Talk:Frigate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Maritime warfare task force

Contents

[edit] Frigates before modern USN

can someone add something to do with frigates before the modern US navy apparently invented them? not that there were warships before the 20th c. or anything

(originally on The_Epopt homepage:)

Hi Epopt --

Sorry for ranting on your frigate page. i don't even know if you're American, but for the life of me I can't see why you started with current bloody American warships. Do you know how many times I have to excuse Americans for their insularity to my European friends? Sorry -- it's just that I kind of expected something about naval warfare when I read it -- and unfortunately, in my mind, the first thing I see is Trafalgar -- not big friggin' grey metal hulks. Did see a Trident once, though...VERY impressive. About two miles off, and the conn tower still looked enormous. Done ranting now, Sorry...but could you please round out your ship articles to reflect the bigger picture? JHK

Have a bloody blast! Not only is this, in theory, at least, a collaborative effort, but you're also not paying me enough to stay up late tonight to finish this article to your specifications.

Sorry Epopt --

If you've seen some of the crap I have to deal with, you'll understand the impatience, I hope. The articles are very good -- I just think they should have more info than the somewhat narrow definition you've provided (which is very well-written and informative). Just hoping you'll add to it later, since you obviously have more than a clue about this stuff. Again, my apologies. Shouldn't log on when worn to a frazzle fighting the unwinnable.

[edit] Frigates of Trafalgar

My apologizes for the snippy and boldface reply. I will expand this and the other ship-type pages over the next few days. But if you know something about the frigates of Trafalgar, please add it! --The Epopt

I wish I knew more -- used to be good on the Napoleonic wars. Now, I can't even remember if Nelson was on a Frigate or a ship of the line... :-( JHK

[edit] HMS Victory and Oldest commissioned ship

HMS Victory is a ship of the line. - not a frigate

See! I knew it was one or the other, but not sure enough! Thanks, rmherman!

HMS Victory was built in 1750's so it is older than the USF Constitution. And why is it USF not USS? --rmhermen

Sure, it's older, but is it still under commission? And it's USF, "United States Frigate," because that's how it was designated "Back In The Day," and the Navy is rather tradition-bound, so they haven't changed it. :) -- EdwardOConnor
Actually, let me partially take that back. It seems like it can be written USF or USS.
Actually it is always "USS." In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt signed a law requiring that the names of all commissioned ships of the United States Navy be prefaced with the qualifier "United States Ship" or the initials "U.S.S." Before then, "USS" was common, but not universal, with other designators like "United States Frigate," "United States Bark," "United States Navy Ship" (please note that this is not the same as the "United States Naval Ship" which prefaces the names of modern vessels of the Military Sealift Command), etc.
Iceberg3k 12:52, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
According to the US Navy's Official site for Constitution, she is the oldest commissioned warship afloat in the world. (See http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/shiphistoryx.htm) So I stand by my original statement.

The second oldest warship afloat is British. See http://www.hms.org.uk/bestlinks.htm

-From the page you mention: The official website of HMS VICTORY which is the oldest commissioned warship in the world, and is still manned by Officers and Ratings of the Royal Navy. She is now the flagship of the Second Sea Lord and Commander in Chief Naval Home Command.

So certainly still under commission and older than the Constitution. I don't know how the US Navy justifies its claim. --rmhermen

But is she afloat? I thought Victory was in drydock. Constitution is in Boston Harbor.

- I think you've got it. Pretty strange to have a flagship in drydock but so it is. --rmhermen

Indeed, USS Constitution is the oldest floating warship - HMS Victory was damaged beyond economical repair by Nazi bombs during the Second World War, but the Royal Navy's pride in her is too great to scrap her, so they held her together with cables, put her up in a drydock and named her the flagship of a naval official who never goes to sea.

Iceberg3k 03:48, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

i remember hearing somewhere if victory was to go in water now after all these years in dry dock she would begin to rot quite quickly. so victory is the oldest commissioned warship while constitution is the oldest commissioned warship afloat i think shes the flagship of the second sea lord not the entire fleet.

[edit] Frigate illustration

The illustration is far from perfect - but since it would end up as an orphan otherwise, I placed it here. It is also a bit on the large side, and could beling in rigging instead (but that article has enough illustrations as it is). I've left it here for such time that something better comes along... Egil 11:07 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] List of frigates

There are an awful lot of frigates in the world, the list should probably be separate from the article proper. Stan 17:22, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I moved the frigate classes to List of frigates. I'd like to add a little something on the Royal Navy frigates when I have the time, as the current article seems to be centering really only on American frigates. Oh and on HMS Victory, from what I hear if she was moved out of dry dock she would sink basically. USS (or USF) Constitution has apparently had a number of rebuilds over the decades which is how she is still stable enough to stay afloat. It's a pity about Victory, as i'd of liked to of seen her take to the waterlike she did 200 years ago, so that she be along side dozens of ships in the proposed International Fleet Review (I think it's a review) for the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar next year. SoLando 10:55, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The list of frigates only lists CURRENT ships. can we rename it "list of current frigates" (perhaps do the same for other ships types) as well as having a page on ships that no longer exist? separate pages for each country with more than 5 ships say. SpookyMulder 12:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The List of frigates is actually filled with ship classes that are no longer in commission. Do you mean frigates of the Age of Sail? SoLando 15:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, all frigates would be on the list of frigates page, but only current ones (including those in reserve, as museums etc.) would be listed under "current frigates" page. Is that OK? each type of ship would have a "current..." page as well as a total page. you could make a current ships for each navy set of pages, also, that would link to the current ship types page? There seems to be 2 list of current frigate pages currently! SpookyMulder 13:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The List of current frigates does sound quite confusing because some of the ships have been scrapped during the 1970s and 1980s. How about a List of frigates being moved to List of frigates of the Age of Sail, or something along those lines, and List of current frigates being moved to List of modern frigates to make it less crowded, instead of grouping Age of Sail frigates with "modern" frigates in the List of frigates page and make the List of frigates into a disambiguation page? SoLando 14:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

no more disambiguation pages. links should know where they're going:)

perhaps group modern frigates with ships they're more similar to, such as destroyer excorts or destroyers (is there a difference, anyway?)

sail frigates evolved into early steam frigates and then sort of died out along with sail battleships. both were replaced by ironclads and armored frigates around 1860, so they have nothing to do with modern frigates. I guess you could group modern frigates with destroyer escorts, since DEs stopped being built around the same time as modern frigates started, correct?

You'd have:

  • carriers and seaplane carriers
  • amphibious/helicopter carriers
  • battleships (sail and steam)
  • sail frigates and early steam frigates up to about 1875
  • large cruisers (armored, battle- and heavy)
  • small cruisers (protected, light and missile)
  • destroyers
  • Subs
  • DEs and modern frigates
  • corvettes/sloops
  • smaller types

each of these groups has a single evolutionary line. each type with more than a certain number of ships (most of them) would be divided up into major countries on individual pages plus one page for countries with fewer than say, 5 ships of the type. How's that sound?

You could also have one page for each of the above types "List of current..." and each country could have a "current ships" page also, which would all link to the individual or ship class pages. so you could try to find a ship through type, or country. SpookyMulder 10:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mostly frigates are used for a more general-purpose role (most famously the Leander-class) while destroyers tend to be large and used for more single-role purposes, mainly anti-air warfare. So there is a significant difference in their roles. The term "destroyer escort" is a more American name, and the roles that the DE was used for was basically fulfilled by the frigate in the RN. I may be wrong but I think the DE was simply renamed to frigate in USN service?. I would recommended retaining the current system, whereby what you have is as follows:

  • aircraft carriers
  • amhibious/helicopter carriers grouped with LPDs and other amphibious warships
  • battleships grouped with battlecruisers
  • cruisers grouped together
  • destroyers
  • frigates grouped with DEs, corvettes and sloops
  • smaller vessels grouped into seperate categories
  • submarines

Maybe add a new category/categories for sail warships? Also, grouping major countries warships types is a good idea, and I think, has been completed for the RN and it looks good. Personally I would like to see major countries warship types remain on a single page with the "minor" countries so as to get as many links as possible to the ship types, rather than decrease them.SoLando 14:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that doesn't make sense. The larger vessel ( ie the destroyer ) would have more space for multiple capablities, as well as greater speed and range. The smaller vessel has to be more specialised. In the RN frigates are ASW and destroyers are anti air AND ASW ( but not maybe so good as the frigates ). I would put the list as

  • cruisers ( only the largest navies these days )
  • destroyers ( larger escorts )
  • frigates grouped with DEs, corvettes and sloops ( smaller escorts )

I read somewhere that the USN decided to call it's ships DE and not frigate becuase the relevent Admiral didn't like the old fashioned name. David.j.james 16:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK but for a start, battlecruisers descended directly from armored cruisers (see Blucher for eg). It doesn't really make sense to include them a longside battleships. Historically they weren't, and they were built at the same time as the battleships so you'd get a confused building order. There are too many cruisers from 1879-1945 for them to be all on the one page. that's the only reason for breaking those up. Corvettes and sloops also, during WW1 and WW2 there were hundreds of these and they really aren't the same as destroyers. if you group them all together you could only list classes and again, you'll get a jumbled building order. It's important to show the evolution of the ship types to give an idea of where each class of ship fit in, historically rather than just grouping them into pages of similar sized ships. Torpedo-boats are one I forgot. With helicopter cruisers such as Vittorio Veneto, I guess you'd have to decide whether their main purpose was to carry choppers, or to act regular cruisers. the russians had some of those ships which really should be on the carriers page, so i suppose the italian ones should also, unless you want to put the Kiev class with LPDs rather than carriers?

Your list doesn't mention sail frigates/corvettes. if they're not on the same page as modern frigates/corvettes, they really need their own pages. There were a lot of these ships between 1700 and 1850 so they really deserve their own page I think.

What do you mean by "keeping major countries ship types on the same page as minor countries"? You mean one single page listing ALL cruisers of the world? that's gonna be really long.

on the page "Cruiser", you'd have each major country linked there, plus an additional one for all the minor countries. purely because otherwise it's gonna be a really long page. see the bottom of "Battleship" for an example. SpookyMulder 06:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I concede that it does make more sense to have battlecruiser classes on the "cruiser" page. Yes, there were an immense, and startling amount of corvettes and sloops constructed, to the extent that even having them on their own page could be too large. How about simply including the classes but omitting the individual ships? And placing them on the "frigates" page which is their closest comparable ship type, at least it was during WWII?

Vittorio Veneto and similar vessels were more primarily used for the role of helicopter cruiser, than the more traditional role of a cruiser as her armament was quite small (76mm). The Russian carriers were more similar to aircraft carriers than the Italian Vittorio Veneto and the two Andrea Dorias. The Russians did have a similar class to what the Italians had, the Moskva-class, so that should be placed with the helicopter/amphbious carriers.

On sail frigates, I did mention that "Maybe add a new category/categories for sail warships?"

What I meant was in regards to the "Cruisers list" was that the major countries should have their page ((List of cruisers of the Royal Navy]] etc) linked to on the "List of cruisers" page, in place of linking specific ship types on the List of cruisers page if the list does becomes too large.SoLando 17:35, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK. so you'd have some cruisers on the "list of cruisers" except for certain countries.... I guess. see the bottom of "battleships" though and tell me if that is OK for other ship types as well? i think it looks neater, and also you can get to any country just with one click rather than 2.

corvette classes only could be listed, i suppose, although i think it's valuable to list individual ships as well. it kinda looks odd to have "unique" ships named but all the rest listed en masse under their class name.

I don't see why you'd list corvettes and frigates on the same page though. they're not the same type of ship, and they had different purposes. SpookyMulder 05:41, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In general, if a navy identifies two types and they're not subtypes of a third more general type, we should make two lists - otherwise we're in the position of second-guessing the pros, not a good place to be in unless one is personally a world-recognized authority. Another thing to do is to total up numbers from Jane's or wherever, and think about how one would organize if all the lists were to be complete. (Personally, I no longer like to make new lists unless I can get them to 90-95% very quickly - what good is an incomplete list? If something is missing, you don't know if it's because it doesn't exist or if it's because the list is incomplete.) Stan 17:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True, but unless you want to spend hours at a single sitting adding all the ships in a type, they'll be done over a few weeks. The whole point of this encyclopaedia is that it is continually updated, anyway! You're right about how many ships are in a class (that's why I divided the battleships lists up but grouped nations with less than 5 ships.) individual ship types can be done the same way (grouping helicopter cruisers with amphibious carriers for eg)

I think the frigates page should have mention at the start that there were several distinct time periods and several distinct types of ships known as frigates. another type was even earlier than sail frigates. small oared boats were known as frigates. perhaps around 1550 or so? there were also merchant clippers built to similar designs (Blackwall frigates). like east indiamen, frigate sized ships could be taken over by the navy and armed. several of these ships had gun ports for the purpose. I noticed merchant ships don't seem to be discussed much. perhsps I've just overlooked the pages. SpookyMulder 14:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph is navigational aid

Please do not remove the first paragraph as it functions as a quick navigational aid to the other articles in the rating system series. Thank you. Petersam 21:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of SpookyMulder's edits

I reverted SpookyMulder's edits to the "Lists of frigates" section for several reasons:

  1. It removed the entries for two nations with existing lists - the US and Peru
  2. The new colors make the table much harder to read; in particular, the redlinked entries are hard to see.
  3. It removed the "List of" prefix for all the redlinked entries. Since this is a list of lists, all articles linked to should have titles of the form "List of x"

I've retained the addition of the Greek frigates list and the note at the top of the list, and added a note about merging the Italian city-states into a single "List of Italian Sail Frigates" --Carnildo 21:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One Question Still Remains

Even when I was qualifiying ESWS, I never did figure this out to the extent I would have liked to. What defines a firgate? Is it "somewhere between a cruiser and a destroyer"? Is it displacement? Is it mission? Or is it too nebulous to really tell, and it's just "whatever they decide to call a frigate must be a frigate?" Izuko 17:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

All I can add is that it varies over time and between (and within!) navies. Emoscopes Talk 21:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/i/Talk%7EFrigate_c0ce.html"