Talk:Destroyer

Last active DD
The USN's last active "Spruance-class" DD was decommissioned on 09/21/2005. Updated a section where the 'Burke-class and the Spruance-class were mentioned to be in active service. -Anon, 12/06/05

needs attention: Decatur class destroyer


 * Done. Stan 01:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the "long lance" reference; it was given to the Type 93 by Morison postwar. I also corrected Tribal to Afridi, the class name; they were named for tribes, hence the common reference "Tribal" (never an actual ship name). Also, I question use of Exocet as an example of early SSM. In addition, this article leaves the impression (beyond reference to Kutaka) only RN and USN operate destroyers. More on Japan, Germany, and the Soviet Union would be welcome. So would some analysis of wartime use and misuse, such as failures of Japanese convoy escorts and British "offensive sweeps" against U-boats. (I've heard of both, but don't know enough to write it...) 70.64.128.34 02:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)squadfifteen

The spanish destroyer
The destroyer originated in Spain, not Britain, and was firstly designed by Fernando Villaamil, in 1885, as a response agaisnt the torpedo-boat. In fact, the name of the first vessel of this kind of ships was Destructor, leading to the Destructor class. Destroyer is the literal translation into english of Destructor. Fernando Villaamil ordered the construction of this ship in the James and George Thompson ship-factory, of Clydebank, Britain, and the bill was about 38.000 pounds, but the design was Spanish, the idea was Spanish, and the Destructor entered to serve in the Armada Española.

I think the article should be corrected.


 * If you can find a source to support this then you can make the change yourself. I always understood they were developed as part of the Anglo-French naval race in the late 19th century. Wiki-Ed 12:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Read Spanish Ship Destructor article in wkipedia, its plnty of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.120.216 (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The image
The image displaying the modern destroyer silhouettes has a spelling mistake. The Russian destroyer is spelled Sovremenny not Sorvremenny. So, only one "r", after the "v".

History of the Destroyer
Anyone object if, shortly, I fork the historical material to a new main article at History of the Destroyer? Seems to me we're getting on for the break point. The Land 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. It's really not such a long article yet. And even Aircraft carrier doesn't have a separate history page. I suggest we keep all this together as much as possible. Regards PHG 17:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fairy snuff. The Land 18:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference to the turbine-propelled destroyer Viper is erroneous : The Viper did not break her back at sea but ran unto a reef during the 1900 (I think) Naval Manoeuvers. She should not be conflated with the Cobra (also a turbine-driven t.b.d., built by Armstrongs, with insufficient scantlings) which did indeed break her back in rough seas - and took several of Sir Charles Parsons key assistants with her. Ebbe

Destructor, Kotaka, and sources
I am not sure it's helpful to refer to either Kotaka or Destructor as a 'torpedo boat destroyer'. Most reference works refer to them as torpedo boast; e.g. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships calls destructor a 'torpedo gunboat'. The phrase seems to have been invented in English to describe the Havock, and while Kotaka and Destructor were of the same nature, describing them as 'precusors' makes more sense to me. Havock's design, unlike that of Kotaka or Destructor, was immediately developed by the Britihs and then copied by all the other major navies.

BTW the source for most of the material I've added was Preston's 'Destroyers', to which I added a reference. Since the article does not generally use inline references I've avoided putting an inline ref to every statement I derived from that book. The Land 07:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Polyphemus
I cannot find any reference to the torpedo ram HMS Polyphemus being conceived as a counter to torpedo boats, and so I have removed the para implying this. I have several references describing the ship as being designed primarily as a torpedo ship, and that the ram was very much a secondary weapon. Incidently, Polyphemus could make 17.8 knots, which doesn't seem enough even to ram the relatively slow 18 knot HMS Lightning.

The para read "An early idea was the torpedo ram Polyphemus built in 1881. At 18 knots, she was fast enough to close against torpedo boats, threatening them with her ram, and could engage enemy warships with either ram or her own torpedoes. However, her speed and her armament of 1in guns proved not to be up to the task." Jll 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Destructor again
Does anyone have evidence (as opposed to speculation) that the British were influenced either by the design or the name of the Destructor? If so, please cite it. If not, there is no basis for including such an assertion in the article. The Land 09:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was thinking about my statement. I think there are strong suggestions that the British were indeed influenced, if not by the design, by the ideas that Villaamil put on the table: i.e. an ocean-going vessel able to beat torpedo boats, acting as a screen protection to the battleships.

In fact, as yourself had already cited, Conway's intimates that the Destructor was an enterily new type of warship, since he classified her as a Torpedo gunboat, rather than a large Torpedo boat. I guess that Conway's classification doesn´t applies to any other ship built before Destructor.

On the other hand, the |Encyclopaedia Britannica's article about the destroyer traces the first naval use of the (English) word back to the Havock class, well after the name Destructor was chosen by Villaamil to christen his warship. I think the British name was not chosen by chance; if not, it's a case of strange coincidence.

However, I acknowledge that no decisive evidence can be offer, and, after all, the first destroyers built as a class were undoubtfully British, so I used the verbal phrase seems to be rather than an outright assertion.

DagosNavy 11:49, 26 March 2007

Hi again. I just added two quotations from the book The first destroyers of David Lion. While still no conclusive evidence, he implies a strong link between the first RN Torpedo boat destroyers and the Destructor, at least from those designed by Thomson shipyards. About the name, he describes the name Destructor as prophetic.

DagosNavy 13:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi DagosNavy. Although the references are great, the phrase as it is has no chance to stand. It will also be interpreted as Original Research. You could rephrase into something like "The Spanish Destroyer is thought to have influenced the designation and concept of later destroyers developed by the British Navy". Regards PHG 18:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DagosNavy 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, PHG. I think You are right about some degree of Original Research in my statement. I will introduce the paragraph you suggest, although retaining the references. Thank you for the idea :).

I believe the original name for this catagory of vessel was "Torpedo Boat Destroyer". --Two way time (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

USS McFaul photo
The first photo looks as if it has been doctored to add the outsize US ensign. Anyone agree? In any case, IMO, it gives the article a POV feel. Again, anyone agree? Folks at 137 15:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It might be present in the original photo, but there's no source present for it. I've swapped it for the pic of the Algonquin as it has source info for it. Tabercil 22:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

False?
When comparing modern destroyers to WWII destroyers the intro states, "(modern vessels)are equivalent in tonnage but drastically superior in firepower to cruisers of the World War II era, capable of carrying nuclear missiles that are able to destroy cities." I am aware of no destroyer which mounts nuclear weapons as part of its standard armament. Clearly, many missiles can be re-armed with a warhead, but by that logic any vessel/plane/vehicle which fires a sufficiently large missile would have to be classified as carrying nuclear weapons. I recommend that the allusion to nuclear weapons be deleted. Rugz (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the tonnage part? Current DD's are around 7000+ tons displacement while post WWii were around 4000 tons (like current large Frigates) at most and WWii ones were around 2000. Doesn't seem very accurate that part. -130.208.183.161 (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

4 nations?
Why does the article mention 4 nations with cruisers, and proceeds to list only 3? dawhipsta (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The fourth was the uk, which Ive added to the list Obikirk (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

US-centric
The article reads like its headline were "Destroyers of the US Navy (and a few tidbits from other countries as well". I propose moving the US-centric bits to an article about destroyers in the US Navy. 46.239.100.186 (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Question
- With this edit (and the following one) you removed the FREMM multipurpose frigates because they're "not a destroyer officially", though they're used in the same capacity (ASW, AA, ABM & NGFS) as many destroyers, but you left other frigates listed there. Why is that? - the WOLF  child  04:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * - I removed FREMM multipurpose frigates because I know about that particular class of ships are not destroyers and I gave reason for removal, If you have credible sources saying FREMM is a destroyer then add sources and feel free to revert my edit. of course there are other frigates if you think they should or should not be there then explain why add or remove them. I know FREMM multipurpose frigate is a Frigate and not a destroyers so I removed that and I don't know deeply about every other frigates given in the article. Bye Thewolfchild Nicky mathew (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * - There is no dispute that everything there that is called a "frigate" is indeed a "frigate". What I'm asking is why would you remove one and deliberately leave the other? -  the WOLF  child  09:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * - So sorry, i did not see morocco yesterday. Really sorry for the confusion that I may have caused you. I removed it now.Nicky mathew (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * - No confusion here as I'm quite familiar with these ships, but others obviously are not. And while I appreciate you apologizing and trying to correct your mistakes, I think you may have made things worse. There are numerous other frigates still listed on the page, such as with the Italian Navy. The French Navy only has frigates listed. The navies of Germany, Iran, The Netherlands, Norway and Spain all list frigates, but go on to explain how they are either considered destroyers in some circles or are comparable to destroyers in size, configuration and/or role. Perhaps such consideration should be given to the FREMM as well? Or, if you're going to insist FREMMs remain out of the article, then perhaps you should have an RfC to determine if all the frigates should be removed, simply because they aren't "officially" destroyers. One way or the other, there is a glaring inconsistency here. - the WOLF  child  09:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not interested to take this to Rfc now as i am going for trip some days now and might not get network coverage or time to give timely response also i am not interested anyway. if other editors have no issue then add back FREMM I have no problem. You are right we should give consideration to the FREMM as well. GoodBye :).Nicky mathew (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well, we'll add them back in and see if anyone else has an objection to their inclusion. When you get back from your trip, if there has been no change, then perhaps you would like to address the issue again. Have a nice trip. - the WOLF  child  09:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Propulsion
This article could be improved with information on how destroyer propulsion changed through history. Can someone with the relevant knowledge add this information to the relevant historical sections? Thanks. FreeFlow99 (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

F-125 Frigates
The F-125 Frigate of the German navy has a size comparable to Destroyers, but it lacks anti air missiles beside the CIWS system and anti submarine capabilities besides the helicopter. They should probably removed from the article.DatAlien2 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC) — Instead the planned MKS 180 should probably included in the Future Developement section.DatAlien2 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Just blind, its there DatAlien2 (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment on HMS Swift
The article report "At 23.75 knots (43.99 km/h; 27.33 mph), while still not fast enough to engage enemy torpedo boats reliably, the ship at least had the armament to deal with them" in the 1884 the faster RN TBs were 21 knotters... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.30.14 (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Destroyer vs Frigate

 * Some NATO navies, such as the Canadian, French, Spanish, Dutch and German, use the term "frigate" for their destroyers

Do they use a word in their own language that is cognate to "frigate" (and which will typically be quite similar) or do they literally use the English word "frigate"? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:CD50:BE34:214B:7875 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Their own language"...? Canada speaks English, so if they call their ships "frigates", then their frigates. - w o lf  17:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That's confusing to me too. See Iroquois-class destroyer. BilCat (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh... I think specifics and type-certainty kinda went out the window in '75 when the US suddenly decided their destroyers were cruisers. (And now they build ships larger than their cruisers and call them destroyers). Some ships are built for multiple navies and are given different type designations, all we can do is go by which-ever type the navy on a given ship/ship-class page uses, (which of course needs to be supported anyway), and clarify where we can. (jmho) - w o lf  03:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)