Talk:Destroyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Destroyer article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force World War II task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale

Contents 1 Last active DD 2 The spanish destroyer 3 The image 4 History of the Destroyer 5 Destructor, Kotaka, and sources 6 Polyphemus 7 Destructor again 8 USS McFaul photo

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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".

[edit] 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 confounded 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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)

• 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 :).

DagosNavy 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)