Actually, a Destroyers main purpose has never been to hunt and kill submarines. Although they've had that job tacked on to them the main Submarine killers of any fleet are the Frigates. Destroyers are more an anti air anti surface skirmish vessel primarily used, as you say for anti MTB defence of the Grand Fleet.

If you look at how the convoys were made up in WWII you'll find that Frigates were the main defence as they were basically developed for the anti submarine role. This may be different in America but in England Destroyers are not anti submarine weapons.

as good a description as any i have seen:)

Interesting topic

So what would you classify a Corvette as?

It is described as a highly maneuverable escort warship,
smaller than a destroyer.

That I would think would be the sub-hunter killer.

Not being Navy I am not sure...however I would think a Corvette would be better able to handle the following:
German E Boat
American PT Boat
British Motor Gun Boat (MGB)
British Motor Torpedo Boat (MTB)
Or any bloody Submarine that comes along.

I was also told that the only thing that could replace a Corvette was another Corvette.

Cheers...Happy Sailing....Doug

The full title of the pre WW1 destroyer was the "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" as Felix states.  The role of the class developed over time and at the time of Jutland part of their role was to attack the capital ships of the enemy fleet head on with torpedoes.  Early Hunt Class destroyers had multiple torpedo tubes but by the end of the war these had been dispensed with.

Corvettes were small and cheap single screw "Mini Destroyers" that were developed to counter the U-Boat threat.  The Class was given the designation "Frigate" towards the end of WW2.  The RN would have been much happier to build and man more destroyers but the cost was prohibitive both in terms of experienced seamen and the ships themselves.  It was deemed that a simple, single screw ship could be handled and used effectively by a crew made entirely of reservists and hostilities only men.

It is as pointless to compare the roles of ships in the 1940's with that of today as it is to compare the ships of 1812 with those of the 1940's.  Roles, names and techniques change and evolve over time.  The most effective seem to be those that are born from a reaction to an actual threat rather than those created to exploit a theoretical concept.

Today the British navy is apparently made of three small fishing boats....

Will

3? i thought it was just a ship in a bottle on some commanders desk. Well, learn something new every day.

Joking aside this is the current state of the RN fleet.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2204.html

A far cry from what I saw at the the Spithead Review in 1953. http://members.lycos.co.uk/brisray/dad/shead531.htm
Or even the Silver Jubilee Review in 1977. http://battleshiphmsvanguard.homestead.com/JubileeReview1977.html
This was when the Royal Navy was still a force to be reckoned with.

I was quite ticked off when they cancelled the Spithead review last year. But alas the Royal Navy had other engagements.


I must say though, a review of the Fleet in 1914 would have been a sight to behold. When Britannia really did rule the waves.