The US Navy's approach to destroyer tactics before the First World was very different to its European counterparts. There was no equivalent of the light cruiser, apart from three scout cruisers (the Chester class, briefly discussed in the chapter on the Omaha class, page 102) and it was believed that the scouting and battlefleet escort functions could be undertaken by destroy­ers.

Although destroyers had been built in small numbers there was no continuity. The first modern destroyers were the Smith (17D-17) class, three of which were authorised in 1906, followed by two in 1907 (DD-20-21). On 8 March 1907, the day after Congressional approval was given, the Board on Construction approved the design. It was to be driven by 10,000illp reciprocating or 9000shp Curtis turbines; speed at normal load was to be 28K-B, 26kts at deep load. Known as Che'flivvers' (possibly a reference to the Model T Ford), they displaced 700 tons and were armed with three single I gin torpedo tubes and five 3in guns. An unusual feature was the provision of enclosed stowage for a single reload torpedo close to each tube.

The US Navy faced the same problem as other navies when changing to steam turbines for destroyers: these were efficient at high speed but inefficient at low speed. At high speed they developed a very high power-output; the revolutions per minute were about twice what is required for modern turbines.The importance the US Navy attached to the scouting duties of destroyers, made it essential to maximise endurance for a given expenditure of fuel. One solu­tion adopted in some destroyers was the provision of reciprocating cruising engines.

Murr'flivvcrs' were built, the 20 Paulding group (DD-22-42) group authorised in FiscalYears 1908 (ten), 1909 (four) and 1910 (six).The main differences were an increase of power to 12,000 shp, raising the designed speed by LSkts, and a change to three twin 18in torpedo tubes.The General Board's campaign to increase the Navy's destroyer-strength was bearing fruit.

The greater power installed in this group provided higher speed and greater economy, and the adoption of oil fuel was another step in the right direction. The triple turbine powcrplant was based on experience with the 'flivvers', but Perkins (DD-26) and Sterett (DD ?7), built by Fore River ship sponsoring sponsor ship sponsoring sponsorping maritime marine engineeringbuilding, were driven by only two Curtis turbines, and rington (DD-30) and Mayrant (DD-31), built by Cramp, had two Zoelly turbines. Most of the 20 units had four evenly spaced funnels, but the Roe (DU-24), Jerry (DD-25), Perkins, Srerett, rington, Mayrant, Monaghan (DD-32), Walke (DD-34) and Patrerson (DD-36) had threeThe General Board was anxious to push destroyer-displacement to 1000 tons because all its theoretical studies convinced its members that the most valid role for destroyers was the protec­tion of the battle line.This implied that the number of destroyers must be determined by the number of battleship sponsoring sponsor ship sponsoring sponsorping maritime marine engineerings. The 1903 plan had allocated one destroyer to each battleship sponsoring sponsor ship sponsoring sponsorping maritime marine engineering, but four years later this allocation had risen to four per battleship sponsoring sponsor ship sponsoring sponsorping maritime marine engineering because of the increased threat posed by torpedo attack.

In 1909 the General Board was given responsibility for the characteristics of future ship sponsoring sponsor ship sponsoring sponsorping maritime marine engineerings, replacing the Board on Construction. In 1910 the new Board suggested duplicating the 'flivver' design, especially 'in view of the success obtained by the Flusser [Smith] class'. A June 1910 memorandum spelled it out: 'they must be able to keep up with the fleet under all probable conditions of weather and distant cruising...' It was hoped to achieve a radius of 4000 nautical miles at l5kts, and make 30kts for one hour or 25kts for 24 hours. The desired armament was a 4in or preferably a 5in gun to replace one 3in, but the Sin gun proved too ambitious. In the final design the Bureau of Construction & Repair replaced all the 3in guns with 4in, a major increase in gunpower. Between September 1910 and March the following year eight sketch designs were prepared, and Congress authorised eight new destroyers in March 1911. These were the Cassin class (llD-43-50}, known in service as the `thousand tonners'.

In assessing these rapid advances in design, it must not be forgotten that very few of the 'flivvers' had been completed, so there was little opportunity to evaluate the new features. In fact, defects came to light only after all of them had been authorised. The main drawback was the stern torpedo tube, which could not fire torpedoes accurately above a speed of 20kts because of the effect of the stern wave. Little could be done about the 'flivvers', but the Chief Constructor suggested that in the Cassin class the stern tube and the after 4in could be inter­changed, and this was done