Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 7 down vote favorite

In 1940 the United States traded fifty mothballed WW1 Destroyers to England in exchange for land rights in areas of the British Empire. Were any of those fifty ships credited with sinking an Axis military vessel?

share|improve this question
The Wikipedia link you provided has links to each ship's battle history. I glanced through a few and found that most had engaged U-boats and torpedo boats (aka E-boats). – jfrankcarr May 27 '12 at 5:22
@jfrankcarr I was checking through there as well. As I was looking, I also wondered if they held records from their history in WW1, but the details are sketchy. – Major Stackings May 27 '12 at 6:39
Is there anything to get back in 2040? – James Woolfenden May 27 '12 at 18:39
@Major Stackings: Those destroyers were completed in the early 1920s, and didn't see service in WWI. Completing hundreds of destroyers that were not of the best design (the late war British V&Ws were much better) right after a war is one of the USN's dumber moves. – David Thornley May 29 '12 at 12:20

1 Answer

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Yes, U boats. For a fuller explanation read "Hitler's U Boat War - The Hunters 1939 -1949" by Clay Blair. Below is an excerpt.

"One of the convoy escorts, the ex-American four-stack destroyer Montgomery, merely a month out of her overhaul and upgrade, spotted Marcel and attacked with guns and depth charges. The attack was successful; Marcel sank with all hands. She was the first Axis submarine to fall victim to one of the American warships transferred to the Royal Navy in the destroyer deal."

share|improve this answer
T.E.D. I don't think it correct to edit my answer with a link to a commercial organisation. Its available from a number of vendors both online and not and I believe I gave enough information for the questioner to find the book should they wish without promoting a particular vendor. Any link to a third party should have been posted as a comment. Your edit to my post suggests my support for that organisation and that was not what I intended when I posted my answer. – user995689 May 29 '12 at 9:53
I tend to agree that it isn't appropriate to link to a commercial vendor. While I can appreciate the intention to provide easier access to a more complete accounting of the information, I'm pretty confident that anyone could find the actual book themselves. – Steven Drennon♦ May 29 '12 at 15:45
Just for future reference, if you actually own this book, it would be helpful if you could give a specific example from the book itself. This answer as it stands is not very complete and would benefit greatly from such an example. – Steven Drennon♦ May 29 '12 at 15:46
@StevenDrennon Though I agree that finding books can be easy there are exceptions. Sometimes multiple publishings of that book, with small differences provided within, do occur. Without the ISBN or the specific link to the book you are referencing it can become confusing and even misleading. I am referring to Books that have the same title and author and have been republished with small changes and/or additions. I have found this to be true especially with historical references as new information has been made available to the author. – E1Suave May 30 '12 at 2:26
@E1Suave - You make a good point, but SE is about providing information, not sales references. If someone refers to a specific book that might have newer revisions, then that should be included in the answer. This can be done without providing a link to purchase the book. The main point is that SE does not want to be seen promoting one vendor over another. – Steven Drennon♦ May 30 '12 at 14:08
show 2 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.