Rolands actually have plenty of room for Marines

Jonathan_S wrote:

Relax wrote:Purpose built hulls are the only ones which count.

Age of sale happened over several hundred years so is a bit more steady state like the Honorverse.

Age of sail:SNIPPITY SNIP

A 5th rate by the napoleonic era is a heavy frigate with 40 or 44 guns, and much more a heavy cruiser than a destroyer; with a sixth rate (a lighter frigate) being much more a light cruiser. (Frigates being pretty large rated ships with only one gun-deck)

At least if we're comparing to classic treaty-era cruisers and destroyers

And there were plenty of new build 2nd and 3rd rate ships of the line. Far more than there were 1st rates. 1st and 2nd rates were both 3 decker ships; but 1st rates being larger more expensive ships designed to carry more guns -- the prestige unit; to the far more common 2nd rate affordable 3 deckers. 3rd rates were 2-decker ships of the line and the most common type for much of the age of sail.

It was 4th rates that were rare by the time of Napoleon; being a 2-decker with no more than 60 guns -- by that time a 74 gun 3rd rate was seen as the minimum viable new-build ship of the line.


For novels, in O'Brian's Aubrey–Maturin series Aubrey starts out in Master and Commander in the 14-gun sloop-of-war Sophie, then in book 2 he has the sloop Polychrest, before temporarily getting a rated ship (HMS Lively, a 38-gun 6th rate), and then the third book sees him get permanent command of HMS Surprise, another 6th rate.
There were plenty of real warships that were unrated. They generally preyed on each other, or were the most distant scouts of the fleet, preyed on unescorted enemy shipping, or performed anti-piracy (and later anti-slavery) patrols. So in many ways workhorses of the fleet. But unrated ships did tend to get named for their sailing rig - so sloops, brigs, etc. might be of roughly the same size and number of guns and just differ in masts and sails.

Thanks for the suggestions. Ah, more reading material

Jonathan_S wrote:

Relax wrote:4) DD
Frigates never existed in WWII, just all versions of same thing: DD's or Corvettes shoved into different roles on identical hulls.
5) Coastal Corvettes.

As for frigates in WWII the Royal Navy had at least the following classes:
Bay-class frigate
Captain-class frigate
Colony-class frigate
Loch-class frigate
River-class frigate
The RN made distinctions between frigates, sloops, and corvettes as escort types.

Just because someone puts a different weapon and therefore a NAME on the SAME platform with ~identical tonnage/speed/range does not make it a different type of ship.

WW II RN Classes / Ship Types ?

Hmm, well so far I can see quiet a few missing.

Abdiel (Manxman) Class Fast Minelayers

Most of the Purpose built Minesweepers (Algerine's and others)

Two types and multiple classes of Submarine (Coastal eg U class and Long Range Patrol (Prewar R class, Wartime S and T)

Anti Submarine Trawlers - based on commercial designs but specifically built to Admiralty orders and with specific elements built in for war work.

Definitly during WW2 there were more than 10 classes of ships building in British Yards sometimes because of yard capabilities older or smaller vessels were carried on with.

True no Battle Cruisers were produced during WW2, Vanguard being a Fast Battleship (And delivered after the war),

Duke of York Class Battleships
Armoured and Light Fleet Carriers
City and Colony Class Cruisers (6") so CL in US parlance.
Dido Class Cruisers - 10*5.25 DP AA Cruisers.
Abdiel Class Minelayers
Tribal Class Destroyers
Battle Class Destroyers
J,K,L,M,N Class Destoyers
Hunt Class Destroyers (US would call a DE)
Sloops (Black Swan Class)
Frigates (Mostly imported US DE's but some UK builds as well Bay and Loch Classes)
Corvette's (Flower and Castle classes)
Armed Trawlers
Minesweepers (Fleet)
Submarines - 2 different size groups for different area's. + X-Craft/ Midget submarines.
Steam Gun Boats. (Grey Wolf etc. Yes a Coastal Forces Steam Powered Gun Boat/Torpedo Boat)

Monitor's BattleCruisers Destroyer Leaders, Gunboats (River) were all left over from WWI.

And we have not started on the War time expedients like the LST. Or the small fry of Coastal Forces.

Coversions from Commercial vessels, Armed Merchant Cruisers, Merchant Aircraft Carriers, AS Trawlers, M/S Trawlers, Boom Defense Vessels etc. Tendor's for Submarines and Flotilla craft - some specialist vessels built in commercial yards rather than military.

So Rolands are Destroyers in the same style as the WW1 Destroyer Leaders, Late war Daring Class or tween war French Contretorpilleurs, Big heavy Destroyers

So 10 "types" of ship being built at a time in a LARGE navy is not improbable at all.

Hmm, What else would the RMN have that we are not keeping track of?

Well we know that both the RMN and the RHN have Battlecruiser based Minelayers which make improvised Pod Layers.

I am sure that both Navies also have dedicated Minesweeper/ EOD classes.

We see the FSV's but know there were larger/slower logistics vessels and dedicated Marine Landing Vessels.

SO Function lists.

Main Line of Battle Combatant. SD(P) SD, D, BB. Normally only one type in production at a time although development of the new probably overlaps the completion of the last.

Heavy Scout/ Raider. The Battle Cruiser. We have several designs through the series with the BC(P) being a side branch but there were times when BC(P) and BC Designs were both still in production.

Principle Escort / Raider. The CA or Heavy Cruiser. OK we have a reasonable succession of classes here with appropriate overlap in terms of construction and development, clear succession even if there is a lot of use in the older designs.

Surface Raider. The Marine Heavy Cruiser designs intended to support attacks onto stations and planets.

Scout / Escort. The CL or Light Cruiser.

Fleet Destroyer / Screen The Rolands

Destroyer, basic Scout. Most of the Destroyer designs.

Carrier the CLAC's of which the RMN is on their second at least.

Fast Minelayers We see them in Hancock I think.

LAC's Which have at least 3 functional classes.

FSV's and AMC's which are more auxilary vessels and the different generations of "Fort" which are Super Super DN's without Hyper capability in many ways.

I am sure there are more.

Frigates in terms of being a long endurance Corvette and Corvettes themselves are no longer current RMN classes. But Tourch is using Manticore Corvettes.

Captain Golding wrote:WW II RN Classes / Ship Types ?
SNIP

So 10 "types" of ship being built at a time in a LARGE navy is not improbable at all.

Its safe to say, I SCREWED UP initial post when I used the word CLASS when I should have used the word Category as defined by House of Steel~ DD, CL, CA, BC, DN, SD. Sowing confusion among the ranks. Obviously there are a multitude of different CLASS sub types per category.

Relax wrote:Just because someone puts a different weapon and therefore a NAME on the SAME platform with ~identical tonnage/speed/range does not make it a different type of ship.

The US and RN did give different type names to the same ships -- but I wasn't counting those. I agree that just because one navy calls it a destroyer escort and the other calls the exact same class a frigate doesn't make for two different ship types.

However in WWII the RN distinguished what they saw as the very real differences between the ship types: sloop, corvette, and frigate (all of which are distinct from destroyers). So here I'll speak only of what the Royal Navy (and the various Dominion navies) designated these ship types.

Corvette - new built ships, but designed with a hull based on an existing fishing boat design, to be built in merchant yards to commercial specs, shock resistance, etc. (e.g. the Flower-class) The prototypical corvette was 208x33 ft; 1,031 tons; 16 knots; 3,500 nautical mile range (@12 knots); with a triple expansion engine and a single screw.

Sloops - new built ships, designed to be built in warship yards to warship specs, shock rating, etc. (e.g. the Black Swan-class). The prototypical sloop was 299 x 37 ft; 1,250 tons; 19 knots; 7,500 nautical mile range (@12 knots); with geared turbines and twin screws

Frigate - new built ships, but designed to be built in merchant yards to commercial specs, shock resistance, etc. while having the range and speed of the military grade sloops (e.g. the River-class). The prototypical frigate was 283 x 36 ft; 1,392 tons; 20 knots; 7,200 nautical mile range (@12 knots); with triple expansion engines and twin screws


So the RN thought they had good reason to distinguish between these three types. It certainly seems inarguable that the much smaller and slower WW2 corvette is a very different ship that the other two. But even those later two differ enough in construction details, propulsion, and survivability (with the sloops being much better able to take a hit) that the RN thought it worth distinguishing between them as separate types.

(And I'm not even going into what they were armed with; though that sometimes changed no only from ship to ship but over time for the same ship)


You're free to consider them all just a general small ocean escort type; but they definitely weren't different names for the same platform.

Jonathan_S wrote:

So the RN thought they had good reason to distinguish between these three types. It certainly seems inarguable that the much smaller and slower WW2 corvette is a very different ship that the other two. But even those later two differ enough in construction details, propulsion, and survivability (with the sloops being much better able to take a hit) that the RN thought it worth distinguishing between them as separate types.

(And I'm not even going into what they were armed with; though that sometimes changed no only from ship to ship but over time for the same ship)


You're free to consider them all just a general small ocean escort type; but they definitely weren't different names for the same platform.

Side comment - Reading through old US Navy documents years ago, I found the "oddest" item limited shipbuilding rates in WWII. Yes, slips were limited, manpower was limited, steel was limited - but the main item limiting what was built when, is something only people in the know... knew.

Gear cutting facilities.

Besides the guns, the hardest item to produce on a warship was the reduction gears in the propulsion system. The real ratio between Destroyers built and Destroyer escorts built, was dictated by how many gear sets could be cut. Destroyer Escorts, Escort Carriers (and LSTs) were built with civilian propulsions systems and didn't require the reduction gears a triple expansion or turbine system did - but limited their size and speed.

There was massive debate at the time on how much to expand the gear cutting capability or not - producing reduction gears required specialty foundries and the cutting hardware to cut the hardened steel, and were sizeable investments during the war, and took away from the war economy until complete - and of course, the additional capacity would not be required after the war was over.

So, if sufficient reduction gears were available, would we have built as many DEs or escort carriers, putting those resources into much more capable DDs and CVLs? probably, but when against the rocks, you use what is available.

Theemile wrote:Side comment - Reading through old US Navy documents years ago, I found the "oddest" item limited shipbuilding rates in WWII. Yes, slips were limited, manpower was limited, steel was limited - but the main item limiting what was built when, is something only people in the know... knew.

Gear cutting facilities.

Besides the guns, the hardest item to produce on a warship was the reduction gears in the propulsion system. The real ratio between Destroyers built and Destroyer escorts built, was dictated by how many gear sets could be cut. Destroyer Escorts, Escort Carriers (and LSTs) were built with civilian propulsions systems and didn't require the reduction gears a triple expansion or turbine system did - but limited their size and speed.

There was massive debate at the time on how much to expand the gear cutting capability or not - producing reduction gears required specialty foundries and the cutting hardware to cut the hardened steel, and were sizeable investments during the war, and took away from the war economy until complete - and of course, the additional capacity would not be required after the war was over.

So, if sufficient reduction gears were available, would we have built as many DEs or escort carriers, putting those resources into much more capable DDs and CVLs? probably, but when against the rocks, you use what is available.

Yep - I'd run across that bit before.
Led to various ships, from DEs, to Liberty Ships, to some escort carriers using various propulsion that didn't require reduction gears. Some used vertical triple expansion steam, some used diesel engines, and some used electric (offhand I can't recall whether it was turbo-electric or diesel electric; but in either case using electric generators and motors to avoid gearing)

Different classes doing IDENTICAL JOBS all fit the SAME category. Why it does not matter their engine type. Their job TYPE was commerce protection.

In HV, if there was such a thing as a reaction drive vessel capable of fulfilling a DD role yet some other uses impeller they are BOTH labeled DD. They are DOING the same job. Why Chansons are DD's and so is a Roland, though I would propose that Chanson DD's are actually a DD and ROLAND is not and at this point I would class ROLAND as a Frigate, not a DD. It cannot perform all of the DD roles in the RMN.

Why? 2 hits destroys 100% of ROLAND offensive capability. Not even the hated by the RMN Javelin class DD have this vulnerability. A single hit there only eliminates 3 missile tubes at once and it has 6 such critical spots. 2 hits eliminates ALL ROLAND's offensive missile capability as it shares missile tube launch hardware and maybe even magazine space.

1 hit wonders are Frigates, so what is a 2 hit wonder?

You distinguish between job types. Not class types. Especially in war as war you just throw EVERYTHING at the wall as need is ~infinite and if it floats, it gets used. Maybe that is the ROLAND in a nutshell. Not what anyone wants, but corners were cut to get it out the door into production and worry about its problems later.

Relax wrote:Different classes doing IDENTICAL JOBS all fit the SAME category. Why it does not matter their engine type. Their job TYPE was commerce protection.

But the widely different capabilities between Corvettes and Sloops/Frigates meant they had to do commerce protection very differently. For that matter airships, long range patrol aircraft and later escort carriers did commerce protection but they don't fit into the same category.

Corvettes were so slow they pretty much had to restrict themselves to close escort because they lacked the speed to either charge ahead of most convoys to engage any detected u-boat detected at distance or to continue engaging a u-boat until it was likely destroyed as they would take too long to catch up to the convoy.

The sloops and frigates had enough speed and extra fuel that they could also operate in hunter/killer groups reinforcing convoy escorts as directed by codebreaking, radio direction finding, or other intelligence. Or if assigned to convoy escort had sufficient speed over the convoy that they could break off to engage more distant u-boats or after chasing one under could stay around and continue engaging it for long enough to cripple or kill it and then race back to resume station on the convoy.

So the slow vs fast commerce protection (though neither was fast compared to a destroyer) types had enough capability differences that they engaged in commerce protection in very different ways.

And at some point vessels do a job differently enough it makes some sense to differentiate between their types. (Of course what the RN wanted was enough sloops - proper, if small and slightly slow, warships - to do all the commerce protection. what they could get in sufficient numbers was the less capable corvettes and frigates)