Talk:Tribal-class destroyer (1936)

Crew complement
Complement 190? Was that peace or war? Trekphiler 10:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Source of the "tribal" nickname
The article doesn't mention why this class of ship was commonly called Tribal when Afridi was its proper name. I assume the nickname came form the naming scheme used for ships of this class? Pimlottc 06:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Nick-name" implies that "Tribal" was an unofficial class name. I don't think this was true, I think it was official and it repeated that given to a class of destroyers in 1907. I've seen only one good source for Afridi class and that notes that "Tribal" became more usual, another suggests use of "Zulu" class. Either way, the ship names were those of indigenous tribes or ethnic groups in the Empire: Canadian ships used Indian tribal names, the Aussies used aboriginal names (apart from Bataan). RN class naming practice was flexible, some named after the lead ship (eg Fiji class cruisers, some with the shared initial letter (eg J class destroyers) and some with the name theme (eg, Tribal class destroyers and Town class cruisers). Folks at 137 13:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Friedman's 'British Destroyers and Frigates: The Second World War and After' states that 'Tribal Class' was specifically adopted in June 1935 to avoid having to produce a new classification, such as 'Scout' or 'Heavy Destroyer' for the Tribals, making it their official designation and not a nickname.

82.24.122.84 (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The builder's and dockyard workers would need a name to refer to the design-by when in the early stages of the construction programme, hence the initial use of the name of the lead ship, which is likely also to have been used in early news publications, e.g., Jane's, reporting the building and completion of the ships when the official class name would possibly not have been known outside of the Admiralty. In addition, at the commencement of a building programme it is often not known how many ships will ultimately be built to that design.


 * So, FWIW, both the 'Afridi class' and 'Tribal class' names are likely to be equally correct, with the latter superseding the former when an official class name was instigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.137 (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Initial name of the Class before a formal name was allocated was "'V' Leaders". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.73 (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Interwar Standard
The present phrasing suggests that they were called that as of 1936. While not impossible, this is surprising enough to need a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Haida pic
Hi guys, don't know what you want to do about this, but the current placing of the Haida pic makes the page look like this;, to Mozilla users (1280 x 1074). Ryan 4314  (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's sorted now ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Armament
I noticed that the Canadian Tribal armament list mentions only 4 inch high angle guns. Didn't the Canadian ships 6 x 4.7 in & 2 x 4 in. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.12.5 (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As outlined in the text, all but the last two Canadian Tribals were delivered with 4.7" guns fitted, the final two having 4x2x4". Then, during the refit to DDE (presumably the 'armament list' mentioned), the survivors were refitted with with 2x2x4" in place of the former four turrets.

82.24.122.84 (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

'Failed' Cruiser
The text repeatedly describes the Tribals as evolving from 'a failed cruiser design', referencing D K Brown's 'Nelson to Vanguard'. 'Nelson to Vanguard' does not describe the 1934 Fleet Scout as 'failed', it simply notes (in both the cruiser and destroyer chapters), that the V Leader evolved from Design V into a fleet destroyer design, the Tribal. The more extensive discussion in Friedman's 'British Destroyers and Frigates: The Second World War and After' makes it clear that Controller (Henderson) deliberately conceived the V Leader as a destroyer-sized answer to the Fleet Scout role and that in the evaluation of the draft by the fleet commanders Rear Admiral (D) of the Med Fleet explicitly noted that the V Leader could fulfil major elements of the Fleet Scout role on a destroyer's displacement. i.e. the design did not fail, it was so successful it was able to achieve its design role while dropping a weight class from cruiser to destroyer.

As the 1934 Fleet Scout was both the progenitor of the Tribal Class Destroyers and had some input into the evolution of the Dido class cruisers, both vital to the RN during WWII, describing it as 'failed' seems somewhat harsh. 82.24.122.84 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, "failed" implies a design that was built but did not meet expectations. In fact the Tribal design evolved from paper studies of small cruiser designs that explored various armament combinations.