Subject:
|
Re: Question about frigates
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.pirates
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:42:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
841 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question about frigates
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
