Shipbucket

Right about the cruisers, although would the Canberra really count? If this was to take place in late 1943, then the Canberra, Sydney and Perth would have been sunk, the Hobart would be damaged for the rest of the war, leaving only the Shropshire and the Australia. Between them, they had 12 4", 10 40mm, and 20 20mm guns. The "dedicated" AA destroyer is really more an emergency war destroyer, retaining a slight ASW capability with the depth charge racks, yet having an armament focused on AAW. The design I currently have working on has two single 4" guns, 6 40mm guns, and 3 or 4 20mm guns. That already would be able to provide a good sized fraction of the total combined AA weapons of the cruisers still in active RAN service during 1943. As for the RAN destroyers, Most were outdated or armed with surface action guns. As far as I know, they had at best one or two heavy AA guns added to them during the war.

EDIT: Further research shows the destroyers built in the late 30s', yet they ended up serving in the Atlantic and Mediterranean rather than in the Pacific, where the remaining Australian cruisers were operating with a small domestic force.

_________________
Worklist:
Puerto Oeste - AU - WWI-WWII

Before Australia opted to build the River class, the Hunt class was given some consideration, but (wisely) they stuck with the River (actually the Bay class modified). But the Hunt would be closer to the Clemson in its intended role; and as the Hunt class was more often under air threat (Local waters and the Med) it was designed with the best current aa that could fit on the hull. I don't want to keep arguing against the Clemson, but I'd doubt if the Aussies would want any, apart from the 'bog standard' version (and as with the RN, it still involved time and money to adapt them); otherwise, they would need to devote considerable time and money to converting them to accept the 4-in mounts etc., which their very limited dockyard capacity would not encourage. Even with the River's, by the time they were in service, the war had been decided in the Allies favour. I appreciate that these old 'four stackers' did lots of service in the Pacific, but IIRC not in the front line, and by VJ day they would have been totally clapped out.

Like I said, I could only see this as purely academic or for some nation like China or Turkey who 1.) had no real organic shipbuilding programs and 2.) would be given ships to help 'distract' the Japanese or Germans.

The old US-destroyers where good at hunting submarines. And as fast troop transports. Or other special jobs. But no aa-role, no upgunning, no complex refit will work. I tried to do something with a 4-funnel myself and decided to drop it. Nothing will work unless you forget about simple physics. Sorry bout that.

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead

Now, the physics do match up- at least in weight and 'swing room' for the weapons.
Whether or not someone would go through the time or effort to refit them might be up for debate... but the Nationalist and Communist Chinese were VERY hard up for ships that even fit into the 'serviceable' category... much less the 'modern' one.

An AA refit isn't THAT complex compared to some- mine is almost a pound-for-pound gun swap. There would be no major below-decks work needed, no changes to the internals. The only real structural work is slightly lengthening the aft deckhouse, adding the podium for the centerline 40mm single, and lengthening the walkway from the fore deckhouse a bit for a director.

Everything else that's changed is subtraction rather than addition... and not nearly as hard.
In fact, my refit probably involves no more work than making them into a fast transport.

And, honestly, how can you say that these ships were 'good at hunting submarines?'
1.) Their armament was all wrong.
2.) Their machinery was all wrong.
3.) Their hull form was all wrong.
4.) Their topside layout was poor.
The only things they had going for them, in fact, as 'good sub hunters' was the fact that they could float and had sufficient speed to chase a fleeing sub. They were hulls in the water at the right place and right time. Beyond that, they pretty much sucked in comparison to the capabilities of ships that were intended to hunt subs.

In addition they were slow to accelerate and the turn radius was bigger than that of the F-104 Starfighter.

Clemson Class destroyers were designed, not as an ASW platform, but as a Anti Surface platform. They only added depth charge racks to bring WW1 era U-boats to the surface and then used the 4" guns to sink them. That was their job.

_________________
"It is better to type nothing and be assumed an ass, than to type something and remove all doubt." - Me

Perfectly right. I did think I'd posted the same thought yesterday but must of forgot to hit the send button! Anyway, as Nighthunter points out, the class was typical of the Destroyers designed around WWI: to serve as a screen between the battlefleet and the opposing enemy fleet (most probably Japanese). Out in 'no mans land' the destroyers would be aiming to break through to launch their torpedo's, and of course, trying to stop the enemy destroyers doing the same. Jutland may be famous for exploding British Battlecruisers, but there was also plenty of destroyer action; and by WWII the older types were being utilised in other roles; with the RN in asw by necessity because the lessons of WWI had not been applied - that what was needed was a plenty of escort ships with good endurance, enough speed to run down submarines, big enough to be seaworthy, and easy to manufacture. The line of Sloops that culminated in the Black Swan class were the best that the RN had, until the River class came along as being easier to build in prefabricated units.

Like the old V,W, and Clan classes, the Clemson's ended up fighting a war for which they hadn't been designed, but were hard used never the less. My dad served on the Clan class HMS Douglas, designed as a flotilla leader, but still pretty cramped compared to the more modern designs. The 50 odd ex USN destroyers were a mixed blessing in RN service; while helping to plug a gap in numbers, they had to be refurbished an adapted to suit RN operations, and they just wern't happy serving continuously in convoy duties; some being badly damged in storms, others being radically rebuilt with extra endurance; and that in itself required dockyard time that couldn't easily be spared.

Still, these brave old ships gave their best in the cause of freedom, and for that we should be grateful

Agree with Portsmouth Bill about the suitability of these vessels. Given their dimensions could they carry enough ammunition to serve as AA ships? Would sugest the Hawkins class cruisers would have been a better choice.

_________________
"There was nothing wrong with Titanic when she left the Shipyard" Tim McGarry Belfast Comedian

Could you not just use the hulls for static AA duties in ports and such? Leave them some ability to move under their own steam.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire