 | | | | | |
Can anyone give me a quick answer to this:
How many cannon does a ship have to have to be considered a frigate?
Or let me put it another way:
Is 24 or 26 going to be enough?
--
Tony Priestman
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tony Priestman wrote:
> Can anyone give me a quick answer to this:
>
> How many cannon does a ship have to have to be considered a frigate?
>
> Or let me put it another way:
>
> Is 24 or 26 going to be enough?
As far as I know, it depends on how many cannon a ship is designed to
carry. I think that 28 or 32 was the standard minimum as of 1800; I
don't know of too many with fewer cannon. On the other hand, the
Humphreys frigates in the US did carry up to 56 on any given voyage...
best
Lindsay
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Mr L F Braun (<38C53F44.D944207C@pilot.msu.edu>)
wrote at 17:41:24
>
>
> Tony Priestman wrote:
>
> > Can anyone give me a quick answer to this:
> >
> > How many cannon does a ship have to have to be considered a frigate?
> >
> > Or let me put it another way:
> >
> > Is 24 or 26 going to be enough?
>
> As far as I know, it depends on how many cannon a ship is designed to
> carry. I think that 28 or 32 was the standard minimum as of 1800; I
> don't know of too many with fewer cannon.
Hmmm. This is what I thought.
Need a longer ship :(
--
Tony Priestman
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes:
> Can anyone give me a quick answer to this:
>
> How many cannon does a ship have to have to be considered a frigate?
>
> Or let me put it another way:
>
> Is 24 or 26 going to be enough?
> --
> Tony Priestman
24 is the lowest number I know of, though if you check out the source I list
below, they note 20. Part of what determines a frigate is its rigging, so
cannon is not the only criteria. They tended to get larger as the 1700s came
to a close and on into the 1800s. You can get away with 24, but note that they
should all be on a single deck.
Go here:
http://home.gci.net/~stall/ship2.htm
to see the status of the english navy in this time period.
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes:
> > Can anyone give me a quick answer to this:
> >
> > How many cannon does a ship have to have to be considered a frigate?
> >
> > Or let me put it another way:
> >
> > Is 24 or 26 going to be enough?
> > --
> > Tony Priestman
>
> 24 is the lowest number I know of, though if you check out the source I list
> below, they note 20. Part of what determines a frigate is its rigging, so
> cannon is not the only criteria. They tended to get larger as the 1700s came
> to a close and on into the 1800s. You can get away with 24, but note that they
> should all be on a single deck.
>
> Go here:
>
> http://home.gci.net/~stall/ship2.htm
>
> to see the status of the english navy in this time period.
It does depend on which navy you're talking about. Most things called a "Frigate"
in colloquial literature are 5th-rates; 6th-rates are often called something else
(often "sloops" or "brigs" despite those classes' usually being smaller still).
Frigates, IIRC, had one covered gun deck the full length of the ship, a second
covered deck for part of the ship's length, and cannon on the open midships.
For an example of how acrimonious designation strife could be, the USS Constitution
(one of the Humphreys frigates and one of the last two or three surviving examples
of a frigate) was called a "Frigate" when she in fact carried more firepower than
some British ships of the line (3d- and 4th-rate, guaranteed)--and the British
would cry foul when the duels of the War of 1812 were characterised as a battle
between ships of equal strength, and the Americans as victorious because of some
inner light that made them "better" than British Tars at sea. In fact, there
wasn't a frigate afloat that had anything near its strength. (I'm trying to
remember the ship that was, in fact, subjected to a broadside from a British
2d-rate before surrendering--Chesapeake, I think?--even that was above normal for a
Frigate--rated at 36, carrying IIRC 44--although smaller than the six Humphreys
ships.)
So it's more than number of guns, it's also the size of guns and where they are.
:)
best
Lindsay
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> How many cannon does a ship have to have to be considered a frigate?
When?
One is enough now, and it can be a middling 57mm one to boot :)
I know, you are talking historically, and I would think that what Linsay posted
was likely right. I think it had a lot to do with who was doing the naming
too...since the US had "Guided Missile Frigates" that weighed in at over 10,000
DWT (again, more modern, but a prime example of misnaming)
So, name it what you think is right for the size of ship, bearing in mind the
max. flex MF scale adjustments. I would think that a good size for a Lego
Frigate would be around 6-8 guns, which still puts it well larger than the lego
ships...I'd hate to think of a 112 gun ship of the line in Lego with the pirate
hull pieces..it would be a little on the _long_ side :)
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, James Powell (<Fr2s0n.KDE@lugnet.com>) wrote at
23:31:35
> I would think that a good size for a Lego
> Frigate would be around 6-8 guns, which still puts it well larger than the lego
> ships...I'd hate to think of a 112 gun ship of the line in Lego with the pirate
> hull pieces..it would be a little on the _long_ side :)
Well, I'm working towards 74, but the current project will probably
stick at 28 or so :-)
It uses hull pieces, and so far, it looks ok. Haven't got to the gun
deck yet, though.
--
Tony Priestman
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
>
> Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes:
> > > Can anyone give me a quick answer to this:
> > >
> > > How many cannon does a ship have to have to be considered a frigate?
> > >
> > > Or let me put it another way:
> > >
> > > Is 24 or 26 going to be enough?
> > > --
> > > Tony Priestman
> >
> > 24 is the lowest number I know of, though if you check out the source I list
> > below, they note 20. Part of what determines a frigate is its rigging, so
> > cannon is not the only criteria. They tended to get larger as the 1700s • came
> > to a close and on into the 1800s. You can get away with 24, but note that • they
> > should all be on a single deck.
> >
> > Go here:
> >
> > http://home.gci.net/~stall/ship2.htm
> >
> > to see the status of the english navy in this time period.
>
> It does depend on which navy you're talking about. Most things called a • "Frigate"
> in colloquial literature are 5th-rates; 6th-rates are often called something • else
> (often "sloops" or "brigs" despite those classes' usually being smaller • still).
> Frigates, IIRC, had one covered gun deck the full length of the ship, a second
> covered deck for part of the ship's length, and cannon on the open midships.
Sloops and brigs aren't "ship" rigged, so aren't frigates and not rated under
the english system - but then the english designations are so loopy at times
I'm not sure they know without a scorecard. Getting other countries'
designations will truly make a horrible mess of it! :-)
>
> For an example of how acrimonious designation strife could be, the USS • Constitution
> (one of the Humphreys frigates and one of the last two or three surviving • examples
> of a frigate) was called a "Frigate" when she in fact carried more firepower • than
> some British ships of the line (3d- and 4th-rate, guaranteed)--and the British
> would cry foul when the duels of the War of 1812 were characterised as a • battle
> between ships of equal strength, and the Americans as victorious because of • some
> inner light that made them "better" than British Tars at sea. In fact, there
> wasn't a frigate afloat that had anything near its strength. (I'm trying to
> remember the ship that was, in fact, subjected to a broadside from a British
> 2d-rate before surrendering--Chesapeake, I think?--even that was above normal • for a
> Frigate--rated at 36, carrying IIRC 44--although smaller than the six • Humphreys
> ships.)
A number of the American super-frigates were cut-down ships of the line
finished off as one deck frigates rather than two deckers. In intent, they
were frigates - outrun what they couldn't beat, and stand up to anything else.
Just the usual arms race. :-)
Chesapeake, 38, was fired upon by the Leopard, which I think was a 3rd or 4th
rate, 64, for not forking over its alleged british deserters. It also lost to
the Shannon, 38, after the actual start of war ("Don't give up the ship!").
>
> So it's more than number of guns, it's also the size of guns and where they • are.
> :)
>
> best
>
> Lindsay
And type of guns. Something like the Essex with nothing but carronades looks
great on throw-weight, but is severly crippled tactically. The Constitution,
with an increbible amount of long guns, had a lot more options.
Agonizingly, I passed through Boston on my way to the airport, and didn't have
time to see the Constitution. :-(
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd (<Fr2E0y.Bsu@lugnet.com>) wrote
at 18:29:22
>
> Go here:
>
> http://home.gci.net/~stall/ship2.htm
>
> to see the status of the english navy in this time period.
Oh *yes*!
I've only just taken a look. What an excellent page!
--
Tony Priestman
| | | | | | |
