ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Why is a Frigate a Frigate (and not a Destroyer or a Corvette)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.พ. 2022
- Forget the vague speculations about marginal differences in displacement, speed and armament. The real explanation of the difference can only be found in naval history. It amazes me that so few people, otherwise very knowledgeable about modern warships, know how the modern frigate-designation came to be. Most will give you vague generalizations, which won't leave you any wiser, probably more confused.
Watch this video and you'll find out that there is no definite yardstick which will conclusively determine whether a warship is either one or the other. That saves a lot of pointless speculation. It's just a matter of preference and naval culture.
Errata:
The nice thing, when a lot of viewers watch your video is that you get to make your point. The embarrassing part is that someone will certainly spot your mistakes. So far, I know of five:
14:34 I show a picture of a Russian cruiser, to argue that the Farragut-class, while considered 'frigates' in the USN, was more akin to foreign cruisers. This should have been a picture of a Kynda-class cruiser. But I messed up pictures and showed a picture of Varyag, a Slava-class cruiser. I didn't catch it on the double-check. (spotted by Patrick Bateman)
02:53 I say that large caliber naval guns "fired grenades". (caught by Francisco Franco😏) I'm quite embarrassed about that one and have no clue what got into me to say such a thing. Large caliber naval guns do not 'lob grenades', they fire shells. My best guess is that I got so engrossed in the visualization of the dimensions of large caliber battleship guns to people who might be unfamiliar with them, that I somehow wanted to emphasize that the applicable projectiles are supposed to explode upon arrival. Either way, a mistake of mine, plain and simple.
00:15 Here I mistakenly thought I was showing a frigate afloat. In fact I showed HMS Portchester Castle, which was built as a Castle-class 'corvette' and wouldn't be re-rated a 'frigate' until 1952.
The source of this error of mine is easily explained. That particular clip is from the movie 'The Cruel Sea'. In the book, after the sinking of Compass Rose, the captain subsequently takes command of a River-class frigate. But, in filming the movie, no such ship was readily available and a Castle class-ship was used instead. I spotted this error before releasing the video, but didn't think it clashed with my argumentation. Besides, at the time of filming (1953) she was officially considered a 'frigate'.
03:32 Here I show a picture of the French ship Dunkerque, because I wanted to give an idea of size comparison between a battleship and a cruiser. But it was pointed out to me by a sharp viewer (hugo roulland) that Dunkerque was considered a Battlecruiser rather than a Battleship. I can't really argue against that, based on displacement, main gun caliber and speed. Although I won't take issue with anyone who would label her a 'Fast Battleship'. But, if you are going to make that distinction between capital ships, hugo roulland is right and Dunkerque would be considered a battlecruiser.
My main objective was to give the size comparison and I wanted to use a French ship. To be honest, the picture of Dunkerque I had available was much better than what I had on Richelieu or Jean Bart.
01:09 I show a painting of a 'frigate' on the right hand side. Sharp-eyed naval artist Gordon Frickers spotted that I mistakenly used a picture of a three-masted square rigged merchant ship, instead of a frigate. I'm afraid that this probably came about during a less-than-critical internet search for nice artwork on frigates and I just fell for the general appeal of the painting. To be honest, I never thought it was supposed to be be a painting realistically portraying a specific real-world ship.
The problem is, original conceptions blur as needs alter..............and eventually what type (Cruiser, Destroyer etc.) a ship gets designaterd is pretty much down to the whims of thre country concerned. Even in the 1960's , in the Royal Navy at least, you had "Frigates, Frigates and Frigates".............ranging from the little Type 14 "Blackwood" class, to missile armed "Leanders", both of which I served on. But..............that was always the case. I mean taking the sailing Frigate, and the British perchance of naming anything not pidgeon holed, "Sloop" irrespective of size, crew and armament...............there was a vast difference between Frigates.
A 6th rate, 28 x 9pdr gunned Frigate was vastly inferior to a ship of 44 x 18pdr guns, but both called "Frigate" Then not to be outdone, the USN builds 56? x 24pdr ships and still called them Frigates.
Congratulations on an excellent video covering what evolved into a VERY "gray area".
I was told that a shipbuilder made a mistake when doing the layup and when they noticed the mistake it was too far along to stop. When The navy said what is this? The builder worried that this would ruin his company replied "Frig it!"
Another respectful correction. Guns of any caliber from Small Arms to Big Naval guns do not fire shells, they fire projectiles. And when there is a shell involved that always stays behind and is extracted and ejected from the weapon after firing
14:34 isn't a Kynda class missile cruiser, but a Slava class missile cruiser.
@@danieljosephdelta44semperfi Maybe, maybe not.............with separate ammunition (shell/projectile & cordite separate) the bit that leaves the barrel was always refered to as "The shell" and stowed in "Shellroom" on ship, whereas the propellent cordite case, be it brass and left behind, or silk and burnt up (like with 6" guns) were stowed in "Cordite Magazine"............thus the projectile fired, was called, say "4.5" shell".
In the UK Frigates are seen as cheep so despite them being huge its easy to get funding. That's why our last aircraft carriers were called through deck cruisers. Cruisers = cheep. If they could have got away with calling our 80000 ton carriers flat top Frigates they would have done.
Calling them cruisers may also have to do with various treaties around the world… for example Turkey doesn’t allow aircraft carriers into the Black Sea… but an aircraft equipped cruiser is fine.
Same thing with the 27,000 ton Japanese helicopter “destroyer”, that carries f-35’s
It would be nice to see a similar video report on the US Navy ships, only.
Were they cheep or cheap?
Also the Royal navy categorizes their ships by purpose. For example vessels designed for air defence are called "destroyers" whereas vessels designed for anti submarine warfare are called "frigates". Currently the UK is building two new types of warships. One is a 8,000 ton anti submarine vessel and the other is a 5,700 ton general purpose vessel. Both are called "frigates". The British type 26 frigate would be called a destroyer in the US navy
65,000*
I think the names have gotten terribly confusing mostly because the destroyers got so big, they gobbled up all the ship classes that used to be distinct from them, frigates, light cruisers, etc.
no, frigates are still the best for ASW.
All the classifications seem to have drifted.
Russia has modern corvettes whose capabilities would give its destroyers a run for their money, and it has Soviet corvettes which are barely more capable than patrol boats. The next destroyed it’s been considering building (“Lider”) is on par with a heavy cruiser.
The Arleigh-Burke is closer to a cruiser than a destroyer, despite being classed as the latter.
😃😇
@@QualityPen that is two classes apart. they have totally different tasks. Corvettes are obsolete for decades.
Destroyers are still mainly performing the same function though and that's why they've retained the name. They are still mainly intended as escorts for capital ship, the capital ship has just become the carrier and that means that the destroyer is now meant to protect against aircraft and missiles rather than small attack craft (this is true regardless of whether a navy has their own carriers since in that case they're usually just meant to escort allied ones). This new paradigm is also what drove the cruiser class to extinction, a cruiser was a ship that was armed and armored enough to operate on its own and defeat basically anything it'd come up against other than a battleship, while also being able to take part in the line of battle. However nothing really fights alone anymore, the main strike power usually comes from the carrier, and armor is obsolete so this just relegates the cruiser to being a larger destroyer, which is what the Ticonderoga class is (literally they are re-designated destroyers). That really can't justify a separate class and that's why the class has been phased out. Frigates are then the ships that have re-taken the long range patrol mission however it makes no sense to call them cruisers when they're smaller and more lightly armed than destroyers. The way these ships went about their missions were also different, cruisers were still capital ships, they were not used for lowly anti-piracy patrols and were more so meant for patrolling vast colonial empires. Frigates on the other hand were just meant to be a small warship you could have anywhere and were cheap enough to actually be used for less important jobs. That's very much the category modern frigates fit into.
I have generally believed that the designations were based on mission and capabilities rather than hard-and-fast rules on displacement or even armaments. This verifies that. Great video and excellent research! Thank you!
the modern navies has task specific ships, there is no rule about bringing in new types of ships.
Note: there are no more battleships, replaced by rockets and missiles ships.
That is why we classify our frigates as frigates while the Asians call the same vessels destroyers based only on displacement and speed. Not only the Trump class but also the Karel Doorman class or M-class and our newer classes like the Zeven Provinciën class and the new Multi Purpose Frigate program. They are able to do the basic air defence, ASW and anti ship function but not as well as a destroyer or cruiser would. The new class will be able to use energy based weapons and other increased energy consumption equipment in the future as it has a lot of excess energy production build into all finalist designs. I guess that would be messing with some people's heads again.
It's weird because here in Australia, our ships go follow that system. Our destroyers are designated for air warfare, and our future frigate class is primarily for subsurface combat. Both ships will have equal anti-ship capabilities, but the frigates will have more guns and a multi-mission bay.
Something I've realized over time is that ship designation is a communication tool not a binding ship design specification. A ship in it's design phase is not constrained by people's notion of what is a CL or a DD, it's designed to complete a specific mission and the designation comes afterwards to try to categorize it. A great example is the Atlanta class, originally meant to be some sort of destroyer leader which is why it has 5 inch guns and torpedoes. It was later designated as a light cruiser due to its size. It's mission however didn't change, it continued to function largely as other destroyer leaders would, but when standing on the ship you would get a lot of head turning and puzzled looks if you called the ship a destroyer and need to do a lot of explaining every time you mention it.
Hello,
Very true. That's why I love it when a South African journalist said: 'Corvette or Frigate, it's still a warship'.
Either way, no matter how they were thought of on the drawing board, the Atlanta-class were some awfully good looking ships and incredibly useful.
Kind regards,
Garret
You are spot on.
Good video. I have a simple definition I use to seperate Cruiser, Destroyers, and Frigates. A Frigate is a warship that can provide broad protection to itself and a task group. A Frigate has no or limited strike / offensive capability. A Destroyer adds onto a Frigates capability by having significant strike / offensive capability. Finally, a Cruiser has additional capabilities over a Destroyer in that it has a true C2 capability to manage a task group / task force.
The Absalon class frigates sorta ruin that distinction since they have C2 capability. They also has sea lift capability as well as a fully stocked machine shop so they probably don't fit neatly into any system.
That's generally why I tend to define frigates more by their flexibility, which gives them greater endurance, compared to say destroyers. Destroyers are in this day and age primarily meant to escort carriers and fight alongside them, they are able to operate on their own as a simple function of their size, however they aren't primarily designed to do so. Frigates are, they will sacrifice some armament for greater flexibility and this is generally what allows them to operate very effectively on their own for long periods of time because they can carry out a wide variety of tasks. Frigates are of course also capable of operating alongside carrier groups in similar roles as destroyers but their small size makes them slightly worse at it since they have to sacrifice something. The Absalon for example has basically no ASW capability and fairly limited armament, even the up-gunned sister class the Iver Huitfeldt still has only about a third of the VLS tubes the Arleigh Burke has despite having 2/3rds the displacement.
@@hedgehog3180 What tasks would a current frigate carry out that a current destroyer can't (or at least not efficiently)?
My thoughts, in the days of sail it was powerful enough to look after itself unless faced with 1st or 2nd rate ships in which case it was fast enough to leave. These days a frigate is anything someone calls a frigate.
That is kinda how a modern frigate works. Can operate on its own, fast usually for anti submarine or costal defense.
Cruisers usually have 2 guns, have changed roles since ww2 depending on the country. American cruisers were more anti submarine duty, while destroyers were anti air screens.
Soviets were anti ship mainly, and destroyers were anti submarine.
Modern Corvettes usually run in groups of three, and ment for costal or harbor defense. And frigates are just slightly more powerful and can operate solely. But again these also depend on the countries in question.
Will be interesting to see the effectiveness of the old fashioned ship to ship gunnery of the Russian Cruisers, there is major debate within the naval warfare community about this. Some have full faith in modern technology and have said that threat interception systems like Aegis and Phalanx can easily pinpoint and destroy conventional ballistic projectiles which travel much slower than their intended targets incoming high speed missiles. On the other hand the pro gunnery camp says that ballistic projectiles still have a role to play in modern naval warfare as modern ships are comparatively lightly armored unlike ships from the old days so throwing old shells is cheaper than expensive smart missiles but still just as effective dishing out damage. As well ships like aircraft carriers have defensive flares to distract smart missiles but an artillery shell cannot be fooled. I am of a middle view, both sides have good points so I believe that modern warfare will be a mix of both.
Nobody uses battleships any more. The whole rating system needs revamping.
I think the video is correct that by WW2, or even WW1, cruisers had taken over the role of the age of sail frigates.
For me, a frigate should have a substantial size to manage its own mission on the open ocean. Alone or not. It should have a few guns, a chopper or two and powerful missiles but not a lot of them. It should also be a Baltic Sea overkill. Corvettes went into so small sizes and their speed followed up like no tomorrow. Swedish Baltic corvettes are war speedboats.
My complements on the research for this video. The designations for frigate and destroyer are constantly evolving. I think the newest differentiation for the US Navy is that 1) Destroyers use large missile cells and frigates use smaller missile cells (missiles with less range). 2) Destroyers will carry missiles in two locations (forward and midship) for a higher rate of fire. Frigates carry missiles in one location. 3) All new Destroyers will need to have the Ballistic Missile Defense system which includes the Aegis Combat System but none of the frigates will have this expensive upgrade, and will have a less capable radar system. 4) Displacement is largely irrelevant and has more to do with survivability than firepower (better results on the Total Ship Survivability Test).
Maybe all surface warships are becoming obsolete as we currently think about them. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of craft just large enough to carry one or two advanced missiles and operated remotely or robotically seems to be a much better - and cheaper - projection of national military power than ships that are becoming more and more like rubber ducks in a carnival shooting gallery.
@@mikeschnobrich1807 Modern Destroyers and above can defend themselves against all current weapons in a highly contested environment but it must be done with a high level of automation to avoid human error/delays. The Moskva was very old school with no automation and slow sweep radars. Frigates and smaller ships cannot defend themselves in a highly contested environment.
I just throw up my hands and say, "Frig it!" when someone asks me if a ship is a destroyer or frigate.
I was always lead to believe a frigate was generally smaller, and was more equipped as a defensive platform and destroyers were larger and could be used more as an offensive platform.
Well the USN is probably gonna fuse the roles of destroyers and cruisers, seeing as DDG(X) is gonna replace both the Arleigh-Burke and the Ticonderoga class. Also, their new frigate, the Constellation-class, is gonna have AEGIS, but with a far smaller, three sides version of the SPY-6, the same version they are using on the Ford-class.
Well Done! I don't feel any smarter, but I still feel as though a veil's been lifted, and at least I have some yardstick to work with. I'm speaking as an enthusiastic but complete ignoramus on the subject, so I got a lot out of it. Thank You Very Much!
Back in the 70"s USN if it had twin screws, twin rudders it was a Destroyer. Single screw, single rudder was a Frigate. At one point they redesignated DE"s to FF or FFG. Every time I nick myself shaving I think of The USS Roark, FFG1053. Gone for scrap, but not forgotten.
I was a plankowner on the Roark. I wondered why it was designated DE because it was much larger than any of the destroyers around it. The later change to frigate was appropriate.
I have a cousin who was married to a crewman who was stationed on the Roark, I was stationed on her sister ship the USS Blakeley (FF-1072). Ex DE-1072 btw.
Served on USS Marvin Shields DE/FF 1066 1973-1976 the type designation was changed in 1975 to conform to NATO standards
Thanks for this. As a boy I used to browse through Janes Fighting Ships, marvelling at the variety of vessels. As a man, I worked as a Defence Scientist for the Canadian Navy. One of our research ships was CNAV Sackville, converted from HMCS Sackville, a flower class corvette. It is now a floating museum (restored as a corvette) in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Hello,
HMCS Sackville is high on my wish list for a visit, but every time I'm anywhere near the Bay of Fundy there seem to be more pressing matters.
By the way, could I ask you for your opinion on my 'Backyard Planetarium'-video?
Kind regards,
Garret
What a wonderful analysis of the different ship types and their duties through the ages. A few small inaccuracies in your story can be considered as scars on fine leather. I really appreciate the work you put into this documentary. During World War II my father served in the Royal Canadian Volunteer Reserve RCNVR on 4-Stacker Destroyers, Corvettes and minesweepers. On June 5, 1944 he swept mines off Omaha Beach. Thank you so much for your work.
Frigates make a practical contribution to non military national interests. Economic zone security, fisheries, trafficking, customs, regional disaster support , surveillance, transporting special forces, Marine resucues, anti submarine capabilities, helicopters, parties for dignitaries, power generation capabilities, etc etc
Also vey versatile from the Infinitely upgradable to keep them current with the various systems like navionics, surveillance, and weapons capabilities. Vulnerable in wartime though. Fighter aircraft are still a threat and have been known to get the better of a frigates defence during excercises.
When I toured my buddies frigate, I noticed a handy axe nearby its core electronics systems and screens. That’s the secret sauce.
At 3:35, your example of a light cruiser is the USS Atlanta. My father served aboard her and was there when she was sunk during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. He told me stories of the final hours. Playing a firehose through a doorway into a small arms magazine on fire and cooking off rounds. There was a pile of spent bullets piled against the wall on the other side of the passageway. He told me he regretted every last bite of that mornings breakfast when he really wanted to be as thin as possible..
Hello Sully,
Thank you for your reply. Although competition is fierce, in the cruiser category, for ‘best looking ship’, I have always thought the USS Atlanta to be one of the top contenders with her sleek lines, well balanced silhouette and impressive armament.
It is so easy to have overly romantic notions of naval combat, as stories are mostly from the survivors. I imagine your father must have had many hair raising stories about his time in the Navy. I’m glad to hear he survived. It’s experiences like that which do not just make a mark upon servicemen, but also carry forward to their families and people reading about them. It always makes me wonder how it felt, at the time, to a young man confronted with frightening problems. One can only respect those who came through.
Kind regards,
Garret
My first ship assignment at sea in October 1979 was a 4200-ton, 27 Knot, Knox-class Fast Frigate USS Aylwin FF-1081, formerly DE-1081 (Destroyer Escort), commissioned 1971. On 30 June 1975, she was reclassified Frigate (FF 1081). Our primary mission was ASW and Radar/ESM Surveillance. The Garcia-class Frigates were FF-1040 to FF-1051. The later Knox class was FF-1052 to FF-1097. They have all since been decommissioned. The USS Aylwin was transferred to Taiwan in 1999 and serves to this day in the Taiwanese Navy as the Taiwanese frigate Ning Yyang (FF-938). At 15:00, the USS Reasoner FF-1063 is shown in the upper right. The Knox class was armed with ASROC, Harpoon Anti-ship missiles, port and starboard Mark 46 torpedo launchers, and the Sea Sparrow Anti-Air missile launcher, later replaced by the 20mm Phalanx in 1984. The ship had one ASW helicopter that could drop two torpedoes and had dipping sonar.
I served on two classes of frigate, Leahy class 1973-75 and Oliver Hazard Perry class 1990-91.
USS Gridley DLG-21 was a double ender missile ship designed to be a flagship for a squadron of destroyers.
USS Gary FFG-51 was a smaller ship with a crew of no more than 185. OHP class had far more ASW capability than the Leahy class because of two helicopters.
You may fire when ready, Gridley!
@@fredkruse9444 that is the man the ship was named for.
@@martinwalker9386 I was guessing that. Thanks for confirming.
@@fredkruse9444 Captain Gridley had trained his men to a much higher proficiency in gunnery than the rest of the fleet. If I remember correctly 25% vs 10% accuracy. During the Spanish-American war his ship was the flagship of the attacking force at Manila Bay and the admiral called down to Captain Gridley, “You may fire when you are ready, Gridley.”
Captain Gridley probably knew he only had months to live and could have been medically retired.
I served on a Leahy class frigate in the early 60s. It was bigger than a destroyer and smaller than a cruiser. The hull number was DLG17 for Destroyer Leader Guided missile. The ship was later updated and reclassified as a cruiser.
A fable (related somewhat to your final comment)
In 1970, the US awarded the contract to construct 30 Spruance-class destroyers. They were, essentially, cruiser-sized and capable, but no politician wanted to spend Cruiser money.
A few years later, the Navy wanted to replace it's aging WW2-era destroyers with a new ship. Congress told them they couldn't afford more destroyers (since they had recently bought a class of 30), but they could buy all the frigates the Navy wanted. Navy designers quickly changed the name of the new ships to guided-missile frigate, and the Perry class was born.
Some navies classify ships based on their primary role, others on ship size. For example, the Royal Navy calls anti submarine ships frigates regardless of size. In the US Navy the frigate is generally the smallest ship capable of extended blue water deployments (i.e. bigger than a cutter, but smaller than a destroyer) regardless of its primary role.
Most navies arent even internally consistent. Lots of europeans call their frigates frigates because thats what they call them; some also started using 4000 ton corvettes that are almost the same as frigates 30 years ago. Americans called the Ticonderoga a cruiser, despite being based on a destroyer hull, because the cruiser to go with it was cancelled. The Arleigh Burkes are more capable and heavier than Ticos at this point, but they're still destroyers.
Some people say "look the Tico got a lot of missiles, so its a cruiser", but thats just trying to justify it after the fact.
In the US it is changed for political reasons as well. Take the Ticonderoga class. Originally designed as a destroyer with a big brother cruiser developed alongside it. Big brother was cancelled, but the potential PR hit of not getting the cruisers meant the destroyer was "upgraded" to be a cruiser. Exact opposite happened with the Zumwalts.
@@DoddyIshamel IIRC calling the Tico cruisers wanst 'just' about PR, but also to get it through congress as a seperate program.
Completely forget about the Zumwalt though. 16.000 tons, 80 missiles, 6 inch caliber guns which was literally cruiser weapons in WW2, its wild that they call that thing a destroyer.
The US has another naming quirk. Since the Nimitz class CVN, the use of a "carrier" designation has been reserved for a CVN "supercarrier".
The reason? Budget hawk politicians getting bit by the Good Idea Fairy. *Any* time a carrier ship was proposed that was *less* than a supercarrier (and intended to *augment* , not *replace* full sized CVNs carrying full sized wings), even before the total tonnage was determined, Congress would start talking about replacing all future CVNs with the smaller (and cheaper) newer design, even though they couldn't actually do the same mission at all.
Which is why the LHA 6 was still designated as an "amphib" despite being basically what every other country out there would call a carrier. (I mean, size wise, it's basically the same size as a WWII Essex CV and operates fixed wing - albeit STOVL - fighters.)
@@geodkyt The LHA is not a carrier in any sense of the word it has a well deck and can launch amphibious landing craft, hence the name, and it's flight deck is too small for normal fixed wing aircraft, the role is fundamentally different from that of a standard aircraft carrier: its aviation facilities have the primary role of hosting helicopters to support forces ashore rather than to support strike aircraft.
Also, in the age of sail, frigates were defined as ships with a single gun deck. Sloops were ships with no gun deck; having all of their armament on the main/weather deck. This led to severe idiosyncracies in naming when iron and steam power were developed and employed. These new ships, with breech loading shell guns and armor, were the most powerful warships in the world (i.e. HMS Warrior). However, since this new armament was on a single gundeck, they were only classified as frigates.
Seems to me that in a lot of sci-fi frigates are basically smaller destroyers and "space corvettes" basically operate more like a submarine that moonlights as a patrol boat. Cramped and small with surprisingly long independent operational times and/or distances but generally armed with a bunch of small point defense or light autocannon-esqe turrets and a spinal (or single small dorsal) mounted anti-ship weapon if at all. Basically a gunship with crew quarters and some warship-y auxillary modules.
you touched unto something that is almost universal: people rarely take the time to understand the history of whatever process, method, system, etc. that they are using.
My takeaway from this excellent explanation.
So the Age of Sail frigates got functionally replaced in battle fleets by the cruiser classes. The destroyer was invented to counter the threat to the capital ships of torpedo boats and submarines. Then the destroyers grew fat due to becoming multirole combat fleet defenders instead of focusing on single type threats (practically becoming capital ships themselves). Thus frigates became reinstated as a class to bridge the gap between the fat destroyers and the littoral combat ships. To complement fleet protection and to go on individual missions.
And now no one can tell the difference anymore between cruisers, destroyers, frigates and corvettes, due to the extinction of battleships and to guided weapons having become almost any combat ship type's main armament, able to sink any ship, to counter any threat at sea and to attack land targets.
Ending on the philosophy behind "what's in a name" (that makes a ship deadly and capable, besides its capabilities), indicating that everyone has de facto iven up on accurately and unambiguously classifying large ship classes. Making me suspect that the only reason modern navies still do so is to successfully obtain funding for their multi-decade budgets. After all, to politicians it probably doesn't sound too bad being asked for some extra frigates instead of some extra cruisers.
That is a good summary. I like how you describe destroyers as ‘getting fat’. That’s a very ‘organic’ way of putting it, but essentially what happened. After WW2 you could hardly have imagined the new destroyers ever engaging in the massed attacks of ‘their grandfathers’.
Kind regards,
Garret
The classes usually also have historic roots, navies like the Danish and Dutch like the frigate class partly because those countries have some famous historical frigates so the class is more visible and recognizable to the public (neither language even have an indigenous word for destroyer so the general populous isn't gonna be very familiar with the term). It can also be a diplomatic tool, when Denmark and Norway classify their ships as frigates they're intending to communicate to their NATO allies what role these ships are supposed to have in a NATO fleet, that they shouldn't expect destroyer level combat capability even if they are capable surface combatants.
Also ships in general have just gotten larger, like any modern ship with the same role as one from the 40s would dwarf their ancestors. It's just a result of technology improving which lets us build bigger ships cheaper, in fact there's an oversupply of shipping production in the world so it's very cheap to build large ships. Destroyers did get larger partly because they became more capable but it might be equally true to say that they became more capable because they could become larger without any real penalty. This is true of all ships, military as well as civilian, there's just no real reason to not make it larger to make it more capable, especially when crews tend to expect slightly better accommodations these days.
Frigates like the type 26 (9000 tonnes) or the arleigh Burke destroyers are pretty much cruisers in terms of size and capability
I was kind of foggy on the delineation between surface ships mentioned other than battleships, driven by the the odd classifications of some during the last century as you pointed out. This video was very enjoyable and informative! Thank you for making it! 👍
I found some interesting information in this video. But it didn't really define what is and isn't a frigate. But then it sounds like the various navies struggle with what to call some of these platforms. I'm thinking of something between a destroyer and a light cruiser. In displacement and armament.
At 11:01 in the video, is a picture in the lower right corner of a United States Destroyer. This is the USS Halsey Powell, DD 686, Fletcher Class. As a reservist in the Navy from 1965 - 1966, I did my weekend drills and annual 2 week cruises on it. Home ported out of Long Beach, CA. I have fond memories sailing on her.
Just a little friendly comment, the steam 'Battleship' illustrated at 2:30, HMS Warrior, (or her sister ship HMS Black Prince) although at the time of her entry into service in the early 1860's the most powerful warship in the world and easily capable of defeating any Battleship then in existence, she was technically a Frigate as she was Ship Rigged with a single gun deck.
As you probably know, HMS Warrior is still in existence and can be visited at Portsmouth Harbour in southern England. She is well worth a visit for anyone with an interest in ships and naval history.
Hello Tony,
Point well taken. In fact, that particular period of naval history is a bit under-emphasized in this video because I tried to make a ‘clean cut’ from the age-of-sail to the steam era.
The initial reaction to increased use of steam engines in warships was to equip all classes with at least some practical type of engine. The problem was that even a swift sailer would be a helpless victim to a cumbersome (more heavily armed) ship, in light airs. This meant that there were initially indeed steam frigates and steam corvettes. But the installation of steam engines was at odds with what ship designers had strived for in frigates and corvettes over the previous two centuries. It slowed them down considerably. The engines and screw mechanism in HMS Warrior are a marvel for that era, but also meant that she could be out-sailed by a pure frigate in anything upward from a moderate blow. As increased efficiency and more practical designs emerged it was realized that more modern designs would soon close that gap. That was the era when the steam frigates were slowly disappearing, their designation now being characterized by their function within the fleet. As they were meant to fullfill a ‘cruizing’-role (it was often soelled with a ‘z’) they were increasingly called ‘cruisers’. Some ships were simply redesignated as such, without any changes to their design. Eventually their masts and rigging became an unnecessary Achilles heel and disappeared altogether, effectively ending the ‘blood line’ of frigates and corvettes.
I have visited HMS Warrior a few times and believe she is a marvelous ship and a wonderful museum (there are never enough hours in the day, when visiting Portsmouth). Her role in naval history does deserve more attention than I managed to give her in my video. But, as this video was already creeping towards ‘twenty minutes’ I had to make some choices. Therefore I went over that particular transition rather abruptly.
Kind regards,
Garret
@@TribusMontibus Hello Garret, absolutely no criticism intended, I simply thought it would make an interesting extra snippet for anyone who is not familiar with the period. I do think the transition from sail to steam is a fascinating period in naval history with all the changes and advances in technology and the need to learn new tactics in order to use it. The 'Ironclad' era is one of my favourite periods of history.
@@tonym480 Hello Tony,
Not to worry; no offense taken whatsoever. In fact, I see the validity of your point and agree that it was an extremely interesting period. It would warrant a video by itself. I find it extremely interesting (as you have already mentioned) that HMS Warrior could have sailed through any foreign squadron and have annihilated it all-by-its-lonesome, as log as ammunition didn’t run out and provided they kept from being boarded by overwhelming numbers. She wasn’t just tactically important but, being so powerful, even a strategic consideration for potential enemies.
I couldn’t possibly take offense from someone who speaks praise, in a civilized manner, for a ship like that.
Kind regards,
Garret
I served aboard the USS DALE DLG19 from 1965 to 1968. Later it was classified as a CLG after a refit. It was a great ship.
Some very good information and detail. The ship in Master & was a "Sloop of War". It carried fewer and smaller guns than a frigate (7th class) because it was smaller. (2 classes down in the Admiralty numbering system). Light cruiser WWII was way more than a frigate of the 17-1800s. It was like a "74" a seventy four (smaller) guns on two decks (3rd class) with about half the crew of a 1st class ship. It was the main open seas fighting ship. Destroyers are treated ok but I'd add that WWII destroyers were often about 300 ft long but post WWII grew to 500-600ft (e.g. Arleigh Burke class). Next Gen destroyers are to be between 500&600ft. Frigates were 300 ft in WWII but built differently than destroyers of the same size. I speculate that was to speed construction and cut cost for convoy needs. At one point Fast Frigates in the US also could exceed Destroyer speed by 5kts. I see no parallel between Littoral / Assault ship thinking...(operate in non-blue sea waters...invade troops and equipment) and corvettes except that corvettes were inadequately designed and built to operate in blue water, even as escorts.
Hello Gordon,
Thank you for your reply. I will not question its validity because they are good insights. I see your point about WWII cruisers being 'above a frigate's rate'. But that truly depends on which characteristics you zoom in on. Your point about their fire power is a valid one.
The reason I chose to compare their position to a frigate's position is because, like frigates, they were (hopefully) faster than the 'heavy hitters' and mostly well capable of extended independent operation. Also they were not aiming to be the ships who could fire the heaviest possible broadside. Although you could easily argue that, within their limitations, they were. A clear example were the Treaty Cruisers, which tried to go up exactly to the limit of the Washington Treaty and be more powerful than any opposing Treaty Cruiser. In that respect the comparison with a 74 makes sense.
However, and this was my most important reason for making said comparison, the ships which WERE being categorized as frigates had no business being labelled a frigate. I can't really think of a good age-of-sail equivalent to a small, slow, weakly armed escort, but the sailing frigate certainly wasn't a good choice.
Good point about the 'littoral' use. This is a very broad generalization on my part. I had ships like the Swedish Visby-class in mind. But I'll concede that this is by no means a generalization which applies to all corvettes.
Kind regards,
Garret
The Flower Corvettes were designed small so that they could be built quickly in small boatyards, rather than using valuable space in Navy yards.
my grandfather fought on one in ww2 they sunk a German sub
Flower class was based on an existing design for a whaling ship. Quick and cheap to build in a time of need.
@@philhawley1219 To be perfectly clear the whales didn't stand a chance. They took a ship designed for hunting large underwater targets and then put explosives and guns on it.
Just to expatiate slightly on the Flower class: as stated they were built on a converted design for whalers. The other option for the navy would have been sloops. However, even though small, commercial shipyards would not have been able to build sloops due to the different scantlings between commercial and naval construction. It was decided that the more robust naval scantlings were unnecessary for a vessel primarily intended for anti-submarine escort service and that the ability to rapidly build them in small commercial yards was paramount. Corvettes were the smallest class of vessel the RN considered open ocean capable. One of the big differences was power plants - naval ships were steam turbine powered with Yarrow water tube boilers whereas the corvettes and derived frigates (which were originally called 'twin screw corvettes') were powered by triple expansion piston engines and mostly Scotch boilers; a design with which the mostly Navy Reserve crews would be familiar.
Yes, the Flowers were based on an existing design for a 'Whale Chaser'. The design was from Smiths Docks in Middlesbrough on the River Tees in the north of England. They were to use as much 'Off the Shelf' commercial equipment as possible and be built in small commercial dockyards that would not normally build warships, leaving the naval yards free to build 'proper' warships to full warship standard.
Excellent overview, and much needed. Every naval warfare buff will benefit from viewing this.
We do love our convenient boxes don't we ?
for me :
Corvette : Roughly 2 week endurance ship not meant to operate in the highest threat zones. Typically armed with a 2.25-4" gun. 3" very common. 4-8 ASM not uncommon. Airdefense typically limited to Main gun, and
In your description of the frigate above, surely you are not counting the US Navy frigates. I served onboard the USS Cook (FF-1083) and we carried a 5" / 54 near the bow, as did all of the other Knox Class frigates. Also, all US destroyers carry at least one 5 inch deck rifle (cannon). Many, like the old Spruance Class destroyers, carried two 5" / 54 guns, one forward, one aft.
I was mostly referring to >1980 ships.
Guns tended to be less important in the smaller ships once missiles became the most important weapons.
Having served 40 years in the Navy, (all of it on various platforms purported to be either Frigates" or "Destroyers") and having seen various "frigates" come and go, it appears to many that the use of the term "frigate" has less to do with sailing ships than it does to do with "needing a name for a ship that fits in the pecking order." AND it fits in with where destroyers fit.
When torpedoes where invented, there was a sudden dire need to combat small torpedo boats that could wreak havoc, hence the "Torpedo boat destroyer". That immediately nullified the torpedo boat......................... so they just became "Destroyers"; and they endured, because the rise of the submarine made them necessary to screen larger ships/convoys.
Destroyers became larger and more expensive, and were multi role. During WW2, convoys were critical. Stretched, the allies needed escorts, and could build many corvettes for the cost of one destroyer, but they were small/limited seakeeping/limited firepower. When sonar came along, it was a stretch to fit all that tech into a corvette. It COULD be squeezed in, but a slightly larger hull that specialised in ASW but still smaller/cheaper/easier to build than a destroyer would be perfect - and why not resurrect the convenient name of "Frigate".
So, dusted off and used. Now; ALL ships can "cross over/be hard to fit in either category". But generally, a frigate was smaller than a destroyer, often specialised to one role (but not always). A destroyer normally slightly larger and multi role.
And these are not to be confused with the "destroyer escort" of WW2 which was essentially frigate size, but with smaller/cheaper plant for economy (as convoys slow, lower (cheaper) power plant ok).
To most of us in the Navy, THAT is where it came from.
But there is a second criterior. How "nervous" your neighbours are.
For example, the German Brandenburgs = very capable ships. And Germany a reasonably capable, industrialised nation. They are 4,000 tons. But "only a frigate, nothing to see here."
Wheras the Chilean "Condell" was a Leander (ex RN). Now, that is a 2300 ton frigate when in the RN; but in the Chilean Navy it was always listed as a "Destroyer".
So whether a ship is a frigate or a destroyer is often dependent on who is naming it/politics/how much of a "threat" that Navy/country is seen to be/what power they want to project. Hence often large powerful nations have a ship that is very large, but "just a frigate"; while a small nation no one worries about has a "very small destroyer".
None of this agrees with any of anything that is written anywhere.
But after 40 years in the Navy, and knowing so many sailors from during that time; ALL of them would agree that the above is a reasonable broad summary of "what is what."
Just a "sailors experience/point of view" for what it is worth.
Many may not agree. But some may appreciate the perspective.
Hello,
You say: "Many may not agree. But some may appreciate the perspective". Well, I certainly, both agree with and appreciate it.
You do have the benefit of experience and have obviously thought about what you have seen around you.
Speaking for myself, I was born in 1968 and grew up in a country which only had frigates. From about the age of 10 I started wondering why they were frigates, but never encountered someone who gave me a consistent and logical viewpoint, like you just have. Mostly, even when I asked frigate sailors, they would immediately (and with the best of intentions) start telling me about the specifications of their ship. Which was still much appreciated by an eager youngster, but didn't really tell me why is should be considered a frigate, rather than anything else.
Without someone like you around, I made it a point to find out for myself. Now, the research was an award in itself. Many descriptions, specifications and stories I have come across have been fascinating.
But what really struck me along the way was how the resurrection of the designation 'frigate' has confused people. I mean, looking at a 'pinnace' taking crewmen to their ship, there is nobody who would even attempt to compare it to the pinnace from the age-of-sail. But for frigates this is different. People who are unaware of the 1939-resurrection of the designation and its subsequent development, see a connection with sailing frigates and more-or-less proclaim that this WAS the rationale for the designation. Consequently, they are immediately puzzled and wonder why their perceived reasoning for designations isn't universally applied.
This is what prompted me to make the video. I believe it agrees one-on-one with what you have experienced.
I agree with you that there are very few sources for genuinely interested people which will tell you this. Often the information is there, but one has to already know the subject to catch it between the lines.
Kind regards and safe sailing,
Garret
@@TribusMontibus Thanks mate.
I was lucky enough to spend 40 years in the Navy, 20 years of that at sea. I served in 4 different classes of ships, posted to ten ships, and sea rode 8 others. It isn't for everyone, but I really enjoyed it.
The problem with the internet is that normally about ten percent want to hear from "people that do it". The other 90% want to argue (mainly using hearsay) and abuse.
That is why military people often don't comment on military matters, because they then get people arguing/abusing because "My mates (or a movie) reckon....." ; so then the person who actually did it for a living gives up and leaves. So "actual realism" is then lost/ "wrong legend" endures.
I was on a warship page and there was a story about an Australian warship class. The rest of the world call them by a name we never called them. I mentioned that as an aside. NOT that it was wrong; just that no sailor who ever served in them/around them called them that, we just called them "xxx".
I had some guy get on there and get abusive, because "THAT is what they are called." 40 years in the Navy, served at sea in company with these ships, knew most of the people on them....................... but what we called them WRONG - from a guy who has NEVER served in them or the Navy? It is just not worth the abuse = remove comments.
Also, the internet is all about "2 lines." A you tube vid about cruisers. One guy asked about fire control; as he thought still primitive then. (Even in WW2 it was quite involved). I wrote a few lines. Most appreciated it; but some said "not correct" because I kept it brief.
So, I elaborated. Reply - "FGS, War and Peace!!!!" It is an involved subject, and as Fire Control was my specialty (maintaining/aligning/firing); I thought I could help some understand. But complain if "not enough/too much." Can't win.
And then people lament that "knowledge/experience is lost."
No wonder when anyone who tries to contribute is normally abused.
So thank you for your kind words and attitude. Very much appreciated.
Oh, and one more thing - talk about "not knowing what to call/change the rules as you go" - we did that with our "River" class ships, which during their service were called Frigates, Destroyers Escorts, and (occasionally) Destroyers.
They were definitely Frigates, and there were 6 of them built in three batches. First pair were a modified Rothesay class. Second pair were slightly modified from first two, but very little (mainly superstructure for variable depth towed array sonar, soon removed.) Third pair were an Australian variant on a Leander, again, Frigate.
When the first 4 were in service, they were called Frigates, and they wore "F" pennant numbers, (Parramatta, for example, was F05) but later on (when the last pair, Leander type, were being built, approx 69) the Navy reverted to numbers without letters; they then became known as "Destroyer Escorts"; so (again, Parra as example) Parra became known as DE46, and displayed "46" on her bow, and small number near stern.
Now, the customary labeling at that time was that a DE was a second rate/single screw/lower power ship, but our ships hadn't changed. The RN always called Rothesays/Leanders frigates, never a DE. Our ships were also occasionally referred to in correspondence as "River Class Destroyers".
So what the ship is/should be classed and what their parent Navy actually designates them can be two different things.
Hello again,
Sorry, I was a bit busy today and only now find time to answer.
Yes, I see your point on the sometimes toxic environment of internet comments. A colleague of mine is a former F-16 pilot who noticed an error in a Wikipedia article about the squadron he served in. So he corrected it. The next day it had been changed back to the mistake because the guy who had put it up there had 'a higher Wikipedia rating' so he could overrule my colleague. Truth, apparently, had nothing to do with it. When my colleague tried to talk to the guy he got really nasty replies.
Personally I believe that the anonymity has a lot to do with it. Not having to look the other guy in the eyes seems to give some people the idea that they can just say anything.
Speaking for myself I have to say that I do enjoy it that so many people believe my argumentation makes sense. But I do not feel right about claiming an unrealistic 'expert status', just because my video has gotten a couple of views over the past week. When someone has a valid objection I do feel obliged to listen. Besides, I find that people are typically very nice about sharing knowledge. Some of the most interesting things I've heard came to me that way.
For instance, thinking I was quite well informed, I never knew about Parramatta 'reverting' to a DE classification. I just now looked it up on Wikipedia and was indeed surprised. I just wrote it on a scrap of paper, because I want to browse through my various copies of Jane's and Conway's to see where that happened and whether they mention anything further about it.
By the way, fire control, that is a fascinating area. Just today someone remarked that I seem to have a budding channel. I told him that I don't believe I have the potential to become a serial content creator on TH-cam. I simply can't think of more than a few subject where I have something to say which really adds something which is yet under-stated. But one of the ideas I do have is to do a video on Naval Gunnery. By no means am I an expert on it like you, but I think I could make a video which visualizes some of the feats which have made naval gunnery such a refined operation. One of the main things I would like to put across is an accurate sense of the angular size of target you'd want to hit, at maximum range, and that it hasn't even yet arrived at the position you are aiming for. But, such a video would still be a good time off in the future, if it ever happens.
For now, I'm busy with work and, hobby wise, looking into the Battle of the Java Sea. Even though I have a lot of interesting material about that one, I am reluctant to record it as I don't believe I can do it justice yet. I don't want to just record videos for the sake of recording videos.
Kind regards,
Garret
@@TribusMontibus No worries mate.
I never call myself an expert; but with many things (I have many old cars/bikes, my hobby), I have been "referred to experts" and after asking them a few questions, I go and do it myself, because they know less than I do about the subject. They are happy to call themselves experts........... I think that no matter how much you know, can always learn more/some things still surprise you.
You are right about the abuse/argument. I was on a page about cars and bikes. To work Fire Control, that involves electrics/electronics (computers and radar) hydraulics/pneumatics. I tried to help some guys with some bike and car electrics (after radar, VERY simple); get abused, as "not what we have always done/all friends reckon" NONE of whom have any elec training. They would rather stay doing what is wrong/gear won't work - rather than admit it was wrong. So anyone with elec background = leave the page. Why get abused for trying to help?? That happens a LOT with the internet; and leads to "misinformation." Your example of an F16 pilot being told "wrong" because the other guy who has never done it "has been on Wiki longer". Classic. Like I said, military don't say much, because "turns out that civvy bloke knows far more than those of us who were there do......." Why fight it?????
With Fire Control. In my Navy I was (for a while) the lead Fire Control sailor for a certain class of ship, (Anzac FFH) but I had worked it on two other classes before that. Our River class, (all gone), and our Daring class (last one in the world (Vampire) preserved in Sydney). I was last in uniform in 2013, and you forget some things that were always instantly recalled, but some things you never forget.
You mentioned "time taken to get there" That is called Time of Flight", and for Vampire (M22, 4.5" gun) that is 62 seconds at 18,000 yards. For the current lightweight 5", it is 75 seconds at 25,000 yards. While enhanced rounds and charges can extend that, (and larger guns from the past can shoot further), it really is pointless, as after that too much target movement/scope for change in course/speed unless guided rounds, and that is a whole different subject.
Of course, that TOF is only relevant in surface firings. NG (shore targets) don't move ( :-) ) and AA (air) move too fast for anything other than direct, shorter TOF, straight trajectories, hence why the gun rings on our displays showed 25,000 max range for SU, but only 10,000 (straight/direct traj) for AA for 5 inch. With modern tracking and VT fuses, the 5" is still a very potent AA weapon, routinely scoring 90% TTB's (hits) with correct ballistics in towed target firings..
Anyway, yes; FC is a fascinating field, but the specifics aren't for many as very involved. And the above just scratches the surface, there is internal and external ballistics etc etc.
Interesting stuff to work on though.
Good luck with your channel.
🙂
Many years ago, I met a guy who was a fellow parent at our daughters school. Someone told me that he had been in the Navy. I asked him about it and he told me he was stationed on a frigate. When I asked him what a frigate was in relation to a destroyer, he told me “we take missiles for the carrier“.
That anecdote is gold! If I would have heard it before I made the video I would certainly have included it because it shows exactly the spirit of Navy crewmen; not being overly worried about definitions and labels and getting on with their job. It even adds the awareness of the danger they willingly sail into.
Thank you for sharing that.
Kind regards,
Garret
That's Hilarious. I've been told once when asking about the frigate corvette clarification - "There are carriers and everybody else is in front".
Sounds about right!
Original OHP-class FFGs were deliberately designed to have the radar cross section of a carrier, so technically it was true for a time. Later radar absorbent material was added that greatly reduced the RCS - just had to make sure to keep the hanger doors closed.
I wonder if that story is about me... Because what I actually said is that the carrier would go dark and we would send up a huge electronic screen saying "WOO! OVER HERE!!!! SHOOT ME, IM THE CARRIER!!!".
In WW-II my father was a fire control officer on a tin can in LANTFLEET. He used to lament that in the North Atlantic he should have gotten sub pay.
From what I’ve heard and read, he had a very valid point there.
I always found it odd when I read headlines like "This frigate is so big, it ought to be designated as a destroyer.", knowing that frigates originally started out as basically fast battleships, while destroyers started out as torpedo boat hunters, barely larger than their prey.
Using the old, original definition of a frigate, I guess even a lot of WW2 era battleships could have been called frigates.
The German battleships weren't supposed to engage other battleships in big fleet battles after all, but to do long range commerce raiding patrols.
All US Navy frigates for 60 years have always shared the same characteristic - a single stack and a single screw - that set them aparts from other types.
@@lciummo1 Correct, as said above, while the US called a "cheap escort" (low power (single screw) plant) a frigate (during the war, but even the single screw USN ones became more expensive after it :-) ) ; the RN (and the other allies) called that a "destroyer escort." For example, the RN type 14, which was a "cheap propulsion" (2nd rate) version of other RN frigates.
@@lciummo1 and it will most likely end this tradition with the new Constellation-class frigates
@@orbiradio2465 I'm taking bets that it'll end up as a DDG before things are over. The Navy loves tradition.
I think that "battleships" in the Napoleonic era were basically "74's" (two decker's), and 3 decker's like HMS Victory, and maybe a few older 50 gun ships that barely qualified. Frigates were certainly not expected to fight the big boys, since one well-laid broadside from a 74's heavier guns would wreck them. It was not only the number of guns and gun decks; it was also the thickness of the ships wooden scantlings and frames, and the size and weight of shot of each individual gun... so a 74's total broadside weight could be 3 or 4 times that of a frigate's... with the much heavier balls being able to smash right through frigates at close range. The exact same situation existed between the comparatively larger Frigates and the smaller and lighter built Brigs, Sloops, and Corvettes. The British didn't really use the term "corvette" (that was a French thing), they called smaller 3 masted ships "Sloops of War", and two-masted ships "Brigs of War". Small single-masted warships were usually called "Cutters". It is obvious why some classifications like "Brig" went away, there was no real analogy for sailing rig in the age of steel and steam. Thanks to the US Coast Guard, "Cutter" has survived. But the sail analogy is not very good as some modern cutters approach frigates in size.
The definition of a modern frigate I was taught in the navy is: "the smallest type of ship that can engage in all 3 major warfare types (Anti-Surface, Anti-Submarine and Anti-Air warfare)."
So your definition was pretty spot on.
Most of the very smallest military vessels have at least some capability in all of those areas. Many littoral fleets have to do that. Here in Finland I would not call our few missile boats frigates, after all.
As a young fella back in the 80's, I served aboard HMAS Torrens DE53, which was an Australian built River class, or modified Leander class Frigate....But designated a Destroyer escort......as well as being an anti submarine warfare frigate. Good ship, good crew!
austrailia has a navy?
@@recoswell Yeah they have a mix of Kangaroo powered galleys and French built SSK's. They hope to replace the SSK's with either a US or UK SSN. The Roo powered galleys stay - keeps the Indonesians honest as they are terrified of marsupial´s.
My grandfather was a fire tender on a Canadian corvette that was sold to the US Navy and rebranded a Patrol Frigate. The USS Ashville. The US Navy took possession of the corvette/patrol frigate in December 1942 and patrolled the Atlantic searching for submarines and escorting freighters.
The low number DDG I served on in 1970 was 485 feet long, beam about 48 feet. Had 5"/54 guns. ASROC and missles. We were told the ship is a missle destroyer.
The DEs I saw had 3" guns.
The WW2 book "The Cruel Sea" is about a Flower class corvette, it was also made into a movie. It was regarded the best book on this subject.
Indeed, it is one of my favorite books and movies. Some of the footage in this video is actually from that particular movie.
The first half is about a corvette, HMS Compass Rose. The second half is about a frigate, HMS Saltash... if memory serves me.
@@rjeffm1 Yes, but I must admit to an error on my part. In the book, after the sinking of Compass Rose, the captain takes command of a River-class frigate. However, in the movie, this role is taken by HMS Portchester Castle, which is a Castle-class corvette.
In my video, I overlooked this and accidentally presented the footage from the movie ship (HMS Portchester Castle) as a frigate. 😳
@@TribusMontibus Snorkers - good oh!
Also if you haven't read them you might like Monsarrat's non fiction books on his personal experiences of the Battle of the Atlantic.
"Three Corvettes" - a compedium of three of his other books about his time on corvettes and his non-fiction "HM Frigate" - about his time in command of a frigate, both are available on Kindle, although I am lucky enough to have a hard cover copy of Three Corvettes from the 50s or thereabouts.
Pretty much the source of The Cruel Sea.
@@jasont2610 Hello Jason,
Yes, I have all of the above sitting on my book shelf. Come to think of it, I should read them again in the near future. But as I’m currently reading James Clavell’s ‘Noble House’ (1100 p. and not going through quickly, due to limited time) this may be a while.
You may find it amusing that the ring tone on my mobile is also from the movie The Cruel Sea. It’s the officer giving blackboard instruction on ASDIC, yelling out “pingggg, pingggg, pinggggah, ……, stop that laughing”. You can probably imagine that I never wonder whether it’s my phone ‘pinging’, or someone else’s phone 😉.
Thanks for shedding some light on this confusing topic. I once served on the USS Chicago, (CG 11), which was a guided missile cruiser rebuilt form the hull of a WW2 heavy cruiser of the same name (CA 136).
Very good video that clearly defines the history of the classifications of ships. I would like to point out one thing, the Royal Navy didn't use the corvette distinction for their ships during the age of sail. The unrated ships of the Royal Navy tended to be brigs, cutters, ketches, and sloops. The French and other continental navies used the classification of corvettes to describe their smallest ships. This point feeds into the Flower class being called a corvette as being ahistorical since the British didn't really use that classification until just before the transition into steam.
Hello Laurence,
You are very much mistaken. In one of the later Hornblower episodes I clearly see Ioann Gryffud identify two ships as "corvettes". ITV wouldn't present me with anything that's not 100% historically correct, now would they!?
All Kidding aside; I see your point. From my information the 'corvette' was a French ship-type derived from a galley-like, lateen rigged ship. I vaguely remember once reading that this is also the origin of the name 'corvette' as it was derived from the Roman 'Corbita'. But I say that cautiously, because I cannot find that reference anymore.
It is indeed my understanding that the British had a habit to sweep a multitude of smaller, unrated warships into the Sloop of War-category, including ships that you could call corvettes in hindsight. But it is also my understanding that the British did eventually follow the French design and did build corvettes for use in the West Indies.
But, to be totally honest, sailing corvettes, to me, are an area of interest rather than expertise. I must admit that I did assume them to have been slightly less common in the Royal Navy than Frigates were. It did fit into my study of the subject, years ago and I sort of left it at that. But that's what I do like about this comment section. People, like yourself, who are more knowledgeable about the subject, speak up and provide information I wasn't always aware of, or maybe not fully aware of. I do learn a lot that way. The only problem is that it gives me so many subject I would like to read up on. If only days had thirty hours
Kind regards,
Garret
I am actually running into this issue with a video game, lol.
Some of these games let us kill time designing our own ships right from scratch basically, and I am running into this confusion. I also chose the older 'days of sail' classifications because they made more practical sense.
Excellent explanation for a Very confusing subject. Spent two years aboard the USS Garcia from 1966 to 68, classified as a Destroyer Escort but she was much larger than the fleet destroyers. Found out years later the Garcia had been reclassified as a Frigate.
Great and informative video. In my time in the RN (1987-2009), the rule of thumb was that if an escort was primarily roled for ASW, it was a Frigate, if primarily roled for Air Defence, it was a Destroyer...
Our Belknap class cruiser was originally a DLG (destroyer leader) and referred to as a frigate. In 1975 it was redesignated as a CG.
What excellent scholarship. Noteworthy is that you didn’t fall into the trap of declaring a type by the number of screws, which I have heard at least one line officer to give as the sole distinction between destroyers and modern frigates. Thank you for an engrossing evolutionary journey.
He did miss that. The US Navy has built hundreds of Frigates - that have always shared the same characteristic - a single stack and a single screw - that set them aparts from other types. Frigates also have one primary warfare area, and may have a seconday function as well. Garcia, Brooke, Brinstein, Knox, and Perry all followed that designation.
Thank you, William.
@@lciummo1 Hello Larry,
Actually, no, I didn’t miss that at all. In fact, that’s exactly the point of this video; that there is no internationally accepted yardstick on ‘what makes a frigate a frigate’. The USN may have used this distinction for many years and applied it consistently to its frigates, and you are well within your right to decide that that’s your personal definition of a frigate. Although you will have to start making provisions then for the Constellation-class.
Kind regards,
Garret
Engaging, informative, well edited, and we get to see you ( so many TH-camrs remain unseen ). And you take the time to do corrections in the comments. That was really excellent. I'm a landlubber, but having suffered through "The Cruel Sea" on many rainy Sundays as a child, this video piqued my interested. Well done.
Hello,
Thank you for your kind comment. It may amuse you to know that the ringtone on my mobile is an isolated sound clip from that very movie. It’s the ASDIC instructor yelling: “pingggg, pingggg, pinggggah, pinggggah!” I am never in any doubt whether it is my phone which is ‘pinging’, or someone else’s. You may also have noticed that a few clips in my video were ‘stolen’ from the movie as well.
Kind regards,
Garret
Regarding sailing era frigates: Sailing frigates were specifically *ship rigged.*
Ship rigged is a type of square rig, but not the only type. There are several types of ship with 3 masts and many different plans of square rig but only ship rigged vessels were considered frigates.
A barque fits the description given but is definitely very distinct from a frigate back in the age of sail. A barque is 3 masts and square rig but she isn't ship rigged or full rigged.
Also there were some non-square rigged ships considered frigates (in the Mediterranean anyway) but I think that is more up for debate.
Anyway it's a minor pedantic point but you couldn't say a truck is any vehicle with four wheels either so I think it's important to note that:
Ship rig is a type of square rig but not all square rigged ships are ship rigged.
Full rigged is another related term.
And it is further complicated by the fact the same ship can be changed even at sea.
Also during your corvette part you actually do use the term ship rigged but you show on screen what looked like a brig with its fore and aft mizzen.
And corvettes were almost never ship rigged, the mizzen being the main thing that changes aside from size and weight of cannon.
Hello,
No, not pedantic at all. You have a very good point. I must admit that, for me, the rigging of the various types is more an area of interest rather than expertise (except when it comes to the rigging of our CO32 😏). I probably couldn’t provide half the knowledge about it which you appear to have. In this video I wanted to give the quickest characterization of sailing frigates which would elevate the type above level of ‘some sort of pirate ship’ as most 17/18th ships are portrayed in movies (Just yesterday I saw a video, showing a picture of a Dutch East Indiaman as an example of a frigate). I hope to have provided some viewers with more clarity on ship types but couldn’t aspire to take them much further.
By the way, I had always thought that the non-square rigged non-English frigates were reluctantly accepted as frigates, so the likes of Horatio Hornblower could get a smashing article in The London Gazette about their gallant victory over a foreign frigate, while in command of a mere cutter or sloop 🤔.
@@TribusMontibus It is a completely workable amount of information for the subject, I am really impressed you hold yourself to such a high standard. Thank you for the video and really do not feel bad as information on sailing warships is becoming somewhat lost in our time although there are a great number of experts in sailing who are in practice and knowledge keeping the art alive.
I am not one of them for certain, I come from the military analysis side however so the difference between barque and frigate are more important. Difference in use and character and evolution in use is the subject of military analysis more than the more human aspects of history. So, while I knew exactly which sails make them and virtually every kind of frigate that has been made at least in kin or nature at least from sail to now I still wasn't very clear on what exactly the definition of frigate meant and it's broader meaning outside of its period military uses.
So I came here and got a bit of help from you and your also work towards expertise and thanks to God today I knew something that was actually useful and was able to return the favor with more than a like button.
Thank you again for the video.
My dad served aboard a USN aircraft carrier in the 60s, when there were still a few old school gun cruisers around. He told me that he and his shipmates referred to all ships obviously smaller than cruisers as "frigates", including destroyers. The actual labels didn't matter to those guys in their giant carrier.
Typical arrogance of bird farm sailors. Trust me there is a big difference between a destroyer and a frigate. During that time frigates usually only had a single screw, destroyers and cruisers had two. Battleships and carriers had four screws. I served on USS Dewey, originally DLG 14 but she was DDG 45 when I served on her. We were faster (36 Knots) than the frigates and pretty well armed. We often worked solo. You will never see a bird farm working solo.
@@plchacker You call my dad an "arrogant bird farm sailor" and you expect me to read past that sentence?
@@RCAvhstape arrogance or ignorance, take your pick. I served on a destroyer.
@@plchacker My dad never had anything insulting to say about destroyer sailors and he served honorably. Best of luck to you from here on out, pal.
@@plchacker Well you seem to be as special as you are rude. Arrogance is yours to own. 3 men in a tub.
Great episode which explains why I have had so much difficulty determining the difference between frigates and destroyers!
Oh, and a bit of an aside, in Master and Commander, Aubrey’s ship was a Sloop of War. Silly detail, but I figured you’d appreciate the not picking
Yes, I do. It’s always nice to find out something you hadn’t noticed. I didn’t know about HMS Rose. They did a very good job, making her portray HMS Surprise.
Darn, now you’ve sentenced me to re-watching HMS Defiant, to see what Alec Guinness sailed in 😏.
Yes, but Aubrey was chasing a frigate:
@@SeattlePioneer Hello Seattle,
Very true. Although the ‘Acheron’ was introduced to the story because Hollywood thought it would be better for viewing figures to portray an English-French conflict, rather than an English-American conflict. In O’ Brian’s stories, Jack Aubrey was chasing a powerful American frigate. The ‘Original Six’ American frigates were indeed very powerful (as is pictured in the movie when a crewman shows a self-built model of the frigate hull) and according to many they were so large and powerful that one should consider them as something above the frigate category.
Kind regards,
Garret
@@TribusMontibus
In another comment, I said that I thought that a frigate got it's name as a class when some sailor came up in a tough fight against an opponent and said "Frigate! I wish this ship were a cruiser!"
I thought I was being very amusing.
I liked the "Master and Commander Voyage to the End of the World" movie better than I liked the first volume of the series, which I didn't finish reading.
I found the language implausibly stilted ---these guys weren't academics at Cambridge. I also found the plot needlessly complicated.
The Horatio Hornblower series was more my style!
Despite being afraid I might have misused navy class ship names in my novels, I'm glad this video taught me that there is no real hard agreed on definitions. Although, in my case, I use the terms in a sci-fi "space navy" setting. The way I understood the classification has in general (although always exceptions) gone from big/slow to small/fast: Carrier -> Cruiser -> Frigate -> Corvette. Destroyers really did seem to mess things up as being able to fit into Cruiser or after, or in Frigate (or vice versa) or after.
But I do think big/slow to small/fast is the best standard as it is based on the reality of physics which won't change barring extremely radical inventions (such as gravity control tech). Armaments aren't a good measure as even with the same class that has changed in recent history within the same type. Nor is role the best standard since that has changed over time (again even within the same class) and will likely change in the future too. Generally, again due to the rules of physics, the bigger the ship; the slower it goes, but also usually has more total capable firepower. While the smaller the ship, the faster it can be but also literally due to size limits can't carry as much total capable firepower.
Have been looking for this information for a long long time. thanks for clarifying and clearing up confusion. Excellent
Sheer excellence! Thank you. Please tackle other issues as competentently as this. We will all be in your debt.
Very informative video thank you. I was asking myself about the classifiction of the german f124 which is officially a frigate
Well, the German ships are more closely as frigatey, because they are not truly "multi-role" ships. They are only good for air defence and anti-ship, but they have no effective anti-submarine weapons (other than the helicopter) and no land-attack cruise missile. If you look at the American or Chinese destroyers, you can see they are true multi-role ships, with long range anto-submairne rockets and land attack cruiser missiles, which most modern "firgates" rated ships don't have. That's the biggest difference bebtween those classes, the capabilities.
@@xAlexTobiasxB That is not true. The F124 has MU90 torpedos, the F123 has Mk46 light weight torpedos, the last remaining f122 has 2x2 324mm torpedos, and every frigate has additionally got an ASW helicopter. The land attack capability is partly true because only the F125 has got long ranging artillery which is mainly intended to give JFS to smaller units at land in stabilization ops.
I have heard a lot, that the F124 frigate can be classified as a Guided Missile Destroyer. But the german military somehow tends to name their assets in a less aggressive sounding way. Their predecessors were mostly destroyers as well. In the future land attack capabilities might be added by the RBS 15 that is already in use on corvettes but yet to be used by the future frigates.
@@djent_prog_core_guitarcovers
yes but torpedoes from ships are not very effective for hunting submarines, because they are very slow and have very limited range (only 10 km) so it's not very effective against submarines.
The enemy submarine would immediately detect the loud and noise torpedo propeller sound and instantly reverse course so it can eaislly evade and escape the torpedo without harm.
The only effective Anti-submairne weapons are rockets such as the American ASROC, because it is dropped instantly over the enemy submarine's location in a few seconds after the start, at long range (20 km) so the enemy subamarine has no chance to escape the torpedo. This is the only effective way to actually catch and destroy a modern submarine, because it cna not escape from this rocket.
That's why I said frigates have only very LIMITED Anti-submairne capabilities (not very effective).
Only true destroyers such as the American Arleigh Burke class, or the Japanese and South Korean and Chinese destroyers have long range ASW rockets which are much more effective for hunting and destroying enemy submarines. And they have a much bigger sonar array too! (frigates have a very small sonar array)
Also destroyers usually have a lot more and stronger anti-ship missiles too, which gives them a much stornger anti-ship capability too. This is the reason why we differentiate between those classes!
@@xAlexTobiasxB The fact about torpedos being ineffective against submarines might be true for some torpedos, but it certainly isn't the case for the MU90. This torpedo can travel between 30 and 50 knots (ca. 93km/h!) and has depending on its speed a range of 12 to 25km. The Mk46 Torpedo has a range of 11km at a speed of 45 knots.
As a value for orientiation the (maximum) speeds of modern russian submarines:
- Hunting Sub: Yasen Class: 35 knots (in maximum and non-silent mode)
- Hunting Sub: Akula Class: 35 knots (in maximum and non-silent mode)
- Ballistic Missile: Borei Class: 29 knots (in maximum and non-silent mode)
So yeah. And you have to respect the fact that the ASW Helicopter is a weapon system of the frigate itself and offers great and longer range capabilities for ASW (including MU90 Torpedo)
And the point that only ASW Missiles elevate a frigate is wrong too. These are additional Capabilities but most Destroyers dont have those. And even though I am not shure, i think the Arleigh Burke and F124 have the same VLS and thus could fire the same ASW Missile technically.
The point about Anti-Ship-Missiles isnt true for western countries as well. Every german Frigate has 8 Starters for Harpoon Missiles unless, intentionally fewer are mounted (e.g. for stabilisation / transportation). This is the same amount and weaponry for Arleigh Burke Class, Type 45, Hobart Class, Kongo-Class (JPN), Gwanggaeto the Great-class (South Corea). Other Classes use the Exocet which is basically equivalent. The only destroyer having more ASMs I know from the west is the Sejong The Great Class from South Corea.
@@djent_prog_core_guitarcovers 20 km only with slow speed (30 kn) which makes the torpedo totally useless at that speed, and 50 kn is only with 10 km very short range, which is not ver much range as I already explained, because if the enemy submarine is 10 km away from the ship , it can easilly escape the torpedo, so it will not be hit.
And at this short range the Sachsen frigate would already be in very dangerous situation because it is already within enemy torpedo range too! And that's the problem!
But at least the MU90 has a secondary “anti-torpedo“ capability, so at least it can intercept and detonate the incoming torpedoes and act like an "Active Protection System" for the ship (similar to APS for tanks) protecting the ship against torpedoes. So it's still better than nothing and not completely useless...
But the enemy submarine has a good chance to escape the short range torpedo too (again 10 km is very short range) , so neither side scores a hit on the other in this situation...
Of course the helicopter can help to, but it takes some minutes to ready and launch from ships hangar which is value time. Also it only carries 1 or 2 torodeos which could miss, and then it's empty. In contrast to destroyers with ASROC missile carry 16 missiles, so they can shoot multiple times again at longer rage, even if 1 or 2 misses, geartly increasing the chance of hit.
The point is that ASW rockets are simply much more effective because they have much faster reaction time because they instantly ready to launch and cna be dropped over the enemy submarine at 20 km instantly (Chinese and Russian missiles even have 40-50 km) so they are much more effective against submarines obviously.
Im not saying the F124 is totally is useless, of course it still has a use, but it's not very effective without ASROC missile... Yes they have same VLS tubes, but Germany is still not using the ARCOR and that's the problem...
The harpoon is not the only anto-ship weapon I was talking about. I mean the SM-2 Which also has a secondary anti-ship role too. But the problem is, Germany sitll uses old SM2 which can only attack enemy ships within line of sight "visual range" because it has no independent active seeker (only Semi-active homing "SARH" ). But the American destroyer use the latest and newest SM-6 variant which has its own independent active radar seeker, so it can actually attack enemy ships even beyond the ship's own visual line of sight range (250 km) for anto-ship range. And the American destroyer carries at less 16 of the SM-6 missiles, which gives it more anto-ship capability. This is why it deserves to be called destroyer and the other frigates not.
The US Navy doesn't designate any current ships as Corvettes, but did create two new classes of similarly sized, Littoral Combat Ships.
Any casual observer would look at the USN Wasp and America-class ships, and see aircraft carriers. The same would be true for Japan's Izumo-class of "Multi-Purpose Destroyers", with their large, flat decks for aviation operations.
When the US sold and refitted Hamilton-class (3,250 tons), US Coast Guard cutters, they became "Frigates" in the Philippine Navy and other foreign recipients. In 2019, the Philippine Navy reclassified them as "Patrol Ships", preferring to reserve "Frigate" for a new, smaller "Jose Rizal-class" of ships (2,600 tons) built by Hyundai Heavy Industries.
Well observed and an excellent example of the confusion in classifications which often leaves newly interested people wondering.
Kind regards,
Garret
p.s. One that always gets me is the British Invincible-class carriers. Ships which weren’t even really considered aircraft carriers by those who funded them, yet performed admirably as carriers in the 1982 conflict (against opponents who were far from ineffective) in the hands of crews who got the most out of their abilities, and then some.
A real human voice, so I stayed to watch the whole video!
Very informative. It’s amazing how little I knew about ships back when I was in the navy. Thank you. 👍
Especially in Germany there is another reason of why Destroyers got "replaced" by Frigates. After WW II the population became very pacifistic, and so every offensive weapon system was to be questioned in public. "Destroyer" ("Zerstörer" in German) is a very harsh and martialistic word, so politicians decided to go with the name of Frigate instead. Despite displacing more then WW II Destroyers, and despite of having the same purpose as Destroyers, they were called Frigates from there on.
That is interesting. I always heard the German Cold War modular MEKO 360 warships described as Destroyers. Was that only for the export market?
@@maxkronader5225 I believe the Meko 360 was only for export. On the German wikipedia page it is refered to be a "Frigate/Destroyer". I think it depends on the country... It says it was only delivered to Nigeria and Argentinia.
Isn't that more of an urban legend among certain people to ridicule German politics? The German Navy officially had destroyers until 2003 before focusing entirely on frigates, which at the time had much more of a focus on anti-submarine warfare as part of NATO. It just so happens that newer frigate classes became larger and more capable with each iteration -- it's an evolution not dissimilar to where destroyers themselves originally started out before Japan's Fubuki-class revolutionized the term and had the category finally "graduate" from shallow-draft escorts unable to deal with bad weather to fully-fledged fleet warships for extended blue water operations.
It's just one more example of navies around the world being prone to transgress against their own categorization as ships are getting bigger and bigger all the time. If the world had kept building cruisers, they'd probably be approaching the size of WW2 battleships. Just look at the Kirov-class.
@@ddshiranui If so this wasnt my intention. The F125 "Frigate" displaces 7.200 tons...
I couldnt find any source that says the Bundesmarine had Destroyers until the 2000s. What I found was that after WW II the Bundesmarine got supplied with American Fletcher-Class Destroyers in order to counter the Soviets. These were indeed called Destroyers in Germany, too. In the 1980s they got replaced by Frigates who had the same tasks and were bigger then the Fletcher class...
@@Gentleman...Driver and despite being 7,200 tons, the F125 are slow and poorly-armed even by frigate standards, let alone destroyers. Truly a boondoggle of a warship. The previous 5,800 ton F124 frigates are more capable in every way.
Ultimately as with basically every ship category in at least the last 150 years it depends on the history and political needs of the navies fielding them. That being said, for a simple generalisation, a destroyer is a ship that can adequately perform anti-air, anti-surface and anti-submarine roles, a frigate is a ship that can perform two of these tasks adequately and a corvette is a ship that is focused on one. This won't cover all ships that bear these classifications, since ships are not classified according to any hard and fast rules, but if you want to talk in the abstract about modern ship roles it is a fairly useful framework. Cruisers, on the other hand, tend to be either ships that specialise in taking on other capital ships (most notably aircraft carriers) like the Kirov, or function as arsenal ships like the Ticonderoga. Although there are very few classes of cruisers fielded nowadays, I think they can generally be distinguished because their role is primarily offensive rather than defensive.
There are no hard and fast rules for ship classification, so you can within reason use whatever definitions you find most practical. The only thing I dislike which I see quite often is people who categorise ships by displacement. This is based in the Washington Naval Treaty which was never supposed to be a document to standardise ship classifications and is absolutely not relevant outside of its specific historical context. Unfortunately it is still fairly widespread, and results in things like the Renhai being classified as a "cruiser" while the Arleigh Burke is classified as a "destroyer", despite both ships having very similar capabilities and roles, because one sits slightly above the arbitrary line while the other sits just below it.
A lot of work... You deserve way more appreciation ;^)
Thank you. To be honest, for my standards this IS a lot of appreciation.
@@TribusMontibus a thousand appreciations. I have always loved history, naval and otherwise, but I had given up on understanding the difference ship classes. Good man.
@@TribusMontibus why frigate? my first thought - because 'fuck it' would have been rude
Also the Flower class was designed off of a whaler and was small enough to be made in commercial yards in decent numbers and would not take up slots in the bigger yards that could make Dds.
Thank you SO much! This explains a lot. I'm a big Corvette fan from sailing games, and wondered how the classes got so muddled over time. Thank you for a brief, interesting, and concise explanation! :D
The other thing about the Flower Class was that they weren't Warships, not really. The idea with the Flower Class was that their basic normal hull and engines so that smaller shipyards could build them - in the end more than 290 were built. In this regard they should maybe have been called Gunboats, but their main job was depth charging. And because they were built for purpose then Auxiliary Cruiser and Armed Merchantmen doesn't really fit either.
True, but I guess it's a matter of opinion whether you'd consider them 'real warships' then or not. In that respect you could also question whether the De Havilland Mosquito should be considered a real war plane, having been built by cabinet makers, using wood.
Much is often made of the fact that Smiths Dockyard used the civilian whaler 'Southern Pride' as the basis for the Flower design. But the Flowers were so much larger than the Pride that this is no basis for considering the Flowers 'militarized whalers'. I don't even think I would have recognized the Pride as the Flower-ancestor if I'd passed her at sea. More like an Admiralty Trawler.
But, yes, I do see your point. Fitting the Flowers in was a thing. I've always thought that they would have best fit into the Escort Sloop category, although they would have been dangling at the bottom. Either way, I consider it a mistake that they were given the designation 'corvette', after swift sailing warships from the age-of-sail.
Kind regards
Thanks for this vid and its explanations - I now feel much more clear about any confusions I had on the subject, seemingly with good reasons. 👍
ive been putting some thought into how to class ships, first i tried the obvious, size, but you can have small frigates and large destroyers, as someone else mentioned, in the age of sail, ships were judged based on amount of guns, it may have worked then but we have more then just cannons now. What about speed and manuverability? As technology advanced slow things became fast, also things like battlecruisers exist.
The only good way i can think to catagorize ships on is a mix of everything, but in a word, "capability".
This is how i would describe the classes. Think about what you want your ship to be able to do. Refer to below for common traits. They are in what one would expect to be decending order in size untill you get to the last 2.
Battleships. These were always about "how much hate and death can we throw at our enemies at once", Started as the ManOWar, once armour could be added the ships they then had the most protection of any ship. Big guns, Big Armour. Sacraficing speed and manuverability. These along with Battlecruisers became irrelevent once guided missiles and aircraft carriers advanced enough. They are just to slow and lack manuverability to dodge and have a massive shillouette thats great for missiles to hit.
Cruiser. Still ships of the line, but also still dependant on a fleet as they are too valuable for independant use.
--Battlecruiser. Its a Battleship but with its armour reduced to increase speed. "Guns of a Battleship, armour of a cruiser"
--Heavy Cruiser. The other way around. They are cruisers that have been up gunned to the point of being able to threaten a Battleships armour, but are also still small enough to be a Cruiser rather then a full Battlecruiser. Other proposals of Heavy Cruisers had them focus on specifically targeting other cruisers.
--Light Cruiser. The original second in line. Still large enough to be safe on the open ocean. Enough guns and armour to put up a good fight (atleast against other Cruisers). They are smaller, cheaper and mroe numerous. These comprise the main fighting force of the fleet. Though they are still second to Battleships.
Frigate. The bridge between Destroyers and Cruisers. They are large enough that they can safely cross oceans whilst being small enough to have Independance. Due to this independance they arnt what fight your battles with might. Though what differentiates this from a support ship is its ability to defend itself. Guns for ships, Missiles for ships and Aircraft. Torpedos, Depth Charges and helicopters for submarines. Whilst it lacks power against other ships, it can throw a punch at anything else.
Destroyer. These are your speciallized "i want to kill that one thing very well" ships. Gunboat for screening against Torpedo boats, Torpedo boats for punching above its weight. Guided missile for punching above its weight but from so far away you cant shoot it. Known for their speed these nimble craft dodge and run from direct combat that it cant handle. They are also sent away from fleets to chase stuff down. Whilst modern Destroyers are larger and thus more capable at ocean going, they dont have the supply to match the range of a Firgate. These are usually the smallest ships to be able to have helicopters land on them. Some have hangers so they can take Helicopters with them on their hunt for submarines.
Corvette. This ship you would use for coastal defence. whilst capable of going futher from the shore then patrol boats they arnt usually fleet ships due to their small size. Keep these on your rivers and coasts.
Patrol boat. At this scale there isnt too much they can do other than be used for scouting and being able to fit on rivers. but they do have use in a modern Navy
And now for the easy.
Submarines are boats that can controlably submerge themselves to avoid detection. Being under the waves means they can easily cross oceans. Due to water absorbing most light and radar sonar is the primary way of seeing and being seen, as such these ships are very sneaky. Sneak up to a fleet and either torpedo them or nearly surface to launch missiles. Go up to the enemies coastline and launch nukes right on their cities.
Aircraft Carriers cary aircraft. No i dont care that you call it an "Amphibious Assault Ship" Its purpose built to carry aircraft, i dont care that its smaller, its an Aircraft Carrier. Just like all the bigger ones, and the even bigger ones the US have.
Excellent exposition. Great visuals and very clear text. Even a touch of humor. BZ
An excellent presentation! Thank you for your efforts!
Thank you Darren
Every time the British decide on a new “cod war” against Iceland, they always send out frigates. That’s how you can recognise frigates. 😊
Eh, no matter what they call 'em, the Brits still lost.
All good stuff. When I was a kid it was when WWII was still a fresh memory in life as in the.movies so there were corvettes, frigates, destroyers, cruisers and battleships. We knew pretty much what each did, its weapons and its complement - at least relative to the others.
And we knew of one particular pocket battleship 😉 and that made sense too because we knew all the others
I have never heard of the Farragut-class destroyers being referred to as a frigate before. Fascinating info, ty!
And those South African "corvettes" you mention were really frigates, but without all the optional extras. Corvettes sounded cheaper.
Thank you for an excellent explanation!
Hello David,
That’s why I liked Chris Louw’s reaction so much; let’s do away with the smoke screens, just call ‘em warships and get on with the content, instead of the label.
Kind regards,
Garret
TO TRIBUS: Thanks for producing this video. It answers some of the question I have had about this topic for many years. I like the depth you went into the topic, and the many illustrations you used too.
I do have a question. Since the Destroyers were originally meant to destroy torpedo boats, and then took on torpedo batteries themselves (i.e. they carried torpedoes they could launch at capital ships), and they probably launched torpedoes in battles, did ANY of those torpedoes launched by Destroyers ever sink any ships during WW2? In other words, were torpedoes effective as weapons when launched from Destroyers (not subs, not MTBs, not Eboats)? ??
I seem to recall reading numerous narratives about destroyers that went into battles, launched their torpedoes, but all missed (no reported hits, that I recall). So, I wonder if they proved ineffective (a waste to have on the Destroyer), or did they make a difference in some battle I have not read about? ?
Hello,
Thank you for your kind comment.
Concerning your question on destroyer-launched torpedoes; that's an interesting topic.
Effectively, the Japanese forced an issue at Pearl Harbor. They damaged so many large surface ships that the USN was forced to rethink their philosophy on surface engagements, in favor of carrier based task forces. In most of the famous US-Japanese battles, no two opposing ships even sighted each other and they were fought mainly by their carrier-based aircraft.
The famous exception is the Battle of Leyte Gulf, where USS Johnston did cripple IJN Kumano with one of her torpedoes. But large WW2 surface engagements are few. A little 'on the unknown side' is the Battle of the Java Sea. In fact, after the battle of Jutland (WW1) this was the second largest battle between opposing surface fleets (not carrier task forces) in modern times. Both the Japanese- and the ABDA-destroyers launched torpedo attacks in text book style. Strangely enough, considering the number of the torpedoes expended by all ships, it was the torpedoes launched from the Japanese heavy cruisers which accounted for the decisive ABDA losses in this battle.
Then there are the various hit-and-run destroyer actions like Sunda Straits and Balikpapan where destroyers launched their torpedoes against cruisers and an almost stationary invasion fleet respectively and successfully sank ships.
The text book example of destroyer attacks is Cape Bon, where the British and Dutch destroyers mauled the Italian cruisers RN Di Giussano and RN Da Barbiano, with gunfire and torpedoes.
Of course you can hardly count the torpedoes which were launched at a crippled DKM Bismarck as an example of how destroyer men would have envisioned their use.
But overall, I would like to say that, despite the very low success rate, when accounting for hits, the influence of the destroyers' torpedo batteries was far from ineffective. Crucial tactical decisions were taken, based on the threat of these batteries. Admiral Doorman was very weary of the number of destroyers he faced and had to react to the threat of attacks. He also ordered his USN destroyers into a torpedo attack on the Japanese when he was in a bind and trying to regroup, to which the Japanese had to react and turn away.
I'd have to check my records, but, off the top of my head, some 140 Japanese torpedoes (and some 40 allied) were launched that night and only three of them (all three Japanese 'Long Lances') found a target, although not even their intended target.
The post WW2 philosophy change says it all. It was realized that radar-assisted fire control and effective air attack had made torpedo attacks a thing of a bygone era. Some new tubes were fit in anticipation of anti-submarine torpedoes which were under development, but destroyers had seized to be considered as ships to be deployed in attacks like a pack of hounds. Interestingly enough, that idea hadn't disappeared altogether. In theaters Like the Baltic, newer types of fast patrol boats were still being used. Their size and intended tactics actually very similar to those of early destroyers (albeit with much greater speeds and the addition of SSM's). But, fortunately for the world, they never had to be deployed in anger.
Kind regards,
Garret
Plenty were used to finish off damaged ships. As to ships that were still in a good fighting state, I'd be surprised if Japanese long lance ones didn't bag a few in the Pacific. Standard practice was for the destroyer screen to launch a volley of them to cover a retreat by heavier ships.
The 3 worst US naval defeats of WWII were : Pearl Harbour, Savo Island & the Battle of Tassafaronga. Tassafaronga is the best example of what you are asking.
A group of 8 IJN (Japanese) destroyers launched 2 salvos of 'long-lance' torpedoes at a group of US heavy cruisers and their escorts.
The USS Northampton was sunk, although 85% of the crew survived. USS Minneapolis, New Orleans, and Pensacola were all so massively damaged, that they spent the rest of the war in dry docks.
Overall, it would be fair to say that during WWII, the Japanese destroyer force punched well above their weight. Many of these ships (such as the Kagero and Yugumo Class) were above 2000 tons.
U.S. torpedoes from 1941 to 1943 were infamous for running under their targets, or for hitting their targets but not exploding. It became a scandal.
Cool vid. Nice to get more knowledge of the various ships/types that I've come across over the years in multiple games (Pirates, Civilization 3, Silent Hunter 3).
Interesting and informative. I like your comment that a frigate is a frigate because that's what the owner calls it. I would add, the concept of a "family resemblance" can help understand these naming convention problems. For example, object "A" may be similar to "B" which in turn is similar to "C" which in turn is similar to object "D". However, "A" and "D" might be very different from each other. They are said to have a family resemblance because they share some characteristics to other objects that are in turn related to yet other objects. Take the idea of a "game". What is a game? Tic-Tac-Toe, Monopoly, tennis, football, archery, chess, and military war games are all "games" but there is seemingly little relationship between tic-tac-toe and a US Pacific fleet annual war game. They have a family resemblance by virtue of a series of connected relationships.
Now, you need to do a video on "battleships" and "battle cruisers". /s
Hello Andy,
True, there are distinct family resemblances. But you will soon run into trouble when comparing the resembling frigates from the different navies. It quickly becomes difficult to point out which particular resemblances place the ship in either one family or the other.
I would indeed like to do a video on battleships and battlecruisers but I'm afraid that my time, between family, work, sports (I've been dumb enough to sign up for an ultra endurance event this year) and hobbies wouldn't allow me to do the subject justice.
Kind regards,
Garret
I served aboard a frigate in early 80's FF1089 J.L.Brown . Our primary duties were mainly ASW as we were armed with torpedoes and ASROC's as well as a 5"/ 54 cal. Deck gun. Our other main duty was as "lifeguard " for aircraft carriers during flight duties. Had many interesting incidents in big NATO exercises as we were the slowest of them all , max speed of 28 knots sometimes. Lol
Knox class had the same speed disadvantage all US Frigates had - a single screw, and of course a single stack. That's what made them Frigates!
Ironically the ship with pennant F362 which appears in a couple of clips was actually a Castle Class corvette, all of which were reclassified as frigates post-WW2. After the war most of the WW2 destroyers retained by the Royal Navy were rebuilt and reclassified as frigates, as were the sloops. Essentially, a ship is whatever the owner chooses to call it.
Hello David,
You are the first one to catch that. Very well spotted!
I only realized this after recording the video. So I did list it, along with a few more known errors in my pinned comment 'errata'.
I took the footage from 'The Cruel Sea' without paying proper attention. I knew from the book that the captain transferred to a River-class Frigate, after the sinking of Compass Rose. I didn't really catch it, at that time, that they'd actually used HMS Portchester Castle for the movie.
But, history has made it very easy for me to cover up my mistake. By the time they filmed the movie she had been reclassified a Frigate.
This allows me to pretend that it wasn't a mistake and say "Err, yeah, err,...., that's what I meant".
Kind regards,
Garret
Frigate
A frigate is a type of warship. In different eras, the roles and capabilities of ships classified as frigates have varied greatly. In the 17th century, a frigate was any warship built for speed and maneuverability, the description often used being "frigate-built".
True. From the information I have, early mention of 'Frigates' were very non-specific about their exact build. The fast ships, used by Dunkerque pirates, to prey on English merchants were referred to as such. As the English reacted to this threat they started building narrow, fast ships themselves (the initial attempt proving ineffective). But, it is out of that particular 'blood line' that the Frigates evolved as the archetype (fast, three-masted, square-rigged, single deck).
Kind regards
In 1973 I reported aboard USS Gridley DLG-21 call both a “destroyer leader guided missile” and a “guided missile frigate”. Then in 1990 I reported aboard USS Gary FFG-51 a guided missile frigate. They were the second and sixth ships I served on.
In a Nato context you give the answer at 16:50 - A frigate will typically have anti-submarine, anti-air craft, air-direction and guided missiles capability. It is defined by its purpose rather than the tonnage.
So it's able to do a little bit of everything, basically? Fight or defense against anything?
What is an American LCS then?
@@RealJeep similar to a corvette
@@thalmoragent9344 As explained in the video, frigates comes in varying tonnage, from abt. 3500t to 7200t (Baden-Württemberg Class). Frigates can be found all over the world in different configurations, but in Nato regi, it has become the backbone of most European navies. Some will have multirole capabilities, like the German Baden-Württemberg class and the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class), while others are specialized, like the submarine hunter Absalon class. As modern weaponry and missile systems has become more sophisticated, you can pack a hard punch in a smaller package, making it economical and strategical sound to spread your capability over 4 frigates at US$ 500 million a piece, rather than investing all, in one Destroyer like the Arleigh Burke class at US$ 1.8 billion per ship. The bulk of the German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Hellenic, Dutch, Belgian, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish naval forces consists of Frigates. At least 17+ of these are or will be incorporating the AEGIS missile defense system. The UK and France have large complex fleets, including aircraft-carriers, nuclear submarines, destroyers and off course frigates.
@@belledetector
Interesting, so having a few 500 Million Dollar Frigates helps out the other navies, whereas the US here only has their Billion dollar Destroyers... interesting. America tried to incorporate the Littoral Combat Ships as its new Frigates but it hasn't been done very well tbh
So Frigates for most navies are usually specialized Destroyers, essentially? Whereas Destroyers are usually a bit of everything mixed together?
An excellent video! I understand that two warships that the Philippine Navy purchased from South Korea are "guided missile frigates". However, more effective defence is provided by the BrahMos mobile missile launcher system being purchased from India. Ships are much more expensive.
I was on the USS Oullett FF 1077 when I was In the Navy. I had always wondered what the difference between a the two was . Thanks
Hello Chris,
Ah, the Knox-class! I can’t rightly put my finger on the reason why, but they are admirable ships. I guess, besides being very efficient ships, their silhouettes were very imposing. They just made it clear, instantaneously, that these were not ships one should underestimate.
I’m very flattered that the video managed to convey a new viewpoint to quite a few viewers who either served at sea or are otherwise very familiar with the subject.
Kind regards and safe sailing,
Garret
I watch various sorts of military based videos and i really like this one. Very well made and you packed a lot into 20 minutes.
Thank you, James.
I may do a video on The Battle of the Java Sea some time in the future, as I believe I have significantly better information about it than anything which is currently available (either on video or in print). But, other than that, my potential as a TH-cam content creator on warships is rather limited. I don’t want to create videos just for the sake of it. Besides, I do not have the breadth of knowledge of someone like Drachnifel and I don’t fancy addressing subjects which are already adequately covered by others. Either way, I’m glad you enjoyed it. It was a childhood frustration of mine, not being able to put my finger on exactly what a frigate was.
Kind regards,
Garret
p.s. Shame on you for keeping me from my studies. I went upstairs a few hours ago, telling my wife I really need to prepare for a review on friday 😉.
the ship of the line designation actually still lives on in the Russian language, their word for battleship is lineyniy korabel which means ship of the line, and battlecruiser is lineyniy kreyser meaning cruiser of the line
They even keep up the tradition with red painted decks!
@@siddis9484 it's linoleum or something, pretty old waterproof decking for ships
@@siddis9484 and they call aircraft carriers Avianesuschiy Kreyser or aviation cruiser wich is pretty close to the CV designation, Croiseur Voler
Some frigates are literally at the borderline . Take eg of Indian Shivalik class and Nilgiri class , largest stealth frigates in world with displacement of 6800 tons . That's more than some destroyer of other navies
First time I’ve heard anyone call the projectile fired by a modern warship a “grenade” in English. The normal military term in English is “shell”.
True, and I’m much embarrassed by that error. I have mentioned it, along with three other known mistakes, in my pinned comment ‘errata’.
Excellent summary! It is a very good description, with a relevant historical background, clear, precise, and complete. Well done!
In the mid-80s when I joined the USN... frigates were SINGLE shaft vessels and Destroyers were Two.... anything smaller was a "boat". I was always amused that the Ticonderoga class was a Cruiser, and the Spruance class was a Destroyer - even though they sailed on the EXACT SAME HULL - I suppose some DoD folk made that determination based on armament/task rather than tonnage - given that the USN pretty much gave up on "GUNS" for missile systems
Times change. Ships change. Tirpitz and Bismarck were "pocket battleships". Japan has 4 "helicopter landing platforms".
Cruiser gap. Soviets had built WWII style gun armed cruisers until mid 50's. In 70's and 80's they still had bunch of those in service with various degrees of modernization, US Navy had started to retire their WWII and immediate post WWII cruisers in large numbers in 60's and more modern missile cruisers had been built in only small numbers. Building more modern cruisers was too expensive compared to benefit they offered over guided missile destroyers. This when Ticonderoga is about to enter service. Originally program was called air defense destroyer, given that it carried brand spanking new Aegis combat system with advanced radars and required more sophisticated command facilities to coordinate entire battle groups air defense missile systems. It was bit bigger displacement than destroyed hull it was stretched from. Its bigger and for political reasons there must be more cruisers. Now it is a cruiser.
One of the things that always amazes me about the so called 'sailing navies' (especially the British) was the fact that ships were designated primarily by the amount of guns they carried (that is the amount of guns they nominally carried as opposed to the number they actually carried - there was a difference, fairly large at times) the Largest ships where as stated three masted square rigged ship with the 1st Rate ship having in excess of some 80 guns on the gundecks and because of this she was captained by a Senior captain who was designated a "Post Captain" (he was "posted" to the job as a full captain). These sizes reduced in numbers of guns rather than size, OK if you were big you could carry more guns and thus you were classes as a Higher Grade "Ship of the Line" the smaller ships whilst still three masted carried less guns right down to a 5th or 6th rate which wee fairly small in comparison. Because of this of course the 6th rate which carried some 20 odd guns was not expected to fight in the "Line of Battle" and therefore was captained by a "Commander" or such like (we are now getting into the realm of the different Officer grades) or even a Lieutenant. With less experience and a smaller ship gunwise they were designated "Frigates" or "Sloops" and got the smaller jobs that did not warrant a full fleet. Scouting or running messages etc. This simple system changed as warships became more complicated and carried out even more complicated manouveurs [I'm sure I've spelt that wrong] and the Officer classed started to change - incidentally in the earlier Navies there where but three kinds of officers "Captains", "Lieutenants" and "Midshipmen" depending on their own languages variations in spelling etc. But that is a different story!
One year after posting and the algorithm promoted this video to me. Never had I asked this question. Never had I ever wondered. But, I am damn glad I now know. Great video, bud.
I was assigned to a DE-turned-FF in 1976 and was told that the reason for the change was that, by treaty, the US Navy could have more frigates than it could destroyers.
This always intrigued me. That is why this headline caught my attention.
Unfortunately, I'm unable to read the article pictured.
The classifications made a lot of sense before WWII because the treaties needed to classify things correctly, and the treaties worked. But that classification could only ever work in the era dominated by guns and torpedoes, and when submarines had to run from warships. In our era of aircraft, attack submarines, and ballistic missiles, we really need a new era of classifications and treaties. A building competition is already afoot!
A treaty would only make sense when another power even remotely begins to challenge the US's supremacy. China is of course the only one that can, but I don't think they will ever find the need to match the US's Navy, as long as their sights stay on Taiwan. Now if they want to project power to Africa, which is certainly a future possibility, then yeah, China would need several carriers, dozens of 10kt DDs, etc. But until then, China would simply say for starters carriers should be limited to 1 per nation.
@@dansiegel995 Italy and Japan were not at all a challenge for the US and UK, even when the US was still treaty bound and Japan was not. Yet the treaty was mostly a good thing for all members, and Japan would have benefitted from staying with the treaties. They hopelessly built all kinds of ships as a bad gamble to beat the US by luck, and it brought them to ruins, when to the surprise of no one, the US simply out produced them in every category.
There was no need for a treaty in the Cold War because not even the UK could rebuild their navy, but now it is finally the turn of the US to downsize. The US navy has way too many unforced accidents, and a navy treaty is the only reasonable solution. Of course the treaty would really only involve the US, China, and Japan. The scope of the treaty would purely be Asian. China will have to agree to some limit that keeps them in Asia, Japan will have to agree to demilitarize, and the US would be best served by not overextending anymore.
The EU, and France in particular, already have a monopoly on power projection in Africa. Africa was not colonized by navies as was Asia. The US navy does not operate much outside of Djibouti and the same will hold for China.
@@JinFX You have no clue. After Pearl Harbor the IJN dwarfed the USN Pacific Fleet in firepower. It still required 20 months after Pearl Harbor to get the Essex and Iowa Class ships out to lead their first offensive operations near the end of 1943. I would love to har one reason why it would have been Japan's advanatge to stay with the Washington Treaty. If they dudnt break it, their navy would have been half its tonnage. No clue on why you think treaties in today's environment would actually work, when the US would never sign it. NEVER. Arms Limitation Treaties only work when you have atleast 2 powers that have comparable arms. The Washington Naval Treaty from the 1930s worked well, as there were several nations in the same ball park. The Escalator Clause also was very smart, allowing the continued members to ramp up, if the treaties were broken by some members (Japan, Italy, and Germany). Why would the US mothball its fleet and its primary means of power projection? And as far as China and Africa, China is investing trillions into Africa and expanding its influence. It of course is different than Colonial Africa prior to WW2, however if China has interests in Africa, it will eventually require a means to protect those interests...which will require a sizeable navy.
Seriously, you think the US should downsize its fleet because of a handful of collisions over the past several decades? You must not be a NATO and fear the USN. It does A LOT more good than bad (yes, the few accidents and loss of civilian life are tragedies). Every friend of the USA loves our navy. Except sometimes when it goes to port...some bad incidents in Japan, but they have been apparently addressed.
@@dansiegel995 You can have as many carriers and cruisers you want as long as I have quiet modern "conventional" subs - some with mine-capacity.! (I served on a frigate)
An interesting video. As someone curious as to how science fiction space ships should be classified given how they tend to be named based on old naval vessels, it's fascinating to see even in the real world, there's no much consensus. Battleships and heavy cruisers appear to be either long range and heavily armored with the cruisers being lighter but faster versions of battleships. But When you get to lighter Cruisers/Frigates/Destroyers/Corvettes it's whatever the hell you want to call it :P Based on any or none of size/armament/hope to get it funded/how you got out of bed that morning/etc. So given that, when people complain about how the use of Dreadnought is typically used in sci-fi (i.e. a MUCH bigger and scarier battleship) then honestly it seems like the complainers are not aware of how little consistency there is in the real world as it is, even within the same navy and/or over time.
That’s an interesting angle! Your conclusion makes a lot of sense. I believe a lot of motivation for using naval classifications in fiction derives from the fact that their names just sound menacing. I mean, you’re more likely to consider running when you know that HMS Dreadnought is heading your way, rather than HMS Pansy (which did exist for a while until the Admiralty showed mercy on her crew and renamed her).
Kind regards
@@TribusMontibus Thank you :) And yeah I imagine sci-fi writers went with Dreadnought being the next level up of big and scary given the name. I'm amazed a real world navy went with Pansy! But glad for the crew they showed mercy after a while :P
Well... ship classification between IP's don't need to be completely consistent. Well, as long as the classifications the specific IPs use are logical (self-consistent) and can be analogous of the other(s), then comparisons and classifications between the IPs aren't an issue.
One of the IPs which has problems (internal inconsistencies) with ship classifications is Star Wars. When George Lucas wrote the script, he envisioned many things. At first he had the Star Destroyer-class _fighters,_ then he decided on making it the large capital ship we see/saw on screen. Yet, the ship was still referred to as a Star Destroyer which was more capable than "bulk cruisers". He compounded his original mistake by introducing the Super Star Destroyer-class ships. He then wanted to fix his mistake by making the prefix "Star" mean "larger" when he made the Mon Cal cruisers for Episode VI, by calling them Star Cruisers, but that idea never was followed through.
This left the fans wondering about the Star Destroyers and other ship classifications; so Lucasfilm hired Jason Fry to work out a logical system. He failed at the start by designating everything over 100 meters long to be a Capital Ship. Capital ship class types are:
Corvettes: Ships roughly 100-200 meters long.
Frigates: Ships roughly 200-400 meters long.
Cruisers: Ships roughly 400-600 meters long.
Heavy cruisers: Ships roughly 600-1000 meters long.
Star Destroyers: Ships roughly 1000-2000 meters long.
Battlecruisers: Ships roughly 2000-5000 meters long.
Dreadnaughts: All ships over 5000 meters length.
As shown, there are three other mistakes with the list. The first was not defining what roles each of the classifications have. The second was not having a separate classification system for carriers. The third was defining classes by the lengths of the ships, which made both Mon Cal Cruisers and the Imperial-I/II-class Star Destroyers as shown in Episode VI, classified as Star Destroyers.
Fortunately, there are "fixes":
1.
_"The term (Star Destroyer) originated with the idea of a warship powerful enough to destroy entire star systems, and did not necessarily indicate a destroyer type vessel."_
*This shouts "battleship" to me.*
_"The term "battlecruiser" was reserved for capital ships measuring between two thousand and five thousand meters in length and designed for long-range, independent operations. Most battlecruisers were large and powerful ships that were among the most powerful in their fleets."_
*This is a clear contradiction is ship design. Why send a such an important ship off on its own where it could be disabled, destroyed, or captured by enemy action? Just, illogical.*
2. and 3.
"Despite the limits on dimensions, the system could sometimes move ship designs up or down in classification, depending on their armament and intended role."
*This is sensible. I would maintain that role should be the primary consideration and not size. Examples of ships moving around in classification are the 900m long Victory-class ship is a Star Destroyer; the 2,200m long Secutor-class ship, while a fleet carrier, is a Star Destroyer; the 1,600m long Mon Cal Cruisers, which are battlecruisers.*
Yet, even these exceptions are illogical. This is what happens when civilians who don't know anything about military terminology try to come up with a "logical" military system, lol. Especially in a system which wasn't designed to be this... forthcoming in information. Compounding these issues are the fact that different authors have come up with different classes, so some ships are analogous to the ones seen in WWII while others are following Mr. Fry's methodology.
For writing fiction, there are two reasons why the author should have a rough idea of what differentiates the ship types. First, so the author knows what each ship is capable of, so ship types have consistent armaments compared to the others (consistency!). Second, when the reader reads the word "battlecruiser" the reader draws upon their knowledge of what they _think_ makes a "battlecruiser" and then applies it to the ship they are reading about. If the ship they are reading about doesn't match their idea of what a "battlecruiser" should be they could get distracted from the story (suspension of disbelief) which isn't a good thing (normally).
As you said many authors are guilty of using "dreadnought" as a ship type. When HMS Dreadnought commissioned, she really was a MUCH bigger and scarier battleship, lol. I'll be using David Weber's Honorverse as an example of a "rough idea" what separates the ships types even though, he does use "dreadnought" as a ship type.
As the limiting factor on ship design is mass, which reduces acceleration, there is an upper limit on how large a ship can be before it is tactically too "slow". So, the determinating factor he used was mass. After he published the first books, he learned that his 3.2km long ships with a mass of 61 million tons "had the density of smoke", so he resized all of them to be mathematically sound. The 3.2km Superdreadnoughts, became 1.4km long with a mass of around 8.5 million tons.
Supredreadnoughts have a mass of 7 to 9 million tons with their acceleration being around 400g. (Ship of the Line [Wall])
Dreadnoughts have a mass of 5 to 7 million tons with their acceleration being around 430g. (Ship of the Line [Wall])
Battleships have a mass of 3 to 5 million tons with their acceleration being around 460. (Ship of the Line [Wall])
Battelcruisers have a mass of 750 thousand to 1 million tons with their acceleration being around 500g. (Smallest Capital Ship)
Heavy Cruisers have a mass of 250 to 350 thousand tons with their acceleration being around 520g. (Typical Commerce Raider for top tier navies)
Light Cruisers have a mass of 120 to 150 thousand tons with their acceleration being around 520g. (Typical flagship for most systems/governments)
Destroyers have a mass of 75 to 100 thousand tons with their acceleration being around 540g. (Smallest modern warship)
Over time, as warfare tech has remained stable for centuries, warships get downgraded as members of their class increase in mass. One of the results is causing ship types to become obsolete, so their roles are given to or supplanted by other ships. Corvettes and Frigates became too ineffective to be worth building so their mission roles have been assigned to destroyers or light cruisers (if the navies in question can afford them). Additionally, sometimes they are classified as corvettes/frigates because the roles they were designed to fulfill. Some navies still use corvettes and frigates, so their classifications still remains in the open source information for navies across the galaxy; _Jayne's._
In 1632 Post Diaspora, the Ad Astra-class dreadnoughts were commissioned. They had a mass of just under 3.9 million tons, as of their last refit they had an acceleration of 450 g. When the events of the first novel took place, some 260 years later, they weren't a match for larger battleships commissioned by the opposition, and were decommissioned mid war to crew newly commissioned dreadnoughts.
With these limitations, and rough outline, every ships David Weber writes about remains consistent, with reasonable exceptions scattered about, so when he writes about a ship, the reader has a firm idea of what it is capable of doing without the need of the characters to tell the reader.
The best thing about David Weber is, he wrote an essay on how to design a fleet. It can be found starting on page 513 in the _House of Steel_ The Honorverse Companion with BuNine. While he says it's for Honorverse, the principles can be applied to any navy I can think of. It's worth the read if you can find it online.
A very interesting and informative video. With regard to the Flower Class Corvette, as you rightly say, when the British Admiralty found they required a cheap, easily constructed vessel for convoy escort duty, which could stand up to North Atlantic weather conditions, they invited tenders from various yards throughout the UK. The yard that was chosen was Smiths Dock in Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire, which specialized in whaling vessels. The design they came up with and which was accepted , was based on the whale catcher vessels which could handle adverse weather conditions. They were fitted with a reliable, triple expansion engine, capable of delivering a speed of 17knts which was considered adequate to match to that of a U Boat.
Hello Gordon,
Thanks for your posting. Yes, I do find that a tremendously interesting part of naval history. The stories of the corvette crews are manifold, often hair raising, sometimes hilarious, as relatively inexperienced crews were asked to do very demanding service. I love both the book and movie of 'The cruel sea'. In fact, the ringtone on my phone is a sound clip from that movie (it's the ASW classroom instructor yelling 'pinggg, pinggg, pingggah').
As you rightly say, the Flower Class design was based on experience with whale catchers. Many people make the mistake of comparing the Flowers to the whale catcher 'Southern Pride'. Southern Pride itself did serve as an ocean escort (and met its end off Africa) but when next to a Flower Class corvette you might think you were looking at an Admiralty Trawler rather than a close relative.
Kind regards,
Garret
They had a big meeting. After several hours of things like Caravvon, Sloopone and Galliette one of the guys stood up and "Frig it, I'm off to the pub!"
Yeah, ya know, I served in the U.S. Navy aboard a battle carrier back in the day, and I REALLY don’t care what a vessel is called. This is something the BRASS came up with to make THEMSELVES feel important!
😉
As the oldens used to say, "What's in a name." We do seem to have forgotten this .. save for those that have commented that a frigate is something you call a frigate .. the most accurate definition of the term. The alleged definition most certainly has changed over the centuries and from country to country .. that's also true... :-)
I was stationed on USS Kirk DE1087 commissioned 1972, Homeport San Diego. Anti submarine rockets and a 5 in. gun on the foc'sle, 4 torpedo tubes and a helo deck above the fantail. The home port was changed to Japan and designation to fast frigate. Same ship.
That would have been a good anecdote to include in this video, as it demonstrates the point exactly.
Kind regards,
Garret
Kirk was "born" a DE but became a when the USN abandoned Destroyer leader and escort designations in '75. But she shared the characteristics of single stack, single screw like the hundreds of frigates before and after here.
This only confirms the confusion I had on the matter. Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks for the explanation, turns out it was all pretty tidy until WW2, afterwards it became a mess and nowadays the ships are just classified to whatever they want. Not even talking about special cases like the "helicopter destroyers" of the JMSDF.
To me in my mind it's like this: Cruisers today = Battleships of old, Destroyers today = Cruisers of Old, Frigates and Korvettes being basically the same = Destroyers of old.
@@SoloNit ,
Sometimes, ships are mislabeled to get around pesky little things like laws and treaties...
From our perspective in Submarines, they all have only one single classification: TARGET. Their only difference? Propulsion & Weapons Systems Configuration. “CORVETTE OR FRIGATE: IT’S STILL A TARGET”
In my experience as a SWO, not only did it not matter what type of ship, it didn't even matter what country it was from!
@@Lance54689 I guess they consider us the way we considered the airforce; If you see something in the sky that may be not a seagull, FIRE! If you are to wait and find out youre dead.
@@siddis9484 I've never seen a chain of command as mad as the time we accidentally found a sub. We were heading down the east coast, going to the gulf for gunfire testing and degaussing(I think??), and a lookout spotted a snorkle. Our CO decided to have some fun so we deployed the towed array and chased it for a while. Did he catch some shit for that!