Hull number discrepancy

ThinksMarkedly wrote:


For the record, here are the numbers. They also are consistent with sequential numbering:

Dreadnoughts
SNIP
Total; 124, strength in 1905: 121

Superdreadnought
[list]
SNIP
Total: 315, strength in 1905: 188

SNIP
Given that, we can probably assume that all SDs were in service, except for SD-02 and SD-03 that we know were decommissioned. To reach 188 by the start of the war, we need 105 Gryphons and Sphinxes out of the 230. That seems totally reasonable that 115 more (which could be all Gryphons) were built until the Medusas entered service in 1914.

Huh, I must be in a cranky mood tonight. Anyway, here is a nitpick-y comment.

Everyone using that table always refers to 1905 because that was when the shooting started and war was declared. But there was a lot of time wasted before the declaration of war. Anyway, the comparative strengths table in Honor Harrington's Navy refers to the status quo as of the beginning of SVW, not the start of the hostilities. Doesn't make any difference, it just clouds the issue of what was in service when a bit more. But your 188 SD's refers to 1904.

Rob

SVW, CHAP 2 wrote:" 'From Admiral Sir Lucien Cortez, Fifth Space Lord, Royal Manticoran Navy, to Captain Dame Honor Harrington, Countess Harrington, KCR, MC, SG, DSO, CGM, Royal Manticoran Navy, Twenty-First Day, Sixth Month, Year Two Hundred and Eighty-Two After Landing. Madam: You are hereby directed and required to proceed aboard Her Majesty's Starship Nike,

SVW:Honor Harrington's Navy wrote:The actual strengths of the two sides in 282 A.L. (1904 PD.) broke down as below:

Jonathan_S wrote:But way back when FFs, CLs, and DDs seemed to have an interesting relationship. Of the three DDs were powerful but short ranged, CLs were powerful and long ranged but expensive, while FFs were weak but long ranged. CLs had barely more armament than DDs; but had long cruising range. FFs had basically the same cruising range as CLs but far lighter weapons fits than DDs or CLs.

tlb wrote:This is not something that I had noticed before and I find it disturbing. It would be far easier to design a destroyer class that had the same cruising range as a CL without increasing hull size, then to do that with a frigate, and it would still have a much better weapons package than the frigate. So what was the justification for this (the only one that I can see is money)? The extra space and larger crew of the destroyer would also make a long cruise less of a hardship, but again more expensive. But then that would make assigning prize crews easier, when necessary.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Wouldn't a DD with the same cruising range as a CL be, by definition, a CL?

From what I understood from Jonathan's post, for the same price you could build an FF or a DD, and they might have about the same crew size, even though a DD cost more to arm than an FF. Each of a FF or a DD matches one aspect of the CL but not the other: armour / firepower or range.

So having little need for a ship that had both armour and firepower, the RMN of the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s and early 1800s found it more convenient and more flexible to build those two instead of CLs and CAs.

Ingenious suggestion, but I think the answer is no: a ship built with the constraint of a destroyer sized hull (basically taking some weapons out and substituting fuel and cruising necessities) would still be a destroyer; the same as doing that to a frigate leaves the result as a frigate (but without a good weapons package). I looked in House of Steel, but could not find a description of a frigate; everything I have seen in the outfitting of Torch indicates that they are smaller than a destroyer and closer to a dispatch boat in size. You seem to suggest that that a destroyer and a frigate are about the same size. Is that so?

If they are about the same size then that explains my confusion; but if they are significantly different sizes, then the larger ship should have been modified for long range cruising.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Wouldn't a DD with the same cruising range as a CL be, by definition, a CL?

From what I understood from Jonathan's post, for the same price you could build an FF or a DD, and they might have about the same crew size, even though a DD cost more to arm than an FF. Each of a FF or a DD matches one aspect of the CL but not the other: armour / firepower or range.

So having little need for a ship that had both armour and firepower, the RMN of the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s and early 1800s found it more convenient and more flexible to build those two instead of CLs and CAs.

Yes the lines are ... Blurry for the smaller classes, with ships classified more for what they are intended for, than actual size or firepower. Many pre-war DD classes were larger than the 88 Kton Courageous CL, but the ship was never re-classified. Modern designs saw considerable size and capability creep, and the DD/FF roles blurred more. Hense, David saying that all 3 may blend into one design type in the near future for modern navies.

The real reason the Frigates were pulled comes back to the Laserhead. To counter it and the more advanced Burning contact nukes (whose standoff range had well exceeded 10K KM) you needed to use countermissiles. And Frigates, which were always smaller than or in the small Destroyer mass range, simply didn't have the mass for sufficient tubes and deep enough magazines to be considered survivable against a laserhead armed adversary.

CLs USUALLY had a small leg up in firepower over a companion DD - like 1 more laser and Missile launcher. Many CLs also had flag facilities, which almost all destroyers lack.

tlb wrote:Ingenious suggestion, but I think the answer is no: a ship built with the constraint of a destroyer sized hull (basically taking some weapons out and substituting fuel and cruising necessities) would still be a destroyer; the same as doing that to a frigate leaves the result as a frigate (but without a good weapons package). I looked in House of Steel, but could not find a description of a frigate; everything I have seen in the outfitting of Torch indicates that they are smaller than a destroyer and closer to a dispatch boat in size. You seem to suggest that that a destroyer and a frigate are about the same size. Is that so?

If they are about the same size then that explains my confusion; but if they are significantly different sizes, then the larger ship should have been modified for long range cruising.

The only Frigate we have hard stats on is the Silesian Gryf class. launched in 1868, it massed 53.5Ktons. The mentioned Silesian DD is the Joachim Cheslav launched in 1867 and massing 95.75 Ktons. The Gryf has 6 broadside missiles, 1 laser, 1 CM, and 2 PDs. Each hammerhead has 1 of each. The DD has an 8 missile broadside, with 1 laser, 2CM, and 3 PD, each chase has 1 of each and 2 PDs. Notably the Gryf has 1/2 the shipkiller mags of the DD, and 45% of the CMs

tlb wrote:Ingenious suggestion, but I think the answer is no: a ship built with the constraint of a destroyer sized hull (basically taking some weapons out and substituting fuel and cruising necessities) would still be a destroyer; the same as doing that to a frigate leaves the result as a frigate (but without a good weapons package). I looked in House of Steel, but could not find a description of a frigate; everything I have seen in the outfitting of Torch indicates that they are smaller than a destroyer and closer to a dispatch boat in size. You seem to suggest that that a destroyer and a frigate are about the same size. Is that so?

If they are about the same size then that explains my confusion; but if they are significantly different sizes, then the larger ship should have been modified for long range cruising.

Theemile wrote:The only Frigate we have hard stats on is the Silesian Gryf class. launched in 1868, it massed 53.5Ktons. The mentioned Silesian DD is the Joachim Cheslav launched in 1867 and massing 95.75 Ktons. The Gryf has 6 broadside missiles, 1 laser, 1 CM, and 2 PDs. Each hammerhead has 1 of each. The DD has an 8 missile broadside, with 1 laser, 2CM, and 3 PD, each chase has 1 of each and 2 PDs. Notably the Gryf has 1/2 the shipkiller mags of the DD, and 45% of the CMs

Thank you for the numbers. If these hold for the RMN, then my confusion is increased on why they would modify a frigate for long range cruising, instead of a destroyer.

If modifying a destroyer for long range cruising makes it a CL, then you have a CL that costs about what a destroyer does to build and operate. So again why choose a frigate?

tlb wrote:

tlb wrote:Ingenious suggestion, but I think the answer is no: a ship built with the constraint of a destroyer sized hull (basically taking some weapons out and substituting fuel and cruising necessities) would still be a destroyer; the same as doing that to a frigate leaves the result as a frigate (but without a good weapons package). I looked in House of Steel, but could not find a description of a frigate; everything I have seen in the outfitting of Torch indicates that they are smaller than a destroyer and closer to a dispatch boat in size. You seem to suggest that that a destroyer and a frigate are about the same size. Is that so?

If they are about the same size then that explains my confusion; but if they are significantly different sizes, then the larger ship should have been modified for long range cruising.

Theemile wrote:The only Frigate we have hard stats on is the Silesian Gryf class. launched in 1868, it massed 53.5Ktons. The mentioned Silesian DD is the Joachim Cheslav launched in 1867 and massing 95.75 Ktons. The Gryf has 6 broadside missiles, 1 laser, 1 CM, and 2 PDs. Each hammerhead has 1 of each. The DD has an 8 missile broadside, with 1 laser, 2CM, and 3 PD, each chase has 1 of each and 2 PDs. Notably the Gryf has 1/2 the shipkiller mags of the DD, and 45% of the CMs

Thank you for the numbers. If these hold for the RMN, then my confusion is increased on why they would modify a frigate for long range cruising, instead of a destroyer.

If modifying a destroyer for long range cruising makes it a CL, then you have a CL that costs about what a destroyer does to build and operate. So again why choose a frigate?

Think of it not as modifying, but growing and adding capability. DD and FFs are in the same mass range, but a FF consort is usually the smaller and cheaper of the 2 designs; if they are the same size with a similiar hull, armaments are removed in favor of consumables storage on Frigates. The CL will always be larger than it's DD consort, have a slightly larger armament AND more consumables storage, as well as a slightly larger crew.

Frigates are that much cheaper and have smaller crews. That and politically Frigates themselves are not imposing to other systems, they are just the symbol of the greater navy. So having 1200 of them swanning around out in the dark was not "expensive" overall and isn't seen as imperialistic as using CLs. A lot of it was perceived perception, the financial limits of a multi-century peace time navy, the limits of policing another's nation's space lanes and deeply ingrained mindsets by generations of naval leadership.

This is also a time where BC/CAs, CLs and DDs were required for Fleet escort and scout duty. In the Jayne's RMN is an image of a "typical" fleet formation, showing Honor's fleet at Hancock. The 8 BCs at the heart of the formation had 8 CAs covering the inner formations, with another 8 CLs screening the CAs, and another 12 CLs/DDs surrounding the formation at the end of missile range "feeling" for the enemy. A 1904 SD/DN squadron formation would be similiar, with a squadron of BCs or CAs in the close screening role, and another 20 CL/DDs in the inner and outer screen. (In 1920 these jobs have been replaced by LAC screens), in addition, any strategic motion would be preceded by several DD/CL scouts who would continue picketing the hyperlimit to protect avenues of retreat.

The use of Frigates in the light anti-piracy and "show the flag" roles allowed the warfighters to focus on those combat intense jobs - and when a heavy squadron had to be used - it brought plenty of heavy metal with it.

There's also the possibility of classes being planned, ordered, budgeted and hull numbers assigned (even construction started) but then for political (or diplomatic - same thing) reasons, cancelled. Generally the hull numbers are not reassigned, such as the USN South Dakota (I) class in the '20 (AD).

In terms of Honorverse, it makes sense that a nation that can actually build major warships would be heavy in BCs, they are fast ships that are larger than most any ship they may encounter in foreign service, save those in equivalent first-rate navies, some second rate navies may have one or two but they are more likely to have CAs as their big-boys. BCs have greater endurance for longer trips without dependable support, for sending to more distant second-rate systems on diplomatic contact missions and they are cheaper and faster than all-up capitol ships. So an expanding fleet could find more uses for BCs with only a little more expense over CAs.

Theemile wrote:Think of it not as modifying, but growing and adding capability. DD and FFs are in the same mass range, but a FF consort is usually the smaller and cheaper of the 2 designs; if they are the same size with a similiar hull, armaments are removed in favor of consumables storage on Frigates. The CL will always be larger than it's DD consort, have a slightly larger armament AND more consumables storage, as well as a slightly larger crew.

Frigates are that much cheaper and have smaller crews. That and politically Frigates themselves are not imposing to other systems, they are just the symbol of the greater navy. So having 1200 of them swanning around out in the dark was not "expensive" overall and isn't seen as imperialistic as using CLs. A lot of it was perceived perception, the financial limits of a multi-century peace time navy, the limits of policing another's nation's space lanes and deeply ingrained mindsets by generations of naval leadership.

-- snip --

The use of Frigates in the light anti-piracy and "show the flag" roles allowed the warfighters to focus on those combat intense jobs - and when a heavy squadron had to be used - it brought plenty of heavy metal with it.

Okay, that makes sense. A frigate is about the largest that we would expect a pirate to have (but perhaps with less weapons); so at worst the RMN ship is technically equal, but with a better trained crew. And it is much better to have very many adequate ships, than to have fewer superior ships, when countering piracy.

tlb wrote:Ingenious suggestion, but I think the answer is no: a ship built with the constraint of a destroyer sized hull (basically taking some weapons out and substituting fuel and cruising necessities) would still be a destroyer; the same as doing that to a frigate leaves the result as a frigate (but without a good weapons package). I looked in House of Steel, but could not find a description of a frigate; everything I have seen in the outfitting of Torch indicates that they are smaller than a destroyer and closer to a dispatch boat in size. You seem to suggest that that a destroyer and a frigate are about the same size. Is that so?

If they are about the same size then that explains my confusion; but if they are significantly different sizes, then the larger ship should have been modified for long range cruising.

They're not the same size now especially not the LAC derived ones designed for Torch. DDs designs got larger and larger as the years went on; that's what caused them to end up with near the endurance of old CLs and put the final nail in the coffin of the Frigate design.

And you don't see Frigates in HOS because they've all been retired before the point in time it covers. It only describes active classes as of that date.


Remember Honor's CL Fearless from OBS a Courageous-class CL (an 1820 design) was 88,250 tons; its age-mate is a Noblesse-class destroyer of 68,250 tons. And by then we're already diverging from CLs being just longer ranged DDs; because the extra 20,000 tons let each broadside carry 3 extra tubes, a pair of grasers (though only 2 lasers to the DD's 3), and 1 extra CM. (Though reported to have small magazines; as so poor sustained combat power)

2 DD classes later, in 1861, we're up to the 84,500 ton Havoc-class then some shrinkage for 1867's Chanson-class (78,000 tons), but then the modern destroyers by the start of the war were 87,250 ton Javelin or 104,000 ton Culverin class ships. So in 80 years destroyers had grown larger than CLs used to be.
And the classic frigate - destroyer - light cruiser triangle came into being probable at least a century before the 1820-era ships that are the oldest HoS covers for DDs or CLs.

Unfortunately while RFC has talked of them from time to time, the only frigates we have a full ship listing for are Silsia's 1868 Gryf-class (from the SITS books); but their ships are so crummy it's hard to know if it's representative. But for what it's worth it was a 53,500 ton design; which is at least 15 thousand tons heavier than a courier.


So back in, say, 1750 PD we don't know for sure the tonnage of a new frigate vs destroyer vs CL. I personally think back then that the frigate was closer to DD weight because DDs would have been smaller yet than they were in the 1820s; so in some ways a FF back then probably wasn't far off from a DD with a several fewer weapons mounts, and downsized magazines, to free up space for more fuel, food, and spares.

Also Theemile has a good point about laser-heads. Prior to them I think smaller ships relied far more on auto-cannon or later PDLCs and mounted few or even no CMs (of course the CMs were probably physically larger; less refined; than they were by 1820PD); having to carry more and more CMs is part of what drove up the size of the minimum viable combatant (which almost as a byproduct made it proportionately cheaper to include greater range into DD designs; cutting into the range advantage of FFs while still being cheaper than the newest CLs which also had to grow to retain any combat edge over DDs)

MAD-4A wrote:There's also the possibility of classes being planned, ordered, budgeted and hull numbers assigned (even construction started) but then for political (or diplomatic - same thing) reasons, cancelled. Generally the hull numbers are not reassigned, such as the USN South Dakota (I) class in the '20 (AD).

In terms of Honorverse, it makes sense that a nation that can actually build major warships would be heavy in BCs, they are fast ships that are larger than most any ship they may encounter in foreign service, save those in equivalent first-rate navies, some second rate navies may have one or two but they are more likely to have CAs as their big-boys. BCs have greater endurance for longer trips without dependable support, for sending to more distant second-rate systems on diplomatic contact missions and they are cheaper and faster than all-up capitol ships. So an expanding fleet could find more uses for BCs with only a little more expense over CAs.

Especially with overlapping classes, like the Crusaders and the Prince Consorts. The # of Crusaders was cut in 1/2 which might have left a gap of ~25 hull #s if they were already planned.