preferably reputable) source that states it outright, not suppositions. I've seen multiple sources saying the Farraguts were designed around 1930 or so, and one poster on the internet that says otherwise. If there's a cheap Kindle book that covers the class by Norman Friedman, I'd bet more than a couple of dollars if I picked that up he'd describe the process and timing in some detail (there are just a lot of books, and I have been a bit neglectful of the USN, and even more of its ship designs (for whatever reason, my books on the USN have been more commonly operational histories)). I'm very surprised you're referencing Friedman, but don't have information on the design process (but I'm not saying it's not a thing, Friedman's done a heap of things).

Edit: If you've got a copy of his US Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History to hand, I imagine that'd settle it pretty comprehensively.

It all comes down to what is it reasonable of the devs to expect from us as players.

I think it's also important to think about what it's reasonable of the players to expect of the devs. In a game as complex as HoI4, that's constantly rebalanced, I expect things to be "close-ish" when it comes to build plans, but any more than this and the dev team needs a separate analytical department to keep the historical train on track (particularly if we're paying attention to things other than ships - although I have no idea why anyone would do that ).

Rear Admiral Emory S. Land a

You could do far worse than sourcing VADM Land

Should we revert the suggestion to downgrade Bensom & Gleaves class to Tier II?
This would necessarily imply that an accurate Fletcher class should have a Tier IV hull.

I'm in two minds about this. The Fletchers were a great destroyer, and an argument can be made to give them a Tier IV hull, but then where does that leave the Gearings and Allen S Sumners? I'd err on the side of giving them a Tier III hull, but with the latest and greatest kit, but there's an argument either way, so don't take this comment as any more than "throwing ideas around" and ignore if if you'd prefer Tier IV .

I think Benson & Gleaves can be represented as an "advanced Tier II" as well (so the Farraguts would be Tier II hull with more basic modules, while the Benson & Gleaves would be with better modules). Again, though, it's not something I'm fanatical about.

Salmon and Sargo classes had two more aft torpedo tubes and carried 24 torpedos. (Porpoise had 16). We concluded that the in-game difference (1xTier I torpedos on Porpoise, 2x Tier II on Salmon) seems right to reflect this, but would like to know what the community thinks.

Tambor had 10 tubes, but still carried 24 torpedos. Should we perhaps keep the current Salmon design for them and propose to downgrade one of the torpedo modules on Salmon class to Tier I?

This is an issue I mulled over greatly when looking at naval stats for TWAS. Unfortunately, the number of torpedo tubes (or tubes carried) was by no means a good representation of the lethality of a particular design. In the end, though, I did go with a TT-based approach, although I'm not sure this is what I'll (eventually) do when I get back to things.

 

[Snagletooth]

Your comment makes a good case to leave all the DD and SS that are scheduled to be finished a couple of months later than IRL as they are.
But for capital ships, delays by several years can't be explained by trials, shakedown etc.

I never said it did or even suggest that it did. Just saying just because a ship was commissioned on X date doesn't mean it was ready for battle on that date. in Peace time it can take up to year before ship is fully ready. in war time that process is accelerated and can take several months. Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean they are the rule. Many of the US ships that rolled off the dock in 42 weren't actually on the frontline until very late 42, or more often, 43.

Our group has overwhelimingly shares the opinon @Axe99 expressed.

So? Just because you all agree to be wrong doesn't mean you're right.

I. Opinon of Rear Admiral Emory S. Land according to Wikipedia:

- The Farragut class was 3.3 knots faster.

- The class had double the GM height (resulting in greater stability).

- They had 25% more armament—5 main guns rather than 4—and about 35% greater firepower, mounting 5 in (127.0 mm)/38 caliber guns (Mark 12) as opposed to the 4 in (102 mm)/50 caliber gun (Mark 9) mounted on most previous destroyers.

- All 8 torpedo tubes were on the preferred centerline position.

- The guns were fed by power hoist from the magazines.

- Being high-freeboard vessels, sea-keeping was much improved over the flush deckers that preceded it.

- The radius of action increased by 450 nautical miles (830 km; 520 mi).

- This had all been accomplished on a displacement rise of only 22%.[9]

While some of these points are referring to armament or engine, many of them are represented by the Tier II hull.

Actually they are not. Those are not significant enough numbers to advance to a new hull and can be achieved through upgrading the T1

II. Destroyer History Foundation groups the 1930s classes (From Farragut to Sims) together drawing a clear line between them and the Flush deckers (in-game Clemson class).

III. According to Navypedia the Farragut design process began in 1928 and was finished in March 1931.

They were NOT a WWI design. (Similar to the British interwar standard classes and derivate classes in other navies).

They were. They were authorized in 1916. They were revised in 1921. This establishes their existence on paper long before 1928. Unless the Navy General Board had a time machine in 1928 that we still don't know about, you can't revise plans 7 years before they exist.

Currently, all these classes are spread across T1 and T2 hulls. We decided that making them all tier II should reflect that they were generally newer and more advanced than actual WW1 ships. We think there should be an In-game distinction between their hulls least min-maxing players upgrade all their old WW1 DD to Sims class. (or play with Sims-class as a upgunned WW1 hull)

Farraguts were only marginally better then WWI Clemsons. It's why they were taken off the front line almost immediately and only put back on for a short time out of desperation in the Coral Sea/Solomon campaign...which also used required the use of Clemsons. The Farraguts spent most of the war in the North Pacific.
Porters would have had the same fate if not for being DL's and having better range and more room for AA.

Some newer classes of small DD, DE, large TB and MM build in the 20s, 30s and 40s should also be Tier I but this certainly doesn’t include the Farragut to Sims classes. In the late 30s they were up-to date ships.

Porters are questionable. It a sister class to the Farreeagut, which would make it a T1, but it size, range and overall usefulness makes it a possible exception to T2. Mahan to Benson are clearly T2's.

We have actually argued internally if the Benson & Gleaves class should be downgraded from tier III to tier II but decided to propose this.

I agree. My only argument was, that, although it should be a T2, it shouldn't be a stock T2. The Benson's (and to some extent even the Sims) were the end result of several years of improvements and were much better ships. T2 still, but much improved variants of it.

While I agree with 1944 being far too late for the Fletcher, 1940 is also too early. The point, which I should have made clearer, was trying to fit certain ships in the Paradox's arbitrary dates, which don't really coincide with actual progression. Fletcher's did start rolling off in 42, but didn't really start making it to the front lines in earnest until 43. By late 43 and 44 they were pretty dominate in the Pacific and made up the bulk of Fast Carrier screen force.

We have choice but to make it a 1940 Hull, because 1944 just isn't acceptable.
My contention on this isn't wther it should be a T3, it's wether 1940 as a T3 date is proper mechanic to begin with.

The game's systematic timeline is the issue we are trying to alleviate. Perhaps a 39/43 split would have worked better, with a added WWI/ 1920's/-early30's split. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion (the timeline can be modded, but for this discussion I believe we are talking about the confines of vanilla).

- Fletcher class is more similar to the Summer and Gearing classes than to the Bensom (and subclasses). The line should be drawn between Fletcher (Level IV) and Benson (Level III) class.

That is more true then you are stating. The Fletcher was a return to the flush deck of the Clemsons. it is literally a different hull and is not related to the previous ships.
So, at least for the US, you have 4 DD ages. Clemson/Wiles Flush Decks. the Interwar castles Farragut and Porter. London Treaty castles Mahan-Benson. flush deck Fletcher/Sumner.

So it comes down to, if you add Farragut/Porters London Treaty ships, then you have to remove Benson's because they were vastly superior to the Farragut and Porter. You just cant have Farragut and Bensons in the same hull class. 13 ton ship designed in WWI and revised several times compared to a 16 ton ship designed in the mid/late 30's. You can't toss them in together...at all. You're comparing apples and oranges and saying they are the same because Wikipedia says they are both fruits.

IMPORTANT QUESTION for the community:

Should we revert the suggestion to downgrade Bensom & Gleaves class to Tier II?
This would necessarily imply that an accurate Fletcher class should have a Tier IV hull.

I don't see why. Fletcher can be a T3 hull. If your going for a generally accurate fleet up to war starts your not getting a 1940 dd hull to even start building until 1941 or 42 unless you just spam docks for 5 years and nothing else.

The only argument is minmaxer...and minmaxers don't really care about class or hull names or anything. They are building 1940 DD's in 1937 and they are popping out with Mahan hull names, lol. They dont care if the 1940 is a Benson or a Fletcher, just that's it's a T3.
It's a meaningless argument. T3 tech is T3 tech no matter what class you call it and min maxer's are going to push the tech as soon as they can regardless.

They had more guns (8 vs 4 or 5 on other DD classes). Similar to the Mogador and Navigatori classes. otherwise they were similar to them. We proposed to add a second light battery module and upgrade the torpedo module to reflect this.

The twin turrets at the point are over rated. They didn't work very well on a small, already top heavy DD platforms of the early/mid 30's, hence why only the DL's got them. The specific type the Porter and Somers used were SP (Surface), not the DP (Surface/Air). They were also twin mounts, not dual guns, which slowed their rate of fire but saved weight. It wasn't until the Sumner Class that they finally got it more or less reliable and stable. The Sumner also used twin guns in their DP mount.

While I can't completely disagree, at some point we have to work within the realm of what the game offers, and whether x equipment really made significant difference compared to y in way that can be extrapolated in the game without being pandemic or heavily modding it...if even at all. Whether those twin mount SP's made a significant difference in firepower in any way that can be measurable in game is debatable. I'm not gonna die on this hill, I'll let the rest of you debate that. I've already decided to let this very argument die on the vine in another thread about Fletcher's Vs Orland's.

(Somewhat off-topic, having effectively only two hull tiers for light ship hulls in the 1936 scenario makes things more difficult, having either an intermediate stage like @balmung60
suggested or a Destroyer leader hull type for DL and Scouts would help to represent the differences better.)

I don't know. Britain loved the idea of DL's. US played with it in the 20's, but took a slightly bigger route. The Omaha. Then after bastardizing the hell out if by throwing on a bunch of experimental cruiser tech that made useless as a DL and useless as a cruiser, decided to go back to the Porter.
I don't know if anyone else besides US, UK and Australia ever played with the idea. Seem to remember something about Germany at least having one on the drawing board.

Roleplay it would great. Gameplay wise I don't think it matters. In Pacific Storm our fleets were tiered, so a DesRon 2 thrown into a carrier task force would still remain DesRon 2 as a child with all it's inherit ships. It did matter there at hierarchy level what was in what. You also could play out the battle at the tactical level commanding invisiual ships. Throwing in a DL into your Destroyer Squadron was a plus. In HOI4 it all gets mashed into one big fleet and DL's don't make a difference tactically in the battle. If RNG decides it's gonna die it's gonna die, it doesn't care if it has +1 guns because it's a DL.

We think South Dakota should have Tier III armor. ( although their torpedo protection turned out to be worse than on the North Carolina class). As the US lack that tech in 1939 and the ships were lais down a few months ago, we thint it's resonable to leave them out, but we are open for suggestions from the community. (The difference in AA seems negligible)

Again, another hill I choose not to die on. Was just pointing out that the SD wasn't actually "missing". It was fairly similar to the NC and in game could be easily propped up as a variant. How much and where you want to push that variant is up to you.

Salmon and Sargo classes had two more aft torpedo tubes and carried 24 torpedos. (Porpoise had 16). We concluded that the in-game difference (1xTier I torpedos on Porpoise, 2x Tier II on Salmon) seems right to reflect this, but would like to know what the community thinks.

Tambor had 10 tubes, but still carried 24 torpedos. Should we perhaps keep the current Salmon design for them and propose to downgrade one of the torpedo modules on Salmon class to Tier I?

The amount of torpedoes it carries literally has no reference in the game. Don't even know why that is brought here. As far as having more tubes, kinda debatable whether 2 more tubes is worth more then slight bump in variant stats. If I have enough points I break up the Porpoises into their respective class, but since they spent much of the war early to mid together I don't find their differences enough to waste points on if I need them elsewhere. Tambors I kinda go back and forth on whether to use a high point 36 variant or a stock 40 hull.

We agree with you, but unfortunately the tier I engine is the slowest the USS Ranger can have and she's still too fast. There is just no way to make her slower (29 knots IRL).
Her overall wing size was slightly smaller than the Lexington and Yorktown classes (both have far too small wings in the game) The problem was that until the 1941 refit she was unable to carry Torpedo bombers. As in the game any carrier plane can be used on any CV, this can't be depicted without a larger overhaul.

Yea, I know. I've already gone several rounds with the guys at BICE about it. It just makes me twitch though whenever I start a new game. Pretty sure it's the same feeling Italian players get about the Spica being a DD, lol.

 

[Axe99]

So? Just because you all agree to be wrong doesn't mean you're right.

No, but we've provided sources (here's another, referencing design work starting in 1928 - http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_farragut.htm), which you haven't, which doesn't give your argument a lot of strength. Combined with it's general implausibility (see below), it's hard to see why you hold such a strong view on this position. I haven't been able to find a primary source either (sadly the interwar Springstyles books aren't available online, and I think may have gone missing outright), and secondary sources have been provided which directly reference the design of the vessel, which contrast strongly with the sketchy nature of the evidence you've provided.

Edit: Sorry if I sound blunt, it's not intended that way. Just trying to state the facts as best I see them. Have half a mind to pick up Friedman's book on US Destroyers, but with international post a bit sketchy at the moment, imagine it may be a while before it turns up!

They were. They were authorized in 1916. They were revised in 1921. This establishes their existence on paper long before 1928. Unless the Navy General Board had a time machine in 1928 that we still don't know about, you can't revise plans 7 years before they exist.

The Bureau of Construction and Repair (or whatever it was called at the time) made repeated design studies of numerous different ship types over the period, but when you say "they were revised", do you mean the design (of which I can find no trace) or the plans to build them?

For example, there's no reference to the Farragut's in the 1911-1925 Spring Styles (http://www.shipscribe.com/styles/S-584/albums/s584-dd.htm), which one would expect given the argument you're making.

It's worth noting that it would be very, very unusual for any navy, even a backwater navy, let alone a leading naval power like the USN, to dig out a 1921 design for a destroyer and start laying it down in 1932. So without a source for your argument, you're strongly making the case that the US pushed an obsolete design out during a period of rising geopolitical tensions. While the USN (like all navies) has made some questionable build decisions, I'm not familiar with it doing anything that would be anywhere near this daft.

This is reinforced by the fact that the actual design of the Farraguts is light-years ahead of the Clemsons. Compare the fire-control arrangements, the hull-form, the main armament and I suspect the habitability, and you'll see they don't have an awful lot in common. They're far more closely related to their 'children' than their 'parents', which makes a fair bit of sense given there was over a decade between them in terms of design.

In the absence of strong evidence, it's hard to believe such a strange decision would have been made by the USN, and even harder to believe that the Farraguts, given the technology built into them, are a 1921 revision of a 1916 design, particularly when the tonnage was deliberately tuned to a 1930 treaty.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Using a plebian source of wikipedia:

The Farraguts were a considerable improvement from previous destroyers, taking advantage of technological advances during the 12-year gap in destroyer production. The impact of aircraft on naval warfare was reflected in their heavy dual-purpose main gun armament. They also had greatly improved machinery and greater fuel capacity that extended their range to 5,980 nautical miles (11,070 km; 6,880 mi) as opposed to the Clemsons' 4,900 nautical miles (9,100 km; 5,600 mi).[3][4] Their larger size and improved habitability soon earned them the nickname of "goldplaters" from the crews of older destroyers.[5]

The list of desired improvements compiled from the operational experience of the earlier Wickes and Clemson classes was both long and comprehensive. Both classes had pointed sterns that deeply dug into the water, greatly increasing turning diameter.[6][7] This was addressed with the transom stern design of the Farragut class. The previous classes were flush deck designs; while providing good hull strength, this proved to be wet in high seas.[6][7] This was addressed with the raised forecastle employed on the Farragut class. Cruising range on both the Wickes and Clemson classes had been a constant affliction of commanders; the Clemsons had been built with wing tanks giving better range, but at the cost of having high mounted fuel oil on both sides—a decidedly vulnerable feature in a ship without an armored belt such as a destroyer.[8] The Farragut class corrected this range deficiency by having a design range of 5,980 nautical miles (11,070 km; 6,880 mi) as opposed to the Clemson's 4,900 nautical miles (9,100 km; 5,600 mi).[8][4] Steady improvements to both boilers and steam turbines in the years between the Clemson and Farragut designs allowed this improved range, along with greater speed and a reduction from 4 to 2 stacks.​

The key here seems to be that the design changed considerably from its launch, making the WWI-hull of the Clemson somewhat-unreasonable for a substantially-improved hull form. The base design might not have seriously been changed, but the improvements added with the advantage of a decade's worth of design work isn't something you can just overlook. These represent more than just the improvements to component parts (since the engine, gun, and sonar improvements can all be represented with upgraded tech), particularly the increased range of the ships.

 

[Snagletooth]

No, but we've provided sources (here's another, referencing design work starting in 1928 - http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_farragut.htm), which you haven't, which doesn't give your argument a lot of strength. Combined with it's general implausibility (see below), it's hard to see why you hold such a strong view on this position. I haven't been able to find a primary source either (sadly the interwar Springstyles books aren't available online, and I think may have gone missing outright), and secondary sources have been provided which directly reference the design of the vessel, which contrast strongly with the sketchy nature of the evidence you've provided.

Edit: Sorry if I sound blunt, it's not intended that way. Just trying to state the facts as best I see them. Have half a mind to pick up Friedman's book on US Destroyers, but with international post a bit sketchy at the moment, imagine it may be a while before it turns up!

You have provided anything but Wiki, which does support my case, and questionable links without sources, or are copy pasted from Wiki or these unsourced sights.
You are trying to hold me to standard that you don't even understand, much less have even managed to come anywhere near achieving.

Destroyers were authorized but paid for in 1916. Thats been established.
Destroyers were revisited in by the General board and revised in 1921 and again funding was denied by Congress. Thats been established.
Destroyers were once again revisited by the general board in 1928 and revised by 1931. This time Congress funded them. That's been established.

Several of your own sources confirm all of this. How does one revise plans in 1921 that supposedly don't even exist until 1928?

It's worth noting that it would be very, very unusual for any navy, even a backwater navy, let alone a leading naval power like the USN, to dig out a 1921 design for a destroyer and start laying it down in 1932. So without a source for your argument, you're strongly making the case that the US pushed an obsolete design out during a period of rising geopolitical tensions. While the USN (like all navies) has made some questionable build decisions, I'm not familiar with it doing anything that would be anywhere near this daft.

It's not actually. Designers and engineers often use previous yet dormant designs and concepts as a starting point from which to work from when new metrics are put forth.

Why design from scratch when you already have a design sitting in the cabinet that can be revised and updated faster?

Your only evidence that this didn't happen is some outsourced and copy/pasted sites not mentioning the 1921 rvision by the General Board in 1921. Someone else not doing their homework is not evidence that something didn't happen. I gave you a reference that said it did. You have yet to come with a single source that said it most definitely did not. Most of your sources support that it did happen this way. A couple of your sources fail to mention verified facts from your other sources and those are supposed to be reliable? Hell they don't even have source themselves. They don't even manage to attempt to achieve the level of sourcing you are requiring yet you are suing them to support what?

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

You have provided anything but Wiki, which does support my case, and questionable links without sources, or are copy pasted from Wiki or these unsourced sights.
You are trying to hold me to standard that you don't even understand, much less have even managed to come anywhere near achieving.

Destroyers were authorized but paid for in 1916. Thats been established.
Destroyers were revisited in by the General board and revised in 1921 and again funding was denied by Congress. Thats been established.
Destroyers were once again revisited by the general board in 1928 and revised by 1931. This time Congress funded them. That's been established.

Several of your own sources confirm all of this. How does one revise plans in 1921 that supposedly don't even exist until 1928?



It's not actually. Designers and engineers often use previous yet dormant designs and concepts as a starting point from which to work from when new metrics are put forth.

Why design from scratch when you already have a design sitting in the cabinet that can be revised and updated faster?

You'r only evidence that this didn't happen is some unsourced and copy/pasted sites not mentioning the 1921 rvision by the General Board in 1921. Someone else not doing their homework is not evidence that something didn't happen. I ghave you a refernce that said it did. You have yet to come with a single source that said it most definently did not. Most of your sources support that it did happen this way. A couple of your sources fail to mention verefired facts from your other sources and those are supposed to be reliable? Hell they don't even have source themselves. They don't even manage to attempt to achieve the level of sourcing you are rquiring yet you are suing them to support what?

Rather than complaining that people are holding you to impossible standards, how about you actually argue how the ships' hulls were similar to the Clemson based on characteristics, and not order of design or initial blueprints?

1.) Clemson was a flush-decker, the Farragut was not.
2.) The Clemson immediately followed the Wickes in both design and production; the Farragut had 12 years of reworking to change a whole list of features from the preceding ships.
3.) The Farragut outperforms the Clemson based on its capabilities, which do not match the 1922 hull. In particular, the superior seakeeping and range exactly line up with what was improved on the hull compared to the WWI-era destroyers.

And if you want to complain about questionable sources, I'll pull straight from the navypedia source next that was already provided above (http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_farragut.htm):

Designers returned to design work in early 1930. By the end of year some variants with standard displacement from 1350 to 1850t were ready. 127/25mm AA guns were used as main calibre, however soon have refused: by this time the new DP 127/38mm guns were ready which so exceeded short-barrelled 127/25mm gun that has followed immediate deciding to rearm designed ships. Simultaneously three triple TT have given way to two quadruple.

The ultimate variant of new destroyer design was ready in March, 1931. There was a full withdrawal from the ideas included in 'flushdeckers': all armament placed in a centreline, flushdeck hull was refused in favour of more traditional with a forecastle. With a view of the greatest possible economy of displacement longitudinal framing was provided and wide usage of welding instead of a riveting. For the same reasons only two fwd guns had enclosed mounts, aft mounts were opened. Light AA armament was limited by 4 12.7mm MGs, and anti-submarine by sonar and two DCRs (in a wartime installation of additional DCT was planed, for what the deck had necessary reinforcements).​

The key point here: the design philosophy originally held for the ships had been abandoned by the time they started construction.

If I somehow got lost along the way of this argument and you aren't still arguing about them being a 1922 hull, then I apologize for my irrelevant rant. Otherwise, please redirect away from red herring arguments and complaining that sources aren't good enough, and come back to the original question: what the ships are capable of.

 

[Snagletooth]

Using a plebian source of wikipedia:

The Farraguts were a considerable improvement from previous destroyers, taking advantage of technological advances during the 12-year gap in destroyer production. The impact of aircraft on naval warfare was reflected in their heavy dual-purpose main gun armament. They also had greatly improved machinery and greater fuel capacity that extended their range to 5,980 nautical miles (11,070 km; 6,880 mi) as opposed to the Clemsons' 4,900 nautical miles (9,100 km; 5,600 mi).[3][4] Their larger size and improved habitability soon earned them the nickname of "goldplaters" from the crews of older destroyers.[5]

The list of desired improvements compiled from the operational experience of the earlier Wickes and Clemson classes was both long and comprehensive. Both classes had pointed sterns that deeply dug into the water, greatly increasing turning diameter.[6][7] This was addressed with the transom stern design of the Farragut class. The previous classes were flush deck designs; while providing good hull strength, this proved to be wet in high seas.[6][7] This was addressed with the raised forecastle employed on the Farragut class. Cruising range on both the Wickes and Clemson classes had been a constant affliction of commanders; the Clemsons had been built with wing tanks giving better range, but at the cost of having high mounted fuel oil on both sides—a decidedly vulnerable feature in a ship without an armored belt such as a destroyer.[8] The Farragut class corrected this range deficiency by having a design range of 5,980 nautical miles (11,070 km; 6,880 mi) as opposed to the Clemson's 4,900 nautical miles (9,100 km; 5,600 mi).[8][4] Steady improvements to both boilers and steam turbines in the years between the Clemson and Farragut designs allowed this improved range, along with greater speed and a reduction from 4 to 2 stacks.​

The key here seems to be that the design changed considerably from its launch, making the WWI-hull of the Clemson somewhat-unreasonable for a substantially-improved hull form. The base design might not have seriously been changed, but the improvements added with the advantage of a decade's worth of design work isn't something you can just overlook. These represent more than just the improvements to component parts (since the engine, gun, and sonar improvements can all be represented with upgraded tech), particularly the increased range of the ships.

The revised power plant came in 1921 (and may have been updated some more in 1928). It's unclear when the castle design came forth, whether that was original to the 1916 concept doubtful), the 1921 revision, or if that was something brought out of the final 1931 revision. Considering the UK was using a simliar design back in WWI where some the of US Atlantic force was embedded that it may have come forth during the 1921 revision.

 

[Snagletooth]

Rather than complaining that people are holding you to impossible standards, how about you actually argue how the ships' hulls were similar to the Clemson based on characteristics, and not order of design or initial blueprints?

1.) Clemson was a flush-decker, the Farragut was not.
2.) The Clemson immediately followed the Wickes in both design and production; the Farragut had 12 years of reworking to change a whole list of features from the preceding ships.
3.) The Farragut outperforms the Clemson based on its capabilities, which do not match the 1922 hull. In particular, the superior seakeeping and range exactly line up with what was improved on the hull compared to the WWI-era destroyers.

And if you want to complain about questionable sources, I'll pull straight from the navypedia source next that was already provided above (http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_farragut.htm):

Designers returned to design work in early 1930. By the end of year some variants with standard displacement from 1350 to 1850t were ready. 127/25mm AA guns were used as main calibre, however soon have refused: by this time the new DP 127/38mm guns were ready which so exceeded short-barrelled 127/25mm gun that has followed immediate deciding to rearm designed ships. Simultaneously three triple TT have given way to two quadruple.

The ultimate variant of new destroyer design was ready in March, 1931. There was a full withdrawal from the ideas included in 'flushdeckers': all armament placed in a centreline, flushdeck hull was refused in favour of more traditional with a forecastle. With a view of the greatest possible economy of displacement longitudinal framing was provided and wide usage of welding instead of a riveting. For the same reasons only two fwd guns had enclosed mounts, aft mounts were opened. Light AA armament was limited by 4 12.7mm MGs, and anti-submarine by sonar and two DCRs (in a wartime installation of additional DCT was planed, for what the deck had necessary reinforcements).​

The key point here: the design philosophy originally held for the ships had been abandoned by the time they started construction.

If I somehow got lost along the way of this argument and you aren't still arguing about them being a 1922 hull, then I apologize for my irrelevant rant. Otherwise, please redirect away from red herring arguments and complaining that sources aren't good enough, and come back to the original question: what the ships are capable of.

I actually corrected that and admitted it when this conversation started. Im not arguing the Farraguts are flush deckers.
The point im making is it is not on par with the 15 tonners. it not a 1936 T2 ship.

It is a 13 tonner that the original design goes back to 1916 flush deck design with several revisions to that platform...which is why it is not on par with the 15 tonners, which were designed new from the ground up in 1928-1932 or whereabouts.

It's not a 15 tonner. it's a mid conversion ship, which is why half of one, two quarters of the other. In respect to the game and metrics that matter, it's stats put it in the T1 family overall, not T2.

But also you are all overstating how "great" the Farraguts were. There not that much of an improvement over the Clemsons. On paper they seemed like it in certain areas, but in reality they were quickly pulled from the front lines. They not vastly superior to Clemsons, they were only marginally better.

 

[Axe99]

Destroyers were revisited in by the General board and revised in 1921 and again funding was denied by Congress. Thats been established.

You have provided anything but Wiki, which does support my case, and questionable links without sources, or are copy pasted from Wiki or these unsourced sights.
You are trying to hold me to standard that you don't even understand, much less have even managed to come anywhere near achieving.

The reason I haven't provided much in the way of links is that there's no much online, which is why I had to reference Whitley's Destroyers of World War Two. For the hull form, I got that from To the Edge of the Possible: US High-Speed Destroyers, 1918-1953: Part 3, Chronological Development, from Warship International Vol 50, #2. The general stats are from the appropriate Conways All the World's Fighting Ships books.

I prefer not to use Wiki, but the good @Paul.Ketcham has quoted it above, and I was well aware that it clearly states that the Farraguts were a substantially different design to the Clemsons. Let's compare in detail (figures from the Conways All the Worlds' Fighting Ships books of the appropriate period (1906-1921 for the Clemsons, 1922-1946 for the Farraguts)):

Hull form
Clemson - flush-decked, very fine lines with a cruiser stern
Farragut - slightly fuller lines, forecastle and a transom stern

Propulsion
Clemson - 27,000shp from four boilers, 35kts top speed, range of 2500nm at 20kts, 225t oil fuel
Farragut - 42,800shp from two boilers, 36.5kts top speed, range of 6500nm at 12kts, 600t oil fuel

Main armament
Clemson - 4 x 4in/50 LA guns, arranged such that only three can fire on the broadside at one time, no gunshields
Farragut - 5 x 5in/38 DP guns, arranged such that all five can fire on the broadside at once, two gunshields

Fire control
Clemson - at best a rangefinder
Farragut - Mk 33 Director (a stabilised director capable of HA and LA fire control)

Torpedoes
Clemson - 4 x triple torpedo launchers, arranged on the sides (such that each set of six could only fire in one direction)
Farragut - 2 x quadruple torpedo launchers arranged on the centerline, allowing for an eight-torpedo broadside

Complement (a larger complement needs a different design to accommodate everyone)
Clemson - 114
Farragut - 160

Full load displacement
Clemson - 1308t
Farragut - 2064t

Sonar as completed
Clemson - none
Farragut - QCA set

Framing/construction
Clemson - riveted with transverse framing (from Warship International Vol 50, #4, p 278-9)
Farragut - welded with longitudinal framing

The Farraguts are larger, faster, more heavily armed, have a far better armament layout. Their armament and fire control are closer matches to the Gridleys and up, as is their endurance, complement, and full load displacement. Their method of construction (and framing, which provides greater hull strength) is more similar to Gridleys and up.

To quote Whitley (page 260) on the Farragut design:

"This final design, produced by Bethlehem, was considered superior to that of the 'flush-deckers' on many counts, including sea-worthiness, manoeuvrability, fire power and gunnery control, and moreover had an advantage in speed of more than 3 knots".​

I'm not going to say any more on the issue - short of forking out for a definitive source, that's all I've got - but I personally argue that all of the information points towards the capabilities of the Farraguts being far more similar to that of the Mahans and Gridleys (same main armament and directors, but the later ships effectively had (at least) one more torpedo module) than the Clemsons, and that the Tier 1 hull would not allow the Farraguts to reflect all the capabilities they had (while a Tier 1 hull is comfortably enough to represent the more modest Clemsons).

Several of your own sources confirm all of this. How does one revise plans in 1921 that supposedly don't even exist until 1928?

Plans change all the time, often substantially. That there may (or may not - note we haven't been able to find any evidence of them) been plans in 1921, doesn't mean that they weren't scrapped and started again in 1928.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

I think the main hangup for the Farragut is that you're comparing them to the Mahans and later, rather than to the Clemson. They may be overrated if they're statistically-identical in-game to the Mahan, but they become far-more underrated if you drop all their advantages other than things you can refit onto the Clemsons anyways.

The key here is we only have 2 hulls available for everything from the 600-ton Draug-class and the 3,000 ton Mogador-class. Invariably, that's going to end up with ships being clustered together with unrealistic capabilities, either better or worse than in reality. Note the complete inability of the in-game tech tree to distinguish between almost any dreadnought battleships effectively.

I don't want to make ships worse just to allow more distinction between other, more modern classes if the tech tree doesn't allow it. We're in a game where the German pocket battleships are being bunched with the French Duquesne-class in terms of armor, and where the Scharnhorst is considered comparably-armed to both the Littorio and Nelson-classes (amongst others). The hull, more than anything else, represents those little improvements in range and seakeeping (thus speed) that the improvements represented, but the fine-tuning that finished out the Mahan-class and later (other than the torpedo-heavy ships like the Gridley, Bagley, and Benham classes) don't really have any appropriate way of being represented without either unnecessarily-downgrading the Farragut-class, or making the improvements going forward with the Fletcher or Gearing classes increasingly-insignificant.

The key for me is this: the 1922 hull is too slow, and particularly lacks the range that was the defining edge of the Farragut-class and later over WWI destroyers. The hull was exactly what made the Farragut a better-designed platform than the Clemson in the first place; the guns, engines, and sonar can all be plopped onto a 1922 hull just as easily, but without the range and seakeeping improvements.

This debate also makes it somewhat painfully-obvious that there's a missing tech group for 1920s tech, and the 1922 tech should be pushed back to 1912. That would fix so many of these problems, such as distinguishing 12-inch guns and smaller from 13-inch and larger, early-dreadnoughts like the Courbet from advanced ones like the Colorado, armored cruisers like the San Marino from proper heavy cruisers like the Trento, USS Ranger being too-capable compared to the Yorktown and Lexington, etc.

 

[Snagletooth]

Plans change all the time, often substantially. That there may (or may not - note we haven't been able to find any evidence of them) been plans in 1921, doesn't mean that they weren't scrapped and started again in 1928.

They didnt scrap it and start over. Thats why it was only 13 tons. It was flush deck design that got revised with a hastily added castle, a better boiler (although most of the rest of the machinery was still the same), and 5 inch guns instead of 4 inch. If they started over it and designed if from the ground up it would have been 15 tons like the rest of the ships designed in the same time.

It wasn't a good ship. It was only 13 tons. most of it's numbers on paper never truly played out in reality. The Clemsons spent more time on the frontline in WWII then Farraguts did. It was only marginally better because it was half breed. it was a 1916 flush deck design revised as a 1930 castle, and badly.

"We need destroyers"
"Ok, come back in a while"
"We, uh, need one now"
"OK...well here's this one. already been approved"
"hmm...yea. 4 inch guns? We want 5"
"Uh, ok" *gets out erasure and draws 5 inch guns*
"And to go faster and farther, how old is this thing?"
"Old...ok, new boiler, that means new exhaust" *gets out erasure*
"Can you make it go faster?"
"Yea, but...the boilers are readily available, the rest of the stuff would take a while for a builder to get stockpiled on, and you wanted this quickly."
"Yea, ok...just the boilers then"
"Oh, and we want one of the castle thingies, like the British have...so cool."
"Uh huh...ok" *Gets out bigger erasure and draws a new bow*
"Here"
"Seems kinda small. we need alot of them"
"You said you wanted one quickly, not one that was awesome"
"Riiight. Can you make some awesome ones though, but bigger?"
"That one's already been approved, equipment for it is readily available, it's cheap as f@#! and so should be able to to the docks quickly. While you get the money Ill make some bigger ones but need to design them from scratch."
"Alright, be back later"

You guys are really giving the military far too much credit if you don't think this is how things actually work, especially in the 1930's. In fact you talk to engineers, and this is how much of their work goes even in civilian jobs.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Source 3: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_farragut_class_destroyers.html - http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_clemson_class_destroyers.html

The Interwar Design Debate

During the intervening years the Navy produced a series of designs for destroyers. Their main objective was to produce a large flotilla leader type of destroyer, similar to the British V & W Class ships. By February 1919 this had evolved into a 2,200t design (an increase of 1,190t over the standard displacement of the Clemson class), which carried five 4in guns on the centre line and carried twelve torpedo tubes in wing mounts (partly because of potential problems with centre mounted torpedoes and partly to make sure that each ship could fire two salvoes by making it impossible for an over excited captain to fire all of his torpodes at once. The flushdeck design was abandoned in favour of a slightly raised forecastle.

The 1919 design wasn't popular in the destroyer force, where the idea of the destroyer as a fleet defense and anti-submarine vessel hadn’t really caught on. Instead it was seen as an offensive weapon for use against the enemy battlefleet, in the expectation that the next war would see a repeat of the Battle of Jutland. In 1920 Lt. Commander F.S. Craven, who had served in destroyers, submitted a design to the General Board that reflected the general view of the destroyer community. This ship had a turtle-back forecastle, which in the earliest US destroyers had increased speed in smooth seas, but reduced it in more normal Atlantic conditions, and six 5in guns carried in three triple mounts. Extra torpedoes were to be carried - one triple tube in place of No.4 Gun, two triple tubes on the centre line between the rear funnel and aft deckhouse and more torpedoes on the fantail (where they had proved to be unusuable when placed there in the past. A single 5in anti-aircraft gun would be carried. Craven saw the destroyer as a largely disposable weapon, which would carry out a single attack on the enemy fleet, using all of its torpedoes tubes at once. Six spare torpedoes would be carried for the stern tubes so that the destroyer could fire a parting salvo while attempting to escape. Despite all of the Navy's wartime experience, this design actually gained some support and was approved by the planning division of the Office of the CNO in July 1920. The General Board attempted to get funds for five of these ships to be built in Financial Year 1921, but Congress refused. This was the era of naval disarmament, and there was no political will to fund new large destroyers when the US Navy had hundreds of new flushdeckers, some only just entering service.

In 1927 another new design was developed, this time for a normal destroyer. This was for a ship of 1,400t standard displacement, which would carry twelve torpedoes in two sextuple mounts on the centre line, be armed with four 5in dual purpose guns and be powered by new high pressure steam boilers. This was a design study only and no attempt was made to get it built.​

From digging into this, I'm finding mostly results that suggest that you're looking at the wrong design. Some of the design schematics for the early Farragut-class resemble the actual ship about as much as the 1920s South Dakota does the 1930s version. Just because the blueprint was used when designing them doesn't mean they followed it precisely; otherwise, imagine how the North Carolina-class would have turned out had one of the older blueprints been used (there were designs that were more akin to battlecruisers, and even a 23-knot standard battleship version).

Also, the Farragut may not have been a great ship, but the fact is that the vast majority of destroyers were typically designed with significant problems of either stability or overweight issues; they were small ships that tended to pack too much on a small hull. Look at even the Benson class, and you'll see versions being produced with only 4 gun turrets due to weight problems. Look at the German Zerstörer 1936, and notice how its later versions drop the 15cm guns that it was attempting to field initially.

For all its flaws, the Farragut was longer-ranged and better in high seas than the Clemson, which managed a huge list of defects by comparison for its WWII role (which was primarily in ASW service). Telling me that the US used huge numbers of Clemsons compared to the Farragut ignores that the US produced over 150 Clemsons, then ended up pulling a crapton out of reserves when it realized that it had way too few escorts to defend its Atlantic coasts and simultaneously field anything in the Pacific. And in that eventual role:

On 6 December 1940 a large refit of surviving old destroyers was ordered, as current production would soon provide enough new destroyers for fleet work. Torpedo tubes Nos.3 and 4 and all 4in guns were removed, and were replaced by six 3in/50 dual purpose guns. A Y-gun depth charge projector with ten charges was to replace the 3in/23 AA gun. The stern depth charge tracks were to be expanded to carry 24 300lb charges. Two extra 0.5in AA machine gunes were to be added.

At this point only the destroyers serving with the Asiatic Fleet were still serving in the first line, with the other surviving flush deck destroyers in second line roles. The Asiatic Fleet ships weren't available for modification, and so work began with the Atlantic Fleet - DesRon 30 and DesRon 31 were done by February 1941, and were followed by nine ships from DesDiv 53 and DesDiv 82. The outbreak of the Second World War meant that plans to upgrade the Decatur, DesDiv 55 and DesRon 54 were cancelled. Twenty seven flushdeckers from the Wickes and Clemson classes were thus converted (118, 126, 128, 130, 142, 144, 145, 147, 152, 155, 157-60, 199, 210 220, 223, 229, 239, 240, 245, 246 and 341).

By the autumn of 1941 seventy one flushers were in service as destroyers and 48 in other roles. Of these 13 were serving as the destroyer arm of the Asiatic Fleet and 58 as second line ships, most suited to escort duties. The 27 converted ships fell into this group. Most of the unmodified ships were serving with naval districts - four with DesDiv 70 in the 11th district, four with DesDiv 83 in the 12th district, three with DesDiv 80 in the 14th district and nine with DesRon 33 in the 15th district. Dahlgren and Litchfield were working with Submarines, Pacific, escorting submarines past the defences of Pearl Harbor.

On 15 November 1941 CinCLant suggested replacing No.1 boiler with fuel. This would extend the range of Wickes class ships by 1,100nm and the Clemson class ships, which already carried some fuel alongside the boilers, by 650nm. The General Board approved the plan, but with No.4 Boiler to go. The flushdeckers would lose 5kts of speed, but as they were expected to serve as escort ships range was seen as more important.

The plan was approved by the Secretary of the Navy on 3 December 1941. DesRons 27, 30 and 31 from the Atlantic Fleet were done first, followed by the Pacific Fleet and then DM and MS conversions. By February 1942 only DesRon 29 in the Asiatic Fleet wasn't included in the programme. By June 1942 the Pacific Fleet wanted the surviving Asiatic Fleet destroyers to be upgraded, but the process took five weeks and the time wasn't then available. Wickes class ships got the highest priority, as their range had always been a problem. In July 1942 CinCLant suggested postponing any Clemson class refits. Work was later resumed, and by the time the programme was cancelled in November 1943 only DD-210, DD-221, DD-246, DD-248 and DD-341 hadn't been upgraded. The change was effective, taking the range of a Clemson class ship up to 4,400-4,600nm from 3,900-4,100nm at cruising speeds. Wickes class ships saw a bigger improvement, up from 3,200-3,500nm to 4,300-4,500nm.​

1.) The Clemson lacked the range to fight effectively in most fleet conditions (mostly a USN problem due to its vast operating range, but still a problem--and one signified by the hull).
2.) The Clemsons were mostly pulled from frontline service and used in such illustrious roles as ASW platforms (for which they were pretty badly-designed, being heavily-armed with torpedoes and having problems with seakeeping as-is, and lacking in range; hence the fuel modifications), minesweepers, transports, etc.
3.) The Clemsons were only used due to their large numbers. The Farragut-class may not have been great, but they were actually useful in fleet service.

Also, before pulling the "giving the military too much credit" line, realize that I've actually served in the US Army Reserves for about 9 years, including at brigade level. I've seen the stupid attitudes that officers can produce, but there's a difference between making mistakes here-and-there and apprently the whole system being broken (which, I will remind you, also produced such ships as the Fletcher, North Carolina, Cleveland, Gato, and Buckley classes). We're not all incompetent, and not all the time.

 

[Snagletooth]

I think the main hangup for the Farragut is that you're comparing them to the Mahans and later, rather than to the Clemson. They may be overrated if they're statistically-identical in-game to the Mahan, but they become far-more underrated if you drop all their advantages other than things you can refit onto the Clemsons anyways.

The key here is we only have 2 hulls available for everything from the 600-ton Draug-class and the 3,000 ton Mogador-class. Invariably, that's going to end up with ships being clustered together with unrealistic capabilities, either better or worse than in reality. Note the complete inability of the in-game tech tree to distinguish between almost any dreadnought battleships effectively.

I don't want to make ships worse just to allow more distinction between other, more modern classes if the tech tree doesn't allow it. We're in a game where the German pocket battleships are being bunched with the French Duquesne-class in terms of armor, and where the Scharnhorst is considered comparably-armed to both the Littorio and Nelson-classes (amongst others). The hull, more than anything else, represents those little improvements in range and seakeeping (thus speed) that the improvements represented, but the fine-tuning that finished out the Mahan-class and later (other than the torpedo-heavy ships like the Gridley, Bagley, and Benham classes) don't really have any appropriate way of being represented without either unnecessarily-downgrading the Farragut-class, or making the improvements going forward with the Fletcher or Gearing classes increasingly-insignificant.

The key for me is this: the 1922 hull is too slow, and particularly lacks the range that was the defining edge of the Farragut-class and later over WWI destroyers. The hull was exactly what made the Farragut a better-designed platform than the Clemson in the first place; the guns, engines, and sonar can all be plopped onto a 1922 hull just as easily, but without the range and seakeeping improvements.

This debate also makes it somewhat painfully-obvious that there's a missing tech group for 1920s tech, and the 1922 tech should be pushed back to 1912. That would fix so many of these problems, such as distinguishing 12-inch guns and smaller from 13-inch and larger, early-dreadnoughts like the Courbet from advanced ones like the Colorado, armored cruisers like the San Marino from proper heavy cruisers like the Trento, USS Ranger being too-capable compared to the Yorktown and Lexington, etc.

There's a couple mods the modify the timeline to have WWI and then some group either in the 1920's or around 1932. This was largely pre-MtG, I dont know what they are doing now.

This also allowed, at least for the US, a better break down of the CA lineup, also.
As far as seakeeping or seaworthiness goes, I'm not sure how relevant that would be in the game. I suppose it can be surmised that reliability becomes the "seaworthiness" metric of sorts. Bit of a stretch though, but...

Personally, if they added another pre war grouping Farragut and Porter should have their own place separate from both the Clemson's and the Mahan+, but thats not possible without modding.

So the first debate is, should the Mahan's-Benson's all be 1936 hulls or should the line be split with anything older the Sims be a T1 Hull (as the developers have it, since they go by when the first ship was laid down)?
If everyone agrees that Mahans-Bensons are related enough that they should all be 36 hulls (even though anything short of Sims was laid down before 36), then one looks at the Farraguts and Porters and and need decide, should that include them?
If it's disagree that the Mahans-Somers do not deserve to be 36 Hulls, then it puts the debate into a new arena where the they are all on par with Clemson's, hull wise. One has to ask, so are the Sims and Bensons that much better to get their own hull? And is it really

Farraguts are not Mahans, but they aren't Clemsons. They were a stepping stone. It's those stepping stone ships that are hard to place, because it's 12 of one, half dozen of the other. Tambors are in the same satiation. Better then the Porposie/Salmon/Sargo, but not a Gato. A stepping stone where it defiently needs to be better and seperate from the Porpoise/Slamon?Sargo, but was it really good enough for it's own hull? Is it really good enough where the gato is relegated to a mere variant of the Tambor? Gato deserves it's own hull, the Tambor doesn't.

Farragut is not a third rail guys, and it's stats are not as great as you want to pretend they are. Look at it's service history. Look at what the Navy did with them. Look at it's tonnage. Look at it's development history.

The ship was a piece of crap. The only thing anyone like about it was the crews had more space. Other then that, it was total piece of junk that didn't live up to half it's stats. Land was a salesman. He oversold it on purpose because the navy need the ships. The Navy pull them things off the frontline as soon as they could when war started.

Was it better then the Clemsons? Yes. Was it, in reality, significantly better? Absolutely not. Modified and redesigned half breed stepping stones never are.