Subject:
|
Re: Question about frigates
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.pirates
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:37:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
630 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Question about frigates
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.pirates)
| | | Re: Question about frigates
|
| (...) came (...) they (...) "Frigate" (...) else (...) still). (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question about frigates
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
