The problem is, original conceptions blur as needs alter..............and eventually what type (Cruiser, Destroyer etc.) a ship gets designaterd is pretty much down to the whims of thre country concerned. Even in the 1960's , in the Royal Navy at least, you had "Frigates, Frigates and Frigates".............ranging from the little Type 14 "Blackwood" class, to missile armed "Leanders", both of which I served on. But..............that was always the case. I mean taking the sailing Frigate, and the British perchance of naming anything not pidgeon holed, "Sloop" irrespective of size, crew and armament...............there was a vast difference between Frigates. A 6th rate, 28 x 9pdr gunned Frigate was vastly inferior to a ship of 44 x 18pdr guns, but both called "Frigate" Then not to be outdone, the USN builds 56? x 24pdr ships and still called them Frigates. Congratulations on an excellent video covering what evolved into a VERY "gray area".

I was told that a shipbuilder made a mistake when doing the layup and when they noticed the mistake it was too far along to stop. When The navy said what is this? The builder worried that this would ruin his company replied "Frig it!"

Another respectful correction. Guns of any caliber from Small Arms to Big Naval guns do not fire shells, they fire projectiles. And when there is a shell involved that always stays behind and is extracted and ejected from the weapon after firing

14:34 isn't a Kynda class missile cruiser, but a Slava class missile cruiser.

@@danieljosephdelta44semperfi Maybe, maybe not.............with separate ammunition (shell/projectile & cordite separate) the bit that leaves the barrel was always refered to as "The shell" and stowed in "Shellroom" on ship, whereas the propellent cordite case, be it brass and left behind, or silk and burnt up (like with 6" guns) were stowed in "Cordite Magazine"............thus the projectile fired, was called, say "4.5" shell".

Calling them cruisers may also have to do with various treaties around the world… for example Turkey doesn’t allow aircraft carriers into the Black Sea… but an aircraft equipped cruiser is fine. Same thing with the 27,000 ton Japanese helicopter “destroyer”, that carries f-35’s

It would be nice to see a similar video report on the US Navy ships, only.

Were they cheep or cheap?

Also the Royal navy categorizes their ships by purpose. For example vessels designed for air defence are called "destroyers" whereas vessels designed for anti submarine warfare are called "frigates". Currently the UK is building two new types of warships. One is a 8,000 ton anti submarine vessel and the other is a 5,700 ton general purpose vessel. Both are called "frigates". The British type 26 frigate would be called a destroyer in the US navy

65,000*

no, frigates are still the best for ASW.

All the classifications seem to have drifted. Russia has modern corvettes whose capabilities would give its destroyers a run for their money, and it has Soviet corvettes which are barely more capable than patrol boats. The next destroyed it’s been considering building (“Lider”) is on par with a heavy cruiser. The Arleigh-Burke is closer to a cruiser than a destroyer, despite being classed as the latter.

😃😇

@@QualityPen that is two classes apart. they have totally different tasks. Corvettes are obsolete for decades.

Destroyers are still mainly performing the same function though and that's why they've retained the name. They are still mainly intended as escorts for capital ship, the capital ship has just become the carrier and that means that the destroyer is now meant to protect against aircraft and missiles rather than small attack craft (this is true regardless of whether a navy has their own carriers since in that case they're usually just meant to escort allied ones). This new paradigm is also what drove the cruiser class to extinction, a cruiser was a ship that was armed and armored enough to operate on its own and defeat basically anything it'd come up against other than a battleship, while also being able to take part in the line of battle. However nothing really fights alone anymore, the main strike power usually comes from the carrier, and armor is obsolete so this just relegates the cruiser to being a larger destroyer, which is what the Ticonderoga class is (literally they are re-designated destroyers). That really can't justify a separate class and that's why the class has been phased out. Frigates are then the ships that have re-taken the long range patrol mission however it makes no sense to call them cruisers when they're smaller and more lightly armed than destroyers. The way these ships went about their missions were also different, cruisers were still capital ships, they were not used for lowly anti-piracy patrols and were more so meant for patrolling vast colonial empires. Frigates on the other hand were just meant to be a small warship you could have anywhere and were cheap enough to actually be used for less important jobs. That's very much the category modern frigates fit into.

Hello, Very true. That's why I love it when a South African journalist said: 'Corvette or Frigate, it's still a warship'. Either way, no matter how they were thought of on the drawing board, the Atlanta-class were some awfully good looking ships and incredibly useful. Kind regards, Garret

You are spot on.

the modern navies has task specific ships, there is no rule about bringing in new types of ships. Note: there are no more battleships, replaced by rockets and missiles ships.

That is why we classify our frigates as frigates while the Asians call the same vessels destroyers based only on displacement and speed. Not only the Trump class but also the Karel Doorman class or M-class and our newer classes like the Zeven Provinciën class and the new Multi Purpose Frigate program. They are able to do the basic air defence, ASW and anti ship function but not as well as a destroyer or cruiser would. The new class will be able to use energy based weapons and other increased energy consumption equipment in the future as it has a lot of excess energy production build into all finalist designs. I guess that would be messing with some people's heads again.

It's weird because here in Australia, our ships go follow that system. Our destroyers are designated for air warfare, and our future frigate class is primarily for subsurface combat. Both ships will have equal anti-ship capabilities, but the frigates will have more guns and a multi-mission bay.

I was a plankowner on the Roark. I wondered why it was designated DE because it was much larger than any of the destroyers around it. The later change to frigate was appropriate.

I have a cousin who was married to a crewman who was stationed on the Roark, I was stationed on her sister ship the USS Blakeley (FF-1072). Ex DE-1072 btw.

Served on USS Marvin Shields DE/FF 1066 1973-1976 the type designation was changed in 1975 to conform to NATO standards

The Absalon class frigates sorta ruin that distinction since they have C2 capability. They also has sea lift capability as well as a fully stocked machine shop so they probably don't fit neatly into any system. That's generally why I tend to define frigates more by their flexibility, which gives them greater endurance, compared to say destroyers. Destroyers are in this day and age primarily meant to escort carriers and fight alongside them, they are able to operate on their own as a simple function of their size, however they aren't primarily designed to do so. Frigates are, they will sacrifice some armament for greater flexibility and this is generally what allows them to operate very effectively on their own for long periods of time because they can carry out a wide variety of tasks. Frigates are of course also capable of operating alongside carrier groups in similar roles as destroyers but their small size makes them slightly worse at it since they have to sacrifice something. The Absalon for example has basically no ASW capability and fairly limited armament, even the up-gunned sister class the Iver Huitfeldt still has only about a third of the VLS tubes the Arleigh Burke has despite having 2/3rds the displacement.

​@@hedgehog3180 What tasks would a current frigate carry out that a current destroyer can't (or at least not efficiently)?

That is kinda how a modern frigate works. Can operate on its own, fast usually for anti submarine or costal defense. Cruisers usually have 2 guns, have changed roles since ww2 depending on the country. American cruisers were more anti submarine duty, while destroyers were anti air screens. Soviets were anti ship mainly, and destroyers were anti submarine. Modern Corvettes usually run in groups of three, and ment for costal or harbor defense. And frigates are just slightly more powerful and can operate solely. But again these also depend on the countries in question.

Will be interesting to see the effectiveness of the old fashioned ship to ship gunnery of the Russian Cruisers, there is major debate within the naval warfare community about this. Some have full faith in modern technology and have said that threat interception systems like Aegis and Phalanx can easily pinpoint and destroy conventional ballistic projectiles which travel much slower than their intended targets incoming high speed missiles. On the other hand the pro gunnery camp says that ballistic projectiles still have a role to play in modern naval warfare as modern ships are comparatively lightly armored unlike ships from the old days so throwing old shells is cheaper than expensive smart missiles but still just as effective dishing out damage. As well ships like aircraft carriers have defensive flares to distract smart missiles but an artillery shell cannot be fooled. I am of a middle view, both sides have good points so I believe that modern warfare will be a mix of both.

Nobody uses battleships any more. The whole rating system needs revamping.

I think the video is correct that by WW2, or even WW1, cruisers had taken over the role of the age of sail frigates.

For me, a frigate should have a substantial size to manage its own mission on the open ocean. Alone or not. It should have a few guns, a chopper or two and powerful missiles but not a lot of them. It should also be a Baltic Sea overkill. Corvettes went into so small sizes and their speed followed up like no tomorrow. Swedish Baltic corvettes are war speedboats.

Maybe all surface warships are becoming obsolete as we currently think about them. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of craft just large enough to carry one or two advanced missiles and operated remotely or robotically seems to be a much better - and cheaper - projection of national military power than ships that are becoming more and more like rubber ducks in a carnival shooting gallery.

@@mikeschnobrich1807 Modern Destroyers and above can defend themselves against all current weapons in a highly contested environment but it must be done with a high level of automation to avoid human error/delays. The Moskva was very old school with no automation and slow sweep radars. Frigates and smaller ships cannot defend themselves in a highly contested environment.

I just throw up my hands and say, "Frig it!" when someone asks me if a ship is a destroyer or frigate.

I was always lead to believe a frigate was generally smaller, and was more equipped as a defensive platform and destroyers were larger and could be used more as an offensive platform.

Well the USN is probably gonna fuse the roles of destroyers and cruisers, seeing as DDG(X) is gonna replace both the Arleigh-Burke and the Ticonderoga class. Also, their new frigate, the Constellation-class, is gonna have AEGIS, but with a far smaller, three sides version of the SPY-6, the same version they are using on the Ford-class.

Most of the very smallest military vessels have at least some capability in all of those areas. Many littoral fleets have to do that. Here in Finland I would not call our few missile boats frigates, after all.

Hello Sully, Thank you for your reply. Although competition is fierce, in the cruiser category, for ‘best looking ship’, I have always thought the USS Atlanta to be one of the top contenders with her sleek lines, well balanced silhouette and impressive armament. It is so easy to have overly romantic notions of naval combat, as stories are mostly from the survivors. I imagine your father must have had many hair raising stories about his time in the Navy. I’m glad to hear he survived. It’s experiences like that which do not just make a mark upon servicemen, but also carry forward to their families and people reading about them. It always makes me wonder how it felt, at the time, to a young man confronted with frightening problems. One can only respect those who came through. Kind regards, Garret

Frigates make a practical contribution to non military national interests. Economic zone security, fisheries, trafficking, customs, regional disaster support , surveillance, transporting special forces, Marine resucues, anti submarine capabilities, helicopters, parties for dignitaries, power generation capabilities, etc etc

Also vey versatile from the Infinitely upgradable to keep them current with the various systems like navionics, surveillance, and weapons capabilities. Vulnerable in wartime though. Fighter aircraft are still a threat and have been known to get the better of a frigates defence during excercises.

When I toured my buddies frigate, I noticed a handy axe nearby its core electronics systems and screens. That’s the secret sauce.

Hello Gordon, Thank you for your reply. I will not question its validity because they are good insights. I see your point about WWII cruisers being 'above a frigate's rate'. But that truly depends on which characteristics you zoom in on. Your point about their fire power is a valid one. The reason I chose to compare their position to a frigate's position is because, like frigates, they were (hopefully) faster than the 'heavy hitters' and mostly well capable of extended independent operation. Also they were not aiming to be the ships who could fire the heaviest possible broadside. Although you could easily argue that, within their limitations, they were. A clear example were the Treaty Cruisers, which tried to go up exactly to the limit of the Washington Treaty and be more powerful than any opposing Treaty Cruiser. In that respect the comparison with a 74 makes sense. However, and this was my most important reason for making said comparison, the ships which WERE being categorized as frigates had no business being labelled a frigate. I can't really think of a good age-of-sail equivalent to a small, slow, weakly armed escort, but the sailing frigate certainly wasn't a good choice. Good point about the 'littoral' use. This is a very broad generalization on my part. I had ships like the Swedish Visby-class in mind. But I'll concede that this is by no means a generalization which applies to all corvettes. Kind regards, Garret

That is a good summary. I like how you describe destroyers as ‘getting fat’. That’s a very ‘organic’ way of putting it, but essentially what happened. After WW2 you could hardly have imagined the new destroyers ever engaging in the massed attacks of ‘their grandfathers’. Kind regards, Garret

The classes usually also have historic roots, navies like the Danish and Dutch like the frigate class partly because those countries have some famous historical frigates so the class is more visible and recognizable to the public (neither language even have an indigenous word for destroyer so the general populous isn't gonna be very familiar with the term). It can also be a diplomatic tool, when Denmark and Norway classify their ships as frigates they're intending to communicate to their NATO allies what role these ships are supposed to have in a NATO fleet, that they shouldn't expect destroyer level combat capability even if they are capable surface combatants.

Also ships in general have just gotten larger, like any modern ship with the same role as one from the 40s would dwarf their ancestors. It's just a result of technology improving which lets us build bigger ships cheaper, in fact there's an oversupply of shipping production in the world so it's very cheap to build large ships. Destroyers did get larger partly because they became more capable but it might be equally true to say that they became more capable because they could become larger without any real penalty. This is true of all ships, military as well as civilian, there's just no real reason to not make it larger to make it more capable, especially when crews tend to expect slightly better accommodations these days.

Hello, HMCS Sackville is high on my wish list for a visit, but every time I'm anywhere near the Bay of Fundy there seem to be more pressing matters. By the way, could I ask you for your opinion on my 'Backyard Planetarium'-video? Kind regards, Garret

From what I’ve heard and read, he had a very valid point there.

Most navies arent even internally consistent. Lots of europeans call their frigates frigates because thats what they call them; some also started using 4000 ton corvettes that are almost the same as frigates 30 years ago. Americans called the Ticonderoga a cruiser, despite being based on a destroyer hull, because the cruiser to go with it was cancelled. The Arleigh Burkes are more capable and heavier than Ticos at this point, but they're still destroyers. Some people say "look the Tico got a lot of missiles, so its a cruiser", but thats just trying to justify it after the fact.

In the US it is changed for political reasons as well. Take the Ticonderoga class. Originally designed as a destroyer with a big brother cruiser developed alongside it. Big brother was cancelled, but the potential PR hit of not getting the cruisers meant the destroyer was "upgraded" to be a cruiser. Exact opposite happened with the Zumwalts.

@@DoddyIshamel IIRC calling the Tico cruisers wanst 'just' about PR, but also to get it through congress as a seperate program. Completely forget about the Zumwalt though. 16.000 tons, 80 missiles, 6 inch caliber guns which was literally cruiser weapons in WW2, its wild that they call that thing a destroyer.

The US has another naming quirk. Since the Nimitz class CVN, the use of a "carrier" designation has been reserved for a CVN "supercarrier". The reason? Budget hawk politicians getting bit by the Good Idea Fairy. *Any* time a carrier ship was proposed that was *less* than a supercarrier (and intended to *augment* , not *replace* full sized CVNs carrying full sized wings), even before the total tonnage was determined, Congress would start talking about replacing all future CVNs with the smaller (and cheaper) newer design, even though they couldn't actually do the same mission at all. Which is why the LHA 6 was still designated as an "amphib" despite being basically what every other country out there would call a carrier. (I mean, size wise, it's basically the same size as a WWII Essex CV and operates fixed wing - albeit STOVL - fighters.)

@@geodkyt The LHA is not a carrier in any sense of the word it has a well deck and can launch amphibious landing craft, hence the name, and it's flight deck is too small for normal fixed wing aircraft, the role is fundamentally different from that of a standard aircraft carrier: its aviation facilities have the primary role of hosting helicopters to support forces ashore rather than to support strike aircraft.

Hello, You say: "Many may not agree. But some may appreciate the perspective". Well, I certainly, both agree with and appreciate it. You do have the benefit of experience and have obviously thought about what you have seen around you. Speaking for myself, I was born in 1968 and grew up in a country which only had frigates. From about the age of 10 I started wondering why they were frigates, but never encountered someone who gave me a consistent and logical viewpoint, like you just have. Mostly, even when I asked frigate sailors, they would immediately (and with the best of intentions) start telling me about the specifications of their ship. Which was still much appreciated by an eager youngster, but didn't really tell me why is should be considered a frigate, rather than anything else. Without someone like you around, I made it a point to find out for myself. Now, the research was an award in itself. Many descriptions, specifications and stories I have come across have been fascinating. But what really struck me along the way was how the resurrection of the designation 'frigate' has confused people. I mean, looking at a 'pinnace' taking crewmen to their ship, there is nobody who would even attempt to compare it to the pinnace from the age-of-sail. But for frigates this is different. People who are unaware of the 1939-resurrection of the designation and its subsequent development, see a connection with sailing frigates and more-or-less proclaim that this WAS the rationale for the designation. Consequently, they are immediately puzzled and wonder why their perceived reasoning for designations isn't universally applied. This is what prompted me to make the video. I believe it agrees one-on-one with what you have experienced. I agree with you that there are very few sources for genuinely interested people which will tell you this. Often the information is there, but one has to already know the subject to catch it between the lines. Kind regards and safe sailing, Garret

@@TribusMontibus Thanks mate. I was lucky enough to spend 40 years in the Navy, 20 years of that at sea. I served in 4 different classes of ships, posted to ten ships, and sea rode 8 others. It isn't for everyone, but I really enjoyed it. The problem with the internet is that normally about ten percent want to hear from "people that do it". The other 90% want to argue (mainly using hearsay) and abuse. That is why military people often don't comment on military matters, because they then get people arguing/abusing because "My mates (or a movie) reckon....." ; so then the person who actually did it for a living gives up and leaves. So "actual realism" is then lost/ "wrong legend" endures. I was on a warship page and there was a story about an Australian warship class. The rest of the world call them by a name we never called them. I mentioned that as an aside. NOT that it was wrong; just that no sailor who ever served in them/around them called them that, we just called them "xxx". I had some guy get on there and get abusive, because "THAT is what they are called." 40 years in the Navy, served at sea in company with these ships, knew most of the people on them....................... but what we called them WRONG - from a guy who has NEVER served in them or the Navy? It is just not worth the abuse = remove comments. Also, the internet is all about "2 lines." A you tube vid about cruisers. One guy asked about fire control; as he thought still primitive then. (Even in WW2 it was quite involved). I wrote a few lines. Most appreciated it; but some said "not correct" because I kept it brief. So, I elaborated. Reply - "FGS, War and Peace!!!!" It is an involved subject, and as Fire Control was my specialty (maintaining/aligning/firing); I thought I could help some understand. But complain if "not enough/too much." Can't win. And then people lament that "knowledge/experience is lost." No wonder when anyone who tries to contribute is normally abused. So thank you for your kind words and attitude. Very much appreciated.

Oh, and one more thing - talk about "not knowing what to call/change the rules as you go" - we did that with our "River" class ships, which during their service were called Frigates, Destroyers Escorts, and (occasionally) Destroyers. They were definitely Frigates, and there were 6 of them built in three batches. First pair were a modified Rothesay class. Second pair were slightly modified from first two, but very little (mainly superstructure for variable depth towed array sonar, soon removed.) Third pair were an Australian variant on a Leander, again, Frigate. When the first 4 were in service, they were called Frigates, and they wore "F" pennant numbers, (Parramatta, for example, was F05) but later on (when the last pair, Leander type, were being built, approx 69) the Navy reverted to numbers without letters; they then became known as "Destroyer Escorts"; so (again, Parra as example) Parra became known as DE46, and displayed "46" on her bow, and small number near stern. Now, the customary labeling at that time was that a DE was a second rate/single screw/lower power ship, but our ships hadn't changed. The RN always called Rothesays/Leanders frigates, never a DE. Our ships were also occasionally referred to in correspondence as "River Class Destroyers". So what the ship is/should be classed and what their parent Navy actually designates them can be two different things.

Hello again, Sorry, I was a bit busy today and only now find time to answer. Yes, I see your point on the sometimes toxic environment of internet comments. A colleague of mine is a former F-16 pilot who noticed an error in a Wikipedia article about the squadron he served in. So he corrected it. The next day it had been changed back to the mistake because the guy who had put it up there had 'a higher Wikipedia rating' so he could overrule my colleague. Truth, apparently, had nothing to do with it. When my colleague tried to talk to the guy he got really nasty replies. Personally I believe that the anonymity has a lot to do with it. Not having to look the other guy in the eyes seems to give some people the idea that they can just say anything. Speaking for myself I have to say that I do enjoy it that so many people believe my argumentation makes sense. But I do not feel right about claiming an unrealistic 'expert status', just because my video has gotten a couple of views over the past week. When someone has a valid objection I do feel obliged to listen. Besides, I find that people are typically very nice about sharing knowledge. Some of the most interesting things I've heard came to me that way. For instance, thinking I was quite well informed, I never knew about Parramatta 'reverting' to a DE classification. I just now looked it up on Wikipedia and was indeed surprised. I just wrote it on a scrap of paper, because I want to browse through my various copies of Jane's and Conway's to see where that happened and whether they mention anything further about it. By the way, fire control, that is a fascinating area. Just today someone remarked that I seem to have a budding channel. I told him that I don't believe I have the potential to become a serial content creator on KZfaq. I simply can't think of more than a few subject where I have something to say which really adds something which is yet under-stated. But one of the ideas I do have is to do a video on Naval Gunnery. By no means am I an expert on it like you, but I think I could make a video which visualizes some of the feats which have made naval gunnery such a refined operation. One of the main things I would like to put across is an accurate sense of the angular size of target you'd want to hit, at maximum range, and that it hasn't even yet arrived at the position you are aiming for. But, such a video would still be a good time off in the future, if it ever happens. For now, I'm busy with work and, hobby wise, looking into the Battle of the Java Sea. Even though I have a lot of interesting material about that one, I am reluctant to record it as I don't believe I can do it justice yet. I don't want to just record videos for the sake of recording videos. Kind regards, Garret

@@TribusMontibus No worries mate. I never call myself an expert; but with many things (I have many old cars/bikes, my hobby), I have been "referred to experts" and after asking them a few questions, I go and do it myself, because they know less than I do about the subject. They are happy to call themselves experts........... I think that no matter how much you know, can always learn more/some things still surprise you. You are right about the abuse/argument. I was on a page about cars and bikes. To work Fire Control, that involves electrics/electronics (computers and radar) hydraulics/pneumatics. I tried to help some guys with some bike and car electrics (after radar, VERY simple); get abused, as "not what we have always done/all friends reckon" NONE of whom have any elec training. They would rather stay doing what is wrong/gear won't work - rather than admit it was wrong. So anyone with elec background = leave the page. Why get abused for trying to help?? That happens a LOT with the internet; and leads to "misinformation." Your example of an F16 pilot being told "wrong" because the other guy who has never done it "has been on Wiki longer". Classic. Like I said, military don't say much, because "turns out that civvy bloke knows far more than those of us who were there do......." Why fight it????? With Fire Control. In my Navy I was (for a while) the lead Fire Control sailor for a certain class of ship, (Anzac FFH) but I had worked it on two other classes before that. Our River class, (all gone), and our Daring class (last one in the world (Vampire) preserved in Sydney). I was last in uniform in 2013, and you forget some things that were always instantly recalled, but some things you never forget. You mentioned "time taken to get there" That is called Time of Flight", and for Vampire (M22, 4.5" gun) that is 62 seconds at 18,000 yards. For the current lightweight 5", it is 75 seconds at 25,000 yards. While enhanced rounds and charges can extend that, (and larger guns from the past can shoot further), it really is pointless, as after that too much target movement/scope for change in course/speed unless guided rounds, and that is a whole different subject. Of course, that TOF is only relevant in surface firings. NG (shore targets) don't move ( :-) ) and AA (air) move too fast for anything other than direct, shorter TOF, straight trajectories, hence why the gun rings on our displays showed 25,000 max range for SU, but only 10,000 (straight/direct traj) for AA for 5 inch. With modern tracking and VT fuses, the 5" is still a very potent AA weapon, routinely scoring 90% TTB's (hits) with correct ballistics in towed target firings.. Anyway, yes; FC is a fascinating field, but the specifics aren't for many as very involved. And the above just scratches the surface, there is internal and external ballistics etc etc. Interesting stuff to work on though. Good luck with your channel. 🙂

In your description of the frigate above, surely you are not counting the US Navy frigates. I served onboard the USS Cook (FF-1083) and we carried a 5" / 54 near the bow, as did all of the other Knox Class frigates. Also, all US destroyers carry at least one 5 inch deck rifle (cannon). Many, like the old Spruance Class destroyers, carried two 5" / 54 guns, one forward, one aft.

I was mostly referring to >1980 ships. Guns tended to be less important in the smaller ships once missiles became the most important weapons.

That anecdote is gold! If I would have heard it before I made the video I would certainly have included it because it shows exactly the spirit of Navy crewmen; not being overly worried about definitions and labels and getting on with their job. It even adds the awareness of the danger they willingly sail into. Thank you for sharing that. Kind regards, Garret

That's Hilarious. I've been told once when asking about the frigate corvette clarification - "There are carriers and everybody else is in front".

Sounds about right!

Original OHP-class FFGs were deliberately designed to have the radar cross section of a carrier, so technically it was true for a time. Later radar absorbent material was added that greatly reduced the RCS - just had to make sure to keep the hanger doors closed.

I wonder if that story is about me... Because what I actually said is that the carrier would go dark and we would send up a huge electronic screen saying "WOO! OVER HERE!!!! SHOOT ME, IM THE CARRIER!!!".

You may fire when ready, Gridley!

@@fredkruse9444 that is the man the ship was named for.

@@martinwalker9386 I was guessing that. Thanks for confirming.

@@fredkruse9444 Captain Gridley had trained his men to a much higher proficiency in gunnery than the rest of the fleet. If I remember correctly 25% vs 10% accuracy. During the Spanish-American war his ship was the flagship of the attacking force at Manila Bay and the admiral called down to Captain Gridley, “You may fire when you are ready, Gridley.” Captain Gridley probably knew he only had months to live and could have been medically retired.

I served on a Leahy class frigate in the early 60s. It was bigger than a destroyer and smaller than a cruiser. The hull number was DLG17 for Destroyer Leader Guided missile. The ship was later updated and reclassified as a cruiser.

austrailia has a navy?

@@recoswell Yeah they have a mix of Kangaroo powered galleys and French built SSK's. They hope to replace the SSK's with either a US or UK SSN. The Roo powered galleys stay - keeps the Indonesians honest as they are terrified of marsupial´s.

my grandfather fought on one in ww2 they sunk a German sub

Flower class was based on an existing design for a whaling ship. Quick and cheap to build in a time of need.

@@philhawley1219 To be perfectly clear the whales didn't stand a chance. They took a ship designed for hunting large underwater targets and then put explosives and guns on it.

Just to expatiate slightly on the Flower class: as stated they were built on a converted design for whalers. The other option for the navy would have been sloops. However, even though small, commercial shipyards would not have been able to build sloops due to the different scantlings between commercial and naval construction. It was decided that the more robust naval scantlings were unnecessary for a vessel primarily intended for anti-submarine escort service and that the ability to rapidly build them in small commercial yards was paramount. Corvettes were the smallest class of vessel the RN considered open ocean capable. One of the big differences was power plants - naval ships were steam turbine powered with Yarrow water tube boilers whereas the corvettes and derived frigates (which were originally called 'twin screw corvettes') were powered by triple expansion piston engines and mostly Scotch boilers; a design with which the mostly Navy Reserve crews would be familiar.

Yes, the Flowers were based on an existing design for a 'Whale Chaser'. The design was from Smiths Docks in Middlesbrough on the River Tees in the north of England. They were to use as much 'Off the Shelf' commercial equipment as possible and be built in small commercial dockyards that would not normally build warships, leaving the naval yards free to build 'proper' warships to full warship standard.

Thank you. To be honest, for my standards this IS a lot of appreciation.

@@TribusMontibus a thousand appreciations. I have always loved history, naval and otherwise, but I had given up on understanding the difference ship classes. Good man.

@@TribusMontibus why frigate? my first thought - because 'fuck it' would have been rude

Hello Tony, Point well taken. In fact, that particular period of naval history is a bit under-emphasized in this video because I tried to make a ‘clean cut’ from the age-of-sail to the steam era. The initial reaction to increased use of steam engines in warships was to equip all classes with at least some practical type of engine. The problem was that even a swift sailer would be a helpless victim to a cumbersome (more heavily armed) ship, in light airs. This meant that there were initially indeed steam frigates and steam corvettes. But the installation of steam engines was at odds with what ship designers had strived for in frigates and corvettes over the previous two centuries. It slowed them down considerably. The engines and screw mechanism in HMS Warrior are a marvel for that era, but also meant that she could be out-sailed by a pure frigate in anything upward from a moderate blow. As increased efficiency and more practical designs emerged it was realized that more modern designs would soon close that gap. That was the era when the steam frigates were slowly disappearing, their designation now being characterized by their function within the fleet. As they were meant to fullfill a ‘cruizing’-role (it was often soelled with a ‘z’) they were increasingly called ‘cruisers’. Some ships were simply redesignated as such, without any changes to their design. Eventually their masts and rigging became an unnecessary Achilles heel and disappeared altogether, effectively ending the ‘blood line’ of frigates and corvettes. I have visited HMS Warrior a few times and believe she is a marvelous ship and a wonderful museum (there are never enough hours in the day, when visiting Portsmouth). Her role in naval history does deserve more attention than I managed to give her in my video. But, as this video was already creeping towards ‘twenty minutes’ I had to make some choices. Therefore I went over that particular transition rather abruptly. Kind regards, Garret

​@@TribusMontibus Hello Garret, absolutely no criticism intended, I simply thought it would make an interesting extra snippet for anyone who is not familiar with the period. I do think the transition from sail to steam is a fascinating period in naval history with all the changes and advances in technology and the need to learn new tactics in order to use it. The 'Ironclad' era is one of my favourite periods of history.

@@tonym480 Hello Tony, Not to worry; no offense taken whatsoever. In fact, I see the validity of your point and agree that it was an extremely interesting period. It would warrant a video by itself. I find it extremely interesting (as you have already mentioned) that HMS Warrior could have sailed through any foreign squadron and have annihilated it all-by-its-lonesome, as log as ammunition didn’t run out and provided they kept from being boarded by overwhelming numbers. She wasn’t just tactically important but, being so powerful, even a strategic consideration for potential enemies. I couldn’t possibly take offense from someone who speaks praise, in a civilized manner, for a ship like that. Kind regards, Garret

I found some interesting information in this video. But it didn't really define what is and isn't a frigate. But then it sounds like the various navies struggle with what to call some of these platforms. I'm thinking of something between a destroyer and a light cruiser. In displacement and armament.

Typical arrogance of bird farm sailors. Trust me there is a big difference between a destroyer and a frigate. During that time frigates usually only had a single screw, destroyers and cruisers had two. Battleships and carriers had four screws. I served on USS Dewey, originally DLG 14 but she was DDG 45 when I served on her. We were faster (36 Knots) than the frigates and pretty well armed. We often worked solo. You will never see a bird farm working solo.

@@plchacker You call my dad an "arrogant bird farm sailor" and you expect me to read past that sentence?

@@RCAvhstape arrogance or ignorance, take your pick. I served on a destroyer.

@@plchacker My dad never had anything insulting to say about destroyer sailors and he served honorably. Best of luck to you from here on out, pal.

@@plchacker Well you seem to be as special as you are rude. Arrogance is yours to own. 3 men in a tub.

Indeed, it is one of my favorite books and movies. Some of the footage in this video is actually from that particular movie.

The first half is about a corvette, HMS Compass Rose. The second half is about a frigate, HMS Saltash... if memory serves me.

@@rjeffm1 Yes, but I must admit to an error on my part. In the book, after the sinking of Compass Rose, the captain takes command of a River-class frigate. However, in the movie, this role is taken by HMS Portchester Castle, which is a Castle-class corvette. In my video, I overlooked this and accidentally presented the footage from the movie ship (HMS Portchester Castle) as a frigate. 😳

@@TribusMontibus Snorkers - good oh! Also if you haven't read them you might like Monsarrat's non fiction books on his personal experiences of the Battle of the Atlantic. "Three Corvettes" - a compedium of three of his other books about his time on corvettes and his non-fiction "HM Frigate" - about his time in command of a frigate, both are available on Kindle, although I am lucky enough to have a hard cover copy of Three Corvettes from the 50s or thereabouts. Pretty much the source of The Cruel Sea.

@@jasont2610 Hello Jason, Yes, I have all of the above sitting on my book shelf. Come to think of it, I should read them again in the near future. But as I’m currently reading James Clavell’s ‘Noble House’ (1100 p. and not going through quickly, due to limited time) this may be a while. You may find it amusing that the ring tone on my mobile is also from the movie The Cruel Sea. It’s the officer giving blackboard instruction on ASDIC, yelling out “pingggg, pingggg, pinggggah, ……, stop that laughing”. You can probably imagine that I never wonder whether it’s my phone ‘pinging’, or someone else’s phone 😉.

Hello Laurence, You are very much mistaken. In one of the later Hornblower episodes I clearly see Ioann Gryffud identify two ships as "corvettes". ITV wouldn't present me with anything that's not 100% historically correct, now would they!? All Kidding aside; I see your point. From my information the 'corvette' was a French ship-type derived from a galley-like, lateen rigged ship. I vaguely remember once reading that this is also the origin of the name 'corvette' as it was derived from the Roman 'Corbita'. But I say that cautiously, because I cannot find that reference anymore. It is indeed my understanding that the British had a habit to sweep a multitude of smaller, unrated warships into the Sloop of War-category, including ships that you could call corvettes in hindsight. But it is also my understanding that the British did eventually follow the French design and did build corvettes for use in the West Indies. But, to be totally honest, sailing corvettes, to me, are an area of interest rather than expertise. I must admit that I did assume them to have been slightly less common in the Royal Navy than Frigates were. It did fit into my study of the subject, years ago and I sort of left it at that. But that's what I do like about this comment section. People, like yourself, who are more knowledgeable about the subject, speak up and provide information I wasn't always aware of, or maybe not fully aware of. I do learn a lot that way. The only problem is that it gives me so many subject I would like to read up on. If only days had thirty hours Kind regards, Garret

He did miss that. The US Navy has built hundreds of Frigates - that have always shared the same characteristic - a single stack and a single screw - that set them aparts from other types. Frigates also have one primary warfare area, and may have a seconday function as well. Garcia, Brooke, Brinstein, Knox, and Perry all followed that designation.

Thank you, William.

@@lciummo1 Hello Larry, Actually, no, I didn’t miss that at all. In fact, that’s exactly the point of this video; that there is no internationally accepted yardstick on ‘what makes a frigate a frigate’. The USN may have used this distinction for many years and applied it consistently to its frigates, and you are well within your right to decide that that’s your personal definition of a frigate. Although you will have to start making provisions then for the Constellation-class. Kind regards, Garret

Hello Andy, True, there are distinct family resemblances. But you will soon run into trouble when comparing the resembling frigates from the different navies. It quickly becomes difficult to point out which particular resemblances place the ship in either one family or the other. I would indeed like to do a video on battleships and battlecruisers but I'm afraid that my time, between family, work, sports (I've been dumb enough to sign up for an ultra endurance event this year) and hobbies wouldn't allow me to do the subject justice. Kind regards, Garret

Hello David, That’s why I liked Chris Louw’s reaction so much; let’s do away with the smoke screens, just call ‘em warships and get on with the content, instead of the label. Kind regards, Garret

All US Navy frigates for 60 years have always shared the same characteristic - a single stack and a single screw - that set them aparts from other types.

@@lciummo1 Correct, as said above, while the US called a "cheap escort" (low power (single screw) plant) a frigate (during the war, but even the single screw USN ones became more expensive after it :-) ) ; the RN (and the other allies) called that a "destroyer escort." For example, the RN type 14, which was a "cheap propulsion" (2nd rate) version of other RN frigates.

@@lciummo1 and it will most likely end this tradition with the new Constellation-class frigates

@@orbiradio2465 I'm taking bets that it'll end up as a DDG before things are over. The Navy loves tradition.

I think that "battleships" in the Napoleonic era were basically "74's" (two decker's), and 3 decker's like HMS Victory, and maybe a few older 50 gun ships that barely qualified. Frigates were certainly not expected to fight the big boys, since one well-laid broadside from a 74's heavier guns would wreck them. It was not only the number of guns and gun decks; it was also the thickness of the ships wooden scantlings and frames, and the size and weight of shot of each individual gun... so a 74's total broadside weight could be 3 or 4 times that of a frigate's... with the much heavier balls being able to smash right through frigates at close range. The exact same situation existed between the comparatively larger Frigates and the smaller and lighter built Brigs, Sloops, and Corvettes. The British didn't really use the term "corvette" (that was a French thing), they called smaller 3 masted ships "Sloops of War", and two-masted ships "Brigs of War". Small single-masted warships were usually called "Cutters". It is obvious why some classifications like "Brig" went away, there was no real analogy for sailing rig in the age of steel and steam. Thanks to the US Coast Guard, "Cutter" has survived. But the sail analogy is not very good as some modern cutters approach frigates in size.

That’s an interesting angle! Your conclusion makes a lot of sense. I believe a lot of motivation for using naval classifications in fiction derives from the fact that their names just sound menacing. I mean, you’re more likely to consider running when you know that HMS Dreadnought is heading your way, rather than HMS Pansy (which did exist for a while until the Admiralty showed mercy on her crew and renamed her). Kind regards

@@TribusMontibus Thank you :) And yeah I imagine sci-fi writers went with Dreadnought being the next level up of big and scary given the name. I'm amazed a real world navy went with Pansy! But glad for the crew they showed mercy after a while :P

Well... ship classification between IP's don't need to be completely consistent. Well, as long as the classifications the specific IPs use are logical (self-consistent) and can be analogous of the other(s), then comparisons and classifications between the IPs aren't an issue. One of the IPs which has problems (internal inconsistencies) with ship classifications is Star Wars. When George Lucas wrote the script, he envisioned many things. At first he had the Star Destroyer-class _fighters,_ then he decided on making it the large capital ship we see/saw on screen. Yet, the ship was still referred to as a Star Destroyer which was more capable than "bulk cruisers". He compounded his original mistake by introducing the Super Star Destroyer-class ships. He then wanted to fix his mistake by making the prefix "Star" mean "larger" when he made the Mon Cal cruisers for Episode VI, by calling them Star Cruisers, but that idea never was followed through. This left the fans wondering about the Star Destroyers and other ship classifications; so Lucasfilm hired Jason Fry to work out a logical system. He failed at the start by designating everything over 100 meters long to be a Capital Ship. Capital ship class types are: Corvettes: Ships roughly 100-200 meters long. Frigates: Ships roughly 200-400 meters long. Cruisers: Ships roughly 400-600 meters long. Heavy cruisers: Ships roughly 600-1000 meters long. Star Destroyers: Ships roughly 1000-2000 meters long. Battlecruisers: Ships roughly 2000-5000 meters long. Dreadnaughts: All ships over 5000 meters length. As shown, there are three other mistakes with the list. The first was not defining what roles each of the classifications have. The second was not having a separate classification system for carriers. The third was defining classes by the lengths of the ships, which made both Mon Cal Cruisers and the Imperial-I/II-class Star Destroyers as shown in Episode VI, classified as Star Destroyers. Fortunately, there are "fixes": 1. _"The term (Star Destroyer) originated with the idea of a warship powerful enough to destroy entire star systems, and did not necessarily indicate a destroyer type vessel."_ *This shouts "battleship" to me.* _"The term "battlecruiser" was reserved for capital ships measuring between two thousand and five thousand meters in length and designed for long-range, independent operations. Most battlecruisers were large and powerful ships that were among the most powerful in their fleets."_ *This is a clear contradiction is ship design. Why send a such an important ship off on its own where it could be disabled, destroyed, or captured by enemy action? Just, illogical.* 2. and 3. "Despite the limits on dimensions, the system could sometimes move ship designs up or down in classification, depending on their armament and intended role." *This is sensible. I would maintain that role should be the primary consideration and not size. Examples of ships moving around in classification are the 900m long Victory-class ship is a Star Destroyer; the 2,200m long Secutor-class ship, while a fleet carrier, is a Star Destroyer; the 1,600m long Mon Cal Cruisers, which are battlecruisers.* Yet, even these exceptions are illogical. This is what happens when civilians who don't know anything about military terminology try to come up with a "logical" military system, lol. Especially in a system which wasn't designed to be this... forthcoming in information. Compounding these issues are the fact that different authors have come up with different classes, so some ships are analogous to the ones seen in WWII while others are following Mr. Fry's methodology. For writing fiction, there are two reasons why the author should have a rough idea of what differentiates the ship types. First, so the author knows what each ship is capable of, so ship types have consistent armaments compared to the others (consistency!). Second, when the reader reads the word "battlecruiser" the reader draws upon their knowledge of what they _think_ makes a "battlecruiser" and then applies it to the ship they are reading about. If the ship they are reading about doesn't match their idea of what a "battlecruiser" should be they could get distracted from the story (suspension of disbelief) which isn't a good thing (normally). As you said many authors are guilty of using "dreadnought" as a ship type. When HMS Dreadnought commissioned, she really was a MUCH bigger and scarier battleship, lol. I'll be using David Weber's Honorverse as an example of a "rough idea" what separates the ships types even though, he does use "dreadnought" as a ship type. As the limiting factor on ship design is mass, which reduces acceleration, there is an upper limit on how large a ship can be before it is tactically too "slow". So, the determinating factor he used was mass. After he published the first books, he learned that his 3.2km long ships with a mass of 61 million tons "had the density of smoke", so he resized all of them to be mathematically sound. The 3.2km Superdreadnoughts, became 1.4km long with a mass of around 8.5 million tons. Supredreadnoughts have a mass of 7 to 9 million tons with their acceleration being around 400g. (Ship of the Line [Wall]) Dreadnoughts have a mass of 5 to 7 million tons with their acceleration being around 430g. (Ship of the Line [Wall]) Battleships have a mass of 3 to 5 million tons with their acceleration being around 460. (Ship of the Line [Wall]) Battelcruisers have a mass of 750 thousand to 1 million tons with their acceleration being around 500g. (Smallest Capital Ship) Heavy Cruisers have a mass of 250 to 350 thousand tons with their acceleration being around 520g. (Typical Commerce Raider for top tier navies) Light Cruisers have a mass of 120 to 150 thousand tons with their acceleration being around 520g. (Typical flagship for most systems/governments) Destroyers have a mass of 75 to 100 thousand tons with their acceleration being around 540g. (Smallest modern warship) Over time, as warfare tech has remained stable for centuries, warships get downgraded as members of their class increase in mass. One of the results is causing ship types to become obsolete, so their roles are given to or supplanted by other ships. Corvettes and Frigates became too ineffective to be worth building so their mission roles have been assigned to destroyers or light cruisers (if the navies in question can afford them). Additionally, sometimes they are classified as corvettes/frigates because the roles they were designed to fulfill. Some navies still use corvettes and frigates, so their classifications still remains in the open source information for navies across the galaxy; _Jayne's._ In 1632 Post Diaspora, the Ad Astra-class dreadnoughts were commissioned. They had a mass of just under 3.9 million tons, as of their last refit they had an acceleration of 450 g. When the events of the first novel took place, some 260 years later, they weren't a match for larger battleships commissioned by the opposition, and were decommissioned mid war to crew newly commissioned dreadnoughts. With these limitations, and rough outline, every ships David Weber writes about remains consistent, with reasonable exceptions scattered about, so when he writes about a ship, the reader has a firm idea of what it is capable of doing without the need of the characters to tell the reader. The best thing about David Weber is, he wrote an essay on how to design a fleet. It can be found starting on page 513 in the _House of Steel_ The Honorverse Companion with BuNine. While he says it's for Honorverse, the principles can be applied to any navy I can think of. It's worth the read if you can find it online.

That is interesting. I always heard the German Cold War modular MEKO 360 warships described as Destroyers. Was that only for the export market?

@@maxkronader5225 I believe the Meko 360 was only for export. On the German wikipedia page it is refered to be a "Frigate/Destroyer". I think it depends on the country... It says it was only delivered to Nigeria and Argentinia.

Isn't that more of an urban legend among certain people to ridicule German politics? The German Navy officially had destroyers until 2003 before focusing entirely on frigates, which at the time had much more of a focus on anti-submarine warfare as part of NATO. It just so happens that newer frigate classes became larger and more capable with each iteration -- it's an evolution not dissimilar to where destroyers themselves originally started out before Japan's Fubuki-class revolutionized the term and had the category finally "graduate" from shallow-draft escorts unable to deal with bad weather to fully-fledged fleet warships for extended blue water operations. It's just one more example of navies around the world being prone to transgress against their own categorization as ships are getting bigger and bigger all the time. If the world had kept building cruisers, they'd probably be approaching the size of WW2 battleships. Just look at the Kirov-class.

@@ddshiranui If so this wasnt my intention. The F125 "Frigate" displaces 7.200 tons... I couldnt find any source that says the Bundesmarine had Destroyers until the 2000s. What I found was that after WW II the Bundesmarine got supplied with American Fletcher-Class Destroyers in order to counter the Soviets. These were indeed called Destroyers in Germany, too. In the 1980s they got replaced by Frigates who had the same tasks and were bigger then the Fletcher class...

@@Gentleman...Driver and despite being 7,200 tons, the F125 are slow and poorly-armed even by frigate standards, let alone destroyers. Truly a boondoggle of a warship. The previous 5,800 ton F124 frigates are more capable in every way.

Very true, To put that into historical perspective; if you’d apply the treaty alotted tonnage for destroyers by the Washington treaty of 1922, Britain could have had a grand total of 13 or 14 destroyers in their entire fleet, if they’d built them that large. Kind regards, Garret

Well observed and an excellent example of the confusion in classifications which often leaves newly interested people wondering. Kind regards, Garret p.s. One that always gets me is the British Invincible-class carriers. Ships which weren’t even really considered aircraft carriers by those who funded them, yet performed admirably as carriers in the 1982 conflict (against opponents who were far from ineffective) in the hands of crews who got the most out of their abilities, and then some.

Eh, no matter what they call 'em, the Brits still lost.

Hello, Thank you for your kind comment. It may amuse you to know that the ringtone on my mobile is an isolated sound clip from that very movie. It’s the ASDIC instructor yelling: “pingggg, pingggg, pinggggah, pinggggah!” I am never in any doubt whether it is my phone which is ‘pinging’, or someone else’s. You may also have noticed that a few clips in my video were ‘stolen’ from the movie as well. Kind regards, Garret

😉

Hello, No, not pedantic at all. You have a very good point. I must admit that, for me, the rigging of the various types is more an area of interest rather than expertise (except when it comes to the rigging of our CO32 😏). I probably couldn’t provide half the knowledge about it which you appear to have. In this video I wanted to give the quickest characterization of sailing frigates which would elevate the type above level of ‘some sort of pirate ship’ as most 17/18th ships are portrayed in movies (Just yesterday I saw a video, showing a picture of a Dutch East Indiaman as an example of a frigate). I hope to have provided some viewers with more clarity on ship types but couldn’t aspire to take them much further. By the way, I had always thought that the non-square rigged non-English frigates were reluctantly accepted as frigates, so the likes of Horatio Hornblower could get a smashing article in The London Gazette about their gallant victory over a foreign frigate, while in command of a mere cutter or sloop 🤔.

@@TribusMontibus It is a completely workable amount of information for the subject, I am really impressed you hold yourself to such a high standard. Thank you for the video and really do not feel bad as information on sailing warships is becoming somewhat lost in our time although there are a great number of experts in sailing who are in practice and knowledge keeping the art alive. I am not one of them for certain, I come from the military analysis side however so the difference between barque and frigate are more important. Difference in use and character and evolution in use is the subject of military analysis more than the more human aspects of history. So, while I knew exactly which sails make them and virtually every kind of frigate that has been made at least in kin or nature at least from sail to now I still wasn't very clear on what exactly the definition of frigate meant and it's broader meaning outside of its period military uses. So I came here and got a bit of help from you and your also work towards expertise and thanks to God today I knew something that was actually useful and was able to return the favor with more than a like button. Thank you again for the video.

Yes, I do. It’s always nice to find out something you hadn’t noticed. I didn’t know about HMS Rose. They did a very good job, making her portray HMS Surprise. Darn, now you’ve sentenced me to re-watching HMS Defiant, to see what Alec Guinness sailed in 😏.

Yes, but Aubrey was chasing a frigate:

@@SeattlePioneer Hello Seattle, Very true. Although the ‘Acheron’ was introduced to the story because Hollywood thought it would be better for viewing figures to portray an English-French conflict, rather than an English-American conflict. In O’ Brian’s stories, Jack Aubrey was chasing a powerful American frigate. The ‘Original Six’ American frigates were indeed very powerful (as is pictured in the movie when a crewman shows a self-built model of the frigate hull) and according to many they were so large and powerful that one should consider them as something above the frigate category. Kind regards, Garret

@@TribusMontibus In another comment, I said that I thought that a frigate got it's name as a class when some sailor came up in a tough fight against an opponent and said "Frigate! I wish this ship were a cruiser!" I thought I was being very amusing. I liked the "Master and Commander Voyage to the End of the World" movie better than I liked the first volume of the series, which I didn't finish reading. I found the language implausibly stilted ---these guys weren't academics at Cambridge. I also found the plot needlessly complicated. The Horatio Hornblower series was more my style!

Hello Rob, Thank you for your kind reply. I'm afraid I don't have too many more aces up my sleeve and I don't want to start creating material just for the sake if it. Having said that, I have been doing a good deal of looking into the Battle of the Java Sea. I have been juggling with deck logs, action reports and war diaries all day (I happened to have the day off in Bahrein today and it's rather hot outside). It's a very interesting puzzle, with many pieces still out of place after eighty years and would probably provide good material for an interesting video. So that may materialize. But it won't be soon, as I don't want to do a half-baked job. Glad you enjoyed this video, despite the sound quality. Kind regards, Garret

Hello Kevin, 👍 I love it when people can find such common ground, even though they may be very different in many respects. It shows that there is some constancy through the ages. If something's worth doing, it's worth doing it right. Kind regards, Garret

In my experience as a SWO, not only did it not matter what type of ship, it didn't even matter what country it was from!

@@Lance54689 I guess they consider us the way we considered the airforce; If you see something in the sky that may be not a seagull, FIRE! If you are to wait and find out youre dead.

@@siddis9484 I've never seen a chain of command as mad as the time we accidentally found a sub. We were heading down the east coast, going to the gulf for gunfire testing and degaussing(I think??), and a lookout spotted a snorkle. Our CO decided to have some fun so we deployed the towed array and chased it for a while. Did he catch some shit for that!

@@SoloNit , Sometimes, ships are mislabeled to get around pesky little things like laws and treaties...

Thank you, James. I may do a video on The Battle of the Java Sea some time in the future, as I believe I have significantly better information about it than anything which is currently available (either on video or in print). But, other than that, my potential as a KZfaq content creator on warships is rather limited. I don’t want to create videos just for the sake of it. Besides, I do not have the breadth of knowledge of someone like Drachnifel and I don’t fancy addressing subjects which are already adequately covered by others. Either way, I’m glad you enjoyed it. It was a childhood frustration of mine, not being able to put my finger on exactly what a frigate was. Kind regards, Garret p.s. Shame on you for keeping me from my studies. I went upstairs a few hours ago, telling my wife I really need to prepare for a review on friday 😉.

True, but I guess it's a matter of opinion whether you'd consider them 'real warships' then or not. In that respect you could also question whether the De Havilland Mosquito should be considered a real war plane, having been built by cabinet makers, using wood. Much is often made of the fact that Smiths Dockyard used the civilian whaler 'Southern Pride' as the basis for the Flower design. But the Flowers were so much larger than the Pride that this is no basis for considering the Flowers 'militarized whalers'. I don't even think I would have recognized the Pride as the Flower-ancestor if I'd passed her at sea. More like an Admiralty Trawler. But, yes, I do see your point. Fitting the Flowers in was a thing. I've always thought that they would have best fit into the Escort Sloop category, although they would have been dangling at the bottom. Either way, I consider it a mistake that they were given the designation 'corvette', after swift sailing warships from the age-of-sail. Kind regards

Hello David, You are the first one to catch that. Very well spotted! I only realized this after recording the video. So I did list it, along with a few more known errors in my pinned comment 'errata'. I took the footage from 'The Cruel Sea' without paying proper attention. I knew from the book that the captain transferred to a River-class Frigate, after the sinking of Compass Rose. I didn't really catch it, at that time, that they'd actually used HMS Portchester Castle for the movie. But, history has made it very easy for me to cover up my mistake. By the time they filmed the movie she had been reclassified a Frigate. This allows me to pretend that it wasn't a mistake and say "Err, yeah, err,...., that's what I meant". Kind regards, Garret

A treaty would only make sense when another power even remotely begins to challenge the US's supremacy. China is of course the only one that can, but I don't think they will ever find the need to match the US's Navy, as long as their sights stay on Taiwan. Now if they want to project power to Africa, which is certainly a future possibility, then yeah, China would need several carriers, dozens of 10kt DDs, etc. But until then, China would simply say for starters carriers should be limited to 1 per nation.

@@dansiegel995 Italy and Japan were not at all a challenge for the US and UK, even when the US was still treaty bound and Japan was not. Yet the treaty was mostly a good thing for all members, and Japan would have benefitted from staying with the treaties. They hopelessly built all kinds of ships as a bad gamble to beat the US by luck, and it brought them to ruins, when to the surprise of no one, the US simply out produced them in every category. There was no need for a treaty in the Cold War because not even the UK could rebuild their navy, but now it is finally the turn of the US to downsize. The US navy has way too many unforced accidents, and a navy treaty is the only reasonable solution. Of course the treaty would really only involve the US, China, and Japan. The scope of the treaty would purely be Asian. China will have to agree to some limit that keeps them in Asia, Japan will have to agree to demilitarize, and the US would be best served by not overextending anymore. The EU, and France in particular, already have a monopoly on power projection in Africa. Africa was not colonized by navies as was Asia. The US navy does not operate much outside of Djibouti and the same will hold for China.

@@JinFX You have no clue. After Pearl Harbor the IJN dwarfed the USN Pacific Fleet in firepower. It still required 20 months after Pearl Harbor to get the Essex and Iowa Class ships out to lead their first offensive operations near the end of 1943. I would love to har one reason why it would have been Japan's advanatge to stay with the Washington Treaty. If they dudnt break it, their navy would have been half its tonnage. No clue on why you think treaties in today's environment would actually work, when the US would never sign it. NEVER. Arms Limitation Treaties only work when you have atleast 2 powers that have comparable arms. The Washington Naval Treaty from the 1930s worked well, as there were several nations in the same ball park. The Escalator Clause also was very smart, allowing the continued members to ramp up, if the treaties were broken by some members (Japan, Italy, and Germany). Why would the US mothball its fleet and its primary means of power projection? And as far as China and Africa, China is investing trillions into Africa and expanding its influence. It of course is different than Colonial Africa prior to WW2, however if China has interests in Africa, it will eventually require a means to protect those interests...which will require a sizeable navy.

Seriously, you think the US should downsize its fleet because of a handful of collisions over the past several decades? You must not be a NATO and fear the USN. It does A LOT more good than bad (yes, the few accidents and loss of civilian life are tragedies). Every friend of the USA loves our navy. Except sometimes when it goes to port...some bad incidents in Japan, but they have been apparently addressed.

@@dansiegel995 You can have as many carriers and cruisers you want as long as I have quiet modern "conventional" subs - some with mine-capacity.! (I served on a frigate)

Times change. Ships change. Tirpitz and Bismarck were "pocket battleships". Japan has 4 "helicopter landing platforms".

Cruiser gap. Soviets had built WWII style gun armed cruisers until mid 50's. In 70's and 80's they still had bunch of those in service with various degrees of modernization, US Navy had started to retire their WWII and immediate post WWII cruisers in large numbers in 60's and more modern missile cruisers had been built in only small numbers. Building more modern cruisers was too expensive compared to benefit they offered over guided missile destroyers. This when Ticonderoga is about to enter service. Originally program was called air defense destroyer, given that it carried brand spanking new Aegis combat system with advanced radars and required more sophisticated command facilities to coordinate entire battle groups air defense missile systems. It was bit bigger displacement than destroyed hull it was stretched from. Its bigger and for political reasons there must be more cruisers. Now it is a cruiser.