I served aboard the USS Hale DD642 during 1959 and 1960. I have copies of the 1958 and 1959 cruise books. The 1958 book describes the Hale as being a 2100 ton Fletcher class destroyer. The 1959 book destribes it as being a 2100 ton Lavallette class destroyer, built at Bath, Maine in April 1943.
What is the difference between Fletcher class and Lavallette class? Is Lavallette only a sub-class? Did someone make a mistake? There must have been some basis for making the change from Fletcher to Lavallette. [?][8][:I]
Well, Conways, All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922 - 1946, makes no mention of any significant change in the Fletcher class DD other than the bridge, and weaponry variations.
The La Vallette is given no special mention.
So other than, the La Vallette, being the third or fourth keel laid for the Fletcher class at the Federal, Kearny ship yards, I see no reason for the class designation discrepancy other than the cruise book author’s memory of ships of the class.
Lavallette was a Fletcher. Probably some typo, OR, if Lavallette had received a unique refit post-war, they may have decided to use her name to ID the other ships of the Fletcher Class that received the same refit.
I wrote a book on the Fletchers, and I’ve never heard of anyone referring to any of the ships by any other name than Fletcher.
I was assigned as Hull Assistant to the Supervisor of Shipbuilding at the Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. fro Feb 1942 to Sept 1942 after which I was transferred to Port Newark top inspect the new DE’s. I supervised the Navy’s inspections of the Fletcher ,a nd the LaVallette plus all the Fletcher class built at that yard , the 445 to to 451 and 465 to the 471. The Fletcher and the LaVallette were both of the Fletcher class and were built on adjacent shipways. They were identical in every way, except for small stowage of spare parts, and were launched within 7 weeks of each other. So far as I know there was no LaVallette class at that time.
Thanks guys, I suspect that “LaVallette class” is just a mistake. However, maybe it has something to do with a post war refit that Jeff mentioned. This refit(s) was quite extensive. Adding the tripod mast, removing one of the 5" mounts, adding the 3"/50 dual mounts, removing one of the torpedo mounts, adding the 3" fire control director, and other smaller changes. [:I]
According to tradition, U.S. Navy classes are named for the lowest-hull-numbered ship in the class. When built, the USS Fletcher (DD-445) was that ship for this class. In 1949, however, some ships of this class were designated as Escort Destroyers (DDE). At that point, the USS La Vallette (DD-448) became the lowest-hull-numbered ship of of the ships that stayed as DDs and, therefore, starting in 1949 some of these ships would have been properly known as La Vallette-class destroyers.
I just came across this and thought you might like some extrs info.
When the USS Fletcher was decommisioned , the lowest hull numbered ship of the class still in commision became the name of the class. This happened to be the USS LaVallete. I read this some time ago and when I come across it again I let you know where it comes from.(nothing to do with some being redegisnated as DDE)
So, if I read you correctly, when the Oliver Hazard Perry FFG-7 was decommisioned the USS McInerney FFG-8 became the lowest hull number in commission of this type within the fleet. I have never heard ANYONE refer to the class as the McInerney FFG-8 class of frigates.
I don’t think that this rings true, either. Once a class is named, all the following ships (of that class) that come after it are still considered a member of that class. If not, there would be constant renaming of ship classes. How many Essex class carriers were there? A bunch (24)! And the only time that I know of where there might have been a fluctuation in the class designation was the long-hull Ticonderoga sub-class which some considered a separate class. The last serving Essex was the Lexington. I have never heard of the Essex class referred to as the Lexington class.