Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

2 Answers 2

up vote 7 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

HMS Ludlow, Jan Visser photo

Generally served either as minelayers or convoy escorts. Their net effect was more as a deterrent. relatively little success against U-boats with a few notable exceptions.

These destroyers were collectively known within the Royal navy as the "Town class" and were provided by USA in five groups.

1st group:

G.68 HMS Lewes - engaged E-boats Nov 42

2nd group

G.27 HMS Leeds - engaged E-boats Feb 44

G.57 HMS Ludlow

3rd group

I.42 HMS Campbeltown (rammed docks St Nazaire March 1942)

I.20 HMS Caldwell

I.23 HMS Castelton

I.35 HMS Chelsea (to Russia as Derzki 1944) - engaged unknown U-boat Feb 42

G.05 HMS Lancaster - Minelaying duties Icelandic waters

G.19 HMS Leamington (to Russia as Zhguchi 1943) - sank U-207 1941, U-587 1942

G.42 HMS Lincoln (to Russia as Druzni 1943)

G.76 HMS Mansfield

G.95 HMS Montgomery - engaged Admiral Scheer Nov 1940

G.88 HMS Richmond (to Russia as Zhivuchi 1944)

I.52 HMS Salisbury

I.95 HMS Wells

4th group

I.04 HMS Annapolis

I.17 HMS Bath -sunk by U-204

I.08 HMS Brighton (to Russia as Zharki 1944)

I.21 HMS Charlestown

I.49 HMS Georgetown (to Russia as Zhostki 1944)

I.24 HMS Hamilton

G.08 HMS Newark

G.47 MHS Newmarket

G.54 HMS Newport

I.57 HMS Niagra

I.07 HMS Roxburgh (to Russia as Doblestni 1944)

I.15 HMS St Albans (to Russia as Dostioni 1944) - Minelaying + sank U-401

I.65 HMS St Clair

I.12 HMS St Mary - Minelaying off Iceland

5th group

H.46 HMS Belmont

H.64 HMS Beverley - sunk by U-188

H.72 HMS Bradford

H.81 HMS Broadwater - sank U-boat Oct 1941, herself sunk next day

H.90 HMS Broadway - helped to capture U-110, sank U-89 1943

H.82 HMS Burnham

H.94 HMS Burwell

H.96 HMS Buxton

I.05 HMS Cameron

I.28 HMS Chesterfield - attacked U-268 1943

I.45 HMS Churchill (to Russia as Deiatelnyi 1944)

I.14 HMS Clare

G.60 HMS Ramsey

G.71 HMS Reading

G.79 HMS Ripley

G.58 HMS Rockingham - Lost by mine off Scotland 1944

I.81 HMS St Croix - sank U-87, sunk by U-90

I.93 HMS St Francis

I.80 HMS Sherwood

I.73 HMS Stanley - sank U-131 and U434, then sunk herself

share|improve this answer

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.