Talk:Destroyer escort

Comments

This needs a picture of a DE and comparative outlines of DD and DE.

Specifications would be nice - I'll try to add these later.

The book has a great prose style and an amazing story.

Leonard G. 03:34, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

escort destroyers

This article needs enhancement - escort destroyers were also used by the British (Hunt I - Hunt IV classes) and Japan (Matsu class). Many older "ordinary" destroyers were modified to escort destroyers during the war, by reducing artillery and adding more ASW weapons. Pibwl 21:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

escort destroyers are not the same as Destroyer escorts - The British used Evarts & Buckley class DE's in WWII, the Royal Navy classified these as Captain Class Frigates.

00:02 04 April 2005

So, do we need a separate article on "escort destroyer"?.. What about Hunts and A-I destroyers with Hedgehogs?... Pibwl 20:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probally, a linking article similiar to the one for frigates - but I'm not an expert on Navy stuff or this site. But I do know that the original (I think all but I'm only sure of the Evarts & Buckley's) DE's & Captain Class Frigates all were based on the basic hull design by Captain E.L. Cochrane of the Bureau of Shipping. So I think that 'Destroyer escort' is a specific type of ships rather than a group of similar types of ships. It might be worth having a chat with the guys & gals at DESA[1] to get more info on Destroyer escorts. I think part of the problem lies in the US Navy retaining the DE hull symbol for Ocean escort's.

22:48 05 April 2005 (UTC)

Number deployed

The US had 450 such in WWII? it doesnt say. Carlw4514 09:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian

Information on the Brazilian reception and operation of at least six DE's of the DET/Cannon Class during World War Two should be included. Also, the Hunt Class were initially conceived as austere Destroyers built on military lines, whereas the Destroyer Escorts initially came from the same place that the British Frigates came from. The difference between the two was that the British River Class Frigates were built along civilian lines, and the American Destroyer Escorts were built along military lines. And no, I don't know what the difference between building a ship along military lines, and building a ship along civilian lines is. Finally, I think that something should be added to this article about the differences and similarities between the 6 wartime classes of DE's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David R. Briggs (talk • contribs) 03:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Civilian and naval vessels are built using different scantlings. Some shipyards can only build to civilian scantlings, and so a warship designed to these can be built there, whereas a normal warship using naval scantlings could not.

Normally warships can only be built by specialised naval yards. If a warship is designed using civilian scantlings it can be built in a non-naval shipyard, and so more shipyards can build the design.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.162 (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

USS Samuel B. Roberts

This article contains a lengthy paragraph on the action of a single ship of this type. However heroric and notable that action was, it was not representative of this type of ship, and should therefore not be in this article. Vgy7ujm 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Navy

The Royal Navy apparently did not classify all of their destroyer escorts as frigates. The Hunt class destroyers were destroyer escorts.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Escort destroyers are not the same as Destroyer escorts - see the escort destroyers thread above. --Thefrood (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Kaibōkan

I intend to restore deleted text from the introduction pertaining to parallel development of frigates and Kaibōkan, since this helps explain the destroyer escort concept and mission to readers with previous knowledge of Japanese and British naval history of the period. I see no reason to delete this cursory mention simply because these conceptually similar warships have separate articles and are covered in greater detail later in this article. The purpose of the introductory paragraph includes summarizing the contents of the article.Thewellman (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Sammy D III (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Misleading text re: Lend Lease

From the article:

The Lend-Lease Act was passed into law in the United States in March 1941, enabling the United Kingdom to procure merchant ships, warships, munitions, and other materiel from the US, to help with the war effort. This enabled the UK to commission the US to design, build, and supply an escort vessel that was suitable for antisubmarine warfare in deep open-ocean situations, which they did in June 1941. Captain E.L. Cochrane of the American Bureau of Shipping came up with a design which was known as the British destroyer escort (BDE)...When the United States entered the war, and found they also required an antisubmarine warfare ship and that the destroyer escort fitted their needs perfectly...

The fact is that the Lend-Lease Act required all material built under the act to be built to U.S. requirements, so that (in theory) the material could be returned at the end of the 'lease' for U.S. military use (though this almost never happened). The U.S. 'found' that the destroyer escort fitted their needs perfectly because the U.S. had been aware of and approved the British design from the beginning. This text makes the 'finding' appear to be a coincidence, but it was not.

BTW, just in case it comes up, Cash and Carry did not have this limitation. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

How about "When the Lend-Lease Act passed in the United States in March 1941, it enabled the United Kingdom to procure at no cost merchant ships, warships, munitions, and other materiel from the US, to help with the war effort. The US designed, built, and supplied an escort vessel to the UK that was suitable for anti-submarine warfare in deep open-ocean situations in June 1941[a]. The design, by Captain E.L. Cochrane of the American Bureau of Shipping, was known as the British destroyer escort (BDE). When the United States entered the war in late 1941, the destroyer escort design was suitable for their needs as well."

A footnote could be added at [a] that explained that the vessel had to be (nominally) designed for US needs as in theory it would revert to US when done with. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, just got back from a no-internet vacation. Let me delve into Friedman's Destroyer book tomorrow and see if there is more that can be added. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've looked over Norman Friedman's US Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History. There seems to be some definite confusion about Captain E.L. Cochrane, who was instrumental in several destroyer and destroyer escort designs, including with input from the British experience. Cochrane was a U.S. Navy Captain assigned to the Bureau of Ships (aka BuShips) in the Department of the Navy. He had nothing to do with the American Bureau of Shipping, which is a private organization dedicated to standardizing shipbuilding practices. Friedman documents how there were several DE proposals going back before the beginning of the war and before LendLease, and he makes no mention of the "British destroyer escort (BDE)" as a specific proposal. I think merging this info with the existing cited text will be difficult. PS, I just found the BDE text in the Captain-class frigate article which cites the same source, this seems to be a better place to start (and it gets Cochrane's role right). I'd like to propose a re-write to bring this section into accord with the Captain article first and then perhaps bring in facts from Friedman. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)